Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth > Borrowing, borrowing

Scholarship >	Scholarly Authority	History of the Scholarship	Amateur Scholarship	Yes!
Apologists' defenses >	Different	Independently	First	Ignore
Dying, Rising Gods >	Pro: Frazier	Con: J. Z. Smith
Mystery Religions >	Pro: Reitzenstein, etc.	Con: AD Nock	Con: BM Metzger	Sourcebooks
Summary

Adapted, or invented independently?

.T
"Most scholars have not been historians, but theologians determined to make the documents justify their own theological positions."
Morton Smith [Jesus the Magician, 1998, pg4]

The wolf of theology in the sheep's clothing of critical scholarship A tedious look at the logic of "came up with independently."

Here's something that maybe isn't obvious to you, at least it wasn't obvious to me for a long time: The belief that early Christians came up with their Pagan-like ideas independently—that's not a belief you can get to with reasoned analysis.

Why? The short answer: If you already know about something, you can't come up with it independently, and the first Christians knew about the Pagan ideas before they developed the Christian ideas. The long answer is what the rest of this page is about. The long answer is boring. I've got it here because "came up with independently" is the keystone of believing scholars' modern orthodoxy.

The long answer
lf you're a Christian, you believe Christian ideas, rituals, sacraments and myths are true, and Pagan ideas, rituals, sacraments and myths are not. God revealed Himself—and His rituals and sacraments—through His son Jesus. Good. That's your faith, you don't have to justify it to me. We can still be friends. (For all you know, I agree.)

Faith is not reasoned. Faith in revealed truth isn't reasoned scholarship. What if you want to go beyond faith and and dress up [down?] your faith with reasoned analysis of the historical facts? Then you'll maybe decide the early Christians came up with their ideas, rituals, sacraments and myths independently, without copying from the Pagans. ("Came up with independently," is too long to say over and over, so from here on we'll say "invented.")

If that's what you think, then you'll pretty much have to go along with your believing-scholar buddies, and agree with one of the three regulation defenses that we talked about one page back, at arguments.

Different. Christian ideas, rituals, sacraments and myths are different from pagan ideas, rituals, sacraments and myths. Christian baptism is different from pagan baptism. The Christian eucharist is different from the Pagan Eucharists. Christian life after death is different from Pagan life after death.

Of course you can't say Christian baptism and Pagan baptism are different without saying they're similar. They are both baptisms, after all. (Believing scholars who hold out for Different often insist on something like "baptism and purificatory water initiations,"—because they see "baptism and baptism" concedes the point. This doesn't fool anyone who doesn't want to be fooled.)

And once you've conceded they are both baptisms or "purificatory water initiations", all you can really say is Christian baptism or [your sacrament here] is qualitatively different from Pagan baptism or [your sacrament here]. More elevated, more spiritual, believing scholars often suggest. I've even seen, "more sublime." Whatever; they're all roundabout ways of saying the Pagan sacrament isn't but the Christian sacrament is "true," and "valid."

And that isn't critical scholarship, that's theology. Fine; we can still be friends.

Not different, but it developed separately. Christian ideas, rituals, sacraments and myths are similar to Pagan ideas, rituals, sacraments and myths, but they developed separately. Believing scholars often say, "in parallel." What "in parallel" is taken to mean is, "independently," or "uninfluenced by."

"In parallel" is a sneaky phrase for believing scholars to use, because it doesn't just mean "independently," it also means "at the same time." But it doesn't come right out and say so. That helps the believing scholars' argumentationing, because at the same time would be good if it were true—but it's not. Paganism was around for thousands of years before Christianity. So were the Pagan ideas, rituals, sacraments and myths. What developed separately really means is "developed forty-seventh, but uninfluenced by."

I can't honestly see how it's possible to invent something you already know about. If you know about the soul surviving death, you know about the soul surviving death. And if you know about it, you can't come up with it on your own. If you know about water baptism, you know about water baptism. And if you know about it, you can't come up with it on your own.

How you can develop an idea on your own that everyone else in the culture, including you before you converted, knows about—that's a detail the believing scholars don't dwell on. They're busy doing other stuff, I guess.

In parallel isn't critical scholarship. It's not even reasoned theology. In parallel is wishful thinking in defense of belief. Fine; we can still be friends.

Not different, but it developed first. Christian ideas, rituals, sacraments and myths are similar to Pagan ideas, rituals, sacraments and myths, but they developed first. Them varmint Pagans done stole from us! Backwards in time even—that's the explanation the early Church fathers gave. They called it "demonic imitation."

Developed first?—the facts say different, as the early Christians' backwards-in-time demonic imitation shows. Developed first isn't critical scholarship. It's not even reasoned theology. Developed first is wishful thinking in defense of belief. Fine; we can still be friends.

Bottom line
"Developed independently" is the wolf of theology in the sheep's clothing of critical scholarship. Developed independently is arguing backward to save the answer believing scholars believed when they came in—that Christianity is somehow unique and true. Fine; we can still be friends. But let's understand what's going on.