I concur with R. M. Price that the dying and rising god thing does not significantly reflect on mythicism verses historicism.
• <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://youtu.be/PSJ64C7dk0k?t=6390">"Robert M. Price & Christopher Hansen - INTERVIEW!"</a>. YouTube. MythVision Podcast. 2019.
[01:46:30] Ultimately I don't think the dying and rising god thing, though fascinating, really bears on mythicism, because Rudolf Bultmann and Joseph McCabe and various others have long said there were dying and rising god myths and they were among the resources early Christians used to mythologize the historical Jesus.
Bultmann goes into all of this stuff but he thinks, there was a historical Jesus, it was just he was made over in this image as he was: with a gnostic redeemer and the Jewish Messiah. If you could prove that there were dependencies of genealogical relationship, that wouldn't really reflect on mythicism verses historicism anyway. So in a way it's like a moot point—as fascinating as it is.
Cf. Godfrey, Neil (29 May 2019). "Robert Price and Christopher Hansen Discussion". Vridar.
Cook, contra Smith, asserts that "the continued use of the category of dying and rising gods" is justified.
• Cook, John Granger (2018). Empty tomb, resurrection, apotheosis. Tübingen. ISBN 978-3-16-156503-8.
[§.Conclusion] The review in this chapter thoroughly justifies the continued use of the category of dying and rising gods.  The resurrection of Osiris is the closest analogy to the resurrection of Jesus, although Osiris remains in the netherworld—wherever it is located. Horus’s resurrection is a clear analogy. The rebirth or resurrection of Dionysus also provides a fairly close analogy to the resurrection of Jesus. The revival of Heracles and probably that of Melqart are also strong analogies. —(p. 143)
 pace D. Frankfurter, rev. of Mettinger, Riddle, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2002.09.07 who argues that the category “dying/rising god” is merely a “Christian theological holdover, like ‘sacrament’ or ‘faith,’ from a time when all comparison was meant to legitimize or delegitimize dogma.” That premise is based on an argumentum ad hominem (i.e., those intending to “legitimize/delegitimize” dogma) and so is logically fallacious. The language is unavoidable, and even J. Z. Smith succumbs (cf. the quote in § 6.1 above from Drudgery, 133): there are “second to fourth century AD reinterpretation, within some of the ‘mystery’ cults, of archaic locative traditions of dead deities in new experimental modes which appear to testify to these deities returning to life. In the case of Attis, there are only scattered hints of this process.”
Charbonnel prefers that she be identified as a proponent of the midrashic hypothesis rather than a proponent of mythicism.
• <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.lechampdumidrash.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=167:l-hypothese-midrashique&catid=85&Itemid=485">"L'hypothèse midrashique"</a>. Le Champ du Midrash (in French NOW TRANSLATED by Google Translate).
The midrashic hypothesis is fairly straightforward to formulate. Since the early Christian texts have all the characteristics of midrashic literature, are they not simply midrash?
Through the hundreds of studies and articles on this site, the answer to this question is positive and can be formulated as follows:
• The New Testament is a text of the same nature as the Jewish midrash. It is an extension of it.
• It operates permanently under the double cartel regime.
• It deals with eschatology and cannot provide a basis for any historical element.
• All of its materials are already present in the Jewish midrash.
• The many pericopes (narrative units) that make up the Gospels can be reduced to a very small number of generic pericopes. These stem pericopes deal with the entry of the pagans into the Sinai covenant and the lightening of the Law.
• Healings form the central core of the Gospels. The stories of childhood and the Passion are also midrashim.
• These healings are a metaphor for the entry of the Gentiles into the divine covenant. To heal is always to heal from idolatry.
• The theme of the lightening of the Law is an extension of internal debates within Judaism, as the midrash on Ruth attests.
• The writers of the New Testament produce their narratives according to real specifications. Their lexicon and rhetoric obey a relatively rigid code.
• Christianity was built on a univocal reading of texts with double understanding. As a result of three major translations, and the loss of the Midrashic reading key, the current reader has no way of returning to the original meaning. He is condemned to a naive and historicizing reading of the New Testament.
McAdon, Brad (2017). "Josephus and Mark". Alpha: Studies in Early Christianity. 1: 92–93. "The author of our canonical Mark may have been influenced by several texts . . . Josephus’s Antiquities Book 18, and the Septuagint. If so, there will be significant implications concerning the historicity of Mark’s John the Baptist narratives, the dating of canonical Mark, and Mark’s compositional practices."