WHY WAS JESUS SO RUDE TO PETER? - Buddhist source of Matthew 16:23 & Mark 8:33

When Jesus foretold his death and resurrection, Peter took him aside and rebuked him, saying: "God forbid, Lord, this must never happen to you!"

With these words Peter showed that he cared for his Lord, and thus we are surprised to learn how Jesus reacts: " Go behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle (scandal) to me, for you do not think of the (things?) of god, but of the (things?) of men."

Peter must have been puzzled, if not shocked, and so are we.

Why is Jesus so rude? Why is Jesus so obscure?

Why does Peter have to go behind (Greek opisô) Jesus, and what does that have to do with his not thinking of  the (things) of god but of men?

The answers are to be found in the Buddhist source, in this case MPS 35:2.

On that occasion - we read - the venerable Upamâna (in Pâli called Upavâna) was standing with a fan in front of the Lord. Then the Lord said to him:" Monk! do not stand in front of me!"

One of the other monks present, Ânanda, is surprised, for he has never in his long life  heard the Lord express himself so rudely  to anyone.

Why is the Lord so rude to the monk?

The Lord explains: When a Buddha is about to pass away - as Jesus foretold his death in Matthew and Mark - the gods (devatâ)  gather from afar in order to witness the spectacular  event. When Upamâna is standing in front of him with his fan, he becomes an obstacle that prevents the gods from seeing what is going on. Hence the Lord commands the monk not to stand in front of him, but to go behind him. Then only  the gods can observe the event.

I have already given many examples of the MPS as a major source of the NT Gospels, and when it comes to the rude words of Jesus to his disciple, the source is once again the MPS.

In this case we have a Sanskrit version as well as a Pâli version, with minor variants. Both are to be found in the edition of Waldschmidt ( Berlin 1951 , p. 356).

The Greek (any modern edition) is:  hypage opisô mou, satana, and it translates a combination of the Pâli and the Sanskrit:

The Sanskrit is : bhikso, mâ me purastât tistha - Monk, no  (of) me in front stand!

The Pâli: apehi, bhikkhu, mâ me purato atthâsi - Go away, monk, not me in front stand!

We may here  observe:

The Buddhist monk, in the vocative, becomes Satan, also in the vocative.

The Greek imperative hypage is a perfect rendering of Pâli apehi, also imperative.

The "not in front of me" in the original becomes "behind" in the Greek,which is opisô. The choice of opisô mou  is perfect, for not only does it render the original meaning correctly, but it also contains a pun on the name of the monk in question, viz. Upamânas (nominative form): the consonants p-s-m. Only the n is not represented in the Greek.

When it comes to the gods, the Greek says ta... theou, those (what?) of (the)  god. It is obscure. But the original mentions devatâ, meaning divine being, divinity, or simply god.

The form of the abstract noun  deva-tâ is from deva + tâ. And so we understand the curious Greek ta... theou, those of god. The Greek ta reflects the Sanskrit -tâ.

Peter was said to be a skandalon, and the original meaning of that noun in Greek is an stumbling-stone, an obstacle-stone (on the road).

The choice of this word, again, demonstrates the skill of the translators. In the orignal it was understood that the monk was an obstacle because he prevented the gods from seeing the spectacle  when he stood there in front with his fan.

This is quite clear.

On the other hand, it is unclear in the gospels why he is an obstacle. To understand the point of Peter being an obstacle we need the information about the gods as spectators. But this information is left out by Matthew and Mark.

Moreover, there is, in skandalon,  a hidden pun on the name of Peter - a pun on  petros, a stone, or petra, a rock.

Finally, the original of the "those of the men" - ta tôn anthrôpôn - is not to be found in MPS 35.

Conclusion: To get the complete picture we need the Buddhist source.

Again and again we come to this conclusion: Matthew and his colleagues deliberately leave out parts of the original story, so that the gospel version becomes obscure and puzzling. The purpose can only be to make the reader wonder and invoke his curiosity.

The use of puns, obscure and puzzling pohrases, parables  etc. is explicitly recommended in the Lotus Sûtra - another major source of the NT- for the purpose of attracting people to be converted.

Unfortunately, theologians, as a rule, mistake a deliberately obscure and absurd version of the Buddhist original as an expression of the profundness  of the mind of Jesus.

This was also this intention of Matthew and Mark.

Christian Lindtner
January 31, a.D. 2010

____________________________________________________

JESUS - VERY CRUEL AND VERY COMPASSIONATE - Buddhist source of Matthew  9:36 & Mark 6:34

Jesus was -  we are expected  to believe - not only very cruel to innocent animals ( the pigs, Matthew 8:32), but also to human beings, "enemies" ,  who would not subject themselves to  his royal authority , Luke 19:27: " Verumtamen inimicos meos illos, qui noluerunt me regnare super se, adducite huc: et interficite ante me!

Kill ´em!

Sounds to me  like a command given by Lenin to his Bolshevik thugs!

But there is also a human touch, for, paradoxically, it is also said of Jesus: " As he saw the crowds, his heart was filled with pity for them".

Thus the  Greek of Matthew 9:36, above,  runs: idôn de tous okhlous, esplagkhnisthê peri autôn.

The Greek of Mark 6:34 runs:  kai exelthôn eiden Iêsous polun okhlon, kai esplagkhnisthê ep´ autous...

The paradox of Jesus being cruel as well as compassionate is solved once it is seen that we are here dealing with two different versions of the same Sanskrit phrase, found in MSV (ed. R. Gnoli, p. 130, line 5):

drstvâ            ca   punar asya   sattvesu               mahâkarunâ         ´vakrântâ:

"having seen -and-again- for him-to human beings- great compassion descended".

The idea simply is: The Lord sees how ignorant human beings are, and therefore feels compassion for them.The purpose of teaching is to remove suffering.

Matthew first took the six syllables of drstvâ ca sattvesu, and rendered them in six syllables: idôn de tous okhlous.

Then he took the  eight syllables mahâkarunâ ´vakrântâ, and rendered them in eight syllables: esplagkhnisthê peri autôn.

Mark took the six syllables drstvâ ca ´vakrântâ, and rendered them in six syllables: kai exelthôn eiden.

Then he took the seven syllables: punar asya sattvesu, and rendered them in seven syllables: Iêsous polun okhlon kai.

Finally, he  took the eight syllables: mahâkarunâ ´vakrântâ, and , repeating the kai, rendered them in eight syllables: kai esphlagkhnisthê ep´ autous.

As a rule, Buddhist texts mention compassion in the context of teaching: The Lord observes that human beings suffer due to ignorance. Hence, moved by compassion, he starts to teach them the Dharma that removes ignorance and  thereby leads to liberation from suffering.

This fits the gospel context perfectly: Jesus is here presented as  a teacher and he sends out his disciples to teach others - about Righteousness,  dikaiosunê, i.e. Dharma.

But Jesus wants to remove suffering, not by knowledge, but by faith. That idea is also Buddhist - it is lifted from Mahâyâna, mainly the Saddharmapundarîkasûtram - the Lotus.

Jesus, we may conclude, borrowed his great compassion from the Buddha, but  that did not prevent him from being cruel to innocent  animals and to human beings.

After all, as the alleged son of Jahweh, he came of a very cruel stock. The paradox, in short,  comes from the combination of OT and Buddhist sources.

Christian Lindtner
January 26, a. D. 2010

___________________________________________________________

THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS - Buddhist sources of Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1-13

Jesus was led to the desert by the wind - did he fly? - where he was tempted by the Devil - a strange character - who first asked him to turn stones to bread - an odd exercise - and then took  him to the holy city, setting him on the top of the temple - out there in the desert? - Finally, the Devil  took Jesus to a very high mountain, showing him all the kingdoms of the world - what a view from out there in the middle of nowhere! Here, he made him an offer: " All this I will give you - IF you will kneel down and worship me!"
- - But, no, Jesus rejects the offer, the Devil leaves, and angels come and help Jesus.
 
One must, of course  be very naive in order  to take these fables for true history, yet theologians still do so, asking for the exact location of the desert, the high mountain, the pinnacle of the temple etc. As usual, Matthew and his colleagues combine OT and Buddhist sources into a new whole. The OT sources have already been identified long ago, and I will not repeat them here.
 
The Buddhist sources are mostly found in the MSV, I, pp. 94-96:
 
Before the Bodhisattva goes to the hermitage - Sanskrit â-sra-mam, hermitage,  (p. 96) becomes Greek e-rê-mon, desert - he entered the (holy)  city of Râja-grham, where the king, Bimbisâra(s), is standing up there on the top of the palace.
The Sanskrit compound upari-prâsâda-tala-gatas is rendered very nicely  by Greek epi to pterugion tou hierou (Matthew 4:5; Luke 4:9): The upari becomes epi; the top of the palace becomes the top of the temple. The verb gatas, gone to,  represents Greek histêsin, placed.

The king approaches  the Bodhisattva and offers him   beautiful women etc., in these words: dadâmi te varân bhogân, "I will give you very good things", IF you will tell me your name and background. The Bodhisattva tells the king about his family etc., but is not at all interested in the kind offer.

The Devil offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world - a manifest absurdity, for who in the world has the power to do so? But the Indian king of Râjagrham in Magadha (Magadha turns up in Matthew 15:39), Bimbisâra(s) (v.l: Bimbasâra(s)), offers Bodhisattva a share in his kingdom - which makes sense.

The reasons given by Jesus for rejecting the kind - and absurd - offer remain obscure.
In the case of the Bodhisattva, the reason for his rejecting the perfectly rational offer, is clear: He, the Bodhisattva,  is interested in becoming an enlightened Buddha, not a worldly king. That decision was made long ago, before he met the king. The Devil who "tempted" Jesus, we conclude,  was,  in this case, the king of Magadha - the four syllables of Bim-bi-sâ-ras thus becoming Di-a-bo-los.
 
The Greek offer of the Devil is (Matthew 4:9):
tauta soi panta dôsô  - these to you all I will give.
 
These four words translate the four Sanskrit words (MSV, I, p. 95) :
dadâmi te varân bhogân.
 
The San. dadâmi becomes Gr. dôsô, I will give. The San. te becomes Gr. soi, to you.
The San. accusative is varân bhogân, best enjoyments, good things, become Gr. accusative: tauta panta, these all. The Gr. has seven syllables, the San. eight, as required by San. prosody.
 
The notion  that Jesus was carried by the wind - suggesting that he was able to  fly - is abhorrent to most  theologians, who, therefore, normally translatre the Greek by "Jesus was led by the Spirit", or the like, thus obscuring the original hupo tou pneumatos - by the wind. But in Buddhist scriptures, Buddhas can fly, no problem  - and so could our imaginary friend , Jesus.
 
Christian Lindtner
January 18, a. D. 2010

________________________________________________________

BE IT FAR FROM THEE, LORD! - Buddhist source of Matthew 16:22

The NT gospels, are, by and large, literary mosaics, fabricated by lifting  words and phrases from Buddhist gospels, combining them with words and phrases from the OT.
We are, therefore, not dealing with history, but with fiction.

One of the main Buddhist sources is the Lotus Sûtra - the Saddharmapundarîka (SDP).
According to Matthew 16:22, Peter took the Lord aside and said to him:  hileôs soi, kurie; ou  mê estai touto: "Gracious for you,Lord,  may this not be!" This is taken from the Sanskrit of the SDP (p. 53). The Lord asked Sâri-Putras a question, and Sâri-Putra  answered - Sâri-putra âha: na hy etad Bhagavan; na hy etad Sugata: "Not surely this, Lord; not surely this, Good-gone!" The Greek hileôs means gracious, which suggests  that a "let God be", or "God is",  may be understood. The Vulgata, however, says:
Absit a te , Domine; non erit tibi hoc! "Be it far from thee, Lord; for this shall not be unto thee." The Vulgata, for the first word,  thus comes closer to the original (na hy, not surely) of the SDP.
 
Observations: The Buddhist disciple, PuTRaS becomes PeTRoS.- Perfect!
The Sanskrit Bhagavan,  Lord (vocative) becomes kurie, Lord (vocative).- Perfect!
There are two negations in the Sanskrit (na, na); likewiese in the Greek version (ou mê).-Perfect! The San. consists of  7 (6) plus 7 (6) syllables. (hy etad may be read as 3 or 2 syllables.) The Greek consists of 7 plus 6 syllables. - Perfect! Sanskrit etad becomes Greek touto, "this". - Perfect! In the San. the verb is understood (as normally). The verb understood is, for sure, asti/bhavati, "is", becoming estai in the Greek. What is - apparently -  missing in the Greek  is the Su-gata of the original.Sugata is, of course, one of the many names of Bhagavân (nominative form). Su-gata,  here in the vocative, may be understood as: (You) are well gone! But gata, in itself, has many meanings: "understood, disposed" etc. Su-gata may thus be taken as "well-disposed" - which is the interpretation behind the Greek: hileôs.

Conclusion: Sugatam! This patchwork was, as always, done with great care and attention  to all details in the original Sanskrit. This conclusion  is in accordance withe established fact that all syllables have been carefully by Matthew in the gospel (wrongly) ascribed to him.
 
Christian Lindtner
January 14, a.D. 2010

________________________________________________________

AND or OF? Buddhist source of Mark 2:16

When it comes to Comparative Gospel Studies (CGS), there is a rule that says - or ought to say -  that the Devil is to be found  in the philological detail, and that that Devil may in fact turn out to be a tiny god of revelation.
How so?

One of the characteristic features of the Sanskrit language (and Pâli as well) is the extensive employment of  compounds. Thus, for instance,  two nouns may be combined thus: brâhmana-grhapati, or sramana-brâhmana, or  bodhisattva-srâvaka, etc. These compounds are so-called dvandva-s, which means that an "and" is understood. That the "and" should be understood, and added when we translate, is clear not only from the Buddhist  context but also from subsequent translations into other "Buddhist languages" such as Chinese, Tibetan, Mongolian, etc. In other words, brâhmana-grhapati should be translated as "priests AND householder(s)", sramana-brâhmana as "ascetics AND priests", bodhisattva-srâvaka as "bodhisattvas AND srâvakas" , etc.

We can, as said, be sure that the AND should be added from the context, but at the same time it is clear that in theory one could also translate, without violating the Sanskrit syntax, as "the householders OF the priests", "the priests OF the sramanas", or "the srâvakas OF  the bodhisattvas". All this is known to Sanskrit scholars.
 
When the authors of the NT gospels translated from the Sanskrit, they also imitated these Buddhist compounds. For that reason, we are constantly confronted with " the Pharisees and Sadducees" (Matthew 16:1), with  "the chief priests and the Pharisees" (Matthew 27:62) etc. All such NT dvandva-s have a Buddhist source.  (For a fairly complete  list, with the Sanskrit equivalents,  my Geheimnisse, pp. 161-166,  or Hemligheten  om Kristus, pp. 156-160).
 
Now, in all these cases there can be no doubt that the "and" represents the original Sanskrit quite correctly.
 
One curious and utterly  revealing  exception to the rule  is provided by Mark 2:16, who speaks of "the grammarians OF the Phariseees". This odd expression has led some translators to violate the Greek text  Thus , for instance, the "Today´s English Version" of the American Bible Society translates: "Some  teachers of the Law, who were Pharisees..." The reader is thus left with the wrong impression that the text speaks of one group of people, not of two different groups. If one is familiar with the Buddhist original it is easy to see what happened. The original Sanskrit compound was a dvandva, i.e. an AND - not an OF -  had to be understood. We can see that Mark, without violating the Sanskrit syntax , translated the Sanskrit compound wrongly, i.e. deliberately wrongly. The Sanskrit, in other words, had a compound A-B. That compound could either be understood as A and B, or as B of A. Each of the two renderings would be in accordance with Sanskrit syntax, but only one of them would be in accordance with the sense originally intended.

To conclude: As a rule, all the NT compounds of the type "A and B",  with reference  to various groups of persons,  are correct renderings of the Sanskrit "A and B compounds".
Mark 2:16 is an exception to that rule. But this exception points back to the same Buddhist source. Mark cannot - as shown by the many "correct" renderings in that Gospel - have been unaware that the OF was a "wrong" rendering. But it was, as said,  correct from the point of view of Sanskrit syntax. Deliberately "wrong" versions of the original Sanskrit are not uncommon in the Greek of the NT.

Another example of the same sort - with focus on the firts part of the compound in the genitive case -  is provided by two different renderings of one and the same Sanskrit original. Sometimes the Greek speaks of the Kingdom of God, some times it speaks of the Kingdom of the Heavens. Here we are no longer dealing with dvandva-s, but with another sort of compound combining two different nouns. The first part of the compound defines the second part more closely. 

The Sanskrit original is, as a rule, deva-parisad - the "kingdom" of deva-. The first part of the compound tells us what kind of parisad ("congregation", "assembly") we are dealing with.  Sanskrit deva (nominative devas) corresponds to Greek theos, to Latin deus.
Here, deva- is the firsat part the Sanskrit compound. The Sanskrit says "the deva-kingdom". One cannot see whether the deva- should be understood as being in the singular or in the plural.From the point of view of Sanskrit syntax, both options are allowed. If we therefore take deva- in the genitive singular (devasya = theou), we get "of god". If we, alternatively, take it in the plural (devânâm = ouranôn), we get "of the gods, of the heavens".

Thus the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the Heavens are but two different - but equally correct - versions  of one and the same Sanskrit original. NT scholars have, as known,   been puzzled by the two synonymous phrases. But this is only because they have failed to study Sanskrit.  And a theologian of the NT  with no knowledge of Sanskrit - how can the Kingdom of the heavens be said to belong to him?
 
Further examples and references in my Geheimnisse um Jesus Christus, Suederbrarup (Leuhe-Verlag) 2005.
 
Christian Lindtner
January 10,a.D. 2010

_________________________________________________________

MORE THAN 500 WITNESSES - ALL FALSE - Buddhist sources of 1 Corinthians 15: 1- 11

Absolutely fundamental to any sort of Christianity is the belief in the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. If the dead are not raised and if Christ has not been raised, then the  Christian faith is a delusion and Christians are lost in their sins.
Such is the view of Paul. Such is the faith of Christians. But as historians we must ask: What is the evidence or proof of the resurrection of Christ and of the dead?

The common opinion of Christian theologians and believers is that "the oldest and most reliable" evidence or proof of the resurrection of Christ is provided by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. There may be a few other witnesses, mainly women, but they cannot be considered very reliable. But how can we be sure that Paul is reliable, and that 1 Cor. 15:1-11 provides  the oldest and best evidence?

The mere fact that a given witness makes a claim does not make him reliable. One must ask for his sources. He may be wrong, he may be a liar.  Now  Paul does in fact refer to certain sources, for he says that he has his information from certain scriptures. Unfortunately,  these scriptures cannot be identified. All theologians agree that there are no scriptures in Greek or Hebrew that can be identified as the sources of Paul´s claims concerning resurrection.  At this point, therefore, we cannot decide the value or validity  of the testimony provided by Paul. Is he, as a witness,  reliable or is he not reliable? If we want to be honest, we cannot decide. The case must be left sub judice.

Now, fortunately, help is on its way - not to Paul, but to historians. In this case, as in so many other cases. the source of Paul can be traced back to the MPS, which is available in Sanskrit and in Pâli. Anyone familiar with the MPS can easily see that Paul has combined two chapter from that text, namely chapters 9 and 48 (in the edition of Waldschmidt, Berlin 1951, pp. 162-171 &  420-425).

Here are the main points:

MPS 9: In the village of Nâdikâ a large number of brothers and sisters have passed away. What will become of them? It is explicitly said that "more than 500 brothers have passed away". This sentence is  available in the Sanskrit (9:15)  and in the Pâli (Waldschmidt, p. 166). The Pâli has been translated into English, e.g. by Trevor  Ling: "More than five hundred devout men of Nadika who have died" (The Buddha´s Philosophy of Man,  London 1981, p. 159) This accounts for the " more than five hundred brothers...of whom some have died", in 1 Cor. 15:6, a statement that has always caused the greatest embarrassment to theologians. The more than 500 brothers are never mentioned in any other ancient Christian sources - with one exception, a Coptic source that says that the more than 500 were Indian priests (see R. Garbe, Indien und das Christentum, Süderbrarup 2004, p. 292). There is, as we have just seen, some truth in this. There was an Indian source for the 500.

The Buddhist ext then explains that some of those who have passed away will never return again, whereas others will return "once", Sanskrit sakrd. This accounts for the Greek ephapax, "at once" in 1 Cor 15:6. Greek ephapax simply translates the Sanskrit synonym sakrd - once, at once. Immediately before  he mentions the "more than five hundred brothers, Paul mentions Kêphas and "all twelve" (some translators add "apostles", but the Greek does not mention apostles at all). The twelve were not "apostles" at all - they were Buddhists:  Again, Paul follows the MPS,  which, as said, has been transmitted to us in several versions. One of these, now  only in Chinese, explicitly speaks of exactly 12 brothers who have been reborn among the gods (this is the Dîrghâgama, translated by Waldschmidt, Ûberlieferung...Göttingen 1944, p. 71).
Other versions give different numbers here (one Chinese version gives the number 10), and it is quite remarkable that the Latin Vulgata speaks of eleven, not twelve, 1 Cor. 15:6.

Paul also mentions Kêphas and Iakôbos, and here one must pay attention to the spelling: There are three consonants in both cases: k-b(ph)-s. Both names translate the Sanskri name of Kâsyapa(s) - k-p-s. Chapter 48 of the same MPS  provides us with the second source of Paul. Here we meet Kâsyapas who, along with five hundred monks,  finally arrive and become witnesses to the cremation of the physical body of the Lord. His "jewel body" goes up to the world of Brahmm, i.e. in flames. The Sanskrit verb for "went up", agaman, MPS 49:23, corresponds to the Greek for "raised".

To summarize: Paul refers to scriptures that are not available in Greek or Hebrew. But they are available in Sanskrit and Pâli. These scriptures are, therefore, Buddhist scriptures.

It is quite true, as Paul says, that  more than five hundred brothers, along with Kâsyapas, were witnesses to the "resurrection", i.e. cremation of the Lord. The Lord was a ksatriyas, a nobleman, and Sanskrit ksatriyas becomes Greek ho Khristos, in the usual way. Hence, Paul is careful  not to speak of Jesus, but of Khristos. When Paul combines two different chapters, and two different episodes in the Buddhist original, he does so not entirely  at random but according to certain rules. According to rabbinical hermeneutics, it is allowed to combine two otherwise different scriptural passages provided they have a significant number in common. This rule, in Hebrew,  is called Neged, "corresponding significant number". An example is provided by OT, when Numbers 13:25 mentions 40 days, and Numbers 14:34 mentions 40 years. The two otherwise unrelated passages have a correspondig significant number, viz.  40. In exactly the same way , Paul combines two passages in the same Buddhist text, the MPS, where one chapter mentions more than 500 brothers, and another mentions 500 monks.

All this means, of course, that the "proof" or "evidence" provided in support of the faith in the historical resurrection of Christ, and the dead in general, is purely fictitious. Paul refers to scriptures, i.e. Buddhist scriptures, that describe some events that took place - or did not take place -  far away in Magadha a long time ago. (Magadha, it will be recalled, was mentioned by Matthew 15:39 only.) He, Paul,  then combined events from that Buddhist text into a new unit. He then transferred this piece of literary fiction to another place, to another time, to another person.  How can, for example, events said to have taken place in India centuries ago, prove the historicity of events said to have taken place in, say,  New York quite recently! Paul cannot have been unaware of what he was doing. Paul cannot have been unaware that he was a falsifier of history. Paul cannot have been unaware that he was himself a false witness.Once we recognize this to be so, we also understand why Paul compares himself to a "miscarriage", an ektrôma, as it were, in 1 Cor. 15:8. Paul justifies himself by stating that he is what he is - that is: a false witness - thanks to the grace of God.

What is that supposed to mean? What does "grace of God" mean in this context?
It can only mean that deliberate deceit is a good thing provided it can bring about some desirable result. There is no evidence at all to suggest that Jesus existed or had been raised from the dead, but if people could feel happy  when fooled into believing so - fine and good. The same fundamental attitude is reflected well in Romans 3:7, which in plain words simply says that untruth is fully acceptable provided it serves the greater glory of God. Such a  Jesuitic  attitude is also typical Buddhist. In the Lotus Sûtra, Buddhist muissionaries are advised to employ  tricks, lies etc. for the greater glory of the Buddhas.

If people like to be deceived -let them be deceived! And in our modern world we speak of propaganda, or, to use an euphemism, mass communication. Thus, Paul, when it come to the evidence for resurrection of Christ and of the dead, proves to be a prominent false witness. That he himself, however, may have believed in the resurrection of the dead, need not be doubted.

This belief is typical Buddhist. Due to their bad karma, people may go down to the dead in the hells. After some time, they may come back to this world. The "dead" in the hells are not really dead. They can come back to normal life and suffering.
They have thus been raised from the world of the dead.

The Buddhist background of Paul is thus clear. When he presents himself as a Christian, however, and fails to acknowledge his Buddhist sources explicitly, he then can be descibed as, well, an ektrôma (to use his own term).
 
Christian Lindtner
Dec. 29th, a.D. 2009

________________________________________________________

JESUS - THE FAMOUS SANSKRIT SCHOLAR

If one claims that Jesus was a historical person able to  talk and to write, and that he  also was  the author of the celebrated parable of the ten virgins - known to us only from Matthew 25:1-13 - then one is also compelled to admit that Jesus was indeed a Sanskrit scholar - the most famous of all Sanskrit scholars , surely. How so?

As I have shown in my book and in several essays, the MSV, which includes the MPS, is one of the main sources of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There is hardly a chapter in the MPS that has not left traces in the NT gospels.

The direct source of Matthew 25:1-13 is to be found in MPS, Chapter 4. This chapter is available not only in Sanskrit, but also in Pâli, as well as in several old Chinese versions from now lost Sanskrit originals.  (There are also Tibetan and Mongolian versions, to be sure.) When one compares these various versions, there are interesting variants, but the basic story is the same:

Tathâgata (Buddha) delivers a sermon  on pramâdas and apramâdas. Sanskrit PRaMâDaS means negligence, carelessness. Sanskrit aPRaMâDaS means the opposite, i.e. carefulness, heedful attention, vigilance. There are five disadvantages associated with PRaMâDaS, e.g. after passing away an immoral person  goes to Hell. Likewise, there are five advantages associated with aPRaMâDaS, e.g. after passing away, a good person  goes to Heaven (svarga). Stupid people engage in PRaMâDaS, whereas wise people are very concerned about  aPRaMâDaS. The sermon is delivered to brahmans and householders from the town  of Pâtali.
 
The purpose of the parable of the ten virgins, Matthew 25:1-13, is clearly to make the point that one must be ready and prepared for the coming of the Lord, in other words, for heaven (mentioned in the first verse). Vigilance is in the focus. This was also the purpose of the Buddhist sermon on vigilance. The Sanskrit word for the world of  heaven is svarga-loka (verse MPS 4:17). There are five wise virgins, and there are five foolish virgins. All ten virgins have lamps, but five of the ten forget about the oil. They are like a man, we may say,  wanting to go for a ride in  his car, but forgetting  all about oil and gas.
 
Comparing the Buddhist and the Christian textual units, we cannot fail to see that they are related. But how, quite precisely? How did the "translations" take place?
In the usual fashion: In the Greek version the focus is on the ten virgins and on the ten lamps. The Greek for virgin is PaRTheNoS, and the Greek for lamps, in the accusative plural is LaMPaDaS. The Sanskrit original had five kinds of aPRaMâDaS, and five kinds of PRaMâDaS, as mentioned above. It is thus clear that the Greek P-R-T(h)-N-S and L-M-P-D-S are but two fifferent versions of the five Sanskrit consonants found in aPRaMâDaS as well as PRaMâDaS, i.e. P-R-M-D-S.

I need not remind the reader that in the ancient Jewish scripts the vowels were left out, and that in Sanskrit r and l often interchange (e.g. lâjâ, king, for râjâ etc.). The consonants d and t are both dentals, and m and n are nasals. What an odd way of translating! - the moderrn reader may exclaim. But if the modern reader finds it hard to believe that anyone would translate in this way, this just betrays his ignorance of ancient rabbinical hermeneutics. For it goes without saying that those who translated these Buddhist texts were also familiar with the Old Testament and thus also with rabbinical hermeneutics (without a knowledge of which OT and NT are completely unintelligible).
If two words have the same set of consonants they also have the same numerical value, for each consonant has a numerical value of its own. For example 3+4+5 is the same as 5+4+3. Thus a "bag" and a "bug" are in a sense the same - for the number based on the consonants are the same. (One can easily imagine the fun :  bar and beer, bear and rib etc. etc.)

To repeat: The five kinds of disadvantage associated with carelessness becomes five stupid virgins with five lamps without oil. The five kinds of advantage associated with vigilance become the five wise virgins with five lamps with oil. It is a common Buddhist dogma that carefulness,  vigiliance , is  conducive to rebirth in hreaven. (This is not typical Christian, where the emphasis is on grace.) The Buddhist source explicitly says that carelessness is the cause of an immoral person going to hell efter his passing away. This reference to hell is left out in Matthew. When one compares many other words in Matthew 25:1-13 with the Sanskrit (and Pâli), one will be able to identify many other Greek words in the Sanskrit - the cry, the wise, the foolish etc.

The conclusion is that the Buddhist text gives the "full picture". Much is left out in the Christian copy - with the result that reader is puzzled.  To leave the reader puzzled - and the commentators busy - is a deliberate trick on the part of Matthew , Mark, Luke and John. People are and have always been  attracted by mysterious sayings, puzzles and riddles. This is also a common Buddhist trick - to atract people by entertaining and fooling them. It is, at the same time, a typical rabbinical trick (see e.g. Hermann L. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, New York 1959, pp. 93-98).
 
But there is more

The Dutch theologian Smit Sibinga - who weas completely unaware of the Sanskrit source (as he kindly informed me in a personal communication) - has made a numerical analysis of Matthew 25:1-13, and pointed out that "Matthew" carefully counted the number of syllables and arranged the verses in a such a way that there is a clear center with "circles" of the same number of syllables around that center.
This fine observation proves, in itself, that "Matthew" counted syllables. That he counted syllables also means that he paid attention to each syllable - i.e. to the spelling of each word. The man who is responsible for Matthew 25:1-13 knew Sanskrit as well as Greek.
 
The general view of scholars is, by now, that the Greek text of Matthew was not translated from some "Aramaic original" - giving the words of Jesus in "his own tongue".
The Greek text of Matthew - at least for this parable - must have been translated directly from some Sanskrit original coming very close to the MPS (ed. Ernst Waldschmidt, Berlin 1951). The consonants would have been lost had the transtion not been direct.
(There is also an old Pâli version of MPS. It has often been translated into modern languages. An English version by Trevor Ling is available in Everyman´s Library as "The Buddha´s Philosophy of Man", London 1981. The Pâli text of the 2 x 5 etc.  is found in the Mahâvagga of the Vinayapitaka. For all the references, see Ernst Waldschmidt, Die Überlieferung vom Lebensende des Buddha, Göttingen 1944, p.52.).

To conclude:  If it is claimed that Jesus is the author of the parable of the ten virgins, it also follows that this Jesus knew Sanskrit - and Greek, of course -  and that he counted syllables and words, i.e. that he was a mathematician of some sort.

To avoid this dangerous conclusion, one may argue that "Matthew" has not represented Jesus correctly. This may, again, either mean that Jesus never expressed this parable at all - which makes Matthew totally unreliable. Or it may mean that Jesus was indeed, responsible for this parable - but in another form. But even so, not only is this pure speculation, but it is impossible to conceive of the ten virgins, the ten lamps, the imprtance of vigilance for rebirth in heaven etc. isolated from the Buddhist context, which is coherent and logical. So: either Jesus is responsible for a good and "faithful"  version of the Sanskrit - as in Matthew 25:1-13. Or else he is responssible for a bad and totally confused  version.

In any case, Jesus must have a been a Sanskrit scholar, and since Jesus still is such a famous man , we can say: Jesus was a famous Sanskrit scholar. About the relative chronology there can, to be sure, be no doubt. The Pâli version of the parable is found in the Vinaya, which belongs to the earliest strata of Buddhist literature. Moreover, the dogma of vigilance leading to heaven only makes sense in the context of a theory of karma, retribution - which is not exactly typical for Christianity! Who would claim that the Buddhist doctrine of karma and rebirth is derived from Jesus called Khristos?
The only way to avaoid this conclusion is to accept that Jesus is not a historical person at all. And that is a conclusion we often come to.  And it is a safe one, too. But the Sanskrit scholar behind the parable remains.
 
Christian Lindtner
Dec. 21th, a.D. 2009

_____________________________________________________________

CUNDAS - THE BUDDHIST JUDAS - AND AN OLD SONG

The main Buddhist sources for the legend of the Passover and the Traitor,  are , as usual, to be found in the MSV. Thus, in MPS 26 (last part of MSV) we read about how the Lord and the monks had their  last (Sanskrit pascimam) meal in the home of a certain Cundas, the son of a smith, San skrit karmâras. The Christian version, a copy,  is mainly found in Matthew 26:17-25; Mark 14:12-21; Luke 22:7-13, and John 26:20-25.

We are on the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread - a curious expression, rendering in, fact, San. pûrvâhne, or pubbanhasamayam (Pâli), MPS 26:14, i.e. early in the morning. The Greek asumôn reflects the San. samayam. The San. word for "last" is pas-ci-mam, which becomes Greek to pas-kha, the passover.In both sources there is the last meal taken with all the monks/disciples, but only in NT is the last meal combined with the last words. I shall come back to this.

In Matthew, the disciples are instructed to prepare the last meal in the house of " a certain man", Greek:  ton deina - not very helpful! The Greek ton deina, as will be obvious in a moment, is a pun on Cun-dam - tha accusative form of Cundas. Mark and Luke are a bit  more helpful, for they describe the unknown host as bearing a pitcher of water. Poor disciples, for what if there were several unknown men in that town bearing pitchers of water?  The person in question is the Buddhist Cundas, said to be the son, putras, of a smith, karmâras, MPS 26:14. The Buddha and the monks had their last meal together at Cundas´ place.

The son of a karmâras becomes man carrying a pitcher, keramion, of water. San. karmâras (accusative: karmâram)  becomes Greek keramion. As they are sitting there together, one evil monk steals a golden bowl ( other versions say it was of copper) and hides it in his sleeve. Only Cundas and the Lord notice this case of theft, whereby the evil monk obviously  betrays the Buddhist "path".

In the Christian version, the man who puts his hand in the bowl is defined as the traitor, and his name is Joudas. John adds that he, Joudas, is the son of  Simôn Iskariotês. The sense of that name is obscure, but here probably intended as a translation of the San. karmâra-putras. In Matthew 26:26 and the parallels, Jesus says: "Take (this, and) eat (it), for this is my body" The Sanskrit original is to be found  a little later in the same Buddhist source, viz. MPS 42:10. Here, Tathâgata is surrounded by the monks, and he says to them: "Behold , monks,  my body." " See, monks, my body!" These are explicitly described as his last words to the monks, MPS 42:11.

The point of his words, I assume from the context,   is to make the monks aware of his physical decreptitude that will soon end in his passing away. Not only does the Greek retain the two imperative forms of the verb, addressed to the same group of disciples/monks, but the tou-to gar es-ti - "for this is" -  also renders the five syllables  ta-thâ-ga-tas-ya quite nicely. The disciples of Jesus are, in other words,  invited to take and eat the body of Tathâgata - i.e. to become Buddhists. This becomes more esy to understand, when one recalls that the Tathâgata is an embodiment of the Buddhist Dharma. The bread, Greek artos, that Jesus  took, reflects the Sanskrit dharmas.

Since the bread is the dharma, it follows that the bread-body is originally the dharma-kâya, familiary to all Buddhists. And this is what numerous Christians have been doing and still are doing  - on many a Sunday. The purpose and sense of taking part in the Eucharist then, is to have a share in the body of the Tathâgata, the dharma-body. What elseis the Lord´s Supper?
 
After these incidents, Matthew 26:30 reports that they sang a hymn and went out to the Mount of Olives. What hymn, exactly, did they sing? Matthew does not say. (Personal views of modern theologians are irrelevant.) The hymn they sang, or rather the hymn that the Lord sang, can be identified as Sutta-Nipâta, verses 83-90. These verses  describe four kinds of monks, ending with the one who betrays the Path of Buddhism,i.e.  by being a thief.

These verses are not just incorporated in the MPS, but , as said,  are also available in the old text Sutta-Nipâta, in Pâli and other versions. I am not aware of any Buddhist scholar prepared to question  that Sutta-Nipâta belongs to the earliest strata of Buddhist literature. They are, in other words, pre-Christian.These verses are, therefore, the hymn to which Matthew alludes, 26:30.

Now someone may argue: Yes, it cannot be denied that Matthew and the other evangelists have words, phrases, motives  etc. in common with MSV/MPS. But could it not be that the Buddhists copied from the NT? Answer: In that case the Buddhists would also have copied verses found in the old pre-Christian Sutta-Nipâta from some Christian source. But there is no such Christian source.

But could the Sutta-Nipâta not have belonged to some old, now lost Christian source, from which the Buddhists then copied? Answer: Perhaps, hypothetically, but in that case that early Christian source would have had to be in some Indian language (Pâli? Sanskrit?), and the contents would have been Buddhist, for it speaks of four kinds of Buddhist monks. That early Christian hymn would, in other words, have to  be Buddhist!

Conclusion: Tathâgata had his last meal with the monks at Cundas´ place. His last words, later, in another place,  to the monks were: Behold my body! See my body!
The Christians made a new legend out of this. Cundas becames J(o)udas, and J(o)udas became the name of the traitor, who was in fact the evil monk who stole a precious bowl. The thief was not identical with Cundas, but present at his house and observed by Cundas.

The Lord´s Supper first took place in the house of Cundas, which is said to have been in a village (grâmaka)  called Pâpâ, or - if we prefer the Pâli form - Pâvâ, MPS 26:2.The second part, with the body of Tathâgata in the focus,  took place later, in Kusinagarî, MPS 42:11.
The evangelists combined the last meal and the last words into a new unit.
All this, therefore is fiction, not history.

Christian Lindtner
December 14th., a. D. 2009

___________________________________________________________

Mary, Martha and Âmra - Buddhist sources of Luke 10:38-42

All the many women called Maria (or Mariam)  in the NT can be traced back to either  Mâyâ, the mother of Sâkyamuni, or to Âmra-pâlî, the famous courtesan, ganikâ. The main Buddhist source is, as usual, MSV, including MPS.

Any reader familiar with the MPS will be able to trace the Lord´s visit to Martha and Mary - reported by Luke 10:38-42 only -  back to MPS 10 -12. In 10, Âmrapâlî, the famous courtesan of the village Vaisâlî, comes to pay her respect to Tathâgata who is surrounded by  the usual  group of monks. She, too, is surrounded by a group  of - attractive  prostitutes. The monks are unable to control their minds, and therefore ask the Lord to teach them how to "pray", so that they can avoid falling into temptation.

This accounts for the fact that Jesus, in Luke 11:4, teaches his "monks"  how to pray so as to avoid falling into temptation. Even today, pious Christians thus pray, unknowingly,  that they be not tempted by the beautiful Indian courtesan and her prostitutes.-
 
Let us now take a closer look at Luke 10:38-42! As always, there is gematria, or textual geometry, involved: Verse 38 consists of 23 words, or 46 syllables, the ratio being thus nicely  1:2. Verse 39 consists of 18 words.Verses 40-42 add up to 57 words. The unit as a whole thus consists of 98 words, or 100 words,  if tê-de in v.  38, and hê-tis in v. 42 be counted as two words. It will be seen that Martha utters 18 words, corresponding to the number of words in v. 39. Jesus utters 23 words, corresponding to the number of words in v. 38. Finally, the narrator is responsible for 57 words, corresponding to the number of words in verses 40-42. Verse 38 consists , as said, of 46 syllables. These 46 syllables, forming a unit,  correspond to exactly 46 syllables, likewise forming a unit in the original Sanskrit, which is MPS 10:3 = 11:1 = 15:4 ( ed. Waldschmidt, Berlin 1953, p. 172; my Geheimnisse um Jesus Christus, p. 111).

By comparing the Greek with the Sanskrit , we can make these interesting observations:

1. Luke speaks of "a certain village". The name of that village, we now know, is Vaisâlî. - Vaisâlî is, of course, not mentioned in the NT or elsewhere in early Christian documents.
Nevertheless, Vaisâlî is known to Christians as a holy place in France,namely Vézelay,  still associated with the legend of Mary Magdalene, see http://www.vezelay.cef.fr

2. The woman called Mariam sits down at the feet of Jesus, and listens to his word, logos. This is exactly what Âmrapâlî (or - pâlir) does. She sits down at the feet of Bhagavân, and listens as he talks, as usual, about Dharma.

3. When Jesus says that Maria chose "the good part", Greek:  tên agathên (merida), the authors made a typical pun on Tathâgatam (accusative form). She was the first to choose to invite  Tathâgata for a meal and listen to him. When Luke then says that it cannot be taken from her, this refers to the incident in MPS 11:23-24, where the Licchavis of Vaisâlî invite  Bhagavân to enjoy a meal with them. He declines their offer, for he has already accepted the invitation of Âmrapâlî, and that cannot be taken from her. At the same time it refers to cetrtain dharmas that "cannot be taken away".

4. But who is this Martha? In verse 38, Luke describes her as "a certain woman", gunê de tis, which is a free translation of Sanskrit gani-kâ, courtesan. The San. - kâ has been treated (as common in Rabbinical hermeneutics) as if it were an independent pronoun, which  is not so  in the original Sanskrit. Still, the "translation" is not bad: a certain prostitute becomes a certain woman.
 
MPS 12:1 is introduced by: atha Âmra-pâlîs..." Then Âmra....". The two words are contracted to athâmra...This gives us the consonants th-m-r, and from those three consonants the name of  a new woman is born, the sister of Âmra, aka  Maria - namely MaRTha.
 
In verse 39, Martha is said to have a sister CALLED Mariam. That is true - it is only something she is called. To conclude: Maria (or Mariam) and Martha are both derived from Âmra, the famous  Indian ganikâ. Before she finally sits down at his feet and listens to his sermon on Dharma, Âmra is busy preparing and serving food. This is still Martha at work. MPS, in other words, presents Âmra in two different roles. This, in the NT, becomes two different women, but still in the same roles, in the same place, under the same circumstances etc. The  food being served by her to the Lord  is described as sucinâ pranîtena, fine (and) exquisite, MPS 12:4 (and often elsewhere). This stock phrase - seven syllables in the instumental case - is also know to the Buddhists who wrote the Gospels:

If we turn to the Anointing at Bethany, Matthew 26:7, a woman brings an alabaster jar filled with "expensive perfume", Greek:  murou barutimou. In Mark 14:3, it is descibed as pistikês polutelous, "genuine" (and) "expensive". In John 12:3 it is  said to be pistikês polutimou, where polutimou = polutelous. We are thus quite obviously dealing with three different translations of one and the same Sanskriot phrase - an asyndeton - sucinâ pranîtena. The "and" (San. ca, Greek kai) is left out. This proves the common Buddhist source.

According to John 12: 1, the episode took  place at Bethany where Lazaros lived, and it is Maria who takes the perfume described above. So the Buddhist food has become Christian perfume. Lazaros is said to be the brother of Maria and Martha, just as Maria was said to be the sister of Martha.

All this took place, as said, in Vaisâlî, the home of the Licchavis.
There can, therefore, hardly be any doubt that Lazaros has derived his identity from Laicchavis.

There are several other observations to be made - puns on Âmra etc.-  but I think these examples show very well, how Luke, Matthew, Mark and John used their Buddhists sources. They fabricated new persons and events by  recycling words and phrases from the Buddhist sûtras in Sanskrit. They also counted words and syllables, as did the Buddhists before them.
 
Theologians often claim that the genre of the NT gospels is "unique".
This is true - but only if the Buddhist sûtra genre is left out of consideration.
Luke 10:38 provides a  small and excellent example of how NT may  imitate the sûtra genre.

It is not just Jesus who proves to be a Buddha in disguise - the same goes for all those women called Mary. They are Mâyâ and Âmra in disguise. The idea that the Buddha disguises himself in different ways is an old one with the Buddhists - see MPS 23:4.

There is a common Buddhist saying that all things are just names.
That must also be kept in mind when we deal with names of persons and places in the NT.

Christian Lindtner
December 7th, a.D. 2009

_____________________________________________________________

THE CROOKS ON THE CROSSES -  Buddhist sources of Luke 23:39-43

As the three men are hanging there, crucified, they find time for a brief chat. A chat about the future - what will it bring?  One of the criminals  asks Jesus to remember him when Jesus comes in his kingdom, and Jesus - who can hardly be expected to know the man at all -  replies: "I tell you this: today you will be in Paradise with me" - in the Greek: amên legô soi, sêmeron met´ emou esê en tô paradeisô - Lat.: Amen dico tibi, hodie mecum  eris in paradiso. It is only Luke 23:39-43, who reports the curious  incident, and we have no idea what his source may have been.Who told him?
Or perhaps we do. We shall see.

There is some disagreement as to the proper translation of  the ten  Greek words. Some would place the comma after sêmeron, giving us thus  the translation:"Today I tell you this: you will be in Paradise with me." According to this understanding - that of   a Witness of Jehovah  - the criminal will be with Jesus at some future date, not already  today. There is a Buddhist source for this episode, and since it has been overlooked by scholars, it will not be superfluous to call attention to that source - not just  because it enables us to decide where the comma in the Greek has to be placed. The source for the promise of Jesus to one of the malefactors is - as so often - the Mahâparinirvânasûtram (MPS), a part of the MSV. The Lord, Bhagavân, is spending his last hours between two sâla-trees (yamaka-sâla, MPS 32:6,7,9), surrounded by two disciples, first  Ânanda and, a little later, Subhadra,  an old ascetic (MPS 40: 1-62). Subhadra is the last person to be converted and ordained. Once he has been ordained, he expresses the wish that he may pass away before the Lord, for he cannot bear the thought of surviving the Lord. The Lord grants him this wish.

But there is a problem!

Normally, in Buddhism, good deeds lead to rebirth in heaven, whereas evil actions lead to rebirth in the hells. Normally, it takes quite some time to accumulate good or bad karma.
But here we are introduced to some exceptions to that golden  rule of karma. Without being aware of these exceptions to the rule, we cannot understand the background of the words of Jesus quoted by Luke 23:43: "Today you will be in Paradise with me". There are two cases, we readin MPS 40,  in which a pious Buddhist goes directly to paradise (svarga). If he dies during pilgrimage to one of the four holy places (pradesas): where the Lord  was born, where He was enlightened, where He delivered  his first sermon, or where He finally  passed into Nirvâna. Moreover, a pious Buddhist will go directly to heaven (svarga), if he dies in the very  presence of the Buddha.

It is for this reason that Subhadra goes directly - on the same day -  to paradise or heaven. He is a pious Buddhist who dies in the presence of the Buddha who is about to "die", or pass away  into Nirvâna here between the two trees and the  two monks.
It is for exactly the same reason that the pious malefactor (kakourgos, Luke 23:39) on the cross, according to the promise of Jesus, can expect to go with Jesus to paradise on the same day.(That Jesus does not keep the promise is another story - see below!)
When one compares the Sanskrit words with the corresponding Greek words, one cannot fail to observe how closely Luke follows the original Buddhist source: The San. has âman-trayate, he says (the subject of the verb being the Lord, Bhagavân), which  becomse amên legô soi, amen I say to you.(Only Jesus uses this phrase!) The San. PRaDeSaS, (holy) spot, becomes PaRaDeiSoS (nominative form), a synonym of the San. svargas (nom.), heaven.

In the San. of the MPS there are two trees and two persons, with the Lord in the middle . In Luke this image is transformed into the image of two persons ON two trees, or crosses (stakes). The Lord is still surrounded by two "trees" with "criminals" hangimnhg on them.
In Luke, one crook rebukes the other. Likewise, in the Buddhist original, Ânanda rebukes Subhadra for disturbing the Lord who, undserstandably,  is old and tired.
The two "crooks" next to Jesus , needless to add, were the two Buddhist monks , Ânanda and Subhadra.

In both sources, the primary and the secondary, the topic of discussion is the same: The possibility of going directly to heaven with the Lord. A pious believer can do so, if he dies in the presence of the Lord. Even the verb "remember me" used by the false Subhara is in the San., where it is said that the four places of pilgrimage are to be rembered (anusmaranîyâ, MPS  41:5) by a  pious Buddhist. When we for a moment confine ourselves to Buddhist sources,we can observe that even here it is not unusual  to take up an old theme and introduce certain variants. Thus, as I have pointed out elsewhere, in the MSV we have the episode of Gautama being impaled on a place of sculls. Here there are two eggs or sculls, one on each side of the stake. While hanging on the stake this Gautama is engaged in a conversation with his former teacher. They, too, talk about the future. This episode has also left some wonderful  traces in Luke. I shall come back to these later.

The San. noun for stake is shûlam, which becomes Greek xulon, as in Acts 5:30. Here, the Greek epi xulou is often translated as "to a cross", but , as the San. shows, it should be "on a stake". Luke often uses MPS - a part of the MSV - as his source. So did his learned colleagues, Matthew, Mark and John - not to speak of Paul. In some cases Luke has an episode not found in Matthew or Mark. This shows that Luke  used MPS/MSV independently. In a few cases the same goes for Mark. The longest direct loan that I am aware of consists of 46 syllables. This is Luke 10:38.(See my Geheimnisse um Jesus Christus, p. 111 for the San. source.) To conclude the episode of the two - or three - crooks on the crosses, it may be observed that Luke goes on to tell his incredible tale of how, at twelve o´clock, the sun stopped shining and darkness covered the whole country until three o´clock... The source is, again, Buddhist, viz MPS.

The identification of the Buddhist source of the episode of the crooks on the crosses not only proves - if proof were needed - that what Luke reports has nothing to do with actual history somewhere  in Jerusalem. The episode is mythical, as is the original.
Perhaps more important, the identification shows that Luke had a great sense of humor - typical Buddhist, in fact - that may, however, not be duly appreciated by all Christians, more pious than the alleged founder of their religion. Luke must have had great fun turning the two Buddhist monks into two crooks to be impaled, and later on, in sending Jesus to hell - not to Paradise! -  for a couple of days. For he was resurrected "from the dead" - the Buddhist term for "from hell".

In other words: If the criminal actually did go to Paradise, as Jesus promised - Jesus would not be there with him! Or, alternatively, if we construe the "today" with the verb "I say to you", then it could be that the two would meet at some future date - not today - in Paradise - and that would be  some spot  (pradesas) in India! The episode only makes  gooid sense once one knows the source. But then it also makes wonderful sense - Aristophanes could not do better!
 
Christian Lindtner
December 6th. a. D. 2009

_____________________________________________________________

A CHALLENGE TO ANTI-GEMATRIA HARPIES

In a communcation given to Biblical scholars at Louvain in 1970, the Dutch theologian J. Smit Sibinga, discussing the literary technique of Matthew, observed that the author of the First Gospel, consciously and consistently "arranged his text in such a way, that the size of the individual sections is fixed by a determined number of syllables. The individual parts of a sentence, the sentences themselves, sections of a smaller and larger size, they are, all of them, characterized in a purely quantitative way by their number of syllables" (Menken, p. 21).

And how did the scholars present in Louvain  react to this observation? According to a personal communication from one who was present, (Prof. Birger Gerhardsson, Lund University), "they giggled", and according to my own experience, scholars as well as non-scholars still tend to giggle, when they hear that Matthew - and the same goes for the other authors of the NT, I may add from my own research  - always counted the number of syllables - and words  of a sentence or a part of a sentence.

But only the insipid laugh when confronted with facts that are new to them. Serious scholars try to understand facts, no matter how odd they may appear at  first glance.
In his important doctoral dissertation from 1985, Numerical literary techniques in John, M.J.J. Menken, a student of Smit Sibinga, carried on this sort of NT research (based on the Greek, of course).

One of his most important observations was (p. 272):

"The sum total of syllables or words for a passage is equal to the numerical value of an important name or title occurring in that passage."

Examples of this rule:

1. John 1:19 - 2:11 has a size of 1550 syllables, which number is the numerical value of ho khristos ("the Christ") - the main person in that passage.

2. John 17:1b - 26 contains 486 words, which number is the numerical value of the vocative pater (father!) , which is found six times in the text.

3. John 1:1-18 consists of exactly 496 syllables, which is the numerical value of monogenês, ("only begotten"), an important qualification of Jesus. It occurs in John 1:14 & 18, and 3:16 & 18; and 1 John 4:9).
 
To take just one more example, first pointed out by Smit Sibinga ( cited by Menken, p. 23):
Peter´s speech in Acts 2:14b - 36 is made up of two equal halves: 444 syllables in 2:14b-24, and again 444 syllables in 2:25-36. Their sum, 888, is the numerical value of the name Iêsous (= 10+8+200+70+400+200 = 888; C.L.) - a number which was famous in this quality in the second century, witness Irenaeus´ Adversus haereses 1,15,2.
Moreover, if we look upon Acts 2:1-47, a numerical analysis shows that this chapter as a whole consists of exctly 1776, or 2 x 888 syllables.
 
These are just a few striking examples, and subsequent research by Smit Sibinga and myself  has shown that their number can easily be increased, and that the rule, therefore, is correct: The authors of the NT texts counted numbers of syllables and words.
 
Quite unexpectedly, the rule that the authors of the Gospels counted syllables and words, has, through my own research, received support from another corner of the world: Certain Buddhist canonical Sanskrit  texts - sûtra-s - have, as a numerical analysis reveals - also been composed by authors who counted syllables and words, yes, in some cases even letters.

Since these very sûtra-s can be shown to have influenced the NT in other ways (parables etc.), it is clear that  we here have yet another independent indication  of Buddhist influence in the NT.
 
WHY these authors  did so is another question that future research is obliged to account for. THAT they counted words and syllables is, to repeat, a fact that cannot be denied and that must be respected - even by those who now merely giggle.
 
Fools may laugh at hard cold facts - scholars wonder, and try to explain
 
Christian Lindtner
November 27th, a.D. 2009.

References:
Chr. Lindtner; Geheimnisse um Jesus Christus, Suederbrarup (Leuhe-Verlag) 2005.
M. J.J.Menken; Numerical literary techniques in John, Leiden (E.J.Brill) 1985.
J. Smit Sibinga; Literair handwerk in Handelingen, Leiden (E.J.Brill) 1970.
 
_________________________________________________________________________________

The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ

In her most recent essay, The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus, the American scholar Acharya S /D.M.Murdock argues, forcefully and boldly, in favour of the thesis that Jesus was not at all a historical person, but rather - as so many other sons of God in those days of old - a personification of the Sun.

In support of this point of view - one that she is not the first to advocate, but for which she deserves credit in graciously attending the advocacy - she adduces Christian as well as non-Christian sources, primary as well as secondary. Unremittingly, she reminds her readers of the fact that nearly everything that is said or written about the Jesus called Christ, had already at an earlier date been reported about the Buddha - or the Buddhas (too many to count), about Krishna, about Horus, about Prometheus, and, indeed, about numerous other now less known mythical figures.

That this is actually the case, no scholar familiar with Hellenistic religion and syncretism will be able to deny. Should he venture to deny, as some still do, then his colleagues can only deplore his ignorance of the relevant sources. Should anyone, moreover, wish to claim that Jesus - as opposed to so many other sons of God - is a historical person, then that defender of the old faith has a very heavy burden of proof resting upon his shoulders.

Our theologians, as a rule, simply postulate that there is no reason to doubt that Jesus was or is a historical person. There may be doubt, they admit, about the nature of that person, about the credibility of the evangelists in certain details etc., but about his existence, no, no, there can be no doubt.

Such a stand is apologetic and anything but scientific. An appeal to mere faith is an appeal to sheer ignorance.

Under such circumstances, our professional historians of religion would be expected to raise a storm of protest. They do, as a rule, fail to protest, and their failure is nothing short of a disgrace. Educated historians ought to enlighten and warn the public that there is neither solid external or internal evidence in support of the claim that Jesus was in any way a historical person.

Did Jesus really exist? - the question is not a new one. The great German theologian, Adolf Harnack once (back in 1909, before he became von Harnack) called it "the embarrassing question", i.e. embarrassing for those who raised it (viz. Kalthoff, Jensen, Drews). We must now say that von Harnack got it wrong. The question is now embarrassing - and even more so now than then - for those who fail to account for the lack of external and internal evidence, and for the parallels that are now much more numerous and close than they were in 1909. (Adolf Harnack, "Hat Jesus gelebt?" in: Aus Wissenschaft und Leben, Zweiter Band, Giessen 1911, pp. 167-175.). Above all, new Buddhist sources, in Sanskrit, have provided numerous literal parallels, i.e. direct loans.

The reason for clinging to the myth of Jesus as a historical person is, I assume, double: First of all, it is not easy to rid oneself of old and inveterate misconceptions. Such struggle not only requires freedom of mind but also personal courage - both are rare at a time where a higher Classical education and civilization with emphasis on human character have been banned from our universities and now are but remnants of brighter days.

Then there is the fear of loss of livelihood. If the story of Jesus is merely a solar myth - then our priesthood will have lost all its credibility. Who can make a living by talking about the Sun?

The edifice of Christianity - in any form it may be - rests on a ground of nonsense neatly summarized in the Apostles' Creed - that the mother of Jesus, who went to hell, was a virgin etc. etc.

If the thesis that Jesus is a mere solar myth is correct - and who is there to rebuke its validity on solid scholarly grounds? - then this must have serious consequences not just for conscientious Christian individuals, but also for a society that considers itself to be Christian in this or that respect.

The Danish church - not unlike other Lutheran or reformed churches - considers itself to be fairly "open and broad, " I am told. But is it "open and broad" enough to give room for the view that Jesus never existed, and for infidels taking that stand?

In Denmark (and elsewhere) we recognize and allow other religions, provided they do not violate certain rules or standards of decency and decorum - reflecting a Classical, and not at all a Christian tradition, I may add. The concept of decency or decorum may not be altogether clear to a modern mind, but no matter how we agree about definitions, it would be hard to leave out honesty and truthfulness from that definition. How can we have decency without honesty?

If, thus, honesty and truthfulness be recognized as natural and essential parts of decency and decorum, it follows, surely, that our professional professors of theology, along with our bishops and our priests find themselves facing a difficult dilemma: Either they must, openly and boldly, step forward to defend their honour and refute the thesis that Jesus be merely a solar myth, or they must, should they choose to remain silent, fear the disgraceful charge that their lack of honesty - not to speak of "Lutheran boldness" - makes them violate the standards of decorum and decency.

In other words: If our professional theologians do not respond and come up with strong arguments against the thesis of Jesus as a solar myth, then they will, day by day, transform the church and Christian society that for centuries have provided them with even more than their daily bread into institutions the nature of which is increasingly infested by dishonesty and lack of decency - until the day of the final and total collapse of the ancient myth.

Christian Lindtner, PhD
November 22nd, a.D. 2009.

_____________________________________________________________

New book expanding on the work done by Dr. Christian Lindtner

Buddha's Big Foot, by Robert Korczynski.

This controversial new book investigates history, religion, linguistics, and numerology to conclude that all of the Christian teachings of Jesus were sourced from Buddhism.

Robert Korczynski holds a Bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan with Majors in Psychology and Sociology, and Minors in Philosophy and Comparative Religions.  He is an avowed Agnostic.

Expanding on the revolutionary work done by the Danish linguist Christian Lindtner (CL), Buddha's Big Foot is an academic investigation into the influence of  King Ashoka's Buddhist Missionaries within the religions of the ancient world; called the, "Dharma Mahamatras," CL translates their name as, "Officers of the Law."  Over generations, their influence within the Hebrew groups produced the Nazarenes and the Essenes, and they are the apparent creators of Mandaeaism, the believers in John the Baptist.
 

___________________________________________________________________

The conference has been postponed!  

Conference Announcement December 2008

Did Jesus Really Exist?
New Testament Source Criticism

Speakers on the panel include:

Kenneth Humphreys, esq.,UK,
author of Jesus Never Existed.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

Prof. Dr. Christian Lindtner, Denmark,
author of Geheimnisse um Jesus Christus etc.
http://www.jesusisbuddha.com

Dr. Robert M. Price, USA,
author of Jesus is Dead, etc.
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/

Dr. Zacharias Thundy, USA,
author of Buddha and Christ etc.
http://www.nd.edu/~zthundy/

Opponent defending the historicity of Jesus,
Danish theologian: Dr. Braveheart.

***

Date: December 15, 2008, 17:00 through 22:30.

Venue: Havarthigaarden, Room C, near Holte S-station,
bus 193 (5 minutes, or 15 minutes by foot).
Very easy to reach from Copenhagen Central Station.

Entrance: 150,00 DKK.

Registration required no later than December 14, 2008.
Contact: jesusinholte@cotmanuniversity.com.

www.cotmanuniversity.com

__________________________________________________________________________

New books by Christian Lindtner

Indien und das Christentum. Eine Untersuchung der religionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhänge

A 2004 reprint of the old 1914 classic by the German indologist Richard Garbe. With a new Foreword by Christian Lindtner in which it is pointed out that the nine syllables of Revelation 13:18 are a direct “translation” of one of the most important sources of the New Testament, namely Sad-dhar-ma-pun-da-rî-ka-sû-tram.

If you wish to read the Foreword, follow this link http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/vorwort.html

Place your order now: luehe-verlag@t-online.de

Books by other authors

Katolska kyrkans djupa hemlighet  Av Bert Löfgren

I 2000 år har teologer och andra forskare talat om den historiske Jesus utan att ha kunnat uppvisa minsta bevis för hans existens.

Den danske historikern och sanskritexperten Christian Lindtner hävdar nu sedan några år tillbaka från egna översättningar av buddistiska originaltexter, att Nya Testamentet är ett plagiat av Buddhas Testamente och att Jesus, hans lärjungar och många andra gestalter i Nya Testamentet är enbart sagofigurer.

Författaren, läkare och ”amatörteolog”, har tillämpat Lindtners tankegångar på några texter ur och med anknytning till Nya Testamentet och kan påvisa flera starka indikationer på släktskap med den buddistiska läran, Mahâyâna: frälsningsbegreppet är detsamma, Uppenbarelseboken bygger på tydliga buddistiska källor och Daniels bok innehåller inte bara tydliga inslag av shamanism (vanliga i buddismen) utan också ett entydigt bevis för buddistiskt ursprung, när den explicit beskriver den buddistiske bodhisattvas, vars likhet med Kristi frälsarroll är slående. Våra teologer har aldrig höjt blicken bortom det forna Persien och har därför aldrig förstått att Indien skulle kunna förklara kristendomens ursprung. De har nu stor anledning att tänka om! 

www.litenupplaga.se/284