GOSPELS: BUDDHIST AND CHRISTIAN?

[Bob]

What do you think of this …

Corollary II: GOSPELS: BUDDHIST AND CHRISTIAN
jesusisbuddha.com/thundy.html - Zacharias P. Thundy, Professor Emeritus, Northern Michigan University

              “All literature has always been a borrowing,” as Umberto Eco points out.  He continues, “It starts with Homer.  What do you think Ariosto was doing, or Cervantes   I would say this continual intertextuality is the principal characteristic of literature.  The difference is that now the game has become intentional, has been discovered, whereas before it was covered over.” The Christian gospels are no exception; they were not born Athena-like, virginally, but rather as a result of intercourse primarily between two major literary traditions Hebrew and Buddhist, without excluding Greek, Roman, Gnostic, and Hindu literary texts and traditions.  Similarities aside, the difference is that the Gospel writers cleverly hid their Buddhist sources with the overt apology that they were writing the story of Jesus as though the details in his life were only literal fulfillment of prophecies from the Old Testament.
              It appears that the Christian writers succeeded in creating a fascinating genre called  “gospels” (good news) which perhaps can be called also “Christian sutras.” Interestingly, the New Testament nowhere claims implicitly or explicitly that the gospels or epistles are authentic “Scripture.” Not until 367 CE do we encounter a canon of the New Testament as know it today, though we see the beginnings of the creation of canon from the time of Marcion in the second century.  Probably the gospel writers viewed the Buddhist texts as “Scripture,” as in John 7: 38.   However, during the long process of the redaction of the gospels or the sutras, the evangelists and their editors tried to hide their “pagan” sources whenever and wherever possible and revealed whenever and wherever needed what they thought they were obligated to reveal as long as the revealed and hidden sources met their stated goals and avoided possible charges of plagiarism from the liberal left and persecution from the religious right, because somewhere along the line developed the view that the Old testament or the Hebrew Bible alone is  Scripture.  For instance, ever since the early Church leaders decided to adopt the dogmatic position regarding the Old Testament as prefiguring the New Testament and the New Testament as fulfilling the prophecies of the Old Testament, they had to include a good number of proof texts from the Old Testament, which explains the presence of many explicit Old Testament quotations in the New Testament.  Once the decision to relate the NT to the OT was made, the authors had no choice but to exclude or suppress all explicit references to Greek, Roman, and Indian sources they had used in the gospels and the other books of the NT.  I think we must attribute this practice to the very early (c. 48 CE) policy decision made at the Council of Jerusalem, where Paul, the leader of the Gentile Christians, and Simon (Peter), the leader of the Jewish Christians, collided. Paul writes to the Galatians, a Celtic community: “When Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to the face, because he stood condemned.  For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.  And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely…I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’” (Gal. 2:11-14; see also Gal. 2:9).  There was a crisis in the early Church, and the leaders of the Church convened to resolve the crisis. The Council’s decision, as given by Apostle James, the powerful head of the Jerusalem Nazarene/Christian community, was a compromise:  Circumcision should not be imposed on Gentile Christians but they should follow the Noachic (?) rather than the Mosaic law—a concession of a non-Mosaic divine revelation made to all the nations of the world--: “I rule then …that we send them [non-Jewish followers in the Jesus Movement] a letter telling them merely to abstain from anything polluted by idols (food/communion meal), and from unchastity (irregular marriages like polygamy) and from what is strangled and from blood” (Acts 15:29); however, in lieu of observing the Mosaic Law, the non-Jewish Christians were asked to pay a heavy price: accept the Hebrew Scriptures, not pagan writings, in the proclamation of the Christian faith and the articulation of Christian writings. Why?   “For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues” (15:21). This means: Mosaic Law? No. Mosaic Scriptures? Yes.  It means that only the Hebrew Bible, in addition to the Christian Bible, should be read in the communities of the non-Jewish Christians, as in the synagogues.  Thus the Jewish heritage of the Christian Church should be maintained. This rationale would explain the fact that not a single overt reference to Plato, Socrates, Homer, and Buddha can be found in the books of the New Testament, which later became part of the catechesis and kerygma (preaching) in the early Church. Probably the original gospels, before censorship stepped in, looked like the apocryphal gospels and other early Christian writings, which were never canonized because they were not edited and censored.  The fact that Pantainos of Alexandria stumbled on Matthew’s Gospel in Aramaic, which the Indian Christians had received from St. Bartholomew, while on his missionary travels in India in about AD 180, could be construed that there existed an original Matthew which is different from the highly edited current Greek Matthew.
               Luke is willing to admit this much: “Many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us” 1:1).  He or the author of the Acts of the Apostles would put the following words also into the mouth of Paul, “As even some of your poets have said, ‘For we are indeed his offspring’” (Acts 17:28)—a reluctant reference to Epimenides and Aratus—for the purpose of impressing his audience. Obviously, this author could not easily give up his pagan  (Greek) literary heritage.  Luke could not and would not give up his Sanskrit/Buddhist heritage when he decided to incorporate the parable of the Prodigal Son from the Sadharmapundarika Sutra. Nor would Matthew give up his Buddhist sources when he decided to incorporate the episode of walking on water or the parable of the five foolish and five wise virgins from chapter four of the Maha Parinirvana Sutra of the Mula-Sarvasti-Vinaya. We may, therefore, say that the original gospels were probably thoroughly Buddhist like the Sadharmapundarika Sutra before they underwent editorial scrutiny and ecclesiastical revisions. Nor could the author of the Fourth Gospel, deeply immersed in Buddhist thought, totally disguise his Buddhist sources, as can be seen in the following case: “Jesus stood up and proclaimed, “If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink.  He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water’” (7:37-38).  Of course, no Hebrew Scripture makes that statement, but only the Buddhist Scriptures! Nor could John resist the temptation of reproducing the story of Prakrti, the Matanga Woman, offering Ananda water to drink at the well; however, the evangelist transformed the Matanga Woman into the Samaritan Woman and Ananda into Jesus! All three Synoptics (Matt. 14:15f f; Mark 6: 35 ff; Luke 9: 13 ff) decided to keep the story of the miracle of the loaves according to which Jesus fed five thousand people with five loaves (and two fish), which is found in the Introduction to Jataka 78, in which Buddha fed first his five hundred disciples and then all the members of a monastery with one loaf that was put in his begging bowl, with a great deal of bread left over as in the Synoptics.   The reference to 12 baskets of left-over bread seems to imply that Jesus also fed the members of his own monastery (of twelve Apostles) as in the Buddhist story.  Interestingly, the Gospel writers changed one bread into five and the crowd of five hundred into five thousand! So, scholars familiar with the Buddhist and Greek sources do find fault lines or evidence for the presence of the absent so-called Q-source for the gospels. At this juncture we can probably suggest that the expunging of possibly almost all “pagan” references from the books of the New Testament and the inclusion of a large number of proof texts from the Old Testament was most likely due to the editorial work of redactors of the books of the New Testament books rather than that of the original authors.  In retrospect we can say that the Jerusalem Council’s decision was a spectacular success with far-reaching consequences down through the centuries for the development of Christian thinking and practice, even to the extent that all the Christian churches accept the Old Testament as the revealed word of God, which they will continue to accept selectively, but conveniently, within “reasonable” limits as changing times and local cultures allow or require.

There have also been claims that “Q” was a buddhist source. You’ll have to go to the link for further information, since this is only an excerpt.

I’d like to hear views, I can’t remember that we have seriously thought about such things here, except for a few hints … I could be wrong though.

[felix_dakat]

Hi Bob. Without quotations of the texts from which Thundy claims gospel passages were taken I can’t begin to judge. Q itself is a theoretical structure the probability of which I have never seen established. The Gospel of Thomas does seem Buddhist and it shares some material with the canonical gospels so there is something to Thundy’s hypothesis. If I have to do the research, I don’t know if or when I’ll get to it. Thanks for sharing though.

[zinnat]

@Bob

There have also been claims that “Q” was a buddhist source. You’ll have to go to the link for further information, since this is only an excerpt.

I’d like to hear views, I can’t remember that we have seriously thought about such things here, except for a few hints … I could be wrong though.

Bob, i am not reacting on what this particular quote says, but, in general.

As far as i am able to undesrtand, this seems to be true that Christian litrature is inspired from Judaism.

But, my counter question is why it should not be?
And, given that both are Abrahamic religions and Judaism predates Chiristianity, what is wrong in it?
Forget about later scholars, did ever Jesus tried to mitigate Moses?
The problem is between the followers of Moses and Jesus, not between themselves.

But, i do not see much similarity between Christianity and Buddhism, at least at the level of texts.
Having said that, this is also true that if you go deeper, beyond the words and their interpretations, and look for the intentions, you will find all religions talking about the same notions. But, it is not suprising.

with love,
sanjay

[Bob]

@felix dakat

Hi Bob. Without quotations of the texts from which Thundy claims gospel passages were taken I can’t begin to judge. Q itself is a theoretical structure the probability of which I have never seen established. The Gospel of Thomas does seem Buddhist and it shares some material with the canonical gospels so there is something to Thundy’s hypothesis. If I have to do the research, I don’t know if or when I’ll get to it. Thanks for sharing though.

There have been several books put out recently suggesting that the Jesus figure is made more rich in content through buddhist wisdom and that even the Christology stems from praise of Buddha as Bodhisvatta. Having read the book (Zealot: the life and times of Jesus from Nazareth) from Reza Aslan, which makes the strong case for a complete re-write of a “Jesus the Zealot” story by Paul, it wouldn’t be so far fetched after all, if the re-write had a source from which inspiration came. Especially since there has been more and more evidence that Buddhists were spreading to the area at that time.

Basically, wherever we look, there is more information coming which suggests that the Jesus figure we know is a figment of someones imagination. Mark seems to have written a judaic-greek tragedy about a gentle Messiah who was killed by his own people, which has been enhanced with buddhist wisdom to give it more depth. John, writing a Gospel in which the Christology of Paul is best met, is steeped in buddhist rhetoric and puts many of the Buddhas words into his mouth.

Having watched Richard Carrier take the historicity of Christ apart several times, these may be explanations as to where the Jesus figure came from and what gave him the depth and wisdom to have retained relevance over such a long time, not forgetting the influence of Rome after Constantine. It seems to me that Christianity has to ask itself whether it will retain the claims of historicity in the face of so much evidence against that claim, and really assess what message it has for the modern world.

[Bob]

@zinnat13

Bob, i am not reacting on what this particular quote says, but, in general.
[…]
But, i do not see much similarity between Christianity and Buddhism, at least at the level of texts.
Having said that, this is also true that if you go deeper, beyond the words and their interpretations, and look for the intentions, you will find all religions talking about the same notions. But, it is not suprising.

with love,
sanjay

Agreed, on the surface there are vast differences, but what we are talking about here is the borrowing of certain statements and texts, rewriting them in a Jewish context and selling it as the message of a Galileean Messiah. The question that arises is, how could anybody from Galilee at that time have ignored the insurrections or not be caught up in them?

However, the basic message of religious traditions is similar, once they are freed from the restrictions of tribal doctrine. There is in one sense only one message: Either get together and live together, or go down in conflict and make the world no longer able to support human life. Buddhism is as much a philosophy as it is a religion and its basic subject, the nature suffering and overcoming suffering, is universal to us all. It also appeals to many in a Christian disguise, except when the context is lost by modern Christians.

[turtle]

bob ----I like that you mentioned about what the message might be for the modern world…
all this talk of authenticity is interesting historically but I wonder what messages Christianity has now…
I think the Buddhist messages are more clearly stated…what does the Christian god offer to us…what I hear in my church is that god the father is promising hope for a kingdom of god…I am not impressed…

[Bob]

@turtle

bob ----I like that you mentioned about what the message might be for the modern world…
all this talk of authenticity is interesting historically but I wonder what messages Christianity has now…
I think the Buddhist messages are more clearly stated…what does the Christian god offer to us…what I hear in my church is that god the father is promising hope for a kingdom of god…I am not impressed…

If the kingdom of God is defined and backed up by something substantial, there could be a message in there, but as long as the church holds on to the claims of a unique historical figure as saviour of the world, especially in the face of evidence of similarites with the syncretism of Greek philosophy with various other cultures, on a long-term, Christianity is going to lose. The question is whether there is enough energy inside the church to see the way ahead and make a move.

[turtle]

@Bob

@turtle

bob ----I like that you mentioned about what the message might be for the modern world…
all this talk of authenticity is interesting historically but I wonder what messages Christianity has now…
I think the Buddhist messages are more clearly stated…what does the Christian god offer to us…what I hear in my church is that god the father is promising hope for a kingdom of god…I am not impressed…

If the kingdom of God is defined and backed up by something substantial, there could be a message in there, but as long as the church holds on to the claims of a unique historical figure as saviour of the world, especially in the face of evidence of similarites with the syncretism of Greek philosophy with various other cultures, on a long-term, Christianity is going to lose. The question is whether there is enough energy inside the church to see the way ahead and make a move.

I tend to agree…Buddhism is winning and Christianity is losing…the father god will be gone…

[Uccisore]

@Bob

If the kingdom of God is defined and backed up by something substantial, there could be a message in there, but as long as the church holds on to the claims of a unique historical figure as saviour of the world, especially in the face of evidence of similarites with the syncretism of Greek philosophy with various other cultures, on a long-term, Christianity is going to lose. The question is whether there is enough energy inside the church to see the way ahead and make a move.

Indeed. The important thing, the most important thing, is that there are still people calling themselves "Christians" in a few decades.  If they have to ditch everything they ever believed and make up some new bullshit with a splash of Buddhism to appeal to 21st century sensibilities, then that's a small price to pay for the preservation of a 9 letter word.  Kind of makes you wonder why the liberal denominations are bleeding members even faster than the conservative ones.

[Bob]

@Uccisore

Indeed. The important thing, the most important thing, is that there are still people calling themselves “Christians” in a few decades. If they have to ditch everything they ever believed and make up some new bullshit with a splash of Buddhism to appeal to 21st century sensibilities, then that’s a small price to pay for the preservation of a 9 letter word. Kind of makes you wonder why the liberal denominations are bleeding members even faster than the conservative ones.

I think the big problem is that we are daily being told that Christianity has been fabricated from various sources and are being presented with compelling evidence from academics of many disciplines showing us what science has found. This isn’t the kind of person like Atwill, who is also cricised alike for crackpot theories, but scholarly people who have solid evidence. The availability of information and the freedom of scholars to look over the wall, the ability to compare sources in different languages and different traditions, inter-cultural dialogue and many other developments mean that many of the things we have not questioned are now under scrutiny.

[Bob]

As an afterthought, I was considering a number of influences which I have found compelling. We spend a lot of time trying to find out where wisdom comes from and less time considering what that wisdom tells us. It seems incredibly important to Christians that Christ was unique, literally the Son of God and a historical reality, that the theology we are taught is “true” and comes from the sources we have been told were its sources. We are encouraged to believe, trust or have faith.

What is less of an issue is whether we as people or as a church and our teachings are trustworthy, creditable or authentic. If we want trust, we have to be trustworthy, and if the truth will set us free, then we have to be devoted to the truth above all else. I don’t get the feeling that we are dedicated as much to finding the truth as to confirming our traditions. Too many Christians I know are able to push facts out of sight in order to be left alone, which does beg the question whether trustworthiness or quietude is the goal.

If something worthwhile has been transported by Christianity, and I believe that there has been a lot, then we need to concentrate on perpetuating that good and simply accept where it has come from. A tradition can still be relevant, even if the world doesn’t move the way we had assumed prior to better knowledge, if the content is upheld and the framework accepted as what it is. Compassion and devotion seems to be a major message of Christianity, and it isn’t alone reliable upon Christ as a historical figure, but upon seeing people in a different light. It is based on seeing the “neighbour” as someone like ourselves, with all of the adverse life-situations that we ourselves experience - and more as well - to warrant forgiveness as a basic mode of behaviour? Is there not enough content there to warrant a life-style based on the tragedy of Christs story?

What do you think?

[turtle]

bob-----I am curious…why did you present this post…you may have answered that question already…I like it…

[Bob]

@turtle

bob-----I am curious…why did you present this post…you may have answered that question already…I like it…

I was in the house of a Christian this morning and he had a book on the table with the title, “Vertrauen” - “Trust”, and we spoke about the lack of trust in our times. I mentioned that trustworthiness is the prerequisite of trust. You can’t “have” trust, you have to give it, and you only give it if someone or something seems trustworthy. I mentioned that in the course of history, Christianity has at times lacked trustworthiness - a subject that came up as a result of having talked about the upcoming Film “The Physician” from the novel by Noah Gordon. I said that many stories of encounters with the church, similar to the hero of the Physician, have been as tragic as the story of Christ encountering Israel. That is one reason why trust, or faith, has not been forthcoming.

He was quite perturbed at what I had said and told be that he couldn’t follow my line of enquiry because it would take the ground from under his feet. He admired the fact that I was able to pursue the truth and remain stable, but he felt that he didn’t have the strength. I asked him whether he was having difficulty accepting life in the way we (as older men of the same age) are having to experience it, and whether our experience with the elderly and sick (we are both male nurses, although I am now in management) has made us want to escape reality. I could see that he was not able to speak about it himself and so I offered up a few experiences that had brought me to my knees and said that I found myself confronted with a forked road, and I had to decide whether I would follow the route that was scenic or the one that would get me to where I wanted to go. I told him I chose the second one and with it the fact that it may not be quite as scenic.

He said that he had become attached to the faith he had grown up with, and couldn’t accept that it no longer has relevance. I asked whether that was true or whether it is only the framework which has been questioned. The values have remained, even if they are not always accepted, but young people I get to know in my place of work value respect and compassion, devotion and trustworthiness, even though they are not all Christians. That is a sign that all is not lost and that we can retain hope. Faith, Love and Hope, these three … are they dependant on the things we seem to be holding on to? Is the attachment we feel in actual fact the value we want to uphold, or is it just a habit with which we feel comfortable?

He said that he had a lot to think about as I left, but he had realised that looking for the truth wasn’t as bleak as he had feared. I came home and posted what you read.

[turtle]

@Bob

@turtle

bob-----I am curious…why did you present this post…you may have answered that question already…I like it…

I was in the house of a Christian this morning and he had a book on the table with the title, “Vertrauen” - “Trust”, and we spoke about the lack of trust in our times. I mentioned that trustworthiness is the prerequisite of trust. You can’t “have” trust, you have to give it, and you only give it if someone or something seems trustworthy. I mentioned that in the course of history, Christianity has at times lacked trustworthiness - a subject that came up as a result of having talked about the upcoming Film “The Physician” from the novel by Noah Gordon. I said that many stories of encounters with the church, similar to the hero of the Physician, have been as tragic as the story of Christ encountering Israel. That is one reason why trust, or faith, has not been forthcoming.

He was quite perturbed at what I had said and told be that he couldn’t follow my line of enquiry because it would take the ground from under his feet. He admired the fact that I was able to pursue the truth and remain stable, but he felt that he didn’t have the strength. I asked him whether he was having difficulty accepting life in the way we (as older men of the same age) are having to experience it, and whether our experience with the elderly and sick (we are both male nurses, although I am now in management) has made us want to escape reality. I could see that he was not able to speak about it himself and so I offered up a few experiences that had brought me to my knees and said that I found myself confronted with a forked road, and I had to decide whether I would follow the route that was scenic or the one that would get me to where I wanted to go. I told him I chose the second one and with it the fact that it may not be quite as scenic.

He said that he had become attached to the faith he had grown up with, and couldn’t accept that it no longer has relevance. I asked whether that was true or whether it is only the framework which has been questioned. The values have remained, even if they are not always accepted, but young people I get to know in my place of work value respect and compassion, devotion and trustworthiness, even though they are not all Christians. That is a sign that all is not lost and that we can retain hope. Faith, Love and Hope, these three … are they dependant on the things we seem to be holding on to? Is the attachment we feel in actual fact the value we want to uphold, or is it just a habit with which we feel comfortable?

He said that he had a lot to think about as I left, but he had realised that looking for the truth wasn’t as bleak as he had feared. I came home and posted what you read.

thanks very much bob…I am very interested in what you are talking about…my church is going down and they will not even look at evidence…they do not want change…it is sad to see…at this point even a good christian person with different religious ideas is suspect…

[felix_dakat]

Evangelical Christianity is growing in numbers particularly in the Southern hemisphere. If the mainstream liberal Christian churches want similar growth they should proselytize the evangelicals for the disaffected. The born again experience lends itself to quick and dramatic conversions. Liberal Christianity lends itself to conversion by thoughtful reflection.

[Bob]

@felix dakat

Evangelical Christianity is growing in numbers particularly in the Southern hemisphere. If the mainstream liberal Christian churches want similar growth they should proselytize the evangelicals for the disaffected. The born again experience lends itself to quick and dramatic conversions. Liberal Christianity lends itself to conversion by thoughtful reflection.

It makes you wonder why and what the attraction is - emotionalised ritual, simplified world-view, black and white moral standards? The more education becomes effective the less the evangelical message seems to hold. I know of enough people who have moved on from the conversion message and having a personal saviour the more they were educated. The better the ability to reflect on and compare traditions in historical context, the more aware they become of where they themselves and what they believe come from. Of course there are examples of people becoming more and more engrossed in Christian dogma as their education progresses and I am quite a fan of C.S.Lewis, but we need to know the full story of such people and in Lewis’ case, we know it was more complicated than he wrote in Surprised by Joy. I also identify with his having to accept the Great Mystery and grasping the fact that the Bible was indeed a method in which to embrace that otherwise ineffable reality, but I feel he swung around too far and devoted himself to apologetics without making the comparisons he could have made. It was an altogether emotional time he had after conversion and I believe this averted any chance of objective reflection.

I respect people for their beliefs but try to persuade them to probe further. I am convinced that if religious people wouldn’t remain where they reach after conversion, but continue to probe and make comparisons, the more enlightened they become about the human dilemma and why belief-systems, myths, legends and religion are part of being human. I am not at all surprised that there is evidence for Buddhist influence in the Gospels, the Christian monastic traditions have a lot in common with Buddhist monastic traditions - as is recorded by people like Thomas Merton etc. The meditative and contemplative traditions have a good basis for interaction, as has been show in many workshops with Christian and Buddhist monastics. We have to realise that up until WWII it had been difficult to make the comparative studies as a layperson, especially if actually active within the church, but people were starting to look around and the first comparisons did take a tentative look at Buddhism.

Evangelical teaching came to Europe with Billy Graham in the seventies and is mostly popular in English-speaking countries, but there are numerous groups, curiously critical of each other, all over Europe. It curbed the development of the `68-generation which was throwing out anything conservative without looking at it - which is itself erroneous. It was again an example of people grasping a more conservative view in fear of loosing those aspects of their heritage that they cherished. Fear of all otherwordly or “New Age” ideas, which were demonised, did enough to help promote Billy Grahams drive, but it did put a divide through the church in Europe. Today in the evangelical churches Islam and Buddhism is demonised, whereas “mainstream” Churches embrace recitation, contemplation and meditation.

The question is, what will help us progress?

[omar]

Hello Bob,
There are passages that seem to draw from the Buddhist tradition, just as there are Greek and Hebrew references, but, like the others, it wasn’t necessarily a perfect match. Greek influences were kept as a way to prove the point that the gospel contained the Truth. Hebrew references because the Way was originally just Judaism free of error. If miracles performed by Jesus were nothing more than literary traces, critics of Christianity would have gladly pointed that out. First gospels may have been written during Paul’s time, twenty years or so after Jesus’ death. That means that the memory of his ministry was still fresh in the mind of those that stood against him or with him. I don’t know if the miracle of the fish would have survived editing if it was drawn from Buddhist text. Just as gnostic allusions were weeded out, so too would Buddhist ones and for the same reason. What survives from Plato, from the stoics, survives removed from the original context to the point that resemblance is accidental. These excerpts became absorbed, grafted into the Christian narrative.
So, is it really Jesus and Buddha? No, it is Jesus with the remnants of pieces of Buddhism.

[omar]

@Bob

@felix dakat

Hi Bob. Without quotations of the texts from which Thundy claims gospel passages were taken I can’t begin to judge. Q itself is a theoretical structure the probability of which I have never seen established. The Gospel of Thomas does seem Buddhist and it shares some material with the canonical gospels so there is something to Thundy’s hypothesis. If I have to do the research, I don’t know if or when I’ll get to it. Thanks for sharing though.

There have been several books put out recently suggesting that the Jesus figure is made more rich in content through buddhist wisdom and that even the Christology stems from praise of Buddha as Bodhisvatta. Having read the book (Zealot: the life and times of Jesus from Nazareth) from Reza Aslan, which makes the strong case for a complete re-write of a “Jesus the Zealot” story by Paul, it wouldn’t be so far fetched after all, if the re-write had a source from which inspiration came. Especially since there has been more and more evidence that Buddhists were spreading to the area at that time.

Basically, wherever we look, there is more information coming which suggests that the Jesus figure we know is a figment of someones imagination. Mark seems to have written a judaic-greek tragedy about a gentle Messiah who was killed by his own people, which has been enhanced with buddhist wisdom to give it more depth. John, writing a Gospel in which the Christology of Paul is best met, is steeped in buddhist rhetoric and puts many of the Buddhas words into his mouth.

Having watched Richard Carrier take the historicity of Christ apart several times, these may be explanations as to where the Jesus figure came from and what gave him the depth and wisdom to have retained relevance over such a long time, not forgetting the influence of Rome after Constantine. It seems to me that Christianity has to ask itself whether it will retain the claims of historicity in the face of so much evidence against that claim, and really assess what message it has for the modern world.

If Richard carrier is our guide then just as destroyed Christian claims he would also dismantle Buddhist claims. Admitting the apparent syncretism is conductive to atheism. It has been a charge in the mouth of Christian critics since it’s beginning.

[Moreno]

I find a couple of things odd. Some of the things he mentions could also have come from Hinduism - gurus creating food out of nothing or from a small amount of food is also Hindu, for example. Further Buddhism came out of Hinduism. Perhaps the gospel writers were influenced by Hinduism. But further, it is simply assumed that it wasn’t Jesus who was influenced by these religions, but the writers. Perhaps there is some way to demonstrate this is more likely, but I am skeptical about it being merely assumed. Perhaps Jesus, who at least potentially was fairly learned and spent time discussing religious issues, was himself influenced by Eastern ideas or even travelled there or otherwise encountered the ideas. And so the oral tradition Before the Writing of the gospels includes these and variants.

[Bob]

@omar

Hello Bob,
There are passages that seem to draw from the Buddhist tradition, just as there are Greek and Hebrew references, but, like the others, it wasn’t necessarily a perfect match. Greek influences were kept as a way to prove the point that the gospel contained the Truth. Hebrew references because the Way was originally just Judaism free of error. If miracles performed by Jesus were nothing more than literary traces, critics of Christianity would have gladly pointed that out. First gospels may have been written during Paul’s time, twenty years or so after Jesus’ death. That means that the memory of his ministry was still fresh in the mind of those that stood against him or with him. I don’t know if the miracle of the fish would have survived editing if it was drawn from Buddhist text. Just as gnostic allusions were weeded out, so too would Buddhist ones and for the same reason. What survives from Plato, from the stoics, survives removed from the original context to the point that resemblance is accidental. These excerpts became absorbed, grafted into the Christian narrative.
So, is it really Jesus and Buddha? No, it is Jesus with the remnants of pieces of Buddhism.

OK, if that is the case, although the point is that traditions borrow from one another, and always have done - see the OT and umpteen other cases. It is this point that is far reaching enough to call Christians out to accept that point and use it as a stepping stone to revise their world view in the light of that. There are too many people frantically claiming the historicity of every word of the Bible, fanatical in their defense of their literalism. There is enough historical evidence that Christianity wasn’t the first, nor probably the last result of syncreticism as Greek culture became dominant in many parts of the world. Here is the indication, that it wasn’t only Greek culture which was having an influence, but that Buddhism too, influenced Christianity at the outset. If you follow Thundys thesis, even the historicity of Jesus being a Galilean is questioned, something which other authors have also questioned based on the amount of uprisings coming from that area at the supposed time of Jesus’ birth and ministry, which hardly find a mention in the Gospels, and which must have had an influence on a historical public figure at that time. Otherwise it just doesn’t ring true.

If something is borrowed from other sources about other figures and is used to describe a personality who is claimed to be historical, then there has to be some degree of legend growing. As Carrier shows, legend is possible in our time with access to much knowledge, so what can be said about ancient figures? And still, I maintain all along, that the content is what we should be concentrating upon, not the framework which carries the content. Fables are all the more true for being fables, once we don’t try to deem them historical.