Plausability: Christian Exodus from the Roman Empire

Just a question I have had for a while. If conditions in Rome were so unfavorable to the Christians during the period after Christ's death, why didn't they just leave? What would have prevented an exodus? If they had left where would they have gone? How would that have effected the development of the world?

Where would they go?

TheSunKing said:

Just a question I have had for a while. If conditions in Rome were so unfavorable to the Christians during the period after Christ's death, why didn't they just leave? What would have prevented an exodus? If they had left where would they have gone? How would that have effected the development of the world?

Click to expand...

They could have gone to Persia, maybe (I'm not an expert here, so don't quote me on this). Persia was a Roman enemy, too, so we might see a _____!Rome vs a Christian!Persia. Meanwhile, Christian!Persia sends its missionaries both west and east, and they're at the center of the Silk Road...

Christian!China, Christian!India, Christian!Asia!

Mike Stearns said:

Where would they go?

Click to expand...

Maybe they would go East (St. Thomas did, so maybe more Christian success in India makes it more viable) or South (into Africa, if Eithiopia worked out okay).

TheSunKing said:

Just a question I have had for a while. If conditions in Rome were so unfavorable to the Christians during the period after Christ's death, why didn't they just leave? What would have prevented an exodus? If they had left where would they have gone? How would that have effected the development of the world?

Click to expand...

First, conditions were not bad. The first percecutions didn't happen for 30 years and even then they were confined to the city of Rome.

For most of the time for the first few centuries Christians lived next to their neighbors and were not seen as anything dangerous. Rather like a middle American might see a Wiccan i.e. eccentric but not dangerous.

Sure an occasional governor went after them. But only twice (off the top of my head) were there empire wide percecutions. Basically claims of Christian percecution is overstated.

Religous violence really didn't become widespread until the Christians took over. Their sustained percecution of Pagans was one of the major reasons Christianity won the 3rd 4th century war of ideas.

Kerney said:

First, conditions were not bad. The first percecutions didn't happen for 30 years and even then they were confined to the city of Rome.

For most of the time for the first few centuries Christians lived next to their neighbors and were not seen as anything dangerous. Rather like a middle American might see a Wiccan i.e. eccentric but not dangerous.

Sure an occasional governor went after them. But only twice (off the top of my head) were there empire wide percecutions. Basically claims of Christian percecution is overstated.

Religous violence really didn't become widespread until the Christians took over. Their sustained percecution of Pagans was one of the major reasons Christianity won the 3rd 4th century war of ideas.

Click to expand...

There's a really good book on this actually: The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom. It's well worth the read if you ask me.

SlyDessertFox said:

There's a really good book on this actually: The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom. It's well worth the read if you ask me.

Click to expand...

Interesting! I may have to check it out.

They'd probably need to be persecuted far more harshly. While they do have a martyring complex which would drive faith, and they did genuinely have moments they were persecuted, this persecution was sporadic and not as hard as it could have been.

A decent example of a way to effectively have them flee east would be to have them get persecuted as badly as Manichaeism was when the Christians gained supremacy. After all, for a time the Manichees were rivals in influence to the Christians until they were legitimized. IE you'd need to enact an empire wide pogrom that sets out to kill priests and evict people similar to that and make being a christian illegal.

And this attitude would definitely make the Sassanids more inclined to support the christians; they supported the Lahkmids for being members of the Church of the East precisely to use as a counterpoint to Rome.

TheSunKing said:

Just a question I have had for a while. If conditions in Rome were so unfavorable to the Christians during the period after Christ's death, why didn't they just leave? What would have prevented an exodus? If they had left where would they have gone? How would that have effected the development of the world?

Click to expand...

Maybe to Armenia after 301 AC ? The first Christian State Religion country

TheSunKing said:

Just a question I have had for a while. If conditions in Rome were so unfavorable to the Christians during the period after Christ's death, why didn't they just leave? What would have prevented an exodus? If they had left where would they have gone? How would that have effected the development of the world?

Click to expand...

Christianity started more successful outside the Roman Empire to begin with. It was in Armenia, Ethiopia, China, Arabia, Southern India, in the German areas, etc. Besides, one of the central tenants of Christianity was to not hide it from the world. Also keep in mind that the Twelve Apostles all went to different aras in order to spread the word to Jews, while the Apostle to replace Judas introduced the rest to Paul before going to Greece. Also remember that a lot of the Christians early on were women, due to the high respect given to them. Part of the 'martyrdom complex' required husbands to respect them and love then as Jesus did the Church. Meaning they had to be willingly to be humiliate, tortured, and murdered to protect them. The issue for all of this not was for saving themselves but to save others and to do good deeds. It worked.