Rome, Christianity, and the Meteor

[Tielhard]

This one is a toughie. I have three immediate observations;

1) Without the codification of Christian writing under Constantine there will be no Bible as we understand the term.

2) Christianity is well established in Egypt but may well take off in a different direction if it is not an accepted religion within the Roman Empire.

3) The Thomasite Christians (Catholicos East) of India are unaffected by Constantine's actions.

 

[MarkA]

Tielhard, I think you may be correct. Marcion the Gnostic put together the first bible in about 166. Ireneaus then attempted the same thing from a catholic viewpoint. The development of the bible would go on but possibly not a definitive authorised version. Many books that were rejected would be included in particular regional or theological bibles.

Christianity in Egypt was motivated by the attempts of the Patriarch of Alexandria to increase his independence and authority. With no imperial church to rally against, their energies may well be directed internally. Yet monasticism would still be an important element.

What about the mother church in Palestine? Pope Sylvester would not have the authority to stop people or the church organisation sending donations there. The authority of the mother church may well have increased.

 

[Othniel]

Even then perhaps only if they can convince the local clergy and laity to go along. After all, to depose a bishop requires ultimately the ability to go in with a couple of strongarm guys and physically eject him from the cathedral. If the Imperial government has not directly involved itself in church governance, strongarm guys may not be available.

Direct Imperial involvement is not a given, even if Christianity becomes the official religion. When paganism was still the official religion, a town's temples were build and administered, I believe, by the local government, and that system might have continued even when the temple became a Christian church.

-- Rick

Some famous figure like Paul is able to write letters to the congragation for correction would be quite easy. Reminding them of doctrinal truths they already know as to direct their paths.

 

[Rick Robinson]

Some famous figure like Paul is able to write letters to the congragation for correction would be quite easy. Reminding them of doctrinal truths they already know as to direct their paths.

True. The situation might be not unlike Sunni Islam (or for that matter evangelical Protestantism) in that reputation is everything. No one above the local bishop would have authority to defrock/excommunicate, but respected church doctors would have enormous influence.

Without the codification of Christian writing under Constantine there will be no Bible as we understand the term.

Though I supect (as with above) that a standard orthodox Bible would achieve general acceptance, even if some particular sects used variants. There were scads of gospels, but my impression is that, well before 300, the familiar four had been generally accepted and the others generally rejected. Same for the Epistles, etc.

But I read somewhere, recently, that there was a real dispute about Revelation. (Does anyone know for sure?) If Revelation does not end up as a canonical book, that has major implication for chiliastic strands within Christianity - in fact, the very word "chiliast," most if not all End Times speculation, the Number of the Beast, etc.

-- Rick

 

[Adamanteus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3013146.stm

So what would happen if Constantine didn't declare Christianity the official religion of the Empire? This isn't a "no Christianity" what-if, mind you - the religion was already fairly well established and widely spread. But without official sanction, I doubt it would have spread as thoroughly to the ends of the Empire. The Western Empire would likely still have fallen, but perhaps its remnants would not be so completely unified by Christian culture. Or alternatively, by centralized Catholicism - Christianity might have remained a more diverse religion with no one branch managing to basically eliminate the others.

The history of the Roman Empire would largely go unchanged. What would change is the aftermath. Without a strong established church in the west, there is no institution to preserve Roman culture and literacy through the Dark Ages, which may last far longer. The Byzantine Empire may be spared some of religious controversies that made it oppressive, but it will still be conquered by the Muslims.

 

[Nicole]

The Byzantine Empire may be spared some of religious controversies that made it oppressive, but it will still be conquered by the Muslims.

I don't see why. Quite a bit of the ease the Muslims had conquering places like Palestine were that the Byzantines were religious oppressors over the Monophysites in Egypt and Palestine. Without the Byzantine oppression there (I suppose they'll be christian eventually), it probably keeps those regions.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Well, the whole concept of canon would be called into question, and it might actually be easier to add and remove books and interpret scripture. For example, of the books called "Apocryphal" (which are found in most Catholic Bibles but not Protestant translations), the text known as Ecclesiasticus (Jesus ben Sirach) was kept out of the canon only because it existed in a Greek translation and not the Hebrew original. Subsequently the Hebrew original was discovered in the Cairo Geniza. Without a standard recension (or, really, the group of standard recensions that exists today), there would be no reason not to reincorporate Ecclesiasticus.

 

[Tielhard]

I have some further observations on what follows on if Constantine does not patronise Christianity.

4) In all probability Islam does not arise at all, if it does arise then it will be very different and will not have the strong appeal or evangelist nature it had/has in our time-line. My reasons for saying this are that in many respects Islam is a direct response to the criticisms that can be addressed to Christianity as a monotheist religion, namely the issue of the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ and the idea from Catholicism that salvation can only be achieved through the Church (the same complaint the Protestants made). If Christianity is fragmented and has no central doctrine there is little to criticise, little to rebel against. Even if Islam does arise it will be considered to be just another Christian sect, one that rejects the divine nature of Jesus and the tripartite nature of God.

5) No Protestant reformation for similar reasons.

Mmmm this one really does change the world.

I would also like to respond to the comments made by Rick Robinson. I should be clear at this point that I may well be wrong about some of this. I am certainly no scholar of early church history. Everything I know about the subject can be written on the back of a very small order of service.

I wrote: "Without the codification of Christian writing under Constantine there will be no Bible as we understand the term."

Rick Robinson responded: "Though I suspect <omitted> that a standard orthodox Bible would achieve general acceptance, even if some particular sects used variants. There were scads of gospels, but my impression is that, well before 300, the familiar four had been generally accepted and the others generally rejected. Same for the Epistles, etc."

My understanding of the situation is that under Constantine’s patronage an ‘authoritative’ Bible was assembled. The books chosen for inclusion were those which best supported the doctrines of the early church in Rome and the ideas Constantine wished to encourage. Many of the texts included were also edited at this time to better support then current doctrine. For example at least three Gospels were either completely omitted or were unavailable to the compilers, those of; Mary Magdalene, Thomas and Peter. As Thomas is made up of the teachings of Christ rather than a history of his life this has to be regarded as a serious omission.

As MarkA suggests there were assemblages of texts but no ‘authoritative’ Bible prior to this point in time. Without the central authority of the empire behind the church in Rome I can see no mechanism
for an ‘authoritative’ Bible to be developed. There will be no great councils and synods to argue points of doctrine and theology. Even if there are there will be no impetus for local congregations to accept their rulings. Which brings me to two more observations:

6) With no council at Nicea there will be no general agreement on what constitutes a Christian "I believe in one God, &c. &c.". It is worth mentioning that there has been more or less general agreement on what defines a Christian based on the Nicene (and other) creeds for most of the last 1600 years. This consensus has only really broken down in the present with the rise of the Evangelical churches which are more and more rejecting this definition.

7) The dark ages may last a very long time. Monasticism, if it develops, will not have the pan-European flavour it had in our time-line and so much knowledge it preserved and the opportunity to foster scholarship it offered is likely to be lost. Indeed without a centralised church and the need to train many priests in the correct dogma, the great European universities: Bologna, the Sorbonne, Oxford and so on may never be founded. Neither of course will the great Islamic madrassas and universities. It is looks at a first glance like the only open centre of scholarship may well be India.

 

[Leo Caesius]

7) The dark ages may last a very long time. Monasticism, if it develops, will not have the pan-European flavour it had in our time-line and so much knowledge it preserved and the opportunity to foster scholarship it offered is likely to be lost.

Are you sure about this? Monasticism always struck me as a development that transcended dogma. In fact, if memory serves me right, the first monasteries in Egypt were not actually Christian but Manichaean. In any case, it was built upon a rather solidly Near Eastern foundation; the Essenes, for example, were rather monastic in their organization.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Constantine didn't make Christianity the offical religion of the empire, he merely converted. Theodosius established the Church. The rapid spread of the religion would seem to indicate to me that it's adoption was inevitable by Constantine's time. To change this would require a POD that leads to a sublte and persecution ala Julian, but more successful, and I presume that something like this some years earlier could very well be.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3013146.stm

So what would happen if Constantine didn't declare Christianity the official religion of the Empire? This isn't a "no Christianity" what-if, mind you - the religion was already fairly well established and widely spread. But without official sanction, I doubt it would have spread as thoroughly to the ends of the Empire. The Western Empire would likely still have fallen, but perhaps its remnants would not be so completely unified by Christian culture. Or alternatively, by centralized Catholicism - Christianity might have remained a more diverse religion with no one branch managing to basically eliminate the others.

 

[Rick Robinson]

My understanding of the situation is that under Constantine’s patronage an ‘authoritative’ Bible was assembled. The books chosen for inclusion were those which best supported the doctrines of the early church in Rome and the ideas Constantine wished to encourage. Many of the texts included were also edited at this time to better support then current doctrine. For example at least three Gospels were either completely omitted or were unavailable to the compilers, those of; Mary Magdalene, Thomas and Peter. As Thomas is made up of the teachings of Christ rather than a history of his life this has to be regarded as a serious omission.

MarkA says upthread that the first (Gnostic) compilation was c. 166, and the first Orthodox version not too much later. What I don't know is the state of play c. 300, just before Constantine got involved.

Undoubtedly there would be more variations than in OTL, and more circulation of books regarded as non-canonical by the orthodox. However ...

There will be no great councils and synods to argue points of doctrine and theology. Even if there are there will be no impetus for local congregations to accept their rulings.

Here I disagree. The tendency of Christian congregations to keep in touch with each other goes right back to Paul's letters, and there was already an emergent Catholic or Orthodox mainstream long before Constantine.

Even if Christianity had never become the state religion, or Emperors become directly involved in it, the days of persecution were certainly numbered, and the convening of councils would become that much easier. These councils would promulgate standard versions. Individual congregations might reject them, and whole regions might ultimately go their own way, but most of the Christian world was likely to coalesce around a standard Bible and probably a standard creed, more or less like the Nicene Creed.

Dark ages. This gets interesting. I don't know that the spread or form of Christianity has anything to do with the material factors that ended the Dark Ages. Barring lots of subtle butterflies (which, admittedly, are always possible), the moldboard plow will still spread, forests will be cut down, and the spur will allow heavy-armed lancers to deliver a powerful shock charge. In short, the factors that transformed northwestern Europe from a thinly settled frontier region into a densely populated and potentially powerful one.

So some form of suphisticated civilization is likely to arise in northern France, western Germany, and the Low Countries - the question is how much continuity it has with the classical past.

Monasticism was already around. The question, perhaps, is whether someone like Benedict of Nursia hits on the idea of "work is prayer," with the resulting impact on agriculture, copying of manuscripts, etc. Centralization is not needed for this, and in fact the early Benedictines were not centralized; each new foundation was independent. I'm not sure that Imperial involvement bears on this much, one way or the other - after all, the Empire in the west had already fallen to pieces before Benedict.

-- Rick

 

[Leo Caesius]

What I don't know is the state of play c. 300, just before Constantine got involved.

Tertullian, who was the most prolific of pre-Nicenean Church Fathers (ca. 200-210) writes that every Christian schism has its own canon (and can be identified by the canon that they follow) but interestingly neglects to tell us which books he considers to be canonical. That's a very telling omission.

 

[Rick Robinson]

Tertullian, who was the most prolific of pre-Nicenean Church Fathers (ca. 200-210) writes that every Christian schism has its own canon ... but interestingly neglects to tell us which books he considers to be canonical. That's a very telling omission.

Yes it is, but that's still 100 years before Nicaea. What we need to know for this question is the state of play c. 300.

-- Rick

 

[Leo Caesius]

Well, here's what Origen (died 250) and Eusebius (time of Nicaea) thought. Eusebius was instrumental in the Nicaean canon, so obviously he's not an objective observer, although he's probably our best witness to Christianity in that time period.

 

[Rick Robinson]

Thanks for the links!

They indicate the jelling of an orthodoxy, and a conscious effort to separate the sheep from the goats. Absent imperial intervention this would have still continued, and produced a standard orthodox Bible, similar to OTL. Heterodox versions would have not been as effectively suppressed, but still marginalized in most cases.

-- Rick

 

[Leo Caesius]

I'd like to note that I'm not sure how accurate it is to characterize Marcion as a Gnostic. Harnack (who came up with one of the standard definitions of Gnosticism, viz. "the accute Hellenization of Christianity") argued forcefully that Marcion was not a gnostic in his History of Dogma. Lately scholars have become aware of their own tendency to identify each and every syncretistic heterodox group as "gnostic" - a label which was never actually employed by any Gnostic group at any period of time, save the one I'm currently documenting myself, to describe their own beliefs - and have, over the last thirty years, called the very existence of "gnosticism" into question.

 

[Glen]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3013146.stm

So what would happen if Constantine didn't declare Christianity the official religion of the Empire? This isn't a "no Christianity" what-if, mind you - the religion was already fairly well established and widely spread. But without official sanction, I doubt it would have spread as thoroughly to the ends of the Empire. The Western Empire would likely still have fallen, but perhaps its remnants would not be so completely unified by Christian culture. Or alternatively, by centralized Catholicism - Christianity might have remained a more diverse religion with no one branch managing to basically eliminate the others.

Although I know he wrote several AH timelines elsewhere, this is the only Alternate history thread I can find on the 'new' board ever started by Ian.

 

[Caesar]

This should certainly be an interesting timeline. If a larger number of Christian sects stayed around, would they have different "Bibles", if they had any at all? Perhaps they might contain various apocrypha that didn't make it into the current Bible?