WI Titus doesnt destroy Jerusalem? Christianity survives or is sunk to obscurity?

Late Roman writer Sulpicius Severus refers in his Chronica to an earlier writing by Tacitus, claiming that Titus favored destroying the Jerusalem Temple to help uproot and demolish both the Jewish and Christian sects. This was not completely effective, and destruction of Jerusalem liberated the Christian church to fulfill its destiny as a universal religion offered to the whole world.
WI Titus spared Jerusalem and the Jews from destruction? Could Christianity survived as a universal religion or it would remain a jewish sect and sunk to oblivion?
How is this altering History? Any thoughts?
 
Wasn't Christianity already starting to spread well beyond Jewish lands by the time of the Temple's destruction?

In any case, it's going to have massive theological effects upon the Jews, although if the later revolts by the Jews don't get butterflied away Titus' decisions might end up just delaying the Temple's destruction until the next revolt.
 
With the Jews in Jerusalem and their religion and Temple intact the Christians would be viewed as a mere jewish sect.. and they would be supressed by the local authorities maybe harsher than the previous persecutions of 40-50 AD... Romans would continue to hunt them down also due to the christian's refusal to worship the Emperor's Genius... So Christians would have to face 2 fronts...
 
Christianity was not simply a Jewish sect by the AD 60's and had already spread beyond Judea and Samaria into the Gentile world. However, Jerusalem's destruction did obliterate the most visible symbolic link between the "People of the Way" (the early Christian Church) and Judaism, so its non-destruction or later destruction does alter the course of Judaism and the Jewish-Christian relationship some, though "how" is difficult to discern.
 
I doubt the Christians were persecuted as often as you think they were. Certainly not in Emperor Nero's day. In the First Century, they probably weren't as yet called Christians, due to the fact that they were still mostly Jewish, and Christ originates from the Greek title "Christos", the name often given to initiate members of Hellenic Mystery Cults. Also, the Christians were such a small group at the time, that it's hard to imagine that the Roman authorities would waste time and energy on them when they would have had more pressing concerns.

It was around the Third Century Crisis period when they began to experience the true hostility of the Roman government, due to the fact that the Emperor Decius thought that public acts of piety would reverse the Empire's sagging fortunes, and the Christians refused to conform. And the real persecutions only began during the last few years of Emperor Diocletian's reign.

So whether or not the Jewish Priesthood was spared by the Romans is not the sole deciding factor in the growth of Christianity.
 
Maybe Jewish priesthood after narowly escaping extinction goes on and blaming the christian "sect" for the tragedy that fell upon God's people and start persecuting them with renewed vigor... Romans wouldnt care about a religious thing between Jews as long as this keeps them from revolting against Rome... If Christianity manages to survive they would have been confined to the Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor... or maybe even Italy and Western parts of the Empire if they dont really piss off Roman authorities...
 
The scenario laid out by the OP has Jerusalem and the temple not being destroyed. How does a priesthood that narrowly escapes extinction and most certainly lost its religious and political authority mount and lead a persecution of Jesus' followers?
 
Maybe Jewish priesthood after narowly escaping extinction goes on and blaming the christian "sect" for the tragedy that fell upon God's people and start persecuting them with renewed vigor... Romans wouldnt care about a religious thing between Jews as long as this keeps them from revolting against Rome... If Christianity manages to survive they would have been confined to the Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor... or maybe even Italy and Western parts of the Empire if they dont really piss off Roman authorities...

If the Jewish Priesthood narrowly avoid destruction at the hands of the Roman's, I think they would be more in the business of hunting down anti-Roman zealots like Bar Kokhba than giving a two-penny fart about the Christian sects, which were mostly beyond their jurisdiction anyway.
 
The scenario laid out by the OP has Jerusalem and the temple not being destroyed. How does a priesthood that narrowly escapes extinction and most certainly lost its religious and political authority mount and lead a persecution of Jesus' followers?

If they cling on, it will by by Rome's leave and as their agents. That means they have to persecute whom they are told to persecute. The Jewish Christians may fit that pattern, so they could become targets. Of course, they might just as well not. Roman government at the time was not terribly concerned over blasphemy and the Petrine community was a threat mostly to the greater Jewish community, not that of Rome. They might even feel amused by the fact that - from the Roman perspective - the Jews now have Jews.

Persecution of Pauline Christians (for ease of reference) would not be something the Temple could even contemplate.
 
Persecution of Pauline Christians (for ease of reference) would not be something the Temple could even contemplate.

Persecution of Pauline Christianity could make christianity a close jewish sect since without Paul and his teaching they wouldnt spread to the gentile world. Remember the arguments between Peter and James in the Council of Jerusalem in 49 AD where Peter wanted to keep christianity inside Palestine's border while James wanted to spread it to the whole world. Paul embraced James point of view as the whole Council did and Peter complied with the Council's decision.
 
Last edited:
Very true, and I agree. However, the Council of Jeruslaem happened nearly 20 years before the POD of the thread. Too much happened during those years for there to be such a major retrenchment just because the severely weakened Sandedrin in Jerusalem is out for blood.
 
Very true, and I agree. However, the Council of Jeruslaem happened nearly 20 years before the POD of the thread. Too much happened during those years for there to be such a major retrenchment just because the severely weakened Sandedrin in Jerusalem is out for blood.

Maybe Romans could assist the Sanhedrin pursue Christians if this keeps Iudaea Province from revolting against Rome...
 
Persecution of Pauline Christianity could make christianity a close jewish sect since without Paul and his teaching they wouldnt spread to the gentile world. Remember the arguments between Peter and James in the Council of Jerusalem in 49 AD where Peter wanted to keep christianity inside Palestine's border while James wanted to spread it to the whole world. Paul embraced James point of view as the whole Council did and Peter complied with the Council's decision.

I think that the above is a fallicy- from what I remember, the council of Jerusalem had nothing to do with the spread of the gospel to the whole world or otherwise- rather about whether existing Gentile converts should be made to "Judaise" in terms of being circumcised and observing the full strictures of the Mosaic law or similar. And I think Peter would have been more for a more widespread Christianity- according to the book of Acts, he was supposed to have been the first to recieve revelation which pointed to the conversion of Gentiles, and according to Galatians, Peter apparently used to eat with the Gentiles until "certain men from James" came- something Paul had to rebuke him for.

And IIRC, persecution, when it came upon the early church, did little to stop the progress of the Christian faith- indeed, it has been said to have helped it!
 
Top