Talk:Bar Kokhba revolt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bar Kokhba revolt is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
To-do list for Bar Kokhba revolt: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    (moved from Talk:History of anti-Semitism) (moved from Talk:Hadrian)

    Hadrian [...] raises a new temple to Jupiter on the ruins of the Second Temple.

    This is standard operating procedure in the Roman religion: you tear down opposing holy sites and build your own temple on top of their ruins. No evidence this was motivated by anti-Semitism, that I can see. Indeed, the whole section seems only partially related to anti-Semitism, falling into the more general category of "history of nasty stuff done to Jews". I'm less sure about this, but wasn't collective punishment such as decimation a standard Roman technique too? Our article on Hadrian doesn't suggest that he was anti-Semitic. Perhaps it should, if we're going to be making that accusation here. Martin 23:05, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

    The only thing that suggests Hadrian was anti-Semitic is his ban on circumcision, enacted (I think) before the revolt, and its truth is debatable -- the only source that reports the ban is rather dubious. His actions after the revolt were unquestionably hostile towards Jews, but he had reasons other than a hatred of Jews qua Jews. (For reading on this, and ancient anti-Semitism in general, I recommend the essay "Anti-Semitism" in Antiquity: The Problem of Definition, by Shaye J. D. Cohen, in History and Hate: The Dimensions of Anti-Semitism (ed. David Berger).)
    Err, and attacking Judaism as a religion could be seen as anti-Semitic, I suppose, but again the issue is cloudy; the Romans made conquered barbarians worship Roman gods as a standard practice of Romanization, and the vast majority of said barbarians, being polytheists, didn't object too loudly. --MIRV 23:58, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    AFAIK, circumcision (brit-milah) has utmost religious importance in Judaism. Hadrian loathed it, and forbade this mutilation (as he called it) on pain of death. I'm not sure how far his projects of pagan temple advanced _before_ the uprising, but that's secondary. For what he did before and for his inadequate response to the uprising, he well deserves a place in the roaster. Humus sapiens 08:09, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    brit milah is indeed an important Jewish ritual. However, one cannot presume that every person who dislikes circumcision is anti-Semitic. It may be that Hadrian loathed circumcision because it was a Jewish ritual because he loathed the Jews. However, he may have loathed circumcision for other reasons. Further, note that we're not even sure that Hadrian did ban circumcision, as MIRV states. Martin 19:27, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

    Hadrian's dislike of circumcision (assuming that the Augustan History can be trusted -- Antoninus Pius did rescind a ban on the practice, but it's not clear that said ban was originally Hadrian's) may have been based on anti-Semitism, or it could have been part of a general Greco-Roman dislike for mutilation of the body (especially the male body) -- the ancient Greeks detested such mutilations, and Hadrian was strongly influenced by Greek thought and culture. --MIRV 19:44, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

    I've moved the content from history of A-S here, and left a stub to point to this article. Feel free to improve it radically. I wasn't sure about the title - perhaps "Hadrian in Judea" would be better? Martin 23:55, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


    Contents

    [edit] numbers

    (580,000 Jews were killed, 50 fortified towns and 985 villages were razed)

    Where did these numbers come from... trying to estimate WW2 numbers is often controversial, let alone numbers about stuff that happened 2000 years ago. User:GeneralPatton

    I returned them back, with attribution. Got to admit, I haven't read C.Dio myself, but at least 2 reputable sources that I've got right here & now refer to him. --Humus sapiens|Talk 05:19, 11 May 2004 (UTC) Both include these same numbers. --Humus sapiens|Talk 05:40, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
    About all we can do is attribute - sometimes people do research papers working up a more plausible guess, based on population, grain shipments, or whatever, but then you'd still want Dio's number alongside. Stan 05:30, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
    The research papers are based on facts and reasoning (such as comparison with more recent pre-industrial settlements with censused population). AFAIK, we don't know what the ancients' (C.Dio) numbers are based on - they seem to be guesstimates. If they were based on any methodology it should be cited. Fourtildas 06:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Ancient sources are generally unreliable when it comes to numbers; they tend to inflate Roman military exploits with exaggerated numbers. --GeneralPatton 02:10, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

    [edit] Headline text

    [edit] Philistines long extinct???

    What is the basis for this assertion? According to the Philistines article the place seems to have been continuously inhabited up to Roman times. "Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon eventually conquered all of Syria and the land of Canaan, and the Philistine cities became part of the Neo-Babylonian empire. Subsequently the cities were under the control of Persians, Greeks, and Romans, and 'Philistia' was governed as a territory."24.64.166.191 04:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

    They vanished as a people. Their neigbors stopped identifying them (and they stopped identifying themselves) as such. A typical story for an ancient people. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    Most people identify themselves as members of some people/tribe/nation and only stop identifying themselves if they assimilate into some other people/tribe/nation(s). Were the Philistines assimilated into some other people/tribe/nation(s)?
    I remember being taught that the Mayans were extinct (in your sense) but on a trip to Yucatan I found that the native Mayans didn't think so.24.64.166.191 04:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Your teacher was obviously wrong, the Mayans are not extinct as you have observed. This is not the case with the Philistines.--Doron 07:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    So what is the case with the Philistines? The Mayans retained their marriage customs, dress, cuisine etc. and did not adopt the customs of the Spanish colonialists. The Philistines either retained their customs or became Jewish or something else - what?24.64.166.191 05:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

    Opinions Aside I can cite scientific and incontrivertible proof that the Palestinians are at least in part decended from Philtines and furthermore are related to jews. The Origin of Palestinians and Their Genetic Relatedness With other Mediteranian populations.

    What te heck ever. if you dont mind having an inacurate article then so be it .--66.92.130.180 20:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

    A DNA study performed by a Japanese university. Surely you do not think that they have any reason to lie about this. This study used a comparison of the differences between populations now existing to determine how various groups are related. It found the palestinians have more haplotypes in common with jews than with most other "Arab" people. It found that jews have more DNA in common with Palestinians than with most other groups studied.

    Sure on both sides there has been some intermariage with people who are not jewish or Palestinian which is to be expexted after 2000 years of Diasopra and conquest of the levant. --Hfarmer 16:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

    It is a known study. It's conclusions may be true or not, but how is this relevant? 16 million people alive today are the descendents of Genghis Khan, so what? Does it suddenly make all of us/them the Mongols? The Philistines disappeared as a distinct people around 6-5 century BCE and today's Arabs have nothing to do with them. Curiously, many of those who insist on indentifying the modern Palestinians with the ancient Philistines, tend to insist that the Jews do not belong to the Land of Israel. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

    Please do not assume that I am some how anti one side and Pro the other. Yours is a conflict between brothers in which I have no stake.

    This is relivant because it establishes that the Phillistines are in fact not extinct they just converted to a differnt religion than the worship of pagan idols that they had been doing. This fact alone does not mean that they as a people do not exist. ie. my self and my Native Relatives are still Native Americans although none of us practice the old traditions as they existed pre coloumbus. This does not make us white or black, just Natives who practice a different religion. I can also understand the politics of ancestry determineing who gets to live "on the 'reservation' " and who does not. I have firsthand knowledge of those type of matters.

    "the Phillistines are in fact not extinct they just converted to a differnt religion than the worship of pagan idols that they had been doing."
    Are you saying they converted to Judaism? Or were they a non-Jewish peasent underclass ruled by hereditary Jewish overlords? In those days 90-95% of the population in agrarian societies were serfs. Who were the "people" of Israel? The Jewish ruling classes or the conquered subject peoples? Who were the "people" of the Roman Empire - not Romans for sure.24.64.166.191 05:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

    All of this is relevant to this discussion because it falseifies the statement that "the Phillistines were long extinct". It just is not a true statement.

    Where do I personally stand on the matter? If anything the current Palestinians being mostly the same people puts the current conflict in perspective. You all have been fighiting back and forth for thousands of years. Why would a little talk with George Bush (either or them) or anyone else make you stop? Those are the personal feelings I have on that matter. --Hfarmer 06:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I try not to assume anything. That was a general observation not directed at you. BTW, I think I understand your perspective: I have several Native American friends. Sorry, some of your assumptions are simply wrong. Arabs and Jews did not fight each other for thousands of years. As a matter of fact, they got along better than Christians and Jews. By 1940s, about a million of Jews lived in Arab/Muslim lands, see [1].
    Back to our subject: "The Phillistines are in fact not extinct they just converted to a differnt religion" -- the point is, they stopped identifying themselves or being identified by their neighbors as a distinct people. Unlike you and your relatives. That makes all the difference. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
    Are you saying they converted to Judaism? Fourtildas 05:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, the Phillistines are extinct. From evidence of their pottery and other works, they were likely Greek people. Maybe even survivors of the destruction of Atlantis Santorini. If you look at Palestinians and check their DNA, they match closer to Jewish people than any other group. The Palestinians are merely Arabs who have lived in the region over the centuries. I assume this the popular conception. Forgive me if I just angered anyone. Jtpaladin 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

    By Greek you mean Dorian I presume? Mallerd (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Unsourced POV edits

    To User:TheUnforgiven, adding unnecessary and unsourced adjectives loaded with hyperbole like you keep attempting to add here is highly POV. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 8 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)


    Sorry Jew-guy, I'm not buying your drivel at the behest of User:Jayjg, who is also Jewish and your best buddy.
    I will not adhere to a troll ring of Zionazis any more than a troll ring of Germanazis.
    I won't cower to your self-concieved superiority and heckling to get me to fold for you.
    I've defeated far more bullies than the years you've been alive.
    See here for my refutation: [2]

    Articles laden with POV adjectives do no-one any favours, and please refrain from personal attacks. Jayjg (talk) 8 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)

    Please refrain from ad hominem editing. You know, the kind that includes editing against a person's edits for the sake of an earlier and unrelated dispute(the only possible one could be, that it is on your watchlist of all things about Jews and Judaism, regardless of context). Hostile editing to control an article doesn't work in the sense of advancing an article to the peak of reading performance. You have failed so many decent topics by controlling the written matter to your POV subjectivity. No matter what you do to try and blaspheme or libel my actions, I will not give in to this coercion. Go ahead and ban me for your POV pushing tactics of thuggery. I described a fact about your trolling, which is evidenced by your edit history. All people can troll, even Jews and even administrators and by God, even Jewish administrators. You don't have a God given right to treat me like this, regardless of what you think you should do according to your religion. The Christian Zionist cowards who let you get away with this are no better in objectivity. Stop your bullying!

    Again, please refrain from personal attacks, and please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg (talk) 8 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)

    Oh, and please note that I have edited this article before, months before you ever showed up on it, so of course it is on my watchlist. Jayjg (talk) 8 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

    What kind of world is it in Israel and the International Jewish Community? How can you seriously go before the world with your Ignoratio elenchi driving everything you support? Why can't you just be normal people and grow the fuck up? I will not do what you will not do. Everything you edit in your favour is POV. Everything you do against me is obviously by definition ad hominem...eg. No personal attacks. I will use appropriate language for the rightful circumstances. You will neither censor me, nor whitewash the truth from the public eye. I am wrong: You already are doing such things and getting away with it because of your "G-dly authority". Go away! TheUnforgiven 8 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
    I recommend a time-out. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 21:24 (UTC)
    You would not care to say so for Jayjg, who would never back down anyways after a "timeout". This is his repertoire on the Wikipedia, however sad it may be for you as a Jew to think your people could ever do wrong. Accept your flaws as much as Christians do. Perhaps you might gain some respect! For so long as I am treated like chattle by Jews, I will never accept them as friends. This is with anybody trying to blow smoke up my ass, as I had a recent run in with a Nazi here. Zionism is evil. Inasmuch as Christians are prohibited from doing their Godly duties on Wikipedia, so are Jews expected to refrain from doing their intolerance of anything outside their orthodoxy. You lot are prejudiced and blinded by your fundamentalism and I will not take this lip from you. Repackage your hatred for Gentiles all you want, but it means nothing at all to me. Don't bullshit me! TheUnforgiven 8 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)
    Your statements demonstrate that you are at present, at least, incapable of working together with other editors to improve Wikipedia. Your blatant personal attacks, some of which sound like veiled threats, are clear evidence of that. If you weren't so inextricably POV, you'd be open to the possibility at least, that when I recommended a time-out, I was recommending that both of you take a time-out. Clearly, my recommendation went unheaded, as the hot-headed comments above demonstrate. Tomer TALK 03:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    As the author of the phrase in question, I insist that the original phrase expresses what it's supposed to and the change by TheUnforgiven is not an improvement but rather blatant POV. The previous paragraph is a clear evidence that this particular user does not understand or is unwilling to follow WP policies. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Correction on numbers regarding people murdered by revolting Jews

    According to DIO CASSIUS, Second century Roman historian, in Cyprus and Cyrene, Jews massacred gentiles in great numbers. "The Jews were destroying both Greeks and Romans. They ate the flesh of their victims, made belts for themselves out of their entrails, and daubed themselves with their blood... In all, 220,000 men perished in Cyrene and 240,000 in Cyprus, and for this reason no Jew may set foot in Cyprus today."

    I have not seen anything by this same historian to include the number of dead Jews. I would like to see a link to a non-Jewish source for any such claim.

    The fact is that this was Roman territory and the Jews living in that land were given a huge amount of freedom to practice their religion. That's why the Romans were taken aback when the rebellion came. Jews slaughtered thousands of Gentiles, mostly innocent women and children who's only crime was not being Jewish. --Jtpaladin 02:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

    Oh yeah, those bloodthirsty Jews. Where's the info coming from? ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    You need to check yourself because as a pro-Israeli, pro-Jewish supporter you make it hard for me to deal with anti-Semites when you exclude historical information related to the subject at hand. When people twist history to meet their political agenda, then your opponents can make up lies and then you have to deal with those lies as well as history. Naturally, "revisionists" use history and lies together to make converts. I have never lost an argument to an anti-Semite because I use history to confirm what happened and argue that history is not an indication of present life or the future. For the most part, I use any historical source that can be confirmed. In this case, because you and I will go back-and-forth with this page, I will use Jewish sources (although I retain the right to use any verfiable historical source). That's why my sources in this article are strictly from the Jewish Encyclopedia. If you had been fair, as I have been, you would have added this information without me having to visit this page. Sadly, in this case, you only told half the story. I ask you to tell me why you left out the information from the Jewish Encyclopedia that rightfully should have been included.

    Please check out my comments on your talk page. Thank you. --Jtpaladin 17:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

    Jtpaladin, I left a note on your talk page regarding personal attacks. There is no need to crosspost the same message. On the subject: The numbers you insisted on adding belong to Kitos War (115-117). Different time, different place, different rulers - no relation to the Bar Kokhba's revolt (132-135). The numbers you insisted on removing: another reputable source is Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987) p.141. By now, this is confirmed by 4 scholarly sources and more can be provided. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

    If you put it that way, I don't understand why people who are pro-Jew etc can edit articles like this. Same for holocaust. Same for any article regarding anything! I don't like anti-Semites, pro-Semites etc. Ethnicity is something you can't fix yourself, so why the big deal about it. Mallerd (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Bar Kokhba's revolt vs. Bar Kokhba revolt

    Should we change the title? Bar Kokhba revolt seems to be more prevalent. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    Finally sombody did it. The way it was, didn't make sense. It wasn't Bar Kochba's revolt; it was a revolt by the Jews against Rome with Bar Kochba as its military leader. I wasn't aware that you had brought it up, otherwise I would have added my support for such a move; thanks. Itzse 15:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Myth of "expulsion of jews in 132AD"

    "Modern historians have come to view the Bar-Kokhba Revolt as being of decisive historic importance. The massive destruction and loss of life occasioned by the revolt has led some scholars to date the beginning of the Jewish diaspora from this date. They note that, unlike the aftermath of the First Jewish-Roman War chronicled by Josephus, the majority of the Jewish population of Judea was either killed, exiled, or sold into slavery after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt,"

    Which "Modern historians" still cling to this "expulsion" myth? (OK, I can probably guess which ones). There is an extensive literature on Jewish life in Palestine (they were the majority of the population) for hundreds of years after 132. I will delete the part quoted above unless a source is supplied, representing the consensus of recognized modern academic historians (not some advocacy site claiming to be an encyclopedia, please). Fourtildas 05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    It should also be noted that there is a popular but utterly incorrect idea that the supposed expulsion of Jews from Palestine is what started the Jewish diaspora, as implied in by the article as quoted above. The diaspora happened a long time before that, and it didn't result from "expulsion" at all. There were huge Jewish communities in Alexandria and Babylon, for example, and lotsa Jewish communities all over the Roman Empire. In fact, if you read Philo and Josephus carefully, you get the impression that there were already more Jews living outside Palestine than in it, well before the Judaean War of 70-74.
    There's really no reason to doubt that the modern Palestinian Arabs are descended from the people who lived there anciently, many of whom were Jewish. Any more than there's any reason to doubt that most modern Levantine Muslims are descended from Christians who lived there in Byzantine times, and who are in turn descended from pagans who lived there before that. And when I say modern Palestinian Arabs, I include the Jewish Palestinian Arabs along with the Christians and Muslims and Druzes.
    It's certainly true that the "Roman expulsion of Jews" is a myth. Rome didn't persecute Jews qua Jews until it became Christian, whereupon it acquired a theological reason for hating Jews. Tom129.93.17.174 04:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Gosh, where to begin when confronted with such historical theories. Palestinian Arabs are in all likelihood descended from all those people you mention, as well as many others. Being Arab is, after all, not a genetic definition but a linguistic or ethnic one. And the area we know variously as the Levant, etc., has always been an area with lots of migrations of people. It's a bit tedious to quibble about genetic descent in this context, as it's always going to be a contest of assertions. In the meantime, genetic tests, for what they're worth, show that Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews are related to each other, and also to Arabs and Assyrians. Which shouldn't surprise anyone and makes the divisiveness so much more tragic.
    As for the expulsion, the Romans did indeed persecute Jews long before Christianity set in among them. It wasn't that they were particularly harsh toward Jews - they were harsh toward anyone who was insubordinate to Roman ways, and Jews could not tolerate idolatry in general and desecration of the temple in particular. Yes, there has been uninterrupted Jewish habitation of the area throughout all historical time, but the Romans implemented and enforced severe difficulties for Jews, to force them to either assimilate to Roman ways or leave. --Leifern 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Up until the expulsion of the ten tribes almost all if not actually all Jews lived in the Holy land and Transjordan. The destruction of the First Temple saw most Jews expelled outside Israel. At the beginning of the Second Temple there were more Jews outside Israel then in Israel (even without the lost ten tribes). At the time of the destruction of the second temple, there probably were more Jews in Israel as a result of assimilation by the Diaspora Jews and population growth in Israel. At the time of the Bar Kochba revolt there might have been an equal number of Jews in Israel as outside Israel. But as a result of the Bar Kochba war there were probably more Jews outside Israel then in Israel. Those that survived in Israel concentrated mostly in the Northern part of the country where for the next hundred years the Tannaim produced the Mishnah in Tiberias.The next fifty years the Amoraim in Israel produced the Jerusalem Talmud, then for the next two hundred years the Amoroim of Israel together with the Amoroim of Babylon (on the banks of the Euphrates) produced the Babylonian Talmud. So I think that it is true that as a result of the Bar Kochba war, the Jewish Diaspora became a cold reality even though there was still a strong presence of Jews left in the Holy land. So just like there is a political need of some to downplay the Jewish presence in Israel for the last five hundred years, it's not surprising that these same people would like everyone to believe that in 132 CE, Judaea became Judenrein and they’ll grab on to Half-truths or to just about anything to bolster their claim. Itzse 16:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


    Immediately after the Bar Kochba revolt there remained a large Jewish presence in Judea as is shown by the fact that there was a major rabbinical school in Lydda. The Romans tried to ban Jews from Jerusalem but that was not successful. Also, it is incorrect to refer to the descendants of the 10 northern tribes as Jews. Jews are those whose identity derives from the tribe of Judah or from the kingdom of Judah. Tom129.93.17.139 21:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

    You're correct with what you wrote, except that the identity "Jew" was given to all Jews, even those from the tribe of Benjamin, because probably half of the Jews who were expelled at the time of the destruction of the First Temple were from the tribe of Judah and also because the Jewish nobility (house of David) came from Judea, and Judea was named after the tribe of Judah who were the inhabitors of Judea, who were given that plot of land by G-d between the years 1271 and 1257 BCE, when Joshua conquered and divided the land.
    The Jews actually considered themselves then and still consider themselves now bnei Yisroel (the children of Israel), and the lost ten tribes if they didn't give up their identity would still be considered bnei Yisroel. That's why the Falashas are considered "Jews" even though they're not from the tribe of Judah. Itzse 20:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] New source

    The below is from a discussion with another editor. It would be very nice if this was incorporated into the background section. I won't have time to do this myself for a while. nadav 00:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

    I am looking now at an article by Lee Levine, "Jerusalem from the Destruction of Jerusalem to the End of the Second Jewish Revolt" (appears in the book Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism ed. by Hershel Shanks, isbn 1-880317-08-7). He writes

    Perhaps the most frequent subject of discussion concerning the Bar-Kochba revolt related to its causes. One was a decree of the Roman emperor Hadrian prohibiting the practice of circumcision; according to a fourth century biography of Hadrian this was the immediate cause of the outbreak of hostilities. However the Roman historian Dio Cassius, in his early third century History of Rome, tells us that it was the anouncement of Hadrian's intention to build a new city to be called Aelia Capotilina on the site of Jerusalem that triggered the rebellion...Opinion has been divided over which was the real cause,or, alternatively, which was the primary cause of the revolt. Both may well have constituted indispensible ingredients leading to the outbreak of hostilities. As we shall see, however, other basic conditions were also important in accounting for teh revolt.

    He then discusses the context for each of these decisions, and how the Romans had done similar things elsewhere. He then continues:

    While these decrees probably explain the the specific timing of the outbreak of hostilities, Eusebius, the fourth century bishop of Caesarea, in a passage often ignored, suggests that the revolt was not simply a sudden eruption of Jewish nationalist and religious fervor but was rather the culmination of a decades-long period of discontent and unrest following the destruction of the Second Temple. Eusebius also notes that because the Romans were apprehensive of any type of messianic or royal claims, they sought to track down those Jews of Davidic descent.

    In the next section, he describes revolts that had occured a few years earlier among Diaspora Jews, and the possiblity that there was some revolt in Judea at the same time. Archaeologists also have unearthed extensive road building in those years in Judea, which often had military uses. The most interesting part is picture depicting an Aelia Capitolina coin. The caption reads:

    Minted in 131 C.E., this coin depicts the temple to Jupiter, flanked by statues of Juno and Minerva, which the Roman emperor Hadrian planned to build on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Hadrian's plan to transform Jewish Jerusalem to a Roman city named Aelia Capitolina sparked the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome in 132 C.E. The new Roman name for the city is inscribed on the coin COL(onia) AEL(ia) KAP(itolina), a name combining one of Hadrian's names, Aelius, with a reference to the three deities of the Roman Capitolina, Jupiter, Juno and Minerva.

    [edit] Checking April 2007 edits

    Should this be fixed? "the first crusade in 1096, where Cristian rule began in 1099 until the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1516"

    I believe the Byzantine empire empire fell in 1453..

    Yes, by no definition did the Empire last until 1516. User:Itzse introduced a number of factual, spelling, sourcing, and POV problems into the article, not to mention at least one wrong link. (The temple was not built to the planet Jupiter.) However, he (I assume "Itzse" is for "Yitzchak" and thus male?) also added a number of important historical considerations. So I think it might be best to revert and discuss aspects of his version of the article (located here) prior its gradual incorporation into the article. Or Itzse can point us to a sandbox version of the edits. Calbaer 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    In the spirit of improving the article, I created a to do list of the things I thougt are priorities. Fell free to add stuff. nadav 20:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC) I do think that since the article is now B-Class, additional edits should be based on sources and cited. That's the only way it will be promoted to anything higher. nadav 23:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    Not a bad idea. Just so you know, I've mainly worked on getting rid of things that are obviously wrong (false, POV, etc.) rather than adding material that is right, since most of what I know about the revolt I learned from the Wikipedia page (and from this site). Sorry if I sounded like I claimed to be an expert. Calbaer 23:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Inconsistencies in Rabbi Akiva's role in the revolt

    This item and the item on Rabi Akiva provide different descriptions of Akiva's role.