Hadrian decides to destroy Jewish identity differently

After Bar-Kokhva's revolt was defeated, Hadrian decided to turn the Roman Colony of Aelia Capitolina close to Jerusalem the new capital, ban the Jews from living in Jerusalem, exile many of them and change the province's name from 'Judea' to 'Palaestina'. What if, he decided that this method would just lead to further revolts and/or is economically non/less-benificial than flooding the province with as many colonists as possible? Let's say it backfires and instead of further Roman cultural and ethnic influence over the province, the colonists turn Jewish and are more affected by the natives than vice-versa.
What would the long and short term effects over the region and over Judaism be?
 
How likeky are the colonists to convert? I know this is going to sound nasty, but Judaean Judaism wasn't a terribly attractive religion to convert to. the pagans of the decapolis and the Samaritans were aroiund for generations without showing the slightest inclination that way. If you're a Greek- or Latin-speaking colonist, what would draw you to the religion of the guys who just lost a major war (for the second time) and are generally poorer and less respected than you?

Now, i realise there were considerable numbers of converts to Jusdaism, but they converted to Hellene Judaism, which in Judaea was all but negligible. The rather refined, spiritual, sripturally oriented, and importantly, Greek-speaking branch of the faith had its home in Alexandria, not Jerusalem. Even with early rabbinic Judaism, you would have a language barrier to overcome unless your colonists are Syrian Aramaic-speakers.
 
How likeky are the colonists to convert? I know this is going to sound nasty, but Judaean Judaism wasn't a terribly attractive religion to convert to. the pagans of the decapolis and the Samaritans were aroiund for generations without showing the slightest inclination that way. If you're a Greek- or Latin-speaking colonist, what would draw you to the religion of the guys who just lost a major war (for the second time) and are generally poorer and less respected than you?

Now, i realise there were considerable numbers of converts to Jusdaism, but they converted to Hellene Judaism, which in Judaea was all but negligible. The rather refined, spiritual, sripturally oriented, and importantly, Greek-speaking branch of the faith had its home in Alexandria, not Jerusalem. Even with early rabbinic Judaism, you would have a language barrier to overcome unless your colonists are Syrian Aramaic-speakers.
There were both cultural and lingual effects on both people, and a lot of intermarriage, if that is able to explain it.
 

Keenir

Banned
How likeky are the colonists to convert?
If you're a Greek- or Latin-speaking colonist, what would draw you to the religion of the guys who just lost a major war (for the second time) and are generally poorer and less respected than you?

These are decent-sized hurdles...but given that a large(ish) number of Romans thought that the destruction of Pompeii was divine retaliation for the destruction of the Second Temple....
 
The Jews are different in that they're not big on converting anyone. Not much of a difference if you ask me.

They aren't NOW, they WERE at that time. The large numbers of Jewish converts were the basis most of the early Christian churches.

How does this deny the fact that Jews don't, and didn't, except in rare cases, actively seek converts to Judaism?

Really, with the exception of the Hasmonaeans (who did convert some of the surrounding peoples by the sword...Herod was a converted Edomite, for example), the Jews in ancient times did precious little converting, as their covenant with God was not seen to apply to any other peoples.

The fact that Jews would convert to Christianity is irrelevant to Sa'id Mohammed's point, which is a good one. If the Jewish homeland is flooded with colonists by the Romans, the Jews won't convert them to Judaism. It MIGHT happen the other way around, and the Jews convert to whatever religion the colonists are practicing. But even there, I doubt it, because rabinnical Judaism already existed by that time, they'd already had the experience of the Captivity, and the basic structure to hold the Jews together as a distinct ethnic and religous group already was there. So, as Sa'id Mohammed said, not much difference.
 
These are decent-sized hurdles...but given that a large(ish) number of Romans thought that the destruction of Pompeii was divine retaliation for the destruction of the Second Temple....

I've never heard that there was any significant feeling among the Romans that Pompeii was divine retaliation for the destruction of the Second Temple. Source, please?
 
How likeky are the colonists to convert? I know this is going to sound nasty, but Judaean Judaism wasn't a terribly attractive religion to convert to. the pagans of the decapolis and the Samaritans were aroiund for generations without showing the slightest inclination that way. If you're a Greek- or Latin-speaking colonist, what would draw you to the religion of the guys who just lost a major war (for the second time) and are generally poorer and less respected than you?

Now, i realise there were considerable numbers of converts to Jusdaism, but they converted to Hellene Judaism, which in Judaea was all but negligible. The rather refined, spiritual, sripturally oriented, and importantly, Greek-speaking branch of the faith had its home in Alexandria, not Jerusalem. Even with early rabbinic Judaism, you would have a language barrier to overcome unless your colonists are Syrian Aramaic-speakers.

While I would agree with you on most points, I would point out that the Samaritans DID practice Judaism, albeit a distinct Northern Israelite form of it. Their conflict with the Jews was mainly because the Jews wouldn't accept the Samaritans as Jews, and because the Samaritans wouldn't accept the authority of the Temple Priests in Jerusalem, but instead set up their own Temple on Mount Gerizim.
 
Also the circumcision thing. The Romans thought that practice was barbaric and insane and you're not really a Jew unless you're circumcised from what I understand.
 
Also the circumcision thing. The Romans thought that practice was barbaric and insane and you're not really a Jew unless you're circumcised from what I understand.

Yes, but that could be changed. We tend to read the Jewish sources as the received word on what it means to be Jewish at the time, but they represent one side of theargument. there were jews who accepted converts, evewn uncircumcised ones. They likely never were a majority, but they did represent a significant group. These were the people the inhabitants of Mediterranean cities knew as 'Jews' and the Hellenisers the Maccabees slaughtered with such righteous fury (though a lot of them also disagreed on the whole conversion thing).

Of course, any Judaism that could be successful among Roman colonists would be a very different thing from the Judaism that Bar Kokhba, Jesus of Nazareth or Rabbi Akiba subscribed to.
 
Of course, any Judaism that could be successful among Roman colonists would be a very different thing from the Judaism that Bar Kokhba, Jesus of Nazareth or Rabbi Akiba subscribed to.
Like Christianity ended up?
ED: Since Christianity is essentially descended from Paul's version which was more gentile centric.
 
Last edited:
Like Christianity ended up?
ED: Since Christianity is essentially descended from Paul's version which was more gentile centric.

It would very likely share a lot of characteristics. After all, it is likely early Christianity went Borg on the various diaspora-Jewish sects IOTL.
 
Top