A History of Indian Literature v2.c19.s7.14

v2.c19.s7.14

It will never be possible to give a conclusive answer to these questions. Any decision in this matter is more or less subjective, for parallels are never equations. In each instance there are both resemblances and divergences. In the vast mass of literature which has accumulated on this problem and which is well-nigh overwhelming,² some scholars emphasize above all, the divergences, whilst others lay stress upon the resemblances. The question of chronology, more-over, can rarely be decided in such a way as to exclude all doubt. All that can be said with certainty¹ is that, centu-ries before the birth of Christ, numerous trade connections and manifold intellectual relations were already in existence between India and the West, and that there is a possibility of Christianity's having been influenced by Buddhism. We also know that, from the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., representa-tives of various religions, Syrian Christians, Zoroastrians and Buddhists, met one another, especially in Eastern Turkestan. At this period it was just as much possible for Christian themes to find their way into Buddhist tales, as for Buddhist ideas to be incorporated in Christian legends. On the other hand, it is very improbable that Christian ideas penetrated to India as early as in the 1st century A.D. It is true that *J. Dahlmann*¹ was at pains to prove that there is an historical basis for the Acts of St. Thomas, that a Christian mission was at work in Northern India as early as the 1st century A.D., and that Mahāyāna Buddhism developed under Christian influence—but his arguments are by no means convincing. The mention of historical names, such as Gundaphorus and Gad only proves that the background of the legend is historical, but not that the nucleus of the legend itself is necessarily so. There is not the least proof of Christian missions in India in the 1st century, and it is highly improbable that Christianity influenced the origin of the Mahāyāna.² It is not likely that anything much about Christians was known in India prior to the 3rd century.³ It must be admitted, however, that the Buddhist texts can scarcely ever be dated with any degree of certainty. Moreover we have always to reckon with the possibility that a legend might have originated at an early period, even though it was not written down until later. We see, then, that these are very complex questions, and each case must be decided on its own merits. It is only such elaborate monographs as those of *Hans Haas*⁴ on the "widow's mite" and *William Norman Brown*⁵ on the miracle of walking on the sea, which can pave the way for a tolerably satisfactory result.