Origin of the Bhagavata Purana

Based primarily on the earliest known written references of Abhinavagupta and Al-Biruni, academics estimate the date of origin of the Bhagavata Purana to be between 800–1000 C.E.

Indian cultural tradition
It is impossible to accurately date Vedic literature as Indian culture emphasised oral tradition over written. Therefore Vedic literature was spoken long before being written:

"The outstanding feature of the oldest Indian education and Indian culture in general, especially in the centuries B.C., is its orality. The vedic texts make no reference to writing, and there is no reliable indication that writing was known in India except perhaps in the northwestern provinces when these were under Achaemenid rule... The antiquity of writing in India is a controversial topic."

Indian culture also emphasised intertextuality (e.g. recycling, elaborating, and reprocessing existing stories, teachings, etc.) over novelty, meaning Vedic literature shared common elements between one another (e.g. philosophies, themes, genealogies, myths, etc.):

"The Puranaic narratives are of various kinds. Some are creation myths found also in the Mahabharata, such as... the raising of the earth from beneath the cosmic waters (Mbh. 3.100.19; Markandeya 47.2–14; Padma 1.3.25b-52a; 5.3.20b-52a; Varaha 2.21-6; Visnu 4.1–52 [and Bhagavata 3.13; 3.18–19])."

Many elements, such as the Vamana avatar of Vishnu (Sanskrit वामन, meaning 'dwarf' or 'small or short in stature'; eighth canto of the Bhagavata), can be traced back directly to the Rig Veda, the most ancient scripture:

"The seeds of the Vamana incarnation are found in the deeds of Vishnu described in Vedic literature. The Rig Veda speaks of three steps of Vishnu which he placed in three places... Epics and Puranas elaborated upon the story and gave it a twist or new versions."

From the Rig Veda itself:

"3. Three times strode forth this God in all his grandeur over this earth bright with a hundred splendors."

- Foremost be Vishnu, stronger than the strongest: for glorious is his name that lives forever.

Summary of findings
Based on the references below:


 * The Atharvaveda (e.g. hymn 11:7) – one of the four Vedas – is the earliest known written record that mentions Puranas in general
 * Abhinavagupta (950–1016 C.E.) authored the earliest known written record that specifically referenced the Bhagavata Purana
 * Al-Biruni (973–1050 C.E.) authored a list of Puranas that named the Bhagavata, and explicitly stated that list originated from the Vishnu Purana
 * Vopadeva (circa 1350 C.E.) – a grammarian and commentator on the Bhagavata – is not the author of this scripture (as surmised by some Indologists)

The earliest known written references to the Srimad Bhagavatam – of which there are two – can be reliably dated to between 950–1050 C.E.; otherwise, there is no known evidence to establish a date of origin for this or any other Vedic literature. The overall academic consensus of between 800–1000 C.E. for a date of origin is entirely speculative and based on assumptions such as:


 * Allowing a couple of centuries prior to the lives of historical figures for the Bhagavata to have become influential in their time
 * Composition based on and therefore after the Vishnu Purana (which itself cannot be reliably dated)
 * Composition in entirety after historical events or dynasties mentioned (i.e. rather than amendments to existing work, or actual prophesies)
 * An absence of known, written references by figures such as Ramanuja (1017–1137 C.E.) and Yamuna (circa 900 C.E.)

Daniel P. Sheridan
Theologian Daniel P. Sheridan:

"According to J.A.B. van Buitenen, while Vedic archaism  was notably absent in classical Sanskrit, the Bhagavata is a notable exception, especially with the Puranic tradition from the second to the tenth century A.D... T. Hopkin's assessment seems correct: "the ninth century, probably between 850 and 900 A.D., would thus seem the most likely time for the Bhagavata to have been written."

This information can only be derived circumstantially. Early European scholars, such as Colebrooke, Burnouf, and Wilson, thought that the Purana was composed by the grammarian Vopadeva (ca. 1350), the author of an index to the Bhagavata, the Harilila, but the theory is untenable... Since it gives greater detail to Krsna's biography than either the Harivamsa or the Visnu Purana, the Bhagavata probably postdates these texts of the third or fourth centuries. Thus the limits for its dating are 500–1000 A.D....

There are no references to the Bhagavata in Ramanuja (12th century) nor in Yamuna (918–1038), both south Indian devotional theologians... Nevertheless, a reasonable working hypothesis dates the Bhagavata around 900 A.D., and there seems to be no alternative to a South Indian origin."

Citing J.A.B. van Buitenen, Thomas Hopkins, Moriz Winternitz, Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya, and Friedhelm Hardy to support his claim, Sheridan admits this range has only been 'derived circumstantially' (i.e. speculated or inferred). To know exactly what 'derived circumstantially' means and how it affects accuracy or reliability, these citations will be examined, starting with J.A.B. van Builtenen.

J.A.B. van Buitenen
Indologist J.A.B. van Buitenen:

"The exact date of the Bhagavata Purana is still unsettled, though in its case closer approximation can be achieved than that of any other Purana. The terminus ante quem ["limit before which"] is roughly 1000, as it was known by name (but barely) to Persian scholar al-Biruni, and was quoted by Abhinavagupta. The terminus post quem ["limit after which"] is the Vaisnava bhakti movement of South India... Until fresh evidence turns up, it is better not to push back the date of the final version of the Bhagavata too far, nor too uncompromisingly to insist on the southern origin of our text. No quotations from the Bhagavata have been identified in Ramanuja's work, although this theologian of bhakti cites the Visnu Purana profusely. Nor have I been able as yet to identify citations from our text in the works of Yamuna. Both Ramauja and Yamuna were South-Indian Vaisnavas deeply concerned with the orthodoxy of their faith."

That Ramanuja (1017–1137 C.E.) did not reference the Bhagavata Purana is immaterial as he was born after Abhinavagupta (950–1016 C.E.) – who did reference the Bhagavata – died. Al-Biruni (973–1050) also referenced the Bhagavata Purana.

Abhinavagupta
The reference to Abhinavagupta (950–1016 C.E.):

"कऽपि च कृष्णायन्ती कस्याश्र्चित्पूतनायन्य्ताः । अपिबत्स्तनमिति साक्षाद्वयासो नारायणः प्राह ॥ २२२ ॥

222. A certain cowherdess, acting like kruShNa drank from the breast of someone acting as pUtanA; ‘thus says vyAsa, who is nArAyaNa incarnate...

मृद्भक्षणेन कुप्तां विकसितवदनां स्वमातरं वक्त्रे । विश्वमदर्शयदखिलं किं पुनरथ विश्वरुपोऽसौ ॥ २२६ ॥

226: He showed the entire universe in his mouth, to his mother, who was angry due to his eating clay (and subsequently had) her mouth fully opened (by surprise). Then, what more (is needed to prove that) He is of the form of the whole universe?"

The assertion that Vyasa is the incarnation of God (1.3.40) and the story of Yashoda seeing the universal form in the mouth of boy Krishna (10.8.37–39) are specific to the Srimad Bhagavatam (e.g. not in the Vishnu Purana or Bhagavad Gita). As Abhinavagupta died in 1016 C.E., his devotional poem referencing the Bhagavata Purana would have been composed by that year at the very latest. Significantly, this proves Vopadeva (c. 1350) could not be the author of the Bhagavata as it was referenced around three hundred years before he was born.

Al-Biruni
The reference to Al-Biruni (emphasis added):

"Another somewhat different list of the Puranas [from those Al-Biruni heard from unknown sources] has been read to me from the Vishnu-Purana. I give it here in extenso ["in full length"], as in all questions resting on tradition it is the duty of an author to give these traditions as completely as possible: 1. Brahma 2. Padma, i.e. the red lotus 3. Vishnu, 4. Siva,... 5. Bhagavatam, i.e. Vasudeva..."

This evidences three significant facts. First, Vopadeva (c. 1350) – again – could not be the author of the Bhagavatam as it was listed by Al-Biruni (973–1050) around three hundred years before Vopadeva was born. Second, Al-Biruni stated the Bhagavatam was listed in the Vishnu Purana. And third, although Al-Biruni cited the Vishnu Purana and Bhagavad Gita extensively, he did not cite or quote the Bhagavatam (i.e. only listed it by name).

Yamuna
No known writings of Yamuna (circa 900 C.E.) reference the Srimad Bhagavatam. Yamuna does however acknowledge and refute orthodox Smarta objections that opposed the 'less-than-respectable Bhagavatas' (meaning 'devotees of Vishnu'), although this may concern the influence of the Vishnu Purana rather than the Srimad Bhagavatam:

"13. Objection: Nevertheless, the fact that Bhagavata Brahmins, who wear the hair-tuft, the sacred thread etc. prescribed in Scripture, perform daily the rites of Pancaratra should then justify the presumption that these rites likewise ultimately derive from the Veda... Brahmins? Far from it!... Hair-tuft, sacred thread etc. which are prescribed for Brahmins and the other two estates, do not make a man a Brahmin! Nor do they demonstrate that a man is a Brahmin, for we see them worn illegally by blackguards, outcastes, and the like. 14. Refutation: We reply: Well! So you really argue that the Bhagavatas, who are hated by the three estates, are exemplary and hence authoritative?!"

T.J. Hopkins
The reference to Thomas Johns Hopkins is from 'The Vaishnava Bhakti Movement in the "Bhagavata Purana"'. However, this text cannot be read or verified as it seems to be an unpublished thesis or dissertation.

Moriz Winternitz
The reference to Moriz Winternitz:

"The Bhagavata-Purana... belongs to later productions of Purana literature. In contents it is closely connected with the Visnu-Purana, with which it often agrees literally, and it is undoubtedly dependent upon the latter... There are good grounds for assigning it to the 10th century A.D.[footnote 3]

[footnote 3:] C.V. Vaidya (JBRAS 1925, 1, 144, ff.) makes it seem probable that it is later than Sanjara (beginning of the 9th Century) and earlier than Jayadeva's Gitagovinda (12th century). Bhandarkar (Vaisnavism etc., p. 49) says that it "must have been composed at least two centuries before Anandatirtha." Pargiter (Anc. Ind. Hist. Trad., p. 80) places it "about the ninth century A.D.," Farquhar (Outline, p. 229 ff.) about 900 A.D., C. Eliot (Hinduism and Buddhism, II, p. 188 note) remarks that "it does not belong to the latest class of Purana, for it seems to contemplate the performance of Smarta rites, not temple ceremonial"..."

Exactly what Winternitz meant by the Bhagavata]] being 'undoubtedly dependent' on the Vishnu Purana is not explained; neither are the nature or extent its being 'closely connected' or its 'literal agreement'. As such, the claim made is purely speculative and without evidence. The footnote has been examined below, beginning with Bhandarkar, as C.V. Vaidya was also cited by Sheridan and is addressed in another section.

R. G. Bhandarkar
The reference to R. G. Bhandarkar:

"The Bhagavata, therefore, must have been composed at the, [sic] least two centuries before Anandatirtha to account for the reputation of the sacred character which it acquired in his time. It cannot be very much older, for its style often looks modern and in copying from the older Puranas it falls into mistakes, such as the one pointed out by me in another place."

Anandatirtha lived between 1238–1317 C.E. The claims made by Bhandarkar are entirely speculative and without any arguments or evidence to support them. This includes no refutation of the possibility an earlier copy of the manuscript may have been re-written in 'modern' language or what 'modern' means (especially in relation to contradicting other academics' assertions that the Bhagavata uses of 'archaic' language). Clearly Bhandarkar's posited date of origin for the Bhagavata Purana – around 1038–1117 C.E. – is nonsense given this is 20–100 years after Abhinavagupta had already referenced it. As for the purported 'mistake' found, said to be on page 46 of the above book, no reference to any mistake was found, nor any reference to the Bhagavata Purana.

F. E. Pargiter
The reference to F. E. Pargiter:

"Three other Puranas contain all or nearly all the genealogies, the Garuda, Agni, and Bhagavata. Their accounts are all late recompilations, the Bhagavata being one of the very latest, about the ninth century A.D."

Although repeating this claim on pages 72 and 80 (as quoted above) no argument or evidence to support it is provided, and therefore it is purely speculative. Tellingly, Pargiter admitted on page 131 I have not studied Vedic literature closely, despite having written a book about it.

J.N. Farquhar
The reference to J.N. Farquhar:

"Another noticeable feature of the Purana is this, that its philosophic teaching stands nearer to Sankara's system than to the theistic Sankhya which dominates earlier Puranic works... Alberuni, in his work on India, which was completed in A.D. 1030, gives us the list of Puranas as it was in the Vishnu P. in his day, and it is precisely the same as the list in our MSS. of to-day. Thus it is absolutely clear that by 1030 the Bhagavata had not only been written but had already gained such acceptance so to have won its present recognized place as the fifth of the Puranas. We must, then, acknowledge that it can scarcely have been written later than, say, A.D. 900."

Farquhar only speculates based on the account of Al-Biruni (as above). No new information or evidence is presented. Farqhar's claim in respect to the Bhagavata Purana 'standing nearer' to Sankara's system than Sankhya philosophy (notwithstanding no explanation for what this means exactly, or to what extent), seems to contradict the fact that its third canto features the appearance and teachings of the Kapila incarnation (or avatar) of Vishnu/Krishna, the founder of Sankhya philosophy.

Charles Eliot
The reference to Charles Eliot:

"Footnote 447:... It [Bhagavata Purana] does not belong to the latest class of Puranas for it seems to contemplate the performance of Smarta rites not temple ceremonial, but it is not quoted by Ramanuja (twelfth century) though he cites the Vishnu Purana. Probably he disapproved of it [Bhagavata Purana]."

No speculation on the date of origin is provided by Eliot, only speculation that the Srimad Bhagavatam is not a later Purana based on 'contemplation of Smarta rites', although exactly what he meant by this is not explained. Notably, Eliot contradicts other academics' claims that the Bhagavata Purana is a later Purana, although both views are still entirely speculative. That Ramanuja did not cite the Bhagavata is addressed above in respect to J.A.B. van Buitenen. A reference to C.V. Vaidya is also made, albeit in respect to geographical origin on this occasion, not dates; he is addressed nonetheless in the next section.

Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya
Although writer C.V. Vaidya was cited by Sheridan in respect to the Bhagavata's speculated number of authors ('it appears to be the work on one author'), and by Eliot in respect to geographical origin ('South India', an area where writing would least likely be known compared to the NorthWest), he was also cited by Winternitz in respect to its speculated date of origin:

"Sir William Hunter probably rightly guesses that the Yavanas of Orissa being dispossessed in the fifth century A.S. by the Kesari line of kings went into Andhara and seized that kingdom about 575 A.D... The evidence of the Puranas also proves the existence of a Yavana kingdom here... The Vishnu Purana which distinctly mention the Kaliakila or KainKila Yavanas requires to be specifically noticed... These details given for the Kailakila Yavanas alone lead to two inferences viz. (1) that the writer or rather recaster of the Vishnu Purana lived a little after these Yavanas somewhere about the 9th century A.D. and (2) that he must have been a native of Andhra or at least of the country where these Yavanas ruled...

The Bhagavata seems to follow the Vishnu Purana at a distance and must date after the 9th century. The other Puranas too mention Yavana, but none mentions the Kaliakila Yavanas, Vindhvasakti and others..."

It is true that the Vishnu Purana does mention the Kilakila Yavanas in Chapter XXIV (Book 4), albeit as a prophecy, not an historical account. However, K. R. Subramanian posits the Kilakila invasion of Andhara to be as early as 225 A.D./C.E., over 200 years earlier than Vaidya. Regardless, even if Vaidya does not accept the prophetic nature of this material in the Vishnu Purana, he does not account for the possibility this information could simply have been added to an existing Purana (i.e. rather than being composed from scratch during or after this point). Consequently, Vaidya's claim about the date of origin of the Vishnu Purana is speculative in nature and without evidence.

Exactly what Vaidya meant by the Bhagavata following the Vishnu Purana 'at a distance' is not explained, rendering the claim virtually meaningless. While likely to mean (as more explicitly claimed by others) that the Srimad Bhagavatam copied from the Vishnu Purana (again intertextuality is a notable feature of Indian culture), even if true, no information on the origin of the Vishnu Purana or 'distance' (in years) from the Bhagavata Purana is given, nor is any evidence provided to support the supposition that the scripture originated after 800 C.E.

Friedhelm Hardy
The reference to Friedhelm Hardy is from Viraha-bhakti: The Early History of Kṛṣṇa Devotion in South India'. Sheridan stated in footnote 25 (page 7) that Hardy claimed some passages of the Bhagavata are translation-passages of Alvar Poems'. This text has not been read or verified yet. However, another text by Hardy was found – published within the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society – that also claimed Alvar Poems are linked to the Bhagavata Purana (and to Bengali Saint Chaitanya, founder of Gaudiya Vaishnavism) and provided a tentative date of origin for the scripture at 1000 C.E.:

"Now all these texts [including the Bhagavata Purana], generally speaking, exemplify a very similar bhakti, although a more detailed analysis will show considerable minor differences, as already among the various Alvars themselves... Even here, the 700 years or so intervening between the Alvars and Caitanya obviously causes considerable changes, modifications, extensions, and eliminations in the character of the bhakti. But details of this complicated process would form another study."

The problem with this particular quote is that it is so abstract – with no clear examples or definitions of what is meant by terms such as 'similar bhakti', 'considerable minor differences', or 'character of the bhakti' – it is essentially meaningless. It is also less than ideal that Hardy avoids producing any specifics by stating doing so would require a separate study. Ergo, Hardy's claims are pure speculation and no actual evidence is provided to support the date of origin postulated (1000 C.E., which would mean the Bhagavata Purana would have only existed for a maximum of 16 years before Abhinavagupta quoted it, and a maximum of 50 years before Al-Biruni listed it from the Vishnu Purana).

Edwin F. Bryant
Indologist Edwin F. Bryant:

"While the present Puranas contain recent material that can be traced well into historical times, they also contain ancient narratives and anecdotes from the earliest period of protohistory in South Asia. It is thus futile to speak of absolute dates for any Purana as a whole, since one would have to speak of the age of individual sections within individual Puranas. I will simply note here that most scholars hold that the bulk of material in most of the eighteen Puranas, as we find them today, was compiled by the Gupta period in around fourth-sixth century C.E. Understandably then, there is no consensus regarding the date of the Bhagavata Purana." Although claiming 'most scholars' believe the 18 Puranas (including the Bhagavata Purana) were compiled between 500–700 C.E., Bryant's footnote to support this (page 133 of the same book) does not say who or how many or even mention a single scholar at all:

"'8. This time bracket [the Gupta period in around fourth-sixth century C.E.] is partially predicated on the fact that neither the later dynasties nor later famous rulers, such as Harsha in the seventh century C.E., occur in the king lists contained in the texts.'"

Freda Matchett
Author Freda Matchett:

"If one looks to texts other than the Puranas, the earliest known appearance of the word purana, as a name for a literary genre, is in the Atharvaveda 11.7.24, and it occurs several times...

Rocher's examples of attempts to date the Puranas show how twentieth century scholars have tried to put specific dates upon texts in spite of appreciating the difficulties involved. He himself concluded: "I submit that it is not possible to set a specific date for any purana as a whole" (Rocher 1986: 103)... It would be hard to disagree, for instance, with Hardy's view that the "most reasonable date" for the Bhagavata is "the ninth or early tenth century" (Hardy 1983: 488). Yet Hardy shares Rocher's general view in that he declares "On the whole it is meaningless to speak of "the date" of a Sanskrit purana because many generations of bards, etc., have been involved in the accumulation of material which at some stage has been given a name...""

It is true that the Atharvaveda mentions the word Purana (more examples are given in the Puranas article):

"23. All things that breathe the breath of life, all creatures that have eyes to see,"

- All the celestial Gods whose home is heaven sprang from Resudue. Matchett makes the same citation to Hardy as Sheridan (addressed above) and another to Rocher (addressed below).

Ludo Rocher
The reference to Ludo Rocher:

"In view of what has been said earlier in this volume, both on the transmission of puranic materials and on the role of the "mini-puranas," I submit that it is not possible to set a specific date for any purana as a whole. Dates proposed by other will be reported in Part Two. It will become clear, at that point, that even for the better established and more coherent puranas – Bhagavata, Visnu, etc. – opinions, inevitably, continue to vary widely and endlessly."

In part 2 of the same work – after discussing the belief amongst some (including H.H. Wilson) that Vopadeva was the author of the Bhagavata Purana (discredited, see §Al-Biruni, above) – Rocher duly provided a table of some estimated dates of origin, reproduced below from page 147 (notably, Vyasa is incorrectly attributed to have composed the scripture between 900–800 B.C., not at the onset of Kali Yuga as stated in the scripture, calculated to have occurred around 3100 B.C.):