The Mythic Christ

      
The Philosophical Foundation of Gnosticism

      
Ruins of an Old Christian Church on LaoTzu's Turf

             
NEW TESTAMENT REVISIONISM

       
The Mythic Christ

          
by the Institute for Gnostic Studies

That the Christos represents the solar power reverenced by every nation of antiquity cannot be controverted. If Jesus revealed the nature and purpose of this solar power under the name and personality of Christos, thereby giving to this abstract power the attributes of a god-man, He but followed a precedent set by all previous World-Teachers. This god-man, thus endowed with all the qualities of Deity, signifies the latent divinity in every man. Mortal man achieves deification only through at-one-ment with this divine Self. Union with the immortal Self constitutes immortality, and he who finds his true Self is therefore “saved.” This Christos, or divine man in man, is man’s real hope of salvation - the living Mediator between abstract Deity and mortal humankind. As Attis, Adonis, Bacchus, and Orpheus in all likelihood were originally illumined men who later were confused with the symbolic personages whom they created as personifications of this divine power, so Jesus has been confused with the Christos, or god-man, whose wonders He preached. Since the Christos was the god-man imprisoned in every creature, it was the first duty of the initiate to liberate, or “resurrect” this Eternal One within himself. He who attained reunion with his Christos was consequently termed a Christian, or Christened, man.
Manly P. Hall, The Secret Teachings of All Ages

Who was Jesus ? Seems like such a simple question. Yet the more we study the Life of Jesus the more difficult it becomes, there are so many opinions, so many interpretations and bluntly, so little historical fact. Yet the question which must be asked is whether the historical Jesus is of that much importance. If we were to discuss the power of the image of Osiris, Dionysius even Krsna, the immediate question is not where are they located in time or what is the proof of their historical existence. No, we examine them as mythic qualities, as images and icons, tales and legends which embody principles rather than history. This is not to deny that the historical element behind mythic figure is not interesting, intriguing, even important, but that it is SECONDARY to the mythic quality. Much the same needs to be applied to Jesus, the Jesus of history will never to truly found. The evidence is there, but is so fragmentary that every interpretation is possible. It is only when we enter into the mythic Jesus, the Cosmic Christ, that we can begin to interpret what the scant elements of history many mean.

It is quite clear that the New Testament accounts are flaky, they are not history. They are myth written in the form of history. While many elements could be correct, it is clear that they were moulded, edited and reformed to reflect certain traditions about Jesus rather than being a historical record of his life.  It is much the same with any figure of importance, the stories of their lives become woven into myth and legend and what results has little or nothing to do with the historical reality. In terms of Jesus he fulfilled the mythic characteristic of a Solar god of “rebirth” and hence his life was woven with images which reflect the stories of Osiris, Buddha, Krsna and many others. There is much debate about whether underneath the legend there is any history at all. On one side we have authors such as Timothy Freke who wrote the Jesus Mystery (Random House, August 2000), who argue that what we have is a perennial motif, a living mythic quality which has no reality in a historical sense. Others ranging from the conservative to the liberal would argue for a historical Jesus who was the foundation from which the mythic quality developed. There have been countless books written comparing the life of Jesus to Attis, Dionysuis, Buddha, Krsna and so many others, yet the key fact is ignored. There are similarities not because they are copying one another but because they are all part of a continuos perennial motif. Rather than disproving the value of the Christ myth by comparing with another, it actually proves its great mythic significance.

For the Gnostic it is the mythic that matters. When a divine principle manifests through the emanations which make up the hierarchy of the spiritual worlds, it doesn’t really matter whether it only manifests in the mythic (the mental worlds) or in the physical. What matters is that it has manifest. Jesus then was a conflux of many legends, tales, myths, images and icons and brought together many different cultural forms of the “solar spirit”. This mythic quality and its ability to evoke resonance from many cultures and traditions is the unique power of the Christ.

This mythic quality is rooted in the perennial motif of the Solar Logos and the God of death and rebirth. It is echoed through many culture forms and is not isolated to the supposed “Judaic” origins of Christianity. Indeed, many would argue, that Christianity in its mystical and Gnostic heart owes more to the Greek mystery traditions than to Judaism.

The radical nature of Jesus’ message is that it offers us the power to “live the myth”. We can follow his example and become part of the myth and hence achieve liberation (Deification). This lifechanging message is at the heart of the Gnostic and mystical tradition, however, it is one that the “Church authorities” would rather ignore.  The reason for this can be traced back to a fascinating debate early in Church history over what was called the Arian controversy.

The Arian Controversy

The Arian controversy arose from the teaching of the Alexandrian priest Arius, c.256-336. Arianism spread and was condemned by the First Council of Nicea (325). The conflict however continued and several bishops and emperors sided with Arius. The Catholic tenets of Rome finally triumphed, and the First Council of Constantinople (381) upheld the decrees of Nicaea.

The essential Arian debate was over the nature of Christ. On the Church side we had the position that Christ was eternally God, that he simply incarnated into the flesh, died, resurrected and returned to the father. While the Church had to accept that he became human, it was a difficult decision and one framed in carefully defined theological terms. While he may have been human he was also always divine. From this model, the only accepted form of spiritual practise was worship. We could not become like Jesus, since he was eternally God, even when human. We must approach him from “outside” and worship him as separate from us. The ramifications of this was that the Church, representing Gods presence on earth, also could demand obedience and could take a position of control.

The Arian position was radically different. The Arians believed Jesus was human and only became “divine” at his baptism. Accordingly, many esoteric sects argued that Jesus had developed through many lives and hence achieved a moment of awakening which allowed him to become divine. In this model we can become like Jesus, we can do the training, achieve development and hence also become part of God. This model emphasizes emulation of Jesus over worship. Since Jesus achieved Christhood, we can achieve Christhood, it is a state not a “item of worship”. The Church has in this model only a guiding role, it cannot demand obedience. Christ is a state in potential within us and hence we can achieve a state of union, separateness is temporal and hence Jesus role exists in the mythic rather than within historical and literalist interpretations. Since the Christ exists beyond history and manifested in Jesus, then other “Christs” are possible and the continuum of the myth is welcomed rather than rejected as heretical or worse as heathen.

It is clear from history that the literalist model won and since that time the Church has suppressed the Arian position. But there are strange contradictions. While the Church rejects the Arian position most mystics (including Loyola, father of the Jesuits) insist on our emulation of Christ and yet give it convoluted theological explanations. The central question is why emulate a being unless you want to become like it, and if you want to become like Christ you must become Christ. (If Christ is pure God then we have no hope of being like him only if Jesus was a man can Christhood be attainable)

In the Orthodox traditions while Arianism is still rejected, the doctrine of Theosis or Deification is taught. This doctrine, rejected by Roman Catholics and Protestants, is that through our life in the Church and mystical practise we can become part of God. While framed in abstruse theology it is basically the original Gnostic message.

Other strange contradictions is the use of December 25^th as Christ's birthday, a time for pagan festivities associated with the Roman customs. This practise continues with the Churches use of pagan festivals, sites and traditions. While these may be associated with the practise of assimilating dominated cultures during the Churches conquest period, it may also show an emphasis within some mystical sectors of the Church on the mythic Christ over and above the historical Christ (hence other traditions within the continuity of the Mysteries are welcomed and used accordingly).

How much the date of the festival depended upon the pagan Brumalia (December 25th) following the Saturnalia (December 17th-24th), and celebrating the shortest day of the year and the 'new sun'...cannot be accurately determined. The pagan Saturnalia and Brumalia were too deeply entrenched in popular custom to be set aside by Christian influence...The pagan festival with it's riot and merrymaking was so popular that Christians were glad of an excuse to continue its celebration with little change in spirit and in manner. Christian preachers of the West and the Near East protested against the unseemly frivolity with which Christ's birthday was celebrated, while Christians of Mesopotamia accused their western brethren of idolatry and sun worship for adopting this pagan festival.

New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

The Emulation of Christ

The radical teaching of Jesus is that we may emulate him. It is that through mystical and spiritual practise we can transform into Christ. Christ then is the Solar Logos, the Christos, the power of awakening, in Buddhist terms, Buddhahood. It uses the historicity of Jesus but is mythic and comes from beyond history. It cares little for enforcing morality, obedience is for children. Since all of us have lived for thousands of lives and committed thousands of acts, good and bad, morality is essentially irrelevant. While certain ethic structures are suggested, beyond this it is for the individual to negotiate with his or her indwelling Christ (the True Self), not for some external Church or authority to enforce.

Jesus hung out with tax collectors, prostitutes and the lower strata of society because he knew they would be willing to give-all to be transformed. Those with money, prestige and class would never be willing to give up their “earthly perks” to achieve liberation. To those who desire wisdom, he gave it. Liberation is achieved through emulation. And to emulate the life of Christ is not to live an ascetic or puritan existence, the New Testament model of Christ is an emasculated Christ, while the Christ of the Church sounds like a middle class bourgeois country parson !  However, the real Christ is our True Self, our Indwelling Light and hence works through the normal functions of the body, emotion and mind. Certainly they must be refined and purified to work as suitable vehicle for the Christ Self, but this Self is not repulsed by the “bodily” experience. Our bodies with all their functions are natural, as is sexuality and the Christ of the Gnostic tradition is as much human as divine. Indeed, true spirituality and awakening brings a new vitality not a rejection of the things around us.

At the same time don’t think it is easy or simple. The path to Transfiguration, the path of emulating and becoming the mythic Christ is a demanding one and one very few follow the path to its  conclusion.

For many are called, but few are chosen.
John 22:14

Ó Institute for Gnostic Studies. PO Box 492 Armidale NSW 2350 Australia. (Web: Http://www.ozemail.com.au/~pleroma )

(May be reproduced but with no modifications and our address and details included)

Please visit the IGS website

    The Philosophical Foundation of Gnosticism     

by the Institute for Gnostic Studies

One of the major problems with comprehending the truth of the Gnosis is that it can be presented to the seeker in many different ways. On one level we may read the high-browed philosophical approach of the Greek Mysteries, and on the other we may see the bloody battle between ‘the forces of light and darkness’ or the literal expulsion of Satan from Heaven. At first these traditions may seem disparate and it may seem necessary to jettison one or the other depending on your own level of comprehension. However, if we examine these various traditions in more detail we may discern a common foundation and come to the realisation that the problem is one of religious or symbolism and language - not truth.

When we are teaching children about mathematics we may discuss apples and orange, trees and coins, however, as adults we enter into the world of algebra and equations. Nobody really considers these two different approaches to be in conflict, we simply realise that a different set of metaphors are being used to explain the same truth. In the Gnostic tradition the same is undoubtedly true, whether, for example, we speak of an error arising in the divine mind, an opposite appearing as a reflection of the Logos or of Satan being expelled from heaven, we are simply using different metaphors for the same cosmic event. It seems that within the twentieth-century, religious movements have become locked in semantics and argue about things which are in truth only different views of the one reality.

When we examine the gospels we find ample evidence for different appreciations of the divine mysteries, Jesus spends an inordinate amount of time discussing the importance of parables and seems to delight in using stories with multiple meanings. Even the structure of his teaching hierarchy has such  an application...there are 12 disciples, 70 outer disciples and then the multitudes. Here we have an obvious hierarchical structure...the twelve disciples - symbolic of 12 signs of the Zodiac, tribes of Israel etc. - the innermost  teachings, the esoteric mysteries. The seventy disciples - the seven rays, days of creation etc. - the Mesoteric or intermediate teachings. The multitudes - the Exoteric or outer teachings. In practise this simply means that a parable has a general symbolic or moral truth and then deeper meanings.

The danger with modern religious forms is that they have become locked in semantics, they have become bogged down with the symbols and forgotten the spirit. In Biblical terms they have accepted the body of the law, not the spirit.  When we discuss these levels of truth, we also need to appreciate that they relate to different levels of evolution and manifestation, in the gnostic tradition there are three basic levels of being and these can be related quite clearly to the various levels of truth. Every level is "right" in relation to the plane, world or level of consciousness it may be related to. Each also has a "core reality" which is then reflected in each plane in the imagery or symbolism related to that level. Hence we can see how a myth can use extremely anthropomorphic imagery on one level (exoteriuc)and at the same time also reveal a philosophical truth in another (esoteric)

Esoteric          Pnuematic      Higher world

Mesoteric       Psychic        Intermediate worlds

Exoteric          Hylic            Physical worlds

Using these levels as classifications, on the lower level we have the symbolism of Gods as tribal forms and totems. In the intermediate we have the spiritual concepts but these are still rooted in a strong use of religious forms, mysticism would be placed at his level. While on the highest level (Pneumatic) we have the Pleroma as the source of all things, the philosophical causeless cause. By utilising this spectrum of perspectives, we can reconcile the various Gnostic traditions as representing various stages of perception. We can clearly see the literalist traditions as representing the lower manifestation, mysticism and devotionalism as a further stage of perception and Gnosticism highest manifestation. By using such a system of attribution we can clearly see how divinity can be, and is, all things on all levels.   Only by achieving a complete view of each level in its rightful place as part of the cosmic scheme, can we appreciate the real totality of the Gnostic vision.

If we accept that there are multiple levels of Truth, is Truth "more" true on a higher level than a lower?

The answer to this is clearly no. Truth is Truth. However, to appreciate the totality of that truth all levels of ‘that truth’ much be comprehended. If we allow ourselves to be locked into one level then we only see the facet of the tradition of that level. It is clear, for example, that Zoroastrianism, Essene Gnosticism, the Veda’s and the Runic tradition are all facets of our heritage, are all aspects of one universal Mystery Tradition. To neglect one in favour of the other means ignoring pieces of the puzzle and ending up with a incomplete picture. Christianity, in isolation from the rest of the tradition is powerless, as are the other traditions, only with a complete picture can liberation be achieved.

The Path of the Gnosis is the path of the Whole and offers the Mystery traditions in their totality, Gnosticism is the experience of our heritage within the context of the continuum of the tradition as it has been handed down through history. All things must be seen in the context of the greater picture and that picture holds an image of the destiny of man.

 Ó Institute for Gnostic Studies. PO Box 492 Armidale NSW 2350 Australia. (Web: Http://www.ozemail.com.au/~pleroma )

(May be reproduced but with no modifications and our address and details included)

Please visit the IGS website  

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/24/arts/design/24CAMH.html 

Ruins of an Old Christian Church on LaoTzu's Turf

By LESLIE CAMHI

THE tranquil landscape surrounding a lonely stone pagoda some 50 miles from the city of Xian in northwestern China has inspired visionaries and rulers. According to legend, the founder of Taoism, Laotzu, wrote his classic work, the Tao Te Ching, during a single night's stay in the nearby hills before disappearing into the west. More than 1,000 years later, in the seventh century A.D., a Tang emperor erected a vast complex of Taoist temples on the site, calling them Lou Guan Tai. And there, more recently, Martin Palmer, a British Sinologist and theologian, claims to have discovered remains of the earliest Christian church in China, dating back to the seventh century.

"It's rather like the Hari Krishnas being allowed to build a temple on the steps of St. Patrick's Cathedral," Mr. Palmer said on the telephone from Manchester, England, where he heads the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, a nonprofit preservationist group. "It immediately changes our picture of the church in China. Western scholars had said that it was a heretical church, that it had no impact on Chinese culture. And here we see that it was given an incredibly honored position."

Mr. Palmer has long been interested in this Church of the East, whose followers were concentrated in Persia and scattered across the ancient trading routes to China, from Baghdad to Samarkand. Little evidence of their existence survives. The Nestorian Stone, an eighth century tablet in the Museum of Stone Inscriptions in Xian, tells the story of Christian missionaries arriving in the capital of Changan (now Xian) in A.D. 635 from presentday Afghanistan. And scrolls found in the caves of Dunhuang, on China's northwestern frontier, recount a version of the gospel in Chinese, melding Christian, Taoist and Buddhist imagery.

"The scrolls describe a church in which men and women were equal and slavery was forbidden," Mr. Palmer said. "Its version of the Ten Commandments instructed Christians in vegetarianism and forbade the taking of any life. It taught the Taoist notion of original goodness, rather than original sin, and it said the answer to karma and the fear of perpetual reincarnation is Christ."

While translating a collection of these documents for his book "The Jesus Sutras: Rediscovering the Lost Scrolls of Taoist Christianity," published last year by Ballantine Books, Mr. Palmer came across a faint map published by a Japanese scholar in the 1930's. It was probably the work of spies posing as archaeologists while charting China's rural defenses in preparation for Japan's 1937 invasion. (In 1933, Chinese scholars also toured the ruins, but their findings were inconclusive.) The map listed no place names, but it marked a pagoda near the Lou Guan Tai temple, calling it "Da Qin," one of whose meanings is "from the Roman Empire."

"Imagine a church in the middle of rural England, called the Tang Dynasty Chinese Temple," Mr. Palmer said. "It's that much of an anomaly."

Mr. Palmer's suspicions regarding the building's Christian origin were heightened when, climbing a hill overlooking the pagoda, he realized that the entire site was laid out, not on the northsouth axis traditional for Chinese temples, but rather facing east, as befits a proper Christian church. Local lore, in the person of a Buddhist nun said to be 115 years old, confirmed this interpretation. "Of course!" she exclaimed when told of his insight. "This was the most famous Christian monastery in China."

The monastery — only traces of which remain — was probably destroyed in 845 during a period of persecution begun by the Confucianists against foreign religions, including Buddhism and Christianity. Around 1300 the pagoda was converted into a Buddhist temple and then was sealed in 1556, when damage from an earthquake caused it to lean perilously. The Chinese authorities, notified of the site's significance, immediately set about restoring it. When they reopened the building, they discovered a 10foot-high mud, plaster and wood grotto on the second floor.

"It's a traditional Chinese scene of the five sacred mountains of Taoism," Mr. Palmer said. "And set right in the heart of it are the fragmentary remains of a nativity scene, with the Virgin Mary and Christ." On the third floor they found a sixfoot-tall sculpture believed to represent Jonah lying outside Nineveh, and seventh century graffiti carved into a brick by a homesick monk in Syriac, the liturgical language of the Church of the East (as Latin was for the Church of Rome).

The importance of these findings was underlined last March, when the Taliban destroyed the Great Buddhas of Bamiyan, two towering, 1,500 yearold statues carved into a cliff in Afghanistan that were priceless examples of Gandharan art, which combines Greek and Buddhist iconography. "The only other known place in the world where Western and Eastern artistic traditions met in antiquity and created joint works of art is in that pagoda in China," Mr. Palmer said.

Both places drew from the flourishing culture of the Silk Road, a mercantile network that linked Changan (then the largest city in the world), across the Gansu corridor in northwestern China and the ancient kingdoms of Central Asia, to Antioch and Byzantium. Art and artifacts in the exhibition "Monks and Merchants: Silk Road Treasures From Northwest China, Fourth to Seventh Century," organized in November by Annette Juliano and Judith Lerner at the Asia Society in New York, overlapped with the period of Da Qin's construction. "There was a synergy between religion and trade on the Silk Road," said Colin Mackenzie, associate director of the Asia Society, "that carried Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and Nestorian Christianity along its routes. Our exhibition told the story of how we think Chinese civilization was virtually transformed by these foreign influences."

The Da Qin monastery and pagoda have been added to the 2002 World Monuments Fund watch list of 100 most endangered sites, along with the Ohel Rachel Synagogue in Shanghai, an early20th-century building that served the city's swelling population of Jewish refugees from Europe during the 1930's. Henry Ng, executive vice president of the World Monuments Fund, said, "With all the discussions about religious tolerance in China, and Beijing's negotiations with the Vatican about opening up full diplomatic relations, it's very interesting to see these two foreign faiths coming to China at different points in its history, and finding a home there."

The Chinese response has been positive so far. The Chinese director of the Da Qin project was the keynote speaker at a symposium on early Christianity in China, organized by the Chinese Academy of Social Science in Beijing in October, and several Chinese scholars plan to visit the site.

Working with the Chinese authorities, Mr. Palmer hopes to conduct more excavations and further restore the pagoda, the monastery and surrounding sites. He also plans to create a Museum of the West in China. "Just as, sadly, a lot of people in the West view China as a monolithic, totally foreign entity, so many Chinese feel the same way about the West," he said. "The purpose of the museum would be to challenge these views, to say the West has been in China for 1,400 years. It helped shape China and China helped shape the West."

Tim Barrett, a professor of East Asian History at the University of London, suggests that a growing need for alliances against the spectacular rise of Islam during the seventh century may have fostered Tang dynasty tolerance of Christianity. And since Laotzu was reportedly heading west when he disappeared, Professor Barrett said, "Taoists were perfectly willing to see any culture imported from the West, including Christianity, as a reflection of his teachings."

Such logic seems to find echoes today. Mr. Palmer has worked closely with the ChinaTaoist organization for many years. "They're fascinated by my findings," he said. "They wrote me that this confirms their suspicion that Jesus should be classified as a grand Taoist master."

 NEW TESTAMENT REVISIONISM 

"The Revisionist Observer" presents a glimpse into a fascinating but little-known field of revisionist history through the works of

Christian Lindtner, D. Phil.

A Report On The First International Seminar On New Testament Revisionism By A Group of Participants

Introduction

With the participation of Danish, German, Polish and Italian scholars of ancient Greek and/or Sanskrit, The First International Seminar on the recently discovered Buddhist sources of the New Testament Gospels was held at Hesbjerg Castle, near Odense, Denmark, on October 26-27, 2001.

The main purpose of the seminar - the first ever of its kind - was to present and discuss the newly discovered Buddhist Sanskrit sources of the celebrated Passion Narrative, as found in the Gospel of Matthew, chapters 26-28, with the parallel accounts in the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John.

Many professors of the New Testament were invited, but as a rule they declined the invitation , usually on the ground “that they did not know Sanskrit”.

Background

For more than a century, i.e. ever since the Buddhist scriptures first became available in Europe in the 19th century,, scholars have discussed the possibility of the New Testament being to a smaller or lesser degree dependent upon Buddhist sources. Opinions have differed widely. Some scholars have been prepared to admit a large degree of Buddhist influence in the Gospels, others have denied any historical influence at all. Some have taken an intermediate stand.

In a recent book, The Bible and the Buddhists, the British Sanskritist and theologian, John Duncan M. Derrett (born 1922) has drawn attention to many parallels between the New Testament and Buddhist classics. Buddhist missions were long senior to the first Christian missionaries, who could learn techniques from the former. Entrepreneurs in the same line of business, working in the same fields, Derrett argues, they examined each other’s stock, and “put their heads together”.

Accordingly, Derrett points out eleven cases where the New Testament may have gained from Buddhist models. In almost twenty cases we may assume that Buddhists have adopted New Testament material. In many cases the literatures may have gained reciprocally, or it may be impossible to claim that either influenced the other.

Several other books published in recent decades, including E.R. Gruber and H. Kersten, The Original Jesus, Shaftesbury, Dorset 1995 and Zacharias Thundy, Buddha and Christ, Leiden 1993, also advance numerous arguments in support of the thesis that the New Testament has borrowed from Buddhist or other ancient Indian sources. The numerous parallels of ideas or motives “set up a case to be answered” as Derrett correctly observes (p. 17), and his book is the most recent - and the most serious and scholarly - attempt to answer it.

The first scholar to point out not mere parallels of ideas and motives but direct loans in terms of words and phrases was the Danish Sanskritist and Classical philologist, Christian Lindtner (born 1949). His comparative work on the Greek and Sanskrit sources was done on a much broader textual basis than attempted by any previous scholars, including the ones mentioned above.

Many years of careful textual study finally, in 1998, lead him to the conclusion that the New Testament Gospels were “artificial or funny translations done, by unknown authors, directly from the Sanskrit into Greek”.

His views were first presented to the public in the introduction to two volumes of Indian Buddhist texts translated into Danish directly from Sanskrit, Pâli, Tibetan and Chinese. These two volumes appeared in September 1998, and soon raised a storm of controversy in Denmark. No less than 23 Danish scholars demanded from the publisher, Spektrum of Copenhagen, that the two volumes be withdrawn from circulation, and burned. The international response to the books of Lindtner, however, was very positive and favourable. Several reviewers found the thesis of Lindtner highly interesting and probable, and even recommended that his books be translated into German and English. Since these reviewers included some of the most distinguished Sanskritists and Buddhologists in the world, the open opposition in Denmark, where none of Lindtner´s opponents knew Sanskrit, soon became silent.

On November 7th 1998, Lindtner, as a guest of the Indian government, presented his thesis about the New Testament Gospels as being “Judaized Buddhism” to a huge international audience in India. The thesis was, more precisely, announced in the form of the inaugural speech on “Future World Order”, at the Bauddha Mahotsav, in Sarnath - at the very place where the Buddha, long ago, had first delivered his celebrated Sermon of Benares- the so-called Dharmacakrapravartanam. His inaugural speech was published, in an expanded form, as an article with the title Buddhism in Relation to Science and World Religions. It was published by Ananda Buddha Vihara Trust, Buddhanagar, Tukaram Gate, North Lallaguda, Secunderabad - 500 017. A.P. India.

In Denmark, as said, the opposition to the novel thesis that the Gospels were “artificial and funny translations done directly from the Sanskrit into Greek”, met with violent opposition. Not one single counter-argument, however, was provided. Since none of the opponents knew Sanskrit, and therefore could not meet him on scholarly grounds or in an open debate, the opponents resorted to calumny. The Danish Council of Research which had for many years supported the Sanskrit studies of Lindtner, was forced to discontinue its financial support. Publishers were put under pressure so as not to print the books on the Buddhist sources of the New Testament prepared by Lindtner.

There was even an international pressure. Because of his revisionist views, Lindtner was, for instance, denied participation in The XIIth. Conference of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, held at Lausanne, August 23-28, 1999. A registered letter, dated February 1, 1999, read:

“Dr. Lindtner, Taking into account serious problems and reservations connected with your planned participation in the forthcoming congress of the International Association of Buddhist Studies (Aug. 23-28, 1999, Lausanne), the Congress Organizing Committee, with the support of the Board of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, has decided that your presence at the congress is unacceptable. Please note that you will not be allowed to register for this congress or participate in it in any way.”

The letter was signed by a certain Tom J.F. Tillemans, President of the Congress Organizing Committee, and Vice-dean of the Faculty of Letters, and by Oskar v. Hinüber, a German Professor, and General Secretary of the International Association of Buddhist Studies.

The latter subsequently confessed to a German colleague that he had been put under pressure to give his signature, and that Lindtner would have been arrested by Swiss police had he appeared at the conference. Many scholars learning about all this protested privately about the unprecedented decision. Copies of the letter were sent to various individuals, including Prof. Colette Caillat, Paris, President of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. She, too, accepted the exclusion of Lindtner without any protest. Lindtner, then, was not to be found among the two hundred scholars from various countries who read their papers at the Lausanne conference in August 1999.
There were also attempts to exclude Lindtner from using public libraries, and he was, of course, excluded from presenting his discoveries in any of the Danish universities.

The conclusion, therefore, is clear: The public, who pays for such conferences, and for the running of the universities, cannot expect purely scientific interests to be served well by such unreliable bodies. In certain fields of research political, or religious correctness, counts much more than scientific or scholarly correctness.

Eventually, Lindtner´s work found supporters in and outside Denmark, men and women who cared and were concerned about the freedom of research and speech. Thus he could continue his research into the Sanskrit sources of the New Testament Gospels.

The Hesbjerg Seminar

The host of this seminar was the liberal theologian and the owner of Hesbjerg Castle near Odense, Jørgen Laursen Vig. As opposed to virtually all other Danish theologians and historians of religion who had been informed and invited to participate, Laursen Vig found no objections to comparative Christian-Buddhist studies on a historical and philological basis.

Thus it proved feasible, in spite of great odds, to assemble a body of Danish and other scholars most of whom knew Sanskrit and/or Greek.

The first presentation was by Professor Bangert, from Germany. He spoke about the translations of Buddhist texts into German by Karl Eugen Neumann, born in 1865. Neumann, who had studied with great scholars such as Weber, Oldenberg and Deussen, had, in the notes to his translations, pointed out many New Testament parallels to Buddhist texts. It was, however, not all that clear whether these parallels were valid. many seemed spurious. Nevertheless the work of Neumann should not be ignored, as more recent scholars have tended to do. Clearly, Neumann lacked some clearly articulated principles to guide him when comparing the parallels and deciding upon their historical relationship.

The main purpose of the seminar was, as said, simply to provide Lindtner with the opportunity to present to the public the Sanskrit sources of the Greek text of the Passion Narrative as found in the two final chapters of Matthew’s Gospel.

Lindtner pointed out how virtually each word and sentence found in the Greek text could be traced back to two independent texts belonging to the same corpus of Buddhist scripture, namely the Mûlasarvâstivinaya. One text provides the legend of Gautama, the eponymous progenitor of Gautama the Buddha. The other text is the Mahâparinirvânasûtra, first edited in Sanskrit, Pâli, Tibetan with a translation from the Chinese, by the late German scholar Ernst Waldschmidt.

It could then be shown how “Matthew” first had cut these two sources to little pieces and then pasted them together anew. In this way he had preserved nearly all the original words but created a new whole, a collage, a mosaic. The result therefore, was purely fictitious. “Matthew” displays a most artificial way of “translating” - a fact that has lead to much confusion. Sometimes he translated the sense of the words or sentences, sometimes he translated the sound of words and sentences, and sometimes he tried to combine the sound and sense of the original Sanskrit in the Greek. Nearly all the motives had been taken over from the two Sanskrit sources - e.g. the crucifixion and the Eucharist - but combined anew.

Lindtner also pointed out how the names of the four evangelists could be traced back to the original Sanskrit. For instance, the evangelist Mark is in Greek called Markos. The Sanskrit word is Kumâras, a name for the Buddha as a child. As can easily be seen, the consonants are the same in both languages, namely m-r-k-s. Each of these four consonants has a given numerical value, in this case 40+100+20+200. The numerical value, of course, remains the same, even if the original order of the individual consonants is changed. This rule is technically known as gematria, and gematria was extremely common in ancient Hebrew writings. Gematria also allows the use of anagramas, of course. And thus it can easily bee seen that San. Kumâras has the same value as Greek Markos, namely 360. Hence it is formally perfectly correct to “translate” Sanskrit Kumâras by Greek Markos. Such examples are extremely numerous, providing us with cumulative evidence to establish the direct historical relationship. For instance, the first disciple of the Buddha is called Putras. In Greek this person becomes the first disciple of “Jesus”, namely Petros. Here, as often, not only are the original consonants retained, but their original order is likewise retained. Nearly all personal names and names of places in the Gospels can be accounted for in this way. Many such examples were provided during Lindtner´s presentation.

As know, Hebrew writing only indicated the consonants. The reader must know the vowels by himself. Thus, for example, p-t-r can be read as Peter or as pater, depending on the reader himself. Playing anagram one may also read p-t-r as pirate. So, if only the same consonants as in Sanskrit were to be found in Greek, the “translation” was considered “faithful” to the original. Since each letter also has a specific numerical value, the evangelists also paid careful attention to the number of consonants and syllables of the original Sanskrit. This means that if a sentence in the original has e.g. 42 syllables, then the corresponding Greek also has 42 syllables.

Lindtner also called attention to a few hidden puns, i.e. cases where the Sanskrit has the same sound but not the same sense as a Hebrew word understood but not explicitly mentioned in the Greek text of the gospels. Such instances serve to illustrate the extremely artificial nature of the gospels.

Some of these numerical techniques are not quite unknown to traditional theologians. It must be recalled that since each letter also has a certain numerical value, a firm distinction between sounds and numbers cannot always be made. For instance, the Gospel of John 1:19-2:11 deals mainly with Christ. It has a size of exactly 1550 syllables. The Greek for the Christ is ho Khristos. The numerical value of ho Khristos, counting also the vowels, is 70+600+100+10+200+300+70+200 = 1550.Such examples of numerical literary techniques are so frequent that they cannot possibly be considered a matter of mere chance. They are deliberate, and their manifest presence proves beyond any doubt that the evangelists most carefully counted consonants and syllables.

The Buddha is often called Tathâgatas, or the (only) teacher. In Matthew 23:10, Jesus is called kathêgêtês, or the (only) teacher. The two words are thus not only synonyms, they have the same meaning; they are also homonyms, they have the same number of syllables and nearly the same consonants. In Matthew 26:28, the San. Tathâgatas, in the genitive case Tathâgatasya, suddenly is translated by Greek tês diathêkês, meaning “of the covenant”. Here the sound and the number of syllables is retained nicely, but the sense is violently distorted.

The full Sanskrit phrase says: Tathâgatasya kâyam, the body (kâyam)of the Buddha. This in Matthew becomes “the blood of the covenant”. Luke 22:20 has a different version of the same Sanskrit phrase, namely “The New Testament”, Greek hê kainê diathêkê. Here Greek kainê translates Sanskrit kâyam. Here, to be sure, one must know that m and n are both nasals and thus numerically equivalent. Also San. y is a semivowel having the same value as Greek i. Thus kâyam = kainê.

Thus the “real” or hidden meaning of “The New Testament” is “The body of the Buddha”.

Such “translations” surely strike us as funny or artificial. Perhaps we can hardly believe that the evangelists translated from the Sanskrit into Greek in this irresponsible and unserious fashion.

But the fact is that such funny and artificial translations were quite common not only among the ancient Jews but also among the Indian Buddhists. So seen in a historical perspective, the four Gospels have been “translated” according to the rules common in those days.
Good parallels to this curious way of “translating” can still be found among the remaining fragments of the Greek version (Septuaginta) of the Hebrew Bible done by Aquila who lived during the reign of emperor Hadrian (117-138). Aquila aimed to be faitful to the syllables and the letters of the Hebrew even if the Greek translation became meaningless. For instance, making use of homophony, he rendered the Hebrew ´elôn, meaning “holm oak” by the Greek aulôn, meaning “hollow, ditch, gully”. Aquila´s “translation” was very much in favour with the rabbis! One must, in other words, know the original in order not to misunderstand the translation. (For more such examples, see N.F. Marcos, The Septuagint in Context. Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible, Leiden 2000, pp. 115-118.)

Lindtner also pointed out that the strange procedure of combining different words and phrases from different sources was even to be seen in the way the gospels combined various Old Testament passages into a new whole. Later on, authors such as Tatian would combine passages from the gospels in the same way. A few words taken from e.g. Matthew would be combined with words taken from Luke etc. The result would be a “funny or artificial translation”, entirely fictitious in the literal sense of that term.

Nor does it come as a surprise that the Gospels are anonymous. We only know the first names of the authors. It is the same with the Buddhist scriptures.

At the seminar several participants expressed their curiosity about the motive for making such funny translations. And in what kind of historical milieu could such translations have originated?
For scholars familiar with Buddhist sources the answer to such questions is not difficult.

In Mahâyâna there is a very important concept called “skill in means” (upâya-kausalya). According to this principle the Buddhist missionary is allowed to avail himself of any means with the single purpose of “presenting the body of the Buddha” to even the most ignorant people - yes, even to animals and demons. From the point of view of Mahâyâna it is considered very meritorious to mention the word Tathâgata, or to make an image of Tathâgata. The idea is that common ignorant people will not be able to understand the philosophical principles of Buddhism. For them it is enough to have faith in Tathâgata. It is therefore, quite irrelevant whether the New Testament makes any sense at all. Paradoxes are welcome as long as one hears the word of Tathâgata. The important thing is that people believe, even in a purely fictitious Buddha or Bodhisattva - such as “Jesus”. Some of the Buddhist scriptures used by the evangelists claim that one can become liberated merely by mentioning the name or by “seeing” the body of one of the many purely fictitious Buddhas in which many Buddhists believe.

This fact not only accounts for the many puns on Buddhist names in the gospels but also, as said, for the very title: The New Testament - The Body of the Buddha (to those knowing the pun).

The celebrated idea of the secret of the Messiah could also be traced directly back to the Buddhist sources. This puzzle has remained a puzzle to theologians to this day - exactly as it was intended to.
History shows that the Buddhist missionaries were highly successful.

Thus the New Testament Gospels can be characterized as crypto- Buddhism, or, since its authors and audience were undoubtedly Jews, “Judaized Buddhism”.
Challenges

At the seminar, where many other similar translations were presented and discussed, Lindtner came up with two challenges, one to theologians in general, and one to Christian priest in general.
The challenge to the theologians is that the Gospels, and other writings in the New Testament, cannot be properly understood without knowledge of the original Sanskrit sources. Theologians who ignore the Sanskrit sources, cannot be considered critical of their sources. They are, in other words, not real historians.

As for the Christian priests, at least the Lutheran ones, they have given the oath to preach the Gospels as they truly are without falsification of any kind. Since the Greek texts, taken at their face value, present a false, untrue and highly misleading picture of the original sense - as shown by some of the examples given above - this means, that the priests, if they want to be considered honest, must present the Gospels in the light of the Sanskrit originals. Modern translations, always based on the Greek, are, of course, even more unreliable than the Greek. Otherwise, if the ignore the Sanskrit, they break their oath.

The term “revisionism” may be taken to mean to revise the sources. In this sense, when speaking of the text of the New Testament, the time has come to revise the Greek in the light of the Sanskrit. No serious historian would base his views about past events on the basis of a highly misleading “artificial and funny translation” of the original. One would think that this goes without saying. And yet this is what theologians, priest and common Christians have been doing for about two millennia.

Lindtner concluded by saying that he had asked several theologians for one proof - just one proof - serving to demonstrate that the New Testament gospels must be considered serious scriptures. It is not enough merely to state that they are “the word of God”. A mere statement proves nothing. If it did, the opposite statement would also be true. But both statements cannot possibly be true at the same time - at least not without violating a fundamental principle of logic (the law of contradiction).

If nearly all the words, all the sentences, all the ideas found in the Passion Narrative can be traced back to Buddhists sources still available in the Sanskrit language, how, then, can one seriously claim that the gospels are “the word of God”!
To this day no theologian had been able to provided Lindtner with that proof.

Plans for the future

It was clear to all participants that these seminars must continue, even if certain bodies and individuals attempt to prevent this from taking place.

The current plan is to hold a second international seminar, October 2002.

Scholars and others interested in participating and in presenting a paper dealing with the Buddhist sources of the Bible , are invited - not later than April 1, 2002

[Time elapsed, of course, but you may contact them anytime for general information.]

Mr. Lars Myhre, General Secretary

Readers can e-mail jochemon@mail.dk 
and also find out more by going to
www.lindtner-myhre.dk 

Reproduced with permission from:  The Revisionist Observer