Origin of the Bhagavata Purana


Based primarily on the earliest known written references of Abhinavaupta 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:
Indian culture also emphasised intertextuality over novelty, meaning Vedic literature shared common elements between one another :
Many elements, such as the Vamana avatar of Vishnu, can be traced back directly to the Rig Veda, the most ancient scripture:

Summary of Findings

Based on the references below:
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:
Theologian Daniel P. Sheridan:
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'. 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 Builtenen

Indologist J.A.B. van Buitenen:
That Ramanuja did not reference the Bhagavata Purana is immaterial as he was born after Abhinavaupta - who did reference the Bhagavata - died. Al-Biruni also referenced the Bhagavata Purana.

Abhinavaupta

The reference to Abhinavaupta :
The assertion that Vyasa is the incarnation of God and the story of Yashoda seeing the universal form in the mouth of boy-Krishna are specific to the Srimad Bhagavatam. As Abhinavaupta 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 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 :
This evidences three significant facts. First, Vopadeva - again - could not be the author of the Bhagavatam as it was listed by Al-Biruni 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.

Yamuna

That no known writings of Yamuna referenced the Srimad Bhagavatam is inconclusive, although van Buitenen correctly notes that Yamuna was an orthodox Smarta that opposed the 'less-than-respectable Bhagavatas' :

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:
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:
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. 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 Abhinavaupta 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:
Although repeating this claim on pages 72 and 80 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:
Farquhar only speculates based on the account of Al-Biruni. 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, seems to contradict the fact that its third canto features the appearance and teachings of the Kapila incarnation of Vishnu/Krishna, the founder of Sankhya philosophy.

Charles Eliot

The reference to Charles Eliot:
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, and by Eliot in respect to geographical origin, he was also cited by Winternitz in respect to its speculated date of origin:
It is true that the Vishnu Purana does mention the Kliakila Yavanas in Chapter XXIV, albeit as a prophesy, 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. 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 that the Srimad Bhagavatam copied from the Vishnu Purana, even if true, no information on the origin of the Vishnu Purana or 'distance' 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 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 provided a tentative date of origin for the scripture at 1000 C.E.:
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 diferences', 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.

Edwin F. Bryant

Indologist Edwin F. Bryant:
Although claiming 'most scholars' believe the 18 Puranas were compiled between 500-700 C.E., Bryant's footnote to support this does not say who or how many or even mention a single scholar at all:

Freda Matchett

Author Freda Matchett:
It is true that the Atharvaveda mentions the word Purana :
Matchett makes the same citation to Hardy as Sheridan and another to Rocher.

Ludo Rocher

The reference to Ludo Rocher:
In part 2 of the same work - after discussing the belief amongst some that Vopadeva was the author of the Bhagavata Purana - Rocher duly provided a table of some estimated dates of origin, reproduced below from page 147 :
Speculated Date of OriginProponent / Author / Translator
1200-1000 B.C.S.D. Gyani
900-800 B.C.Vyas
A.D. 200-300Ramachandra Dikshitar
300-400Tagare
400-500Krishnamurti Sarma ; Rukmani
500-550Harza
500-600Majumdar ; - Sharma