According to Josephus, the main historian of the events in question, Titus never intended to destroy the Second Temple in 70 CE. Josephus claims that the Zealots on the Temple Mount attempted to repel the Romans with fire, which later spread out of control and irreversibly damaged the Temple.
So what if, assuming that Josephus' account was correct, the fire never spread to the Temple? The Romans still storm the Temple Mount, and at the minimum rifle through the temple possibly stealing the valuables, but the building is never destroyed. Titus may or may not order the destruction of part or all of the city afterwards (as Josephus describes) but given that IOTL the Bar Kokhba revolt still occurred we know that there was a substantial Jewish presence in Jerusalem after the Great Jewish War.
What happens, then, if Titus allows the survivors to reconsecrate the Temple rather than destroying it and over the next decades, particularly during Titus' reign, a form of Judaism based heavily around the Temple emerges, likely developing off of Sadducee rather than Pharisee theology and philosophy. This sect, with more Hellenized and pro-Roman thinkers, remains largely loyal to the Roman State, and in turn the Romans renew the old protections of the Jews. Bar Kokhba's revolt or similar never happens, as there is no real religious source of conflict.
So, how feasible is this? If this pattern of events occurs, what are the long-term consequences? I can imagine Christianity never gains the widespread following that it does IOTL, where the destruction of the Second Temple was one of the events that led to its full emergence from Judaism. It still exists, but does not grow as fast given that most Romans heavily associate it with the insular and peculiar Jewish sects. The diaspora being eliminated likely butterflies the emergence of Islam (no/fewer Jews in the Arabian Peninsula to teach about monotheism). Does Rome last indefinitely at least in some form ITTL if there are no Muslim invasions?
So what if, assuming that Josephus' account was correct, the fire never spread to the Temple? The Romans still storm the Temple Mount, and at the minimum rifle through the temple possibly stealing the valuables, but the building is never destroyed. Titus may or may not order the destruction of part or all of the city afterwards (as Josephus describes) but given that IOTL the Bar Kokhba revolt still occurred we know that there was a substantial Jewish presence in Jerusalem after the Great Jewish War.
What happens, then, if Titus allows the survivors to reconsecrate the Temple rather than destroying it and over the next decades, particularly during Titus' reign, a form of Judaism based heavily around the Temple emerges, likely developing off of Sadducee rather than Pharisee theology and philosophy. This sect, with more Hellenized and pro-Roman thinkers, remains largely loyal to the Roman State, and in turn the Romans renew the old protections of the Jews. Bar Kokhba's revolt or similar never happens, as there is no real religious source of conflict.
So, how feasible is this? If this pattern of events occurs, what are the long-term consequences? I can imagine Christianity never gains the widespread following that it does IOTL, where the destruction of the Second Temple was one of the events that led to its full emergence from Judaism. It still exists, but does not grow as fast given that most Romans heavily associate it with the insular and peculiar Jewish sects. The diaspora being eliminated likely butterflies the emergence of Islam (no/fewer Jews in the Arabian Peninsula to teach about monotheism). Does Rome last indefinitely at least in some form ITTL if there are no Muslim invasions?