� 13. Hyrcanus II, B.C. 63-40. Rebellion Of Antipater And His Sons Phasael And Herod

§ 13. HYRCANUS II, B.C. 63-40. REBELLION OF ANTIPATER AND HIS SONS PHASAEL AND HEROD
SOURCES
JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xiv. 5-13; Wars of the Jews, i. 8-13. ZONARAS, Annales, v. 7-9 (abstract of Josephus).
LITERATURE
EWALD, History of Israel, v. 394-412.
GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 167-189.
HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 500-523.
STANLEY, History of the Jewish Church, vol. iii. 408-421.
SCHNECKENBURGER, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, pp. 166-173.
HAUSRATH, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. i. pp. 179-203.
LEWIN, Fasti sacri, pp. 8-54.
OWING to the meagreness of the sources, it is difficult to give an exact account of the position which Palestine at this time occupied in reference to the Romans. This much is certain, that it was tributary (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 7. 6), and lay under the general oversight of the Roman governor of Syria. But the question is, whether it was immediately incorporated or not with the province of Syria. In favour of the latter supposition might be alleged the statement of Josephus, that by the enactment of Gabinius, who divided Palestine into five sections, the country was now freed from monarchical rule: ἀσμένως δὲ τῆς ἐξ ἑνὸς ἐπικρατείας ἐλευθερωθέντες τὸ λοιπὸν ἀριστοκρατίᾳ διῳκοῦντο (Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 5). Hyrcanus therefore had stood at the head of the government of the country, and was subordinate only to the supervision of the Roman governor.[432]
[432] So also Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des römisches Reichs, ii. 163. Mendelssohn in Ritachil’s Acta societatis philolog. Lipsiensis, v. 162.
After the campaign of Pompey there followed for Palestine some years of peace. Scaurus as well as his two successors, Marcius Philippus and Lentulus Marcellinus, had still indeed some skirmishes with the Arabians.[433] But these had no influence upon the fortunes of Palestine. In A.D. 57, however, Aristobulus’ son Alexander, who had escaped from his keepers on his way to Rome, sought to secure to himself the government of Palestine. He succeeded in collecting an army of 10,000 heavy-armed soldiers and 1500 horsemen, and got into his power the fortresses of the Alexandrium, Hyrcania, and Machaerus.[434] Gabinius, who had just then arrived as proconsul in Syria, sent against him, first of all, his lieutenant M. Antonius, afterwards the well-known triumvir, and soon followed with the main body of his troops. Alexander was defeated in an engagement near Jerusalem, and withdrew into the stronghold of the Alexandrium. Here he was besieged by Gabinius, and was compelled to surrender; but it would seem that, on condition of his yielding up the fortresses which were m his possession, he was allowed his freedom.[435] At this time, too, Gabinius made an important change in the political relations of Palestine. He assigned to Hyrcanus only the care of the temple, but took from him the political administration; for he divided the country into five districts (σύνοδοι, συνέδρια), with Jerusalem, Gazara, Amathus, Jericho, and Sepphoris as their capitals.[436] What is to be understood by those five σύνοδοι or συνέδρια is not altogether clear. They may be regarded as either customs, districts, or circuits, making the jurisdiction of law courts (conventus juridici).[437] The term συντελεῖν (Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 5: οἳ δʼ ἵνα συντελῶσιν εἰς Ἀμαθοῦντα) favours the former view; the term σύνοδοι (Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 5) favours the latter.[438] Possibly the one view may not exclude the other. At least this measure of Gabinius took away the remnant of political independence which Palestine had hitherto enjoyed. Pompey having already deprived Hyrcanus of the title of king, the next step was to strip him of all political prerogatives and to restrict him to his priestly functions. The country was parted into five divisions, which were “delivered” from the dominion of Hyrcanus, i.e. were incorporated in the province of Syria. This arrangement was not indeed of long duration. By the ordinances of Caesar it was again wholly set aside.
[433] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 1. Appian, Syr. 51.
[434] On the Alexandrium, see p. 320. The position of Hyrcania is unknown. Machaerus, now called Mkaur, lay to the east of the Dead Sea. For more details about this important fortress, see § 20.
[435] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 5. 2-4; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 2-5.
[436] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 5. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 5.—About Amathus, in the country east of the Jordan, see above, p. 297. On Sepphoris in Galilee, see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 136-141. The other three towns were situated in Judea proper. On Gazara, see above, p. 261. Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 5. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 5, has also the form Gadara. But by this it is quite evident he does not mean the Hellenistic Gadara in Peraea, which had a population mainly pagan, and had been separated from the Jewish territory by Pompey. We are to understand by it the Gazara Judaized by Simon the Maccabee, for which also elsewhere the form Gadara is found. So Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 4 and 1Ma_4:15. Also in Strabo, xvi. 2. 29, p. 759, by Γαδαρὶς, ἣν καὶ αὐτὴν ἐξιδιάσαντο οἱ Ιουδαῖοι, we are to understand the region of Gazara, which indeed he confounds with Gadara in Peraea; for from this latter placc were sprung the celebrated men who are referred to by him. In a Notitia episcopatuum a Ῥεγεὼν Γαδάρων in the neighbourhood of Azotus, to be distinguished from Γάδειρα between Pella and Capitolias (Hieroclis Synecdemus et notitiae graecae episcopat. ed. Parthey, 1866, p. 144). At a Synod at Jerusalem in A.D. 536 there were present together a bishop Ἀράξιος Γαδάρων and a bishop Θεόδωρος Γαδάρων There were therefore two placcs in Palestine called Gadara (Le Quien, Oriens christianus, t. iii. p. 595 sq.). Compare also Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des röm. Reichs, ii. 365-367. Menke’s Bibelatlas, Bl. iv.
[437] On the erection of a province, the Romans were wont to divide the country into customs or taxation districts, each of which was grouped round one of the larger towns. The communal court of such a town was utilized by the Romans as a fiscal or customs court, for it had to make arrangements for collecting the taxes in its district. More extensive, as a rule, than these customs districts, were the juristic circuits (conventus juridici). For the purpose of deciding civil matters (only about these had it jurisdiction), a diet was held from time to time at a certain place, to which the depute judges of the circuit went, in order, under the presidency of the governor, to decide cases that had arisen since last session. See Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. (1881) p. 500 f. Rudorff, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, ii. (1859) pp. 5, 13. Rein, art. “Conventus,” in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, ii. 635 f.
[438] For example, Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des röm. Reichs, ii. 336, 367, regards the Synedria of Gabinius as conventus juridici. Also I have myself argued in favour of this opinion, Div. ii. vol. i. p. 168 f. Still the matter does not seem to me beyond question. Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis philol. Lapsiensis, v. 163, does not hazard a decided statement, and declares only that it is certain that the remnants of freedom that had been left to the Jews by Pompey were taken from them by this measure of Gabinius.
Soon after this, in A.D. 56, the country was anew involved in a revolution by Aristobulus and his son Antigonus, who had both escaped from their Roman imprisonment. Aristobulus so completely failed to learn caution from the abortive attempt of his son Alexander, that he made himself a similar endeavour in that direction in which his son had failed. But he himself had no better fortune. A detachment of the Roman army attacked him, and the little band which he had gathered was, without much difficulty, driven across the Jordan. He attempted to defend himself in Machaerus; but was obliged after a two years’ siege to yield, and was sent again as a prisoner to Rome. His children, however, were set at liberty by the senate.[439] Just then Gabinius, against the will of the senate, undertook the Egyptian campaign, in order to set up Ptolemy Auletes again as king (see above, p. 331). When he returned from thence, in A.D. 55, he had once again to deal with a revolt in Judea. Alexander had made a fresh attempt to secure the sovereignty, and had won over to his side at least a part of the people. His proceedings, however, were also this time again brought to a speedy end.[440]
[439] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 6. 1; Wars of the Jews, i 8. 6. Dio Cassius, xxxix. 56. Plutarch. Antony, 3.
[440] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 6. 2-3; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 7.
In A.D. 54 the triumvir, M. Licinius Crassus, went to Syria as proconsul in place of Gabinius. While Gabinius had already sorely oppressed the country by his exactions, Crassus at once began to indulge in open robbery. Pompey, upon the taking of the temple, had left its rich treasures untouched. Crassus now laid hold for himself of all these: in pure gold alone, 2000 talents; of other articles of value, 8000 talents.[441] Palestine was soon indeed delivered from his rapacity, for he met his death in A.D. 53 in the war against the Parthians.
[441] Joeephus, Antiq, xiv. 7. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 8.
During the period B.C. 53-51 C. Cassius Longinus, the quaestor of Crassus, held the supreme authority in Syria. He had not only to be on his guard against the Parthians, but also to suppress the revolutionary elements that were still always present in Palestine. Aristobulus, indeed, was detained in his Roman imprisonment, and his sons had for the time no wish to risk anew sharing his fate. But a certain Pitholaus now undertook to play their role, and gathered together the malcontents. He did not indeed succeed in his aim any better than those who had tried before. For the final issue of his undertaking was this, that he himself was slain, and 30,000 of the disturbers of the peace were sold as slaves.[442]
[442] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 7. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 9.
With the year B.C. 49 begins the period of the civil wars, disastrous for Italy as well as for the provinces, but peculiarly disastrous for the provinces, inasmuch as they were obliged to find the enormous sums which the contesting parties required for carrying on their operations. During these twenty years, from Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon down to the death of Antony, B.C. 49-30, the whole Roman history was reflected in the history of Syria and also in that of Palestine. Every change and turn in the Roman history was answered by a corresponding movement in Syrian history, and during this short period Syria and Palestine changed sides and owned new masters no less than four times.
When, in the beginning of the year B.C. 49, Pompey and the party of the senate had fled from Italy, and Caesar had established himself in Rome, Caesar and his friends wished to make use of the prisoner Aristobulus for their own ends. And so they released him from prison and gave him two legions, in order that with these he might fight in Syria against the party of Pompey. But the adherents of Pompey who still remained in Rome put a stop to the enterprise by ridding themselves of Aristobulus by poison. At the same time also one of Aristobulus’ sons, Alexander, fell a victim to the party strifes of the civil war. He too had made his appearance as an adherent of Caesar, and so he was now, at the express command of Pompey, beheaded at Antioch by Q. Metellus Scipio, Pompey’s father-in-law, who was then proconsul for Syria (see above, p. 334).[443]
[443] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 7. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 9. 1-2. That Caesar sent Aristobulus into Palestine is also reported by Dio Cassius, xli. 18.
After the battle of Pharsalia, on 9th August B.C. 48, and Pompey’s death, on 28th September of the same year, Hyrcanus and his old friend Antipater immediately attached themselves to Caesar’s party.[444] They clearly perceived that their safety depended wholly upon his grace, and therefore they hastened to prove their capacity for serving him. Caesar, after his landing in Egypt, in October B.C. 48, had become involved in a war with King Ptolemy. Mithridates started from Pergamum in the spring of B.C. 47 to go into Egypt with an auxiliary force.[445] When he encountered obstacles at Pelusium, Antipater went to his help, at the command of Hyrcanus, with 3000 Jewish troops, which had been indeed collected for this very purpose, and he had also arranged that the neighbouring powers should contribute auxiliaries. With these Jewish troops Antipater rendered most important service to Mithridates, not merely in the capture of Pelusium, but also throughout the whole of the Egyptian campaign. Not less important was the aid rendered by Hyrcanus in seeing to it that the Egyptian Jews ranged themselves upon Caesar’s side.[446]
[444] Antipater, even before Caesar’s interference in the affairs of Palestine, is described as procurator of Judea. He is so described, not only by Josephus (Antiq. xiv. 8. 1: ὁ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐπιμελητής), but also by Strabo, who refers again to Hypsicrates (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 3: τὸν τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἐπιμελητήν). Possibly he obtained this position through Gabinius, who, on account of Antipater’s many services in the interest of Rome, “settled the affairs which belonged to the city Jerusalem in accordance with Antipater’s inclinations” (Antiq. xiv. 6. 4: καταστησάμενος δὲ Γαβίνιος τὰ κατὰ τὴν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν πόλιν ὡς ἦν Ἀντιπάτρῳ θέλοντι. Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 7: Γαβίνιος ἐλθὼν εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα πρὸς τὸ Ἀντιπάτρου βούλημα κατεστήσατο τὴν πολιτείαν). Since this must have been an institution not in contradiction to the other ordinances of Gabinius, it may perhaps be assumed that to Antipater was made over the chief administration of the taxes in the Jewish territory. For ἐπιμελητής is an administrative officer; in its primary application, an officer of finance. Certainly Antipater cannot have been a political official in the service of Hyrcanus; for Hyrcanus, since the passing of the measures of Gabinius, had no longer any political functions. If, then, he acted ἐξ ἐντολῆς Ὑρκανοῦ (Antiq. xiv. 8. 1), this is to be explained of the spiritual authority which Hyrcanus had as high priest (Antiq. xiv. 5. 1: κατʼ ἐντολὴν Ὑρκανοῦ belongs to a period when Hyrcanus had no longer any political power). On Antipater’s services to the cause of Rome in the period B.C. 63-48, see Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 5. 1, 2, 6. 2, 3, 7. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 1, 3, 7, 9.
[445] Bellum Alexandr. c. 26.
[446] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 1-3; Wars of the Jews, i. 9. 3-5.—In the decree of Caesar, Antiq. xiv. 10. 2, the number of the Jewish auxiliary troops is given only as 1500.
When, therefore, Caesar, at the conclusion of the Alexandrian war, in the summer of B.C. 47, went to Syria and rewarded, by proofs of his clemency, the governing families that had favoured him,[447] Hyrcanus and Antipater were treated in the most generous manner. Antigonus indeed appeared before Caesar as the only remaining son of Arietobulus, complained that Hyrcanus and Antipater had violently thrust themselves forward, and sought to show that his claims were older and better.[448] But Caesar estimated the trustworthiness and usefulness of Hyrcanus and Antipater more highly than the professions of Antigonus, ignored the claims of the latter, and showed favour exclusively to the other two. Even before the intervention of Antigonus, Hyrcanus seems to have been established as high priest, and upon Antipater the right of Roman citizenship and immunity from tribute had been conferred.[449] Hyrcanus was now appointed ἐθνάρχης of the Jews, i.e. he was reinstated in the political authority that had been taken from him by Gabinius; but Antipater was made procurator, ἐπίτροπος, of Judea, and so confirmed in the authority with which he had been already invested. At the same time permission was given to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.[450]
[447] Bellum, Alexandrinum, 65 “Reges, tyrannos, dynastas provinciae finitimos, qui omnes ad eum concurrerant, receptos in fidem condicionibus impositis provinciae tuendae ac defendendae dimittit et sibi et populo Romano amicissimoa.”
[448] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 10. 1-2.
[449] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 3: Ὑοκανῷ μὲν τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην βεβαιώσας, Αντιπάτρῳ δὲ πολιτείαν ἐν Ρώμῃ δοὺς καὶ ἀτέλειαν πανταχοῦ. So, too, Wars of the Jews, i. 9. 5.
[450] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 5: Υρκανὸν μὲν ἀποδείκνυσιν ἀρχιερέα … [Ἀντίπατρον] ἐπίτροπον ἀποδείκνυσι τῆς Ἰουδαίας. Ἐπιτρέπει δὲ καὶ Ὑρκανῷ τὰ τῆς πατρίδος ἀναστῆσαι τείχη. Similarly, Wars of the Jews, i. 10. 3.—These enactments seem to be different from those referred to in the preceding note; the concessions referred to in. the one case having been granted before, and those in the other after the intervention of Antigonus. So think Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis philol. Lipsiesis, v. 190 sqq.; Judeich. Caesar im Orient, 1885, p. 123 f. See especially, Josephus, Wars of the Jews, i. 10. 1: Ἀντίγονος … γίνεται παραδόξως Ἀντιπάτρῳ μείζονος προκοπῆς αἰτιος. It is certainly the case, as appears from the decrees of Caesar, in thorough agreement therewith, that Hyrcanus was appointed high priest by Caesar, with political functions, ἀρχιερεύς and ἐθνάρχης and so reinstated in the political position of which he had been stript by Gabinius.—The decree of senate communicated by Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 5, belongs probably to a much earlier period. See above, p. 268.
We obtain further details with respect to the proceedings of Caesar from documents communicated by Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 2-10, which. however, are so slight and fragmentary that in regard to many particulars no certain conclusion can be reached.[451] This, at least, is unquestionable, that the letter of Caesar to the Sidonians, Antiq. xiv. 10. 2, was written in the year B.C. 47, and that the formal decree of Caesar appointing Hyrcanus was issued in that same year.[452] According to this document, Hyrcanus was appointed hereditary ἐθνάρχης and ἀρχιερεύς of the Jews, with all the rights and privileges which belonged to him as high priest according to the Jewish law, and jurisdiction in all Jewish matters was conceded to the Jews. Hyrcanus also, for himself and for his children, was declared the “confederate” of the Romans, and it was stipulated that the Roman troops should not seek winter quarters in his territory, nor should levies of money be exacted.[453] It is uncertain whether some of .the other documents belong to this same year or not, but it is certain that Hyrcanus, not long before Caesar’s death, somewhere about the end of the year B.C. 45, sent an embassy to Rome, which procured a decree of senate granting new concessions to the Jews. The beginning of this decree of senate, under Caesar’s fourth dictatorship and fifteenth consulship, i.e. B.C. 44, is given in Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 7. Its date is probably correctly preserved in Antiq. xiv. 10. 10: πρὸ πέντε εἰδῶν Φεβρουαρίων i.e. 9th February. As it was not immediately put down in the tables of the treasury, a new decree of senate was passed, after Caesar’s death, during the consulship of Antony and Dolabella, τῇ πρὸ τριῶν εἰδῶν Ἀπριλλίων i.e. 11th April B.C. 44, by which the recording of the former decree of the senate in the tables of the treasury was now ordered (Antiq. xiv. 10. 9-10). Since the new decree is of a purely formal character, we gain no information from it regarding the contents of the claims conceded to the Jews. Also, the fragment of the earlier decree preserved in Antiq. xiv. 10. 7 contains only the formal introduction. It is extremely probable, however, that other portions of it are contained among the fragments in Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 3-6. Yet it is just here that the difficulties of the investigation begin. The question arises as to what pieces belong to the decree of senate of B.C. 44 and what to former years, such as B.C. 47 or other years. Owing to the corruptness of the text, no certain result can ever be reached.[454] The chief portion of the passage peculiarly rich in material, Antiq. xiv. 10. 6, belongs most probably to B.C. 44. Among the concessions there said to have been secured to the Jews, the most important are these: that Joppa, “which the Jews had originally, when they made a league of friendship with the Romans,” was made over to them; that also the villages in the great plain, which they had previously possessed, should be restored to them; and that, finally, also still other places “which belonged to the kings of Syria and Phoenicia, the confederates of the Romans,” should now be given to them.[455] It may be assumed that these were merely possessions that had been taken away from them by Pompey. Of the places thus restored, Joppa, as affording a harbour, was the most important.
[451] Compare, in regard to these documents, especially, Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis philol. Lipsiensis, v. 1875, pp. 191-246 (and the review of that paper in the Theolog. Literaturzeitung, 1876, Nr. 15, col. 394 f.); and Niese, Hermes, Bd. xi. 1876, pp. 483-488; and in reply, Mendelssohn, Rhein. Museum, neue folge, Bd. xxxii. 1877, pp. 249-258. Also, Wieseler, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien, 1869, p. 75 ff. Wieseler, Theolog. Studien und Kritiken, 1877, p. 290 ff. Rosenthal, Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1879, pp. 176 ff., 216 ff., 300 ff. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 501 f. (English translation, History of Rome—the Provinces, from Caesar to Diocletian, London, 2 vols.). Judeich. Caesar im Orient, 1835, pp. 119-141 (only with regard to the events and documents of the year B.C. 47, to which date Judeich makes Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 5, also to refer). Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii., 4 Aufl. 1888, pp. 660-671.—For the older literature, see above, p. 109; also in Bloch. Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, p. 144 ff.
[452] In this document Caesar designates himself αὐτοκράτωρ καὶ ἀρχιερεύς, δικτάτωρ τὸ δεύτερον (imperator et pontifex maximus dictator II.). Caesar’s second dictatorship extended from October 48 to the end of the year 46 (see Mommsen, Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. i. pp. 451-453). But since the title of consul is not in the formula, whereas Caesar held the consulship in the years 48, 46, 45, and 44, the document must be assigned to the year 47.
[453] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 2: διὰ ταύτας τὰς αἰτίας Ὑρκανὸν Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ ἐθνάρχας Ἰουδαίων εἶναι βούλομαι, ἀρχιερωσύνην τε Ἰουδαίων διὰ παντὸς ἔχειν κατὰ τὰ πάτρια ἔθη, εἶναί τε αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς παὶδας αὐτοῦ συμμάχους ἡμῖν, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς κατʼ ἄνδρα φίλοις ἀριθμεῖσθαι· ὅσα τε κατὰ τοὺς ἰδίους αὐτῶν νόμους ἐστὶν ἀρχιερατικὰ ἢ φιλάνθρωπα, ταῦτα κελεύω κατέχειν αὐτὸν καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ. ἄν δὲ μεταξὺ γένηταί τις ζήτησις περὶ τῆς Ἰουδαίων ἀγωγῆς, ἀρέσκει μοι κρίσιν γίνεσθαι παρʼ αὐτοῖς. παραχειμασίαν δὲ ἢ χρήματα πράττεσθαι οὐ δοκιμάζω.—For an exposition of this passage, see Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis philol. Lipsiensis, v. 195-197. Mcmmsen, Röm. Geschichte, v. 501 f.
[454] The documents in Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 3-4, contain scarcely anything else beyond the decree of Caesar of the year B.C. 47, as already given in Antiq. xiv. 10. 2. Since they belong to a year during which Caesar was consul, though the number of the consulship is wanting, the date must have been 46, 45, or 44. And so Mendelssohn, Acta societatis philol. Lipsiensis, v. 205-211, correctly maintains that they are fragments of a decree of senate of B.C. 46, which merely confirmed the enactments of Caesar of B.C. 47. On the confirmation, by the senate generally, of bargains made by military commanders, see Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, iii. 2, 1888, pp. 1166-1168.—The portions given in Antiq. xiv. 10. 5-6 contain very particular statements regarding the assessing of tribute, and seem to go together as referring to the same period. According to the beginning of Antiq. xiv. 10. 5, they belong to the year B.C. 44, Caesar’s fifth consulship. But this seems to be contradicted by the fact that the permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem is there recorded (Antiq. xiv. 60. 5), which, however, had been given as early as B.C. 47 (Antiq. xiv. 8. 5; Wars of the Jews, i. 10. 3), and, indeed, the building had been already proceeded with and the walls restored (Antiq. xiv. 9. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 10. 4). The date is further determined as B.C. 47 by Antiq. xiv. 10. 6: Γαίος Καῖσαρ, αὐτοκράτωρ τὸ δεύτερον (it ought to have been: αὐτοκράτωρ, δικτάτωρ τὸ δεύτερον). And finally, in Antiq. xiv. 10. 6, we meet with various statements about Joppa which seem to belong to various periods. On the basis of all these particulars, Mendelssohn, Acta societatis philol. Lipsiensis, v. 197 sqq., conjectures that the passage, Antiq. xiv. 10. 5-6, refers, indeed, to the decree of senate of B.C. 44, but that in the earlier portion of that passage, xiv. 10. 5-6a, a decree of Caesar of the year B.C. 47 is quoted. This decree Mendelssohn distinguishes from the one communicated in Antiq. xiv. 10. 2. This one last referred to was issued prior to the intervention of Antigonus; the other, as given in xiv. 10. 5 and 6a, after that occurrence. This is a conclusion, however, which can scarcely be sustained, for, by the decree of appointment (Antiq. xiv. 10. 2), Antigonus was no longer in a position to venture making hostile representations. But in other respects Mendelssohn’s hypothesis, that the passage in Antiq. xiv. 10. 5 and 6a belongs to the year B.C. 47, is highly probable. Mendelssohn finds the new decrees of the senate of the year B.C. 44 only in the second half of Antiq. xiv. 10. 6, beginning, perhaps, with the words, ὅσα τε μετὰ ταῦτα ἔσχον. Niese, Hermes, xi. p. 483 ff., ascribed to the senate decree of B.C. 44 the whole of the passage Antiq. xiv. 10. 3-6, because he assumed that the verbal permission given somewhat earlier by Caesar to rebuild the walls was only at that date formally ratified by the senate, and because he reads, in Antiq. xiv. 10. 6, τὸ δʼ instead of τὸ δεύτερον.
[455] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 6.—If it is correct that the beginning of Antiq. xiv. 10. 6 belongs to a decree of the year B.C. 47, a portion of the tribute of Joppa would have been assigned, even so early as that, to the Jews. It would then be necessary with the old Latins to read: ὅπως τελῶσιν ὑπὲρ τῆς Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν πόλεως Ἰοπηνοί, ὑπεξαιρουμένου τοῦ ἑβδόμου ἔτους. They did certainly hold it in the year B.C. 44 altogether in their own possession: Ἰόπην δὲ πόλιν, ἣν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ἔσχου Ἰουδαῖοι ποιούμενοι τὴν πρὸς Ῥωμαίους φιλίαν, αὐτῶν εἶναι, καθὼς καὶ τὸ πρότερον, ἡμῖν ἀρέσκειν· φόρους τε [ὑπέρ to be supplied] ταύτης τῆς πόλεως Ὑρκανὸν ἔχειν κ.τ.λ.—It is quite uncertain who is intended by “the kings of Syria and Phoenicia confederate with the Romans” that had formerly possessed some of the territories now given over to the Jews. Probably they were princes to whom Pompey had gifted Jewish lands. But perhaps the text is corrupt; for other obscurities may be explained from the faulty tranemission of the text Compare, in exposition of Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 5-6, Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis philol. Lipsiensis, v. pp. 199 sqq., 234 sqq.; Mommsen, Röm. Geschichte, v. 501 f.
The Jews also, through Caesar’s favour, obtained important privileges beyond the limits of Palestine. The Alexandrian Jews gained protection by having the privilege of Roman citizenship conferred upon them;[456] and the Jews of Asia Minor were guaranteed the undisturbed exercise of their religion.[457] It was in accordance with the general course of Caesar’s policy to keep the provincials contented, so as to secure the interests of the empire. But by none of the foreign peoples was so great a lamentation made over his death as by the Jews.[458]
[456] See Div. ii. vol. ii. p. 244.
[457] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 8 and 20-24.—The decrees there gathered together were not, indeed, directly issued by Caesar, but are, with a high degree of probability, to be attributed to his initiative. See also Div. ii. vol. ii. p. 225 f.
[458] Suetonius, Caesar, 84: “In summo publico luctu exterarum gentium multitude circulatim suo quaeque more lamentata est, praecipueque Judaei, qui etiam noctibus continuis bustum frequentarunt.”
The weak Hyrcanus, who had been installed in Palestine as “Ethnarch” of the Jews, held the government only in name. This was exercised in reality by the crafty and active Antipater. He now even appointed his two sons, Phasaël and Herod, governors, στρατηγοί, the one in Jerusalem and the other in Galilee.[459] Herod, whom we meet with here for the first time, was then a young man twenty-five years of age.[460] But even as early as this he gave proofs of that energy which brought him afterwards to the throne. In Galilee a robber chief named Hezekiah, with his numerous band, made the country insecure. Herod gained possession of his person, and had him executed along with many of his followers.[461] They were little accustomed in Jerusalem with such summary procedure. The aristocracy of that city regarded Herod’s conduct as an infringement of the privileges of the Sanhedrim, to which tribunal alone it belonged to pass a death sentence; and they therefore insisted that Hyrcanus would call young Herod to answer for what he had done. Hyrcanus yielded to their request, and summoned Herod before the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem. Herod indeed appeared, not, however, as became an accused person, in mourning garments, but decked in purple, and attended by a bodyguard. When he thus entered the presence of the Sanhedrim, complaints were hushed, and he would undoubtedly have been exculpated, had not the celebrated Pharisee Sameas (Shemaiah ?) arisen and aroused the conscience of his colleagues. They were now disposed to insist upon their prerogatives and condemn Herod. But Hyrcanus had received orders from Sextus Caesar, governor of Syria, to secure Herod’s acquittal. When he therefore perceived that things were taking a dangerous turn, he suspended the sitting, and advised Herod to withdraw secretly from the city. Herod did so; but he soon returned with an army against Jerusalem in order to avenge himself for the insult that had been given him. Only the most urgent representations of his father Antipater succeeded in appeasing his wrath, and restraining him from open violence. He then returned to Galilee, comforting himself with the reflection that he had at least given an exhibition of his power, and put a wholesome terror upon his opponents.—During this conflict with the Sanhedrim Herod was appointed, by Sextus Caesar, governor of Coele-Syria, στρατηγὸς τῆς Κοίλης Συρίας.[462]
[459] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 9. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 10. 4.
[460] The traditional text of Josephus in Antiq. xiv. 9. 2 reads fifteen. The number twenty-five, which Dindorf and Bekker have put into the text, is purely conjectural. But this change is necessary: 1. Because a boy fifteen years old could not possibly have played the role which Herod had already played; and 2. Because Herod at his death is represented to have been about seventy years of age; Antiq. xvii. 6. 1: καὶ γὰρ περὶ ἔτος ἑβδομηκοστὸν ἧν; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 1: ἦν μὲν γὰρ ἤδη σχεδὸν ἐτῶν ἑβδομήκοντα. Compare Havercamp’s note on Antiq. xiv. 9. 2; van der Chijs, De Herods Magno, p. 1.
[461] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 9. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 10. 5.
[462] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 9. 3-5; Wars of the Jews, i. 10. 6-9. The rabbinical tradition preserves the remembrance of the scene before the Sanhedrim. The names there given, however, are altogether different. Instead of Hyrcanus, Jannäus; instead of Herod, a slave of Jannäus; instead of Shemaiah, Simon ben Shetach. See Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 146-148.
All this happened in B.C. 47, or in the beginning of B.C. 46. In the spring of B.C. 46, while Caesar had to be away fighting against the adherents of Pompey in Africa, one of Pompey’s party, Caecilius Bassus, succeeded in making himself master of Syria by getting Sextus Caesar put out of the way by the hand of an assassin. He was afterwards besieged in Apamea by the Caesarian party, under the command of C. Antistius Vetus, in the autumn of B.C. [463] (see above, p. 336). To the forces of Vetus were also added the troops of Antipater, which, as a new proof of his serviceableness to Caesar, he had sent to the aid of the Caesarian party.[464] The struggle of the two parties meanwhile continued without yielding any decisive result; and even the new governor, L. Statius Murcus, who arrived in Syria in the beginning of B.C. 44, and was supported by Marcius Crispus, the governor of Bithynia, obtained no decided advantage over Caecilius Bassus.
[463] Not 47, as Hitzig, Geschichte, ii. 514, assumes. See, on the other hand, Cicero, ad Atticum, xiv. 9. 3.
[464] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 10. 10.
Meanwhile, on the 15th March B.C. 44, Caesar was murdered. Marc Antony resolved to avenge his death and continue his work. And it was only the fact that just then the fortunes of the party were in a rather backgoing condition that prevented the conspirators from also taking immediate steps in their own interest. It was only after Antony had proceeded against them in an openly hostile manner that the leaders of the conspiracy went to the East in order to collect their forces there: M. Brutus to Macedonia, L. Cassius to Syria. When Cassius, in the end of the year B.C. 44, arrived in Syria, Caecilius Bassus was still besieged by Statius Murcus and Marcius Crispus in Apamea. Although Murcus and Crispus had hitherto belonged to Caesar’s party, they now placed their army at the service of Cassius, and Statius Murcus even offered his own personal aid. The legion of Caecilius Bassus also went over to Cassius.[465] Thus did Cassius become master of Syria, and gained possession of a considerable fighting force. But for the support of the large and now further increasing army immense sums of money were necessary. And to this even the small Jewish land must contribute its share. It was laid by him under an arrestment of 700 talents, in the collection of which Antipater and his son Herod showed themselves particularly useful. For, with the same zeal with which they had once secured to themselves Caesar’s favour, they now sought to win the goodwill of Cassius. How useful this zeal was, some frightful examples in Judea itself showed. The inhabitants of the towns of Gophna, Emmaus, Lydda, and Thamna, because they could not contribute their share, were sold by Cassius as slaves.[466] But young Herod, as a reward for services rendered, was appointed by Cassius, as he had previously been by Sextus Caesar, governor (στρατηγός) of Coele-Syria.[467]
[465] For the proofs, see above, p. 337.
[466] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 11. 1-2.
[467] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 11. 4.
About this time, B.C. 43, Antipater became the victim of personal enmity. A certain Malichus endeavoured, just as Antipater had done, to gain an influential position in Judea. But Antipater, more than any one else, stood in the way of his realizing his ambition. He must therefore, if he was to gain his end, rid himself of that man. By bribery he won over the cupbearer of Hyrcanus, who put Antipater to death by poison as he was one day dining with Hyrcanus.[468]
[468] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 11. 4.
Herod undertook to avenge the death of his father. While, therefore, Malichus was busying himself in the endeavour to carry out his ambitious plans and secure to himself the government of Judea, he was murdered in the neighbourhood of Tyre by hired assassins, whom Herod, with the connivance of Cassius, had sent.[469]
[469] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 6; Wars of the Jews, i. 11. 8.—The murder of Antipater took place before the conquest of Laodicea in the summer of B.C. 43 (see above, p. 338), while the murder of Malichus occurred immediately after that event. Hence both occurrences took place during the year B.C. 43 (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 6; Wars of the Jews, i. 11. 7).
After Cassius had departed from Syria, in B.C. 42, still harder fortunes befell the province. Cassius had indeed wrung from it the most exorbitant sums, but now that the province was left to itself affairs fell into such a state of utter anarchy that there was no law but the will of the stronger. During this period Antigonus also made an attempt, with the assistance of Ptolemy the son of Mennaeus of Chalcis, to secure the sovereignty of Palestine. Favoured by fate and fortune, Herod indeed frustrated this attempt, but he was not able to prevent Marion, tyrant of Tyre, from snatching to himself certain portions of Galilean territory.[470]
[470] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 12. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 12. 2-3.—In the narrative of Josephus, which is based upon the statements of Nicolaus Damascenus, a veil is thrown over the circumstance that Herod could not prevent the conquests of the Tyrians. But he makes this clear from the subsequent letter of Antony, which ordered the Tyrians to restore the places that they had conquered (see below, note 41).
A new crisis arose in Palestine, and especially in the fortunes of the two Idumeans Phasael and Herod, when, late in autumn of the year B.C. 42, Brutus and Cassius were defeated at Philippi by Antony and Octavian. With this one stroke all Asia fell into the hands of Antony. The situation was all the more critical for Phasael and Herod, after an embassy of the Jewish nobility appeared before Antony in Bithynia about the beginning of B.C. 41, and made complaints against these two princes. Yet Herod succeeded by personal explanations in neutralizing for the time being the effect of these charges.[471] Soon after this, while Antony lingered in Ephesus, an embassy from Hyrcanus appeared before him asking that Antony should give orders for the emancipation of the Jews sold into slavery by Cassius, and for the restoration of the places that had been conquered by the Tyrians. Antony readily assumed the role of the protector of all rights and privileges, and issued the orders prayed for, with violent denunciation of the lawless proceedings of Cassius.[472]—Some time afterwards, in the autumn of B.C. 41, when Antony had gone to Antioch, the Jewish nobles renewed their charges against Phasael and Herod. But neither at this time did they lead to any result. Antony, when he was serving in Syria under Gabinius in B.C. 57-55, had been for many years the intimate friend of Antipater. That friendship he did not now forget. And since, besides, Hyrcanus, who had also gone to Antioch, gave a favourable account of the two brothers, Antony appointed Phasael and Herod tetrarchs of the country of the Jews.[473] Hyrcanus was then stripped of his political authority. He did not indeed mourn over the loss, for he had for a long time possessed political authority only in name.
[471] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 12. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 12. 4.
[472] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 12. 2. The original documents, a letter of Antony to Hyrcanus and two letters to the Tyrians, Antiq. xiv. 12. 3-5. One of the letters to the Tyrians (Antiq. xiv. 12. 4) refers expressly to the restoring of the conquered places; the other (Antiq. xiv. 12. 5) refers to the liberating of Jewish slaves. Similar letters were also sent to the cities of Sidon, Antioch, and Aradus (Antiq. xiv. 12. 6). Compare, with reference to the documents, Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis philol. Lipsiensis, t. v. 1875, pp. 254-263.
[473] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 13. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 12. 5.
The period of Antony’s residence in Syria was for the province a time of sore oppression. His luxurious style of living consumed enormous sums of money, and these the provinces were required to provide. Thus, wherever Antony went exorbitant taxes were invariably imposed; and Palestine was not by any means allowed to escape.[474]
[474] Appian, Civ. v. 7: Ἐπιπαριὼν δὲ Φρυγίαν τε καὶ Μυσίαν καὶ Γαλάτας τοὺς ἐν Ἀσίᾳ, Καππαδοκίαν τε καὶ Κιλικίαν καὶ Συρίαν τὴν κοίλην καὶ Παλαιστίνην καὶ τὴν Ἰτουραίαν καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα γένη Σύρων, ἅπασιν ἐσφορὰς ἐπέβαλλε βαρείας.
In the year B.C. 40, while Antony was during part of the time held in thrall by Cleopatra in Egypt, and during another part occupied with the affairs of Italy, the great invasion of the Parthians occurred, who overran all Further Asia with their wild hordes. And in consequence of this occurrence Antigonus succeeded, for a while at least, in securing the end for which he had been striving.
As the Parthians under Pacorus and Barzapharnes, the former the son of King Orodes, the latter a Parthian satrap, had already occupied Northern Syria, Antigonus succeeded in persuading them, by great promises, to aid him in securing possession of the Jewish throne. Pacorus marched along to the Phoenician coast, Barzapharnes advanced into the interior of the country toward the south. Pacorus sent to Jerusalem a detachment under the leadership of the king’s cupbearer, whose name was also Pacorus. Before that company arrived at the city, Antigonus had already succeeded in gathering around him a company of adherents from among the Jews, and had with it advanced upon Jerusalem, where the battle was waged daily between him on the one hand and Phasael and Herod on the other.[475] In the meantime the Parthian troops under Pacorus arrived. The Parthian gave out that he desired to settle terms of peace, and demanded of Phasael that he should go to the camp of Barzapharnes in order that he might put an end to this strife. Although Herod earnestly warned his brother, Phasael walked into the snare, and went along with Hyrcanus and Pacorus, the cupbearer, to the camp of Barzapharnes. A small detachment of Parthian horsemen remained behind in Jerusalem.[476] In the Parthian camp the mask was soon thrown aside, and the two princes, Phasael and Hyrcanus, were put in irons.[477] When Herod was told of this, not being strong enough to offer open opposition, he resolved to escape from Jerusalem by flight. Without attracting the attention of the Parthians, he had the female members of his family and the children carried out of the city and brought to the fortress of Masada, which he put under the charge of his brother Joseph.[478] Meanwhile, on the spot where at a later period he built the fortress Herodium, he had to fight with the Jews, who were still hostile to him. He was able, however, successfully to repel their attack. After he had thus secured all belonging to him in a stronghold, he continued his flight farther southward, and went first of all to Petra in Arabia.[479]
[475] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 13. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 13. 1-2.
[476] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 13. 4-5; Wars of the Jews, i. 13. 3.
[477] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 13. 5-6; Wars of the Jews, i. 13. 4-5.
[478] Masada was built on a steep rock on the western bank of the Dead Sea. In the war of Vespasian it was the last place of refuge for the rebels, who yielded only after the Romans had carried on long and fatiguing siege operations, in A.D. 73. On its situation and history, see below in § 20 toward the end, where also the more recent literature is given.
[479] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 13. 6-9; Wars of the Jews, i. 13. 6-8.
Their friendship for Antigonus did not restrain the Parthians from plundering the country round about the capital. Phasael and Hyrcanus were now placed at the disposal of Antigonus. The ears of Hyrcanus were cut off, so that he might no longer be eligible for the office of high priest. Phasael, on the contrary, escaped the hands of his enemies by dashing his head upon a rock after he had received the joyful tidings of the fortunate flight of his brother.
Afterwards the Parthians carried away Hyrcanus with them as a prisoner, and set up Antigonus as king.[480]
[480] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 13. 9-10; Wars of the Jews, i. 13. 9-11.—Dio Cassius, xlviii. 26, erroneously names him Aristobulus instead of Antigonus. Of the events of the years B.C. 43-40, Julius Africanus in George Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 581 sq., and Syncellus himself, ed. Diadorf, i. 576 sq. and 579, give a short account, which contains some things different from Josephus, and derived probably from another source, perhaps from Justus of Tiberias. It is most worthy of remark that Phasael is represented, not as taking away his own life while a prisoner, but as falling in battle (Julius Africanus in Syncellus, i. 581: Φασάηλος δὲ ἐν τῇ μάχη ἀναιρεῖται). Also the sum which Cassius raised in Palestine is given, not as 700, but as 800 talents (Syncellus, i. 576). Compare generally, Gelzer, Julius Africanus, i. 261-265. We have no right, however, to give a preference to these brief statements over the very circumstantial and detailed report of Josephus.