The second one is from Marxist historian Suvira Jaiswal. The similarity between the two quotes is too striking to be ignored.

Bentley in true Christian spirit of Archbishop Ussher calculating the exact date and time of creation of the universe, also calculated the date of the birth of Krishna as ‘coincident with the 7th of August in the year of Our Lord 600’. The Christian bias led Bentley to draw scholarly conclusions that would make JNU scholars of this day proud, like Varahamihira was the contemporary of Akbar and that Bhaskaracharya’s time was after that of Akbar. Jaiswal like all Marxist historians colonised in their minds, is also animated by a deep Hinduphobia. As an expert witness for the Islamist side in the Ayodhya case, she ended up admitting that she was “giving statement on oath regarding Babri Mosque without any probe and not on the basis of my knowledge; rather I am giving the statement on the basis of my opinion”.

The discovery that the Heliodorus Column (second century BCE) dedicated to Vasudeva worship, with Garuda as his symbol, clearly demolished the idea of the Krishna ‘cult’ being derived from the Jesus cult that would emerge in distant Rome centuries later.

Still, the recycling of Krishna as a corrupt form of the Jesus story, continued with evangelical strategists doubling as Indological scholars. In 1907, missionary-’scholar’ Bernard Lucas considered the worship of Krishna as arising out of Christian influence and that ultimately India would have to choose between Krishna and Christ. Of course, for Lucas, the triumph of Jesus had been already determined. Though ‘Krishna derived from Jesus’ school was disproved, the idea that Krishna and his ‘avatarhood’ was the creation of scheming Brahmins to manipulate Indian masses, continues to this day as shown by the quote of the Marxist historian.

According to both the colonial schools, Marxism and evangelical Indology, disparate local and tribal deities simply got assimilated artificially into the Vedic Vishnu by scheming Brahmins. Even well-meaning Indic scholars like Radhakrishnan seemed to have fallen into this trap. However, a deeper study points out that it is not so.

Indologist Prof Benjamin Preciado-Solis in his detailed study points out to 'gratuitous presuppositions … contributed by Suvira Jaiswal herself’ in creating a divide between a non-Aryan Krishna and the Vedic deities. (Prof Preciado-Solis himself believes in Aryan invasion theory.) The conclusion of the Mexican Indologist in his study of the Vedic antecedents of Krishna shows a deeper connectivity and continuity between the Vedic spiritual realm and avataric Krishna: