Hadrian’s Second Jewish
Revolt: Political or Religious?
By Ronnie Leslie
Western Oregon
University
Hst. 499: Senior
Seminar
Professor Kimberly
Jensen
Spring 2005
Primary Thesis
Advisor: Dr. Benedict Lowe
Secondary Thesis
Adviser: Dr. Narasingha Sil
I
No
matter how broad the gathering of evidence, there is a certain degree of
opinion involved in deciding what to include in Hadrian’s Second Jewish revolt. Our knowledge of the reign of Hadrian is
problematic due to the lack of evidence. Not only are contemporary documents
relatively rare, but our knowledge of specific events of Hadrian’s reign is
also limited. However, there are certain
aspects of Hadrian’s reign that have stirred up numerous myths and truths which
have been debated throughout history. Foremost
amongst these are Hadrian’s meticulous Hellenistic program which reorganized
certain cities of the Roman Empire particularly the cities of the East, and his
major structural and social reforms forced on the Jews leading to the Jewish
revolt of AD 132-135 characterized his rule.
His rule is characterized as himself being his own man in administration
of the Roman Empire. Therefore, was Hadrian’s political ideology
toward the empire the cause of the Second Jewish revolt, or was it his
religious ideology that forced him to belief that the Jews were inferior by
enforce major reforms, and policy in Judaea.
The second Jewish
uprising against Rome
is only comparable in its significance and its far-reaching consequences with
the first uprising of A.D. 66, although there is one essential difference to
this initial revolt, the source material on which we must rely on in order to
reconstruct the events is inferior to that of the earlier Jewish war. The origins of the Second Jewish revolt
remains a crucial and widely-disputed issue; moreover, the question as to what
led to the revolt is an important one since the relatively peaceful internal
development of Judaism in the period following the first Jewish revolt until
the outbreak of the second, provides us with no obvious grounds for a renewed
outbreak of war against Rome. Hadrian
inaugurated a revision of the Roman policy of expansion with a new emphasis on
pacification, a policy which certainly took hold in the eastern provinces of the
empire. One theory of the start of the
revolt states that the revolt developed because Hadrian had forbidden the
practice of circumcision. Another theory
suggested by Cassius Dio, in the “Roman History” that the reason for the war was
Hadrian’s intention to re-found the city of Jerusalem as a Roman colony called
Aelia Capitolina. Lastly, according to a
rabbinic source the war came about following the promise of Hadrian to the Jews
to rebuild the Jewish temple, which he later rebuked. Of these three reasons, the rebuilding of the
temple in Jerusalem
is the least likely, particularly in the light of the numerous legendary
features of the Rabbinic account. Thus,
the problem therefore comes down to the prohibition on circumcision and the
founding of Aelia Capitolina as the possible reasons for the war.
There may also
have been personal motives: it is possible that Hadrian despised the Jews
because of their religion and social characteristics. By implementing all his reforms and policies
on the Jews, he hoped to assimilate them into the Roman Empire. Moreover, could Hadrian have had some
religious quarrel with the Jews scrupulous ideology, such as performing
circumcision, and the Sabbath? Another
possible explanation was Hadrian’s infinity for Greek culture, this infinity
could have shaped the ideology behind his policies and reforms on the Jews,
with religious significance. However, he
could have also been trying to unify Rome,
or perhaps establishing specific border cities in the east for strategic
defense purposes. Greek belief is quite
different than that of the Christian or Jewish religions, such that the
practice of circumcision by the Jews was seen differently by the Romans. The traditional ideology believed the concept
that man is made in gods own image, therefore is pure. The Jews in the traditional sense are making
man impure by performing circumcisions, and, in turn is seen as a bad omen
according to Greek theology.
The Roman Empire was at its peak militarily in the first
century AD, and held the world in its grip.
Their highly trained army was the greatest at the time and included 29
legions (350,000 soldiers), highly trained. Cassius Dio asserts that the Diaspora revolt
started in Cyrenaica at a time when the
Emperor Trajan had stripped other provinces of their garrisons to provide
troops for his Parthian war. The term Diaspora is the designation for all
Jews not residents in Palestine. Furthermore, Fairweather points out that the
Diaspora of AD 66 was brought about by the Maccabaean revolt in the 2nd
century B.C., eventually spread to Egypt
where the Jews killed an unknown number of people, and to Cyprus, where
they are said to have killed 300,000 Jews.
In Alexandria,
however, the predominantly Greek population gained control of events and are said
to have massacred the city. The killings
are blamed on the Commanding officer Hadrian, which is due to the fact that
Hadrian was at the time the commander of Trajan’s eastern army and succeeded
Trajan as Emperor in 117 AD, possibly before the final suppression of the
revolt.
II
Hadrian was elected governor of Syria shortly before his acclamation as emperor
on August 11th, A.D. 117, and took up residence in Antioch. Jewish
populations migrated to cities and established settlements which began to emerge
across the empire in large numbers, which in turn lead to racial ridicule. These Jews, who migrated to various cities of
the Eastern provinces, were possibly displaced by the previous Diaspora’s in
the beginning of the first century AD.
Right from the start Hadrian made it clear
that he was his own man in his administration of the empire; he resumed the
policy of the early emperors, dedicating his time to maintaining peace
throughout the empire. However, this
policy did not last long; one of his very first decisions was the abandonment
of the eastern territories which Trajan had just conquered during his last
campaign. Such a withdrawal, and the
surrender of territory for which the Roman army had just paid for in blood,
would hardly have been popular. Hadrian
may be sharply contrasted with his predecessor Trajan, who owed his elevation
to his successful wars in the Rhine region. After Trajan’s death, Hadrian called upon the
eastern armies; however, the troops were demoralized by Trajan’s death, which
in turn acted as a signal to Rome’s
enemies in every province.
Hadrian
spent the better part of his reign away from the capital exploring every province
of the empire. On his travels he grew deeply devoted to
Greek studies, so much so that some Romans called him the little Greekling. Throughout his twenty-one year reign, Hadrian’s
infinity for Greek culture are seen throughout his administration as well as
religious ideology. He had been so
fascinated by the culture of Greece
that he introduced Greek customs and even grew a beard which was traditionally
Greek. Furthermore, his court assumed more and more
a Hellenic characteristic. He was constantly
surrounded by Greek playwrights and sophists; his favorite was Antinous
with whom he had become acquainted with in Asia Minor and brought to Rome. He seemed to have viewed himself as a new
Pericles; thus, most of his attention of the empire was exclusively focused on
the east, particularly Athens.
The emperor,
regardless of the particular merits or faults, became “Pater Patriae” or the
“Father of the Fatherland” and ultimately deemed personally responsible for the
welfare of each inhabitant, which he received in August of A.D. 128. This role had to be demonstrated daily in many
different appearances. Usually coins
carried the imperial image encircled by legends broadcasting the imperial
virtues. The imperial coinage acted as an official
document and as such represented an official expression of the emperor and his
regime. Even statues, myths, and paintings of the
emperor and the imperial family embellished temples and other public buildings
showing the generosity of the emperor. Furthermore,
the role of the emperor within the empire as a whole was an important link to
the function and organization of the empire.
Even though the religious role of the emperor has evolved from the time
of Caesar Augustus, divinity is still a cultural link to authority in the
empire.
III
Prior to Hadrian,
the religious ideology of the emperor changed during Trajan’s reign when he spent
most of his time as emperor on campaigns against the barbarian west. The role of the emperor at this time was
intermixed with religion, and mysticism.
The Panegyricus written in 100 AD embraces what is expected of the
emperor. This speech proclaimed that a just ruler
shall be successful while bad rulers shall suffer the fate of his rule. It is difficult to interpret the Panegyricus
because according to Wolff and Syme it is much too long, and some of its topics
are labored to the point of obscurity. This philosophy formed the basis of the whole
character of the government under Trajan.
In a general sense, the Roman population was theoretically supposed to
see the emperor in a higher level than themselves; however, Trajan refused
these honors. According to the Panegyricus,
Trajan’s rejection to be worshiped and could be seen by the gods as a form of virtue,
which in turn preserved him to the highest position of divinity.
Hadrian like
Trajan before him adopted this philosophy and attempted to show the people of Rome that his kindness
was not from his genius but from the gods who honored him. In another word, the emperor, therefore, must
seek not everlasting character which is already awaiting him but a good
reputation which was brought about not by likeness and status but by virtue and
merits. It is Roman tradition to offer public prayers
for the preservation of the empire; however, the emperor will reap the benefits
for the good of the empire. The emperor’s authority to rule and power of
divinity has to be genuine; if the emperor abuses his rule, the gods will look
down on him and Rome. The Romans traditionally believe that for
peace and prosperity in Rome, the emperor must
achieve the grace of the gods; thus Emperors Trajan and Hadrian both assumed
that they were gaining virtue by strengthening Rome and expanding it for the better of the people
of the empire. The emperor served
numerous functions within the Roman state.
The emperor’s public image reflected this diversity. Triumphal processions and imposing state
monuments celebrated the military exploits and martial glory of the
emperor. Furthermore, grain and coin
distribution, entertainment advertised the emperor’s patronage. Coins with the allocation of the emperor’s
portrait on one side along with a personification of a virtue on the reverse,
regularly shown with the label “AUG” encouraged the coin’s user to associate
the personified virtue with the emperor.
Moreover, the connection of traditional Roman virtues with the figure of
the emperor is a prime example of how they successfully appropriated and
monopolized different forms of symbolic capital. In an age where communication is limited,
these imposing virtues were seen through the works of the emperor.
It
was during Trajan’s reign that this religious theory was officially developed. According to the Panegyricus, the emperor was
a descendent of the gods of Apollo, Zeus, and Augustus, therefore the emperor
was the representative and their image on earth. Just as Jupiter was ruler of the heavens, the
emperor was the ruler of mankind.
Furthermore, numerous historians fail to recognize that Roman religion
which was based on religious ritual during Trajan’s reign became a religion
whose fundamental principle was moral conduct. Thus, the essential nature of the
relationship between the deity and mankind, the relationship of the emperor and
the state was changed. Therefore, the
choice of a ruler should depend not upon simple inheritance but upon the
selection of the most deserving. The good will of the gods toward the
population and empire of Rome
was now conceived as being judged on the behavior of the people, specifically
the emperor. Traditionally the purpose
of religion in the Roman state was to ensure that the state should prosper
under the protection of the gods or to achieve the “pax deorum”. Thus, what pleases the people is innocence
and purity rather than involvement in prayer.
The gods prefer individuals who approach their altars pure of heart and
free from sin.
The basic
philosophy of the Panegyricus is similar to Jewish and Christian belief at the
time, as well as the concept of stoic ideology. The basic idea was that the human and
superhuman are linked together by a bond.
The human side, whose most prominent representative is the state, pleases
the gods in order to gain their good will or the “pax deorum”. In any case, the state enters into a
compromise with the gods so that they should protect the emperor, and because
he and the state are represented in the Panegyicus, the gods are in fact
protecting the state. Contemporary
writers such as Seneca introduce into Roman thinking the idea of the personal
divine providence of god who rewards and punishes good and bad emperors. Furthermore, Tacitus, another contemporary,
records the influence of the ideas of the Panegyricus, thus showing that it had
become a common topic even after Trajan. Therefore, Hadrian’s ascension as emperor
also came with preserving traditional ideology and religious
responsibilities. Therefore, he adopted
the same religious ideology with which he will receive the protection and favor
of the gods if he is worthy of these.
Like Trajan, neither Hadrian’s position nor rituals make him the
recipient for the favor of the gods, but his conduct as ruler did. Although Hadrian expressed his love for Greek
mythology and culture, he knew that to have divine authority he had to gain virtue
in which case he had to be thinking for the good of the empire. He attempts to justify his rule by
implementing his public works programs, such as the building and reorganizing
of the cities across the empire.
Hadrian expresses
his good will in the form of the Panhellenion of the Roman
Empire. This idea,
developed through his influence and infinity for Greek culture, and was to
assimilate the eastern half of the empire and her cities imperial ideology by launching
new building programs, and social behavior based on the same administrational
principles as Greek culture. This surge upon restructuring cities of the empire
was more prominent during the reign of Hadrian, than any other emperor. Moreover, Hadrian’s ideology of this new
endeavor would be strictly for the fiscal and economic well-being of the empire
as well as making the emperor better linked to local affairs. In both the Latin west and Greek east of the Roman Empire, Hadrian devoted his time and energy to Eastern
Greek cities. Hadrian’s Panhellenion programs
within the cities increased the status of urban life as well as helped gain
loyalty and virtue from the population.
Hadrian’s law affecting the cities in-essence promoted peace. He forced onto the cities laws that stressed
that no one could destroy buildings, which he assumed affected the physical appearance
of the cities. The laws increased the prestige of many
cities accordingly.
Hadrian, in much
the same way as previous emperor’s tried to gain the people’s affection with
gifts and beneficence such as buildings, grain, money and social and administrational
reforms. The Hellenistic program was a
major attraction to the people and cites of Rome, which have been burdened by decline,
and neglect. Hadrian treated cities as
the life blood of the empire. In a
general sense, cities were left to administer themselves; thus they oversaw
their own public buildings and cults, law and order, and embassies to Roman
officials, including the emperor. Furthermore, these cities were free to have
commerce with other cities; however, Rome
extracted from cities what it needed to provide for the armies, to maintain the
government, to sustain games, grain, and construction at Rome and elsewhere. Hadrian’s attention to detail was so strong
for each individual city, especially in the east that he attempted to preserve
its national history and assimilate the population without causing problems.
IV
The whole process
of erecting public buildings was a central part of civic beneficence and
imposed a tradition of behavior and a pattern of expectation from which not even
the Roman emperor could distance himself from. In the empire there were two concepts on
imperial construction. On one end there
was building concerned with the administration, security, and defense of the
empire. In contrast, there was building
sponsored or encouraged by the emperors in provincial cities such as temples,
bath houses, games and theatres, which showed the generosity of the
emperor. Hadrian, like Augustus before
him used the labor of army personnel for large scale provincial construction
work with military overtones, such as the erection of aqueducts; however,
civilian labor was also used. The Roman concept of imperial building in
Rome and across the empire had many characteristics such as the number of work
force, defenses of the city, establishment of funds, the empires response to
crisis’s, and economic revival. Of these
concepts that Stephen Mitchell points out are the ideology emperors and
contractors have to implement in founding or rebuilding cities across the
empire.
The
defensive needs of a city are a high priority among most cities, whose purpose
was precisely the security and defense of the empire, as is true with the
construction of city walls. In many
cases it is clear that an emperor took direct responsibility for the fortification
of provincial cities. Each new emperor would contribute to the
public works projects of important strategic cities. As mentioned before, the responsibility and
finance of such buildings and reconstruction of cities across the empire was
astonishing; however, the emperor used taxes of the population, various contributions
by numerous nobles who sought to make a name for them, and also the
contribution from the emperor’s own pocket.
Moreover, once the public works had been established, the empire would
need to protect its assets. In time of
crisis or petition of the cities’ population, the empire would need to quickly
respond to natural disasters, revolts, public works and even famine. If the emperor neglected to fulfill these
obligations, the cities could either revolt or fall into shambles and not be effective
for defense and economic growth. Once
the cities had established their building projects and had turned loyal to the
emperor, the city usually will achieve an economic revival and/or expand in
culture and influence.
Hadrian had a
strong understanding of the Roman economy, so much so that he strengthened the
foundations of the empire by lowering taxation, improving administration, and
passing reforms concerning the imperial estates, mining, and agriculture. It can be said that Hadrian was the first
emperor of Rome
to defend the lower classes from the nobility.
Moreover, it was characteristic of him to always have time for
everyone. For instance, as Fritz
Pringsheim illustrates, as Hadrian was walking in the street with his escorts,
he was approached by a woman trying to present a petition; he refused, saying
that he had no time, but the woman remarked, if you have no time, you should
not be emperor. He immediately stopped
and listened to her case. Hadrian also
showed special care to mothers, children and slaves. Still,
Hadrian reorganized the government of the empire by creating a new body of
officials who were required to be trained and educated on new lines, thereby
bringing to completion the work of Augustus who had learned from the
Hellenistic kingdoms that the old republican magistracies required to be
supplemented by a class of imperial officials functioning as assistants of the
Princeps and full of Greek ideology. For
Hadrian to build up and achieve a peaceful world, he needed a solidly-founded
administration. Hadrian believed
administration served two roles, one as an intermediary between Hadrian and the
people of Rome,
and as a loyal government, which was at his authority upon his travels among
the empire.
The Panhellenion
was a league of Greek cities with intertwined religious, cultural, and
political purposes, had as members a total of eleven cities in Achaea, ten in
Asia, five in Crete and Cyrene, one in Thrace, and one in Macedonia. The league brought together cultures and
cities otherwise isolated from one another; it also may have encouraged local
official holding. The league guided by
Hadrian elevated and rewarded cities that showed civic pride, and were keeping
with Greek traditions. The most
important criteria for admission in to the league consisted of Greek ancestry,
its history of good relations with Rome,
and the benefactions it had received from Hadrian.
During the rapid
buildup and reorganization of the Hellenistic Campaign, Hadrian in A.D. 131 or
132 created a new safe haven in Athens.
Here he built the Panhellenion, which he
was worshiped in conjunction with Zeus Panehellenios. The sanctuary was administered by members of
the Panhellenion called the Panhellenes.
They came from many different parts of the Greek world as representatives
to different cities. Held together by a league of Hellenistic
reformers, Hadrian’s Panhellenic program was his attempt to achieve economic
enterprise for the empire as well as forge a stronger bond among the provinces. Dio expresses Hadrian’s establishment of the
Panhellenion, and emphasizes Hadrian’s generosity to Athens.
He states that he gave money to the Athenians, a yearly supply of grain,
and all of the island of Cephallenia to Greece. Furthermore, the Panhellenion expanded with
certain established Hellenized cities who would be representatives to various
other provincial cities.
In Athens, Pausanias describes that Hadrian constructed
numerous building for the Athenians, such as a temple of Hera
and Zeus, a sanctuary common to all the gods, an arch dedicated to Hadrian, and
Library of Hadrian. Furthermore, if the history of Spartianus is
correct, Hadrian’s presence was required in Athens for the dedication of the
buildings begun by him, and now completed; but that the dedication of the
temple of Zeus took place then, or that so many of Hadrian’s buildings in
Athens could have been finished simultaneously, admits to reasonable doubt. In general, it seems that only a small
fraction of the Greek-speaking world was included in Hadrian’s Hellenistic
program. However, the influence of the
program on cities had a profound effect on the loyalty and virtue of
Hadrian. It is possible that the Panhellenion
and various other temples were built to worship Hadrian; however, it could also
be probable that both Zeus and Hadrian were worshiped in tandem. Moreover, with Hadrian and the influence of
the Roman Empire, Hellenized cities would receive help from Rome in times of need as well as military
protection.
Hadrian’s Athens acted as a model for his Hellenistic
program which in turn was also closely associated with the emperor himself. Athens
became the focus for the rest of the cities of the empire as the capital of the
Hellenistic program. Not only did the
physical transformation bring growth and stability to the city, it also
attracted numerous scholars to the area.
Hadrian first went to Athens in A.D. 124/125, however, many of Hadrian’s
gifts to Athens have been dated to his third visit in A.D. 131-132 Inscriptions on Athens’s Arch of Hadrian emphasize
the emperor’s role as the city’s reviver, and states that Athens is inseparable
from what came before. This connection with Athens
Hellenistic past is emphasized by Hadrian’s completion of the temple of Olympia Zeus
that began in the 6 century B.C. Athens’s temple was
plainly associated with Hadrian and imperial ideology, although the emperor
himself was not worshiped there with Zeus Olympios.
A similar
structure of Hadrian’s supremacy in Athenian life, however geared to Athens’s cultural control
can be seen in the “Library of Hadrian”.
Pausanias’s describes the library as including over 100 marble columns,
and decorative art, and inscriptions honoring Hadrian moral conduct, and
imperial cult. One of the larger
monuments of Athens,
the library measures 87 by 125 meter within its large walls. Its design, which combines Roman and
Hellenistic Greek elements, is very unusual in the city. The design of Athens Library of Hadrian was
closely related with religious festivals and imperial cult. Moreover, Hadrian saw Athens
as the center of Greek culture, moreover, Athens
numerous scholars who migrated from afar, study, and learn through Greek
education, and structures. Furthermore,
Greek gymnasium was erected as a center of civic education as well, and functioned
as a cultural and social center and in some instances as the seat of ruler
worship.
Hadrian’s
generosity to his home town of Italica was quite
substantial as well, and the city was also the closest west of the Roman Empire that had been bestowed with marks of favor
from Hadrian. Italica, like most Hellenistic cities, was
transformed with numerous buildings as well as Greek influence. Dio remarks that Hadrian showed his native
city great generosity and gave many gifts to the population although he never
visited there as emperor. Not only did Hadrian improve the traditional
city, he also established a new part of the city which displayed wealthy estates
and numerous buildings. These public
works included an amphitheater, baths, gymnasium, and a monument called the
Traianeum. The Traianeum represented the
corporation between Hadrian and the elite of the city; it also embodies the
balance in Hadrian’s era between imperial commonalities and local pride. The
funding of such monumental public works and attention to the provinces was
derived from the funds that were to go to orderly administration. Thus, the money devoted to the military and
senate was put to use in his reforms and programs. The fact that the army had opposed Hadrian’s
elevation to the throne can probably be made responsible for some of his
reforms such as money.
Hadrian’s
Hellenistic program also consumed another eastern city of Smyrna, which was populated by Christians and
Jews alike such as Apostle Paul and John who helped educated the masses with
the Christian gospel. Smyrna appeared to have been the most
attractive city to Hadrian. Like other
Hellenistic city’s Hadrian favored, he loaded the city with gifts. According to Boatwright, Hadrian in Smyrna gave the city ten million drachmae, with which they
built a corn-market, a gymnasium which was the most magnificence in Asia, and a temple.
The evidence for Hadrian’s beneficence to Smyrna is important for three reasons. First, the dominance of religious buildings
and personnel in the lists of Hadrian’s donations underscores the importance of
religion for Hadrian. Second, the
inscription furnishes details about the logistics of imperial building
programs. Third, the evidence overall
substantiates the emperor’s interaction with a city’s notables, a key element
in the bond of power and obligation holding the Roman Empire
together.
Antinoopolis a
city founded 130 AD by Hadrian in honor of Antinoes and was a model for the
Hellenistic way of life. The Greeks in Antinoopolis were in abundance,
however, they were scattered amongst the Egyptian population. By being a Greek, they were model citizens
for Hellenistic institutions, such as their gymnasia, educational system, and
social life. The design of the city
resembled most Hellenistic cities of the empire. The city itself consumed three and a half
miles of land, and was surrounded on three sides by a brick wall. To Hadrian the city was to be a fortification
of Hellenism in Egypt;
thus it was important to choose for its population native Greek populations for
the city. Furthermore, the population of
Antinoopolis and Alexandria
were exempt from payment of taxes, and were eligible for service in the
legions. Even more, the city quickly
attained considerable importance and prosperity and became a corner stone for
the Hellenistic period along with Athens. Furthermore,
both Antinoopolis and Alexandria
have traditional Jewish populations. To
contend with these large Jewish populations Hadrian saw fit to populate the
city like all no traditional Greek cities, with Greek hegemony. Nowhere is this more prevalent then in his
founding of these two cities. Moreover,
due to the migration of Greek individuals into the cities along with their
religious views caused the Jews much bitterness, which in turn developed into
animosity and rivalry. However, it is clear that Hadrian did not
despise the Jews, because if he did he would have not been so generous to
cities with a highly Jewish population such as in Antinoopolis and Alexandria. Moreover, since Egypt
was the primary theatre for Jewish uprisings, both Antinoopolis and Alexandria could have
been cities established to help protect from revolt and secure the borders.
V
Hadrian became
emperor at a time when not only Jewish animosity became prevalent but also the
influence of Christianity. Hadrian at
this time began to implement his own policies and reforms that would bring new
light to Rome. He did this by returning to old traditions
and beliefs in both religious and administrational affairs. He wanted the empire to adopt one religion
which was pagan; he also aimed to intertwine the status of the emperor within
the formal and informal beliefs and myths of the Roman populace to perfection. The coins issued as currency to the empire,
made their way to various provinces, thus spreading the story of Hadrian. With this knowledge of Hadrian, the Jews must
have known the intentions of Hadrian. Furthermore,
the Jews had to understand that since Jerusalem had been lying in ruins for
some fifty years, if Hadrian strongly influenced the city with numerous reforms,
it could continue to influence conformity, help gain economic sway and protect
Rome’s Eastern borders.
Not much is known
of the second Jewish revolt, the “Historae Augusae” and the “Roman History” of
Cassius Dio is the only contemporary sources that touch on the topic. The consequences of the revolt were perhaps
even more catastrophic and far-reaching than those of the first revolt. In A.D. 117 when Hadrian assumed the role of
emperor of Rome,
he seemed sympathetic to the Jews. During
the first Jewish revolt in A.D. 66, Trajan and his armies forced numerous
reforms on the Jews banning them from entering Jerusalem. Hadrian during the beginning of his reign
allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem
and granted permission for the rebuilding of their temple. Unfortunately, Hadrian went back on his word
or possibly never stated it. What is certain is that Hadrian used numerous
decrees either before or after the revolt that could be seen as punishment or
continued pacification of the Jews. This
included the prohibition of circumcision, but the issue is whether this ban was
likely to have been in existence prior to the war and so could be taken as its
cause. A reason why Hadrian could have
developed an anti-Jewish decree on the Jews, specifically circumcision, could
be a result of his infinity of Greek culture which believed circumcision was
un-pure and a barbaric custom which ought to be abolished. Moreover, the issue of circumcision would
have had little response under the tense situation before the revolt, because
it would be hard to pay close attention to which children were uncircumcised
before the declaration of the prohibition.
Furthermore, Hadrian’s decree of circumcision was likely used by the
Romans to frighten the Jews and to assimilate to Roman culture. Moreover, fathers during this period had
their children circumcised either before or after the law was enforced, but
then they changed their minds because of Hadrian’s decree and concealed the
circumcision by performing the epispasmos. Moreover, Mary Smallwood emphasizes that
prohibition of circumcision was part of the Jews punishment for the revolt,
however, was the punishment a cause of the revolt as the “Historiae Augustae”
has stated.” In any case, Hadrian must
have been well aware that such a policy would inevitably provoke discontent on
the part of the Jews, and this does not sit well with Hadrian’s systematic
pursuit of promoting peace as well as continuing his gradual build up of
eastern provinces.
The foundation of
the colony of Aelia Capitolina would seem most likely to have ignited the
conflict between Rome and Judaea. During this time Hadrian assumed the role of
restitutor and the founding of Aelia Capitolina could have fallen into his
Hellenistic program. Furthermore, the
creation of a Roman city to replace the Jewish capital can be seen as part of
Hadrian’s general policy of Hellenization.
Evidence of this Hellenization in Palestine
did not just focus on Jerusalem,
but elsewhere such as Sepphoris and Tiberias. He founded many pagan temples in Tiberius and
even Sepphoris, however, there is no record of any resistance by the native
population. Moreover, the city of Sepphoris,
predominantly Jewish, was even renamed Diocaesarea in the emperor’s honor, thus
becoming the first element in the name recalling Hadrian’s adoption of the
title of Zeus Olympius, in A.D. 129. Even the city of Tiberius, had a long history of Hellenistic
ideology and therefore the Jewish population did not become excluded from the
administration of the city. Therefore,
Hadrian’s purpose is likely to have been to benefit not only the Jews, but the
city as well by reversing the outcome of the first revolt in A.D. 66, by
restoring their destroyed city.
Hadrian continued to force conformity among
the populations of the empire by means of incorporation. He used
such means as populating the city by foreigners; and would also build numerous
monuments that pushed Greek and Roman culture on the Jews of the empire. The Romans in Palestine
as well as across the empire did not want Jerusalem
to be rebuilt because of the risk of a rebirth of the Jewish national
pride. Countless Jews from Palestine disliked Hadrian
and referred to him as the “Wicked” and remarked that “his bones rot”. Moreover, it can be said that the Roman
influence on the Jews had little effect towards the rebellion compared to the
Jews wanting freedom and salvation. Even
the inscriptions and symbols of Hasmonean coinage suggests that the revolt was
motivated by the same desire for freedom, politically and spiritually. Furthermore, the images expressed by the
Jewish leader Bar Kockhba added the inscription of a harp and two trumpets
which likely expressed hope for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. It can also be said that the past revolts
such as the revolt in Egypt
and even before served as motivation for the revolt lead by Bar Kockhba. Having seen that it was not just the decrees
of Hadrian that caused the rebellion, we must reverse the process and say that
the decrees of Hadrian were a reaction to the rebellion of the Jews. With this in mind, the building of Aelia
Capitolina and prohibition of circumcision could be considered a punishment to
the Jews, which in turned served as a warning to Jew in other provinces not to
rebel.
On his travels to Judaea Hadrian ordered the
building of the temple of Zeus to replace the Jewish temple, he then begin
exiling some Jews from Judaea in a attempt to stifle any local unrest. On the other hand, the fact that Hadrian
built a new temple upon the old Jewish temple could have been the cause of the
war, since the Jews objected to gentiles settling in their city and foreign
cults established there. According to Gregorovius, the temple had
already begun before the war. Even in
the forth century, when the temple no longer exited, numerous contemporaries
saw on the site of the temple Hadrian’s statue and the perforated stone, which
the Jews were accustomed to rub. Coins
of the time also portray a small round building with the figure of Zeus in the
center, standing between Pallas and Hera. Moreover, other coins portray images of deities
such as Apollo, Dionysus, and the Dioscuri, thus proving that the Capitoline
Jupiter was not the only Roman temple worshiped in Jerusalem. Furthermore, the Jews where aware that the
building of a pagan temple on the site of the Jewish temple would make a
permanent change in the character of the city, ending Jewish hopes of the
eventual restoration of the cult of Yahweh.
In A.D. 117-132, the status of the province of Judaea was changed and was raised to the
rank of consular province. This change must have taken place before A.D.
127, because evidence implies that Tineius Rufus was the consular at the time
of the revolt. Since the area of Judaea received a higher rank to consular province, two
legions must have been occupying the territory during this time. Gregorovius remarks that the Xth legion was
in Judaea during the reign of Trajan, which it
took part in the Parthian war. Also,
with the road construction accruing during this time by Hadrian, he must have
clearly directed his attention to the province of Judaea. Even the milestone identified that Caparcotna
in the Jezreel Valley
as having been an important military base which had then connected with Sepphoris
and further with Akko in A.D. 120 AD. Hence, it follows that Caparcotna was the
headquarters of the new legion which controlled movement between Judaea and Galilee. The possibility of increased Roman activity
following the death of Trajan, and in A.D. 129-130 may reflect a response to
local unrest and/or preparation to suppress anticipated revolts. In any case, it could have been Hadrian’s
purpose to secure some type of peace in the eastern provinces following the
abandonment of claims to Trajan’s conquest in Mesopotamia and Assyria. The cities not willing to adapt to Roman
culture would be replaced by someone that would.
It is also
possible that not the organization of Jerusalem
as a colony provoked Jewish resistance, but the decision to make it a pagan
city and the plans for the site of the temple did. However, the establishment of Judaea into a
consular province together with the assignment of a second legion and the road
construction undertaken in Judaea cannot be
seen as having been the cause of Jewish unrest.
This action may not have been directed towards the repression of the
Jewish population but towards the establishment of peace and of secure borders
in the east of the empire. Evidence also suggests that the Pagan coins
and the statue of Hadrian in the cities with both Roman and Jewish citizens do
not provide evidence of patronizing of the Jews. However, they do suggest an increasing
adoption of the Hellenization and numerous loyal Jewish populations. Still, the number of Jewish and Christian
inhabitants had also gradually increased.
Moreover, Smallwood remarks that no matter the political aspirations of
the Jews during the reign of Hadrian, he himself had no quarrel with their
religion beyond his objection to circumcision; and the assumption stated in the
“Historiae Augustae” that he was hostile to foreign cults in general.
VI
The establishment
of the colony Aelia Capitolina was the most likely result of Hadrian’s policies
and was welcomed by Hellenistic and pro-Roman people within the Jewish
community. However, it was its
foundation on the site of Jerusalem
which Cassius Dio tells us lead to the war. It can be said that Hadrian’s visit to Judaea took place in A.D. 130-131 AD during his last great
journey to the East. Thus, the founding of the colony must be
established to about this date, and the war must have begun soon after it. Even Gregorovius remarks that the emperor had
most likely given orders, before his visit for the foundation of the colony,
but the colony was not finished in the year A.D. 130, as other sources suggest.
Moreover, the colony could have been
planned and begun before the Jewish war, and immediately after the war was
ended the building was taken up again, suggesting that he re-founding of the
city was part of his Hellenistic program not oppression to the Jews. The new
city was supposed to be Pagan in character,
specifically dedicated to the worship of the emperor as the earthly
manifestation of Jupiter Capitolinus. Founding the city as a consequence of the war
could be plausible as well, while Hadrian was still in charge of Syria
in A.D. 117 immediately after his accession, he had given permission to the
Jews to restore the temple. However, Hadrian’s
founding of Aelia Capitolina signified that he planned to destroy Jewish
nationalistic uprisings at their source.
The natural period for the formation of this plan would have been in A.D.
117, the idea of founding a colony in Jerusalem
could even have been a project of Trajan when there was still unrest against
the Jews in Egypt. Furthermore, not only was Egypt a stronghold
of Judaism and the head of Jewish sedition it was also a very wealthy province,
and Jerusalem would have acted as a great defense to revolts and strengthening
the border.
When looking at
these considerations the fact that it was absolutely necessary for Hadrian, is
to control the provinces which supplied the capital with food, manpower, and
materials. However, if the war did occur
in A.D. 131-132, and the work on Aelia Capitolina began as early as A.D. 117,
the founding of the colony was, as Dio asserts, the cause of the war, but why
did the Jews wait so long to revolt? It
is then plausible that the Jews did not remain quiet between A.D.117 and 132. Some cause of discontent, other than their
continued hatred with Roman rule, was active among them at least as early as A.D.
128. Thus, the Jewish wrath eventually
took the form of sporadic revolts. Hadrian
most likely annoyed by revolts and by the persistent uprisings, adopted further
measures of repression against them. He excluded
them altogether from the colony and finally forbade them to practice the rite
of circumcision.
It
must also be considered in connection with the last revolt of the Jews in the East,
in which Jerusalem had been the strongest of all
the cities of Syria. As soon as Hadrian had withdrawn the boundaries
of the empire to the east of the Euphrates retaining only Arabia, he must have
thought of building strong places between the Euphrates and the Red Sea to
serve as a support to the Roman army, and protect Rome. While most of the eastern cities of Hadrian
Hellenistic program had become Hellenized peacefully, Palestine
itself was the only province that was opposed to the power of Rome and its reforms forced upon them. To overcome this opposition and to Hellenize
the Jews was the aim of the imperial government, particularly after the
continued rebellion. The colony had
been planned and begun before the Jewish war, and immediately after the war
ended, the new building most likely was taken up again and vigorously carried
on. Even coins with the legends Colonia, Aelia
Capitolina, and Condita commemorated this foundation.
The
Jews were furious that men of a strange race were to settle in their city, and
that foreign sanctuaries should be erected there. Thus according to this statement, the
conversion of Jerusalem
into a colony was the cause of the war, while according to the view of Eusebius,
it was the result. According to Eusebius
view, had this Roman colony been founded in the beginning of Hadrian’s reign,
it would either have been completed at the time of the rebellion or strong
walls and towers would have made the new city the object of the struggle. Therefore, the Jews did not wait until Aelia
became totally fortified, but they took up arms to prevent the building of the
colony; and Jerusalem,
devastated as it was, could have for them no strategic importance.
The causes of the
revolt are clouded by controversy, in which case the only logical understanding
of the revolt was that it had to have derived from the administrational reforms
and policies such as Hadrian implementation of his Hellenistic program. Much of the east was consumed by the
influence of Greek cities established in the league, Athens,
Italica, and Smyrna
served as model for the unity of the empire, which in turn promoted economic
growth and stability. Hadrian’s ideology
of the empire derived from his influence of Greek culture, therefore,
characterizing his rule in the light of Greek studies, religion, and building
structures.
The Jews,
especially in Palestine,
were not as easy to model to Roman rule, as the other cities of the empire. This could have been due to past sentiment of
past emperors, or could be that the Jews did not like foreign individuals
settling in Jerusalem. To assume that Hadrian despised the Jews due
to their religious and social characteristics would be completely uncalled for
in understanding his philology towards the empire as a whole. What can be argued is that Hadrian became
annoyed that the Jews were in constant revolt towards the empire which caused
his Hellenistic program as well as stability of the empire to be deterred.
His three major
reforms of prohibiting circumcision, building a temple of Zeus
on the site of the Jewish temple, as well as the re-founding of the colony
Aelia Capitolina could be steps taken to suppress Jewish unrest. However, the most likely explanation of his decrees
as pointed out by Cassius Dio, Gregorovius, and others is that these decrees were
issued before the revolt even took place, thus instead of being a punishment to
the Jews for their lack to conform, the reforms were instituted as a part to
control the structure of the Hellenistic program in Jerusalem. However, Hadrian Hellenistic program in Antinoopolis
and Alexandria was similar to all the Greek
building erected in Jerusalem,
as well as laws towards the population, but the cities did not revolt. Even the city of Sepphoris which was dominantly Jewish had
there city renamed in honor of Hadrian. Furthermore, as pointed out by the Panegyricus,
Hadrian would have been gaining virtue, along with moral conduct which would
justify his policies and reforms of the empire.
Thus, to gain virtue he believed that rebuilding new and old cities was
providing for the good of the empire as a whole. Moreover, Hadrian successful suppression of
the Jewish revolts could make the gods preserve him which in turn was looked
upon as protected the empire. In any
case, it seems Hadrian’s reforms and policies concerning the Jews and Jerusalem was strictly
political.
Bibliography
Primary
Sources:
- Dio’s Roman History, trans. Earnest
Cary, 9 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961), VIII
- Scriptoes Historiae Augustae, ed.
T.E. Page <et al.>, 3 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1953), I
Secondary Sources:
- Alexander,
Paul J. “Letters and Speeches of the Emperor Hadrian.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
49 (1939): 141-177.
- Bell, H.I. “Antinoopolis: A Hadrianic Foundation in Egypt.” Journal of Roman Studies 30 (1940):
133-147.
- Birley,
Anthony. Hadrian the Restless Emperor.
London and New York: Routledge, 2000.
- Boatwright,
Mary T. Hadrian and the Cities of
the Roman Empire. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University
Press, 2000.
- Eck, Werner. “The Bar Kokhba Revolt: The
Roman Point of View.” Journal of
Roman Studies 89 (1999): 79-89.
- Fairweather,
William. “Concerning the Jewish Dispersion.” Journal of Religion 2 (1929): 224-236.
- D.
Golan, “Hadrian’s decision to
supplant Jerusalem
by Aelia Capitolina,” Historia
35 (1986): 231
- Gregorovius,
Ferdinand. The Emperor Hadrian. Translated
by Mary E. Robinson. New York:
Macmillan Company, 1898.
- Gray,
William D. “The Founding of Aelia Capitolina and the Chronology of the
Jewish War Under Hadrian.” American
Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 39 (1923): 248-256.
- Gray, William
D. “New Light from Egypt
on the Early Reign of Hadrian.” American
Journal of Semitic Language and Literatures 40 (1923): 14-29.
- Henderson,
Bernard W. The Life and Principate
of the Emperor Hadrian. New
York: Brentano’s Publishers, 1916.
- Jones,
C.P. “The Panhellenion.” Chiron 26
(1996): 29-56.
- Mitchell,
Stephen. “Imperial Building in the Eastern Roman Province.”
Harvard Studies in Classical
Philology 91 (1987): 333-365.
- Norena,
Carlos F. “The Communication of the Emperor’s Virtues.” Journal of Roman Studies (2001): 146-168.
- Pringsheim,
Fritz. “The Legal Policy and Reforms of Hadrian.” The Journal of Roman Studies 24 (1934): 141-153.
- Radice,
Betty. “Pliny and the Panegyricus.” Greece
& Rome 15 (1968): 166-172.
- Romeo,
Ilaria. “The Panhellenion and Ethnic Identity in Hadrianic Greece.” Classical Philology 97 (2002):
21-40.
- Schafer,
Peter. The History of the Jews in
the Greco-Roman world. London and New York:
Routledge, 2003.
- Scott, Kenneth “The Elder and Younder Pliny on Emperor Worship.”
Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 63
(1932): 156-165.
- Shochat,
J. “The Change in the Roman Religion at the Time of the Emperor Trajan.” Latomus 44 (1985), 317-336.
- Smallwood,
Mary E. The Jews under Roman Rule. Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1976.
- Stinespring,
William F. “Hadrian in Palestine.”
Journal of the American Oriental
Society 59 (1939): 360-365.
