Osiris died, came back to life, and lives in Egyptian Heaven—not enough, say scholars, to make him a dying and rising God!

Must we, sigh apologists, go on about these tired old theories—scholars don't believe them, why should you?

The apologists are right: some modern scholars have thrown over the idea of dying and rising Gods—but not not all of them, and certainly not how you'd think. Here's the skinny on the scholarship of the dying and rising Gods.

Dying and rising God scholarship got going back in 1890 when a guy named James Frazer came out with a book called The Golden Bough Studies in Magic and Religion , which pointed out that in the ancient near east Gods like Osiris, Tammuz and the early middle eastern version of Adonis, had all died and been resurrected.

(Sir Jimmy had such a good time writing this thing that decades later he was still putting out updated versions; one is thirteen volumes long. If you're buying a used copy be careful—it's hard not to get the various version and volume numbers confused.)

Frazer's idea was that all the way back to the third millennium BC, ancient middle eastern cultures had a "dying and rising God" cookie cutter they used to bake up new Gods, especially "vegetation Gods" that died and rejuvenated with the food growing seasons.

Now, it's just the next paragraph and you've already cottoned to the same idea everyone else did when they read the Golden Bough: maybe that well known ancient middle eastern God Jesus was just cut cookie number forty seven. You won't be surprised to learn that not everyone was happy to hear Frazer's theory, and that ever since people have been arguing if Jimmy had things straight.

Did Jimmy have things straight? Do much reading and you're bound to come across how modern scholarship has thrown over the tired old idea of "dying and rising Gods." Must we, sigh apologists, go on about these tired old theories—scholars don't believe them, why should you?

Lots of the time you'll even get a quote, usually this one: >>

"The category of dying and rising Gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must now be understood to have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.
[Jonathan Z. Smith, "Dying and Rising Gods," in Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987, Volume 3, page 521]

Dr. Smith's Dying and Rising Gods
That often repeated quotation is from the Encyclopedia of Religion, from the article called Dying and Rising Gods, written by Jonathan Smith, PhD. He's a professor somewhere. He writes about ancient religion and the modern scholarship of Pagan-Christian origins.

["You must be proud," say his mother's friends, "Such a smart young man. And a doctor!" The nice ones never bring up that little Johnny didn't become a real people doctor, but the other kind.]

What Professor Smith says is that the dying and rising God thing is a modern myth, made up by bookworms. When apologists come across that, they quick like a bunny write down the citation, so they can bring it up later: Must we go on about these tired old theories—scholars don't believe them, why should you? Do much reading and you'll come across Dr. Smith waved around as an authority. Sound convincing? Yeah, it sounds convincing.

It sounds convincing till you pay attention and quick notice you never hear apologists mention Dr. Smith's arguments. His conclusions they live to talk about, his arguments they don't bring up. There's other stuff you never hear mentioned either. You never hear that Dr. Smith's article is an opinion piece—Dr. Smith believes there were not dying and rising Gods. You never hear anybody mention that. And you never hear anyone mention that the article itself actually makes it clear that other scholars don't all agree with Dr. Smith. That they never bring up.

Here's what Dr. Smith's famous encyclopedia article—the one people bring up to show there were no dying and rising Gods—say's about the Egyptian God Osiris >>

#1 Records about Osiris go way back—into the 2,000s BC >>
#2 Through all that time, the Osiris myth stays pretty much the same >>

#3 Osiris did die, after which >>

He was "rejuvenated," and then >>

He went to the underworld—the Egyptian Heaven. >>

Died, rejuvenated, went to Heaven.
Died...
rejuvinated...
went to Heaven. You got that?

But, according Dr. Smith coming back to life after you die, and going to heaven, that doesn't count as "risen"! Exactly what would count he doesn't say.

In no sense can Osiris be said to have "risen" in the sense required by the dying and rising pattern; most certainly it was never conceived as an annual event. The repeated formula "Rise up, you have not died," whether applied to Osiris or a citizen of Egypt, signaled a new, permanent life in the realm of the dead.

For Dr. Smith, living forever in Heaven is different from being risen. To emphasize the point, he prattles on about how Osiris and his faithful have eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, and how that's different from life on earth. This scholarly technique is called "digging the hole deeper."

The myth and ritual of Osiris emphasizes the message that there is life for the dead, although it is of a different character than that of the living. What is to be feared is "dying a second time in the realm of the dead" (Book of Going Forth by Day 175-176).

Osiris is a powerful god of the potent dead. In no sense can the dramatic myth of his death and reanimation be harmonized to the pattern of dying and rising gods.
[Jonathan Z. Smith, "Dying and Rising Gods," in Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987, Volume 3, page 524-5]

That's it. That's all Dr. Smith's reasons for saying Osiris—you know, the ancient Egyptian God who died, and came back to life and went to Heaven, where he judges people and offers them eternal life in Heaven, that Osiris—that's all Dr. Smith's reasons for saying Osiris isn't a dying and rising god.

This papyrus from 1,250 BC, shows Osiris, who died, came alive again—er, "rejuvinated"—and went to Egyptian Heaven, judging a dead guy and giving him eternal life. Not enough, say scholars, to make Osiris a dying and rising God!

So when you hear someone sigh "Must we go on about these tired old theories—scholars don't believe them, why should you?" this is the "scholarship" they're talking about. Not, I'm guessing, what Mrs. Smith's friends have in mind when they tell her she has such a smart boy.

Dr. Smith has other silly (in my opinion) reasons for dismissing other dying and rising gods. I'll get around to explaining them one of these days. Or you can read his article for yourself: Jonathan Z. Smith, "Dying and Rising Gods," in Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987, Volume 3, page 521 - 7

	Dr. Tryggve Mettinger  Lund University, Stockholm, Sweden

A real look at the scholarship of dying and rising Gods.
So, don't get suckered into thinking scholars everywhere actually do agree there were no dying and rising Gods. They don't. As far as I know, the best current roundup of the scholarship is Professor Tryggve Mettinger's book The Riddle of Resurrection, "Dying and Rising Gods" in the Ancient Near East. Dr. Mettinger believes there were dying and rising Gods, and he cites other scholars who agree. Funny, you never hear apologists mention this.

Here's some of the stuff you'll learn from Dr. Mettinger's book:

Yeah, but. Yeah, but what academics mean when they say "dying and rising God" is not what you or I think when we hear "dying and rising God". Over the years the academic definition has narrowed down to include only
#1 first rank Gods, who
#2 die
#3 return to life on earth
#4 yearly with the growing seasons [usually].
#5 with documented resurrection-celebrating rituals

For example, the Ugaritic texts (clay tables from the second millennium BC, dug up at a Syrian town called Ras Shamara now, Ugarit back then) tell myths about a God named Melquart, and how he died and rose again. But, they don't tell about rituals celebrating Melquart's resurrection. So: people believed Melquart lived and died and got reborn, people told stories about how Melquart lived and died and got reborn, people wrote down stories about how Melquart lived and died and got reborn, but we can't document Melquart rituals, so there really were no dying and rising Gods. QED. Your tax money at work.

That scrunched down definition means that in formal academic "dying and rising Gods" scholarship a lot of Gods who look a lot like Jesus get crossed off the list—even though they do die and they do come back to life. Yes, I know it sound nutty, but that's how it works.

The upshot is people can accurately say Scholars don't believe in dying and rising Gods, why should you? When you hear that, your corect answer is, Apples and crab-apples. Scholars have convinced each other that only crab-apples are "apples." Scholars end up saying Granny Smiths and Braeburns and Red Deliciouseses aren't really apples. The "scholarly" academic definition rules out relevant Gods from the get go—the Gods who existed, Gods who died, Gods who came back to life, Gods who the rigid academic definition excludes.

Phooey.

Who gets excluded and why
In case you think I'm puffing too hard about the academic definition of "dying and rising God," here's a look at a few Gods who scholars say are not dying and rising Gods.

Osiris
Scholars agree Osiris did die and did get resurrected and did go to Egyptian heaven, where he judges people and gives his followers eternal life...

Osiris died, came back to life, and lives in Egyptian Heaven—not enough, say scholars, to make him a dying and rising God!

... but Osiris lives in heaven, not to Earth, see, so it wasn't really a resurrection. Osiris, who lives in heaven, isn't a living God, he's a dead God, see? So there really were no dying and rising Gods. QED.

Must we go on about these tired old theories—scholars don't believe Osiris is a dying and rising God, why should you?

Tammuz died and came back to life...

... but Tammuz isn't a dying and rising God because he's really a demi-God, not a fully vested, tenured God. So, see, there really were no dying and rising Gods. QED.

Must we go on about these tired old theories—scholars don't believe Tammuz is a dying and rising God, why should you?

Adonis' followers mourn his death, then the next day proclaim "he lives."

Here's how Plutarch, away back yonder, described it >>

"As a memorial of his [Adonis'] suffering [i.e. his death] each year, they beat their breasts, mourn and... sacrifice to Adonis as if to a dead person, but then, on the next day, they proclaim that he lives and send him into the air"
[Plutarch, Isis and Osiris]

Plutarch says Adonis' followers mourn his death, then the next day proclaim "he lives."
"Dead," next day "He lives."
Dead, lives.
Dead. Alive.
Got that?

... but "So what?" says the much cited hot shot Mark Smith, of NY University, who quotes this same passage...

...then says >>

In other words, says Dr. Smith, Plutarch says Adonis died and was the next day alive—but it's 'hardly clear' what that means, and Dr. Smith can think of other writers who don't mention Adonis' resurrection, so Adonis wasn't resurrected. See, there really were no dying and rising Gods. QED.

Must we go on about these tired old theories—scholars don't believe Adonis is a dying and rising God, why should you?

The unnamed God at Pyrgi There's a stone inscription at a place called Pyrgi which says, and I quote, "bym qbr 'lm", which as you probably already know, is Phoenician for "the day of the burial of the God." So here at least is a God who dies...

...but, as G Snoopers puts it [The God in His Temple, page 120] "bym qbr 'lm" doesn't mean "the day of the burial of the God." It means the day of the burial of "a recently deceased person" That everywhere else somebody cuneiformed 'lm everyone agrees they meant "god" doesn't matter. Here it means "a recently deceased person." That's Knoppers story, and he's sticking with it.

Mark the-passage-isn't-clear Smith finds this reasoning clear enough, in fact, "a very strong challenge to the theory of a dying and rising god". [Mark Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 2001, page 118]

Must we go on about these tired old theories—scholars don't believe Adonis is a dying and rising God, why should you?

I'm still working on this page 

The Riddle of Resurrection Dying and Rising Gods in the Ancient Near East
by Tryggve Mettinger

What you'll find:

	An up to date scholarly review of the Dying and Rising God question. There really were Dying and Rising Gods.
	A look at 20th century scholarship about Dying and Rising Gods—the "scholarship" doesn't come out smelling good.

Ever since Jimmy Frazer wrote the Golden Bough more than a hundred years ago, pointing out that the ancient middle east was hopping with "dying and rising gods," people have argued if Jimmy had things straight.

Dr. Mettinger, of the Dept of Theology, Lund U. in Sweden, reviews the scholarship on the issue, through 2000.

That's less cool than you'd think for a couple reasons.
#1 The scholarship deals a lot on archaic gods like Baal, Melquart, Adonis, and there's not a lot of surviving info on them—so the issue often comes down to scholarly speculation, or scholarly spatting over cuneiform verb forms, as in (I am not making this up):

hklh. sh. lqs. ilm. tlhmn
ilm w tstn. tstnyn `d sbí
trt. `d. skr. yí.db .yrh

(The Ugarites were a very poor people, and so couldn't afford vowels.):

#2 Scholars have defined the issue pretty tightly, so, for example Tammuz isn't a dying and rising god because he's really a demi-god, not a fully vested, tenured god. So, see, there really were no dying and rising gods. QED.

Or, yeah, Osiris did die and get resurrected and go to Egyptian heaven, where he judges people and gives his followers eternal life—but his resurrection was to heaven, not to Earth, see, so it wasn't really a resurrection. So there really were no dying and rising gods. QED.

Because the scholarship is so narrowly defined, it doesn't touch on questions people like you or me would like answered. Questions like, "Well, is it possible there's a relationship between Osiris—a pre-Christian godman who died and got resurrected and now lives in heaven and judges the dead, and Jesus—a godman who died and got resurrected and now lives in heaven and judges the dead?"

Still, none of that is Dr. Metting's fault, and he's written a fine, readable book summarizing the state of the (narrow) scholarship.

Available only at Amazon .com.