Talk:Dying-and-rising god

Reception in naive popular atheism/apologetics

It turns out that the scholarly discussion is completely relaxed and sane, it's about lumpers and splitters, and how far you want to go with the "comparative" project, while it is people who have an agenda but no interest whatsoever in scholarly discussion are making a sorry mess of it, because it must be about whether "Christianty is true", mustn't it.

So people who already know Christianity is true fawningly cite Smith (who is a serious scholar who was never interested in this discussion), while people who already know Christianity must be false fawningly cite Mettinger (who is also a serious scholar who was never interested in this discussion). Unsurprisingly, this becomes the main angle of the "Wikipedia controversy", because of course Wikipedia must be about dissing your ideological opponents and not about genuine interest in scholarship. It has already proven impossible to maintain a sane article on Christian mythology, but this is not the "Christ myth" article, so please try to restrain yourself if this is your interest. Here I inserted a brief paragraph that yes, the topic has been used in the naive "Christians vs. new atheists" internet thing. I realize Wikipedia is itself part of this battleground, but, it tries not to be. The article can have a brief paragraph of such naive reception (or ideological abuse) of the scholarly literature, but this shouldn't dominate the article, nor should it become mixed up with the actual article topic. --dab (𒁳) 09:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• I completely commiserate, and applaud your pointing this out. Pandeist (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. I knew this article was a mess, but I hadn't looked at its problems in detail before. The articles on Osiris and his family suffer from similar ideological battles, so I know what they're like. I am uncomfortable with a couple of the sources you used, though. Porter and Bedard are clearly partisans on the Christian side, and McIlhenny's book actually seems to have been published by Lulu.com—that is, it's self-published. There may not be any better options, though, for making the points you used them to make. It's unfortunate that real scholars rarely pay attention to the way their work is distorted and misused for these online religious wars. A. Parrot (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually think the best case for the category is now one by Richard Carrier in On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt -- he thoughtfully dismisses weak cases and focuses on Romulus, Osiris, and Zalmoxis. Pandeist (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That book might be worth citing here, then, if you have it. A. Parrot (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I will most assuredly get around to it. Blessings, brother!! Pandeist (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this is excessive but somebody else transcribed it to Facebook, so:

In Plutarch's biography of Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, we are told he was the son of god, born of a virgin; an attempt is made to kill him as a baby, and he is saved, and raised by a poor family, becoming a lowly shepherd; then as a man he becomes beloved by the people, hailed as king, and killed by the conniving elite; then he rises from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news to his people, and ascends to heaven to rule from on high. Just like the Christian version of Jesus.

Plutarch also tells us about annual public ceremonies that were still being performed, which celebrated the day Romulus ascended to heaven. The sacred story told at this event went basically as follows: at the end of his life, amid rumors he was murdered by a conspiracy of the Senate (just as Jesus was 'murdered' by a conspiracy of the Jews-in fact by the Sanhedrin, the Jewish equivalent of the Senate), the sun went dark (just as it did when Jesus died), and Romulus's body vanished (just as Jesus' did). The people wanted to search for him but the Senate told them not to, 'for he had risen to join the gods' (much as a mysterious young man tells the women in Mark's Gospel). Most went away happy, hoping for good things from their new god, but 'some doubted' (just as all later Gospels say of Jesus: Mt. 28.17; Lk. 24.1 1; Jn 20.24-25; even Mk 16.8 implies this). Soon after, Proculus, a close friend of Romulus, reported that he met Romulus 'on the road' between Rome and a nearby town and asked him, 'Why have you abandoned us?', to which Romulus replied that he had been a god all along but had come down to earth and become incarnate to establish a great kingdom, and now had to return to his home in heaven (pretty much as happens to Cleopas in Lk. 24.13-32). Then Romulus told his friend to tell the Romans that if they are virtuous they will have all worldly power.

Plutarch tells us that the annual Roman ceremony of the Romulan ascent involved a recitation of the names of those who fled his vanishing in fear, and the acting out of their fear and flight in public, a scene suspiciously paralleling the pre-redacted ending of Mark's Gospel (at 16.8). Which would make sense of his otherwise bizarre ending-we are then to assume what followed his story is just what followed the story he is emulating: an appearance of the Lord, delivering the gospel, which is then proclaimed to the people (the very thing Mark tells us to anticipate: 14.28 and 16.7). In fact, Livy's account, just like Mark's, emphasizes that 'fear and bereavement' kept the people 'silent for a long time', and only later did they proclaim Romulus 'God, Son of God, King, and Father', thus matching Mark's 'they said nothing to anyone', yet obviously assuming that somehow word got out.

It certainly seems as if Mark is fashioning Jesus into the new Romulus, with a new, superior message, establishing a new, superior kingdom. This Romulan tale looks a lot like a skeletal model for the passion narrative: a great man, founder of a great kingdom, despite coming from lowly origins and of suspect parentage, is actually an incarnated son of god, but dies as a result of a conspiracy of the ruling council, then a darkness covers the land at his death and his body vanishes, at which those who followed him flee in fear Just like the Gospel women, Mk 16.8; and men, Mk 14.50-52), and like them, too, we look for his body but are told he is not here, he has risen; and some doubt, but then the risen god 'appears' to select followers to deliver his gospel.

There are many differences in the two stories, surely. But the similarities are too numerous to be a coincidence-and the differences are likely deliberate. For instance, Romulus's material kingdom favoring the mighty is transformed into a spiritual one favoring the humble. It certainly looks like the Christian passion narrative is an intentional transvaluation of the Roman Empire's ceremony of their own founding savior's incarnation, death and resurrection. Other elements have been added to the Gospels-the story heavily Judaized, and many other symbols and motifs pulled in to transform it-and the narrative has been modified, in structure and content, to suit the Christians' own moral and spiritual agenda. But the basic structure is not original.

There were, in fact, numerous pre-Christian savior gods who became incarnate and underwent sufferings or trials, even deaths and resurrections. None of them actually existed. Neither did Romulus. Yet all were placed in history, and often given detailed biographies. We cannot claim to understand the Christian religion and its documents if we ignore such background knowledge as this.

Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, "A Romulan Tale," 2014. I'll see if I can't scare up more. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Dying and rising deity?

This is an antiquated concept and it needs to be presented as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.219.79 (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)