Callimachus, Origen, and Euhemerism

Abstract

This thesis identifies two strands in the reception of Euhemerism by ancient authors. The first is a subversive version of the theory that challenges a being’s divinity, as seen in the interaction with the theory by the third-century BCE poet Callimachus. The second is a constructive version of the theory that accepts the possibility of deification, exemplified by the third-century CE theologian Origen. The first chapter provides an overview of the primary sources for Euhemerus of Messene’s original formulation of the theory, discusses some recent contributions to scholarship on Euhemerism, and outlines a framework for understanding the theory’s reception as either subversive or constructive. The second and third chapters apply this framework to the reception of the theory by Callimachus and Origen. Chapter 2 explores Callimachus’ engagement with Euhemerism in the Hymn to Zeus in light of several themes in his thinking about the gods, arguing that his rejection of the validity of Zeus’ tomb in Crete shows that he interprets Euhemerism as an inherently subversive theory. After providing an overview of early Christian uses of Euhemerism in anti-pagan polemics, the third chapter analyzes Origen’s engagement with Euhemerism in Contra Celsum 3.22–43—which includes Origen’s citation and discussion of Callimachus’ Hymn to Zeus—in light of his theological commitments surrounding the preexistence of souls, Christology, and eschatology. I argue that Origen’s argument in this section can only be understood if he presupposes a constructive interpretation of the theory. By comparing how these two Alexandrian authors respond to Euhemeristic arguments about Zeus and Jesus, respectively, this thesis demonstrates the varying ways in which Euhemerism was received in antiquity.