Rome & Jerusalem

Rome & Jerusalem:
The Clash of Ancient Civilizations



This book about Rome and Jerusalem is written by Martin Goodman who is an expert on Roman and Jewish history. It begins with an introduction (“The Main Witness”) and a prologue (“The Destruction of Jerusalem, 66-70 CE”). The following text is divided into three parts. Here is a brief overview:

Part I – A Mediterranean World (chapters 1-3)

Part II – Romans and Jews (chapters 4-10)

Part III – Conflict (chapters 11-14 and an epilogue)

At the end of the book there are notes with references, suggestions for further reading and an index. There are 36 (black-and-white) photos, eight maps and two family trees (the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the Herodian dynasty).

Goodman got some good reviews. In the paperback edition there are excerpts from several very positive reviews of the hardcover edition. Let me give you a few examples:

The BBC History Magazine: “Brilliant.”

The Economist: “Impressive.”

The Financial Times: “Wide-ranging and impressive.”

I understand the positive reviews, but I have some reservations. I have to mention a few things which bother me:

(1) The background is too long, while the account of the conflict too short. In my opinion, part III about the conflict is much more interesting than the general background presented in parts I & II.

(2) The index is useful, but some key words are not found here. To give just one example: the Dead Sea scrolls (discovered in Qumran) are mentioned several times, because they are an important source, but they are not listed in the index.

(3) Catullus, who is mentioned on pp. 461-462, is listed in the index. He is the Roman governor of the Libyan Pentapolis (Cyrenaica) in AD 73. He is not the famous Roman poet Gajus Valerius Catullus, who lived ca. 84 BC-ca. 54 BC.

The poet appears on page 277, but he is not listed in the index. He is mentioned in a paragraph about Roman pets:

“Catullus writes of the deep emotion exhibited by his Lesbia for her sparrow.”

The poems about the sparrow can be interpreted in two ways: (a) the literal way; (b) as an allegory. In the latter case, the text becomes a sexual anecdote. Goodman knows. On page 604 (note 40) he writes: “for arguments against an obscene interpretation of ‘sparrow’ in these poems, see D. F. S. Thompson, Catullus, 1997, 202-203.”

I have looked at his reference, but I am not convinced. I have another reference, which Goodman does not give us: Julian Ward Jones, “Catullus’ Passer as Passer,” Greece & Rome, vol. 45, no. 2, 1998, pp. 188-194.

Some of the poems written by Catullus have a very explicit language, for instance poem # 16 and poem # 32. Given this fact, it is clear to me (and to many others) that the poems about the sparrow have a double meaning. I cannot understand why Goodman (and Thompson) cannot understand this idea.

(4) King Herod is mentioned on page 59: 

“A few miles from Jerusalem, at Herodium, the site of a skirmish in 40 BCE, Herod prepared for himself a monumental tomb on a natural hill whose summit was levelled to create an outline as striking as Augustus’ mausoleum, already constructed in Rome.”

There was a natural hill, but for Herod it was not high enough, so he ordered his workers to build an artificial mountain, which was higher than anything else in the vicinity. The circular structure built on top of the mountain was a fortified palace – not a tomb.

(5) Goodman makes a similar mistake in the caption to illustrations # 5 and # 6 which reads as follows: 

“Augustus began work on his monumental mausoleum (above) on the Campus Martius soon after his victory at Actium in 31 BCE. Herod’s tomb at Herodium (below), constructed soon afterwards near Bethlehem, has the same circular structure.”

The mausoleum of Augustus was a place for the dead, but the circular structure built by Herod was a place for the living. Where is the tomb? The ancient author Titus Flavius Josephus tells us that Herod built his tomb somewhere around the Herodium, but archaeologists searched in vain for it. When Goodman was writing his book, the location was still unknown. In April 2007, it was finally found on the slope of the mountain, about half way between the palace and the rectangular pool below.

[The discovery, which was announced in Jerusalem in May 2007, is the top story in the National Geographic Magazine of December 2008. A documentary film - Herod’s LostTomb - is now available on a DVD.]

(6) When did Masada fall to the Romans? The traditional answer is AD 73, but some scholars prefer the following year, AD 74. For references to the modern debate see Maurice Sartre, The Middle East under Rome (2005) page 428 (note 204). What does Goodman say? It seems he cannot make up his mind: on page 257 he says it was in AD 73, but on page 458 he says it happened “on the first day of Passover in April 74.”

(7) On page 495 he talks about “the murder of the deranged Commodus in 193.” But the murder of Commodus took place on 31 December 192.

(8) The “urban perfect Urbicus” mentioned on page 522 should be the urban prefect Urbicus (who is not listed in the index).

The man mentioned by Goodman as the urban prefect of Rome in AD 160 could be Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who served as “legatus” in Palestine during the Jewish uprising (AD 132-135), as governor of Germania Inferior (AD 135-138) and as governor of Britain (AD 138-144).

[See A. R. Birley, The Roman Government of Britain, (2005) pp. 136-140, with references to the ancient sources.]

My conclusion: this is a good book about an important conflict in the ancient world, but as you can see, it has some flaws, and therefore I can only give it four out of five stars.

* * *

 

Martin Goodman,

Rome & Jerusalem:

The Clash of Ancient Civilizations,

hardcover 2007, paperback 2008, 639 pages

 

* * *