This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofJewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see ourproject page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see ourtalk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofIsrael on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
The main problem is, the claim fails to distinguish between the Jewish students of Jesus via the Twelve Apostles (who Jesus commanded to obey the Pharisees) versus the Nonjewish students of Paul who styled himself as “the Apostle to the Nonjews”. These Jewish and Nonjewish movements remained separate movements, albeit seemed to have formally allied with each other at the socalled “Council of Jerusalem” (see Galatians).
Where is there a contemporaneous source for the historicity of this character commanding his supposed to students to follow the pharisees? That he commanded his supposed "followers" to follow the Rabbis, who found him guilty of inciting idolatry, seems quite absurd.
The Jewish students of Jesus remained full members of the Jewish community, in good standing.
False: Following an adjudicated idolatry does not leave a Jew in good standing.
The Bar Kokhba Revolt appears to have ended with the virtual extinction of the Jewish students of Jesus. The implication is these Jewish students supported the Bar Kokhba Revolt. At the very least, the Roman armies made no distinction and genocided the Jewish students of Jesus along with the rest of the Jews of Jerusalem.
Again, where are the contemporaneous sources that there were any such, and where are the contemporaneous sources to their supposed extinction at that time?
After the Bar Kokhba Revolt, the Romans tried to make Jerusalem “Jew free”, enforcing the earlier attempt to redefine Jerusalem as the Roman colony Aelia Capitolina. At this point, the Jewish “bishops” in Jerusalem since the days of James the Just, ceased to exist. In their place, the Romans installed a Nonjewish bishop, in other words, a Nonjewish student of Paul.
Jewish bishops???? Again, contemporaneous sources that there were any such?
The Nonjewish students of Paul never became Jews. The Jewish students of the Twelve Apostles never ceased to be Jews. And there never was a conflict between these two spiritual traditions.
False. Again, being a disciple of an adjudicated idolatry does not leave a Jew in good standing, not then and not now. If a Jew turns to christianity (heaven forbid) and later returns, they are required to "tovel" like a convert.
When the Rabbinate declared the “Notsrim” a heresy, literally a different “kind” of spiritual tradition, they refer specifically to the Nonjewish students of Paul, who are, by definition, Nonjewish. Jews were forbidden to become Nonjewish students of Paul. This verdict has no impact on Jewish students who follow the Twelve Apostles - but this distinction becomes moot after the Bar Kokhba disaster when any surviving Jewish students seem to merge back into the wider Rabbinic Jewish community.
False. Jesus was found guilty of inciting idolatry among Jews. Sandhedrin 42a
While ignoring any special personal status of Jesus, Rabbinic traditiondefacto incorporates almost every halakhic position that Jesus himself taught. Including: leniencies to save life on Shabat, the “greatest” commandment being love God thus love neighbor, do whatever the Pharisees say, and so on.
False. Personal divinity is against the very foundation of Judaism.
In sum, the period between the Crucifixion and the Genocide of Jerusalem became an opportunity to introduce biblical spirituality to Nonjews in a new way, however the biblical tradition as Jews understand it continues to remain intact.
False. Biblical spirituality does not include worshiping a person. And again, regarding the crucifiction, there are contemporaneous sources that tell a different story. So the historicity is at best in question.
Concluding comment: This entire talk section is really a thinly veiled attempt at proselytizing. It has close to zero support for any claim to historicity. And, it is offensive in its gross misrepresentations with respect to Judaism. --DrKN1 (talk)13:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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'tcollective punishment such asdecimation a standard Roman technique too? Our article onHadrian 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 -- theonly source that reports the ban israther dubious. His actions after the revolt were unquestionably hostile towards Jews, but he had reasons other than a hatred of Jewsqua 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, inHistory 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 Hadriandid ban circumcision, as MIRV states.Martin 19:27, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hadrian's dislike of circumcision (assuming that theAugustan 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)
New findings on leadership and course of the revolt.
New information seems to be emerging on the founding and leadership of the revolt. On a quick perusal, the cited work seems to say that Bar Kochba was not the original leader, was not followed by the majority and support eroded following proclamations by his followers and himself.
So, the history in this article may be in doubt in some areas and some rewriting to acknowledge where things may be not quite as told, may be in order.
See:
Olshanetsky, H. (2024). The Identity of the Leaders of the Second Jewish Revolt and Bar Koseba’s True Role in the Insurrection. Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 1–21.https://doi.org/10.1080/00310328.2024.2435788
Anonymous editor amended RS-supported version, from "Hadrian, may his bones rot" to "Hadrian, may his bones be crushed."
A quick search shows that "rot" is what the RS indicates, so in that spot it must not be changed, but that "be crushed" is more often used, with the sometimes used alternative translation "be ground up" transmitting the meaning in what I believe is a more expressive way. Please reinstateDavidbena's editing rights, we need him time and time again.Arminden (talk)09:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
