WAS CHRIST A PLAGIARIST?

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXXVII, Issue 11743, 20 September 1902, Page 7

WAS CHRIST A PLAGIARIST?

To the Editor

Sir, —Will you grant, me space for a brief summary of the evidence in disproof of the repeated assertions that' the distinctive features of the Christian faith M-ere appropriated by Jesiis Christ from other systems, chiefly from Buddhism and Hinduism. That evidence is overwhelming. It comes not from one source alone, but is cumulative. For Christ to have stolen from these systems was impossible: 1— Be/cause they were practically unknown in His time. The great classic writers knew next to nothing of Buddhism and Hinduism. They record nothing of the distinctive features of either. And to sup.pose that what was not known in the haunts of learning was well known in the out-of-the-way town of Nazareth in an insignificant province of the Roman Empire is an monstrously "absurd as to suppose that what is not known in the great intellectual centres of Oxford and Cambridge could be well known in some obscure village of a distant English county. 2. —The teaching of Hinduism and Buddhism which Christ is said to have copied had no existence in MS. till long after Christ's day. ':Omega" repeats the oftexploded absurdity as to the Hindu Krishua and the ancient Vedic MSS. But these MSS., which show, the minute detailed likenesses between ' Christ and Krishua, were not Vedic and not ancient. They belong, according to the testimony of the experts, to a very much later period than Christ's day. 3. We have indisputable evidence that the Early Christian Church looked with great hostility upon other religions. They resisted them as the work of the Devil. And yet we are asked to believe that these hated religions were the basis of the Christian system. 4.— Christianity was bitterly opposed in the early centuries of the faith. Competent and well-informed Pagan writers wrote against it. Yet these hostile writers, who, if the contentions of your correspondents are correct, must have known of the teachings of Buddhism, say not a word of any likeness between them-. If Christianity was stolen from these faiths what a powerful weapon it would have been in the handis of these brilliant assailants of Christianity. They did not use it; they knew the Christian Gospel was an absolutely new faith, not a re-hash of effete systems. s.—We have unmistakeable evidence that both Hinduism and Buddhism have appropriated very much from Christianity. Example after example could be given which on internal evidence (according to expert testimony) is proved to have been quite late incorporations into these old faiths. Some of these examples are grotesquely amusing. 6.—And lastly, if the Christian faith is borrowed from these old religions, how comes it that the two great empires (India and China) in which these faiths have held sway so long are the two empires which exhibit no sign of progress, but rather of decay and dismemberment, save for the controlling influence of our own professedly Christan empire. If Christianity is borrowed from Buddhism, why is Christianity ever expanding and widening its sway while Buddhism is effete? The answer is not far to seek. The old religions have no regenerative power, while Christ not only teaches but imparts His more abundant life. We do not despise the good that was in these old faiths. That good was in them is but added testimony "that "the Life and Light of men" never left His world without witness. Rather than despise it we obey the word of the great apostle : "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honourable (or venerable), whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue and if there be any praise, think on these things." Wherever good is found, we rejoice in it, but full well we know that only by the grace of Christ will that good be realised in actual manifestation in the lives of men.—-I am. etc.,

ARTHUR DEWDNEY.

To the Editor

Sir.—The mere fact that a contemporary Avriter dtoes not mention a circumstance is no proof that it did not occur. Thus, the fact that Marcus Aurelius never mentioned Christianity is no proof that it did not exist and flourish during his reign, ac) Aye knoAV it did. Mr. DeAvdney himself Avould not say that tiie Ascension did not occur because the Fourth Gospel did not mention it. If he is right in his contention that Buddhism did not overspread the lands in Avhich early Christianity aveis taught, how is it that the Buddhist ATord "samana," as a synonym for <a missionary preacher, got into the English language? In the form of "sompnour" it ds constantly applied1 by Chaucer to the preaching friar* of his day, and is accepted as the source of our word's "summoner" and "summons."—l am, etc.,

H. C. FIELD

[The above controversy is practically closed this morning. Four letters: from correspondents, viz., "W.8.," "A Plain Man," "Evolutionist," and "Progress," are in consequence declined; but two lette: \ uov/ in hand from Avriters who have taken part in the controversy will appear on Monday morning. These are respectively by "Kai Atua," and Mr. James Aitken, the letter by the lastnamed being in reply to "Omega's" last contribution to* the discussion.—Ed. "Chronicle."]