How could Rome best stop/slow the spread of Christianity?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
South American style "disappearances". Christians are seized and killed without any public fanfare or acknowledgement.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Sorry for the reference to Christianity as a cancer. I don't see the reference to Hitler as a false analogy. Just not PC. Nazism is a belief system similar to Abrahamic religions, with Aryans as the "chosen ones".
 
You know that guy Jesus, aka Yeshua of Nazareth? That guy. The dude on the cross. Whatever you do, don’t fucking crucify him. Do literally anything else. Send him to whatever Rome’s version of Antarctica is, including actual Antarctica. Send competing prophets to drown him out. Shit, give him whatever the Roman equivalent of a talk show is, let him get rich and eccentric, and he’ll be about as influential as Richard Branson.

But whatever you do, the last thing you want to do is crucify him. Don’t hang him or feed him hemlock either. Just don’t kill him. Not even accidentally. Don’t even let him eat funny-smelling food. He needs to live to a ripe old age and grow a ridiculous rich-guy mustache or something.

Everything I have read about the guy suggests that he is not really interested in growing rich. I think he really believed what he was preaching about - regardless if he was right or not. Not killing him would however change christianity to a level it would be unrecognizable. First because of the significance of his death and second because he would continue to preach.
 
There are dozens of prophets among Jewish people at that time. and several genuinely dangerous and violent. It was impossible for Romans (or Jewish authority) to tell difference between them. Some are mystics, other are demagogue, others are bandits. Not execute anybody would be foolish, They could be genuinely dangerous to stability.

He is very likely to have existed.

We don't have that much information on 'Jesus in the Bible' as person outside it. as far we know, Early Christian could very well mix biography and teaching of several people into one. Bible itself had two separate genealogy. Even in Bibles, after he ressurected, his own disciple didn't recognize him.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Simple - no Emperor goes Christian.
As there was consumer demand for whatever (compassion? monotheism?) Christianity was selling the faith grows and becomes mainstream - too big to ignore and persecute - but it stays as one of the brands for salvation/spiritual happiness on the market.
Should the State take steps to weaken Christianity?
Maybe ... but if one wishes to butterfly Christianity "taking over" the Empire then the trick is simply not incorporating it into the State Apparatus.
 
Last edited:
The problem was that the Romans didn’t really understand Christianity and the sentiments that the early Christians were tapping into. The Romans didn’t really get Judaism either, but they respected it because it was really, really old. In contrast they saw Christianity as a superstition, not a religion. By the time the Romans began to truly understand how the Christians were critiquing Roman society, it was too late.


Judaism was very popular throughout the Empire in the early first century, and there were probably as many 'God-fearing' supporters as birthright Jews. Monotheism is philosophically respectable, and possibly many of them also thought of the Herods as cool and enlightened monarchs. After all, it was Herod the Great who had revived the Olympic Games. These were the people to whom Paul preached.

After the destruction of the Temple Vespasian turned its taxes to a temple of Jupiter. Many of the stories in the New Testament about taxes, whatever their historical roots, may have been written for an audience who faced the question of whether to pay that tax or not.

The tax was not only supremely unjust, but very tempting for any Emperor who needed more money. The persecution of Christians under Domitians came about because he extended the tax to all who followed Jewish customs. What would a family of Christian God-fearers do? They would protest that they wer not Jews, abandoning any outward sign (if they had ever adopted it) but would hardly go back to a paganism they might have left generations before.

Christian non-conformity came down to two points - refusal to bear arms or to worship idols.
 
Is 1/20 of the Roman Population in the 4th century really that much? I imagine it would have expanded even more but I don't think it was tremendously large by the time Constantine accepted it.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
But if you do execute them, you'll get martyrs, who'll get even more followers.
Martyrs impress only Hardcore True Believers. The supporter base. I'm not sure if people deliberately getting themselves into trouble with the Authorities have that much of a draw on the casuals.
 
What about having an emperor (I think it was Commodus or Alexander Severus OTL) just include Jesus into their pantheon alongside Jupiter and Hercules. It was the Christians who naysayed the idea. Christians no longer get martyred for their faith but instead sentenced for flouting the emperor: "who are you to say that there is only one god? Our emperor graciously took your god into his pantheon and yet you still speak treason against him by denying the divinity of his other gods?"

Its not like Rome was a stranger to co-opting foreign deities if it suited their purposes (Epona, Isis or Mithras). Christianity becomes a fad rather than a religion once the next emperor decides that he prefers the more martial Mars/Mithras to the pacifisti Jesus (who might end up getting equated with Bacchus or Osiris/Serapis or some other god who dies and gets resurrected).
 
There are dozens of prophets among Jewish people at that time. and several genuinely dangerous and violent. It was impossible for Romans (or Jewish authority) to tell difference between them. Some are mystics, other are demagogue, others are bandits. Not execute anybody would be foolish, They could be genuinely dangerous to stability.

Also Yeshua (Aramaic "Yisu") was a very common name. The Romans could have killed "Jesus" earlier, only to get the wrong one, and have much the same religion founded by another Jew of the same name.

Actually their best chance of heading off Christianity would be to promote some other Oriental faith, like the worship of Isis, which iirc also had quite a following in the early 1C, and, like early Christianity, appealed strongly to women. Trouble is, those Romans who objected to Christianity would probably object to the alternative just as much.
 
So because I love being a contrarian, I'm not entirely convinced that "No execution" actually is that important.

Its not unheard of for people to add details in the retelling up to and including the actual means of death for their Messiah. Mani for instance also had claim to being crucified by his followers despite most evidence pointing to him having died in his cell.

Not likely in this case.

The manner of Jesus' death, as a "rebel" against the Roman State, was a great embarrassment to the early Church, which they did their best to play down. The Cross didn't become the main Christian icon until after the Conversion of Constantine, and it is notorious how the Gospels bend over backwards to whitewash Pilate and put the blame for His death onto the Jews. Had His execution been fictitious, its inventors would almost certainly have Him being stoned to death by Jews, as St Stephen was, rather than crucified by a Roman governor.
 
The problem was that the Romans didn’t really understand Christianity and the sentiments that the early Christians were tapping into. The Romans didn’t really get Judaism either, but they respected it because it was really, really old. In contrast they saw Christianity as a superstition, not a religion. By the time the Romans began to truly understand how the Christians were critiquing Roman society, it was too late.


They also had a very "top down" approach, and even when persecuting tended to concentrate on Bishops and other prominent figures, assuming that the rank and file would drop away once the leaders were killed. The idea of the hoi polloi keeping a Church going on its own was something that didn't really seem to cross their minds.

The killers of Joseph Smith in 1844 were probably acting on a similar assumption. But a better 19C analogy is in the realm of politics. In the 1820s Metternich wrote to Tsar Alexander expressing concern about what the "Paris Directing Committee" were going to do next. He assumed that all revolutionary activity in Italy and elsewhere was directed by a small bunch of conspirators, and that once these were found and arrested, everyone else would settle down happily under their legitimate rulers. It didn't occur to him that ordinary people might have views of their own. The top people in the RE seem to have been of a similar school of thought.
 
Have the Romans embrace Manichaeism instead. Same universalist appeal as Christianity, its dualism would likely appeal to a people whose worldview was already centred on a division of the world into civilisation and barbarism and it gives the Roman Emperors a religious justification for going after the Iranians.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Y'all came justthisclose to somehow managing to take a question on a subject that is 1,900 years old into actions regarding current politics.

Please don't do that.

Fights/debates/frank discussions regarding religion in the modern world are Chat subjects.
 
Top