Saints Barlaam and Josaphat

[Robert Hegwood]

I'm not sure what to make of the life story of St. Josaphat. It looks very much like a Christianized retelling of the life of Buddha. Everything I have been able to dig up so far says that it is and that the name Josaphat itself is a variation via Arabic of Bottisava.

Is this in fact the case...is it a retelling of the Buddha's story? Or was there a historical repeat of the main outlines of it a few centuries later that was lived by one who was a Christian in the early centuries of the Church?

If it is true that this is a retelling...does that mean we regard Siddhartha under the name Josaphat to be an Orthodox saint?

Is it something we are willing to dismiss as a pious fabrication/borrowing and hence "not real" the way the RCC has "demoted" St. Christopher? And if we do distance ourselves a bit from this particular telling what does that mean for other very early saints whose lives for us are effectively if not perhaps actually legends and retellings of other old stories in borrowed Christian garb? Does that mean temples dedicated to St. Josaphat are dedicated to a fairytale or to an ancient pagan philosopher? Are prayers to St. Josaphat being heard by the Buddha, as it were?

So any insights on this conundrum?

[Michael Stickles]

I'm not sure what to make of the life story of St. Josaphat. It looks very much like a Christianized retelling of the life of Buddha. Everything I have been able to dig up so far says that it is and that the name Josaphat itself is a variation via Arabic of Bottisava.

Is this in fact the case...is it a retelling of the Buddha's story? Or was there a historical repeat of the main outlines of it a few centuries later that was lived by one who was a Christian in the early centuries of the Church?

I did some reading, and from what I saw I don't know if it's possible to answer the question, at least in a historical sense. One thing to remember is that, if there was a real Josaphat, the story of the Buddha would likely have been known to him (or at least to his contemporaries), making it easy for any parallels to be siezed upon (or, if Josaphat knew the tale, the parallels might have been due to his deliberate actions). It is possible that there was a real prince whose name has been lost, "Josaphat" (or the earlier "Joasaph") being substituted because of the better-known Buddha tale overshadowing the later events.

The tale did not just borrow from the Buddha, as the Apology of the philosopher Aristides to the Emperor Hadrian (2nd centruy) is also included in the tale. As with the legends of King Arthur, the original historical figure may have become so obscured by the accretions, that, by the time the tale as we have it was written, the accretions were the tale.

My guess would be that there was indeed an Indian prince who converted to Christianity through the guidance of an old ascetic, but that the story got confused with the Buddha tale before it reached the Greek-speaking world. But that's not much more than a guess. Even if that's true, I don't know how you'd tell how much the tale corresponds to the reality.

Mike

[Antonios]

Dear Robert,

This is quite an interesting thread! After I researched it today, I was surprised to see the similar life experiences between Gautama Siddharta (the Buddha) and Saint Josaphat. It is glorious how God works! Truly, God wishes all to be saved!

In Christ,
Antonios

[Robert Hegwood]

It is beginning to seem like there is no one knowledgeable out there either able or willing to comment on this question. Maybe there is no good answer.

[Rick Henry]

It is beginning to seem like there is no one knowledgeable out there either able or willing to comment on this question. Maybe there is no good answer.

Dear Robert,

I am totally ignorant about this question. A man at church brought this up to me about a year ago explaining that this is the first Buddha that is being talked about. This man is an author/translator and definately no slouch, but as I tried to look into this for myself, I became very confused. I thought initially that this was an absurd proposition if for no other reason than a comparison of the dates. But, I am not sure what to think. I will try to engage this man again on this; but, this one seems like a tough one to me. I wonder if you have progressed any further in this yourself or if you are among the ranks of the ignorant and confused as I am about this at the present? If there are any who are in the know about this, I would also love to understand more about this question.

In Christ,
Rick

[Herman Blaydoe]

According to an international best-seller of the Middle Ages, Ioasaph (also rendered Josaphat or Yudasaf) was the philosophically inclined crown-prince of "Inner Ethiopia, called India", whom the desert hermit Barlaam of Senaar or Balahvar of Serendip converted to faith in the True God. Versions of the story were written in nearly every widely-spoken European and Middle Eastern language and in the Ge'ez tongue of Ethiopia; the True Faith was variously identified as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Manichæism. The most influential retelling was the Greek version by "John the Monk", identified by tradition with St. John of Damascus but by several modern scholars with St. Euthymius the Georgian. The Greek text skillfully interweaves narrative action in exotic "Ethiopian" locales, entertaining fables (some later to re-appear as Sufi stories), and a detailed exposition of Orthodox Christianity based in part on the writings of John of Damascus and in part on an apologetical work of the second century, the original of which was rediscovered in the 1800s.
According to all versions of the story, Ioasaph's father was warned by an astrologer that his son would join an illegal religion and become a monk after experiencing sorrow; to forestall this, the king imprisoned his son from birth in a pleasure-palace. Ioasaph's quest for truth began when he managed to leave the palace briefly and observed old age, poverty, and disease in the city. A very similar story is, of course, told of Gautama Buddha, and the name "Yudasaf" bears an obvious resemblance to "Budhasaf", the standard Persian transcription of "Bodhisattva"; some scholars hear echoes of Sanskrit in other proper names as well. It is therefore frequently asserted that the story of Barlaam and Ioasaph originated as a Persian, probably Manichæan, retelling of the the life of Buddha, whom Mani numbered among the prophets. On the other hand, the most famous and central episode in Gautama's life, his enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, is entirely lacking, and there is an equally complete absence of distinctively Buddhist theology or doctrine. It seems not impossible that the story may simply have been Sanskritized in the East in the same way that it was Hebræized in the Latin West where the names of the protagonists were conflated with "Balaam" and "Jehosaphat". Curiously, in spite of the existence of an Ethiopic version, the occurrence of at least one Nubian place name in the Greek, and the marked resemblance of the setting to the Axumite Empire, scholars do not seem to have suggested that the story might have roots in the African as well as the Indian "Æthiopia".

Sts. Barlaam the Hermit and Joasaph, Prince of Great India or Ethiopia

Seems like an apocryphal story. Not sure what more needs to be said.

[Robert Hegwood]

If it is an apocryphal story then that is the problem. There have been and there probably still are temples and Orthodox Christians named after this Saint....which poses a real problem if he is not real...or potentially (though not necessarily) worse is real and is actually an ancient pagan philosopher who has great big religion all his own.

When these namesaked Christians invoke the aid of their patron saint...who prays for them. When temples were dedicated to this Saint and icons painted of him, what were they painting, who was or is being honored?

I recall a few years ago how outraged so many Orthodox were when Rome decided to clean house of some of its less easy to verify early saints like St. Christopher and demote them, classing them as likely pious legends. So do we take the same tack with St. Josaphat? Will we be willing to rethink our devotion to St. Christopher? These to me are serious questions because if we are wrong about who the saints are that we permit to be venerated in the Church are...considering them to be persons revealed by God in the Church as worthy of such honor for our edification and emulation...then what does that say about the Church's ability to hear God and to move organically as His body? And if we got them wrong what else if anything have we got wrong?

If they are pious fabrications or accretions of pious myth and legend from numerous sources across time, while their didactic value to large extent might remain, how can we continue to treat them as if they were anything more than useful stories. If one knowingly venerates the icon of a Saint who has no historic reality or who was not in any normative sense a part of the Church then that seems like a kind of madness. If one is bound and determined to insist that they are genuine saints of the Church whose stories are similar to after much retelling but not the same as a legendary or historic personage of a non Christian source, just preserve the "integrity" (on the surface) of the Church's witness and its truth claims, then that strikes me as a kind of blind ignorant magical thinking fundamentalism. Of course I can admit such similarities can and probably do honestly exist that do not involve a willful suspension of disbelief...but some cases are harder to believe than others. And this one strikes me as being on the hard side.

So in this case I can only see a few ways out that preserve the inspirational integrity of the Church: 1. There was both the Buddha and centuries latter a Christian monastic with an extremely similar life story that perhaps became conflated to some degree, but there really was a Christian whom we know as Josaphat even if that name is an Arabization of Bottisatva. 2. There was the Christian who is named in this story and he is the one called the Buddha in the East, but his story began as a Christian and inspired or merged with the story of another local philosopher prince as it moved east in the early days of the Church. 3. The story is that of the Buddha who has a whole religion in the east, but there was much about his original life story, teaching, and ascetic practice that is in accord with Orthodoxy that the grace of God enfolded his life and presented those redeemed and laudable experiences and teachings as those of the Church under a variant from of his name/title Bottisatva/Josaphat, which basically would mean that God has revealed the one we know as Buddha, after proper filtration as a Saint of the Church.

[Rick Henry]

If they are pious fabrications or accretions of pious myth and legend from numerous sources across time, while their didactic value to large extent might remain, how can we continue to treat them as if they were anything more than useful stories. If one knowingly venerates the icon of a Saint who has no historic reality or who was not in any normative sense a part of the Church then that seems like a kind of madness. If one is bound and determined to insist that they are genuine saints of the Church whose stories are similar to after much retelling but not the same as a legendary or historic personage of a non Christian source, just preserve the "integrity" (on the surface) of the Church's witness and its truth claims, then that strikes me as a kind of blind ignorant magical thinking fundamentalism. Of course I can admit such similarities can and probably do honestly exist that do not involve a willful suspension of disbelief...but some cases are harder to believe than others. And this one strikes me as being on the hard side.

Yes, to me as well this one is a hard one, in my opinion, not a simple one. And, assuming we as Orthodox are allowed to know why we believe as we do, or 'why we believe what we believe,' I hope some of the other veterans of Orthodoxy will help to provide some answers here. This way of knowing that is highlighted in the above quote is not what we want, I don't think. And, as Robert suggests in the following:

So in this case I can only see a few ways out that preserve the inspirational integrity of the Church:

1.) There was both the Buddha and centuries latter a Christian monastic with an extremely similar life story that perhaps became conflated to some degree, but there really was a Christian whom we know as Josaphat even if that name is an Arabization of Bottisatva.

2.) There was the Christian who is named in this story and he is the one called the Buddha in the East, but his story began as a Christian and inspired or merged with the story of another local philosopher prince as it moved east in the early days of the Church.

3.) The story is that of the Buddha who has a whole religion in the east, but there was much about his original life story, teaching, and ascetic practice that is in accord with Orthodoxy that the grace of God enfolded his life and presented those redeemed and laudable experiences and teachings as those of the Church under a variant from of his name/title Bottisatva/Josaphat, which basically would mean that God has revealed the one we know as Buddha, after proper filtration as a Saint of the Church.

I wonder if there are any here in this discussion community who can speak directly to this issue firstly, and then possibly to some of the ramifications as Robert has written above?

In Christ,
Rick

[Adrian Martin]

I've been reading the lives of Sts. Barlaam and Josaphat by St. John Damascene, and it is a true blessing! The Damascene intended his work to be for people who weren't Christian. Today it seems that Orthodox apologetics is mainly geared towards non-Orthodox Christians, so a study of this work would certainly be helpful towards the development of contemporary apologetics for the non-Christian. It also serves as a very readable catechism.

I'm not particularly interested in the parallels between the Buddha legend and this work, but if I were, I would read both first before making a judgment based upon what some scholars say. But for the spiritual truths I would give the edition by the Institute of Greek and Byzantine Studies ('The Precious Pearl: The Lives of Saints Barlaam and Ioasaph') five stars.

[Nicolaj]

3.) The story is that of the Buddha who has a whole religion in the east, but there was much about his original life story, teaching, and ascetic practice that is in accord with Orthodoxy that the grace of God enfolded his life and presented those redeemed and laudable experiences and teachings as those of the Church under a variant from of his name/title Bottisatva/Josaphat, which basically would mean that God has revealed the one we know as Buddha, after proper filtration as a Saint of the Church.

To this point there is to say, that Jesus after dying on the Cross went to Scheol, where are the souls were gathered who died from Adam until that point. And he preached the souls there the Gospel and those who recognized the Son of God went to Heaven. It is also possible that the prince sitting there recognized Jesus as The Son of God and went to Heaven with him.

And furthermore I want to mention St. Paul here who preached to the pagans who build a temple for the unknown God, explaining them who they worshipped there. So if we don't have the assured resources to this and that saint, it does not mean automatically does we here have a saint who did not exist. And as we look up the Precious Pearl, we see a beautiful picture and yes there are some main places with the story of Buddha, but the story of wealthy persons and princes leaving all for Christ are more often found in the history of the Church and the lives of the Saints.

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Antonios]

I have just recently finished the book and enjoyed it so very much! Adrian is spot on in describing how it is a very readable catechism. I too would give that edition five stars.

As for the posts earlier in this thread expressing concern about the veracity of this writing and whether honoring such beautiful, obvious Spirit-guided works as being unprofitable and/or even dangerous, I would like to write something I just read today in the book entitled "Elder Paisios of the Mount Athos, Spiritual Counsels: With Pain and Love for Contemporary Man" (page 230):

I remember an elderly monk at Esphigmenou Monastery on Mount Athos, who was so simple, that he thought "Ascension" was the name of a women Saint. He prayed to her on his komboschoini, "Saint of God, intercede for us!" Once, he had to feed a sick Brother in the infirmary and had nothing to offer him. He immediately went down the stairs, opened a window overlooking the sea, stretched his arms out and said, "Ascension, my Saint, give me a little fish for the Brother." And right away, as if by miracle, a big fish jumped out of the sea and into his hands. The others who saw him were astonished, but he simply looked at them smiling, as if he were saying "What's so strange about what you've just seen?" And then look at us. We may know everything about the life and martyrdom of the Saints, or about when and how the Ascension took place and yet, we cannot even catch a tiny little fish! These are the strange and paradoxical things of the spiritual life, which the reasoning of those intellectuals that are centred on themselves and not on God, cannot explain, because their knowledge is of this world and sterile; their spirit is ill with secularism and their mind void of the Holy Spirit.

[Ryan]

The Institute of Greek and Modern Byzantine Studies edition is nice because of the commentary (by Bishop Augoustinos) and the beautiful iconographic line drawings. That said, Fr. Asterios (the "translator") has not really given us a fresh translation. If anyone compares this edition with the Woodward and Mattingly translation (published by Loeb Classical Library), he will notice that Fr. Asterios' version is in large part identical. What he has chiefly done is update some language he deemed archaic- for example, replacing "thou" and "thee" with "you." However, he has done this rather superficially, in my opinion, as a large portion of the text retains the archaic diction and syntax- for example, the use of the word "leech" as a synonym for "physician", or sentences beginning with the exclamation "lo!". Anyone who has trouble with "thou" and "thee" will not be helped by this update. The aesthetic qualities that remain are all courtesy of Woodward and Mattingly. So, I would say the Loeb edition is still not a bad choice, as it is slightly cheaper, easier to carry around, and stylistically consistent, AND it has the original Greek text for those who would want it.