Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica XVIII, 2012, 161-193
ARE THERE ANY NEW FACTORS CONCERNING THE BAR-KOKHBA
REVOLT?
MENAHEM MOR 1
Keywords: Bar-Kokhba revolt, ban of circumcision, foundation of Aelia
Capitolina.
Abstract: The author focuses his research on four main subjects concerning the BarKokhba revolt: (1) Hadrian’s promise to rebuild the Temple, (2) the ban on
circumcision, (3) the Foundation of Aelia Capitolina and (4) Bar Kokhba’s
leadership.
Rezumat: Autorul îşi concentrează analiza asupra a 4 puncte importante privind
revolta lui Bar-Kokhba: (1) promisiunea lui Hadrian de a reconstrui templul din
Ierusalim, (2) interzicerea circumciziei, (3) întemeierea Aeliei Capitolina,
(4)conducerea lui Bar Kokhba.
One subject that has been extensively discussed in the research on the
Bar-Kokhba revolt is the question regarding the immediate factors that
caused its outbreak. During the last two decades, this issue has been
examined from several points of view. 2 In my book, The Bar-Kochba Revolt:
Its Extent and Effect, I discussed this at length. My main argument was that
a revolt does not usually break out because of immediate causes. The
decision to go to war against a superior military force, both in numbers
and in organization, is the result of cumulative and continuous factors in
the social, economic, national and religious spheres. 3 Since the direct
causes for the revolt have recently been raised once again for discussion, I
shall focus my examination of them in light of the sources and research
done in recent years on the following subjects: (1) Hadrian’s promise to
rebuild the Temple, (2) the ban on circumcision, (3) the Foundation of
Aelia Capitolina and (4) Bar Kokhba’s leadership.
University of Haifa, mmor@uni.haifa.ac.il.
MOR, RAPPAPORT 2001. See also the bibliographical appendix to this article.
3 MOR 1991.
1
2
162
MENAHEM MOR
1. Hadrian’s Promise to Rebuild the Temple
Midrash Genesis Rabba, 64:29
In the days of R. Joshua b. Hananiah the [Roman] State ordered the
Temple to be rebuilt. Pappus and Lulianus set tables from Acco as
far as Antioch and provided those who came up from the Exile [i.e.
Babylon] with all their needs. Thereupon Samaritans went and
warned [the Emperor]: ‘Be it known now unto the king, that, if this
rebellious city be builded and the walls finished, they will not pay
tribute (mindah), impost (belo) or toll – halak’ (Ezra IV, 13): ‘mindah’
is land tax; ‘belo’ is poll-tax1; ‘halak’ is androtiga.2 ‘Yet what can I
do,’ said he, ‘seeing that I have already given the order?’ ‘Send a
command to them that they must change its site or add five cubits
thereto or lessen it by five cubits, and then they will with draw from it
of their own accord.’ Now the Community [of Israel] was assembled
in the plain of Beth Rimmon; when the [royal] dispatches arrived,
they burst out weeping, and wanted to revolt against the [Roman]
power. Thereupon they [the Sages] decided: Let R. Joshua b.
Hanania go, as he is a master of Scripture. So he went and
harangued them: A wild lion killed [an animal], and a bone stuck in
his throat. Thereupon he proclaimed: ‘I will reward anyone who
removes it.’ An Egyptian heron, which has a long beak, came and
pulled it out and demanded his reward. ‘Go’, he replied, ‘you will
be able to boast that you entered the lion’s mouth in peace and came
out in peace’ [unscathed]. Even so, Let us be satisfied that we entered
into dealings with this people in peace and have emerged in peace
(Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, Translated by Freedman, H). 4
3F
הושיבו פפוס ולוליאנוס טרפיזין מעכו ועד, בימי ר' יהושע בן חנניה גזרה מלכות שיבנה בית המקדש4
אזלין אילין כותאי ואמרין ליה ידיע ליהוי למלכא דיהן קריתא דך תתבנא,אנטיוכיה והיו מספיקים לעולי גולה
והלך, בלו זה פרוביגרון,ושוריא ישתכללון מנדה בלו והלך לא ינתנון )עזרא ד יג( מנדה זו מידת הארץ
אמרין ליה שלח אמר להון ישנוניה מן אתריה אי יוספון עלוי חמש, אמר להון מה נעביד וגזרית,לאדרוטינה
, הוין קהלייא מצמתין בהדא בקעתא דבית רמון.אמין או יבצרון מיניה חמש אמין ומן גרמון אינון חזרין בהון
אמרין, אמרין יעול חד בר נש חכים וישרך ציבורא,כיוון דאתון כתביא שורון בייכין בעיין ממרד על מלכותא
אמר כל, על ודרש אריה טרף טרף ועמד עצם בגרונו,יעול ר' יהושע בן חנניה דהוא אסכולסטיקה דאורייתא
Are There Any New Factors Concerning the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?
163
This source describes the promise made by Hadrian to rebuild the Temple
in Jerusalem. The plan failed because of the subversions of the Samaritans,
and its cancellation nearly led to a Jewish revolt against Hadrian. Since I
have adopted the approach of those researchers who discount the
historical value of the source, I shall not expand on this matter. 5 In my
view, this text belongs with a number of Jewish anti-Samaritan sources
that try to present the Samaritans as the schemers behind most of the
calamities that befell the Jews. 6
4F
5F
2. The Ban on Circumcision
Historia Augusta, Hadrianus 14.2:
Moverunt ea tempestate et Iudaei bellum, quod vettabantur
mutilare genitalia. 7
This line in the biography of Hadrian, from a collection of biographies of
the Caesars called Historia Augusta, has been interpreted as evidence that
Hadrian forbade the Jews to perform circumcisions. The problematic
nature of the Historia Augusta in general, and the biography of Hadrian
in particular (which is ascribed to an imaginary author named
Spartianus), are well documented. 8
6F
7F
אמר ליה, אתא הדין קורה מצרייה דמקוריה אריך ויהיב מקורה ואפקיה,דאתי מפק ליה אנא יהיב ליה אגריה
כך דיינו שניכנסנו, אמר ליה אזיל תהוי מגלג ואמר דעלת לפומיה דאריא בשלם ונפקת בשלם.הב לי אגרי
(712–710 ,אלבק- כט מהדורת תיאודור,באומה זו בשלום ויצאנו בשלום )בראשית רבה סד
MOR 1991, 171-173.
MOR 2003a, 172-175.
7 For the different translations of the phrase mutilare genitalia, See for example: David
Magie: “At this time the Jews began war, because they were forbidden to practise
circumcision" (The Scriptores Historiae Augusta, translated by Magie D, LCL, Vol. I,
Cambridge, Mass. 1921, 45). M. Rabello: “At that time the Jews, too, began war because
they were forbidden to mutilate (mutilare) the sexual organs” (RABELLO 1995, 187); Isaac
“At this time the Jews started a war because they were forbidden to mutilate their genitals”
(ISAAC 1998, 277); Golan: The Iudaei began war because they were forbidden to damage a
necessary part of the male's genital organs" (GOLAN 1988, 338).
8 On the Historia Augusta, see: SYME 1971a. See also GOLAN 1989.
5
6
164
MENAHEM MOR
Ronald Syme has already drawn attention to the fact that the Jews
provide a rich variety of peculiarity, and therefore the [work] contains
comic aspects:
The concern of the Historia Augusta with the Jews was not, it
appears, either sustained or notably malevolent. Fun and oddities
rather than any preoccupation with cult and race and nationality. 9
David Golan also draws attention to the grotesque and ironic style of
writing in Historia Augusta. In his view, circumcision is mentioned in a
context of mockery for the sake of thaumasia (an extraordinary kind of the
strange-grotesque that also arouses amazement). In his words:
No less telling is the fact that the editor-author rather than choose
the prevailing technical or juridical term for describing
circumcision in his text, that is circumcidere, preferred an
expression which bluntly associated it with castration. The literary
effect to which the writer aimed seems obvious, combining erotic
innuendos and scoffing remarks on account of the oddity of the
Iudaei. 10
In a similar manner, Benjamin Isaac notes:
It is worth noting that the SHA does not mention circumcision but
mutilation. The implication is that this was a ludicrous rebellion,
for who in any sense would go to war because he was forbidden to
mutilate his genitals? 11
Nevertheless, Moshe David Herr and Alfredo Mordechai Rabello
maintain that the only cause for the revolt was the ban on circumcision.
Herr explains that circumcision was perceived by Hadrian as castration
and thus imposed on the Jews the decree forbidding castration. He finds
SYME 1971b, 68.
GOLAN 1988, 338. See: ISAAC 2005, 64.
11 ISAAC 1998, 277-278. See also: ISAAC 2004, 472-474.
9
10
Are There Any New Factors Concerning the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?
165
support for his view in Midrash Bereshit Rabbati which will be discussed
later on. 12
Midrash Bereshit Rabbati, 17, 1:
R. Yudan said: When Turnus Rufus banned circumcision, a man
circumcised his son and went up to the Bema and was caught. He asked
him: Didn’t you hear that I prohibited? He answered: I heard. He asked
him: So why did you circumcise your son? He answered: Two set at me
the prohibition; the king said that I shall do and his servant ordered not
to do. Which one should I fulfill? Turnus Rufus told him: The king
allowed circumcising and I said not to circumcise, he will come and
deal with you. The baby replied from the bosom of his mother and said:
You are exempt. Since Turnus Rufus noticed that he is an infant, he
said: He did not say it on his own, but he told it to me, and he dismissed
him13
1F
12F
In his discussion of the sources that relate to the ban on circumcision,
Aharon Oppenheimer claimed that these sources refer to the religious
decrees that Hadrian promulgated after the suppression of the revolt. 14 He
shares the opinion of scholars who find in Historia Augusta a clear
intention to arouse laughter and ridicule towards the Jews, exactly as
Martial did in one of his epigrams:
Menophilus’ person a sheath covers so enormous that it would be
sufficient for the whole tribe of comic actors. This fellow I had
imagined – for we often bathe together – was solicitous to spare his
voice, Flaccus; but while he was exercising himself in the view of
13F
12
HERR 1972, 82-125; HERR (1978), 1-11.
13
? לא שמעת שגזרתי: אמר לו. מל אחד את בנו ועלה לבימה ונתפס, משגזר טורנוס רופוס שלא ימול אדם:אמר ר' יודן
המלך אמר שאעשה ועבדו גזר שלא, שנים גזרו עלי גזרה: ומפני מה מלת את בנך? אמר לו: אמר לו. שמעתי:אמר לו
ענה התינוק. יבא ויעמוד עליך, ואני אמרתי שלא לימול, מלך אמר לימול: אי זה אקיים? אמר לו טורנוס רופוס,אעשה
… פטרוהו, אינו אומר מעצמו אלא הוא אמר לי: אמר, כיון שראה טורנוס רופוס שהוא קטן, פטור אתה:מחיק אמו ואמר
( Ed. H. Albeck, p. 73).: א,בראשית רבתי יז
14 OPPENHEIMER 2003, 55-69.
166
MENAHEM MOR
the people in the middle of the exercise ground, the sheath
unluckily fell off: lo, he was circumcised. 15
But his main criticism was aimed at Herr’s use of Midrash Bereshit Rabbati.
This midrash is a small part of the midrash compiled by Moses the
Preacher who lived during the first half of the 11th century in Narbonne
and Toulouse. His nickname “The Preacher” was given for his expertise
and because his books were written as collections of homiletics in the style
of classic midrashim. 16 His primary works have been lost, but select
fragments have been preserved in secondary quotations, mainly by Rashi
and the Dominican monk Raymondus Martini in his book Pugio Fidei (The
Dagger of Faith), published in 1278. 17 Indeed, the midrash of Moses the
Preacher cannot serve as reliable evidence for the circumcision decree.
Peter Schäfer also rejects the circumcision decree as a cause for the
Second Revolt. In his view, this prohibition was imposed during the
course of the rebellion or after its suppression, and the issue concerning
circumcision was part of an internal Jewish struggle without any
connection to Hadrian the Emperor. 18 He bases his perception on what is
said in Tosefta Shabbat 46:9:
The mashukh ( )משוךneeds to be [re]circumcised. R. Yehudah said:
he should not be [re]circumcised , if he has performed the
epispasmos because this is dangerous. They said that many were
[re]circumcised in the days of Ben Koziba, and they had children
and did not die, for it is said: 'Circumcising, he shall be
circumcised' (Gen. 17:13) – even a hundred times. And it says: 'He
has broken my covenant' (Gen. 17:14) any uncircumcised male
shall be cut off from his people: he has broken my covenant – to
include the one who has his foreskin drawn forward (mashukh). 19
18F
Martialis, Epigrammata, 7, 82 (trans. W. C. A. Ker, LCL). See: STERN 1989, 526-527.
TA-SHEMA 2001.
17 On Rabbi Moses the Preacher, see: HIMMELFARB 1984, 55-78; HIMMELFARB 1994, 114-135.
15
16
18
SCHÄFER 1981a; SCHÄFER 1981b, 74-94.
הרבה: אמרו לו. מפני שהוא מסוכן, משוך לא ימול: רבי יהודה אומר,המשוך צריך שימול19
אפילו,(13 שנאמר "המול ימול" )בראשית יז,מלו בימי בן כוזבא והיו לו בנים ולא מתו
Are There Any New Factors Concerning the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?
167
Those who drew their foreskin forward were Jews who did so of their
own free will in order to be considered gentiles. They were assimilated
Jews who collaborated with the Romans in the political and cultural
sphere. He compares them to the Hellenists of the period preceding the
decrees of Antiochus Epiphanes. In 1990, in a jubilee volume in honor of
the Oxford scholar Geza Vermes, Schäfer returned to the subject of the
Second Revolt and the circumcision decrees in an article on Hadrian’s
policy in the Judaea. 20 He returned once again to this subject in an article
he published in 1999 entitled: “The Bar Kokhba Revolt and Circumcision:
Historical Evidence and Modern Apologetics”. 21
In both of these articles, Schäfer aims most of his critical arrows at
Mordechai Rabello, Professor of Law at the Hebrew University. 22 In
Rabello’s words:
19F
20F
21F
Spartianus relates the events preceding the Bar Kokhba revolt, and
considers in explicit terms the ban on circumcision as the cause of
the revolt…However, it is our position that in this renewal not
only castration, but circumcision as well, could be banned and
punished…It is reasonable to assume that like the ban on
castration, the ban on circumcision held force over Jews and non
Jews through the Empire…the ban was probably enforced, in
particular in the Eastern regions of the Empire (Syria, Palestine,
Arabia and Egypt): i.e., the regions where circumcision was most
heavily practiced. 23
2F
, ט, שבת מו,( לרבות את המשוך )תוספתא14 יז,מאה פעם ואומר "זאת בריתי הפר" )שם
.(71 ,מהדורת ליברמן
SCHÄFER 1990, 281-303. See also: HENGEL 1996, 358-391.
SCHÄFER 1999, 119-132.
22 RABELLO 1995, 176-214.
23 RABELLO 1995, 188-189.
20
21
168
MENAHEM MOR
Rabello also rejects the interpretation of Schäfer regarding the “drawers of
foreskin”. In his opinion, the drawing of foreskins should not be ascribed
only to the assimilated who had undergone the operation, since:
The danger threatened the person who performed the act, e.g. the
fathers etc., and not only the circumcised new born son. 24
This means that, according to Rabello, the drawing of foreskins was done
out of fear of the Romans who tended to be especially strict in considering
the tense political situation, and only a few did so for the sake of
assimilation.
Schäfer’s criticism focuses on the interpretation that Rabello gives
to the sentence: “He should not be [re]circumcised … because this is
dangerous”. In his opinion, Rabello ignores the fact that the words
because this is dangerous does not refer to the original circumcision but
to the re-circumcision after the foreskin was drawn. The word dangerous
does not apply to Hadrian’s prohibition of circumcision but to the medical
procedure of the drawing process. In Schäfer’s view, the words of Rabbi
Yehudah in the Tosefta are not connected at all with the Bar Kokhba
revolt, but are concerned with the general phenomenon of the foreskin
drawers, without reference to any definite historical event. 25
I concur with Schäfer's main argument that the circumcision
decree was not the cause of the revolt, but I do not agree with his
explanations about the foreskin drawers. The central issue of the Bar
Kokhba revolt was not the confrontation between assimilated Jews and
national Jews who opposed cooperation with the Romans and the
adoption of the Roman way of life. Ever since the Roman conquest of 63
BCE, there were Jewish collaborators with Roman rule. These were Jews
who desired to live like the Romans, whom Schäfer calls “assimilated
Jews”. Did their circumcision prevent them from assimilating? A
prominent example of Jews of this kind was Herod and his family, who
not only did not try to draw their foreskins but were, in fact strictly
24
25
RABELLO 1995, 198.
SCHÄFER 1990, 294-295.
Are There Any New Factors Concerning the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?
169
observant of this commandment. It is sufficient to recall the condition that
Herod laid down for Sellaeus the Nabataean: that if he wished to marry
his sister Salome, he would have to accept the customs of the Jews
including circumcision. 26 In my opinion, the comparison that Schäfer
makes between the internal struggle in Judaea and the situation in Judah
on the eve of the Antiochus decrees is invalid. The Hellenistic reform
occurred in 175 BCE, before these decrees were issued. As long as there
was no danger to the national-religious existence of that generation,
hardly any evidence could be found for the struggle between Hellenists
and “nationalists” such as the Hasmoneans. For the years that preceded
the Second Revolt and during its course there is hardly any evidence for
struggles of this kind. On the contrary, there is evidence of cooperation
with the Roman government that did not entail the assimilation of the
collaborators. In this regard, it is enough to recall the examples of Rabban
Yohanan ben Zakkai and Rabban Gamliel.
25F
3. The Foundation of Aelia Capitolina
3.1 In 130 CE - As a Cause for the Revolt
Cassius Dio, Roman History, LIX 12
At Jerusalem he founded a City in place of the one which had
been razed to ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the
site of the temple of the God he raised a new temple to Jupiter,
This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief
duration, for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races
should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted
there
(LCL, vol. 9 translated by E. Cary)
26
JA, 16, 220-225.
170
MENAHEM MOR
These are not the original words of Cassius Dio, who lived at the end of
the 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd century, but a section from a synopsis
written by the monk Xiphilinus at the request of the Emperor Michael VII
in the 1070s. 27 According to this late evidence, the founding of Aelia
Capitolina roused the Jews to revolt against the Romans. However, just as
we have rejected the late dated statements by Moses the Preacher
regarding the circumcision decree, we shall also have to reject the
evidence of Xiphilinus.
26F
3.2 In 136 CE – As a Result of the Revolt
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:
Thus, when the city had come to be free of the nation of the Jews,
and its ancient inhabitants had been entirely destroyed, it was
colonized by a foreign race and the Roman city that thereafter
arose changed its name and was called Aelia in honor of the
reigning emperor, Aelius Hadrian. And as the church in it was
now composed of Gentiles, the first after the bishops of the
circumcision to be entrusted with the administration of those there
was Marcus. 28
27F
The writings of Eusebius (Bishop of Caesarea in the 4th century) are
usually filled with hatred for the Jews, especially in his description of the
Second Revolt and the behavior of its leader (I shall return to this later on).
According to Eusebius, it appears that the founding of Aelia Capitolina
was part of the punitive measures that the Romans took against the Jews
after the revolt was suppressed.
On Cassius Dio and Xiphilinius, see: BRUNT 1980, 477-494; ISAAC 1998, 211-21;
GICHON 1986, 15-43.
28 Ecclesiastical History, trans. Roy J. Deferrari, in: The Fathers of the Church: A New
Translation (Washington, 1965), Vol. I, p. 214.
27
Are There Any New Factors Concerning the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?
171
In view of the conflicting evidence in the sources regarding the
time and motive for the construction of Aelia Capitolina, two main
questions are raised: first, the cause (or causes) that prompted Hadrian to
build the colonia, and secondly, when exactly it was built. The answers to
these questions determine whether its founding was the pretext for the
revolt. In the past I have rejected any suggestion that the erection of Aelia
Capitolina in the years 129-130, CE during Hadrian’s visit to the region,
was an intentional anti-Jewish measure. The founding of the city was part
of the general policy of the Caesar to strengthen the Hellenistic
foundations in his empire, and resulted from an examination of the status
and function of Provincia Judaea within the system of eastern provinces,
and its readiness to become culturally, socially, and religiously integrated
into this system. 29 The main person who “vindicated” Hadrian from any
anti-Jewish intentions in this connection was Benjamin Isaac. He
explained the erection of Aelia Capitolina within general Roman policy.
Ever since the days of Trajan, the Romans in the border provinces in
Europe aspired to match the number of colonies in the provinces to the
number of legions stationed there. This principle was also applied in
Syria, although the number of colonies there had already amounted to
three before the reign of Trajan. In view of this principle, Hadrian’s aim in
the reconstruction of Jerusalem was clear. He wanted to restore the city
and make it the second Roman colony in Judaea. He chose Jerusalem as a
colony because the Tenth Legion Fretensis had been stationed in the city
since 70 CE. 30
David Golan also links the founding of Aelia Capitolina with the
general policy of the Roman emperor, but takes the discussion to the
theological level:
Hadrian’s major concern became what was the optimal answer to
various questions: by what manner and means, in spite of his selfimposed limits, could Christianity be beaten, in of its not being
28F
29F
MOR 1991, 88-93.
ISAAC 1998, 104, note 83. For a similar interpretation, see: BOATWRIGHT 2000, 172-173,
196-203.
29
30
172
MENAHEM MOR
confined to a territory, a nation, an army or a similar framework,
how could this rival faith be removed from the precincts of Rome?
…
Hadrian had become more and more confident that only by
reversing the situation completely, by toppling the essential
Christian symbol, would his needs be served; It was of vital
importance to provide the Roman public with self-evident proof
that would weaken the remaining symbols, preachings, and
postulates of Christianity to their foundation. 31
The ruins of Jerusalem were used by the Christians in their polemics
against the Jews to prove the realization of the curse started by Jesus:
“No one stone will be left here upon another, all will be thrown
down”. 32
In the opinion of Golan, the decision of Hadrian to build Aelia Capitolina
over the ruins of Jerusalem was also fostered by the echoes of the polemics
based on the principles of Christianity and on the signs that prove its
truths. In this polemical debate “Jerusalem destroyed” was the central
argument, and the efforts of the Pauline school of thought to bring
Christianity to the nations could not minimize the centrality of Jerusalem
in the story of Jesus.
In my opinion, the main fault in the view suggested by Golan is
that it tries to create a kind of forestalling of the Julian the Apostate affair,
even though it is difficult to link this matter with the pagan emperor
Hadrian, since there is no attempt here at rebuilding the Temple. In fact, it
GOLAN 1986, 236-237.
On Jesus’ sayings about the destruction of the Temple see: Matt. 23: 37-38:Matt. 24: 2:
Mark 13:2: “As Jesus came out of the temple, one of the disciples said to him, Look
Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings. Then asked him, Do you see these
great buildings? No one stone will be left here upon another all will be thrown down”;
Luke 19, 41-44: As Jesus came near the and saw the city, he wept over it…Indeed, the days
will come upon you, when your enemies will set up ramparts around you and surround
you, and hem you in every side. They will crush you to the ground, you and your children
within you, and they will not leave within you one stone upon another…”.
31
32
Are There Any New Factors Concerning the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?
173
is the Temple far more than Jerusalem that stands at the center of the
“prophecy” of Jesus. 33
Martin Goodman regarded the decision of Hadrian to establish a
Roman colony in Jerusalem as a continuation of Trajan’s policies. During
the reign of Trajan a Jewish revolt broke out in the Diaspora against a
background of despair among the Jews at the refusal of the authorities to
rebuild the Temple. The response of Trajan was harsh, to the extent that
Goodman called it a “final solution” for the destruction of Judaism.
Hadrian’s role in this process was the decision to turn Jerusalem into a
Roman colony. The erection of “a little Rome” in place of Jerusalem would
make sure that the Jews could no longer hope for the reconstruction of
their Temple in Jerusalem. In Goodman’s view, the unique aspect of the
founding of Aelia Capitolina was that it was not erected, as were the other
colonies, in honor of its citizens, but in order to repress a group of
subjects. 34
The view proposed by Goodman cannot withstand criticism. First
of all, if behind the revolt in the Diaspora there was continuous despair at
the failure to rebuild the Temple, one might expect that the population of
the Land of Israel would take an active role in the revolt. Although, it is
quite clear that a significant portion of the population of Provincia Judaea,
Judaea and Idumaea did not participate in the revolt. 35 Even with regard
to Galilee, which is usually associated with the “War of Kitos”, there are
some who doubt its participation in events that might be associated with
the Diaspora revolt. 36 Furthermore, had the main reason for the Second
Revolt been the founding of the colony Aelia Capitolina instead of
Jerusalem, which, as Goodman says, was a colony that was not intended
even for the “assimilated Hellenized” Jews, we would expect a different
reaction from the participants in the Second Revolt. Indeed, there is
32F
3F
34F
35F
See our discussion above, of Midrash Genesis Rabba, 64, 29. The source does not
constitute proof that Hadrian wanted to reconstruct Jerusalem as a Jewish city, and
therefore there is no mention of rebuilding the Temple.
34 See: GOODMAN 1992, 27-38. See also: GOODMAN 2003, 23-29.
35 For a recent summary, see: PUCCI BEN ZEEV 2006, 93-104.
36 ROKEAH 1972, 79-84.
33
174
MENAHEM MOR
hardly any scholar who thinks that Jerusalem was in the hands of the
rebels or that they tried to conquer it. However, anyone who claims that
the founding of Aelia Capitolina preceded the revolt and was the main
cause for its outbreak must prove what the position of Jerusalem was
during the course of the revolt!
Among the studies on Aelia Capitolina 37 and its connection to the
Temple Mount are those by Yaron Zvi Eliav. 38 One of the important
conclusions he makes is that Aelia Capitolina did not include the Temple
Mount, and that it therefore remained in its state of desolation. 39
Following the position of Oded Irshai, who noted the tendency of
Christian authors of the Byzantine period to give a new interpretation to
Hadrian’s acts in connection with the Bar Kokhba revolt and to color them
in anti-Jewish hues, 40 Eliav argues that throughout within the Cassius Dio
summary there are certain theological leanings of the monk Xiphilinius,
and that it is only his words in the name of Cassius Dio that link the
temple of Jupiter to the Temple Mount. 41
When Xiphilinus wants to present Hadrian’s acts as intended
against the Jews, he turns them into a theological confrontation between
Hadrian and the Jewish God. This author relocates the pagan temple and
simply transfers it from the city to the Temple Mount. Moreover, he
portrays this act, that was neutral and quite natural for the foundation of a
new colony, in the violent strokes of religious conflict. 42 In his rejection of
the historical value of the Cassius Dio-Xiphilinus summary regarding the
acts of Hadrian in Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, Eliav also does not
accept the location of the pagan temple on the Temple Mount. 43
According to Eliav, no anti-Jewish tendencies should be ascribed
to Hadrian. All that guided him in the foundation of Aelia Capitolina, and
in leaving the area of the old Temple sanctuary outside the city scheme,
See, for example: FRIEDHEIM 2007, 125-152.
ELIAV 1997, 125-144; ELIAV 2003, 241-277; ELIAV 2005.
39 ELIAV 2005, 87.
40 IRSHAI 1995, 129-178.
41 ELIAV 2005, 86-87, n. 15.
42 ELIAV 2005, 82.
43 For a different view, see: TSAFRIR 1999, 157.
37
38
Are There Any New Factors Concerning the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?
175
were technical and logistic considerations. These considerations induced
the Roman founders of the colony to discard the borderlines of the old city
that lay in ruins before them, and to design their colony within a new
urban framework. The urban centers, the traffic routes, the temples, and
other architectural elements created a new picture for the city of
Jerusalem. 44
If we adopt the conclusions of Eliav that the founders of Aelia
Capitolina raised a new city, then its erection did not change the realities
of Jerusalem at all. Since the year 70 CE, Jerusalem had remained in its
ruined state, Jews did not live there, and the permanent camp of the Tenth
Legion was stationed in the city. Therefore, we can discount the founding
of Aelia Capitolina as the main cause for the Second Revolt. 45 In view of
the explanations of Eliav, it is clear that the foundation of Aelia Capitolina
was not a casus belli for the rebels.
To complete the discussion about Aelia Capitolina as a possible
cause for the outbreak of the revolt, it is necessary to discuss the date for
the foundation of the colony. This will be done mainly on the basis of
numismatic evidence. Already in 1967, Yaakov Meshorer noted that in the
archaeological plundering of Mount Hebron, a coin hoard was found
dating to the period of the Bar Kokhba revolt and contained some coins
from Aelia Capitolina. From these coins, Meshorer deduced that one
should accept the words of the Cassius Dio-Xhiphilinus summary
regarding the founding of the city in the year 130 CE, i.e. before the
outbreak of the revolt. 46 Since these coins were not found in an official
excavation, some have cast doubt whether they were minted in Aelia
before the end of the revolt. Therefore, they cannot provide evidence for
the date of the founding of this colony, 47 but Hanan Eshel and Boaz Zissu,
in an archaeological survey of the refuge caves in Nahal Michmash (Wadi
43F
4F
45F
46F
ELIAV 2005, 87-91.
SHAHAR 2006, 131-146.
46 MESHORER 1985, 43-50; MESHORER 1989, 19.
47 See, for example: OPPENHEIMER, ISAAC 1987, 416, n. 65. Herr claims that the hoard
was buried in the year 135, and it may be that the coins of the city began to be minted
during the course of the revolt.
44
45
176
MENAHEM MOR
Suweinit) found coins that assist in determining the date for the founding
of Aelia Capitolina. 48 The reference is to two undated coins, minted in
Aelia Capitolina (Nos. 11 and 12), that were found together with four Bar
Kokhba coins: three coins (Nos. 13-15) dated the second year of the revolt,
i.e. 133/4 CE, and one coin (No. 16) from an undated series that was
minted in the third and fourth year of the revolt. The discovery of these
two coins of Aelia Capitolina, together with coins minted during the
course of the revolt, indicates that these coins were minted before the year
135 CE.
Arie Kindler reaches the same conclusion, also on the basis of the
numismatic analysis. In addition to the find mentioned above, Kindler
relies on an analysis of the coins of the foundation of the city during the
reign of Hadrian, on the form of Hadrian’s portrait and the inscription
beside it embossed on these coins. Thus, Kindler also regards the
founding of the colony as a casus belli for the Second Revolt. 49
It is clear, therefore, that the Roman colony of Aelia Capitolina was
founded before the outbreak of the revolt, but was its founding the
immediate cause for this outbreak? In view of the research by Eliav, I
doubt this is so. The conclusion of Eliav is that the founding of the colony
did not directly affect the Temple Mount. Therefore I find it difficult to
regard its founding as one of the causes for the revolt, since from the year
70 CE, after the destruction of the Temple and the stationing of the Tenth
Legion, the city was under direct Roman control.
If we do not accept Eliav’s conclusions and regard the
establishment of the colony as a cause for the outbreak of the revolt, then
the reaction of the Jews to its founding is very surprising. If this was the
cause, then one would expect that the leaders of the revolt and its
participants would have concentrated all their efforts in an attempt to
conquer the city, to purify it, perhaps even to renew the cultic rites in it,
and to rebuild the Temple. According to the information at our disposal,
this did not occur.
48
49
ESHEL, ZISSU 2000-2002, 168-175; ESHEL 2000, 636-643.
KINDLER 2000-2002, 176-179.
Are There Any New Factors Concerning the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?
177
The numismatic evidence is double proof that the rebel fighters
did not reach Jerusalem. In excavations in Jerusalem only four Bar
Kokhba coins have been found thus far, a tiny number in comparison with
the 15,000 that were found throughout the region. 50 On the other hand, in
the areas of the uprising, thousands of coins of the Second Revolt were
found. 51 Even the attempt to find evidence of the control of the rebels over
Jerusalem in the documents of Wadi Murabba’at do not appear to be
serious. From an examination of Documents 22 and 29 from Murabba’at, it
was determined that the papyri dates are before the year 78 CE, and have
no connection with the events of the Second Revolt. 52
In view of what has been said above, neither the prohibition of
circumcision nor the conversion of Jerusalem into a Roman colony were
the immediate causes for the outbreak of the Second Revolt. It may be that
these were actually the outcome of the revolt, as part of the punitive
measures imposed by Hadrian on the Jews.Therefore the question must be
asked: Was there a cause for the outbreak of the Second Revolt? In order
to try and answer this question, we shall now turn to the issue of Bar
Kokhba’s leadership.
49F
50F
51F
4. Bar Kokhba’s Leadership
The leadership of Bar Kokhba is deduced from scattered evidence in the
letters and coins of the revolt, and in rabbinic and Christian sources. I
shall open with the words of Eusebius of Caesarea.
4.1 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4: 6:
And so, as the rebellion of the Jews again progressed in
seriousness and extent … At that time a certain Bar Cochebas by
name, which means ‘star’ was the general of the Jews, who among
ESHEL 2007.
ZISSU, ESHEL 2001, 17-40; KAUFMAN 2000-2002.
52 For a comprehensive discussion of these documents, see: ESHEL 2000; ESHEL 2007.
50
51
178
MENAHEM MOR
other characteristics was a cut-throat and a bandit, but who relied
on his name, as if dealing with slaves, and boasted that he was a
star that had come down from heaven to shed light upon them in
their misery. 53
4.2 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4: 6:
The same author (Justin) mentioning the war of that time against
the Jews, adds the following: For in the Jewish war which has just taken
place, Bar Chocheba, the leader of the Jewish rebellion,ordered Christians
only to be
brought to terrible punishments, if they did not deny Jesus
as the Christ and
Blaspheme him. 54
This writer mentions the war that was waged in those days against the
Jews, and therefore the author notes: In the present Jewish war the leader
of the Jewish rebels, Bar Kokhba, commanded that hostility should be
shown only to the Christians if they insist on their refusal to deny the
messianic nature of Jesus and to blaspheme his name. 55
The Christian sources focused on the leader and his leadership,
and on the condition of the Christian community during the revolt, as
exemplified in the words of Eusebius. Christian authors wanted to
“justify” the destiny and fate of Judaism after the destruction of the
Second Temple, and therefore gave prominence to the leading figure of
Bar Kokhba as a false messiah who lied to his believers and brought heavy
catastrophe upon them. Paradoxically, the messianic pretensions of the
leader of the revolt can be found in the Jewish Talmudic sources in the
form of an exegesis of a verse from the prophecy of Balaam: “There shall
The Fathers of the Church, Eusebius Pamphili, Ecclesiastical History, Books 1-5, Translated by
Roy J. Deferari, New York 1953, p. 213. I added the emphasis.
54 Ibid., 220.
55 Eusebius cited in Justin, Apol. I.36.1. for parallel versions, see: Eusebius, Chronicles to the
year 133. Latin version: “Kokhba the duke of the Jewish sect, killed the Christians through
various tortures [since] they refused to support him against the Roman army”. Armenian
version: “Kokhbas, who led the Jewish rebellion punished many of the Christians in
several tortures since they refused to fight with him against the Romans”. For a discussion
on this source, see: BAUCKHAM 1998, 228-238.
53
Are There Any New Factors Concerning the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?
179
come a star out of Jacob and a scepter shall arise out of Israel” (Numbers
24:17):
4.3 Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anith 4, 8:
Rabbi Aqiba when he saw Bar-Kozebah, he said tis is the king
Messiah. Said to him Rabbi Yohanan ben Torta, Aqiba grass will grow on
your cheeks, and
the Messiah will not yet have come! 56
5F
In 1968 Haim Dov Mantel published an article in which he
discusses the motives for the Bar Kokhba revolt, reaching the conclusion
that the revolt broke out in 125/126 CE. 57 He dates the background for the
disappointment and bitterness among the Jews to the early years of
Hadrian’s rule because he did not liberate the Land of Israel from Roman
bondage as he had for the countries beyond the Euphrates. Mantel accepts
the words of Eusebius, in spite of their hostility (4.1), that reflect, in his
opinion, the main cause for the outbreak of the revolt. Eusebius does not
mention the two causes discussed above. He blames the Jews, whose
aspiration for freedom and redemption caused them to rebel against
Rome, and who were head by Bar Kokhba whom his supporters regarded
as the Messiah. 58 To clarify the question, Mantel discusses once again the
“national” messiah phenomenon that was so widespread in Provincia
Judaea during the 1st century CE. He noted a number of figures whom
Josephus said were considered “kings” or “messiahs” by their supporters
56F
57F
Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai taught: Rabbi Akiba used to expound: A star shall come out of
Jacob, Kosiba shall come out of Jacob. When Rabbi Akiba saw Bar Kosiba he used to say:
This is the King Messiah. Rabbi Yohanan ben Torta said to him: Akiba, grass will grow on
your cheeks and the Son of David will not have come”. Parallel in Lamentations Rabba
(Buber edition), p. 101.
57 MANTEL 1967-1969, 224-242, 274-296, 341-342.
58 MANTEL 1967-1969, 228, 278. Mantel also finds support in the words of Pausanias of the
2nd century who wrote nearly at the same time as the repression of the revolt: “He
[Hadrian] never wanted to go to war without a reason. Although he decreased, reduced
and constricted the Hebrews who rebelled beyond Syria (Description of Greece, I, 5.5). See
also: STERN 1989, II, 192, No. 353.
56
180
MENAHEM MOR
(I shall discuss this later on). Mantel notes that, unlike the various
“messiahs” who preceded Bar Kokhba, he enjoyed the support of the
Sages of his generation headed by Rabbi Akiba. The declaration of Rabbi
Akiba concerning the messianic nature of the rebel leader and his
recognition of him as a “prince” united the Jews in the country and in the
Diaspora under the flag of Bar Kokhba.
In his further discussion of Eusebius (4.3) Mantel deals mainly
with the significance of the titles “messiah” and “prince”, and in fact
defines the leader of the revolt as a “messiah”: “The extent to which the
Jews exalted the personality and later the memory of Bar Kokhba, may be
inferred from the Talmud which implies that Bar Kokhba was short of
only one quality to make him the Messiah. He was unable to smell
whether a litigant was right or wrong. Apparently the Talmud held that
all other qualities which Isaiah ascribes to the son of David, were fulfilled
in him.
"not only had no doubt that Bar Kokhba actually fulfilled the
function
intended for the Messiah by succeeding in expelling the
Romans from Judaea, but that his personality was also suited to the role of
the Messiah”. 59
Mantel’s article did not receive much response in the research
literature, mainly because he brought the date of the revolt forward to the
year 125/126, a date that does not correspond to what we know about the
revolt, and perhaps because of his interest in the messianic nature of the
rebel leader. 60
Nevertheless, during the years that have passed, the discussion in
the research literature on the question of the “messianic” and “princely”
nature of Bar Kokhba has widened, and most researchers make the
distinction between the eschatological messiah and the national messiah.
Recently, Mantel has been given indirect support by Craig Evans, who,
like Mantel, argues that the title "Prince", both on the coins and in the
letters of the revolt, was imbued with eschatological-messianic meaning
MANTEL 1967-1969, 282.
See MANTEL 1967-1969, 239-242. See, for example, the criticism of S. Appelbaum
(APPELBAUM 1972, 48, n. 53).
59
60
Are There Any New Factors Concerning the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?
181
resembling the meaning of this title as it was understood in Qumran and
in Ezekiel 37:24-25. In the opinion of Evans, the literary sources, however
few and flimsy, describe Simon Bar Kokhba as the Messiah. He also
believes that Rabbi Akiba recognized the messianic nature of Bar Kokhba
since to interpret the phrase “a star came out of Jacob” as referring to him
was not merely a “call for encouragement” but had profound meaning for
the supporters of Ben Kosiba and indicated, in his view, that his
supporters indeed saw him as the Messiah. 61
Some have tried to learn about the messianic figure of Ben Kosiba
from the coins of the revolt – the façade of the Temple decorated with a
star. Numismatists such as Ya’akov Meshorer, Leo Mildenberg, and Arie
Kindler reject such suppositions. The first two claim, for example, that the
decoration was not a star but a rosette or rose, 62 while Kindler thought
that “the purpose of this ‘star’ which is sometimes no more than a kind of
cross, is merely to fill empty space on the coin”. 63 On the other hand,
Hillel Newman argues that on Roman coins the rose and star are the
same. He finds parallels to the coins of the revolt in coins from Asia Minor
and Greece that were minted in honor of the Divine Antinous, lover of
Emperor Hadrian who drowned in the Nile, in which he identifies a star
resembling a rose. He therefore continues to maintain the symbolic
meaning of the star on the coins of the revolt and its messianic
implications. 64 However, most of the researchers have transferred the
discussion about messianism to the “political” sphere.
In the opinion of Yisrael Levin: “Messianism is not particularly a
reason for uprising, but serves in most cases as an expression of the
yearnings and impulses that usually originate in other spheres of life”. 65
He therefore negates the very existence of political messianism in the
descriptions of Josephus, even though there may have been those who
60F
61F
62F
63F
64F
EVANS 1995, 183-211; EVANS 2006, 9-40.
MESHORER 1998, 134; MILDENBERG 1984, 43-45.
63 HABAS 2000, 141-142. Referring to Kindler's assumption.
64 NEWMAN 2001, 98-99.
65 LEVINE LEE 1983, 135-152.
61
62
182
MENAHEM MOR
acted against the Romans out of messianic motives. From the unique
words of Rabbi Akiba on Bar Kokhba (4.1) and the use of the title ‘Prince’
on the coins and in the letters of Simon, one cannot learn, in Levin's
opinion, about the messianic nature of the revolt. 66
Aharon Oppenheimer also restricts the messianic aspect of the
revolt and deduces this from the fact that, in the letters and coins, the
description of the leader is “Prince” and not a king or a messiah. He
interprets the image or figure of the leader of the revolt in terms of
national realities, as a leader with political and military talents and having
the charisma that comes from his great physical strength. 67
Moshe David Herr once again discusses this in “Realistic Political
Messianism and Cosmic Eschatological Messianism in the Teachings of
the Sages”. 68 In his opinion, the phenomenon of messianism has many
facets and varieties. Between the two extremes of realistic political
messianism and catastrophic cosmic eschatological messianism, there exist
a variety of shades. He believes that “Ben Kosiba himself did not have and
was not seen to have the slightest trace of any mystical or apocalyptical
experience”, and that the Second Revolt “was imposed upon him by force
of circumstance”. 69
Efrat Habas-Rubin also rejects the interpretation that regards Bar
Kokhba as a messianic figure. In her opinion, the distinction between the
title “Prince” and “Prince of Israel” is central to the understanding the title
of Prince of Israel used by Simon Ben Kosiba. This title was chosen to
“emphasize that Bar Kokhba had no pretensions to be considered a
member of the Davidic dynasty, or to compete with the royal house of
David as it was understood in his period … and on the other hand, to
stress the political and national character of his leadership, while using a
title that is not dissociated from the terms familiar in early and late Jewish
tradition”. 70
LEVINE LEE 1983, 149.
OPPENHEIMER 1983. See also: JAFFÉ 2006, 103-123.
68 HERR 1985, 331-346.
69 HERR 1985, 332-333.
70 HABAS 2000 133-146, especially 138.
66
67
Are There Any New Factors Concerning the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?
183
Peter Schäfer, in returning to sum up the issue of Bar Kokhba and
the Sages, continues to reject entirely the historical value of the sources
that were mentioned (4.1, and its parallel in Lamentations Rabba, 2,4). He
especially refuses to make any connection between Rabbi Akiba and his
statement that presumably points to the messianic nature of Bar Kokhba,
and the support of the greatest Sage of his generation in the revolt and its
leader. He explains how, in his opinion, the events of the Second Revolt
and the description of Bar Kosiba himself were critically “inserted” into
the world of the Sages of the 2nd century CE, and therefore the source in
question and those similar to it cannot be considered as evidence of the
support of the Sages for the revolt. 71 In Schäfer’s view, the title “Prince” is
well embedded in the worldview of Second Temple Judaism. This title
was preferred by the Sages to the title of king since it had less ideational
impact, since by the 2nd century CE this title had lost its power with the
last of the Hasmonean kings, especially after the reign of Herod. In spite
of negating the connection between messianism and the Second Revolt,
Schäfer finds no difficulty in attaching the title of “Messiah” to Bar Kosiba
because, in his view, the Messiah was part of contemporary 2nd century
history, and not part of utopia or future history. 72
Most scholars thus see Bar Kosiba as a political and national
leader, basing themselves mainly on the various kinds of “messiahs”
mentioned in Josephus. 73 Therefore in order to define the “messianism” of
Bar Kokhba, and whether there was an immediate cause for the outbreak
of the revolt, analogy should be used to compare the description of
Josephus and other sources with the account on the figure and leadership
of Bar Kokhba.
70F
71F
72F
SCHÄFER 2003, 1-22, see especially pages 15, 17. In the past, Schäfer cautiously argued
that Rabbi Akiba recognized Bar Kokhba as the Messiah. See: SCHÄFER 1978, 65-121;
SCHÄFER 1980, 113-130. However, he argued to exclude R. Akiba’s name from this
translation (SCHÄFER 1981a).
72 SCHÄFER 2003, 18.
73 MANTEL 1967-1969,282; HERR 1985, 337-339; SCHÄFER 2003, 19; REINHARTZ 1989,
171-194; EVANS 1995, 183-211; COLLINS 1995, 198-204; GAGER 1998, 37-46.
71
184
MENAHEM MOR
I have listed about twenty “types” whose names have been
associated in Josephus and in other sources with messianism in its widest
sense, and who were active in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora from
the time of Ezekias the Galilean, when Herod was the governor of Galilee
in 49 BCE, until the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE.
Josephus describes the phenomenon in general, and these are his words
after having given a description of several events that occurred in Herod’s
kingdom immediately after the king died:
Antiquities 17: 258:
And now Judea was filled with bandits, and whoever found a few
men to join with him in riots was set up as a king and they were
hasty (to inflict) disaster on the people. They aggravated the
Romans (but) a little, and a few (of them) murdered their own
people.
Elsewhere he says:
The Jewish War II: 264-265:
Now when these were quieted, it happened, as it does in a
diseased body, that another part was subject to an inflammation;
for a company of deceivers and robbers got together, and
persuaded the Jews to revolt, and exhorted them to assert their
liberty, inflicting death on those that continued in obedience to the
Roman government, and saying, that such as willingly chose
slavery ought to be forced from such their desired inclinations; for
they parted themselves into different bodies, and lay in wait up
and down the country, and plundered the houses of the great men,
and slew the men themselves, and set the villages on fire; and this
till all Judea was filled with the effects of their madness. And thus
the flame was every day more and more blown up, till it came to a
direct war
Are There Any New Factors Concerning the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?
185
A study of these descriptions of “messiahs” shows to what extent
nearly all of them have the same characteristics. First, Their activities are
very brief and end in failure. All of them acted within confined territorial
boundaries, and all had supporters who followed them and were
sometimes called a “large troop” or a “large gang”, which at the end
dispersed in all directions. Some declared themselves or were declared by
their supporters as kings, and others treated them like royalty. Most of
them are described as handsome men who excelled in “height and
strength” as men of “physical vigor” and “high courage” and “possessing
great daring”. Josephus calls them “bandit leaders”, “scoundrels”,
“sorcerers”, “liars”, “prophets”, and some of them are motivated by
madness. All of them are perceived as rebels against the government and
find their death in hanging, burning or crucifixion.
In order to exemplify this, I shall mention only three of them.
Simeon, who was declared by the insanity of his supporters as king and
wore a royal crown (Antiq. 17:273-277, JW II:60); Ethronges the Shepherd,
who dared to aspire to the throne, was called a king and wore a royal
crown, and whom Josephus notes that: “He himself dealt with important
matters befitting a king” (Antiq. 17:278-284); and Menahem, who
appeared in the Temple wearing royal robes (JW II:433-448). 74
The characteristics mentioned above greatly resemble the
descriptions of Bar Kokhba in Jewish and Christian sources. According to
the best of my knowledge, the archaeological finds reflect the spread of
the revolt within a fairly limited area. 75 In the Jerusalem Talmud, one
statement with the reservation of Ben Torta, identifies the leader of the
revolt as a messiah, and the Babylonian Talmud presents him after the fact
as a false messiah. Traditional sources say that he had an enormous
number of supporters, and that he selected his soldiers among them after
arduous and dangerous tests of ability and courage such as cutting off a
finger or uprooting oaks. He was so strong and ruthless that he killed
Eleazar with a kick. From his letters we learn that he was careful to
73F
74F
74
75
STERN 1991, 300-308.
MOR 2003b, 107-131.
186
MENAHEM MOR
observe all the commandments, but traditional sources blame his failure
on his arrogance towards God, and he was killed by heavenly decree - by
a snake that was found around his neck or on his shanks, which were the
main center of his strength. It was said that: “If God had not killed him,
who else could have done so!” In Christian sources he is presented as one
who claimed he fell from heaven in order to redeem his supporters, and
also as a cruel and murderous leader; like bandits, he had enormous
strength and attacked anyone who did not support him.
Although there is great resemblance between the descriptions of
these leaders, there are some outstanding differences. Even though he
acted within a limited area, he achieved military success in his battles
against the Romans. His activities lasted for nearly four and a half years,
and he engaged large forces of the Roman army under the best of their
commanders. He set up a well-ordered mechanism with which he held
command over the areas under his control with a high hand. Indeed, in
order to suppress the revolt, the Romans were forced to bring their best
commanders and elite units which ended the revolt after a prolonged
siege on Betar and a hunt for remaining rebels in the Judaean Desert.
Ben Kosiba was therefore a charismatic leader to whom
researchers try to ascribe messianic qualities in its various senses, but in
his letters and coins of the first year of the revolt, only the title of “Prince”
was attached to his name. These attempts ignore the fact that he was the
leader of a fairly local revolt. His name was associated with his place of
origin, Khirbet Kosiba, eight kilometers northwest of Hebron, which was
the geographical focus of the revolt. 76 The leader of the revolt gained the
support of those who lived in that area: Sages, 77 priests, 78 farmers, and
perhaps even non-Jews. The support was the result of his personality and
special abilities. According to the sources, he had the outstanding qualities
of charismatic leaders who in times of crisis was followed by the masses,
and he led them by virtue of his personality and spec ial abilities.
See: SCHÄFER 1999, 15 in which he rejects the name Kosiba as testifying to his place of
origin.
77 See: ROZENFELD 2005, 319-359. See also: HACHAM 2005, 547-563.
78 GOODBLAT 1996, 225-249.
76
Are There Any New Factors Concerning the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?
187
While writing this article I thought that the title “Messiah” would
perhaps answer the question as to the immediate motive for the revolt,
and that we could return to the forty-year-old suggestion of Haim Dov
Mantel. The cause for the revolt was the messianic nature of the leader of
the revolt. However, the deeper I went in my study, the clearer it became
that the answer to our question is not in the titles of the leader of the
revolt: “Messiah”, “King”, or “Prince”, titles that his supporters or
enemies gave him.
In view of the “messianic” characteristics of Bar Kokhba, it appears
that he does not fit the definition of a leader of a messianic movement.
Messianic movements are usually created by their supporters, and
flourish from the ground up. Their leaders are what the movement
understands them to be, and they serve as the focal point of a symbolic
identity rather than a source of authority and initiative. 79 This is not how
the figure of Bar Kokhba is portrayed! From the sources, in spite of their
paucity and bias, a charismatic, authoritative, and enterprising figure
emerges, who presumably promises to find an answer to the cumulative
and continuous difficulties in the social, economic, national and religious
spheres, and it is all of these together that were eventually the cause for
the Second Revolt.
Therefore, if it was not the prohibition of circumcision or the
founding of Aelia Capitolina that caused the revolt, and if the emphasis is
laid on the leader of the revolt, the question then arises as to the time of
the uprising. Why did Ben Kosiba launch the revolt in the year 132 in
particular? In my opinion, the date of the revolt should be linked to
Hadrian’s visit to the region, which extended from the autumn of 129 to
the summer of 130. In his itinerary, Hadrian visited Phoenicia, the Land of
Israel, and Arabia. From Gaza he took the sea route to Alexandria, from
where he returned to Syria. After another visit to Provincia Asia he visited
Athens in 131-132. 80 The urgent visits of Hadrian in the eastern provinces
were political attempts to unify the Roman Empire. These visits were
78F
79F
79
80
TALMON 1965, 528.
MILLAR 1993, 105-108.
188
MENAHEM MOR
accompanied by building and development enterprises, and there is no
doubt that these were an economic burden on the inhabitants of the
provinces. The visits of the Caesar imposed a heavy strain on the
inhabitants of the Land of Israel who were forced, among other things, to
cover the expenses of the emperor’s royal retinue, as was the accepted
practice. The remarks of Cassius Dio-Xhiphilinius hints at the realities of
the region. According to them, as long as Hadrian remained in Egypt and
Syria, the Jews remained quiescent, but only after he had left the region
did they rebel. They took advantage of the period between the visit of
Hadrian to the region and the outbreak of the revolt to prepare the area of
revolt by amassing weapons and setting up a system of refuge (Cassius
Dio, 69, 12.2). The causes were therefore of a continuous nature, and the
charismatic leadership of Bar Kokhba swept up his followers who went
out in revolt against the Romans.
REFERENCES
APPELBAUM, S. 1972. The Second Revolt and its Research. In: Studies in
Jewish History and the Land of Israel II, 48, n. 53.
BAUCKHAM, R. 1998. Jews and Jewish Christians in the Land of Israel at the
Time of the Bar Kochba War, with special reference to the Apocalypse of Peter. In:
STANTON, G. N., STROMUSA, G. G. (eds.), Tolerance and Intolerance in
Early Judaism and Christianity, Cambridge, 228-238.
BOATWRIGHT, M. T. 2000. Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire,
Princeton.
BRUNT, P. A. 1980. On Historical Fragments and Epitomes, CQ 30, 477-494.
COLLINS, J. J. 1995. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs and Other Ancient
Literature, New York.
ELIAV, Y. Z. 1997, Hadrian’s Actions in the Jerusalem Temple Mount
according to Cassius Dio and Xiphilini Manus, Jewish Studies Quarterly 4,
125-144.
ELIAV, Y. Z. 2003. The Urban Layout of Aelia Capitolina: A New View from the
Perspective of the Temple Mount. In: SCHÄFER, P. (ed.), The Bar Kokhba War
Are There Any New Factors Concerning the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?
189
Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome,
Tübingen, 241-277.
ELIAV, Y. Z. 2005. God’s Mountain: The Temple Mount in Time, Place, and
Memory, Baltimore.
ESHEL, H. 2007. Bethar was Captured and the City was Plowed: Jerusalem,
Aeliea Capitolina, and the Bar Kokhba Revolt, Eretz Israel 28, 21-28 [Hebrew].
ESHEL, H. 2000. The Date of the Founding of Aelia Capitolina. In:
SCHIFFMANN, L. H., TOV, E., VAN DERKAM, J. (eds.), The Dead Sea
Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery, Jerusalem, 636-643.
ESHEL, H., ZISSU, B. 2000-2002. Coins from the el-Jai Cave in Nahal
Mikhmash (Wadi Suweinit), Israel Numismatic Journal 14, 168-175.
EVANS, C. 1995. Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies, Leiden.
Evans, C. 1995. Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies, Leiden.
EVANS, C. A. 2006. Messianic Hoes and Messianic Figures in Late Antiquity,
Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 3, 9-40.
FRIEDHEIM, E. 2007, The Religious and Cultural World of Aelia Capitolina: A
New Perspective, Archiv Orientáalni 75, 125-152.
GAGER, J. 1998. Messiahs and their Followers. In: SCHÄFER, P., COHEN,
M. (eds.), Toward the Millennium: Messianic Expectations form the Bible
to Waco, Leiden, 37-46.
GICHON, M. 1986. New Insight into the Bar Kokhba War and a Reappraisal of
Dio Cassius 69.12-13, Jewish Quarterly Review 77, 15-43.
GOLAN, D. 1988, Iudaei in Scriptores Historiae Augusta, Latomus 47, 338.
GOLAN, D. 1989, Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Vita Hadriani, Jerusalem,
[Hebrew].
GOLAN, D. 1986. Hadrian’s Decision to Supplant ‘Jerusalem’ by ‘Aelia
Capitolina’, Historia 35, 236-237.
GOODBLAT, D. 1996. Priestly Ideologies of Judean Resistance, JSQ 3, 225-249.
GOODMAN, M. 1992. Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple. In:
Dunn, D. G. (ed.), Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70-135,
Tübingen, 27-38.
190
MENAHEM MOR
GOODMAN, M. 2003. Trajan and the Origins of the Bar Kokhba War, In:
SCHÄFER, P. (ed.), The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on
the Second Jewish Revolt Against Rome Tübingen, 23-29.
HABAS, R. E. 2000. The Title of Simeon ben Kosba. In: SCHWARTZ, J. et al.
(eds.), Jerusalem and Eretz Israel, Arie Kindler Volume, Tel Aviv, 141-142
[Hebrew].
HACHAM, N. 2005. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in Beitar, Tarbiz 74, 547-563
[Hebrew].
HENGEL, M. 1996, Judaica et Hellenistica: Klein Schriften, I, Tübingen.
HERR, M. D. 1972, Persecutions and Martyrdom in Hadrian’s Days, Scripta
Hierosolymitana 23 82-125.
HERR, M. D. 1978, The Causes of the Bar Kokhba War, Zion 43, 1-11
[Hebrew].
HERR, M. D. 1985. Realistic Political Messianism and Cosmic Eschatological
Messianism in the Teachings of the Sages, Tarbiz 54, 331-346 [Hebrew].
HIMMELFARB, M. 1984. R. Moses the Preacher and the Testament of the
Twelve Patriarchs, AJS Review 9, 55-78.
HIMMELFARB, M. 1994. Some Echoes of Jubilees in Medieval Hebrew
Literature. In: REEVES, J.C. (ed.), Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality
of Jewish Pseudoepigraphia, Atlanta, 114-135.
IRSHAI, O. 1995. Constantine and the Jews: The Prohibition Against Entering
Jerusalem: History and Historiography, Zion 65, 129-178 [Hebrew].
ISAAC, B. 1998. The Near East Under Roman Rule, Selected Papers, Leiden.
ISAAC, B. 2004. The Invention of Racisim in Classical Antiquity,
Princeton/Oxford 2004.
ISAAC, B. 2005. Attitude of the Romans Towards the Jews and Judaism, Zion
65 [Hebrew].
JAFFÉ, D. 2006. La figure messianique de Bar Kokhba, Henoch 28, 103-123.
KAUFMAN, J. C. 2000-2002. Additions to the Corpus of Leo Mildenberg’s
Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War, Israel Numismatic Journal 14, 129-152.
KINDLER, A. 2000-2002. Was Aelia Capitolina Founded before or after the
Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba War?: A Numismatic Evidence, Israel
Numismatic Journal 14, 176-179.
Are There Any New Factors Concerning the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?
191
LEVINE LEE, I. 1983. Messianic trends at the End of the Second Temple Days.
In: BARAS, Z. (Ed.), Messianism and Eschatology. A Collection of Essays,
Jerusalem, 135-152 [Hebrew].
MANTEL, H. D. 1968-1969. The Causes of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, Jewish
Quarterly Review 58, 224-242, 274-296; 59 , 341-342.
MESHORER, Y. 1985. A Coin Hoard of the Bar-Kokhba's Time, Israel
Museum News 4, 43-50.
MESHORER, Y. 1989. The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina, Jerusalem.
MESHORER, Y. 1998. The Jewish Coin Hoard, Jerusalem [Hebrew].
MILDENBERG, L. 1984. The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War, Arrau.
MILLAR, F. 1993. The Roman Near East, 31 BC – AD 337, Cambridge.
MOR, M. 1991. The Bar-Kochba Revolt: Its Extent and Effect, Jerusalem
[Hebrew].
MOR, M. 2003a. From Samaria to Shechem: The Samaritan Community in
Antiquity, Jerusalem [Hebrew].
MOR, M. 2003b. The Geographical Scope of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. In:
SCHÄFER, P. (ed.), The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered, Tübingen, 107-131.
MOR, M., RAPPAPORT, U. 2001. Bibliography of Works on the Bar Kokhba
Revolt (1984-2000). In: HANAN, E., ZISSU, B. (eds.), New Studies on the Bar
Kokhba Revolt, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Martin
(Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies, March 13th 2001, Ramat Gan,
139-161.
NEWMAN, H. 2001. The Star of Bar Kokhba. In: ESHEL, H., ZISSU, B.
(eds.), New Studies on the Bar Kokhba Revolt, Proceedings of the 21st Annual
Conference of the Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies,
March 13th, 2001, Ramat Gan, 98-99.
OPPENHEIMER, A. 1983. Bar Kokhba's Messianism. In: BARAS, Z. (Ed.),
Messianism and Eschatology. A Collection of Essays, Jerusalem, 153-165
[Hebrew].
OPPENHEIMER, A. 2003. The Ban on Circumcision as a Cause of the Revolt.
In: SCHÄFER, P. (ed.), The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered, Tübingen, 55-69.
192
MENAHEM MOR
OPPENHEIMER, A., ISAAC, B. 1987. History of the Research on the Bar
Kokhba Revolt, In: KLONER, A., TEPER, Y. (eds.), Hiding Systems in the
Plains of Judaea, Tel Aviv [Hebrew].
PUCCI BEN ZEEV, M. 2006. The Uprisings in the Jewish Diaspora, 116-117,
The Cambridge History of Judaism IV, 93-104.
RABELLO, A. M. 1995, The Ban on Circumcision as a Cause of Bar Kokhba's
Rebellion, Israel Law Review 29, 187.
Rabello, Ban, 176-214.
REINHARTZ, A. 1989. Rabbinic Perceptions of Simeon bar Kosiba, Journal
for the Study of Judaism 20, 171-194.
ROKEAH, D. 1972. The War of Kitos: Towards the Clarification of a
Philological-Historical Problem, Scripta Hiersosolymitana 23, 79-84.
ROZENFELD, B. Z. 2005. The Sages of the Bar Kokhba's Generation and their
Approach to the Revolt According to the Tanaitic Literature. In: GERA, D., BEN
ZEEV M. (eds.), The Path of Peace. Studies in Honor of Israel Friedman Ben
Shalom, Beer Sheva, 319-359 [Hebrew].
SCHÄFER, P. 1978. R. Aqiva und Bar Kokhba. In: SCHÄFER, P. (ed.),
Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums, Leiden, 65121.
SCHÄFER, P. 1980. Rabbi Aqiva and Bar Kokhba. In: GREEN, W. S. (ed.),
Approaches to Ancient Judaism, Vol. II, Chicago, 113-130.
SCHÄFER, P. 1981a. Der Bar Kokhba Aufstand, Studien zum Zweiten Jüdische
Krieg gegen Rom, Tübingen.
SCHÄFER, P. 1981b. The Causes of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In: FLEISCHER,
E., PETUCHOWSKI, J. J. (eds.), Studien in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish
Liturgy, in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, Jerusalem, 74-94.
SCHÄFER, P. 1990. Hadrian’s Policy in Judea and the Bar Kokhba Revolt: A
Reassessment. In: Davis, P. R., White, R. (eds.), Tribute to Geza Vermes:
Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, Sheffield, 281-303.
SCHÄFER, P. 1999. The Bar Kokhba Revolt and Circumcision: Historical
Evidence and Modern Apologetics. In: OPPENHEIMER, A. (ed.), Jüdische
Geschichte in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit:, Wege der Forschung: von alten zum
neuen Schürer, München, 119-132.
Are There Any New Factors Concerning the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?
193
SCHÄFER, P. 2003. Bar Kokhba and the Rabbis. In: SCHÄFER, P. (ed.), The
Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered, Tübingen, 1-22.
SHAHAR, Y. 2006. Was there a Civilian Settlement in Jerusalem between the
Two Jewish Revolts?. In: BARUCH, E., FAUST, A. (eds.), New Studies in
Jerusalem 12, 131-146 [Hebrew].
STERN, M. 1989, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Vol. 1,
Jerusalem.
STERN, M. 1991. The Leadership among the Groups of Freedom Fighters at the
end of Second Temple Period. In: AMIT, M., GAFNI, I., HERR, D. M. (eds.),
Studies in the Jewish History, The Second Temple Period, Jerusalem, 300-308
[Hebrew].
SYME, R. 1971a. The Historia Augusta: A Call of Clarity, Bonn.
SYME, R. 1971b. Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta,
Oxford.
TALMON, Y. 1965. Pursuit of the Millennium: The Relation between Religious
and Social Change. In: LESSA, W., VOGT, E. (eds.), Reader in Comparative
Religion: An Anthropological Approach, 2nd ed., New York.
TA-SHEMA, I. M. 2001. Rabbi Moses Hadarshan and the Apocryphal
Literature. In: HOROWITZ, C. (ed.), Studies in Jewish History and Literature,
Lectures Delievered on the Memorial day for the Late Yitzhak Twersky at the
Touro Graduate School of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem [Hebrew].
TSAFRIR, Y. 1999. The Topography and Archaeology of Aelia Capitoline. In:
TSAFRIR, Y., SAFRAI SHMUEL, Y., (eds.), The History of Jerusalem: The
Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638 C.E.), Jerusalem.
ZISSU, B., ESHEL, H. 2001. The Geographical Distribution of the Bar Kokhba
Coins: What was renewed in the last Twenty Years (1980-2000). In: ESHEL, H.,
ZISSU, B. (eds.), New Studies on the Bar Kokhba Revolt, Proceedings of the
21st Annual Conference of the Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel
Studies, March 13th, 2001, Ramat Gan, 17-40.