| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Getting Started | |||
| Scholars argue> | Yes | No | Jesus Theories |
| Facts > | Sourcebook Anthologies | Sourcebooks: ancient texts | |
| Background > | Ancient Civilization | Ancient Religion | Early Christianity |
| Special topics | Mystery Religions | Ancient Judaism | |
| Amateur > | Pagan Origins | Hablo Greek-o | |
| NO!
Christianity did NOT borrow! |
![]() .Incredibly not everyone agrees with me about Christianity's Pagan origins. |
| Early
Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background |
You'll
find:
First
published in 1928 and reissued and updated in 1964, this is the
canonical refutation of the late 19th and early 20th century
scholarly claims that Christianity borrowed from Paganism.
This essay is widely cited as an authority, "Dr. Nock has refuted
the German School. . .", and the arguments Nock developed here are
the same ones believers use today.
|
Nock was a Harvard professor who read and understood the scholarship. He did not—could not, in that generation when scholars knew better—deny the deep similarities between Christianity and the Pagan mysteries. For example >> |
The
Eucharist ... is in line with contemporary mysteries, which purported
to represent the sufferings and triumph of a god, in which his worshipers
sympathized and shared....The
Eucharist is a mystery, as mysteries
were then understood, and Christianity, the heir of Judaism, has also
an essential spiritual continuity with Hellenistic religion. |
|
|
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 To ignore similar fundamental ideas (soul, heaven, salvation, godman), and to attack outdated mid-20th century Jesus as a myth-by-myth analogue theories, 2.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. |
|
|