Jesus in an Independent Jewish Judea

Posit that, around the early first century AD, Judea is independent, under a Jewish monarch and that Jesus of Nazareth still preaches the same basic message as historically (if you want to argue whether he existed, go take it to Chat).

How might things play out?

Consider that the reception might be very different based on what the royal dynasty is. If they're Maccabees or otherwise non-Davidic, the royal reaction might be different than if the ruling dynasty is a Davidic line.

Consider that, if Jesus ends up in any foreign territory, how might the other governments treat him? Might they see him as a threat, agitating local Jews, or an asset, a pretender to place on the throne?

Wouldn't they still view him as a heretic? How did they deal with heretics? Stone them to death? If that was the case, then there's a chance Jesus could convince the people not to throw the stones. That would erode the temple authority just a little bit.

Would he have come to be?
Wasn't the Roman occupation and messed up political situation a key part of the reason there were so many fringe preachers roaming the land at the time?

I don't know much about Judea I'm afraid but I'd guess he probably runs into trouble earlier due to Judaism having more power in the land.

What kind of Judaea?

Assuming Jesus still arises more or less as per OTL (for what we know of him), his life is unlikely to be a long and prosperous one. Howerver, things could be very different depending on who is in charge and where the boundaries run.

The Maccabee state was not a friendly place for any Jew who was not a strong believer in the social and ritual aspects of Judaism. "The Sabbath exists for sake of Man" alone could have him stoned very quickly. Especially in the wilder and woolier fringes where the centre was eager to preserve its authority.

The Herodian kingdom, by contrast, might view him with a degree of benevolence - initially. A teacher with a nonviolent, ostensibly open-mionded message would not be uinwelcome to a government perpetually at odds with the religious hardliners and their anti-pagan zeal. But he'd be walking a very fine line. Any implications of political claims and he'd be dead. I doubt Jesus would care enough to try and modify his message, so eventually most likely the same outcome.

A Judaea under the high priest as quasi-king might be the most congenial to him because he could simply be lost in the noise. Jews outside Judaea proper were weird. He was weird. So much to be expected. Of course if he was going to pull something as provocative as his ride into Jerusalem, he'd still be in real danger, but by that time the Temple might simply decide they lacked the power to face someone that popular.

I was under the impression that Jesus was essentially preaching that Judea should become independent. Wouldn't that be redundant here if they already are?

slydessertfox said:

I was under the impression that Jesus was essentially preaching that Judea should become independent. Wouldn't that be redundant here if they already are?

Click to expand...

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is hardly a secessionist sentiment.

You have crushed the butterflies under a callous, uncaring foot. Honestly, an independent Judea at Jesus's birth means a POD six or more years before; accounting for people not having to interact and move around to register in the Roman census, Roman legions not passing through and Judean armies doing so, and general changes that will accompany any POD, I think Jesus won't even exist.

Lars Porsenna said:

You have crushed the butterflies under a callous, uncaring foot. Honestly, an independent Judea at Jesus's birth means a POD six or more years before; accounting for people not having to interact and move around to register in the Roman census, Roman legions not passing through and Judean armies doing so, and general changes that will accompany any POD, I think Jesus won't even exist.

Click to expand...

Posit that both Judea is independent and that Jesus exists.

If you want to believe he's the Son of God, then Chaos Theory isn't going to stop him. If you want to believe he's just a mortal man, then assume another young Jewish couple of Davidic decent get married and have a son that goes on to preach the same basic message that Jesus preached.

DominusNovus said:

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is hardly a secessionist sentiment.

Click to expand...

So you are saying Jesus did not want to see the Romans gone from Judea?

Lars Porsenna said:

You have crushed the butterflies under a callous, uncaring foot. Honestly, an independent Judea at Jesus's birth means a POD six or more years before; accounting for people not having to interact and move around to register in the Roman census, Roman legions not passing through and Judean armies doing so, and general changes that will accompany any POD, I think Jesus won't even exist.

Click to expand...

I am fairly certain the idea that his family had to move just to partake in the Roman census just doesn't make sense. But I digress, if the Romans want to use the most inefficient way to make a census possible....

Also, you could still have Herod's descendants ruling Judea with a POD after his birth, whenever that was.

slydessertfox said:

So you are saying Jesus did not want to see the Romans gone from Judea?

Click to expand...

As is generally interpretated, he was looking at a bigger picture then poltics. I mean, he thought he was the Son of God. What random King pretended to rule around him didn't matter much when souls are on the line.

mowque said:

As is generally interpretated, he was looking at a bigger picture then poltics. I mean, he thought he was the Son of God. What random King pretended to rule around him didn't matter much when souls are on the line.

Click to expand...

Caeser might also be a mis-translation or just a generic term for government.

I would suggest to you all, that God specifically chose a point in time when Judea was part of a huge empire before sending his Son. Not much point in 'redeeming the world' if it's only a tiny little corner of it.

DominusNovus said:

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is hardly a secessionist sentiment.

Click to expand...

There are different ways to interpret that saying. The book Zealot posits that Jesus was very much a secesionist and very strongly encouraged an independant Judea from Rome.

It was only later that his followers in the years following the failed judean revolt, that his message was "toned down" and it became all about the spiritual world and not the physical.

When Jesus was proclaimed "King of the Jews" by the romans, it wasn't some ironic insult or anyhting but an actul charge against him as a state rebel.

I agree with other that Jesus' message would be very blunted in an already independent Judea.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

I would suggest to you all, that God specifically chose a point in time when Judea was part of a huge empire before sending his Son. Not much point in 'redeeming the world' if it's only a tiny little corner of it.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I've always felt Jesus's message was especially relevant to how you should live a holy life even when the state religion is different from yours.

Mitchell Hundred said:

There are different ways to interpret that saying. The book Zealot posits that Jesus was very much a secesionist and very strongly encouraged an independant Judea from Rome.

It was only later that his followers in the years following the failed judean revolt, that his message was "toned down" and it became all about the spiritual world and not the physical.

When Jesus was proclaimed "King of the Jews" by the romans, it wasn't some ironic insult or anyhting but an actul charge against him as a state rebel.

I agree with other that Jesus' message would be very blunted in an already independent Judea.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I came to the same conclusion from reading Zealot as well.

DominusNovus said:

under a Jewish monarch and that Jesus of Nazareth still preaches the same basic message as historically

Click to expand...

Well, this is problematic. I'm not going to argue about whether or not he existed, but I think we can all pretty much agree that from a historical perspective, the Gospels are not very useful. So we don't really know what message he did preach - we only know the messages written in Gospels and various apocrypha and similar works. Much of these works are in conflict with each other, including the Gospels themselves. The most we can reliably say - making the assumption of his existence - is that a preacher named Jesus said some rather radical things, condemning the established authorities, money changers, etc., gathered a not inconsiderable following, and may have been executed as a heretic or possibly enemy of the state. I don't see how we can extrapolate from this limited dataset to the ramifications of his message, which we don't really know, onto an independent Judean kingdom.

There may, or probably will, have less of an effort to convert the gentiles if this is the case. Christianity becomes a sect of Judaism, not unlike many others of the time, and may well either overtake the mainstream denomination or fall into obscurity and disappear if there's no real movement to incorporate people into it. The first converts were the poor, were women, were orphans. It was one that rose from the most impoverished and the most oppressed, to the point where the next generation of Christians were brought up that way by their converted mothers.

Even if the message is the same, Paul was the one that made the issue of getting Gentiles into the fold of paramount importance whereas before it was only slightly less discouraged than most other groups of Judaic denominations. You are less likely to get a Paul like figure in an independent Jewish kingdom.

scholar said:

Even if the message is the same, Paul was the one that made the issue of getting Gentiles into the fold of paramount importance whereas before it was only slightly less discouraged than most other groups of Judaic denominations. You are less likely to get a Paul like figure in an independent Jewish kingdom.

Click to expand...

But the Jews were already spread far outside this Jewish kingdom, and his parents might have to flee to Egypt in this timeline as well, so Paul could do approximately the same things as OTL.

Besides, forced conversions of gentiles to Judaism were around before Jesus' days, such as of the Idumaeans, Herod's people.

Mitchell Hundred said:

There are different ways to interpret that saying. The book Zealot posits that Jesus was very much a secesionist and very strongly encouraged an independant Judea from Rome.

Click to expand...

You're misrepresenting the book I'm afraid.

Reza Aslan does not hold the position that Jesus was a Zealot (capital Z as in the Zealot party, the rabid secessionist group operating before and during the revolt) but a zealot (small z as in run of the mill fervent religious preacher) who was separate from the religious hierarchy of the time and his rabid religious activism got him in trouble with the Roman authorities and the Temple authority who (if the NT narrative is accurate as Aslan points out) had him killed by framing him as a secessionist.

There's a far greater likelihood of him being a Pharisee or a pseudo-rabbi that went against the Temple hierarchy. That's a separate issue from the book though.

---

Aside from this I doubt Jesus message would have been much different in an independent Judea, he would have preached against the religious authority and the corruption on the part of the people of Judea and if he had inspired the same message and following could have very easily sparked off a larger religious trend had the Temple authorities been more corrupt at the time.

However, this also means that Christianity is more than likely (even if not terms that) another Jewish cult which most likely won't have a broad impact outside Judea and maybe a few surrounding regions. Without the Empire to help it spread I doubt it would have ended up being as successful.

Jurgen Wullenwever said:

But the Jews were already spread far outside this Jewish kingdom, and his parents might have to flee to Egypt in this timeline as well, so Paul could do approximately the same things as OTL.

Besides, forced conversions of gentiles to Judaism were around before Jesus' days, such as of the Idumaeans, Herod's people.

Click to expand...

Then he wouldn't be in an independent jewish judea, he would be running away from it. Though, I suppose, one of his followers could leave and proselytize in another state. Maybe Baghdad, Persepolis, or Rome.

That is an unrealistic expectation, one that barely exists in both Jewish doctrine and in practical history.

EnglishCanuck said:

However, this also means that Christianity is more than likely (even if not terms that) another Jewish cult which most likely won't have a broad impact outside Judea and maybe a few surrounding regions. Without the Empire to help it spread I doubt it would have ended up being as successful.

Click to expand...

While I agree with you on Christianity being less likely to separate from Judaism on a whole because of it being centered in a jewish country and probably not having Paul, I don't think not having more would be as big of a problem. Georgia and Armenia were the first to convert, so it would be possible to find a patron in the form of smaller states.