Jesus: "Never Render unto Caesar..."

[GlobalHumanism]

Basically I'm asking what would be the effects of Jesus of Nazareth (the historical figure) simply telling his followers to not or never render unto Caesar (pay taxes) what is Caesar's instead of the biblical account of him saying the opposite.

I assume this wouldve firmly painted him as a revolutionary in the eyes of his Jewish contemporaries but outside of that, what effect would this more maccabein Jesus of Nazareth have on the overall Christian narrative of his life?

Could more Jews have found him sympathetic given his more anti-Roman leanings?
Could more have perceived him to be the Messiah?
Could he possibly have been arrested and executed sooner?

 

[Tom Colton]

Simon the Zealot would've applauded him, for a start.

More seriously, you might get the First Roman-Jewish War or Bar Kokhba Revolt half a century or a century early, and Jesus would've been dismissed as another false messiah claimant.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

Simon the Zealot would've applauded him, for a start.

Now I'm imagining an awesome ATL where Simon is chosen as the first pope, after Jesus' death instead of Peter.
Makes for some interesting butterflies.

 

[Tom Colton]

Now I'm imagining an awesome ATL where Simon is chosen as the first pope, after Jesus' death instead of Peter.
Makes for some interesting butterflies.

Peter's position of Bishop of Rome didn't confer any particular status IIRC, although his prominence in the Synoptics + John is evident from the beginning. Simon the Zealot might've just led to the whole thing crashing in flames to be honest.

Now, James the Just...

 

[Nik]

Well, I can't see any Caesar's Wife taking to the religion, nor any Caesar tolerating it, nor organising a conference to 'unify' it...

IIRC, dissidents from the 'Official Version' at the famous conference were either exiled, put under house arrest, or met with the business end of Legionary swords-- And that was the authorities 'playing nice'...

 

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

Eventually you'd get Anarcho-Capitalists quoting the bible.

 

[Evil Crusader]

For sure, this butterflies away Christianity as a major religion later on. Its place will be taken by another mysteric cult, such as that of Mithra or the Eleusians.
And a Jesus which ends up as a figurehead for resistance to Roman overlordship is gonna live an interesting, yet still brutally ending, life as there's no way (unless we want to go religious on it) the Jews can withstand the full might of a mostly undistracted Roman Empire.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

For sure, this butterflies away Christianity as a major religion later on. Its place will be taken by another mysteric cult, such as that of Mithra or the Eleusians.
And a Jesus which ends up as a figurehead for resistance to Roman overlordship is gonna live an interesting, yet still brutally ending, life as there's no way (unless we want to go religious on it) the Jews can withstand the full might of a mostly undistracted Roman Empire.

But then why would Christianity disappear entirely?

 

[CountPeter]

But then why would Christianity disappear entirely?

Because if a particular group stops paying taxes, they will either...
A) make Rome so decentralised that it can't function
B) more likely piss everyone off and get themselves killed.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

Because if a particular group stops paying taxes, they will either...
A) make Rome so decentralised that it can't function
B) more likely piss everyone off and get themselves killed.

Paupers and the destitute probably couldn't pay taxes though..but the Roman's didn't go around slaughtering them wholesale IIRC

 

[CountPeter]

Paupers and the destitute probably couldn't pay taxes though..but the Roman's didn't go around slaughtering them wholesale IIRC

Paupers and the destitute were not a movement though. Christianity actively converts. From the outset, if ignore becomes popular anywhere that place isn't going to function well.

 

[Karolus Rex]

Paupers and the destitute probably couldn't pay taxes though..but the Roman's didn't go around slaughtering them wholesale IIRC

Senators would love this religion because:

*Random Senator*

"You see boss I can't pay taxes God forbids it!!"

*Random Caesar*

"Praetorian kill him and just add his riches to mine"

Replace Senator for anyone in the Imperium and here you have a reason why the Caesars would be heavy handed if some religion said that the rich eastern provinces shouldn't pay taxes.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

Paupers and the destitute were not a movement though. Christianity actively converts. From the outset, if ignore becomes popular anywhere that place isn't going to function well.

As far as I can tell the converting didn't happen till after Jesus of Nazareth was killed. So telling his small cadre of followers and some of the Judea folk to not pay taxes wouldnt automatically lead to the annihilation of his group.

Senators would love this religion because:

*Random Senator*

"You see boss I can't pay taxes God forbids it!!"

*Random Caesar*

"Praetorian kill him and just add his riches to mine"

Replace Senator for anyone in the Imperium and here you have a reason why the Caesars would be heavy handed if some religion said that the rich eastern provinces shouldn't pay taxes.

This is a poor understanding of history.
What senator would give a damn about some religious nut in the province of Judea?
IIRC, the whole Jesus of Nazareth thing only came to the attention of local Roman officials because the Jewish clergy, King Herod, et. al tossed it up to them.
Whose say a more maccabein Jesus figure would still draw the eyre of the Jewish authorities?

Hell if Jesus got the support of the Jewish Zealots, I dont think the Pharrises would risk the same attempts at public shaming they tired IOTL. (if we take the biblical account historically)

 

[Don Corleone]

Because if a particular group stops paying taxes, they will either...
A) make Rome so decentralised that it can't function
B) more likely piss everyone off and get themselves killed.

C) Possibly the biggest long term obstacle. If Christianity said not to pay taxes, then no majority Christian society would be able to maintain a functional government, and thus would be overrun by non-Christian enemies. One way around that might be for a later interpretation that says "never render to Caesar" specifically referred to the Roman Empire, but the western empire would then have to collapse before Christianity became mainstream.

 

[Skallagrim]

C) Possibly the biggest long term obstacle. If Christianity said not to pay taxes, then no majority Christian society would be able to maintain a functional government, and thus would be overrun by non-Christian enemies. One way around that might be for a later interpretation that says "never render to Caesar" specifically referred to the Roman Empire, but the western empire would then have to collapse before Christianity became mainstream.

Well, I rather suspect that there would still be a church organisation demanding money from the faithful. It would be interesting to see a kind of "pay no taxes to secular governments!"-church somehow still making it big, with that church then essentially taking up typical government functions. You can't render unto any "caesar", but you MUST render unto the church. the result would be a theocratic church-state that automatically considers all governments outside it to be invalid. None of these governments would be likely to welcome christianity, since those guys don't pay taxes and actively seek to overthrow the state and annex the whole country to the church theocracy... (So this alt-Christianity, if it does become succesful, must be a religion of conquest.)

It's a bit of a different take on the idea, I think. But the only one I see where "don't render unto Caesar" somehow gets to work.

 

[CountPeter]

C) Possibly the biggest long term obstacle. If Christianity said not to pay taxes, then no majority Christian society would be able to maintain a functional government, and thus would be overrun by non-Christian enemies. One way around that might be for a later interpretation that says "never render to Caesar" specifically referred to the Roman Empire, but the western empire would then have to collapse before Christianity became mainstream.

Your C was what I was getting at with A.

 

[Skallagrim]

Incidentally, a friend of mine gave me a link to a libertarian article once, which claimed that "render unto caesar what is caesar's" should be seen like this in OTL. I don't have the link anymore, but the reasoning was that no false idols were allowed, and that Jesus asked to see the coin (a denarius) because it would have been one minted by Tiberius, which proclaimed that emperor's divinity. (I'm not certain whether that divinity claim was literally on the coin, although Tiberius did forbid coins with his visage on them being used in brothels and bath-houses, and he did refer to himself as "faithful son of Augustus the God".) Since an emperor claiming divinty would mean that he'd be a false idol, what he was really due would be... nothing.

So the idea was that Jesus didn't explicitly say it for political reasons, but he was subtly expressing: render unto caesar what he deserves (nothing!) and unto God what He deserves (everything!). I'm not convinced, but it's certainly an interesting way of looking at it.

 

[Evil Crusader]

But then why would Christianity disappear entirely?

Because 'not render unto Caesar' would also have repercussions beyond the simple not paying taxes. It stands for anti-elitarism, and would have likely meant some degree of association with any future Judaic Revolt - both things very bad, from the point of view of any elite desiring to use it as the new centerpiece. Remember, Constantine's idea of church was that of a useful social support structure pliant to his wishes, and not what it evolved into, eventually.
Also, two of the three synoptic Gospels mention the presence of 'the Erodians' were present at the episode. So, Jesus would be flagged immediately as a rebel and a dangerous figure.
I guess you could make a case for the saying just going forgotten, but such things are gonna blow up eventually.

Incidentally, a friend of mine gave me a link to a libertarian article once, which claimed that "render unto caesar what is caesar's" should be seen like this in OTL. I don't have the link anymore, but the reasoning was that no false idols were allowed, and that Jesus asked to see the coin (a denarius) because it would have been one minted by Tiberius, which proclaimed that emperor's divinity. (I'm not certain whether that divinity claim was literally on the coin, although Tiberius did forbid coins with his visage on them being used in brothels and bath-houses, and he did refer to himself as "faithful son of Augustus the God".) Since an emperor claiming divinty would mean that he'd be a false idol, what he was really due would be... nothing.

So the idea was that Jesus didn't explicitly say it for political reasons, but he was subtly expressing: render unto caesar what he deserves (nothing!) and unto God what He deserves (everything!). I'm not convinced, but it's certainly an interesting way of looking at it.

What you said, and that you should move away from idolaters. It's, to date, the position of most modern exegesis.

 

[Raunchel]

If he had said that, Christianity would have a much harder time spreading. It is one thing to have a weird religion which is occasionally lightly persecuted, it's something else entirely to have a cult that denies the most fundamental parts of the state. It would be hit hard, very hard. And it wouldn't have periods of acceptance, which would allow it to build up in any way. A group that opposes taxation would be very deeply disliked, also by the local hierarchy because they really don't want to piss off the Romans.

 

[Tripledot]

If he said that, if you're going by the Biblical account, he would have been turned into the authorities by the Pharisees and summarily executed for treason, and Christianity as a religion would never come about.