Captivating History, The Bar Kokhba Revolt (Kindle 2021)
The book starts with a whistle-stop tour of Jewish history, beginning with the Exodus (without going into the fascinating question of historicity as backed up by the archaeological record, the biblical account is used). Then, whizzing through the Babylonians, Persian, Seleucids, Ptolemies and Hasmoneans (Maccabees), we’re up to the Romans by Chapter 2.
The speed made my head spin, but the simplification of the Sadducees/Pharisees conflicts during the Hasmonean period was helpful.
Herod became vassal king to Rome by backing the right Romans at the right time. The Romans began the practice, so vilified by future Zealots, of appointing their own puppet high priests.
With a view to the Bar Kokhba revolt, all this background serves to outline the reasons why Jews wanted independence from Roman rule. Underlying it all was a cultural antagonism going back centuries of conflict between Greek-speaking Greco-Roman-influenced ‘Hellenists’ and Aramaic-speaking ‘Hebrews’. Then there was a religious conviction that Israelites were destined by God to be free. Successive Roman authorities didn’t help matters by trying to erect statues of emperors, considered religious anathema. Antagonism between Judaeans and their neighbours—Idumaeans, Samaritans, Galilean—dates back to the Hasmoneans, who forced Jewish customs and religions on the conquered people.
After the first Jewish Revolt, things got worse, with the fiscus judaicus tax imposed only on Jews and anti-Semitism from both rulers and populace. Emperor Domitian was openly hostile to Jews (including Christians). There was a second Jewish Revolt with the Kitos uprisings of 115-117 CE in the Diaspora.
The final straw before Bar Kokhba erupted in 132 CE is debated. Hadrian rescinded his promise to rebuild the Temple and began construction of a Roman colony Aelia Capitolina atop the ruins of Jerusalem. He planned to site a Temple of Jerusalem right on Temple Mount, although this may not have happened until after the revolt.
Interestingly, it ends by reviewing the various scholarly controversies concerning the revolt, a situation engendered by the paucity of real information, which was itself probably engendered by the completeness of the defeat and the enormous deathtoll. Unfortunately, the conclusion reached is a silly, revisionist one—that it was ‘basically a cultural misunderstanding’.









