ON KRISHNA, AND SOLAR MYTHS. 183 
but certainly not that the name was derived from Christ. Turning once 
more to Mr. Collins’ paper, I notice that at the beginning of section 
16, he says, speaking of Krishna :—“ He preaches a new faith, personal 
devotion to him, as the embodiment of the divine.” In my opinion, that 
paragraph is the strongest of all with regard to the similarity in teaching, but 
it is not conclusive, because in the writings of the Hindoos every god is made 
to claim fealty to himself, and to ask people to believe in him rather than in 
others. As to the idea of forgiveness, that, of course appears in the Vedas, 
in which there are prayers for forgiveness. With regard to the sentence in 
section 6 of the paper,—“ Every one will allow, I think, that these are 
novel doctrines, of which there are no discernible germs in the Vedic 
literature,’—that remark, I think, may stand. Turning to the miracles 
mentioned on the latter part of the same page, they are, doubtless, very 
striking indeed, as showing a resemblance to the works of Christ ; but after 
all, what are they but mere coincidences, such as we might readily imagine 
in the lives of two persons embracing a great many events, both of them 
believed by their votaries to be deities. In section 29 of the paper, I think 
the similarities are decidedly very curious. For instance, we have ‘ Yadu,” 
as “A singular echo of Yahudah,” and ‘‘ Vasu” as being like “ Yoseph,” or 
Joseph, inverted. There can be no doubt that these similarities are remarkable 
ones ; but having said that, we have said all. If we were to proceed to base 
theories on them, and to derive Christianity from them, or to go from them 
to Christianity, I agree with Professor Max Miiller, and do not see what 
grounds we have for doing so. I wouldsay, in conclusion, that the one thing 
as to which I am confident, as far at least as my own opinion is concerned, is 
that the origin of the Krishna myth is not attributable to Christianity in any 
way whatever, although it is just possible that stories may have been carried 
into the Krishna myth from the history of Christ. But ‘ the truth is, ” as Mr. 
Collins states in the 20th section of his paper, “That there is only one point 
common to the two pictures, and that is the bare fact of the incarnation of 
the Deity.” Iam afraid that, speaking on the spur of the moment, I have 
not put my opinions as clearly as I should have wished ; but I have not had 
time to put my thoughts into writing. I may add that I read the paper 
with the greatest pleasure, as it shows a great amount of thought and learning. 
I must apologise to the author for having differed from him ; but I suppose 
it is right for us to express our opinions where we do differ from those who 
favour us, as Mr. Collins has done, with the results of their studies on 
particular subjects. I have here, if any one wishes to see them, two 
diagrams of Krishna, painted by Hindoos of Benares, and showing how he 
is regarded by the people of that part of India. 
Professor OpELL.—1i should like to ask this question of the last speaker. 
How ought it to affect our faith in Christ, if we are to suppose that Krishna 
and others taught some of the sublime doctrines of Christianity ? 
Rey. H. M. M. Hackxerr.—I think it ought to confirm our faith in Christ, 
because it confirms our faith in God, as showing that He has not left Himself 
without a witness in all the nations of the earth. 
