耶穌在印度？失落歲月的神話

Jesus in India?

The Myth of the Lost Years

耶穌在印度？

失落歲月的神話

Over the centuries, the claim has repeatedly been made that Jesus Christ not only walked the earth but also spent his early and post-crucifixion years in a variety of places, including Egypt, India, Great Britain, Japan and America. Indeed, traditions maintain that Jesus, the great godman of the West, lived, learned, loved and died in such places. Popular modern literature also purports that Jesus sired children, who then became the ancestors of various royal families of Europe, including France and/or elsewhere, depending on the author.

數個世紀以降，對於耶穌基督不只是曾行走在地球上，他還在各種不同的地方度過了他的早期時光和受難後的歲月，包括埃及、印度、英國、日本以及美國的說法層出不窮。事實上，傳統上一直有人認為耶穌，這位偉大的西方神人，其實曾在這些地方居住、學習、結婚，直到死亡。膾炙人口的現代文學也宣稱耶穌其實有孩子，他們還成為了各個歐洲王室家族的祖先，包括法國和/或其它地方的，取決於作者。

The allegation of Christ being a kingly progenitor is extremely convenient and useful for European royal families, obviously. Unfortunately for the European claimants, however, India also has a tradition that Jesus went there and likewise fathered children. So too does Shingo, Japan, allege that Jesus ended up there after the crucifixion, having children with a Japanese wife. Other tales depict Jesus "walking the Americas" or bopping about Glastonbury, England, with his "uncle," Joseph of Arimathea. Not all of these tales can be true, obviously, unless Jesus is polymorphous and phantasmagoric, a perspective that in reality represents that of the mythologist or mythicist. To wit, regardless of these fables, or, rather, because of them, the most reasonable conclusion regarding Jesus and where he may or may not have been is that he is a mythical character, not a historical personage who trotted the globe.

斷言基督是國王的祖先，這對歐洲王室而言實在是非常方便且管用，立竿見影。然而，對於歐洲的主張頗為遺憾的是，印度也有一個流傳已久的傳聞聲稱耶穌到了那裡還有了孩子。同樣的事情也可見於日本的新鄉村，那裡傳聞耶穌在受難後與一位日本妻子有了孩子。其它故事描繪的則是耶穌“走到美洲”或是同他的“叔叔”，亞利馬太的約瑟一起前去英格蘭的格拉斯頓伯里。不用多說，這些故事不可能全部都是真的，除非耶穌有多種形態又變幻莫測，這在現實中的表示也就是一種神話學者或神話學的透視。要知道，不管這些寓言，或者說它們是為何，關於耶穌他可能或不可能現身在哪裡最合理的結論是，他就是一個神話人物，而非一個在地球上跑來跑去的歷史人物。

The Groovy Guru

絕妙的宗教導師

According to legend, Jesus, the great Jewish sage, spent his "lost years," from between the ages of around 12 to 28 or 30, in India, where, per another tradition, he also escaped after surviving the crucifixion. The Jesus-was-a-guru tale was popularized over a century ago by the Russian traveler Nicholas Notovitch. Notovitch asserted that in 1887, while at the secluded Hemis or Himis monastery in Ladakh/Tibet, he was shown a manuscript which discussed the "unknown life" of Jesus, or "Issa," as he was supposedly called in the East. This "Issa" text, translated for Notovitch from Tibetan by a monk/lama, alleged that during his "lost years" Jesus was educated by yogis in India, Nepal and "the Himalaya Mountains."

根據傳說，耶穌，這個偉大的猶太智者，在約莫是12歲到28，或30歲的期間一直在印度度過他的“失落歲月”，在那裡還有另一種傳聞說他還在受難倖存後走避此地。耶穌這個導師般的存在之所以會被通俗化得追溯到一個多世紀以前的俄羅斯旅人尼古拉斯・諾托維茨。諾托維茨聲稱1887年在達拉克/西藏的一座與世隔絕的赫米斯或稱為西米斯寺院內，他被展示了一份記述耶穌或者說“伊薩”，據說這是他在東方的名字，的“不為人知的一生”的手稿。這份“伊薩”文獻被諾托維茨從藉由一位和尚/喇嘛從西藏翻譯過來，據說在他的“失落歲月”中，耶穌在印度，尼泊爾以及“喜馬拉雅山”接受瑜珈修行者的教育。

Stating that he felt the manuscript to be "true and genuine," Notovich maintained its contents were written "immediately after the Resurrection," while the manuscript itself purportedly dated from the third century of the Common Era. Notovitch related that the "two manuscripts" he was shown at Himis were "compiled from diverse copies written in the Thibetan tongue, translated from rolls belonging to the Lassa library and brought from India, Nepal, and Maghada 200 years after Christ." (Notovitch, 44)

照他所言，他留下的這份手稿是“真實且真誠的”，諾托維茨認定裡面的內容是在描寫“復活之後的事”，手稿本身據信來自於公元三世紀。諾托維茨聲稱這“兩份手稿”都是在西米斯寺院見到的，“這幾分副本都是以西藏方言編彙，翻譯自為拉薩藏書庫所有的書卷，是主後200年從印度，尼泊爾和摩揭陀帶來的。（Notovitch, 44）

Notovitch's story was challenged by a number of people, which served to popularize it further. Noted Sanskrit scholar Max Müller came down hard on Notovitch, concluding that either the Russian had never gone to Tibet in the first place, and had concocted the Jesus story, or that waggish Buddhist monks had played a trick on Notovitch, as Indian priests had done in a notorious instance concerning the Asiatic Research Society's Colonel Wilford. Others subsequently journeyed to Himis/Hemis and witnessed repeated denial by the lamas that Notovitch had ever been there or that any such manuscript existed. In 1922, Indian scholar and swami Abhenanda eventually determined for himself by visiting Himis, gaining the confidence of the lamas and having the manuscript revealed to him. Other visitors to Himis, such as mystic Nicholas Roerich, verified the same story. Aspects of Notovitch's story checked out, and he apparently did indeed stay at Himis and was shown a manuscript relating to "Issa."

諾托維茨的故事受到了一些人的挑戰，這更進一步增加了對它的注意。知名的梵文學者邁克斯・繆勒便嚴斥諾托維茨，認為這位俄羅斯人壓根就沒有像他自己說的去過西藏，這個耶穌的故事也是純屬騙局，不然就是滑稽的佛教徒耍了諾托維茨，就像是印度祭司對亞洲研究協會的威爾福德上校的所作所為那個臭名昭彰的例子一樣。其他人後來紛紛遠赴西米斯/赫米斯寺院，卻被那裡的喇嘛一再反駁諾托維茨曾經走訪的地方或是任何與此相關的手稿存在。1922年，印度學者和斯瓦米・阿希南達最後通過親身訪問西米斯寺院，終於獲得了喇嘛的信任，並且決定向他透露這份手稿。至於其他走訪西米斯寺院的遊客，一如神秘的尼古拉斯・羅維奇，亦復述了一則完全相同的故事。諾托維茨在這方面的故事得到核實，而且他顯然的確曾駐足過西米斯寺院，然後看見了這份關於“伊薩”的手稿。

Notovitch claimed that Indian merchants brought the account of "Jesus" to Himis, and that they had actually witnessed the crucifixion. Indeed, the text begins with "This is what is related on this subject by the merchants who come from Israel," reflecting not that "Jesus" lived in India but that the Jesus tradition was brought to India and Tibet. (Notovitch, 32) Notovitch's text also did not state that Jesus was specifically at Himis: In fact, the lama stated that the Issa scrolls "were brought from India to Nepal, and from Nepal to Thibet." Yet, upon returning to Himis through later visitors, the story eventually became morphed into "Your Jesus was here," meaning at Himis itself. The "one book" or "two manuscripts" became "three books," which were displayed for the later visitors, with the implication that there was more to the tale.

諾托維茨說是印度商人帶來了“耶穌”來到西米斯寺院的傳聞，而且他們還親眼目睹過受難。確實，這份文獻從開篇就提到“記述這個故事的是來自以色列的商人，”這反映出的是，並不是“耶穌”生活在印度而是耶穌的傳說被帶到印度與西藏。諾托維茨的文獻同樣沒有特別確切地說明耶穌有住在西米斯寺廟：事實上，根據喇嘛所說，這份伊薩經卷“是從印度帶到尼泊爾，在從尼泊爾帶來西藏。”不過，就在來到西藏之後通過遊客以訛傳訛，故事最後就變成了“你的耶穌曾經在這裡”指的就是西米斯寺院。這“一本經卷”或“兩份手稿”變成了“三本經卷”來被展示給後來的遊客，這暗示著其中大有文章。

Although subsequent visitors were presented such texts, none but Nicholas Roerich's son, George, could read them. By his translation, Roerich was evidently shown the same text as Notovitch. Thus, it appears that there was only one text at Himis, and that it did not state that Issa himself was ever at the monastery. Furthermore, that one text is based on hearsay provided by passing merchants and does not at all represent an "eyewitness" account of "Jesus" in India and Tibet, although the impression is given that this and other texts do constitute such records.

儘管後來的遊客都看見了這份文獻，但除了尼古拉斯・羅維奇的兒子喬治之外，沒有人能讀懂它們。經過他的翻譯，很明顯羅維奇看到的與諾托維茨是一樣的。所以，這麼看來在西米斯寺院只有一份文獻，而且它並沒有明言伊薩本人曾駐足過這間寺院。再者，這份文獻是根據過往的商人道聽途說而成，這並不能代表真的有“目擊者”見到“耶穌”人在印度和西藏，儘管這ㄧ份連同其它份文獻所構築出的紀錄給人的印象就是如此。

Also, Notovitch asked if "Issa" was reputed to be a saint, and was informed that "the people ignore his very existence" and that the lamas who have studied the scrolls "alone know of him." These remarks are a far cry from Roerich's claim that the tale of "Christ" in India and other parts of Asia was to be found widespread. They also contradict the Tibetan text's own assertion that Issa's "fame spread everywhere" and that Persia and surrounding countries "resounded with prophecies" of Issa, thus causing the Persian priesthood to be terrified of him. This latter element sounds like typical mythmaking, especially since there were similar prophecies of godmen for centuries, if not millennia, prior to Christ's purported advent, particularly in India.

而且，諾托維茨詢問過“伊薩”是否被當做聖人看待，然後得知“人們都忽略了他的存在”而且只有研讀經卷的喇嘛“對他有所瞭解”。這些陳述都與羅維奇的說的在印度和亞洲其它地方都能找到“基督”的故事的說法大相徑庭。他們還違背了這份西藏文獻的誡言，把伊薩的“名聲到處宣揚”，而且波斯及其周邊國家針對伊薩“迴響著預言”，讓波斯神職人員都被他嚇壞了。後者的情節聽起來就像是典型的神話，特別是因為數個世紀以來都有大同小異的神人預言，若不是在幾千年以前，在基督傳說出現之前，就是在印度。

Moreover, the "originals" of the scrolls housed at the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, were composed in Pali, while the Himis library contained one copy in Tibetan. Yet, the Tibetan alphabet was developed by the king who "reigned in the days of Mohammed"; hence, nothing could have been written in Tibetan prior to the 7th century. Although older texts were composed in Sanskrit or Pali, it is clear that the actual physical manuscript revealed to Notovitch could not have existed before the 7th century. In fact, it would appear that very few Tibetan texts date to before the 9th century. In any event, the manuscript itself certainly did not date from the third century, although it could represent tradition transmitted over the centuries.

除此之外，放置在西藏首都拉薩的“原稿”是在帕里鎮編成，西藏西米斯寺院的書庫也保存著一份副本。然而，西藏字母是在“穆罕默德統治時期”才由國王頒訂；因此，7世紀之前的西藏根本就不可能寫書。即便陳舊的文獻都是由梵文或巴利文寫成，昭然若揭的是，展示給諾托維茨觀看的實體手稿不可能在7世紀之前就已經存在。事實上，很少有藏文經卷能追溯到9世紀之前。總的來說，手稿本身肯定不會是來自公元三世紀，雖然它代表的可能是一種數個世紀以來的傳說傳承。

While Notovitch claimed the Issa story dated to shortly after "the Resurrection," in it there is no mention of the resurrection, and the tale ends with Issa's death. In this regard, the text depicts the "Jews," whom it calls "Israelites," in a favorable light, and is "the only [manuscript] ever to charge the Romans ["pagans"] solely for Jesus' execution." Unlike others, this account does not have Jesus being resuscitated and then returning to India, to father children and live a long life.

雖然諾托維茨說伊薩的故事有提到這是發生在“受難”不久後，可是並沒有提到復活，故事亦沒有談到伊薩的死亡。在這方面，這份文獻描繪了一位“猶太人”，他被被平鋪直述地稱為“以色列人”，而且這是“直言羅馬人（異教徒）應該為耶穌的行刑負責的唯一一個（手稿）”。不像其他人，它並沒有談到耶穌在復活後回到印度，成為一位父親然後安享天年。

Notovitch's modern editor, Frank Muccie, relates that the manuscript states, "Pilate is responsible for removing Jesus' body from the tomb," noting that this development somehow does not "mean the resurrection hope is invalid." He then says:

諾托維茨的編輯，弗蘭克・馬西曾針對這份手稿指出，“彼拉多負責從墓中撤走耶穌的遺體，”事情的發展在一定程度上並不全然“意味著復活是毫無希望的”。他接著說：

"By the third century A.D., there were no fewer than 25 different versions of Jesus' death and resurrection! Some have him not being put to death at all, some have him revived back to life, and some have Jesus living on to old age and dying in Egypt!" (Notovitch, 6)

“到了公元三世紀，關於耶穌的死亡與復活有足足25種版本！有些人說他並沒有被處死，有些人說他起死回生，還有些人說耶穌一直活了很久直到在埃及過世！”（Notovitch, 6）

Obviously, not all of these 25 or more accounts can be "true and genuine," and such a development casts doubt on the historicity of one and all.

不用多說，不可能這25種或其它更多說法都是“真實且真誠的”，這樣的發展一定會產生對於所有之中其中一個的歷史性置疑。

The Rozabal Tomb

羅薩巴爾墓

Moreover, it is interesting that Notovitch spent six days in the "Vale of Kashmir," in its capital, Srinagar, "city of the sun," where the purported tomb of "Jesus," the wandering prophet Yuz Asaf, is shown to tourists. Yet, the Russian traveler apparently never heard of the tomb, known as the "Roza Bal" or "Rauzabal" shrine, as he does not mention it in his writings concerning the Tibetan text, where its inclusion certainly would have been judicious in demonstrating that Jesus lived in India! Perhaps, however, as a believing Christian Notovitch ignored this tale, much as the devout do today and much as skeptics may do with other fables concerning Christ.

另外，很有趣的是諾托維茨曾花了六天遊覽首都加那利的“克什米爾谷”，“太陽之城”，這裡有一座流浪預言者尤薩・阿薩夫，即是所謂的“耶穌”的墳墓，供遊客參觀。不過，這位俄羅斯旅人顯然從未聽說過這座被稱為“羅薩巴爾”或“拉薩巴爾”的墳墓，這在他關於那份西藏文獻的著作中絲毫不見蹤影，既然要證明耶穌生活在印度那麼應該把這個列入進去才是明智之舉吧！然而，也許作為一位基督徒的諾托維茨是蓄意無視了這個故事，就像今天那些虔誠信徒的所作所為，還有懷疑論者對於其它關於基督的寓言一樣。

Possessing the priestly touch of sculpted footprints "with nail marks" over the grave, the Roza Bal shrine may seem convincing to the uninitiated, who are unaware of the world's well-developed priestcraft. This "artifact" is another in a long line of so-called relics, like the 20+ shrouds or the multiple foreskins of Christ. In reality, there were many "footprints of the gods" in ancient times--and a number of Indian gods are depicted with nail holes in their feet.

墳墓裡有祭司因觸碰而在雕刻上留下的足跡，羅薩巴爾神廟對那些對這個世上居然有如此完備的祭司體系一無所知的門外漢來說實在很能令人信服。這種“人造工藝品”在所謂的聖遺物的長河中屢見不鮮，像是那20多種裹屍布或是基督數不清的包皮。在現實中，從古時以來就有許許多多的“神的足跡”——一些印度神明亦被描繪著在他們的腳上有釘子留下的釘口。

Also, "Yuz Asaf" is not equivalent to "Jesus" but to "Joseph," which was often a title of a priest and not a name. In fact, Eastern scholars such as Dr. S. Radhakrishnan state that the name "Joseph" or "Joasaph" is "derived from Bodhisattva, the technical name for one destined to obtain the dignity of a Buddha." (Prajnanananda, 107) Thus, this tomb of a Bodhisattva could belong to any of thousands of such holy men. In like regard, the purported graves of "Jesus" and "his brother" in Japan are in reality those of a 16th-century Christian missionary and his brother.

另外，“尤薩・阿薩夫”並不能與“耶穌”相提並論，而該是“約瑟夫”，這通常是一位祭司的頭銜而非名字。事實上，東方學者像是S.・拉達克里希南博士就曾指出“約瑟夫”或“喬薩夫”這個名字是“源於菩薩，這是佛陀注定要獲得的一種體面的專門稱呼。”（Prajnanananda, 107）正因如此，這座菩薩之墓可以屬於成千上萬任何諸如此類的聖潔之人。與此類似的是，所謂“耶穌”和“他的弟弟”在日本的墳墓在現實中其實指的應該是某個16世紀時的基督教傳教士和他的弟弟。

The legends regarding Jesus's tomb in Srinagar, and that of the Virgin Mary in Kashgar, are apparently of Islamic origin, emanating largely from the "heretical" Ahmadiyya sect. Such a creation would serve a couple of purposes: 1. That, as asserted in the Koran, Jesus was not the "son of God" but a mortal prophet, whose body was buried in Kashmir; and 2. that some presumably Moslem people are his descendants.

關於耶穌之墓在斯利那加，還有聖母瑪利亞在喀什的傳說毫無疑問是伊斯蘭教的傑作，絕大部份都是出自於“異端”艾哈邁迪派之手。進行這種創作可以達到兩個目的：1. 自然，如此一來便能對照《古蘭經》宣稱耶穌不是“神的兒子”，只是一位凡人先知，他的遺體就安葬在克什米爾；還有2. 有些穆斯林很可能是他的後裔。

Proponents of the Jesus-in-India theory hold up a number of other texts and artifacts they maintain "prove" not only Jesus's existence on Earth but also his presence in India. When such texts and artifacts are closely examined, they serve as no evidence at all, except of priestcraft. With one or two possible exceptions originating to a few centuries earlier, the Eastern texts regarding "Issa" seem to be late writings, some dating to the 15th and 18th centuries, based on traditions, not eyewitness accounts. Some of the "documents" are obviously fictitious, and others are downright ridiculous, such as the Bhavishya Mahapurana. A number of these texts merely relate the basic gospel story with embellishments depending on what the storyteller is attempting to accomplish.

耶穌在印度理論的支持者亮出了其它一些文獻與文物，好讓他們繼續“證明”耶穌不僅是貨真價實的人，而且他還曾生活在印度。這這些文獻和文物受到仔細的審視後，基本上它們都沒有任何說服力，除非這是神職人員有意為之。可能會有一或兩個例外，起源於更早前的幾個世紀，關於“伊薩”的文獻幾乎都是後來的著作，有些可以直至15和18世紀，都是構建於傳說，沒有任何目擊者的陳述。有一些文獻毋庸置疑是虛構的，其它則更是荒謬絕倫，例如《巴維夏往世書》。許多諸如此類的文獻不過都是從福音書的基礎再做潤飾，全憑說書人抱持的意圖。

Buddhist Propaganda or Christian Proselytizing?

是佛教的宣傳亦或是基督教的皈依？

Although some of the writings appear to be of Hindu origin, the attack by "Issa" on the Vedas and Brahmans, as in the Notovitch text, represents Buddhist propaganda. It appears that Buddhists were trying to demonstrate that Jesus, the great wise man of the West, was influenced by Buddhism, even having been taught by "Buddha," an eternal disincarnate entity. In this regard, the Notovitch text states, "Six years later, Issa, whom the Buddha had chosen to spread his holy word, could perfectly explain the sacred rolls." (Notovitch, 35) In this way, Buddha usurps Jesus, becoming the Jewish teacher's guru.

儘管有些著作似乎是源於印度教，藉由“伊薩”對吠陀教與婆羅門教大加踏伐，至於諾托維茨的文獻所代表的則是佛教的宣傳。看起來，佛教徒是要力圖證明耶穌這位偉大的西方智者深受佛教影響，甚至是接受過“佛陀”這位永恆的化身的親自指點。關於這點，諾托維茨的文獻這麼說道，“六年後，伊薩，這個被佛陀揀選來宣講他的聖言的人，已經可以把神聖的經卷釋義得完美無缺。”（Notovitch, 35）這麼一來，佛陀便篡奪了耶穌，一舉成為這位猶太老師的宗教導師。

That the text has been used as propaganda to raise Buddha and Buddhism over Christ and Christianity is further validated by Notovitch's foreword, in which he related that the lama told him, "The only error of the Christians is that after adopting the great doctrine of Buddha, they, at the very outset, completed separated themselves from him and ｃ ｒｅａｔｅd another Dalai-Lama…" This "Dalai-Lama," the monk subsequently informed the Russian, is the Pope. Concerning Christ, the lama continued, "Buddha did, indeed, incarnate himself with his intelligence in the sacred person of Issa, who, without the aid of fire and sword, went forth to propagate our great and true religion through the entire world." (Notovitch, 20) Hence, Eastern traditions regarding Jesus are designed to show that Jesus is Buddha and that Christianity is an offshoot of ancient Eastern wisdom.

這份文獻已經被用於大加宣揚佛陀與佛教高於基督和基督教，諾托維茨的前言又為此做出了進一步的舉證，他說相關的喇嘛曾告訴過他，“基督徒所犯下的唯一的錯誤就是採納了佛陀的偉大學說之後，他們，打從開始，就把他們自己與他劃清關係然後創造出了另一位達賴喇嘛...”這個僧侶隨後把這件事告訴了這個俄羅斯人，這位“達賴喇嘛”就是教宗。論及基督，喇嘛繼續說起，“佛陀這麼做了，確實地，憑藉他的智慧以神聖的伊薩這個姿態顯現，他不借助火焰與刀劍，向整個世界宣揚我們偉大且真實的宗教。”（Notovitch, 20）因此，根據東方傳說對耶穌的描繪說明了耶穌其實就是佛陀，基督教也是這個古老的東方智慧的一個支流。

Nevertheless, the Notovitch text itself may have been composed originally by proselytizing Christians who attempted to use the natives' belief in Buddha in order to increase Christ's stature. These missionaries may have been appealing to women to follow "Issa," as the text puts great emphasis on women, whose status in India and elsewhere has been abysmally low. The text would also appeal to the Sudras or Pariahs, since it has Issa preaching on their behalf. These groups are targeted to this day by Christian missionaries in India.

即便如此，諾托維茨所說的文獻本身很可能本來是要傳教的基督徒意圖利用當地人對佛陀的信仰，好提升基督的地位。這些傳教士可能曾經向婦女鼓吹要信奉“伊薩”，一如這份文獻格外重視婦女，她們在印地或其它地方的地位通常都是低的難以想像。這份文獻還向首陀羅與帕利亞發出呼告，宣揚伊薩是他們的表率。這些群體至今依然被印度的基督教傳教士所針對著。

Considering that many missionaries, travelers and scholars have been keenly aware of the numerous and profound similarities between the Tibetan and Catholic religions, it would not be surprising if this Issa fable were ｃ ｒｅａｔｅd in order to show that the Tibetan religion is merely a foreign derivative of the "true universal religion," i.e., Catholicism. The resemblances between various Indian sects and Christianity likewise led to tales about the Christian missionaries Thomas, Bartholomew and Pantaenus also proselytizing in India. Like the Jesus-in-India myth, there are other explanations for the resemblances, which are addressed in detail in my book Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled. In short, the major explanation is that the "Christian" religion and savior were already in India long before the alleged advent of Jesus.

考慮到許多傳教士，旅人和學者已經犀利地察覺到西藏與天主教宗教之間繁多而深刻的相似性，假如伊薩的寓言被創作出來僅僅是為了宣揚西藏的宗教不過是衍生自一個“真正的普世宗教”的外國宗教，像是天主教的話，這確實一點都不會讓人感到意外。印度各種教派與基督教之間的相似性也創造出了關於基督教傳教士托馬斯，巴塞洛繆和潘戴諾在印度傳教的故事。一如耶穌在印度的神話，還有其它互有雷同的解釋在我的著作《太陽神的眾子：克里希納，佛陀與耶穌的真相》中有所詳述。總而言之，有一個主要的解釋認為，遠在耶穌到來之前，“基督徒”的宗教與救世主就已經出現在印度了。

Is "Issa" Jesus - or Shiva?

是“伊薩”耶穌——還是濕婆？

By calling Issa "Jesus" or "Christ," modern writers have cemented in the readers' minds that the correlation is absolute, an erroneous conclusion. In reality, the name "Issa," "Isa" or "Isha" is a title and simply means "lord," "god" or "master," often referring to the Indian god Lord Shiva: "'Isha' or 'the Lord' is another name of Siva…" (Prajnanananda, 19) Furthermore, Prof. Nunos de Santos says, "…a god variously named Issa, Isha, Ichtos, Iesus, Ieshuah, Joshuah, Jesus, etc., is indisputably originally from India." He also states, "Ishvara (Ishwar) is widely worshipped in the Far East, being also called Isha (or Ishana) in India, Issara in Pali, Isuan in Thai, Jizu (or Jizai) in Japanese, and so on."

藉由把伊薩視作“耶穌”或是“基督”，現代作家已經在讀者的心目中把它們硬生生關聯起來，而這本身是一個大錯特錯的結論。在現實裡，“伊薩”，“以撒”或“伊沙”這個名字是一種頭銜，可以簡單直譯為“主”，“上帝”或是“大師”，通常都是在意指印度神明濕婆：“『伊沙』或『主』皆是濕婆的另一個名字...”（Prajnanananda，19）而且，納尼奧斯・德・桑托斯教授說過，“...神有許多不同的名字，伊薩、伊沙、伊齊托斯、伊索、伊書亞、約書亞、耶穌，等等，無從置疑最初都是來自於印度。”他還說，“伊沙瓦爾（伊沙瓦）在遠東地區受到廣泛地崇拜，他在印度也被稱為伊沙（或伊沙那）帕里是伊薩拉、泰國是伊薩安、日本是約穌（或約塞伊），之類的。”

"Isa" is likewise another name for Chandra, the Indian moon god, as well as for Shiva's Egyptian counterpart, the soli-lunar god Osiris, also called Iswara in India:

“以撒”也是印度月神旃陀羅的另一個名字，還有濕婆的埃及變體，日月之神奧西里斯，在印度也被稱為伊沙瓦爾：

"Iswara, or Isa, and Isani, or Isisi, are…unquestionably the Osiris and Isis of Egypt. Iswara, Siva, or Hara (for these are his names among nearly a thousand more) united with Isi, represent the secondary causes, whatever they may be, of natural phenomena; and principally those of temporary destruction and regeneration." (Moor, 151)

伊沙瓦爾或是以撒，還有伊薩尼或伊西斯西...毫無疑問就是埃及的奧西里斯和伊西斯。伊沙瓦爾，濕婆或哈拉（這些都是他一千多種名子的其中幾個）與伊西一同代表一種著次要的因素，不管他們可能是在意指自然現象還是什麼；還有一種主要而暫時性的破壞與再生。”（Moor, 151）

Numerous ancient legends, recorded for example in the writings of Diodorus Siculus during the first century BCE, depict Osiris as traveling all over the East, as well as the rest of the world, during the millennia when he reigned as Egypt's favorite deity. Osiris, or Isa, it should be noted, was put to death and resurrected, among many other correspondences to the Christ myth. Osiris/Isa too had a number of tombs in various places, especially in Egypt but likely also in India. However, Osiris was not a "real person" but a fertility and sun god. What mythologists recognize is that it was not a "historical Osiris" but his myth that made it to India and diverse places. As in the case of Osiris, the same phenomenon occurred regarding "Jesus," who is, in the end, a remake of Osiris, among others.

有許多古老的傳說，就以公元前一世紀西西里的狄奧多羅斯的著作的記錄舉例，其中就描繪著奧西里斯他在以埃及最受敬愛的神的姿態展開統治的那數千年中，走遍了東方，還有世界其它地區。值得一提的是，奧西里斯或是以撒都經歷過處死與復活，這還不包括其他更多與基督教相似的神話。奧西里斯/以撒在很多地方都有墓葬群，尤其是埃及，但也可能還有印度。問題是，奧西里斯並不是“真正的人”而是豐饒與太陽之神。對於這個神話應該認識到的是，其並非是“基於史實的奧西里斯”，但是他的神話已經深深烙印在印度及其它許多地方。從奧西里斯的情況來看，同樣的事情也發生在了關於“耶穌”是誰的爭論上，說到底，不過就是奧西里斯的翻版，再加上其他人之類的。

The title "Isa" or "Issa" could apply to others, and is a common name even today. Indeed, some part of these Jesus-in-India tales may revolve around the famed Greek sage Apollonius of Tyana. Not a few persons over the centuries have noted the similarities between the lives of Apollonius and Christ, and even in ancient times Christians were accused of plagiarizing the Apollonius legend.

“以撒”或“伊薩”這個頭銜可以適用於任何人，而且直到今天都還是一個通俗的名字。事實上，這些關於耶穌在印度的故事其中有些部分很可能其實是在暗指希臘聖人泰安那的阿波羅尼奧斯。數個世紀以來就不少人都注意到了阿波羅尼奧斯和基督這兩人的一生是多麼相似，甚至連古代的基督徒都有被指控過是在抄襲阿波羅尼奧斯的傳說。

The Nestorians

聶斯托利派

The Issa myth apparently represents a Christianization of legends regarding Osiris, Shiva, Apollonius and other gods and "Bodhisattvas," by the Nestorians, an early Christian sect who lived in India and elsewhere, and may well have spread the syncretistic fable to other Asian ports of call. Indeed, Nicholas Roerich himself surmised that the ancient Nestorian sect spread the tales in the East:

以撒的神話明顯代表著一種基督教式的對於奧西里斯、濕婆、阿波羅尼奧斯還有其他神明，以及“菩薩”的傳說，始作俑者就是聶斯托利派教徒，這是一支生活在印度與其它地方的早期基督教教派，而且很可能還把這種混合主義寓言宣揚到了亞洲的其他港埠。事實上，尼古拉斯・羅維奇自己就推測認為，是古代的聶斯托利派教徒把這些故事流傳到了東方：

"We heard several versions of this legend which has spread widely through Ladak, Sinkiang and Mongolia, but all versions agree on one point, that during His absence, Christ was in India and Asia…. Perhaps [this legend] is of Nestorian origin." (Prophet, 261)

“我們所聽到的數種版本的這個傳說已經經過拉達克，新疆與蒙古的廣泛流傳，但是縱觀所有版本都同意的一點是，在他失蹤的那段時光，基督人在印度和亞洲....也許（這個傳說）是出自聶斯托利派之手。（Prophet, 261）

Roerich also stated, "Whoever doubts too completely that such legends about the Christ life exist in Asia, probably does not realize what an immense influence the Nestorians have had in all parts of Asia and how many so-called Apocryphal legends they spread in the most ancient times." (Roerich, 89) In addition, George Roerich even proposed that there was a "floating colony" of Nestorians in Ladakh itself "during the eighth to tenth centuries," which could well be when the Notovitch text was composed. Roerich, one of the main writers whose works have led to the Jesus-in-India theory, almost invariably and misleadingly substitutes "Jesus" or "Christ" for "Issa," when Issa could be a number of individuals, mythical and historical.

羅維奇還提到，“那些追根究底質疑基督在亞洲生活過的傳說的人，很可能都沒有意識到聶斯托利派在亞洲各地到底擁有多麼巨大的影響力，他們在最古老的時候到底又宣揚了多少這些所謂被杜撰的傳說。”（Roerich, 89）除此之外，喬治・羅維奇甚至指出在第八至十世紀間，聶斯托利派在拉達克就有一處“不固定的殖民地”，這或許就是諾托維茨文獻的源流。羅維奇是那些推崇耶穌在印度理論使得“耶穌”或“基督”被無可非議且錯誤百出地等同於“伊薩”的主要作家之一，而伊薩實際上指的是一群人的神話與歷史。 

In his account of Jesus in India, Roerich ｄｅ ｃｌａｒｅd, "The teachings of India were famed far and wide; let us even recall the description of the life of Appolonius [sic] of Tyana and his visits to Hindu sages." (Roerich, 119) Again, one likely scenario regarding "Issa" ("Lord" or "Master") is that, whatever part of his tale is "historical," it possibly refers to Apollonius.

在他關於耶穌在印度的論述中，羅維奇表示，“印度教義的名聲廣闊無邊；讓我們回過頭來看看甚至還有泰安那的阿波勒尼斯（原文如此）拜訪印度聖賢的描述。”（Roerich, 119）再一次地，又有了一個非常類似於“伊薩”（“主”或“大師”）的情況，無論在他的故事中到底有哪一部分是“依據史實的”，它最可能都是在意指阿波羅尼奧斯。

Pre-Christian Indo-European Interaction

前基督教時代的印歐交流

As is well known, Apollonius was not alone in his journeys to the East. Decades and centuries prior to the Christian era, there was much intercourse between India and the West, including the famous journey by Pythagoras and the Alexandrian incursion. As another pertinent example, one of the seats of Mandeanism, a Christian baptist sect, was Maisan, a Mesopotamian city colonized by Indians. As Dr. Rudolph Otto relates:

眾所週知，阿波羅尼奧斯他的東方之行並不孤單。早在前基督叫時代數十年和數百年之前，印度與西方就有著頻繁的交流，包括畢達哥拉斯著名的旅程和亞歷山大的入侵。另一個與此類似的例子是曼底安主義的其中一個派別，基督教浸信派，其分佈在由印度人殖民治理的美索不達米亞城市梅森。一如魯道夫・奧圖博士曾這麼說過：

"…Indian caravans passed through Maisan and likewise Nabatea. Indian merchants, wherever they went, were importers and missionaries of Indian ideas. There need be no surprise therefore if direct Indian imports are found in the syncretistic medley of Mandean Gnosis". (Prajnanananda, 41)

“...印度商隊借道梅森還有納巴提。印度商人，凡他們所到之處都會有印度思想的學習者與傳教士。因此，假使在曼底安諾斯替派的混合主義中找到從印度來的概念一點都不需要奇怪。”（Prajnanananda, 41）

Space does not permit us to recount the numerous authorities who are in agreement as to the westward spread of Indian and Buddhist concepts centuries before and into the Christian era. A number of them may be found in Prajnanananda's book, including a "Mr. Cust," who evinced that trade between India and Yemen "was established not later than 1000 B.C." Yemen is very close to Israel, and by the first century CE there were plenty of Indians in the Roman Empire.

當今的空間分布已經無法讓我們重構過往許多權威人士都同意的，印度與佛教這些概念早於基督教時代之前就已經西傳的情景。其中有些可能還能在普拉基南南達的著作中發現，包括“卡斯特先生”，他證明了印度與葉門之間的貿易“不晚於公元前1000年”葉門非常鄰近以色列，而且公元一世紀時羅馬帝國內就有大量的印度人。

Despite the popularity of the Jesus-in-India tale, the claim is not accepted by mainstream authorities, either Christian or secular. The tale's proponents assert that scholars reject Jesus in India because of Western imperialism and the inability to accept that Christ could have been influenced by Buddhism. In the case of mythicists, however, the reason Jesus is denied as having gone to India is because he is a pagan sun god remade into a Jewish "human" messiah. Thus, it is not a question of a "historical Jesus" being in India and the East but of a variety of solar cults that worshipped a similar deity with similar rituals, doctrines and myths.

儘管耶穌在印度的故事已經蔚為風潮，這種斷言依舊不會被主流權威，無論是基督教還是學者所接受。這種故事的支持者宣稱學者之所以拒絕承認是因為西方帝國主義作祟，還有無法接受基督居然是受過佛陀的影響。不過，從這個神話來看，真正反駁耶穌前去印度的理由是出於他本來就是一位被翻拍成猶太“人”救世主的太陽神。所以，這並不是什麼“有歷史依據的耶穌”人在印度和東方，而是透過類似的儀式，教義和神話敬拜著一位類似的神明的各式各樣的太陽崇拜。

The "Lost Years" Are Astrotheological

“失落的歲月”乃是意指占星學

Over the centuries Jesus's so-called "lost years" and post-crucifixion life have provided much fodder for the fertile human imagination, leading to speculation, legends, traditions and myths that the great godman and sage lived and studied in a variety of places. Once the fable of Christ became popular, numerous towns, villages, cities and nations wished to establish some sort of connection. Instead of recognizing that such a significant omission as Jesus's "lost years" is an indication of the mythical nature of the tale, individuals using typical priestcraft have come up with countless extraordinary adventures of the "historical Jesus." Unfortunately for the believers, however, not only is the gospel story itself but so too are these Jesus-the-Globetrotter tales mere deluding smoke and mirrors, and the reason for the gap in Jesus's biography is because he was not a "real person" but a pagan sun god turned into a Jewish messiah. In the mythos revolving around the sun god, there need be no accounting for "lost years," as the "age" of 12 represents the sun at high noon, while the 28 or 30 represents the days of the lunar or solar months, respectively.

幾個世紀以來，耶穌所謂的“失落歲月”以及受難後的生活提供了很多飼料作為人類想像力的沃土，由此而來的揣測、傳說、傳統、神話讓這位傑出的神人和聖者得已在五洲四海生活與學習。一旦基督的寓言變得廣為人知，無數城鎮、村莊、城市和國家都會希望能與之建立起某種聯繫。與其說耶穌“失落的歲月”也不過就是一種神話性質的故事描繪，其更形同於一種典型的針對個人的祭司性描述，是這締造了“歷史上的耶穌”那不計其數的壯闊冒險。然而，對信徒來說不幸的不只是福音書本身，而是如此一來耶穌那些最膾炙人口的周遊列國的故事都不過是在自欺欺人，而且耶穌的傳記之所以會有這段空白是因為他根本就不是一個“真正的人”，而是搖身一變成為猶太人救世主的異教太陽神。在圍繞太陽神打轉的神話中，本來就無需去計較“失落的歲月”，12“歲”其實就代表著太陽到達正午，至於28與30則分別象徵著陰曆或是太陽月裡的日子。

When religions are investigated with a profound knowledge of mythology, the correspondences are clearly revealed, and it becomes evident that it is not the case that this miracleworker or that godman traveled to this place or that, as has been rumored to have occurred with just about every god or goddess. In actuality, it is the legends, traditions and myths concerning these gods, godmen or gurus that have been spread far and wide by their proponents, priests and propagandists. As was the case with the missionary and his brother in Japan, who were taken for the object of worship they were proselytizing, so has it developed in other parts of the world over the millennia concerning not only Jesus but also many other deities, such as the virgin-born, crucified Mexican god Quetzalcoatl, whose similar "life" and religion led to claims that "Jesus" was in America. The reason for the similarities, however, is because both Jesus and Quetzalcoatl are sun gods with the same attendant holidays and practices.

只要憑藉深刻的神話知識來研究宗教，對應關係便能不言自明，而且變得顯而易見的是這個奇蹟製造者或神人雲遊四海，幾乎與所有傳說中的男神和女神一模一樣。實際上，關於這些諸神，神人或宗教導師的這等傳說，傳統與神話已經在他們的信眾，祭司和傳教士之間廣為流傳。好比在日本的傳教士和他的弟弟，他們在使人改變信仰之餘成了被崇拜的對象，所以已經擴展至世界各地的在這幾千年來可不只有耶穌，還有其他許多類似的神，像是處女出生，被釘在十字架上的墨西哥羽蛇神，這種類似的“一生”與宗教還讓有的人開始宣稱“耶穌”其實在美洲。深究其原因無非就是相似性，不過，這是因為耶穌與羽蛇神皆是太陽神，自然會隨之有同樣的節日和慣例。

In the final analysis, it is not possible that Jesus could have lived years after the crucifixion, fathered children and died in several different places, as legends represent. The past explanation for such discrepancies has been metaphysical, deeming Jesus to be multidimensional and capable of simultaneous incarnations in various locations. Such an explanation, of course, will not satisfy the skeptic and scientist. Or the mythologist, who simply knows better, because she or he has studied in depth the products of the human mind. Because the basic story of Christ revolves around the sun, which was highly esteemed the world over beginning many millennia ago, the myth is likewise found around the globe. To the basic mythos and ritual were added various embellishments according to the place and era, and for a variety of reasons. In the end, Jesus the Globetrotter is a not a historical personage who magically appeared all over the world, bi-locating and flying on the backs of birds. "Jesus Christ" is mythical creature, to be found globally only between the pages of a book.

追根究底，耶穌根本不可能在被釘十字架後還繼續生活了好些年，生了孩子又在好幾個不同地方逝去，一如傳說所描繪的那樣。過去對這種不一致之處的解釋一直都流於形上學，主張耶穌是多面的而且有辦法在不同的地點同時顯現。想當然，這種解釋沒法說服懷疑論者與科學家。又或者是神話學者，他也就是懂得比較多，因為她或他已經深刻地研究過了人類大腦中的產物。因為基督教的基本故事就是在繞著太陽轉，這種神話同樣可以在全球各地找到。基本的神話與儀式都是根據地方與時代，還有出於種種原因被添加了許多點綴。最後，耶穌周遊列國並不是什麼一個歷史人物奇蹟似得現身在世界各地，來個二重身或是站在鳥背上飛行。“耶穌基督”是神話的產物，縱觀世界各地都只能在書本裡找到。