Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

GakuseiDon wrote:

junego wrote:I don't know of other words to describe what the Doherty-Carrier hypothesis proposes - that there was originally a celestial being who was worshipped by a sect of Jews as the son of god who was subsequently put into a historical setting for unknown reasons, but never actually existed as a human person.

Whatever that is, that is not Euhemerism. In Euhemerism, does it technically matter if the gods were originally celestial beings? No. It is the ancient idea that the myths about the gods (who often had stories set on earth!) were originally stories about extraordinary but mortal men. Yet Carrier keeps throwing "celestial being" in his own description of Euhemerism. It matches his theory, but it only confuses.

Carrier appears to use "celestial being" for a god or angel. A synonym for deity/god/angel/archangel is "celestial being", so I don't understand why the confusion.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/celestial%20being?s=t

GakuseiDon wrote:

junego wrote:So "taking a celestial god and placing it into history" looks to me like it conforms to usages of the terms in at least some scholarly books and papers.

Compare that to the standard definition: "the ancient idea that the myths of the gods were exaggerated stories about extraordinary but mortal men who actually lived at some point in history." Which do you think is the better description? Do the gospels -- which are about a celestial being who came to earth as the Son of God and then returned to being a celestial being -- sound like an example of the latter description?

I'm pretty sure Carrier considers GMark (or some immediate precursor) as the point at which archangel Jesus became historicized. GMark can be read as the story of a very godly man who is adopted by God and given extraordinary powers. Except for calming the storm and walking on water (maybe), Jesus doesn't do anything in GMark that wasn't claimed to have been done by OT prophets and/or the sorcerers/wizards/holy men of the era. The rest of the gospels are immaterial to the point since they just elaborate Mark's tale.

GakuseiDon wrote:

junego wrote:Edit: The question of whether euhemerism is always about making gods into men only with no extra abilities isn't that clearcut AFAICT. But we don't know that Mark's little allegorical tale was intended as euhemerization or not, or whether his was the first instance of stories about god-Jesus turning into man-Jesus or if it started as just wisdom sayings of god-Jesus that morphed into tales of a man-Jesus.

Note that Euhemerus was considered as an atheist. From Wiki (my bolding): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerism

• In the ancient skeptic philosophical tradition of Theodorus of Cyrene and the Cyrenaics, Euhemerus forged a new method of interpretation for the contemporary religious beliefs. Though his work is lost, the reputation of Euhemerus was that he believed that much of Greek mythology could be interpreted as natural or historical events subsequently given supernatural characteristics through retelling. Subsequently Euhemerus was considered to be an atheist by his opponents, most notably Callimachus.

Does the Gospel of Mark sound like it is describing natural events and is the product of an atheist? That's why calling the creation of the Gospels as "euhemerism" is unsuitable. It cannot be a description for the end product. It might be a description of the start product though. E.g. something like "The Gospels are myths about a god called Jesus which are exaggerated stories about an actual man who lived at some point in time."

a) Atheists are not the only people who have written euhemerizing tales in history. In the bit of literature I've looked at since this discussion started I found discussions of the Christian euhemerizing that was done wrt King Arthur's (and other god/hero myths) tales probably to usurp pagan theology/mythology in Europe. Since no one can read the minds of those ancient Christian authors, we don't know what they were actually thinking, just what it appears that their stories did.

b) Yes, GMark can be read as describing the actions of what were considered extraordinary men of that era. My understandng is that most people of that time believed that supernatural entities and actions could be experienced occasionally by almost anybody.

c) The historicist consensus hypothesis is, as you state, that the gospels are an apotheosis of man-Jesus. Staying within (my understanding of) the Doherty-Carrier hypothesis what may have happened is (1) GMark (or precursor) puts the archangel Jesus into a historical setting; (2) some people accept this is a true history; (3) other gospels are written that add further details and legendary elements to GMark's tale.

d) I've also found terms like "partially euhemerized", "almost totally euhemerized", etc in scholarly books/papers/comments. Apparently it's not considered an all or nothing process.

GakuseiDon wrote:

junego wrote:What's notable is that euhemerization was a common phenomenon of the time (and is apparently a common phenomenon among many human societies)...

Euhemerism was a rationalization of the ancient myths. It was a cynical/skeptical view of some philosophers to explain myths in natural terms. But if you read Carrier, you get the impression that it was a deliberate activity (possibly by mystery religions) to place the stories of celestial gods acting in a celestial sphere, as stories by earthly godmen acting in history on earth. Now, maybe there really was such activity -- but it ain't Euhemerism!

Euhemerism started out in the 3rd century bce as a rationalization of their ancient myths. Apparently modern definition and use of the words include more than the scribblings of ancient cynical, skeptical philosophers.

GakuseiDon wrote:

junego wrote:I'm personally agnostic about this debate and I don't think there is enough surviving evidence to resolve the issue. Nevertheless I've become convinced that the Doherty-Carrier hypothesis is a legitimate interpretation of the available evidence & should be taken seriously by academia.

Sure, and my criticism of how Carrier uses Euhemerism does not disprove his overall thesis. To me, the Gospels as literary creations similar to "The Bacchae" and "The Golden Ass" makes a lot of sense. But those are not examples of Euhemerism either. My complaint is that Carrier comes across (whether true or not) as lazy or even ignorant by how he uses some terms in OHJ.

a) The announcement of my "position" wasn't directed at you in particular. I don't have much of a posting history & I think almost all have been about OHJ, so I just wanted to clarify.

b) I agree that Carrier can use terms in a non-scholarly way and uses slang or "plain" terms to replace technical language. Sometimes it works well, imo, but sometimes it's confusing. I'm more interested in the content of his argument than with his style (although confusing language doesn't help, but I've waded through enough bad specs and tech papers in my career to say that Carrier is not that bad). He also interprets the meanings of texts or actions in light of what is logical, when people do/believe completely illogical and contradictory things every day, especially wrt religion. Thus some of his conclusions aren't as strong as he asserts because he hasn't explicitly factored in this very human bahavior.

Where would Hercules fit on a euhemerisation scale?

maryhelena wrote:

Clive wrote:Mary, you have only repeated an assertion that some gods are "truly divine". From the illiad I would propose that includes immortal, fickle, easily bored, quick to anger, poor marital and extra marital relationships, able to appear to humans, mainly in some form of ghostly way but also impregnate women, liking burnt offerings but not eating them - letting the soldiers eat the best bits, causing storms, lightning.

But these gods are part of the universe, they are not outside, supernatural...truly divine.

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.

Clive wrote: I think truly divine gods is a serious error.

Your context, and theirs in ancient times are 4 different things.


The living Emperor was a truly divine god, so that makes you factually incorrect. It is a human definition and description.


Mary stated context of definition is off topic.

junego wrote:

GakuseiDon wrote: Note that Euhemerus was considered as an atheist. From Wiki (my bolding): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerism

• ... Though his work is lost, the reputation of Euhemerus was that he believed that much of Greek mythology could be interpreted as natural or historical events subsequently given supernatural characteristics through retelling. Subsequently Euhemerus was considered to be an atheist by his opponents, most notably Callimachus.

a) Atheists are not the only people who have written euhemerizing tales in history ...

Euhumerus's description as 'an atheist' needs to contextualized: Justin Martyr self-described as such in his First Apology, and in doing so also described his fellow-Christians as atheists.

It's a red-herring as far as Euhemerization.

MrMacSon wrote:

junego wrote:

GakuseiDon wrote: Note that Euhemerus was considered as an atheist. From Wiki (my bolding): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerism

• ... Though his work is lost, the reputation of Euhemerus was that he believed that much of Greek mythology could be interpreted as natural or historical events subsequently given supernatural characteristics through retelling. Subsequently Euhemerus was considered to be an atheist by his opponents, most notably Callimachus.

a) Atheists are not the only people who have written euhemerizing tales in history ...

Euhumerus's description as 'an atheist' needs to contextualized: Justin Martyr self-described as such in his First Apology, and in doing so also described his fellow-Christians as atheists.

It's a red-herring as far as Euhemerization.

Agree. I should have used scare quotes. The definition of atheist has also morphed over time and cultures.

Clive wrote:

maryhelena wrote:

Clive wrote:Mary, you have only repeated an assertion that some gods are "truly divine". From the illiad I would propose that includes immortal, fickle, easily bored, quick to anger, poor marital and extra marital relationships, able to appear to humans, mainly in some form of ghostly way but also impregnate women, liking burnt offerings but not eating them - letting the soldiers eat the best bits, causing storms, lightning.

But these gods are part of the universe, they are not outside, supernatural...truly divine.

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.

MrMacSon wrote:

junego wrote:

GakuseiDon wrote: Note that Euhemerus was considered as an atheist. From Wiki (my bolding): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerism

• ... Though his work is lost, the reputation of Euhemerus was that he believed that much of Greek mythology could be interpreted as natural or historical events subsequently given supernatural characteristics through retelling. Su bsequently Euhemerus was considered to be an atheist by his opponents, most notably Callimachus.

a) Atheists are not the only people who have written euhemerizing tales in history ...

Euhumerus's description as 'an atheist' needs to contextualized: Justin Martyr self-described as such in his First Apology, and in doing so also described his fellow-Christians as atheists.

It's a red-herring as far as Euhemerization.

Euhemerus (and the early Christians for that matter) were called 'atheists' because they seemed to deny the divinity of the Greek/Roman gods. So it is relevant from the perspective of my OP, because part of the process is claiming that the euhemerized figure is NOT a god. As Mary notes, the question posed in the OP is whether Carrier is using the term "euhemerization" accurately or not. (Even if he isn't, it doesn't disprove mythicism.)

I haven't been the only person questioning Carrier on how he uses it. I've seen him questioned on his use of it in a debate on Youtube and in other reviews. Here is someone called per-olov (note: he/she is not me!) questioning Carrier a year ago on his website: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090

• "... to Euhemerize a cosmic or mythical person is to assume they began as an actual historical person and invent a real time period and place and biography for them and promote that as the truth (in some sense or other); but in reality they were never that."
  
  "... Thus, a mythical god is made into a historical god, via euhemerization. Euhemerus did this, and then it became a trend to do it. That the people who do it think they are getting factual results is besides the point that the gods in question started mythical and were only made historical later–they were euhemer-ized."
  
  "... Euhemerus explicitly portrayed them as that [real persons]. He did not theorize. He actually wrote a historical account, in which they were historical. I don’t think he mentions this being a speculation. Likewise everyone thereafter (e.g. Plutarch does not say his assumption that Romulus was historical is speculation; he assumes it’s correct and then writes his biography, simply assuming he was historical, even though we know he was not originally so)."
  
  "... Euhemerus was the first to make Zeus a human being (hence doing that is called “Euhemerization”). It’s unclear when Osiris was first made into a historical human (the stories appear in the Greco-Roman period, but not in the preceding Egyptian period). It’s much harder to determine this for Mithras since we lack almost all relevant texts, but the best we can make out he began a mythical deity in Zoroastrianism and probably acquired a historical framework upon the adaptation of his cult into a Hellenistic mystery religion (which was most likely around the same time Christianity began). But we can’t test that due to the paucity of surviving data."
  
  "... Euhemer-IZING is making a mythical deity historical. That worshippers then believe the Euhemerization is not itself Euhemerization. It’s just religion."
  
  "... Euhemerus took mythical cosmic gods (Zeus and Uranus) and made up a history for them and put that history as occurring on earth, and presented them as mere men, later deified. That is exactly what my theory holds the Christians did to Jesus. Doing exactly what Euhemerus did is by definition “Euhemerizing.”"

That last quote I think is pretty close to the mark as a description of "euhemerizing." Continuing:

• "As for Osiris and Romulus, we know for a fact both started as cosmological beings (the Romulus story was originally told of a Greek deity in a foreign land, while the god in Rome was a totem spirit; the Osiris story was originally told of a sky god, embodied in but not identical with all Pharaohs, not any specific one), and then later became euhemerized (placed in a definite time in history and narrated as historical men later deified). We do not know who did the euhemerizing originally or why. It doesn’t matter who, or why. It was done. Period. The evidence proves it. Osiris and Romulus were once non-historical cosmic gods, and then centuries later were transformed into historical men later deified. That is euhemerization. That cult believers then embraced both is also well in evidence, so again it doesn’t matter why or how that happened, we still know it happened."
  
  "Romulus got a historical story no earlier than the 4th century. But he was then placed as living in history in the 8th. In the intervening centuries he was a totem spirit (the spirit-guardian of the city of Rome), not a man. When he was placed in history, story elements of Greek mythical heroes were borrowed and redacted to fit Roman interests, along with Etruscan mythology, and then mapped onto Romulus, thus transforming him into a historical person."

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's kind of confusing how Carrier is defining "euhemerization", though to be fair he is giving quick responses to questions on his blog. When I started this thread, I didn't have Carrier's book. Now that I do have a copy, in my next post on this thread I'll try to present Carrier's argument in OHJ and how it feeds into the prior probability for a historical/mythical Jesus. It may be a day or two before I can do that though.

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.

Does anyone reading this thread have a copy of Is This Not the Carpenter? (Thomas Thomson and Thomas Verenna). It would be interesting to see if its not the chapter in this book by Noll that has influenced Carrier' interpretation of euhemerism....

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/5085