Rocznik Teologiczny

LXV – z. 2/2023
s. 351-380
Kamil Biały1 DOI: 10.36124/rt.2023.15
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4068-6188

Xiphilinus and the Causes for the Outbreak

of the Bar Kokhba Revolt
Ksyfilinos i przyczyny wybuchu powstania Bar Kochby

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

zachowania tej drugiej, stanowi niezwykle ważne źródło narracyjne dla

współczesnych badaczy Antycznego Rzymu w okresie Pryncypatu. Jest
tak też w przypadku powstania Bar Kochby, konfliktu stosunkowo słabo
udokumentowanego w źródłach narracyjnych. Największe dyskusje toczą się
wokół przyczyn tego konfliktu, dla którego Epitome Ksyfilinosa jest najob-
szerniejszym, zachowanym źródłem narracyjnym. Fakt niezachowania się
w oryginale dzieła Diona sprawia, że badacze poddają w wątpliwość relację
przedstawioną przez Ksyfilinosa, którego postrzegają jako bizantyńskie
mnicha piszącego z chrześcijańskiej, a nawet antyżydowskiej perspektywy.

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

the original narrative of Dio, which is lost to contemporary scholars

due to the incomplete state of preservation of Roman History, but only
an intermediate eleventh-century epitome composed by Xiphilinus2.
While scholars of the Bar Kokhba revolt acknowledge the importance
of Xiphilinus as a source for the uprising, opinion on its credibility is
divided. As a result, scholars of the uprising are among the first in aca-
demic circles who started to doubt Dio’s account surviving in the form
of Xiphilinus’ Epitome. Others treated it as a subpar copy or abridge-
ment of the original but, due to Xiphilinus’ perceived lack of originality,
a trustworthy substitute of Roman History. This general opinion was
highly influenced by pioneering work on Cassius Dio by Fergus Millar
(Millar 1964, 2). Xiphilinus alleged unoriginality resulted in Epitome
remaining understudied and at the same time one of the most important
Byzantine narrative sources from the eleventh century3. Its importance
stems from the incomplete state of preservation of the original books
of Dio which survived to our times in incomplete state with the books
36-60, containing a history of the late Roman Republic and early Empire
up to the final years of the reign of Claudius, the only part remaining.
There is also an original account of the late reign of Caracalla, that of
Macrinus and first chapters devoted to Elagabalus, but it survived only
in the form of partially and badly preserved sixth-century manuscript
Cod. Vat. Graec. 12884. The rest is reconstructed from much later Byzan-
tine sources. The first 35 books are partially reconstructed mainly from
the content of Zonaras’ chronicle, while for the books 61-80, Xiphili-
nus’ Epitome constitutes a major remaining witness, if not an abridged
equivalent. Important for the reconstruction of Roman History are also
the so called Excerpta Constantiniana, a collection containing scattered

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

excerpts from all parts of Roman History5. The Epitome of Xiphilinus

could be considered very important for many important aspects of the
history of Rome, and in many cases, the only reliable witness in spite
of its very late, eleventh-century provenience.
Dio’s passage on the Bar Kokhba revolt, even in its abridged version
prepared by Xiphilinus, gives us the most coherent narrative of the revolt
among surviving literary sources. Although it gives a general outline of
the war, its course, causes, tactics employed and its result, it does not
contain many details. On the other hand, when it does provide more
detailed information, it is often on the topics which are not necessarily
as important as the ones which are left in silence. An example of this
may be the detail about the involvement of Iulius Severus yet nothing
is provided about Tineius Rufus, governor of Judaea nor about the
commanders and armies sent by Hadrian to suppress the revolt. The
name of Bar Kokhba found in other literary sources is conspicuously not
mentioned yet leaders of other Jewish revolts from the reign of Trajan
are named by Xiphilinus (Stern 1980, 393).
Before examination of the relevant passages describing the causes
for the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba uprising, some preliminary remarks
about Xiphilinus’ work should be made. The narrative about the Bar
Kokhba revolt is contained in the chapter of the Epitome devoted to
emperor Hadrian. This is an important factor which should be taken
into account while interpreting Xiphilinus’ account. Following his own
narrative structure, Xiphilinus moved away from the typically annalistic
style of Cassius Dio to a ‘biographical’ one, more fashionable during his

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

own time6. Xiphilinus scrapped Dio’s books division, leaving no trace

of them, and substituted them with chapters devoted to each emperor
starting with Julius Caesar, creating in this way a “monarchy of Caesars”
(monarci,aj kaisa,rwn)7. This decision not only influenced the Epitome’s
structure but also its content selected by Xiphilinus according to this
narrow biographical principle. In this way, material not directly con-
nected to the main protagonist of the narrative was either dismissed or
subjected to extensive cutting or abridging.
The Bar Kokhba uprising and description of its causes was insert-
ed into a broader narrative about Hadrian’s travels and his building
activities. The description of the uprising starts immediately after the
passage about the founding of the city of Antinoopolis. Thus, the way
in which the narrative about the uprising is structured should be seen
in the context of the whole portion of Hadrian’s chapter (Almagor 2019,
143-144). There is no need to assume that this structure is much differ-
ent from that which Xiphilinus found in Dio’s original, given that the
latter very rarely alters the original order of the narrative. As in the case
of Antinoopolis, Xiphilinus starts the narrative about the revolt with
Hadrian’s foundation of the Aelia Capitolina:

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

evj de. ta. ~Ieroso,luma po,lin auvtou/ avnti. kataskafei,shj oivki,santoj(

h]n kai. Aivli,an Kapitwli/nan wvno,mase( kai. evj to.n tou/ naou/ tou/
qeou/ to,pon nao.n tw|/ Dii. e[teron avntegei,rantoj po,lemoj ou;te mikro.j
ou;tV ovligocro,nioj evkinh,qh. VIoudai/oi ga.r deino,n ti poiou,menoi
to. avllofu,louj tina.j eivj th.n po,lin sfw/n oivkisqh/nai kai. to. i`era.
avllo,tria evn auvth|/ i`druqh/nai (Dio 69.12.1-2 = Xiph. 148.17-23).
At Jerusalem he founded a city in place of the one which had been razed
to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple
of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war
of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the Jews deemed it
intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign
religious rites planted there8.

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

isolated expression and appears only in the passage on the causes of

the Bar Kokhba uprising, carrying a Christian theological connotation
by which Xiphilinus was influenced when paraphrasing Dio’s original
material (Eliav 1997, 136-142).
The second phrase appearing in the discussed passage which pointed
scholars to Xiphilinus’ alteration of Dio’s material is evj to.n [...] to,pon
[...] e[teron avntegei,rantoj and the verb avntegei,rw specifically used to
describe supplanting of the Jewish Temple with that of Jupiter. Schol-
ars have tried to reconcile Dio’s claim that Hadrian built a new pagan
temple in the exact same place with lack of any other evidence found
in narrative sources or archaeological material decisively supporting it.
Glen Bowersock focused on the phrase evj to.n [...] to,pon and proposed
that it should not be translated as ‘in the place of ’ but ‘instead of ’ and
that temple to Jupiter was not necessarily built on the Temple Mount
but in some other unspecified place. Accordingly, it was only Xiphilinus’
interpretation that the pagan temple served as a replacement for God’s
Jewish Temple (Bowersock 1980, 135-138).
Yaron Eliav, on the other hand, focused on the verb ending this
sentence – avntegei,rw and again, as in the case of naou/ tou/ qeou/, con-
nects its use by Xiphilinus with his presupposed Christian agenda. The
scholar pointed out that this term employed here by Xiphilinus appears
relatively late in the Greek language. It does not appear in Classical,
Hellenistic or Early Roman works written in Greek and neither in the
New Testament or in other early Christian works. The only exception
from that rule is Appian who uses this term in his Punic Wars to describe
the way in which Carthaginian forces fortified their camp against the
Roman army (avnth,geiran auvtw/| ca,raka, App. Pun. 114). Giving other
later examples taken from pagan literature, Eliav argues that the word
was used in the context of a clash, either physical or metaphorical, like
disputes between conflicting philosophical schools. Yet the word was
not employed frequently by pagan writers and started to be used only
in Patristic literature, mainly by the Cappadocian Fathers. It lost its
 Xiphilinus and the Causes for the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt 359

military meaning and started to be used in a theological sense to de-

scribe religious confrontation: an opposition to God or Church dogma
or a counter position of the faithful against heretics. Eliav concludes
that the term avntegei,rw was rare in Dio’s time and it was probably
Xiphilinus, or his source, who employed it motivated by theological
impulse (Eliav 1997, 134-136). Thus, in his opinion, the whole clause
describing Hadrian’s actions on the Temple Mount was influenced by
Christian leanings of Xiphilinus or his source (Eliav 1997, 142). The
philological analyses of Bowersock and Eliav constitute a valid and
important piece of scholarship on Xiphilinus’ working methods but
as shall be argued in present paper, their conclusions that epitomator’s
modifications were influenced by Christian worldview find no support
in the available evidence, including the current state of knowledge on
Xiphilinus background and preoccupation.
That Xiphilinus was influenced by Christian or even an anti-Jewish
agenda, either in form of direct interference or by the influence of an
alternative, Christian-oriented source of information, is an opinion
universally acknowledged by scholars investigating the Bar Kokhba
uprising (Fuks 1961, 101-102; Eck 1999, 78; Friedheim 2007, 128; Mor
2016, 121, 393; Gichon 1986, 22, 40; Ben-Zeev 2005, 168 n. 9). The latter
possibility was explored by Eran Almagor who connects Xiphilinus’
version with that of Eusebius of Caesarea. According to this scholar,
Xiphilinus’ portrayal of the events could have been influenced by his
memory of Eusebius’ text. He focuses especially on the question of for-
eign settlement in Jerusalem as mentioned both by Xiphilinus and Eu-
sebius. According to Almagor, Xiphilinus named the foreign settlement
of Jerusalem as one of reasons for the Bar Kokhba uprising because he
wanted to emphasise the religious grounds for the revolt while in Dio,
he assumes, it could have been presented as a result of destruction of
Jerusalem (Almagor 2019, 143).
Almagor’s theory is problematic if set against evidence provided
by analysis of Xiphilinus’ employment of sources alternative to Dio in
360 Kamil Biały

his narrative. A possibility that Xiphilinus used Eusebius’ work in the

passage about the Bar Kokhba revolt could be based on the fact that the
epitomator mentions Eusebius as his source, albeit used in a different
place and context. Due to the fact that Xiphilinus did not have at his
disposal Dio’s book covering the reigns of Antoninus Pius and the first
part of Marcus Aurelius, he was forced to use different sources, naming
Eusebius and Quadratus (Xiph. 256.8-10 = Dio 70.1.1, 256.29-257.3 =
70.2.2; cf. Mallan 2013, 633)12. Yet, it should be pointed out that Xiphi-
linus rarely employed different sources in parts of his Epitome where he
had at his disposal original books of Dio. There are, however, some minor
exceptions. His use of Plutarch is a most notable example. Explaining
the motivations of Brutus and Cassius, Xiphilinus rejects Dio’s negative
assessment of Caesar’s murderers arguing that the Roman historian was
writing during the “reign of Caesars” and as a result was afraid to tell the
truth. Xiphilinus instead prefers the version of Plutarch who provides
much more sympathetic views of Brutus and Cassius13. In some rare
instances, Xiphilinus furnishes more Christian oriented views than
those of Dio. The most well-known example is his narrative on the “rain
miracle” during the Marcomannic War of Marcus Aurelius where Xiphi-
linus rejects Dio’s explanation of this occurrence by involvement of the
Egyptian mage Harnufis, who was supposed to save the Roman forces,
and explains that it was God’s doing instead. In this case he does not
mention his source of information but the use of Eusebius’ and George
the Monk’s chronicles, or at least the knowledge of their content, could
be detected here (Kovács 2009, 100-101). It should be taken into account
however that although Xiphilinus’ occasionally furnishes Christian
sources, it would be a mistake to assume that he wanted to implement
a Christian stamp on Dio’s non-Christian narrative. Xiphilinus is very
12
For how Xiphilinus composed the later reign of Hadrian and that of Antoninus
Pius where he lacked corresponding books of Dio see Juntunen 2013, 459-465.
13
On Xiphilinus’ use of Plutarch see Brunt 1980, 489; Mallan 2013, 624-625.
 Xiphilinus and the Causes for the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt 361

restrained in his use of Christian material which is in contrast to the

likes of Zonaras who also used Dio and other pagan writers in his work
but interwove it with information on the martyrs and the early Church.
Xiphilinus, on the other hand, misses all the possible instances where
he could mention important events related to Christianity, passing over
in silence even the birth of Christ (Brunt, 1980, 489; Mallan 2013, 640).
What is more, in the above-mentioned instances Xiphilinus’ alterations
to Dio’s original can be easily detected by his explicit interventions in
the narrative where he either specifically mentions his alternative source
or openly refutes Dio’s argument. This is not the case in the narrative
about the causes of the Bar Kokhba revolt.
Xiphilinus’ alleged anti-Jewish sentiment is also problematic. This
theory is discussed mostly in the context of Xiphilinus’ narrative about
the Jewish revolt in Cyrenaica which contains a negative assessment of
Jews and their supposed cannibalism, remarks supposedly inserted by
Xiphilinus and not to be found in Dio’s original (Fuks 1961, 101-102)14.
There is some possibility that Xiphilinus was negatively predisposed
towards the Jews but it is hard to find any evidence supporting this
claim due to the lack of any comprehensive information about him and
his background. The hypothetical negative stance of Xiphilinus towards
the Jews could be analysed only in the context of general tendencies
governing eleventh-century Byzantine society and state policy towards
the Jews. Albeit even in this case it is hard to make any assumptions.
In the eleventh century, anti-Jewish tendencies were interwoven with
Byzantine legal actions taken against the Paulicians and Nestorians who
formed a significant minority on the Byzantine Eastern frontier, follow-
ing conquests from the late tenth and early eleventh century. Jews appear
in this legislation because these heresies were sometimes referred to as
14
On the other hand, charges levied on Jews by Dio resemble those levied on Iceni
in Britain (Dio 62.7.1-3) or Bucoli in Egypt (71.4.1) and are unlikely to be added by
Xiphilinus, Horbury 2014, 18.
362 Kamil Biały

“Jewish heresies”. After the triumph of Orthodoxy, the Byzantine state

followed the policy of forced conversions of Jews alongside Christian
heretics because they were associated with Iconoclasm15.
There is one aspect of Byzantine religious legislation against Mono-
physites and Jews which could be very loosely connected with Xiphili-
nus, namely an edict of the patriarch Alexius Stoudites against heretics
which prohibited them from giving testimony in court against the Or-
thodox. It is believed that this edict was formulated and edited by the
uncle of Xiphilinus, future patriarch Ioannes VIII Xiphilinus (Schminck,
1986, 30-32). Alexius Stoudites commissioned jurists, with Xiphilinus
‘the Elder’ among them, to investigate the legal status of heretics on the
basis of existing Byzantine legislation and formulate new legislation
which would deal with the pressing problem of a heretical population
on the new Byzantine eastern frontier. The involvement of laymen jurists
in Byzantine religious legislation in this case is interpreted as a sign of
the increased political importance of that group (Chitwood 2017, 141-
149). Due to the weakening of imperial power after the extinction of
the Macedonian dynasty, new emperors relied more and more on civil
apparatus consisting of men learned in rhetoric, history and law with
John Mauropus, John Xiphilinus, Michael Psellus, Michael Attaleiates
being the most well-known examples of that milieu. Xiphilinus the epit-
omator was part of that circle of intellectuals. Many of them produced
works of historiography influenced by their classical education and
preoccupations in the Byzantine administrative apparatus and Xiphil-
inus was undoubtedly part of that circle (Markopoulos 2006, 282-283;
Treadgold 2013, 310; Mallan 2013, 614).
The above-mentioned considerations do not allow researchers to
measure Xiphilinus’ opinion about the Jews, and it must remain a moot

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

point. However, information about his background points us towards

considerations about his true agenda which not only governed his inter-
pretation of Dio’s account but also the methodology employed during
preparation of the Epitome. Before that it would be useful to provide
further characteristics of Xiphilinus’ work and how it differs from Dio’s
Roman History.
Studies devoted to Xiphilinus’ agenda and working methods have
only recently started to appear. In earlier studies, he was generally pre-
sented as an unoriginal author who only copied or paraphrased the
original narrative without any specified methodology or ideological
agenda in mind (Millar 1964, 2; Brunt 1980, 489-491). This view on
Xiphilinus could be framed in wider scholarly opinion about the Byz-
antine historiography divided in the classic work of Karl Krumbacher
into two distinct and highly different sub-genres, the “histories” and
“chronicles” with Xiphilinus’ Epitome counted among the latter. “The
chronicles” were characterised by Krumbacher and subsequent histori-
ography up until around the middle of the twelfth century as derivative
works of uneducated monks. They lacked the sophisticated, classicizing
style of the “histories” and were written with the Christian scope of its
writers and audiences in mind (Krumbacher 1897, 220)16. As already
noted, scholars of the Bar Kokhba revolt evaluate Xiphilinus’ Epitome
according to the above-mentioned characteristics: as a monkish, un-
original chronicle, an abridgement with a Christian agenda which in
turn influenced Xiphilinus’ supposed antipathy towards Jews (Mor 2017,
125). These opinions originate, however, not from Krumbacher but from
the remarks of Fergus Millar that the Bar Kokhba uprising: “is given
at length in Xiphilinus’ text of Dio, no doubt because it was of greater

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.

Xiphilinus clearly saw Roman history, especially the political and

constitutional changes it underwent, as a means to understand politi-
cal and social rules governing his own contemporary Eastern Roman
polity. As such, as it will be shown, the narrative devoted to the Jews
was of minor importance to Xiphilinus, the same as or even less so than
to Cassius Dio.
The agenda described above influenced Xiphilinus’ interpretation
of Dio’s material but also his methodology, how he selected parts of the
original to be inserted into his narrative and how he paraphrased and
copied them to fit into his own broader narrative. It should be also noted
that Xiphilinus was influenced not only by the intellectual interests and
preoccupations of his contemporaries related to ancient Roman history
but also by the general tendencies governing the Byzantine historiogra-
phy of his time. One of its characteristics was the previously mentioned
focused biographical framework which was a major factor influencing
Xiphilinus’ methods of selection. In his narrative he mostly included
information directly related to the protagonist of a given chapter while
most of the narrative focused on other personalities was discarded
(Mallan 2013, 625, 630, 632). The content found in Dio’s Roman History

18
Translation is that of Mallan 2013, 611.
19
Translation is that of Cary, 1917, 251.
366 Kamil Biały

devoted to the protagonist of Xiphilinus’ chapter underwent further

selection. It could be observed that Xiphilinus was not interested in
numerous speeches found in Dio or technicalities of the Roman sys-
tem of governance, election of magistrates etc. He was not interested
in Roman foreign wars either, especially during the Empire which he
highly condensed leaving often only some ethnographic or topographic
anecdotes, while the civil wars were scrupulously narrated. It should be
pointed out that by civil wars Xiphilinus meant a war between the reign-
ing emperor and an usurper or between the Republican dynatoi (term
used by Xiphilinus) who vied for power, which led to the change of the
government (Mallan 2013, 625, 630, 632; Kruse 2021, 199-223). For this
reason, the Bar Kokhba revolt and other revolts against Roman rule in
the provinces did not receive special attention in Xiphilinus’ narrative.
A more appropriate way to measure Xiphilinus’ attitude towards
the Jews, whether it differed from that of Dio or was influenced by his
Christian Byzantine background, would be to compare his narrative
involving the Jews with the relevant passages of Roman History which
survived in the original. The analysis of the fragments referring to Jews
in Dio’s work was conducted by Manehem Stern in although he did not
compare Xiphilinus’ version with Dio’s original where it is possible (Stern
1980, 347-407). Of 37 fragments of Dio’s Roman History mentioning the
Jews, 18 (no. 406-423 Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism,
subsequently GLAJ) are to be found in the books 37-60 which survived
in the original and are covered by Xiphilinus’ Epitome and Excerpta
Constantiniana.
In the first passage of Roman History involving Jews, Dio describes
the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey and his intervention in the quarrel
between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus of the Hasmonean dynasty (Dio
37.15.2-17.4 = Xiph. 7.9-8.16 = no. 40 GLAJ). Dio relates that Pompey
had a problem with conquest of Jerusalem which he took only when its
defenders remained inactive during the Sabbath (“days of Saturn”). The
 Xiphilinus and the Causes for the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt 367

narrative about the siege is followed by lengthy passages describing the

Jews as a nation and their religion. Xiphilinus included this fragment
in his narrative but took a different approach. The first part describing
the siege was paraphrased while the latter containing ethnographic
description of the Jews was copied from Dio by Xiphilinus without any
significant changes. The description of the siege of Jerusalem, however,
forms a good example of Xiphilinus’ working methods in Jewish mate-
rial. Dio provided a detailed narrative of the siege:
ta. de. ~Ieroso,luma poliorkw/n pra,gmata e;sce) th.n me.n ga.r a;llhn po,lin(
evsdexame,nwn auvto.n tw/n ta. tou/ ~Urkanou/ fronou,ntwn( avpragmo,nwj
e;laben( auvto. de. to. i`ero.n prokatasco,ntwn tw/n e`te,rwn ouvk avpo,nwj
ei-len\ evpi, te ga.r metew,rou h=n kai. peribo,lw| ivdi,w| wvcu,rwto) kai. ei;
ge evn pa,saij tai/j h`me,raij o`moi,wj hvmu,nonto( ouvk a'n auvto. evceirw,sato\
nu/n de. ta.j tou/ Kro,nou dh. wvnomasme,naj dialei,pontej( kai. ouvde.n to.
para,pan evn auvtai/j drw/ntej( pare,dwkan toi/j ~Rwmai,oij kairo.n evn tw/|
diake,nw| tou,tw| to. tei/coj diasei/sai (Dio 37.15.3-16.2).
But [Pompey] had trouble in besieging Jerusalem. Most of the city, to
be sure, he took without any trouble, as he was received by the party of
Hyrcanus; but the temple itself, which the other party had occupied, he
captured only with difficulty. For it was on high ground and was fortified
by a wall of its own, and if they had continued defending it on all days
alike, he could not have got possession of it. As it was, they made an
excavation of what are called the days of Saturn, and by doing no work
at all on those days afforded the Romans an opportunity in this interval
to batter down the wall20.

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

conquered it but only due to the conduct of the defenders. Xiphilinus’

version is much shorter:
ta. de. ~Ieroso,luma poliorkw/n pra,gmata e;sce) kai. ei; ge mh. evn tai/j tou/
Kro,nou h`me,raij a;praktoi pantelw/j h=san oi` VIoudai/oi( ouvk a’n ei-len
auvta,) nu/n de. evn tw/| diake,nw| tou,tw| kairw/| pare,dwkan toi/j ~Rwmai,oij
to. tei/coj diasei/sai (Xiph. 7.19-24)
But [Pompey] had trouble in besieging Jerusalem. Had it not been for
the fact that the Jews were idle on the days of Saturn, he would not have
captured it. But now thanks to this interval the Romans were given the
opportunity and battered down the wall.

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

of the Epitome which focuses solely on Pompey. Thus, the conquests

of Caesar in Gaul and Britain are mentioned only vaguely to explain
Caesar’s rise to prominence and his later clash with Pompey.
Xiphilinus’ methodology also determined omission of the next frag-
ment in which Dio described Gabinius’ actions in the East during his
governorship of Syria (Dio 39.56.5-6 = no. 408 GLAJ). He arrested
Aristobulus, who after escaping from Rome returned to Palestine and
caused disturbance to the Romans who sent him back to Pompey and
levied additional taxes on Judea. Xiphilinus passed this fragment not
only because it does not directly relate to Pompey but because the Byz-
antine historian further condensed his text by omission of material
devoted to various minor characters who acted on behalf of the main
protagonist if it did not serve Xiphilinus’ writing principles. The epito-
mator explains this stance himself in his narrative before describing the
battle of Pharsalus. He remarks that there were great deeds achieved by
many great men, but they were subordinate to Caesar and Pompey and
because of that Xiphilinus only briefly mentions them (Xiph. 16.19-24.).
Xiphilinus’ lack of interest in the actions of Caesar in Rome and Italy
was also responsible for his omission of the passage in which Dio men-
tions Caesar’s decision to send Aristobulus back to Palestine in order to
create opposition against Pompey (Dio 41.18.1 = no. 409 GLAJ). In this
part of Epitome, Xiphilinus focuses only on the proclamation of Caesar
as dictator, his rejection of the office and general opinion on power
possessed by Caesar and Pompey thanks to command of armies (Xiph.
16.24-29). In this way, Xiphilinus yet again shows indifference towards
Jewish matters or at least that his focus lies elsewhere in his narrative.
Likewise, for the same reasons he omitted two subsequent mentions
of Jews found in book 47 of Roman History: Cassius’ capture of Judea
(Dio 47.28.3 = no. 410 GLAJ) and his stay there while Dolabella seized
Cilicia (Dio 47.30.1 = no. 411 GLAJ). Xiphilinus provides only a general
outline of how Brutus and Cassius took possession of the provinces of
Asia (Xiph. 49.13-50.15). He does mention Pacorus’ invasion of Syria
370 Kamil Biały

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

of Augustus who bestowed the tetrarchy of Zenodorus upon Herodes.

In this case, Xiphilinus described Augustus’ arrangements in the East
in very general terms without mentioning any names nor places (Dio
49.22.3-23.1 = Xiph. 68.22-29 = no. 414 GLAJ). The passage numbered
by Stern as 417 is part of a list of Roman legions existing in Dio’s time
of which VI Ferrata was stationed in Judaea, thus for Xiphilinus it was
hardly a passage related to the Jews (Dio 55.23.3 = Xiph. 113.15-16 = no.
417 GLAJ). Information about banishment of Herodes Archelaus (Dio
55.27.6 = no. 418 GLAJ) and, more noticeably, of the Jews from Rome
by Tiberius21 does not appear in the Epitome, nor do two passages about
Agrippa I who was favoured by Caligula (Dio 59.8.2 = no 420 GLAJ
and 59.24.1 = no. 421 GLAJ). That Xiphilinus’ did not find information
about the Jews in Rome interesting is further illustrated by omission
of the information about Claudius’ policy towards them (Dio 60.6.6 =
no 422 GLAJ) and about another favours bestowed on Agrippa I (Dio
60.8.2-3 = no 422 GLAJ).
Later instances of the Jews appearing in Dio did not survive in the
original but only through Xiphilinus’ Epitome and occasionally in Ex-
cerpta Constantiniana22. The comparisons conducted above lead to the
conclusion that Xiphilinus was not that interested in Dio’s Jewish ma-
terial as it is assumed by some scholars. If anything, he was interested
mostly in certain ethnographic descriptions of their customs and reli-
gion, particularly related to Dio’s mentions of the Sabbath23. However,
in this particular case, Xiphilinus does not change Dio’s narrative in
any meaningful way but mostly copies his information verbatim. More
importantly, he does not provide any additional information taken from

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

History, even in the version of Xiphilinus, shows signs of a thematic

structure revolving around Hadrian’s travels and building activities in
the provinces as a means of imperial philanthropy. Scholars acknowledge
that his narrative structure was not always strictly annalistic but often
varied according to the needs of his writing principles. The revolt of Bar
Kokhba is part of a lengthy section where Dio describes the emperor’s
travel to Egypt: he records the emperor’s passing through Judea (Dio
69.11.1), narrates Antinous’ death and the honours given to him (Dio
69.11.2-4), the return to Judea where the revolt takes place (Dio 69.12-
14), the invasion of Alani (Dio 69.15), and visit of Hadrian to Athens
(Dio 69.16.1-2). Each section begins with the emperor’s building project
and its circumstances. It is noteworthy that the structure of the Bar
Kokhba revolt narrative resembles that of Antinous where the founda-
tion of Antinoopolis is mentioned at the beginning of the narrative yet
it was a result of the story presented by Dio.
Thus, it is possible that the foundation of Aelia Capitolina was not as
important a factor of the Bar Kokhba uprising as the reader is supposed
to believe from Dio’s narrative. Numismatic sources confirm Dio’s ver-
sion in terms of the chronology of the foundation of Aelia Capitolina, all
points to its foundation at a time before the uprising in 130 AD, but that
it was the reason for the uprising, or at least an important one, could be
just a conjecture of Dio dictated by the narrative structure he undertook
in the section about Hadrian’s building programme.
To conclude, there is no evidence to support the claim that Xiphilinus
altered Dio’s narrative in any significant way motivated by his supposed
monkish Christian or even anti-Jewish agenda. It is, however, very
probable that condensation of Dio’s material led to increased ambiguity
of Xiphilinus’ account because of loss of details which possibly made
the original account of Dio more precise. As such one should look into
the broader thematic structure of the section about Hadrian’s reign for
answers to the reasons behind the Bar Kokhba uprising.
 Xiphilinus and the Causes for the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt 375
Bibliography
Adler, Ada. 1928-1938. Suidae Lexicon. Stuttgart: Teubner.
Afinogenov, Dmitry. 1992. „Some Observations on the Genres of Byz-
antine Historiography.” Byzantion 62: 13-33.
Almagor, Eran. 2019. „Jerusalem and the Bar Kokhba Revolt Again:
A note.” Electrum 26: 141–157.
App. Pun.: Gabba, Emilio. 1962. Appiani Historia Romana. Volume I.
Leipzig: B.G. Teubner.
Beck, Hans-Georg. 1972. „Die byzantinische «Monchschronik».” In Ideen
und Realitäten in Byzanz. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Ed. Hans-Georg
Beck, 188-197. London: Variorum Reprints.
Bekker, Immanuel. 1814. Anecdota Graeca. Berlin: G.C. Nauck.
Ben-Zeev, Miriam. 2005. „Were the Jews Accused of Roasting their En-
emies?” In The Words of a Wise Man’s Mouth are Gracious (Qoh
10,12): Festschrift for Günter Stemberger on the Occasion of his 65th
Birthday. Ed. Mauro Perani, 167-170. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
Berbessou Broustet, Benedicte. 2014. „Le titre et l’incipit de l’ouvrage his-
torique de Xiphilin.” Revue des Études Anciennes 116 (2): 547-560.
Bieberstein, Klaus. 2007. „Aelia Capitolina.” In Jerusalem before Islam.
Ed. Zeidan Kafafi, Robert Schick, 134-168. Oxford: BAR Inter-
national Series.
Boissevain, Ursul Philip. 1891. „Zonaras‘ Quelle für die Römische Kai-
sergeschichte von Nerva bis Severus Alexander” Hermes 26 (3):
440-452.
Bowersock, Glen. 1980. „A Roman Perspective of the Bar Kokhba War.”
In Approaches to Ancient Judaism. Ed. William S. Green, 131-141.
Missoula: Scholars Press.
Brunt, Peter. 1980. „On Historical Fragments and Epitomes.” The Clas-
sical Quarterly 30 (2): 477-494.
Cary, Earnest. 1914. Dio Cassius Roman History Books 36-40. Harvard:
Loeb Classical Library.
376 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

Roman History and of John Xiphilinos’ Epitome.” Medioevo Greco

15: 175-194.
Roos, Anton Gerard. 1910. Excerpta de virtutibus et vitiis pars II. Berlin:
Weidmann.
Rosenqvist, Jan Olof. 2007. Die byzantinische Literatur. Vom 6. Jahr-
hundert bis zum Fall Konstantinopels 1453. Berlin/New York: De
Gruyter.
Schäfer, Peter. 1990. „Hadrian’s Policy in Judaea and the Bar Kokhba
Revolt: A Reassessment.” In A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays
on Jewish and Christian Literature and History. Eds. Philip R.
Davies, Richard T. White, 281-303. Sheffield: Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament Press.
Schlatter, Adolf. 1847. Die Tage Trajans und Hadrians. Gütersloh: Ber-
telsmann.
Schminck, Andreas. 1986. Studien zu mittelbyzantinischen Rechtsbü-
chern. Frankfurt a. Main: Löwenklau Gesellschaft e.V.
Schwartz, Eduard. 1903. Eusebius Werke zweiter Band, erster Teil: die
Kirchengeschichte. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.
Schwartz, Jacques. 1970. „Aspects politiques du Judaïsme au début
du IIIe siècle P.C.” L’Antiquité Classique 39 (1):147-158.
Schwartz, Seth. 2008. „Political, social, and economic life in the Land of
Israel, 66–c.235.” In The Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume
IV: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period. Ed. Steven T. Katz, 23-52.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, Menahem. 1980. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism.
Volume II: From Tacitus to Simplicius. Jerusalem: The Israel Acad-
emy of Sciences and Humanities.
Treadgold, Warren. 2013. Middle Byzantine Historians. New York: Pal-
grave Macmillan.
Wilson, Nigel. 1996. Scholars of Byzantium. London: Gerald Duckworth
& Co Ltd.
380 Kamil Biały

Xiph.: Boissevain, Ursul Philip. 1901. “Xiphilini Epitome librorum 36-

80.” In Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum romanarum quae su-
persunt. Volume III. Ed. Ursul Philip Boissevain, 479-730. Berlin:
Weidmann.
Yaron, Eliav. 1997. „Hadrian’s Actions in the Jerusalem Temple Mount
According to Cassius Dio and Xiphilini Manus.” Jewish Studies
Quarterly 4 (2): 125-144.
 CHRZEŚCIJAŃSKA AKADEMIA TEOLOGICZNA
w WARSZAWIE

Rok LXV Zeszyt 2

ROCZNIK
TEOLOGICZNY
[E-WYDANIE]

Profesorowi Edwardowi Lipińskiemu

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

MIĘDZYNARODOWA RADA NAUKOWA

JE metropolita prof. dr hab. Sawa (Michał Hrycuniak), ChAT
abp prof. dr hab. Jerzy Pańkowski, ChAT
bp prof. ucz. dr hab. Marcin Hintz, ChAT
prof. dr hab. Atanolij Aleksiejew, Państwowy Uniwersytet w Petersburgu
prof. dr Marcello Garzaniti, Uniwersytet we Florencji
prof. dr hab. Michael Meyer-Blanck, Uniwersytet w Bonn
prof. dr hab. Antoni Mironowicz, Uniwersytet w Białymstoku
prof. dr hab. Wiesław Przyczyna, Uniwersytet Papieski Jana Pawła II w Krakowie
prof. dr hab. Eugeniusz Sakowicz, Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego
w Warszawie
prof. dr hab. Tadeusz Stegner, Uniwersytet Gdański
prof. dr Urs von Arx, Uniwersytet w Bernie
prof. dr hab. Piotr Wilczek, Uniwersytet Warszawski

Redakcja językowa – Kalina Wojciechowska

Korekta tekstów angielskich – Karen Wasilewska
Skład komputerowy – Jerzy Sojka

BWHEBB, BWHEBL, BWTRANSH [Hebrew]; BWGRKL, BWGRKN, and BWGRKI [Greek]

PostScript® Type 1 and TrueType fonts Copyright ©1994-2013 BibleWorks, LLC.
All rights reserved. These Biblical Greek and Hebrew fonts are used with permission
and are from BibleWorks (www.bibleworks.com)

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

Dedykacja dla profesora Edwarda Lipińskiego ......................................... 135

Piotr Briks, Witold Tyborowski, Biografia profesora Edwarda
Lipińskiego ............................................................................................ 137
*Piotr Briks, Witold Tyborowski, Bibliografia
profesora Edwarda Lipińskiego ............................................................. *7

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

*Teksty oznaczone gwiazdką zawarte są wyłącznie w E-Wydaniu.

 Contents
To Professor Edward Lipiński .................................................................... 135
Piotr Briks, Witold Tyborowski, Biography of Professor Edward
Lipiński.................................................................................................. 137
*Piotr Briks, Witold Tyborowski, Bibliography of Professor Edward
Lipiński ................................................................................................... *7

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

*Texts marked with an asterisk are available only in the E-Edition.

 Wykaz autorów

Piotr Briks, [email protected], Instytut Historyczny Uniwersytetu

Szczecińskiego, ul. Krakowska 71-79, 71-017 Szczecin
Witold Tyborowski, [email protected], Pracownia Historii Starożyt-
nego Bliskiego Wschodu, Wydział Historii Uniwersytetu Adama
Mickiewicza, ul. Uniwersytetu Poznańskiego 7, 61-614 Poznań
Janusz Lemański, janusz.lemań[email protected], Instytut Nauk Teologicz-
nych Uniwersytet Szczeciński, ul. Pawła VI nr 2, 71-459 Szczecin
Łukasz Niesiołowski–Spanò, [email protected], Krakowskie
Przedmieście 26/28 00-927 Warszawa
Sławomir Poloczek, [email protected], Krakowskie Przedmie-
ście 26/28 00-927 Warszawa
Kacper Ziemba, [email protected], Karen Blixen Plads 16, 2300 Copen-
hagen S, Denmark
Jakub Slawik, [email protected], Chrześcijańska Akademia Teo-
logiczna w Warszawie, ul. Broniewskiego 48, 01-771 Warszawa
Michał Wojciechowski, [email protected], Liliowa 49,
11-041 Olsztyn
Paweł Filipczak, [email protected], Katedra Historii Bizan-
cjum, Uniwersytet Łódzki, ul. Kamińskiego 27a, 90-219 Łódź
Kamil Biały, [email protected], Instytut Historyczny Uniwer-
sytety Szczecińskiego, Krakowska 71/79, 71-017 Szczecin
Teresa Wolińska, [email protected], Instytut Historii
Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, ul. A. Kamińskiego 27A; 90-219 Łódź
Dariusz Długosz, [email protected]; Musée du Louvre 75058
Paris 01 (France)