[498]ForHucandGabet，seeSouvenirsd’unVoyagedanslaTartarie，leThibet，etlaChine，EnglishtranslationbyHazlitt，London，1851；alsosupplementaryworkbyHuc。ForBishopBigandet，seehisLifeofBuddha，passim。AsforauthorityforthefactthathisbookwascondemnedatRomeandhisownpromotionprevented，thepresentwriterhasthebishop’sownstatement。FornoticesofsimilaritiesbetweenBuddhistandChristianinstitutions，rituals，etc。，seeRhysDavid’sBuddhism，London，1894，passim；alsoLillie，BuddhismandChristianity，especiallychaps。iiandxi。ItissomewhatdifficulttounderstandhowascholarsoeminentasMr。RhysDavidsshouldhaveallowedtheSocietyforthePromotionofChristianKnowledge，whichpublishedhisbook，toeliminatealltheinterestingdetailsregardingthebirthofBuddha，andtogivesofullyeverythingthatseemedtotellagainsttheRomanCatholicChurch；cf。p。27withp。246etseq。FormorethoroughpresentationofthedevelopmentoffeaturesinBuddhismandBrahmanismwhichanticipatethoseofChrisitianity，seeSchroeder，IndiensLiteraturundCultur，Leipsic，1887，especiallyVorlesungXXVIIIandfollowing。ForfulldetailsofthecanonizationofBuddhaunderthenameofSt。Josaphat，seeFausboll，BuddhistBirthStories，translatedbyRhysDavids，London，1880，pp。xxxviandfollowing；alsoProf。MaxMullerintheContemporaryReviewforJuly，1890；alsothearticleBarlaamandJosaphat，inthenintheditionoftheEncyclopaediaBritannica。Forthemorerecentandfullaccounts，correctingsomeminordetailsintheforegoingauthorities，seeKuhn，BarlaamundJoasaph，Munich，1893，especiallypages82，83。Foraverythoroughdiscussionofthewholesubject，seeZotenberg，NoticesurlelivredeBarlaametJoasaph，Paris，1886；
　　especiallyforargumentsfixingdateofthework，seepartsitoiii；alsoGastonParisintheRevuedeParisforJune，1895。ForthetransliterationbetweentheappelationofBuddhaandthenameofthesaint，seeFausbollandSayce，asabove，p。xxxvii，note；
　　andforthemultitudeoftranslationsoftheworkascribedtoSt。
　　JohnofDamascus，seeTableIII，onp。xcv。ThereaderwhoiscurioustotraceupamultitudeofthemythsandlegendsofearlyHebrewandChristianmythologytotheirmoreeasternandsouthernsourcescandosoinBibleMyths，NewYork，1883。ThepresentwritergladlyavailshimselfoftheopportunitytothankthelearnedDirectoroftheNationalLibraryatPalermo，MonsignorMarzo，forhiskindnessinshowinghimtheveryinterestingchurchofSanGiosafatinthatcity；andtothecustodiansofthechurchfortheirreadinesstoallowphotographsofthesainttobetaken。Thewriter’svisitwasmadeinApril，1895，andcopiesofthephotographsmaybeseeninthelibraryofCornellUniversity。AstothemorerareeditionsofBarlaamandJosaphat，acopyoftheIcelandictranslationistobeseenintheremrkablecollectionofProf。WillardFiske，atFlorence。Astotheinfluenceofthesetranslations，itmaybenotedthatwhenyoungJohnKuncewicz，afterwardaPolisharchbishop，becameamonk，hetookthenameofthesaintedPrinceJosafat；and，havingfallenavictimtooneoftheinnumerablemurderousaffraysoftheseventeenthcenturybetweendifferentsortsoffanatics——
　　Greek，Catholic，andProtestant——inPoland，healsowasfinallycanonizedunderthatname，evidentlyasameansofannoyingtheRussianGovernment。SeeContieri，VitadiS。Giosafat，ArcivescoeMartiraRutena，Roma，1867。
　　NolessimportantwasthecloserresearchintotheNewTestamentduringthelatterpartofthenineteenthcentury。Togointothesubjectindetailwouldbebeyondthescopeofthiswork，butafewofthemaintruthswhichitbroughtbeforetheworldmaybeheresummarized。[499]
　　[499]ForabriefbutthoroughstatementoftheworkofStrauss，Baur，andtheearliercrudereffortsinNewTestamentexegesis，seePfleiderer，asalreadycited，bookii，chap。i；andforthelaterworkonSupernaturalReligionandLightfoot’sanswer，ibid。，bookiv。chap。ii。
　　BythenewraceofChristianscholarsithasbeenclearlyshownthatthefirstthreeGospels，which，downtothecloseofthelastcentury，weresoconstantlydeclaredtobethreeindependenttestimoniesagreeingastotheeventsrecorded，areneitherindependentofeachothernorinthatsortofagreementwhichwasformerlyasserted。Allbiblicalscholarsofanystanding，eventhemostconservative，havecometoadmitthatallthreetooktheirriseinthesameoriginalsources，growingbytheaccretionssuretocomeastimewenton——accretionssometimesusefulandoftenbeautiful，butinnoinconsiderabledegreeideasandevennarrativesinheritedfromolderreligions：itisalsofullyacknowledgedthattothisgrowthprocessareduecertaincontradictionswhichcannototherwisebeexplained。AstothefourthGospel，exquisitelybeautifulaslargeportionsofitare，therehasbeengrowingsteadilyandirresistiblytheconviction，evenamongthemostdevoutscholars，thatithasnorighttothename，anddoesnotreallygivetheideasofSt。John，butthatitrepresentsamixtureofGreekphilosophywithJewishtheology，andthatitsfinalform，whichoneofthemosteminentamongrecentChristianscholarshascharacterizedas“anunhistoricalproductofabstractreflection。”ismainlyduetosomegiftedrepresentativeorrepresentativesoftheAlexandrianschool。
　　Bitterastheresistancetothisviewhasbeen，ithasduringthelastyearsofthenineteenthcenturywonitswaymoreandmoretoacknowledgment。Acarefulexaminationmadein1893byacompetentChristianscholarshowedfactswhicharebestgiveninhisownwords，asfollows：“Intheperiodofthirtyyearsendingin1860，ofthefiftygreatauthoritiesinthisline，FOURTOONE
　　wereinfavouroftheJohannineauthorship。Ofthosewhointhatperiodhadadvocatedthistraditionalposition，onequarter——andcertainlytheverygreatest——finallychangedtheirpositiontothesideofalatedateandnon-Johannineauthorship。
　　Ofthosewhohavecomeintothisfieldofscholarshipsinceabout1860，somefortymenofthefirstclass，twothirdsrejectthetraditionaltheorywhollyorverylargely。Ofthosewhohavecontributedimportantarticlestothediscussionfromabout1880
　　to1890，aboutTWOTOONErejecttheJohannineauthorshipoftheGospelinitspresentshape——thatistosay，whilefortyyearsagogreatscholarswereFOURTOONEINFAVOUROF，theyarenowTWOTOONEAGAINST，theclaimthattheapostleJohnwrotethisGospelaswehaveit。Again，onehalfofthoseontheconservativesideto-day——scholarslikeWeiss，Beyschlag，Sanday，andReynolds——admittheexistenceofadogmaticintentandanidealelementinthisGospel，sothatwedonothaveJesus’sthoughtinhisexactwords，butonlyinsubstance。”[500]
　　[500]Forthecitationsgivenregardingthedevelopmentofthoughtinrelationtothefourthgospel，seeCrooker，TheNewBibleanditsUses，Boston，1893，pp。29，30。ForthecharacterizationofSt。John’sGospelabovereferredto，seeRobertsonSmithintheEncyc。Brit。，9thedit。，art。Bible，p。
　　642。ForaverycarefulandcandidsummaryofthereasonswhicharegraduallyleadingthemoreeminentamongthenewerscholarstogiveuptheJohannineauthorshipotthefourthGospel，seeSchurer，intheContemporaryReviewforSeptember，1891。
　　Americanreaders，regardingthisandthewholeseriesofsubjectsofwhichthisformsapart，maymostprofitablystudytheRev。Dr。Cone’sGospelCriticismandHistoricChristianity，oneofthemostlucidandjudicialofrecentworksinthisfield。
　　In1881cameaneventofgreatimportanceasregardsthedevelopmentofamorefrankandopendealingwithscripturalcriticism。InthatyearappearedtheRevisedVersionoftheNewTestament。Itwasexceedinglycautiousandconservative；butithadthevastmeritofbeingabsolutelyconscientious。Onethingshowed，inastrikingway，ethicalprogressintheologicalmethods。AlthoughallbutoneoftheEnglishrevisersrepresentedTrinitarianbodies，theyrejectedthetwogreatprooftextswhichhadsolongbeenaccountedessentialbulwarksofTrinitariandoctrine。ThusdisappearedatlastfromtheEpistleofSt。JohnthetextoftheThreeWitnesses，whichhadforcenturieshelditsplaceinspiteofitsabsencefromalltheearlierimportantmanuscripts，andofitsrejectioninlatertimesbyErasmus，Luther，IsaacNewton，Porson，andalonglineofthegreatestbiblicalscholars。Andwiththiswasthrownouttheotherlikeuntoitinspuriousoriginandzealousintent，thatinterpolationoftheword“God“inthesixteenthverseofthethirdchapteroftheFirstEpistletoTimothy，whichhadforagesservedasawarrantforcondemningsomeofthenoblestofChristians，evensuchmenasNewtonandMiltonandLockeandPriestleyandChanning。
　　Indeed，sohonestweretherevisersthattheysubstitutedthecorrectreadingofLukeii，33，inplaceofthetime-honouredcorruptionintheKingJamesversionwhichhadbeenthoughtnecessarytosafeguardthedogmaofthevirginbirthofJesusofNazareth。Thuscamethetruereading，“HisFATHERandhismother“insteadoftheoldpiouslyfraudulentwords“JOSEPHandhismother。”
　　AnevenmoreimportantservicetothenewandbettergrowthofChristianitywasthevirtualsettingasideofthelasttwelveversesoftheGospelaccordingtoSt。Mark；foramongthesestoodthatsentencewhichhascosttheworldmoreinnocentbloodthananyother——thewords“Hethatbelievethnotshallbedamned。”Fromthissourcehadlogicallygrowntheideathattheintellectualrejectionofthisorthatdogmawhichdominanttheologyhadhappenedatanygiventimetopronounceessential，sincesuchrejectionmustbringpunishmentinfiniteinagonyandduration，isacrimetobepreventedatanycostoffinitecruelty。StillanotherservicerenderedtohumanitybythereviserswasinsubstitutinganewandcorrectrenderingfortheoldreadingofthefamoustextregardingtheinspirationofScripture，whichhadforagesdonesomuchtomakeoursacredbooksafetich。Bythismorecorrectreadingtherevisersgaveanewchartertolibertyinbiblicalresearch。[501]
　　[501]ThetextsreferredtoasmostbeneficiallychangedbytherevisersareIJohnv，7andITimothyiii，16。MentionmayalsobemadeofthefactthattheAmericanrevisiongaveuptheTrinitarianversionofRomansix，5，andthateventheirmoreconservativeBritishbrethren，whileleavingitinthetext，discrediteditinthemargin。
　　ThoughrevisersthoughtitbetternottosuppressaltogetherthelasttwelveversesofSt。Mark’sGospel，theysoftenedtheword“damned’to“condemned。”andseparatedthemfromthemainGospel，addinganotestatingthat“thetwooldestGreekmanuscripts，andsomeotherauthorities，omitfromverseninetotheend“；andthat“someotherauthoritieshaveadifferentendingtothisGospel。”
　　TheresistanceofstaunchhighchurchmenoftheoldertypeeventosomildareformasthefirstchangeabovenotedmaybeexemplifiedbyastorytoldofPhilpotts，BishopofExeter，aboutthemiddleofthenineteenthcentury。Akindlyclergymanreadinganinvitationtotheholycommunion，andthinkingthatsoanaffectionateacallwasdifiguredbytheharshphrase“eatethanddrinkethtohisowndamnation。”venturedtimidlytosubstitutetheword“condemnation。”Thereuponthebishop，whowaskneelingwiththerestofthecongregation，threwuphisheadandroared“DAMNATION！”ThestoryisgiveninT。A。Trollope’sWhatI
　　Remember，vol。i，p。444。AmericanchurchmenmaywellrejoicethatthefathersoftheAmericanbranchoftheAnglicanChurchwerewiseenoughandChristianenoughtoomitfromtheirPrayerBookthisdamnatoryclause，aswellastheComminationServiceandtheAthanasianCreed。
　　Mostvaluable，too，havebeenstudiesduringthelatterpartofthenineteenthcenturyupontheformationofthecanonofScripture。Theresultofthesehasbeentosubstitutesomethingfarbetterforthatconceptionofourbiblicalliterature，asformingonebookhandedoutofthecloudsbytheAlmighty，whichhadbeensolongpracticallytheacceptedviewamongprobablythemajorityofChristians。Reverentscholarshavedemonstratedoursacredliteraturetobeagrowthinobediencetosimplelawsnaturalandhistorical；theyhaveshownhowsomebooksoftheOldTestamentwereacceptedassacred，centuriesbeforeourera，andhowothersgraduallygainedsanctity，insomecasesonlyfullyacquiringitlongaftertheestablishmentoftheChristianChurch。ThesameslowgrowthhasalsobeenshownintheNewTestamentcanon。Ithasbeendemonstratedthattheselectionofthebookscomposingit，andtheirseparationfromthevastmassofspuriousgospels，epistles，andapocalyticliteraturewasagradualprocess，and，indeed，thattherejectionofsomebooksandtheacceptanceofotherswasaccidental，ifanythingisaccidental。