WI Romans appoint jesus as king of jerusalem.

Why Romans would do that? Wouldn't it be more reasonable that they appoint someone member of Jewish nobility or relative of previous king of Judea? And even if Romans would decide in some odd reason appoint someone carpenter as king of Judea, he might very well say no. He doesn't seem very intrested being actual king. You might need very different Jesus.
 
I have to repeat what Lalli said: why? Why would they do that? A better scenario would have the lineage of David surviving to Roman times.
 
Also Judea was divided into quarters after Herod died, so you'd need to somehow keep Judea from being quartered and then placed under direct Roman rule.

As Lalli said, though, he's the son of a carpenter - admittedly a descendant of King David, but David was King of Israel a thousand years before Jesus was born, so any justification on those lines would be extremely fragile.

Rome would have more sense keeping the Herodian Dynasty in play.
 

jocay

Banned
I don't know about Jesus necessarily being appointed King of Judea but you could probably have the Romans appoint a Davidic descendant to run Judea. Say that Herod is unable to convince Octavian that he should remain king and Octavian has him executed him for siding with Anthony in 31 BC. The Hasmoneans themselves, having previously aligned themselves with Parthia a few years earlier, are no longer trusted either. Octavian scours through Judea and after a few months, decides for a third and decisive choice: Joseph, an elderly lowly carpenter from an obscure Galilean village named Nazareth yet descended from King David...
 
Last edited:
I don't know about Jesus necessarily being appointed King of Judea but you could probably have the Romans appoint a Davidic descendant to run Judea. Say that Herod is unable to convince Octavian that he should remain king and Octavian has him executed him for siding with Anthony in 31 BC. The Hasmoneans themselves, having previously aligned themselves with Parthia a few years earlier, are no longer trusted either. Octavian scours through Judea and after a few months, decides for a third and decisive choice: Joseph, an elderly lowly carpenter from an obscure Galilean village named Nazareth yet descended from King David...

How Romans even could be sure that someone is descendant of king David? There is not way know that surely and they hardly just take seriously some family legends. And wouldn't Romans just make Judea normal province instead kingdom annexed by Rome? They didn't appoint new pharaoh after Cleopatra VII so I don't believe that they would appoint new king to Judea.
 

jocay

Banned
How Romans even could be sure that someone is descendant of king David? There is not way know that surely and they hardly just take seriously some family legends. And wouldn't Romans just make Judea normal province instead kingdom annexed by Rome? They didn't appoint new pharaoh after Cleopatra VII so I don't believe that they would appoint new king to Judea.

I suggested it as a scenario of narrative potential. Plus the Romans would see a man of lowly status and Galilean origin as more easily controllable and compliant. Hillel the Elder would likely be made king in lieu of the Herodians or Hasmoneans being rejected.

I mean the Romans usually did annex lands that proved troublesome for local intermediaries to handle on Rome's behalf. As a counterpoint, the Romans didn't do it for Armenia.
 
Last edited:
Top