Talk:Dying-and-rising god/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Older

This article is extremely biased. The external references are entirely slanted. This is a Christian POV article and should be edited to meet Wikipedia standards.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.83.174 (talk • contribs)

do elaborate, preferably including suggestions for improvement? dab (ᛏ) 16:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Addressing POV in layout and content

I've made some changes. I'm thinking that this page should be merged with Chthonic, since that's what they both are. The Criticism of Universality subsection (which I renamed as such, "category" is too general. If "universality" is objectionable, peraps "categorization" would do.) needs major citations "for extended arguments in this vein see also Burkett (1987) and Detienne (1991)" while being acceptable for legal citations, is not acceptable citation for two entire paragraphs on WP. In an academic environment, it would constitute plagarism/academic dishonesty (if that were handed in as a paper, it would fail and possibly be brought up for review). I don't mean to chastise, merely point out why it is important to give sufficient citations. Introductions (sentences and opening paragraps) do not need citations as they refer to material that is cited in the body of the article. I haven't personally read either of the two books, so maybe the original editor could provide some page numbers. If they cannot be cited with reliable and verifiable citations, I suggest replacing them with argumentation that can. I also placed this section below the Christianity section because, with more added info on Adonis, it makes more sense to explain who he is before rendering a critique. Thanks. Phyesalis 22:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias

This article is absolutely ridiculous in dealing with Jesus. It acts as if most scholars believe Jesus was either a myth or that the Gospels were influenced by earlier mythology. This notion was proposed in the mid 19th century and finally rejected in the early-mid twentieth century. Scholars DO NOT hold to this view.

Kabain52 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

scholars do not hold that Jesus is entirely a myth ("Jesus myth"). He is still part of a "reborn god" mythology. This is regardless of the historical individual. See also Christian mythology. dab (𒁳) 15:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It acts as if most scholars believe Jesus was a myth - whilst "most" scholars don't, numerous, respected scholars do - this should be taken into consideration. JumboCactuar (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Arthur

I know Arthur is not a "deity". He has nevertheless been connected with this mytheme. Le Morte d'Arthur: "the only hope Malory can offer the reader is in Arthur’s second coming to recover the throne, a hope fostered by the inscription on Arthur’s grave: REX QUONDAM REXQUE FUTURUS". This is comparable to the Barbarossa legend. Alain de Lille in the 12th century warned that if you proclaimed Arthur was dead, you were running the risk of being stoned by your audience. Searching for "King Arthur + second coming" gives me 35,000 hits. JFK was compared to Arthur not least because of this legend. I see no reason not to make the connection here. --dab (𒁳) 19:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Unclear Language

This sentence in the section on Jesus as a dying-and-rising god:

More typically, Christian apologetics (outside Christian fundamentalism or Evangelicalism) do not insist on the historicity of the resurrection but rather postulate it as a tenet of faith beyond rational verification. Understanding of the resurrection as a form of the "risen god" mytheme is strictly independent of acceptance or rejection of the historicity of the event.

I'd like to say this is a misleading statement, but honestly I'm not sure what it even is trying to say. Is it saying that, outside of fundamentalist and Evangelical circles, Christian apologists generally hold that one can think of the resurrection as not necessarily a historical fact, but merely the expression of a "mytheme"? Or is it saying that that Christian apologists don't hold that the resurrection can be proved? If the first statement is the case, then I think that such apologists would more appropriately be called Unitarians than Christians. But then again, the sentence is so confusing that I'm not sure. Corbmobile 05:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence is clearly saying, as you say, that Christian apologists other than fundamentalists and Evangelicals "don't hold that the resurrection can be proved". The more confusing second sentence seems to mean that regarding it as a "mytheme" doesn't (or shouldn't?) affect whether people consider it historical. I don't know whether this sentence is also describing what "apologetics ... insist" upon, or whether it's the article's own statement. EALacey 07:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

: This is my opinion of this discussion: First, removing this paragraph again would be the beginning of an edit war, which I won't participate in, but I will ask an administrator to lock the article until issues are resolved on the talk page. Secondly, Christian recognition that belief in the resurrection is based on faith rather than verifiable evidence of fact is encyclopedic. Agreement with that recognition or understanding of it should be irrelevant to editors. If this belief causes its believers to fall into a different religious category, that is encyclopedic and should be noted. If this belief is nonsensical to some, that is irrelevant to editors in terms of removing listing of that belief, although conflict created by that belief could be noteworthy. If the statement of that belief (that acceptance of the historicity of the resurrection of Christ is based only in faith rather than verifiable evidence) is not well-stated, it should be edited by re-writing, not removing.--Markisgreen 16:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence, as reworded, is saying that "some Christian groups" think the resurrection is "beyond rational verification". I'm sure this is both true and encyclopedic, but I don't see how it's relevant to the rest of the section, which is about how Jesus can be viewed as a life-death-rebirth deity. Is the sentence trying to imply that some Christians think the resurrection is unverifiable because it's a mytheme, or that they think the resurrection can be studied as a mytheme because it's unverifiable, or that its status as a mytheme is evidence against its historicity but they don't care about this evidence, or something else altogether? As it stands, it's not saying any of these things clearly, and I can't see how it's more relevant to the article than any other statement one could make about the views of Christians on the life, death or resurrection of Jesus.

As for the second sentence, I still don't understand what it means, as I explained above. Is it saying that "understanding of the resurrection as a form of the 'risen god' mytheme" doesn't or shouldn't affect "acceptance or rejection of the historicity of the event"? And is this a statement by the article itself, or is it part of the view attributed to the "Christian groups" of the previous sentence? (If the meaning is that "some Christian groups" think it shouldn't affect "acceptance or rejection", then I think that's adequately covered by the Lewis quotation above.)

I'm not going to remove these sentences again, but I can't see at present how they're saying anything that is both clear and relevant. EALacey 17:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the clear reasoning and anti-edit war attitude being exhibited by EALacey. At the same time, in reading the article, I feel there is an understandable point being made in these lines. I made an attempt just now at clarifying that point, as I understand it. I'm not sure I did a great job, but I still don't think the lack of clarity justifies removing the lines from the article. Hopefully a better writer than I will take a whack at making the point in a less confusing manner. --Markisgreen 00:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That paragraph is clear enough to me now, and I think you're correct about what it was originally intended to mean. EALacey 00:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

An additional comment, if anyone is interested in adding them, it seems that the section devoted to Christianities attempts to deal with having their central god figure described as one of many life-death-rebirth deities suggest that there should be other sections focussing on other active religions reactions to this seeming "attack" on their religion. Just an idea. (of course, maybe none of these other religions are active, I'll have to re-skim the article) --Markisgreen 00:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In truth, my main objection was to the unclear prose, not necessarily to whatever it was trying to express. My main problem was that I wasn't even sure what it was saying the the first place. Corbmobile (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Title Change Suggestion: Jesus as life-death-rebirth deity

OK. So I re-read the article and perhaps this article should be re-titled to place it more clearly in the category of articles about Jesus and Christianity. While the article makes a good list of other life-death-rebirth deities, most of the discussion is really about Jesus being in the category and reactions to Jesus being in the category. Most of the religions listed are ancient or, in my guessestimation, could only have a very small number of unorganized adherents. Unless more is going to be added about the other life-death-rebirth deities, it seems this article is really about Jesus as a mythical religious figure rather than being about a bunch of different life-death-rebirth deities.--Markisgreen 00:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge

The "Osiris-Dionysus" article actually covers the same topic, just giving these two gods as examples. Hence the articles should merged. We already have legit articles on these two deities (who are indeed two separate deities). Str1977 ^(talk) 19:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with merger proposal. We should also include information from the 2002 version of the article [1] jbolden1517^Talk 16:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Balder

I looked at the list on the page and saw Balder in it so i jumped up out of my shair and went straight to my books and looked up Balder, and it sayed that he did _not_ resurrect, Hel sayed that he would return Balder to the world if all the gods [?] (may be all peapel) cryed his death, but Loke (Loki) did not cry and changed form and hid... but it sayes that he _may_ resurrect after Ragnarök....

Source: Bonniers Lexikon (1993) book 2 (andra bandet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.200.98 (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jesus ad ons

The latest section of ad ons is rather POV. They also seem to be a mixture of criticism of universality and the specific christian case. Unquestionably there are RSes which assert Jesus is a life-death-rebirth diety so deletion of him from the list doesn't make sense. I think some of this material might make for a useful chart in the Christian section but doesn't deserve its own section and the deletion is reverted. jbolden1517^Talk 15:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The latest add on is hardly POV, since it is largely a citation of a well-known work of scholarship. As with the criticism of universality, questioning the Historicity_of_Jesus is a very tenuous position, since it stands against strong, extensive secular scholarhip. The Bible is history. It is quite likely that Jesus did exist, and therefore was a human being. As such, he is the only real person brought into the "dying-and-rising god" debate. Jesus enjoys much stronger historical attestation than, say, Julius Caesar. In turn, Jesus deserves explicit, contradistinctive treatment.

Yahweh is not in the list, since he is not a resurrection deity. Including Jesus in such lists is a bald insinuation that he too was mythological. However, Jesus was a historical human figure. and that makes all the difference. Therefore, I will undo the all-too-easy deletions of jBolden from May 14. --John Vanderzyden (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This article belongs to an entire category that disputes that Jesus is a human being Category:Christ myth. So no, we can't just make that assumption it is one POV regarding this article. If you read through the category you will see hundreds of RSes disputing that he is unique from these other divinities. You are trying to make a change to a page. It is being disputed. Don't edit war but get consensus for adding an entire section, and deleting a major point of discussion. Some of the content isn't necessarily a problem, but the deletion most certainly is. jbolden1517^Talk 17:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not an "edit war", but an argument for fairness and completeness. My edits are extensive, corrective, and add value. Yours are merely deleterious, as you do not expend the effort to provide a RATIONALE for your actions (other than hearsay). I see no indication that this article is part of the Christ myth category. Anyway, mythological status is not main point of the article, but rather the concept of dying-and-rising gods. Christ is relevant, however, since many like you confuse him with mythological non-human deities. While "hundreds of RSes" may dispute his uniqueness, Jesus is indeed quite distinct from other ancient deities in many respects--not the least of which is his HUMANITY. As I have done, go to the library and read the relevant literature yourself. Deriding Jesus as a myth does not give warrant to lump him together with Osiris and Baal. Oh, incidentally, your comment about "stop edit" is inappropriate--considering that you find it easy to delete major sections of content without justification. Take the time to JUSTIFY your opinions. John Vanderzyden (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting) Making the same changes without agreement is an edit war by definition. The arguments here not on the main page. As for the rationale you are imposing a religious point of view.

1. That Jesus resurrection is historical is real in a way that Osiris' is not
2. That Jesus is historical in a way that say Tammuz is not
3. That historicity is a unique characteristic totally different than other unique characteristics of these type of God
4. That Jesus claimed to be be an incarnation of a God is unique (as opposed to say David Koresh)

Further you are arguing that this article is about historicity and not mythography which is a fundamentally Christian viewpoint. Vishnu has been human many times, Jesus isn't unique in that respect (though the Hypostatic union is unique). As for relevant literature given your responses I doubt you are familiar with the literature, what I think you have done is read a book or two of Christian apologetics on this topic. That is not the only literature on the topic. jbolden1517^Talk 20:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither Osiris, Tammuz, or Vishnu appeared in flesh upon the earth: they were not born of woman; these are merely the names of gods carved in stone--no one seen them nor heard them speak. Jesus is the most famous human figure in all of history, and of course you know what he claimed. No historical figure enjoys the eyewitness and derivative attestation that we have for Jesus of Nazareth. There are numerous critical differences which we do well to highlight in this article.

Oh, incidentally, neither of these references is, by any means, a piece of apologetic:

1. Day, John, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 2000

2. Mettinger, Tryggve N.D., Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 50, Almqvist and Wiksell International, Stockholm, 2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanderzyden (talk • contribs) 23:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

So it appears there is another person here who is also objecting to the change first and then get consensus. So lets discuss this on talk and then get some consensus. I looked up your two refs. Those are good refs, with some bias. They also don't quite take the position you are talking. However the 6 points aren't bad. But they beg the question and be a bit too long. So I don't object to them in a shortened form in criticism. I also object to treating Jesus as a historical person in the bulk of the article. That's the been the primary issue throughout.

So what I propose is that we cite the 6 points without argument in criticism, but the bulk of the article continues to consider Jesus as a test case. The proponents of this theory most certainly do consider Jesus an example of this type of myth. jbolden1517^Talk 01:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Erka?

Seems prudent to point out that no [?] "Christian scholar" [i.e. Trinitarians] hold that “Jesus was mortal, not really a fully divine figure, before he was crucified and resurrected”. Perhaps “Nash” means scholars of Christianity?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.220.220 (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Different authors on this talk page also seem to be using different working definitions of "myth".. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.220.220 (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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 [[2]]

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)

Jung

An IP re-added a source on Jung with no page number. I think the issue of "Jung on rebirth" can be the subject of a long article by itself, and a sound-byte will find it hard to capture, but it should be made clear that Jung views were from the 1950s - after his India trip, and that as the Redbook shows, Jung did not deny the existence of mythical characters - and in fact had deep personal struggles about them. In that sense the Redbook has been fascinating. The issue of the impact of myth on the break between Freud and Jung is probably irrelevant here, but these other issues need to be clarified as I was doing in my text. I will even add a little more, but IP, please discuss here first. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I even added more on Jung and Osiris/Jesus analogies, and it is getting to be all Jung now. In any case, I think the initial vague statement about it foreshadows can go away now, given the fuller explanation and discussion of the exact parts in the writings of Jung and their timings. But I hesitate to add any Redbook material here about his personal internal struggles, this is probably more than enough on Jung. History2007 (talk) 22:48, 20 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)

I believe Jesus was an historical figure and that much of what appears as Christ Myth theory in popular works is driven by a minority of atheists who display many of the very same characteristics of zealous True Believers. Brothers in Spirit. That being said the last person who began to make wholesale changes to articles similar to this that depicted mythicists as kind of crazed ended up being banned. I don't think it's wise for somebody coming from a religious background to start dropping into the lead words that describe opponents as suffering from a mania. The small section on Osiris is a classic hack job with no pretence at npov or critical reading of the source. If I thought something would be misused by a reader I wouldn't put it an article at all rather than write a slanted debunking text that misleads. Thats my opinion anyway and I don't intend to edit the article. Yt95 (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to your view, and I have in the past seen you to be generally reasonable in your comments. In this case, I would point out that the term parallelomania has also been widely applied to all types of fields not just this, and this article is not about Jesus or Christians - it is a cross cultural article. The sources make it clear that even the comparison between Greek and Egyptian gods are criticized. So this article is far broader than the Christian vs Greek myth issue. The entire category is rejected by scholars at large, and as the first user above commented there is no reason for this page to have just a focus on Jesus vs all the others gods. This is a cross-cultural issue, Greek, Egyptian, Christian, etc. And the origins of the over parallel analogies were in Jewish literature, so that is a well established term in comparative religion in any case. While that category had some support in the 19h and early 20th century, by the end of the 20tth century, even its own supporters accepted it as against scholarly views. Still if that term bothers you, I will trim it, but the clearly stated scholarly consensus expressed in WP:RS sources that has been seen as over-generalized at the end of the 20th century needs to be in the lede. I will also add a few more examples from the sources to broaden the coverage. History2007 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really on about the merits of it as a category only that I don't like people being described in the lead as suffering from a mania. I mentioned the section on Osiris as being a classic hack job. Let me explain. The section begins and ends with a reference to Gerald Massey i.e it ignores modern scholarship (save the out of context refutation of the straw man) and presents the description of the death and resurrection of Osiris as being "fringy" source whereas it features in virtually all books that deal with Egyptian Religion written by scholars. The exceptions are exactly that - exceptions. The passage further goes on to give the reader the impression that the resurrection of Osiris proceeds from his being a vegetation deity in the style of Jas Frazer. That is only **very** rarely encountered now amongst Egyptologists and the only example I can think who of who has used in in recent years seems not too be thinking very carefully of what she is writing and gives no evidence to support it.

Frazer's supposed treament of Osiris as being a vegetation deity which then becomes at some point a god of the Egyptian afterlife has long since been rejected. S.G .F Brandon (a scholar-cleric) wrote in the 1970's "The Ancient Egyptian God Osiris has been regarded by some scholars, most notably Sir J. G. Fraser, as the classic example of the dying and rising god of vegetation. Subsequent research has not endorsed the view that this was the original character of Osiris; but the deity certainly became [my emphasis] closely associated with fertility and death and resurrection of the corn." (p.2939) and "However, although a fertility role was certainly assigned to him, Osiris's character of vegetation god was later and subordinate to his mortuary significance [i.e aftelife role].(p. 2088) "Phenomenologically, if not historically, Osiris was thus a prototype of Christ" (p. 2088, Encyclopedia of Man. Myth and Magic)

From the 2000's the Oxford guide to Egyptian Mythology has an article on Osiris written by J. G. Griffiths who also affirms that Osiris was "In origin a royal mortuary god..it enabled believers, through the force of myth and ritual, to accept the conviction that life after death was warranted...In the earliest evidence, Osiris was given the role of the sovereign ruler of the realm of the dead, and the deceased pharoah was equated with him .."he [Osiris] lives; this king lives; he [Osiris] is not dead, this king is not dead." (Pyramid Text 219) ..."The revivified corpse, which received offerings , became the basis of belief in an afterlife; and Osiris , as the initial paradigm, received the epithet Wn-nfr (He who is Permanently Benign and Youthful)".."his benign promise of renewed life came [my emphasis] to be expressed through the appeal of new life, in the cycle of natures fertility, especially with water and vegetation."... "The judgement before Osiris had a strong impact on other religions, particularly on the eschatolgy of Judaism and then Christianity - with the development of Judgement Day and the last Judgment." (p. 302-307, Essential Guide to Egyptian Mythology)

I don't have any books on Egyptology that says Osiris never existed as a human being, e.g he was purely vegetation spirit. Nearly all mention that the Ancient Egyptians believed him to have been a real king and leave it at that. There are a few who do make a choice and like Cerny assert "it is probable that Osiris was originally a human king who became deified after his death. A myth was woven round his person which is less concerned with his former life and rule as a king of egypt than his death and subsequent resurrection after which he became ruler in the realm of the dead."(p.35) "The dead Osiris, however, was deified and a personal creed was attached to his life and death, which was very much like that of Christianity based on the suffering and death of Jesus." (p. 84, Ancient Egyptian Religion) Yt95 (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There should certainly be no implication in this article that Osiris never existed. He may have well existed and stories around him then developed. But this article should not be a detailed treatment of Osiris issues. That is for the Osiris myth article which I noticed was FA-ed but you did not seem to like the latest version there. So that really needs to happen there.

Regarding the term parallelomania it is a really well established term. It does not mean that those who use it have mania at all. It was developed in the Hebrew Bible context itself and then has had wide acceptance by scholars at large. It is used in comparative religion all over. History2007 (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I realise you are trying to develop the article so some observations. I think a fault line opens with the opening definition "In comparative mythology, dying-and-rising god, also known as a death-rebirth, or resurrection deity, refers to a god who dies and is then resurrected or reborn, in either a literal or symbolic sense." and then contrasts this with unsoundness of the category itself. If you use this definition then the door is open to the very obvious objection that indeed there were deities, the classic example perhaps being Osiris, who easily meet the requirements of the stated definition from very reliable sources therefore the reader may be puzzled why such a category is being rejected.

From what I have read so far so I think the heart of the problem is that at one point in time "Dying and rising gods" were treated as a class with very defined properties and for whatever reasons instances of the class were thought to populate the religious landscape of the world. The problem lay in the rigid criteria used in defining the class because soo many of the supposed class members had significant differences in their properties when closely analysed. This led to a rejection of the narrowly defined class but it certainly did not lead to the rejection that deities, vegetation or human, were considered to have died and risen as per the articles stated definition. Donald B. Redford in his highly praised work "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times" doesn't buy into the "Dying and rising god" category either and points out that few scholars of comparative religion would use the term as once applied but he specifically warned about throwing the baby out with the bathwater in a resulting backlash since many myths do share things in common. Henry Chadwick also rejected the rigid class definition but nevertheless still wrote about the deities who indeed died and rose. (Dying Gods, Encyclopedia of Man, Myth and Magic.") My suggestion is to explain the orgin of the term and how it has been used. Explain that a particular class spawning instances is rejected but also explain that nevertheless scholars very much continue to refer to rising and dying deities as per the example mentioned above where Osiris is constantly treated in modern scholarly works as a deity who died, was resurrected and became judge of the dead. The Massey/Osiris stuff also has to go as per previous comments as he is not representative of modern scholarship. As for " parallelomania": I note the prevalence of authors coming from a religious background given in your link. There are lots of people out here who think Christians are hypocrites in general, quite happy to bludgeon anyone who dares tell the truth and that anything goes in defending the "faith". I think it's just another example of how meanspirited words (no matter how well intentioned it's original use was) act as door closer to Christianity. Yt95 (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually the original definition was there long ago, and was not my invention. As for the ongoing observation that Christians do wrong every time they breath, let me note that Samuel Sandmel was Jewish and the concept has also been used by Jewish scholars. But I am not really sure how to continue the discussion given that it seems to be as much about the inherent faults of the Christian mindset (which I think has no relevance here) vs the topic at hand. I should also point out that Wikipedia has no policy that allows the writings of a scholar to be rejected by his/her religion, so Jewish scholar may be used about Buddhism, Buddists about Islam and atheists about Christianity and vice versa. So there is really no point in discussing that issue. Regarding the Osiris myth I think you have also been unhappy about that page, although it is FA. I have now explained the Jung issues in detail here, and the scholarly consensus about the category is clear. I think what can be done is to follow the middle ground between what the encyclopedia of psychology and religion and the handbook of Archetypes and motifs do, because they are overviews. That may be the best way to get the scholarly issues there. History2007 (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Basically you ignore every single point I make (with reliable sources) and zoom into the side issues. If there is anything wrong in how I summed up the problems with the article as I see and if so what are they? You cannot simply make blanket statements that such and such is the scholarly consensus and consign any mention of dying and rising gods to the bin "parallelmania". The article was titled "Dying god" but you appear to have changed the title to "Dying-and-rising god" without any attempt to determine what others think (the last vote was against it) and the nuances involved in such a page move. There is no problem at all in mentioning that there was once an overarching theory about "Dying-and-rising-gods" which nobody has accepted for a long time, but what you cannot now do is exclude the much more wider field relating to dying and rising deities (which the opening definition relates)simply because you have done an unagreed page move that might be interpreted as an attempt to bury what you don't like. Note it was you that created the article Parallelomania (which doesn't appear in the OED or Britannica) and from your edit history you seem to be keenly interested in Christ myth theory related material so maybe you have to show a little more engagement in the material and less on the side issue that you dwell upon above (and I shouldn't give you the excuse to sidetrack either). FWIW Britannica: "Important in the development of fertility religion were the “dying and rising” gods, such as Adonis, Attis, Osiris, and Tammuz. Their cults had a new life in the mystery cults of the Greco-Roman world, where the original agricultural significance of the rites was transformed into more personal and psychological terms." Yt95 (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The suggested rename was by A. Parrot from May 2012 just above here, and I just followed that. And although called Dying, the content was entirely about dying and rising, as the first sentence said. The Dying god may be a separate topic, but take a look here before I started editing. It effectively says "a dying god is one that gets reborn!" Hello? How can a dying god be one that is reborn? So the first line definition was inconsistent with the title, as he suggested as well. Is that not obvious? Let us discuss that to total clarity, then move on to other items. History2007 (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I could run with the existing title and the article would then cover briefly individual deities that are claimed to die and rise, a section would deal with fertility/vegetation issues etc, another would deal with overarching theories Frazer, psychological etc. I think the main things is to detach the individual deities from the theories which seek to link them. The lead should cover all this and try to avoid mixing up different things. What do you think in terms of structure? Maybe the article development should start from the top down in this case so the definition and scope can be set out clearly and which then drives the rest of the article. Yt95 (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but one thing at a time please. Before we talk about structure, let us be clear about the title. Are we on the same page about the title now? Before we go further, let us get over that issue. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

So long as the deities and overarching theories are kept separate then I don't object to the present title. I will leave it to somebody else to justify that this article ought solely to be about the category theory "Dying and rising gods". Yt95 (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now on to structure. Given that this is theinternet generation, the cases may need to be clarified for the user:

• entities that never die
• entities that die and never get reborn
• entities that die and get reborn

Now is there going to be a distinction between god and deity? If so, there are 6 cases, else 3. Can you come up with a sourced lists for these please? That can be the overview section. Then it may shed light on how it needs to be structured. As is the article covers the 3rd case above only. History2007 (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If using the existing title "Dying and rising god" then the deities should be those who die and rise as described in reliable sources (I was using deity as a synonym) Yt95 (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

So just 3 cases in general, with the equation "god = deity" assumed? Is that what I understand? Is there going to be mention of items in group 2 at all? Group one? History2007 (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I will be off line for a few hours, so we will talk later. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever reliable sources describe as a deity who in some way dies and rises. Lets just call them a, b, c for the moment without getting bogged down in particulars or what is disputed. I'm using a public library and I don't think I will have access again until next week. Have a nice Christmas. Yt95 (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now looked at the issues, and will start a new structure discussion below, given the length here. History2007 (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Article structure

I have tried to look at the big picture now. The question is:

• Are we going to create our own structure, or
• Use an existing structure from overview sources

I think it would be best to follow the structure in the handbook of Archytypes and Motifs, and the Encyclopedia of Religion and Psychology, given that the topic has both religious and psychological contexts, with Jung's views, etc. Inventing our own structure will be pretty shortsighted compared to these sources.

The handbook actually has two separate motifs: A192 for dying and A193 for returning and it has a very detailed analysis of them. Motif A192 is for "Dying" and includes Norse gods who die, Aztec and Hawaiians who go away by boat, etc. Then Motif A193 is called "Returning" on the other hand has some of the gods coming back.

The overview section now is based on the handbook and the encyclopedia and uses the more diverse handbook examples - pretty interesting actually. But I did not just use that blindly, I confirmed each example in a separate WP:RS source, e.g. Japanese myths, Norse myths, etc. The Hawaiian myths are however, pretty scattered and they are the only ones sourced to the handbook, but they are not essential, and the handbook is WP:RS anyway.

Now, given that the article discusses both dying and "dying and rising" the title should just work anyway, because the two motifs are pretty close, and in fact so related that treating them together is the best way. I do recommend reading that section of the handbook. It has some interesting details about all the deities mentioned here which are not found in the Wikipedia pages about them, and some (such as the Hawaiians) do not even have Wikipages. But anyway, I think the overview makes the situation somewhat clear with the examples, etc. and the handbook presentation was very much in tune with the Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion presentation, so they in effect confirm each other. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

List of dying gods

I added back the list of dying gods and dying and rising gods after checking them all. As it is just a list of links, any references to the dying nature of the gods will be found on the pages that are the targets of the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.1.233 (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I made a page for it, given that it is a list and long lists generally have their own pages. History2007 (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Even better than a category. Now what will I do with this twelve pack? 24.98.1.233 (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Watch a good movie, drink a few of them and have a good Christmas... History2007 (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Unrepresented viable perspective on the dying and rising god catagory

I was surprised that the dying and rising god wiki page did not contain the astrological points that are to be had on the topic. I feel that the most valid links of comparison to the many gods within this controversial category, lie within their tendency to stay consistent to conceivable archaic interpretations of astrological events. To argue questions such as: was that a viable death, was that a viable resurrection, or could you technically call this a deity is to miss the point of the category. In dealing with literary figures, developed in times of general ignorance to the true nature of the cosmos, one must recognize that uneducated interpretation can take on many forms. The point behind the category should be to show the true derivative of these literary figures. The fact that the stories can differ so significantly is merely a byproduct of the diversity of human interpretation, culture and tradition. The category itself can still adequately express the astrological source of past deities, when told within this light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoop986 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"Zeus then destroyed the Titans by thunderbolt as a result of their action against Dionysus and from the ashes humans were formed" - This line to my knowledge is not correct and does appear to be supported by the citations (at least the not in the online source cited) Greek mythology generally holds that man was created by Prometheus from mud. Also, Dionysus was known to be the only immortal god with a human parent, so clearly humans were already formed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.159.125 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this another "neutral" article that's really pushing a point of view?

If you read the first two or three paragraphs of the article, and skip the rest, you would get the idea that the "dying-and-rising-god" idea is widely accepted among scholars as a standard motif in world mythology.

When you get down to the scholarly criticism section, we find out that the validity of the whole idea is hotly debated, and that there appears to be far more scholars who think the category is a mistake than think that the category is valid. Further, having sampled some of the references cited in the article, it would appear that this entire subject is tied up with debates about the truth or falsity of Christianity. Those who support the idea wish apparently wish to say that the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus is just another variation of a motif that appear spontaneously in many cultures, and therefore is unworthy of belief.

Given that many people will read the first few paragraphs and skip the rest, a truly neutral and objective article ought to indicate in the first paragraphs that there is great debate whether or not this whole idea has any validity, as should the articles that link to this one.

What I'd like to know before trying to edit the article is whether this is another case, like the Alger Hiss entry, where partisans of one point of view control the editing, and will remove any content they dislike?Saintonge235 (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You have some valid points, but you need to be realistic about how Wikipedia works: logic applies up to a point, then dies and is sometimes not resurrected. You are right that the motif of "dying and rising" is by and large discredited in academic circles now. But the motif of a "dying god" is not: Quetzalcoatl, Izanami etc. do die in Mexican and Japanese mythology. And you are right that the "dying and rising god" analogy has been an argument used by the very few scholars who deny the existence of Jesus. But if the article starts by saying that the entire issue is discredited, we are likely get long debates from semi-emotional users who will argue that there is bias the other way. I think the fact that dying and rising is a less commonly accepted motif (as indicated in the motif analysis of the 2nd reference) may be mentioned in the opening paragraph, but if you push the issue further, you are looking at long debates. I will be on "your side" during the debates, but we will both be wasting time, for we will win the argument, only to restart another debate in 2 months. History2007 (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

--indeed, the concept is really not "widely discredited" in academic circles at all, except perhaps in Christian apologetic circles, as Pierce notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.215.252.198 (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

you can debate whether the concept is useful in some sense or other, but you can hardly dispute it exists. I am not sure whether rejecting the category or accepting it would do more for Christianity, so if you "reject" the category, you'll have to explain in what sense you reject it (I am sure there are meaningful way of arguing it is misleading, but you can hardly reject it in the basic taxonomic sense of "here, we looked at some mythologies, and here is a recurring feature we found"). --dab (𒁳) 06:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

It is one thing to inadvertently use a biased source and end up with a biased article because you were not aware the general shape of scholarship. It is quite another thing to cite a scholarly reference that presents a full and balanced view and contort that very reference into something unrecognizable. In my view, this is almost the lowest you can go in terms of bad faith on Wikipedia. Clueless editors will post pamphlets clearly recognizable as their own opinion, or others will cherry-pick sources supporting their own viewpoint, but creating the appearance of summarizing the quality reference you cite, but having your article end up saying something completely different from what is in the source you cited, and then adding insult to injury by leaving a html comment saying "statement above used per WP:RS/AC", idk, going to such lengths just to misrepresent scholarly opinions on the topic of "dying god" is quite astonishing. In our case, the reference saying

The dying and rising god has been debated in the scholarly literature throughout the 20th century. By the end of the century, the consensus was that most of the gods identified as dying and rising died, but there was no return or resurrection. In his 1987 article on mystery religions, or example, Kurt Rudolph claims that the oft-made connection between the mytery religions and the idea of dying and rising divinities is defective. However, in 2001 Tryggve Mettinger affirms that many of the gods of the mystery religions die (often violently), descent to the underworld, are lamented and retrieved by a woman (usually a fertility or earth goddess), and are restored to life, for at least part of each year. Reviewing the critical literature, along with primary sources and some important material that was not seen until recently, Mettinger concludes, "The world of ancient Near Eastern religions actually knew a number of deities that may be properly described as dying and rising", although he adds that "One should not hypostasize these gods into a specific type ' the dying and rising god.' On the contrary, the god mentioned are of very different types, although we have found tendencies to association and syncretism."

resulted in the article text:

The very existence of the category "dying-and-rising-god" was debated throughout the 20th century, most modern scholars questioning the soundness of the category. At the end of the 20th century the overall scholarly consensus had emerged against the soundness of the reasoning used to suggest the category. Scholars such as Kurt Rudolph have stated the reasoning used for the construction of the category has been defective.

So, what Wikipedia did to the above passage is

• "The dying and rising god has been debated" became "The very existence of the category 'dying-and-rising-god' was debated"
• made-up claim "most modern scholars questioning the soundness of the category"
• "By the end of the century, the consensus was that most of the gods identified as dying and rising died, but there was no return or resurrection" becomes "the overall scholarly consensus had emerged against the soundness of the reasoning used to suggest the category"
• "Rudolph claims that the oft-made connection between the mystery religions and the idea of dying and rising divinities is defective" becomes "Scholars such as Kurt Rudolph have stated the reasoning used for the construction of the category has been defective" (this must be the most blatant one, Rudolph talks about Frazer's claim surrounding the mystery cults of Late Antiquity, but hey presto, we can say he objected to the very construction of the category in Ancient Near Eastern religion. The two arguments do not even concern the same millennium for Tammuz' sake!
• Rudolph's 1987 paper is treated as teh consensus, trumping the scholarly references of the 2000s, including the 2004 summary cited which, in its own voice, concedes that Mettinger used "important material that was not seen until recently" to end up basically defending Frazer's concept as it stood in 1910 (with some caveats against naive lumping into "the dying-and-rising god")

So, somebody must have really, really disliked "dying and rising gods" and was willing to do anything to contort the Wikipedia article into saying something different than Garry and El-Shamy (2004), while still pretending to be summarizing Garry and El-Shamy (2004). Just don't do this, please? If you have an opinion, write a great blog post about it, but Wikipedia is supposed to present a neutral summary of what is actually found in the literature. --dab (𒁳) 07:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

After wasting an hour with this **** just to do a superficial fix to give the reader a chance to quickly access the salient literature I was really wondering whom we have to thank for this. Turns out this has been sitting here since December 2012(!) due to a user who apparently thought he was "defending Jesus". Let me state my view on this for the record: you are not defending Jesus by making **** up, breaking the rules and lying. The core message of Christianity is "do not defect in the prisoner's dilemma!" You are also doing nothing for Christianity by denying the parallels with Dionysus in the mystery cults, unless you want to argue that you know better than the church fathers, for whom these parallels were a matter of fact and who were not disturbed by them in the least. But knowing better than the church fathers (who, you know, got to define what Christianity is in the first place) means you are just making up your own religion as you go along. Not that this hasn't happened countless times in church history, but you are not supposed to do it on Wikipedia). Stating these parallels exist is one thing. Arguing about possible theological explanations for them is quite another. --dab (𒁳) 08:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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)