Since no genealogy of Jesus, “exact or inexact,” is found in any of the world’s records save those entitled the Gospels of SS.  Mathew (I—­1-17), and Luke (iii. 23—­38); and, since these radically disagree—­although this personage is the most conspicuous in Western history, and the nicest accuracy might have been expected in his case; therefore, agreeably with Professor Max Muller’s sarcastic logic, if Jesus “was a true prophet,” he must have descended from David through Joseph (Matthew’s Gospel); and “if he was a true prophet,” again, then the Christians “argue quite rightly that he must have” descended from David through Mary (Luke’s Gospel).  Furthermore, since the two genealogies are obviously discrepant and prophecies were, in this instance, truly “invented” by the post-apostolic theologians [or, if preferred, old prophecies of Isaiah and other Old Testament prophets, irrelevant to Jesus, were adapted to suit his case—­as recent English commentators (in Holy Orders), the Bible revisers, now concede]; and since, moreover—­ always following the Professor’s argument, in the cases of Buddhist and Brahmanical chronologies—­Biblical chronology and genealogy are found to be “traditional and full of absurdities .... every attempt to bring them into harmony having proved a failure.” (p. 266):  have we or have we not a certain right to retort, that if Gautama Buddha is shown on these lines a false prophet, then Jesus must be likewise “a false prophet?” And if Jesus was a true prophet despite existing confusion of authorities, why on the same lines may not Buddha have been one?  Discredit the Buddhist prophecies and the Christian ones must go along with them.

The utterances of the ancient pythoness now but provoke the scientific smile:  but no tripod ever mounted by the prophetess of old was so shaky as the chronological trinity of points upon which this Orientalist stands to deliver his oracles.  Moreover, his arguments are double-edged, as shown.  If the citadel of Buddhism can be undermined by Professor Max Muller’s critical engineering, then pari passu that of Christianity must crumble in the same ruins.  Or have the Christians alone the monopoly of absurd religious “inventions” and the right of being jealous of any infringement of their patent rights?

To conclude, we say, that the year of Buddha’s death is correctly stated by Mr. Sinnett, “Esoteric Buddhism” having to give its chronological dates according to esoteric reckoning.  And this reckoning would alone, if explained, make away with every objection urged, from Professor Max Muller’s “Sanskrit Literature” down to the latest “evidence”—­the proofs in the “Reports of the Archeological Survey of India.”  The Ceylonese era, as given in Mahavansa, is correct in everything, withholding but the above given fact of Nirvana, the great mystery of Samma-Sambuddha and Abhidina remaining to this day unknown to the outsider; and though certainly known to Bikshu Mahanama—­King Dhatusena’s