174 REV. RICHARD COLLINS, M.A. 
24. It may also be added that Max Miller shows that India 
may have been much more indebted to the outside world 
than has often been thought, in the early centuries, by proving 
that ‘‘ the knowledge of Greek astronomy, and even of Greek 
astronomical terminology, came to India not later than the 
fifth century.” He quotes the actual Greek names of the 
zodiacal divisions in their Sanscrit corruptions, as given by 
Varahamihira, who died in 587 a.p. (India, p. 526). This, 
too, should help to diminish any previous scepticism as to the 
possibility of Christianity also having reached and influenced 
the Hindu by that time. 
25. In conclusion, then, there is, so far as I can discern, no 
indication in the early accounts of Krishna of the fact pos- 
tulated by Mr. Proctor, that the Hindus were adopting the 
universal sun-myth theory, the chief characteristies of which all 
over the world, and in all time, according to Mr. Proctor, were 
that the God was born of a virgin, his birth-place a cave, the 
herald a star, his presents gold and frankincense, &c. None 
of these peculiarities belong to the Krishna of the Bhagavad- 
Gita. The only title that he has to be ranked as a sun-god is 
that he represents Vishnu, whose ¢tri-vikrama, or three steps 
over the heavens, is explained as denoting, to quote Professor 
Monier Williams, ‘‘the threefold manifestations of light in 
the form of fire, lightning, and the sun, or as designating 
the three daily stations of the sun in his rising, culmination, 
and setting.” 
26. The addition of the name “ Jezeus”’ to Krishna, which 
I find in one of Mr. Proctor’s articles in Knowledge, as also in 
a published lecture, by a Mr. H. J. Browne, delivered at 
Melbourne in 1884, has no warrant from any Hindu book that 
tam acquainted with ; it bears no resemblance to any of the 
many names by which Krishna is commonly denoted im India, 
and 16 is not possible for it to be a transliteration, or even an 
approach to a transliteration, of any imaginable combination 
of letters, either in Sanscrit or the dialects of South India. 1 
have been curious to trace its origin, but have so far faiied. 
It looks like an extremely modern attempt to assimilate the 
name of Krishna to that of Christ Jesus. But at present I 
must acknowledge it to be a puzzle.* 
* Mr. Proctor writes, in reply to a question as to the authority for the 
name of Jezeus, ‘ Like my correspondent, I am wnable to understand the 
modern use of this epithet, which I have used as I found it, supposing it 
might be a form of one of the ‘thousand names of Krishna’—with 
some of which Iam not familiar. . . . Knowing absolutely nothing as 
to the real source of the epithet, but recognising it as an impossibility in con- 
nexion with any Indian language, I venture the suggestion that 7t may have 
