WI: The Jewish people remain monolatrous and do not develop monotheism

If anything, I see monolatrism being more able to handle defeat than monotheism. In a monotheistic worldview, defeat by an infidel enemy is nigh-unimaginable, unless it's structured as either (1) "the true God is testing / punishing us," which OTL monotheistic Judaism generally claims, or (2) "they're powered by the devil," which OTL Christianity and Islam generally claim - but that latter justification is less monotheistic and more ditheistic, positing a powerful opposing devil to the One God.

I think Christianity and Islam are more likely to claim (1), actually. When the enemies are powered by the Devil, that's only because God lets the Devil power them, usually to test or punish his people.

But did the Romans assert that? I don't believe they ever did. I think that the "Chosen People" idea and Covenant theology more broadly is particularly Mashriqi, with the Assyrians and Babylonians and Israelites claiming it. I'm not aware of any Roman or Greek polity asserting to be a "Chosen People."

"On them I set no limits, space or time: I have granted them empire without end" -- Jupiter, in Aeneid 1.278 f. I think portraying the king of the gods as granting your nation eternal power counts as a claim to chosen-ness. More generally, a major theme of the Aeneid is that Rome's rise was willed and assisted by the gods.

That's an interesting idea. So widespread monotheism in the Mediterranean might be inevitable due to, what, Hellenism? Neoplatonism?

"Inevitable" might be putting it a bit strongly, but there was certainly a trend in classical philosophy towards some form of monotheism -- Plato's Form of the Good (which his successors certainly seem to have treated as God, although there's debate over how far Plato himself did), Aristotle's Prime Mover, the Stoic Zeus, the Neoplatonic One. So I expect that at least educated Jews would come to embrace monotheism. Whether that trickles down to the average synagogue-worshipper is harder to say, although since per the OP they'd already be henotheists, monotheism would probably be more likely to spread amongst the Jews than against the polytheistic gentiles.
 
"On them I set no limits, space or time: I have granted them empire without end" -- Jupiter, in Aeneid 1.278 f. I think portraying the king of the gods as granting your nation eternal power counts as a claim to chosen-ness. More generally, a major theme of the Aeneid is that Rome's rise was willed and assisted by the gods.

I don't think so. The Chosen-ness of the Jewish religion is not a world-conquering destiny, but as a "kingdom of priests" (Exodus 19:6) and a small one at that (Deuteronomy 7:6-8). In the Book of Isaiah, one of the books that would be changed in this POD, defines that destiny more narrowly: the Jewish people were chosen to be "a light to the nations." (Isaiah 42:6).

I don't think that there's necessarily a direct contradiction between these two ideas. A particularly ecumenical and Hellenized monolatrous Judaism might even try to argue that YHWH/Jupiter could have multiple Covenants for different purposes.

It's interesting to note that the OTL Aeneid was written at around the same time as the Roman conquest of Judea. I don't know if or how a monolatrous Judaism would impact the broader Roman religion ITTL, but I'm also not aware of any other strict Covenants between a people / the founder-figure of a people and one or more deities within the Greco-Roman Hellenistic culture. Is there? You seem more knowledgeable than I about this subject. I thought that Covenant theology were a particularly Mashriqi idea.

"Inevitable" might be putting it a bit strongly, but there was certainly a trend in classical philosophy towards some form of monotheism -- Plato's Form of the Good (which his successors certainly seem to have treated as God, although there's debate over how far Plato himself did), Aristotle's Prime Mover, the Stoic Zeus, the Neoplatonic One. So I expect that at least educated Jews would come to embrace monotheism. Whether that trickles down to the average synagogue-worshipper is harder to say, although since per the OP they'd already be henotheists, monotheism would probably be more likely to spread amongst the Jews than against the polytheistic gentiles.

Interesting! I could see how the trend towards Greco-Roman monotheism would sweep up a monolatrous Jewish theology.

We're skipping ahead five hundred years of ITTL Jewish theological development in this discussion. However, there are a few things about ITTL Judaism that I don't see changing in this timeline, namely circumcision, aniconism, and the centrality of Jerusalem. Nor would the Romans syncretise circumcision or Jerusalem into their own religion as it transitions towards monotheism. It didn't OTL and I don't see why it would ITTL.

Aniconism is a little trickier. Early OTL Christianity was aniconic to some degree until Constantine, where state Christianity began to rely heavily on iconography, and there were major aniconic movements for a few hundred years afterwards. According to Wikipedia:

However, as Christianity increasingly spread among gentiles with traditions of religious images, and especially after the conversion of Constantine (c. 312), the legalization of Christianity, and, later that century, the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire, many new people came into the new large public churches, which began to be decorated with images that certainly drew in part on imperial and pagan imagery: "The representations of Christ as the Almighty Lord on his judgment throne owed something to pictures of Zeus. Portraits of the Mother of God were not wholly independent of a pagan past of venerated mother-goddesses. In the popular mind the saints had come to fill a role that had been played by heroes and deities."[24] The possibility that Christian art was a movement from below, disapproved of by the clerical hierarchy, vanishes in the large churches built with imperial patronage at the urging of that hierarchy.[25]

What this means for Jewish identity within the Roman world ITTL depends strongly on how Jewish theology develops in the hundreds of years between the Babylonians and the Romans, I think.
 
Thunder? wasn't supposed to be of Light/Sun or i'm messing with mythologies.
I forgot to mention earlier: the association between the Abrahamic deity and light/sun in the West is largely due to Constantine's syncretism of Jesus with Helios / Sol Invictus.
 
Preventing the invasion by Babylon or the Religious persecution that they impmented against the Israelites could do a big thing for this. (From the information I got from the "Triumph of Monotheism" in the East to West series)

It all looks like a God's plan or a Karma! The Babylonians persecute the Israelites, Judaism becomes Monotheistic, Christianity is born from Judaism during the Roman conquest, Christianity takes over as the religion of Babylon and later Islam(derived from Judaism and Christianity) does. Just mentioned this casually!
 
Preventing the invasion by Babylon or the Religious persecution that they impmented against the Israelites could do a big thing for this. (From the information I got from the "Triumph of Monotheism" in the East to West series)

How?

It all looks like a God's plan or a Karma! The Babylonians persecute the Israelites, Judaism becomes Monotheistic, Christianity is born from Judaism during the Roman conquest, Christianity takes over as the religion of Babylon and later Islam(derived from Judaism and Christianity) does. Just mentioned this casually!

Let's not assume that any religion is correct in this thread.
 
then identifying YHWH with Jupiter (or anyone else) makes YHWH an adulterer

I mean, even if it was true for 'anyone else', it was especially true for Jupiter. That being said, a monolatrous Jewish religion would be likely more comfortable with a broader and earlier understanding of shituf, which might make them more comfortable with it than OTL, since it can be understood as another deity voluntarily partnering with/serving Hashem.

How do you figure? Did the Romans believe that they were chosen by Jupiter?
That's an interesting idea. So widespread monotheism in the Mediterranean might be inevitable due to, what, Hellenism? Neoplatonism?
"On them I set no limits, space or time: I have granted them empire without end" -- Jupiter, in Aeneid 1.278 f. I think portraying the king of the gods as granting your nation eternal power counts as a claim to chosen-ness. More generally, a major theme of the Aeneid is that Rome's rise was willed and assisted by the gods.
I don't think so. The Chosen-ness of the Jewish religion is not a world-conquering destiny, but as a "kingdom of priests" (Exodus 19:6) and a small one at that (Deuteronomy 7:6-8). In the Book of Isaiah, one of the books that would be changed in this POD, defines that destiny more narrowly: the Jewish people were chosen to be "a light to the nations." (Isaiah 42:6).

I don't think that there's necessarily a direct contradiction between these two ideas. A particularly ecumenical and Hellenized monolatrous Judaism might even try to argue that YHWH/Jupiter could have multiple Covenants for different purposes.

Modern scholars have actually asserted that idea about the Covenant. As for the 'Kingdom of Priests' thing, compare Aeneid VI.847-853:

"Others shall more smoothly forge breathing bronzes (or so I believe), shall draw living faces from marble; they shall better plead law-cases, and describe the course of heaven by a rod and foretell the stars' movements--you, Roman, who in your authority shall rule the nations, remember: these shall be your arts: to establish the ways of peace, to spare the conquered and lay low the proud'.

So, whilst Roman ideas of 'chosen-ness' are of course more imperialistic, there is still a moralizing element similar to the Jewish covenant.

I suspect that they, or at least an important branch of Judaism, would end up monotheistic anyway, just a bit later than IOTL. Historically Graeco-Roman pagan philosophy tended towards monotheism, with other gods being reconceptualised as either aspects of the One God or as subordinate beings (a bit like Christian angels). Assuming the course of world events isn't completely different ITTL, Judaism will be exposed to these currents, and the move from monolatry or henotheism to full-blown monotheism is smaller than the move from polytheism to monotheism.
Depending what plays out with a Second Temple and a possible Roman conquest (remember, a ~500 BCE POD is more than capable of butterflying Greco-Roman dominance), I could easily see something like OTL Hellenic Judaism becoming the mainstream rather than the Rabbinic Judaism of OTL.
 
East to West: The Triumph of Monotheism
From 33:45

Interesting. I'll have to watch the series. Thank you.

I mean, even if it was true for 'anyone else', it was especially true for Jupiter. That being said, a monolatrous Jewish religion would be likely more comfortable with a broader and earlier understanding of shituf, which might make them more comfortable with it than OTL, since it can be understood as another deity voluntarily partnering with/serving Hashem.
I think that shituf, i.e. another deity partnering with or being coequal with the Jewish God, is still incompatible with Judaic monolatrism due to the "thou shalt not have other Gods before me" thing. But perhaps a servitude relationship wouldn't be such an issue?

I think the best analogy we can make to that is the syncretic nature of early Christianity. I should learn more about that.

Modern scholars have actually asserted that idea about the Covenant. As for the 'Kingdom of Priests' thing, compare Aeneid VI.847-853:

"Others shall more smoothly forge breathing bronzes (or so I believe), shall draw living faces from marble; they shall better plead law-cases, and describe the course of heaven by a rod and foretell the stars' movements--you, Roman, who in your authority shall rule the nations, remember: these shall be your arts: to establish the ways of peace, to spare the conquered and lay low the proud'.

So, whilst Roman ideas of 'chosen-ness' are of course more imperialistic, there is still a moralizing element similar to the Jewish covenant.
Actually, I see room for multiple "chosen" peoples with different purposes in the Aeneid passage. Non-Romans will be able to make better bronze items, marble statues, argue legally, and "describe the course of heaven by a rod and foretell the stars' movements." The Roman idea of their purpose is to create a just empire spanning the whole world - that's not necessarily in tension with the Jewish idea of their purpose, which is to instruct the world by example on the best way to worship God.

OTL post-Second Temple Judaism developed the concept of the "Noahide Laws," which is the Covenant that God made with Noah and is binding onto all human beings. They are:
  1. To establish just laws
  2. To not commit idolatry
  3. To not commit blasphemy
  4. To not commit sexual immorality
  5. To not commit murder
  6. To not commit theft
  7. To not eat an animal while it is still alive
I'm seeing a moralizing element in there that isn't incompatible with "to establish the ways of peace, to space the conquered and lay low the proud." Perhaps ITTL the Roman and Jewish religions would mesh in interesting ways, such that their self-proclaimed Covenants are seen as complementary and not contradictory?

Depending what plays out with a Second Temple and a possible Roman conquest (remember, a ~500 BCE POD is more than capable of butterflying Greco-Roman dominance), I could easily see something like OTL Hellenic Judaism becoming the mainstream rather than the Rabbinic Judaism of OTL.
How could Jewish monolatrism butterfly the Roman Empire? I'm not seeing it.

The big butterflies between the POD and the Roman conquest of Judea that I'm seeing are: more overt Jewish-Zoroastrian syncretism under the Temple-building Persian Empire and changes to the Maccabean Revolt (which OTL was less an uprising against the Hellenizing Seleucid Empire and more a civil war between Hellenic and traditionalist Jews that the Seleudic Emperors got involved in). What that specifically would look like it still up in the air. But this means the Hasmonean dynasty and Hanukkah are potentially butterflied, if either there is no civil war or if the war results in something different.

Either way, I don't see how that PODs the Romans. Jews just aren't a significant player in the wider Mediterranean at this time.

Regardless, the forms of Judaism that develop under the Roman empire really depend on what happens under the Seleucid one. I'm going to sketch out one possible scenario, specifically trying to avoid a "Jews cease to be meaningfully identifiable as Jewish" outcome:

Different Maccabean Revolt
Under the Seleucid Empire, a wary middle ground was found between Hellenism and traditional Judaism: local religious rituals and practices (the forms of animal sacrifice, dietary restrictions, and circumcision) will be maintained, but the name "Zeus" or "Zeus Pater" is incorporated alongside the other Jewish names for God. The concept of "Yahweh Sabaoth," the Lord of Hosts, becomes a more dominant concept in Jewish thinking, whereby the Greek deities and heroes are cast as powerful angelic servants within the divine court - similar to the syncretism of Jewish and Zoroastrian theology under Persia.

This goes well. In the Hellenic world, which did not have a unifying scriptural text, local ritual and religious practice were often left to the local temples. The Seleucids see the Jews as no exception. While there is tension concerning dietary restrictions and especially circumcision, those particular tensions aren't strong enough to fuel nearly as much anti-Hellenic sentiment - and responsive anti-traditionalist sentiment - as in OTL.

Therefore, High Priest Jason (or his ITTL Judean phi-Hellene high priest equivalent) is never suspected by the Tobiads (or their ITTL Judean phi-Hellene faction equivalent) of (in spite of OTL Jason's building a gymnasium in Jerusalem) being overly sympathetic to traditional Judaism. As such, Menelaus (or another Tobiad member equivalent) does not try to outbid Jason for the High Priest position, which was a position of leadership over Seleucid Judea and appointed by the imperial leadership. This completely butterflies the OTL causes of the Maccabean revolt.

(In OTL, Menelaus successfully outbids Jason but is left completely destitute and in debt, so he starts selling Temple treasures to pay off his creditors. There is a local protest where Menelaus executes many of the Jewish people who expose him. Consequently, while Antiochus IV is busy being beaten by the Romans in Egypt, Jason briefly conquers the Temple and kicks Menelaus to the curb. Menelaus goes to Antiochus, begging for violent anti-traditionalist action, and the revolt happens in response.)

With the moderate phi-Hellene High Priest Jason in charge, Second Temple Judaism becomes much more Hellenized. Jews quickly adopt Greek as the vernacular, abandoning Aramaic. Priah (the more severe circumcision practice that was instituted as an anti-Hellenic measure by the Hasmoneans) is never implemented, but circumcision (and kashrut and shabbat) are not abandoned either. The Temple remains aniconic and is now dedicated to the worship of a Zeus-like Yahweh: storm God, law God, war God, fertility God.

However, the collapse of the Seleucid Empire was imminent. The Dynastic Wars happen after Antiochus IV anyway; Judea, like the other Levantine provinces, remained an important prize for the dynasts to fight over. Because Judea remained part of the Empire, Demetrius II Nicator (who ruled in Damascus) was able to defeat Alexander Balas and his Antioch-based successors. However, when Mithridates I of Parthia comes rolling in, the Jews - fondly remembering the Persians as the last imperial benefactor of traditional Judaism - erupt into a civil war.

The Maccabean Revolt happens!
Sort of. Traditionalists, leaning into the cultural and religious tensions surrounding Jewish religious law, fight against their Hellenized brothers in guerrilla support for the Parthians. This serves to disrupt the Seleucid's Levantine power base, but is not enough to become fully independent before the region is subdued by the Romans.

Phraates II, son of Mithridates I, has a more difficult time against Demetrius' forces due to his possession of the whole Levant. The Parthians are squeezed between the Ziongu and the Seleucids. But the Seleucids are overstretched, their armies split between the coast (fighting the traditionalist Jewish rebellion and warding off the Romans) and deep into Parthia proper (fighting a Mede revolt and the Parthian army). The war stalemates in Media, with the Parthians unable to break through and kill Demetrius, but the Seleucid general is unable to advance further.

Ultimately, the Romans win. Pompey conquers the Levant and ends the Judean civil war. Jerusalem, held by the Traditionalists at the time, is sieged but not destroyed. A rump Seleucid realm remains outside the Roman east. Hellenstic monolatrous Judaism (HMJ) is lifted to dominance under the Romans, while the traditionalist anti-Hellenists are crushed.
 
Last edited:
More:

Under the Romans

It is at this time that the Aeneid is written. I could see different factions within Roman Judea develop in response to Roman claims of Chosen-ness. !Jewish traditionalism doesn't go away, of course, and uses claims of unique Chosen-hood to forment rebellion against Rome. HMJ is given a booster shot from Roman ideas of proto-monotheism. Perhaps the Romans, seeing themselves as a most pious people, would find a kinship among Judeans and treat Jews like they did Greeks: importing Jewish theologians and thinkers to Rome, and aggressively promoting Romanitas in Judea. This could lead to a split between a few different philosophical groups of Roman Jews, primarily:
  • Traditionalist Jews: monolatrous, mildly Hellenized in their worship of Yahweh Sabaoth, uncompromising in following the Law (aniconic, circumcision, kosher), but are pushed out of the Temple institution and shut out from Imperial power
  • Greco-Judaists: monotheistic, worshiping Iupiter-Yahweh, more lenient in the Law (against statues but not paintings, circumcise as children but turn a blind eye to adult epispasm, etc.), control the Temple and are overtly promoted by the Empire
Naturally, this is drawing inspiration from the Pharisee / Sadducee divide. OTL the Pharisee majority developed out of the rising pseudo-democratic scribal class amid popular skepticism of Sadducee priestly corruption. In one sense, though both groups were anti-Hellenization, the Pharisees were the more Hellenized sect - but both claimed to be the more authentic and traditional one. The Sadducees relied on their continuity with Hasmonean power. The Pharisees were more grassroots and proletariat, which made them more popular among everyday Roman Judeans.

ITLL, the Temple-based Greco-Judaist sect is politically dominant but the population is more divided. The Traditionalists are delegitimized by their lack of access to the Temple and their history of being on the losing side of previous conflicts. There is no Hanukkah narrative of successful traditionalist Jewish rebellion against Hellenizers. However, increasing Imperial-sponsored Romanization leads to the developing Sanhedrin (a Hellenistic institution that OTL Pharisees adopted so strongly that its Greek origins are largely forgotten) being dominated by the Greco-Judaists.

This makes the Greco-Judaists much more popular among common Jews. The Traditionalists are relegated to a sideshow, increasingly radicalizing.

I don't know. I haven't thought this all the way through yet.
 
More:

Under the Romans

It is at this time that the Aeneid is written. I could see different factions within Roman Judea develop in response to Roman claims of Chosen-ness. !Jewish traditionalism doesn't go away, of course, and uses claims of unique Chosen-hood to forment rebellion against Rome. HMJ is given a booster shot from Roman ideas of proto-monotheism. Perhaps the Romans, seeing themselves as a most pious people, would find a kinship among Judeans and treat Jews like they did Greeks: importing Jewish theologians and thinkers to Rome, and aggressively promoting Romanitas in Judea. This could lead to a split between a few different philosophical groups of Roman Jews, primarily:
  • Traditionalist Jews: monolatrous, mildly Hellenized in their worship of Yahweh Sabaoth, uncompromising in following the Law (aniconic, circumcision, kosher), but are pushed out of the Temple institution and shut out from Imperial power
  • Greco-Judaists: monotheistic, worshiping Iupiter-Yahweh, more lenient in the Law (against statues but not paintings, circumcise as children but turn a blind eye to adult epispasm, etc.), control the Temple and are overtly promoted by the Empire
Naturally, this is drawing inspiration from the Pharisee / Sadducee divide. OTL the Pharisee majority developed out of the rising pseudo-democratic scribal class amid popular skepticism of Sadducee priestly corruption. In one sense, though both groups were anti-Hellenization, the Pharisees were the more Hellenized sect - but both claimed to be the more authentic and traditional one. The Sadducees relied on their continuity with Hasmonean power. The Pharisees were more grassroots and proletariat, which made them more popular among everyday Roman Judeans.

ITLL, the Temple-based Greco-Judaist sect is politically dominant but the population is more divided. The Traditionalists are delegitimized by their lack of access to the Temple and their history of being on the losing side of previous conflicts. There is no Hanukkah narrative of successful traditionalist Jewish rebellion against Hellenizers. However, increasing Imperial-sponsored Romanization leads to the developing Sanhedrin (a Hellenistic institution that OTL Pharisees adopted so strongly that its Greek origins are largely forgotten) being dominated by the Greco-Judaists.

This makes the Greco-Judaists much more popular among common Jews. The Traditionalists are relegated to a sideshow, increasingly radicalizing.

I don't know. I haven't thought this all the way through yet.
are you going to do time line because this is damn good.
 
are you going to do time line because this is damn good.
Maybe. If I have the time to do the research. My knowledge of the period is pretty fuzzy, coming mostly from perusing Wikipedia and a thorough k-12 religious Jewish education. I don't know nearly enough about the development of Judaism under the Babylonian, Persian, Seleucid, and Roman empires to do this TL justice.

But maybe.
 
Last edited:
What I'm envisioning at the end of the TL is that the radicalized Traditionalists start their own Messianic war (like the OTL Bar Kokhba war) and go a little wild when they lose, becoming !Christianity: explicitly Tritheistic, not Trinitarian, and anti-Hellenizer in the same way that OTL Christianity was anti-Judaizer. They do not become dominant in the Empire, but there are eastern peoples waiting for their historical moment ...

The religion of the Greco-Judaists, on the other hand, is widely adopted across the Roman world with the first Jewish Roman Emperor in the mid- to late-200s (a !Diocletian-cum-!Constantine, ITTL adopting Greco-Judaism instead of OTL persecuting Christianity). Though circumcision takes much longer to be widely adopted. The !Jewish Emperor was killed by an enraged soldier after appearing circumcised in public bathhouse, which led to a power-struggle between the Praetorians and the Tetrarchy, resulting in the end of the Praetorian Guard and the centralization of Greco-Judaism in imperial circles.

In the end, the !Jewish people remain in Judea, in the Levant, much like Greeks do in Anatolia and the Aegean, and history progresses from there. A Roman Empire that isn't just Greco-Roman, but also Judeo-Roman. (Which is why I was using Greco-Judaism as a term above.) Everyone in the Empire becomes a Roman citizen: which means that everyone is Hellenized and everyone joins the !Jewish religion.
 
Last edited:
Top