AHC: What if Jesus is not Crucified?

[Kaze]

What the Jews wanted was an independent nation from the Roman Empire - but keeping all the goodies that Romans gave them (roads, schools, indoor pluming, peace, etc.), but what Jesus was not offering this at all - "Loving one another is not a good message to start a revolution or an independence movement" - it is likely that it would become a short lived Jewish-Greek sect would have died out within two generations and there would be another Massah want-to-be.

 

[starman]

What the Jews wanted was an independent nation from the Roman Empire - but keeping all the goodies that Romans gave them (roads, schools, indoor pluming, peace, etc.), but what Jesus was not offering this at all

He did see Roman rule as part of the present "wicked age" which the bar nashi or Son of Man was coming to overthrow. Of course jesus wanted an end to the Roman presence. But he thought only god or his bar nashi would do this, not an insurrection led by an earthly messiah.

"Loving one another is not a good message to start a revolution or an independence movement"

But Jesus didn't think anything would be accomplished that way. Loving others was just following god's wishes, and that was necessary if you wanted to be part of the coming kingdom of god on earth--after the Son of Man came--and not destroyed with all things wicked when this happened.

it is likely that it would become a short lived Jewish-Greek sect would have died out within two generations and there would be another Massah want-to-be.

The "resurrection" was essentially the whole basis of christianity. So called miracles were probably ahistorical, just like so much else in the NT, made up to win converts after the early followers were so impressed by "the resurrection"--whatever that really was.

 

[Thomas Jefferson]

Potentially you could see an earlier fall of the Western Empire without Christianity/Constantine as a unifying force. Religious beliefs would probably be some amalgamation of traditional Roman gods with the beliefs of the Goths.

 

[sloreck]

IMHO, as a non-Christian, the miracle of the resurrection is the key for OTL's religion. Loves and fishes, well manna in the desert likewise walking on water, how about parting the Red Sea. "We've seen all that before, move on". If you exile Jesus to somewhere away from Palestine, and there are plenty of spots like that in the Roman Empire, he is now a prophet advocating reform/recasting of a religion (Judaism) not even present where he has been dumped, and BTW he doesn't speak the local language. Historically he spoke Aramaic, possibly some Hebrew (which was a liturgical language then and he was not educated to that standard), and possibly some Latin. Have fun preaching in Britannia. I doubt the Romans let his apostles go with him, and without his presence and the crucifixion/resurrection I don't see them getting the same sort of traction they did OTL among the pagans who became the vast bulk of converts. James may carry on and have a sect of mainstream Judaism which may or may not survive.

 

[Arcavia]

Potentially you could see an earlier fall of the Western Empire without Christianity/Constantine as a unifying force. Religious beliefs would probably be some amalgamation of traditional Roman gods with the beliefs of the Goths.

I doubt it. Isidism or even the proselytizing Judaism that IOTL was folded into Christianity might well play a similar role as far as religious unity was concerned. Constantine was largely building on the success of Aurelian and Diocletian; in some sources the sign he saw before Milvian Bridge was not the cross but the sign of Apollo. Whilst morale may have played a role in the battle if indeed Constantine's men were told to inscribe the chi-rho on their shields, I doubt that this effect would be substantial since Christians would certainly have not made up the vast majority of his army, and in any case Constantine was a much better general than Maxentius. In short, Constantine would still have essentially the same political foundations and easily substitutable religious foundations on which to restore the empire.

If Rome is going to fall earlier, it'll be in the Crisis of the Third Century. The fourth century was much more stable by comparison, at least until Adrianople; the military and political reforms of the Domitiate gave the Empire a new lease on life. If Isidism in particular emerges as the new Roman religion, there is a chance that the Empire survives even longer than IOTL. One of the main reasons the Goths were not assimilated as easily as other barbarian groups was the religious division between orthodox and Arian Christianity; without this they may put less stress on the Imperial framework. Nonetheless, there are other reasons--namely the sheer size of Gothic groups--why they didn't integrate. Nonetheless, if Adrianople is either butterflied or turned into a victory, a "no Christianity" TL may successfully integrate the Goths.

 

[starman]

If Rome is going to fall earlier, it'll be in the Crisis of the Third Century. The fourth century was much more stable by comparison, at least until Adrianople;

Well, I have doubts. The civil war pitting Constantius II against Magnentius 351-53 CE may have been the worst in Roman Imperial history. Foreign invasions weren't as bad, prior to Adrianople, but Julian's eastern campaign was a costly strategic failure.

....the military and political reforms of the Domitiate gave the Empire a new lease on life. If Isidism in particular emerges as the new Roman religion, there is a chance that the Empire survives even longer than IOTL.

I suspect that, if only Christianity hadn't arisen and spread, the WRE might've lasted as long as the ERE. I've long noticed that from the earliest times to c 363 CE, Rome could always recuperate from any disaster and remain strong and vibrant. This was still true in the third century, even in the fourth to Julian, yet by the time of Adrianople or soon after, a chronic weakness had set in. The Empire just didn't seem to have the punch and resiliency of the past. Even after all the terrible setbacks of the mid third century, the Romans were able to run barbarian invaders out of the Empire. The late fourth and fifth century empire just couldn't. This weakness appears to coincide with more widespread christianization, suggesting a causal relationship.....

 

[starman]

Historically he spoke Aramaic, possibly some Hebrew.....and possibly some Latin.

Na, possibly some Greek, then the predominant language in the eastern Mediterranean.

 

[Arcavia]

Well, I have doubts. The civil war pitting Constantius II against Magnentius 351-53 CE may have been the worst in Roman Imperial history. Foreign invasions weren't as bad, prior to Adrianople, but Julian's eastern campaign was a costly strategic failure.

I suspect that, if only Christianity hadn't arisen and spread, the WRE might've lasted as long as the ERE. I've long noticed that from the earliest times to c 363 CE, Rome could always recuperate from any disaster and remain strong and vibrant. This was still true in the third century, even in the fourth to Julian, yet by the time of Adrianople or soon after, a chronic weakness had set in. The Empire just didn't seem to have the punch and resiliency of the past. Even after all the terrible setbacks of the mid third century, the Romans were able to run barbarian invaders out of the Empire. The late fourth and fifth century empire just couldn't. This weakness appears to coincide with more widespread christianization, suggesting a causal relationship.....

The 351-53 war, whilst certainly not great, pales in comparison to the 3rd Century Crisis. But yeah, you're right to observe that Rome until the fall had an almost supernatural ability to recover from calamity. Even at the time of Attila the Hun a lower portion of the population was mobilized then against Hannibal.

However, I do believe that there is no causal relationship between Christianity and the Fall--if anything, the destabilization caused by the impending fall caused more people to turn to Christianity a la St. Augustine. The crucial factor that crippled the Roman state during this period was the onset of a global cool period. This played a role in causing the migratory crisis, but also decreased the productivity of the highly agrarian Roman state. Since virtually all wealth came from agriculture at the time, the decrease in agricultural productivity caused major social consequences. Ultimately, it was because of climate change, not Christianity, that Roman society could not endure. It would probably have survived one shock in the absence of the other--i.e. either climate change or migrations--but it was not equipped to deal with both in conjunction.

 

[starman]

Even at the time of Attila the Hun a lower portion of the population was mobilized then against Hannibal.

Right in fact the fifth century army was largely dependent on barbarian recruits, foreign mercenaries or "federates" because few citizens would serve anymore. There's no doubt the Roman state just lost the enthusiastic support of its own citizens, and that was wholly unrelated to cooling. By the late 300s and 400s, something had become more important than the state to the populace, and that was the church.

However, I do believe that there is no causal relationship between Christianity and the Fall--if anything, the destabilization caused by the impending fall caused more people to turn to Christianity a la St. Augustine.

But after decades of calamity in the third century, relatively few people--maybe 10% or so--were christian by the early fourth.

The crucial factor that crippled the Roman state during this period was the onset of a global cool period. This played a role in causing the migratory crisis, but also decreased the productivity of the highly agrarian Roman state.

But Heather cited archeological evidence for thriving agriculture late in the fourth century. And much of the Empire's grain came from the area near Carthago, and Egypt, where cooling, if it occurred probably would've helped more than hurt.

 

[Capuleten]

(He was almost certainly arrested then and there, for the temple riot, as the "last supper" was a invention)

Genuinely curious here, but where’s the evidence of the last supper being an invention? It doesn’t seem to be that much of a stretch at all for me, or even implausible for even a secular Jesus to read the atmosphere and know Judas betrayed him. And, considering that this message would have been preached to those who had been witness to the events surrounding Jesus’ death, even if the exact goings-on of the Last Supper and the arrest were fabricated, (though I am a Christian and don’t believe so) why on Earth would the Apostles lie so blatantly when they could be disproven by a “well ackshtually”?

This weakness appears to coincide with more widespread christianization, suggesting a causal relationship.....

No, it does not. It suggests a correlation, because that’s what it is. And causation =/= correlation. There are much more strenuous requirements to prove causation.

 

[Arcavia]

Right in fact the fifth century army was largely dependent on barbarian recruits, foreign mercenaries or "federates" because few citizens would serve anymore. There's no doubt the Roman state just lost the enthusiastic support of its own citizens, and that was wholly unrelated to cooling. By the late 300s and 400s, something had become more important than the state to the populace, and that was the church.
But after decades of calamity in the third century, relatively few people--maybe 10% or so--were christian by the early fourth.
But Heather cited archeological evidence for thriving agriculture late in the fourth century. And much of the Empire's grain came from the area near Carthago, and Egypt, where cooling, if it occurred probably would've helped more than hurt.

1. Cooling is often associated with increased dryness, which was the case according to most of the research surrounding the global cool period around the fall of Rome. Dryness-->desertification-->less fertile Egypt and Africa.
2. Thriving evidence of agriculture in some places does not rule out a broader crisis. Agriculture continued to produce in some places, but via increasingly dictatorial methods
3. Though the Christian population was only 10% c. 400, it rapidly skyrocketed as the Empire broke down with the Hunnic, Gothic, and Vandalic invasions.
4. It is wrong to assume that the State lost the confidence of the people because people turned to the Church, for several reasons. Firstly, the Church as a whole continued to support the Empire until the Empire lost power. And cooling is indirectly responsible for people losing confidence in the state, because it caused a series of economic crises that became political crises that cost the state legitimacy.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

jewish authorities wanted jesus dead, not necessarily because he was a great challenge to them but because he had caused a ruckus at the temple.

Are you talking about His driving out of the money-lenders? Yeah, that would've been like someone walking into a bank and saying "this is a stick-up". Sure, the police are there to collect statements, evidence, etc. But as soon as the crime scene tape is gone, its back to business as usual and everyone forgets about it in a few weeks/months.

What WAS far more damaging is His statement "render under to Caesar that which is Caesar's. And to God what is God's." Since, what is left to belong to caesar after God has been given His due? Answer: not much.

Did Jesus have problems with the Jews? Yup. Did He have problems with the Romans? Right, again. The fact was that what He was preaching was just as sangerous to the Temple authorities as it was to the Romans. Probably MORE so to the latter. IMO (I'm sure there are those who will differ) Jesus' whole death is painted as a trial for religious blasphemy and that the Jews are guilty and the Romans hornswoggled into doing it. Truth is, He's killed by Romans (Pilate passes the death sentence) in a Roman manner (crucifixion was abhorrent to the Jews on grounds of a passage in the Torah that ICR right now) usually reserved for political criminals/rebels (not sure what the Roman punishment for blasphemy was but I'm pretty sure crucifixion would've been regarded as overkill).

And technically, the title simply states that He isn't CRUCIFIED. It doesn't rule out any other delightful method of execution that the Romans had. He could be stoned if the Jews have anything to say about it (presumably more proof that they are NOT quite so stage managing the Romans as what they are made out to).

 

[Landmass Wave]

And technically, the title simply states that He isn't CRUCIFIED. It doesn't rule out any other delightful method of execution that the Romans had. He could be stoned if the Jews have anything to say about it (presumably more proof that they are NOT quite so stage managing the Romans as what they are made out to).

Which was done with St. Stephen a few years later. The difference might have more to do with political calculations than anything else - Pilate was trying to have it both ways in the case of Jesus, while the Roman authorities were willing to simply let the locals handle St. Stephen their own way.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Which was done with St. Stephen a few years later. The difference might have more to do with political calculations than anything else - Pilate was trying to have it both ways in the case of Jesus, while the Roman authorities were willing to simply let the locals handle St. Stephen their own way.

My personal favourite would've been beaten to death with weighted cords like that one saint was (given how Christianity can inspire guilt trips and emotional/spiritual beating up of oneself it would've been strangely poetic).

Otherwise, a simple beheading à la St. John the Baptist or St. Paul will do.

 

[starman]

1. Cooling is often associated with increased dryness, which was the case according to most of the research surrounding the global cool period around the fall of Rome. Dryness-->desertification-->less fertile Egypt and Africa.

To my knowledge both areas, and others, remained productive into the fifth century. That's why the barbarians were so eager to take North Africa. Egypt already was a desert except for the Nile which originated far to the south in subsaharan Africa, where cooling wasn't likely to be a problem.

3. Though the Christian population was only 10% c. 400, it rapidly skyrocketed as the Empire broke down with the Hunnic, Gothic, and Vandalic invasions.

It was about 10% around c 300 CE and skyrocketed before those incursions, in the decade or so after Julian. From what I've read, christianity was in a dominant position in the Empire in the latter fourth century. This appears to correlate with military weakness, which invited invasion. In other words christianity was more of a cause than an effect of the invasions (or inability to deal with them effectively).

4. It is wrong to assume that the State lost the confidence of the people because people turned to the Church, for several reasons. Firstly, the Church as a whole continued to support the Empire until the Empire lost power.

Lol, I don't think that "support" amounted to much if anything. It didn't mean more revenue for the state, if the church was tax exempt. It obviously didn't mean more citizen recruits for the army.....

And cooling is indirectly responsible for people losing confidence in the state, because it caused a series of economic crises that became political crises that cost the state legitimacy.

But if economic crises can cost the State legitimacy why didn't this happen in the third century, with its rampant inflation and debasement of coinage? Add to that the economic effects of the plague, and mass plundering incursions...From a purely economic point of view, the Empire appeared better off in 400 CE than in say 270, or certainly no worse, but it just couldn't bounce back like it did previously.

 

[starman]

Genuinely curious here, but where’s the evidence of the last supper being an invention?

This has long been the view of John Dominic Crossan. I note in one of his books, Ehrman asked why wasn't Jesus arrested on the spot for causing the temple ruckus? "My guess is that it was small and insignificant at the time." But elsewhere he criticized the gospel of John for putting the ruckus at the start of the narrative. If that were true, Ehrman wrote, jesus would've been arrested then and there and there wouldn't have been anything further. Lol!
The NT is loaded with inventions. The "last supper' was essential to make jesus seem omniscient, as a divine figure would be. But it makes far better sense to suppose he was arrested for causing the riot, without prior warning.

It doesn’t seem to be that much of a stretch at all for me, or even implausible for even a secular Jesus to read the atmosphere and know Judas betrayed him.

It's most likely that Judas only betrayed jesus to save his own skin, after he and holy joe 1 were arrested. (The others evidently got away and went back to gallile).

No, it does not. It suggests a correlation, because that’s what it is. And causation =/= correlation. There are much more strenuous requirements to prove causation.

Sure, and while we know some christians served as soldiers the church generally opposed this. Considering this attitude, attributing loss of martial sprit to the rise of christianity is perfectly logical (only later did it become acceptable for christians to fight in wars).

 

[starman]

What WAS far more damaging is His statement "render under to Caesar that which is Caesar's. And to God what is God's." Since, what is left to belong to caesar after God has been given His due? Answer: not much.

But the jewish elite at the time, the sanhedrin, were collaborating with the Romans.

Did Jesus have problems with the Jews? Yup. Did He have problems with the Romans? Right, again. The fact was that what He was preaching was just as sangerous to the Temple authorities as it was to the Romans. Probably MORE so to the latter.

About equally so to both. Neither was to survive the coming of the 'bar nashi."

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

First, I'll get the theological implications for Christians out of the way first. There is actually no theological requirement for Jesus to die violently to fulfill His mission, as long as He is born and dies just like any other mortal man. Nor for that matter for Jesus to be a man, though He has to be one sex or the other, or to be descended from David, become famous, found a world religion, etc.

Historically, provided Jesus goes to Jerusalem eventually during Passover and challenges the High Priests directly, the High Priests will ask the Romans to execute him for blasphemy. ACTS records that the Romans saved Paul in a similar situation by getting him exiled to Rome, but Roman was a Roman citizen and my guess that the provision that the Romans do the executions was put in place as a means to protect Roman citizens. The Procurators otherwise would execute any local troublemakers the local elites wanted them to. Pilate refusing to do this, on the grounds he was working towards in John, that Jesus hadn't actually done anything illegal (according to Roman law), would have advanced the Jewish rebelling thirty years later and ruined Pilate's life. A better POD is that Jesus comes to Pilate's attention earlier, and Pilate incorporates him into his household in Caesarea, in which case Jesus would not go to Jerusalem.

Either way, Jesus winds up in Rome, since he is making himself unpopular with the elites in Palestine, and if the Roman officials on the spot decide to save him they know they have to get him away from Palestine. They did this with Paul, but they had strong legal grounds since Paul was a Roman citizen who was exercising his right to appeal. Jesus is brought to Rome for further questing something something. Also, Roman officials would have seen through claims that it was Jesus who was planning a revolt against Roman rule in seconds. They would execute Jesus to keep things quiet or get him to Rome if they had an attack of conscience.

(Pilate, by the way, was Procurator, an official charged with looking after the Emperor's private interests, not a Propraetor or Proconsul, official representatives of the Magistrates, and certainly not the "Governor"of Judea as it is usually mistranslated)

After Jesus gets to Rome, he either remains obscure, though he might be mentioned if the action does spark a Jewish revolt, but he also might become famous as a philosopher like Epicetus. You could even get a religion. I could see Nero killing him, but the OP posits that he dies of old age. Also, OTL Jesus spent his entire adult life not just in Palestine but within walking distance of the Sea of Galilee so the experience of being in Rome would change him and his teachings, which seem to have been affected by the few meetings he did have with non-Jews.

 

[Homer Simpson & the Brain]

To avoid the crucifixion itself, you'd need to keep Rome from directly controlling Palestine. That could be accomplished by having Rome treat territorial expansion even more as a business than in OTL, reviewing all prospective targets to ensure their acquisition would end up at least paying for itself, once the projected costs for bringing them to heel and keeping them pacified for at least ten years were deducted.

 

[RPW@Cy]

This has long been the view of John Dominic Crossan. I note in one of his books, Ehrman asked why wasn't Jesus arrested on the spot for causing the temple ruckus? "My guess is that it was small and insignificant at the time." But elsewhere he criticized the gospel of John for putting the ruckus at the start of the narrative. If that were true, Ehrman wrote, jesus would've been arrested then and there and there wouldn't have been anything further. Lol!
The NT is loaded with inventions. The "last supper' was essential to make jesus seem omniscient, as a divine figure would be. But it makes far better sense to suppose he was arrested for causing the riot, without prior warning.

So pure supposition, unsupported by any evidence and contradicted by all the texts we have then? As for "far better sense", you could just as easily argue that it was in the interests of the authorities to arrest him quietly when the chances of sparking off a major riot are minimised - such as after dark when accompanied by only a small number of close followers. Oh and the last supper was a straightforward Passover Seder and there's reason to believe it was invented.

It's most likely that Judas only betrayed Jesus to save his own skin,

Nonsense - once they had Jesus Judas was useless to the authorities, this at least the gospels are very straightforward about.

holy joe 1

This sort of thing does not help to convince others that you are a disinterested seeker after truth lacking an agenda of your own, you know.

Sure, and while we know some christians served as soldiers the church generally opposed this. Considering this attitude, attributing loss of martial sprit to the rise of christianity is perfectly logical (only later did it become acceptable for christians to fight in wars).

I'm always intrigued by arguments that Christianity caused the fall of the Roman Empire, especially as they ignore the fact that the most heavily Christian part of the empire lasted the longest.