The story of Barlaam and Josaphat is a historically well-documented case of religious syncretism, and universally recognized by scholars as a Christianized retelling of the life of Gautama Buddha. The Orthodox Church, however, continues to venerate Josaphat as a saint (feast day: November 19) and continues to pretend their similarity is nothing but an unfortunate coincidence. They have icons of Buddha under a Byzantine art style, and they break the second commandment by bowing to these images and offering them incense.
Here are some strong pieces of evidence proving the Orthodox borrowed the story of Buddha and added a Christian spin to it:
The Names:
In this context, the name Josaphat is derived from the Sanskrit Bodhisattva. The Sanskrit word was changed to Bodisav in Middle Persian texts in the 6th or 7th century, then to Būdhasaf or Yūdhasaf in an 8th-century Arabic document (Arabic initial “b” ﺑ changed to “y” ﻳ by duplication of a dot in handwriting). This became Iodasaph in Georgian in the 10th century, and that name was adapted as Ioasaph (Ἰωάσαφ) in Greece in the 11th century, and then was assimilated to Iosaphat/Josaphat in Latin.
The name Barlaam derives from the Arabic name Bilawhar (بِلَوْهَر) borrowed through Georgian (ბალაჰვარ Balahvar) into Byzantine Greek (Βαρλαάμ Barlaám).
The Story:
The core plot is a scene-by-scene match. No similar plot exists in any pre-Christian Greco-Roman or Jewish tradition. It is uniquely Buddhist.
- Both stories follow a prince (Josaphat / Bodhisatt), confined to a luxurious palace by his father, who fears a prophecy that the son will abandon the throne.
The prince secretly ventures outside and sees four things: an old man, a sick man, a dead body, and a peaceful ascetic.
Shocked by suffering, he renounces his wealth, wife, and kingdom.
He becomes an ascetic, is taught by a spiritual master (Barlaam / Bilawhar), reaches enlightenment (in Buddhism, Nirvana; in the Christian version, baptism and monasticism).
He later returns to convert his father and others.
The Parables are Borrowed Jātaka Tales
The Barlaam and Josaphat text includes embedded parables, such as:
The man who flees a unicorn (death) by falling into a pit with a tiger, a dragon, and a honey drip – a version of a Buddhist parable about impermanence.
These and other parables appear in Buddhist texts centuries earlier and are absent from pre-medieval Christian literature.
Traceable Historical Transmission
Scholars (e.g., I. V. Rachow, F. C. Conybeare, D. M. Lang) have traced the manuscript trail:
2nd–3rd century CE: Buddhist stories travel via the Silk Road.
3rd–4th century: Manichaeism adopts the Buddha’s biography as a prophet figure.
8th century: An Arabic Muslim version (Kitāb Bilawhar wa Būdhāsaf) appears.
8th century: John of Damascus translates an Arabic version into Greek as “The Story of Barlaam and Ioasaph.”
11th century: Greek version enters Orthodox hagiography.
The Obvious Conclusion:
Both stories originate from India, involving a prince of an Indian kingdom
- The name “Josaphat” is a direct linguistic equivalent of “Bodhisat”
Plot structure is identical – from royal seclusion to four encounters to renunciation
- Both heroes are princes raised in deliberate isolation to prevent a prophecy
Both encounter “Four Signs” (old age, sickness, death, and a holy ascetic) that shatter their ignorance
Both abandon a life of luxury, including a wife and palace, to seek spiritual truth
Both are guided by an elder sage (Barlaam / Bilawhar) who is a Christianized version of an Indian model
- The conversion narrative and moral parables within the story are adapted from Buddhist Jataka tales
Historical transmission from Buddhism → Manichaeism → Islam → Christianity is traceable
You would struggle to find a more explicit case of religious syncretism, where a religious group incorporates the gods of another religion into their own in order to appeal to a wider audience. It’s obvious that the Orthodox Church has stolen the story of Siddhartha Gautama and created a “Saint Buddha” while simultaneously gaslighting its faithful by denying the story’s origin. The Orthodox church is guilty of worshiping Buddha in the same way that Buddhists worship Buddha: by bowing to his image and offering incense to it. They are Buddhists.
But the Orthodox didn’t appropriate Buddha into their religion for the sole purpose of reading a wider audience; in reality they legitimately think Buddhism is cool. The Orthodox are infatuated with Eastern religions. All of their monks practice a Hindu prayer ritual called Hesychasm. When it was first introduced in the 14th century, it immediately became one of the biggest controversies in their church’s history. When you look at it this way, worshiping Buddha isn’t such a big stretch for them.