The Influence of Buddhism on Primitive ChristianityLillie, Arthur
Religion
The Influence of Buddhism on Primitive Christianity
Lillie, Arthur
Buddhism; Christianity and other religions -- Buddhism
"For an ass's foal was standing at a certain entrance to a village,
tied to a vine." Our gospels know nothing about the vine incident when
they narrate the story of Christ's entry to Jerusalem. Justin says
that Jesus wrought amongst yokes and ploughs. Of this our gospels know
nothing.
He says, too, that Jesus was born in a cave. (Trypho, ch. lxxviii.) The
First Gospel of the Infancy confirms him here.
"The Magi _from Arabia_ came to Bethlehem and worshipped the child."
(H. Trypho, ch. lxxviii.) Here again Justin is plainly using some other
gospel. Our gospels know nothing of the Magi coming from Arabia.
There is one passage used in the conventional defence to show
that Justin knew the fourth gospel also, but Dr. Abbott, in the
"Encyclopædia Britannica," holds that this is impossible.
"Except ye be born again, verily ye shall not enter the kingdom of
heaven."
It is so obvious that baptism is a new birth, that the Brahmins have
been the "twice born" from time immemorial. The Buddhist Abhisheka
too is called the "whole birth." Baptism must have been compared to a
birth in the young Christian Church from an early date. And if Justin
had known Christ's explanations about the birth from water and the
Spirit, he could have scarcely wandered on like this. "Now, that it is
impossible for those who have once been born to re-enter the wombs of
those that bear them, is evident to all."
But there is a more overwhelming argument. Justin was a Platonic
philosopher converted to Christianity, as he thought. But in the view
of the sober Dr. Lamson, he brought with him into the fold Philo's
doctrine of the Logos. It does not appear in Christianity until his
date. This Logos, according to Justin and to Philo, was a distinct
being, a second God. And in Justin's dialogue with Trypho, he tries to
prove all this, enlisting three times into his argument the passage,
"No man knoweth the Father but the Son." (Varied in Matt. xi. 27). Is
it conceivable that if he had had at his command the opening verses of
the fourth gospel, and believed them to be by an apostle of Christ, he
would have spared Trypho the infliction of them? The poor Jew would
have heard of nothing else.
But a new witness has surged up, coming, as it were, from the tomb. I
allude to the fragment of the Gospel of Peter. Justin writes:--
"For also, as said the prophet, mocking him, they placed him on a
_tribunal_, and said, Give judgment to us." Our gospels know nothing
of the incident of the _tribunal_, nor of the mocking speech recorded
by Justin. "Let him who raised the dead save himself." Now, the
newly-discovered Gospel of Peter says that they did place Christ on
the judgment-seat in mockery. It affirms also at the end that it was
inspired by the twelve disciples, just like the Gospel of the Hebrews.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account