A (more) syncretic Christianity?

[Bassarion Korax]

Is there some way to make a (more) syncretic religion out of Christianity and some form of Mediterranean polytheism? Perhaps if Jesus had had children, perhaps he and his wife could be recognized as living manifestations of Isis and Serapis, and their child the living Harpocrates? Perhaps somehow or other Jesus is syncretized with Sabazios or Zalmoxis in Anatolia/Thrace? Or am I just insane?

 

[Albert.Nik]

Is there some way to make a (more) syncretic religion out of Christianity and some form of Mediterranean polytheism? Perhaps if Jesus had had children, perhaps he and his wife could be recognized as living manifestations of Isis and Serapis, and their child the living Harpocrates? Perhaps somehow or other Jesus is syncretized with Sabazios or Zalmoxis in Anatolia/Thrace? Or am I just insane?

Very interesting premise! But what you should know is that such a Christianity won't look exactly like OTL Christianity. It would look more Pagan. A syncretic empire in India,Kushans,incorporated elements of Buddhism,Hinduism,Greek religion,Tocharian religion(?),Iranian religions,etc at that time. As elements were added and removed over the years,we have today's Hinduism and Buddhism.

 

[piratedude]

Just Jesus having an wife would be huge, as suddenly monogamy is considered preferable to celibacy. His wife is suddenly on par with his mother in terms of reverence. There are a lot of husband-wife pairs in pagan religions that elements may be barrowed from, but thats likely to be more in optics than theology.

Furthermore, if there's no child then there's going to be debate about whether he did the deed or not.

 

[Bassarion Korax]

Very interesting premise! But what you should know is that such a Christianity won't look exactly like OTL Christianity. It would look more Pagan. A syncretic empire in India,Kushans,incorporated elements of Buddhism,Hinduism,Greek religion,Tocharian religion(?),Iranian religions,etc at that time. As elements were added and removed over the years,we have today's Hinduism and Buddhism.

Lol. You don’t say?

Just Jesus having an wife would be huge, as suddenly monogamy is considered preferable to celibacy. His wife is suddenly on par with his mother in terms of reverence. There are a lot of husband-wife pairs in pagan religions that elements may be barrowed from, but thats likely to be more in optics than theology.

Furthermore, if there's no child then there's going to be debate about whether he did the deed or not.

Who says he has only one? Lol. He has more than one IOTL, right? But let’s just say one, and he has a son. Might this son be considered an heir to the “church”, deified as a living Harpocrates/Horus? Can we syncretized Harpocrates/Horus with a figure from the Hellenistic world? Does this establish a dynasty, or can the messiah be reborn in anyone, like the Buddha? If so, how do we justify the immaculate conception? Did Jesus as Serapis impregnate Mary to give birth to himself in human form? What about his wife? Is she a literal incarnation of Isis?

 

[piratedude]

Who says he has only one? Lol. He has more than one IOTL, right? But let’s just say one, and he has a son. Might this son be considered an heir to the “church”, deified as a living Harpocrates/Horus? Can we syncretized Harpocrates/Horus with a figure from the Hellenistic world? Does this establish a dynasty, or can the messiah be reborn in anyone, like the Buddha? If so, how do we justify the immaculate conception? Did Jesus as Serapis impregnate Mary to give birth to himself in human form? What about his wife? Is she a literal incarnation of Isis?

Sounds more like you want some pagan religion to syncetize with judeo-christian beliefs than vice versa. Thqts a whole other kettle of fish

 

[Albert.Nik]

My opinion,however is that this would look close to Krishnaism/Vaishnavism of India rather than Christianity but minus the rigid Caste system I'd say as people along the Eastern Mediterranean look almost similar and are almost equally involved in the development of Christianity though Levantine Aramaic people,Jews,Italians,Greeks,Egyptians,Many Eastern Europeans,Armenians and Anatolian Greeks would consider themselves and be considered by others as somewhat "Superior" or Priestly class like. We however don't know who the real Jesus was so this is still speculative. Islamic invasions would fail in the Mediterranean as the Priestly class like people in the majority there would not tolerate being ruled by someone other than themselves or their mandates so they would fall within a short time. Also,the absence of persecutions would mean Byzantine and Roman Empires would be a lot stronger.

 

[Bassarion Korax]

Sounds more like you want some pagan religion to syncetize with judeo-christian beliefs than vice versa. Thqts a whole other kettle of fish

I’m confused.

On another note though, might we retire this term “Judeo-Christian”? We don’t say “Judeo-Islamic” or “Islamo-Christian”, and as someone who is presently reading through the Talmud... there is no special relationship between Christianity and Judaism. In fact, as far as I can tell, the two religions developed from the common milieu of Second Temple “Judaism” (not really the same religion at all as Rabbinical Judaism) in stark opposition to each other in the centuries before the advent of Islam.

My opinion,however is that this would look close to Krishnaism/Vaishnavism of India rather than Christianity but minus the rigid Caste system I'd say as people along the Eastern Mediterranean look almost similar and are almost equally involved in the development of Christianity though Levantine Aramaic people,Jews,Italians,Greeks,Egyptians,Many Eastern Europeans,Armenians and Anatolian Greeks would consider themselves and be considered by others as somewhat "Superior" or Priestly class like. We however don't know who the real Jesus was so this is still speculative. Islamic invasions would fail in the Mediterranean as the Priestly class like people in the majority there would not tolerate being ruled by someone other than themselves or their mandates so they would fall within a short time. Also,the absence of persecutions would mean Byzantine and Roman Empires would be a lot stronger.

There would be no Islam in this timeline, but what makes you think that non-Jewish inhabitants of the Eastern Med would consider themselves as a priestly/scholarly class ITTL?

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

My opinion,however is that this would look close to Krishnaism/Vaishnavism of India rather than Christianity

Really? How so?

 

[aenigma]

Just Jesus having an wife would be huge, as suddenly monogamy is considered preferable to celibacy.

so basicle the da vinci code
also didnt celibacy start much later in priesthood ? i tought 12th century or so

 

[Albert.Nik]

There would be no Islam in this timeline, but what makes you think that non-Jewish inhabitants of the Eastern Med would consider themselves as a priestly/scholarly class ITTL?

Because of their involvement in the development of Early Christianity Syncretism and the feeling that they helped it become such a dominant force in the World. Others would always look up to them as many Muslims today look up to Arabs and many non Indian Hindus/Buddhists look up to Indians.

 

[Albert.Nik]

Really? How so?

Why? Because this would be a more Liberal and progressive theology but comes with a core theology and core figures too. That sounds similar to Krishna movements.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

Voodoo. That time people took Catholicism and some other bits and made another religion.

 

[Bassarion Korax]

Why? Because this would be a more Liberal and progressive theology but comes with a core theology and core figures too. That sounds similar to Krishna movements.

What would make it more “liberal and
progressive”, precisely?

One thing that has jumped out at me, is that elements of Jesus’s story would likely be very different if he had both a wife and a child, or children. The Pharisees would have attempted to blackmail his wife and threaten his children, I imagine. The wife and children would be sent into hiding, perhaps in Egypt, and Jesus night grow more militant with his teachings, denouncing the Pharisees directly more often. There might be more incidents like the one at the temple where he threw out the moneychangers. Perhaps at some point the Pharisees get their hands on them, charging his wife specifically with idolatry or some other
violation of Jewish law, but Jesus stands in for her and accepts the punishment? How would this change the narrative, do you guys think?

 

[piratedude]

On another note though, might we retire this term “Judeo-Christian”? ... In fact, as far as I can tell, the two religions developed from the common milieu of Second Temple “Judaism” (not really the same religion at all as Rabbinical Judaism) in stark opposition to each other in the centuries before the advent of Islam

Firstly because a good number of the early Christians were part of the Jewish community and probably only really got seperated after the bar kochba revolt.
Secondly because this syncretism you want needs to happen pretty early in Christianity's history
Thirdly, you cant dismiss the common jewish background they had just because that background is different from modern judaism which developed in the context of a post-temple, christianized empire. Othodoxy in early Christianity and rabbinical Judaism was a lot loser than they eventually became

 

[Albert.Nik]

What would make it more “liberal and
progressive”, precisely?

You talked about a more Syncretic and hence a comparatively more open type religion,right? Progressive as you'd have multiple opinions now.

 

[Bassarion Korax]

Firstly because a good number of the early Christians were part of the Jewish community and probably only really got seperated after the bar kochba revolt.
Secondly because this syncretism you want needs to happen pretty early in Christianity's history
Thirdly, you cant dismiss the common jewish background they had just because that background is different from modern judaism which developed in the context of a post-temple, christianized empire. Othodoxy in early Christianity and rabbinical Judaism was a lot loser than they eventually became

Right, which makes my point for me. Judaism and Christianity share a common ancestor, just like both do with Islam (sort of), but they aren’t particularly similar at this point as they developed in opposition to one another at the start. Jesus was explicitly against the Pharisaic movement and the Sadducee establishment, forming his own movement a la John the Baptist or the Essenes. The Bar Kochba revolt is a very late date to place the distinction between Christians and Jews because Paul was very clear in drawing these distinctions and preaching against the Pharisees in his life time, and the Pharisees were obviously pretty anti-Christian, hence the entire story of the transformation of Saul to Paul.

So again, common milieu, very different outcomes. Perhaps “Abrahmic” would be a more proper term to use?

You talked about a more Syncretic and hence a comparatively more open type religion,right? Progressive as you'd have multiple opinions now.

Just because a religion is syncretic, doesn’t mean that it’s more “open”, or that it will not evolve to be more “closed” as it’s theology, structure and traditions crystallize with time. Yazidism and Alawism are syncretic religions that are particularly rigid in terms of their beliefs and structure now.

 

[piratedude]

Right, which makes my point for me. Judaism and Christianity share a common ancestor, just like both do with Islam (sort of), but they aren’t particularly similar at this point as they developed in opposition to one another at the start. Jesus was explicitly against the Pharisaic movement and the Sadducee establishment, forming his own movement a la John the Baptist or the Essenes. The Bar Kochba revolt is a very late date to place the distinction between Christians and Jews because Paul was very clear in drawing these distinctions and preaching against the Pharisees in his life time, and the Pharisees were obviously pretty anti-Christian, hence the entire story of the transformation of Saul to Paul.

I think you need to clarify just how far out were talking about with the formation of this syncretic religion because if we are talking about an era where we're also talking about an alt-islam as well as judaism and this alt-Christianity then it makes sense to say Abrahamic when talking about all three's common heritage. Thats not necessary when we're only talking about Judaism and Christianity.

Secondly i really think you are over exaggerating how seperate the early Christian community was from the jewish community. You point to Paul and I'll point to James, who is very explicitly writing to jewish Christians. Paul writing against pharisic teachings isnt that different from different Christians writing agains eachother's teachings, especially at that early stage.

As for the bar kochba revolt, i give it because its an easy event point to. The fact is that reality is messy and one can argue, legitimately, that the split was even later. Religion for breakfast has a good video on this topic actually.

 

[OurSacredWar]

If it helps, Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity was pretty synthetic during the Middle Ages as it absorbed religious customs/traditions/etc. from religions such as Judaism, Islam and Paganism.

 

[Tripledot]

Might not be what you wanted, but a successful Chinese Christianity could be pretty syncretic, especially if the Chinese Rites Controversy goes the other way and allows for ancestor veneration.

 

[Mort the Reaper]

What would make it more “liberal and
progressive”, precisely?

One thing that has jumped out at me, is that elements of Jesus’s story would likely be very different if he had both a wife and a child, or children. The Pharisees would have attempted to blackmail his wife and threaten his children, I imagine. The wife and children would be sent into hiding, perhaps in Egypt, and Jesus night grow more militant with his teachings, denouncing the Pharisees directly more often. There might be more incidents like the one at the temple where he threw out the moneychangers. Perhaps at some point the Pharisees get their hands on them, charging his wife specifically with idolatry or some other
violation of Jewish law, but Jesus stands in for her and accepts the punishment? How would this change the narrative, do you guys think?

Maybe something about men being expected to sacrifice for the women in their lives?