The Bar Kokhba Revolt is an event that has long represented a serious cognitive problem for scholars. The main reason for this is that only few written sources are available, and those that we do have are brief. The most extensive account is the epitome of an excerpt from the 69th book of the historical work of Dio Cassius by Xiphilinus, a Byzantine monk who lived in the 11th century. For a long time this formed the basis of all analyses of the origins, course and effects of the revolt. This situation changed only with the discovery, many years ago, of documents on the rebellion in the Judaean Desert. These threw new light on the situation in the insurgents’ camp, but also on the fate of the residents of the areas in which fighting took place. The discovery of these documents also provided a strong impulse for development of archaeological research, which considerably added to the knowledge on various aspects of the revolt – as well as studies on the rebels’ coinage and Roman epigraphic documents. Research to date has resulted in a long list of publications, many of which have seen the light of day in the last decade or two. The majority of these are studies focusing on selected issues connected to the Bar Kokhba Revolt. But there is also no shortage of works whose authors aim to present all the issues involved with the history of the revolt. Menahem Mor's newly published book The Second Jewish Revolt. The Bar Kokhba War, 132–136 CE is an example of this category.

Mor has been a familiar fi gure for some time to all scholars interested in the Bar Kokhba Revolt – he first began analysing its various aspects some 35 years ago. He published his first book on the revolt in Hebrew in 1991 (The Bar-Kokhba Revolt: Its Extent and Effect, Jerusalem). This new off erring aims to present, analyse and criticise all new discoveries and publications of sources as well as views and findings proposed in research since this time (see p. 10), accompanied by the author's own reflections. As early as the Introduction, for example, Mor indicates that he has changed his mind on the matter of the direct cause of the revolt itself, apportioning its outbreak to its leader's character and activity (pp. 10‒11).