Xiphilinus and The Causes For The Outbre
Xiphilinus and The Causes For The Outbre
Xiphilinus and The Causes For The Outbre
LXV – z. 2/2023
s. 351-380
Kamil Biały1 DOI: 10.36124/rt.2023.15
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4068-6188
Key words: Xiphilinus, Cassius Dio, Bar Kokhba, Hadrian, Roman Empire,
Byzantium.
Słowa kluczowe: Ksyfilinos, Kasjusz Dion, Bar Kochba, Hadrian, Cesarstwo
Rzymskie, Bizancjum.
Abstract
The Epitome of Xiphilinus, an abbreviation of books 36-80 of Cassius
Dio’s Roman History created in eleventh-century Byzantium, because of
the incomplete state of preservation of the latter is an extremely important
narrative source for contemporary researchers of ancient Rome during
the Principate period. This is also the case with the Bar Kokhba uprising,
a conflict relatively poorly documented in narrative sources. The greatest
debates revolve around the causes of this conflict for which the Epitome of
Xiphilinus constitutes the most extensive surviving narrative source. The
fact that Dio’s work has not been preserved in the original makes scholars
question the account presented by Xiphilinus, whom they perceive as a Byz-
antine monk writing from a Christian and even anti-Jewish perspective.
Streszczenie
Epitome Ksyfilinosa, powstały w XI-wiecznym Bizancjum skrót ksiąg
36-80 „Historii rzymskiej” Kasjusza Diona, ze względu na niepełny stan
1
Dr Kamil Biały, Historical Institute, University of Szczecin.
352 Kamil Biały
The Bar Kokhba revolt, the second Jewish uprising against Roman
rule from the years 132-136 under the leadership of Simon Bar Kosiba,
is one of the most important events in the history of Ancient Israel
during the period of Roman rule. Even though there is an enormous
amount of literature on the subject, there is no scholarly consensus on
many important aspects of the revolt, including its causes, course and
outcome. The reasons for that may be explained by the lack of sources
providing a comprehensive, consistent and reliable narrative (Schäfer
1990, 281; Isaac, Oppenheimer 1998, 234; Mor 2012, 161-193). Unlike
the Great Jewish Revolt which is well documented thanks to the detailed
account of Josephus, the Bar Kokhba revolt does not have literature even
close in its scope to that work.
One of the most highly debated aspects of the war are its causes. The
available historical sources provide different, sometimes contradictory
explanations, the brevity of which results in scholars questioning their
content. At the same time, newly found archaeological and especially
numismatic sources, while shedding a new light on other aspects of the
revolt, do not bring anything decisive regarding its causes. As for the
narrative sources, scholars are left with some contemporary vague and
folkloristic accounts found in Rabbinic literature and brief passages
from pagan and Christian authors (Isaac, Oppenheimer 1998, 226-
233; Niesiołowski-Spanó, Stebnicka 2020, 321-323, 325-326). The most
important and most comprehensive account is to be found in Roman
History of Cassius Dio (Gichon 1986, 15-16). Yet it does not contain
Xiphilinus and the Causes for the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt 353
2
Standard edition remains Boissevain 1901, 479-730.
3
On Xiphilinus and his work see: Wilson 1996, 179; Mallan 2013, 610-644; Jun-
tunen 2015, 123-151; idem 2015, 123-151; Kruse 2021, 193-223.
4
On the state of preservation of Dio in general and its manuscript tradition in
Byzantium see: Mazzucchi 1979, 94-139.
354 Kamil Biały
5
Zon. 7.1-9.31; it contains also a narrative corresponding with Dio’s books 44-80
but it is based on Xiphilinus’ Epitome: Boissevain 1891, 440-452; Dio’s work survived in
form of excerpts composed on the behest of emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus:
Excerpta de virtutibus et vitiis pars II (Roos 1910) and Excerpta de legationibus (Boor
1903); Roman History is also reconstructed from the other, lesser sources like Peri.
Sunta,xewj (Bekker 1814, 117-180); and encyclopaedia called Souda (Adler 1928-1938)
Xiphilinus and the Causes for the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt 355
6
On the biographical structure of Byzantine historical works in the Middle By-
zantine Period see: Markopoulos 2010, 697-715.
7
The full name of Xiphilinus’ work is Epitome of Roman History of Dio of Nicaea,
in abridgement by John Xiphilinos, containing monarchies of twenty-five Caesars from
Pompey the Great to Alexandros, son of Mamea, Xiph. 1.1-5, this title survived in two
fifteenth-century manuscripts Cod. Coislinianus n. 320 (C) and Cod. Vaticanus n. 145
(V), see: Boissevain 1901, iii-iv; it is a later addition though because it does not appear in
the oldest twelfth-century manuscript Iviron 812, see Berbessou Broustet 2014, 550 who
as an original title of the Epitome proposes evpitomh. th/j Di,wnoj tou/ Nikae,wj r`wmaikh/j
i`stori,aj; erroneous, longer title was created because of a list of Roman emperors (ta.
ovno,mata tw/n Kaisa,rwn tw/n periecome,nwn th/| biblw| tau,th|) found at the end of ma-
nuscripts C and V; perception that Pompey was one of twenty-five Caesars stems from
erroneous omission on that list of emperor Antoninus Pius, thus later copyist added
Pompey to match the number, see Berbessou Broustet 2014, 549-553; this error had
later implications – in fourteenth century Nikephoros Gregoras, a reader of Xiphilinus,
thought that Pompey was a Roman emperor, Pérez Martín 2015, 188.
356 Kamil Biały
Scholars assume that the passage cited above was mostly rewritten
by Xiphilinus and is not a copy directly taken over from Dio’s original
account. Already Ursul Philip Boissevain noted in his edition of Dio:
Xiphilini manum agnosco (Boissevain 1901, 232). This opinion is relat-
ed to the specific vocabulary employed by Xiphilinus in this passage
but also to its grammatical structure. The sentence is constructed as
a series of subordinate clauses with the use of participles. Usually such
a construction characterises Xiphilinus’ paraphrasing techniques by
which he combined isolated fragments taken from the original into one
sentence in order to omit longer fragments he decided to not include
in his narrative9.
Causes of Jewish revolt presented by Dio-Xiphilnius constitute a sub-
ject of controversy among scholars due to its originality in comparison to
other witnesses. Dio’s is the only narrative where the foundation of Aelia
Capitolina is presented as the direct reason for the Bar Kokhba revolt
(Stern 1980, 401). Dio’s version is contradicted by that of Eusebius of
Caesarea who presented the building of Aelia Capitolina as a result of the
uprising, not its causes (Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 4.6.4; Almagor
8
Translation is that of Cary 1925, 447.
9
On Xiphilinus working methods see Brunt 1980, 490-491; Mallan 2013, 626-632.
Xiphilinus and the Causes for the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt 357
2019, 142; Hofman 2019, 119-120). Only new, successively found numis-
matic evidence allowed scholars to accept the fact that Aelia was indeed
founded before the uprising10. Nevertheless, whether it was a sufficient
reason to incite a violent Jewish reaction is debatable11. Likewise, the
second reason provided by Dio, that Jews were especially angered by
the funding of a new temple to Jupiter in place of the destroyed Sec-
ond Temple, is also problematic. To date, there is no decisive evidence
supporting Dio’s claim that the Romans built a pagan shrine to Jupiter
on the Temple Mount (Bowersock 1980, 137; Mildenberg 1980, 333;
Schäfer 1990, 289; Eliav 1997, 125-128.). Lack of such evidence makes
scholars doubt Dio’s account but because he is widely considered to be
trustworthy historian, especially in its originally surviving parts, some
believe that his version of the events was heavily distorted by Xiphilinus’
paraphrase with its traces visible in syntax and vocabulary used by the
Byzantine historian in the passage: evj to.n tou/ naou/ tou/ qeou/ to,pon
nao.n tw|/ Dii. e[teron avntegei,rantoj (Eliav 1997, 130).
The first phrase which catches scholarly attention was the term used
by Dio to describe the Second Temple – nao.j tou/ qeou/ – the Temple of
the God – which was identified already in nineteenth century as a term
employed by Xiphilinus, not Dio (Schlatter 1847, 2 n. 56). Argumen-
tation supporting this early claim was more developed by Yaron Eliav
who claimed that the term nao.j tou/ qeou/ is not to be found either in
Greek pagan literature nor in original portions of Dio’s Roman Histo-
ry. Instead, Dio simply calls the Jewish temple nao.j and does so also
in the context of pagan temples. Eliav argues that nao.j tou/ qeou/ is an
10
Meshorer 1967, 92-3; Isaac, Oppenheimer 1998, 237 ; Zissu, Eshel 2016, 389-392;
Mor 2016, 127; Segni 2014, 448-449 on the other hand, based on Epihanius’ testimony
proposes that preparation for its restorations started even much earlier, at the begin-
ning of Hadrian’s reign and during the emperor’s visit to Judea in 130 AD, the city was
officially inaugurated.
11
Another possible reason is a ban on circumcision indicated by the Historia
Augusta, although this cause is rejected by most scholars, see Schwartz 2008, 34; Mor
2012, 163-169; p. 34.
358 Kamil Biały
15
It should be noted that Byzantine clergy generally did not support such a policy
because they did not believe in the honesty of those conversions, Linder 2012, 866; on
association of Jews with heretics and iconoclasm see Fishman-Duker 2012, 786 and n.
30.
Xiphilinus and the Causes for the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt 363
16
See: Gelzer 1898, 97 who around the same time evaluated Byzantine chronicles
in a more positive light; positive views started to dominate only in the second half of
twentieth century: Beck 1972, 188-197; Afinogenov 1992, 3-33; Ljubarskij 1993, 133-
134; Rosenqvist 2007, 10-20; Howard-Johnson 2015, 1-22; Mariev 2015, 305-317.
364 Kamil Biały
religious interest than much else in his narrative” (Millar 1964, 68). It
will be argued however that Xiphilinus did not follow such an agenda.
It is hard to defend the argument that Xiphilinus presented the world-
view of an uneducated monk. In fact, even the opinion that he was
a monk has begun to be rejected in recent times (Treadgold 2013, 310
n. 7 Kruse 2019, 257-274). Instead, as noted earlier, Xiphilinus could
be considered a typical representative of the intellectual milieu of the
eleventh-century Byzantine administrative apparatus which produced
historians such as Psellus and Attaleiates, who were Xiphilinus’ con-
temporaries, but also the likes of Skylitzes, Zonaras and Manasses in
the twelfth century. They constituted a stratum of men from which the
Byzantine state apparatus was recruited, well educated in law, rhetoric,
history and other disciplines. Their influence on the Byzantine court
played an important role in the revival of interest in ancient Roman
history, including the pagan one. In this case, they started to look at the
periodization of history not through the Christian lens and tradition
established by Eusebius of Caesarea but of ancient pagan authors like
Cassius Dio. They found special interest in the constitutional changes
of the Roman state which started to be the core of their historical nar-
rative (Laiou 1994, 173; Markopoulos 2006, 290-297)17. This worldview
was also shared by Xiphilinus and it is not surprising that he started his
Epitome during the late Republic in order to show how the Roman polity
changed from a democracy into an imperial monarchy. This could be
assumed based on often-cited passage of Xiphilinus inserted after the
narrative describing the battle of Actium:
le,xw de. kai. kaqV e[kaston o[sa avnagkai/o,n evsti kai. nu/n ma,lista( dia.
to. pa,mpolu avphrth/sqai tw/n kairw/n evkei,nwn to.n kaqV h`ma/j bi,on kai.
to. poli,teuma mnhmoneu,esqai (Xiph. 87.2-5)
17
On the influence of juristic background on Skylitzes’ historical writing see: Laiou
1992, 165-176.
Xiphilinus and the Causes for the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt 365
“I shall relate each and every thing as far as is required, and especially so
in the present time, because a great deal of benefit for our way of life
and political situation depends on remembering those critical events”18.
This passage was based on the paragraph of Dio which lacked such
considerations:
le,xw de. kai. kaqV e[kaston o[sa avnagkai/o,n evsti meta. tw/n u`pa,twn( evfV
w-n evge,neto( mnhmoneu,esqai (Dio, 53.22.1).
“I shall now relate in detail also such of his acts as call for mention,
together with the names of the consuls under which they were perfor-
med”19.
18
Translation is that of Mallan 2013, 611.
19
Translation is that of Cary, 1917, 251.
366 Kamil Biały
The siege as described by Dio could be divided into two phases. In the
first, Pompey took the city without much effort thanks to its submission
by Hyrcanus. The second phase is devoted to the siege of the Temple
Mount because of its occupation by defenders loyal to Aristobulus. Dio
mentions reasons for the difficulties facing Pompey, describing the ad-
vantageous strategic position of the Jews because the Temple was situated
on high ground and was covered by its own walls. Nevertheless, Pompey
20
Translation is that of Cary 1914, 125.
368 Kamil Biały
Comparison of the two versions show that Xiphilinus did not alter the
sentences he took from Dio in any significant way. All the information
found in the Epitome conforms to that found in Roman History. Howev-
er, the whole passage lost its comprehensiveness because of the omission
of certain details which in turn led to the distortion of the original by
Xiphilinus. From his version, if the original was not available, the reader
could make the wrong assumption that Pompey was not able to take
the whole of the city of Jerusalem, not only the Temple Mount as such
differences between Dio and Xiphilinus do not come from alterations
to the original made by the latter but from the omission of important
details. Yet there is no trace of any changes made by Xiphilinus motivated
by a special interest in Jewish matters, including related to his supposed
negative disposition. This is confirmed by the fact that he did not alter
Dio’s Herodotean like description of the Jewish customs and religion
but simply copied it verbatim without any changes. This description
does not contain any negative remarks about Jews (Schwartz 1970, 150).
In the next passage, Dio mentions Palestine among the provinces
conquered by the Romans from the speech of Caesar before the battle
against Ariovistus (Dio 38.38.4 = no. 407 GLAJ). This fragment is not
to be found in Xiphilinus’ Epitome. Reasons for that are twofold: Xiphi-
linus avoids speeches contained in Dio’s work and due to the fact that
the event involving Caesar is covered by Xiphilinus in the first chapter
Xiphilinus and the Causes for the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt 369
and Palestine although even Dio does not provide much detail about
this affair. He mistakenly mentions that Pacorus deposed Hyrcanus and
replaced him with his brother Arsitobulus when in fact it was the latter’s
son, Antigonus (Stern 1980, 358). Yet even in this short passage taken
from Dio, Xiphilinus fails to mention these details and leaves only the
information about Pacorus’ capture of Palestine (Dio 48.26.2 = Xiph.
57.30-31 = no. 412 GLAJ). The Roman counteroffensive under the lead-
ership of Publius Ventidius, although mentioned by Xiphilinus, is also
devoid of much detail. Dio mentions that Ventidius levied a tribute on
the petty kings who aided Pacorus, with Malchus, the Nabatean king
among them, but Xiphilinus leaves out all the names and only vaguely
says that Ventidius drove the Parthians out of Syria (Dio 48.41.4-5 =
Xiph. 60.26-30 = no. 413 GLAJ).
On the other hand, Xiphilinus mentions the capture of Jerusalem by
Gaius Sosius at the behest of Antony. His narrative is similar to that of
Dio in this regard. He finds interest especially in another description
of the Jewish religious customs. Dio again mentions the Sabbath and
its significance during the siege. Xiphilinus takes the relevant passages
which he copied directly without any changes. Similarly, as in the case of
Pompey’s conquest, the epitomator only vaguely mentions the course of
military warfare, omitting details about Sosius’ actions before the siege
of Jerusalem, including the victory over Antigonus. What is more, Dio
levied some negative opinion about the Jews stating that they are a very
bitter nation when aroused to anger but justifies their attitude claiming
that they suffered far more than the Romans at their behest (Dio 49.22.4).
This opinion of Dio is not to be found in Xiphilinus’ Epitome however
and could be taken as evidence of lack of any anti-Jewish sentiment on
Xiphilinus’ part (Dio 49.22.3-23.1 = Xiph. 68.22-29 = no. 414 GLAJ).
Xiphilinus also omitted most of the information from the last nine
passages which survived in Dio’s original. He was not interested in
Antony’s policies in the East where he subjected parts of Palestine to
Cleopatra (Dio 49.22.3-23.1 = Xiph. 68.22-29 = no. 414 GLAJ), or those
Xiphilinus and the Causes for the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt 371
21
Dio 57.18.5a = no. 419 GLAJ, it should be noted however that this passage
originates not from the original Dio but from John of Antioch.
22
Although it is hard to judge their credibility and faithfulness to Dio’s original,
they are very important testimonies for the history of Jewish nation after 70 AD because
of a lack of comprehensive and more contemporary sources, Fishman-Duker 2012, 780.
23
This was first observed by Mallan 2013, 631-632.
372 Kamil Biały
alternative sources. The fact that he omits the policies of emperors to-
wards the Jews is telling in this regard as well. In other instances, when
Dio’s passage contains some information about the Jews, Xiphilinus
decides to include it in the Epitome not because it contains information
about them but because it forms a part of a broader, different topic. The
same could be said about omission of some passages containing Jewish
matters. They are usually discarded not because they contain infor-
mation about Jews specifically but because their content did not fit in
Xiphilinus’ writing principles, mostly because of his biographical focus.
Likewise, comparisons of Xiphilinus methodology in passages about
Jewish-Roman warfare are telling in the context of the Bar Kokhba re-
volt. They lead to different conclusions than those by Fergus Millar who
implies that Xiphilinus was driven by religious interest. If this is correct,
then it does not explain why he mentions the supposedly religious causes
of the uprising only vaguely while the description of warfare itself is
much more detailed. In the two instances analysed above, the conquests
of Jerusalem by Pompey and Sosius, descriptions of the sieges are less
comprehensive than those found in Dio, while religious descriptions are
copied by Xiphilinus verbatim. Thus, if he was indeed interested in the
Bar Kokhba revolt because of its religious aspect, he would have provided
much more information about the causes of the uprising and much less
detailed description of warfare. It could be explained that he either was
not interested in the religious connotations of the Bar Kokhba uprising
or that it was Dio himself who did not discuss them in detail either. If the
second explanation is correct, it further strengthens the argument that
Xiphilinus was not interested in the religious background of the revolt
since he did not find it necessary to supplement Dio’s information with
his own comments or additions from alternative sources.
The analysis conducted above shows that Xiphilinus rarely alters
Dio’s narrative. Even if he paraphrased the original in his own words,
which is possible taking into account the philological analyses of the pas-
sage about the reasons of the Bar Kokhba revolt, it does not necessarily
Xiphilinus and the Causes for the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt 373
mean that Xiphilinus greatly altered the tone of Dio’s version by those
very words. Even if we assume that phrases involving the terms nao.j
tou/ qeou/ and avntegei,rw are indeed attestations of Xiphilinus’ rephras-
ing, it does not necessarily mean that he made these alterations with
a specific Christian or ani-Jewish agenda in mind. In fact, information
on Xiphilinus’ background does not support this. Rather, if some of
the original sense was lost from the archetype, it is more likely due to
an omission of certain important details by Xiphilinus, now lost and
impossible to reconstruct. Loss of comprehensiveness of Dio’s original
thus most probably resulted in the ambiguity of Xiphilinus’ version about
the causes of the Bar Kokhba revolt. It is possible that Dio’s version of
the causes of the Jewish uprising was more unequivocal than that of
Xiphilinus, similar to the case of Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem. Only
due to the loss of some information can it be concluded from Xiphilinus’
version that Pompey could not breach the whole city until its defences
relaxed during the Sabbath, while from Dio we know that Pompey
captured the city but had problems with the siege of the Temple Mount.
As such, controversy involving the foundation of the temple of Jupiter
in Jerusalem could have been created because of Xiphilinus’ omission
of details about the place in which it was founded, if such information
was indeed provided by Dio24. Accordingly, it is unlikely that Xiphilinus
significantly altered Dio’s description of the causes of the Bar Kokhba
uprising, being motivated by Christian anti-Jewish agenda which, as
was shown above, he did not repeat in any other instance when dealing
with Jewish material.
Instead, Jewish motivations for the revolt as presented by Dio-Xiphil-
inus should be considered in the context of wider narrative of Dio about
Hadrian’s eastern policy. Dio’s narrative structure in this part of Roman
24
On the possible reasons behind Hadrian’s decision to build Jupiter’s Temple not
on the Temple Mount see Bieberstein 2007, 152; some recent archaeological findings
could be interpreted as an argument supporting the foundation of the pagan temple on
the Temple Mount, Magness 2012, 284.
374 Kamil Biały
Cary, Earnest. 1917. Dio Cassius Roman History Books 51-55. Harvard:
Loeb Classical Library.
Cary, Earnest. 1925. Dio Cassius Roman History Books 61-70. Harvard:
Loeb Classical Library.
Chitwood, Zachary. 2017. Byzantine Legal Culture and the Roman Legal
Tradition, 867-1056. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boor, Carl de. 1903. Excerpta de legationibus. Berlin : Weidmann.
Dio: Boissevain, Ursul Philip. 1895-1901. Cassii Dionis Cocceiani His-
toriarum romanarum quae supersunt. Volume I-III. Berlin: Weid-
mann.
Di Segni, Leah. 2014. „Epiphanius and the Date of Foundation of Aelia
Capitolina.” Liber Annuus 64: 441-451.
Dindorf, Ludwig. 1869. Ioannis Zonarae Epitome historiarum. Leipzig:
Weber.
Eck, Werner. 1999. „The bar Kokhba Revolt: The Roman Point of View.”
The Journal of Roman Studies 89: 76-89.
Fishman-Duker, Rivkah. 2012. „Images of Jews in Byzantine Chronicles:
A General Survey.” In Jews in Byzantium. Dialectics of Minority
and Majority Cultures. Eds. Robert Bonfil, Oded Irshai, Guy G.
Stroumsa, Rina Talgam, 149-218. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Friedheim, Emmanuel. 2007. „The Religious and Cultural World of Aelia
Capitolina – A New Perspective.” Oriental Archive 75: 125-152.
Fuks, Alexander. 1961. „Aspects of the Jewish Revolt in A.D. 115-117.”
The Journal of Roman Studies 51 (1): 98-104.
Gelzer, Heinrich. 1898. Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische
Chronographie. Leipzig: Teubner.
Gichon, Mordechai. 1986. „New Insight into the Bar Kokhba War and
a Reappraisal of Dio Cassius 69. 12–13.” Jewish Quarterly Review
77 (1): 15-43.
Hofman, Miriam Ben Zeev. 2019. „Eusebius and Hadrian’s Founding
of Aelia Capitolina in Jerusalem.” Electrum 26: 119-128.
Xiphilinus and the Causes for the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt 377
Horbury, William. 2014. Jewish War under Trajan and Hadrian. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Howard-Johnston, James. 2015. „The Chronicle and Other Forms of His-
torical Writing in Byzantium.” The Medieval Chronicle 10: 1-22.
Isaac, Benjamin, and Aharon Oppenheimer. 1998. „The Revolt of Bar
Kokhba: Ideology and Modern Scholarship.” In The Near East
under Roman Rule. Ed Benjamin Isaac, 220-256. Leiden: Brill.
Juntunen, Kai. 2013. „The Lost Books of Cassius Dio.” Chiron 43: 459-
486.
Juntunen, Kai. 2015. „The Image of Cleopatra in Ioannes Xiphilinos’
Epitome of Cassius Dio: A Reflection of the Empress Eudokia
Makrembolitissa?” Acta Byzantina Fennica 4: 123-151.
Kovács, Peter. 2009. Marcus Aurelius’ Rain Miracle and the Marcomannic
War. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Krumbacher, Karl. 1897. Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur: von
Justinian bis zum Ende des oströmischen Reiches (527-1453).
München: Beck.
Kruse, Marion. 2019. „The Epitomator Ioannes Xiphilinos and the Elev-
enth-Century Xiphilinoi.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzan-
tinistik 69: 257-274.
Kruse, Marion. 2021. „Xiphilinos’ Agency in the Epitome of Cassius
Dio.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 61 (2): 193-223.
Laiou, Angeliki. 1994. „Law, Justice, and the Byzantine Historians: Ninth
to Twelfth Centuries.” In Law and Society in Byzantium Ninth-
Twelfth Centuries. Eds. Angeliki Laiou, Dieter Simon, 151-185.
Washington: Harvard University Press.
Linder, Amnon. 2012. „The Legal Status of Jews in the Byzantine Em-
pire.” In Jews in Byzantium. Dialectics of Minority and Majority
Cultures. Eds. Robert Bonfil, Oded Irshai, Guy G. Stroumsa, Rina
Talgam, 149-218. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Ljubarskij, Jakov. 1993. „New Trends in the Study of Byzantine Histo-
riography.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47: 131-138.
378 Kamil Biały
Magness, Jodi. 2012. The Archeology of the Holy Land. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Mallan, Christopher. 2013. „The Style, Method, and Programme
of Xiphilinus’ Epitome of Cassius Dio’s Roman History.” Greek,
Roman and Byzantine Studies 55: 610-644.
Mariev, Sergei. „Byzantine World Chronicles: Identities of Genre”
In Shifting Genres in Late Antiquity. Eds. Geoffrey Greatrex, Hugh
Elton, Lucas McMahon, 305-317. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate
Publishing.
Markopoulos, Athanasios. 2006. „Roman Antiquarianism: Aspects of the
Roman Past in the Middle Byzantine Period (9th-11th centuries).”
In Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Stud-
ies. London, 21-26 August, 2006, I. Plenary Papers. Ed. Elisabeth
Jeffreys, 277-297. Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.
Markopoulos, Athanasios. 2010. „From narrative historiography to his-
torical biography. New trends in Byzantine historical writing
in the 10th–11th centuries.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 102 (2):
697-715.
Mazzucchi, Carlo Maria. 1979. „Alcune vicende della tradizione di
Cassio Dione in epoca bizantina.” Aevum 53 (1): 94-139.
Meshorer, Ya’akov. 1976. Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period. Tel-
Aviv: Am Hassefer.
Millar, Fergus. 1964. A Study of Cassisus Dio. Oxford: University Press.
Mor, Menahem. 2012. „Are There Any New Factors Concerning the
Bar-Kokhba Revolt?” Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica 18: 161-193.
Mor, Menahem. 2017. The Second Jewish Revolt. The Bar Kokhba War,
132–136 CE. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Niesiołowski-Spanó, Łukasz, and Krystyna Stebnicka 2020. Historia
Żydów w starożytności. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Pérez Martín, Immaculada. 2015. „The Role of Maximos Planudes
and Nikephoros Gregoras in the Transmission of Cassius Dio’s
Xiphilinus and the Causes for the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt 379
ROCZNIK
TEOLOGICZNY
[E-WYDANIE]
WARSZAWA 2023
REDAGUJE KOLEGIUM
dr hab. Jakub Slawik, prof. ChAT – redaktor naczelny
dr hab. Jerzy Ostapczuk, prof. ChAT – zastępca redaktora naczelnego
prof. dr hab. Tadeusz J. Zieliński
dr hab. Borys Przedpełski, prof. ChAT
dr hab. Jerzy Sojka, prof. ChAT – sekretarz redakcji
eISSN: 2956-5685
Wydano nakładem
Wydawnictwa Naukowego ChAT
ul. Broniewskiego 48, 01-771 Warszawa, tel. +48 22 635-68-55
Objętość ark. wyd.: 10,7. Nakład: 100 egz.
Druk: druk-24h.com.pl
ul. Zwycięstwa 10, 15-703 Białystok
SpiS treści
Artykuły
Witold Tyborowski, Król jako pasterz w tekstach królewskich okresu
starobabilońskiego (XX – XVII w. przed Chr.) ..................................... 151
Janusz Lemański, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud – punkt zwrotny w interpretacji historii
Izraela i Judy? ...................................................................................... 187
Łukasza Niesiołowski–SpanÒ, Sławomir Poloczek, Kacper Ziemba,
Wpływy Bliskiego Wschodu i Hellady na Biblię hebrajską – perspektywa
historyczna ........................................................................................... 199
Jakub Slawik, The root @an in the Hebrew Bible in relation to hnz ........... 249
*Jakub Slawik, Rdzeń @an w Biblii Hebrajskiej w relacji do hnz ............. *101
Michał Wojciechowski, Pieśń nad Pieśniami na tle powieści greckich 307
Paweł Filipczak, Warunki naturalne Zatoki Antiocheńskiej a rozwój histo-
ryczny miasta Seleucja Pieria (czasy hellenistyczne i rzymskie) ......... 323
Kamil Biały, Xiphilinus and the Causes for the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba
Revolt.................................................................................................... 351
Teresa Wolińska, Upadek an-Numana ibn al-Munzira (580–602 n.e.),
ostatniego władcy al-Hiry .................................................................... 381
Dariusz Długosz, 140-lecie Departamentu Starożytności Bliskowschod-
nich Muzeum Luwru ............................................................................. 431
Wykaz autorów ........................................................................................ *157
Articles
Witold Tyborowski, The King as Shepherd in the Old Babylonian Royal
Inscriptions (20th – 17th cent. BC) ...................................................... 151
Jakub Slawik, The root @an in the Hebrew Bible in relation to hnz ........... 187
*Jakub Slawik, The root @an in the Hebrew Bible in relation to hnz (polish
version) ............................................................................................... *101
Łukasza Niesiołowski–SpanÒ, Sławomir Poloczek, Kacper Ziemba,
Near Eastern and Greek Influences on the Hebrew Bible – Historical
Perspective ........................................................................................... 199
Michał Wojciechowski, Song of Songs on the Background of Greek
Novels ................................................................................................... 249
Janusz Lemański, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud – a Turning Point in the Interpretation
of the History of Israel and Judah?...................................................... 307
Paweł Filipczak, Natural conditions of the Bay of Antioch
and historical development of the city of Seleucia Pieria
(Hellenistic and Roman times) ............................................................. 323
Kamil Biały, Xiphilinus and the Causes for the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba
Revolt.................................................................................................... 351
Teresa Wolińska, The Fall of al-Nuʿmān ibn al-Munḏhir (580–602 CE),
the Last Ruler of al-Ḥīra ...................................................................... 381
Dariusz Długosz, 140th anniversary of the Department of Middle Eastern
Antiquities of the Louvre Museum ........................................................ 431
List of authors .......................................................................................... *157