In response to the following thesis:
"Large conversions only took place when powerful political, social, or economic incentives encouraged it and even then it led universally to syncretism rather than outright adoption of foreign cultural tradition"I think that this thesis is valid in almost all circumstances. People don't convert to a new religion on a whim. Religion is a major part of the lives of people who practice it, and they will not convert unless they are offered a good reason to. This reason could be political, such as the adoption of a religion by a leader. It could be social, such as the equality which Buddhism offered to Chinese women. It also could be economic. The part which I am not sure about is the word "universally" in the second half of the statement. While I am sure that it ALMOST always led to syncretism, the are exceptions to ALL generalizations about history. There have almost certainly been times in history in which there has been outright adoptions of foreign beliefs. During the rapid spread of Islamic faiths there were times when peoples completely adopted the Islamic customs. In most cases however we find syncretism. Certainly with the conversions of Europeans to Christianity we see the adoption by the faith of Pagan holidays and traditions. With Buddhism's spread into China many Confucian ideals were adopted, as well as with the "greater vehicle" (Mahayana) the transformation into a more acceptable religion. Judiasm was a faith that had very little conversion. As a result, the religion changed very little over time. This thesis provides a strong basis for understanding the spread of religions.
