Saints Barlaam and Josaphat

[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.