� 16. Disturbances After Herod's Death, B.C. 4

§ 16. DISTURBANCES AFTER HEROD'S DEATH, B.C. 4
SOURCES
JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xvii. 9-11; Wars of the Jews, ii. 1-6. ZONARAS, Annales, vi. 1-2 (summary from Josephus).
NICOLAS OF DAMASCUS in Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecarum, iii. 353 sq.; Feder, Excerpta Escurialensia, p. 67 sq.
LITERATURE
EWALD, History of Israel, v. 449-457.
GEIKIE, Life and Words of Christ, 7th ed., London 1879, i. 263-272.
GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. pp. 246-253.
HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 559-562.
SCHNECKENBURGER, Zeitgeschichte, pp. 200-203.
HAUSRATH, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. i. 275-283.
LEWIN, Fasti sacri ad Ann. 4.
BRANN, De Herodis qui dicitur Magni filiis patrem in imperio secutis, pars 1, 1873 (treats only of the events of B.C. 4).
MENKE, Bibelatlas, Bl. V. “Judea and neighbouring countries in the time of Christ and the Apostles.”
BY the last will of Herod, Archelaus had been named his successor on the throne. Archelaus therefore made it his first business to secure the emperor’s confirmation of his father’s arrangement, and with this end in view he resolved to make a journey to Rome. But before he could start on such an expedition, he had to stamp out a rebellion in Jerusalem. The people could not so easily forget the execution of the two rabbis, Judas and Matthias, and violently insisted that Archelaus should bring to punishment the counsellors of Herod. Archelaus endeavoured at first in a conciliatory manner to dissuade the people from their purpose. But when he could not succeed in this way, the only result of his proposals being the increase of the tumult, he resolved to crush the revolt by violence. He accordingly sent forth a detachment of soldiers against the people assembled in the temple, where the people who had flocked into Jerusalem in prospect of the approaching Passover festival were wont to gather at that season in great crowds. But the detachment sent was not strong enough to make way against the excited masses. A portion of the soldiers was stoned by the people; the rest, together with their leader, took to flight. Archelaus was now obliged to call out his whole fighting force; and only by the help of his entire army, amid great bloodshed, was he able to put down the rebellion.[661]
[661] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 9. 1-3; Wars of the Jews, ii. 1. 1-3.
After Archelaus had thus by the exercise of force secured quiet, he hastened to Rome, leaving his brother Philip to act as administrator of the kingdom. Scarcely had he gone, when Antipas also started for Rome in order to press his own claims there. He had by the third and last will of Herod received only Galilee and Perea, whereas in the second will he had been appointed successor to the throne. He therefore now wished to represent to the emperor that to him, and not to Archelaus, did the kingdom properly belong. Many other members of the Herodian family were also present in Rome at the same time as Archelaus and Antipas, and these now mostly appeared against Archelaus, and expressed a strong desire that Palestine should now be put under immediate Roman government; or if this could not be, then they would rather have Antipas than Archelaus.[662]
[662] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 9. 3-4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 2. 1-3. Nicolas of Damascus in Müller, iii. 353.
Hence the sons of Herod plotted and schemed against one another in Rome. Augustus, in whose hands the decision lay, meanwhile convoked at his palace a consultative assembly, at which the opposing brothers were called upon to make a statement of their conflicting claims. A certain Antipater spoke on behalf of Antipas, while Nicolas of Damascus, formerly the minister of Herod, appeared on behalf of Archelaus. Each party sought to win over the emperor to his side, partly by advancing arguments, partly by insinuating suspicions against his opponent. When Augustus had heard both parties, he inclined more to the side of Archelaus, and made a statement to the effect that he was most fit to ascend the royal throne. Yet he did not wish immediately to decide the matter, and so dismissed the assembly without issuing a final and formal judgment.[663]
[663] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 9. 5-7; Wars of the Jews, ii. 2, 4-7.
But before the question about the succession to the throne had been decided in Rome, new troubles had broken out in Judea. Soon after the departure of Archelaus the Jews had again risen in revolt, but had been restored to quiet by Varus, the governor of Syria. Varus had then returned to Antioch. leaving behind him in Jerusalem a legion to maintain order. But scarcely had he gone when the storm broke out afresh. After Herod’s death, pending the settlement of the question of succession to the throne, the emperor had sent to Palestine a procurator, Sabinus. But he oppressed the people in every sort of way, and behaved in all directions in the most reckless manner. Hence it was that a revolt broke out again immediately after the withdrawal of Varus. It was now the season of the Passover festival, and therefore crowds of people were present in Jerusalem. They were divided into three great divisions, and attacked the Romans at the three different points: on the north of the temple, south beside the racecourse, and on the west of the city beside the royal palace. The keenest struggle took place, first of all, at the temple. The Romans pressed forward successfully into the temple court; but the Jews offered a most stubborn resistance,—mounted upon the roofs of the buildings which surround the temple court, and hurled down stones upon the soldiers. Thses were therefore obliged to have recourse to fire, set flames to the roofs, and in this way succeeded at last in reaching the temple mount. When the longed for booty of the treasury of the temple fell into their hands, Sabinus appropriated to himself 400 talents.[664]
[664] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 10. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 3. 1-3.
But this first defeat of the rebels was only the signal for the further spread of the rebellion. In Jerusalem a portion of the soldiers of Herod joined the rebels, and consequently they were able to lay siege to Sabinus and his fighting force in the palace of Herod.[665] In the neighbourhood of Sepphoris in Galilee, Judas, the son of that Hezekiah with whom Herod had once, to the great indignation of the Sanhedrim, made so short a process (see vol. i. p. 383), gathered a number about him, gained possession of the weapons stored up in the royal arsenal, distributed these among his followers, and was able then to make all Galilee unsafe. He is even said to have aimed at obtaining the royal crown.[666] In Perea a certain Simon, formerly a slave of Herod, collected a band, and had himself proclaimed king by his followers; but was soon afterwards conquered by a Roman detachment, and put to death.[667] Finally, it is reported of one termed Athronges, formerly a shepherd, that he had assumed the royal crown, and for a long time, along with his four brothers, kept the country in a ferment.[668]—It was a time of general upheaval, when every one sought to secure the greatest possible benefit for himself. On the part of the people there was agreement only on this one point, that every one wished at any cost to be freed from the power of the Romans.
[665] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, ii. 3. 4.
[666] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 10. 5; Wars of the Jews, ii. 4. 1.
[667] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 10. 6; Wars of the Jews, ii. 4. 2.
[668] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 10. 7; Wars of the Jews, ii. 4. 3.
When Varus was informed of these proceedings, he hastened from Antioch, with the two legions which he still had with him, in order to restore order in Palestine. On the way he also procured, in addition, Arabian auxiliary troops sent by King Aretas, as well as other auxiliaries. With this fighting force he first of all reduced Galilee. Sepphoris, where that Judas had been fermenting disorder, was consigned to the flames, and the inhabitants sold as slaves. Thence Varus proceeded to Samaria, which, however, he spared because it had not taken part in the revolt. He then directed his course toward Jerusalem, where the legion stationed there was still being besieged by the Jews in the royal palace. Varus had there an easy game to play; for when the besiegers saw the powerful Roman forces approach, they lost their courage and took to flight. In this way Varus became lord of city and country. But Sabinus, who in consequence of his robbing the temple and of other misdeeds had no good conscience, made off as quickly as possible. Varus then led his troops up and down through the country, apprehending the rebels who were now lurking here and there in small parties. He had two thousand of them crucified, while he granted pardon to the mass of the people. After he had then stamped out the rebellion, he returned to Antioch.[669]
[669] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 10. 9-10, 11.1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 5. 1-3.—This war of Varus is also referred to in contra Apionem, i. 7, as one of the most important between that of Pompey and that of Vespasian. The name Varus is therefore probably to be restored in a corrupt passage in Seder olam, s. fin., in which it is said that “from the war of Asveros down to the war of Vespasian there were eighty years,” מפולמוס של אסוירוס ועד פולמוס של אספסיינוס שמנים שנה. Although the number eighty is somewhat too high, and although the best text exemplars give אסוירוס, it is yet highly probable that ורוס should be read, i.e. Varos (so Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. pp. 249, 714 ff.; Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 194; Brann, De Herodis qui dicitur Magni filiis, p. 24 sq.). In reference to the transmission of the text, compare especially, Salzer, Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, iv. 1877, pp. 141-144.
While these things were going on in Judea, Archelaus and Antipas were still in Rome waiting for the decision of the emperor. Before this was issued an embassy from the people of Judea appeared before the emperor, asking that none of the Herodians should be appointed king, but that they should be permitted to live in accordance with their own laws. About the same time Philip also, the last of the three brothers, to whom territories had been bequeathed by Herod, made his appearance in Rome in order to press his claims, and likewise to support those of his brother Archelaus.[670] In regard to these conflicting claims, Augustus was obliged at last to give a decision. In an assembly which he fixed precisely for this purpose in the temple of Apollo, he heard first of all the ambassadors from the Jewish people. These reported a long list of scandalous misdeeds which Herod had allowed and sought them to buttress, their demand that none of the Herodian race should any more govern in Palestine, but that it should be granted them to live according to their own laws under Roman suzerainty. When they had ended, Nicolas of Damascus arose and spoke on behalf of his master Archelaus.[671] When Augustus had thus heard both sides, he issued his decision after a few days. By it the will of Herod was in all essential points sustained. Archelaus obtained the territory assigned to him: Judea, Samaria, Idumea; only the cities of Gaza, Gadara, and Hippos were severed from these domains and attached to the province of Syria; and instead of the title of king, that of ethnarch was given him. Antipas obtained Galilee and Perea, with the title of tetrarch; Philip, also as tetrarch. received the districts of Batanea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis. Archelaus was to derive from his territories an income of 600 talents, Antipas 200 talents, and Philip 100 talents. Also Salome, the sister of Herod the Great, obtained the portion assigned to her, the cities of Jamnia, Azotus, Phasaelis, and 500,000 pieces of silver, in addition to the palace at Ascalon.[672]—Salome lived in the enjoyment of these possessions for some twelve or fourteen years. She died about A.D. 10, in the time of the procurator M. Ambivius, and bequeathed her property to the Empress Livia.[673]
[670] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 11. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 1.—The facts here related have unquestionably afforded the outward framework for the parable of the Pounds, Luke 19:12 ff. Compare especially ver. 12: “A certain nobleman (Archelaus) went into a far country (Rome) to receive for himself a kingdom (Judea), and to return.” Ver. 14: “But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying: We will not have this man to reign over us.”—Sevin (Chronologie des Lebens Jesu, 1874, pp. 128-130) is wrong in thinking of the journey of Antipas reported by Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 1; for in it is wanting a main point, viz. the embassy and protest of the people. Indeed, we have no information at all as to the purpose of that journey.
[671] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 11. 2-3 Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 2.
[672] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 11. 4-5; Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 3; generally also, Nicolas of Damascus in Müller, Fragmenta, iii. 354; Strabo, xvi. 2. 46, p. 765.—On the cities named above, Gaza, Gadara, Hippos, Jamnia, Azotus, Phasaelis, see § 23, I., Div. II. vol. i. pp. 68, 76, 78, 98, 100, 131.—The title ἐθνάρχης evidently signifies a rank somewhat higher than that of τετράρχης. The former had been conferred, e.g., by Caesar upon Hyrcanus II. (see vol. i. p. 378), but is otherwise rare. On the other hand, the title τετραρχης is very common. Herod the Great and his brother Phasael had it conferred upon them by Antony (Antiq. xiv. 13. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 12. 5). In B.C. 20, Pheroras was made tetrarch of Perea (Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 5).—The expression τετραρχία was first made use of by Euripides with reference to Thessaly. That country had been from early times divided into four districts (Harpocration, Lex. ed. Dindorf, s.v. Τετραρχία … καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ ἐν τῇ κοινῇ Θετταλῶν πολιτείᾳ ἐπὶ Ἀλεύα τοῦ Πύρρου διῃρῆσθαί φησιν εἰς δʼ μοίρας τὴν Θετταλίαν. On the antiquity of the Aleuadae and on the constitutional history of Thessaly generally, see Gilbert, Handbuch der griechischen Staatsalterthümer, Bd. ii. 1885, pp. 5-17). Euripides therefore, at the close of his Alcestis, makes Admetus say: “I now command the citizens and every tetrarchy (or: ‘and the whole tetrarchy’) to proceed with the dances and to bring forward the sacrifices,” etc. (Euripides, Alcestis 1154: Ἀστοῖς δὲ πάσῃ τʼ ἐννέπω τετραρχίᾳ, etc.). When King Philip of Macedon had reduced the whole of Thessaly under his rule, he set an ἄρχων over every τετράς (Harpocration, l.c.: ὅτι δὲ Φίλιππος καθʼ ἑκάστην τούτων τῶν μοιρῶν ἄρχοντα κατέστησε δεδηλώκασιν ἄλλοι τε καὶ Θεόπομπος ἐν τῇ μδʹ). With reference to this proceeding, Demosthenes says that Philip instituted tetrarchies in Thessaly (Demosthenes, Philipp. iii. 26: ἀλλὰ Θετταλία πῶς ἔχει; οὐχὶ τὰς πολιτείας καὶ τὰς πόλεις αὐτῶν παρῄρηται καὶ τετραρχίας κατέστησεν). While some doubt can be entertained as to the meaning of τετραρχία in Euripides, it clearly signifies in Demosthenes a province containing a fourth part of the kingdom (the government of a τετράς, whence also is derived τετραδαρχία). We also meet with the expression in this original sense in Galatia. Over this country, according to the description of Strabo, twelve tetrarchies ruled, that is, four over each of the three tribes of the Trocmi, Tolistoboii, and Tectosagae (Strabo, xii. 5. 1, p. 566 sq.; less correctly in Pliny, Hist. Naturalis, v. 146). When the most of them had been massacred by Mithridates (Appian, Mithridat. 46), Pompey rearranged matters, so that over each of the three tribes there was set one tetrarch. Subsequently the number was reduced to two, and finally to one, the Dejotarua (Strabo, xii. 5. 1, p. 567; compare, in addition, the complete exposition of these relations in Niese, Rhein. Museum, Bd. 38, 1883, pp. 583-600). But although the title of tetrarch had wholly lost its original meaning, it was still retained; for the title of king, which some assumed, applied, not to Galatia, but to other possessions (Strabo, xii. 3. 13, p. 547, xiii. 4. 3, p. 625; Niese, Rhein. Museum). The title of tetrarch, completely stripped of its original signification, is met with also elsewhere very frequently in the Roman times. It was then used simply to indicate a small dependent prince, whose rank and authority was less than that of a king. Such tetrarchs seem to have been very numerous, especially in Syria. Compare Pliny, Hist. Naturalis, v. 74 : “intercursant cinguntque has urbes [Decapoleos] tetrarchiae, regnorum instar singulae; ibid. 77: Decapolitana regio praedictaeque cum ea tetrarchiae; ibid. 81: Nazerinorum tetrarchia; ibid.: tetrarchias duas quae Granucoinatitae vocantur; ibid. 82: tetrarchiam quae Mammisea appellatur; ibid.: tetrarchias in regna descriptas barbarie nominibus,” xvii. Josephus, Vita, 11: ἔκγονος Σοέμου τοῦ περὶ τὸν Λίβανον τετραρχοῦντος. Antony made presents of “tetrarchies and kingdoms” (Plutarch, Antony, 36: πολλοῖς ἐχαρίζετο τετραρχίας καὶ βασιλείας ἐθνῶν μεγάλων). To the army of Varus in B.C. 4 belonged also auxiliaries which ἡ βασιλεῖς ἥ τινες τετράρχαι τότε παρεῖχον (Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 10. 9, init.). In the time of Nero the “tetrarch and kings” in Asia were instructed to obey the orders of Corbulo (Tacitus, Annals, xv. 25: “scribitur tetrarchis ac regibus praefectisque et procuratoribus … jussis Corbulonis obsequi”). And so generally during the Roman times besides the reges, the tetrarchae were very often referred to as minor princes of subordinate rank (e.g. Cicero, in Vatinium, 12. 29; pro Balbo, 5. 13; pro Milone, 28. 76; Philipp. xi. 12. 31; Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 3; Bell. Alex. 78; Horace, Satires, i. 3. 12. Further examples may be found in the lïterature quoted below). Besides the Galatian tetrarchs and the Herodian princes, we have particular information about the tetrarchs of Chalcis or Iturea: Ptolemy, Lysanias, Zenodorus (see about these in Appendix I.). When we consider the small importance of these minor princes, it is not to be wondered at that the title τετράρχης is comparatively seldom met with on inscriptions and coins. On inscriptions, compare Corpus Inscript. Graec. n. 4033, 4058; Bullettino dell’ Instituto di corrisp. archeol. 1873, p. 365 sq. (both referring to Herod Antipas); Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4521, 4523= Renan, Mission de Phénicie, pp. 317-319 (dynasty of Chalcie). Of coins, besides those of Philip and Herod Antipas, we meet only with those of Ptolemy, Lysanias, and Zenodorus (see Appendix I.).—Compare generally: Stephanus, Thesaurus, s.v. Τετράρχης and Τετραρχία; Forcellini, Lexicon, s.v. tetrarches and tetrarchia; Winer, Realwörterbuch, ii. 593; Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, v. 487-490; Bohn, Qua condicione juris reges socii papuli Romani fuerint (1877), pp. 9-11; Niese, Galatien und seine Tetrarchen (Rhein. Museum, Bd. 38, 1883, pp. 583-600).
[673] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 2.
What had been the empire of Herod was therefore now parted into three territories, each of which has for a while its own history.