Part 5

Here follows a description of Herod’s subjugation of Zenodorus and the robber bands in Trachonitis.

So Cæsar bestowed upon Herod the territory of Zenodorus, an extensive region lying between Trachonitis and Galilee (and embracing) Ulatha and Paneas[116] and the neighbouring country. He attached it[117] to the province of Syria, but instructed the provincial governors to do nothing without obtaining Herod’s approval.

In short, he reached such a height of prosperity that, whereas the burden of government of the vast Roman Empire rested upon two men, first Cæsar, and then (as Cæsar’s favourite) Agrippa, Cæsar preferred no one to Herod after Agrippa, and Agrippa made Herod his chief friend after Cæsar.—_Ant._ XV. 10. 1 and 3 (342 f.; 360 f.).

Footnote 112:

The building of Cæsarea and its harbour, etc.

Footnote 113:

Herod’s new name for Samaria.

Footnote 114:

Augustus.

Footnote 115:

Lit. “Trachon.” The three districts correspond approximately to Bashan of the O.T.

Footnote 116:

Ulatha and Paneas N. and N.E. of the Waters of Merom.

Footnote 117:

Text (Niese) uncertain. Most MSS “him”; lit. “mixed him with (? = ‘put him on a level with’) the governors of Syria.”

(19) The Historian’s Reading of Herod’s Character

It is usual to remark with astonishment on the inconsistency of Herod’s character. When we have regard to his munificent actions and the benefits which he conferred on the world at large, even one who is not among his warm admirers[118] cannot deny that he was by nature supremely beneficent. If, on the other hand, one looks at the penalties inflicted and the wrongs done by him to his subjects and nearest relations, and takes note of his harsh and unrelenting disposition, one will be forced to the conclusion that he was of a brutal nature and an alien to all humanity.[119] Hence the common opinion that his character was, as it were, a compound of conflicting and antagonistic elements.

I do not share this opinion; my view is that both these sides of his character had one and the same cause. He was ambitious, indeed an abject slave to that passion; and where there appeared any promise of posthumous fame or present reputation, he might even attain magnanimity. But, since his expenditure outran his means, necessity drove him to be cruel to his subjects. His lavish bounty to his beneficiaries forced him to procure his supplies by criminal methods[120] from his victims. He was conscious that his subjects hated him for the wrongs which he did them, but found it no easy matter to atone for his sins without loss to his exchequer. Instead he fought his opponents, converting even their disaffection into a source of revenue. As for his nearest and dearest, if any one omitted to address him in obsequious language and to display a subservient attitude, or was suspected of plotting against the realm, he was incapable of self-control and punished relatives and friends alike, one after another, as though they were open enemies; to such crimes was he driven by his desire that honour should be paid to himself alone.

I find confirmation for my belief that this passion was the key to his character in the manner in which he conferred his honours on Cæsar and Agrippa and the rest of his friends. He looked for a return in kind of the service which he paid to his superiors; his gifts were the most excellent he could conceive, but the way in which he gave them revealed his desire to receive the like.

The Jewish nation, however, is by its law alienated from all such things; its training has taught it to prefer righteousness to the pursuit of glory. For this reason it was out of favour with Herod, because it was incapable of flattering the king’s vanity by erecting images or shrines or by any such practices. This, I think, explains at once the crimes of which he was guilty against his relatives and advisers and his benefactions to foreigners and those outside his family.—_Ant._ XVI. 5. 4 (150-159).

Footnote 118:

Most MSS read: “even those who were less (_or_ least) honoured (by him).”

Footnote 119:

Lit. “moderation.”

Footnote 120:

The Greek is difficult and the sense a little obscure. The phrase, κακῶν ποριστὴν (lit. “provider of evils,” “purveyor of misfortunes to his victims”), seems to be a reminiscence of Thuc. VIII. 48.

(20) Reflections on the Tragic Fate of Herod’s Sons

A quarrel extending over many years between Herod and his sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, after a reconciliation had been effected first by Augustus and then by others, ends in his putting them to death on the charge of treason.

[Sidenote: (?) 7 B.C.]

Alexander and Aristobulus were then, by their father’s orders, removed to Sebaste[121] and there strangled. Their bodies were conveyed by night to Alexandrium,[122] where their mother’s father[123] and most of their ancestors lay buried.

Now some, perhaps, may not find it strange that a long cherished hatred should grow so great as to surpass all bounds and overpower the natural affections. Yet the apportionment of the guilt for so grave a crime may well give pause for reflection. Should it be laid to the charge of the youths that they drove their father to extremities[124] and by long and persistent recalcitrance paved the way for their own ruin? Or was the father himself the culprit—without feelings and so extravagant in his lust for dominion and fame that he was prepared to sacrifice any one[125] to ensure unquestioning obedience to his every whim? Or, again, was it Fortune—Fortune whose power is mightier than any considerate thought,[126] so that we believe that human actions are foreordained by her by an inevitable necessity, and we call her Destiny, because we think that nothing happens of which she is not the ultimate cause?

It will suffice, I think,[127] merely to propound this last view as an alternative to the other.[128] We do not thereby deprive ourselves[129] of all free-will nor disclaim responsibility for acting in this way or that in matters which long before our time have been elsewhere philosophically treated in the Law.

As between the two other alternatives, one might censure the lads, in that, with youthful impetuosity and princely insolence, they tolerated calumnies upon their father, and were no fair critics of the actions of his life.[130] Malicious in their suspicions, and intemperate in speech, they were on both grounds an easy prey to the flattering informers who lay in wait for them.

As for the father, his impious treatment of his sons seems to admit of no extenuation. With no clear evidence of a plot, with no proof of any preparations for an attempt on his life, he had the heart to slay his own flesh and blood. Men of the noblest presence, the darlings of all outside the family, proficient in their pursuits, whether hunting or military exercises or discourse on everyday topics—they had all these gifts, in particular Alexander, the elder of the two. Granted that he had actually found them guilty, it would have been punishment enough to confine them in prison or to banish them from the realm, without taking their lives; he had the sure shield of the power of the Roman Empire[131] to secure him from assault and violence. But to kill them out of hand to gratify an overmastering passion was a clear case of impiety beyond measure; this appalling crime was, moreover, the act of an old man. The long struggle and procrastination cannot be urged in his excuse. That a man taken by surprise should in a fit of excitement commit some monstrous crime, though distressing, is an event of common occurrence. But this deliberate and leisurely procedure—often to take the deed in hand and as often to postpone it, and then at last to undertake it and carry it through—that was the work of a murderous mind, rooted in depravity.

He displayed the same character in the sequel, when he did not stay his hand even from those whom he held dearest of the remaining members of his family.[132] In their case the justice of the sentence created less sympathy for the victims, but the barbarity was the same as was shown in his refusal of mercy to the others.—_Ant._ XVI. 11. 7 f. (394-404).

Footnote 121:

The rebuilt city of Samaria.

Footnote 122:

A fortress in Judæa.

Footnote 123:

An elder Alexander.

Footnote 124:

Text doubtful.

Footnote 125:

Reading, with Niese, παραλειπτέον, “thought that none should be left (alive).” MSS παραληπτέον, which Whiston renders “would take no one into partnership with him.”

Footnote 126:

Or perhaps “is superior to all wise calculation.”

Footnote 127:

Adopting the conjecture ὡς νομίζω for ὡς μείζω. The text and meaning of this difficult passage are uncertain.

Footnote 128:

The doctrine of Free-will.

Footnote 129:

Or perhaps “... to the other, (under which) we do not deprive ourselves.”

Footnote 130:

Or “of the actions which he took to protect his life.”

Footnote 131:

The _Romana potestas_.

Footnote 132:

With special reference to Antipater, Herod’s heir and afterwards his victim.

(21) Herod’s Dying Provision for a National Mourning

With this passage we reach the N.T. period. The grim story of an intended massacre, happily in this case averted, affords a parallel to the Gospel story of the murder of the innocents.

[Sidenote: 4 B. C.]

Now, although his sufferings seemed beyond human endurance, he did not despair of recovery. He sent for physicians, and consented to try every remedy which they prescribed. He crossed over the river Jordan, and surrendered himself to treatment in the hot springs at Callirrhoe. These waters, besides their general remedial properties, are fit to drink; they debouch into the so-called Bituminous[133] Lake. Here, the physicians deciding that a higher temperature was needed, he was placed in a vat of oil. To this treatment he appeared to have succumbed, but when his attendants fell to lamentation, he rallied, and now abandoning all hope of recovery, gave orders that every soldier should be paid fifty pieces of silver;[134] he made further large bequests to their commanding officers and to his personal friends. Returning to Jericho, he had an attack of black bile, which rendered him so savage with all the world[135] that, although now nearing his end, he contrived the scheme which I proceed to describe.

By his orders, the principal men from every quarter of the entire Jewish nation waited upon him. They came in large numbers, as the summons was to the nation and was universally obeyed, death being the penalty for disregard of the injunctions. For the king was mad with rage against all alike, whether innocent or suspected of guilt. He then locked them all up in the hippodrome, and sent for his sister Salome and her husband Alexas.

He told them that his bodily sufferings were now so great that death could not be far off. Death could be borne, and came to all as a welcome guest; but what grieved him most was the thought that he would lack the lamentations and miss the mourning usually accorded to a king. He was not blind to the feelings of the Jews, and knew what relief and intense delight his death would bring them,[136] because, even in his lifetime, they were always ready to rebel and to treat his projects with contumely. “It is therefore your task,” he proceeded, “to resolve[137] to afford me some alleviation of this particular pain. If you do not refuse your consent to my wishes, I shall receive a great funeral, such as no king ever had before me, and a heartfelt national lamentation for my sport and delectation. When, therefore, you see that I have given up the ghost, let the troops be drawn up round the hippodrome, still unaware of my death—the news must not be published to the world till you have done this—and the order given to shoot down the prisoners within with their javelins. If you kill them all in this manner, you will without fail do me a double favour. You will execute my dying injunctions; you will also get me the honour of a memorable mourning.”

Such was the charge which, with tears and supplication and appeals to the loyalty due to a kinsman and their faith in God, he laid upon them, and bade them preserve him from dishonour. And they promised not to fail him.

From these final injunctions even a friendly critic of the king’s former actions, who attributed his treatment of his family to self-preservation, might read the mind of the man and see how destitute it was of every spark of humanity; since on the very verge of his exit from life he could lay his plans for throwing the whole nation into mourning and desolation for their nearest and dearest. For his orders were to butcher one out of every household, men who had done him no wrong and were not accused on any other ground; and these orders were given at an hour when persons with any pretensions to virtue commonly lay aside their rancour, even towards those whom they justly regard as enemies.—_Ant._ XVII. 6. 5 f. (171-181).

Footnote 133:

Asphaltophoros (elsewhere Asphaltitis), _i.e._ the Dead Sea.

Footnote 134:

Gr. “drachmae.” The drachma was nearly the equivalent of the Lat. _denarius_, in value a little less than the modern “franc.”

Footnote 135:

Or “in all his actions.”

Footnote 136:

In the parallel passage (_B.J._ I. 660), “I know that the Jews will observe my death as a feast-day.” It has been thought that a festival on the second of the month Shebat, of which the occasion is unrecorded, may have commemorated Herod’s death.

Footnote 137:

Lit. “give your vote.”

V. ARCHELAUS AND PILATE

(22) Archelaus in Quest of a Kingdom

“A certain nobleman went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom and to return.... But his citizens hated him, and sent an ambassage after him, saying, We will not that this man reign over us. And it came to pass, when he was come back again, having received the kingdom.... Howbeit these mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (Luke xix. 12 ff.).

“There is little doubt that” this parable “was suggested by contemporary history. The remarkable feature of the opposing embassy makes the reference to Archelaus highly probable; and Jericho, which he had enriched with buildings, would suggest his case as an illustration” (Plummer). The fact that Archelaus came back with only a provisional promise of kingship does not detract from the probability.

Herod’s death was the signal for a national outbreak against his successor. A riot took place at Passover, [Sidenote: 4 B.C.] and Archelaus left for Rome to have his title confirmed (Cf. the _Hist. Atlas_ previously cited, Map 43).

Archelaus then issued a proclamation that all should withdraw to their homes. So they abandoned the feast and departed, for fear of worse evils, although in their ignorant way they had shown boldness enough.[138]

Archelaus then went down to the sea-board with his mother; he took with him also his friends Nicolaus,[139] Ptolemy and Ptolla.[140] He committed the entire charge of his family and realm to his brother Philip. There also sailed with him Salome, Herod’s sister, with her children, and many of his relations; ostensibly to assist Archelaus to obtain his kingdom, but in reality intending to oppose him, and in particular to protest loudly against his proceedings in the Temple.—_Ant._ XVII. 9. 3 (218-220).

After the departure of Archelaus, Sabinus, the procurator of Judæa, tries to get possession of Herod’s treasures in the Temple.

A Rival Claimant to the Kingdom

About this time Antipas, another of Herod’s sons, also set sail for Rome, to make a rival claim to the throne, to which he was instigated to aspire by Salome’s promises. He claimed that he had a much better right than Archelaus to the succession, in virtue of his nomination as king in Herod’s former will, which, in his opinion, had greater validity than the later codicils. He took with him his mother and the brother of Nicolaus, Ptolemy, one of Herod’s most honoured friends, and now a staunch champion of Antipas. But the man who more than any other prompted him to think of claiming the throne was Irenæus, a professional speaker, who on account of his reputation for ability had been entrusted with the administration of the realm. Thus supported, Antipas declined to listen to those who advised him to make way for Archelaus as the elder son and the one who had been declared king in their father’s later will.

When Antipas reached Rome, his relatives went over to him in a body; not for love of Antipas, but from hatred of Archelaus. What they really desired was to be free and placed under a Roman governor; but, if anything prevented this, they thought Antipas would serve their ends better than Archelaus, and therefore lent him their aid in his suit. Another of Archelaus’s accusers was Sabinus in a letter addressed to Cæsar.[141]—_Ant._ XVII. 9. 4 (224-227).

Augustus holds a council and hears both sides; Antipater, son of Salome, undertaking the prosecution, Nicolaus the defence, of Archelaus.

Here Nicolaus ended his harangue. Archelaus then fell on his knees before Cæsar,[142] who graciously raised him up and declared that he was very worthy of the kingdom; he showed, moreover, that he was strongly inclined[143] to act only in accordance with the tenor of the will and in the interests of Archelaus. Nothing, however, was decided which could afford Archelaus any sure ground for confidence; and on the dismissal of the assembly, the Emperor privately considered whether he should confirm the kingdom to Archelaus or should divide it between the whole Herodian family, as they all stood much in need of assistance.

However, before any final settlement was reached on these matters, Malthace, the mother of Archelaus, fell ill and died, and letters arrived from Varus, the governor of Syria, announcing a revolt of the Jews. For, after Archelaus had sailed, the whole nation was in an uproar.—_Ant._ XVII. 9. 7-10. 1 (248-251).

Passover had been the occasion of the former riot; this new insurrection broke out at Pentecost. At this feast the Jews laid siege to the Roman force in Jerusalem under Sabinus, who had plundered the Temple treasury. During the fighting the porticoes of the Temple were burnt down. Simultaneously various claimants to the kingdom appeared in Judæa. The revolt was quelled by Varus, who relieved Sabinus and crucified two thousand of the Jewish ringleaders.

A Jewish Embassy to Rome asks for Autonomy

Meanwhile at Rome fresh troubles for Archelaus were arising out of the following circumstances. An embassy of Jews came to Rome to petition for autonomy, the nation having secured the sanction of Varus to the mission. The ambassadors appointed by the resolution of the nation numbered fifty; these were joined by upwards of eight thousand of the Jews in Rome. Cæsar[144] summoned his friends and the leading Romans to a meeting in the temple of Apollo, which he had founded at great expense, and thither came the envoys with their crowd of local compatriots, and Archelaus with his friends. As for King Herod’s numerous relatives, their hatred of Archelaus would not allow them to range themselves on his side, while they shrunk from voting with the embassy against him, supposing that a show of alacrity in opposing one of their own family would bring them into disgrace with Cæsar.

A newcomer had now arrived from Syria, namely Philip. He came at the instigation of Varus, primarily to advocate the cause of his brother, who was a great friend of Varus; but there was the further motive that, in the event of any revolutionary change in the government of the kingdom—a change which Varus suspected would take the form of a partition, because so many were bent on autonomy—Philip should not be behind-hand in winning some portion for himself.—_Ant._ XVII. 11. 1 (299-303).

The deputation then present their indictment of Herod’s tyranny.

The sum of their request was that they might be rid of the kingship and other such forms of government and be added to Syria and made subject to the authority of the (Roman) governors who were sent to that province; if they were given milder rulers to preside over them, it would then be apparent whether or no they were really seditious persons who made a special study of revolutions.—_Ant._ XVII. 11. 2 (314).

Nicolaus once more vindicates Herod and Archelaus.

The Emperor’s Decision

Cæsar, after hearing the case, dissolved the assembly. His decision was given a few days later. He made Archelaus, not king, but ethnarch of half the district which had been subject to Herod, and promised him the reward of regal rank, if he displayed capacity for kingship. The other half he divided into two portions[145] which he presented to two other of Herod’s sons, namely Philip and Antipas, the latter of whom had been the rival claimant with his brother Archelaus to the undivided monarchy. Peræa and Galilee, producing an annual revenue of two hundred talents, were made subject to Antipas. Batanæa with Trachonitis[146] and Auranitis and a certain portion of the so-called estate[147] of Zenodorus went to Philip and brought him in a hundred talents. Idumæa, Judæa and Samaria became tributary to Archelaus. The last-named district had a quarter of its taxes remitted by Imperial decree, the abatement being a reward for its having taken no part in the national revolt. The cities which were tributary to Archelaus were Strato’s Tower[148] and Sebaste[149] with Joppa and Jerusalem; the Greek cities Gaza, Gadara and Hippos were detached from his jurisdiction by the Emperor and added to Syria. The annual revenue which accrued to Archelaus from the dominion which he inherited was six hundred talents.

Such were the portions of their father’s realm which came to Herod’s sons. Salome, besides the legacy assigned to her in her brother’s will—namely Jamnia, Azotus, Phasælis, and five hundred thousand (drachmas)[150] of coined silver—was presented by Cæsar with the royal palace at Ascalon. Her annual revenue from all sources was sixty talents; her residence was within the domain of Archelaus. The other relatives of the (deceased) king received the legacies named in the will. To each of his two unmarried daughters, beside what their father left them, Cæsar presented two hundred and fifty thousand (drachmas)[151] of coined silver and gave them in marriage to the sons of Pheroras. He further bestowed all that had been bequeathed to himself, amounting to fifteen hundred talents, upon the king’s children, reserving only a few vessels, which pleased him not so much for their intrinsic value as because they served as memorials of the king.—_Ant._ XVII. 11. 4 f. (317-323).

Footnote 138:

Or, perhaps, “Their lack of discipline, although they were bold enough (counselled prudence).”

Footnote 139:

Nicolas of Damascus, minister and historian of Herod the Great.

Footnote 140:

_Var. lect._ “and many (others)” (πολλοὺς); in _B.J._ Poplas.

Footnote 141:

Augustus.

Footnote 142:

Augustus.

Footnote 143:

Reading ῥοπὴν (conj. Niese). With MS reading τροπὴν, “had been strongly moved” by Nicolaus’s arguments.

Footnote 144:

Augustus.

Footnote 145:

“Two tetrarchies,” _B.J._ (parallel pass.).

Footnote 146:

Gr. “Trachon.”

Footnote 147:

Gr. “house.”

Footnote 148:

Cæsarea.

Footnote 149:

Samaria.

Footnote 150:

The unit is omitted in the Gr.

Footnote 151:

The unit is omitted in the Gr.

(23) Archelaus Deposed and his Territory added to the Roman Province of Syria