Mark, Matthew, bar Cochba, the rebuilding of the Temple, and the crucifixion

-->
-->

The Matthean and the Markan texts contain reference to the possible destruction and rebuilding of the Temple in the Passion (the name for which derives from Philo).  Alternately, the reference to destroying and rebuilding the Temple could be a coded way of saying that bar Cochba claimed he would restore the sovereignty of Israel (which, briefly, he did)

Matthew 26:59-61:

Now the chief priests and the whole Council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’”

Matthew 27:39-43

And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

The Matthean text is the only one which records the suicide of Judas.  We have noted that rabbinic sources also have narratives of bar Cochba which indicate his defeat occurred by treachery from within his own camp.

Iscariot would seem to be transliterated from Hebrew.  In Hebrew, the name would be Ish Karioth:  Man of Karioth.  In other words, he is identified by his place of origin, rather than by his father, a rather unusual event.

In rabbinic literature, bar Cochba is identified as bar Coziba: son of Cosiba.  This has been (inaccurately) translated as “son of a lie.”  There a viable reason for that mistranslation:  the ancient rabbis wanted to preserve his name in Judean records, but did not want to do so in a way that would seem to approve of his revolt (because such approval could leave them subject to retribution themselves).  It is possible that the character of Judas was intended to represent the negative aspect of bar Cochba: the man who was so afraid of internal betrayal that he unintentionally killed one of his own friends (according to rabbinic tradition).

The Markan text has a nearly similar version of events:

Mark 15:29:

And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” So also the chief priests with the scribes mocked him to one another, saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. Let the Anointed, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with him also reviled him.

The texts concerning the vilification are nearly verbatim.  The differences between the two are that the Matthean text says “”he trusts in God, let God deliver him now…” and the Markan text calls him “Anointed.”  Christian scholars contend that because the texts refer to destroying and rebuilding the Temple, they must refer to the First Jewish War.  However, since during the First Jewish War the Temple was destroyed by Titus, not a relatively unknown wandering teacher/wonder-worker, this makes no sense.  If, however, we were to understand that the text was written when the Temple had been rebuilt and rededicated to a foreign god, then the statement that the Temple would be destroyed and rebuilt makes more sense.  

        If the text were written at the time of the bar Cochba Revolt, the identification of the hero as "king of the Judeans" and the statement that he would destroy the Temple and rebuild it makes a great deal of sense.

In the Babylonian Talmud, there is a person named Judah haNasi,:  Judah the Prince.  According to Talmudic tradition, he was greater than Nakdimon ben Gurion.  Sources claim that he was the collector and redactor of the traditions that he shaped into the Mishnah (the text which preceded and is a component of the Talmud).  Outside of the Talmud, we have no evidence that he existed.

Akiva called Bar Cochba the Moshiach:  The anointed.  During the brief restoration of the sovereignty of Israel, bar Cochba called himself “Nasi,” “Prince.”

It is conjecturable that in “Jesus” literature Judah Iscariot represented the negative side  of bar Cochba, while in Talmudic literature, Judah haNasi represented his positive side.