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 beyond even just the claims that Drazin took from him 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. So how would they have even known any of the stories they supposedly are copying from?
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.
"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 172-173 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.
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 even if Buddha did begin it at the age of 29 for the reasons Holding noted. 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.
"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)."
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 the Gospels. While it is possible the story itself goes back to, or even predates, the Gospels, such is speculative--and in any event, the story deviates markedly from what we see in the Gospels.
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.
"When Jesus was entering Jerusalem, riding on an ass, his path was strewn by palm branches, thrown there by the multitude."
"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)."
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."
"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:
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.