These are tlie parallels upon Avhieli, as has been said, Seyclel laj's the chief stress. He aihnits him- self that the force of the other analogies depends, in great measure, upon the verdict we pa.ss upon the evidence afforded bj' the.se five parallels, which constitute his third group. And if, as we have endeavoured to show, lie has not made good his case in these instances, much of the force of his argument is gone. As to his hypothesis of the existence of a poetic-apocalj'ptic Gospel imbued with Buddhist doctrine, there is absolutely no proof for the existence of such a document. Seydel can bring forward no particle of evidence to support his hypothe.sis. He merely invents this fictitious Gospel to supply the lack of historical connexion between Buddhism and Christianity, the want of which is one of the strongest objections to his theory.
As remarked a1x)ve, attempts have been made more recently bj- Pfleiderer and van den Bergh van Eysinga to trace Buddhist influence on the Go.spel narratives. Among the parallels which the latter finds specially important, maj- be mentioned Simeon in the Temple, the twelve-year-old Jesus, the bap- tism of Jesus, the temptation, the blessing of the mother of Jesus (Lk 11-'), the widow's mite, the walking on the sea, the Samaritan woman at the well, and the world confiagiation. Pfleiderer does not descend so much into detail, but groups his parallels together under general heads, such as Christ as Son of God, as miraculous Saviour, as victor over Satan, as King of kings, etc. With regard to these more recent Avorks, the same criticism applies as in the case of Seydel. Many of the suggested parallels, when closely examined, prove much less striking than appeared at first sight ; and even where the resemblance is closest, a much more natural ex- planation can usually be given of the feature in question on the Christian side than the adapta- tion of Buddhist material. And due consideration should here be given to the fact to which Oldenberg has called attention (ThLZ, 1905, No. 3), that the Buddhist literature which is draA\Ti upon to supply these parallels to Christianity is so extensive, so in- finitely rich in legendary lore, that the wonder would rather be if we did not find occasional points of re.semblance between the Buddhist narratives and those parts of the XT Avhich deal with a similar sphere of life. Finally, while we must admit in the abstract the possibility of Buddhist influence upon Western culture, the fact remains that we have no historical evidence of the spread of Buddhist ideas to the regions in which Christianity had its origin till a much later time. Clement of Alexandria is the first who mentions Buddha by name. In this connexion we may quote the words of Max Miiller (India, vjhat it can teach us ? p. 279) :
' That there are startling coincidences between Buddhism and Christianity cannot be denied, and it must hkewise be admitted that Buddhism existed at least 400 years before Christianity. I go even further, and should feel extremelj' grateful if anybody v%ould point out to me the historical cliuniiels through which Buddhism had influenced early Christianity'. I have been looking for such channels all my life, but hitherto I have found none. What I have found is that for some of the most startling coin- cidences there are historical antecedents on both sides, and if \ve once know these antecedents, the <-oincidences become far less startling. If I do find, in certain Buddliist works, doctrines identically tlie same as in Christianity, so far from being fright- ened, I feel delighted, for surely truth is not the less true because it is believed by the majority of the human race.'
iii. Christianity and Judaism. — When we come to con.-ider the relation of Christianity to Judaism, we feel that the case is very different from what it was in the alx^ve instances. There the possibility of contact between Christianity and those influences to which its indebtedne.ss was alleged was remote. Here we are in the line of direct historical con- nexion. • The roots of Christianity go dee]j down into Jewish .soil. Christ was a Jew bj' birth and education. His whole thought and teaching were cast in Jewish moulds. The very title He bears — the Christ — is meaningless apart from the back- ground of Jewish history in whicli it had its origin. If we claim originality for Him, we recognize that originality does not mean an entirely new start, the severance of all the links which bind the new- Teacher to the religious development of the nation to whicli He belongs. Such originality is an idle figment of the imagination. It never has existed ; it never can exist. If the original teacher is to be a teacher at all, if he is to exercise anj' influence upon the men he addresses, then he must live in close contact with them and link o7i his doctrine to the beliefs and hojtes widch they cherish. So it was with Ciirist. He may be the worhl's Teacher, but He spoke first of all to His fellow-countrymen in Galilee and Judjea, and He used the modes of thought and speech familiar to them. He preached in their synagogues and taught in their streets like the Rabbis of His own day. That there was a certain novelty in His manner of jdeaching is l^roved by the astonishment with which the people listened to it (Mk 1-^ 6-). But was the content essentially ditt'erent from that of the preachers of His own day, or that of the prophets of old ? Had He any new doctrine to communicate ? Or was He, as has Ijeen alleged b\' modern Jewish scholars, merelj' a teacher who gave expression to the best Jewi.sh thought of His time ?