Talk:Buddhism and Christianity/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Mackenzie and Origen

Archaeologist Donald Mackenzie believed that Buddhist missionaries had a good footing in pre-Christian Britain. He quotes the early Church father Saint Origen as saying, "The island (Britain) has long been predisposed to it (Christianity) through the doctrines of the Druids and Buddhists, who had already inculcated the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead" - Origen.

This quote to Origen is dubious at best and has been removed. See: http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=2927 --Ryan Baumann (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it dubious? Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Mackenzie attributes only to Origen's Commentary on Ezekiel, which is a lost work, and the quote is not in any known surviving fragments or witnesses. The first appearance of this quote is Thomas A. Wise, History of paganism in Caledonia: with an examination into the influence of Asiatic philosophy and the gradual development of Christianity in Pictavia, London (1884), p.204. Wise's citation is to Davies Gilbert, The Parochial History of Cornwall: founded on the manuscript histories of Mr. Hals and Mr. Tonkin in four volumes. Vol. 1, London (1838), p.193 (mis-cited by Wise as p.93), where the word "Buddhists" does not appear. Even the quote found here is most likely based on an inaccurate (see Ronald Hutton, Blood and Mistletoe: the history of the druids in Britain, p.59) translation of Origen's Homilies on Ezechiel, Homily 4, chapter 1, in William Camden's Britannia (the trans. Philemon Holland (London, 1610) edition is available online, where the quote is on p.68). See the link for a full discussion, links, and quote extracts. --Ryan Baumann (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I concur with Ryan Baumann in each regard. Further: much as it would be wonderful to believe, as a self-respecting Scot, that there might be some basis in reality for Mackenzie's assertion, the direct quotation attributed to Origen is sadly laughable because so crassly anachronistic. The term 'Buddhism' in English (or indeed its direct counterpart in any other European language) - as is now well established courtesy of a clutch of recent PhD theses - does not pre-date the 19th century, the fact that academics who should know better will continue to insist upon using it notwithstanding. The notion that Origen in the third century could possibly have spoken of 'Buddhism' is, with respect, preposterous. Wingspeed (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why a "lost" work would have been quoted, and when it was lost? Also, I doubt anyone thinks Origen used the actual word "Buddhism", so that's a very, very strange argument to make. Clement of Alexandria, for example, speaks of very similar things in the 2nd century CE, as do others before him. See Gymnosophists. So, on the face of it, there is nothing at all bizarre or strange about this claim. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Mackenzie's book was reviewed in Nature in 1928, so we have an indication of notability. Other review, such as the one in the American Journal of Archaeology summarize the argument and criticism quite nicely. This should not have been removed from the article, but rather expanded with the appropriate criticism. I will continue to challenge Ryan Baumann's removal of this information. Whether the information is accurate or not, it is a significant part of the historical discourse on the subject. Furthermore, Mackenzie's argument does not rely solely on Origen, but on a detailed, hypothetical argument supported by many different authors and proposed artifacts. This still does not mean it is a "correct", but does give weight to a proto-comparative archaeology in the early 20th century which sought an explanation for similarities in what Mackenzie called a "Celto-Buddhist God". This idea was apparently in vogue from the late 19th to early 20th century, and there are numerous works on the subject. Again, this does not mean that it is "true", but rather that the idea was entertained in a serious manner at one time. More importantly, we would benefit from briefly covering the history of this idea and comparing it with the conclusions reached by modern, scientific scholarship. Ignoring it as Ryan Baumann proposes, is not an option. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not propose ignoring it, such a section could be interesting, were someone to take the time to write it. I merely object to the dubious quotation of Origen to establish a false source of antiquity for 19th/20th century claims. I would say that the quote attributed to Origen is an exceptional claim, and Mackenzie is not a high-quality source for it, therefore it should not be included (Wikipedia:Verifiability). "Mackenzie believed that Origen said" is the only claim about the Origen quote that the Mackenzie reference is a reliable source for, which is not particularly relevant to the section in its current state. --Ryan Baumann (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me when the text in question was "lost" and why Mackenzie had access to it? I don't think anyone honestly believes that Origen used the word "Buddhism". This is supposed to be a translation, much like the statements by Clement of Alexandria. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The burden of evidence for a controversial claim (in this case, that Mackenzie had access to a lost work of Origen) does not work that way. Nor is it possible to easily provide a precise "when" for when the majority of "lost" texts are lost (or even that a text is "lost"). Origen (c.185–254) wrote his Commentary on Ezekiel c.238-244. Eusebius (c.263–339) states that it consists of 25 books, and Jerome (c.347-420) states there are 29. These are the last sources I could find who claimed to have knowledge of the existence of the full text in their time. When C.H.E. Lommatzsch is publishing (1831-1844), he has only a fragment of the 20th book (see: A Select library of Nicene and post-Nicene fathers of the Christian church, p. 277, at Google Books), and the same for Migne (PG XIII, p. 665, at Google Books) in 1862. Mackenzie, who was not to my knowledge an expert in patristics, cannot (in 1928) pull a quote not from any known source or edition of Origen and attribute it simply to the Commentary on Ezekiel and be treated as a reliable source for it. For him to do so is to make an exceptional claim not covered by mainstream sources in the field. It is incredibly unlikely Mackenzie had access to the text. As I detailed earlier, the exact quote Mackenzie uses can be traced back to Wise in 1884, and his citation for it (Gilbert 1838) does not include the word crucial for relevance to this article. Here are the exact quotes in question:

The island has long been predisposed to it (Christianity) through the doctrines of the Druids and Buddhists, who had already inculcated the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead. --Mackenzie

The island has long been predisposed to it (i.e. to Christianity), through the doctrines of the Druids and Buddhists, who had already inculcated the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead. --Wise

The unity of the Supreme Being was the foundation of their religion ; and Origen, in his Commentaries of Ezekiel, inquiring into the reasons of the rapid progress of Christianity in Britain, says, “this island has long been predisposed to it by the doctrine of the Druids, which had ever taught the unity of God the Creator.” --Gilbert

Gilbert's citation for the quote traces back to Graves’s History of Cleveland, p. 4. Carlisle. 1808, p. 4, at Google Books, which itself has no scholarly reference for quoting from the Commentary:

The religious ceremonies of the druids were few, and greatly similar to those of the ancient Hebrews. The unity of the Supreme Being was the foundation of their belief; and Origen, in his Commentary upon Ezekiel, canvassing the reasons of the rapid progress of Christianity in Britain, says, that “this island had long been predisposed to it, by the doctrine of the druids, which had ever been, the unity of God the creator”.

It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion over whether or not the "translation" should use the word "Buddhism"; there is no actual edition of the Commentary ever cited as a source for any of these translations to have come from. Consider however the similarity of the quote with that of Camden's inaccurate (see earlier comment) translation of Origen's Homilies on Ezechiel, Homily 4, chapter 1, in his popular Britannia (1586, trans. Philemon Holland 1610):

But to this purpose maketh especially that which erewhile I alleged out of Tertullian, as also that which Origen recordeth How the Britans with one consent embraced the Faith, and made way themselves unto God by meanes of the Druidæ, who alwaies did bear upon this article of beleefe, That there was but one God.

For Origen's Homilies on Ezechiel, Homily 4, chapter 1, there exists a scholarly source: Jerome's Latin translation, available to us by way of Migne's Patrologia Latina XXV, p. 725, at Google Books:

Quando enim terra Britanniae ante adventum Christi unius Dei consensit religionem? Quando terra Maurorum, quando totus semel orbis? Nunc vero propter Ecclesias, quae mundi limites tenent, universa terra cum laetitia clamat ad Dominum Israel, et capax est bonorum secundum fines suos.

Camden's original text, p. 40, at Google Books of this section reads:

Huc etiam facit tùm Origines in 4. ad Ezechielem, tùm Tertullianus contra Iudæos. Hic enim intimas Britanniæ regiones, & inaccessa Romanis loca sua ætate Christum amplexas fuisse tradit; ille verò Brittanos in fidem consensisse, & ad Deum per Druidas viam sibi muniuisse ostendit, qui vnum esse Deum semper inculcârunt.

--Ryan Baumann (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. See Śramaṇa in Western literature. We are specifically looking for the Greek. You can see samples of it on that page. Ryan, I know you saw this link on roger-pearse.com. Is there a reason you ignored bringing it up, especially after Wingspeed's comment? It clearly shows that not only was Wingspeed wrong about the term (it was used by Clement as I said previously, disputing Wingspeed's claim that it was anachronistic) but it also shows that Origen likely referred to Buddhists in some form or another in 248 CE in his work, Contra Celsum. Viriditas (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet none of this is evidence for the "quote" about westward expansion of Buddhism currently being attributed to Origen. --Ryan Baumann (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but the bulk of that argument about westward expansion concerns claims regarding missionaries sent by Ashoka the Great. However, I agree that Mackenzie's claims are speculative, and it looks he stole a misquoted passage from Wise. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Commentary on Ezekiel

Ryan, I can only reply to one point at a time. First let's start with your claim that Origen's Commentary on Ezekiel "is a lost work, and the quote is not in any known surviving fragments or witnesses." When I asked when this work was lost and why Mackenzie would have access to it, you answered the latter, but regarding the former you backpedaled and said that it is not "possible to easily provide a precise "when" for when the majority of "lost" texts are lost (or even that a text is 'lost')." So, what's this about Ryan? You can't have it both ways. If you didn't mean what you originally wrote, then say so, and amend your previous statement. You can't maintain both positions. Please respond to this point first. Is the work considered lost or not, and if so, when was it lost? Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for trying to explain the reality of the situation to you. By "lost" I mean the work is considered lost by mainstream scholarship, as illustrated by the references to Migne and Lommatzsch. Because of this, it is unlikely Mackenzie (or Wise, etc.) had access to it and are casually referencing their afternoon translation of a text which would be a breakthrough discovery in patristics. When the work is lost is impossible or incredibly difficult to know. We do not, for every lost work, have evidence or a narrative of the loss such as "the last known copy of Aristotle's On Comedy was destroyed in a fire at an Italian abbey in the 14th century." --Ryan Baumann (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Donald Alexander Mackenzie

For the record, I believe the person we are talking about is Donald Alexander Mackenzie. The book we are referring to is Buddhism in Pre-Christian Britain [1928] (1977). The evidence Mackenzie brings to the table consists of much more than Origen, and Ryan's focus on just this one point as his sole criterion for deletion misses the point entirely. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to rewrite explaining the other evidence, I object only to the quote from Origen. The sentence as it stands now:

Folklorist and historian Donald Alexander Mackenzie argued in his book, Buddhism in Pre-Christian Britain (1928) that Buddhism might have influenced pre-Christian Britain.

Is fine to me. --Ryan Baumann (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proof

Ryan, there is no burden here. We already verified that Mackenzie said these things. We are not trying to show they are correct, so there is no burden to meet. See WP:V. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Origen quote, however, I feel falls under undue weight. --Ryan Baumann (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it for now, per the comment below. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wise and Gilbert

Ryan, you say that the first appearance of the alleged Origen quote from Mackenzie (1928)[1] is from Wise (1884), who in turn cites Gilbert (1838). It certainly looks like Mackenzie cribbed the quote from Thomas A. Wise without proper attribution, but I find this strange because he uses footnotes throughout the chapter.[2][3]. So, now we come to Gilbert. The quote from Wise is not the same quote from Davis [sic] Gilbert. What's going on here? First of all, why would Mackenzie steal a line from Wise without using a footnote? Second of all, why does Wise say he is quoting Gilbert, but when we look at Gilbert, we see a different quote altogether? The simplest explanation might be that Mackenzie stole the quote from Wise, and Wise made it up and attributed it to Gilbert. Whatever the reason might be, I now see that the quote cannot be verified at this time other than through Mackenzie, and since this is already dubious, I'm going to remove it. I think we can make the same point more accurately with a simple paraphrase of Mackenzie's primary hypothesis, which for the most part, does not rely on Origen. Still, something seems out of order here. Why would Mackenzie go through the trouble of stealing a quote from Wise, a quote that it seems Wise invented? This doesn't make any sense. Viriditas (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Marvin Harris

Marvin Harris detected the apparition of peace and love religions that focus on the spiritual over animal-sacrifice religions (Buddhism, Jainism, modern Hinduism, Christianism) and attributed them to population increases and ecological-economical changes that make inconvenient or unfeasible the use of religion for meat distribution. So some of the parallels may come from concurrent evolution rather than contact.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.200.2 (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

God vs Mahavairocana, Buddha vs Saint and Bodhisattva vs Guardian Kings ....???

While I was editing the article of Shingon Buddhism, I came to realize the equivalence indicated on the subject line. I'm not sure what others think this about. To be very strange,

• whenever I see a Cross, it reminds me Five Dhyani Buddhas which I see it as manifestation from the Cross, or vise versa

• When I see the mandala of Womb Realm, it brings me the images of the flags which contains the Union Jack.

• When bicolor flags is in the front of my eyes, the Mandala of the Two Realms are prompted. Some buddhists may see it the presence of Aksobhya and Amitābha.

• If triband flags are in front of me, I'll see the presence of Trikaya

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.46.126 (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.90.41 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is still trash

Indeed. It looks like some attempt has been made to make the opening sound like a respectable piece. Glancing down, we still find gems like "In general there are two views regarding a possible connection between Buddhism and Christianity; 1.Buddhism borrowed from Christianity. 2. Christianity borrowed from Buddhism". There may be some way to torture that sentence into honesty. However, I believe it gives a quite dishonest picture of what is "In general" the view of this matter. That is, that Christianity came out of Judaism and Buddhism came out of Hinduism and other than those things we might expect in the set 'religions' they have little direct influence on one another. Later on we have incidents that Lille is said to have said are in the Gospel birth tales that are not. It is hard to see any way to save this mess as it is.Gnuwhirled (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there still an angry horde which will fight like rabid wet cats against any and all attempts at removing the large quantities of fringe advocacy? A.J.A. (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, but your christian advocatism is still not welcome here. If the idea that Christians borrowed much of their stuff from other religions bothers you so much, you better go pray or better yet - find some common sense and learn to accept the facts instead of trying to rewrite history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.106.146.157 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"... speculation concerning the influence of Buddhism on the Essenes, the early Christians, and the gospels is without historical foundation." Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Volume One), page 159

I've entered this in the article at least twice, but I can't find it now. This rather tends to support AJA's take. Peter jackson (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of context quotes from tertiary sources aren't the best references. What exactly do we mean by "historical foundation"? A historical foundation for what? The connection between Buddhism, the Essenes, and the Christians was popular in the late 19th century, and there is a lot of literature on the subject. Arthur Lillie seems to have been the largest proponent of this idea at the time, so relevant criticism should address his work - and that shouldn't be hard to find as he was mercilessly attacked for his ideas. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried to remove some of the fringe material, but I was reverted back. Maybe someone else can do it at one point or another. ADM (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Without fringe material this will be a very short article.

Gnuwhirled (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

"Bodhisattva" as a Mahayana concept

As I was reading I felt that the Mahayana perspective was getting left out somehow, and this quote confirms it:

"... Bodhisattva [is]the term traditionally used to refer to Gautama before he becomes a buddha."

This is (at best) the perspective of the Nikayas ("pali canon", theravada, agamas, etc) where "bodhisattva" is not an important concept. The Buddha appears as a bodhissatva (a bodhisattva, not the bodhisattva) mostly in the Jataka tales which tell of Gautama's previous lives. But in Mahayana the Bodhisattva is central, and there are a myriad of Bodhisattvas. They are all on the path to full buddhahood, but not to become Gautama, who is already a Buddha, but to become future Buddhas.

The use of the term "bodhisattva" almost certainly means that the type of buddhism being discussed or referred to is mahayana, which was already becoming the dominant form of Buddhism in China and along the silk road. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC).

You just admited that B/bodhisattva is not a Mahayana concept though you may be hinting that later Buddhists placed a stronger emphasis in the bodhisattva ideal though this was only a continual development, which, aside from it inspiring Christianity, remained independant of Christianity. The Pali admits many Bodhisattvas as it does many Buddhas, however there is little or no mention of them, we would naturally expect stories to come later. The main trait of the Mahayana Bodhisattva is that he turns his back on nirvana, the Pali narrative says the same of Buddha; in doing this it is said they return to the world of 'suffering', so is Jesus' descent into hell, a theme found in many Mahayana sutras and Pali suttas as well as the independant Jataka tradition. Many western writers paint the early Buddhists as totally leaving the world, but this may only behalf true; there commandment to "Beg for food" allowed them to quickly expand over India and Central Asia, by begging they became intimately tied to the world and the doings of others by which they would impress their beliefs on others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.126.160 (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Researching GOD Jesus Light and Buddha Human

These 3 points are left outstanding in my search. Jesus golden light and Buddha humble in brown robes.

A consolidation is requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.103.62 (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Buddha and Jesus

"Arthur Lillie argues that the birth accounts of the Buddha were copied into the gospels listing the following infancy parallels:" I have a problem with this section as it provides parallels but doesn't cite the location where they can be found in either Buddhist or Christian scriptures. In fact, I don't know about on the Buddhist side, but the events that are supposed parallels in life of Jesus Christ in this section are not contained in any of the four gospel accounts that I am aware of. If they are in some other documents this should be made clear in the article to avoid confusion. If I had not read the gospel accounts I would think these things were contained there in. -- Docgnome —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC).

Lillie obviously refers primarily to Apocryphal gospels. Parallels 1, 3, 4 and 5 are not found in the canonical gospels. Corinius (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Questionable redirect from C-B Dialogue

Christian-Buddhist Dialogue is a legitimate, separate and distinct topic of its own that has nothing to do with the topics on this article. It is a shame that someone tried to write an article on the dialogue, itself, only to abandon it in favor of a redirect to this article. Whatever the merits of this article's content, the bare use of the conjunction "and" between these two major topics does not define a narrow, notable topic, per se. Although a suitable article may appear under that rubric it would be better to name articles in such a manner that their name describes what they purport to encyclopediaze.Geofferybard (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Say What? Marknw (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Christian Buddhist dialogue is an important and legitimate topic. It has nothing to do with the hypothesis advanced in this article. Thereofore, we need a separate article on the great Dialogue, itself. I suppose we might have to live with the redirect for the time being, but eventually someone should write an article on the actual Christian-Buddhist dialogue, itself, and not hijack it into a discussion of this hypothesis.Bard गीता 20:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh now I see someone sort of acted upon my objection and redirected it to an article which I admit is a better fit. Thanks. However, there will need to be a new separate article at some point also.Bard गीता 21:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment If there is no more discussion on this topic within 7 days, I am going to remove the tag, it seems like an adequate solution was found for now. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed as WP:fringe

This paragraph removed:

According to the linguist Zacharias P. Thundy the name "Therapeutae" is simply an Hellenisation of the Pali term for the traditional Buddhist faith, "Theravada". The similarities between the monastic practices of the Therapeutae and Buddhist monastic practices have led to suggestions that the Therapeutae were in fact Buddhist monks who had reached Alexandria, descendants of Ashoka's emissaries to the West, and who influenced the early formation of Christianity. "The Original Jesus" (Element Books, Shaftesbury, 1995), Elmar R Gruber, Holger Kersten The evidence for this argument rests solely on the similarity of practices and the purported derivation of the name. There is no evidence from antiquity that supports this argument.

This sort of thing belongs on a blog, not Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Good on you! This nonsensical speculation of Thundy's is all over the internet, this despite the fact he cannot decide himself if it should be "Theravada" or "Theraputra" that is the root of the sect of fanatically Sabbath keeping Jews described by Philo. Here is a good discussion of the word in Greek and its roots, which predate the birth of the Buddha: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2005-January/032785.html

Gnuwhirled (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring

What a long article! I've restructured it, as is clear from the contents. I hope this improves the readability. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Original Research

Bible quotes to underscore a point of view cannot be regarded as encyclopedic. In my opinion, this is OR. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Article needs THOROUGH revision

The importance of interfaith relations between Buddhism and Christianity is indicated by the existence of an academic journal (Buddhist-Christian Studies) devoted to the subject. However, this article ignores this dimension in favor of a parade of speculative (at best) theories about Christian origins. These should be reduced to a paragraph or so, limiting the text to the most noteworthy ones (e.g. Nicolas Notovitch representing occult writers, and Marcus Borg's book Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings for more scholarly fare), with no effort to reproduce their arguments. Coverage here should be parallel to Wikipedia's article on Jewish-Buddhist relations (including the multiply-identified Jubus. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.164.155 (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we provide a brief presentation of the fact of theories of Christian origins without "effort to reproduce their arguments," we end up with a very incomplete coverage of an important topic. Just because providing such information in a way that is at once objective and interesting doesn't mean no attempt should be made to do so, in my view. Dshafer (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this page should function as some kind of portal, linking to specific topics as "Buddhist influence on Christianity", "Greek influence on Buddhism", "buddhist-christian interfaith dialogue", "Buddhism in the USA", et cetera. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Separate articles

I moved:

• "Similarities" to Similarities between Buddhism and Christianity to shorten the article.
• "Buddhist influences on Christianity" to Buddhist influences on Christianity
• "Jesus in Little Tibet" to Jesus in Little Tibet

After that, I've added a sections on "Christian influences on Buddhism" and "Contemporary Buddhist-Christian exchange". Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I've split up the original article in several articles (see above, "Separate articles"), because it was extremely long, and contained more topics than just the supposed similarities. For example, Buddhist-Christian dialogue is also part of the topic, but is not necessary about similarities.

As is is now, it's a sort of 'container', with links to the the separate articles. Compare it to Zen; there is a general article on Zen, and separate articles on Chinese Chan and Japanese Zen.Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The merger proposal is now six months old. Would you consider merging the articles, or removing the unsightly/aging merge tag from both articles?

For the record, I vote "yes", please merge them. Thanks tremendously! Prburley (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I still vote "no", but what the heck, that's three "votes" in total. And there is a plocy against voting WP:VOTE. What are your considerations in merging the two articles? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at what both sides have said as well as Wikipedia policy. The main article on Buddhism is already too long. Merging is not the right way to go. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ret.Prof. The proposal was to merge with Similarities between Buddhism and Christianity, not with Buddhism. Anyway, the original article Buddhism and Christianity was also way to long; that's why I split off Similarities between Buddhism and Christianity. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the merger-proposal tag; as it is now, this article gives an overview of various aspects of "Buddhism and Christianity", with link to more elaborate articles on the several aspects. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger-proposal #2

That's a thorough clean-up :) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was just getting started. It was mostly WP:OR. History2007 (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It's good to see a critical editor at work here. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ugh... but we also have Buddhism and Christianity and Buddhist influences on Christianity. Seems kinda nutso to have three articles on effectively the same topic. If you have time and energy, perhaps you could review and assess these three articles with an eye towards developing a strategy for integrating them. I can maybe imagine two articles but three seems excessive. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think one article, by the time the WP:OR flies away. Whoever wrote those did not understand the difference between Wisdom literature and the NT... but then all it takes to edit this website is a modem and a heartbeat... I will try to trim and fit them to one article ge rid of self-published refs etc. Will not take much work. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This was copied from my talk page here. History2007 (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I split those articles a while ago, because it was an aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawful long article. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the past tense there is correct. It "was" long. But now that the WP:OR is going away.... History2007 (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Question to History2007 about the OR... did you simply delete anything that wasn't sourced or did you try and fail to find any reliable sources for the assertions? I was surprised to find that there was no mention of Nicolas Notovitch, Elizabeth Clare Prophet and her book "The Lost Years of Jesus: Documentary Evidence of Jesus' 17-Year Journey to the East". I'm not saying that any of that is "true". I'm just saying that it seems notable enough to be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia. In general, I suspect that many of the assertions that have been purged as OR could be sourced if someone spent enough time and energy to track them down. Once again, it's all pretty fringe, non-mainstream stuff but that's not an issue if the material is sourced. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Notovitch and E. C. Prophet are both mentioned in Jesus in Little Tibet as being junk. There are clear refs that say that. That needs to merge in too. I think it is 90% fringe material. History2007 (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I added a simple section on differences here that shows the divergence begins at the core, i.e. with the concepts of God/theism/Grace - not minor issues in Christianity, but not mentioned here. Perhaps the weakest part of the Similarities between Buddhism and Christianity article is the juxtaposing of an ΙΧΘΥΣ with a wheel next to it and a supposed Chi Rho symbol (actually a Chi Rho has 6 lines not 8, go figure) to somehow do WP:OR that there are elements of the Eightfold Path in Christianity. That is pure WP:OR and totally incorrect. But there are other outdated things too, e.g. the page on history of the rosary has a complete discussion that shows there was no influence, and it was discussed on the talk page there at length, yet here some 100 year old statement by Charles Eliot (a colonial administrator and botanist!) is used as an assertion. Pretty hopeless in terms of scholarly value.... And the list goes on... History2007 (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Now we have 4 articles, this page, Similarities between Buddhism and Christianity, Buddhism and Gnosticism and Jesus in Little Tibet whose title seems like a Wiki invention. I think the Gnosticism material should just stay by itself, it is a rummage sale of text I do not want to even contemplate touching. And Gnosticism is not representative of Christianity anyway, given that the Gnostics were rejected, kicked and called heretics almost from the get go. But the Jesus in Little Tibet can just be a section in Lost years of Jesus and a small mention here. By and large these were/are pretty low quality items, totally free of academic support, 19th century ramblings that no scholar supports any more, etc. - amazing how much junk floats here as an encyclopedia.... History2007 (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Eschatology

I added the sourced statement that:

There are also irreconcilable differences in the Christian and Buddhist beliefs regarding the End Times, and Christian Buddhist eschatology are generally seen as inherently incompatible. (sourced to the The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology by Jerry L. Walls (Apr 16, 2010) ISBN 0199735883 page 552)

but it was just removed by an IP with no explanation. I need an explanation for why it was removed, so that an WP:Edit war can be avoided. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Confused

I thought this would be a history of interaction between buddhists and christians.... but instead we have apparently

1. circa 500 BCE, Buddha born 2. circa 0 BCE, Jesus 3. circa 1100 BCE, first interaction

Surely there must be some more history in here? The Greeks who had invaded India contacted Buddhism and Greco Indian Buddhist artefacts are in Afghanistan. Of course, the early Bible writings are often found in Greek. And yet we have this 1000 year gap with no interaction between Buddhists and Christians?

The article itself appears to be an analysis of buddhism vs christianity, rather than a description of buddhists and christians. It is interesting but not exactly what I was expecting. Decora (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

   That could be a promising addition.

Gnuwhirled (talk)

There is a section called Buddhist influence on Christianity, and has a link to an article called influences. E.g. see Durant's 1930s suggestion that Ashoka's people were in Rome and started things in that article. But modern scholars do not buy that at all. If what you say is the case, you need to show sources for it. Of course Buddhists, Jews and and Christians may have walked past each other in markets in Rome at some point, but there is no solid evidence of an interchange of theology or teachings. A lot of people "guess" what you say (and some even manufactured stories about it), but most scholars say we do not have any solid evidence in hand, as the article states. So the rest is conjecture, and in fact most scholars even directly reject those conjectures as teh sources indicate. In fact there are more scholars who argue for influences from Greek mythology (Dionysus, etc.) or Egyptian (Horus) items than from Buddhism. But even those are far from solid by any measure. Yet, if that confused you, others may have questions too, and it may need a few sentences in that section with sources - I will try to put it together later today. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

“Although surface level non-scholarly analogies have been drawn between the two traditions, Buddhism and Christianity have inherent and fundamental differences at the deepest levels” This is your last warning, your lies and dubious assertions are seriously damaging the way I make my living and I reserve the right to hold all such editors personally libel. My request is that you hide your prejudices better or just don’t have an article at all. Furthermore, if I get one of your sanctified scholars to admit that “scholarly analogies have been drawn between the two traditions” I am warning the editor again, I, [redacted] of [redacted]68.32.41.19 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC), will locate such individuals and attempt to ask them about such gross omissions in person. If camping is permitted outside of your dwelling, I, and every vagrant I can find to join my cause, will plan to set up camp!

YOUR statement, which contradicts the very reason for a page, that “Buddhism and Christianity have inherent and fundamental differences at the deepest levels” requires at the very least the approval of several scholars, and it requires the editor to be completely and utterly ignorant of the many authors, scholars, common folk that have maintained otherwise. Also, when we speak of Christianity and Buddhism, we speak of it in a non-codified sense, to be mo fo sure, there never was any such one Christian or Buddhist church for your marvelously deceitful line to make sense.

12 February 2013 68.32.41.19

Christian Bias

No offense but in my opinion this article seems to have a real issue with bias, it reads like a Christian preacher trying to push how unrelated the religions are and why Buddhism is "heretical" from a Christian perspective. I wouldn't know where to begin with cleaning it up with a NPOV, the entire article is slanted in this way. 86.184.166.26 (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

   The bias is in favor of the evidentiary as opposed to fashionable fringe fantasy.  There might be some mention of the pricipal fantasists by name, however, as these folks do have academic credentials.  The notions promoted by Holger, Kersten, Thundy, etc. have sufficient popular subscription to be mentioned. It is interesting how assiduously these names are avoided.

Gnuwhirled (talk)

I agree. I came here wanting genuine, historically respected information on the relatedness of Buddhism and Christianity (ideas, historical background, scholarship etc). This article is disturbingly biased. To editors: Can we put up a notification informing readers of the bias, and advising that the article requires clean up? I don't know enough about Wikipedia to do this. Slagar123 (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  There are claims but not a lot of historically respected information on relatedness, this would tend to explain why. If you go looking for information on the creation of the Nazca lines by Ancient Astronauts you might have a similar experience.  Ditto for the Theory of Evolution as a Satanic plot.

Gnuwhirled (talk)

How about similarities and differences in practice?

As one of the other commenters on this page suggested, it would be nice to know some more about the similarities, convergences, and overlaps between Buddhism and Christianity in practice (which do exist, even if the two as logical systems are mutually exclusive -- logical incompatibility has never held up syncretism in practice). I was hoping to learn something about the similarities and differences of Christian and Buddhist monastic practices, or the different ways that Christianity and Buddhism treat their respective charismatic originators. I'd add something myself if I knew anything more. I suppose I'll have to look elsewhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.34.56 (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)