Jonathan Z. Smith is said to have blown "the whole thing open" and his Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity was cited.
But then someone made a comment sub-post saying "since then other scholars have disagreed with [J.Z. Smith]. It seems like it's become a little more acceptable to point out parallels between Christianity and the mystery religions. There's just too many obvious parallels", and cited three books -
'The Riddle of Resurrection: Dying and Rising Gods in the Ancient Near East' by Tryggve N.D. Mettinge, and quotes a review -
[Mettinge] musters an impressive array of evidence in support of the surprising, even bold, conclusion that --contrary to popular opinion-- Dying and Rising gods such as Baal, Melqart, Adonis and Eshmun... died and rose! https://www.jstor.org/stable/4150076?se ... b_contents
'Tracing Orpheus: Studies of Orphic Fragments' edited by Miguel Herrero de Jáuregui, Ana Isabel Jiménez San Cristóbal, Eugenio R. Luján Martínez, Raquel Martín Hernández, Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez, [and] Sofía Torallas Tovar, quoting
I would like to present the case of three deities who are not usually considered among the 'dying and rising': the Greek Dionysus, the Sumerian Inanna, and the Ugaritic Baal. After discussing each myth I shall return to Smiths's assertions...This brief excursion through Greek and Near-Eastern mythology demonstrates that the idea of the death and resurrection of the gods is not as impossible as is usually argued. Moreover, the texts are ancient enough to consider them independently from the most famous case of the death and resurrection of a god, the history of Jesus. Perhaps it is time to discuss this famous and popular topic from a different perspective.
'Reading Dionysus: Euripides’ Bacchae and the Cultural Contestations of Greeks, Jews, Romans, and Christians' by Courtney Friesen, quoting
A juxtaposition of Jesus and Dionysus is also invited in the New Testament Gospel of John, in which the former is credited with a distinctively Dionysiac miracle in the wedding at Cana: the transformation of water into wine (2:1-11). In the Hellenistic world, there were many myths of Dionysus' miraculous production of wine, and thus, for a polytheistic Greek audience, a Dionysiac resonance in Jesus' wine miracle would have been unmistakable. To be sure, scholars are divided as to whether John's account is inspired by a polytheistic legend; some emphasize rather it's affinity with the Jewish biblical tradition. In view of the pervasiveness of Hellenism, however, such a distinction is likely not sustainable. Moreover, John's Gospel employs further Dionysiac imagery when Jesus later declares, "I am the true vine". John's Jesus, thus, presents himself not merely as a "New Dionysus," but one who supplants and replaces him.
Not only does Paul employ language that reflects mystery cults in several places, his Christian community resembles them in various ways. They met in secret or exclusive groups, employed esoteric symbols, and practiced initiations, which involved identification with the god’s suffering and rebirth. Particularly Dionysiac is the ritualized consumption of wine in private gatherings (1 Cor 11:17-34)
... Robert Grant has argued that Pliny’s account [of Christian activities in Bithynia (Ep. 10.96)] is significantly shaped by the description of the Bacchanalia affair written by Livy, whom Pliny was known to have read and admired. As in Livy, the Christians meet at night, they sing hymns and take oaths, and they share a common meal (Ep. 10.96.7; Livy 39.8, 18). Moreover, contrary to accepted social and religious practice, as in Livy, participants include a mixture of class, gender, and age, and come from both the city and the country (Ep. 10.96.9; Livy 39.8-9).
Jean-Marie Pailler builds on these observations, arguing that in addition to the verbal parallels adduced by Grant, there are wider similarities in the manner in which Pliny conducted his investigation. His request for direction in policy from the emperor is analogous to that of the consul’s relationship with the Senate in Livy; his question as to whether Christians should be punished because of the name itself (nomen ipsum) or only for offences committed (flagitia, 10.96.2) follows the distinction made by Livy in the prosecution of the Bacchanalia affair between those who were merely initiated (initiati erant) and those who committed actual crimes (39.18.3-4). In addition, Pailler argues that Pliny’s description of the Christians’ folly appears “bien ‘bachique’”: “Others were of the same madness” (Fuerunt alii similis amentiae, 10.96.4).
If the thesis of Grant and Pailler is correct,then Pliny’s Epistle 10.96 indicates that at least one early observer of Christians —the earliest extant example— interpreted their religious behaviors in close connection to Dionysiac mystery cults. In the following chapter, we will see that this perception continues with Celsus who, writing about six decades later, similarly compares Christianity with Dionysiac mystery cults and contrasts Jesus with Dionysus."
