The Historical Jesus III

[Mcreal]

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

I said

"a man having, as a deity, supernatural powers (of being born of a virgin, of healing, and ability to resurrection)."​

I also said

"Some euhemerists tried to do that or are portrayed as doing that [ie. dismiss 'supernatural tales and miraculous feats']. Remember, over the years - centuries - many have misrepresented euhemerism/euhemerization: to besmirch it, so it cannot be applied to Jesus-the-Christ."​

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.

I think Carrier's definition is appropriate and widely applicable.

As I have said or implied -

Many have misrepresented euhemerism/euhemerization to nullify it's application to the concept Jesus-the-Christ​

Yes,

"Euhemerism" is a modern term. It defines a process that ancient people used, but the word itself is a modern one.

.
Yes,

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 ...

.

re -

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!"

- Euhemerism is not the claim that "celestial gods were men who ascended to heaven to become celestial gods".


re-

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.

No.

 

[Mcreal]

From the comments following Carrier's blog-post - http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/8161#comment-1057518

2. Bruce says
August 1, 2015 at 2:07 am

" .. To be blunt about the implications in OHJ, if I understand you, ... makes it quite plausible that Jesus was Euhemerized very much as Osiris was. That is to say, the original Jesus was some sort of angel or good-sky-demon, who wasn’t born of a virgin or anyone else, but simply 'lived' where he was created, in outer space near the moon and below where the dome of the sky holds up all the rain. It was there that he 'lived', was 'crucified' by bad demons, died, and was resurrected back to a new sky-body, as equally non-fleshy as Jesus’s original body. And it is possible that this is the only concept of Jesus that had ever existed through the lifetime of Paul.

"The real kicker of your blog post is the further implication that, some time after Paul and before Mark, or possibly the author of 'Mark' itself, 'He' [had done to Him] as [others previously] did with Osiris. That is, the Christian leader(s) took a sky God and created a Euhemerized Jesus man, set in the Jewish homelands. And this “human Jesus” may have been deliberately created to fool the masses, while the core inner group was allowed to know the secret. The secret was that the real Jesus had never been a man, but was always a pure sky God ....

"The key to Jesus as being Euhemerized is found everywhere in the New Testament where it says it happened “according to the scriptures”. To modern readers, this sounds as if it refers to the four gospels. But to first century people, it clearly meant Old Testament books such as Daniel and Isaiah ..."​

Richard Carrier says (in reply)
August 1, 2015 at 1:05 pm

"Yep.

'You have sussed every point correctly, IMO.

"Readers should read Elements 13, 14, 15, 29, and 31 in OHJ to see why this is all likely in context. And Chapter 12.3 has the best complete summary.

“So by 120 or 150 a.d., nobody was left who knew that Jesus had been Euhemerized from a sky story."​

"Or, as you also suggest, many were left, but had been marginalized as “heretics” ... Although by then, they would have no way of “knowing for sure” they were correct, and the euhemerizers wrong, since everyone who could tell them was long dead.

"This seems clear from 2 Peter and Irenaeus, both of whom give hints of Christians existing who were insisting the Gospels were just allegories for the cosmic reality (see OHJ, index), but both the forger of 2 Peter and Irenaeus are condemning them as heretics and thus kicking them out and shunning them. This split then became politically dominant ...​

 

[maximara]

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.

I wouldn't say his definition of "Euhemerism" is incorrect and bizarre as I pointed out a long time ago:

In a modern usage Euhemerism is "the theory that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events" (Honko, Lauri. "The Problem of Defining Myth". Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. p. 45) Please note this modern definition says nothing about Apotheosisation (deification of a person).

To grossly over simplify things Euhemerism is basically myth as legend. So Robin Hood and King Arthur are as much a Euhemerism as is claimed about the Jesus story--"distorted accounts of real historical events"

Clement of Alexandria stated "Those to whom you bow were once men like yourselves." "Thus Euhemerism became a favorite weapon of the Christian polemicists, a weapon they made use of at every turn" (Seznec (1995) The Survival of the Pagan Gods Princeton University Press pg 12-13)

So we are back to "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." and "When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter." statements.

 

[Craig B]

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?

No.

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

Liberal Christians must of course speak for themselves, but I think: No.

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

Liberal Christians must of course speak for themselves, but I think: No.

 

[Mcreal]

I pointed out a long time ago:

In a modern usage Euhemerism is "the theory that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events" (Honko, Lauri. "The Problem of Defining Myth". Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. p. 45) Please note this modern definition says nothing about Apotheosisation (deification of a person).

To grossly over simplify things Euhemerism is basically myth as legend. So Robin Hood and King Arthur are as much a Euhemerism as is claimed about the Jesus story -- "distorted accounts of real historical events"

Clement of Alexandria stated "Those to whom you bow were once men like yourselves."

"Thus Euhemerism became a favorite weapon of the Christian polemicists, a weapon they made use of at every turn"

(Seznec (1995) The Survival of the Pagan Gods Princeton University Press; pp. 12-13)

Good points.

Euhemerism is essentially "the theory that myths are distorted accounts of" past history

ie. how accounts were distorted (?)

 

[GDon]

I wouldn't say his definition of "Euhemerism" is incorrect and bizarre as I pointed out a long time ago:

In a modern usage Euhemerism is "the theory that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events" (Honko, Lauri. "The Problem of Defining Myth". Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. p. 45) Please note this modern definition says nothing about Apotheosisation (deification of a person).

Googling Honko's "The Problem of Defining Myth", I see the following: https://ojs.abo.fi/index.php/scripta/article/viewFile/675/1019

The Euhemeristic interpretation was also historical but in the sense that gods were explained to have developed from the biographies of human beings. Herodotus and Prodicus made suggestions of this kind. Later the worship of Heracles and Aesculapius and, above all, Alexander the Great served as contemporary examples​

Clement of Alexandria stated "Those to whom you bow were once men like yourselves." "Thus Euhemerism became a favorite weapon of the Christian polemicists, a weapon they made use of at every turn" (Seznec (1995) The Survival of the Pagan Gods Princeton University Press pg 12-13)

Exactly! "Your pagan gods were once just men". Not "Your pagan gods were men who ascended to heaven". How much of a weapon would the latter be?

So we are back to "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." and "When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter." statements.

That's right. I'm not sure of the context of the first quote, but Justin Martyr is a pertinent example for what Carrier is trying to describe. The problem is that is not Euhemerism. Nobody describes that what Justin Martyr is doing there is Euhemerism.

 

[GDon]

I think Carrier's definition is appropriate and widely applicable.

As I have said or implied -

Many have misrepresented euhemerism/euhemerization to nullify it's application to the concept Jesus-the-Christ​

Well, perhaps best to leave it at that then. We're bogged down, so no point spending further time on this. At least we have both clearly laid out our positions, so we can agree to disagree, and understand where we agree to disagree. Not a bad result! Thanks for your time. (Same to maximara)

 

[Craig B]

Here is the normal definition of "Euhemerism".

Euhemerus has become known chiefly for a rationalizing method of interpretation, known as "Euhemerism", which treats mythological accounts as a reflection of historical events, or mythological characters as historical personages but which were shaped, exaggerated or altered by retelling and traditional mores. In more recent literature of myth, such as in Bulfinch's Mythology, Euhemerism is called the "historical interpretation" of mythology.] Euhemerism is defined in modern academic literature as the theory that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events.​

Here is a description of the meaning Carrier attaches to the term.

To be blunt about the implications in OHJ, if I understand you, ... makes it quite plausible that Jesus was Euhemerized very much as Osiris was. That is to say, the original Jesus was some sort of angel or good-sky-demon, who wasn’t born of a virgin or anyone else, but simply 'lived' where he was created, in outer space near the moon and below where the dome of the sky holds up all the rain. It was there that he 'lived', was 'crucified' by bad demons, died, and was resurrected back to a new sky-body, as equally non-fleshy as Jesus’s original body. And it is possible that this is the only concept of Jesus that had ever existed through the lifetime of Paul.​

To state that someone is living in outer space near the moon, is being 'crucified' by bad demons and is then being resurrected to a new sky-body is not the same as describing a belief in terms of a historical event. It is so different as to justify the expression already proposed.

One person on Carrier's blog describes the process as "carrierization" rather than "euhemerization".​

An Euhemerist approach to Jesus would surely be this: Jesus was a normal person put to death by natural means. Later followers mythologised this and turned him into a celestial being, contending with demons to effect the salvation of humankind.

 

[Mcreal]

Wikipedia is a mess on this; as are lots of references, and sites

 

[Mcreal]

Clement of Alexandria stated "Those to whom you bow were once men like yourselves."

"Thus Euhemerism became a favorite weapon of the Christian polemicists, a weapon they made use of at every turn" (Seznec (1995) The Survival of the Pagan Gods Princeton University Press pg 12-13)

Exactly! "Your pagan gods were once just men". Not "Your pagan gods were men who ascended to heaven". How much of a weapon would the latter be?

Clement is, as Seznec says, 'euhemerising' as a weapon to belittle non-Christian gods.

 

[Craig B]

Wikipedia is a mess on this; as are lots of references, and sites

I think it's Carrier who is the "mess". Hence his unseemly vituperation.

 

[David Mo]

(..)
(David Mo wants to argue about it, but then David Mo wants to argue about everything, and afaik he is actually Spanish and has often apologised here for his use of English, so I give him the benefit of the doubt as someone who may not know as well as he thinks he does, what is actually being said here in proper use of English).

I usually do some grammatical mistakes, especially when I am tired. But I understand your comments without any problem. I have pointed out in my previous comment some mistakes you had committed in confusing the sense of the references to the “scriptures” in Paul (cause or justification). I see this mistake is corrected in your new version of the four points. Fine. But refusing to discuss with the excuse that the other doesn’t understand you is a bad practice.

(..)
But here again are the four points that you should immediately notice about that particular sentence in 1-Corinthians (and see also the footnote quoting the words of Galatians-1) -
1. Paul does not even mention any crucifixion there.
2. He says it was something he "received" ... and that this can only mean "received from God", because elsewhere he insists repeatedly that he learnt this "from no man", and "nor was I taught it by anyone", but instead "God was pleased to reveal his son in me".
3. He specifically says that "Christ died ... according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures". So he certainly did believe that the death that he (Paul) described for Jesus, was indeed written in the scriptures.
4. He does not, in fact, even mention the name Jesus! He just says that this was the "Christ" ... where the word "Christ" is simply a Greek translation of the much older Hebrew OT word "messiah", meaning anointed by God as a special leader or saviour of the Jewish people. It's not even necessarily any individual named Jesus!

Points 1 and 4 are simply false. Paul affirms the Jesus the Messiah was crucified in several passages, 1 Corintians 1 y 2 included. “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified”, “None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Corintians 2)
The name “Jesus the messiah” (Jesus Christos) is mentioned 10 times in 1 Corintians 1. CraigB has provided a more extensive list here: #2804. But you affirm that Paul take the name of “Jesus” from the prophet Zachariah. This is contradictory.

Point 2: Paul is speaking in Galatians about his differences with the leaders of Jerusalem. In 1 Corintians he is speaking about the “fact” of Resurrection. They are different contexts. “I have not received my gospel from the men” is understandable only in the Galatians context. By mere logic we can conclude that in 1 Corintians he has received the information about Resurrection from the witnesses. (Alleged witnesses, it is clear).

Point 3: Nobody dispute this. All the evangelists intend to give support to your leader as someone who was predicted by the OT (and by John the Baptist). This says anything about the question of the Jesus’ existence.

(..)
4. And finally, as Carrier points out in “OHJ“(a 2015 up-to-date peer reviewed book), and as I was insistently asked by GDon to explain and justify - the OT “book of Zechariah” circa 520 BC, does indeed (as Carrier had said) contain a passage in which the prophet Zechariah names a figure called “Jesus”, appearing to say that God had revealed this particular figure to be a pre-existent celestial being who was actually the son of God in the heavens. And further, as Carrier pointed out, and as I had not noticed until reading what Carrier explained about that in the book, Philo had apparently written a document saying that was indeed his own (i.e. Philo’s) interpretation of that particular passage in Zechariah, so that from around the same time as Paul or slightly before, Philo was also writing to say that Jesus was already foretold as the “Word” in that same passage in Zechariah.
Now if that is all true, i.e. if Philo did write around the time of Paul (and certainly he was supposed to have been writing before our first extant copy of Paul’s letters in P46 circa 200AD), saying that the figure named in Zechariah as “Jesus”, was indeed the “Word” i.e. the pre-existent celestial Son of Yahweh called the "Logos", then that would be a very obvious explanation of where Paul might very easily have got the name “Jesus” when Paul writes to say his beliefs about Jesus were “according to scripture”.

(..)
1 - did Paul invent the Jesus belief from thin air? Answer No! He got it from what he believed was coded messiah prophecy in scripture.

Zechariah doesn’t say anything about the divine pre-existence of Jesus in this passage. This Jesus is a simple mortal selected by God to raise (metaphorically?) the Temple, if I remember well. It would be useful to know more precisely the quotation of Philo. Otherwise we are disputing into the vacuum. Anyway, Philo was a very complex Neoplatonist philosopher. He took to the extreme the allegorical method. There is not any hint that Paul knew Philo nor was be able to understand him. As you say correctly Paul’s Greek culture seems very superficial. See below.

(..)
(…) he would in any case have very little time to have been sitting around in libraries or churches (…) would more likely have been translations (and mistranslations) rendered as the Greek Septuagint.

I repeat: we need the quotation of Philo (by Carrier, at least).

(..)
1. Afaik, there is actually no clear evidence that Paul really existed. And dejudge for one will tell you that he probably did not exist.

What!
I don’t know what are discussing here if you think that Paul didn’t actually exist!
It seems you have a lot of time to spare.

 

[David Mo]

Your capacity of insult seems to be limited by your incapacity of making some argument. You ought to practice in order to achieve some coherent argument. (Take care with your dog. This hysterical laughing doesn't seem normal).

Your screams doesn't seem questions at all, but I will select the more similar to a question: "Is this what you want to prove.... that Jesus, the mere nothing of a man, did change the course of human kind?"

No, I don't think so. The "change of the course of human kind", so to speak, was deed by the emperor Constantine, on the basis of the pauline version of Christianity and the apologists of the end of the second century. I very much doubt that this stuff had anything to do with some obscure religious leader called Jesus.

 

[Mcreal]

I think it's Carrier who is the "mess". Hence his unseemly vituperation.

Complaining about style is a prejudice fallacy.

 

[Craig B]

Complaining about style is a prejudice fallacy.

Complaining about vituperation is a substantive and valid criticism.

 

[Mcreal]

Complaining about vituperation is a substantive and valid criticism.

as is

... just making up [something] 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 (eg. hyper-defining messiah so messianism didn’t exist before Christianity; hyper-defining resurrection so resurrection didn’t exist outside Judaism; and so on).

Dealing with obfuscation - via equivocation, disingenuous commentary, & failure to acknowledge reasonable points - tends to be frustrating.

 

[IanS]

As far as I can see, the three posts prior to that one of mine were by Mcreal, Leumas and dejudge. I have no idea if you are a mythicist. I said, and do now say, that those who think Paul invented Jesus from OT texts are Mythicists, though it may be that the converse is not true.

So you are the best judge of what you believe as regards these things, and also of whether you are a mythicist or not. It makes no difference to my observation one way or another.

So you're telling me that you're neither a mythicist not a historicist. That's fine.

You are replying to yourself! You just said that you yourself had told yourself that you are neither a mythicist not a historicist.

 

[Belz...]

Would you mind making an argument instead?

 

[Belz...]

or

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

Perhaps you'd be right if the Merry Men or the Knights of the Round Table were actual historical groups of people who still existed today.

 

[Craig B]

You are replying to yourself! You just said that you yourself had told yourself that you are neither a mythicist not a historicist.

And you are playing games.