![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lethargic_manThe subject of the talk of the author's on the basis of which I bought this book was that the destruction of temples was not a Roman thing—no Roman general would want to get on the wrong side of the gods—and it was a peculiarly unfortunate combination of Jewish history with Roman history that resulted first in the destruction of the Second Temple, and secondly in the fact it did not get rebuilt, and anti-Semitism ended up becoming ingrained in western culture.
To summarise (possibly missing some points, since I left it a bit late to write this): At the end of the Year of the Four Emperors, Vespasian needed a military victory to secure his position as emperor (which is why he pushed Titus to securing a victory in Jerusalem fast, rather than waiting for the siege to starve out the city). Secondly, Titus possibly did not intend to destroy the Temple, but once it was on fire, he had to make this out to be deliberate. Thirdly, because of the way Vespasian played this up, with the triumphal procession in Rome, and the construction of the Arch of Titus, the victory of Rome, over not just the Judaeans but Judaism, became a cornerstone of the Flavian emperors' worldview, and, despite the Flavian dynasty lasting only three emperors, ended up becoming part of the policy of almost all subsequent emperors.
I found the book, though, disappointing: most of it was a straightforward comparison of Roman and Jewish culture, and didn't tell me much I didn't know already—though I did learn of a couple of additions to make to my list of Jewish rulers scattered through history: The bandit leaders Asinaeus and Anilaeus who, in the first century, set up their own state and kept it independent of the Parthians for fifteen years; and Izates of Adiabene in Mesopotamia, who, along with his his brother and their mother Helena converted to Judaism in the first century. (Helena donated treasures to the Temple, and some of Izates' sons were present during the siege of Jerusalem in the First Judaean Revolt against the Romans.)
I also disagreed with some of the parts of the author's portrayal of the Romans' treatment of the Jews as unusual. Indeed; he contradicts himself in this respect, citing, for example, the Romans' confessed genocide of the Nasamones. I also found it odd how he kept trying to make the point that until shortly before the revolt began, the Jews got on well with the Romans; that's not the impression I get from elsewhere. (Cf., frex, the Encyclopaedia Judaica: "Before the time of Pontius Pilate (26–36 C.E.) there is no mention of bloodshed in Judea. But from his days and onward there are increasing references to a messianic ferment, to disturbances, and to a gradual disappointment in the Roman administration.")
(Reading up about this in fact moved me sufficiently to use it when I had occasion a couple of years ago to write (for an exercise) a story which was both epistolary and second-person. I can put it up here if anyone's interested.)
In summary, worth reading the prologue and Part III, but unless you're a fast reader, a completionist, or don't know much about Roman and first-century Jewish culture, I'd skim over the intervening material.
