Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

GakuseiDon wrote:I found the Youtube clip I was thinking of. It is Richard Carrier's debate with Zeba Crook on whether there was a historical or a mythical Jesus, called "Jesus of Nazareth: Man or myth?" Crook is a professor of religious studies, and an atheist. He proposes that the evidence suggests that there was a historical Jesus. The debate was held on April 5 2014 in Ottawa, Canada. Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgmHqjblsPw

At about 54 mins in, Crook says:

• "The second example [of problems with Carrier's theories] is with Euhemerism, which you've heard referred to already [by Richard Carrier.] Euhemerism is the claim that actually -- Euhemerus first said -- that all religions, all the gods, were originally just people, who were so revered and adored, that their followers deified them. Oddly I'm not sure I understand how Richard uses Euhemerism against Christianity, or against this position, because that's actually the point I'm making, that Jesus was a historical figure who was euhemerized, that's turned into a god later."

The debate goes for nearly 2 hours, but definitely should be of interest to anyone who would like to see a scholarly criticism of Carrier's theories. Crook also covers the Philo question (57 mins in), the Gospels, Zalmoxis as bioi, etc.

Thanks for the link to video......while I find the voices difficult to follow.....I did find what was written on the chart very interesting....

Not all mythologization = euhemerization.

Insightful indeed - and exposes Carrier' lack of understanding of what Euhemerus was on about...Sure, not a big deal in and of itself. The problem arises when Carrier seeks to use his misunderstanding of euhemerism to support the Carrier/Doherty theory about a Pauline celestial christ figure historicized. i.e. the misunderstanding becomes part and parcel of arguments to support the Carrier/Doherty mythicst theory. (as is evidenced with an exchange I had on Mark Goodacre's blog 2 years ago - link on page 1 of this thread).

Yes, of course, Carrier' misuse of euhemerism does not negate the ahistoricist position. What it is doing though is bringing criticism to the support structure Carrier is offering for the Carrier/Doherty theory - and by extension bringing the ahistoricist position into question. Thus we, ahistoricists, need to clean up our own house before we start throwing stones at others.....

Does anyone know if Doherty ever used euhemerism to support his mythicist theory?

GakuseiDon wrote: For the last quote above, Carrier provides a list of off-line sources. Continuing with one final quote:

• "Euhemerism is mentioned in all major encyclopedias I know. Euhemerization is even in standard dictionaries like Merriam-Webster: to euhemerize is “to interpret (mythology) on the theory of euhemerism,” and the theory of euhemerism is:
  
  • [The] attempt to find a historical basis for mythical beings and events. It takes its name from Euhemerus (fl. 300 BC), a Greek scholar who examined popular mythology in his Sacred History and asserted that the gods originated as heroes or conquerors who were admired and later deified. Though modern scholars do not accept euhemerism as the sole explanation for the origin of gods, it is thought to be valid in some cases."

It amazes me that Carrier does not get this...

Euhemerus (fl. 300 BC), a Greek scholar who examined popular mythology in his Sacred History and asserted that the gods originated as heroes or conquerors who were admired and later deified.

Euhemerism is about where the gods *originated.* Euhemerus maintaining the gods *originated* in a historical context. The theory says nothing about gods originating in the heavens, in some celestial sphere. That Carrier can quote this source with a straight face and then turn around and propose the exact opposite of what it says - well, words fail me....

maryhelena wrote:Does anyone know if Doherty ever used euhemerism to support his mythicist theory?

As far as I know, Doherty doesn't use the concept at all in support of his mythicist theory. But you can understand why: as Zeba Crook said in his debate with Richard Carrier, the idea that in ancient times there was the belief that the stories of the gods were originally just exaggerated accounts of mortal men would seem to fall into support for the historicist side.

GakuseiDon wrote:

maryhelena wrote:Does anyone know if Doherty ever used euhemerism to support his mythicist theory?

As far as I know, Doherty doesn't use the concept at all in support of his mythicist theory. But you can understand why: as Zeba Crook said in his debate with Richard Carrier, the idea that in ancient times there was the belief that the stories of the gods were originally just exaggerated accounts of mortal men would seem to fall into support for the historicist side.

So Doherty had a bit more sense....

I just can't get my head around around Carrier' use of euhemerism....

I'm beginning to think he has found it difficult to support the Carrier/Doherty mythicist theory re the Pauline celestial christ figure historicized - and is clutching at straws....

Exposing errors in the historicist arguments is one thing - something else entirely to establish credibility for the Carrier/Doherty mythicist theory...It seems to me that while OHJ will do the job of casting doubt on the historicity of Jesus - it will fail to establish credibility for the Carrier/Doherty mythicist theory.

Clive - I'm not interesting in debating 'gods'. I referenced the quote from Nickolas Roubekas' article on Euhemerus' theory re gods. That is the context for the points I made.

What 'gods' are or are not - that's not the subject of the OP - and it's not a subject that particularly interests me right now....

How can you discuss gods becoming humans or humans becoming gods without defining gods and checking no one switched species of gods in mid race? I think truly divine gods is a serious error.

The OP is not a general debate over gods becoming human or humans becoming gods - the OP is dealing specifically with Richard Carrier's use of euhemerism to support his Carrier/Doherty theory that a Pauline celestial christ figure was historicized by the early christians.

I'm not attempting to derail discussion, I am attempting to be clear about gestalt here - foreground and background issues, and how concepts have "morphed" over time. Not being clear about the assumptions people used is critical.

My argument is that "celestial Christ" is also a mistake, unless it can be shown that "Paul" was using ideas of the gods being "other". Are people using monist ideas of one universe with various gods, angels, heavens and earths being made of variations of basically the same elements of fire air water earth aether or two world ideas of the gods up there and the humans down here?

So Christianity is actually more of a geometric problem of how to fit back together the heavens and the earth. The Christian theologians truly believed their "christ' was a philosophers stone that did fix everything - death where is thy sting.

So putting christ in the heavens - which one by the way - or at Golgotha are only theatrical scene devices. The point is that christ's sacrifice - on a cross - has caused an alchemic transformation of bringing together the heavens and the earth, conquering death, forgiving sins, enabling the lion to lay down with the lamb. Pretty powerful stuff, but all an oriental cult gone world wide.

maryhelena wrote:Exposing errors in the historicist arguments is one thing - something else entirely to establish credibility for the Carrier/Doherty mythicist theory...It seems to me that while OHJ will do the job of casting doubt on the historicity of Jesus - it will fail to establish credibility for the Carrier/Doherty mythicist theory.

Yes, I agree. I think Carrier does a good job in OHJ in explaining the problems in the historicist side, and I found myself agreeing pretty much with what he says there. But he does a poor job -- very disappointingly poor, IMHO -- of making a case for his mythicist theory. Still, they are separate matters, and should be addressed separately.

outhouse wrote:

junego wrote: b) Because we can't read authors' minds centuries or millennia after they wrote, we can only judge the effects of what they wrote.


.

You mean we should not go in blind and make assumptions.

Most scholars do not, unlike mythicist, most scholars are trained in exactly how these authors were trained being able to place these text into proper context.


People who have not been trained in how Aristotle taught rhetoric should not even be posting on topics they are so ignorant of. [not you just in general]

The prose of rhetorical writing is an advanced education only a few here even have a grasp on, and without it, I would agree your right they cannot read into the authors minds where the educated can.

Did you have an actual argument or are you just having a snark and engaging in argumentum ad hominen?

GakuseiDon wrote:I found the Youtube clip I was thinking of. It is Richard Carrier's debate with Zeba Crook on whether there was a historical or a mythical Jesus, called "Jesus of Nazareth: Man or myth?" Crook is a professor of religious studies, and an atheist. He proposes that the evidence suggests that there was a historical Jesus. The debate was held on April 5 2014 in Ottawa, Canada. Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgmHqjblsPw

At about 54 mins in, Crook says:

• "The second example [of problems with Carrier's theories] is with Euhemerism, which you've heard referred to already [by Richard Carrier.] Euhemerism is the claim that actually -- Euhemerus first said -- that all religions, all the gods, were originally just people, who were so revered and adored, that their followers deified them. Oddly I'm not sure I understand how Richard uses Euhemerism against Christianity, or against this position, because that's actually the point I'm making, that Jesus was a historical figure who was euhemerized, that's turned into a god later."

And Crook is wrong/confused about "that Jesus was a historical figure who was euhemerized, that's turned into a god later." He's describing apotheosis. If that's what he understood euhemerization to mean at the time of the debate, then this criticism of Carrier's theory is based on incorrect knowledge and can be set aside for now.

maryhelena wrote:

GakuseiDon wrote: For the last quote above, Carrier provides a list of off-line sources. Continuing with one final quote:

• "Euhemerism is mentioned in all major encyclopedias I know. Euhemerization is even in standard dictionaries like Merriam-Webster: to euhemerize is “to interpret (mythology) on the theory of euhemerism,” and the theory of euhemerism is:
  
  • [The] attempt to find a historical basis for mythical beings and events. It takes its name from Euhemerus (fl. 300 BC), a Greek scholar who examined popular mythology in his Sacred History and asserted that the gods originated as heroes or conquerors who were admired and later deified. Though modern scholars do not accept euhemerism as the sole explanation for the origin of gods, it is thought to be valid in some cases."

It amazes me that Carrier does not get this...

Euhemerus (fl. 300 BC), a Greek scholar who examined popular mythology in his Sacred History and asserted that the gods originated as heroes or conquerors who were admired and later deified.

Euhemerism is about where the gods *originated.* Euhemerus maintaining the gods *originated* in a historical context. The theory says nothing about gods originating in the heavens, in some celestial sphere. That Carrier can quote this source with a straight face and then turn around and propose the exact opposite of what it says - well, words fail me....

Maybe words have failed you because you have misunderstood the application of the words Euhemerism and euhemerization?

"Euhemerism is defined in modern academic literature as the theory that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerus

The exact particulars of Euhemerus' original proposals wrt ancient gods is no longer (if it ever was) the narrow definition of this word. Modern usage, at least, seems to be applied to many mythic beliefs (gods/heroes/angels/demons/etc.) across many cultures throughout history.

So euhemerization is the "interpretation of myths as historical events."

http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/euhemerization

So the "interpretation of [the] myth" of celestial-Jesus as "historical event" Jesus of Nazareth is the euhemerization that Carrier is proposing that happened.

IOW if you euhemerize (apply Euhemerism-the theory that myths are distorted history) a mythic being/event you place/interpret that mythic being/event in some historical setting.

IOOW Carrier is proposing that people were originally worshipping a god/mythic Jesus and some person/people thought/misunderstood-stories and proposed/acted-like/wrote-stories-as-though the cosmic Jesus must have originated as a real man who lived and died on earth. Thus cosmic-Jesus was euhemerized as man-Jesus.

junego wrote:

maryhelena wrote:

GakuseiDon wrote: For the last quote above, Carrier provides a list of off-line sources. Continuing with one final quote:

• "Euhemerism is mentioned in all major encyclopedias I know. Euhemerization is even in standard dictionaries like Merriam-Webster: to euhemerize is “to interpret (mythology) on the theory of euhemerism,” and the theory of euhemerism is:
  
  • [The] attempt to find a historical basis for mythical beings and events. It takes its name from Euhemerus (fl. 300 BC), a Greek scholar who examined popular mythology in his Sacred History and asserted that the gods originated as heroes or conquerors who were admired and later deified. Though modern scholars do not accept euhemerism as the sole explanation for the origin of gods, it is thought to be valid in some cases."

It amazes me that Carrier does not get this...

Euhemerus (fl. 300 BC), a Greek scholar who examined popular mythology in his Sacred History and asserted that the gods originated as heroes or conquerors who were admired and later deified.

Euhemerism is about where the gods *originated.* Euhemerus maintaining the gods *originated* in a historical context. The theory says nothing about gods originating in the heavens, in some celestial sphere. That Carrier can quote this source with a straight face and then turn around and propose the exact opposite of what it says - well, words fail me....

Maybe words have failed you because you have misunderstood the application of the words Euhemerism and euhemerization?

"Euhemerism is defined in modern academic literature as the theory that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerus

The exact particulars of Euhemerus' original proposals wrt ancient gods is no longer (if it ever was) the narrow definition of this word. Modern usage, at least, seems to be applied to many mythic beliefs (gods/heroes/angels/demons/etc.) across many cultures throughout history.

So euhemerization is the "interpretation of myths as historical events."

http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/euhemerization

So the "interpretation of [the] myth" of celestial-Jesus as "historical event" Jesus of Nazareth is the euhemerization that Carrier is proposing that happened.

IOW if you euhemerize (apply Euhemerism-the theory that myths are distorted history) a mythic being/event you place/interpret that mythic being/event in some historical setting.

IOOW Carrier is proposing that people were originally worshipping a god/mythic Jesus and some person/people thought/misunderstood-stories and proposed/acted-like/wrote-stories-as-though the cosmic Jesus must have originated as a real man who lived and died on earth. Thus cosmic-Jesus was euhemerized as man-Jesus.

And while Carrier continues to advocate this theory the Jesus historicists will be laughing all the way to the bank...

Earl Doherty, with his theory re a Pauline celestial christ figure historicized, drove the ahistoricist position into a cul-de-sac. Sadly, very sadly, Carrier, with his misrepresentation of euhemerism, has added an unnecessary road-block that is inhibiting any reversing out of that cul-de-sac.