Hypothesis: Could Lukuas have claimed to be the King of Parthia?
Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:19 am
The cause for the Kitos revolt is not clear. Some have proposed it was over the heavy taxes levied at Jews; some have suggested it was purely as a reaction to the modernization of Jews in the diaspora; and still others offer a purely religious and eschatological explanation for it.
Unlike like the Jewish-Roman war and the revolt of bar Kochba, the Kitos revolt was almost Empire wide, and even in some parts of Mesopotamia. Going off a simple analogy, a blast is only as big as the bomb*, so such a sudden eruption had to have a cause of almost equal proportions. It is rather a strange coincidence that in the years leading up to Kitos Trajan had began to make maneuvers that would resolve the "Parthian question", and had disposed Parthamasiris, the client king of Armenia, from his throne the year prior to the revolt.
The Parthian's relationship to Jews is an odd one. Josephus has Helena of Adiabene a Jewish convert and her subsequent children, Izates and Monobazus, likewise Jewish convert. Their esteem for Judaism was indisputable. Helena made generous donations to the Temple and the Jewish communities, and her sons sided with the Jews when Rome would begin to push against them.
No I'm not promoting Ellis here, but I am noting the peculiar relationship between Jews and Parthia. Cyrene is probably too far removed from Parthia to have noticed or cared about what Trajan was doing, and yet it is here where Lukuas emerges, with Artemion isolated on Cyprus. However, the likelihood that Lukuas wasn't originally from Cyrene must be considered. Cyrene held remnants of the Zealots, who had been encouraged to revolt just years following the Jewish-Roman war under the auspice of one Jonathan the Weaver. Given the almost fifty years of festering resentment to those who defeated them and destroyed their Holy Temple, and now the movements of Trajan to dissolve Parthia, the winds were right for an all out revolt.
So under such a scenario, the Kitos revolt was the result of geopolitics revolving around Parthia, and not necessarily one with religious connotations... at first. As it went on, however, and losses mounted, as well as the devastating earthquake the struck Syria months into the revolt, the tone shifted. What was an uprising turned into a battle of Armageddon. In just two years, the casualties equaled that of the Jewish-Roman war, with whole settlements being virtually unpopulated for centuries after.
And all of this because of one crazed man from Cyrene calling himself King of the Jews? Why did he think he was the King? Why did he have names becoming a Grecian? Maybe I'm being overly imaginative and obstinate in thinking that a man charismatic enough can cause such a devastating chain of events. I think Lukuas might have had some legitimacy in his claim after all. I'm not suggesting he was Parthamasiris, but I am suggesting that he was someone tied to the Parthian royal house.
Yes, all of this is pure conjecture. Yes, I have too much time on hands. Yes, I have no idea what I am talking about.
* I am aware that not a blasts reflect the size of their bombs
Unlike like the Jewish-Roman war and the revolt of bar Kochba, the Kitos revolt was almost Empire wide, and even in some parts of Mesopotamia. Going off a simple analogy, a blast is only as big as the bomb*, so such a sudden eruption had to have a cause of almost equal proportions. It is rather a strange coincidence that in the years leading up to Kitos Trajan had began to make maneuvers that would resolve the "Parthian question", and had disposed Parthamasiris, the client king of Armenia, from his throne the year prior to the revolt.
The Parthian's relationship to Jews is an odd one. Josephus has Helena of Adiabene a Jewish convert and her subsequent children, Izates and Monobazus, likewise Jewish convert. Their esteem for Judaism was indisputable. Helena made generous donations to the Temple and the Jewish communities, and her sons sided with the Jews when Rome would begin to push against them.
No I'm not promoting Ellis here, but I am noting the peculiar relationship between Jews and Parthia. Cyrene is probably too far removed from Parthia to have noticed or cared about what Trajan was doing, and yet it is here where Lukuas emerges, with Artemion isolated on Cyprus. However, the likelihood that Lukuas wasn't originally from Cyrene must be considered. Cyrene held remnants of the Zealots, who had been encouraged to revolt just years following the Jewish-Roman war under the auspice of one Jonathan the Weaver. Given the almost fifty years of festering resentment to those who defeated them and destroyed their Holy Temple, and now the movements of Trajan to dissolve Parthia, the winds were right for an all out revolt.
So under such a scenario, the Kitos revolt was the result of geopolitics revolving around Parthia, and not necessarily one with religious connotations... at first. As it went on, however, and losses mounted, as well as the devastating earthquake the struck Syria months into the revolt, the tone shifted. What was an uprising turned into a battle of Armageddon. In just two years, the casualties equaled that of the Jewish-Roman war, with whole settlements being virtually unpopulated for centuries after.
And all of this because of one crazed man from Cyrene calling himself King of the Jews? Why did he think he was the King? Why did he have names becoming a Grecian? Maybe I'm being overly imaginative and obstinate in thinking that a man charismatic enough can cause such a devastating chain of events. I think Lukuas might have had some legitimacy in his claim after all. I'm not suggesting he was Parthamasiris, but I am suggesting that he was someone tied to the Parthian royal house.
Yes, all of this is pure conjecture. Yes, I have too much time on hands. Yes, I have no idea what I am talking about.
* I am aware that not a blasts reflect the size of their bombs