| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reasons > Borrowing > Different |
| Reasons
> |
Choices | Absorbing | Faith | The Bible is true | Different |
| First | Independently | From Judaism | Xerox copying |
| |
![]() |
...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. Religions
that are different |
|
||
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 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:
|
* Don't get excited. Every ancient religion is different, in its details, from every other ancient religion. |
|||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Here are a few reasons the difference-proves-no-borrowing rule doesn't work. It confuses similarity and identity.
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?" 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.
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. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
|
![]() |
The DPNB rule in action: Reverend Bruce Manning Metzger |
|
Consider one of Reverend Metzger's difference-proves-no-borrowing forays in his famous essay >>
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. |
...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 Religion |
|
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.
|
* The non-mystery parts of ancient religion had plenty of new divine men. |
|
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. 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 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.
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. 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. |
The difference-proves-no-borrowing rule doesn't work. Not even a little bit. Don't get fooled. |
|
Testing the DPNB rule: Pagan origins
of the XXX
myth |
|
"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 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 |
The
Gospel and the Greeks
|
What you'll find:
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. |