Nipping Christianity in the bud - how does religion develop?

So, let's assume that for whatever reason Christ (if he was indeed a real figure) dies young, and the movements surrounding Christianity never pick up steam. How does religion develop in the Roman Empire? I know precious little about the Greco-Roman pantheon and religion; was there a written doctrine? Head of the faith? I know they had temples here and there dedicated to their various gods.

I've heard it said that the Romans could have drifted towards monotheism anyway, taking Zeus/Jupiter to be the one and only God, or at least supreme enough that the other gods are demoted in some way.

Anyway, would the Romans try and find equivalencies of their gods in the various other Pagan belief systems of Europe? Or would they try to morph the other beliefs to fit their own? Would a lack of Christianity cause a quicker collapse of the empire, prolong its life, or not affect it in that regard at all?
 
There was no written doctrine, but the emperor was effectively the boss of religion in the empire. Non-Christian Roman religion wasn't really that monolithic. As for affecting the decline and fall of the empire, it depends on whether you consider Christianity to have somehow influenced the process, and some historians have spent their whole careers trying to figure out what went on in the decline and fall of Rome. The Romans did have a tendency to take gods from other cultures and equate them with ones they already worshipped, but they also occasionally adopted foreign gods wholesale (like the Egyptian goddess Isis). I hope this was helpful.
 
Well, Pauline Christianity was pretty much Judaism lite, stripped of things like circumcision which were off-putting to Graeco-Roman converts. So quite possibly some other Jewish Prophet comes along and is "adopted" in a similar way.
 

fi11222

Banned
I believe that a Chinese-like scenario is possible :
  • Graeco-Roman philosophy (Stoicism, ...) <=> Confucianism
  • Mystery religions (in a more popular form) <=> Daoism
  • Manichaeism (minus Jesus) or another synchretistic gnostic eastern religion <=> Buddhism

All three would need to evolve a bit to become true equivalents to the 3 main Chinese spiritual currents IOTL. However, the basic elements are there and, in any case, at the time of the Han (rough equivalent of early Roman Empire), none of the above mentioned Chinese religions were fully formed.
 
Why does any particular religion necessarily have a destiny to dominate Rome?
Why not something similar to china, lots of ethnic and regional gods with philosophy's adopting these gods.
 
Why does any particular religion necessarily have a destiny to dominate Rome?
Why not something similar to china, lots of ethnic and regional gods with philosophy's adopting these gods.

No-one said a single religion has to dominate; you are right in saying that many different ones could be successful at once.
 
I believe that a Chinese-like scenario is possible :
  • Graeco-Roman philosophy (Stoicism, ...) <=> Confucianism
  • Mystery religions (in a more popular form) <=> Daoism
  • Manichaeism (minus Jesus) or another synchretistic gnostic eastern religion <=> Buddhism

All three would need to evolve a bit to become true equivalents to the 3 main Chinese spiritual currents IOTL. However, the basic elements are there and, in any case, at the time of the Han (rough equivalent of early Roman Empire), none of the above mentioned Chinese religions were fully formed.
I think your "Daoism replacement" is more likely going to be Epicureanism.
It was not uncommon, despite their major differences (just like Confucianism to Daoism) for people to both Stoic and Epicurean. Marcus Aurelius in his meditations famously cites scholars from both sides (including Epicurus) despite delivering one of the major texts of the Stoic ideal.

What a third religion would be I have no idea... probably something to do with Plato.


...so slightly off topic, I think I have just invented a pickup line if I ever time travel back to Ancient Rome. I'm a Stoic on the streets but an Epicurean in the sheets ;)

Shoot me now.
 

fi11222

Banned
I think your "Daoism replacement" is more likely going to be Epicureanism.
IMHO, Epicureanism is too elite-oriented to have mass appeal. You have to be rich already and have spare time (otium) to have a taste for Epicureanism.

Daoism and Buddhism were also elite-oriented at the start but they managed to add things like The Queen Mother of the West or the Boddhisattvas in order to appeal to a wider audience. I do not see Epicureanism being able (or even wanting) to do that. Mystery religions, on the other hand, have exactly what is needed. Since they have a "secret", everyone wants to know about it. Daoism had similar "dark" aspects and had a huge appeal as a result.
 
I think your "Daoism replacement" is more likely going to be Epicureanism.

It's more similar to the old dead school of thought that was Yangism than anything else. Also too elitist, as a few have already said here.

Daoism is more Cynicism, actually. Which is somewhat similar, but more popular. Less assaults on popular piety, you see.

Basically, emperor and ancestor worship as in China is already present somewhat in the Roman Empire. Stoicism is definitely a good Confucian analogue. And the mystery cults are like those weird sects that got attached to/developed from Daoism.
 

fi11222

Banned
Basically, emperor and ancestor worship as in China is already present somewhat in the Roman Empire. Stoicism is definitely a good Confucian analogue. And the mystery cults are like those weird sects that got attached to/developed from Daoism.
Agreed.

But what about Buddhism? Don't you think that a Manichaean-gnostic substrate might give rise to a Roman analogue ?
 
IMHO, Epicureanism is too elite-oriented to have mass appeal. You have to be rich already and have spare time (otium) to have a taste for Epicureanism.

Daoism and Buddhism were also elite-oriented at the start but they managed to add things like The Queen Mother of the West or the Boddhisattvas in order to appeal to a wider audience. I do not see Epicureanism being able (or even wanting) to do that. Mystery religions, on the other hand, have exactly what is needed. Since they have a "secret", everyone wants to know about it. Daoism had similar "dark" aspects and had a huge appeal as a result.

To be fair, the idea that Epicureanism needs much in the way of resources is more a propaganda of it's detractors turning it into a reality rather than doctrinally relevant. An Epicurean revival or reimagining, a neo-epicureanism as it were, could return it's latter common practice back to it's routes.

I am also not convinced that a "secret" is enough for a religion/idea to survive. The untold mystery cults which are sometimes utterly non-existent mere decades after their founding would speak to that.
 
It's more similar to the old dead school of thought that was Yangism than anything else. Also too elitist, as a few have already said here.

Daoism is more Cynicism, actually. Which is somewhat similar, but more popular. Less assaults on popular piety, you see.

Basically, emperor and ancestor worship as in China is already present somewhat in the Roman Empire. Stoicism is definitely a good Confucian analogue. And the mystery cults are like those weird sects that got attached to/developed from Daoism.
I have commented on the elitism of Epicureanism elsewhere, but the comparison was as a philosophy which had potential to survive.

Cynicism I agree (whilst it would be amazing to see it survive) is the closest analogy to Daoism in the west.

In regards to Confucianism to Stoicism: I actually think Stoicism is in many ways better compared to Buddhism. Both at their core are about dealing with a specific experience and making your life more enjoyable. Indeed the British Medical association indeed looks at both for their contribution to the study of mindfulness. There are Confucian elements in stoicism (looking to classics) but in terms of day to day practice and it's goals, the ideal of the Stoic Sage is far closer to an early Buddhist Arhat than it is a Confucian Junzi.
 
In regards to Confucianism to Stoicism: I actually think Stoicism is in many ways better compared to Buddhism. Both at their core are about dealing with a specific experience and making your life more enjoyable. Indeed the British Medical association indeed looks at both for their contribution to the study of mindfulness. There are Confucian elements in stoicism (looking to classics) but in terms of day to day practice and it's goals, the ideal of the Stoic Sage is far closer to an early Buddhist Arhat than it is a Confucian Junzi.

Hm, you may be right on that account. There doesn't seem to be an exact Confucian analogue in Rome, though many of the old Roman politicians and writers emphasized old Roman virtues. Maybe if some Roman of the Mid-Republic codified a school of thought of the old ways of Roman ritual, that could become a Confucian analogue.

Agreed.

But what about Buddhism? Don't you think that a Manichaean-gnostic substrate might give rise to a Roman analogue ?

Oh, almost certainly.
 
Hm, you may be right on that account. There doesn't seem to be an exact Confucian analogue in Rome, though many of the old Roman politicians and writers emphasized old Roman virtues. Maybe if some Roman of the Mid-Republic codified a school of thought of the old ways of Roman ritual, that could become a Confucian analogue.

Tbh I am surprised that something like this didn't occur.
 

fi11222

Banned
Tbh I am surprised that something like this didn't occur.
I believe that it may have been in the process of happening but was cut short. In China, the standard interpretation of what we now called "Confucianism" was not finalized until the mid Han period, i.e the end of the Ist century AD. In Rome, at the time of Marcus Aurelius, Stoicism in particular and "philosophy" in general was close to reaching the same status. But the crisis of the IIIrd century and then Christianity caused the West to take another direction.
 
Top