John 5 and Bar Kokhba: Zinner

John 5 and Bar Kokhba

Samuel Zinner
16 September 2018
Aulla, Tuscany

Forthcoming in the Journal of Higher Criticism

Shortly after the turn of the twentieth century, Paul W. Schmiedel suggested an allusion
to the Second Jewish Revolt’s (132‐135/136 CE) leader Shimon bar Kokhba (died 135/136
CE) in John 5:43: “I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me; if another
comes in his own name, him you will receive,” ἐγὼ ἐλήλυθα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρός μου,
καὶ οὐ λαμβάνετέ με· ἐὰν ἄλλος ἔλθῃ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τῷ ἰδίῳ, ἐκεῖνον λήμψεσθε.1 Schmiedel
used this possible allusion as a part of his evidence for dating the gospel of John after the Bar
Kokhba revolt. Leading up to his suggestion of an allusion to Bar Kokhba in John 5:43,
Schmiedel proffered the following salient arguments in favour of a later date for John’s
composition than generally accepted by scholarship, then as well as currently:2

Most noteworthy are the writers between the specified years 140 and 170, who really
cite passages from the Fourth Gospel, but do not say who composed it. The most
important is Justin, who wrote about 152 and was subsequently martyred. From the
Synoptics he introduces over one hundred passages, but from Jn. only three, and these
are so far from following Jn.’s language exactly that in every case it can be thought that
he took them from another book, and that the Fourth Evangelist may have done the
same. We assume, however, that Justin took them from Jn.’s work. But why, then, are
there so few, and why is nothing said about this work being the composition of a
personal disciple of Jesus? Referring to the “Revelation” of Jn., he says positively that it
was composed by the Apostle; but he says nothing about the Gospel. And yet he
attaches so much importance to the “memorials of the Apostles and their companions,”
as he calls the Gospels; and shares with the Fourth the doctrine of the Logos. We can
only understand this on one supposition: Justin did not consider the Fourth Gospel to
be the work of the Apostle. In that case, it must in his age still have been quite new;
otherwise it would long ago have won general recognition.3

Schmiedel next continued his analysis with the additional cogent arguments based
largely on considerations of historical plausibility:

1 Unless otherwise noted, NT citations are RSV and Greek text is NA28.
2 Some date the so‐called Papyrus 52 much too early, when in fact it can be dated securely to
as late as ca. 140‐200 CE; see Brent Nongbri, “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls
in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel,” Harvard Theological Review 98 (2005): pp. 23‐52. For two
recent unconvincing attempts to date John early and as independent of the synoptic gospels,
see Peder Borgen, The Gospel of John: More Light from Philo, Paul and Archaeology:
The Scriptures, Tradition, Exposition, Settings, Meaning (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2014); Stanley E.
Porter, Hughson T. Ong, eds., The Origins of John’s Gospel (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2015).
3 Paul W. Schmiedel, The Johannine Writings. Translated by Maurice A. Canney (London: Adam

and Charles Black, 1908), p. 199.

Copyright ©2018 by Samuel Zinner Pag. 1
 John 5 and Bar Kokhba: Zinner

If the work in question were that of an obscure person, we can perhaps understand
that it may have been in existence for decades without attracting attention or gaining
recognition. But think of it! A work by the disciple whom Jesus loved! And, besides, a
work containing disclosures of such paramount importance! It could not have failed to
be greeted on its first appearance with the greatest joy, and to be greedily devoured;
we could not fail to find an echo of it in all Christian writers. Instead of that, from the
date at which it must have been published by the Apostle, that is to say, at latest from
90‐100, until 140, there is not one certain instance of the use of the book; we do not
find the Apostle recognised as the author until after 170, and in the meantime we do
find it clearly realised that it was not by him. Indeed, we have to add further that after
160 or 170 it was positively stated by some who were good Churchmen, and later by
the Presbyter Gaius in Rome at the beginning of the third century, to have been
composed by a heretic. The result therefore of examining the external evidence means
that we cannot place the origin of the Gospel earlier than very shortly before the first
appearance of this evidence, and so very shortly before 140.4

It is at this point that Schmiedel advances the suggestion that John 5:43 alludes to Bar
Kokhba, necessitating a rather late date for this gospel:

Here then our attention is arrested by Jesus’ words to the Jews in v. 43, “I am come in
my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him
ye will receive.” In the year 132 Simon, having taken the name Bar Cochba, came
forward, proclaimed himself the Messiah,5 and became among the Jews the leader of a
fanatical rising against the Roman rule, with the result that in the year 135 the Jewish
nation finally lost its independence. The Christians, as we can well understand,
declared against the new Messiah from the first, and in consequence were fiercely
persecuted so long as he retained any power.6 If the Fourth Evangelist had had

4 Ibid., p. 200. Schmiedel’s claims in this regard are in accord with more recent investigations;
see Markus Vinzent, Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (Leuven: Peeters, 2014),
pp. 215‐276. With regard to the synoptic gospels, Vinzent meticulously documents that there
is no evidence for their existence before about the middle of the second century CE, and
suggests a re‐dating of the synoptics to ca. 138‐144 CE.
5 Some scholars cast doubt on the historicity of Bar Kokhba’s messianic claims; see Menahem

Mor, The Second Jewish Revolt: The Bar Kokhba Revolt, 132‐136 CE (Leiden/Boston: Brill,
2016). However, such claims are being increasingly countered in the literature; see Hillel I.
Newman, “Stars of the Messiah,” in Menahem Kister et al., eds. Tradition, Transmission, and
Transformation from Second Temple Literature through Judaism and Christianity in Late
Antiquity (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2015), pp. 272‐303; Michael O. Wise, “Papyrus Hever 30 and
the Bar Kokhba Revolt,” in Kipp Davis, ed., The War Scroll, Violence, War and Peace in the Dead
Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honour of Martin G. Abegg on the Occasion of His
65th Birthday (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2016), pp. 364‐389; Brook W. R. Pearson, “The Book of
the Twelve, Aqiba’s Messianic Interpretations, and the Refuge Caves of the Second Jewish
War,” in Stanley E. Porter, Craig A. Evans, eds., The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty
Years After (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 221‐239.
6 Some current scholarship takes a more nuanced or even skeptical view of the patristic

claims about Bar Kokhba’s killing of Christians and about a total lack of Christian support for
Bar Kokhba. See Dennis D. Buchholz, Your Eyes Will Be Opened: A Study of the Greek (Ethiopic)
Apocalypse of Peter (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 286; Isaac W. Oliver, “Jewish
Copyright ©2018 by Samuel Zinner Pag. 2
 John 5 and Bar Kokhba: Zinner

experience of all this, may he not have thought that it would be understood and would
make an impression if he put into Jesus’ mouth a prophecy of these events? In that case
he would have written between 132 and 140. If it had not been that for other reasons
we have already been led to assign the composition of his book to about this date, we
might not have had the boldness to appeal to this passage; but, such being the case, we
seem to be really justified in doing so.7

This last‐cited Schmiedel passage is noteworthy not only for what it contains, namely,
its intriguing suggestion about Bar Kokhba, but also for what it noticeably lacks, namely, any
supporting evidence for the Bar Kokhba assertion from elsewhere in John other than
specifically in 5:43. Basically Schmiedel gathers the available historical evidence indicative of
a rather late composition date for John’s gospel and then asserts that this lateness would be
congruent with an allusion to Bar Kokhba in 5:43. The link from the one body of evidence to
the Bar Kokhba claim strikes one as rather tenuous, and looks more like a mere assertion
based on evidence that by itself might not necessarily suggest Bar Kokhba.
The purpose of this essay is to explore the text that surrounds John 5:43 in order to see
if there might be anything in it that would lend any substantial weight, even if only of a
suggestive or intriguing complexion, to Schmiedel’s Bar Kokhba claim.
Bar Kokhba’s name, Shimon, is based ultimately on the Hebrew verb ‫שמע‬, hear. The
numismatist David Hendin has recently explained that the series of letters shin‐mem‐ʿayin on
Bar Kokhba coinage is not merely a utilitarian abbreviation of ‫שמעון‬, but serves to link the
name Shimon with the opening of the daily‐recited Shemaʿ Yisraʾel of Deut 6:4:8 “Hear, O
Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one,” ‫ֹלהינוּ י ְה ֹוָ ֥ה | א ֶָחֽד‬
֖ ֵ ֱ‫שׂ ָר ֵ ֑אל י ְה ֹוָ ֥ה א‬
ְ ִ ‫῎ ;שׁ ַ ְ֖מע י‬Ακουε, Ισραηλ·
κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν. 9

That Bar Kokhba would have accentuated his name’s etymology in order to create a
popular link between it and the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel immediately brings to mind the interesting
fact that in the gospel of John the verb ἀκούω, hear, constitutes an important theological trope
whose statistical incidence actually becomes prominent first in ch. 5, where the verb occurs
six times (vv. 24, 25 twice, 28, 30, 37), in contrast to only twice in ch. 1 (vv. 37, 40), 0 times in
ch. 2, three times in ch. 3 (vv. 8, 29, 32), and three times in ch. 4 (vv. 1, 42, 47).
After ch. 5 the incidence of ἀκούω returns to pre‐ch. 5 rates, three times each in chs. 6
and 7 (vv. 45, 60 twice; vv. 32, 40, 51), and then remains comparable to ch. 5 rates from ch. 8

Followers of Jesus and the Bar Kokhba Revolt: Reexamining the Christian Sources”:
<https://www.academia.edu/2123957/Jewish_Followers_of_Jesus_and_the_Bar_Kokhba_Rev
olt_Re‐examining_the_Christian_Sources>. See also Thomas Witulski, Apk 11 und der Bar
Kokhba‐Aufstand: Eine zeitgeschichtliche Interpretation (Tübingen: Mohr‐Siebeck, 2012),
which argues Rev 11’s two witnesses are Bar Kokhba and his (high) priest Eliezer.
7 Schmiedel, p. 200.
8
See David Hendin, “On the Identity of Eleazar the Priest,” Israel Numismatic Journal 18
(2014): pp. 155‐167.
9 Unless otherwise noted Tanakh citations are JPS (1917), MT is Leningrad Codex, LXX is

Rahlfs/Hanhart 2009. Not to be overlooked is the Leningrad Codex’s placement of a bar for
emphasis before Deut 6:4’s ‫א ֶָחֽד‬.
Copyright ©2018 by Samuel Zinner Pag. 3
 John 5 and Bar Kokhba: Zinner

to ch. 12,10 after which the verb goes back to pre‐ch. 5 rates and below, often now exhibiting
no special or theological significance.11
As Lori Ann Robinson Baron has documented, there is ample evidence showing that
the Johannine trope of ἀκούω is actually based on the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel.12 In addition to the data
garnered by Baron, one can add the corroborating evidence that follows. Another important
Johannine trope is that of testimony or witness, in both substantive and verb forms. This
meme appears already in 1:7: “He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all
might believe through him,” οὗτος ἦλθεν εἰς μαρτυρίαν ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός, ἵνα
πάντες πιστεύσωσιν δι’ αὐτοῦ. Like ἀκούω, the noun μαρτυρία first becomes statistically
most prominent in ch. 5. The statistics are as follows: Ch. 1 twice, vv. 7, 19: ch. 3 three times,
vv. 11, 32, 33; ch. 5 four times, vv. 31, 32, 34, 36; ch. 8 three times, vv. 13, 14, 17; ch. 19 once,
v. 35; ch. 21 once, v. 24.
In John, the verb μαρτυρέω occurs even more frequently than the noun, and again
more times in ch. 5 than in any other chapter: Ch. 1 five times, vv. 7, 8, 15, 32, 34; ch. 2 once, v.
25; ch. 3 four times, vv. 11, 26, 28, 32; ch. 4 twice, vv. 39, 44; ch. 5 seven times, vv. 31, 32
twice, 33, 36, 37, 39; ch. 7 once, v. 7; ch. 8 four times, vv. 8, 13, 14 twice; ch. 10 once, v. 25; ch.
12 once, v. 17; ch. 13 once, v. 21; ch. 15 twice, vv. 26, 26; ch. 18 twice, vv. 23, 37; ch. 19 once, v.
35; ch. 21 once, v. 24.
The significance of μαρτυρία and μαρτυρέω for the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel is first that these
two Greek terms are often associated in John with ἀκούω. This brings to mind the fact that in
traditional Torah scrolls in Deut 6:4 the first word’s terminal letter ʿayin and the last word’s
terminal letter dalet are written significantly larger than the other letters, in the following
manner:
‫ֱֹלהינוּ יְה ֹוָ ֥ה א ָ ֶֽחד‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁ ַ ְ֖מע י‬
֖ ֵ ‫שׂ ָר ֵ ֑אל י ְה ֹוָ ֥ה א‬

A rabbinic tradition whose origins, like so much of rabbinic lore, cannot be precisely
dated, joins together these two larger letters, ʿayin and dalet, in order to produce the acronym
‫עד‬, “witness,” the idea being that one should be willing to sacrifice one’s life in martyrdom, if
need be, for the truth of the monotheism to which one witnesses while reciting the Shemaʿ
Yisraʾel. In the gospel of John, the close association of the tropes of hearing and witness
suggests that the rabbinic tradition may have ancient origins; indeed, already in Deutero‐
Isaiah allusions to the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel are accompanied by the trope of “witness” (e.g., Isa
43:9‐13; 44:6‐8).13

10 Ch. 8 seven times, vv. 9, 26, 38, 40, 43, 45 twice; ch. 9 seven times, vv. 27 twice, 31 twice, 32,
35, 40; ch. 10 five times, vv. 3, 8, 16, 20, 27; ch. 11 six times, vv. 4, 6, 20, 29, 41, 42; ch. 12 five
times, vv. 12, 18, 29, 34, 47.
11 Ch. 13 0 times; ch. 14 twice, vv. 24, 28; ch. 15 once, v. 15; ch. 16 once, v. 13; ch. 17 0 times;

ch. 18 twice, vv. 21, 37; ch. 19 twice, vv. 8, 13; ch. 20 0 times; ch. 21 once, v. 7.
12 See Lori Ann Robinson Baron, The Shema in John’s Gospel Against its Backgrounds in Second

Temple Judaism. PhD Dissertation, Graduate Program in Religion in the Graduate School of
Duke University, 2015:
<https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/9805/Baron_duke_0066
D_12735.pdf?sequence=>.
13 Cf. Samuel Zinner, “Some Shared Numerical Aspects of Abrahamic ‘Monotheistic’ Credal

Proclamations: The Šemaʿ Yisraʾel (Deuteronomy 6:4), 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Qurʾan Sura 112
(Al‐Ikhlaṣ)”:
<http://www.academia.edu/34576820/Some_Shared_Numerical_Aspects_of_Abrahamic_Mon
Copyright ©2018 by Samuel Zinner Pag. 4
 John 5 and Bar Kokhba: Zinner

The idea of witnessing linked with martyrdom (etymologically, to be a martyr is

literally to be a witness) becomes prominent in Rev. Significantly, although the gospel of John
and Rev were not written by the same author, many scholars agree that both texts’ earliest
layers can be traced back to some common theological trajectories.14 Rev 1:2‐3 already
presents a parallel to the constellation of tropes we have examined in John’s gospel:

Rev 1:2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even
to all that he saw. ὃς ἐμαρτύρησεν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ ὅσα εἶδεν.
1:3 Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those
who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near. Μακάριος ὁ
ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας καὶ τηροῦντες τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ
γεγραμμένα, ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς.

What immediately jumps out of the text of Rev 1:2‐3 is the constellation of witness,
hearing, and keeping of what is written. All of these elements are congruent with a basis in the
Shemaʿ Yisraʾel, including the theme of keeping or observing, which ties in with Deut 6:3a,
immediately before the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel: “Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it;” ‫ו ְָשֽׁמַ ע ָ ְ֤תּ‬
‫י ִשְׂ ָראֵ ל֙ ו ְָשֽׁמַ ְר ָ ֣תּ‬, referring to the Torah’s commandments and words (see vv. 1‐2, and also v. 6,
“And these words, which I command thee this day”).
Another prominent theological trope in John’s gospel is that of the unity of the father
and the son. Baron’s path‐breaking dissertation overlooks how this theologoumenon is
specifically based on the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel, especially on esoteric speculation concerning Deut
6:4’s two instances of YHWH which are said to be nevertheless “one.” Already Zech 14:9 in an
allusion to the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel seems to be aware of the gematria of ‫ אחד‬as 13, which when
doubled becomes equivalent to the gematria of the Tetragrammaton, 26: “And the LORD shall
be King over all the earth; in that day shall the LORD be One, and His name one,” ‫ְו ָה ָי֧ה י ְה ֹוָ ֛ה ל ֶ ְ֖מלְֶך‬
‫אֶחֽד‬ ָ ‫וּשְׁמוֹ‬ ֥ ‫אֶחד‬ ֖ ָ ‫עַל־כָּל־ה ָ ָ֑א ֶרץ ַבּיּ֣וֹם ה ַ֗הוּא ִי ֽ ְה ֶי֧ה י ְה ֹוָ ֛ה‬. It seems deliberate that the verse is actually
composed of thirteen words, the second ‫ א ֶָחֽד‬being the thirteenth word (one word, ‫וּשׁ ְ֥מוֹ‬, “and
his name,”15 intervenes between the two instances of “one”). It seems as if Zechariah
interprets the Shemaʿ’s second YHWH as the personified divine Name, a type of malak YHWH,
a remote precursor to later traditions like the Parables of Enoch’s messianic personified “the
Name of the Lord of Spirits,”16 which all seems anticipated in Gen 1:2’s divine spirit and its
later transformations into Lady Wisdom in Prov 8, Sir 24, and Bar 3‐4.
The multiple lexical and imagery parallels shared between Gen 1 and Ezek 1 are sure
indicators that Ezekiel’s “spirit” belongs to the same basic tradition trajectory as that to which
Gen 1:2’s divine spirit belongs. The term ‫רקיע‬, “firmament,” found throughout Gen 1 and Ezek

otheistic_Credal_Proclamations_The_%C5%A0ema%CA%BF_Yisra%CA%BEel_Deuteronomy_
6_4_1_Corinthians_8_6_and_Qur%CA%BEan_Sura_112_Al_Ikhla%E1%B9%A3_>.
14 See Dennis R. MacDonald, The Dionysian Gospel: The Fourth Gospel and Euripides

(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017), p. 15, “the Book of Revelation belongs to the Johannine
tradition, resembles the theology of the Epistles, and likely predates the Gospel.”
15 Incidentally, the ordinal gematria of ‫וּשְׁמוֹ‬
֥ is 46 (waw6+shin21+mem13+waw 6=46), the total
number of letters in Zech 14:9. The verse is divided into two statements of 20+26 letters
respectively. In the second statement, which contains twenty‐six letters (congruent with the
gematria of YHWH), the thirteenth letter is the yod of YHWH.
16 See Steven Richard Scott, “The Binitarian Nature of the Book of Similitudes,” Journal for the

Study of the Pseudepigrapha 18/1 (2008): pp. 55‐78.

Copyright ©2018 by Samuel Zinner Pag. 5
 John 5 and Bar Kokhba: Zinner

1, in the Tanakh exclusively typifies post‐exilic Hebrew texts; outside Gen and Ezek it occurs
only in late texts, namely, Pss 19:2, 150:1, and Dan 12:3, all dependent on Gen 1. In Ezek 2:2,
3:24, 8:5 the spirit (which must be the same as Ezek 1’s spirit, since no other spirit is
mentioned before 2:2) speaks to Ezekiel, showing that already in the prophet’s time Gen 1:2’s
divine spirit was thought of as a personified entity, not just as an amorphous or nebulous
energy or force. One may say that in this particular case the spirit personifies a divine force;
Gen 1:2’s verb ‫ ְמ ַר ֶ ֖חפֶת‬suggests the spirit is personified in the form of a bird, which is supported
by the chiastic allusion back to Gen 1:2 (towards the Torah’s beginning) in Deut 32:11
(towards the Torah’s ending), which applies a form of the same verb, ‫י ְַר ֵ ֑חף‬, to an eagle who in
v. 12 is then explicitly likened to the LORD.17 The spirit also flies in Ezek, as 8:3 implies: ‫ִקָּחנִי‬ ֖ ֵ ‫ַויּ‬
‫שּׁ ַ֡מי ִם וַתָּ בֵא֩ א ֹתִ֨ י י ְֽרוּשׁ ָ֜לַ ְמָ ה‬
ָ ‫ֹאשׁי וַתִּ ָ ֣שּׂא א ִ ֹ֣תי ֣רוּ ַח | בֵּ ֽין־ה ָ ָ֣א ֶרץ וּבֵ ֽין־ ַה‬
֑ ִ ‫ִיצ֣ת ר‬
ִ ‫ ְבּצ‬, “and I was taken by a lock of my
head; and a spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven, and brought me . . . to
Jerusalem.”18 Cf. also Ezek 3:12, 14; 11:1, 24; in all of these the presence of the merkabah eagle
(see 1:10; 10:14) also suggests via congruence a bird‐like aspect to Ezekiel’s “spirit,”
apparently in the form of an eagle, as in Deut 32:11.19
Esoteric speculation on the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel’s two Tetragrammatons is the best model
for understanding a text like John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” In the medieval Zohar
3:43b, Deut 6:4’s three divine names are interpreted as the three highest of the ten sefirot,
which together constitute the pleromatic divine realm or nature:

17 Gen 1:2’s implicit bird, which in Deut 32:11 explicitly becomes an eagle, is in some later
traditions associated with a dove, as in bḤag. 15a. This immediately brings to mind the gospel
accounts of Jesus’ baptism, where above the Jordan’s waters the holy spirit descends
(καταβαῖνον, a pun off the meaning of Hebrew “Jordan”) in the form of a dove, after the sky is
opened: “And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened
(εἶδεν σχιζομένους τοὺς οὐρανοὺς) and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove,” Mark
1:10, with which cf. LXX Ezek 1:1’s καὶ ἠνοίχθησαν οἱ οὐρανοί, καὶ εἶδον ὁράσεις θεοῦ. With
Mark’s σχιζομένους cf. LXX Gen 1:4’s verb διαχωρίζω: καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ θεὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ
φωτὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σκότους. John 1’s descent of the holy spirit as a dove seems to form
the basis for the important trope of the descent of the heavenly redeemer later in John 3 and
6.
18 Quite transparently this is the inspiration behind the Gospel of the Hebrews’ “Even now did

my mother the Holy Spirit take me by one of mine hairs, and carried me away unto the great
mountain Thabor” (M. R. James translation; cited in Origen, Comm. John 2:12; On Jer. 15:4).
19 The question of which is earlier, Gen or Ezek, need not detain us; here it will suffice to point

out that the two texts probably are basically cotemporaneous. My own suspicion is that Gen 1
originated among Ezekiel’s circle. In any case, the existence of Gen 1 (which may be later than
the bulk of the remainder of the book, on the model of other ancient works that often contain
introductions and conclusions added only at the final stage of composition) cannot be
documented before it began exerting an influence in post‐exilic literature. Although it does
not use the term ‫רקיע‬, nevertheless Ps 33 is obviously based on the Gen creation story. Ps 33:6
already refers to Gen 1’s divine speech and divine spirit as synonyms: “By the word of the
LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath (‫ )רוח‬of His mouth.”
Arguably both word and spirit (‫ )רוח‬are personified entities in this verse. Cf. Wis 9:1‐3’s
synonymous personified word and wisdom and their role in creation in what is a clear
allusion to Gen 1. Also, with Ps 33:6’s “the breath/spirit of his mouth,” cf. Sir 24:3, where Lady
Wisdom says of herself, “I came forth from the mouth of the Most High.”
Copyright ©2018 by Samuel Zinner Pag. 6
 John 5 and Bar Kokhba: Zinner

“Hear, O Israel, YHWH ʾEloheinu YHWH is one.” These three are one. How can
the three names be one? Solely by means of the gaze of faith, in the seeing of the
holy spirit, solely in the sight of the concealed eye. The secret of the voice which
is heard is like unto this, because although it is one, nevertheless it is composed
of three elements, namely fire, air and water, which have been made one in the
secret of the voice. As such it is with the secret of the triadic divine
manifestations which are alluded to in YHWH ʾEloheinu YHWH, three modes
which nevertheless constitute a single unity. This is the meaning of the voice
that one brings forth in the act of unification,20 during which one’s intention is
to unify the all, from the ein sof to the limit of creation. This is the daily
unification, whose mystery has been made known in the holy spirit.21

That the Zohar, of medieval Spanish provenance, stresses that “these three are one” is
intriguing in light of the presumably Spanish/North African origins of the famous Johannine
interpolation in 1 John 5:7‐8, according to which there are three that bear witness
(μαρτυροῦντες) in heaven,22 the father, the word,23 and the holy spirit. It would seem that
although the interpolation is late, it is somehow related to esoteric speculations on the Shemaʿ
Yisraʾel that have quite old roots. Consequently, it would seem that the gospel of John’s
binitarian model and the later 1 John interpolation’s trinitarian model are both based on
esoteric speculations involving the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel’s divine names, in the first Johannine
instance on the Shemaʿ’s two instances of YHWH, in the second Johannine instance on the
Shemaʿ’s two YHWHs and single instance of ʾEloheinu.
1 John 5’s interpolated threefold model is of course anticipated in the gospel of John’s
father, son, and spirit of truth, the last of these appearing first in the Farewell Discourse,
reflecting a later literary layer of John’s gospel.24 The trope of truth is of course a well‐known
one throughout John’s gospel.25 This brings to mind the fact that the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel’s
conclusion begins with the word ‫אמת‬, truth. In John 15:26 the spirit of truth proceeds from the
father and bears witness to Jesus. That the spirit proceeds from the father may hint at the
ʾEloheinu that follows the first YHWH in the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel; in a manner of speaking, the
ʾEloheinu proceeds from the first YHWH. That the spirit of truth bears witness to Jesus may
hint at the notion that the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel’s ʾEloheinu bears witness to its second instance of
YHWH.

20 That is, the recitation of the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel.

21 My translation from the Aramaic in Reuven Margoliot’s 1964 and 1978 Mossad Harav Kook
(Jerusalem) editions.
22 There are allusions here not only to the language of Deut 17:6, but to Deut 30:19a, “I call

heaven and earth to witness. . . .”

23 The use of “word” rather than “son” is congruent with Deut 30:14’s “the word” and Deut

6:6’s “these words.”

24 The Farewell Discourse’s “spirit of truth” is evidently a slight reformulation of 4:23‐24s’

“spirit and truth.”

25 In John the noun ἀλήθεια occurs twenty‐five times, in 1:14, 17; 3:21; 4:23, 24; 5:33; 8:32

twice, 40, 44 twice, 45, 46; 14:6, 17; 15:26; 16:7, 13 twice; 17:17 twice, 19; 18:37 twice, 38.
John 17:17b’s “thy word is truth” seems to be based on Ps 119:160a, “The beginning of Thy
word is truth.” This correlation takes on significance when we recall that the term torah
occurs twenty‐five times in Ps 119. Cf. Ps 119:142b, “Thy law is truth.” Nestle‐Aland lists Ps
119:142, 160 as parallels to John 17:17. John similarly uses the double “amen amen” formula
twenty‐five times.
Copyright ©2018 by Samuel Zinner Pag. 7
 John 5 and Bar Kokhba: Zinner

John 17 is thick with allusions to the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel. 17:3’s “the only true God, and
Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” corresponds to Deut 6:4’s two YHWHs who are but one.
17:11’s “thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one”26 also
reflects Deut 6:4’s divine names and theme of oneness. 17:23 and 26 mention God’s love for
Jesus and his disciples; this represents a modulation of Deut 6:5’s mention of humans’ love for
God. John 17’s mentions of “true” (v. 3) and “truth” (vv. 8, 17, 19) are congruent with the
Shemaʿ Yisraʾel’s concluding ‫אמת‬.27
The pre‐Pauline creed in 1 Cor 8:6 similarly seems to be based on the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel’s
divine names: “for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we
exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”
This seems to apply to the father the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel’s first Tetragrammaton and ʾEloheinu,
while reserving the second Tetragrammaton for the son. As Crispin Fletcher‐Louis points out,
1 Cor 8:6’s creed is composed of two statements composed of thirteen words each (omitting
Paul’s introductory editorial ἀλλ’),28 and he recognizes its basis in the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel, first
pointing out that 26 is the gematria of YHWH, then remarking that 13 is the gematria of the
Shemaʿ Yisraʾel’s ‫א ֶָחֽד‬:29

ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν

26 This clearly involves the disciples’ integration into divinity, which implies not only their
own rather exalted status, but ironically simultaneously implies a “low christology,” given that
in such a model Jesus is no more divine than are the disciples. Cf. John 10:34‐36 where Jesus
explains that when he says he is the son of God he is not claiming anything that does not also
apply to all Israelites, on the basis of Ps 82’s “I said you are gods.” John has in mind rabbinic
exegesis of Ps 82, according to which when the Torah was given to Israel they became
immortal gods; the sin of the golden calf reintroduced mortality and death. The allusion is
clearly inspired ultimately by reflection on the Genesis story of Adam and Eve in Eden. Cf. also
John 1:1’s logos that is theos, without the definite article, a usage that already Philo in Son.
1.230 explains would mean the logos is not God as such, but is divine in a qualified sense. With
all of this, compare, mutatis mutandis, the later kabbalistic trope, “The Holy One of Israel,
blessed be He, his Torah, and Israel, are one.” Cf. Philo Her. 234–236, according to which
humans via the link between the human logos and the divine logos assume “the likeness of
God.”
27
John 17 contains a number of key terms, including “God,” “father,” “son,” “name,” “word,”
“one,” “truth,” and “life.” The placements of these terms seem deliberately based on Hebrew
gematria values involving divine names and related terms in the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel, including 13
for ‫אחד‬, 26 for YHWH, 52 for double YHWH, 65 for double YHWH+13 (the latter for ‫( ;אחד‬65
also coincides with the gematria of ʾAdonai), 86 for ʾElohim, and 112 for YHWH 26 + ʾElohim
86 (26+86=112). The patterns are so abundant (32 very likely instances, a 33rd one is
uncertain) that randomness seems extraordinarily unlikely. The 33 examples are supplied in
Samuel Zinner, Recovering Ancient Hebrew Scribal Numerical and Acrostic Techniques, in
progress. This Johannine trait would not require a knowledge of the Hebrew language on
John’s part, only his possession of a brief Greek scribal list of gematria values of
corresponding Hebrew divine names.
28 However, as Keith L. Yoder points out to me in a private communication, 1 Cor 8:6’s ἀλλ’

ἡμῖν seems to mimic the meter of LXX Deut 6:4’s opening ῎Ακουε.
29
Crispin Fletcher‐Louis, Jesus Monotheism. Volume 1—Christological Origins: The Emerging
Consensus and Beyond (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2015), pp. 40, 47.
Copyright ©2018 by Samuel Zinner Pag. 8
 John 5 and Bar Kokhba: Zinner

καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ30

To return to John 5, besides its emphasis on witness, this chapter contains other strong
allusions to the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel. Consider 5:42’s mention of love of God, based on Deut 6:5
(“And thou shalt love the LORD thy God”): “But I know that you have not the love of God
within you.” Next comes John 5:43, in which Schmiedel detected an allusion to Bar Kokhba: “I
have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me; if another comes in his own name,
him you will receive.” Significant here is the emphasis on “name,” because Eusebius Hist. Eccl.
4.6.2 stresses Bar Kokhba relied on his name, ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ προσηγορίᾳ,31 which may refer just as
much to “Shimon” as to “Bar Kokhba.” It is possible that John 5:43 has in mind Bar Kokhba’s
religious use of his name attested on his coinage that abbreviated Shimon in an allusion to the
Shemaʿ. Next, John 5:44 alludes to Deut 6:4’s ʾEloheinu . . . ʾeḥad: “How can you believe, who
receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God (τοῦ
μόνου θεοῦ)?” Intriguingly, these three verses, John 5:43‐45, have a combined total of fifty‐
two words (12+22+18=52), which would be congruent with the gematria value of two
instances of YHWH.
To venture beyond John 5, I will first supply the full text of Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 4.6.2:
“The Jews were at that time led by a certain Barchochebas, which means ‘star,’ a man who was
murderous and a bandit, but relied on his name, as if dealing with slaves, and claimed to be a
luminary come from heaven and was magically enlightening those who were in misery.” The
Greek text runs as follows: ἐστρατήγει δὲ τότε Ἰουδαίων Βαρχωχεβας ὄνομα, ὃ δὴ ἀστέρα
δηλοῖ, τὰ μὲνἄ ἄλλα φονικὸς καὶ λῃστρικός τις ἀνήρ, ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ προσηγορίᾳ, οἷα
ἐπἀνδραπόδων, ὡς δὴ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ φωστὴρ αὐτοῖς κατεληλυθὼς.32
Eusebius charges that Bar Kokhba was guilty of murder and robbery, φονικὸς καὶ
λῃστρικός; cf. John 10:10a, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy,” ὁ κλέπτης οὐκ
ἔρχεται εἰ μὴ ἵνα κλέψῃ καὶ θύσῃ καὶ ἀπολέσῃ, which may partly reflect language descriptive
of the Zealots. Eusebius adds that Bar Kokhba claimed to be like a stellar light descended from
heaven; cf. John’s language about light and celestial descent in ch. 1 and elsewhere (especially
chs. 3, 6, 8).
To sum up at this juncture, and to take a larger view of the matter, one possible
reconstruction of John’s christology could be as follows. It might be that John’s christology
was partly shaped as a response to Bar Kokhba’s claims. John would be implying that Bar
Kokhba was not the true messianic light, but a liar (cf. John 8:44, “He was a murderer from the
beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies,
he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies”), congruent with
the later rabbinic pejorative pun on Bar Kokhba, that is, Bar Koziba, The Liar. A response to
the Bar Kokhba phenomenon might explain not only John’s emphasis on hearing, but also the
prominent imagery of light, based ultimately on Gen 1:3. John’s tropes of hearing and
witnessing may have been inspired partly by polemics against Bar Kokhba’s own mission

30
In Phil 2 we see a pre‐Pauline hymn adapted which could reflect a christology that might
also be based on the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel. Phil 2:9 refers to Jesus inheriting the Tetragrammaton
(cf. John 17:11, “thy name, which thou hast given me”), and it is likely that what is meant is the
Shemaʿ Yisraʾel’s second instance of YHWH: “Therefore God has highly exalted him and
bestowed on him the name which is above every name.”
31 Greek text from Kirsopp Lake, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History. Vol. 1 (London/New

York: William Heinemann/G.P. Putnam's Press; Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,
1926), p. 312.
32 Kirsopp Lake, pp. 310‐313.

Copyright ©2018 by Samuel Zinner Pag. 9

 John 5 and Bar Kokhba: Zinner

wherein he associated himself with the Shemaʿ and its monotheism. When John appropriated
these features of Bar Kokhba’s claims, John’s own christology was evidently “enriched” by
means of basing the doctrine of the unity of the father and the son on the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel.
On the one hand, we need not suppose that if Bar Kokhba thought of himself as a
messiah that this had to be as a quasi‐divine figure such as is known from the NT concerning
Jesus. On the other hand, if we look at what we actually know of messianic expectations
among Jews in extant documents from near Bar Kokhba’s time, then what we find is precisely
a celestial Son of Man warrior figure who descends from heaven after a state of preexistence
(4 Ezra 13; 2 Bar 40, 72; cf. Rev 19).33 Ultimately, even if Bar Kokhba did not claim to be a
celestial messiah, others could have thought of him in these terms, and John could be reacting
to such popular sentiments and beliefs.
Of course, the supreme irony in the Christian emphasis on Bar Kokhba’s messianic
failure through death at the hands of the Romans is that their own belief was in a failed
messiah (Jesus) who died at Roman hands. Add to this that there is plausibly good evidence
that Jesus himself was thought to have engaged in subversive activity comparable in spirit to
that of Bar Kokhba’s later more extensive activities.34

33 Cf. Gerbern S. Oegema, chapter 10 of “2 Baruch, the Messiah, and the Bar Kokhba Revolt,” in
Apocalyptic Interpretation of the Bible: Apocalypticism and Biblical Interpretation in Early
Judaism, the Apostle Paul, the Historical Jesus, and Their Reception History (London/New York:
T&T Clark International, 2012), pp. 133‐142; see also idem, chapter 3, “Die messianischen
Erwartungen von Titus bis Bar Koziba,” in Der Gesalbte und sein Volk Untersuchungen zum
Konzeptualisierungsprozeß der messianischen Erwartungen von den Makkabäern bis Bar
Koziba (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), pp. 195‐232.
34 See Fernando Bermejo‐Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti‐Roman Resistance: A Reassessment of the

Arguments,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 12 (2014): pp. 1‐105:
<https://www.academia.edu/10232441/_Jesus_and_the_Anti‐
Roman_Resistance._A_Reassessment_of_the_Arguments_Journal_for_the_Study_of_the_Historic
al_Jesus_12_2014_1‐105>.
Copyright ©2018 by Samuel Zinner Pag. 10