Why Jesus was euhemerized according to J. K. Watson

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Why Jesus was euhemerized according to J. K. Watson

Post by Giuseppe »

Image


According to this author, Jesus was the ancient Pagan god Ichthus Chrestos who was fused with the Jewish pre-christian Joshua Christ (since Joshua was son of Nun = the Fish, and the his previous name was Oseah meaning "Salvation") and adored as such by Paul.

Hebrews and Revelation are from I century CE.

It is interesting why, according to this author, Jesus was euhemerized.

1) the popular (both gentile and Jewish) belief was that the world was arrived to an end. See the Sybilla.

2) the Jewish Messiah had to show himself in the last times, just before the end, according to prophecies.

3)
therefore: by means of invented testimonia (=the first gospel), the life of the Jewish Messiah was placed in recent times.


In particular, the Psalm 95:10-11:

For forty years I was angry with that generation;
I said, ‘They are a people whose hearts go astray,
and they have not known my ways.’

So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’”

Since the «anger of God» exploded in 70 CE:

70 — 40 = 30 CE.

Hence Pilate.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Why Jesus was euhemerized according to J. K. Watson

Post by GakuseiDon »

Out of interest, does JK Watson actually use the word "euhemirized", or any variation? If so, how does he define it?
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Jesus was euhemerized according to J. K. Watson

Post by Giuseppe »

He talks about Euhemerus, when he uses the term "historicization", in the following terms :
Contrary to the Euhemerus's doctrine, no great god was originally a human being. Is the Christianity an exception to this rule? This is precisely the subject of this book.

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Why Jesus was euhemerized according to J. K. Watson

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Jesus wasn't euhemerized. He was allegoricalized.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Why Jesus was euhemerized according to J. K. Watson

Post by GakuseiDon »

Thanks Giuseppe.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Jesus was euhemerized according to J. K. Watson

Post by Giuseppe »

Also the Mythicist Maurice Mergui argues an identical reason to euhemerize Jesus.

A short synthesis of the book of Mergui in English is given here:

By careful analysis, Dubourg and Mergui show that all the wordplays in the NT allude to passages of the AT or the Midrashs or the Talmud.
According to Dubourg and Mergui this characterizes the NT as midrashs itself.
A midrash is a kind of ancient Biblical exegesis that creates parables, allegories, metaphors, wordplays by twisting the meaning, or by metathesis or by guematria.
A midrash connects between them verses of the Bible and other narratives such as other midrashs to elaborate a new exegesis narrative.
According to M. Mergui, the meaning of the NT is the following.
In judaism, today or in the old, it is intended that it serves as light and guidance for the non-Jews, the pagans, so that they can enter too in the Alliance with God.
However this entry in the Alliance can only happen when the Messiah will come.
But this coming of the Messiah can only happen at the End of the Times and when the grieves on the Jews are at their height.
However in the first century, Israel is occupied by the Romans. For some Jews at this time, the situation is mature enough so that the Messiah can come, and some groups started (Flavius Josephe was among the leaders of one of them, btw) rebelled against the Romans and strove for freedom and independance.
But here there is a internal problem of the old judaism: if the Messia comes and the pagans enter into the Alliance, what the Jews will become ? What would be their identity ?
This is because Jews viewed their Jewish identity as strongly tied to the Alliance.
That’s why one of the biggest party, the Pharisees, wanted to delay as long as possible in an undefined future the coming of the Messiah and denied the signs of his coming.
For another party, that who wrote the NT, the end of the times was now !
And since the Messiah was late to come, they would create it by midrash.

Why having chosen “Jesus” as the name for the Messiah ? Because it was necessary to choose a name that by guematria had messianic values (52 and 386), and because Yehoshua (same name as Jesus in the Septuagint) was the first to let the Hebrews enter the Promised Land, and because another Joshua, the Great Priest, led the return of the Jews from the Babylonian Exil.
As shown by M. Mergui, the NT deals with another problem of judaism, the alleviation of the Law, another priviledge of the Messiah.
Indeed the pagans are assumed not to be able to follow all the law of Moses and are therefore restricted to the noachides laws.
Here are some reading keys of the Gospels.
When Jesus heals someone, it is a metaphor to mean healing from idolatry.
Metaphorically, idolatry is also rendered by death (hence the resurrection of Lazarus) and adultery (hence the pericope of the adultery woman).
When the Pharisees blame Jesus for healing the day of the Shabbat, it has nothing to do with whatever transgression of Shabbat.
The problem here is that he didn’t wait for the eighth day, i.e. he didn’t wait for the end of times.
A paralytic is someone who is not able to walk, that is, he is not able to follow the Halakha, which means the walk and indicates the Jewish law. Therefore it indicates a pagan.
Bread, wine, water in the Gospels are metaphor of the Law, as in the Jewish midrashs. Unleavened bread means alleviated law. It is more digest than leaven bread of the Pharisees, i.e. the full law, that is heavy on the stomach.
More generally, the meaning of the pericopes that deal with miraculous healings in the Gospels is the following: the pagans are willing to enter into the Alliance, they are mature enough for that. But the Pharisees put obstacles to this entry.
And by putting obstacles they simply risk being left out of the Alliance when the end of the times will come. But the end of times is now..

https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609579.0
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply