Krishna and Christ; Who Came First? Which of Them is the Copycat Myth?

The similarities between Krishna and Christ have captured the attention of scholars for years.  The initial reaction by scholars like Weber and Hopkins was to suggest that the Krishna legends copied earlier Christian stories; and for good reason, because the Krishna legends most similar to Christ were developed after Christ.  Raychaudhuri in his book Materials for the Study of the Early History of the Vaishnava Sect states on page 3, “I have then tried to show that this Bhakti religion is not a plagiarism from Christianty, but owes its origin to Vasudeva.”  Raychaudhuri successfully does this in his book, but in the process, inadvertently destroys any hope an anti-Christian copycat theorist might have at proving Christianity to be a plagiarism from Vaishnavism.  He quotes Weber on page 86, saying, “Weber adds that ‘in the train of the birth-day festival we must suppose that other legendary matters came to India which are found in the accounts of the Harivamsa, of the Jaimini Bharata, and in some interpolated passages of the Mahabharata, in the Puranas, especially in the Bhagavata Purana and its offshoots which describe and embellish the birth and childhood of Krishna with notices which remind us irresistibly of Christian legends.  Take, for example, the statement of the Vishnu Purana that Nanda, the foster-father of Krishna, at the time of the latter’s birth, went with his pregnant wife Yasoda to Mathura to pay taxes (paralleled in Luke 2:4-5) or the pictorial representation of the birth of Krishna in the cowstall or shepherd’s hut, that corresponds to the manger, and of the shepherds, shepherdesses, the ox and the ass that stand round the woman as she sleeps peacefully on her couch without fear of danger.  Then the stories of the persecutions of Kamsa, of the massacre of the innocents (babies), of the passage across the river (Christophoros), of the wonderful deeds of the child, of the healing-virtue of the water in which he was washed, etc., etc.  Whether the accounts given in the Jaimini Bharata of the raising to life by Krishna of the dead son of Duhsala, of the cure of Kubja, of her pouring a vessel of ointment over him, of the power of his look to take away sin, and other subjects of the kind came to India in the same connection with the birth-day festival may remain an open question.’”



Dating the Krishna Related Writings

            To solve the question, it is necessary to date the legends.  In order to do this it is necessary to realize the historical situation in India.  The religion of the Bhagavadas, a devotional creed to Vasudeva, probably emerged before the 400’s BC (Raychaudhuri, 13, 18)  In the 330’s BC, Greek influence spread as Alexander swept across Persia.  The middle half of the 200’s BC was the reign of Asoka, in which Buddhism became the state religion.  The Buddhist antagonism towards the Brahman priesthood and the caste system caused religious tension between Buddhists and Hindus.  This tension continued for centuries.  Differing sects such as the Jains, Saivists, and Buddhists challenged the old Vedic Hinduism.  Finally, towards the beginning of the Gupta dynasty in the 300’s AD, a new form of Hinduism triumphed and the Vaishnava faith became standardized from a plethora of various religious groups.  It is generally agreed by most scholars that the Hindu texts dealing with Krishna’s legend did not reach their final form until halfway through the Gupta dynasty sometime around 350 – 500 AD.  Most of them were not even written until this time.  We will investigate the works that contain the Krishna legend as follows:

Vishnu Purana:  This work contains the geneology of the Gupta kings, and therefore could not have been finalized before 320 AD.  Hazra is positive the date of this purana is between 275 – 325 AD, while Winternitz agrees it is not later than the 400’s. (Jaiswal, 17)  Others agree it was probably written between 300 – 400 AD.  (sdmart.com)  Raychaudhuri agrees that it was probably written between 320 – 355 AD, and goes further by saying that the puranas that relate the Krishna story cannot be placed much before the Gupta kings, since the geneology of those kings is included. (Raychaudhuri, 91, 42)
Bhagavata Purana:  Hazra points out that the Vishnu Purana is a source for the Bhagavata Purana and believes its date to be between 500 – 550 AD, despite many who believe the date should be even later.  It embellishes the Vishnu Purana and is the most complete biography of Krishna.  Another generally accepted date for it is 800 – 1000 AD. (sdmart.org)  It includes myths about all ten of Vishnu’s avatars.
Harivamsa:  The work was revised and changed numerous times and adopted its current form sometime around 400 AD. (Jaiswal, 16)  It was added to the Mahabharata between 300-400 AD.  It tells the story of Krishna as a youth. (sdmart.com)


The Bhagavad Gita:  The Only pre-Christian Writing about Krishna

Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita:  The Mahabharata was an evolving work that probably started sometime in the 200’s BC and ended in the 400’s AD.  The work was constantly being added to, and it was corrupted so badly that we cannot be sure words were not interpolated hundreds of years later.  The Bhagavad Gita is part of the Mahabharata and is thought by many to be written sometime around 200 - 300 BC.  The familiarity with the Greeks as “famous fighters” places the Mahabharata after Alexander, and its alarm at the Buddhist edukas replacing Hindu temples makes a date around the time of Asoka likely.  The Romans are mentioned only in passing in a list of possible peoples, thus placing the epic probably before the time of Rome’s greatness.  (Raychaudhuri, 41, 42, 32)  Nevertheless, many still consider a post-Christian date for the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita possible in the range of 200 BC – 200 AD. (Banerjee, 45)  Pisani puts forward a strong argument that the Mahabharata was written between 100 - 300 AD, because it mentions Sakas (Scythians) who invaded around then, Parthians (Pahlavas) who had gained their independence from the Greeks, Huns (Hunas), and Romans (Romakas) who they had not established contact with before the time of Augustus.  However, Moti Chandra states that the Hunas were really the Hiungnu, not the Huns, and that India could have heard legends about all these groups previous to contact.  Furthermore, he points out that the Mahabharata mentions Antiochus, who ruled the Seleucids Empire in the 100’s BC.  Moti Chandra dates it in the 100’s BC.  The growing consensus for the Bhagavad Gita seems to be it was written in the 100’s BC, although some scholars place it earlier than that.  In any case, the Mahabharata was badly corrupted after its initial writing.  (Jaiswal, 12,13)  The pre-Christian date of the Bhagavad Gita is only a small victory for christmythers.  Although the Bhagavad Gita contains general metaphorical similarities to Christ’s discourses (especially as it relates to John’s gospel), there are no strong parallels with Christian legend that would indicate two legends evolved from the same story.  Stronger parallels occur in the much later works mentioned above.  In fact, all of the parallels mentioned below by the christmyth theorists come from post-Bhagavad Gita and post-Christian sources, with the exception of Krishna calling himself the “light” and the “beginning, middle, and the end,” a claim Krishna put forward in the Bhagavad Gita.


The Origins of Krishna Worship




The Hindu holy books have been mixed up, changed, interpolated, abridged, and some even lost.  (Banerjee, 22)  The date of final redaction of the Mahabharata, Ramayana, and the other Puranas extends from 500 AD – 1600 AD, according to Banerjee. (Banerjee, 56)  Vaishnava and the worship of Krishna did not really solidify into a standardized religion until the 300’s AD.  However, the legend pre-dated the religion, and many ancient people did not care if they polluted the legend with additions and changes.  To them they were not holy books yet – only novels for amusement and spiritual anecdotes that could freely be embellished.  Later they became revered as holy books.  At the earliest days of the Mahabharata, Krishna-Vasudeva was a superhero man-god who was, at best, loosely connected with Vishnu.  This was before Vishnu became the God of gods.  Krishna worship was antagonistic to the Brahman priesthood and to their chief Vedic god Indra.  The Brahmans later stole or agreed to borrow the myth and corrupted it to suit their own purposes.  In the face of the Buddhist and Jain competition which was undermining their power, and possibly with interference from the Bhagavata sect, the conservative religious leaders associated with Vedic Brahmanism took the myth originally created by the Bhagavatas and retold it to suit their own agenda.  Around five hundred years later, Vishnu became the God of gods and Rama and Krishna became his most beloved incarnations.  (Gonda, 154-167)  Banerjee says, “It (the Mahabharata) has gone through various recensions, many of which are the result of Brahmanical accretions.” (Banerjee, 44) The best way to fight a competing sect was to steal their mythology and rewrite it.  There is no telling how many different conflicting stories of Krishna were competing between 400 BC and 400 AD.



The Case for Christian Influence Upon Krishna Legends

Christian influence in India during the time of Krishna’s evolution is well known.  2% of India’s population today are Christians who trace their roots to the 1st century AD when the apostle Thomas allegedly evangelized in India.  Lorinser believed Christian communities and an Indian New Testament to exist in India in the 200’s AD. (Raychaudhuri, 92)  The Brahman priests could have absorbed Christian legend and re-wrote it the same way they did to the Bhagavatas.  Even if Christianity never penetrated India so early, Christian legends could have been absorbed other ways.  The Hindus have a long history of absorbing foreign mythology.  Krishna was killed by an arrow in the foot because his foot was the only vulnerable spot on his body.  This sounds like the much older Achilles myth of Homer’s Iliad.  One of Krishna’s 180,000 children was Pradyumna, who was swallowed by a large fish in the ocean and was later removed when a fisherman’s wife cut open the fish.  This sounds faintly like the story of Jonah at the time of Assyrian Nineveh (700-400 BC), which pre-dates all the Krishna legends.  The story of Matsya, the first incarnation of Vishnu, is too much like the Gilgamesh and Noah flood legends to ignore.  Gilgamesh and Genesis date at least 1400 years or so before Vishnu was even considered a great god, let alone the 500+ years after that when the Bhagavata Purana finalized the ten avatars of Vishnu. (Gupta, 32-35)  Some Indians honored Herakles (Hercules?) as a god in the 300’s BC.  Despite his quest to prove Krishna worship is relatively free from outside tales, Raychaudhuri tells us that the “rank growth of legend” has obscured the historical Krishna, Buddha, and Asoka. (Raychaudhuri, 23-24)  In the true Hindu spirit of inclusive religion, the Indians absorbed ancient myths bouncing around the ancient world and synthesized them into their own religion.



Similarities Between Christ and Krishna

We now move to specific “similarities” as defined by the christmyth theorists.

Keep in mind, the Bhagavad Gitais the only scripture related to Krishna worship that likely predates Jesus Christ’s life on earth.

Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki (“Divine One”)  This is just plain false.  Krishna was the eighth child of Devaki and her husband, the first six being killed by Kamsa because Devaki and her husband were making babies together in jail at the time of her pregnancies.  The seventh child was magically transported to somebody else’s womb, and it was also an incarnation of Vishnu. (Gupta, 28)  The name “Divine One” is not similar to Christianity, since Mary was never called “Divine One” in the New Testament.  The story is not mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita and therefore is probably post-Christian in origin.
Krishna’s father was a carpenter.  This fact is not mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita.
Krishna’s birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Again, we must assume a post-Christian time of origin for this myth since it is nowhere mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita.
Krishna was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.  It is not uncommon for kings to kill off all potential competitors.  History is filled with such atrocities.  Furthermore, a similar legend can be found in the story of Moses which happened about 1000 – 1200 years before the legend of Krishna started to take form.  The tyrant pharaoh killed all Hebrew male children. (Exodus 1:22)  During his escape from Kamsa, baby Krishna touches the water of the flooded Yamuna River and parts the waters, much like Moses parted the Red Sea. (Exodus 14:16-22)  Vasudeva then carried baby Krishna across the river in a basket, reminiscent of the way Moses’ mother put him into a basket before placing the basket in the Nile River. (Exodus 2:3)(Gupta, 28)  In any case, Kamsa’s motivation for killing Krishna was not at all like pharaoh’s and Herod’s attempts to kill Moses and Jesus.  A sage had predicted Kamsa’s death at the hands of Devaki’s son.  It was for this reason that he imprisoned Devaki and her husband, killed their first six children, and continued to murder other children after Krishna’s escape.  The Krishna story has the tyrant Kamsa being Krishna’s uncle, and the slaughter is ongoing. (Gupta, 28-29)  The story itself is very likely post-Christian given the late standardization of all texts that tell the story of Krishna and the fact that it is nowhere mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita, but even if it could be proven that the story was written earlier, there is much reason to believe it was borrowed from Exodus or simply evolved independently.
Krishna was of royal descent.  A lot of legendary heroes are from royal descent.  This similarity is too general.  Actually, many believe that the historical Krishna might have been a kshatriya warlord/prince.  The kshatriyas are the warrior caste in Hindu society.
Krishna was baptized in the River Ganges.  Again, this is post-Christian in origin because it is not mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita.
Krishna worked miracles and wonders.  The similarity is too general.  A lot of heroes did this.
Krishna raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf, and the blind.  The Jaimini Bharata mentions the raising to life of the dead son of Duhsala, but the Jaimini Bharata dates well into the Christian era, so the direction of the borrowing could very well go the other way.
Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.  Again, this is too general.
Krishna was transfigured in front of his disciples. The gods often take various forms that could be called “transfiguration.”  This is too general.
Scholars reject the notion that Krishna was a vegetation deity who periodically died and rose with the seasons. (Gonda, 158)
In some traditions, Krishna died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.  The real story is that Krishna was killed in a hunting accident - by an arrow in the foot, and that he was, coincidentally, resting under a tree when it happened. (Gupta, 32)  The Bhagavad Gita does not mention the death of Krishna, his rising, or ascension.
Krishna rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.  Krishna did not ascend into heaven in bodily form the way Acts 1 records the ascension of Jesus.  As to the resurrection of Krishna, the full story goes like this:  After his death, Krishna’s bones were dug up and given to a woodworker who made an idol of Krishna.  The idol was half completed before the woodworker abandoned it, but Brahma gave it a soul anyway.  Its name is Jagannatha and is always in the company of his brother and sister/concubine.  (Gupta, 38)  Notice the dissimilarity to the Jesus story.  Unlike Krishna, whose bones are found, Jesus’ body is never found. (Luke 24:2-3) Unlike Krishna who’s body becomes the inspiration for an idol, Jesus and his followers hated idolatry. (1 John 5:21, 1 Corinthians 10:14)  Unlike Jagannatha who is not really the same person or soul as Krishna, Jesus was the same person in bodily form after his resurrection.  The myth is completely dissimilar, and again, it is not found in the Bhagavad Gita.
Krishna is called the “Shepherd God” and “Lord of lords” and was considered “the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word,” as well as “Beginning, Middle and the End.”  These titles are no different from what any  religion would claim for their God.  Krishna was not a shepherd, he was a cowherd.  Furthermore, Jesus was neither a shepherd nor a cowherd.  Jesus Christ is sometimes called “Good Shepherd” because of the messianic prophecies such as Zechariah 13:7 which pre-date the Bhagavad Gita.  Krishna was not the firstborn, as already discussed above, he had six siblings before him.  It is a generally accepted fact that John purposefully chose the term “Word” or “Logos” because the pagans were familiar with it, as it was used by them to describe God’s message.  The matter here is not one of copycats, but an issue of speaking to someone in a language they could understand.  The phraseology might be similar, but language used to describe God is expected to be similar anyway.
Krishna is the second person of the trinity.  First of all, Vishnu is the second person of the Hindu “trinity,” and Krishna was only one of ten avatars of Vishnu.  Secondly, the Hindu trinity (or “trimurti” as it is more properly called) evolved after the New Testament was written.  The Hindu trimurti is modalistic in that each member works independently of the other and towards different and conflicting goals.  Brahma is creator, Vishnu is sustainer, and Shiva is destroyer.  Jesus consistently told everyone his Father was greater than he, but Hindus, especially Vaishnavists, regard Vishnu as greater and more loveable than the other two.  Other Hindus, called Saivists, worship Shiva as the God of gods.  Shiva’s iconography typically includes the penis.  Unfortunately for Brahma - the first member of the Hindu “trinity” - not much devotion is paid to him.  Beyond these three is a Supreme Being called by various names such as Satchhidananda, Vasudeva, Universal Soul, Atman = Brahma, etc, etc, and this Supreme Being bears more resemblance to the Christian notion of the Father than do any of the other three.  The Hindu trimurti is definitely three people with personalities and conflicting interests, while the Christian trinity is comprised of three personae, which should not be translated “individual persons” but should rather be translated as “masks,” “manifestations,” or “hypostasis” of God.  They work together, not separately on different tasks.
The trimurti solidified after the time of Christ, and with it, Vishnu’s place as the second member of the Hindu trimurti.  In the Rig Veda, Vishnu is called the doorkeeper of the gods, which means he was devoted to some higher god. (Gonda, 93) He is ordered around by Indra. (Raychaudhuri, 8)  Hindus consider the Vedas scripture, but the Mahabharata, Bhagavad Gita, the Puranas, and other epics and codes are regarded as holy books with less authority. (Banerjee, 20)  Hence, the worship of Vishnu as the God of gods seems contrary to their own scriptures.  In the Vedas, Indra, Agni, and Soma are far greater than Brahma and Shiva.  Although Jesus does have a similarity with Vishnu in that they both are the primary source of God’s incarnation(s), the concept of avatar was still evolving well into the Christian era.  The Ramayana was written in the 200’s BC when Indra was still the chief god, but Rama was not identified with Vishnu until a later chapter was added to the Ramayana around 150 – 200 AD. (Jaiswal, 8,9)  The trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva is generally considered to be a very late arrival to the Mahabharata because it is a product of syncretism. (Jaiswal, 21)  Krishna and Vishnu were “long in fusing” because the Bhagavad Gita emphasizes Krishna’s identity with Vasudeva-Narayana more than that with Vishnu. (Gonda, 158-159)  The trimurti is post-Vedic and associated with the Puranas. (Banerjee, 67)  The Bhagavad Gita is the only source for the Krishna legend that could possibly be dated before the time of Christ.  In it, Krishna says, “I am Vishnu,” but also says in the same place, “I am Indra,” “I am the god of destruction (Shiva?)” and “I am the moon, I am the mind, I am the light.” (Bhagavad Gita 10:21) He also frequently calls himself the creator (Brahman?)  It is obvious that Krishna can be associated with all three of the trimurti members, along with other gods and everything in general.  After all, God is everything in pantheism.  Vaishnavism and the notion that Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu in particular does not appear until after the Christian era.  Altogether, the Hindu “trinity” is nothing like the Christian trinity, and the Hindu “trinity” was still evolving centuries after Christ.

Krishna is to return to do battle with the “Prince of Evil,” who will desolate the earth.  Again, the statement confuses Krishna with Vishnu.  The tenth and final avatar of Vishnu is Kalki, who rides on a white horse and wields a blazing sword.  He will kill his enemies and then establish a golden age from the ruins of the earth. (Gupta, 39) The obvious comparison is to Revelation 19:11-16, but similar ideas come from the prophetic books of the Old Testament which obviously predate the Hindu legends.  See Zechariah 9:9-10, Daniel 7:13.  Furthermore, Kalki is one of the last avatars to be ascribed to Vishnu. (Raychaudhuri, 105)  He is found in the Harivamsa, which dates to about 400 AD, and also in the Vayu Purana which dates from 200 – 500 AD. (Jaiswal, 129, 16, 17)  Kalki first appears in Mahabharata 3,190,94 where he is called “Kalkin-Visnuyasas.”  The fact that he rides on a horse is probably due to the fact that Vishnu is often associated with horses. (Gonda, 147-149)  In any case, the legend of Kalki cannot be proven to have existed before Christ.


Christ and Krishna:  The Differences

Krishna is not that similar to Christ outside of a few borrowed stories.  In fact, the totality of Krishna's story is quite different from that of Christ. The following exploits of Krishna are taken from Shakti Gupta’s Book, Vishnu and His Incarnations, p. 28-38.

Krishna is known for pranks such as petty theft and vandalism.
He encouraged women to leave their husbands and children for him.
Unlike Jesus who never married or had kids, Krishna displayed his voracious sexual appetite by having 16,000 wives and 180,000 sons - not to mention the daughters.
As a child, Krishna sucked a woman’s breast so hard that he killed her.  She had tried to poison him.
Krishna stole worship away from the chief Vedic deity Indra, who was Vishnu’s superior in Vedic times.  He thus displayed a thirst for power and a competition with other gods.
He cursed his wives to be abducted by bandits because they lusted for his grandson.
He fought his “trinity” partner Shiva in combat.
Krishna’s poor behavior is justified by the notion that everything, both good and evil, is God, and Krishna is God. Indeed, this is consistent with pantheism.
Krishna stole the bride of a man who had three eyes and four arms.
When the man fought Krishna for his bride, Krishna “forgave” the man 100 times before killing him.
The man went to heaven because he was always thinking about God (Krishna) - even though in hatred.
Such is Krishna's story, a mixture of pantheistic metaphysical speculation with outrageous stories that amuse our base instincts, founded in the name of a legendary warrior-cowboy unknown to verifiable history.

The earliest source for Krishna comes from the Bhagavad Gita. Its teachings are not much similiar to Christianity.  The language of the Bhagavad Gita is in some ways similiar to John's Gospel, but there are no borrowed myths between them and they differ widely on belief.  Krishna teaches reincarnation, but John indicates that Jesus rejected the notion of karma and reincarnation, saying that people are not punished in their next life for sins in a previous life (Bhagavad Gita 2:12-13, 4:5 vs. John 9:1-3).  Krishna acknowledges that faith and love are more important than works and wisdom, but he says that a soul must be reincarnated a few more times to reach perfection even after the soul has faith – unlike Jesus who taught salvation occurred at the point of faith.  (Bhagavad Gita 6:37-47 vs. Luke 23:39-43)  Krishna identifies himself with other gods and tolerates the worship of other gods as one of many legitimate methods of worship, although not the best method. This differs widely from John's teachings on idolatry and indeed from all the Bible, which is pervasively intolerant towards the worship of other gods besides our covenant God.  (Bhagavad Gita 9:23-25, 10:21 vs. 1 John 5:21)  Unlike the Bhagavad Gita, the Christian scriptures never assert that all gods come from a single Godhead. For Krishna, time is circular and the end of the age is unclear.  For Jesus, history has a purpose with a definite end.  (Bhagavad Gita 9:7-8 vs. Matthew 24:3-35)  Jesus recognizes a transcendent God greater than his own personal avatar and recognizes an authority higher than himself.  Krishna seems to make no distinction between his own personal avatar and the transcendent Godhead.  (John 14:28-31) Although the Bhagavad Gita is similiar to John's Gospel in terms of metaphors and discourse, it is only a similiarity of style, not of belief. The other Gospels and the rest of the Bible are neither similiar in style nor belief to the Bhagavad Gita.

Bibliography

Banerjee, Invitation to Hinduism.  Humanities Press Inc. Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey.  1978

The Bhagavad Gita.

Gonda, J., Aspects of Early Visnuism.  Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.  1969

Gupta, Shakti M., Vishnu and His Incarnations.  Somaiya Publications Ltd., Bombay.  1974

Jaiswal, Suvira, The Origin and Development of Vaisnavism (Vaisnavism from 200 B.C. to A.D. 500).  Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, Delhi.  1967

Raychaudhuri, Hemchandra, Materials for the Study of the Early History of the Vaishnava Sect.  Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers.  New Delhi.  1975