Elephant in the Room

If you have lasted this long, and are familiar with Bar Kochva, you are surely biting your tongue saying, what about Bar Kochva? He was the Jewish prototype of a messianic candidate, as opposed to Jesus, and Bar Kocvha had his messianic career not too long after Jesus - dying in the year 135 AD.

Well he doesn't appear in the Mishna, that's for sure. And the devil is in the details, they say, and I think that when we look at the details, when we look at the textual evidence, we can have a different impression than the traditional narrative, that Bar Kochva was a messianic figure leading a messianic movement, etc.

Remember what we learned in regards to the Maccabbean revolt - it is often spoken of as a messianic phenomenon but it was not. They did not use the term nor did they identify with David. In fact, as a movement led by priests that assumed the position of king, the Maccabees were antithetical to messianism. 

So when we begin to read some bits from the Talmud, the normative rabbinical literature, we will maintain that logic, looking into the case in point, Bar Kochva, and see how messianic it really was. Was it really messianic? How so?

External Evidence

Sources outside the rabbinic literature do not describe Mr. Kochva as messianic. This includes letters discovered in caves in the Judean desert speaking of him and his wars, where he is named “Shimon ben Kosva”, apparently in association with a place, he is Shimon of Kosva. 

On coins discovered from the years of his government in Israel he is described as “Shimon - Nasi (“elevated one”, or prince) of Israel. This is the title used by Hashmonean kings. On the coins are icons of the Temple in Jerusalem and slogans of freedom and redemption, but no house of David, nothing messianic.

What was this then? By these sources, it was a nationalistic, political, even religious movement, but no David, no king, let alone Davidic king, a king associated with David. And nothing apocalyptic, no vision of the end times or messianic age, no days of Messiah.

The Church fathers, from Justin Martyr, who lived at the same time, and who criticized Bar Kochva, until the great historian of the 3rd century Eusebious, they describe religious violence of Bar Kochva, he was no messiah, no false messiah, no failed messianic movement. 

As Christians, who were easily harshly critical rivals of Judaism and Jewish theology, that would have been a golden moment to criticize the messianic failure of Judaism, and advocate their one true Messiah, Jesus. Both name him “Bar Kochva” and not “Koziva” (Apologies 1:31; Church History 1.6.1).

Jewish Sources

In contrast to external evidence, in Jewish sources from the third century at the earliest, and beyond, Bar Kochva is remembered as a messianic figure of sorts. 

Or rather, as I am suggesting, he is not remembered as messianic, but rather is used to discuss messianism. I am guessing that the Jewish sages use developing traditions of the Bar Kochva case in order to discuss messianism. 

The main sources from Sages of the 3rd and 4th centuries, the “Amoraim”, appear in some variation in the Ta’anit tractate of the Palestinian Talmud, and in the Lamentations Midrash, which is from a bit later.

These textual traditions tell of myriads of casualties in Beitar, the last stronghold of Bar Kochva, against the forces of the Romans led by Adrianus. They tell us that Bar Kochva had brutal methods to recruit loyal soldiers, cutting off a finger.

They say that he would go out to battle and declare before G-d “do not help us and do not intervene”, in other words, the G-d who neglected us would not prevent us from victory. 

We hear also of his courage and his capacity to kill. His uncle Elazar, who was a religious leader, would pray all day long, and so the people were strengthened spiritually and militarily. But he was accused of treachery by a traitor, and so Bar Kochva killed him with one swift kick. 

In the end, Bar Kochva himself was killed, and by one source his body was found with a snake around his neck, so they concluded that G-d Himself killed the man. 

Weighing the Material

These sources tell us that the blood of our casualties was so great that a horse would stand in the blood and the blood would reach the muzzle of the horse, it was so deep.

Palestinian Talmud Ta’anit 4:5: Rebbi Simeon ben Yohai stated: Akiva my teacher used to preach, there appeared a star out of Jacob there appeared Koziba out of Jacob. When Rebbi Akiva saw Bar Koziba he said, this is King Messiah. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Torta said to him, Akiva! Grass will grow from your cheeks and still David’s son (still has to) [will not have] come. 

These traditions are from the beginning of the 2nd century, passed on orally for centuries until written and published. Akiva is said to have interpreted or applied as homily the verse from Numbers 24:17 “the star of Jacob” on to Bar Kochva as King Messiah. [This is the same verse we saw previously in the Onkelos translation, the star of Jacob there becomes King Messiah.]

Another rabbi peer, Yochanon son of Torta, challenges this view saying that Akiva you will be long gone before there will be this King Messiah, or you will die believing this… and/or believing that Bar Kochva is the King Messiah. 

What can we learn from this? Let’s go as far as to assume this account is historical. This happened. Akiva said this and thought this. That Bar Kochva was Messiah King son of David.

Akiva was a super important rabbi of the time, so this is no small thing. However, it does not say that anyone else thought so, not even Bar Kochva himself. 

We can’t say this was a messianic movement. We can’t say he had a messianic following. We can’t say Bar Kochva tried to be the Messiah of any kind. We don’t have enough evidence. And evidence, that is, textual evidence, developed ideas, or developing ideas, or everything here.

Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 93:B: and it is written: “And his delight [vahariḥo] shall be the fear of the Lord” (Isaiah 11:3 - and he shall neither judge after the sight of his eyes, nor decide after the hearing of his ears). 

Rabbi Alexandri says (that the term hariḥo) teaches that (God) burdened him (the Messiah) with mitzvot and afflictions like millstones [reiḥayim]. Rava says (that hariḥo teaches) that he (the Messiah) will smell [demoraḥ] and then judge (on that basis, sensing who is right), as it is written: “And he shall neither judge after the sight of [lemareh] his eyes, (nor decide after the hearing of his ears) and with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and decide equity for the meek of the earth” (Isaiah 11:3–4). 

Bar Koziva, (i.e., Bar Kochva) ruled for two and a half years. He said to the Sages: I am the Messiah. They said to him: With regard to the Messiah it is written that he will smell and judge, so let us see ourselves if he will smell and judge. Once they saw that he was not able to smell and judge, they killed him. 

Another source, this time from the Babylonian Talmud, feels further away historically from the subject matter, Bar Kochva. Rabbi Alexandri is probably from the 3rd century. He is interpreting and passing on information on an incident that he did not witness, and has no names of who was there and who said it. 

As readers, the passage does feel more of a textual interpretive engagement based on the narrative of a historical event.

The biblical passage at hand is Isaiah 11, which reads: “A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord— and he will delight in the fear of the Lord…” The passage continues and tells of days to come or an ideal age where the lion and the lamb reside together, etc.

This is considered a messianic passage or prophecy. The son of Jesse, a futuristic Davidic king will reign, and bring or follow an ideal peace. 

The Talmud interprets this as a messianic ability to judge and will be extremely knowledgeable and apt to religious law, as opposed to judging by sight and the external and material things (reminiscent of 1 Samuel 7 when G-d chooses David through Samuel the prophet, as He sees by the heart and not by what is seen).

The later stage of commentators, where it starts “Bar Koziva…” who are unnamed, say to us or interpret or pass on, calling him son of Koziba instead of Kochva, which is a twist of the name, from star (kochva = the star) to disappointment (or vain, roughly translated).  

They say, that Bar Kochva / Koziva ruled briefly, and he himself said to the Sages then the Rabbis, that he is indeed Messiah. If historical, then not only Akiva said he was Messiah, but also he himself thought so or said so. 

However, when tested if he can judge in the special way according to prophecy (Isaiah 11), he failed, and was killed. (Here he was killed apparently by execution of sorts, versus the previous passage above where he was apparently killed by God with the help of a snake.)

This is as historical as it gets. One must decide what to assume historically as to the messianic status of Bar Kochva. The evidence was what you just read. It stands opposite the external evidence as well. 

An Empty Chair

I assume these passages are more educational than anything else. They don’t feel historical. They are not religious legal rulings or discussion. They are more like stories. But with a point to them. I feel the essence of what we read is to deal with the idea of Messiah: 

There are messianic biblical prophetic materials, and according to this one, Isaiah 11, he will rule and bring peace and be able to judge near supernaturally, or at least by special skills rooted and deep righteous intuition.  

To summarize this bit, so we can get into the thick of this chapter… Bar Kochva is popularly considered the prototype, albeit a negative one, of a messianic candidate or movement in Jewish tradition. 

We were curious and started to look into the sources a bit more, and learned that the external evidence would suggest otherwise. We also learned that the internal textual traditions as evidence are somewhat limited - they are scarce, they are not necessarily entirely historical, and they don’t give us a full picture. 

The most we can assume historically from the evidence strictly, is that Akiva said Bar Kochva was Messiah, and that Bar Kochva said he was Messiah. This is significant. But still, there is nothing more, to suggest these were consistent nor popular views. There definitely is no messianic literature to engage with... 

Finally, we have learned, what is my view, what I have shown before and here in this bit on Bar Kochva, is that the Talmud, the Sages of the second, third, and fourth centuries, are passing on to us, an engagement with the messianic idea/s, an engagement that is philosophical and theological, and engagement that is textual and interpretive.