2. How was ancient Judaism different from other ancient near-eastern religions? What impact did this have on a?
It was Monotheistic and their One God picked them out as his Chosen People. This caused them to see time and life as a progression towards a goal (the promised land) rather than the normal cyclical time paradigm, which had a fatalistic non- progressive outlook. This goal orientation particularize and unified the Hebrew culture. Their notion of History was of a people rather than a mere listing of dynasties. The Hebrews resisted the Roman occupation with more virulence than any other of their conquered people.
How would the history of Christianity and Islam be different if the Jewish Temple had not been destroyed in 70 CE and Jerusalem around 60 years later?
I can't speak for Islam, but Christianity might have had to wait for whatever the next big slight against the people of Israel may have been. A lot of what was written about, at least in terms of the four gospel accounts, revolved, and originated, around the point of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. That was the catalyst for writing and compiling the stories in the gospels. So, without knowing for certain, if the Temple remained intact, it would have had some drastic effects on the composition of the New Testament, and likely the evolution of the faith. Perhaps Christianity never would have taken off. However we will never know, as clearly the case is that it was destroyed.
If the ancient kingdom of Israel had not been destroyed by the Romans, how would world history be different?
It's hard to predict as others have stated, but here is one possible scenario for your consideration:Rabbinic Judaism, which became dominant after the destruction of the Temple, derives from the Pharisee sect of Judaism which had incorporated a number of Hellenistic philosophical beliefs (while the Sadducees were more enamored of Hellenistic culture), in particular their view of the afterlife and resurrection. It's not surprising that St. Paul was a Pharisee. He did, however, promote some other rather radical positions, such as it was not necessary for Hellenized converts to Judaism to be circumcised or follow all of the dietary rules.Perhaps if the Temple, and Israel in general (or Judea) had not been destroyed, his take on Christianised Judaism would not have been as dominant. There is reason to believe he did not completely see eye to eye with James in Jerusalem.Would the "Paulist" party still have split with James' more observant Jerusalem Christians anyway? Would there still have been as strong a split between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, or would the James sect have ended up as just another branch of Judaism more along the lines of the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes? Could Judaism proper have become the basis for the ideological overthrow of the Empire's philosophical and religious underpinnings, with Paul's take on things fading away like Arianism? Who knows? Though it does seem like some variant would be necessary that could make use of the information superhighway the Empire had created and accept converts from many different cultures, while not requiring too many complications to conversion.
Anyone Know About Ancient Israel?? =P?
1. Romans first. They're a much easier question. The Romans destroyed the temple and exiled the Jews because the Jews had been rebelling in an attempt to get religious and political freedom. (The Romans had been imposing harsh taxes, appointing high priests to the Jewish temple based on who had political pull, etc., etc. The temple was destroyed during the 1st Jewish revolt, and the Jews were exiled from Jerusalem but not Israel as a whole. The Jews were exiled (mostly, some remained for centuries) from Israel following the 3rd Jewish revolt. 2. How did Judaism grow during the exile? Much longer question. (It goes from the year 70 until either 1948 or until the present, depending on who you ask.) Right. After the destruction of the Temple, a politically savvy Rabbi named Yochanan ben Zakki convinced the Roman General (I think it was Vespasian) to allow an academy to be opened in the city of Yanveh. Here, ben Zakki and various other Rabbis began debating and discussing the Oral Law (according to Jewish tradition, this was given at Mt. Sinai with the Bible, or written law). This marked the beginning of Judaism as a religion centered around learning, and not around the temple (the temple having been destroyed). The oral law, as well as the debates of these Rabbis, was collected by Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi (Judah the Prince, he was a descendant of King David) into a book called the Mishnah. After the Jews were exiled by the Romans, the major Jewish community of the time, living in modern day Iraq, wrote the Babylonian Talmud. This work extrapolates upon the Mishnah, and is a central Jewish work. Meanwhile, those Rabbis who managed to remain in Israel wrote the Jerusalem Talmud (usually translated as the Palestinian Talmud) which served a similar role as its Babylonian counterpart. However, because of the relative lack of Jews in Israel (by now renamed Palestine by the Romans) this book was not finished and never had the same following as the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud was finished in about 500. Meanwhile... well, I think you only meant the period relatively near the exile, which would just be the Mishnah. If not, I could go on for a while...
How did the ancient Hebrews form a nation in ancient Israel?
Historians say that the Hebrews may have gained control of the land around the 1200s b.c. After Moses died they beleived it was the land G-d had promised.
How can a jewish worship center be called a temple when the one true temple was destroyed in 70 AD?
It is a nickname. Maybe a little wishful thinking. We go to temple at the Synagogue .