Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions Part 127

What had been said to have been done in _India_, was said by these "half-Jews" to have been done in _Palestine_; the change of names and places, with the mixing up of various sketches of the Egyptian, Persian, Phenician, Greek and Roman mythology, was all that was necessary. They had an abundance of material, and with it they built. The foundation upon which they built was undoubtedly the "_Scriptures_," or Diegesis, of the Essenes in Alexandria in Egypt, which fact led Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian--"without whom," says Tillemont, "we should scarce have had any knowledge of the history of the first ages of Christianity, or of the authors who wrote in that time"--to say that the sacred writings used by this sect were none other than "_Our Gospels_."

We offer below a few of the many proofs showing the Gospels to have been written a long time after the events narrated are said to have occurred, and by persons unacquainted with the country of which they wrote.

"He (Jesus) came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis," is an a.s.sertion made by the Mark narrator (vii.

31), when there were no coasts of Decapolis, nor was the name so much as known before the reign of the emperor Nero.

Again, "He (Jesus) departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan," is an a.s.sertion made by the Matthew narrator (xix. 1), when the Jordan itself was the eastern boundary of Judea, and there were no coasts of Judea beyond it.

Again, "But when he (Joseph) heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea, in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither, notwithstanding, being warned of G.o.d in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee, and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene," is another a.s.sertion made by the Matthew narrator (ii. 22, 23), when--1. It was a son of Herod who reigned in Galilee as well as Judea, so that he could not be more secure in one province than in the other; and when--2. It was impossible for him to have gone from Egypt to Nazareth, without traveling through the whole extent of Archelaus's kingdom, or making a peregrination through the deserts on the north and east of the Lake Asphalt.i.tes, and the country of Moab; and then, either crossing the Jordan into Samaria or the Lake of Gennesareth into Galilee, and from thence going to the city of Nazareth, which is no better geography, than if one should describe a person as _turning aside_ from Cheapside into the parts of Yorks.h.i.+re; and when--3. There were no prophets whatever who had prophesied that Jesus "_should be called a Nazarene_."

The Matthew narrator (iv. 13) states that "He departed into Galilee, and leaving Nazareth, came and dwelt in Capernaum," as if he imagined that the city of Nazareth was not as properly in Galilee as Capernaum was; which is much such geographical accuracy, as if one should relate the travels of a hero, who departed into Middles.e.x, and leaving London, came and dwelt in Lombard street.[461:1]

There are many other falsehoods in gospel geography beside these, which, it is needless to mention, plainly show that the writers were not the persons they are generally supposed to be.

Of gospel statistics there are many falsehoods; among them may be mentioned the following:

"Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of G.o.d came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness," is an a.s.sertion made by the Luke narrator (Luke iii. 2); when all Jews, or persons living among them, must have known that there never was but _one_ high priest at a time, as with ourselves there is but one mayor of a city.

Again we read (John vii. 52), "Search (the Scriptures) and look, for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet," when the most distinguished of the Jewish prophets--Nahum and Jonah--were both Galileans.

See reference in the Epistles to "_Saints_," a religious order, owing its origin to the popes. Also, references to the distinct orders of "_Bishops_," "_Priests_," and "_Deacons_," and calls to a monastic life; to fasting, etc., when, the t.i.tles of "Bishop," "Priest," and "Deacon"

were given to the Essenes--whom Eusebius calls Christians--and, as is well known, _monasteries_ were the abode of the Essenes or Therapeuts.

See the words for "_legion_," "_ap.r.o.ns_," "_handkerchiefs_,"

"_centurion_," etc., in the original, not being Greek, but Latin, written in Greek characters, a practice first to be found in the historian Herodian, in the third century.

In Matt. xvi. 18, and Matt. xviii. 17, the word "_Church_" is used, and its _papistical_ and infallible authority referred to as then existing, which is known not to have existed till ages after. And the pa.s.sage in Matt. xi. 12:--"From the days of John the Baptist until _now_, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence," etc., could not have been written till a very late period.

Luke ii. 1, shows that the writer (whoever he may have been) lived long after the events related. His dates, about the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and the government of Cyrenius (the only indications of time in the New Testament), are manifestly false. The general ignorance of the four Evangelists, not merely of the geography and statistics of Judea, but even of its language,--their egregious blunders, which no writers who had lived in that age could be conceived of as making,--prove that they were not only no such persons as those who have been willing to be deceived have taken them to be, but that they were not Jews, had never been in Palestine, and neither lived at, or at anywhere near the times to which their narratives seem to refer. The ablest divines at the present day, of all denominations, have yielded as much as this.[463:1]

The Scriptures were in the hands of the clergy only, and they had every opportunity to insert whatsoever they pleased; thus we find them full of _interpolations_. Johann Solomo Semler, one of the most influential theologians of the eighteenth century, speaking of this, says:

"The Christian doctors never brought their sacred books before the common people; although people in general have been wont to think otherwise; during the first ages, they were in the hands of the clergy only."[463:2]

Concerning the _time_ when the canon of the New Testament was settled, Mosheim says:

"The opinions, or rather the _conjectures_, of the learned concerning the _time_ when the books of the New Testament were collected into one volume; as also about the authors of that collection, are extremely different. This important question is attended with great and almost insuperable difficulties to us in these later times."[463:3]

The Rev. B. F. Westcott says:

"It is impossible to point to any period as marking the date at which our present canon was determined. When it first appears, it is presented not as a novelty, but as an ancient tradition."[463:4]

Dr. Lardner says:

"Even so late as the middle of the _sixth century_, the canon of the New Testament had not been settled by any authority that was decisive and universally acknowledged, but Christian people were at liberty to judge for themselves concerning the genuineness of writings proposed to them as apostolical, and to determine according to evidence."[464:1]

The learned Michaelis says:

"No ma.n.u.script of the New Testament now extant is prior to the _sixth century_, and what is to be lamented, various readings which, as appears from the quotations of the Fathers, were in the text of the Greek Testament, are to be found in none of the ma.n.u.scripts which are at present remaining."[464:2]

And Bishop Marsh says:

"It is a certain fact, that several readings in our common printed text are nothing more than _alterations_ made by Origen, whose authority was so great in the Christian Church (A. D. 230) that emendations which he proposed, though, as he himself acknowledged, they were supported by the evidence of no ma.n.u.script, were very generally received."[464:3]

In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius gives us a list of what books at that time (A. D. 315) were considered canonical. They are as follows:

"The four-fold writings of the Evangelists," "The Acts of the Apostles," "The Epistles of Peter," "after these the _first_ of John, and that of Peter," "_All these are received for undoubted._" "The Revelation of St. John, _some disavow_."

"The books which are _gainsaid_, though well known unto many, are these: the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the _latter_ of Peter, the _second_ and _third_ of John, _whether they were John the Evangelist, or some other of the same name_."[464:4]

Though Irenaeus, in the second century, is the first who mentions the evangelists, and Origen, in the third century, is the first who gives us a catalogue of the books contained in the New Testament, Mosheim's admission still stands before us. We have no grounds of a.s.surance that the mere mention of the _names_ of the evangelists by Irenaeus, or the arbitrary drawing up of a particular catalogue by Origen, were of any authority. It is still unknown _by whom_, or _where_, or _when_, the canon of the New Testament was settled. But in this absence of positive evidence we have abundance of negative proof. We know when it was _not_ settled. We know it was not settled in the time of the Emperor Justinian, nor in the time of Ca.s.siodorus; that is, not at any time _before the middle of the sixth century_, "by any authority that was decisive and universally acknowledged; but Christian people were at liberty to judge for themselves concerning the genuineness of writings proposed to them as apostolical."

We cannot do better than close this chapter with the words of Prof. Max Muller, who, in speaking of Buddhism, says:

"We have in the history of Buddhism an excellent opportunity for watching the process by which a canon of sacred books is called into existence. We see here, _as elsewhere_, that during the life-time of the teacher, no record of events, no sacred code containing the sayings of the Master, was wanted.

His presence was enough, and thoughts of the future, and more particularly, of future greatness, seldom entered the minds of those who followed him. It was only after Buddha had left the world to enter into _Nirvana_, that his disciples attempted to recall the sayings and doings of their departed friend and master. At that time, everything that seemed to redound to the glory of Buddha, however extraordinary and incredible, was eagerly welcomed, while witnesses who would have ventured to criticise or reject unsupported statements, or to detract in any way from the holy character of Buddha, had no chance of ever being listened to. And when, in spite of all this, differences of opinion arose, they were not brought to the test by a careful weighing of evidence, but the names of '_unbeliever_' and '_heretic_' were quickly invented in India _as elsewhere_, and bandied backwards and forwards between contending parties, till at last, when the doctors disagreed, the help of the secular power had to be invoked, and kings and emperors a.s.sembled councils for the suppression of schism, for the settlement of an orthodox creed, and for the completion of a _sacred canon_."[465:1]

That which Prof. Muller describes as taking place in the religion of Christ Buddha, is exactly what took place in the religion of Christ Jesus. That the miraculous, and many of the non-miraculous, events related in the Gospels never happened, is demonstrable from the facts which we have seen in this work, that nearly all of these events, had been previously related of the G.o.ds and G.o.ddesses of heathen nations of antiquity, more especially of the Hindoo Saviour _Crishna_, and the Buddhist Saviour _Buddha_, whose religion, with less alterations than time and translations have made in the Jewish Scriptures, may be traced in nearly every dogma and every ceremony of the evangelical mythology.

NOTE.--The _Codex Sinaiticus_, referred to on the preceding page, (_note_ 2,) was found at the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, by Tischendorf, in 1859. He _supposes_ that it belongs to the 4th cent.; but Dr. Davidson (in Kitto's Bib. Ency., Art. MSS.) thinks different. He says: "_Probably_ it is of the 6th _cent._," while he states that the _Codex Vatica.n.u.s_ "is _believed_ to belong to the 4th cent.," and the _Codex_ Alexandrinus to the 5th cent. McClintock & Strong's Ency. (Art.

MSS.,) relying probably on Tischendorf's conjecture, places the _Codex Sinaiticus_ first. "It is _probably_ the oldest of the MSS. of the N.

T., and of the 4th cent.," say they. The _Codex Vatica.n.u.s_ is considered the next oldest, and the _Codex Alexandrinus_ is placed third in order, and "was _probably_ written in the first half of the 5th cent." The writer of the art. N. T. in Smith's _Bib. Dic._ says: "The _Codex Sinaiticus_ is probably the oldest of the MSS. of the N. T., and of the 4th cent.;" and that the _Codex Alexandrinus_ "was _probably_ written in the first half of the 5th cent." Thus we see that in determining the dates of the MSS. of the N. T., Christian divines are obliged to resort to _conjecture_; there being no certainty whatever in the matter. But with all their "suppositions," "probabilities," "beliefs" and "conjectures," we have the words of the learned Michaelis still before us, that: "No MSS. of the N. T. now extant are prior to the _sixth cent._" This remark, however, does not cover the _Codex Sinaiticus_, which was discovered since Michaelis wrote his work on the N. T.; but, as we saw above, Dr. Davidson does not agree with Tischendorf in regard to its antiquity, and places it in the 6th cent.

FOOTNOTES:

[450:1] Williams' Hinduism, p. 19. See also, Prof. Max Muller's Lectures on the Origin of Religion, pp. 145-158, and p. 67, where he speaks of "the Hindus, who, thousands of years ago, had reached in Upanishads the loftiest heights of philosophy."

[450:2] The Ancient City, p. 13.

[451:1] See Monier Williams' Hinduism, pp. 109, 110, and Indian Wisdom, p. 493.

[451:2] See Isis Unveiled, vol. ii. p. 576, for the authority of Prof.

Max Muller.

[451:3] "The religion known as Buddhism--from the t.i.tle of 'The Buddha,'

meaning 'The Wise,' 'The Enlightened'--has now existed for 2400 years, and may be said to be the prevailing religion of the world." (Chambers's Encyclo.)

[451:4] This Council was a.s.sembled by Asoka in the eighteenth year of his reign. The name of this king is honored wherever the teachings of Buddha have spread, and is reverenced from the Volga to j.a.pan, from Ceylon and Siam to the borders of Mongolia and Siberia. Like his Christian prototype Constantine, he was converted by a miracle. After his conversion, which took place in the tenth year of his reign, he became a very zealous supporter of the new religion. He himself built many monasteries and dagabas, and provided many _monks_ with the necessaries of life; and he encouraged those about his court to do the same. He published edicts throughout his empire, enjoining on all his subjects morality and justice.

[451:5] Rhys Davids' Buddhism, p. 10.

[451:6] See Chapter VII.

[452:1] Muller: Lectures on the Science of Religion, p. 235.

[452:2] This small tribe of Persians were driven from their native land by the Mohammedan conquerors under the Khalif Omar, in the seventh century of our era. Adhering to the ancient religion of Persia, which resembles that of the _Veda_, and bringing with them the records of their faith, the _Zend-Avesta_ of their prophet Zoroaster, they settled down in the neighborhood of Surat, about one thousand one hundred years ago, and became great merchants and s.h.i.+pbuilders. For two or three centuries we know little of their history. Their religion prevented them from making proselytes, and they never multiplied within themselves to any extent, nor did they amalgamate with the Hindoo population, so that even now their number only amounts to about seventy thousand.