AHC: Widespread Christianity in China

What is this you are talking about me having pre-made opinions for in thinking that Christian missionaries would be more focused on their flocks rather than landscaping?
Well, without having read anything on it before today, you're still able to say "a cross can be added later".

That's called a pre-conception.

As said, it's not about missionaries being focused on something more than another, but about the fact marking a territory is not at all unusual; that it's not "a cross" but a whole scenery (in fact, three sceneries); and that the datation wasn't made randomly.

As it's a recent discovery, you should find more about it in specialized reviews than in Internet. You could find it under the name of "Kong Wang Shan" (being close to Lianyungang).

Mentioned above, the department of populars religions of Nanjing (reponsable of the site) could have informations avaible in english.

For the special clothing, it's jewish clothing following the analysis of Perrier. From what I understood, some early followers of Jesus would have been jewish.

Finally, I didn't find anything about worskhip of the carving, but as said, as the possible account of preaching (that, if being the preaching of Jesus followers, could have been about biblical Jesus life for some reason)
 
The big problem is that it is impossible to date carvings. The only way to date them is by date the material (which BTW is impossible if it's made of stone) or by comparing the style with other known carvings or by dating the layer of Earth in which it was found (but this does not always work).
So it is possible that these spectacular carvings are forgeries made not so long ago.
 
You think rather highly of yourself, don't you?
Of me, no.

But I try, at least, to have an open mind about recent discoveries, and to respect conclusion that people far more able and knowledgable than me can say (critically when they have actually studied the site itself) rather than making random "conclusive" observations without the superficial knowledge that I can have.

That would be thining rather highly of myself, being able to talk conclusivly about something I never heard of 24 hours before, don't you think?

The big problem is that it is impossible to date carvings.
Not really impossible. Sure data like C14 are not really useful, but style of carving, as well style of what is carved are useful informations. It's not like artistic styles weren't relativly known and could help to make a datation.

It's why that, apparently, the whole carving would have been made in two part with the paleochristian part possibly around the late I century, and a buddhist part possibly as late than XIII century.

Furthermore, as you said, the material used can be analysed, by exemple by searching for trace of metal in the carvings.

Finally, it's possible that the characters representated would be known historical ones, as the Prince Ying.

So it is possible that these spectacular carvings are forgeries made not so long ago.
Again, while the whole site function and origin is debated, the forgery accusation was never made and the site is actually studied.

Coming with such accusation (unless having a very good reason to do so) does not making the discussion advancing very further, isn't?
The point was here, that this site could be a sign that christianity appeared earlier than VII in China, and that such thing could be interesting to make a POD where's China is christianized in the same time than Roman Empire OTL.
 
Last edited:
Alright, well I guess I was incorrect in saying I could only find one source. The academic sources, on the other hand, are in French.

However, I did find a Sina blog regarding this topic. I don't know if it accurately conveys Perrier's ideas, but they don't seem that strong.

According to the tradition of the Church in India relative to St. Thomas, the Apostle finished his mission there in 64 a.d., and left from Meliapouram (near Madras) for China at the beginning of… 65 a.d. The Indian and Chinese sources agree. There is thus a strong possibility that the two figures of Kong Wang represent the Apostle himself with, at his side, his acolyte-interpreter.
This, I'm pretty sure, is flat out wrong, given how St. Thomas was reportedly martyred in India at Madras. I assume, he could have gone to Madras, went to China without Indian tradition recording this, and returned to be martyred in said city, but I'm pretty sure the legend doesn't have him going to China.

« Mingdi had a dream in which he saw a tall blond man, the top of whose head was encircled with a halo […]. He was eight zhang tall [close to two metres]; he was of golden complexion [or “like gold”]. »

Upon awaking, the emperor questioned those who were charged at the Court with interpreting dreams. They told him that the man that he had seen in the dream did not originate from either China, or the North, or the South or the East, but that it was necessary to turn towards the West, where « tall, blond » men could be found.

With Pierre Perrrier, let us set aside the Buddhist interpretation, or rather appropriation of this dream, according to which this « Man-Light » would be Buddha, called the “visionary”. The famous Silk Road, on which the first Buddhist monks were said to have come was closed at the time, and the first archaeological traces of Buddhism only appear in China in the second century, in accordance with the commercial agreement signed in 158 a.d. with the Kushan Empire, which opened China to exterior religious influences.

Is it not rather a prophetic apparition of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, such as he showed Himself transfigured to His Apostles on Mount Tabor?

Or perhaps it is a vision of the risen and glorious Jesus, similar to what St. John saw and that he described at the beginning of his Apocalypse.

Also, the Silk Road isn't some highway that can be blocked and sealed off. It's wrong to say the Silk Road was "closed" to China at this time.

As for the halo, I should point out that the halo appears in Buddhist art, of the Kushans, before it appears in Christian art. It shows up in Buddhist iconography in the first and second century CE. It doesn't show up in Christian iconography until about the fourth century CE.

Blond men are not limited to Europe, given how Tocharians or Yuezhi in the west of China sometimes had blond hair. In fact, I'm pretty sure the idea of Christ as blond is a European invention, and to be technical, St. John saw Jesus with white hair, white as snow, not blond.

The half-brother of Mingdi, Prince Liu Ying, converted at the preaching of St. Thomas. This prince, the Chronicles say, disappointed by the official religion that had become formalist and artificial, was searching for the daô, the true “way” that leads to Heaven. It was not in Buddhism that he found it, but in the Gospel! As he was the governor of the maritime province of Zhu, St. Thomas went to see him at Xuzhou (todayJiangsu), where it seems that the first Chinese Christian community came into being.

Yes, the fact is that Liu Ying was hereditary prince of a maritime fiefdom, and theoretically could have received St. Thomas if St. Thomas was sailing in. At the same time, he could more likely have received Buddhists, who also took the maritime link from India to China to spread Buddhism.

Furthermore, Liu Ying's practices don't seem very Christian at all. His quest for bodily immortality, his sacrifices to deities, and his use of Daoism in his rituals suggest he practiced something other than Christianity. Again, he just might not have been sure about what religion he was being introduced, but from the remaining sources we have, which admittedly were written a few centuries after Liu Ying died, there's no reason to think that it was Christianity as opposed to Buddhism, especially since later historians recorded his religion as Buddhism.

These are only a few criticisms I have, and while I think it's possible for those rock carvings to be from early Christians, I don't see why they have to date as early as 70 CE, and I certainly don't think that the stories around the White Horse and Liu Ying reflect some sort of Christian heritage that was transformed into Buddhism.
 
Alright, well I guess I was incorrect in saying I could only find one source. The academic sources, on the other hand, are in French.

Well, I'm not sure what I can do about it, unfortunatly.

However, I did find a Sina blog regarding this topic. I don't know if it accurately conveys Perrier's ideas, but they don't seem that strong.
Actually, it could convoy his ideas. As said, a criticism on his method is certainly legit.

This, I'm pretty sure, is flat out wrong, given how St. Thomas was reportedly martyred in India at Madras. I assume, he could have gone to Madras, went to China without Indian tradition recording this, and returned to be martyred in said city, but I'm pretty sure the legend doesn't have him going to China.
I'm not sure an oral legend can take account of all event without loss or modification.

Furthermore, it would necessit a clear distinction of China and not-China in a time of dynastic changes, from people not familiar with chinese culture.

Also, the Silk Road isn't some highway that can be blocked and sealed off. It's wrong to say the Silk Road was "closed" to China at this time
.

I'm not sure Perrier said "closed". In the texts I have, what is mentioned is the possible role of jewish merchants along the road, and the role of Persia monopole on the road that would have lengthened the communications.

As for the halo, I should point out that the halo appears in Buddhist art, of the Kushans, before it appears in Christian art. It shows up in Buddhist iconography in the first and second century CE. It doesn't show up in Christian iconography until about the fourth century CE.

But the halo isn't really the main topic of the sceneries.
I don't see why, in an aere between Persia and China where the halo was a common feature, Judaic followers of Jesus wouldn't have used it.

What's more important is the use of Judaic symbolism, as how is dressed the main character (assimilated by Perrier to Thomas).

Blond men are not limited to Europe, given how Tocharians or Yuezhi in the west of China sometimes had blond hair. In fact, I'm pretty sure the idea of Christ as blond is a European invention, and to be technical, St. John saw Jesus with white hair, white as snow, not blond.
Again, I don't have a trace of a blond Christ in my own sources. Maybe Perrier said that, but it wasn't considered as worth of mention in the independent articles on the subject.

Yes, the fact is that Liu Ying was hereditary prince of a maritime fiefdom, and theoretically could have received St. Thomas if St. Thomas was sailing in. At the same time, he could more likely have received Buddhists, who also took the maritime link from India to China to spread Buddhism.

I don't really see how it's far more likely to have recieved Buddhism than Christianism. Historiographically, he's considered as the introducer of buddhism in China, in a period where there wasn't an important inner pressure to choose this religion.

The novelty of the discovery, and the enthousiasm of Perrier (that can be influential in his analysis, I can't deny that) are not invalitating from the begging such explanation.

Furthermore, Liu Ying's practices don't seem very Christian at all. His quest for bodily immortality, his sacrifices to deities, and his use of Daoism in his rituals suggest he practiced something other than Christianity.
Constantinus murdering parents, forcing councils, adoring Apollo up to a late date doesn't seem really christian as well.

I think we shouldn't use that for these times, for rulers, and especially for a culture were the syncretist tradition was really strong.

Again, he just might not have been sure about what religion he was being introduced, but from the remaining sources we have, which admittedly were written a few centuries after Liu Ying died, there's no reason to think that it was Christianity as opposed to Buddhism, especially since later historians recorded his religion as Buddhism.

But they recorded it as Budhism because Budhism was dominant at this time as non-"traditional" religion just like european historians reckoned some antiquity charachters as christians.

The fact the scenry was probably reworked (I don't think it was consciensously for getting rid of Christian part, but more for a modernisation of the whole thing) doesn't help to make a clear distinction.

These are only a few criticisms I have, and while I think it's possible for those rock carvings to be from early Christians, I don't see why they have to date as early as 70 CE, and I certainly don't think that the stories around the White Horse and Liu Ying reflect some sort of Christian heritage that was transformed into Buddhism.

The White Horse legend is, in my opinion, the most dubious thing about the theory indeed.
But for the carving, as said, the datation was apparently made following the style used for making it that would be from the late Ist century.

I think it open possibilities, and as the reutilisation of old myths/histories from one religion by other religion at their own benefit (Just think about the story of Buddha was used by Christianism for creating Saint Josaphat) or more unlikely that the hiellenistic influence on Buddhism.

Nothing is certain of course, but I don't think it is as unlikely you depict it.
For this thread, again, it certainly can lead to something doable.

Hopefully, we'll know more about it in 10 years, but there's not a reason to dismiss it completly. There's historically nothing that opposes it (that is not an argument, of course, but we're not in a situation where we would have something in total opposition with what we know about the situation).
 

In my opinion, there are two parts to this story, with varying degrees of credibility:

1. Christianity was introduced into China far earlier than the 6th or 7th centuries. Instead, it was introduced sometime during the 1st or 2nd centuries, as reflected by a stone carving near Kongwangshan.

2. Christianity was introduced to China by St Thomas, but Buddhism covered it up later. Buddhists twisted the White Horse Legend, from being an apparition of Christ to one of the Buddha. In addition, Liu Ying's Buddhist community was actually a Christian one.

The first is somewhat possible, the second requires a Buddhist conspiracy. The first can be proven by archaeology and additional research. The second, however, requires rethinking decades or centuries of research on Buddhism in China.
 
There's a third solution.

Christianity was introduced into China far earlier than the 6th or 7th centuries. Instead, it was introduced sometime during the 1st or 2nd centuries, as reflected by a stone carving near Kongwangshan without certitude about how it was linked to the later nestorian churches.

The accounts of this introduction were later modified by memory and by context to be considered as part of the introduction of Buddhism in China.

No need of a conspiracy for something that happen regularly in History.
 
There's a third solution.

Christianity was introduced into China far earlier than the 6th or 7th centuries. Instead, it was introduced sometime during the 1st or 2nd centuries, as reflected by a stone carving near Kongwangshan without certitude about how it was linked to the later nestorian churches.

The accounts of this introduction were later modified by memory and by context to be considered as part of the introduction of Buddhism in China.

No need of a conspiracy for something that happen regularly in History.

But, it is ridiculous to assume that. No sources describe anything like Christianity in China, and they all describe Buddhism (mixed with Daoism) instead. Decades of scholarship, based on sources that were well-researched and considered as very accurate, have come to the conclusion that Liu Ying's community was a Buddhist one. Why would the Buddhists need to modify their history by taking Christianity's instead? 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. 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. Until more evidence comes in, this hypothesis should be considered nothing more than outlandish speculation.
 
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?
 
There's a third solution.

Christianity was introduced into China far earlier than the 6th or 7th centuries. Instead, it was introduced sometime during the 1st or 2nd centuries, as reflected by a stone carving near Kongwangshan without certitude about how it was linked to the later nestorian churches.

The accounts of this introduction were later modified by memory and by context to be considered as part of the introduction of Buddhism in China.

No need of a conspiracy for something that happen regularly in History.
Angkor Wat in Cambodia is a very good example for that.
it was build not only as the capital of the Khmer Empire but also as a Hinduist temple complex, but until the 1860s then Adolf Bastian noticed that the reliefs there were not Buddhistic but Hinduistic everyone even the Khmer believed that Angkor Wat had always been a Buddhist temple complex.
 
Specifically about my point 2, I admit that the White Horse Legend and the Liu Ying incident are not recorded historically until around 300 years after they are alleged to happen. Thing is, while the contemporary records about Liu Ying might have confused Christianity with Buddhism, by the time the Book of Later Han is written, the newer historians should have been able to tell the difference.

Yeah, I'll be honest, I don't know too much about religion in China during this time. Maybe speculation is a bit too far. I don't know. I'll just wait for Chinese historians to do their work, and I'll wait for more research. I'll give it a few years and then read up on it again. If Perrier publishes anything in English, I'll definitely look at it. I don't know French.
 
Yeah, I'll be honest, I don't know too much about religion in China during this time. Maybe speculation is a bit too far. I don't know. I'll just wait for Chinese historians to do their work, and I'll wait for more research. I'll give it a few years and then read up on it again. If Perrier publishes anything in English, I'll definitely look at it. I don't know French.
I have read Pierre Perrier's books (at least one in depth, the others quickly). There are not books of an historian: too many groundless assertions, sources of information non indicated and falsehoods. It's not worth reading them!
 
I have read Pierre Perrier's books (at least one in depth, the others quickly). There are not books of an historian: too many groundless assertions, sources of information non indicated and falsehoods. It's not worth reading them!

While I agree that his work on China wasn't followed by real support and that I was too enthusiast on it, calling him a fraud is really pushing it : he's still considered when it comes to gathering eastern churches' traditions that were really neglected so far.

(As an aside, necro-ing a thread of 2012 may be frowned upon. You're new on this board and more probably not aware of, of course)
 
(As an aside, necro-ing a thread of 2012 may be frowned upon. You're new on this board and more probably not aware of, of course)
Soory, I didn't know.

While I agree that his work on China wasn't followed by real support and that I was too enthusiast on it, calling him a fraud is really pushing it : he's still considered when it comes to gathering eastern churches' traditions that were really neglected so far.
I spent several dozens of hours studying one part of his first book. It's really astonishing to see his claims. For instance, you mentioned earlier the fact that Pierre Perrier claims that Mingdi saw a tall man with blond hair in his dream. This is a false translation of an ancient chinese text which can in no ways be supported.
His first book dates from 2008. No historian has supported his theory since 6 years.
 
Soory, I didn't know.
Obviously. Welcome aboard! :)

For instance, you mentioned earlier the fact that Pierre Perrier claims that Mingdi saw a tall man with blond hair in his dream. This is a false translation of an ancient chinese text which can in no ways be supported.
What does the text actually says?

His first book dates from 2008. No historian has supported his theory since 6 years.
Yes, that's what really made me dubious about it eventually. Teached me to be more cautious on such theories
On the other hand, the whole "Perrier is a tool of China's propaganda" stuff that was the main criticism at one point didn't really bought me.
 
What does the text actually says?
The universally adopted translation is (with obviously slight variations one from another): "In a dream, Emperor Ming saw a tall golden man, the nape of his neck aglow".
Pierre Perrier translation: "In a dream, Emperor Mingdi saw a tall man, with blond hair,...". In his comments he adds "with a fair skin". These mentions allow him to say, that the man seen in Mingdi's dream cannot be a Chinese, nor an Indian, but a Semite!
In 1910, Henri Maspéro wrote an article of 37 pages on the different ancient Chinese texts refering to this dream. Obviously, no trace of blond hair, neither fair skin.

On the other hand, the whole "Perrier is a tool of China's propaganda" stuff that was the main criticism at one point didn't really bought me.
I don't believe either in a China's propaganda. I had some conversation by email with Pierre Perrier and with some people close to him. Pierre Perrier is certainly a very religious man, but somehow a visionary. What he thinks has to be the truth, and when he doesn't have enough evidence, his tendancy is to modify the texts or to over analyse the facts.
 
Top