But, it is ridiculous to assume that. No sources describe anything like Christianity in China, and they all describe Buddhism (mixed with Daoism) instead.
Admittedly the sources used for that are mainly buddhists.
If something have to be redone, the sources can be aslo seen by a different look.
Of course, the sources (outside the site) used by Perrier have to be looked and criticised. He's certainly use and rely too much tradition and local churches account that are not really contemporary.
Myself, I don't have any action in Perrier & co. I just found this two, three times and, as the topic is about christianisation of China I tought (and post) "What about this?" and search back to my reviews (it's why I didn't posted this in my first post on the thread, I wasn't sure of exact thesis and proposition)
Why would the Buddhists need to modify their history by taking Christianity's instead?
I would see two things :
1)In a context or religious concurrence (as later, when mongol court welcomed missioneries regardless of their presence on their demesnes), highlighting his History is a better politic. Christians didn't made other thing towards rival cults.
2)For later source, you don't have the need of conspiracy or willing change. Memory mutate themselves, History is written depending on the context at the moment of writing...
3)Parallel introduction of both religion isn't unlikely. Syncretism was really pushed and EACH side could have claimed having suceeded.
Most likely, there were no Christians in China, or at least none recorded among the Chinese population, so there is no Christian history to steal.
I don't quite understand, for you there is no Christian in China currently?
It was said, by a critic, that the motivation of local Christians in this study was a real pressure and could lead searchers going in their way.
The situation is actually complicated, and you have apparently many political pressures from one part and another (sadly, this isn't rare at all. People willing to use the site and early Christianisation for their own needs or agendas, as the reverse). Perrier seems to ignore this too, and I understand that is credibility isn't ameliorated.
Still, again, I content myself to introduce a recent thesis, not yet disproven, for a thread that could benefit from it.
There is no evidence of Christian practice, and only one or two bas-reliefs (the Sina blog says two, I don't know about Perrier himself) depicting Christian scenes, reportedly dated to 70 CE by the only guy who has published anything on the topic, Perrier himself
I'm going to say something really obvious, but...You always have someone publishing something FIRST.
That Perier is too enthousiastic, contradictory in his book, and more passionate than really convincing is one thing. Rejecting totally the work of someone that is known for works in early oriental churches, on the other hand.
I think the whole study (whom the datation is complicated, see below) deserves better that a desabused look. After all the study of early churches in Asia was often shadowed and minored by a heavily westernized Christian tradition.
It's is considered as serious enough to be debated, criticised, rejected...A simple loony thing wouldn't have been even considered, a fortiori by chinese archeologists.
For the datation.
1)All is from III/IV century from syncretists buddhists or manicheists
2)Part is from Ist century (due to style and epigraphy, the second appearing as more dubious) another from III century (due to re-works, from or manicheists, or buddhists, or...)
Until more evidence comes in, this hypothesis should be considered nothing more than outlandish speculation.
Maybe the definition in english of speculation differs from french.
In french, a speculation is an abstract, without support theory.
Here, Perrier maybe is wrong, partially or totally. But he proposes points for his thesis, so "speculative" here isn't wrong, it's aslo quite contemptous.
It's not because we can critic (and there's many points to do that) or disagree, that we're allowed to treat this point as negligible ammount.
Again, what we have to do (contrary to what Perrier did, partially for making a pressure to making the site being to be studied quickly) is to see it as a possibility.
---
Personally, my own take would be somewhere between what you called solution 1) and the "third proposition" in my post. Not being sinolog or specialist in buddhist history my own opinion isn't really valuable.
Now, maybe (and I say this without sarcasm) your own knowledge about early christian churchs, introduction of buddhism in China and their context are far more extanded than mine, so maybe you could -better than me- read the thesis and make a more valuable opinion?