Regular price: $24.95
Buy Now with 1 Credit
Buy Now for $24.95
If you know nothing about the fall of the 2nd temple in Jerusalem to the Romans, you are missing out on one of the craziest, most bizarre and horrifying chapters in human history. The story had me totally absorbed (if not in shock) during my commutes to work. Other reviewers didn't like the speakers steady vocal style, but he was easy to understand and his tempo worked well for me. I'm glad I listened to it.
4 of 5 people found this review helpful
What did you like best about Jerusalem’s Traitor? What did you like least?
It is a pretty accurate re-telling of what is in Josephus's writings. That's what is good.
It is for the most part untainted by more modern scholarship. The author quotes Josephus on numbers of people (usually killed), actions of troops, what speeches leaders gave, etc. mostly without criticism and little comment, except to say that, for example, "Titus probably did say that," or "Simon's speech said this," even if Josephus wasn't there. His numbers are probably fantasies. Josephus quotes the population of Jerusalem around the time of the siege as about 1 million. Modern scholars have put the figure at far less, perhaps 20,000, so there cannot have been 500,000 dead, even taking into account the pilgrims who happened to be there for the Passover. In 2011, the population of a vastly expanded Jerusalem was about 250,000.
I am not criticizing the author for reporting what Josephus says, but he hardly ever (except, I think, for one time) says that Josephus's numbers are not to be believed. The book also repeats, usually uncritically, laudatory comments about the Romans, particularly Titus, as well as condemnations that could do with some more contemporary views.
For example: Masada. The zealots holed up in that fortress were probably siccari, assassins who, before the war, assassinated Jews who dealt with Romans, and probably killed a lot of prominent people. After they took Masada, they never came out to attack the Romans, even from the rear during the siege of Jerusalem, and they lived by preying on the nearby Jewish population. Some historical discussion of this would have been useful.
If you want to know what Josephus wrote, without having to slog through the ancient verbiage, this book does just that for you. That is what makes it worth reading. Just be aware that much of it is colored by the self-serving intent of Josephus, and it is not necessarily (indeed, it almost certainly is not) accurate in much of what is written. I just wish the book's author had written with a more critical eye.
Of course, we have little other information about the Jewish War
What did you like best about Jerusalem's Traitor? What did you like least?
The content and arrangement of the book are good. The author knows the subject and has tried to present information in an accessible way. I have valued the contextual information provided about Josephus' life and times. It is the actual audio presentation that makes this a poor experience.
What didn’t you like about Stephen Hoye’s performance?
I think Stephen Hoye must have been very bored while reading this book. His delivery was like a pastiche of the Reverend Timothy "Tim" Lovejoy from the Simpson's. "Dreary" is the word that comes to mind.
Was Jerusalem's Traitor worth the listening time?