Weber has proved by collecting and explaining these ’coincidences,’[62] that there must be identity of origin.  It remains only to ask from which side is the borrowing?  Considering how late are these Krishna legends in India[63] there can be no doubt that the Hindu borrowed the tales, but not the name; for the last assumption is quite improbable because Krishna (=Christ?) is native enough, and Vishnu is as old as the Rig Veda.  That these tales are of secondary importance, as they are of late origin, is a matter of course.  They are excrescences upon real Vishnuism (Krishnaism) and the result of anthropomorphizing in its fullest extent the image of the man-god, who is represented in the epic as the incarnation of the Supreme Spirit.  The doctrine of the incarnation is thoroughly Indic.  It is Buddhistic as well as Brahmanic, and precedes Vishnuism as it does Christianity.  The legends are another matter.  Here one has to assume direct contact with the Occident.[64] But while agreeing with Weber and disagreeing with Barth in the determination of the relation of this secondary matter, we are unable to agree with Weber in his conclusions in regard to the one passage in the pseudo-epic that is supposed by him[65] to refer to a visit to a Christian church in Alexandria.  This is the famous episode of the White Island, which, to be sure, occurs in so late a portion of the Book of Peace (xii. 337. 20 ff) that it might well be what Weber describes it as being.  But to us it appears to contain no allusion at all to Christianity.  The account in brief is as follows:  Three priests with the insignificant names “First, Second, Third,"[66] go to the far North (dic uttar[=a]) where, in the “Sea of Milk,” they find an Albion called ‘White Island,’ perhaps regarded as one of the seven or thirteen ‘islands,’ of which earth consists; and there Vishnu is worshipped as the one god by white men of extraordinary physical characteristics.

The fact that the ‘one god’ is already a hackneyed phrase of philosophy; that there is no resemblance to a trinitarian god; that the hymn sung to this one god contains no trace of Christian influence, but is on the other hand thoroughly native in tone and phraseology, being as follows:  “Victory to thee, thou god with lotus-eyes; Reverence to thee, thou creator of all things; Reverence be to thee, O Vishnu;[67] thou Great Person; first-born one”; all these facts indicate that if the White-islanders are indeed to be regarded as foreigners worshipping a strange god, that god is strictly monotheistic and not trinitarian.  Weber lays stress on the expression ‘first-born,’ which he thinks refers to Christ; but the epithet is old (Vedic), and is common, and means no more than ‘primal deity.’