Omar6741 said
Hello,

       Apart from Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels, which ancient figures or characters — whether Biblical or not, whether real or legendary — had a reputation for bringing the dead back to life (whether once or more than once)? I am trying to make as comprehensive a list as I can.

       I will start: Elijah the prophet is said to have raised the son of the widow of Zarephath (an incident with parallels to the raising of the widow’s son at Nain in the Gospel of Luke):

      (1 Kings 17:21-22) And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said, “O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again”. 22 And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.

       

Please post your examples in the thread, with citations, links, or other evidence if you have them.

              Thank you, and I look forward to your examples!

  

So, before anyone tries it.

Osiris is not raised from the dead. He dies, remains dead, and is raised as the dead king of the underworld. He lives in his death. Tammuz undergoes bilocation, not resurrection. Adonis undergoes bilocation (save in Lucian, where it may reference apotheosis or “rises” but here Adonis was also merged with Osiris, so it may refer to Osiris raised as the living-dead). Baal we have no evidence rose from the dead except a fragmentary text at Ugarit (and in an Arabic echo of that same text, it explicitly states he does not die in his encounter with Mot). Melqart-Herakles seems to have undergone apotheosis after death, but he is not resurrected. There is no evidence Eshmun was “resurrected” until long after Jesus. Attis was not a dying-rising god (he had a preserved corpse; at best the only evidence of resurrection is 200 years after Christianity and a result of Christian influences). Zalmoxis we have no clear information on, except unreliable reports from Herodotus and other Greco-Roman sources. Romulus is not dying-rising either (there are two accounts: one where he dies to the Roman aristocrats, and another where he is taken up to the heavens alive and made a god). I could go on.

Actual resurrection (that is, the body returning to life on earth) that is in any way analogous to Jesus is actually quite rare. The only example of deities who rise again that I can think of would be Inanna, and her mode of resurrection in no way mimics Jesus’.

Omar6741 said

Chris_Hansen said

Omar6741 said

Hello,

       Apart from Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels, which ancient figures or characters — whether Biblical or not, whether real or legendary — had a reputation for bringing the dead back to life (whether once or more than once)? I am trying to make as comprehensive a list as I can.

       I will start: Elijah the prophet is said to have raised the son of the widow of Zarephath (an incident with parallels to the raising of the widow’s son at Nain in the Gospel of Luke):

      (1 Kings 17:21-22) And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said, “O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again”. 22 And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.

       

Please post your examples in the thread, with citations, links, or other evidence if you have them.

              Thank you, and I look forward to your examples!

  

So, before anyone tries it.

Osiris is not raised from the dead. He dies, remains dead, and is raised as the dead king of the underworld. He lives in his death. Tammuz undergoes bilocation, not resurrection. Adonis undergoes bilocation (save in Lucian, where it may reference apotheosis or “rises” but here Adonis was also merged with Osiris, so it may refer to Osiris raised as the living-dead). Baal we have no evidence rose from the dead except a fragmentary text at Ugarit (and in an Arabic echo of that same text, it explicitly states he does not die in his encounter with Mot). Melqart-Herakles seems to have undergone apotheosis after death, but he is not resurrected. There is no evidence Eshmun was “resurrected” until long after Jesus. Attis was not a dying-rising god (he had a preserved corpse; at best the only evidence of resurrection is 200 years after Christianity and a result of Christian influences). Zalmoxis we have no clear information on, except unreliable reports from Herodotus and other Greco-Roman sources. Romulus is not dying-rising either (there are two accounts: one where he dies to the Roman aristocrats, and another where he is taken up to the heavens alive and made a god). I could go on.

Actual resurrection (that is, the body returning to life on earth) that is in any way analogous to Jesus is actually quite rare. The only example of deities who rise again that I can think of would be Inanna, and her mode of resurrection in no way mimics Jesus’.

  

Thank you. I agree with that.

For the purposes of this thread, however, I am more interested in examples of living people who raise another back to life (whether through prayer, or through some divine power).

In the Hebrew Bible, I can think of Elijah and Elisha as examples of miracle-workers with this sort of ability. Do you know of any others?

  

Asclepius raised the dead it is said.

Inanna is raised by other people, using special herbs and waters.

Peter the Apostle raises Dorcas (Tabitha) from the dead (Acts 9:36-43)

Eutychus is raised by the Apostle Paul (Acts 20:7-12)

Jarek said
After reading the book “Pagan Resurrections in Greco-Roman Literature of the Empire Period,” I argue that the evangelical themes of the resurrection, the empty tomb, are similar to stories from earlier ancient romance and popular koine literature.

** you do not have permission to see this link ** Slawek is a specialist in this field – you can ask him, because the book itself is written in Polish.

  

I think that is a pretty steep hill to climb. Firstly, we have resurrection already present in Judaic work, before the Hellenistic era even. Next, we have the issue that the resurrection parallels are pretty sparse. Looking over some of Slawek’s work, there are a number of examples which do not serve as parallels at all. Glaucus is raised through use of an herb, and so has more similarities to Inanna than Jesus. The comparison of Callirhoe and Jesus paper is just pathetically weak… because Callirhoe didn’t even die… Callirhoe is kicked until winded and passes out. Believed dead, a tomb is made for her and she is placed in it. But she recovers there, and then tomb raiders find her, and take her away. Furthermore, this legend only occurs in a Greco-Roman novel written more than a century after Jesus. Slawek, in my opinion, seems to be obsessed with parallelism and really needs to get some critical perspectives from J. Z. Smith and other leading scholars of religion. Of course, this problem exists with all redaction critics and the likes. They are all just relying on outdated methods and thought processes.

This goes back to one of my criticisms above. The whole search for parallels is just bereft of meaning, honestly. It is people going out of their way to make things seem similar, ignoring that the differences are actually far more meaningful (J. Z. Smith), and also those differences exclude the parallels from even functioning. Somehow, living people being buried alive is parallel to Jesus dying and being physically raised from the dead into the heavens. And to be more strenuous, this is why the entire dying-rising god category is nonsense. Some how preserved corpses (Attis), physically risen (Jesus/Inanna), apotheosized (Melqart), translation alive (Romulus), katabasis (Zalmoxis), bilocation (Adonis/Tammuz), permanent life in the underworld without revivification as a living being (Osiris), rebirth (Dionysus), trapped in the underworld alive (Theseus), political propaganda pieces (Marduk), and more all qualify as parallels and the same category (this according to figures like Carrier, Price, Mettinger, and others)? Like, the category is bloody worthless and meaningless without utterly devoid of specificity any of the terminology is at that point.

At that point, me having sleep paralysis mine as well be parallel to Jesus now.

Jarek said
“Callirhoe didn’t even die”

Really?

This book is a query of all ancient sources and their modern studies on apparent death, the departure of the spirit from the body and its return, resurrection, necromancy, revivals, crucifixions, empty tombs, robbing tombs, magicians and sorcerers.

It seems that ancient writers and their readers had a healthy distance from miracles, which they tried to explain rationally, first of all, with a misdiagnosis, unknown but natural causes, an incorrect assessment of the condition of the allegedly deceased sick person. Rational answers were sought.

On the other hand, all these puzzling stories have been used in popular romances and other entertainment literature in every possible way. Nothing unusual. Secrets, miracles and so-called mythic hero archetype are the favorite pastime of the general audience in every era.

And we see those inventions in the gospels. Religion literature is a part of the content business like novels.

  

Yes I am sure that Callirhoe does not die.

And no, the idea that they were just rationalizing miracles and had a “healthy distance” from them is nonsense, given that Greco-Roman literature is chock full of them. The novel about Callirhoe (where the empty tomb comes from) literally has Aphrodite guiding all the events of the narrative.

And there is no mythic-hero archetype. These archetypes are just scholarly projections created in bouts of parallelomania. Things like the Raglan archetype actually have a really high failure rate on “heroic” figures outside Greco-Roman circles, Victor Cook showed that the Raglan archetype, for instance, only has a 28% correspondence rate outside of Greco-Roman literature (see page 146 ** you do not have permission to see this link **). Furthermore, the parallels only work by the usage of such pathetically generic stuff (the hero is a “king”, “son of a king”, “son of a royal virgin” etc.) that half of all royalty to ever exist could qualify for several points by the mere fact of existing at all.

Mythic hero archetypes and the likes are nothing but scholars projecting their desires on the ancient world and construing them into desired outcomes.

Jarek said
“Furthermore, this legend only occurs in a Greco-Roman novel written more than a century after Jesus.”

 

 A reference to a work actually titled Callirhoe, is found in the Satyrs of Persius (died before 62). The author in this particular satire makes fun of lovers of low-level writing, which he includes Callirhoe. Of course, one may doubt whether it is a work by Chariton, but on the other hand, no one could indicate another work with such a title in all known ancient literature. Therefore, one should probably agree with George Patrick Goold that in this case we have a strong premise for dating the romance at least in the middle of the 1st century. And – what is more – a mention indicating the great popularity of the work already in that period. Hence it is assumed today that the work is dated to around the middle of the 1st century or earlier.

Pers. Sat. 1.133–134: “His mane, edictum; post prandia, Callirhoen, do ”

  

I doubt it. Firstly, this also depends on if this is referencing a work with the same Callirhoe, since there are multiple such figures in ancient mythology. Secondly, studies of the papyri and manuscripts show contradictory dates anywhere from the late first to early second century for the linguistic style for the novel. Thirdly, it has been rather convincingly argued that Callirhoe uses Plutarch as one of its sources, necessitating a later date. Fourthly, the Satires by Persius do not attribute an author, which make it even harder to say this is the same work.

This seems like a lot of speculation at best.

Stephen said
Mythic hero archetypes and the likes are nothing but scholars projecting their desires on the ancient world and construing them into desired outcomes.

Yeah but I still have a soft spot for Joseph Campbell whose spell I fell under in high school.  He at least told some great stories.  Of course my bubble was eventually burst by reading contemporary scholarship in the relevant fields.  But, alas, this kind of thinking seems to be making a comeback in the output of contemporary culture star Jordan Peterson.  And behind it all lurks the specter of Carl Jung.   

 

And being nothing if not helpful – the astute seeker after truth may wish to go ** you do not have permission to see this link **.

  

I personally was never brought into the Campbellian mindset. By the time I encountered archetypalism in university (for some ungodly reason, Campbell is really popular in English departments still), I had developed a firm distaste for it from the mythicist crowd and I had begun researching it in more depth (high suggest J. Z. Smith and Russell McCutcheon). So, I spent my semester writing my term paper debunking the Campbellian monomyth. I’ve similarly done the same with the Raglan Hero archetype in peer reviewed literature (** you do not have permission to see this link **). I have a staunch dislike of Peterson and Carl Jung. Carl Jung’s racist, Volkisch movement inspired “collective unconscious” was just an excuse for him to promote nonsense Germanic supremacy and idealism, while pretending not to be a racist (heck, he even hinted in his own writings that he wanted to exploit German suppression of Jewish works, because it meant that Freud’s work was devalued, and his own was valued more in Germany). The fact that there is anyone who still buys into Jungian archetypes is, imo, proof that not all PhD’s are created equal or valuable.

FocusMyView said
Tammuz = early Temple Jesus. 

I hear the complaint about “bilocation.” But what is death to the immortal except bilocation anyway. Most stories about the dead and the underworld has the dead doing many of the same things we do in everyday life: complaining its too hot, too cold, or nobody is listening to me (Beetlejuice?)! I can’t understand the idea of Jesus dying and defeating death unless he was never really dead in the first place. Perhpas dead in the body, but what does that count for when that is just a clay vessel in the first place. Tammuz was in the underworld each year for half the year. And when he went away the women wept for him in the Temple (Ezekiel 8) just as the women wept for Jesus on Golgotha and then came to attend to his dead carcass only for it to be “risen.” 

Tammuz is an ancient shepherd god who was worshipped in the Jerusalem temple according to Ezekiel, and the Jewish claendar still has Tammuz as a month, a relic of their first savior cult. An agricultural savior cult. 

  

Gods in the ancient world can actually die. So, your claims of “immortal” are rather nonsensical, firstly. Secondly, Tammuz never dies. Jesus does actually die. Not a parallel. Jesus is raised bodily from the dead. Tammuz moves locations. The weeping for Tammuz was a ritual to do with crops and vegetation (See Mettinger). The weeping for Jesus was because he was killed and crucified. Tammuz’s bilocation is cyclical. Jesus only is resurrected once. Tammuz’s bilocation is associated with crops. Jesus’ resurrection is not. Tammuz is a shepherd god. Jesus is a vicarious savior. Tammuz is not a savior at all.

There are no parallels. You are just afflicted with parallelomania. The leading scholar on dying-rising gods, Tryggve Mettinger, specifically noted that there is no point of connection for Jesus and the Ancient Near Eastern dying-rising gods. That being said, numerous scholars have also criticized Mettinger for applying such loose terminology that his “dying-rising god” category is basically too non-descript to be useful.