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

[Eusebio]

I've read estimates (don't know how accurate) that Jews made up 10% of the population of the Roman Empire, were said to have comprised almost half of the population of Alexandria and were numerous enough to take control of that city, Cyrenaica, the entire island of Cyprus etc. during the Kitos war, and raise strong enough armies to defeat several Roman legions during the various Roman-Jewish wars ending in the Bar Kokba revolt. But how did the Jewish people become so numerous and influential from being a backwater border people constantly getting overrun and enslaved by invading Near Eastern states in the 6th century BC?

 

[Henry IX]

I've read estimates (don't know how accurate) that Jews made up 10% of the population of the Roman Empire, were said to have comprised almost half of the population of Alexandria and were numerous enough to take control of that city, Cyrenaica, the entire island of Cyprus etc. during the Kitos war, and raise strong enough armies to defeat several Roman legions during the various Roman-Jewish wars ending in the Bar Kokba revolt. But how did the Jewish people become so numerous and influential from being a backwater border people constantly getting overrun and enslaved by invading Near Eastern states in the 6th century BC?

The figure of 10% of the Roman Empire seems based of some dodgy demographics. The real figure is likely less that 3.5million Jews, which is still significant, and seems to have arisen by active conversion. Judaism took its modern non-evangelical form after the diaspora. As such Christian evangelicalism should be seen as a continuation of earlier practice rather than a radical split from Judaism.

 

[Geriander]

The figure of 10% of the Roman Empire seems based of some dodgy demographics. The real figure is likely less that 3.5million Jews, which is still significant, and seems to have arisen by active conversion. Judaism took its modern non-evangelical form after the diaspora. As such Christian evangelicalism should be seen as a continuation of earlier practice rather than a radical split from Judaism.

Do you have a source regarding mass conversions to Judaism during the period? I can’t recall hearing about it with the exception of the Khazars later on.

 

[Henry IX]

The Invention of the Jewish People, by Shlomo Sand is the best known book on the topic, although I have not read it myself. You should also take its findings with a grain of salt - it was a controversial book to say the least. None the less, active conversion explains many of the odd features of Jewish demographics in the Roman Empire.

 

[JodelDiplom]

We already had a discussion about the origin of the Jewish people in the thread about Hitler and the Poles. What I found remarkable was that a genetic study of Ashkenazi (http://www.ancient-origins.net/huma...zi-jews-their-origins-may-surprise-you-009924) found out that the European Jewish population basically had a huge western European DNA component and a relatively small middle Eastern DNA component. The female side was said to have been completely European with no middle eastern component to it. And that was despite Ashkenazi having been essentially a closed DNA pool with no exogamy for at least the past 1000 years.

What I took from that was that there must have been a time during the Roman era or the early middle ages when being Jewish didn't mean that your ancestors were from the Palestine region, or that you had to marry a Jewish wife of you were a Jewish man. Once you accept that that side of modern Jewishness hasn't always been like that, it's easy to accept that also the non proselytizing facet might have been different in the far past.

 

[MCMartel]

1. The 10% figure is a wild exaggeration, I've never heard anyting higher than low-mid single digits. So that's part 1
2. Part 2 is that the Romans conquered the entire place where most jews lived, in Judea, so it kinda makes sense Jews would be in the roman empire in large numbers, because they'd captured the area where most jews in the world lived.
3. By and large, Jews are not evangelical, and never to the extent that Christinaity or Islam, Judaism's fellow abrahamic relgions are. There is some evidence this was different in the past, it was never a huge part of judaism like it was with christianity or Islam.
4. Sidenote. The Ashkenazim are mostly middle eastern (at most 40-50% eurpean) and have nothing to do with the Khazars. The european part of the DNA is from 1000+ years of living in Europe. The royal family, and possibly much of the nobility (This is debated and evidence is kinda sparse) Khazarian Khaganate converted to remain distinct from the Christian Byzantines and Muslim Calihphate, but this was a relatively small group that is not meaningfully related to modern Ashkenazim (neither in the right place, Askhenazim seem to have originated roughly in germany, not the steppe, and the founding population is thought to be later than the jewish period of the Khazarian Khaganate (1000 CE vs 800 or so CE)

 

[Sarmatia1871]

We already had a discussion about the origin of the Jewish people in the thread about Hitler and the Poles. What I found remarkable was that a genetic study of Ashkenazi (http://www.ancient-origins.net/huma...zi-jews-their-origins-may-surprise-you-009924) found out that the European Jewish population basically had a huge western European DNA component and a relatively small middle Eastern DNA component. The female side was said to have been completely European with no middle eastern component to it. And that was despite Ashkenazi having been essentially a closed DNA pool with no exogamy for at least the past 1000 years.

What I took from that was that there must have been a time during the Roman era or the early middle ages when being Jewish didn't mean that your ancestors were from the Palestine region, or that you had to marry a Jewish wife of you were a Jewish man. Once you accept that that side of modern Jewishness hasn't always been like that, it's easy to accept that also the non proselytizing facet might have been different in the far past.

There really ought to be a ban on grand historical speculations based on genetic studies. Doing so from the level of presentation from that report is little better than using astrology.

 

[pithorr]

Well, the great part of Ashkenazis still had a "Jewish look" in 1940s and it must have had something in common with the genetics. It definetly wasn't helpful for them

 

[Rubidium]

Getting away from more recent history; there was at least some outreach/conversion happening during the Roman empire. Judaism before the Jewish Revolt was seen as "cool" and "exotic" (in the same way as e.g. certain Eastern religions during the 1960s), and developed a population of sort of half-converts, who were not fully Jewish (the whole circumcision thing was a major sticking point, for obvious reasons), but participated in some Jewish rituals. A lot of these became Christians later on.

10% seems way too high, though, even including those.

 

[Imgran]

I have another theory, and there seems to be at least some basis for it historically.

One of the peculiarities of the Jews is their insistence that all adult men, or at least as many as possible, attend school and learn to read their scriptures. It's their duty to become literate so they can read the scriptures to their children. This is traditional and not always observed, but it did lead to a larger than usual educated Jewish middle class that was literate and numerate.

Enter the Roman Empire. A massive, unwieldy mammoth run by a people with a very good idea of how to conquer, but much less of an idea how to administer their conquests and in need of a massive influx of literate administrators and bureaucrats.

This created a massive opportunity for the literati of subject races, especially the Greeks who the Romans already culturally respected and borrowed heavily from, but the Jews as well, as another highly literate people, would have been in position to take advantage.

Basically it's not inaccurate to say that the Romans conquered and governed their Empire, but the Jews and Greeks ran it, in the sense that these people featured heavily in the rank and file bureaucracy of government, simply because they were a large part of the available labor pool of highly literate administrators.

They would hardly be the first Empire to experience this phenomenon. Jewish ex-pats rose to some prominence in both the Babylonian and Persian empires, and if the Bible is to be believed, the Egyptian as well. Not to mention that this is how the Han Chinese retained their cultural identity and ultimately converted their conquerors time and again.

In other words, create a large more-or-less cosmopolitan nation including Jews, and they'll find a way to make themselves useful to its leaders. This, of course, will lead both to opportunities for comfortable living, and the consequent increase in relative population that a disproportionate share of the middle and upper class population would mean.

 

[JodelDiplom]

I have another theory, and there seems to be at least some basis for it historically.

One of the peculiarities of the Jews is their insistence that all adult men, or at least as many as possible, attend school and learn to read their scriptures. It's their duty to become literate so they can read the scriptures to their children. This is traditional and not always observed, but it did lead to a larger than usual educated Jewish middle class that was literate and numerate.

Enter the Roman Empire. A massive, unwieldy mammoth run by a people with a very good idea of how to conquer, but much less of an idea how to administer their conquests and in need of a massive influx of literate administrators and bureaucrats.

This created a massive opportunity for the literati of subject races, especially the Greeks who the Romans already culturally respected and borrowed heavily from, but the Jews as well, as another highly literate people, would have been in position to take advantage.

Basically it's not inaccurate to say that the Romans conquered and governed their Empire, but the Jews and Greeks ran it, in the sense that these people featured heavily in the rank and file bureaucracy of government, simply because they were a large part of the available labor pool of highly literate administrators.

They would hardly be the first Empire to experience this phenomenon. Jewish ex-pats rose to some prominence in both the Babylonian and Persian empires, and if the Bible is to be believed, the Egyptian as well. Not to mention that this is how the Han Chinese retained their cultural identity and ultimately converted their conquerors time and again.

In other words, create a large more-or-less cosmopolitan nation including Jews, and they'll find a way to make themselves useful to its leaders. This, of course, will lead both to opportunities for comfortable living, and the consequent increase in relative population that a disproportionate share of the middle and upper class population would mean.

Jews involved in the administration of the Roman Empire? First time I heard of such a theory.

 

[MCMartel]

@Imgran The requirement for universal male literacy was a much later development in judaism, like, centuries later, it developed after the second temple was destroyed by the romans and even then, not for quite a while.
@JodelDiplom The reason you haven't heard of this is because AFAIK, this is basically completely false.

 

[Yakman]

the reason for the 10 %, from what i understand, is from archaeological digs which claim to have found lots of Jewish artifacts. They extrapolate out that the Roman population was ~ 10 % Jewish.

Eh. Dunno about that.

BUT you look at the explosion of the Christian population and you gotta think.

 

[pithorr]

That Christian explosion was rather due to the Greeks...

 

[Holmes]

Jews involved in the administration of the Roman Empire? First time I heard of such a theory.

http://www.livius.org/articles/person/julius-alexander-jr/

You must remember everything changed after the revolt, after that no jew could serve in the military for instance, but before then, those of the jewish faith were involved.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

War had broken out in Judaea. The Jews had revolted for fiscal reasons......

 

[Yakman]

That Christian explosion was rather due to the Greeks...

how do you think the Christian networks expanded so rapidly from a Jewish core?

It followed the Jewish diaspora.

 

[Barsoom]

The Invention of the Jewish People, by Shlomo Sand is the best known book on the topic, although I have not read it myself. You should also take its findings with a grain of salt - it was a controversial book to say the least. None the less, active conversion explains many of the odd features of Jewish demographics in the Roman Empire.

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.

 

[pithorr]

how do you think the Christian networks expanded so rapidly from a Jewish core?

It followed the Jewish diaspora.

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.

 

[Yakman]

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.

Yes, exactly. There were plenty of hellenized jews to be across the entire mediterranean, and the christians followed them immediately. that talks to more than a scattering of tiny, isolated communities. if the jews were just a tiny fraction of the empire's population... i don't know if things that we know that happened would have happened.

the christians basically tagged along with the hellenized jews first, then greeks who had connections to hellenized jews, and then people who had connections with those people, and so on and so on.

that's how religious movements spread (when it's not conquistador / ghazi style). but they need a base of connections. paul's gotta be writing those letters to somebody, after all.