A STRIKING-THEORY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 876, 23 July 1910, Page 14

A STRIKING-THEORY.

CHRISTIAN STORY KNOWN TO MAORIS'.

[By Hake Hosgi.]

PART VI. ' Tho object of this inquiry is as to the synchronism of Tawhaki and Christ, and the issue put into plain words is a comparatively- simple one. The story of Christ embraces certain incidents '' and miraculous doing, moro or ' less superhuman; and the story of Tawhaki embraces certain incidents and 'miraculous doings, more or less superhuman. Some thirty, of these, drawn from each of the stories, have now .for the first time been brought together and- compared. lhc issue, therefore is: Are .the examples submitted o£ such a character as to warrant the conclusion that they are referable to , a.common source?- I have taken the' ground that they are so referable, and this without even urging that any seeming dissimilarity either as to exactness of text or root-motive is to bo accounted for by" the fact that, whereas the oiie story has been a written record for some eighteen hundred years, the other story has apparently during that long period been subjected to all the vi.scissitudes of oral transmission. And yet, a critical examination of any particular ' example ' will fail to disclose a greater .margin of difference thon,' for instance, do .the several written versions of the single incident as to where and to whom Christ is-said to havo appeared on His resurrection. Those discordant versions are, however, admittedly - fcracable to ,a'common source. So much by the way. . Reply-to Criticism. Referring to. the parallels under notice, "Critic,"'-in .'The'Dominion, .presents some, observations of_an entirely condemnatory nature ; with. the assertion: "But if all'the 'parallels' had been admitted without criticism they would havo been entirely inadequate to support the extraordinary theory which Mr. Fare flongi set out to prove." Such an assertion as' that warrants the conviction that."Critic" decides too easily upon a matter, which at. present is quite beyond his power, to determine, and that he is apparently totally incapable of offering a fair criticism upon this subject of. inquiry. "Critic" proceeds to impose upon, us several columns of print in which such-a tendency towards the suppression of knowledge occurs as'to re-, quire some sort of/answer. •■'The thirty, examples which I have submitted are taken from at least''that number of witnesses to the story of Tawhaki. "Critic" takes exception to this "accumulation of little similarities here and there," and instead of - proceeding intelligibly to discuss those he presents his own abstract of a version, of the Tawhaki story, taken from the.lips of a single witness by Sir George Grey, and calmly asks .us to compare that abstract with the story of Christ; a , story which••■:is only- , partially contained in the .whole of-the four Gospels and the Acts of-.the Apostles. It-may be that sometimes the comparison of a small a'whole; adds to human knowledge; but it does not do so" in this instance. Moreover, the matter lies'outside of .-our,' inquiry. What.is more to the.purpose,is the great, fact that it was by'means of,the 'process, which, ."Critic'' condemns, i.e.,. "the, accumulation of a number of little/similarities here', and there," that .Ualley '.was-, enabled; to announce :his :splendid; discovery . of the cornet. "Critic" goes on to discuss allegorical interpretation, ■ but that, feature does not immediately concern us. The story of-Christ has been rendered-.into plain , English.from. the Hebrew and Greek originals.. The story, of Tawhaki has been similarly; dealt with. .Whether the stories be'allegorical,.mythical, or. historical, we do not at' present inquire. We take tho translations and interpretations as vre find,them in-our present examples, 'ai.d proceed. with ■ this inquiry. "Critic" 13 apparently unable to' preserve ,the distinction between the traditional "aspect with' .which we are immediately concerned, and the'religious aspect.. For he introduces a quantity of matter which merely serves to ijicreasfcj the proportions of his'article without contributing to our information.. We';are strictly concerned with tho question of.these' parallels and not with their .religious bearing. - : v. :

Measurement by Generations. However, after'■■. having exhausted a. whole column of print, "Critic" at last comes to the pbmt -of the discussion in its measurement-by generations. "It Iβ hardly necessary," "Critic" submits, "to give much' consideration to the calculation by means, of which he endeavours to make the. origin, of "the Tawhaki legend coincide with the beginning of the Christian era." For the information of those who may not have, seen the genealogical lines under notice, it may here.be explained • that one line, ' the Earotonga, comprises 73 generations. Competent observers have laid down that.2_s| years, is a fair standard for measuring .Maori generations (It was the custom to-.marry young), with a view to arriving at approximate dates, of past history. Seventythree, then, multiplied by 255, gives us 1861 (years), thus carrying us back to the year A.D. 4,..ua''buim: the approximate period of Tawhaki. . This synchronism of Tawhaki with Christ ; must, therefore, be admitted, and the fairness of the means by which it is established is beyond substantial contention. Tho : generation measuring-rod maybe claimed to'be.too short, but, by\how much?. I have, already proved that 28 years is a perfect standard of. measurement for European generations, a difference of 2$ yeaTs only; so that the difference between tho proved and the'"unproved is f confined to; very small; limits.-; The Maori-line which I show comprises 52 generations. Of this "Critic", complainingly' says: . "and the .uncertainty is enormously, increased when the margin of error extends over twenty generations/the minimum being 52; and the maximum 73." The "uncertainty" suggested in amply corrected; by reference to the collateral traditional facts which indicate Tawhaki as belonging to the Christ period. -Apart from: that, it may bn observed that a similar, margin of difference occurs in the.Christ genealogies. Whereas, .according to St. Matthew, ..there are 41.generations from Abraham through Joseph to Christ. According'to St. Luke, there .are ,56' generations from Abraham to.Christ. A difference of 15 generations in a maximum, of 56. "Critic's"- , 'attempted juggling with the figures may. serve-his amusememV.but he would be more ■ profitably engaged. in fairly studying.. the genealogies,. comparing those with each other, and with.tho traditional facts submitted. In the mean'tirae it is recorded of the Maorian that he is probably the most expertly reliable oral genealogist known. "Supposing," says .-'Critic," ."that . .- . once upon a time a great stranger named Jnlius Caesar landed with an army and conquered the land (England). How near would we get to 55 B.C. in..an.; attempt to fix the-date'of that event?"- This is a roujrht illustration -of the position as regards the date of the origin of the Tawhaki legend:" It is indeed.a "rough," a very Tough, illustration indeed; so very very Tough that it discovers a complete contrast and not an illustration. Where, for instance, are the accompanying genealogies, by which we might fix an approximate Julius Caesar period? AVe aro now discussing genealogies and timemeasurements, yet "Critic" is so little fitted for such discussion that he fails to discriminate, between genealogic timcmcasiirement (within limits), and that vaguest of forms of once-upon-a-time. Lot "Critic" supply several lines of descent from Julius Caesar, or any • traditionally well-known contemporary. _ Let one of those.lines comprise 69 generations. Those multiplied- by 28 (a European standard generation) would place the approximate period of-Julius Caesar at' 03 B.C. The "8.C." of" "Critic" in. this caso. That. then, "is a rough illustration of tho position as regards the date of the origin of Tawhaki." Thus far the genealogical.

On the Parallels. The parallels submitted are respectively numbered from Tto 30; there aro thus 30 examples. "Critic" professes to treat of these seriatim. It is, therefore, to be observed that. ho passes over four in silence, although not sparing in words which have no particular bearing on this matter. The four passed over aro mini■bereel 23a, 24, 25, and 29. I now- propose to show, as briefly as may be, that "Critic" comes fonvard to this attack very illy. armed, and that he has exercised his lingers rather than his reason, "Critic" says: "The 'parallels' between the story of Tawhaki and that of the Founder of Christioniiy break down

completely under critical examination; the supposed likenesses are very superficial, iiud so on." Lt us now consider the process which he dignifies by tho term "critical examination." As to: "I.—Virgin birth of the heavenly spirit" (The Dominion, May 28, 191!)), "Critic" , says: "There was nothing remarkable about the birth, of Tawhaki. He was merely the son of Hema and Urutongu." I might with equal folly and equally ignoring the traditional surroundings say: There was nothing remarkable about tho birth of Christ; he was merely the sou of Joseph and Mary. . The reader who consults the examples originally submitted will notice that tho story immediately, treating of the origin of Christ and that' treating of the origin.. of Ta-. wJiaki coincide in the five cardinal features. ,That is to Hay: In the appearance of the heavenly spirit; the presence and overshadowing/ of tho virgin; the declaring of the child's name; the birth of that child; and his subsequent miraculous doings. I would now put it in this way, by way of .emphasis: God—the Angel Messenger—the Holy Ghost—the Virgin— Christ. That series . corresponds to that of the Maori in every detail, excepting only that tho virgin occupies a different position in the group. Ami here it seems that a section of Maori theologians concluded that this origin was a roundabout and tedious, one. For, according to the Kfates branch, as the reader of the examples will sec, a winged female (Angel) descended from heaven, and, having united herself-to a mortal, gave birth to Tawhaki and his brother. To a truly critical inquirer that birth is sufficiently remarkable. Not'so, however, to "Critic,' who calmly nssures . his readers that there was nothing remarkable about the birth of Tawhaki. "Critic" has either not read the evidences, or, having read, has failed to understand.

As to: "2.—Urothers and sisters," "Critic" says (and this in his 'critical examination"): "It" is tho fate of- most people to have, brothers and sisters." Tho parallel disclosed in tho evidence is that Christ had four brothers, who are all named, and ■ sisters, and ■ that Tawhaki had four brothers, and also sisters. That is the parallel that "Critic" should either admit or show good grounds for rejecting in a "critical examination," for it is not the fate of most-people to havo four brothers, and also sisters.

As to: "3.—Wisdom and mighty works," "Critic" discovers hero., a "contrast rather than a;pa.rallel." .When Christ taught in the synagogue they were astonished, and said: "Whence hath this, man this wisdom?" and so on. The answer is obvious, Christ got the wisdom from God.- And ; so the evidence shows that Tawhaki ascended to the-highest heaven, and received that godly wisdom which he proceeded to impart to man. I'or the purposes of this inquiry, tho source of that wisdom is the same in each case. Where, then, is the contrast?