I read this book because of my particular interest in the history of the Land of Israel, with the hope of finding some new insights into the 700-year conflict between Rome and the Jews, that started with Pompey's conquest of Judea in 67 BCE and continued through the Roman imperial and Byzantine periods, until the Muslim conquest of The Holy Land in 638. With his eminence in the fields of both Roman studies and Jewish studies, the author seems uniquely well-placed to shed light on this.

The book's prologue gives an excellent summary of the great Jewish revolt against Rome in 67 AD and the subsequent war, which ended (more or less) with the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple in the year 70. The author then takes up the story again in part three of the book (chapter 11) with the immediate aftermath of the war, the two subsequent Jewish revolts against imperial Rome (115 and 132 AD) , and the subsequent relationships between the successors of Rome - the Byzantine empire and the Church - and the Jews.

In between, these two accounts (chapters 1 through 10), the author provides in exhaustive detail a profile of the two peoples and societies. After a three-chapter overview, he covers in the second part of the book a series of specific topics - identities, communities, perspectives, lifestyles, government, and politics - in a level of detail that far exceeded my needs or expectations. For each topic, he deals first with the Romans and then with the Jews, pointing out any similarities and contrasts between them. Throughout this systematic methodology, the author does not highlight the relevance of any of these detailed comparisons to the causes or the progress of the conflict, with the effect of creating (for this reader) a somewhat numbed impatience. Nor does this detail seem to be necessary for appreciating the the hoped-for insights, that are certainly to be found in the book.

When you read about the great revolt from the point of view of Jewish history, you hardly stop to think about Vespatian's transformation, from Roman general in charge of putting down the revolt in 67 to emperor in 69 - except insomuch as the pause in the Roman assault that accompanied Vespatian's withdrawal to Alexandria provided an opportunity for the Jews to regroup in Judea after their setbacks in the Galilee in the early part of the war. Goodman provides a detailed description of what was actually a civil war in Rome, the year of the 3 emperors (68) and Vespatian's eventual coup that left him in the imperial seat. He points out that Vespatian - up to that point "an obscure senator of mediocre talent and minimal prestige" - needed to give his claim the kind of legitimacy that mattered to the Roman populace - a victory over foreigners. Hence his instruction to his son Titus to prosecute the war as rapidly and comprehensively as possible, so that he would be able to preside over a triumph in Rome. "Titus had his eye less on Jerusalem than on Rome, and the need to to proclaim to the population ...that his father, the new emperor.. was not a thuggish nonentity propelled to power by a slaughter of Roman citizens in civil conflict, but a hero of the Roman state who had won victory in Judea."

The destruction of the Temple in 70 - a state that has existed from then until the present day - is such an existential feature of Jewish consciousness, that it does not occur to ask the question which Goodman addresses "Why did the Romans not permit the subsequent re-building of the temple ?" Judaism, after all was - unlike Christianity until Constantine - a "permitted" religion. Throughout the Roman empire, temples were - sometimes deliberately, sometimes by accident - destroyed and rebuilt all the time. Why not the Jewish temple ? In addition to raising the issue - an insight for this reader by and of itself - the author attempts to answer this question with an extended perspective of the motives and needs of the Flavian dynasty - Vespatian, Titus, Domitian - and the continuation of their oppressive policy towards the Jews by Trajan. Although this may not provide a definitive answer , it does give essential background to understanding the subsequent conflicts - the "War against Quietus" of 115 and the Bar Kochba revolt of 132-5.

Goodman also has a point of view on the well-aired question of whether Josephus' contention that Titus did not intend the temple to be destroyed should be taken at face value or not (he thinks it should); and throughout the latter part of the book, he provides similarily valuable gloss on the perspectives of Josephus and other ancient historians.

This was a worthwhile read; however, it would have been a much shorter and more accessible book if some of the mass of detail in its central chapters had been better harnessed in service of its core theme, the conflict between Rome and Jerusalem.

This book is really two separate books. The first 2/3 of the book contrasts Roman and Judean civilization: there are lots of interesting little tidbits about Rome - for example, that emperors became known throughout the Empire through coinage, and that Romans believed in ghosts and even had a festival to appease them. But despite the title of the book, Goodman does not suggest that a clash of civiliations was inevitable.

Indeed, the last 1/3 of the book (focusing on the Jewish revolts against Rome and their aftermath) suggests otherwise. The first Jewish revolt against Rome itself took place through coincidence- brutes on both sides instigated various small provocations that fed on each other, ultimately leading to rebellion. The destruction of the Temple was not an inevitable result of the revolt; Roman generals may not have intended such destruction, since Roman generals generally did not glory in the destruction of enemy temples or the disrespect of enemies' deities. Thus, the destruction of the Temple may (as Goodman suggests, based on the work of Josephus) have been an accident; perhaps an anonymous solider fired a missile in the wrong place and started an unexpected fire.

But once the Temple was destroyed, a coincidence prevented it from being rebuilt: the legions attacking Jerusalem were led partially by Vespasian, who became emperor during the Jewish revolt. Because Vespasian lacked royal ancestry, he needed to legitimize his rule through military conquest. To do this, he had to present the Jewish war as a great achievement. Judean spoils were placed in the imperial palace, and the success of the war was mentioned in Imperial coinage. After the war, Jews throughout the Empire were forced to pay a special tax: the same amount of money that Jews traditionally directed to Temple upkeep was redistributed to the Imperial treasury.

After Vespasian's dynasty was overthrown, Jews may have had high hopes for the Temple's restoration. But then came another stroke of bad luck: after a couple of years of a relatively pro-Jewish emperor (Nerva), he died and his successor, Trajan, had few qualifications other than a father who was a hero of the Judean war - a fact that Goodman thinks may have contributed to Trajan's decision to reinstate the "Jewish tax", thus crushing Jewish hopes for the rebuilding of the Temple. Jewish frustration (according to Goodman) led to a revolt of diaspora Jews, which in turn may have caused Hadrian (Trajan's successor) to build a pagan city on the site of Jerusalem a few years later, which in turn may have been the cause of yet another disastrous Jewish revolt in 132. And because the Jews had revolted against Rome one too many times, they had become unpopular with Romans, which in turn may have led Christians to distance themselves aggressively from Jews, which in turn may have contributed to Christian anti-Semitism.

All very speculative- but persuasive.

This book is really two separate books. The first 2/3 of the book contrasts Roman and Judean civilization: there are lots of interesting little tidbits about Rome - for example, that emperors became known throughout the Empire through coinage, and that Romans believed in ghosts and even had a festival to appease them. But despite the title of the book, Goodman does not suggest that a clash of civiliations was inevitable.

Indeed, the last 1/3 of the book (focusing on the Jewish revolts against Rome and their aftermath) suggests otherwise. The first Jewish revolt against Rome itself took place through coincidence- brutes on both sides instigated various small provocations that fed on each other, ultimately leading to rebellion. The destruction of the Temple was not an inevitable result of the revolt; Roman generals may not have intended such destruction, since Roman generals generally did not glory in the destruction of enemy temples or the disrespect of enemies' deities. Thus, the destruction of the Temple may (as Goodman suggests, based on the work of Josephus) have been an accident; perhaps an anonymous solider fired a missile in the wrong place and started an unexpected fire.

But once the Temple was destroyed, a coincidence prevented it from being rebuilt: the legions attacking Jerusalem were led partially by Vespasian, who became emperor during the Jewish revolt. Because Vespasian lacked royal ancestry, he needed to legitimize his rule through military conquest. To do this, he had to present the Jewish war as a great achievement. Judean spoils were placed in the imperial palace, and the success of the war was mentioned in Imperial coinage. After the war, Jews throughout the Empire were forced to pay a special tax: the same amount of money that Jews traditionally directed to Temple upkeep was redistributed to the Imperial treasury.

After Vespasian's dynasty was overthrown, Jews may have had high hopes for the Temple's restoration. But then came another stroke of bad luck: after a couple of years of a relatively pro-Jewish emperor (Nerva), he died and his successor, Trajan, had few qualifications other than a father who was a hero of the Judean war - a fact that Goodman thinks may have contributed to Trajan's decision to reinstate the "Jewish tax", thus crushing Jewish hopes for the rebuilding of the Temple. Jewish frustration (according to Goodman) led to a revolt of diaspora Jews, which in turn may have caused Hadrian (Trajan's successor) to build a pagan city on the site of Jerusalem a few years later, which in turn may have been the cause of yet another disastrous Jewish revolt in 132. And because the Jews had revolted against Rome one too many times, they had become unpopular with Romans, which in turn may have led Christians to distance themselves aggressively from Jews, which in turn may have contributed to Christian anti-Semitism.

All very speculative- but persuasive.

I have no sufficient knowledge of the relations between Judaism and the Romans, during the first few centuries from Christianity's foundation, to make any comment on the accuracy of the author's treatment of this aspect. But in so far as Prof. Goodman deals with the initiation and early history of Christianity, particularly in chapter 13, the book is a little disappointing. All we know of Jesus and early Christianity is contained in writings made after Jesus' death. Much scholarship has been devoted to questions as to the extent to which the early writings can be relied on, and of course the extent to which the versions we currently have differ from the original writings.

Authors such as L.Michael White and Bart Ehrman have recently dealt with such problems in considerable detail. It is true that Prof. Goodman engages in some discussion of the difficulty of ascertaining the facts of Jesus's life. But one might reasonably have expected more information about the topic, particularly in view of the apparent confidence the author has that he knows the true cause of Jesus' crucifixion(see the last few pages of the book), that being a point of considerable practical importance. INVICTUS

I appreciated reading the authors book. A little lengthy and sometimes slow moving. Highly informative on the politics, society and economics of this time period.Any challenging inferences made by the author encourages further study.Personnally, I need to review attitudes of the Roman Emperor and his son.Also, I need to refer to the exploites of the X Legion after Caesar and Nero. Books like this generate more interest.

Greetings all,

Any book that relies on Josephus is going to encounter criticism as Josephus was a Jewish traitor, owned and paid by the Romans. Still, everyone should read Josephus - and form one's own opinion. Herodotus is also full of wild stories. But there is a synthesis the more you read. That's where this latest book comes in. First, it is well written. Interesting to read. Second, all ancient history is going to contain conjecture and opinion, because it is inherently fragmented. Example: I was at the Getty Villa for a lecture, and the issue of Carthaginian infanticide came up. Why did they do it? Numerous respected opinions were expresed. Used to be people said it never happened, now they can't agree on why it happened. Augustus probably signed thousands of documents; we have none. Caesar himself probably wrote at length - we have none. People still argue over who wrote Shakespeare ( not me). Who was buried in the great pyramid? Therefore, no ancient history work nails it down. The best part of this book is the ready references and footnotes to other sources. Read Tacitus, Livy, and Homer (who probably didn't write), Socrates, etc. on your own. Hold your nose and read Jospehus. Titus didn't leave any written record behind. That's the way it is. I recommend this book as an interesting attempt to present an interpretation. So I wan't shcked when the interpretation then arrived at author's conclusions. I don't acpet them at face value, but I do appreciate the logical process and I respect the author's research. I can use his research to advance my own. But it is fun to read. Finally, I don't care for boring history books. I like a little spice, a bit of spark, some personality. I may dismiss the conclusion, but I want to be engaged. This book does that. Thus 4 solid stars. I give Jospehus a solid 5 even though I despise Jospehus, not for its historical accuracy, but for a number of other reasons so long as the book is read carefully by an educated person who can discern the sense of history from the version of alleged "facts." Thucydides made up most of the speeches from his Pelo Wars, or at best rhetorically recounted them. I give him a solid 5 stars. Take out the Anabasis - I give it a solid 5. Same point. Lot of probable fiction, but there is no other material that hits that "historical" mark. All history is speculation. That's why I admire Thucydides - he says so. His preamble is the point of real scholarship. I would give this book as a gift to try and fire up historical interest in a novice or as an additional work in an area of interest to the amateur. Just read the original sources for yourself. Best regrads to all.

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 little, prior to 66, they expected trouble from Jewry is in the small number of troops felt necessary to control the Jews' politically rather insignificant homeland, and the poor quality (testified to by both Josephus and Tacitus) of those whom they sent out to run it.
So what led to the war? If Goodman is right - and I find him convincing, given the nature of the evidence - the disaster came about through a depressing mixture of chance, incompetence, and cynical political calculation that seems eerily similar to events that have led our own society into war more recently.
My praise of Goodman does not mean that I consider him beyond criticism. Clearly he does not understand how either Jews or Christians interpret Scripture. Nor, I think, does he really understand Virgil. Still, these (and other) faults do not affect his main thesis. If you want to know about relationships between first century Rome and Israel, and have time to read only one book, this is the one to choose.

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 that 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.

I wanted to understand the premises that the fly leaf of the jacket defined ("examines the conflict... Roman interests served by brutality.... original Christians distanced themselves... origins of anti-semitism") so I was enthusiastic about finding this book.

Other than the Prologue, there was little on the promised "Clash of Ancient Civilizations". There was sentence after sentence and page after page describing the of the minutia of daily life. It was heavy on Roman food, family, acceptance of nudity, etc. and light on the Jewish culture. There was heavy reliance on Josephus.

Somewhere around page 225 I started skimming. Somewhere around 300 I stopped all together, with not much more insight than I had when I started.

Perhaps this is a reference book.

It was with great anticipation that I took up Martin Goodman's latest volume, having learned much from his 1996 work, "Mission and Conversion." However, I found myself initially disappointed by his reliance on Josephus as a central source for Judean/Jewish self-understanding. Further reading compounded my disappointment by revealing numerous factual errors.

Josephus is certainly one primary source that cannot be ignored when seeking to understand Jerusalem in the first century and its relationship to Rome. However, as authors such as Richard Horsley have shown (e.g., in his "Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus"), Josephus's elite status both covers up and fails to understand the diversity of views among people "below" him. Goodman's presentation would lead an uninformed reader to overreliance on Josephus's "view from above."

Goodman knows that the very term "Jew" is unclear in the first century, but gives short shrift to the extensive evidence provided by Shaye JD Cohen in his "Beginnings of Jewishness" (2001), using the term "Jews" to refer to a wide variety of people. One begins to suspect a hidden agenda, which is then brought out partially into the open on pp. 185-186:

"The notion that Jews in the late Second Temple period saw themselves as sinners permanently punished by God and in need of salvation from the sufferings of exile and Roman domination is a myth expressed particularly by New Testament scholars in order to provide a theological grounding for the mission of Jesus to Israel."

This "myth" has been argued more and more in recent years, with enormous evidence to support it. A primary exponent has been N.T. Wright (see "The New Testament and the People of God" [1996] and "Jesus and the Victory of God" [1997]). However, beyond this polemical statement, Goodman provides no evidence to support his statement.

It becomes more and more clear that at least part of Goodman's agenda is to refute Christian perspectives on first century Jerusalem's relationship with its Roman context. The ironic result, however, is precisely the kind of polemic that led to the division over Jesus in the first place. For instance, Goodman mentions some of the apocalyptic texts popular at the time (e.g., 4 Ezra) but fails to understand how apocalyptic "works" in terms of its "bifurcated" time structure (see, e.g., my co-authored "Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now"). Thus, he repeatedly refers to "end of the world" predictions within such literature that make "New Jerusalem" a fantasy world (p. 195) rather than an available, God-given alternative to empire generally, and in the first century context, Rome in particular.

Other errors abound. For instance, on p. 245, he refers to the rabbinic anticipation that all "Israel have a share in the world to come" as a "belief in the afterlife," when what is being referenced is the messianic "age to come" which, as clearly stated in texts such as Daniel 12, was anticipated as an earthly kingdom of God. Hence, the very Jewish Jesus could tell his disciples to pray: "Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Neither the rabbis nor Jesus were speaking of "afterlife," but of the world made "righteous" by God's definitive action. Then on p. 263, he claims that "the garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus was arrested, was a kitchen garden or an orchard." However, there is no such place mentioned anywhere in the New Testament or other contemporaneous documents referring to a "garden of Gethsemane." For example, Mark 14.32 refers to a "place" or "spot" "called Gethsemane" on the Mount of Olives. John 18.1 refers simply to a "garden," which is clearly symbolic, not geographic, given that gospel's numerous echoes of the book of Genesis (see also John 19.41). To make the leap from a nonexistent place (which comes from a naive conflating of the two gospel texts) to a factual sounding categorization of it is very poor scholarship indeed, and renders many of Goodman's other statements suspect. I often found myself wondering if I could trust him on topics for which I didn't already have enough background from which to evaluate his claims.

There is a lot of solid literature on the first century relationships among Rome and its clients and other dependent peoples. Unfortunately, this volume is not among them.

You can be sure that any book which includes on its cover the words "magisterial" (twice), "monumental" and "massive" is not going to be a quick read. Martin Goodman's 550 plus page analysis of the relationship between the Jews and Rome is clearly a work of scholarship. His knowledge of both Rome and the Jews during the Roman Empire is prodigious.

His conclusion is not new that the Jews, prior to the destruction of the temple in 70, had actually been treated relatively well under the Romans and given, in many ways a privileged position compared to other conquered people. The Romans, like most world powers (the British and now Americans) were arrogant and sure that their ways must be the best - the God or Gods must be on their side! However, he shows convincingly that the strength of the Roman response to the various Jewish revolts and the subsequent opprobrium were driven more by political needs of Vespasian and his successors in Rome then any underlying prejudice to the Jews. He also clearly shows how the longer term anti-Jewish sentiments were created more by the Christians as they tried to separate from what were now the "impious" and "malodorous" Jews and establish that the destruction of the temple was God's punishment for the Jews' murder of Jesus, as he had prophesied.

In its Prologue ("The Destruction of Jerusalem") and its Epilogue ("The Origins of Antisemitism"), Goodman shows his ability to write succinctly and clearly. Many parts of the rest of the book can be more of a struggle as he includes multiple quotes and diverts off the main theme. Just one example of this is his section "Diversity and Toleration". It is important to understand how tolerate Rome was, however he goes on at great length about Spanish, Greek and other examples - about half way through I would have been happy to take his word on some of this.

The final couple of paragraphs of the book give me some concern as he tries to project this forward to today. It seems his inclusion of Moses Hess's vision for a Jewish state in Palestine (called "Rom and Jerusalem" - just like Goodman's book) as a test of tolerance towards Jews is an oversimplification of the issue of the creation of a Jewish state by Christian countries in the middle of Islamic lands. However, this is a minor variation from an otherwise balanced and objective analysis of a complex situation. This book is worth reading but with a little more editing it could have been a great book.

Martin Goodman's book, Rome and Jerusalem is a detail study on why those two cities went to war against each other that resulted in utter destruction of the latter. The author takes a great deal of time and energy trying to explored the similarities and differences of the two cities to explained why the Jewish people so foolishly decided to revolt against the most powerful military forces of their times, not only once but twice!

From this book, I began to realized how stubborned the Jewish people were during that time period and amazingly, how tolerant Rome was in response. Not too many conquering power of the ancient world would tolerant two such revolts without whole scale genocidal slaughter and enslavement. Penalty of Jewish second revolt was diaspora of their people to four corners of the Roman Empire and lost of their homeland until the post World War II period. The book also reflects on the fact that anti-Semitism of the Jews originated strongly with the second revolt, a reflection of the Roman distaste for people who caused them so much problem.

If I was disappointed about one thing, it was that the author spent a considerable amount of pages writing about culture, way of life, religion and that sort things to mark the similarity and differences between the two cities. I was hoping on more detail view of the two Jewish Revolts, especially the second one since there isn't much written about it. However, he does make it clear the Zealots, a minority among the Jews were primary responsible for the destruction of many of their fellow citizens and their nation as a whole. Of course, after watching a fictional mini-series like Masada, I am not surprised by the terror tactics used by the zealots to enforced their will and to provoke a massive Roman response like murdering Roman prisoners after guaranteeing their safety.

Overall, this book gives a very good background information on the clash between the Roman Empire and the Jewish state but it doesn't give much on the actual revolts itself.

A fascinating an in-depth look at these two iconic cities. Goodman pulls out all the stops in this exploration of The Roman Empire from the 1st to 4th century CE and it's responses and interactions to one of it's most exotic members, Jews in Palestine. Goodman explodes all the theories you've heard before about why the Jews were persecuted and how antisemitism developed in western Europe. Goodman points out that both Jews and Romans were content with the status-quo that had developed by the beginning of the 1st century CE, and if it hadn't of been for political radicals in Jerusalem, the fall of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty in Rome, and the beginning of Christianity as a faith independent of Judaism history would have played out quite differently. A great read for fans of Roman and Jewish history

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.

The eighteen page prologue describing the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. is excellent, but the rest of the book gets into too much detail and lacks direction. I bought it after reading the prologue and find the book to be a big disappointment and waste of money. Contrasting the societes of Rome and Jerusalem during ancient times should be exciting throughout, but this author fails in that quest.