History written by Leon Poliakov Semitism behind the Nuremberg trials and then published in the fifties (in Italy by Sansoni) devotes a very limited number of pages to the origin of feelings of hostility toward Jews as well you are registering before the Christian era: "I do not find in ancient pagan-Poliakov wrote passionate reactions-those who later make the collective fate of the Jews so hard and precarious." He acknowledged, Poliakov, you must make an exception for the city of Alexandria, where there was a large Jewish community and the conflicts between the Jews and the population Greek were "frequent and sharp," so they had to record multiple "explosions of popular anger against the Jews." But, he added, "As a general rule the Roman Empire from pagan anti-Semitism did not know of the state." And with the downturn of the anti-Jewish expressions everything that we find in abundance in the writings of Diodorus Siculus, Philostratus, Pompey Trogo, Juvenal, Tacitus, Horace, Valerius Maximus and Seneca.
Several decades after Peter Schaefer in Judeophobia. Anti-Semitism in the ancient world (Carocci) focused on broad-based documentation - on an indication that the greek king of Syria Antiochus VII received by his advisers at the time of the siege of Jerusalem (135 BC) that there had to be limited to conquer the city but should have been "completely eradicate the race of the Jews." From what Schaefer has argued that one can speak of anti-Semitism in full bloom "well before the advent of Christianity." The result is a debate by the obvious implications. And there were many who argue - albeit between the lines - with Schaefer. One for all the Oxford scholar who Jasper Griffin (reviewing Judeophobia on "The New York Review of Books", September 1999) recognized that, yes, even in pre-Christian age "there were cases in which the projected fantasies about the Jews of human sacrifices and vows ratified with human blood, "but added," stories are rare, which is also said about other groups, Druids, Christians, Catiline conspirators and therefore were not the sole prerogative of the Jews. "
Now the debate is set to reopen thanks to a voluminous essay by Martin Goodman, whose final part examines the conflict that opposed Rome to Jerusalem in the late first and early second century AD. A fierce showdown, according to the estimates in the Jewish War of Josephus, caused more than a million and one hundred thousand deaths. Staggering at the time. It was inevitable, the author asks, the collision between the Romans and Jews that had resulted in 70 AD, the carnage and especially the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem? Or at least it was inevitable that the conflict took on a sudden as it definitive? Absolutely not. Indeed, the thesis of the first part of Goodman's book Rome and Jerusalem. The clash of ancient civilizations, which is to Laterza send in a bookstore in the impeccable translation of Michael Sampaolo, is that those two worlds could co-exist very well as they had co-existed until then: it was the struggle for power in Rome that caused the disaster. In what sense? The Roman occupation of the region had lasted for over a century (from 37 BC) without you ever had to face crisis of those proportions. First, due to the repression practiced by Herod later (6 to 66 AD) there was no need even of that.
But at the end of the reign of Nero, things changed. In May 66 with a trivial pretext, the inhabitants had refused to go in procession to greet the emperor two cohorts - the Roman procurator of Judea, Chalk Floro, unleashed his forces against the market leading to greater Jerusalem in one day three thousand six hundred dead, mostly women and children. Vigorous reaction was Jewish, which led to the establishment of an independent state, even if the inhabitants of Jerusalem remained divided between those who wanted to resume a path of peace and those who wish to insist on the field of arms. But the situation at that time was still recoverable. A result of this balance was broken in June 68, the death of Nero.
When the emperor was killed by his freedman Epaphroditus, Titus Flavius \u200b\u200bVespasian, a very capable soldier (but nothing more) who had distinguished himself twenty years before the conquest of Britain, took the opportunity derivatagli from being commander in the field the war in Judaea to exploit the war itself and with it give rise to power in the capital of the upset by divisions over the succession between Galba, Otho and Vitellius. Vespasian succeeded in its intention (69) thanks to the advice of Joseph, a priest of Jerusalem who, after commanding the rebel troops in Galilee, had been captured by the Romans and was made available to the future emperor prophesied for him since 67 (well before the death of Nero) the rise to high office. Joseph would later explain in seven magnificent books of the Jewish War which has been said before - written in 70 when the son of Vespasian, Titus, destroyed the city and the Temple - as his former co-religionists had become overwhelming. Despite the subsequent uprisings in Cyrenaica and Egypt (72) and last attempt at resistance at Masada (73). And here comes the interesting part Goodman's book, where he explores what made it so to say the crisis in the final 70.
0 comments:
Post a Comment