For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[Mcreal]

... Paul himself ascribes "flesh" to Jesus.

There is a view that the Pauline texts represent one pre-Christian sect, and the synoptic gospels represent at least one other sect, and the Pauline texts were edited to align them with the eventual unified 'orthodox' theology.

If you are saying that "fleshing" Jesus is the same thing as asserting him to have been "a human on Earth" I entirely agree, as I have already said.

Essentially, though it was a retrospective assertion. The assertion Jesus had been a 'human on earth' was being done quite a long time after the early 1st century. Irenaeus's writings in his Against Heresies shows that there was a still lot of angst over the nature of Jesus n the 2nd century, as do the first few Ecumenical councils in the 4th century.

 

[Craig B]

You don't understand the concepts of the Christian god?

I see you prudently omitted the expression

either all his life, or for the 2-3 yrs that he is supposed to have been active; which of those is not fully clear​

which was in the original passage that inspired my comment.

No, but Christians have used the concept of other, non-Christian gods having said to have been deified humans (because they had been euhemerized as such) to belittle all those other gods (and to trumpet their own god, Jesus Christ, as being different; born of a special woman, etc.).

Christians have used all manner of things, but Euhemerist explanations of the origin of gods were circulating long before the advent of their religion.

It is interesting that as Jesus becomes more exalted, the time of onset of his supposed condition of supernatural singularity is progressively retrojected by the Christian sources. To Paul, it occurs with his death and resurrection; to Mark with his baptism by John. Neither of these sources therefore need birth stories, and they are absent. The later Synoptics make him special from conception and birth, so they duly supply miraculous renditions of these events - different and irreconcilable ones. But other sources in these same Gospels provide us with genealogies, which contradict the birth stories and contradict each other.

gJohn makes Jesus very superhuman indeed, so he retrojects Jesus' supernaturality so far that he has him helping God out with the Creation. Thus John needs no birth story either. He not only omits any, but seems even explicitly to deny the Bethlehem accounts.

Now this progressive apotheosis looks like a really good candidate for Euhemerist interpretations. We see holier things being progressively added, and the period of Jesus' ordinary human life being progressively truncated, and finally completely eclipsed.

It is only too easy to understand, therefore, why Christian apologists would have attempted to show that rival divinities were appropriate subjects for the same treatment.

 

[GDon]

Most of that is right, but you are doing what vridar has noted you are doing: You are using Price to generalize to imply what all euhemerists do or have done, or to imply what all ancient euhemerists did. Such generalization is fallacy. It's also the division fallacy (attributing qualities or characteristics of the whole to some or all of the parts of the whole).

No, I'm not doing that at all. I'm not saying ancient people had one belief about religion. I'm saying we can get a view of what they thought from the ancient writings, and then test whether a theory (for example, Dr Carrier's) is consistent with those writings.

Either the theory is consistent with one or more ancient beliefs, or it is not consistent. We can test that by comparing it with what we find in ancient writings. That is true regardless of whether the ancients had one unified belief or many different beliefs. (They obviously had many different beliefs)

I actually explained this on the previous page of this thread here.

May I suggest that you read my comments rather than vridar's interpretation of my comments? That would be helpful in moving the conversation forward. If there is anything unclear in my comments, I'm happy to explain. But it's a waste of time trying to defend comments that I haven't actually made.

As far as you claiming "gloried god-men" is an oxymoron, do you not think the "glorified god-man" concept does not apply to the Christian god?

It's an oxymoron from a euhemerist perspective. Perhaps "contradiction" might be a better word. That is, the claim that stories about the gods were actually stories about godmen on earth is not euhemerism. It is: the stories about the gods were actually stories about glorified men.

 

[Mcreal]

It is interesting that as Jesus becomes more exalted, the time of onset of his supposed condition of supernatural singularity is progressively retrojected by the Christian sources. To Paul, it occurs with his death and resurrection; to Mark with his baptism by John. Neither of these sources therefore need birth stories, and they are absent. The later Synoptics make him special from conception and birth, so they duly supply miraculous renditions of these events - different and irreconcilable ones. But other sources in these same Gospels provide us with genealogies, which contradict the birth stories and contradict each other.

gJohn makes Jesus very superhuman indeed, so he retrojects Jesus' supernaturality so far that he has him helping God out with the Creation. Thus John needs no birth story either. He not only omits any, but seems even explicitly to deny the Bethlehem accounts.

Now this progressive apotheosis looks like a really good candidate for Euhemerist interpretations.

I don't see most of what you have outlined there as progressive apotheosis: I see it as progressive euhemerism i.e. as you say, Paul is mostly about his death and resurrection; Mark focuses on the baptism. The later synoptics make him a special human from conception and birth to a woman and, as you say, they provide us with genealogies, albeit contradicting each other and concepts provided by other passages or pericopes.

i see what you have outlined as 'fleshing out' a human Jesus i.e. euhemerizing him.

gJohn is more docetic or Gnostic, almost like a pre-Christian or a very non-orthodox pseudepigraphic text.


Yes,

It is only too easy to understand, therefore, why Christian apologists would have attempted to show that rival divinities were appropriate subjects for the same treatment.

but, rather than seeing "the period of Jesus' ordinary human life being progressively truncated", I see it as being developed i.e. progressed.

 

[Mcreal]

I'm saying we can get a view of what they thought from the ancient writings, and then test whether a theory (for example, Dr Carrier's) is consistent with those writings.

Which is a pointless exercise, especially when you make sweeping statements.

Either the theory is consistent with one or more ancient beliefs, or it is not consistent.

so what?

We can test that by comparing it with what we find in ancient writings.

So what?

May I suggest that you read my comments rather than vridar's interpretation of my comments?

I generally do. But I got suckered at least once by you strawman-misrepresenting Carrier, so I am now very wary of what you write.

You seem to be persistently misrepresenting euhemerism too, and muddying issues around it.

 

[vridar]

The very people who argue that Jesus was only heavenly also argue that there are interpolations in letters considered genuine which means that they are really arguing that existing letters are not from Paul but are forgeries or false attribution.

I have no idea who those people are. The only arguments for forgeries that I have seen are those argued on the basis of multiple criteria by scholars who have never broached the subject of mythicism as far as I know.

(One exception, Price -- but he is essentially repeating arguments of others who worked before him and who had nothing to do with the mythicist debate as far as I know.)

 

[vridar]

May I suggest that you read my comments rather than vridar's interpretation of my comments?

How have I misinterpreted your comments? You have not explained that to me. In fact I am left with the impression that you simply ignore my comments that are attempting to point out the invalidity of your argument and that you are merely find other ways to repeat your own point instead.

How do you interpret my objection to your argument? Are you able to express my objection to your argument in your own words? I am not sure you have really taken on board or tried to grasp what I am objecting to in your argument. You certainly have not addressed the objections I have raised.

 

[GDon]

I'm saying we can get a view of what they thought from the ancient writings, and then test whether a theory (for example, Dr Carrier's) is consistent with those writings.

Which is a pointless exercise, especially when you make sweeping statements.

IMHO: It is a critical exercise, especially when the claim is that the theory is consistent with ancient thought. But I'm happy to agree to disagree on this point.

I generally do. But I got suckered at least once by you strawman-misrepresenting Carrier, so I am now very wary of what you write.

And being wary of what I write is a good thing, for both of us. All I ask is that you be wary of what others write about what I am claiming. Best to actually quote me, to be on the safe side.

 

[Mcreal]

IMHO: It is a critical exercise, especially when the claim is that the theory is consistent with ancient thought.

What theory are you referring to here?

I don't think the claim is that Euhermism is consistent with [all] ancient thought. You seem to be moving the goalposts, or to be being slippery.

Best to actually quote me, to be on the safe side.

I've tried to do that. I haven't found it safe. Good day.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

No, but Christians have used the concept of other, non-Christian gods having said to have been deified humans (because they had been euhemerized as such) to belittle all those other gods (and to trumpet their own god, Jesus Christ, as being different; born of a special woman, etc.).

I would also add that early Xians (e.g., Justin Martyr, Augustine, etc) were quite ok with the idea of normal people having superpowers and performing miracles just like Jesus. Their explanation was just that Satan did it to confuse people.

In fact, they were quite happy to accept mythical figures of the pagans as people with superpowers.

What I'm saying is that euhemerism doesn't have to be to an ORDINARY mundane person. It could just as well be to a human with superpowers just like Jesus.

In fact, it seems to me like the debate over the exact meaning of euhemerism is a bit of an unnecessary detour anyway. Regardless of whether reifying a god or demigod or prophet or other mythical saviour is strictly speaking euhemerism, it's amply documented to have happened from the ancient world to WW2 cargo cults.

If one must have euhemerism mean strictly reifying to an ordinary human, fine, let's call reifying to a god/demigod/hero on Earth "omgwtfbbqitsalivinggod-ifying" if it makes someone feel any better. The fact remains that it happened. A lot. Over a period of time spanning about 5000 years that we have written history of. No matter what we call it.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

IMHO: It is a critical exercise, especially when the claim is that the theory is consistent with ancient thought. But I'm happy to agree to disagree on this point.

But again, consistent with ancient thought doesn't mean consistent with ALL ancient documents. The latter isn't even possible, because they're all over the place. Especially when you have a major event like the destruction of the second temple in between Paul and some later authors in the Bible, resulting in the latter ones to scramble to interpret that as still counting as fulfilled by/in Jesus, whereas Paul doesn't even have the foggiest idea that that would happen.

And you see that in Hebrews too, since we're talking about Hebrews. In Hebrews, Jesus is a sacrifice in a heavenly temple instead of the destroyed earthly one, whereas Paul doesn't seem to have even heard that Jesus is a sacrificial lamb kinda thing at all. Even when he would have had the opportunity, the idea never seems to occur to him to use Jesus as a sacrificial lamb to God.

The only common theme that Carrier finds is that by Hebrews time it's still in heavens.

Essentially if one guy says that the hypothetical hero Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov died in a commercial plane crash, while another guy says they saw him die in when the Afghans shot down the military helicopter he was in, you can't be consistent with BOTH in all details. Sometimes you have to just go with it having been some kind of air accident.

 

[Craig B]

What I'm saying is that euhemerism doesn't have to be to an ORDINARY mundane person. It could just as well be to a human with superpowers just like Jesus.

In fact, it seems to me like the debate over the exact meaning of euhemerism is a bit of an unnecessary detour anyway. Regardless of whether reifying a god or demigod or prophet or other mythical saviour is strictly speaking euhemerism, it's amply documented to have happened from the ancient world to WW2 cargo cults.

If one must have euhemerism mean strictly reifying to an ordinary human, fine, let's call reifying to a god/demigod/hero on Earth "omgwtfbbqitsalivinggod-ifying" if it makes someone feel any better. The fact remains that it happened. A lot. Over a period of time spanning about 5000 years that we have written history of. No matter what we call it.

I think all this is a wrong definition or understanding of the purpose and nature of the theory in question. It is reasonably clear that Euhemerus didn't believe in gods as such.

 

[vridar]

Also, any thoughts you might have on my arguments against Carrier regarding the Ascension of Isaiah would be greatly appreciated.

Why would I bother to do that? In what is surely a cut and dried approach to accepting the "riotous diversity" of ancient thought as expressed in the "riotous diversity" of our extant texts you simply ignore my critiques and do nothing more than repeat your own argument in "a riotous diversity" of ways ... but always the same argument with complete obliviousness to the critique against it.

Deja vu!

 

[dejudge]

I have no idea who those people are. The only arguments for forgeries that I have seen are those argued on the basis of multiple criteria by scholars who have never broached the subject of mythicism as far as I know.

(One exception, Price -- but he is essentially repeating arguments of others who worked before him and who had nothing to do with the mythicist debate as far as I know.)

Do not Carrier and Doherty argue that passages in letters under the name of Paul were not written by the supposed named author?

It must be that the letters which contain passages which were not written by the supposed author are forgeries?

The letters under the name of Paul are neither early nor do they support an heavenly only or human only Jesus.

The letters under the name of Paul support the fabricated 2nd-3rd century figure called Jesus--the Lord from heaven--God Creator---God's own son without a human father--the Logos [the water walking transfiguring son of a Ghost.

It makes no sense to invent an heavenly only or human only Jesus which is completely uncorroborated by Christian writers of antiquity.

Those who Canonised the letters under the name of Paul openly admitted or stated that their Jesus was God of God and of the same substance as and fathered by a Ghost.

Jesus was always non-contemporary fiction--a 2nd century or later water walking/transfiguring/resurrecting Ghost/God/Man.

 

[Mcreal]

What I'm saying is that euhemerism doesn't have to be to an ORDINARY mundane person. It could just as well be to a human with superpowers just like Jesus.

In fact, it seems to me like the debate over the exact meaning of euhemerism is a bit of an unnecessary detour anyway. Regardless of whether reifying a god (or demigod, or prophet, or other mythical saviour) is strictly speaking euhemerism, it's amply documented to have happened from the ancient world to WW2 cargo cults.

If one must have euhemerism mean strictly reifying to an ordinary human, fine, let's call reifying to a god/demigod/hero on Earth "omgwtfbbqitsalivinggod-ifying" if it makes someone feel any better.

The fact remains that it happened. A lot. Over a period of time spanning about 5000 years that we have written history of. No matter what we call it.

Yes, reifying; or hypostatizing. Also anthropomorphism.

I think all this is a wrong definition or understanding of the purpose and nature of the theory in question.

There is no theory in question. Other than by those who either don't understand the application of the process or the process itself, or don't want it applied as a theory about how a human Jesus of the NT may have come to be described.

It is reasonably clear that Euhemerus didn't believe in gods as such.

Whether he did or not is beside the point. We are talking about process that is described by an eponym based on his name.

 

[Mcreal]

Do not Carrier and Doherty argue that passages in letters under the name of Paul were not written by the supposed named author?

I think that is the view of Robert Price, at least (I don't know the Carrier or Doherty views on Paul or the texts attributed to him). I think Price thinks the Pauline texts have someting to do with Marcion (and at least one of his contemporaries).

The letters under the name of Paul are neither early nor do they support a heavenly-only or human-only Jesus.

The letters under the name of Paul support the fabricated 2nd-3rd century figure called Jesus --the Lord from heaven --God Creator --God's own son without a human father --the Logos [the water-walking transfiguring son of a Ghost].

It makes no sense to invent a heavenly-only or human-only Jesus which is completely uncorroborated by Christian writers of antiquity.

Those who canonised the letters under the name of Paul openly admitted or stated that their Jesus was God of God and of the same substance as and fathered by a Ghost.

Jesus was always non-contemporary fiction --a 2nd century or later water-walking/transfiguring/resurrecting God/Man.

 

[Craig B]

Yes, reifying; or hypostatizing. Also anthropomorphism.

There is no theory in question. Other than by those who either don't understand the application of the process or the process itself, or don't want it applied as a theory about how a human Jesus of the NT may have come to be described.

Whether he did or not is beside the point. We are talking about process that is described by an eponym based on his name.

This is all complete nonsense from start to finish. Euhemerus proposed a theory about the origin of gods. It is evidently not true in all cases; in particular it seems most improbable in the best-known example in which he applied it - Zeus.

But the fact that we call this theory by his name is utterly irrelevant.

As to not wanting it applied to Jesus; that is quite the opposite of the case. I find Euhemerus' theory much more plausible as an explanation of the God Jesus than of the God Zeus.

Take one of the versions of the Cargo Cult. We have John Frum, effectively a Melanesian divinity now. Is he the result of Euhemerisation of some 1940s US serviceman? The evidence is not there, and it ought to be there in the surviving records of the US Army.

But his alleged father, in one version: Roosefel, King of America. Is this venerated being the result of the Euhemerisation of an existing person? I think we may respond in the affirmative, even though that person is not believed to have had a son named John Frum.

 

[Mcreal]

... in one version: Roosefel, King of America. Is this venerated being the result of the Euhemerisation of an existing person? I think we may respond in the affirmative..

This is complete nonsense. An existing person is not euhemerized. A person is proposed as a result of euhemerization (see below).

Take one of the versions of the Cargo Cult. We have John Frum, effectively a Melanesian divinity now. Is he the result of Euhemerisation of some 1940s US serviceman? The evidence is not there, and it ought to be there in the surviving records of the US Army.

John Frum was a conceived god-man: John Frum was described as being based on a non-specific serviceman 'frum' the navy, or army, or wherever; he was a created person.

Euhemerization is simply the anthropomorphization of what was previously perceived or described to have been an abstract entity: a god; or an angel, or archangel --i.e. giving them human characteristics or traits. It is a literary device.

 

[Craig B]

This is complete nonsense. An existing person is not euhemerized. A person is proposed as a result of euhemerization (see below).

See what below?

John Frum was a conceived god-man: John Frum was described as being based on a non-specific serviceman 'frum' the navy, or army, or wherever; he was a created person.

That's why Euhemerisation is probably not the process that gave rise to that character.

Euhemerisation is simply the anthropomorphization of what was previously perceived or described to have been an abstract entity: a god; or an angel, or archangel --i.e. giving them human characteristics or traits. It is a literary device.

 

[Craig B]

Euhemerization is simply the anthropomorphization of what was previously perceived or described to have been an abstract entity: a god; or an angel, or archangel --i.e. giving them human characteristics or traits. It is a literary device.

No it isn't It's a historical theory, designed to explain myths in rational terms.

Euhemerism^WP is an approach to the interpretation of mythology in which mythological accounts are presumed to have originated from real historical events or personages. Euhemerism supposes that historical accounts become myths as they are exaggerated in the retelling, accumulating elaborations and alterations that reflect cultural mores. It was named for the Greek mythographer Euhemerus, who lived in the late 4th century BC. In the more recent literature of myth, such as Bulfinch's Mythology, euhemerism is termed the "historical theory" of mythology.​