Yeah. If only.

But I guess that's the problem with Roman politics on the eastern frontier. They established client states, then annexed them without considering the cultures they were assimilating into their system. That's why I'm wondering how it would work. Under more culturally sensitive/savvy emperors and praetors, I wonder if it could have been possible for Judaism to not be persecuted by the Romans.
Instead of having a guy like Hadrian (pederast, terrible guy, bad taste in facial hair, wannabe hellene without actually having the admirable traits of Hellenic culture), have more guys like Titus "had a Jewish girlfriend". Or an emperor more able to openly force that thing through rather than backing down in the face of aristocratic disapproval.

Walle Ras' praetorian Jews idea is probably better tho.
 
whereas anti-semitic meant not liking the existence of Jewish people or Jewish religious beliefs or customs. You know what I mean, or you should.
many greeks and romans were anti semitic for example some romans belived that due to the Sanhedrin were holding out or not fully giving them all the money they made on trade hence why the rise of the taxes we see following from 50s ad yes sounds familiar to the later stereotype or how the revolt began as greeks of Caesarea complained that the jews were making into a jewish city ie why do we have to live and i quote " those people" this can be see the greeks merchants refused to sell the house because they did not want to tarnish their reputation since they did not want to accept jewish money or the fact that these greeks began a sacrifice in the steps of the synagogue which is a big no no not even very anti jewish but also ilegal at the time
 
The early expansion of Christianity throughout the Eastern Roman and Western Parthian Empires, as well as the beginnings of acceptance of Gentile believers and their place in the Christian community predates the Jewish Revolts. Gentile Christians were a growing proportion of Christian converts even in the 40’s and 50’s and “Hellenistic” Jews were a major part of the movement from the very beginning, many of which were not based in Judea.
But without us Jews becoming a Pariah, noahidism could out compete christianity.
 
Instead of having a guy like Hadrian (pederast, terrible guy, bad taste in facial hair, wannabe hellene without actually having the admirable traits of Hellenic culture), have more guys like Titus "had a Jewish girlfriend". Or an emperor more able to openly force that thing through rather than backing down in the face of aristocratic disapproval.
Titus was no philo semite. When he sacked the temple he took a woman and went to the altar (I'd finish but its very much NSFW). He slashed the curtain and blood came from it. He boasted that he had killed the Holy One. (Gittin 56b describes all this in detail)

Vespasian would be more likely. Perahaps R. Yochanan Ben Zochai offers the deal to Vespasian. In return for him only destroying the zealouts and leaving the sanhedrin intact and in charge, Jewish soldiers would march with him to Rome and help make him Emper5or.
 
Titus was no philo semite. When he sacked the temple he took a woman and went to the altar (I'd finish but its very much NSFW). He slashed the curtain and blood came from it. He boasted that he had killed the Holy One. (Gittin 56b describes all this in detail)

Vespasian would be more likely. Perahaps R. Yochanan Ben Zochai offers the deal to Vespasian. In return for him only destroying the zealouts and leaving the sanhedrin intact and in charge, Jewish soldiers would march with him to Rome and help make him Emper5or.
In that case, Vespasian might make Yochanan King of Judea (I think the Romans would prefer a client monarchy to a theocracy).
 
But without us Jews becoming a Pariah, noahidism could out compete christianity.
Or alternatively, Christianity doesn't develop in a Pauline direction but remains within the scope of normative Judaism, functioning as a form of Noahidism.
Titus was no philo semite. When he sacked the temple he took a woman and went to the altar (I'd finish but its very much NSFW). He slashed the curtain and blood came from it. He boasted that he had killed the Holy One. (Gittin 56b describes all this in detail)

Vespasian would be more likely. Perahaps R. Yochanan Ben Zochai offers the deal to Vespasian. In return for him only destroying the zealouts and leaving the sanhedrin intact and in charge, Jewish soldiers would march with him to Rome and help make him Emper5or.
I think that a lot of that is exaggerated and post-hoc. The Talmud postdates the Hurban by a few centuries.
One scenario that would at least postpone the revolts a little bit is to have Herod Agrippa live longer. He was only in his mid-50s when he died, possibly from poison, and popular both with Claudius and the Jewish Sages. If he lived as long as his grandfather, Judea would remain an independent client kingdom for another 15 years. His son Agrippa II would be in his 30s in this TL, and not a teenager like OTL, and might be entrusted by Nero or whatever emperor replaces him to become King of Judea and not just the Galilee, further pushing back the date of direct Roman control until the end of the 1st century CE.

The real problem with keeping Judea semi-independent for an extended duration is the shift in the method Rome used to control its subject people. Luttwak claims that the existence of client kingdoms was a deliberate difference between the Julio-Claudians and later dynasties, where the Julio-Claudians preferred to minimize the use of force and to use client kingdoms as a buffer to absorb damage from foreign invaders and the Flavians and Antonians annexed the client kingdoms and created a system of limes to centralize defense, discourage incursions and go on the offensive.

Wheeler postulates that by consolidating eastern client kingdoms, the Flavians were reacting to the Neronian era deal with the Parthians that put an Arsacid prince on the throne of Armenia. With the Roman East no longer sheltered by a friendly client kingdom, Parthia now directly threatened Asia minor and Syria, bringing back memories of the Parthian incursion on 40 BCE and the ghastly Roman defeat at Carrhae. Vespasian even created a super-province that comprised of 3/4 of Asia Minor, a most unusual occurrence for the time.

So, if we believe these hypothesizes, then perhaps continuing the Julio-Claudian line, say by have Brittanicus succeed Claudius in the place of Nero, and a more successful Roman outcome of the war of Parthian succession could preempt the need to annex all the eastern client kingdoms, keeping Judea ruled by Herodians until some alt-Third Century Crisis.

And I think that this is a sustainable outcome. I like finding analogues in history to bolster my ideas, and in OTL there was an almost exact counterpart to the Jews just a few dozen miles north, the Samaritans. And the Samaritans managed to live reasonably peaceably in Judea under Roman domination for a couple more centuries. There is even some numismatic evidence that they were allowed to rebuild their temple. It is plausible to me that Herodian client kings or a more tolerant Roman administration would be able to keep Judea from exploding into the turmoil that was the Great Revolt and the resulting catastrophes.

For starters, Judea and the Galilee would remain majority Jewish. And Jerusalem would be a focal point in Jewish life. For the Sholosh Regalim, the pilgrimage festivals, Jews would continue to travel to Jerusalem from all over the Roman and Persian worlds. The half-shekel Temple tax would continue to be paid to the Temple in Jerusalem, and there would be no Fiscus Judaicus levied as a penalty on all Jews and used to rebuild the Capitoline Temple to Jupiter in Rome. The Sanhedrin would still be sitting in the Chamber of Unhewn Stones.

I'd guess there would be diversity in Jewish thought. Sadducees and Boethusians would continue to exist, as the priestly elite still service the Temple. So would Essenes, and I have to imagine that there would still be Zealots unpleased with the arrangement, but with less popular support in a world with a sympathetic Jewish client king ruling Jerusalem and less of the countless Roman affronts to the Temple and Jewish beliefs. I think the Pharisees would remain the most popular movement, but Rabbinic Judaism as we know it would be very different. Traditionally, Yehuda HaNasi only wrote down the Mishnah because he feared the traditions would be lost (see the introduction to the Rambam's Mishneh Torah), but in this world that's not as much of a concern. I think eventually the Oral Torah would be written down, but it would vary significantly from what we have.

In OTL the Jewish diaspora in the East was almost completely annihilated during the Diaspora revolt. In this world, Alexandria would remain 1/3 Jewish, the breakaway Temple at Leonontopolis would still be around, Jewish communities in Syria and Cyrprus and Cyrenia would still compose large portions of the population.
Seems reasonable to me
 
In that case, Vespasian might make Yochanan King of Judea (I think the Romans would prefer a client monarchy to a theocracy).
Rabban Gamliel would be King. He is president of the Sanhedrin. IOTL Vespasian spared Rabban Gamliel's family and they moved the Sanhedrin to Yavneh.
Or alternatively, Christianity doesn't develop in a Pauline direction but remains within the scope of normative Judaism, functioning as a form of Noahidism.
Every opinion I know has Jesus going Karaite. (Or he is fully made up. If you follow that opinion then christianity is fully butterflied) Which would put him beyond the pale. But without paul, imo it will die out. Just like all the other messianic cults at the time.
I think that a lot of that is exaggerated and post-hoc. The Talmud postdates the Hurban by a few centuries.
Our Talmud represents the collective oral tradition that we check among ourselves. It is 100% accurate in its depiction. Anyway, how is that out of character? Lots of horrible things happen when a city is taken.
 
Rabban Gamliel would be King. He is president of the Sanhedrin. IOTL Vespasian spared Rabban Gamliel's family and they moved the Sanhedrin to Yavneh.
If Vespasian was choosing someone from the family of the Nasi to be King, I would hazard that he would pick Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who was the Nasi at the time of the revolt and, as reported by Josephus, co-leader of the moderate faction of rebels in Jerusalem , and not his father Rabban Gamliel who was niftar for almost 20 years.
 
That would be cool, I like him and he was admired by christian tradition IOTL as well
Wrong taana. Shimon Ben Gamliel
In what way? I dont know much about karaite judaism beyond what I found on the Wiki
As in he rejected the authority of the sages and the oral Torah.
If Vespasian was choosing someone from the family of the Nasi to be King, I would hazard that he would pick Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who was the Nasi at the time of the revolt and, as reported by Josephus, co-leader of the moderate faction of rebels in Jerusalem , and not his father Rabban Gamliel who was niftar for almost 20 years.
I might have made that mistake in gemara class too
 
And that would affect the spread of Christianity negatively...?
Lets say that we do the scenario where vespasian appoints Rabban Gamliel as monarch. Purges the zealouts, and replaces the praetorian guard with a legion of Jews. We have pretty much handed the pharisees institutional power enough that they can prevent christianity from even becoming legal. Even if christianity claims to be Jewish, it is highly likely that the emperor would ask the sanhedrin, who would rule in the negative. Which would open them up to otl percecution. Except instead of their competitors of noahidism being percecuted also and with Judaism haveing a poor reputation leading to christianity defeating noahidism. This is of course assuming that the ebionites win and it remains a Jewish heresy.

Lets say Paul wins. It might be a very interesting timeline as Christianity might take hold in places like Ethiopia, Iraq, Armenia, and parts of India. However, with it being actively hostile to Judaism (Again assuming otl christianity just to explore the question) and thus actively rejecting the Jewish label. They have no protections against percecution. Of course you might say this happened otl. Except you in otl you didn't have another ethical monothiestic(Not getting into any debates on this) religion competing and competing effectively with institutional power. Sure the institutional power is very top heavy, but prestige goes a long way. Lets hand wave any changes and discuss constitine breifly. There is absolutely no way that he chooses Christianity as a religion. There is a far far better choice. Become Jewish (Unlikely) making it a royal prestige religion or go noahide (more likely) or go with a pagan option (I'd wager this is more improbable but still an interesting scenario) or even neo platonism (Least likely as there is no diety for him to attribute his success too and give his reign legitimacy). This would mean, barring a defeat of Zorastrianism, there is no major world power backing christianity as a state religion. Armenia and Ethiopia aren't to likely to cause any waves and are far more likely to end up chasing two different heresies and christianity being a small local religion with the quirk of being seperated. (Assuming they do end up becoming christian)

Third scenario. If you follow the opinion of Caesar's Messiah. Christianity is just not a thing. Judaism has been successfully pacified. And indeed, any "aggressive' tendancies are harnessed for the use of the empire. As such, noahidism only has cults/sol invictus as a competition in the gradual end of ancient paganism. Therefore, assuming a similiar pace until the destruction of the temple, we could see a noahide Roman empire.
Judaism is not rocket science but it might as well be!
I can answer any question about hilchos shabbos and actually understand the laws of Ribbis but I still mix up minchah and maariv.
 
My understanding was that the revolts were pretty critical for Christianity to take off, or at least to become a completely different animal from Judaism. It utterly discredited (in the eyes of a lot of Jews, at any rate) the traditional elite, and drove them away from the mainstream. It also accelerated the split; in that Christians saw in it proof that God's 'chosen people' were not just just the Jews but instead Christians.
Something like this the 70 ad revolt was to some proof the end was near it also cemented the idea Jesus was the final sacrifice as the temple had being destroyed also the chirstian did not want to be associated with the rebels hence why Luke and acts underlying tone is we are not commiting any treason or sedition
 
Every opinion I know has Jesus going Karaite. (Or he is fully made up. If you follow that opinion then christianity is fully butterflied) Which would put him beyond the pale. But without paul, imo it will die out. Just like all the other messianic cults at the time.
I don't mean "within the bounds of halachic Judaism according to normative Rabbinic methodology," I mean "within the bounds of Judaism," stam.
I'm not convinced that it would die out without Paul. Karaire and Samaritan Judaism still exist. An actual Jesus-Judaism without Paul could survive
 
Our Talmud represents the collective oral tradition that we check among ourselves. It is 100% accurate in its depiction. Anyway, how is that out of character? Lots of horrible things happen when a city is taken.
No, oral traditions are not 100% accurate. Especially oral traditions hundreds of years old. Cmon. Don't be dogmatic
 
In OTL the Jewish diaspora in the East was almost completely annihilated during the Diaspora revolt. In this world, Alexandria would remain 1/3 Jewish, the breakaway Temple at Leonontopolis would still be around, Jewish communities in Syria and Cyrprus and Cyrenia would still compose large portions of the population.
These population figures are dubious, if we believe the sources the Jewish rebels themselves apparently exterminated the local populations in the regions they were present, if everyone indeed died then who repopulated these regions?
But there was also some philo-Judaic sentiment as well, as the large population of Romano-Hellenestic God-fearers can attest.
There is no evidence of large scale conversion to Judaism in this period which in of itself makes all these claims about large diaspora populations unlikely, there is simply no way that a Palestine with 1.5 million people at best and not all of them Jews could generate a diaspora large enough to compromise large portions of the Levant(outside of Israel), Cyprus, Egypt and Cyrenaica, which together had something like 10 million people.
 
Kick
I don't mean "within the bounds of halachic Judaism according to normative Rabbinic methodology," I mean "within the bounds of Judaism," stam.
I'm not convinced that it would die out without Paul. Karaire and Samaritan Judaism still exist. An actual Jesus-Judaism without Paul could survive
If you reject the oral Torah you are outside of Judaism. And again you can quibble, but the opinion of who matters, the sanhedrin whose nasi just became king according to the discussed scenario, ebionites are beyond the pale. As such they wouldn't receive the legal protections. IOTL this group died out so I'm just assuming the same thing would happen. Or it is a minority religion in transjordan or something. Either way it doesn't have even regional domination.

Karaite Judaism was a political spat and karaites did have institutional power. Anyway they are very nearly dead. And not Jewish. THe nazis, ys, left them alone in the holocaust. Samaritans barely exist. There's what 150 of them? They have to accept ukrainian and russian converts from what I heard to stop from having genetic issues. If you mean they survive on that level? Sure. That's possible. If you mean as a regional religion similiar to Druze? I doubt it.

No, oral traditions are not 100% accurate. Especially oral traditions hundreds of years old. Cmon. Don't be dogmatic
Our oral traditions are rigurously checked through the fact that its a collective tradition. If anyone alters it, they would be corrected. Like a block chain. And we are specific in the wording. There are multiple times in the Talmud where someone says a baraisa and its changed because the person saying it misremembered it and had to be corrected. Assuredly it happened more often then that. Our oral tradition is self correcting and the most accurate source of history in the world. Secular academia just rejects it because they hate Jews.

WTF? Nero, that Nero, converted to Judaism? (0_0⁠)⁠>⁠⌐⁠■⁠-⁠■
Yes its in Gittin 56. His grandson was R. Meir. One of the greatest sages of Israel.
 
Yes its in Gittin 56. His grandson was R. Meir. One of the greatest sages of Israel.
Wait, what?

*looks it up*

"According to the Talmud, his father was a descendant of the Roman Emperor Nero who, it is said, escaped death at the time of his deposition and became subsequently a convert to Judaism." - Wikipedia on Rabbi Meir

Huh. Strange that the Talmud would claim the Emperor Nero as a Jewish convert.
 
Top