� 14. Antigonus, B.C. 40-37

§ 14. ANTIGONUS, B.C. 40-37
SOURCES
JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xiv. 14-16; Wars of the Jews, i. 14-18. 3. ZONARAS, Annales, v. 10-11 (abstract from Josephus).
LITERATURE
EWALD, History of Israel, v. 411-416.
STANLEY, Jewish Church, iii. 419-423.
GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 190-197.
HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 523-533.
SCHNECKENBURGER, Zeitgeschichte, pp. 173-175.
HAUSRATH, Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. i. 200-210.
LEWIN, Fasti sacri, pp. 52-62.
BÜRCKLEIN, Quellen und Chronologie der römisch-parthischen Feldzüge in den Jahren 713-718 d. St. Dissertat. 1879.
ANTIGONUS, or, as he was called according to the evidence of the coins by his Hebrew name, Mattathias, had thus by the help of the Parthians reached that position after which his father and brother had vainly striven. After the example of his forefathers, from the time of Aristobulus I., he assumed the rank and title of “king” and “high priest” (on the coins: ΒΑΧΙΛΕΩΧ ΑΝΤΙΓΟΝΟΥ, מתתיה הכהן הגדל).[481]
[481] Compare on the coins of Antigonus: Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 480, 481. Mionnet, v. 563 sq. De Saulcy, Recherches, pp. 109-113. Cavedoni, Bibl. Numismatik, ii. 23-25. Levy, Geschichte der jüdischen Münzen, pp. 65-67. Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 76-79. Reichardt in the Wiener Numismat. Monatsheften, Bd. iii. 1867, pp. 114-116. De Saulcy, Numismatic Chronicle, 1871, p. 243 sq. Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1874, pp. 314-316. Merzbacher, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, iii. 1876, pp. 209-213. Madden, Coins of the Jews, pp. 99-103.
The hopes of Herod rested simply and wholly on Roman aid. Without going to Petra—for the Arabian prince Malchus had forbidden him to visit his country—he proceeded to Alexandria, and thence took ship for Rome, although already the autumn storms had begun. After passing through various dangers, he managed to reach Rome by Rhodes and Brundusium, and immediately upon his arrival he laid his sad complaint before Antony.[482] Herod knew how to win favour, whenever that had to be gained, by means of money. And so it happened that he, after having secured also the goodwill of Octavian, was declared at a formal session of the senate to be king of Judea. The appointment was celebrated by a sacrifice at the capitol and a banquet by Antony.[483]
[482] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 14. 1-3. Wars of the Jews, i. 14. 1-3.
[483] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 14. 4-5. Wars of the Jews, i. 14. 4. Compare Appian, v. 75 (see above, p. 340).—The appointment falls under the year B.C. 40, during the consulship of Cn. Domitius Calvinus and C. Asinius Pollio (Antiq. xiv. 14. 5). It must, however, have been very near the end of the year, for it was already late in harvest when Herod took ship from Alexandria (Antiq. xiv. 14. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 14. 2). The statement of Josephus, that the appointment was made in the 184th Olympiad (Antiq. xiv. 14. 5), is therefore incorrect, for that Olympiad ended in the summer of B.C. 40. Also contemporary Roman history agrees in setting the appointment in the autumn, since Antony and Octavian did not reach Rome earlier than that. Compare Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, pp. 360-366. Van der Chijs, De Herode Magno, pp. 31-35.—On the other hand, it is certainly wrong, with Gumpach, Ueber den altjüdischen Kalender, pp. 238-250, to place the appointment so late as autumn B.C. 39.
From the appointment to the actual possession of the office was now indeed a longer and a more difficult step. For the time being the Parthians, and their protégé Antigonus, still maintained their authority in the country. The Parthians were indeed driven out of Syria in B.C. 39 by Ventidius, the legate of Antony (see above, p. 341). But from Antigonus, Ventidius only exacted a heavy tribute, and left him otherwise undisturbed. And Silo also, his lieutenant, pursued a similar policy after the departure of Ventidius.[484]
[484] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 14. 6; Wars of the Jews, i. 15. 2. Dio Cassius xlviii. 41.
This was the state of matters when Herod, in B.C. 39, landed at Ptolemais. He quickly collected an army; and as now Ventidius and Silo, at the command of Antony, supported him, he soon made progress. First of all Joppa fell into his hands. Then also he gained possession of Masada, where his relatives had hitherto been besieged. As he succeeded, the number of his adherents increased, and he could even venture to go to Jerusalem and lay siege to it. He made nothing, however, of this attempt at the time, for the Roman troops of Silo, which were to have supported him, assumed a stubborn and defiant attitude, and insisted upon withdrawing into winter quarters.[485]
[485] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 15. 1-3; Wars of the Jews, i. 15. 3-6.
In the spring of the year B.C. 38, the Parthians renewed the attack upon Syria. While thus Ventidius and Silo had to go forth to fight against them, Herod sought to subdue the country wholly under him, and to rescue it out of the hands of many adventurers. Vast bands of brigands concealed themselves, especially among the inaccessible caverns in the mountain gorges of Galilee. But even of these Herod knew how to gain possession, for he let down his soldiers in large chests (λάρνακες) from the lofty rocky peak, and thus secured for them an entrance into the caves.[486]
[486] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 15. 5; Wars of the Jews, i. 16. 4.—According to Antiq. xiv. 15. 4, and Wars of the Jews, i. 16. 2, these caverns were situated in the neighbourhood of Arbela. The caves there referred to are often elsewhere spoken of by Josephus (Antiq. xii. 11. 1; Life, 37). The description which he gives in Antiq. xiv. 15. 5, and in Wars of the Jews, i. 16. 4, corresponds exactly with the actual character of the caves which are to be seen at the present day in the neighbourhood of Jrbid (Arbed), not far from the lake of Gennesareth, north-west of Tiberias. There can therefore be no doubt that Jrbid is identical with Arbela and the caverns there with those mentioned by Josephus. Compare Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. ii. 279, 280. Guérin, Galilee, i. 198-203. The Survey of Western Palestine; Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, i. 409-411 (description of Kulat Ibn Man, as the rock fortress of the caverns is now called); and therewith the large English map, Sheet vi. Frei, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, ix. 1886, p. 108 ff.
Meanwhile, however, the Parthians were conquered by Ventidius on 9th June B.C. 38. And that general then turned his attention against Antiochus of Commagene, and laid siege to him in his capital of Samosata. During the siege Antony himself arrived at Samosata. Herod could not let this opportunity escape of speaking to his patron; for he had good grounds for complaining of the way in which support had been withheld from him. He therefore now proceeded to Samosata in order to pay his respects to Antony. He received him very graciously, and as the surrender of Samosata soon afterwards took place, Antony instructed Sosius, the successor of Ventidius, to afford efficient assistance to Herod.[487]
[487] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 15. 7-9; Wars of the Jews, i. 16. 6-7.
In Palestine, during the absence of Herod, matters were in a bad way. Joseph, the brother of Herod, to whom he had in the meantime transferred the chief command, had been attacked by an army of Antigonus, and was himself slain in the battle, and Antigonus had ordered his head to be struck off. In consequence of these events, the Galileans had seized the opportunity to rise again against Herod, and had drowned his adherents in the lake of Gennesareth.[488]
[488] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 15. 10; Wars of the Jews, i. 17. 1-2.
A full report of all these proceedings reached Herod at Antioch, and he now hastened to avenge the death of his brother. Galilee was without difficulty reconquered. At Jericho he encountered the army of Antigonus, but did not, it would seem, venture upon any decisive engagement It was only when Antigonus divided his forces, and sent a portion of his troops under Pappus to Samaria, that Herod courted a regular contest. Pappus and Herod came together near Isana. The first attack was made by Pappus, but he was utterly defeated by Herod, and driven into the city, where all who had not managed to save themselves by flight were ruthlessly cut down. Pappus himself there met his death. With the exception of the capital, all Palestine thereby fell into the hands of Herod. Only the coming on of winter hindered him from beginning immediately the siege of Jerusalem.[489]
[489] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 15. 11-13; Wars of the Jews, i. 17. 3-8.—Instead of ΙΣΑΝΑ (Antiq. xiv. 15. 12), we have in Wars of the Jews, i. 17. 5, ΚΑΝΑ, which evidently is simply a corruption of the text By a combination of the narratives it appears that the place lay either in the south of Samaria or in the north of Judea; for Pappus had been sent to Samaria, but Herod met him going against him from Jericho. Our Isana is therefore undoubtedly to be identified with יְשָׁנָה, which in 2 Chronicles 13:19 is mentioned along with Bethel (in Josephus, Antiq. viii. 11. 3, Ἰσανά). The name is probably still preserved, as Clermont-Ganneau conjectures, in the modern Ain Sinia, only a little to the north of Bethel. Compare Clermont-Ganneau, Journal asiatique, septième série, t. ix. 1877, pp. 499-501. Quarterly Statements, 1877, p. 206 sq. Zeitschrift des DPV. i. 41 f. Guérin, Samarie, ii. 38. The Survey of Western Palestine; Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, ii. 291, 302; and the large English map attached, Sheet xiv.
In the spring of B.C. 37, so soon as the season of the year admitted of it, Herod laid siege to the capital, and began by the erection of military engines of assault. When these were ready for operating, he left the army for a little while and went to Samaria, in order there to celebrate his marriage with Mariamme, a granddaughter of Hyrcanus, to whom he had been engaged for five years. This engagement had been entered into in B.C. 42 (Antiq. xiv. 12. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 12. 3).[490]
[490] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 15. 14; Wars of the Jews, i. 17. 8.—Mariamme (Μαριάμμη is not to be written Μαριάμνη) was a daughter of Alexander, the son of Aristobulus II. and of Alexandra, a daughter of Hyrcanus II. (Antiq. xv. 2. 5).—She was the second wife of Herod. His first wife was called Doris, by whom he had one son called Antipater (Antiq. xiv. 12. 1).
After the celebration of the marriage he returned again to the camp. Sosius also now appeared before Jerusalem with a great army; and Herod and Sosius made a joint attack upon the city. They made their onslaught, as Pompey had done, from the north. On this side mighty ramparts were raised, and against these the battering-rams began to play. Forty days after the beginning of these operations, the first rampart was taken; after fifteen days more the second also fell. But the inner court of the temple and the upper city were always still in the hands of the besieged. At last these too were stormed, and the besiegers now went on murdering in the city all whom they could lay their hands upon. Antigonus himself fell at the feet of Sosius and entreated of him mercy. The Roman looked upon him with scorn, called him Antigone, and had him bound in fetters. It was now Herod’s greatest care to rid himself as soon as possible of his Roman friends. For the murdering and plundering that was going on in what was now again his capital could not possibly be pleasing to him. By means of rich presents he succeeded at last in inducing Sosius and his troops to take their departure.[491]
[491] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 16. 1-3; Wars of the Jews, i. 17. 9, 18. 1-3. Dio Cassius, xlix. 22.—The date of the conquest of Jerusalem is variously given by the two sources which we have at our disposal. Dio Cassius, xlix. 22, places it in the consulship of Claudius and Norbanus in B.C. 38. He is followed by Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. pp. 222 sq. (ad ann. 38), 299 eq., and Fischer, Römische Zeittafeln, p. 350, who adopt December B.C. 38 as the date of the conquest. Josephus, on the other hand, says that it occurred under the consulship of M. Agrippa and Caninius Gallus in B.C. 37 (Antiq. xiv. 16. 4). He is followed by almost all the moderns. It is, in fact, quite clear that the short and summary report of Dio Cassius cannot come into competition with the detailed and circumstantial narrative of Josephus, which rests on thoroughly good and reliable sources. But from the statement of Josephus it must certainly be concluded that the fall of the city did not occur before B.C. 37. We know that Pacorus was conquered by Ventidius on the 9th of June B.C. 38. Ventidius thereupon directed his energies against Antiochus of Commagene, and besieged him in Samosata. It was only after the siege had begun (compare especially Plutarch, Antony, 34), therefore at the earliest in July B.C. 38, that Antony arrived at Samosata. He there received the visit from Herod ; and when Samosata after a long siege (Plutarch, Antony, 34: τῆς δὲ πολιορκίας μῆκος λαμβανούσης) had capitulated, and he himself had again returned to Athens, he sent back Sosius with orders to give assistance to Herod (Antiq. xiv. 15. 8-9). It must therefore have been autumn of B.C. 38 before Herod received this support; and the statement of Josephus puts it beyond question that a winter was past before the conquest of Jerusalem was accomplished (Antiq. xiv. 15. 11: πολλοῦ χειμῶνος καταρραγέντος; Antiq. xiv. 15. 12: χειμὼν ἐπέσχε βαθύς; then again, 15. 14: λήξαντος δὲ τοῦ χειμῶνος; and finally, 16. 2: θέρος τε γὰρἦν). Accordingly the conquest of Jerusalem cannot be assigned to an earlier date than the summer of B.C. 37 (compare Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendation, pp. 366-371. Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, ii. 390; and in opposition to Clinton, especially van der Chijs, de Herode Magna, pp. 35-41; also Ewald, History of Israel, v. 416. Bürcklein, Quellen und Chronologie der römischparthischen Feldzüge, 1879, pp. 61-65. Kellner in the Katholik, 1887, zweite Hälfte, pp. 65-75). But now the opinions of scholars diverge from one another. Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 16. 4, says that the fall of the city took place τῇ ἑορτῇ τῆς νηστείας, by which undoubtedly he means the great day of atonement, 10th Tischri=October. He is followed by van der Chijs, Ewald, Kellner, etc. On the other hand, Herzfeld in particular, in his paper in Frankel’s Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1885, pp. 109-115, entitled: Wann war die Eroberung Jerusalem’s durch Pompejus, und wann die durch Herodes? has attempted to show that the conquest took place earlier in the summer, and, indeed, the facts will oblige us to assent to this conclusion. Herod certainly began the siege as soon as the season of the year allowed (λήξαντος τοῦ χειμῶνος), that is probably in February, at latest in March. Therefore, even although it is stated in the Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 2, that the siege lasted for five months, it could scarcely have been prolonged into October. It is much more probable that the fell of the city occurred some time in July B.C. 37. The phrase ἑορτὴ τῆς νηστείας, which Josephus met with in his pagan sources, may therefore refer, as in the case of the conquest of Pompey, not to the day of atonement, but to an ordinary Sabbath ; for Dio Cassius here also again says that the city was taken ἐν τῇ τοῦ Κρόνου ἡμέρᾳ (xlix. 22).—Yet the statement of Josephus is to be remembered, that the capture took place τῷ τρίτῳ μηνί (Antiq. xiv. 16. 4). By this he certainly does not mean the third month of the Olympiad year, as van der Chijs supposes, p. 35, for the Greek months were never numbered ; but he intends either the third month of the Jewish calendar, or the third month of the siege. Grätz, Geschichte, iii., 4 Aufl. p. 196, and Hitzig, Geschichte, ii. 532, take the former view, and so date the conquest of the city in June B.C. 37. But certainly this cannot have been the meaning of Josephus, since at the same time he placcs the fall of the city on the great day of atonement. It is therefore evident that by the phrase employed he meant to indicate the third month of the siege. The three months, then, are to be reckoned from the beginning of active operations (Antiq. xiv. 16. 2) ; the five months of the Wars of the Jews from the beginning of the preparations (Antiq. xiv. 15. 14). Compare Herzfeld, Wann war die Eroberung, p. 113 f.
The view of Gumpach. Ueber den altjüdischen Kalender, pp. 268-277, and Caspari, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ, p. 20 ff., that the fall of the city did not take place before 718 A.U.C., or B.C. 36, is decidedly false, inasmuch as it is in opposition to all well-supported chronological data.
In this way was Herod, almost three years after his appointment, enabled to enter on the actual possession of his sovereignty. Antigonus was carried away by Sosius to Antioch, and there, in accordance with the wish of Herod, he was by Antony’s orders led to the block. It was the first time that the Romans had executed such a sentence on a king.[492]
[492] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 16. 4, xv. 1. 2, where Josephus also quotes a passage from the now lost historical work of Strabo. Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 3. Dio Cassius, xlix. 22. Plutarch. Antony, 36.
The rule of the Asmonean dynasty was thus brought to an end.