Rome becomes monotheistic prior to Christianity

[Armalus]

Judaism's path to monotheism was an interesting one, with Yahweh over time becoming more and more prominent at the expense of other gods. It was an anomaly in the ancient world, where polytheism was the norm.

My question is what would have happened had Rome gone on a similar path. If a single deity of the Roman pantheon (probably either Jupiter or Mars) had eclipsed the rest, how would history have taken a different course? Assuming they become entirely monotheistic, would they be able to hold their empire together without their characteristic religious tolerance? Would the exclusive worship of a single deity have created better cohesion?

 

[Alex Zetsu]

I don't think it's impossible for monotheism to go strong in places. The problem is that the Roman gods were also in myths and many of them are involved in each other's myths. Severing even a few gods would screw up self consistency in their beliefs. In short, while you might end up with all the shrines and temples made by the government dedicated to the same god, or even all temples period, people aren't going to stop believing in the other gods.

Funny thing, if you took many of the bible stories (say any one with Gabriel) and stuffed it into Roman or Celtic paganism, a lot of the powerful entities involved would be considered gods by the pagans, being on par with mid-high tier gods in terms of ability to affect the mortal world. In the context of Christianity, of course they aren't deities.

Or to trope it (god I hate that site), many entities in both religions are reality warpers, but for the Romans reality warping + respond to prayers + don't age= one god, while if you tweaked Gabriel to have these properties in the bible, he's still not the Lord, therefore he's not omnipotent, and he's not a god.

 

[IchBinDieKaiser]

Your best bet is to have Sol Invictus to get a lot more popular, and a lot earlier.

 

[DocJamore]

What religion would they have? Zoroastrianism? How successful were Christians at converting Zoroastrians?

Edit: Oops. I thought the thread was about Russia. I might be biased towards a Zoroastrian Russia.

 

[Armalus]

What religion would they have? Zoroastrianism? How successful were Christians at converting Zoroastrians?

They wouldn't have any foreign religion, this is about what would have happened if some Roman god had eclipsed the rest and Rome become monotheistic "organically," so to speak. I don't think Christianity would even arise in this timeline tbh, if you have an exclusive monotheistic Roman religion that would probably be forced on conquered lands.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

They wouldn't have any foreign religion, this is about what would have happened if some Roman god had eclipsed the rest and Rome become monotheistic "organically," so to speak. I don't think Christianity would even arise in this timeline tbh, if you have an exclusive monotheistic Roman religion that would probably be forced on conquered lands.

Well, the problem is that the Roman religion is inherently reliant on the other gods for self consistency even if one eclipsed the rest. Imagine how to cut 9 apostles out of the bible without changing the books not mentioning them directly (but no doubt having the aftereffects of their presence) to see the problem. Also, the early Imperial Romans usually believed in the existence of the gods of the other religions... they just didn't make temples or give prayers to the foreign gods.

 

[Armalus]

Well, the problem is that the Roman religion is inherently reliant on the other gods for self consistency even if one eclipsed the rest. Imagine how to cut 9 apostles out of the bible without changing the books not mentioning them directly (but no doubt having the aftereffects of their presence) to see the problem. Also, the early Imperial Romans usually believed in the existence of the gods of the other religions... they just didn't make temples or give prayers to the foreign gods.

The same could be said of the Canaanite religion prior to the rise of the cult of Yahweh. Religions change and adapt to different circumstances.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

The same could be said of the Canaanite religion prior to the rise of the cult of Yahweh. Religions change and adapt to different circumstances.

I don't really think Judaism came from the Canaanite polytheism. I've asked my Jewish friends about it once and the replies were 'no" and "let me check *(one week passes) nothing about it in the Torah, so no"

 

[Armalus]

I don't really think Judaism came from the Canaanite polytheism. I've asked my Jewish friends about it once and the replies were 'no" and "let me check *(one week passes) nothing about it in the Torah, so no"

Well, I mean, Yahweh didn't just come from out of the blue. The origins of Judaism - and its rise from Canaanite polytheism - are pretty well studied and not really disputed by any serious academic on the subject. You can even find traces of it in the Bible if you know where to look. (For instance, the scene where Jacob wrestles with "the angel" was probably originally him wrestling with El Elyon, the patriarch of the Canaanite pantheon and at the time a different entity entirely from Yahweh.)

 

[fi11222]

Judaism's path to monotheism was an interesting one, with Yahweh over time becoming more and more prominent at the expense of other gods. It was an anomaly in the ancient world, where polytheism was the norm.

My question is what would have happened had Rome gone on a similar path. If a single deity of the Roman pantheon (probably either Jupiter or Mars) had eclipsed the rest, how would history have taken a different course? Assuming they become entirely monotheistic, would they be able to hold their empire together without their characteristic religious tolerance? Would the exclusive worship of a single deity have created better cohesion?

It seems that even IOTL Rome was pretty close to Monotheism early in its Repuplican history. Here are some parallels between Jerusalem and early Republican Rome:

• The Capitoline Jupiter Temple is said to have been built after a wholsale removal of a large number of shrines and altars deedicated to various Gods: similar to Josias campaign to remove shrines "on every high hill and under every green tree"
• A temple to a warlike feminine deity at the foot of the Capitol (the Sant'Omobono site) seems to have been put to the torch and pulled down just prior to the building of the Capitoline Temple: similar to Monotheistic Judaism fight against Astarte worship.
• The senatorial class originally held a monopoly on priesthood and it was the source of its subsequent political power: the Sanhedrin and the Zadokite priesthood families.
• Romans are said, in classical times, to be "the most religious of peoples".

So, what we have, in early Republican times, is a temple-centered citiy-state worshipping a "Sky-Father" god, headed by its priestly class. Something very close to post-exilic Jerusalem. And indeed, post-Exilic Jerusalem and early Republican Rome existed in the same time-frame.

I am not claiming the Rome was ever fully Monotheistic IOTL, but that it had gone pretty far down the road that ultimately made Jerusalem so. Its Sky-Father God, probably never reached the level of exclusivity that YHWH eventually attained, but brobably quite close.

I think that what Rome would have needed to go full Monotheistic was a higher level of litteracy. In Jerusalem, what prevented the ever present temptation to dilute monotheism into the ambient polytheistic religion of the Near-East was the written word. For example, there is the characteristic story of the scroll "found" under king Josias during a Temple renovation. Early Rome was near illiterate, or at least not religiously litterate (the Etruscans were more so). In order to make Rome go full Jerusalem, what is needed is earlier written Latin and a willingness to codify exclusivist Jupiter worship into a written foundational text. Let us call them "the tables of Romulus".

 

[James XI]

Mithras!

 

[Timaeus]

So, what we have, in early Republican times, is a temple-centered citiy-state worshipping a "Sky-Father" god, headed by its priestly class. Something very close to post-exilic Jerusalem. And indeed, post-Exilic Jerusalem and early Republican Rome existed in the same time-frame.

I am not claiming the Rome was ever fully Monotheistic IOTL, but that it had gone pretty far down the road that ultimately made Jerusalem so. Its Sky-Father God, probably never reached the level of exclusivity that YHWH eventually attained, but brobably quite close.

I think that what Rome would have needed to go full Monotheistic was a higher level of litteracy. In Jerusalem, what prevented the ever present temptation to dilute monotheism into the ambient polytheistic religion of the Near-East was the written word. For example, there is the characteristic story of the scroll "found" under king Josias during a Temple renovation. Early Rome was near illiterate, or at least not religiously litterate (the Etruscans were more so). In order to make Rome go full Jerusalem, what is needed is earlier written Latin and a willingness to codify exclusivist Jupiter worship into a written foundational text. Let us call them "the tables of Romulus".

Wait, are you the same guy who responded to that thread flipping Jerusalem and Rome's position in the world?

 

[ArchimedesCircle]

This depends on whether you mean Rome having monotheism before its empire, or Rome having monotheism instead of Christianity in general.

The latter is very possible actually! At the time of Constantine, Rome was home to several cults that seemed to be heading towards monotheism. Namely, you have Sol Invictus, Isis, Dionysus and Mithras. Your best bet is either Sol Invictus or Isis. If Constantine dies at Milvian bridge, and you can keep Christians off the throne of the empire for another century, you could probably see something like monotheism-lite emerging from one of those two gods.

The former though... that's going to be tough. One of the reasons Rome was able to expand efficiently was that it left most of the local cultures and faiths alone and even incorporated them at times. A monotheistic Rome wouldn't do this, which would limit its expansion quite a bit.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

I would like to point you to The Unconquered Sun and now bow out.

 

[Timaeus]

The former though... that's going to be tough. One of the reasons Rome was able to expand efficiently was that it left most of the local cultures and faiths alone and even incorporated them at times. A monotheistic Rome wouldn't do this, which would limit its expansion quite a bit.

From reading the first post, it's definitely the former he's asking about.

 

[The Professor]

I think part of the reason the Romans didn't become more than henotheist with Jupiter/Jovis is the association with kingship.
Perhaps if the idea that the Roman Republic is merely awaiting a rightful and sacred king takes hold, a sort of Messianic Arthur myth, then when they come across Judaism there's a stronger resonance and a Judaicised form takes hold. It would largely resemble Christianity in organisation and probably the Roman Judaism forms of some early Christians.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

I think if you can somehow change the religious makeup of the world before Rome turned up, but without changing the politics, you can have Rome be Monotheistic from the outset.

An example could be the maintenance, or re-emergence of Atenism before or as a result of the Bronze Age collapse. Perhaps, just like Akenaten, a Pharaoh, seeing the failing crops, and tense military issues, tries to use a new faith to strengthen Egypt, but doesn't succeed in doing more than decentralising Egypt and making more flexible - but not stronger. Leading to a strong monotheistic Egypt, and then the events of OTL unfolding more or less unchanged. Alexander isn't a God, he's merely then next Son of Ra-Horus. "His Macedonian Son" (Philip could probably be listed as such, with a whole 'Greek period' where Ra-Horusleaves Egypt because of its failings). Leading to an Alexandrian Empire that probably falls apart, but with Atenism in existence and influential. Another period where Ra-Horus is disappointed in the rise of False Sons.

Ra-Horus could very well then influence the rise of Rome - and if you have Augustus come as IOTL - he could well find himself declared the "Roman Son of Ra-Horus" (with a parallel being that Julius Caesar could be one too, like Philip with Alexander.)

As to how the Roman Republic and Atenism could work? Simply have a version where "Ra-Horus reveals his son to the people", essentially creating divine legitimacy for elections, which can be discarded if things follow OTL.

I apologise for the butterfly nets, but I think it'd be an interesting way of achieving this, and with one of the oldest monotheistic religions to boot. I think the nets can work, and the change in faith being of little consequence in the long term, but it could also change it drastically.

 

[Shevek23]

I don't really think Judaism came from the Canaanite polytheism. I've asked my Jewish friends about it once and the replies were 'no" and "let me check *(one week passes) nothing about it in the Torah, so no"

Well, I mean, Yahweh didn't just come from out of the blue. The origins of Judaism - and its rise from Canaanite polytheism - are pretty well studied and not really disputed by any serious academic on the subject. You can even find traces of it in the Bible if you know where to look. (For instance, the scene where Jacob wrestles with "the angel" was probably originally him wrestling with El Elyon, the patriarch of the Canaanite pantheon and at the time a different entity entirely from Yahweh.)

My impression is that the core of Hebrew religion and culture in general started in Mesopotamia--this is in the Torah, anyway in Christian Old Testament canon. Abram comes from "Ur of the Chaldees," the latter reference might be anachronistic, a contemporary reference at the time it was written down that anticipated events not yet transpired when Abram and Sarah left Ur.

I draw a lot from the book Sarah the Priestess, which asserts that Genesis evidence can most sensibly be read on the assumption that Sarah was a priestess of a goddess, Inanna/Ishtar or a variation on her, and that in essence she was a missionary in Canaan. The book goes on from the evidence about Sarah and Abram/Abraham themselves (including two similar passages where Abram apparently uses his wife's status for political bait and switches, and the story of Hagar and Ishmael, connected to recorded rites and rules of Mesopotamian priestesses of Ishtar) to trace several generations of descent from Isaac, stressing that until the end of the book and the story of Joseph, the fathers of each generation of the Hebrew descent would return to Mesopotamia to seek brides.

I would expect that of course over time, the Hebrews picked up something from their host country; also there may well have been a continuum of culture between one end of the Fertile Crescent and the other, so that Canaanite gods and Mesopotamian ones were much the same with lots of overlap.

But having studied Sarah the Priestess, I find it hard to see the Hebrews as anything but a people branching out of Mesopotamian roots.

 

[fi11222]

Wait, are you the same guy who responded to that thread flipping Jerusalem and Rome's position in the world?

Quite possibly. But I am not sure. Do you have a link ?

 

[Timaeus]

Quite possibly. But I am not sure. Do you have a link ?

Unfortunately not.