Talk:Simon bar Kokhba

Reworded article

I have reworded this article to remove the simplistic conflation of events. Bar Kochbas initial revolt in 132 was successful not unsuccessful it was a major military defeat of the Romans and led to the establishment of an independent Israel with Bar Kochba ruling as Prince. This state knew only 1 year of peace and was then attacked by the Romans who only managed to conquer it in 135. The original wording of the article shows bias towards views of history that deliberately downplay Jewish independence in the Holy Land because of modern political conditions. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I agree with this view also if this is the case REFERENCES need to be shown to the entire subject especially the name of the Palestine.. it seems to be racist in nature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.86.224.85 (talk • contribs) 3 May 2006.

AD vs. CE

This should be a fairly non-controversial edit, and fully within Wikipedia style guidelines. Is there some issue here? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Like I told Jayjg, my revert in this article was just to show him how annoying his behaviour is. Jayjg is following me at EN.wikipedia and reverting my edits, all of them. Reading his talkpage, I read several complaints of users with who he does the same. I'm a normal Wikipedian, not a vandal. Jcbos 23:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've responded on my Talk: page. Regarding the specific issue of AD vs CE, as you'll note from the latest edit on this article, clearly there are other editors here who agree with my edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jcbos: "my revert in this article was just to show him how annoying his behaviour is" shows a lack of good faith that violates our policies. Edits should be with an eye towards improving an article. If this is not your intention, do not edit. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article

What is this article? It reads like an op-ed and refers to itself as an essay. Is it a copyvio from somewhere? --Zero 14:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't find an on-line source, but it appears to be someone's essay on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

Why is "bar" lower case in the title and first sentence of the article, but upper case in the rest of the article? Badagnani 00:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Both are generally acceptable; I'd usually use the lowercase; I'm sure there is no good reason for the inconsistency; I have no idea whether somewhere in the MoS is a style for this, but if it bothers you, you could look. - Jmabel | Talk 05:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Let's avoid "some believe," or "some argue," please. Who are these mysterious "some," and why should they be taken seriously? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.33.108.130 (talk • contribs) 15 May 2006.

Bibliography added

As one can see, this section now has sources, and primarily contemporary historiographical ones at that. Accordingly, I have removed the Please Cite Sources header. Any comments? User Calibanu 13:54, 29 May 2006

Good job, thank you. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Fringe" groups

"This background gives understanding to Rabbi Hirsch's and other Orthodox leaders' pre-WWII (and some fringe groups today) anti-Zionist stance." In what respect are the Satmars "fringe" (other than a cheap joke about the talis)? - Jmabel | Talk 03:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has commented, I have removed. - Jmabel | Talk 23:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Messianic claim

The article asserts: "This was the first introduction of the concept of a Messiah in Judaism". But Peter the fisherman's words "You are the Messiah" to Yeshua [Jesus] of Nazareth (New Testament, Matthew 16:16) show that the concept was familiar in Judaism at least a century earlier. It derived from the still older Hebrew scriptures, in particular Daniel 9:25,26. Many Jews at Yeshua's time supposed it meant a military leader who would throw the occupying Romans out. - AG, Stockport. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.170.199 (talk • contribs) 12 September 2006.

The source for this assertation apparently links to nowhere. I'm not sure how the source links work (as I've been using wikipedia for years and have made numerous minor edits, but have only today actually gotten an account and done something on a discussion page), but when I click on it it goes nowhere. Does anyone have any idea where this source link is supposed to go? Or is it totally unsubstantiated (as per Matthew 16:16, stated above)? -Fivestones 03:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, Fivestones. I fixed some links but did not find a non-working one. Which one does not work for you? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

The Rabbis never declared him a false messiah because of his failure of the revolt. They rejected him because he did not meet critera. See San. 93B. Also he isn't a false messiah. He is a failed messiah. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.248.147 (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Disputed tag

The Rabbis never declared him a false messiah because of his failure of the revolt. They rejected him because he did not meet critera. See San. 93B. Also he isn't a false messiah. He is a failed messiah. 203.206.248.147 16:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The article's statement about the name "Palestine" is absurdly inaccurate

The article says: "Emperor Hadrian renamed the province of Judaea as Syria Palaestina, named for the Philistines, in order to humiliate the Jewish population by naming it after their ancient enemies. The name persists to this day as Palestine".

This rather implies that the Romans invented the name Palestine on the spur of the moment. Actually, Palaistina or Syria Palaistina (whence Palestine) had been the common name of the country in Greek and Latin for centuries, being used six times by Herodotus in his Histories. The great Jewish philosopher, theologian and historian Philo of Alexandria, writing in Greek long before the time of Bar Kochba, always calls it Palaistina, noting that it "is more anciently called Canaan". And indeed, in Hebrew and Aramaic the country continued to be called Canaan, not Palaistina. (Judaea in Greek and Latin, or Yehud in Hebrew and Aramaic, denoted the part of the country corresponding to the area constituting the Hasmonean state, and indeed the word Judea has this meeting in modern Israeli parlance.) The Roman name-change had much more to do with the fact that Judaea was being joined with other parts of the country, to form a larger unit, than with a program to "humiliate the Jewish population."

Romans frequently changed the names of provinces and other administrative areas, just as they frequently changed their boundaries, particularly after they themselves had caused political or military upheavals in the regions concerned. In this case, Rome was merely using the name that had become familiar to Greek and Roman alike over the past several centuries. The change from "Judaea" to "Palestine" wouldn't have had the effect of humiliating Jews, for they attached no particularly negative connotations to it; they themselves called the country Palestina when they communicated in Greek or Latin--just as a German or Greek or Japanese, if communicating in English, will speak of Germany or Greece or Japan, not Deutschland or Hellas or Nippon.

The revised provincial structure of Hadrian set up three divisions, namely Palaestina Prima, Palaestina Secunda, and Palaestina Tertia (First, Second and Third Palestine), and as both the Talmud and the Roman historians make clear, it comprised the whole of what is now called Palestine. Previously, the area had been divided into several political units, but that didn't keep people from referring to the whole area as Palaistina--any more than similar political fragmentation kept people from speaking of Italy or Germany or Greece, or acknowledging that each of the peoples of those countries constituted a nationality, prior to their political unifications in the nineteenth century.

The idea that there is something illegitimate about the word Palestine originated in modern times, and it has a rather unsavory aspect. This idea is quite often employed as part of a political agenda aimed at derogating Palestinian nationality, or implying that modern Palestinians are not legitimately a people because of the alleged origin of their name in a gesture of Roman anti-judaism. This is not the case. The Romans resolutely, and indeeed brutally, suppressed the national aspirations of its subject populations, but they cannot truly be said to have persecuted Jews qua Jews until Rome became Christian, whereupon anti-judaism became almost a State policy for thelogical reasons. Pagan Rome had no such agenda.

It would be best for the author of this article to remove this misleading statement. Tom129.93.17.174 03:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Tom129.93.17.174 03:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that the statement is unacceptable, but your time would be better spent by suggesting a replacement. --Zero^talk 09:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your points about the imperial Rome's brutality. Re: Palestine: Hellenists (including Hellenized Jews) did all kinds of things. Somehow I do not believe that after the war with the Philistines the Israelites decided to name the area Palestine, instead of Eretz Israel. Is there a Judaic source for that? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of such examples, but I don't have any handy and I don't think they were common. Most canonical Judaic sources, eg. Talmuds, do not have examples. A few occur in Midrash Rabbah though. The Jewish Encyclopedia mentions this practice (see "as well as by the Jewish writers" at the end of the first paragraph). But these are fringe phenomena. The main problem in the existing text is the claim of a particular Roman motive; I believe the statement "in order to humiliate the Jewish population by naming it after their ancient enemies" is stronger than the evidence allows, even though it is a popular belief. --Zero^talk 11:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's easily fixed by shortening the sentence.... Calbaer 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

But you didn't fix it. As Tom correctly noted, it was a pre-existing name. The Romans didn't name it after the Philistines, they adopted an existing name. --Zero^talk 09:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

... which is derived from the Philistines, the bitter enemies of the Jews. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

... which is true, but the text at the moment says the Romans named it after the Philistines. It was someone earlier (the Greeks?) who did that. Also the fact that the Jews and the Philistines were enemies is rather tenuously connected to this article. --Zero^talk 12:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Hadrian renamed the province after Israelites' mortal enemies at the same time as he was turning the ruins of Jerusalem into Aelia Capitolina, and Shechem into Neapolis, his choice of toponyms seems like a part of an effort to wipe the Jews off the map. See also Ten Martyrs, etc. Of course today we can only guess, but a source for such view can be easily found. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Humus Sapiens responses to my points (which I expressed in the opening paragraphs of this section) may have been written before reading my statement carefully. Many of the common names of foreign countries derive from the name of one of the ancient tribes or peoples that happened to impress the foreigner or was the first bunch the foreigner encountered--e.g., the Greci were only one of the tribes that inhabited what we call Greece, and the Persae were only one of many little nations that inhabited Persia, which for sure were "mortal enemies" of other peoples who lived in the same area. This article makes far too much of the fact that Palestine was so named because of a very common and very widely parellelled historical accident. To repeat, if the name Palestine had been meant to "humiliate the Jewish people" it would have failed in that purpose, because the term had no anti-Jewish connotation whatsoever.

Another bone of contention which I must pick is this: the article says that some have suggested the Roman response to the Bar Kochba revolt is the origin of the Jewish diaspora. That is a wildly inaccurate suggestion, since the diaspora dates from well before the Roman takeover of Palestine. Strabo is among the ancient authorities who attest to the fact that Jews had spread to very corner of the Mediterranean centuries earlier. Philo and Josephus make it very clear that by the time of the Jewish War of 70-74 the majority of Jews lived outside Palestine.

Jews continued to live in Galilee and Judaea after the Bar Kochba revolt. The center of Jewish life--and the sanhedrin, not to mention the office of Nasi or Prince (Patriarch) if the Jews, shifted to Galilee, but there remained major Jewish houses of learning in Judaea also. There has been a continuous and very well-established Jewish presence in Palestine over the past two thousand years. The country has NEVER lacked a Jewish population. Jewish attachment to Palestine has been extremely persistent.

Did Hadrian really issue a decree against circumcision? This is unproven, and in my opinion very unlikely as tending to encourage more rebellions. There are instances of such prohibitions on a local or provincial basis, or issuing from this or that king, but in every instance we know of, populations with a long established custom of circumcision (such as Jews and Egyptians) were specifically exempted. Tom206.222.198.12 21:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Humus Sapiens' post of 9:59 7 March: Sorry if I wasn't clear. Israelites and everybody else who spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, and other closely allied languages referred to the country as Canaan, both before and after Israel's wars with the Philistines, up thru the Second Commonwealth period and beyond. In most other languages, it was called Palaestina. As for calling the country Eretz Israel, the Talmud is the first literary source to do so. The books of Samuel and Joshua use the phrase Eretz Israel once apiece, but in both cases it refers to the part of the country that is occupied by the Israelites as opposed to the other peoples in that country. And the one reference to Eretz Israel in Ezekiel refers to the area of the (Northern) Kingdom of Israel and doesn't include Judaea. One suspects, however, that the term Eretz Israel was popular with Jews before the Talmud was written.

One must note that, whatever the origin of the name Palestine, it was and has been used by Jews ancient and modern; for example, the Zionist Congresses never called it anything but Palestine. I am afraid that the modern hostility toward that name, manifested by Israelis and their supporters, has a lot to do with a desire to question the Palestinians' right to exist as a nationality. I don't like that fact any more than you do, but the fact is so. Tom129.93.17.213 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure your "fact" is inaccurate. Israelis have no problem referring to their pre-1948 land as "Palestine." And, indeed, most Israelis want the Palestinians to have their own independent state, which would be located mostly in the West Bank. What Israelis and their supporters resent is the fact that much of the world refuses to call Israel by its proper name, instead referring to it as "Palestine." It would be like if someone insisted on calling the United States "the colonies," or on calling Mexico "New Spain." Saying that disliking such an action is due to questioning the right for a nationality to exist is the exact opposite of the truth. It's disliked because it questions the right of Israel to exist. Your opinion to the contrary reveals the reliability and point of view of your unsourced claims. Calbaer 20:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Israeli political leaders, espeically Golda Meir and David Ben Gurion, have said that the Palestinian nationality does not exist. This is too well-known, in my opinion, to require proof, although I'll supply quotes if you insist. Of course even those who deny that there is such a nationality are willing to refer to the region (prior to 1948) as Palestine, but this is often accompanied by an implication that the word Palestine originated in an anti-Jewish slur by Romans. One should not object to calling the region Palestine as opposed to Israel--Palestine is the name of the country or region itself, and Israel is the name of a state located in that region. The fact that a majority of Israelis support a Palestinian state is not relevant to my point--I certainly said anything to the contrary--any more than the non-recognition of Israel is relevant to my point. I am merely saying that the idea that the name Palestine originated in anti-judaism is part of a prejudicial attitude toward Palestinians, which does exist. I didn't attribvute that notion to the Israeli population--although that notion HAS been expressed by some of the leaders of Israel. Tom206.222.198.12 01:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

When you say "manifested by Israelis and their supporters," without any qualifiers, it sounds like you are talking about the Israeli population. Your words misrepresented not only what you meant, but truth as well, so I'm glad you clarified. Nationalities and ethnicities are sticky things, and I am familiar with the view you present (and oppose): that 80 years ago, few people would have called themselves "Palestinian" first, instead of "Arab" or "Muslim" or "resident of [insert town here]." Anyway, that's not what this article should be about, thus my softening of the language. And if you have reliable sources relevant to the ancient events, that would certainly be more relevant here than the views of Golda Meir. Calbaer 07:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I will stand by my statement: There exists a point of view to the effect that Palestine and Palestinian are illegimiate concepts, that there exists no Palestinian people, and that the word Palestine originated as an anti-Jewish slur. This misconception arose from an anti-palestinian attitude which is unfortunately very popular in Israel and among supporters of Israel. I don't like this fact any more than you do, but it is a fact. Calbaer challenged me on that fact and said it was "unsourced." So I didn't have much choice other than to cite examples of that viewpoint, and influential ones at that. David Ben Gurion and Golda Meir, both of whom were very prominent Israeli leaders, stated famously and influentially that there exists no Palestinian people and that the name Palestine is illegitimate as a name for the country because it originated as an anti-Jewish slur during the time of Hadrian. Partly as a result of those statements, these unfortunate notions have become very popular in Israel and in Zionist circles, whence their occurence in the Wikipedia article we are discussing. So the fact that such a viewpoint is frequently expressed by leaders and spokespeople of the State of Israel is in fact extremely relevant to the point I was challenged on.

Calbaer concludes, "And if you have reliable sources relevant to the ancient events, that would certainly be more relevant here that the views of Golda Meir." Actually, the views of prominent Israeli spokespeople and leaders is considerably more relevant (relevant to the point I was challenged on, that is) than sources for ancient events would be. Of course, in regard to other aspects of the question I'm discussing, such as the factuality of these notions about the origin of the name Palestine, ancient sources ARE relevant. That's why 've already cited ancient sources, namely Herodotus and Philo. I could also have cited Josephus and I could have cited any Greek or Roman geographer.

As Calbaer points out, Palestinian leaders have expressed attitudes about the Palestine/Israel problem that are every bit as unfortunate. I never wished to get into the subject of the various hostile remarks and allegations that get hurled around by peoples in conflict with each other (including Israelis and Palestinians), but only to point out that the article is wrong when it implies that the name Palestine was originated in the time of Hadrian and that its use at that time as a provinicial name was an anti-Jewish act. That idea originates from the very unfortunate modern notion I mentioned. Tom129.93.17.135 21:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are confusing several related but distinct matters, which is why I requested sources for your claims. For such sources, it would help if you gave the actual resource where the viewpoint was stated and perhaps an actual quote; the name of a person you believe said something you're paraphrasing is not a citation. In addition, your contention that a certain viewpoint is "very popular" is a vague one: Do you mean that it's held by 50% of the population? 10%? 1%? What I object to is taking the view of a small minority, modifying it, presenting it in a negative light, and claiming that it represents a widespread view. In any event, if you have reliable sources as to the origin of the word "Palestine" as a synonym for "Canaan," and how widespread its use was during or before Bar Kokhba's time, please add them into the article and modify accordingly. Actually, while you're at it, modify Palestine, since that too seems to indicate that using "Palestine" to refer to the former and future Jewish homeland began with Hadrian. Calbaer 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Calbaer, you're the one who's confused. If you were unaware of the wide popularity of that point of view in Zionist circles (the point of view that says Palestinians aren't a people and Palestine is an illegitimate name for the country in question), and if you were unaware that Meir and Ben Gurion, among others, have put themselves on record as having said precisely that, and if you didn't know that their statements are used repeatedly by spokespeople for Israel and representatives of the Zionist movement as a way to trash Palestinians, then you would be impossibly uninformed. Where do you think the author of this article came up with such an erroneous notion, which is repeated in several other Wikipedia articles relevant to Palestine? Tom129.93.17.135 20:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

How can I refute such vague claims? You've never given a percentage or even an exact quote from either of the (long-dead) people you've cited as evidence that the view is currently popular! (This is an example of the "confusion" I mean; the opinion of leaders who died in the 70s is not evidence of the popularity of views in the late 00s.) Anyway, the article never said that "Palestine" was an illegitimate name, just an insult to ancient Jews. (Again, confusion....) Calbaer 21:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Calbaer, you know perfectly well that the incorrect notions about the origins of the name Palestine that occur in the article are popular among supporters of Israel. You know that some of the most influential molders of Israeli public opinion have made statements to exactly the same effect. And there's no way you could NOT know that these statements have been used repeatedly in Israel, and by Israel's supporters, to deny the legitimacy of Palestine as a name along with the existence of any Palestinian nation. Anyone who doubts that has only to run an internet search on a name such as Golda Meir or David Ben Gurion along with the word "Palestinian". The searcher will find more specific citations, together with arguments in favor of these bigoted notions, and trashings of the whole concept of Palestinian nationality, than he'll know what to do with. And yes, I mean "views in the late 00s". If you really thought you needed my help to perform such an elementary exercise (which you don't), start out by visiting http://www.israel-wat.com/palestinians_eng2.htm and go from there.

I have no intention of continuing a dialog with someone who can be this disingenuous. My aim is to help improve the article by pointing out something that is seriously wrong with it. This is a wholesome and responsible aim. Exposing these falsehoods will increase awareness of the historical reality of Palestine, and will also encourage mutual respect between Israelis and Palestinians, which is vitally important for the good of both nationalities and for the peace of the world. Tom129.93.17.174

Deny what you know to be the case if you wish. Tom129.93.17.174 21:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)