"In particular" could also be interpreted here as just signaling the main subject of the article, not necessarily making any sort of claim to comparative amount of syncretism.

▲

ajross 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Editor snobbery digression: that would be poor writing. The job of signaling the main subject of the article belongs to the headline and lede, and "Christian saints" is right there.

No, that phrase is just filler. And IMHO it's basically wrong. Certainly if the author want to show that Christianity is more likely than other religions to import ideas, the article has a lot more work to do than point out one myth. Literally everyone does this.

▲

mightyham 2 hours ago | parent [-]

This is a really pedantic editorial argument. I'm not going to claim the author's sentence is anything amazing, but you are being overly critical. The paragraph clearly introduces the general concept of religious influence through contact, then transitions that idea to pointing out instances of this in Christianity. It is quite literally particularizing the idea as it relates to the main subject, and so it uses the phrase "in particular" in its transition sentence. It's not "basically wrong", it's basically right and you are interpreting it in the least charitable way.

	▲	ajross an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I can't tell what you're disagreeing with. I'm just going to repeat: there is nothing notable or unique to Christian appropriation of myths and stories from other religions. It does it at least as much as everyone else does, and everyone does it everywhere. So trying to tie this uniquely to Christianity seems needless and confusing. The deeper point is more interesting and more important. Is there anything in that paragraph you'd like to argue about?