No Jewish Diaspora

What if the Romans do not destroy Israel and the kingdom survives until the splitting of the Empire? What effect would it have on Middle Eastern history?

Israel, known as the Province of Judea at the time, was not an independent kingdom when Emperor Hadrian crushed the Bar Kochba Rebellion. Also despite what most people think, it was only the Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem who were expelled from the city. The Romans didn't quite have the time or resources to remove all the Jews from the province.

wiking said:

What if the Romans do not destroy Israel and the kingdom survives until the splitting of the Empire? What effect would it have on Middle Eastern history?

Click to expand...

The Kingdom? Wasn't that destroyed by the Babylonians?

Or are you referring to Herod's kingdom? As I recall, the Jews in Jerusalem didn't really like Herod's son (whose name escapes me, and may have been Herod) and asked the Romans to come in, and then a generation after that the famous revolt occurred... I suppose you could have Judea stay a vassal kingdom a bit longer, but I think the Romans would have annexed it eventually...

Though, the surviving Temple is going to have some severe religious implications, both for Judaism and young Christianity- look how often Christ predicts the Temple's destruction in the Bible. (Now we get into the fun argument, if the Temple isn't destroyed, would Jesus still predict it? I suppose it depends on whether you believe Him to be God or not...)

Well this is alternate history we're talking about, so as far as I'm concerned, Christ's predictions aren't a factor.

If somehow the Jews weren't kicked out of Jerusalem, if the rebellions were averted, or if Trajan never invaded the Parthian Empire, or whatever takes place beforehand, having the central authority of the Jewish religion remain intact might mean the possibility of a stronger Jewish nation in the long-term. If it remains strong after the collapse of the Roman Empire, then it could mean that the developing cause of Christianity might lose some monumentum. After the defeat of the Bar Kochba rebellion, its believed that some Jews, disillusioned with their ancestral religion after the incident, as well as the conversion of Jerusalem into Aelia Capitolina, may have joined some of the Christian groups in the east.

So without the sack of the Temple and the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem, they might well become a regional power, maybe, in time, with a few further Middle-Eastern states that, through political influence or military conquest, embrace the ideology.

Specifically how would a Jewish state effect the course of the middle east?

Specirfiy know: Do you mean disaproa or exodus?

If its the latter, then well, it will be conquered by whatever next big empire rules the area. If its the former - there was a considerable Jeiwsh Diasproa already before the crackdown on the Judean Revolt. Already before most Jews live doutside Jduea.

There was already a large enough Jewish population in Alexandria in the centuries BC that the (then) Bible was translated into Greek - namely the Septuagint.

The diaspora was going strong long before 70AD

Susano said:

If its the latter, then well, it will be conquered by whatever next big empire rules the area. If its the former - there was a considerable Jeiwsh Diasproa already before the crackdown on the Judean Revolt. Already before most Jews live doutside Jduea.

Click to expand...

For the next six hundred years, the only people who would be coming to the Levant are the Persians, and in OTL they showed some inclination to create a free Judea (IIRC there were some attempts in OTL). So the kingdom potentially could remain independent.

Even if it didn't, I think having the Second Temple remain intact would create huge butterflies ITTL.

There's an already Jewish diaspora before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.

I think this is impossible, the Jewish Diaspora existed from the start of Judaism*, Mesapotania was a important Jewish cultural centre, and was in truth the birthplace of Messiahian Judaism.

So to avoid a Jewish diaspora, you need to avoid the Babylonian exile, but without that Judaism wouldn't be recognisable as the same religion.

*Messiahian (the belief that Messiah will come, not Messianic Judaism) Judaism, not the early tradition (Samaritans).

Imajin said:

Though, the surviving Temple is going to have some severe religious implications, both for Judaism and young Christianity- look how often Christ predicts the Temple's destruction in the Bible. (Now we get into the fun argument, if the Temple isn't destroyed, would Jesus still predict it? I suppose it depends on whether you believe Him to be God or not...)

Click to expand...

The only time I can think of Jesus saying that the Temple would be destoyed is John 2, where Jesus says he could rebuild the Temple in 3 days. John's gospel was written after the destruction of the Temple, but rather than giving Jesus credit for the prediction, John states, "But he was speaking of the temple of his body." In fact, Mark 14 and Matthew 26 specifically deny that Jesus ever made that prediction/threat, attributing it to "false witness."

My humble take is that, whether Jesus made this remark or not, it's one of the best pieces of evidence that Mark and Matthew were written after the Siege of Jerusalem. Without the Siege, this remark wouldn't have been memorable or interesting, and it wouldn't have made it into the Bible at all.

Valdemar II said:

I think this is impossible, the Jewish Diaspora existed from the start of Judaism*, Mesapotania was a importat Jewish cultural centre, and was in truth the birthplace of Messiahian Judaism.

So to avoid a Jewish diaspora, you need to avoid the Babylonian exile, but without that Judaism wouldn't be recognisable as the same religion.

*Messiahian (the belief that Messiah will come, not Messianic Judaism) Judaism, not the early tradition (Samaritans).

Click to expand...

What you describe is immigration (a few Jews choosing to live outside the Homeland) and nomadism (Jews all living together, but in a different location). Diaspora is different -- it's when an ethnic group is so spread out that (1) the displaced outnumber the people remaining in the Homeland, and (2) no new location has become the locus of the ethnicity. When the Jews moved Egypt -->Isael-->Babylon-->Judea, there was always a clear locus containing the majority of those who would call themselves "Hebrew." Post-70 AD, the Hebrews were scattered -- a diaspora fundamentally different from the dislocations that came before it.

Tom Veil said:

What you describe is immigration (a few Jews choosing to live outside the Homeland) and nomadism (Jews all living together, but in a different location). Diaspora is different -- it's when an ethnic group is so spread out that (1) the displaced outnumber the people remaining in the Homeland, and (2) no new location has become the locus of the ethnicity. When the Jews moved Egypt -->Isael-->Babylon-->Judea, there was always a clear locus containing the majority of those who would call themselves "Hebrew." Post-70 AD, the Hebrews were scattered -- a diaspora fundamentally different from the dislocations that came before it.

Click to expand...

A large number of Jews stayed in Babylon after the exile ended, that was one part of the Dispora, later under the Hellenic rule Jewish communities spread to cities in the entire Levant, like Alexandria and the community in Asia Minor which Paul converted to Christianity, that was another part of the dispora, these communities existed before 70 AD, and can very well have outnumbered their more backward/conservative cousins in Palestina. So even if the Hebrews hadn't been scattered, we would have ended up with a large Jewish Dispora anyway.

Tom Veil said:

(1) the displaced outnumber the people remaining in the Homeland,

Click to expand...

As said, that was already so long before Bar Kochbas revolt.

and (2) no new location has become the locus of the ethnicity. When the Jews moved Egypt -->Isael-->Babylon-->Judea, there was always a clear locus containing the majority of those who would call themselves "Hebrew." Post-70 AD, the Hebrews were scattered -- a diaspora fundamentally different from the dislocations that came before it.

Click to expand...

But we dont talk about the Hebrews. Valdemars point is that Judaism only arose in Babylon, and that is essentially correct. And ever since then, the Jews were spread out. Though, yeah, probably at first, after the return of the Jewish elite (which really was the "Exile", not the entire people) the majority of the Jews was still in Judea.