Friday, March 6, 2015

Bar Kochva revolt

     In my last blog I summarized the life of Yehoshua ben Yosef (Joshua son of Joseph, commonly known as Jesus) and explained a few main differences between Judaism and Christianity. But of course that was only the very beginning of the Christian story. In the roughly three centuries that followed the life of Yehoshua the Christians were persecuted terribly (and I say that as a Jew who's fully aware how badly the Jews have been persecuted over the years). Though of course history actually moves in fits and starts, we can say that by around the time of the emperor Constantine (~320) Christianity had become an accepted religion (his mother was Christian and it is said that he saw a cross in the sky before a famous battle, which he won) and by the end of the 4th century it was the official religion of the Roman Empire.
     This official adoption by the Roman Empire had important consequences for the way Christianity was organized. In general, it mirrored the organization of the Roman Empire. So, for example, Constantine's new capital Constantinople (today's Istanbul) became an important center of Christianity. When the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 CE the Eastern Roman Empire (which history would call the Byzantine Empire) became the standard-bearer for Christianity. This split, between the conquered west and the unconquered east would eventually lead to the Great Schism in 1054 in which Eastern and Western Christianity split.
     Christianity also underwent important theological changes in the centuries after Yehoshua's death. Arguably the most important influence came from Paul, originally a Jew named Saul, who converted to Christianity after famously having a vision of Yehoshua while on the road to Damascus. After this experience he became a major proselytizer for Christianity. Not only that, but while previously the target audience for proselytizing Christians had been Jews, Paul preached mainly to pagans, traveling extensively within the Roman Empire and famously writing many epistles (letters) to other communities, many of which are preserved in the Christian Bible.
     Paul, along with his extensive outreach, also made significant changes to the substance of Christianity (as always, it's unlikely that he thought of and enacted these changes alone, but he's generally the face of them). Whereas Yehoshua had said he didn't intend to change even a word of the law, Paul (and others like him) decided that certain Jewish practices, such as circumcision and keeping Kosher, were unnecessary in Christianity. In the instance of circumcision, for example, Paul said that merely getting circumcised didn't make you a good person; its your actions that matter, and so he advocated a "circumcision of the heart" rather than a literal circumcision. While Jews would agree that getting circumcised doesn't make you a good person, our view is that it's a physical symbol of our covenant with HaShem (the Hebrew phrase for circumcision is literally a covenant), which should help us remember how to behave. In fact, virtually all Jewish rituals are to help us remember some particular message or event.
     While it seems clear that Paul's new version of Christianity came from an honest place--Yehoshua himself pointed out that the trappings of holiness, such as priestly garments, aren't what actually make you holy--it certainly didn't lessen Christianity's appeal. You can imagine an ancient Roman who admired Judaism's morality and views on god considering conversion only to decide against it when he learned he'd have to cut off a little part of his best friend. Paul solved this problem for Christianity.
     Another important Christian thinker was St. Augustine, who was active around the year 400. At this point Rome, who had ruled the world for at least 500 years, was clearly in decline, and would be sacked for the first time since 390 BCE (an interval of 800 years) during his lifetime. Partially as a response to this he wrote the book "City of God", explaining that the physical existence in this life was far less important than the world-to-come. Like Paul, he was clearly a brilliant scholar and deep thinker, but you can imagine the appeal of this idea in a world in which the physical conditions were rapidly deteriorating.
     St. Augustine also dealt with the intellectual conundrum that was the continued existence of the Jews. If, as he knew to be the case, Christianity was True, how can we explain the continued existence of Am Yisrael (the Jewish people)? Shouldn't they all have died out and/or converted to Christianity? St. Augustine's answer is that Am Yisrael survived in order to act as witnesses to the glory of Christianity and to serve as a warning to Christians. He also contributed to the development of the idea of "original sin" (discussed in the previous blog) and just war theory. Even today his writings continue to exert a major influence on Christian thinkers (and even general philosophy).
     Back in Eretz Yisrael things weren't going well for Am Yisrael. After the Great Revolt of 66-70, which culminated in the destruction of the Second Temple, we were able to pick ourselves up and re-establish some kind of community. Unfortunately, 50 years later, the Roman emperor Hadrian rose to power, who was an avid Hellenist. As such, he clashed with Am Yisrael, passing laws forbidding circumcision (which, in his view, mutilated the beautiful human body), building a pagan temple on the site of the destroyed Beit HaMikdash (Temple) and even renaming Jerusalem Aelia Capitolina, a combination of his own name and that of Rome's chief deity.
     Not surprisingly these measures led to a Jewish revolt. Whereas during the Great Revolt Am Yisrael was divided and fighting among ourselves, this time we were united under the military/political leadership of Shimon bar Kochva (bar Kochva was a play on his actual name; it means "son of star"), who was widely believed to be the messiah, and the spiritual leadership of Rabbi Akiva (more on him in the next blog about the further development of the Oral Torah). This revolt was so successful that there was actually an independent Jewish state for more than two years, and it took up to half of the entire Roman army (this is the higher side of various estimates, but its clear that it took a huge force) to put it down. Rome's 12th legion, for example, was erased from history during the rebellion (and maybe the 9th as well). Bar Kochba and co even printed their own coins.
coins from the brief Jewish state founded by bar Kochva. left: Beit HaMikdash with the Ark of the Covenant within. right: a lulav and etrog, symbols of the Jewish holiday of Sukkot
     Unfortunately for Am Yisrael, this revolt happened right at the peak of Rome's powers, and so they eventually put it down. To combat bar Kochba's guerrilla tactics the Romans embraced a scorched earth strategy, destroying absolutely everything. There are many stories about the ferocity of the destruction. The Jerusalem Talmud, for example, writes that the Romans "went on killing until their horses were submerged in blood to their nostrils". One Roman historian estimates that nearly 600,000 Jews were killed (even today that would be nearly 5% of the Jewish population). 
     After the rebellion the anti-Jewish laws became even stricter. Hadrian wanted to completely extirpate Am Yisrael so, among other punishments, he ceremonially burned the Torah scroll on the site of the destroyed Beit HaMikdash. He also renamed the province of Judea, going back to Israel's historical enemies the Philistines to find the name Palestina. Another unforeseen result of the rebellion was a further split between Judaism and Christianity. While there were certainly multiple reasons that the Christians chose not to participate in the rebellion, one major consideration was that they couldn't accept that bar Kochba was the messiah. 
     This rebellion, in my opinion, is more problematic than the Great Revolt. It's easy to make the case that the Great Revolt was a huge mistake, one for which we must largely blame ourselves (which is not to excuse the role the Romans played). In this case, though, it's more complicated. How should we have reacted to Hadrian's laws? At what point do you say "enough is enough"? When he renamed Jerusalem? When he outlawed circumcision? When he built a pagan temple on Har HaBayit (the Temple Mount)? How should we have reacted?

11 comments:

  1. I definitely agree this rebellion was more problematic than the Great Revolt. It was an attempt to completely wipe out Judaism from the face of the earth and it seems to have come close to succeeding. However, I don't know how anything could have been done differently. The Jews couldn't have just stood by and watched their culture be outlawed. Hadrian's actions were never acceptable, so they clearly had to rebel and did everything right when they finally tried. They were united and successful, but there was only so much that could be done against the Roman Empire.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The first half of this blog post talked about christianity which confused me as that has nothing to do with the title.
    The revolt in my opinion was a mistake by the Jewish People. Yes they were being treated terribly, but what on earth made them think they could take the Roman army? No matter how bad conditions were, no matter how strong the Jews thought they were, even with their tactics, did they honestly believe they would be able to defeat the entire roman army? They should've known that Rome wouldn't just quit and let the Jews live happily. However, I find it beyond amazing that the Jewish people survived this. After losing 2 revolts against Rome and having a ruler attempt to remove the Jewish people how are we still alive today? I find that amazing

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that part of the reason why we lost this war was because the Jews were too passive. It’s ironic in a way because we always talk about how Jews don’t have a passive aggressive, only aggressive mode, but I feel like in this case, the Jews were too passive and should have put a stop to Hadrian’s rule sooner. Obviously it’s very hard to decide to take action and I would have had an extremely difficult time considering I am a rather passive person. I think for me, the last straw would have been when Hadrian began to build the pagan temple on top of Har Habiet. I think that the Jewish people should have been long prepared before that and already had planned a way to undermine the building and put an end to it. Hopefully that would have stopped further planning of rooting out the Jewish culture.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think there comes a point when enough is enough. We couldn't have just sat back and let Hedrian push anti- Jewish laws on us. So I do agree with this revolt. The point where I would have said stop is when they built a temple on the Temple Mount. Even though they had outlawed circumcision, building a temple for Venus on our most Sacred spot is a straight insult to every Jew in the world. What they had been doing before was unfair and cruel but this crossed a line.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with your point that this revolt was more problematic than The Great Revolt. I know that the Jewish people may have feared the Romans, but there comes a point when enough is enough, and you need to stand up for yourselves, your rights, and your religion. I think the reason that the Jewish people didn't do anything at first was because they were afraid. But each step that the Roman's took to destroy Judaism in its entirety, made the Jews even angrier. Yes, everything that they did was bad. But I think that the breaking point for me would have been when the Romans built a pagan temple on Har HaBayit.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I thoroughly enjoyed learning about Christianity. While I know that it is a Jewish history class, I think that it is important to learn about as many other religions as well. Understanding other cultures and religions is the way that peace between peoples are established and maintained, and it starts with understanding them. I wish that we could have spent more time on Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Since this rebellion was a result of the Romans attempting to completely demolish Judaism and wash it away from the memory of people and the world, I completely agree that it was more problematic than the Great Revolt. There is only so much that a people can tolerate before they begin to fight back with the aspect of unity leading the way. I think that once the Romans built a temple in place of the second temple that "enough was enough" because the temple did not only affect a few people in Judaism but it definitely symbolized Judaism as a whole and connected all of the Jewish people even if you never entered it. Obviously, the actions that the Romans took against the Jews before this was unacceptable as well, but placing a physical object that directly effects the jewish people all over the world is going too far and therefore is the breaking point.

    ReplyDelete
  8. One of the things I've found most interesting throughout our course is the number of times we learn about an event that "should have been the end of the Jewish people." With all the revolts, ruthless leaders, and all the challenges that have faced the Jewish people so far in what we've studied, it's truly remarkable that we survived. And we didn't just survive because of luck or chance, we fought back every time. Like with the Bar Kochva revolt, the Jews didn't just sit back and watch their people be killed and ruled unfairly. They took action. And the fact that we've done it so many times, and have been successful to the point that there is a thriving and large Jewish population in today's world, makes it so much more meaningful. We're a pretty persistent people.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I believe the rebellion was more problematic than the Great revolt as well, but it was needed. It nearly wiped out all of the Jews on earth, something that has effected the Jewish people forever, as we are now a minority. Although it was problematic, I acknowledge that it was one of the only solutions. I admire the Jewish people greatly, especially that they refused to sit back and relax as their culture became outlawed; instead they took a stand. An end was needed to Hadrian's actions, and that is the bottom line. So, to conclude, think the revolt was the only valid solution that the Jews had in order to protect themselves and our religion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's tough to decide what was best, especially back in historical times. Now, the world deals with more extreme conflicts like the utilization of nuclear weapons. We have better technology to defend ourselves, but the Jews had nothing. Especially now that everything they ever had--Jerusalem, Beit Hamekdash, Challaha--was destroyed or outlawed. Like Woodrow Wilson in World War 1, he refrained from entering the war because his people weren't ready to mourn for more deaths. There were series of tragic events that made him join World War 1. Back to the Jewish perspective, one event made them upset, but the continuation of destruction of their culture resulted in their desire to fight. Did they know that they were going to loose so badly? Maybe not, but did they get the point across? Obviously, if we're still talking about it now.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree with the idea that the rebellion was much more chaotic than the Great Revolt, but I also think it was necessary. It was almost an extinction for the Jewish people, which although did not succeed, was very close to it and has decreased the number of Jews in the world today. In order to protect themselves, and Judaism as a whole, the needed to revolt and stand up for themselves and what they believe to be right. They butted heads with Hadrian and were proud to do so. It was a demanding situation and the Jews fought back the only way they knew how.

    ReplyDelete