historically. The history of the Papacy is confessedly "obscure."
Ennodius of Pavia (fifth century) was the first one to address the Roman
Bishop (Symmochus), who comes fifty-first in the Apostolic succession,
as "Pope." Thus, if we were to write the history of Christianity, and
indulge in remarks upon its chronology, we might say that since there
were no antecedent Popes, and since the Apostolic line began with
Symmochus (498 A.D.), all Christian records beginning with the Nativity
and up to the sixth century are therefore "fabulous traditions," and all
Christian chronology is "purely hypothetical."

3rd.--Two discrepant dates in Buddhist chronology are scornfully pointed
out by the Oxford Professor. If the landing of Vijaya, in Lanka--he
says--on the same day that Buddha reached Nirvana (died) is in
fulfilment of Buddha's prophecy, then "if Buddha was a true prophet, the
Ceylonese argue quite rightly that he must have died in the year of the
conquest, or 543 B.C." (p. 270). On the other hand, the Chinese have a
Buddhist chronology of their own; and it does not agree with the
Ceylonese. "The lifetime of Buddha from 1029 to 950 rests on his own
prophecy that a millennium would elapse from his death to the conversion
of China. If, therefore, Buddha was a true prophet, he must have lived
about 1000 B.C." (p. 266). But the date does not agree with the
Ceylonese chronology--ergo, Buddha was a false prophet. As to that other
"the first and most important link" in the Ceylonese as well as in the
Chinese chronology, "it is extremely weak." .... In the Ceylonese "a
miraculous genealogy had to be provided for Vijaya," and, "a prophecy
was therefore invented" (p. 269).

On these same lines of argument it may be argued that:

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