AHC: What if Jesus is not Crucified?

[Arcavia]

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.

Absolute prosperity=/=relative prosperity. North Africa became less productive but still remained productive overall.

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).

So why was the East able to deal with them effectively? Oh, right, because they had the Egyptian breadbasket and economic powerhouse, which went relatively unaffected by climate change as you point out.

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.....

The Church often wasn't tax-exempt, or at least was obligated to provide donations to the State on occasion. It also took over for the State bureaucracy in many cases, decreasing administrative costs.

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.

Never said it didn't. Indeed, a lack of confidence in the Empire brought on in no small part by the economic crises was probably what motivated many soldiers to declare their generals Emperor.

And saying that 400 CE was a better year economically for the empire, whilst technically true, ignores the increased instability of the Empire's political and economic regime.

 

[starman]

So pure supposition, unsupported by any evidence and contradicted by all the texts we have then?

Hey this is what a renowned scholar thinks, and for good reason--it's hard to believe jesus wasn't arrested for making a ruckus, and the "last supper" clearly serves a christian agenda. The "texts" are loaded with inventions, as the primary purpose of the NT was to "sell" jesus. It's not meant to be real history even if some of it is.

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.

But jesus had only a few followers. And there already was a riot, at the temple, which Roman soldiers in the Antonia fortress--who were on high alert for any disturbance during passover, when the city was crowded--moved in quickly to suppress (Crossan's reconstruction). The Roman troops brought there for passover probably sufficed to deter real trouble--that's what they were there for.

Oh and the last supper was a straightforward Passover Seder and there's reason to believe it was invented.

Assuming you meant no reason I meant what jesus is alleged to have said or anticipated not the meal itself--although I doubt he was still free after the ruckus, as it was ample grounds to get him arrested at least.

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

According to Ehrman's reconstruction, Judas gave the authorities the info they need to "nail him." The sanhedrin wanted him dead and for that they needed more than just causing a disturbance at the temple. Judas is thought by Ehrman to have told them jesus thought he'd be king of the jews after the bar nashi came. Calling himself king--in any sense--was enough to get Pilate to "nail him.'

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.

The ERE was very lucky in that fifth century barbarians mostly targeted the West, where they settled, causing permanent losses in land and revenue.

 

[starman]

So why was the East able to deal with them effectively? Oh, right, because they had the Egyptian breadbasket and economic powerhouse, which went relatively unaffected by climate change as you point out.

The area around Proconsularis and Numidia wasn't bad either. In fact the ERE wasn't very effective in dealing with barbarians either, at least not down to 468 CE. It just so happened that the bulk of barbarians bent on permanent settlement fell on the West.

The Church often wasn't tax-exempt, or at least was obligated to provide donations to the State on occasion. It also took over for the State bureaucracy in many cases, decreasing administrative costs.

Unfortunately the church provided none of the help most urgently needed--soldiers--and probably discouraged citizens from joining--that was certainly the preference of early church fathers. As for taking over for the state bureaucracy, that was symptomatic of the waning of the state as the church rose.

Never said it didn't. Indeed, a lack of confidence in the Empire brought on in no small part by the economic crises was probably what motivated many soldiers to declare their generals Emperor.

At least they (citizens) were still willing to fight.

And saying that 400 CE was a better year economically for the empire, whilst technically true, ignores the increased instability of the Empire's political and economic regime.

I don't think instability was any worse--if as bad--c 400 as it had been in the 200s, when the Empire could still bounce back.

 

[Arcavia]

The ERE was very lucky in that fifth century barbarians mostly targeted the West, where they settled, causing permanent losses in land and revenue

Right. Its not as if the Goths initially entered the east or anything. Adrianople totally happened in the West.

Not really, no. The barbarians went west because the East was able to pay tribute longer because of a stronger economy.

 

[Capuleten]

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.



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



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.



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.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[starman]

Right. Its not as if the Goths initially entered the east or anything. Adrianople totally happened in the West.

Believe me, I've heard of Adrianople, which occurred when the empire was still united. My previous post referred to fifth century barbarians.

Not really, no. The barbarians went west because the East was able to pay tribute longer because of a stronger economy.

They paid tribute to the Huns (who didn't permanently settle on Roman territory) but the incursion of Vandals and alans etc in 407 was just opportunism.

 

[starman]

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

I answered that post.

 

[RPW@Cy]

I answered that post.

You pretty much literally said we should throw out all the evidence and testimony that we have and trust the hunch of a "renowned scholar" whose opinion, as far as I can see, is very much a fringe one in the field of biblical scholarship. For the record I didn't reply further to your post as it's usually fruitless to debate with someone who thinks that's a reasonable tactic, not because I thought the argument made was in any way compelling.

 

[Arcavia]

Believe me, I've heard of Adrianople, which occurred when the empire was still united. My previous post referred to fifth century barbarians.

They paid tribute to the Huns (who didn't permanently settle on Roman territory) but the incursion of Vandals and alans etc in 407 was just opportunism.

You seem to believe that the fourth century Goths and the fifth century Goths had nothing in common with one another. The Goths initially entered the East, and stayed there until the first decade of the 400s, migrating West as and after the Empire was divided. It was the Goths and Huns who really did in the West, and both groups initially dealt with the East before moving West...showing that the East was at least able to handle the barbarians better than the West was.

As for the Barbarians who entered the West, I'll admit that there was opportunism more than anything involved. However, they were able to get as far as they did in because the West was too busy handling or recovering from the Goths and Huns in Italy, and couldn't spare the resources to adequately defend North Africa. So, yeah, it was still the actions of the primary groups that enabled the Vandals, Alans, etc. to do as well as they did.

Even if, however, we were uncertain as to whether the East was better or worse than the West at handling barbarian invasions, which we are not, we still have proof that the East did better. Do not forget that, though it was long and painful, the East was able to survive the Slavic invasions later on, and that without Egypt and the Levant, though it was painful. Thus, the East was decidedly better than the West at dealing with barbarians.

Oh, and if Christianity was what caused the fall of the Empire because Christian societies can't fight as well, why was it the Christian Goths rather than the Tengriist Huns who took control and set up successor states?

 

[alexmilman]

Let's say the Romans have other stuff on their plate in 33 AD or so and Jesus is not crucified.

(Disclaimer: no intention to hurt anybody's religious feelings)

What if, instead of being crucified he is impaled (yes, I know that this was not a typical execution style for the Romans) or hanged on a tree and beaten by the stones (IIRC, this was an acceptable Jewish method of execution)? Think about the (aesthetic) implications of having a stake or a noose instead of a cross as a symbol (start with the religious accessories and all the way to the military/civic awards).

 

[Byzantion]

What if he became Emperor of Rome?

Or a Gladiator.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Or a Gladiator.

Well, death by combat would fulfill the violent death (if such a prerequisite existed) and there were innumerable early Christians who went to their deaths in the arena. Hell, St. Polycarp (not the pokemon) went to his execution and made more converts through his death than he'd made during his life.

 

[Marc]

You all do realize it is not just dying for your sins, but the promise of resurrection and life everlasting that won hearts and minds...
A simple theology, but ultimately an optimistic one - which was something that the traditional European/Med faiths tended to lack.
Islam's success is also based around that pairing of simplicity and hope.

 

[sloreck]

IMHO the question here is if Jesus is not crucified, or otherwise executed as OTL how does this affect the development of Christianity? What happens if he is exiled to some far corner of the Empire without any of his apostles, where he literally has to learn a new language. Say he is banished to Britannia, even if he gains converts that is well away from the center of the Empire. Palestine was in a central location, had the Jewish population which was at least the target of the preaching (it changed to pagans later), and was where the languages (Aramaic, Greek, Latin) were readily accessible to Jesus and his apostles. The crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus were powerful draws for the overall message, without them the "attraction" is diminished, no testimony of followers who can say - we "saw" the resurrection. IMHO without such a dramatic "end" things may go very differently even if he stays in Palestine, and other punishments could be exile, slavery (and therefore no preaching), etc.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Without the crucifixion Jesus essentially becomes a philosopher. I assume, as I posited earlier, he is saved from execution by being brought back to Rome. He may still have an impact as a sort of stoic philosopher. Without the Last Supper and crucifixion the central part of the Mass and pretty much all the mystical parts of Christianity don't happen, so no religion.

I think there have been "no Christianity?" threads here before, but this has potential of creating an interesting situation where there is no Christian religion, but the teachings of Jesus still exist and have some sort of am impact, though I think the teachings would have changed somewhat if Jesus spent half his life in Rome.

 

[Atterdag]

I read a short novel in an omnibus about Roman Empire continuing on till modern time eventually conquering world. The POD was a witch telling Roman governor to pardon Jesus thus avoiding the rise of Christians. The Jews continue to exist and Roman mythology continues as major religion.

That seems totally unrelated to Rome's ability to conquer new territory and/or maintain stability.

 

[Lusitania]

That seems totally unrelated to Rome's ability to conquer new territory and/or maintain stability.

The POD was that Pilate sparing Jesus had butterflying away the whole Christianity which led to the fall of Rome. A surviving Rome then went on to conquer world.

 

[CountDVB]

Well, Rome would fall either way with or without Christianity. Though whether it would hasten or prolong the decline is hard to say.

Yeshua may instead be sent to somewhere like Syria. Somewhere he could speak the language, but not bother the Jews there. He could still become a prominent philosopher and maybe still gain a religious following. He'd criticize the Empire but not be an advocate for overthrowing it. Someone mention it would be a buddha-like affect and i could see the same sort of thing. This does leave a lot of questions of whether he would settle down or whatnot, but I figure he could become a prominent philosophical/religious leader, especially if the key tenants remained regarding salvation and forgiveness.

As for world affects, well Christianity as we know it may not exist and it's highly likely Islam would not exist as well. This could impair Muhammad in the long run, especially if there is no real unifying force and upon his death, his group implodes and the Romans are able to put them down.

Not sure if any religion could take its place since the various gnostic faiths hold little for the common man. Zoroastrianism or some branch-off like with Mazdak could become popular and spread around to the east and maybe Buddhism could take more of a hold or at least influence future faiths.

 

[starman]

You pretty much literally said we should throw out all the evidence and testimony that we have

Assuming you're referring to the NT, the prevailing view among scholars that it is loaded with made up material intended to "sell" jesus. It was never meant as an objective historical account. As Crossan put it, the NT is "not history remembered but prophecy historicized." It's highly naive to take most of the "evidence and testimony" of the NT at face value.

And trust the hunch of a "renowned scholar" whose opinion, as far as I can see, is very much a fringe one in the field of biblical scholarship.

I prefer the mainstream scholarly view to Crossan's view of what jesus was about. It's interesting, though, that for many years Ehrman dismissed one of Crossan's views (on the fate of jesus's body) as too far out, before admitting it is indeed most likely.

 

[pattersonautobody]

Handwaving the ASB that " the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8) would not be slain, I think that Rome was waiting for a major monotheistic religion.

At the time of Christ, Judaism was approximately 10 percent of the entire Roman Empire, and these were not ethnic Jews, but converts and God fearers who were not circumcised. Christianity did well because there was a built-in customer base. A huge religion where the gentiles easily outnumbered ethnic Jews were essentially told "hey, it's nice you come on Saturday, but you're not really saved. Maybe God will take pity on you, we don't know." Then, here comes Paul and he's like, "Jew, Gentile, same thing! You're all saved by faith in Christ!"

Without getting into soteriological arguments, for all practical purposes, faith in Christ was not merely something intellectual, but also practical moral norms. No stealing, idolatry, sexual immorality, fastings, etc. However, there was no Jewish ceremonial law. The result was a much more gentile-friendly judaism and for whatever cultural reasons, Judaism had this huge allure in Rome. It proved to be the tipping point to bring a lot of Gentiles into monotheism (probably because Christianity and Judaism were the only religions in the market of monotheism, the market was not saturated.)

If you look at the Eastern Orthodox Church, you can see that its form of worship is essentially hellenized Judaism. The Altar mimics that in the Jewish Temple, as does the liturgy, and they still have menorahs on most (not all) of their altars.

Because of this, it seems clear to me that hellenized judaism was going to eventually blow up. Further, the imbalance between the eastern and western roman empire (the east being much more heavily christianized) is probably due to 1. harsher local persecutions in the west and 2. east had many more hellenized jews/God fearers who became converts due to proximity to Israel.

So, to answer the OP, what happens if Jesus is not crucified? Well, the better question is, how does Judaism get sold to the masses? Do we have an ATL Paul who makes a gentile-friendly jewish Christianity? Do Jesus' followers, who see that He has accepted more than a few gentiles and samaritans, happen upon the same idea?

Heck, does someone after the ATL Jesus (feel blasphemous even speculating such a thing) pretty much make the same idea? Perhaps someone makes it up out of whole cloth based upon allegorical readings of Scriptures.

Or, a God fearer makes the religion itself and becomes its first prophet. If that's the case, then we would be calling Christianity by that person's name.

Nevertheless, I do think monotheism is going to take off. It was waiting for a catalyst. And, I don't think neoplatonism or gnosticism is going to cut it (the former being too intellectual, the latter the same and its henotheistic to boot.) Eventually, someone is going to come up with it IMHO and what we will have today is a Western monotheism that is based in some way from Judaism, an ATL Islam of sorts, etcetera.