Save

New Insights into Roman Policy in Judea on the Eve of the Bar Kokhba Revolt

In: Journal for the Study of Judaism
View More View Less
  • 1 Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheva, Israel
Full Access

Abstract

The first years of Hadrian’s reign witness meaningful changes in the Roman policy in Judea, identifiable with the strengthening of military forces, the change of the status of the province to that of provincia consularis, the building of new military roads, emphasis on the pagan character of the settlement displayed both in coinage and in new temples devoted to the emperor cult, and the beginning of the preparation works for the building of a Roman colony in Jerusalem. The background of this policy is examined, and its relation with the Diaspora uprisings, which were finally quelled in the late summer of 117.

Abstract

The first years of Hadrian’s reign witness meaningful changes in the Roman policy in Judea, identifiable with the strengthening of military forces, the change of the status of the province to that of provincia consularis, the building of new military roads, emphasis on the pagan character of the settlement displayed both in coinage and in new temples devoted to the emperor cult, and the beginning of the preparation works for the building of a Roman colony in Jerusalem. The background of this policy is examined, and its relation with the Diaspora uprisings, which were finally quelled in the late summer of 117.

Important new data on the beginning of Hadrian’s reign in Judea emerge from recent archaeological excavations. An inscription from France mentions a hitherto unknown Roman governor officiating in Judea, and the new excavations of the Cardo in the Old City of Jerusalem not only confirm scholarly consensus that the foundation of Aelia Capitolina preceded the Bar Kochba war, but also suggest a new date for the beginning of the preparatory works.

1 A New Roman Governor in Judea to Replace Lusius Quietus

A new Roman governor in Judea is mentioned in an inscription found during the excavations directed by Jean-Marc Mignon in the Roman forum of Vaison-la-Romaine in the Lyon Gallia (today Autun, in eastern France) between 2013 and 2015.1 Inscribed in marble and more than two meters long, the inscription appears on a pedestal that in all probability carried an equestrian statue. It describes the cursus honorum of Marcus Titius Lustricus Bruttanius: tribunus militum in Domitian’s days, quaestor in the province of Achaia in Greece, aedile plebis and praetor in Rome. He was commander of the I legio Italica and then, with the X Legio Augusta (the X Gemina), participated in the first Dacian war in 101-102 ce. In 103-105 he served as governor of the provincia Cilicia (now south-east Turkey) and in 106-107 again that of Achaia. When he returned from this province, he was involved in a suit brought before Trajan,2 and then was made consul suffectus along with Hadrian in the autumn of 108.3 He and Hadrian may have been friends since the Dacian war, and their families may have been linked even before. Then Bruttanius got an important special mission in Germany, details of which are unavailable to us, and later, after the accession of Hadrian to the throne, he was sent to Judaea as legatus Augusti pro praetor. As such, he was judicial officer and commander-in-chief of all military forces stationed in the province, which included legions and auxiliaries, and he was also in charge of the provincial administration. At this point, instead of mentioning the names of the armies at his command, the inscription has a peculiar general expression: it states that he was head “of the Jewish and Arabic armies” (lega[to]// pro pr(aetore) Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) Traiani Ha// driani Aug(usti) exercit(uum) Iudaici// et Arabici). One would like to know what lies behind this generic expression, and whether the people of Vaison-la-Romaine responsible for the wording of the inscription were possibly not acquainted with the names of the military forces stationing in provinces so far away from Rome as Judea and Arabia.

The responsibility for the military forces of both Judea and Arabia is somewhat unusual, but not without parallels. In the same months, Marcius Turbo, too, the military commander who had fought valiantly against the Jews in Egypt, received from Hadrian an exceptional position that embraced Dacia and Pannonia Inferior.4

This kind of unusual appointment is probably to be linked to the lack of loyal consular governors, due to the problematic situation obtaining in the first months of Hadrian’s reign. Hadrian’s very appointment to Emperor stemmed not from the senate but rather from his troops in Antioch, and, moreover, rumors circulated in Rome, which are later reported by Dio/Xiphilinus and by the Historia Augusta, that his adoption by Trajan was not lawful. Both of them state that Trajan’s death had been concealed for several days in order to allow for Hadrian’s adoption to become public.5 The “letter of adoption,” we are told, reached Hadrian in Syria on 9 August 117. It was signed not by Trajan but by his wife Plotina. On August 11 came another dispatch, announcing Trajan’s death. The news was at once communicated to the troops, who duly acclaimed him as Imperator. According to Syme, one may well suspect that “Trajan was no longer among the living when he adopted Hadrian,”6 and, in Birley’s words, Hadrian’s adoption was, at best, carried out by a dying man and stage-managed by the Empress.7

Moreover, the senate may well have resented Hadrian’s foreign policy. Within a few days and perhaps even only a few hours of his acclamation, Hadrian gave the order to withdraw from all the new territories conquered by Trajan beyond the Euphrates. All the territory east of the Euphrates was immediately relinquished, as was the Syrian pre-desert. Dura Europos was abandoned before 30 September 117.8 In the meantime, war broke out in Dacia.9 As Birley observes, the empire was in a state of disarray not seen since the Year of the Four Emperors and it could easily have turned into a catastrophe.10 The decision to withdraw was certainly a sound one in view of the failure of the Parthian war,11 but the Roman senate could resent Hadrian’s policy as a sharp deviation from that which had been implemented by Trajan. The renunciation of Trajan’s achievements meant a return to the late Augustan policy, which stipulated that the empire should be kept within its natural boundaries, and was an outright denial of Rome’s manifest destiny. Personal worries may have been at work too. The withdrawal from the territories conquered by Trajan directly affected senators by reducing the number of high-ranking administrative posts they could aspire to.12 The hostility of the prevailing senatorial historical tradition toward Hadrian clearly emerges in the work of Dio and in the Historia Augusta.13 Hadrian had also to cope with the fear of possible contenders to the throne. Both at Rome and elsewhere, he had rivals and enemies, and this led to a shortage of loyal allies to occupy the consular commands. As Syme points out, “reliance on a few persons carries manifest disadvantages, and even danger.”14

From a background of this kind stems Hadrian’s decision to replace provincial governors liable to support possible enemies with reliably loyal people. Several abrupt changes in the governorship of provinces are attested to in these first months of Hadrian’s reign. In Egypt, less than one month after Trajan’s death, Q. Rammius Martialis replaced the prefect Rutilius Lupus;15 in Judea, Marcus Titius Lustricus Bruttanius was sent in place of Lusius Quietus, the well-known Moorish general who had fought with an iron hand against the Jews in Mesopotamia.16

These choices are probably to be linked to Hadrian’s new policy. Scholars emphasize that his violent break with the militaristic and imperialistic ideals of his predecessor led him to choose new men in order not to rely on Trajan’s appointees, many of whom were inveterately hostile to him. Gray and Bennett, for example, claim that in his days, there would be no place for some of Trajan’s more aggressive marshals.17 Hengel and Schäfer, too, observe that Hadrian subverted the power of the most prominent representatives of the warring faction—among whom was Lusius Quietus as the main advocate of the hard-liners—since his declared goal was to be remembered as an Emperor of peace and as restitutor orbis.18 Political and personal considerations probably went hand in hand. According to Petersen, it was Quietus’ position as legatus Augusti and his command of personal military forces that had made him dangerous to Hadrian,19 and, moreover, there may have been good reasons to fear that Quietus might join an alternative pretender to the throne.20

Quietus’ presence in Judea, therefore, must have been rather brief. He was sent to Judea after the unsuccessful siege of Hatra,21 namely, in late autumn 116 or early summer of 117.22 His task was seemingly to keep Judea under strict control and to prevent the diaspora turmoil from spreading to Judea.23

However, Quietus’ presence in Judea did not secure peace. On the contrary, a range of different sources attest that a military confrontation took place in Judea. The question arises whether this confrontation was a response to a Jewish rebellion, as is often suggested.24

Against this possibility stands the silence of Dio Cassius and Eusebius, the main literary sources which report on the Jewish Diaspora revolts, both of whom do not mention Judea among the places where the Jewish uprisings took place. Something, however, did happen in Judea. A Roman military operation is briefly mentioned in an inscription from Sardinia,25 and two rabbinical sources report on a war called “the war of Qitos” without adding details. Seder Olam deals only with the chronology of the “War of Qitos,” between that of Vespasian and that of Bar Kokhba, while the Mishnah mentions the ordinances enacted by the sages following each of these wars.26 However, a few admittedly late Oriental Christian sources, written between the fifth and the thirteenth centuries, mention not a Jewish rebellion but rather a Roman military offensive taking place in Judea in Trajan’s days,27 which may well be the “Judean expedition” mentioned in the inscription from Sardinia.28

A military offensive, however, does not stand in a vacuum. Something must have happened which aroused it. In this context, the testimony of Hippolytus (third century ce) may be instructive. Expounding on Matt 24:15-22, Hippolytus writes that “Vespasian did not erect an idol in the Temple, but the legion brought by Trajanus Quintus, the first man of the Romans, did erect an idol there, called Kore.”29 In view of the sanctity of the Temple Mount, it is reasonable to imagine that a dedication of this kind may have stirred negative reactions among the Jews. The more so since in the last year of Trajan’s reign an altar or a statue to Sarapis was dedicated in Jerusalem by the soldiers of the legio iii Cyrenaica.30 These acts may well have been taken as provocations and may have given rise to some kind of violent reactions. These, in turn, may have prompted the armed reaction of the Roman army. As Prof. Stemberger pointed out,31 in a tense situation, any disturbance, even by a few individuals, may have brought about massive reprisals by the Roman forces. These reprisals were apparently serious enough to be called a military expedition in the inscription from Sardinia, and a “war” (pulmus) in the rabbinic sources.

Immediately after Hadrian was elected Emperor, Quietus was removed from his position.32 The Historia Augusta reports that Hadrian “deprived Lusius Quietus of the command of the Moorish tribesmen, who were serving under him, and then dismissed him from the army, because he had fallen under the suspicion of having designs on the throne.”33 Such aspirations, Birley points out, seem preposterous for the Moorish chieftain. Quietus was still regarded as a barbarian, and besides must have been an old man now. But Hadrian and he were enemies, and the fear that Quietus might lend his support to a rival might well have seemed serious enough in the summer of 117.34 Soon afterwards—in a moment between the spring and the summer of 11835 —Quietus was executed.36 The Historia Augusta report that along with three other ex-consuls he was accused of having participated in a conspiracy against Hadrian37 —an accusation, however, whose historicity is impossible to prove.38 In any case, Quietus’ execution may well have engendered happiness among the Jews, and it may be referred to in a passage of a rabbinical source, where the figure of Trajan stands for that of Quietus: “When Trajan slew Pappus and Lulianus his brother in Laodicea, he said to them … They said to him, ‘You are a wicked king … in the end the Omnipresent will avenge our blood from you.’ It is said that Trajan had not moved from there before a dispatch came from Rome, and they knocked out his brain with clubs.”39

The letter of dismissal was presumably conveyed to Quietus by his successor. Fifty years ago, Sir Ronald Syme observed that “one would like to know who governed Judaea after Lusius Quietus the Moor.”40 He would be happy to know that now, thanks to the inscription of Vaison-la-Romaine, we know his name, Marcus Tittius Lustricus Bruttanius.41 Arriving in Judea he may have brought along with him the legio II Traiana, if this had not happened already in Quietus’ days. 42 When one considers the two possibilities, it appears more reasonable to imagine that the legion arrived with Bruttanius. In the first half of 117, Trajan was deeply involved in the problematic development of the Parthian war, and the Jewish Diaspora uprisings were not yet quelled. It is doubtful whether he would have the time and peace of mind to plan and arrange a different setting of the provincial situation in Judea. The change of the status of Judea, on the other hand, with the addition of a second legion, would fit well with Hadrian’s policy aimed at settling and improving the security of the provinces43 —security, of course, from the Roman point of view. Isaac and Roll, too, point out that that the change in the status of the province came at the moment when Hadrian abandoned Mesopotamia,44 since the legio II Traiana, active in Trajan’s Parthian war, was available for service in Judea from the second half of 117 onward.45

2 The Change of the Status of Judea and the Construction of New Roads

With the arrival of a second legion, in addition to the X Fretensis which had been stationed in Judea since the Great War, the status of Judea was changed to that of a provincia consularis.46

The new legion was immediately used for the construction of roads. By 120 ce, its soldiers had completed the building of a new road that started at Caparcotna (Legio) in the Jezreel Valley, which, as shown by the milestones found in loco, was by that time the headquarters of a newly established Roman command in Galilee.47 The site commanded the Jezreel Valley and afforded a natural access from the Mediterranean coast to Damascus, from Damascus to the Euphrates and thence to India.48 The road led from there to Diocaesarea (Sepphoris) in the hills of west Galilee and thence to Ptolemais (Acre), controlling movement between Judaea and Galilee49 and at the same time securing the vital connection between Egypt and Syria.50 The road, it appears, was built for local military traffic.51 In fact, there was a shorter and easier Roman road between Caparcotna and Ptolemais through the plain, skirting the Carmel, which saved 9 kilometers and a climb and descent of 250 meters each way.52 The purpose of the road via Sepphoris must have been to make that town and its surroundings accessible from two directions.

The construction of new roads characterizes Hadrian’s policy.53 Before Hadrian there is no evidence of a Roman road-network existing in Judea. Up to that time the local standard may have been thought sufficient, while in war-time, the legions brought with them units whose task it was to straighten, broaden and level existing roads. Starting from the first years of Hadrian’s reign, roads were built to connect key sites in Judaea both with each other and with neighboring provinces, probably in order to serve the military. 54

While the construction of new roads reflected Hadrian’s care and concern for safe connections in Judea and between provinces, the particular timing when this took place is instructive. The improvement of the road network in the entire province took place immediately after the repression of the Diaspora uprisings. This may be no accident. As Eck notes, it may well have been the result and consequence of those unrests. With the stationing of a second legion in Judaea at about the same time, there was greater need both for communication between a greater number of military bases and for the safe transport of supplies and reinforcements.55

Moreover, the Romans often built new roads when they founded new colonies. The combination of road-building and the foundation of colonies was a familiar pattern in Roman history, and often the stationing of a legion followed the founding of a colony or vice-versa. “In Judaea,” Isaac points out, “we have seen the foundation of Caesarea as a Roman colony at the time when X Fretensis was first established at Jerusalem. Similarly there may be a connection between the two decisions taken by Hadrian: to assign a second legion to the province and to found a new colony.”56

3 A New Date for the Beginning of the Preparatory Works of Aelia Capitolina

Indeed, from recent excavations the possibility emerges that these years witnessed both the arrival of a new legion and the beginning of the preparatory works for the new colony to be founded in Jerusalem, the Aelia Capitolina.

3.1 Scholarly Consensus that the Works Began before the Bar Kokhba War

The exact date of its foundation is still difficult to define. A firm point is that it preceded the Bar Kokhba revolt, since a number of hoards were found in refuge caves in different places around the country in the last fifty years, which display coins of Bar Kochba along with coins representing the foundation of Aelia Capitolina—which means that the Roman mint started to operate before or during but not after the Bar Kochba war. In the sixties and seventies of the last century, when the first hoards were discovered, the dubious circumstances of their discovery, in illicit excavations, and their handling by antiquities dealers57 arouse legitimate doubts as to their belonging to one and the same hoard.58 However, in 1998 an additional hoard was found in a controlled excavation by Hanan Eshel in the el-Jai Cave in Nahal Mikhmash (Wadi Suweinit).59 Here, too, four Bar Kochba coins were found along with two coins representing the founding of Aelia Capitolina, where Hadrian appears as founder plowing the sulcus primigenius with bull and cow during the ceremony of circumductio aratri to mark out the boundaries of the new colony, accompanied by the legend col[onia] ael[ia] capit[olina] cond[ita].60 These coins, it appears, were brought to the el-Jai Cave by Jewish refugees looking for shelter, possibly toward the end of the war.61 In fact, since the fifties of the last century, an extraordinary great number of caves have been discovered in the Judean desert and mountains, in the Shephelah and in the Galilee, which were used as hiding places for Jews toward the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt. The location of these caves and the domestic finds therein, as well as the contents of some of the papyri, make it quite evident that toward the end of the Bar Kokhba war the caves were meant to be chiefly hideaways and shelters. The use of these caves as a last refuge may have begun at any time during the Roman re-conquest, when the Jews, other than the field force, were being overpowered.62

As for the hoard of the el-Jai Cave, there is no doubt that it is a real hoard. As Hanan Eshel points out, it is not reasonable that the coins of Aelia Capitolina and those of the Bar Kokhba war were brought there in different moments by different peoples:63 the coins were found in an inner chamber approachable only by crawling in a complex system of natural passages and burrows.64 The conclusion, therefore, was reached that the Aelia Capitolina coins circulated before or during the Bar Kochba war, and that the mint cannot be regarded as a consequence of the war.65 Consequently, scholarly consensus was reached: the foundation of Aelia Capitolina is probably to be dated to 130 ce when, in the summer,66 Hadrian visited Judea, as Cassius Dio states.67

3.2 The Beginning of Hadrian’s Reign as a New Date for the Preparatory Works of the Aelia Capitolina

In fact, the recent archaeological excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem may support even an earlier date. According to Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah, the new finds beneath the Cardo in the Western Wall Plaza suggest that the paving works of the Roman colony started several years before, at the very beginning of Hadrian’s reign. The excavations revealed that the construction of the Eastern Cardo was done in two phases: first the preparation of the infrastructure and later the actual paving of the street—both under Hadrian, as is attested by pottery and coins sealed under the flagstones. During the preparation works a quarry, located along the route of the Cardo, was filled up and a massive retaining wall was built inside it along the route of the eastern stylobate. A dump was deposited against this wall and the accumulation was sealed under the mosaic pavement of the Cardo’s eastern portico, as well as under the flagstones of the northern of the two streets that extended eastward from the Cardo. All the materials found in the dump—coins, glass, pottery, military bread stamps—have been dated to the first century ce and early second century at the latest. The last identified coin dates to the reign of Domitian, 86/87 ce,68 and the bread stamps found in the dump, too, point to a date no later than the end of the first century ce.69

Weksler-Bdolah points out: “Based on finds beneath the Cardo, we can date the eastern thoroughfares of Aelia Capitolina in the early years of Hadrian’s reign, probably in the 120s, long before his famous visit to the east in 130 and the ‘official’ founding of Aelia Capitolina … It is clear that when he was appointed emperor soon after that, he had already begun the planning and re-building of Jerusalem as a Roman city.”70

An earlier date for the beginning of the infrastructures of the Aelia Capitolina does not contradict the testimony of Dio concerning the foundation ceremony in 130. As Leah Di Segni points out, the laying down of the city plan and the preparation of the infrastructures must certainly have taken considerable time, considering the topography of Jerusalem and the state in which large part of the city had remained after the destruction in 70. As the excavators observed in the Eastern Cardo, the pavement of the cardo was laid at a later stage, and when Hadrian visited Jerusalem in 130, the official ceremony of the foundation could take place.71

If this is the case, it may not be an accident that in the third century ce Epiphanius dates the foundation of the Roman colony by Hadrian to the 47th year after the devastation of Jerusalem, namely, 117 ce72 —in spite of the several problems entailed in this passage.73 It has also been suggested that Hadrian visited Judea in 117 before starting his journey towards Rome.74 Theoretically this is not impossible since Hadrian started his northwestward journey to Rome only in October of 11775 and therefore could have visited Judea in August or September of the same year. However, this possibility is not supported by the evidence of the sources.

4 The Strengthening of the Pagan Character of Judea

Additional evidence of Hadrian’s policy in Judea in the first years of his reign comes from numismatics. From this time on, the coins from Tiberias bear mainly pagan emblems, such as representations of Zeus, Sarapis and Poseidon, or goddesses like Hygieia, Nike and Tyche.76 In particular, the coin representing Nike, the goddess of victory, carrying a palm-branch and a wreath to crown the victor77 has been interpreted as referring to the successful Roman military action against the Jews in the last years of Trajan’s reign.78 Another coin issued at Tiberias at the same time portrays Zeus seated in a tetrastyle temple,79 perhaps the Hadrianeion built at Tiberias in Hadrian’s honor in 119/120.80 Another Hadrianeion was also built in Caesarea.81 These testimonies are variously interpreted. Schäfer sees in them indications of an increasing adoption by assimilated Jewish circles of the Hellenization propagated by Hadrian.82 Jones, on the other hand, interprets them as meaning that Hadrian disenfranchised the Jewish and Samaritan aristocracies that had hitherto ruled the Galilean cities where the coins have been found, namely Tiberias, Neapolis and Sepphoris, and entrusted their government to pagans.83 This, Oppenheimer suggests, may well have contributed to the arousal of ill will among the Jews.84 In this context one should also take into consideration the cessation of Jewish minting at Sepphoris. Here, in Trajan’s days a mint was attested striking coins that one might call “Jewish-Roman,” in which one side was devoted to the Roman emperor, while the other depicted Jewish symbols: laurel wreaths, palm trees, and the caduceus. Around the head of Trajan the inscription appeared ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟΣ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΩΡ ΕΔΩΚΕΝ. Here, Meshorer points out, the expression ΕΔΩΚΕΝ, meaning “gave” or “permitted,” exclusive to these coins of Sepphoris, may be interpreted as reflecting positive relations between the municipality of Sepphoris and the Roman authorities, which enabled the people of Sepphoris to mint almost “real” Jewish coins. In Hadrian’s time, however, this mint stops abruptly. After the death of Trajan in 117, not a single coin was minted for Hadrian in Sepphoris.85

The first years of Hadrian’s reign, therefore, witness important changes in the Roman policy in Judea, identifiable with the strengthening of military forces, namely, the addition of a second legion; the change of the status of the province to that of provincia consularis; the building of new military roads; emphasis on the pagan character of the settlement displayed both in coinage and in new temples devoted to the emperor cult; and the beginning of the preparation works for the building of a Roman colony in Jerusalem.

5 The Background of Hadrian’s Decision to Build a Roman Colony in Judea

This policy does not stand in a vacuum. When Hadrian became emperor, at the beginning of August 117, the Diaspora Jewish rebellions were not yet quelled. In Egypt the fights between the Jews and the Roman forces, helped by the local strategoi, were apparently still proceeding. Fighting may have been over everywhere only by September.86 This may well explain the passage of Eusebius’ Chronicon preserved by Hieronymus which states that in the first year of his reign, Hadrianus Iudaeos capit secundo contra Romanos rebellantes,87 where Hadrian is taken to be responsible for the final repression of the rebellion.

Nor this was Hadrian’s only successful military confrontation. At the beginning of his reign, Hadrian had to cope also with disorders that broke out in Dacia, in Mauretania and in Britain.88 The image of Hadrian as victorious leader over crushed enemies is emphasized in a statue from Istanbul, where a captive is represented under Hadrian’s leg. A similar message is conveyed in a number of breastplates surviving in statues erected in honor of Hadrian in various places around the Eastern Mediterranean basin in the years between 117 and 123. In the group called by Gergel the “eastern Victory type,” a female captive is shown either in abject humiliation beneath the emperor’s foot or bound and kneeling at the emperor’s side. This depiction was meant to celebrate “not only Hadrian’s succession to the rank of Augustus, but also the military accomplishments that mark the beginning of his reign.”89 The final repression of the Diaspora uprisings, too, may have been one of the victories celebrated in these representations.

After the Jewish uprisings, it is no wonder that Hadrian tried to strengthen Roman authority in Judea in order to restrain and block possible further unrest.90 The link between Hadrian’s policy in Judea and the Jewish revolts in Trajan’s days is stressed by Goodman. “Judea,” he points out,

was affected by these upheavals only indirectly … Judean Jews’ non-participation should not be taken to indicate lack of sympathy but only a reluctance to risk all in what proved to be a hopeless cause … but the passivity of the Jews in Judea did not free them from Roman suspicion … As far as the Romans were concerned, disaffection among Jews in one part of the empire necessarily threw under suspicion those in another.91

Aelia Capitolina was envisaged by Rome from the beginning as a means to punish and control what they saw as a stubbornly rebellious nation … It is self-evident that the Roman state could change its attitude to the Jewish homeland in the light of disturbances in the diaspora. This would not be the first time that Roman policy towards the Jews approached the problem of diaspora Jews alongside the problem of the Jews in their homeland, and vice versa … After the war of 66-70 ce in Judea, all Jews, irrespective of where they lived and of their legal status, bore the consequences of the war fought by Judean Jews by being forced to pay the Fiscus Judaicus to the Roman treasury. In Egypt, moreover, minor Jewish disturbances led to Vespasian’s decision to close, and then demolish, the temple of Leontopolis since he ‘was suspicious of the interminable tendency of the Jews to revolution and fearing that they might again collect together in force and draw others away with them.’92

In fact, this global outlook is found already in the middle of the first century bce, when Cicero implicitly accused the Jews of Rome of the opposition displayed by Judean Jews vis-à-vis Pompey’s conquest of the country.93

“Hadrian’s solution” Goodman contends,

was to ensure that the Jews could never again expect to have a temple on their sacred site in Jerusalem … by founding a miniature Rome on the site of the Jews’ holy city, explicitly intended for the settlement of foreign races and foreign religious rites. Aelia Capitolina was to be the last of the Roman colonies which involved the transplantation of a new population to populate the city. Within Hadrian’s great policy of urban reconstruction, with the foundation of many cities, Aelia Capitolina is unique in its use of the new colony not to flatter but to suppress the natives.94

Of course, Hadrian’s final goal was that of securing peace, as Schäfer emphasizes. In taking care of road building, Hadrian wanted to get better connections between the eastern provinces—Egypt, Judea and Arabia. The strengthening of military forces, too, reflects Hadrian’s ultimate goal of providing peace and security in the eastern parts of the Empire.95 To this aim were probably directed the adventus coins minted at Rome. Those concerning Judaea96 show Hadrian facing a female image representing Judaea, who holds a cup or some similar object in her left hand. Next to her the coins depict two children each holding a palm, the standard symbol on Roman coins as an attribute of Judaea. These coins, like others in the adventus series, portray the emperor in the act of sacrificing a bull at an altar.97 There was nothing special in the coins representing Judea, but Jews had their own peculiar sensibilities and may well have taken them as provocative.

No doubt, Hadrian’s ultimate goal was peace. This, he seems to have believed, was to be assured by making Judaea a normal part of the pagan world, turning Jerusalem into a miniature Rome, settled by gentiles and devoted to Roman religious rites. The new Jerusalem was meant to be a pagan city like all the other cities of the Empire, with its pagan cults and ceremonies—an integral part of the surrounding world.98 Judean Jews, he may have thought, would get used to these new patterns. What happened a few years later, however, indicates that this was not to be the case.

Bibliography

  • Baker, Renan. “Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures §14: Hadrian’s Journey to the East and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 182 (2012), 157-167.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barnes, Timothy David. The Sources of the Historia Augusta (Brussels: Latomus, 1978).

  • Barnes, Timothy David. “Trajan and the Jews.” Journal of Jewish Studies 40 (1989), 145-162.

  • Barnes, Timothy David. “‘Fälschung’ and ‘Forgery’.” Historia 44 (1995), 497-500.

  • Benario, Herbert W. A Commentary on the Vita Hadriani in the Historia Augusta (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1980).

  • Bennett, Julian. Trajan, Optimus Princeps: A Life and Times (London: Routledge, 1997).

  • Birley, Anthony R. Hadrian: the Restless Emperor (London: Routledge, 1997).

  • Birley, Anthony R. “Hadrian’s Travels.” In The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power: Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire c. 200 B.C.-A.D. 476), Rome, March 20-23, 2002, ed. Lukas de Blois, Paul Erdkamp, Olivier Hekster, Gerda de Kleijn, and Stephan Mols (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 425-441.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Boatwright, Mary T. Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000).

  • Bowersock, Glen Warren. “Old and New in the History of Judaea.” Journal of Roman Studies 65 (1975), 180-185.

  • Capponi, Luisa. “Hadrian in Jerusalem and Alexandria in 117.” Athenaeum 98 (2010), 489-501.

  • Cizek, Eugèn. L’époque de Trajan: circonstances politiques et problèmes idéologiques (Paris: Les belles lettres; Bucarest: Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică, 1983).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Di Segni, Leah. “Epiphanius and the Date of Foundation of Aelia Capitolina.” Liber Annuus 64 (2014), 441-451.

  • Di Segni, Leah and Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah. “Three Military Bread Stamps from the Western Wall Plaza Excavations, Jerusalem.” ‘Atiqot 70 (2012), 21-31.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eck, Werner. “Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/139.” Chiron 12 (1982), 281-362; Chiron 13 (1983), 147-237.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eck, Werner. “Hadrian, the Bar Kokhba Revolt and the Epigraphic Transmission.” In The Bar Kochba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, ed. Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 153-170.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eck, Werner. “Soldaten und Veteranen des römischen Heeres in Iudaea/Syria Palaestina und ihre inschriftlichen Zeugnisse.” In ‘Let the Wise Listen and Add to their Learning’ (Prov 1:5): Festschrift for Günter Stemberger on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday, ed. Constanza Cordoni and Gerhard Langer (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), 127-140.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eshel, Hanan. “The Date of the Founding of Aelia Capitolina.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with the Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), 637-643.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eshel, Hanan. “‘Bethar was Captured and the City was Plowed’: Jerusalem, Aelia Capitolina and the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” In Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies, vol. 28 (Teddy Kollek Volume), ed. Joseph Aviram, Dan Bahat, Gabriel Barkay, Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, and Magen Broshi (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2007), 21-28.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eshel, Hanan and David Amit, eds. Refuge Caves of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. 2 vols. (Tel Aviv: Israel Exploration Society, 1998-2009) [Hebrew].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eshel, Hanan and Boaz Zissu. “Coins from the el-Jai Cave in Nahal Mikhmash (Wadi Suweinit).” Israel Numismatic Journal 14 (2002), 168-172.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eshel, Hanan, Boaz Zissu, and Amos Frumkin, “Two Refuge Caves in Wadi Suweinit.” In Refuge Caves of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Vol. 1, ed. Hanan Eshel and David Amit (Tel Aviv: The Israel Exploration Society, 1998), 93-109 [Hebrew].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gergel, Richard A. “Agora S166 and Related Works: the Iconography, Typology and Interpretation of the Eastern Hadrianic Breastplate Type.” In ΧΑΡΙΣ: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr, ed. Anne P. Chapin (Princeton, NJ: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2004).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gichon, Mordechai. “New Insights into the Bar Kokhba War and a Reappraisal of Dio Cassius 69, 12-13.” Jewish Quarterly Review 77 (1986), 15-43.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Goodman, Martin. “Trajan and the Origins of the Bar Kokhba War.” Ιn The Bar Kochba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, ed. Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 23-29.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Goodman, Martin. “Trajan and the Origins of Roman Hostility to the Jews.” Past & Present 182 (2004), 3-29.

  • Goodman, Martin. Rome and Jerusalem: Τhe Clash of Ancient Civilizations (New York: Knopf, 2007).

  • Gray, William D. “New Light from Egypt on the Early Reign of Hadrian.” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 40 (1923), 14-29.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gutsfeld, Andreas. Römische Herrschaft und einheimischer Widerstand in Nordafrika: Militärische Auseinandersetzungen Roms mit den Nomaden (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1989).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Helm, Rudolf. Eusebius Werke, vol. 7 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1956, repr. 1984).

  • Hengel, Martin. “Hadrians Politik gegenüber Juden und Christen.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 16/17 (1984/85), 153-182.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Horbury, William. “Pappus and Lulianus in Jewish Resistance to Rome.” Ιn Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century: Proceedings of the 6th EAJS Congress, Toledo, July 1998, vol. 1, ed. Judit Targarona Borrás and Angel Sáenz-Badillos (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 289-295.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Horbury, William. “The Uprisings under Trajan and Roman-Jewish Relations.” In Judaism and Crisis: Crisis as a Catalyst in Jewish Cultural History, ed. Armin Lange, K.F. Diethard Römheld, and Matthias Weigold (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 183-200.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Isaac, Benjamin. “Milestones in Judaea: from Vespasian to Constantine.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 110 (1978); repr. in Benjamin Isaac, The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 48-75.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Isaac, Benjamin. “Roman Colonies in Judaea: The Foundation of Aelia Capitolina.” Talanta 12-13 (1980-81); repr. in Benjamin Isaac, The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 87-109.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Isaac, Benjamin. “Jerusalem—an Introduction.” In Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae, vol. 1, part 1, ed. Hannah M. Cotton, Leah Di Segni, Werner Eck, Benjamin Isaac, Alla Kushnir-Stein, Haggai Misgav, Jonathan Price, Israel Roll, and Ada Yardeni (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 1-37.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Isaac, Benjamin and Israel Roll. “Judaea in the Early Years of Hadrian’s Reign.” Latomus 38 (1979); repr. in Benjamin Isaac, The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 182-197.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Isaac, Benjamin and Israel Roll. “Legio II Traiana in Judaea.” ZPE 33 (1979); repr. in Benjamin Isaac, The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 198-210.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jones, Arnold H.M. “The Urbanization of Palestine.” Journal of Roman Studies 21 (1931), 78-85.

  • Jones, Arnold H.M. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, rev. by Michael Avi-Yonah et al., 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kindler, Arie. The Coins of Tiberias (Tiberias: Tiberias Hot Springs, 1961).

  • Kindler, Arie. “Was Aelia Capitolina Founded Before or After the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba War? A Numismatic Evidence.” Israel Numismatic Journal 14 (2000-02), 176-179.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kloner, Amos. “Hiding Complexes in Judaea: an Archaeological and Geographical Update on the Area of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” Ιn The Bar Kochba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, ed. Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 181-216.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kloner, Amos. “Hiding Complexes in the Northern Judaean Shephelah and the Northern Boundary of the Bar Kokhba Administration.” In One Land—Many Cultures. Archaeological Studies in Honor of Stanislao Loffreda OFM, ed. Giovanni Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni, and L. Daniel Chrupcala (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2003), 261-268.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kloner, Amos and Yigal Tepper, eds. The Hiding Complex in the Judean Shephelah (Tel Aviv: HaKibbutz Hameuchad, Israel Exploration Society, 1987) [Hebrew].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lepper, Frank A. Trajan’s Parthian War (London: Oxford University Press, 1948).

  • Mattingly, Harold. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, vol. 3, Nerva to Hadrian (London: the British Museum Press, 1936).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mazor, Gabriel. “Concerning the Urban Plan of Aelia Capitolina: Colonnaded Streets, Monumental Arches and City Gates.” In Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies, vol. 28 (Teddy Kollek Volume), ed. Joseph Aviram, Dan Bahat, Gabriel Barkay, Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, and Magen Broshi (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2007), 116-124.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mazor, Gabriel. “A Magical Amulet from the Cemetery on Sallah ed-Din Street, Jerusalem.” ‘Atiqot 80 (2015), 127-132.

  • Meckler, Michael. “The Beginning of the Historia Augusta.” Historia 45 (1996), 364-375.

  • Meshorer, Ya‘akov. Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period (Tel Aviv: Am Hassefer, 1967).

  • Meshorer, Ya‘akov. “A Hoard of Coins from Hebron Mountains.” In Mount Hebron—Collection of Studies, ed. Shim‘on Dar (Tel Aviv: Hamador Liydi’at Ha-aretz Ba-tenu’ta Ha-kibbutzit, 1970), 67-69.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Meshorer, Ya‘akov. “Sepphoris and Rome.” In Greek Numismatics and Archeology: Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson, ed. Otto Morkholm and Nancy M. Waggoner (Wetteren: Éditions NR, 1979), 163-165.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Meshorer, Ya‘akov. “A Hoard in the Region of Hebron.” In The Bar-Kokhva Revolt, ed. Aharon Oppenheimer (Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center, 1980), 69-70 [Hebrew].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Meshorer, Ya‘akov. “The Coins of Aelia Capitolina.” In The History of Jerusalem: the Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638 CE), ed. Yoram Tsafrir and Shmuel Safrai (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1999), 181-197 [Hebrew].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mignon, Jean Marc, David Lavergne, and Benoît Rossignol. “Un nouveau cursus sénatorial de l’époque de Trajan et d’Hadrien découvert à Vaison-la-Romaine.” Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 24 (2013), 294.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mildenberg, Leo. The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War (Aarau: Sauerländer, 1984), 99-101.

  • Mols, Stephan. “The Cult of Roma Aeterna in Hadrian’s Politics.” In The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power: Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire c. 200 B.C.-A.D. 476), Rome, March 20-23, 2002, ed. Lukas de Blois, Paul Erdkamp, Olivier Hekster, Gerda de Kleijn, and Stephan Mols (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 458-465.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mor, Menachem. “What Does Tel Shalem Have to Do with the Bar Kokhba Revolt?.” Scripta Judaica Cracoviensia 11 (2013), 79-96.

  • Oppenheimer, Aharon. “The Jewish Community in Galilee during the Period of Yavneh and the Bar-Kochba Revolt.” Cathedra 4 (1977), 53-66 [Hebrew].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Oppenheimer, Aharon. Galilee in the Mishnaic Period (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 1991) [Hebrew].

  • Petersen, Leiva. “Lusius Quietus. Ein Reitergeneral Trajans aus Mauretanien.” Altertum 14 (1968), 211-217.

  • Piso, Ioan. “Zum Judenkrieg des Q. Marcius Turbo.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 187 (2013), 255-262.

  • Pucci Ben Zeev, Miriam. “L. Tettius Crescens’ Expeditio Iudaeae.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 133 (2000), 256-258.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pucci Ben Zeev, Miriam. Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116/117 CE: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights (Leuven: Peeters, 2005).