Fairly significant retcon; the Restored Nazarene Church no longer exists. I had them split from the Apostolic Church over the OTL doctrine of original sin, which wouldn’t exist in the cultural milieu of TTL’s Christendom(although the idea of universal sin and redemption is still present in the Apostolic Church, since it dates back to Paul). Instead, the Arabs will be Ebionites(Christians who still followed Jewish law) since they seem to have been fairly popular in the Arabian peninsula IOTL and fit very well into a world where Christianity has a decidedly Near Eastern character. Everything else about the rise of Abu Yusuf and his empire will stay the same.
A Light Shines East: The World of a Christian Persia
- Thread starter Merovingian
- Start date
I admit I'm not very familiar with Jewish Christianity and the Ebionites in particular and wikipedia is pretty scarce on it's articles on the Ebionites and Jewish Christianity so what in particular are the major divergences between them and Apostolic Christianity if that is alright to ask?
Essentially, the Ebionites were Christians who believed that Jesus was a mere man who became the Jewish messiah and a prophet in the tradition of Moses and Abraham through his observance of the laws of the Old Testament, which they still followed. They rejected Peter and Paul, instead believing that Saint James the Just was the rightful successor of Jesus. Some, but not all, Ebionites seem to have rejected the belief that Jesus was born virgin. They all rejected that he was the literal son of God, instead believing that he became the adoptive son of God at his baptism.
If it helps, everything else is staying the same.Awww
Interesting... I wonder how the fact that the two main branches of Christianity being so different on the concept of Jesus as born of God or his adopted son will impact Christology in general ITTL. That actually makes me wonder...What is the position that the Apostolic Church has on Jesus's nature? Is it Dysophalist like the OTL Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthordox Churches, Nestorian, Miaphysite or Monophysite or some other conception of Jesus's nature as the Son of God?
(Also a question, what is the ITTL name for the 'Ebionite' Church? Since it spreads through the Levant, North Africa and Hispania from what I can tell.)
(Also a question, what is the ITTL name for the 'Ebionite' Church? Since it spreads through the Levant, North Africa and Hispania from what I can tell.)
Last edited:
The Apostolic Church will go through all the same Christological debates that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches went through IOTL, before finally settling on Nestorianism, since it was popular in the Persian empire IOTL.
Probably just the Ebionite Church. It should be noted that the Ebionite Church has no centralized leadership like the Apostolics have with the Patriarch of Ctesiphon. Instead, they have a council of bishops who are charged with interpreting, debating, and enforcing(or attempting to enforce) the laws of the Bible.
It was only popular because the Sassanids promoted it as a way to split the Native church off from their Roman counterparts, it would be highly unlikely to be as popular a Christological doctrine ittl.
danteheadman
Banned
!!!!!
Okay! This is extraordinarily interesting. I wonder how the Arab Ebionites would interact with both Jews and Persianate Christians? What would their relationship be with Jewish Oral law, especially the Palestinian Talmud and Babylonian Talmud? Or are they more like Karaites? The possibilities are so interesting!
(They do need a different name though I think because the name relates to a vow of voluntary poverty that wouldn't really fly much in the practical sense of an Arab empire; the Jewish-law-following Arab Church isn't strictly the same entity as the Jewish-Chriatian ascetics of the 1st-3rd Centuries, despite that theology traveling southward).
Last edited:
danteheadman
Banned
So they have their own codified Oral Law?
Does this mean that there is a THIRD Talmud!?
danteheadman
Banned
The development of medieval miaphysite and monophysite heresies will be interesting!
The Ebionites predated the creation of both Talmuds, so they likely do use a third one, in addition to an Aramaic translation of the Gospel of Mathew called the Gospel of the Hebrews(used by the Ebionites IOTL).
While the Hebrew word ”ebyonim“ from which the Ebionites’ name derives does literally mean “the poor” and most of the original Ebionites did take a vow of poverty, the term seems to have later been applied to all Christians who still followed Jewish laws, so the name still works.
It certainly will be!
danteheadman
Banned
Hot diggity dog that would be interesting. A Yathribi Talmud? By Christians with an interest in interpreting Jewish law, instead of setting it aside? What would their rituals be like? I am so, so, so curious. If only we could peer into another TL and see what they would have decided on for Pesach! Or Shabbat!!
I'm not familiar as to whether pre-Islamic Arab Christians OTL identified with that moniker or not. It was applied by Roman Christians to the movement and to all "Judaizers," but that specific application of the name as an exonym might not have happened ITTL.
Does anyone know what name Arab Christians used OTL?
You know something I realized...Since ITTL the Roman Empire never Christianized that may mean that the Greek tragedy tradition likely will keep on going as from what I understand christianization was a major blow to Greek theater as their was a lost of interest in the philosophical and mythological focus of Greek plays. However with the continuation of the Greco-Roman Pantheon (even with Mithras and Isis now syncretized into the Hellenistic religious tradition) that may mean that their theater tradition also continues uninterrupted. Especially with the divergent end of the Roman Empire compared to OTL, as there seems to be more of a political continuity in both the Palmyrian and Gaulic Empires compared to the OTL fall of the Western Roman Empire. Though there is a lack of OTL Rhomania/Byzantine Empire to counterbalance that.
Actually, that makes me wonder...Would there be a development of the 'passion play' tradition ITTL Christendom? Since I am unsure of the history of plays in the Persianate sphere upto this point IOTL comnpared to the tradition of poetry. Though there was still a strong Hellenistic influence in the region from the aftermath of Alexander's conquests so that may still provide a cultural basis for theater ITTL Christendom if the Near east lacked a pre Hellenistic theater tradition.
Actually, that makes me wonder...Would there be a development of the 'passion play' tradition ITTL Christendom? Since I am unsure of the history of plays in the Persianate sphere upto this point IOTL comnpared to the tradition of poetry. Though there was still a strong Hellenistic influence in the region from the aftermath of Alexander's conquests so that may still provide a cultural basis for theater ITTL Christendom if the Near east lacked a pre Hellenistic theater tradition.
You’ll see, soon enough…
OTL Arab Christians variously call themselves either “Nasrani(نصراني)”, meaning “Nazarenes”, or “Masihi(مسيحي)”, meaning “followers of the Messiah” or rather just an Arabic calque of “Christian”, with the Arabic word “Masih” being used as a replacement for the Greek word “Khristos.” However, these terms refer to all Christians regardless of denomination and the Ebionites themselves are now extinct. However, I’m sticking with the name “Ebionites” since it was used to refer to Christians who followed Jewish law IOTL. Even if the Arabian sect isn’t completely identical to OTL Ebionites, as long as other Christians call them that, the name might still stay; the OTL terms “Lutheran”, “Mormon”, “Quaker”, “Puritan”, “Nestorian”“Methodist”, and even “Christian” all started off as derogatory terms that were adopted by the followers of those religions. There’s no reason that “Ebionite” couldn’t undergo the same evolution ITTL.
Now that you mention it, the Greco-Roman theatrical tradition will likely persist in the Hellenic cultural sphere.
The passion play is probably similar to OTL, considering the strong Hellenistic influence within the Parthian Empire. I imagine a lot of people ITTL wouldn’t like to admit that the passion play is partially derived from the “Roman” theater tradition, however.
danteheadman
Banned
Okay I can't stop thinking about a world where the primary theological issue between the "Big Three Abrahamic Religions" is a single, two-part coherent question about the applicability of a specific body of religious law and a specific individual's place in it, instead of a series of different and incompatible questions that makes the very idea of "Abrahamic religions" contentious to some.
Like, Bart Ehrman wrote about the OTL "Two Powers in Heaven" theology in pre-Hurban Judaism. In a world where Christianity is both not fundamentally antisemitic and is adoptionist and dyophysite instead of trinitarian, I can imagine that Two Powers theology might not die out. Instead of Judaism being opposed to Christianity because it appears foundationally polytheistic, it would simply disagree with Christianity on the identity, but not necessarily the nature, of the Messiah.
(That's not to say there wouldn't be a fierce rivalry between the three religions! And I'm not saying that there wouldn't ever be violence! What I am saying is that there is the potential for the kind of tense-but-inherently-peaceful interfaith relationship we see between Christians and Jews in post-enlightenment America or prewar Poland, and between Muslims and Jews in Umayyad Iberia, to be the norm across history instead of anomalous!)
Judaism: the Messiah is not yet here and Mosaic law still applies
Arab Christianity / !Ebionites: the Messiah is here and Mosaic law still applies
Persianate Christianity / Apostolic Church: the Messiah is here and Mosaic law no longer applies
These are debates that could, in theory, allow a common religious identity to be maintained despite doctrinal differences, without a gross hierarchical nature to it (as we see between the supersessionism of OTL Christianity and Islam). Like how Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, and (some) Protestants see one another as fundamentally sort of the same. Or how Sunni and Shia see one another. Or how the first Christian Persian emperor OTL proclaimed Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrian, and Mandeanism to be all fundamentally sort of the same.
I dunno. Maybe it's just me. But it seems like there's a possibility for these three movements to maintain some dialogue that looks a little nicer than OTL.
Like, Bart Ehrman wrote about the OTL "Two Powers in Heaven" theology in pre-Hurban Judaism. In a world where Christianity is both not fundamentally antisemitic and is adoptionist and dyophysite instead of trinitarian, I can imagine that Two Powers theology might not die out. Instead of Judaism being opposed to Christianity because it appears foundationally polytheistic, it would simply disagree with Christianity on the identity, but not necessarily the nature, of the Messiah.
(That's not to say there wouldn't be a fierce rivalry between the three religions! And I'm not saying that there wouldn't ever be violence! What I am saying is that there is the potential for the kind of tense-but-inherently-peaceful interfaith relationship we see between Christians and Jews in post-enlightenment America or prewar Poland, and between Muslims and Jews in Umayyad Iberia, to be the norm across history instead of anomalous!)
Judaism: the Messiah is not yet here and Mosaic law still applies
Arab Christianity / !Ebionites: the Messiah is here and Mosaic law still applies
Persianate Christianity / Apostolic Church: the Messiah is here and Mosaic law no longer applies
These are debates that could, in theory, allow a common religious identity to be maintained despite doctrinal differences, without a gross hierarchical nature to it (as we see between the supersessionism of OTL Christianity and Islam). Like how Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, and (some) Protestants see one another as fundamentally sort of the same. Or how Sunni and Shia see one another. Or how the first Christian Persian emperor OTL proclaimed Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrian, and Mandeanism to be all fundamentally sort of the same.
I dunno. Maybe it's just me. But it seems like there's a possibility for these three movements to maintain some dialogue that looks a little nicer than OTL.
Last edited:
I have to say @danteheadman that implications of that butterfly would be, as you stated, quite profound for the relations between Judaism and Christianity ITTL. The fact that ITTL Christianity is already making itself directly oppositional against the Roman Empire due to having never required assimilation into it already caused quite a divergence for Jewish-Christian relations, as Rome's extant anti-semiticism wasn't able to insidiously form a nucleus of Christian identity ITTL unlike OTL. So if that ended up being the case it would help serve as a theological bridge between the two faiths that helped ensure they lacked a direct hostility towards each other just as Ancient Iran's long history of religious toleration influencing ITTL Christianty and the official proclomation of Shahhenshah Shapur laid further foundation for ITTL Christianity to be closer to OTL Medieval Islam's general religiously tolerant views of fellow 'dhimni' faiths.
That does make me wonder just how the Trinity is going to be handled in the Apostolic Church. As from what I understand that was born of heavy Roman and Hellenistic influence that often likened Jesus to more a demi-god from my admittingly limited understanding on the matter and whilst there is still Paul's influence on Christianity, as well as the heavy hellenistic influence in the Parthian/Arsacid Empire I imagine that it's weaker than OTL since it developed IOTL in the Hellenistic Roman Empire. Especially as from what I understand the Trinity as we understand it was developed after the POD and again in quite different circumstances compared to ITTL.
The Ebionite Church I know is definately not Trinitarian as we understand the matter with its position of adoptionism. Though that has me wondering...did ITTL Ebionite Church adopt the pseudo-dualism that ITTL Apostolic Church adopted for the Problem of Evil? I'm asking since it isn't based upon the free will conception of evil that the original idea of the True Nazarene Church held. Or is their position on the Problem of Evil and the nature of Satan perhaps closer to Judaism's historical view of Satan as a 'prosecutor' of God to test humanity as I understand the matter.
That actually makes me wonder on the development of thought for ITTL Zoroastrianism, particularly ITTL Armenian Zoroastrianism. I think what Zoroastrian scholars argue/claim in reaction to arguments by Apostolic Christianity and Christianity will in general of superseding Zoroastrianism will be the denial by Zoroastrians of the position that Jesus is the Saoshyant that ITTL Christianity adopted from what I understand on the matter as it became increasingly Persianized. Just as Judaism denies the position that Jesus is the Messiah. I also am curious on if/when Armenia Zoroastrianism saw itself as part of the Abrahamic faith tradition as they weren't directly under the rulership of Shapur when he made that proclamation that essentially officialized the policy of Zoroastrianism being seen as part of the Abrahamic faith.
That does make me wonder just how the Trinity is going to be handled in the Apostolic Church. As from what I understand that was born of heavy Roman and Hellenistic influence that often likened Jesus to more a demi-god from my admittingly limited understanding on the matter and whilst there is still Paul's influence on Christianity, as well as the heavy hellenistic influence in the Parthian/Arsacid Empire I imagine that it's weaker than OTL since it developed IOTL in the Hellenistic Roman Empire. Especially as from what I understand the Trinity as we understand it was developed after the POD and again in quite different circumstances compared to ITTL.
The Ebionite Church I know is definately not Trinitarian as we understand the matter with its position of adoptionism. Though that has me wondering...did ITTL Ebionite Church adopt the pseudo-dualism that ITTL Apostolic Church adopted for the Problem of Evil? I'm asking since it isn't based upon the free will conception of evil that the original idea of the True Nazarene Church held. Or is their position on the Problem of Evil and the nature of Satan perhaps closer to Judaism's historical view of Satan as a 'prosecutor' of God to test humanity as I understand the matter.
That actually makes me wonder on the development of thought for ITTL Zoroastrianism, particularly ITTL Armenian Zoroastrianism. I think what Zoroastrian scholars argue/claim in reaction to arguments by Apostolic Christianity and Christianity will in general of superseding Zoroastrianism will be the denial by Zoroastrians of the position that Jesus is the Saoshyant that ITTL Christianity adopted from what I understand on the matter as it became increasingly Persianized. Just as Judaism denies the position that Jesus is the Messiah. I also am curious on if/when Armenia Zoroastrianism saw itself as part of the Abrahamic faith tradition as they weren't directly under the rulership of Shapur when he made that proclamation that essentially officialized the policy of Zoroastrianism being seen as part of the Abrahamic faith.
Last edited:
You’re right about Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism ITTL. As for how Armenian Zoroastrianism develops, they will deny the claim by TTL’s Christians that Jesus is the Saoshyant. The form of Zoroastrianism practiced in Armenia IOTL also had a high amount of reverence for the yazatas, especial Mithra and Verethragna(called Mihr and Vahagn in Armenian). Zoroastrianism will be central to Armenia’s identity, with Armenia being almost a reverse of OTL; a non-Christian country in a sea of Christendom. The Apostolic Church ITTL considers the Zoroastrian Gathas to be divinely inspired but the rest of the Avesta to be a later forgery, connecting Zoroastrianism to the Abrahamic tradition.
There were Hellenistic influences in the Parthian Empire IOTL and precedent going back to Paul, so I’s say the Trinity still exists. Plus, we’ve already established that the Apostolic Church is dyophysite, which basically requires a trinity. You’re right that the Ebionites are staunchly non-trinitarian, though. As for your question about Satan, in the Apostolic Church he’s viewed as being more akin to Ahriman in Zoroastrianism(i.e. a cosmic force of evil capable of legitimately opposing God/Christ, although ultimately still weaker) while the Ebionites are closer to the Jewish view of God’s prosecutor.
