Isn’t Thomas a Gnostic document? That would be the similarity there between Thomas and some Eastern mysticism.
Althugh Thomas was found in a Gnostic library at Nag Hammadi, it’s probably pre-Gnostic in composition. Fragments have also been found in Egypt in a non-Gnostic library.
I would disagree that Gnosticism was very similar to Eastern mysticism, btw.
Ah well. From what little I know about either, they seem pretty much the same to me. It’s probably all superficial.
Isn’t current mainstream thinking that Thomas was pre-Gnostic, then it was redacted by the Gnostics and Gnostic thought added? I could be wrong.
Also, didn’t Gnosticism come out of the worship of Mithra and Zoroastrianism? Isn’t that “eastern”? Or are you restricting “eastern” to just India and points east of that?
Buddhism was not unknown in the ancient Hellenistic/Greco-Roman world. Take a look here: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Greco-Buddhism . We would do well to remember that the civilizations of the ancient world were not totally isolated from each other.
Jesus could well have been influenced by Buddhist doctrine without even leaving Israel. Even if it could be demonstrated that Jesus’ teachings showed an Eastern influence (and bear in mind we don’t really know exactly what Jesus taught in the first place; he left no writings that have come down to us, and his spoken words are reported by various persons who all clearly had agendas of their own), it still wouldn’t do much to show that Jesus had ever actually undertaken a journey or pilgrimage to ancient India.
Problem is, I see nothing in the New Testament which clearly shows a Buddhist or Hindu influence.
That is correct.
The origins of Gnosticism are pretty obscure. It used to be thought that it was only an early variation of Christianity, but many have now made a pretty good case for all kinds of pre-Christian precursers both in Eastern and Western thought. Persian thought (the origin of both Zoroaster and Mithra, but Zoraster is really the relevant influence here) probably had something to do with the radical dualism of Gnosticism, but there are elements of Jewish eschatology and even Platon idealism mixed up with it as well.
Specifically Christian Gnosticism, with Jesus as a Savior figure, was pretty much a second century development.
I would argue that Gnostic Christianity was an interpretation of Jesus, but that there is nothing in Jesus’ actual teachings* that can be identified as distinctly Gnostic.
*In order to avoid an argument about the historicity of Jesus, I will identify “Jesus’ teachings” as that body of sayings belonging to the accepted common sayings tradition attributed to Jesus. The sayings themselves can be compared against against other philosphcal/theological traditions and examined for influence, regardless of the historicity of Jesus.
Correct. Certainly the basic ideas of Eastern faiths were known in the Hellenistic world before the birth of Jesus. The best indication is that the ministry of Jesus started when he was around 30 years old. Good reason to think that in the years before this Jesus would have had a lot of interest in things religious. The average Jew in this period likely would have had know knowledge of Eastern religions. However, Jesus doesn’t seem to have been the average Jew.
Well, since your claim was that if I read the New Testament carefully, without Christian-dogma-colored glasses, it would become clear that Jesus is an invented mythical figure, it is objectively false. 
Well, since we know that 1st century Palestinian peasants did actually exist, the question is whether it is more likely in the short time between Jesus’ supposed life and the writing of Paul that the legend developed around one of them or arose spontainiously out of whole cloth. I find it the far more parsimonious to believe the former. On the other hand, if you want to claim that the core of historical truths about Jesus are so lost among the myths that he might as well not have existed, I probably won’t be bothered to argue. (Though I personally think it extremely likely that someone around whom the legend formed actually preached and was actually crucified.)
Oops! I’m a :wally
I suspect there are enough threads about the historicity of Jesus that we don’t need to hijack this one any further. If you really want to add more than brief comment about this, you should probably start another thread and email me about it. Frankly thought, I’ve pretty much run out of things to say about it!
Suffice it to say that a purely mythic Jesus is an extremely minority view even among the most Godless, liberal, inveterate skeptics of Historical Jesus research.
I wouldn’t mind arguing for historicity in a separate thread but it’s rather a hijack in this.
Kindly re-read my earlier posts, especially the one addressed to you personally. This is NOT a hijack. The OP asked if Jesus influenced by Eastern Religions. The only honest answer is that it was not “Jesus” – historical or not – that was influenced by Eastern thought and beliefs, it was the “Jesus” STORY!
My previous posts explain how. Please re-read them.
p.s.: The “purely mythic Jesus” is in no way, shape, or form an “extreme” minority view any longer, sir. It’s actually gaining on the mainstream. Can you be unaware that perhaps the most eminent living NT scholar, Burton Mack, titled his 2001 book: The Jesus Myth, where he calmly asserted that the centuries-long search for the historical Jesus has failed utterly? You should also read Robert M. Price’s (who is not nearly as “liberal” as many claim) new book: The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?
In that case, you didn’t read it carefully enough!
Did you notice the glaring omissions of any physical, historical Jesus in any of the pre-Gospelic Epistles, by any chance? Didn’t think so!
It’s easy to supply your own answer to your own question. My question, on the other hand, is why on Earth make you so confident that the Jesus Myth didn’t pre-exist the 1’st century AD? It would be fun if you could try to prove it!
In any case, my entire point in posting here is not to hijack the thread, but to point out that there’s little or nothing in “Jesus’” words that would give rise to anyone thinking he may have been influenced by Eastern beliefs, but there’s lots of evidence for an Eastern influence on the “Jesus” story!
Funny you should mention Burton Mack, I’m currently reading his book, Who Wrote the New Testament?. Mack actually stops short of claiming there was no historical Jesus, he just contends that HJ is probably impossible to retrieve from the myth.
Robert Price, along with Earl Dougherty and GA Wells are pretty much the leading mythicists, and they are, in fact, a minority. The majority still overwhelmingly accepts the historicity of Jesus, albeit with wildly differing views as to who he was or what he did. This includes the very leading scholars in the field such as Crossan, Funk, Borg, Meier and others.
I’ve read Dougherty’s Jesus Puzzle and some summarized positions of Price and Wells. I considered this view. I considered it seriously. I am one of those “Godless, liberal, inveterate skeptics.” I was not at all hostile to mythicism. I read up on it. I know the arguments. I know how the conclusions were arrived at and I know how the arguments are rebutted, and I know how the rebuttals are rebutted. Ultimately, while the mythicists make some good points, I think they mostly make a case for the fictionalization of the Gospels more than they actually disprove Jesus as a historical figure. Since I already thought the Gospels were mostly fiction layered on top of an authentic sayings tradition, I would not say I had my worldview changed.
I think this would be a great subject for another thread but I don’t want to bog this one down any more.
Diogenes I’m gonna start with the premise that you believe Jesus was an actual person. Who, what, how, etc…not relevant. Okay? Jesus lived and the “myth” grew from there. Can we start with that?
How can you say it is a fact that Jesus did not go to Egypt? You say it is mentioned in Matthew.
Then you say that it is a lie. He didn’t go. I’m not one to argue the Bible literally…but to use passages from scripture as proof or disproof one way or the other is fine. But to do both is teetering on hypocrisy. Don’t take that the wrong way D/C. I’m NOT calling YOU a hypocrite. I’m just questioning the logic. I think you know me better than that. I am seeking truth not arguments.
There are more accounts of Jesus having been in Egypt than just Matthew. Perhaps they are all false. I’ll do some more research on the subject. But it really doesn’t matter if you follow the logic.
The stories can ALL be false and it still won’t prove he didn’t go.
Whether proof exists or not regarding Herod’s actions in Bethlehem doesn’t prove whether or not Jesus spent time in Egypt. The lack of any historical accounts of him being there doesn’t prove he wasn’t there. By the same token, I can’t prove that he was.
As far as any Buddhists in Egypt goes, there were supposedly a thousand missionaries sent from the far east to spread the word to the world far and wide.
I’ve also read several accounts of their presence there at the time.
Myth maybe, an exageration probably… but even so. Even if there were NEVER any Buddhists in Egyypt.
That doesn’t remove the likelihood that the Vedas made their way to the Library at Alexandria. I’d say it is a safe bet that there were books on Eastern Philosophy kept there.
If Jesus was there… and according to scripture he was. He knew how to read. Alexandria was the place to go at the time if you wanted to study something.
Now, D/C does this make sense? There is no proof that anyone can put forth that is indisputable regarding the life of Jesus and his whereabouts for many years of his life. There also is no inventory in existence regarding every book at Alexandria, correct?
Could he have studied some Eastern Philosophy? I just don’t see how anyone can say for a fact that he couldn’t have?
Did it influence his teachings? How could it not?
Most of Jesus’ life is just that…speculation and rumor. His teachings are another subject. Do they reflect any of the ideas found in the far east that are unique?
Well, let’s see, many people here have concluded that Christianity does have some aspects that reflect this proposal. But rather than attributing them to Jesus himself, they give credit to embellishments made at some later date. Why does Occums Razor not apply when the subject of Jesus comes up? Why is so hard to believe that Christianity is based on what he said? If you think he didn’t exist, then I can understand that, no problem.
Isn’t it easier to explain it the way it is written than to seek out some huge conspiracy which resulted in Christianity. If this were a modern political thread
the tin-foil hats would’ve been donned long ago.
A man lived, he started a “new” cult which caught on. He combined aspects of various philosophies which appealed to people and they followed him around until the authorities got worried about the money they were losing and he was executed. His followers tried to remember what all he said and wrote a lot of it down and embellished on that. They probably made up a few things and threw in a few miracles here and there. Then all you gotta do is promise the folks eternal life and in a few generations you’ve got a religion.
The guy was smart and he read too much. He was raised in some strange times. He couldn’t keep his mouth shut when he probably should have and it cost him in the end. But not before he made a big impression on a lot of people. Now is that so hard to believe? (Son of God) That’s a matter of faith! No arguing that.
Sounds like it could happen to some folks around here doesn’t it. Good thing your mother’s not a virgin, huh? 
I wasn’t speaking of anyone in particular…okay
Hi, t-k, good questions. Here we go.
First you should know that the Nativity narratives in Matthew and Luke (Mark and John don’t have Nativities) are fairly late developments in Christian mythology. They were not composed until 50-60 years after the crucifixion. The authors were not witnesses, they never clapped eyes on Jesus and in all likelihood, they never met anyone else who ever knew Jesus. There are no Nativity traditions in the earliest strata of Christian literature, including Paul, Mark, Q and Thomas. In fact, this earliest stratum does not even have Jesus being born at Bethlehem but Nazereth (Matthew and Luke moved the birth to Bethlehem because that’s where David was from. The popular expectation was that the Messiah would emerge from the birthplace of David). There wasn’t even a virgin birth.
When Matthew and Luke wrote their Nativities they did not have a prior Nativity tradition to work from. They used imgination, mythic imagery and the Hebrew Bible to create their stories.
The flight to Egypt is attested only in Matthew. The reason Matthew gives for the flight is the ahistorical “slaughter of the innocents” by Herod. Matthew was drawing a comparison between Jesus and Moses. If there was no slaughter of the innocents (which there wasn’t), then there is no motive for Jesus’ family to flee to Egypt (and let’s also remember that this entire story hinges on a supernatural prediction about Jesus being the Messiah, something that objective historical criticism requires to be regarded as fiction).
Moreover, Matthew’s flight to Egypt’s directly contradicted by Luke who says that Jesus’ family went immediately back to Nazereth after the birth (that’s not the only contradiction between Luke and Matthew, btw., for instance, Matthew has Jesus’ family already living in Bethlehem, not travelling to it for the birth. After they get back from Egypt, Joseph has a dream which tells him to move to Nazereth).
Nothing can be proven absolutely, of course, but there is an abundance of evidence that Matthew’s Nativity is fiction and I assure you that scholarship of all sort, even some pretty conservative scholarship, is virtually unanimous in regarding the flight to Egypt as a Matthean invention.
Another thing to consider is that, according to Matthew, they returned from Egypt when erod the Great had died. Herod died in 4 BCE, so depending on when Jesus was born (generally estimated at sometime between 4-6 BCE), he would have been an infant or a toddler when he got back to Galilee- hardly enough time to become influenced by Egyptian Buddhists.
As to Jesus reading a lot, an estimated 95-98 percent of the Palestinian state was illiterate during the time of Jesus. Jesus, in particular, was part of the artisan class, a bare bones subsistence class below peasants on the social pecking order and a class which did not have access to to any kind of education or to literacy or even to books (books were rare. For the most part, the only books available in rural Galilee were the Biblical scrolls in the synagogue. Although there would have been a wider selection of books in the wealthier, Hellenized cities like Sephoris, a carpenter’s kid would not have had access to them, or money to buy them, or the ability to read Greek or the ability to read at all.
Finally, there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus which is distinctly or uniquely Buddhist or Hindu in nature. There are sayings which seem sapiential and mystic in nature (that is, they are suggestive of a “Kingdom of God” as a cognitive transformation- a kind of “enlightenment,” perhaps) but there is no hint of concepts like samsara, or karma or dharma. There is no reincarnation, no “Noble Truths” or “Eightfold Paths,” no discussion of ego or desire, no yogas, no meditations, not one thing which we can point to and say “aha, THAT is Buddhism.”
The earliest traditions about Jesus suggest that the first impression people got when they met him was that he was a hick. They were amazed at his ability to speak and to expound on scripture and law because they thought he was just a unlettered rube from a hole in the road called Nazereth. He spoke with the equivalent of a rural southern accent. He didn’t seem cultured or educated and people comment on that when they see him.
I don’t believe there is anything in Jesus’ teaching which could not be explained by his own cultural background along with some personal insights and revelations (mystically derived or otherwise).
t-keela (and Diogenes): please understand that my position regarding the Eastern influence on Jesus via the NT is not tied to my mythicist position. But it is important to recognize that Jesus – if he existed – wrote exactly NONE of the New Testament. If there’s any Eastern influence in the NT, it’s because of Eastern influence on it’s authors, not it’s principals. It’s the back story, not the lead character, that matters. I’m frankly a bit surprised I still haven’t been able to make that clear.
t-keela, you speak of the Great Library of Alexandria as a possible source of Eastern influence. Well, you’re spot on! But what route did this influence take?
Did it flow through the Jesus figure? How could we know that, and why should we even suspect it? Especially since we don’t know that Jesus even existed let alone that he studied in Alexandria? But let’s look at what we do know: many Eastern/Eastern-flavored ideas (as well as Philo of Alexandria’s Hellenic Judaism), were strongly present in the cosmopolitan cities and towns that made up so much the NT tableau, and were well – sometimes directly – present in Paul’s writings as well as other NT writers. Why is everyone ignoring that?
Ask yourself: Were the Eastern Magi present in the birth stories because Jesus himself had visited the East? I know it’s a stupid question, but it helps to make the point I’ve been struggling without success to make here. It was the NT’s authors who inserted the Eastern ideas, not Jesus!
The whole idea of a stellar announcement with a cadre of Magi is an Eastern idea. It didn’t come from Jesus, it came from the Eastern-influenced NT writers. The whole idea of the important of fish in the miracle stories: it didn’t come from Jesus, it came from the Eastern-influenced writers. The magic number of fish caught: a borrowed Eastern tradition brought in by the writers. All the hundreds and hundreds of astrological references: borrowed from the East by the writers.
On and on and on I could go, but I hope to Buddha I’ve made my point by now! It’s not Jesus, it’s the story, that was influenced by the East.
The New Testament would be an indirect tribute to Eastern thought even if Jesus was left out of the story completely or if he never existed!
Ok, this specific response is a bit of a hijack, even though I don’t believe the previous ones were…
In The Jesus Myth he goes further. He says that the search for the historical Jesus has failed, and he says we must give up the ghost. He states flat out that it is flat out impossible to retrieve any historicist facts from the myth, and that since everything we know of Jesus is indistinguishable from myth – hell, we can’t even agree on what works should be included for study – we should call it as it is: a myth.
He says that we must surrender Jesus as myth and that what is important now is to work on figuring out, historically, just how the myth came to be. I agree.
Granted, but that was never under dispute. You didn’t just say that mythicism is a minority position, you said it is an “extreme” minority. That is false and unjustified by the evidence. I wrote then and still contend that it is rapidly gaining on the mainstream, and I believe that before long it will be considered a mainstream position, although not, of course, the dominant one.
And I should mention that I’ve found that “Godless, liberal, inveterate skeptics” are among the most resistant to mythicism, and I believe I know why: such skeptics are uncomfortable (for reasons I can only speculate about) with that degree of skepticism or at least with being considered skeptics to such a degree. I’ve often seen fundamentalists assuming mythicists are merely stubborn hyper-skeptics and I’ve taken more heat from skeptics than fundamentalists over the years. Now, in their minds that might be because they just don’t think the extra mile is worth traveling, imagining that it’s taking skepticism to an absurd extent. But I believe that’s only because these skeptics don’t actually understand some of the key elements of the position. It seems that perhaps you are one of them, given these words of yours:
I will take you at your word, but I can’t help but wonder that you failed to mention the fact that the pre-Gospel Epistles prove the case for a mythical Jesus without any help from Price, Wells, or Doherty. A more solid disproof of the historical Jesus cannot be imagined than the one Paul provides so compellingly yet innocently. And since Paul and the other pre-Gospel NT writers didn’t believe in any historical, near-contemporary Jesus, why should we?
But I’ll end there, not wishing to totally hijack the thread…
And then there is the claim that Jesus lived on after the Crusifiction, moved to Japan, married, & had kids in a little village named Herai.
http://metropolis.japantoday.com/tokyotravel/tokyojapantravel/3523/tokyojapantravelinc.htm
Yes, they’re actually serious.
I’d like to see them make that into an Anime. I’d tap into CBN’s transmissions, & re-broadcast it, just to make people’s brains overload.
You do realise that evidence for Hellenistic influence in Bactria is not the same as evidence for Buddhist influence in the Mediterranean? The sort of evidence for Greco-Buddhist interaction that is so abundant from Bactria is precisely what is lacking from areas further west. Contact in the east is not enough.
As I’ve said already, the only source for the Buddhists-in-Egypt idea is the Mahavansa, which speaks of 30,000 monks coming to Sri Lanka from ‘Alassada, the capital of the Yona country’. The whole Buddhists-in-Egypt theory therefore rests on the assumptions that Alassada=Alexandria and that this is the Alexandria, the Egyptian one. The fundamental problem with this, however, is all that Hellenistic influence in Bactria. A prime example of that influence is that Alexander is known to have founded another Alexandria there. So, we have one Alexandria for which there is no other evidence of Buddhist contacts and a much closer one in a region where there is known to have been a strong Buddhist presence. Which do you think it is more likely that the monks came from?
But it is not at all obvious that there would have been books on eastern philosophy at Alexandria, nor is it obvious that if Jesus had wanted to study, he would have gone to Alexandria, nor is it obvious that if he did study there, he would have read the book on eastern philosophy (if there were any), nor is it obvious that if he did read them, they would have influenced him. Your entire argument consists of one piece of special pleading followed by another.
Give it to Gainax and Hideaki Anno.
It’s almost inconceivable that Eastern religious texts wouldn’t have been in the library at Alexandria. However, no particularly good reason to think Jesus ever went to that library.