Part 127 (2/2)
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.
<script>