My review of Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus"

[maryhelena]

What says the academic author of your article is important only in order to know the real intentions for Euhemerus behind his invention ex novo of a historical Zeus, Uranus, etc: and these intentions were clear, according to the article's author: to prove that true deity is only celestial (by "proving" that Zeus was not celestial).
Carrier is right when saying all this about Euhemerus's goals is not rilevant to his definition of euhemerization about what DID Euhemerus DE FACTO: to invent a not-life on terra firma for a previous-only-celestial Jesus.

But if you dishonestly define any euhemerist as STRICTU SENSU any people that invented historical gods only to prove their basic no-divinity, then you are using an apologetic tactic in hyper-defining words so to criticize Carrier (because clearly the first evangelist, by humanizing Jesus, didn't want reject his previous deity, as instead would do Euhemerus in his place).
But I hope you are not apologist

Oh dear.....I've been an ahistoricist/mythicist/atheist for over 30 years - have no intention of changing sides.....haha very funny.....

As for Nickolas Roubekas:

Dr Nickolas Roubekas:

Biography

I studied Theology, Religious Studies, and Social Anthropology of Religion at the Universities of Athens, Thessaloniki, Aarhus, and Aberdeen. In 2011 I received my Ph.D. in Religious Studies (Specialization: Graeco-Roman Religions and Christian Origins) with a thesis on Euhemerus of Messene and his theory of religion known as euhemerism. Ever since, I am always returning to Euhemerus in an attempt to further examine his work not simply in its historical context but (mainly) in the way it has been used in subsequent periods.

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/sdhp/people/profiles/n.roubekas

This scholar has spend years studying Euhemerus - and, as he says, continues to return to the study of Euhemerus i.e. it is big interest of his. How much time and effort has Richard Carrier put into the study of Euhemerus?

[Giuseppe]

I'm sure that Richard is frankly ignorant about the INTENTIONS of mr Euhemerus (without any desire to put a remedy to it) but that he knows a lot about what opinion Plutarch had about Euhemerus: that he was a LIAR by inventing human gods just like the Egyptian priests were liars by inventing a human Osiris. And for the case of Jesus, it's more important the Euhemerus as "read" by Plutarch than what meant in his mind the historical Euhemerus.

[maryhelena]

I'm sure that Richard is frankly ignorant about the INTENTIONS of mr Euhemerus (without any desire to put a remedy to it) but that he knows a lot about what opinion Plutarch had about Euhemerus: that he was a LIAR by inventing human gods just like the Egyptian priests were liars by inventing a human Osiris. And for the case of Jesus, it's more important the Euhemerus as "read" by Plutarch than what meant in his mind the historical Euhemerus.

Richard Carrier has made a mistake - deal with it....he is like everyone else you know - he does have feet of clay.....

[MrMacSon]

Whether Euhemerus did it deliberately or inadvertently is beside the point. I agree with Giuseppe: what Euhemrus did is what is named after him -

No, he isn't saying [any]thing in contradiction with Roubekas.

... I find useful this distinction by Dr Carrier between what Euhemerus DID and what was his GOAL (and hence, his PRODUCT) by inventing a euhemerized Uranus, Zeus, etc. Euhemerus became famous in Antiquity because of what he DID, not WHY he did.

Euhemerism/Euhemeriation is essentially anthropomorphism of celestial beings that previously 'existed' in narratives or as legends.

The end result is narratives about a deified man-god.

Except that Euhemerus, and those who are usually named as "euhemerists", were also called 'atheists', because they denied the existence of the Greek and Roman gods.

Euhemerus being called an 'atheist' is besides the point (unless it was because he portrayed those gods as men).

MrMacSon, if you believe that Euhemerism has as an end result 'narratives about a deified man-god', can you provide me with an example of such, that is recognized as Euhemerism (outside of Carrier of course)?

The term I used - 'deified man-god' - is tautology.

Regardless, Euhemerism results in a god - previously known as a god per se - being narrated as having or having had a human dimension.

One example is Serapis -

"Serapis was an anthropomorphic god created by the Greek pharaoh Ptolemy I. Ptolemy I chose Serapis to be the official god of Egypt and Greece. He hoped a common religious base would unify the two peoples and ease tension in the country. Serapis' attributes were both Egyptian and Hellenistic. Serapis became very popular and his cult quickly spread from its center in Alexandria."

http://www.egyptianmyths.net/serapis.htm

"Simply put, Serapis (Sarapis, Zaparrus) was an invented god. He was a composite of several Egyptian and Hellenistic deities who was introduced to the world at the beginning of the Ptolemaic (Greek) Period in Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy I, though his legacy lasted well into the Roman period. Thus, he was meant to form a bridge between the Greek and Egyptian religion in a new age in which their respective gods were bought face to face with each other, so that both Egyptians and Greeks could find union in a specific supreme entity."

Read more: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/serapis.

Serapis (Σέραπις, Attic/Ionian Greek) or Sarapis (Σάραπις, Doric Greek) is a Graeco-Egyptian god. Cult of Serapis was introduced during the 3rd century BC on the orders of Ptolemy I of Egypt as a means to unify the Greeks and Egyptians in his realm. The god was depicted as Greek in appearance, but with Egyptian trappings, and combined iconography from a great many cults, signifying both abundance and resurrection ... The cultus of Serapis was spread as a matter of deliberate policy by the Ptolemaic kings, who also built an immense Serapeum in Alexandria.

And, Serapis had a very human 'Jesus-like' form. Serapis existed in the eastern Mediterranean from 300BC until the late 4th C AD/CE

[GakuseiDon]

But if you dishonestly define any euhemerist as STRICTU SENSU any people that invented historical gods only to prove their basic no-divinity, then you are using an apologetic tactic in hyper-defining words so to criticize Carrier (because clearly the first evangelist, by humanizing Jesus, didn't want reject his previous deity, as instead would do Euhemerus in his place).
But I hope you are not apologist

Richard Carrier also calls it 'hyper-defining'. Here is part of his response to me on his blog: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/8161

• 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...

Here is Dr Robert M Price, in Deconstructing Jesus, page 250 (my bolding):

• [Paul Veyne] describes how thinkers of Greek and Roman antiquity, including Diodorus, Cicero, Livy, Pausanias, and Strabo, approached mythic figures such as Theseus, Herakles, Odysseus, Minos, Dinoysus, Castor, and Pollux: They readily dismissed the supernatural tales of their heroes' divine paternity and miraculous feats but doggedly assumed there must have been a historical core that had been subsequently mythologized. Their task as historians was to distill the history from the myth and to place the great figures where they must have occurred on the historical time-chart... The whole approach earned the name of Euhemerism, from Euhemerus who originated it. The idea was to assume that all ancient gods were glorified ancestors or historical culture heroes. Though no mundane, "secular" information about them survived, it had to be assumed that a genuine historical figure lay at the roots of the myths.

See how Price notes that the ancient writers "readily dismissed the supernatural tales of their heroes' divine paternity and miraculous feats". That certainly doesn't describe the Gospels as the end product of euhemerizing.

And here is David Fitzgerald, mythicist (my bolding): http://www.nazarethmyth.info/Fitzgerald2010HM.pdf

• Most people have never heard of the Greek mythographer Euhemerus; and so many might be surprised to find that they are Euhemerists on the subject of Jesus. That is to say, though they may not believe Jesus was the divine Christ that Christianity venerates as the Son of God and savior of the world, and may regard accounts of the miracles and wonders attending him as mere legendary accretion; nevertheless they certainly believe there had to have been a central figure that began Christianity. Perhaps he was just a wandering teacher, or an exorcist, an apocalyptic prophet or a zealot who opposed the Romans.

Again, Fitzgerald notes that the end product of Euhemerism is just a man, perhaps a wandering teacher. But if you take Carrier's definition, the Gospels are the end product.

Even Acharya S gets the definition right!: http://freethoughtnation.com/rabbi-did- ... lly-exist/

• ... as concerns [Rabbi] Singer’s description of mythicists, in reality there are not two camps of mythicists, one which opines Christ is a myth through and through, and one that believes there’s “some guy” at the core of the story, to whose mundane biography were added fabulous fairytales. This latter camp is, in fact, called “euhemerist” or “evemerist,” not mythicist...
  
  Despite his protestations against other “very biased” scholars’ conclusion without any real evidence that Jesus existed, [Rabbi] Singer claims again that no one can know what really happened but it is likely that such a person did exist. Hence, the rabbi is an evemerist, but he believes in this way only because there were plenty of apocalyptic preachers in the Levant during Jesus’s alleged era.

Think also that Second Century apologists invoked the name of Euhemerus to show that the pagan gods were only men -- see my examples in my earlier post. It wouldn't make much sense to have them claim "Your celestial gods are really men who ascended to heaven as gods". No, their claims were that the pagan gods weren't gods at all, merely men.

I'll make this my last post on the topic of Euhemerism here, so you can have the last word on that topic, Giuseppe.

[MrMacSon]

Euhemerus was writing about the origin of the Olympian gods. Sure, one can argue that the Olympian gods were just legends; legends without any historicity. However, the point Euhemerus was making still stands - the Olympian gods were products of human projection i.e. it was humans that put the Olympian gods in 'heaven' - theses Olympian gods did not originate in 'heaven'. Their origin was earthly; either history or human projection, human imagination. Euhemerus maintained the truly divine gods were natural elements.

Yes, " the Olympian gods were just legends; legends without any historicity."

Where they were portrayed to have originated in besides the point, with respect to Euhemerization/Euhemerism.

• (In fact, focusing on their narrated origin is a genetic fallacy)

The point is: euhemerization is where legendary or mythical gods are given a human dimension.

• ie. such legendary or mythical gods are anthropomorphized

.

[MrMacSon]

Think also that Second Century apologists invoked the name of Euhemerus to show that the pagan gods were only men -- see my examples in my earlier post. It wouldn't make much sense to have them claim "Your celestial gods are really men who ascended to heaven as gods". No, their claims were that the pagan gods weren't gods at all, merely men.

An answer is here -

"For a long period, scholars have seen the early Christian utilization of euhemerism as a means of convincing the heathens of their religions fallacies and, hence, convert them to the "true" religion ... those early Christian texts were most likely read within the faith, that is, within the church, addressing issues pertaining to a new identity formation cultivated by the early Christians who saw themselves as a "third race", following those of the Jews and the Greeks/Romans1"

http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=207716&p=32 p. 34 (top left column)

1 'Introduction: Apologetics in the Roman World'. In Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians, 1999; edited by Mark Edwards, Martin Goodman, and Simon Price, pp 1-13. Oxford University Press.

[Giuseppe]

Thanks, gDon, for giving me a "last word" but I don't want only reiterate my points above, but I would like only to point out that Euhemerization, for Richard Carrier, already from his title, is to do what Euhemerus DID, a definition that is different from the your claim that Euhemization is to do PRECISELY what Euhemerus DID and also WHY he did (the product being by need a mere effect of his goal).

According to Roubekas, the same II CE Christian Apologists misunderstood partially what Euhemerus meant but so too already Plutarch has misunderstood Euhemerus (by suspecting him of "atheism") therefore if they had a wrong conception about Euhemerus' s goals, why then we have to criticize Richard Carrier in 2015 only because he rightly finds no important to decide what were precisely goal and product of Euhemerus ?

The only Euhemerus very useful for Carrier is the Euhemerus as seen by Plutarch (and Plutarch saw him as a liar) basically for three reasons:
1) because Euhemerus WAS definitely a liar
2) because the "Plutarchized" Euhemerus is temporally more near to the time of the presumed Jesus called Christ than the historical Euhemerus
3) because Plutarch says (and likes) that Egyptian PRIESTS (hence: no atheists nor rationalists a la historical Euhemerus) euhemerized the celestial Osiris by inventing the human pharaon Osiris.

What Acharya wrote about evemerists is no in contradiction with the use of Richard.
According to Acharya, a evemerist :
1) deals with a celestial god from religious traditions,
2) and assumes without no evidence a historical mere man at origin of that myth (this I call *invention*).

What gDon objects is only the apparent show of rationalism by evemerists: the originating man is only a man, not a god.
Sorry for his conception, but the priests of Osiris had invented a human Osiris but not with the intention of reducing him to a mere man forever (or if so, only apparently, as allegory for the true celestial Osiris). The logical error of gDon's definition of evemerism is that he doesn't call these priests of Osiris as "evemerists" and this would irrational in my view.

[maryhelena]

Euhemerus was writing about the origin of the Olympian gods. Sure, one can argue that the Olympian gods were just legends; legends without any historicity. However, the point Euhemerus was making still stands - the Olympian gods were products of human projection i.e. it was humans that put the Olympian gods in 'heaven' - theses Olympian gods did not originate in 'heaven'. Their origin was earthly; either history or human projection, human imagination. Euhemerus maintained the truly divine gods were natural elements.

Yes, " the Olympian gods were just legends; legends without any historicity."

Where they were portrayed to have originated in besides the point, with respect to Euhemerization/Euhemerism.

Your mistaken - that is the whole point of Euhemerus - the origin of the Olympian gods was earthly - whether you want to say that origin was legend or history. The theory of Euhemerus regarding the Olympian gods is that their origin was earthly.

That is the direct opposite to what is the theory of Carrier. Carrier maintains that his Christ figure was of celestial origin prior to being historicized as the gospel JC. That is not euhemerism.

Carrier should have just stuck with 'historicized' for his mythicist theory. By turning to Euhemerus for support for his celestial christ morphing into a mythological gospel godman - he runs up against Euhemerus scholarship - scholarship that does not support what Carrier says it does. i.e. Carrier is misrepresenting Euhemerus scholarship - that is a big deal.

[MrMacSon]

Your mistaken

No, I'm not.

- that is the whole point of Euhemerus - the origin of the Olympian gods was earthly - whether you want to say that origin was legend or history. The theory of Euhemerus regarding the Olympian gods is that their origin was earthly.

Yes, Euhemerus portrayed them as 'earthy' (for want of a better term).

But, previously, prior to Euhemerus, they were not portrayed as earthy.

That is the direct opposite to what is the theory of Carrier. Carrier maintains that his Christ figure was of celestial origin prior to being historicized as the gospel JC ...

That is euhermism (aka euhemerization) -

• "being historicized as the gospel JC" = euhemerization