WI: No destruction of the Second Temple

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?
 
While OTL's religious impetus for the Arab and later Turkish invasions is butterflied away the desire to seize land, loot and people is always a good enough justification for war. The question is how organized the invaders would be ITTL versus the Romans-will the latter exhaust themselves through internal warfare and war against Persia still?
 
While OTL's religious impetus for the Arab and later Turkish invasions is butterflied away the desire to seize land, loot and people is always a good enough justification for war. The question is how organized the invaders would be ITTL versus the Romans-will the latter exhaust themselves through internal warfare and war against Persia still?

I honestly doubt that the Arabs would be unified enough to attack either, rather the old arrangement where tribes allied to Rome or Persia would persist longer.
 
I suspect that this will lead to Judaism being much less of a "special" religion, so to speak. With - as you note - a Sadducee leadership and a well-defined national center, I think it'll end up as a relatively minor national religion. Combine that with the wave of religious unrest that is going to affect the Roman Empire sooner or later (Christianity or no), and Judaism seems likely to be a peculiar, but nonetheless thoroughly integrated member of a pan-Mediterranean religious system - comparable to Lingayatism in Hinduism. Jews are still useful middlemen in Mesopotamia and Arabia, but they don't have any special reason to move en masse like they did IOTL - and they'll always feel an allegiance to Jerusalem and the Temple.

Christianity is screwed, at least for Paul's gentile outreach plan. A more confident and cohesive Jerusalem is going to be a focal point for the cult it spawned, and no matter how hard Peter or Paul try, Ebionism is going to be the most natural conclusion. Consider also how much less authority Christianity will have, among Jews or Romans, without a little Apocalypse happening right after its appearance. No reason to discard the idea of a prophetic leader and deified mankind in general (c.f. Buddhism), but it will probably come from a Hellenic or Persian mindset rather than an Abrahamic one - and therefore much less anxiety about idolatry and polytheism.

Islam is, of course, butterflied away. The Arabian Peninsula is still going to have an economic crisis around the 6th-8th centuries, but that doesn't necessitate a political-religious movement. More likely is a time of massive infighting, maybe an Arabian conquest of nearby areas, but nothing anywhere close to the scale we saw OTL.

I love these kind of WIs.
 
Presumably, the Gospels are different. Since the earliest (Mark) is dated at least a few years before the Temple's destruction, however, IIRC Jesus' prophesies about the HOW Jerusalem will be destroyed are pretty close to how the Roman siege of Jerusalem went. Also, there are a couple of passages in Josephus that mirror passages in the Gospels "stones crying out", "fishers of men" etc.

That said, I'm not sure why Judaism is necessarily more appetizing here than it was OTL. The Sadducees aren't gonna/can't drop the dietary restrictions or the whole circumcision covenant or even adapt the Jewish faith's laws because they wanna be in with the Romans. These were seen as fixed points of the Jewish faith IIRC, and the Temple surviving isn't going to make it easier to change them. (In fact, probably the contrary).
 

I definitely think you'd see a reformed Roman religious system. IMO it would revolve around the Cult of Isis in its theology combined with heavy elements of Platonic philosophy. Buddhist elements might well get incorporated also, but the Isidic doctrine that all deities are manifestations of Isis would likely gain precedence. Without Christian proselytizing outside of the Empire it might be harder to incorporate the Barbarians, but given that IOTL Isis' cult was also heavily missionary but less schismatic than Christianity I could also see the Roman state having an easier time incorporating the Goths et al without the gap between Orthodox and Arian Christianity.

The Arabs would IMO continue fighting between one another, with various tribes declaring their loyalty to Rome or the Persians. Both empires would be heavily impacted by the movements of peoples in the Great Migrations--and Rome would likely lose its Western provinces temporarily--but without the rise of Islam both have time to recover and Rome can reconsolidate Italy, Africa, and parts of Hispania at a minimum. Eventually the Persians are going to have problems with the Turks (likely Buddhist ITTL), who I could imagine overthrowing the Shahanshah and establishing a Buddhist Turco-Persian state. If this expands into India as OTL Mughals then Buddhism likely is of similar size to Islam today. The Mongols I could see causing problems for either/both states, but I also would not be terribly surprised if they are butterflied given how long the timescale is and how unified the Silk Road could be without Muslim-Chinese conflicts.
 
That said, I'm not sure why Judaism is necessarily more appetizing here than it was OTL. The Sadducees aren't gonna/can't drop the dietary restrictions or the whole circumcision covenant or even adapt the Jewish faith's laws because they wanna be in with the Romans. These were seen as fixed points of the Jewish faith IIRC, and the Temple surviving isn't going to make it easier to change them. (In fact, probably the contrary).

I think it's more appetizing in a political rather than religious sense. The Jews aren't seen as a major religion or a religion that any Roman in their right mind would want to practice, but despite or because of this they aren't seen as a political threat to Imperial stability.
 

Philip

Donor
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.

I don't think this will be stable. Somehow you will need to convince much of the population that what they believe is wrong. There is no messiah. No afterlife. No divine punishment for the wicked or rewards for the righteous.

This strikes at the core of Jewish (at the time) hope. They believed that they were God's Chosen People. Yet, they were a conquered people. They expected God to rectify this. Having the Romans impose upon them a theology that teaches there is no hope, that they will never be what they have always believed themselves to be, will likely result in more revolts. At least with pharisaical theology, the Jewish people could hold out hope that they or maybe their children or their children's children would see the fulfillment of God's promise. (Note that after the Jewish revolts, the sages emphasised more that the Messiah would come in God's time and that the people should not try to force it.)

The Sadducees leave a desperate people without any outlet. Some will give up. Some will become more desperate. Rarely does this result in peace.

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.

On the contrary, this will swell the ranks to the Jesus movement. They offer a God who keeps his promises and will (in time) hand the world to them. It offers everything (if delayed) that the Sadducees are taking away. Christianity may developed along a different path, but this will accelerate its initial growth.

As for a remaining Temple, it will have little effect on the growing movement. The Temple is run by a group that denies God's promises, denies much of the Scriptures, and aligns itself with the oppressors. Clearly, God is not present there.
 
I honestly doubt that the Jews will see the situation as being one of conquest. I imagine that the Sadducees will attempt to reimagine Titus as a figure somewhat like Cyrus the Great, i.e. a nominal suzerain allowing the Jews autonomy and worthy of respect. He likely is further respected for defending the Jews from heresy...there was no love lost between the Sadducees and the Zealots after all, and I imagine the latter will be rejected as a sect far too radical. Remember that the Zealots, according to Josephus, were the ones who destroyed Jerusalem's grain supply and refused to negotiate a surrender. If the Jews could process being allowed to live in and largely govern themselves under Persian rule as a fulfillment of the Covenant, I see no reason to doubt that they could with the Romans. Remember that Rome isn't really imposing a theology. They may appoint or approve a high priest for political reasons, but as long as the Jews don't get too uppity or too interested in converting gentiles the Romans don't really care what their beliefs are.

Remember that much of our information on Sadducee theology came from Josephus, a Pharisee and a historian not exactly known for a total lack of bias. It's easy to imagine him intentionally or unknowingly projecting an overnegative view of Sadducee philosophy.

As for the growing Jesus Movement, at the time of the sack it is still heavily associated with the Jewish Law and aside from Paul and Peter nobody really wants to abandon the Law in search of Gentile converts. Without the cataclysm of the Temple's destruction to be seen as proof that God has indeed fulfilled the old Covenant with the coming of Jesus, I doubt that the conservative members of the movement will lose ground to the radicals. The religion will still attract some converts, don't get me wrong, but without being willing to totally and unequivocally break from Judaism it will never gain the momentum that it did IOTL, at least until after it's too late to match Isis or another savior deity.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that this will lead to Judaism being much less of a "special" religion, so to speak. With - as you note - a Sadducee leadership and a well-defined national center, I think it'll end up as a relatively minor national religion. Combine that with the wave of religious unrest that is going to affect the Roman Empire sooner or later (Christianity or no), and Judaism seems likely to be a peculiar, but nonetheless thoroughly integrated member of a pan-Mediterranean religious system - comparable to Lingayatism in Hinduism. Jews are still useful middlemen in Mesopotamia and Arabia, but they don't have any special reason to move en masse like they did IOTL - and they'll always feel an allegiance to Jerusalem and the Temple.

Somewhat true, though on the other hand, it's mostly agreed now that there was a widespread and thriving system of Rabbinic Judaism in the Diaspora coexisting with the Priesthood in Jerusalem. Alexandria and Babylon in particular were great centers of Jewish culture, and so were places like Rome and Byzantium. The Alexandrian Jews were actually a little infamous for getting along poorly with the Priesthood. So you'll still have a "large" population of Jews practicing Rabbinic Judaism throughout the Roman Empire (and presumably any successor states).

What'll be interesting, is you'll actually probably end up with two major strains of Judaism (plus Samaritanism, I guess). The potential interactions between them would be very neat.

Christianity is screwed, at least for Paul's gentile outreach plan. A more confident and cohesive Jerusalem is going to be a focal point for the cult it spawned, and no matter how hard Peter or Paul try, Ebionism is going to be the most natural conclusion. Consider also how much less authority Christianity will have, among Jews or Romans, without a little Apocalypse happening right after its appearance. No reason to discard the idea of a prophetic leader and deified mankind in general (c.f. Buddhism), but it will probably come from a Hellenic or Persian mindset rather than an Abrahamic one - and therefore much less anxiety about idolatry and polytheism.

I'm not entirely sure. Paul travels away from Jerusalem, and Pauline Christianity really has relatively little to do with Judaism at the end of the day. I don't know that early Christianity was at all Apocalyptic, and I think that its message of universal salvation through the personal love of an all-powerful and all-benevolent god isn't particularly hurt by the continued existence of Jerusalem.

I don't think this will be stable. Somehow you will need to convince much of the population that what they believe is wrong. There is no messiah. No afterlife. No divine punishment for the wicked or rewards for the righteous.

This strikes at the core of Jewish (at the time) hope. They believed that they were God's Chosen People. Yet, they were a conquered people. They expected God to rectify this. Having the Romans impose upon them a theology that teaches there is no hope, that they will never be what they have always believed themselves to be, will likely result in more revolts. At least with pharisaical theology, the Jewish people could hold out hope that they or maybe their children or their children's children would see the fulfillment of God's promise. (Note that after the Jewish revolts, the sages emphasised more that the Messiah would come in God's time and that the people should not try to force it.)

The Sadducees leave a desperate people without any outlet. Some will give up. Some will become more desperate. Rarely does this result in peace.

On the contrary, this will swell the ranks to the Jesus movement. They offer a God who keeps his promises and will (in time) hand the world to them. It offers everything (if delayed) that the Sadducees are taking away. Christianity may developed along a different path, but this will accelerate its initial growth.

As for a remaining Temple, it will have little effect on the growing movement. The Temple is run by a group that denies God's promises, denies much of the Scriptures, and aligns itself with the oppressors. Clearly, God is not present there.

Meh. Judaism has gone through success waves of Messianic fervor and fatalistic resignation to an eternal Diaspora several times through the years. We'll just end up with 2 different strains of Judaism, possibly coexisting in Judea, with one being a more Puritan brand that rejects the Hellenized/Latinized "corrupt" priesthood and one, uh, being that priesthood. Of course, that story does sound a little familiar to anyone who celebrate Chanukah, but I suspect that the Pharisees will get the message after their revolt is shut down hard. Or, hell, maybe they get kicked out after a failed revolt, leaving the mainsteam (Sadducee) priesthood in place.

Also, frankly, I think you're overestimating the religious fervor of people. Temple Judaism was a very formal, hierarchical, ritual-based religion, in many ways resembling a tiny Catholic Church. The average barely-literate Jewish farmer probably won't spend a lot of time thinking about this sort of thing, and the more literate and erudite class will be more Hellenized (though, like in the modern day, it may ironically be this group that rejects the very assimilation that they've undergone, praising the simple farmers who are too busy planting to have religious discussions).

Actually, I think this could be kind of cool, ending up with 3 different Jewish strains: the conservative but increasingly Romanized Jerusalem Jews, the more cosmopolitan Rabbinic Diaspora Jews, and the hardcore exiled Pharisees. In particular, the interactions that the latter two groups would have - and maybe would have with Pauline Christians "stealing" their God - could be very interesting.
 
I'm not entirely sure. Paul travels away from Jerusalem, and Pauline Christianity really has relatively little to do with Judaism at the end of the day. I don't know that early Christianity was at all Apocalyptic, and I think that its message of universal salvation through the personal love of an all-powerful and all-benevolent god isn't particularly hurt by the continued existence of Jerusalem.

The issue is that the presence of the Temple will mean that Christianity will have a much more schismatic path in getting to that point. Many Christians who might be persuaded to reject the law by the Temple's destruction never will ITTL. Thus the movement splits earlier and achieves "critical mass" much later. We forget how close a thing it was for Christianity to come out on top; a slightly more divided nascent church means IMO that it is much likelier for Isis especially to emerge dominant following the alt-Crisis of the Third Century. Now, Christianity could still come out on top (esp. if Isis is heavily associated with Zenobia and thus demonized) but it is much less likely than IOTL.
 
Somewhat true, though on the other hand, it's mostly agreed now that there was a widespread and thriving system of Rabbinic Judaism in the Diaspora coexisting with the Priesthood in Jerusalem. Alexandria and Babylon in particular were great centers of Jewish culture, and so were places like Rome and Byzantium. The Alexandrian Jews were actually a little infamous for getting along poorly with the Priesthood. So you'll still have a "large" population of Jews practicing Rabbinic Judaism throughout the Roman Empire (and presumably any successor states).

What'll be interesting, is you'll actually probably end up with two major strains of Judaism (plus Samaritanism, I guess). The potential interactions between them would be very neat.

I think "large" is the operative scare-quote here. Religious minorities, especially those which don't have a distinct ethnicity associated with them, are tough to keep around. With the existence of a strong Temple and a Judah able to claim that it is the sole legitimate Jewish state with a monopoly on Judaism, I think that Rabbinical Judaism will go the way that Ebionism or Marcionism went IOTL. A few generations of Rabbinical Jews getting into whatever kind of trouble and Romans replying "well, why don't you go to Judaea then?" will wear down the population, then their zeal, then the population all over again.

I'm not entirely sure. Paul travels away from Jerusalem, and Pauline Christianity really has relatively little to do with Judaism at the end of the day. I don't know that early Christianity was at all Apocalyptic, and I think that its message of universal salvation through the personal love of an all-powerful and all-benevolent god isn't particularly hurt by the continued existence of Jerusalem.

Oh, early Christianity was absolutely apocalyptic! Not as much as Frederiksen and the other "Messianists" claim, I don't think (my interpretation of Early Christianity is much more Hellenic), but there's no doubt whatsoever that the destruction of Judah within a generation after the Crucifixion was considered a pretty clear demonstration of divine justice. If Jerusalem is still Jewish, we can expect people will identify Jewish practices much more with the Jewish state, and it's completely reasonable to expect that the Ebionites will have a stronger hold over Christianity than the Gentiles.
 
I'm really not convinced that there would need to be a saviour deity, much less a monotheistic one if Christianity is blunted. I remain of the opinion that the Mediterranean would end up with a religious situation akin to China's, with various philosophical schools and mystery religions overlaying local polytheistic religions. I would expect Judaism to remain an insular ethnic religion with little appeal to outsiders (the whole circumcision thing really putting off most gentiles), and Christianity, if it survives at all, a strange little sect within Judaism. Minchandre's idea about three major sects of Judaism is interesting, and seems reasonably likely. Especially if the Romans are clever and rule Judaea in an indirect way, through little client kingdoms and city states, which really wouldn't be all that out of character. I don't think the Romans ever even tried to annex Armenia or Nabataea, both of which seem at least as strategically valuable, and much of Anatolia was ruled indirectly through city states for centuries.
 
I'm really not convinced that there would need to be a saviour deity, much less a monotheistic one if Christianity is blunted. I remain of the opinion that the Mediterranean would end up with a religious situation akin to China's, with various philosophical schools and mystery religions overlaying local polytheistic religions. I would expect Judaism to remain an insular ethnic religion with little appeal to outsiders (the whole circumcision thing really putting off most gentiles), and Christianity, if it survives at all, a strange little sect within Judaism. Minchandre's idea about three major sects of Judaism is interesting, and seems reasonably likely. Especially if the Romans are clever and rule Judaea in an indirect way, through little client kingdoms and city states, which really wouldn't be all that out of character. I don't think the Romans ever even tried to annex Armenia or Nabataea, both of which seem at least as strategically valuable, and much of Anatolia was ruled indirectly through city states for centuries.
the crisis of the third century was a shit show and I could still see a more fragmented Christianity waiting to fill a void and offer an escape and salvation from the enemies at the gates and in your own city.
 
the crisis of the third century was a shit show and I could still see a more fragmented Christianity waiting to fill a void and offer an escape and salvation from the enemies at the gates and in your own city.

If Rome wants a savior deity at this point, that deity will most likely be Isis ittl.
 
Isis was a huge cult in Rome that was popular with the same people Christianity was targeting, but wasn't Mithras also popular? Particularly with the military? It could be that farther flung provinces with a bigger influence from military cities like Britannia and less near-eastern connections could become more Mithraic.
 
Isis was a huge cult in Rome that was popular with the same people Christianity was targeting, but wasn't Mithras also popular? Particularly with the military? It could be that farther flung provinces with a bigger influence from military cities like Britannia and less near-eastern connections could become more Mithraic.

The big issue is that Mithraism absolutely excludes women, who IOTL were a major force for introducing both Christianity and Isidism into family life and propagating it amongst generations. I could imagine a Mithraic cult similar to OTL Freemasons, but not gaining much more prominence than that.
 

Marc

Donor
Just to through some background in the discussion: while historical demographics are a chronic debating point, given some data we do have from 1st and 2nd centuries CE, you are looking at 5-10% of the total Imperial population, higher of course in the Eastern provinces. Without the subsequent Judeo-Roman wars, those numbers and concentrations are likely to continue.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Woukd that means that Hellenic Judaism doesn't doe out? It was a major religion in the eastern Mediterranean , so maybe it instead of Christianity becomes a major religion of the late RE?
 
Woukd that means that Hellenic Judaism doesn't doe out? It was a major religion in the eastern Mediterranean , so maybe it instead of Christianity becomes a major religion of the late RE?

That's possible, I suppose. The 'God-fearers' were possibly the largest single religious grouping in the Empire (I've seen eztimates of up to 30% during the time of Herod the Great). But it seems to me that the fortunes of the Temple and Hellenic Judaism were always closely linked to the fortune of the Herodian dynasty. Perhaps if Agrippa I had lived longer and his son had directly inherited rule over Judea, but even so there would have been tensions - a lot of them.

Consider from the point of view of the average poor Judean. Sure, Herod the Great built the Temple and it was one of the Wonders of the World, something to be justly proud of. Does God honour that? No. It's hardly finished before the old man dies, and the country descends into anarchy. The Romans support Archelaus, but he's such a disaster that they have to get rid of him and rule directly, Antipas up in Galilee lasts a bit longer, but there's that business with his brother's wife and making war with his ex-father-in-law, so he has to go too. At last you get a King of the Jews again, Agrippa. He seems promising even if he's been raised in Rome and there are plenty of dodgy stories about his past. But he dies eafly and it's back to Procurators...
 
Top