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
Now in the tenth year of Archelaus’s rule, [Sidenote: A.D. 6] the
leading men of Judæa and Samaria, impatient of his cruel and tyrannical
conduct, laid an accusation against him before Cæsar;[152] they did so
with greater confidence, knowing that he had violated the Emperor’s
injunctions to be lenient in his dealings with his subjects. On hearing
the accusation Cæsar was indignant and sent for the agent of Archelaus’s
affairs in Rome, whose name also was Archelaus, and, disdaining to write
to Archelaus, said to him, “Take ship at once and bring him to us
without delay.” The agent accordingly embarked forthwith, reached Judæa,
found Archelaus feasting with his friends, communicated Cæsar’s will and
hurried him off. On his arrival, Cæsar, after hearing his defence in the
presence of certain of his accusers, sent him into banishment,
appointing Vienne, a city of Gaul, as his place of exile, and
confiscated his property....
The district which had been tributary to Archelaus was annexed[153] to
the province of Syria, and Quirinius, a man of consular rank, was sent
by Cæsar to take a valuation of the property in Syria and to sell the
personal estate[154] of Archelaus.—_Ant._ XVII. 13. 2, 5 (342-344, 355).
Footnote 152:
Augustus.
Footnote 153:
Or perhaps “the district of A. was annexed and made tributary.”
Footnote 154:
Gr. “house.”
(24) The Revolt of Judas “in the days of the enrolment” under Quirinius
“After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the
enrolment and drew away people after him” (Acts v. 37). Josephus
here narrates the story of the revolt in the year A.D. 6, to which
Gamaliel alludes in his speech in the Sanhedrin as reported in the
Acts. See Appendix, Note I, for the relation of this enrolment to
“the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria”
(Luke ii. 2); also Note IV (“Theudas and Judas”).
[Sidenote: A.D. 6-7]
Now Quirinius, a Roman senator, and one who had held all the subordinate
offices, passing through each grade[155] until he reached the consulate,
and a man of high reputation on other grounds, came with a small retinue
to Syria, being sent by Cæsar[156] as judicial administrator of the
nation and assessor of the national property. With him was sent
Coponius, a man of equestrian rank, as governor of the Jews with supreme
powers. Quirinius also visited Judæa, now an appanage of the province of
Syria, to take a valuation of the Jews’ property and to sell the estate
of Archelaus.
The Jews, although they were indignant when they first heard of the
proposed enrolments, under the influence of the high priest Joazar, son
of Boethus, condescended to desist from further opposition; they yielded
to his advice and, without more scruple, set about valuing their
estates. But one Judas, a Gaulanite, from a city called Gamala,[157]
with a confederate, Zadok a Pharisee, was for rushing into revolt. They
asserted that the valuation meant nothing less than the introduction of
downright slavery,[158] and exhorted the nation to rally in defence of
their liberty. “If,” they said, “our possessions are devoted to the
common weal, success may be ours; if, after all, we are robbed of this
asset, we shall win honour and a reputation for magnanimity. God, who
looks for man’s co-operation to achieve His purposes, will be much more
ready to assist us, if we do not shirk the toil entailed by the great
cause which we have at heart.”
Their words found willing hearers, and the daring enterprise[159] made
great strides. Indeed, every form of disaster took its origin from these
men; the infection which they brought into the nation passes
description.
Josephus proceeds to trace all the horrors of the Jewish War,
culminating in the burning of the Temple, to “the fourth sect” (or
“philosophy”) introduced by Judas and Zadok, _i. e._ the sect of the
Zealots. Then follows a digression on the Jewish sects, see § (55),
below.