Buddha and Jesus

INTRODUCTION:

Sometimes you will see people allege that the writers of the Gospels simply copied teachings from Buddha or events from the life of Buddha, often with a list of supposed similarities. One will notice that such lists are almost never accompanied by any kind of actual documentation or proof of these parallels and many of those parallels seem to simply be made up (this applies to similar lists of other religious figures, but this essay is focusing on Buddha).

There is one list that gets spread around, though, that actually does bother to give some citations, which puts it ahead of the curve; it is rather sad that simply giving sources puts one ahead of the curve, but this is how low the state of the arguments that Jesus's life is a copy of Buddha's generally are. However, this "ahead of the curve" list is still highly flawed. Someone else, James Patrick Holding, already did do an investigation of this list, which can be found here:
https://www.tektonics.org/copycat/buddha01.php

As what you are reading is an addendum to that list, it is highly recommended that you read that page first, or at least the introductory material.

You may be asking why this addendum exists, as that essay already looks into the list in considerable detail, point by point. The problem is that at the time that examination was written, older books were nowhere near as available, as services such as Google Books and The Internet Archive (if they existed then) did not have as much material in them. This means that some of the sources cited in the list of parallels were very hard to come by and he was unable to check them. Further, some of the citations in the list were very abbreviated and too vague for him to even figure out what the works in question were. Thus, for some of the things on the list he could not do anything other than to note the difficulty in acquiring or even figuring out what they were. However, these works are mostly available online now, and I have found the original source of the list, which gives us greater information as to what the sources were.

What was the source of the list? The list of parallels between Buddha and Jesus are taken from a work published in the 1990's called "Their Hollow Inheritance" by Michoel Drazin. The work is an attack on Christianity from a Jewish perspective; this is also why you will see that words like "God" or "Lord" are censored in the list, as the author follows the frequent Jewish practice of not wishing to write out those words even in English. Most of the work simply gives standard Jewish objections to Christianity, and I won't be handling those as others have made better arguments on that subject than I could (such as, for example, tektonics.org). The work probably would have been forgotten in the midst of similar works by other Jewish writers if not for a section in which it tries to claim the life of Jesus is copied from those of other "god-men" such as Buddha, in which it offers a list of supposed parallels with sources provided. This section has lived on, with his list being copied and distributed online (often without giving the source of the list), but the footnotes offered in those online copies are brief and some of them are too vague to attempt to look up by themselves.

However, in the original book there was a bibliography that provides more information about what these sources are. Additionally, the older 19th-century books cited are now available for free online thanks to sources like the Internet Archive. Thus while Holding, in his examination of the list, was unable to check on some of the citations when it was composed, it is now possible to look up the sources to see if they back up the claims of parallels between Jesus and Buddha.

But the story of this list doesn't quite begin with Drazin. One will notice how many of the sources are 19th century works that, prior to so many works being archived online, would have been very difficult to get. In Holding's article, he wondered how the person who made the list managed to get access to so many older and now rare books. I believe I have found the answer. Michoel Drazin's list in his book relies very heavily on "Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions" by T.W. Doane, a book published in 1882 that tries to argue for strong parallels between the stories in the Bible and those of other religions (indeed, Drazin cites this work directly in some cases in his own book, though not in the citations being examined here). Doane's work has enough problems that it perhaps deserves a blog post of its own as a critique, but for our present purpose we'll only be focusing on the claims that Drazin took from him. Anyway, of the 19th-century books that are cited in the list, almost all of them are citations that Doane offered in his own book. Thus is solved the mystery of how the writer of the list got their hands on so many older books: They were simply relying on Doane, a 19th-century writer, and obviously a 19th-century writer would have a much easier time obtaining 19th-century books.

It is not clear if Drazin made any attempt to verify the sources offered by Doane. There are definitely cases where he did not and simply copied Doane's citation (the first source we will discuss is one where it is obvious he did not check). Thus it is entirely possible he did not verify any of them at all and simply copied all of Doane's citations uncritically. It is ironic that Drazin should put so much trust into Doane that he will do this, considering that Doane also targets the Old Testament when it comes to pagan parallels--meaning that if Doane is a trustworthy source, then Drazin's own religion, Judaism, is imperiled! For our own purposes, this is of little importance, because as was demonstrated in the original examination, and will be further demonstrated in this addendum, Doane can hardly be considered a trustworthy source. Nevertheless, it is odd that Drazin appears to be accepting so uncritically a book that, if true, would seem to disprove his own beliefs. In any event, because so much of this is taken from Doane, this examination can also be seen as an examination of Doane's own work.

One final note that should be mentioned is the importance of knowing what the original primary Buddhist sources for these supposed parallels are. Only those that can be demonstrated to predate Christianity can be used as plausible proof of Christians taking these things from Buddhism. Thus, if a parallel in another religion like Buddhism only appears to come after Christianity already existed and the Gospels were already written, then it is of no use in proving any such thing. Without a primary source, we cannot determine whether the story comes from a source that could predate the Gospels.

Further, we should also remember that the Buddhist texts were in languages such as Chinese, Sanskrit, or Pali that would have been unknown to those who lived where the Gospels were written. Nor would those texts have been readily available to them to begin with. Even if one wishes to try to argue that the Gospels may have gotten inspiration from the stories in the Buddhist canon in oral form we still have the obvious problem of the people who knew them being in a distant land and speaking a different language than the Gospel writers.

Finally, it should be noted a good number of the supposed parallels were only briefly mentioned in the large Buddhist canon. Simple familiarity with Buddhism would have been insufficient to be able to copy those into the Gospels; one would have had to be an expert in Buddhism to be aware of these more obscure passages or teachings in order to copy them. It is highly implausible that the Gospel writers would have been capable of being such experts or had access to any such experts.

Because my examinations can be a bit lengthy, I have included bolded summary descriptions at the start for each of them, for those who want to know the quick conclusions without going through a lot of paragraphs.

EXAMINATION:

"Buddha answered the "devil": "Get you away from me." (De Bunsen, p.38) Jesus responded: "...begone, Satan!" (Matthew 4:10). Both experienced the "supernatural" after the "devil" left: For Buddha: "The skies rained flowers, and delicious odors prevailed [in] the air." (Ibid.) For Jesus: "angels came and ministered to him" (Matthew 4:11)."

No primary source offered, and only appears to occur in post-Christian texts. This was already looked at by Holding in the link I mentioned in the introduction, who observed this is not found on page 38 of De Bunsen's work. As noted, this citation (like almost all of the 19th-century texts cited) is simply taken from Doane's work. But what is especially notable here is that this demonstrates that Drazin, in copying Doane's citation, did not attempt to verify it. For you see, Doane's actual citation for this is a work called the "Sacred Anthology" by Moncure D. Conway. Doane does, however, include a separate footnote that says "See also" and mentions page 38 of De Bunsen's work. Drazin seems to have misunderstood Doane's citation and thought that De Bunsen was the primary one who was being cited. Now, had Drazin verified the source, he would have noticed De Bunsen does not say this on the applicable page. Thus we see he simply copied the citation from Doane without checking it himself. This does not prove this was the case for all citations, but this and some other cases where he did not check raises the reasonable possibility that Drazin did not check on any of the sources he took from Doane.

But you may want to know, what about the source that Doane actually did cite? Does it back the claim up? Doane says it is a portion of "Siamese Life of Buddha" that was published in Conway's "Sacred Anthology" and cites pages 44, 172, 173. Sacred Anthology is a book that is a large list of moral teachings taken from various religious texts or religious ideas, including material from Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and more.

The account on page 44 refers to a confrontation with Mara that occurred while Buddha was living as an ascetic (Buddha was said to have lived as an ascetic for years prior to achieving enlightenment), but does not include the statement of "Get you away from me." However, on page 173 it does offer an account of an earlier confrontation with Mara. In this one, Buddha is leaving behind his life as a prince in order to live as an ascetic. Right after Buddha leaves the palace, Mara confronts him and tells him that if he returns, in seven days he will become emperor of the world. In response to this, Buddha is quoted as declaring "Avaunt! Get thou far away from me!"

This phrasing is similar to that of the Gospels, but it is not clear where this comes from. As noted, Doane claims they are from a work called "Siamese Life of Buddha" but that is not what Conway seems to be saying. Conway's citation for page 44 is "Siamese. Life of Buddha. comp." and on page 173-174 is "Siam. Buddh." Based on how he cites other things, the "Siamese" refers to the origin being Siamese (other such citations are started with "Chinese", "Hebrew", "Hindu," "Christian"). "comp" as explained in the annotations at the end of the book just means "Compiled–i.e. various sentences from a book or chapter brought together." It is not clear whether "Life of Buddha" refers to a work by that name or if he's simply saying this information comes FROM accounts of the life of Buddha, without specifying his source. I would expect the latter, given that if one looks at Conway's bibliography, I do not see any citation of a work called "Life of Buddha". It appears that Doane therefore misunderstood Conway's reference and thought he was referring to an actual work called "Siamese Life of Buddha."

As a result, we do not have a clear source given for this. There are sources about Buddhism listed in his bibliography, but which one this is supposed to come from (and where in the work it is found) is unstated. Without a primary source, this cannot be used to try to demonstrate copying because the source could considerably post-date Christianity, and it is possible that Conway was rephrasing some things as well.

Even though the burden should be on the critic to provide a primary source, I did nevertheless attempt to do some research on this to see its source. As noted, the confrontation that Conway describes between Buddha and Mara where Buddha declares "Get thou far away from me!" occurs right when Buddha leaves the palace to become an ascetic. If one searches, one can find accounts of Buddha encountering Mara at this point, and Mara trying to persuade Buddha to go back to the palace he was living (Buddha was a prince). But even the ones I found did not have the most specific points claimed in the list as being parallels to Christianity, such as Buddha telling Mara "get thou far away from me".

However, Buddha encountering Mara at this point at all appears to be a later, post-Christianity addition, let alone any command of "get thou far away from me." I consulted the Buddhacarita/Buddhacharita (early second century AD) and the Lalitavistara Sūtra (third century AD), both fairly detailed biographies of Buddha. The latter clearly post-dates the Gospels and the former appears to as well, but someone could claim that they contain stories that come before the Gospels via oral tradition. However, even if they do, I note that when they describe Buddha leaving the palace (Book 5 of Buddhacarita/Buddhacharita and Chapter 15 of the Lalitavistara Sūtra), there is no mention of Mara whatsoever. If these early sources which actually come after the Gospels do not mention such an encounter, it is most probable that this was only mentioned in stories of Buddha's life written even later than that. Later in his life, Buddha does have an encounter with Mara in those sources, but not during this event, and it is this earlier event where Buddha (according to Conway) gives the line of "Get thou far away from me." Regarding the subsequent encounter between Buddha and Mara that is attested to in earlier literature, see the original essay by Holding.

Given the lack of a primary source being offered, and given the above evidence that Buddha meeting Mara at all when leaving the palace (let alone saying "get you away from me") is a later addition that only emerged after Christianity, it is unlikely there is any source early enough that attests to this that one could try to claim Christians took it from. And if there is, then the one alleging the parallel must be the one to demonstrate where it is, which has not been done.

"Both were tempted by the "devil" at the beginning of their ministry: To Buddha, he said: "Go not forth to adopt a religious life but return to your kingdom, and in seven days you shall become emperor of the world, riding over the four continents." (Moncure D. Conway, The Sacred Anthology (London, 1874), p. 173.) To Jesus, he said: "All these [kingdoms of the world] I will give you, if you fall down and worship me" (Matthew 4:9)."

Like the above, no primary source is offered, and appears to only come in post-Christian texts. This is simply re-stating the above claim from Conway (which, as noted, was inaccurately sourced to De Bunsen in the previous example). The same issues that were in that citation, therefore, apply here, namely that no primary source is offered (Conway's work is not primary nor does he clearly offer any), and there is not even any confrontation at this point between Buddha and Mara in the early biographies, indicating it comes from later sources that clearly post-date the Gospels. However, there is an additional issue here. The list claims that this happened at the beginning of their ministry. But as Conway describes it, this encounter occurs when Buddha is leaving the palace to become an ascetic. As will be noted in in regards to the next alleged parallel, Buddha spent six years as an ascetic before achieving enlightenment, and only after that did he begin his ministry. Thus to claim this happened at the beginning of his ministry is simply inaccurate.

I should also mention that the specific quote offered from Conway is actually found on page 172, not page 173. This is another indication that the list simply copied Doane's citations without checking them.

Both were about the same age when they began their public ministry: "When he [Buddha] went again to the garden he saw a monk who was calm, tranquil, self--possessed, serene, and dignified. The prince, determined to become such a monk, was led to make the great renunciation. At the time he was twenty--nine years of age...". (Encyclopedia Americana (New York: Rand McNally and Co., 1963), vol. 4, p. 672.) "Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age" (Luke 3:23).

The source is misrepresented; as it clarifies immediately after the above quote, Buddha began his public ministry at the age of 35, weakening an already-strained parallel. Holding was unable to look at this due to not having a copy of this specific edition of the Encyclopedia Americana, but I was able to get scans of the applicable pages. While the quote is found there, this isn't much of a parallel for the reasons Holding noted even if Buddha did begin it at the age of 29. Not only that, it has to strain to make this a parallel; they weren't the same age, so it has to instead say they were "about" the same age rather than actually being the same.

But even the claim that Buddha began his public ministry at the age of 29 is false. Look at the quote from the Encyclopedia Americana. It says nothing about public ministry; rather, it says this is was when he made the "great renunciation." This was not when Buddha began public ministry, but rather when he decided to leave his opulent life as a prince and become an ascetic. The public ministry came years later. This is made even more abundantly obvious if one reads what the Encyclopedia Americana goes on to say immediately after the quote given above:

"At night, he stole out of the palace, leaving his parents, his wife, and his little son, in order that he might lead the religious life and find deliverance. During 6 years, as a wanderer, he tried to find some clue to the riddle of birth, life and death, some escape from the net of karma and transmigration, some finality where all doubts and sorrows are at rest. He sought help toward this end from the teachers with whom he came in contact, and even practiced the severest asceticism. In all of this philosophical discussion and asceticism he found nothing which satisfied him. He gave up fasting and asceticism. Then one night under the Bo tree (the pipal tree of enlightenment at Bodh-Gayā) the truth flashed into his mind. Instead of keeping this a secret and being satisfied with his own salvation, as he was at first tempted to do when he thought of the difficulties of his doctrine and discipline and the weakness of men, he wandered about the country for 45 years, teaching and preaching his way of salvation in the simple vernacular."

As we can see, although Buddha made the great renunciation at the age of 29, he did not start his public ministry then. Rather, after making the great renunciation, he spent 6 years as an ascetic, then received a revelation on how to live properly. As a result of that, he started his public ministry to share that information with others. Simple arithmetic tells us this would mean he started his public ministry after he had reached 35 years of age. Thus this parallel which was already questionable becomes even weaker, simply by reading another paragraph of the cited material.

"The multitudes required a sign from both in order that they might believe. (Muller, Science, p. 27; Matthew 16:1.)"

 

No citation given, leaving it unclear how much of this is Muller's interpretation, and even if a pre-Christian Buddhist text actually said this explicitly, signs are expected from religious figures; furthermore, the Christian citation refers not to the multitudes, but the Pharisess and Sadducees. This and the next several are the various sources simply attributed to "Muller, Science." This was too vague by itself to be looked up by Holding, but with the original source for the list known, it can be determined from its bibliography that it's "Introduction to the Science of Religion" by Max Muller from 1873. So let's look at these citations one at a time. For this one, Muller's statement is that that "A saying of Buddha's is recorded, prohibiting his disciples from working miracles, though challenged by the multitudes, who required a sign that they might believe." No citation is given for this, however, leaving it unclear how much of this (particularly the mention of "required a sign that they might believe") is actually stated in any Buddhist text and how much is Muller's interpretation. Even if this is indeed found there, it's a weak parallel indeed, as signs of some kind are often expected from religious figures... and furthermore, Matthew 16:1 refers to simply the Pharisees and Sadducees, not "the multitudes."

"Buddha "represented himself as a mere link in a long chain of enlightened teachers." (Muller, Science, p. 140.) Jesus said: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law, and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17)."
 

No citation, and a vague parallel anyway. Like above, Muller doesn't give a citation for this. However, as Holding notes in his essay, there is only the vaguest possible parallel here anyway.

"According to the Somadeva (a Buddhist holy book), a Buddhist ascetic's eye once offended him, so he plucked it out and cast it away. (Ibid., p. 245) Jesus said: "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and throw it away;" (Matthew 5:29)."

 

Somadeva is not a Buddhist holy book, but a Hindu writer from the 11th century! In this case, thankfully, we do have a citation by Muller, who cites "Somadeva, vi. 28, 1 seq." However, this is where an extremely embarrassing error is made by Doane (who originally gave this citation) and Drazin (who is copying Doane).

The list claims that the Somadeva was a Buddhist holy book. This is completely inaccurate. Somadeva was a writer who wrote the Kathasaritsagara, a book of various Indian legends and folk tales. Doane, who as we have noted is the source for these claims, was guilty of this same error of misunderstanding, apparently just seeing Muller's footnote and not bothering to check on who or what Somadeva was. The list then just copies Doane's error due to not looking into the issue enough itself. Exactly how much confidence should we have in either Doane or Drazin's knowledge of Buddhism if they refer to a person as a Buddhist holy book? Somadeva was not even a Buddhist; he was a Hindu!

 

That embarrassment aside, we run into a bigger problem. While this account can be found in Somadeva's work, Somadeva lived in the 11th century! Approximately a thousand years after the Gospels were written! To try to use this to show influence on the Gospels is ridiculous.

"Buddha taught that the motive of all our actions should be pity or love of our neighbor." (Ibid., p. 249) Jesus taught: "...love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44)."

No citation, and not a strong parallel anyway. A citation is not offered for this by Muller.  However, this is not really a parallel anyway. Buddha refers to neighbors, whereas Jesus refers to enemies and persecutors. Further, even if they were both referring to the same thing, this is a moral guideline espoused by many and therefore of little use in trying to demonstrate any influence on Christianity from Buddhism.

"Buddha said: "Hide your good deeds, and confess before the world the sins you have committed." (Ibid., p.28) Jesus said: "Beware of practicing your piety before men to be seen by them;" (Matthew 6:1) and "Therefore confess your sins one to another, and pray one for another, that you may be healed..." (James 5:16)."

 

No citation, and a fairly universal moral suggestion. Muller does not offer any citation for this, but as was noted by Holding, this is a fairly universal moral suggestion and thus makes a poor parallel for the purpose of claiming copying.

"One day Ananda, the disciple of Buddha, after a long walk in the country, meets with Matangi, a woman of the low caste of the Kandalas, near a well, and asks her for some water. She tells him what she is, and that she must not come near him. But he replies: `My sister, I ask not for your caste or your family, I ask only for a drought of water. She afterwards became a disciple of Buddha." (Muller, Science, p. 243) "There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her: `Give me a drink.' For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. The Samaritan woman said to him: `How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?' For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans" (John 4:7--9)."

 

The events described, when read in context, are quite different. This time Muller does offer a citation, to "Burnouf, Introduction a l'Histoire du Buddhisme, p. 205." He does not cite a date, but I have been able to determine it is the 1844 printing. It should be noted, however, that the above citation incorrectly claims that the woman was named Matangi. This was actually the group she was a member of, but her name is identified by Burnouf as Prakriti ("Prakriti, c'est le nom de la jeune fille"), also rendered as Prakṛti by some. In fairness, this error does go back to Muller rather than Doane, as Muller incorrectly indicates that Matangi was her name in his work.

Now let's look at Burnouf. What is his source? He offers as a citation "Cardula karna, dans Divya avadana, f. 217a". This refers to the Sardulakarna-avadana, the 33rd part of the Divyavadana, a collection of various Buddhist stories. Unfortunately, while some sections of the Divyavadana have been translated into English, this portion does not seem to have been. Still, Burnouf does offer a synopsis of the story in French. However, if one prefers an English source describing it, this is discussed on pages 242-245 of  the article "A Rite of Their Own: Japanese Buddhist Nuns and the "Anan kōshiki" by Barbara R. Ambros in the Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, Volume 43, Number 1 (2016). While this does primarily discuss a retelling of the story by Shundo Aoyama, it does mention the differences between that retelling and the original version, so the reader can see exactly what happened in the original. Once the specifics of the story are examined, we can see the stories really have little in common.

In the Gospel of John, after the woman says Jews do not associate with Samaritans, the request for the water is put aside and Jesus begins a discussion of how Jesus will provide living water, and then there is a brief prophetic discourse and a declaration of Jesus's status as the messiah. The woman then goes to her village to tell people what she heard, and Jesus is welcomed among the Samaritans to stay for several days.

In the Buddhist story, however, things go very differently. After Ananda's encounter with the woman, the woman falls in love with Ananda and with the help of her mother attempts to use magic to try to make Ananda fall in love with her. This initially works and Ananda travels to her house, but he is able to recognize the enchantment in time and calls on Buddha to dispel the charm. After being freed from the charm, Ananda leaves. The woman, still in love with Ananda, ends up talking with Buddha himself about it, but he persuades her that she should give up on him and join the celibate religious life instead.

As we can see, when examined in full context, these are dramatically different situations. 

As if that was not enough, the Divyavadana is not early enough that we can be confident that the story predates the Gospels. I looked at several sources to see what they said about the dating.

In the introduction to "Heavenly Exploits", a 2005 translation of a few portions of Divyavadana by Joel Tatelman, he says (page 18) "While the Divya'/āvadāna as we have it may have been compiled as late as the eighth century, many of the stories may date back to the beginning of the Common Era."

In "Divine Stories: Divyavadana, Part 1", a 2008 translation of a translation of portions of the Divyavadana (regrettably, it does not include a translation of the section in question), the translator Andy Rotman says at the start of the introduction: "The Divyavadana ("Divine Stories") is a large compendium of Indian Buddhist narratives written in Sanskrit from the early centuries of the Common Era."

In the article "The story of Dharmaruci: In the "Divyavadana" and Ksemendra's "Bodhisattvavadanakalpalata" from Volume 51 No. 2 (2008) of the Indo-Iranian Journal, it is stated on page 138 that: "As is well known, the Divyavadana is a repository of tales extracted, in most but perhaps not absolutely all cases, from the Vinaya of the Mulasarvastivada sect. While the date of the latter corpus is uncertain, it most likely belongs to the first centuries of the common era. The Divyavadana–which may more properly bear the title Divyavadanamala–in contrast, is probably considerably later, although here too we have few clues on the basis of which we might hazard an estimate as to its age. However, it is quite clear that the collection existed in some form by the eleventh century, the time to which the Kashmiri poet Ksemendra belongs."

In "Institutional and Ideological Usage of Dana in Divyavadana" (from Proceedings Volume 50, Golden Jubilee Session (1989)), on page 88 it says: "The Buddhist Sanskrit text, the Divyavadana is a product of the 4th century A.D."

Thus this would put its composition later than (or at at the earliest contemporary with) the Gospels. Thus not only does this story deviate markedly from what we see in the Gospels, it may post-date them anyway!

"Both strove to establish a kingdom of heaven on earth. (Beal, p. x; Matthew 4:17.)"

The "kingdom of heaven" is a supposition made by Beal and seems not based on any Buddhist text. Said inference is instead based on Beal saying Buddha "wanted to establish a "Religious Kingdom" (Dharmachakra)". No citation is offered, and furthermore Dharmachakra means not religious kingdom, but wheel of dharma. With access to the bibliography we can figure this out. With the bibliography information it's confirmed to be "The Romantic Legends of Sakya Buddha from the Chinese Sanskrit" by Samuel Beal. In the introduction, Beal refers to "the aim of Buddha to establish a "Religious Kingdom" (Dharmachakra), i.e. a "Kingdom of Heaven.""

 

There are a number of problems with citing this, however. The inference that a religious kingdom is the same as a kingdom of heaven is simply an assertion made by Beal himself; thus, the claim that "Both strove to establish a kingdom of heaven on earth" appears to come not from an actual Buddhist text using the phrase, but Beal's inference. If it is from a Buddhist text, Beal does not seem to provide a clear citation as to where Buddha establishing a religious kingdom comes from, let alone how he gets from that to a kingdom of heaven.

 

Beal also appears to claim that "Dharmachakra" means religious kingdom, but it does not. It is a Sanskrit term that means "wheel of dharma", and the wheel is a major symbol of Buddhism. This has nothing to do with a religious kingdom. Beal appears to have known Chinese very well (his writings were based on Chinese Buddhist texts), but it seems his knowledge of Sanskrit was lacking.

 

Even if we accept that Buddha did have the goal of establishing a religious kingdom (which Beal doesn't offer a direct citation for, but rather his interpretation), we still run into the problem that it takes a considerable stretch to turn "religious kingdom" into "kingdom of heaven" and that the source that does so is not any Buddhist religious text but rather the apparent supposition of Beal.

 

"Both are said to have known the thoughts of others: "By directing his mind to the thoughts of others, [Buddha] can know the thoughts of all beings." (R. Spence Hardy, The Legends and Theories of the Buddhists Compared with History and Science (London, 1866), p. 181.) "But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said: `Why do you think evil in your hearts?' " (Matthew 9:4)."

Although not as bad as many of the parallels examined, there are still notable differences. The context in Hardy's work is actually about Buddhists priests, not Buddha himself. Anyway, he identifies his source as as "the Suttanta called Samanya Phala, or the advantages of the priesthood" which is more commonly rendered in modern English as the "Samaññaphala Sutta" and the translation as Fruits of the Contemplative Life. I consulted an English translation of this work by Thanissaro Bhikku. However, when comparing his translation with what Hardy writes in his book, it seems Hardy's rendering is really more of a paraphrase than a translation. Nevertheless, the essence is the same, and although it is discussing what followers of Buddha could supposedly obtain, this is being stated by Buddha, so one could accept that this was a power of his.

Still, not only is the context different, there is nothing explicitly stated to be supernatural in Matthew 9:4, which could have simply been ascertained using regular human knowledge. Even if it was supernatural, the ability to know people's thoughts is already a power referred to in the Old Testament (such as Psalm 139:2 which, referring to God, says "you perceive my thoughts from afar"). If this mention of Jesus knowing others' thoughts was supernatural and taken from or influenced by anything, the Old Testament would seem a more plausible source for this than a Buddhist work.

"Both received similar receptions: "The people swept the pathway, the gods strewed flowers on the pathway and branches of the coral tree, the men bore branches of all manner of trees, and the Bodhisattva Sumedha spread his garments in the mire, [and] men and gods shouted: `All hail.' " (Hardy, Legends, p.134) "And they brought the colt to Jesus, and threw their garments on it; and he sat on it. And many spread their garments on the road, and others spread leafy branches which they had cut from the fields" (Mark 11:7--8)."

Much of this is actually invented out of whole cloth by Drazin, and is found in neither Hardy's work nor even Doane's work citing Hardy. When traced back to the original sources, the similarities are far fewer. Also, why try to find a Buddhist source when this is blatantly inspired by the Old Testament? The quotation marks used in the comparison list indicate that this is supposed to be an actual quotation; it even uses the bracketed "[and]" to demonstrate that this is supposed to be an exact quotation with the exception of the word "and". Yet this quote is not found on that applicable page of Hardy's work. This is the closest thing that he says:

"The horse Kantako, upon which Buddha rode, when he fled from the palace to become an ascetic, was 36 feet long (from its neck to its tail); in the same night it proceeded 300 miles, and could have gone much further, if its progress had not been impeded by the number of flowers thrown in its pathway by the déwas; and at one leap it crossed the river Anoma, a distance of 210 feet."

 

As we can see, this is dramatically different from the quote offered by the list. There is no mention of people sweeping a pathway, no mention of branches, no mention of spreading of garments, and no mention of anyone shouting "all hail." The mention of gods presumably refers to the dewas (more commonly called devas nowadays), though they, while supernatural beings, to my knowledge are not technically speaking gods.

I have noted that these citations of older books are almost all taken from T.W. Doane's book "Bible Myths" and this one is no exception. Normally, because they are simply taken from Doane, the misrepresentations or errors we see generally trace back to Doane. But in this case, this list adds its own claims that are not found even in Doane's work. Doane's statement, which he cites to Hardy's work, is simply to claim, with the same sources given:

"When Buddha was about to become an ascetic, and when riding on the horse "Kantako," his path was strewn with flowers, thrown there by Devas."

Which he compares to:
"When Jesus was entering Jerusalem, riding on an ass, his path was strewn by palm branches, thrown there by the multitude."

 

So where did our list-maker get the claims about (in Buddha's case) people sweeping the pathway, men bearing branches of trees while spreading garments in the mire, and people shouting "all hail" come from? As noted, it isn't in Hardy's work, nor does Doane seem to refer to it. As no source is cited apart from Hardy (which was simply taken from Doane), this additional material appears to be pure invention by the author of this list.

 

But what of the more narrow claim that Doane offered? The problem is that as we can see, the circumstances are dramatically different. Jesus is entering Jerusalem and being welcomed, whereas Buddha is sneaking out of the palace. They are riding different animals (one a horse, the other a donkey), the beings that are around are different (humans in the case of Jesus, supernatural beings in the case of Buddha), and the plants were different (flowers compared with palm branches). The parallel based on Hardy's work essentially is just "they both rode an animal at one point and a group put plants on the road."

Yet even that vague parallel offered may be more specific than it actually is. Hardy does not provide a specific reference for where that claim of the plants being on the road comes from. Where is it from? It could be his own speculation. Alternatively, it may have been from another source--but without that source cited, we have no idea where it is.

 

Earlier, when discussing Mara confronting Buddha when Buddha left the palace, I noted that the Buddhacarita/Buddhacharita and Lalitavistara Sūtra, earlier biographies of Buddha, made no mention whatsoever of Mara appearing at this point. But they did describe Buddha leaving the palace. Thus we can look to see what they say. What was their description of these events? The Buddhacharita (early second century AD) mentions how "Yakṣas" threw lotuses, but nothing about them putting them on any road. The Lalitavistara Sūtra (third century AD) mentions flowers falling without specification of anyone throwing them, but again nothing about them falling onto any road or path. Perhaps one could assume that is where the flowers ended up, but there is no statement of such. 

So what, ultimately, can we conclude from all of this? Well, the Buddhacarita and Lalitavistara Sūtra both come after the Gospels, even if not by that much in the case of the Buddhacarita. Nevertheless, it is possible this portion of their stories predates them (though it would have to predate them by quite a bit to have even the slightest hope of being known to the Gospel writers). But in these early sources, the best parallel that can be managed is that both Jesus and Buddha rode an animal at one point and there was a group with plants (which may have also put them on the road in the Buddhist story, but is unclear). But the animals were different, the context was different, the group was different, and the plants were different.

 

Additionally, we should note that Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey is a fairly obvious reference to Zechariah 9:9 of the Old Testament; indeed, Matthew 21:4-5 and John 12:14-15 explicitly reference it. Why should we be trying to find some connection to a Buddhist text when the actual source is so obvious?

"After "healing" a man born blind, Buddha said: "The disease of this man originates in his sinful actions in former times." (Prof. Max Muller, ed., Sacred Books of the East (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879--1910), vol. 21, p. 129f.) "As [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his disciples said to him: `Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' " (John 9:1--2)."

 

The examination Holding did already addressed much of this, but it gets even worse in that Muller's work is misrepresented. In his examination of the list, Holding rebutted this by arguing that even if true it doesn't work as a parallel. That could serve as a response enough, but when I looked this up out of curiosity, I discovered it was also quite misrepresented on top of that. What actually happens in the cited work is that Buddha is asked a question and, by way of parable, describes a situation in which a man was blind, but a physician cures him after getting the right herbs. It does mention (on page 130) that a man born blind has it from his sins in his former life, but that's the statement of the physician in the parable. Further, the doctor makes this statement prior to curing it (in contrast to the above claim, which says that it was after healing). In fact, the doctor says it prior to even going off to find the herbs that might cure it. So the above description is just wrong in its claim that Buddha cured someone of blindness and made that statement; it wasn't Buddha who did it but a character in a parable, the statement was given before curing rather than after, and it was an offhand statement that didn't seem to relate to the main point being made. And this is on top of the problems already identified by Holding.

It has been noted that the various 19th century citations seem to simply curbed from Doane without double-checking his sources. This one, however, does not come appear to come from Doane, as it was released a few years after Doane's work (it was released in 1884, while Doane's was from 1882). I do not know whether the author of this list actually looked at this work himself or simply relied on someone else's citation of Muller, but in any event there is a clear misrepresentation here on top of the weakness of the parallel to begin with.

"Both demanded that their disciples renounce all worldly possessions. (Hardy, Monachism, p. 6; Luke 14:33.)"

 

Too common of a moral guideline to prove influence, and one has to stretch the text a little to get to the above interpretation. I do not see a statement on this page that they must renounce all worldly possessions in the source offered. It does say that his followers "took upon themselves certain obligations, by which they declared themselves to be prawarjita, or to have renounced the world." This obviously indicates a detachment from the world, but not necessarily a full renunciation of all worldly possessions. But let us accept they did. As noted in Holding's response, the suggestion of forsaking possessions is too common of a moral guideline to try to prove copying or influence with.

"Before his death, Buddha said to his disciple: "Ananda, when I am gone, you must not think there is no Buddha; the discourses I have delivered, and the precepts I have enjoined, must be my successors, or representatives, and be to you as Buddha." (Hardy, Eastern Monachism (London, 1860), p. 230.) Before his "ascension," Jesus said to his disciples: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matthew 28:19--20)."

 

What religious leader doesn't tell their followers to continue to follow their teachings? This one is found there. However, what religious leader doesn't exhort their followers to continue to follow their teachings after they have died? This is so universal it cannot qualify as any kind of proof of copying.

 

"Each repeated a question three times: "The Buddha next addressed the bhikkhus and requested them three times to ask him if they had any doubt or question that they wished clarified, but they all remained silent." (Encyclopedia Britannica (New York: William and Helen Benton, 1974), vol. 2, p. 373.) "[Jesus] said to him the third time: `Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time: `Do you love me?'" (John 21:17)."

The question asked is considerably different, the context is different, and Buddha actually asks four times. This quote is indeed found in the Encyclopedia Britannica (Macropedia edition) on this page, but is in volume THREE, not volume two. The context here is that it is describing the conversations Buddha had while on his deathbed, and it says:

"The Buddha next addressed the bhikkhus and requested them three times to ask him if they had any doubt or question that they wished clarified, but they all remained silent. The Buddha then addressed the bhikkhus: "Then, bhikkhus, I address you now: transient are all conditioned things. Try to accomplish your aim with diligence." These were the last words of the Tathāgata. A week later, his body was cremated by the Mallas in Kusinārā."

No source is cited directly for it, though there is a bibliography at the end of the article which among other works mentions that the Mahaparinibbana-sutta, "The Book of the Great Decease", describes the death of Buddha. I found a translated English version, and this does seem to be what is being referred to.

However, we end up with a parallel only by ignoring important details. We can see this even in the representation the list gives, as Buddha asked this on his deathbed while Jesus did so after the Resurrection. The question asked is completely different, with Buddha asking if they wanted clarification on anything, whereas Jesus asked Peter for confirmation that Peter loved Jesus. The responses are different; Peter answers yes and Jesus gives him additional instructions, whereas the monks are silent to Buddha's questions.

 

But someone may still cling to the "same question three times" parallel, even if the specifics are different. However, if we examine the original source, even the supposed parallel of asking three times is not true, because Buddha actually asks four times. This is from a translation of the Mahaparinibbanasutta (or Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta) by Bhikkhu Sujato:

"Then the Buddha said to the mendicants, “Perhaps even a single mendicant has doubt or uncertainty regarding the Buddha, the teaching, the Saṅgha, the path, or the practice. So ask, mendicants! Don’t regret it later, thinking: ‘We were in the Teacher’s presence and we weren’t able to ask the Buddha a question.’”
When this was said, the mendicants kept silent.
For a second time, and a third time the Buddha addressed the mendicants: “Perhaps even a single mendicant has doubt or uncertainty regarding the Buddha, the teaching, the Saṅgha, the path, or the practice. So ask, mendicants! Don’t regret it later, thinking: ‘We were in the Teacher’s presence and we weren’t able to ask the Buddha a question.’”
For a third time, the mendicants kept silent. Then the Buddha said to the mendicants,
“Mendicants, perhaps you don’t ask out of respect for the Teacher. So let a friend tell a friend.”
When this was said, the mendicants kept silent."

So after receiving no response after the first three attempts, Buddha rephrases his question to ask it for a fourth time. Thus even the alleged similarity of asking a question three times does not hold up under scrutiny.

"Both had a disciple who "walked" on water: To convert skeptical villagers, Buddha showed them his disciple walking across a river without sinking. (Lillie, p. 140) "He said: `Come.' So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus, but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out: `Lord, save me!' " (Matthew 14:29--30)."

This source comes from the post-Christian period. Lillie only vaguely cites the "Chinese Dhammapada" so Holding was unable to look it up. But with more information available online now, I was able to figure it out. This one refers to the book "Texts from the Buddhist Canon, commonly known as Dhammapada" by Samuel Beal and the account is found on pages 50-51. This is a translation of the Chinese Dhammapada, which itself is a translation of the Dhammapada, a Buddhist text. There is no other English translation of the Chinese Dhammapada I am aware of, so this is what we will use. There are certainly multiple translations of the normal Dhammapada, but not the Chinese Dhammapada.

 

The scenarios already have some differences in the specifics (for example, Buddha's disciple never has any crisis of faith), but there is a larger problem. The Chinese Dhammapada, a translation into Chinese of the original Dhammapada, adds 13 chapters that are not in the original Dhammapada, as Beal notes in the preface of his work. The chapter this story is found in (Chapter 4) is one of them.

Beal says at the start of his preface that the first translation performed was was "in the Wu dynasty, about the beginning of the second century of the Christian era." In other words, this information was added after the Gospels were written. Beal suggests that the information could have been from older sources, but even if so, it would have had to have been old enough that the information could plausibly have made it all across the language and geographic barrier to where the Gospels were written to have any influence.

 

However, as it turns out, the water walking story seems to be be even later than that. The above information was about the first translation. But Beal is not translating from that. Rather, he is translating from the second version of the Chinese Dhammapada, as he explains further in his preface:

"The English version which follows is not made from the Text we have just considered, but from another about which I now proceed to speak. The "Fa-kheu-pi-u,"–i.e. parables connected with the book of scriptural texts–was translated by two Shamans of the western Tsin dynasty (A.D. 265 to A.D. 313). As its name denotes, it contains certain parables, or tales, connected with the verses which follow them, and which prompted their delivery."

This then raises the following question: Was the mention of walking on water in the original early second century Chinese Dhammapada, or was it only added in the second version, which came from the third or fourth century? The fact he mentions how the second version adds parables and tales connected with the verses that follow them would seem to indicate that this story about water walking was added there, as it is followed by verses. Unfortunately, as there is no English translation of this first version of the Chinese Dhammapada to compare, it is difficult to check.

Thankfully, I was able to find a later article that discussed the matter. Specifically, this is "On the Chinese Dhammapada with Special Reference to the Preface Attached Thereto" from The Annals of the Hitotsubashi Academy, Vol. 9, No. 1 (October 1958), pages 109-121. On page 119, we see the following useful remark. After discussing the original version of the Chinese Dhammapada (the Fa-chu-ching), it says:

"So much for the formation of the Fa-chu-ching. Now the Chinese Dhammapada, as has been explained, is a collection of verses only. There is another scripture to go with this which contains verses together with annotations and stories. It is called Fa-chū-p'i-yu-ching. This is the translation done by Fa-Chū and fa-li of the Western Tsin Dynasty in the reign of Emperor Hui (290 A.D. -306 A.D.). It comprises 4 books which contain 39 chapters. In each chapter some stories, varying from 1 to 6, are inserted."

This adds clarification. It tells us that the first Chinese Dhammapada is a collection of verses only (that is, not a narrative). That would mean the water walking story would not be there. It is the second version, translated by Beal (the article even confirms that the Fa-chū-p'i-y-ching was the version translated by Beal), which added in the stories. And this version comes not from around the year 300 AD. This is two centuries after the Gospels. 

 

Even if we do grant that it is simply writing down a story that was known previously, for this to have been the source of the Gospel story, it not only has to be old enough that it was in existence at the time of the Gospels being written (two centuries prior), it would have had to be even older than that to make the journey over to where the Gospels were written. Even then the Gospel writers would have had to have known of this apparently obscure story that was not found in the original Dhammapada or even the original Chinese Dhammapada. The likelihood of all of this is rather low.

CONCLUSION:

Between the original examination and this addendum, the list can be considered quite discredited. Also discredited are T.W. Doane who came up with most of it and its errors; Michoel Drazin who just copied Doane, apparently without checking on his sources, while adding in some of his own errors; and those who simply copy and distribute Drazin's list without doing verification themselves. Indeed, the error on Somadeva, claiming a Hindu writer was a Buddhist holy book, is perhaps enough by itself to show their ignorance. Such an error is downright embarrassing, to say nothing of their absurd claim that an alleged parallel between Somadeva's work and the Gospels proves copying on the part of Christians when Somadeva lived a thousand years after the Gospels were written.

 

Once examined, almost all of the alleged parallels fall into at least one of the following categories: Simply made up, misrepresented, too vague to count as an actual parallel, virtually universal to major religious figures, recorded too late to be considered to have any influence on the Gospels, or without any primary source that can be checked.

 

After we dispense with all of those, we're ultimately left with at best a few that could be considered a genuine parallel (though even then with differences). However, at that point the handful of similarities can be most plausibly chalked up to simple coincidence.

For a example of how someone can find notable similarities that are obviously simple coincidences between individuals, consider the cases of Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln. Both worked as lawyers. Both became leaders of large countries. Both won a civil war. Both were assassinated, and in each case the assassin was part of a larger conspiracy of plotters. Both died at a very similar age (Lincoln at 56, Caesar at 55). Both died on the 15th day of a month. Coins were minted with their faces on them for both. Both made adjustments to the calendar (Julius Caesar by introducing the Julian Calendar, Lincoln by setting a fixed time for Thanksgiving).

 

But it would be absurd to claim that the life of Abraham Lincoln was taken from that of Julius Caesar. Similarly, once we come down to only the things that could plausibly be considered actual parallels between Jesus and Buddha, we end up with parallels of no greater strength than what has just been noted between Abraham Lincoln and Julius Caesar.

 

Hopefully this was useful to people. If one is to take any lesson from this (outside of the fact that one should be extremely cautious trusting the claims of Doane or Drazin), it would be the importance of checking sources and not simply copying and pasting them uncritically.