Jesus, King of Israel

Just a quick thought here. I was skimming through the New Testament, looking at the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Apparently, Jesus was a descendant of David, King of a united Israel, whose family ruled the south kingdom of Judah for 500 years. This means that if the House of David had retained control, then eventually, Jesus would ascend to the throne.

How plausible is this scenario? A Jewish kingdom in the Levant remaining independent long enough for Jesus to be proclaimed king. What effects would such a radically different Jesus have on the development of the Abrahamic religions?
 
Just a quick thought here. I was skimming through the New Testament, looking at the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Apparently, Jesus was a descendant of David, King of a united Israel, whose family ruled the south kingdom of Judah for 500 years. This means that if the House of David had retained control, then eventually, Jesus would ascend to the throne.

How plausible is this scenario? A Jewish kingdom in the Levant remaining independent long enough for Jesus to be proclaimed king. What effects would such a radically different Jesus have on the development of the Abrahamic religions?

Either (a) Jesus gets butterflied away by 500 years of royalty or (b) God holds off sending him until he's not so prominent, depending on your viewpoint of the whole thing. Either way I'm not quite sure the question is meaningful.
 
Agreed.

I think you'd have to first look at the effects of a Davidian Kingdom for the 500 years before the Roman Empire took control of the Holy Land before you can start contemplating a King Jesus.
 
Or Jesus uses his charisma to revolt with the Zealots... But that would require a serious mindset shift on the part of the JC. Although "I come not to bring peace but a sword" seems to fit quite weel here.

Jesus taking on the Roman Empire by including Gentiles in his fight for a free Kingdom of Israel seems quite interesting.
 
I think that would be a different scenario altogether (an interesting one, and a future TL I'm trying to do with a different Bible, and other historical documents) but still a different one.

I wonder perhaps Jesus would cast down his throne and create a social upheaval. Entertaining paupers, prostitutes, and cripples in his palace instead of Pharisees. Maybe this causes the next in lines to become jealous of Jesus for ruining the order their fathers set up and try to assassinate him. Maybe Jesus escapes using the same tactics he used when the Pharisees tried to stone him, or maybe he's crucified just the same as it was prophesied.

A new King of Israel is crowned and three days later, Jesus closest advisors (the Apostles) start spreading stories of his Resurrection. The people Jesus entertained and complete strangers soon start spreading the stories and BAM Christianity is born.

This would change a lot of things though, as far as culture is concerned. For example, it might not be called Christianity, unless Israel gets a sudden flux of Greek immigrants and begin to take on the new faith. As well, Christianity probably would be confined to the regions of the Middle East and become a political deal as much as a religious one. (Basically, the same result that I developed for the Jesus the Revolutionary.) Christianity is localized. Judaism is associated with the politically conservative, while Christianity is associated with the politically liberal.
 
Using this set-up, and running with Nick's idea, a possible TL would be if, as the leader of a popular movement, Jesus used his lineage to actually declare himself as ruler and rightful king of the Jews - as opposed to the Idumean Herod (who was very sensitive of his non-jewish and thus illegitimate place as a Jewish King...not that he minding being the ruler, just sensitive)

How successful might an earlier revolt be? How unified a movement would that be?

It doesn't have to be too big a mind shift - Jesus would need to more fully embrace the messianic role earlier and associate himself with the kingly and military aspect of that role - being more like David himself. He can still keep the social reformer role - just within the kingdom of god on earth - i.e. a Jewish kingdom.

Fun ATL Fact - Simon Peter would get his name for his ability to hold like a rock in battle...
 
Well, given the genaeology in the New Testament, we don't know (and it's highly doubtful that) Jesus' descendants were all the first-born or otherwise in positions to inherit the throne if the kingdom had survived.

But the idea is an interesting one. One major difference that would come about is that Jesus would be accepted by the public as the Messiah much quicker, as Jews at the time believed that the Messiah would be, rather than a simple preacher like Jesus was in OTL, a mighty king whom all nations would bow down to. Having a sort of God-Emperor would mean that few would question his legitimacy, however, history would probably not be as kind to him, assuming the religion doesn't really catch on.
 
Last edited:

Keenir

Banned
Well, given the genaeology in the New Testament, we don't know (and it's highly doubtful that) Jesus' descendants were all the first-born or otherwise in positions to inherit the throne if the kingdom had survived.

oh that's not a problem -- emphasize that the Patriarch Jacob was the younger brother of Esau the firstborn, yet Jacob was the one who inherited.
 
Top