|
The International
Symposium on “The Sanskrit and Buddhist Sources of the New Testament“
was held in Folkets Hus, in Klavrestroem, Sweden,
September 11th-14th 2003 with participation of scholars from several
countries. Dr Christian
Lindtner´s new book “Hemligheten
om Kristus“
was presented, and papers were read by: * Lars Adelskogh: Jesus
in Comparative Light and the Book “The Secret of Christ“
by Christian Lindtner * Dr Koenraad Elst:
Indic Influence in Christianity * Kenneth Humphreys:
Jesus never existed. A Presentation of the site: www.jesusneverexisted.com * Dr Holger Kersten:
A Presentation of the thesis of the book 1995 The Original Jesus. The
Buddhist Sources of Christianity * Dr Christian
Lindtner: A New Introduction to the Body of Tathâgatas * Dr Robert
Countess: The Christian Lindtner Theory of
the Buddhist Origins of the New Testament Gospels. - In the sudden absence
of the author, his paper (see below) was read by Dr Burkhard
Scherer,
* Dr Burkhard
Scherer: The Secrets about Christian Lindtner - a preliminary response
to the CLT" * Hans Henrik Nielsen:
Observations on the Pentagon etc. * Dr Zacharias Thundy:
Paper in the form of a Letter to the participants * Dr Bhikkhu Pâsâdika:
The Origins of Mahâyâna. Presented in published
form only. With a Letter to CL. * Carl O. Nordling: The Synoptic Problem in relation to the CLT Background and
Results The Klavrestroem Symposium was the fourth of its sort. The first International
Seminar on New Testament Revisionism took place at The second conference,
Sanskrit Sources of the New Testament Gospels, convened by Prof. em. Zacharias Thundy,
took place at Saint Mary´s College, Notre
Dame, Indiana, A third seminar,
on Bible Revisionism, OT and NT, took place near The Klavrestrom Symposium was convened by the publisher, Mr
Kalle Haegglund, and his assistants
in Klavrestrom, Småland.
As a matter of principle, not wishing to exploit any fiscus,
expenses were covered by the convener. The general atmosphere, as it
turned out, was exceptionally open. At scholarly conferences certain
limitations are often imposed by various taboos and by the fact that
they cannot be held without public support. Here, there were no limitations
to impede freedom of speech and research. All the speakers
were ready to accept that Christianity , historically
speaking, has been influenced, even deeply, by Buddhism. But considerable
disagreements were expressed when it came to the extent and nature of
the influence of Buddhism (Mahâyâna) upon
early Christianity. Some scholars still hold that Jesus is a historical
figure. Other scholars are just as comvinced
that Jesus never existed. Some scholars think that the influence is
indirect (“subtextual“), rather
than direct (“textual“) etc. etc. The CLT holds that there is a direct Buddhist textual influence
to be detected in the New Testament Gospels. Some major objections
to the CLT (Christian Lindtner Theory) are to be found in the paper presented
by Robert H. Countess, PhD. Several scholars, some of whom were present
in Klavrestom, and many of whom were not present in person,
seem inclined to take side with Dr Countess, at least to some extent.
His objections to the CLT, therefore, must
solict a response from CL himself: Replies The replies
given by CL on 13th September were: 1. RC: If the purpose
of the Buddhist missionaries (BM) was to promote Buddhism under the
guise of a fraudulently created corpus of NT documents, then the BM
utterly failed in their purpose since the result was a new and highly
successful religion (Christianity) that at no significant point agrees
with Buddhism. CL: Yes, the
purpose was to promote Buddhism - that of the Lotussûtra
- by fraudulent means, Sanskrit upâya-kausalya,
“skillfull means“, including parables,
white lies, translations, puns, assimilations, disguise etc. It is not
the case that the BM “utterly failed“. On the contrary,
the BM were, I claim, highly successful. How so? A major purpose
of the missionaries of the Lotus (Sanskrit dharma-bhânaka,
Tathâgata-dûta etc.) was to “dip all
living beings into the names of the Buddha (= Sâkyamunis,
Tathâgatas, Saddharmapundarîka
etc.)“. The “last wish“ of
Jesus, according to Matthew 28:19, is , likewise, that his disciples
must go and make disciples of all nations, and thay
should dip them into the names of the Father, the Son and the so-called
Holy Spirit. This TRi-NiTaS is , even for the name,
an imitation of the Buddhist TRi-RaTNaS. The
Trinity of the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Samgha
is disguised as the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
etc. etc. You will even see, of course, that this is also the case in
early “Christian“ art. In his book,CL has pointed out numerous
cases where the words of Greek text of the Gospels are direct puns on
the original Sanskrit names of Tathâgatas,
Sâkyamunis, Saddharmapundarîka(sûtram) etc. etc. This means that
when you read or hear the Greek text of the Gospels you are “dipped“
into Sanskrit names of Sâkyamunis etc. You almost drown in such puns. This is exactly
what “the last words“ of Sâkyamunis
in the Lotus were all about. Any living being that hears or reads if
only one word from the Lotus will, eventually, become a Buddha. Any reader can
consult the Lotus and check the correctness of my claim for himself.
It is repeated ad nauseam. The BM were, therefore, seem in the light
of what they themselves intended, highly successful. They could not
have been more successful. When we speak
about “Buddhism“, we must be sure to make the necessary
distinctions. Some scholars, I understand, do not think that the Lotus
belongs to “mainstream“ Mahâyâna. They do not even think
that the Lotus was translated into Tibetan. But the Lotus
was, of course, translated into Tibetan. It was commented upon by major
Indian Buddhists, it is referred to by the great Mahâyâna master Nâgârjuna,
as an important authority on ekayâna, upâyakausalya etc. How, then, can
one claim that the Lotus is not so important? It is and it
was. On the other
hand: The Lotus represents a “new“ (nava) form of Buddhism,
also according to its own words. The important thing is no longer knowledge,
but faith. The Lotus wants
many nations (bahu-jana), all sentients beings (sarva-sattva) etc. to
believe in and to recite, read, listen to the names and words of the
Lotus. Thus, eventually, they will become liberated and happy. They
will become buddhas - even if takes a long time - by reading and listening
to the words mentioned above. The title of
the New Testament is itself a direct copy of the Sanskrit term kâyam
Tathâgatasya. So, if you read and believe in the NT, the BM would be
delighted! 2. RC: What about
statistics? Is the percentage of puns etc. large, very small, or very
large? CL: It is very
large, indeed. I cannot, I must admit, give you any final numbers -
yet. In my 9/11 paper I invite you to join me in counting, and I give
you my reasons for inviting you to do so ( - not menitioning, however,
that I am perhaps not really prepared to count all the letters and syllables
of the NT all by myself!) 3. RC: Could one
not find such puns in the Soviet Constitution or in a Swahili novel
or a Chinese history book? CL: Never checked.
Others may want to check and let me know. Even if one could - which
seems unlikely - the objection is irrelevant, for it overlooks the fact
- pointed out in my book, pp. 37-46 - that the framework of both Gospels
(i.e. that of Sâkyamunis and that of ho Khristos, the ksatriyas in disguise)
is specific to these two documents only. Or does RC claims that the
Soviet Constitution etc. also begins with a lineage of kings, the descent
from heaven, baptism, the first sermon, and, finally, parinirvâna? 4. RC: You must
begin with the first sentence in Matthew 1:1: biblos geneseos ´Iêsou
Khristou huiou Daueid huiou Abraam! CL: Right you
are, Bob, I must begin with this sentence, pointing out how it is a
direct translataion from the Sanskrit. And, in fact, Bob, I already
pointed out the Sanskrit original of the first eight words of Matthew
in my book. See if you can find it! In my book you will also see what
I have to say about the patriarchal Abraham , that old pimp etc. 5. RC: How much
time did it take the BM to produce this fraud? Where di they live and
support themselves financially all this time etc. CL: Yes, these
questions must also be confronted by the CLT. You have raised numerous
questions here It will be too much to respond to each one of them here,
but I think a general reply may do for the time being. When we go back
to the Buddhist scriptures in various Indian languages, and later on
also in Tibetan and Chinese etc., we face, mutatis mutandis, the same
questions. Some of these Budhist sütras are of an even much greater
lenght than the NT. Compare the final words of John. We hardly know
when and where these texts were written. But we do know that they were
written. The BM had the linguistic skills to translate into Greek, Aramaic,
Chinese, Tocharian, Uygur, Tibetan, Mongolian etc. Coming from Sanskrit
to Greek would, moreover, have been rather easy. There are references
to pens, to ink etc. in the Buddhist sûtras. How long were the texts
- 10 Meters? 100 Metres? Good questions - better than you think, perhaps.
The Buddhist sûtras were often measured, not in metres, but in numbers
of syllables. We have texts in 8000x32 syllables, even in 100.000x32
syllables etc. etc. In my 9/11 presentation I suggest, as you are now
aware, that we start counting, and I suggest some of the reasons why.
As opposed to most of the participants at the Symposium, I am convinced
that the path of counting will prove, one day, to have been a been a
path of wisdom, cf. Revelations 13:18. 6. RC: What about
textual criticism? When were the Buddhist texts written? Before the
Second Century AD? CL: Good questions,
again. I do not want
to be misunderstood when it comes to these matters. By now, 2003, most
of the important Buddhist texts are available in good modern editions.
But many texts still remain to be edited or edited more critically.
Typically, we, as editors, start out with one or more Sanskrit manuscripts.
If there are later Tibetan or Chinese versions of the same text, we
compare these texts etc. etc. We try to work our way back to the “original“.
Nothing surprising in all this. With a background in Greek and Latin
you will rather easikly find your way. The general impression is surely
that the texts have been very carefully transmitted. There are exceptions
to the rule, of course, but they are rather rare. What I am saying is
that what one can say about textual criticism has to be said in each
case by the editor of a giving text. Each editor has his own experiences.
It wil, take decades before good scholars can meet and try to prepare,
say, a manual of Buddhist textual criticim. As to the date
of the earliest Buddhist written texts: Scholars seem
to agree that Pâli texts were brought to Sri Lanka already in the Third
Century BC. We have inscriptions
from the Third Century BC. The earliest
Buddhist manuscripts, that were can take in our hands are about 2000
years old. They are birch bark scrolls from Gandhâra and now to be seen
in the British Library. There is a book about these scrolls and some
time ago I published a review of the 1999 book by Richard Salomon about
these fragments. I refer to MSV
as a part of Q, apart form the Lotus. The dating of this corpus as a
whole is less certain, but this uncertainty does not affect my thesis.
Why? Because already the Pâli texts mentioned above contain many of
the same formulas and words etc. that we find in the Gospels. One would, in
other words, have to maintain that the NT belongs to the Fourth Century
BC, if one wants to defend the priority of the Christian documents. Finally, in
your concluding remarks, you say some good words about yourself . As
a Christian you must promote full fredom of research and discussion
etc. I agree about
this ideal - unfortunately you are one of the few Christians I know
of who, when it comes to practice, shares your great views about freedom. I will not ask
you for NT documentation for your “Christian“ views. I ,
personally, could not find any passage where Jesus speaks of freedom
of research and discussion... Perhaps our
brilliant Friday speaker, Kenneth Humphreys could assist you in providing
the relevant NT references! Thanks again
for your open opposition to the CLT. Hopefully, this
is the beginning, not of slander, condemnation etc., but of a long and
scholarly debate! Christian Lindtner September 15th 2003
|
|
Buddhismens inverkan på Bibeln diskuteras 2003
Kontroversiell religionhistoriker i Klavreström 2003
|
