Talk:Simon bar Kokhba

message: 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)
thread_title: Reworded article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Indeed. WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 15:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AD vs. CE 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: This article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: 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)
thread_title: Bibliography added 

message: "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)
replies: text: Since no one has commented, I have removed. - Jmabel | Talk 23:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fringe" groups 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Messianic claim 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disputed tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disputed tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: You are correct that the statement is unacceptable, but your time would be better spent by suggesting a replacement. --Zerotalk 09:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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.  --Zerotalk 11:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's easily fixed by shortening the sentence.... Calbaer 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. --Zerotalk 09:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... which is derived from the Philistines, the bitter enemies of the Jews. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... 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.  --Zerotalk 12:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: You call me disingenuous, then (assuming you are in fact both 206.222.198.12 and 129.93.17.135), edit the comments I responded to to make it look like I responded to something different?  I will let those actions speak for themselves. Calbaer 22:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that you're replacing one "error" with many.  You claim that: (1) Hadrian consolidated three provinces into one (as opposed to renaming one that had been previously consolidated) and (2) gave it a name that was already used for the general region (as opposed to the coastline area), and (3), that furthermore "Canaan" was the common term used by the locals in the 2nd century.  Please cite your sources.  Wikipedia policy is that any "fact" that is doubtful needs to be properly cited or removed, and, though I'm no expert on ancient history, I've been through enough historical maps and writings to suspect that the revisions are, at least partially if not in total, wrong.  (Regarding your historical revisionism on the talk page, you did add sentences to material I responded to, making it look like I had responded to them.  Such deceptive behavior will not de-escalate any misunderstandings or hostilities.) Calbaer 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article's statement about the name "Palestine" is absurdly inaccurate 

message: The introduction of the article says Bar Kokhba was the last "King of Israel".  Even dating back to the time of Saul and David, the Bible refers to the northern land of the ten tribes as "Israel" (from Jerusalem north to Hamath, in Syria); and the southern part was called from Jerusalem to the Red Sea as "Judea".  In Roman times the province with Jerusalem was called Judea, and I believe that was the name of the province at the time of Simon bar Kokhba's war of independence.
The ten tribes called "Israel" were conquered by Assyria and deported to Asia in the time of King Josiah.  Though Jews are descended from Jacob ("Israel"), they have not called their nation or province whose capital is Jerusalem "Israel" from the time of Solomon until the nation formed in 1948.
Unless you can cite a historical source that shows Simon bar Kokhba called himself "King of Israel", then I think the use of the term "Israel" there is erroneous.  Judea or Judah would be more accurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadwallader (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Judea not "Israel"

message: "King" is a very imprecise rendering of Nasi, which is traditionally translated as "prince" or "leader"; it implied sovereignty but was not as exalted a title as "king" would have been. The Hebrew word for king is Melech. The problem for Bar Kochba, if he had called himself Melech (=King) of Israel, would have been that the phrase "King of Israel" had assumed theological connotations by the time of Bar Kochba, and such a presumption would have annoyed the Jewish spiritual leadership.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.17.168 (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nasi is a ruler, or president, NOT prince, since prince is, at least in hebrew, unrelated to ruling and is just stating a fact you are the son of a king. Therefore price should be either president or ruler, and NOT prince. If you want/need any evidence please look it up in the Eben Shoshan dictionary which states the "Mikray" (bible meaning) of Nasi is ruler. A referrence to Non-Hebrew speaking (yet opinion making ;) people could be found here http://www.babylon.com/dictionary/even-shoshan/, this is _the_ authority on hebrew dictionaries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.80.220 (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

text: A president is not always elected. Look at all the secular Arab dictatorships for example. The word פרנס isn't from ancient Hebrew but rather Mishnaic Hebrew, and is probably of Greek origin. TFighterPilot (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Nasi doesn't mean King. And Bar Kochba's Israel is a people, not a country.

message: This section is removed for discussion:
: The Kawazba clan, a Palestinian Muslim clan whose members reside in the southern West Bank, trace their descent to Simon bar Kokhba.Palestinians of Jewish Origin - youtube.com The Kawazba claim that they were originally Jews and were forced to convert to Islam more than a century ago, giving their original name as Kosiba. Until several decades ago, the clan lived in the village of Kafr Kawizba, north of Sa'ir, and its homes and caves are still used today, when they are working in their original fields in the village. Some families from the clan live in the Kafr Al-Miniya village, which  is located in the south of Tekoa. The Kawazba have strictly avoided inter-marriage over the years and many members of the clan now wish to return to practicing Judaism.Forced to be Muslims - August 5, 2009, MishpachaBrother shall not lift his sword against Brother, Tsvi Misinai, Liad publishing, 2007, p. 285
: 
I cannot see any sources matching the requirements here.  Youtube videos are definitely not reliable sources, nor are articles in the Haredi magazine Mispacha by "retired engineers".  The only other source here is another amateur researcher Tsvi Misinai.  All this is very unsatisfactory; where are the expert reports, verification ny professional historians, or even investigations by the mainstream press?  Zerotalk 12:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section removed from article for discussion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Simon bar Kokhba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012143021/http://www.usd.edu/~clehmann/erp/Palestine/history.htm to http://www.usd.edu/~clehmann/erp/Palestine/history.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Perhaps the article should take into account "Jerusalem and the Bar Kokhba Revolt Again: A Note" by Eran Almagor, ELECTRUM Vol. 26 (2019): 141–157, http://www.ejournals.eu/electrum/2019/Volume-26/art/15133/ (abstract with link to full pdf article) which suggests Aelia Capitolina was founded during the last stage of the revolt which halted earlier reconstruction http://www.ejournals.eu/electrum/2019/Volume-26/art/15015/ Mcljlm and "Eusebius and Hadrian's Founding of Aelia Capitolina in Jerusalem" by Miriam Ben Zeev Hofman, ELECTRUM Vol. 26 (2019): 119–128 http://www.ejournals.eu/electrum/2019/Volume-26/art/15015/ (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This opinion had already been largely dismissed due to the finding of the Colonia's monumental dedication arc in Jerusalem dated to around 130 CE. But it is still worth mentioning that some scholars had considered that possibility.GreyShark (dibra) 06:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aelia Capitolina's foundation 

message: The article currently states that "Rabbi Akiva... gave [Simon] the name "Bar Kokhba" meaning "Son of the Star" in Aramaic, from the Star Prophecy verse from Numbers 24:17: "There shall come a star out of Jacob".", however in the singular mention of Rabbi Akiva's midrash on the verse by his student Rabbi Simon ben Yochai, Rabbi Akiva uses the name "Koziba", simply mentioning that a messianic prophecy, which happens to include the word "Star(kokhav)", is in reference to bar Koziba. The claim that said midrash is the source of the name "Kokhba" (which the following sentence specifically mentions exists only in ecclesiastical sources and nowhere in the Talmud,) seems to be mere speculation based on Eusebius mentioning that the word "kokhba" means "star" when using that name, as well as Rabbi Akiva wording his midrash as a rephrase of the verse, replacing the word "kokhav" with "koziba" (making the prophetic "star" the reference, and the actual name "koziba" the referent). If the speculation is prevalent enough maybe it's worth mentioning as a speculation together with citations (as the Hebrew article does), I don't know any to provide, however simply leaving it as "Rabbi Akiva gave the name" with no citation seems to be tolerating a near falsehood. --Nitzan Fensterheim (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of "Kokhba"