A history of the Far East in modern times

Not interesting, very hard to read. I literally pushed myself to finish the book. The author presented Jerusalem almost as an equal power with the Rome, while it was just subordinate kingdom, small page in roman history.

They are both eternal cities. Rome: symbol of law and secular power standing astride the world from the majestic elevation of the seven hills. Jerusalem: the most famous religious city where Herod's splendid Temple stood as thousands of Jewish pilgrims trekked to the Holy City to make sacrifices in the name of the Lord. These two cities: Rome a libertine city and Jerusalem a puritanical city would clash in the first century during the Jewish wars of 66-70 and 132-135. Rome would emerge triumphant as the Temple was destroyed; thousands of Jews killed, enslaved and driven from their homes as Roman hegemony in the Near East was made a brutal fact. Martin Goodman, a British historian, and expert on both Judaism and Rome tells the story of the clash of civilizatins with a scholarly, sober and sound expertise. The book would best be read by the reader who is already familiar with the major players of the era; a knowledge of the Bible and an understanding of the early Roman empire following the downfall of the Republic. Goodman is good in the rise to power of such Roman emperors as Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero, Hadrian, Trajan and others. The Jewish War of 66 began due to widespread hatred of the Roman governor of Judea the infamous Florus. It came at a time when a fight for power was going on in Rome. Vespasian and his son Titus who conquered Jerusalem made much ado of their conquest winning brownie points back home in Rome cementing their new position as emperors. Until then the Romans had governed Judea with a light hand inside their iron glove. Goodman chronicles the rise of Christianity and its growing antisemitism as church fathers sought to assure the Roman authorities that the new faith was completely at odds with Judaism. It was Constantine in the fourth century who became the first Christian emperor making Christianity the official religion of the Roman state. The book is lengthy as Goodman quotes numerous first person authors of the period from the Jewish historian Josephus to such Roman writers as Tacitus, Suetonious, Cicero, Horace, Livy and others. He also quotes from the Bible and prominent rabbis who comment on the clash of cultures. This is a book which demands your respect and attention. It would be a good textbook in a course on the Roman Empire and Judaism in the first century.

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. As a summary reading of the various reviews posted about this book will reveal, it is relatively easy thing to find cavils with another scholar's work, but the task of reconstructing periods of history from the ancient world is an intricate one and can be, at times, a patently thankless exercise. 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

When I saw that Martin Goodman had written a book devoted to events surrounding the so-called "Jewish war" of 66-70, I expected to be impressed. I have not been disappointed. Goodman writes as an historian. This means, among other things, that he makes a serious effort to bring the past before us for its own sake, and at least partly for the mere delight of examining it. So, in the former part of his study, he offers lucid and informative chapters on the nature and makeup of the Roman Empire at this period; on parallels, differences, and at times surprising similarities between Jewish and Roman identities and communities; on their sensitivities and lifestyles; and on their understandings of law, government, and politics. Each of these chapters is a major essay in its own right, as well as a mine of fascinating and often overlooked information. But while Goodman evidently has a historian's delight in this material, he does also have a specific purpose. The thread that runs through all is the question, What caused the war of 66? Cutting clean across much that has been written on this subject within recent decades, particularly from within the New Testament guild, Goodman's conclusion is, put simply, that there was no particular hostility between Roman and Jew before 66. Romans and Jews were certainly different from each other, but being different does not have to mean being in conflict. Particularly good here is Goodman's use of Josephus, which (contrary to what some critics have suggested) is judicious and apt. It is, as Goodman observes, "remarkable that Josephus' detailed narratives of those sixty years make so little mention of any consistent anti-Roman ideology at the heart of all the variegated disturbances he describes." Why is that remarkable? Because "in his account in Antiquities of the uprising led by Judas at the time of the Roman census in 6 CE, [Josephus] had alleged precisely that the `Fourth Philosophy' begun by Judas and his accomplice Saddok was responsible for the collapse of Jewish society and the eventual destruction of the Temple." The point is, given Josephus disapproved of anti-Roman sentiment, and attributed it only to those whom he called "bandits," nevertheless, the existence of such sentiment was exactly what he wanted his readers to believe had caused the war. What he writes, however, gives us the impression that even he had no real evidence that many had held such views. (The claim that owing to his "elite status" Josephus would not have known what was going on is, of course, absurd, and takes no account of how porous first century society actually was. It is notable that those who make such a claim frequently go on to advocate views of the relationship between Rome and Israel for which there is, in fact, no evidence whatever, generally in the light of misapplied social science theories that were intended as tools to explain data, not substitutes for it!) From the Roman viewpoint, a clear sign of how

If you have any interest in the ancient world, you will not be able to put this one down. Every page yields new insights. The book is structured as a detailed refutation of everything you thought you knew about the mutual antipathy of the Romans and the Jews resulting in the destruction of the Second Temple. Whatever you thought you knew about Second Temple Judaism will be turned upside down. Whether or not you agree with the author's ultimate conclusion as to why the Temple was destroyed or are swayed by his belief that the aftermath of that destruction is still being felt today, the writer's erudition and plain-speaking, straightforward prose will draw you in.