The Historical Jesus III

[maximara]

or

At best, Jesus is alleged to be "historical" in the way Robin Hood and King Arthur are alleged to be "historical".​

Well to be fair the evidence for Robin Hood being "historical" is the strongest of the three.

First we must understand the Robin Hood we know with King Richard I and all that is effectively a 16th century invention.

The earliest surviving ballads of "Robin Hood" was originally set in the time of a 'King Edward' but it is not clear if this is in reference to King Edward I, II, or III or one of the earlier Edwards such as Edward the Elder (900–924), Edward the Martyr (975–978) and Edward the Confessor (1042–1066)

More over there are actual legal records regarding a Robert Hod becoming outlaw from 1226 though it should be mentioned that outlaw and bandit are NOT the same thing. Becoming outlaw meant you were ostracized from your community or effectively a wolf's head who could be killed with no retribution.

Compounding matters is it appears "Robin Hood" served as stock name for an outlaw goes back to 1262 mudding matters ever further.

Terry Jones in the Outlaw part of Medieval Lives goes over the culture dynamics of what made the Robin Hood legend.

The real Robin Hood was likely nearly 180 degrees from the legend possibly a part of that ultimate English medieval nightmare a 'free company'. These were bands of knights who roamed the countryside for neither God or King but to line their own pockets. If you think 'Medieval Mafia' you wouldn't be too far off the mark.

 

[Mcreal]

The blinding light ...

I'd say ...

The blinding light Paul experienced was Jesus Christ, the a historic extraterrestrial sex tourist ...

this historicist hypothesis would explain everything, including the glossolalia, which is nothing but Paul repeating Jesus Christ's alien language ...​

 

[Craig B]

Seriously!!! I suggest you read the stuff below.




No extrapolation at all... my hypothesis is almost a perfect fit of all the data points described in the chronicles of Jesus the extraterrestrial sex tourist... see the post quoted below.

You think that Jesus was not merely an interplanetary sex tourist, but a gay eunuch interplanetary sex tourist, who gave Paul a "mysterious disease". How charmingly exotic!

 

[Leumas]

Well to be fair the evidence for Robin Hood being "historical" is the strongest of the three.
...

Did any of the versions of the fairy tales about Robin Hood ever say he was an ill begotten or otherwise son of a sky daddy or a sky daddy himself or having existed since before the Big Bang?

If Robin Hood was never deified or euhemerized then his fairy tales are not analogous to Jesus' fables except in that here we have fables where people thought there was a core historicity in them when in actuality they were mere fairy tales.

In the case of Jesus the fairy tales are not just a legendary tale about a normal human... Robin Hood did not get resurrected after having been dead for days nor did he cure diseases with spittle nor did he fly to outer space on a cloud.

 

[Leumas]

You think that Jesus was not merely an interplanetary sex tourist, but a gay eunuch interplanetary sex tourist, who gave Paul a "mysterious disease". How charmingly exotic!

Well... not himself the eunuch... no... he was trying to entice his "disciples" to have gender change operations by promising them he would go to his planet and prepare rooms for them in his father's house where he would receive them unto himself and be with them forever.

• John 14:2-3 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

 

[Leumas]

I'd say ...

The blinding light Paul experienced was Jesus Christ, the a historic extraterrestrial sex tourist ...

this historicist hypothesis would explain everything, including the glossolalia, which is nothing but Paul repeating Jesus Christ's alien language ...​

Yup... that would make sense... being anointed with the holy special oil would have definitely made him a chrestos christos and well prepared for his vacation.

 

[Mcreal]

No. The evidence I am looking for is not evidence that Serapism existed, or that it had temples, or that later religions took over these temples. We know all that.

... Paul, when he refers to "Christ", is alluding to Serapis, as you suggested, is possible.

What, in the specific allusions Paul makes to Jesus (the "data" referenced above), gives credence to your thesis? If we now have data, we might as well use them.

I think references to Jesus are as likely to be later redactions as they are reference to a preached Messiah by that name. But your query makes me think of an interesting possibility of the Pauline texts initially including various references to more than one entity.

 

[GDon]

I essentially agree with the thrust of that, though would say

Price correctly defines Euhemerisim as gods who were portrayed as "glorified ancestors"​

To paraphrase you, GDon,

... "euhemerism" is where the gods in the myths become to be portrayed as men.​

They can continued to be portrayed as deities - as god-men - from the time what were previously mythical gods are anthropomorphized ie. euhemerized.

I originally thought that this is what Carrier meant, i.e. that a celestial being was portrayed as a historical man, and that others later portrayed the man as an ascending god-man. This is because Carrier repeatedly says (correctly) that euhemerists take a celestial god and places him/her in time as a historical man. It would be a strange trajectory for Jesus: a celestial Christ is portrayed as a man, and then only later by others as a god-man. But perhaps Carrier had evidence for things to go that way.

But Carrier clarifies his definition in his response to my posts on his blog article "Euhemerization Means Doing What Euhemerus Did"

Some snippets: in my second post on his blog, I wrote:

If ‘Euhemerization’ means doing what Euhemerus did, then if we look at Euhemerus, we see he took gods and said that they were ordinary men, kings in fact, whom were so revered that after their deaths their subjects deified them. That to me fits the definition of “Euhemerism”. As you note, Euhemerus was a rationalist. He didn’t claim that the men became gods. He claimed that they lived and died as mortal men. No ascension to heaven.​

Carrier responds (my bolding):

What Euhemerus did that is distinctive to him and thus his name is how he rationalized the gods: not by allegorizing them (one of the other theories Plutarch rejects) nor by atomizing them, but by historicizing them. Consequently any historicizing of a God is doing what Euhemeris did. It does not matter how magical you make the historicizing... Ahistorical deities, turned into historical ascended godmen. Jesus is just one more instance of that trend.​

But that is clearly the wrong definition of "euhemerism". Compare Carrier's description against Dr Price's in my last post here. Price writes: "they [the euhemerists] readily dismissed the supernatural tales of their heroes' divine paternity and miraculous feats". That's the crux of euhemerization: the gods were not gods but merely men.

One person on Carrier's blog describes the process as "carrierization" rather than "euhemerization", since proposing that celestial gods got turned into earthly god-men does not fit the definition of the latter.

 

[Craig B]

I originally thought that this is what Carrier meant, i.e. that a celestial being was portrayed as a historical man, and that others later portrayed the man as an ascending god-man. This is because Carrier repeatedly says (correctly) that euhemerists take a celestial god and places him/her in time as a historical man. It would be a strange trajectory for Jesus: a celestial Christ is portrayed as a man, and then only later by others as a god-man. But perhaps Carrier had evidence for things to go that way.

But Carrier clarifies his definition in his response to my posts on his blog article "Euhemerization Means Doing What Euhemerus Did"

Carrier responds (my bolding):

What Euhemerus did that is distinctive to him and thus his name is how he rationalized the gods: not by allegorizing them (one of the other theories Plutarch rejects) nor by atomizing them, but by historicizing them. Consequently any historicizing of a God is doing what Euhemeris did. It does not matter how magical you make the historicizing... Ahistorical deities, turned into historical ascended godmen. Jesus is just one more instance of that trend.​

You're being remarkably gracious to Carrier, as he again appears unable to accept that you are making a rational and sincere point. Here is another of his responses to you, in the same exchanges.

There is no “mainstream” use of the term that excludes magically historicized gods like Romulus and Osiris. That’s something you are just making up out of nowhere, based on a linguistic convention that doesn’t exist, by selectively choosing which uses of the word to look at and which to ignore. Such anachronistic and over-fastidious use of language is a common Christian apologetics tactic, playing games with words to try and deny things they don’t want to be true, that I expose in OHJ (e.g. hyper-defining messiah so messianism didn’t exist before Christianity; hyper-defining resurrection so resurrection didn’t exist outside Judaism; and so on).​

 

[Craig B]

I think references to Jesus are as likely to be later redactions as they are reference to a preached Messiah by that name. But your query makes me think of an interesting possibility of the Pauline texts initially including various references to more than one entity.

Now that such a "possibility" has drifted into your mind, do you intend to substantiate it by offering evidence for it? Or will the next "possibility" take over before you get round to that?

 

[Mcreal]

I originally thought that this is what Carrier meant, i.e. that a celestial being was portrayed as a historical man, and that others later portrayed the man as an ascending god-man. This is because Carrier repeatedly says (correctly) that euhemerists take a celestial god and places him/her in time as a historical man.

Yes.

It would be a strange trajectory for Jesus: a celestial Christ is portrayed as a man, and then only later by others as a god-man.

That's probably not what Carrier is proposing. I don't think any mythicist would propose that is what happened.

But I guess it it is possible.

The principle proposition (and argument for it) would seem to be that

a celestial Christ-deity becomes portrayed and narrated as a deity; born in the form of a man having, as a deity, supernatural powers (of being born of a virgin, of healing, and ability to resurrection).​

Carrier responds (my bolding):

What Euhemerus did that is distinctive to him, and thus his name, is how he rationalized the gods: ... by historicizing them. Consequently any historicizing of a God is doing what Euhemeris did. It does not matter how magical you make the historicizing... Ahistorical deities, turned into historical ascended godmen. Jesus is just one more instance of that trend.​

I think that is the right definition of euhemerism.

Yet it still concurs with what "Price writes" -

"they [the euhemerists] readily dismissed the supernatural tales of their heroes' divine paternity and miraculous feats".​

Some euhemerists tried to do that or are portrayed as doing that. Remember, over the years - centuries - many have misrepresented euhemerism/euhemerization: to besmirch it, so it cannot be applied to Jesus-the-Christ.

Is this an example of such besmirching? -

One person on Carrier's blog describes the process as "carrierization" rather than "euhemerization", since proposing that celestial gods got turned into earthly god-men does not fit the definition of the latter.

 

[Mcreal]

You're being remarkably gracious to Carrier, as he again appears unable to accept that you are making a rational and sincere point.

You don't really have a point there.

Here is another of his responses to you, in the same exchanges.

There is no “mainstream” use of the term that excludes magically historicized gods like Romulus and Osiris.​

Which is true.

That’s something you are just making up out of nowhere, based on a linguistic convention that doesn’t exist, by selectively choosing which uses of the word to look at and which to ignore. Such anachronistic and over-fastidious use of language is a common Christian apologetics tactic, playing games with words to try and deny things they don’t want to be true, that I expose in OHJ (e.g. hyper-defining messiah so messianism didn’t exist before Christianity; hyper-defining resurrection so resurrection didn’t exist outside Judaism; and so on).​

 

[GDon]

You're being remarkably gracious to Carrier, as he again appears unable to accept that you are making a rational and sincere point. Here is another of his responses to you, in the same exchanges.

There is no “mainstream” use of the term that excludes magically historicized gods like Romulus and Osiris. That’s something you are just making up out of nowhere, based on a linguistic convention that doesn’t exist, by selectively choosing which uses of the word to look at and which to ignore. Such anachronistic and over-fastidious use of language is a common Christian apologetics tactic, playing games with words to try and deny things they don’t want to be true, that I expose in OHJ (e.g. hyper-defining messiah so messianism didn’t exist before Christianity; hyper-defining resurrection so resurrection didn’t exist outside Judaism; and so on).​

:lol: That's right. I laughed when I got to the part that I highlighted above, since I knew that even other mythicists would disagree with how Carrier defines euhemerism. I'd love to see Dr Price's reaction to being accused of "anachronistic and over-fastidious use of language" and "playing games with words to try and deny things they don’t want to be true".

 

[Craig B]

Is this an example of such besmirching? -

One person on Carrier's blog describes the process as "carrierization" rather than "euhemerization", since proposing that celestial gods got turned into earthly god-men does not fit the definition of the latter.​

Not "besmirching". The author of these words is not imputing dishonesty to Carrier, but merely stating that Carrier is wrong in his definition of the term Euhemerisation.

By contrast, Carrier uses wording like this, as I have already noted (expletive deleted)

But even then, they were still making it up. And indeed, doing so more in the tradition of Frankfurt-style ...: they didn’t even care whether what they were saying was true. It just worked for them. So why not?​

 

[Leumas]

:lol: ...I love to see Dr Price's reaction to ...

I wonder what Dr. Price would say about someone who worships the pathetic nothing of a historical human Jesus?

LOL indeed!!!!

 

[maximara]

Did any of the versions of the fairy tales about Robin Hood ever say he was an ill begotten or otherwise son of a sky daddy or a sky daddy himself or having existed since before the Big Bang?

If Robin Hood was never deified or euhemerized then his fairy tales are not analogous to Jesus' fables except in that here we have fables where people thought there was a core historicity in them when in actuality they were mere fairy tales.

In the case of Jesus the fairy tales are not just a legendary tale about a normal human... Robin Hood did not get resurrected after having been dead for days nor did he cure diseases with spittle nor did he fly to outer space on a cloud.

Robin Hood serves to show how even a character devoid of supernatural abilities can be of iffy historically.

If we want to kick around the supernatural ball then Apollonius of Tyana should be our go to comparison. D.M. Murdock's quick reference chart of Apollonius of Tyana, Jesus, and Paul is an interesting Cliff notes on the three characters.

Based on Carrier's comment in Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997) comment of "The first, Apollonius of Tyana, is often called the "pagan Christ," since he also lived during the first century, and performed a similar ministry of miracle-working, preaching his own brand of ascetic Pythagoreanism--he was also viewed as the son of a god, resurrected the dead, ascended to heaven, performed various miracles, and criticized the authorities with pithy wisdom much like Jesus did." along with my experience that as far a "raw" information goes Murdock is reasonable I think we can the chart as a convent go to.

"Naturally, his story is one that no doubt grew into more and more fantastic legends over time, until he becomes an even more impressive miracle-worker than Jesus in the largest surviving work on him, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, written by Philostratus around 220 A.D. This work is available today in two volumes as part of the Loeb Classical Library, published by Harvard University Press, a set that also includes the surviving fragments of Apollonius' own writings (if only Jesus had bothered to write something!) as well as the Treatise against him by the Christian historian Eusebius. There were other books written about him immediately after his death, but none survive."

 

[GDon]

The principle proposition (and argument for it) would seem to be that

a celestial Christ-deity becomes portrayed and narrated as a deity; born in the form of a man having, as a deity, supernatural powers (of being born of a virgin, of healing, and ability to resurrection).​

I think that is the right definition of euhemerism.

Yet it still concurs with what "Price writes" -

"they [the euhemerists] readily dismissed the supernatural tales of their heroes' divine paternity and miraculous feats".​

I don't understand. How does "deity with supernatural powers" concur with "dismissal of supernatural tales and miraculous feats"?

It would be best if you look at definitions of "Euhemerism" and see whether they match Carrier's description or Price's. The argument isn't over what actually happened, but the definition of the word being used.

Some euhemerists tried to do that or are portrayed as doing that. Remember, over the years - centuries - many have misrepresented euhemerism/euhemerization: to besmirch it, so it cannot be applied to Jesus-the-Christ.

"Euhemerism" is a modern term. It defines a process that ancient people used, but the word itself is a modern one. The process being described usually relates to how the early Christians -- mostly from the Second Century to the Fourth Century CE -- criticized the pagan gods. Their argument was that even the pagans didn't believe that the gods like Jupiter and Uranus were actually gods. They argued that some pagans claimed that the gods were really just men. And they invoked the name of Euhemerus as the basis of such claims (see my references in the post earlier today), leading to the (modern) term "Euhemerism".

It just doesn't make sense for Christians to use it if Euhemerism is the claim that celestial gods were men who ascended to heaven to become celestial gods. I.e. "Pagans, your gods are not celestial gods! Your gods are just men who ascended to heaven to become gods. But Christ is real!"

Mcreal, best if you examine the definitions given, to see if any support the idea that Euhemerism is the claim that the gods were really just men who ascended to heaven.

 

[GDon]

If we want to kick around the supernatural ball then Apollonius of Tyana should be our go to comparison. D.M. Murdock's quick reference chart of Apollonius of Tyana, Jesus, and Paul is an interesting Cliff notes on the three characters.

Yes, that's why Carrier's incorrect and bizarre definition of "Euhemerism" is not fatal to his theory: there are other examples around that can be used for his theory. But it is a blow to his credibility, IMO.

 

[Leumas]

...It just doesn't make sense for Christians to...

Liberal Christians worship a mere nothing of a human being Jesus rationalized out of what they aver is nothing but a collection of myths and fables... no?

If that makes any sense at all then just about any ridiculous notion could make sense to liberal Christians... no?

Therefore one can see that making sense is not exactly a salient characteristic prerequisite for becoming a liberal Christian... no?

 

[Leumas]

Yes, that's why Carrier's incorrect and bizarre definition of "Euhemerism" is not fatal to his theory: there are other examples around that can be used for his theory. But it is a blow to his credibility, IMO.

Is it any more bizarre than the statements below? What will it do to the credibility of ALL your other statements and hypotheses?

... not long after I converted from agnosticism to theism, and then to a liberal Christianity (I won't go into reasons why here). Even though I'd never thought the Bible was anything other than a collection of myths and fables,...