Not sure they would have been able to hold off Rome indefinitely. Possibly come to an agreement where they pay a certain amount of tribute in exchange for being semiautonomous.
There wasn't a strong enough counterweight to Rome for them to use as a protector (and from a theological standpoint, that would have failed anyway as they would be trusting man rather than YHWH for protection).
There wasn't a strong enough counterweight to Rome for them to use as a protector (and from a theological standpoint, that would have failed anyway as they would be trusting man rather than YHWH for protection).
If they had managed to gain independance, would there not have been a lot of objections to being a Roman client state, as the whole goal of the Revolt was to throw off Roman authority? And OTL both the Jews and the Parthians were significant thorns in the Roman’s side, so they might be able to find a common enemy in that?
I just don't see a way for them to gain independence and make it stick. The odds are better for forcing the empire to give them a better deal.
And that in turn would require a fundamentally different Bar Kokhba revolt.
The fate of the Herodians would seem to bode poorly for future "semiautonomous client state" deals. The hardliners who were the Revolt's backbone might well decide that as long as Helleno-Roman influence remains, any client dynasties will emulate their predecessors.
The only way for Judea to be meaningfully independent in the long term is if Roman power in the east as a whole is severely weakened. Judea isn’t in itself strong enough to maintain its independence from the whole rest of the eastern Mediterranean if the eastern Mediterranean, or any major middle eastern really, is making a concerted effort to conquer it. The only context where its really in a place to protect itself is in a situation of a Balkanized Middle East where its peers are closer to their level.