WI Jews rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem under Julian?

Philip

Donor
What if the earthquake never occured? Would later Christian emperor destroy the temple?
Converting it into a church seems more likely.

If they don't, then what would the Muslims do after they conquer Jerusalem?
After they have finished slaughtering the butterflies, they convert it to a mosque.
 
Last edited:
Is there any particular reason for them to convert it into a mosque?

Its not as if they converted every church in Jerusalem into one.
 

Philip

Donor
Is there any particular reason for them to convert it into a mosque?
Its not as if they converted every church in Jerusalem into one.
Two reasons:
First, the Temple Mount is a very holy place in Islam.
Second, as such a visible landmark, I don't think they could politically not convert it.
 
Two reasons:
First, the Temple Mount is a very holy place in Islam.
Second, as such a visible landmark, I don't think they could politically not convert it.

Point taken. But I'm not sure this is absolute.

Then again, if we can kill all the butterflies and still all the ripples between the rebuilding of the Temple and the Muslim capture of Jerusalem, we can certainly assume this without any reservations just for point #1.

I'm not sure if rebuilding the Temple or it being turned into a church has much direct impact beyond the Roman Empire and the Jews (as in, how the Roman state relates to the Jews), but that everything would go as OTL for what, three and a half centuries?

I'm not sure even a minor POD and that are possible.
 

Skokie

Banned
Is there any evidence for this alleged earthquake other than in anti-Jewish/anti-Pagan polemic?

Anyway. The rebuilding of the Temple would have profound consequences for Judaism, needless to say. It would be a bitter pill to swallow. Julian was a syncretizer. He adored Judaism for its similarities to the pagan religions (Yahweh being the local God and patron of his people) but despised Judaism's antagonism towards other gods and their oddball separatist dietary/lifestyle customs.

So if he were to build the Temple anew, it would probably not be to the Jewish establishment's liking. It would give rise to a new priesthood that would be more amenable to Hellenism.
 
Julian was a syncretizer. He adored Judaism for its similarities to the pagan religions (Yahweh being the local God and patron of his people) but despised Judaism's antagonism towards other gods and their oddball separatist dietary/lifestyle customs.

So if he were to build the Temple anew, it would probably not be to the Jewish establishment's liking. It would give rise to a new priesthood that would be more amenable to Hellenism.


Trouble is, if he wants a kind of "Judaism lite", which is acceptable to Graeco-Romans, there already is one. It's called Christianity. And thanks to St Paul it has about 300 years head start.
 
Trouble is, if he wants a kind of "Judaism lite", which is acceptable to Graeco-Romans, there already is one. It's called Christianity. And thanks to St Paul it has about 300 years head start.
He doesb't want anything acceptable to Graeco-Romans because he doesn't want them to convert. He wants them to remain Pagan. Fostering the Jewish religion is likely to hurt Christianity to some degree, and Julian's goal was to diminish Christianity.
 
Point about Muslims is that, it's not about butterflies, is about direct consequences. A Judaism HAVING a temple, for, let's say, thirty years, and probably going on claiming it for two centuries more while it has been being converted* into a Church, it would be a Judaism with a lot of differences from the one Muhammad met OTL, and the same probably holds true for Eastern Christianity, at least to a lesser extent (and maybe not so lesser).
This would influence Islam in several ways, since its formative years. The whole way the holiness of Jerusalem is looked at will surely be different.


* Does such a verb exist in English????
 
Point about Muslims is that, it's not about butterflies, is about direct consequences. A Judaism HAVING a temple, for, let's say, thirty years, and probably going on claiming it for two centuries more while it has been being converted* into a Church, it would be a Judaism with a lot of differences from the one Muhammad met OTL, and the same probably holds true for Eastern Christianity, at least to a lesser extent (and maybe not so lesser).
This would influence Islam in several ways, since its formative years. The whole way the holiness of Jerusalem is looked at will surely be different.


* Does such a verb exist in English????

It does. And it would be interesting to see how many of those differences wouldn't even relate directly to the issue of the Temple existing or not - they'd just be consequences of a world where it was rebuilt, and Jewish thought developed differently than OTL (this probably has interesting impacts on the Messiah theories/beliefs/whatever you call 'em).
 
Everybody seems to be missing the most important issue, how are Christians going to react to this event, which they believe is a sigh of the End Times? Julian intended to prove that Biblical Prophecies were wrong by rebuilding it, would it work? Simply saying 'they'll make it a Church/Mosque' doesn't deal with the Theological dilemma it's existence poses to Christian dogma.
 
An interesting point to consider is this:

The Temple Mount is sacred to Muslims because it was bare a the time of Muhammed, and so he was supposedly able to ascend to heaven from it using the same rock that the sacrafice of Isiah (sic) had been performed on.

If the rock is covered by the presence of the temple over it, Muhammed cannot ascend from the rock, and so either a different part of Jerusalem, or even a different place altogether, will replace the mount.
 

Skokie

Banned
Trouble is, if he wants a kind of "Judaism lite", which is acceptable to Graeco-Romans, there already is one. It's called Christianity. And thanks to St Paul it has about 300 years head start.

Don't forget who you're dealing with. ;) Julian considered Christianity to be a combination of the worst of Judaism and the worst of Paganism.
 
Masjid al-Aqsa is supposed to be the farthest mosque from Mecca right, then isn't Jerusalem not the right spot anyway?
Or did the description go into other requirements, I'm just working of wikipedia.

If you want farthest wouldn't that be either the coast of Israel, or depending on the expansion when it's built somewhere in North Africa?
 
The point is : how would the re-erected temple fit with the then existing Jewish religion? I mean, by the time the foundatons of rabbinical judaism had been already laid (in fact a couple of centuries ago), and the Jewish worship was more centered in Torah study than in animal sacrifices.....

The other interesting matter would be the possible rivalry between the reemerged hereditary sacerdotal class (the Kohanim) and the already existing Rabbinical elite (developed out of the Pharisaic party), wich were often at odds during the Second Temple Period... Could both factions reach a compromise resulting in the complete reshaping of the Jewish priesthood?. This point opens the door for many possibilities of "re-designing" a major religion.
 

Philip

Donor
The point is : how would the re-erected temple fit with the then existing Jewish religion?
It is my understanding that they were rather indifferent towards Julian's effort. If he were to complete the temple, I could see rabbis debating whether or not the temple was legitimate, if it meant the Messiah was nigh, if he were already here, etc.

I mean, by the time the foundatons of rabbinical judaism had been already laid (in fact a couple of centuries ago), and the Jewish worship was more centered in Torah study than in animal sacrifices.....
Some points:

  1. According to their own Scriptures, there was already a president for restarting the sacrifices of the temple.
  2. Under the Sassanids, the Jews were given control of Jerusalem. IIRC, the either planned or actually did restart the sacrifices.
  3. Orthodox Jews today daily pray as part of the Amidah "Be pleased, O Lord our God, with your people Israel and with their prayers. Restore the service to the inner sanctuary of your Temple, and receive in love and with favor both the fire-offerings of Israel and their prayers.... " (or similar)
I don't it would be difficult for Jews of the Julian's time to reintegrate the temple and sacrifice back into their religion.

The other interesting matter would be the possible rivalry between the reemerged hereditary sacerdotal class (the Kohanim) and the already existing Rabbinical elite (developed out of the Pharisaic party), wich were often at odds during the Second Temple Period...
Their certainly could be some political conflict. I imagine the dispute would be framed in terms of the legitimacy of the Temple with the Kohanim arguing for and the rabbinical elite against. It could end up being a big headache for Julian.

Could both factions reach a compromise resulting in the complete reshaping of the Jewish priesthood?. This point opens the door for many possibilities of "re-designing" a major religion.
I think this is entirely in the hands of the AH author.
 
An interesting point to consider is this:

The Temple Mount is sacred to Muslims because it was bare a the time of Muhammed, and so he was supposedly able to ascend to heaven from it using the same rock that the sacrafice of Isiah (sic) had been performed on.

If the rock is covered by the presence of the temple over it, Muhammed cannot ascend from the rock, and so either a different part of Jerusalem, or even a different place altogether, will replace the mount.

Even then, the Dome of the Rock being "the rock" that Mohammed ascended from is mostly conjectural IIRC and wasn't firmly believed even through the time of Umar, no?
 
Top