AHC/WI: Successful Bar Kokhbah Revolt

The Bar Kokhbah Revolt (132-136 CE) is the last of the three Jewish-Roman Wars, and has a profound impact on the development of both early Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity.
Although it fits into the pattern of increased tensions between Jews and Romans, its immediate cause was the construction by Emperor Hadrian of the new colony Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem - complete with a temple to Jupiter. This was obviously unacceptable to the Jews, leading to a general revolt led by Simon ben Kosivah. The revolt was supported by the religious establishment: Rabbi Akivah, a leading tanna and redactor of the Talmud, proclaimed Simon the Messiah awaited by the Jews and called him Bar Kokhbah, Aramaic for Son of the Star, a reference to the messianic prophecy in Numbers 24:17: "There shall come a star out of Jacob".
The revolt was surprisingly successful and hard-fought: Bar Kokhbah managed to take control of Judea - and thus proclaimed himself Nasi, meaning prince - and cut off Legio X Fretensis based in Aelia Capitolina. During the war Bar Kokhbah managed to fight off several Legions, and possibly ambushed and destroyed Legio XXII Deiotariana.

Nevertheless, the Revolt was eventually defeated, and the Romans unleashed a near-genocidal revenge on the Jewish population of Judea, moving the Jewish religious center north to the Galilee where Talmudic academies where established. It also set up for the decline of the Jewish-Christian community, which was said to have been targeted both by the Jews for not supporting the Revolt, and by the Romans for being Jews.

What changes could make the Revolt more successful? The Revolt seems to have inflicted severe casualties to the Romans, and Bar Kokhbah, with the support of the Jewish population that was still very numerous at the time, is said to have fielded 200 000 men. Could some more significant defeats force a favorable peace?

What would a successful revolt mean for Judaism? Rabbinical Judaism was still developing at the time, and here comes a man with a worthy claim to be the long-awaited Messiah, and a chance to reclaim Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. The implications would be profound.

What effect would that have on early Christianism? Would a Bar Kokhbah state repress them, leaving the Jewish-Christian community to decline as it did IOTL, or could we instead avoid it? If so, how would Christianity develop if there is still a significant Jewish-Christian community observing the Mosaic Laws and calling Jesus the Messiah but not God in the flesh?
 
Last edited:
Rome could not accept an independent Israel at that date: Apart from the loss of prestige involved in surrendering part of the empire to rebels, it's too close to Egypt. There would be another army sent and, if necessary, another...
On the other hand, the Parthians might see this as an opportunity to expand westwards into Syria and eastern Asia Minor while the Romans were distracted, and perhaps an alliance might be made between the Jews and Parthians...
 
These revolts have not any chances if Roman Empire doesn't collapse totally. Rome is not going let Judea become independent.
 
Rome could not accept an independent Israel at that date: Apart from the loss of prestige involved in surrendering part of the empire to rebels, it's too close to Egypt. There would be another army sent and, if necessary, another...
On the other hand, the Parthians might see this as an opportunity to expand westwards into Syria and eastern Asia Minor while the Romans were distracted, and perhaps an alliance might be made between the Jews and Parthians...
Yes, becoming a Parthian client-state would probably be the best realistic outcome.
At the same time, I'm rather unsure the Jews would accept going back under the domination of a foreign power so soon after freeing themselves from Rome.
 
My apologies, but this is historically very ignorant unless you are arguing (without any first century primary sources) that Jewish Christians had a different Christianity than other 1st century Christians (Jews and Christians outside of Judea.) Even Bart Ermann (liberal, atheist Biblical scholar) admits the Gospel writers believed in Christ's deity. Saint Paul, obviously, would have concurred. So, the question is, without invoking 3rd-4th century Ebionites, on what historical basic would one make the quoted claim?
If so, how would Christianity develop if there is still a significant Jewish-Christian community observing the Mosaic Laws and calling Jesus the Messiah but not God in the flesh?
As for what would happen to the Christians, the main damage was already with the destruction of Jerusalem, the Bishop of the city moving to Aelia (if my memory serves right) and not returning until the 4th century (it's status as a Patriarchate really only seriously asserted by the 5th century). More Jewish Christians that followed the Jewish Law would essentially be similar to Ethiopians today and probably tolerated but seen as aberrant.

In all honesty, outside of a Judaizing faction that seemed to be in and out of favor with St James, there seems to be a lack of impetus to make Gentile Christians actual Jews, as the changing of the Jewish customs to be distinctly Christian (Jewish fasts converted to Christian fasts, Jewish prayer rules to Christian) seems to have been considered sufficient.

The one crucial difference would be that Orthodox Christianity today may take a more positive view of Jewish Orthodox Christians maintaining the Jewish Law. But as I said with the example of Ethiopia, this would be quite doable and natural.
 
develop if there is still a significant Jewish-Christian community observing the Mosaic Laws and calling Jesus the Messiah but not God in the flesh?
jesus been regarded as divine already is well established by this point even early gospels like mark jesus is the son of god by the second century Matthew ( a gospel with the most jewish elements) already puts him at divine even the book of Hebrews , the ebonites are around but they are not mainstreamI don't see how if some how the revolt is successful going to change this sure some might leave the faith some other new chirstian sect claiming he is jesus might come
other might see him as the lawless one that paul claimed
 
My apologies, but this is historically very ignorant unless you are arguing (without any first century primary sources) that Jewish Christians had a different Christianity than other 1st century Christians (Jews and Christians outside of Judea.) Even Bart Ermann (liberal, atheist Biblical scholar) admits the Gospel writers believed in Christ's deity. Saint Paul, obviously, would have concurred. So, the question is, without invoking 3rd-4th century Ebionites, on what historical basic would one make the quoted claim?
jesus been regarded as divine already is well established by this point even early gospels like mark jesus is the son of god by the second century Matthew ( a gospel with the most jewish elements) already puts him at divine even the book of Hebrews , the ebonites are around but they are not mainstreamI don't see how if some how the revolt is successful going to change this sure some might leave the faith some other new chirstian sect claiming he is jesus might come
other might see him as the lawless one that paul claimed
Eusebius, in his Church History, said the Jerusalem Church gradually adopted the High Christology of the Gentile Churches. And the Ebionites cannot be dismissed so easily - they represent a major current of Hebrew Christianism in the third century. Whether or not High or Low Christology was most popular among Hebrew Christians is disputed, but there is no denying that Low Christology was more popular among Hebrew Christians than Gentiles - which should not be a surprise: proclaiming a man as divine has little precedent in Jewish thoughts - as far as I know the only example of such is the personification of Chokhmah in Proverbs. Whereas Greeks had no issue seeing Gods as anthropomorphic and dwelling in the flesh.
So it's clear that Hebrew Christianity, or some of its communities, had theologies that widely diverged from the Gentile Churches, and as such it would be very interesting to see how they would develop and interact with the Gentile Churches later on.
 
Eusebius, in his Church History, said the Jerusalem Church gradually adopted the High Christology of the Gentile Churches. And the Ebionites cannot be dismissed so easily - they represent a major current of Hebrew Christianism in the third century. Whether or not High or Low Christology was most popular among Hebrew Christians is disputed, but there is no denying that Low Christology was more popular among Hebrew Christians than Gentiles - which should not be a surprise: proclaiming a man as divine has little precedent in Jewish thoughts - as far as I know the only example of such is the personification of Chokhmah in Proverbs. Whereas Greeks had no issue seeing Gods as anthropomorphic and dwelling in the flesh.
So it's clear that Hebrew Christianity, or some of its communities, had theologies that widely diverged from the Gentile Churches, and as such it would be very interesting to see how they would develop and interact with the Gentile Churches later on.
I think the ebonites can be dismissed in the area of the levant we know by this time they were not liked by the chirstians and less liked by the Jews
During the Bar Kochba we see persecution i see the ebonites becoming a fringe group

The ebonites were just a sect of Jewish Christianity not it's main one if some how the revolt succeeded i wouldn't be surprised if many tried to justify it and wouldn't be surprised if the Jews become worst persecutors than the Romans for a while
 
As much as I'd like to see this, it's probably ASB.

BUT.

In the rare event that we managed to successfully kick the Romans out, I imagine we would become something like the Druze. A small indigenous Middle Eastern community, but not as small as some other ones like the Samaritans or the Mandaeans.
 
Eusebius, in his Church History, said the Jerusalem Church gradually adopted the High Christology of the Gentile Churches. And the Ebionites cannot be dismissed so easily - they represent a major current of Hebrew Christianism in the third century. Whether or not High or Low Christology was most popular among Hebrew Christians is disputed, but there is no denying that Low Christology was more popular among Hebrew Christians than Gentiles - which should not be a surprise: proclaiming a man as divine has little precedent in Jewish thoughts - as far as I know the only example of such is the personification of Chokhmah in Proverbs. Whereas Greeks had no issue seeing Gods as anthropomorphic and dwelling in the flesh.
So it's clear that Hebrew Christianity, or some of its communities, had theologies that widely diverged from the Gentile Churches, and as such it would be very interesting to see how they would develop and interact with the Gentile Churches later on.
It has been years since I read Eusebius, but I nowhere remember that and so all of your speculations on "low Christology" are radically inconsistent with all first century sources. If you are going to argue for an angel or proto-gnostic christology, okay we have sources for that--but Christ merely a prophet/man? Absolutely not, it is not in the sources.
 
It has been years since I read Eusebius, but I nowhere remember that and so all of your speculations on "low Christology" are radically inconsistent with all first century sources. If you are going to argue for an angel or proto-gnostic christology, okay we have sources for that--but Christ merely a prophet/man? Absolutely not, it is not in the sources.
low chirstology usually refers to adoptionism that it also has its varients like god made jesus his son when he raised him , other say baptism while most of our new testament sources show high Christology for groups in the levant to still preach low one its possible
 
low chirstology usually refers to adoptionism that it also has its varients like god made jesus his son when he raised him , other say baptism while most of our new testament sources show high Christology for groups in the levant to still preach low one its possible
Adoptionism obviously existed, but the existence of Angel Christology, Adoptionism, and Christ=Aeon all reveal a view that there is something incarnate in Christ which is pre-existing deity. The fact there are so many different ways of grasping the same thing begs the question *what* is the same thing. As for the second century apologists (Aristedes, Theophilus of Antioch, Justin Martyr) all literally says that the Father and the Word are "the same substance." This is an extremely explicit terminology, precisely the same canonized by Nicea (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and the same substance--"homoousian"). Irenaeus states the same thing. And so, we literally have the Nicene (and Constantinopitan I) Christological doctrine explicitly asserted in the second century. Ignatius, I forget which epistle, literally calls Christ "generate and ingenerate" or, more literally "begotten and unbegotten." Essentially, "created and uncreated," His human nature being created and His divine nature being uncreated. Again, this is the Nicene doctrine and the fact Ignatius is quoting a creedal statement when he says this betrays that he did not invent this belief, but that it is from the first century.

This is why I take issue with the historical contention that there were people seriously asserting Christ was merely a man. There is no primary source that asserts this for centuries. And so, historically, it makes no sense to assert that Christians believed such a thing. It appears to be a later rationalization among one of the many offshoots of the religion.
 
Adoptionism obviously existed, but the existence of Angel Christology, Adoptionism, and Christ=Aeon all reveal a view that there is something incarnate in Christ which is pre-existing deity. The fact there are so many different ways of grasping the same thing begs the question *what* is the same thing. As for the second century apologists (Aristedes, Theophilus of Antioch, Justin Martyr) all literally says that the Father and the Word are "the same substance." This is an extremely explicit terminology, precisely the same canonized by Nicea (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and the same substance--"homoousian"). Irenaeus states the same thing. And so, we literally have the Nicene (and Constantinopitan I) Christological doctrine explicitly asserted in the second century. Ignatius, I forget which epistle, literally calls Christ "generate and ingenerate" or, more literally "begotten and unbegotten." Essentially, "created and uncreated," His human nature being created and His divine nature being uncreated. Again, this is the Nicene doctrine and the fact Ignatius is quoting a creedal statement when he says this betrays that he did not invent this belief, but that it is from the first century.

This is why I take issue with the historical contention that there were people seriously asserting Christ was merely a man. There is no primary source that asserts this for centuries. And so, historically, it makes no sense to assert that Christians believed such a thing. It appears to be a later rationalization among one of the many offshoots of the religion.
sure high cristology was a thing but there are sects who believed jesus was just a man so no high or nr low Christology did exist like the ebonites how ever these were seen as weird by both jews and chirstians also if we look by the epistle to the Hebrews the author clearly has high Christology in mind so in the levant sects like the ebonites and adoptionist still do exist how ever I do disagree that they don't become irrelevant like the otl as the jews under the revolt also persecuted Christians and ebonites as well
 
sure high cristology was a thing but there are sects who believed jesus was just a man so no high or nr low Christology did exist like the ebonites how ever these were seen as weird by both jews and chirstians also if we look by the epistle to the Hebrews the author clearly has high Christology in mind so in the levant sects like the ebonites and adoptionist still do exist how ever I do disagree that they don't become irrelevant like the otl as the jews under the revolt also persecuted Christians and ebonites as well
The fact I cannot think of anyone other than the Ebionites, but according to Irenaeus they were adoptionists. (I just looked it up). So this betrays a belief in Christ being a divinity of some sort. And so, my bone to pick with the OP, is that there is no early source that anyone believe Jesus was not divine. So, we can call these other Christologies non-Nicene, but they were not low. At minimal, it taught that Christ was some sort of divinity.
 
Top