survived the romans

**Hurin_Rules** · 03-14-2005, 20:20

Originally Posted by caesar44

unbelievable !!!
"the jews are not a nation"..........................

I never said that. I said "Jews have not survived as a nation for 2000 years. The modern state of Israel, which of course includes Arabs and non-Jews, is a recent invention. This state is nothing like the Jewish kingdoms of the ancient world. So no, 'the Jews' did not survive the Romans as a nation any more than the Greeks did."

by nation I mean an independent nation, a 'nation-state'. The Jews did not survive as an independent nation for 2000 years. In fact, the Jews were deprived of a homeland and autonomy from the first century CE to 1948. So my statement remains true.

what ?!?!?!
waow , this is the year 2005 ?

Hyperbole adds nothing to this debate.

the state of israel is modern invention ? the jews were in judea 1000 years before the roman conquest , they were still living in judea as a nation until about 500 ce !

Then who was the ruler of Israel in 1000? In 1500? in 1848?
By your reasoning, then, Ireland has never ceased to be a sovereign nation, the US confederacy is still an independent nation-state and both the Native Americans and the Roma (gypsies) are currently nation states.

according to hurin the jews should thanks the muslims and christians for their survival...
what do think was hadrian intention in 133 ce when he changed the name of jerusalem to aelia capitolina ? or the name of judea to palestina ? it was to delete the jewish connection to the holly land !

And what was Hadrian's religion?
Yes, the Jews do in large part have Christian and Muslim rulers to thank for surviving as a nation. The Dhimmi laws in Islam and Catholic/Byzantine Church law, in addition to the support of the papacy, have generally worked to protect Jews from persecution. It is undeniable that many Jews have been persecuted, but how many Jews survived in non-Christian or Muslim states? Had they not been seen as peoples of the book, they would have suffered much worse treatment.

please don't make rash statements

Sorry, I find it hard to reply to that; I'm too busy dodging the stones you're throwing from your glass house.

**Gregoshi** · 03-14-2005, 20:55

Let's keep the discussion civil please.

**Watchman** · 03-14-2005, 22:02

The last I checked (some three or four days ago, admittedly) there were at least two Israel-related threads in the Back Room. May I humbly suggest messirs caesar and Hurin take it there if they're inclined to keep going on the topic ?

That aside, either there is something downright odd about Jews (and to my knowledge there isn't) or I strongly suspect the parts of their culture that weren't directly tied to their religion (AFAIK properly termed "Judaism") underwent a whole lot of change depending on where they lived.

Or at least I entirely failt to comprehend how four random Jews from, say, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, England and Spain from, say, the 1500s, would share a "common culture". A religion and a language, certainly, and Jewish traders, envoys and businessmen certainly benefited greatly from that (much the same happened among Muslims, incidentally), but culture ?

**Pindar** · 03-14-2005, 22:30

If I understand the question correctly the focus is nations that survived Roman conquest. Peripheral nations or tribes are not part of the discussion.

Hurin-Rules is right about Jewry and its political fortunes. The same can be said about the religious dimension. Judaism after the sack of Jerusalem and the putting out of the attendant fires was not the same. There are estimated over 70 sects of Judaism prior to the fall of Jerusalem. The aftermath saw the growth of Rabbinic Judaism. The change in Jewish religious life is even more dramatically seen with the destruction of the Temple. The Temple was the center of Jewish devotional life. It was never rebuilt and Judaism was forced to move in new directions.

I don't believe there are any "nations" that survived the Roman conquest intact.

**Watchman** · 03-14-2005, 23:11

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't believe there are any "nations" that survived the Roman conquest intact.

Well, obviously. The Romans liked to integrate the conquered peoples into the Empire and its culture ASAP, so if the Romans were in charge for any longer time any region would get fairly "romanized" pretty quickly.

**Ash** · 03-15-2005, 00:04

Perhaps everyone could define their definition of "nation", so we can all interpet each poster's reply correctly.

ps Modern day Israel is very different from the kingdom of Judea 2000 years ago.

**Hurin_Rules** · 03-15-2005, 03:21

Good idea.

Perhaps Caesar44 is not a native English speaker, in which case the confusion regarding 'nation' may be completely understandable.

The English word 'nation' comes from the Latin 'natio', which usually means a people or tribe. But the modern English word nation more commonly refers to a 'nation-state', that is to say, a sovereign political entity.

If we define it as the latter, then clearly, there was no sovereign Jewish 'state' after the Roman conquest and the destruction of the Temple.

If we define it as the former, then clearly, there are many peoples and tribes, in addition to the Jews, who survived the Roman conquest. The Jews also retained their distinctive religion (although as Pindar noted it went through some important changes after 70 CE), which was unusual. But alongside the Jews we could also place the Greeks, Arabs, various Slavic and Germanic tribes, etc.