Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations
£5.50
Comments by Michael Calum Jacques author of 1st Century Radical . - It was my pleasure to be supervised by Prof Martin Goodman whilst I was conducting research into aspects of First Century Palestine at St Cross College, Oxford.This chunky tome (even in paperback) spreads some 650 pages and is dense with valuable information and historical observations, it is a referential fund with respect to the areas of interfacing and interaction between the forces of Roman imperialism and the culture of the Jews.But this is far more than either merely a cultural or an historical study, for example, Prof Goodman expounds an entire thesis regarding the origin and subsequent development and expansion of the messianic movement, amongst other things. In fact, more than one previous reviewer has been somewhat overwhelmed by the sheer density of the historical data contained herein.As ever, Prof Goodman makes deft use of his sources and his treatment of Flavius Josephus is a model which most writers can only hope to aspire towards. Despite its length and scope, the author knows what to omit as well as what to include, apart from an abundance of pertinent observations, the reader is spared overbearing philosophizing although, inevitably, it is difficult to produce studies on events like the probable mass suicide at Masala without including a degree of comment, be that implicit or explicit.This book is probably not something to read casually and deserves a notebook by its side. As a single volume reference book which does what it says on the cover this reviewer has absolutely no hesitation in recommending it on the bases of its sound, thorough, scholarship and its general - albeit demanding in parts - readability.Michael Calum Jacques
A strong recommendation... - This book is about the run-up to and the aftermath of the Great Jewish Revolt of 66-73 AD and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. It explores the tensions and hostilities that led to the war between the Jewish state and the Roman Empire and examines the similarities and differences between the two sides. It also tries to explain why the Roman reaction to the Jewish Revolt was so much harsher than other similar rebellions against the Roman Empire and how it led to the rise in antisemitism through the Roman Empire and subsequently the Roman Catholic Chuch and mediaeval Europe. It s a very good book, very thorough and insightful, and very well-written. I d highly recommend it.
A masterly description of the Jewish revolts against Rome in 66 and 135 AD. - This is probably the most authoritative book over written on the Jewish revolts. It has the added strength of describing the second revolt, which Jospehus didn t witness. He also looks at the Christian role in the revolt.Goodman brings a huge array of ancient sources, including the often neglected Talmudic sources and archaeological evidence. One gets the sense that there isn t any source which hasn t been covered. The book is readable and modern in its analysis of questions of identity in the ancient world and relevant to today in raising questions about the origins of antisemitism and the Jewish presence in the area.
Two millenia on, reprocussions for us all... - A major historical faultline in the history of the world is the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Roman army in 70 CE. This truly the point of origin of the crisis in the Middle East, and is a starting point of the Jewish Diaspora and central event in the history of the Jewish faith and the genesis of Christianity. By comparison with the tonnage of popular works on Greece, Egypt, and Rome, this moment of history seems strangely neglected. No longer. This book is a singularly professional and readable history by a fine writer and a highly effective scholar. It consists of parallel histories of the two cities, their inhabitants, the faiths they represented and the cultures that existed amongst them, and is a fascinating comparison of two Mediterranean cultures strongly influenced by Hellenistic Greek culture yet so completely alien to each other.The book rests on a fine reading of the controversial figure of Josephus, the Jewish historian who changed sides during the revolt and wrote a history of the Jewish war for a predominantly Roman audience. The evaluation of this talented but ideologically evasive individual is one of the delights of the book.This is a scholarly yet accessible example of ancient history. If you enjoy the work of Robin Lane Fox, I think you will be at home here. Similarly, if your reading centres on the early history of Christianity, you will find a vital perspective. All readers, I think, would benefit from Goodman s elegant discussion of a clash of civilisations that has stark implications for the world two millennia after it occurred.
Differences yes, but Goodman does not really see it as a necessary clash - The title of this book and the Prologue about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE might lead one to expect that this book would focus on the direct relationships between Rome and the Judean provinces over which it acquired formal or informal control from about 63 BCE onwards. Had it done that, it would have been much shorter than it is. We will indeed learn what brought the two societies into such violent conflict in the end, but for the most part the Romans tolerated great differences in the life-styles and institutions in the empire they controlled. With the exception of Caligula, they even allowed the Jews freedom from Emperor worship, and they exempted Jews from having to pay taxes in Sabbath years (one in seven) when Jewish law insisted that farm land remain fallow. Even when the ultimate authority was vested in the procurators, the Romans generally preferred to rule through the local Jewish authorities: High Priests, client kings or tetrarchs. These, or more particularly their Jewish subjects, did not like to have the ultimate authority vested in an alien power and may have disliked the culture of these aliens, but as long as their rule was not too intolerable, the two cultures rubbed along reasonably well. It did become intolerable in the end, and about a sixth of this immensely long book will deal with the Jewish revolts and the violent Roman repression. But for its first 400 pages or so, with a formidable display of detailed knowledge of Roman and Jewish society, it is simply interested in comparing and contrasting them, without suggesting that these differences made the final showdown inevitable. Occasionally we even lose sight of the relationship between the two societies, when, for example, Goodman embarks on surveys of the Roman history in general, with extensive passages, for example, on how the Romans treated their other possessions, on the nature of trade within the Empire, or on dynastic politics. Curiously, there are some major gaps in his account of Jewish history between 70 and 135: there is nothing on the significance of Johanan ben Zakkai, of Gamaliel II, of Jabneh or of the establishment of the Patriarchate there.What were the reasons for the clash between the Romans and the Jews that led to the catastrophes of 70 CE? Goodman rejects the widely entertained idea that it was about the tension between Roman Hellenism and Hebraism. That tension had caused the Maccabean Revolt which began in 166 BCE, but Goodman implies that by the time of the Revolt of 66 CE the Jews in Judea had been too Hellenized for that to have been a significant factor (p.113). Even so, a later section of the book, entitled `Moralities , does highlight the differences between, on the one hand, the ethical foundations of the various Hellenistic schools, and on the other those of the synagogues. Here are some other cultural differences between Romans and Jews:The Romans had an acute sense of time and were interested in all the periods of their history, the Jews were vague about dates and were interested in little more than biblical history: Josephus is a a rarity in that he was at least interested in the history of his life-time, but he had to rely on gentile historians to fill in the gap of the 300 or so years which had elapsed between the end of the history in the Bible and his own life-time.The Romans believed in Roma Aeterna and did not envisage its end, the Jews had the messianic belief that history would end at the End of Days with the coming of the Messiah.The Romans believed in the sovereignty of the Populus Romanus, whether embodied in the old constitution or in the Emperor, the Jews, certainly after the end of the Hasmonean monarchy, believed only in the sovereignty of God.The Romans were unashamed of nudity and of bodily functions, the Jews were obsessed with pollution and were self-conscious about nudity, and of course the Romans had none of the dietary rules that so dominated Jewish life. The Romans indulged in gladiatorial displays and the slaughter of animals and criminals in the arena, the Jews found this abhorrent and resented Herod staging similar events. Goodman describes many other such contrasts in social attitudes, beliefs and institutions, though most of those would not lead to such tensions between Romans and Jews that they would contribute towards the clash between the two.The Roman army had had to intervene several times before the Revolt to put down disorders, but Goodman, basing himself on Josephus, says that these disorders were caused by brigandage or by fights between Jews and Samaritans (and between Jews and Greeks in Alexandria) rather than being directed against Roman rule. What finally provoked the Jewish Revolt was the low calibre of a series of procurators, their tactlessness, and in particular the attempt of the procurator Florus to collect back taxes in Jerusalem. The 600 strong Roman garrison was surrounded, and surrendered their weapons on a promise of safe conduct but was then massacred - an outrage that the Romans could not possibly accept without condign punishment, and since it took four years for them to suppress the revolt and take Jerusalem, nothing less than massive destruction could satisfy them. The fact that the Revolt had swiftly spread throughout Judaea surely suggests that there had been more simmering anti-Roman feeling than Josephus - and, following him, Goodman - conveyed: Josephus, after all, wrote after having gone over to the Romans. Goodman sides with Josephus against a lost but recorded passage of Tacitus, that the destruction of the Temple had not been intended by Titus, but was set off on the initiative of a single soldier.The last 150 pages show the aftermath: the crushing of the revolts against Trajan and against Hadrian, and then the impact of the growth of the Church and Rome becoming Christian.