The Historical Jesus or the Historical Buddha?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
Santi253
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 4:37 am
Contact:

The Historical Jesus or the Historical Buddha?

Post by Santi253 »

I am not here to make a judgment about one religion being superior to another. If you were raised in a Christian background or live in a predominantly Christian country, you've likely encountered arguments for the historical trustworthiness of the Bible, and how this makes Christianity true, to the exclusion of all other religions.

Dr. Bart Ehrman was raised a fundamentalist Christian, and he still teaches Biblical studies in the Bible Belt. When he studied the New Testament for himself, including in the original Greek, he came to the realization that the accounts of Jesus' life are historically untrustworthy, especially in how they contradict each other on the most important details of Jesus' life, such as the virgin birth and the resurrection:



Dr. Ehrman also points out that the Gospels, in addition to contradicting each other on the most important details, were written by anonymous authors, decades after the events described. Based on the above, I would say there is no more reason for believing in the resurrection of Christ than for trusting in the Buddha’s enlightenment. If anything, there’s more evidence for the historical Buddha than for the historical Jesus:
Gautama the Buddha was not a mythical figure but an actual, historical personality who introduced the religion known today as Buddhism. Evidence to prove the existence of this great religious Teacher are to be found in the following facts:

The testimonies of those who knew Him personally. These testimonies were recorded in the rock-inscriptions, pillars and pagodas made in His honour. These testimonies and monuments to His memory were created by kings and others who were near enough to His time to be able to verify the story of His life.

The discovery of places and the remains of buildings that were mentioned in the narrative of His time.

The Sangha, the holy order which He founded, has had an unbroken existence to the present day. The Sangha possessed the facts of His life and Teachings which have been transmitted from generation to generation in various parts of the world.

The fact that in the very year of His death, and at various times subsequently, conventions and councils of the Sangha were held for the verification of the actual Teachings of the Founder. These verified Teachings have been passed on from teacher to pupil from His time to the present day.

After His passing away, His body was cremated and the bodily relics were divided among eight kingdoms in India. Each king built a pagoda to contain his portion of the relics. The portion given to King Ajatasatthu was enshrined by him in a pagoda at Rajagriha. Less than two centuries later, Emperor Asoka took the relics and distributed them throughout his empire. The inscriptions enshrined in this and other pagodas confirmed that those were the relics of Gautama the Buddha.

'The Mahavansa', the best and authentic ancient history known to us gives detailed particulars of life as well as details of the life of Emperor Asoka and all other sovereigns related to Buddhist history. Indian history has also given a prominent place to the Buddha's life, activities, Buddhist traditions and customs.

The records which we can find in the Buddhist countries where people received Buddhism a few hundred years after the Buddha's passing away such as Sri Lanka, Burma, China, Tibet, Nepal, Korea, Mongolia, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos show unbroken historical, cultural, religious, literary and traditional evidence that there was religious Teacher in India known as Gautama the Buddha.

The Tripitaka, an unbroken record of His 45 years of Teaching is more than sufficient to prove that the Buddha really lived in the world.

The accuracy and authenticity of the Buddhist texts is supported by the fact that they provide information for historians to write Indian history during the 5th and 6th century B.C. The texts, which represent the earliest reliable written records in India, provide a profound insight into the socio-economic, cultural and political environment and conditions during the Buddha's lifetime as well as into the lives of His contemporaries, such as King Bimbisara.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/17.htm
Please keep in mind that I don't have a vendetta against Christianity. It just so happens that I come from a Christian background and live in a predominantly Christian culture. If I were from a Muslim background or a Hindu background, etc., I might be comparing the evidence behind these religions to the evidence for Buddhism.
Last edited by Santi253 on Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: The Historical Jesus or the Historical Buddha?

Post by Kim OHara »

:shock:
Where to start? Two places, I guess.

(1) There are enough gaps and inconsistencies in both sets of scriptures to 'disprove' each of them to anyone who wants to disagree with them. There is enough solid evidence in each set of scriptures to 'prove' either of them to anyone who wants to agree with them.
:juggling:

(2) None of this is anywhere near new to anyone with more than a casual interest in the history of either set of scriptures. The idea that a teacher of Biblical studies - even in the Bible Belt - could have been ignorant of the Gospel clashes is :rolleye:

:coffee:
Kim
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The Historical Jesus or the Historical Buddha?

Post by Coëmgenu »

Dr. Bart Ehrman was raised in a very specific tradition of Christianity (modern "Biblical literalism" that arguably did not exist before ~1650) and critiques only that very specific tradition of Christianity as if it were actually representative of mainstream Christianity globally. This is usual in America though, where it is generally this kind of Christianity that claims monopoly on what is "truly Christian," so one can easily understand where this man's mistakes concerning "Christianity," as a whole, come from: mainstream American society in general. His arguments are completely bewildering and nonsequitous to someone exposed to the dominant hermeneutics for reading Christian scripture before his sect came to the decisions they did regarding their interpretations.

The Gospel's "traditionally" aren't supposed to be read as "history" in the sense that we read history today (i.e. frequently out of an "infallible textbook"). They are traditional Hellenic biographies early Christian writers were compiling based on 1) traditional accounts of Jesus preserved orally, and 2) traditional miracles and episodes to be expected of a "holy figure" in their culture (for instance, Jesus is not the only "messiah" to perform the miracles he did and to say the things he did, consider the 32 marks, this is a Buddhist example of the same thing).

Regarding the "historical" Jesus vs the "historical" Buddha: the same argumentation for a historical Buddha applies as the argumentation used to defend a "historical" Jesus applies, however there is much much less time between the writing of Christian scriptures and the teaching of Christian teachings (by Jesus) than there is between the ministries of the Buddha and the eventual writing down of the suttāni (suttas). Given this alone, a historical Jesus is far more historically verifiable (if either are at all, since we have to adjust our standards of proof when dealing with ancient history, otherwise almost no one in sufficiently ancient history "definitely exists") than a comparatively historical Buddha.

Both teachers are likely to have "existed". Whenever someone comes along and says "Confucius didn't really exist" or something of the like, the only other possibilities are 1) someone lied and invented X historical character and their teachings, or 2) many historical characters "converged" into one (this is not as ridiculous an idea as it may seem, both "Christ" and "Buddha" were titles for people before "the" Christ and "the" Buddha came to be exclusively associated with the words).

To me, if either of these is the case, it seems that 2) is more reasonable, but even then, it still makes sense for these figures to have been substantially based on one particular figure among the many and other teachings were gradually attributed to them, rather than a whole body of teachings arising naturally via societal exchange without any actual teaching (but ineffably with the shared common mythology of a "real teacher" in the past? It just seems to unlikely)
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
BasementBuddhist
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:03 pm

Re: The Historical Jesus or the Historical Buddha?

Post by BasementBuddhist »

I believe that two people existed that these characters are based on. Was Jesus named Jesus and was his life as described in the scriptures? Maybe, maybe not. Was the Buddha named Siddartha, living as a prince and throwing it all away to find peace? Maybe, maybe not. At this point, what is significant is not if exact details matched, but the message.
Santi253
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 4:37 am
Contact:

Re: The Historical Jesus or the Historical Buddha?

Post by Santi253 »

Coëmgenu wrote: Given this alone, a historical Jesus is far more historically verifiable (if either are at all, since we have to adjust our standards of proof when dealing with ancient history, otherwise almost no one in sufficiently ancient history "definitely exists") than a comparatively historical Buddha.
We should keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the only thing we have in support of such extraordinary claims as the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ are contradicting accounts by anonymous authors, from decades after the events described.

Please forgive me if I am just being biased, but it seems that the Buddha's attainment of Nirvana is less an extraordinary claim as either the virgin birth or the physical resurrection of Christ.

There were no contemporary written sources for the historical Jesus or the historical Buddha. When I say there might be more evidence for the historical Buddha than for the historical Jesus, I am referring mostly to the archaeological evidence of the historical Buddha:
Santi253 wrote:
Gautama the Buddha was not a mythical figure but an actual, historical personality who introduced the religion known today as Buddhism. Evidence to prove the existence of this great religious Teacher are to be found in the following facts:

The testimonies of those who knew Him personally. These testimonies were recorded in the rock-inscriptions, pillars and pagodas made in His honour. These testimonies and monuments to His memory were created by kings and others who were near enough to His time to be able to verify the story of His life.

The discovery of places and the remains of buildings that were mentioned in the narrative of His time.

The Sangha, the holy order which He founded, has had an unbroken existence to the present day. The Sangha possessed the facts of His life and Teachings which have been transmitted from generation to generation in various parts of the world.

The fact that in the very year of His death, and at various times subsequently, conventions and councils of the Sangha were held for the verification of the actual Teachings of the Founder. These verified Teachings have been passed on from teacher to pupil from His time to the present day.

After His passing away, His body was cremated and the bodily relics were divided among eight kingdoms in India. Each king built a pagoda to contain his portion of the relics. The portion given to King Ajatasatthu was enshrined by him in a pagoda at Rajagriha. Less than two centuries later, Emperor Asoka took the relics and distributed them throughout his empire. The inscriptions enshrined in this and other pagodas confirmed that those were the relics of Gautama the Buddha.

'The Mahavansa', the best and authentic ancient history known to us gives detailed particulars of life as well as details of the life of Emperor Asoka and all other sovereigns related to Buddhist history. Indian history has also given a prominent place to the Buddha's life, activities, Buddhist traditions and customs.

The records which we can find in the Buddhist countries where people received Buddhism a few hundred years after the Buddha's passing away such as Sri Lanka, Burma, China, Tibet, Nepal, Korea, Mongolia, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos show unbroken historical, cultural, religious, literary and traditional evidence that there was religious Teacher in India known as Gautama the Buddha.

The Tripitaka, an unbroken record of His 45 years of Teaching is more than sufficient to prove that the Buddha really lived in the world.

The accuracy and authenticity of the Buddhist texts is supported by the fact that they provide information for historians to write Indian history during the 5th and 6th century B.C. The texts, which represent the earliest reliable written records in India, provide a profound insight into the socio-economic, cultural and political environment and conditions during the Buddha's lifetime as well as into the lives of His contemporaries, such as King Bimbisara.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/17.htm
Please forgive me if I am misrepresenting the archaeological evidence for the historical Jesus. Other than the James ossuary of questionable authenticity, what archaeological evidence is there for the historical Jesus?
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
Santi253
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 4:37 am
Contact:

Re: The Historical Jesus or the Historical Buddha?

Post by Santi253 »

Please keep in mind that I'm not here to bad mouth Christianity or any other religion. I just happen to believe that the evidence for the historical Buddha deserves more credit than what Christian apologists claim regarding the historical Buddha, and that informed Buddhists shouldn't be susceptible to the arguments made by Christian apologists.
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: The Historical Jesus or the Historical Buddha?

Post by Kim OHara »

Santi253 wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote: Given this alone, a historical Jesus is far more historically verifiable (if either are at all, since we have to adjust our standards of proof when dealing with ancient history, otherwise almost no one in sufficiently ancient history "definitely exists") than a comparatively historical Buddha.
We should keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the only thing we have in support of such extraordinary claims as the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ are contradicting accounts by anonymous authors, from decades after the events described.

Please forgive me if I am just being biased, but it seems that the Buddha's attainment of Nirvana is less an extraordinary claim as either the virgin birth or the physical resurrection of Christ.

There were no contemporary written sources for the historical Jesus or the historical Buddha. When I say there might be more evidence for the historical Buddha than for the historical Jesus, I am referring mostly to the archaeological evidence of the historical Buddha:
Santi253 wrote:
Gautama the Buddha was not a mythical figure but an actual, historical personality who introduced the religion known today as Buddhism. Evidence to prove the existence of this great religious Teacher are to be found in the following facts:

The testimonies of those who knew Him personally. ...The texts, which represent the earliest reliable written records in India, provide a profound insight into the socio-economic, cultural and political environment and conditions during the Buddha's lifetime as well as into the lives of His contemporaries, such as King Bimbisara.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/17.htm
Please forgive me if I am misrepresenting the archaeological evidence for the historical Jesus. Other than the James ossuary of questionable authenticity, what archaeological evidence is there for the historical Jesus?
As I said before, there is plenty of evidence referring to both teachers. And no, I don't forgive you for being biased, because bias is never justifiable, or for misrepresenting "archaeological evidence is there for the historical Jesus," because it is at least as strong as that for the historical Buddha.
Most of that slab of text you have now quoted twice has nothing to do with "archaeological evidence", btw, but cites narratives, myths, legends, stories ... and we have plenty of those for Jesus. And it leads off with "Gautama the Buddha was not a mythical figure but an actual, historical personality who introduced the religion known today as Buddhism." Proof? None. Evidence? Plenty, but none of it is very strong.
If you want to believe, go right ahead: you have all the evidence you want. If you want to disbelieve, ditto. And that goes for Jesus, too. Get used to it.

:namaste:
Kim
Santi253
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 4:37 am
Contact:

Re: The Historical Jesus or the Historical Buddha?

Post by Santi253 »

Kim OHara wrote: Most of that slab of text you have now quoted twice has nothing to do with "archaeological evidence", btw, but cites narratives, myths, legends, stories
Santi253 wrote:
The testimonies of those who knew Him personally. These testimonies were recorded in the rock-inscriptions, pillars and pagodas made in His honour. These testimonies and monuments to His memory were created by kings and others who were near enough to His time to be able to verify the story of His life.

The discovery of places and the remains of buildings that were mentioned in the narrative of His time...

After His passing away, His body was cremated and the bodily relics were divided among eight kingdoms in India. Each king built a pagoda to contain his portion of the relics. The portion given to King Ajatasatthu was enshrined by him in a pagoda at Rajagriha. Less than two centuries later, Emperor Asoka took the relics and distributed them throughout his empire. The inscriptions enshrined in this and other pagodas confirmed that those were the relics of Gautama the Buddha...
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/17.htm
Here is a recent story on a relic of the Buddha:
https://www.livescience.com/55243-buddh ... crypt.html

When it comes to physical, archaeological evidence, I've seen more in support of Buddhism than for Christianity. I am a convert from a Christian background to Buddhism, and I believed the arguments made by Christian apologists for a long time.

I am not here to argue that one religion is superior to another. I just think the evidence for the historical Buddha should receive the credit it deserves.
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The Historical Jesus or the Historical Buddha?

Post by chownah »

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancien ... an-sources
chownah
Santi253
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 4:37 am
Contact:

Re: The Historical Jesus or the Historical Buddha?

Post by Santi253 »

chownah wrote:Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancien ... an-sources
chownah
All of those examples are from decades after the death of Jesus, and some are even of questionable authenticity, especially when it comes to Josephus', which was likely an interpolation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_ ... e_passages

This summarizes what I've been saying regarding the historical Jesus:
There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased.

Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life.

And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... e245dcacc6
That someone called Jesus of Nazareth may have existed as a historical person doesn't mean that he was the Son of God, a claim for which there is no evidence. Please keep in mind that I'm not here to bad mouth Christianity or any other religion. I am only discussing historical considerations.
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The Historical Jesus or the Historical Buddha?

Post by chownah »

Santi253 wrote:
chownah wrote:Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancien ... an-sources
chownah
All of those examples are from decades after the death of Jesus, and some are even of questionable authenticity, especially when it comes to Josephus', which was likely an interpolation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_ ... e_passages

This summarizes what I've been saying regarding the historical Jesus:
There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased.

Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life.

And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... e245dcacc6
That someone called Jesus of Nazareth may have existed as a historical person doesn't mean that he was the Son of God, a claim for which there is no evidence. Please keep in mind that I'm not here to bad mouth Christianity or any other religion. I am only discussing historical considerations.
If you apply the same criteria to the buddha what do you come up with? For example, who wrote about the buddha within 100 years of his life....eye witness or contemporary accounts?

Just because the buddha existed as a historical person doesn't mean that he was a fully awakened buddha....or even that such a thing even exists.....
chownah
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: The Historical Jesus or the Historical Buddha?

Post by Kim OHara »

Santi253 wrote:...
That someone called Jesus of Nazareth may have existed as a historical person doesn't mean that he was the Son of God, a claim for which there is no evidence.
You are shifting your ground - from 'didn't exist' to 'was son of god'.
And if you can come up with any hint or suggestion for what might possibly be 'evidence' for the claim that so-and-so 'was the Son of God', tell us. Note that I'm not asking you to show that evidence exists, of course, but what it might look like if it did. "Jesus Christ was so my son. Signed, God" inscribed in letters of fire on a diamond as big as a house? Something like that might do.
:thinking:
Or might not.
Please keep in mind that I'm not here to bad mouth Christianity or any other religion. I am only discussing historical considerations.
That is getting harder and harder to believe. If you applied the same standards to the Buddha you would by now have claimed that there was no proof he existed, and then changed your ground to say there was no evidence that he was enlightened.

:namaste:
Kim
Justsit
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: The Historical Jesus or the Historical Buddha?

Post by Justsit »

Santi253 wrote:That someone called Jesus of Nazareth may have existed as a historical person doesn't mean that he was the Son of God, a claim for which there is no evidence. Please keep in mind that I'm not here to bad mouth Christianity or any other religion. I am only discussing historical considerations.
From this and numerous other similar threads, it sounds as though you are trying to convince yourself. Not unusual behavior with former Christians.
Santi253
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 4:37 am
Contact:

Re: The Historical Jesus or the Historical Buddha?

Post by Santi253 »

chownah wrote: If you apply the same criteria to the buddha what do you come up with?
The difference is that Buddhists don't travel around the world, using questionable historical arguments to proselytize others into their religion, as far as I know.
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
Santi253
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 4:37 am
Contact:

Re: The Historical Jesus or the Historical Buddha?

Post by Santi253 »

Kim OHara wrote:[
You are shifting your ground - from 'didn't exist' to 'was son of god'.
I've never said, in my entire life, that Jesus never existed. Please read the first post I made in this thread:
Santi253 wrote: Dr. Bart Ehrman was raised a fundamentalist Christian, and he still teaches Biblical studies in the Bible Belt. When he studied the New Testament for himself, including in the original Greek, he came to the realization that the accounts of Jesus' life are historically untrustworthy, especially in how they contradict each other on the most important details of Jesus' life, such as the virgin birth and the resurrection:



Dr. Ehrman also points out that the Gospels, in addition to contradicting each other on the most important details, were written by anonymous authors, decades after the events described. Based on the above, I would say there is no more reason for believing in the resurrection of Christ than for trusting in the Buddha’s enlightenment.
Bart Ehrman also wrote a book explaining that Jesus historically existed:
Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth is a 2012 book by the academic and author Bart Ehrman, a leading scholar of the New Testament and writer of over twenty-five books (including three college textbooks) in that field of study. In the book, written to counter the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus Christ at all, Ehrman sets out to demonstrate the historical evidence for Jesus' existence, and he aims to state why all experts in the area agree that "whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist."[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Jesus ... F_(Ehrman)
The question isn't whether or not Jesus existed as a historical person. The question is whether there's adequate evidence for a non-Christian to accept the extraordinary claims of the Christian faith, such as the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Christ.
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
Post Reply