Was the story of Christ merely a composite creation composed of a conflation of every other mythological character of antiquity (was there ever really an historical Jesus, or was he simply a creation of the forgers of the church)?
The argument of ‘the silence of history' is only one of the evidences that is put forward to suggest that Christ never existed. The second argument concerns ‘borrowing' and emphasizes what are alleged to be remarkable similarities between the Christ story and the stories of other ancient religions. These similarities are alleged to prove that the story of Christ is nothing more than a composite of countless other religious tales, thus entirely mythological, and the results of the efforts of church fathers, who forged almost every document of the early church.
There is no doubt that the church practiced syncretism on a grand scale throughout its history. there is no doubt that there are similarities between Christian dogma and theology as it evolved through the ages and absorbed the religions it encountered. For example, December 25 was a pagan festival associated with the cult of Mitras, and it was adopted by the church as the birthday of Christ. The icon of Isis (or Asherah) cradling the infant Horus was co-opted by the church and became the famous icon of the Madonna and infant Jesus. Icons and images of ancient cultic gods were literally baptized by the church, and then became saints in the ever expanding pantheon of heaven. Both Jewish and Church Testament writers held to the belief that the dead were DEAD (sleeping in Church Testament language) and it is clear that these passages required nullification and the church found it necessary to create a ‘ghost heaven' populated by the spirits of interceding saints in order to absorb the gods of other religions, not to mention the adherents of other religions, into the Christian church. By placing these gods turned saints into a ghostly, spiritual heaven the church could assign them a useful role and keep them busy, and satisfy the demands of followers of other cultic practices.
There is no debate about whether or not the church practiced syncretism throughout history, since the evidence that it took place is indisputable. What has always been at issue is whether or not the documents of the Church Testament were an amalgamation of various traditions. My position on the issue is already covered on the Bible pages on this site. The gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles show clear signs of syncretism, and the adoption of the Greek notion of logos in the gospel of John is another example of the same sort of thing. The gospel of Matthew shows evidence of syncretism as well, as can be seen by the constant attempts to tie the story of Christ to earlier Jewish traditions by clumsily taking lines of prophecy out of context (attempting to relate Christ to Moses by inventing a fictional massacre of infants and citing an out of context misquoted fragment of prophecy to justify the tale, as just one example. This practice is prevalent in Matthew's gospel). It is clear that both Matthew's gospel and Luke's gospel were dependant on Mark's gospel, which it then follows was the first written, and that both were written as a response to Mark's gospel. There is no doubt a few 'urban myths' spun into Mark's gospel as well, but it is earlier than the other three. For this reason, and because there is evidence for syncretism in Matthew, Luke, and John, I will briefly relate the narrative of Christ as it is given in Mark's gospel and use this as a point of comparison in the discussion that follows.
According to Mark, Christ was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan. (There is no mention of a virgin birth. This notion was first introduced by Matthew and then greatly expanded upon by Luke.) After John was arrested Christ began his ministry. He gathered his twelve disciples and then began to preach in the synagogues of Capernaum. (In otherwords, his ministry began in Gentile territory, and this brings Mark into conflict with one school of thought in Matthew, those who insisted that Christ was sent only to the ‘lost sheep of Israel'.) He began doing healings and became notorious in Galilee. At this point Mark begins to allude to the radical school of the Jewish prophets, a point he makes explicit in Chapter 7 where he charges the Pharisees and scribes with 'nullifying the prophets for the sake of their human traditions.' These human traditions were found in the first five books of the Bible, and the prophets being 'nullified' included Jeremiah.
"Thus says YAHWEH of hosts, the God of Israel, "Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat the flesh yourselves. For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices....Now my people do not know the requirements of God. How can you say, 'we are wise, for we have the laws of God', when, behold, the lying pen of the scribes has worked falsely." (Jeremiah Chapter 7 verse 21, Chapter 8 verse 7)
It is this radical outlook that will inform Mark's gospel from this point on, and in order to properly understand the parables that compose the book, you must be aware that this radical tradition existed. The scribes and Pharisees were reactionaries and in Mark's gospel, Christ was a radical and a rebel. Soon enough Christ came into conflict with the religious authorities for freely forgiving people of their sins. (Keep in mind, that in traditional Judaism, getting sins forgiven required the payment of money in the temple and the sacrifice of animals, and the growing animosity this practice of ‘forgiving sins' generated can be understood). He began associating with ‘prostitutes, tax collectors, and sinners' and once again this practice angered the religious authorities of his day. (Keep in mind that the ancient Jewish religion advocated the stoning of sinners and also encapsulated a notion of ‘uncleanness', a kind of contamination one could expect to take on in any encounter with ‘unclean people'.) He did not keep the fasts, and once again was attacked for the practice by the priests, and he justified the practice by saying ‘no one puts new wine into old wine skins', a rejection of orthodoxy that wasn't likely to go over well with those in power in the temple.
Immediately after committing all these offences, and getting himself into hot water each time, Christ and his disciples went picking corn on the Sabbath. (Keep in mind that those who violated the Sabbath were to be stoned to death, and as the law clearly spelled out, this included those who did such things as pick up a few sticks for a fire, so certainly corn picking on the Sabbath was out.) Christ responded with a polemic condemning religious rules (David ate the sacred bread that was only for priests...the Sabbath was made for people, and people were not created for the Sabbath). Christ then promptly proceeded to break the Sabbath again, causing great anger and consternation among the priests, who adamantly insisted that he should do his work some other day. At this time, the priests were so enraged that they began plotting with Herod to kill Christ.
Christ gave authority to his disciples. When his family heard about how he was behaving they decided he had gone insane and came to seize him. (This brings Mark into conflict with Luke and John, who both insist that Mary was in on the whole business right from the start. Mark also introduces the concept of the rejection of Joshua's family, and Mary, his mother. 'Who is my mother or my family-those who do the will of God.' It is implied by the context, following his families attempt to have him put in what passed for a 'mental ward' in those days, that his family and his mother did not do the will of God. Later Mark will insist that even after Christ raised the dead, his family had such powerful unbelief that they literally drained his healing powers and left him impotent, and this counts as particularly strong attack in Mark's gospel, where every point is made by carefully juxtaposing parables-in this case the raising of the dead parable placed immediately beside the parable of the unbelief of Christ's family. In short, Christ's family gets short work in the Gospel of Mark. See the page The Gospel of Mark - A Rebel and a Radical for more details.) The priests insisted that Christ was filled with the devil. This is followed by a parable of sowing seeds, a parable concerning not hiding a light under a basket (which would be stupid), and as Mark insists, he never preached anything without using parables (which brings Mark's account into conflict with John, where he speaks like a Greek philosopher.) After the healing of a maniac the people of the area wanted nothing more than to get rid of Christ, so he left the area in a boat. This is followed by a few more tales of healing, at which time the people began to say ‘who does he think he is?' Christ organized his disciples and dispatched them to different towns in an attempt to spread his message further and more quickly than could be done by a single man. This got the attention of Herod, and at this point the narrative is interrupted to relate the story of the beheading of John the Baptist.
Mark relates a few more healing stories, and then conflict once again breaks out between Christ and the priests over the observance of ceremonial and ritual law. Mark alludes to the sermons the prophets delivered condemning the Torah, and then Christ explicitly condemns the food laws and the ‘clean unclean' regulations, chastising his disciples for being so ‘dim witted' that they had not figured this out for themselves. (Paul was familiar with this tradition, referring to it in the 14th chapter of Romans the 14th verse, and as other epistles testify, it was the subject of hot controversy in the early church). In response to Christ's rule breaking and disrespect for tradition the religious leaders demand a sign (this is sarcasm on Mark's part, placed as it is next to a narrative describing many signs).
At this point Christ announced to his disciples that he would be killed by the religious authorities, and attests to his faith that God would justify him by raising him from the dead. Mark then introduces a polemical parable showing Christ 'transformed' before the disciples while standing in the presence of Moses and Elijah (Moses symbolizing the law and Elijah symbolizing the prophets, with the parable functioning as an 'endorsement' of Christ - that he would be endorsed by the Jewish prophets would come as no surprise, since he carried on the radical prophetic tradition, but that he would be endorsed by Moses is a different matter, and by presenting the two together, Mark is suggesting that he would be.)
Christ's disciples were unable to heal, and he rebuked them for lack of faith. The priests began to ask him hard questions about passages in the Bible. Christ and disciples then began the climactic trip to Jerusalem. Christ entered Jerusalem on a donkey, while some of his supporters greeted him waving palm branches. His first act in Jerusalem was to launch an attack on the temple. Mark sandwiches this attack between the story of a withered fig tree. The fig tree is cursed, the temple is cursed, and then the fig tree is shown withered. Mark includes within the temple story two symbols - money and pigeons. (It was required of women that they purchase a pigeon once a month to sacrifice in the temple to 'atone for the sin of menstruation' . When viewed in the context of the rest of Christ's rule breaking and radical acts that Mark portrays in his gospel, it is obvious that these symbols are intended to be understood as a cursing of the temple, and in particular a cursing of the pigeon sacrifice, a practice that would have been costly for the average person and the object of some resentment - in particular if a person had many daughters. This parable of the cursed pigeon sacrifice also alludes back to a former parable in the gospel where Christ is touched by a women who had been menstruating non stop for decades, and was an outcast and pariah under the religious system of Levitical regulations. The two parables are linked, an unclean menstruating woman breaks the clean unclean of Leviticus by touching Christ, and then Christ sacks the temple and curses the menstruation pigeon sacrifice.) This attack on the temple system so enraged the priesthood that they began looking for an opportunity to put Christ to death. 'By what authority do you think that you are doing these things,' they demanded to know. Christ responded to their challenge by telling the crowds parables on the subject of the overthrow of the priesthood, and this challenge led to the first attempt to arrest him.
More bickering over the interpretation of Bible passages follows, and Christ warned the people to beware of the teachings of the priesthood. This is followed by Mark's mini-apocalypse and predictions of persecution and hostility for followers of Christ. More conflict with the religious authorities follows and then Mark relates his version of the Judas tradition. This is followed by the narrative of the arrest and crucifixion (on a trumped up charge of blasphemy for he called God 'my father'. There are echoes here of the teachings of the prophet Hosea who taught that the day would come when people would address God in intimate terms instead of referring to God as 'Baal', which means 'my Lord and Master'. The appellation 'Lord' and 'Master' are favorite expressions in Matthew's gospel along with that of 'slave', which is one of the major differences found between Mark and Matthew.) "Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, "You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not to be that way among you." (Mark 10:42) It is interesting to note that Mark portrays this particular breach of tradition as reason for the crucifixion when Christ had already committed so many other religious offences. This doctrinal offence can be viewed as a kind of summation of everything that went before (a rejection of religious authority and the system of religious rules in favor a relationship of trust and faith).
Mark's gospel ends abruptly with the women discovering an empty tomb and a young man in white linen. 'They were afraid and told no one.' (The passages which follow this section do not appear in the early manuscripts and were added later by the church. These passages include an expanded passion narrative and some foolish advice about handling snakes and drinking poison.).
Before considering the story of Krishna a brief discussion of Hinduism and the general parallels found in religious development seems in order. There are some clear parallels in the development of Hinduism and early Judaism, as well as some striking dissimilarities. In its earliest phase it included the worship of sacred groves and animals and a version of ‘Mother Goddess worship' (the ‘Asherah' worship so often mentioned in the Bible. The other practices are also documented in the Bible - see the first ten chapters of Jeremiah for example.) Early Indian society was disrupted by the invasion from the west of the Aryans who brought western ideas to the east and eastern ideas to the west and there are as a result similarities in both language (they all belong to the same family of languages) and also in religious concepts in European, Mediterranean, and the Indian subcontinent. Like the early people of Palestine before them, the religion entered into a period of priestly religion, Vedism, also known as Brahmanism, which included the sacrifice of animals in the fire, a necessary rite to propitiate a pantheon of gods, and the source of power and influence of the priestly class, as well as ritual purification and cleansing rites and regulations, and the establishment of a literary tradition in which were encapsulated both the ritual practices and the philosophical outlook of the Brahmans. One notable difference in the sacrificial rites which distinguishes these traditions is that in Judaism sacrifices were tied to a feeling of guilt over sins, and fueled a consequent desire to propitiate the gods, and in Brahmanism the sacrifice helped to keep the entire universe running smoothly (in both cases the function of the priest was thus justified and seen as necessary to survival). A belief unique to the eastern religion was that of reincarnation and an accompanying doctrine of ‘salvation' (moksha), a breaking free of the cycle of rebirth and death.
The Hindu religion also experienced a protest phase as did Judaism, with critics appearing who denied the validity of the ritual texts (most famous among them the Buddha) and who were highly critical of the social system. Both Buddhism and Jainism (two of these protest movements) arose in India at about the same time that the prophets were protesting in Israel, an interesting example of synchronicity. Hinduism responded to the challenge by evolving and changing, and eventually developed a complex set of rules and laws governing life (a similar process took place in ancient Israel, where, contrary to traditional dogma, significant parts of the Torah are of late dating, emerging in the period after the prophetic period and the exile.)
Among notable differences in thought between Judaism and Hinduism, is the Hindu notion of ‘God' (Brahman) as impersonal, although it can incarnate (for example in the many incarnations of the god Vishnu). The human soul (atman) is considered to be of the same nature as this great principle, and all life emanates from this source, and if one is achieves freedom (moksha) from the great cycle of life and rebirth (Samsara), one is liberated and returns to this source. This can be contrasted with the traditional belief in Judaism that when one was dead one was simply dead, and as Jewish beliefs in an after life evolved the notion of bodily resurrection evolved accordingly. Traditional Judaism was thus materialistic in outlook. Hindus are not ‘polytheistic' in the strictest sense, in that Brahman is ‘the ONE' yet capable of manifesting in millions of different forms (this might be compared to the notion of One God, in Christian thought, with the Holy Spirit manifesting in many millions of people, or to the Christian notion of ‘three gods' (a trinity) which are held to simply be manifestations of The ONE.) The notion of ‘sin' is also emphasized in Judaism which contrasts with the notion of ‘liberation' from the bondage of life in Hindu thought. Like the Jews, the Hindus also developed a concept of divine law (dharma) with the goal of human life thought to be to bring oneself in line with these cosmic principles (there is overlap then between the Jewish Wisdom tradition and Hindu notions of divine law and cosmic order).
The story of Krishna's birth is found in the Mahabharata Harivamsa. This is one of the more popular and celebrated poems in the Hindu religion and narrates the ‘lineage' (hari) of Krishna. It is included in the Mahabharata although it is generally considered to be a later dating than the epic itself. It is interesting to note that the Mahabharata is a composition whose constituent parts span a millennia, with the poem finally coming into its final form around the fourth or fifth century A.D., and with the birth narrative of Krishna considered one of the later additions. If there were any astonishing parallels between the birth narrative of Krishna and that of Christ (and there simply are not) then it could be considered an example of Christian traditions influencing Hindu traditions. This did not happen, and the Krishna birth narrative developed on entirely independent lines.
It has been suggested that parallels exist between the story of Christ and almost every god or hero of antiquity. The absurd claim, first made by Kersey Graves, that almost every god of antiquity was crucified, is one example of this sort of thing that is now flying around the web. (If you follow the link on the bottom of this page and actually read Graves book for yourself, you will see that Graves makes unfounded assertions-that is all they are, undocumented, unresearched, unfounded assertions, plain and simple. Graves was the one who crucified all sixteen saviors himself, plain and simple. If you note that no credible scholarship supports this unfounded assertion, it will be suggested that there is a great conspiracy of silence among scholars, but when you consider how critical some of the members of the Jesus Seminar are, for example, if such an assertion was true, they would have promoted it relentlessly by now, and, unlike Graves they would have documented their assertions. They did not, because they cannot. Only Graves considers crucifying sixteen saviors himself to be a form of scholarship. Only Graves dispatches 'three wise men' to visit 'saviors' among hundreds of other undocumented and unfounded pure one hundred per cent assertions this man made, and I am constantly astounded to find Graves fables all over the place on the web.)
For the purposes of this discussion, and to illustrate the principle that you should not automatically believe everything you hear, I am going to analyze briefly only one of these supposed parallels. The following has been suggested by a recent author. ‘The legend of Jesus nearly identically parallels the story of Krishna, for example, even in detail.' (The source for this particular assertion is once again, Kelsey Graves.) I am not particularly enthused about investigating every figure of antiquity (but life is long, I have plenty of time, and tomorrow is another day). For the purposes of this essay I will limit myself to examining the claims made in regards to the supposed relationship between Christ and Krishna.
The supposed parallels between the characters are alleged to include what follows (if you read Graves book you will find a long, undocumented list of parallels, many of which are completely false-this is a small sample of some of the more popular falsehoods flying around the net): Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki , His father was a carpenter, His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh, He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants, he was a miracle worker, he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves, He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. Krishna is called the "Shepherd God" and "Lord of lords," and was considered "the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word , He was considered the "Beginning, the Middle and the End," ("Alpha and Omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent (note: he was called most of these things but the Gita, the source for all these appellations, dates from around 200 to 400 A.D. so why these points are mentioned as evidence for ‘borrowing' is a good question). Every other point in the above list is false, except for one. Similar claims are made for the Buddha, and as I mentioned, just about any other mythic character who ever existed anywhere at any time on the planet. (Please note that the Buddha was not crucified.) As well the claim that the Krishna story and the Christ story are ‘identical, even in detail' proves to be utterly false, in fact, as I will demonstrate, the narratives have almost NOTHING in common that I have seen, if you contrast the basic schema of the gospel account in Mark with the story of Krishna. (Parallels that do exist between the later Krishna of Gita developments in Christian theology I am going to ignore for the purpose of this essay, since this would be evidence of borrowing and syncretism in the reverse direction, (or perhaps even both ways, in a circular pattern) and not relevant to our discussion. I am not interested in Christian theology, but wish to restrict myself to the issue of the historical Christ and the Christ myth. That the Christian theology of later centuries shows much evidence of syncretism is not a point I dispute, its just irrelevant to me.) You can reread the summation of the gospel narrative of the life of Christ given above, to refresh your memory, and then compare it with the story of Krishna, which follows.
Krishna's mother was Devaki. Devaki's husband, Vasudeva, was part of the Yadava clan, who were pastoral shepherds (he was not a carpenter, but rather was a nobleman). After the couple were married, the evil uncle Kamsa heard a voice from heaven which told him that the eighth child of the couple would be his murderer. (Kamsa was a vicious tyrant, who even persecuted and murdered the religious and the wise men, and it got to the point that the gods could tolerate him no more.) Infuriated by the oracle, Kamsa turned on Devaki, to kill her, but she offered instead to hand over the lives of her children to Kamsa. To make sure that nothing would go amiss, Devaki and Vasudeva would live the next years of their lives in Kamsa's prison. The first six children Vasudeva delivered Kamsa promptly killed. Vasudeva then conceived her seventh child who was born at night, while the guards were sleeping, giving Vasudeva the opportunity to carry the infant to safety with his relatives (Kamsa was convinced that the child was stillborn, and since it was the eighth child that concerned him most, this explanation satisfied him). Finally Vasudeva conceived Krishna (obviously, Krishna was not ‘born of virgin').
Also note that the birth of Krishna was not greeted by ‘three wise men' neither did he receive gifts of frankincense and gold and myrrh (his parents were chained in a dungeon in preparation for the birth of their eighth child). Rather what was said to have taken place was the following:
"On the day of his birth... fierce winds grew calm, and the rivers ran clear when Krishna was born. The oceans made sweet music with their waves while YAHWEHs of the Gandharvas sang and bevies of Apsarases danced. Gods in the heaven rained showers of flowers upon earth and smokeless fires blazed up afresh when Krishna was born. rainclouds rumbled softly, pouring down showers of blossoms." ; (Dimmit & van Buitenen, 1978:107)
(Note : I consider this ‘virgin birth story' of Christ to be an invention of the Jewish community which produced the gospel of Matthew, just as they invented other prophecies out of whole cloth. The virgin birth story is intimately connected with the denial of King David in the gospel of Matthew. The source is not some other myth of a virgin birth, but uniquely Jewish in its origins. Consult my page on the the origins of the virgin birth story. The story became entrenched in the church and it is noteworthy how every critic of Christ since then has found amazing stories of ‘virgin births' to have been ‘quite common' in mythology. The mother of Buddha was a married woman, not a virgin. As Buddhist theology developed the Buddha eventually became a preexistent, eternal, timeless god type figure who incarnated on earth - much as in Matthew or Luke's account. In these legends the Buddha simply entered his mothers womb in a ghostly type way, such myth making and tale spinning being quite common in all religions, as both Luke's gospel and the later tales of the Buddha illustrate. The obsession with virginity seems to be peculiarly Christian. One traditional legend states that the Buddha's mother was reclining on the couch one day when she was impregnated by a white elephant, hardly a virgin birth. Similarly Isis is shown in iconography conceiving Horus by impaling herself on the penis of Osiris, hardly a virgin birth. What are alleged to be ‘virgin births' of certain god like characters of antiquity turn out to be the result of a god incarnating as a human and having sexual intercourse with a female, and this hardly seems to qualify as ‘virgin birth' either, the gods having a penchant for taking the virginity of virgins, and this might explain the stubborn insistence by the church that Mary stayed a virgin forever, thus making her different from all those other virgins who lost their virginity to incarnated gods. The cult of Mitras was actually developing in the west at the same time as Christianity, so the question of who was borrowing from who is foggy to say the least - I am inclined to think that as the church developed, and borrowed from everyone and everything, Mitras elements were embraced as well. However claims about the ‘similarities' between the cult of Mitras and Christianity are dubious at best, since Mitras was a secretive cult, with no written records, and the little that can be known is extrapolated from writings in the following centuries by church fathers, attacking the cult, and from placing interpretations on iconographic images. In any case, the sect in the Matthew community that produced this virgin birth story were fervent Jews, and not interested in Gentiles in the least, as the gospel shows, they literally despised Gentiles, and did not borrow this virgin birth story from the Mitras cult, or any other cult. They were not interested in 'a virgin birth' or 'the virgin Mary', and Mary only became a virgin because they used a mistranslated passage in Isaiah in the Greek Septuagint. Their main concern was to deny King David and his descendant Joseph, and instead make God the literal father of Christ, no doubt justifying the practice by insisting that one must take literally the statement that God was the father of Christ found in Matthew's gospel. In any case there was no way they were going to allow David or Joseph to be Christ's father, because David was a half breed Moabite, and Moabites were cursed forever and ever in the Torah. Those who go on about 'borrowing' to explain this virgin birth story first insist that the virgin birth of gods was quite common, when this is not the case, and then they insist that such bigoted Jews as produced this virgin birth tall tale would have borrowed anything from a Gentile dog, thus showing that they don't understand the gospel of Matthew either. The virgin birth was the result of denying David and the fact that Mary became a virgin was inconsequential. The virgin birth story has Jewish roots in a community of extremely prejudiced first century Jewish Christians, and this is the best explanation for the origin of the ‘virgin birth' narrative, not borrowing (in particular when most of the supposed examples of ‘virgin births' turn out to be false). Because the Roman cult of Mitras was a religion that developed contemporary with Christian, if it was the case that ‘Mitras was born of a virgin,' it seems more likely that the Mitras cult borrowed this novelty from Matthew, who picked it up by twisting the meaning of a mistranslated verse in Isaiah, which is the real source of the virgin birth narrative. It is clearly not borrowed from any other mythology.)
When Devaki conceived Krishna she was so terrified of the murderous rage of Kamsa that she traded the male Krishna for the female child of another woman who had conceived the same evening. When Kamsa discovered that Devaki had a female child, he was so enraged that he tried to smash the infants head on the floor, but she miraculously escaped and flew off to heaven, pausing long enough to rebuke Kamsa, telling him the baby he was trying to kill was safe and sound elsewhere, and warning him to give up his evil ways and stop killing babies. After having been suitably chastised for his baby killing ways by the infant girl, Kamsa felt guilty, and freed both Devaki and her husband from their prison. Meanwhile the family of Nanda were celebrating what they thought was the birth of their baby boy. Krishna grew up secretly with his new foster parents, safe from Kamsa, and became a shepherd boy.
Meanwhile, Kamsa's old suspicions returned, for word had reached him of Krishna's whereabouts. He summoned up the demon Putana. Putana tried to kill Krishna by feeding him poisoned breast milk, but the divine god child sucked the life out of the demon instead, and destroyed her. As the story of Krishna's childhood continues it turns out that he was super powered, astonishing his parents by lifting and destroying heavy objects. Krishna continued destroying demons throughout his childhood, breaking their necks, and burning them with intense heat, for example.
As he grew older he became the favorite of all the gopis (shepherd girls) and amused everyone with his constant pranks (most notably stealing cheese and milk, hence, his nick name ‘the cheese thief'). When his mother tried tying him to a cart to restrain all his pranks, he dragged the cart between two trees, uprooting them, freeing two gods (these two gods had been punished for their greed for wealth by being turned into trees). They fell in worship before Krishna for his mercy in setting them free.
Krishna's next miracle was the killing of demon in the form of a snake who had been poisoning a nearby stream with its venom. Next he pulled a prank on Indra the storm god, by talking people into holding a festival of their own and snubbing Indra. Indra responded with a furious storm, and Krishna protected the people by using his superhuman strength to lift a mountain to use as a type of umbrella over them. This act led to Indra feeling repentant, and as a token of reconciliation Indra introduced Krishna to Arjuna.
As Krishna became sexually mature he became the favorite lover of all the gopis (married and unmarried female shepherds) and seduced by the sound of his flute they were slip away for romantic moonlit meetings with him on the banks of Yamuna river. Many stories are told of his amorous affairs. He spent a good deal of time making love with the gopis although, as a young man, the love of his life was a married woman (Radha). Krishna managed to escape capture by her jealous husband by transforming himself into a goddess.
The time was approaching when Krishna was destined to kill the tyrant Kamsa as prophesied. However Kamsa was on to things, and hatched various plots, including trying to have Krishna crushed by elephants, or beaten to death by his strongest champions. In the end Kamsa was killed when Krishna crushed him to death. The rightful heir to the throne returned to the kingdom along with all those who had gone into exile during Kamsa's reign. Justice had triumphed.
As he grew older Krishna became a soldier and war hero. Kamsa's old allies planned to invade to avenge his death. Because of these constant invasions Krishna built a fortified city Dwarka, where he moved all the people. (It is said the city sank into the ocean after his death.) Krishna married Rukmini, the first of his wives, whose brother Rukmi had been determined that she would not marry Krishna, but marry another King for political reasons. Rukimi was enthralled by Krishna's reputation as lover, and when she threatened to kill herself if she could not have him, Krishna marshaled an army, and interrupted the wedding ceremonies to carry off Rukimi. This led to warfare, and after victory was achieved, Krishna graciously agreed to spare the life of Rukmi.
The Mahabharata has been called the longest poetic epic in the world. Krishna was involved in the wars and political intrigues between the Kauravas and Pandavas, a very long story that need not be related here. In brief Krishna proved to be a shrewd politician and because he possessed the wisdom of a God he was able in the end to reestablish the balance of Dharma on earth. He was influential enough during his lifetime to dethrone and discipline rulers and kings. Krishna, being a prince and from a family of noblemen,, settled into life in a luxurious palace in a city of palaces, but the stories like to emphasize that he never lost the common touch. (However he did not live a life of poverty.) In his old age he saw all his children and his entire Yadava clan wiped out in a vicious civil war. Krishna died when he was shot in the ankle with an arrow during a hunting accident (he WAS NOT 'crucified between two thieves'). He certainly did not 'rise from the dead' but rather his spirit departed to Goloka, his favorite heavenly place.
Much of what has flying around on the web concerning the ‘Christ myth' on examination proves to just a gross propaganda assault against Christianity in general, first launched by Kersey Graves, and it plays on the ignorance most people have of the scriptures of other traditions not to mention their gullible tendency to believe that people can always be trusted to tell the truth (when it comes to the subject of God, however, people really do fight dirty). To recapitulate what are alleged to be the similarities between Krishna and the Christ story: Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ; His father was a carpenter; His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh; He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants; he was a miracle worker; he lived a life of poverty; he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves; He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. And finally we are assured that the story of Krishna and the story of Christ are ‘identical, even in detail'. That the stories have nothing in common is obvious. As for the list of ‘alleged parallels' Krishna was a miracle worker. The rest of the list is false, with the possible exception of the story of Kamsa's calling of the demon to kill Krishna. There are variant versions of the Mahabharata (for example a Tamil copy, an Indian copy, etc). In one version the demon kills a number of babies before being stopped dead (literally) in its tracks by its encounter with Krishna.
The ‘Christ myth' theories flying around lately prove to not be scholarship, which is not surprising, when you consider that the source of so much of this is Kersey Graves, who was no scholar. Genuine scholars of religion do not make unfounded claims that ANYONE could refute if they bothered to investigate the matter themselves. This excludes Graves who, for reasons of his own, crucified the world's sixteen saviors himself. They also recognize that while there are similarities between religious traditions there are also notable differences. It is typical of these sorts of propagandists to discount difference, and make unfounded claims of similarity, even manufacturing similarities where none exist. The ‘Christ myth' propagandists put forward the claim that ‘the crucifixion and raising of Gods was a common theme in ancient mythology.' Take for example Krishna who was (not) crucified or Horus (who was not crucified), and the list goes on. And then there are the stories of all those other gods of antiquity which are about similar to the gospel narrative just as this story of Krishna is found to be (not) identical (but rather far from it - it is a distinctive tradition).
Augustine on the meaning of the crucifixion.
Washed in the blood of the lamb?
Was Christ God?
Different points of view in the New Testament
The adoptionist and subordination heresies in the Bible
Son of David or Son of God?
The denial of David in Matthew's gospel.
LINKS TO RESOURCES ON THE WEB
The following sites all promote the Christ myth theory.
The Christ Conspiracy page is located here, or you can visit the authors home page here. An essay on the subject by the same author is located here. Most of this stuff comes from the book by Kersey Graves, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors. For an example of what I mean by a long list of totally unfounded mere assertions, see the chapter on Krishna. However, even though Graves goes way off base and his basic premise is false, he still makes some valid points. The same is true of the author just mentioned above, however it does undermine Graves argument to include bad scholarship and unproven assertions. However I do tend to agree with the basic premise of both Graves book and the author above, that the Jesus Christ figure of Christian theology is in fact a composite creation and contains mythological elements, although the source of these myths is found in the ever increasing mythology of the gospels, and not other sources of mythology (both Christianity and Judaism developed along increasingly xenophobic lines.) For more discussion of this issue visit my page with links to a pages on this site discussing the Christ myth and the composite Jesus Christ figure. (And don't forget to visit my Eden Eagle Wing page for a completely different take on prophecy, this time from a less critical and more positive perspective.
The Jesus Puzzle site focuses on both the 'silence of history' and the borrowing theory.
Here you will find a page of links to books that promote the Christ Myth theory which you can purchase from Amazon.
Links to Hindu resources and scriptures on the net.
This site contains links to Hindu scriptures in English translation. The last time I checked the Mahabharata was not yet up.
You can also find links to Hindu texts and Hindu Internet sites by visiting this site.
An abridged version of the Mahabharata is located here.
Hundreds of links to Hindu resources on the web can be located by visiting The Hindu Students Home Page or by directly consulting their links page.
I have been unable to locate a copy of the Harivamsa on line, which relates the story of the birth narrative of Krishna. Any info would be welcome. (You will have to consult the library at your local university to read the account yourself.)
Links to a general index of texts online.
Texas state university provides a page of links to search engines and data banks for those seeking Books on Line.
A similar list of resources focusing exclusively on religious studies can be found here.
A list of links to online religious texts is found at this site, and a similar site linking to even more sacred texts online is at this site.
The WorldWide School project is another source for books on line.