Jesus born later...

So, I was listening to a Podcast earlier today, and something in the discussion reminded me of an alt-history I read in a book where the author posited "what if Jesus wasn't crucified?" In the story, Jesus dies of old age, and his teachings change Judaism in such a way that his followers make up the majority of the Jewish faith, and eventually it spreads throughout the Roman empire, and by the end of the story, a Roman Emperor is overseeing the construction of the "Great Synagogue" in Rome (or Constantinople? I can't remember for sure, the details are a little fuzzy now.

And this got me thinking of the following question:

"What if Jesus was born significantly later?"

Now, for the sake of this discussion, we are going to assume a few things:
- the story of the gospels are "true"
- if Jesus shows up later, the events of the Gospels would still occur (with different details but the same basic events - IE some sort of divine hand etc).

I'm not trying to start a religious debate with this. Just a thought experiment of how history would have played out differently. Obviously "christianity" showing up later would lead to considerably different developments in the development of first the West, and eventually the wider world.

Now I now already some people grumbling about this for a variety of legitimate reasons, So for further context as to where I'm coming from with this, while I grew up in a conservative Christian background I'd currently identify as a liberal, main-line protestant, and also gay so I don't hold a lot of stock in biblical literalism. But I find the overall alternate that would ensue here interesting.

First, how would Rome move on differently. Then there is the idea of the gospels playing out in a somewhat different setting with different details and how things would develop differently afterwards.

Any thoughts/takers on this?
 
How much later? A few decades, and he may be caught up in the chaos of one of the Jewish-Roman Wars.

I feel like that would change what Jesus does during those chaotic times, but I'm not sure...

Christianity moved away from Judaism mainly because of these wars, and it truth was able to do so because of them. Christianity had a tension between the Jewish Christians under James the Just and the non-Jewish Christians under Paul, which ended in the triumph of the latter because of the burning of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Christianity being founded on the premise of the Messiah would be difficult with another, more popular Messiah running around and seeming to fulfill the prophecies of a liberator king.
 
How much later? A few decades, and he may be caught up in the chaos of one of the Jewish-Roman Wars.

I feel like that would change what Jesus does during those chaotic times, but I'm not sure...

Christianity moved away from Judaism mainly because of these wars, and it truth was able to do so because of them. Christianity had a tension between the Jewish Christians under James the Just and the non-Jewish Christians under Paul, which ended in the triumph of the latter because of the burning of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Christianity being founded on the premise of the Messiah would be difficult with another, more popular Messiah running around and seeming to fulfill the prophecies of a liberator king.

I was leaving it open ended. Could be a few decades later. Or a few centuries.
And obviously "christianity" would develop differently in a different setting. I was just interested in giving it the same basic "start" in a latter time and contemplate what would happen from there.

Maybe if it happens after the Jewish revolt, the idea of the actual Kingdom of God being established now, which some of Jesus' followers thought was what he was preaching for, would have already been discredited. That would definitely lead to a different development of the faith afterwards.
 
How much later? A few decades, and he may be caught up in the chaos of one of the Jewish-Roman Wars.

I feel like that would change what Jesus does during those chaotic times, but I'm not sure...

Christianity moved away from Judaism mainly because of these wars, and it truth was able to do so because of them. Christianity had a tension between the Jewish Christians under James the Just and the non-Jewish Christians under Paul, which ended in the triumph of the latter because of the burning of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Christianity being founded on the premise of the Messiah would be difficult with another, more popular Messiah running around and seeming to fulfill the prophecies of a liberator king.

I'd disagree that the burning of the Temple was the main reason that the Pauline faction succeeded. Not that it didn't help weaken the Jewish position, and that the diaspora didn't help further spread the new faith, but there are many many reasons.
 
I'd disagree that the burning of the Temple was the main reason that the Pauline faction succeeded. Not that it didn't help weaken the Jewish position, and that the diaspora didn't help further spread the new faith, but there are many many reasons.

Very true, the burning of the Second Temple was just one helpful factor out of many, alongside Pauline Christianity adapting to the cultural atmosphere of the Empire to a greater extent than the more Jewish elements, allowing the former to gain more converts.
 

jahenders

Banned
Assuming it's a few decades and things otherwise play out similarly, it changes the dynamic vis-a-vis Rome. Christianity wouldn't be as large or as significant until the same few decades later, so it's probably less likely that Constantine would formally adopt Christianity at Milvian Bridge. If he doesn't, it's possible that it never gets formally adopted by Rome, or that some later emperor adopts it.

Even if we assume that some later emperor adopts Christianity and makes it official, they might not take the same interest in Christian theology. So, perhaps there's no Council of Nicaea, Nicene Creed, etc or they come out differently. That is, perhaps the view of the Trinity is more in line with Arianism, or some of the Canon law might be different. In theory, the evolution of the Church could be quite different.
 
Very true, the burning of the Second Temple was just one helpful factor out of many, alongside Pauline Christianity adapting to the cultural atmosphere of the Empire to a greater extent than the more Jewish elements, allowing the former to gain more converts.

That is a statement I can find more agreement with. After all, when your message is 'everyone can join our religion,' it shouldn't be too surprising that it gained a demographic edge.
 
Top