ï~~260
Reviews
for the Jewish king, the situation is more complicated. The Romans certainly
appreciated the Jews' cooperation during the civil wars. The Herodian house
later prospered because of the recognition by the Romans, who gave them the
role of client kings within the broad scenario of eastern imperial policy. Gaius'
appointment of Agrippa I as king of some Levantine territories is part of the
same design. That is politically relevant for the Levant but has nothing to do
with Alexandria and the local Jews. The Alexandrian Jews had good reason to
be proud of Jewish kingship, and in 38, they turned out to have good connections to Agrippa I. But Agrippa I made no political claims on the Alexandrian
Jews, nor did the latter consider him their king. The Alexandrian Jews, like the
Alexandrian Greeks, had the duty to submit themselves to Roman authority,
and they both did. The Jewish kingship could hardly have given the Alexandrian Greeks a reason for political revenge against the local Jews.
Other problems with this book include internal contradictions (pp. 15 and
48 on RA-Kadet/Rhak6tis and the foundation of Alexandria); historical inaccuracies (p. 79, Gaius was not Tiberius' grandnephew but his grandson by the
adoption of Gaius' father Germanicus; the woman mentioned in R Oxy. 9.1089
is not Dionysia but Aphrodisia; the map of Alexandria does not consider the
data of the latest archaeological excavations); lack of discussion of important
subjects (p. 132, Claudius' second edict to Syria; passim, indiscriminate use of
terms like pogrom and anti-Semitism).
In sum, an incomplete analysis of primary sources and of scholarly debate
diminishes this work's value. The author's thesis is interesting, but its discussion
leaves much to be desired.
The College of Staten Island
Sandra Gambetti
0
