This is a misleading comparison. The vipassana-only movement is a modern trend which originated in 20th century Myanmar and has been influential only since then. The idea that people before the Buddha practiced jhana is accepted in all Buddhist traditions for 2500 years. Obviously they can be wrong, but there needs to be evidence.
(A better comparison would be the idea of the bodhisattva, but I digress.)
Yes, on both counts. I’ve already given examples, but the Parayanavagga and the account of the Buddha’s early practice are two. Another would be the Agganna Sutta:
These beings build leaf huts in a wilderness region where they meditate (jhāyanti) pure and bright, without lighting cooking fires or digging the soil. They come down in the morning for breakfast and in the evening for supper to the village, town, or royal capital seeking a meal.
Note that, while we cannot say exactly what meditation state a person is attaining, we can say that the Buddha gave a strong emphasis that to support jhana you need to practice a renunciant lifestyle, which is exactly what is described here.
Likewise, in DN 17 King Sudassana entered the four jhanas:
Then he entered the great foyer and sat on the golden couch. Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, he entered and remained in the first absorption, …
And of course there is what is probably the most influential detail, which is that rebirth in the brahma and higher realms requires jhana, and given that many of those gods are depicted as being not Buddhists, it seems clear the assumption was that they had practiced jhana in the past.
See, here’s the thing. You can pick apart any detail you like. But if you listen to what the texts are saying, on the somewhat rare occasions when they do discuss the meditation of the “best of” pre-Buddhist meditators, it is basically always described in terms are jhana, or that sound similar to jhana, or which describe a lifestyle conducive to jhana. It seems to me the natural conclusion is that folks before the Buddha were in fact, practicing jhana, even if it was rare. There seems zero historical, doctrinal, or textual reason to think otherwise.
The texts are the evidence.
I have discussed these many times, and I suspect that if you are not satisfied with my explanations, there is little I can do to change your mind.