There is a very common theme which I've observed in Indological studies. If a particular Hindu deity has multiple names and legends associated with them, the Indologists will start with the assumption that multiple traditions were assimilated to create the deity.
So, if Mahabharata or Harivansha uses Krishna for Vasudeva interchangeably for even hundred times, but there exists another text in which only Vasudeva or Krishna is mentioned, Indologists will conclude that Vasudeva and Krishna were different deities.
On the other hand, if Buddha is called with multiple names in Buddhist traditions, Indologists will faithfully accept the legend and etymology associated with those names. They won't investigate to see if Buddhists appropriated any tribal deity or so on.
If one starts compiling such difference in approach related to similar contexts, the list will run really huge. There is no other explanation except malice to indulge in such scholarship.
Loading suggestions...