� 15. Herod The Great, B.C. 37-4

§ 15. HEROD THE GREAT, B.C. 37-4
SOURCES
JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xv., xvi., xvii. 1-8; Wars of the Jews, i. 18-33. ZONARAS, Annales, v. 12-26 (summary of Josephus).
On the non-extant works of Herod, Ptolemy, Nicolas of Damascus, and Justus of Tiberias, see above, pp. 56-69.
The Rabbinical traditions are given in DERENBOURG, Essai sur l’histoire et la géographie de la Palestine (1867), pp. 149-165.
The Coins are treated of in the most complete manner by MADDEN, Coins of the Jews (1881), pp. 105-114.
LITERATURE[493]
[493] The older literature, of which the most important is Noldii Historia Idumaea, is given in Winer, Realwörterbuch, i. 483, 485 f.
EWALD, History of Israel, v. 417-449.
STANLEY, Lectures on the Jewish Church, iii. 412-448.
GEIKIE, The Life and Words of Christ, 7th ed., 2 vols., London 1879, vol. i. pp. 33-63.
FARRAR, Life of Christ, 18th ed., London, 2 vols., vol. i. pp. 11-48.
HAUSRATH, History of New Testament Times, i. 207-ii. 57.
LEWIN, Fasti sacri; or a Key to the Chronology of the New Testament, 1865, pp. 62-127.
VICKERS, The History of Herod, or another look at a man emerging from twenty centuries of calumny. London 1885. [An apology and defence!]
GRÄTZ, Geschichte des Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 197-245.
HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 534-559.
SCHNECKENBURGER, Zeitgeschichte, pp. 175-200.
WINER, Realwörterbuch, i. 481-483.
ARNOLD in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. vi. 8-14.
KEIM, Jesus of Nazara, i. 233-253. In Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, iii. 27-38.
VAN DER CHIJS, Dissertatio chronologico-historica de Herode Mayno, Judaeorum rege. Lugd. Bat. 1855.
DE SAULCY, Histoire d’Hérode, roi des Juifs. Paris 1867.
SIEFFERT in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. vi. 47-55
REUSS, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften A.T.’s 1881, § 541-545.
MOMMSEN, Römische Geschichte, v. 503-507.
KELLNER, Die Regierungszeit des Herodes und ihre Dauer (Katholik, 1867, zweite Hälfte, pp. 64-82, 166-182).
MENKE’S Bibelatlas, Sheet iv. Map of “Judea and Phoenicia after the arrangement of M. Antony,” and Sheet v. Map of “Judea and neighbouring countries at the time of the birth of Christ.”

|CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY.[494]
[494] We prefix this chronological summary, because in what follows the chronological order is not always adhered to.
|
B.C. A.U.C.
|
|
37 717
|Conquest of Jerusalem, some time in July.
Executions, Josephus, Antiq. xv. 1. 2; compare xiv. 9. 4, fin.; Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 4.
|
36 718
|Hyrcanus II. returns from the Parthian imprisonment, Antiq. xv. 2. 1-4.
|
35 719
|Beginning of the year: Aristobulus III., brother of Mariamme, is at the instigation of his mother Alexandra nominated high priest by Herod, Antiq. xv. 2. 5-7, 3. 1.[495]
[495] The appointment was made some time after Alexandra had sent the portraits of Aristobulus and Mariamme to Antony in Egypt (Antiq. xv. 2. 6; Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 3: εἰς Αἰγυπτον). Seeing, then, that Antony did not go into Egypt until the end of B.C. 36 (see above, p. 342), the appointment cannot have been earlier than the beginning of B.C. 35.
End of the year : Aristobulus III. is by Herod’s order, soon after the Feast of Tabernacles, drowned in the bath at Jericho, τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην κατασχὼν ἐνιαυτόν, Antiq. xv. 3. 3 Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 2.
|
34 720
|Herod is summoned by Antony to Laodicea to answer for the death of Aristobulus, but is dismissed with Antony’s favour, Antiq. xv. 3. 5 and 8. 9.[496]
[496] Since Aristobulus, according to the above statement, died in the end of the year B.C. 35, this summons to Laodicea would fall in the spring of B.C. 34, when Antony undertook the expedition against Armenia (Dio Cassius, xlix. 39); not, as we may assume, in B.C. 36, when Antony went forth against the Parthians. The correct view is taken by van der Chijs.—When Josephus says that then Antony went against the Parthians (Antiq. xv. 3. 9), his statement is loose and inexact, but not altogether incorrect. For Antony had, indeed, the design of going against the Parthians, see Dio Cassius, xlix. 39. But Josephus is clearly in error when he names in Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 5, “Parthians” instead of “Armenians.”—The campaign ἐπὶ Πάρθους, referred to in Antiq. xv. 3. 9, is therefore identical with the campaign ἐπʼ Ἀρμενίαν of Antiq. xv. 4. 2. The impression given by Josephus, that two different occurrences are there reported, probably results from his having used two different sources.
|
34 720
|Joseph, the husband of Herod’s sister Salome, is executed, Antiq. xv. 3. 9.
Antony presents to Cleopatra the Phoenician coasts, with the exception of Tyre and Sidon, and portions of Arabia and Judea; the region around Jericho being specially excepted, Antiq. xv. 4. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 5.[497]
[497] These presents are referred to by Plutarch, Antony, 36 (Φοινίκην, κοίλην Συρίαν, Κύπρον, Κιλικίας πολλήν, ἔτι δὲ τῆς τε Ἰουδαίων τὴν τὸ βάλσαμον φέρουσαν καὶ τῆς Ναβαταίων Ἀραβίας ὅση πρὸς τὴν ἐντὸς ἀποκλίνει θάλασσαν), and Dio Cassius, xlix. 32 (πολλὰ μὲν τῆς Ἀραβίας τῆς τε Μάλχου καὶ τῆς τῶν Ἰτυραίων, τὸν γὰρ Λυσανίαν … ἀπέκτεινεν … πολλὰ δὲ καὶ τῆς Φοινίκης τῆς τε Παλαιστίνης, Κρήτης τέ τινα καὶ Κυρήνην τὴν τε Κύπρον). Both writers assign these proceedings to the year B.C. 36. Plutarch indeed places the transaction before the Parthian campaign; Dio Cassius, after the return from it. According to Josephus, on the other hand, the presentation of portions of Arabia, Judea, and Phoenicia took place in B.C. 34, when Antony was entertaining the idea of going against Armenia. For that this campaign is intended in Antiq. xv. 4. 1-3; Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 5, cannot be doubted when we compare these passages with Dio Cassius, xlix. 39-40. The date given by Plutarch and Dio Cassius obtains an apparent confirmation from the statement of Porphyry, that Cleopatra had reckoned the sixteenth year of her reign the first, because Antony in that year, after the death of Lysimachus (it ought to be Lysanias), had gifted to her the kingdom of Chalcis (Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 170: τὸ δʼ ἑκκαιδέκατον ὠνομάσθη τὸ καὶ πρῶτον, ἐπειδὴ τελευτήσαντος Λυσιμάχου [l. Λυσανίου] τῆς ἐν Συρίᾳ Χαλκίδος βασιλέως, Μάρκος Ἀντώνιος ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ τήν τε Χαλκίδα καὶ τοὺς περὶ αὐτὴν τόπους παρέδωκε τῇ Κλεοπάτρᾳ). That this statement of Porphyry is correct, is also proved by a coin and an inscription. On a coin of Cleopatra the date is given: ἔτους καʹ τοῦ καὶ ςʹ θεᾶς (Letronne, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines de l’Egypte, ii. 90; Sallet, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. xiv. 1887, p. 379 f.); and on an inscription we have the date κʹ τοῦ καὶ εʹ (Letronne, Recueil, ii. 125=Corpus Inscr. Graecorum, n. 4931-4932=Lepsius, Denkmüler aus Aegypten, Bd. xii. Blatt 88, Inscript. Graec. n. 264, reviewed by Krall, Wiener Studien, Bd. v. 1883, p. 313 f.). Seeing, then, that the sixteenth year of Cleopatra, according to the usual reckoning of the years of her reign, corresponds to the year B.C. 36 (answering precisely to the period from autumn B.C. 37 to autumn B.C. 36, see Letronne, ii. 98), her new era begins with this same year, and it may safely be assumed that she obtained the kingdom of Lysanias in B.C. 36. But on more exact investigation this statement of Porphyry is found to favour, not that of Plutarch and Dio Cassius, but rather that of Josephus. Why does Porphyry name only the kingdom of Chalcis, and not also Phoenicia and the other countries which were far more important than Chalcis? Evidently because Chalcis was the first present, while the others were not bestowed till a later period. But this is just exactly what is assumed by Josephus. When Herod had made answer for himself before Antony at Laodicea, he wrote home an account of what had happened: Cleopatra’s schemes for obtaining Judea were no longer to be dreaded, since she had received instead Coele-Syria (Antiq. xv. 3. 8, fin.). When Cleopatra, however, soon renewed more successfully her petitions to have Judea and Arabia given to her, the execution of Lysanias had been already carried out (Antiq. xv. 4. 1). The cession to her of Coele-Syria, by which is to be understood mainly the territory of Lysanias, thus preceded the other gifts of countries. Plutarch and Dio Cassius group together facts that belong to different periods of time. Josephus has given the more exact statement. Compare on the donations of Antony to Cleopatra generally what is said above, p. 344.—According to the conclusions which we have reached, the presentations spoken of by Josephus, Antiq. xv. 4. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i 18. 6, must be assigned to a date not much later than the audience of Herod with Antony in Laodicea.
Cleopatra with Herod in Jerusalem, Antiq. xv. 4. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 5.
|
32 722
|War of Herod with the Arabians, after the out-break of hostilities between Antony and Octavian, Antiq. xv. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 19. 1-3.
Earthquake in Palestine, Antiq. xv. 5. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 19. 3: κατʼ ἔτος μὲν τῆς βασιλείας ἕβδομον, ἀκμάζοντος δὲ τοῦ περὶ Ἄκτιον πολέμου, ἀρχομένου ἔαρος.[498]
[498] The seventh year of Herod corresponds to B.C. 31-30, and is to be reckoned from 1st Nisan to 1st Nisan. See the note at the close of the section.—The earthquake, therefore, took place in the Nisan of the year B.C. 31. Nisan is also elsewhere described as the beginning of spring. See Wars of the Jews, iv. 8. 1 (ὑπὸ τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ ἔαρος); compare this with iv. 7. 3 (τετράδι Δύστρου). According to Mishna, Taanith i. 2, Nederin viii. 5, Baba Mezia viii. 6, the rainy season is reckoned from the Feast of Tabernacles to the Passover, therefore down to the middle or even to the end of Nisan.
|
32 722
|Herod conquers the Arabians, Antiq. xv. 5. 2-5; Wars of the Jews, i. 19. 3-6.
After the battle at Actium on 2nd September, Herod attached himself to the party of Augustus, for he supported Didius in the struggle with Antony’s gladiators; compare Antiq. xv. 6. 7; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 2. Also above, p. 345.
|
30 724
|Spring: Hyrcanus II. executed, Antiq. xv. 6. 1-4; Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 1; πλείω μὲν ἢ ὀγδοήκοντα γεγονὼς ἐτύγχανεν ἔτη, Antiq. xv. 6. 3.[499]
[499] Zonaras, Annales, v. 14, fin.: ἦν ἐτῶν ὀγδοήκοντα πρὸς ἑνί. Also some of the manuscripts of Josephus have eighty-one.
Herod visits Augustus at Rhodes, and is by him made king, Antiq. xv. 6. 5-7; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 1-3.
He attaches himself to Augustus on his march to Egypt at Ptolemais, Antiq. xv. 6. 7; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 3.
Autumn: Herod visits Augustus in Egypt, and gets Jericho back from him, as also Gadara, Hippo, Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, Straton’s Tower, Antiq. xv. 7. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 3.
End of the year : he accompanies Augustus on his return from Egypt as far as Antioch. Antiq. xv. 7. 4.
|
29 725
|End of the year: Mariamme executed, Antiq. xv. 7. 4-6; Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 3-5 (Antiq. xv. 7. 4: ἥ τε ὑποψία τρεφομένη παρέτεινεν ἐνιαυτοῦ μῆκος, ἐξ οὗ παρὰ Καίσαρος Ἡρώδης ὑποστρέφει).
|
28?
|Alexandra executed, Antiq. xv. 7. 8.
|
25 729
|Costobar, the second husband of Salome, and the sons of Babas, executed, Antiq. xv. 7. 10. The date is discovered from the statement of Salome: ὅτι διασώζοιντο παρʼ αὐτῷ χρόνον ἐνιαυτῶν ἤδη δώδεκα, that is, after the overthrow of Jerusalem in B.C. 37.
|
?
|The four years’ contendings begun. Theatre and amphitheatre built in Jerusalem, Antiq. xv. 8. 1.
|
?
|Conspiracy against Herod, Antiq. xv. 8. 3-4.
|
27 727
|Samaria rebuilt and named in honour of Augustus Sebaste, Antiq. xv. 8. 5; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 2.[500]
[500] The rebuilding of Samaria is by Noris, Annus et epochae Syromacedonum, v. 5. 1, ed. Lips. pp. 531-536, and Eckhel, Doctrina Num. iii. 440 sq., set down in the year A.U.C. 729, or B.C. 25. And it would at least appear as if Josephus assigns it to the same year. Then immediately after he has referred to it in xv. 8. 5, he proceeds in xv. 9. 1 to say: κατὰ τοῦτον μὲν οὖν τὸν ἐνιαυτόν, τρισκαιδέκατον ὄντα τῆς Ἡρώδου βασιλείας. But the thirteenth year of Herod began on 1st Nisan A.U.C. 729, or B.C. 25. The coins of Samaria, however, employ an earlier epoch (see especially, Mionnet, Description de médailles antiques, v. 513-516, Supplément, viii. 356-359, and de Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 275-281). Even the coins of Caracalla with the date 242 (Mionnet, Supplément, viii. 358=de Saulcy, p. 280) carry as as far back as the spring of the year 729; for Caracalla was murdered in April A.U.C. 970. We are carried still farther back by a coin of Nero with the date 94 (Mionnet, Supplemént, viii 357). From this coin it is evident that the epoch of Samaria began before June 728 A.U.C.; for Nero died in June A.U.C. 821. The reading of the year-number 94 is not altogether certain (de Saulcy, p. 276 sq.); yet a principal reason why de Saulcy suspects the correctness of the reading is, that the year-number 94 is not reconcilable with the assumed epoch of B.C. 25. On the other side, we are not led much farther back, that is, not farther back than to the 16th January 727 A.U.C., on which day Augustus first assumed the title Σεβαστός, after which the city was named (see Mommsen, Corpus Inscript. Lat. t. i. p. 384; Res gestae divi Augusti, ed. 2, p. 149; Römisches Staatsrecht, ii. 2. 708). Moreover, a coin of Julia Domna, wife of Septimus Severus, with the year-number 220 (Mionnet, v. 514 f.=de Saulcy, p. 279), proves that the epoch of the city began in any case after the summer of A.U.C. 726, for Septimus Severus did not come to the throne before the summer of A.U.C. 946. If we assume, therefore, that the epoch of Samaria, like that of most Syrian cities, began in autumn, we may set down autumn of A.U.C. 727 as the epoch. The rebuilding of Samaria took place, therefore, probably in the year 727, in any case before the spring of 729, i.e. before the thirteenth year of Herod.
But this contradiction between the coins and what seems to be the chronology of Josephus is not the only difficulty which meets us. Costobar’s execution, according to Antiq. xv. 7. 10, occurred in the thirteenth year of Herod. Thereupon a whole series of events is recorded in xv. 8. 1-5, which could not possibly have occurred in the space of one year. And yet, when we pass on to xv. 9. 1, we find that we are always still within this thirteenth year of Herod. From this it follows that the whole section xv. 8. 1-5 is evidently arranged according to the subject-matter, for Josephus here brings together statements to show how Herod by illegal procedure created opposition and gave offence, how the dissatisfaction of the people expressed itself in words and deeds, and what concessions Herod made in order to soothe the excitement of the multitude. If we consider all this, and remember that Josephus gathered his materials from various sources (see above, p. 88), it becomes in the highest degree probable that in the principal document used by Josephus, the section xv. 9. 1 was attached immediately to xv. 7. 10; that, on the other hand, xv. 8.1-5 is interpolated from another document, and that the words κατὰ τοῦτον μὲν οὖν τὸν ἐνιαυτόν, etc., have been taken over by Josephus unchanged from his principal document, and that it is connected in its text, not with the time of the rebuilding of Samaria, but with the time of Costobar’s execution. In this way a solution is found for all difficulties.
|
25 729
|Famine and pestilence (κατὰ τοῦτον μὲν οὖν τὸν ἐνιαυτόν, τρισκαιδέκατον ὄντα τῆς Ἡρώδου βασιλείας =B.C. 25-24, from Nisan to Nisan), Antiq. xv. 9. 1.
The famine continues also into the following year, B.C. 24-23, Antiq. xv. 9. 1, when Petronius was governor of Egypt, Antiq. xv. 9. 2.
|
25 729
|Herod sends 500 men as auxiliaries to the expedition of Aelius Gallus against Arabia, Antiq. xv. 9. 3 ; compare Strabo, xvi. 4. 23, p. 780: συμμάχων, ὧν ἦσαν Ἰουδαῖοι μὲν πεντακόσιοι.—The campaign ended in the following year, B.C. 24, disastrously, and without any appreciable results.[501]
[501] The most detailed description of the campaign is given by Strabo, xvi. 4. 22-24, pp. 780-782 ; while it is reported more briefly by Dio Cassius, liii. 29 ; Pliny, Historia, Naturalis, vi. 28. 160 sq.; Monumentum Ancyranum, v. 18 eq. (in Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, ed. 2, p. 105).—Compare generally, Krüger, Der Feldzug des Aelius Gallus nach dem glücklichen Arabien unter Kaiser Augustus (62, p. 8), Wismar 1862 ; Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, ed. 2, 1883, pp. 105-109; Römische Geschichte, v. 608 ff.; Schiller, Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, Bd. i. 1883, pp. 198-201; Joh. Schmidt, Philologus, Bd. xliv. 1885, pp. 463-469; Schiller, Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der class. Altertumswissenschaft, Bd. xlviii. pp. 251-257. For the geographical particulars, besides what is given in Schiller, Kaiserzeit, i. 201, compare the well-known works of Forster, Mannert, and Ritter, and especially Fresnel, Journal asiatique, troisième série, t. x. 1840, pp. 83-96, 177-181; Forbiger, Handbuch der alten Geographie, ii. 748 ff.; Sprenger, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, new series, vol. vi. 1873, pp. 121-141; Die alte Geographie Arabiens, 1875, pp. 226-229 ; Kiepert, Lehrbuch der alten Geographie, 1878, p. 187.—Dio Cassius placcs the whole campaign within the tenth consulship of Augustus, B.C. 24, or A.U.C. 730. But, according to Strabo, the campaign proper did not begin until the year after Aelius Gallus had pushed on to Leuke Kome with great loss, and had there, in consequence of the numerous invalids in hie army, been obliged to spend the winter (Strabo, xvi. 4. 24, p. 781: ἠναγκάσθη γοῦν τό τε θέρος καὶ τὸν χειμῶνα διατελέσαι αὐτόθι τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας ἀνακτώμενος). The whole campaign, therefore, embraccd the years B.C. 25-24. This may be accepted as certain. It is on the other hand, questionable whether Aelius Gallus conducted the expedition as governor of Egypt, and was followed in that office by Petronius, or whether, on the contrary, Petronius was at the time of the Arabian campaign governor of Egypt, and was followed in that office by Gallus. We know definitely that both held the office of praefectus Aegypti (see on Aelius Gallus, Strabo, pp. 118 and 806 ; Dio Cassius, liii. 29; on Petronius, Strabo, pp. 788 and 819; Dio Cassius, liv. 5; Pliny, vi. 29. 181). We know further that Petronius undertook several expeditions against the Ethiopians which happened to occur just at the same time as the expedition of Gallus against Arabia (Monumentum Ancyranum, v. 18 sq.: “Meo jussu et auspicio ducti sunt duo exercitus eodem fere tempore in Aethiopiam et in Arabiam quae appellatur eudaemon;” Strabo, xvii. 1. 54, p. 820 sq.; Dio Cassius, liv. 5; Pliny, Historia Naturalis, vi. 29. 181 sq.; according to Strabo, the Ethiopians had made an attack upon the Thebaid, when the garrison of Egypt was weakened by the withdrawal of the troops of Aelius Gallus; and thus the expedition of Petronius became necessary. Dio Cassius placcs this occurrence in B.C. 22). Krüger and Schiller now assume that Aelius Gallus undertook the expedition against Arabia, not as governor of Egypt, but under a special commission, and that only after his return from the campaign did he receive the governorship of Egypt in succession to Petronius. Mommsen and Schmidt, on the other hand, maintain that Aelius Gallus directed the Arabian campaign as governor of Egypt, and that Petronius was his successor in Egypt. This latter view is supported by these two considerations : 1. Dio Cassius, liii. 29, expressly designates Gallus at the time of the Arabian expedition ὁ τῆς Αἰγύπτου ἄρχων. 2. Dio Cassius placcs the Ethiopian campaign two years later than the Arabian, the latter in 24 B.C., the former 22 B.C. Since, then, according to Strabo, there are certainly two Ethiopian campaigns of Petronius to be distinguished from one another, these would fall in B.C. 23-22, or perhaps B.C. 24-22. In the second half of the year B.C. 24, Petronius may be supposed to have succeeded Gallus as governor of Egypt, after having been already for some time his substitute and representative (so also Haakh in Pauly’s Encyclofaedie, v. 1401).
|
?
|Herod builds for himself a royal palace, and marries the priest’s daughter, Mariamme, Antiq. xv. 9. 3 (the name: Wars of the Jews, i. 28. 4, 29. 2, 30. 7).
The building of Caesarea is begun, Antiq. xv. 9. 6. Since the building after twelve years’ labour was completed in B.C. 10, the works must have been begun in B.C. 22.
|
23 731
|The sons of the first Mariamme, Alexander and
|

|Aristobulus, are sent to Rome for their education, Antiq. xv. 10. 1.
Augustus bestows upon Herod the provinces of Trachonitis, Batanaea, and Auranitis, Antiq. xv. 10. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4 (μετὰ τὴν πρώτην Ἀκτιάδα).[502]
[502] The games at Actium were celebrated on 2nd September for the first time in B.C. 28, then in the years B.C. 24, 20, 16, etc. That enlargement of territory therefore took place “after the course of the first Actiad had run,” i.e. in the end of B.C. 24 or beginning of B.C. 23. See Zumpt, Commentt. epigraph. ii. 76.
|
22 732
|Herod visits Agrippa in Mytilene in Lesbos, Antiq. xv. 10. 2.[503]
[503] Josephus only says, Herod visited Agrippa περὶ Μυτιλήνην χειμάζοντα. Since Agrippa was in Mytilene from spring B.C. 23 till spring B.C. 21, this may have been the winter of B.C. 23-22 or of B.C. 22-21.
|
20 734
|Augustus comes to Syria and bestows upon Herod the territory of Zenodorus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3: ἤδη αὐτοῦ τῆς βασιλείας ἑπτακαιδεκάτου παρελθόντος ἔτους (the seventeenth year of Herod extended to 1st Nisan at the end of the year B.C. 20); Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4: ἔτει δεκάτῳ πάλιν ἐλθὼν εἰς τὴν ἐπαρχίαν (also reckoned from the end of the year B.C. 30).—Dio Cassius, liv. 7, places the visit of Augustus to Syria in the consulship of M. Appuleius and P. Silius, A.U.C. 734.—Also Dio Cassius, liv. 9, makes mention of that presentation.
Pheroras appointed tetrarch of Perea, Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 5; compare i. 30. 3.
Herod remits one-third of the taxes, Antiq. xv. 10. 4.
Begins the temple building, Antiq. xv. 11. 1: ὀκτωκαιδεκάτου τῆς Ἡρώδου βασιλείας γεγονοτος ἐνιαυτοῦ=B.C. 20-19.[504]
[504] According to Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 1, the building was begun in the fifteenth year, which either is wrong, or refers to the earlier preparations for the building. That the building of the temple began in the year B.C. 20-19 is quite certain, from the fact that it was begun in the same year in the beginning of which the emperor went to Syria, which, according to Dio Cassius, liv. 7, was in the spring or summer of B.C. 20.—The building of the court of the temple occupied eight years, the building of the temple proper a year and a half (Antiq. xv. 11. 5-6; it is not clear whether these 8 + 1½ years are to be added, or whether the latter period is to be regarded as identical with the first year and a half of the whole building period). After the completion of the temple a great festival was celebrated. Seeing that it synchronized with the day of Herod’s ascending the throne (Antiq. xv. 11. 6), the temple building, if we are right in setting down the date of Herod’s accession at July, must have been begun in winter, therefore in the end of the year B.C. 20, A.U.C. 734, or in the beginning of B.C. 19, A.U.C. 735.—When it is therefore declared in John 2:20 at the time of the Passover that the temple had been forty-six years in building (τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτεσιν ᾠκοδομήθη ὁ ναὸς οὗτος), this means that the forty-sixth year was regarded as running or as completed at the Passover of A.U.C. 780=A.D. 27, or A.U.C. 781=A.D. 28. The latter is more probably the correct date. See Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, p. 187; Beiträge, p. 156 ff.; Sevin, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu, 2 Aufl. pp. 11-13.
|
18 or 17
|Herod fetches his sons Alexander and Aristobulus home from Rome: the first Roman voyage of Herod,[505] Antiq. xvi. 1. 2.—Since Herod met Augustus in Italy, and as Augustus did not return to Italy before the summer of B.C. 19, the journey of Herod must be placed at the earliest in the middle of the year B.C. 19, and at latest before the summer of B.C. 16, since Augustus was in Gaul from the summer of B.C. 16 till the spring of B.C. 13.[506]
[505] That is to say, from the time of his ascending the throne, and so without taking into consideration his journey in the year B.C. 40-39.
[506] Noris, Cenotaphia Pisana, Diss. ii. cap. 6, pp. 150-153, places the journey of Herod in question in the year A.U.C. 737, or B.C. 17. For the chronology of the history of Augustus, see the argument in Fischer, Römische Zeittafeln, p. 395 f.
|
15 739
|Agrippa visits Herod in Jerusalem, Antiq. xvi. 2. 1 (Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 37, ed. Mangey, ii. 589).—He left Judea again before the end of the year: ἐπιβαίνοντος τοῦ χειμῶνος.[507]
[507] Fischer, Römische Zeittafeln, p. 402, and van der Chijs, p. 55, set the visit of Agrippa in the year B.C. 17, and the return visit of Herod in the year B.C. 16, because they proceed on the assumption that Agrippa went to Palestine immediately after his arrival in the East. But Josephus by no means says so, and it is not at all certain that Agrippa had even arrived in the East in B.C. 17, since, according to the indefinite statement of Dio Cassius, liv. 19, this may have occurred in B.C. 16 just as likely as in B.C. 17. But that Agrippa came into Palestine first in B.C. 15, and that Herod first visited Agrippa in Asia Minor in B.C. 14, is proved from this, that Herod then met Agrippa at Sinope on his expedition to the Crimea, which campaign, according to Dio Cassius, liv. 24, took place in B.C. 14. So also Lewin, Fasti sacri, p. 97; Hitzig, ii. 548, and Keim in Bibel-lexicon, iii. 33.
|
14 740
|Herod with Agrippa in Asia Minor, Antiq. xvi. 2. 2-5 (ἔαρος ἠπείγετο συντυχεῖν αὐτῷ). Compare also: Antiq. xii. 3. 2; Nicolas of Damascus in Müller, Fragment. Hist. Graecor. iii. 350.
After his return he remits a fourth part of the taxes, Antiq. xvi. 2. 5.
Beginning of quarrels with the sons of Mariamme, Alexander and Aristobulus.—Antipater brought to the court, Antiq. xvi. 3. 1-3; Wars of the Jews, i. 23. 1.
|
13 741
|Antipater is sent with Agrippa to Rome that he might be presented to the emperor, Antiq. xvi. 3. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 23. 2. (On the date compare: Dio Cassius, liv. 28; Fischer, Zeittafeln, p. 408.)
|
12 742
|Herod goes with his sons Alexander and Aristobulus to Rome in order to accuse them before the emperor. Herod’s second Roman journey. He meets the emperor at Aquileia. Augustus reconciles the discord.—Antipater returns back with them to Judea, Antiq. xvi. 4. 1-6; Wars of the Jews, i. 23. 3-5.[508]
[508] Even early writers such as Noris, Cenotaphia Pisana, Diss. ii. cap. 6, pp. 153-157, and Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, p. 334 sq., placed this journey of Herod correctly in the year B.C. 12, or A.U.C. 742. So too, e.g. Zumpt, Caesaris Augusti index rerum a se gestarum sive Monumentum Ancyranum, ed. Franz et Zumpt, 1845, p. 59, and Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, ed. 2, 1883, p. 61. Quite decisive in this matter is the fact that during Herod’s presence at that time in Rome, Augustus had the games celebrated, and “distributed presents among the Roman people” (Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 4. 5: Ἡρώδης μὲν ἐδωρεῖτο Καίσαρα τριακοσίοις ταλάντοις θέας τε καὶ διανομὰς ποιούμενον τῷ Ῥωμαίων δήμῳ). In Monumentum Ancyranum, iii. 7-21 (in Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, ed. 2, p. 58 sq.), Augustus gives a complete and chronologically arranged list of the largesses (congiaria) which he had distributed among the people during his reign (compare on these congiaria of the Roman emperors, Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. ii. 1876, p. 132 ff.). They are eight in all. The fifth took place during the twelfth year of the tribunate of Augustus (tribunicia potestate duodecimum, i.e. between June 742 and June 743 A.U.C. Compare on the reckoning of the tribunicial years of Augustus, Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, ii. p. 753 ff.); the sixth did not occur till the eighteenth tribunicial year and the twelfth consulship of Augustus (tribuniciae potestatis duodevicensimum, consul. xii.; the latter corresponding to A.U.C. 749, or B.C. 5). Between these two terms, therefore, no donation of this sort had been made. The date of the former can be still more exactly fixed at the year 742, for in that year it is placed by Dio Cassius, liv. 29, and also by an Inscription Fragment (Fasti Ripatransonenses, see Corpus Inscript. Lat. t. i. p. 472=t. ix. n. 5289). It belongs, therefore, to the second half of the year A.U.C. 742, or B.C. 12. Its amount was very munificent. At least 250,000 citizens received 400 sesterces, or 100 denaria each, so that in all at least 25 millions of sesterces were distributed, amounting to about £1,000,000 sterling.—Since in the case before us it cannot be the donation of the year B.C. 5 that is meant, we can only identify it with that of B.C. 12. That in this year Augustus arrived at Aquileia is not indeed proved by any direct evidence, but it may very well have been so, in consequence of the Pannonian campaign of Tiberius, which occurred in that year (Dio Cassius, liv. 31; compare Suetonius, Augustus, 20: “Reliqua [bella] per legatos administravit, ut tamen quibusdam Pannonicis atque Germanicis aut interveniret aut non longe abesset Ravennam vel Mediolanium vel Aquileiam usque ab urbe progrediens”). The games which Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 4. 5, speaks of alongside of the διανομαί, are not indeed those which Augustus gave in the year 742 at the festival of the Roman “Panathanaea” (quinquatrus) in March (Dio Cassius, liv. 28), since those referred to by Josephus must have occurred later. And just inasmuch as, according to Dio Cassius, liv. 29, the congiaria of this year were occasioned by Agrippa’s death, so also among the games were those connected with Agrippa’s financial obsequies, not indeed celebrated until five years afterwards, but having certainly preparations made for them even then (so Mommsen after Dio Cassius, Leviticus 8). In the first edition of this work I had, in agreement with van der Chijs, assigned the journey of Herod to Rome, now under consideration, to the year B.C. 10, inasmuch as Dio Cassius, liv. 36, relates of this year, but not expressly of the year B.C. 12, that Augustus was absent from Rome, by which his presence at Aquileia can be accounted for. But this argument cannot hold ground against that drawn from the presents. No more weight can be laid upon the fact that Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 5. 1, says that about this time the rebuilding of Caesarea was celebrated (περὶ τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον), which certainly did not take place before B.C. 10.
|
10 744
|The celebration of the completion of the building of Caesarea fell εἰς ὄγδοον καὶ εἰκοστὸν ἔτος τῆς ἀρχῆς=B.C. 10-9, Antiq. xvi. 5. 1; after it had been twelve years in building, Antiq. xv. 9. 6: ἐξετελέσθη δωδεκαετεῖ χρόνῳ (xvi. 5. 1 says: ten years, which is certainly wrong). On the building, compare also Wars of the Jews, i 21. 5-8.
|
?
|The quarrel in Herod’s family becomes more and more bitter and complicated, Antiq. xvi. 7. 2-6; Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 1-6.
|
?
|Herod by torturing Alexander’s dependants seeks to fasten guilt upon him; Alexander is cast into prison, Antiq. xvi. 8. 1-5; Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 7-8.
|
10 ?
|Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, Alexander’s father-in-law, effects once more a reconciliation between Herod and his sons, Antiq. xvi. 8. 6; Wars of the Jews, i. 25. 1-6.
Herod’s third journey to Rome, Antiq. xvi. 9. 1.[509]
[509] The date of this third journey cannot be more exactly determined. In the first edition of this work I assigned it, with Noris and van der Chijs, to the year B.C. 8. Noris (who in his Cenotaphia Pisana, Diss. ii. cap. 6, p. 157 sq., declares a precise determination of the date impossible, but then in Diss. ii. cap. 16, § 9, p. 303, decides for that date) regards the fact decisive that Herod had met Augustus in Rome, whereas in the years B.C. 10 and 9 he had been absent from Rome. But he was by no means absent from Rome during the whole of these years. Van der Chijs, p. 57 f., borrows his chief argument from Josephus, Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 12. According to the statement made there, Herod once on his way to Rome was made judge in the Olympian games. The Olympian games were celebrated in B.C. 20, 16, 12, 8, etc. Since now, according to van der Chijs, the earlier journeys did not by any means occur in any of these years, the reference can only be to this last journey, which therefore falls in B.C. 8. But we have shown in the previous note that the second journey took place in B.C. 12. The subject has been treated in the most complete manner by Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, p. 338 sqq. He comes to the conclusion that the journey of Herod in question is to be placed in the year B.C. 10 mainly for this reason, that the events which were transacted between that time and the departure of the Syrian governor, Sentius Saturninus, required a period of at least three full years (p. 340a: “ad minus integrum triennium exposeunt”). But Saturninus did not take his departure later than in the first half of the year B.C. 6 (see above, p. 351). The arguments of Sanclemente are in fact interesting, but not quite convincing. It is still quite possible that this journey of Herod was made in B.C. 9.
|
9 ?
|Campaign against the Arabians, Antiq. xvi. 9. 2.
|
8 ?
|Herod in disfavour with Augustus, Antiq. xvi. 9. 3.
Herod having extorted by torture damaging statements against Aristobulus and Alexander, has them cast into prison, and accuses them to Augustus of high treason, Antiq. xvi. 10. 3-7; Wars of the Jews, i. 26. 3, 27. 1.
|
7 ?
|Augustus, having again become favourable to Herod through the good offices of Nicolaus of Damascus (Antiq. xvi. 10. 8-9), gives him full power to deal with his sons according to his own discretion, Antiq. xvi. 11. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 27. 1.
Alexander and Aristobulus condemned to death at Berytus, and strangled at Sebaste (Samaria), Antiq. xvi. 11. 2-7; Wars of the Jews, i. 27. 2-6.[510]
[510] Since at the time of his condemnation (Antiq. xvi. 11. 3), and also for some time after (Antiq. xvii. 1. 1, 2. 1, 3. 2), Saturninus was governor of Syria, the condemnation must have taken place in the year B.C. 7, for Saturninus went away from Syria not later than in the first half of the year B.C. 6 (see above, p. 351). This also is the opinion of Sanclemente (De vulgaris aerae emendatione, p. 346): “Beryti concilium habitum fuit labente anno U.C. Varr. 747.”
Antipater all-powerful at Herod’s court, Antiq. xvii. 1. 1, 2. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 28. 1, 29. 1.
Executions of suspected Pharisees, Antiq. xvii. 2. 4.
|
6 ?
|Antipater goes to Rome, Antiq. xvii. 3. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 29. 2.
First testament or will of Herod, in which he named Antipater, or if he should die before himself, Herod, the son of the second Mariamme, his successor, Antiq. xvii. 3. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 29. 2.
|
5 749
|Beginning of the year: Pheroras, Herod’s brother, dies, Antiq. xvii. 3. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 29. 4.
Herod discovers Antipater’s hostile designs, Antiq. xvii. 4. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i. 30. 1-7.
Antipater returns again to Judea, Antiq. xvii. 5. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i. 31. 3-5; seven months after Herod had made that discovery, Antiq. xvii. 4. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 31. 2.
Antipater on his trial; seeks in vain to justify himself, and is put in chains, Antiq. xvii. 5. 3-7; Wars of the Jews, i. 32. 1-5.
Herod reports the matter to the emperor, Antiq. xvii. 5. 7-8; Wars of the Jews, i 32. 5.
Herod is ill and makes his second testament, in which he appoints his youngest son Antipater his successor, Antiq. xvii. 6. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 5.
|
4 750
|Revolt of the people under the rabbis Judas and Matthias rigorously suppressed by Herod, Antiq. xvii 6. 2-4; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 1-4.
Herod’s illness becomes more severe, Antiq. xvii. 6. 5; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 5.
Antipater, after leave had been obtained from the emperor, is executed, Antiq. xvii. 7; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 7.
Herod again changes his will, for he appoints Archelaus king, and Antipas and Philip tetrarchs, Antiq. xvii. 8. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 7.
Herod dies five days after the execution of Antipater, βασιλεύσας μεθʼ ὃ μὲν ἀνεῖλεν Ἀντίγονον, ἔτη τέσσαρα καὶ τριάκοντα, μεθʼ ὃ δὲ ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων ἀπεδέδεικτο, ἑπτὰ καὶ τριάκοντα, Antiq. xvii. 8. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 8.[511]
[511] In regard to the year of Herod’s death, see the note at the close of this section.
|
Herod[512] was born to be a ruler. Blessed by nature with a powerful body capable of enduring fatigue, he early inured himself to all manner of hardships. He was a skilful rider, and a bold, daring huntsman. He was feared in pugilistic encounters. His lance was unerring, and his arrow seldom missed its mark.[513] He was practised in the art of war from his youth. Even in his twenty-fifth year he had won renown by his expedition against the robbers of Galilee. And then again, in the later period of his life, when over sixty years of age, he led in person the campaign against the Arabians.[514] Rarely did success forsake him where he himself conducted any warlike undertaking.
[512] The name Ἡρώδης (from ὕρως) occurs also previously, see Corpus Inscript. Graec., Index, p. 92; Pape-Benseler, Wörterbuch der griech. Eigennamen, s.v.; Winer, Realwörterbuch, i. 481, Anm. 4. We have also some fragments of an old Iambic poet called Herod (see Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iii. 1236; Nicolai, Griechische Literaturgeschichte, ii. 300). There is still extant a celebrated oration, περὶ τοῦ Ἡρώδου φόνου, by the Attic orator Antiphon, of the fifth century before Christ (see Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, i. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 1154 f.). In the year B.C. 60 we find an archon at Athens bearing the name of Herod (Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 182). In Cicero’s letters an Athenian Herod is frequently mentioned, who was the teacher of Cicero’s son (Cicero, ad Atticum, ii. 2. 2, xiv. 16. 3, xv. 16. A.). In the second century after Christ lived the celebrated Herod Atticus, the teacher of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (see, in reference to him, Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, i. 2, 2 Aufl. pp. 2096-2104).—Since the name is undoubtedly contracted from Ἡρωίδης, the writing of it with the iota subscribed is to be preferred (Ἡρῴδης). On inscriptions the form Ηρωιδης is met with (Corpus Inscript. Graec. n. 3155, 4893; Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 3); also Ηρωιδας (Corpus Inscript. Graec. n. 2197c. [t. ii. p. 1028], n. 5774, 5775, lin. 180); also Ηρωιδειος (Corpus Inscript. Graec. n. 5774, 5775, lin. 15, 42, 55, 87, 89, 114); also Ειρωιδας (Corpus Inscript. Graec. n. 1574). The Etymologicum magnum, ed. Gaisford, p. 437, 56, says, s.v. Ηρωιδης· Ἔχει τὸ ι προσγεγραμμένον, etc. This mode of writing is adopted by Lobeck, Paralip. gramm. graec. p. 229; Pathologiae graeci sermonis elementa, i. 280. It is employed throughout by Westcott and Hort in their edition of the Greek New Testament. Compare their remark, vol. ii. p. 314: “Ἡρῴδης is well supported by inscriptions, and manifestly right;” and Gregory’s Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s Novum, Testamentum, ed. crit. octava major, p. 109. That the later inscriptions (see the proof in Corpus Inscript. Graec., Index, p. 92) and the coins invariably give the form Ηρωδης, affords no evidence to the contrary, since it was not customary on inscriptions or coins to insert the Iota subscriptum.
[513] Compare generally the description given in Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 13.
[514] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 9. 2.
His character was wild and passionate, harsh and unbending. Fine feelings and tender emotions were strange to him. Wherever his own interests seemed to demand it, he carried matters through with an iron hand, and scrupled not to shed streams of blood that he might reach his object Even his nearest relatives, even his most passionately loved wife, he could not spare, so soon as the wish arose in him.
He was, besides, cunning and adroit, and rich in devices. He understood thoroughly what measures should be taken to suit the circumstances of each changing day. Hard and unpitying as he was toward all who fell into his power, he was cringing and servile before those that were high in place. His glance was wide enough in its range, and his judgment sufficiently keen to perceive that in the circumstances of the world at that time nothing was to be reached except through the favour and by the help of the Romans. It was therefore an unvarying principle of his policy to hold firmly by the Roman alliance under all circumstances and at any cost. And he knew how to carry out this principle happily and cleverly.
Thus in his composition were linked together cunning and energy.
But these most conspicuous characteristics of his nature were set in motion by an insatiable ambition. All his devices and endeavours, all his plans and actions, were aimed directly toward the one end: the extending of his power, his dominion, his glory.[515] This powerful lever kept all his powers in restless activity. Difficulties and hindrances were for him so much greater inducement to put forth more strength. And this indefatigableness, this unwearied striving, continued to characterize him in extreme old age.
[515] Compare the sketch of Herod’s character given by Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 5. 4.
Only by a combination of all these characteristics was it possible to attain to such greatness, as he unquestionably reached, amid the perilous circumstances of his times.
His reign falls into three periods.[516] The first period, which reaches from B.C. 37 to B.C. 25, is the period of the consolidation of his power. He has still to contend with many hostile powers, but goes forth at last from the conflict victorious over them all. The second period, from B.C. 25 to B.C. 13, is the period of his prosperity. The friendship of Rome has reached its highest point. Agrippa visits Herod in Jerusalem. Herod is repeatedly received by the emperor. It is at the same time the period of great buildings, preeminently the work of peace. The third period, from B.C. 13 to B.C. 4, is the period of domestic trouble. Everything else now passes out of view in presence of the disturbances in Herod’s own house.
[516] Compare Keim in Bibellexicon. He distributes the periods, however, somewhat differently. Also Ewald makes three sections, v. 422-429, 429-437, 437-449.
I
In the first period of his reign Herod had to contend with many powerful adversaries: the people, the nobles, the Asmonean family, and—Cleopatra.
The people, who were wholly in the hands of the Pharisees, tolerated only with deep aversion the dominion of the Idumean, half-Jew and friend of the Romans.[517] It must have been Herod’s first care to secure their obedience. By the utmost rigour he was able to reduce the rebellious elements; while he won the more pliant by bestowing on them favours and honours. Even of the Pharisees themselves two performed good services for Herod—Polio (Abtalion) and his scholar Sameas (Shemaia or Shammai). They saw in the dominion of the foreigner a judgment of God, which as such they were under obligation patiently to bear.[518]
[517] Herod is called Ἡμιιουδαῖος in Antiq. xiv. 15. 2. The Idumeans had been converted only by John Hyrcanus. See above, p. 280. On the ancestry of Herod, see above, p. 314.
[518] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 1. 1; compare xiv. 9. 4, fin. On Polio and Sameas, see Div. ii. vol. i. 358, 359.
Among the nobles of Jerusalem there were numerous adherents of Antigonus. Herod delivered himself from them by executing forty-five of the most wealthy and the most prominent of their number. By confiscating their property he gained possession of abundance of money, which he employed so as to secure a firmer hold upon his patron Antony.[519]
[519] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 1. 2; compare xiv. 9. 4, fin.; Wars of the Jews, i. 18 4.
Of the members of the Asmonean family, it was particularly Alexandra, Herod’s mother-in-law, the mother of Mariamme, who pursued him with unremitting enmity. The aged Hyrcanus had indeed returned from his Parthian exile;[520] but he was before that time on good terms with Herod. And this good understanding still continued undisturbed. Since he could not, owing to his physical mutilation, enter again on the high priest’s office, Herod chose as high priest an utterly unknown and insignificant Babylonian Jew of the saccrdotal family called Ananel.[521] But even this was considered by Alexandra an infringement of Asmonean privileges. According to her view, it was her young son Aristobulus, brother of Mariamme, who alone was entitled to the high priest’s office. She therefore set every wheel in motion in order to secure her rights. In particular, she applied to Cleopatra, urging her to exert her influence upon Antony, so as to force Herod to appoint Aristobulus high priest. Mariamme also pressed her husband with petitions in favour of her brother. Thus Herod at last felt himself obliged to set aside Ananel (which was unlawful, inasmuch as the high priest held his office for life), and in the beginning of B.C. 35 made young Aristobulus high priest, who was now only in his seventeenth year.[522]
[520] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 2. 1-4.
[521] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 2. 4.—Herod could not himself assume the position, since he was not even a fall-born Jew, let alone a member of the saccrdotal family.
[522] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 2. 5-7, 3. 1.—In respect to the chronology, I refer once for all to the previous summary.
The peace, however, was not of long duration. Herod saw, and not without reason, in all the members of the Asmonean family his natural enemies. He could not rid himself of suspicion and distrust, especially in regard to Alexandra, and he kept a careful watch upon her proceedings. This constant espionage Alexandra found intolerable, and thought to escape such supervision by flight. The coffins were already prepared in which she and her son Aristobulus were to have had themselves carried out of the city and thence to the sea-coast, so as to fly to Egypt to Cleopatra. But their secret was betrayed, and so their scheme proved futile, and thus it only served to increase the suspicions of Herod.[523]—When, moreover, the people, at the next Feast of Tabernacles, in B.C. 35, made a public demonstration in favour of young Aristobulus while he officiated as high priest, Herod became thoroughly determined to rid himself, without delay, of Aristobulus as his most dangerous enemy and rival. Soon an opportunity for doing so was given him. Herod had been invited to Jericho to a feast by Alexandra. And after the meal, as young Aristobulus along with others was refreshing himself in the bath, he was pushed under the water as if in sport by some of those with him who had been bribed by Herod, and kept down so long that he was drowned. After the affair was done Herod pretended the most profound grief, and shed tears, which, however, nobody regarded as genuine.[524]
[523] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 3. 2.
[524] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 3. 3-4; Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 2.
Alexandra, who clearly perceived the true state of matters, agitated again through Cleopatra, so that Herod was summoned to make answer before Antony for the deed. Antony, who since the spring of B.C. 36 had been again residing in the East, and under the spell of Cleopatra, was just then, in the spring of B.C. 34, undertaking a new expedition to the West, ostensibly against the Parthians, really against the Armenian king Artavasdes. When he had now reached Laodicea, that is, Laodicea by the sea, south of Antioch, Herod was summoned to meet him there,—for Alexandra had, through Cleopatra, actually obtained her wish,—to give an account of his conduct. Herod did not dare to refuse, and, no doubt with a heavy heart, presented himself before Antony. But it may be readily supposed he did not go empty-handed. This circumstance and his clever representations soon prevailed in dispelling all clouds. He was pronounced innocent, and returned to Jerusalem.[525]
[525] Josephus, Antiq. xv, 3. 5, 8-9.
His absence was the occasion of fresh disturbances. He had on his departure appointed his uncle Joseph, who was also his brother-in-law, for he had married his sister Salome, as his viceroy, and had committed Mariamme to his care. And as he considered his going before Antony as dangerous, he had commanded Joseph, in case he should not return, to kill Mariamme, for his passionate love for her could not brook the thought that any other should ever obtain his beloved. When, then, he did return, Salome calumniated her own husband, charging him with having himself had unlawful intercourse with Mariamme. Herod at first gave no heed to the calumny, as Mariamme maintained her innocence. But when he learned that Mariamme knew about that secret command, which the chattering old man had told her as a proof of the peculiar love of Herod, Herod thought that he had in this a confirmation of those charges, and caused Joseph to be executed, without affording him an opportunity of being heard.[526]
[526] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 3. 5-6, 9. On the parallel passage, Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 4-5, see under, note 50.
The fourth hostile power during this first period of Herod’s reign was Cleopatra. She had even previously, by her combination with Alexandra, been the means of giving troubled days to Herod. It was still more unfortunate for him that she now sought to use her influence with Antony to obtain an increase of territory. Antony at first gave no heed to her demands. But at length, during that same expedition against Armenia, in B.C. 34, he was induced to bestow upon her the whole of Phoenicia and the coast of the Philistines south of Eleutherus, with exception only of Tyre and Sidon,[527] and besides, a part of the Arabian territory, and the fairest and most fertile part of the kingdom of Herod, the celebrated district of Jericho, with its palm trees and balsams.[528] Opposition on the part of Herod was not to be thought of, and he was now obliged to take his own land in lease from Cleopatra.[529] He had indeed to accept the disagreeable with as good a grace as possible, and to receive Cleopatra with all honour and with royal munificence when she, on her return from the Euphrates, to which point she had accompanied Antony, paid a visit to Judea. But when she sought to draw him also into her net, he was cunning enough not to commit himself any more into her power.[530]
[527] See map in Menke’s Bibelatlas.
[528] The district of Jericho was at that time the most fruitful part and the most profitable for revenue in all Palestine. This is stated most decidedly in Strabo, xvi. 2. 41, p. 763, and in Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 8. 3. Near Jericho there was, according to Strabo, the palm forest (ὁ φοινικών), extending to a hundred stadia, and the balsam garden (ὁ τοῦ βαλσάμου παράδεισος), which produced the produced balsam resin used as a means of healing. Josephus also represents the date palm and the balsam shrub as the two principal plants grown in the district. This region, peculiarly rich in revenue in consequence of its being so well watered and possessing so hot a climate, is reckoned by Josephus as extending to twenty stadia in breadth and seventy stadia in length. Since both of these products were greatly in request (compare Strabo, xvii. 1. 15, p. 800), Josephus rightly designates this region a θεῖον χωρίον, ἐν ᾦ δαψιλῆ τὰ σπανιώτατα καὶ κάλλιστα γεννᾶται (Wars of the Jews, iv. 8. 3). Elsewhere, too, he takes every opportunity of expatiating upon the fruitfulness of the district of Jericho, with its palm trees and balsam shrubs (Antiq. iv. 6. 1, xiv. 4. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 6; Antiq. xv. 4. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 5). In one passage he expressly declares that it was the most fruitful part of Judea (Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 6; τὸ τῆς Ἰουδαίας πιότατον). Subsequently Herod extended the palm plantations as far as Phasaelis (see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 131). Archelaus built near Jericho a new aqueduct for watering the palm groves there (Antiq. xvii. 13. 1).—Also in Trogus Pompeius, according to the correct reading restored by Rühl, Jericho is spoken of as the centre of the palm and balsam culture of the Jordan valley (Justin’s Abstract, xxxvi. 3): “Opes genti ex vectigalibus opobalsami crevere, quod in his tantum regionibus gignitur. Est namque vallis, quae continuis montibus velut muro quodam ad instar hortorum clauditur. Spatium loci ducenta jugera; nomine Ericus dicitur. In ea silva est et ubertate et amoenitate insignis, siquidem palmeto et opobalsameto distinguitur.” Then follows a description of the balsam shrub, which is trained like the vine, and is annually at a fixed time stripped of its balsam.—Diodorus Siculus places the palm and balsam plantations in general in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea, for after giving a description of the balsam he proceeds (ii. 48. 9, almost in the same words as in xix. 98. 4): Ἀγαθὴ δʼ ἐστὶ φοινικόφυτος … Γίνεται δὲ περὶ τοὺς τόπους τούτους ἐν αὐλῶνί τινι καὶ τὸ καλούμενον βάλσαμον, ἐξ οὖ πρέσοδον λαμπρὰν [xix. 98. 4: ἁδρὰν] λαμβάνουσιν, οὐδαμοῦ, μὲν τῆς ἄλλης σἰκουμένης εὑρισκομένου τοῦ φυτοῦ τούτου, τῆς δʼ ἐξ αὐτοῦ χρείας εἰς φάρμακα τοῖς ἰατροῖς καθʼ ὑπερβολὴν εὐθετούσης.—According to Pliny, the dates of Jericho were the best in the world, Historia Naturalis, xiii. 4. 44: “sed ut copia ibi [in Aethiopiae fine] atque fertilitas, ita nobilitas in Judaea, nec in tota, sed Hiericunte maxume, quamquam laudatae et Archelaide et Phaselide atque Liviade, gentis ejusdem convallibus.” Compare xiii. 4. 26: “Judaea vero incluta est vel magis palmis;” xiii. 4. 49: “Servantur hi demum qui nascuntur in saisis atque sabulosis, ut in Judaea atque Cyrenaica Africa.” Pliny’s most complete treatment of the balsam (Historia Naturalis, xii. 25. 111-123) begins with the following words: “Sed omnibus odoribus praefertur balsamum, uni terrarum Judaeae concessum, quondam in duobus tantum hertis, utroque regio, altero jugerum xx. non amplius, altero pauciorum.” The way in which the balsam was obtained was this: the bark was slit with a stone, not an iron instrument, and then the thick juice ran out and was gathered in small vessels.—Tacitus also, in his Historia, v. 6, mentions among the most important products of Palestine balsamum et palmae. He describes the mode of securing the balsam similarly to Pliny (compare also Strabo, p. 763, and Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 6).—Pausanias also gives it as a special proof of the superiority of the palms of Palestine, that “their fruit is always fit for use,” i.e. even when dried (he tells, ix. 19. 8, of the sanctuary at Mykalessus in Boeotia: Φοίνικες δε πρὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ πεφύκασιν οὐκ ἐς ἅπαν ἐδώδιμον παρεχόμενοι καρκόν, ὥεπερ ἐν τῇ Παλαιστίνῃ). To Horace also the material value of these plantations was known. As an example of a particularly rich and valuable estate, he speaks of Herodis palmetis pinguibus (Epistolae, ii. 2. 184).—According to Dioscorides, i. 18, the balsam used as a means of healing grew only in Judea and Egypt (βάλσαμον … γεννώμενον ἐν μόνῃ Ἰουδαίᾳ κατά τινα αὐλῶνα καὶ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ).—We hear of the existence of the palm groves of Jericho during somewhere about two thousand years. Even in the Old Testament Jericho is called “the city of palm trees” (עִיר הַתְּמָרִים, Deuteronomy 34:3; Judges 1:16; Judges 3:13; 2 Chronicles 28:15). Among Greek writers, Theophrastus, the pupil of Aristotle, speaks of the palm and balsam plantations of the Jordan valley. Of the palms, he says that only in three places in Coele-Syria with a saline soil do such grow as can have their fruit made use of (Hist. plant. ii. 6. 2.: τῆς Συρίας δὲ τῆς Κοίλης, ἐν ᾗ γʼ οἱ πλεῖστοι τυγχάνουσιν, ἐν τρισὶ μόνοις τόποις ἁλμώδεσιν εἶναι τοὺς δυναμένους θησαυρίζεσθαι; ii. 6. 8: θησαυρίζεσθαι δὲ μόνους δύνασθαί φασι τῶν ἐν Συρίᾳ τοὺς ἐν τῷ αὐλῶνι. This αὐλών of Syria, where the palms grow, extends, according to ii. 6. 5, to the Red Sea). On the balsam he says, in Hist. plant. ix. 6. 1: Τὸ δὲ βάλσαμον γίνεται μὲν ἐν τῷ αὐλῶνι τῷ περὶ Συρίαν. Παραδείσους δʼ εἶναί φασι δύο μόνους, τὸν μὲν ὅσον εἴκοσι πλέθρων τὸν δʼ ἕτερον πολλῷ ἐλάττονα (Pliny, in the above-quoted passage, derives his information from this source). In the Mishna it is related that the inhabitants of Jericho were wont to prop up the palms (Pesachim iv. 8). A Descriptio orbis of the fourth century after Christ remarks upon the rich revenue (Müller, Geographi graec. minores, ii. 513 sqq., c. 31: “Nicolaum vero palmulam invenies abundare in Palaestina regione, in loco qui dicitur Hiericho”). The existence of the palm groves there is also witnessed to by the Christian pilgrims Arculf in the seventh century (see Tobler et Molinier, Itinera Hierosolymitana, i. 1879, p. 176) and Saewulf in the beginning of the eighth century (see Guérin, Samarie, i. 49). An English translation of the travels of Arculf and Saewulf is given in a volume of Bohn’s Antiquarian Library, Early Travels in Balestine. In the year 1838, Robinson saw there still one palm tree (Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 290), which in the year 1888 was only a withered stump (Zeitschrift des DPV. xi. 98).—Compare generally the articles “Balsam,” “Dattelpalme,” “Jericho,” in Winer’s Realwörterbuch; Ritter, Erdkunde, xiii. 760-858; Theobald Fischer, Die Dattelpalme, ihre geographische Verbreitung und culturhistorische Bedeutung, 1881 (=Petermann’s Mittheilungen, 64, Ergänzungsheft; Anderlind, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Bd. xi. 1888, pp. 97-99 (occurrence of the date palm in modern Syria).—On Jericho and its neighbourhood, see Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 273-304; Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 1, pp. 600-534; Tobler, Topographie von Jerusalem, ii. 642-669; Sepp, Jerusalem und das heilige Land, 2 Aufl. i. 720-734; Guérin, Samarie, i. 46-53; Baedeker-Socin, Palästina, 1 Aufl. p. 273 ff.; The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii. 222 (Plan of the aqueducts near Jericho in the time of the Romans); and with this also the large English Map, Sheet xviii.
[529] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 4. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 5.—Plutarch, Antony, 36, and Dio Cassius, xlix. 32, assign this gift of territory to an earlier period. Compare above, p. 402.
[530] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 4. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 5.
Thus Herod’s first four or five years were spent amid various struggles for his own very existence. The outbreak in B.C. 32 of the war between Antony and Octavian caused fresh anxieties. Herod wished to hasten with a powerful army to the help of Antony; but at the instigation of Cleopatra he was instead ordered by Antony to fight against the Arabian king. That prince had latterly failed to pay regularly his tribute to Cleopatra, and was now to be punished for that fault. And Cleopatra wished that the war should be committed to Herod, in order that the two vassal kings might naturally weaken and reduce one another. And thus Herod was sent against the king of Arabia rather than against Octavian. But as Athenio, Cleopatra’s commander, went to the help of the Arabians, he suffered a crushing defeat, and found himself obliged to stop the great war, and rest satisfied with mere robber raids and plundering expeditions.[531]
[531] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 19. 1-3.
Then again in the spring of B.C. 31 a new calamity befell him, for a terrible earthquake visited the country, by which 30,000 men lost their lives. Herod now wished to treat for peace with the Arabians; but these slew his ambassadors and renewed their attack. Herod required to use all his eloquence in order to induce his dispirited troops again to enter into the engagement. But this time his old fortune in war returned to him. He drove before him the Arabian army in utter rout, and compelled its remnants, which had sought refuge in a fortress, soon to surrender. Proud of this brilliant success, he returned home.[532]
[532] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 5. 2-5; Wars of the Jews, i. 19. 3-6.
Soon thereafter, on 2nd September B.C. 31, the decisive battle at Actium was fought, by which Antony finally lost his power. It was at the same time a sore blow to Herod. But with that adroitness which was characteristic of him, he passed over at the right time into the camp of the conqueror, and soon found an opportunity for proving his change of mind by action. In Cyzicus there was a troop of Antony’s gladiators, who held themselves in readiness for the games, by which Antony had intended to celebrate his victory over Octavian. When these now heard of the defeat and flight of Antony, they wished to hasten to Egypt to the assistance of their master. But Didius, the governor of Syria, hindered their departure, and Herod afforded him in this zealous and efficient aid.[533]
[533] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 6. 7; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 2. Dio Cassius, li. 7.
After he had given such a proof of his disposition, he could venture to present himself before Augustus. But in order to secure himself against any miscarriage, he contrived to have the aged Hyrcanus, the only one who might prove a dangerous rival, as nearer to the throne than himself, put out of the way. That Hyrcanus was condemned to death for conspiring with the Arabian king, as was affirmed in Herod’s own journals, is highly improbable when we consider the character and the extreme age of Hyrcanus. Other contemporary writers have expressly declared his innocence. For Herod in his critical position, the mere existence of Hyrcanus was sufficient motive for the bloody deed. Thus fell the last of the Asmoneans, a memorial of past times, an old man more than eighty years of age, a sacrifice to the jealousy and ambition of Herod.[534]
[534] Josephus, Antiq. xv, 6. 1-4; Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 1.
Herod now set out to meet Augustus, who had passed the winter, B.C. 31-30, for the most part in Samos.[535] He met him in the spring of B.C. 30 in Rhodes. At the meeting he played his part skilfully. He boasted of his friendship with Antony, and of the service which he had rendered him, and wished in this way to prove how useful he might be to any one whose party he might join. Augustus was not inclined to give too much heed to this speech, but found it to his advantage to win over to himself the crafty and energetic Idumean who had been the steady friend of the Romans. He was very gracious to him, and confirmed him in his royal rank. With this joyful result Herod returned to his own home.[536]
[535] Suetonius, Augustus, c. 17.
[536] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 6. 5-7 ; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 1-3.
Soon thereafter, in the summer, Augustus left Asia Minor and touched at the Phoenician coast on his way to Egypt, and Herod failed not to receive him with all pomp at Ptolemais, and took care that during that hot season of the year his army in its march should want for nothing.[537]
[537] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 6. 7 ; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 3.
After Augustus in Egypt had done with Antony, who, as well as Cleopatra, had committed suicide in August B.C. 30, Herod again visited Augustus, undoubtedly with the intention of wishing him success, and securing for himself as great a reward as possible. In this latter object he was completely successful. Augustus now gave him back, not only the district of Jericho, but also Gadara, Hippos, Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, and Straton’s Tower.[538]—In proof of his gratitude, Herod gave his patron, on his return from Egypt in the end of B.C. 30, the pleasure of his company as far as Antioch.[539]
[538] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 7. 3 ; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 3.—On all these cities, see § 23. 1.
[539] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 7. 4.
While thus he had exchanged his outward dangers for good fortune, Herod had nothing but confusion and strife in his own house. Even when he had gone away to Rhodes, he had committed the guardianship of Mariamme to a certain Soemus, and to him again he had given the same command as before to Joseph.[540] Mariamme had also this time again come to know it, and gave to Herod on his return proofs of her aversion.[541] The mother of Herod, Cypros, and his sister Salome, who had both for a long time been disaffected toward the proud Mariamme, were greatly gratified at this misunderstanding, and they knew how to inflame the quarrel by giving currency to the most scandalous calumnies. At last Salome managed to bribe the king’s cupbearer, and got him to declare that Mariamme had given him a poison draught in order that he should give it to Herod. When Herod heard this, he had Mariamme’s eunuch examined by torture in reference to this matter. This servant indeed knew nothing of the poison draught, but confessed that Mariamme hated her husband on account of the command which he had given to Soemus. When, now, Herod heard that Soemus, as well as Joseph, had betrayed the secret of his command, he saw again in this a proof of unlawful intercourse, and cried out saying that he had now evidence of his wife’s unfaithfulness. Soemus was immediately executed ; Mariamme, after a judicial investigation, was condemned, and then executed in the end of B.C. 29.[542]
[540] Ibid. xv. 6. 5.
[541] Ibid. xv. 7. 1-2.
[542] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 7. 3-6.—A fabulous Talmudic story about the death of Mariamme is given by Derenbourg, p. 151.—In criticism of the account repeated by us from Josephus Destinon (Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, 1882, p. 113): “It is remarkable how precisely in order of time the succession of events correspond in the two journeys of the king to. Antony and Augustus (Antiq. xv. 3. 5-6 and 9, xv. 6. 5, 7. 1-6). On both occasions he put his wife under the guardianship of a trusted individual, with instructions, if anything should happen to prevent his return, that she should be slain; both times her guardians, meaning no harm, communicated the secret to her; the king returning home learns this, becomes suspicious of gross infidelity, and has the innocent executed.… Moreover, it is remarkable that the second story is wholly omitted in the Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 4-5; according to the story given there, Herod kills not only Joseph, but also Mariamme, on his return from Antony. It might be supposed that the two narratives in the Antiquities refer to one and the same occurrence, that Josephus found the second story perhaps in some secondary document, and regarding it, in consequence of the introduction of the name Soemus, as different from the story given in his principal document, incorporated it in his narrative of the journey of Herod to Augustus, so that no particular might be omitted.”—This explanation might without more ado be accepted, were it not, on the other hand, firmly established that the Wars of the Jews frequently reproduces in a greatly abbreviated form the same original document as is used in the Antiquities, and that the first story is expressly presupposed in the second tale of the Antiquities (xv. 7. 1: τὰς Ἰωσήπῳ δοθείσας ἐντολὰς ἀνεμνημόνευεν). That the same story would have been repeated in an almost identical form, is scarcely probable. But it does seem to me probable that both stories had already had a place in the principal source used by Josephus, and that specially for this reason, that in both passages the narrative of domestic. circumstances is so clearly bound up with the exposition of the political history. In both passages the political history is introduced between the beginning and end of the domestic affairs.
In Herod’s relations with Mariamme were revealed all the savagery and sensuality of his nature. Ungovernable and passionate as his love for her was, such was also his hatred so soon as he thought himself deceived by his wife. But equally ungovernable and passionate was also his yearning over his beloved whom he himself had murdered. In order to drown the pangs of remorse, he sought relief in wild excesses, drinking bouts, and the pleasures of the chase. But even his powerful frame could not endure such an excessive strain. While he was hunting in Samaria he fell ill, and was obliged there to take to his bed. As his recovery was doubtful, Alexandra began to scheme, so that in the event of his death she might secure the throne to herself. She applied herself to those in command of the two fortified places in Jerusalem, and sought to win them over to her side. But they reported the matter to Herod, and Alexandra, who had long deserved that fate far more than others, was then executed some time in B.C. 28.[543]
[543] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 7. 7-8.
Gradually Herod recovered, and soon found occasion for further bloodshed. A distinguished Idumean, Costobar, had been, soon after his accession, appointed by Herod governor of Idumea, and had subsequently been married to Salome, whose first husband, Joseph, had been executed in B.C. 34. Even during this first period he had secretly conspired against Herod with Cleopatra, but had been received into Herod’s favour again at the entreaty of Salome.[544] But now Salome herself was tired of her husband, and in order to rid herself of him she had recourse to denunciation. She knew that her husband had preserved the sons of Babas,[545] as it seems, distant relatives of the Asmonean house, whom Herod ever since his conquest of Jerusalem had in vain sought to track out. This information she communicated to her brother. Herod, when he heard this, promptly resolved upon the course he would pursue. Costobar, together with his protégés, whose place of concealment Salome had betrayed, was seized and executed in B.C. 25. And now Herod could console himself with the thought that of all the relatives of the aged Hyrcanus there was no longer one surviving who could dispute with him the occupancy of the throne.[546]—Here then the first period closes, the period of conflict with hostile powers.
[544] Ibid. xv. 7. 9.
[545] The name Βαβας is found on an inscription given by Euting, Sitzungeberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1885, p. 685, Tafel xi. n. 80.—A בבא בן בוטי appears in Kerioth vi. 3; a יהודה בן בבא in Erubin ii. 4-5; Jebamoth xvi. 3, 5, 7; Edujoth vi. 1, viii. 2 (the Cambridge Manuscript has בן בבא four times, and בן אבא three times).
[546] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 7. 10. At the close of the narrative Josephus says expressly: ὥστε εἶναι μηδὲν ὑπόλοιπον ἐκ τῆς Ὑρκανοῦ συγγενείας. It is indeed only the male relatives that are here intended. For, according to Antiq. xvii. 5. 2, fin., the daughter of Antigonus, the last of the Asmonean kings, continued alive for about twenty years after this, and she had been married to Herod’s eldest son Antipater.
II
The period from B.C. 25 to B.C. 13 is the period of glory and enjoyment, although the enjoyment was not altogether unchequered and undisturbed.
Among the glories of the period are to be reckoned the magnificent buildings which he erected. All the provinces vied with one another in their celebration of the emperor-cultus, and in the lavishness of display every fourth year at the festal games in honour of Caesar. For the former purpose emperor-temples (Καισάρεια) were erected; for the latter, theatres, amphitheatres, race-courses for men and for horses. New cities also were founded in honour of Caesar, and called after his name. “Provinciarum pleraeque super templa et aras ludos quoque quinquennales paene oppidatim constituerunt. Reges amici atque socii et singuli in suo quisque regno Caesareas urbes condiderunt.”[547] All these endeavours were entered upon by Herod with that energy by which he was characterized. But he was also unweariedly active in erecting other buildings for purposes of use and luxury, and in the reconstruction of entire cities.[548]
[547] Suetonius, Augustus, 59-60. Compare generally on the cultus of the emperor, Div. ii. vol. i. p. 15; and on the festal games the same volume, pp. 23-28.
[548] On the buildings of Herod, compare Hirt, Ueber die Baus Herodes des Grossen überhaupt, und über seinen Tempelbau zu Jerusalem insbesonders (Abhandlungen der histor.-philolog. Klasse der Berliner Akademie aus den Jahren, 1816-1817, pp. 1-24); van der Chijs, de Herode Magno, pp. 55-57.
In Jerusalem a theatre was reared; in the valley near Jerusalem, an amphitheatre.[549] Some time later, about B.C. 24, Herod built for himself a royal palace, upon which marble and gold were lavished with profusion. It was provided with strong fortifications, and thus was made to serve also as a castle for the upper city.[550] Even during the time of Antony he had had the citadel north of the temple rebuilt and named Antonia in honour of his patron.[551]—In the non-Jewish cities of his territory, and farther away in the province of Syria, he built numerous temples, especially such as he built in honour of Caesar (Καισάρεια), and adorned them with statuary of the most beautiful description.[552]
[549] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 8. 1: καὶ θέατρον ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ᾠκοδόμησεν, αὖθις τʹ ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ μέλιστον ἀμφιθέατρον. Also the hippodrome in Jerusalem, which is casually referred to (Antiq. xvii. 10. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 3. 1), was certainly built by Herod; so, too, were the theatre, amphitheatre, and hippodrome in Jericho (see about these in Div. ii. vol. i. p. 33).—Schick (Quarterly Statement of Palestine Exploration Fund (1887), pp. 161-166) gives interesting reports with plans of a theatre near Jerusalem discovered by him. It lay south of the city (south-south-west of Bir Ejub, north of Wadi Jasul; its distance from Wadi Hinnom is not much greater than that of the latter from the present city wall). The crescent-shaped space for the spectators may still be marked out with perfect certainty. It is hewn out of the natural rock on the north side of a hill, so that the spectators had a view of the city. A straight line drawn through the middle of the sitting benches measures 132 feet; the benches rise regularly at an angle of 37 degrees. It is very strange that Schick should call his interesting discovery an amphitheatre, since his plan and description leave no room for doubt that what he had before him was a theatre. The amphitheatre was always an enclosed elongated circle, in the middle of which was the arena for gladiatorial combats and contests with wild beasts. The theatre, on the other hand, was a semicircle, on the open side of which the stage was erected for dramatic performances. Schick had been misled into this erroneous nomenclature by Josephus’ statement that the theatre of Herod was ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις, whereas the building discovered by Schick lay outside of the city. But he himself must admit the building discovered by him does not by any means lie ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ, which, according to Josephus, was the position of the amphitheatre. If therefore ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις means “within the city walls,” then the building discovered by Schick could neither be the theatre nor the amphitheatre of Herod. But that rendering is not at all necessary, and so the identifying of the theatre of Schick and that of Herod is quite possible and highly probable.—Also on the restoration of the city of Hadrian the site once occupied by Herod would not be overlooked.
[550] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 9. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 1. Compare the description given in Wars of the Jews, v. 4. 3-4.—A tower of the palace of Herod is in a state of partial preservation to this day, the so-called Tower of David. See the description by Schick, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, i. 1878, pp. 226-237.
[551] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 8. 5, 11. 4, xviii. 4. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 1. Compare the description given in Wars of the Jews, v. 5. 8; Tacitus, History, v. 11, fin.
[552] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 9. 5; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 4. Compare. Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 23. 3 (temple at Paneion). Also the reconstructed cities of Sebaste and Caesarea contained each a temple of Augustus.—De Vogüé and Waddington found at Sîʿa (a league and a half from Qanawât, at the western base of the Hauran) the ruins of a temple of the Herodian era (a sketch of which is given by de Vogüé in his Syrie Centrale, Architecture Civile et Religieuse, pl. 2 et 3). Among these ruins were also found the following subscription of an early statue of Herod: [Βα]σιλεῖ Ἡρώδει κυρίῳ Ὀβαίσατος Σαόδου ἔθηκα τὸν ἀνδριάντα ταῖς ἐμαῖς δαπάναι[ς]. Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions Grecques et Latines, t. iii. n. 2364.
New cities in large number were built under his direction throughout the land. The old Samaria, which after its destruction had been already rebuilt by Gabinius, was now reconstructed by Herod in a magnificent style, and received from him the name of Sebaste.[553] Not satisfied with this, he engaged in the year B.C. 22 on a still more ambitious undertaking, for he erected on the coast, on the site of the ancient Straton’s Tower, a new city of large and imposing dimensions, to which he gave the name of Caesarea. As deserving of special mention, Josephus speaks of the commodious haven attached to the city. In order to secure ships while receiving their cargo from the storms, a powerful breakwater was carried far out into the sea, the material for which had to be brought from a considerable distance. On the breakwater were erected dwellings for the seamen, and in front of these paths were made for pleasure walks. In the midst of the city was a hill, on which a temple in honour of the emperor was built, which could be seen far out at sea. Twelve full years were occupied in the building of the city. And when it had been completed, a grand celebration of the event was made with great pomp in the 28th year of Herod, corresponding to B.C. 10-9.[554]
[553] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 8. 5; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 2; Strabo, xvi. p. 760. For further details, see Div. ii. vol. i pp. 123-127. On the time of the building, see above, p. 405.
[554] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 9. 6, xvi. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 5-8. Compare also, Antiq. xv. 8. 5; Pliny, Historia Naturalis, v. 13. 69. On the subsequent history of Caesarea, see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 84-87. Also on the temple of Augustus, see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 15-17.
But Herod’s love of building had not yet received full satisfaction. In place of the ancient Capharsaba, he founded a city, which he named in honour of his father Antipatris. At Jericho he built a citadel which he named after his mother Cypros. In the Jordan valley, north of Jericho, he founded, in a previously unbuilt but fruitful district, a new city, and named it after his brother Phasaelis.[555] The ancient Anthedon he reconstructed, and, in honour of Agrippa, named it Agrippaeum.[556] In honour of himself, he named two new strongholds Herodium; the one lay in the mountainous region toward Arabia; the other on the spot, three leagues south of Jerusalem, where he had conquered the Jews who pursued him after his flight from Jerusalem. The latter fortress was also supplied with rooms beautifully fitted up for the use of the king.[557] The strongholds of Alexandrium and Hyrcania, built by the Armenians but destroyed by Gabinius, were now restored by Herod, and furnished with new fortifications.[558] He dealt similarly also with the fortresses of Machärus and Masada, both of which he adorned with royal palaces.[559] Military requirements also led to the rebuilding of Gaba in Galilee and Esbon in Perea, in which places he established military colonies.[560]
[555] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 5. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 9. On Antipatris and Phasaelis, see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 130-132.
[556] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 8. Compare Antiq. xiii. 13. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 4. 2. In the two latter passages the name is given in the form of Agrippias. On the subsequent history of the city, see Div. ii. vol. i pp. 72, 73.
[557] Wars of the Jews, i. 21.10. On the second-named and more important of these fortresses, see also Antiq. xv. 9. 4; comp. Antiq. xiv. 13. 9; Wars of the Jews, i. 13. 8. During the Roman period it was the chief town of a toparchy (Wars of the Jews, iii. 3. 5; Pliny, Historia Naturalis, v. 14. 70: Herodium cum oppido inlustri ejusdem nominis). During the war of Vespasian it formed one of the last refuges for the rebels (Wars of the Jews, vii 6. 1). According to Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 5, Herodium lay in the neighbourhood of Tekoa (στρατοπεδευσάμενος δὲ κατά τινα κώμην ἣ Θεκωὲ καγεῖται, πρὸς τοὺς ἐν Ἡρωδείῳ φρουρούς, ὅπερ ἦν πλεσίον.) According to Antiq. xiv. 13. 9, xv. 9. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 13. 8, 21. 10, it was 60 furlongs south of Jerusalem. Seeing, then, that the present Tekoah is more than 60 furlongs south of Jerusalem, Herodium must have lain to the north of Tekoa. Of this at least there can be no doubt, that the steep rock which now by Europeans is called Frankenberg, and by natives Jebel-el-Fureidis (Paradise, fruit-garden), is to be identified with Herodium. The distance from Jerusalem in a direct line, as given in the large English map, is 8 Roman miles, or 64 furlongs. On the hill there are to this day remnants of the round towers which Herod, according to the statement of Josephus (Antiq. xv. 9. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 10), had built there. Also traces are still discernible of the stone steps which are made mention of by Josephus. Compare generally, Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 173-175; Tobler, Topographie von Jerusalem, ii. 565-572; Sepp, Jerusalem, 2 Aufl. i. 643 f.; De Saulcy, Voyage en Terre Sainte, i. 168 sqq.; Guérin, Judée, iii. 122-132; Baedeker-Socin, Palästina, 1 Aufl. p. 267; Schick, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, iii. 1880, pp. 88-99 (with plans); The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii. 315 sq., 320-332; Ebers and Guthe, Palästina, i. 158 f.; Ohlmann, Die Fortschritte der Ortskunde von Palästina, 1 Thl. (Norden 1887) p. 17 f.
[558] Both fortresses are mentioned first in the time of Alexandra (Antiq. xiii. 16. 3). In Alexandrium, Aristobulus waited the arrival of Pompey, but was forced to surrender the fortress to him (Antiq. xiv. 3. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 5). Both the fortresses were razed by Gabinius, because they had been strongholds to Alexander in his revolt (Antiq. xiv. 5. 2-4; Wars of the Jews. i. 8. 2-5). Alexandrium was fortified again by Pheroras (Antiq. xiv. 15. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 16. 3). Hyrcania for a long time served as a place of refuge for the sister of Antigonus, and it was only shortly before the battle of Actium that Herod secured possession of it (Wars of the Jews). The new fortifications which Herod erected in both places were so important that he showed them to Agrippa on his visit as worthy of attention (Antiq. xvi. 2. 1). The situation of Hyrcania is not known. Alexandrium is probably identical with Mount Sartaba on the border of the Jordan valley north of Jericho (see above, p. 320).
[559] Machärus had been first fortified by Alexander Jannäus (Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 2). Its restoration by Herod is fully described by Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 2.—Masada had been fortified by the high priest Jonathan (Wars of the Jews, vii. 8. 3). On its restoration by Herod, see Wars of the Jews, vii. 8. 3.—Both fortresses played an important part in the war of Vespasian. On their situation and history, see further details in § 20 at the end.
[560] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 8. 5. Compare Wars of the Jews, iii. 3. 1. For further details regarding both, see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 127-130.
Also far beyond the bounds of Palestine architectural works proclaimed the liberality of Herod. For the Rhodians, Herod built at his own cost the Pythian temple. He aided in the construction of most of the public buildings of the city of Nicopolis, which had been founded by Augustus near Actium. In Antioch he caused colonnades to be erected along both sides of the principal street.[561] Happening on one occasion to visit Chios, he spent a large sum on the rebuilding of the piazza, destroyed during the Mithridatic war.[562] In Ascalon he built baths and fountains. Tyre and Sidon, Byblus and Berytus, Tripolis, Ptolemais, and Damascus were also graced with memorials to the glory of Herod’s name. And even as far as Athens and Lacedæmonia proofs of his liberality were to be found.[563]
[561] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 5. 3.
[562] Ibid. xvi. 2. 2.
[563] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 11.—In an inscription at Athens (Corpus Inscript. Graec. n. 361=Corpus Inscript. Attic. iii. 1, n. 556), Berenice, the daughter of Agrippa I., is named: μεγάλων βασιλέων εὐεργετῶν τῆς πόλεως ἔκγονος.—Perhaps also the inscription at Athens (Corpus Inscript. Attic. iii. 1, n. 550) refers to Herod the Great: Ὁ δῆμος βασιλέα Ἡρώδην φιλορώμαιον εὐεργεσίας ἕνεκεν καί εὐνοίας τῆς εἰς ἑαυτόν. Another similar one (CIA. iii. 1, n. 551) is, on account of its divergent title, referred to another Herod, Herod of Chalcis.
But the most magnificent of all his building operations was the restoration of the temple of Jerusalem. The old temple, built by Zerubbabel, was no longer in keeping with the magnificence of the modern structures. The palaces in its neighbourhood quite eclipsed it in grandeur. But now, as was only proper, it was to be brought into harmony with its beautiful surroundings. The rebuilding was begun in the eighteenth year of Herod, corresponding to B.C. 20-19, or A.U.C. 734-735. After the temple proper was completed it was consecrated; but still the building was carried on for a long period, and only a few years before its destruction, in the time of Albinus (A.D. 62-64), was it actually finished. Its beauty was proverbial. “He who has not seen Herod’s building has never seen anything beautiful,” was a common proverb of that day.[564]
[564] On the history of the building, see Josephus, Antiq. xv. 11; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 1. In the former passage Josephus gives a detailed description of the whole extent of the temple buildings, with their beautiful porticoes. The inner court and the temple proper are described with the most minute accuracy (Wars of the Jews, v. 5). With this description of Josephus the account given in the Mishna, in the tract Middoth, agrees in all essential particulars. A brief and merely summary description is given by Philo, De monarchia, lib. ii. § 2 (ed. Mangey, ii. 223 sq.).—The Jewish proverb and other Rabbinical traditions are given in Derenbourg, pp. 152-154.—With all its grandeur, however, the temple was still inferior to the palace of Herod (Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 1).—On the date of the building, see above, p. 410. On its completion in the time of Albinus, see Antiq. xx. 9. 7.—On the measures taken in order to maintain the ordinances of worship while the building was proceeding, see Edujoth viii. 6. “Rabbi Elieser said: I have heard that when the temple (היכל) was being built, they made curtains (קלעים) for the temple and curtains for the court; and then they built the walls of the temple outside of the curtains, but those of the court inside of the curtains.” While the temple was building, it is said that rain fell only by night (Josephus, Antiq. xv. 11. 7; Derenbourg, p. 152 sq.).—On the basis of the description given in Josephus and in the Mishna tract Middoth, the temple of Herod has been in innumerable instances represented in modern literature. The most important literature is catalogued in Haneberg, Die religiösen Alterthümer der Bibel, 2 Aufl. 1869, pp. 260-265. Summary descriptions are given in the articles on the temple in Winer’s Realwörterbuch, ii. 578-591; Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, v. 479-484; and Riehm’s Handwörterbuch, pp. 1636-1645; in Keil’s Biblical Archaeology, i. 187-201; Robinson, Bibl. Researches, i. 365-433; Ewald, History of Israel, v. 432-434; Stanley, Jewish Church, iii. 436-444; and the handbooks on Jewish Antiquities by De Wette, Haneberg, and others (see above, p. 14). The statements of Josephus are well summarized by Spiess, Das Jerusalem des Josephus, 1881, pp. 46-94. Compare also Hirt, Ueber die Baue Herodes der Grossen (see above, p. 432). The differences between Josephus and the Mishna are examined by Hildesheimer, Die Beschreibung des herodianischen Tempels in Tractate Middoth und bei Flavius Josephus (Jahresbericht des Rabbiner-Seminars für das orthodoxe Judenthum, Berlin 1876, 1877). Speculations on its measurements may be seen in O. Wolff, Der Tempel von Jerusalem und seine Maasse, Gräz 1887.—For determining topographical questions of detail) especially in reference to the outer limits of the temple and its gates, a knowledge of recent discoveries is indispensable. Exact descriptions of these are given in de Vogüé, Le temple de Jérusalem, 1864; and Schick, Beit el Makdas oder der alte Tempelplatz zu Jerusalem, wie er jetzt ist, 1887. An investigation into the antiquity of the various portions of the surrounding wall as it now stands may be seen in Perrot and Chipiez, Histoire de l’art dans l’antiquité, t. iv. 1887, pp. 176-218. Valuable materials for the topography of the temple site are contained in the works of Rosen, de Saulcy, the volume on “Jerusalem” in the Survey of Western Palestine (1884), together with the plans, elevations, sections (1884) on the largest scale attached thereto; and generally almost all the works on the topography of Jerusalem referred to above on pp. 17-20.—The prevailing view that the present boundaries of the temple site represent exactly those of the temple restored by Herod, is opposed by Fergusson, The Temples of the Jews and other Buildings in the Harem Area at Jerusalem, London 1879; and Prof. Robertson Smith in his article “Temple” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. xxiii. 1888, pp. 168-171.
Besides the buildings, the games, celebrated with great pomp and magnificence, belonged to the glory of the Augustan period. In this department also Herod was quite abreast of the requirements of the age. Not only in the predominantly pagan Caesarea, but even in Jerusalem, competitive games were celebrated every fourth year.[565] To the eyes of legalistic Jews these pagan exhibitions, with their slight valuation of the life of men and animals, constituted a serious offence, which could be tolerated only under threat of severe measures.[566] The zeal of the king, however, went so far that he even gave liberal grants in support of the old Olympic games.[567]
[565] In Caesarea, Antiq. xvi. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 8. In Jerusalem, Antiq. xv. 8. 1.—The expressions, κατὰ πενταετηρίδα (Antiq. xvi. 5. 1), πενταετηρικοὶ ἀγῶνες (Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 8), and πανήγυρις τῆς πενταετηρίδος (Antiq. xv. 8. 1), are not to be held as meaning that the plays were celebrated every fifth year, but every fourth year (as we would express it). See Div. ii. vol. i. p. 23.
[566] On the view taken of the games by the strict loyalists among the Jews, see Div. ii. vol. i p. 32, and the literature there referred to.
[567] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 6. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 12.
How unweariedly and extravagantly he also in other ways promoted culture and learning of every kind we are informed from explicit statements by Josephus. Very serviceable indeed was the colonizing of the districts west of the lake of Gennesareth hitherto traversed only by robber nomad tribes.[568] He laid out at great cost the parks and gardens about his palace at Jerusalem. Walks and water canals were made through the gardens; water fountains decorated with iron works of art were to be seen, through which the water gushed. In the neighbourhood of these stood dovecots with tamed pigeons.[569] The king seemed to have a special fondness for pigeon-breeding; it is, indeed, only in connection with this that mention is made of Herod in the Mishna. “Herodian pigeons” is the phrase used for pigeons kept in captivity.[570] It seems, therefore, that Herod was the first in Judea to keep and rear wild pigeons in an enclosed place.
[568] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 9. 2 (colonizing by 3000 Idumeans). Antiq. xvii. 2. 1-3 (settlement of a colony of Babylonian Jews). Compare also Div. ii. vol. i. p. 4.
[569] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 4. 4: πολλοὶ … πύργοι πελειάδων ἡμέρων (and the general description there also given of the park).
[570] In the Mishna the name of Herod occurs only in the two following passages: Schabbath xxiv. 3, “On the Sabbath one should not, indeed, place water for the hens and pigeons in the dovecot, but for the geese, and hens, and the pigeons of Herod (יוני הרדסיות)”—Chullin xii. 1, the law, Deuteronomy 22:6-7 (that from a bird’s nest only the young may be taken, but the mother must be allowed to escape), applies only to such birds as build in the open, e.g. geese and hens, but not to such as build in houses, e.g. the pigeons of Herod (יוני הרדסיות).—In both passages the pigeons of Herod are distinguished as pigeons kept in captivity from those that fly about in freedom. The passage in Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 4. 4, shows us that they are wild pigeons (πελειάδες), not tame house pigeons (περιστεραί), that are referred to. The reading הדרסיות (hadoresijoth) is given even in the Babylonian Talmud on Chullin xii. 1, along with the other, but is certainly false.—The Aruch (the rabbinical lexicon of Nathan ben Jechiel) gives, s.v. יון, the following explanation: “King Herod had pigeons brought from the wilderness, and bred them in breeding-houses.” In reading this passage the learned Drusius had the misfortune to read, instead of jonim (pigeons), jevanim (Greeks); in accordance with which he explained the Ἡρωδιανοί (Matthew 22:16) as meaning Greeks whom King Herod had brought from the wilderness and reared in inhabited districts. Compare Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. col. 630-632 (s.v. הרדסי).—Generally: Winer’s Realwörterbuch, Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, and Riehm’s Handwörterbuch, arts. “Taube;” Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, art. “Tauben in Palästina” (2 Aufl. xv. 215-218). Lorentz, Die Taube in Alterthume, Leipzig 1886.
In order that he might pose before the eyes of the Graeco-Roman world as a man of culture, Herod, who continued to the last a barbarian at heart, surrounded himself with a circle of men accomplished in Greek literature and art. The highest offices of state were entrusted to Greek rhetoricians. In all more important matters he availed himself of their counsel and advice. The most distinguished of these was Nicolas of Damascus, a man of wide and varied scholarship, versed in natural science, familiar with Aristotle, and widely celebrated as a historical writer.[571] He enjoyed the unconditional confidence of Herod, and was by him entrusted with all serious and difficult diplomatic missions. Beside him stood his brother Ptolemy, also a trusted friend of the king. Another Ptolemy was at the head of the finance department, and had the king’s signet ring.[572] In addition to these, we find in the circle immediately around the king two Greeks or half-Greeks—Andromachus and Gemellus. The latter of those was also the tutor of Herod’s son Alexander.[573] Finally, in the proceedings after Herod’s death we meet with a Greek rhetorician, Irenaeus.[574] Among those Hellenic counsellors of the king there were indeed some very bad characters, most conspicuous among them that Lacedfæmonian Eurykles, who contributed not a little in fomenting and intensifying the trouble between Herod and his sons.[575]
[571] Compare on him above, pp. 58-63.—Since Nicolas of Damascus in the discourse, Antiq. xvi. 2. 4, in which he treats of the interests and aspirations of the Jews, employs the first person plural (τήν τε ἑβδόμην τῶν ἡμερῶν ἀνίεμεν τῇ μαθήσει τῶν ἡμετέρων ἐδῶν καὶ νόμων, etc.), one might be inclined to regard him as a Jew. But according to a note in Suidas (Lex. s.v. Ἀντίπατρος), Antipater, his father, shortly before his death commissioned Nicolas and his brother Ptolemy, in case he should die, to have made for Zeus a censer which he had promised to the god (τῷ Διὶ θυμιατήριον, ὃπερ ἔφθη αὐτὸς προῦπεσχημένος τῷ θεῷ, κατασκευάσαι ἐπειδὰν τελευτήσῃ).
[572] That at the court of Herod two men of the name of Ptolemy are to be distinguished, is put beyond doubt from what took place immediately after his death. At that time Ptolemy, brother of Nicolas of Damascus, was on the side of Antipas (Antiq. xvii. 9. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 2. 3); while at that same period another Ptolemy represented the interests of Archelaus (Antiq. xvii. 8. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 8; Antiq. xvii. 9. 3 and 5; Wars of the Jews, ii. 2.1 and 4). By the latter Archelaus had Herod’s accounts and signet-ring carried to Rome to the emperor (Antiq. xvii. 9. 5: Καίσαρι δὲ Ἀρχέλαος εἰσπέμψας … τοὺς λογισμοὺς τῶν Ἡρώδου χρημάτων σὺν τῷ σημαντῆρι κομίζοντα Ητολεμαῖον; Wars of the Jews, ii. 2. 4: Ἀρχέλαος … τὸν δακτυλιον τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοὺς λόγους εἰσπέμπει διὰ Πτολεμαίου). This same man had during the lifetime of Herod charge of his signet-ring, and on his death read his will (Antiq. xvii. 8. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 8). Identical with him is the διοικητὴς τῶν τῆς βασιλείας πραγμάτων referred to in Antiq. xvi. 7. 2-3, and in the parallel passage, Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 2. Compare also Antiq. xvi. 8. 5.
[573] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 8. 3.
[574] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 9. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 2. 3.
[575] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 10. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 26. 1-4.
Herod to all appearance had very little real interest in Judaism. His ambition led him. to foster the liberal arts and culture. But any other form of culture than that of Greece was scarcely recognised by the world of that day. So he himself submitted to receive instructions, under the direction of Nicolas of Damascus, in philosophy, rhetoric, and history, and boasted of being more nearly related to the Greeks than to the Jews.[576] But the culture which he sought to spread throughout his land was essentially Greek and pagan. He even erected heathen temples in the non-Jewish towns of his kingdom.—Under these circumstances it is interesting to observe the place which he gave to the law and the national aspirations of his people. The Pharisaic-national movement had grown up, especially since the reaction under Alexandra, into a power so strong and so firmly rooted in the hearts of the people, that Herod could not possibly think of a violent Hellenizing like that carried on by Antiochus Epiphanes. He was sagacious enough to show respect in many points to the views of the Pharisaic party. Hence it is particularly worthy of notice that his coins bear no human image, but only innocent symbols, like those of the Maccabean coins; at most only one coin, and that belonging probably to Herod’s latest period, bears the figure of an eagle.[577] In the building of the temple he was anxiously careful to avoid giving any offence. He allowed only priests to build the temple proper, and even he himself ventured not to go into the precincts of the inner temple, which should be entered only by the priests.[578] Upon none of the many beautiful buildings in Jerusalem were images placed. And when the people once looked with suspicion on the imperial trophies of victory which were set up in the theatre at Jerusalem, because they took them for statues which were covered with the armour, Herod had the trophies taken down in the presence of the most distinguished men, and showed them to their complete satisfaction the bare wooden frames.[579] When the Arabian Sylläus sought to win for himself the hand of Herod’s sister Salome, it was required of him that he should adopt the Jewish customs (ἐγγραφῆναι τοῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθεσι), and thereupon the proposed marriage was abandoned.[580] Some of the most famous Pharisees, among whom Polio and Sameas may be specially named, were held by Herod in high esteem, and were not punished even when they refused to take the oath of allegiance.[581]
[576] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 7. 3: Ἕλλησι πλέον ἢ Ἰουδαίοις οἰκείως ἔχειν.—On the humanistic studies of Herod under the direction of Nicolas of Damascus, see Nicolaus Damascenus in Müller, Fragm. Hist. Grace. iii. 350 sq.: Ἡρώδης πάλιν διαμεθεὶς τὸν φιλοσοφίας ἔρωτα … ἐπεθύμησε πάλιν ῥητορικῆς, καὶ Νικόλαον ἠνάγκαζε συρρητορεύειν αὐτῷ, καὶ κοινῇ ἐρρητόρευον. Αὖθις δʼ ἱστορίας αὐτὸν [ἔρως] ἔλαβεν, ἐπαινέσαντος Νικολάου τὸ πρᾶγμα καὶ πολιτικώτατον εἶναι λέγοντος, χρήσιμον δὲ καὶ βασιλεῖ, ὡς τὰ τῶν προτέρων ἔργα καὶ πράξεις ἱστοροίη. … Ἐκ τούτου πλέων εἰς Ῥώμην ὡς Καίσαρα Ἡρώδης ἐπήγετο τὸν Νικόλαον ὁμοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆς νηὸς καὶ κοινῆ ἐφιλοσόφους.
[577] On the coins of Herod, see Eckhel, Docr. Num. iii. 483-486; Mionnet, v. 565; Cavedoni, Bibl. Numismatik, i. 52 f., 54-57; De Saulcy, Recherches sur la Numismatique judaïque, pp. 127-133; Cavedoni, Bibl. Numismatik, ii. 25-31; Levy, Geschichte der jüd. Münzen, pp. 67-72; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 81-91; Cavedoni in Grote’s Münzstudien, v. 21-25; De Saulcy, Numismatic Chronicle, 1871, pp. 245-247; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, pp. 43-45; Madden, Coins of the Jews, pp. 105-114.—The coins have the simple inscription, ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΗΡΩΔΟΥ, and various emblems—some the number of the year 3 (Ι. Γ). The year number 15 (ΕΙ), which is read by some numismatists, results probably from a false reading (see Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, p. 86 sq.; Coins of the Jews, p. 109, note). A portrait is found on none; but it is probable that a small copper coin with an eagle, of which various copies have been found in Jerusalem, belonged to Herod the Great, not to Herod of Chalcis, who never reigned in Jerusalem (see de Saulcy, Recherches, p. 131; Wieseler, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien, pp. 86-88; Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 114. For Herod of Chalcis: Cavedoni, ii. 35; Levy, p. 82, and Madden in his earlier History of the Jewish Coinage, pp. 111-113). Reinach supposes that it belongs to the latest period of Herod the Great, when he showed less respect to Jewish feelings than previously (Reinach, Les monnaies juives, 1887, p. 32=Actes et conférences de la Société des études juives [Beilage zur Revue des études juives], 1887, p. cxcviii.).
[578] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 11. 5-6.
[579] Ibid. xv. 8. 1-2.
[580] Ibid. xvi. 7. 6.
[581] Ibid. xv. 1. 1, 10. 4.
But clearly a thoroughgoing carrying out of Pharisaic views was impossible under his scheme for the furtherance of culture, and he had no intention of promoting them. For a time, what he raised with the one hand he overthrew with the other. After he had carefully studied the Pharisaic requirements in the building of the temple, he at last had an eagle put up over the temple gate as if in insult.[582] Theatre and amphitheatre were already in themselves heathen abominations. The Greek surroundings of the king, the administration of state business by men of Greek culture, the development of heathen splendour within the Holy Land, the provision for heathen worship within the borders of Judea, in the king’s own territory, all this completely outweighed those concessions to Pharisaism, and in spite of these lent to Herod’s reign more of a heathen than a Jewish character. The Sanhedrim, which according to the opinion of the people was the only court that had any right to exist, under Herod was stripped of all importance, so that doubts have been entertained as to its very existence.[583] The high priests, whom he appointed and removed at his pleasure, were his creatures, and were for the most part Alexandrians, with a veneer therefore of culture, and so offensive to the Pharisees.[584] The treatment of the high-priesthood is quite typical of the home policy of the king. As he had tossed aside with ruthless violence the old Sadducean nobles on the one hand, because of their sympathy with the Asmonean dynasty (see above, p. 420); so, on the other hand, he was just as little satisfied with the Pharisees. Their ideals went far beyond the concessions of the king, and the friendships enjoyed among the Pharisees were only exceptions.[585]
[582] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 6. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 2.
[583] Indeed, this may be accepted as certain. See Div. ii. vol. i. p. 170.
[584] Compare on the high priests, Studien und Kritiken, 1872, pp. 598-600; and below, § 23, iv. (Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 195-206).
[585] Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer, pp. 105-109, has indeed rightly stated that the Pharisees could be contented with Herod sooner than the Sadducees. But ho has too strongly accentuated this correct idea.
When one considers that in addition to this contempt of the claims and the actual or imagined rights of the people, Herod oppressed them by imposing a heavy taxation, it may be readily supposed that his rule was endured amid much murmuring. All foreign glory could only be distasteful to the people so long as it was secured by the oppression of the citizens and accompanied by the disregarding of the laws of their fathers. Most of the Pharisees regarded the government of the Roman vassal king generally as not existing in right, and refused twice over the oath of allegiance which Herod demanded, first for himself and then for the emperor.[586] The prevailing dissatisfaction sought vent once in the earlier period of his reign, about B.C. 25, in a conspiracy. Ten citizens conspired to murder the king in the theatre. Their plan, indeed, failed, since it was betrayed beforehand. When they were just on the eve of committing the deed, they were seized, dragged before Herod, and immediately condemned to death.[587]
[586] The two cases of refusal to take the oath, which are reported in Antiq. xv. 10. 4 and in xvii. 2. 4, seem to be quite distinct. In the former passage it is said that Herod persecuted his enemies in all manner of ways; “but for the rest of the multitude he required that they should be obliged to take the oath of fidelity to him, and at the same time compelled them to swear that they would bear him goodwill and continue so to do in the management of his government” (Antiq. xv. 10. 4: τὸ δʼ ἄλλο πλῆθος ὅοκοις ἠξίου πρὸς τὴν πίστιν ὑπάγεσθαι, καὶ συνηνάγκαζεν αὑτῷ ἐνώμοτον τὴν εὔνοιαν ἧ μὴν διαφυλάξειν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς ὁμολογεῖν). It is an oath of fidelity to the king that is here referred to. The Pharisees who refused were, out of respect to Polio and Sameas, left unpunished. So, too, the Essenes. But all the others were punished. In the other passage it is told that when the whole Jewish people promised an oath of submission to the emperor and the king, more than 3000 Pharisees refused to swear (Antiq. xvii. 2. 4: παντὸς γοῦν τοῦ Ἰουδαϊκοῦ βεβαιώσαντος διʼ ὅρκων ἦ μὴν εὐνοῆσαι Καίσαρι καὶ τοῖς βασιλέως πράγμασι, οἵδε οἱ ἄνδρες οὐκ ὤμοσαν, ὄντες ὑπὲρ ἑξακισχίλιοι). Here the oath to the emperor seems to have been the chief thing. The Pharisees who refused were sentenced to pay a money fine, which was paid by the wife of Pheroras.—The latter passage is the earliest instance that I know of showing that in the days of the empire not only soldiers and officers, but also the people in Italy and in the provinces, had to take the oath of fidelity to the emperor. Later evidence of the practice we have from the time of Tiberius, Caligula, and Trajan. 1. On Tiberius entering upon his reign, the chief officials first swore in verba Tiberii Caesaris, then the senatus, milesque et populus (Tacitus, Annals, i. 7). In reference to the provinces, compare Tacitus, Annals, i. 34: Germanicus … Sequanos, proximas et Belgarum civitates in verba ejus [Tiberii] adigit. 2. On Caligula entering upon his reign, the oath of fidelity to the new emperor was administered to all the provincials. In Palestine this was done by the governor of Syria, Vitellius, who happened to be present in Jerusalem when the news of the death of Tiberius arrived (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3: ὥρκισε τὴν πληθὺν ἐπʼ εὐνοίᾳ τῇ Γαΐου). The same zeal was displayed at the same time in far distant Spain. The formula of the oath which the citizens of the little town of Aritium in Lusitania had sworn to Caligula on 11th May A.D. 37, therefore scarcely two months after the death of Tiberius, is preserved on an iron tablet (Corpus Inscript. Lat. t. ii. n. 172. See Mommsen’s remarks upon it in Ephemeris epigr. t. v. pp. 154-158). In essential agreement with this Latin oath formula is the Greek oath of the citizens of Assos in the Troad to Caligula, which is known from an iron tablet found there in 1881. It also bears the date of the consuls of the first half of the year A.D. 37. The main body of this Greek formula runs as follows: Ὄμνυμεν … εὐνοήσειν Γαίῳ Καίσαρι Σεβαστῷ καὶ τῷ σύμπαντι οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ, καὶ φίλους τε κρίνειν, οὓς ἂν αὐτὸς προαιρῆται, καὶ ἐχθροὺς οὓς αν αὐτὸς προβάλληται (Ephemeris epigr. v. 154-158). 3. For the time of Trajan we learn explicitly from Pliny that then the provincials on the anniversary of the emperor’s accession yearly renewed the oath of fidelity to the emperor (Pliny, Epist. ad Trajan. 52 [al. 60]: “diem, domine, quo servasti imperium, dum suscipis, quanta mereris laetitia celebravimus … praeivimus et commilitonibus jus jurandum more sollemni, eadem provincialibus certante pietate jurantibus.” Ibid. 103 [al. 104] Traianus Plinio: “Diem imperii mei debita laetitia et religione commilitonibus et provincialibus praeeunte te celebratum libenter cognovi litteris tuis”).—Compare generally, Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. ii. 749.
[587] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 8. 3-4.
In order to hold the revolting populace in check, Herod had recourse on his part to means of violence; and so his reign the longer it lasted the more despotic it became. The fortresses, which were partly new erections of his own, partly old places made stronger, served not only to protect him from foreign foes, but also for keeping down his own people. The most important were Herodium, Alexandrium, Hyrcania, Machärus, Masada, to which may also be added the military colonies at Gaba in Galilee and Esbon in Perea (compare above, pp. 435-437). Especially to Hyrcania many political offenders were deported in order there to disappear for ever.[588] As props of his government against foreign as well as home foes Herod had dependable mercenary troops, in which there were many Thracians, Germans, and Gauls.[589]—But, finally, he sought by strict police regulations to nip in the bud every attempt at rebellion. All idle loitering about the streets, all common assemblies, yea, even meeting together on the street, was forbidden. And where anything of the kind was nevertheless done, the king had information about it immediately conveyed to him by his secret spies. He is said at times to have in his own person acted the part of the spy.[590]
[588] Ibid. xv. 10. 4.
[589] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 8. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 9.
[590] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 4.
In order to be just, one must, however, admit that his government had also its good side. Among his buildings many were of a useful description. We need only mention the haven of Caesarea. By his strong hand were conditions created under the protection of which trade and travel became safe. He also for a time at least made attempts to win the hearts of his subjects by proofs of his magnanimity. Once, in the year B.C. 20, he remitted a third of the taxes;[591] at another time, in B.C. 14, he remitted a fourth of them.[592] Quite amazing was the energy with which he sought to put a stop to the famine which spread over the land in B.C. 25. He is said on that occasion to have converted into money even his own table plate.[593]
[591] Ibid. xv. 10. 4.
[592] Ibid. xvi. 2. 5.
[593] Ibid. xv. 9. 1-2.
But the people in presence of prevailing evils had only a very feeble and transitory gratitude for such benefits. And so, while upon the whole his reign was undoubtedly glorious, it was by no means happy.
The chief glory of his reign lay in his foreign policy, and in this department he undeniably achieved great success. He had secured the confidence of Augustus to such a degree, that by imperial favour the extent of his territory was about doubled.
This is the place to estimate, according to its most essential and characteristic feature, the position in the eye of the law of a rex socius in the Roman empire of that day.[594] The dependence, in which all kings on this side of the Euphrates stood to the Roman power, was expressed most strikingly in this, that none could exercise royal authority and use the title of king without the express approval of the emperor, with or without confirmation by the senate.[595] The title was, as a rule, granted only to such princes as reigned over a territory of considerable extent; the smaller princes were obliged to be satisfied with the title of tetrarch or such like. The permission extended only to the person of the individual who then received it, and ceased with his death. Hereditary monarchies were not generally recognised within the domain of the Roman authority. Even the son appointed by his father as his successor could enter upon his government only after his nomination had been confirmed by the emperor. This confirmation was refused if there appeared reasons for so doing, and then the territorial domain of the father was either granted to the son with restricted boundaries and with an inferior title, or given to another, or even taken under direct Roman administration as a province. All this may indeed be learned from the history of the Herodian dynasty, but it is also confirmed by all other records.—The title socius et amicus populi Romani (φίλος καὶ σύμμαχος Ῥωμαίων) seems as a special designation to have been granted only to individuals, so that not all who actually assumed this position had really formally received the title.[596] The possession of Roman citizenship is indeed expressly witnessed to only on behalf of a few, but is to be assumed in regard to all as probable. The family of Herod came into possession of it early through Antipater, the father of Herod.[597] From the time of Caligula, too, honorary senatorial rights (praetorian and consular rank) were for a time conferred upon confederate kings.[598]—Their power was restricted especially in the following particulars: 1. They could neither conclude treaties with other States nor engage in a war on their own account, and so could exercise sovereign rights only within the boundaries of their own land. 2. They had the right of coining money only in a limited degree. The minting of gold coins seems to have been almost entirely forbidden; in many cases also the minting of silver coins. To the latter class belonged Herod and his successors; at least only copper coins have come down to us from the whole line of Herodian princes. This fact is particularly instructive, since it shows us that Herod by no means belonged to the most distinguished of those kings, as by many of his statements Josephus would lead us to suppose.[599]. A special obligation resting on them was the providing of auxiliary troops in case of a war, as well as the protection of the frontiers of the empire against foreign attacks. Also contributions in money were on special occasions demanded. But a regular tribute seems not to have been raised for the kings during the time of the empire. Only of Antony is it said that he appointed kings ἐπὶ φόροις τεταγμένοις.[600]—The rights of sovereignty which were left to dependent kings embraced, under the reservations specified, the whole administration of home affairs and the execution of the laws. They had unlimited power of life and death over their subjects. Their whole territory was generally not regarded as belonging to the province. Within the bounds of their territory they could impose taxes at will, and they administered the revenue independently. Their army also was under their own control, and was organized by themselves.
[594] Compare upon this point, Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung dei römischen Reichs, Bd. ii. 1865, pp. 21-33; Bohn, Qua condicione juris reges socii populi Romani fuerint, Berolini 1877; Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, iii. 1, 1887, pp. 645-715.—The work of W. T. Arnold, Roman System of Provincial Administration, London 1879, quoted by Marquardt in his Röm. Staatsverwaltung, i., 2 Aufl. p. 500, was not accessible to me.
[595] Herod had his kingdom δόσει Καίσαρος καὶ δόγματι Ῥωμαίων, Josephus, Antiq. xv. 6. 7.
[596] Also in regard to Herod, who in Antiq. xvii. 9. 6 is called φίλος καὶ σύμμαχος, Bohn doubts whether the title officially belonged to him, Qua condicione, p. 14, note 29.
[597] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 9. 5.
[598] Agrippa I. obtained in the first place praetorian rank (Philo in Flacc. § 6, Mangey, ii. 523), subsequently consular rank (Dio Cassius, lx. 8). Herod of Chalcis obtained praetorian rank (Dio Cassius, ibid.), as also Agrippa II. (Dio Cassius, lxvi. 15).—The conferring of honorary senatorial rights (ornamenta, τιμαί) on those not senators, first came into vogue under Tiberius (Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. i. 375 f.). The interest of the question entirely centres on the point as to their right of taking their place on public occasions among the senators, and of wearing the insignia of their respective offices. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, i. 373 f., 377 f.
[599] Compare on the right of reges socii to coin money, Mommsen, Geschichte des römischen Münzwesens, 1860, pp. 661-736; Römisches Staatsrecht, iii. 1, pp. 709-714; Bohn, Qua condicione juris, pp. 42-49.
[600] Appian, Civ. v. 75. More details are given in the excursus on the taxing of Quirinius (§ 17, Appendix I.). For the hypothesis that the reges socii were obliged to pay a regular tribute, a special attempt to supply proof has been made by Huschke (Ueber den zur Zeit der Geburt Jesu Christi gehaltenen Census, 1840, pp. 99-116). He is followed by Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 1881, pp. 405-408, with reference to Judea. On the other hand, Bohn, Qua condicione juris, pp. 55-64.—Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii. 1. 683, confines himself to the remark that the dependent principalities “even under the Republic” paid a fixed yearly tribute; but he admits that “according to the older Roman practice” the federation right excluded the payment of money (p. 681), and that even in later times the payment of tribute by those belonging to the league was determined “less by general rule than by enactments made in reference to the particular case in point” (p. 683).
The position thus described, which afforded such abundant scope to the energy of the individual, was taken advantage of by Herod with all his might. He availed himself, as others ought also to have done, of every opportunity of presenting himself to the emperor and proving his devotion to him.[601] Even in B.C. 30 he had several times visited Augustus.[602] Ten years later, in B.C. 20, Augustus went again to Syria, and Herod did not lose the chance of paying him his respects.[603] In B.C. 18 or 17 Herod fetched home his two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, who were in Rome for their education, and was on that occasion very graciously received by the emperor.[604] Subsequently he met with Augustus on two occasions, in the years B.C. 12 and 10-9.[605] Herod was also on terms of friendly intercourse with Agrippa, the trusted friend and son-in-law of Augustus. While Agrippa was residing in Mytilene, B.C. 23-21, he there received a visit from Herod.[606] And later still, in B.C. 15, Agrippa himself went to Judea and offered a hecatomb in the temple at Jerusalem. The people were so enthusiastic over the Roman who showed himself so friendly to the Jews, that they accompanied him amid shouts of good-will to his ship, strewing his way with flowers, and expressing admiration at his piety.[607] In the spring of the following year, B.C. 14, Herod returned Agrippa’s visit; and as he knew that Agrippa had planned an expedition to the Crimea, he took with him a fleet in order to afford him assistance. At Sinope he met his noble friend and then went with him, after the warlike operations were finished, over a great part of Asia Minor, dispensing everywhere lavish gifts and granting petitions.[608]—His relations with Augustus and Agrippa were so intimate that flatterers affirmed that Herod was dearest to Augustus next to Agrippa, and to Agrippa next to Augustus.[609]
[601] Compare Suetonius, Augustus, 60: “Reges amici atque socii … saepe regnis relictis, non Romae modo sed et provincias peragranti cotidiana officia togati ac sine regio insigni, more clientium praestiterunt.”
[602] See above, p. 428.
[603] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3.—Augustus does not seem ever to have visited Judea.
[604] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 1. 2.
[605] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 4. 1-5, and 9. 1. Compare above, p. 411 f.
[606] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 2.
[607] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 2. 1; Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 37 (ed. Mangey, ii. 589): εὐφημηθεὶς μυρία παρεπέμφθη μέχρι λιμένων, οὐχ ὑπὸ μιᾶς πόλεως, ἀλλʼ ὑπὸ τῆς χώρας ἁπάσης, φυλλοβολούμενός τε καὶ θαυμαζόμενος ἐπʼ εὐσεβείᾳ.—In reference to the hecatomb, compare Div. ii. vol. i. p. 302. On the sacrificing by heathens in Jerusalem generally, see same volume, pp. 299-305.
[608] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 2. 2-5. Compare Nicolas of Damascus in Müller, Fragmenta Hist. Graec. iii. 350.
[609] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4.
These Roman friendships also bore their fruits. Even as early as B.C. 30, when Herod was with Augustus in Egypt, he had obtained from him important enlargement of territory (see above, p. 428). New gifts were added at a later period. Herod had in B.C. 25, in the campaign of Aelius Gallus against Arabia, supplied 500 men of select auxiliary troops.[610] There may possibly be some connection between this and the fact that soon afterwards, in B.C. 23, at the time when Herod sent his sons Alexander and Aristobulus for their education to Rome, he received the districts of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis, which previously had been occupied by nomad robber tribes, with whom the neighbouring tetrarch Zenodorus had made common cause.[611] When some years later, in B.C. 20, Augustus visited Syria, he bestowed upon Herod the tetrarchy of Zenodorus, the districts of Ulatha and Panias, and the surrounding territories north and north-west of the lake of Gennesareth.[612] At the same time Herod obtained permission to appoint his brother Pheroras tetrarch of Perea.[613] And the unbounded confidence which Augustus had in him is shown conspicuously in this, that he, perhaps only during the period of Agrippa’s absence from the East (see above, p. 349 f.), gave orders to the procurators of Syria (Coele-Syria ?) to take counsel with Herod in regard to all important matters.[614]
[610] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 9. 3; Strabo, xvi. 4. 23, p. 780. For further details, see above, p. 407.
[611] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4.—The districts named all lie west of the lake of Gennesareth. Compare in reference to them, § 17a; on Zenodorus, Appendix I.
[612] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4; Dio Cassius, liv. 9.
[613] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 5.
[614] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4. The somewhat obscure words in reference to the procurators are as follows, Antiq. xv. 10. 3: ἐγκαταμίγνυσι δʼ αὐτὸν καὶ τοῖς ἐπιτροπεύουσι τῆς Συρίας, ἐντειλάμενος μετὰ τῆς ἐκείνου γνώμης τὰ πάντα ποιεῖν; somewhat differently, Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4: κατέστησε δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ Συρίας ὅλης ἐπίτροπον … ὡς μηδὲν ἐξείη δίχα τῆς ἐκείνου συμβουλίας τοῖς ἐπιτρόποις διοικεῖν.—From the nature of the thing it cannot refer to a formal subordination of the procurators of Syria under Herod, but, as even the expression συμβουλίας in the latter passage shows, only to the fact that the procurators as finance officers for the province were told to make use of the counsel of Herod. Also it is probable that for Συρίας ὅλης (resp. Συρίας) we should read Συρίας κοίλης. Compare Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 1881, p. 408.—One should not take the note too seriously, since it evidently comes from the glorifying pen of Nicolas of Damascus.
It is not left untold how Herod used his influence with the Roman governors to secure the Jews of the dispersion againat all oppression and infringement of their rights on the part of their non-Jewish neighbours.[615] Thus the power of the Jewish king told in favour even of those Jews who were not immediately under his rule.
[615] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 2. 3-5. Compare also, Antiq. xvi. 6. 1-8; xii. 3. 2.
The period from B.C. 20 to B.C. 14 was decidedly the most brilliant in his reign. In spite of dependence upon Rome, his court, so far as outward grandeur was concerned, might bear comparison with the best times that the nation had seen. Internal affairs were indeed in a miserable state. Only by force could the people be brought to tolerate the semi-pagan rule of the Idumean; and only his despotic, iron hand prevented an uprising of the fermenting masses.
III
The last nine years of Herod, B.C. 13-4, constitute the period of domestic misery. Especially his unhappy quarrels with the sons of Mariamme cast a deep, dark shadow over this period.[616]
[616] Many things belong to this period that were treated of in the preceding section, for the boundaries of the periods cannot be always strictly observed. It is in general undoubtedly correct to say that the domestic quarrels reached their height between B.C. 13 and B.C. 4.
Herod had a numerous family. In all he had ten wives, which was indeed, as Josephus points out, allowed by the law; but it affords a striking proof of his sensuality.[617] His first wife was Doris, by whom he had one son, Antipater.[618] Both were repudiated by Herod, and Antipater was allowed to appear at Jerusalem only at the great feasts.[619] In the year B.C. 37, Herod married Mariamme, the grand-daughter of Hyrcanus (see above, p. 396), who bore him five children, three sons and two daughters. Of the sons, the youngest died at Rome;[620] the two elder ones, Alexander and Aristobulus, are the heroes of the subsequent history.[621] The third wife, whom Herod married about B.C. 24, was also called Mariamme. She was daughter of a famous priest belonging to Alexandria, who was appointed high priest by Herod just at the time when he married his daughter.[622] By this wife he had a son called Herod.[623] Of the other seven wives, carefully enumerated by Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 1. 3, and Wars of the Jews, i. 28. 4, only the Samaritan Malthoe, mother of Archelaus and Antipas, and Cleopatra of Jerusalem, the mother of Philip, are of interest to us.
[617] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 2, fin.; Antiq. xvii. 1. 2: πάτριον γὰρ ἐν ταὐτῷ πλείοσιν ἡμῖν συνοικεῖν. According to the Mishna, Sanhedrin ii. 4, eighteen wives were allowed to the king. How many a private man should have is not expressly stated in the Mishna, but it is assumed that he may have four or five (four: Jebamoth iv. 11; Kethuboth x. 1-6; five: Kerithoth iii. 7. Compare in general also: Kiddushin ii. 7; Bechoroth viii. 4). In agreement with this is Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, c. 134: βέλτιόν ἐστιν, ὑμᾶς τῷ θεῷ ἕπεσθαι ἢ τοῖς ἀσυνέτοις, καὶ τυφλοῖς διδασκάλοις ὑμῶν, οἵτινες καὶ μέχρι νῦν καὶ τέσσαρας καὶ πέντε ἔχειν ὑμᾶς γυναῖκας ἕκαστον συγχωροῦσι. Compare further, Otto’s note on that passage, and Winer, Realwörterbuch, article “Vielweiberei.”
[618] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 12. 1.—According to Antiq. xvii. 5. 2, Antipater was married to a daughter of the last Asmonean Antigonus.
[619] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 3. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 1.
[620] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 2.
[621] The two daughters were called Salampso and Cypros. Their descendants are enumerated by Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 4.
[622] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 9. 3. The name Mariamme: Wars of the Jews, i. 28. 4, and elsewhere. Josephus, in Antiq. xv. 9. 3, names her father Simon, her grandfather Boethos. In other places Boethos himself is called her father. See Studien und Kritiken, 1872, p. 599 f.; and below, § 23, iv. Div. ii. vol. i. p. 195.
[623] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 1. 2.
About the year B.C. 23, Herod sent the sons of the first Mariamme, Alexander and Aristobulus, for their education to Rome, where they were hospitably entertained in the house of Asinius Pollio.[624] Some five years later, in B.C. 18 or 17, . he himself fetched them home again, and from that time onward kept them at the court in Jerusalem.[625] They would then be young men about seventeen or eighteen years of age. In accordance with the customs of the age and country, they were soon married. Alexander received a daughter of the Cappadocian king Archelaus, whose name was Glaphyra; Aristobulus had given him a daughter of Herod’s sister Salome, called Berenice.[626] Although in this way the Asmonean and Idumean line of the Herodian family were connected together by affinity in the closest relationship, they still stood over against one another as two hostile camps. The sons of Mariamme, conscious of their royal blood, might well look down with a certain pride upon the Idumean relationship; and the Idumeans, pre-eminently the estimable Salome, returned the haughtiness of those Asmoneans by common abuse. And so even thus early, after the sons had no more than re-entered their father’s house, the knots began to be tied, which afterwards became so twisted that they could not be loosed. For a time, however, Herod did not allow these janglings to interfere with the love he had for his sons.[627]
[624] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 1.
[625] Ibid. xvi. 1. 2.
[626] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 1. 2. Berenice was a daughter of Salome and Costobar (Antiq. xviii. 5. 4). She is also spoken of by Strabo, xvi. 2. 46, p. 765.—King Archelaus of Cappadocia reigned from B.C. 36 to A.D. 17 (Dio Cassius, xlix. 32, Ivii. 17; Tacitus, Annals, ii. 42; Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 448; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, i. 2, 2 Aufl. p. 1439 f.; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 1881, p. 365 f.; Reinach, Revue Numismatique, 1886, pp. 462-466).
[627] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 1. 2.
The evil conscience of the king, however, offered so fruitful a soil for such sowing of slanders, that they could not fail ultimately to take root and to bring forth fruit. He was obliged to admit to himself that the natural heritage of the sons was the desire to avenge the death of their mother. And as now Salome again and again pictured to him the danger which threatened from both, he at last began to believe it, and to look upon his sons with suspicion.[628]
[628] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 3.1-2.
In order to provide what would counterbalance their aspiring projects, and to show them that there was still another in existence who might possibly be heir to the throne, he called back his exiled Antipater, and sent his sons for that reason to Rome, in company with Agrippa, who just then, in B.C. 13, was leaving the East, in order that he might present him to the emperor.[629] But by so doing he put the weapon into the hand of the bitterest foe of his domestic peace. For Antipater from this time forth laboured incessantly, by calumniating his step-brothers, to carve out his way to the throne. The change in their father’s attitude was naturally not without effect upon Alexander and Aristobulus. They returned his suspicion with undisguised aversion, and already openly complained of the death of their mother, and of the injurious treatment to which they were subjected.[630] Thus was the rift between father and sons becoming always deeper, until at last Herod, in B.C. 12, came to the conclusion to accuse his sons before the emperor. Along with the two he started on his journey, and appeared before the emperor at Aquileia as complainant against his sons. The mild earnestness of Augustus succeeded for that time in reconciling the opposing parties, and restoring again domestic peace. With thanks to the emperor, father and sons returned home; and Antipater also himself joined them, and pretended to rejoice in the reconciliation.[631]
[629] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 3. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 23. 1-2.
[630] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 3. 3.
[631] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 4. 1-6; Wars of the Jews, i. 23. 3-5.
Scarcely had they reached home when the old game began afresh. Antipater, who now again was one of those in immediate attendance on the king, continued unweariedly the work of slander, and in this he was faithfully supported by the brother and sister of Herod, Pheroras and Salome. On the other hand, Alexander and Aristobulus assumed a more decidedly hostile attitude.[632] Thus the peace between father and sons was soon again broken. The suspicion of the king, which from day to day received new fuel, became more and more morbid, and by and by reached a climax in a superstitious fear of ghosts.[633] He now caused the adherents of Alexander to be subjected to the torture, at first unsuccessfully, until at last one, under the agony of torture, made injurious admissions. On the ground of these, Alexander was committed to prison.[634]—When the Cappadocian king, Alexander’s father-in-law, heard of the unfortunate state of matters at the Jewish court, he began to fear for his daughter and son-in-law, and made a journey to Jerusalem in order, if at all possible, to bring about a reconciliation. He appeared before Herod very angry over his good-for-nothing son-in-law, threatened to take his daughter back again to his own house, and expressed himself so ferociously that Herod himself espoused the side of his son, and undertook his defence against Archelaus. By such a manœuvre the sly Cappadocian succeeded in bringing about the reconciliation which he desired, and was able to return home quite satisfied.[635] Thus once again the wild storm was broken by a short temporary lull.
[632] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 7. 2 ff.; Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 1 ff.
[633] Compare especially: Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 8. 2, 5; Wars of the Jew, i. 24. 8.
[634] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 8. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 24 8.
[635] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 8. 6; Wars of the Jews, i. 25. 1-6.
In that excited period Herod had also to contend with foreign enemies, and even with imperial disfavour. The free-booting inhabitants of Trachonitis wished to rid themselves of his strict and severe government, and somewhere about forty of the worst disturbers of the peace found ready shelter in the neighbouring parts of Arabia, where a certain Sylleus carried on the government in the place of the weak King Obodas. When Sylleus refused to deliver up these robbers, Herod undertook, with consent of the governor of Syria, Saturninus, a warlike expedition against Arabia, and enforced his rights.[636] But now Sylleus agitated at Rome, represented the matter as an unlawful breach of national peace, and was able thereby to bring Herod seriously into disfavour with the emperor.[637]—In order to justify himself in regard to his conduct, Herod sent an embassy to Rome; and when this was not successful, he sent a second, under the leadership of Nicolas of Damascus.[638]
[636] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 9. 1-2.
[637] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 9. 3. Compare Nicolas of Damascus in Müller, Fragm. Hist. Graec. iii. 351; Feder, Excerpta Escurialensia, p. 64.
[638] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 9. 4.
Meanwhile the family discord was with rapid strides approaching its tragical end. The reconciliation, as might have been expected, was not of long duration. In order to make the unhappiness complete, there now arrived at the court a worthless Lacedæmonian, Eurykles, who inflamed the father against the sons and the sons against the father.[639] At the same time, all the other mischief-makers continued their work. At last matters came to such a pass that Herod cast Alexander and Aristobulus into prison, and laid a complaint against them before the emperor of being concerned in treasonable plots.[640]
[639] Josephus, Antiq, xvi. 10. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 26. 1-4.
[640] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 10. 5-7; Wars of the Jews, i. 27. 1.
Nicolas of Damascus had meanwhile accomplished the task of his mission, and had again won over the emperor to Herod.[641] When, therefore, the messengers bearing the accusation reached Rome, they found Augustus already in a favourable mood, and at once spread out before him their documents. Augustus gave to Herod absolute power to proceed in this matter as he thought best, but advised him to summon to Berytus a justiciary court consisting of Roman officials and his own friends, and to have the charges against his sons investigated by it.[642]
[641] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 10. 8-9. Nicolas of Damascus in Müller.
[642] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 11. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 27. 1.—Berytus was probably fixed upon by Augustus because it was a Roman colony, and so a centre of Roman activity and officialdom in the neighbourhood of Palestine. According to Strabo, xvi. 2.19, p. 755 sq., Agrippa placed two legions in Berytus, i.e. the veterans of those legions. This would be in B.C. 15, on the occasion of Agrippa’s visit to that quarter (see above, p. 411). In fact, Eusebius gives the year of Abraham 2001, or B.C. 15, as the date of the founding of the colony of Berytus (Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 142); and Augustus says, in Monumentum Ancyranum, iii. 22 sqq., that in the year B.C. 14, during the consulship of M. Crassus and Cn. Lentulus, he paid to the municipal authorities large sums for pieces of land which he assigned to the veterans (Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, ed. 2, pp. 62-65). The two legions were the Leg. V. Mac. and VIII. Aug. (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 356; Mommsen, Res gestae, p. 119). The full name of Berytus as a colony runs thus: “Colonia Julia Augusta Felix Berytus” (Corpus Inscript. Let. t. iii. n. 161, 165, 166, 6041). Compare also, Pliny, Historia Naturalis, v. 20. 78; Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 3. 1; Digest. L. 15. 1. 1, 7, 8. 3. The coins are given in Eckhel, Doctrina Num. iii. 354-359, and Mionnet, Description de médailles ant. v. 334-351; Supplément, viii. 238-250. Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, iii. 436-447. Ritter, Erdkunde, xvii. 62-64, 432-456. Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. i. 2. 2361 f. Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. i. 379. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i., 2 Aufl. p. 427 f.—In the later years of the empire, at least from the third century after Christ, there was in Berytus a highly celebrated seminary for Roman law (Codex Justin. i. 17. 2. 9, x 49. 1. Robinson, Bibl. Researches, iii. p. 442. Ritter, Erdkunde, xvii. 436. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, p. 428). Its beginnings may quite well have been within the period of Augustus (Hitzig, Geschichte der Volkes Israel, ii. 554).
Herod accepted the advice of the emperor. The court almost unanimously pronounced the sentence of death. Only the governor of Syria, Saturninus, and his three sons were of another mind.—Still it was doubtful whether Herod would carry out the sentence. An old soldier, Teron, therefore ventured publicly to sue for favour to the condemned. But the old man and three hundred others, who were denounced as adherents of Alexander and Aristobulus, were put to death, and the sentence was now without delay carried into execution. At Sebaste (Samaria), where thirty years before Mariamme’s marriage had been celebrated, her sons were executed upon the gibbet, probably in B.C. 7.[643]
[643] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 11. 2-7; Wars of the Jews, i. 27. 2-6. Nicolas of Damascus in Müller, Fragmenta Hist. Graec. iii. 351 sq. Feder, Excerpta Escurialensia, p. 65.—Compare generally, Delitzsch, Jüdisches Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu, 2 Aufl. 1875 (pp. 51-69: “Ein Junitag aus dem letzten Jahrzehnt des vorchristlichen Jerusalems”).—On the punishment by strangling among the Jews, Mishna, Sanhedrin vii. 1, 3; Terumoth vii. 2; Kethuboth iv. 3; Sanhedrin vi. 5, fin., ix. 3, 6, xi. 1. Among the Romans, Bein, article “Laqueus,” in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iv. 771.
But such proceedings failed utterly in restoring peace to Herod’s household. Antipater was now indeed all-powerful at court, and enjoyed the unconditional confidence of his father. But this did not satisfy him. He wished to have the government wholly in his own hand, and held secret conferences with Herod’s brother Pheroras, tetrarch of Perea, at which it was suspected that nothing good was done. Salome, the old serpent, had soon discovered these ongoings, and reported the matter to the king.[644] And so the relations of Antipater and his father soon became strained. Antipater, in order to avoid a conflict, found it convenient to allow himself to be sent to Rome. That Herod did not meanwhile entertain any serious suspicion against him is shown by his will, in which even at that time he nominated Autipater his successor on the throne; only in the event of Antipater dying before himself was Herod, the son of Mariamme the high priest’s daughter, named his successor.[645]
[644] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 1. 1, 2. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 28. 1, 29. 1.
[645] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 3. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 29. 2.
While Antipater was in Rome, Pheroras died;[646] and by this also Antipater’s fate was sealed. Some freedmen of Pheroras went to Herod and showed him that there was a suspicion that Pheroras had been poisoned, and that Herod should investigate the matter more closely. On examination it came out that poison certainly had been present, that it was sent by Antipater, but that it was intended, not for Pheroras, but was only given to him by Antipater in order that he might administer it to Herod. Herod also now learned from the female slaves of Pheroras’ household all the utterances which had escaped Antipater at those secret conclaves, his complaining about the long life of the king, about the uncertainty of his prospects, and other such things.[647] Herod could now no longer entertain any doubt as to the deadly intentions of his favourite son. Under all sorts of false pretences, he recalled him from Rome in order to put him on trial at home. Antipater, who anticipated no trouble, returned, and to his great surprise—for although since the discovery of his plots seven months had passed, he had heard nothing of the matter—he was on his arrival committed to prison in the king’s palace.[648] Next day he was brought forth to trial before Varus, the governor of Syria. As in face of the manifest proofs brought against him he could say nothing in defence of himself, Herod had him put in fetters, and made a report of the matter to the emperor.[649]
[646] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 3. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 29. 4.
[647] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 4. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i. 30. 1-7.
[648] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 4. 3, 5. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i. 31. 2-5.
[649] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 5. 3-7; War of the Jews, i. 32. 1-5. Compare generally also, Nicolas of Damascus in Müller, Fragmenta Hist. Graec. iii. 352 sq.; Feder, Excerpta Escurialensia, p. 66 sq.
Herod was now almost seventy years of age. His days were indeed already numbered. He suffered from a disease from which he could not recover. In a new will, which he now executed, he named his youngest son Antipas, the son of the Samaritan Malthace, as his successor.[650]
[650] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 6. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 1-4.
During his sickness he could not but perceive how anxiously the people longed to be delivered from his yoke, and yearned for the moment when they would be emancipated from his heathenish government. As soon as the news got abroad that his disease was incurable, two rabbis, Judas the son of Sariphäus, and Matthias the son of Margaloth, stirred up the people to tear down the offensive eagle from the temple gate.[651] Only too readily they found an audience, and amid great uproar the work pleasing to God was accomplished. Meanwhile Herod, in spite of his sickness, was still strong enough to pass sentences of death, and to have the principal leaders of the tumult burnt alive.[652]
[651] The names of the rabbins in Antiq. xvii. 6. 2: Ἰούδας ὁ Σαριφαίου καὶ Ματθίας ὁ Μαργαλώθου; in Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 2: Ἰούδας τε υἱὸς Σεπφωραίου καὶ Ματθίας ἕτερος Μαργάλου.
[652] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 6. 2-4; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 1-4.
The days of the old king were now at an end. The disease was always becoming worse, and dissolution rapidly approached. The baths of Callirrhoë, on the other side of the Jordan, to which the king had gone, no longer benefited him.[653] When he had returned to Jericho, he is said to have given orders that upon his death the most distingnished men of the nation, whom he had caused to be that up in the arena of that place, should he cut down, so that there might be a great lamentation as he passed away.[654] Amid all the pains which his disease caused him, he lived long enough to have the satisfaction of accomplishing the death of his son Antipater, the chief instigator of his domestic misery. Just in the last days of his life the permission of the emperor arrived for the execution of Antipater, which soon afterwards was carried out.[655]
[653] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 6. 5; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 5.—Callirrhoë is also mentioned by Pliny, Historia Naturalis, v. 16. 72, and by Ptolemy, v. 16. 9. The Jewish tradition identifies Callirrhoë and the biblical לֶשַׁע, Genesis 10:19 (Targum Jerus. on Genesis 10:19; Bereshith rabba, c. 37). On this point, see Jerome, Quaest. Hebr. in Genes. x. 19 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, iii. 321): “hoc tantum adnotandum videtur, quod Lise ipsa sit quae nunc Callirhoë dicitur, ubi aquae calidae prorumpentes in mare mortuum defluunt.”—On its site, see especially, Dechent, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, vii. 1884, pp. 196-201.
[654] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 6. 5; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 6. The order was not carried out (Antiq. xvii. 8. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 8). Compare the similar rabbinical tradition in Derenbourg, p. 164 sq.
[655] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 7; War of the Jews, i. 33. 7; Nicolas of Damascus in Müller.
A few days before his death Herod once again altered his will, for he named Archelaus, the older son of Malthace, king, his brother Antipas tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip, the son of Cleopatra of Jerusalem, tetrarch of Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, Batanea, and Panias.[656]
[656] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 8. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 7-8.
At last, five days after the execution of Antipater, Herod died at Jericho in B.C. 4, unwept by those of his own house, and hated by all the people.[657]—A pompous funeral procession accompanied the royal corpse from Jericho, a distance of eight furlongs, in the direction of Herodium, where it was laid in its last resting-place.[658]
[657] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 8. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 8.—On the date of his death, see Fréret, “Eclaircissement sur l’année et sur le temps précis de la mort d’Hérode le Grand, roi de Judée” (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, prem. série, t. xxi. 1754, pp. 278-298); Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, 1793, pp. 307-394 (the classical work); Wurm in Bengel’s Archiv. 2nd vol. 1st part, 1816, pp. 26-39 (worthy of being consulted for its astronomical computations); Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, ii. 389-393; Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 46-51; Seyffarth, Chronologia sacra, pp. 80-85; Gumpach, Ueber den altjüdischen Kalender (1848), pp. 236-238; Van der Chijs, De Herods Magno, p. 62 sq.; Lewin, Fasti sacra (1865), pp. ix., xxii.; Caspari, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Jesus Christ, pp. 28-34; Quandt, Zeitordnung und Zeitbestimmungen in den Evangelien (1872), pp. 4-12; Sevin, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu (2 Aufl. 1874), pp. 54-70; Riess, Das Geburtsjahr Christi (1880), pp. 6-57, 189-224; Schegg, Das Todesjahr des Königs Herodes und das Todesjahr Jesu Christi, 1882; Riess, Nochmals das Geburtsjahr Jesu Christi (1883), pp. 1-68; Sattler, Das Jahr 749 nach Erbauung Roms das wahre Geburtsjahr Jesu (Allgem. Zeitung, 1883, Beilage Nr. 72); Mémain, La connaissance des temps évangéliques (1886), pp. 53-59; Kellner in the Katholik, 1887, zweite Hälfte, pp. 75-82, 166-182.
[658] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 8. 3, fin.: ἤεσαν δὲ ἐπὶ Ἡρωδείου στάδια ὀκτώ; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 9, fin.: σταδίους δὲ ἐκομίσθη τὸ σῶμα διακοσίους εἰς Ἡρώδειον.—The former passage states how far upon the way the funeral procession went; the latter passage gives the distance from Jericho to Herodium. It is undoubtedly the more important of the two fortresses that is intended (see above, p. 435), and its distance from Jericho is somewhere about 200 stadia or furlongs. Since Herod was buried there, the μνημεῖον of Herod at Jerusalem (Wars of the Jews, v. 3. 2, 12. 2) was only a memorial, not an erection over his tomb.
Herod died shortly before a Passover (Antiq. xvii. 9. 3; Wars of the Jews, ii. 1. 3), therefore in March or April. Since Josephus says that he reigned thirty-seven years from the date of his appointment, thirty-four years from his conquest of Jerusalem (Antiq. xvii. 8. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 8), it would seem as if, counting thirty-seven years from the year B.C. 40, he must have died in B C. 3. But we know that Josephus elsewhere counts a year too much, according to our reckoning. Thus he counts from the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey to that by Herod twenty-seven years (Antiq. xiv. 16. 4), whereas the true number is twenty-six (B.C. 63-B.C. 37). Again, from the conquest of Herod down to that by Titus he counts 107 years (Antiq. xx. 10), whereas there were only 106 (A.U.C. 717-A.U.C. 823). He reckons the spring of B.C. 31 the seventh year of Herod (Antiq. xv. 5. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 19. 3), whereas it was only the sixth year (his reign beginning with July B.C. 37). The reason of this is that he counts portions of a year as a year; and, indeed, he probably, according to the example of the Mishna (comp. Rosh hashana, i. 1: בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן ראֹשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לַמְּלָכִים), reckons the years of the king’s reign from Nisan to Nisan. If this be so, the thirty-fourth year of Herod would begin on the 1st Nisan of the year B.C. 4, and Herod must in that case have died between 1st and 14th Nisan, since his death occurred before the Passover. That this is indeed the correct reckoning is confirmed by astronomical date, and by the chronology of the successors of Herod.
1. Shortly before Herod’s death an eclipse of the moon occurred (Antiq. xvii. 6. 4). This only corresponds to the year B.C. 4, in which on the night of March 12-13 an eclipse of the moon took place; whereas in the years 3 and 2 B.C. in Palestine generally there was no such phenomenon (Wurm, p. 34 f.; Ideler, p. 391 f.).
2. The chronology of two successors of Herod, Archelaus and Antipas, requires B.C. 4=A.U.C. 750, as the year of Herod’s death.
(a) Archelaus. He was, according to Dio Cassius, Leviticus 27, deposed by Augustus in the year A.U.C. 759, during the consulship of Aemilius Lepidus and L. Arruntius, in the tenth year of his reign. So also says Josephus in Antiq. xvii. 13. 2, and in Life, 1, where the earlier statement of the Wars of the Jews, ii. 7. 3, that this occurred “in the ninth year of his reign,” is corrected. Hence his reign began in A.U.C. 750.
(b) Antipas. He was deposed by Caligula in the summer of A.D. 39=A.U.C. 792 (see under § 17b). Since we still have coins of his bearing date the forty-third year of his reign, the year of the beginning of his reign must at latest have been A.U.C. 750.
All these facts therefore yield this result, that Herod died in the year B.C. 4=A.U.C. 750, shortly before the Passover.—This result, at least so far as it relates to the year, is now accepted by most modern scholars (among whom may be named : Fréret, Sanclemente, Ideler, Wieseler, Gumpach, van der Chijs, Lewin, Sevin, Schegg, Sattler, Memain). Others approach nearly the same conclusion: Wurm (B.C. 4 or 3), Quandt, and Kellner (B.C. 3). The following diverge farther: Caspari, Riess (B.C. 1), and Seyffarth (A.D. 1).
In reference to matters of detail, the following points may be noted : 1. The custom of reckoning a portion of the calendar year in the beginning and end of a year, be it ever so email, as a full year in the reign, did undoubtedly exist in Egypt. Not only the years of the Ptolemies, hut also the years of the Roman emperors, were in Egypt numbered in this manner (Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 117 ff.; Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. ii. 2, 758 ff.). At a later period this mode of reckoning the years of the emperors became common outside of Egypt (Mommsen, i. 501 f., ii. 2. 756 ff.). In reference to the similar style of reckoning the years of the Jewish kings by Josephus, see Gumpach, pp. 223-236.—2. Of the coins of Antipas of A.D. 43 (MT) there are at present three known examples (Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, p. 121 sq.; two according to Lenormant, Trésor de Numismatique, p. 125, pl. LIX. n. 19 and 20; one according to de Saulcy, Mélanges de Numismatique, t. ii. 1877, p. 92). Their existence is thus put beyond question. But great difficulties are caused by a coin with the supposed date of A.D. 44 (ΜΔ). It has been described not only by the little to be depended upon Vaillant, but also in a manuscript account of travels by Galand, who found it at Jericho in A.D. 1674 (communicated by Fréret, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscr. et belles-lettres, t. xxi. 1754, pp. 292 sq.). Sanclemente, pp. 315-319, and Eckhel, Doctrina Num. iii. 487, have both occupied themselves with this discussion. Both conjecture that the date has been incorrectly read (it may rather have been ΛΔ=34). Compare pro and contra also: Ideler, p. 391; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, p. 99; Coins of the Jews, p. 122; Riess, 1880, pp. 55-57; Sattler, Das Jahr. 749; Memain, p. 448 f.; Kellner, p. 176. Eckhel’s reasons are very convincing; he points especially to this, that the coin described by Galand, according to its other peculiarities, corresponds to those of the year 34, but not to those of the year 43. The only point of difficulty arises from the statement made by Fréret at p. 293 in reference to Galand’s description: “les lettres de l’époque ΜΔ très-nettement figurées dans son manuscrit et absolument séparées l’une de l’autre.” The matter therefore continues undecided. But even if the date 44 be the correct reading, still the death of Herod cannot in any case be placed earlier than A.U.C. 750.
Were we to accept an earlier date for Herod’s death, we would be obliged to extend the period of the reign of Antipas down to A.U.C. 793.—3. The attempts that have been made to determine more exactly the day of Herod’s death by the help of Jewish tradition have not been successful. In the old Megillath Taanith, the 7th Chislen and the 2nd Shebat are always characterized as days of rejoicing (see text and translation in Derenbourg, Histoire, pp. 442-446, § 21 and § 25). But it is only the quite late commentary, which is unsupported by any Jewish tradition, that makes the remark that the 7th Chisleu was the day of Herod’s death, and the 2nd Shebat the day of the death of Jannäus. On the worthlessness of this commentary, see Wellhausen, Pharisäer und Sadducäer, pp. 56-63; compare also above, p. 163. Kellner adopts the 7th Chisleu in the Katholik, 1887, zweite Hälfte, pp. 180-182. But since it is related of Jannäus that on the 2nd Shebat he had put in prison the most distinguished of the Jews, and ordered that after his death they should be executed, many Jewish scholars assume an interchange of this name for that of Herod, and put the death of Herod therefore on the 2nd Shebat. So Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii., 4 Aufl. p. 472 ff., note 1; Brann, De Herodis qui dicitur Magni filiis, 1873, p. 8 sq. The one statement is of as little value as the other.
The end of his reign was bloody as its beginning had been. The brighter portion lay in the middle. But even during his better days he was a despot, and upon the whole, with all the glory of his reign, “he was still only a common man” (Hitzig, ii. 559). The title of “the Great,” by which we are accustomed to distinguish him from his more feeble descendants of the same name, is only justified when it is used in this relative sense.[659][660]
[659] In this sense is the title intended even in Josephus in the single passage in which he uses it (Antiq. xviii. 5. 4).
[660] Schürer, E. (1890). Vol. 1: A history of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ, first division, Vol. I. (v-467). Edinburgh: T&T Clark.