WI: Jesus in a Ptolemaic/Seleucid Judaea

After reading the "Jesus in an Independent Jewish Judaea" thread I was thinking what if Ptolemaic Egypt or the Seleucid Empire still has control over Judaea during Jesus' lifetime. Would they still see him as a threat? What kind of method of execution would they use for him? Would Christianity still expand like OTL?

BTW I'm Catholic and I don't want to start any flamewars.
 
Jesus hardly even would born ITTL. There is too many dead butterflies. Of course if you believe him being literally God's son, it is different thing.
 
Butterflies mean Jesus isn't born. You could have a messianic figure like Jesus be born, but it depends on how Egypt or the Selucids treat the Jews, I think. Jesus' messianic stuff, I believed, was influenced by a radical Jewish sect that was spawned in the milieu of resistance to Roman rule.
 
Yeah, Jesus would have been butterflied away. If he is born and becomes a preacher/messianic figure, the outcome would depend on how Judea is being governed.

In OTL Antiochus IV essentially banned Judaism, which resulted in a revolt which ultimately led to the establishment of a new Jewish kingdom. If this is taking place after the Seleucids or Ptolemies reannex the Hasmonaean kingdom, the Jews are likely to still be repressed, so you could see Jesus (or some other messiah) lead a revolt to reestablish a Jewish kingdom. This revolt would likely prove destabilizing enough to cause Rome to intervene and conquer Syria/Egypt, with the new Nazarene kingdom as a client state. So Jesus becomes a Roman vassal rabbi-king.

If Judaism had been treated with the same tolerance traditionally given to them by the Greeks and not been persecuted by Antiochus IV, they would have remained part of the Seleucid empire, so the Jews would likely continue to Hellenize. In OTL the Jews were divided in two broad factions: traditionalists and Hellenizers. If Jews remain tolerated, there would be almost two hundred years between the non-establishment of the Hasmonaean kingdom and Jesus' adulthood, during which the Jews would be increasingly hellenized. Jesus would presumably find very little audience among these content, tolerated Jews, so he could either give up, or join with the traditionalists. He may find a small following among them, but his liberal preachings and messianic doctrine would likely be too heterodox for most.
 
Antiochus IV did nothing of the sort (banning Judaism). What he wanted to do was Hellenize the Jews. And to do that, he supported a high priest who was behind that idea...of course that ran into trouble with traditionalists and infighting for the high priesthood, but Antiochus never banned Judaism. He wanted to turn Jerusalem into a true polis.


Now assuming by the time of this ATL's equivalent of Jesus' arrival the area is still under Seleucid control that means a few things may have happened: Judea is hellenized mostly, Jerusalem being a fully hellenistic city with polis status.That also means there's a sizable portion of outside settlement from military colonists. We can assume the Macabees and their traditionalist supporters were defeated and so they aren't much of a political threat this far down the road-in essence, perhaps Judea is just an ordinary province of the Seleucid Empire.


In that scenario, I can't see the Jesus equivalent get any traction. He might not even be noticed because he can't get enough supporters, or he might get enough support to get noticed and get dealt with by the Seleucid authorities. Either way, his cause doesn't go anywhere. People forget about him and life goes on.

EDIT: For the Seleucid state to be strong and still kicking this far down the road, that must mean Rome has been weakened enough to not be able to intervene in their affairs (Perhaps the Cimbri and Teutones did enough to bring about their collapse?).
 
Antiochus IV did nothing of the sort (banning Judaism). What he wanted to do was Hellenize the Jews. And to do that, he supported a high priest who was behind that idea...of course that ran into trouble with traditionalists and infighting for the high priesthood, but Antiochus never banned Judaism. He wanted to turn Jerusalem into a true polis.

I never said he banned Judaism, I said he essentially banned Judaism. Although that is admittedly pretty misleading, I meant it more along the lines that his efforts to speed up the Hellenization were viewed among the traditionalists as an attempt to destroy Judaism, ultimately leading to revolt.

Now assuming by the time of this ATL's equivalent of Jesus' arrival the area is still under Seleucid control that means a few things may have happened: Judea is hellenized mostly, Jerusalem being a fully hellenistic city with polis status.That also means there's a sizable portion of outside settlement from military colonists. We can assume the Macabees and their traditionalist supporters were defeated and so they aren't much of a political threat this far down the road-in essence, perhaps Judea is just an ordinary province of the Seleucid Empire.


In that scenario, I can't see the Jesus equivalent get any traction. He might not even be noticed because he can't get enough supporters, or he might get enough support to get noticed and get dealt with by the Seleucid authorities. Either way, his cause doesn't go anywhere. People forget about him and life goes on.

Agreed. If Hellenization is more successful the traditionalists aren't going to be a huge problem. Jesus probably wouldn't appeal to them all that much anyway, just as he didn't in OTL.

EDIT: For the Seleucid state to be strong and still kicking this far down the road, that must mean Rome has been weakened enough to not be able to intervene in their affairs (Perhaps the Cimbri and Teutones did enough to bring about their collapse?).

I don't think Rome has to be totally neutered, just kept on their side of the Hellespont. I think the Cimbrian War could do this (maybe Marius is killed and Italy is raided?), if it destabilizes Rome long enough for Pontus to conquer Anatolia, for Numidia to conquer North Africa and to cause long-term revolts in Greece and Iberia. Although I think a surviving Seleucid state would just be conquered by or split between Parthia, Egypt, Pontus or Armenia; the land is just too valuable and hard to defend.
 
I never said he banned Judaism, I said he essentially banned Judaism. Although that is admittedly pretty misleading, I meant it more along the lines that his efforts to speed up the Hellenization were viewed among the traditionalists as an attempt to destroy Judaism, ultimately leading to revolt.
Fair enough.
Agreed. If Hellenization is more successful the traditionalists aren't going to be a huge problem. Jesus probably wouldn't appeal to them all that much anyway, just as he didn't in OTL.
AGreed.
I don't think Rome has to be totally neutered, just kept on their side of the Hellespont. I think the Cimbrian War could do this (maybe Marius is killed and Italy is raided?), if it destabilizes Rome long enough for Pontus to conquer Anatolia, for Numidia to conquer North Africa and to cause long-term revolts in Greece and Iberia. Although I think a surviving Seleucid state would just be conquered by or split between Parthia, Egypt, Pontus or Armenia; the land is just too valuable and hard to defend.

I disagree. The Seleucids had numerous opportunities to repel and expel the Parthians and it wasn't until the 130's-120's that the situation actually became extremely dire and Seleucid decline was sealed-even at that point that only happened because Seleucid kings had the bad luck of being captured or killed in Mesopotamia after a promising start to an offensive, every time. Say what you want about Antiochus III, he left the Seleucid state in a better position than he found it.
 
Top