g_ was translated into Chinese
from _Sanscrit_ (the ancient language of _Hindostan_) so early
as the eleventh year of the reign of Wing-ping (Ming-ti), of
the Han dynasty, _i. e._, 69 or 70 A. D. _We may, therefore,
safely suppose that the original work was in circulation in
India for some time previous to this date._"[302:1]

Again, he says:

"There can be no doubt that the present work (_i. e._ the
Fo-pen-hing, or Hist. of Buddha) contains as a woof (so to
speak) some of the earliest verses (Gathas) in which the
History of Buddha was sung, _long before the work itself was
penned_.

"These Gathas were evidently composed in different Prakrit
forms (during a period of disintegration) _before the more
modern type of Sanscrit_ was fixed by the rules of Panini, and
the popular epics of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana."[302:2]

Again, in speaking of the points of resemblance in the history of Buddha
and Jesus, he says:

"These points of agreement with the Gospel narrative naturally
arouse curiosity _and require explanation_. If we could prove
that they (the legends related of Buddha) were unknown in the
East for some centuries _after_ Christ, the explanation would
be easy. _But all the evidence we have goes to prove the
contrary._

"It would be a natural inference that many of the events in
the legend of Buddha were borrowed from the Apocryphal
Gospels, if we were quite certain that these Apocryphal
Gospels had not borrowed from it. How then may we explain the
matter? It would be better at once to say that in our present
state of knowledge there is no complete explanation to
offer."[302:3]

There certainly is no "complete explanation" to be offered by one who
attempts to uphold the historical accuracy of the New Testament. The
"Devil" and "Type" theories having vanished, like all theories built on
sand, nothing now remains for the honest man to do but acknowledge the
truth, which is, _that the history of Jesus of Nazareth as related in
the books of the New Testament, is simply a copy of that of Buddha, with
a mixture of mythology borrowed from other nations_. Ernest de Bunsen
almost acknowledges this when he says:

"With the remarkable exception of the death of Jesus on the
cross, and of the doctrine of atonement by vicarious
suffering, which is absolutely excluded