Talk:Dying-and-rising god

Merge

Currently, an article entitled Osiris-Dionysus discusses the same basic material as this page. Additionally, neither Timothy Freke nor Peter Gandy (the main personalities associated with the O-D page) are recognized scholars in the field. Either the two articles should be merged of O-D should just be deleted. Eugeneacurry (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Each god should have his own page. --Ceezmad (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's just it, "Osiris-Dionysus" isn't a particular god; it's a homogenized construct largely indistinguishable from the homogenized "life-death-rebirth deity" construct. The specific god Osiris already has a page, so does Dionysus. Eugeneacurry (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Eugeneacurry, the merger would make good sense. --dab (𒁳) 19:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the Osiris-Dionysus page more closely, there just wasn't any sourced information to integrate with this article. I've simply converted the Osiris-Dionysus to a redirect that brings readers to this article. Eugene (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If we could just get Ari (talk) to stop deleting entries that he disagrees with we will be set. --Ceezmad (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the redirect on Osiris-Dionysus. Hi Ceezmad but what? --Ari (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That you do not think that Encyclopedia Britannica is a good enough reference. --Ceezmad (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What? If Encyclopaedia Britannica actually made the claims you were pretended it made it would have been a fine source. A pity it never did. Get over it please, especially when your pointless attack has nothing to do with the conversation at hand... --Ari (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk

Under the criticism section, there is a totally incorrect assertion made:

"A number of men and women were resurrected from the dead and made physically immortal according to ancient Greek religion. But all of these, including Asclepius, Dionysus and Achilles died as ordinary mortals, only to become gods of various stature after they were resurrected from the dead."

Of the figures that paragraph mentions, only Achilles was an "ordinary mortal". Asclepius was the son of the god Apollo and a mortal mother Coronis. Dionysus was the son of the god Zeus and (according to different accounts) the mortal woman Semele or the goddess Persephone. None of the other Greek figures currently listed in the article were "ordinary mortals" before their death/rebirth. Since the paragraph seems manifestly wrong, I'll remove it. I note also that no reference is cited for this assertion, which makes it seem like WP:OR. Fuzzypeg★ 04:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Achilles the son of the sea-goddess Thetis? DionysosProteus (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny

I couldn't help but notice that almost all of the groups in the list are filed under a location and not the religion's name. Why does Christianity get it's own section? It only has one example. It would be more appropriate to place Jesus under the Roman group. Or maybe change the name to Semitic? Also, the list of examples is rather bland and full of no names. I mean, I know very well who Osiris, Dionysus and Odin are, but I can't say the same for everyone else. Why not list Jesus there too? -Kthnxbai.

     Done --Ceezmad (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I tried, but some Christioan dude/Dudette, does not like it and keeps changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceezmad (talk • contribs) 15:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference

I have a site were people can look up a brief description of the GODs, How can I give it the same reference number (right now there are like 20-30 references) --Ceezmad (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

References are meant to be real. WP:REF. --Ari89 (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

They are real, well at least real for google. I know that there is a book out there that has the stories of a bunch of GODs that died and were reborned, I will look for it this weekend and try to use that as reference, you really make this difficult, but that is ok I guess.

--Ceezmad (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Also regarding Christian mythology, I see that you do not like that I changed it to Middle easter mythology, well Chirtianity is a mix of Jewish, zoroastrian with some greek mythology, that is why I like it under Middle Eastern Mythology, I will make it a sub category for Christian Mythology.

--Ceezmad (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, they were not real as they did not backup in anyway what they are meant to be referencing. The fact of the matter is, that the category of 'dying and rising gods' is now defunct. It is not used by scholars of Graeco-Roman or Egyptian religion - and most of the claims are frankly wrong. I do not know what book you are going to be using - but I wouldn't put much weight in its opinion.

No, Christianity is not a mix of Zoroastarian and Greek mythology. Christianity was a late second Temple Jewish sect with a gentile mission initiative. Its basis is in Judaism and not foreign mythologies. And if we were to follow most historical JEsus scholars, having Jesus under the category of "Myth" would not happen. Jesus was not a mythical figure, nor is the resurrection treated in the genre of myth. (e.g. Sanders, Dunn, Wright, Vermes, etc). --Ari 00:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you are talking about resurection, The title of this topic is Gods that died and came back to life, to greeks/Romans going to Hades (Hell) was a form of dying and comming back, Like Gilgamesh. This is a different point than your Christian Myth I understand, but this page is about Gods that died and were reborn, it is not about resurection. Maybe if there is a page about SUN GODs you could make your point there. Or reencarnation [[1]]

I would agree that most GODs here do not follow the same exact story as Jesus, for that we need.
Horus
Mithra, Sungod of Persia (he was adopted by the romas also)
Krishna (whos father was a carpenter)
--Ceezmad (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you really have no idea what is happening here, do you?--Ari (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ari89 i see no need for snide remarks, if you have criticisms put them in the criticism section, and stop attacking other wikipedia contributors.--Nikopolyos (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Forget about it, Ari89 don't care, he keeps deleting stuff even if there are references, I also got into an do/undo battle with him, but it seems that this is important to him so I gave up. --Ceezmad (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Christioanl Mythology, I just want you to talk to a Rabbi, ask him what is ther view of Judaism and Hell/The Devil, then ask yourself where did the Idea of the Devil comes from, look up Zoroastarian religion, good luck! --Ceezmad (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Similar GODS

Aunis and Adonis are the same GOD but with two different people.
Same for Peisephone and Proserpina.
and Bacchus and Dionysus
We should only need one reference for each pair. --Ceezmad (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

These would appear to be Greek and Roman counterparts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.98.143 (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Research, references and editwaring.

Dear Ari89, I see no acceptable reason why you continue to delete my-references; I have listed the work of a renowned scholar on this topic the Professor of Theology at the University of Sweden, the Encycloped Britannica, and the Catholic Encyclopedia. You have given your interpretation of Professor Jonathan Z. Smith; however I honestly suspect that you have not read professor Smith's work. I have three reasons for believing this; one, you seem to know only one quote which you repeat multiple times but seem to know nothing else outside of it (a also note that this quote is quoted out of context on several web-sights; so I presume this is your source). Two, you seem not understand the purpose or aims of his work, or you have misinterpret them; Smith's work is about categorisation, not deletion; I seriously doubt if you had read Smith's work you would believe that he supports the aims you believe he supports. Three, you cannot give even a basic précis of his views, or methods. And four, your do not seem able to respond to criticisms by offering detail of his research or any other researcher for that matter – instead you respond to genuine and reasonable requests by attacking other people; accusing them of being liars (as I see from your talk page) or calling them stupid (as I see on this edit page). Futhermore you do not seem to know anything more general about the research in this area, for example you do not seem to understand that you are only representing the views of one researcher on the topic; you do not know of the work of any others. Also, you do not seem to realise that this research is nearly thirty years old, and has been superseded by others, but you seem to know no detail about the research community.

You claim that people's work is unsourced; however, I see from the comments above, and looking through the edit history of the page that, in fact, you have been studiously deleting references to sources, and perfectly valid ones – in light of that I do not find your claims that this article is unsourced bears much weight. I have given, for example the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Catholic Encyclopedia. Also I see above that user Ceezmad has had a similar experience with you, as you have been deleting his references from the Encyclopedia Britannica (and against whom is see you have been conducting an edit war, as I now fear I am falling into). Do you seriously believe in your wildest dreams that deleting the contributions of the hundred's of contributors who have added to this page before you, and re-editing it so that it represents only one view – your view, is anything other than rampant vandalism? And, please notice that no one has attempted to delete your views – your views are still represented, in the criticism section where they belong, and with context and counter claims. All I object to is your attempt to edit the page so that your criticisms will be the only view point represented. If you can produce some relevant research I will be very happy for you to include it – and I look forward to reading it, but do not vandalise this page again. --Nikopolyos (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not know what to tell you, he will just keep reversing it, Is there a way that you know where we could get some arbitration on this page? --Ceezmad (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nikopolyos, your unecncyclopaedic and polemical edits (which you attached false edit summaries to) as well as POV pushing were deleted for those reasons. Making personal attacks and creating a conspiracy theory about the removal of your personal opinion and original research will not sort out the matter. Remember, content should be verifiable. --Ari (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It is amusing to see to what a degree a Wikipedia article can be taken over by an ideologue. The lead sentences in this article on dying-and-rising gods, asserting that the idea that scholars nowadays agree there never were such gods, are misleading. In support, a footnote citation is given to Mettinger, The Riddle of Resurrection, in which he is quoted as effectively endorsing the idea that there is a scholarly consensus against the concept. But the citation ignores that Mettinger actually devotes his book to demonstrating that there were indeed dying-and-rising gods in the ancient world. E.g., this is the opening page of a review of Mettinger's book by Ronald Hendel from the Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 123, 2003:

The arrival of a new monograph by Tryggve Mettinger is an occasion for scholarly delight. Mettinger is one of the finest biblical scholars in the world, and he is unafraid to venture into ancillary fields (archaeology, Assyriology, and other dangerous forests) to pursue his quarry. In this book, as in his others, Mettinger's careful and insightful discussions are based on massive and intensive research, and he displays remarkable control of the primary texts and current scholarly arguments. The target of his new book is the old Frazerian paradigm of dying-and-rising gods. In recent scholarship (from the attack by Roland de Vaux in 1933 to more recent fusillades by Jonathan Z. Smith and Mark S. Smith), this paradigm has been discarded, with Smith the Younger announcing "The Death of 'Dying and Rising Gods' in the Biblical World" (SJOT 12 [1998]: 257-313; cf. M. S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism [Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2001], 104-31). Mettinger carefully surveys the relevant data and major scholarly positions, and concludes that this proclamation of death is premature.

Mettinger's strategy is meticulous and comprehensive. He surveys the history of scholarship on this issue and lays down his careful theoretical approaches to ritual, myth, and the comparative study of religion in chapter 1. Then he turns to a series of insightful and circumspect discussions of the data on the various relevant gods: Ugaritic Baal (chapter 2); Tyrian Melqart (chapter 3); Greek and Byblian Adonis (chapter 4); Sidonian Eshmun (chapter 5); Egyptian Osiris (chapter 6); and Mesopotamian Dumuzi/Tammuz (chapter 7). He concludes that "The world of ancient Near Eastern religions actually knew a number of deities that may be properly described as dying and rising gods" (p. 217). He notes that each god is distinctive in various ways, such that "one should not hypostasize these gods into a specific type 'the dying and rising god'" (p. 218), but notes that there is a coherent set of family resemblances. The conclusion and the discussions it rests upon are entirely convincing, and represent a landmark in the comparative study of ancient Near Eastern religions.

The gods that loom largest in Mettinger's discussions are Baal and Dumuzi, since these have the most abundant data (Osiris is treated as a special case, since his resurrection is in the world of the dead). Although I find Mettinger's conclusions about these gods and their cults convincing, there are a few items worth quibbling about. ...

Etc., etc. So Mettinger cannot be legitimately quoted to support the idea that everyone agrees there were no dying-and-rising gods. He gives massive evidence for the opposite conclusion. And this is not surprising. Even without Mettinger the evidence for dying-and-rising gods is massive. That Osirus goes to the Other World, the world of the dead, after his death, and does not appear on earth again, is no evidence to disprove that he, too, is a dying-and-rising god, since his child, Horus, born to Isis from Osirus' "dead" body, married to his mother-sister-wife Isis and reigning as king of the living, becomes "Osirus, king of the dead" again when Horus is himself killed by Seth. This annually repeated cyclical pattern in which Horus becomes Osirus who becomes Horus again, etc., informs Egyptian cult about Osirus and Horus. So actually we have to do with a Horus-Osirus figure, the paradigm king of the living and the dead, not just with Osirus alone. Similarly, it really cannot be denied that Mithras was a dying-and-rising god, that Attis was cyclically killed and reborn, that Dionysius fitted the ritual-cultic pattern, etc. The pattern is everywhere in the Graeco-Roman period. And Jesus does indeed repeat the pattern. Of course in each case there were specific traits that were distinctive for each god - but this is true of every single category in the history of religions and cultures. This does not mean we abandon all categories. We can talk of a general category of dying-and-rising gods.

As for how one can deal with a person who insists on imposing his own partisan views on a Wikipedia article, and keeps reverting all contrary contributions, there is a proper procedure to follow that involves appealing to the Wikipedia editors to intervene and adjudicate the matter. You have to go to the "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard" - this can be accessed via the "Help" link in the box to the left of every Wikipedia page entitled "interaction". But the full web address is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

Another option is to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DR This deals with the procedures to follow to resolve disputes. Probably this is the best first move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.237.116 (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Nikopolyos.

Mettinger can make a statement on scholarly consensus even if he objectios to it. He states, "There is now what amounts to a scholarly consensus against the appropriateness of the concept. Those who still think differently are looked upon as residual members of an almost extinct species." Unlesss it is a misquote I don't see why it shouldn't be used, especially as it doesn't imply that is his position.

On Mettinger's view, by all means add the view, but don't give it undue weight as trumping the major discussion issues. --Ari (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mettinger's position can be noted, but such a reference must conform to WP:WEIGHT, given that his view contradicts the scholarly consensus. Also, regarding Jesus, even the more sympathetic Mettinger states, "There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world." (pg. 221) Eugene (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The comments by both Eugeneacurry and Ari just above seem disingenuous and lacking both in sincerity and credibility, since they have both refused even to allow into the body of the article any indication at all that Mettinger presents any significant scholarly challenge to their preferred viewpoint on the existence of dying-and-rising gods. They have cut out such comments and references, and not only about Mettinger. For example, the reverting of my correct description of Franz Cumont as the leading academic authority on Graeco-Roman cults at the beginning of the 20th century (and I footnoted his academic works), and deletion of my description of his research on "mystery religions" in which dying-and-rising god patterns dominated, and the persistent portrayal of Cumont instead merely in terms of his view of Jesus, grouping him with a number of kooky syncretistic Hermetic and/or New Age occultists - which he certainly was not - certainly shows this same tendency to wipe out evidence of any serious scholarly challenge to their preferred view. And Eugeneacurry gives the game away completely when he reveals in passing that he has actually read all the devastating evidence and argumentation for the existence of such deities in the ancient Near East provided by Mettinger and simply ignores it, while choosing out of all those pages of Mettinger's monograph merely a quote on p. 221 to the effect that Christian beliefs and theological claims are not necessarily challenged by the documented existence of dying-and-rising gods. Obviously, that is what all this is really about, Christianity, not pagan cults at all. Pathetic. But let me echo Mettinger: look, guys, you can allow into this article serious scholarly evidence that there really were dying-and-rising gods in the ancient Near East and also in Graeco-Roman times, because Mettinger, who proves that there were, says you can still be Christians. So what's the worry? One further point concerning the justifications offered by Ari and Eugeneacurry for their falsifying and misleading use of Mettinger (just as was done with Cumont) so as to negate and ignore his substantive contributions to this topic: the review I quoted above from Ronald Hendel, published in theJournal of the American Oriental Society, proves that Mettinger is not a marginal scholar but one of high repute and standing in his profession, and his evidence for the widespread existence of dying-and-rising gods meets the highest scholarly standards, so his challenge to the thesis of that there were no dying-and-rising gods is therefore fundamental and radical. Henceforth it will no longer be simply possible to assert that contemporary scholars agree that there were no such deities. An article in Wikipedia is obliged to acknowledge this shift in the scholarly paradigm. I challenge Ari and Eugeneacurry to compose such an acknowledgement, and in addition, I want Cumont's contribution to be treated properly too, as a serious and for most of the twentieth century the authoritative scholarly analyst of dying-and-rising god cults in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. It should also be noted in the article itself that while the reliability of the evidence, and inferences drawn from it, of earlier ancient Near Eastern cults of such gods came to be subject to scholarly debate from the 1960s on, Cumont's work on the Hellenistic and Roman-period cults still stood as authoritative until much later. If I am not satisfied by the revisions in this direction by Ari, etc., I serve notice now that I will not bother with further revert-wars but will appeal directly to the Wiki managers to address the constant reverting, editwaring and vandalism of this article by Ari and whomever, as proven not only in the way my contributions have been treated in the past week, but by previous entries to this discussion page over several years.

Hi 122.107.237.116, it's clear that you take this all very seriously. However, why you've seen fit to cast me as some sort of obstructionist villian in this discussion is less clear. So far my contributions to this article have included redirecting another article to this one, standardizing the bibliography and in-line citations, cutting some clearly marginal material on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and including a quote by Mettinger indicating that "what amounts to a scholarly consensus" exists regarding the subject. Saying that I've "refused even to allow into the body of the article any indication at all that Mettinger presents any significant scholarly challenge" to this consensus is nonsense. In fact, I plainly said that "Mettinger's position can be noted"; my only concern is that such an allusion conform to Wikipedia's policy regarding weight.

Mettinger's book was published in 2001. Mark S. Smith subsequently published The Early History of God in 2002, noted Mettinger's position in a footnote, and maintained a skeptical attitude. Also, Alan F. Segal has recently published Life After Death, in which he refers to Mettinger's book and states that, despite its positive qualities, "the book nevertheless does not completely establish the continued usefulness of the term" dying and rising god. In other words, while noting Mettinger's idiosyncratic views in a gloss may be legitimate, claiming that his minority report amounts to a "shift in the scholarly paradigm" is not. Wikipedia articles on evolution can't be dominated by the views of Michael Behe, nor can this article be dominated by the views of Mettinger.

As for your claim that quoting Mettinger regarding Jesus somehow indicates that "all this is really about" Christianity and that, further, such a focus is "pathetic", who are you actually insulting here? Remember, you invoked Jesus in this discussion before I did. My quoting Mettinger regarding Jesus was only in response to your earlier claim that "Jesus does indeed repeat the pattern". Careful where you point that gun, you might end up shooting yourself in the foot. Eugene (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The onus is on you, Eugeneacurry, not me, to compose an acknowledgement of Mettinger's elaborate and as yet simply unrefuted scholarly demonstration that there were indeed dying-and-rising gods in antiquity, however nuanced. You say that Mettinger's position "can be noted." Wow, no kidding - but you still refuse to note it in your revisions. Do it then. And not as a favor to me nor Mettinger, but simply as a matter of scholarly integrity and truth, so, unlike your earlier versions of this article, be honest and fair to his dissenting evidence and testimony and give them due weight, without demeaning him. Due weight means that you do not hint that he is a kook, anymore than Cumont was. He is a serious scholar and his documentation of his views must be taken seriously. Rewrite your Cumont reference too. As it stands, it is a travesty and dissimulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.237.116 (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that an anonymous IP is in a position to dictate what my onus may be. If you're willing to craft a properly weighted reference to Mettinger's work then do so. Otherwise stop pestering the other editors, assigning tasks as if you were in some position of authority. Eugene (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, Eugeneacurry, you do not understand what Wikipedia is all about. I have as much right as you to insist on neutrality and honesty in Wikipedia articles. In that, very evidently, I am by far your superior, since you are manifestly incapable of being either neutral nor honest and are not interested in having a balanced and neutral article. The constant reverting you and your like-minded "editors" have engaged in for years must come to an end and I will not engage further with you; I have given you a more than fair chance to rectify the situation yourself. You have failed to do so and even taunt me. Therefore I do give notice here of taking the matter to Wikipedia adjudication. The charge is that you and/or your fellow "editors" misrepresent the entire subject, pretending that there is no serious scholarly dissent from your preferred view. In the course of doing this, you not only use Mettinger solely against himself to buttress your views, without even hinting at his radical and elaborately grounded dissent from those views, but also travesty Cumont and other serious scholars. A further key example of how this article misrepresents the entire debate is shown in the refusal to mention in this article on dying-and-rising gods a crucial part of that cultic complex, namely the ritual consumption of the arisen god, now lord of the dead, by devotees/initiates, giving them participation in the divine life. This central cultic drama allowed devotees the same triumph over death as the dying-and-rising god, and thus gave a foretaste of the afterlife elysium and even ensured personal salvation. This, as has been well-known generally since Apuleius, and as many scholars including Cumont have demonstrated, was a shared common element at the cultic heart of the mystery religions that so dominated the Graeco-Roman period and arose from much ancient forms of the same complex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.237.116 (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Renaming suggestion: Dying god

As far as I can tell, there is no "official" or particularly catchy name for this mythological category (which raises more than a few WP:SYN worries, but I won't argue that point). However, the most widely-known term seems to be "dying god", popularized by Frazer's The Golden Bough. Moreover, The Oxford Companion to World Mythology has an entry titled "Dying god". ("Dying god". The Oxford Companion to World Mythology. David Leeming. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. UC - Irvine. 30 May 2011 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t208.e469>. My apologies to those who don't have a subscription to Oxford Reference Online and hence can't view the page. However, The Oxford Companion to World Mythology also exists in a print edition, for those who are curious.) I propose that we rename this article Dying god, citing the Oxford Companion. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No response? I will move the article unless someone objects. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. While the ambiguity of the name and consistency with the naming of the related category are valid points, by policy we prefer titles that are used by English-language reliable sources. Jafeluv (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Dying god → Life-death-rebirth deity – The current name of the article makes it sound like it's refering to "a god who is dying"; the proposed name is based on the category name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support per ambiguity in the name. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is what Sir James George Frazer called this class of divinities, and the term still in use; where a subject has an existing name, we use it, rather than a long description we have made up. Observe that dying god is common, and the proposed replacement vanishingly rare. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I can understand the worry about name ambiguity. However, please see the section immediately above this one for my rationale for supporting the title "dying god". --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is not for Wiki editors to reinvent the terminology. Here is the entry for "dying god" in The Oxford companion to world mythology. A god can't really die, so resurrection is implied. Kauffner (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- This has just been discussed at this CFD, where the decision was to retain the form "Life-death-rebirth deity". Articles and categories on the same subject should normally be consistent; there are exceptions, such as where a category is likely to attract irrelevant articles. However that does not apply here. If you do not like the proposal, you need to get the CFD reopened. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I see your reasoning, Peter, but I don't think it compels us to accept your conclusion. As you yourself note, the CFD discussion was about the category Category:Life-death-rebirth deities, not about this article. It's true that articles and categories on the same subject should ideally have the same name, but as far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), that's not an official policy. If there were no argument in favor of the article title Dying god, then I would agree that the article should be renamed to match the category, since the two pretty clearly concern the same subject. But reasons have been given for favoring the title Dying god. Of course, reasons have also been given in opposition to the title (namely, that the term "dying god" is potentially confusing). I believe that the article's title should be decided on the basis of these reasons, rather than on the basis of a CFD discussion that (again, correct me if I'm wrong) has no officially binding effect on the article. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Last paragraph

I don't get the last paragraph, that also has no reference, for instance, what should this dissimilar list signify: "These associations included seduction, trickery, gourmandise, and the anxieties of childbirth"? --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really understand that last paragraph either. As for the lack of a reference, the paragraph does mention "Detienne", which I think refers to the Marcel Detienne listed in the references list. Still, as you note, the paragraph lacks proper citation. I'm not going to remove it on my own, but if you want to remove it, I won't object. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note on the title

I haven't examined this subject in detail, and therefore I don't feel justified in starting another move discussion, but I want to point out issues with this title for anyone who might be watching. "Dying god" feels too broad to apply solely to the Frazer concept. For ancient Egyptian gods, even apart from Osiris, death is part of their nature (see the chapter on Osiris in Tryggve Mettinger's book The Riddle of Resurrection, which other editors have cited on this page, and chapter 5 in Erik Hornung's Conceptions of God in Egypt). There are also individual gods in many other cultures, like Tiamat and Coatlicue, who die but do not seem to belong in Frazer's category. According to Mettinger, one of the major arguments against the validity of Frazer's category is that all the gods in question either return after a disappearance but never die, or they die but do not return from death.

That problem alone may not be enough to override WP:Common name, but I wonder if "dying god" really is the common name. Mettinger, who with some qualification argues that the category is valid, uses the more specific term "dying and rising god". Apparently Jonathan Z. Smith and Mark S. Smith, major opponents of the category, use that same term; it seems to be the title of J. Z. Smith's article on the subject in the Encyclopedia of Religion, a major reference work. A. Parrot (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I have studied the topic in detail and the term is dying-and -rising god - if any. The The Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion also uses the term. It is not a controversial move, give the other two encyclopedia entries. Will let this article be reborn under the encyclopedic title now, then make some fixes. History2007 (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Western cultures?

Please explain that tag, or zap it. There is material about Horus, etc. So why the tag? History2007 (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course! All names are listed down. But they are not discussed in the article. Hence i have added the tag. The article only describes Jesus and Greek gods. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The other names below have no source, so they even need to be deleted. I will store them here until they can be checked. And the theory as is, if you read the Enc. of Religion and Psych has been around that. Do you have sources that say there are others? Even those listed are shaky if you read the page. You really need sources for that assertion. However, your observation that one section has a lot more attention than others is reasonable and I will try to blend that in with another example from Egypt etc. History2007 (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)