Lates date to prevent christianity from becoming dominant relgion in Roman Empire?

Title says it all. What's the latest date you could prevent Christianity from becoming the largest religion in the Roman Empire? Is it during the reign of Alexander Severus, or could it be during the Third Century Crisis or during Diocletian's reign?

Maybe having Aurelian live longer and promote the Cult of Sol Invictus more?
 
You can probably have Christianity fail to become dominant with a variety of PODs up until about the 320s, but I'd say it becomes considerably more difficult after the middle of the third century. The Church seems to have grown exponentially during the "Little Peace" from 260 to 302, and the inclusivity and organisation of Christianity aren't really matched by any rival faith in the Roman world that I can immediately think of, although doubtless there are a few.

A more organised cult of the Unconquered Sun, that absorbs elements from Christianity and Zoroastrianism and is pushed by a longer-reigning Aurelian could be a good way to go.
 
QUOTE=slydessertfox;7599004]Title says it all. What's the latest date you could prevent Christianity from becoming the largest religion in the Roman Empire? Is it during the reign of Alexander Severus, or could it be during the Third Century Crisis or during Diocletian's reign?
Maybe having Aurelian live longer and promote the Cult of Sol Invictus more?[/QUOTE]

Or a brand of Neoplatonism supported not only by one but a number of emperors in succession.
 
[...]the inclusivity and organisation of Christianity aren't really matched by any rival faith in the Roman world that I can immediately think of, although doubtless there are a few.

A more organised cult of the Unconquered Sun, that absorbs elements from Christianity and Zoroastrianism and is pushed by a longer-reigning Aurelian could be a good way to go.

I think the religion that might have had the biggest mass appeal after Christianity was the Cult of Isis (and Serapis). It seems to have been a strong rival to Christianity in some regions. It could claim to be an ancient religion and it had an impressive set of rituals, which gave it prestige in the eyes of the Romans. It was a salvation religion that offered its followers the promise of immortality. And, like Christianity, it seems to have been popular with the lower classes including slaves, and women.

I think Christianity still had the best prospects given its inclusivity and organization, but the Cult of Isis is the most promising rival I can think of, because next to Christianity it probably had the biggest mass appeal. Sol Invictus was a religion for the elites, but not so much for ordinary folk.

And in response to the OP:

Perhaps one way to prevent Christians from becoming dominant is having a different group of early Christians winning over the others and becoming the "true" Christian faith. I'm taking ideas here from Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew by Bart Ehrman, Oxford University Press, 2003 - a very interesting book for alt history fans):

Take the Ebionites, a group of early Christians who insisted that, to be a Christian, it was necessary to follow the Jewish laws. They observed Jewish holidays, kept a kosher diet and required circumcision from male converts. As a result, they appealed only to a small number of people and never had the growth potential of proto-orthodox Christianity. Would a Roman emperor have undergone circumcision to convert to Christianity? Extremely unlikely.

On the other end of the early Christian spectrum were the Marcionites, who believed that the wrathful god of the Jewish old testament texts was a separate and lower god from the all-loving god of Jesus. They rejected the old testament and sought to sever all links to Judaism (it seems that Marcion edited his version of the gospels accordingly). This made them quite successful for a while, because the Marcionists emphasised what many people in the Roman empire found attractive about Christianity (love, forgiveness, community) and got rid of what people found less attractive (law, punishment, association with Jewishness). Given how many early Christian polemics we have against the Marcionists, it seems that they were a serious threat to proto-orthodoxy for a while.

However, one serious disadvantage the Marcionists had when converting people in the Roman empire was that, by getting rid of everything Jewish, they had the appearance of being a completely new religion. To an ancient observer, this made them unattractive, because the Romans believed that only religions which had ancient roots could lay claim to truth and prestige. The proto-orthodox Christians, by keeping some continuity with Judaism, could claim that Jesus fulfilled the messiah prophecy of the Jews and that Christianity was thus really an old religion.

Ehrman theorises that proto-orthodox Christianity was as successful as it was because it chose the middle path in its relationship to Judaism. It did not completely reject Judaism and so could lay claim, in Roman eyes, to the "ancientness" of Judaism. At the same time, it did not insist that its followers get circumcised or observe the Jewish dietary laws and other Jewish customs, which would have seriously diminished its attractiveness. It's hard to imagine Constantine or another Roman emperor converting to Ebionite Christianity or to Marcionite Christianity. So, if either of these early Christian groups had won over proto-orthodoxy, it is unlikely that this alt-Christianity would have converted many Roman citizens and become the dominant religion in the empire. In all likelihood, Christianity would have become a small Jewish sect or just another mystery cult among many others.
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
If the Kushans had ridden west and conquered the Arcsids around the time of Trajan (possibly taking full advantage of the turmoil that enabled Trajan to conquer Mesopotania and;/or brought the Sarmatians into their Empire, Rome would have had direct contact in the new TL with a Buddhist empire. In which case, Kushan Mahayana Buddhism, which subsumed other people's gods and faiths into their religion would have been a direct and a strong competitor for Chriistianity. Mahayana Buddhism could well have absorbed Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism or attempts similar to Yelena Blavatskaya's Theosophical Society might be made from within the gnostic tradition to do so. If it works for New Age IOTL, why shouldn't it work for a Kushan influenced Roman Empire 2000 years earlier ATL.?
 
Top