Exploring Early Buddhist–Christian (Jingjiao 景教) Dialogues in Text and Image: A Cultural Hermeneutic Approach

Abstract

The dialogue between Christianity and Buddhism began during the Tang dynasty (618–907) when East Syrian Christian missionaries from Persia arrived in China in 635. At this time, Buddhism was prospering under the Tang Empire, and the “Church of the East” was established, known as the “Brilliant (or Radiant) Teaching” (Jingjiao 景教). Historical records and archaeological evidence indicate that the Jingjiao church employed the method of “matching concepts” (geyi 格義). This methodology, initially utilized in the early stages of Buddhism’s dissemination from India and Central Asia to China for the translation of Buddhist texts, was similarly applied to the translation of Christian texts and concepts. These translation efforts and dissemination activities represent the earliest documented encounters between Christianity and Buddhism in premodern times. Furthermore, recent archaeological discoveries reveal that the dialogue between the two religions in China transpired through textual and visual representations (iconography) in the form of “borrowing pictures”. This study investigates these interactions across disciplines, exploring the evidence of early cultural exchange between Buddhism and Christianity while reviewing the motivations behind the missionaries’ translation and dissemination activities. It addresses pivotal questions regarding these early dialogues by examining the proselytization strategies employed and analyzing the reasons why imperial authorities sanctioned Christian activities and facilitated their propagation during the Tang dynasty.

1. Introduction

The Jingjiao (景教) Church emerged as a significant religious community during the Tang dynasty (618–907) and marks the earliest historically documented presence of Christianity in China. Anglophone scholars often describe it as the “Luminous Religion”, though it is also referred to by several names, such as Nestorianism, East Syriac Christianity, the East Syrian Church, and the Church of the East.1 The scholar Max Deeg (2006a) advocates for the translations “Brilliant Teaching” or “Radiant Teaching”, emphasizing the religion’s connections to solar imagery and symbolism.2

The Tang huiyao 唐會要 (Institutional History of the Tang Dynasty, c. 961) documents that East Syrian Christian missionaries reached China from Persia in 635 during the Tang dynasty.3 It is probable that these Christian missionaries were seeking refuge from the turmoil and rapidly deteriorating conditions in Iran.4 They were received with great honor by Tang emperors, such as Emperor Taizong (唐太宗, fl. 599–649, r. 626–649) and Emperor Gaozong (唐高宗, fl. 628–683, r. 649–683), and their teachings, referred to as “Jingjiao” (lit. the “Teachings of light”), thrived for some period.5 However, during the Huichang Persecution of Buddhism (會昌滅佛, between 843 and 845) under Emperor Wuzong (武宗, 814–846)6, the Jingjiao Church was banned7 and reportedly vanished from public awareness for nearly a millennium.8

The discovery of the renowned inscription on the Xi’ an stele,9 known as the Da Qin Jingjiao liuxing Zhongguo bei 大秦景教流行中國碑 (the “Stele of the Promulgation/Diffusion of the ‘Radiant Teaching’ of Da Qin [Rome]10 in China [the Middle Kingdom]”), frequently referred to as the “Nestorian stele”, the “Nestorian tablet”, the “Nestorian Monument in China”, or simply the “Xi’ an Inscription/Stele” (hereafter referred to as “Jingjiao bei” 景教碑, JJB), revitalized interest in this tradition. The stele, dating to the second year of the Jianzhong era (建中, 781)11, was unearthed between 1623 and 1625 during the Ming 明 dynasty (1368–1644) in proximity to Xi’ an 西安, China. This significant discovery prompted a resurgence of early historical examinations (Pelliot INS 1996; Saeki 1916; L. Tang 2002; Godwin 2018; Nicolini-Zani 2023).12

A considerable amount of scholarly attention has been directed toward elucidating the relationship between Buddhism and Jingjiao, resulting in numerous comparative studies. Initiated by the pioneering scholarship of Japanese scholar and Anglican (Peter) Yoshirō Saeki (佐伯好郎, 1871–1965) in his work Keikyō no Kenkyū (Saeki 1935)13, various Japanese scholars have investigated the early interactions between Buddhism and Jingjiao in China.14 More recently, Naoya Hamada (2007) conducted an analysis of the “Discourse on ‘One God’ [i.e., Monotheism]” (yi shen lun 一神論), juxtaposing it with the teachings of Buddhist Pure Land (淨土), illuminating the shared exegetical practices between early Christianity and Buddhism in China (Hamada 2007, pp. 61–75).

Zhu Qianzhi established the foundational framework for “Nestorian” (Jingjiao) studies in Mainland China (Q. Zhu [1993] 1997–1998). Subsequently, scholars such as Yang Xiaochun (X. Yang 2004, pp. 11–20) and Yin Xiaoping (X. Yin 2024, pp. 1–19) have published comprehensive review articles that catalog major research pertaining to Jingjiao in China over the past four decades. These reviews provide an extensive survey of monographs and articles by Chinese scholars, accentuating significant studies on scripture translations, doctrines, and iconography. Additionally, they explore the extent to which Christianity during the Tang era drew inspiration from and borrowed elements of Buddhism in its early missionary endeavors.

The distinguished German scholar of comparative religion, Hans Joachim Klimkeit (1939–1999), published an extensive study in 1999 and 2003 concerning the dissemination of ancient Christianity in Central and East Asia (Klimkeit 2003; Gilman and Klimkeit 1999). More recently, Matteo Nicolini-Zani has undertaken an examination of the texts and history of the Jingjiao Church in China, as evidenced in his publications from 2022 and 2023. Both scholars, to varying degrees, investigate the relationship between Buddhism and Jingjiao (Nicolini-Zani 2022, 2023). Additionally, Deeg has made significant contributions to the field through numerous studies that analyze the influence of Buddhism and Daoism on the theological concepts of Jingjiao during the Tang dynasty (Deeg 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2009, 2020a, 2020b).

In his compilation of essays, Chen Huaiyu has included four discussions addressing the relationship between Buddhism and Jingjiao (H. Chen 2012). These discussions juxtapose the “Hymn in Praise of the Three Majesties (i.e., the Holy Trinity) of the Brilliant Teaching (of Da Qin), through which Salvation is Obtained” (Da Qin Jingjiao san wei meng du zan 大秦景教三威蒙度讚, also referred to as the Latin Gloria in Excelsis Deo) with the Dasheng bensheng xindi guan jing 大乘本生心地觀經 (Skt. *Mahāyānamūlagāta- hṛidayabhūmi- dhyāna-sūtra, or Xindi guan jing) from a comparative linguistics perspective.15 Furthermore, Bai Yu has conducted a comparison in 2023 of the verbatim language and “shared imagery” present in the Xindi guan jing with the Zhixuan anle jing 志玄安樂經 (“Sūtra/Book on Aspiring to [Attain] Profound Bliss”), highlighting noteworthy intertextuality and potential collaboration between Jingjiao missionaries and influential Buddhist translators (Bai 2023). These scholarly endeavors underscore a sustained interest in the comparative study of Christianity centered on Jingjiao and Buddhism.16

Despite these notable contributions, some areas continue to be inadequately explored. Specifically, there has been a lack of comprehensive systematic analysis regarding the content of the translations produced by the Jingjiao Church and the doctrinal themes emphasized following its arrival in the Tang Empire. Moreover, although scholars have scrutinized the concepts of “syncretism” and “loan words”,17 the historical practice of geyi (格義)—the hermeneutical method of “matching meanings” or “categorizing concepts”—has yet to be thoroughly investigated for its relevance to the translation of early Christian texts in contrast with Buddhist writings.

Furthermore, the motivations for Christian involvement in Buddhist translation activities and the initial cultural interactions between Buddhists and Christians during the Tang dynasty have garnered limited attention or have been overshadowed by other scholarly pursuits.18 Thus, the hermeneutical studies of the Jingjiao texts conducted to date have led to various explanations and translations of their contents, resulting in divergent interpretations of Tang Christianity as a whole (Nicolini-Zani 2023, p. 12; Wickeri 2004, pp. 46–52). This study addresses these gaps by examining the early dialogues between Buddhism and Christianity. It analyzes the missionary strategies employed by the Jingjiao Church and explores the factors that facilitated the acceptance of its teachings by the Tang imperial court, contributing to their spread during this period.19

2. The Phenomenon of Geyi in Jingjiao Translations

The Jingjiao monks, led by the first missionary Bishop A-lo-pen (Aluoben 阿羅本, also rendered 阿羅夲, d.u.)20, aligned themselves closely with imperial authority. They actively translated scriptures and contributed significantly to the Jingjiao “missionary strategy”.21 Their localized missionary methods incorporated Buddhist terms and ideas and employed the practice of geyi (格義), “matching meanings” or “matching concepts”, to adapt their teachings to the social, political, and artistic context of the time (Foster 1939, p. 112; X. Huang 1996, p. 84; Malek 2002, p. 36).

The concept of geyi has been interpreted differently over centuries (Kantor 2010, pp. 283–307, esp. pp. 284, 285). Its earliest definition is found in the “Clarification of Doubts” (Yuyi lun 喻疑論, c. 428?) (Zürcher [1959] 2007, p. 328, note 56), which states the following:

At the end of the Han [dynasty] and the beginning of the Wei [dynasty], the chancellor of Guangling and the chancellor of Pengcheng ‘joined the Order’ and were both able to maintain the great light (of the Doctrine). Inspired by their actions, worthy [intellectuals of the time] began to take an interest in [discussing and] lecturing on Buddhism. Thus, using ‘matching meanings’ (格義), they ‘broadened the scope’ [of the teachings], and, by ‘pairing explanations’ (配説), made them indirect and circuitous.

漢末魏初, 廣陵, 彭城二相出家, 並能任持大照, 尋味之賢, 始有講次. 而恢之以格義, 迂之以配説.22

In the biography of the monk and translator Zhu Faya (竺法雅, d.u., fl. c. 4th century) in the Biographies of Eminent Monks (Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳), Huijiao (慧皎, 497–554) elaborates on this method:

[Zhu Faya] took the ‘numerical categories’ (shishu 事數) of the sūtras and matched these with (terms from) non-Buddhist works (secular literature), as a method to make [his disciples] understand. This was called “matching meanings” (geyi).

以經中事數, 擬配外書, 爲生解之例, 謂之格義.23

Modern interpretations of geyi have varied (Zürcher [1959] 2007, p. 184; Lai 1979, pp. 238–57; Sharf 2002, pp. 5, 10–11, 97–98; Mair 2012, pp. 29–59). The Chinese historian Tang Yongtong (湯用彤, 1893–1964) identified geyi as the first method employed by Chinese scholars to integrate Indian Buddhist concepts with Chinese thought (Y. Tang [1938] 2010, pp. 191–94 [1937, p. 171ff, 1938, pp. 234–38]; 1968). Philosopher Feng Youlan (馮友蘭, 1895–1990) expanded this concept, describing geyi as a universal method of “interpreting ancient concepts with current ones”, “interpreting Chinese concepts in terms of Western thought”, and employing any approach aimed at bridging different cultural systems. (Y. Feng 1989, p. 155). In this broader context, geyi serves as a universal framework for explanation and commentary, functioning as a form of cultural hermeneutics.24 In 2007, Liu Zhenning presented statistical analyses concerning the utilization of Buddhist vocabulary within the Jingjiao texts. Liu posits that both Jingjiao and Buddhism occupied a similar status as representations of “the Other”, originating from “foreign western territories”, which cultivated mutual empathy between the two. The earlier Buddhist strategy of geyi, as it was initially transmitted, provided Jingjiao with a referential framework vital for its persistence (Z. Liu 2007a, 2007b).

In addition to the JJB, several other Jingjiao documents have been discovered.25 Among these, the Sūtra of Hearing the Messiah (Xu ting Mishisuo jing 序聽迷詩所經)26 is considered the earliest.27 It was first identified by the Japanese Buddhologist Junjirō Takakusu (J. Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎, 1866–1945) in 1922 and verified to date back to between 635 and 638, corresponding to the ninth and twelfth years of the Zhenguan 貞觀 era.28 Consequently, it is plausible that Alopen and his team translated this text.

The Yishen lun 一神論 (Discourse on the “One God”) is believed to have been translated in 641, as it contains the following statement: “[From then, when] He (Christ) took on the body of the five aggregates (wuyin 五蔭), it has not been more than six hundred and forty-one years” (彌詩訶) 向五蔭身, 六百四十一年不過已.29 This translation, too, is likely to have been carried out by Alopen and his team. Scholars like Wushu Lin (2000, 2021) have conducted detailed analyses of these manuscripts and generally agree that they were copied and transmitted by later generations from earlier Jingjiao (Nestorian) texts. The original manuscripts are believed to represent some of the earliest translations of Jingjiao scriptures (Lin 2000, p. 81; 2021).

As noted earlier, the method of geyi, initially used during the early dissemination of Buddhism in China, was also employed in these texts. The Xuting Mishisuo jing adopted the Buddhist concept of “retribution” (Ch. guobao 果報, Skt. vipāka; phalavipāka) to articulate God’s (Ch. tianzun 天尊, “the Heaven-Honored One”) omnipresence, omniscience, and His role in “reward and judgment” (天尊常在靜度快樂之處. 果報無處不到).30 Furthermore, the text incorporated concepts such as “serving and obeying the Lord (God)” (translated as shi tianzun 事天尊, shou tianzun fajiao 受天尊法教, i.e., “accepting the doctrines of the Heaven-Honored One”), “serving and honoring one’s parents” (xiaoyang fumu 孝養父母; xu pa fumu 須怕父母; zhicheng fumu 祗承父母; shi fumu buque 事父母不闕), and serving “The August Ruler” (i.e., the Emperor) ($\square$聖上)31, aligning its teachings with mainstream Confucian values.32

The Xuting Mishi suo jing also reinterprets the concept of the “original sin” of living beings and their “transgressions of the precepts (connected to God)” (fanni yu Zun 返逆於尊) through the lens of Buddhist karmic retribution. Those with bad karma cannot approach God (何因? 众生在于罪中…)33. The text emphasizes that good merit and positive conditions (Ch. shan 善, Skt. kuśala; Ch. fu 福, Skt. puṇya; Ch. yuan 緣 Skt. pratyaya), as well as “attaining the way to Heaven” (Ch. de tiandao 得天道) at “the final moment of death” (Ch. lin mingzhong zhi shi 臨命終之時, Skt. cyuti-kāla; maraṇa-kāla-samaya), are fundamental to “beholding God” (得見天尊) and understanding the hierarchical respect for the emperor. This assertion further bridges Christian theology with prevailing Confucian and Buddhist ideologies.34

In the Yishen lun, the terms wuyin shen 五蔭身 (“wuyin body” or “five skandha body”) and hunpo 魂魄 (the “ethereal” [hun] and “corporeal” [po] aspects of the soul) are employed to parallel the Christian concepts of “body” and “soul”, respectively.35 Additionally, the term si se 四色 (“four manifest forms [or Skt. rūpa]”) is used to describe the material world.36 Hamada (2005, 2007) has conducted an in-depth study of Buddhist thought in the Yishen lun, emphasizing its adaptation of the Buddhist concept of shen shi 神識 (“spirit-cum-consciousness” or “sentient consciousness”, Skt. vijñānanā) (Hamada 2005, pp. 244–57; 2007, pp. 61–75). In Christianity, shen shi traditionally signifies “divine guidance from God”; however, in the Yishen lun, this concept is expanded to encompass the Buddhist notion of “eternal abiding” (changzhu bumie 常住不滅). Huang Xianian (X. Huang 1996, pp. 83–90; 2000, pp. 446–60) has also examined the influence of Buddhist doctrines on Jingjiao texts. In his research, Huang underscores the extensive use of Buddhist terminology in Jingjiao scriptures, particularly noting how the Xuting Mishisuo jing incorporates Buddhist moral and ethical principles to explain humanity’s inability to enter heaven due to the accumulation of excessive negative karma. He also investigates the Yishen lun’s use of hun and po (魂魄) to articulate the Christian conception of the soul (linghun guan 靈魂觀).

It is conceivable that during the initial spread of Jingjiao, the (perhaps) Persian Bishop Alopen had not been in the Tang Empire for long and was, therefore, not yet proficient in Chinese. As a result, the early scriptures were likely translated in collaboration with individuals skilled in Chinese.37 Although the specifics of the early translation process for Jingjiao scriptures are not preserved in existing records, Buddhism, which faced a similar situation upon its introduction to China, can serve as a useful reference, given the detailed accounts of its early translation activities.

According to the Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 (Compilation of Notes on the Translation of the [Chinese] Tripiṭaka, compiled c. 515, hereafter CSZJJ), the oldest surviving catalog of Buddhist translations, and the Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 (Biographies of Eminent Monks, compiled between 519 and 520), foreign Buddhist monks and missionaries who first arrived in China beginning in the mid-2nd century from various regions, including Western and Eastern Central Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and Southeast Asia, often had limited proficiency in literary Chinese. As a result, they tended to employ collaborative translation methods. For instance, during the Eastern (Later) Han dynasty (東漢, 25 BCE–220 CE), the Parthian Buddhist lay practitioner (upāsaka) and translator An Xuan (安玄, fl. 131–231, who arrived in Luoyang 洛陽 in 181) worked alongside the first-known Chinese monk, śramaṇa Yan Fotiao (嚴佛調, also recorded as Yan Foutiao 嚴浮調, d.u.), to translate the Fa jing jing 法鏡經 (Skt. Ugraparipṛcchā-sūtra, ‘Dharma Mirror Sūtra’) (Zürcher 1991; Harrison 1987; Nattier 2008, p. 92).

Although little is known about their lives, the early bibliographer Sengyou 僧祐 (c. 435/45–518) provides specific details about their translation methods. He reports that An Xuan “orally translated the Indic language text” (口譯梵文), while Yan Fotiao “wrote it down” (筆受).38

The Buddhist scholar Jan Nattier (2008) observes that, while it is common to think of translation teams as comprising a foreign monk and his lay assistants, this case was the opposite: a foreign lay practitioner (upāsaka) who was sufficiently fluent in spoken Chinese and the source language (likely a Prākrit vernacular) provided an oral Chinese translation of the scripture, paired with a Chinese monk whose literary education enabled him to render the translation into polished prose (Nattier 2008, p. 90).

An Xuan is also noted for his active involvement in monastic life and Dharma practice (常以法事爲己務). He frequently engaged in doctrinal discussions with Chinese monks, and such discussions not only deepened his understanding of Chinese but also gradually enhanced his ability to expound the sūtras (漸練漢言, 志宣經典).39

Another example is the Khotanese (Kustana) monk Mokṣala 無叉羅 (var. 無羅叉, Ch. Wuluocha, d.u.), who brought Indic scriptures to China but was unable to teach them due to his lack of Chinese proficiency. At that time, an Indian-born upāsikā named Zhu Shulan 竺叔蘭 (d.u.), who had fled to Henan 河南 with his father, had already become Sinicized and was deeply devoted to Buddhist Dharma. Having studied multiple languages, he was proficient in both Sanskrit and Chinese. Zhu Shulan assisted Mokṣala in translating the Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra (Fangguang bore boluomi jing 放光般若波羅蜜經, “The Sūtra of the Emission of Rays”) into Chinese in 291.40 The oral translation was transcribed by two Chinese laymen, while prominent devotees and donors from Cangyuan (倉垣) actively encouraged and supported the project. As Erik Zürcher notes, this scripture “perhaps more than any other would come to play a dominant role in the formation of Chinese Buddhist thought” (Zürcher [1959] 2007, pp. 63–65).

Furthermore, these translation efforts were sometimes backed by official imperial patronage. During the Tang dynasty, beginning with the inauguration of the Xianqing 顯慶 era (656–661) under Emperor Gaozong 高宗, eminent monks convened at prominent translation centers such as Ximing Monastery 西明寺 and other major imperial monasteries in Chang’an 長安 to undertake large-scale, state-sponsored translation projects (Zhan 2023–2024). Ximing Monastery became a renowned center for translation, where scholars worked on some of the earliest Esoteric Buddhist texts, including dhāraṇī scriptures and other selections based on Emperor Gaozong’s decree.41

These records demonstrate that collaborative translation of Buddhist scriptures had long been conducted with imperial support—a practice dating back as early as the Liang 梁 dynasty (c. 502–557)42. Given this precedent, it is reasonable to surmise that during Alopen’s early years in China, when he was not yet proficient in Chinese, he must have relied on native scholars and translators fluent in both Chinese and foreign languages to assist in his translation work.

It was through a combination of imperial support and a synthesis of Confucianism and Buddhism that Alopen was able to gain the favor of the rulers and secure a degree of freedom for the development of the Jingjiao Church in China. This strategy continued to be employed until the Late Tang, as evidenced by the Zhixuan anle jing 志玄安樂經 (“Sūtra/Book on Aspiring to [Attain] Profound Bliss”)43 and the Da Qin Jingjiao sanwei mengdu zan 大秦景教三威蒙度贊 (“Hymn in Praise of the Three Majesties of the Brilliant Teaching, through which Salvation is Obtained”), both translated by the team led by the cleric Jingjing/“Adam” (景淨).44 Tang Xiaofeng (唐曉峰) notes that the most distinctive feature of Jingjing’s translations of Jingjiao scriptures mirrors those of Alopen—namely, their reliance on Buddhist concepts, structures, and even Buddhist ideas to articulate Christian doctrines and teachings (X. Tang 2021, pp. 16–22). Zhu Donghua notes that in translating the Zun jing, Jingjing used the Buddhist term “nirmāṇa-kāya” (Ch. yingshen 應身), which refers to the Buddha’s “response to the [potential] good in all living beings” (眾生機感), to describe the “received body” of the Messiah. This term emphasizes the Messiah’s response to the spiritual potential in all living beings (D. Zhu 2013, pp. 220–35; 2015, p. 210 and note 22; 2016, p. 423, 426–28; 2025, p. 103).

As “bishop” (法主) of the Church, Jingjing, also employed geyi (格義) as a method for introducing Christian doctrine (Takakusu 1896, pp. 589–91; Duan 2003, p. 436; Q. Zhu 2014, p. 141; Lou 2002). He collaborated with the Buddhist monk from Kāpiśī (罽賓) Prajña (Banruo/re 般若, 733/34?–810?, arrived in Chang’an in 782) (Forte 1996c, pp. 442–43, note 31) to translate seven fascicles (juan 卷) of the Buddhist text Dasheng liqu liu boluomiduo jing 大乘理趣六波羅蜜多經 (Skt. Mahāyāna-naya-ṣaṭ-pāramitā-sūtra, “Sūtra of the Purport of the Mahāyāna and Six Perfections”) in the second year of the Zhenyuan 貞元 era (786), from an Iranian (or Sogdian) (or perhaps another Central Asian-language, i.e., huben 胡本)45 language into Chinese.

The monk Yuanzhao (圓照, c. 613–696, fl. 794–800) of Ximing Monastery (西明寺) famously recorded this event in the Da Tang Zhenyuan Xu Kaiyuan shi jiao lu 大唐貞元續開元釋教錄 (Fascicle 1) in 794, observing the following:

Prajña was not proficient in the Syriac language and did not understand the Tang (i.e., Chinese, 唐言) language; Jingjing did not understand Sanskrit (fanwen 梵文) and was unfamiliar with Buddhist doctrine (shijiao 釋教). Although he assisted Prajña in translating the scripture, he failed to grasp lit. half of the jewels (of the Buddhist teaching) (i.e., its essence) … Furthermore, the monks of the Da Qin Monastery live differently from Buddhist monks (in a jialan). Jingjing should spread the teachings of the Messiah (mishihe jiao), while the śramaṇa and Sakya-son (i.e., Buddhist monks) should propagate the Buddhist sūtras. Thus, (His Majesty wished) a clear distinction between the two traditions should be maintained so that people do not conflate the different paths. True and false teachings (should) remain different as the Jing and the Wei Rivers flow separately.

時爲般若, 不嫻胡語, 復未解唐言; 景淨不識梵文, 復未明釋教. 雖稱傳譯, 未獲半珠; 圖竊虛名, 匪位副理…. 且夫釋氏伽藍, 大秦寺, 居止既別, 行法全乖. 景淨應傳彌師訶教; 沙門釋子, 弘闡佛經. 欲使教法區分, 人無濫涉; 正鄧異類, 徑渭殊流.46

The records above indicate that imperial authorities, even if not in the initial stages, actively administered and controlled the translation process (Sun 2019, pp. 62–69; Q. Zhu 2014). Similarly, early Christian missionaries likely recognized the necessity of learning and adapting to the already established linguistic and ritual frameworks of Buddhism—a flourishing foreign tradition in China at the time47—to gain favor and support from the imperial power.48 The text notes that Jingjing had to engage with Buddhist concepts to articulate Christian teachings, a process metaphorically described as putting on “Buddhist clothes”. (Takakusu 1896, pp. 589–91; Deeg 2006a, pp. 97–98; 2006b, pp. 121–23; 2009, p. 144; 2023, pp. 125–27; H. Chen 2006a, pp. 93–113).

Despite its eventual failure, this collaborative translation effort functioned as a form of cultural dialogue and integration, enabling different religious traditions to observe the partial acceptance and absorption of their doctrines within a shared framework. At the same time, this passage highlights the inherent tensions in cross-religious translation and the perceived need to assimilate while maintaining clear doctrinal distinctions between Buddhism and Jingjiao Christianity in Tang China.49

Scholars such as Deeg (2006b) have identified key factors that distinguish Jingjiao texts from their Buddhist predecessors in China.

(1)

First, in contrast to early Buddhist texts that were translated from known Sanskrit or Central Asian origins, the existing Jingjiao texts were not derived from any identifiable “Syriac” original or other Christian texts in alternative languages, such as Iranian.50 Instead, these texts were crafted to introduce the basics of Christianity to a Chinese-speaking audience, the specifics of which—such as size; composition; and social, ethnic, or religious background—are still unknown. It remains uncertain how many readers engaged with these texts and whether the audience was exclusively Chinese believers or included Iranian Christians, possibly even second or third-generation Chinese Iranians after the fall of the Persian dynasty. Nevertheless, given that Chinese served as a lingua franca, it is plausible that the texts were intended for a broader audience.

(2)

Second, the absence of a Syriac, Iranian, or other Christian source text has significant implications for interpretation. While Buddhist scriptures can often be elucidated by referencing the extensive corpus of Sino-Buddhist terminology and its Indian or Tibetan counterparts, Tang-period Jingjiao texts frequently leave us without clear indications of their underlying content, terminology, or doctrinal references as they existed in known Syriac-Christian languages from the Near East or Central Asia.

(3)

Finally, rather than directly incorporating Syriac or Iranian Christian theological vocabulary, Jingjiao texts rely heavily on the established terminological frameworks of Buddhism, Daoism, and Ruism (commonly called Confucianism). Consequently, the meaning of individual words and phrases—their syntactical structures and compound formations—is often difficult to ascertain. At that time, Abrahamic and Greek concepts were not present in Chinese. Therefore, in many instances, only by situating these terms within the broader religious lexicon of Tang China, from which they were derived, can their intended meanings be fully understood.51

3. The Borrowing of Concepts from Iconic Buddhist Images After the Spread of the Jingjiao Church to China

The cultural hermeneutics in early dialogues between Buddhism and Christianity extend beyond textual sources and are also evident in visual materials. Some scholars refer to this phenomenon as “borrowing images” (Li 2023, pp. 116–21), suggesting that before the Buddhist visual tradition was firmly established, images used in the decoration of monasteries and stūpas were primarily drawn from longstanding cognitive traditions, ancient objects, and decorative patterns. Working in collaboration with monks, artisans incorporated these borrowed motifs into Buddhist monuments. Over time, as monks repeatedly explained these images to viewers, they gradually evolved into distinctive symbols of Buddhist iconography.

In the same way that Buddhist scholars have distinguished between “visual Buddhism” and “textual Buddhism” in Buddhist studies, a corresponding category of “visual Christianity” can be identified in the remains of Jingjiao in Tang China. According to the edict inscribed on the Jingjiao bei (景教碑), when Christian missionaries arrived in China, they were said to have brought “texts and images from afar as offerings to the supreme capital” (遠將經像, 來獻上京)52. However, the extent to which images played a role in their early missionary efforts remains unclear.

In Chinese Buddhism, visual representations—whether through teaching with images or image worship—were essential tools for disseminating doctrine and philosophy. This visual emphasis was so pronounced that Buddhism was initially known in China as the “Religion of Images” (Xiangjiao 像教) (Greene 2018, pp. 455–84).

Nevertheless, archaeological evidence reveals that Jingjiao iconography, both along the Silk Roads and after its integration into Tang China, was deeply influenced by Buddhism’s rich visual traditions.

One notable example is the use of the cross intertwined with a lotus flower (padma) motif, seen in both the Jingjiao bei (景教碑) (Figure 1) and the Tang Christian Octagonal Pillar (Jingchuang 經幢) from Luoyang bearing a more complete version of the text-inscription named Daqin Jingjiao xuanyuan zhiben jing (大秦景教宣元至本經) [The Sūtra of Proclamation of the Highest Origin of Origins of the Radiant Teaching from Da Qin]53, which was erected between 814 and 815 CE and unearthed in 200654 (Figure 2). This motif, which first emerged during the Mid-Tang period (中唐)55 and persisted in later centuries56, is generally regarded as a borrowing from Buddhist visual culture.57

A key artifact demonstrating this synthesis is the Gilt Copper Nestorian (sic) Plaque (景教金銅額, Kaikado No. 59), dated to the 8th–9th-century Tang dynasty. The plaque depicts a cross pattée slightly indented with arms narrowing toward the center, supported by an open, multi-petaled lotus blossom atop a three-tiered flared base, flanked by two descending male and female flying figures (possibly apsaras, Ch. 飛天 feitian)58, each holding the lotus with both hands (Figure 3). Like the Octagonal Pillar, this plaque is one of the earliest surviving examples of the “cross-lotus” motif, confirming its integration into Jingjiao iconography during the Tang dynasty.59

Scholars have offered varying interpretations of this motif. Ruji Niu (2008) identifies the “cross-lotus” motif/pattern (十字蓮花) as a distinctive symbol of the Jingjiao Church (Niu 2008, 2017; Parry 2010, pp. 113–25; Halbertsma 2008, p. 160), while Chongxin Yao (2017) argues that the visual impact of this design within the church often surpassed that of its religious texts, even influencing Jingjiao architecture. Drawing from the Buddhist tradition of creating “thrones” or pedestals (座) for deities in religious art60, Jingjiao incorporated the lotus seat into its sculptural works—at least until the late 8th century—placing the lotus beneath the cross (Yao 2017, pp. 215–62). In the Buddhist tradition, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are frequently depicted seated on a lotus throne, symbolizing their birth and transformation from the lotus, a motif deeply embedded in Buddhist iconography. In this Jingjiao context, the aniconic cross replaces the traditional image of a Bodhisattva. (Klimkeit 1993, pp. 477–84). In contrast, Jian’guang Chen et al. (2010) and Hongyan Mu (2019) assert that the lotus motif present in Jingjiao ornamentation does not have a direct correlation with Buddhism. They contend that the appropriation of symbols among religions transpired significantly later, that Christian artifacts adorned with a lotus-like motif predated interactions with Buddhism during the Tang dynasty, and that these motifs were most likely inherited from Persian traditions.61 However, the cross patterns in the Christian examples they cite seem to resemble “palm-leaf” designs rather than the upturned lotus (仰蓮) commonly found in Jingjiao artifacts.

Moreover, most examples of the “cross-lotus” motif have been discovered in China, with very few—if any—cases found in other regions. Those discovered outside China are typically dated to much later, after the 11th century. This evidence suggests that the Jingjiao Church likely adopted the “cross-lotus” motif/pattern during its dissemination in China as a deliberate strategy (Halbertsma 2008, pp. 160–61), to align itself with local Buddhist iconography and enhance its visual appeal to Chinese audiences.

Secondly, regarding the representation of divine figures, the fragmentary large silk painting, dated to the 9th-century Tang dynasty62, was discovered in Cave 17 of the Mogao Caves at Dunhuang (敦煌莫高窟) by the Hungarian-born British archaeologist and geographer Sir Marc Aurel Stein (1862–1943) between 1906 and 1908. It is now housed in the British Museum’s Asian Department (Registration No. 1919,0101,0.48) (Figure 4)63.

This nearly life-sized painting depicts a Christian holy figure (or possibly a saint?) standing in a three-quarter view, bearing a striking resemblance to a Buddhist bodhisattva. In their early descriptions, Stein and British Sinologist Arthur Waley (1889–1966) observed its close similarity to Kṣitigarbha (地藏). Stein classified it as an “unidentified bodhisattva”, while Waley noted its possible misidentification in the Dunhuang caves (Waley 1925, pp. 4–5; 1931, pp. 81–82; Stein 1921, pp. 1050–51). Stein’s original notes describe the figure as follows:

[The] Bodhisattva, approaching life-size, is standing slightly to [the] L[eft] with [its] head turned still further towards [the] same side; [The figure’s] R[ight] arm [is] raised from [the] elbow, and [its] hand held out palm uppermost, thumb and second finger joined; [the] L[eft] hand at [its] breast, [is] mostly broken away, but holding [a] long brown staff which [is] rested on [its] shoulder. This may have been [a] begging-staff, and [the] deity in that case might be Kṣitigarbha. [the] Dress and treatment of [the] fig[ure] are in some points unique, though [the] general style is ‘Chinese Buddhist’ […] [the] Face [is] long and comparatively thin, finely drawn, with [a] high forehead, straight eye[s], [a] slightly aquiline nose, and [a] firm well-made mouth and chin.

[the] Eye[s] blue ([the] only instance of this in the Collection); [the] flesh yellowish pink outlined with dark red except [the] line of [the] eyelash[es], [the] corner of [the] nostril, and [the] dividing line of [the] lips, which are black. On [the] lip[s] and chin [the] moustache and beard seem to be painted in dark red (?), but this part is much discoloured. Details of [the] tiara and [the] top of [the] head are also much obscured, but [the] hair seems to be done in two low blue-black masses dividing to [the] R[ight] and L[eft] behind [the] two wing-shaped ornaments on [the] tiara. [The] Latter has none of [the] usual jewels or streamers, but consists chiefly of these wing orn[ament]s with lotus orn[aments] (?) at their base, and a ‘Maltese cross’ standing up in [the] middle. Behind [the] latter is seen [the] dark brown centre of [a] halo; it is oval, and consists of this brown field surrounded by rings of white, crimson, green, and an outer border of [a] creeping flame. No hair is visible below, but a line of red and yellow scrolled circles appears over [the] R[ight] shoulder (perhaps [the] hair [is] miscoloured) […]

[The] Jewellery comprises only [a] heavy necklace and bracelet, both [of which are] yellow [and] outlined with red. Small red flowers [are] scattered in [the] background. [The] Painting [is] much dimmed and discoloured, especially down [the] broken side.65

In addition to Stein’s description, a Japanese artist, Mr. Furuyama, who reportedly saw the painting shortly after it was brought to England, created a restoration sketch in 1908. Furuyama’s sketch, included in Saeki’s Nestorian Documents and Relics in China (Figure 5), remains the most detailed visual reference available.66 Despite the painting’s fragmentary state, it is now widely regarded as a Christian image.67 However, the fusion of Tang-period Buddhist and Christian elements is evident in the figure’s posture, hand gestures, and the prominent cross pattée in the headdress, which rests on a lotus base (or possibly a throne [?]68), as well as in the cross motifs on the collar and the pectoral cross. These details closely correspond to cross patterns on the Jingjiao Monument and the Luoyang pillar (see above).

As Stein and Waley noted, and as depicted in the Furuyama sketch, the figure appears to hold the staff of a processional cross in its left hand.69 Meanwhile, its right hand is held open, with the thumb touching the tip of the second finger. The index and little fingers are extended, while the ring finger curves slightly inward, with the hand pointing upward.70 This gesture, known as Vitarka-mudrā in Buddhist iconography, commonly seen in Central Asian Buddhist wall paintings at Dunhuang71, symbolizes the “transmission of Buddhist teaching”. In Buddhist practice, mudrās communicate the specific nature and function of deities to practitioners, serving as divine manifestations. (Yan 2009, pp. 385–89; Ui 1986, p. 480). These hand gestures are also used by monks during spiritual exercises and ritual meditations, believed to generate forces that invoke the deity. The Buddha’s gesture, with three extended fingers, symbolizes the “Three Jewels” (triratna) of Buddhism—the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṃgha—as the foundation of religious practice.

In this figure’s mudrā, the thumb and index finger of both hands touch to form a circle, like a representation of the Wheel of Dharma (dharma-cakra) in Buddhist iconography. Notably, a similar hand gesture appears in Judeo-Christian art, particularly in icons of Jesus Christ and other holy figures. In Christianity, the Sign of Blessing involves folding the ring and little fingers toward the palm while keeping the index and middle fingers upright. The thumb is typically held erect but can sometimes fold toward the ring finger (Sittl 1890, p. 304). Scholars note that Christian culture inherited an abstract vocabulary of gestures from antiquity, with many likely borrowed from Greek and Roman traditions of oratory and rhetoric (Schmitt 1990, p. 34). The hand gestures found in Orthodox Christian icons are closely linked to this heritage and are often used as a sign of benediction. In contrast, Buddhist hand gestures from China likely developed later than their Orthodox Christian counterparts (L. Tang 2020).

Another example, like the Stein silk painting displaying a comparable hand gesture, is noted by Tang Li in the 13th-century icon of Christ Pantocrator from the Vatopedi Monastery on Mount Athos, Greece, attributed to an unknown Byzantine master (Figure 6) (L. Tang 2020)72.

Tang (idem, p. 249) observes that although such an image postdates the silk painting from Dunhuang, it may yet signify the continuity of an ancient tradition of Christian imagery. Furthermore, it is probable that many earlier icons were lost during the Iconoclastic Controversy in the Byzantine Empire during the 8th and 9th centuries.

However, it remains unclear how standardized such hand gestures were more than half a millennium earlier during the Tang dynasty. Like the case of Jingjiao textual evidence, which shows that collaboration and appropriation were used to produce those texts, the Buddhist elements in the silk painting likely stem from the fact that the artist was trained in painting Buddhist imagery at Dunhuang and might have even studied under Chinese artists. When tasked with depicting a Christian figure, the painter may have naturally employed techniques and styles commonly used for Buddhist figures—methods familiar to him. Consequently, the resulting silk painting combines a hybrid of Buddhist and Christian artistic elements and reflects the cross-cultural nature of early Christianity in Xinjiang, Dunhuang, Turfan, and other sites in the Northwestern regions of China.

Regarding the representations on religious objects and artifacts, the stone pillar discovered in Luoyang, adapted from the Buddhist dhāraṇī/sūtra pillar (經幢), features male and female flying figures often interpreted as “angels” flanking the cross. Their graceful, flowing forms likely draw inspiration from Buddhist apsarās (Ch. feitian 飛天 or celestial beings, feixian 飛仙), yet they display distinctly Sinicized attributes.73

According to the archaeological report on the Jingjiao monastery ruins from the Tang and Song dynasties west of modern Turfan (Turpan) City (吐魯番) in Xinjiang Autonomous Region (新疆), numerous nearby Buddhist sites show structural similarities to Buddhist monasteries in Central Asia (Ren and Meng 2024, pp. 45–55). Wang Jing (J. Wang 2024) and Chen Jichun (J. Chen 2008) examined a fragmentary mural unearthed from the Jingjiao monastery/church in the ancient city of Gaochang (高昌) (Le Coq [1928] 1985), Turpan, and now preserved in Museum für Asiatische Kunst, Berlin. This mural depicts a “Palm Sunday” ceremony with a deacon and three worshippers conducted by the Jingjiao Church (J. Wang 2024, pp. 84–85; Parry 2016, p. 28 and Figure 3). The Jingjiao murals from Gaochang, portraying variations of this scene, exhibit distinct Tang-period Chinese painting features, such as flat compositions emphasizing central figures through density and rhythmic spatial arrangements and a use of suggestive, expressive xieyi (寫意) brushwork. Moreover, the attire of the women depicted resembles Tang dynasty Shinu tu 仕女圖 (paintings of court ladies) (J. Wang 2024).

It is plausible that the Buddhist art of the Tang dynasty influenced the paintings associated with Jingjiao at Dunhuang and Turfan. The incorporation of Buddhist imagery in these Jingjiao artifacts suggests that contemporary Christians intentionally adopted localized Buddhist iconography and aesthetics when collaborating with artisans. Chinese converts may have executed some of these paintings, though insufficient evidence exists to confirm this. Nevertheless, such cultural adaptation was likely aimed at enhancing the accessibility of Jingjiao teachings among local adherents rather than providing an exact theological representation. Iconographically and stylistically, this phenomenon reflects a characteristic of “borrowing pictures”.

4. Dialogues with Buddhism Accelerated the Localization of the Jingjiao Church

Alopen’s missionary strategy consisted of two key steps: translation and doctrinal explanation, both aimed at Emperor Taizong. He worked closely with two high-ranking ministers, the eminent statesmen Fang Xuanling (房玄齡, 579–648) and Zheng Weixuan (魏徵宣, 580–643), who acted as translators. This suggests that Alopen had a substantial connection with the court that allowed for effective communication with the emperor.74 Once Taizong grasped the key teachings of the Jingjiao Church, he “specifically ordered that they be promulgated” (特令傳授)75. This incident highlights the significance of presenting the translated scriptures to Emperor Taizong during their interactions.

The Jingjiao Stele (Jingjiao bei 景教碑):

When Emperor Taizong’s reign (627–649 CE) began, he was wise in his relations with the people. In Da Qin, there was a ‘man of great virtue’ (a bishop), known as Aluoben [A-lo-pen] [XI]76, who detected the intent of heaven and conveyed the true scripture here. He observed how the winds blew to travel through difficulties and perils, and in the ninth year of the Zhenguan era (635 CE), he reached Chang’an. The emperor dispatched an official, Fang Xuanling, as an envoy to the western outskirts to welcome the visitor, who translated the scriptures in the ‘Academy of Scholars’ (imperial library)77. (The emperor) examined the doctrines [inside] the forbidden gates (i.e., the palace/his apartments) and reached a profound understanding of their truth. He specially ordered that they be promulgated 太宗文皇帝. 光華啓運, 明聖臨人, 大秦國有上德, 曰阿[XI]羅本. 佔青雲而載真經, 望風律以馳艱險. 貞觀九祀, 至於長安. [缺/璹]帝使宰臣房公玄齡, 㧾/惣[總]78仗西郊, 賓迎入內. 翻經書殿, 問道禁闈; 深知正真, 特令傳授.79

The three years Alopen translated the scriptures (635–638) marked a pivotal period in Emperor Taizong’s reign. In 637 CE, Emperor Taizong issued an edict reflecting on life’s fleeting nature and the deep wisdom of ancient sages:

Life is the great virtue of Heaven and Earth, and the lifespan is [but] a fleeting moment. Life, embodied in seven chi (one’s body), is limited to a hundred years. It encompasses a unique spirit and energy inherent in [a] self-existing nature beyond external control. As the Liji (Book of Rites) declares, ‘When a Ruler succeeds to his state, he makes his coffin (bì 椑),’ Zhuang Zhou observes, ‘[Heaven and Earth], my life is spent in toil on it; at death I find rest in it.’ Is this not the far-sighted wisdom of the Sages and the profound knowledge of the wise?” 夫生者, 天地之大德, 壽者, 修短之一期. 生有七尺之形, 壽以百齡爲限, 含靈稟氣, 莫不同焉, 皆得之於自然, 不可以分外企也. 是以禮記雲: ‘君即位而爲椑’. 莊周雲: ‘勞我以形, 息我以死.’ 豈非聖人遠鑒, 通賢深識?80

The edict reflects Emperor Taizong’s profound contemplation on the eternal consciousness of the universe (Heaven and Earth), his lamentation over the fleeting nature of life, his deep attachment to the present world, and his melancholy about the irreconcilable tension between these contradictions. In response to these reflections, Taizong began preparing for succession by cultivating the crown prince, delegating administrative responsibilities to him, and assigning fiefs to the imperial princes. These actions reveal that the emperor had accepted the inevitability of death yet remained deeply fearful of it.

The Jingjiao doctrines preached by Alopen to Emperor Taizong, especially those concerning eternal life and salvation, alleviated the emperor’s fear of death and his existential anxieties. The miraculous accounts of the birth of the Son of God, his overcoming of worldly tribulations, and his resurrection—narrated in the Xuting Mishisuo jing—were explained to Taizong in a manner that addressed his troubled state of mind. Alopen also emphasized the divine right of emperors in the early scriptures, declaring that God is the sole true deity. He proposed the following to Taizong:

The previous life of the August Ruler (Your Majesty) was blessed by God, and the ‘Heaven-Honored One’ (God)81 took over the position. Is it not possible that Your Majesty is the ‘Heaven-Honored One’ himself?

聖上前身福弘, 天尊補任, 亦無自乃天尊耶?82

Alopen further expounded on the concept of eternal existence, stating the following:

Your Majesty is the emperor, and all living beings follow your progress and behavior. If anyone fails to respect the August Ruler’s will or disobeys your orders, that person is a rebel among all living beings.

屬自作$\square$聖上83, 一切眾生皆取$\square$聖上進止. 如有人不取聖上, 驅使不伏, 其人在於眾生, 即是叛逆.84

He went on to provide a theological justification for the emperor’s past actions, saying the following:

Your Majesty is a god born into this world. Although your parents are still alive, all beings possess wisdom and plans. You should revere both the Heaven-Honored One (God) and the August Ruler, as well as honor your parents. To accept the doctrine of the Heaven-Honored One means to uphold the precepts. [According to] what the Heaven-Honored One accepts, and if one embraces the Honored teaching, one must first renounce reverence to the gods and the buddhas worshipped by other living beings, for the buddhas endure suffering. Heaven and earth were established solely through the pure power of the Heaven-Honored One. Therefore, Your Majesty should strive to eliminate outdated customs and seek the divine palace through the wisdom of the buddhas. In doing so, Your Majesty will remain forever free.85

聖上皆是神生, 今世雖有父母見存, 眾生有智計; 合怕天尊及聖上, 並怕父母. 好受天尊法教, 不合破戒. 天尊所受, 及受尊教, 先遣眾生禮諸天, 佛, 爲佛受苦. 置立天地, 只爲清淨威力, 因緣. 聖上唯須勤伽習俊, 聖上宮殿, 於諸佛求得. 聖上身, 總是自由.86

The passage emphasizes the personal freedom of the emperor’s will and the belief that salvation can be achieved through the practice of merit, presenting Jingjiao teachings as the ultimate pathway. This foreign doctrine provided a justification for the existence of the Tang imperial authority and its claim to eternal legitimacy, even exonerating the violent acts committed in its name. Such a perspective resonated with local people and, to some extent, eased Emperor Taizong’s psychological suffering.

Emperor Taizong readily accepted these teachings and religions like Jingjiao, which offered him a form of self-comfort in the face of life’s impermanence. This acceptance is clearly reflected in the edict he issued to establish the “Persian Monastery” (波斯寺), later renamed Da Qin Monastery (大秦寺), allowing Alopen to preach his doctrines. The edict described these teachings as follows:

…mysterious and transcendent non-action, that establish the essentials of production and completion, and are of help to the beings and of profit to mankind.

玄妙無爲; 生成立要, 濟物利人.87

Emperor Taizong was impressed by the mystical and non-intrusive nature of Jingjiao teachings, which posed no threat to political stability while offering practical benefits for the state, society, and its people. Consequently, he permitted their dissemination. Seizing this opportunity, Jingjiao monks built monasteries and recruited numerous followers, promoting the superiority of their religion primarily to serve the interests of the powerful.88

5. The Historical Motivation for Christian–Buddhist Dialogue in China

The profound fusion of Buddhism and Christianity occurred primarily during the Tang dynasty in China. The following outlines the historical reasons behind this unique development.

The initial integration of Christianity and Buddhism was not a phenomenon that began in China. For example, the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, which is considered “extra-canonical”, led early 20th-century scholars to speculate that Buddhist scriptures might have influenced some aspects of intertextuality.89 However, the specifics of these connections remain unverified and debated.90

The missionary journey of Thomas in India, as described in the Acts of Thomas, can be corroborated by historical accounts. Furthermore, the Gospel of Thomas was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, and is thought to have been composed between 60 and 250 CE, a period during which many Buddhists lived in Alexandria, Egypt. In 2023, Buddha statues in the Gandhāran style unearthed at Berenike (or Baranis) in Egypt further support this claim (Sidebotham et al. 2023, pp. 13–28). Additionally, archaeological evidence indicates that Oxyrhynchus (Ancient Greek: Ὀξύῤῥυγχος, modern Al-Bahnasa) was a thriving city during Roman times and a significant center of early Christianity in Egypt. Notably, three Greek fragments from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri have been identified which contain textual fragments of the Gospel of Thomas (Grenfell and Hunt 1897, p. 5).

5.1. The Silk Roads and the Deepening of Ancient Globalization

With advancements in production technology and the rise of superpowers, the increasingly frequent trade and exchanges between the Tang dynasty and other countries played a significant role in expanding globalization. The Silk Roads, which opened during the Han (漢) dynasty (202 BCE–220 CE), became even more important during the Tang dynasty.91 Through these interactions, both China and the West experienced significant social changes, impacting the lives of their participants. Beyond merchants, missionaries also traveled along the Silk Roads, bringing with them religious traditions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Manichaeism. These diverse cultural and religious influences collided and merged within a relatively short period of time.

In the early Tang dynasty, many Hu (胡) merchants, particularly Sogdians, immigrated to China. Due to the strategic location of Sogdian merchants and their cultural tradition of commerce, they became key intermediaries in land trade between India, Persia, and Ancient China. The Sogdians practiced a variety of religious beliefs, including Buddhism and Christianity. Evidence from unearthed images and donor inscriptions shows that they could support the diverse religions they practiced, contributing materially to their spread.

5.2. The Cultural Gene of “Neutrality” in Chinese Civilization

The large-scale presence and development of foreign religions in China is a unique phenomenon among ancient civilizations, highlighting the characteristic of Chinese civilization that “greatness lies in the capacity (to accept or embrace)” (有容乃大) (Q. Liu 2023, pp. 92–93). Taking Buddhism as an example, prior to the Tang dynasty, Chinese Buddhists drew on Indian Buddhist thoughts and theories, interpreting and annotating the scriptures according to their own understanding, which led to the formation of various schools.

The period from the Sui (隋, 581–619) and Tang (618–907) dynasties to the Wu Zhou (武周, 690–705) period under Empress Wu Zetian (武則天, r. 683–705) marked a critical period of the imperial Sinicization of Indian Buddhism. Chinese Buddhist thought evolved to incorporate both “Mahāyāna” and “Hīnayāna” traditions, blending the concepts of “emptiness” (Ch. kong 空, Skt. śūnyatā) and “existence” (Ch. you 有) and giving rise to distinct Buddhist “sects” (Ch. zong 宗).

The success of the Jingjiao church in China can be attributed not only to the imperial support it received under Alopen’s leadership, which included active translation of scriptures and a gradual missionary strategy, but also to the church’s localized approach. By integrating Confucianism, Buddhism, and the teachings of Zhuangzi (莊子) and Laozi (老子), Jingjiao resonated with the social and cultural environment of the time. The localization of both Buddhism and Christianity in China demonstrates the inclusiveness of Chinese civilization. Additionally, there may be a political component as well. The church served as an important conduit between Western and Eastern Asia. Christianity introduced new technologies into China, including medicine and seemingly astronomy/astrology. From the standpoint of leadership and diplomacy, it represented a valuable institution. 92

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, upon the arrival of the Jingjiao Church in China, Alopen and his fellow Jingjiao monk–missionaries established their presence by appealing to the Tang emperor’s quest for “eternal life”. With backing from influential individuals, they successfully integrated into the region. When Jingjiao first emerged, Buddhism had reached its peak development. However, regarding identity, the prevailing foreign cultural landscape diminished Jingjiao’s “discourse power”. As a result, missionaries implemented a localized approach known as geyi, which combined Christian teachings with Confucian, Buddhist, and Daoist concepts through collaborative translation and oral preaching, helping to effectively disseminate their beliefs. Techniques such as “matching concepts” and “borrowing images” play crucial roles in cultural hermeneutics, wherein missionaries engaged with local cultures and adapted to their environment. Nevertheless, Buddhism itself was also viewed as an “outsider”, and this approach had drawbacks for the spread of Jingjiao (Z. Liu 2009). By incorporating Buddhist language and imagery, Jingjiao inadvertently created cognitive biases that affected recipients’ understanding of their teachings. Consequently, during the Huichang Persecution of Buddhism, Jingjiao faced a devastating setback and nearly ceased its propagation in the Central Plains.

As Christianity was embraced in India and China, it gradually became more self-aware and independent while continuing its process of localization. The cases discussed above suggest that interreligious dialogue can foster exchange and integration. Analyzing missionary strategies within the context of historical Buddhist and Christian interactions provides insight into why Christianity gained acceptance among imperial authorities and spread in terms of material and religious culture during the Tang dynasty.