What if Judism was never Founded.

But with Judaism still a henotheistic religion the seed of monotheism would still be there. Perhaps other West Semitic peoples would adopt henotheism and only worship one of their gods, and in the end some of these cultures would claim their god is the only one, and we'd have monotheism.
Very Early Judaism wasn't really henotheistic, it was more monolatrist.
 
Okay, Okay, so mayb I don't understand the religious situation of the Roman empire as well I thought I did. But still, even in the non-polytheistic religions of the east you had strong metaphysical philospophies, that would definitley develope here.
 
Zoroastrianism is not really a monotheistic religion even now, although many people misinterpret it that way. It certainly was not a monotheistic religion at the time the Hebrews were ruled by Persia (the traits which lead people today to brand the religion as "monotheistic" date from the Sassanid period and later).
It depended on the region. The areas closer to central Persia expressed more definably monotheistic thought. But areas closer to contact with the polytheistic Greeks and Romans were gradually more syncretic.

And they hardly embraced it readily when it is considered that at the time of Constantine only 1/3 the Roman Empire was Christian.
Much less, actually. Around a tenth or something, is what I've read.

EDIT: Not even going to address the "roman polytheism was a spiritual void" crap, because it's one the biggest loads of garbage I have ever heard.
 
Last edited:

boredatwork

Banned
well,

No judaism => no Christianity, and no Islam.

Modern world would likely be pretty unrecognizable to us.

Hinduism might spread farther west, but would still face competition from zoroastrianism and local paganisms - which in the premonotheist era OTL were sufficient to prevent much spread, so I don't think that will shift.

As others have posted, most of the mediterranean paganisms had shifted to mystery cults as their primary praxis, so the idea of a unifying or primary religion might not arise.

Some Upsides:
1. No destruction of library of alexandria
2. ditto for some of the pagan wonders of the world
3. Probable continuation of the olympic games

A few downsides
1. - no strong unifying religion and monotheist deity seems to imply a continuation of emperor worship, and the unification of crown&temple - seems to leave less room for the development of a private sphere or civil space.
2. - less moral basis to argue against certain practices such as slavery - I think you will see things like slavery and human sacrifice in Europe proper last longer. The same for the gladiatorial games.
3. - different developments in religious architecture (I'm rather fond of the development & look of cathedrals/basilicas and monasteries -personal taste thing)


Up in the air:

I've seen arguments that a lot of early technological and scientific development was dependent upon a certain type of monotheistic view of the world, and that much of it was the province of monastics (who, sans obligations to land/family/or king had more time to devote to such pursuits).

As a contrary point, the argument is also made that selecting the more intelligent folks out of the populace for several hundred years and discouraging their reproduction is in part responsible for the lower average european/caucasian IQ (as compared to folks from the rest of Eurasia).

Arguments have gone each way that monotheism was responsible to helping Rome to hold itself together, or for hastening it's decline.

The celts/gauls/saxons/etc had traditions of democratic or semidemocratic rule before Roman or christian influence was felt, but the development of our understanding of things like human rights was OTL very heavily linked to and dependent upon Christian theology and teachings. Development of similar concepts in TTL would take place very differently, if at all.

Polytheisms seem to be even more inclined to syncretism than my own mother church, so I think TTL will see far less effort to wipe out differing religious practices/worship sites. - good news for art & architecture students, bad news for central & south american peasants.

certainly sounds like a premise with a lot of potential to create an interesting timeline.
 
Lots of interesting ideas. botredatwork has said what I basically think. I am going to try and work up a time line based on this premise. Thanks for all of your goods ideas.
:)
 

Keenir

Banned
2. - less moral basis to argue against certain practices such as slavery - I think you will see things like slavery and human sacrifice in Europe proper last longer. The same for the gladiatorial games.

Monotheism didn't really give moral basis either for/against these things....Judaism and Christianity both allow for keeping slaves.


I've seen arguments that a lot of early technological and scientific development was dependent upon a certain type of monotheistic view of the world, and that much of it was the province of monastics (who, sans obligations to land/family/or king had more time to devote to such pursuits).

I'm not sure how much of India's technology we can lay at the feet of St Thomas' Church. ;)
(and then there's China)
 
Hinduism might spread farther west, but would still face competition from zoroastrianism and local paganisms - which in the premonotheist era OTL were sufficient to prevent much spread, so I don't think that will shift.

What gives you the impression that Hinduism or Zoroastrianism was anymore developed in theology than western Polytheisms at the time, that people should naturally want to convert to it?

As others have posted, most of the mediterranean paganisms had shifted to mystery cults as their primary praxis, so the idea of a unifying or primary religion might not arise.

Most "mystery cults" weren't intended or geared toward wielding massive influence over Roman politics. Mithraism, for example, was very exclusive in regard to its membership.


A few downsides
1. - no strong unifying religion and monotheist deity seems to imply a continuation of emperor worship, and the unification of crown&temple - seems to leave less room for the development of a private sphere or civil space.
2. - less moral basis to argue against certain practices such as slavery - I think you will see things like slavery and human sacrifice in Europe proper last longer. The same for the gladiatorial games.
3. - different developments in religious architecture (I'm rather fond of the development & look of cathedrals/basilicas and monasteries -personal taste thing)

1.- I think culture and universal religious expression that formed out of Hellenized Roman and provincial Polytheisms would have been a strong enough legacy of the Roman Empire, and could have long outlasted it. The Imperial Cult was a symptom of increasing autonomy after the reign of Augustus.

2.- Slavery was endorsed by the Church, and practiced on-and-off until the Industrial Revolution. Human Sacrifice was not practiced in Imperial Rome. And Gladiatorial Games were still practiced well into the Fifth Century CE. The blood sports only fell out of practice because the Romans could no longer afford to operate them.

3.- Probably just means more Pantheon-like temples.

Polytheisms seem to be even more inclined to syncretism than my own mother church, so I think TTL will see far less effort to wipe out differing religious practices/worship sites. - good news for art & architecture students, bad news for central & south american peasants.

What makes you think that all native South American cultures would be inclined to practice blood-sacrifices, or that they are somehow inherently incapable of changing their cultural practices on their own?
 
Last edited:
Top