1

Online suggests that birth of lord Sri Krishna is 4th millineum BC at the below link

https://www.booksfact.com/history/sri-krishna-life-events-dates-born-18-june-3229-bce.html

but it is mentioned that Jarasandha who was against Sri Krishna was in between 1500 BC and 1700 BC. Citation in the below link

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Magadha

I would like to know the historical accuracy of Birth of Lord Sri Krishna.

Lord Shri Krishna is praised as God in India. He lived in the city of Dwarka in India. Lord is the one who taught the Indian sacred Indian text Bhagvad Gita to Arjuna in the epic Mahabharatha.

closed as off-topic by John Dee, Brasidas, Lars Bosteen, Jos, canadiancreed Feb 6 at 3:06

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions on social sciences other than History are off-topic here, unless they also involve history in some fashion. While ethics, archaeology, etc. are all connected to history, each field has their own experts who are better equipped to answer such questions." – John Dee, Brasidas, Lars Bosteen, Jos, canadiancreed
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    According to the Mahabharata, He was born in 3228 BCE and died in 3102 BCE. – Surya Kanta Bose Chowdhury Sep 12 '18 at 16:42
  • 2
    VTC Sri Krishna is not a historical person. – John Dee Feb 5 at 14:36
9

Krishna's historical situation appears to be similar to that of Jesus: there's probably enough consistent historical evidence to say that he existed at one time as a human being, and a few other details of his adult life are probably very roughly historical, but that's about it. Birth narratives (in both cases) are particularly inconsistent, and untrustworthy.

Here's what Historian Guy L. Beck wrote on the subject:

The empirical evidence of inscriptions, dated monuments, and original manuscripts is not perhaps as strong for Krishna as in some of the other examples of religious figures. However, most scholars of Hinduism and Indian history accept the historicity of Krishna - that he was a real male person, whether human or divine, who lived on Indian soil by at least 1000 BCE and interacted with many other historical persons within the cycles of the epic and puranic literatures.

Note that the birth narratives of Krishna, Jesus, Moses, and Zeus all share the plot element that the ruler wanted to kill the baby due to a prophecy. This is a common theme in mythology literature, and thus kind of a dead giveaway that the account was written with goals other than historical accuracy in mind*

* - ...or more bluntly, it was largely invented.


Meta question, brought up in chat: Why can't there be more information in this answer?

Lets take my other example of Jesus. He was born about 3,000 years later, into a thriving literary culture (The Roman Empire). Additionally, traditionally Christian areas happen to be the region of the world that contains the most research institutions, so there's always been plenty of motive and opportunity for historians to study his life.

With all those advantages, secular historiography on the subject can come up with only 6 generally agreed facts about his life (none of which have anything to do with his birth). That's it.

The stories about Krishna are set roughly around 3,000BCE, and thus would have been 2,000 years old by the time they were even first written down. Time-wise, that's like if we were just now bothering to first write down the various stories circulating about Jesus.

Not that I'm implying they were lazy, they just didn't have writing yet.

There was an Indus Valley script in use in NW India at that time, but it is undeciphered, was likely used by a separate people, and was a 400+ symbol logographic system, which would have drastically reduced the amount of people capable of using it.

So it really shouldn't shock anyone that we just can't say as much about Krishna

  • Added Zeus to the list, but I'm pretty sure there are more. – T.E.D. Sep 12 '18 at 14:09
  • In the case of Christ, both Gospels detailing his birth agree on the fact that it happened around the end of Herod's reign, who died in the spring of 4 BC, with the caveat that Luke's also ties it to the census of Quirinius, taken in AD 6. The point being that the Christ's birth happened no sooner than 10 BC, and no later than AD 10, both figures having been intentionally exaggerated. The same goes for his death, on which all four Gospels agree that it happened under Pontius Pilate, who ruled from AD 26 to 36. Your answer, however, only provides a vague estimate for the Hindu religious figure. – Lucian Sep 12 '18 at 18:52
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – T.E.D. Sep 13 '18 at 11:07
0

What is the historical accuracy of the birth of Lord Sri Krishna ?

In my personal opinion, the 3600 = 602 years ascribed by the Hindu sage Aryabhata in his famous astronomical treatise Aryabhatiya to the time span elapsed from the dawn of the Kali Yuga to the 180th (= 3 x 60) year of the Gupta era or 420th (= 7 x 60) year of the Shaka era, whose year zero starts with the spring equinox of AD 78, marking the ascension of king Chashtana as ruler of the Western Satraps, are meant to be interpreted symbolically rather than literally, especially given the sixty-year cycle upon which both the Indian as well as the Chinese calendars are based. (Slightly to the West of both, there was once the Babylonian Empire, whose fondness for the same numerical quantity is also well-known).

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.