THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXXVII, Issue 11737, 15 September 1902, Page 7

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

To the Editor. Sir,—The subject under discussion is «o serious that abuse, insultl,, and lame attemjptß at being tunny are most improper, ' and only display the weakness- of tne case advocated by those who use tneni. 'JJn.e conclusion of Mr. J>avy'ts letter, in which ha expresses the opinion that no one who did not agree' wain, his peculiar views as to the Bible ought to be employed as a school teacher, as am illustration of What might be expected if those wibo are promoting the movement get libeir way. "Onlooker' only tries to draw a red herring across the scent. The diate of the* two Gospels as a side issue which does not affect the main fact that they are the only ouls of the six which contain, the legend, which we now know to have been borrowed from' Buddiihsm, - and mexeiy coloured afresh to suit Palestinian sumound£ngs, instead of Indian ones. Any unr prejudiced person reading these two Gospels must see tha* the legend is a later edition to the originals, wmch the genealogies prove to Shave agreed with the other Gospels in representing Jesus to have been merely a good main, inspired at his baptism. We now have an earlier version of the Matthew Gospel, and it says distinctly, "Joseph, to whom was espoused Mary the Virgin^ begat Jesus, who was called 'the Christ.'" ."Onlooker" tries to -confuse people by_ naming a lot of oldwriters and critics in support of an, early date far these Gospels; but he mistakes the facts. The early waiters', wihom he names, nevftr quoted f romi these Gospels or even mentioned their existence. Wihat he calls quotations are (merely passages containing expressions similar to those found in tthe Gospels, but such as would be in' common use among the early Christians, and this ptfoves nothing. Papias, whom Mr. Dewdney names, was a Bishop of BCierapolis; and, writing about the year 125, he complained of the difficulty he experienced in getting reliable information about Jesus and his teaching, even from those who professed to have known the Apostles. He says tihe only writings of any value which he knew o£ wiere some memoranda jotted dtown by Mark of what he had heard his uncle Peter say, and some notes of Jesus' words similarly jotted down by Matthew. It is evident that such expressions would not mean Gospels, though till lately it was contended that tihe docuantente might have formed) the basis of the Gospels, Several years ago, however; we got from Egypt a coipy of Matthews' actual lagia, and from these we learn that the teaching of Jesus was utterly different from what it is represented to have been in the Gospels. The real evidence, via., the internal one, is fatal to the early date. In the Matthew Gospel Jesus is represented as speaking of the murdter of Lucharilas, soa of Bara : chias, as having already occurred 1; thougih jt took place during the siege of Jerusalem-, 24 years after the crucifixion. Jesus clearly could not have said' this, nor Matthew rejpreisented him as doing so. The passage proves clearly $mb the document was written so lone1 after these events tlhat their relative dates had been forgotten; unless, indeed, Jesus survived tihe destruction of Jerusalem, which is} quite possible, in "which case tJxa speech is jnerely wrongly dated. In anpther place Jesus is represented as speaking of some <men who "made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake." .Thia expression, "Kingdom of Heaven," firet appears an the New Tessaan>ent, credited to John the Baptist, and it always means Christ's adivent aid teaching, in fact Christianity. At the time when the speech) is alleged to hare been uttered, the only persons to whom it dould possibly have applied1 were Jesus himself and his disciples, and no one ever pretended that either of them was emasculated. The only Cfaristdan whom H»tory record's asl shaving been so was Origen, who is said to have undergone the operation, in order to obtain access to the harems, and (preach Christianity to the women in them. But Origeai was not born till late in tihe second century, and died in the third j and tiros the passage proves the Gospel to have been written so long afterwasrds that the relative dates of the lives of Jesus and Origen had been forgotten; and thus the critics place the date of the document not earlier than the end of the third century. The Luke Gospel is evidently of later date still, as is evident from the greater growth ot legend in it. These are points which every professing Christian can examine for himself, though he ihas not access to the writings of critics, and probably would not understand the foreign ones if he had. "Onlooker" carefully avoids dealing with the parts of my letter which anyone possessh ed of .a Bible could examine for himself. He merely tries to insinuate doubt as to their accuracy. I notice that Mr. Dewdney repeats a quotation from a work of Professor Max Muller to the effect that there were no Indian manuscripts of older date than about 500 years, In so writing, the learned Professor spoke merely of documents on /paper or vellum j and if the reverend gentleman had read thie Pro* fessor'a Gifford! lectures on the connexioni of Christianity with the earlier religions pf the East, and his articles oa the same subject in ~6ne "Contemporary Review" in 1897, as well as the works of Messrs. Lillie and Rhys David on Buddhism, he would have learned1 thaltt the Buddhist Scriptures were collected and compiled into a sacred canort ait a> Council at Patna in 237 8.C., according to the Professor, dr "about 250 8.C.," according to Mr. Davids, wiho says "they aa© certainly not oif more recent date than the latter end of •tihe fourth century 8.C." Moreover, that att that Council these Scriptures were ordered to be engravedl on sheeta of copper, and placed in shrines; and! that one of such copies still exists in India (I think at Amiarapura), in the written Pali character of that date. Its discovery was mentioned in a magazinie article several years ago. The plates are in shrines, _ arranged round the courtyard of an ancient temple. He would have learned! also that at that Council a bodiv of missionary teachers, called "Sannanas," was organised to spread Buddhism far andl wide; that Buddhist writers assert that certainly as far back as 200 B.C. there were^ more than 2000 of these Sanaianias teaching in and around Alexandria, to get to which place they must have (passed through Palestine- that Alexander Polyhistor, a great author, who wrote about 100 8.C., mentions thea» as teaching in Baotria; tihat Clement, patriarch-of Alexandria, writing in the second century, speaks of them as working in his diocese, and specifies "Bonda" as their name for God; andi that Cyril, another patriarch of Alexandria, writing two centuries later, again mentions them. Till lately we had no idea that Buddhism ever overspread the lands j« whicih early Christians throve, but mow that we do j=jiow it, we quite understand how tbe two religions got mixed up, and how tihe l«genda of the one got reooloured and transferred to the other. There is na occasion to accuse Jesus of olarfarism. We recognise that the words wiews put into his mouth by other people ** a later date. As Dr. Bruce, Profes-

sor of N,ew Testament exegesisl at Glasgow, wrote several years ago, "We know absolutely nothing about Christ. All the statements about him, which have come down to us, prove, when examined, to be merely a series of myths, the (product of faith.—l am, etc., " OLD SETTLER.

• To the Editor. Sir, —I think you are a trifle hard on Mr Davy. When one has lived a religious and devout life to the age he names, it is hardly to be wondered at if the words of some of your correspondents seem somewhat shocking. For myself, and I daresay a great many more are like me in this respect, I have ceased1 to be shocked at words; there are so many deeds that are shocking, as the most optimistic of your correspondents must admit. But, sir, are we not trying to debate two things at once? The question of the introduction of a book containing the beauties of Scriptural literature is one, and that of the inspiration of Scripture is another. I think it quit-© possible that some of your anonymous, correspondents may even be foolish enough to deny the exalted ethical-position occupied by the Laws of Moses; the grandeur of the patriotism) of the ancient Hebrew seers, as well as the beauty of their language; and the authenticity of the history and the faithfulness (even to the venje of coarseness) of the biography contained in the Scriptures. But most of them admit these things, and no one can help admitting that Scripture per-' meates literature as salt nermeates the things that we eat. Wh*>\ then, should the young people be denied it? Leaving out the few passages dealing with subjects for which "the youthful mind is not ripe (for, mark you, there is no immorality in the Bible: the immoral acta of bad men, aye, and of frood men too, are faithfully chronicled;, but only | to be reprobated), the reading of the Bible, even aa a class-book, will have an effect that will be good and only good. Much, as I admire Shakespeare, there is no blinking -the fact that a great deal of the Shakespearen plays, written to be performed on the stage, was written for the apolause of the gallery v The taste of the low class of theatregoers *in the Elizabethan age was a few erades beneath that of even the lowest of the modeim "gods," and their degraded tastes had to he catered for. But your correspondents do not object to Shakespeare being read in schools. Why sir, if a play of Shakespeare: in its unexpurgated condition were placed! in our hands to be studied by a class even of boys only, there is hardly an act in any pliay which would not contain passages conflicting with our notions of propriety, as between teacher and' scholar. It is true that Shakespeare mostly tries to make us admire the good and despise what is bad and low, but that is not always the casfl. His "Henry VI11." is one of the worst in this respect, having for its object the glorification of the triumph of the filthy paramour of a king (Anne Boleyn) over his pure and lawful wife (Catherine of Arragon). Another, and a very bad one, is "Antony and Cleopatra" (which, by the way, ia the play set down for study in the District High Schools next year). This pliay abounds in the filthiest andl most suggestive remarks, not inserted that they may be reprobated, but (unless I have missed the author's purpose), to please the vulgar taste of the sixteenth century playgoers. And yet nobody protests. Can you explain why ? I can't. And now to the second question— ' the inspiration of the Bible. Stand back, sir; I'm going to poke this little steelpointed stick into a hornet's nest. Now you'll hear them buzz; now we'll feel them sting. I ■am going to say this: Never mind about the possibility of demoniacal possession, or of turning water into wine, or of miracles in general. Did Jesus of Nazareth rise to life out of the rock-hewn tomb in which he had by living hands been laid, pierced, mangled, and bleeding from the hideous murder of the Oos»? If he did, and if the greater includes the less, then the lesser miracles are easily credible. If he did not, then we needn't bother about- the rest. "In other words, the resurrection of Jesus is the very citadel of our faith, and no event in ancient history half so well authenticated as that resurrection. There lies my gage. Take ifc up who will, but j let him be a man and fight with the visor up.—l am, etc., JAMES AITKEN.