In this scenario, Rome is destroyed in 387 BC by the Gauls. So the Persian Empire is in control of Judea. Would Christianity still exist in this timeline?
In a world where the Roman Empire never existed would christianity still exist?
- Thread starter moistrophile
- Start date
Why is the assumption that Persia controls Judea - could be seleucids or Ptolemaic Egypt, maybe local rulers (borderlands between successor states)?
Nah. Although, if the Greeks conquer Judea in a large empire and keep forcing their religion on the region a la the Seleucids, something similar might come about.
Because before all those come about, there was Persia. That said, Hasmonean-wank would be fun.
Yes, because the birth of Jesus fulfilled a promise made by God to the Israelites, and his death (which atoned for all the sins of humankind) was by God's will. And the Apostles were divinely inspired to preach the Gospel afterwards. Since it was all by the will of omnipotent God, it would happen regardless of any change in human affairs.
... If one believes that the events in the Gospels actually happened as reported.
If not, then nothing like Christianity could arise if the circumstances in the Levant were as different as they would be in the absence of Rome.
... If one believes that the events in the Gospels actually happened as reported.
If not, then nothing like Christianity could arise if the circumstances in the Levant were as different as they would be in the absence of Rome.
Why are the Persians still in control of Judea in this scenario? Did the Gauls also wipe out Macedonia? Or did something else somehow prevent Alexander's conquest of Persia and the rise of Hellenistic states?
Last edited:
Alexander was born in 356 BC - he wouldn't exist in such a scenario.
His father, Philip II of Macedon was born in 382 BC - he wouldn't exist either.
Could the Macedonians (or some other Greek state) still have tried anyway? Sure.
Would they have succeeded? Maybe. Alexander's successes were as much based on luck as on military strategy.
If there is still a Macedonian conquest, and the Jews find themselves in a Greek Empire which tries to forcibly Hellenise them, then figures like John the Baptist and later Jesus Christ could still emerge. If the TTL equivalent of the Maccabees are defeated, the opposition might take a religious rather than a military form.
There might even be an analogue of St Paul, who was a Hellenised Jew. And the word "Christ" (= "Anointed One" in Greek) might still be used. Of course all the details would e different.
Even then, *Christianity would look unrecognizable to us. Jesus is the same, but He doesn't have followers expecting a political Messiah, and the most important world city is either Athens or someplace in the Middle East.
As others have stated here, it really depends on the veracity of the Gospels.
If we accept Jesus is indeed the Messiah and the Gospels are partly, if not mostly, accurate, then there’s further points where things can go differently for Christianity and Judaism. If there’s a different empire, be it Greek or Persian or Arabic or any other non-Judaic state, ruling the area then it’s completely possible Christianity can emerge in a similar form and spread across that empire. If there isn’t such an empire, then Jesus could still be born at some point and we could see a more localized form of Christianity. This Christianity and the version mentioned previously would obviously, as stated by others here, be different in some forms from the Christianity we see in OTL. There’s also another point with accepting the Gospel here in that, if God doesn’t see the conditions He feels are necessary to send the Messiah in this non-Roman world, then He very well could not send the Messiah until some further point. We can’t know that.
If we don’t accept the Gospel as being true in this ATL, then it’s still a tossup based on some of those conditions and some others. If some non-Judaic empire rules the area then it’s still possible to see a Jesusesque figure appear and gather Jewish followers to him that could spread through that empire in a parallel to OTL. Depending on this hypothetical empire’s policies that could go many ways. If there isn’t some foreign empire ruling the land or if we see a powerful local state pop up then this is far less likely but still possible I would imagine. This Christianity would almost certainly be drastically different from OTL’s, likely far more so than in the previous example in the paragraph above.
Sorry if that’s rambley I mostly just typed as I was thinking through this.
If we accept Jesus is indeed the Messiah and the Gospels are partly, if not mostly, accurate, then there’s further points where things can go differently for Christianity and Judaism. If there’s a different empire, be it Greek or Persian or Arabic or any other non-Judaic state, ruling the area then it’s completely possible Christianity can emerge in a similar form and spread across that empire. If there isn’t such an empire, then Jesus could still be born at some point and we could see a more localized form of Christianity. This Christianity and the version mentioned previously would obviously, as stated by others here, be different in some forms from the Christianity we see in OTL. There’s also another point with accepting the Gospel here in that, if God doesn’t see the conditions He feels are necessary to send the Messiah in this non-Roman world, then He very well could not send the Messiah until some further point. We can’t know that.
If we don’t accept the Gospel as being true in this ATL, then it’s still a tossup based on some of those conditions and some others. If some non-Judaic empire rules the area then it’s still possible to see a Jesusesque figure appear and gather Jewish followers to him that could spread through that empire in a parallel to OTL. Depending on this hypothetical empire’s policies that could go many ways. If there isn’t some foreign empire ruling the land or if we see a powerful local state pop up then this is far less likely but still possible I would imagine. This Christianity would almost certainly be drastically different from OTL’s, likely far more so than in the previous example in the paragraph above.
Sorry if that’s rambley I mostly just typed as I was thinking through this.
Basils
Banned
The Romans did basically kill off the Hellenized Jewish Jews. Without the throngs change pretty quickly imho. As that was replaced with Christianity and that opened things up. Clearly the Med world was ready for a new religions be Christianity filled that gap that was there. Hellenized Judaism was close to that but having to become a Jew was a deal breaker for many
I would say no. Due to butterflies. The Romans were the ones who executed Jesus. A POD where the Roman Empire never existed would butterfly away Jesus's existence altogether.
What replaces the Roman Empire? If a bunch of small city-states or kingdoms. If its replaced by say a Carthage Empire maybe?
Probably city states and some bigger kingdoms. Carthagian Empire is implausible because it wasn't such expansionist nation as Rome was. It was ratherly merchant nation not militaristic one.
So by 1 CE Mediterranean would be controlled by several kingdoms.
There's already a lot of Mazdayasna in Judaism and Christianity IOTL. The way New Testament angels are presented, the good vs. evil dichotomy, a final judgment, heaven and hell...
Nephi
Banned
I imagine going with the ok they still exist, the Persians maybe go with stones?
But still drag his corpse into the same cave where three days later, ta-da
But Zoroaster gets at least a book of his own or two in the offical cannon, and that happens in Baghdad.
You see, I have heard that the Seleucids and the other Diadochi states where quite unstable. Without Rome, the Seleucids would be in charge for longer. However, The Parthians or someone else would eventually take over.