For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[Mcreal]

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.

I had wondered that; I tend to agree with you.

 

[Mcreal]

[Euhemerism]'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 ...​

Maybe an aspect of it has come to be that, but I think that wikipedia article doesn't tell the full story, or only tells about a narrow aspect of euhemerism.

I maintain that

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.​

To slightly reword what you've quoted there:

Euhemerism is where mythological accounts are perceived or described to have originated from real historical events or personages ([often] after 'accounts' of supposedly real historical events or personages have been introduced into the myth).​

 

[vridar]

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.

This is where the devil lies.

Some ancient writings placed the heavenly temple in the highest heaven.

Some ancient writings spoke of heavenly sacrifice in this heavenly temple.

The view that we get from these ancient writings is that some ancients believed in sacrifices being performed in a heavenly temple in some exalted heaven.

It is inconceivable that ancients imagined Satan (at least as the evil figure we imagine him to be) levitating up to the heavenly temple and executing a sacrifice there.

Therefore a hypothesis that requires Satan to rise to that heaven to execute the sacrifice fails.

Of course the problem with this "test" is that it demolishes nothing more than a straw man. No-one that I know of argues that Satan offers a temple sacrifice of any kind. That is, quite simply, not Carrier's argument at all.

Carrier is very clear that he believes Jesus died outside the temple and that he subsequently ascended to the heavenly temple to offer his blood there on the altar (p. 543).

Though he [=Jesus] does not die in the celestial temple, he nevertheless must carry his blood there. . . .

Now, what about the rest of those ancient writings? What else can we learn from them . . . ?

 

[vridar]

I suppose one small point has been established so far. Everyone seems to agree that ancients could readily believe that literal killing and blood-letting and sprinkling was not only possible but even done, literally, in at least one of the heavens.

 

[GDon]

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.

Of course. I've already agreed on this. I've never said that it has to be consistent with ALL ancient texts. And I've never said that ancient texts are all consistent with one another. The consistency I've been talking about is between Carrier's theory and one or more of the beliefs found in the diverse texts of the time.

I apologise if I've expressed myself badly on this. Here are three posts from this thread where I've mentioned this, the last one to you.

Post 555: (my bolding)

We need to test Dr Carrier's argument against what we know from the diverse texts of the time.​

Post 568:

I'm not trying to find unity, only consistency. Either Dr Carrier's theory is consistent with what we find in the ancient texts, or it isn't consistent. We can determine that by comparing with ancient texts.

Doesn't such an approach make sense?​

Post 574: (my bolding)

Of course. I recognise the difference. If I've ever said that something exists in ancient texts, therefore it's in the background of all ancient texts, then that is a mistake. Where vridar got that idea from, I have no idea.

But my point is about whether something is consistent with ancient texts, even if the ancient texts are all over the place. If Dr Carrier's theory is NOT consistent with ancient texts, it doesn't mean that his theory is wrong. But at least lets acknowledge that it isn't consistent.​

So let me clear on what I am saying: Dr Carrier is proposing that the people of around Paul's times had certain beliefs. We can get a picture of ancient beliefs by reading the ancient texts. We can see that there were diverse beliefs in ancient times. We can compare what Carrier is proposing against that background information. We can say whether what Carrier is proposing matches any of those beliefs.

If it doesn't match any of those beliefs, then it doesn't necessarily mean that his theory is wrong. But we should at least acknowledge that it doesn't match.

 

[vridar]

Post 555: (my bolding)

We need to test Dr Carrier's argument against what we know from the diverse texts of the time.​

That is not done by misrepresenting Carrier's argument and substituting a straw man.

Post 568:

I'm not trying to find unity, only consistency.​

Consistency among the texts rather than unity among the texts? Is that what you are suggesting you are looking for?

But what you write next seems to suggest something else now:

Either Dr Carrier's theory is consistent with what we find in the ancient texts, or it isn't consistent. We can determine that by comparing with ancient texts.

Doesn't such an approach make sense?[/indent]

And you have ignored my response to that very question that you asked of me. Remember? I answered why it does not make sense. You appear to have chosen to simply ignore my critique and repeat your own point in various ways.

Post 574: (my bolding)

Of course. I recognise the difference. If I've ever said that something exists in ancient texts, therefore it's in the background of all ancient texts, then that is a mistake. Where vridar got that idea from, I have no idea.​

Like you, I would appreciate you actually quote me and accurately present what I do say. It is too easy to play word games with very subtle shifts in implication.

But my point is about whether something is consistent with ancient texts, even if the ancient texts are all over the place. If Dr Carrier's theory is NOT consistent with ancient texts, it doesn't mean that his theory is wrong. But at least lets acknowledge that it isn't consistent.[/indent]

Do you mean "selected" ancient texts? And when you use the word "consistent" I think it would be helpful to define and illustrate exactly what you mean, because clearly other minds, Carrier's included, do see consistency where you don't.

But first you need to present an accurate presentation of Carrier's "theory". I don't think I've seen that yet.

So let me clear on what I am saying: Dr Carrier is proposing that the people of around Paul's times had certain beliefs. We can get a picture of ancient beliefs by reading the ancient texts. We can see that there were diverse beliefs in ancient times. We can compare what Carrier is proposing against that background information.

Everyone agrees with this. It's what everyone has been saying from the outset, Carrier included.

We can say whether what Carrier is proposing matches any of those beliefs.

If it doesn't match any of those beliefs, then it doesn't necessarily mean that his theory is wrong. But we should at least acknowledge that it doesn't match.

So why jump from the preceding clarity to the use of the word "matches"? "Matches" does not mean the same thing as being consistent. So what do you mean by "consistent", exactly? See above. Or explain what you now mean by "matching" beliefs.

I think being very clear and careful with the words we use is more important than saying we are clear. Avoids slipperiness. Aids with everyone knowing exactly where everyone else stands and how to proceed.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

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.

Well, what I'm saying is that it's just derailing the actual point into arguing lexicon. It's like trying to derail a discussion about a new raven species into whether it's apropriate to call their flock a murder too, or that only applies to crows. It's no doubt a valid thing to settle in another context, but evertheless, it doesn't change the fact that they exist.

Even if you don't like the use of euhemerism to mean gods, the fact is that other people DID do that with gods too, so feel free to coin another word instead then. Whether or not it's the wrong word, it happened.

And as I was saying, it happened long before Euhemerus, so in the end who the hell even cares what Euhemerus thought on the matter?

Inanna for example was literally the morning star in the sky, but then she's given not only a human form, but a LOT of activity on Earth, and interactions with a lot of people in human form, including such details as being a serial rapist.

And if you think maybe they just didn't know the shape of the planet in the sky, she's the daughter of the god Sin. Who was the MOON. Not just ruler of the moon, or living on the moon, or associated with the moon, or anything. He WAS the moon. Yeah, that's pretty big and visible up there. You can SEE it's not human shaped. But he too is given a bearded human form, a wife (Ningal="Great Lady"), parents, kids, a signature mount, etc.

That's not just before Euhemerus was even born, or before the iron age Greek civilization we know was even born, that's before any civilization at all in the area associated with Greece would be born. It's well over a millennium before even the Mycenaean civilization would appear in Greece.

Hell, even in the sense that Euhemerus used it (demoting a god to a human ancestor), you only need to look at the first 2 pages of Genesis for a literal example. Eve seems to be literally the euhemerization of the Akkadian goddess Ninti. She was the lady of life, quite literally. "Nin" was "lady" and "ti" (depending with which silent prefix you wrote the sign) meant "life" but also "rib" (and "arrow" and a few other things.) But the Akkadians loved a good pun as much as the next guy so she's also the "Lady Of The Rib" and actually made from the rib of a male god. And what do you know? Eve is made from a rib, is called the "mother of life" by the second page of Genesis, and her very name may have meant "living" originally. Does that start to sound like they euhemerized the goddess Ninti?

So, yeah, Genesis is conventionally dated around 900-something BCE, so well over half a millennium before Euhemerus was even born. Even if the term took his name, he didn't invent it.

So, as I was saying, who cares about what he was thinking? If you don't like the association with his name, just propose another term and we can go with that one.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Of course. I've already agreed on this. I've never said that it has to be consistent with ALL ancient texts. And I've never said that ancient texts are all consistent with one another. The consistency I've been talking about is between Carrier's theory and one or more of the beliefs found in the diverse texts of the time.

I know you did. At least in principle, anyway. But it seems to me like you still demand a level of consistency in practice that is IMHO impossible to achieve.

Those texts are too inconsistent with each other, and they're not the product of a consistent doctrine in the first place. Even texts included in the same Bible occasionally even argue against each other (e.g., you don't really need any deeds in Paul, but you do in James.) It's the years where they're still figuring out this Xianity thing as they go. And not just from the old scriptures. They have to deal with and react to stuff ranging from some dudes having a different understanding of the good news you just gave them, to major stuff like the destruction of the second temple. Doctrines get changed to deal with that.

They don't have a consistent view, like would be enforced some centuries later.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

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

Except for the fact that it's recent enough for us to have a pretty good idea of how cargo cults formed. In the case of 20'th century ones, we even had anthropology so we're not just limited to trying to figure out ancient texts. But even in the case of 19'th century ones based around steamer cargo ships, it's still in an age where we had mass literacy, and as close to mass communication as possible, so people were writing home about their interactions with those cults.

We KNOW that invariably it started with some shaman trying to explain where those ships (or later airplanes) come from when they appear at the horizon, and why do they bring stuff to the Europeans. And invariably the shaman communed with the great spirits, and had some visions and revelations -- because that's how shamanism WORKS -- giving him the explanation.

And the explanation was that those ships come from the land of the spirits, which is what was behind the sky dome that came down and touched the ocean at the horizon. The Earth ended there. Behind that there were the spirits.

And of course those spirits are on the natives's side. Otherwise the shaman had just one job, and failed epically. You don't tell those people that you can't get the great spirits to do favours for them, when getting that for them is literally your job description.

And they're sending that cargo to the natives, but those pesky European trick the spirits with their ports and radios and all that stuff into landing at the European ports and unloading the cargo there. Again, that's standard shamanism and the cause of endemic warfare among primitive tribes. If the shaman failed to get stuff for YOU -- even if it's the spirits sending more rabbits for your hunters or whatever else you ask -- it's not him failing. It's because the evil shaman of the tribe over there used evil magics to block or divert the gifts of the spirits. It's the STANDARD excuse of shamans all over the world.

(And, as I was saying, also the reason why between a third and two thirds of all males in such tribal civilizations die violently. Because when the guys on the other side of the valley use dark magics to keep you from getting stuff, it's time to teach them a lesson. Like go ambush and murder one of their hunters first, and escalate as needed if you still don't get free stuff.)

So it's not just that we don't have evidence that there ever was a John Frum. It's not even that John From The Army would probably give the natives a better explanation of what's with that cargo, instead of every instance of such a John Frum or Tom Navy giving the same BS theology that suspiciously exactly fits the beliefs of the natives. It's exactly that last part: we know very well how those tribal societies and their shamans work, because we had anthoropologists living with them and studying them. And it fits that model and their beliefs to the letter. And more importantly we've actually seen shamans get such visions. In at least one proto-cult's case, literally about the cargo.

There's no reason to expect that the natives would just wait a few decades until some deserter serviceman called John comes and gives them exactly the explanation that fits their mysticism. That's what they had the shaman for. That was his job. Every time the tribe on the other side of the hill gets a good hunt, but your hunters don't, or such, you go to the shaman and ask WTH is happening. And he asks the great spirits and relays their answer to you. He doesn't go look for some army guy who doesn't even speak the same language and ask why the spirits give them the cargo. He goes and asks the spirits himself.

That's his job description. He's not a reporter or scout to go investigate on Earth and ask the other guys in the European town what's happening. He's the guy who goes and asks the spirits. And invariably come up with some answer that boils down to: he's really good at the job you entrusted him with, he really got at least SOME great spirits to promise to give you stuff, or at least explain some convoluted reason about who angered the spirits. Usually some other guys. Go murder those.

And then some western witness is then added, who suspiciously confirms exactly what the shamans have been saying: yeah, we English/Americans/whatever trick the spirits with our landings strips and radios and funny uniforms, so they mistakenly land at our camp and give us the cargo that the great spirits promised to YOUR shaman. We're tricky and evil like that, see?

But there's no reason to expect that the shaman would patiently wait a couple of decades until such a European or American comes by and suspiciously confesses to exactly what the natives believe, and exactly what the shaman would say in the first place about virtually any other issue. And is invariably such a flaming asshat that he tells the natives to build mock airstrips and headphones out of coconut halves, to get the cargo, instead of something more western like "we can trade with you if you want some of that stuff."

Even if we hadn't actually seen the sequence in action, there's no reason to believe that the European or American who confirms the shaman's excuse came first.

So short version: it's first a spirit that delivers the message, as usual, and only later it's turned into some real witness saying that same message. Presumably because the latter makes it more credible. Whether the word "euhemerism" actually fits or not (the original spirit giving the message probably wasn't called John Frum, and almost certainly wasn't a spirit of the western guys), that's the sequence in which things happened. You first had a spirit delivering the message, and then it was supposedly a person all along. With an invented name, nationality, family, history on Earth, etc.

 

[Craig B]

Whether the word "euhemerism" actually fits or not (the original spirit giving the message probably wasn't called John Frum, and almost certainly wasn't a spirit of the western guys), that's the sequence in which things happened. You first had a spirit delivering the message, and then it was supposedly a person all along. With an invented name, nationality, family, history on Earth, etc.

Thank you. As I've said; I don't think that a Euhemerist approach is correct in the case of Frum.

But my main disagreement with you is more basic. I think you completely misrepresent the whole issue. I will explain in due course, with reference to another of your posts, what I mean, and why.

 

[Craig B]

And as I was saying, it happened long before Euhemerus, so in the end who the hell even cares what Euhemerus thought on the matter? ...

Hell, even in the sense that Euhemerus used it (demoting a god to a human ancestor), you only need to look at the first 2 pages of Genesis for a literal example. Eve seems to be literally the euhemerization of the Akkadian goddess Ninti.

... just propose another term and we can go with that one.

Lets keep the current term and use it rationally. We can start with this.

Euhemerism is defined in modern academic literature as the theory that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events. Euhemerus was not the first to attempt to rationalize mythology through history, as euhemeristic views are found in earlier writers, including Xenophanes, Herodotus, Hecataeus of Abdera and Ephorus. However, Euhemerus is credited as having developed the theory in application to all myths, considering mythology to be "history in disguise".​

Why is that more sensible than your usage? Because it represents euhemerism as an explanatory theory of the origin of myth. It is indeed an explanation - which doesn't mean that this explanation is always, or even mostly, right. But it has the attributes of an explanation: it starts with things or principles we know and understand, and proceeds to show how, by procedures based on reason, we can use these starting points to arrive at a satisfactory explanation of something we may not at first understand - the nature of supernatural beings and of the acts attributed to them.

I vaguely recall reading an account of a British diplomat in Persia two hundred years ago. He visited some province and was told by the locals that one of their legendary heroes had such "super power" with the bow, that he shot an arrow that flew right across the region, which then promptly submitted to him as its ruler.

The diplomat disbelieved this. He proposed instead that there had originally been a rational factual account of this hero and his band conquering the province in wars, through their skill as archers; and that the story had later become simplified and mythologised. That is an Euhemerist explanation of that myth. It may not be valid. Perhaps the hero never existed at all. But the diplomat's account is both explanatory and rational.

Your understanding of Euhemerism is neither of these. I have coined the expression "dyshemerism" to denote the opposite of euhemerism, and your post contains excellent examples of this mode of thought. Example: you speak of "the sense that Euhemerus used it (demoting a god to a human ancestor)". now that is not a "sense". It is a non-sense. I may need to invoke human ancestors to explain gods, but I do NOT need to invoke gods to explain the human activities of my human ancestors! I may explain the myths about gods by suggesting that they are "promoted" humans; but explaining accounts of human behaviour by suggesting that these are degraded myths of demoted gods, has a preposterous flavour to it.

Imagine my Persian example. The diplomat is told that in former times a band of archers conquered and subjugated their province. Does the diplomat require to "explain" that natural account by proposing that this band of warriors are in reality degraded supernatural heroes, and that rather than conquer the province by normal human powers and skills, they did it by displays of magic super archery? Would that not be obfuscation rather than explanation ... dyshemerism instead of euhemerism?

I will add a little more to this, indicating why I think it's directly relevant to the question of the historicity of Jesus.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, yeah, that's the part that I'm more interested in: how's calling it by a different name gonna change it for Jesus.

Because words only serve one purpose: to convey a meaning. And Carrier explained what he means by it. So did I.

Now there's a good argument to be made against using the wrong words, because it doesn't help getting the point across. And I'd even agree. But that's a whole different discussion.

Attacking an argument by just picking on its using a wrong (in your opinion) word or grammar, isn't actually contributing anything to the talk. It's just an irrelevant tangent. Something may become less clear if using words wrong, but it doesn't become false just because you found a misused word.

Call it dyshemerism or whatever, if you think it fits better, but let's return to addressinfg the actual point.

I may need to invoke human ancestors to explain gods, but I do NOT need to invoke gods to explain the human activities of my human ancestors! I may explain the myths about gods by suggesting that they are "promoted" humans; but explaining accounts of human behaviour by suggesting that these are degraded myths of demoted gods, has a preposterous flavour to it.​

I think I already made it clear how much of a crap I give about the argument that some actual documentable thing is unbelievable to you. Doubly so when you're not even talking about the same thing that was discussed. Just think of me as the avatar of the constipation god, really

The fact is, nobody was talking about explaining ACTUAL accounts of the ancestors and their activities. Hell, even the majority of Xians don't think that Genesis is an actual account of two actual humans called Adam and Eve and their activities in the Garden Of Eden. Seriously, about half are Catholics, and their stance is that the whole Genesis is a metaphor. It didn't actually happen. There are no real ancestors to be found in Genesis 1 and 2. Nobody is trying to explain the real history of real ancestors, by introducing gods.

What I was talking about is inventing a fictive person on Earth, that is modelled after a mythological God. It's like Thor from the Marvel movies is based on the Thor from the Norse mythology, if you will. The latter is the original god, the former is someone turning him into a mortal from another planet. (Although in the actual Norse mythology, Thor is actually born of Earth. Not just ON Earth, but Earth is the giantess that gave birth to Thor.)

And ditto for Ninti and Eve. The fact remains that Ninti is MUCH older than any notion of Eve. It's a Sumerian goddess, i.e., pre-Akkadian. The Sumerians had been completely replaced by the Akkadians by the mid 3rd MILLENNIUM BCE, and their language had become a dead liturgical language. Eve on the other hand is early 1st millennium BCE. There's more than a millennium and a half between Ninti and Eve. By the time of Eve, not only was Ninti really really ancient, but even her being supplanted (like all the other old gods) by Marduk was really really ancient history.

Nobody proposes that Ninti was made up to explain the actions of some real Eve. I don't think the ancients had a time machine. What I'm proposing is that someone made up Eve, and based her largely on the pre-existing Ninti. Kinda like the Marvel Thor is made up, based on the Norse Thor.

I'm not even sure that it doesn't fit the word "euhemerism". Someone may actually have thought that Ninti was originally an ancestress, and proceeded to put things right in Genesis. But fine, call it dyshemerism or whatever, if that's more palatable. Far be it from me to discourage expanding the jargon. Just as long as we can still have the actual discussion, instead of getting bogged in whether one argument is using the wrong word.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Now for your diplomat example... let's just say there's a difference between being rational and having no more analytical skills than just blind faith that every myth and urban legend is historical. The latter isn't rational, it's just another form of wishful thinking.

And in the end it's why we ended up needing sites like Snopes. Just believing that every legend is based on something historical is the problem, not the solution.

Anyway, if instead of a diplomat, that guy had been a mythology scholar, things would have been more nuanced, and he'd know that there are more possibilities. Most of them better than just making up an ancient historical person himself. He'd realize that he has to sift through a lot of ancient documents to figure out WTH happened there, instead of just having blind faith that assuming historicity is always right.

E.g., IF that area had a major cult an archer god or goddess before (Inanna, Artemis whatever), and said god was actually believed to be able to shoot all across the province, then there's a distinct possibility that somehow the attributes of the god were transferred to a human. Whether by just inventing a human who is a human version of the god, or for example some king actually claimed descent from that god. (Like, say, the Japanese Emperor STILL claims direct biological descent from Amaterasu, the great spirit of the Sun itself.) And later that metaphorical divine ancestor got mistaken for a real person.

Or maybe it's a human whose prowess was exaggerated by propaganda, after all. (Kinda like Rameses winning the battle all alone at Kadesh.)

But it's something you have to actually establish and support. There is nothing rational in just skipping the whole research thing and just pulling a historical guy out of the ass as an explanation.

 

[Craig B]

Well, yeah, that's the part that I'm more interested in: how's calling it by a different name gonna change it for Jesus.

Because words only serve one purpose: to convey a meaning. And Carrier explained what he means by it. So did I.

Now there's a good argument to be made against using the wrong words, because it doesn't help getting the point across. And I'd even agree. But that's a whole different discussion.

Attacking an argument by just picking on its using a wrong (in your opinion) word or grammar, isn't actually contributing anything to the talk. It's just an irrelevant tangent. Something may become less clear if using words wrong, but it doesn't become false just because you found a misused word.

Call it dyshemerism or whatever, if you think it fits better, but let's return to addressinfg the actual point.

I may need to invoke human ancestors to explain gods, but I do NOT need to invoke gods to explain the human activities of my human ancestors! I may explain the myths about gods by suggesting that they are "promoted" humans; but explaining accounts of human behaviour by suggesting that these are degraded myths of demoted gods, has a preposterous flavour to it.​

I think I already made it clear how much of a crap I give about the argument that some actual documentable thing is unbelievable to you. Doubly so when you're not even talking about the same thing that was discussed. Just think of me as the avatar of the constipation god, really

The fact is, nobody was talking about explaining ACTUAL accounts of the ancestors and their activities. Hell, even the majority of Xians don't think that Genesis is an actual account of two actual humans called Adam and Eve and their activities in the Garden Of Eden. Seriously, about half are Catholics, and their stance is that the whole Genesis is a metaphor. It didn't actually happen. There are no real ancestors to be found in Genesis 1 and 2. Nobody is trying to explain the explanation of real ancestors, by introducing gods.

What I was talking about is inventing a fictive person on Earth, that is modelled after a mythological God. It's like Thor from the Marvel movies is based on the Thor from the Norse mythology, if you will. The latter is the original god, the former is someone turning him into a mortal from another planet. (Although in the actual Norse mythology, Thor is actually born of Earth. Not just ON Earth, but Earth is the giantess that gave birth to Thor.)

And ditto for Ninti and Eve. The fact remains that Ninti is MUCH older than any notion of Eve. It's a Sumerian goddess, i.e., pre-Akkadian. The Sumerians had been completely replaced by the Akkadians by the mid 3rd MILLENNIUM BCE, and their language had become a dead liturgical language. Eve on the other hand is early 1st millennium BCE. There's more than a millennium and a half between Ninti and Eve. By the time of Eve, not only was Ninti really really ancient, but even her being supplanted (like all the other old gods) by Marduk was really really ancient history.

Nobody proposes that Ninti was made up to explain the actions of some real Eve. I don't think the ancients had a time machine. What I'm proposing is that someone made up Eve, and based her largely on the pre-existing Ninti. Kinda like the Marvel Thor is made up, based on the Norse Thor.

This has nothing to do with euhemerism, I mean stating that one supernatural being is a copy of another. Euhemerus strove to explain supernatural stories by natural means, but both Ninti and Eve are supernatural beings so the essential characteristic of euhemerism is not in play here.

I had intended in a further post, to relate my points directly to the question of the historicity of a (natural) Jesus, but in the light of your current reported bout of constipation, I think it better to spare you any further onerous tasks.

I think I already made it clear how much of a crap I give about the argument that some actual documentable thing is unbelievable to you. Doubly so when you're not even talking about the same thing that was discussed. Just think of me as the avatar of the constipation god, really​

If that's what you really want, OK.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, no, I'd actually welcome your finally getting to a point with this. Just playing grammar nazi with the use of "euhemerism" is getting old and it's irrelevant in any case.

 

[IanS]

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.

To repeat something I said in much more detail about a page back, it does not matter whether Carrier was right or wrong to call it Euhemerism. What he was pointing out is that in biblical times it was commonplace for people (especially religious fanatics) to create untrue stories, ie fiction, saying that their gods, devils, angels, demons, spirits etc., had appeared on Earth, and were witnessed by people to have done all sorts of quite detailed things.

Is he right to say that? Well Afaik; almost every "god" that has ever been dreamed-up, is a fictitious figure that was specifically said to have done all sorts of detailed physical things that directly interacted with all sorts of people & events on Earth. And that is a pure fiction - the claimed god never existed, and never had any such interactions with anyone or anything on Earth.

Carrier is saying that Jesus was dreamed-up in that same way. He started as a heavenly being, and was later the subject of fictional stories created to preach tales of how he did all sorts of amazing supernatural things with people on Earth. That's what Carrier says ... it's exactly the same way that all fictional gods have always been described.

But all of this issue about "Euhemerism" is a diversion from the essential fact that there is actually no evidence of anyone ever meeting any living Jesus. All the material claimed as evidence of Jesus is either anonymous hearsay packed with claims that have later been proved to be impossible fiction (i.e. the gospels), and/or letters where the author "Paul" (though they may all be forgeries anyway) only ever claimed to "know" Jesus as a heavenly figure of spiritual belief, and/or a tiny few extremely brief passing mentions of Christus/Crestus/"the Christ"/etc. in non-biblical writing such as Tacitus and Josephus that are in fact only known as hearsay in the words written 1000 years later by Christian copyists!

That is a million miles from what any educated objective person ought to accept as credible reliable evidence of historical fact known to any of those authors about an absent messiah.

The evidence is simply very far short of being good enough for anyone to say that it amounts to being better than a 50% probability, such as to conclude that Jesus "probably" (i.e. better than 50% likely) existed. The evidence is simply nowhere near good enough.

 

[dejudge]

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).

Doherty and Carrier do put forward or support the claim that passages in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians were not written by the supposed character called Paul.

There is simply no historical evidence to show that there was an actual person named Paul a Pharisee a Hebrew of Hebrews a contemporary of King Aretas who preached and documented his preaching about a character called the Lord from heaven--the firstborn of the dead--God Creator, God's Son before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

All stories of Jesus in Gospels and Epistles are from the 2nd century or later and people of antiquity BELIEVED the stories were true.

In addition, if the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians and Thesalonians were written by the same person then that person was alive at least AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Romans 11

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

The severity of God was believed to have fallen on the Jews when the Temple of the Jewish God was made desolate c 70 CE or later.

If there is one author who should have known about letters under the name of Paul it would have been the author of Acts.

Acts of the Apostles as the name implies supposedly is the the documented activities of the apostles.

The author of Acts wrote about a character called Paul and mention the character over a hundred times yet never ever mentioned the ACT of writing a single sentence of an Epistle by Paul.

If Acts of the Apostles was composed after c 70 CE then all the letters under the Paul were not yet fabricated.

 

[Craig B]

... it does not matter whether Carrier was right or wrong to call it Euhemerism ...

Carrier is saying that Jesus was dreamed-up ... That's what Carrier says ...

But all of this issue about "Euhemerism" is a diversion from the essential fact that ...

Given that state of affairs, whereby showing Carrier to be wrong about something is irrelevant, while "Carrier says ... " remains the final authority, further discussion of any issue involving the Great Sage seems pointless.

 

[fuelair]

You can accept a real historical jesus, but there is no useable/real/provable/proven evidence of such, just primitive tales poorly recorded, stolen from older groups and cobbled together long after the purported incidents it describes.

You can also accept a real Kali. But she isn't real either.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Given that state of affairs, whereby showing Carrier to be wrong about something is irrelevant, while "Carrier says ... " remains the final authority, further discussion of any issue involving the Great Sage seems pointless.

Because you're arguing only that (in your opinion) he's wrong about the use of one word, which is entirely orthogonal not only to his point, but even to whether the phenomenon he names that way actually happened or not. It's literally just playing grammar nazi.

So, yeah, if you want to show that he's wrong about anything that's actually matters, be my guest. But playing the "OMG, he used a word wrong at one point" game is just a waste of everyone's time.