Euhemerus Amok: Egypt's Long Tail (Tale)

Factotum's Rostrum has a cute observation on when historic analysis goes a bit too far on a bit too little.

Euhemerus Amok: Thanking Jesus for Odin

Snorri Sturluson, one of my favorite humans, is the medieval Christian and an antiquarian most responsible for preserving our (still limited) knowledge of the old Norse myths and epics. Although we can glean some detail from Saxo Grammaticus, Saxo's nine books on the Norse myths serve much better as a critique of the old Norse religion than as a faithful preservation of its stories.

In any case, contributions like Sturluson's, and, to a degree, Saxo's, are often overlooked by the critic of Christ-following. Not only do the contributions of antiquarians provide a sober understanding of our place in history, but they provide much of the historic basis for the renewal of religions that would have otherwise become dead arts.

I wonder how often the neo-Odinist thanks the Christian for carrying enough of his spiritual ancestry forward so that he may approach life in adherence to his ancestral nine truths? I don't advance this to pick on anyone, more to point out that all off us have a lot of valuable things in our life because Christians in our past performed epic service to their fellow man.

I find that the critic of Christ is quick to bring up the crusades, the inquisition and witch trials. But if the critic has never heard of Snorri Sturluson, he's chosen a bad axe to grind.

It won't hold up in battle.

Euhemerus, Myth and History

Euhemerus is a greek philosopher widely recognized as the first major proponent of the idea that Greek myths had their origins in non-supernatural historic events.

800 years after Euhemerus, Snorri Sturluson attempted to trace the origin of some of the Norse gods, particularly Odin, back to historic warlords.

The theory that many mythological figures have a source in history appeals to me on an intellectual level, but, somewhat more importantly, at an aesthetic level.* In congress with that notion is that there are supernatural events included in some histories that are quite different in character and tone than legends.**

This relates to the concept of a pre-apocalyptic gainland. From the post-apocalyptic point of view, pre-apocalyptic myths can form from fragments of history, but - and this is often overlooked - pre-apocalyptic history can seem like myth.

Before the flood, there were giants, descendants of angels, no less, roughhousing, slaughtering, sacrificing, and turning worship on its head. People had fallen into a deep corruption, one that we have likely never experienced in our lives. Civilization had become an anti-civilization - cultural anti-matter, a societal plague. It had to be cut off for any chance at redemption.

After the flood, accounts, both mythological and historical were recorded to reconstruct those prior days. Over time, some folks flip the legend with fact, so that, today, to many people the flood and pre-existing society seems legendary and fanciful. We've created a myth that the Flood Apocalypse is a myth. Call it a myth-myth if you must, but the point is that we are a post-apocalyptic wasteland, recovering from the great Flood, yet we have allowed the accounts to fall into legend.

This causes us to miss both the warnings and the opportunities of these last days. If we could only understand the history of the prediluvian period a little better, we might better see the landscape we walk today.

*In other words, it could be proven to me that, for example, Thor has no origins (disregarding the fact that history/science cannot prove a negative) in a historic warrior-king. I'd accept it willingly. But I'd still like the idea.

**I'm thinking here of a historic footnote I came across a few years ago. It was a Roman account of centurions attacking a big snake. A really big snake. Like 50 feet of snake. But it wasn't listed among stories or legends, but just run of the mill accounts of day-to-day activities. I know this stuff can feed wild-eyed cryptozooligists, but I guess I like my cryptids too much to care.

About Those Old (New) Gods...

They are important to know.

We like to think of Molek and Ba'al and Beelzebub and Asherah and Hadad and Dagon and especially the great and despicable El (not to be confused with the real Elohim (our God.)) as these old idols of an ancient past that predated organized monotheism.

Nonsense.

Molek and Ba'al and all the rest, though well-established in Canaan at the time of the birth of the nation of Israel, are new gods. Very new. And, though the Ugarit religion is long dead, the spirit of the old new gods shines just as brightly. We feign intellectual naivety so that we can enjoy their attraction without guilt. Because we don't know our Moleks from our Asherah poles we can block their influence from our mind.

Have I become a sedated pupa, blissed out in the Matrix? Do we even know who our new gods, our old gods, are?