Why was there such a large Jewish population in the Roman Empire by the first century AD?

[Barsoom]

In the beginning it expanded to Greek (or maybe rather Hellenic...) cities: Alexandria, Antioch, Philadelphia, Thessaloniki, Ephesus etc. due to the diaspora indeed. But the "explosion" took place later. On the other hand the disapora was already hellenized and the New Testament was first written in Greek, not Hebrew or even Aramaic.
For majority of the Jews Christianity was (and is) nothing more but a heretic sect.

Greek was the language of the educated in the eastern part of the Roman empire and much more widely understood than Hebrew. It's possible that converts to Judaism learned Hebrew, I guess, but it's pretty certain that not all god-fearers knew the language. In addition, it suited the efforts of Paul of Tarsus to turn a Jewish sect into a universally appealing church. By happy coincidence (the New Testament was probably written down because eye witnesses began to die), in the decades after 70AD it also put some distance between the Christians and the rebellious Jews whose suppression was the major feat of arms of two emperors whose propaganda therefore kept hammering at the Jews.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Greek was the language of the educated in the eastern part of the Roman empire and much more widely understood than Hebrew. It's possible that converts to Judaism learned Hebrew, I guess, but it's pretty certain that not all god-fearers knew the language. In addition, it suited the efforts of Paul of Tarsus to turn a Jewish sect into a universally appealing church. By happy coincidence (the New Testament was probably written down because eye witnesses began to die), in the decades after 70AD it also put some distance between the Christians and the rebellious Jews whose suppression was the major feat of arms of two emperors whose propaganda therefore kept hammering at the Jews.

Paul did this to suit himself? Perhaps that is a statement lost in translation.

Saul of Tarsus, very learned in both Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, was part of the Sandhedrin, and an up and comer in Judaism who may well have ended up as the high priest of the Temple. He willingly began a vicious prosecution of the Christian heresy, and famously held the coats of the men who stoned the first martyr, Stephen, to death. He was given a commission to seek out and destroy Christianity in the provinces.

On the road to Damascus, he beheld Christ and was blinded, his sight restored by a Christian. The other disciples threw lots to pick Judas' successor, Jesus went out and found his own in a man who understood the Hebrew scriptures like few others and could explain it to the Gentiles in a language they could understand, Greek. And with this commission was given a new name, Paul, 'small and humble'.

Paul of Tarsus became a light unto the world down to this day. He planted seeds in fertile soil, the took nothing for himself; born a wealthy man, destined for high office in Jerusalem, he threw it all away to live as a pauper. Forsaking his home, wandering endlessly, he is beheaded as a Roman who loved God over Rome.

 

[Eusebio]

Paul did this to suit himself? Perhaps that is a statement lost in translation.

Saul of Tarsus, very learned in both Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, was part of the Sandhedrin, and an up and comer in Judaism who may well have ended up as the high priest of the Temple. He willingly began a vicious prosecution of the Christian heresy, and famously held the coats of the men who stoned the first martyr, Stephen, to death. He was given a commission to seek out and destroy Christianity in the provinces.

On the road to Damascus, he beheld Christ and was blinded, his sight restored by a Christian. The other disciples threw lots to pick Judas' successor, Jesus went out and found his own in a man who understood the Hebrew scriptures like few others and could explain it to the Gentiles in a language they could understand, Greek. And with this commission was given a new name, Paul, 'small and humble'.

Paul of Tarsus became a light unto the world down to this day. He planted seeds in fertile soil, the took nothing for himself; born a wealthy man, destined for high office in Jerusalem, he threw it all away to live as a pauper. Forsaking his home, wandering endlessly, he is beheaded as a Roman who loved God over Rome.

Well, yes, that is the story in Acts, a source which has severe reliability problems...for one thing, contradicting what Paul writes in his own letters multiple times (e.g. compare Galatians 2:6-10 with Acts 15:22-29).

The stories about Paul in Acts are there for the purpose of domesticating him to the Church and smoothing over theological differences between different Jesus factions. It's a mistake to take them as historical fact.

 

[Yakman]

Well, yes, that is the story in Acts, a source which has severe reliability problems...for one thing, contradicting what Paul writes in his own letters multiple times (e.g. compare Galatians 2:6-10 with Acts 15:22-29).

The stories about Paul in Acts are there for the purpose of domesticating him to the Church and smoothing over theological differences between different Jesus factions. It's a mistake to take them as historical fact.

We have Paul 's letters. People contradict themselves all the time. Seneca knew of him (iirc).

The dude was following Hellenic Jewish networks across the Empire just a decade or so after Jesus' death. Had to have been plenty of Jews, in good communication with each other for that to happen.

It wasn't Jewish peasants (the apostles save perhaps St. Matthew, who was a tax collector, and thus presumably knew at least some Greek) who wrote the gospels. It was an educated class of Hellenic Jews.

Maybe 10% of the total Roman population wasn't Jewish, but they were a significant part of at least the urban population.

 

[Eusebio]

We have Paul 's letters.

Yes, I referred to them?

 

[Yakman]

Yes, I referred to them?

I expanded.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Well, yes, that is the story in Acts, a source which has severe reliability problems...for one thing, contradicting what Paul writes in his own letters multiple times (e.g. compare Galatians 2:6-10 with Acts 15:22-29).

You are a Christian?

 

[Henry IX]

I read it. The reason it's controversial is because of the political implications of the research: Jewish claims to Palestine rest on the myth that modern Jews are linear descendants of the ancient inhabitants.* Sand shows that conversion was rather common before Christian and Muslim dominance shut it down; examples include the Roman Empire (both Jewish demographics and god-fearers), Adiabene in present-day Syria, a Berber kingdom in Algeria and an Arab one in Jemen. Outside the areas controlled by Christian and Muslim rulers, conversion to Judaism continued for a long time, with the Khazar khanate as the best-known example. Assuming the converts procreated, it follows that Jewish populations outside Palestine have at least mixed descent.

Incidentally, Sand also shows that Jewish revolts occurred in Palestine long after the destruction of the Second Temple. This means that a lot of Jewish people must have stayed, rather than have been forced into exile. What happened to the Jewish people who stayed is most likely gradual conversion to the rulers' religion, i.e. Islam. As early Zionists acknowledged, the Palestinians inhabiting their intended homeland were at least in part descendants of Jews, whose claims to the land are therefore just as old as those of the Jews coming in from Europe.

*In Sand's perspective, political legitimacy comes from representing people who actually live in the administered territory. Since many Jews have in good faith built their lives there, they shouldn't be forced to leave, though they should be fair to others who also live there. His view is that Israel can't be a Jewish nation and democratic at the same time and he prefers the latter.

I understand that some of the historical evidence he musters are problematic, certainly some fairly eminent historians accused him of cherry picking data. He was also accused of writing history with a political objective, exactly what he accuses others of doing...

I suspect one's political affiliation will have a significant impact on ones' opinion of his work.

Paul did this to suit himself? Perhaps that is a statement lost in translation.

Paul certainly did it for his purposes, that were always explicitly evangelical. He didn't do it for his material benefit but he certainly acted to broaden and expand the new church which was his primary objective in life at this point.

 

[Barsoom]

Paul did this to suit himself? Perhaps that is a statement lost in translation.

Saul of Tarsus, very learned in both Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, was part of the Sandhedrin, and an up and comer in Judaism who may well have ended up as the high priest of the Temple. He willingly began a vicious prosecution of the Christian heresy, and famously held the coats of the men who stoned the first martyr, Stephen, to death. He was given a commission to seek out and destroy Christianity in the provinces.

On the road to Damascus, he beheld Christ and was blinded, his sight restored by a Christian. The other disciples threw lots to pick Judas' successor, Jesus went out and found his own in a man who understood the Hebrew scriptures like few others and could explain it to the Gentiles in a language they could understand, Greek. And with this commission was given a new name, Paul, 'small and humble'.

Paul of Tarsus became a light unto the world down to this day. He planted seeds in fertile soil, the took nothing for himself; born a wealthy man, destined for high office in Jerusalem, he threw it all away to live as a pauper. Forsaking his home, wandering endlessly, he is beheaded as a Roman who loved God over Rome.

I didn't say that Paul did this to suit himself, in fact I didn't say anything about Paul's motives or the events leading up to them. I only said that writing in Greek fit with Paul's efforts to make his religion attractive outside the Jewish community. I don't think you're disputing that the push for proselytization outside of the Jewish communities came from Paul, so it appears your objection is to something I didn't say.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Paul certainly did it for his purposes,

Capitalize 'His' and I'm with you; if you think it was Paul's doing and not a Higher Calling, then I cannot agree.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

I didn't say that Paul did this to suit himself, in fact I didn't say anything about Paul's motives or the events leading up to them. I only said that writing in Greek fit with Paul's efforts to make his religion attractive outside the Jewish community. I don't think you're disputing that the push for proselytization outside of the Jewish communities came from Paul, so it appears your objection is to something I didn't say.

Or, as is not usual on this site, something lost in translation between two languages; not what you said but how you said it. Which is why I asked, and I appreciate your explanation.

And, yes, we can complete agree that Peter prosletyzed the Circumcised, and Paul the Gentiles. And between these two pillars great good was done.

 

[Barsoom]

I understand that some of the historical evidence he musters are problematic, certainly some fairly eminent historians accused him of cherry picking data. He was also accused of writing history with a political objective, exactly what he accuses others of doing...

I suspect one's political affiliation will have a significant impact on ones' opinion of his work.

Probably. The merit of Sand's historical research doesn't depend on whether or not you agree with his political perspective, it lies in whether he accurately describes the events of the past or not. Personally, I think that some of those eminent historians disqualify themselves by using ideological arguments rather than historical evidence. Others address real problems with the historical record and Sand's interpretation of it. The biggest of these is that there is little evidence of mass conversion to Judaism as opposed to conversion of the ruling dynasties. I think that's really not that surprising, considering the scarcity of written records on folk religion. If there were just one or two cases of conversion, it would be a good critique. But the fact is, there is evidence of mass conversion within the Roman empire before the rise of Christianity and there are several later cases, reducing the probability that only small groups of elite inhabitants of each of these polities converted. On this point the burden of proof, in my view, lies with Sand's critics.

 

[Barsoom]

Regarding OP's question, there is a suggestion that Jews are an ethnic group so the expansion of the number of Jews in the Roman empire raises basic questions of demographics. For a religious group, the obvious answer is conversion. Convincing people to become Jewish by changing religion can go a lot quicker than getting people to be born. The objection to that is that Judaism is not a proselytizing religion, instead limiting its appeal to the descendants of Jews. The counterargument to this objection is that Judaism didn't always limit itself in this way. Judaism as we know it, rabbinical Judaism, crystallized after the destruction of the Second Temple (70AD) and took a few centuries to establish itself as the mainstream. OP's question, however, concerns Judaism before the rise of the rabbi's.

 

[Henry IX]

Capitalize 'His' and I'm with you; if you think it was Paul's doing and not a Higher Calling, then I cannot agree.

I will agree that this is certainly what Paul thought. As an atheist I am afraid I cannot go further...

Agree to cordially disagree?

Probably. The merit of Sand's historical research doesn't depend on whether or not you agree with his political perspective, it lies in whether he accurately describes the events of the past or not. Personally, I think that some of those eminent historians disqualify themselves by using ideological arguments rather than historical evidence. Others address real problems with the historical record and Sand's interpretation of it. The biggest of these is that there is little evidence of mass conversion to Judaism as opposed to conversion of the ruling dynasties. I think that's really not that surprising, considering the scarcity of written records on folk religion. If there were just one or two cases of conversion, it would be a good critique. But the fact is, there is evidence of mass conversion within the Roman empire before the rise of Christianity and there are several later cases, reducing the probability that only small groups of elite inhabitants of each of these polities converted. On this point the burden of proof, in my view, lies with Sand's critics.

Fair enough. His findings certainly gel with my own views, so I am cautious of whether I can trust my own responses, hence my cautious hedging. I am always wary about political conclusions drawn from history that support my own, I think it is far too easy to accept bad arguments just because it suits. I have seen a lot of critique of his work, and without enough knowledge of the specific details I am inclined to suspicion of convenient 'truths'.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

I will agree that this is certainly what Paul thought. As an atheist I am afraid I cannot go further...

Agree to cordially disagree?

Fair enough.

 

[XtraJones]

H. G. Wells speculated that it was the conversion of other Semitic peoples in the wake of the Punic Wars.

"So ended the Third Punic War. Of all the Semitic states and cities that had flourished in the world five centuries before only one little country remained free under native rulers. This was Judea, which had liberated itself from the Seleucids and was under the rule of the native Maccabean princes. By this time it had its Bible almost complete, and was developing the distinctive traditions of the Jewish world as we know it now. It was natural that the Carthaginians, Phoenicians and kindred peoples dispersed about the world should find a common link in their practically identical language and in this literature of hope and courage.To a large extent they were still the traders and bankers of the world. The Semitic world had been submerged rather than replaced." -A Short History of the World.

 

[JodelDiplom]

H. G. Wells speculated that it was the conversion of other Semitic peoples in the wake of the Punic Wars.

"So ended the Third Punic War. Of all the Semitic states and cities that had flourished in the world five centuries before only one little country remained free under native rulers. This was Judea, which had liberated itself from the Seleucids and was under the rule of the native Maccabean princes. By this time it had its Bible almost complete, and was developing the distinctive traditions of the Jewish world as we know it now. It was natural that the Carthaginians, Phoenicians and kindred peoples dispersed about the world should find a common link in their practically identical language and in this literature of hope and courage.To a large extent they were still the traders and bankers of the world. The Semitic world had been submerged rather than replaced." -A Short History of the World.

An interesting thought. But as you say speculation only. Do we know enough about the languages of the middle east in the 2 centuries BC to tell whether Punic and Aramaic really were similar?

 

[Barsoom]

H. G. Wells speculated that it was the conversion of other Semitic peoples in the wake of the Punic Wars.

"So ended the Third Punic War. Of all the Semitic states and cities that had flourished in the world five centuries before only one little country remained free under native rulers. This was Judea, which had liberated itself from the Seleucids and was under the rule of the native Maccabean princes. By this time it had its Bible almost complete, and was developing the distinctive traditions of the Jewish world as we know it now. It was natural that the Carthaginians, Phoenicians and kindred peoples dispersed about the world should find a common link in their practically identical language and in this literature of hope and courage.To a large extent they were still the traders and bankers of the world. The Semitic world had been submerged rather than replaced." -A Short History of the World.

I wouldn't give it much credit. The basis for the idea is a natural kinship between ethnically and linguistically related people - a common enough belief before the World Wars but the evidence is not great. The English and the Germans great affinity for each other? Nah. Religious conversion follows the same pattern? Many nations are heterogeneous and quite few came into existence because one part of a formerly united people converted while another part didn't. In fact, this is how Israelites became separated from Phoenicians. Of course it's easier to learn a related language and easier to pick up ideas from people whose language you speak but I wouldn't go further than that.

First, the Phoenician city of Tyre regained independence only 20 years after the Maccabean revolt and didn't lose it until the late 4th century. Of course its foreign policy was largely dictated by first the Seleucids and later the Romans, but so was that of Judea. Domestic autonomy was enjoyed by other Phoenician cities as well. The yoke of empire rested a lot more lightly than modern state control over society in any case, leaving cities largely self-governing as long as they didn't form armies or stop paying taxes. Even in Punic cities, even in Carthage itself when it was rebuilt, the language and many of the customs stuck around for centuries. If loss of independence were enough reason to take on another religion, there were maybe 20 years when Phoenicians might have looked to the south and over 3 centuries (after 70AD) when Jews would have looked to the north. They had already adopted a Syrian language in place of their own, it doesn't make sense that religion would travel primarily in the opposite direction.

Second, if you look at the various places where large communities of Jews were attested, the pattern doesn't hold. The biggest community outside Palestine was in Alexandria, not Phoenicia or Carthage. Phoenicians for the most part didn't convert. Semitic Arabs sometimes converted, sometimes not, but not in any logical pattern. H.G. Wells doesn't name Jemen or Adiabene, both Semitic but autonomous and one of them a stronger state than most of its neighbors. In northern Africa, the converts were Berbers as well as Punics. Groups of god-fearers were common in non-Semitic Asia Minor, where Paul traveled.

Oh, and that bit about Semitic peoples being the traders and bankers of the world? Best not dwell on that.

 

[MCMartel]

Also, um, can we talk about how "semetic" languages doesn't mean "of or related to jews." It's just a language family, like the Finno-urgric languages, or bantu languages.

 

[Geriander]

Phonecian is placed in the Caanite sub group of the Semitic languages along with hebrew and appear to once have been very close. 800 years of seperation and loan words from their African and Greek neighbours probably made Punic quite different though.