158 erik seldeslachts
in uence Buddhism and Christianity had on each other, as exchanges
may have taken place when their respective followers took refuge with
one another. Most exchanges, which by the way also involved other
philosophies and religions, did not, however, really affect the core of
the respective doctrines and did not lead to more than super cial con-
vergence. They were triggered by the shock of recognition experienced
by enthusiastic followers of, for example, Mahyna and Christianity
when confronted with each other’s teachings and stories, which were
then cleverly used as pieces of propaganda for one’s own sake.^137
More than on the literary or doctrinal level, indecisiveness still reigns
regarding the oft-alleged in uence of a series of Buddhist institutions
and practices, like monasticism, confession, the use of bells and incense
etc. on the origin of their Christian counterparts. However, ascribing
all commonalities to coincidence does not seem to be the most rational
conclusion here either.
- The Therapeutai: Buddhist Monks?
Although it has given rise to much speculation, the comparison
between the sect of the Therapeutai, and Buddhism is most interesting.
The Therapeutai are only known through Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20
BC–AD 50), who claims that they were widespread over many countries,
but had their principle centre in the vicinity of Alexandria in Egypt.^138
Church-historians from the fourth century onwards considered them
as Christians, but in view of their existence at the very beginning of
our era, this is improbable. Seeking the roots of the Therapeutai in
Alexandrian Judaism, late nineteenth century authors nevertheless
remarked that they had rules and traditions similar to those of Buddhist
monks.^139 Broadly, Philo gives the following information:
- there are not only male Therapeutai, but also female (Thera-
peutrides); - they give up all possessions as well as relations with family and
friends;
(^137) Derrett 2000, pp. 86–101.
(^138) Philo Alexandrinus, De vita contemplativa (ed. Cohn & Reiter 1915).
(^139) E.g., Mansel 1875, pp. 31–32.