POCM Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth > Borrowing Jesus is Different from Mithras, Osiris, Horus, Dionysus and the other pagan gods

Reasons > Borrowing > Different

Reasons >	Choices	Absorbing	Faith	The Bible is true	Different
	First	Independently	From Judaism	Xerox copying

the Difference-Proves-No-Borrowing rule

...a most profound difference between Christianity and the Mysteries was involved in the historical basis of the former and the mythological character of the latter. Unlike the deities of the Mysteries, who were nebulous figures of an imaginary past, the Divine Being whom the Christian worshipped as Lord was known as a real Person on earth only a short time before the earliest documents of the New Testament were written.
B.M. Metzger, Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions

Religions that are different
can be the source of ideas that are similar.
Greg


	Aslan is not a 1st century Galilean peasant. Nobody I know has trouble seeing Aslan is a knock off copy of Jesus.

OK, so here's where we are. The ancient evidence under the Facts bar has proven lots of Pagan-Christian similarities. In this Reasons part of POCM we're going through the possible explanations of those similarities, looking at which explanations are comprehensive and consistent. And which aren't.

We're about to talk about the apologist's difference-proves-no-borrowing rule: If a Christian idea is different is some detail from a Pagan idea, then borrowing did not happen. Now, if you're new to this Pagan-Christian origins business I know this rule looks good to you, just plain old common sense. Stick around. A bout of thinkulating will show us that religions different in some details can still share—borrow—other details that are similar.

Here we go. It'll be fun.

A popular reason.
I have a dream. Someday someone will write a bookish refutation of Christianity's Pagan origins without picking up this or that difference in detail between the Jesus myth and the Osiris myth, and waving it around shouting, "Difference! No borrowing! Difference! No borrowing!"

I dream it, but it hasn't happened yet. Every one of the famous believers' refutations of Christianity's Pagan origins use the difference-proves-no-borrowing rule. The Reverends A.D. Nock and B. M. Metzger relied on it in their famous essays; Professor Ronald Nash pretty much based his no-borrowing career on it. its everywhere. Even the boy are you wrong emails I get are full of it.

its easy to see why the difference-proves-no-borrowing rule is popular:

Dionysus: Father = God
Mother = mortal woman

Jesus: Father = God
Mother = mortal woman

its easy, and it always works.

Christianity is different, in its details, from every other Pagan religion* -- finding some difference in detail is easy. On account of which, whenever you pull out the DPNB rule, it is absolutely certain you will get the answer, "No borrowing!"

* Don't get excited. Every ancient religion is different, in its details, from every other ancient religion.


	It sounds like good common sense. A cow is different from an airplane; the idea of an airplane was not borrowed from a cow. They are different; borrowing was impossible. How easy could it be? Sheesh.

	If its got tits its a cow, not a plane. This one is a subtle extension of #2. I discovered it in my email conversations with POCM readers. Christian believers do see Christianity and Paganism the way they see airplanes and cows—udderly different. If you've already decided that, like cows and airplanes, Paganism and Christianity are so different that borrowing could not have happened, then the difference-proves-no-borrowing rule isn't really about shades of difference, it's about classification. The point becomes simply to spot a Pagan feature. As soon as you do that, you've classified the idea as Pagan. And since your common sense tells you airplanes (Christianity) can not be borrowed from cows (Paganism), classifying the thing (idea) as cow (Pagan) proves it is not an airplane: no borrowing could have happened. I told you it was subtle. Subtly circular. And widely believed.

	Friends won't argue. This one's not subtle. Reverends Nock and Metzger, Professor Nash and the other fine people who write these Pagan-Christian refutations are Christian believers, writing for other believers. They're not shooting at the enemy, they're passing out ammo in their own trench. They don't have to be rigorous. This is entirely their privilege. We can all be friends.

top

Here are a few reasons the difference-proves-no-borrowing rule doesn't work.

It confuses similarity and identity.

Merely by reading this deeply into POCM you've identified yourself as just the sort of highly intelligent person who has already spotted the flaw in DPNB rules' airplane- cow reasoning. Am I right?

Remember, the reasoning was a cow is different from an airplane; the idea of an airplane was not borrowed from a cow. They are different; borrowing was impossible.

The problem is this reasoning answers the wrong question. The question isn't "How does an airplane compare with something it didn't borrow from?" The question is, "How does an airplane compare with something it did borrow from?"

I know you know the Wright Brothers copied the idea of wings from birds. Yet birds are very different from airplanes. Birds, for example, are tasty.

What's more, airplane wings stay still. Bird wings flap. Airplane wings work differently from bird wings—and yet airplane wings were copied from bird wings.

The Wright Brothers weren't the only people to copy birds' wings.

Pegasus is different from a bird.	Isis is different from a bird.	The Assyrian Winged-bull God is different from a bird.	Angels are different from birds.

The difference-proves-no-borrowing rule confuses similarity and identity. This is not rocket science. "Identical" means sharing every characteristic. "Similar" means sharing some characteristics, not sharing others. Things that are not identical, but only similar, are always different.

When you borrow an idea from someone, you borrow just that: an idea. You don't borrow every idea. Your idea-thing then shares a characteristic with her idea-thing. But generally, her thing and your thing have other ideas that are different, ideas you didn't borrow from her. Your thing and her thing are similar in some details, different in others.

What's more, it's likely that having borrowed her idea, you'll adapt it to your own needs. Even the idea you borrowed from her will be different, in some detail or another, from her idea. Bird wings are made of bone and sinew. The Airbus 380s wings are made of metal.

top

Lets try out the DPNB rule and see how well it works

West Side Story is completely unrelated to Romeo and Juliet. We know this because a number of details in the stories differ.

The Chronicles of Narnia are completely unrelated to the NT. We know this because a number of details in the stories differ.

Christianity is completely unrelated to Judaism. We know this because a number of details in their theologies differ.

top

The DPNB rule in action: Reverend Bruce Manning Metzger

Consider one of Reverend Metzger's difference-proves-no-borrowing forays in his famous essay >>

Yes, the ancient Mystery religions were so ancient they fade into prehistory. So did their godmen, naturally. Yes, Christianity was new religion, with a newish godman [an incarnation, so the story goes, of a nebulous God-figure of an imaginary past]. Reverend Metzger identifies one way, the new godman way, Christianity and other Pagan religions were different.

Reverend Metzger goes on to imagine that one difference means Christianity didn't borrow from the Mystery religions. This is so obvious to him, he doesn't have to spell it out. its got tits. its a cow. Move on.

B.M. Metzger, Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religion

You remember the mystery religions, right? They were those ancient religions with godmen, sons of the great God, born of mortal women, who came to earth, fulfilled prophecies, did miracles, did good deeds, taught wisdom, and brought their believers' salvation. Those mystery religions. Why Reverend Metzger imagined it was not possible to dream up a new saving godman who who looked and acted like all those other saving godmen—the son of the great nebulous God figure of the imaginary past and a mortal woman, prophesies, miracles, etc., etc.— Reverend Metzger never said.

Which is strange. It seems to me if you were going to come up with a new godman, and you specifically and intentionally intended Him to borrow from the old godmen, you'd pretty much come up with a godman like Jesus. And even if you didn't borrow on purpose, if all that happened was your ancient world view already had a notion about what a saving godman was like (and if you lived back then, it did), and you cut your new godman to that pattern, you'd still pretty much come up with a godman like Jesus.

Reverend Metzger left this bit out of his famous essay. Reverend Metzger wasn't shooting at the enemy, he was cheering up the troops in his own trench.

Reverend Metzger's error: similar and different at the same time
The ancient mysteries were old, they didn't need to invent new godmen. They already had theirs. One thing Christianity maybe didn't borrow from the ancient mysteries* was the idea of a new godman. One of Rev Metzger's errors (he made many) was to fail to see that religions can be different and similar at the same time. Obviously the bits that are different in the mysteries, Christianity didn't copy from the mysteries. But the bits that are similar in the mysteries, there is no reason a priori they couldn't have borrowed those. And, as the rest of POCM shows, no comprehensive consistent analysis can conclude they didn't.

* The non-mystery parts of ancient religion had plenty of new divine men.

top

The DPNB rule is not comprehensive. It is not consistent with itself. Even if the DPNB rule didn't confuse similarity with identity, it would still fail to explain the ancient evidence.

Not comprehensive.
Remember, its not just Christianity and Mithras-ism that were similar. its Attis-ism and Mithras-ism, and Dionysus-ism, and Osiris-ism, Adonis-ism, etc. Lots of ancient religions shared lots of common ideas.

We're looking for a theory of religious origins that is comprehensive, that can explain not just Jesus- Osiris similarities, but also Osiris- Mithras- Adonis- Attis, Kore similarities.

The difference-proves-no-borrowing can't do that. Or rather, when it tries it gives silly results. After all, every ancient God was different in many particulars from every other ancient God. If you believe the difference-proves-no-borrowing rule, and apply it to those facts, you discover that none of the ancient religions borrowed any of their key ideas. They all invented prophesy, miracles, heaven, hell, gods, souls, slavery, Greek, etc., all on their own.

The rule that asks you to believe this silly result must be wrong.

When someone gives you a "reason" that only works in the one place it has to work for their theory to be true, and that on other situations gives a completely different answer, you should not believe their analysis.

Not consistent -- even the people who believe it don't believe it.
We talked about this before. Let's test the DPNB rule by applying it not to Christianity and Osiris-ism, but to Christianity and Judaism.

How does the difference-proves-no-borrowing rule apply to Christianity and Judaism?
Well, the Christian three-headed God is different from Judaism's one-headed God.
Christian salvation is different from Jewish salvation.
Christian scripture is different from Jewish scripture.
Christian baptism is different from Jewish baptism.
The Christian Eucharist is different from Judaism's Eucharist—does Judaism even have baptism and a Eucharist?

Apply the apologists' difference-proves-no-borrowing rule to Judaism, and you learn that Christianity is free of the taint of Jewish origins. Which is silly.

The rule that asks you to believe this silly result must be wrong.


The difference-proves-no-borrowing rule doesn't work. Not even a little bit. Don't get fooled.

top

Testing the DPNB rule: Pagan origins of the XXX myth
Here's a story from Lucian, written in the 2d century AD. I'm not sure kids nowadays know the modern version, but read Lucian and tell me if you see anything familiar. Also, notice the differences. Does the Difference Proves No Borrowing Rule really work? If you think so, Wikki this.

"You mean Pancrates," said Arignotus, "my own teacher, a holy man, clean shaven, in white linen, always deep in thought, speaking imperfect Greek, tall, flat-nosed, with protruding lips and thinnish legs."

"That self-same Pancrates," he replied, "and at first I did not know who he was, but when I saw him working all sorts of wonders whenever we anchored the boat, particularly riding on crocodiles and swimming in company with the beasts, while they fawned and wagged their tails, I recognized that he was a holy man, and by degrees, through my friendly behavior, I became his companion and associate, so that he shared all his secret knowledge with me.

"At last he persuaded me to leave all my servants behind in Memphis and to go with him quite alone, for we should not lack people to wait upon us; and thereafter we got on in that way. But whenever we came to a stopping-place, the man would take either the bar of the door or the broom or even the pestle, put clothes upon it, say a certain spell over it, and make it walk, appearing to everyone else to be a man. It would go off and draw water and buy provisions and prepare meals and in every way deftly serve and wait upon us. Then, when he was through with its [page 375] services, he would again make the broom a broom or the pestle a pestle by saying another spell over it.

''Though I was very keen to learn this from him, I could not do so, for he was jealous, although most ready to oblige in everything else. But one day I secretly overheard the spell - it was just three syllables - by taking my stand in a dark place. He went off to the square after telling the pestle what it had to do, and on the next day, while he was transacting some business in the square, I took the pestle, dressed it up in the same way, said the syllables over it, and told it to carry water.

When it had filled and brought in the jar, I said, 'Stop! don't carry any more water: be a pestle again!' But it would not obey me now: it kept straight on carrying until it filled the house with water for us by pouring it in! At my wit's end over the thing, for I feared that Pancrates might come back and be angry, as was indeed the case, I took an axe and cut the pestle in two ; but each part took a jar and began to carry water, with the result that instead of one servant I had now two.

Meanwhile Pancrates appeared on the scene, and comprehending what had happened, turned them into wood again, just as they were before the spell, and then for his own part left me to my own devices without warning, taking himself off out of sight somewhere.''

"Then you still know how to turn the pestle into a man? " said Deinomachus. " Yes," said he: "only half way, however, for I cannot bring it back to its original form if it once becomes a water [page 377] carrier, but we shall be obliged to let the house be flooded with the water that is poured in! "

Lucian, Lover of Lies, 34-36 (2d century AD), -- which you can find in: Henderson, Jeffrey. Lucian III (1921/ 2004), pg. 373- 7

top

Good Books for this section

The Gospel and the Greeks
by Ronald Nash

What you'll find:

	A Christian philosophy professor's easy, readable, affordable roundup of the current state of the apologists' "refutation" of Christianity's Pagan origins.. The more you know, the less persuasive Professor Dr. Nash is.
	Eighty percent explanation of the mid-20th century scholarly dispute; twenty percent gentle kettle logical refutation. Good chapters explaining the monotheism of the Platonists and Stoics, the Mystery religions and the Gnostics.

Because he was a Christian writing for other Christians, Nash (who seems like a smart, likable fellow) was able to write an apologist genre book—one whose tendentious reasoning betrays no expectation of unfriendly critical analysis. His analysis was basically:

1. To ignore similar fundamental ideas (soul, heaven, salvation, godman), and to attack outdated mid-20th century Jesus as a myth-by-myth analogue theories,

2. To bring up differences between Pagan myths and Christian myths, and then apply the apologists' difference-proves-no-borrowing rule.

Available used at Amazon .com

top

A scholarly and handsome reader Kicks POCM's Ass

Malcolm Kirk
malcolm.kirk -AT- dexmedia -DOT- com writes:

Dear Greg,
Thanks for your interesting page. Just browsing through.

to which Greg says

As you are probably aware, arguing from the similarities between two thing to them having a common origin or source can sometimes be fallacious.

No doubt. For example, we're pretty sure the Aztec pyramids were not copied from the Egyptian pyramids—on account of we're pretty sure the Aztecs had no contact with the Egyptians.

But POCM's analysis is not based on similarity. It is based on similarity + proximity + priority + consistency.

There was contact between the first Christians and the Greco-Roman-Egyptian cultures of antiquity. The Pagans had these rituals and theologies first, Christians had them second. If there is a comprehensive and consistent explanation of those facts that does not conclude "Christianity borrowed," Malcolm fails to give it.

If two women wear the same shoes, and woman #1 is a prostitute, this does not automatically mean that woman #2 is a prostitute.

Malcolm misunderstands POCM's reasoning. POCM does not say "woman 2 is a prostitute." POCM observes that many people wear shoes, and concludes, "Woman 2 did not invent shoes all on her own."

top