AHC: What if Jesus is not Crucified?

[starman]

..... 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.

The East did a poor job dealing with both. The crux of the problem was that the new christian population was not enthusiastic about fighting for the Empire, so the latter lacked the strength to either expel the goths or really get them under control. The East was slaughtered by the Huns in the 440s and was very lucky their onslaught was limited to the balkans. At one point an earthquake toppled part of the walls of Constantinople; had it not been fixed just in time the East would've been battered far worse than it was. About the only halfway effective way to "handle the barbarians" was to pay them protection money. Compare that with what the still pagan Empire did in the late third century.

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.

Again the real crux of the problem was military weakness, due to the abandonment of the Empire by its citizens. Stilicho had to fight with a mostly barbarian force and when it was stupidly alienated in 408, the WRE was practically defenseless.
The goths and Huns had nothing to do with the failure to defend North Africa. In 429-39 CE, when North Africa was going down the drain, both the goths and Huns were quasi allies of the WRE. Aetius made good use of the Huns in Gaul, while just about the only soldiers Bonafatius had were gothic mercenaries.
The Goths, in fact, had crushed some of the Vandals in Spain at the behest of the WRE c 416 CE.
As for the WRE needing time to recover from the setbacks of 407-10, it had had well over a decade by the start of the Vandal invasion of Africa in 429. The problem was that the citizens generally would no longer fight and the barbarians, after 408, were reluctant to serve in the regular Roman army (many now did so only as mercenaries or "federates" under their own leaders). Ergo, the WRE tended to be chronically weak--even before the key revenue of Africa was lost.
Again compare that with the admirable comeback of the Empire after the worse setbacks of c 250-60.

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?

Lol, it took a while for the christians to abandon pacifism--too late for the WRE. Christians could always fight, in fact, for example against fourth/fifth century heretics. Generally, though, they were pacifistic---at least down to the fifth century (Augustine introduced the concept of a just war, but it didn't seem to make any difference at first). And more was involved than just the pacifism of many early christians. There was also historical baggage. Christians could hardly be expected to fight hard for their old persecutor, and the killer of christ. At least one of the early church fathers made this attitude clear.
Now the East, being originally intended to be a christian thing from the start, since Constantine, was a bit better off in this regard. But luck played an important role in its survival in the fifth century. The Persians were mostly quiet and barbarians didn't spread far and wide on its territory.

 

[Marc]

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.

There is another feature that Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths brought to the table that was lacking: charitable works on an unprecedented scale. Particularly with the structure decline of the Western Roman Empire, the Catholic Church became the social welfare state - which includes healthcare and education.

While is it possible that other religions might have stepped up, my textual readings of them make me skeptical.

Personally, I very much a secular humanist, but I did have the benefit of serious exposure to various faiths growing up child and man.

...And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

 

[pattersonautobody]

Lol, it took a while for the christians to abandon pacifism--too late for the WRE. Christians could always fight, in fact, for example against fourth/fifth century heretics. Generally, though, they were pacifistic---at least down to the fifth century (Augustine introduced the concept of a just war, but it didn't seem to make any difference at first). And more was involved than just the pacifism of many early christians. There was also historical baggage. Christians could hardly be expected to fight hard for their old persecutor, and the killer of christ. At least one of the early church fathers had this attitude clear.

I'm not so sure about the pacifism thing. In the fifth century we had bishops using violence to get their way at councils, much of constantine's army was christian, and many martyrs of the Church were soldiers.

 

[pattersonautobody]

There is another feature that Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths brought to the table that was lacking: charitable works on an unprecedented scale. Particularly with the structure decline of the Western Roman Empire, the Catholic Church became the social welfare state - which includes healthcare and education.

While is it possible that other religions might have stepped up, my textual readings of them make me skeptical.

Personally, I very much a secular humanist, but I did have the benefit of serious exposure to various faiths growing up child and man.

...And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Good points. This is part of the allure of all the Abrahamic faiths but specifically Christianity, which teaches the positive golden rule. So, i do think the moral element of Christianity is a big deal in that it offers a compelling worldview, more so than emperor worship, contemplating the One, or the other available religions at the time.

 

[Atterdag]

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.

Explain why christianity caused the fall of the roman empire.

 

[Lusitania]

Explain why christianity caused the fall of the roman empire.

That was the premise of the short story that preventing Jesus death and rise of Christianity had allowed Roman Empire to survive and grow. Not my idea and one I do not have time to debate.

 

[Lusitania]

That was the premise of the short story that preventing Jesus death and rise of Christianity had allowed Roman Empire to survive and grow. Not my idea and one I do not have time to debate.

It was a collection of short alt history novels in omnibus. One was on that another was on Jews in surviving Austrian Hungarian empire that never collapsed because no Great War. They were trying to build a time machine to replace the faulty gun that failed to kill the heir to Austrian throne. They figured that if Austrian heir be killed then war would tear the country apart and Jews who were being oppressed be better off. The story ends with them celebrating their accomplishment just before Nazi troops break down their door and hawl them off to concentration camp in their new alternative timeline.

 

[Look More Closely Later]

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."...

Except any Roman official in the Judea area is going to look at the tradition which the Jews have of not paying the Temple Tax with Roman coins (because they're 'unclean' or something), but instead using other ones, and assume that that's what this prophet is talking about - use Roman coins to pay Caesar's taxes, and the Temple approved ones to pay the Temple taxes. In other words, this prophet is simply talking about something which the Jews already do anyway.
(And as far as I understand it, that was what the money-changers in the temple were there for - for swapping Roman coins that Jews couldn't pay the Temple tax with, for the ones approved by the Jewish religious authorities... Some of said moneychangers may have gouged the public on the exchange rates, mind you.)

Edit:
If I remember correctly, the lead in to the prophet's answer was him being asked something to the effect of 'is it okay to pay Roman taxes?' In that context, since his answer looks like effectively 'sure it is, with the appropriate coins' it seems to me that it may take an at least mildly paranoid Roman to see a Jew advocating the payment of Roman taxes as being subversive.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Except any Roman official in the Judea area is going to look at the tradition which the Jews have of not paying the Temple Tax with Roman coins (because they're 'unclean' or something), but instead using other ones, and assume that that's what this prophet is talking about - use Roman coins to pay Caesar's taxes, and the Temple approved ones to pay the Temple taxes. In other words, this prophet is simply talking about something which the Jews already do anyway.
(And as far as I understand it, that was what the money-changers in the temple were there for - for swapping Roman coins that Jews couldn't pay the Temple tax with, for the ones approved by the Jewish religious authorities... Some of said moneychangers may have gouged the public on the exchange rates, mind you.)

Edit:
If I remember correctly, the lead in to the prophet's answer was him being asked something to the effect of 'is it okay to pay Roman taxes?' In that context, since his answer looks like effectively 'sure it is, with the appropriate coins' it seems to me that it may take an at least mildly paranoid Roman to see a Jew advocating the payment of Roman taxes as being subversive.

The money-lenders (AFAIK) is a reference to the people that set up shop in the outer court and "dirtied" themselves with the trade in sacrificial animals for the Temple. For instance, if you were coming to Jerusalem all the way from Babylon (or even from somewhere in Galilee) you couldn't bring a sacrificial animal with you (unless you were extremely rich). Also, it wasn't as though there was necessarily an American Express on the nearest corner, so they would serve as foreign exchange where you could pay your non-Roman money in. (Think about it, you make a pilgrimage all the way from Babylon to Jerusalem, and you get there and you have no Roman money that you can pay, so what do you have to do?)

However, your argument does seem to be equally plasible (swapping non-approved monies for approved moneys or that the Romans were paranoid and saw things not necessarily as they were).

 

[starman]

I'm not so sure about the pacifism thing. In the fifth century we had bishops using violence to get their way at councils, much of constantine's army was christian, and many martyrs of the Church were soldiers.

Yes as I wrote before, many early christians were prepared to use violence to further a cause they believed in. They were much less enthusiastic about fighting for the Empire (every time a christian saw a passion scene he was reminded of the Roman role in jesus's death, despite all the attempts to shift the blame to the jews). And sure, many christians were soldiers. Indeed the church fathers of c 200 wouldn't have had to oppose service by christians if none were soldiers. But by the same token, Augustine wouldn't have had to OK service if it was already generally considered OK.
Another point is that just because a christian was a soldier didn't mean he was willing to fight. Many had to serve even if they preferred not to. (In the fourth century, there was an apparent increase in the number of men who cut off to their thumbs to avoid service.) I believe it was Zosimus who wrote that "the problem wasn't a shortage of soldiers, but they weren't doing their jobs." He also criticized the army as "effeminate." The poor attitude and morale probably reflected the large number of christian inductees, as the Empire became mostly christian. And we know from at least two recorded examples that christianity was the reason for an unwillingness to fight. Toward the close of the fourth century there must've been a realization by the Empire that it was pointless to make soldiers out of unwilling citizens so they should just hire barbarians.

 

[pattersonautobody]

Augustine wrote City of God to counter the charge, but having read a lot of the church fathers i simply do not see them commenting on war negatively and so I am not sure how we can arrive at your conclusion there. What contemporary sources specifically state that Christians did not want to fight?

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

As far as the Emperors were concerned, the alternative to Christianity would have been something like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus

Many people still celebrate the feast of Sol Invictus on December 25th each year.

The Wikipedia article unfortunately doesn't get into the beliefs associated with the cult. This was the relief of the army, along with Christianity (so much for the pacifism stuff). Incidentally, the Christianity of the first three acknowledged ecumenical councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon) was the Christianity of the soldiers, according at least to Friedman the Christianity in the eastern cities at that time was closer to Judaism.

Now if Jesus lived as as a philosopher into old age, his teachings could be incorporated into the cult of the sun to give it more substance. Also Paul would still be around, and as IOTL he was active in Syria and Rome, the most likely places Jesus would have been exiled, there is a good chance the two would have met normally.

 

[starman]

Augustine wrote City of God to counter the charge,

Augustine wrote it to counter the pagan claim that nothing as awful as the sack of Rome had occurred under pagan rule. He cited the sack of Rome by the gauls in c 390 BCE. I don't think he said anything about christians serving or not, in his day.

but having read a lot of the church fathers i simply do not see them commenting on war negatively and so I am not sure how we can arrive at your conclusion there.

I was referring only to those of c 200 CE not any of a much later time, whose views on this may have been different. I note that Origen, c early third century, wrote a reply to a pagan critic of christianity. Origen wrote that while the christians do not fight for the ruler, they "form an army of piety" that through "prayer vanquishes the demons that stir up war." Yeah right....

What contemporary sources specifically state that Christians did not want to fight?

Not sure about that. I have read books which describe problems with recruiting in the fourth century and later, and the loss of public spirit. And as I wrote there are at least two known accounts of men who resisted recruitment or fighting because of their faith. In light of that, it shouldn't be surprising that recruitment and morale problems became acute around the same time christianity arose to prominence in the empire. Put two and two together.

 

[Darzin]

If Jesus is exiled or even jus not crucified I don't see Christianity lasting. Because you won't have Paul it's Paul not Jesus who turned Christianity into a global religion.

 

[Rockydroid]

If Jesus is exiled or even jus not crucified I don't see Christianity lasting. Because you won't have Paul it's Paul not Jesus who turned Christianity into a global religion.

It could have easily been Peter and John too. Paul preached largely in Modern day western Turkey and eastern Greece and Rome. John is crediting with hanging around Ephesus, he and/or Peter could have helped spread Christianity in the area. A slower spread, but a spread nonetheless. In the East and Africa the other Apostles are said to have preached so that expansion would have still happened. Of course I am ignoring the lack of crucification here.

My opinion is a more proselytising Jewish sect would still form. His preaching had some resonance otherwise it would have waned. If you didn't have resurrection then you'd still have other promises. It seems to me that his ATL sect could have survived the destruction of the temple unlike the Sadducees and a few other sects. Pharisaic Judaism would be competing with Jesus' Nazarene Judaism. And God only knows (pun intended...not sure if it works though) how this would interplay with gnosticism. I can still see a rise of Manichaeism. And there's a small chance that the Nazarene symbol would be seen by Constantine...or rather a Constantine counterpart? I don't know.

 

[Miguel Lanius]

I think the Sanhedrin still murders Jesus, maybe with stoning or just a straight-out ambush.

 

[sloreck]

Murder/assassination is not the way the Sanhedrin works. If Jesus is exiled somewhere away from Palestine, that does the job nicely - the charismatic prophet is far away never to return and the remnants of his sect now represent no potential threat to orthodoxy. If the Romans do find Jesus guilty of some crime or another they are not simply going to say "bad boy" and release back on the streets, prison/enslavement/banishment will be the result.