King Herod: A Persecuted Persecutor: A Case Study in Psychohistory and Psychobiography (Studia Judaica 36) (Studia Judaica)

King Herod: A Persecuted Persecutor – A Case Study in Psychohistory and Psychobiography

Aryeh Kasher

Walter de Gruyter

KING HEROD: A PERSECUTED PERSECUTOR

≥

S TUDIA JUDAICA F OR SC H U NGE N Z U R W I S S E N S C H A F T D E S JUDE N T U M S

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON E. L. EHRLICH UND G. STEMBERGER

BAND XXXVI

WA LT E R D E G RU Y T E R · B E R L I N · N E W YO R K

KING HEROD: A PERSECUTED PERSECUTOR A CASE STUDY IN PSYCHOHISTORY AND PSYCHOBIOGRAPHY BY ARYEH KASHER IN COLLABORATION WITH

ELIEZER WITZTUM TRANSLATED BY KAREN GOLD

WA LT E R D E G RU Y T E R · B E R L I N · N E W YO R K

The translation was supported by the Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies and the Research Authority at Tel-Aviv University, and by the Research Authority at Ben-Gurion University in the Negev.

앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI 앪 to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kasher, Aryeh. [Hordus. English] King Herod : a persecuted persecutor : a case study in psychohistory and psychobiography / by Aryeh Kasher in collaboration with Eliezer Witztum ; translated by Karen Gold. p. cm. − (Studia Judaica ; Bd. 36) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-018964-3 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Herod I, King of Judea, 73-4 B.C. 2. Herod I, King of Judea, 73-4 B.C.−Psychology. 3. Jews−History−586 B.C.-70 A.D. I. Witztum, Eliezer. II. Title. DS122.3.K2613 2006 933’.05092−dc22 [B] 2007003428

ISBN: 978-3-11-018964-3 ISSN 0585-5306 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

쑔 Copyright 2007 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany Cover Design: Christopher Schneider Typesetting: OLD-Media OHG Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & CO. KG, Göttingen

Table of Contents Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xvii

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xix

Introduction Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Psychopathological Aspects of Herod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 12

Chapter 1 Residues of Childhood in the Late Hasmonaean Period (73/72–63 BCE) Herod’s Origins and Their Impact on His Personality. . . . . Political Ambitions since Childhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18 24

Chapter 2 Adolescence in the Shadow of the Roman Conquest (63–42 BCE) Consolidation of Power in the House of Antipater . . . . . . . Appointment as Strategos of Galilee, and Trial before Sanhedrin (47–46 BCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Political Acrobatics Following the Murder of Julius Caesar Betrothal to Mariamme the Hasmonaean (42 BCE) . . . . . .

34 39 45 51

Chapter 3 From the Utmost Depths to the Conquest of Jerusalem (41–37 BCE) In the Shadow of the Parthian Invasion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Rift between Herod and the Nabateans . . . . . . . . . . . . Herod is Crowned in Rome as King of Judaea . . . . . . . . . . The War against Mattathias Antigonus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57 64 65 72

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter 4 Herod in the First Year of His Reign (37 BCE) Conquest of Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Execution of Mattathias Antigonus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marriage to Mariamme the Hasmonaean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Arrangements in Conquered Jerusalem. . . . . . . . . . . .

84 86 92 99

Chapter 5 Roots and Ramifications of the Hasmonaean Trauma (37–34 BCE) The Problem of John Hyrcanus II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 The Murder of Aristobulus III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Alexandra and Cleopatra’s Influence on Antony Regarding the Laodicea Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Construction of Masada as a Palace-Fortress . . . . . . . . . . . 116 The First Rift with Mariamme the Hasmonaean . . . . . . . . 118

Chapter 6 Cleopatra VII’s Influence on Relations between Herod and Antony (34–31 BCE) Antony’s Declarations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Construction of the Antonia Fortress in Jerusalem . . . . . . . 128 Groundless Fears after Meeting at Laodicea, and the Start of the Costobarus Affair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Desertion from Antony’s Camp Under Cover of the First War against the Nabataeans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Chapter 7 Elimination of Herod’s Hasmonaean Family Members (30–28 BCE) Execution of John Hyrcanus II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Growing Hasmonaean Trauma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Meeting with Octavian at Rhodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Trial and Execution of Mariamme the Hasmonaean . . Elimination of Alexandra the Hasmonaean . . . . . . . . . . . . Marriage to Malthace the Samaritan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appointment of Simon Son of Boethus as High Priest, and Herod’s Marriage to his Daughter, Mariamme . . . . . . . . . .

155 158 160 163 174 175 176

Table of Contents

vii

Chapter 8 Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression (27–10 BCE) Beginning of Construction at the Herodium . . . . . . . . . . . . Construction of Stadiums and Theaters in Jerusalem and Jericho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mocking of Jewish Values and Brutal Suppression of Opponents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion of the Costobarus Affair. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Construction of Herod’s Palace in Jerusalem and Its Famous Towers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Construction of Sebaste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Building of Caesarea Maritima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intimidation by Secret Police and Foreign Mercenaries . . . .

181 184 187 190 192 194 196 208

Chapter 9 Herod’s Address in Preparation for the Building of the Holy Temple (23/22 BCE) Tension in Jerusalem upon Hearing of the Plan to Build the Temple. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Speech at the Great Jerusalem People’s Assembly Leading Up to Construction of the Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Euphoria of Construction: A Form of Herodian “Messianism”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

213 215 218

Chapter 10 Hidden Motivations for Building the Holy Temple: “Rivalry” with the Hasmonaeans and a Desire to Flaunt His Grandeur What Was Herod’s True Incentive for Building the Temple? Dedication of the Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Offering in Honor of the Emperor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

225 239 243

Chapter 11 Return to Daily Reality amid New Tensions (18–14 BCE) From the Euphoria of Building to an Ongoing Persecution Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Law against Thieves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Return of Herod’s Sons from Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

viii

Table of Contents

Visit of Marcus Agrippa to Judaea (15 BCE). . . . . . . . . . . . 248 Herod’s Aid to the Jews of Ionia, Asia Minor, and Cyrene (14 BCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Negative Impact of Salome and Pheroras on Herod . . . . . . 254

Chapter 12 A Turn for the Worse at Home and Continued Activity Abroad (14–10 BCE) Antipater Deepens the Rift between Herod and his Hasmonaean Sons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Completion of Construction in Caesarea and the Dedication of the City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contributions to Hellenist Cities throughout the Empire . .

259 272 276

Chapter 13 Further Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State and Worsening Relations with his Hasmonaean Sons (10–9 BCE) Looting of King David’s Tomb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rivalry between Antipater, His Hasmonaean Brothers, Salome, and Pheroras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Involvement of Salome and Pheroras in the Conflict between Herod and His Hasmonaean Sons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The “Syllaeus Affair” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suspicions of Contempt toward Herod by His Son Alexander: The Three Eunuchs Affair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

281 285 289 295 301

Chapter 14 A Downward Spiral at Home and Abroad (9–7 BCE) The Ring of Suspicion Tightens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alexander’s Fateful Blunder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Archelaus King of Cappadocia Comes to the Aid of Alexander. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Herod’s Second War against the Nabateans . . . . . . . . . . . .

305 310 315 320

Chapter 15 Lead-Up to the Great Explosion (8–7 BCE) The Eurycles Affair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torture of the Bodyguards Jucundus and Tyrannus . . . . . .

325 331

Table of Contents

Second Reconciliation Attempt of Archelaus King of Cappadocia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix 336

Chapter 16 The Tragic End of Alexander and Aristobulus (7 BCE) Trial of the Hasmonaean Sons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 Reactions of the Public and the Army to the Verdict against Herod’s Sons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 Execution of Alexander and Aristobulus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348 Josephus’ Summary of Herod’s Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349

Chapter 17 Antipater’s Subversion in the Royal Court of Jerusalem (7–5 BCE) Increasing Influence of Antipater over Herod . . . . . . . . . . . 353 Machinations of the Women of the Court, Led by Salome and the Wife of Pheroras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 Appointment of Antipater as Successor, and Dawning of Suspicions against Him . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 Increasing Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State . . . . . . . . 366

Chapter 18 The Bitter Fate of Antipater Antipater’s Trial (5 BCE). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

372

Chapter 19 Descent into Oblivion (4 BCE) Severe Decline in Herod’s Mental and Physical State. . . . . . 384 Killing of Judas Son of Sepphoraeus and Matthias Son of Margalus, Who Cut Down the Golden Eagle from the Temple Gate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386 Herod’s Final Illness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391 Herod’s Final Attack of Madness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394

Chapter 20 Post-Mortem Josephus’ Final Assessment of Herod’s Character . . . . . . . . Herod’s Funeral. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

405 406

Afterword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

410

x

Table of Contents

Appendix Herod’s Relations with His Immediate Family . . . . . . . . . . Milestones in Herod’s Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Remarks on Herod’s Mental State . . . . . . . . . .

424 425 430

Chronological Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

435

Maps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

448

Bibliography and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

455

Index of Names. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

503

Geographical Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

510

Foreword The original impetus for writing this book came from teaching the Herodian saga in university, largely because it offers an excellent example of divergent opinions in modern historiography – in this case, concerning one of the more prominent and fascinating figures in the history of the Second Temple period. One need only examine the wellknown study by the late Professor Abraham Schalit, König Herodes, der Mann und sein Werk (originally written in Hebrew as: ,\lmh swdrwh wl(pw #y)h) to become aware of his concerns and his ultimate conclusions with respect to Herod. Schalit sought to “balance” the diametrically opposed approaches reflected in the work of the renowned Jewish historians Hirsch (Zvi) Heinrich Graetz and Joseph Klausner, on the one hand, and of Hugo Willrich and (primarily non-Jewish) scholars of the classical world, on the other, so as to present Herod “without emotional motives, positive or negative” (pp. ix–x). In his criticism of the Jewish scholars, Schalit argued that their thinking was distorted by national and religious sentiment. Klausner, for example, could not relate to Herod without prejudging him because, from his perspective, “whatever the Hasmonaeans did could be explained and forgiven, whereas all of Herod’s deeds, even the progressive and beneficial ones, were intended solely to serve the personal needs of this evil individual” (ibid.). In Schalit’s view, “prejudice, rooted in Talmudic and general Jewish tradition regarding Herod, also motivated the great Zvi Graetz, who does not see even a single positive aspect to Herod’s life. We are confronted with an irate, bloodthirsty tyrant clutching his trembling victim in his talons and refusing to let him go until he has sucked the last drop of blood from him” (ibid.). Schalit sought a “counterweight” in the scholarly work of Walter Otto, of which he wrote: “All of the attributes of an academic composition are to be found in this study” (ibid.). Praising him further, Schalit stated that he demonstrated “meticulous use of the existing material, for one, and reasoned, level-headed judgment, for another, in keeping with the well-known dictum of Tacitus (Annales I, 1) sine

xii

Foreword

ira et studio [without anger or bias]; together, these combined to bring the world a consummate work of art” (ibid.). Nevertheless, Schalit was also critical of Otto, claiming that his work did not address the shifting trends in modern historiography as it had evolved in the fifty years since the publication of his work. In Schalit’s view, contemporary scholars take a special interest in the ideological underpinnings of the history of nations and states. According to him, “Herod is part of the ancient world, and what applies to the other members of his generation applies to him as well” (ibid.). But it is surprising that Schalit cited Tacitus, of all people, as an example of objective, unbiased writing. For some reason, he forgot how this Roman historian, who ranked among the greatest Jew-haters of all times, opened his excursus on the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple during the war of the Jews against the Romans: “However, as I am about to describe the last days of a famous city (that is, Jerusalem), it seems proper for me to give some account of its origin” (Historiae V, 2; English translation: C. H. Moore, LCL ed.). Indeed, this entire excursus is marked by the ira et studio so typical of tendentious ethnographic literature awash in the venom of preconceived notions.1 It is interesting that Schalit himself vigorously – and justifiably – attacked Hugo Willrich for writing his book Das Haus des Herodes: zwischen Jerusalem und Rom “with anger and bias.” In his view, the work offers conclusive proof that its author is permeated with Jew-hatred and that Herod serves for him as an example of those figures in ancient times who attempted in vain to “mend” the Jewish people, as in Tacitus’ comment on the deeds of Antiochus Epiphanes.2 Even more telling is the fact that Schalit “recruited” Tacitus in support of two such contrary positions. Of such a case would Seneca state: “The vices of others stand full before our eyes; to our own, our backs are turned”3 – and he too was no lover of Israel, to put it mildly. According to Schalit, Graetz’s “sin” was that he examined Herod’s history from the perspective of Talmudic tradition; Klausner erred similarly in exploring it from a national standpoint. In Schalit’s view, the study of Herodian history must be “balanced” by the broader perspective of the Roman world. For this reason, he took it upon himself to defend Herod’s honor in modern Jewish historiography. We will limit ourselves below to excerpts from Schalit’s concluding remarks, 1 2 3

Levy 1960, pp. 115–189; Stern 1980, II, pp. 1–93; Feldman 1992, passim; Schäfer 1997, esp. pp. 31–33. 185–192, including bibliography. Tacitus, Historiae V, 8. Seneca, De Ira II:28, 2: Aliena vitia in oculis habemus, a tergo nostra sunt.

Foreword

xiii

which he titled “The End of a Tragic Mistake” (selected free translation from the Hebrew version, pp. 338–342; cf. the German version, pp. 671–675): [Herod] wished to spearhead a new order in Jewish life amid the setting of the new redemption represented by the Roman kingdom and Augustus “the redeemer” … All of this was intended to open for the Jewish people a portal to the non-Jewish oikumene.4 and to dominate the Jewish sphere, which was hermetically sealed from the non-Jewish world on the domestic front. Although the Hasmonaeans from Judah Aristobulus I onward had already introduced certain Hellenist innovations into the external life of their state, the actual, earnest effort in this regard was made by Herod. This attempt found its clearest and most intense expression in the Roman interpretation given by Herod to the Jewish messianic idea. Had he succeeded, Herod would have snatched from the Jewish people the unique hallmark of its spiritual character which had left its imprint during the Second Temple period, turning it into one of the multitude of nations of the “redeeming” Hellenist-Roman oikumene … [But] between the faith of the Jewish people and Herod’s “messianic”-Roman ideal yawned a gaping chasm that could not be bridged … Herod remained in eternal disgrace in the nation’s memory, not only on the basis of the above but also for a different reason involving his tormented, warring psyche … The people saw Herod, destroyer of the Hasmonaean dynasty and some of the most treasured of its supporters, and the murderer of those closest to himself such as Mariamme and her sons, and recalled the many killings carried out by the king without benefit of justice. As a result, judgment was passed on him for all time. The people banished him from the national collective without adequately exploring the depths of the king’s sickly spirit. Herod is engraved in the memory of the people as a bloodthirsty tyrant, and did not merit a favorable reputation despite the kindness he performed for the people and the land. For the man truly did great things for the Jewish people. There is no question that if the people and the king had had the good fortune to comprehend each other’s spirit, Herod’s kingdom would have been highly revered in the people’s memory, like that of David, for Herod’s accomplishments in the political realm were no less than those of David and were perhaps even more worthy in their time as a result of the tribulations of Herod’s time that stood in the king’s way. Herod’s political achievements, whose benefits are unquestioned, as well as the curse saddling the man and his ways in the nation’s memory, are part and parcel of the same tragic fate that befell the man in his life and in his death. One can understand the feelings of his contemporaries, who were filled with horror and disgust at the sight of the king’s actions in his dealings 4

For the different meanings of oikumene in Greco-Roman literature, see: Shahar 2004 (index), in particular pp. 256–267 on Josephus’ usage of the term. It appears that Josephus combined two meanings of the word: one, the so-called “inhabited world” within the Roman Empire; and the other, a theological usage meaning God’s kingdom with the Jerusalem Temple at its center.

xiv

Foreword

both public and private. But we who stand and observe the ways of the man and the king from a distance of two thousand years, for whom it is easy to discern the boundaries of light and shadow in a person’s life, are obliged to weigh the virtues and the flaws against one another on the scales of justice, after removing from the equation all those matters that were a product of the times. We have no choice but to grudgingly admit that a kernel of great beneficence lay within Herod’s Roman policy; had the people’s leaders known how to use it for the good of the nation, they might have succeeded in sparing it from the terrible calamity that assailed it during the last seventy years of the Second Temple period … Herod’s successors were spineless, and the Pharisee leaders of the nation were too sequestered in their own world to be able to turn their thoughts to all the good and the beneficial concealed within the legacy of the great king. They deliberately caused his memory to be obliterated from the hearts of the nation, leaving him with the worst of both worlds: the good that he did was forgotten, and the abominations were preserved in memory for generations, until only the name “Herod the wicked” and the “Idumaean servant” remained. But today’s historian must call him by the name that befits him: Herod king of Israel. 5

The preceding raises the question: Why did Schalit not give his book a title more appropriate to his thesis: Herod, King of Israel: …? Did he refrain from doing so because he knew that the title “king of Israel” stands in total contradiction to his negative image in the Talmudic and national traditions, which viewed him, without question, as a foreign king (cf. Mishnah Sotah 7:8)? From our perspective – since no objective, impartial history exists – we are knowingly seeking to tip the scales in favor of the views of Graetz and Klausner (as well as G. Alon and his followers) since, in the final analysis, they are firmly grounded in a 2,000-year-old tradition that forms an integral part of the collective Jewish “I,” and specifically because the Herodian era is one of the most important chapters in Jewish history. No less surprising is the fact that Schalit did not append the title “the Great” to the name of his subject, as did most of the non-Jewish scholars of the ancient era (and subsequently, Jewish and Israeli scholars as well), chief among them the archeologists, who are well versed 5

A detailed discussion encompassing different views on a variety of issues will be offered below. At this point, we shall limit ourselves to quoting Josephus’ striking words: “(Herod) was very ambitious to leave great monuments of his government to posterity; whence it was that he was so zealous in building such fine cities, and spent such vast sums of money upon them” (AJ XV, 330). In another passage, Josephus added: “For being a man ambitious of honor, and quite overcome by that passion, he was induced to be magnificent, wherever there appeared any hopes of a future memorial, or of reputation at present” (AJ XV, 153); even when building the Temple, “he hoped that he had left himself a memorial, and procured himself a reputation after his death” (ibid., XVII, 162).

Foreword

xv

in the methods of classical philology. Indeed, one cannot ignore the fact that Jewish tradition over the centuries has evoked Herod as the consummate symbol of the “kingdom of evil” that is identified with Rome – yet at the same time waxed nostalgic, to an astonishing degree, with respect to the Hasmonaeans. The goal that we have set for ourselves in this work is to shed light on Herod’s personality and his emotional state and to propose the thesis that he suffered from significant mental disorders. In our view, there is reason to believe that he suffered from Paranoid Personality Disorder, in the terminology of the DSM-IV system of psychiatric classification.6 In addition, as we will attempt to demonstrate, his condition subsequently deteriorated into what is known in modern psychiatric terminology as a Delusional Disorder, whose recurrent episodes brought the paranoid elements of his disorder to psychotic levels, causing grave damage and ultimately even a loss of judgment, insight, and the ability to comprehend reality. At times, these were compounded by depressive states that exacerbated his condition. In the Introduction below, we will be expounding upon the methodological limitations of our discussion. Since we believe that, to a large extent, personality determines destiny, it is our opinion that the relative abundance of historical sources regarding Herod make it possible to sketch the behavioral profile of an individual who suffered from these disorders and, further, that these illnesses had significant reciprocal effects. An interpretation of this sort can, in our view, help provide a better understanding of his behavior and his achievements, and concomitantly, also shed light on new aspects of his actions. In other words, we will be making use of psychological and psychiatric insights in the belief that these can illuminate historical questions that have heretofore been shrouded in fog, and can aid us in resolving long-standing enigmas from a perspective that departs from the traditional historiographical methods. It is our hope that, in this way, we will succeed in advancing the field of interdisciplinary research that has been developing in recent decades, specifically in the areas of psychobiography and psychohistory. The first deals primarily with the study of the behavior and actions of individuals, while the second examines psychological characteristics in the behavior of groups. Highly pertinent in this context are the 6

American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition. (Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994).

xvi

Foreword

remarks of the American scholar William McKinley Runyan of University of California, Berkeley that “psychobiography may be defined as the explicit use of systematic or formal psychology in biography”;7 and that the “apparently sensible approach is to define psychohistory as the application of psychology to history, with an associated definition of psychobiography as the use of psychology in biography.”8 Since his rightful point of departure is that psychology can be an effective scientific tool in achieving a better understanding of the behavior of individuals and groups in history, we shall also attempt not to overstep this boundary in the present work. In short, our goal is to present a study that is essentially historiographic in nature but at the same time relies on methods and diagnoses from the field of behavioral sciences that we believe are necessary – and at times even vital – to a more profound understanding of the historical questions surrounding Herod the man, his deeds, and his life’s work, which have ramifications for Jewish history as a whole.

7 8

Runyan 1988, pp. 202–241. Idem 1984, pp. 194 ff.; the citation is taken from p. 200.

Preface For the readers’ convenience, most of the quotations from the Bible are English translations from Tanakh, Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia 1985. Those from Josephus are generally translations from William Whiston, A. M., The Works of Flavius Josephus, 1737 (revised by A. R. Shilleto 1890), London. We have chosen this old trustful translation mostly because of its literary style, which has a special flavor and odor of antiquity. In several cases, however, we preferred, for reasons of clarity and precision, the English translations offered by the Loeb Classical Library (namely those of H. St. Thackeray, R. Marcus, and A. Wikgren). We found it worth to include in our work relatively great number of citations from Josephus, sometimes even long ones, in order to save the readers the burden of searching in the sources. Our intention has been also to make a close analogy between the two versions of Bellum Judaicum (hence BJ) and Jewish Antiquities (hence AJ), since they are depicting differently the same man and the same events in a way that one is more favorable of Herod and the other more hostile. In our humble opinion, such an analogy is useful and convenient for the reader, the more so as can help to better expose and understand the versatile and antagonist truths regarding the image of our controversial hero. The quoted passages of Talmudic literature are taken (with a few alterations only) from standard works of reference, such as the English translation of the Mishnah (H. Danby, or J. Neusner), the Babylonian Talmud (ed. I. Epstein), and the Jerusalem Talmud (ed. J. Neusner). For the benefit, interest, and convenience of the readers, our book includes also a detailed bibliography with a list of abbreviations, an index of names, a chronological table of events, a summary table of Herod’s relations with his family which reflects his mental condition at the moment and some maps.

Acknowledgments We wish to take this opportunity to express our gratitude for the great honor bestowed on us by the Research Authority of Haifa University in awarding us the Ya’akov Bahat Prize for Outstanding Academic Book 2006. We are much obliged to Prof. Minna Rozen (Haifa University), first for introducing us to each other, and in addition, for encouraging us to write this interdisciplinary study in the fields of psychohistory and psychobiography, which are rapidly gathering momentum in the worldwide academic community. Special thanks are offered to Prof. Dr. G. Stemberger from the Institut für Judaistik der Universität Wien, who read the Hebrew manuscript of our book and recommended it for publication in the Studia Judaica series of the Walter de Gruyter publishing house, and to Dr. Albrecht Döhnert and his staff in Studia Judaica for their assistance in publishing the book. We wish to convey our deepest thanks to those who assisted us in our work: Prof. Joshua Efron, for his original thought and expertly formulated methods of research in both Talmudic literature and Josephus’ writings. His insights were a constant source of guidance, whose imprint can be felt throughout this work. Many thanks are reserved for Prof. Abraham Tal (Tel-Aviv University), who was deeply involved in the lengthy process of creating this book. He was always ready to extend a helping hand, offer words of encouragement and constructive criticism, and listen to endless requests for advice. His erudition in biblical studies and linguistics was extremely helpful and highly appreciated. Our sincere thanks to Prof. Shimon Dar (Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan), Prof. Yoram Tzafrir (The Hebrew University) and Dr. Yosef Porath (Israel Antiquities Authority) for their friendship and professional advice regarding archaeological matters; Prof. Moshe Assis (Tel-Aviv University) for his assistance in understanding specific Talmudic issues; Prof. Gershon Brin (Tel-Aviv University) for his con-

xx

Acknowledgments

tribution in clarifying certain relevant juridical problems rooted in the biblical era; Prof. Robert Rockawy (Tel-Aviv University) for his linguistic contribution; Magen Broshi (the former Curator of the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem) for his help in solving several complicated demographic questions; Dr. Nikos Kokkinos (The British Museum, London), one of the leading scholars on the Herodian Dynasty, for his learned advices on several issues; Dr. Jacob Assa, M. D., for sharing his medical knowledge and experience, which were invaluable in diagnosing Herod’s illnesses; and Dr. Micha Ankori (Beit Berl College) for the initial “push” to undertake this project. We are also grateful to Dr. Jacob Margolin, Dr. Moshe Kalian, Prof. Amihay Levy and Dr. Tuvia Buchbinder for sharing with us their considered opinions and counsel in their fields of expertise, psychology and psychiatry. And last, but by no means least, our thanks go to Karen Gold, the translator of this book, for her remarkable work. Her intelligence and uncompromising dedication to accuracy are worthy of particular praise, as is her knowledge in both rabbinic literature and psychology, which was of great advantage in producing the English-language version of this work. On several occasions she called our attention to errors that crept into the text, and for this we owe her a special debt of gratitude. This is also the opportunity to convey our deep gratitude to The Harvard University Press for giving us permission to include several quotations from the English translations of Josephus’ writings by H. St. Thackeray, R. Marcus and A. Wikgren (Loeb Classical Library edition, volumes II and VIII); each of them will be accurately referred to in our book. We wish also to thank the following for the illustrations and maps appearing in the book: Mrs. Cecilia Meir, Director and Curator of the Kadman Numismatic Pavilion at the Eretz-Israel Museum in Tel-Aviv; Dr. Zvi Zameret, Director of Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Foundation, Jerusalem; The Mohr Siebeck Publishing House, Tübingen.

Introduction Methodology As stated in the Foreword, since it is our intention to make use of disciplines from the behavioral sciences, it is only fitting that we note some of the limitations of such an approach when applied to historical analysis. The reliance upon them arises out of the fact that the historian’s ability to probe the inner world of the protagonists whose character he is attempting to study and reconstruct is inevitably rather limited. The bulk of historical sources relate primarily to people’s actions and to their failings, and only rarely do we have at our disposal what they themselves wrote or stated. In such cases, it is possible to compare their thoughts in writing with their actions so as to deduce information about their inner world. But one can also utilize descriptions of the behavior of the individual in question – in particular when such conduct is understood as deviating from the norms of the period – and apply to it psychological models and psychopathological analysis1. With regard to this issue, the primary questions that arise in historical research are: Can the historian enter into the inner world of a historical figure about whom there is only limited information available? And can the aforementioned tools be used in the first place as a means of enhancing historical knowledge? The gamut of opinions that exists as to the value of psychohistory is obvious, as is the problematic nature of its use even among researchers who utilize such tools and recognize their importance. A fitting summary of the reasons for this ambivalence can be found in the introduction to a collection of articles edited by Cocks & Crosby: “In its present state of development, psychohistory clearly bears the scars of its divided allegiance between historical tradition, which sees itself

1

Rozen M, Witztum E, (1992), ‘The dark mirror of the soul: Dreams of Jewish physician in Jerusalem at the end of the 17th century’, Revue des Études juives, 151: 5–42, esp. pp. 5–6

2

Introduction

as beyond the reach of general laws, and a therapeutically oriented (and scientific) field such as psychoanalysis.”2 In their concluding article, Cocks & Crosby criticize the attempts made in this area – primarily in the field of psychobiography – to analyze the inner world of such figures as Henry VIII, Bismarck, and Hitler, focusing in particular on Erik Erikson’s well-known analysis of the personality of Martin Luther. Their principal argument is that in most instances, there is insufficient information available and that there is a blurring of boundaries between the fields of psychohistory and social therapy. Nevertheless, they offer what is, in our opinion, a fitting conceptualization of the discipline of psychohistory: “a form of history which explicitly uses the concepts, principles and theories of psychology to enhance our understanding of particular people and events in the past.”3 In the case of the present study, we will err on the side of caution, giving preference to phenomenological-diagnostic analysis and minimizing the use of psychodynamic models. As noted earlier, one of the central problems in the use of psychological and psychopathological tools is the fact that the information is obtained indirectly. In the case of a figure from the past, the more distant the era and the more the information has been “filtered” en route to us, the greater the need for extreme caution in applying this type of approach. For this reason as well, our primary method will be behavioral analysis using phenomenological tools. But before moving on to an interpretation and analysis of the behavioral and emotional elements, we wish to describe in detail the problems associated with the major “filters” through which the primary sources of information on the subject of our study, King Herod, have come to us: the writings of Josephus, Talmudic literature, and Christian sources.

2

3

Cocks, G., & Crosby T. L. (eds.), Psychohistory: Reading in the Method of Psychology, Psychoanalysis and History (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1987), pp. ix–xv. F. Crosby & T.L. Crosby, “Psychobiography and Psychohistory,” in: S. Lang (ed.), Handbook of Political Psychology, vol. 1 (New York: Plenum, 1981), p. 196.

Methodology

3

a. Ambivalent Attitude toward Herod in the Writings of Josephus4 Since we have no way of studying either the history of the Herodian era or Herod’s personality in a direct, unmediated fashion, we must state at the outset that the vast majority of the information about him is drawn from secondary historical sources, primarily the writings of Josephus. While the latter made reference on one occasion (AJ XV, 471) to the existence of such primary sources as the Memoirs of King Herod (Úpomnämata toû basiléwv (Hršwdou), unfortunately not even a single quotation from this work has been preserved; moreover, it is unclear how much, if any, Josephus himself read of this work. 5 It is likely that the work was written by “the king’s scribes”; and although these were replaced periodically, it would be safe to assume that they were faithful purveyors of whatever content Herod wished to immortalize in a composition bearing his name. Again, since there is not even one citation from this work in Josephus’ writings, one can conclude that he did not read it in the original but gleaned his knowledge of it from secondary sources alone. Foremost among these sources is doubtless Nicolaus of Damascus,6 a contemporary of Herod’s and one of the most important courtiers of both Herod and his son Archelaus. He was first appointed by Herod as his senior advisors and the personal tutor of his sons. No wonder that he also served as Herod’s official court historian.7 It is unclear 4

5

6

7

It is not our intention to survey all of the writings of Josephus nor to evaluate them in detail, but rather to concentrate on historical issues related to Herod and his period, as reflected in Josephus’ major works: The Jewish War against the Romans (BJ) and The Antiquities of the Jews (AJ. We will suffice for the time being with offering only a selective bibliography: Schürer 1973, I, pp. 43–63; S. Cohen 1979; Rajak 1983; Stern 1991, pp. 378–413; Attridge 1984, pp. 185–232; Bilde 1988; Mason 1991; Landau 2003. References to other studies will of course be provided with regard to specific issues. Schürer, 1973, I, pp. 26–27. Indeed, there are many scholars (like Schalit) who feel that Josephus did not read Herod’s memoirs; but there are still some who hold the opposite view, among them Shutt 1961, p. 85; and Grant 1971, p. 237. Actually, Beloch (1879, pp. 106 ff.) and Destinon (1882, pp. 53 ff.; 91 ff.) were the first to acknowledge the importance of Josephus’ reliance on Nicolaus. For the scholarly reviews of this issue, see Wacholder 1962, pp. 5 ff.; idem 1989, pp. 147–172; Schürer 1973, I, pp. 22–33; Bowersock 1965, pp. 134–138; Stern 1974, I, pp. 227– 260; idem 1991, pp. 445 ff.; Attridge 1984, pp. 185–232, and more recently, Landau 2003. It is noteworthy that Josephus mentioned Nicolaus’ name 42 times. Josephus never noted that Nicolaus wrote a unique work which could be entitled “Herod’s History.” A detailed description of Herod is included in Nicolaus’ Historiae (or Universal History), which consisted of 144 books; see Wacholder 1962, p. 75; Stern, loc. cit.

4

Introduction

at which point in Herod’s career the two came to know one other.8 The custom of hiring the services of a court historian, which was well known in the Hellenist and Roman worlds, was an accepted practice even in the Hasmonaean state, as we learn from I Maccabees.9 At times, Josephus cited Nicolaus explicitly as his source, but on many occasions he based himself on Nicolaus’ accounts without identifying him by name. In so doing, he was no different from other historians in the Greco-Roman world, who did not always bother to note the source of their knowledge and who did not fear, as in our day, being accused of plagiarism. The fact that Josephus’ recounting of the days following Archelaus was not as rich and detailed as that of the preceding period suggests that by this time he no longer had access to a specific source such as the “universal history” of Nicolaus. Thus Nicolaus’ writings take on great – and perhaps decisive – significance, chiefly because he wrote at least some of the chapters on Herod’s reign while he was still alive, and obviously did so from a distinctly Herodian perspective.10 Nevertheless, it is important to note from the outset that, despite the fact that Josephus drew upon Nicolaus’ work, and was influenced to no small degree by his opinions, he did not refrain from criticizing him on several occasions, in particular when he had access to other sources that corroborated his approach or when he disagreed with Nicolaus on matters in which Josephus had a firm position of his own, as in assessing the Hasmonaean dynasty and essential matters of Jewish religion and nationhood. On one occasion, Josephus even accused Nicolaus, in an extremely blatant manner, of false, one-sided writing, as expressed in the following passage (AJ XVI, 184–186): [184] For he wrote in Herod’s lifetime, and under his reign, and so as to please him, and as a servant to him, touching upon nothing but what tended to his glory, and openly excusing many of his notorious crimes, and very diligently concealing them. [185] And as he was desirous to put handsome colors on the death of Mariamme and her sons, which were barbarous actions of the king, he tells falsehoods about the incontinence of Mariamme, and the treacherous designs of his sons upon him; and thus he proceeded in his whole work, making a pompous encomium upon what just actions he had done, but earnestly apologizing for his unjust ones. [186] Indeed, a man, as I said, may have a great deal to say by way

8 9 10

See on this issue Wacholder 1962, pp. 32 ff. Following Laqueur, he was inclined to believe that it was 40 BCE, but it is difficult to accept such an early date. See more recently: Rappaport 2004, p. 49, 352. Wacholder 1962, passim; Stern 1991, pp. 455 ff.; Rajak 1983, p. 17, 34, 235, etc.

Methodology

5

of excuse for Nicolaus; for he did not so properly write this as a history for others, as somewhat that might be subservient to the king himself.11

The above criticism is reminiscent of similar examples in Roman historiography; suffice it to recall in this context Tacitus’ remarks on the chroniclers of the history of the Julio-Claudian Caesars (Annales I, 1). The harsh words of criticism leveled by Josephus against Nicolaus do not negate – or, in terms of methodology, in any way detract from – the present study. On the contrary: paradoxically enough, there is even a great advantage to Nicolaus’ apologetic testimony and his panegyrics, since the purpose of his writings was to appease Herod. It is even reasonable to assume, in certain cases, that he was actively directed by Herod as to what to write. And it is precisely writings of this sort that can faithfully reflect the nature of the man and his aspirations, and in particular, sketch the image that he sought to secure for himself in history.12 For this reason, Nicolaus’ testimony can serve as a good historical source, primarily because of its ability to offer a reasoned, reliable profile of Herod’s personality. And this is no small thing. Of course, we cannot assess to what degree Josephus edited the original words of Nicolaus on every topic and event, nor can we know how much he expunged or included details based on his personal knowledge or even his own imaginings.13 However, it is important to acknowledge that there is no better source available, either quantitatively or qualitatively. There is no question that, compared to other figures in Jewish history of the Second Temple period, Herod has received the most detailed and extensive “coverage” with respect to his personality and his life’s work. He “stars” in four entire volumes of AJ (XIV–XVIII) as well as most of the first volume of BJ.14 In addition, the writings of Josephus also contain indirect references to Herod in chapters addressing later events, for example, in descriptions of Jerusalem, the Temple, and other sites during the tenure of 11

12

13

14

It is important to emphasize that Josephus “forgot,” or rather ignored, the fact that his own BJ was intentionally flattering to his Roman patrons, Vespasian and Titus. Therefore, in his criticism of Nicolaus, he was actually blind to his own flaws. Landau 2003, p. 2) is correct in writing: “Josephus was neither an exclusively ‘Jewish’ historian nor distinctively Greek or Roman. His writings represent a blend of all three facets in his career, education and culture.” As mentioned above, Laqueur negated the reliability of Josephus’ testimony (1920, pp. 136 ff.); most scholars today, however, take exception with his extreme view of Josephus as a fraud and a charlatan. On the contrary, quite the opposite approach has gradually emerged in favor of Josephus’ credibility; see e. g. Landau 2003, passim. In terms of the historical space devoted to him, Herod was by no means “discriminated” against in comparison with other figures in Roman history; in fact, he surpassed them both in quantity and quality.

6

Introduction

the Roman governors. This is sufficient to enhance the likelihood of assembling a reasonable portrait of the man and his personality. Matters will become clearer in the specific treatment of each issue and topic relating to him, so that we hope to be able to offer a coherent picture that our readers will also find credible. It should already be noted at the start of our discussion that there are often essential differences between the two works of Josephus in the treatment of their subject matter. In BJ, there is a greater tendency toward thematic writing, that is, writing that makes reference to specific topics under discussion, whereas in AJ, the focus is more on continuity and chronological accuracy.15 The latter approach is undoubtedly preferable, particularly as the thematic method does not make it a point to precisely synchronize events. This fact alone gives precedence a priori to AJ in terms of historical reliability – a point that will be proven repeatedly in the individual discussions of various issues in this work. Moreover, it will become clear below that, on more than one occasion, there are significant differences between the two versions even when recording the events themselves. In this regard, it is important to bear in mind that the version in AJ is generally lengthier and contains details that were not included in BJ. Only rarely do we see the opposite situation, in which the version in BJ is the more detailed of the two; such instances will of course be discussed more extensively, as warranted. To summarize, the very historical breadth of AJ already makes it more valuable, in our view, particularly in those cases where Josephus reconsiders what he has written in BJ, or where he deems it necessary to correct himself or to clarify or sharpen his message to his readers. The differences between the two versions are especially apparent in the divergent assessments of Herod’s behavior, to the point where the differences can be discerned from only a cursory reading of the material. Thus for example, whereas in BJ, Herod is generally portrayed in a positive light, and, it would seem, in a manner more faithful to Nicolaus’ original message, in AJ, the portrait of his character is often accompanied by harshly critical remarks that demonstrate an intent to expose and condemn the dark sides of Herod’s personality and his actions. These differences obviously stem from the disparity in the historiographic content of both works – a fact that many scholars have observed.16 In our individual discussions of various issues below, we will 15 16

Landau (2003, pp. 256–275, appendix 1) took upon herself the very instructive task of preparing a conjugate analysis of parallel testimonies from both versions. It is sufficient to list here only the most prominent studies on this issue, such as: Laqueur 1920, pp. 171 ff.; Thackeray 1929, pp. 23 ff., 51 ff. (esp. 65–67; Schalit 1963,

Methodology

7

be indicating the specific differences between the two versions and drawing the relevant conclusions. But it should already be stated in general at this point that the blatant criticism of Herod that is found in AJ has virtually no counterpart in BJ,17 not to mention the fact that there are frequently significant differences between the two versions even in their presentation of the facts themselves. On the other hand, it is important to recall that there are also a considerable number of features common to both versions, such as the tendency toward dramatization, a writing style laden with pathos and rhetoric, and exaggeration for its own sake.18 It is highly probable that Josephus was influenced in all of the above by the primary source on which his writings on the Herodian era were based, namely, Nicolaus of Damascus. For this reason, we will be attempting, as much as possible, to highlight this point in our discussion of every issue, in addition to presenting the facts themselves. The historiographic reliability of Josephus’ writings is a significant question that continues to preoccupy every historian who has ever made use of his writings. More than once, he himself addressed the issue of his historical credibility, in the pattern of other great historians of the Greco-Roman world. Thus, he often found occasion to make lofty statements on the reliability of his writings and his pursuit of truth, and of course did not neglect to offer effusive words of praise for himself.19 Obviously, his self-glorification is no guarantee of the truthfulness of his work, but by the same token, it should not cast prior suspicion on his credibility, thereby invalidating his historical account in its entirety. His grandiose declarations that he strove for truth in his historical writing should at least indicate that he was aware of the possibility that he might be attacked on this point, and this in itself is sufficient to lend weight to his statements. The recording of Herodian history relies upon, and is interwoven with, the backdrop of Roman and Hellenist history, and in this area, the level of reliability and accuracy of his writings is quite high. At times, his works even supply important information missing from

17 18 19

I, pp. xi–lxxxii; Schürer 1973, I, pp. 43–52; S. Cohen 1979, pp. 48–67, 148–151, 155–160; Bilde 1968, pp. 59 ff.; Stern 1991, pp. 378–413, 455–464; Landau 2003, chapters 3–4 etc. By way of illustration, see: AJ XV, 267, 274–276, 326–330; XVI, 5, 150–159, 395– 404; XVII, 80–181. Compare with the excellent writing of S. Cohen 1979, pp. 233 ff.; and Landau 2003, passim. See BJ I, 1–16, 30; AJ I, 1–4; XX, 154–157, 259–266; cf. also CA I, 1–6, 12–27, 46–52; Schalit 1963, pp. xi ff.; Stern 1991, pp. 408–413.

8

Introduction

Hellenist and Roman historiography. It is also important to acknowledge the fact that he includes in his recounting, “internal” Jewish information drawn from popular sources as well as personal knowledge whose source cannot always be identified. This “inside” information is often consistent with that arising from Talmudic tradition, indicating that he was not divorced from the sentiments of the Jewish public. But his personal contribution lies chiefly in the compilation of information; the style of his writing (rhetorical and filled with pathos), which adds a “decorative” element that captivates the reader; his personal commentary; the dramatic enhancement of events; the reconstruction of speeches; and his national and theological messages, inter alia. 20 In the case of Josephus, one should not apply simplistically the principle of “Respect him but suspect him.” On the one hand, it would be wrong to treat his writings with respect alone, without invoking doubts or criticism and without being wary of bias and tendentiousness; but conversely, one should not be overly suspicious, because to do so would make it difficult to afford his writings the respect they deserve. Accordingly, we have an obligation to scrutinize the content of his writings, his sources, and his assessments in each separate instance, taking into account the requisite causal and circumstantial background. The numerous citations from Josephus’ writings that have been included in the present study are intended primarily to facilitate the reader’s participation in sketching a psychological profile of Herod in order to better comprehend the repercussions of his emotional makeup on the history of his era. We have chosen this method out of a desire to be as precise as possible in our writing, and in so doing, to share more faithfully with the reader our own uncertainties. The English translations of both BJ and AJ are generally those of William Whiston. Although they were produced in 1773, their natural power has not diminished with time; in addition, they are very accurate and well phrased, and are the most accessible to present-day readers thanks to electronic communication.

b. Overview of the General Negative Attitude toward Herod in Talmudic Literature In comparison to Josephus, Talmudic literature contains scant historical information on the subject in question; but the portrait that 20

For a detailed discussion of these issues, see Landau 2003, passim.

Methodology

9

emerges is unequivocally of a cruel, despotic king, blood-thirsty and corrupt – in short, a monster who represents the embodiment of all evil. This raises the preliminary question: Can such a rigid, extreme position be considered reliable and accepted without reservation? Or might it cast serious doubt on our very ability to assemble an unbiased portrait of Herod’s personality on the basis of the paltry information contained in the Talmudic sources? We will be considering the relevant issues and offering possible explanations and answers inasmuch as this can be done on the basis of these sources. But the core question is, of course: Why was Herod portrayed in Talmudic literature in such a categorically negative manner? One of the more important modern-day scholars to successfully identify the reasons for the hostile stance toward Herod in the Talmudic tradition is undoubtedly the late Gedalyahu Alon, in his wellknown article “The Attitude of the Pharisees Toward Roman Rule and the House of Herod.”21 The various reasons, based on his study, are enumerated below (not necessarily in order of importance): (a) the foreign origins of Herod, who was not of Jewish birth; (b) Herod’s scheming against the Jewish religious courts headed by the Sages, and in particular his nullification of the judicial authority and leadership role of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem; (c) the imposition of “king’s laws” based on foreign legislation drawn from the Greco-Roman world; (d) damage to the status of the high priests with regard to appointment procedures and length of tenure, along with restriction of priestly authority; (e) the institution of a new currency stamped with symbols drawn from pagan Greek culture; (f) establishment of a stadium, theater and hippodrome in Jerusalem, where contests, games, and cultural performances were held in the pagan style popular in the cities of Greece and Rome; (g) construction of Hellenist cities within the kingdom’s borders, with the intention of strengthening foreign Hellenist elements; (h) increased reliance on obviously Roman-Hellenist principles and administrative procedures; (i) construction of numerous pagan temples in the Land of Israel and its environs; (j) undermining of the status and authority of the Sages, and the physical elimination of many of them; (k) the affixing of a golden eagle to the gates of the Temple in Jerusalem as a symbol of Roman authority; (l) the systematic physical extermination of the Hasmonaean dynasty, beloved by the majority of the Jewish people; (m) institution of a des21

Alon 1957, pp. 26–47, esp. 40–42; Klausner 1959, IV, pp. 36–47; Ben-Shalom 1993, pp. 40 ff.

10

Introduction

potic reign of terror, including spying against any display of opposition or subversion, real or suspected; (n) the coercing of the kingdom’s subjects to swear allegiance to Herod and to Caesar; (o) imposition of heavy taxes to finance Herod’s many expenditures; (p) ostentatious construction for purposes of personal prestige rather than functional goals; (q) reliance on a foreign army under a foreign command. Alon was followed by quite a number of scholars who added other reasons as well, but space does not permit us to present their views at this juncture. 22

c. A Brief Review of the Overall Negative Attitude toward Herod in Early Christian Sources The New Testament and subsequent Christian literature also related to Herod in a decidedly negative fashion; however, their reasons were essentially Christian/theological and, as such, were largely connected to the well-known tradition of the Gospel of Matthew (2:1–18) concerning the birth of Jesus in a manger in Bethlehem in the final year of Herod’s life (4 BCE). 23 According to this tradition, when the tyrantking (namely Herod) was informed by the Wise Men of the East (i. e., the Magi)24 of the birth of “the king of the Jews” and the shining of his star in the East, he sought to kill all male infants born at that time so as to ensure Jesus’ death. Since then, Christian tradition has labeled Herod a “baby-killer,” analogous to the figure of Pharaoh King of Egypt who commanded that all male Hebrew infants born in his time be cast into the river. From the Christian perspective, Moses was unquestionably the Old Testament prototype of Jesus. Herod, by contrast, was portrayed as a Satanic figure – the “Antichrist” – that is, the opposite of the Messiah (see for example Matthew 2:3 and elsewhere). But this is not the appropriate forum for exploring this weighty issue, which is by its very nature theological and not historiographic.

22

23 24

Indeed, Ben-Shalom’s study is a good example of a subsequent work that even expanded the scope of Alon’s research. Other reasons that Alon did not consider in this context will be referred to as well in the course of our study, among them the friendship between Herod and the Samaritans, and Herod’s enormous financial investments in the non-Jewish Greco-Roman world. Compare with the version of Luke 2:1–20, which is inferior to that of Matthew. The reference here is to the astrologers from the East, namely the Magi (mágoi), who predicted future events by watching the stars; see more recently: Efron 2004, pp. 185–187.

Methodology

11

Among the evidence pointing to a lack of historical dimension in the New Testament portrayal of Herod is the incorporation of the figures of his son, Herod Antipas, and his grandson, Herod Agrippa (King Agrippas I), such that together they embodied the “Antichrist.”25 In our view, this approach is significant in that it formed the basis for the extreme hatred on the part of Christians toward the artificial figure of “Herod,” which also found expression over the centuries in the writings of Christian authors and historians. Let us cite by way of example one of the earliest historical works, the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (c. 260–339 CE), who ranked among the most important fathers of the Christian Church (as such, he was granted the honor of presenting the central address at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE where he sat to the right of the Emperor Constantine the Great). As he wrote (Historia Ecclesiastica I:8, 1–5): Now when Christ was born, in accordance with prophecy, at Bethlehem of Judaea at the time mentioned, Herod was asked by the Magi from the East where might he be who was born king of the Jews, for they had seen his star, and this had been the cause of their long journey in their zeal to worship the infant as God. The request caused him to be not a little disturbed at the situation for, as he thought, his sovereignty was in danger. He therefore inquired from the teachers of the Law among the people where they expected the Christ to be born, and when he learned the prophecy of Michah, foretelling that it should be in Bethlehem, he gave a comprehensive order to put to death all the infants which were being nursed in Bethlehem and the whole neighbourhood, of two years old and less, according to the time indicated to him by the Magi, supposing, as was natural, that Jesus also enjoy the same fate as the children of his age. However, the child forestalled the plot by being taken to Egypt, as by manifestation of an angel his parents had learned beforehand what was to happen. This is also taught by the sacred scripture of the Gospel, but it is worth noticing in this connection the result of the crime of Herod against the Christ and the children of his age; for immediately, without even a short delay, the justice of God overtook from while he was still in life, showing the prelude of what awaited him when he had passed hence. It is not now possible even to give a summary list of the ways by which he darkened what were reckoned the glories of his reign, by the successive misfortunes of his house, by the foul murder of wife and children and of the rest who were closest to him in family and in affection; for the shadows in their story, which Josephus has narrated at length in the history of Herod, are darker than any in tragic drama.

In fact, Eusebius already had prior experience in historical writing from his work Chronicon, a synopsis of the history of the ancient 25

See Efron, op. cit., following the index of names; see also idem 2006, pp. 180–181, 355 (n. 92), 194–195.

12

Introduction

world, in which he made a serious attempt to compare and correlate the general historiographic and chronological tradition with the information contained in the Christian Scriptures. The earlier work can be viewed as a background of sorts and an introductory chronological framework to the Historia Ecclesiastica, that is, to the history of early Christianity. Eusebius took pains to bolster the authenticity of the Historia Ecclesiastica via meticulous selection from a variety of sources, including the writings of Josephus, so as to lend credibility to his work. 26 Although he proved himself to have great talent as a writer of history, it should not be forgotten that the work was intended primarily to serve his Christian theological objectives. As a result, the figure of Herod and the history of his era “merited” a treatment compatible with Christian truth as he saw it. Since Eusebius had also encountered stinging criticism of Herod in the writings of Josephus, he tended to rely upon this as much as possible while ignoring all “positive” testimonies. In principle, he could not add material that deviated greatly from Josephus, but his statements were indeed colored by his Christian perspective. In those instances where he departed from Josephus and added details from his personal knowledge or from Christian writers who preceded him, the reliability of his writing is a matter of some dispute and dictates the need for extreme caution, as we shall see in our discussion of various issues (for example, the question of Herod’s origins). As a rule, it can be stated that since the nature of the ancient Christian sources was in essence theological, they are in any event also highly tendentious and rigid with respect to Herod’s personality and his accomplishments. For this reason, they cannot offer an objective, impartial historiographic contribution to the present study. 27

Psychopathological Aspects of Herod In describing the major historiographic approaches with regard to the figure of Herod, we have seen the overall tendency on the part of Talmudic literature, on the one hand, and Christian theology, on the other, to accept it as self-evident that Herod was a cruel, despotic madman. Until recently, this was the predominant view. It was only in the 20th 26

27

Faced with the abundance of works on this subject, we will content ourselves with referring the reader to the introduction by Kirsopp Lake to Historia Ecclesiastica (LCL ed.), vol. I (1926), pp. ix–lvi. See the excellent recent study by Efron 2004, passim.

Psychopathological Aspects of Herod

13

century, inspired by Freud’s work, that the first tentative efforts were made to unlock the mystery of Herod’s behavior and his “insanity” in scientific terms; or more precisely, an attempt was made to produce a psychiatric diagnosis of the nature of his emotional disorders. To the best of our knowledge, Schalit was among the first scholars of the modern era to treat seriously the possibility that Herod suffered from a severe mental disorder, although according to him, Herod was stricken only in the latter stage of his life, roughly in the year 9 BCE. His condition was referred to by Schalit with the explicit psychiatric term “paranoia.”28 In Schalit’s view, the illness manifested itself as total insanity, known at the time as “paranoia vera” (this term is no longer used professionally). Supplementing and updating his opinion, we wish to argue that Herod suffered from what is today referred to as Paranoid Personality Disorder, not only at the end of his days but over the course of his life, as we shall discuss below. In addition to the dominant paranoid aspects of Herod’s personality, there are also obvious narcissistic elements that manifested themselves in grandiose tendencies and in various psychopathic patterns; the latter found expression in lack of tolerance toward others, obliviousness to the feelings of others, low frustration tolerance, and pleasure in causing suffering (i. e., sadism). Another outstanding component in his behavior is what is referred to in the professional terminology as cyclothymia, that is, lability and severe mood swings between a sense of elation and feelings of despondency and dysphoria. This instability generally presents itself in early adolescence, progressing to a chronic state. As we shall see below, this tendency intensified over time in Herod’s case, particularly as his mood shifted toward a depressive state. What is more, he ultimately developed what is known today as a Delusional Disorder-Persecutory Type, that is, he was controlled by delusions of persecution that led him to a state of impaired functioning and harsh acts. As often happens in such disorders, his cyclothymic tendencies also gave rise to depressive states which could initially be considered relatively short-lived, reactive depressions but which progressed over time to extended states of major depression. In our opinion, the deterioration in his condition toward the end of his life, which brought him to the level of a delusional-psychotic state in which he was completely controlled by delusional thinking, is likely the state to which Schalit was referring. 28

Schalit 1969, pp. 602–606, 637 ff.; cf. Cornfeld 1982, p. 18, 128. Concerning the term ‘paranoia’, the historical perspective and study of this diagnosis, see Lewis 1970; Fried & Agassi 1976.

14

Introduction

In effect, as we see it, Schalit tried to “have it both ways,” arguing that for most of his life Herod was a monarch of such stature that he can and should be compared with no less a figure than King David himself, and that it was only in his final days that he completely lost his mind. In the aftermath of Schalit, other scholars (among them Fenn) felt that it was worth considering the use of a psychoanalytic approach to examine various episodes related to Herod29 – something that we see as legitimate and justified, provided it is done with the necessary caution and an understanding of the limitations of this approach and on the basis of the appropriate historical knowledge. Accordingly, we too felt that it was fitting to delve into Herod’s past from childhood onward and to trace the tortuous path of his life, exploring his emotional state at each and every stage until his death. Despite the major difficulties involved, we took up the challenge in an attempt to demonstrate that Herod’s severe emotional state, with its noticeable paranoid component toward the end of his life, already had significant roots at a much earlier stage. Before we open our discussion, let us note that the “revelation” of the paranoid element of Herod’s personality has been adopted unhesitatingly and as a matter of course by most contemporary Christian theologians, an approach that is evident in the hundreds, if not thousands, of Internet sites espousing this position. The paranoid state attributed to him stems from the decree issued by Herod to kill all male infants born in Bethlehem, Judea, based on the Gospel of Matthew (1:1–18). Although the historical figure of Herod was not the major focus of the many Christian Internet sites, one cannot help but be astonished that they borrowed the term “paranoia” from the diagnostic lexicon of modern-day psychiatry to characterize him as the theological prototype of the “Antichrist.” Also instructive in this regard are the continuing efforts by medical experts to attempt to comprehend Herod’s behavior based on the assumption of the presence of such serious chronic physical conditions as diabetes, heart failure, and renal insufficiency. The presumption is that these conditions ultimately led to extreme emotional changes, partly as a result of severe metabolic disruptions such as ketoacidosis in the case of diabetes, or uremia, associated with renal insufficiency, and even culminating in a paranoid psychotic disorder towards the end of Herod’s life.30 29 30

Fenn 1992, pp. 6, 31–41, 70, 77, 79, 86, 103. See: Hirschmann et al. 2004, pp. 833–839.

Psychopathological Aspects of Herod

15

The central problem with such assumptions, in addition to their obviously speculative nature, is that they relate specifically to the latter part of his life and offer only a tenuous explanation for his disturbed emotional behavior during the rest of his life. Since a comprehensive, systematic study of this subject has not yet been conducted, we have taken upon ourselves the task of pursuing it on the basis of the available historical sources, in the hope that it will lead to a better understanding of the Herodian era. The following is a brief description of the mental disorders that, in our opinion, are relevant in the case of Herod, first and foremost, Paranoid Personality Disorder. 31 The essential feature of this disorder is “a pattern of pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent. This pattern begins in early adulthood and is present in a variety of contexts … Individuals with this disorder assume that other people will exploit them or deceive them even if no evidence exists to support their expectation. They suspect on the basis of little or no evidence that others are plotting against them and may attack them suddenly, at any time and without reason. They often feel that they have been deeply and irreversibly injured by another person or persons even when there is no objective evidence for this. They are preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of their friends and associates, whose actions are minutely scrutinized for evidence of hostile intentions. Any perceived deviation from trustworthiness or loyalty serves to support their underlying assumptions. They are so amazed when a friend or associate shows loyalty that they cannot trust or believe it. If they get into trouble they expect that friends and associates will either attack or ignore them.” Compliments are often misinterpreted, such that a compliment on an accomplishment is seen as an attempt to coerce more and better performance. Individuals with this disorder “read hidden meanings that are demeaning or even threatening into benign remarks by others or events … They persistently bear grudges and are unwilling to forgive insults, injuries or slights that they think they have received. Minor slights arouse major hostility and hostile feelings persist for a long time.” In fact, paradoxically, “because they are constantly vigilant to the harmful intentions of others, they very often feel that their character and reputation has been attacked or they have been 31

This personality description is based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (hereafter DSM-IV), pp. 634–638.

16

Introduction

slighted in some other way. They are quick to counterattack and react to perceived insults … [They] may be pathologically jealous, often suspecting that their spouse or sexual partner is unfaithful without any adequate justification. They may gather trivial and circumstantial ‘evidence’ to support their jealous beliefs. They want to maintain complete control of intimate relationships, to avoid being betrayed and may constantly question and challenge the whereabouts, actions, intentions, and fidelity of their spouses or partner.” They are generally difficult to get along with, and often have problems with close relationships. Their mistrust and hostility can manifest themselves in a tendency toward argumentativeness, repeated complaints and criticisms, and in a hostile remoteness. “They are hyper-vigilant for potential threats, may act in a guarded, secretive, or devious manner and appear to be ‘cold’ and lacking in tender feelings.” Though they are capable of appearing objective, rational and unemotional, they more often “display a labile range of affect, with hostile, stubborn, and sarcastic expressions predominating.” Since their combative, suspicious nature can arouse a hostile counter-reaction in others, such responses are often taken by them as confirmation of their original expectations (self-fulfilling prophecy). As a result of their basic mistrust of others, “they have an excessive need to be self sufficient and a strong sense of autonomy. They also need to have a high degree of control over those around them. They are often rigid, critical of others, and unable to collaborate, although they have great difficulties accepting criticism themselves. They have a tendency to blame others for their own failings and shortcomings. Because of their quickness to counterattack in response to the threats they perceive around them, they may be litigious and frequently become involved in legal disputes.”32 It is important to draw a distinction at this juncture between Paranoid Personality Disorder and other more extreme conditions, the first of which is delusional disorder, specifically including the subtype Delusional Disorder-Persecutory Type, and the second, Paranoid Schizophrenia. According to DSM-IV, Delusional Disorder-Persecutory Type is present when the “central theme of the delusion involves the person’s belief that he is being conspired against, cheated, spied on, followed, poisoned or drugged, maliciously maligned, harassed,

32

Ibid.

Psychopathological Aspects of Herod

17

or obstructed in the pursuit of long-term goals. The content of the delusion frequently relates to the individual’s life situation.”33 It is interesting to note that the European system of diagnostic classification (ICD-10) also states explicitly, with reference to the category of delusional disorder (F22.0), that “depressive symptoms or even a fullblown depressive episode may be present intermittently, provided that the delusion persists at times when there is no disturbance of mood.”34 This is, in our opinion, a very apt description of Herod’s condition. The other extreme, but more severe, condition is Paranoid Schizophrenia. Since there are fundamental differences between this and delusional disorder, and Herod does not appear to fit at all into the category of paranoid schizophrenia, we will not be relating to it here. 35 As noted earlier, Herod may have experienced, in addition to Paranoid Personality Disorder, intermittent depressive episodes – a recognized symptom in the phenomenological descriptions of this syndrome, which would indicate that some individuals who suffer from Paranoid Personality Disorder also develop symptoms of other mental disorders, such as depression, over the course of time. We will be attempting in the present work to clarify whether such a development indeed took place in the case of Herod. It is our intention to respond to this question in the affirmative and to demonstrate that, due to the severity of his delusions, his condition in fact deteriorated to a more extreme state, which fulfills the criteria of Delusional Disorder-Persecutory Type. In our opinion, this transformation was related to the execution of his beloved wife, Mariamme the Hasmonaean, which marked a point of no return from which he was unable to recover; as a result of his great love for her, it was as if some part of Herod “died” as well. Indeed, from that point onward, there was a deterioration in his ability to make rational judgments until eventually all of his behavior was controlled by suspicion and persecutory delusions of conspiracies against him. In conclusion, it is our hope that by understanding the emotional distress and the mental disorders from which Herod suffered, we will be able to illuminate that which was (intentionally or unintentionally) obscured by the traditional sources and thereby gain greater insight into his personality and actions. 33 34 35

DSM-IV, p. 298. ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioral Disorders: Clinical Description And Diagnostic Guideline. World Health Organization, Geneva, 1992. This can clearly be concluded in accordance with DSM-IV.

Chapter 1 Residues of Childhood in the Late Hasmonaean Period (73/72–63 BCE) Herod’s Origins and Their Impact on His Personality The subject of the present study was born in 73/72 BCE1 to a family of mixed ancestry. His father Antipater was an Idumaean, and his mother Cyprus (Kúprov), 2 an Arab. During the time of his grandfather Antipas, under the rule of John Hyrcanus I (135–104 BCE), the Idumaeans converted to Judaism and joined the Jewish nation. 3 As1

2

3

With regard to this date, cf. Smallwood 1981, p. 44; Richardson 1996, p. xv; Kokkinos 1998, pp. 109, 144–145, 156 (n. 2). It is stated in BJ I, 647 that when Herod died (4 BCE) “he was already approximately (ãn mén gàr +dh scedòn Ètôn Ébdomäkonta) seventy years of age,” but it is unclear if the reference is to 69 or 68, since scedón can mean “about,” “approximately,” “more or less,” “roughly speaking,” etc.; see Liddell & Scott, p. 1744. Nor does the indication in AJ XVII, 148 that Herod “was about (perì 3tov Ébdomäkoostòn ãn) seventy years of age” clarify his exact age. At any rate, neither reference supports the conclusion that Herod was born in 74 BCE; cf. Bar-Kochva 2003, p. 12, n. 23. Kúprov is of course also the name of the Mediterranean island, which was apparently derived from the local appellation for the goddess Aphrodite (the Roman Venus), and as such was also a metaphor for a “beautiful girl” and for “love”; see Liddell & Scott, p. 1012 (s. v. Kúpriv). However, in our opinion the name of Herod’s mother was of Oriental rather than of Greek origin, but was incorporated into Greek due to an etymological association; cf. Kokkinos, 1998, p. 39. Abel (1952, p. 314) maintained that it was derived from the Aramaic kufra, the name of a wellknown aromatic plant in Palestine (identified with Lawsonia alba) that is also the source of the famous henna (a red dye), a favorite of Oriental women to this day. It is mentioned as a perfume in Song of Songs, 1:14, 4:12–13 and even referred to in the Septuagint (hereafter LXX) as Kúprov]; see also M. Zahari, EB, IV, cols. 230–231; mShebi’ith 7:6; Feliks 1968, pp. 270–271. The question of whether or not the conversion to Judaism was actually forced upon the Idumaeans by the Hasmonaeans, as many scholars maintain, is beyond the purview of this study. A detailed discussion of this issue is offered by Kasher (1988, pp. 46–77) and Ronen (2003, pp. 123–131), who support the notion that conversion by force was in complete opposition to halakha, and was in fact not possible according to Jewish law. Only a conversion by free will would have been acceptable. Although some reservations have recently been offered by Feldman (1992, pp. 324– 326), Kokkinos (1998, 88–92; idem 2000, p. 143) and Bar-Kochva (2002, p. 10 and

Herod’s Origins and Their Impact on His Personality

19

suming that his father Antipater was already born a Jew, Herod was the third generation since the conversion; hence he was unquestionably Jewish according to halakha (Jewish religious law).4 However, it seems that his education, which he received in Maresha (in western Idumaea), was largely Hellenist and almost certainly provided by private tutors hired for him from Ascalon, 5 since his grandfather Antipas and his father Antipater had strong ties of friendship with that city.6 The manner in which Herod was raised and educated, and the mixed – even contrary – cultural messages that he absorbed, may have contributed to the emergence of several different components of identity at one and the same time: Idumaean and Arab/Nabataean, in keeping with his birth origins; Jewish, based on his official religion; and Hellenist, in accordance with his actual upbringing. Elements of Roman identity could also be discerned in him, starting from when he was granted Roman citizenship by Julius Caesar after coming to his aid in the Civil War (47 BCE).7 It would appear that this complex situation had a major impact on Herod’s character and his conduct in both his public and private life. The historical sources at our disposal indicate that his IdumaeanArabic roots, for example, were apparently the cause of feelings of profound inferiority on Herod’s part from early childhood to the end of his life.8 By contrast, his Hellenist upbringing proved an important springboard to fame throughout the Hellenist-Roman world at a

4

5

6

7

8

n. 11), they are unable to remove or ignore the halachic obstacles that disqualify in principle any possibility of Jewish conversion through coercion or fear. See in detail: Kasher 1988, pp. 62 ff. S. Cohen (1999, p. 18) prefers “half-Judaean” as opposed to “half-Jew,” considering the former to be more precise; see: op. cit., pp. 13–24, esp. 21–23. His analysis of Herod’s identity is correct, in particular his statement that in the eyes of most of Herod’s Jewish subjects he was a “bad Jew.” This assessment was arrived at not as a result of Herod’s origins or his conversion but rather on the basis of his deeds and behavior. Ascalon was well known at the time as a major center of Hellenist culture; see Schürer 1979, pp. 49, 107–108; G. Fuks 2001, pp. 66–71, esp. 68–69. On education in ancient Greek cities, see: Jones 1940, pp. 220–226. AJ XIV, 10; Kasher 1988, pp. 89–90; idem 1990, p. 149 f. In our opinion, Kokkinos (1998, passim, chaps. 3–4 in particular) went too far in claiming that Herod’s family origins were Phoenician-Ascalonian; see: Kasher 2001, pp. 165–184. Cf. Fenn 1992, p. 6, and esp. Kokkinos 1998, pp. 350–351. On the granting of Roman citizenship to Herod by Julius Caesar, see: BJ I, 194; AJ XIV, 137; Gilboa 1972, pp. 609–614; Sullivan 1978, pp. 296–354; Smallwood 1981. p. 39, 45. Jacobson (1983/4, pp. 31–35) makes reference to an inscription on the island of Cos indicating that Herod’s Roman name was changed accordingly to Gaius Julius Herodes. It is worth mentioning here that the Herodian dynasty’s close relationship with Cos continued for several generations. Cf. Otzen 1990, p. 37; Kasher 2005a, pp. 179–224.

20

1. Residues of Childhood

level almost unprecedented for a person of Eastern origins. The Jewish element came into play primarily in Herod’s efforts to appease the Jewish people in specific circumstances such as the establishment of a Temple bearing his name, or the provision of judicial and political assistance to the Jews of the Diaspora in their struggle for equal rights and status.9 And finally, on the basis of his Roman citizenship and his resolute political approach, he saw himself as the emissary of Augustus Caesar and a supremely loyal partner in the task of helping the oikumene (the inhabited world) to flourish under the leadership of Rome and the emperor. As we shall see below, these components of his identity never became fully integrated. The contradictions and conflicts between these disparate elements, some of which he himself was unaware of, at times caused him discomfiture, contributing in no small measure to his sensitivity and, indirectly, to his eventual emotional deterioration. In light of the proven link between Paranoid Personality Disorder and deep feelings of inferiority,10 we shall be referring below to Herod’s earliest genuine feelings of injustice and social discrimination, beginning in his youth, as these were seemingly among the contributing factors in the development of his disorder. Since these feelings were readily discernible in both the personal and political spheres,11 we shall attempt to demonstrate that there was a reciprocal influence between them. However, although the feelings of discrimination and mistrust in both spheres were interconnected, they were more noticeable and more acute in the public and political realm. Despite the Idumaean origins of Antipas, Herod’s grandfather and the first member of the family to convert to Judaism, the Hasmonaean king Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BCE) appointed him to the position of strategos (commander-in-chief) of the Idumaea district and the Gaza region (AJ XIV, 10). He was granted this post by virtue of his good relations with the Nabataeans, on the one hand, and with the cities of Gaza and Ascalon, on the other. These ties also apparently 9 10

11

Other positive deeds on behalf of the Jewish people were of lesser importance and were mostly done for Herod’s own benefit, as will be shown below. Regarding this link, which extends to fear of disgrace and derision as well, see for example A. Levi 1997, pp. 183 ff.; cf. B. J. Sadok & V. A. Sadok, Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry (7th edition) 1999, vol. I, pp. 602–603; DSM-IV, p. 692; see also Kasher 2005. On the use of the term “political paranoia,” see the excellent study by Ronibs & Post 1997, in which they maintain inter alia that “a large body of observations from developmental psychology and psychoanalysis concern the psychological roots of paranoia in childhood” (p. 69).

Herod’s Origins and Their Impact on His Personality

21

aided his son Antipater in ascending to the highest political echelons of the Hasmonaean kingdom.12 After Pompey’s death, in the days of Julius Caesar, Antipater secured an additional, even higher, position with his appointment as epitropos (procurator) of Judaea (47 BCE), under the nominal rule of John Hyrcanus II.13 In his work BJ (I, 123), Josephus presents Antipater as “an affluent individual and man of deeds,” and “an Idumaean by race, who by virtue of his [Idumaean] ancestry, his wealth, and other attributes, became supreme among his people”.14 In the parallel text of AJ, however, he is described as “an Idumaean … an affluent individual, a man of deeds, and a fomenter of strife by nature” (IV, 8), indicating Josephus’ critical stance toward Antipater. Josephus’ barbs were of course directed at his son Herod as well, inasmuch as “the apple does not fall far from the tree.”15 This is the first incompatibility between the two historical versions of Josephus regarding Herod – a phenomenon that was to accompany us throughout this work. In fact, Josephus’ criticism in AJ was directed more precisely against Nicolaus of Damascus, Herod’s court scribe. It is no accident that Josephus also condemned the attempt by Nicolaus to fabricate a new genealogy for Herod with the aim of enhancing his pedigree by obscuring his Idumaean origins, using the false claim that his father “based on his family, is among the leaders of the Jews who came from Babylon to Judaea.”16 Josephus mocked this assertion with biting irony (AJ XIV, 9): It is true that Nicolaus of Damascus says, that Antipater was of the stock of the principal Jews who came out of Babylon into Judaea; but that assertion of his was to gratify Herod, who was his son, and who, by certain revolutions of fortune, came afterward to be king of the Jews. 12

13 14

15 16

For the date and circumstances of Antipas’ appointment, see Kasher 1988, p. 89. There is good reason to assume that his son Antipater succeeded him in this high position; see Schalit 1964, p. 17; idem 1969, p. 5; Kokkinos 1998, pp. 94 ff. BJ I, 199; AJ XIV, 127, 139, 143.This appointment was probably dictated by Julius Caesar in reward to Antipater’s assistance iduring the ‘Alexandrian War’. Cf. also Strabo, Geographica XVI, 2, 46 (765). Strabo lived in Herod’s generation, but wrote only towards the end of the Emperor Augustus’ and the beginning of the Emperor Tiberius’ reign; for further details, see Kokkinos 2002a, pp. 726–727 (n. 29). Precisely the same view was held by the renowned Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz (1897, I, pp. 469, 475, 477 ff., 488). It is worth noting that the paranoid modern-day dictator Saddam Hussein, whose worldview was also essentially tribal-patriarchal, like that of Herod, ordered his genealogists to construct for him a lineage linking his family tree to the Prophet Mohammad’s daughter Fatma. In this way, he sought to elevate his social status by obscuring his lowly origins in the remote, neglected village of his birth, Tikrit.

22

1. Residues of Childhood

Josephus’ emphatic statement that Nicolaus’ words were intended “to gratify Herod” speaks clearly for itself, suggesting that Herod was indeed ashamed of his Idumaean origins and longed to conceal them. Graetz believed, logically, that the attempt to invent a Babylonian genealogy for him was done on Herod’s authority and even at his initiative. This would be in keeping with Josephus’ words on another occasion when he accused Nicolaus in no uncertain terms of “tainted” writing in service to his master (AJ XVI, 183–187): [183] … and many other things he treats of in the same manner in his book; [184] for he wrote in Herod’s lifetime, and under his reign, and so as to please him, and as a servant to him, touching upon nothing but what tended to his glory, and openly excusing many of his notorious crimes, and very diligently concealing them …. [185] … and thus he proceeded in his whole work, making a pompous encomium upon what just actions he had done, but earnestly apologizing for his unjust ones. [186] Indeed, a man, as I said, may have a great deal to say by way of excuse for Nicolaus; for he did not so properly write this as a history for others, as somewhat that might be subservient to the king himself. [187] As for ourselves, who come of a family nearly allied to the Hasmonaean kings, and on that account have an honorable place, which is the priesthood, we think it indecent to say any thing that is false about them, and accordingly we have described their actions after an unblemished and upright manner. And although we reverence many of Herod’s posterity, who still reign, yet do we pay a greater regard to truth than to them, and this though it sometimes happens that we incur their displeasure by so doing.17

The criticism here is glaring and self-evident. The attempt to invent for Herod a “respectable” Jewish Babylonian genealogy undoubtedly stemmed from his desire to boast of a highborn background according to the criteria that had prevailed in the Jewish community since the Return to Zion from Babylonian exile.18 But it was, perhaps even more, the result of his desire to obscure his lowly Idumaean origins.19 It appears that Herod’s sense of inferiority regarding his birth accompanied him throughout his life. The term “half-Jew” (4miioudaîov; AJ XIV 403) was a derogatory label with an unmistakable collective social-ethnic connotation. No religious meaning can be attached to this insulting characterization as there is no such thing as a “half-Jew” in strictly religious terms. A hybrid of this type is simply not possible: 17 18

19

We will be discussing this account at a later point. S. Cohen (1999, pp. 17, 23, 50) has aptly remarked that, in American terms, Herod’s “Babylonian” genealogy would be akin to claiming that his ancestors arrived on the Mayflower. Perhaps this was why Nicolaus refrained from making explicit reference to Doris’ origins, since this might have indirectly offended her husband Herod, himself both a “Jew” and an “Idumaean” (see below).

Herod’s Origins and Their Impact on His Personality

23

either he was wholly a Jew in terms of his religion, or he was not a Jew at all. On the other hand, it is reasonable to assume that the epithet of “half-Jew” was based on a common, popular term of reference that emerged spontaneously. To summarize, from a historical and juridical perspective, Herod was certainly “a Jew”; but from a religious standpoint he was considered a “bad” Jew, even if there was no official flaw in his family’s conversion to the Jewish faith. 20 From a social perspective, it is worth comparing in this context the narrative relating to Mark Antony, the member of the famous triumvirate, who did everything within his power to sully the good name of Octavius (later Augustus) by claiming that he had inferior social roots. According to Antony, Augustus’ great-grandfather was a freed slave from the Thurii district, and his grandfather, a simple money changer. He even cast aspersions on his mother’s family, claiming that her grandfather was of African origin and owned a perfumery, later becoming a lowly meat grinder. But unlike Herod, Augustus was indifferent to these slights and did not pay any attention to them, particularly since there was abundant evidence to the contrary, namely, that his father’s household was actually among the most prestigious.21 Herod, by contrast, could not remain impassive in the face of the derogatory label that clung to him, especially since it was widely spoken of in Jewish society, not to mention the fact that there was also solid proof of his “lowly” social origins. Our protagonist should seemingly have been able to find “consolation” in the lofty status of his mother Cyprus, described as “a woman of distinguished Arab lineage,” whom several scholars even considered a princess, the daughter of a Nabataean king. 22 Unfortunately, we are unable to confirm or refute this opinion on the basis of the available sources. But there is a strong probability that it is accurate, primarily if we interpret the marriage of Antipater to Cyprus as an attempt to acquire royal lineage in order to advance his pretensions to the royal 20

21 22

See note 4 above; cf. Otto 1913, p. 16; Otzen 1990, p. 34; Goodman 1989, p. 10; S. Cohen 1999, pp. 9, 13 ff., esp. 18–19, 272–372; Ben-Shalom 1993, pp. 283–284; Kasher 1988, pp. 76, 123–126; idem 2005, pp. 185–188. Suetonius, Augustus 1–2; cf. also 4, 7. AJ XIV, 121; cf. BJ I, 181. This view is based mainly on the statement in BJ that Antipater “contract[ed] the greatest friendship with the king of Arabia, by marrying his relation.” We shall content ourselves here with referring to three scholars who have recently written on this topic: Richardson 1996, pp. 62–63; Kokkinos 1998, p. 95 and n. 39; Ball 2000, p. 50. On intermarriage in the Herodian dynasty, see in detail: Ilan 2002a (pdf file), including remarks on the possible conversion of Cyprus.

24

1. Residues of Childhood

crown for himself and for his descendants after him. Although it is not noted explicitly in any source that he harbored such ambitions, it would not be improbable nor unreasonable, especially since such a possibility is alluded to quite broadly in the writings of Josephus. 23 In any event, it is clear that Antipater intended, at least initially, to derive personal benefit from the rivalry between the Hasmonaean brothers, John Hyrcanus II and Judah Aristobulus II, so as to be the effective ruler of Judaea under the patronage of Rome, from the days of Pompey onward. 24

Political Ambitions since Childhood From the preceding, it would seem that Herod’s family background contained at least two contradictory identity components that affected his personality: his lowly origins, from the Jewish point of view, and by contrast, his prestigious bloodline, from the Idumaean and Nabataean perspective. Hence his family members were looked upon as Idumaean converts, living on the fringes of Jewish society and experiencing feelings of discrimination and disdain, and, at the same time, part of the local aristocracy. Moreover, since they had already had the privilege of serving in the highest echelons of the Hasmonaean kingdom, it is quite possible that, deep in their hearts, they began to nurture hopes of one day winning the royal crown when the right opportunity presented itself. This leads one to conclude that Herod was raised amid an atmosphere of burning desire to rule. Already from an early age, he appears to have been inculcated with the belief that he was destined for greatness25 – this, despite the fact that his feelings of inferiority over his Idumaean origins never left him. The anecdote below from the writings of Josephus alludes to this, in a picturesque yet unambiguous fashion (AJ XV, 373–378): [373] Now there was one of these Essens, whose name was Menahem, who had this testimony, that he not only conducted his life after an excellent manner, but had the foreknowledge of future events given him by 23

24 25

Cf. BJ I, 207–209; AJ XIV, 162, 165–167. Another such allusion can be found in the reference to Malichus, the Idumaean rival of Antipater, who toyed with the idea of deposing John Hyrcanus II so as to seize the crown for himself. If such pretensions were ascribed to Malichus, why not to his rival Antipater as well? Regarding this possibility, see Jones (1938 (1967), pp. 34–46. BJ I, 123 ff.; see also AJ XIV, 8 ff., esp. 44; cf. also 158, 165–167, 179. Certain modern scholars as well have been captivated by the notion that Herod was “born to rule”; see for example: Schürer 1973, I, p. 294.

Political Ambitions since Childhood

25

God also. This man once saw Herod when he was a child, and going to his teacher (didáskalov), 26 and saluted him as king of the Jews; [374] but he, thinking that either he did not know him, or that he was in jest, put him in mind that he was but a private man (Ìdiöthv); but Menahem smiled to himself, and clapped him on his backside with his hand, and said,” However that be, thou wilt be king, and wilt begin thy reign happily, for God finds thee worthy of it. And do thou remember the blows that Menahem hath given thee, as being a signal of the change of thy fortune. [375] And truly this will be the best reasoning for thee, that thou love justice [towards men], and piety towards God, and clemency towards thy citizens; [376] yet do I know how thy whole conduct will be, that thou wilt not be such a one, for thou wilt excel all men in happiness, and obtain an everlasting reputation, but wilt forget piety and righteousness; and these crimes will not be concealed from God, at the conclusion of thy life, when thou wilt find that he will be mindful of them, and punish time for them.” [377] Now at that time Herod did not at all attend to what Menahem said, as having no hopes of such advancement; but a little afterward, when he was so fortunate as to be advanced to the dignity of king, and was in the height of his dominion, he sent for Menahem, and asked him how long he should reign. [378] Menahem did not tell him the full length of his reign; wherefore, upon that silence of his, he asked him further, whether he should reign ten years or not? He replied, “Yes, twenty, nay, thirty years;” but did not assign the just determinate limit of his reign. Herod was satisfied with these replies, and gave Menahem his hand, and dismissed him; and from that time he continued to honor all the Essenes. 27

Already at first glance, this anecdote, which opens the personal history of Herod, stands out for its “message.” It apparently came to Josephus’ attention from the writings of Nicolaus of Damascus, especially if one takes note of its Hellenist literary tone. 28 It appears that 26

27

28

Schalit’s Hebrew translation of AJ (ad loc.) rendered didáskalov as ybr, which might lead the reader to think of a Jewish rabbi. The Greek term, which is used sixteen times in Josephus’ writings, actually means “teacher” or “advisor,” without any specific Jewish connotation whatsoever; see Rengstorf, I, p. 487; cf. Liddell & Scott, pp. 421–422 (s. v. didáskalov). We are of course excluding from this context AJ XVIII, 63 (which is part of the Testimonium Flavianum) in which Jesus is referred to as didáskalov Ànqröpwn, obviously a later Christian interpolation. Ralph Marcus (1963) in his translation (ad loc.) preferred simply “teacher,” and added convincingly in a note (LCL ed., vol. VIII, p. 181, n. f): “Presumably this was Herod’s tutor in Greek studies.” On the various attempts to identify Menahem the Essene, see: Klausner 1958, IV, pp. 148–149; idem 1969, I, p. 238 (n. 128). This legendary story has no parallel in BJ, but there is one in the Book of Josippon, xlix, 69–94 (Flusser ed., pp. 225–226). Landau (2003, pp. 121–122) has taken note of this fact and rightly argued that BJ I, 203 ff. emphasized only Herod’s positive attributes as governor of Galilee in his pursuit of the local “banditry.” The Hellenist nature of this anecdote is readily discernible, as in other tales in Josephus’ writings relating to Essenic “predictions” or “prophecies,” such as the

26

1. Residues of Childhood

the specific reference to the Essene was intentional since the Essenes were held in high regard by the Jewish community and by Nicolaus as well. The tale is of course meant to convince the innocent reader that Herod was born to the throne and that his rule was the will of God; moreover, his “destiny” was predetermined and could not be changed. Accordingly, there was no point in resisting or rebelling against it; one should simply reconcile oneself to fate. It seems that this was Herod’s unequivocal response to anyone who attempted to question the legitimacy of his rule and to present him as a simple “commoner” (or “private citizen”) who had forcibly seized the reins of power from the Hasmonaean dynasty. 29 It will later become clear that this “message” was to become a recurring theme throughout the Herodian era; as such, it was emphasized on every occasion that Herod’s life was in danger or when he was saved from a major political threat. The cumulative effect of such a message was to reinforce and solidify the belief among the public that Herod was genuinely “beloved by God” and was indeed “destined” for royalty, greatness and glory. 30 There is reason to believe that Nicolaus recounted the anecdote in order to fulfill his master’s wishes. The demurral near the end, according to which the young Herod did not pay heed to the “prophecy” because he truly did not harbor hopes of this kind, was of course intended, with false sanctimony, to create just the opposite impression. It is reasonable to assume that the fact that Herod’s father and grandfather had served for many years in senior positions in the kingdom also instilled in him pretensions of continuing in their footsteps; moreover, his father helped realize these lofty ambitions, as we shall see below. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that the anecdote is also indicative of Herod’s lack of self-

29 30

one ascribed to Judas the Essene regarding Aristobulus I and Antigonus (BJ I, 78–80; AJ XIII, 311–313); see Efron 1987, p. 166 and n. 104; cf. also Jones 1938 (1967), pp. 12 ff. Two Hellenist motifs appear here in tandem: mantic prophesizing (fortune-telling), on the one hand, and the expectation of a deterministic actualization of one’s personal destiny, on the other. For similar literary motifs in the writings of Herodotus, see Landau 2003, p. 172. See: Schalit 1969, pp. 459–460, cf. 471 ff. Compare for example AJ XV, 138, 144–146, 198, 373–379, 384, 387, etc. It is worth noting the existence of a similar Roman tradition with regard to Augustus, of whom it was also said that he was “born to rule” (Suetonius Augustus, 90–94) – all the more so since he himself believed it. It is our opinion that such a tradition might have inspired Nicolaus when writing Herod’s history, especially since he also wrote a history of the Emperor Augustus. It is a striking fact that modern dictators as well have been driven by megalomaniac pretensions to believe that they were destined for great deeds and grandeur, as exemplified by Adolf Hitler; see for example: Kershaw 1999 and 2000 passim.

Political Ambitions since Childhood

27

confidence, which revealed itself at every stage of his life; had this not been the case, he would not have bothered to ask Menahem the Essene about his future a second time. The latter personality served the purpose for him of a modern-day newspaper “horoscope” that people glance at or peruse out of curiosity (and sometimes even belief) to unearth “clues,” especially about their glowing futures, usually ignoring any negative forecasts. Unfortunately, this anecdote is the sole concrete sliver of information that has survived with respect to Herod’s childhood – and this, from the vantage point of an adult. Obviously, there is room for skepticism, not least because of the clearly “propagandistic” motives surrounding the anecdote; these apparently came into play only at a later date when Herod was already wearing the crown. Naturally, the question persists: Is there other, more reliable information about Herod’s childhood that can be extracted from Josephus’ writings? Although the answer is negative, there is a reasonable possibility that most of Herod’s childhood was spent in the Idumaean-Hellenist city of Maresha, 31 and that his adolescence and youth were tied, at least partially, to the well-known Hellenist city of Ascalon, presumably because his father wished to provide him with the finest education possible at one of the major Hellenist cultural centers in the region. 32 If this is true, one can assume that from an early age Herod was cut off from the company of Jewish children – something that may have had profound ramifications later in life. The city of Maresha was a regional center that had been hostile to Jews since the Return to Zion and during the Hellenist era, when it served as an important military base for the Seleucid army against the Hasmonaean revolt. 33 Granted, the conversion to Judaism of the Idumaeans during the time of John Hyrcanus I paved the way for rapprochement, but in reality this was a rather slow, protracted process. The generation of Herod, which was only two generations removed from the family’s conversion to Judaism, was still marked by deep social estrangement from the Jews that found expression in collective feelings of inferiority, mistrust and repressed hostility – a legacy of the distant past. The identification of the Idumaean converts as “Edomites” (in the Bible) 31 32 33

Echoing other scholars, Kokkinos (1998, p. 96) called Marisa (= Maresha) “Herod’s home town”. Tcherikover 1959, pp. 94–95; Schürer 1979, II, pp. 107–108; Hengel 1974, I, pp. 86–87; Geiger 1991, pp. 5–16; Fuks 2001, passim. Kochman 1980, pp. 158 ff.; Bar-Kochva 1989, index, s. v. Edom, Idumaea, Idumaeans.

28

1. Residues of Childhood

was to continue for quite some time, at least until the Great Revolt (66–70 CE) and the Bar Kochba Revolt (132–135 CE).34 It was only after these two national tragedies that the boundaries gradually became blurred. We wish to propose that the city of Ascalon, one of the renowned Hellenist cultural centers of ancient times, also had a major impact on Herod. 35 It is, of course, important to recall in this context that it too was extremely hostile to its Jewish neighbors throughout most of its (ancient) existence, even when it managed to maintain political neutrality during the Hellenist and Hasmonaean eras. The passionate Jewish religious fanaticism of the Hasmonaean period, led by Simeon ben-Shatah, who, according to Talmudic tradition, attacked the city and hanged eighty “witches” there so as to root out its cult of idol worship, 36 apparently aroused particular hatred toward Ascalon’s Jewish neighbors. 37 There is no question that the aftereffects of this episode were still being felt in the days of Herod, considering the proximity in time. Since only thirty years had passed between the death of Jannaeus (104 BCE) and the birth of Herod (73/72 BCE), it is not surprising that the residue of Ascalonite bitterness could, in one way or another, make its way into his heart as well. The well-founded assumption that both cities (Maresha and Ascalon) had a not inconsiderable effect on Herod’s upbringing and the shaping of his personality, could explain his alienation from Judaism and its values. Thus it appears that not only was he exposed from birth to feelings of Idumaean inferiority, but these were compounded by his Hellenist education with its anti-Jewish hostility in the best Ascalon tradition. In our opinion, it is doubtful whether a child in the first ten years of his life, or an adolescent at the midpoint of his second decade, would be capable of analyzing this residual animosity in an objective and impartial manner and of not identifying with, and internalizing, it. It is important to note that the negative image of the Jews as enemies of Hellenist civilization that emerged even more strongly in the generations following the Hasmonaean revolt and was virtually the general consensus in the Greco-Roman world of the time, could have seeped into Herod’s consciousness, particularly when he encoun34 35 36 37

Cf. S. Cohen 1999, pp. 110 ff. Regarding Herod’s Ascalonite education, see Kokkinos 1998, pp. 112–128. See Efron, appendix in: Kasher 1990, pp. 318–341. In our opinion, the reservations raised by Ilan (2001, pp. 136–146) do not undermine Efron’s analysis. On Ascalon’s enmity and hatred toward Jews during the Roman era, see: Kasher 1983, pp. 58–60; idem 1990, pp. 230 ff.; Fuks 2001, pp. 122–145.

Political Ambitions since Childhood

29

tered expressions of Jewish religious fanaticism against his building projects and against his rules of law and governance, which adhered to Hellenist norms. To summarize, it is reasonable to assume that during his adolescence, repressed and internalized feelings of hostility might have surfaced in Herod’s psyche as a result of what he had absorbed in childhood in the two Hellenist cities of Maresha and Ascalon. Nonetheless, it would be mistaken to conclude that there was a basic flaw in his Hellenist education as such, and that it was this that led Herod to his bitter conflict with his Jewish subjects, since in fact the values of Hellenist culture were not at all alien to the Jewish people and its spiritual leaders. It was not only the Jews of the Hellenist-Roman diaspora who had been educated on these values and incorporated them in a range of literary and religious works, but the inhabitants of the Land of Israel as well, including the Sages and Torah scholars, who were well acquainted with Hellenist culture and had adopted many of its values. 38 In practical terms, one cannot understand the Hasmonaean era in the history of the Land of Israel without taking into account the strong Hellenist influence in every sphere of life – a conclusion strongly supported by modern-day research. In short, it was not Hellenist culture itself that had a negative influence on the shaping of Herod’s personality but rather the channels by which it was relayed, namely the cities of Maresha and Ascalon, through which the toxic impact of the local heritage knowingly and unknowingly penetrated his consciousness. It is easy to speculate that in his childhood, and even more so his adolescence, Herod was aware of at least some of the goings-on in the Hasmonaean royal court since his father Antipater was part of its inner circle. This was not a deep or emotionally objective familiarity on Herod’s part since he was still a young man of barely twenty. However, it is logical to assume that even the little that he absorbed from his parental home was internalized in a typically infantile and adolescent fashion intermingled with no small amount of exaggerations and emotion. This period was marked by the accelerated decline of the Hasmonaean kingdom as a result of the civil wars of Judah Aristobulus II and John Hyrcanus II. Herod’s father Antipater was one of the more outstanding statesmen in the Hasmonaean court at the time, and was presented by Josephus as the person who, more than anyone, muddied the political waters of the failing kingdom. True, one can38

See the monumental study by Lieberman 1962, passim.

30

1. Residues of Childhood

not know what Herod the child/adolescent heard and absorbed in his home, and what exactly he grasped of what was going on around him in the political realm; but it is hard to imagine that he was indifferent, estranged or oblivious with respect to what was happening and did not identify emotionally with his father, even if he did not fully comprehend everything. In the manner typical of children, he probably had a tendency to view people as either “good” or “bad”; as such, he would have been inclined to associate his father’s chief opponent, the proud and imperious Hasmonaean prince Judah Aristobulus II, with the “bad” camp, while the weak brother (John Hyrcanus II) would be included among the “good” people, especially since his father had done everything possible to support him. Likewise, the adolescent Herod seems likely to have been affected by the secretive, conspiratorial atmosphere that pervaded his parents’ home as well as by the great tension that attended his father’s wideranging political activities. Experiences such as these, which were internalized by Herod, naturally aroused his sense of caution and mistrust and may have had an effect – whether consciously, indirectly, or out of habit – on Herod and on the atmosphere that was later to prevail in his court. Herod’s Hellenist education was based, as was customary, on a fusion of the central cultural elements of Hellenism together with aspects of the culture of the spirit, for one, and the culture of the body, for another. In keeping with the Athenian model, his education was placed in the hands of a school or private tutors, with scant supervision on the part of the polis itself. It seems that his father provided him with the best teachers and mentors that money could buy, as befitted a man of his standing. He himself, who went by the typically Greek name of Antipatros, apparently received a similar Hellenist upbringing. It is quite possible that Herod’s mother Cyprus (whose name was only rendered into Greek due to an etymological similarity) received a comparable education in one of the cities on the eastern side of the Jordan, possibly Gadara, which had close ties with the Nabataeans, not to mention the fact that, like Ascalon, it was also an important Hellenist center, indeed the main such center east of the Jordan.39 We can learn indirectly of Herod’s education as an adult from a later account of the close friendship that developed between him and Nicolaus of Damascus, who became his most prominent courtier, ap-

39

Geiger 1985, pp. 3–16.

Political Ambitions since Childhood

31

parently beginning in 20 BCE.40 Of this friendship, it is related that it reawakened Herod’s long-standing love of philosophy, which he had been exposed to in his youth during his education at Maresha and Ascalon. This is corroborated by an excerpt from Nicolaus’ words that survived in the writings of the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII (Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, 905–959 CE) testifying to Herod’s great interest in philosophy, rhetoric, and history. It is recounted there that Nicolaus praised him in this regard, claiming that it befitted a statesman and was especially beneficial to a king. The passage even stresses that it was Herod’s many pursuits as king that forced him to neglect his former avocations. In any event, this source goes on to say that because of his great passion for the study of history, Herod influenced Nicolaus to devote himself to historical writing.41 According to several scholars, Herod also had a sizeable library in his palace in Jerusalem consisting mostly of Greek works,42 which is certainly conceivable and might even suggest that the acquisition of books was not a one-time act on his part but more of a longtime hobby. Concerning Herod’s physical education as well, there is only indirect evidence, chiefly from Josephus’ BJ I, 429–430 (there is no parallel text in AJ), which speaks of his impressive physical achievements that undoubtedly took place in his childhood and youth: [429] Now Herod had a body suited to his soul, and was ever a most excellent hunter, where he generally had good success, by the means of his great skill in riding horses; for in one day he caught forty wild beasts: 40

41

42

Wacholder (1962 pp. 22–23) rightfully sought to correct the date suggested by Laqueur (1936, cols. 366–367), which placed the beginning of Nicolaus’ employ as early as 40 BCE. See Stern 1974, I, no. 96, p. 374. Indeed, Wacholder (1962, p. 232) claimed that the reference to Nicolaus was intended to justify his association with such an inhuman individual as Herod by highlighting the positive aspects of his character. But such a view seems much too speculative. See Otto 1913, col. 105; cf. Schalit 1969, pp. 403 ff. Wacholder (1962, pp. 81–83) pointed out that in Herod’s days it was a common practice for Hellenist kings to establish royal libraries in their places. The reservation raised by Rajak (1983, pp. 61– 62) is not convincing in light of Herod’s desire to be seen among the non-Jewish public as a devoted “philhellen.” It is reasonable to assume that he was influenced by Augustus’ construction of a Greek and Roman library in Rome (Suetonius, Augustus, 29), since Herod held Augustus in great esteem and considered him a model worthy of imitation. It appears that Nicolaus was the initiator of this project and the king’s chief advisor in matters involving the library, in addition to his other tasks as political advisor and court historian. Wacholder (pp. 82–86) believed that the writings of the 44 Hellenist writers referred to by Josephus were housed in Herod’s library, but this is not certain since Josephus could have mentioned their names on the basis of contemporary literary anthologies and not out of personal familiarity with Herod’s library. An indirect support for the existence of a library in the royal palace at Jerusalem can be the discovery of a similar library on Masada; see Hirschfeld 2006, pp. 20–24.

32

1. Residues of Childhood

that country breeds also bears, and the greatest part of it is replenished with stags and wild asses. He was also such a warrior as could not be withstood: [430] many men, therefore, there are who have stood amazed at his readiness in his exercises, when they saw him throw the javelin directly forward, and shoot the arrow upon the mark. And then, besides these performances of his depending on his own strength of mind and body, fortune was also very favorable to him; for he seldom failed of success in his wars; and when he failed, he was not himself the occasion of such failings, but he either was betrayed by some, or the rashness of his own soldiers procured his defeat.43

Since physical training can also be highly competitive, Herod’s dedication to it is an expression of his fierce personal ambition to constantly be the best. He was in fact accustomed from an early age to such achievements, so much so that the aura of victory clung to him and became an integral part of his personality, first and foremost in his own eyes and eventually also in the eyes of those around him. It later became apparent that he truly could not accept with equanimity the presence of individuals more talented than he in their physical accomplishments. This is attested to in the poignant story of Herod’s son Alexander, who, as a young boy, struggled to miss the target and gratify his father in order to “prove” that no one could equal Herod’s prowess as a hunter (AJ XVI, 247–248). The writings of Josephus also offer indirect clues concerning Herod’s physical appearance. Thus for example, AJ XV, 25–30, 51 contains a powerful expression of his great envy of his young brotherin-law, Aristobulus III, for his unique beauty and stature; this would suggest that Herod had a significant personal reason to be jealous of him, especially if we assume (as hinted at in the source) that he was short in relation to his brother-in-law and was not blessed with great physical appeal.44 If this assessment is correct, it would support the 43

44

See Josephus’ reserved assessment of Herod’s character in his concluding remarks in AJ XVII, 191–192: “A man he was of great barbarity towards all men equally, and a slave to his passion; but above the consideration of what was right; yet was he favored by fortune as much as any man ever was.” Josephus was likely uncomfortable with the fact that Herod lived to a ripe old age. At the conclusion of BJ I, 430 (unlike AJ), it is emphasized in general terms that fortune smiled upon Herod for he seldom failed at war, and when he did so, it was either through the betrayal or impulsivity of others. It is important to note here that such an outlook is typical of those who suffer from a paranoid personality disorder. Strictly for the sake of comparison, it is worth noting that Augustus, so admired by Herod, was a short man, whose “shoes were somewhat raised to create the illusion that he was taller.” In addition, we are told that his body was covered with pale patches and birthmarks as well as several scars. His left leg was not very strong and sometimes he even limped (Suetonius, Augustus 73, 80). However, he did not suffer from an inferiority complex as a result, apparently because he was considered to

Political Ambitions since Childhood

33

conclusion that Herod suffered from feelings of inferiority not only because of his origins but also because of his physical appearance. As we shall see below, he was sometimes tormented by emotional anguish at the sight of tall, handsome, robust young men who excelled at athletics and hunting; yet at the same time, he surrounded himself with them and sought out their company, at times to the point of intimacy. This dichotomy indicates the extent to which feelings of deep admiration were intermingled in his psyche with burning jealousy and emotional agony in his interactions with such individuals. This might also explain why many of them, including his close bodyguards and his sons from Mariamme the Hasmonaean, later became his tragic victims.

be a good-looking and charming person throughout his life; see: ibid., 79; Yavetz 1988, pp. 207 ff. This could by no means be said of Herod.

Chapter 2 Adolescence in the Shadow of the Roman Conquest (63–42 BCE) Consolidation of Power in the House of Antipater The launching point for Herod’s political career was undoubtedly his appointment as governor of the Galilee, which took place in the aftermath of the civil war between the Hasmonaeans Judah Aristobulus II and John Hyrcanus II against the backdrop of the loss of Jewish sovereignty and the conquest of Palestine by the Roman commander Pompey (63 BCE). This period was also a decisive turning point in the life of Herod’s family. The turbulent years of 63–47 BCE were utilized by the patriarch Antipater as a time of broad-based political consolidation culminating in his ascendancy to the omnipotent position of epitropos (procurator) of Judea under Julius Caesar.1 At this point (47 BCE), Antipater was 66 years old, 2 a venerable age by ancient standards; accordingly, he now took the first practical steps toward sharing power with his sons. But it is almost certain that he had already begun previously to nurture their political ambitions and involve them in his plans to seize control of the kingdom of Judea. Presumably, Herod married his first wife Doris as part of his drive to groom his sons for power, apparently at the instigation of his father; such a move was in keeping with contemporary practice and the norms of tribal-patriarchal societies, including that of the Idumaeans. 3 Hence, it is reasonable to assume that there was even a family tie of some sort between (at least one of) the parents of Doris and the family of Antipater.4 If 1 2

3 4

See in greater detail: Schalit, pp. 15–30; Schürer, I, pp. 267–272; Smallwood, pp. 30– 43; Kokkinos, pp. 97–100. Based on Kokkinos’ calculations (1998, p. 109 and n. 83), Antipater was born in 113 BCE, and at the age of 40 (73/72 BCE) his son Herod was born; see above chapter I, note 1. Cf. Schremer 2003, pp. 125 ff., esp. 128. This possibility is supported by the fact that early in Herod’s reign he married two other wives who were also related to him: one, whose name is unknown, was his

Consolidation of Power in the House of Antipater

35

this theory is correct, the marriage to Doris preceded Herod’s appointment as strategos of the Galilee (47 BCE), 5 taking place when she was approximately 13 years of age. While Herod was 25 or 26 at the time of his marriage – slightly older than the norm among the males of his family6 – the fact of Doris’ youth actually supports the conclusion that her marriage to Herod resulted from a match between families when she had reached a suitable age. Doris is an obviously Greek name associated with the small region in the northern part of central Greece and with its capital, which the Dorian inhabitants of the Peloponnesian peninsula, led by the Spartans, saw as their metropolis. Bezalel Bar-Kochva argues that the Jewish use of this name can be explained on the basis of the ancient legendary tradition according to which the Jews and the Spartans both stemmed for the seed of the biblical forefather Abraham (I Maccabees 12:7,21; II Maccabees 5:9).7 At first glance, this hypothesis seems plausible and even attractive, but it is not at all certain since the name Doris can more easily be explained as a shortened version of the theophoric name Dorothea, just as the name of her brother Theodius can be understood as a shorter version of the theophoric names Theodorus, Theodotus and the like.8 It is important in this context to examine the origins of the name Doris since these can shed light on Herod’s narrow social perspective at the time, which was still limited to Idumaean society with all that that implies. Doris is described on one occasion (BJ I, 431) as the daughter of a family from Jerusalem, or a woman who was born in Jerusalem (génov Ê Èx (Ierosolúmwn), and elsewhere (BJ I, 449) as a

5 6

7

8

niece (daughter of his brother Joseph), and the other, also unnamed, was his cousin (daughter of his uncle Joseph); for further details, see Kokkinos 1998, pp. 208, 216–217. Endogamy was apparently a well-known phenomenon in Eastern societies (including Jews); cf. Satlow 2001, pp. 144, 147–151; Schremer 2003, pp. 159 ff. Herod’s family was by no means an exception; indeed, he tried to force endogamous matches on his own family, including his brother Pheroras and his own son Antipater among others, as we shall see below. Cf. Bar-Kochva 2003, p. 12 and n. 24. Kokkinos (1998, p. 209), by contrast, placed the marriage at between 47 and 40 BCE. Doris was thirteen when she married – the same age as Mariamme daughter of Boethus, as we shall see below. Indeed, Jewish women of the Second Temple period, as well as the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras, married quite young; see Schremer 2003, pp. 73–101, 127; cf. Satlow 2001, pp. 104–111, esp. 109–111. Bar-Kochva 2003, pp. 6–7. At any rate, the retroactive legitimization (or rather, “Judaization”) of the name in a manner analogous to that of the Christian Church in Germany is an amusing curiosity, no more. See: Ilan 2001, pp. 11, 283, 316–317; Kokkinos 1998, p. 210 (n. 7); in fact, Bar-Kochva himself was aware of this.

36

2. Adolescence in the Shadow of the Roman Conquest

“common mother” (Ìdiötidov mhtròv) in reference to her son Antipater, that is, a “private woman” (or commoner) of no standing. In AJ XIV 300 as well, it is noted that Herod married a “wife out of a lower family (gunaîka dhmótin) of his own nation (Èk toû 3qnouv), whose name was Doris.” The term “wife out of a lower family” should be understood as alluding to her Idumaean social origins, which were inferior in the eyes of the Jews. Her description in BJ I, 241 as “a wife out of his own country [or people] of no ignoble blood” (ãkto gunîka tôn Èpicwríon oÙk 2shmon) ostensibly contradicts the above. But in fact this is not the case, since the expression “a wife out of his own country [or “his own people”] is consistent with her Idumaean ethnic origins, indicating that among the Idumaeans, she was important and “of no ignoble blood” (i. e., not of low birth). While Thackeray and Marcus were of the opinion that she was a Jew, it is obvious that they only wished to clarify the use of the term “born at Jerusalem.”9 Bar-Kochva, by contrast, somewhat overstates his argument, declaring categorically that the word Èpicwríoi in the context of Doris means “‘of the daughters of Jerusalem’ or ‘the daughters of the land of Judea’” and that “the reference is obviously to the Jewish people.”10 At the same time, however, he himself was also aware of the fact, which is relevant to our purposes, that “the Idumaeans maintained their separate ethnic designation, and that the Jews were scrupulous in this regard (not only for halakhic reasons).” Thus in fact, he is trying to have it both ways, so to speak, since his words lead to two contradictory conclusions: If the Idumaeans themselves retained their ethnic identity and their distinctiveness, why did the Jews need to make a point of dissociating themselves from them halachically as well? In support of his position, Bar-Kochva argued that the term Èpicwríoi appears in BJ “dozens of times in similar contexts, as part of passages taken originally from Nicolaus,” all of them with the sense of “natives of the land of Judea,” indicating that Doris was a strictly “kosher” Jewess. But if we scrutinize the text more closely, we find that the passages relying on Nicolaus are taken solely from the first volume of BJ and total only ten (and not dozens). Three of these (I, 38, 48, 67) are not in fact based on Nicolaus; moreover, they pertain to the early Hasmonaean era and not to the time of Herod. This leaves just seven instances, only one of which relates to Doris (I, 9 10

Thackeray 1927, p. 113; Marcus 1943, p. 608, note e. Bar-Kochva 2003, p. 10.

Consolidation of Power in the House of Antipater

37

241); of the six remaining, four refer clearly to non-Jews (I, 229, 277, 293, 367).11 It is even more surprising that Bar-Kochva forgot, or perhaps ignored, the fact that the Greek geographer Strabo used the selfsame expression ÀnÄr Èpicöriov with regard to Herod as well(!)12 Like most “Idumaeans” of the period, Doris was doubtless considered a member of the Jewish faith, like Herod himself, since the Idumaeans had already converted to Judaism several decades earlier, in the time of John Hyrcanus I. The labeling of Herod as “no more than a private man (or commoner), and an Idumaean, i. e., a half Jew” (AJ XIV, 403) is appropriate, in our opinion, with regard to his wife Doris as well.13 For this reason, the “contrary” designations with respect to her can be reconciled, based on the conclusion that the term “a wife out of a lower family” (AJ XIV, 300) is employed, from a Jewish standpoint, with reference to her lowly “Idumaean” origins whereas her description as a woman who is “of no ignoble blood” (BJ I, 241) pertains to her lofty status from the Idumaean perspective. One must bear in mind the fact that the word for “ignoble blood” (2shmov) is repeated on no less than twenty occasions(!) in the writings of Josephus, and in each instance it explicitly denotes a person of common lineage and undistinguished origins.14 The expression “of no ignoble blood” (oÙk 11

12

13 14

In other books of BJ, the term is used 41 times, based not on Nicolaus but on Josephus himself(!) Moreover, seven of these uses pertain to non-Jews (II, 372, 374, 487; III, 410; IV, 615, 643, 661). By way of illustration, it is worth emphasizing that the three references in CA (I, 27, 76, 116) also concern non-Jews. Among the 39 uses of the term in AJ, seventeen cases are similar; see Rengstorf, II, p. 149. In brief, it is impossible to interpret the term in an absolute and all-inclusive manner, as Bar-Kochva has done. See Geographica, XVI, 2, 46 (765). Stern (1974, I, p. 310), in commenting on Strabo’s mistaken remark that Herod “snuck his way into the priesthood,” referred the reader to the truth concerning Herod’s lowly origins, as contained in AJ XIV, 9. See above chapter 1, pp. 22–23. See Rengstorf, I, p. 252; cf also Liddell & Scott, pp. 255–256 (s. v. 2shmov, III–V). Similar translations were offered by Whiston (“a wife out of his own country of no ignoble blood”) and Thackeray (“a Jewess of some standing”); cf. also Simhoni 1961, p. 66; Hagai 1964, p. 42; Williamson 1981, p. 59; Cornfeld 1982, p. 52. One should bear in mind that the Hyksos invaders of Egypt were referred to by Josephus in CA I, 75 as 2shmoi, that is, lowly, worthless, inferior, base, and despicable people. Had Bar-Kochva taken the trouble to make proper use of Rengstorf’s concordance and Liddell & Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, he might have altered what he wrote about Doris and perhaps even refrained from his provocative and extraneous remark (note 18), which may yet come back to haunt him. But the inclination to polemicize, and the urge to demonstrate erudition, are sometimes stronger than the pursuit of truth. In brief, Bar-Kochva’s rendering of Doris as a “local [i. e., Jerusalemite], not unimpressive woman (or [a woman] who left her mark),” is unsupported by the sources. This supposition clearly serves Bar-Kochva’s view that Doris was a

38

2. Adolescence in the Shadow of the Roman Conquest

2shmov) is obviously based on a double negative; its somewhat apologetic tone is intended to emphasize that, unlike certain individuals “of ignoble blood,” the person referred to in this way was someone of importance and high social standing. This approach is consistent with the situation of Doris, who was both well-born in Idumaean terms and lowly from a Jewish standpoint, like Herod himself, as stated explicitly in AJ (XIV, 403).15 The description of Doris as a woman “who was born at Jerusalem” (BJ I, 431) should thus be understood simply as based on her residence there.16 And if one poses the question of how a distinguished woman of Idumaean origins is referred to as “born at Jerusalem,” the entirely straightforward answer is: Since Herod’s grandfather Antipas and his father Antipater had held key positions in the Hasmonaean kingdom and were part of the upper echelons in Jerusalem, it is reasonable to assume that they also resided there. It is difficult to imagine that Antipater would not have been a permanent resident of the state capital

15 16

major influence in Herod’s life. But there is no need to “force” this interpretation, since her description as “not an unknown” woman need not be understood as alluding solely to her personal influence on Herod. Cf. Grant 1971, p. 43 and n. 4.; Kokkinos 1998, pp. 208–209 and n. 3. Herod’s father-in-law, Simon son of Boethus, was referred to similarly as a “Jerusalemite” ((Ierosolumíthv), although he was Alexandrian in origin according to AJ XV, 320: tinov )Alecandréwv). Bar-Kochva (2003, p. 9, n. 13) makes the claim that the latter reference in Kasher (2001, p. 179, n. 50) is based on Schalit’s supposedly mistaken Hebrew translation of AJ. According to Bar-Kochva, “there was a typographical error in the placement of one of the commas (“there was a certain Jerusalemite, Simon son of Boethus, from Alexandria” rather than “there was a certain Jerusalemite, Simon, son of Boethus from Alexandria”). Schalit, in Bar-Kochva’s view, would not have erred in translating such a simple sentence. Unfortunately, we have no means of clarifying Schalit’s intentions, since he passed away long ago; thus we have no choice but to allow his “poor” translation to speak for itself. However, Stern (1991, p. 182 and n. 22), one of the greatest scholars of the Second Temple era in Jewish history, subscribed to the same opinion--and surely he did not fall prey to misplaced commas in Schalit’s Hebrew translation. Nor would anyone suspect Walter Otto (1913, p. 23) of being misled by the same error, all the more so since he could not read Schalit’s Hebrew translation. Surprisingly enough, Kokkinos (1998, pp. 208–209, n. 3), a native speaker of Greek who does not read Hebrew, understands this “problematic” sentence in the same way. Incidentally, Kokkinos makes reference to S. Cohen (1994, pp. 23–38) in support of his interpretation that “a native of Jerusalem” refers to a person who actually lived and functioned in Jerusalem. What could be more straightforward than that? Yet, according to Bar-Kochva, he incorrectly interpreted S. Cohen’s view; unfortunately, however, Bar-Kochva comments on the matter in rather vague terms without offering an appropriate explanation. In support of Stern’s (loc. cit.) view on Simon son of Boethus, Sanders (1992, p. 396) makes the logical claim that a High Priest from the Diaspora, when appointed to serve in the Temple, committed himself to reside in Jerusalem beforehand, at least for a certain period of training.

Appointment as Strategos of Galilee, and Trial before Sanhedrin

39

after being appointed epitropos of Judea under Pompey (63 BCE) and Gabinius (55–57 BCE; AJ, XIV, 127, 139; Schürer, I, p. 359) so as to assist the ethnarch John Hyrcanus II in overseeing the areas of defense and administration. But it is also natural and understandable that a man of his stature would take with him to his place of residence such prominent members of his staff as his bodyguard and economic and administrative personnel. It is therefore probable that there emerged an “Idumaean court” of sorts in Jerusalem.17 Such a supposition would also apply to Phasael, who took up permanent residence in Jerusalem after being appointed strategos of Judea and Jerusalem. From the preceding, it appears that Doris was born to an aristocratic Idumaean family in the service of Antipater, who lived in Jerusalem. We can further deduce that she and Herod made each other’s acquaintance prior to their marriage, and that she was looked upon favorably by him and by his father due to her lofty pedigree and perhaps also by virtue of their family ties (if indeed such existed). It is also likely that Doris the Idumaean-Jewess was born in Jerusalem two or three years after Pompey’s conquest, so that at the time of Herod’s appointment as strategos of the Galilee in 47 BCE, she was already able to marry him, being approximately thirteen years of age the time, as stated above. During his first marriage, Herod did not yet deviate from the narrow “Idumaean” social framework to which he belonged, nor did he breach the “barrier” of Jewish aloofness with respect to the Idumaeans. This fact may have fostered his feelings of social isolation and his “Idumaean” sense of inferiority, which he had experienced since his childhood and adolescence and which were further reinforced by his marriage to Doris.

Appointment as Strategos of Galilee, and Trial before Sanhedrin (47–46 BCE) Following Julius Caesar’s sweeping victory over Pompey (48 BCE) and his successful emergence from the Alexandrian Wars (47 BCE), Antipater was officially appointed by him to serve as epitropos of Judea, in which capacity he appointed his oldest son Phasael strategos (commander-in-chief) of Judea and Jerusalem, and Herod, strategos 17

See: Kokkinos 1998, p. 97, 209; even Bar-Kochva (2003, p. 9) held the same view in this matter.

40

2. Adolescence in the Shadow of the Roman Conquest

of the Galilee.18 Phasael, as firstborn, doubtless enjoyed higher standing, just as the stature of Judea surpassed that of the Galilee. Perhaps this was an indicator of future intentions, but in practice, matters developed in a different and wholly unanticipated fashion. Josephus notes that at the time of his appointment, Herod was “very young, only fifteen years old” (AJ XIV, 158). Although his age is overstated by about ten years,19 there is at least an implication here that his personal aspirations to power began to take shape at an early stage in his life. Josephus emphasized further that Herod’s personality traits were those of a vigorous young man, or in his words, “enterprising by nature” (BJ I, 204). 20 The Greek term in this instance indicates a favorable assessment, which conforms with the view of Nicolaus of Damascus, the source of this account. By contrast, in the parallel text (AJ), it is noted in a critical tone that Herod was already thought of at the time as an “aggressive, over-reaching, and power-hungry” individual who was not content to remain idle and was eager to demonstrate his power. 21 As we shall see below, power and authority were truly paramount in his eyes; in his dealings with his Jewish subjects, he did not pay heed to the accepted legal norms of the Jews but preferred the use of force to curry favor with his Roman patrons. With Herod’s appointment to the post of strategos, he held fast to this approach, executing the local leader Hezekiah the Galilean and many of his followers without benefit of trial and against the laws of 18 19

20

21

BJ I, 204; AJ XIV, 158; Schalit 1969, pp. 40–43; Schürer 1973, I, p. 275, 359; Smallwood 1981, pp. 34 f., 44 ff. In AJ XIV, 158, it is written: pántapasin 0nti néšw· pentekaídeka gàr aultšô Ègenóei mónon 3th. Subsequently (§ 159), Josephus uses synonymous terms of reference such as Ó neóthv, Ó neaníav. In BJ I, 203, however, he writes in general terms that Herod was komid ™ê néon (“very young”) at the time, but without specifying his exact age. Comparing the two versions has led scholars to think that AJ XIV, 158 contains an overstatement, since AJ XVII, 148 states that upon his death (4 BCE) Herod “was about seventy years of age.” A simple reckoning shows that upon his appointment as governor of Galilee he was about 25 years old and not 15; cf. Marcus 1943, VII, p. 533, note d; Klausner 1951, IV, p. 251 (and n. 3). For other opinions, see Otto 1913, col. 18; Richardson 1996, p. 108, n. 52. Regarding the philological significance, see Liddell & Scott, p. 448 (s. v. drastäriov). A similar description is found in AJ XIV 159, where Herod is depicted as tò frónhma gennaîov. AJ XIV, 165: tòn (HrÖdhn bíaion kaì tolmhròn kaì turannídov. This seems to contradict AJ XIV, 159, but this can be explained if we make the assumption that Josephus was somewhat “carried away” by Nicolaus’ style of writing in presenting the response of the Syrian Hellenistic cities to the execution of the “bandit leader” Hezekiah (= Ezekias) in the Galilee. In AJ XIV, 165, however, Josephus already expresses his own negative view of the affair, in which Herod bypassed the judicial authority of the Great Sanhedrin (an issue that will be dealt with below).

Appointment as Strategos of Galilee, and Trial before Sanhedrin

41

the Torah. In BJ I, 209, Josephus writes that complaints to John Hyrcanus II in this regard were frequent and widespread: [209] … this was the case when Herod slew so many men … and this in contradiction to the law of the Jews; who therefore, in case he be not a king, but a private man (Ìdiöthv), still ought to come to his trial, and answer it to him, and to the laws of his country, which do not permit any one to be killed till he hath been condemned in judgment. 22

Hezekiah the Galilean and his men were considered “bandits” since they were harassing the Hellenist cities in the area.23 Thus Herod saw his reward in the praise accorded him by these cities and the fact that he earned the favor of the Roman proconsul in Syria, Sextus Caesar. 24 The latter even sought to protect Herod from being placed on trial before the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish legal body. The families of the executed complained to John Hyrcanus II in his capacity as the ultimate Jewish authority (high priest and ethnarch) that Herod should be tried before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, a demand that was supported by a broad spectrum of the Jewish public. His trial was therefore an indirect test of the authority of the Syrian proconsul versus that of the Jewish legal-halachic establishment. This was not a theoretical (de jure) legal test since, according to the political and judicial arrangements that had been instituted by Julius Caesar, judicial sovereignty was restored to the Jewish people and the legal constraints from the days of Pompey and Gabinius were nullified; 25 on the contrary, it was a practical (de facto) test of political sovereignty. Herod, for his part, did not concern himself with anything other than his own power and authority, not even giving thought to the deep22 23

24

25

On Herod’s estrangement from the ‘ancestral laws’ (i. e. Torah laws) in this context, see Schröder 1996, pp. 32–34, and recently Fuks 2002, pp. 238–239 BJ I, 203 ff.; AJ XIV, 158 ff. Schalit (1969, p. 42 and n. 131) had shown that the dubious title Àrcil™hstäv used to describe Hezekiah, was actually a terminus technicus employed by Josephus with respect to other rebels against Rome as well; see for example: BJ II, 56, 253; IV, 135; V, 30; AJ XV, 274; XVII, 271; Vitae, 105 etc. In fact, all of Josephus’ uses of the term are in keeping with Roman terminology; see further: Buchanan 1959, 169–177, esp. 171 ff.; Kasher 1990, p. 174, n. 155; Isaak 1984, pp. 171–203; Rhoads 1976, Appendix; Cornfeld 1982, p. 47; Rajak 1983, p. 84; Hengel 1989, pp. 41 ff., 313 ff.; Shaw 1993, pp. 176–204. Schäfer (1997, p. 87) rightly argued that, in Herod’s view, the Galilee was a stronghold of fanatic Hasmonaean loyalists. Josippon, xxxix, 24–26 (Flusser ed., p. 171) adds that the Roman governor of Syria, together with the Hellenistic cities, not only honored Herod for his deed but also gifted him with presents of money and precious stones. Although this remark is not substantiated by Josephus, making it somewhat dubious, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. See: Gilboa 1980, pp. 101–103; Smallwood 1981, pp. 38 ff, esp. 44–46.

42

2. Adolescence in the Shadow of the Roman Conquest

ening rift between himself and the Jewish public.26 Nor was he concerned by the widespread demonstrations culminating in the demand to bring him to trial before the Sanhedrin. One of the reasons for his self-confidence was apparently the fact that he was a Roman citizen, meaning that, according to his understanding, he could only be tried before Roman courts. 27 But more than this, it stemmed from the official appointment conferred upon him by the Roman proconsul and from the latter’s explicit directive to Hyrcanus to withdraw the charges against him and refrain from putting him on trial (BJ I, 210–211; AJ XIV, 170, 177–178). Since Herod was drunk with power as a result of his own authority and the direct instructions of the proconsul of Syria, he did not anticipate any strong objections, nor did his experienced, prudent father, who even advised him to present himself for trial dressed in royal attire (porphyra) and escorted by armed body guards. 28 Antipater naively believed that his son’s royal airs and the unqualified support of Sextus Caesar would intimidate the Jewish court.29 Herod indeed accepted Antipater’s counsel in deference to his paternal authority but no less so in view of his own position as strategos, not to mention his boundless self-assurance and sense of conviction.

26

27

28

29

Grant aptly comments in this regard (1971, p. 38): “That is probably why Herod’s repressive measures involved him in one of the worst crises of his life, a crisis, indeed, which very nearly put a stop to his career almost before it had started.” A similar situation is known to us with respect to St. Paul, whose Roman citizenship shielded him from Jewish legal jurisdiction; cf. Acts, 15:35–39; 22:24–30; 25:15– 27; our thanks to G. Rosenblum, who called our attention to this similarity. AJ XIV, 169, 173. porfúra denotes a purple cloak, which symbolized ruling authority; see Liddell & Scott, p. 1451; also Jastrow 1985, p. 1149. In the Hellenistic world, kings allowed their inner circle to wear purple cloaks in public, in order to emphasize their status; see Reinold 1970, pp. 29–36; D. Schwartz 2004, p. 134. According to Kokkinos (1998, p. 98, relying on AJ XIV, 45), Antipater (Herod’s father) wore a purple cloak on several occasions, infuriating Judas Aristobulus II since this privilege was limited in his eyes exclusively to the Hasmonaean dynasty; cf. I Maccabees 14:43–44; Rappaport 2004, pp. 325. Ironic as it might sound, Herod’s son Antipater donned the purple cloak prematurely in an effort to exhibit his royal status (AJ XVII, 90), and paid for this mistake with his life. Strictly for the sake of analogy, it is worth recalling that according to the New Testament, Jesus was clothed with a purple robe by the Roman soldiers prior to his crucifixion in order to mock him as ‘king of the Jews’; cf. Flusser 2001, pp. 207–211. Concerning the nature of this Sanhedrin, see the instructive study by Efron 1980, pp. 311–312. He cast doubt as to whether Josephus’ account of Herod’s trial could “constitute a proof of the very existence of the Great Sanhedrin as a permanent stable body, structured and administered according to its independent regulations.” On the conduct of this trial from the Roman perspective, see Gilboa 1980, pp. 98– 107. Cf. also the recent study by Efron (2004, pp. 151–154) which comments inter alia on the Great Sanhedrin and Jesus’ trial.

Appointment as Strategos of Galilee, and Trial before Sanhedrin

43

As expected, his appearance accompanied by an armed escort inspired trepidation among the members of the Supreme Court of Jewish law (probably the Great Sanhedrin of Talmudic literature and New Testament sources); but contrary to his expectations, the fear was shortlived and did not signal compliance. As recounted by Josephus, a member of the Jewish court by the name of Samaias (Shemaiah) regained his composure and turned matters completely around with a powerful speech, pulling the judges firmly in the opposite direction. 30 The fact that he was a leader of the Pharisees (cf. AJ XV, 3–4) clearly indicates that his supporters had taken an anti-Herodian stand at the outset. 31 The high priest John Hyrcanus II suddenly found himself in dire straits; so great was his fear that he called the session to a halt, “put off the trial for another day, and sent for Herod, advising him to flee the city so that he might escape the danger” (AJ XIV, 177). 32 In so doing, he gave him time to slip out of Jerusalem and seek refuge with his patron Sextus Caesar (ibid., 178). The support that Herod received from him at this juncture was also evidenced by the fact that the Syrian proconsul allowed him to acquire (for a price) a position even more distinguished than that of his father, namely, “strategos of Coele-Syria and Samaria” (BJ I, 213).33 The fact that Herod purchased the post for money would appear to suggest that, deep in his heart, he was not reconciled with the firstborn status of his brother Phasael and hoped to bolster his future 30

31

32

33

No doubt the Samaias in question refers to Shemaiah the “rabbinic counterpart” of Avtalyon, and not to Shammai the counterpart of Hillel, as Schalit mistakenly believed (1969, pp. 45, 768–771). See also: Efron 1980, pp. 192–196; 311–312; BenShalom 1993, pp. 289–291; cf. Regev 2003, p. 18. This was Rivkin’s initial opinion (1978, pp. 50–53, 71), except that according to him the Pharisees underwent a complete change of heart to become Herod’s loyal supporters (pp. 72, 94, 257). The weakness of his argument lies in the fact that it is not supported by the sources, leading to several inconsistencies and internal contradictions (pp. 321–324). In our opinion, the best analysis of Herod’s trial is offered by Efron, loc. cit.; cf. also Mason 1991, pp. 26 ff.; Stemberger 1995, pp. 114–115. The attempt made by Mantel (1969, pp. 357–365) to bridge the contradictions between Josephus’ account and the Talmudic tradition on Herod’s trial before the Great Sanhedrin is disingenuous, in our opinion, although not so his criticism (p. 357–358, n. 1) of Laqueur (1920, pp. 177–178). John Hyrcanus II may have relied in this instance on the halachic teaching that the verdict in a case involving capital punishment must be put off for the following day; see m.Sanhedrin, 4:1; 5:5. AJ XIV, 180; see Momigliano 1934, pp. 36–37; Smallwood 1981, pp. 36–37; BenShalom 1993, p. 27 and n. 16; Gabba 1999, p. 103 and n. 47. On the geographic significance of the term Koílh Suría, see Herodotus, III, 91 (Palestine Syria), Pseudo-Scylax in Stern 1984, no. 558; Ctesias in Diodorus, II, 2, 3; Ptolemaeus, V, 24, 28; Claudi Ptolemaei Geographia (ed. Nobbe), Hildesheim 1966, pp. 63–64. See also Smallwood 1981, p. 14 (n. 38), 45 (n. 4), 47 (n. 8), 61 (n. 94); for further details, see Kokkinos 2002a, pp. 717–718 (n. 7), 423–424, 727, 734–740.

44

2. Adolescence in the Shadow of the Roman Conquest

standing by means of the new appointment, which gave him jurisdiction over a wider geographic area than his previous post. The resolute stance of the Jewish court, which accepted the opinion of Sameas or Samias, was tantamount to a public statement that the family of Antipater as a whole, and Herod in particular, were considered the enemies of the Jewish people since they gave preference to their power (backed by Rome) over Jewish law and legal institutions. When Herod recovered from the initial shock, his response was hasty and impulsive, furious and vindictive. His spontaneous, unthinking emotional reaction drove him to act swiftly in his new post, ousting John Hyrcanus II, traveling to Jerusalem, and forcibly seizing power there. It seems that the sense of power following the new appointments granted to him and his father by Julius Caesar in the name of the Roman proconsul and citizenry now suppressed the Jewish component of his identity with all that it entailed. It was only because his father and his brother Phasael came to their senses at the last moment that Herod reversed his rash intentions and limited himself, at their suggestion, to a display of power as a would-be deterrent (BJ I, 214– 215; AJ XIV, 181–184). Future events were to show that this was only a tactical, not a strategic, move on his part, for his goal of eradicating the institution of the Sanhedrin at the first opportunity had already taken root. Indeed, following his trial, he circumvented that body – or simply ignored it entirely – until he was ultimately able to rid himself of it in his typical fashion, namely, physical elimination (see below). Herod’s trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin was apparently a traumatic and highly significant event for him, largely because the experience was so threatening and emotionally charged. Despite his selfconfidence and sense of power from his appointment by the Romans, he now found himself in the unaccustomed situation of having his political future – in fact, his very life – in mortal danger. For the first time in his life, he experienced the feeling that he was a mere mortal in the eyes of Jewish law and the supreme Jewish establishment. Given his mistrustful personality structure, his interpretation of events was clear: He became preoccupied by an obsessive fear of the Jewish people and its institutions, nursing a hatred and aversion toward the spiritual leadership of the rabbinic Sages. Herod’s anger and hostility, and the accompanying anxiety and suspicion, would later develop into paranoid states. 34 As time progressed, his sense of antagonism intensified, not only towards the Sanhedrin and its leaders but also 34

Cf. Munitz et al. 1987, p. 177.

Political Acrobatics Following the Murder of Julius Caesar

45

toward their supporters in the broader Jewish public, whom he saw as representing “the people.” This manifested itself in the form of suspiciousness, total mistrust, uncompromising fury and animosity, over-sensitivity regarding “slights” to his honor, and above all, a sense of persecution reinforced by self-persuasion. As we shall see below, all of these were to have a major impact on both his personal life and his exercise of power.

Political Acrobatics Following the Murder of Julius Caesar In this section, we will be describing the life of Herod in conjunction, wherever possible, with the chronological sequence of events;35 in this way, we will attempt to explore the development of his Paranoid Personality Disorder, including the appearance of depressive episodes. To begin with, it is important to note that from 47–46 BCE onward, Herod became increasingly dependent on Rome, causing his unqualified loyalty to the imperial regime to become the major guiding principle of his policies. Although the Romans welcomed his fidelity and rewarded it handsomely, the rapid political shifts in the Empire following Julius Caesar’s victory over Pompey were extremely anxiety-provoking, leading to a loss of confidence and the fear of uncertainty. In our opinion, it was this intense pressure that aggravated and accelerated the aforementioned personality disturbances. Following the murder of Herod’s patron, the Syrian proconsul Sextus Caesar, in 46 BCE at the hands of Caecilius Bassus (a follower of Pompey), a number of military commanders led by Gaius Antistius Vetus marched against Bassus to Apamea in Syria in the autumn of 45 BCE under orders from Julius Caesar (Cassius Dio XLVII, 27). Early the following year, Julius Caesar sent a new proconsul named Statius Murcus to the province; according to Josephus (AJ XIV, 269 ff.), Antipater and his sons dispatched reinforcements to him out of loyalty and identification with the supreme patron, Julius Caesar. At the height of the battle, however, matters degenerated into chaos with 35

In AJ, the history of the Herodian era is written in chronological order, whereas in War it is written in a thematic style; cf. S. Cohen 1979, pp. 252 ff., 233 ff.; Bilde 1988, p. 138. For obvious reasons, we prefer the Antiquities approach, although occasionally we will be making use of the other format as well, in particular when the subject matter demands it.

46

2. Adolescence in the Shadow of the Roman Conquest

the assassination of Julius Caesar by a group of conspirators led by Cassius and Brutus (March 15, 44 BCE). A fierce civil war erupted throughout the Roman Empire, exerting a profound influence on all the lands of the eastern Mediterranean Basin. When Cassius came to Syria (August 44 BCE) and journeyed to Apamea, the Syrian consul Murcus came over to his side and was joined by Caecilius Bassus, who had reconciled with him in the interim. Cassius geared up for a major military encounter with Caesar’s followers, imposing on his subjects in Syria and Palestine the heavy burden of maintaining and supplying his army, including the logistical preparations for the crucial battle. According to Josephus, the taxes were particularly crushing, and even more distressing were the haste and the need to employ drastic and violent measures in collecting the monies, to the point of brutally subjugating entire cities (BJ I, 218–222; AJ XIV, 271–276). Antipater and his sons hastened to express their loyalty to Cassius, quickly making themselves a part of the pressing and difficult task of collecting the heavy taxes. 36 In so doing, Antipater masterfully committed the last of three political “about-faces” spanning a period of twenty years. As stated earlier, he started out as a faithful supporter of Pompey and Gabinius (63–55 BCE), after which he shifted his loyalty to Julius Caesar and served him in the Alexandrian Wars (48–47 BCE); when Caesar was assassinated, Antipater hurried to express his allegiance to Cassius (44 BCE). In contrast to their father, Phasael and Herod managed to switch sides only twice up to this point: initially, they too supported Julius Caesar, later shifting their loyalty to Cassius.37 In the same context, Josephus wrote of Herod that he “was the first (prôtov) to collect what he was assigned to [collect] from the Galilee” in addition to being “a fast friend of Cassius.”38 In the version recounted in AJ (XIV, 274), he added the following biting criticism: “… for he thought it a part of prudence to cultivate a friendship with the Romans, and to gain their goodwill at the expense of others.” The emphasis on the fact that he was the first to collect the taxes indicates, of course, his efforts to outshine both his father and his 36 37

38

According to Schäfer (1983, p. 99), Antipater filled a position somewhat similar to that of Joseph the Tobaid under the Ptolemies. Their support for Pompey should not be taken into account since in 63 BCE Phasael was only 14 years old (as calculated by Kokkinos 1998, p. 156), while Herod was 9 or 10 years old at the time (op. cit., pp. 144–145). AJ XIV, 274; cf. BJ I, 221. In BJ it is stated explicitly that this is the reason why Cassius became one of his closest friends; this alludes of course to bribery (see below). Indeed, it emerges clearly from both versions that Herod was the “first” in the effort to capture Cassius’ heart.

Political Acrobatics Following the Murder of Julius Caesar

47

brother so as to advance his own interests with Cassius. As it turned out, the mutual loyalty and friendship that had developed between the two quickly proved beneficial, in the form of Herod’s reappointment to the post of “strategos of Coele-Syria” (44 BCE), 39 a position that placed at his disposal units of infantrymen and cavalry, including a naval force. The most relevant point in terms of our discussion is that Herod also received an explicit promise from Cassius to appoint him king of Judea following the victory over Julius Caesar’s loyalists (BJ I, 255; AJ XIV, 280). Schalit (1969, pp. 81–82) was inclined to question the timing of the above, believing that Herod’s aspirations to the throne developed only at a later point, or more precisely, following the death of Phasael, when Antonius had already begun to exercise control over regional policy. Indeed at first glance, it is difficult to conceive of Herod attempting to secretly overtake his brother Phasael in the race to the crown; however, one cannot ignore Josephus’ unambiguous statement in the matter. Moreover, Herod could not be “accused” of having a highly developed conscience with regard to close members of his family, as he was soon to prove. Quite the opposite: As we will yet discover, he was a cunning manipulator and unparalleled saboteur, even in the case of those closest to him. In this instance, he behaved like the master bribe-payer of the Roman Empire at the time – Jugurtha king of Numidia (late second century BCE), who acted upon his belief that “in Rome, anything can be bought.”40 Josephus’ words clearly indicate that Herod was anxious to achieve power and that no hindrance or constraint stood in the way of his circumventing his close family members. What is more, he demonstrated an eagerness to excel in his service to Cassius, even at the cost of great suffering on the part of his subjects. However, the assassination of Herod’s father Antipater (43 BCE) instantly turned matters around, at least for the moment. Antipater was poisoned by a mysterious gang of plotters spearheaded by an Idumaean notable named Malichus, although the latter vigorously denied the accusation. In the version recorded in BJ (I, 230), the deed was described as murder (Ànaíresiv), whereas in AJ (XIV, 388), Josephus 39

40

BJ I, 225; AJ XIV, 280. This was a reappointment, in light of the previous appointment by Sextus Caesar, which would indicate that the first one was still valid and that, in fact, only the nominators had changed; see Grant 1971, p. 40, Kasher 1990, pp. 177–178 and n. 186. Sallustius, Bellum Iugurthinum, XXVIII, 1: Romae omnia venire (or: venum ire); cf. also XXV, 10: Roma … urbem venalem … si emptorem invenerit.

48

2. Adolescence in the Shadow of the Roman Conquest

employed less strident language, using the term “death” or “killing” (teleuth). The difference, which is not at all semantic, speaks for itself, indicating that the term in War is more extreme due to his strong identification with the house of Herod, as reflected in particular in this work, which is more faithful to the views of Nicolaus of Damascus. In our opinion, it is quite possible that it was actually this version (according to which Malichus was secretly collaborating with his master John Hyrcanus II) that conforms to the truth in this case.41 As someone on close terms with the high priest and loyal to his authority, Malichus could easily have been considered a rival of Antipater. Phasael and Herod both suspected him of being responsible for the murder of their father and expressed great fury at the deed, but they differed from one another in their responses at the practical level. Phasael anticipated, prudently and with good judgment, that an overt conflict with Malichus was liable to degenerate into civil war in Judea as a result of the potential reaction on the part of loyalists of John Hyrcanus II. For this reason, he preferred to pretend to believe Malichus’ denials, all the while intending to slyly seek retribution at a later date. Herod, by contrast, who in Josephus’ words “was not someone to whom one would ascribe fatherly love” (BJ I, 417), reacted in the impulsive and extreme manner that suited his temperament, leading an army toward Jerusalem to take immediate and violent revenge. In keeping with the precedent set following his trial before the Sanhedrin, he halted only at the last moment, after Phasael persuaded him that it was preferable to act with caution. It is possible that Herod wished to avoid a confrontation with Phasael, choosing for the moment, at least outwardly, to accept his authority as older brother, as demanded by the tribal, patriarchal norms customary in Idumaean circles.42 Thus, in accordance with Phasael’s counsel, he too pretended to resign himself to reality and arranged a stately funeral and fitting burial for his father. Externally, he even acted as though he had moved on to public concerns, involving himself in settling an internal dispute that he chanced upon in the city of Samaria.43 It was only later that he tricked an apprehensive Malichus 41 42 43

Regarding the political interests and pretensions of the two, see BJ I, 226–235; AJ XIV, 280–293; Schalit 1969, pp. 31, 48–51, 53–59; Ben-Shalom 1993, pp. 30–33. Cf. Perowne 1957, p. 45. Cf. BJ I, 227–228; AJ XIV, 283–287. The superiority of the AJ version lies in its wealth of detail, especially in § 285–286. A convincing analysis of Phasael’s more considered approach as opposed to Herod’s impulsive style is offered by Schalit (1969, pp. 57–59). The inner strife in Samaria is addressed in detail by Kasher 2005, pp. 23–26.

Political Acrobatics Following the Murder of Julius Caesar

49

and took his life, aided by Cassius’ men.44 He even managed to cunningly hide from John Hyrcanus II his suspicion that the latter had had a hand in the plot to murder his father – which would later make it easier to kill him in revenge. The loss of his father, one of the few people he could trust, was a grave psychological blow for Herod since, apart from the confidence that Antipater inspired, he was also an authority figure to Herod. From this point forward, Herod was forced to take charge of his own life, so that the death of his father constituted a traumatic loss that intensified his sense of imminent danger along with his mistrust and fear of persecution. An examination of his behavior up to this point demonstrates that, despite his impulsive tendencies, he had not yet lost the ability to control his actions; in addition, his brother Phasael was able to pacify him and persuade him to act with self-restraint and deliberation. The death of his father apparently prompted Herod to seek a grander and more enduring authority figure since the Idumaean tribal structure could no longer provide the appropriate framework (his brother Phasael was not a substitute for his father in either political standing or military force, besides which, as a “rival” to Herod, the latter viewed him with ambivalence, as alluded to above). Furthermore the appointment, with its broader powers, that he had received from Sextus Caesar and Cassius had elevated him to a higher standing. The personal ties and political benefits that accrued to him from these two Roman personalities, in particular Cassius, proved to him that “all roads lead to Rome” and that only its leaders could provide him with the appropriate framework for securing his own career. This was a lesson he had already learned from his father, though he implemented it by means of a suitable political “reorientation.” The overarching framework of Rome was accepted by him as a matter of course, for he had virtually been born to it, not to mention the fact that it had already been of help to him early in his career. Granted, the imperial regime was liable to place rather severe constraints on his “autonomy,” but at the same time Rome – more than any other entity – could also ensure his political survival; and in such volatile times,

44

BJ I, 234–235; AJ XIV, 288–293. According to Schalit (1969, pp. 59–66), Herod succeeded in persuading Cassius not only that Malichus was responsible for Antipater’s death but also that it was necessary to eliminate him, based on the argument that this would serve Roman interests as well; see also Ben-Shalom 1993, p. 32, & n. 49.

50

2. Adolescence in the Shadow of the Roman Conquest

this was an enormous political asset.45 His relationship with the Roman leaders was marked throughout his life by enormous tensions between his fundamental deference to them and his personal and political aspirations for autonomy. Hence his ability to “maneuver” always stood him in good stead, causing him to align himself with the stronger side and the true men of power. Manipulative skills, as we know, are not only among the essential qualities of the seasoned, resourceful politician but also one of the typical traits of the paranoid personality (the two do not necessarily go hand in hand), especially when recurrent feelings of danger and persecution are aroused in the context of the struggle to survive and when not all of these feelings are imaginary(!).46 From this perspective, we will be examining Herod’s personal and political conduct vis-à-vis the ruling elite of the Roman Empire. As he saw it, his reliance on his older brother Phasael alone could no longer produce the desired results – not only due to the factors cited above, but also for the simple reason that this was truly his own personal war of survival. Moreover, it appears that the two brothers did not see eye to eye politically, as Phasael wished to consider various opportunistic political options such as an alliance with the Parthians, a course of action that Herod utterly rejected, as we shall see immediately below. The year 42 BCE was a fateful turning point in the political situation of the region as a whole. The “civil war” between Julius Caesar’s loyalists and his opponents was reaching its peak, forcing Cassius to leave Syria to take part in the decisive battle near Philippi, Greece. Since under these circumstances Phasael and Herod were unable to receive suitable backing from Rome by way of Cassius, a popular uprising erupted against each of them in Judea: one, led by the brother of Malichus, who conquered several fortresses including Massada; and the second, led by Helix (or Felix), who incited the Jewish public in Jerusalem to revolt. To Herod’s misfortune, he fell ill of unknown causes at just this point and was absent from the scene of the action. As a result, Phasael was forced to restore order in Jerusalem by himself, and it was only when Herod recovered that he joined the 45

46

As we shall see below, Herod at times suffered great conflict over this issue due to his burning need for independence. Whereas in his first war against the Nabateans, for example (in 32–30 BCE), he had still enjoyed unlimited “maneuverability,” in his second war (12–9 BCE) his autonomy was severely curtailed, causing him extreme stress; this led to a sharp decline, both politically and psychologically. We will be expanding on this point in future chapters. Cf. Bonime 1982, pp. 556–574.

Betrothal to Mariamme the Hasmonaean

51

campaign against the brother of Malichus and regained control of the places he had captured.47 But because of the political vacuum caused by Cassius’ absence, a fateful development took place in the Galilee as well – the area that Herod himself had been in charge of at the start of his career. Mattathias Antigonus the Hasmonaean was helped by Ptolemy son of Mennaeus (the Ituraean ruler of Chalcis in Lebanon) and by Marion (tyrant of the Tyrians) to recruit an army to seize power there and later in Judea as well. Toward this end, Marion bribed Fabius, the Roman proconsul in Damascus, to cast a blind eye to this actions, with the aim of annexing several parts of the Galilee to the cöra (namely the territory) of Tyre. Herod, who obviously could not countenance this, managed to thwart this plan by swiftly occupying these sites and bringing a halt to the attempt by Antigonus to press southwards toward Judea. In doing so, Herod was taking a huge risk since he had received no Roman approval whatsoever for this initiative. Accordingly, the question persists: Did he do so because he correctly “read” the results of the Roman civil war and sensed that Cassius and his supporters were already a “lost cause”? Unfortunately, there is no answer to this query in the sources; however, we would be inclined to answer in the affirmative since a similar behavior pattern repeated itself in the civil war that later broke out between Octavian and Marcus Antonius and led to the battle of Actium. In any event, Herod’s quick-witted response ultimately had far-ranging implications for his future conduct, chiefly because he had made a brilliant political gamble, as we shall see below. But risks of this kind presumably also exacted a heavy psychological toll in the form of intense fear of the consequences of a possible mistake in judgment.

Betrothal to Mariamme the Hasmonaean (42 BCE) Amid the same set of circumstances, John Hyrcanus II sought to join forces with Herod to foil the plans of Mattathias Antigonus (son of his brother and sworn rival, Aristobulus II), who threatened his rule as ethnarch of Judea. Herod’s success in stopping Antigonus convinced Hyrcanus that Herod could be exploited as an effective ally to protect 47

BJ I, 236–238; AJ XIV, 294–296. It is not inconceivable that Herod’s “illness” on this occasion was psychosomatic in nature. His speedy recovery, as well as his ambivalent relationship with Phasael (as mentioned in the discussion on Herod’s betrothal to Mariamme), both hint at such a possibility; but insufficient data in Josephus’ writings prevents us from speculating further.

52

2. Adolescence in the Shadow of the Roman Conquest

his own interests, just as he had done with his father Antipater in the past. Herod seized the opportunity with great eagerness, particularly when the commonality of interests between them extended to a betrothal agreement with Mariamme the Hasmonaean, granddaughter of Hyrcanus (daughter of his daughter Alexandra). Naturally, such an arrangement hinted at the tempting possibility of marriage in the near future.48 From the standpoint of Herod, this was a brilliant, wellconsidered move toward gaining acceptance into the royal family,49 in addition to giving him an advantage over his older brother Phasael by improving his prospects of one day capturing the throne. 50 It seems that there was a not entirely latent rivalry between the two brothers, as manifested in Phasael’s jealousy over the praises showered on Herod in the cities of Syria following the assassination of Hezekiah the Galilean, for one, and over the special friendship that had developed between Herod and the Syrian proconsul Sextus Caesar, for another (AJ XIV, 160–161).51 Phasael did try to improve his image so as to earn the goodwill of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, which was under his rule, as alluded to in the statement that he “neither manage[d] its affairs improperly, nor abuse[d] his authority therein” (ibid., 161). But when Herod learned of Phasael’s intentions, he sought to blunt the Jewish opposition to himself and gain the upper hand in the covert competition with his brother by publicizing his betrothal to Mariamme, granddaughter of Hyrcanus. 52 Furthermore, from his vantage point, the prospective marriage could strengthen his “legitimate” claim to the crown in the eyes of the Romans as well, for it was their practice in the lands under their domain to choose as king a member of a dynasty that was accepted by their subjects. The betrothal, which was initiated by John Hyrcanus II, was also likely in keeping with the wishes of his daughter Alexandra, mother of Mariamme, indicating that at least in the Hasmonaean dynasty, there was not yet a universal rejection of the house of Antipater and 48

49

50 51 52

BJ I, 238–240; AJ XIV, 297–300; Schalit 1969, pp. 59–66; Smallwood, pp. 48–49; Kasher 1990, p. 188. Cornfeld (1982, p. 52) drew an association with the marriage of David to Michal, daughter of King Saul – all the more so since Saul, who feared and hated David, gave his blessing to the marriage (I Samuel 18:20–26). BJ I, 241; AJ XIV, 300. The first version is of particular interest owing to its final sentence: “He was become thereby a relation of the king”; cf. also BJ I, 203 on his status as “king.” Perowne (1957, p. 70) astutely depicted his move as being “convenient as a passport for the throne”; cf. also Applebaum 1969a, col. 930. On the interests and policies of Herod in Syria at the time, see Kokkinos 2002a, pp. 735–742. See also on this issue the pragmatic approach of Jones 1938 (1967), pp. 41–42.

Betrothal to Mariamme the Hasmonaean

53

Herod. As we know, the negative stance of the Jewish public toward the house of Antipater first emerged during the Hasmonaean civil war between Judah Aristobulus II and John Hyrcanus II, when Antipater’s meddling in political affairs provoked a Nabatean siege of Jerusalem; but it coalesced following Pompey’s conquest (63 BCE) and after the appointment of Antipater as epitropos of Judea under Julius Caesar (47 BCE). Herod’s trial before the Sanhedrin was perhaps the first public expression of fundamental opposition to the house of Antipater on the part of the leadership of the Jewish community. Following the death of Julius Caesar, the great friend of the Jews (44 BCE), and as a result of the ignominious behavior of Antipater’s dynasty toward the Jewish people during the Roman “civil war,” this hostility only intensified. But above all, such an attitude of animosity was virtually inevitable in light of Herod’s systematic eradication of the Hasmonaean dynasty and the leadership of the rabbinic sages. Only then was the essential rejection of the house of Herod finally and decisively expressed, as reflected in the well-known biblical verse: “… from among your brethren shall you set a king above yourself; you cannot place above yourself a foreign man who is not your brother” (Deuteronomy 17:15). From this point forward, Herod’s rule became loathsome to the majority of the Jewish people residing in the Land of Israel, marking the start of the Jewish people’s negative attitude toward the house of Herod. 53 Our discussion here, however, is concerned only with the early stages of this process. Ostensibly, the betrothal seemed to assuage Herod’s anger over John Hyrcanus II’s part in having him brought to trial before the Sanhedrin in 46 BCE, but with the true deviousness and guile of an individual suffering from Paranoid Personality Disorder, he only momentarily suppressed his great hostility toward Hyrcanus. An individual with a personality structure of this type is incapable of forgiving or forgetting and bears a grudge until the final settling of scores. By his betrothal to Mariamme, he hoped to yield the maximum possible benefit from this historical conjuncture, in particular since this tempting opportunity also held the potential (at least in his eyes) of dulling the fierce Jewish antagonism towards him when he would eventually forge a path to the royal throne at some future date. 54 He also had, 53

54

See Alon 1957, I, pp. 38–43 for his instructive comments; cf. also the Afterword in the present work. The circle of those who hated Herod obviously did not include the Jews of the Hellenist-Roman Diaspora (whose relations with Herod will be discussed at a later point) nor the majority of his Idumaean brethren. See Otto 1913, col. 20 ff.; Smallwood 1981, p. 48; Zeitlin 1962, I, p. 269; Stern 1983b, pp. 74–75; Ben-Shalom 1993, p. 41, esp. note 8; Fenn 1992, p. 9. We shall

54

2. Adolescence in the Shadow of the Roman Conquest

at the time, an excellent Roman model of a political marriage in the form of Marcus Antonius and his wife Octavia, sister of Octavian (42 BCE). 55 Stern rightfully argued that Herod’s marriage to Mariamme was highly significant in terms of Roman politics since “they were obliged to prove that Herod was not just some usurper with no link to the Hasmonaean past but a man marrying a woman who combined within her the two opposing branches of the Hasmonaean dynasty between whom a struggle was being waged over who would inherit the throne … The future sons of Herod and Mariamme were destined to succeed Herod, thereby restoring past glory and offering a chance to the descendants of the Hasmonaean dynasty to inherit the royal throne and, what is more, with the approval of Rome.”56 According to BJ I, 241, the connection with the family of Hyrcanus earned him success and widespread affection (pâsin Àgaphtòv), as seemingly supported by the statement in AJ XIV, 300 that when he reached Jerusalem, “Hyrcanus and the people (Ó dêmov) placed on him ceremonial garlands.” However, we should not deceive ourselves that the entire Jewish “people” gave its blessing to Herod’s betrothal to the granddaughter of Hyrcanus. In our opinion, the word demos in this context denotes, at most, only parts of the Jerusalem public, that is, those who were directly subject to Hyrcanus. Let us not make the mistake that what is being referred to here is a full reconciliation with the entire Jewish public. As a counter-proof, it should be noted that in that same year, i. e., following the victory at Philippi (42 BCE), a delegation of Jewish leaders presented themselves to Marcus Antonius in Bithynia (in Asia Minor) and charged that Phasael and Herod had seized power and left John Hyrcanus II with nothing more than an honorary title (BJ I, 242; AJ XIV, 301–302). Moreover, shortly thereafter, an additional delegation of Jewish notables was dispatched to Daphne near Antioch and returned to denounce Phasael and Herod all the more fiercely. When their pleas were not answered, the Jewish leaders did not hesitate to send one thousand protesters to greet Antonius in Tyre, but they paid a costly price in blood for this action (BJ I, 242–245; AJ XIV, 324– 329). These three delegations – in particular the third, whose spontaneous formation and protest reflected a broad consensus among the

55 56

be returning to this subject below, in connection with his marriage with Mariamme. Indeed, the timing speaks for itself. Our thanks to G. Rosenblum for calling our attention to this point. Stern 1995, p. 270. Indeed, this is a logical inference.

Betrothal to Mariamme the Hasmonaean

55

people – exposed the depth of the rift between the family of Antipater and the Jewish people. 57 Hence there was no widespread willingness on the part of the general Jewish public to accept Herod and give their blessings for his betrothal to Mariamme. The engagement was nothing more than the product of interests limited to Hyrcanus and Herod themselves and to their factions, and offers no indication of the stance of the Jewish “people” as a whole. By contrast, Marcus Antonius’ support for Herod at this time should not be at all surprising, not only because of the bribes he received (BJ I, 243); AJ XIV, 303, 327), 58 but because his opinion had already been formed earlier, as the result of his close ties with Antipater from when they had fought together against Alexander, father of Mattathias Antigonus (55 BCE). 59 It is unclear how Herod’s betrothal to Mariamme affected his relations with the wife of his youth, Doris, who had meanwhile given birth to his firstborn son Antipater (46 BCE).60 It is easy to speculate that she did not accept the matter with equanimity, but the silence of the sources on this point apparently reflected contemporary reality, which was dictated by the patriarchal norms customary of Idumaean society. In brief, she had no means whatsoever of altering her husband’s decision. Although forced to swallow this bitter pill, she would not have been without resentment towards Herod and his new wife Mariamme. The statement in BJ I, 241 that on the occasion of Herod’s betrothal to Mariamme he expelled Doris is erroneous chronologically because it is placed in too early a context, namely, before the battle at Philippi in 42 BCE (ibid., 243). The error is even more conspicuous in light of the account in BJ I, 432 that the divorce from Doris took place “when he [Herod] came to the government”, or as Thackeray put it: “after he [Herod] had ascended to power” (ÈpeidÄ gàr eÌv tÄn ÀrcÄn harêlqen), i. e., after his return from Rome (ibid.). But here as well, the chronological framework is somewhat ambiguous since it is unclear if the divorce took place immediately after his return from Rome as king, that is, before the conquest of Jerusalem (39 BCE), or following the conquest of Jerusalem and after he had actively realized his aspirations to the crown (37 BCE). A similar error is also found in AJ XIV, 387, where Mariamme is presented as Herod’s wife in the 57 58 59 60

See Ben-Shalom 1993, p. 34. The AJ version is much more decisive in denouncing the bribe to Antony; moreover, it presents him as blatantly hostile to the Jewish cause. BJ I, 162 ff.; AJ XIV, 84 ff., 326; see Schalit 1969, p. 66 f. Regarding his date of birth, see Kokkinos 1998, p. 206 (n. 4), 246.

56

2. Adolescence in the Shadow of the Roman Conquest

context of events in the year 40 BCE when he was crowned king in Rome. This attests to a lack of precision on Josephus’ part with respect to this point, although it is unclear whether this stemmed from halachic factors,61 or from negligence of some sort in his writing. In any event, the account in AJ rightfully places the betrothal at 42 BCE, prior to the battle at Philippi, while dating the marriage itself to 37 BCE, just before the final conquest of Jerusalem, concomitant with the divorce from Doris.

61

According to the halakha as practiced at the time, the legal relationship (rights and obligations) of a couple began upon bethrothal; cf. Satlow 2001, pp. 69 ff.; Schremer 2001, pp. 328–329.

Chapter 3 From the Utmost Depths to the Conquest of Jerusalem (41–37 BCE) In the Shadow of the Parthian Invasion In late 41 BCE, a massive political upheaval took place in Syria and Palestine, prompted by the great Parthian invasion.1 Ostensibly, the incursion wreaked havoc on Herod’s aspirations to the royal throne. But in fact, one might say that it was a blessing in disguise for it was precisely this event, more than anything, that paved his way to the crown 2 – without detracting from the aspect of “fate” or “fortune” (4 túch), 3 or from Herod’s personal resourcefulness or manipulative abilities. When the Parthian forces poured into Syria, eventually reaching Judea and Jerusalem (40 BCE), Phasael and Herod found themselves under siege by the Parthian commander Barzapharanes (or Brazaphranes) in the Hasmonaean palace.4 Conflicts immediately erupted between the two over their assessment of the situation and the possible means of escape. Phasael deluded himself that, together with John Hyrcanus II, he might be able to negotiate with Pacorus, son of the Parthian monarch, to exit the besieged city of Jerusalem without a fight and perhaps even win him over to their side through bribery or other temptations greater than those promised by Mattathias Antig1

2 3 4

According to Kokkinos’s calculations (1998, p. 368), the invasion of Syria began in 41 BCE, and he offered many references to correct the previously accepted chronology; see also on the Parthian invasion: Debevoise 1968, pp. 108 ff.; Stern 1995, pp. 249–255. Flusser (2002a, pp. 282–283) suggested that the passage in Enoch 56:5–8 describes the great Parthian invasion, which reached as far as Palestine and likely created a messianic atmosphere. BJ I, 284–385; AJ XIV, 384–385, 403–404; see for example Moore 1932, p. 74; Stern 1995, pp. 256 ff. See for example BJ I, 275, 371, 301, 430; esp. AJ XIV, 9, 381, 386–387, 455; XV, 20, 209, 373–379, XVII, 191–192. BJ I, 248–252; AJ XIV, 330–341; Schalit 1969, pp. 74 ff.

58

3. From the Utmost Depths to the Conquest of Jerusalem

onus. 5 Herod, by contrast, did not trust the Parthians and suspected that they had resolved to support Mattathias Antigonus since he and Phasael had in any case been identified by them as avowed followers of Rome. However, he did not prevent Phasael and John Hyrcanus II from carrying out what they had agreed upon with Bazaphranes, i. e., holding direct negotiations with Pacorus, who was in the northern part of the country at the time. Herod himself, being extremely mistrustful by nature, had many of his valued belongings transported to Idumaea for safekeeping (BJ I, 268; AJ XIV, 364). After learning from various sources that the mission of Hyrcanus and Phasael had met with failure and that they had fallen captive to the Parthians,6 he managed to flee with all due caution, for fear that a similar trap had been laid for him.7 As recounted by Josephus, Herod fled Jerusalem in haste one night under cover of darkness, with the city surrounded by Parthian divisions and loyalists of Antigonus in addition to the many pilgrims who had come there for the Shavuot festival, (BJ I, 253–255, 263–264; AJ XIV, 337 ff.). It is possible that the public commotion might actually have facilitated his escape; but it was certainly an astounding feat, since after all we are speaking of the clandestine flight of several hundred men – in itself a difficult logistical operation. Its 5

6

7

Incidentally, the well-known historian Cassius Dio, who lived and worked between the end of the second century and the beginning of the third, confused Aristobulus with Antigonus (xlviii, 26, 41; xlix, 22), so that Josephus’ testimony is much more reliable, not to mention that he lived roughly a whole century earlier. In BJ I, 248 and in AJ XIV, 331, it is written that Antigonus offered the Parthians a bribe of 1,000 talents and 500 women for their assistance in deposing John Hyrcanus II and attaining the Judean throne, and in addition, killing Herod and his supporters. Klausner (1948, III, p. 260) suspected that this was deliberate misinformation derived from Nicolaus of Damascus and intended to defame Antigonus. Unfortunately, his supposition can be neither proven nor disproven. We are told that Phasael committed suicide in a noble manner: When he understood that he had no chance of survival, he beat his head upon a rock while his hands and feet were chained (BJ I, 269; AJ XIV, 367–369). John Hyrcanus II was exiled to Babylonia, but not before his ears were cut off so as to disqualify him from resuming the high priesthood. BJ I, 269 says that “Antigonus himself bit Hyrcanus’ ears with his own teeth, as he fell down upon his knees.” The parallel version in AJ XIV, 366 simple stated that Antigonus “cut off his ears.” It is obvious that the first version is very hostile to Antigonus and aimed to besmirch him as a savage barbarian. One should recall in this context what Tacitus (Annales XII, 14) related about the Parthian custom of cutting off the ears of an enemy, thereby humiliating him while sparing his life. The case of John Hyrcanus should therefore be seen as inspired by Parthian practice, although the act may have been committed with the knowledge and encouragement of Antigonus and perhaps even in his presence. It is worth noting that his mistrust of the Parthians did not prevent him from later negotiating with them over the release of his captive brother Phasael; see BJ I, 274– 275; AJ XIV, 371–372, and below in the present volume.

In the Shadow of the Parthian Invasion

59

success may also have been due to the fortunate choice of a good exit point from the city, which we speculate was the Hasmonaean citadel at the northwestern corner of Jerusalem bordering on the Ben-Hinnom Valley, since one could more easily flee from there in a southeasterly direction toward the desert. Herod took with him his close family members, including Mariamme his betrothed, and her mother Alexandra,8 both of whom encouraged him to seek a safe haven in Idumaea as a result of their hostility toward Antigonus, who, as stated, belonged to a rival branch of the Hasmonaean dynasty. Since there is no mention of Herod’s wife Doris in the account of those who fled Jerusalem, it is reasonable to assume that she had separated from him (without an actual divorce) in the wake of his betrothal to Mariamme. No further information is available concerning Doris until 37 BCE, the year of Herod’s official marriage to Mariamme, which took place shortly after his divorce.9 Presumably, she fled to Idumaea to take refuge on family land, perhaps in the desert portion of the region, which would be safer in time of war. During his flight from Jerusalem, Herod himself also tried to head in the same direction, or, more precisely, to the fortress at Masada, which he had conquered from Malichus’ brother only a short while earlier.10 It appears that he also felt unsafe in western Idumaea for fear that the Parthian divisions, together with Antigonus, would swarm the area in pursuit of him – which indeed was the case, as we shall see below. Doris was not among those who fled toward Masada for the simple and understandable reason that her future ‘successor” (i. e., “rival-wife”) Mariamme, along with her mother Alexandra and young brother Aristobulus, were headed there. The route to Masada was fraught with great danger for those fleeing there, as described in AJ XIV, 359: Nor indeed was he free from the Jews all along as he was in his flight;11 for by that time he was gotten sixty furlongs out of the city, and was upon the road, they fell upon him, and fought hand to hand with him 8 9

10

11

His commitment to see to her safety and her needs was most likely a function of his betrothal to her. Perhaps this is the reason for the confusion caused by BJ I, 432 regarding the date of Herod’s divorce from Doris, a matter that will be discussed below in the context of his marriage to Mariamme. BJ I, 256 ff.; AJ XIV, 342 ff.; see Schalit 1969, pp. 74–75; Smallwood 1980, p. 52. It is important to note that there is no parallel in BJ to the passage in AJ XIV 352–358, with the exception of a few conjunctions. Graetz (I, p. 482, 484) considered this detail to be further proof of the Jewish people’s hatred of Herod and their determination to be rid of him despite his marriage to Mariamme. In Graetz’s view, this was the real reason for the flight toward Masada.

60

3. From the Utmost Depths to the Conquest of Jerusalem

(prosbállontév te kaì eÌv ceîrav Èrcómenoi katà tÄn Ódón), whom he also put to flight, and overcame, not like one that was in distress and in necessity, but like one that was excellently prepared for war, and had what he wanted in great plenty.

From the first sentence of Josephus’ account, it is clear that the episode was very limited in scale from a military standpoint, that is, a “handto-hand skirmish” as opposed to an actual battle. Thus Herod’s sense of glory, as cited in the second sentence, is not proportionate with the scope of the event. Only in his imagination was this a great victory, and only in retrospect did it become a “fact” deemed worthy of serious consideration and typical Herodian treatment in the form of a colossal monument like the Herodium – all in order to immortalize the event for generations to come and evoke a sense of awe (see below). According to AJ XIV, 361, while fleeing the site of the clash in the direction of Idumaea, or more precisely, at the site known as Oressa,12 Herod met his brother Joseph and there he “held a council [with him] to take advice about all his affairs, and what was fit to be done in his circumstances, since he had a great multitude (polloû pläqouv) that followed him, besides his mercenary soldiers.” He was well aware of the fact that the fortress “Masada, whither he proposed to fly, was too small to contain so great a multitude (tosoûton 0clon).” For this reason, he decided to send away “the greater part of his company, being above nine thousand, and bid them go, some one way, and some another, and so save themselves in Idumea” (ibid., 362). He himself remained behind at the head of a small group including the women (Mariamme his betrothed, her mother Alexandra, and his own mother Cyprus, along with his younger sister Salome and his younger brother Pheroras) and other members of his entourage.13 It seems that Herod’s hold on Idumaea was not assured even after he dispatched his brother Joseph and his men there, judging by the fact that revolts broke out in the region upon his return from Rome after being crowned king (BJ 12

13

Regarding the identification of the site, see Tsafrir, Di Segni, Green 1994, p. 98 (s. v. Caphar Orsa). Whiston mistakenly based himself on manuscripts that read Thressa; but since BJ I, 266, 294 and AJ XIV, 400 read Rhessa, the name Oressa is preferable; see also Schalit 1968, p. 101. Presumably the Greek letter Teta in the manuscripts was confusing because of its similarity to Omicron. This was apparently the group that fled with him from Jerusalem in the dark of night. The 9,000 cited earlier could have joined him only when he arrived in Idumaea. Apparently they were counted among the Idumaean warriors under the command of his brother Joseph; see Shatzman 1983, pp. 80–81. If he had really had more than 9,000 warriors in Jerusalem, he would not have been in a position of such numerical inferiority, and would have been able to retaliate while still in the city.

In the Shadow of the Parthian Invasion

61

I, 326).14 As stated above, Herod did manage beforehand to secure valuable possessions in hiding places in Idumaea (whose location is unknown to us), and even to boast of his foresight in this regard (AJ XIV, 364),15 but in reality he was unable to realize these assets, even had he wanted to, due to the urgency of his situation. The Parthians pursued his men deep into western Idumaea, where they rained destruction on the area and the regional center at Maresha (ibid.). Amid these difficult circumstances, Herod set out for Petra to seek the assistance of the Nabateans. But the Nabatean king Malichus I (56/7–28 BCE) refused his request and evaded payment of an old monetary debt to Antipater under the pretext that the invading Parthians had forbidden him to come to Herod’s aid (BJ I, 274–249; AJ XIV, 370–375),16 thereby causing Herod’s situation to deteriorate even further. According to AJ, however, it was not the problems en route, nor the dismal state of mind of the escapees that weakened Herod – at least not initially; rather, Herod experienced an emotional breakdown not long afterward as the result of an event that took place during his flight. Of the extreme shift in Herod’s mental state (which is especially significant for our purposes), Josephus wrote in AJ XIV, 355–358: [355] But for Herod himself, he raised his mind above the miserable state he was in, and was of good courage in the midst of his misfortunes; and as he passed along, he bid them every one to be of good cheer, and not to give themselves up to sorrow, because that would hinder them in their flight, which was now the only hope of safety that they had. [356] Accordingly, they tried to bear with patience the calamity they were under, as he exhorted them to do; yet was he once almost going to kill himself, upon the overthrow of a wagon, and the danger his mother was then in of being killed; and this on two accounts, because of his great concern for her, and because he was afraid lest, by this delay, the enemy should overtake him in the pursuit: [357] but as he was drawing his sword, and going to kill himself therewith, those that were present restrained him, and being so many in number, were too hard for him; and told him that he ought not to desert them, and leave them a prey to their enemies, for that it was not the part of a brave man to free himself from the distresses he was in, and to overlook his friends that were in the same distresses also. [358] So he was compelled to let that horrid attempt alone, partly out of shame at what they said to him, and partly out of regard to the great number of those that would not 14 15

16

See Ben-Shalom 1993, pp. 36–37 and nn. 10, 12–14. Prophetic abilities were attributed to him after the fact by Nicolaus; but it is quite possible that this was in full accordance with his own wishes – and even at his request. We will be returning to this important issue below. Herod could later use this fact to tarnish the Nabateans in Roman eyes, and conversely, to emphasize his loyalty to the Romans. This is exactly what happened to Malichus; cf. Cassius Dio, xlviii, 41.

62

3. From the Utmost Depths to the Conquest of Jerusalem

permit him to do what he intended. So he encouraged his mother, and took all the care of her the time would allow, and proceeded on the way he proposed to go with the utmost haste, and that was to the fortress of Masada. And as he had many skirmishes with such of the Parthians as attacked him and pursued him, he was conqueror in them all.17

It appears that Herod, in the wake of his flight and his mother’s accident, found himself in a state of such profound stress and anxiety, coupled with loss of control, that he impulsively tried to harm himself. The serious injury and possible death of his mother were particularly frightening to him, not only because she was the figure closest to him after the death of his father and wielded the greatest influence over him,18 but because the situation created a serious conflict: the projected delay to care for her was liable to endanger him personally. For this reason, one can certainly describe this event as “traumatic” in that there was a danger of losing an individual with whom he was especially close, under circumstances that placed his own life in real danger.19 But when his men prevented him from harming himself, Herod quickly regained his composure, as attested to above (AJ XIV, 357–358). From Josephus’ description, it emerges that Herod’s men actually struggled physically to stop him; however, when he realized that his mother was only injured, and apparently not as critically as he had initially believed, he composed himself. It is entirely possible that he was also affected by criticism over his defeatist attitude. Josephus’ remarks give the clear impression that his inner circle caused him to be ashamed over his actions and, even more so, gave him the incentive to regain his poise by expressing the fear that they themselves would be in mortal danger from the enemy if left without his support and resourcefulness. Most likely, it was precisely this realization that his leadership was crucial in this time of danger that helped restore his sense of calm and infused him with renewed faith in his strength not only to survive but to triumph. The concluding sentence of the account offers ample confirmation of this, especially since it makes general reference to new acts of bravery, indicating that this passage was intended to set the tone for 17

18 19

There is no reference to this incident in War, which is more faithful to the pro-Herodian source of Nicolaus, ostensibly due to his tendency to conceal Herod’s weaknesses and faults. It is not clear from what source Josephus drew his information for the AJ version. Grant (1971, p. 47) was inclined to doubt its authenticity, based on the peculiar and unsubstantiated claim that “the story may be a court legend to stress his family feelings.” Josephus stated in BJ I, 417, when enumerating Herod’s building projects in memory of his family, that he “also loved his father more than anyone else.” See Netzer 1990, p. 90.

In the Shadow of the Parthian Invasion

63

future events. Indeed, when the attempt to harm himself failed due to the swift intervention of his men, Herod was filled with shame,20 particularly in light of the argument that suicide offers the easy solution of escaping reality; in Josephus’ words (based on Schalit’s translation of AJ XIV, 357), “it is not the quality of a brave man 21 to extricate himself from his troubles and disregard his fellows [who are] in such a state.” The latter claim regarding Herod’s conduct apparently held great significance in his eyes, especially since the trait of bravery related to his self-image and was also implied by his Greek name (Hrödhv, 22 evoking in him the need – and the pretentiousness – to justify it in the eyes of one and all whenever possible. According to BJ I, 429–430, Herod had always had a fierce desire to be portrayed as a man of superior emotional qualities, as befitted his physical attributes, which he sought to develop in various ways including physical training, throwing a javelin (or lance), archery, horseback riding, hunting, fighting, and the like. This positive assessment has no parallel in AJ, where Josephus tended to criticize Herod whenever possible. 23 By contrast, the pro-Herodian BJ relied on such sympathetic sources as Nicolaus of Damascus, and reflected what Herod wished to have written about himself. According to Josephus (AJ XIV, 370), when Herod regained his composure, he became even more vigorous than before and was eager to hatch schemes involving acts of daring. These rapid and severe mood swings, reminiscent of cyclothymia, suggest a lack of emotional stability on Herod’s part, not to mention the fact that his opinions became noticeably more radical; further examples of these extreme fluctuations will be offered below. This phenomenon was discerned even by Josephus himself, in his remark in this context on Herod’s rapid transition from a state of distress to vigorous activity (AJ XIV, 370): “… the great miseries he was in did not discourage him, but made him sharp in discovering surprising undertakings” (in the words of Whiston). 20

21

22 23

It is important to recall in this context that shame and feelings of failure are characteristic symptoms of Paranoid Personality Disorder, as mentioned in the Introduction; cf. A. Levi 1997, p. 69, 107, 162, 183–185. The Greek source uses the term oÚ e®nai gennaíou, meaning “not noble” (cf. Marcus’s translation, ad loc.). Schalit’s Hebrew translation interprets the phrase to mean “the quality of a brave man”, apparently inspired by Whiston. Schürer 1973, I, pp. 294–295, n. 20; Perowne 1957, p. 23; cf. Liddell & Scott, p. 778 (s. v. ×rwv, 4rwstäv). Especially blatant is his negative portrayal in AJ XV, 150–159, which will later be discussed in detail. While Josephus also praised him, this was mostly in cases when Herod acted against the enemies of the Jews such as the Nabateans (for example, in AJ XIV, 370, as cited earlier).

64

3. From the Utmost Depths to the Conquest of Jerusalem

Josephus recounted further that after Herod had regained his bearings, he managed to wage a successful battle to survive even as he fled his pursuers through the Thecoa desert.24 It later became clear that these three events – his mother’s accident, his attempt to harm himself, and his successful fight for survival in the desert – left such a deep impression on his psyche that already at this point he thought of erecting a personal monument near Thecoa at the first opportunity in order to commemorate these incidents. In other words, the notion of erecting a memorial to himself came to him shortly after the events in question, and gave him no rest until he had acted on it. Also telling is the fact that his desert battle for survival was seen by him as a heroic event when in reality it was nothing more than a coming to blows along the way (AJ XIV, 359). Thus the justification for building this colossal monument (Herodium) was, from beginning to end, a product of his imagination, fed by his appetite for fame, glory, and immortality.

The Rift between Herod and the Nabateans As part of the events surrounding his flight from Jerusalem, it is recounted that Herod considered ransoming his brother Phasael from his Parthian captors with monies that he wished to secure from Malichus, king of the Nabateans, some of it as repayment for a sum left long ago in trust by his father Antipater and the rest in the form of a loan. 25 Unlike his conduct in the past, this time he displayed a willingness to negotiate with the Parthians over the release of his brother, even offering, in addition to the bribes, the young son of Phasael as a hostage. It is quite possible that he secretly harbored the reprehensible hope that the Parthians would in any case do away with both Phasael and his son. From his perspective, such a move was even advantageous since he would appear to be fulfilling his moral duty and familial loyalty toward his brother; and if he received money from the Nabatean king, he would not be forced to give it as a bribe to the Parthians but could use it to finance his future activities. The indifference on the part of Malichus ‘solved’ the problem of Phasael and his son for Herod, and indeed there is no reference whatsoever, including in BJ, to Herod’s having tormented himself over this.

24 25

BJ I, 265; AJ XIV, 359–360, and see above. BJ I, 274–275; AJ XIV, 371–372.

Herod is Crowned in Rome as King of Judaea

65

It seems that in fact Malichus’ remoteness had significant and unexpected ramifications for the future of Herod’s relationship with the Nabateans. A perusal of Josephus indicates that Malichus’ refusal to help made him a traitor in Herod’s eyes, in other words, an enemy who could no longer be trusted – and even his eventual regret was of no use in this instance. On the contrary, Herod responded to later efforts at conciliation with harsh words flung impulsively (I, 277: 6v Úphgóreue tò páqov), sending away the Nabatean emissaries in a rage. In our opinion, his furious reaction attests to a pattern of paranoid mistrust, in the sense of ‘whoever is not for me is against me.’ This extreme response in effect instantly turned all Nabateans into his enemies. The insult dealt him by Malichus were beyond his capacity to forgive or forget. The incident may have been particularly painful for him, not only because of the fact that his request for help was rebuffed but also because he felt it showed a disregard for the noble origins of his Nabatean mother. Events on the ground supported Herod in his conclusion that his only hope lay with Rome; accordingly, he set out for the capital as quickly as possible. Passing through Alexandria, he did not even consider the tempting offer by Cleopatra VII, queen of Egypt, to appoint him to a senior military post in her service. 26 The Roman orientation had already been ingrained in him by his father, in addition to the fact that he himself had experienced personal ties with Rome since the days of Julius Caesar. Not only did his choice not disappoint him but it was highly fortuitous in its timing, as we shall see below.

Herod is Crowned in Rome as King of Judaea Herod set sail for Rome from Alexandria in approximately mid-February 40 BCE, that is, at the height of the winter (BJ I, 280).27 Owing 26

27

BJ I, 279; AJ XIV, 376; no mention is made in AJ of this offer. Grant (1971, p. 49) believed that Herod took the risk of cooperating with her, but this is unsupported by the sources. On the contrary, Herod suspected her of scheming against him. She may already have been aware of Antony’s political plans concerning Herod, particularly if we assume that she knew about the bribes offered by Herod to Antony to pave his way to the crown (AJ XIV, 382). Although there is no textual support for Cleopatra’s plot to ensnare Herod through such a military appointment, the possibility is quite reasonable in view of her later efforts to lure him astray when she visited the Jordan valley to receive the revenues from the balsam plantations in the Jericho area (AJ XV, 97–103). See the persuasive chronological computations of Kokkinos 1998, pp. 367 ff.

66

3. From the Utmost Depths to the Conquest of Jerusalem

to the seasonal storms, he could not sail directly across the Mediterranean but chose a roundabout route along the coasts of Asia Minor and the islands of the Aegean Sea. He was also forced to spend several months in Rhodes preparing his ship at the local dockyards for the remainder of his ocean journey to Rome (AJ XIV, 378). 28 He made use of the delay to strengthen his ties with two local figures, Sappinas and Ptolemy (Ptolemaeus), citizens of Rhodes whom he apparently knew from past business dealings in Ascalon and who he believed could help open doors for him in Rome and in the business world in general. 29 Herod ultimately earned a name for himself in Rhodes by initiating, along with the two men, a project to restore the city from the damage inflicted by the Roman civil war following the death of Julius Caesar. In the words of Josephus, Herod, “though he were in necessity himself, he neglected not to do it a kindness, but did what he could to recover it to its former state” (ibid., 378). In the parallel version in BJ (I, 280), no mention is made of his generosity; rather, it is noted only that despite his great financial pressures, he managed to build for himself a new ship with the help of his two friends. A number of scholars are inclined to accept the fuller

28

29

Grant (1971, p. 49) claimed that Cleopatra offered him a ship to sail to Rhodes, but this has no support in the sources. On the contrary, AJ XIV, 375–377 gives the definite impression that his voyage from Pelusium to Alexandria and later to Rhodes was carried out on his own initiative. It is not clear whether he bought a new ship or contented himself with repairing the first ship he found (cf. BJ I, 280, below); either way, it is obvious that he wanted a ship of his own so as not to be dependent on others; cf. Perowne 1957, pp. 57–58. On the prominent role of Ascalon in international trade during this period, see Fuks 2001, pp. 84–96; Dvorjetski 2001, pp. 99–134. Sapphinius’ name is mentioned by Josephus only three times (BJ I, 280; AJ XIV, 377; XV 257 and it was written differently in various manuscripts (Sappínov, Sapfíniov, Sapäniov, Sappínav, Sapínov, Sabinus); see Schalit 1968, p. 107. Unfortunately, there is no further information about him beyond the writings of Josephus. Concerning Ptolemy, by contrast, more information is available. Josephus tells us that he built an impressive political career under Herod, being nominated to the position of Dioiketes (minister of the royal finances) and royal seal-bearer in charge of executing the King’s will upon his death; see AJ XVI, 191, 330; XVII, 195, 228; BJ I, 473, 667; II, 24, 69; Schalit 1969, p. 84 (nn. 97–98); Schürer 1973, I, p. 311 (and n. 79); Stern 1983b, pp. 70, 77, 78, 86; Dar 1993, pp. 38–50, esp. 38–41; Roller 1998, pp. 63–64, 233. According to Schalit and Dar, he was related to the group of Idumaean warriors who had fled Jerusalem as a result of the Parthian invasion and later reached Rhodes. But Herod’s encounter with them there (BJ, I 280; AJ XIV, 377) should not necessarily imply that they had escaped from Jerusalem with Herod’s troops, and therefore cannot indicate that they were both of Idumaean origin (as maintained by Schalit and Dar). Rather, we believe that they were businessmen from Rhodes whom Herod had met previously in Ascalon.

Herod is Crowned in Rome as King of Judaea

67

version of AJ as correct. 30 Be that as it may, it is reasonable to assume that during his stay in Rhodes, Herod became aware of the tremendous financial possibilities latent in the local Jewish community and their brethren in Asia Minor and the Aegean Islands, as a result of the sizeable contributions they sent to Jerusalem. This had already been demonstrated in the sensational trial of Flaccus, Roman governor of Asia Minor, held in 59 BCE. 31 Since the trial reverberated throughout the Jewish world, there is reason to believe that Herod remembered it clearly and drew certain conclusions from it at a later point. In our opinion, the reference in AJ XIV, 378 to the restoration of Rhodes as taking place in 40 BCE is open to question since Herod lacked both the means and the experience at the time. Since such a move would be more compatible with a later stage in his career, our presumption is that in 40 BCE he merely conceived the notion and outlined the initial plans for the rehabilitation of the city. At most, he invested only a nominal sum to lay the cornerstone of the planned project and issued a statement of intention to complete the undertaking in future if and when he met with success in Rome. It is our view that this is a more realistic possibility than assuming that the restoration of Rhodes was launched as early as 40 BCE. After deepening his ties with Sappinas and Ptolemy, Herod sailed with them to Brundisium (present-day Brindisi), from where they continued together to Rome. His companions apparently traveled to Rome to receive the imperial blessing for the rehabilitation project and perhaps to raise funds for it as well. It should also be noted that during this same period (October, 40 BCE), the Treaty of Brundisium was concluded between Antony and Octavian (more below), ending the animosity between them after they had both tied their fates to the

30

31

See for example: Schalit 1969, pp. 83 ff.; Roller 1988, pp. 2, 11, 34, 86–87, 232– 234. Jones (1938, p. 42) believed, reasonably enough, that Herod’s financial resources came from monies donated by the Jewish communities in Asia Minor, but there is no direct confirmation of this in the sources. See Levy 1970, pp. 19 ff. The proximity in time is highly significant here, since only 19 years had passed and the affair was presumably not yet forgotten. In excavations conducted in Jerusalem, the archeologist Benjamin Mazar found a Greek inscription dating from 17/18 BCE that mentioned a certain donor from Rhodes with a Greek name. If he was a Jew, then his donation should be understood no differently than that of numerous other Diaspora Jews. But if he was not Jewish, he may well have been a wealthy citizen of Rhodes who was sympathetic toward his Jewish neighbors as a result of his close personal ties with Herod since his visit there; see Isaac 1983, 1–4. The date of the inscription indicates that the “fundraising drive” for the Jerusalem Temple was actually begun not long before its construction.

68

3. From the Utmost Depths to the Conquest of Jerusalem

alliance known as the Second Triumvirate.32 It is entirely possible that Herod first made the acquaintance of Octavian at this time, upon the initiative of Antony, thereby paving the way for Herod’s success in Rome. Indeed, it seems that from the moment he arrived in the Roman capital, fortune smiled upon him. Understandably, he placed his trust mainly in Mark Antony, whom he had known during his father’s prime, when Antony had served in the Roman army under Pompey. The meeting between the two is eloquently described by Josephus (AJ XIV, 381–382): [381] This account made Antony commiserate the change that had happened in Herod’s condition; and reasoning with himself that this was a common case among those that are placed in such great dignities, and that they are liable to the mutations that come from fortune, he was very ready to give him the assistance he desired, [382] and this because he called to mind the friendship he had had with Antipater because Herod offered him money to make him king, as he had formerly given it him to make him tetrarch, and chiefly because of his hatred to Antigonus; for he took him to be a seditious person, and an enemy to the Romans (cf. BJ I, 282).

It was Antony who influenced Octavian, his young ally in the Second Triumvirate, to launch together with him an initiative to crown Herod king of Judea amid the special political circumstances created by the great Parthian invasion. As stated, under the auspices of the Parthian invaders, Mattathias Antigonus had been declared king of Jerusalem. This confluence of events sparked widespread support in Rome for crowning Herod king of Judea and enlisting him in the massive Roman effort to remove the Parthians and their followers. Indeed, the two members of the Triumvirate won sweeping support for a ‘senatorial decision” (senatus consultum) crowning Herod king of Judea. In the words of Josephus (AJ XIV, 386–387): [386] And this was the principal instance of Antony’s affection for Herod, that he not only procured him a kingdom which he did not expect (for he did not come with an intention to ask the kingdom for himself, which he did not suppose the Romans would grant him, who used to bestow it on some of the royal family, [387] but intended to desire it for his wife’s brother, who was grandson by his father to Aristobulus, and to Hyrcanus by his mother), but that he procured it for him so suddenly, that he obtained what he did not expect, and departed out of Italy in so few days as seven in all.

Of course, one should not be misled by these words, which reflect an “apologetic” argument aimed at Jewish public opinion. The fact that 32

See Shatzman 1989, pp. 574–576.

Herod is Crowned in Rome as King of Judaea

69

there is no parallel reference in BJ makes it difficult to determine the source of Josephus’ knowledge.33 In our estimation, this is one of the instances when Josephus relied on internal Jewish information, which attributed to Herod underhanded and deceitful intentions aimed at “justifying” his appointment as king in the eyes of his Jewish subjects and “blaming” the Romans for the decision. Such a disingenuous claim was convenient for him since, after all, who would dare to go against the will of a united and resolute Roman Empire. Based on the way in which the information is presented, it appears that Josephus himself doubted its credibility. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the account was cleverly based on half-truths, namely, Antigonus’ support for Herod, on the one hand, and the Roman practice of preferring kings from a known, legitimate dynasty (as seen by their subjects), on the other. 34 The combination of half-truths and overt lies, according to which it was Herod himself who supposedly asked the Romans to appoint his young brother-in-law as king, is problematic and lacking in credibility, since it is difficult to conceive of Herod acting in such an altruistic manner.35 Herod’s appointment as king resulted from circumstantial political factors, and should be interpreted simply as an expression of Roman anger and dissatisfaction with the fact that the Jews had accepted the rule of Mattathias Antigonus, placed in power by the Parthians who were major enemies of Rome at the time (ibid., 404). 36 Only in this way can one offer a convincing explanation for Rome’s departure from its traditional practice of crowning a king from a royal dynasty seen as suitable by its subjects. Moreover, as stated explicitly by Josephus in both accounts (BJ I, 282; AJ XIV, 382), Herod promised a bribe to Antigonus if and when he was crowned king, just as he had done when appointed by him to serve as tetrarch (AJ XIV, 327). 37 Herod acted similarly when Cassius promised to appoint him king of Judea after his victory in the Roman civil war following the assassination of Julius Caesar (BJ I, 225; AJ XIV, 280). On that occasion as well, the deed was done at Herod’s instigation and in exchange for a suitable payment. The preceding is sufficient to refute the false and sanctimonious claim that his origi33 34 35 36 37

Perowne (1957, p. 58) naively accepted this “truth”; compare below. AJ XIV, 386, 403, 489, and see Kasher 2005a, pp. 187, 195–197, 202–204, 206. It is therefore amazing that Jones (1938, p. 43) accepted this. On the different reasons that led the Romans to crown Herod, see Ben-Shalom 1993, pp. 284–285. Cf. BJ I, 244, although no bribe is mentioned in this version. The appointment of Herod and Phasael as tetrarchs is mentioned for the first time by Josephus in AJ XIV, 327. On the significance of this office see Marcus 1943, VII, p. 621, n. i.

70

3. From the Utmost Depths to the Conquest of Jerusalem

nal intention had been to offer the kingship to the brother of his betrothed, Aristobulus III. Every act of Herod’s throughout his life was for himself alone – something that is true, incidentally, of individuals whose egocentrism is the product of Paranoid Personality Disorder. Herod’s legal and political status was initially defined in accordance with Roman juridical criteria as rex socius et amicus populi Romani (that is, “an ally-king and friend of the Roman people”), thereby obligating him to absolute political and military subjugation to Rome. He was prohibited from engaging in any personal initiative whatsoever in matters of security and state without the appropriate approval from Rome, nor was he permitted to determine his own successor. 38Herod’s loyalty to Rome naturally had to be proven through immediate enlistment in the war effort to expel the Parthian invader from imperial territory. He took part willingly, as the endeavor fitted in with his own struggle to secure the kingship of Judea. The elimination of his rival Mattathias Antigonus, who had ascended the throne with the help of Parthian lances, was compatible with Roman efforts to push the Parthians across the Euphrates River. In other words, the commonality of interests between Herod and Rome rested on the Parthian threat; as long as it loomed, there was no reason to believe that the Romans would alter their policy toward him. 39 Rome was not yet sufficiently familiar with the social fabric of Jerusalem to be able to grasp the depth of Jewish loyalty to the Hasmonaean dynasty or the magnitude of the hatred toward Herod. The Romans learned this only at a later stage, when the physical elimination of the Hasmonaean dynasty by Herod was already a widely known fait accompli, not to mention a source of derision in the eyes of the Emperor himself.40 Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that the Romans never actually renounced Herod, and only on one occasion – late in his reign, when he was suspected of initiating his second war against the Nabateans without authorization – did he receive a veiled warning that this forthcoming attitude was liable to change; in practice, how-

38

39

40

On the legal and political obligations stemming from this status, see Schalit 1969, pp. 146 ff.; Stern 1986b, pp. 59 ff., 251 (nn. 9, 11, 14, 15); Braund 1983, passim; Paltiel 1991, passim. For the historical background, see Stern 1995, pp. 249–274. One should bear in mind that the Parthian threat loomed over Rome at least until the days of Emperor Trajan (114–116 CE). According to a later tradition, when Augustus learned of the execution of Antipater, Herod’s elder son, he is said to have stated sarcastically: “Better to be Herod’s pig than his son”; see Stern 1980, II, no. 543, pp. 665–666.

Herod is Crowned in Rome as King of Judaea

71

ever, such a thing never took place.41 On the contrary, it appears that Roman policy towards Herod remained consistent throughout his life. It was the Hasmonaean dynasty that the Romans turned their backs on, apparently long before Herod was appointed king, that is, early in the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BCE). This political turnaround took place in response to the decision by the Hasmonaean king to abandon the historical alliance with Rome in favor of political ties with the Parthians.42 It not surprising that, from this point forward, Hellenist and Roman literature began to speak of the Hasmonaean dynasty in strident tones,43 indicating that the crowning of Herod in 40 BCE had been well thought-out politically. True, this policy was initiated by Antony and Octavian, but public opinion in Rome was already ripe for such a move. As a consequence, the actual decision was made unanimously by the Roman Senate; and what is important in our view is that it was not expected to be modified. Zvi Yavetz rightfully enumerated three principal reasons for crowning Herod as king: (a) a reward for his unqualified loyalty to Rome; (b) the desire to bolster his political standing in Jerusalem since, as an Idumaean commoner, he could not serve as High Priest; and (c) his great prestige among the non-Jewish population in Palestine, who had a mutually hostile relationship with the Jews.44 After attaining the crown, Herod sought to make the anniversary of his coronation into an annual national holiday (AJ XV, 423).45 In his great arrogance, he wanted his subjects to adapt themselves to the new reality, undoubtedly echoing the accepted practice of most of the Hellenist monarchs in the lands of the Orient. His coronation took place during the winter of 40 BCE, as can be inferred from BJ I, 279–281 and AJ XIV, 376–380.46 The dating of the event is also based on numismatic findings,47 in addition to which it fits in chronologically with the signing of the Treaty of Brundisium between Octavian 41 42

43 44 45 46

47

As a matter of fact, he became involved in this war because of Syllaeus the Nabatean; a detailed discussion of this issue will be offered below. See Rappaport 1969, pp. 43–54. According to Pucci-Ben Zeev (1981, pp. 331–338), there is a reasonable basis for assuming that John Hyrcanus I was actually the first to initiate this step. For further details, see Kasher 1990, pp. 133 ff. Yavetz 1988, p. 322. At a later point, he even combined the anniversary of his coronation with the dedication of the Jerusalem Temple so as to make it a national festival; see in detail below. Otto 1913, cols. 25–26; Marcus 1943, VII, p. 648–9, n. a; Schalit 1969, pp. 83–88; Grant 1971, p. 41; Schürer 1973, I, pp. 281–282 (n. 3); Smallwood 1981, pp. 55–56; Roller 1998, p. 12 (n. 8); Kokkinos 1998, pp. 367–369; and see further, below. Meyshan 1960, pp. 100–108.

72

3. From the Utmost Depths to the Conquest of Jerusalem

and Antony (October 40 BCE), that is, shortly before Herod entered the gates of Rome (in December).48 The decision by the Senate to crown Herod as king of Judea can be seen as a “crossing of the Rubicon” in Roman policy towards the Jewish nation in Palestine, as this was the first public and explicit rebuffing of the Hasmonaean dynasty. The importance of Herod’s coronation was reflected in its ceremonial aspects: at the conclusion of the Senate session, Herod strode arm in arm with Antony and Octavian before the consuls and other men of power, after which they ascended together to the Capitol to offer a sacrifice to the god Jupiter and to deposit the senatorial resolution in his temple.49 It seems that Herod had no religious compunctions regarding the ceremony, even if he himself did not offer a sacrifice. 50 It must be recalled that the city of Rome was home to many Jews who resided not far from Capitol Hill, most of them freed slaves from Hasmonaean Palestine who had come there following Pompey’s conquest (63 BCE). It is unimaginable that Herod would have taken the religious risk of offering a personal sacrifice to Jupiter, since word of such an act would likely have reached Jerusalem and sparked a major scandal and needless resentment. In Herod’s eyes, the most significant point was the crowning itself since it represented a political declaration by the ranking elite; moreover, its legal validity could not be questioned once the ‘senatorial decision” had been deposited in the Capitoline temple. It is easy to speculate that he felt great pride as an Idumaean rejected by Jewish society who had been granted kingship over the Jews – and by the leading personalities of the Roman world, no less. The apologetic excuse later uttered by him that he had no choice but to obey the word of his Roman masters was nothing more than an empty statement and a sanctimonious pretext intended to forestall potential Jewish disapproval.

The War against Mattathias Antigonus From Josephus’s descriptions of Herod’s actions following his arrival at the port of Ptolemais (Acre) in the spring of 39 BCE, it appears that the Roman military assistance that Herod received from Syria was rela48 49 50

Cf. Plutarch, Antony, 30; Yavetz 1988, pp. 19–20; Shatzman 1989, pp. 574–576; Kokkinos 1998, loc. cit.; Banowitz 2003, p. 3; see more below, pp. 241–242. BJ I, 285; AJ XIV, 388–389. Antony later held a banquet in honor of the event, presumably attended by the cream of Roman society. Cf. Grant 1971, p. 50; see also below in the Afterword, pp. 412–413.

The War against Mattathias Antigonus

73

tively meager and ineffective. The Syrian proconsul Publius Ventidius Bassus could not devote the necessary resources for the removal of Antigonus. Preoccupied at the time with putting down disturbances in the cities of Syria that had erupted with Parthian encouragement, he was absent from the scene of events in Palestine. 51 It was his commander Silo (in Greek, Silon) who was placed in charge of military assistance to Herod, but he proved ineffectual, whether due to his inadequate forces or his willingness (as cited by Josephus in BJ I, 288–289 and AJ XIV, 392–393) to accept bribes from Antigonus. 52 Compounding the above were logistical difficulties caused by a severe shortage of food for his troops as a result of Antigonus’ ‘scorched-earth policy,’ which had turned Jerusalem’s environs into a barren wilderness. Josephus’ subsequent account reveals that when Herod landed with his men in Ptolemais, he had at his disposal a sizeable force of non-Jewish (xénoi) mercenaries and fellow Idumaeans (Ómofíloi); this was still insufficient, however, to conquer even the Galilee alone. He therefore decided to first conquer Jaffa (Joppa) and the coastal strip and to head from there towards Idumaea to liberate Masada, where his family had taken refuge in 40 BCE. The description of these events (in BJ I, 290– 302 and AJ XIV, 394–412) indicates that, in addition to a shortage of manpower, Herod was confronted with other difficulties that undermined his self-confidence. He did succeed in invading southeastern Judea from the coastal strip in order to take his family out of Masada (autumn of 39 BCE); but in turning towards Jerusalem in hopes of storming the city and swiftly eliminating Antigonus’ hold there, he did not find Silo’s army to be the true source of help he had anticipated. On the contrary, he became aware of the severe logistical difficulties facing the Roman officer with the approach of winter, and feared that Silo would be more susceptible to bribery by Antigonus as a result. Accordingly, he made every effort to prevent contact between the two and offered alternative logistic solutions of his own (BJ I, 297–299). Toward this end, he enlisted the help of the polis of Samaria, including that of his Samaritan friends in the area, 53 to supply Silo’s army with abundant foodstuffs and other supplies. Concurrently, he managed 51 52

53

On the military activities of Ventidius in Syria, see Debevoise 1968, pp. 114–120; Amit 2002, pp. 129–130. Smallwood (1981, p. 56) felt that the “bribe” could be explained by the reference in Cassius Dio (xlviii, 41, 4–5) to the heavy fines imposed by Ventidius on Antigonus and other local rulers for allying themselves with the Parthians . The words toîv te perì Samáreian š6keuwménoiv in AJ XIV 408 can be interpreted as referring to Samaritans (cf. BJ I, 299: toîv perì Samáreian, assuming that the inhabitants of the Samarian periphery (chora) were mostly Samaritans. On Herod’s

74

3. From the Utmost Depths to the Conquest of Jerusalem

both to thwart the efforts of Antigonus to ambush his supply convoys from the Samaria region and to attack Jericho (unoccupied by Antigonus’ forces at the time) and conquer it, thereby gaining access to an additional source of supplies. Within a short time, Herod was able to provide whatever Silo needed to send his troops without fear to the winter camps in Idumaea and to his strongholds in the Galilee (apparently the Western and Lower Galilee) and in Samaria (AJ XIV, 409– 412). However, his greater concern at the time was the propaganda “war” he was waging with Antigonus over the very legitimacy of his kingship from the Roman perspective, in particular that of Silo. It is important to refer here to Antigonus’ remarks (as cited by Josephus in AJ XIV, 403–404), since it was these that were especially worrisome to Herod and caused him to fear a potential reversal in Roman policy toward himself: [403] But Antigonus, by way of reply to what Herod had caused to be proclaimed, and this before the Romans, and before Silo also, said that they would not do justly, if they gave the kingdom to Herod, who was no more than a private man, and an Idumaean, i. e. a half Jew (4miioudaîov), 54 whereas they ought to bestow it on one of the royal family, as their custom was; [404] for that in case they at present bear an ill-will to him, and had resolved to deprive him of the kingdom, as having received it from the Parthians, yet were there many others of his family that might by their law take it, and these such as had no way offended the Romans; and being of the sacerdotal family, it would be an unworthy thing to put them by.

No great powers of interpretation are needed to realize that these words touched directly upon the major weak points in Herod’s character: his sense of inferiority stemming from his lowly family origins, and his dread at the thought that the Romans might restore a legitimate representative of the Hasmonaeans to the throne in Jerusalem. However, as at other times in his life, reality was to prove him wrong. He was simply gripped by terror and unable to rid himself of the baseless fear that he would be deposed in favor of a member of the Hasmonaean dynasty – something that will emerge more clearly below.

54

friendly relations with the Samaria polis, see Kasher 2005, pp. 23–39, and chapter 4 below. On the meaning of this expression, see Ben-Shalom 1993, pp. 283–284. His explanation is preferable to that of M. Smith (1999, pp. 232–233), who struggled too much with the question of whether the appellation of )Ioudaîov in relation to Herod was religious or ethnic in nature (loc. cit., pp. 322 ff., 237–239). His preference for the second possibility appears to be erroneous for the reason cited earlier (chapter 1, pp. 22–23), namely, that the designation of “Jew” cannot be divorced of religious significance.

The War against Mattathias Antigonus

75

Antigonus’ efforts to win Silo over to his side had the effect of a drowning man grasping at straws. The chances that Silo would be tempted to support him were virtually nil, if only for the simple reason that he did not have the authority to alter a fundamental policy decided upon by the highest political echelons in Rome on the recommendation of the Second Triumvirate and proclaimed by the Senate against the backdrop of the war against the Parthians. But even after matters had ostensibly been rectified between Herod and Silo in the best way possible from Herod’s perspective, he knew not a moment’s peace. 55 Quite the opposite: he began to act with renewed intensity, not only because he was hyperactive by nature but because he was a tense and restless individual with little patience. Herod was resentful of the setback in his plan to conquer Jerusalem in 38 BCE, and no less so at his earlier failure in 39 BCE to take the Galilee – the northern stronghold of Antigonus – in one fell swoop. He therefore decided at this point to embark on the less difficult mission of the two, that is, the conquest of the Galilee and the eradication of all Antigonus’ loyalists there. The conquest of Jerusalem could wait to a later stage since, from a military standpoint, it was in any case cut off on all sides by regions that were already under Herod’s full control: Samaria and its environs in the north, Idumaea with its two centers (Adoraim and Maresha) in the south and southwest, Jaffa and the coastal strip to the west, and Jericho and the nearby Jordan Valley in the east. The campaign to conquer the Galilee was also important to him strategically, largely because it would ensure him direct access to the province of Syria from which he anticipated more substantial military aid as soon as Rome could allocate it. The conquest of the Galilee, and especially the operation to eliminate the Hasmonaean loyalists who had taken refuge in the Arbel caves, 56 demonstrated Herod’s obsessive insistence on destroying every last trace of his enemies. The description in both versions of Josephus, in particular that of AJ (XIV, 423–427), is appalling in every respect. Upon reading his words, the question persists: Did Josephus actually find a reference to this incident in the writings of Nicolaus? It is hard to conceive that the latter would have dared to tarnish Herod’s reputation to such an extent. It is more reasonable to assume that Josephus relied here on internal Jewish sources passed down through the gen55 56

See AJ XIV, 413: “But Herod was not pleased with lying still” (dèoÙk Èdókei ménein Èf’ 4sucíav); cf. BJ I, 303. BJ I, 304–306, 309–314; AJ XIV, 415–417, 421–430.

76

3. From the Utmost Depths to the Conquest of Jerusalem

erations. This possibility also seems likely because of the reference to the victims as “bandits” – the same term used for the men of Hezekiah the Galilean who spearheaded a popular Jewish rebellion against the dynasty of Antipater and the rule of Rome and were executed in 47 BCE. The term “bandits” was drawn from the Roman political lexicon for enemies of the Empire. However, the figure of the unnamed old man who put his wife and seven sons to death, casting their bodies and then himself into the abyss because he “preferred death to slavery” (ibid., 429), strengthens the impression that these were pious Jewish zealots, steadfast in their faith and willing to sacrifice their lives as an example to others, as in the days of religious persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. 57 Herod himself conceived the use of special winches to lower iron cages containing soldiers armed with long hooks from atop the cliffs to the caves on Mount Arbel to drag out their inhabitants by force. He did not hesitate to do this despite the danger to his soldiers, who were liable to plummet into the chasm. A further example of his brutal and obsessive impulses was the setting of fires at the mouths of the caves to force out their inhabitants and slaughter them. (It is quite possible that Josephus was recalling in this context the religious persecutions in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when one thousand people burned or suffocated to death in a cave where they had taken shelter from Antiochus’ troopers to avoid desecrating the Jewish Sabbath). 58 57

58

The elderly man and his seven sons hiding in a cave arouse associations with a certain Taxo and his seven sons mentioned in the apocalyptic and pseudo-epigraphic book Assumptio Mosis (chapter VI). We are informed there that Taxo warned his people that the “end of days” was upon them, and would coincide with the death of “an insolent king … who will not be of the race of the priests, a man bold and shameless. And he shall judge them as they shall deserve, and shall cut off their chief men with a sword, and shall destroy them in secret places, so that no one may know where their bodies are. He shall slay the old and the young, and he shall not spare. Then the fear of him shall be bitter unto them in their land. And he shall execute judgments on them as the Egyptians executed upon them, during thirty and four years, and he shall punish them. And he shall beget children, (who) succeeding him shall rule for shorter periods. Into their parts cohorts and powerful king of the west shall come, (and) shall crucify some around their colony” (English translation by R. H. Charles 1913, II, pp. 418–419). Scholarly opinion is virtually unanimous that the unnamed king in Assumptio Mosis is Herod, whose death in 4 BCE is clearly indicated as well. However, space does not permit us to enter into a discussion of this complex issue, nor do we wish to deviate from the focus of our study. According to Josephus (AJ XII, 272–275), the troops of Antiochus Epiphanes burned them alive (katéflexan). In addition, it is written that “there were about a thousand, with their wives and children, who were smothered and died in these caves” (Àpéqanon mÈn o¯n sùn gunaixì kaì téknoiv Èmpnigéntev toîv sphlaíoiv 6seì cílio). This description also conforms with the abridged account in II Mac-

The War against Mattathias Antigonus

77

Despite the basic similarity between the two versions of Josephus regarding the incident on Mount Arbel, there are fundamental differences that can be discerned, especially with respect to Herod’s character. In AJ, he is shown as exhibiting terrible cruelty and great resolve, whereas in BJ the portrayal is “softened” in two respects: on one occasion (I, 311), Josephus writes that Herod wished to save some of those dwelling in the Arbel caves, and therefore sent word that they should exit the caves and come before him; on another, (ibid., 312–313), he is described as being filled with compassion at the pleas of the aforementioned seven children and their mother who were turned back to their father and husband, an unnamed old man who sought to kill them and then jump to his death. Herod begged him in vain to prevent this catastrophe, but the man derided him over his lowly birth and then carried out his plan. By contrast, in AJ XIV 430, it is stated that Herod “extended his right hand [and promised] that no harm would befall him” – except that the event took place after the man had already slaughtered his family, which only reinforces the impression of Herod’s cruelty. This tragic incident concludes Josephus’ account of the subjugation of a defiant Galilee. The residual bitterness that Herod harbored for a second decade (beginning with his appointment as strategos of the Galilee in 47 BCE) could explain his special resentment of the region; this is apparently the reason why he did not initiate a construction project of any note there as in other parts of his kingdom. 59 Despite Herod’s conquest of the Galilee, he was unable to complete the task of capturing Jerusalem, apparently for fear that without massive Roman assistance he would be unsuccessful in his mission. Unfortunately for him, the Romans were now forced to deal with a new and unexpected Parthian invasion led by Pacorus, the son of the Parthian king, in the early spring of 38 BCE, at a time when the army of Ventidius (the Syrian proconsul) was still at the winter camps in Cappadocia (in central Asia Minor, across the Taurus Mountains).60 Ultimately, it was the military and political ingenuity of the proconsul

59 60

cabees (5:11) in which Jewish refugees who found shelter in a cave were “burned together” (suneflogísqhsan), although Josephus was not at all familiar with II Maccabees. On the other hand, I Maccabees, which was known to him, did not mention the suffocation of the Jews by smoke. However, the very fact that this was cited in Josephus, in addition to such later works as The Antiochus Scroll and Josippon, lends weight to the notion that the story could have been disseminated in Jewish circles through several different literary conduits. Cf. Richardson 1996, p. 175; Chancey 2002, p. 50. Cassius Dio, xlix, 19; Frontinus, Strategemata, I, 1, 6.

78

3. From the Utmost Depths to the Conquest of Jerusalem

that saved the situation, especially with his surprising victory near Mount Gindarus, as a result of which the talented and dangerous Pacorus perished.61 On orders from Ventidius, the decapitated head of Pacorus was displayed in the mutinous cities of Syria and Asia Minor, demoralizing the people to such an extent that most of them surrendered to the Romans. The final pocket of resistance remained in the city of Samosata (the capital of Commagene, situated on the western bank of the Euphrates River), which was defended by the vassal king Antiochus I, one of the last of the Parthian supporters in the region. Ventidius placed the city under heavy siege for several months, until Antiochus eventually consented to hand over a large sum of money (1,000 talents of silver) to rescue his men and end the siege. At precisely this point (mid-summer, 38 BCE), Antony arrived on the scene in his capacity as commander of the eastern front of the Roman Empire. It seems that he was also motivated by personal ambition, in this case a desire to strike a blow at the Parthians and expunge the disgrace of the Roman defeat under Crassus (54 BCE). The latter had suffered an undignified death in battle, his head and right hand having been severed, in addition to which his army’s symbolic eagle ensigns had been seized by the Parthians, thereby compounding the general sense of Roman humiliation and harming the image of the invincible Roman army. Since Antony longed to claim Ventidius’ victory for himself, he opposed the halting of the siege on Samosata and ended the negotiations over the ransom payment proposed by Antiochus; in addition, he took over command of the siege from Ventidius. The latter returned to Rome, where he was permitted to celebrate his military achievements at an impressive triumph, of which Plutarch wrote (Antonius, 34) that he was the only man to conduct such a ceremony for his victory over the Parthians.62 61

62

According to Plutarch (Antony, 34), this was one of the most glorious victories of the Romans. It is also told that Ventidius did not pursue after the defeated Parthians, because he was affraid of Antony’s envy. A thank is offered to G. Rosenblum for calling our attention to this. For a detailed presentation of the battle against Pacorus and the siege of Samosata, see Debevoise 1968, pp. 116–120, and various sources cited by him. Among these, Plutarch is noteworthy for his account of Antony’s envy toward Ventidius, on the one hand, and Ventidius’ loyalty to Antony, on the other. When Antony failed to subdue Antiochus of Commagene at Samosata, he was obliged to content himself with the paltry sum of 300 talents (instead of the original offer of a thousand) from the besieged king. Although he was honored with the right to hold a triumph in Rome, the ceremony did not take place, not to mention the fact that Ventidius’ victory overshadowed his own.

The War against Mattathias Antigonus

79

As of the siege of Samosata was nearing its end, Herod came to Antony’s aid (BJ I, 321–322, 327; AJ XIV, 439–447), but it is not noted if he did so in response to a request for help or on his own initiative. Although both possibilities seem equally reasonable, the second one is obviously more relevant for our purposes. The version in AJ describes Herod’s daring in wiping out the Parthian forces laying in wait along the route from Antioch northward, and assembling the supporters of Antony, who sought to make their way through the surrounding forests to assist him. It is also recounted that he succeeded in bringing with him to Antony an abundance of provisions, servants and beasts of burden that he saved from looting by the Parthians. In the course of these events, Herod managed to make a name for himself by virtue of his courage, his resourcefulness, and his accomplishments – so much so that those who joined forces with him referred to him as their savior and their leader. 63 There is no question that he wished to impress Antony with these achievements, and it is quite possible that he himself solicited these praises. In our opinion, Herod’s intention was not so much to render assistance to his patron as to receive help from him. Indeed, at his very cordial encounter with Antony following the surrender of Samosata, Herod requested, as anticipated, military and political assistance to continue his war against Mattathias Antigonus. The meeting between Herod and Antony is described by Josephus in unequivocal terms in AJ XIV, 446: [446] Antony was very glad to see him there, as having been made acquainted with the great actions he had performed upon the road. So he entertained him very kindly, and could not but admire his courage. Antony also embraced him as soon as he saw him, and saluted him after a most affectionate manner, and gave him the upper hand, as having himself lately made him a king.

Indeed, Antony responded favorably, relaying explicit instructions to Sossius, the new proconsul of Syria who had replaced Ventidius upon his departure for Rome. Sossius quickly dispatched two legions to assist Herod, and he himself set out with an additional army to join them shortly thereafter (BJ I, 327; AJ XIV, 447). Sossius’ army actually proved to be the crucial force that decided the fate of Jerusalem; without it, Herod would not have succeeded in imposing his rule on his kingdom.

63

See AJ XIV, 444: oÍ dè swtêra kaì prostáthn a$tòn Àpekáloun. Incidentally, he “acquired” for himself those very titles – “savior” (swtär) and “protector” (prostáthv) – also in his first war against the Nabateans, as we shall see below.

80

3. From the Utmost Depths to the Conquest of Jerusalem

Upon his return from the siege of Samosata (late summer, 38 BCE), Herod learned that his brother Joseph had died in his failed campaign against the forces of Antony near Jericho.64 It is recounted that Herod actually became aware of Joseph’s death even earlier through a nightmare he had in Daphne, near Antioch, on his way back to Judea; according to Josephus’ account, Herod awoke in terror just as the emissaries were entering to inform him that Joseph had died (BJ I, 328; AJ XIV, 451). On the face of things, this should not be seen as an exceptional occurrence since virtually everyone experiences, at some point in their life, dreams involving future events, especially nightmares regarding the fate of those close to them. It is noteworthy that Josephus stated explicitly (in AJ XIV, 451) that “he expected [the bad tidings], from certain visions that appeared to him in his dreams, which clearly foreshowed his brother’s death.”65 This incident obviously indicates the extent to which Herod’s fears and fantasies were embedded in his consciousness; he himself apparently believed that his dreams were a reflection of events destined to take place in reality.66 A series of losses such as Herod experienced, including the death of his brother Joseph only one year after the death of his older brother Phasael and three years after that of his father Antipater, can complicate the mourning process and generate emotional distress. But Herod’s spirits did not fall immediately as a result of the bad tidings he had received. It seems that his anticipation of imminently fulfilling his primary ambition far surpassed any grief or pain. The certainty of Roman support in the political and military spheres at the highest level (Antony) gave him the “drive” to act quickly. Under these circumstances, the desire to achieve his goals was a powerful motivating force – stronger than any nightmare that threatened to intrude on reality. After recruiting another 800 soldiers at Mount Lebanon (Libanus) en route to Judea, and immediately receiving two Roman legions from Sossius at Antony’ orders with the expectation of additional help from Sossius (BJ I, 328–330; AJ XIV, 452–453), Herod eagerly charged into action. 64 65

66

BJ I, 323–326 is much more extreme than AJ XIV, 448 ff. regarding the cruel abuse of Joseph’s body in order to justify the subsequent mistreatment of Antigonus. The use of the Greek verb prosdécomai clearly indicates the expectation of something yet to occur (see Liddell & Scott, p. 1505). This is supported by the account in BJ I, 328 of a dream that informed (proshmaínousin) him of the death of his brother. On the use of the verb proshmaínw see Liddell & Scott, p. 1513, and on the dream’s veracity see Jones 1938, pp. 130–131, 191–193, 198. This phenomenon repeat itself with the deterioration of Herod’s relationship with his son Alexander (AJ XVI, 259–260).

The War against Mattathias Antigonus

81

When word spread in Judea of the size of Herod’s army, Mattathias Antigonus’ camp began to show signs of demoralization, with some soldiers even deserting. Upon arriving in Jericho, confident in his army and the support of Rome, Herod held a banquet for his army commanders in an obvious state of euphoria that, in our view, arose from a manic episode. Such a drastic and unpredictable mood swing had also taken place in late 40 BCE (see above), when he experienced an extreme shift from thoughts of desperation – as he fled the Parthians and attempted to harm himself – to great elation, culminating in his coronation in Rome. This shift was demonstrated further by the “wondrous event” (daimónion) that befell him in Jericho: He and his men were saved from death when the ceiling collapsed suddenly at a banquet hall where he had been holding a feast for the heads of his army a short time earlier. Everyone, including Herod, believed that this was a heavenly omen that proved he was “beloved by God” (qeofilastátov).67 It is also recounted that after Herod had dealt a final blow to Antigonus’ army in Jericho, he found himself in great danger, yet was rescued “by God’s providence” (AJ XIV, 462). This “miracle” took place when three armed soldiers of Antigonus unexpectedly happened to enter a certain building where Herod was bathing naked, and were so taken aback that they left him completely unharmed. Both stories were undoubtedly based on a common source, apparently Nicolaus of Damascus, and both were intended to “legitimize” Herod in the eyes of his subjects as someone “beloved by God” and chosen to rule.68 He himself adopted this notion and subscribed to it wholeheartedly, which fitted in well with his grandiose and narcissistic character traits. Each time he was saved from death, his faith grew stronger that his path in life had been laid out for him by God according to His will, and that he was “destined” for wondrous things. This message had stayed with him throughout his life since the prophecy of Menahem the Essene in his youth. The portrayal of his ascension to the throne as a product of “fate” or “God’s will” was intended to 67

68

BJ I, 331; cf. AJ XIV, 455: “… and here may one see what kindness God had for the king (toû basiléwv tÄn Èk toû qeoû eßnoian) … insomuch that all the people believed that Herod was beloved of God (qeofiläv) …” The use of similar motifs (dream, destiny, etc.), associated conversely with the Divine curse on Alexander Jannaeus, probably derived from the pen of Nicolaus; see Efron 1987, pp. 167 ff. Compare also with the aforementioned prediction regarding Herod and Menahem the Essene (AJ XV, 373–379). Typical Hellenistic motifs are notable in all these cases, which are aimed at convincing the reader of the mantic forecasting of events, on the one hand, and the deterministic realization of personal destiny, on the other.

82

3. From the Utmost Depths to the Conquest of Jerusalem

prove that all of his past and future actions were justified and desirable. If we accept the (reasonable) hypothesis that such motifs were introduced into Herod’s history by Nicolaus, it is just as likely that this was also done at the behest of Herod himself. Even if we shy away from the assumption that he himself openly initiated and fostered the idea that he was “beloved by God,” it is at least obvious that he did not offer any objection. The implication is clear: not only did he affirm the notion in his imagination and his dreams but he sought to apply it in reality as well. The fusion in his mind of delusion and reality can serve to support the finding of Paranoid Personality Disorder, manifested in excessive egocentrism and megalomania.69 However, not all delusions of paranoid personalities relate to the fear of persecution; those that are megalomanic in nature stem from an exaggerated self-assessment and a sense of greatness and superiority. In our view, this aspect of Herod’s personality is evident primarily in his obsessive “addiction” to colossal building projects, but this topic will be addressed later in the present volume, in keeping with the chronological sequence of our discussion.

69

On the shift from feelings of persecution to megalomania, see Fried & Agassi 1997, pp. 90, 202–203 (nn. 18–19), etc. This is illustrated by the clever saying: “If I am persecuted, it means that I am a distinguished personality.”

A Selection from Herod’s Coins No. 1

Front:

Back:

No. 2

Front:

Back:

No. 3

Front:

Back:

No. 4

Front:

Back:

No. 1: A bronze 2 prutah coin of the so-called “Samaria mint” (40–37 BCE). Front: A winged caduceus surrounded by a Greek inscription “of King Herod”; the date is inscribed on its sides by the Greek letter G, meaning 3rd year of the tetrarchy. Back: A pomgranate or rather poppy fruit (Meshorer, pl. 46). No.2: A bronze 8 prutah coin of the so-called “Samaria mint” (40–37 BCE). Front: A tripod with ceremonial bowl, surrounded by a Greek inscription “of King Herod”; the date is inscribed on the sides by the Greek letter G, meaning 3rd year of the tetrarchy. Back: A crested helmet (of the Dioscuri) on a ceremonial bowl decorated with two palm-tree branches aside (Meshorer, pl. 44). No. 3: A most common bronze 2 prutah of King Herod (37–4 BCE), Jerusalem mint. Front: A diadem with the sign × in the middle, surrounded by the Greek inscription “of King Herod”. Back: A ceremonial bowl posted on a tripod (or a table) with two palm tree branches aside (Meshorer, pl. 48, 49). No. 4: A bronze Herod’s 1 prutah, Jerusalem mint. – Front: A cornucopia (“horn of plenty”) and a Greek inscription “King Herod” on the sides. – Back: An Eagle (Meshorer, pl. 66).

Chapter 4 Herod in the First Year of His Reign (37 BCE) Conquest of Jerusalem Jerusalem was conquered in the summer of 37 BCE1 by a large force consisting of 30,000 soldiers under the direct command of Herod and another eleven divisions (télh) of Roman infantrymen led by Sossius, in addition to 6,000 cavalrymen and auxilia from Syria (i. e., non-Roman allies recruited to assist the Legions stationed in the provinces), all of whom camped adjacent to the northern wall of the city. 2 From the moment he entered the gates of the conquered city, Herod was preoccupied with monetary concerns, not only because of his immediate needs but also (and primarily) due to avariciousness pure and simple, as well as his overly ambitious plans for the future. According to Josephus, Herod confiscated all the jewels that he found in the Hasmonaean royal palace and systematically robbed the city’s wealthy. Prominent among the latter was a group of forty-five of the leading supporters of Mattathias Antigonus, a fact that Herod used as a pretext for having them executed and commandeering their property. 3 In AJ XV, 6, it is stated further that Herod stationed guards at the city gates to ensure that nothing was taken out with the dead, going so far as to have the corpses checked for any gold, silver, or other items of value, which were then brought to him. The situation was intolerable: on the one hand, assets were stolen through the greed

1 2

3

On the chronological problem of dating the conquest, see Wacholder 1983, pp. 127– 128. BJ I, 346; AJ XIV 469; for further details, including reservations as to the size of this force, see Shatzman 1991, pp. 82–85. According to him, the number of troops that took part in the Jerusalem campaign probably did not exceed 53,000; cf. also Kasher 2003, p. 61. On his policy of expropriating Hasmonaean property, see Pastor 1997, pp. 100 ff. Of this, Klausner (IV, p. 9) remarked ironically (but aptly) that the victims’ sole “offense” was their loyalty to the Hasmonaeans, and the fact of their wealth.

Conquest of Jerusalem

85

of the king and his (monetary) needs; yet on the other, he enforced the h+ym# (sabbatical) year prohibition against working the land.4 According to Smallwood, the aforementioned 45 citizens of Jerusalem were members of the Great Sanhedrin, which had placed Herod on trial in 46 BCE (AJ XIV, 175–176).5 If her thesis is correct, Herod thereby settled an old account with this institution and never made use of it again.6 The plundering of Jerusalem is not inconsistent with the apologetic descriptions of Herod’s attempts to block the Roman army under Sossius from committing rampant acts of killing and looting (AJ XIV, 484–487). One of the arguments that Herod used before Sossius was that if the Romans emptied the city of its property and people, they would be leaving him king of the wilderness (BJ I, 355; AJ XIV, 484). But these were only half-truths, since it was later noted that Herod took pains to compensate the Roman soldiers and their commanders, including Sossius himself, with bribe money from his private purse (BJ I, 356; AJ XIV, 485–486). And what was in this purse if not the monies stolen from occupied Jerusalem? In BJ I, 355–356, the dispute that broke out between Herod and Sossius over the pillaging of Jerusalem is overstated, since the latter insisted that his soldiers be compensated for the great effort they had invested in conquering the city,7 and Josephus goes on to say that Herod (not surprisingly) acceded to Sossius’ demand, granting a generous payment to every soldier and to their commanders according to rank, including a large amount to Sossius himself. Under these cir4 5

6

7

Cf. Josippon, xliii, 5–12 (Flusser ed., p. 197); there is no parallel in BJ. The opinion of Smallwood 1981, p. 63; Otzen 1990, p. 39; and others (apparently inspired by Jones 1938, pp. 48–49) is most likely based on AJ XV, 2–4; see Efron, p. 311. The sages Samaias and Pollion (referred to in the Talmud as Shemaiah and Avtalion) escaped this fate because of their wise and responsible advice to the people of Jerusalem to open the city gates to Herod and thereby avoid a mass slaughter. This does not imply that the sages accepted Herod as a legitimate king, as maintained for example by Rivkin 1978, pp. 51–52, 71–72, and others; rather, it attests to their political realism, aimed at averting a national catastrophe; cf. also Stemberger 1995, p. 116. The courts of law referred to as synedria, which served Herod during his reign, were always composed of foreign judges (Romans and Greeks), family relatives and royal “friends”; cf. Juster 1914, II, pp. 128 ff.; Efron 1987, pp. 311–312. In AJ XIV, 484 the dispute is downplayed, with only a brief reference in the text. In the pro-Herodian BJ (I, 354), by contrast, it is given much more prominence, with the emphasis on Herod’s determination to prevent the Romans from breaking into the Holy of Holies and glimpsing prohibited objects. Although it is tempting to doubt this statement, it is a plausible claim since after all Herod was then a Jewish king early in his reign, obliging him to exhibit at least as much concern for the sanctuary as the Roman conqueror of the East, Pompey the Great, had in his time (63 BCE).

86

4. Herod in the First Year of His Reign

cumstances, Sossius was able to acquiesce and instruct his troops to exit the city, and was even generous enough to offer a gold crown to the God of Israel (ibid., 357). (This last point has no parallel in AJ, which treats this episode rather tersely compared to BJ and was apparently censored by Josephus himself.) In our opinion, Sossius’ gift was obviously paid for by the same person who gave to him so liberally; under these circumstances, moreover, the bribing of Sossius and his army could only have been carried out in actual currency, and that could have come into Herod’s possession solely as a result of the organized robbery of the Jerusalem elite, with whom he was already well acquainted. He would later require much greater financial resources to satisfy his megalomanic desire to engage in colossal building projects; but this will be discussed at a later point, in keeping with Josephus’ chronology.

Execution of Mattathias Antigonus Despite his successful conquest of Jerusalem, Herod could not rest easy so long as he was unsure of the death of his great rival Mattathias Antigonus, who was being held captive by the Romans. The decision to execute him fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of Mark Antony in his capacity as supreme commander of the Syrian front in the war against the Parthians; but in reality, it was Herod who apparently pushed him into it. According to Josephus, his motives were directly connected to his “Hasmonaean trauma” (AJ XIV, 489–491): [489] Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man (Ìdióthv), that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. [490] Out of Herod’s fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavored to persuade him to have Antigonus slain, which if it were once done, he should be free from that fear. And thus did the government of the Hasmonaeans cease, a hundred twenty and six years after it was first set up. This family was a splendid and an illustrious one, both on account of the nobility of their stock, and of the dignity of the high priesthood, as also for the glorious actions their ancestors had performed for our nation; [491] but these men lost the government by their dissensions one with another, and it came to Herod, the son of Antipater, who was of no more than a vulgar family, and of no eminent extraction (oÌkíav 0nta dhmotikêv kaì génouv Ìdiwtikou), but

Execution of Mattathias Antigonus

87

one that was subject to other kings. And this is what history tells us was the end of the Hasmonaean family.8

The last section (491) evokes associations with the well-known Talmudic depiction of Herod as y)nwm#x tybd )db( (a slave of the Hasmonaean dynasty) (bBaba Bathra 3b). Josephus’ account is also a telling expression of Herod’s feelings of inferiority, a trait that stands out also in the Talmudic tradition. As will become clear below, even after he had rid himself of his great rival and attained the royal throne, Herod continued to suffer from a profound sense of inferiority, which turned into an obsessive complex that never left him. It is unclear whether Antigonus’ humiliation at the hands of Sossius – who treated him like a woman, calling him Antigone ()Antigónh) – was done in concert with Herod;9 but the decision to cut off his head with an axe was clearly taken in consultation with Herod and can be better understood as retaliation for the killing of his brother Joseph (who was himself decapitated after his death) by Antigonus himself or upon his orders.10 From Herod’s perspective, two considerations were at work here: on the one hand, avenging the humiliating death of his brother in keeping with the principle of lex talionis; and on the other, enhancing his own prestige by humbling his rival, something highly consistent with Herod’s way of thinking, as brought out in BJ I, 357 and AJ XV, 8–10.11 The possibility that he even bribed Antony to make such a decision is supported by an addendum to the Latin version of AJ XV, 8 stating explicitly that the act was committed “while he was bribed by Herod” (donisque Herodis redemptus). Since there are several well-known instances of bribery involving Antony (see for example 8

9

10

11

Such a description is absent from BJ, probably because Nicolaus (the source) wished to diminish Herod’s personal responsibility for the elimination of the Hasmonaean dynasty. See BJ I, 353; AJ XIV, 481. It is not inconceivable that Herod was involved in this act, considering his determination to humiliate his enemy; however, there is no direct support for this in Josephus’ writings. In BJ I, 325 we are told that Joseph was killed in battle, and that Antigonus took out his rage upon him by ordering his head cut off, completely ignoring Pheroras’ offer of fifty talents to redeem the corpse. According to AJ XIV, 450, Joseph died in battle after a brave fight in which he lost his entire army. When Antigonus seized the dead bodies, he cut off Joseph’s head, for which Pheroras had paid a ransom of fifty talents. However, AJ XIV, 464 offers a third version, according to which it was a subordinate of Antigonus by the name of Pappus who committed the crime, for which he was later punished in the same way by Herod (his decapitated head was even sent to Pheroras). These successive accounts suggest that Josephus himself was perplexed as to the correct version. Herod’s motivation for humiliating his enemy no doubt stemmed from his own feelings of inferiority.

88

4. Herod in the First Year of His Reign

AJ XIV, 382, 490), it is reasonable to assume that this was the case here as well. While Strabo, Tacitus, and Cassius Dio did not refer explicitly to Herod’s having initiated the execution, it can be understood indirectly from Strabo’s words as quoted in Josephus (AJ XV, 9–10): [8] “Antony ordered Antigonus the Jew to be brought to Antioch, and there to be beheaded. And this Antony seems to me to have been the very first man who beheaded a king, as supposing he could no other way bend the minds of the Jews so as to receive Herod, whom he had made king in his stead; for by no torments could they he forced to call him king, [10] so great a fondness they had for their former king; so he thought that this dishonorable death would diminish the value they had for Antigonus’s memory, and at the same time would diminish the hatred they bare to Herod.” Thus far Strabo.12

The claim that there was no precedent in Roman history for executing a king in such a humiliating manner13 might create the impression that Herod instigated the deed on the assumption that Antigonus was not a legitimate king from the Roman perspective as he had not been approved by Rome. In any event, the practice of executing prominent enemies in such a degrading fashion was certainly not unknown in Rome, as indicated by the beheading of rebellious Hasmonaean leaders already in the days of Pompey (BJ I, 152–154; AJ XIV, 73, 125) and the decapitation of the tyrant Dionysius of Tripolis (AJ XIV, 39). Ventidius the Syrian proconsul did likewise to Pacorus, son of the Parthian king (in 38 BCE), cutting off his head and displaying it in the mutinous cities of Syria to cause them to surrender.14 Mark Antony too, whom Herod revered, behaved in the selfsame manner when he 12

13

14

See Stern 1974, I, pp. 283–285; cf. Plutarch, Antony, 36, 4 (Stern, op. cit., pp. 568– 472); Cassius Dio, xlix, 22, 6 (Stern, op. cit., pp. 359–362). According to the latter account, Antigonus was brutally flogged while chained to a cross, a highly humiliating form of punishment that was forbidden for Roman citizens. It is later written that his throat was slit (apparently a variation on other sources citing his decapitation by an ax). It is unclear whether Cassius Dio relied on another source; either way, Herod’s involvement in the decision to execute Antigonus is alluded to in Cassius Dio’s account, especially given the haste with which the decision was taken and the fact that Antigonus was not brought to Rome for a triumph – in complete contrast to Antony’s original intent. In our opinion, the change of plans took place solely due to Herod’ efforts, largely involving bribery (AJ XIV, 490); cf. Stern 1991, pp. 454–455. Grant (1971, p. 59), by contrast, felt that the account of Herod’s recommendation to cut off Antigonus’ head derived from an anti-Herodian source, and should therefore be viewed with skepticism. In our opinion, however, his reservations are not persuasive, since they have no roots in the available written works. Cf. for example Cassius Dio, loc. cit. The beheading of Alexander son of Judas Aristobulus II (BJ I, 185; AJ XIV, 125) is irrelevant here since he was not a king but merely a prince; cf. also AJ XIV, 73. See: Cassius Dio, xlix, 20; Florus, II, 19; Plutarch, Antony, 34; Strabo, Geographica, XVI, 2, 8.

Execution of Mattathias Antigonus

89

abused the body of his hated rival Marcus Tullius Cicero in December 43 BCE. According to the description by Plutarch (Cicero, 47–48), supplemented by that of Cassius Dio (XLVII, 8), Antony ordered one of his tribunes to cut off Cicero’s head and right hand (or both hands) to be placed on public display on the speaker’s platform of the Forum Romanum (known as the Rostra), precisely where Cicero had made many of his famous speeches, including the so-called “Philippics,” directed against Antony. Granted, Cicero was not a king, but he was a consul (historically, tantamount to a substitute king) and considered the “father of the state” (Pater Patriae) who had saved the Republic from revolution (i. e. the famous revolt of Catiline). It is reasonable to assume that Herod did not find it difficult to persuade Antony to commit the deed, in light of the fact that he had done the same thing to his own well-known rival. Reading between the lines, the possibility also exists that Herod served Antony as an advisor of sorts on Jewish affairs. It is quite likely that Herod wished to retaliate against Antigonus for abusing the body of his brother Joseph (since Antigonus had ordered the beheading) – an act which had greatly upset Herod (BJ I, 325, 328, 331, 336; AJ XIV, 45–451). For precisely the same reason, Herod also cut off the head of Pappus, Antigonus’ commander, and sent it to his brother Pheroras (BJ I, 342; AJ XIV, 464). According to Suetonius (Augustus, 13), Octavian himself committed a similar act when he beheaded Brutus following the battle of Philippi (42 BCE) and sent the head to Rome to be flung at the statue of Julius Caesar, his adoptive father, indicating a clear intent to humiliate. It may well be that Herod was inspired by the contemporary practice of decapitation and saw it as worthy of emulation. It is unclear to what extent beheading was considered a humiliating form of death in biblical Israel. Should this be the interpretation of David’s act against Goliath the Philistine (I Samuel 17:50–51, 57)? And is this how we should view the beheading of Sheba ben Bichri, who revolted against King David and whose severed head was flung at Joab ben Zeruyah, thereby preventing the conquest of Avel Beit Ma’acha (II Samuel 20:21–22)? Since in both these cases, there was no clear statement of intent to debase or humiliate the dead, one can perhaps “understand” the motive (if barely) as simply the desire to publicize the death of an enemy.15 But this was not the case in the 15

Our thanks to Gershon Brin, who brought this possibility to our attention. The custom of ‘crucifixion’ over skewers ({ydwpy#) was common in the Assyrian Empire but was not accepted in Israel. It was intended to publicize the punishment, not necessarily to humiliate the convict; see Loewenstam, EB, II 1954, cols. 798–800.

90

4. Herod in the First Year of His Reign

post-biblical period, for example with respect to Holophernes, who was beheaded by Judith and his head hung from the walls of Jerusalem (Book of Judith 13:8, 14:11,15,18).16 II Macabees (1:16) recounts the beheading of Antiochus IV Epiphanes after he was killed while breaking into the temple of the Babylonian goddess Nanaea in Persia (or in Elymais). His dismemberment, and the flinging of his severed limbs and head toward his defeated men, was undoubtedly done to desecrate his body.17 The same is true of the beheading of Nicanor and the severing of his right hand so as to place them on public display in Jerusalem in order to shame him for cursing the God of Israel and brandishing a threatening hand toward His Temple.18 In the Mishnah as well (Sanhedrin 7:3), we find an instructive example of the humiliating aspect of decapitation, which was an accepted form of punishment under Roman law: “The ordinance of them that are to be beheaded [is this]: They used to cut off his head with a sword as the government [i. e., the Roman Empire] does. Rabbi Judah says: This is shameful for him; but, rather, they lay his head on a block and cut it off with an ax.19 They said to him: There is no death more shameful than this.” According to several Greco-Roman sources, this form of punishment was a legacy from Persia that was employed on more than one occasion during the Roman era against domestic enemies with the aim of humiliating them.20 In 1970, the archeologist Vassilios Tzaferis excavated a burial cave in Givat Hamivtar (Jerusalem) that contained a shelf with a sevenline Aramaic inscription in ancient Hebrew lettering (Paleo-Hebrew script), as follows: I Aba son of the priest / Elea(zar), son of Aaron the high (priest) , I / Aba the oppressed and the persecuted, / who was born in Jerusalem, / and went to exile into Babylonia and brought (back to Jerusalem) / Mattathi(ah) / son of Jud(ah) and I buried him in the / cave, which I acquired by the writ (trans. J. Naveh 1973; cf. E.-S. Rosenthal 1973, pp. 72–73).

At the time, the discovery generated a great deal of excitement, as several scholars proposed that the finding should be seen as evidence that the bones of Mattathias Antigonus were brought up to Jerusalem 16 17 18 19

20

There is no question that in this instance the intent was to publicly humiliate the victim, not least by preventing his timely burial. See D. Schwartz 2004, pp. 81–82. Bar-Kochva, pp. 368–372. The Hebrew term is jypwq, which is synonymous with {wdrq, namely an ax. Aspecial thank is offered to Abraham Tal who called our attention to this important evidence. See further: Bar-Kochva, p. 369, nn. 12, 14.

Execution of Mattathias Antigonus

91

from Antioch and buried in the ornate ossuary unearthed in the Jerusalem cave. Supporting this possibility was the name Mattatiah ben Yehudah, which almost inevitably was associated with Mattathias Antigonus son of Judas Aristobulus. 21 Since most scholars reject this theory, however, the inscription remains an intriguing puzzle. 22 There is no question that it was preferable to Herod as an individual that the execution of Antigonus be carried out by the Romans themselves, for in this way his personal involvement in the act could be mitigated in the eyes of the Jewish public. The fact that Antony himself had treated his rivals in a similar manner could also be used to obscure his role. And there was even reason to anticipate that the matter would not be an obstacle in realizing the benefits of his marriage to Mariamme the Hasmonaean, who was connected with a different, and rival, branch of the Hasmonaean dynasty. Indeed, he “got off lightly,” coming out of the entire episode free of any official charges and even with genuine political gains. However, despite being crowned king, and regardless of the solid Roman consensus in his favor, Herod remained consumed with fear that Roman policy toward him might change. As we saw earlier, he was convinced that his selection as king deviated from the traditional policy in countries under direct or indirect Roman rule, by which members of known royal dynasties, accepted by their subjects, were crowned king. Since this pragmatic strategy was aimed at preventing internal upheaval (in the form of riots and revolts), Herod was concerned that the Roman rulers might one day decide to return to 21 22

See: Tsaferis 1974, pp. 61–64 (Hebrew); Grintz 1974, pp. 20–23; idem 1979, pp. 245–262 (Hebrew); cf. Cornfeld 1982, pp. 64–65. Among the scholars opposed to the aforementioned identification are Naveh 1973, pp. 82–91; P. Smith 1977, 121–124; Lieberman 1991, pp. 393–398; and others. They assumed inter alia that the Paleo-Hebrew script of the Aramaic inscription, as well as the appellation “Aaron the High [Priest]” were an indication of the Samaritan origins of the deceased. It is obvious, however, that a Samaritan would not be buried in a Jerusalem cave, given the fact that relations between the Jews and Samaritans were marked by bitter hostility throughout the entire Second Temple period(!) The use of an entire sepulchral chamber for a single man was not the standard practice at the time; nor was the splendid ornamented ossuary placed on a special shelf beneath a colored inscription on the wall of the cave. The impression is that the deceased was indeed an important figure. It stands to reason that the use of Paleo-Hebrew script can be explained as an expression of nostalgia for the glorious past when the Hasmonaean rulers had used the same script for the selfsame reason when minting their coins (Meshorer 1997, pp. 29–57) – precisely the situation in modern-day Israel. In brief, the possibility proposed by Grintz that the deceased referred to in the Givat ha-Mivtar inscription can be identified with Mattathias Antigonus is not implausible but neither is it substantiated; cf, Lieberman 1969–74, pp. 374–379.

92

4. Herod in the First Year of His Reign

this approach, particularly when they became aware of the depth of Jewish hatred toward him. Such fears never left him, and in certain situations he was seized by crippling emotional distress. It would not be an overstatement to say that the entire course of his life was shaped by ongoing existential anxiety coupled with constant stress in the face of unexpected changes – changes whose future course was unpredictable, as were his own methods of coping with them. In principle, these fears had no real, discernible basis; but since they appeared so plausible to him, he perceived them as highly threatening. Such a pattern is typical of an individual with Paranoid Personality Disorder, who is caught in the grip of delusions entrenched in his consciousness, requiring him to marshal his full intellectual capacity to prove that his fears are rational.23

Marriage to Mariamme the Hasmonaean As we saw earlier, one of the persistent questions surrounding Herod’s marriage to Mariamme relates to the lengthy gap in time between his betrothal to her (in 42 BCE) and their marriage (37 BCE). This can be explained as a result of the extreme political turmoil in the Roman Empire and in Palestine itself, which was tied to the great Parthian invasion. But in fact we have come to realize that, in the wake of these events, Herod also suffered severe psychological difficulties that manifested themselves in insecurity and paranoid fears. 24 The marriage to Mariamme was held in the city of Samaria at the height of the Roman siege of Jerusalem (BJ I, 344; AJ XIV, 478) because it was only there that Herod felt sufficiently secure. He had cultivated close ties of friendship with the city since his appointment to the post of “strategos of Coele-Syria and Samaria” by Sextus Ceasar and later by Cassius, and having successfully mediated an internal dispute there in 43 BCE (BJ I, 229; AJ XIV, 248). During his campaign against Antigonus in 39–38 BCE, Samaria had been one of his key strongholds, and it was no accident that he settled his family there after rescuing them from Masada (BJ I, 303; AJ XIV, 413). He did not wait until the conquest of Jerusalem had been completed before 23 24

Fried & Agassi 1976, pp. 18, 24–25, 134 (n. 36), etc. Bar-Kochva (2003, p. 12, n. 21) was aware of this, but his main argument centered around Doris’ influence on Herod even after their divorce, since he speculated that they secretly maintained contact . We will be discussing this theory below.

Marriage to Mariamme the Hasmonaean

93

wedding Mariamme as he wished to present his marriage to as a fait accompli when he entered the city as king, thereby hoping to neutralize the people’s objections. It is quite possible that, in so doing, he also sought to avoid unnecessary provocation, since the inhabitants of Jerusalem were in any case likely to experience a bloodbath and pillaging at the hands of the Roman troops – which is indeed what took place. In other words, he considered it in bad taste to juxtapose the celebration of his marriage with the tragedy awaiting his subjects, if only because of the likelihood that his bride and her family would share this view of the situation and it would be advisable to take their feelings into consideration. In BJ, it is recounted that he took a respite from the siege to attend his marriage ceremony, thereby demonstrating his contempt for his embattled enemies. This version, however, reflects a Hellenist source hostile to the Hasmonaeans (Nicolaus or another author), and it has no parallel in AJ, which is generally more reliable. It is unlikely that Herod would have openly revealed such feelings of disdain, in particular since it was in his best interests not to add unnecessary strain to his already-tense relations with the Jewish people, as demonstrated by his efforts to stem the tide of looting by the Roman army following the conquest of Jerusalem. Thus it is reasonable to assume that he preferred to hold his wedding in Samaria, first and foremost for reasons of security but also due to the other considerations just cited. Incidentally, it seems that for the former reason he avoided getting married in Idumaea as he did not completely trust its inhabitants under these circumstances. 25 Herod’s marriage to Mariamme was the final stage in the process of winning the Judaean throne. It was at this point, we believe, that Herod had his first coins struck as king, referred to by Yaakov Meshorer as the “Samarian coins.”26 The fact that his divorce from his first wife Doris is mentioned explicitly in the same chronological context as his marriage to Mariamme (37 BCE) leads to the obvious conclusion that there was indeed a causal and circumstantial connection between the two events.27 Since it is not stated that the divorce resulted from an ultimatum on the part of the new bride or her mother 25 26 27

On the reasons for this, see Kasher 1990, p. 182. See Meshorer 1997, pp. 59–61. BJ I, 432; cf. also § 241. The closeness in time between the divorce and the marriage was noted by Smallwood (1981, p. 49) and Kokkinos (1998, p. 209). The mistaken impression concerning the proximity of Doris’ divorce to Mariamme’s betrothal must therefore be corrected.

94

4. Herod in the First Year of His Reign

Alexandra, one can infer that it was initiated by Herod himself as a gesture of appeasement to these two illustrious Hasmonaean women. There is no question that the divorce nullified Doris’ status as queen and of course her son Antipater’s chances of inheriting the throne as well. With Herod’s marriage to Mariamme the Hasmonaean, this privilege passed to her firstborn son, as officially expressed in Herod’s first will in 18/17 BCE, as we shall see below. In effect, Herod’s initiation of the divorce unintentionally, and paradoxically, exposed his sense of inferiority since the proximity between the divorce from Doris and the marriage to Mariamme revealed his desire to replace the distinguished “Idumaean-Jewish” wife of his youth with a Jewish princess of nobler birth – a daughter of the Hasmonaean royal family – who was also much younger and more beautiful. 28 This could of course be seen as proof that he was not bound by any great love for his first wife nor was he subject to her influence. 29 Ironically enough, in divorcing Doris he was blind to his own faults, exemplifying the well-known adage of Seneca: “Aliena vitia in oculis habemus, a tergo nostra sunt” (The vices of others stand full before our eyes; to our own, our backs are turned), for he himself – an “Idumaean-Jew” – rejected her on his own initiative as king of Judaea. There is no question that he entered into his marriage to Mariamme wholeheartedly since his political future depended, in large measure, on this union; nor could he have known, or anticipated, the failure of his new marriage. One can speculate that in the proximity between his marriage and his divorce, he was emulating his Roman patron Mark Antony, who acted similarly on three separate occasions(!) He banished his first wife, who was also his cousin (her name is unknown) on the suspicion that she had betrayed him with the tribune Dolabella (Plutarch, Antony, 9). In her stead, he married Fulvia, widow of the well-known tribune Claudius (46 BCE), to enhance his standing and social prestige (ibid., 28

29

According to Kokkinos’ (1998, pp. 211–212) calculations, Mariamme was about 20 years younger than Herod. She was apparently born in 53 BCE, betrothed to him at roughly twelve years of age (42 BCE), and married at the age of seventeen (37 BCE). Doris was younger than Herod by approximately ten years, and therefore was about ten years older than Mariamme. Mariamme’s beauty and its impact on Herod will be discussed at a later stage. Suffice it to state at this point that a bride’s beauty was a matter of great concern, as expressed in both Jewish-Hellenistic literature and in the halachic tradition; see Satlow 2001, pp. 116 ff. With regard to Herod, such a consideration was also evident in his marriage to Mariamme, daughter of Boethus (see below). In contrast to Bar-Kochva 2003, pp. 13–18.

Marriage to Mariamme the Hasmonaean

95

10). This distinguished woman, the wealthy daughter of a noble Roman family, was herself married three times: first, to a prominent tribune Claudius Pulcher; second, to Gaius Scribonius Curio (the younger), and third, to Mark Antony. When she died in Greece (40 BCE), Antony married Octavia, sister of Octavian, later casting her out (in the autumn of 37/36 BCE) in order to marry Cleopatra VII, Queen of Egypt. The short time span between Antony’s marriages and divorces stemmed in each instance from clearly identifiable political and social interests. A similar motive seems to have been at play in Herod’s divorce from his first wife Doris and his marriage to his second wife Mariamme the Hasmonaean; this was also the case with respect to certain of his subsequent marriages, for example, to Mariamme daughter of Boethus and to Malthace the Samaritan (to be discussed further below). We are unable to trace the fate of Doris during the period from 40 to 37 BCE; it is also unclear whether she hid from the Parthians and Antigonus in the desert regions of Idumaea as we speculated earlier, since Maresha (Marisa) and its environs were pillaged and utterly destroyed by the Parthian invaders (BJ I, 269; AJ XIV, 364). In fact, it is equally likely that she turned her sights toward the Nabataean city of Petra, especially given that Malichus the Nabataean king regretted his estrangement from Herod (BJ I, 278; AJ XIV, 370–373) and tried to effect a reconciliation (ibid., 375). This possibility, however, cannot be substantiated. In any event, Doris was forced to swallow the bitter pill of Herod’s betrothal to Mariamme, leaving her to secretly hope and pray for an unexpected change in her favor. For over three years from the time of Herod’s engagement to Mariamme, Doris did not have any contact with him, and he proved steadfast in his decision to marry the Hasmonaean princess. Even if we are to assume that he retained some degree of affection for the wife of his youth, we cannot ignore his determination to divorce her and marry Mariamme in her stead. Thus Doris was forced from this point onward to rely largely on providence and, to some extent as well, on her contacts, ingenuity, wisdom and cunning, in hopes that an opportunity might present itself to restore her good fortune – as indeed took place (see below, in the appropriate section). In any event, Doris’ fate immediately following Herod’s marriage to Mariamme is unclear from the sources. A rather confused and confusing account is offered in BJ I, 432–433: [432] For when he came to the government, he sent away her whom he had before married when he was a private person, and who was born at Jerusalem, whose name was Doris, and married Mariamme, the daugh-

96

4. Herod in the First Year of His Reign

ter of Alexander, the son of Aristobulus; on whose account disturbances arose in his family, and that in part very soon, but chiefly after his return from Rome. [432] For, first of all, he expelled Antipater the son of Doris, for the sake of his sons by Mariamme, out of the city, and permitted him to come thither at no other times than at the festivals. 30

The first section (432) was discussed earlier with respect to the date of Herod’s marriage to Mariamme and divorce from Doris, but is cited a second time here due to its connection to the following section (433), which is more problematic. 31 It is important to emphasize that the passage does not clarify the exact date of Antipater’s expulsion from Jerusalem, and it is unclear whether it took place immediately following the marriage to Mariamme, that is, concurrent with the divorce from Doris, or at a later point. Josephus’ tendency toward thematic writing in BJ is apparently what led to the lack of clarity on this point. Since the entire preceding chapter (BJ I, 401–430) is also written in this manner, it seems that Josephus was simply caught up in this approach in the opening of this chapter as well (that is, sections 432–433), in his efforts to portray the troubles that beset the house of Herod following the marriage to Mariamme. The statement that Antipater was banished out of consideration for Mariamme’s children suggests a date later than 37 BCE since Alexander, Mariamme’s oldest son, was born roughly one year later, that is, in 36 BCE, while Aristobulus, her second son, was born one or two years after him (i. e., in 35/34 BCE). 32 Although the phrase táceion (“at the start”) would seem to denote an earlier time,33 it could also indicate a point proximate to Herod’s departure to meet Antony in Laodicea (35/34 BCE) and following the death of his brother-in-law Aristobulus III. Antipater’s expulsion from Jerusalem was apparently carried out to assuage the fury of Mariamme and Alexandra at the sudden and tragic death of Aristobulus, whether in order to obscure Herod’s role in the murder plot or as a clever deceptive maneuver to neutralize their animosity and possible opposition (see below for a further discussion of the timing). No mention is made of where Antipater – who was all of 11 or 12 years old at the time – was banished, nor is it stated whether his mother Doris remained in Jerusalem or accompanied her 30 31 32 33

This may indicate that his place of exile was not too far from Judea and Jerusalem, making Idumaea a likely possibility. The fact that this passage has no parallel in AJ may indicate that Josephus was not confident of its accuracy. Cf. Kokkinos 1998, p. 208, 213. It was understood in this way by Whiston (“at the start”), Williamson (“first of all”), Thackeray (“in the first place”), and others.

Marriage to Mariamme the Hasmonaean

97

son. The second possibility appears more logical, if only for the simple reason that a mother would be likely to seek refuge for her son and herself among family members. The fact that there is no reference to Doris for the next 21 years (until 14 BCE) supports the conclusion that she was simply absent from Jerusalem all this time and could not have been “pulling the strings” of Herodian politics behind the scenes or directly involved in court intrigues – at least not at this point. 34 For if such were the case, Josephus (or more precisely, the source on which he based himself, most likely Nicolaus) would not have maintained such a lengthy silence with regard to her. Such reticence is also puzzling, given what we know of Nicolaus’ hostile attitude toward Doris, for he loathed her passionately and took pleasure in disparaging her whenever possible – something that he did frequently following her return to Jerusalem in 14 BCE. 35 It is misleading to present Doris as an impressive figure with great influence on Herod, who therefore showered her with such kindnesses as a second marriage, precious jewels (BJ I, 590; AJ XVII, 68), and the restoration of her right to the queen’s bed (i. e., Mariamme’s bed) in the palace (BJ I, 451). None of the sources suggest that these things were the result of her remarkable personality or of her being the beloved wife of Herod’s youth with whom he supposedly maintained secret ties throughout this lengthy period. 36 Can one ignore the fact of the 21-year rift that arises from the sources purely on the basis of conjecture? With regard to the royal bed, it is noted explicitly that this “achievement” resulted solely from the great influence of her son Antipater, and not her own merits. In general, the matter should not be seen as overly significant, since a similar struggle later took place between Glaphyra, wife of Alexander, and her sister-in-law, the wife of Aristobulus (i. e., the daughter of Salome, sister of Herod). These two ladies were not omnipotent in the royal court, and the dispute between them was a “women’s spat” of marginal importance. 37 Moreover, the word táceion in the opening sentence of the relevant passage gives the impression that it took some time before Antipater was successful in securing Doris’ right to resume use of the royal bed. 38 This may imply 34 35 36 37 38

This was in contrast to the view of Bar-Kochva 2003, p. 14; compare below. We shall be referring later in the course of our discussion to Doris’ resurgent fortunes in Jerusalem. This is the impression that arises from Bar-Kochva 2003, p. 14. See AJ XV, 204; cf. p. 98 in the present chapter. Not without reason did Thackeray (II, p. 213) and Cornfeld (1982, p. 98) translate this as “eventually”; cf. also Whiston (I 23, 2) and Williamson (1981, p. 88): “in time.”

98

4. Herod in the First Year of His Reign

that some intercession on his part was necessary, indicating that the outcome was not a foregone conclusion. From Antipater’s perspective, the matter of the bed was an important symbolic achievement of sorts since his mother’s status as “first lady” was thereby restored, even if his own standing as the true crown prince was underscored in such a trivial context. 39 To summarize, it was not so much Doris’ influence as that of her son Antipater that led to the change in Herod’s position, since it was Antipater who brought intense pressure to bear on his father both directly and indirectly, for example via Ptolemaeus, a friend of Herod’s who was his treasurer and keeper of the royal seal. Furthermore, in AJ XVI, 85, it is stated unequivocally that it was only after Antipater was confirmed by Augustus as crown prince that he began to exert pressure on his father until “he was at last so overcome by his persuasions, that he brought his mother to court also” (kaì télov 4tthqeìv Èpeisägage tÄn Èkeínou mhtéra).40 The implication: Herod was not happy to do so, and it was only as a result of pressure from his son that he changed his mind, and not due to Doris’ impressive personality nor to any sentimental feelings or special ties that he supposedly had with her. The portrayal of Doris as an “omnipotent” or “all-powerful” woman (pánta ¨n) (BJ I, 473) with influence over Herod derived from the period when her son Antipater had already become the prime mover behind the scenes in the tragic-pathetic Herodian drama (compare AJ XV, 78). Moreover, it emerges from a careful reading of the sources that Doris did not secure for herself such an “omnipotent” status immediately upon her return to Jerusalem but only four years later(!), that is, in roughly 10 BCE, and this was primarily due to Ptolemaeus, the “minister of the royal finances,” who was a member of the king’s inner circle (AJ XVI, 191).41 Ptolemaeus also held the post of “bearer of the royal seal,” and was even entrusted with safeguarding and executing the king’s last will and testament (BJ I, 666–669; AJ XVII, 195). 39

40

41

The matter of Mariamme’s bed is not mentioned in Antiquities. Josephus likely omitted it because he thought in might detract from Mariamme’s dignity, all the more so as he himself was related to her family. At any rate, Antipater’s efforts in this regard certainly suggest that he and his mother also suffered from feelings of inferiority. In AJ XVI, 78 it is stated in virtually identical language that Herod “was quite overcome by him [Antipater]” (kaì teléwv 4tthqeìv aÙjtou); cf. also § 153: “… quite overcome by that passion” (toútou toû páqouv 4tthméov Ìscurôv). Both passages have negative overtones. In Greek: dioikhtäv tôn têv basileíav pragmátwn); see Otto 1913, cols. 60 ff.; Schalit 1969, pp. 220 ff.; Roller 1998, 63–64.

New Arrangements in Conquered Jerusalem

99

Since the title “omnipotent” ascribed to Doris carries overtones of tendentiousness, sarcasm, and hostility on the part of Josephus (or Nicolaus), it is in fact a rather dubious label intended solely to expose her as a cunning, quarrelsome troublemaker. Hence it should not be perceived as “a weighty and surprising statement regarding the power of a woman in the kingdom of such an autocratic figure as Herod,”42 but should be viewed more realistically, in keeping with its context. One must not forget that Cyprus, Herod’s mother, and Salome his sister were a good deal more ambitious and dynamic than Doris and wielded an incalculably greater influence on Herod. Without the support of her son Antipater and his friend Ptolemaeus, it is doubtful that Doris would have left any imprint on the royal court. In reality, her description as “omnipotent” is doubtless drawn from the identical depiction of her two “partners,” and should in no way be taken on its own merits (cf. BJ I, 473).

New Arrangements in Conquered Jerusalem As stated earlier, one of Herod’s first steps after conquering Jerusalem (37 BCE) was the execution of 45 of the city’s notables, who were loyal to Mattathias Antigonus and may also have been among the members of the Great Sanhedrin or the delegates of the {ydwhyh rbx (the Congregation of the Jews), if indeed there was a difference between the two institutions. In any event, it is widely believed that the latter institution was the supreme representative body of the Jewish people in the Hasmonaean kingdom, that is, the aristocratic council of elders (Gerousia). {ydwhyh rbx is mentioned on the coins of each of the five Hasmonaean rulers authorized to strike coins: John Hyrcanus I, Judah Aristobulus I, Alexander Jannaeus, John Hyrcanus II, and Mattathias Antigonus.43 Herod completely abrogated the legal status and leadership role of these bodies, appointing in their stead a council of “relatives” and “friends,” that is a new institution whose function 42 43

So Bar-Kochva 2003, p. 14. On the variety of modern scholarly opinions regarding the so-called {ydwhyh rbx,” see Schürer 1973, I, p. 211; Rappaport 1993, pp. 280–288. Regarding Hasmonaean coins stamped with the phrase “Hever ha-Yehudim,” see further: Meshorer, 1997, pp. 29–57, 257–295 (plates 5–43). Worth noting here is the fact that although Simon the Hasmonaean was granted the privilege of minting coins as early as 142 BCE (as indicated in I Maccabees 13:41–42), he did not act upon it, probably for political reasons.

100

4. Herod in the First Year of His Reign

was solely advisory, in accordance with the accepted model in the Hellenist kingdoms. In any event, there was no longer any mention of the Jewish Council on Herod’s coins, indicating that the authentic symbols of Jewish sovereignty were totally obliterated and that political expression was a right enjoyed by his monarchy alone.44 The Sanhedrin in its Hasmonaean-era format was thus officially abolished, its jurisdiction now limited to the religious sphere, matrimonial law, and possibly civil judgments involving arbitration as well. In all of ancient Jewish literature on the Herodian era, there is not even the slightest hint of any genuine activity on the part of a Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem as in the past under the Hasmonaeans.45 It should be noted that not all courts of law referred to by the term sanhedrin that operated from the time of Herod and were mentioned by Josephus were Jewish in nature, for their panel of judges often consisted of Roman functionaries (primarily from the province of Syria) who were supporters of Herod, such as “the king’s relatives” and “the kings’ friends,” the majority of whom were not Jewish.46 Even the legal procedures on which these courts were based are not at all reminiscent of Jewish judicial practice, in addition to which they were totally lacking in Jewish roots and had no connection to the Jewish Torah.47 In fact, Herod appointed his “sanhedrins” (or synedria) chiefly for capital cases(!) Their verdicts were rendered according to his will and in keeping with his explicit instructions and expectations, and of course their composition was not at all Jewish. In the foreign political arena, by contrast, and especially in his relations with Rome and with other political powers in the eastern Mediterranean Basin, Herod was generally successful in his policies, managing to reap international renown for his many achievements. This dichotomy between his strained and tenuous domestic relations and his policy triumphs abroad was to accompany him for most of his life. As we shall see below, this duality compounded his frustrations and was one of the salient factors underlying his emotional stress and sense of insecurity.

44 45 46 47

It is important to emphasize that pagan symbols were also stamped on his coins, see Meshorer 1997, pp. 60–62. See further: Efron 1987, pp. 287–338. These were common titles in Hellenistic royal courts of the Mediterranean basin. See Alon 1957, I, p. 41; Efron 1967, p. 264; idem 1987, p. 312; Ben-Shalom 1993, pp. 49–50; Fuks 2002, pp. 238–245.

Chapter 5 Roots and Ramifications of the Hasmonaean Trauma (37–34 BCE) The Problem of John Hyrcanus II After conquering Judaea and Jerusalem and ridding himself of the threat posed by his Hasmonaean rival Mattathias Antigonus, Herod should logically have devoted himself to consolidating his rule. But while the removal of this major threat did offer him some relief, in keeping with his Paranoid Personality Disorder he immediately shifted to confronting other dangers that he considered significant, namely, eliminating any potential challenger who might jeopardize his throne. One of the major dangers, in his view, was John Hyrcanus II, despite the fact that he did not reside in Jerusalem at the time, was already advanced in years, and was in any case considered to be a weak and lackluster individual.1 There is no question that this “threat” was baseless and even bordered on persecutory thinking. But Herod was greatly bothered by the fact that during Hyrcanus’ residence in Babylonia, he had enjoyed unprecedented royal honors (AJ XV, 15). It seems that Herod also bore him great resentment for not taking his side in 47 BCE but instead acceding to the public’s call to put him on trial before the Sanhedrin for the murder of Hezekiah the Galilean and his men. As stated earlier, individuals suffering from Paranoid Personality Disorder typically bear grudges and are incapable of forgiving or forgetting any offense, real or imagined. Moreover, it seems that despite the fact that Hyrcanus was disqualified from serving as a priest due to a physical defect (the severing of his ears), Herod still felt he posed a political threat as this did not bar him in principle from serving as king. He feared that fate would one day mock him, and conditions would be such that the Romans would seek Hyrcanus’ 1

For details on his age and character see the discussion of his execution (30 BCE), below p. 156.

102

5. Roots and Ramifications of the Hasmonaean Trauma

return from Babylonia and favor him over Herod as a legitimate ruler and the scion of the Hasmonaeans as well. These concerns were obviously groundless since Herod was considered Mark Antony’s closest ally and one of the major partners in the fight against the Parthians and their henchmen. The war against them was not yet over and there was no reasonable basis for assuming that Antony would turn his back on his loyal ally at this of all times. Nonetheless, as a result of Herod’s fears and his unrealistic interpretation of the situation, it is noted that “he was afraid, and that upon reasons good enough, of a change in his condition, and so made what haste he could to get Hyrcanus into his power, or indeed to put him quite out of the way; which last thing he compassed afterward.” (AJ XV, 20; cf. 155 ff.). Even in this context, Josephus emphasized Herod’s nagging fear that his coronation was “without … any just claim,” that is, unlawful in terms of Jewish law. In BJ I, 434, it is stated even more explicitly that Hyrcanus aroused Herod’s fear and anger, not because Hyrcanus “made any attempt to gain the kingdom”, but because the kingship truly belonged to him, that is, was due him not only according to Jewish law but also in keeping with the traditional Roman policy of crowning a candidate who had legitimacy in the eyes of his subjects and was, at the same time, loyal to Rome. Such thinking under these circumstances was of course totally unrealistic, but in Herod’s eyes it was a distinct and frightening possibility, bordering on a paranoid delusion. In order to lure Hyrcanus to Jerusalem, Herod hid his intentions with a display of flattery (“he called him his father, and endeavored, by all the ways possible, that he might have no suspicion of any treacherous design against him” [AJ XV, 21]), going so far as to misleadingly pledge to make him a partner in his kingdom (ibid., 18). 2 Hyrcanus in fact swallowed these false promises and returned to Jerusalem (36 BCE). But the fact that his execution was only carried out six years later (30 BCE), when the appropriate opportunity presented itself to Herod (see below), proves that he posed no real danger from the start. 3 Furthermore, the fact that Herod clung to this view for so long and did not abandon his scheme to eliminate Hyrcanus, 2

3

Jones’ (1938, p. 52) opinion that Herod supposedly sought Hyrcanus’ return so as to consolidate his own prestige in Jerusalem is highly perplexing, since Josephus wrote precisely the opposite. Osterley (1932, p. 354, 360) even suggested that there was indeed a prospective “threat” posed to Herod by Hyrcanus; but as this is not supported by any source, it must remain strictly in the realm of speculation.

The Problem of John Hyrcanus II

103

indicates that he was obsessed throughout this period with fears and paranoid thinking with respect to him. It appears that Herod attempted to rationalize these thoughts and urges by harboring the suspicion that Hyrcanus had had a hand in the death of his father Antipater (see above, p. 47–48). Only a short time after Herod’s conquest of Jerusalem (37 BCE), the first cracks began to appear within the familial constellation, although these were not immediately noticeable. Contributing to this state of affairs, in our opinion, was the extended, forced stay in Masada and Samaria of Herod’s close relatives (namely, his mother Cyprus; his sister Salome, or Shlomzion;4 and his younger brother Pheroras) along with members of the Hasmonaean dynasty (Mariamme his betrothed, her younger brother Aristobulus, and their mother Alexandra), spanning the years 40–37 BCE. 5 The constant friction between the two sides, amid the intense pressures of war and besiegement, set the stage for the emergence of tensions, mistrust and strife; this, at a time when their living space was very limited and they were cut off from any contact with the outside world. Such conditions led to over-involvement in one another’s lives and to conflict, hostility, and inevitable clashes. Social and cultural differences between the two families were also sources of tension in this case. The Hasmonaean women were very proud of their social standing as members of a family of high priests and a prestigious and revered royal dynasty. The Idumaean women, by contrast, suffered from a collective sense of inferiority, yet at the same time, demanded the honor due them as mother and sister of the reigning king.6 In such situations, one spark is sometimes enough to ignite a major conflagration. Herod was not always available to mediate between the sides, in addition to which he was not suited to the role of family “caretaker” and mediator. The tension between both parts of his extended family led to mutual suspicion and mistrust, fears, jealousy and vindictiveness. And such an atmosphere may well have served as a catalyst for Herod’s paranoid thought processes, as we shall see below. 4

5 6

The Hebrew name tym©# or tymwl# dates back to the Old Testament; see B. Mandelkeren 1959, p. 1524; idem, BE, VI, cols. 684–686. From the Hellenistic period onward, it is transcribed in Greek as Salömh (Salome). The Aramaic variations of the Second Temple period and later, namely ycml# ,wcml# ,hycml# ,}ycml# ,}wycml# ,}wycmwl# are also familiar from Jewish epigraphy and Talmudic literature alike; for further information, see: Ilan 2002, pp. 249–253. See BJ I, 263–264, 281, 294, 303; AJ XIV, 353, 397, 400, 413, 467. Mayer-Schärtel 1995, pp. 54 ff., 191–196, 293 ff.

104

5. Roots and Ramifications of the Hasmonaean Trauma

The Murder of Aristobulus III At the same time, Herod felt – as a result of his personality structure, specifically, his fears and suspiciousness – that he was in imminent danger from his young brother-in-law Aristobulus. According to his warped perception, this threat appeared much more acute than the one posed by John Hyrcanus II. Aristobulus had been appointed High Priest on the initiative of his mother Alexandra, who lobbied on his behalf at the highest echelon of Roman decision-makers in the Eastern territories, namely, Cleopatra VII, queen of Egypt, and Mark Antony, her Roman patron (AJ XV, 24, 33, 45–48). This aroused Herod’s fear that the young Hasmonaean would likewise be crowned king in his stead, as there was no “legitimate” heir more worthy than him of renewing the glory of his distinguished family. Herod, by contrast, was not only of Idumaean extraction and lacked the appropriate lineage but his Jewish subjects considered him a “half-Jew,” that is, a non-Jew ineligible to serve as king according to the laws of the Torah (Deuteronomy 17:15). From his paranoid perspective, it was therefore necessary for him to make a “pre-emptive strike” in order to address this danger and block his brother-in-law’s path to the high priesthood. For this reason, he hastened to appoint Ananel the Babylonian to the post (AJ XV, 22),7 on the grounds that his brother-in-law was still very young and not yet mature enough for this lofty position (cf. ibid., 34–35). Herod assumed, reasonably enough, that since his candidate lacked roots in the Palestinian Jewish community loyal to the Hasmonaean dynasty, he would be dependent solely on himself as the person who had appointed and supported him. Such an appointment could also set a precedent for the future, giving him a means of power and control over the High Priest.8 In the words of Josephus (AJ 7

8

Many scholars are inclined to identify Ananel (l)nnx) the Babylonian with Hanamel (l)mnx) the Egyptian, who is mentioned in mParah, iii, 4; see e. g. Derenbourg 1867, p. 551, n. 1; Graetz 1893, p. 488; Otto 1913, col. 36; Moore 1932, pp. 75–76; Safrai 1965, p. 81 and n. 155; Zeitlin 1968, II, p. 7; Klausner 1951, IV, p. 12; idem 1969, I, p. 212; Schalit 1969, pp. 101, 694 ff.; Jeremias 1969, pp. 66–69; Smallwood 1981, p. 69; Stern 1991, pp. 190–191; Kasher 1996a, 63–64 and n. 26; Regev 2005, p. 315. However, except for an etymological association based on the similarity of names, there is no decisive proof for this assertion as yet. Cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, I, vi, 9–10: “Of this, too, you have Josephus as a valuable witness, for he explains how Herod, when he was entrusted with the kingdom by the Romans, no longer appointed high priests of the ancient race but assigned the honour to certain obscure persons … The same writer explains how Herod was the first to lock up and keep under his own seal the sacred robe of the high priest, for he no longer allowed the high priest to keep in their own charge, and

The Murder of Aristobulus III

105

XV, 23–24), Alexandra “could not bear this indignity … (She) was much disturbed, and took this indignity offered to her son exceeding ill, that while be was alive, any one else should be sent for to have the dignity of the high priesthood conferred upon him.” Therefore she wrote of this matter to her friend Cleopatra, asking her to intervene with Antony to thwart the move and smuggling the letter to her with the help of an officer of Herod’s court. It seems that Mariamme as well “lay vehemently at him to restore the high priesthood to her brother” (ibid., 31). The familial pressure of the Hasmonaean women apparently had no small effect on him, and he became fearful that Cleopatra and Antony would rush to intercede, thereby exposing a major weak point in his reign. Having no other choice, he quickly withdrew Ananel’s appointment and unwillingly entrusted the high priesthood to Aristobulus. But this was merely a tactical retreat, and only intensified the potential threat and its inherent dangers, as he saw them. As his fear and anxiety grew, he even considered extreme steps; indeed, in keeping with his assessment of the severity of the situation, he plotted to assassinate his brother-in-law and, in so doing, “solve the problem” once and for all. It is interesting to note at this juncture the turnaround that took place in his attitude toward his mother-in-law Alexandra. At the time of the Parthian invasion and conquest of Jerusalem (40 BCE), he had heeded her advice since “he believed her as a woman of very great wisdom.” (AJ XIV, 351) and was not ensnared, like his brother Phasael, into negotiating with the Parthians.9 But in the present situation (35 BCE), he already related to her as an outright enemy who was undermining and acting against him at the highest levels of Roman decisionmaking. This pattern is consistent with that of an individual suffering from Paranoid Personality Disorder, who abruptly turns those whom he had previously trusted and relied upon into enemies the moment they disappoint him – although, in the case of Alexandra, his fears were not without basis (see note 29, below). Given these circumstances, one can perhaps understand Herod’s great concern over the visit to Judaea at the time by Dellius, a close

9

his successor, Archelaus, and after him the Romans, pursued the same policy.” See also Kasher 1996a, pp. xi–xii; Levine 2000, p. 49; Regev 2005, pp. 315–319. However, in the parallel version of BJ I, 262 it is stated that it was Mariamme – “the shrewdest woman in the world” – who implored Herod not to rely on the Parthians and not to trust them. But a minor mistake found its way into the source, since Mariamme, rather than Alexandra, is referred to here as the daughter of Hyrcanus; cf. Thackeray, II, 123 and n. a; Marcus, II, pp. 634–635 (n. a).

106

5. Roots and Ramifications of the Hasmonaean Trauma

friend of Antony’s who was also his lover.10 Struck by the beauty of Aristobulus and Mariamme, Dellius suggested to their mother Alexandra that icons be painted of them and sent to Antony. He planted in her mind the illusion that, at the sight of their portraits, Antony would fulfill all her wishes, thereby enabling her to speed her son’s path to the high priesthood and perhaps the royal throne as well (AJ XV, 25–30).11 Dellius was intimately acquainted with Antony’s sexual predilections; hence, in his letter to him, he offered ecstatic praise of the beauty of the siblings, who were as if “these children seemed not derived from men, but from some god or other” (ibid., 27). Antony was indeed enthused by the description, but refrained from having Mariamme sent to him, whether because she was married to his friend Herod or because of the likely objections from a jealous Cleopatra. Nevertheless, he made a polite and sanctimonious request that Aristobulus be dispatched to him. As Josephus goes on to recount (AJ XV, 29–30): [29] When this letter (of Dellius) was brought to Herod, he did not think it safe for him to send one so handsome as was Aristobulus, in the prime of his life, for he was sixteen years of age, and of so noble a family, and particularly not to Antony, the principal man among the Romans, and one that would abuse him in his amours, and besides, one that openly indulged himself in such pleasures as his power allowed him without control. [30] He therefore wrote back to him, that if this boy should only go out of the country, all would be in a state of war and uproar, because the Jews were in hopes of a change in the government, and to have another king over them.12

It is difficult, however, to accept the assumption that Antony was susceptible to sexual bribery (as suggested above), since at first glance such a notion appears too sordid to be credible. Even if we treat seri10

11

12

Cassius Dio, xlix, 39. Josephus himself was aware of Antony’s bisexual inclinations (below). The historian Quintus Dellius chronicled Antony’s war against the Parthians; see Schalit 1969, p. 90 (nn. 117–118). The reservations raised by Schalit (p. 105), as well as the story about the portraits of Mariamme and her brother Aristobulus (below), are not sufficiently convincing. If we are to believe Josephus, even after Aristobulus’ death Alexandra did not lose hope that if Antony were but to glimpse Mariamme’s beauty, “by [this] means they should recover the kingdom, and want nothing which was reasonable for them to hope for, because of their royal extraction” (AJ XV, 73). All of these details are missing from the parallel version of BJ I, 438–440, in which we are informed that Mariamme herself took the initiative of sending the portraits, and was therefore accused of adultery (moiceía) and fornication (Àsélgeia). One should not deduce too much from this, since there is good reason to believe that this defamation of Antony’s character stemmed from propagandistic motives on the part of those who would later become his opponents, namely the supporters of his future rival Octavian (see next note).

The Murder of Aristobulus III

107

ously the accounts of Antony’s licentious tendencies, as depicted in Plutarch’s one-sided biography and other accounts, it is still unlikely that Alexandra was tempted to believe that important political gains could be extracted from Antony in this perverse manner, particularly since such a move was liable to jeopardize her ties with Cleopatra and expose the sexual weaknesses of the latter’s lover Antony. On the whole, Dellius’ account appears to be nothing more than later literary gossip, artificially concocted by the apologetic pro-Herodian source that formed the basis for the account brought by Josephus. The story was apparently intended to place Herod in a good light and present him as the victim of a devious conspiracy whose members would not hesitate to stoop to the lowest levels of decency.13 It is also unlikely that Antony overlooked the fact that Aristobulus was not only the son of Alexandra and grandson of John Hyrcanus II but also the grandson of Judah Aristobulus II and the son of Alexander, one of the Hasmonaean leaders who had waged a revolt against Rome in the time of Gabinius (57–56 BCE), or that he forgot that he himself (Antony) had fought valiantly against them (AJ XIV, 84, 86, 124). According to Josephus (AJ XV, 24, 26), Alexandra’s letter to Cleopatra prompted Antony to seek clarification from Herod regarding Aristobulus’ appointment as High Priest. While this point is plausible, Antony’s request that Herod send Aristobulus to Egypt for an assignation with him, as well as Herod’s refusal and apology, are totally illogical for the aforementioned reasons.14 In any event, Alexandra’s ties with Cleopatra, whose likelihood is not in doubt, were very worrisome to Herod, forcing him “not entirely permit the child or Alexandra to be treated dishonorably” (ibid., 31) but to proceed with great caution and forethought. For this reason, he convened the “king’s friends” in an emergency session in the presence of his mother-in-law Alexandra and his wife Mariamme, where he expressed his fear of a 13

14

In our opinion, Zeitlin (1968, pp. 272 ff.) overstated the importance of this factor, owing to the mistaken impression that Antony was completely addicted to a wanton and licentiousness lifestyle. He was most likely influenced in this regard by Appian, Civil Wars, 4, 38 and Plutarch, Antony, 25–28, 451–454. But in fact there is no need to take this line of thinking to extremes, since despite a few missteps, Antony showed himself capable of functioning as a shrewd politician during the events of 36–34 BCE. The inclination to defame him can be better understood against the backdrop of his later rivalry with Octavian-Augustus. Otto (1913, col. 37) questioned the reference to the sending of portraits, as these would have been prohibited under Jewish law. Although Macurdy (1937, p. 68) rightfully raised the counterargument that during Herod’s reign such a strict halachic approach was not the norm, the story is doubtful in any event for the aforementioned reasons.

108

5. Roots and Ramifications of the Hasmonaean Trauma

conspiracy to remove him from the throne. In the words of Josephus (ibid., 32–33): [32] So he called his friends together, and told them that Alexandra privately conspired against his royal authority, and endeavored, by the means of Cleopatra, so to bring it about, that he might be deprived of the government, and that by Antony’s means this youth might have the management of public affairs in his stead; [33] and that this procedure of hers was unjust, since she would at the same time deprive her daughter of the dignity she now had, and would bring disturbances upon the kingdom.

He even tried to justify Ananel’s appointment by claiming that Aristobulus was too young for this lofty office (ibid., 34).15 Josephus himself made a strongly critical comment on the matter (ibid., 35): Now when he had said this, not at random, but as he thought with the best discretion he had, in order to deceive the women, and those friends whom he had taken to consult withal.

While the involvement of Alexandra and Cleopatra thwarted Herod’s plans at this point, since he did dismiss Ananel and appoint Aristobulus in his place (in early 35 BCE), this setback prodded him to seek a more radical solution, as we shall see below. In any case, Herod’s speech at this assembly of friends cast a pall of suspicion over Alexandra and was thus a serious warning to her, which indeed alarmed her greatly. Granted, she was pleased with achieving the appointment of her son Aristobulus as High Priest, but she was also struck by fear of Herod. Not without reason did she tearfully rush to justify her actions, stating that her efforts regarding the priesthood stemmed mainly from a desire to defend her son’s honor and from her deep love of family, and only to a lesser degree from her natural assertiveness (ibid., 37). But to dispel any suspicion, she argued that “as to the kingdom, she had made no attempts” (ibid., 36).16 Her declaration, however, failed to placate Herod; nor did her words of flattery that [now] she would be satisfied with her son’s dignity, while he himself held the civil government, and she had thereby the security that arose from his peculiar ability in governing to all the remainder of her family; that she was now overcome by his benefits, and thankfully accepted of this honor showed by him to her son, and that she would hereafter be entirely obedient. And she desired him to excuse her, if the nobility of her family, and that freedom of acting which she thought that allowed her, had made her act too precipitately and imprudently in this matter (ibid., 36–37). 15 16

In AJ XV, 51 it is stated that Aristobulus III was fifteen years of age at the time; in BJ I, 437 no mention is made of his age. In our opinion, these words can indicate the opposite, as will be seen on other occasions.

The Murder of Aristobulus III

109

Once he perceived her as having joined the list of his dangerous enemies, all her begging and pleading – which could actually be interpreted by him as evidence of her menace and cunning – were of no use, and he marked her as a target for elimination. But since he had no pretext, following her declaration, for placing her on trial for treason and subversion, he decided to wait for an opportune time to settle accounts with her. In the meantime, he acted as though he was indeed appeased (ibid., 38): So when they had spoken thus to one another, they came to an agreement, and all suspicions, so far as appeared, were vanished away.

Josephus even made a point of emphasizing, as events were to prove, that the reconciliation between the two was actually false and illusory (ibid., 42–43): [42] And now Herod seemed to have healed the divisions in his family; yet was he not without suspicion, as is frequently the case, of people seeming to be reconciled to one another, but thought that, as Alexandra had already made attempts tending to innovations, so did he fear that she would go on therein, if she found a fit opportunity for so doing; [43] so he gave a command that she should dwell in the palace, and meddle with no public affairs. Her guards also were so careful, that nothing she did in private life every day was concealed.

Infuriated at the constant surveillance, the proud Alexandra secretly made contact once again with Cleopatra and made a long complaint of the circumstances she was in, and entreated her to do her utmost for her assistance (ibid., 45). From the wording of the last sentence, it would appear that even Cleopatra felt that she had no chance of influencing Antony in this matter. She therefore advised her friend to flee Jerusalem in secret together with her son and make her way quickly to Egypt. Alexandra heeded her suggestion, but her attempt to escape with her son in two coffins under cover of darkness was unsuccessful. One of her men informed on her, hoping to repair his relationship with Herod, damaged as a result of the suspicion that he had been a party to the assassination of his father Antipater (AJ XV, 45–48). In the words of Josephus (ibid., 48–49): [48] … and (Herod) caught her in the very fact; but still he passed by her offense; and though he had a great mind to do it, he durst not inflict any thing that was severe upon her, for he knew that Cleopatra would not bear that he should have her accused, on account of her hatred to him; but made a show as if it were rather the generosity of his soul, and his great moderation, that made him forgive them. [49] However, he fully proposed to himself to put this young man out of the way, by one means or other; but he thought he might in probability be better concealed in

110

5. Roots and Ramifications of the Hasmonaean Trauma

doing it, if he did it not presently, nor immediately after what had lately happened.17

As stated earlier, the appointment of Aristobulus to the high priesthood could be seen as a step imposed upon Herod by Antony with the intent of placating Cleopatra. From Herod’s perspective, it may even have offered him a short-term tactical advantage by giving the impression that he simply had no choice but to humbly comply; at the same time, it also created the illusion that this was a conciliatory step on his part to restore peace and quiet. It seems that he sought to lull the Hasmonaean family and their supporters into a false sense of security regarding the plot to eliminate Aristobulus. At this point, he had not yet plucked up the courage to carry out his plan; as conditions were still not ripe for such a move, he was forced to await the appropriate opportunity. The outward appearance of restraint and appeasement was nothing more than a tactic for buying time and sowing deception regarding the future execution of his young brother-in-law.18 At the public gathering for the Sukkot festival in late 35 BCE,19 Herod received additional “support” and “justification” for his plan to remove the popular young priest after being tormented by his impressive appearance as he performed his duties. In the words of Josephus (AJ XV, 51–53): [51] (F)or when this youth Aristobulus, who was now in the seventeenth year of his age, went up to the altar, according to the law, to offer the sacrifices, and this with the ornaments of his high priesthood, and when he performed the sacred offices, he seemed to be exceedingly comely, and taller than men usually were at that age, and to exhibit in his countenance a great deal of that high family he was sprung from, – [52] a warm zeal and affection towards him appeared among the people, and the memory of the actions of his grandfather Aristobulus was fresh in their minds; and their affections got so far the mastery of them, that they 17

18 19

Schalit (1969. pp. 110–111, n. 47) expressed certain reservations regarding the truth of this story, since the attempt to escape Jerusalem in coffins recalls the Talmudic account of the flight of Rabban Johanan son of Zakkai from the besieged city of Jerusalem during the Great Revolt. However, this is insufficient reason to doubt the veracity of Josephus’ narrative. Why not conclude the opposite, namely, that it is the Talmudic tradition that is doubtful, since it was based on an oft-used literary motif, as indicated by Schalit? Moreover, Alon (1957, I, pp. 219–252, esp. 238 ff.) had already exposed its historical weaknesses. Compare on this point the logical analysis of Schalit (1969, pp. 107 ff.) with that of Otto. Regarding the date, see Schürer 1973, I, pp. 287–288, and nn. 3–4; Klausner 1958, IV, p. 14. Taking issue with this opinion are Otto (1913, pp. 36–40), Schalit (1969, pp. 110–111, n. 48) and Smallwood (1981, pp. 65–66 and n. 16), who date the event one year earlier.

The Murder of Aristobulus III

111

could not forbear to show their inclinations to him. They at once rejoiced and were confounded, and mingled with good wishes their joyful acclamations which they made to him, till the good-will of the multitude was made too evident; and they more rashly proclaimed the happiness they had received from his family than was fit under a monarchy to have done. [53] Upon all this, Herod resolved to complete what he had intended against the young man.

This emotional description clearly alludes to Herod’s inferiority complex, which did not stem solely from his humble Idumaean origins. His jealousy and feelings of inadequacy were apparently also due to his physical appearance and short stature in comparison with the unique beauty and commanding height of his brother-in-law Aristobulus.20 A similar phenomenon would later emerge in his attitude toward his son Alexander, who was also the object of Herod’s envy as a result of his imposing physique, his striking beauty, and his proficiency as an archer. 21 It is noteworthy that in the only passage in Josephus’ writings that relates to Herod’s physical attributes (BJ I, 429–430), no mention is made of his height or outward appearance but only of his strength and amazing skill as a hunter and fighter. This is enough to raise the question: Can we deduce from this that the version in War, which relies mostly on the writings of Nicolaus of Damascus, deliberately omitted a description of his appearance since he was in fact not a tall or impressive-looking man but rather a short and nondescript individual? The psychological ramifications of this information could be highly significant, helping to explain his profound feelings of inferiority and his intense need to compensate for them. 22 There is no question that one must also take into account in this context the collective sense of inferiority regarding his social origins, as a result of which he was considered a “non-Jew” or “half-Jew,” rejected and, to no small degree, scorned by Jewish society.23 In Herod’s obsessive desire to rid himself of Aristobulus, Schalit likened him to “one possessed of a demon” – except that according to our interpretation, based on modern-day psychology, the “demon” was simply his own Paranoid Personality Disorder. Schalit’s words in this context amply reinforce our own position: “Herod’s character was such that it obscured the possibility of any lucid thought when the fear had been evoked in him that the reins of power might pass to 20 21 22 23

See clear references to this also in AJ XV, 23, 25–27, 29, 60. AJ XV, 247–248; we shall be returning to this topic later. On the need to compensate for feelings of inferiority stemming from an unattractive appearance or physical defects, see for example Barchfeld 1952, p. 143. See chapter 1, above, p. 19, 22–23 and nn. 4, 20; also chapter 3, pp. 74.

112

5. Roots and Ramifications of the Hasmonaean Trauma

someone else, in particular to the son of the family that had brought him down from the heights of greatness. Even in the difficult circumstances following the battle of Actium, the force of Herod’s drive to rule was so great that it induced the king (i. e., himself) to remove the imagined threat by means of a despicable murder. He was unable to weigh the matter with a clear head and see that such an act was not in his best interests for the simple reasons cited above. Essentially, this wild unleashing of Herod’s ingrained urges was brought about by the fact that he conducted his domestic policy in accordance with the principle that there could be no security for himself and his household as long as the Hasmonaean dynasty remained undestroyed. This notion was for him a basic axiom and the foundation of his political course: from the moment he rose to power, he did not deviate from it. When circumstances arose that appeared to dictate the destruction of those Hasmonaean descendants who were worthy of the throne, once again Herod was incapable of lucid thought and his sharp intelligence failed him, to the point where he could not grasp the arguments against such an act of destruction. Caught up in his fear of the Hasmonaean dynasty, he was immediately ready and willing emotionally to carry out the murder, and could not weigh or reflect on the deed except with regard to the manner of its commission. He behaved in this manner toward both the young Aristobulus and the elderly Hyrcanus.”24 In the version of BJ I, 437, it is written that Aristobulus was drowned by Gallic mercenaries in service to Herod, but this statement is anachronistic inasmuch as these soldiers were hired by him for the first time only in 30 BCE (BJ I, 397; AJ XV, 217), while Aristobulus was killed five years earlier.25 The discrepancy can be reconciled if one accepts the argument that this was nothing more than a slip of the pen on Josephus’ part and should not be seen as a textual proof intended to deny Herod’s responsibility for the murder. To conclude this episode, it is worth returning to the emotional description of Aristobulus’ service in the Temple as a factor in hastening Herod’s decision to eliminate him, since he saw in Aristobulus a significant threat to his rule. The depiction exposes not only Herod’s torment as a result of his inferiority complex over his origins but also his jealousy stemming from the rejection he felt at the sight of the Jew24

25

Translated from the Hebrew version of Schalit 1963 (pp. 73–74 and note 105); cf. idem 1969, pp. 125–126 (n. 105). The execution of John Hyrcanus II (30 BCE) will be discussed below. For this reason, Otto (1913, col. 42) rightly preferred the version of AJ; cf. also Thackeray II, p. 206, n. b; Osterley 1932, p. 357; Schalit 1969, p. 113 (n. 52).

Alexandra and Cleopatra’s Influence on Antony

113

ish public openly demonstrating such sweeping support, without fear of his own threatening presence on this occasion. The paranoid ramifications on his behavior, and of course on his murderous scheme, are patently obvious. 26 In AJ XV, 403–404, Josephus writes that following the death of Aristobulus III, Herod kept the ceremonial robe of the High Priest in the Ha-Birah (citadel) under his watchful eye. Ostensibly, he was continuing the traditional practice, but in truth he sought to extend his patronage over the high priests and keep them under close supervision. The Roman proconsuls would later follow in his footsteps, as noted explicitly by Josephus (ibid.).

Alexandra and Cleopatra’s Influence on Antony Regarding the Laodicea Meeting The murder scheme ultimately succeeded; but the same could not be said of the efforts to conceal it. It is recounted that Alexandra became “more querulous and resentful” (AJ XV, 62); however what bothered Herod even more, was her continuing correspondence with Cleopatra, which supplied the latter with plausible information on “how her son was murdered” (ibid.). While Cleopatra identified with the personal tragedy of her friend and “made the case her own, and would not let Antony be quiet, but excited him to punish the child’s murder” (ibid., 63), it is obvious that she was motivated to intervene in the affair first and foremost by her own interests. In the words of Josephus (ibid., 63–65), she told Antony that [63] … it was an unworthy thing that Herod, who had been by him made king of a kingdom that no way belonged to him, should be guilty of such horrid crimes against those that were of the royal blood in reality. [64] Antony was persuaded by these arguments; and when he came to Laodicea, he sent and commanded Herod to come and make his defense, as to what he had done to Aristobulus, for that such a treacherous design was not well done, if he had any hand in it. [65] Herod was now in fear, both of the accusation, and of Cleopatra’s ill-will to him, which was such that she was ever endeavoring to make Antony hate him. He therefore determined to obey his summons, for he had no possible way to avoid it.

26

The murder of Aristobulus without leaving any incriminating traces recalls Trotsky’s murder by Stalin, the paranoid modern-day ruler who resembled Herod to a great extent in his adoption of the policy of “no person, no problem”; see Lerner & Margolin & Witztum 2005, p. 225; cf. Radzinsky 2005, pp. 253 ff.

114

5. Roots and Ramifications of the Hasmonaean Trauma

As is clear from the above, Herod continued to be consumed by a sense of existential anxiety, along with the fear of potential conspiracies on the part of Alexandra and her confidante Cleopatra. It seems that he was genuinely unable to blunt the suspicions that he had been responsible for the death of Aristobulus III; even his affectations of mourning, and the splendid funeral that he conducted for his victim, had little effect (ibid., 60–61). It is possible that he named his second son (born to him by Mariamme at this time) after Aristobulus as part of his efforts to obscure his responsibility for the murder. 27 He may have entertained the notion that giving him this name would prove his innocence in the murder of his brother-in-law; likewise, it made no difference in terms of his practice of calling his other children with Mariamme by Hasmonaean names selected by her. It is worth noting that his first son by Mariamme, Alexander, who was born in 36 BCE, was named after the king Alexander Jannaeus, great-grandfather of his wife Mariamme. His first daughter from Mariamme (born in 33 BCE) was named Shlomzion, i. e., the name of Mariamme’s greatgrandmother and the widow of Alexander Jannaeus. In our opinion, Herod had no inhibitions about giving his children these names since it was during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (chapter I, p. 20) that his father and grandfather (Antipater and Antipas) had forged their successful political careers, in addition to which they had been among the most prominent courtiers of the respective kings. Herod’s second daughter, by contrast, had been named Cyprus, in memory of Herod’s beloved mother who had died in 29 BCE, at a point when the rift between himself, his wife Mariamme and his mother-in-law Alexandra was already an established fact and a matter of public knowledge.28 The possibility has also been raised that, as part of his efforts to appease Mariamme and Alexandra over the death of Aristobulus III, he expelled Antipater, his eldest son by Doris, from Jerusalem in 35 BCE in hopes of preventing them (in particular, Alexandra) from engaging in subversive acts against him in the period leading up to his planned meeting with Antony in Laodicea. It turned out that his fear of Alexandra was actually well-founded, based on her personal ambitions and pretensions to the royal throne. 29 In this case, the witty adage that

27 28 29

See the logical and well-reasoned hypothesis proposed by Kokkinos (1998, pp. 213– 214) on this point. See Kokkinos, p. 214; and below, chapter 7, pp. 158–159. See above chapter 5, passim; cf. AJ XV, 36, 42, 73, 166–167, 183, 206, 247–249; see also Richardson 1996, p. 163.

Alexandra and Cleopatra’s Influence on Antony

115

“even paranoids can have real enemies” was certainly justified. 30 The primary obstacle that had held him back until now was fear of the reactions of Antony and Cleopatra, which undoubtedly exceeded his misgivings concerning Alexandra herself. Josephus noted in this context, basing himself on Nicolaus of Damascus, that Herod was well aware of the political rapaciousness of Cleopatra, who had no compunctions about disposing of such potential rivals as Lysanias ruler of Chalcis (on suspicion of collaborating with the Parthians) as a means of achieving her goals. Nor did she spare her closest family members, including her brother Ptolemy XIV and her sister Arsinoe (ibid., 33–95).31 True, Antony had proven that he was realistic and level-headed, but this was not enough to assuage Herod’s fear that Cleopatra still exercised considerable influence over him. He was simply afraid of the prospect that she might ultimately manage to sway Antony’s policies in her favor, in such a way that he (Herod) would have to pay the price. In keeping with his paranoid thought processes, Herod tended to engage in ‘projection’ as a defense mechanism in numerous situations. Herod apparently attributed to Antony patterns of thought and behavior that were actually his own, which would explain why he was so fearful of a radical change in Antony’s political positions. Events, however, were to prove these fears groundless, for his meeting with Antony in Laodicea (early 34 BCE) demonstrated the exact opposite – not necessarily due to the bribes that he gave Antony or to Herod’s sycophancy and extended persuasive arguments and speeches (AJ XV, 74–76). As stated earlier, Antony was not a capricious hedonist fixated on his own pleasure but a judicious ruler who was wise enough to temper his love for Cleopatra and curb her political appetites. He also knew how to assess the potential political benefits of supporting, and collaborating with, Herod; after all, he had been the prime force behind his coronation. Dissociating himself from Herod based on an (officially) unproven accusation of murdering a scion of

30

31

The phrase is attributed to the Israeli prime minister, Mrs. Golda Meir, in her answer to US Secretary of State Professor Henry Kissinger, who accused her of paranoid thinking when she rejected the demand for further concessions to the Arabs in the 1973 Sinai peace talks. The maxim has become so popular that it appears in the titles of several books, see for example, J. H. Berke et al. (eds.), Even Paranoids Have Enemies: New Perspectives on Paranoia and Persecution, Routledge 1998 (p. 233). Karen Gold has called our attention to the possibility that it was actually originated by Sigmund Freud. This fact obviously helps explain Herod’s way of thinking and his apologetic rewriting of his own history. On a similar note, see BJ I, 359–361.

116

5. Roots and Ramifications of the Hasmonaean Trauma

the Hasmonaean dynasty was therefore insufficient reason to justify altering his policy toward him. In fact, external difficulties also arose that were independent of Herod, and it was these that ultimately dictated the timetable for carrying out his scheme to murder John Hyrcanus II and his mother in law Alexandra. It will be shown below that there was a considerable lapse in time between the decision itself and its implementation. However, the obstinate insistence on carrying out the plan, coupled with the obsessive preoccupation with threats and potential dangers (from Herod’s warped perspective), supports the assessment of a paranoid personality. The time factor is therefore irrelevant here, since obsession is, by nature, a constant quality. In our opinion, it was the murder of his brother-in-law that paved the way for the additional murders. This pattern of behavior would repeat itself until the execution of his own sons, which we shall be discussing at a later point in the text.

Construction of Masada as a Palace-Fortress One of the more significant indicators of the magnitude of Herod’s fear and emotional distress can be found in the provisions he made in the event that his meeting with Antony at Laodicea proved unsuccessful. 32 He invested tremendous effort in readying Masada as a refuge against the potential threat of a popular revolt against himself backed by Cleopatra. 33 One could conceivably argue that Masada’s fortification resulted from an objective political-security need to protect the southern border of his kingdom from the Nabataeans; but in reality, this danger should not be overstated since the confrontation with them that eventually took place in the wake of the “civil war” between Antony and Octavian (31 BCE) was actually instigated by Herod himself, not to mention the fact that such a functional purpose was not ascribed to Masada in any source. (It should be noted that the Nabataeans’ political dependence on Rome, and the status of their king as “ally and 32

33

Worth exploring in this context are two types of advance measures taken by Herod in the event that Antony renounced him: (a) preparations against Cleopatra; (b) preparations involving his close family. Due to the fast pace of events and the complicated political maneuverings, one should pay close attention to the synchronization between them. We must therefore rely on Josephus, who employed both a chronological and a thematic style in his writing. BJ VII, 300–303 places greater emphasis on the dangers of Cleopatra, which apply particularly to the early years of Herod’s reign; cf. Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 21 ff.

Construction of Masada as a Palace-Fortress

117

friend of the Roman people,” prevented Herod from embarking on any combat offensives against them without Roman approval. The “Syllaeus affair,” which took place at a later date, offers ample proof of this, in particular since it was confined to a localized attack launched from small desert bases). 34 It is unreasonable to assume that the large-scale fortification of Masada; the construction of its magnificent palaces; the preparation of a network of water cisterns, including the aqueduct on its western flank; and the building of huge storehouses for food, were completed in such a brief time frame (35/34 BCE), as this was a massive project requiring a much more extended period. In fact, the bulk of the construction on the Masada promontory, in particular the splendid citadels including the northern palace, was carried out after 31 BCE, that is, at a time when the Nabataeans no longer posed a threat of any kind. Nor was Herod in any mortal danger from Cleopatra, for by 31 BCE her death had already removed her from the local political stage. Thus it is more reasonable to conclude that the Masada undertaking was intended to answer a personal need rather than a state necessity. Israel Shatzman argues convincingly that the security concern that was uppermost in Herod’s mind at the time related to the domestic front, i. e., protecting his throne from hostile forces within the kingdom. 35 The sophisticated water system and huge food storehouses were totally disproportionate to the actual needs, as demonstrated by the size of the network of water cisterns on the western flank of the precipice. Their huge dimensions, and those of the magnificent palaces, impressive bathhouses, and the swimming pool, were apparently intended to answer his emotional needs, that is, the whims of Herod himself – and this, of all times, in a period of power and security. There is thus a strong foundation for the argument of archeologist and historian Yoram Tsafrir that the construction of the northern palace of Masada is “an expression almost of megalomania,” since it did not stem from a genuine national, public need but was intended solely “to issue a challenge and attain perfection while risking the lives of builders who worked suspended over the abyss.”36 Such a grandiose 34 35

36

See for greater detail Kasher 1988, pp. 158 ff. Shatzman 1983, pp. 88–89, 97–98, cf. Levine 1985, p. 6; Otzen 1990, p. 36. This fear was substantiated by the attempt to kill him in 27 BCE (AJ XV, 280–291), which was instigated at the grass-roots level by those who saw him “as indeed in pretence a king, but in reality one that showed himself an enemy to their own nation” (loc. cit., 281). Tsafrir 1980, p. 59 (= idem 1981, p. 70). For further detail on the magnificent construction at Masada, see: Roller 1998, pp. 187–190; Netzer 1999, pp. 71 ff., esp. 80–89; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 31–34.

118

5. Roots and Ramifications of the Hasmonaean Trauma

display is typical of an individual who strives constantly and unreservedly to demonstrate his power, and tends to flaunt extraordinary achievements in a grand and ostentatious manner. In our opinion, the great number and unique splendor of the fortresses should also be understood in this way. Not without reason did he urge his friend Marcus Agrippa in 15 BCE to visit Jerusalem and the new cities he had founded (Sebaste and Caesarea) as well as the impressive desert fortresses he had built in Hyrcania and Alexandrium, and of course his monumental burial site then under construction at the Herodium (AJ XVI, 13).37 The huge scale and extreme grandeur of Masada and of most of his other projects can be understood as an expression of grandiose exhibitionism and political might, which in turn reflected the need to compensate for profound feelings of inferiority. 38 The most impressive description of Masada is undoubtedly that of Josephus himself in BJ I, 280–303, and it is hard to imagine that it was not based on firsthand knowledge (as opposed to the view of several modern-day skeptics).

The First Rift with Mariamme the Hasmonaean Before departing for his meeting at Laodicea (34 BCE), Herod appointed his uncle Joseph39 epitropos (procurator) of the kingdom in his absence, with explicit orders to execute his wife Mariamme in the event that any harm came to him at the hands of Mark Antony. The pretext for this was the fear of “the injury that should be offered him, if, after his death, she, for her beauty, should be engaged to some other man: but his intimation was nothing but this at the bottom, 37

38

39

Richardson’s (1996, p. 192) statement that “apart from the rebuilding of the Maccabaean fortresses there is no evidence of self-preservation or of ‘paranoia’ behind Herod’s programs” is astonishing, and actually supports quite the opposite conclusion. His entire assessment in this regard strikes us as “concession” to Josephus’ thematic passages. In any event, a detailed discussion of the projects cited will follow below, in keeping with the chronological sequence of events. Incidentally, a similar phenomenon can be seen in such paranoid dictators of the modern era as Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Francisco Franco. Hitler, for example, was obsessively attracted to the grandiose, the lofty, and the ostentatious, even before his rise to power; see Kershaw 1990, passim. In fact, Plutarch (Antony, 6) claimed that Julius Caesar, like his predecessors Alexander the Great and Cyrus, was motivated by an unquenchable thirst for power along with a pathological desire to be the greatest among men. He was the brother of Antipater (Herod’s father). For further details regarding this branch of the family, see Kokkinos 1998, pp. 150 ff.

The First Rift with Mariamme the Hasmonaean

119

that Antony had fallen in love with her, when he had formerly heard somewhat of her beauty” (AJ XV, 66). It is our view that this behavior reveals a pattern of Paranoid Personality Disorder on Herod’s part that is reminiscent of the so-called “Othello syndrome,”40 meaning a delusional disorder centered around thoughts of morbid sexual jealousy or erotomania.41 Indeed, the classic literary example is that of Othello, who, as the result of a delusion of infidelity and the “proofs” supplied him by Iago, strangled his beloved to death. In the situation before us, the central themes are Herod’s sense of jealousy and the fear that Antony would steal Mariamme from him. As a consequence, he was ready and willing to go to the extreme of having Joseph – who was entrusted with safeguarding her – oversee her execution, even though it was clear that Mariamme had not committed any offense or betrayed him in any way. It appears that Herod was in the grip of paranoid delusions of jealousy, based on a scenario with no basis in reality, according to which he convinced himself that Antony would seduce her and that she would have no choice but to succumb. In such a shaky emotional state, he was ready to believe the accusation (fabricated by his sister Salome) of Mariamme’s supposed infidelity with his uncle Joseph, who had been charged with her care. Most likely, both Salome and her mother Cyprus were well acquainted with Herod’s weaknesses and decided to exploit them to eliminate their Hasmonaean rival, who was the source of acute feelings of inferiority on their part as well.42 Their behavior may also suggest character traits similar to those of Herod himself, among them suspiciousness; obsessive jealousy; hostility; unbridled aggression; manipulativeness; unrestrained vindictiveness; persistent subversion; compulsive avoidance and fear of intimacy; baseless anxiety; and the

40

41

42

Regarding this syndrome, see Deriin 1987, p. 40; cf. also below pp. 121–122 concerning Mariamme’s execution. Perowne (1957, p. 73) apparently made a similar association. Indeed, we see here a classic parallel with the Shakespearean characters Othello and Desdemona, whereby a lofty and beautiful white princess is murdered by her dark-skinned, jealous, hot-tempered husband. Erotomania is a mental disorder in which a person holds a delusional belief that somebody of a higher social status, is in love with him. When rejected, he may react in anger, rage, frustration and violence, a case that perfectly fits the relationship between Herod and his wife Mariamme. There are numerous references to this in the writings of Josephus, but we will not enumerate them here in order to focus primarily on Herod. It appears that Salome, Pheroras and his son Antipater later exerted great influence on Herod, taking advantage of his insanity in 9–8 BCE to dispose of his Hasmonaean sons; see Schalit 1969, pp. 596 ff., esp. 603 ff.

120

5. Roots and Ramifications of the Hasmonaean Trauma

like.43 The difference between these women and Herod was only a matter of degree. In the case of Herod, his character traits manifested themselves as severe Paranoid Personality Disorder, whereas his mother and sister exhibited, at most, symptoms or personality traits associated with paranoia. The meeting with Mariamme following Herod’s return from Laodicea merited a rather dramatic and maudlin description by Josephus, who undoubtedly based himself on Nicolaus of Damascus44 as follows (AJ XV, 82–87): [82] But Herod, whose affection to Mariamne was always very warm, was presently disturbed at this, and could not bear the torments of jealousy,45 but was still restrained from doing any rash thing to her by the love he had for her; yet did his vehement affection and jealousy together make him ask Mariamne by herself about this matter of Joseph; [83] but she denied it upon her oath, and said all that an innocent woman could possibly say in her own defense; so that by little and little the king was prevailed upon to drop the suspicion, and left off his anger at her; [84] and being overcome with his passion for his wife, he made an apology to her for having seemed to believe what he had heard about her, and returned her a great many acknowledgments of her modest behavior, and professed the extraordinary affection and kindness he had for her, till at last, as is usual between lovers, they both fell into tears, and embraced one another with a most tender affection. [85] But as the king gave more and more assurances of his belief of her fidelity, and endeavored to draw her to a like confidence in him, Marianme said, “Yet was not that command thou gavest, that if any harm came to thee from Antony, I, who had been no occasion of it, should perish with thee, a sign of thy love to me?” [86] When these words were fallen from her, the king was shocked at them, and presently let her go out of his arms, and cried out, and tore his hair with his own hands, and said, [87] that “now he had an evident demonstration that Joseph had had criminal conversation with his wife; for that he would never have uttered what he had told him alone by himself, unless there had been such a great familiarity and firm confidence between them. And while he was in this passion he had like to have killed his wife; but being still overborne by his love to her, he restrained this his passion, though not without a lasting grief and disquietness of mind. 43 44

45

A more detailed discussion will be provided below, in accordance with the chronological sequence of events. See AJ XVI, 183–186 (esp. 185), where it is stated explicitly that Nicolaus wished to “put handsome colors on the death of Mariamme and her sons, which were barbarous actions in the king.” In order to please Herod, he “[told] falsehoods about the incontinence of Mariamne, and the treacherous designs of his sons upon him; and thus he proceeded in his whole work, making a pompous encomium upon what just actions he had done, but earnestly apologizing for his unjust ones.” In our opinion, fits of unbearable jealousy are highly consistent with the egocentric nature of persons suffering from Paranoid Personality Disorder.

The First Rift with Mariamme the Hasmonaean

121

However, he gave order to slay Joseph, without permitting him to come into his sight; and as for Alexandra, he bound her, and kept her in custody, as the cause of all this mischief.46

In the parallel version (BJ I, 442–443), it is recounted that Herod only became suspicious that Mariamme had committed adultery with Joseph when he was alone with her in his palace upon his return from Laodicea and as he confessed his great love for her. Hearing his words, she admonished him as follows (ibid., 442): “A fine exhibition you gave of your love for me by your orders to Joseph to put me to death” (trans., Thackeray). The text goes on to recount (ibid., 443 ff.) that he flew into a rage upon learning that his order had been revealed, and leapt off his bed in a state of great agitation, pacing to and fro in the palace, tormented and confused. Herod’s sister Salome, taking advantage of the opportunity to defame Mariamme, confirmed his suspicions. Crazed with jealousy (zhlotupíav Èkmaneìv), he ordered that both Joseph and Mariamme be executed. But after his anger had abated, he regretted his actions as his love for Mariamme was rekindled. There is no question that this version is inferior to that of AJ, not only because its exaggerated, maudlin overtones are less than plausible,47 and because of the setting in which it occurred, but also and primarily since it concludes with the execution of Mariamme, which actually took place only in late 29 BCE.48 The portrayal of Mariamme as the major reason for Herod’s pathological jealousy was apparently a sophisticated dramatic ploy on the part of Nicolaus, who sought to diminish, if only indirectly, Herod’s responsibility for the terrible crime of her execution. Indeed, in AJ XVI, 183–186 (and particularly in § 184), Josephus made reference, in rather emphatic terms, to Nicolaus’ apologetic style of writing in this case (see note 34 above). It was clear to the latter that, as in any Greek tragedy that focuses on the most impressive dramatic event within a family context, the central role played by Herod’s wife Mariamme – whether active or passive – could be emphasized in this tragedy as well.49 From this standpoint, it is only because of her that 46 47 48

49

Extreme, rapid shifts from love to hatred, and vice versa, are also typical of this disorder (see below). The use of tò páqov is repeated three times in this context: BJ I, 443–444. Cf. Klausner 1958, IV, pp. 18 ff. Presumably, Hitler’s extreme jealousy with regard to his niece Geli, and his profound depression at her mysterious death, are reminiscent of the situation between Herod and Mariamme. The same can be said of Josef Stalin and his wife Nadezhda Alliluyeva. For Nicolaus as a writer of tragedies and comedies, see Bar-Kochva 2003, pp. 17–18 (esp. notes 31–32). On his tendency toward a dramatic writing style, see also Wa-

122

5. Roots and Ramifications of the Hasmonaean Trauma

all of Herod’s outbursts of jealousy, and expressions of disappointment, hatred, vindictiveness, and agitation, took place. As we shall see below, the conduct of the other women in his family – his mother, sister, and mother-in-law Alexandra – also contributed to this tragic narrative, especially since they added a strong dramatic dimension as well as a sense of authenticity. 50 From a psychological perspective, it is important to note the radical mood swings on Herod’s part: from jealousy, fury and vexation to passion, love and forgiveness; from bitter weeping and longing for reconciliation to sudden rejection and hatred accompanied by a great wailing and tearing of hair, and the willingness to kill his beloved Mariamme with his own hands. Initially, he was incapable in his torment of believing that she had been unfaithful to him, or of causing her harm. He then projected his aggression and his fury on his uncle Joseph, who instantly became a victim and was executed without Herod’s even bothering to see him or give him an opportunity to state his version of events. 51 Mariamme’s last resort for proving her innocence was her oath – but this too proved futile in light of her unfortunate slip of the tongue, which Herod interpreted in a paranoid, mistrustful, and impulsive manner. The fact that Salome cast suspicion on her husband Joseph of committing adultery with Mariamme was, as things turned out, an effective and persuasive move. In so doing, she apparently sought to “kill two birds with one stone”: (a) engage in a plot against her personal enemy, based on Mariamme’s haughtiness towards her and the residual hostility between the two since their enforced sojourn together at Masada and Samaria (40–37 BCE); (b) seize a golden opportunity to rid herself of her husband – an uncle 38 years her senior – whom she had apparently been matched with as a widower. 52 By the same

50

51 52

cholder 1962, 17, 57, 68–69, 76; Schalit 1969, pp. 575–588, idem 1985, pp. 100– 112 (nn. 107 ff. in particular); Stern 1974, I, p. 229. Landau 2003 (passim) pointed out many cases where Josephus strived to prevent his readers from receiving the false impression that Herod was really a “tragic hero.” These matters will be also discussed at length in due course, according to the chronological sequence of Josephus. Incidentally, it is worth noting that the schemes and intrigues of women played a central role in Nicolaus’ writings as well. For the motivations behind Joseph’s execution, as well as the date it was carried out, see Otto 1913, cols. 40–42, 50–51; Smallwood 1981, p. 67 and n. 19. On the calculations of his age, see Kokkinos 1998, pp 150–152, 154. He was apparently born in 95 BCE and died at the age of sixty. If Salome was born in 57 BCE, there was a sizeable age difference between them, which could be an additional reason why he became repugnant to her. She was most likely forced to marry him at thirteen years of age (45/44 BCE). This type of marriage was very common within

The First Rift with Mariamme the Hasmonaean

123

token, it is implausible that the young and beautiful Mariamme would wish to commit adultery, if for no other reason than the huge gap in their ages. 53 The fact that Salome would later rid herself of her second husband, Costobarus, in a similar manner – or more precisely, by informing on him as a political traitor to Herod – suggests a certain personality pattern that was apparently quite similar to that of her brother Herod. In the context of Herod’s relationship with his Hasmonaean sons as well, Salome will later be revealed as a manipulative schemer; a pathological liar; and a vindictive, cruel, unscrupulous individual. In short, this was a woman who was not loath to use any means to achieve what she wanted, even at the cost of betraying her two brothers, Herod and Pheroras.54 It would appear that the death of Joseph and the imprisonment of Alexandra appeased Herod only briefly. His distrust then of Mariamme’s treacherous nature was not diminished or in any way forgotten – a pattern typical of an individual with Paranoid Personality Disorder, who generally retains his suspicions even when they have been disproven. Such a person simply exchanges his basic belief regarding his traitorous spouse for the related (but not alternative) assumption that she only ceased betraying him for a certain period; or he temporarily puts aside his suspicions until receiving what he regards as definitive proof. 55 When he learned, from his sister Salome and his mother Cyprus, of Mariamme and Alexandra’s plans to escape to the Romans following the false rumors of his death at Laodicea (AJ XV, 71–73, 80), he internalized even more strongly his suspicions of adultery between Mariamme and Joseph. Because of his fierce, pathological jealousy, he was incapable of discerning that this calumny served no other purpose than to help his sister Salome dispose of her husband Joseph.

53 54

55

the Herodian family (see Mayer & Schärtel 1995, pp. 227 ff.) as in the Greco-Roman world as a whole. One may recall the marriage of Julia, Augustus’ daughter, to Marcellus when she was fourteen years of age. She was married for a second time to Marcus Agrippa, chief assistant of Augustus, who was the same age as her father (see Amit 2002, p. 45); and there are many other such instances. According to Kokkinos (pp. 211–212) Mariamme was born in 53 BCE, making her four years younger than Salome. Josephus’ description of her character no doubt relied on Nicolaus, who knew her personally and held her largely responsible for the Herodian family tragedy; see Macurdy 1932, pp. 63, 69–76. It should be noted here that, to a great extent, she fits the classic pattern of Paranoid Personality Disorder, which may hint at a shared genetic component. Cf. Rudnik 1999, p. 12.

124

5. Roots and Ramifications of the Hasmonaean Trauma

Mariamme’s words of defiance were also seen by Herod as proof of her betrayal, especially since her disloyalty was not limited to the personal sphere but also related to the political arena. His jealousy and agitation took the form of tearing his hair while engaged in a fit of rage so violent that it almost led to Mariamme’s immediate death at his hands (hence the analogy to “Othello syndrome”). It was only with great difficulty that he curbed his temper, for he was struck at the same time by an intense sexual desire for Mariamme. It appears that he managed to regain some degree of self-control, despite the fact that he immediately and without hesitation had his uncle executed. His mother-in-law Alexandra, by contrast, was merely placed under guard, although she was suspected of being one of the major players in the treacherous conspiracy against him (AJ XV, 81–87). He refrained from any extreme or impulsive move against her due to her personal ties with Cleopatra, whereas his elderly uncle was obviously an easy and convenient target who lacked Alexandra’s political clout. Of Mariamme’s exact fate at this juncture, nothing is stated explicitly, but it appears that she too was placed under house arrest like her mother, at most under slightly better conditions. In the opinion of Kokkinos, Herod even forgave her;56 but as we shall see below, he only repressed his suspicions temporarily as he lacked decisive and indisputable proof of her infidelity. In fact, there is reason to believe that his feelings with regard to Mariamme were highly ambivalent, torn as he was between love and mistrust, which would explain his agitation and his extreme mood swings. In summation, he did not stop mistrusting her for a moment, succeeding only in holding his suspicions in check for a time. For this reason, he continued to keep her under close watch on the assumption that time would prove her infidelity. This is, of course, a typically paranoid way of thinking. An analysis of Herod’s conduct throughout this episode suggests that his uncontrolled morbid mistrust and jealousy were triggered by an insignificant catalyst – unsubstantiated women’s gossip that he made no attempt whatsoever to verify. His fears and mistrust turned into delusions, to the point where he was incapable of examining the accusation in a logical manner. Stated simply, he was emotionally ripe to espouse the notion of Mariamme’s infidelity since it was consistent with his suspicions and fears.

56

Kokkinos 1998, p. 213, n. 21.

The First Rift with Mariamme the Hasmonaean

125

Herod’s conduct is indicative of rapid, extreme, and impulsive mood swings, from burning passion to hatred and intense jealousy. His furious outburst and narcissistic sense of insult in the wake of the supposed infidelity led to a state of confusion and turmoil, a situation that was to repeat itself in future. In keeping with the defense mechanism known as splitting, Herod’s aggression and rage were projected from the figure of Mariamme to that of Joseph his uncle, a minor rival who did not pose any real danger and, moreover, was an obstacle in Salome’s path. From Herod’s point of view, Joseph’s execution was a warning of sorts to anyone suspected of disloyalty and subversion that they too faced the prospect of a swift and bitter end. There is reason to assume that Mariamme herself understood already at this point that the rift between herself and her husband, the father of her children, was unavoidable. She therefore began to behave insolently toward him, believing that the split in the family was in any way beyond repair. She sought to strike at one of the weak points in his character – his sense of inferiority – with the arrogance of her lineage, which of course only exacerbated his hurt.

Chapter 6 Cleopatra VII’s Influence on Relations between Herod and Antony (34–31 BCE) Antony’s Declarations In this chapter, we will attempt to present the unique political circumstances of the year 34 BCE and their ramifications with respect to Herod’s emotional state. It appears that he was extremely concerned at the time by Antony’s political declarations in favor of Cleopatra, as he feared that the former was about to link his political destiny even more closely with hers. As we know, Antony had publicly proclaimed Cleopatra and Caesarion (her son by Julius Caesar) as partners with him in the kingship of Egypt, in addition to which her sons from him were declared kings, the first (Alexander) over Armenia, along with Media and Parthia upon their conquest, and the second (Ptolemy), over Phoenicia, Syria and Cilicia.1 But in reality, Antony remained the supreme ruler and did not change any aspect of his policy – nor did he intend to. In the eyes of Herod, however, his statements took on a special meaning since Cleopatra’s pretensions of restoring the glory of the Ptolemaic kingdom were interpreted by him as a mortal threat to his rule. Herod believed – or more precisely, feared – that these declarations would not full satisfy her expectations and that she would continue to do everything within her power to influence Antony to take further actions on her behalf. In other words, he dreaded the possibility that she might ultimately succeed in implementing her political plans, which would have meant the end of all the local principalities in Palestine and in Syria, as had been the case with Lysanius the Ituraean (AJ XV, 88–95).2 He was therefore convinced that he too would 1

2

Plutarch, Antony, 36, 54; Cassius Dio, xlix, 32, 4: see Otto 1913, cols. 43–45; Schürer 1973, I, pp. 165, 287–288, n. 5; Schalit 1989, pp. 772 ff.; Kasher 1988, pp. 131 ff. It is important to note that Antony had a reputation as someone who was submissive to women and accustomed to complying with their wishes (Plutarch, Antony, 10).

Antony’s Declarations

127

be forced to pay for the Egyptian queen’s ambitions – at the price of his throne and perhaps even his life. For this reason, he exercised great caution regarding any possible plot on her part. Amid these circumstances, one can understand how the story grew in Herod’s mind of Cleopatra’s attempt to seduce him so as to fabricate the appearance of rape, with the aim of arousing Antony’s jealousy and providing him with a convincing pretext for having Herod executed. According to this scenario, Herod became suspicious of the plot before it was too late and shielded himself against her charms by nursing a fierce hatred toward her;3 even going so far as to initiate a counter-plan to assassinate her. It is difficult, however, to assess to what extent this story was the result of his suspicions and perceptions, which bordered on genuinely paranoid thinking, and to what extent it contained a grain of truth.4 The notion of slaying Cleopatra appears quite fitting, largely because it is a manipulative solution characteristic of an individual with Paranoid Personality Disorder who seeks to remove from his path anyone suspected of being an enemy. But as recounted by Josephus, Herod himself understood that the assassination of the Egyptian queen would not be a simple task since the personality involved was of the highest rank and under the patronage of the supreme Roman authority in the region, who also happened to be her husband. The fear may have gnawed at him that her “accidental” death would not be accepted by Antony without suspicion, if the case of his brother-in-law Aristobulus’ drowning at Jericho was any indication. He may also have feared the cumulative impression of too great a number of “accidents.” Indeed, after consulting with his close friends, He came to the conclusion that it would be advisable to put off the idea. He therefore preferred to resist Cleopatra’s enticements while showering her with presents and tokens of flattery

3

4

It is quite possible that Herod was aware of this, and consequently thought he was under Cleopatra’s “spell”; cf. ibid., 25, 27, 29 54, 58, 62. According to Plutarch (Antony, 27), it was not so much her beauty that was irresistible as her personality. Her manner of speech was charming, and she had a way with people of all levels and origins. In addition, she had mastered a variety of languages without the need for an interpreter. Macurdy (1932, p. 200) maintained that the whole seduction episode was a fiction invented by Herod himself. The fact that he had plotted to kill Cleopatra only proves that he was not the type to be deterred from inventing such a story – although a scheme of this type was actually more suited to her personality. However, Macurdy’s argument that the story was disproved by Cleopatra’s pregnancy at the time with her second son by Antony is far from convincing. On the contrary, such a fabrication might have aroused great jealousy on Antony’s part and presented Herod as a man completely subject to his bestial instincts; cf. also Kokkinos 1991, p. 7.

128

6. Cleopatra VII’s Influence

(AJ XV, 97–103). Thus, for lack of an alternative, he was forced to swallow the bitter pill handed him when she put him in charge of collecting the taxes from the Nabataean territories in the Jericho region, including the famous balsam plantations, after they had been transferred to her by Antony in 34 BCE. 5

Construction of the Antonia Fortress in Jerusalem It seems reasonable that under these circumstances, and perhaps as early as 35 BCE, Herod began to build the Antonia Fortress (named after his patron) in Jerusalem, which later combined with the Holy Temple and the royal palace to form an array of fortresses intended to strengthen his defensive foothold in the capital. While the account of this is only presented in a later chronological context (AJ XV, 292), the fact that it was called Antonia offers sufficient reason for placing the start of the construction prior to the battle of Actium (31 BCE), the point when Antony was defeated by his rival Octavian and ended his political career and, shortly thereafter, his life. Thus it appears that the cornerstone for the Antonia Fortress was laid relatively close in time to the conquest of Jerusalem, particularly if we assume that Herod wished to exert his authority over the city as swiftly as possible. In our opinion, the years 35 or 34 BCE seem to present the appropriate opportunity.6 In calling the fortress Antonia, the intention was obviously to flatter Antony and pave the way for the political discussion with him at Laodicea. It should be recalled that during this encounter, Antony was to decide Herod’s guilt or innocence in light of Cleopatra and Alexandra’s suspicions regarding the drowning of Aristobulus III at Jericho. At the meeting in Laodicea (35/34 BCE), Herod bestowed upon Antony numerous gifts (intended as bribes), and conducted lengthy, ingratiating conversations with him that reportedly surpassed even the persuasive powers of Cleopatra herself.7 Indeed, Antony acceded to his wishes and decided to continue sup5 6 7

BJ I, 361–363; AJ XV, 96, 106–107. For the date of this territorial annexation, see Schürer 1973, I, pp. 288–289 (n. 5). The timing also fits Smallwood’s theory (1981, pp. 73–74); see also Schürer, op. cit., pp. 287–288, including n. 5. There is no question that Herod’s rhetorical skills were also a factor to be reckoned with (more on this below). Even Nicolaus took the opportunity here to praise Herod’s persuasive abilities. However we should not detract from Antony’s independent stance vis-à-vis Cleopatra, which he had already demonstrated on several occasions.

Construction of the Antonia Fortress in Jerusalem

129

porting him (ibid., 74–79). It is difficult to assess whether Antony was swayed by Herod’s arguments or if he had already formed his opinion beforehand. The truth most likely lies somewhere in between. In other words, he had apparently already taken a stand prior to the meeting at Laodicea, and only had his position “reinforced” by Herod’s powers of persuasion. In any event, Herod’s success indicates once again his political survival skills and the ability to manipulate while at the same time demonstrating total loyalty to his Roman patron. One of the secrets of his success with Antony may have been the fact that he gave the name Antonia to the mighty fortress that he began to construct in the northwestern corner of the Temple complex. The Antonia was constructed on the foundations of the Hasmonaean fortress known as Ha-Birah (Bâriv),8 where the priestly garments of the High Priest had been housed for the ritual sacrifices. It appears that Herod as well sought to continue this practice in the new structure he erected.9 The detailed description of the Fortress (BJ V, 146, 149, 238–246) leaves no room for doubt that he intended to make it one of the most important strongholds in Jerusalem and, at the same time, demonstrate his “greatness from birth” (tò fúsei megalónoun).10 The source for this ostentatious description, like others in a similar vein, was most likely Nicolaus of Damascus; but one can also infer that it was written to please Herod and at his inspiration. Such an undertaking clearly reveals his pretensions to grandeur, 8

9

10

The exact location of the citadel (Akra) during the Hellenistic period is a matter of dispute beyond the scope of this discussion; see Tsafrir 1980a, pp. 17–40; BarKochva, pp. 445–465. The Antonia is identified in Christian sources with the Praetorium, where the Roman governors and their garrisons were stationed, and where Jesus was sentenced to death (Mark 15:1–20). For further details, see: Schalit 1963, pp. 366 ff.; Netzer 1999, pp. 115–116; and a helpful summary by Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 35–39. AJ XV, 44; XVIII, 91–95. According to Josephus (XVIII, 92), “when Herod came to be king … he found these vestments (of the high priest) lying there, and he retained them in the same place, as believing, that while he had them in his custody, the people would make no innovations against him.” Quite obviously, his foremost concern was his own security and not preserving Jewish customs. He was primarily interested in maintaining strict control over the activities of the High Priest, a pattern repeated in later generations under the Roman governors, see for example: AJ XX, 6 ff. The same phrase is repeated in BJ I, 408 in the context of the construction of Caesarea. Other expressions such as “the magnanimity of his nature” (tšô fúsei megaloyúcšw) are mentioned in BJ I, 462 with reference to the building of the royal palace in the Upper City of Jerusalem, whose beauty was said to surpass that of the Temple itself (below). It is not our intention to enter into a detailed description of Herod’s architectural achievements in building the Antonia or the other projects mentioned below as this is not our field of expertise.

130

6. Cleopatra VII’s Influence

as evidenced by the colossal dimensions and breathtaking splendor of the citadel. According to Josephus’ description, it soared to a height of 40 cubits and was built on the slope of a steep rock 50 cubits high covered on all sides with a glacis of smooth, polished paving stones that served both a decorative and a military purpose. At three of its corners stood towers of 50 cubits, and at the southeastern corner was an even higher tower reaching 70 cubits. The towers afforded a full view of the Temple compound and, in fact, most sections of the city, while the Fortress housed two cohorts of auxilia (numbering 1,000– 2,000 soldiers) on a permanent basis. Based on its internal layout, it also served in essence as a palace, in addition to its defensive functions. Since it consisted of different sections with assorted configurations and purposes (porticos, bathhouses, and even large courtyards for the army), the Antonia resembled a city unto itself. A somewhat similar description is also provided of the Herodium fortress (BJ I, 421), which most scholars would agree offered a concrete expression of Herod’s ostentatiousness.11 As in other instances, this exhibitionistic urge was a direct consequence of his grandiose tendencies and emotional need for self-glorification. The construction of the fortress on the foundations of the Hasmonaean Ha-Birah suggests another argument in support of this conclusion, namely, that Herod wished to impress the Jerusalem public with the contrast between his magnificent undertaking and the simple, relatively modest Ha-Birah of his Hasmonaean predecessors. Such a comparison is also inevitable with regard to other structures that he built at various Hasmonaean sites including the royal palace in Jerusalem; the frontier and desert fortresses (Masada, Hyrcania, Machaerus, Alexandrium, and the palaces of Jericho); and above all, the Temple in Jerusalem. It is our opinion that, in all of these projects, he sought to demonstrate his own power and ability as opposed to that of his bitter enemies the Hasmonaeans, whether in order to detract from their prestige or to enhance his own. As recounted in AJ XVII, 160–163, he himself drew a comparison between the new Temple that he had built and the Temple from the time of the Hasmonaeans (we shall be returning to this point below). It can therefore be argued that, more than he 11

The Herodium and the Antonia were among the most magnificent palaces in the world at the time; cf. Broshi 1985, p. 11. Only fifty years later, the emperor Nero built a larger and even more splendid palace known as the Domus Aurea (“golden house”); cf. Suetonius, Nero 31; Tacitus, Annales, XV 42; Yavetz 1999, pp. 85–86. Indeed, the megalomania of both Herod and Nero is widely known. On the attempt to reconstruct the blueprint of the Antonia, see Benoit 1972, pp. 127–129.

Groundless Fears after Meeting at Laodicea

131

wished to be perceived as a benefactor to his people – as the Hasmonaeans had been – he sought to “compete” with them over their respective contributions to Jewish history. As will become clear below, the need to make such comparisons persisted till the day he died, that is, even after no trace of the Hasmonaean dynasty remained to compete against. The work of restoring, repairing and perfecting all the Hasmonaean monuments also gave him the opportunity to obscure, conceal and cover up the architectural imprint of his rivals, replacing it with a new style of his own that would hereafter predominate.

Groundless Fears after Meeting at Laodicea, and the Start of the Costobarus Affair Let us return at this point to the chronological sequence of events following the meeting at Laodicea (34 BCE), focusing primarily on Herod’s paranoid emotional pattern. The outcome of the meeting proved beyond all doubt that, despite the political “cloud” hanging over his head following the death of Aristobulus III, there was no basis in reality for Herod’s fears. As we learned earlier, notwithstanding the special connection between Cleopatra and her patron Antony, the latter conducted a realistic, levelheaded policy that was not in any way biased against Herod. This point was expressed rather uniquely in BJ I, 361, which was a more pro-Herodian account inasmuch as it relied primarily on Nicolaus of Damascus: “Now is to these her injunctions to Antony, he complied in part; for though he esteemed it too abominable a thing to kill such good and great kings.”12 AJ XV, 74–79, offers even clearer proof of the realistic policy maintained by Antony, who did not heed Cleopatra’s wishes but kept her resolutely in check, as follows: [74] … letters were brought from Herod about all his affairs,13 and proved contrary to the report, and of what they before expected; [75] for when he was come to Antony, he soon recovered his interest with him, by the presents he made him, which he had brought with him from Jerusalem; and he soon induced him, upon discoursing with him, to leave off his indignation at him, [76] so that Cleopatra’s persuasions had less force 12

13

Compare with earlier remarks on Antony’s level-headed political approach and the tendency in both ancient and modern historiography to overstate Cleopatra’s influence on him. The reference is to Cleopatra’s letter accusing Herod of responsibility in the death of Aristobulus III (AJ XV, 63–65).

132

6. Cleopatra VII’s Influence

than the arguments and presents he brought to regain his friendship; for Antony said that it was not good to require an account of a king, as to the affairs of his government, for at this rate he could be no king at all, but that those who had given him that authority ought to permit him to make use of it. He also said the same things to Cleopatra, that it would be best for her not busily to meddle with the acts of the king’s government. [77] Herod wrote an account of these things, and enlarged upon the other honors which he had received from Antony; how he sat by him at his hearing causes, and took his diet with him every day, and that he enjoyed those favors from him, notwithstanding the reproaches that Cleopatra so severely laid against him, who having a great desire of his country, and earnestly entreating Antony that the kingdom might be given to her, labored with her utmost diligence to have him out of the way; [78] but that he still found Antony just to him, and had no longer any apprehensions of hard treatment from him; and that he was soon upon his return, with a firmer additional assurance of his favor to him, in his reigning and managing public affairs; [79] and that there was no longer any hope for Cleopatra’s covetous temper, since Antony had given her Coele-Syria14 instead of what she had desired; by which means he had at once pacified her, and got clear of the entreaties which she made him to have Judea bestowed upon her.

Josephus’ account indicates clearly that Herod had no actual, objective reason for his fears and concerns, either before or after the meeting at Laodicea; moreover, he himself was aware of this. Nevertheless, his subsequent behavior proved that he was emotionally incapable of ridding himself of his entrenched fears and suspicions. Relatively quickly, he found himself once again in a state of acute stress due to what he foresaw as uncertainty regarding his political future. His delusional thinking – however illogical and unsystematic – reemerged, enlisting all of his powers of reason to rationalize it.15 From his perspective, even if Antony remained loyal to Roman political custom toward “allied kings and friends of the Roman people” (AJ XV, 76–79), and did not renounce all ties with him, there was still the potential danger of an erosion in Antony’s status. In Herod’s eyes, Antony’s concessions to Cleopatra (ibid., 88–95) embodied a veiled threat to his future. Nor did Cleopatra’s secret ties with Alexandra (which continued following the death of her son Aristobulus) go unnoticed, compounding his fear that these too would exert an influence on Antony.

14

15

Specifically, the territories comprising Peraea along the eastern bank of the Jordan River together with the cities of the Decapolis (from 63 BCE onward); see Otto 1913, cols. 43–44; Smallwood 1981, p. 15 (n. 38), 45 (n. 4), 61 (n. 4), 86–88; cf. Schalit 1969, pp. 772–777; Kasher 1988, pp. 143–145 (and nn. 35–36). For other such cases, see Fried & Agassi 1976, p. 18 etc.

Groundless Fears after Meeting at Laodicea

133

The danger posed by Cleopatra had other implications as well, one of which related to the royal court itself, namely, the hatching of a plot by Herod’s brother-in-law Costobarus, who until then he had considered completely trustworthy (AJ XV, 259–266).16 Costobarus had been appointed by Herod already in 37 BCE to serve as “strategos of Idumaea and Gaza,” and his fortunes rose even further in 34 BCE when he married Herod’s sister Salome after her first husband Joseph was executed (see above).17 The suspicion may already have crept into Herod’s mind at this point that Costobarus was secretly spinning schemes with the help of Cleopatra, and perhaps his motherin-law Alexandra as well,18 to sever Idumaea from the kingdom of Judea and annex it to Egypt as an autonomous district. What is more, according to this same plan, Costobarus had pretensions of turning back the hands of time by annulling the conversion of the Idumaeans and reestablishing paganism in Idumaea, that is, reinstating the worship of the god Cos. This was consistent with Cleopatra’s desire at the time (36–34 BCE) to restore the Ptolemeian dynasty in Egypt to its former glory. The plan also suited the ambitions of Alexandra the Hasmonaean, for whom conceding Idumaea to Costobarus and Cleopatra was a small price to pay to get rid of Herod. But these plans were thwarted at the outset since Antony did not heed Cleopatra’s entreaties for the reasons enumerated above. Nevertheless, the danger (in Herod’s eyes) had not passed, and continued to haunt him from all sides (Costobarus, Cleopatra, and Alexandra). Only as a result of the pleas of his mother Cyprus and sister Salome, wife of Costobarus since 34 BCE, was the latter saved from death.19 It is not mentioned when Salome learned of her husband’s plan as all the information about him is brought only as an addendum in a later chronological context – the events of 28–27 BCE (AJ XV, 253–266) – making it difficult to clarify various unresolved issues. In our opinion, the more intriguing question is: Did Salome discover the scheme devised by Costobarus together with Alexandra and Cleopatra already in 34 BCE, at the time of her marriage to him? Or was it perhaps at a later date, following Octavian’s victory and the 16 17 18 19

There is no parallel to this account in War; see Ronen 1988, pp. 205–213; Kokkinos 1998, pp. 179–182. This is the single aspect of the “Costobarus affair” that is mentioned in the parallel version in BJ (I, 486), but it is cited in another context, related to Pheroras (below). Regarding this possibility, see Kokkinos 1998, p. 18. Jones (1938, p. 57) offers the reasonable explanation that Herod refrained from killing him immediately because he enjoyed Cleopatra’s protection; he therefore preferred to wait for another opportunity.

134

6. Cleopatra VII’s Influence

death of Antony (31/30 BCE), when there was no longer any chance of carrying out the plot? The first possibility appears more plausible since in AJ XV, 258 it is noted explicitly that Salome and her mother begged Herod to forgive Costobarus. This interpretation is further supported by the statement that “he still had a suspicion of him afterward for this his attempt.” The wording of this passage suggests that a significant amount of time passed from the point when Salome learned of the plan until she informed on her husband and brought about his execution.20 It is hard to escape the conclusion that she kept this information secret from Herod with the thought that her marriage to Costobarus would serve as an insurance policy for her in the event that his plan was carried out, not to mention the fact that she had her own far-reaching political aspirations (ibid., 257). After all, she could not reject such a possibility outright, especially when she knew of the close ties between her husband Costobarus and Cleopatra, and was also aware of the great influence of the queen of Egypt on Antony. In short, it is quite possible that she entertained dreams of becoming queen of Idumaea, just as she later envisioned becoming queen of Petra alongside her third husband Syllaeus (below). We would humbly suggest that she did not entirely reject such a possibility, which, from her perspective, might have been an answer to the ambitions of her rival Alexandra to restore the Hasmonaean kingdom with her at its head. It is unclear who informed Herod of the plan since Josephus notes only in the passive voice that “an account of this was brought to Herod” (ibid., 258), without revealing when exactly the incident took place and who it was that told Herod. On the face of it, Salome is not a suspect since she and her mother asked that Herod forgive Costobarus (ibid.). But it is also difficult to rule out the opposite possibility, given her cunning and treacherous nature – as evidenced by her treatment of her first husband Joseph and other examples to be described below. 21 It is thus entirely possible that when she reached the conclusion that Herod would anyway manage to survive under Antony’s patronage, she decided to “sacrifice” her husband on the altar of her (questionable) loyalty to her brother. We have no way of knowing, however, whether or not this analysis is correct. It is also difficult to conceive of Costobarus taking overt measures to restore the worship 20 21

This is further supported by AJ XV, 259: “But some time afterward (crónon dè dielqóntov), when Salome happened to quarrel with Costobarus …” Cf. also Fenn 1992, pp. 91 ff.

Desertion from Antony’s Camp

135

of Cos in Idumaea and sever that region from Judea at a time when he himself was hiding the Sons of Baba (or Saba), Hasmonaean loyalists, in his own estate (AJ XV, 260, 264). 22 Yet by the same token, one cannot casually dismiss the suspicions against him since the relevant passages contain many details that are highly probable politically. The conclusion of the affair will be addressed at a later point in our discussion, in the context of the final exposure of Costobarus’ plot and the execution of all involved.

Desertion from Antony’s Camp Under Cover of the First War against the Nabataeans An in-depth examination of the chain of events beginning in 34 BCE offers reason to assume that a short time after Antony’s statements in favor of Cleopatra, and perhaps as early as that same year, Herod began to consider the possibility of changing his political orientation and abandoning Antony’s camp. He may have been somewhat encouraged in this direction by the rivalry already emerging between Antony and Octavian. His thoughts of “desertion” most likely stemmed from his acute stress and the growing fear that he would ultimately fall victim to the intrigues and ambitions of Cleopatra. Initially, for reasons of caution, he avoided making an overt, immediate decision to take action, since Antony was still the undisputed ruler of the eastern region of the Roman Empire, in addition to which it was difficult to predict the outcome of the developing conflict between Antony and Octavian. Nevertheless, Herod was not unaware of the latter’s growing power base in the western part of the Empire nor of the ramifications of Antony’s failure in the war against the Parthians in terms of public opinion in Rome. It is also hard to believe that he was unaware of the stinging condemnation in many Roman circles of Antony’s statements in 34 BCE favoring Cleopatra – criticism that denounced the pair as attempting to lay the groundwork for splitting the Empire in two. The bulk of the blame was of course placed on Cleopatra, who was seen by Rome as having managed to subject Antony completely to her will and was therefore considered by Octavian’s camp to be a sworn enemy of Rome. It is important to recall in this context that Rome never officially declared war on Antony but only on Cleopatra. Herod would 22

On the origin of the Sons of Baba see Ben-Shalom 1980, pp. 235–236; Kasher 1988, pp. 64, 214–220, and below p. 190.

136

6. Cleopatra VII’s Influence

later exploit this fact by presenting himself as the queen of Egypt’s arch-enemy who had supposedly warned Antony previously against subjugation to her interests – a position compatible with the official attitude of Rome itself. 23 In light of the above, it is quite likely that already at this point Herod was considering dissociating himself from Antony and trying his luck in a fresh alliance with Octavian. He had learned at his father’s knee how to maneuver politically and adapt to changing circumstances – in other words, to engage in political “zigzagging” – a policy that he subscribed to fully and had successfully absorbed. Unlike his father, however, who adjusted his political maneuverings to suit the new circumstances only after they had become a fait accompli, Herod did not wait but seized the initiative politically while events were still in a state of flux, that is, at a time when the outcome was still shrouded in uncertainty. The reason for this apparently lies in his compulsive urge to take risks with regard to his future, the “payoff” being the very fact that he survived as a free and autonomous individual. In other words, his existential fear motivated him to adopt an opportunistic approach, in his case to gamble on taking the initiative and engaging in bold manipulative tactics. Obviously, he had to tread with great caution lest his entire world come crashing down in an instant. Indeed, an examination of his actions throughout his life demonstrates that he frequently risked his future, but did so with cunning and insight while attempting to maintain as low a profile as possible in order to adapt smoothly to any potential development. It was Herod’s relations with the Nabataeans that supplied him with the necessary maneuvering room for this particular political gamble, including the ability to disguise his true motives, which were chiefly the will and determination to survive. There is no question that fortune smiled upon him in this instance.24 It should be recalled that Herod had a pressing personal score to settle with the Nabataeans dating back to 40 BCE, when their king, Malichus I, had renounced him during the Parthian invasion that brought Mattathias Antigonus to the throne in Jerusalem. The political arrangements put in place by Antony in Palestine under Cleopatra’s 23

24

See AJ XV, 191–192; BJ I, 390–391; cf. also AJ XV, 88 ff.; BJ I, 359 ff. All of these references emphasize Cleopatra’s influence over Antony and were included in Herod’s “History” (AJ XV, 174). They were most probably written from a later historical perspective based on knowledge of Roman policy and subsequent events. The modern-day paranoid dictator Adolf Hitler also owed his success to a combination of opportunism and luck, as demonstrated by Kershaw 1999, p. 106, 174.

Desertion from Antony’s Camp

137

influence, in keeping with his declarations in 34 BCE, only exacerbated the already shaky relationship between himself and the Nabataeans. It was Cleopatra who imposed on him the collection of taxes and income from the territories severed from the Nabataean kingdom, although Malichus did everything possible to sabotage the payment of the tax, which Herod had undertaken to transfer to Cleopatra. As collector of taxes, Herod was legally permitted to use military force for this purpose without the usual Roman approval required of an “allied king.” It seems that he managed to maneuver himself into a situation in which he ostensibly attacked Malichus on Cleopatra’s behalf, thereby preventing him from playing an active role alongside Antony in the battle of Actium as would have been expected from him as an “allied king and friend of the Roman people.”25 In fact, his initiative against Malichus further sabotaged Antony’s military effort since it prevented the Nabataeans from rendering assistance as well – which we believe was precisely Herod’s intention (see below). 26 The historical accounts of Cassius Dio (L, 6, 5) and Plutarch (Antonius 56, 4) indicate the tremendous recruitment efforts made by Antony among allied kings and other rulers, tetrarchs, peoples and cities in advance of the fateful battle at Actium. According to Plutarch (ibid., 61, 2), Herod was among the kings that sent reinforcements to Antony although he did not lead them personally; as it turns out, Malichus the Nabataean did exactly the same thing (ibid.). If we view the assistance of the two in Antony’s war effort as a symbolic gesture intended to pay off a political debt, we are left with no contradiction between Plutarch’s account and the silence of Josephus on this matter. On the contrary, Josephus’ account (or more precisely, the source on which it was based, namely, Nicolaus of Damascus) sought to create the impression that Herod was unable to assist his patron in the battle of Actium since he was caught up in the war with the Nabataeans as a result of Cleopatra’s acts of deceit. As the text recounts, the queen of Egypt hoped to benefit either way from this war: if Malichus would triumph, she could reap the benefits of his victory and seize control of Herod’s kingdom; and if Herod emerged the winner, she could take over the Nabataean kingdom, since it had been her intention all along to use one to dispose of the other (BJ I, 365; AJ XV, 110). 25

26

AJ XV, 96, 106, 189–190. The version in BJ I, 464–365 is much shorter and does not offer a detailed account of the process of Herod’s deliberate “entanglement” in the Nabataean war. Cornfeld 1982, p. 72, and see below.

138

6. Cleopatra VII’s Influence

The preceding is a rather sophisticated portrayal of the situation, and it is difficult to assess its accuracy and whether it represents the whole truth or only part of it. At work here is a calculated and biased attempt to rewrite the history of the war with the Nabataeans. Most likely, it would not be incorrect to attribute this revisionist effort to the court historian, Nicolaus of Damascus. The latter clearly tried to obscure Herod’s calculated plan to launch a war aimed at weakening Antony and Cleopatra, and at the same time, to offer a persuasive explanation for Herod’s absence from the battle of Actium. This rewriting of history could also have been a further defamation of Cleopatra, Rome’s official enemy, whose heinous tactics had supposedly ensnared Herod in an unnecessary war. In our opinion, however, contradictions remain in Josephus’ accounts. In AJ XV, 108, it is noted that Herod had intended from the outset to launch a war against Malichus, and it was only the confrontation at Actium that offered him a pretext for postponing it. In BJ I, 388 and in AJ XV, 189, by contrast, the impression is given that Herod was about to assist Antony in the battle of Actium but was prevented from doing so since he was preoccupied with the Nabataeans. In AJ XV, 110, Josephus presents yet another version, according to which it was Antony who ordered Herod (at Cleopatra’s behest) to go to war against the Nabataeans. The matter obviously raises questions, since it is difficult to reconcile Herod’s initiative, on the one hand, with Antony’s order, on the other. Fortunately, a painstaking chronological reconstruction of the sequence of events that led Herod to embark on a war with the Nabataeans sheds some light on the affair and supports the conclusion that Herod’s involvement in the conflict was intentional. The actual preparations for the military confrontation between Antony and Octavian began in late 32 BCE, after Antony’s divorce from his wife Octavia (sister of Octavian) and his last will and testament had already become known in the summer of that year. The fighting itself began only in early 31 BCE, when Octavian’s forces landed on the Acarnanian coast in Epirus. The fateful battle of Actium took place on September 2 of that year, while Antony died in Egypt in August of 30 BCE. The earliest date cited by Josephus regarding the beginning of the war with the Nabataeans is the 187th Olympiad, that is, some time after July of 32 BCE. It should be emphasized that, according to him, the war broke out at precisely the same time as Antony was preparing for the battle at Actium. Clearly, it is difficult to rely on such a simplistic and imprecise statement. In any event, it is well known that a major

Desertion from Antony’s Camp

139

earthquake that took place in Palestine in early spring of 31 BCE27 was one of the later events during Herod’s war against the Nabataeans, since by the summer of that year Herod had apparently already defeated his rivals (BJ I, 371–385; AJ XV, 123–160). Based on this chronological reference point, we can deduce that his war with the Nabataeans began in the summer of 32 BCE and continued for roughly one full year until the summer of 31 BCE. It is difficult to believe that so many military events – the battle at Diospolis; the march to Canatha; the battle with Cleopatra’s general, Athenion; and the guerrilla warfare conducted by Herod after consolidating his forces in the mountains – could have been condensed into so short a time frame (from the beginning of 31 BCE to the earthquake in early spring); moreover, conditions on the ground and the difficulty of engaging in a frontal campaign during the rainy season negate such a possibility from the outset. Conversely, however, winter was an especially appropriate time for guerrilla warfare, which Herod launched following his defeat by Athenion, indicating once again that he had indeed embarked on the war with the Nabataeans in the summer of 32 BCE. The implication is that the war was launched simultaneously with the military preparations for the battle of Actium, precisely at a time when Antony was in need of all possible military support. This only reinforces the conclusion that Herod deliberately intended to “entangle” himself in a war so as to avoid such an obligation, which ran counter to his aspirations. If we accept the version of AJ XV, 110 (cf. BJ I, 365), whereby Herod embarked on the war only under orders from Antony and Cleopatra, the sequence of events is even more puzzling. It must be recalled that according to Josephus, after being routed at Diospolis the Nabataeans made their way to Canatha, where an even more crushing defeat awaited them had Athenion (the strategos of Cleopatra) not intervened on their behalf. Josephus, however, saw this intercession as evidence of Cleopatra’s machinations, aimed at preventing a resounding victory for either side. But if we accept this explanation at face value, the question persists: Why did Athenion not attempt to foil a victory by Herod following the earthquake in the spring of 31 BCE? If this was indeed Athenion’s mission, he would have had to intervene at every stage of the campaign and consistently “play the game both ways,” so to speak, under orders from Cleopatra (BJ I, 365; AJ XV, 110). How27

BJ I, 370; AJ XV, 121–122; see Otto 1913, p. 40; Schalit 1969, pp. 122 ff.; Schürer 1973, I, p. 289, n. 6.

140

6. Cleopatra VII’s Influence

ever, in practice, there is no mention of this, suggesting that: (a) Athenion “vanished” from the Palestinian scene because he set off to assist Antony and Cleopatra at the battle of Actium (this seems to be the only reasonable explanation since he was not defeated by Herod, leading to the conclusion that Herod’s war with the Nabataeans preceded the battle at Actium); and (b) the “double game” ascribed to Athenion was nothing more than a literary invention28 intended to further defame Cleopatra and, at the same time, downplay the fact that Herod exceeded his authority as a ruler under Roman patronage. In our opinion, the description of Athenion’s preparations for his military intervention indicates clearly that his “game-playing” was in fact a literary fabrication, in particular since it is stated explicitly that he planned to support one side from the outset, as follows: “He (i. e. Athenion) had also resolved, that in case the Arabians did any thing that was brave and successful, he would lie still; but in case they were beaten, as it really happened, he would attack the Jews with those forces he had of his own, and with those that the country had gotten together for him” (AJ XV, 116). The fact that the opposite possibility was not considered, as would be expected for someone assigned the task of playing such a double game, is something that bears examination. 29 Moreover, Josephus referred to Athenion in the same context as “the enemy of Herod” or as someone “who was constantly hostile to him” (AJ XV, 116; BJ I, 367). The suggestion that Herod initiated the war against the Nabataeans may even offer a more convincing explanation for Athenion’s military intervention. How so? The order that he received from Cleopatra to attack Herod had to receive Antony’s approval because it is inconceivable that a queen of Egypt could be given free rein to intervene in 28 29

The rewriting of Herod’s history did not escape the notice of Josephus either; cf. AJ XV 174–178. Klausner (1958, IV, pp. 22–23 and n. 39) did not accept at face value Josephus’ account of Cleopatra’s efforts to involve Herod in a war against the Nabataeans. On the contrary, he went so far as to suggest that Herod himself initiated the war while managing to maneuver himself into a position whereby it looked as though Antony had directed him to do so. Although we are inclined to question this impression, we believe that there was an element of literary fiction in the story of the war between Herod and the Nabataeans. Klausner even ventured to claim that the source on which Josephus based himself simply fabricated the involvement of Athenion (Cleopatra’s officer) “out of whole cloth” in order to provide a more convincing explanation for Herod’s defeat. In our opinion, however, it is difficult to ignore Athenion’s intervention with the argument that it was pure invention. Rather, it seems that Herod was eager to create the impression that he was forced into the Nabataean war as a result of Cleopatra’s wiliness when in truth he was the one who maneuvered himself into the war in order to survive.

Desertion from Antony’s Camp

141

so fundamental a matter behind Antony’s back as supreme ruler of the region. Indeed, her past attempts to alter the political map in Palestine had been unsuccessful, and it was Antony himself who had curbed her ambitions (AJ XV, 77–78; BJ I, 361–362). Stated otherwise, only Antony could have given her the “green light” to dispatch Athenion against Herod, and we believe that this was done in response to Herod’s overstepping the bounds of his authority as an “allied king” obliged to exhibit loyalty and compliance toward his Roman patron. In our view, Antony was furious with Herod, whose military initiative had caused the latter to avoid extending the fullest possible support expected of him in preparation for the battle at Actium, in addition to which he had indirectly prevented the Nabataeans from doing so as well. It is also difficult to assume that Cleopatra herself, despite her appetite for territorial conquest, would resort to such ignoble devices to rid herself of Herod and Malichus and, concurrently, weaken Antony her benefactor and ally at a time when he needed all possible military assistance, and precisely in the midst of his preparations for the most important and fateful of his campaigns. After all, even she, in her great wisdom, did not know what the future held in store, and Antony’s defeat could well have been her own. In addition to the intriguing questions raised by the Athenion affair, one might ask further: By whose authority did Herod dispatch political emissaries to make peace with the Nabataeans (AJ XV, 24; BJ I, 371)? Given his status as “allied king and friend of the Roman people,” he was prevented from taking any political initiative without receiving the appropriate authorization from his Roman overlords. This fact, which was certainly not obscured by Josephus, offers further support for the suggestion that it was Herod who instigated the war against the Nabataeans. It is reasonable to assume that anyone who would embark on peace negotiations without permission would also launch a war in the same manner. And incidentally, where was Athenion during these initial overtures for peace? If he was in fact still in the region, he would have been expected to put a stop to such a development, in keeping with the orders he had been given to play the situation both ways. All of these questions remain unanswered in Josephus’ description. The surprising and dramatic turnaround in Herod’s favor during the war is also perplexing. Indeed, the very fact that he sent peace emissaries is a sign that he was in trouble militarily, in addition to which he was forced to engage in guerrilla tactics and avoid getting caught up in open warfare for fear of having to come down from the mountains where he had taken refuge (AJ XV, 120).

142

6. Cleopatra VII’s Influence

And can we simply accept at face value Josephus’ account that it was Herod’s eloquent speech to his soldiers that caused the radical and dramatic shift in his favor, merely because he inspired their courage? In truth, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the depiction of the military campaign against the Nabataeans underwent a deliberate literary revision whereby certain facts were omitted and others inserted, the aim being to present Herod as someone who ended up in this war against his will, found himself in dire straits, and only succeeded in extracting himself from this predicament thanks to his resourcefulness and charismatic leadership. His overt abandonment of Antony’s camp came only later, as evidenced by the accounts of Plutarch and Cassius Dio, and supported further by Josephus himself. 30 True, this was an event that took place immediately following the battle of Actium (September 2, 31 BCE), towards the end of the confrontation between Antony and Octavian, when Herod aided Didius the Syrian proconsul in blocking the advance of Antony’s gladiators en route from Cyzicus in Asia Minor (where they practiced for the triumph expected to be held in Antony’s honor) to Alexandria to assist their master. But it would certainly be mistaken to believe that his betrayal began only at this point, that is, after he was informed of Antony’s defeat at Actium; for in reality he had already deserted him earlier, under cover of his “entanglement” in the war with the Nabataeans, as described above. In fact, Plutarch himself recounted that Herod’s position regarding the gladiators had already been decided and that Antony had failed in his attempt to prevent his desertion, having earlier sent a special personal envoy to dissuade him from his course and influence him to remain loyal.31Indeed, Antony’s failure indicates clearly that he possessed prior information concerning the shift in Herod’s political orientation. Moreover, it turned out that this same emissary was even influenced by Herod to abandon Antony(!) Josephus did write, based on his sources, that at his meeting with Octavian at Rhodes (30 BCE), Herod emphasized that he did not desert Antony even after the battle of Actium, going so far as to advise him to have Cleopatra killed to save himself at the last moment (AJ XV, 190–192). But this information can easily be revealed as false, 32 30 31

32

Plutarch, Antony, 71–72; Cassius Dio, li, 7; cf. AJ XV, 195; BJ I, 392. This man, Alexas, was later executed by Octavian; see Plutarch, loc. cit.; BJ I, 393; AJ XV, 197. There are those who think he was the brother of Iamblichus, the Ituraean ruler of Arethusa and Emessa until 31 BCE. Cf. Schalit 1969, p. 129. Like similar fabrications, this too was part of the “rewriting” of Herod’s war against the Nabataeans.

Desertion from Antony’s Camp

143

since nothing is known of any meeting between Antony and Herod following the battle of Actium at which he could have offered such advice. It is obvious that these words were included as part of the revised version of Herod’s speech, quoted from the writings of Nicolaus of Damascus. 33 The latter inserted the above in the apologetic speech that he attributed to Herod at Rhodes, 34 thereby allowing him to clarify Herod’s conduct throughout this period and, above all, his basic loyalty to Rome and his unswerving hatred of Cleopatra. It appears that his hostility toward her was a principal theme of this revised historiography, in particular since it offered a rather convincing explanation for his “entanglement” in the war with the Nabataeans, which also led to his absence from the crucial battle at Actium. 35 When a huge earthquake struck the region prior to the key battle with the Nabataeans, causing 30,000 people to perish, Herod found himself in a serious predicament as a result of the demoralization that spread through his camp. 36 But according to the written account, he recovered quickly from the disaster. The fact that his army escaped without harm, since it was camped in the open air, was interpreted by himself and his men as a sign that their rescue was “the will of God” (see below). Based on this perception, he raised the fallen spirits of his officers and, gathering his troops together, encouraged them with an impassioned speech. Most scholars are in agreement that Josephus’ account of the address relied on two written sources: the Memoirs of Herod, and the “Histories” of Nicolaus of Damascus.37 The speech ascribed to Herod is highly significant to the present work, in particular if we assume that it contains at least a kernel of truth that can offer some insight into the man’s character and his thinking, and especially since there is no better source at our disposal. The fact that Nicolaus was the principal conduit for this information does not detract from its value, given the reasonable presumption that he edited his words 33 34

35 36

37

Cf. Otto 1913, col. 50; Schalit 1969. pp. 127–129. BJ I, 386–392; AJ XV, 187–193. Like Otto, Schalit too believed that the speech attributed to Herod was actually taken from his “Memoirs”, apparently also composed by Nicolaus. However, it was most likely a faithful reflection of the original speech; cf. S. Schwartz 2000, p. 72*, 75* (n. 21). See Kasher 1988, pp. 133 ff. cf. Yavetz 1988, p. 322. AJ XV, 121–126; cf. BJ I, 370–372. On the dating of this event, see Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, pp. 58–59 (n. b); Otto (1913, p. 40; Schalit 1969, p. 121; Schürer 1973, I, p. 289 (n. 6); Kasher 1988, p. 138, 148 and n. 41. Herod’s “Memoirs” was probably modeled on the memoirs of Augustus Caesar (Suetonius, Augustus, 85). This custom of writing royal journals was very common in the Hellenistic world beginning with Alexander the Great (Diodorus, XVIII, 4).

144

6. Cleopatra VII’s Influence

in accordance with Herod’s wishes and directives.38 The two versions of the speech (in BJ I, 373–379 and AJ XV, 127–146) complement one another though they differ only slightly. Let us begin by examining the speech in its first version, as presented in BJ: [373] The present dread you are under seems to me to have seized upon you very unreasonably. It is true, you might justly be dismayed at that providential chastisement (daimoníouv plhgàv) which hath befallen you; but to suffer yourselves to be equally terrified at the invasion of men is unmanly. As for myself, I am so far from being affrighted at our enemies after this earthquake, that I imagine that God hath thereby laid a bait for the Arabians, that we may be avenged on them; for their present invasion proceeds more from our accidental misfortunes, than that they have any great dependence on their weapons, or their own fitness for action. Now that hope which depends not on men’s own power, but on others’ ill success, is a very ticklish thing; [374] for there is no certainty among men, either in their bad or good fortunes; but we may easily observe that fortune is mutable, and goes from one side to another; and this you may readily learn from examples among yourselves; for when you were once victors in the former fight, your enemies overcame you at last; and very likely it will now happen so, that these who think themselves sure of beating you will themselves be beaten. [375] For when men are very confident, they are not upon their guard, while fear teaches men to act with caution; insomuch that I venture to prove from your very timorousness that you ought to take courage; for when you were more bold than you ought to have been, and than I would have had you, and marched on, Athenion’s treachery took place; but your present slowness and seeming dejection of mind is to me a pledge and assurance of victory. [376] And indeed it is proper beforehand to be thus provident; but when we come to action, we ought to erect our minds, and to make our enemies, be they ever so wicked, believe that neither any human, no, nor any providential (daimónion) misfortune, can ever depress the courage of Jews while they are alive; nor will any of them ever overlook an Arabian, or suffer such a one to become lord of his good things, whom he has in a manner taken captive, and that many times also. [377] And do not you disturb yourselves at the quaking of inanimate creatures, nor do you imagine that this earthquake is a sign of another calamity; for such affections of the elements are according to the course of nature, nor does it import any thing further to men, than what mischief it does immediately of itself. Perhaps there may come some short sign beforehand in the case of pestilences, and famines, and earthquakes; but these calamities themselves have their force limited by themselves [without foreboding any other calamity]. And indeed what greater mischief can the war, though it should be a violent one, do to us than the earthquake hath done? [378] Nay, there is a signal of our enemies’ destruction visible, and that a very great one also; and this is not a natural one, nor 38

Indeed, Wacholder (1962, p. 29) maintained that all of Herod’s speeches quoted by Nicolaus were basically authentic.

Desertion from Antony’s Camp

145

derived from the hand of foreigners neither, but it is this, that they have barbarously murdered our ambassadors, contrary to the common law of mankind; and they have destroyed so many, as if they esteemed them sacrifices for God, in relation to this war. But they will not avoid His great eye, nor His invincible right hand; and we shall be revenged of them presently, in case we still retain any of the courage of our forefathers, (toû patríov fronämatov) and rise up boldly to punish these covenantbreakers. [379] Let every one therefore go on and fight, not so much for his wife or his children, or for the danger his country is in, as for these ambassadors of ours; those dead ambassadors will conduct this war of ours better than we ourselves who are alive. And if you will be ruled by me, I will myself go before you into danger; for you know this well enough, that your courage is irresistible, unless you hurt yourselves by acting rashly.

One can discern certain similarities, however slight, between this speech and the one attributed by Thucydides to Pericles in his funeral oration for the dead of Athens during the Peloponnesian War, a point that has already been noted by several scholars. 39 Both speeches were obviously attempts to raise morale, but the essential and outstanding difference between the two lies in the fact that the speech of Pericles was, first and foremost, a song of praise to Athenian democracy; to the patriotism of the fighters; and to their self-sacrifice, courage, and daring, in addition to his words of consolation to the families of the fallen. Herod, by contrast, utilized the opportunity to portray himself as the central figure with respect to future actions. His speech offered no words of solace or identification with the dead, no appreciation for their military efforts to date or words of praise for the laws and values of Israel, which were ostensibly worth fighting for and defending. The speech did call for the warriors to hold fast to the heroism of their fathers in order to take revenge against a treacherous enemy;40 likewise, Herod stirred the men to believe that their enemies would not escape God’s watchful eye nor His vengeance. But all these were general words of encouragement and not uniquely Jewish in nature. Consequently, he condemned their despair at man-made tragedies, calling it an unmanly quality. By the same token, he actually praised them for their fear of the enemy, which paradoxically led them to greater cau39 40

See Thucydides, Peloponnesian War, II, 35 ff., esp. 45 ff.; cf. also 51 ff.; 60 ff.; Thackeray 1927, II, pp. 174–175 (n. b); Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, pp. 60–61 (n. a). It is quite probable that this was an allusion to Alexander Jannaeus’ war against the Nabataeans. Indeed, this was one of the few occasions where Herod was in agreement with the Hasmonaeans, although he refrained from citing them by name for personal and dynastic reasons.

146

6. Cleopatra VII’s Influence

tion, thereby legitimizing his own fears as well, particularly since he saw his prudence as the secret of his success. He therefore called upon all present to unite around his leadership, obey him, and rely upon his vigilance – and the courage it bred – and on his ingenuity. This was the grand finale and principal message of his address, which bore the unmistakably egocentric imprint of an individual with Paranoid Personality Disorder. (The pretensions of exemplary leadership are also typical of this condition, as noted in the profile of associated traits presented in the Introduction and Closing Remarks of this work.)41 The version of the speech offered in BJ was apparently based on the Histories of Nicolaus of Damascus, as indicated by the prevalence of concepts and motifs familiar to us from the spiritual world of Greek authors such as himself. On the whole, in terms of its content and overall approach, the speech appears to have its roots in Hellenistic literature. Already in the opening passage, he defined the calamities that had befallen him and his army as “providential chastisement”, a phrase repeated twice in the course of the speech (§ 373 and 376) that can also be understood literally as “demonic calamities” (daimoníouv plhgàv), an atypical form of reference for a God-fearing Jew.42 The same holds true for the notion that despair from man-made misfortunes is not a manly quality, or that hope not founded on one’s own strength but on the bad fortunes of one’s rival is false. Other, more distinctively Greek motifs present in the speech in War emphasize the fickle nature of fate, which can shift in an instant and lead us astray; for this reason, we must avoid becoming caught up in complacency, on the one hand, or despair, on the other.43 Nevertheless, a number of “Jewish” motifs crept into this version, primarily at the beginning and end. These were intended to emphasize that the natural disaster of the earthquake was nothing more than a trap sent to the treacherous Nabataeans by God (tòn qeòn) to spur the Jews into a war that would rain defeat and destruction upon their enemy. At first glance, there is no difference between the two versions on this point (as we shall see below), but the version in AJ contains the added statement that the crimes of the Nabataeans have not escaped the watchful eye 41

42

43

It is worth noting here, by way of analogy, the pretensions of such modern dictators as Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin to supreme leadership over their nations, to the point of fostering a “personality cult.” There is no difference on this point with BJ I 373, 376. On the use of the terms daimónion, daimóniov, daímwn, see Rengstorf, I, p. 405; Liddell & Scott, pp. 137– 141. Cf. BJ I, 373,374, 375, 378. Note the linguistic shift from the first person singular to the plural (ibid., 378–379).

Desertion from Antony’s Camp

147

nor lengthy arm of God (AJ XV, 144–145), a more identifiably Jewish motif. There is no question that the version in BJ is typical of the amended speeches frequently encountered in classical historiography. Such addresses occasionally reflected what the historian believed should have been said rather than what was actually spoken. An example can be found in Josephus’ writings, in the suicide oration of Elazar son Yair on the promontory of Masada (BJ VII, 321–388), which Josephus could not have reconstructed from any written source but could only have based on the testimony of two women who survived the mass suicide (ibid., 399–400, 404). By contrast, both versions of the speech delivered by Herod to his army in 31 BCE relied on the writings of Nicolaus. Since the latter was Herod’s official historian, and a paid employee of the royal court, it is highly probable that he fashioned the speech to please his master (a task at which he was successful, in retrospect). It is even quite possible that the insertion of the two “Jewish” motifs into the version in BJ was done at the behest of Herod himself so as to emphasize the national consensus regarding the war.44 The fact that Nicolaus was expected to write whatever Herod told him should not come as a surprise since he abided by his will in matters much more critical and fundamental in terms of conscience, including those that were incompatible with his own views. Thus for example, Nicolaus himself recounted in his “Autobiography” that he was convinced of the innocence of Herod’s Hasmonaean sons;45 but in Josephus’ account (apparently based on Nicolaus’ writings), their guilt is patently “obvious,” as presented in the words of Herod.46 The version of the speech in AJ (XV, 127–146) is not only longer but places more emphasis on Herod’s personal role as the central protagonist in the war against the Nabataeans, even alluding to his uniqueness as a political commentator on the chain of events leading up to the war. Moreover, woven into it are somewhat frequent references to Jewish values and motifs, as we can see from the following:

44 45 46

While these concepts may have been edited into the text by Josephus, we find it more plausible that Herod himself was the source; see Wacholder 1962, p. 29, etc. See the fragment preserved in Constantinus Porphyrogenitus’ writings, cited by Stern 1974, I, no. 96 (pp. 248–250). Cf. Wacholder 1962, p. 78; we will be returning to this subject below. Not without reason did Nicolaus advise him to delay their execution (AJ XV, 370–372), suggesting that he himself had doubts in the matter.

148

6. Cleopatra VII’s Influence

[127] You are not unacquainted, my fellow soldiers, that we have had, not long since, many accidents that have put a stop to what we are about, and it is probable that even those that are most distinguished above others for their courage can hardly keep up their spirits in such circumstances; [128] but since we cannot avoid fighting, and nothing that hath happened is of such a nature but it may by ourselves be recovered into a good state, and this by one brave action only well performed, [129] I have proposed to myself both to give you some encouragement, and, at the same time, some information; both which parts of my design will tend to this point; that you may still continue in your own proper fortitude. [130] I will then, in the first place, demonstrate to you that this war is a just one on our side, and that on this account it is a war of necessity, and occasioned by the injustice of our adversaries; for if you be once satisfied of this, it will be a real cause of alacrity to you; after which I will further demonstrate, that the misfortunes we are under are of no great consequence, and that we have the greatest reason to hope for victory. I shall begin with the first, and appeal to yourselves as witnesses to what I shall say. You are not ignorant certainly of the wickedness of the Arabians, which is to that degree as to appear incredible to all other men, and to include somewhat that shows the grossest barbarity and ignorance of God. The chief things wherein they have affronted us have arisen from covetousness and envy; and they have attacked us in an insidious manner, and on the sudden. [131] And what occasion is there for me to mention many instances of such their procedure? When they were in danger of losing their own government of themselves, and of being slaves to Cleopatra, what others were they that freed them from that fear? For it was the friendship I had with Antony, and the kind disposition he was in towards us, that hath been the occasion that even these Arabians have not been utterly undone, Antony being unwilling to undertake any thing which might be suspected by us of unkindness: [132] but when he had a mind to bestow some parts of each of our dominions on Cleopatra, I also managed that matter so, that by giving him presents of my own, I might obtain a security to both nations, while I undertook myself to answer for the money, and gave him two hundred talents, and became surety for those two hundred more which were imposed upon the land that was subject to this tribute; [133] and this they have defrauded us of, although it was not reasonable that Jews should pay tribute to any man living, or allow part of their land to be taxable; but although that was to be, yet ought we not to pay tribute for these Arabians, whom we have ourselves preserved; nor is it fit that they, who have professed (and that with great integrity and sense of our kindness) that it is by our means that they keep their principality, should injure us, and deprive us of what is our due, and this while we have been still not their enemies, but their friends. [134] And whereas observation of covenants takes place among the bitterest enemies, but among friends is absolutely necessary, this is not observed among these men, who think gain to be the best of all things, let it be by any means whatsoever, and that injustice is no harm, if they may but get money by it: is it therefore a question with you, whether the unjust are to be punished or not? [135] when God himself hath declared his mind that so it

Desertion from Antony’s Camp

149

ought to be, and hath commanded that we ever should hate injuries and injustice, which is not only just, but necessary, in wars between several nations; [136] for these Arabians have done what both the Greeks and barbarians own to be an instance of the grossest wickedness, with regard to our ambassadors, which they have beheaded, while the Greeks declare that such ambassadors are sacred and inviolable. And for ourselves, we have learned from God the most excellent of our doctrines, and the most holy part of our law, by angels or ambassadors; for this name brings God to the knowledge of mankind, and is sufficient to reconcile enemies one to another. [137] What wickedness then can be greater than the slaughter of ambassadors, who come to treat about doing what is right? And when such have been their actions, how is it possible they can either live securely in common life, or be successful in war? In my opinion, this is impossible; [138] but perhaps some will say, that what is holy, and what is righteous, is indeed on our side, but that the Arabians are either more courageous or more numerous than we are. Now, as to this, in the first place, it is not fit for us to say so, for with whom is what is righteous, with them is God himself; now where God is, there is both multitude and courage. [139] But to examine our own circumstances a little, we were conquerors in the first battle; and when we fought again, they were not able to oppose us, but ran away, and could not endure our attacks or our courage; but when we had conquered them, then came Athenion, and made war against us without declaring it; and pray, is this an instance of their manhood? [140] or is it not a second instance of their wickedness and treachery? Why are we therefore of less courage, on account of that which ought to inspire us with stronger hopes? and why are we terrified at these, who, when they fight upon the level, are continually beaten, and when they seem to be conquerors, they gain it by wickedness? [141] and if we suppose that any one should deem them to be men of real courage, will not he be excited by that very consideration to do his utmost against them? for true valor is not shown by fighting against weak persons, but in being able to overcome the most hardy. [142] But then if the distresses we are ourselves under, and the miseries that have come by the earthquake, hath affrighted any one, let him consider, in the first place, that this very thing will deceive the Arabians, by their supposal that what hath befallen us is greater than it really is. Moreover, it is not right that the same thing that emboldens them should discourage us; [143] for these men, you see, do not derive their alacrity from any advantageous virtue of their own, but from their hope, as to us, that we are quite cast down by our misfortunes; but when we boldly march against them, we shall soon pull down their insolent conceit of themselves, and shall gain this by attacking them, that they will not be so insolent when we come to the battle; [144] for our distresses are not so great, nor is what hath happened all indication of the anger of God against us, as some imagine; for such things are accidental, and adversities that come in the usual course of things; and if we allow that this was done by the will of God, we must allow that it is now over by his will also, and that he is satisfied with what hath already happened; for had he been willing to afflict us still more thereby, he had not changed his mind so soon. [145] And as for the war we are engaged

150

6. Cleopatra VII’s Influence

in, he hath himself demonstrated that he is willing it should go on, and that he knows it to be a just war; for while some of the people in the country have perished, all you who were in arms have suffered nothing, but are all preserved alive; whereby God makes it plain to us, that if you had universally, with your children and wives, been in the army, it had come to pass that you had not undergone any thing that would have much hurt you. [146] Consider these things, and, what is more than all the rest, that you have God at all times for your Protector; and prosecute these men with a just bravery, who, in point of friendship, are unjust, in their battles perfidious, towards ambassadors impious, and always inferior to you in valor.

Initially, Herod spoke in the first person singular, but he moved quickly and naturally to the first person plural. This is a well-known rhetorical device intended to cause the listener, and ultimately the reader, to identify with the speaker’s opinions and accept his status as leader. This style, which characterizes most sections of the speech, stresses Herod’s centrality amid the dramatic vicissitudes of the war against the Nabataeans. In actual fact, there is no real difference between the two versions in this regard, apart from combining the rhetorical content with a Jewish message. The version in AJ undoubtedly also relies on Nicolaus, although it is supplemented by internal Jewish references and by commentary based at least partially on Josephus’ own assessments.47 The speech as amended by Josephus gives the reader the impression that Herod wished to curry favor with his listeners by making reference to such Jewish values as the importance of shunning evil; the sense of obligation to engage in war when necessary (AJ XV, 135); the belief that this war is justified (ibid., 138); the faith in God who supports the just and repays the wicked in kind (ibid.); and the belief that the fate of the war will be decided only by the will of God (ibid., 144–146). Furthermore, when speaking of the immunity customarily granted by various peoples (barbarians and Greeks) to emissaries of peace, he even “slips in” unequivocal words of praise for the Jewish religion, which he regards as superior to all other faiths, the laws of the Torah surpassing in their holiness all other laws from whatever source (ibid., 136). The speech understandably arouses the reader’s incredulity at the extent of its hypocrisy, since Herod had already committed so many acts contrary to the laws of the Torah and would continue to do so in future. To be sure, Josephus’ highly visible imprint on this version of the speech raises questions regarding Herod’s duplicity. Nevertheless, this should not undermine the credibility of the speech in terms of its 47

Cf. Stern 1991, pp. 455–457; Landau 2003, pp. 187–189.

Desertion from Antony’s Camp

151

political and persuasive message condemning the Nabataeans. It is sufficient in this context to recall that the conflict with the Nabataeans was a national war in which numerous Jewish fighters took part, just as they had done in the days of the Hasmonaean king Alexander Jannaeus. Moreover, the intense hatred toward the Nabataeans apparently reflected the views of Josephus himself, who related negatively to them from the perspective of his later years in light of the atrocities they committed as part of the siege of Jerusalem during the Great Revolt (see below). In our opinion, the speech in AJ is a classic example of Herod’s manipulative abilities in that he managed to harness the national consensus regarding the Nabataeans to his personal advantage and even to presume to present himself as the fighting leader of the Jewish people as a whole. It is quite probable that he even entertained the hope that the war against them could serve as an impetus for conciliation between himself and the Jewish people, for which reason he deemed it necessary to flatter the Jewish fighters and offer words of praise concerning the laws of the Torah, the bravery and courage of the Jews, Jewish faith in Divine providence with respect to the Jewish people, and so forth. In analyzing Herod’s psychological profile as it emerges from the version of the speech recorded in AJ, one sees a noticeable tendency here as well to place himself at the center of the historical experience, and in a very clever manner to boot. Thus for example, Herod’s centrism (that is, belief in his own centrality) manifested itself even in matters that were tangential to the narrative, i. e., his presumptuous depiction of himself as the major factor in arranging the complex political and fiscal relationship between Cleopatra, on the one hand, and the Nabataeans and the kingdom of Judea, on the other. This posturing may have been even more significant in his eyes than his pretensions of leadership of the Jewish people, since it had international political ramifications. But there is no question that his need to be at the center of events was evident above all in his desire to be thought of as the great victor in the confrontation with the Nabataeans, for which he could be portrayed as the savior of the nation. For this reason, there is an obvious “propagandistic” attempt in this version to expose the negative traits of the Nabataeans, namely, their rapaciousness, faithlessness, unreliability, treachery, deceit, moral degradation, maliciousness, greed, and envy. Moreover, they engaged in a surprise attack without first declaring war and ambushed the opposing forces, overcame the weak, gloated over their enemies’ misfortunes, and displayed arrogance and exaggerated self-confidence. All of this

152

6. Cleopatra VII’s Influence

was of course presented in the finest Greek rhetorical tradition. Not without reason does the portrayal of the Nabataeans take up the bulk of the speech leading up to Herod’s counterattack (AJ XV, 133–144, 146). As suggested above, it is highly probable that when amending the speech, Josephus had in mind certain historical associations from his lifetime in connection with the Nabataean involvement in the siege of Jerusalem prior to that city’s destruction – a role that involved horrible acts of atrocity (BJ V, 548–562). He may also have been thinking of the longstanding Jewish tradition equating the Nabataeans with the biblical Amalek.48 If our assessment is correct, we must inevitably conclude that Josephus’ version of Herod’s speech is colored by Jewish hatred of the Nabataeans to an extent even greater than that of Herod himself. That said, there is nothing in his words to alter the message of the speech in this regard. We have already seen that despite the Nabataean ancestry of his mother Cyprus, and the strong bonds of friendship between his father Antipater and the royal dynasty in Petra, Herod had been bitterly disappointed by Malichus I at the beginning of his political career. From his perspective, Malichus and his people had instantly become his worst enemies. The hatred of those closest to us can sometimes be greater than the hatred of the distant, particularly in the case of individuals with a tribal mentality for whom honor and revenge are values central to their worldview. As we shall see below, in the second war between Herod and the Nabataeans (9 BCE), he suffered one of the greatest political humiliations of his life, exacerbating his Paranoid Personality Disorder and causing his emotional state to deteriorate to such a degree that there was no hope of recovery. Paradoxically, Herod projected onto the Nabataeans many of the negative characteristics that he himself possessed, exemplifying the tendency to see in others the flaws that we ourselves are guilty of. This version of the speech demonstrates for the first time Herod’s rhetorical skills, which were nurtured by Nicolaus of Damascus.49 The speech indicates that he absorbed his teachings well, as also evidenced by other addresses that he delivered on various occasions (see below). Herod’s love of rhetoric apparently stemmed as well from a desire to emulate his patrons Antony and Octavian (later Augustus), who were also known for their skills and affinity in this area.50 There 48

49 50

Cf. Cornfeld 1982, p. 70; see also Maier 1994, pp. 117, 124–126. On Amalek as symbolizing the enemies of the Jewish people in Josephus’ writings, see Feldman 2004, pp. 85, 271–272, 277–278. This can be inferred from Nicolaus’ account as well; see note 45 above. See for example Plutarch, Antony, 2 (end); Suetonius, Augustus, 84–89.

Desertion from Antony’s Camp

153

is reason to speculate that Herod’s talent at speech-making also gave him considerable satisfaction, in particular when he displayed it before a large audience, confident that his listeners would be electrified by his words and react with a spontaneous, instant ovation (AJ XV, 126, 128–129, 147). This sense of euphoria and ecstasy is well known among actors and orators who are “dizzied” by their effect on the masses. It is apparently for this reason that Herod made frequent use here of rhetorical questions (no less than eight times), whether to emphasize a particular point that would impress his listeners, to utilize a more effective means of persuasion, or to inflame their passions. According to Josephus’ account, “When the Jews heard this speech, they were much raised in their minds, and more disposed to fight than before. So Herod, when he had offered the sacrifices appointed by the law made haste, and took them, and led them against the Arabians” (AJ XV, 147). In the version in War (I, 380), it is emphasized even more strongly that Herod invigorated his men with these words, and upon witnessing their enthusiasm, offered sacrifices to God, and later marched forth with his army and crossed the Jordan. Herod’s counterattack and victory in the Philadelphia region (present-day Amman) also merited parallel mentions (in BJ I, 380– 385 and AJ XV, 147–160);51 both passages similarly highlight his decisive personal role in the victory despite the fact that his forces were numerically inferior. In both accounts, it is stressed that victory was achieved by virtue of his courage, resourcefulness, perseverance, and fierce desire for vengeance, although the impression arises between the lines that what decided the battle, above all, was thirst and lack of water. 52 As Josephus recounts, the Nabataean losses were extremely heavy: 5,000 in the first encounter; 4,000 who gave themselves up as prisoners; and a further 7,000 who perished in the final battle. Such round and elevated figures are necessarily suspect, and may have been intended to glorify and embellish the victory after the fact. They are also not consistent with guerrilla warfare in that they are excessive for combat of this type. It would appear that the description of the victory over the Nabataeans was “improved upon” by Josephus’ primary source (i. e., Nicolaus of Damascus), most likely based on instructions 51 52

For greater detail, see Kasher 1988, pp. 142–144. According to Sagiv (2003, p. 41), the battle was fought over control of the water sources near Philadelphia, which may indicate that it took place in the summer or early autumn of 31 BCE. This would place it quite close in time to the date of the Actium battle (September 2), thereby supporting our conclusion that Herod in fact planned his involvement in the Nabataean war so as to be absent from Actium.

154

6. Cleopatra VII’s Influence

from Herod himself, with the aim of venerating him in the eyes of his subjects and glorifying his accomplishments. Both versions emphasize that the Arabs (i. e., Nabataeans) themselves “stood amazed at Herod’s warlike spirit under his own calamities; so for the future they yielded, and made him ‘ruler’ of their nation” (AJ XV, 159; cf. BJ I, 385). 53 The honorary title conferred upon him – “prostates (guardian) of the people (prostáthv toû 3qnouv)” – should not be seen as a formal appointment of any sort or a recognition of official authority over a particular Arab territory but rather as a strictly symbolic decision intended to grant him the status of “defender” or “patron.”54 At most, the reference may be to Nabataeans that Herod had mercy upon and whose lives he spared, perhaps also recruiting them into his service in the border areas of his kingdom, so that their reference to him as prostates was akin to a public declaration and oath of loyalty to their new master. The fact that in the towns conquered by him in that region, including Canatha and Seea, there continued to exist temples and centers of worship to Nabataean gods (Baalshamin and Dushara) throughout his reign and that of his son the tetrarch Philippus (4 BCE–34 CE) is a question that invites further study. 55 Ostensibly, this is a convenient way of resolving the textual difficulties, but it seems that the explanation is quite plausible in this case. Herod’s victory may have strengthened internal political leanings in Nabataean Petra toward reaching a compromise with him, so that declaring him as prostates expressed a desire for reconciliation. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that Herod was the son of an aristocratic Nabataean woman, if not an actual princess, so that a “lobby” of sorts may have emerged on his behalf in the Nabataean royal court. Although it is difficult to decide between the two possibilities, the first one seems to us to be the more credible.

53

54

55

Cf. Smallwood 1981, p. 68, n. 20. Otto (1913, col. 90), by contrast, discredited the entire story as a fabrication, but this seems to be too far-reaching a conclusion. It is also unclear whether the reference here is actually to the Nabataeans, since Josephus used the vague, general term “Arabs.” This can be misleading, since not all Arabs were necessarily Nabataeans, not to mention the fact that there were different tribes with a range of political opinions. Compare to other uses of this appellation in Josephus’ writings: AJ XIV, 444; BJ I, 633; II, 136; III, 98; IV, 185, 569; VI ,340; X, 161; XIV, 157; XX, 90; Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, pp. 76–77 (n. a); Kokkinos 2002a, p. 736. Jeremias (1969, p. 346) held that all, or most, of the Nabataean captives were sold into slavery. This appears to be an overstatement that contradicts Josephus’ account, even if we discount his tendency toward pro-Herodian propaganda. See for more detailed discussion: Kasher 1988, p. 144 (and n. 36), 149, 174 ff.

Chapter 7 Elimination of Herod’s Hasmonaean Family Members (30–28 BCE) Execution of John Hyrcanus II Octavian’s victory at the battle of Actium (September 2, 31 BCE) removed, once and for all, the danger posed to Herod by Cleopatra and replace ended her harmful influence on Antony, but apparently did little to relieve him of his other concerns. Since Herod did not know how Octavian would react to his close friendship with Antony, he was filled with trepidation as Josephus writes (AJ XV, 162–163): [162] At that time both Herod’s enemies and friends despaired of his affairs, for it was not probable that he would remain without punishment, [because he] had showed so much friendship for Antony. [163] So it happened that [he himself and] his friends despaired, and had no hopes of his escape; but for his enemies, they all outwardly appeared to be troubled at his case, but were privately very glad of it, as hoping to obtain a change for the better.

The impression arises from between the lines that there was hope within the Jewish community as well that the bonds of friendship between Herod and Antony would serve as a pretext for punishing Herod. For this reason, there was great anticipation surrounding his meeting with Octavian at Rhodes at the latter’s behest. Ostensibly, there was a realistic basis for Herod’s anxiety, especially if we assume that he believed that the meeting at Rhodes was liable to lead to his political demise and the restoration of the Hasmonaean dynasty. From his perspective, the candidate who posed the greatest danger at this juncture was John Hyrcanus II, who had been a supporter of the Romans since 63 BCE and was not barred from the throne as a result of his physical defect, but only from the high priesthood. In fact, his very existence was a threat to Herod, as evidenced by the following passage: [164] As for Herod himself he saw that there was no one of royal dignity left but Hyrcanus, and therefore he thought it would be for his advantage not to suffer him to be an obstacle in his way any longer; for that in case he

156

7. Elimination of Herod’s Hasmonaean Family Members

himself survived, and escaped the danger he was in, he thought it the safest way to put it out of the power of such a man to make any attempt against him, at such junctures of affairs, as was more worthy of the kingdom than himself; and in case he should be slain by Caesar, his envy prompted him to desire to slay him that would otherwise be king after him.

Although Hyrcanus II had not carried the title “king” since 63 BCE but was referred to merely as “ethnarch,” the Jewish public considered him the unofficial king, as was evident even during his exile in Babylonia and certainly upon his return to Jerusalem.1 Moreover, his status as ethnarch was formally recognized by Julius Caesar and was granted to his descendants in perpetuity, meaning that he had official dynastic rights conferred upon him by the Romans, in addition to which his symbolic authority as “head of the Jewish nation” was not limited to the communities of Judea but applied to the Jews of the Diaspora as well. 2 It was only the Parthian invasion in 40 BCE that lessened his influence in Palestine and banished him to Babylonia for a number of years; but even then, he did not renounce his ties with Rome. When Hyrcanus returned in the spring of 30 BCE after ten years in Babylonia, he had changed significantly; by now, he was an old man of eighty or more, an extremely advanced age at the time.3 If we heed the accounts of his frail and lethargic nature even as a young man,4 the question inevitably arises: What great danger did such a man pose that was of such concern to Herod that he wished to have him executed? Could he not have been left in Babylonia and not enticed to return to Jerusalem; and why did Herod “charm” him into returning from exile if not to execute him? A possible answer lies in the argument that Herod indeed harbored an obsessive fear of anyone of Hasmonaean 1 2 3

4

See BJ I, 120, 209, 212, 214, 226, 232; AJ XIV, 165, 168, 172,174, 178, 302; XV, 15, 17, 18, 164, 180, 182, etc; cf Efron 2006, p. 190. See in detail: Pucci-Ben Zeev 1998, pp. 40–41, 49–50, 63, 65–66, 92–93, 103, 105, 141, 145, 194, 196–197. On life expectancy during the Second Temple period, see: Y. Nager & H. Torges, Israel Exploration Journal 53 (2003), p. 166, 170. According to Josephus, John Hyrcanus II was over eighty when he died (AJ XV, 178). Wellhausen (1924, p. 307, n. 2) doubted this statement, since it implied that his birth must be dated to 110 BCE whereas his parents got married shortly after 103 BCE; cf. Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, 85 (n. c); Otto 1913, col. 52; Schalit 1969, p. 124; Kokkinos 1998, p. 212 (n. 20). Since Josephus indicated that from the time of Pompey’s conquest (63 BCE), John Hyrcanus enjoyed his honors for 40 years (op. cit., 180), if calculated correctly no more than 23 years could have elapsed until he was deposed by Antigonus in 40 BCE (see Marcus & Wikgren, p. 87, n. a), and 40 years from the time he was nominated by his mother as king and high priest (76 BCE) until his return from Babylonia (36 BCE). See BJ I, 109, 120; AJ XIII, 407; XIV 13, 44; cf. Schalit 1969, pp. 15–17.

Execution of John Hyrcanus II

157

extraction – a fear rooted, in our opinion, in his paranoid personality structure. Schalit believed that he did not fear Hyrcanus per se but rather the Hasmonaean dynasty that he represented. According to Schalit, when Herod departed for Rhodes, “it was clear to him that not only his own fate but the fate of the royal dynasty that he wished to establish hung in the balance.”5 But what alternative could Hyrcanus offer to the Herodian dynasty since his own great-grandchildren, that is, the sons of Herod and Mariamme the Hasmonaean, were in any event his prospective heirs? We therefore find it a much more convincing explanation that Hyrcanus’ execution (in the spring of 30 BCE) was a direct result of Herod’s paranoid personality. It was the war with the Nabataeans that offered the appropriate circumstances for the cunning plot against the elderly Hyrcanus, the plan being to incriminate him for an act of treason, which was conceivable (albeit barely) given his close ties with the Nabataeans in the past. The scheme in fact was only an official pretext for finding Hyrcanus guilty even before Herod’s meeting with Octavian in Rhodes, so that the act could be presented to the latter as a fait accompli.6 Hyrcanus II was accused of entering into a conspiracy with the Nabataean king Malichus I by way of a “middle man” named Dositheus, described as a friend of both Hyrcanus II and the Nabataeans (AJ XV, 168, 170–172). A comparative analysis reveals a surface similarity between this plot and the scheme devised in the past against Judah Aristobulus II on the initiative of Antipater, father of Herod, with the collaboration of John Hyrcanus II and the Nabataean king Aretas III (ibid., XIV, 14 ff.). Herod may have thought that it would be relatively simple to persuade the Jewish public that Hyrcanus was guilty of conspiring with the Nabataeans, since the bitter memories of his involvement in the Nabataean siege against Jerusalem (63 BCE) – a siege that brought about the end of Jewish sovereignty and the beginning of political subjugation to Rome – were still fresh in their minds. In Herod’s view, the experiences of the recent war with the Nabataeans offered fertile ground for his scheme; in other words, he believed it would be possible to incriminate Hyrcanus and dispose of him with relative ease if he were to be accused of a second conspiracy with the Nabataeans. But since most modern scholars have justly argued that the accusation does not stand up to 5 6

Cf. Schalit, pp. 124–126. His execution took place in the spring of 30 BCE; see BJ I, 431–434; AJ XV, 161– 182. For further details on Herod’s plot, see Schalit, pp. 125–126; Kasher 1988, pp. 149–150.

158

7. Elimination of Herod’s Hasmonaean Family Members

criticism,7 it is hard to escape the conclusion that the entire episode is yet another example of Herod’s manipulative scheming, which was a direct outgrowth of his paranoid suspiciousness. After Hyrcanus was supposedly “caught red-handed,” he was summoned to an interrogation, but vehemently denied the charges leveled against him. Upon hearing his denials, Herod instantly produced “counter-proofs,” which he presented before a special judicial forum (i. e., tò sunédrion under his aegis) convened for the purpose of trying Hyrcanus II and pronouncing his immediate execution (AJ XV, 173). The impression arises, even from Josephus’ account, that Herod himself was unsure whether the charge was plausible, but this obviously did not prevent him from submitting “evidence” against him, namely, the correspondence that supposedly took place between himself and Malichus. The judicial body that tried Hyrcanus II should in no way be confused with the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, as mistakenly assumed by several scholars.8 Herod’s need for a higher judicial authority to prove his victim’s guilt is typical of paranoid individuals, who are known to show a propensity for involvement in legal disputes (litigiousness) out of a desire to prove the “justness” of their cause before an official judicial authority and be publicly vindicated by its unassailable findings.9 In short, this was a typical “show trial” (familiar from similar despotic regimes in the modern era)10 utilized by Herod on several occasions, in particular the trials of his wife Mariamme and his Hasmonaean sons.

The Growing Hasmonaean Trauma The fear of the unknown surrounding the meeting with Octavian at Rhodes was evident as well in Herod’s suspicious attitude toward his 7 8 9

10

Compare for example Otto 1913, cols. 52 ff.; Schalit 1969, pp. 126, 698–699; Kasher, loc. cit. For example: Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, p. 83, n. a. By contrast, see Schalit, pp. 247 ff.; Efron 1987, p. 311. A. Levi 1997, pp. 14 ff. The Hebrew title of Levi’s book, Rodfei Mishpat, which translates literally as “trial-seekers,” is better understood in this context as individuals who are litigious, one of the hallmarks of Personal Paranoid Disorder as cited in DSM-IV, 1994, p. 635; our thanks to Karen Gold for calling our attention to this point. The analogy to Stalin is self-evident, especially in light of the ‘show trials’ he conducted as justification for his political purges; indeed, the analogy between Herod and Stalin was considered by Fenn 1992, p. 69. In our opinion, Herod can also be compared to Saddam Hussein, who incidentally was an admirer of Stalin; see Said Abu-Rish, Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge, 2000, passim.

The Growing Hasmonaean Trauma

159

wife Mariamme and her mother Alexandra, as demonstrated by his placing them under house arrest at the Alexandrium fortress (i. e., Qarn Sartaba in the Samarian desert) until his own fate was known. In stark contrast to his treatment of them in 40 BCE, this time he divided the women of the court, installing his mother and sister at Masada (as in the past) with all due honor and under the patronage of his brother Pheroras, who was designated to take over the throne in his stead should any harm befall him. Mariamme and her mother, by contrast, were isolated at Alexandrium under the watchful eye of Joseph, Herod’s major-domo, and Soemus the Ituraean, with strict instructions that they be killed if his mission to Rhodes ended in failure (AJ XV, 183–186).11 At first glance, one might think that Herod “had a suspicion of Alexandra, lest she should take this opportunity to bring the multitude to a revolt, and introduce a sedition into the affairs of the kingdom” (ibid., 183). But in truth, it is hard to take such a supposition seriously given the circumstances at the time; for what sort of danger would be posed by a woman such as herself, stripped of all political clout – especially now that her great patrons Cleopatra and Antony were dead? Moreover, Herod himself had no reason to fear her ability to offer an alternative to his own ruling dynasty since in any case one of the sons of Mariamme the Hasmonaean (i. e., one of Alexandra’s grandsons) was destined to inherit the throne.12 Thus it is obvious that his fear of her was baseless, and stemmed solely from the sense of apprehension associated with individuals who suffer from Paranoid Personality Disorder. Schalit offers a convincing explanation for his state of mind, arguing that the fear of the unknown with regard to the meeting at Rhodes, as well as the imagined threat from the Hasmonaean dynasty, simply prevented Herod from engaging in lucid, rational thought. As a consequence, he was drawn into impulsive actions aimed at wiping out the entire Hasmonaean family. Moreover, Schalit believed, his tempestuous nature and total submission to his wildest instincts led him to the point of insanity. The character analysis offered by Schalit in this context is consistent with a person suffering from Paranoid 11

12

See Kasher 1988, p. 152. The difference between the two cases was that in 40 BCE Alexandra and Mariamme cooperated with Herod when facing the threat from Antigonus; by 30 BCE, however, they hated him as a result of his murders of Aristobulus and John Hyrcanus and of the final ouster of the Hasmonaean dynasty from the high priesthood. It is worth bearing in mind that this was precisely what Alexandra herself wanted; see AJ XV, 249.

160

7. Elimination of Herod’s Hasmonaean Family Members

Personality Disorder, even if he did not use this precise term.13 On the other hand, we do not share Schalit’s theory of loss of judgment, since a person suffering from Paranoid Personality Disorder is not without intellect, which operates independently of reasoning. On the contrary, such a person enlists all his cognitive abilities in an effort to rationalize his behavior on the basis of logic so as to make reality conform to his rigid, distorted interpretation. In Schalit’s words (p. 74): “Caught up in his fear of the Hasmonaean dynasty, he was immediately ready and willing emotionally to carry out the murder, and could not weigh or reflect on the deed except with regard to the manner of its commission. He behaved in this manner toward both the young Aristobulus and the elderly Hyrcanus” (cf. also chapter 5 above, including note 24). What this indicates, according to Schalit as well, is that Herod was not lacking in reason; thus we would modify his analysis to state that Herod’s behavior proved him to be a person suffering from Paranoid Personality Disorder, whose sense of reason was subjugated to objectives defined by him beforehand based on his excessive suspiciousness – objectives that became fixated in his mind.

The Meeting with Octavian at Rhodes The meeting at Rhodes (30 BCE) was viewed by Herod as somewhat of a “second coronation.” The fact that he was presenting himself before his new master without a crown on his head was deliberately intended to convey humility yet at the same time serve as a veiled request to regain the throne. Indeed, it is noted in BJ I, 387 that Herod stood before Octavian without a crown (díca diadämatov), with the outward appearance of a commoner (kaì tò scêma Ìdiöthv), but with the sense of entitlement of a king (tò dè frónhma basileúv).14 The version in AJ (XV, 187) emphasizes, in addition, that he removed his 13

14

The only time that he expressed the opinion that Herod might have suffered from paranoia was in the context of events that occurred in his later years, namely, after 10 BCE; see Schalit 1969, pp. 600–610, 637 ff., esp. 610 (and n. 112); 639–640 (n. 198). These events, and the relevant diagnoses, will be discussed at length later in this work. In our opinion, however, Herod showed signs of Paranoid Personality Disorder at a much earlier stage – signs that escalated in frequency and severity to the point of complete insanity later in life. The term tó frónhma has a positive connotation, with the meaning of self-assurance, lofty intentions, noble thoughts, proud aspirations, resolve, and the like; cf. Liddell & Scott, p. 1959. The implication is that Herod was not particularly modest in his political ambitions.

The Meeting with Octavian at Rhodes

161

crown but not his other regal garments, indicating that he maintained the trappings of royalty without the official symbol. In other words, his appearance without the crown was meant to signal to his new master that he retained only the authority vested in him by Rome and was awaiting the completion of his coronation by the new ruling authority, Octavian. Herod was hopeful that the latter would recall his original coronation of ten years previous (40 BCE), which had been conducted with the full agreement of Octavian. But since he was also aware of the basic difference between the two occasions, at Rhodes he sought to have the coronation recognized on the basis of the new political reality in which Octavian no longer had any ruling partners in Rome. In Herod’s view, this was cause for trepidation since he had not had any contact with Octavian for ten years and had no definitive knowledge of the latter’s position regarding him. Under the new circumstances, he had no choice but to take a calculated risk as he had already done in the past before the battle of Actium when he had become “entangled” on his own initiative in the war with the Nabataeans. The difference between the two instances was that this time, he was gambling not on the battlefield but in the political arena. As in the previous situation, however, it was again his mortal fear that dictated the manipulative behavior so typical of an individual suffering from Paranoid Personality Disorder. Here too, this recurring pattern led to a worsened state of emotional decline, as we shall see below. When he met with Octavian in Rhodes, Herod initially sought to create the impression that during the civil war prior to the battle of Actium he had faithfully fulfilled his obligations to Antony (the official Roman ruler as far as he was concerned), as dictated by his own status as an “allied king and friend of the Roman people.”15 This was of course intended to demonstrate to Antony that, in the present situation, Herod meant only to replace his patron in the formal sense without renouncing his unqualified loyalty to Rome. There is reason to assume that Octavian was well aware of the tradition of political “zigzagging” in the Herodian family, which – despite its acrobatic maneuvers – held fast to its basic loyalty to Rome. So as to remove any doubt on Octavian’s part, Herod made a point of telling him this straight away upon meeting him in Rhodes. However, it is difficult 15

It is worth reiterating that such a status dictated complete obedience to Rome, especially with respect to security and foreign affairs, since it is inconceivable that an ally could initiate steps on such cardinal issues without the explicit permission of Rome.

162

7. Elimination of Herod’s Hasmonaean Family Members

to assess how much he was convinced by Herod’s claim of loyalty to Antony, and how much he was guided by pragmatic considerations of his own, which had already taken shape in his mind.16 Herod obviously wished to encourage him to draw the “right” conclusions from his perspective, for which reason he took pains to create a favorable atmosphere among the local residents even before the meeting took place. This effort was orchestrated by two friends of Herod’s, Sapinus and Ptolemy, who presumably wished to repay him for the generous support and gifts he had given their city over the previous ten years since initiating a restoration project there in 40 BCE.17 Indeed, the gamble paid off beyond all expectations as Herod managed to win Octavian’s complete trust as well as the longed-for official recognition of his rule (AJ XV, 196). Moreover, he assuaged Herod’s fears with a crucial assurance regarding his kingship and supported him on a senatorial resolution “for his security.” Octavian even took the opportunity to grant him generous gifts of territory (BJ I, 386–393; AJ XV, 187–195), some of which had been severed from his kingdom and given over to Cleopatra on Antony’s orders, namely, the cities of Gadara and Hippus in eastern Transjordan, and such cities as Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, and Strato’s Tower west of the Jordan (AJ XV, 217; BJ I, 396). Immediately following his successful meeting at Rhodes Herod repaid his new patron above and beyond the norm, paving the way for their future relationship with excessive and ingratiating displays of generosity: (AJ XV, 196): He conducted Caesar (i. e. Octavian) on his way to Egypt, and made presents, even beyond his ability, to both him and his friends, and in general behaved himself with great magnanimity.18

When he passed through Phoenicia, Herod arranged a special reception for him that left a lasting impression on the Romans (ibid., 199– 201): [199] So he prepared for the reception of Caesar, as he was going out of Syria to invade Egypt; and when he came, he entertained him at Ptolemais 16

17 18

The very fact that Octavian did not negate in principle the political arrangements of his rival Antony was evidence of his pragmatism. It appears that he considered every case on its own merits, in accordance with its potential benefits; see Amit 2002, p. 9. See: BJ I, 424; AJ XIV, 378; XV, 147; Roller 1998, pp. 232–234. He may have unconsciously imitated his former patron, Antony, who also indulged in acts of great extravagance; cf. Plutarch, Antony, 4. But Alexander the Great himself, the renowned model of many Hellenistic kings, could also have been his source of inspiration; cf. Plutarch, Alexander,39.

The Trial and Execution of Mariamme the Hasmonaean

163

with all royal magnificence. He also bestowed presents on the army, and brought them provisions in abundance. He also proved to be one of Caesar’s most cordial friends, and put the army in array, and rode along with Caesar, and had a hundred and fifty men, well appointed in all respects, after a rich and sumptuous manner, for the better reception of him and his friends. [200] He also provided them with what they should want, as they passed over the dry desert, insomuch that they lacked neither wine nor water, which last the soldiers stood in the greatest need of; and besides, he presented Caesar with eight hundred talents, and procured to himself the good-will of them all, because he was assisting to them in a much greater and more splendid degree than the kingdom he had obtained could afford; by which means he more and more demonstrated to Caesar the firmness of his friendship, and his readiness to assist him; [201] and what was of the greatest advantage to him was this, that his liberality came at a seasonable time also. And when they returned again out of Egypt, his assistances were no way inferior to the good offices he had formerly done them (cf. BJ I, 394–395).19

The meeting at Rhodes may well have brought Herod to a state of genuine euphoria since, despite all expectations, “he returned to Judea again with greater honor and assurance than ever” (AJ XV, 198). The feeling that God looked upon him with kindness (ibid.) penetrated more and more deeply into his thinking, becoming a permanent part of his belief system. Nevertheless, inwardly he was still consumed with anxiety, frustration, jealousy, hatred, and a constant fear of conspiracies, not to mention his inferiority complex and sense of humiliation with regard to the Hasmonaean dynasty. His feelings were likely to erupt at any moment, and one small spark was enough to set off a major conflagration. We have already noted his cyclothymic tendencies; in our view, the abrupt mood swings from the grandiosity and euphoria of a person who believes himself to be “beloved by God” to a state of wretched misery accompanied by fears of persecution and betrayal, fits the cyclothymic model in general and Herod’s paranoid personality in particular, as we shall see below.

The Trial and Execution of Mariamme the Hasmonaean From the time of Mariamme’s arrest at the Alexandrium fortress, her relationship with Herod deteriorated further. During the year 29 BCE, their second daughter was born, indicating that she was preg19

Indeed, it is noted in AJ XV, 218 that he escorted Octavian on his way back from Egypt to Antioch, Syria, and presumably showered him with similar bounty.

164

7. Elimination of Herod’s Hasmonaean Family Members

nant when arrested and apparently gave birth at Alexandrium. The daughter was given the name Cyprus in memory of Herod’s mother, who had died a short time earlier.20 It is unlikely that Mariamme chose the name, given the residual hatred between the two women dating back to 40–37 BCE when they had resided together in Masada and Samaria (see above). The daughter’s name was most probably selected by Herod himself out of love and admiration for his mother; one must recall, however, that the choice of name was also affected by his final severing of ties with Mariamme at the time. This is especially evident if we note that his other children from her all bore classic Hasmonaean names (Alexander, Aristobulus and Shlomzion), whether out of a desire to capture the hearts of his wife and mother-in-law (along with the broader Jewish public), or because he honestly believed at the time that his marriage to Mariamme would produce a powerful dynasty. The situation had changed completely by the time their second daughter was born, when the final rupture between Herod and the Hasmonaean dynasty was already out in the open. Presumably, the name Cyprus for her daughter was not pleasing to Mariamme, to say the least, and perhaps even aroused resentment on her part, though there was nothing inherently offensive about it. As the crisis in the family gained momentum and the feelings of mutual hatred intensified, Mariamme’s overt condescension and growing disgust toward Herod were blatantly obvious. Indeed, under such circumstances, it is not surprising that he took pleasure in naming the fruit of Mariamme’s womb after his mother, whom she so hated, even if the point is not expressly stated by Josephus. There is reason to believe that immediately after the child’s birth, she was separated from her mother to be educated in a loyal and sympathetic Herodian environment as opposed to a hostile Hasmonaean one. Such a possibility is substantiated by what happened to her two brothers, Alexander and Aristobulus, who were also distanced from their Jewish surroundings and sent to Rome to receive a more appropriate (to Herod’s mind) education where they could absorb Roman social and cultural values. The separation of Mariamme from her infant daughter was nothing more than a cruel act of abuse motivated by base vindictiveness, further strengthening Herod’s image as a bestial creature without human emotion (a point we will be returning to below). At some point between the end of 29 BCE and the beginning of 28 BCE, the central drama of Herod’s life took place, culminating in 20

Cf. Kokkinos 1998, p. 214; see also chapter 5, p. 114.

The Trial and Execution of Mariamme the Hasmonaean

165

Mariamme’s execution.21 The tragic, pathos-filled description found in both versions of Josephus is doubtless drawn from classic pro-Herodian sources led by Nicolaus of Damascus, who attempted to rationalize the deed in the most credible manner possible.22 Schalit (1964, p. 285) believed that “the description did not conform precisely to the historical truth” and that “the recounting of the crisis between Herod and Mariamme is full of literary aspects that have no value as a historical record.” In our opinion, while the tragic-pathetic rhetorical style of Josephus’ account should not be overlooked, a sweeping condemnation of its historical reliability is nonetheless uncalled for. 23 Mariamme’s conduct as described by Josephus ostensibly offered reasonable explanations for her treachery, for he writes that she became furious with Herod upon becoming aware of the orders to Soemus to kill her in the event of a possible fiasco at Rhodes – particularly since a similar directive had been issued in the past, prior to Herod’s meeting with Antony at Laodicea (34 BCE). As before, her anger was accompanied by a demonstrative withdrawal from Herod, not to mention expressions of revulsion and the vehement rejection of his advances to the point of avoiding all physical contact. Her hatred and contempt were now so blatant that she made no attempt to conceal them. On the contrary, she openly exhibited her feelings towards him, condescendingly stressing the superiority of her Hasmonaean heritage while casting scorn and derision on his lowly origins. True, this behavior can be explained as typical of a squabbling couple whose disappointment in their partner only entrenches each of them further in their respective positions; but it is obvious that the extreme language of the description was intended to offer a credible justification for Mariamme’s execution by presenting her as an unfaithful, defiant wife. Thus for example, the accusation fabricated 21

22 23

According to Schalit (1969, pp. 114–119), the execution took place in 29/30 BCE. Schürer (1973, I, p. 289), Smallwood (1981, p. 71) and Richardson (1996, p. 217) preferred 29 BCE. But compare to the plausible chronological calculations of Kokkinos (p. 213, n. 21), who favored an even later date, namely 28/29 BCE. See BJ I, 438–444; AJ XV, 202–239. See for greater detail: Schalit 1969, pp. 575–588. Bilde (1988, p. 143) rightly rejected the suggestion that Josephus’ presentation of the story of Herod and Mariamme was influenced by the biblical narrative of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39:6–15; AJ II, 39–59). His argument (p. 282) that Josephus could not have read such a description in Herod’s ‘memoirs’ is very persuasive, but it is impossible to agree with him that Mariamme disdained Herod from the very beginning of their relationship as a result of his inferior Idumaean-Nabataean family origins (p. 285). We have already shown that this is untrue, and that Mariamme and her mother Alexandra even cooperated with him by willingly taking shelter at Masada in 40 BCE.

166

7. Elimination of Herod’s Hasmonaean Family Members

by Herod’s sister Salome together with the royal steward (according to which Mariamme supposedly seduced him into serving Herod a love potion laced with poison) raises suspicions of a literary invention aimed solely at rationalizing Herod’s state of emotional stress, which purportedly caused him to put Mariamme on trial for infidelity and conspiracy to murder. In reality, the entire convoluted episode demonstrates that he had never ceased suspecting her since 34 BCE, when he returned from his meeting with Antony at Laodicea and ordered the execution of his uncle Joseph for the selfsame reason. In other words, Josephus’ description indicates an unbroken chain of suspicion on Herod’s part, such that the interval between the two events was nothing more than a temporary respite. It should be recalled that the paranoid individual is generally so certain of his suspicions that it is impossible to dislodge them from his thoughts; thus it is only a matter of time, in his view, before they are proven or publicly revealed. 24 Among the more telling aspects in this case is the awareness on the part of Herod’s mother Cyprus and sister Salome of his impulsive, tempestuous nature, which came perilously close to total lunacy. They understood very well that he was incapable of enduring the insult and emotional stress entailed in an act of infidelity against him, in particular on the part of his beloved and coveted wife. Their knowledge of his personality was therefore the means by which they sought to further inflame his jealousy, in the belief that it would develop into an attack of full-blown insanity that would lead to Mariamme’s demise.25 Indeed, events were to prove just how right they were. Herod’s response to Mariamme’s behavior testifies to the explosive mixture of love, jealousy, and profound inferiority simmering within him. His pathological jealousy was fed by delusions of infidelity, as the poisonous words of accusation and incitement by his mother and sister seeped continually into his brain. He was incapable of removing himself from their influence, nor did he even consider the possibility, since in his suspiciousness he wished only to find “proof” of Mariamme’s faithlessness, as attested to by the following (AJ XV, 211–214): [211] This much troubled him, to see that this surprising hatred of his wife to him was not concealed, but open; and he took this so ill, and yet was so unable to bear it, on account of the fondness he had for her, that he could not continue long in any one mind, but sometimes was angry 24 25

See also below p. 167–169 and Rudnik 1999, p. 12. As we shall see below, the same tactic was adopted by Salome and Pheroras to dispose of the Hasmonaean princes born to Mariamme.

The Trial and Execution of Mariamme the Hasmonaean

167

at her, and sometimes reconciled himself to her; but by always changing one passion for another, he was still in great uncertainty, [212] and thus was he entangled between hatred and love, and was frequently disposed to inflict punishment on her for her insolence towards him; but being deeply in love with her in his soul, he was not able to get quit of this woman. In short, as he would gladly have her punished, so was he afraid lest, ere he were aware, he should, by putting her to death, bring a heavier punishment upon himself at the same time. [213] When Herod’s sister and mother perceived that he was in this temper with regard to Mariamme they thought they had now got an excellent opportunity to exercise their hatred against her and provoked Herod to wrath by telling him, such long stories and calumnies about her, as might at once excite his hatred and his jealousy. [214] Now, though he willingly enough heard their words, yet had not he courage enough to do any thing to her as if he believed them; but still he became worse and worse disposed to her, and these ill passions were more and more inflamed on both sides, while she did not hide her disposition towards him, and he turned his love to her into wrath against her.26

From the preceding passage, we can see that the conflict between his jealousy and his love for Mariamme led him to a state of turmoil and confusion: on the one hand he was seized by feelings of indignity and vengeance that moved him to commit an impulsive act of retribution against her, but at the same time, he desired her and feared losing her. 27 When his sister Salome supplied the “proof” of Mariamme’s infidelity by way of “the king’s cup-bearer, who had been prepared long beforehand for such a design,” Herod was easy prey to her machinations; as he had done before (i. e., 34 BCE), he responded rashly and without thinking, immediately executing Soemus while putting Mariamme on trial for infidelity (AJ XV, 223 ff.). Her hearing turned out to be a typical “show trial,” characteristic of the litigious behavior of paranoid despots. This is precisely how he had acted in the trial of John Hyrcanus II – a pattern that would repeat itself later in his rule. In the words of Josephus (AJ XV, 229): So he gave order that Soemus should be seized on and slain immediately; but he allowed his wife to take her trial (krísin Àpedídou); and got together those that were most faithful to him, and laid an elaborate accusation (tÄn kathgorían) against her for this love potion and composition, which had been charged upon her by way of calumny only. However, he kept no temper in what he said, and was in too great a passion for judging well about this matter. Accordingly, when the court was at length satisfied that he was so resolved, they passed the sentence of death upon her (ibid., 229). 26

27

Cf. BJ I, 438–440 along with Perowne’s correct observation (1957, p. 86) that Herod was severely depressed at the time, his state of acute melancholy driving him to sudden vindictiveness. A good example of such confusion can be found in AJ XV, 222–223.

168

7. Elimination of Herod’s Hasmonaean Family Members

There is no question that the court intended to appease Herod from the outset, as it was convened for this very purpose. In Schalit’s opinion, the body was set up as a “family court,” a practice common in Rome whereby the head of a household (pater familias) convened and conducted a trial, and had the exclusive right to decide the verdict and punishment. 28 Mariamme’s trial should in no way be regarded as akin to that of the biblical sotah (a woman suspected of adultery), which was based on set principles of Jewish law, since Josephus’ description stands in stark contrast to this ritual.29 One must bear in mind that all arrangements regarding the rule of law in Herod’s kingdom reflected the character of the man and his regime, and the incident at hand should also be understood in this way without attributing to it other intentions. Josephus’ description of Mariamme’s trial is instructive for the glimpse that it offers into Herod’s paranoid personality on both the personal and the political levels, as expressed in the many executions he presided over, whether of obvious political rivals or those who were only under suspicion. As we saw earlier, his victims were sometimes put to death without any hearing all, or in accordance with a predetermined verdict, as in the staged trial of Herod’s wife Mariamme (above) or the hearings of other family members, most of which were also typical “show trials.” Of Mariamme’s trial, it is written that Herod himself convened the court and served as “prosecutor,” indicating that proper judicial process was not observed here. What is more, Josephus’ account notes explicitly that, since Herod was highly agitated and quite furious during his address as prosecutor, the judges rushed to immediately convict Mariamme. This demonstrates a prior bias in the mindset of the court, something which is not surprising given the fact that the judges numbered among “his (Herod’s) closest friends” (ibid.) – men who were afraid to oppose him and would not or could not do so. It would appear, however, that both Herod and several of the judges had certain misgivings with respect to the guilty verdict, as evidenced by the following: “But when the sentence was passed upon her, this temper was suggested by himself, and by some others of the court, that she should not be thus hastily put to death, but be laid in prison in one of the fortresses belonging to the kingdom” (AJ XV, 230). But after repeated intervention by Salome and her supporters, Herod quickly withdrew 28 29

Schalit 1969, pp. 251–253. This is evident even from a superficial comparison with the Jewish strictures concerning a suspected adulteress; see Numbers 5:12–31; mSotah, passim.

The Trial and Execution of Mariamme the Hasmonaean

169

his reservations, followed by those judges who were undecided. There is no question that his “devoted” sister wished to maintain his delusions so that he would see things as she wished him to see them – which was in truth how he wanted to see them as well. As later events attest, the trial was intended solely as a “fig leaf” for the decision that he had already taken beforehand and was going to carry out in any case. Further “evidence” of Mariamme’s guilt is brought in the dramatic story of Alexandra, who renounced her daughter, declaring “how entirely ignorant she was of the crimes laid against Mariamne,” for fear that she would meet the same fate as her daughter. It is recounted of her, moreover, that “she leaped out of her place, and reproached her daughter in the hearing of all the people; and cried out that she had been an ill woman, and ungrateful to her husband, and that her punishment came justly upon her for such her insolent behavior” (AJ XV, 233–234). This scene apparently served in Herod’s eyes as additional legal “proof” in support of the delayed verdict. Schalit (1964, pp. 284–285) rightfully felt that this dramatic account was written in the best tragic-pathetic historiographic tradition and for this reason “did not conform precisely to the historical truth. What we have here is a work of art, without documentation that a historian can rely on.” This raises the suspicion that the text was revised after the fact, for the possibility that it contains even a grain of truth appears so remote as to be unconvincing. Needless to say, this version of events makes Alexandra a full “partner” in Herod’s crime; in fact, it is obvious that it was deliberately formulated to present her as a monstrous figure who repudiates her own offspring. The fact that Herod himself was perceived as such, both within his kingdom and beyond (as we shall be discussing below), can explain the apologetic literary motivation for rewriting this scene, which “proves” that Herod was no different from Alexandra the Hasmonaean herself, in addition to which it lifts the burden of guilt for Mariamme’s death from his shoulders alone. Josephus’ brief epilogue on the noble character of Mariamme (AJ XV, 237–239), admiringly referred to by him as “a woman of an excellent character, both for chastity and greatness of soul;” (gunÄ kaì pròv Ègkráteian kaì pròv megaloyucían 2rista gegenhménh) may also have served Nicolaus of Damascus as a way of “explaining” Herod’s behavior towards her, and indeed an apologetic tone is readily apparent here. 30 This is particularly true of the statement that “she did not 30

This in itself is sufficient to negate the possibility that Josephus himself wrote the epilogue concerning Mariamme. The criticism of her as lacking in moderation and

170

7. Elimination of Herod’s Hasmonaean Family Members

prove so agreeable to the king, nor live so pleasantly with him” (ibid., 238), obviously intended to emphasize that her rejection of him was not only a scathing insult to him as husband and king but also aroused a fierce counter-desire in him, particularly since “she had all that can be said in the beauty of her body, and her majestic appearance in conversation” (ibid., 237). The epilogue also called attention to her ingratitude, for “while she was most indulgently used by the king, out of his fondness for her, and did not expect that he could do any hard thing to her, she took too unbounded a liberty. Moreover, that which most afflicted her was, what he had done to her relations, and she ventured to speak of all they had suffered by him, and at last greatly provoked both the king’s mother and sister, till they became enemies to her; and even he himself also did the same, on whom alone she depended for her expectations of escaping the last of punishments” (ibid., 238–239). 31 In short, Nicolaus, as court historian, sought to highlight the human tragedy between the spouses, as a result of which Herod suffered grave humiliation and was totally consumed with fury and bitterness. 32 In our opinion, this account offers further reason to label Herod’s emotional outbursts as classic attacks of morbid jealousy and suspiciousness rooted in his paranoid personality. According to Josephus, Herod was extremely affected by Mariamme’s execution (BJ I, 443–444; AJ XV, 240–246), suggesting a deterioration in his emotional state. The most conspicuous outward manifestations of this were, first and foremost, a growing sexual passion for her that, given the circumstances of her death, could only have been fed by his delusions, indicating that his desire was accompanied by a fit of insanity.33 In fact, Josephus’s words (BJ I, 444) aptly reflect this: As soon as ever his passion was over, he repented of what he had done, and as soon as his anger was worn off, his affections were kindled again. And indeed the flame of his desires for her was so ardent, that he could not think she was dead, but would appear, under his disorders, to speak to her as if she were still alive, till he were better instructed by time, when

31

32

33

having “too much of contention in her nature” (AJ XV, 237) also makes such a likelihood unfeasible. Cf. AJ XV, 218–222; BJ I 438. It is highly probable that rumors concerning the deterioration of the royal couple’s relationship leaked beyond the confines of the palace, and this would have been enough to offend and embarrass Herod. However, Grant (1971 p. 99) did not rule out the possibility that Mariamme’s treason was real. He may have been influenced by Nicolaus’ descriptions of Herod’s tragic remorse, which have echoes in modern European literature as well. Graetz (1893, p. 498) showed awareness of this diagnosis when he claimed that Herod’s spirit was broken by the loss of his beautiful wife Mariamme and he went wild with grief.

The Trial and Execution of Mariamme the Hasmonaean

171

his grief and trouble, now she was dead, appeared as great as his affection had been for her while she was living.

This unbridled passion found unique literary expression in the Babylonian Talmud, which accused Herod of the monstrous crime of necrophilia, supposedly committed on Mariamme’s dead body. 34 In any event, it appears that he was overcome by the urge to summon her, or order his servants to bring her before him, as if she were still alive. This episode is indicative of Herod’s ambivalent attitude toward Mariamme. On the one hand, he felt intense desire for her and loved her passionately, yet at the same time, he experienced feelings of morbid jealousy toward her. When he could no longer bear the tension, nor the intensity of his suspicions, like Othello in the well-known Shakespearean play he was drawn into paranoid delusions, ultimately destroying the object of his love. But following his loss – and despite the fact that he himself was the direct cause of it – he displayed all the signs of acute grief, even as he was flooded by feelings of guilt, remorse, and anger directed at himself. His behavior immediately following Mariamme’s death can therefore be understood as a denial of death and an inability to grasp on the cognitive level the fact that the beloved individual was no longer alive. Among the symptoms of acute grief exhibited by him was frequent weeping, in spite of the fact that crying was seen by him as a sign of weakness and lack of dignity (cf. AJ XV, 241) and that selfrespect was a value of paramount importance to him. In such a situation, the functioning of the mourner is sometimes severely impaired as he is constantly and excessively preoccupied with his grief and sense of loss. Herod, for example, refused to deal with matters of state and exhibited apathy and indifference toward what had heretofore been the central feature of his life. Such impaired functioning can persist to the point of damaging or rending one’s social ties, and indeed Herod went off by himself to the desert to wallow in his sorrow (ibid., 244). When a “plague” (loimödhv nósov) struck throughout Judea during this period, killing many including his most distinguished friends, he was deeply concerned that the public might interpret this as evidence of Divine wrath over the death of Mariamme (ibid., 243).35 34

35

See for example bBava Bathra, 3b; bKiddushin, 76b. The crime is even referred to in Hebrew as “swdrwh h#(m” (“Herod’s act”); see Kohut 1878 (Aruch Completum), III, p. 241. Although it is hard to believe that there was a kernel of truth in this belief, see Zeitlin 193/4, p. 21; idem 1968, II, p. 30. Landau (2003, pp. 208–209) cited a similar case referred to by Thucydides (II, 47–55) in relation to the Peloponnesian War, but she was well aware of the differences in the public’s interpretation of the events.

172

7. Elimination of Herod’s Hasmonaean Family Members

Stated otherwise, Herod was in the throes of acute grief, whose phenomenological symptoms mirrored his state of depression. His feelings of guilt gave him no peace, especially as he was aware that he had been the one to cause the loss of someone he loved and was liable to be punished by God for his terrible sin. 36 His seclusion in the desert did not last long since he fell ill “into a most dangerous distemper” manifesting itself as “inflammation and a pain in the hinder part of his head, joined with madness” (flógwsiv gàr Ên Èn kaì peîsiv toû Ìníou kaì têv dianoíav parallagh) (AJ XV, 245). Presumably, he was struck by the same unknown illness mentioned earlier (ibid., 243), and the time in the desert until the symptoms appeared was actually the incubation period of the viral (or bacterial) agent involved. One likely diagnosis for the mysterious ailment is meningitis, which can have a viral or bacterial basis and would explain the symptoms he exhibited, in particular the neck stiffness and headaches typically associated with the disorder as well as the state of “confusion” when certain areas of the brain are infected (encephalitis), as in the viral form of herpes. This possibility is also supported from an epidemiological perspective, since Josephus referred to a “plague” or “disease”, as we shall be discussing further below. Another possibility to be considered in this context is that of tetanus (an infection caused by the bacterium Clostridium tetani) resulting from an injury or deep scratch. This disease spreads from the site of the infected wound, causing the voluntary muscles to contort. The toxins are liable to migrate to the nervous system and attack the brain and spinal cord as well. Due to the relatively large spaces between the cervical vertebrae, the illness manifests itself primarily in inflammation and tonic contraction of the neck. The pressure of the contraction on the two arteries that carry blood from the spinal column to the brain is liable to result in dizziness and loss of equilibrium. At first glance, Josephus’ description appears to correspond to the symptoms of this illness, particularly since Herod may have injured himself while on a hunting expedition and become infected with tetanus-causing bacteria. 37 But Josephus’ account – according to which he did not contract the illness prior to his hunting trip but rather dur36 37

For diagnoses and detailed discussion, see Witztum & Brom 1993, passim; Witztum, pp. 55–88. Otto (1913, col. 55) intuitively concluded that Herod suffered from a lesion or an infected wound, but did not suggest tetanus. We wish to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Jacob Assa, a cardiovascular specialist, who provided us with a detailed explanation of the symptoms of tetanus.

The Trial and Execution of Mariamme the Hasmonaean

173

ing it – more strongly supports the possibility of meningitis, given its incubation period (which would allow for his having been infected while still in Jerusalem, prior to departing on the hunting expedition). Moreover, since the chances of recovering from tetanus in Herod’s time were extremely poor, we would reject such a possibility. Even in our day, it is considered a highly dangerous disease, with less than a 50 % chance of recovery. It should be noted that Josephus referred to the illness that struck Herod in the desert as a “plague,” suggesting the likelihood of an epidemic; indeed, according to Josephus, it felled numerous inhabitants of Jerusalem, including the “most esteemed friends” of Herod” (AJ XV, 343). The presence of an epidemic would further support the initial diagnosis of meningitis as well as offering an additional reason for Herod’s departure to the desert. In our opinion, one should not discount the possibility that he simply wished to isolate himself from physical contact with carriers of the “plague” then running rampant in Jerusalem and its crowded environs. 38 Such behavior is highly suited to a survivor like Herod. To his misfortune, however, he contracted the disease despite his sojourn in the desert. Since conventional attempts to cure him were unsuccessful, his doctors entrusted his recovery to fate, as a result of which he lay in his sickbed in the city of Samaria in a state of physical and emotional agony. 39 Of the serious emotional ramifications of his illness, Josephus wrote (AJ XV, 251): [He] had endured great pain, that he got clear of his distemper. He was still sorely afflicted, both in mind and body, and made very uneasy, and readier than ever upon all occasions to inflict punishment upon those that fell under his hand.

The preceding passage indicates a morose state of mind without the will or capacity to intellectually assess the situation in a lucid and reasoned manner. In such a despondent, helpless frame of mind, aggravated by his physical illness, he seems to have entered a depressive state as a result of his great loss, which – given his personality type – set off paranoid delusions. Moreover, the sense of imminent death intensified his desire to avenge himself on anyone who crossed his path and whom he perceived (from his distorted perspective) as hostile to him. A similar, but more acute, version of this phenomenon was later to occur on his deathbed in Jericho (4 BCE) when he dictated his last will and 38 39

Such a possibility is alluded to in AJ XV, 244, where it is said that he went off to the desert as if to hunt, but in fact gave himself up to his grief. AJ XV, 245–246; there is no parallel in War.

174

7. Elimination of Herod’s Hasmonaean Family Members

testament, in which he sought to “he took care, when he was departing out of this life, that the whole nation should be put into mourning, and indeed made desolate of their dearest kindred, when he gave order that one out of every family should be slain” (AJ XVII, 181).

Elimination of Alexandra the Hasmonaean Herod’s grave illness and prospective death were exploited by Alexandra in an attempt to seize control of Jerusalem’s fortifications. According to Josephus (AJ XV, 247–250), she wished to convince the commanders of the strongholds to place them in her keeping, arguing that if Herod died they would in any case be obliged to hand them over to his legitimate heirs, namely, his sons by Mariamme the Hasmonaean, who were her grandsons. “And upon his recovery none could keep them more safely for him than those of his own family” (ibid., 249). But the commanders, led by Achiab, Herod’s cousin, reported this to the ailing king. He reacted swiftly, ordering Alexandra’s execution (28/27 BCE). This time, he did not even hold a trial to publicly legitimize his actions, since in his view her guilt was obvious enough without resorting to such a justification.40 This episode served as a political “shot in the arm,” so to speak, for Herod, breathing new life into him and sparking a fierce desire for revenge.41 His acute depressive state was instantly replaced by a burst of energy aimed at settling accounts with his mother-in-law Alexandra. These sudden and extreme mood swings were already familiar from his past cyclothymic episodes, such as the one following the injury to his mother (40 BCE). But in this case, he shifted from a state resembling depressive syndrome to one of hyperactivity. Of course, it is tempting to suggest that this was actually bipolar personality disorder, popularly referred to as “manic-depression,” but such an extreme diagnosis does not seem warranted in this case, which can more reasonably be explained as an episode of instability and acute mood swings, that is, cyclothymia, as detailed in the Introduction to this volume.

40

41

Josephus recounted the execution of Costobarus and his co-conspirators in the same context, although apparently it actually took place at a later point, in 27 or even 26 BCE, as suggested by Kokkinos 1998, p. 182. Cf. Jones 1938, p. 61.

Marriage to Malthace the Samaritan

175

Marriage to Malthace the Samaritan It is possible that already in 28 BCE, while confined to his sickbed in Samaria, Herod made the acquaintance of Malthace the Samaritan and took her as his wife.42 We believe that Kokkinos was correct in his assessment that the initiative for the marriage came from Herod’s inner circle, indicating that this was a well-thought-out match aimed at erasing the memory of his Hasmonaean wife in the arms of another. All of his marriages to date had ended in failure: his first wife, Doris, was banished after ten years of marriage to pave the way for his marriage to Mariamme the Hasmonaean. In roughly the same year (37 BCE), he married his niece (whose name is unknown), and, three years later (in approximately 33/34 BCE), his cousin (also unnamed);43 but it appears that neither of them produced any offspring. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that he wished to “compensate” himself with a new and more fruitful marriage. The most significant fact with regard to his marriage to Malthace is her Samaritan origin.44 In truth, a no less attractive possibility is that he accepted the match with Malthace out of a desire to provoke a shocked and hostile Jewish public, which had protested against the execution of Mariamme. In entering into this marriage, he violated the explicit prohibition against wedding a non-Jewish woman (including Samaritans), dating back to the days of Ezra and Nehemiah – and he apparently did so knowingly.45 It is interesting to note that, 42

43 44

45

AJ XV, 246. The name in Greek (Malqákh) means “tenderness”; for its uses see Ilan 2002, s. v. See also Egger 1986, pp. 122–125; Hirschfeld (2004, p. 38) thought she was a citizen of the polis of Samaria, but he did not support his opinion with facts. On endogamy among the Jews during the period in question, see Satlow 2001, p. 14. In BJ I, 562 she is called a “Samaritan” (Sammreítidov), a name generally used by Josephus for members of the Samarian community. In the case of Malthace, it at least seems (based on AJ XVII, 20) rhat she was related to the “nation of the Samaritans” (toû Samaréwn 3qnouv); cf. also Kokkinos 1998, pp. 216, 221–222, 223–226. Although he favored the notion “that she belonged to an important family of colonists, such as the Macedonians at Samaria, or better those who were believed to have descended from the Phoenicians at Shechem” (p. 224), we believe that this is but a literary attempt to bridge the different historical sources. Ultimately, these support the conclusion that Malthace was of Samaritan origin. Josephus was well aware of the strict prohibition against Jews marrying Samaritan women, as expressed in his paraphrasing of the Biblical story of Ezra and Nehemiah (AJ XI, 139–153). This is also evident in his account of the marriage between Manasses, the brother of Jaddus the high priest, and Nikaso the daughter of Sanaballat, governor of the Samaria region (AJ XI, 306–312). The prohibition against Jewish-Samaritan intermarriage remained in force throughout the Second Temple

176

7. Elimination of Herod’s Hasmonaean Family Members

although Josephus resembled the Pharisees in his education and religious worldview,46 he did not exploit that fact to level criticism at Herod. It is possible that he simply chose to disregard this point due to awkwardness stemming from his awareness of Roman sympathies toward the residents of Samaria, including the Samaritans.47

Appointment of Simon Son of Boethus as High Priest, and Herod’s Marriage to his Daughter, Mariamme At precisely this time (28 BCE), Herod suddenly “discovered” another Mariamme, daughter of a kohen (priest) by the name of Simon son of Boethus of Alexandria,48 who appealed to him for three reasons: (a) her great beauty; (b) her high social standing as the daughter of a priestly family; (c) her family origins in the Diaspora. There is reason to assume that Herod appointed the father as high priest in order to establish a new priestly dynasty in place of the Hasmonaeans, as he had already done in the past with the selection of Ananel the Babylonian (or Hanamel the Egyptian);49 indeed, it is quite likely that this same Simon son of Boethus was the first in a line of priests from the house of Boethus (known as the Boethusians), who were prominent in Herod’s time and later, during the rule of the Roman governors.50 In the words of Josephus (AJ XV, 321): [This] man had a daughter, who was esteemed the most beautiful woman of that time; and when the people of Jerusalem began to speak much in

46 47

48

49 50

period; cf. Matthew 10:5; John 17:48–49. This was true, for the most part, in the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods as well, although there were some limitations; see: mKiddushin, iv, 3; mNiddah, iv, 1; mTohoroth, v, 8; bMegillah, 25b; Herschkowitz 1940, pp. lxxiii–lxxiv, lxxix ff. (esp. lxxxii–lxxxiii); Alon 1952, I, pp. 350–352; II, pp. 248–251; idem 1958, II, pp. 2 ff. On the halachic reservations concerning exogamy in general, see Satlow 2001, pp. 133–161. We will confine ourselves here to referring the reader to the study by Rajak 1983, pp. 26 ff. On the generally pro-Samaritan policy of the Romans regarding relations with their Jewish neighbors in the province of Judaea, see in detail Kasher 1995, pp. 217– 236. There are those who think that he was not from Alexandria (AJ XV, 320), but was actually related to the Sadducees, who served in the temple at Leontopolis; cf. Stemberger 1999, pp. 431–432, 434. See above chapter 5, p. 104. Cf. Klausner 1958, III, p. 128; Schürer 1979, II, pp. 229, 234, 406 (n. 16); see also Afterword (below), pp. 419–420.

Appointment of Simon Son of Boethus as High Priest

177

her commendation, it happened that Herod was much affected with what was said of her; and when he saw the damsel, he was smitten with her beauty.

It is therefore not surprising that he married her quite quickly.51 The fact that she was the daughter of a priestly family could help him to restore his social standing and “regain” what he had lost with the death of Mariamme the Hasmonaean. The virginal beauty of his Boethusian bride, as well as the fact that her name was on everyone’s lips (as stated in Josephus above), was so pleasing to him that he decided to marry her “(since) he also fell in love again … not suffering his reason to hinder him from living as he pleased” (AJ XV, 319). The fact that she too was named Mariamme, and that her beauty was much talked about in Jerusalem may also have brought him some measure of emotional “compensation” over the loss of Mariamme the Hasmonaean, whose beauty was compared to that of an offspring of some god and not of mortal beings. 52 It is quite likely that an important factor in his decision was also her virginal status, which he found especially captivating due to his jealous nature and his need to be certain that there never had been and would never be another man in her life.53 It should be emphasized that his sexual urges and appetites were underscored by Josephus on other occasions as well. In one case (AJ XVII, 309), he wrote of such aberrant behavior as: “the corruption of the chastity of virgins, and the reproach laid on wives (of his victims) for incontinency, and those things acted after an insolent and inhuman manner.” Herod’s sexual debauchery cannot be compared with that of his Roman patrons and the objects of his admiration, Mark Antony and Augustus, 54 as no reference is found in the written material that would 51

52

53

54

Indeed Schürer (1973, I, p. 292) was inclined to date the marriage later (25 BCE), concurrent with the building of the royal palace, but Kokkinos’ (1998, pp. 221 ff.) date seems preferable in our eyes. Of course this assessment was not Jewish in origin, and was ascribed in this case to Quintus Dellius, Mark Antony’s close friend (or favorite); see Antiquities XV, 27; cf. also 25, 66–67. On the importance of feminine beauty in Jewish marriage, see above, p. 94 and n. 28. As for the age at which marriage took place, there was a great similarity between both Mariammes. According to Kokkinos (1998, pp. 211–212), the first Mariamme was betrothed to Herod at the approximate age of twelve and married him at about age sixteen, just after he concluded the war against Antigonus (37 BCE). Incidentally, the youthful age of Herod’s brides recalls Hitler’s preference for much younger women, over whom he could exert total control; see Kershaw 1999, pp. 250–251, 304–307. Regarding Antony, cf. AJ XV, 25–30; Plutarch, Antony, 4, 10; on Augustus, see Suetonius, Augustus, 69.

178

7. Elimination of Herod’s Hasmonaean Family Members

suggest “the corruption of the chastity of virgins” or acts performed “after an insolent and inhuman manner.” on their part.55 With respect to Herod, however, the impression that arises from the text is one of sexual perversion not on a random or one-time basis but as a recurring phenomenon. The motivating factor for this behavior was apparently his pathological inferiority complex, characterized under certain circumstances by a state of hyperactivity and constant sexual arousal that could not be satiated or controlled. According to Josephus, Herod had no moral qualms or attacks of conscience over his actions; rather, he was emotionally oblivious and sadistic – typical symptoms of psychopathic traits associated with severe personality disorder. 56 The 32year age difference between himself and Mariamme the Boethusian did not trouble him, either because this was an accepted social norm in the Eastern society in which he was raised, or because it was not a rare occurrence even in Greco-Roman society. Nonetheless, the very fact that we are speaking of a girl-woman of age thirteen marrying a man of 45, suggests the possibility, however tenuous, of pedophilic tendencies on Herod’s part. In any event, no Jewish biblical model existed for such behavior – and certainly not the incident of King David and Abishag the Shunammite (I Kings 1:1–4).57 It is noteworthy that Herod’s marriage to Mariamme the Boethusian was brought about in a highly manipulative manner, in that he first appointed her father as High Priest in Jerusalem with the paradoxical argument that “Simon was of a dignity too inferior to be allied to him, but still too considerable to be despised” (AJ XV, 322). 58 There is no question that Herod hoped that the appointment of Simon son of Boethus to the office of High Priest would give him full control over this lofty position, which had been – in the time of his mortal enemies, the Hasmonaeans – the key center of power in the Jewish community. In so doing, he hoped to reinforce his dominance over his subjects and prevent the high priests from threatening his authority

55 56

57

58

The allusion is apparently to sodomy or homosexual relations. Regarding psychotic behavior patterns of this type, see Barchfeld 1952, pp. 206 ff., esp. 212–213. Similar behaviors are also well known among such modern paranoid dictators as Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, and others. On the usual age of marriage in ancient Jewish society, see Satlow 2001 (index); on marriage in the Herodian family, see Hanson 1989/90 (part 2); Hadas-Lebel 1993, pp. 397–404. The unmistakable conclusion emerging from between the lines is that Herod suffered from a severe inferiority complex; see Kasher 2005, pp. 179–224.

Appointment of Simon Son of Boethus as High Priest

179

in any way. 59 Thus he succeeded in stripping the high priesthood of two basic aspects that were the primary source of its power: (a) the right to pass down the office to one’s heirs; (b) the fact that it was a lifetime appointment.60 Out of a desire to retain additional authority over the High Priests, upon completion of the Antonia Fortress he placed the priestly garments there for safekeeping (when not needed for ritual purposes), as stated above.61 It later emerged that the great resistance of the Jewish people to the priests of the house of Boethus was precisely for these reasons.62 In the 34 years of his reign, Herod replaced seven High Priests, excluding Joseph son of Ilem (or Ellem), who served for only one day (AJ XVII, 166). There is no doubt that the frequent dismissals, and the priesthood’s institutional dependence on the king (whether as a source of appointments or power), led to a significant decline in its status. This was to have far-reaching effects, with a similar situation – if not worse – prevailing under the rule of the Roman governors. Thus Herod’s policy on the matter set a serious negative precedent. His desire for the superiority of the monarchy over the priesthood was also expressed in the minting of coins depicting the Greek letter X (chi) encircled by a royal wreath, which may explain the Talmudic baraita (extra-Mishnaic material): “The Sages have taught: Kings are anointed in the shape of a crown [i. e., with the oil sketching the shape of a crown, most likely in the form of a wreath], and priests in the shape of a chi. Rabbi Menashia said: in the shape of the Greek [letter] chi” (bKerithoth 5b).63 It is possible that Herod wished to express in this manner the order of importance of the positions, according to which the royal wreath surrounds and encloses the symbol of the High Priest. One year after the death of Mariamme the Hasmonaean (i. e., 27/28 BCE), if we accept the (likely) dating of Kokkinos, Herod took a third

59

60 61 62 63

It is worth noting here that Herod’s grandson, Agrippa I, emphasized in an epistle ascribed to him by Philo (Legatio ad Gaium, 278) the following words: “My grandfathers and ancestors were kings. Most of them were appointed High Priests, and let their position as king take second place behind their priesthoods, on the grounds that, just as God is greater than man, so the High Priesthood is greater than the position of king; for the one is concerned with the service of God, the other with the care of human beings” (trans. Smallwood 1961, pp. 122–124); cf. also Kasher 1996, II, pp. 449 ff. Otto 1913, cols. 105, 115 ff.; Schalit 1969, pp. 301 ff. AJ XV, 403–404; XVIII, 92; and see below, p. 129 f. See for example bPesahim, 56a; tMenahoth, XIII, 34 (Zuckermandel, p. 533); Kohut 1878 (Aruch Completum), II, p. 88; Stern 1991, pp. 192 ff. For further details, see Meshorer 1997, pp. 62–63.

180

7. Elimination of Herod’s Hasmonaean Family Members

wife: Cleopatra of Jerusalem,64 meaning that within a relatively short time span he filled Mariamme the Hasmonaean’s place with three new wives.65 Regarding at least one of them – Mariamme daughter of Boethus – it is stated explicitly that he married her “(because) he fell in love again … not suffering his reason to hinder him from living as he pleased” (AJ XV, 319). These rekindled feelings of love should be understood as part of his desperate emotional need to relive the great love of his life, and should not call into question the significance of the narcissistic element in his relationship with Mariamme the Hasmonaean. In the case of Mariamme the Boethusian, there was simply an undeniable need to satisfy his “ego” by winning the hand of one of the great beauties of his day, of whom it was written that “the people of Jerusalem began to speak much in her commendation” (ibid.). As later events were to prove, however, Herod’s hopes were not realized, only magnifying his pain and frustration at the loss of Mariamme the Hasmonaean, the great love of his life.

64

65

Cleopatra is mentioned only twice by Josephus: BJ I, 562; AJ XVII, 21. We find Kokkinos’ (1998, pp. 208, 236–237) dating acceptable, but take issue with his view that she was of Idumaean-Phoenician origin, as supposedly implied by the name Cleopatra. On the contrary, one might ask: Is it not reasonable to assume that the Jews named their daughters after the renowned Ptolemaic Queens Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III, who were so kind to the Jewish people and maintained close ties with the Hasmonaean state? If Egyptian Jews named synagogues after one of them (see for example CPJ, III, nos. 1441–1444), why would they refrain from naming women after them as well? Indeed, it is a well-known fact that the Jews used names taken from Greek kings and famous Greek personalities, even those with mythological connotations; see Ilan 1984, pp. 61 ff., 67–78; idem 2002, p. 11, 13. In late 16 BCE (that is, at the age of 56), Herod once again married three wives at one time (Pallas, Phaedra and Elpis), whom he brought back from his expedition to Rome and Greece. According to Kokkinos (pp. 240–242), they were also Idumaean-Phoenician in origin, but this is not supported by the sources. As for the dates of these marriages, Kokkinos suggested that they paralleled the marriages of his Hasmonaean sons, which is an attractive possibility and one that we will be returning to later.

Chapter 8 Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression (27–10 BCE) Beginning of Construction at the Herodium According to Josephus, Herod began construction of the Herodium and the surrounding complex upon the conclusion of the wedding festivities for himself and Mariamme the Boethusian.1 But in fact, it is more reasonable to assume that he only laid the cornerstone for the project at this point, whereas the major progress took place at a later date, apparently concurrent with the building of the cities of Sebaste and Caesarea. In any event, it is clear that work at Herodium did not continue past 15 BCE, for it was in that year that Marcus Agrippa conducted his famous visit to Judaea, during which he also journeyed to the Herodium.2 Since impressing Marcus Agrippa was one of Herod’s main objectives, as implied in Josephus’ account, it can be understood that construction of the site was already completed at this point, or was at least in the final stages. It is obviously significant, in our opinion, that over twelve years passed between the laying of the cornerstone and completion of construction – a period equal to the time it took to construct Caesarea, the largest city in the kingdom. This only serves to indicate the tremendous effort invested in this complex and colossal monument, in particular since its location in the mountainous desert of southeastern Judaea entailed a host of logistical difficulties. The impressive remains of the site have been studied extensively by dozens of archeologists, and are a source of wonder 1

2

AJ XV, 323–325. According to Kokkinos the date is 28/29 BCE, a finding supported by the fact that the account of the construction of the Herodium is placed chronologically between the building of Sebaste and of Caesarea Maritima. For the references to Herodium in Josephus’ writings, see BJ I, 265, 419–421, 673; III, 55; IV, 518; V, 70. The date given in the Book of Josippon for the building of the Herodium is questionable, unless we understand it to refer to the laying of the cornerstone. AJ XV, 13. Marcus Agrippa’s visit to Judaea will be discussed at length below.

182

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

to this day since they offer decisive evidence of Herod’s enormous ambition in undertaking this project. 3 It is our view that the desire to perpetuate his memory with a massive monument stemmed from his emotional need to “compete with” the tombs of the Hasmonaeans at Modein and to demonstrate his superiority over them in both height and splendor.4 Thus, while the ornamental figures of ships at Modein could be seen by all seafarers (I Maccabees 13:29), the burial site at Herodium was easily visible from Jerusalem as well as all the peaks of the nearby mountains. 5 This “rivalry” with the dead Hasmonaeans was later evident as well in Herod’s desire that “he shall have a great mourning at his funeral, and such as never had any king before him” (AJ XVII, 177), no doubt including the kings of the Hasmonaean dynasty, and foremost among them Alexander Jannaeus, whose funeral was described by Josephus as especially magnificent (AJ XIII, 406). The construction of this grandiose burial ground during his lifetime, hidden as it was within an artificial mountain in a cone shape reminiscent of a pyramid, may have raised associations (in the eyes of his Jewish subjects) with the Egyptian pharaohs who labored their entire lives to establish a grand and everlasting memorial to themselves.6 At the apex of the burial site, the remnants of which have not yet been found, a huge, impressive palace was constructed; according to the account in AJ XIV, 360, Herod built an entire city (póliv) around it by 3 4

5

6

See NEAE II, pp. 618–626; Roller 1998, pp. 164–166; Netzer 1972; idem 1989a; idem 1999, pp. 90–108; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 99–112. On the splendor of the burial site in Modein, see I Maccabees, 13:26–30; AJ XIII, 211–212; Kahana 1937, pp. clxii–clxiii; Goldstein 1976, pp. 474–475; Bar-Kochva 1989, pp. 400–401; Rappaport 2004, p. 299. Netzer 1999, p. 92. It is entirely possible that this was deliberate on Herod’s part; he may even have entertained the provocative notion that the view of his tomb from Jerusalem would perpetuate his memory. The Aruch Completum Lexicon (ed. Kohut, p. 67) maintained that mYoma 6:8 – based on the manuscripts of Kaufmann (A 50), Parma (De Rossi 138) and Cambridge (W. H. Lowe) – was referring to the Herodium, the name of which was corrupted either as Bet-Haroro (OrOrAx tyb) or Beth-Haruri (yrWr xA tyb); cf. also Targum Jonathan on Leviticus 15:10; Derenbourg 1867, p. 152, n. 1. However, Klein (1939, p. 88 and n. 23) objected to this view, suggesting instead that the Mishnah was speaking of a site south of Jerusalem on the way to Marsaba known as Khirbet Hardan. Our thanks are offered here to Professor Abraham Tal, who assisted us in reading the aforementioned manuscripts. By contrast, Josephus (CA II, 205) praised the simplicity of Jewish burial and mourning customs, at the same time criticizing the accepted norms in the East (Egypt, Phoenicia and Babylonia) to which Herod was accustomed; see Kasher 1996, II, pp. 496–498. It is worth noting here that the equating of Herod with the famous Egyptian Pharaoh (Ramesses II) is very noticeable in the New Testament as well, since both of them were considered “slaughterers of infants”; cf. for example Matthew, 2:1–19.

Beginning of Construction at the Herodium

183

the name of Herodia ((Herwdía).7 Although this is the only reference to it, it appears to have actually existed, judging by the archeological findings unearthed to date in Lower Herodium.8 The burial site was patterned after the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, considered to be one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World,9 and was almost certainly inspired by the imperial mausoleum in Rome commemorating Augustus.10 The date of construction of the monument in Rome (28 BCE) also fits in well chronologically with the building of the Herodium.11 As we shall see below, the perpetuation of Herod’s memory was not limited to his gravesite but related to other locations built by him outside the borders of Judaea as well, for example the Herodium in eastern Transjordan.12 From our perspective, these facts support the suggestion of a grandiose personality, as a result of which Herod strived so diligently to memorialize himself and 7

8

9

10

11 12

In the first century, Pliny the Elder (Historia Naturalis, V, 70) defined Herodium as oppidum, namely a “town,” in precisely the same sense as Rhinocoloura (or Rhinocorura), Raphia, and Jamnia (loc. cit.). At the same time, however, he used the identical term to denote Hellenistic cities (poleis) as well, e. g. Samaria, Azotus, Ascalon, Anthedon, Neapolis, Gaza, Joppa, Caesarea, Julias, Hippos (Susita), Taricheae, and Tiberias (op. cit., 68–69; 71). These uses by Pliny may be misleading, all the more so as the equivalent Latin term urbs (city) was applied by him mostly to Rome. See for example Roller 1998, pp. 164–165. This seems to be supported by the fact that Herodium functioned as the capital of the local toparchy; cf. Netzer 1999, p. 90; however Josephus stated unequivocally in BJ I 421 that Herodium only “resembled a city (polis).” Nevertheless, Herod may have wished to impart the status of a city to the site of his first victory, thereby emulating his master Augustus, who established a city (Nicopolis) to commemorate his great victory at Actium. On the archaeological findings in Lower Herodium, see Netzer 1999, pp. 99–108. This was the famous tomb built by Pythius in memory of Mausolus King of Caria in southwest Asia Minor at the request of his widow (and sister) Artemisia. It was regarded as one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Contained within the tomb were huge statues of the family members surrounded by 36 pillars; above them soared a pyramid topped with a chariot harnessed to four horses. Roller (1998, pp. 165–166) felt that there was a Roman-Augustan influence in the architecture of the Herodium, a point actually noticed earlier by Tsafrir (1980, pp. 56–60). It is well known that the Mausoleum in Rome was shaped like an Etruscan tumulus, at the top of which was a cone-shaped roof. Amit (2002, p. 232) points out that scholars who have studied Augustus’ construction have noted the emergence of an “Augustan style,” namely, a mixture of elements borrowed from Greek classical architecture on the one hand and Roman architecture on the other; see Fittschen & Foerster 1996; Levine 2000, pp. 44 ff. For this very reason Roller (1998, p. 33, 164) preferred to date the construction of the Herodiun to between 25 and 22 BCE. In BJ I, 419 Josephus mentions another fortress (froúrion) called Herodium, located in the mountains of Arabia east of the Dead Sea, at a site identified as presentday Qasr Riyashi; For details, see Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 113–115; for other possibilities, see Sagiv 2003, pp. 49–50, 143.

184

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

spread his fame during his own lifetime. The pretentiousness inherent in modeling one’s own construction after one of the Seven Wonders of the World (the Mausoleum) was to repeat itself in the building of the Phasael Tower (which resembled the famed Pharos lighthouse in Alexandria); the Temple of Roma and the adjacent Augusteum at Caesarea Maritima, to be discussed below. The fact that this was a recurring phenomenon further supports the assumption of a megalomanic aspect to Herod’s character.

Construction of Stadiums and Theaters in Jerusalem and Jericho It emerges from Josephus’ account that as early as 27 BCE Herod had already dedicated the theater and amphitheater that he built in Jerusalem, where he held athletic competitions in honor of the emperor, patterned after the Olympiads (AJ XV, 267–276).13 These contests apparently centered around a special festivity “in the Emperor’s honor,” properly referred to as Kaisareía, which was part of the imperial cult that Herod wished to promulgate in his kingdom.14 From the standpoint of the Jewish public in Jerusalem, this act was comparable to the Dionysia celebration imposed by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (II Maccabees 6:7) “in honor of Dionysus”.15 There is reason to assume that at least some residents of Jerusalem drew a parallel between Herod and Antiochus, a possibility that we raised earlier and will be returning to below. The date of the festivity in honor of the Emperor is also consistent with the shift that took place in the Roman Empire at this time with the proclamation of Octavian as princeps and the granting of the title Augustus (January 16, 27 BCE), thereby expressing his supreme

13

14 15

Richardson 1996, pp. 186–188, 223–224; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 74–79. According to a recent theory, the theater was constructed of wood, and for this reason no remnant of it survived; see Patrich 2003a, pp. 19–28. It appears that the wooden structure was not a major one, and therefore was not located in the center of the city. Presumably, it disappeared not long after Herod’s time, which is probably why it was not mentioned in Josephus’ detailed description of Jerusalem in BJ I, 401–492; V, 176–183, 238–243. See Geiger 1987, pp. 8–9. For a comprehensive discussion see: Bernett 2002, pp. 45–59. As for the cult of Dionysus and the “Dionysia” (or “Bacchanalia”), see Goldstein, 1983, p. 104, 276, 490, 502.

Construction of Stadiums and Theaters in Jerusalem and Jericho

185

status in the Empire.16 It seems that Herod preceded the majority of the rulers of the lands under Roman patronage in his attempts to ingratiate himself politically with Octavian. In Jericho as well – one of the distinctively Jewish cities of Judaea – Herod erected structures similar to those in Jerusalem, among them the Hippodrome, which encompassed a theater and perhaps also a gymnasium (in Tel al-Samarat). Here too, the construction did not serve any communal Jewish function; on the contrary, it caused great discomfort, to say the least, in particular if we assume that a similar celebration in honor of the Emperor was held there as well. In truth, these structures are referred to by Josephus only in connection with Herod’s last days, as he lay on his deathbed, and not in any earlier context – certainly not in relation to any festive occasions in the life of the Jewish nation. This is sufficient to indicate that they fulfilled no communal purpose for his subjects.17 His eagerness to build them can be understood primarily as an expression of the tremendous emotional needs associated with his inferiority complex. The building of these structures can further be interpreted as deliberate acts of provocation against a hostile public, something that apparently gave him particular emotional satisfaction since a great deal of his extreme suspiciousness and jealousy related to the Hasmonaean dynasty so revered by the Jewish public, and to the family’s special connection with Jerusalem, the Holy Temple, and Jericho. Having eliminated the Hasmonaean dynasty, Herod now sought, consciously or unconsciously, to demonstrate his exclusive authority in shaping the new character of these two quintessentially Hasmonaean cities, Jerusalem and Jericho.18 Indeed, the ostentatious construction there strongly suggests that the motivating factor was a desire to overcome 16

17

18

It is well known that Octavian was not a common name in ancient times and was adopted only by modern historians (see Amit 2002, pp. 11–12). On the full significance of the title “Augustus” (literally, “revered one”), see Yavetz 1988, pp. 299– 303; Amit 2002, pp. 19–20. The Jerusalem games may have started a year or two after Octavian was declared “Augustus”; see Hengel 1989, p. 102. On his deathbed in Jericho, he ordered that the distinguished men (i. e., the leaders) of every village in Judaea be assembled. They were to be locked in the Hippodrome and executed so as to ensure that the entire Jewish people would be in mourning upon his death (BJ I, 659–660; AJ XVII, 168–179). Regarding the Hippodrome in Jericho, see: Netzer 1989a, pp. 56–59. For an instructive survey of the Herodian building projects in Jericho, see Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 55–73; these included the fortress called Cypros, after Herod’s mother, which controlled the entrance to Wadi el-Qelt. Jericho was second only to Jerusalem in its identification with the Hasmonaeans, as evidenced by its archaeological findings; see Netzer 1991, pp. 5 ff. Herod’s attempts to leave his own imprint on the city can also be discerned in the archaeological excavations; see Netzer 1980, pp. 32 ff.

186

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

his sense of inferiority regarding the Hasmonaean dynasty and to redress the humiliation he had suffered at their hands according to his warped perspective. Herod’s own unique emotional needs were thus the prime underlying motivation for his monumental building projects, precisely at the sites most identified with the Hasmonaeans – all in order to leave a lasting imprint on his subjects, still clinging to the memory of the Hasmonaeans, and on the world at large. These pretentious ambitions actually met with enormous success, if we are to judge by the splendor of Jerusalem, referred to admiringly by Pliny the Elder as “longe clarissima urbium orientis” (the most famous by far of the Eastern cities).19 As stated, the construction of the theater and amphitheater in Jerusalem caused grave consternation among the Jews as these were highly offensive to the traditional Jewish lifestyle.20 In AJ XV, 267– 276, which already noted above, Josephus strongly condemns the construction of these edifices, referring to the events that went on there (in particular, fights between prisoners condemned to death and between man and beast) with the dubious label Àsebév (meaning “sin” or “heresy”). 21 These structures can in no way be considered functional as they answered no need of the Jerusalem public but rather the need of Herod himself for personal prestige. According to Josephus’ description, these institutions were intended to introduce to Jerusalem Greco-Roman patterns of behavior, turning the city into a center of amusement and indulgence for the surrounding countries. 22 There is ample archeological and epigraphic evidence of Herod’s efforts to import ostentatious luxury items (specifically, articles closely related to his building projects) from Italy and the lands of the Medi19

20

21 22

Pliny, Historia Naturalis, V, 70; see Stern 1980a, pp. 257–270. Noteworthy in this context are Tacitus’ (Historiae, V, 2, 8, 11–12) extravagant remarks on the renown of the city and its temple, and the strength of its walls and fortresses, all the more so since he ranked among the fiercest enemies of the Jewish people in ancient times. Unfortunately, a description of Herod’s major contribution to the construction of Jerusalem, as reflected in the archaeological findings, is beyond the purview of this work. We shall therefore content ourselves with citing the famous Talmudic passage: “Whoever has not seen Jerusalem in its splendor has never seen a beautiful city in his life. Whoever has not seen the Temple in its final state has never seen a magnificent structure.” See mAvodah Zarah, 1, 7: “They do not build with them a basilica, scaffold, stadium, or judges’ tribunals”; cf. CA I, 192–193; Kasher 1996, pp. 189 ff.; Levine 2000, pp. 52–58; Fuks 2002, p. 239 AJ XV, 275; Schalit translated this as “sin”, Marcus & Wikgren as “impiety”; cf. Liddell & Scott, s. v. Àsébeia; and see also Fuks, loc. cit. AJ XV 267–279; XVII, 255, cf. also BJ II 44; Ben-Dov 1982, pp. 180–183; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 74–79; Kasher 2003, pp. 65–66 and n. 34.

Mocking of Jewish Values and Brutal Suppression of Opponents

187

terranean basin. 23 Examples of these can be found even in the border strongholds on the edge of the desert (such as Masada, Alexandrium, Cyprus, Jericho and others), and not only at central urban locations. The “imports” extended to Roman construction and architectural plans as well, including Roman-style architectonic ornamentation, bathhouses, palaces, porticos, frescoes, mosaics, and the like. These were obviously intended to be awe-inspiring, even if he himself never used or rarely visited them. It was enough for him to impress such high-ranking personalities as Marcus Agrippa (on his visit to the kingdom in 15 BCE). The motivation behind this ostentatious display was also evident in the invitations to delegations of well-known athletes from foreign countries, and in grand musical and theatrical performances, chariot races, lavish victory prizes, and the like. The theater in Jerusalem also became a place of honor for ceremonies, the stage adorned with inscriptions honoring the emperor and imperial symbols of victory made of gold and silver plundered from defeated nations. The theaters were even used as venues for games and for displays of clothing, jewelry and precious stones. A special attraction was of course battles staged with various wild animals, and combat between man and beast. In staging such spectacles, Herod totally ignored the desire of his subjects to preserve the laws of their forefathers and the sanctity of the city of Jerusalem. Not without reason did performances of this type arouse fury and condemnation, as Josephus succinctly recounted in AJ XV, 275–276: … it appeared an instance of no less impiety, to change their own laws for such foreign exercises: but, above all the rest, the trophies gave most distaste to the Jews; for as they imagined them to be images, included within the armor that hung round about them, they were sorely displeased at them, because it was not the custom of their country to pay honors to such images.

Mocking of Jewish Values and Brutal Suppression of Opponents Herod of course paid no heed to the criticisms leveled against him. On the contrary, he actually took great pleasure in sarcastically mocking the “superstitious beliefs” of his Jewish subjects, 24 ordering the 23 24

For a good recent summary of Herod’s innovations in his building projects, see Tsafrir 2003, pp. 93 ff. In Greek deisdaimonía; see Liddell & Scott, p. 375. On the negative connotation of this term, see also Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, p. 132. n. a; Koets 1929,

188

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

removal of the trophies of his enemies, which had been taken (by him) as spoils of war to be exhibited as “ornaments” at the theater in Jerusalem. Their removal was intended “to put off the people” (see below) by exposing before the eyes of their notables what was actually “hidden” beneath the trophies, namely the bare wood on which they were laid for presentation. This action and the confusion it caused were a source of amusement to Herod, intended to showcase what he saw as “superstition.” His conduct in this instance suggests that he had adopted the venomous sarcasm popular among anti-Jewish Hellenist writers, taking on their derisive, contentious attitude towards the faithful guardians of Jewish tradition. According to Josephus’ account, it was “the whole nationp” (toû pantòv 3qnouv), namely the Jerusalem community as a whole, who became furious and concerned at how the country’s practices were being forcibly altered under Herod’s rule. Indeed, some Jewish dignitaries on this occasion were appeased at seeing the bare wood beneath the trophies, but there were still those who “continued in their displeasure against him” (Whison trans.) or “persisted in their resentment” (Marcus-Wickren trans.). As a result, he was looked upon as king only in the formal sense; in practice, he was seen as the enemy of the entire people (AJ XV, 277–283, especially 281). When informed by one of his spies of a plot by ten Jerusalemites to assassinate him as he entered the theater, and of the great hatred of the public crowding the streets, who were liable to riot against him, Herod fled in haste to take refuge in his palace, 25 ordering his men to capture the conspirators and bring them before him. After they courageously admitted their opposition to him and their oath to take his life out of a sense of piety and self-sacrifice, they were put to death – but not before undergoing brutal torture (ibid., 282–290). Based on the account of this incident, it appears that the assassination plot was an attempt to carry out “zealots’ justice” as practiced by the early {ydysx (Hasidim = pious Jews) against the Hellenists during the Hasmonaean revolt, indicating that Herod was considered by them to be an instigator and promoter (‘xydmw tysm’) of idol worship. The description of the public “lynching” of the agent who informed on the ten plotters supports this notion.

25

pp. 63 ff. On its use in anti-Jewish literature from the beginning of the Hellenistic era, see Agatharchides of Cnidus in the writings of Josephus, CA I, 208; AJ XII, 5: Stern 1984, III p. 156. See AJ XV, 285–286; but nothing is said about which palace he escaped to. Perhaps it was the Antonia, since the construction of the royal palace in the northwest corner of the Upper City (on the site of the former Hasmonaean palace) is mentioned only in a later context (roughly 25 BCE); cf. AJ XV, 317–318; Roller 1998, p. 176.

Mocking of Jewish Values and Brutal Suppression of Opponents

189

On the other hand, it appears that this horrific account of dismembering his body and throwing it to the dogs came from a distinctly Herodian source; indeed it was explicitly stated that “This execution was seen by many of the citizens, yet would not one of them discover the doers of it, till upon Herod’s making a strict scrutiny after them, by bitter and severe tortures, certain women that were tortured confessed what they had seen done; the authors of which fact were so terribly punished by the king, that their entire families were destroyed for this their rash attempt” (ibid., 290). The fact that Herod was the one who “discovered” this raises suspicion as to the credibility of the story and, at the same time, exposes the venomous anti-Jewish motives of Herod or the source that served him. Throughout history, interrogation under torture has been able to produce any result; it should therefore be regarded in most cases with a healthy dose of skepticism as something tainted by the suspicion of deliberate propaganda. The hideous story cited above was intended to achieve two objectives: to besmirch Herod’s opponents, and to defend him as the one who punished and killed the perpetrators of the crime. Moreover, “their entire families were destroyed” (AJ XV, 290).26 This is an outstanding example of collective punishment being levied against individuals who were not personally involved in the acts of their family members. Although their punishment is not stated, it is easy to speculate that the Herodian “norm,” that, is death by torture, was applied here as well. Every tyrant throughout the ages has been well versed in the “art” of brutality, and Herod too espoused it eagerly as a means of imposing his authority and instilling fear in his subjects. The use of collective punishment signifies that he saw it as a legitimate, calculated deterrent and was unconcerned about harming the innocent, in addition to which there is reason to believe that he derived purely sadistic pleasure from it. As we will be learning below, interrogation under torture was employed by Herod against women on numerous other occasions as well, to the point where it became a common occurrence. One could ostensibly argue that such methods were not unusual in the ancient world, but their excessive use by Herod should be viewed as an exception, particularly since virtually all interrogations under his rule were carried out in this manner.27 26 27

The depiction of this incident has no parallel in BJ, which is the version most faithful to Nicolaus of Damascus. The same holds true of modern paranoid despots as well, among them Stalin, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, etc.; see Robins & Post 1997, pp. 244–300; S. Abu-Rish, Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge, 2000, passim.

190

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

Herod’s handling of this and similar instances is indicative of his cyclothymic tendencies, as seen in rapid and extreme mood swings that began (in this case) with mockery and derision and quickly transformed into feelings of stress, anxiety and fear coupled with an obsessive drive for revenge. He was seized by impulsive, uncontrollable urges, which would explain the extreme brutality typical of paranoid behavior, characterized as it is by excess, lack of proportion, and an absence of self-control. From his perspective he of course saw himself as a victim of persecution who was simply taking counter-measures to defend himself against the hostile world around him. It is only mentioned in passing that he uncovered the plot to assassinate him via one of his vigilant spies, indicating that he already had an intelligence network in place for purposes of internal security, along with a special secret unit ready to take immediate, decisive action (ibid., 285–287, 289–290). It is well known that despots generally rely on intelligence services and secret police to such an excessive degree that it is hard to imagine them without them; by way of illustration, one need look no further than such modern-day dictators as Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Ceausescu, Pinochet, Hafez al-Assad, and Saddam Hussein, to name a few. Of Herod’s fears of a spontaneous popular uprising, Josephus stated explicitly that “[he] strengthened himself after a more secure manner, and resolved to encompass the multitude every way, lest such innovations should end in an open rebellion.” (AJ XV, 291).

Conclusion of the Costobarus Affair Only a short time after some measure of calm had been restored to his household (approx. 26 BCE), Herod was shocked by the revelations of his sister Salome, who informed on her husband Costobarus. She accused him of having hidden the Sons of Baba (or Sons of Saba), close confidants of the Hasmonaeans, on his land for roughly the past twelve years. 28 Their execution, along with that of all their collabora28

Regarding their identity, see above p. 136. According to AJ (XV, 260), the twelve years started with the conquest of Jerusalem in 37 BCE (ibid., 262 ff.); therefore the Sons of Baba must have been executed only in 25 BCE. Otto (1913, cols. 53–54, 56) felt that the number of years should actually be ten, thereby placing their capture at 27/28 BCE, that is, immediately after the execution of Alexandra (below). His view was accepted by Schalit (1969, pp. 144–145); but we are of the opinion that the twelve years should be counted from 40 or 39 BCE, namely, from Herod’s formal

Conclusion of the Costobarus Affair

191

tors, 29 brought Herod back with renewed enthusiasm to his murderous conduct of the ’30s BCE – which, from now on, would be directed against the masses as well. There is no doubt that his determination to permanently eliminate all his rivals was exemplified by this episode. Of course, this was nothing more than an illusion, since it is to be expected of an individual suffering form Paranoid Personality Disorder that “new and dangerous enemies” will soon emerge, whom he will be preoccupied with eradicating till the day he dies. It is worth recalling here that already in 37 BCE, when he placed Jerusalem under siege, Herod ordered his commander Costobarus to block all exits from the city so that none of his opponents could slip out. In order to capture them, he “had publicly proposed a reward for the discovery” (AJ XV, 265). But in this case, it was only the fact that his sister Salome informed on her husband Costobarus that led to his final exposure. Concluding his account of this affair, Josephus noted that from that point forward “the kingdom was entirely in Herod’s own power, and there was nobody remaining of such dignity as could put a stop to what he did against the Jewish laws” (ibid., 266). But as we shall see below, events were to prove him otherwise. In our opinion, the betrayal of Costobarus should be seen as proximate to the mysterious reports of a plot between himself and Herod’s brother Pheroras. According to the account in BJ (I, 485–487), Costobarus aided Pheroras in his plan to flee with his beloved maidservant to the Parthians as a result of Herod’s displeasure over his loyalty and love for her. 30 Chronologically, the plot between Costobarus and Pheroras should be placed somewhere between the years 34 and 26

29

30

coronation and the beginning of his campaign to conquer Jerusalem; cf. Smallwood 1981, p. 72, n. 37. Among them were Herod’s closest friends, including Dositheus, Lysimachus and Antipater Gadia (AJ XV, 252, 260). Roller (1998, pp. 58–59) theorized that this Dositheus was the son of Cleopatra from Alexandria and the one who had recommended to the former Roman consul, Lucius Cornelius Lentulus Crus, in 49 BCE that those Jews from Asia Minor who were Roman citizens be exempted from military service (AJ XIV, 236). This possibility seems unlikely, however, due to the lengthy gap in time. It is more reasonable to identify him as the Idumaean notable Dositheus, one of John Hyrcanus’ friends, who betrayed Hyrcanus and took part in Herod’s plot against him (AJ XV, 168–172); see Kokkinos 1998, pp. 151–152. Apparently, Lysimachus and Antipater Gadia were Idumaean notables and personal friends of Herod who became later his victims; cf. Schalit 1969, 144. The love affair of Pheroras with his maidservant will be discussed below. This has no parallel in AJ, which seemingly confounded S. Cohen when he attempted to compare it with AJ XV, 206–219. In our opinion, when Josephus wrote AJ, he himself was embarrassed by what he had written in BJ, especially his remark that Herod forgave both Salome and Pheroras, who were depicted in AJ as bitter enemies.

192

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

BCE, but it is difficult to glean additional information from the little contained in this account. 31

Construction of Herod’s Palace in Jerusalem and Its Famous Towers Let us return at this point to the convoluted sequence of Josephus’ presentation of the massive construction projects undertaken by Herod. 32 It is possible that as early as 27/28 BCE, following his marriages to his three new wives (Malthace, Cleopatra of Jerusalem, and Mariamme the Boethusian), Herod initiated the construction of his official royal palace, resting on the foundations of the former Hasmonaean palace in the northeastern corner of the Upper City of Jerusalem. While the matter is recounted only in the context of the events of 24/25 BCE, 33 there is reason to believe that the cornerstone of the palace was laid even earlier – more precisely at a point in time close to his three marriages. 34 Work at the site was carried out at a vigorous pace only when “his affairs were thus improved, and were again in a flourishing condition,” (AJ XV, 318). Since the project in question was the official royal residence (AJ XV, 292), no effort was spared to make it truly magnificent – so much so that Josephus himself claimed that its beauty surpassed that of the Holy Temple itself (BJ I, 402). 35 In a later description contained in BJ V, 156 ff. (in the chronological context of Titus’ siege of Jerusalem), Josephus devoted special attention to the celebrated towers that formed part of the royal palace and were connected to the “third wall” that Herod’s grandson Agrip31 32

33

34 35

According to Kokkinos (1998, p. 167), this took place in 26 BCE. The description of the construction projects is an intentional deviation from the historical account, motivated by literary considerations. Josephus wished to take a respite from the narrative in order to represent the positive side of Herod and thereby intensify the drama of his life story, even if he had no real empathy for him. Regarding similar literary deviations, see Landau 2003, pp. 171 ff. AJ XV, 317–218. This is mentioned in the same context as the campaign of Marcus Aelius Gallus, the Roman prefect of Egypt, against Arabia Felix, to which Herod contributed 500 men from his body guard as auxiliary troops. For the date of this campaign, see Schürer 1973, I, p. 290, & n. 8. Cf. Kokkinos 1998, pp. 232, 237. For an architectural description of Herod’s palace, see BJ I, 402; V 156–183; AJ XVII, 318; Schalit 1969, pp. 368 ff.; NEAE II, p. 742 f.; Roller 1998, p. 176; Netzer 1999, pp. 117–122; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 93–94. It is worth noting that two wings of the palace were dedicated to the most important figures in his life: Caesarion (after the emperor Augustus) and Agrippion (after Marcus Agrippa).

Construction of Herod’s Palace in Jerusalem and Its Famous Towers

193

pas I had begun to build during his brief reign. The towers were in effect mighty fortress-palaces and were therefore combined together as an integral part of Jerusalem’s system of defenses. The first was the Tower of Hippicus (ibid., 163), named after an anonymous friend referred to by Josephus only in this context. The second tower was named for Herod’s older brother Phasael (ibid., 166–169), and is identified with the site popularly referred to today as the Tower of David. It is said that it was the tallest of all the towers of Jerusalem, massive in scale from its base to its peak, and modeled after the famous lighthouse on the island of Pharos (which was connected to the harbor by a causeway known as the Heptastadium) at the entrance to the port of Alexandria, even exceeding it in height. As stated, the fact that it was constructed to resemble one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World exemplifies Herod’s megalomanic ambitions,36 echoed in the construction of other monuments such as the Augusteum temple and the temple of the goddess Roma at Caesarea (below). The third tower, built in memory of his wife Mariamme, was known as the Mariamme Tower. Josephus’ account of it, like that of the other towers, is found in BJ (V, 170–171), in the later context of the siege of Jerusalem led by Titus during the Great Revolt. According to Josephus, it was known primarily for its upper residential chambers, which were grander than those of the other towers since Herod felt it would be fitting for the citadel named after his wife to be more splendid than those adjacent to it. It is unclear just when he built it: whether before Mariamme’s death in 29 BCE, as held by some scholars, 37 or at a later date, as a gesture to his sons to “compensate” for her death. The truth may lie somewhere in between, that is, he may have commenced construction before 30 BCE and finished at a later point, as would be expected of a project of this size and splendor. If such is the case, it is reasonable to assume that he was haunted by the memory of his beloved wife even after the storm surrounding her 36 37

Not without reason did Lichtenberger (loc. cit.) call this part of Herodian Jerusalem “Klein-Alexandria in Jerusalem.” According to Schalit (1969, p. 368), the construction of the three towers (Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamme) started in 30 BCE or even slightly earlier. He sought to support this date with the story of Alexandra, mother of Mariamme, who tried to persuade the commander of the fortresses to hand them over to her, since she (like many) believed that Herod would not recover from the “illness” that “afflicted him in mind and body” following the death of his wife Mariamme. (AJ XV, 247–251). It appears that Roller (1998, pp. 178–179) was influenced by Schalit on this point. For a view that runs counter to the early dating, at least in the case of Mariamme’s tower, see below, chapter 12, n. 44.

194

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

death had abated, particularly since he saw their sons as a living reminder of her. As noted above, the Mariamme Tower, like the other citadels, was intended to serve as a stronghold against the dangers of the Upper City, just as the Antonia Fortress was a bastion against the threat posed by the Holy Temple, or more precisely by the mass gatherings during the thrice-yearly pilgrimage festivals.38 A fourth fortress that may also have been built by Herod is the Psephinus Tower (probably derived from the Greek verb yhfów (meaning to work in mosaic; see Liddell-Scott’s dictionary, p. 2023), which was an octagonal structure that stood at the northwestern corner of the “third wall” (BJ V, 159–160). According to Josephus, it soared to a height of 70 cubits and was topped by an observation post from which one could see at sunrise Arabia to the east, and “the utmost limits of Hebrew territory” (i. e., Judaea) to the west as far as the Mediterranean Sea. 39 Herod presumably took great pride in this “tourist attraction” during Marcus Agrippa’s visit to Jerusalem (15 BCE).

The Construction of Sebaste In close chronological proximity (26/27 BCE), Josephus also described the great construction project in the city of Samaria, renamed Sebaste by Herod in honor of the Emperor Augustus (AJ XV, 292–293):40 [H]e contrived to make Samaria a fortress for himself also against all the people, and called it Sebaste, supposing that this place would be a strong hold against the country, not inferior to the former. So he fortified that place, which was a day’s journey distant from Jerusalem, and which would be useful to him in common, to keep both the country and the city in awe.41 38 39

40

41

An explicit statement to this effect is offered in AJ XV, 292. In the opinion of Roller (1998, p. 179), there is reason to assume that Herod was indeed one who built the tower, although it is mentioned in a later context, namely, the siege of Jerusalem led by Titus. The timing was most likely after the emperor had been awarded the title Augustus, namely, later than January 16, 27 BCE; see Hengel 1989, p. 102. Indeed, there are scholars who maintain that the project was undertaken only two years later (25 BCE), for example Schürer (1973, I, pp. 290–291, n. 9); others, however, such as Kokkinos (1998, p. 325, 369), prefer an earlier date (26/27 BCE). In either case, Bernett (2002, pp. 60–85) was correct in claiming that the establishment of Sebaste reflected Herod’s policy of promoting the “imperial cult” (i. e., emperor worship) in his kingdom. This was clearly evident in the presence of pagan structures in the city; cf. also Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 82–88. There was great religious significance to this act from the Jewish point of view, as it obviously indicated Herod’s support and encouragement of idolatry within the borders of the Holy Land. In the parallel passage in BJ I, 403, no mention is made of this reason.

The Construction of Sebaste

195

The preceding account reflects Herod’s policy with regard to domestic security, including the special strategic value assigned to Sebaste under his rule. It appears that the urban axis of Caesarea-Sebaste along with the military colony of Geva Parashim (“Gaba, a city of cavalry-men” – Gabe Hippeon) on the southern edges of the Jezreel Valley, proved very useful to him for defensive purposes.42 This same axis, which passed through the city of Shechem and its environs (the Samaritan metropolis), also stretched to the cities of the Decapolis in the east, creating a clear geostrategic barrier between the Galilee and Judaea. Whereas John Hyrcanus I had once conquered Shechem and Samaria (including the surrounding area) and linked the Galilee with Judaea, Herod turned back the clock and separated the regions once more in order to strengthen his hold over them, employing a strategy of divide et impera (“divide and rule”).43 One must recall that the Galilee had been the seat of the zealots’ rebellion against Rome and Herod during the time of Hezekiah the Galilean, who was executed in 47 BCE.44 Sebaste no doubt played a central role in this defensive barrier; for this reason, he sought to augment its population with loyal citizens drawn from his military veterans, and to build it as a fortified city surrounded on all sides by walls and towers.45 Josephus’ description of the construction of the city indicates that Herod was preoccupied not only with its security but with its beauty. He apparently gained much experience during this undertaking that was later put to use in his projects in Jerusalem. His motivations for building in Sebaste are evident in the following citation (AJ XV, 269–298): [296] Besides all which, he encompassed the city with a wall of great strength, and made use of the acclivity of the place for making its fortifications stronger; [297] nor was the compass of the place made now so small as it had been before, but was such as rendered it not inferior to the most famous cities; for it was twenty furlongs in circumference. [198] Now within, and about the middle of it, he built a sacred place, of a fur42 43 44 45

For further details see: Kokkinos 2002a, p. 720, n. 14. On the archaeological findings, see Mazar 1988. See Kasher 1988, p. 191. On Herod’s ties with Samaria-Sebaste, see recently: idem 2005a, pp. 31 ff. See above pp. 40–41; Otzen 1990, pp. 131–134. AJ XV, 293, 296–298. For details on the city’s topography and fortifications, see: Reisner & Fischer & Lyon 1924, pp. 170–180; Crowfoot & Kenyon & Sukenik 1935, pp. 31–35, 39–41; 123–129; Avigad, in NEAE IV pp. 1300–1310. On the Augusteum, see also Barag 1993, pp. 4–8; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 80–92; Bernett 2002, pp. 60–85. This temple was one of the city’s major architectural attractions, since it offered a vantage point to the Mediterranean Sea, not to mention the fact that the temple itself could be seen from a great distance due to its high pillars and its huge white stones.

196

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

long and a half [in circuit], and adorned it with all sorts of decorations, and therein erected a temple, which was illustrious on account of both its largeness and beauty. And as to the several parts of the city, he adorned them with decorations of all sorts also; and as to what was necessary to provide for his own security, he made the walls very strong for that purpose, and made it for the greatest part a citadel; and as to the elegance of the building, it was taken care of also, that he might leave monuments of the fineness of his taste, and of his beneficence, to future ages.46

The Building of Caesarea Maritima Josephus combined the description of Sebaste’s founding with an account of the establishment of Caesarea Maritima, which in his opinion shared a common motivation, namely, “a third rampart against the entire nation” (AJ XV, 293). For the sake of precision, however, construction in Caesarea actually began during the final stages of the building at Sebaste (22/23 BCE).47 The logical conclusion is that while he was guided by a clear-cut geostrategic plan to split his kingdom via a security belt separating the Galilee and Judaea so as to weaken the connection between the two centers of Jewish resistance against him (a goal made easier by his close ties with the Samaritans), as we saw earlier his security concerns had no basis in reality. Even his relations with his Jewish subjects had improved temporarily by virtue of the generous assistance he had extended to them that year in response to the severe drought that struck his kingdom coupled with starvation and a terrible plague (AJ XV, 299–316).48 46

47

48

We do not intend to enumerate Herod’s architectural achievements here, since this is not our field of expertise; our focus instead is mainly on the historical aspects of his rule. There are a variety of opinions as to the date. Schürer’s initial finding (German edition 1901, I, p. 368) was 25 BCE, but he later (English edition 1973, I, p. 291, 306) preferred 22/23 BCE; cf. also Otto 1913, col. 70; Smallwood 1981, p. 79; Kokkinos 1985, pp. 303–305; Richardson 1996, p. 199; Roller 1999, pp. 26, 134– 136 and others. According to the dates cited in AJ (XV, 341; XVI, 136–137), the construction of Caesarea was completed during the 192nd Olympiad (namely 12–9 BCE), or more precisely, in the twenty-eighth year of Herod’s reign, that is, 10 BCE; cf. also NEAE IV, pp. 1307–1308. It is difficult to accurately date this event, since the account opens with a somewhat obscure reference to “that year” (– katà toûton). While it is recounted in close chronological proximity to the building of Sebaste, it is unclear whether the reference is to the beginning of construction or its completion. The more widespread view, however, tends to favor the second possibility, namely, 22/23 BCE. This date is supported further by the reference to Petronius, the Roman praefect in Egypt (24–21 BCE), who assisted Herod by supplying Egyptian wheat during the year of

The Building of Caesarea Maritima

197

The construction of Caesarea was undoubtedly one of Herod’s crowning achievements, and it is therefore not surprising that he dedicated it to the Emperor Augustus. The Roman name Caesarea and the Greek name Sebastia are consistent with one another, since both languages were common in the Mediterranean Basin and served as the foundation of the Greco-Roman culture of which Herod himself was an enthusiastic adherent. It took approximately twelve years to build the city (22/23–10 BCE)49 – almost more than any of his other projects – and the end result was a prime example of Herodian construction from every standpoint: size, impact, beauty, and splendor. 50 There is no question that Josephus’ description of Caesarea was a firsthand account as he visited there on numerous occasions during his lifetime. Herod apparently invested tremendous effort in the construction of both the city and the port so as to impress the world at large with their power and magnificence; they were intended by him to serve as showcase for all who entered his kingdom, in particular for events of an international nature such as the Olympic games that were held there (see below). As was his practice, Josephus presented his description in two versions: BJ (I, 408–415) and AJ (XV, 331–341) that complement one another and differ in only a few details. We will be quoting from AJ only, while touching briefly on the earlier version for purposes of comparison: [331] Now upon his observation of a place near the sea, which was very proper for containing a city, and was before called Strato’s Tower, he set about getting a plan for a magnificent city there, and erected many edifices with great diligence all over it, and this of white stone.51 He also adorned it with most sumptuous palaces and large edifices for containing the people; and what was the greatest and most laborious work of all, he adorned it with a haven, that was always free from the waves of the sea. [332] Its

49

50

51

the drought; cf. A. Stein 1950, pp. 17–18; Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, pp. 146– 147 (n. b); Kokkinos 1998, p. 370, § 3. For problems related to the dating see Kokkinos, loc. cit. He is inclined to place the building of Caesarea within the decade of 23–13 BCE (cf. AJ XVI, 136); however, the commonly accepted view (for example, Schürer 1973, I, p. 293) is that the project lasted twelve years (AJ XV, 341). A definitive conclusion in the matter is indeed hard to achieve. Pastor (1997, p. 112) is correct in claiming that the total area of Caesarea grew two and a half times larger than that of Strato’s Tower during the Hellenist and Hasmonaean periods, demonstrating, in his view, the megalomanic pretensions of Herod. This view is well supported by Patrich 2005, pp. 497 ff. (535–536 in particular). Patrich (2005, pp. 506–507 and note 29) rightly claimed that the “white stone” was not marble, as posited by several scholars, but a local stone that was heavily plastered with high-quality bleaching lime. See also below, chapter 10, p. 228.

198

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

largeness was not less than the Piraeus [at Athens], and had towards the city a double station for the ships. It was of excellent workmanship; and this was the more remarkable for its being built in a place that of itself was not suitable to such noble structures, but was to be brought to perfection by materials from other places, and at very great expenses. [333] This city is situated in Phoenicia, in the passage by sea to Egypt, between Joppa and Dora, which are lesser maritime cities, and not fit for havens, on account of the impetuous south winds that beat upon them, which rolling the sands that come from the sea against the shores, do not admit of ships lying in their station; but the merchants are generally there forced to ride at their anchors in the sea itself. [334] So Herod endeavored to rectify this inconvenience, and laid out such a compass towards the land as might be sufficient for a haven, wherein the great ships might lie in safety; and this he effected by letting down vast stones of above fifty feet in length, not less than eighteen in breadth, and nine in depth, into twenty fathom deep; and as some were lesser, so were others bigger than those dimensions. [335] This mole which he built by the sea-side was two hundred feet wide, the half of which was opposed to the current of the waves, so as to keep off those waves which were to break upon them, and so was called Procymatia, or the first breaker of the waves; [336] but the other half had upon it a wall, with several towers, the largest of which was named Drusus, and was a work of very great excellence, and had its name from Drusus, the son-inlaw of Caesar, who died young. [337] There were also a great number of arches where the mariners dwelt. There was also before them a quay, [or landing place,] which ran round the entire haven, and was a most agreeable walk to such as had a mind to that exercise; [338] but the entrance or mouth of the port was made on the north quarter, on which side was the stillest of the winds of all in this place: and the basis of the whole circuit on the left hand, as you enter the port, supported a round turret, which was made very strong, in order to resist the greatest waves; while on the right hand, as you enter, stood two vast stones, and those each of them larger than the turret, which were over against them; these stood upright, and were joined together. [339] Now there were edifices all along the circular haven, made of the most polished stone, with a certain elevation, whereon was erected a temple, that was seen a great way off by those that were sailing for that haven, and had in it two statues, the one of Rome, the other of Caesar. The city itself was called Cesarea, which was also itself built of fine materials, and was of a fine structure; [340] nay, the very subterranean vaults and cellars had no less of architecture bestowed on them than had the buildings above ground. Some of these vaults carried things at even distances to the haven and to the sea; but one of them ran obliquely, and bound all the rest together, that both the rain and the filth of the citizens were together carried off with ease, and the sea itself, upon the flux of the tide from without, came into the city, and washed it all clean. [341] Herod also built therein a theater of stone; and on the south quarter, behind the port, an amphitheater also, capable of holding a vast number of men, and conveniently situated for a prospect to the sea. So this city was thus finished in twelve years; (18) during which time the king did not fail to go on both with the work, and to pay the charges that were necessary.

The Building of Caesarea Maritima

199

From the above account, it appears that the dimensions of the harbor at Caesarea were enormous compared to other ports in the Mediterranean Basin, for Josephus at one point likened its scale to the port of Piraeus near Athens and elsewhere even claimed that it surpassed the Greek port in size. 52 The port of Caesarea was known far and wide for its advanced facilities, which included giant, roofed warehouses for storage53 and arched buildings for housing the sailors, in addition to a sophisticated drainage system that allowed the seawater to flow under the port facilities and the city so as to cleanse the latter. The port was unique in that it was possible for the “great ships” (to use Josephus’ term) to take refuge there from the high winds of the open sea. Among its advantages was the fact that several ships could lay anchor at one time along the docks opposite the storehouses to load and unload their wares (AJ XV, 334). The area of the harbor was well protected by massive breakwaters and a network of docks. We can infer from AJ XVI, 13 that work on the port was completed, for the most part, prior to 15 BCE since Herod took pride in displaying it to his friend Marcus Agrippa during his state visit to Judaea that year; hence the port was apparently the first project constructed in Caesarea. It was known as Sebastos (BJ I, 613; AJ XVII, 87), the Greek equivalent of the Roman name Augustus. It appears that the port was considered an independent administrative entity, based on the distinction between the “city” (4 póliv) and the “port” (Ó limän) in BJ I, 414. 54 Josephus notes here that Herod dedicated Caesarea to the eparchy (4 Èparcía) while the port was dedicated to the seafarers who used it. The Greek term “eparchy” is repeated 40 times in his writings, always in the sense of “province,”55 in this case referring to Syria; hence the status of the polis (or citystate) of Caesarea was identical to that of the other poleis in the surrounding area, such as the cities of the Decapolis, which had already been “autonomous” entities under the aegis of the province of Syria 52

53 54

55

AJ XV, 332 indicates that the port of Caesarea was equal in size to Piraeus; but according to BJ I 410 it was even larger than the Greek port, and it is difficult to say whether or not this was an exaggeration. Kost (2003, p. 16) estimated that the harbor extended to a size of approximately 200,000 cubic meters. See also Holum et al., pp. 102–104. Cf. Raban 2004, pp. 14–16; Patrich 2005, pp. 537–538. This distinction is supported by the numismatic evidence, since coins have been discovered from the time of the emperor Nero bearing the monogram inscription KAISARIA H PROS TW SEBASTOW LIMENI see Barag 1996, p. 610, 612; Kost 2003, pp. 17–18. See Rengstorf, II, pp. 137–138.

200

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

for many years, since Pompey’s conquest of Judaea. 56 The port of Sebastos was thus separate from the polis as a discrete administrative unit under the direct rule of Herod, who was the beneficiary of its revenues. From descriptions of the construction of both Caesarea and the port of Sebastos, it emerges that the greater portion of Herod’s resources and energies were invested in the latter. 57 He apparently took particular pride in it, as was evident during the visit of Marcus Agrippa in 15 BCE. The project was a complex one from an engineering perspective, and it is doubtful that it could have been handled without the necessary professional knowledge and techniques brought from Rome. 58 In fact, Herod imported construction materials, auxiliary engineering facilities, and apparently engineers and skilled laborers as well who were experienced in building ports. Josephus himself stated specifically that “materials were brought from other places, and at very great expenses” (AJ XV, 332).59 However, it would be mistaken to think that the huge monoliths of red and gray granite that adorned the port and the walkway stretching from the waterfront to the theater in the western part of the city were installed by Herod. These columns were presumably imported and put in place at a much later period, following the second century CE and during the Byzantine era in particular. The stone monoliths were most likely excavated from quarries in Middle and Lower Egypt and transported on rafts, traveling the length of the Nile and the northern coast of the Sinai Peninsula en route to their final destination in Caesarea. Herod’s builders, by con56 57 58

59

See: Parker 1975, pp. 437–441; Isaac 1981, pp. 67–74; Kasher 1990, pp. 176, 193 ff. For an updated account of the archaeological findings, see Raban 2004, pp. 2–18; Patrich 2005, pp. 497–538. A close examination of Josephus’ account indicates that Herod’s architects and engineers were well acquainted with the famous work De architectura (On Architecture), written by Vitruvius Pollio in 25 BCE and dedicated to Augustus. The book remained in use until the Renaissance era. The methods detailed by Vitruvius for the construction of ports and harbors were also known in Hellenist times, as evidenced by the port of Alexandria. His techniques, which were based on Phoenician and Hellenistic knowledge, were applied in Puteoli and Misenum in Italy and in Paphos, Cyprus as well; for further details, see Kost 2003, pp. 35–38. On the credibility of Josephus’ description, see Raban 1982, pp. 165–184 and his other articles on Caesarea; see also Brandon 1996, pp. 24–50; and the first six studies in Raban-Holum (eds.) 1996, pp. 3–101. In the wake of these studies, Kost (2003, pp. 39–58) offered an interesting examination of various economic aspects of the port’s construction, including planning, building methods and techniques, scale of the project, costs and financial resources, number of workers, construction materials, etc. For recent additional information on the entertainment facilities at Caesarea Maritima, see the studies of Porath and Patrich listed in the Bibliography of the present volume.

The Building of Caesarea Maritima

201

trast, made use of local sandstone and limestone (known as kurkar), which was plentiful in the vicinity of Caesarea. This type of stone was easily cut into bricks and rings for producing columns, which were then heavily plastered to create the impression of monoliths decorated with capitals and reliefs. There is no doubting the economic benefit that the port of Caesarea brought to Herod’s kingdom and the province of Syria owing to its major contribution to the development of the Empire’s trade in the eastern basin of the Mediterranean. From this standpoint, it was Herod’s most important undertaking.60 Of particular interest to us, however, is his arrogance in publicizing his wondrous achievements as a reflection of the success of Augustus’ policy of pax Romana (the Roman peace), which was based on a melding of Hellenist and Roman culture. In Herod’s view as an individual, this was a golden opportunity to display his greatness; at the same time, it offers us an excellent example of his megalomanic streak,61 a finding supported by the significant fact that he built the Augusteum temple on an elevated site facing the port. According to BJ I, 414, the temple stood out for its colossal dimensions and its beauty, and housed a huge statue of the Emperor (kolossòv Kaísarov) that reportedly was no less grand than the statue of the Olympian Zeus ()Olumpíasin Dióv) in Greece, after which it was modeled. The handiwork of the renowned artist Pheidias (5th century BCE), the statue of Olympian Zeus was made of gold and ivory and sculpted in a seated pose with the head reaching the temple’s ceiling (Strabo, Geographica, VIII, 3, 30). The work was so renowned in the Greco-Roman world that it was considered one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Adjacent to the Augusteum, a temple to the goddess Roma62 was constructed that “rivaled” the Temple of Hera at Argos, according to Josephus. In our opinion, the fact that Herod was driven by such competitive urges reinforces our conclusion regarding his megalomanic 60 61 62

For a detailed bibliography, see Kost 2003, pp. 60–73. Cf. Richardson 1996, p. 93. Suetonius (Augustus, 52) emphasized Augustus’ decree forbidding the construction of temples in his honor in the provinces unless they were dedicated both to him and to Roma. This condition was fulfilled in Caesarea, since the two temples were joined together as one. For an updated examination of the construction of the Herodian temples in Caesarea, see Patrich 2005, pp. 513–515. Yosef Porath, the director of the archaeological excavations in Caesarea, has called our attention to the fact that one large rectangular substructure (measuring 35 m × 50 m) was actually discovered on the podium of the temples there, with no clear indication if it was related to one temple with two shrines or to two adjacent temples; see relevant articles by Porath and Patrich in the Bibliography of the present volume.

202

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

tendencies and his insistence that whatever he displayed be the loveliest and most impressive. The statue of Hera was the work of the famous artist Polycleitus, who lived in the second half of the 5th century BCE. It too was fashioned of gold and ivory and posed in a seated position like the statue of Olympian Zeus, also extending to the ceiling of the temple (Pausanias 2, 17, 4; Strabo, ibid., VIII, 6, 10). Since the prevailing opinion is that it outshone even the statue of Zeus in its splendor, the statue of Hera can also be counted among the wonders of the ancient world. The fact that both of these famous statues stood near one another in Caesarea was undoubtedly a major attraction that drew extraordinary attention and allowed Herod to flaunt his personal greatness. The base of the temples was elevated above the level of the port (which faced it from the west), lending the complex a special magnificence. In AJ XV, 339, it is written that facing the port stood the combined temple to Rome and Augustus. Probably Herod had in mind the connection between Zeus and Hera, who were man and wife and also brother and sister in Greek mythology, and this was perhaps the greatest expression of Herod’s sycophancy toward Augustus. Another outstanding feature of the port was an enormous pier 200 feet in width, bisected along its length by a wall that served as a breakwater. The wall was topped by several towers, of which the tallest and most splendid was called the Drusium,63 after the stepson of Augustus who died at an early age (BJ I, 412; AJ XV, 335). The reference is to Nero Claudius Drusus, the son of Caesar’s wife Livia from an earlier marriage, who died in 9 BCE at the age of 29, that is, close in time to the completion of Caesarea. This would strongly suggest that Herod wished to curry favor with the Emperor, especially since their relationship had suffered that year as a result of Caesar’s anger at Herod for supposedly launching a second war against the Nabataeans (see below, chapter 14). Other archeological findings in the city speak for themselves. 64 Among the outstanding structures worthy of mention are the theater, 63 64

It is quite probable that this tower was used as a lighthouse; see for example: Vann 1991, pp. 123–139. BJ I, 408–415; AJ XV, 331–341. As noted above, we will not be offering a detailed survey of Herod’s architectural achievements in Caesarea, but will content ourselves with providing the relevant bibliographical references: Cornfeld 1982, pp. 82–84; NEAE I, pp. 270–291; Raban & Holum 1996, pp. 681–687; Roller 1999, pp. 133– 144; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 116–130. It is worth noting that archaeological excavations are still being conducted in Caesarea, so that new “secrets” of the city are constantly being revealed.

The Building of Caesarea Maritima

203

the hippodrome, and the stadium. Such structures were actually common in every large Hellenist city at the time, and were used as a venue for what were obviously pagan rituals.65 Thus the construction carried out in Caesarea, like that in Sebaste, was also aimed at promoting the “imperial cult,” as evidenced by the new names given to the two cities as well as the names of the temples honoring Augustus Caesar and his wife Livia and the municipal games that were held there.66 It is important to recall that these pagan temples were constructed despite Herod’s awareness of the explicit halachic prohibition against taking part in the construction of sites related to idol worship.67 Indeed, in this very context, Josephus notes emphatically (AJ XV, 328–330): [328] But then, this magnificent temper of his, and that submissive behavior and liberality which he exercised towards Caesar, and the most powerful men of Rome, obliged him to transgress the customs of his nation, and to set aside many of their laws, and by building cities after an extravagant manner, and erecting temples, – [320] not in Judea indeed, for that would not have been borne, it being forbidden for us to pay any honor to images, or representations of animals, after the manner of the Greeks; but still he did thus in the country [properly] out of our bounds, and in the cities thereof.68 [330] The apology which he made to the Jews for these things was this: That all was done, not out of his own inclinations, but by the commands and injunctions of others,69 in order to please Caesar and the Romans, as though he had not the Jewish customs so much in his eye as he had the honor of those Romans, while yet he had himself entirely in view all the while,70 and indeed was very ambitious to leave great monuments of his government to posterity; whence it was that he was so zealous in building such fine cities, and spent such vast sums of money upon them. 65

66 67 68

69

70

Regarding the Caesarea Hippodrome and theater, see Patrich 2003, pp. 119–167, 524–528, 528–532; on the Jewish criticism of Herod for building these pagan sites, see below (p. 412). Although Sebaste and Caesarea were by definition Hellenistic cities, they were surrounded by large monotheistic populations. Caesarea in particular was home to a very large and vibrant Jewish community; see Fuks 2002, pp. 239–241. See the instructive conclusions of Bernett 2002, pp. 86–109; cf. also Lichtenberger 1999, 150–153; Geiger 1987, pp. 51–60. Cf. mAvodah Zarah 1, 6; CA I, 192–193; Kasher 1996, pp. 189 ff.; Fuks 2002, p. 240. At first glance, this statement appears erroneous, since Sebaste and Caesarea were included within Herod’s realm. However, it should be recalled that at least formally their political status was that of ‘independent poleis’ (city-states). This apology was not accepted by Josephus nor by Nicolaus, since it is stated clearly in BJ I, 407 that “there was not any place of his kingdom fit for the purpose that was permitted to be without somewhat that was for Caesar’s honor; and when he had filled his own country with temples, he poured out the like plentiful marks of his esteem into his province, and built many cities which he called Caesarea.” Landau (2003, p. 171; cf. also 221, 225) has correctly observed that Josephus’ use of filotimía in such contexts carries a negative connotation.

204

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

Such interpolations, breaking up the historical narrative with passages of clarification and/or criticism intended to steer the reader in a certain direction, are typical of Josephus’ writings. With these cutting remarks, he leaves no room for doubt that Herod, in his cynical hypocrisy, proved his willingness to sacrifice the laws of Israel on the altar of his obsequiousness toward the Roman powers-that-be, first and foremost the emperor (ibid., 300). It is important to stress that he went so far as to brag to the Romans that he was less scrupulous in his observance of Jewish customs than he was in paying them honor. Not without reason did Caesarea later become a symbol of Roman rule in the eyes of the Jews; and because of its connection with Herod the Idumaean (Edomite), Rome also became synonymous with “Edom.”71 The detailed account of the festivities marking the dedication of the city offer a clear insight into Herod’s intentions (AJ XVI, 137–141): [137] There was accordingly a great festival and most sumptuous preparations made presently, in order to its dedication; for he had appointed a contention in music, and games to be performed naked. He had also gotten ready a great number of those that fight single combats, and of beasts for the like purpose; horse races also, and the most chargeable of such sports and shows as used to be exhibited at Rome, and in other places. [138] He consecrated this combat to Caesar, and ordered it to be celebrated every fifth year. He also sent all sorts of ornaments for it out of his own furniture, that it might want nothing to make it decent; [139] nay, Julia, Caesar’s wife, sent a great part of her most valuable furniture [from Rome], insomuch that he had no want of any thing. The sum of them all was estimated at five hundred talents.72 [140] Now when a great multitude was come to that city to see the shows, as well as the ambassadors whom other people sent, on account of the benefits they had received from Herod, he entertained them all in the public inns, and at public tables, and with perpetual feasts; this solemnity having in the day time the diversions of the fights, and in the night time such merry meetings as cost vast sums of money, and publicly demonstrated the generosity of his soul;73 [141] for in all his undertakings he was ambitious to exhibit what 71

72

73

See for example: yTa’anit, 65d; cf. Klausner IV, p. 33; Ben-Shalom 1980, pp. 333, 390–391 (nn. 160–161); Noam 1993, pp. 68, 141, 193–195, 368. This was true also of the Samaritan tradition, which was influenced by the Jewish one; see Tal 2000, II, p. 824, s. v. “Roma.” This was an enormous sum of money, equal to almost half of Herod’s annual taxation revenues (cf. Pastor 1997, pp. 108 ff.) – and this was only the dedication ceremony for one city! The annual revenues of Archaelaus (600 talents), Herod Antipas (200 talents), and Philippus (100 talents) are cited here by way of comparison (op. cit., pp. 318–319). Ibid., 140. Schalit (in the Hebrew) and Whiston translated the Greek term 4 yucagwgía as “generosity”; but perhaps a different translation would be preferable, for example: persuasiveness, the ability to “win people over,” or alternatively, a capacity for gratification, amusement, entertainment, etc.; see Liddell & Scott,

The Building of Caesarea Maritima

205

exceeded whatsoever had been done before of the same kind. And it is related that Caesar and Agrippa often said, that the dominions of Herod were too little for the greatness of his soul;74 for that he deserved to have both all the kingdom of Syria, and that of Egypt also.75

The importance of the construction of the city of Caesarea and its great port was also demonstrated in the striking of special coins.76 Indeed, the detailed descriptions of the city’s splendor, along with its stature as one of the major port cities of the Mediterranean Basin, raise the question: Did Herod not think of making it his political capital, especially since it bore Caesar’s name? In our opinion, the answer is a resounding no, not least because there is no hint of this, veiled or otherwise, in the writings of Josephus or any other source. What happened following Herod’s death, under the Roman governors, should not mislead us since the status of Judaea as a kingdom cannot be compared with the status of a province, from any standpoint. Jerusalem was – and remained to Herod’s dying day – his capital and the capital of the Jewish people, in particular since he was thought of, by himself and by the Romans, primarily as the “king of the Jews.” It should be recalled that Jerusalem was home to the Holy Temple, the chief destination of the Jewish pilgrims from Judaea and throughout the Diaspora, not to mention the fact that it housed the official royal residence. In our opinion, it is utterly inconceivable that Herod would have even thought of establishing Caesarea as his capital. Granted, the changes that took place in this regard under the Roman governors were largely due to Herod’s actions in Caesarea; but the rivalry between Caesarea and Jerusalem developed only in later generations and in different historical circumstances. From Josephus’ depiction of the formal dedication of Caesarea, the impression arises that Herod had indeed reached the pinnacle of his success, in both the political and economic spheres.77 It is no

74

75

76 77

p. 2026. Actually, Josephus used the term once again in AJ XV, 241, but in a different sense. Compare with identical uses of the term in BJ I, 408; V 162, 238. Apparently, from the point of view of the source of this account, there was a correlation between Herod’s megaloyucía and his yucagwgía. Cf. BJ I, 415. It is unclear whether or not Augustus and Agrippa actually considered the possibility of expanding Herod’s realm to include Syria and Egypt. It is more likely that this reflected Herod’s own secret aspirations (compare below). See Meshorer 1997, pp. 66–67. The economic situation during his days was examined by Jones 1938, pp. 68 ff.; Klausner 1958, IV, pp. 58–100; Grant 1971, pp. 165–174; Applebaum 1976, pp. 664–667, 669, 683–684; Baruch 2003, pp. 41–42; Pastor 1997, 98–127.

206

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

coincidence that he received from Augustus control over the regions Tarchonis, Batanea and Auranitis at roughly this same time (24 BCE).78 Had it not been for his close ties with Rome and the stability of his regime, he would not have been granted such a generous territorial gift, especially in a sensitive, untamed area that required much attention in terms of security in order to help Rome protect the southern boundary of the province of Syria and block the northward spread of Nabataean banditry in the wake of the “Zenodorus affair.”79 The dispute that broke out between Herod and the Hellenist cities of Gadara and Hippus also ended with two Roman verdicts that were strongly in his favor (22/23 BCE and 20 BCE), bringing about the loss of the cities’ freedom with their annexation to his kingdom. What is more, the death of Zenodorus at this time (20 BCE) led to Augustus’ decision, after meeting with Herod in Syria, to place the remainder of Zenodorus’ tetrarchy (Ulatha, Paneas, and the surrounding area) under Herod’s jurisdiction. Augustus even instructed the governors of Syria to cooperate fully with him, apparently due to his official appointment over the area, which also granted him authority regarding the Decapolis.80 Josephus’ account summarizes Herod’s successes during this period as follows (AJ XV, 361): [H]e arrived at that pitch of felicity, that whereas there were but two men that governed the vast Roman empire, first Caesar, and then Agrippa, who was his principal favorite, Caesar preferred no one to Herod besides Agrippa, and Agrippa made no one his greater friend than Herod besides Caesar. 81 78 79 80

81

BJ I, 398–400; AJ XV, 343–346; for further details see Schürer 1973, I, p. 291. n. 10; Kokkinos 2202a, p. 736. For details on the so-called “Zenodorus affair,” see Kasher 1988, pp. 157–160. See AJ XV, 354–360; Kasher 1988, pp. 156–160; idem 1990, pp. 194–197. According to BJ I, 399 Augustus appointed Herod “epitropos of Coele-Syria”; see Otto 1913, col. 74; Schürer 1973, I, p. 319 and n. 122. Smallwood (1981, pp. 87–88 and n. 94) felt that the reference was not to the position of strategos but rather to that of financial adviser with supervisory authority over the activities of local procurators. A more straightforward and likely possibility is that Herod simply resumed a role he had already filled on several occasions beginning in 46–44 BCE (BJ I, 213; AJ XIV, 180, 280), and one that was limited to Coele-Syria only. At the time, the term denoted the eastern bank of the Jordan river and the Decapolis area; see Ptolemaeus, V, 24, 28; Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia (ed. Nobbe), Hildesheim 1966, pp. 63–66; Smallwood 1981, pp. 15 (n. 238), 45 (n. 4), 47 (n. 8), 61 (n. 4). It appears, that Herod was placed in charge, at most, of safeguarding the Decapolis against a Nabataean invasion; see Kasher 1990, p. 177 and n. 184; cf. recently: Kokkinos 2002a, p. 736. It is probable that Josephus took this assessment from his frequent source, namely Nicolaus of Damascus, where it was likely incorporated at Herod’s request, if not on his direct orders.

The Building of Caesarea Maritima

207

Despite the obvious overstatement, which apparently expressed the deepest wishes of Herod himself, the above also contained a kernel of truth, for Herod – perhaps more than any other ruler under Roman patronage – did indeed earn the trust of the Romans and, with it, a large measure of political assistance. Presumably it was not his captivating personality that won him this support but rather the genuine interests of the emperor; this is also the proper interpretation of Augustus’ willingness to accede to Herod’s request and grant his younger brother Pheroras the tetrarchy of Peraea.82 In a state of megalomanic elation, Herod also hoped to see the rumor that the Emperor and Marcus Agrippa favored appointing him over all of Syria and Egypt borne out as well.83 If indeed there were any truth to the rumor (assuming that he himself spread it), this would be further indication of his grandiose aspirations; and if it were merely a flight of fancy on his part, it would demonstrate the gap between his low self-esteem (i. e., his sense of inferiority) and his enormous, insatiable ambition. Either way, his solid standing at the time vis-à-vis the Roman Empire, and Rome’s complete faith in him, were demonstrated at Mitylene (on the island of Lesbos) in his amicable meeting in the winter of 22/23 BCE with Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, the second most powerful figure in the Roman Empire and the mainstay of the Emperor.84 It was no accident that Herod now sent Alexander and Aristobulus, his sons by Mariamme the Hasmonaean, to Rome to formally present them to the Emperor and provide them with a suitable education under the patronage of Gaius Asinius Pollio.85 The Emperor’s great faith in Herod was illustrated by the fact 82

83

84

85

AJ XV, 362; cf. BJ I, 483. After all, from the Roman point of view it made no difference whether the territory was given to Herod or to Pheroras. According to Sagiv (2003, p. 44, n. 76), by the creation of this tetrarchy, Herod revived the political system of the Tobiads in eastern Transjordan. AJ XVI, 141. Incidentally, the rumor was cited by Josephus in the context of the splendid festivals of the Caesarea inauguration (see below pp. 272 ff.). It is difficult to assess to what extent this rumor resulted from Herod’s appointment to the office of “epitropos of all of Syria.” AJ XV, 350. On the date of the meeting, see Schürer, 1973, I, p. 291, n. 11; on the friendship between Herod and Marcus Agrippa, see Stern 1983b, pp. 62–63; Roller 1998, pp. 43–53. On Marcus Agrippa’s great stature in Rome, see Yavetz 1988, pp. 77–79. AJ XV, 342–343. It is noteworthy that the emperor showed great affection toward Herod’s sons, even allowing them to stay in his house; see Otto 1913, cols. 70–71; Feldman 1953, pp. 73–80; Schürer 1973, I, p. 291; Hoehner 1972, p. 9; Smallwood 1981, p. 89 and n. 103; Amit 2002, pp. 26–27, 226; Hadas-Lebel 2003, pp. 46–51; Fuks, 2002, p. 43. Kokkinos (1998, p. 369, § 2) was initially inclined to accept the widely held date of 22 BCE, but later changed his mind to an earlier date (24 BCE). While his new arguments are indeed plausible, they are not sufficiently persuasive.

208

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

that he “gave Herod leave to give his kingdom to which of his sons he pleased” (ibid., 343).86 This was no small thing, since it represented a commitment of sorts to continue the policy of friendship toward the Herodian dynasty into the future, indicating that at the most official level Herod had no reason at the time to fear for his status. Herod’s appreciation for the Emperor’s political support and goodwill was manifest in typical “Herodian” fashion by building a pagan temple in his honor at the entrance to one of the caves of Paneon, at the site held to be the source of the Jordan River.87 The construction of this temple was obviously in keeping with Herod’s policy of promoting the “imperial cult” in his kingdom, as in other places.88 As expected, however, his actions sparked immediate and scathing condemnation within the Jewish community. He tried to appease his subjects by granting an exemption in the amount of one third of the annual tax payment on the official pretext that this would help overcome the damages of the recent drought;89 but Josephus’ account indicates clearly that he was simply seeking to bribe the public, or to divide it, in hopes that a sizeable number would appreciate his benevolence. However, events were to quickly prove him wrong as he was unsuccessful in buying his subjects’ favor. On the contrary, they feared that the measures he had enacted to cope with the damage wreaked by the drought would bring harm to their faith and customs; this caused them to react harshly and with great agitation (AJ XV, 365). Although no mention is made of the reasons for this fear, presumably it related to the laws of shmitah (the sabbatical year, when the land was supposed to lie fallow), which the public wished to preserve.

Intimidation by Secret Police and Foreign Mercenaries The stinging disapproval expressed toward Herod specifically at this time upset his emotional equilibrium. In our view, the precipitating 86 87

88 89

According to Hoehner (1972, pp. 269–271) and Richardson (1996, p. 34), Herod prepared his first will at the time, in which he named Alexander as heir to the throne. AJ XV, 363–364; BJ I, 404–406; III, 509–515; Roller 1998, pp. 190–192; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 150–153. In so doing, he laid the foundation for a new Hellenistic city called Caesarea Philippi, which was later completed under his son the tetrarch Philippos; Schürer 1979, II, pp. 169–171; Kasher 1990, pp. 220–221. Regarding the archaeological findings, see Ma’oz 1993, pp. 136–143. See Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 121, 150–151, 153, 177; Bernett 2002, pp. 110–126; cf. also Geiger 1987, pp. 8–9. AJ XV, 365. An apologetic tone is evident in Josephus’ writing here.

Intimidation by Secret Police and Foreign Mercenaries

209

factor was not so much his fury at the ingratitude of his subjects but rather his suspicious, paranoid character, which could not tolerate criticism and interpreted it as a major challenge to his authority. His overreaction and tendency toward excessive authoritarianism and domineering behavior can, paradoxically, attest to a lack of self-confidence and a poor self-image.90 For this reason, he imposed a reign of terror on his disgruntled subjects. The gap between his desire to impress and curry favor with his Roman masters through a display of obsequiousness, and his oppressive, contemptuous tyranny toward those under his authority, is exemplified in Josephus’ description of his brutal regime (AJ XV, 365–368): [365] … the people every where talked against him, like those that were still more provoked and disturbed at his procedure; [366] against which discontents he greatly guarded himself, and took away the opportunities they might have to disturb him, and enjoined them to be always at work; nor did he permit the citizens either to meet together, or to walk or eat together, but watched every thing they did, and when any were caught, they were severely punished; and many there were who were brought to the citadel Hyrcania,91 both openly and secretly, and were there put to death; and there were spies set every where, both in the city and in the roads, who watched those that met together; [367] nay, it is reported that he did not himself neglect this part of caution, but that he would oftentimes himself take the habit of a private man, and mix among the multitude, in the night time, and make trial what opinion they had of his government: [368] and as for those that could no way be reduced to acquiesce under his scheme of government, he prosecuted them all manner of ways; but for the rest of the multitude, he required that they should be obliged to take an oath of fidelity to him, and at the same time compelled them to swear that they would bear him good-will.

This is not the sole account of the existence of a secret police in service to Herod. Their primary function was to monitor public opinion and the communal state of mind so as to identify any glimmer of resistance and nip it in the bud.92 Schalit is mistaken in his claim that Josephus’ description of Herod’s practice of dressing as a commoner and mingling with the people in order to expose opponents of his regime has the hallmarks of a folktale,93 since it is intended to con90 91 92

93

Such traits were typical of Hitler as well, see Kershaw, p. 299. For further details on Hyrcania, see Patrich 1992, pp. 447–450; Roller 1998, pp. 170–171; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 51–54. Cf. AJ XV, 285–290; XVI, 82, 236; BJ I, 492, and see also Kitron 2000, pp. 25 ff. Not without reason has he been compared to such modern-day dictators as Stalin and Saddam Hussein, see for example: Fenn 1992, p. 98. Regarding Herod’s use of espionage for purposes of internal security, see Schalit 1969, pp. 307 ff. It is surprising that Schalit did not mention in this context the

210

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

vey the prison-like atmosphere that pervaded the country. Indeed, the fact that Josephus referred on more than one occasion to numerous strongholds built by Herod within and outside of Jerusalem whose chief purpose was to safeguard himself and his regime from Jewish opposition is worthy of further investigation. Elsewhere, he writes (AJ XV, 295; cf. also: ibid., 291, 292): And these were the places which he particularly built, while he always was inventing somewhat further for his own security, and encompassing the whole nation with guards, that they might by no means get from under his power, nor fall into tumults, which they did continually upon any small commotion; and that if they did make any commotions, he might know of it, while some of his spies might be upon them from the neighborhood, and might both be able to know what they were attempting, and to prevent it.

As we saw earlier, Herod’s many fortresses – in particular those in the hinterlands in the southern part of the kingdom – did not fulfill actual defensive needs but were intended more for his personal security and that of his regime.94 The Hyrcania fortress, for example, served as a jail where political prisoners were held, both openly and in secret, and executed. Apparently, the Machaerus and Alexandrium (Qarn Sartaba) fortresses also served this purpose.95 It is known that Herod Antipas later held John the Baptist prisoner in the Machaerus fortress and put him to death there.96 The Alexandrium, by contrast, was famous as an especially well guarded site, for it was there that Herod’s treasures were permanently housed.97

94 95

96

97

well-known Talmudic account of a Jewish sage named Baba son of Buta, whom Herod blinded and tried to ensnare with provocative questions intended to elicit disloyal remarks; see bBaba Bathra, 3b-4a; Ben-Shalom 1993, p. 106. See for example: Schürer 1973, I, p. 315; Shatzman 1983, pp. 88–89, 96–97; BenShalom 1993, p. 49; cf. Guri-Rimon, pp. 7–16. AJ XVIII, 117–119; cf. BJ I, 664; AJ XVII, 187; Roller 1998, pp. 170–171; NEAE, II, pp. 639–641; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 17–20, 40–47; for further details, see Sagiv 2003, pp. 46–48. AJ XVII, 117–119; on the site and its military characteristics, see Kasher 1988, pp. 88, 91, 102, 153, 155, 178, 179, 233; Roller 1998, pp. 184–186; Shatzman 1991, pp. 263–266; Sagiv 2003, pp. 24, 146, 160, 168. AJ XVI, 317; Roller 1998, pp. 129–130; NEAE, IV, pp. 1318–1320; Guri-Rimon, p. 10; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 17–20. Other fortresses also served the same purpose, judging by the attempt of the Roman procurator Sabinus to lay his hands on them immediately after Herod’s death, since he apparently knew that he stored great treasures there along with large quantities of weapons; see BJ II, 17–18, 41; AJ XVII, 222–223. These very fortresses had been used in the past by the Hasmonaean rulers for the selfsame purpose, as in the case of Queen Salome-Alexandra (AJ XIII, 417). According to Guri-Rimon, this was one of the main motivations for Pompey the Great to conquer the Hasmonaean fortresses; cf. Strabo, Geographica XVI, 2, 40. On the strategic importance of the Alexandrium (Qarn Sartaba) fortress, see Shatzman 1991, pp. 72–82.

Intimidation by Secret Police and Foreign Mercenaries

211

Since the primary purpose of his army was to maintain his personal security and thwart any possible revolt by his Jewish subjects, its ranks were peopled with many non-Jewish mercenaries, who made up the backbone of the force. Shatzman’s studies demonstrate clearly that Herod made use of such units for domestic purposes from the beginning of his career, or more precisely, from the time of his appointment by his father as commander (strategos) of the Galilee, when he eliminated Hezekiah the Galilean and his men with their help (46/47 BCE).98 Under the reign of Cassius (44 BCE), foreign naval forces, infantry, and cavalry were made available to him (BJ I, 225; AJ XIV, 280). The same held true in the campaign he waged from 39 to 37 BCE to wrest Judaea from the control of Mattathias Antigonus, during which he was supported by two Roman legions and one thousand cavalrymen as well as conscripts from Syria and Mount Lebanon (BJ I, 317, 324, 329; AJ XIV, 434, 449, 452). According to Shatzman’s calculations, 38,000 foreign soldiers were at his disposal in the great battle to conquer Jerusalem, out of a total of 53,000 troops.99 The five divisions recruited by him numbered only 15,000 soldiers, and it is unclear whether all of them were Jews (or more correctly, Idumaeans). In 36 BCE, a Roman legion was still stationed in Jerusalem to help him defend his reign there (AJ XV, 72). Among his military settlements as well, the colonies established by foreign soldiers, including Heshbon in Transjordan and Gaba in the Jezreel Valley (AJ XV, 294), stood out in particular.100 Of his Jewish subjects, the only ones who earned his trust and ranked among his military colonizers were Idumaeans, who were settled in the Trachonitis area (AJ XVI, 285), and Babylonian Jews, in the Batanea region (AJ XVII, 23–29).101 Jews from Judaea are rarely mentioned in the various sources, a fact that presumably reflected reality. In the description of Herod’s funeral procession, it is noted that the royal guard consisted solely of Thracian, German and Galatian soldiers.102 98 99

100 101 102

AJ XIV, 159–160; Shatzman 1983, pp. 57–98; cf. Kasher 1990, pp. 208–212. Specifically, 24,000 Roman legionnaires (or six legions), 8,000 auxiliary forces from Syria and the mountains of Lebanon, and 6,000 cavalrymen. According to many scholars, Herod relied on foreign mercenaries from the very beginning of his career. Regarding Heshbon see: Avi-Yonah 1984, p. 55; Kasher 1988, pp. 44–45, 91–92, 147–148; Sagiv 2003, p. 172. 177. Applebaum 1970, pp. 79–88; Ben-Shalom 1993, pp. 63 ff. BJ I, 672; AJ XVII, 198. Of the 400 Galatians, we know that they had previously served as Cleopatra’s royal guard and were later given as a present to Herod by Augustus (BJ I, 397; AJ XV, 217). Apparently troops from Galatia had served Herod in this capacity earlier as well, and they may have been the ones who drowned

212

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

Herod’s reliance on foreign soldiers may be an indication of how greatly he feared assassination by his Jewish subjects, for which reason he did not even trust his Idumaean family members.103 It should be recalled that the foreign elements in his army also included 3,000 Sebastians led by Roman officers. These troops took an active role in putting down the Jewish revolt referred to in Seder Olam Rabbah as swryws) l# swmlwp (the “Varus War”), which broke out in Jerusalem, Transjordan, and Emmaus in 4 BCE, and it is quite possible that they were joined by the auxiliary unit of Caesareans as well. It is known that the two units functioned as auxilia in the service of the Roman governors in the province of Judaea. Herod was in fact the first Jewish ruler who dared to recruit soldiers from among the citizens of the local Hellenist cities. And the reason is clear: he relied on them because of their deep historic hatred of the Jewish people, particularly since the time of the Hasmonaean conquest.104 According to Josephus, these units were in effect the spark that ignited the great Jewish revolt against Rome in 66 CE (AJ XIX, 366). The logical conclusion is that it was the close alliance of interests between Herod and the poleis of Caesarea and Sebaste that led to the establishment of the militias that bore their names. The bond that united them was of course their shared enmity toward the Jews, which we believe also fanned the flames of Herod’s paranoid feelings.

103

104

Aristobulus III in the swimming pool near the royal palace of Jericho at Herod’s request (35 BCE); cf. Thackeray 1927, II, p. 206; cf. Shatzman 1983, pp. 91–92. Indeed, 2,000 Jewish-Idumaean troops took part in the popular uprising after Herod’s death (the so-called “Varus War”), and their numbers quickly swelled to ten thousand; see BJ II, 55, 76; AJ XVII, 270, 297. For further information on the auxiliary units of Sebastians and Caesareans, which later served in the Roman province of Judaea, see Schürer 1973, I, pp. 33– 42; Smallwood 1981, pp. 146–147, 256–257; Shatzman 1983, p. 92; Jankelewitz 1980, pp. 33–42; Kasher 1990, pp. 213–214, 218, 241–242, 245 ff., etc.

Chapter 9 Herod’s Address in Preparation for the Building of the Holy Temple (22/23 BCE) Tension in Jerusalem upon Hearing of the Plan to Build the Temple In the eighteenth year of his reign (22/23 BCE),1 with Herod at the height of his political, military and economic power, he launched the enormous project of rebuilding the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. There is no question that this colossal undertaking was a huge blessing in that it supplied work to at least 10,000 hired laborers. 2 But in truth, this was not his goal, for the primary purpose of this endeavor was eternal fame and the perpetuation of his name. The Holy Temple was the crowning achievement of his entire construction program, as is 1

2

According to BJ I, 401, Herod started the war in the fifteenth year of his reign in Judaea, namely in 23/22 BCE. According to AJ XV, 380, however, it was in the eighteenth year, dating from his crowning in Rome (40 BCE), which actually falls out the same year; see Corbishley 1935, pp. 26–27; Smallwood 1981, pp. 91–92 and n. 12; cf. Isaac 1983, p. 2 and n. 8 (without conclusion as to the date); see also recently Banowitz 2003, pp. 6–7, n. 6. In fact, Corbishley had already resolved the problem of the conflicting accounts raised by Schürer (1973, I, p. 292, n. 12); cf. Otto (1913, cols. 83–84), Thackeray (1927, II, pp. 188–189, n. a), Marcus & Wikgren (1963, VIIII, p. 205, n. c), Schalit (1969, p. 372), and Roller (1968, pp. 176–177). In AJ XV, 421 it is noted that the building of the Temple lasted one year and six (or five) months, but it is not clear if this time should be considered part of the overall preparations for the project or counted separately; cf. Smallwood, loc. cit. In our opinion, the second option is preferable, leaving one and a half years as the duration of the Temple’s construction. AJ XV, 390. In AJ XX, 219, Josephus referred to a much larger number, but this was in connection with the events of 64 CE, when Agrippa II, Herod’s great-grandson, prevented the dismissal of 18,000 workers by initiating a new project to pave the streets of Jerusalem. Figuring that each worker was the primary breadwinner of a family of roughly four members, Herod supplied a means of livelihood for approximately 40,000 people, and Agrippa II for 70,000 people. These numbers give us a reasonable indication as to the size of the Jerusalem population, assuming that at least half of the workers’ families lived within the city or in its immediate vicinity.

214

9. Preparation for the Building of the Holy Temple

evident not only from the detailed descriptions in Josephus’ writings, 3 but also from the well-known Talmudic statement: “He who has not seen the Temple of Herod has never seen a beautiful building.”4 The construction of the Temple and other Jewish religious sites (such as the Machpelah Cave in Hebron) has been interpreted by scholars as an “attempt at balance” (Versuch einer Balance) in his policy, which apparently stemmed from feelings of “guilt” towards the Jewish people for building pagan monuments in the kingdom of Judaea. The last of these was the Paneion Temple in honor of Augustus, whose construction was completed the same year as that of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem (20 BCE). 5 But his building policy in the Jewish sector should also be seen as “corrective compensation,” as part of a calculated “benevolence” based on his own self-interest and his desire for honor, fame, and lasting remembrance among the Jews (see below). Indeed, his “apologetic” stance vis-à-vis Jewish public opinion was manifest in the false claim that the podiums and temples for pagan worship were constructed chiefly in non-Jewish lands outside of Judaea, and that he had no choice, but to obey the explicit dictates of his Roman masters. The hypocrisy and deceit are particularly blatant in this instance since, according to Herod himself, “by building cities after an extravagant manner, and erecting temples, not in Judea indeed, for that would not have been borne, it being forbidden for us to pay any honor to images, or representations of animals, after the manner of the Greeks; but still he did thus in the country [properly] out of our bounds, and in the cities thereof. The apology which he made to the Jews for these things was this: That all was done, not out of his own inclinations, but by the commands and injunctions of others, in order to please Caesar and the Romans, as though he had not the Jewish customs so much in his eye as he had the honor of those Romans” (AJ XV, 329–330). It is therefore not surprising that Josephus wrote of Herod rather pointedly in this same context that “[he] was very ambitious to leave great monuments of his government to posterity; whence it was that he was so zealous in building such fine cities, and spent such vast sums of money upon them,” a statement that calls for further investigation. 3

4 5

BJ V, 184–237; AJ XV, 380–425; cf. Mark 13:1. On the archaeological findings, including bibliography, see Ben-Dov 1982, pp. 72–147; NEAE, II, pp. 736–744; Roller 1968, pp. 176–182; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 131–142; Levine 1995, pp. 3–16; idem 2000, pp. 63–65; Jacobson 2002, pp. 19–27. See bBaba Bathra, 4a; cf. bSukkah 51b. These evidences will later be referred to again. See above p. 208; cf. Bernett 2002, pp. 127 ff.

Speech at the Great Jerusalem People’s Assembly

215

As part of the preparations leading up to the building the Holy Temple, Herod sought to calm another possible source of unrest that was already emerging among the Jerusalem public. He wished to remove any suspicion that he was planning to destroy the former Temple without the intent or ability to establish a new one in its place within a reasonable time frame. According to Josephus, Herod’s oration concerning the plan to build a new Temple in Jerusalem caught the public completely by surprise and caused no small measure of turmoil and alarm. In the eyes of many, the plan was suspected of being a trick on Herod’s part, sparking widespread fears that he would first destroy the old Temple,6 without being able to complete the construction of the new one during his lifetime, especially if we assume that his grandiose building plans appeared too ambitious to be implemented. What is more, there was concern that the huge financial burden of the construction would be imposed on the public, who would be required to fund this over-reaching project by means of heavy taxes that would break the backs of many, in particular the lower classes who were lacking in means (AJ XV, 388). Presumably, the people’s leaders among the Pharisees saw themselves as obligated to safeguard the interests of this group, in addition to which they simply did not trust him. Herod, however, made every possible effort to assuage the people’s fears with a striking and pragmatic address (below) in which he detailed the exacting preparations for the construction and sought to create the impression that he would honor his promise with respect to the timetable as well.7

Speech at the Great Jerusalem People’s Assembly Leading Up to Construction of the Temple As part of Herod’s efforts to lay the groundwork for the building of the Holy Temple, a great People’s Assembly was convened in Jerusalem, ostensibly to secure broad-based public approval for the undertaking. Josephus’ source on this topic was, naturally, Nicolaus of Da6

7

Many may even have suspected him of attempting to erase any traces of the original building from the Persian period, which was enlarged and renovated by the Hasmonaeans. Indeed, the end of his account of Herod’s building projects (AJ XV, 421) Josephus states that the construction of the new Temple, including the demolition of the old one, lasted only one year and five months (so that it was completed by 20/19 BCE, thereby satisfying the Jews.

216

9. Preparation for the Building of the Holy Temple

mascus, who has Herod delivering an oration worthy of citation, if for no other reason than the likely assumption that it faithfully reflected the thinking of Herod himself and was apparently also written under his direction.8 The text is as follows (AJ XV, 382–387): [382] I think I need not speak to you, my countrymen, about such other works as I have done since I came to the kingdom, although I may say they have been performed in such a manner as to bring more security to you than glory to myself; [383] for I have neither been negligent in the most difficult times about what tended to ease your necessities, nor have the buildings. I have made been so proper to preserve me as yourselves from injuries; [384] and I imagine that, with God’s assistance, I have advanced the nation of the Jews to a degree of happiness which they never had before; and for the particular edifices belonging to your own country, and your own cities, as also to those cities that we have lately acquired, which we have erected and greatly adorned, and thereby augmented the dignity of your nation, it seems to me a needless task to enumerate them to you, since you well know them yourselves; but as to that undertaking which I have a mind to set about at present, and which will be a work of the greatest piety and excellence that can possibly be undertaken by us, I will now declare it to you. [385] Our fathers, indeed, when they were returned from Babylon, built this temple to God Almighty, yet does it want sixty cubits of its largeness in altitude; for so much did that first temple which Solomon built exceed this temple; [386] nor let any one condemn our fathers for their negligence or want of piety herein, for it was not their fault that the temple was no higher; for they were Cyrus, and Darius the son of Hystaspes, who determined the measures for its rebuilding; and it hath been by reason of the subjection of those fathers of ours to them and to their posterity, and after them to the Macedonians, that they had not the opportunity to follow the original model of this pious edifice, nor could raise it to its ancient altitude; [387] but since I am now, by God’s will, your governor, and I have had peace a long time, and have gained great riches and large revenues, and, what is the principal filing of all, I am at amity with and well regarded by the Romans, who, if I may so say, are the rulers of the whole world, I will do my endeavor to correct that imperfection, which hath arisen from the necessity of our affairs, and the slavery we have been under formerly, and to make a thankful return, after the most pious manner, to God, for what blessings I have received from him, by giving me this kingdom, and that by rendering his temple as complete as I am able.

There is no question that addressing the people as “my countrymen” was a calculated move on his part, intended to do away with any barriers or resistance and to emphasize Herod’s “Jewishness.” So too his explicit statement that all his previous construction projects, namely, 8

We are inclined to think that this speech was written, or at least edited, by Nicolaus himself. It is therefore logical to assume that Herod instructed him personally as to its content; cf. Richardson 1996, p. 247; Landau 2003, pp. 189–190.

Speech at the Great Jerusalem People’s Assembly

217

the fortresses and citadels, were built not for his personal use but to serve the needs of the public. In truth, however, this could actually indicate the opposite, for his apologetic tone leaves a negative impression, suggesting that his claim that the construction projects were intended to strengthen overall security, hides the real truth and shows that they were built primarily for Herod’s personal protection. This seemingly “small” difference is extremely significant, since it demonstrates that, from his perspective, there was no distinction between his personal needs and those of the state.9 Further, his statement that it was he who had led the Jewish people to a state of unprecedented happiness was far from an accurate reflection of reality in that it totally ignored the heavy tax burden, the standard of living of the masses, and the deep social schism among his subjects. Even if his reference was to the comparative economic prosperity that prevailed under his rule, as opposed to the hardships of the turbulent period between the Roman conquest and his day, this was only a relative improvement.10 Such thoughts were an expression, at most, of his own imaginings, in addition to which it is impossible to ignore the basic sentiments of the Jewish public toward his kingdom, which was considered a Roman regime in all respects. This view remained entrenched in the Jewish consciousness in later generations as well, as indicated by the fact that the term “Edom” (reflecting Herod’s origins as an Idumaean) became synonymous with the Roman Empire as a “kingdom of evil.”11

9

10

11

This is consistent with the basic political outlook of the Hellenist monarchs, and is somewhat reminiscent of the Europe absolutism of the 16th–18th centuries, as symbolized by Louis XIV’s declaration: “l’état c’est moi.” The same held true for such modern-day dictators as Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Saddam Hussein and others, who were unable to draw a separation between themselves and the states under their rule. On the socio-economic situation under Herod, see Applebaum 1976, pp. 664 ff.; Ben-Shalom 1993, pp. 52–59; Pastor 1997, pp. 98 ff.; Gabba 1990, pp. 161–168; idem 1999, pp. 118–125. Indeed, Caesarea Maritima, the most important of the cities built by Herod, was referred to by the dubious name “Edom”; see Feldman 2004, pp. 64–83; Kasher, below pp. 416–417 and n. 14.

218

9. Preparation for the Building of the Holy Temple

Euphoria of Construction: A Form of Herodian “Messianism”? Herod’s belief that his rule was the will of God (as reflected in his presumptuous statements in AJ XV, 383, 387) accompanied him throughout his life, providing him, as he saw it, with the religious “legitimization” to demand full recognition of this “truth” from his subjects.12 Indeed, on quite a number of other occasions, he voiced his belief that his successes on the battlefield and in government, particularly his survival and rescue from death under various circumstances, were always an authentic expression of Divine will.13 As stated earlier, a similar perception lay at the root of the remarks attributed to him in his address to his soldiers, aimed at boosting their morale during the first war against the Nabataeans in 31 BCE (“with whom is what is righteous, with them is God himself”; AJ XV, 138). This same belief was also the source of his grandiose feelings, discussed in part earlier. In any event, the comparison that Herod draws between himself and King Solomon, builder of the First Temple, cannot be ignored and obviously attests to his great presumptuousness in equating himself with the most revered king of the Jewish people, who had been a symbol of both political might and economic prosperity.14 In the opinion of Schalit, such comparisons fueled Herod’s belief that he was nothing less than the embodiment of the Messiah whose coming had been foretold by the prophets of Israel.15 Since it is difficult to prove or disprove such a claim, we shall confine ourselves to positing a megalomanic worldview on Herod’s part. Herod of course expected that the Jewish public would acknowledge that their “happiness” had come from him and, as a result, they would be grateful and grant him the proper respect, as was the practice in the Hellenist world toward a “benevolent” king or “benefactor” (eÙergéthv). To support this argument, Schalit points to the deification of such rulers in the Roman Empire of Herod’s time (referring largely to Emperor Augustus); indeed, Herod, with his classical Hellenist education, entertained similar expectations, in Schalit’s view. 12 13 14 15

Cf. Schalit 1969, pp. 456 ff. In this regard, there is much in common with Hitler’s behavior, as indicated in Kershaw’s biography of him, passim. See e. g. AJ XIV, 9, 414, 455,462; XV, 4, 144–146, 373–379. 387, 425; XVI, 188; cf. XVII, 192; and the opposite XV, 298; XVI, 300. AJ XV,385; cf also XV, 396–398. On the analogy to King Solomon, see Otzen 1990, p. 36, 38. See Schalit 1969, pp. 476–482.

Euphoria of Construction

219

From Herod’s own perspective, Augustus was not only his personal “savior” or “deliverer” (swtär) but the “savior” of the entire Roman Empire as well. According to Schalit, Herod believed that the figure of Augustus had been elevated to a superhuman level by virtue of the redemption or “salvation” (swthría) he had brought to an embattled world suffering from prolonged and bloody civil wars. Moreover, Herod felt that he himself had the good fortune of being an integral part of this flourishing world characterized by political power, economic prosperity, and peace.16 As Herod saw it, what the all-powerful Emperor had accomplished at the global level, he (Herod) had achieved in his land at the more limited local level. He felt himself to be an active participant in the process of world “redemption,” of which his construction endeavors were the practical expression, thereby explaining his extreme dedication – or more correctly, addiction – to them.17 Up to this point, Schalit’s opinion is persuasive, but he goes on to propose a theory based on convoluted speculative interpretations of Christian sources enlisted by him to inject “messianic” content into Josephus’ account, and especially, to ascribe messianic thinking to Herod himself. To quote Schalit, “the concept of ‘Messiah,’ as seen by Herod, refers to a person who realizes the objectives of the new oikumene of Augustus,18 and the concept of ‘messianic kingdom’ denotes the fulfillment of these same objectives. Herod’s ‘messianism’ is an imperial-Roman notion … He uses messianic-Jewish terms to mask imperial-Roman objectives. When he claims for himself a status exceeding that of mere mortals – as befits the Messiah son of David – and for his kingdom, the recognition granted to the kingdom of the Messiah, he is in effect demanding of the Jews that they see in the new Roman reality of Augustus the actualization of their messianic faith.”19 In truth, this “messianic” notion ascribed to Herod is not grounded in the sources, and is based entirely on later Christian interpreta16 17 18

19

It was symbolized by the policy of pax Romana; see Perowne 1958, pp. 1–6; Yavetz 1988, pp. 192–204. Schalit 1969, pp. 450 ff., 464 ff., 671–675. It is surprising in this context that Schalit ignored Josephus’ reference to Cyrus King of Persia, who was said to be acting in the name of the Prophets (cf. Isaiah 45:1), and whose image was that of “the king of the habitable world,” or oikumene (AJ XI, 3). Indeed, such a title would have been well suited to Augustus; see above Foreword, p. xiii & n. 4. Schalit 1968, pp. 476 ff. Klausner (1958, IV, pp. 39–40) thought in similar terms, but did not develop a systematic theory like that of Schalit. Although Kokkinos (1998, p. 104, n. 72) did not reject Schalit’s view, neither did he bring any solid proof in support of it; compare also note 21 below.

220

9. Preparation for the Building of the Holy Temple

tions of questionable veracity. 20 While Schalit claims, in support of his argument, that the “Herodians” mentioned in the New Testament (Matthew 22:16; Mark 3:6, 12:13) were Jewish “heretics” who interpreted the biblical verse “… until Shiloh arrives” (Genesis 49:10) as referring to King Herod, which he construes as proof that they looked upon him as the Messiah, 21 this exegesis appears erroneous. Due to space constraints, we shall relate to it only briefly. The identity of the “Herodians” is highly controversial in modern scholarly research and has prompted a wide range of theories too numerous to cite here. Since the 19th century, attempts have been made to identify them with most of the sects and movements in Israel: the Essenes, Sadducees, Pharisees, Boethusians, Zealots, and Galileans. And there were of course those who tried to grant them the status of their own messianic sect. The “variations” on this theme have been virtually inexhaustible, but apparently there is no end to what scholarly discourse will tolerate.22 Counter to the many speculative theories, we accept the opinion of several distinguished scholars, who hold that the “Herodians” referred simply to “Herod’s men,” and thus the term should not be interpreted in terms of theology or sectarianism, but in the simplest most pragmatic sense, that is, Herod’s circle, a term that embraced his soldiers, his high-ranking administrators, men of influence in his service, his political supporters, and so forth.23 In fact, Hieronymus, 20

21

22

23

See for example: Pseudo-Tertullianus, Adversus omnes haereses, 1, 1; Epiphanius, Panarion, XX, 1; Philastrius, Haereses, XXVIII (PG, p. 1138). The credibility of Pseudo-Tertullianus was already questioned as early as the fourth century. Since an assessment of the dubious historic value of these sources is beyond the purview of this study, we will confine ourselves to the following selected bibliography: Epiphanius, Leipzig 1865, pp. 5, 35; A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums: urkundlich dargestellt, 1884 (Hildesheim 1963), passim; Bickerman 1938 (1986), pp. 22–33; A. F. J. Klijn, G. J. Reinink. Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects, Leiden 1973, passim; U. Kellermann, Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, II (1981), cols. 303–30; Bennett 1975, pp. 9–15; Williams 1987, introduction. The reference to “Shiloh” in Genesis 49:10 is quite problematic, although the prevailing interpretation is that it alludes to the Messiah. However, there are those who maintain that the term “Shiloh” is derived from the two Hebrew words shai lo, meaning “a tribute to him.” Compare the use of the term shai in Isaiah 18:7); see TANAKH The New JPS Translation, p. 80); unfortunately, the present study does not encompass a discussion of this topic. Regarding the term “Herodians” in this context, see Schalit 1968a, pp. 114–123; Klausner 1969, I, pp. 235–237. Since space does not permit us to pursue this topic further, we will content ourselves with referring the reader to Otto 1913, pp. 200–202; Momigliano 1934, pp. 76–77; Le-Moyen 1972, pp. 340–342; and more recently: Regev 2005, pp. 50–58. See Bickerman, op. cit., pp. 22–33; Rowley 1940, pp. 14–27; Sandmel 1962, pp. 594–595; Hoehner 1972, pp. 184 ff., 331–342; Bennett 1975, pp. 9 ff.; Smallwood 1981, pp. 163–164, 184; Stern 1983b, p. 83; cf. Eisenman 1996, pp. 110 ff.;

Euphoria of Construction

221

who was known as one of the most reliable commentators among the Church Fathers, makes precisely this claim in his commentary on Matthew (22:16), scoffing at the notion that they were sect-like in nature or had messianic intentions.24 Thus Hieronymus did not consider the term “Herodians” to refer to a messianic sect but rather to Herod’s trusted followers as a whole, an interpretation consistent with Josephus’ reference (in AJ XIV, 450) to (oÌ tà (Heödou fronoûntav) “those who were aligned with Herod.”25 Flusser raised the possibility, almost incidentally, that “the ideologues among Herod’s followers attempted to persuade their audience that Herod’s building was the realization of their hopes for the future to come.” As proof of this, he pointed to one of the passages from Herod’s address concerning the building of the Holy Temple (AJ XV, 385–387). The fact that this excerpt contained references to the “Four Kingdoms” (Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and Rome) during whose time the Temple did not achieve its fullest glory can be seen as “proof” that in Herod’s time the expectations of the “end of days” were at last to be fulfilled. 26 Admittedly, this interpretation appears plausible, but in practice there is no need to cite “ideologues among Herod’s followers” in this context since the words were attributed to Herod himself, indicating that he (and not others) was his own best propagandist and that he truly had grandiose (or megalomanic) ambitions, leading him to boast of building a splendid Temple befitting the “end of days.” The claim that messianic expectations were realized in the time of Herod (on the basis of the passage in AJ XVII, 43–45) is not borne out in this instance. Josephus referred there to a “prophesy” widely circulated among the Pharisees regarding a eunuch by the name of Bagoas who “had been puffed up by them, as though he should be named the father and the benefactor of him who, by the prediction, was foretold to be their appointed king; for that this king would have all things in his power, and would enable Bagoas to marry, and to have children of his own body begotten” (ibid., 45). Schürer (1979, II, p. 505 and

24 25

26

and more recently, Efron 2004, pp. 71–72, 102, 119–120. Although Regev (2005, p. 55) did not ignore this possibility, he preferred to identify them with the Boethusians. See: PL, XXVI, 1553, col. 162; Rowley 1940, p, 15; cf. also Chrysostomus, Ad Math. xxii, 16 (PG, LVIII, 655); Theophilus, loc. cit. (PG, CXXIII, 388). Rowley (1940, p. 26) pointed out some examples from Rome regarding the emperor’s loyalists, namely the so-called kaisarianoi. He relied on the philologic analysis of Bickerman, who maintained that the suffix -ianoì derived (at least in this case) from the Latin. Flusser 2002a, pp. 265–266 and n. 6.

222

9. Preparation for the Building of the Holy Temple

n. 20) demonstrated that this “prediction” had no connection to the prophesy of Isaiah (56:3). Herod had the eunuch executed not because he (Herod) saw himself as the Messiah but because he saw the pretensions of the eunuch and his supporters as posing a danger to him politically (cf. AJ XVII, 41). The Roman governors later repeated this same pattern, hastening to abort any messianic tendencies that might spark a popular rebellion. Incidentally, Josephus writes in precisely this context (ibid., 43) of the same “prediction” that following a Divine decree the reign of Herod and his sons was destined to come to an end and that the royal crown would pass to his brother Pheroras and his wife, and to their descendants, proving of course how baseless these “prophesies” were.27 And it should be emphasized that Josephus makes no mention of the Messiah in this context! Schalit’s theory as well (that as part of his conflict with the Pharisees, Herod invented for himself a family genealogy that would make him a descendant of King David by way of Hillel the Elder) does not stand up to an analysis of the sources. 28 It should be recalled that, according to Josephus (AJ XIV, 8–9), it was Nicolaus of Damascus who fabricated a new genealogy for Herod whereby his forefathers belonged to “the stock of the principal Jews who came out of Babylon into Judea”, namely were part of the Shivat Zion (Return to Zion) in the Persian period; however, Nicolaus made no reference to any connection with Hillel or his descendants, not to mention the fact that Josephus himself ridiculed this ‘Babylonian’ false genealogy. Jews were not persuaded by it, and even expressed their firm opinion of Herod’s Idumaean origins by considering him a “half-Jew” or complete “non-Jew.” In our view, it is important to stress the implications of Nicolaus’ account, namely, that the “revision” of the genealogical record was done at the behest of Herod himself and without fear of his fabrication being exposed. Thus he showed himself to be consumed by profound feelings of inferiority, on the one hand, and 27 28

For a detailed discussion on this issue, see Mason 1991, pp. 260–280, esp. 267 ff., 272 ff. See Stern 1960, pp. 55–57; idem 1991, pp. 591–592. In our opinion, the reservations offered by Kokkinos (1998, p. 204. n. 72) do not weaken Stern’s arguments; furthermore, the issue of the “Herodians,” which he refers to indirectly, is not instructive here for the reason cited in notes 23–24 above. We are strongly opposed to the prevailing assumption among scholars that the Pharisees considered both Herod and the Hasmonaean dynasty ineligible for the kingship as they were not descended from the House of David; see Efron 1987, pp. 233–234, 237–238; idem 2004, p. 184. On the contrary, Herod was disqualified from reigning because he was considered “a slave of the Hasmonaean house” (y)nwm#x tybd )db() and a non-Jew by birth; cf. bBaba Bathra 3b; bKiddushin 70b.

Euphoria of Construction

223

to be a man of unbridled ambition and pretensions to greatness, on the other, who did everything within his power to “compensate” his ego. The fact that Nicolaus of Damascus was an accessory in the act of “improving” Herod’s genealogy offers no indication whatsoever of any Davidic origins on the part of his master. Christian tradition, which generally relied upon Josephus, made reference solely to his Idumaean origins, as shown by Eusebius’ account. 29 The latter, whose historical approach is more reliable than that of most of the Christian writers of his time, claimed further that since Herod was ashamed of his lowly origins, he burned all of the genealogical records preserved in the archives of his land, believing that this would not only prevent the possibility of anyone delving into his family history as the son of converts to Judaism but would allow him to masquerade as a man of noble ancestry. 30 No allusion is made, however, in this context to an attempt on his part to invent for himself a genealogy linking him to the House of David. In our opinion, it is unlikely that even Herod would have dared to take such a risk, for he surely understood that he might end up an object of scorn in the eyes of his subjects. Granted, it seems at first glance that the notion of Herod’s “messianism” would actually support our contentions – for what could offer more telling or persuasive proof of his hunger for greatness (or his megalomania).31 But since there is no factual evidence of messianic pretensions on his part, the most plausible and straightforward explanation for his be29

30

31

Eusebius (Historia Ecclessiastica, I, 6, 2–3) relied on Julius Africanus (ca. 160–240 CE), whom he described as a “renowned historian.” In the words of Eusebius, “according to sources that are based on reliable information concerning Herod, Antipater (his father) was the son of a certain Herod of Ascalon, and was one of the so-called hierodouloi (temple servants) in the temple of Apollo. This Antipater was captured as a child by Idumaean brigands, and stayed with them because his father was unable on account of poverty to pay ransom for him. He was brought up in their customs and later on was befriended by Hyrcanus the high priest of the Jews”; see recently Kasher 2005, pp. 183–184 and n. 13. Eusebius, ibid., VI, 13, which indirectly confirms Josephus’ account of Herod’s efforts to “improve” his genealogy. Regarding the attempts to locate and destroy the genealogical records of the Davidic dynasty, see: Eusebius, ibid., I, 13, 5; III, 12, 19, 32 (3–4); Jeremias 1969, pp. 281 ff.; cf. also Urbach 1984, p. 204, 314 (n. 49); Efron 2006, p. 188. Ostensibly, an analogy can be drawn between Herod and the famous false Messiah Sabbatai Zevi, since he too exhibited traits typically associated with bipolar psychosis, namely, “messianic” expressions of manic elation and a sense of superiority (i. e., megalomania), on the one hand, and depressive melancholy on the other. However, there is no basis for ascribing bipolar psychosis to Herod; rather, it is more likely that he suffered only from cyclothymia, that is, rapid and extreme mood swings from temporary episodes of elation to feelings of humiliation; see Introduction above, p. 13.

224

9. Preparation for the Building of the Holy Temple

havior in connection with the building of the Holy Temple is simply his grandiose aspirations. Schalit believed further that in the non-Jewish sector of his kingdom, Herod had no difficulty permitting divine worship of himself. This was his interpretation of the placement of a statue of Herod in the local temple at Seeia (Si’a), located in Auranitis near the city of Canatha (or Kanatha, present-day al-Qanawat). But it seems that on this point as well we must take issue with him, both because the statue was never found and, more importantly, because it was placed outside the temple to the god Baalshamin.32 It is reasonable to assume that Herod was honored locally because he donated money for renovating or maintaining the local temple, as he did at other pagan sites, and nothing more. 33 This only reinforces our conclusion that the true motive for all his grandiose construction projects was not “messianism” or self-deification but rather the pursuit of glory; pretensions of perpetuating his name; and delusions of grandeur (megalomania), pure and simple. On this point, we agree with the view of Gedalyahu Alon, who held that Herod was “nothing more than a tyrant, akin to the despotic rulers of the Hellenist and Roman period, who were not tied by race, spirit, tradition, or national aspirations to the peoples they ruled over; thus Herod was able to be ‘king of the Jews’ and of the Greeks in equal measure (as inferred from the text of Josephus in AJ XVI, 150 ff.).”34

32

33 34

See Schalit 1969, pp. 476 ff.; cf. also Stern 1983b, p. 69; Hengel 1989, p. 102. However, we take issue with their opinion, since no statue was found at the site of the temple but only a pedestal with the dedication in Greek: [ba]sileî (Hršödei kuríšw )Obaísatov Saúdou 3qhka tòn Àndriánta taîv Èmaîv dapánai[v] (= “To King Herod our master, Obaistus son of Sadus erected this statue on his own account”); see OGIS I, no. 415. This inscription does not indicate that “Herod even tolerated divine veneration of his own person,” in Hengel’s words, as there is no support whatsoever for such a conclusion. For further details see: Schürer 1973, I, p. 296 (n. 24), 306 (n. 59); 1979, II, p. 15, 141 and n. 294; Kasher 1988, p. 144, 176; Richardson 1996, pp. 206–207; Geiger 1987, p. 8 and n. 18; Kokkinos 1998, p. 137 (and n. 195), 288, 352. Cf. Millar 1993, pp. 395–396; also Richardson 1996, pp. 65–67, 206–207. Alon 1957, p. 42 (n. 59); idem 1977, p. 40 (n. 59).

Chapter 10 Hidden Motivations for Building the Holy Temple: “Rivalry” with the Hasmonaeans and a Desire to Flaunt His Grandeur What Was Herod’s True Incentive for Building the Temple? Josephus stated explicitly that the building of the Holy Temple was “a very great work” and that Herod himself believed it to be “the most glorious of all his actions, as it really was, to bring it to perfection; and that this would be sufficient for an everlasting memorial of him.”1 These remarks are consistent with Tsafrir’s assessment of the megalomanic motives behind most of Herod’s building projects, 2 which were, in our opinion, a form of “compensation” for his feelings of inferiority. This is further supported by the remarks attributed to Herod only a few days before his death (AJ XVII, 160–163): [160] And when the king … called together the principal men among the Jews; and when they were come, he made them assemble in the theater (in Jericho), [161] and because he could not himself stand, he lay upon a couch, [162] and enumerated the many labors that he had long endured on their account, and his building of the temple, and what a vast charge that was to him;3 while the Hasmonaeans, during the hundred and twenty-five years of their government, had not been able to perform any so great a work for the honor of God as that was; [163] that he had also adorned it with very valuable donations, on which account he hoped that he had left himself a memorial, and procured himself a reputation after his death.

1 2 3

AJ XV, 380. In § 384 the Temple is depicted by Herod himself as “a work of the greatest piety and excellence that can possibly be undertaken by us.” See Tsafrir 1980, pp. 56 ff. A similar phenomenon is evident among modern dictators with delusions of grandeur; see below, epilogue § 10. On Herod’s financial resources, see Gabba 1990, pp. 161–168; Pastor 1997, pp. 98– 109.

226

10. Hidden Motivations for Building the Holy Temple

Herod’s words speak for themselves, in particular as they were uttered on his deathbed; apparently, he wished to boast of the great undertaking that his mortal enemies the Hasmonaeans, who were so revered in Judaea, had been unable to carry out. Thus his motive was certainly personal, aimed at highlighting his success as opposed to the failure of the Hasmonaeans.4 The closing passage of the above citation also reveals Herod’s grandiose motivations. The Babylonian Talmud, by contrast, sought to explain the building of the Temple as an act of atonement for the killing of Jewish Sages; but this is of course a judgment from a later perspective and has no basis in the writings of Josephus or the early Palestinian Talmudic sources (for example, the Jerusalem Talmud). 5 One of the more significant facts concerning the building of the Temple relates to the permanent display of the spoils of past wars in the area surrounding the complex. While most of the plunder had been amassed during the Hasmonaean wars, Josephus recounts that Herod added the booty that he himself had seized during his war with the Nabataeans (AJ XV, 402). There is reason to believe that his intent was to demonstrate his military accomplishments as a link in the chain of Hasmonaean accomplishments so as to further “legitimize” his regime in the eyes of the public. Such a policy was also evident in his decision to continue housing the garments of the High Priest in the Antonia Fortress, which had been erected on the foundations of the Hasmonaean citadel called Baris (Birah in Hebrew) in the northwest corner of the Temple complex (ibid., 403, 409).6 In this instance as well, he intended to stress the notion of continuity, presenting himself as the legitimate ruler of Judaea and successor of the Hasmonaean dynasty. He was no doubt well aware of the Jewish people’s reverence for the Hasmonaeans, not only because of their lofty ancestry but also due to their deeds on behalf of the nation since 167 BCE.7 In our 4

5

6

7

According to Ball (200, p. 52), the main reason for Herod’s desire to build a magnificent temple was his wish to “buy” Jewish public opinion and thereby secure recognition as a devoted Jew; however, there is no direct proof of this in the sources. See: bBaba Bathra 4a. Cf. also Bamidbar Rabbah 14:20: “The building constructed by Herod was built by a sinner king to be an atonement for him on the killing of Israel’s sages.” But this is a relatively late Midrash, presumably inspired by the Babylonian Amoraim (scholars of the Talmud). We wish to thank J. Efron for his valuable comments on this issue; cf. also D. Schwartz 1985, p. 42. Is has already been suggested (above, p.129 and n. 8) that the renovation of this citadel, known also by the Greek name Akra, was started in about 35 BCE and probably ended before the construction of the Temple began. Compare to Mattathias’ last will and testament in I Maccabees 2:50 and the fame of Judas Maccabaeus and Simeon (ibid., 3:3; 14:4–15). See also Josephus’ summary

What Was Herod’s True Incentive for Building the Temple?

227

opinion, this led him to “compete” with the Hasmonaeans’ image and seek to surpass them in honor and glory. After failing in his attempt to elevate his lowly origins by concocting a suitably noble family tree, the only course of action left to him – and one for which he was eminently suited – was construction on a colossal scale that would impress all visitors to Jerusalem, both Jew and non-Jew, leaving them awe-struck. His rivalry with the Hasmonaeans was manifest in the dimensions and splendor of the Temple, including the stoas (porticoes) surrounding it, as described in detail by Josephus (AJ XV, 392–396): [392] Now the temple was built of stones that were white and strong, and each of their length was twenty-five cubits, their height was eight, and their breadth about twelve; [393] and the whole structure, as also the structure of the royal cloister, was on each side much lower, but the middle was much higher, till they were visible to those that dwelt in the country for a great many furlongs, but chiefly to such as lived over against them, and those that approached to them. [394] The temple had doors also at the entrance, and lintels over them, of the same height with the temple itself. They were adorned with embroidered veils, with their flowers of purple, and pillars interwoven; [395] and over these, but under the crown-work, was spread out a golden vine, with its branches hanging down from a great height, the largeness and fine workmanship of which was a surprising sight to the spectators, to see what vast materials there were, and with what great skill the workmanship was done. [396] He also encompassed the entire temple with very large cloisters, contriving them to be in a due proportion thereto; and he laid out larger sums of money upon them than had been done before him, till it seemed that no one else had so greatly adorned the temple as he had done. There was a large wall to both the cloisters, which wall was itself the most prodigious work that was ever heard of by man.8

Of particular note in the preceding description is the original white color of the building stones, which imbued the building with a special

8

of the Hasmonaean dynasty on the occasion of the execution of Mattathias Antigonus, the last Hasmonaean king: “This family was a splendid and an illustrious one, both on account of the nobility of their stock, and of the dignity of the high priesthood, as also for the glorious actions their ancestors had performed for our nation” (AJ XIV, 490). Cf. BJ V, 190–192. The descriptions of the Jerusalem Temple are mainly based on BJ V 184–227 and AJ XV 380–420, and to some degree on the Mishnah in Middoth (chapters I–V). For a concise but comprehensive description correlated with archaeological findings, see Avi-Yonah in: EH, VIII, cols. 568–576; Safrai 1976, II, pp. 865 ff. Although updates based on recent findings will occasionally be cited by us with regard to various objects on the Temple Mount, we shall not go into detail but focus on selected items only. Our intent is to demonstrate the exceptional splendor of Herod’s projects, and the enormous labor and financial effort entailed, in order to expose Herod’s megalomanic ambitions as the driving force behind his endless exhibitionism.

228

10. Hidden Motivations for Building the Holy Temple

grandeur and caused it to stand out on the urban landscape, making the Temple Mount appear even higher than it was (in Josephus’ words). The use of white stones is also familiar from other Herodian monuments such as the Augusteum in Sebaste, 9 the walls of Masada,10 the three famous towers of the royal palace in Jerusalem (Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamme), and the royal stoa.11 In Herodium as well, Herod built a sumptuous stairway of unequalled elegance made of “the whitest marble.”12 To be precise, this was not actually marble in today’s sense of the word, which was not in use before the 2nd century CE; at most, it was a local crystalline limestone, which was plentiful in the hills of Jerusalem.13 Apparently, it was the artistic effect of the white color that Herod had in mind, with the aim of catching the viewer’s eye and arousing admiration at the architectural power of his construction and his own greatness. The abundance of superlatives in the description point to Herod’s original intention of achieving perfection and supremacy, that is, producing the largest, the grandest, the most magnificent, calculated to evoke a sense of amazement beyond anything the world had ever seen. How else to explain this than as a classic example of delusions of grandeur (megalomania)? It seems, however, that he did not content himself with local recognition of his greatness but longed for worldwide fame and glory. The religious pilgrimages of the Jews of the Diaspora, and the visits to Jerusalem of the senior members of the Roman establishment and other prominent individuals from Hellenist circles, may have been an excellent means of spreading word of his greatness throughout the world. Such an objective in and of itself is a clear expression of megalomania. It should be noted that Herod was largely successful in this regard, judging by the words of Pliny the Elder (Historia Naturalis, V, 70) 9 10 11

12

13

See above chapter VIII, note 42. BJ VI, 286: leukoû mèn líqou, cf. 305: LeukÄn d’ aÙjtÄn &nó mazon. Josephus emphasized in particular that the three towers were built with hewn stones of white marble (BJ V, 174: leukÄ mármarov). This was true also with regard to the royal stoa (ibid., 190). In Greek leukotáthv marmárou (BJ I, 420); cf. Thackeray’s translation: “the purest white marble.” The stairway was most likely 80 meters in total, if indeed each step averaged 40 cm in height. It was an outstanding and impressive structure, the more so as it climbed upward on the slope of a mountain. We wish to thank Y. Tsafrir, and S. Dar for their scholarly comments on the nature of the local “white stone.” The Greek word mármarov occurs only five times in Josephus’ writings (see above), and it is not clear what term was used in the Hebrew (or Aramaic) original. It is entirely possible that the Greek translation here is misleading; see also note 48 below.

What Was Herod’s True Incentive for Building the Temple?

229

concerning the remarkable beauty of Jerusalem, which he referred to as “the most famous by far of the Eastern cities and not only the cities of Judaea.”14 The detailed descriptions provided by Josephus also justified such a claim, and of course the well-known Talmudic statement: “He who has not seen Jerusalem in its glory has never seen a beautiful city. He who has not seen the Temple in its full construction has never seen a glorious building [in his life]”; and in another version: “He who has not seen the Temple of Herod has never seen a beautiful building.15 Of what did he build it? Rabbah said: Of (white) marble stones and marmara (i. e., yellow, black or green marble).”16 Even Tacitus, Rome’s greatest hater of Israel, wrote of the Temple in glowing terms: “Jerusalem is the capital of the Jews. In it was a Temple possessing enormous riches” (Historiae, V, 8, 1); and “The Temple was built like a citadel, with walls of its own, which were constructed with more care and effort than any of the rest; the very colonnade about the temple made a splendid defence” (ibid., 12, 1; translation C. H. Moore, 14

15

16

Longe clarissima urbium orientis, non Ioudaea modo. See in detail Stern 1980a; and see also below. It is well known that the Emperor Augustus invested great effort in magnificent public building projects in the capital city of Rome. These included the Forum Romanum with the temples of Mars, Apollo and Jupiter on Capitolium Hill, in addition to glorious stoas and colonnades, a theater, a Roman and Greek library, etc.; see Suetonius, Augustus, 29–30; Yavetz 1988, pp. 62–64. In our opinion, Herod was greatly inspired by Augustus and imitated him wherever possible; cf. also note 15 below. BSukkah 51b; bBaba Bathra 4a. By contrast, the Jerusalem Talmud (ySukkah 5, 55a) offers a similar description, but with reference to the Great Synagogue at Alexandria; cf also tSukkah 4:5 (Zuckermandel ed., p. 198). Incidentally, the Talmudic term )rmrm as well as its variants yrmrm ,)rmyrm (see Jastrow 1985, p. 844; Aruch Completum, V, pp. 255–256), can create the mistaken impression that the basic material used in building the Temple was the same as that mentioned by Josephus, namely “white marble” (leukÄ mármarov) The Greek word marmaros and its linguistic derivatives denote a shiny crystalline limestone (white or colored) used for hewing and sculpture. Indeed, in late antiquity (that is, the time of the Mishnah and the Talmud), the word was used solely with reference to white marble, or more precisely, finely cut and polished white marble stone. The Aramaic terms were borrowed from the Greek, probably as a result of the famous quarries in the northwestern region of Asia Minor on the banks of the Marmora Sea. Herod, however, did not import marble from Asia Minor. He used only local limestone, which was cut in situ. The use of marble slowly took hold in Rome beginning with Augustus, but the high cost of transport actually prevented its largescale use before the fourth century. Augustus’ boastful remark that he found Rome a city of bricks and left it upon his death a city of marble (Suetonius, Augustus, 28, 3; Cassius Dio, lvi, 30, 3) can by no means be true, with the exception of public buildings, temples, etc. (see: Amit 2002, p. 229). On the connection between the Talmudic descriptions and Josephus’ account of the building of the Temple, see: Ben-Dov 1982; idem 1986, pp. 40–49; Patrich 1987, pp. 39–52; idem 1988, pp. 16–29; NEAE II, pp. 736–744, 736; Warszawski & Peretz 1966, pp. 3–46; Bahat (in: Horbury), pp. 38–58, esp. 43 ff.; compare also above.

230

10. Hidden Motivations for Building the Holy Temple

LCL). In a different account attributed to him, it is noted that Titus convened his assembly to decide whether or not to destroy the Temple. On this occasion, it was said of the Temple that it was “a sacred building, one more remarkable than any other human work. For if preserved it would testify to the moderation of the Romans, while if demolished it would be perpetual sign of cruelty.”17 The following facts offer some idea of the scale of the project and the difficulties of construction, through which Herod ventured to prove his greatness. In AJ XV, 390, it is recounted, for example, that he prepared beforehand 1,000 carts for transporting the heavy stones. This figure alone offers some indication of the tumult and congestion at the construction site. The number of beasts of burden (primarily oxen) was certainly great, necessitating a solution to challenging logistic problems involving the supply of fodder, equipment, maintenance, and so forth. The weight of the stones loaded onto these carts or other hauling devices generally ranged between 2 and 5 tons; but there were also several exceptionally large stones, such as those that made up the southern corners of the support walls of the Temple complex, whose length reached 10 meters or more and width was 2.5 meters, with a weight exceeding 50 tons.18 This alone is enough to show that the haulers and builders were faced with serious logistical difficulties in transporting the stones and putting them in place at the building site. The use of such unusually large stones required not only professional expertise and suitable techniques but also organizational ability and the work of an experienced and well-skilled team.19 In the words of the distinguished archeologist Benjamin Mazar, one of the first to excavate the Temple Mount in the period from 1968 to 1978: “[The enormity of] Herod’s undertaking was expressed in 17 18

19

Tacitus, apud: Sulpicius Severus, Chronicles, I, 30, 6; Stern 1980, II, no. 282 (pp. 64– 67). See: Ben-Dov 1982, p. 88; NEAE II, p. 739. It is worth noting that in AJ XV, 392 it is said that each stone was roughly twenty-five cubits in length, eight in height and twelve in width. According to more recent studies, a cubit equals 56 cm; see: J. Peleg, Metrology of the Amah Measure from the Herodian Period to the Period of the Mishnah, M. A. thesis, Bar-Ilan University 2003, pp. 5–6; we are much obliged to S. Dar for calling our attention to this study. In BJ V, 189 it is noted in general that huge stones measuring forty cubits were used in the construction, and in BJ V, 224, several stones are referred to as reaching 44 cubits in length, five in height and six in width, although some scholars feel these measurements are exaggerated (e. g. Marcus 1943, VII, p. 191), see by contrast Ben-Dov, 1982, p. 88. Ben-Dov 1982, p. 90. It is worth comparing Josephus’ description with the relevant data on the building of the Baths of Trajan near Rome (see DeLaine 200, pp. 119– 141), which tend to validate Josephus’ account.

What Was Herod’s True Incentive for Building the Temple?

231

the major transformation that took place in the topography of the area through the doubling in size of the consecrated area, the filling-in of the adjacent valleys, the delineation of the entire expanse, and the construction of the stoas on the Temple Mount, in particular the royal stoa.”20 According to Josephus, “ten thousand of the most experienced laborers”, that is, experts in their fields, 21 were chosen to carry out the construction work. In addition, one thousand priests were trained as builders and carpenters, wood- and metalworkers, and gold- and silversmiths, designated for work in the inner sanctuary (lkyh) and the Holy of Holies. 22 Since the above figures refer only to skilled laborers, one can safely assume that a greater number of workers were actually employed in the construction; on the other hand, however, the use of round figures casts doubt as to their reliability.23 But even if we assume that the figure of “ten thousand” is all-inclusive, it certainly attests to the tremendous scale and complexity of the undertaking. It later emerged that the construction work on the Temple Mount did not cease with the completion of the Temple building itself but continued for several decades until 64 CE, the end of Albinus’ tenure as governor. 24 As recounted by Josephus (AJ XX, 219–222), it was only then that the construction and refurbishing of the Temple compound were completed. At this point, there was a danger that over 18,000 workers would become unemployed and that their hardship would lead to highly volatile social and political unrest.25 The crisis was averted 20 21

22

23

24 25

Mazar 1978, p. 230; cf. Ben-Dov 1982, pp. 77–93; NEAE II, pp. 736 ff.; R. Reich 2002, pp. 48–52. 3mpeirov refers to an expert craftsman while Èmpeiría is the term for craft or professional artistry; see Liddell & Scott, p. 544. The Talmudic scholars were well acquainted with a variety of professions related to building and with the interdependence between a hewer (or stonecutter), a stonemason, a porter, a donkeydriver, a builder, a carpenter and an architect; see e. g. bBaba Metzia 118b; see also Ayali 1987, pp. 16–17. Managing such a variety of professions on a project of this magnitude no doubt required great overall skill and organizational ability. See AJ XV, 421. The building of the inner Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies was carried out by priests over the course of one year and five months; cf. also Jeremias 1969, pp. 22–23. An ossuary bearing the Aramaic inscription )lkh hnb/)nb }wms (Simeon builder of the Temple) was found in Giv’at Hamivtar north of Jerusalem, and most likely relates to one of the priestly builders; see Naveh 1970, pp. 30–37. Ben-Dov rightly rejected the possibility that slaves or forced laborers were included among these workers since Josephus emphasized their high level of professional expertise. Moreover, he highlighted the sincere and widespread enthusiasm of the workers (BJ V, 189), which obviously did not fit slaves or forced laborers. Cf. John, 2:20; bShabbath 116a. Simply for the sake of comparison, it is worth noting that according to DeLaine (2000, p. 136) “the builders of the Caracalla Baths near Rome formed the largest common interest group outside of the imperial household.” Indeed, the scale of

232

10. Hidden Motivations for Building the Holy Temple

at the last moment thanks to new projects, such as the laying of paving stones in the streets of Jerusalem, that were initiated by Agrippas II, Herod’s great-grandson, who was in charge of managing and maintaining the Temple. It is tempting to conclude that the number of laborers cited above might serve indirectly as an indicator of the size of Jerusalem’s population. While such calculations are speculative, if we assume that every worker was the breadwinner for a household of four, this would suggest a population of approximately 40,000 in Herod’s time and some 70,000 during the period of Agrippas II.26 One of the major questions that arises in the context of the construction of the Temple relates to the possible ramifications of this enormous project on political relations with Rome. Did the expansion of the Temple Mount area and the construction of colossal support walls not cause Rome to suspect an enterprise of a defensive nature that could ultimately be used by a rebel movement? Admittedly, such a possibility was actually hinted at rather broadly in an Aggadic (homiletic, non-legal) reference in the Talmud to a Jewish sage by the name of Baba son of Buta (bBaba Bathra 3b–4a). According to this tradition, Herod killed all the sages, sparing only Baba son of Buta, 27 so as to seek his counsel; however, Herod placed on his head a “garland” of leeches and plucked his eyes out. One day, Herod appeared before him without identifying himself and tried to trap him into cursing Herod for the evils he had done to Israel; but he was unsuccessful since the Sage found a justification for his careful silence in a series of biblical verses (primarily from the Book of Proverbs). Eventually, Herod revealed his identity and confessed that if he had known the Sages were so circumspect he would not have killed them. Herod then asked him what he could do to make amends. Baba son of Buta responded, using allusions to biblical verses, that to rectify his sins he should build the Temple. When Herod said that he feared the (Roman) kingdom, the sage advised him to engage in delaying tactics by sending an emissary

26

27

that project, as well as the number of skilled workers and the logistical problems involved, are quite similar to the Herodian project. Cf. chapter 9, note 2 above. The numbers, of course, are based only on conjecture; hence they should be taken with caution. In any event, Ben-Dov’s (1982, p. 75) suggestion that the population of Jerusalem numbered between 150,000 and 200,000 is exaggerated and unacceptable. These figures should be compared with the demographic data offered by DeLaine (ibid., 135–136) concerning the construction of the Caracalla Baths, which suggest that the population of Jerusalem did not exceed 80,000; cf. Broshi 1977, pp. 65–74; idem, in: Horbury et al. (eds.) 1999, p. 5 and n. 20. On the possibility that he was related to the Benei Baba, who were supporters of the Hasmonaeans, see above pp. 190–191.

What Was Herod’s True Incentive for Building the Temple?

233

to Rome who would take a year to journey there, then stay another year, and finally return at the end of a third year, giving Herod enough time to destroy the old Temple and build a new one in its place. It is hard to ascertain the truth of this simple Aggadah, for there are ample arguments both for and against. 28 If we ponder, for example, Rome’s mistrust of Agrippa I (Herod’s grandson), for which reason he was forced to abandon construction of the “third wall” in Jerusalem (AJ XIX 326–327; BJ II, 218; ibid., V, 148–154), such suspicions were quite plausible.29 On the other hand, if we consider Herod’s unqualified loyalty toward the Roman rulers and their great trust in him, in reality there was no basis for such suspicions – not to mention the fact that such massive construction in Jerusalem could also be justified on the grounds of both local and imperial security needs, such as the danger of a large-scale Parthian invasion that could jeopardize Rome’s hold over the eastern reaches of the Empire, as in the past (40 BCE). The enormous project to expand the area of the Temple Mount involved three major tasks, each at a different location: (a) lowering the northwest corner of the mountain by excavating 5–14 meters so as to enlarge the rectangular platform on which the Temple would be built; (b) closing off the small ravine southeast of the Temple Mount, which stretched along the wall of the old Temple to the Kidron Valley, by erecting a new wall 38 meters in height; (c) altering the contours of the Tyropoeon (Valley of the Cheesemakers) on the southern and western slopes of the Temple Mount, which had previously been home to several crowded residential neighborhoods, now emptied of their inhabitants. It is reasonable to assume that at least some of Jerusalem’s population was harmed by this move and bore a grudge against Herod over their forced evacuation. 30 28 29

30

Cf. Ben-Dov 1982, pp. 76–77. It should be recalled here that the building of the Temple in the days of the Return to Zion (520–516 BCE) sparked similar fears, especially considering the libelous accusations of the neighboring nations and their warnings concerning a Jewish revolt (Ezra 4:12–13). On the policy of evacuating populations for building purposes, see Ben-Dov 1982, pp. 79–80. While there is no mention of civil disobedience on the part of the evacuees, this is not inconceivable. Naturally, one might ask: Did Herod suppress any resentment through the use of force and by aggressive confiscation of land, or did he offer monetary compensation and alternative housing? It appears that both these possibilities may be correct. In any event, Ben-Dov (p. 80) cited one example of Jewish refusal to evacuate land on the slopes of the Tyropoeon Valley, which apparently forced some changes in the building plan. At least this is the impression that arises from the archaeological findings.

234

10. Hidden Motivations for Building the Holy Temple

One of the most impressive features of the Temple were the gates leading into its various courts (BJ V, 198), 31 nine of them overlaid with gold and silver including their doors and lintels (ibid., 201). The gates were donated by a wealthy Jew named Alexander the Alabarch (a customs official in Egypt during the 30s CE), who was the brother of the well-known philosopher Philo Alexandreus and the father of Tiberius Julius Alexander, a Jewish apostate who served as governor of the province of Judaea (46–48 CE); the son was later nominated by Titus as his chief of staff during the siege of Jerusalem (69–70 CE), and was even involved in the decision to burn the Holy Temple. 32 While the tenth gate was made of Corinthian bronze (and hence was referred to by Josephus in BJ V, 205 as the Corinthian Gate), 33 it was much more beautiful and ornate than all the others owing to its highly skilled handiwork, which included two side doors. Also known as the Nicanor Gate after the name of the artist Nicanor who designed and erected it, it was situated within the Temple Mount compound on the inner side of the low stone parapet (or balustrade) called the grws (mMiddot 1:4, 2:3). 34 It is also referred to in the New Testament as the “Beautiful Gate” (Acts 3:2, 10). From there, one would ascend fifteen steps from the Court of Women to the Court of Israel and then the Court of the Priests in the direction of the Outer Altar facing the Sanctuary (referred to in the mishnah as the lkyh). Strict warning messages were posted around the Temple and the surrounding area to inform those who sought to enter of the laws of ritual purity that applied there, and to deter foreigners from entering the sacred area. Copies of the warning were engraved on stone tablets (49 cm high, 27 cm wide, and 31 cm thick) posted alternately in Latin and Greek at varying distances along the Soreg, which was approximately 3 cubits (1.5 meters) high (BJ V, 193–194). A complete copy of 31 32 33

34

Cf. Ben-Dov 1982, pp. 76–77. On Alexander, Philo’s brother, see Tcherikover 1963a, pp. 68, 141, 147. On his son see: Turner 1954, pp. 54–64; Burr 1955. See also BJ V, 201; II, 411; VI, 283–295; mMiddoth 1:4; 2:3, 6; mShekalim 6:3; mYoma 3:10; mSotah 1:5; cf. tYoma 2:4 (Zuckermandel ed. p. 183); yYoma 3, 41a; bYoma 38a. Nicanor was a famous artisan from Alexandria. The magnificent arrival of the gate by sea to Joppa (Jaffa) has already been alluded to in mMiddoth, 2:3 and in mYoma 3:10; tYoma 2:4 (Zuckermandel ed. p. 183); yYoma 3, 41a; bYoma 38a. Nicanor’s tomb was discovered in a splendid cave on Mt. Scopus, which contained several ornamented ossuaries. One ossuary bore a Greek inscription indicating that the deceased was “Nicanor of Alexandria, who made the doors” of the famous Bronze Gate; see OGIS, no. 599; SEG VIII, no. 200; Avigad 1967, pp. 119–125; Kloner & Zissu 2003, pp. 57, 96–99.

What Was Herod’s True Incentive for Building the Temple?

235

the inscription was discovered in 1871 and is currently on exhibit at the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul, Turkey, while a fragment from a separate inscription is displayed at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem. Translated from the Greek, the inscription reads: “No Gentile shall enter the protective enclosure around the sanctuary. And whoever is caught will have only himself to blame for his ensuing death.”35 There is no question that Herod sought to placate the Jewish public by protecting the “sacred area” (Ó Ìeròv períbolov) from desecration by Gentiles visiting the Temple Mount in order that the Temple be recognized the world over as a site protected from defilement (tópov 2sulov). This status was of course supported officially by Rome, as was the case with other temples throughout the Empire. Josephus recounts (BJ V, 206–227) that the Temple building, or Sanctuary, stood out for the singular beauty of both its interior and exterior. At the front of the Sanctuary, there were twelve steps leading to an open structure called the Ulam (Porch), which towered above the Sanctuary and featured four columns, two on each side. The Holy of Holies (Dvir) was located at the back of the Sanctuary. The entire complex was visible for a distance of many hundreds of meters, particularly when facing or approaching the structure (AJ XV, 393). According to the description of the Mishnah (mMiddoth 4:7): “The Sanctuary was narrow behind and wide in front, and it was like a lion, since it is written, ‘Ho Ariel, Ariel, the city where David encamped’ (Isaiah 29:1). As a lion is narrow behind and wide in front, so the Sanctuary was narrow behind and wide in front.”36 The façade of the structure, which formed a square of 100 cubits in height and length, was plated entirely with gold and constructed so that those gazing upon it would be awestruck by its radiance. The width of the anterior section was 11 cubits, creating the narrow structure at the front of the Sanctuary referred to as the Porch ({lw)). The entryway itself soared to a height of 70 cubits and was 25 cubits in 35

36

Regarding the Soreg, compare also AJ XV, 417; Acts 21:28–31; mMiddoth 2:3; mKelim 1:8. On the scholarly publications of the inscription, see: Clermont-Ganneau 1872, pp. 214–234, 290–296; Frey 1952, II, no. 1440; OGIS, no. 598; SEG VIII, no. 169; for further information see: Rabello 1972, pp. cclxvi–cclxxxi; Fry 1986; Bickerman 1976, I, pp. 221–224; Safrai & Stern 1976, II, pp. 865 ff.; Schürer 1979, II, pp. 284–285 and n. 57. This is Danby’s translation (which, according to Schürer [I., p. 81] “figures also in the Soncino translation of the Babylonian Talmud”); cf. also Neusner 1988, p. 882. According to Josephus (BJ V, 207), the two protrusions at the front of the building (twenty cubits on each side) were like “shoulders”; in their symmetry, they apparently recalled a lion, as noted in the Mishnah.

236

10. Hidden Motivations for Building the Holy Temple

width; it had no doors, symbolizing the boundless expanse of the heavens. The inner gate, which stood beyond the Porch, had two doors overlaid entirely with gold leading into the Sanctuary itself. On either side of the doors were golden vines as tall as a man, with clusters of grapes cast in gold suspended from them. The doors reached a height of 55 cubits and were 16 cubits wide; hanging in front of them was a Babylonian tapestry (the curtain, or tkwrp)37 woven skillfully in wool of blue (Ùákinqov), crimson (kókov), and purple (porfúra) together with fine white linen (bússov). The colors were purposely chosen to symbolize the elements of the universe as reflected in the colors of the sky and ocean, fire, and earth. In addition to the especially magnificent façade, the exterior of the Temple on its three sides was mesmerizing and a delight to behold (BJ V, 222–224). The sun’s rays falling on its gold-covered walls would blind those who viewed it, as if they had gazed directly at the sun. From afar, the structure looked like a mountain covered with snow, for whatever was not overlaid with gold appeared pure white. Atop the roof were sharpened shafts (or spikes) of gold that prevented birds from perching there and fouling it.38 The interior of the Temple merited only a relatively brief description in BJ V, 215–221, but it too is laden with superlatives, as we can see from the following passage: [215] Passing within one found oneself in the ground-floor of the sanctuary. This was sixty cubits in height, the same in length, and twenty cubits in breadth. [216] But the sixty cubits of its length were again divided. The first portion, partitioned off at forty cubits, contained within it three most wonderful works of art, universally renowned: a lampstand, a table, and altar of incense. 39 [217] The seven lamps (such being the number of the branches from the lampstand) represented the planets; the loaves on the table, twelve in number, the circle of the Zodiac and the year; [218] while the altar of incense, by the thirteen fragrant spices from the sea and from the land, both desert and inhabited, with which it was replenished,

37 38

39

Cf. tk,OrP’ (parokhet), EB, VI, cols. 584–585, in connection with the curtain of the Ark in biblical times. In mMiddoth 4:6, these gold spikes are referred to in Hebrew as berOw( hälâK (lit. “consuming the ravens”). H. Albeck, in his Hebrew commentary to the Mishnah, explains the phrase as “to scare off crows”; cf. also the commentaries offered by Neusner and Danby (ad loc.). On these three sacred objects, see: CA I, 198–199; Kasher 1996, I, pp. 201–203. For further details on the candelabrum (Menorah), which became the most famous symbol of the Jewish people, in both Eretz Israel and the Diaspora, following the destruction of the Second Temple; see: R. Hachlili, The Menorah, the Ancient Seven-Armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form and Significance, Leiden, 2001.

What Was Herod’s True Incentive for Building the Temple?

237

signified that all things are of God and for God.40 [219] the innermost recess measured twenty cubits, and was screened in like manner from the outer portion by a veil. In this stood nothing whatever: unapproachable, inviolable, invisible to all, it was called the Holy of Holies. [220] Around the sides of the lower part of the sanctuary were numerous chambers, in three stories, communicating with one another; these were approached by entrances from either side of the gateway. [221] The upper part of the building had no similar chambers, being proportionately narrower, but rose forty cubits higher in a severer style than the lower story. These forty cubits, added to the sixty of the ground-floor, amount to a total altitude of a hundred cubits.

This concludes the description of the Temple and its features. But pride of place is actually reserved by Josephus for the structure in which Herod was the most involved personally, the royal stoa. One of the most outstanding projects on the Temple Mount, it offers convincing proof of his megalomanic aspirations. The royal stoa was completed eight years after the building of the Temple was concluded. Josephus emphasizes in this regard that since Herod was barred from entering the “sacred area,” including the Court of Women, the Court of Israel and the Court of the Priests he took a special interest in this project; “but with the construction of the porticoes and the outer enclosures he did busy himself” (AJ XV, 420). In other words, he invested most of his energy and drive in the royal stoa for reasons of personal prestige. It is noteworthy that visitors to the Temple Mount were deeply affected by what they saw and were left astounded by the power of the site, a fact that of course sheds light on Herod’s individual motivations, as evidenced by the following citation (AJ XV, 411–417): [411] … the fourth front of the temple, which was southward, had indeed itself gates in its middle, as also it had the royal cloisters, with three walks, which reached in length from the east valley unto that on the west, for it was impossible it should reach any farther: [412] and this cloister deserves to be mentioned better than any other under the sun; for while the valley was very deep, and its bottom could not be seen, if you looked from above into the depth, this further vastly high elevation of the cloister stood upon that height, insomuch that if any one looked down from the top of the battlements, or down both those altitudes, he would be giddy, while his sight could not reach to such an immense depth. [413] This 40

See Thackeray 1927, II, p. 266, n. a. On the allegorical symbolism of the vestments of the High Priest, see also AJ III, 180–187. Philo Alexandreus as well devoted lengthy explanations to the symbolism of the Sanctuary structure; the service vessels of the Temple (including the candelabrum, the table of the shewbread, and the golden incense altar, also called “the inner altar”); the vestments of the High Priest and more; see for example: De vita Mosis, II, 71 ff., 102–103, 118–130; Quis rerum divinarum heres sit, 197, etc.

238

10. Hidden Motivations for Building the Holy Temple

cloister had pillars that stood in four rows one over against the other all along, for the fourth row was interwoven into the wall, which [also was built of stone]; and the thickness of each pillar was such, that three men might, with their arms extended, fathom it round, and join their hands again, while its length was twenty-seven feet, with a double spiral at its basis; [414] and the number of all the pillars [in that court] was a hundred and sixty-two. Their chapiters were made with sculptures after the Corinthian order, and caused an amazement [to the spectators], by reason of the grandeur of the whole. [415] These four rows of pillars included three intervals for walking in the middle of this cloister; two of which walks were made parallel to each other, and were contrived after the same manner; the breadth of each of them was thirty feet, the length was a furlong, and the height fifty feet; but the breadth of the middle part of the cloister was one and a half of the other, and the height was double, for it was much higher than those on each side; but the roofs were adorned with deep sculptures in wood, representing many sorts of figures. [416] The middle was much higher than the rest, and the wall of the front was adorned with beams, resting upon pillars, that were interwoven into it, and that front was all of polished stone, insomuch that its fineness, to such as had not seen it, was incredible, and to such as had seen it, was greatly amazing.41

From Josephus’ concluding words above, it emerges that Herod did not mislead with respect to his timetable or to the care taken not to destroy the former Temple until the new one was standing (AJ XV, 389–390). His sense of personal euphoria with the conclusion of the ambitious undertaking is alluded to in the following passage (AJ XV, 425): It is also reported, that during the time that the Temple was building, it did not rain in the daytime, but that the showers fell in the nights, so that the work was not hindered. And this our fathers have delivered to us; nor is it incredible, if any one have regard to the manifestations of God. And thus was performed the work of the rebuilding of the Temple.

Josephus’ remarks are clearly consistent with the popular Jewish tradition that found its way into the Talmud: “… we find that in the days of Herod when the people were occupied with the rebuilding of he Temple, rain would fall during the night, but in the morning the wind blew and the clouds dispersed and the sun shone so that the people were able to go out to their work and they knew that they were engaged in heavenly work.”42 41

42

The superlatives speak for themselves. For a reconstruction of the Royal Stoa, see Baruch & Peleg 2003, pp. 49–57. Supplementing the description of the Soreg, the Women’s Court, and the Sacred Precinct (accessible to priests only) is the passage in AJ XV, 417–420. The construction of the three Stoas with their adjacent structures lasted eight years (ca. 20–12 BCE); cf. Schürer 1973, I, p. 292; Baruch & Peleg. Ibid. BTa’anith 23a (based on the Soncino translation); see also Sifra Behukkotai Perek 1,1; Vayyikra Rabbah 35:10; which are also supported by the Babylonian Talmud. In the Jerusalem Talmud, by contrast, there is no mention of this Aggadah.

Dedication of the Temple

239

Since such a belief could certainly serve Herod’s interests by demonstrating that his actions were the “will of God,” it is tempting to suggest that he himself showed a strong desire to foster this tradition during his lifetime, and that his “sales pitch,” as it were, was aided by the general Jewish euphoria at the building of the Temple. But in the absence of explicit testimony to that effect, such a notion cannot be proven. In any event, there is no question that the building of the Temple, a structure revered for its beauty and splendor, enhanced his prestige, as manifest by the remarkable pilgrimage of massive numbers of Jews from Palestine and the Diaspora and the collection of the half-shekel and other religiously mandated offerings, a phenomenon unparalleled in its scope in the ancient world.43 It is worth adding at this juncture that Herod had a tendency, in keeping with his personality and overall attitude, to combine Hellenist with Roman elements in his architectural style. Toward this end, he imported new building techniques, among them the use of arches, vaults and domes and the introduction of mortar (cement) as a binding material and filler and for stylized plastering.44

Dedication of the Temple Later in Josephus’ account, we learn that construction of the Temple was completed in 19/20 BCE, namely, one year and five (or six) months after it was undertaken (AJ XV, 421), and that the new Temple was dedicated by the Jewish populace amid great rejoicing and gratitude to God and Herod for the latter’s devotion and adherence to the promised completion time. To celebrate the joyous event, Herod offered a sacrifice (3quse)45 of 300 bulls,46 in addition to the sacrifices 43 44 45

46

See Safrai 1965, passim; and see also chapter 11 below on Herod’s assistance to the Jews of the Diaspora before Marcus Agrippa’s tribunal in Asia Minor (14 BCE). For details, see Tsafrir 2003, pp. 94–98. Sacrifices that were essentially meals (in honor of God or a festival) were referred to as {yxbz or {yml# (peace offerings) or a combination of the two {yml# yxbz, as distinguished from the five sacrifices known as twlw( (burnt sacrifice) that were offerings to God (see Leviticus, chapters 1–7); for details see: EB, II, cols. 901–904; VII, cols. 222–255. This was the greatest number of sacrifices he ever offered. Indeed, on the day of his coronation in Rome, there was a ceremony followed by sacrifices to Jupiter on Capitolium Hill (BJ I, 285; AJ XIV 388), but nothing is said of Herod’s personal participation in the sacrificial ceremony. He was most likely an indirect and passive partner in the ceremony, led by Mark Antony and Octavian (cf. Barbutz 1985, p. 49); however we still we have no idea of the number of sacrifices offered on that

240

10. Hidden Motivations for Building the Holy Temple

offered by the people, which were too numerous to count (ibid., 422). And why specifically 300 bulls? The large number was doubtless no coincidence, when speaking of a man such as Herod. Since he knew that in the Greek and Roman worlds it was customary to honor Zeus and Jupiter by the sacrifice (qusía) of one hecatomb (100 bulls), one likely possibility is that he wished to make an impression by offering a much larger number.47 From the number of bulls, one can conclude that several tens of thousands were invited to the festive meal marking the dedication of the Temple.48 It is our view that such an enormous feast was intended not only to sway the public via its stomach but also to display the “greatness” and generosity of the king.49 No doubt this represented a significant “stroking of his ego,” in particular since the central role

47

48

49

occasion. Of the visit of Marcus Agrippa to Jerusalem (15 BCE), we are told that this distinguished guest sacrificed one hecatomb, namely 100 oxen (AJ XV 14), but it is quite obvious that Herod financed the sacrifices, as he did on other occasions. Although there is no direct support in writing for this hypothesis, it is self-evident given the fact that Herod pressed him so strongly to pay a visit to Jerusalem. By way of comparison, it is worth noting that at the inauguration of the Temple in the Persian era, 100 bulls were sacrificed, in addition to 200 rams, 400 lambs, and 12 goats as a sin offering for all of Israel (Ezra 6:17). According to Philo (Legatio ad Gaium, 356) a hecatomb was offered as a sacrifice for the welfare of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The large number of sacrifices presumably inspired the Sibylline prophecy (Sibylla, III, 576, 626) An average bull from one of the locally bred species (Zebo or Damascene) could supply approximately 150 kg of meat; see: G. Dahl & A. Hjort, Having Herds: Pastoral Herd Growth and Household Economy, Stockholm 1976, p. 165. The total amount of meat expected from a herd of 300 bulls was therefore 45 metric tons. An expected loss of 10 %–15 % plus the traditional allocations for the priests and Levites bring the calculation to about 25 tons of meat to be served at Herod’s public feast. Assuming that each guest would eat around half a kilogram, the number of diners could have reached 50,000–60,000. This number includes of course a considerable portion of Jerusalem’s population as well as invited guests from other urban and rural communities of the realm and probably from the Jewish Diaspora too. In our estimation, this figure is consistent with the calculations of both Jeremias (1969, pp. 77–84) and Safrai (1965, pp. 71–74) regarding the number of pilgrims coming to Jerusalem for the festivals. Incidentally, it is also reminiscent of the number who attended the banquet prepared by King Assurnassirpal II (883–859 BCE) for the inauguration of his royal palace in the second Assyrian capital Kalkhu, which, according to the king’s records, reached 69,574; cf. EB, IV (1962, col. 116. Thus in our opinion, Herod’s feast is certainly worthy of inclusion in R. Strong’s Feast: A History of Grand Eating, London 2002. We hereby take the opportunity to thank S. Dar and M. Broshi for their helpful comments on this issue. For an estimate of Jerusalem’s population at the time, see below (p. 232); cf. also Broshi 1977, pp. 65–74; idem 1985, pp. 11–19; idem 1999 (in: CHJ III, ed. Horbury et al.), p. 5, n. 3; cf. Levine 2000, p. 35 and n. 4. It is tempting to suggest that in this glorious feast he was imitating Julius Caesar and Augustus; cf. Suetonius, Julius, 37–39; idem, Augustus, 23, 43, 74–75.

Dedication of the Temple

241

that he played in this glorious occasion fulfilled a major emotional need – perhaps even an obsession. This impression is reinforced by a brief remark at the end of Josephus’ account (AJ XV, 423): … at the same time with this celebration for the work about the temple fell also the day of the king’s inauguration, which he kept of an old custom as a festival, and it now coincided with the other, which coincidence of them both made the festival most illustrious.

It is reasonable to assume that the merging of the two events was not at all coincidental but was planned in advance by Herod. In our opinion, this was also the main reason why he had maintained such a rapid pace of construction – not necessarily to appease Jewish public opinion regarding the replacement of the earlier Temple but to distract the public’s attention from his true ambition: the association of the Temple’s dedication with the festivities marking his coronation. In this way, he sought to demonstrate his undisputed importance, in addition to which this was a golden opportunity to institute such a celebration for the foreseeable future, if not permanently. This impression is further supported by the additional “quirk of fate” whereby Herod’s coronation and the dedication of the new Temple also coincided with the holiday of Hanukkah marking the cleansing of the Hasmonaean Temple following the decrees of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. This is proven by the fact that Herod’s coronation in Rome took place during the winter (BJ I, 279–280; AJ XIV, 376), and more precisely in December, which corresponds to the date of Hanukkah (I Maccabees 1:59; 4:52; II Maccabees 10:10). The proximity in time was no coincidence, in our view, since nothing happened “accidentally” in Herod’s case but was done with calculated premeditation. It is reasonable to assume that he was interested in having the new Temple and its dedication coincide with, and even overshadow, the Hasmonaean Hanukkah festival. 50 Stated otherwise, he hoped – or more precisely, deluded himself into thinking – that the manipulative merging of these festivities would, over the course of time and with his “encouragement,” lessen the exclusive association of Hanukkah with the Hasmonaeans, thereby diminishing their memory until the dedication of his Temple and the anniversary of his coronation would become the central element of the traditional festival. This represented an additional aspect of his “competition” with the Hasmonaean dynasty over Jewish public opinion. Banowitz aptly remarked that “the holiday of Hanukkah, which served a dual purpose as the holi50

See the instructive article of Banowitz 2003, pp. 6–9.

242

10. Hidden Motivations for Building the Holy Temple

day of the Hasmonaean kingship and the holiday of the dedication of the Temple in the days of the Hasmonaeans, became the holiday of Herod’s coronation and of the dedication of Herod’s Temple.”51 His decision to combine the three events can also be understood as an expression of his desire to “compensate” for his feelings of inferiority and for the sense of rejection that had accompanied him throughout his life. The manipulation involved in the merging of these celebrations was consistent with his paranoid personality and with the grandiose narcissistic impulses typical of individuals suffering from Paranoid Personality Disorder. 52 The fact that he succeeded in winning the approval of a considerable portion of the Jewish public, who participated openly and willingly in the festivities, may have symbolized in his eyes reconciliation and acceptance and perhaps even the turning over of a new leaf in his relations with his Jewish subjects. But in fact the public’s participation in the great occasion was tied solely to the dedication of the Temple and not to any other reason. The factor of the time of year (the 25th of Kislev) cannot be ignored, since it is difficult to hold an open-air feast for the masses in Jerusalem during this season due to the threat of rain and cold. While a Jerusalem winter can feature long intervals of pleasant weather, Herod presumably ordered the advance installation of tent-like pavilions in the streets of the city to shelter the celebrants in the event of rain and to enable the use of cooking stoves, roasting devices, and heating implements. Presumably, such a logistic solution, familiar and accepted among nomads and semi-nomads such as the Idumaeans, Arabs, and Jews who dwelled in the region and were accustomed to living in tents, added a unique and colorful dimension to this event, not to mention the fact that he could impress foreign visitors in particular and become the “talk of the town.”

51

52

Banowitz, 2003, p. 8. Nonetheless, we take issue with his view that Hanukkah was celebrated as a Feast of Lights only from Herod’s time, as well as his analysis of the pseudo-epigraphic epistle in II Maccabees 1:1–2:18 (ibid., 9–15). However, such a discussion is beyond the purview of the present work. See the psychological profile in the Introduction, and compare Fried & Agassi 1976, pp. 90, 202–203 and notes 15, 18, 19. Incidentally it is worth noting, purely by way of analogy, that the act of combining a coronation day with a national holiday is highly reminiscent of Saddam Hussein’s treatment of his birthday in Iraq.

Offering in Honor of the Emperor

243

Offering in Honor of the Emperor As recounted by Philo Alexandreus (Legatio ad Gaium, 157), it was the Emperor Augustus who “ordered the sacrificing of daily offerings at his own expense, a gift to the supreme God.” This was apparently the sole equivalent of emperor worship (of Augustus) and the cult of Rome that Judaism could tolerate. 53 It is difficult to assess whether this offering was instituted by Augustus himself or whether it was the product of Herod’s personal initiative and earned the Emperor’s approval retroactively. The former possibility seems more likely, given the personality of the individuals involved. It is likely that, from Herod’s perspective, it was preferable that the sacrifice be seen as deriving from an explicit imperial decree so that there would be no thought of abolishing it in future. Indeed, when the Great Revolt later broke out (in 66 CE), the first symbolic act of rebellion was the elimination of this offering.

53

Cf. also Philo, ibid., 317. The offering of a sacrifice for the king’s welfare was considered legitimate according to Jewish law from the time of the Persian and Hellenist eras; see Schürer 1979, II, pp. 309–313.

Chapter 11 Return to Daily Reality amid New Tensions (18–14 BCE) From the Euphoria of Building to an Ongoing Persecution Complex Despite Herod’s hopes of winning over the public, it became clear that the resentment towards him had not abated, notwithstanding his building of the Temple. In fact, the people grew increasingly estranged from Herod as time went on, seeing him as a foreign king in service to Rome (nor was the memory of the Hasmonaeans erased, even in future generations).1 A not insignificant factor was also his own deep mistrust of his subjects and the resultant fear of persecution, as evidenced by the fact that he built for himself an underground tunnel beneath the Temple compound through which to flee in the event of an assassination attempt (AJ XV, 424): There was also an occult passage built for the king; it led from Antonia to the inner temple, at its eastern gate; over which he also erected for himself a tower, that he might have the opportunity of a subterraneous ascent to the temple, in order to guard against any sedition which might be made by the people against their kings.

Although from the general tone of Josephus’ words (or the source on which he based himself), it can be understood that there was a neutral and objective security reason for building the tunnel, it is hard to escape the impression that this was a classic example of Herod’s paranoid nature. The obvious conclusion is that he was so filled with fear that he did not have faith in his trained bodyguards but chose instead to cease all physical contact with the public, quickly and unequivocally. 2 1 2

See for example Alon 1957, I, pp. 15–47. Actually, the access to the Temple was forbidden for all, except for the high priest in the Day of Atonement. Josephus must have in mind, therefore, the access to the

From the Euphoria of Building to an Ongoing Persecution Complex

245

Law against Thieves In proximity to the events of 18/17 BCE, that is, some two years after the dedication of the Temple and prior to his journey to Rome, 3 Herod enacted the “Law Against Thieves,” which is also relevant to the purposes of this study. In our opinion, the law testifies to the depth of Herod’s feelings of persecution, which continued to gnaw at him to the point where he undertook this radical piece of legislation – which had no basis in Jewish law – to safeguard his rule. In other words: His uncontrolled fear and powerful unconscious urges pushed him to the point of totally renouncing, or at least sharply departing from, the laws of Israel. It is worthwhile citing in this context the assessment of Josephus himself regarding this action (AJ XVI, 1–5): [1] As king Herod was very zealous in the administration of his entire government, and desirous to put a stop to particular acts of injustice which were done by criminals about the city and country, he made a law, no way like our original laws, and which he enacted of himself, to expose house-breakers to be ejected out of his kingdom; which punishment was not only grievous to be borne by the offenders, but contained in it a dissolution of the customs of our forefathers; [2] for this slavery to foreigners, and such as did not live after the manner of Jews, and this necessity that they were under to do whatsoever such men should command, was an offense against our religious settlement, rather than a punishment to such as were found to have offended, such a punishment being avoided in our original laws; [3] for those laws ordain, that the thief shall restore fourfold; and that if he have not so much, he shall be sold indeed, but not to foreigners, nor so that he be under perpetual slavery, for he must have been released after six years. [4] But this law, thus enacted, in order to introduce a severe and illegal punishment, seemed to be a piece of insolence of Herod, when he did not act as a king, but as a tyrant, and thus contemptuously, and without any regard to his subjects, did he venture to introduce such a punishment. [5] Now this penalty, thus brought into practice, was like Herod’s other actions, and became a part of his accusation, and an occasion of the hatred he lay under.4

3 4

Temple Court, the capacity of which was very limited anyway. Furthermore, Alon (1977, pp. 138–145), pointed out in this context the halacha that serious trangressors of the Jewish Law, who were in the category of ‘banned’ persons and ‘sinners’ like Herod, should be prevented from enrtering even the Temple Court; cf. also Efron 2006, p. 244 Regarding the date, see Schürer, 1973, I, p. 292; Kokkinos (1998, pp. 369–370 § 2) is inclined to place the date one year later, that is, 17/16 BCE. Scholars are divided in their interpretation of the law; see Otto 1913, col. 105; Gulak 1936, pp. 132–136; Guttmann 1949, pp. 68 ff.; Schalit 1969, pp. 231 ff.; Stern 1983a, p. 81 and n. 51; Ben-Shalom 1983, pp. 49–50 and n. 57; Fuks 2002, pp. 240–241. Most scholars agree with Josephus that the inspiration for Herod’s

246

11. Return to Daily Reality amid New Tensions

In the opinion of Josephus himself, Herod wished to arm himself with a permanent, readily available legal apparatus for removing from his kingdom anyone suspected of political sabotage against him. Josephus criticized the legislation as a patently illegal act5 that was despotic and not kingly in nature, for a monarch is expected to act with honor and in accord with accepted laws whereas a despot arbitrarily determines those laws. It is noteworthy that Josephus did not include any account of this law in BJ, suggesting that he may have found no mention of it in Nicolaus’ writings. By contrast, his criticism in AJ reflects the widespread opposition to the law, which was doubtless strongly expressed in other sources. Unfortunately, however, he did not bring specific citations that would have allowed us to explore this possibility, leaving us with no alternative but to conjecture that his remarks reflected the views of internal Jewish sources.

Return of Herod’s Sons from Rome At precisely this juncture (18/17 BCE), Herod journeyed to Rome to meet with the Emperor Augustus and to bring Aristobulus and Alexander, his sons by Mariamme the Hasmonaean, back to Jerusalem after residing in Rome since 24 or 23/22 BCE for their education. Their return (in the autumn of 17/16 BCE)6 aroused much hope and excitement among the public (AJ XVI, 7), which was ample cause for alarm from the perspective of Herod’s sister Salome and her circle. According to Josephus, the latter feared that, when the time was right, the young princes would seek vengeance for their mother’s death. Consequently Salome and her followers began to spread rumors that the brothers bore a grudge toward their father over the killing of their mother. Deviously and with great caution, they saw to it that these libels reached Herod in order to slowly and relentlessly lay the groundwork for the great explosion that was sure to take place, given the man’s character and reactions (ibid., 8–10). Initially, he repressed the rumors, treat-

5

6

legislation derived from foreign sources, either Roman or Greek. It is no surprise, then, that the Jews saw the new edict as contravening their ancestral laws. Probably because it contradicted the biblical law on Hebrew slave and the commandment on the redemption Jewish of prisoners and captives; see: EB, VI, cols. 11, 13–14; cf. I, cols. 191–192, 477–478; HE, XXXI, cols. 480–382. There are differences of opinion as to the exact date of the sons’ return from Rome. Some, like Schürer (1973, I, p. 292) believe it was in 18/17 BCE, while others place it one year later, among them Stern 1974, I, p. 250; and Kokkinos 1998, p. 186, 215, 370, § 2 (based on Corbishley 1935, pp. 27–29).

Return of Herod’s Sons from Rome

247

ing his sons with respect and even taking pains to marry them off to well-born women: Aristobulus, to Berenice, daughter of his sister Salome (from her second husband Costobarus), apparently in hopes of assuaging the anti-Hasmonaean fervor of his sister; and Alexander, to Glaphyra, daughter of Archelaus Philopatris, king of Cappadocia (ibid., 11). In these deliberate matches, he was of course imitating the practice of his patron, Emperor Augustus;7 but it is equally likely that his motives also stemmed from his paranoid nature, for in this way he believed that he could maintain control of events in the royal court and direct the lives of his relatives in accordance with his plans, without fear of surprises or unexpected upsets. As we shall see below, this was only an illusion, not least because the rumors spread by Salome (which had in the meantime proliferated and became increasingly blatant) inevitably began to reach Herod’s ears, confusing him to the point where he was in a state of great turmoil. It is important to note that, concurrent with the marriages of his sons in 16 BCE, Herod himself married three women that year – Pallas, Phaedra and Elpis – whom he brought with him upon his return from Greece and Rome.8 It is difficult to ascertain whether or not the marriages of his sons preceded his own weddings. In any event, one should not assume that the events were unrelated, for a man like Herod left little to chance, in particular when it came to matters involving his wishes, decisions or plans. The marriage of his son Alexander to Glaphyra was likely seen as a great success at the time since her father Archelaus Philopatris was an important and well-known figure in the Roman Empire and considered a close friend and confidant of the Emperor Augustus. It is highly probable that Herod sought to enhance his prestige by marrying his son to the daughter of such a man and to make use of his services when needed to press his case before the Emperor. The marriage was also designed to secure Archelaus’ blessing since Alexander had been declared the first in line for the throne; as such, the match was presumably appealing to Archelaus as well, if we assume that he wished to see his daughter as a potential queen of Judaea.

7 8

Suetonius, Augustus, 48, 63. On deliberately initiated matrimonial ties in Herod’s family, see Mayer & Schärtel 1995, pp. 211 ff.; Richardson 1996, pp. 43–45. Kokkinos’ (1968, pp. 208, 241–243) well-substantiated and logical opinion appears reasonable to us. By contrast, Richardson’s (1996, p. 236) position, which seeks to place the marriages to the three wives at different dates between 22 BCE and 19 BCE, is unsupported by the sources, nor is it argued convincingly.

248

11. Return to Daily Reality amid New Tensions

On the other hand, Herod may have sought, by his triple marriage, to “temper” Alexander’s eagerness and imagination, and signal to him that despite his father’s advanced age (already apparent in his graying hair, which was a source of irritation to Herod)9 that he was still strong in body and young in spirit. Herod’s emotional need to prove his manliness found expression not only in sporting competitions and hunting (as we shall see below) but also in his lusty sexual appetites, referred to earlier in the context of his marriage to Mariamme the Boethusian. As for possible opposition on the part of the Jewish public to his many wives, the reference to the example of the forefathers (see AJ XVII, 14) can be seen as implying that in the Second Temple era there were moral and communal reservations in this regard despite the fact that there was not yet an explicit, all-encompassing halachic rejection of the practice.10

Visit of Marcus Agrippa to Judaea (15 BCE) Herod’s great success in building the Temple, and the widespread support it earned him among his Jewish subjects, sparked a strong emotional need in him to bring a high-ranking Roman personality on an official visit to his kingdom to personally witness his monumental achievements. His wish was fulfilled with the royal visit in 15 BCE of his friend Marcus Agrippa, the son-in-law and close associate of Augustus. It is recounted that Herod dogged his footsteps during his trip through Asia, begging Marcus Agrippa to pay him the kindness of a special visit. This would afford him an opportunity not only to prove his great loyalty and friendship toward Rome but to publicly demonstrate his prestige through his close ties with a lofty Roman personage. It is almost certain that Herod housed him during his visit in the special wing of the royal palace – named Agrippeum in his honor – a gesture obviously intended to flatter him personally. It is unclear at what point exactly Herod changed the name of the small port of Anthedon north of Gaza to Agrippias (or Agrippium). This 9 10

See further on this below. Cf. Damascus Covenant (Rabin ed.), 4:20; and see the historical survey on polygamy by Friedman 1986, pp. 7–11; Schremer 2003, pp. 183 ff., esp. 197 ff. It appears that this was a frequent phenomenon in aristocratic circles. Monogamist tendencies were clearly evident within the Dead Sea Sect, as shown in the Damascus Document, and also in Christian circles; see Luke, 15:16; cf. Mathew, 19:9; Mark, 10:11; and see also Satlow 2001, p. 60; Schremer 2003, pp. 210 ff.

Visit of Marcus Agrippa to Judaea

249

may have been done to mark the occasion of Marcus Agrippa’s visit to Palestine, but it is just as likely that the renaming took place only upon his death three years later. Unfortunately, there is no indication either way in the writings of Josephus.11 Regarding the official, ceremonial nature of Marcus Agrippa’s visit, we have the following instructive passage from the writings of Philo Alexandreus. The excerpt, attributed to Herod’s grandson King Agrippa I (who was of course named after Marcus Agrippa), is part of his oration before the Emperor Gaius Caligula in 38 CE seeking to rescind the latter’s notorious edict that an enormous golden image of him be erected in the Temple (Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 294–297):12 [294] … When Marcus Agrippa … was in Judaea during the reign of my grandfather Herod, he immediately decided to travel up from the coast to the capital, which lies inland. [295] When he had gazed on the Temple and the dignity of the priests and the piety of the native population, he was filled with admiration and considered that he had seen something very solemn and quite incredible. His only topic of conversation with the friends who were with him at the time was praise for the Temple and everything connected with it. [296] At any rate, every day during the stay which he made in Jerusalem to please Herod, he visited the Temple court, enjoying the spectacle of the building, the ritual connected with the sacred services, and the solemnity surrounding the High Priest when he was arrayed in his sacred robes and officiated at the sacred rites. [297] He adorned the Temple with all such dedications as were permissible, and conferred all such benefits as could grant without doing harm. He and Herod exchanged innumerable compliments, and finally he was escorted as far as the harbour, not just by a single city but by the whole country, while branches were strewn on his path and his piety was a subject for admiration (translation by E. M. Smallwood).

By way of comparison, let us examine the words of Josephus as well (AJ XVI, 12–15): [12] When Herod … understood that Marcus Agrippa had sailed again out of Italy into Asia, he made haste to him, and besought him to come to him into his kingdom, and to partake of what he might justly expect from one that had been his guest, and was his friend. This request he greatly pressed, and to it Agrippa agreed, and came into Judea; whereupon Herod omitted nothing that might please him. [13] He entertained him in his new-built cities, and showed him the edifices he had built, and provided all sorts of the best and most costly dainties for him and his friends, and that at Sebaste and Cesarea, about that port that he had built, and at 11 12

On the change of names from Anthedon to Agrippias see: BJ I, 87, 118, 416: AJ XIII 357; Tcherikover 1959, p. 95; Jones 1940, p. 80; Kasher 1990, p. 198. This account is of great value, since Philo, who was a contemporary of King Agrippa I, most likely advised and assisted him in writing his address before the emperor’s tribunal; see Kasher 1986, p. 129, n. 399.

250

11. Return to Daily Reality amid New Tensions

the fortresses which he had erected at great expenses, Alexandrium, and Herodium, and Hyrcania. [14] He also conducted him to the city Jerusalem, where all the people met him in their festival garments, and received him with acclamations. Agrippa also offered a hecatomb of sacrifices to God; and feasted the people, without omitting any of the greatest dainties that could be gotten. [15] He also took so much pleasure there, that he abode many days with them, and would willingly have stayed longer, but that the season of the year made him make haste away; for as winter was coming on, he thought it not safe to go to sea later, and yet he was of necessity to return again to Ionia.13

Herod’s attempts at ingratiation were extremely obvious, reinforcing the conclusion that the visit was important to him as an opportunity to parade his achievements and impress the second highest figure in the Roman Empire. On the one hand, this represented a form of emotional “compensation” for his feelings of inferiority, and on the other, an overt manifestation of his megalomania as expressed in his desire to associate with the most important personages in the world. Herod did not take leave of his guest before “he had bestowed on him, and on the principal of those that were with him, many presents” (ibid., 16), behavior typical of an individual who sought to curry favor with his patrons at every opportunity. What is more, several months after their parting, he went to great trouble to meet Marcus Agrippa by surprise once more near Sinope on the Pontus as he was about to lead an expedition (which never took place) against a local usurper who had temporarily seized control of the kingdom of the Bosphorus.14 In the words of Josephus (ibid., 21–22): [21] … [Herod] was seen sailing by the ship-men most unexpectedly, but appeared to their great joy; and many friendly salutations there were between them, insomuch that Agrippa thought he had received the greatest marks of the king’s kindness and humanity towards him possible, since the king had come so long a voyage, and at a very proper season, for his assistance, and had left the government of his own dominions, and thought it more worth his while to come to him. [22] Accordingly, Herod was all in all to Agrippa, in the management of the war, and a great assistant in civil affairs, and in giving him counsel as to particular matters. He was also a pleasant companion for him when he relaxed himself, and a joint partaker with him in all things; ill troubles because of his kindness, and in prosperity because of the respect. 13

14

Regarding the visit of Marcus Agrippa to Jerusalem, see also the speech attributed to Nicolaus of Damascus before Agrippa’s tribunal in Ionia in 14 BCE, in defense of Jewish rights in the Greco-Roman Diaspora. He praised, inter alia, the close friendship between Rome and Herod, offering as an example the recent visit of Marcus Agrippa to Jerusalem (AJ XV, 48–56). Regarding this campaign and the unreliable information provided by Nicolaus in this regard, see Otto 1913, col. 75; Schalit 1969, pp. 424–425; cf. AJ XV, 16, 22–23.

Herod’s Aid to the Jews of Ionia, Asia Minor, and Cyrene

251

The preceding indicates how eagerly Herod sought to strengthen his ties with Marcus Agrippa since this could advance not only his own interests with the Emperor but perhaps also ensure his continued future standing and advancement if and when Marcus Agrippa were appointed to succeed the Emperor.15 Sycophancy and obsequiousness toward his patrons were a basic element of Herod’s personality, in direct proportion to his mistrust, hostility, and brutal tyranny of his subjects. One can only imagine what satisfaction it gave him to hear it said (so as to appease him) that “Caesar (i. e. the emperor) preferred no one to Herod besides Agrippa, and Agrippa made no one his greater friend than Herod besides Caesar” (AJ XV, 361). As we speculated above, such remarks were publicized with the encouragement of Herod himself and perhaps even upon his direct orders.16

Herod’s Aid to the Jews of Ionia, Asia Minor, and Cyrene (14 BCE) His friendship with Marcus Agrippa apparently served Herod as an effective tool for raising his standing in the Greek cities of Asia Minor as well, where he flaunted his wealth and the influence he carried with the highest echelons of the Roman Empire. After all, the former had recently been “succeed Caesar (Augustus) in the government of the countries beyond the Ionian Sea” (AJ XV, 349; see also above). Thus for example, when Herod passed together with Marcus Agrippa through Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, and Phrygia (in 14 BCE) en route to the city of Ephesus and from there by sea to Samos, he served as intercessor for petitioners before Marcus Agrippa, relaying requests with recommendations to speed their favorable resolution, thereby of course enhancing his own prestige in these places. In one case, he even effected a reconciliation between Marcus Agrippa and the citizens of Ilium (formerly Troy) in a personal dispute.17 15

16 17

It is worth noting in this context (AJ XV, 350) that Josephus described Marcus Agrippa as the one who “was sent to succeed Caesar (diádocov Kaísari) in the government of the countries beyond the Ionian Sea, i. e., Caesar’s deputy in the lands of the eastern Mediterranean basin; on his political standing, see: Yavetz 1988, p. 78. It appears that he had already been given the imperial signet ring in 24 BCE, indicating that he was considered the emperor’s successor. Cf. Wacholder 1962, p. 26. In one of the extant fragments of Nicolaus’ writings (Stern 1974, I. no. 95. pp. 246– 248), it is stated that Marcus Agrippa fined the citizens of Ilium 100,000 silver drachmas for not helping his wife cross the river Scamander in a storm. Owing to

252

11. Return to Daily Reality amid New Tensions

And in another instance, he settled the debts of the people of Chius to the imperial procurators, arranging as well that they be exempt from certain taxes and assisting them in other ways to the extent that he was able (AJ XVI, 23–26). Through all of these actions, he wished to create the impression that he shared equal standing with the most powerful figures of the Empire and hence was able to associate freely with them and wield influence in practical matters. In our opinion, these accomplishments served, as stated, as an emotional “compensation” of sorts for Herod’s sense of inferiority, and at the same time, an undeniable display of his grandiose pretensions. The close friendship between Herod and Marcus Agrippa found unique expression in the tribunal (at which the latter presided) concerning the rights of the Jews in the Hellenist cities of Ionia, Asia Minor, and Cyrene.18 Josephus’ account (AJ XVI, 30) indicates that it was only by virtue of Herod’s intervention that Marcus Agrippa convened a special session of the court (synedrion) headed by him, which was made up of “the principal of the Romans, and such of the kings and rulers as were there, to be his assessors.” Owing solely to Herod’s presence alongside Marcus Agrippa, the Jews found the courage to lodge a formal complaint against their mistreatment by the Hellenist cities (ibid., 27). Later in the text, it is stated explicitly that Agrippa granted the Jews’ demands which “seemed just in themselves” (ibid., 60). Regrettably, no identifying information concerning the members of the court is provided, but presumably these included Herod himself and his relative by marriage, Archelaus Philopatris king of Cappadocia, whose daughter Glaphyra was married to Alexander, Herod’s son by Mariamme the Hasmonaean. The composition of the court in effect determined the outcome of the trial beforehand, but the “show” was conducted with full attention to every legal detail and was even given widespread publicity. Herod made available to the Jews as their legal representative his close advisor Nicolaus of Damascus, who proved himself a seasoned advocate well versed in the art of judicial rhetoric. The latter succeeded in influencing the court to conduct a “trial in miniature,” at which Nicolaus’ key argument was that the Hellenist

18

the glorious past of the city, Nicolaus asked Herod to petition Marcus Agrippa to forgive them. Eventually, he succeeded on their behalf, and as a result, was greatly honored by the people of Illium. No doubt, Herod’s reputation grew throughout the Greco-Roman world, since he had come to the aid of one of the most famous cities in Greek mythology. AJ XVI, 27–65; cf. ibid., XII, 125–127; see in detail Kasher 1996a, pp. xv–xxii; Pucci-Ben Zeev 1998, pp. 223 ff.; on Nicolaus’ impressive rhetorical skills at this hearing, see also Landau 2003, pp. 190–192.

Herod’s Aid to the Jews of Ionia, Asia Minor, and Cyrene

253

cities did not have the legal authority to deprive the Jews of rights not conferred by them. The fact that they had done so was presented by him as a severe strike against the sovereign authority of Rome, since both the granting and rescinding of rights fell under the sole jurisdiction of the Roman emperor and had not been transferred to any other authority (ibid., 32–34, 47–48). A resounding legal victory was achieved, with far-reaching implications for every Jew in the Roman Empire.19 This of course greatly enhanced Herod’s prestige among the Jews of the Diaspora and indirectly even the non-Jewish population, which, having conspired to strip the Jews of their rights and been a party to the trial, now experienced firsthand the enormous influence of Herod. One of the most significant aspects of this episode was the fact that, upon his return to Jerusalem, Herod convened a well-attended people’s assembly at which he “gave them a particular account of all his journey, and of the affairs of all the Jews in Asia, how by his means they would live without injurious treatment for the time to come” (ibid., 63). On this same occasion, moreover, he sought to win over the public by a decision which “remitted to them the fourth part of their taxes for the last year” (ibid., 64). The fact that the people were pleased with his speech and his benevolence, and dispersed with much joy, wishing the king every happiness (ibid., 64), gave him great satisfaction and was obviously a major emotional “compensation” for him. Herod’s speech before the people’s assembly was presumably in keeping with the finest rhetorical tradition, as learned from his teacher Nicolaus; unfortunately, however, it is not cited directly. Josephus only notes the remarkable enthusiasm of the listeners, which was not necessarily due to the reduction in taxes. This success greatly elevated Herod’s spirits to the point of genuine euphoria, particularly since such occurrences were a rarity in his life. It seems that Herod also derived great benefit from defending the rights of the Jews throughout the Empire, for several reasons: (a) he ensured a steady source of donations to the Temple, 20 which helped 19

20

Two years later (12 BCE), Augustus promulgated a special edict as well as a number of epistolary decrees regarding Jewish rights in Asia Minor and Libya near Cyrene (AJ XVI, 160–173; Philo, Legatio ad Gaium, 315–316. We learn from Josephus’ account that further imperial orders concerning Jewish rights there were issued until Herod’s death; see the recent historical analysis by Pucci-Ben Zeev 1998, pp. 233–293. To compare the scope of the contributions and their sources, see Cicero’s speech in defense of Flaccus, the Roman governor of Asia Minor (59 BCE); Cicero, Pro Flacco 28; Levy 1960, pp. 59 ff. esp. 89; Stern 1974, I, pp. 196–201. For further information on the donations of Diaspora Jews to the Jerusalem Temple, see: Isaac 1983,

254

11. Return to Daily Reality amid New Tensions

a great deal in maintaining the kingdom, financing his construction projects, and indirectly, providing a livelihood for his subjects; (b) he managed to blunt some of the internal Jewish criticism against him; (c) he increased his global prestige since, by defending the Jews of the Diaspora, he could be considered “king of the Jews” everywhere and not only within the boundaries of his kingdom; moreover, his actions earned him international recognition, chiefly from the Emperor and his second in command (Marcus Agrippa). In fact, from this perspective alone, he could be likened in stature to the rulers of the Hasmonaean dynasty, who, by virtue of their status as “ethnarchs” and “kings” (i. e., heads of the Jewish nation), were considered by the Roman authorities as formally entitled to defend the rights of the Jews in the Diaspora as well.21 As far as he himself was concerned, this was enough to establish his legitimacy as “king of the Jews,” which in our opinion was one of his primary reasons for convening the people’s assembly in Jerusalem at which he reported on his achievements. Of course, he also had an emotional need to hear the public declarations of gratitude and praise for his actions, and to savor the expressions of joy and good wishes from his subjects.

Negative Impact of Salome and Pheroras on Herod Despite his great success, however, it is as if Herod embodied the Hebrew phrase “from the greatest heights to the lowest depths”; for not long after he returned to Jerusalem from Asia Minor (in the autumn of 14 BCE) – at the very pinnacle of his achievement and with no visible or realistic threat to his standing – the greatest tragedy of his life began to unfold in all its twisted severity. His Paranoid Personality Disorder, which had lain dormant, as it were, 22 leaving him in a state

21

22

pp. 86–92; Roth-Gerson 1987, pp. 76–86; Pastor 1997, p. 162. The devotion of Diaspora Jews to Jerusalem was expressed not only in their defense of the right to attend the holy festivals, but in preparing and safeguarding the routes used by the pilgrims; arranging their accommodation; providing money-changing services; and making individual offerings available to all (most likely the so-called twysdrh {ynwy [Herodian doves], namely, domestic doves raised in captivity); see Safrai 1965, passim; Schürer 1973, I, p. 310 and n. 77; Oren 1965, pp. 356–362; Zeligman 1970, pp. 70–73; Tepper 1986, pp. 170–196; Zissu 1999, pp. 100–106; Kloner 2000, pp. 113–115. The first Hasmonaean to earn this title was Simeon; see Stern 1965, pp. 132–135. On John Hyrcanus I and John Hyrcanus II, see Pucci-Ben Zeev 1998, pp. 40–41, 49–50, 65–66, 148. As Robins & Post so aptly observed (1997, p. 67): “Paranoia dozes but never sleeps.”

Negative Impact of Salome and Pheroras on Herod

255

of comparative equilibrium, suddenly flared up in response to intense and continual provocations on the part of his close family members, who had a vested interest in his illness. In the version in BJ I, 431–432, Josephus notes at one point (writing out of sequence, that is, prior to the account of the conflict with his Hasmonaean sons): [431] But, in revenge for his public prosperity, fortune visited Herod with troubles at home; his ill-fated career originated with a woman to whom he was passionately attached. [432] For, on ascending the throne, he had dismissed the wife whom he had taken when he was still a commoner, a native of Jerusalem names Doris, and married Mariamme, daughter of Alexander, the son of Aristobulus. It was she who brought into his house the discord, which, beginning at an earlier date, was greatly aggravated after his return from Rome.

The preceding undoubtedly reflects a sympathetic source that tried to absolve Herod of all responsibility for the calamities that befell his sons and to present him as a victim who was drawn by fate into this great tragedy. 23 It is nonetheless undeniable that Josephus’ account in AJ XVI, 66 presents a different truth, according to which it was both Herod’s and Salome’s paranoid personality disorder that was the primary cause of his tragedy and that of his family. [66] But now the affairs in Herod’s family were in more and more disorder, and became more severe upon him, by the hatred of Salome to the young men [Alexander and Aristobulus], which descended as it were by inheritance [from their mother Mariamne]; and as she had fully succeeded against their mother, so she proceeded to that degree of madness (Àpónoia)24 and insolence or auducity (qrásov)25, as to endeavor that none of her posterity might be left alive, who might have it in their power to revenge her death.

It emerges clearly from the above that Salome’s hatred toward the Hasmonaean dynasty, like that of her brother Herod, was obsessive to the point of “madness.” Ultimately, she fanned the flames of his hatred, fueled the mistrust and doubts that tormented him, and helped reinforce his feeling that there were others who shared his way of thinking. It is hard to know if Salome too suffered from emotional 23 24

25

Even Schalit (1969, pp. 563 ff.) was inclined to accept Josephus’ presentation (based on Nicolaus) of Mariamme as “Die Wurzel des Übels.” The Greek term is made up of two elements: Àpò (“beyond”); and nóov (“knowledge”, “wisdom”, or “understanding”). Accordingly, the combination of both words denotes “lunacy”, “madness”, or “loss of reason”; sometimes even “desperation”; see Liddell & Scott, p. 211. The Greek term refers to boldness in the negative sense, namely, excessive audacity to the point of insolence, rashness; see Liddell & Scott, p. 804.

256

11. Return to Daily Reality amid New Tensions

disturbances such as Paranoid Personality Disorder. This is of course a rather tempting notion;26 but we do not possess sufficient biographical material to pursue this possibility, thereby consigning it to the realm of speculation. Contrary to the account in BJ, it is obvious from the outset that Nicolaus of Damascus wished to place the major blame for her brother’s “madness” or renewed emotional turmoil squarely on Salome’s shoulders. In this way, he sought to “vindicate” his master, at least to some extent, so that he could present him as an innocent victim of the devious machinations of his sister, which she had already demonstrated on past occasions. It was Salome who succeeded in bringing about the execution of her first husband, Joseph, through the false accusation of adultery with Mariamme (34 BCE). Several years later, it was also she who caused the death of her hated sister-in-law Mariamme based on a similar groundless accusation of adultery with Samaias the Iturean, her bodyguard. What is more, she fabricated a conspiracy by Mariamme to poison Herod (29 BCE) and later planted in his mind suspicions against his sons following their return to Jerusalem from Rome (17/16 BCE). Initially, Herod contented himself with banishing his sons for a time due to the pressures of his situation. After all, he was preoccupied with the state visit of Marcus Agrippa in Judaea and Jerusalem (15 BCE) and the subsequent meeting with him in Asia Minor. Later, the great legal struggle on behalf of the Jews residing in the Hellenist cities there and in Ionia and Cyrene (14 BCE) captured his attention (in addition to that of the Jewish people in both Judaea and the Diaspora). It seems that his absence from Jerusalem was exploited by Salome to enlist an important ally in her schemes – none other than her younger brother Pheroras. The pair incited the Jerusalem populace, fomenting tensions that ultimately pushed Herod in the direction they wanted not long after his return from Asia Minor. Their sly manipulations no longer rested on such banal arguments as condescension and contempt on the part of the Hasmonaeans toward the Herodian family but on much more serious and pointed accusations involving behavior that was highly damaging politically – specifically, the sons’ desire to take revenge on Herod for the death of their mother, and the instigation by them of conspiracies to remove him from the throne. 26

On the negative character of Salome, see Macurdy 1937, pp. 69–77; however, Kokkinos (1998, p. 177, n. 2) believed that this was an exaggerated depiction. Regrettably, no one to date has examined the possibility that Salome might have suffered, like her brother, from Paranoid Personality Disorder.

Negative Impact of Salome and Pheroras on Herod

257

Through deliberate provocations and the spreading of gossip based on half-truths, Salome and Pheroras not only created false tension but trapped the Hasmonaean brothers into harsh statements against their father that were blown out of all proportion. With this in mind, they took advantage of the boys’ naiveté stemming from their youth and political inexperience (AJ XVI, 66 ff.). The crafty slanderers launched their attack immediately after Herod convened the great people’s assembly in Jerusalem to report on his achievements on behalf of the Jews of the Diaspora. The following passage (AJ XVI, 73–75) sheds light on their methods: [73] … Pheroras and Salome let fall words immediately as if he were in great danger, and as if the young men openly threatened that they would not spare him any longer, but revenge their mother’s death upon him. [74] They also added another circumstance, that their hopes were fixed on Archelaus, the king of Cappadocia, that they should be able by his means to come to Caesar, and accuse their father. [75] Upon hearing such things, Herod was immediately disturbed; and indeed was the more astonished, because the same things were related to him by some others also. He then called to mind his former calamity, and considered that the disorders in his family had hindered him from enjoying any comfort from those that were dearest to him or from his wife whom he loved so well; and suspecting that his future troubles would soon be heavier and greater than those that were past, he was in great confusion of mind. 27

It is apparent from between the lines that Salome and Pheroras indeed succeeded in alarming Herod, particularly since the involvement of Archelaus king of Cappadocia appeared entirely plausible to him, given the situation, and hence extremely dangerous. The fact that Herod was “in great confusion of mind” (Èn sugcoúsei têv yucêv Ên) resulted from the great fear and distress that struck him without warning, presumably heightening his sense of persecution. Moreover, his own awareness of the vicissitudes of his life, which seesawed tortuously between dizzying successes in foreign affairs and great tragedies within his own family, added a special dimension to his doubts, his anguish, and his emotional turmoil (ibid., 76–77). Under these circumstances, he came to a decision to invite his oldest son Antipater from his first wife Doris to return to Jerusalem, if only to subtly threaten his Hasmonaean sons, as recounted below (ibid., 78): 27

Cf. BJ I, 447–448. In this abbreviated version, no mention is made of Pheroras or Salome. Moreover, only one Hasmonean brother is mentioned, namely, Alexander the son-in-law of Archelaus Philopatris King of Cappadocia. According to this version, Alexander intended to run away to Rome to impugn Herod before the emperor, a claim that is incompatible with the narrative of AJ.

258

11. Return to Daily Reality amid New Tensions

As he was thus disturbed and afflicted (tarasaómenov dè kaì diakeímenov tòn trópon), 28 in order to depress these young men, he brought to court another of his sons, that was born to him when he was a private man (genómeenon Ìdiwteúont); his name was Antipatros; for this bold behavior of theirs [he thought] would not be so great, if they were once persuaded that the succession to the kingdom did not appertain to them alone, or must of necessity come to them, So he introduced Antipater as their antagonist, and imagined that he made a good provision for discouraging their pride, and that after this was done to the young men, there might be a proper season for expecting these to be of a better disposition. Whereas in 17/16 BCE Herod had still repressed the existence of any threat on the part of his Hasmonaean sons, even appearing to disregard the danger that they posed, by late 14 BCE he was starting to pay heed to the direct and persistent warnings of Salome and Pheroras, who made use of deliberate rumors spread by people acting at their behest and relayed to Herod the blatant public statements of the Hasmonaean princes (AJ XVI, 67–69; BJ I, 447–448).

28

In BJ I, 448 there is no dramatic emphasis (as in AJ XVI, 75–78) on Herod’s “great confusion of mind” (sugcúsei tÄv yucêv nor on his being “disturbed and afflicted” (tarassómenov dè kaì diakeímenov tòn trópon toûton). It is not clear whether the difference between the versions on this point resulted from the more concise nature of the account in BJ or from a deliberate literary variation introduced by Josephus.

Chapter 12 A Turn for the Worse at Home and Continued Activity Abroad (14–10 BCE) Antipater Deepens the Rift between Herod and his Hasmonaean Sons Herod’s emotional distress had already reached the point where he was having difficulty controlling his fears. Initially, this was evident in his use of manipulative and deceitful methods to exert control over the major protagonists in his life.1 Notable among these acts was the decision to invite his firstborn son Antipater to Jerusalem and honor him in a demonstrative fashion (AJ XVI, 78–80): [78] … but rather with a design of depressing the insolence of the sons of Mariamne, and managing this elevation of his so, that it might be for a warning to them; [79] for this bold behavior of theirs [he thought] would not be so great, if they were once persuaded that the succession to the kingdom did not appertain to them alone, or must of necessity come to them. [80] So he introduced Antipater as their antagonist, and imagined that he made a good provision for discouraging their pride, and that after this was done to the young men, there might be a proper season for expecting these to be of a better disposition. 2

As in other instances, however, events were to prove that manipulation can be a two-edged sword. The wily and ambitious Antipater geared for battle and managed to steer the course of events in unexpected directions, even surpassing Salome and Pheroras in his craftiness. This was demonstrated immediately after Herod presented him to Marcus Agrippa at their second(?) meeting in Asia Minor (13 BCE; see Richardson, 1996, p. xix). Moreover, it is recounted in the same 1 2

On the tendency of paranoid individuals to manipulate in such a manner, see Bonime 1982, pp. 556–574. In the parallel version in BJ I, 448 it is stated that Antipater was invited by Herod to Jerusalem in order to be “a defense (Èpi teícisma) to him against his other sons.” On the metaphorical significance of the Greek term, which can also be understood as a “barrier” or a “bulwark,” see Liddell & Scott, p. 664.

260

12. A Turn for the Worse

context that Herod also requested of his powerful Roman friend that he personally present Antipater to the Emperor in Rome so that he might earn the status of “friend of the Emperor” (Kaísari fílon); toward this end, he equipped his son with letters of praise and recommendation addressed to the Emperor and all his friends in Rome. This did in fact enhance Antipater’s prestige and boost his political “stock” as a potential successor to the royal crown (AJ XVI, 85–87). The version in War (I, 451), by contrast, notes simply: For both in his father’s will,3 and by public acts he was now declared to be the heir; thus, when he was sent on an embassy to Caesar, he went as a prince, with the robes and all the ceremonial of royalty except for the diadem.4

While Antipater regretted his absence from the scene of events in Jerusalem (AJ XVI, 88), he contented himself with convincing his father to return his mother Doris to the royal palace (ibid., 85). In the opinion of Richardson (p. 34), Doris regained full rights as wife of the king by this action; but it should not be understood as restoring her official status as queen, which would have made her son the formal successor to the throne. Future developments were to show clearly that this was not the case. 5 Antipater hoped at the time to bolster his standing in Jerusalem through the presence of his mother, even without being there physically. Seeking to extend his political influence while still residing in Rome, he inundated his father with letters slandering his two Hasmonaean brothers, who were purportedly conspiring to take over the throne (ibid., 87–89), as follows (ibid., 90): And thus he (i. e. Antipater) did till he had excited such a degree of anger in Herod, that he was already become very ill-disposed towards the young men; but still while he delayed to exercise so violent a disgust against them, and that he might not either be too remiss or too rash, and so offend, he thought it best to sail to Rome, and there accuse his sons before Caesar (Augustus), and not indulge himself in any such crime as might be heinous enough to be suspected of impiety.6

Signs of an imminent attack of paranoia were obvious in Herod’s furious response – despite the fact that the information that reached him 3 4 5 6

This is Herod’s second will; see Hoehner 1972, p. 271; Richardson 1996, p. 34. This recalls Herod’s first visit to Rhodes, when he presented himself in full royal attire but without a crown. Richardson 1996, p. 34; cf. also below, pp. 257–258. No doubt, Herod came to this decision owing to the well-considered advice of Nicolaus, his chief advisor. The latter did not believe the malicious rumors against the Hasmonaean brothers (a point that will be discussed below), and was even confident that Herod’s meeting with the Emperor would change his mind. His journey to Rome took place shortly thereafter, in 12 BCE (see note 7).

Antipater Deepens the Rift between Herod and his Hasmonaean Sons

261

was based on nothing more than gossip, which he did not bother to verify and for which he found no genuine supporting evidence in any event. The version in AJ XVI, 91–99 notes that his rage and suspicion grew to such an extent that he sailed with his sons to Rome and met with Augustus at Aquilea (12 BCE),7 where he brought them before the Emperor and accused them of insolence and conspiracy to murder him and seize the throne. As Josephus described it, Herod presented a pathos-laden tale of unending emotional distress as a result of his sons’ hatred. At the same time, he enumerated with sanctimonious rhetorical shrewdness all of the kindnesses he had bestowed upon them as part of his obligations as father and king. Josephus does not actually quote Herod’s accusatory speech but only relays its content; however the inclusion of three rhetorical questions, together with the dramatic style of writing (AJ XVI, 91–99), give reason to think that he read the speech in the writings of Nicolaus and even borrowed phrases from it.8 At the end of the speech, as rendered by Josephus, Herod boasted that, although he had been capable of acting impulsively against his sons, he had instead chosen to bring them to Rome to stand with him before Augustus, “and had presented himself for judgment on an equal footing (Ìsotimía) with them” (ibid., 98; trans. by Marcus & Wikgren). However, despite this so-called “gallantry,” he also made a point of stating that “it was necessary that all this should not be passed over without punishment, nor himself live in the greatest fears” (ibid., 99). This argument was almost certainly a sly maneuver on the part of Nicolaus, who, as stated, did not himself believe the accusations against the sons and hoped that the caution and wisdom of the Emperor would resolve the problems and give Herod a graceful way out. The preceding only proves the depth of Herod’s fear, and of course his acute sense of persecution and the total absence of shame at exposing himself before the Emperor. He addressed Augustus with great fervor, which, according to Josephus’ theatrical description, caused even the sons themselves to “choke up” with such great distress and emotion that they burst into heart-rending wails (ibid., 100). The reason suggested for their anguish was no less dramatic, for it emphasized the basic difficulty of the boys in defending themselves against the accusations of their father and their fear lest a verbal response be 7 8

For details on the journey to Rome, see Schürer 1973, I, p. 250, and cf. Kokkinos 1998, pp. 371–372, § 4. Wacholder (1962, pp. 30–32) even thought that Nicolaus accompanied him as an advisor in his appearance before the emperor.

262

12. A Turn for the Worse

interpreted as proof of a guilty conscience, for “they were sensible, as the truth was, that it was hard for them to make their apology, since though they were at liberty to speak their minds freely as the occasion required, and might with force and earnestness refute the accusation, yet was it not now decent so to do. There was therefore a difficulty how they should be able to speak” (ibid., 101). Apparently, this was the true reason for their helplessness and the bitter tears that followed (ibid., 102). Paradoxically, the depiction of their confusion and distress actually offers a more fitting explanation for the emotional state of Herod himself; otherwise, the Emperor would not have been persuaded of their innocence.9 In the assessment of Augustus himself, the youthful age of the sibling-princes, their lack of experience, their modesty, hesitation and the panic that assailed them at the gravity of the occasion, were plausible reasons for their emotional behavior. He was inclined not only to believe in their innocence but also to understand their tragic situation, which aroused his pity toward them, as it did all those assembled. According to the account, even Herod himself was shaken by the poignant appearance of his sons and the reaction of those present, to the point where “he was seized by a genuine affection” (ibid., 103; trans. Marcus & Wikgren). Josephus’ words testify clearly that the source upon which he relied, namely Nicolaus, was also convinced of their innocence;10 had this not been the case, he would not have made explicit reference to “his [Herod’s] habitual and hasty use of force” (ibid., 101; trans. idem; cf. also Schalit, ad loc.). These last words can also be indicative of Herod’s loss of control, his constant acts of violence, and his impulsive tendencies – traits that stemmed, in our opinion, from his Paranoid Personality Disorder. Moreover, the radical turnaround in his behavior (in both the personal and political spheres), together with his sharp mood swings from vindictive rage to sentimental conciliation, are linked to his ambivalent and emotionally loaded relations with those close to him, and to his cyclothymic tendencies. These extreme shifts in behavior, which reflected the sudden, drastic changes in his mood and policies, were to repeat themselves 9

10

AJ XVI, 103; cf. also 121, 125. Fenn (1992, p. 58) is therefore correct in asserting that the blame in this case did not lie with Herod or his sons but with the accusation per se; in other words, he actually hinted at Herod’s paranoid disorder. Cf. Wacholder 1962, pp. 5 ff., 13 ff. This is further supported by the fragment of Nicolaus that survived in the writings of the Byzantine Emperor Constantinus Porphyrogenitus (Stern 1974, I, no. 95, pp. 246–248). It is important to note here that Nicolaus tried to present Herod as being in a state of confusion (Ètarácqh).

Antipater Deepens the Rift between Herod and his Hasmonaean Sons

263

several times in his life. As we shall see below, it is only at Herod’s urging that Nicolaus was forced to adopt, at least outwardly, the “official” claim that the Hasmonaean princes sought to exact vengeance from Herod for the death of their mother. Did he have any other choice as the faithful and obedient servant of the king? In our opinion, this rhetorical question can explain his dramatic presentation of the events in question. The grandiloquent address attributed here to Alexander, the older of the two sons, is truly a masterpiece of oration that demonstrates the literary talents of Nicolaus of Damascus and perhaps also of Josephus himself as the redactor of his words (AJ XVI, 105–120). The speech makes use of every possible dialectic ploy to attest that the very fact of the hearing before the Emperor offers proof, as surprising as it sounds, of Herod’s love for his sons. But the most important statement in the address is: “nothing can hinder him that reigns, if he have children, and their mother be dead, but the father may have a suspicion upon all his sons” (ibid., 110). This sentence was uttered in a direct and courageous appeal by Alexander to his father in the presence of the Emperor and other notables. He categorically denied the accusation against himself and his brother, arguing that it was implausible in every respect and that Herod had simply erred in allowing himself to be carried away by libels and false rumors. Finally, he leveled the following words at his father (ibid., 117–120): [117] But in case thou neither findest any causes of complaint, nor any treacherous designs, what sufficient evidence hast thou to make such a wickedness of ours credible? Our mother is dead indeed, but then what befell her might be an instruction to us to caution, and not an incitement to wickedness. [118] We are willing to make a larger apology for ourselves; but actions never done do not admit of discourse. Nay, we will make this agreement with thee, and that before Caesar, the lord of all, who is now a mediator between us, [119] If thou, O father, canst bring thyself, by the evidence of truth, to have a mind free from suspicion concerning us let us live, though even then we shall live in an unhappy way, for to be accused of great acts of wickedness, though falsely, is a terrible thing; [120] but if thou hast any fear remaining, continue thou on in thy pious life, we will give this reason for our own conduct; our life is not so desirable to us as to desire to have it, if it tend to the harm of our father who gave it us.

The importance of the speech lies, first and foremost, in the fact that criticism was directed against Herod in public and in the presence of the Emperor and his circle, who had convened to hear the parties as would a tribunal – not to mention the fact that the deafening silence at the conclusion of the address was a tacit form of consent. Josephus

264

12. A Turn for the Worse

goes on to say that “Caesar, who did not before believe so gross a calumny, was still more moved by it, and looked intently upon Herod, and perceived he was a little confounded” (ibid., 121). Obviously, the very fact that Herod did not react verbally to the harsh and honest words of his son calls for further explanation; indeed, Josephus’ words here speak for themselves: “and the king himself appeared not to have had foundation enough to build such an accusation upon, he having no real evidence wherewith to correct them” (ibid., 123). Josephus’ highly dramatic account confirms the assessment that the intensity of Herod’s obsessive and paranoid fear of conspiracies on the part of his sons brought him close to the point of unbearable emotional distress and a loss of self-control. The hearing and the compromise achieved at Aquilea under the guidance of the Emperor can be thought of as a “shock treatment” of sorts by an authoritative figure since Herod responded with an immediate willingness to accept upon himself whatever the Emperor ordered. But in truth it appears that his paranoid urges were restrained only temporarily, restoring him in the meantime to his previous state of equilibrium. In BJ I, 455, it is stated clearly that in fact Herod did not abandon his suspicions of his sons; rather, it was only his fear of the person who had initiated the rapprochement (i. e., the Emperor) that prevented him from revealing his true feelings. In other words, this fear, along with the compromise agreement imposed by the Emperor, offered Herod a way to save face, at least for the time being (AJ XVI, 129): … and as to his own kingdom, he (the Emperor) left it in his own power to appoint which of his sons he pleased for his successor, or to distribute it in parts to every one, that the dignity might thereby come to them all. And when Herod was disposed to make such a settlement immediately, Caesar said he would not give him leave to deprive himself, while he was alive, of the power over his kingdom, or over his sons.

Indeed, this was a wise solution and a graceful way out for all involved, based on the mistaken assumption that the strained relationships in Herod’s royal court would improve since, logically, it would be inconceivable to disobey the political dictates of the Emperor. In practice, however, the immediate consequence (in terms of Herod’s Paranoid Personality Disorder) was merely a temporary state of calm, as we shall see below. Although it appears at first glance that the more concise parallel text in BJ I, 451–454 contributes little in this instance, and that the inconsistencies between the two versions can be explained (as in numerous other cases) by the terse writing style in BJ it is important to stress

Antipater Deepens the Rift between Herod and his Hasmonaean Sons

265

that it is actually this version that offers a more extreme depiction of Herod’s behavior by suggesting that even prior to presenting himself before Augustus in Aquilea, Herod had already come to a decision to have his sons executed as soon as possible. It further emerges, according to BJ, that he took only his son Alexander with him to Rome, with the aim of accusing him before Augustus of attempting to poison him. In this version, Alexander acted like a true man of breeding, on the one hand seeking to cover up his father’s shortcomings,11 and on the other to vehemently reject the accusations leveled against himself and his brother while placing full responsibility on his step-brother Antipater.12 Regarding Alexander’s speech, it is recounted that he was particularly impressive in his statement that if there were even a grain of truth to the charge against him and his brother, his father would be entitled to execute them. It was the sincerity of his words that convinced his audience and even brought them to the point of tears. Augustus as well finally recognized their innocence and hastened to excuse them of all charges, even forcing Herod to make peace with them then and there.13 According to the conciliation agreement signed in the presence of the Emperor, the sons undertook to obey their father in all things, while Herod retained the exclusive right to determine his successors as he saw fit.14 It is quite obvious that both accounts were written, at least in this instance, out of a basic sense of support for the Hasmonaean brothers. Even BJ, which is generally characterized by an anti-Hasmonaean stance, did not attempt to conceal this, and the reason is self-evident: The Hasmonaean brothers won the undisguised sympathy of the Emperor himself in this case! Not to mention the fact that the primary source of the two accounts, Nicolaus of Damascus, was certain of 11 12

13 14

In Greek tà Ámartämata, a term which could denote “failures,” “faults,” or “sinful actions”; see Liddell & Scott, p. 77. This last point is explored in detail in Antiquities. It is important to reiterate that not only was Nicolaus convinced that the primary blame lay on Antipater’s shoulders but he considered him to be his personal enemy. The impression that arises from Josephus’ account is that Herod did not heed Nicolaus’ advice that he avoid executing his sons but only incarcerate them (based on his assumption that their innocence would be revealed in due time); however it was Antipater who urged his father on, and this was the source of the enmity between him and Nicolaus; see more in Stern 1974, no. 97. On similar instances of conciliation in the history of the Roman Empire see: Millar 1964, pp. 214–218. It is perhaps at this point that Herod wrote his third will (12 BCE), see BJ I, 454, 457–466; AJ XVI, 127–129, 132–139; Richardson 1996, p. 35. Regarding the political motives behind this will, see below.

266

12. A Turn for the Worse

their innocence. Their “sin” is therefore confined in this version to an insufficient degree of caution and restraint since they were too impetuous in their speech, like the hot-headed, inexperienced young people that they were.15 According to AJ XVI, 127–129, the reconciliation was much more touching and dramatic, especially given the fact that the “orchestrator” of the event was none other than the Emperor himself (ibid., 121–126). The “show” began with his directing a piercing glance at Herod during Alexander’s speech, causing him great discomfort. After a brief interval, he openly expressed his opinion that “although the young men were thoroughly innocent of that for which they were calumniated, yet had they been so far to blame, that they had not demeaned themselves towards their father so as to prevent that suspicion which was spread abroad concerning them” (ibid., 124). In doing so, he in effect gave Herod a “way out” of his accusations since, as recounted, Herod himself “wanted some apology for making the accusation” (ibid., 123). The successful “staging” could be seen even in the fact that after the Emperor “had given them this admonition, he beckoned to the young men … (and) they were disposed to fall down to make intercession to their father” (ibid., 126) Following this, as one would expect in such a dramatic scene, Herod lifted them up, took them into his arms, and embraced them (ibid.). For how could he have refused him, and avoided doing what the occasion demanded?16 Herod’s appreciation for the Emperor’s efforts to make peace in his family, like his gratitude for the royal hospitality in the magnificent imperial palace in Rome, was expressed in a display of immediate, fawning obeisance17 and a gift of 33 talents of silver to finance just one of the “shows and largesses” in the name of the Emperor for the people of Rome (ibid., 128).18 Indeed, a typical Herodian reaction! 15

16 17

18

See BJ I, 468. Actually, this notion appears in AJ XVI 69, 102, 207 as well; cf. also Schalit 1969, pp. 588 ff. However, we take issue with Schalit’s position that the major offense of the two sons lay in their Hasmonaean arrogance toward their Idumaean father. Such an argument is not persuasive since it is inconsistent with the atmosphere of conciliation, not to mention the fact that there is no mention of it in the sources. The melodramatic description adds further support to the conclusion that Nicolaus was present on this occasion, meaning that his was a firsthand account. When the emperor gave him a free hand to choose his successor, Herod wished to act immediately; but Augustus himself prevented him from doing so as this would have diminished his authority while still alive (§ 129). Since this advice seems almost too prescient, given future events, the simpler version in BJ I, 454 seems more reliable in this case, as stated above. He was no doubt familiar with the use of Panem et Circenses as a means of placating the Roman masses (cf. Ivenalis, Satirae, 19, 80–81). Apparently the sum of

Antipater Deepens the Rift between Herod and his Hasmonaean Sons

267

In BJ I, 455 it is noted explicitly (as emphasized earlier) that Herod appeared outwardly as if he no longer harbored suspicions accusations against his sons, although in truth he had not abandoned his doubts. Josephus states unequivocally that it was only Herod’s fear of the initiator of the reconciliation, the Emperor Augustus, that prevented him from openly revealing his animosity and continuing mistrust. Stated otherwise, his Paranoid Personality Disorder was only temporarily contained, and was liable to resurface as a result of other provocations in future. From the parallel description of events following the reconciliation in Rome (in BJ I, 455–466 and AJ XVI, 130–135), we can see that, surprisingly enough, it is actually the version in War that is the longer and more detailed of the two. But since there are no fundamental contradictions or inconsistencies between them, it is possible to reconstruct the events in question quite easily and to observe how one version complements the other. BJ opens with an account of Herod’s meeting with his relative by marriage, Archelaus Philopatris king of Cappadocia, en route to Jerusalem through Asia Minor, and one receives the impression that this encounter played no small role in his restraint. The reason is clear: Herod thought highly of Archelaus since he was well aware of his contacts and influence in Rome. These were demonstrated rather tellingly in the legal proceeding between Herod and his sons, for Archelaus did much at the time to remove any doubt in the minds of the Emperor and his inner circle regarding the accusations against the Hasmonaean princes. At their subsequent meeting in Cilicia, Archelaus welcomed Herod warmly and exchanged personal gifts with him, as was the accepted practice. The former expressed great satisfaction at the reconciliation, and was particularly pleased that his son-in-law Alexander had been absolved of all suspicion. His special journey from Cappadocia to Cilicia to meet Herod was meant to curry favor with him; for this same reason, he also went to the trouble of accompanying him to the port city of Zephyrium in southern Cilicia, from where he sailed back to his country. Indeed, these honors flattered Herod greatly, proved his acceptability, and served as an additional “compensation” of sorts for his distress over the entire episode. money allocated to this spectacle was equal to Herod’s share of the revenues from the imperial mines of Cyprus, which had only just been granted to him by Augustus. For details, see Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, p. 257, n. c; Gabba 1990, p. 163 and n. 15; Pastor 1967, p. 108.

268

12. A Turn for the Worse

Upon his arrival in Jerusalem, Herod immediately convened a people’s assembly at the Temple,19 where he publicly presented his three sons (Antipater, Alexander, and Aristobulus). After opening his address with an apology for his absence due to his journey to Rome and Ionia, he gave thanks to God and the Emperor for the reconciliation and called special attention to the Emperor’s role in the unification of his family, which he considered more important than even the kingdom itself. Such a statement ascribed to Herod obviously sounds like fawning, insincere sanctimony aimed at deriving the maximum benefit for himself. And in truth, the primary purpose of the people’s assembly was to publicly report on the accomplishments of his trip to Rome, and in particular to highlight the Emperor’s affection for him as well as “many of the particulars he had done as he thought it for his advantage other people should be acquainted with” (AJ XVI, 132). Herod was obviously “tooting his own horn” here, so to speak, which only indicates the extent of his concern with his image and social acceptability. 20 He solemnly declared that, as the Emperor had appointed him master of his kingdom and sole arbiter in the matter of succession to the throne, and as the unity of the royal family rested exclusively in his hands, he would act as he saw fit and according to his interests alone, since he had received an explicit mandate from the Emperor for this purpose. Immediately after proclaiming his three sons “(potential) kings,” he made a dramatic appeal to God Himself and the Jerusalem populace to publicly affirm his declaration after the fact, that is, to formally approval his decision. Although there is no reference to these statements in the version in AJ, it seems that they were an integral part of the festive ceremony of the people’s assembly, if only because Herod’s prime objective was to secure backing for his decisions through “Divine” as well as public acclamation, thereby granting them supreme and unquestioned authority. In the matter of succession, he established in principle the right of his three sons to the throne: Antipater was declared the first in line by virtue of his status as the oldest son, and his two Hasmonaean brothers were made potential heirs to the throne in deference to their maternal lineage. This no doubt represented a decline in status for

19

20

From this point forward, we will be relying primarily on the version in BJ, which, in this instance, is the more detailed of the two. Incidentally, only in AJ XVI, 132 is it noted that the Temple was the site of the public assembly. In psychological terms, this is defined as “excessive social desirability.”

Antipater Deepens the Rift between Herod and his Hasmonaean Sons

269

them. The preference for age and birthright21 over family lineage was intended in theory to harm the image of the Hasmonaeans, and in practice to discourage any false hopes on the part of the Hasmonaean sons and their supporters, while at the same time serving as a warning against taking any rash, ill-considered steps. 22 Reading between the lines, it appears that in the matter of succession, Herod employed a classic strategy of “divide and rule,” including a veiled warning to the public not to mislead the rival parties with advice that was liable to spark dissension. In addition, he proclaimed decisively that, since rivalry and strife were being fomented among the princes as a result of the negative influence of friends and parties with vested interests, only he himself would selected his sons’ aides and advisors so as to ensure that peace was maintained between them (BJ I, 459–465). On the face of it, his reasoning appears convincing, given the circumstances, but in fact he was only giving expression to his desire to monitor and control his immediate surroundings, a pattern typical of individuals with a paranoid personality structure (see profile in Introduction). Later on in his speech, he asked that his sons’ inner circle (advisors, aides, and especially military officers who sought their influence) rely only on him, and view him as the sole authority in the kingdom. Due to the special significance of the words ascribed to him for our purposes, it is worth citing them here (BJ I, 461–465): [461] I must require these persons, however, and not them only but also the officers of my army, for the present to rest their hopes on me alone; for it is not the kingdom, but the mere honours of royalty, which I am now delivering over to my sons. They will enjoy the pleasures of power, as if actual rulers, but upon me, however unwilling, will fall the burden of office. [462] Consider, each one of you, my age, my manner of life, my piety. I am not so old that my life may soon be past praying for, nor given over to the pleasures of luxury, which cut short the lives even of the young: I have served the deity so faithfully that I may hope for the longest term of life. [463] Whoever, then, pays court to my sons to bring about my downfall shall be punished by me for their sakes as well as my own. For it is not jealousy of my offspring which causes me to restrict the hom-

21

22

According to Schalit (1969, p. 596), the reference to birthright was ostensibly aimed at swaying the Sages and the public at large, since they could in principle accept it as it was the common practice. But in actual fact, the notion of birthright with regard to kingship is not derived from the halacha and there was no specific law in Israel which stated that the throne must pass from a deceased king to his firstborn son; see Hartum, EB, II, col. 125; Liver, EB, IV, cols. 1094 ff. At most it was a custom, in the event that no other decision was reached. There is no direct reference to this in the AJ version, but only an implied one (ibid., 135).

270

12. A Turn for the Worse

age to be paid them; it is the knowledge that such flattering attentions foster recklessness in the young. [464] If everyone who is brought into contact with my sons will but remember that, if he acts honourably he will win a reward from me, whereas if he promotes discord his malicious conduct will bring him no benefit even from the object of his flattery, then I think that all will have my interests, in other words my sons’ interest, at heart; for it is to their advantage that I should govern, and to mine that they should live in harmony.

If we examine the preceding passage, the hypocrisy of the man, as well as his latent fears, are readily apparent. Thus for example, it is obvious that he identified himself with his kingdom (in the sense of “l’état c’est moi”), despite his statements to the contrary. The presumptuous attempt to present himself as someone who had faithfully worshipped God all his life is also patently false, although necessary to him in order to prove his basic contention that he was blessed for this reason with long life and the reins of power, which were thus the will of God and could not be changed. Also alluded to clearly are Herod’s deep fear of aging and its outward signs (now beginning to emerge), in particular lest these serve as an incentive to his enemies to hasten his end. In AJ XVI, 134–135, the matter is mentioned briefly and matterof-factly, whereas the text in BJ emphasizes his good health along with his lack of obsession with the pleasures of the flesh, which curtail even the lives of the young. According to him, he could therefore look forward to a long life (BJ I, 462) as he had served God with great faith. Although this statement is certainly questionable, it is reasonable to assume that he believed it in his own way, just as he believed that he had been “beloved by God” all his life. On the other hand, his words can also indicate that, deep in his heart, he had already begun to be consumed by a profound fear of declining health and old age, whose outward manifestations had already began to creep into his awareness, as we shall see below. 23 The overt statement that all his life he had served God with perfect faith can suggest, paradoxically, that he was aware of his negative image in the eyes of the public as one who had neither honored the laws of the Jewish forefathers nor heeded the will of his subjects. The enumeration of his positive acts – the building of the Temple, his legal assistance to the Jews of the Diaspora, his 23

By contrast, in AJ XVI, 134 it is emphasized that “he desired that at present they (namely, his family) should all have regard to himself, and esteem him king and lord of all, since he was not yet hindered by old age, but was in that period of life when he must be the most skillful in governing; and that he was not deficient in other arts of management that might enable him to govern the kingdom well, and to rule over his children also.”

Antipater Deepens the Rift between Herod and his Hasmonaean Sons

271

material aid to the residents of Judaea in drought and famine – was of course a central element of his self-congratulatory address before the people’s assembly, through which he hoped to win the gratitude of the public at large and a general rapprochement with the people. With regard to the family dispute, he warned at the close of his remarks (BJ I, 466) that anyone who tried to pursue his Hasmonaean sons with flattery so as to hasten the end of his rule would be subject to severe punishment. Conversely, he emphasized that his supporters would be justly rewarded, inasmuch as the good of the kingdom – which was also the good of himself and his sons – was uppermost in their minds, and all of this was consistent with peace and family unity. The final note of his speech was addressed specifically to his sons, asking them to reflect on three things: (a) the holiness of nature, in which unity and affection reign even among the wild beasts; (b) the wishes of the Emperor Augustus, who brought about the family’s reconciliation; (c) Herod’s own wishes, particularly since he was advising them rather than imposing his will. The public rapprochement before the people’s assembly in Jerusalem concluded with Herod’s prayer to God that harmony would reign in his family. After Herod had poignantly embraced each of his sons and offered a well-orchestrated demonstration of his love, he dismissed the gathering. 24 Upon hearing his address, some of those assembled responded with prayers of assent while others ignored his words, expectantly awaiting a radical change (ibid.). In the version in AJ (XVI, 135), by contrast, it is noted that the speech was favorably received by most of the public, with the exception of a few who continued to encourage the rivalry between the king and his sons and even nurtured the hope of sparking unrest that might lead to the longed-for change of power. It would appear that the statement that the majority of the public supported Herod’s words is essentially correct, in particular if we bear in mind the fact that, on the one hand, Herod had ostensibly resolved his family differences, and on the other, had issued a powerful (if indirect) threat regarding any departure from his plan.

24

On Josephus’ penchant for employing a rhetorical style (in BJ) “seasoned” with pathos, exaggerations, and colorful dramatic motifs, see: S. Cohen 1979, p. 90; Bilde 1988, p. 14, 22, etc.; Landau 2003, passim. However, the speech does sound authentic, and there is good reason to think that Herod was assisted by Nicolaus, the world’s leading orator, who was also present for his address.

272

12. A Turn for the Worse

Completion of Construction in Caesarea and the Dedication of the City At this point, Josephus interrupts his account in AJ of the deteriorating relations between Herod and his sons by Mariamme the Hasmonaean to summarize his grand construction projects in the kingdom. Presumably, he felt the need to take a respite from the chronological account so as to preserve the sequence of events later on; for this reason, he felt it proper to emphasize the following (AJ XVI, 136): About this time it was that Caesarea Sebaste, which he had built, was finished. The entire building being accomplished: in the tenth year, the solemnity of it fell into the twenty-eighth year of Herod’s reign, and into the hundred and ninety-second olympiad. 25

According to the accepted calculation, the reference is to 10 BCE. From the description of the dedication ceremony, the impression arises that Herod had reached the height of his power and glory, a situation that obviously had an impact in both the political and economic realms. 26 Since the detailed account of the festivities marking the occasion is indicative of his megalomanic desire to flaunt his grandeur on an unprecedented scale, let us recall the excerpt from AJ XVI, 137–141 (cited above in chapter 8, pp. 204–205). It is not clear whether there is any truth to the statement that Augustus and Marcus Agrippa considered on that occasion the possibility of expanding Herod’s kingdom to encompass all of Syria and Egypt. It is more likely that these words reflected the wishes of Herod himself, in keeping with his grandiose aspirations. In any event, the expansive words of praise ascribed to Augustus regarding Herod were no small thing since Suetonius states with regard to Augustus that “he surpassed all his predecessors in the frequency, variety, and magnificence of his public shows” (Augustus, 43; trans. by J. C. Rolfe, LCL edition). Clearly, Herod’s desire to indulge in a colossal display of wealth, the likes of which had never been seen before, met with great success; at the same time, however, it attested to his need for approval and abundant emotional compensation for his profound sense of inferiority. 25 26

In the BJ version, Josephus used (as stated) a different style of writing, which gave preference to thematic continuity over a chronological recounting of events. See Klausner 1958, IV, pp. 58–100; Applebaum 1976, pp. 664–667, 669. 683–684; Broshi 1985, pp. 11–19; idem 1987, pp. 31–37; Gabba 1990, pp. 161–168; Pastor 1997, pp. 98–127.

Completion of Construction in Caesarea and the Dedication of the City

273

As expected, the festivities held upon completion of the construction of Caesarea were exceptional in their splendor and scale, particularly since they were conducted in the presence of delegations of high-ranking representatives from assorted cities, countries and peoples of the eastern Mediterranean Basin. It seems that the hospitality extended to the delegations surpassed all norms on such occasions. In fact, Herod’s celebrations were renowned throughout the highest circles of the Roman Empire, for which he earned the praises of the Emperor himself and of his well-known assistant Marcus Agrippa. It is important to reiterate here that there was nothing in these celebrations to answer the needs of Herod’s Jewish public. On the contrary, the ostentatious construction projects and attendant festivities were conducted against their will, despite their resentment, and, to a large degree, at their expense. 27 By contrast, the Hellenist citizens of the kingdom, particularly in Caesarea, were delighted with Herod’s actions since he gave the city a distinctly Hellenist character. This was reflected not only in the erecting of pagan statues and temples but in the desire to identify the city as a polis and maintain Greek rule there.28 There is no question that the extravagant festivities spread Caesarea’s name around the world, turning the city instantly from a small, remote Hellenist city (Strato’s Tower) in the eastern Mediterranean Basin to an important city of the Roman Empire whose port was comparable to, or even surpassed, the port of Piraeus near Athens in size and sophistication (BJ I, 410). A central aspect of the construction of the two great Hellenist cities, Caesarea and Sebaste, was the intent to flatter Augustus, as evidenced by their very names. Moreover, Herod established temples there in his honor29 that played a role in disseminating the imperial cult in the Roman Empire. 30 The critical stance of Josephus in AJ XV, 328–33 (cited above in chapter 8, p. 203) is worth recalling in this context. 27 28 29

30

AJ XVI, 303; cf. also BJ I, 524. Regarding the tax burden under Herod, see Pastor 1997, pp. 105 ff. See Kasher 1983, pp. 195–204. BJ I, 403, 407, 414; AJ XVI, 296, 298, 339. In Paneas as well (the source of the Jordan River), a pagan temple was erected in honor of the emperor, and it is reasonable to assume that this was also the case in the new city of Agrippias (formerly Hellenist Anthedon) north of Gaza, although this is not referred to explicitly by Josephus. For details on the imperial cult in general, see Hänlein & Schäfer 1985, pp. 196– 203; Geiger 1987, pp. 51–60; Bernett 2002, pp. 21–149, esp. 45 ff. Regarding the Roman influence on Herod, see Geiger 1996, pp. 133 ff.; idem 1997, pp. 75–88; D. M. Jacobson 2002a, pp. 84 ff. This was likely an important contributing factor in Herod’s decision to honor the emperor during his lifetime with temples and other monuments.

274

12. A Turn for the Worse

It is quite obvious that, in his usual fashion, Herod did not take into consideration the laws of Israel, though he was scrupulous when it came to honoring the Emperor and his men for reasons of pure obsequiousness and a powerful desire to glorify his name in the eyes of all the important people of the Greco-Roman world. He even went so far as to distort the facts to his Jewish subjects, claiming with sanctimonious hypocrisy and audacity that his Roman masters had forced him to build what he did, and that he had not acted on his own initiative. 31 Josephus was wise enough to see through this “truth” and even criticized Herod for his duplicity. He had emphasized previously, in a similar context (AJ XV, 298), that Herod had built in the sister-city of Sebaste “a sacred place, of a furlong and a half [in circuit], and adorned it with all sorts of decorations, and therein erected a temple, which was illustrious on account of both its largeness and beauty.32 And as to the several parts of the city, he adorned them with decorations of all sorts also; and as to what was necessary to provide for his own security, he made the walls very strong for that purpose, and made it for the greatest part a citadel; and as to the elegance of the building, it was taken care of also, that he might leave monuments of the fineness of his taste, and of his beneficence, to future ages.” The building of Caesarea was likewise carried out for the same personal reasons of ostentatiousness and the desire for self-perpetuation, but to an infinitely greater degree. After describing the grand celebrations in Caesarea, Josephus completed his account of Herod’s projects built to memorialize the members of his family (AJ XVI, 142–145; BJ I, 417–418): Antipatris, in memory of his father;33 the Cyprus Fortress near Jericho, in memory of his mother;34 the Phasael Tower in Jerusalem, 35 and the city of Phasaelis in the Jericho valley, in memory of his older brother. 36 31

32

33 34

35 36

This stands in complete contrast to Suetonius (Augustus, 52). For further details on Augustus’ objection to the imperial cult during his lifetime, see Yavetz 1988, pp. 71–73; however he willingly, and with great emotion, accepted the title “Father of the Country,” as recounted by Suetonius (ibid., 58). The temple was called Augusteum or Sebasteum, and was built on the summit of the acropolis, overlooking the Mediterranean Sea; on the archaeological findings at the site, see NEAE IV, p. 1307; Roller 1998, pp. 210–212. See Kochavi 1977; idem 1989, pp. 2–20; idem, NEAE I, pp. 70–71; Roller 1998, pp. 131–132; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 73. 156–157, 177. See Roller 1998, pp. 182–183; Netzer 1999, pp. 62–63; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 71– 73. Phasaelis was an important center of economic activity involving the palm and balsam plantations in the Jericho valley as well as the production of asphalt, salt, and sulphur; see Hirschfeld 2004, pp. 71–88. See BJ V, 166–169; Kokkinos 1998, p. 159; Roller 1999, p. 178; Netzer 1999, p. 118 ff.; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 94–95. See Roller 1999, pp. 192 ff.; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 157–158.

Completion of Construction in Caesarea and the Dedication of the City

275

The version in AJ can create the impression that construction on all of the projects was undertaken only at this point, that is, after 10 BCE;37 but this would be misleading as it refers solely to their formal dedication that year whereas the building had begun significantly earlier, as in the case of Caesarea itself. This was also the case with regard to the Hippicus Tower (BJ V, 163), built in memory of an unknown friend, and the Mariamme Tower in memory of Herod’s wife Mariamme the Hasmonaean (BJ V, 172–175), 38 which, together with the Phasael Tower, was annexed to the royal palace and reinforced the Jerusalem city walls. It is reasonable to assume that these projects as well were begun long before 10 BCE. The notion of perpetuating the memory of his deceased family members presumably preoccupied him to a greater extent towards the end of his life as thoughts of death intruded more persistently into his consciousness. In our opinion, it was only the desire to complete these undertakings that spurred him on after 10 BCE. Outstanding among these monuments is the Phasael Tower in Jerusalem, which, according to Josephus (XVI, 144), was not only “a part of the defences of the city” but “a very beautiful monument” that he built due to his special affection for his older brother. This was emphasized in typical Herodian fashion by having the structure soar to such a great height that it was considered “just as large as that of Pharos” (ibid.), a reference to the famous lighthouse on the coast of the island of Pharos, which was connected to the port of Alexandria by a long dike (known as the Heptastadium) leading to the docks, and was considered one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. 37 38

The account in AJ XVI, 142 ff. states explicitly that construction was begun following the reconciliation of 12 BCE and the dedication of Caesarea. According to Schalit and Roller, Mariamme’s Tower was built prior to the queen’s death, see above chapter 8, pp. 193–194. But the very fact that Josephus stated that all three towers (Phasael, Hippicus and Mariamme) were built to commemorate (tÄn mnämhn) a brother, a friend and a wife (BJ I, 162) suggests that the Mariamme Tower was constructed after her death. If so, it may have been built as an expression of atonement for her execution. Further, Herod may have been seeking to appease her sons, on the basis of their imagined wishes or expectations. As nothing was said of this in Josephus' writings, it remains a moot point. However, a recent hypothesis may indirectly support the latter theory: According to Kokkinos (2002a, 715–746), Herod may indeed have established a new city in Mariamme’s memory that bore her name. The city in question was located 30 km northwest of present-day Homs, Syria, that is, within the Chalcis region, which was ruled for many years by the Herodian dynasty. Kokkinos himself, however, has admitted the possibility that the city was built by Herod’s grandson, who was also married to a Mariamme (Herod's granddaughter). Although he preferred the first option, he did not rule out the second one, and therefore it too is a subject for debate.

276

12. A Turn for the Worse

In the detailed and somewhat excessive description in BJ V, 166–169, it is noted that the Phasael Tower was similar in shape to the aforementioned lighthouse, “but in circumference it was much larger.” In our view, the imitation inherent in choosing this architectonic model, as well as its massive dimensions, testify to Herod’s grandiose aspirations and his need to prove once again that he was indeed the greatest builder of Jerusalem in history. There is no reason to believe that it was his great love for Phasael that prompted Herod to build this monument since we have already learned that he did not exhibit genuine loyalty toward his older brother, at least from 46 BCE onward. Perhaps this memorial was built out of a desire to atone for the guilt that burdened him; but even more so, the building gave him an opportunity to demonstrate his skills and his greatness.

Contributions to Hellenist Cities throughout the Empire In the same context, Josephus assembled a partial listing of Herod’s largesse towards various Hellenist cities in Syria, Greece, and other locations in the eastern Mediterranean Basin (AJ XVI, 146–149), among them the Hellenist cities in Palestine and Phoenicia. It seems that all of these donations, without exception, were granted to curry favor with the Roman rulers and local men of influence; but first and foremost, they expressed Herod’s obsessive desire to glorify himself and enhance his personal prestige, and of course to perpetuate his memory for future generations. 39 Noteworthy among his contributions to the Hellenist cities of Palestine and its immediate environs were the gymnasium in Ptolemais (Acre) and the bathhouses in Ascalon along with the water-supply system, stoas, and royal palace.40 In Damascus, Herod built a gymnasium and theater, and in Tyre he erected auditoriums, stoas, temples, and marketplaces. In Sidon, he built a theater; in Byblos and Berytus, walls; in Tripolis, a gymnasium; and in Laodicea, an aque39

40

This is stated clearly in BJ I, 87, 118, 156, 408–416; II, 266; AJ XIV, 76; XV, 293– 298, 316, 327–364; XVI, 13, 136; Strabo, Geographica XVI, 2, 34. Regarding the scope of the construction, see the indexes of Richardson 1996 and Roller 1998; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 168–175; Roth-Gerson 2001, pp. 24. 31–33, 35; Jacobson 1988, pp. 389–391; idem 1993/4, pp. 31–35; idem 2001, pp. 32–33; idem 2002, pp. 20 ff. and more. On Ascalon, see the recent studies by Fuks (2001, pp. 127–128; idem 2003, pp. 107– 108).

Contributions to Hellenist Cities throughout the Empire

277

duct. In the city of Balanea, he assisted in the payment of taxes, and in Antioch he built the main road with stoas.41 Monetary contributions were also bestowed upon cities in Asia Minor, the Aegean Islands, and Ionia, particularly on the occasion of Herod’s meeting there with Marcus Agrippa in 14 BCE. The list of these donations is as follows: Cos merited a generous grant to the city’s gymnasiarch; Rhodes, a donation for the building of ships and a temple to Apollo; and Chius enjoyed monetary assistance for renovating the city’s stoa and other locations and paying off its debts to Augustus, along with an exemption from taxes. Monies were also given to Samos, Pergamum in Mysia, Phaselis in Lycia, and a number of cities in Cilicia.42 Very generous financial gifts were granted to the famous Greek cities of Sparta, Athens, and Nicopolis.43 A particularly impressive donation was presented to the city of Elis in northwestern Peloponnesus for the purpose of renewing the Olympic games. Due to a severe shortage of funds their prestige had greatly diminished, and Herod’s grant was intended to help with the ongoing organization of the games, and especially, to beautify the ceremonies held there. This was very important to him since displays and outward appearances played a central role in his life. The fact that the city of Elis conferred upon him the honorary lifetime title of president of the Olympic games motivated him to also establish permanent foundations to ensure that the Olympiads would continue uninterrupted, thereby also ensuring the preservation of his lofty honorary title for future generations (BJ I, 426–427; AJ XVI, 149).44 After reviewing the construction projects and acts of goodwill that Herod showered on the Greek world, Josephus felt the need to portray the man’s outstanding character traits and at the same time offer

41 42 43

44

BJ I, 422, 425, 428; AJ XVI, 148; XIX, 329. BJ I, 423–425; AJ XVI, 147. The city of Nicopolis was founded near the site of the battle of Actium, and its name was intended to commemorate Octavian’s victory over Mark Antony there (31 BCE). Herod built most of the city’s public buildings, presumably in order to curry favor with the victor; see Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 168. 172, 175; Jacobson 1993/4, pp. 31–36. Schalit 1969, pp. 416 ff.; Smallwood 1981, p. 81 and n. 66; Lammer 1982, pp. 37– 44. Kokkinos (1998, pp. 225–226) struggled with the question of whether or not Olympias, Herod’s daughter with his wife Malthace, was named after the city of Olympia (on the assumption that the idea crossed Herod’s mind while escorting Augustus on his journey to Greece in 21/20 BCE). But he also considered the more likely possibility that she was named in honor of the revival of the Olympic games under Herod’s sponsorship (16 BCE).

278

12. A Turn for the Worse

harsh words of criticism against him – an indicator of his ambivalent attitude toward him (AJ XVI, 150–159): [150] Now some there are who stand amazed at the diversity of Herod’s nature and purposes; for when we have respect to his magnificence, and the benefits which he bestowed on all mankind, there is no possibility for even those that had the least respect for him45 to deny, or not openly to confess, that he had a nature vastly beneficent; [151] but when any one looks upon the punishments he inflicted, and the injuries he did, not only to his subjects, but to his nearest relations, and takes notice of his severe and unrelenting disposition there, he will be forced to allow that he was brutish, and a stranger to all humanity;46 [152] insomuch that these men suppose his nature to be different, and sometimes at contradiction with itself; but I am myself of another opinion, and imagine that the occasion of both these sort of actions was one and the same; [153] for being a man ambitious of honor, and quite overcome by that passion, he was induced to be magnificent, wherever there appeared any hopes of a future memorial, or of reputation at present; [154] and as his expenses were beyond his abilities, he was necessitated to be harsh to his subjects; for the persons on whom he expended his money were so many, that they made him a very bad procurer of it;47 [155] and because he was conscious that he was hated by those under him, for the injuries he did them, he thought it not an easy thing to amend his offenses, for that it was inconvenient for his revenue; he therefore strove on the other side to make their ill-will an occasion of his gains. [156] As to his own court, therefore, if any one was not very obsequious to him in his language, and would not confess himself to be his slave, or but seemed to think of any innovation in his government, he was not able to contain himself, but prosecuted his very kindred and friends, and punished them as if they were enemies and this wickedness he undertook out of a desire that he might be himself alone honored. [157] Now for this, my assertion about that passion of his, we have the greatest evidence, by what he did to honor Caesar and Agrippa, and his other friends; for with what honors he paid his respects to them 45

46

47

It is important to note that Josephus was well aware of the fact that Herod was a controversial figure among historians, some of whom even criticized him rather sharply. Unfortunately, however, Josephus did not name them nor did he allude to their origins; hence, we cannot necessarily assume that they were Jews; cf. Schalit 1969, p. 602 f. In fact, it is sufficient to read the end of his character analysis to recognize that Herod was heavily criticized in Hellenist circles as well. No doubt, Josephus was alluding here to Herod’s insanity, which was presented as an outgrowth of his “beastly” nature. This is a recurring image in Josephus’ writings with regard to Herod and his son Antipater; see: AJ XVII, 117, 120, 309; BJ I, 586, 589, 624, 627, 632; II, 377. Compare on this point BJ I, 524, where Josephus cites Eurycles’ remarks on “the calamities of their nation, and how they are taxed to death, and in what ways of luxury and wicked practices that wealth is spent which was gotten by bloodshed; what sort of persons they are that get our riches, and to whom those cities belong upon whom he bestows his favors.” The very fact that such words appear in BJ, which is a much more pro-Herodian source than AJ, demands an explanation.

Contributions to Hellenist Cities throughout the Empire

279

who were his superiors, the same did he desire to be paid to himself; and what he thought the most excellent present he could make another, he discovered an inclination to have the like presented to himself. [158] But now the Jewish nation is by their law a stranger to all such things, and accustomed to prefer righteousness to glory; for which reason that nation was not agreeable to him, because it was out of their power to flatter the king’s ambition with statues or temples, or any other such performances; [159] And this seems to me to have been at once the occasion of Herod’s crimes as to his own courtiers and counselors, and of his benefactions as to foreigners and those that had no relation to him.48

Josephus made a point of warning his readers not to accept the preceding character analysis since it related in an over-simplified fashion to a multi-faceted individual marked by radical contradictions: a generous benefactor yet harsh avenger; a man who bestowed favors upon those whom he wished to honor, but at the expense of others who suffered greatly for his wrongs; a matchless sycophant toward his powerful masters and, conversely, a person who always expected – and even demanded – flattery from his powerless subjects; a man with a strong sense of inferiority yet unparalleled pretensions of grandeur. In truth, Josephus sought to convey to his readers in an unequivocal manner that there was one common explanation for all of these contradictions: Herod’s total obsession with honor and the pursuit of fame, whether to perpetuate his name for the future or to win fleeting glory in the present. At the same time, Josephus stated that the notion of justice – a supreme value for the Jewish people – stood in total opposition to Herod’s prime concern, which was personal renown. Departing from this view, Jacobson was inclined to see Herod as a king who simply acted in accordance with Hellenistic norms and who wished to be portrayed in history as a proponent of Hellenist culture and its values.49 In our opinion, the last part of his assessment is erroneous; instead, we would suggest that one of the central motives for Herod’s behavior, as postulated by Josephus, was the pursuit of power and an insatiable desire for fame and glory. In short, it was his grandiose aspirations and narcissistic tendencies that propelled him and provided the impetus for his colossal buildings, financial largesse, and 48

49

This unfavorable profile of Herod has no parallel in War, which generally presents the sympathetic, one-sided attitude of Nicolaus. The latter shows a tendency to deliberately conceal Herod’s negative sides and, conversely, emphasize his positive ones. On several occasions, however, Josephus’ scathing criticism is in evidence; cf. the previous note. See Jacobson 1988, pp. 386–403. It is interesting to note that in a later study (2001, pp. 22 ff.), Jacobson held that Herod emulated the political norms of his Roman masters, although he did so as a Hellenist monarch

280

12. A Turn for the Worse

other prestigious undertakings. These endeavors reinforce the impression that, as a man tormented all his life by feelings of inferiority and extreme mistrust as a result of his personality, he did everything in his power – consciously and unconsciously – to be liked and accepted and to receive constant emotional “compensation,” in part by perpetuating his memory for future generations.

Chapter 13 Further Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State and Worsening Relations with his Hasmonaean Sons (10–9 BCE) Looting of King David’s Tomb One of the most serious offenses committed by Herod in the last decade of his life was the looting of King David’s tomb, from which he removed costly objects of value in order to finance his many expenditures (AJ XVI, 179–183, 188).1 The timing of his action is understandable given the extravagant festivities he held in Caesarea (10 BCE), which were preceded by lavish and expensive expeditions to Rome and Asia Minor in 14–12 BCE (see above). It emerges clearly from the sources that Herod planned the robbery over quite a long period (ibid., 179). The crime was carried out under cover of darkness, apparently out of fear that his actions, if discovered, would provoke a spontaneous 1

Cf. also AJ VII, 392–394; XIII, 249. Regarding King David’s tomb, the Bible tells us that it was located in the so-called “City of David” (I Kings 2:10) and that this was also the burial place of his son King Solomon (ibid., 11:43) and other kings of Judaea (ibid., 14:31, 15:8, etc.). In the time of Nehemiah, the site was referred to in the plural, as “David’s Tombs.” While the Bible does not mention any objects of value in the tomb, it is safe to assume (based on burial customs in the eastern Mediterranean basin during the First Temple period) that jewelry, ornamental objects, and money were placed there; cf. E. Bloch-Smith, Judaic Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, Sheffield 1992, pp. 140 ff. G. Barkay, “Burial Caves and Burial Practices in Judah in the Iron Age,” in: I. Singer (ed.), Graves and Burial Practices in Israel in the Ancient Period, Jerusalem 1994, pp. 96–164 (Hebrew), esp. 150–155; N. Avi-Gad, Ancient Tombstones from the Qidron Valley, Jerusalem 1954, pp. 216–217; D. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan: The Necropolis from the Period of the Judean Kingdom, Jerusalem 1986, Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, pp. 216–217 (Hebrew); S. Achituv, A Collection of Hebrew Inscriptions, Jerusalem 1993, pp. 27–31. Warnings and curses against grave robbers were of course indicative of the severity of the crime. Many such inscriptions from the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras have been found both in Judaea and abroad, but such findings are beyond the purview of this study. On the gold and silver jewelry discovered in the magnificent burial caves near Jerusalem, see Kloner & Zissu 2003, pp. 133–136; cf. ibid., 167, 213, 224–225, 229.

282

13. Further Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State

rebellion among the residents of Jerusalem. To prevent word of his shameful plan from leaking to the public, he took into his confidence only his “faithful friends” (ibid., 180). According to Josephus, two of his bodyguards, who made their way with him to the graves of David and Solomon in the depths of the tomb, perished from a mysterious fire that broke out inside the cave (ibid., 182), an event intended (at least from a literary perspective) to illustrate the severity of Herod’s crime. It is entirely likely that the two were simply executed afterward upon orders from Herod himself so as to destroy any incriminating evidence. This would be typical behavior for an individual suffering from a personality disorder with psychopathic and paranoid features; such a person permits himself to carry out certain acts, knowing that they are criminal, but is consumed with fear and incapable of placing his trust in anyone, even those considered to be his “faithful friends.” In any event, it is written of Herod in this context that he was greatly alarmed, and built a monument at the mouth of the tomb out of costly white stone as an act of atonement (ibid., 182). 2 The preceding is indicative of Herod’s troubled emotional state at the time, which stemmed not from any pangs of conscience but rather from his inexplicable fear of vengeance on the part of those whose graves he had desecrated. Interestingly enough, in recounting the episode, Josephus notes almost incidentally toward the end that one of the sources of his information was Nicolaus of Damascus. According to Josephus, the latter tried to “cover up” Herod’s descent into the tomb since he himself “considered this action improper” (ibid., 183; trans. Marcus & Wikgren). This last remark alone is enough to suggest the apologetic intentions of the story as recounted by Nicolaus, a possibility further reinforced by the fact that he presented it together with a dubious reference to monies supposedly removed from King David’s tomb on a previous occasion by John Hyrcanus I (ibid., 179; BJ I, 61; AJ VII, 393–394; ibid., XIII, 249), for if a revered Hasmonaean leader could do such a thing, why not Herod as well?3 2

3

See Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 154–155. Indeed, the tosefta in Bava Bathra 1:11 (Zuckermandel ed., p. 399) states that the tombs of King David and the prophetess Huldah in Jerusalem were never touched by man; however, the reference is not to the looting of graves but rather to the laws of ritual purity and impurity (tum’ah and taharah). Furthermore, the citation is from a much later period (that of the Babylonian Talmud), and therefore cannot be used to refute Josephus. Wacholder (1962, p. 11) rightly called attention to Josephus’ criticism of Nicolaus for his apologetic approach. Like Wacholder, Efron (1961, p. 82) rejected as unreliable the reference to the looting of the tomb by John Hyrcanus I. Bar-Kochva as well (1977, pp. 181–185) cast doubt on the authenticity of this account; however, he

Looting of King David’s Tomb

283

Even if we accept the deed attributed to John Hyrcanus I as credible, a comparison of the two cases points to an essential difference between them: John Hyrcanus’ action was confined solely to the removal of 3,000 silver talents from one of the chambers adjacent to the grave, only some of which were given to the Seleucid king Antiochus VII Sidetes to achieve the noble humanitarian-national goal of freeing Jerusalem from the nightmare of starvation resulting from the heavy siege he had placed on the city (134–132 BCE).4 Stated otherwise: This situation, which was presented as literally a matter of life and death, might have been accepted (if it took place at all) by the residents of Jerusalem due to the state of emergency and extreme hunger during the siege of the city. By contrast, Herod’s initiative stemmed from his lust for the huge sums of money he hoped to find there, through which he planned to satisfy his appetite for publicity and personal glory.5 Nicolaus’ manipulative attempt to draw a connection between the two events suggests his “predicament” as a historian, since despite his desire to diminish his patron’s wrongdoing via calculated arguments and dubious apologetics, he was unable to totally obscure its severity. After all, we are speaking of the violating and robbing of graves – one of the oldest crimes in the history of mankind, a fact known to him as well. Moreover, Josephus’ account emphasizes that Herod’s motive in looting David’s tomb was not simply greed for its own sake – a great sin in and of itself, even according to Roman moral standards6 – but also the obsessive desire to perpetuate his name, even at the expense of desecrating the memory of one of the great figures of the Jewish nation. It is not surprising that Josephus indulges in a brief digression at this point to strenuously criticize the writings of the court historian, Nicolaus of Damascus (AJ XVI, 183–187):

4

5 6

accepted in principle that the tomb had been desecrated by Herod, and recognized Nicolaus’ apologetics on this point. His conclusion that nothing was actually found in the tomb is puzzling, since the basis for this assumption is unclear. See further: Fuks 2002, p. 241. Josephus makes a point of Hyrcanus I’s financial difficulties at the time, not to mention the fact that he was forced to pay a heavy ransom to the Seleucid king Antiochus VII Sidetes for him to lift his siege of Jerusalem (AJ VII, 393). On the date of the episode involving Hyrcanus, see Schürer 1973, I, pp. 202–204, esp. n. 5. Not without reason did Kokkinos (1998, p. 362) consider this act one of Herod’s most serious crimes against the Jewish nation. Indeed, in Rome of this era, greed was condemned as a sin leading to other serious crimes, and was referred to as auri sacra fames (“the holy lust for gold”; Vergilius, Aeneas, III, 57), or amor sceleratus habendi (“the accursed love of possessing”; Ovidius, Metamorphoses, 131).

284

13. Further Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State

[183] … and many other things he treats of in the same manner in his book; [184] for he wrote in Herod’s lifetime, and under his reign, and so as to please him, and as a servant to him, touching upon nothing but what tended to his glory, and openly excusing many of his notorious crimes, and very diligently concealing them. [185] And as he was desirous to put handsome colors on the death of Mariamne and her sons, which were barbarous actions in the king, he tells falsehoods about the incontinence of Mariamne, and the treacherous designs of his sons upon him; and thus he proceeded in his whole work, making a pompous encomium upon what just actions he had done, but earnestly apologizing for his unjust ones. [186] Indeed, a man, as I said, may have a great deal to say by way of excuse for Nicolaus; for he did not so properly write this as a history for others, as somewhat that might be subservient to the king himself. [187] As for ourselves, who come of a family nearly allied to the Hasamonean kings, and on that account have an honorable place, which is the priesthood, we think it indecent to say any thing that is false about them, and accordingly we have described their actions after an unblemished and upright manner. And although we reverence many of Herod’s posterity, who still reign, yet do we pay a greater regard to truth than to them, and this though it sometimes happens that we incur their displeasure by so doing.

This derogatory tangent was necessary to Josephus as a finale to his meticulous account of Herod’s many construction projects and donations throughout the Roman-Hellenist world. Apparently, he wished to prevent his readers from concluding that Herod was a “great” king by producing a balanced picture of him from both a particular-Jewish and universal-human perspective. This summary may also have been important to him as an introduction to his detailed recounting of the deteriorating relationship between Herod and his Hasmonaean sons, which led to their tragic deaths and caused a major upheaval in Jewish society whose impact resonated in the Roman world as well. The nexus where both these perspectives (the Jewish and the universal) converge is aptly reflected in the opening sentence of Josephus’ account of the grave-robbery (AJ XVI, 188): And indeed Herod’s troubles in his family seemed to be augmented by reason of this attempt he made upon David’s sepulcher; whether Divine vengeance increased the calamities he lay under, in order to render them incurable, or whether fortune (túch) made an assault upon him, in those cases wherein the seasonableness of the cause made it strongly believed that the calamities came upon him for his impiety (Àsébeia).7

7

In Schalit’s translation of AJ (ad loc.), he rendered Àsébeia as the Hebrew equivalent of “wickedness,” but in our opinion it is better understood as “impiety” or “sacrilege”; see above, p. 186; see also Fuks, ibid.

Rivalry between Antipater, His Hasmonaean Brothers, Salome …

285

From the Jewish standpoint, the desecration of David’s grave provoked God’s wrath, causing Herod to be punished in his relationship with his sons. According to the general (Greco-Roman) point of view, by contrast, it was “fate” that was “toying” with him; but in fact according to this criterion as well, his crime was akin to heresy or sacrilege. From the latter perspective too, his punishment was manifest in the worsening of his relations with his sons to the point where disaster was inevitable. For this reason, it was also portrayed in keeping with the accepted model in most Greek tragedies. Indeed, it is hard to avoid the impression that the classic literary hallmarks of Greek tragedy were purposely woven into the final chapter of his life, whereby the good perish along with the evil and, through their deaths, cause the reader (or spectator) to experience catharsis. Josephus pounced on this episode as an important – if not the most important – opportunity to level pointed criticism at Nicolaus and his patron Herod alike. In his view, Herod’s sins of heresy and desecration of graves extended to Nicolaus as well for his attempts to cover up and obscure them.8 According to Josephus, it was less Herod who was the “tragic hero” than his victims, as we shall see below.

Rivalry between Antipater, His Hasmonaean Brothers, Salome, and Pheroras From this point, Josephus launches into a comprehensive portrayal of the erosion – or more precisely, the downward spiral – of Herod’s relations with his family, which takes up the lion’s share of Books XVI and XVII of Antiquities and chapters 24–33 of Book I of War. He recounts matters both foreign and domestic, but the family tragedy stands at the center of his work, overshadowing the rest. We will be following both versions closely in an effort to extract all of the information relevant to our study. The picture that emerges from Josephus’ account indicates that from the time of the reconciliation in the royal family in 12 BCE, and Herod’s public declaration in Jerusalem establishing Antipater’s right of succession as the first-born and conferring the status of princes on his Hasmonaean brothers, each of the brothers had surrounded himself with his own trusted circle to the point where several small 8

Cf. Landau 2003, pp. 227–229.

286

13. Further Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State

“courts” had formed.9 Antipater had a number of allies in the royal palace in Jerusalem, first and foremost his mother Doris who, as noted, had been banished from Jerusalem in 37 BCE and returned when the rift between Herod and his Hasmonaean sons first erupted (in late 14 BCE). Not surprisingly, her divorce and long years of exile had turned her into a bitter woman consumed with thoughts of vengeance against the Hasmonaean dynasty. Because the restoration of her standing in the royal court had taken place due to the influence of Antipater and his circle, she had a definite personal interest in bolstering his status since their fates were dependent on one another. Following a two-year respite from Herod’s attacks of paranoia (lasting from the great family reconciliation in Rome in 12 BCE to the completion of the building of Caesarea in 10 BCE), signs of a fresh outbreak began to emerge, this one more severe than its predecessors. The catalyst was once again Antipater, aided by his mother Doris and his inner circle. Since his rise in status in his father’s eyes, her standing had similarly improved, and it seems that the person who had the greatest hand in this process was Ptolemy (Ptolemaeus), then minister of the royal finances and one of the king’s closest associates (AJ XVI, 191). He had also won the sensitive position of “bearer of the royal seal,” and been entrusted, inter alia, with the task of reading the king’s last will and testament (following his death) and overseeing its execution (BJ I, 666–669; AJ XVI, 195). According to Josephus, Herod also consulted on a regular basis with Antipater and with Doris on all urgent matters, causing the three of them to become so influential in the royal court that they were virtually omnipotent.10 Under these circumstances, they obviously did everything in their power to advance their own interests (AJ XVI, 191; cf. BJ I, 473). As a result, tensions in the royal court reached new heights, and in fact the atmosphere was one of “tumult (stásiv) [that] was like a civil war ('sper Èmfulíou polémou)”; AJ XVI, 189. The sons of Mariamme the Hasmonaean “could not bear the disgrace of being pushed aside and accepting a less honourable rank” (ibid., 192; trans. by Marcus & Wikgren), while Antipater and Doris, who lacked royal lineage and had been rejected till now by Herod, had suddenly become figures of prominence. Even Glaphyra the wife of Alexander complained that her standing had suffered in comparison with that of her sister-in-

9 10

This was first alluded to indirectly in AJ XVI, 132–135; BJ I, 457–466. See above pp. 96–99, in our discussion of Doris’ standing in the royal court.

Rivalry between Antipater, His Hasmonaean Brothers, Salome …

287

law Berenice, the daughter of Salome (Herod’s sister) and wife of her brother-in-law Aristobulus (ibid., 193).11 Antipater skillfully exploited the situation to drive an even deeper wedge between Herod and his Hasmonaean sons, using subterfuge and pretense. He saw to it that accusations against his Hasmonaean brothers were regularly leaked from outside sources, who actively inflamed passions against them, while all the while he continued to portray himself as a seeker of peace who “defended” them out of friendliness and decency. His sole objective in doing so was to buy his father’s loyalty with deceit (ibid., 190), and at the same time, relentlessly instill doubts about his brothers. The version in BJ I, 467–462 enumerates all the stratagems he employed to slander them.12 It seems that there was a tendency in this account to blame Antipater for most of the troubles in the royal house, something unsurprising given the fact that Nicolaus of Damascus, the primary source for this version, sought in this way to “absolve” his master of any wrongdoing. As we shall see below, Herod himself finally learned of Antipater’s schemes only towards the end of his life and had him executed as a result. Nicolaus took the same approach with regard to other sinister characters in the vipers’ nest that was the royal court, among them Salome and Pheroras, because he himself sincerely believed it, in addition to which he felt that their guilt could lessen Herod’s responsibility for the terrible tragedy within his family – or perhaps even “cleanse” him of it entirely. As in 12 BCE, it seems that Antipater maintained the pretense of accepting his father’s decision with regard to succession, presenting himself as content with the birthright granted him; apparently, however, he was not in any way resigned to the notion of his Hasmonaean brothers’ retaining the status of prince, with the theoretical option of ascending the throne in future. He was aware of the great danger this posed, as they were proud of their family origins and even rested their hopes on the support of the public in this regard. As in the past, he was smart enough to exploit their self-importance, lack of experience, and impulsiveness as a means of provoking them, with the help of paid informants who deliberately joined their circle and acted as spies on his behalf.

11 12

Her haughtiness toward the other ladies of the court is thoroughly addressed by Macurdy 1932, p. 227. See in detail Schalit 1969, pp. 596 ff.

288

13. Further Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State

Once again, it seems that Alexander was the prime target as he was considered the greater threat of the two due to his marriage to Glaphyra, daughter of Archelaus king of Cappadocia, who carried great influence in the court of the Emperor Augustus. Anything uttered by Alexander or his inner circle was relayed to Antipater and in turn leaked to Herod with intentional embellishments and exaggerations intended to defame Alexander even further. According to Josephus, not a word was spoken that did not merit this “treatment”; even the smallest, most ostensibly insignificant comments were amplified into massive suspicions. Antipater’s men surrounded Alexander wherever he went, functioning in total secrecy as full-fledged conspirators. Their loyalty was bought by him with ample bribes and words of flattery, all of it ploys he had learned at his father’s knee. In short, to quote Josephus: “Everything was interpreted as a plot and made to produce the impression that Alexander was watching his opportunity to murder his father” (ibid., 472; trans. by Marcus & Wikgren). A band of conspirators, spies and informers reported on every movement, act, or utterance of Alexander’s. Every time that they would relay (or leak) something incriminating to Herod, Antipater himself would pretend to be disbelieving, even making a show of scoffing at the accusation. This successful maneuver actually intensified Herod’s suspicion that there was indeed truth to the incriminating reports concerning Alexander. When Antipater learned of this, he began to confirm the rumors through more direct remarks to his father until he ultimately managed to plant the notion that Alexander was only waiting for the right moment to openly rebel against Herod and kill him. Antipater and his men together directed all their efforts toward instilling and reinforcing the belief that a conspiracy was being mounted against Herod, on the assumption that he was inclined toward such thoughts in any event and needed only to have his suspicions confirmed by “reality.” Indeed, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Antipater acted in full knowledge of the personality, behavior patterns, and responses of his father. True, Josephus stated this explicitly only at a later point (AJ XVI, 244), but his language here gives the impression that Antipater had already “knew what a mad and licentious way of acting his father was in.” His mother Cyprus and sister Salome had also acted in precisely the same fashion in the past, inciting Herod against his wife Mariamme, and Salome at least was highly skilled in such machinations.

Involvement of Salome and Pheroras in the Conflict

289

Involvement of Salome and Pheroras in the Conflict between Herod and His Hasmonaean Sons The familial strife only worsened when Pheroras and Salome deepened their involvement in the court intrigues. It turned out that the relationship between Herod and his brother and sister was a very complex one, in addition to which the latter’s relations with each other were also highly charged. To better understand the emerging imbroglio, one must first recall the family background. Following the deaths of Phasael and Joseph, Herod’s older brothers, early in his life (the former in 40 BCE, and the latter just one year later, in 39 BCE), Herod showered his younger brother Pheroras with affection and extraordinary honor.13 In 39 BCE, when Herod was fighting Mattathias Antigonus, Pheroras (then 25 years old) was placed in charge of laying siege to the fortress of Alexandrium in the Samarian desert, in addition to supplying (Àgora) the army of Herod and the Roman auxilia (BJ I, 308; AJ XIV, 419). At a later point (in 30 BCE), when Herod went to meet Octavian in Rhodes, he appointed Pheroras guardian of the family and of the entire kingdom in his absence, with specific instructions on what actions to take if any harm befell him in Rhodes. For the safety of the Herodian branch of his family, he designated Masada as a refuge, as in the past, while placing the Hasmonaean branch (headed by the queen Mariamme and her mother Alexandra) under guard at Alexandrium. The decision to separate the two parts of the family may have stemmed from past experience since, when they were placed together at Masada (40 BCE), conflicts had erupted between them. The “banishing” of the Hasmonaean branch to Alexandrium was apparently also done for reasons of domestic security, particularly in the event of a revolt if Herod failed at Rhodes. The task of guarding and overseeing the Hasmonaean women was entrusted to Joseph, Herod’s “steward” (Ó tamíav), and Soemus (or Sohemus) the Ituraean. As stated earlier, Herod issued an explicit order to them to execute the women if he came to any harm at Rhodes, instructing them as well “to preserve the kingdom for his sons, and for his brother Pheroras [altogether]” (AJ XV, 186). This would indicate that he had complete faith in Pheroras at the time, not yet realizing how grave an error this was. Later events were to prove him wrong – and precisely at a time when the conflict with his Hasmonaean sons had reached its peak. 13

The information relating to Pheroras, including the chronology of events, is based largely on the study by Kokkinos (1998, pp. 164–175).

290

13. Further Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State

Either before or after his journey to Rhodes, Herod married off Pheroras to his sister-in-law (whose name is unknown), a sister of Mariamme the Hasmonaean, making him his brother-in-law as well.14 According to BJ I, 483–484, Herod’s trust in Pheroras was so great that he actually shared with him most of the trappings of royalty, with the exception of the crown. Likewise, he appointed him (in 20 BCE) to the office of tetrarch in Peraea (Transjordan) and provided him with a personal allowance of 100 talents in addition to the usual revenues from the tetrarchy. When Pheroras’ Hasmonaean wife died (apparently also in 20 BCE), Herod wished to marry him to Salampsio (namely Shlomzion), the oldest daughter of Mariamme the Hasmonaean, and present him with a large dowry of 300 talents. But Pheroras rejected this distinguished royal match,15 since he had fallen in love with his maidservant-concubine and wished to marry her.16 Herod was infuriated at this affront to his authority – a further indication, paradoxically, of his sense of inferiority – yet managed to restrain himself and hastened to marry off Salampsio to the son of his brother Phasael. Some time later (at an undetermined point), when he felt that perhaps Pheroras’ ardor for his servant had waned, he began to pressure him once more, this time to marry the second daughter of Mariamme the Hasmonaean, named after his mother Cyprus (ibid., 196). This role of the royal matchmaker was doubtless an attempt to emulate his revered master, the Emperor Augustus.17 But it may well have stemmed even more so from Herod’s deep-seated need to control all those in his orbit, especially the more arrogant among them and those deemed overly independent in their thoughts and actions. Pheroras certainly fit the latter category, as is clear from his close ties with the Pharisees and from the “prophecy,” widely believed in their circles, that the kingdom of Herod would soon come to an end and the throne would pass to Pheroras and his wife and later to their descendants (AJ XVII, 42–43). As a result of his paranoid nature, Herod had difficulty accepting the notion that he could not have full control 14

15

16 17

It is entirely likely that this took place before the journey to Rhodes, but unfortunately there is no chronological data to prove this. According to Kokkinos’ calculations (p. 167), she died in approximately 20 BCE. An alternative possibility, according to Kokkinos, is to place her death at an earlier point, closer to the execution of Mariamme (29 BCE). According to AJ XVI, 194–195, she was already betrothed to him, meaning that he broke their engagement; this would of course explain why Herod was so insulted (see below). On her status as maidservant, see Mayer-Schärtel 1995, pp. 172–173. Cf. Suetonius, Augustus, 48, 63.

Involvement of Salome and Pheroras in the Conflict

291

over those around him and that he would not be the one to determine their fate. Moreover, he was incapable of understanding a situation in which someone could be such a slave to his affections, as described by Josephus (AJ XVI, 194): [Pheroras] had a particular foundation for suspicion and hatred (Úpóqesia kaì mísouv); for he was overcome with the charms of his wife, to such a degree of madness, that he despised the king’s daughter, to whom he had been betrothed, and wholly bent his mind to the other, who had been but a servant.

The style employed above by Josephus was obviously borrowed from Nicolaus of Damascus, who faithfully reflected his worldview. As recounted later on (AJ XVI, 197): Ptolemy [the king’s aide] also advised him to leave off affronting his brother, and to forsake her whom he had loved, for that it was a base thing to be so enamored of a servant, as to deprive himself of the king’s good-will to him, and become an occasion of his trouble, and make himself hated by him.

Since this advice was not given on Ptolemy’s own initiative, it should be considered a warning issued, directly or indirectly, by Herod himself (this impression is reinforced by the fact that an agreement was signed between Herod and Pheroras on the matter). Pheroras took the hint, and although he already had a son from his maidservant, promised his brother that he would divorce her and marry his second daughter in her stead. He even committed himself in writing that the marriage would take place in thirty days and that he would have no further contact with his maidservant. But when it became apparent, at the end of that period, that he did not keep his word but continued to be faithful to her, Herod was so enraged that he almost lost control,18 as Josephus writes (AJ XVI, 200): This occasioned Herod to grieve openly, and made him angry, while the king dropped one word or other against Pheroras perpetually; and many made the king’s anger an opportunity for raising calumnies against him. Nor had the king any longer a single quiet day or hour, but occasions of one fresh quarrel or another arose among his relations, and those that were dearest to him.

Indeed his response, as depicted, appeared to be relatively restrained; but it was not without such typical paranoid symptoms as the inability to accept noncompliance with his orders and plans, coupled with 18

As suggested above, one should not discount the possibility that Nicolaus himself made use of this episode in his writings as a way of explaining his master’s severe emotional distress, which drove him to the most serious of his crimes – the murder of his own sons.

292

13. Further Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State

sadness, fury, loss of self-control in his speech, and lingering excitability. At this juncture, Josephus introduces into the picture an account of his sister Salome’s activities, jumping from one episode to another. In his introductory remarks, he makes a point of referring to Salome’s troubled relationship with her son-in-law Aristobulus; in fact, she incited her daughter Berenice against him, turning her into a source of incriminating information against him and his brother Alexander (ibid., 201–204). Working to her advantage was the fact that her daughter had suffered great humiliation at the hands of her sister-inlaw Glaphyra as a result of her degrading treatment and contempt for Berenice’s Idumaean origins (ibid., 193). Matters reached the point where Salome’s daughter even fabricated complete untruths, reporting that the Hasmonaean brothers had said that when they achieved power they would turn all of Herod’s descendants who were not from the Hasmonaean dynasty into simple, worthless “village scribes” (kwmogrammateîv),19 as befitted their education and diligence in learning (ibid., 203). (This last comment reveals that not all sons of the king enjoyed the same treatment and that only the chosen few benefited from a “royal” education, a fact that had internal ramifications within the royal family with respect to class, and was a source of jealousy and familial strife). According to her, they even threatened that if the nonHasmonaean women of the court dared to be seen wearing the garments of the queen Mariamme, they would be sent to prison wearing sackcloth and never again see the light of day (ibid., 204). Although these points appear to be of marginal importance, they actually demonstrate the extent of the mutual jealousy and hatred of all involved.20 Salome of course took pains to report the above to her brother Herod, and it is easy to imagine that she added her own venomous slant, believing that this would have a cumulative effect on him. At first he tried to resolve the situation, but it quickly became apparent that “these suspicions afflicted him, and becoming more and more uneasy, he believed every body against every body. However, upon his rebuking his sons, and hearing the defense they made for themselves, he was easier for a while, though a little afterwards much worse accidents came upon him” (ibid., 205). 19

20

This is the lowest clerical ranking in the Hellenistic bureaucratic apparatus, known to us from Ptolemaic Egypt. Even “natives” (oÍ laoi) could serve in this position; see e. g. Rostovtzeff 1941, p. 320. This recalls the use by Doris (Herod’s first wife) of Mariamme’s royal bed, a matter of prestige which also figured in the family strife.

Involvement of Salome and Pheroras in the Conflict

293

From the references to Herod’s behavior above, the impression arises that he was no longer able to control his paranoid urges – and indeed a more severe attack was not long in coming. It was helped along in this instance by his brother Pheroras, who, according to Josephus, told Alexander that he had heard from Salome of Herod’s having become so deeply enamored with Alexander’s wife Glaphyra that he found it hard to restrain his passion (ibid., 206). Hearing this, Alexander was momentarily inflamed with jealousy, like any hot-tempered young man, and started to interpret his father’s signs of affection toward his wife in light of the sordid revelation instigated by Pheroras. Such behavior was apparently also in keeping with Herod’s notorious image as a person with unbridled sexual urges, already alluded to several times previously. Alexander did not carry his pain in silence; however, he displayed responsibility and wisdom, behaving with restraint and not taking any impulsive steps before verifying the terrible rumor in a face-to-face meeting with his father (ibid., 207). There, he reported to him in tears what he had heard from Pheroras, eliciting the following reaction from his father (AJ XVI, 208–212): [208] … Herod was in a greater disorder than ever; and not bearing such a false calumny, which was to his shame, was much disturbed at it; [209] … So he sent for Pheroras, and reproached him, and said, “Thou vilest of all men! art thou come to that unmeasurable and extravagant degree of ingratitude, as not only to suppose such things of me, but to speak of them? [210] I now indeed perceive what thy intentions are. It is not thy only aim to reproach me, when thou usest such words to my son, but thereby to persuade him to plot against me, and get me destroyed by poison. And who is there, if he had not a good genius at his elbow, as hath my son, but would not bear such a suspicion of his father, but would revenge himself upon him? [211] Dost thou suppose that thou hast only dropped a word for him to think of, and not rather hast put a sword into his hand to slay his father? And what dost thou mean, when thou really hatest both him and his brother, to pretend kindness to them, only in order to raise a reproach against me, and talk of such things as no one but such an impious wretch as thou art could either devise in their mind, or declare in their words? [212] Begone, thou art such a plague to thy benefactor and thy brother, and may that evil conscience of thine go along with thee; while I still overcome my relations by kindness, and am so far from avenging myself of them, as they deserve, that I bestow greater benefits upon them than they are worthy of.”

It seems that these words of reproof, presented as coming from Herod, were no more than a rhetorical-apologetic literary device employed by Nicolaus of Damascus to defend his patron and present him as an innocent “lamb” surrounded by lies and deceit. But either way, the preceding is a faithful reflection of Herod’s over-sensitivity to insult

294

13. Further Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State

and his fear of the treasonous conspiracies against him. The altruistic comment ascribed to him at the end of his admonition is not at all convincing, and is obviously a literary “repair job” designed by Nicolaus to improve Herod’s image. His ploy now exposed, Pheroras claimed that it was Salome his sister who had initiated the deception and that the malicious gossip itself had come from her. He made this statement in her presence on this same dramatic occasion (ibid., 213). She in turn immediately protested vocally, and apparently convincingly, that the words had not come from her, and even complained of the many false accusations against her because of her great love for her brother and because she always anticipated the dangers facing him (ibid., 214). According to her, Pheroras’ words were all part of a scheme in response to her position that he should divorce and banish his servant and marry the daughter of Herod instead. She bolstered her claims through shrewd manipulation, using devious tactics to covertly influence Herod, deceive him, and play on his emotions (ibid., 216): As she said this, and often tore her hair, and often beat her breast, 21 her countenance made her denial to be believed; but the perverseness of her manners declared at the same time her dissimulation in these proceedings.

Pheroras was caught in an awkward position – so much so that he did not even defend himself since he had already admitted what he had said to Alexander (ibid., 217). In Josephus’ words, “the confusion among them was increased, and their quarrelsome words one to another. At last the king, out of his hatred to his brother and sister, sent them both away” (ibid., 218). Salome managed to escape the embarrassing episode relatively unscathed, impressing at least Herod with her innocence although she lost the trust of other members of the royal court. Moreover, “the king’s wives were grieved at her, as knowing she was a very ill-natured woman, and would sometimes be a friend, and sometimes an enemy, at different seasons: so they perpetually said one thing or another against her” (ibid., 219). Herod’s reaction was significant: although the crafty nature of his brother and sister had been exposed, along with all their lies and provocations, he did not judge them severely nor in fact even punish 21

This was a familiar pattern of behavior in the countries of the eastern Mediterranean basin to express feelings of grief and mourning, see EB, I, cols. 40–45. She indulged in this same false theatricality when accused of plotting against Herod in the so-called “Acme affair” (AJ XVII, 142).

The “Syllaeus Affair”

295

them. Apparently, the tribal-patriarchal mentality of his upbringing attached special importance to fraternal blood ties, dictating an extremely high level of tolerance; however, this did little to alleviate his mistrust of Alexander, which gave him no rest and grew stronger with time. The fact that he looked upon him as a Hasmonaean overshadowed the reality that Alexander was also his own son by birth. Thus it took little to rekindle his hatred, as we shall see below.

The “Syllaeus Affair” Salome and Pheroras managed to escape Herod’s fury also because of political reasons involving his relations with the Nabataeans, which had once again deteriorated, engendering even greater tension than in the past. The problem had already begun in 12 BCE, when Herod journeyed to Rome and reconciled with his sons. His absence was exploited by the residents of the Trachonitis region to rebel against him; but owing to the vigilance of his officers, the revolt was foiled early on (AJ XVI, 130). 22 Forty leaders of the rebellion, disparagingly referred to as archelistai (brigand chiefs), fled to the Nabataeans to take refuge with them and await another opportunity (ibid., 273–275). The Nabataeans, for their part, used diplomatic channels to explore the possibility of a reconciliation with Herod, which led to a lessening of tensions and a decision to loan 60 talents to King Obodas III (ibid., 279), 23 in addition to leasing grazing land to Nabataean owners of sheep and goat herds (ibid., 291). The peace attempt originated with Syllaeus, who wished to make use of Herod’s lofty status in Petra to consolidate his own future standing. The former was the all-powerful epitropos of the weak and indolent Nabataean king Obodas III, 24 whom he was plotting to depose at the first opportunity so as to take his place on the throne. In his view, matrimonial ties with Herod’s family, specifically through marriage to Salome, could advance his interests; there was also the hope that Herod could open doors for 22

23

24

For further details on the entire “Syllaeus affair,” which began to unfold following the abortive revolt, see Kasher 1988, pp. 162 ff. We will be referring to this episode only briefly, with a few additional points relevant to the present study. Herod subsequently attacked the Nabataean kingdom and took captives, based on a special and explicit clause in the promissory note accompanying the loan agreement with the Nabataeans that allowed him to do so in the event that they breached the contract; see AJ XVI, 346. On the influence of Syllaeus in the royal court of Petra, see Stern 1974, I, pp. 255 ff.

296

13. Further Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State

him in Rome (since only with Roman approval could his coronation as king of Nabataea be made official). Herod, meanwhile, aspired to turn over a new leaf in his relations with the Nabataeans by working together with Syllaeus; for this reason, he held a banquet in his honor at the palace, inviting all the notables of his court, including of course his sister Salome and his brother Pheroras. This was meant to demonstrate his forgiveness, but it later became clear that he had actually forgotten nothing. Under the present circumstances, he simply repressed his anger toward them since he required their services in his political plans for the Nabataeans. As recounted by Josephus (apparently relying on Nicolaus), a semi-public dalliance took place between Syllaeus and Salome on the night of the banquet, with the two of them exchanging passionate glances. All of those present took notice and were amused, with the women of the court treating the matter with particular scorn, perhaps due to Syllaeus’ relative youth in comparison with Salome’s “advanced” age (see below). One should not be under the impression, however, that the affair began with an accidental meeting between the two at this gathering; more likely, the seed had been planted previously (perhaps even as early as 20 BCE)25 and had only begun to blossom ten years later when political conditions were ripe, that is, when the notion had begun to take root in the minds of Herod and Syllaeus. During the banquet, which in our estimation took place in roughly 10 BCE, 26 Syllaeus openly pursued Salome. Obviously, Herod did not happen to discover this for the first time during the festivities. In fact, Josephus’ description leaves no doubt that Herod had prior knowledge of the affair between the two; had this not been the case, he 25

26

Indeed, according to Kokkinos’ calculations (1998, p. 182, n. 22), the two had first made contact ca. 21/20 BCE, when Syllaeus paid his first visits to Jerusalem; cf. below. Kokkinos (1998, pp. 167, 177, 182, n. 22) is inclined to date the event to 21/20 BCE, arguing that Josephus’ account here is nothing more than a “flashback” to an earlier event. However in our opinion, his convoluted calculations cannot account for a difference of an entire decade (if not more). Syllaeus’ invitation to Jerusalem, and the attempt to marry him to Salome, can be better explained against the backdrop of the conflict between Herod and the Nabataeans. By inviting him at this point – when construction in the city was at its height and the building of Sebaste and Caesarea had just ended amid glorious festivities – Herod could better serve his own interests, since the visit afforded him an opportunity to publicly demonstrate his political and economic might as well as flaunt his excellent relations with Rome and the Hellenist world in the wake of his successful expedition in 12 BCE. In our opinion, this is a more fitting set of circumstances for Syllaeus’ visit to Jerusalem, the more so if we assume that Herod’s recent political gains enabled him to dictate the terms of Syllaeus’ engagement to Salome.

The “Syllaeus Affair”

297

would not have requested of Pheroras beforehand that he follow the couple and spy on their behavior (ibid., 223). At the conclusion of the meal, Herod and Syllaeus began negotiations, during which Syllaeus sought to emphasize the potential advantages to both sides from his marriage to Salome, especially given the fact that, for all intents and purposes, he was already the ruler of Petra and there was a strong chance that he would formally ascend the throne (AJ XVI, 224). Since he was young and handsome, he succeeded with great cunning to capture the imagination of his intended bride, who was already 47 years of age, 27 and stir up her passions, among them the desire to wear the royal crown. 28 Herod gave serious thought to the plan, and presumably supported it enthusiastically at first, due to the prospect of increasing his strength and influence in the districts to the south and east of his kingdom, with all the tempting economic benefits likely to accrue from the Arabian trade route. 29 At the end of the negotiations (which lasted two to three months), he made his approval of the marriage contingent upon Syllaeus “[coming] over to the Jewish religion, and then he should marry her” (ibid., 225). 30 There is no reason to suspect that, in establishing this proviso, he was acknowledging the religious obstacles to such a marriage between his Jewish sister and her Arab beloved; nor was he displaying a commitment to the Jewish religion or consideration for public opinion in his country. 31 It is important to 27

28 29

30

31

According to Kokkinos (p. 177), she was born in 57 BCE. This may explain, at least in part, the ridicule generated by their affair, since in those days people married at a much earlier age – in addition to which Salome had already been married twice in the past to men a great deal older than her. See AJ XVI, 221–225, 232; XVII, 139; cf. BJ I, 487, 534–535. Namely, the trading of spices, condiments, luxury items and precious objects from “Arabia Felix” and the countries of the Far East; see Tcherikover 1961, pp. 100– 101; Kasher 1988, pp. 10–11 and n. 24. No mention was made of circumcision, since it is reasonable to assume that Syllaeus had already been circumcised as an Arab. On this issue, and the type of conversion demanded by Herod, see S. Cohen 1999, pp. 227–228. This is the opinion of Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, pp. 298–299 (n. a); cf. also Schalit 1969, p. 599; Kokkinos 1998, pp. 182–184, 351. Several scholars even held that Herod observed the Jewish dietary laws and refrained from eating pork. This was inferred from the remark melius est Herodis porcum esse quam filium (“better to be Herod’s pig than his son”) attributed to Augustus by a later source (Macrobius, in the fifth century CE; see Stern 1980, II, pp. 665–666); cf. Stern 1983b, p. 81; Kokkinos 1998, p. 349; Ilan 2002. But one might very well ask: If Herod adhered strictly to the Jewish dietary laws and other religious strictures, how then is it possible to explain the presence of a pig in his court in Jerusalem? Furthermore, such a conclusion is inconsistent with the available information concerning his Hellenistic and Phoenician education, which led him to build so many pagan places of worship

298

13. Further Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State

recall that there were other instances of marriage to non-Jews in the Herodian dynasty, 32 and in none of these cases did he express opposition for religious reasons. Consequently, his insistence on Syllaeus’ conversion should be viewed as a political ruse on Herod’s part and not in any way as sincere and genuine concern for the observance of the laws of Israel. He simply sought to exploit the wedding for political gain by delineating beforehand his senior position in the future political partnership between himself and Syllaeus.33 It is also reasonable to assume that, for this same reason, Syllaeus refused to convert. His claim “that if he should do so, he should be stoned by the Arabs” (AJ XVI, 225) was only intended to provide him with a way out; for if this were not the case, why did he discuss the matter with Herod in the first place? His argument can perhaps be seen as sincere and convincing on the ethnic-national (as opposed to the personal) level, given the prolonged rivalry between the Nabatae-

32

33

in his kingdom and abroad (in total contradiction to the prohibition in mAvodah Zarah 1:6). There are many additional arguments against this hypothesis, but space does not permit us to present them here. Herod’s father Antipater, for example, married Cyprus, a non-Jew. Indeed, it is reasonable to assume that she eventually “became Jewish,” even if no explicit mention of this is made in the sources; however, it seems that her adoption of Judaism was more in the nature of a “social conversion” than a strictly religious one; cf. S. Cohen 1999 pp. 156, 163–164, 167, 170–171, esp. 268–273. One of the three husbands of Herod’s sister Salome was an Idumaean with the pagan name of Costobarus, and there is no indication whatsoever that Herod tried to convert him; in fact, Costobarus even tried to restore the worship of the Idumaean god Cos (or Kos) to his homeland with the help of Cleopatra VII (AJ XV, 253–266); see Kasher 1988, pp. 74, 143, 214–218; Kokkinos 1998, pp. 179–182. Herod himself married Malthace the Samaritan (BJ I, 562), who was a “Cuthaean” under Jewish law (since the time of Ezra and Nehemiah), and therefore prohibited as a marriage partner; see Kasher 2005, pp. 29–31 and n. 16. Alexander, Herod’s son by Mariamme, married Glaphyra, the Cappadocian princess, of whom no mention is made of her converting to Judaism. Furthermore, her sons by Alexander “soon after their birth, deserted the Jewish religion, and went over to that of the Greeks” (AJ XVIII, 141). After the death of Alexander, Glaphyra married Juba II king of Mauritania (BJ II, 115; AJ XVII, 349–350); for further information see Schürer 1973, I, pp. 354–356 (n. 6); Kokkinos 1998, p. 228; S. Cohen 1999, p. 170. Her later marriage to Archelaus (Herod’s son) caused a major religious scandal in Jerusalem since it was in complete violation of the Jewish laws of levirate marriage. Herod Antipas as well married a Nabataean princess (AJ XVIII, 109). The same was true of Pheroras, who married his non-Jewish maidservant. For further details on intermarriage in the Herodian family, see Hadas-Lebel 1993, pp. 397–404; Ilan 2002a. Bowersock (1983, p. 50) ignored this likely possibility, instead suggesting that Herod wished to thwart the marriage of Syllaeus and Salome from the outset (cf. Kokkinos 1998, p. 183); however, he does not offer any proof in support of this hypothesis nor are his arguments convincing. And if such was the case, according to his theory, why did Herod not veto the marriage from the start? And why did he carry on negotiations with Syllaeus for two to three months?

The “Syllaeus Affair”

299

ans and the Jews, dating back to the time of the king Alexander Jannaeus. But considering the tribal, patriarchal nature of Arab society, it was actually his personal decision as a Nabataean leader that would have dictated the stance of his people – and not the opposite. The socalled reason for his refusal to convert was therefore nothing more than an evasive pretext. Thus when he realized the trap Herod had set for him, he abandoned the idea of marriage to Salome altogether. An immediate rift formed between the two men, their mutual hostility rapidly intensifying from that point onward (see below). This time, the radical shift in Herod’s response had occurred in the political sphere, where his relations with the Nabataeans now took a 180-degree turn. He could not take no for an answer, and therefore Syllaeus instantly became his sworn enemy, since according to his paranoid way of thinking, anyone who did not accept his basic premises and follow his course of action became in effect his adversary. Salome did not resign herself easily to the complete turnaround in her brother’s attitude, and tried to enlist the help of Livia (the wife of Augustus) by letter, but this did nothing to advance her cause (below). Her disappointment in her brother Herod, not to mention her sense of insult, were too great to bear, for in one fell swoop he had destroyed her dream of becoming queen. So great were her fury and displeasure that she did not even flinch at betraying her brother outright; indeed, she maintained contact clandestinely with Syllaeus and served him as a spy against Herod. 34 It was Livia who saved her from ruin and eventually persuaded her to obey her brother and accept his authority lest she be harmed (BJ I, 556; AJ XVII, 10). Bitter and frustrated, Salome was ultimately forced to accept her fate, and with it, the husband chosen for her by Herod. 35 While the latter was part of Herod’s inner circle, from her perspective he was in no way a suitable substitute for the proud and all-powerful Syllaeus, not to mention the fact that he was not as young and handsome as the clever and gifted Nabataean. To summarize to this point, it should be emphasized that Herod restrained himself over Salome’s betrayal, hoping that she would eventually swallow her disappointment and accept the dictates of her status, namely, the need to obey her brother the king without question. It seems that here too, Herod’s behavior was strongly influenced 34 35

Cf. BJ I, 534; AJ XVI, 322; Schalit 1969, 621. See BJ I, 566. According to Josephus (AJ XVII, 10) his Greek name was Alexas ()Alexâv, and the Hebrew equivalent was most likely whyqlx, as suggested by Stern 1985, pp. 95–96; idem 1991, pp. 188–189; Kokkinos 1998, pp. 184–186 (including details on his possible ethnic origins); Roller 1999, pp. 57–58.

300

13. Further Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State

by familial and tribal blood ties, and he presumably hoped that his sister would follow suit. By contrast, such feelings of brotherly love did not prevail between Pheroras and Salome, judging by what went on behind the scenes in the “Syllaeus affair.” As mentioned earlier, Pheroras was asked to monitor his sister’s behavior during the festive banquet in honor of Syllaeus, and report on it to Herod – in other words, to spy on her. After the failure of the plan to marry her off, Pheroras mixed with the women of the court so as to slander his sister with tales of wanton behavior and spread gossip that she had shamelessly engaged in sexual relations with Syllaeus (AJ XVI, 226). Tensions between the two also erupted from another direction. After Pheroras broke his engagement to Herod’s daughter Salampsio (Shlomzion), Salome hastened to ask Herod to marry the girl to her son by Costobarus. Herod acceded to her request, apparently out of a desire to placate her over thwarting her marriage to Syllaeus. But he soon changed his mind, under the influence of Pheroras, after the latter succeeded in kindling the suspicion in Herod’s mind that the prospective husband would not be loyal to him since he (Herod) had executed his father Costobarus. This demonstrates that the fear of being sabotaged politically by the son of Salome and Costobarus was even greater in Herod’s eyes than the disappointment and insult caused by Pheroras’ refusal to fulfill his demands in the matter of the maidservant-concubine. It is also quite possible that Salome’s bitterness and desire for revenge caused Herod to fear a possible conspiracy on her part with Syllaeus as well. Pheroras read the situation well and seized the opportunity to ask Herod to marry off his daughter to his (Pheroras’) son, who was his intended successor as tetrarch. In this way, he hoped to appease Herod for disobeying him in the matter of his maidservant and breaking his betrothal to Salampsio. Herod reconciled with him, swallowed the insult, and restrained his anger because, from his perspective, this was a small price to pay when weighed against his fear of a possible conspiracy on the part of Pheroras that might jeopardize his very monarchy. Herod therefore decided to mend the familial rift by marrying his daughter Salampsio to the son of Pheroras, and even gave the bride a generous dowry of 100 talents (ibid., 227–228). Salome meanwhile paid a heavy price, but she did not remain idle; indeed, as we shall see below, even thornier complications were still to come in the convoluted Herodian saga.

Suspicions of Contempt toward Herod by His Son Alexander

301

Suspicions of Contempt toward Herod by His Son Alexander: The Three Eunuchs Affair Apparently also in 10 BCE, a fresh storm erupted in the royal household from a new and unexpected source. As described in War (I, 488– 491), three eunuchs (eÙnoûcoi), all highly favored servants (tà paidika) of Herod, were supposedly bribed by Alexander to assassinate Herod. The three were in charge, respectively, of getting his drinks, serving his meals, and readying him for bed; of the last, it was even said that he “put him into bed, and lay down by him” (sugkateklíneto). In other words, these servants were the ones closest to Herod on a daily basis. The version in AJ XVI, 230) adds the interesting detail, regarding all three, that “on account of their beauty [the king] was very fond of them” – a possible allusion to bisexual tendencies on Herod’s part. The reference to his interrogating them over their “criminal conversations” with Alexander (ibid., 231) has also been understood in this spirit; and indeed there are translations of Josephus’ writings that suggest this possibility.36 It is entirely possible that the ambiguous language belongs to Nicolaus of Damascus himself, who sought to cover up the sexual tendencies of his patron by employing what the Sages termed “pure language,” i. e., euphemism. Whether or not this interpretation is correct, there is no question that the power secretly pulling the strings here was none other than Antipater, Herod’s official favored successor at the time.37 He did so with great cunning for, knowing his father’s suspicious nature, he hoped that the false rumor he had circulated conc erning Alexander, in addition to the results of the interrogation under torture of the three eunuchs, would cast suspicion on his step-brother and convince their father that he had been saved from death in his most trusted haven. Among the details that the eunuchs “revealed” in their questioning was that Alexander had confessed to them that he “bare great ill-will and innate hatred to his father” (ibid., 232). Further, Alexander had 36

37

The dual meaning of the verb Úpágw in BJ I, 489 should be noted in this context (cf. Liddell & Scott, p. 1850). The same is true of tà paidikà (ibid., p. 1287) and sunousía (ibid., 1723). Moreover, a similar interpretation can be applied to the use of the verb diafqeírw (AJ XVI, 231) (cf. ibid., 418), as well as paîv (ibid., 1289) and diafqeírw (ibid., 970); compare with the translations of Thackeray 1927, II, p. 223; Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, p. 301 Schalit 1963, p. 255 etc.; MayerSchärtel 1995, pp. 267–268. This point was argued convincingly by Otto (1913, col. 137) and by Schalit (1969, p. 599) with regard to the inclusion of Antipater’s name in this context (AJ XVI, 232).

302

13. Further Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State

persuaded them that they could not depend on the aging Herod (AJ XVI, 233–234; cf. BJ I, 490–491): [233] [He] told them that Herod despaired to live much longer; and that, in order to cover his great age, he colored his hair black, and endeavored to conceal what would discover how old he was; but that if he would apply himself to him, when he should attain the kingdom, which, in spite of his father, could come to no one else, he should quickly have the first place in that kingdom under him, [234] for that he was now ready to take the kingdom, not only as his birth-right, but by the preparations he had made for obtaining it, because a great many of the rulers, and a great many of his friends, were of his side, and those no ill men neither, ready both to do and to suffer whatsoever should come on that account.

The version in BJ I, 490) even ascribes to Alexander in this context derisive remarks concerning Herod’s aging appearance, aimed at swaying the three eunuchs: Alexander … told them that they ought not to fix their hopes upon Herod, an old man, and one so shameless as to color his hair, unless they thought that would make him young again.

This expression of contempt “did … terrify Herod,” (ibid., 492), 38 a predictable reaction among paranoid personality types when they are insulted and disparaged. Indeed, the combination of stinging insult and fear of potential rebellion left him deeply shaken, as described in AJ XVI, 235–240 (cf. BJ I, 492–494): [235] When Herod heard this confession, he was all over anger and fear, some parts seeming to him reproachful, and some made him suspicious of dangers that attended him, insomuch that on both accounts he was provoked, and bitterly afraid lest some more heavy plot was laid against him than he should be then able to escape from; [236] whereupon he did not now make an open search, but sent about spies to watch such as he suspected, for he was now overrun with suspicion and hatred against all about him; and indulging abundance of those suspicions, in order to his preservation, he continued to suspect those that were guiltless; [237] nor did he set any bounds to himself, but supposing that those who stayed with him had the most power to hurt him, they were to him very frightful; and for those that did not use to come to him, it seemed enough to name them [to make them suspected], and he thought himself safer when they were destroyed. [238] And at last his domestics were come to that pass, that being no way secure of escaping themselves, they fell to accusing one another, and imagining that he who first accused another was most likely to save himself; yet when any had overthrown others, they 38

Incidentally, Antipater’s hair also turned gray at a relatively early age (in 13 BCE, when he was only 33), causing him great emotional distress (BJ I, 578; AJ XVII, 66). In 7 BCE, in the midst of the struggle over his father’s successor, he was convinced that he was already on the brink of old age. On the calculations concerning Antipater’s age, see Kokkinos 1998, p. 209.

Suspicions of Contempt toward Herod by His Son Alexander

303

were hated; and they were thought to suffer justly who unjustly accused others, and they only thereby prevented their own accusation; nay, they now executed their own private enmities by this means, and when they were caught, they were punished in the same way. [239] Thus these men contrived to make use of this opportunity as an instrument and a snare against their enemies; yet when they tried it, were themselves caught also in the same snare which they laid for others: [240] and the king soon repented of what he had done, because he had no clear evidence of the guilt of those whom he had slain; and yet what was still more severe in him, he did not make use of his repentance, in order to leave off doing the like again, but in order to inflict the same punishment upon their accusers.

There is no question that this is one of the most telling and persuasive depictions of Herod’s paranoid behavior, if only because it illustrates so plainly his raging persecution complex. As his reactions show, he was totally at the mercy of delusions that caused him to see virtually everyone around him as potential suspects or actual enemies seeking to do him harm. The shadow of suspicion extended even to those who were supposedly the most loyal to him and the closest to him in the performance of their daily duties. In addition to the passage cited above, there are other outstanding examples, including the banishing of his longtime friends, Andromachus and Gemellus, who had assisted him in political and diplomatic tasks and in the education of his sons, and as such had enjoyed unparalleled freedom to speak their minds in his presence. The suspicion alone that they were supporters of Alexander was enough to render them thoroughly unacceptable. 39 Herod’s emotional state became so unstable that it was sufficient merely to mention the names of suspect individuals in order to spark his fears. Precisely for this reason, he filled the country with spies to ensnare potential enemies, who, as he saw it, were lurking in every corner and had only to be unmasked. He of course exploited to the fullest the panic that gripped those close to him, as all around him total chaos prevailed. People informed on one another, whether to avenge themselves against personal enemies or to save their own skins. Their behavior only served to confirm the truth of his fears. In other words, the reactions of those around him reinforced his suspicions, drawing him into a worsening spiral of fear and uncertainties, on the one hand, and acts of murder and torture, on the other. He had no particular inhibitions or moral qualms, with the exception of his regret for executing suspects whose crime had not 39

AJ XVI, 242, 245. Perhaps this suspicion was sparked by the fact that Demetrius son of Andromachus was a childhood friend of Alexander’s who was educated together with him in Rome.

304

13. Further Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State

yet been fully revealed – although the suspicions against them were justified in his eyes. A large portion of those executed were informers, something that he considered reasonable since, paradoxically, he inflicted the same punishment on the accusers as the accused. In short, a “state of disorder” (4 tarach) reigned in his court, with everyone at war with one another (AJ XVI, 241). The Greek term is very apt since it also means “turmoil” or “political upheaval,” used in the sense of “civil war” or a “state of emergency.”40 It emerges clearly from Josephus’ description that not only was Antipater the prime orchestrator of all this chaos but he played this role “when he knew what a mad and licentious way of acting his father was in (}v ÈpeidÄ tò nenoshkòv têv toû patròv parrhsíav katémaqen).”41 In summation: Antipater acted with full knowledge of his father’s emotional state, which was unstable, extreme, and almost totally out of control. In their time, his grandmother Cyprus (mother of Herod), and his aunt and uncle, Salome and Pheroras, had engaged in virtually the same machinations for similar purposes (see above).

40

41

Compare with this same usage below (AJ XVI, 253). For the meaning of the term, see Sachers, RE(PW), VII, A2, cols. 1344–1345; Liddell & Scott, p. 1758; cf. Kasher 1985, p. 14 (note 46 and references) for several different uses of the term in ancient literature. The parallel term in Latin is tumultus, often used in the context of the most serious rebellions in the Roman empire, which led to a “state of emergency”; cf. Applebaum 1969, pp. 261–261. In the parallel version in BJ I, 492, Josephus used the term Ànomía meaning “lawlessness” or simply “anarchy”; see Thackeray 1927, II, p. 233. AJ XVI, 244. Indeed, Schalit may have taken some liberties with his Hebrew translation (“when he discerned the morbid nature of his father’s mood”), but it is nonetheless accurate; see Schalit 1969, pp. 603–604 (and n. 108), 609 ff., and compare with Marcus & Wikgren (ibid., 307): “on becoming aware of the morbid lack of restraint in his father.”

Chapter 14 A Downward Spiral at Home and Abroad (9–7 BCE) The Ring of Suspicion Tightens Up until this point, Herod’s complex and ambivalent relations with his sons by Mariamme the Hasmonaean had manifest themselves largely in the context of his sense of inferiority due to his Idumaean origins as opposed to their noble Hasmonaean lineage. But while their condescension toward him and the members of his family did indeed cause him mental anguish, the descriptions of their strained relationship did not attach great importance to this factor.1 It seems that when the sons reached adolescence, however, a special personal dimension was added to the above tensions, in particular between himself and Alexander, as a result of the latter’s handsome appearance and impressive physical and athletic attributes.2 In truth, this was nothing new, for Herod’s sensitivity to the beauty of members of the Hasmonaean family had already made itself known in the past (35 BCE), in his envy of the unique beauty and imposing height of his brother-in-law Aristobulus (AJ XV, 25–30, 51) and later with respect to Mariamme herself (AJ XV, 66–67, 237). But the intense jealousy that he displayed toward his son Alexander surpassed even these. His envy was apparently also coupled with anger, not only because of Alexander’s remarkable physical characteristics but also because of his athletic abilities, for example his gift for archery. These talents aroused Herod’s jealousy to an extent that he found virtually unbearable (AJ XVI, 247–248). Apparently for these reasons, he executed Carus, his “intimate servant” or “sexual plaything” (paidika), 3 of 1 2 3

See e. g. BJ I, 445. 449, 468, 474 ff., 481, 518, 523(!), 541; AJ XVI, 233–235, 248, 399. Cf. ibid., 314, 400–401. We will be discussing this issue below, as the literary narrative unfolds. This term had already been inferred above, see Liddell & Scott, p. 1289.

306

14. A Downward Spiral at Home and Abroad

whom it was said that he “was outstanding among his contemporaries for his surpassing beauty and was loved by the king” (AJ XVII, 44, transl. by Marcus & Wikgren). The same is true with regard to Jucundus and Tyranus his body guards “who were in great esteem for their strength and tallness” (AJ XVI, 314). They too were severely tortured due to their preference for Alexander’s company in such shared pastimes as horseback-riding and gymnastics (ibid., 314 ff.).4 Herod’s over-sensitivity to great height, 5 a striking physique, and outer beauty, as manifest in the above examples, suggests that he most likely was not blessed with these qualities, for otherwise they would not have evoked such powerful feelings in him. Herod’s sensitivity regarding his unappealing outward appearance and inferior physical abilities was doubtless related at least partly to his age, as he was no longer a young man. In fact, it is highly revealing in this regard that “he colored his hair black, and endeavored to conceal what would discover how old he was” (AJ XVI, 233). In and of itself, this was not so exceptional; but in this case, the inescapable conclusion is that his action was prompted by feelings of inferiority stemming from his jealousy of Alexander, who symbolized youth, vitality, and beauty – in addition to which, according to BJ I, 490, Alexander is reputed to have made scornful remarks concerning the aging appearance of his father.6 Herod’s rage, resentment, and repressed shame are all typical of a person suffering from Paranoid Personality Disorder; overwhelmed with such feelings, he is liable to lose his self-control in a moment of extreme emotional turmoil and, worse still, succumb to his urges and humiliate, torture, and kill his rivals. The great panic that seized Herod upon hearing the “revelations” that emerged from the interrogation and torture of the three eunuchs (above) should be understood against this backdrop; as a result, his suspicions grew that there were many “men of power” (tôn dunatôn) 4

5

6

We will be returning to this point below, but it is worth noting here that the parallel version in BJ I, 527–529 is biased and modulated, since it deliberately conceals the true motivations for the torture of the two. The average height of a man at the time was 162 cm; see Y. Nager & H. Torges, “Biological Characteristics of Jewish Burial in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods,” in Israel Exploration Journal 53 (2003), p. 170. In our opinion, this last point is doubtful, since AJ XVI, 247–248 indicates quite the opposite, namely, that Alexander was well aware of the fact that his impressive physical features could potentially be a source of harm due to his father’s envy. The same is true of his talents as a hunter (see below). For this reason alone, it is hard to believe that he would provoke his father in this way; rather, this seems to be a rhetorical ploy used by Nicolaus to depict Herod as a “tragic hero.”

The Ring of Suspicion Tightens

307

who were secretly ingratiating themselves with Alexander and that “the captains of the soldiery, and the officers” (toúv te 4gemónav) had also met with him surreptitiously (BJ I, 491). Indeed, the prevailing atmosphere can be summed up as follows (BJ I, 492–494): [492] These disclosures so terrified (Èxefóbhsen) Herod that at the time he did not even dare to divulge them; but, sending out spies night and day, he scrutinized all that was done or said, and at once put to death any who fell under suspicion. [493] The palace was given over to frightful anarchy (Ànomía). Everyone, to gratify some personal enmity or hatred, invented calumnies; many turned to base account against their adversaries the murderous mood of wrathful royalty. Lies found instant credit, but chastisement was even swifter than calumny: the accuser of a moment ago found himself accused and led off to death with him whose conviction he had obtained; for the grave peril to his life cut short the king’s inquiries. [494] He grew so embittered that he had no gentle look even for these who were not accused and treated his own friends with the utmost harshness: many of these he refused to admit to court, while those who were beyond the reach of his arm came under the lash of his tongue.

The combination of extreme fear and intense disappointment, possibly even a sense of despair with depressive features, is significant for our purposes; moreover, it is consistent with Herod’s attack of paranoia following the death of Mariamme the Hasmonaean in 29 BCE which already reached the level of persecutory delusions. The account in BJ I, 495 also supports this conclusion, in its statement that because of Antipater’s lies Herod “fancied he saw Alexander coming to him with a drawn sword in his hand.”7 Although it is unclear whether these were actual visual hallucinations of persecution or merely imaginary thoughts, it is obvious that they reflected a severe disorder. Antipater “encouraged” his father to interrogate under torture every one of Alexander’s close associates whom he (Antipater) considered a suspect in the supposed plot against him. Neither their vehement denials nor their deaths served to deter Herod; on the contrary, they even redoubled his suspicions. From his perspective, the “proof” had to be found, and it was only a matter of time and persistence until it was discovered. Not surprisingly, someone was eventually found who said what Herod wished (and expected) to hear about Alexander. Presumably, this person was simply unable to withstand the torture and therefore “confessed” for no other reason. As recounted by Josephus (AJ XVI, 247–248):

7

This delusion is also mentioned in a later context (AJ XVI, 259–260), where we will discuss it further.

308

14. A Downward Spiral at Home and Abroad

[247] Now there was a certain person among the many that were tortured, who said that he knew that the young man had often said, that when he was commended as a tall man in his body, and a skillful marksman, and that in his other commendable exercises he exceeded all men, these qualifications given him by nature, though good in themselves, were not advantageous to him, because his father was grieved at them, and envied him for them; [248] and that when he walked along with his father, he endeavored to depress and shorten himself, that he might not appear too tall; and that when he shot at any thing as he was hunting, when his father was by, he missed his mark on purpose, for he knew how ambitious his father was of being superior in such exercises.

The preceding “revelation” attests to the depth of Herod’s jealousy and sense of inferiority, which is particularly shocking given the fact that fathers do not normally envy their children, and certainly not in this fashion. On the basis of another such “disclosure” from a different informant, it “emerged” that Alexander was acting in concert with his brother Aristobulus and that they were only awaiting the opportunity to kill their father during a hunting expedition; immediately afterward, they allegedly planned to flee to Rome so that Alexander could request the throne for himself (ibid., 249). Under torture, the interrogatee also added that letters had been found from Alexander to Aristobulus complaining that Herod had granted a large district to Antipater with annual revenues of 200 talents (ibid., 250).8 Upon these confessions Herod presently thought he had somewhat to depend on, in his own opinion, as to his suspicion about his sons; so he took up (= arrested) Alexander and bound (= imprisoned) him (ibid., 251).

This was apparently the only credible piece of information that arose from the interrogation, namely, that Herod’s Hasmonaean sons were aggrieved at their lower standing in the kingdom as a result of the new order of succession stipulated by their father in his latest will (above). It is therefore reasonable to assume that there was some sort of exchange of letters between the Hasmonaean brothers in which they expressed their resentment at Antipater’s preferential treatment. But this is a far cry from incriminating evidence of a conspiracy on their part to murder Herod. Josephus goes on to say (ibid.): … yet did he still continue to be uneasy, and was not quite satisfied of the truth of what he had heard; and when he came to recollect himself, he found that they had only made juvenile complaints and contentions, and

8

It appears that this detail was essentially true (see below), but not exact. Herod himself boasted later that when he appointed Antipater as his heir, he allocated him a yearly stipend of only fifty talents (AJ XVII, 96).

The Ring of Suspicion Tightens

309

that it was an incredible thing, that when his son should have slain him, he should openly go to Rome [to beg the kingdom].

Upon closer examination, it is obvious that Herod’s disquiet concerning his Hasmonaean sons did not stem from doubts about their guilt per se but rather from the fact that the interrogations did not yield unequivocal proof of their culpability. Further, there is nothing in the sources to answer the burning question: Why was only Alexander, and not Aristobulus, arrested as a result of the findings since both of them were suspected of collaborating in the “plot” to murder Herod? The inevitable conclusion is that the “revelations” were extremely tenuous. In short, the sole cause of Herod’s lingering fury was his intense frustration at his failure to confirm his suspicions publicly and unquestionably. This behavior pattern is highly consistent with a paranoid personality type. His unrelenting insistence on his personal “truth” is amply demonstrated in the following description (AJ XVI, 252–253): [252] So he was desirous to have some surer mark of his son’s wickedness, and was very solicitous about it, that he might not appear to have condemned him to be put in prison too rashly; so he tortured the principal of Alexander’s friends, and put not a few of them to death, without getting any of the things out of them which he suspected. [253] And while Herod was very busy about this matter, and the palace was full of terror and trouble, one of the younger sort, when he was in the utmost agony, confessed that Alexander had sent to his friends at Rome, and desired that he might be quickly invited thither by Caesar, and that he could discover a plot against him; that Mithridates, the king of Parthia, was joined in friendship with his father against the Romans, and that he had a poisonous potion ready prepared at Ascalon.

These accusations were of course patently false, but no attempt was made to verify them. The Parthian king could not have been named Mithridates but rather was Phraates IV (38/7–3/2 BCE), as rightly noted by Otto and Schalit,9 not to mention the fact that the Parthians could not have extended support at this time, with Roman power at its height (as they had in the days of Mattathias Antigonus). What is instructive for our purposes is Herod’s obvious confusion, which can be indicative of grave emotional problems. The matter of the poison supposedly readied in Ascalon was also proven to be nonsense, despite his best efforts to find it (ibid., 254). This of course demonstrates just how eager he was to find incriminating “evidence” that would fulfill his expectations, and how frustrated and disgusted he was with himself over his inability to do so. Nevertheless, he “found some consola9

Otto 1913, col. 138; Schalit 1969, p. 601 and n. 96.

310

14. A Downward Spiral at Home and Abroad

tion for his (own) rashness (têv propéteiav) in this bad situation, for he was flattered when things became worse than had been expected” (ibid., 255; trans. by Marcus & Wikgren).

Alexander’s Fateful Blunder At this stage, Alexander made a fatal error that turned out to be the mistake of his life. In AJ XVI, 255 ff., it is recounted that he made matters worse by not refuting the informants in order to convince his father that matters had reached the point of absurdity, as evidenced by the following passage (ibid.): As for Alexander, he was very desirous (Èk filoneikíav)10 to aggravate the vast misfortunes he was under, so he pretended not to deny the accusations, but punished the rashness of his father with a greater crime of his own; and perhaps he was willing to make his father ashamed of his easy belief of such calumnies: he aimed especially, if he could gain belief to his story, to plague him and his whole kingdom.

Schalit believed that Alexander simply despaired of the hopeless situation in which he now found himself; and when he realized that his fate was already sealed in any event, he decided to drag all his enemies in the court down with him (recalling Samson’s cry: “Let me die, along with the Philistines”). Toward this end, he fabricated a false libel that was spread through four letters, according to which Salome and Pheroras and other high-ranking figures in Herod’s court had supposedly joined Alexander’s conspiracy.11 All of the plotters had purportedly reached an agreement that it was better to quickly dispose of Herod so that they would not be harmed and would no longer have to live in fear of him (AJ XVI, 257). In our opinion, such convoluted thinking is unreasonable, given the detailed and sensational – although implausible – information contained in AJ XVI, 255–258 and BJ I, 498–499 regarding the “juicy” tale of Salome, who supposedly entered Alexander’s room in the dead of night to engage in relations with him with or without his consent (ibid., 256). According to the version in BJ I, 498, she even entered his room by force and coerced him into having immoral relations with her against his will. The tale appears far-fetched, if only because it refers to the “rape” of a tall, athletic, vigorous young man by a much older 10 11

Perhaps the Greek Èk filoneikíav should have been translated with a more negative connotation, i. e., “out of a sense of rivalry”; cf. Liddell & Scott, pp. 1937–1938. Schalit 1969, pp. 600 ff.; cf. also Klausner 1958, IV, p. 159.

Alexander’s Fateful Blunder

311

woman.12 Moreover, the mutual hatred between them is incompatible with the version of events as recorded in AJ, (which, unlike that offered in BJ, did not extend to actual “rape”). It seems that the goal of this baseless fabrication was to illustrate the state of anarchy and chaos in the royal court, where everyone was at war with one another and no one hesitated to engage in the lowest slander, however improbable. It is possible that in this way Josephus sought to offer a suitable explanation for the turmoil, confusion, delusions, terrors, and utter panic that seized Herod (AJ XVI, 259) so as to rationalize his behavior in the terrible events that were to follow. It seems to us that this grotesque description was redacted by Josephus himself, specifically in order to avoid presenting Herod as a “tragic hero” to be pitied.Out of this entire episode, only the four letters appear plausible, although one must take issue with several details contained in them. Unfortunately, there is no mention of their recipients, nor of what Alexander expected of them. If we accept Schalit’s position that Alexander had truly resigned himself to his fate and was already completely without hope, this raises the pressing question: What was the purpose of the letters? Logically, a desperate man who wishes to die already, does not act in this manner. On the other hand, if Alexander confessed his role in the plot in these letters, why was not at least one of them directed to Herod himself? The problem is that it is clearly implied in BJ I, 499 that the letters fell into Herod’s hands, meaning that Alexander sent them unbeknownst to him, hoping that they would be of benefit to himself. It is reasonable to assume that one of the letters was sent to his father-in-law, Archelaus Philopatris of Cappadocia, who was, as stated, highly influential in Rome. This can be seen as a desperate appeal for his help and his intervention, especially since there was already a precedent for this (AJ XVI, 74).13 In our opinion, another letter was sent to the Emperor Augustus himself since, after all, he had been personally involved in the great family reconciliation of 12 BCE (above). There is reason to believe that Alexander wished to apprise him of the current situation, hoping to spur him to become personally involved, especially in light of his great affection for the Hasmonaean brothers and his firm belief in their in12

13

According to Kokkinos (1998, pp. 177, 213), there was an age difference of 21 years, since Salome was born in 57 BCE, and Alexander in 36 BCE. Indeed, one could make the cynical claim that this would at least explain Salome’s desire for him, but the opposite argument is not at all convincing. Indeed, as recounted, there was a close chronological proximity between the two events (BJ I, 499 ff.; AJ XVI, 261 ff.).

312

14. A Downward Spiral at Home and Abroad

nocence (AJ XVI, 121 ff.) This likely possibility is substantiated by the previous passage, where it is noted that Alexander and Aristobulus intended to flee to Rome, which Herod also “found satisfaction in believing,” (Thackeray’s trans.; BJ I, 496; cf. AJ XVI, 252) Further support can be found in the statement that when the episode had come to a conclusion, Archelaus king of Cappadocia sent Augustus a letter with a full report on the end of the conflict between Alexander and his father (BJ I, 510).14 The implication is that the Emperor was kept fully informed of developments throughout the affair, as would be expected and as we assumed above.15 The remaining letters (that is, the third and the fourth) were addressed, we believe, to senior Roman personalities who wielded great influence in the imperial court. The most likely possibilities are Andromachus and Gemellus, who were banished by Herod from his court in Jerusalem at around this time (AJ XVI, 242–243), and about whom it is written: [242] … Andromachus and Gemellus, men who had of old been his friends, and been very useful to him in the affairs of his kingdom, and been of advantage to his family, by their embassages and counsels; and had been tutors to his sons, and had in a manner the first degree of freedom with him. [243] He expelled Andromachus, because his son Demetrius was a companion to Alexander; and Gemellus, because he knew that he wished him well, which arose from his having been with him in his youth, when he was at school, and absent at Rome.

It is entirely possible that one of the letters was sent to a family member of Caius Asinius Pollio, the first patron of the Hasmonaean brothers in Rome;16 but the likelihood that it was Andromachus and Gemellus is much greater. The fact that the two were driven out of Jerusalem by Herod, and suffered a stinging insult at his hands when they were stripped of their honorary positions (ibid.), suggests an additional motive on the part of Alexander and Aristobulus to take revenge on their father. The fresh resentment on the part of these two Roman notables could have served the interests of the Hasmonaean brothers more effectively and understandably than had any other Roman personage suffered a similar affront to his dignity. (One figure who should not be considered in this context is Marcus Agrippa, Augustus’ well-known confidant, since he 14

15 16

There is no parallel version of this in AJ, which offers a much more concise description of the family reconciliation. The version in BJ is presumably more faithful to Nicolaus’ original account, since it was altogether more pro-Herodian. The vested interest of Archelaus in reporting directly to the emperor will be discussed further below. Regarding his identity, see Kokkinos 1998, p. 214.

Alexander’s Fateful Blunder

313

had died in 12 BCE.) It is quite likely that the banishing of the two Roman notables from Jerusalem, and their return to Rome, had an indirect effect on Augustus’ crisis of faith regarding Herod during the latter’s second war with the Nabataeans (9 BCE), causing a weakening of his influence in the imperial court. It may well have been that Herod was attempting to appease Augustus when he named the lighthouse at the port of Sebastos (in Caesarea) Drusium, after Augustus’ step-son Drusus (Livia’s son from her first marriage), who died that same year at the age of 29.17 If this is true, it had no such effect. The dispatching of these letters to the suggested recipients can also shed new light on the conflict between Herod and his sons as it unfolded later, and better explain Alexander’s motivation for shaming his father. At any rate, it should be borne in mind that there is no hint in AJ of any acts of desperation on the part of Alexander. On the contrary, it is stated explicitly that he wished to humiliate Herod for believing the rumors and acting accordingly; he therefore intended to strike a blow at Herod and his reign (ibid., 255). It is clear from the text that it was actually Herod himself who descended into utter despair and confusion at the time, as follows (AJ XVI, 259–260): [259] Herod’s own life also was entirely disturbed; and because he could trust nobody, he was sorely punished by the expectation of further misery; for he often fancied in his imagination that his son had fallen upon him, or stood by him with a sword in his hand; [260] and thus was his mind night and day intent upon this thing, and revolved it over and over, no otherwise than if he were under a distraction. And this was the sad condition Herod was now in (compare BJ I, 495, as cited above, p. 7).

Josephus’ depiction of Herod’s mental state is very telling. The statement that his entire life had become a burden suggests a depressive hopelessness perhaps even accompanied by suicidal thoughts, as had happened in 40 BCE when his mother had been injured while fleeing Jerusalem. Earlier in the passage, his condition is described even more decisively as nothing short of “madness” (manía) and “foolishness” (Ànoía) (per Marcus & Wikgren), or “irrationality” (AJ XVI, 260). This portrayal corresponds with what his son Antipater had already realized at the time, when he “discerned the morbid nature of his father’s mood” (}v ÈpeidÄ tò nenoshk`v têv toû patroùv parrhsíav katímaqen).18 17

18

His death grieved Augustus deeply, all the more so as he had successfully taken the place of Marcus Agrippa in the supreme command of the Roman army following the latter’s sudden death (12 BCE); see Yavetz 1988, p. 84, 110, 181. The same quote, based on Schalit’s Hebrew translation, is cited above (chap. 13, note 41). The term parrhsía appears again in the next section (§ 245), and can be understood in the negative sense as “loose speech,” “lack of restraint” (see Liddell

314

14. A Downward Spiral at Home and Abroad

Moreover, Herod’s unstable mental state is described by Josephus in extreme and unambiguous terms, making reference to persistent hallucinations that terrorized him in the form of a recurring nightmare; in this imagined scene, Alexander would fall upon him with sword in hand to kill him. In our opinion, his inability to distinguish between imagination and reality, between lies and truth, between illusion and fact, signified a severe delusional disorder centered around delusional thoughts and visions of persecution by his son. It is no coincidence that Schalit decided at this point to present a detailed character analysis of Herod, in which he traced his development from early childhood to his final days. His final, and justified, conclusion is that Herod suffered from full-fledged insanity only in the last stage of his life, or, more precisely, from 10 BCE onward.19 But unlike Schalit, we believe that as a result of his Paranoid Personality Disorder, by 40 BCE (i. e., at the age of 32) Herod had already lost control over his paranoid urges and was being driven by them. Later in life, he experienced similar episodes, the most serious of which involved the execution of his wife Mariamme (29 BCE). During the period under discussion (that is, thirty years after the first episode), his condition began to deteriorate extremely rapidly into a full-blown episode of delusional disorder, persecutory type, 20 leading to the execution of his Hasmonaean sons.

19

20

& Scott, p. 1344). However, at least one manuscript has the variant term paranoía in § 244 (see Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, p. 306), meaning “derangement” or “madness” (Liddell & Scott, p. 1319); cf. krankhafte Hemmungslosigkeit (“a sick state of mind”) used by Schalit in his German edition (1969, pp. 603–604 and notes 108–109). Josephus uses the same term in CA I, 211 as a variation of Úpónoia, which can be understood as “suspicion,” “conjecture,” “hidden meaning” and the like (Liddell & Scott, p. 1890). In that particular context, Josephus’ usage was not linguistically accurate. His purpose was to present the view of such Jew-haters as Agatharchides of Cnidus that the Jewish religion was a “superstitious” faith based on speculative fancies and illusions; see Kasher 1996, p. 216. Schalit 1969, pp. 603–610, esp. note 112. In order to obtain a professional diagnosis of Herod’s mental disorder, Schalit rightfully consulted with a psychologist with whom he had a personal acquaintance. Klausner (1958, V, p. 158) arrived at virtually the same conclusion intuitively; cf. also Zeitlin 1963/4, pp. 1–27, esp. 22–27. A similar view was held by Jones (1938, p. 211), who wrote of the last stage of Herod’s life: “His ruthless severity, exacerbated by consciousness of his impotence, degenerated into vindictive savagery. Above all, his suspicion, always his weakest point, grew to the pitch of mania.” The term “paranoia” employed by Schalit (or paranoia vera, as it was commonly referred to for many years) is no longer accepted by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association; nor is it consistent with the case described in the present study. The correct diagnosis (as stated in the Introduction) is severe delusional disorder-persecutory type. According to DSM-IV, the central theme of the delusions in a person suffering from

Archelaus King of Cappadocia Comes to the Aid of Alexander

315

Archelaus King of Cappadocia Comes to the Aid of Alexander When Archelaus king of Cappadocia learned what was happening, he hurried to Jerusalem, fearing for the safety of his son-in-law Alexander and daughter Glaphyra. In light of his personal experience and acquaintanceship with Herod, he hoped that he could resolve the situation if he employed the right tactics. The report of this incident is presented by Josephus in two versions (BJ I, 499–512; AJ XVI, 261–266), both of them relying of course on Nicolaus of Damascus but emended by Josephus himself. Both accounts offer a clear indication of Herod’s disturbed mental state; but what is particularly important is that we learn from them that Archelaus king of Cappadocia was also aware of it. He believed, rightfully, that he should “go along with” Herod and not rebuke him or argue against him, for this would achieve nothing since “he should thereby naturally bring him to dispute the point with him, and by still more and more apologizing for himself to be the more irritated” (AJ XVI, 262). The impression arising from between the lines is that Herod, like any paranoid individual, was locked into a rigid cognitive fixation from which it was difficult – if not impossible – to dislodge him. Archelaus therefore adopted a wise strategy, according to which he felt that if he could not confront him openly, he must convey the feeling that he was allying himself with Herod. According to the first version (BJ I, 499, 502), this entailed special wisdom or sophisticated maneuvering (mála promhqÄv kaì técnhe), or in short stratägma, while according to the second (AJ XVI, 263), it was apparently a ruse (táxiv). To better understand what went on, the two versions must be placed side by side and compared. The version in BJ I, 500–501 attributes to Archelaus Philopatris, at his meeting with Herod, the following emotional monologue: [500] “… Where is my scoundrel of a son-in-law? Where shall I set eyes on the person of this parricide, that I may tear him in pieces with my own hands? My daughter, too, shall share the fate of her fine spouse; for even this disorder revolves around the person’s belief that he is being conspired against, cheated, spied on, followed, poisoned or harmed in various ways, or obstructed in the pursuit of long-term goals. Every insult, no matter how trivial, is perceived by him in an exaggerated fashion and becomes the focus of further delusions. Not surprisingly, individuals who suffer from persecutory delusions are generally full of rage and resentment, and show a tendency to engage in violence toward those whom they believe are plotting against them (p. 298). With regard to mood disorders in individuals suffering from this syndrome, the incidence of depression is higher than that of the general population.

316

14. A Downward Spiral at Home and Abroad

if she has had no part in his schemes, as the wife of such a miscreant she is polluted. [501] But you too, the intended victim of the plot, astonish me by your forbearance, in leaving, as it seems, Alexander still alive! For my part, I hurried hither from Cappadocia expecting to find that the culprit had long since paid his penalty and to hold an inquiry with you upon my daughter, whom, out of regard for your exalted rank, I gave away to that wretch. But now, I find, we have to deliberate about the pair of them. If, then, the fondness of a father’s heart unnerves you for punishing a rebellious son, let us each lend the other his hand, each take the other’s place in visiting our wrath upon our children.”

The version in AJ, by contrast, does not quote Archelaus but recounts his words indirectly (AJ XVI, 263–265): [263] [Archelaus] appeared angry at the young man, and said that Herod had been so very mild a man, that he had not acted a rash part at all. He also said he would dissolve his daughter’s marriage with Alexander, nor could in justice spare his own daughter, if she were conscious of any thing, and did not inform Herod of it. [264] When Archelaus appeared to be of this temper, and otherwise than Herod expected or imagined, and, for the main, took Herod’s part, and was angry on his account, the king abated of his harshness, and took occasion from his appearing to have acted justly hitherto, to come by degrees to put on the affection of a father, and was on both sides to be pitied; [265] for when some persons refuted the calumnies that were laid on the young man, he was thrown into a passion; but when Archelaus joined in the accusation, he was dissolved into tears and sorrow after an affectionate manner. Accordingly, he desired that he would not dissolve his son’s marriage, and became not so angry as before for his offenses.

Of the two accounts, the first makes a stronger impression due to the dramatic words placed in the mouth of Archelaus and written with great literary skill, apparently on the basis of the original manuscript by Nicolaus of Damascus. By contrast, the second version appears, on the face of it, to be a concise, matter-of-fact account penned by Josephus himself, who added the important detail of Archelaus’ declaration of intent to dissolve the marriage and return his daughter to Cappadocia. It is hard to know whether this was an actual ploy on the king’s part that Josephus knew about from other sources, or whether he thought the literary narrative called for such a declaration. The first option seems more plausible to us, since it is based on knowledge of Herod’s character and was intended to win his trust. If this is true, Archelaus indeed succeeded, to the point where Herod handed over to him the “incriminating” letters that he had seized. We already speculated earlier that Archelaus himself had been the recipient of one of the letters, for had this not been the case, he would not have rushed to Jerusalem. In AJ XVI, 261, it is noted that he

Archelaus King of Cappadocia Comes to the Aid of Alexander

317

“heard of the state that Herod was in,” but no mention is made of how he heard. In our opinion, he only pretended that he learned of the family split through rumors and that he had not been aware of the letters’ contents until arriving in Jerusalem, when Herod was kind enough to show them to him. We would propose that his sophisticated plan of action was not a successful last-minute improvisation but was well thought-out in advance, even prior to his arrival. He only acted as though he were scrutinizing together with Herod every detail included in the letters, and in so doing, managed to deflect suspicion toward Herod’s brother Pheroras, whose so-called conspiracy with Alexander was the principal topic of the letters. Archelaus sought to present his son-in-law as a reckless and impulsive young man who had been influenced by his uncle Pheroras, out of naiveté, to join the conspiracy against Herod. According to this scenario, he simply fell into the trap set by this crafty and treacherous personality, who planned to incriminate him if the plot failed. Archelaus even added that he was hard-pressed to find a convincing reason for Alexander’s hatred of his father as he had enjoyed all the royal symbols of honor and stood a good chance of inheriting his father’s throne (BJ I, 502–503). 21 His words did not fall on deaf ears, since Herod was well aware of the machinations of his brother Pheroras, not to mention the fact that he (Herod) still bore him great resentment over the episode with the maidservant and all its ramifications, which had been a blow to his royal honor and authority. As a result of Archelaus’ clever ruse, Herod’s fury at Alexander was instantly diminished and diverted instead toward Pheroras, indicating Herod’s extreme volatility, which was a reflection of his radical mood swings. In great distress, Pheroras presented himself before Archelaus dressed in mourning clothes and begged for his help. Seizing the opportunity, the latter advised him to summon the courage to confess his involvement in the conspiracy, after which he should seek his brother’s forgiveness and reaffirm his love and loyalty to him. Only if Pheroras did so, he explained, would he be willing to intercede on his behalf and lessen the king’s anger toward him (BJ I, 504–505). The plan succeeded beyond all expectations, in particular since Pheroras put on a flawless show of confession, remorse and atonement. He threw himself at Herod’s feet, weeping in his mourning garments, and of course confessed his guilt. He also criticized his own 21

Herod himself heard the same things directly from Alexander during the reconciliation of the family before the Emperor; cf. AJ XVI, 114.

318

14. A Downward Spiral at Home and Abroad

impatience and his folly, which had been caused, he claimed, only by virtue of his great love for his wife-maidservant. In short, he played this dramatic scene to the hilt, serving as both advocate and witness for the prosecution against himself. As agreed upon beforehand, at this very point Archelaus entered the scene and asked for mercy on his behalf. To appease Herod’s anger, Archelaus confided in him that he himself had suffered greatly from his brother but ultimately preferred his natural obligations of family loyalty over revenge. In his opinion, the same principle should be applied to matters of state as to healing a sick body: rather than amputating an infected limb, a more moderate and restrained form of treatment is preferable (ibid., 507). 22 Archelaus continued to speak to Herod in the same vein until his anger was assuaged and he forgave Pheroras; thus ended this part of his well-staged performance. But the final and most successful scene in this grotesque production was Archelaus’ show of feigned anger toward his son-in-law Alexander, which had led him, or so he informed Herod, to a decision to demand that he divorce his daughter Glaphyra. Upon hearing these words, Herod was seized with alarm, since he had a fervent desire to preserve his ties with the Cappadocian royal family, which were necessary to him for reasons of prestige and as “compensation” for his deep feelings of inferiority; consequently, he restrained his fear of the imagined schemes of his son. Undoubtedly, the fact that Archelaus publicly displayed such understanding and identification made things much easier for him, in addition to which Archelaus had been willing to share with him his own difficult experiences. It seems that the combination of this display of “candor” and “sincerity,” on the one hand, and of “anger” toward Alexander and resolve regarding the divorce, on the other, caused a remarkable change in Herod’s emotional state. The impossible indeed occurred: He himself literally pleaded with Archelaus to change his mind about having Alexander and Glaphyra divorce, raising touching personal arguments such as the fact that the young couple had small children, and that Alexander was very attached to Glaphyra and hence forcing him to separate from her was liable to bring him to despair (ibid., 509).

22

This descriptive parable, which contains a wealth of political wisdom, is apparently derived from a Greek source that would have been known to an author such as Nicolaus of Damascus. As such, it is better suited to the version in BJ, which was more dependent on Nicolaus than was AJ. It is therefore not surprising that the latter version, which was more heavily edited by Josephus, contains no mention of the parable.

Archelaus King of Cappadocia Comes to the Aid of Alexander

319

The text goes on to state that Archelaus was persuaded, after much urging, to comply with Herod’s wishes; in the end, he reconciled with the young “transgressor,” but advised that Alexander should be sent to Rome to speak with the Emperor, especially since he (Archelaus) had sent him a full report on the matter. After an agreement of reconciliation had been signed amid great feasting and displays of friendship, Herod bestowed upon Archelaus 70 talents and a chair of gold inlaid with precious stones; several eunuchs; and a concubine named Pannychis. In addition, he granted other favors to each of Archelaus’ friends according to their rank, as did all the important members of Herod’s court. Finally, Herod and his nobles accompanied him as far as Antioch in northern Syria when he returned to his homeland of Cappadocia (ibid., 510–512). 23 The summary of this episode (in AJ XVI, 269) is highly instructive: And Archelaus, as soon as he had made the reconciliation, went then away to Cappadocia, having proved at this juncture of time the most acceptable person to Herod in the world; on which account he gave him the richest presents, as tokens of his respects to him; and being on other occasions magnanimous, he esteemed him one of his dearest friends. He also made an agreement with him that he would go to Rome, because he had written to Caesar about these affairs; so they went together as far as Antioch.

A comparison of these accounts highlights the additional information contained in the second one: according to the first version, Archelaus advised Herod to send Alexander to Rome, while in the second one Archelaus and Herod came to an agreement that Herod himself would journey there. It is later noted three times in succession (AJ XVI, 270, 271, 273) that Herod traveled to Rome and returned from there (ibid., 276), apparently not long afterward. 24 If this information is correct, 23

24

The parallel account in AJ is very concise. The only additional piece of information is that when Herod escorted King Archelaus Philopatris to Antioch on the Orontes en route to Cappadocia, he brought about a reconciliation between Archelaus and Marcus Titius (the Roman governor of Syria) regarding a dispute of some sort between them; for further details, see Schürer 1973, I, p. 257; Bowersock 1965, pp. 21–22. In our opinion, Herod and Titius may well have become acquainted much earlier, perhaps as far back as the battle of Samosata (38 BCE), when Herod went to meet Mark Antony to ask him for military assistance against Mattathias Antigonus. Since Marcus Titius was also in service to Antony at the time, in the campaign against the Parthians, it is possible that they met then and developed a friendship. At any rate, the fact that Marcus Titius had since become a well-known figure in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, was good enough reason for Herod to pursue a close friendship with him. It appears that while escorting Archelaus to Cappadocia, Herod wished to “kill two birds with one stone,” so to speak. Regarding this visit by Herod to Rome, see Schürer 1973, I, p. 293, and n. 17; Stern 1974, I, p. 250; idem 1983b, p. 253 (n. 48); Kokkinos 1998, pp. 371–372, § 4. In

320

14. A Downward Spiral at Home and Abroad

as we believe, it is obvious that Archelaus succeeded in convincing Herod that he must report directly to the Emperor concerning the reconciliation, as he had done with the previous rapprochement in 12 BCE, particularly since Archelaus himself had reported to him in a detailed letter on the renewed conflict. In sum, he persuaded Herod that it was more fitting for him to do so himself in a face-to-face meeting with the Emperor. Archaelaus of course entertained the hope that a meeting between the two would serve as an additional formal guarantee of the end of the conflict between Herod and his son, and at the same time pave the way to restoring Alexander’s right to inherit the throne in Judaea. Unfortunately, there is no account of what took place in Rome, but it is easy to imagine that Archelaus’ expectations were realized in full and that Herod and the Emperor were satisfied as well. In our opinion, the contribution of Antiquities in this instance is very significant as a means of rounding out the information provided in War. For this reason, we cannot easily dismiss from the historical record the possibility of a third journey to Rome by Herod nor the sequence of events that preceded it. 25

Herod’s Second War against the Nabateans (AJ XVI, 273–296) Although Herod was mollified by the reconciliation brokered by Archelaus king of Cappadocia and by his third trip to Rome (if indeed it took place), it was not long before the tension and emotional stress returned to torment him, this time with even greater intensity. The problems began with his disastrous entanglement in a second war with the Nabataeans, instigated by his enemy Syllaeus in 9 BCE.26 As a result of this war, Herod’s entire world was instantly shattered (and this is by no means a literary exaggeration), for his great patron, the Emperor, lost faith in him and saw him as the sole party responsible for the out-

25

26

brief, the account of this journey in AJ should not be considered a historical fiction. It was the third of his journeys to Rome, the second having taken place in 12 BCE (see note 25, below). On this issue, we are in full agreement with Schalit (1969, pp. 610–613). In addition, one can point to many essential differences between the events surrounding the second and third journeys respectively, thereby negating the possibility of “literary duplication.” For the causes, outbreak, and course of the war, see in detail: Grant 1971, pp. 189– 194; Kasher 1988, pp. 163 ff.

Herod’s Second War against the Nabateans

321

break of the conflict, which breached the conventions of his status as rex socius et amicus populi Romani (“an allied king and friend of the Roman people”). 27 Augustus dispatched a letter of reprimand informing him “that wheras of old he had used him as his friend (fílov, or amicus in Latin), he should now use him as his subject (Úpäkoov, or subiectus)” (AJ XVI, 290). 28 The significance of this rebuke was that he lost his standing as one of the “close friends [of the Emperor]”29 after having held this high honor for a great many years (AJ XV, 199; BJ I, 396) – and despite the fact that it had been said of Herod in the past that “the Emperor (Augustus) preferred no one to Herod besides (Marcus) Agrippa” (AJ XV, 361; cf. BJ I, 400). Unfortunately, though, Marcus Agrippa could not come to Herod’s defense, having died in 12 BCE. The pro-Herodian lobby in Rome was also greatly weakened at this point as a result of the bitterness of the Roman notables Andromachus and Gemallus over being banished from Jerusalem in disgrace by Herod. The insult and humiliation resulting from the Emperor’s letter of reprimand were an extremely serious matter in Herod’s eyes, and one that was difficult for him to bear, signifying as it did his descent “from the greatest heights to the lowest depths,” to quote the Talmudic expression. His unique relationship with Augustus had been his pride and joy and the epitome of his political life. The Emperor’s loss of faith in him was now liable to arouse old frustrations and feelings of fear and pressure that had characterized him early in his political career. His sense of inferiority was also likely to torment him even more, in addition to the obvious danger of serious repercussions in terms of his relations with his Hasmonaean sons. The arguments of the special delegation that he dispatched to Rome to explain the background to his military initiative in the second war with the Nabataeans fell initially on deaf ears as the Emperor did not alter his stance (ibid., 293–294). A similar response greeted the claims that Herod’s move had been approved and coordinated with the Roman governor in Syria (see below). Under such circumstances, he was even likely to succumb completely to despair, as manifest in the extreme form of suicidal urges. But as in the past, it was the strong 27

28 29

Regarding this political and juridical status, see above p. 70. The Emperor’s loss of faith in Herod is also reflected in a surviving fragment from Nicolaus of Damascus, found in the writings of the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus; see Stern 1974, I, no. 97 For the meaning of the latter term, see Liddell & Scott, pp. 1871–1872. Regarding this honor, see: Bammel 1952, pp. 205–210; J. Crook, Consilium Principis: Imperial Councils and Counsellors from Augustus to Diocletian, Cambridge 1955, pp. 21–30; Hoehner 1972, p. 19, n. 2.

322

14. A Downward Spiral at Home and Abroad

survival instinct so entrenched in his character that prevented him from taking any impulsive action. He may well have drawn encouragement from the fact that Augustus confined himself to a warning and did not take actual political steps against him; likewise, he may have taken support and counsel from his most senior advisor Nicolaus of Damascus, who presumably persuaded him to refrain from any rash moves and maintain a low profile until the danger was past. But above all, it seems that luck was with him once again, since major changes suddenly took place in the royal court in Petra that truly offered him a lifeline. The Nabataean king Obodas III died unexpectedly (in 9 BCE), apparently poisoned in a plot instigated by Syllaeus, although the latter was not present in Petra at the time.30 However, the latter’s plans to seize power were foiled, as he was outdone by an individual named Aenaeas, who rushed to crown himself King Aretas IV. 31 Syllaeus, caught by surprise, exploited his new ties with the Emperor’s court and attempted to rectify the situation in other ways, including the use of bribery. As in his struggle with Herod, he employed the clever strategy of zeroing in on a sensitive point in Roman policy: he confronted the Emperor with the bitter truth that the coronation of Aretas had not been carried out with his knowledge or permission, as dictated by the official status of every Nabataean king as an “allied king and friend of the Roman people.” Indeed, this infuriated Augustus, who was not appeased by the letter and gifts sent to him by Aretas; instead, he angrily rebuffed the special emissaries sent from Petra for this purpose (AJ XVI, 296–297). Herod, for his part, did not rest easy, as he not reconciled himself to the unpleasant set of circumstances that had made him suspect in the eyes of the Emperor. He decided to send another delegation to Rome (8 BCE), this time headed by Nicolaus of Damascus, to try to set matters right (ibid., 299, 333, 335 ff.). The latter succeeded in exploiting disloyal tendencies in Syllaeus’ camp (apparently as a result of Aretas IV’s accession to the throne) to obtain information and documents proving his acts of deceit; in other words, he collaborated with 30

31

AJ XVI, 296; cf. 337, 339. Apparently, the plan was to poison Obodas III slowly, thereby concealing Syllaeus’ involvement in the crime. However, two bilingual inscriptions, one from Miletus and the other from Delos, indirectly suggest the anticipated death of the Nabataean king, since both include the insincere salutation “to Obodas’ health,” indicating that their author Syllaeus (referred to in the inscriptions as “the King’s brother”) expected Obodas to die en route to Rome; see Schürer 1973, p. 581 (nn. 22–24). See Bowersock 1983, pp. 51–52 and notes 26–27.

Herod’s Second War against the Nabateans

323

the emissaries of Aretas IV to discredit Syllaeus (ibid., 336, 337, 339). This should not be understood as a rapprochement between Herod and the Nabataeans but rather as a joint effort directed against Syllaeus, the common enemy of Herod and Aretas, based on enlightened self-interest and the circumstances at the time.32 The chance to take revenge on Syllaeus was not long in coming, for in the political and legal arguments before Augustus (apparently in 7 BCE), Nicolaus seized the opportunity to steer the debate toward issues expedient to Herod and to expose the iniquity caused to his master by the cunning Syllaeus. As a seasoned jurist, he presented Herod’s military initiative against the Nabataeans as an action dictated by the principles of Hellenist-Roman law in the case of a debt that was not honored. 33 In addition, he managed to prove that Herod had acted on the basis of an explicit agreement signed in Berytus (Beirut) under the auspices of the Syrian governor, C. Sentius Saturninus; moreover, said agreement contained a special clause concerning the extradition of Nabataean “brigands” who harassed Herod’s kingdom from bases under Syllaeus’ protection. 34 The Emperor was completely convinced by Nicolaus’ arguments, and in the end ordered Syllaeus to return to his country to settle his debts to Herod, after which he was to return to Rome to prove before a tribunal that he had carried out the verdict (ibid., 352–353). Augustus’ political about-face in Herod’s favor was striking, and even excessive, since it is stated that he considered annexing the entire land of the Nabataeans to Herod’s kingdom as a way of settling accounts with Aretas IV himself. Upon further contemplation, however, the Emperor decided not to do so because at precisely this juncture he became more aware of the extent of Herod’s domestic troubles (below), causing him to think that “it would not be proper to add another government to him, now he was old, and in an ill state with relation to his sons” (ibid., 355). Most likely, it was also for this reason that Augustus decided to reconcile with Aretas, accept his emissaries and his gifts, and approve his rule, limiting himself to an official reproof for the hasty manner of his coronation, which had been conducted without his prior knowledge and approval (ibid.). This was a realistic, sensible solution that left all his political options open, allowing him to act in future as he saw fit. 32 33 34

For further details: Kasher 1988, pp. 169–170, nn. 101–103. Incidentally, the amount in question was only sixty talents – hardly a justification for waging war. On the “Syllaeus affair” as a whole, see Kasher 1988, pp. 165 ff., esp. 170 ff.

324

14. A Downward Spiral at Home and Abroad

The “Syllaeus affair” reached its final conclusion only the following year (6 BCE), after the Nabataean scoundrel returned to Rome and was tried a second time. Herod invested a huge sum of money (200 talents) in his trial, and made certain in advance (apparently on the advice of Nicolaus) to probe other previously unsolved crimes that had been carried out by Syllaeus: first and foremost, thwarting the Roman military expedition led by the governor of Egypt, Aelius Gallus, to explore Arabia Felix and eliminate the Arab pirates in the Red Sea (25 BCE). 35

35

Strabo, Geographica XVI, 4, 24 (782c); this incident is not even mentioned by Josephus. For further details, see Kasher 1988, pp. 170–173; Amit 2002, pp. 89–90.

Chapter 15 Lead-Up to the Great Explosion (8–7 BCE) The Eurycles Affair At the height of the “Syllaeus affair,” another storm erupted in the royal court in Jerusalem that aroused Herod from his “dormant” paranoid state and pushed him toward a more acute attack. In AJ XVI, 300, Josephus opens the passage with the following assessment: The disorders about Herod’s family and children about this time grew much worse; for it now appeared certain, nor was it unforeseen beforehand, that fortune threatened the greatest and most insupportable misfortunes possible to his kingdom.

The person who set off this outburst was Eurycles, a Spartan notable who had earned Roman citizenship and was known as Gaius Julius Eurycles as a reward for his decisive assistance to Octavian (later Augustus) at the Battle of Actium (31 BCE). Eurycles had also been appointed ruler (that is, king) of Sparta, with several other cities in the Peloponnesus placed under his jurisdiction as well.1 In 9 BCE, Eurycles came to Jerusalem, apparently at the invitation of Antipater, Herod’s oldest son, after having become friendly with him in 14 BCE when the latter went to Rome under orders from his father to present himself before Augustus. 2 In our opinion, Herod may well have met Eurycles earlier, since it is hard to imagine that he would have ignored a favorite of the Emperor for so many years, not to mention the fact that the Spartan was also a very well-known figure in Greece at the time. Incidentally, it is worth noting in this context the strong similarity between Herod and Eurycles in several areas, as follows: (a) both men 1

2

For details regarding Eurycles, see: Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, p. 311, n. a; Bowersock 1962, pp. 112–118; idem 1983, pp. 59–60, 92, 105, 108, 120; Schürer 1973, I, pp. 311–312 and n. 83; idem 1983b, p. 77, 252 (n. 27); Cartledge & Spawforth 1989, pp. 97–101; Lindsay 1992, pp. 290–297; D. M. Jacobson 1983/4, p. 33; Kokkinos 1998, pp. 209, 344, 371; Roller 1999, pp. 59–60. See Kokkinos 1998, p. 209, n. 5.

326

15. Lead-Up to the Great Explosion

abandoned Antony’s camp in favor of Octavian’s; (b) were granted the throne in their respective countries by the Romans; (c) held games and contests associated with their names – Eurycles, in Sparta; and Herod, the restored Olympic games in Elis, Greece; (d) were known as relentless glory seekers; (e) were notorious as despotic tyrants; and (f) prided themselves on leading lives of splendor and ostentatiousness. Since honor and status played a major role in the lives of both figures, it is likely that Herod wished to make Eurycles’ acquaintance and be counted among his friends; indeed, he regularly made it a point to meet and “rub shoulders” with all the most important figures in the Roman Empire in hopes that it would benefit him in some way and add to his prestige. 3 Presumably, he was also fascinated by the “glory of Sparta,” for the city-state was highly esteemed in the Greco-Roman world at large and among the Jews as well.4 By inviting him to come to Jerusalem in 9 BCE, Antipater sought to enlist his Spartan friend to stir up trouble between his father and his Hasmonaean brothers. He hoped that this crafty individual, with his smooth tongue, his trickery, and his ingratiating ways (cf. AJ XVI, 301), would be able to persuade his father to reconsider the spirit of the reconciliation agreement of 12 BCE and declare Antipater his sole successor. Eurycles was “rewarded for this task with money and assorted gifts” (ibid., 307; BJ I, 517), in addition to which he was granted the important honor of lodging in Antipater’s personal suite of rooms in the royal palace (AJ XVI, 302). (It was only in 2 BCE, that is, seven years after his visit to Jerusalem, that the man’s true nature was publicly revealed and he was shown to be a greedy, corrupt individual. It seems that these qualities also caused him to fall from grace with Herod himself, who eventually sent him into exile for his wrongdoing and venality. 5) It is possible that had Herod known earlier of his deeds, he would not have allowed him to be his guest; but it was his misfortune that Eurycles arrived in Jerusalem at one of the worst times in Herod’s life, precisely when he was in need of support and encouragement due to the dark cloud over his relationship with the Emperor as a result of the “Syllaeus affair” and the second war with the Nabataeans. He most likely deluded himself that Eurycles 3 4 5

Indeed, in AJ XVI, 301 Eurycles of Lacedemon (i.e,. Sparta) is depicted as “a person of note there” (oÙk 2shmov tôn Èkeî). This was stated clearly in BJ I, 518. Regarding Sparta’s stature among the Jews of the Second Temple period, see Stern 1965, pp. 91–93, 111–114, 116, 126–127. See note 1 above. Only scant mention is made of his bitter fate (in BJ I, 531, and AJ XVI, 301).

The Eurycles Affair

327

would serve as his advocate before the Emperor in Rome; apparently for this reason, he followed Antipater’s recommendation that he host him with full honors in his personal wing of the palace. When he arrived in Jerusalem, Eurycles brought with him magnificent gifts to win Herod’s favor; and the latter, as was his habit, returned the favor several times over. According to BJ I, 514, however, Eurycles did not appreciate any gift that did not involve bloodshed – an indication of the extremely negative attitude toward him in this version, doubtless strongly influenced by Nicolaus of Damascus in an attempt to place responsibility on Eurycles as well for the dramatic deterioration in Herod’s condition (see below). Indeed, it is no coincidence that the following passage appears in BJ I, 515: So he proceeded to impose on the king by flattery, clever talk, and lying encomiums upon his merits. Quickly reading Herod’s character and studying in all he said or did to please him, he was soon numbered among his principal friends; indeed the king and the whole court were delighted to show special honour to this Spartan, out of regard for his country.

While enjoying the status of honored guest in Jerusalem, Eurycles did everything in his power to drive a wedge between Herod and his Hasmonaean sons in the foulest ways imaginable. Toward this end, he attempted (successfully), through pretense and a silver tongue, to first win Alexander’s trust, presenting himself as a close friend of his father-inlaw Archelaus king of Cappadocia. He even managed to cause Alexander to express himself freely in his presence, and with cunning words of flattery provoked him into venting his rebelliousness against Herod. The two versions of the “Eurycles affair” in Josephus writings (BJ I, 513–526; AJ XVI, 300–312) complement one another in various details, but in this case the former takes a harsher approach.6 In our opinion, its extreme language reveals the apologetic tendencies of Nicolaus of Damascus and his desire to “absolve” Herod, as much as possible, of his crimes and to place the lion’s share of the blame on the “villains” who surrounded him, among them Archelaus and Antipater. This version illustrates Eurycles’ strategy of slyly ingratiating himself with the parties involved, each according to his own personality (BJ I, 517). Thus for example, he commented to Antipater what a great insult it was that he, as firstborn, was expected to overlook the machinations of those who were jealous of his prospects of succession. By contrast, he asked Alexander in “amazement” how someone such 6

Otto (1913, cols. 139 ff.) doubted the authenticity of this version because of its exaggerations. Schalit (1969, pp. 616 ff.), by contrast, did not find significant differences between the two versions.

328

15. Lead-Up to the Great Explosion

as him – the son of a princess (namely, Mariamme the Hasmonaean) and the husband of another princess (Glaphyra of Cappadocia), who enjoyed the support of his renowned father-in-law Archelaus king of Cappadocia – could accept with equanimity the fact that the son of a common woman (Doris) would inherit the royal throne. From the version in BJ, we also learn how Aristobulus was drawn by Eurycles into defaming his father and of the plot that he supposedly hatched with his brother Alexander to kill Herod (BJ I, 519–520). In sum, it was Eurycles who lured the two brothers into complaining against their father. He “revealed” this “secret” to Antipater, adding his own embellishment that the brothers had instigated a plot against Herod and were only awaiting an opportune moment to attack with swords drawn (ibid.). As stated in BJ: [520] … Visiting Herod, he (Eurycles) declared that he came to bring him life in return for his benefactions to himself, the light of day in repayment for his hospitality. “For,” he said, “a sword has long since been sharpened for your destruction and Alexander’s right arm braced to wield it. It is I who have retarded the blow by pretending to assist him.” [521] Alexander, he continued, had said that Herod, not content with reigning himself over an empire which belonged to others, after murdering their mother, with squandering her realm, was now proceeding to foist in a bastard (nóqov)7 as his successor and to offer their grandfather’s kingdom to the pest (tšô fqóršw)8, Antipater. But he, Alexander (so Eurycles reported him), would avenge the spirits (daímosin) of Hyrcanus and Mariamme for it would ill become him to inherit the throne from such a father without bloodshed. [522] Then there were the constant daily provocations to which he was subjected, insomuch that he could not utter a single word which escaped calumny. Were allusion made to other persons’ noble lineage (eÙgeneía), his father gratuitously insulted him by remarking, “Nobody is noble but Alexander here, who scorns his father for the baseness (Àgéneian) of his birth!” On the hunting-field, were he silent, he gave offence; did he express commendation, he was pronounced ironical to boot. (trans. by Thackeray)9 7

8 9

The Greek word nóqov means “bastard” or “lowly of birth” (i. e., born of a slave or concubine). Compare noqeía, meaning illegitimate marriage, or marriage to an individual of inferior status; see Liddell & Scott, p. 1178. The allusion to the lowly origins of the Herodian family is self-evident, and supports our assumption of a collective sense of inferiority on the part of the family members. Indeed, Feldman (2004, pp. 7–9) has shown that Josephus followed Philo and Pseudo-Philo’s lead in associating this negative label with Esau, Edom and Amalek. The word fqórov means a destructive and dangerous man, see Liddell & Scott, p. 1930; see also fqorá, fqorhgenäv, fqoría, fqoroergóv (ibid.). The wealth of detail in this version, which was probably based on Nicolaus of Damascus, has no parallel in AJ. Furthermore, the contrast between eÙgeneía (“noble origins”) and Àgéneian (“base/inferior birth”) highlights the Herodian family’s sense of inferiority.

The Eurycles Affair

329

As we have already seen, Nicolaus made use of such apologetics to present the natural Hasmonaean arrogance as a deliberate provocation aimed at one of the more sensitive weak spots of Herod and his family, namely, their sense of inferiority over their lowly birth. Nicolaus presumably hoped that the average, naive Roman-Hellenist reader would receive a negative impression from the haughtiness of the Hasmonaean sons, for after all, this involved the defamation of a king – something that could not be tolerated – in addition to which the situation touched directly on the religious commandment to honor one’s father, plain and simple.10 In our view, Nicolaus sought to present Herod as a victim of the machinations of an international charlatan who managed to fool numerous people in his lifetime, including such lofty figures as Augustus himself. We believe that Nicolaus wished, in this way, to at least partially “clear” Herod’s name by demonstrating that he was just one of many who fell into the trap laid by this great scoundrel. In this spirit, we wish to offer examples of the differences the two versions, for instance with regard to the monies given by Herod to Eurycles for the incriminating information against Alexander. In AJ XVI, 309, it is stated explicitly that “he immediately gave Eurycles a present of fifty talents.” However, in I, 530, it is noted that: Notwithstanding the weakness of the obtainable evidence, Herod gave orders for a watch to be kept on his sons, though still leaving them their liberty. As for Eurycles, the bane of his house and stage-manager of the whole abominable business (dramatourgóv }olou toû músouv EÙrukléa),11 the king called him his saviour and benefactor (swtêr kaì eÙrgéth”),12 and presented him with fifty talents. That villain then, before the true story of the affair got abroad, made off to Cappadocia, where he extorted more money from Archelaus, having the impudence to assert that he had reconciled Herod to Alexander. (trans. by Thackeray)

A comparison between the two versions highlights the differences in their style and content. BJ presents more of the original, untainted attitude of Nicolaus and tries to cover up for Herod as much as possible by shifting the blame for many, if not most, of his actions to those 10 11

12

Since this commandment was of prime importance in Judaism as well, it seems that Nicolaus was also aiming at the Hellenist Jews among his readers. No doubt the Greek term “Eurycleia” is used in irony, since this was the name of the games held in his honor at Sparta and Gythium (see note 1 above). But the most striking point in this context is the fact that it is followed by a reference to Eurycles as “the stage manager (dramatourgóv) of the whole abominable business”. This, of course, was an accurate reflection of Nicolaus’ viewpoint. The use of the terms “savior” and “benefactor” is ironic as well, since these were generally employed with reference to Augustus – and by Herod himself, on numerous occasions.

330

15. Lead-Up to the Great Explosion

around him. It also illustrates Nicolaus’ ironic tone and his rhetorical skills.13 By contrast, the version in AJ reflects more strongly the literary and historical redaction of Josephus, who, despite his reliance on Nicolaus, was not completely influenced by his style and objectives. The differences between the two versions are also exemplified by the closing summaries of the affair. According to BJ I, 533, since Herod was interested solely in slanderous remarks, only those who shared his beliefs and identified with his anger won his approval. This assessment was made in direct connection with the oath taken by Euaratus of Cos,14 a close friend of Alexander’s who flatly denied the malicious rumors spread by Eurycles of a conspiracy by the Hasmonaean brothers to kill their father and capture his throne. Herod rejected his testimony outright, for the simple reason that it did not fit his predetermined conclusion. This clearly attests to the strength of his paranoid delusions regarding his Hasmonaean sons, which were already fixated in his thinking, as reflected in other episodes as well.15 In the parallel version (AJ XVI, 311), it is stated, by way of comparison: “But as for the king of the Jews, he was not now in the temper he was in formerly towards Alexander and Aristobulus, when he had been content with the hearing their calumnies when others told him of them.”16 The preceding passage demonstrates that his total preoccupation with thoughts of his sons’ guilt and hatred of him even drove him to encourage negative reports about them from any and all informants, over and above the “findings” from his many interrogations. It is entirely possible that his inducements to these informers took the known Herodian forms of interrogation under torture, on the one hand, and bribes, on the other.

13 14

15 16

On Nicolaus’ rhetorical skills, see above; the reader is referred once again to Wacholder 1962, pp. 29–30; Stern 1974, II, pp. 227 ff. This individual referred to in AJ XVI, 312 (below) was named Euaratus, or Euarastus in BJ I, 532. The reference is apparently to C. Julius Euaratus, a priest to the god Apollo at Halasarna on the island of Cos (ca. 12 BCE), as recorded in a Greek inscription (IGRR IV, no. 1101); see for details: Schürer, 1973, I, p. 311, n. 82; Kokkinos 1998, p. 122. Cf. Cornfeld (1982, p. 106), who pointed to the affair of Jucundus and Tyrannus, which was proximate in time, by way of example. In the last section of AJ XVI, 312 there is a lacuna in the text that prevents an accurate reconstruction; however, it can be understood from the remainder that Euaratus of Cos was suspected by Herod of being in league with Alexander against him.

Torture of the Bodyguards Jucundus and Tyrannus

331

Torture of the Bodyguards Jucundus and Tyrannus As part of the same sequence of events, Josephus also recounted the torture and execution of two bodyguards in service to the king, Jucundus and Tyrannus (AJ XVI, 313–320); BJ I, 526–529). Despite the inconsistency between the two versions,17 this affair demonstrates how convinced Herod already was of the truth of his suspicions regarding a conspiracy against him. In BJ, for example, it is written that his son Antipater secretly sent emissaries to report to his father that the aforementioned bodyguards had met clandestinely with his Hasmonaean brothers. This was enough to stir Herod’s fury to new heights, causing him to quickly subject the guards to severe torture, even though they did not admit to the crimes attributed to them.The version in AJ, which appears more reliable, reports: [314] There were two guards of Herod’s body, who were in great esteem for their strength and tallness, Jucundus and Tyrannus; these men had been cast off by Herod, who was displeased at them; these now used to ride along with Alexander, and for their skill in their exercises were in great esteem with him, and had some gold and other gifts bestowed on them. [315] Now the king having an immediate suspicion of these men, had them tortured, who endured the torture courageously for a long time; but at last confessed that Alexander would have persuaded them to kill Herod, when he was in pursuit of the wild beasts, that it might be said he fell from his horse, and was run through with his own spear, for that he had once such a misfortune formerly. [316] They also showed where there was money hidden in the stable under ground; and these convicted the king’s chief hunter, that he had given the young men the royal hunting spears and weapons to Alexander’s dependents, at Alexander’s command.

In terms of its content, the story is certainly plausible, since its narrative elements are indeed compatible with Herod’s history, for example, his love of hunting, and his previous hunting accident. There is only one drawback to the story, namely, if he had really banished the two bodyguards for associating with Alexander, how could they have planned to go on a hunting expedition with him in order to kill him? 17

According to BJ I, 527, they “had once been masters of the horse to the king, but for some offenses had been put out of that honorable employment.” Nothing is said of these offenses, which is somewhat perplexing. At first glance, it seems that the version in AJ complements the above, and that they were demoted to their present position as bodyguards (dramatourgóv). But such a possibility is easily refuted, for if the reason for their demotion was their disloyalty to Herod, why would they have been appointed as his bodyguards? AJ therefore seems to be the more plausible of the two versions, as will be demonstrated below.

332

15. Lead-Up to the Great Explosion

The only logical way to understand this is by separating the story of this conspiracy from the events of 8 BCE and relating it to an earlier time frame, since in fact what is recounted here concerns a preexisting plot that only now came to light. And let no one suspect Herod of having a “long fuse,” in the sense that he suddenly recalled the existence of a long-forgotten plot from the past that had not been carried out, or simply discovered an unknown plot through the interrogation of his bodyguards. It is equally likely, if not more so, that he literally wrung a suitable confession out of the two men under intense torture – an admission that could serve to incriminate his Hasmonaean sons. From the standpoint of his delusional (paranoid) disorder, he was already at the stage where he changed reality to suit his delusions of a conspiracy against him(!) In fact, the torturing of Jucundus and Tyrannus can also be explained in a completely different way. According to AJ, they were originally admired by Herod owing to their pleasing appearance, strength, and height. Apparently, the fact that they spent time with Alexander pursuing their shared pastimes of horseback riding and gymnastics brought him to a state of envy and anger. As noted earlier, the execution of Carus, Herod’s servant/lover, of whom it was written that he “exceeded all men of that time in comeliness” (AJ XVII, 44), took place for the selfsame reason. So too, the torture of the two handsome and favored eunuchs who were in charge of his drinks and his bedchamber, which also stemmed from his jealousy over their association with Alexander (AJ XVI, 229 ff.). The inescapable conclusion from the text is that Herod’s envy of Alexander, who represented in his eyes the epitome of youth and beauty, was a major impetus for the suspicions of betrayal on his part, especially since Herod was suffering at precisely this point from a worsening self-image as a result of his fear of encroaching old age.18 As part of the presentation of “incriminating” evidence, BJ I, 528–529 also makes mention of the discovery of a letter purportedly written by Alexander and sent to the commander of the Alexandrium fortress, in which he asks to be given refuge there along with his brother Aristobulus after they had killed their father, and permission to use the weapons stored there along with other forms of assistance. In his defense, Alexander claimed that the letter was a fake produced by Diophantus, the king’s scribe, who was known to be especially talented at forging handwriting. It is even recounted that the latter was 18

See Kasher 2005a, pp. 220–221; cf. also above p. 302, n. 38.

Torture of the Bodyguards Jucundus and Tyrannus

333

convicted of such acts on more than one occasion and was executed for this reason.19 The commander of the fortress was tortured, but said nothing to incriminate Alexander. The version in AJ XVI, 317–319 adds various details to its predecessor and is more closely linked, in terms of content, to the matter of Jucundus and Tyrannus, as follows: 20 [317] After these, the commander of the garrison of Alexandrium was caught and tortured; for he was accused to have promised to receive the young men into his fortress, and to supply them with that money of the king’s which was laid up in that fortress, 21 [318] yet did not he acknowledge any thing of it himself; but his son came ill, and said it was so, and delivered up the writing, which, so far as could be guessed, was in Alexander’s hand. Its contents were these: “When we have finished, by God’s help, all that we have proposed to do, we will come to you; but do your endeavors, as you have promised, to receive us into your fortress.” [319] After this writing was produced, Herod had no doubt about the treacherous designs of his sons against him. But Alexander said that Diophantus the scribe had imitated his hand, and that the paper was maliciously drawn up by Antipater; for Diophantus appeared to be very cunning in such practices; and as he was afterward convicted of forging other papers, he was put to death for it.

While at first glance, the Hasmonaean brothers’ conspiracy against their father appears plausible, particularly given their plan of action, 22 the vehement denial that appears in both versions of Josephus warrants further consideration. If Nicolaus of Damascus were sincerely convinced of the brothers’ guilt, it is reasonable to assume that he would have expressed this in some way, especially since this would aided his defense of his patron’s actions. But such a possibility is rejected even more definitively in BJ, which reflects his views to a greater extent than does AJ. 23 In short, logic would dictate the opposite con19

20

21

22 23

On the face of it, there is a logical contradiction here, since if Diophantus had already been executed, how could he have written the letter in the name of Alexander? However, this apparent inconsistency can be explained by the simple fact that the version in BJ was written in an abridged form, which was amplified further by the text in AJ; moreover, the latter was written from a later historic perspective. Thus, for example, one can infer from AJ XVI, 316 that the lead hunter was supposed to take the weapon for Herod’s assassination from the Alexandrium fortress; see also note 1. This fact was accepted by scholars; compare for example Roller 1999, p. 130. It should be added that the fortress was used as an emergency storage depot for weapons, as was the case with Sepphoris in the Galilee (AJ XVII, 272). Cf. Schalit 1969, pp. 618–619. In fact, we already saw at the time of the great family reconciliation in 12 BCE that Nicolaus believed strongly in the innocence of Herod’s Hasmonaean sons (cf. Wacholder 1962, pp. 5 ff., 13 ff.), as did the Emperor himself.

334

15. Lead-Up to the Great Explosion

clusion, leaving us to argue that the “incriminating” evidence against the sons of Herod was nothing but a forgery. Since Herod had full control over Diophantus, the court scribe, he could have instructed him as to what to write, how to write it, and in whose name; in addition, the fact that numerous other acts of forgery were attributed to him, and that he met his death as a result of such actions, only reinforces this assumption. To summarize, Alexander and Aristobulus’ guilt was already fixated in Herod’s (paranoid) thinking, without any rational connection to outward events. In such a state, he was controlled by his opinions, suspicions, and distorted perception of reality, even when these were proven false. Thus all logical arguments were of no use, for they challenged his “consistent” conclusions that it was advisable – indeed necessary – to eliminate their conspiracy with a counter-conspiracy (as will become clear below).24 According to AJ XVI, 320–321, Herod ultimately brought Jucundus and Tyrannus before “the masses” (tò plêqov) in Jericho in order to publicly accuse Alexander and Aristobulus on the basis of their testimony. It was important to him to present them before a “people’s tribunal” so as to demonstrate the justness of his claims before one and all. As a paranoid individual who sought out opportunities for litigation, he intended to prove his “truth” before a judicial authority accepted by him and to publicly air what he considered its unassailable verdict. In the case in question, this was nothing more than a “kangaroo court” where no proper judicial procedures were observed, in addition to which Herod attached no importance to the fate of such insignificant defendants as Jucundus and Tyrannus. Josephus does not discuss the course of the trial or its conclusion, apart from the fact that the assembled mob stoned the defendants to death. There is no question that this action was organized on the basis of instructions from above, for Herod was in full control of events, as stated (ibid., 321): … and when they were going to kill Alexander and Aristobulus likewise, the king would not permit them to do so, but restrained the multitude, by the means of Ptolemy25 and Pheroras. However, the young men were put under a guard, and kept in custody, that nobody might come at them; and all that they did or said was watched, and the reproach and fear they were in was little or nothing different from those of condemned criminals. 24 25

On such behavior patterns among paranoid leaders, see Robins & Post 1997, p. 93. The reference is to Ptolemy the dioicetes (finance minister) of Herod, mentioned earlier in AJ XVI, 191; XVII, 195; BJ I, 473, 667.

Torture of the Bodyguards Jucundus and Tyrannus

335

Moreover, it is stated explicitly, in the continuation of the account, that “Antipater … put his own friends among the multitude” (ibid., 327) and it was no doubt they who initiated the public “lynching,” which had been planned in advance. Alexander and Aristobulus wanted Tyrannus and Jucundus to be questioned more closely, but this was denied them since they were “suddenly slain” at the instigation of Antipater’s men, 26 apparently with the aim of destroying the evidence to Herod’s complete satisfaction. Nor was Aristobulus successful in his efforts to persuade his mother-in-law Salome to come to his aid. On the contrary, when he told her that she was suspected of being a traitor with secret ties to Syllaeus, and hence was in mortal danger, she rushed to report his words to Herod to emphasize her innocence (ibid., 322–323).27 In the parallel version (BJ I, 534), it is noted more explicitly that Aristobulus, seeking to make her aware of the danger she was in, sent her a warning that she should be careful of Herod regarding the matters she had previously been accused of (ibid., 487), namely, her desire to marry Syllaeus and the passing of secrets to him. Herod found himself in an awkward position, but his loyalty to Salome triumphed, in addition to which he seemed inclined in any event to be convinced by her that her life too was in danger from her son-in-law’s plot. His reaction to the drama unfolding before him is quite telling(BJ I, 535): This was, as it were, the final hurricane which submerged the tempesttossed youths. For Salome ran off to the king and reported the warning which she had received. Herod, his patience exhausted, put both of his sons in irons and in separate confinements; he then hastily dispatched Volumnius, the military tribune, and Olympus, one of his friends, with all the information in writing, to Caesar.

The parallel version (AJ XVI, 323–324) notes the following: [323] … he (Herod) was out of patience, and gave command to bind him; and enjoined them both, now they were kept separate one from the other, to write down the ill things they had done against their father, and bring the writings to him. [324] So when this was enjoined them, they wrote this, that they had laid no treacherous designs, nor made any preparations against their father, but that they had intended to fly away; and that by the distress they were in, their lives being now uncertain and tedious to them. 26

27

Perhaps this is an allusion to their request that a further, more thorough examination be conducted in the presence of an agreed-upon arbitrator such as Archelaus king of Cappadocia, who had been summoned once more to Jerusalem to rescue them (AJ XVI, 325–327). It is implied in the text that she embellished her “report” falsely, with the intention of accusing Aristobulus of trying to incriminate her.

336

15. Lead-Up to the Great Explosion

The description in the first version (BJ) indicates clearly that Herod’s immediate reaction was emotional and impulsive. The swiftness and lack of restraint in his response suggest a sense of stress, agitation, and emotional anguish experienced by an individual who was virtually at his wits’ end. True, the separation of the imprisoned brothers shows an intent to prevent them from coordinating their positions; 28 but even more so, it signifies the emotional strain he was under and his fear that their guilt might be disproven. The two versions complement each another in various details, but the major addition in AJ relates to the written confession of the Hasmonaean brothers of their plan to escape as a result of their predicament – without their admitting any role in the conspiracy.

Second Reconciliation Attempt of Archelaus King of Cappadocia From the continuation of the account in AJ XVI, 325–334, which has no parallel in BJ, it emerges that the Hasmonaean brothers tried once more to enlist the support of Archelaus king of Cappadocia to rescue them. He sent a special emissary for this purpose by the name of Melas. When the latter arrived in Jerusalem, Herod made use of the opportunity to demonstrate the hostility of his sons as proof of the conspiracy that they had supposedly hatched against him. The drama that took place before the emissary was a theatrical masterpiece: Glaphyra, the wife of Alexander, was brought forward as part of the interrogation and asked if she knew of the plot. She responded with great emotion, wailing loudly and trembling in horror, which in turn prompted bitter tears from Alexander. This heartrending scene disconcerted those present to such a degree that they were rendered speechless and unsure of what to do. It was Ptolemy, Herod’s minister of finance, who was the first to recover and repeated the question directed to Glaphyra. Before she could answer, Alexander cried out, gallantly taking upon himself full responsibility for the plan of escape, and adding that they were so close that she would have known of anything he did, but again without admitting to the plot to murder his father. In response, Glaphyra as well joined in his confession, emphasizing that, apart from the plan to flee, she had known nothing of any 28

Compare the interrogation of Glaphyra below.

Second Reconciliation Attempt of Archelaus King of Cappadocia

337

plot against Herod. Once both of them had admitted the existence of a plan to escape to Cappadocia and from there to Rome, Herod was shaken by the realization that he now had decisive proof of Archelaus’ antagonism toward him. He therefore instructed his men Volumnius and Olympus that on their way to Rome they should detour to Cilicia, on the southern border of Cappadocia, to meet Archelaus, present the facts to him, and denounce him for having a hand in the plot. At his meeting with the emissaries, Archelaus denied knowing of a conspiracy against Herod, but did not refute the claim that he knew of their plan to flee, explaining his silence as a father’s natural worry for his children. Nevertheless, he declared that he had not intended to allow the sons to travel to Rome and that he had not taken any practical step that could be considered a display of ill will toward Herod, nor had the thought even crossed his mind. Needless to say, Herod did not believe him, signifying a complete about-face in his attitude toward Archelaus the Cappadocian. Where until now “Herod [had] honoured him with the most sumptuous presents, and in other respects treated him magnificently as one of his dearest friends” (AJ XVI, 269, trans. by Marcus & Wikgren), he suddenly believed “that Archelaus’ hostility to him was fully proven” (ibid., 332). This turnaround was yet another example of one of the features of Herod’s paranoid behavior: the instantaneous transformation of a suspicion of betrayal into a certainty. This episode proves, once again, that Herod’s pathological mistrust was the predominant aspect of his character. He did not “allow” himself to accept the facts of a situation at face value, but always labored to find hidden malicious intent, which he then pursued obsessively. He was convinced at all times that dangers lurked at every corner; from his warped perspective, all that remained was to confirm their existence. While his actions were guided by “logical” thinking, he held to a rigid, paranoid set of axioms that in fact controlled his thought processes so totally that he lost all sense of objective judgment. He was capable of obsessively gathering – and at times, manufacturing – “facts,” which he edited to suit his preconceived notions, or more precisely his underlying paranoid assumptions. He carefully filtered all information, accepting as credible only the part that suited him. His personal “logic” (or distorted interpretation) was one-sided and one-directional, with everything viewed in black and white. From his perspective, people were divided into two distinct groups: his friends and allies (the “good people”) on one side; and suspected enemies who had to be eliminated (that is, the “bad people”), on the other. Anyone who did not

338

15. Lead-Up to the Great Explosion

agree with him, or whose actions were interpreted by him as directed against him, instantly became an “enemy.” All of the above are hallmarks of paranoid thinking, as epitomized in the case of Archelaus Philopatris king of Cappadocia (cf. AJ XVI, 360). The only entity that could exercise authority over Herod, and impose its values and modes of conduct, was the Roman Empire, in the person of the Emperor Augustus. But Herod was willing to turn to him only after he had made certain that he was no longer angry at him and that Nicolaus of Damascus had succeeded in his mission of resolving the differences that had arisen between them over the “Syllaeus affair” (AJ XVI, 333, 335–352, 354). Herod did not consider the possibility that the Emperor had already lost patience with him at this point (7 BCE) as a result of the recurring conflict with his sons, which preoccupied him to an excessive degree, in Augustus’ opinion. This was demonstrated by the conclusion of the “Syllaeus affair,” as described in AJ XVI, 354–355. The impression arising from between the lines is that Herod’s behavior in the aforementioned episode with his sons, coupled with his approaching old age, led to a major decline in Augustus’ estimation of him; had this not been the case, he would not have withdrawn his plan to annex the land of the Nabataeans (“Arabia”) to Herod’s kingdom as a possible political solution to the “Syllaeus affair.” In his response to Herod’s letters regarding his sons (AJ XVI, 356– 357), Augustus confined himself to expressing sorrow over his renewed troubles, and informed Herod that he was entitled in principle to put his sons on trial, provided he found proof of his suspicions that they had conspired to murder him. However, he advised him to appoint and convene a synedrion29 in the Roman colony of Berytus (= Beirut), to be made up of Roman judges including the rulers of Syria, led by the governor and his close advisors, as well as Archelaus king of Cappadocia and other men of stature. In the Emperor’s view, such a tribunal could guarantee a fair trial. His advice to include Archelaus among the judges was intended to ensure the presence of a moderating element. Closing his letter, he even suggested to Herod that if it emerged from the trial that his sons’ offense was limited to a plan to escape, he should issue a warning to them but not take any irrevocable action. 30 29 30

The reference is to a “court of justice” not associated in any way with the Jewish judicial institution of the Sanhedrin. The version in BJ I, 536–537 emphasizes that the Emperor did not wish to take away Herod’s legal authority over his sons, and therefore granted him complete freedom of action. He did advise him, however, as follows: If the sons were to be found guilty, Herod was entitled to put them to death; but in the event that they

Second Reconciliation Attempt of Archelaus King of Cappadocia

339

Augustus’ response was pleasing to Herod for two reasons: (a) it reflected a political reconciliation following the “Syllaeus affair,” and a restoration of the Emperor’s faith in him for not deviating from his authority as an “allied king and friend of the Roman people”;31 (b) the Emperor granted him full freedom of action with respect to his sons (AJ XVI, 358–359). In our opinion, Herod’s rejoicing was wildly exaggerated, and was in fact a case of overreaction – one of the hallmarks of the paranoid personality. This was reflected in his display of pride and satisfaction at the Emperor’s acknowledgment of his hatred for his sons, and the authority (Èxousía) that Augustus granted him to treat them as he saw fit. Mood swings such as Herod’s are also well known as affective lability in individuals suffering from Paranoid Personality Disorder.

31

had only been plotting an escape, they should receive a more moderate punishment. Incidentally, no mention is made in this version of the appointment of Archelaus king of Cappadocia as a member of this court. In our opinion, the “Syllaeus affair” came to an end slightly before the execution of Alexander and Aristobulus (7/6 BCE). On the date of Syllaeus’ death, see Kokkinos 1998, pp. 183–184 (n. 27), 229. The person who represented Herod in this affair was his son Antipater, who only a year later (6 BCE) was himself suspected by Herod of plotting against him. As a result, he was summoned to Jerusalem, imprisoned, and sentenced to death (probably only in 4 BCE); further discussion below.

Chapter 16 The Tragic End of Alexander and Aristobulus (7 BCE) Trial of the Hasmonaean Sons Almost immediately, Herod sent out letters of invitation to the panel of prospective judges to gather for a special tribunal in the city of Berytus (in approx. 7 BCE). But counter to Augustus’ advice, Archelaus king of Cappadocia was excluded from the list, as stated (AJ XVI, 360): “… as for him (Archelaus), he (Herod) either hated him, so that he would not invite him, or he thought he would be an obstacle to his designs.”1

While this should not be seen as a breach of discipline or a departure from the requirement of obedience to the Emperor (since the wording of the passage suggests that Augustus did not issue an order or directive but merely gave advice)2 , the version in BJ I, 538 refers explicitly to “written instructions received from Caesar.”3 In truth, however, even if Herod did not ignore an imperial directive, his action was still considered akin to an insult. But what was even more shocking about his behavior was his refusal to allow the accused to appear before the tribunal, holding them instead in one of the villages near Sidon. In our opinion, the parallel version in BJ relied in this instance on an excerpt from the “Royal Memoirs” of Herod and not on the “History” of Nicolaus, for the simple reason that its style is much more direct and is likely a more accurate reflection of the authentic wishes of Herod. It is also hard to conceive of the notion that Nicolaus would accept with equanimity Herod’s disregard for the advice and instructions of the 1

2 3

In the parallel version in BJ I, 538, it is stated that King Archelaus of Cappadocia was not invited, “for Herod had a suspicion of him, because he was Alexander’s father-in-law.” The use of the verb sumbouleúein (to advise) is appropriate here. This can also be seen from other manuscripts, in which it is stated explicitly: prokaqízousín te oÍ 4gemónev grafèn [LTRC: katà tò grafèn PAM] aÙtoîv Úpò Kaísarov; see Rengstorf, p. 394 (s. v. gráfw).

Trial of the Hasmonaean Sons

341

Emperor,4 for from his perspective this would border on sheer folly. 5 According to BJ I, 539: His sons were not produced by Herod in court – a very wise precaution (mála promhqôv)6 for he knew that their mere appearance would be sure to arouse compassion, while, if they were further permitted to speak, Alexander would have no difficulty in rebutting the charges. So they were detained in custody at Platane, a village in the territory of Sidon.7

The composition of the tribunal and the conduct of the trial reflected Herod’s determination to execute his sons with the “stamp of approval” of a formal verdict. As we have already mentioned elsewhere, litigiousness (or the tendency to seek legal vindication) is typical of paranoid individuals who seek to publicly prove the justness of their claim through a clear and undisputed judgment in their favor. Among the judges at the trial of Herod’s sons were, first and foremost, the governor of Syria (the proconsul G. Sentius Saturninus) and his three sons, who came with him as his emissaries (or spokesmen), and Herod’s close associate Volumnius.8 They are referred to in AJ XVI, 361 as the “governors of Syria,” and mentioned along with them are other notables invited from various cities in Syria. The version in BJ I, 538 adds to the above Pedanius, referred to as an “emissary” (or spokesman) of the governor, along with “relatives of the king (Herod) and his friends” (oÍ toû basiléwv suggeneîv kaì fíloi),9 led by his brother Pheroras and sister Salome. Completing the list are individuals referred to collectively as “all the aristocracy of Syria” (oÍ páshv Suríav 2ristoi), who were apparently distinguished figures from the Hellenist cities mentioned earlier. 4

5 6 7

8

9

Cf. AJ XVI, 370–372 concerning Nicolaus’ report to Herod on the general feeling among his friends in Rome, who condemned the crime attributed to his sons (if it was indeed true), yet held that he should not act hastily in anger but with restraint and deliberation. There were even those who advised him to release his sons and overlook their behavior (see below). Indeed, Cornfeld (1982, p. 108) considered the speech to be proof of Herod’s insanity. Liddell & Scott (s. v., p. 1489) included this very citation in their dictionary, and also pointed out its use elsewhere, in BJ I, 367: promhqésteron. For the identification of the site, see Kasher 1990, p. 206, n. 40. It is important to emphasize that the neighboring city of Sidon already harbored ill feelings toward the Hasmonaeans from the past, and was therefore considered a safe place for holding the Hasmonaean sons in custody. AJ XVI, 368–369. For details see Schürer 1973, I, p. 257. Incidentally, Volumnius is referred to in BJ I, 535 as a military tribune who was a friend of Herod; cf. Thackeray 1927, II, p. 255, n. c. This was one of the higher rankings among the honorary titles used in Hellenist royal courts.

342

16. The Tragic End of Alexander and Aristobulus

Herod entered the court “by himself alone” (AJ XVI, 362) so as to command the full attention that he deemed worthy of his standing. After him, another 150 men entered and took their seats (ibid.). We are unable to ascertain just who these were: perhaps the panel of judges,10 or members of the military (or police) unit brought to ensure Herod’s personal safety and maintain order in the event of unexpected demonstrations or rioting. In any event, even the briefest glance at the list of those judges who are identified is enough to make clear that they were carefully selected to guarantee a verdict suited precisely to Herod’s expectations. The trial itself was also conducted along predetermined lines, with total disregard for even the most basic legal procedures (AJ XVI, 362–329; BJ I, 540–542).11 As stated, the accused were barred from attending the trial; thus they were unable to testify, to be questioned, or to receive the elementary right of cross-examination or even the minimal opportunity to make a statement. In short, this was a well-mounted “show trial,” of the sort typical of paranoid dictators throughout history.12 Since Herod himself presented the statement for the prosecution, we will be relating to Josephus’ treatment of it in AJ XVI, 362–366: [362] … and (he) accused his sons, and that in such a way as if it were not a melancholy accusation, and not made but out of necessity, and upon the misfortunes he was under; indeed, in such a way as was very indecent for a father to accuse his sons, [363] for he was very vehement and disordered when he came to the demonstration of the crime they were accused of, and gave the greatest signs of passion and barbarity: nor would he suffer the assessors to consider of the weight of the evidence, but asserted them to be true by his own authority, after a manner most indecent in a father against his sons, and read himself what they themselves had written, wherein there was no confession of any plots or contrivances against him, but only how they had contrived to fly away, and containing withal certain reproaches against him, on account of the ill-will he bare them; and when he came to those reproaches, [364] he cried out most of all, and exaggerated what they said, as if they had confessed the design against him, and took his oath that he had rather lose his life than hear such reproachful words. [365] At last he said that he had sufficient authority, both by nature and by Caesar’s grant to him, [to do what he thought fit]. He also added an allegation of a law of their country, which enjoined this: That if parents laid their hands on the head of him that was accused, the 10 11 12

Schalit (1969, p. 623), for example, preferred this possibility; cf. also Fenn 1992, p. 110. The version in AJ is clearly preferable, as in many other instances, mainly due to its greater detail. Cf. Fenn 1992, pp. 110–112. In fact, Herod had already staged several previous show trials, but one can safely state that this was by far the most appalling.

Trial of the Hasmonaean Sons

343

standers by were obliged to cast stones at him, and thereby to slay him;13 [366] which though he were ready to do in his own country and kingdom, yet did he wait for their determination; and yet they came thither not so much as judges, to condemn them for such manifest designs against him, whereby he had almost perished by his sons’ means, but as persons that had an opportunity of showing their detestation of such practices, and declaring how unworthy a thing it must be in any, even the most remote, to pass over such treacherous designs [without punishment].

The preceding offers a clear insight into Herod’s turbulent state of mind. Whereas initially it appeared as though he were acting with restraint, and even a certain degree of detachment when the subject was not himself and his sons, only a short while later he erupted in furious agitation and wild, uncontrolled behavior, raising his voice and shouting loudly. Schalit writes of the address as follows: “From beginning to end, Herod’s speech for the prosecution was at once a cry of bloodlust and an explosion of madness” (p. 308). In our view, this is a very fitting description; one need only add that this irrationality was the direct result of a severe attack of paranoia as part of the delusions of persecution that were afflicting Herod at this point. Presumably, this dramatic scene made a strong impression on the members of the court, or more accurately shocked them, for a cruel and terrible tragedy was unfolding before their eyes and casting terror over the courtroom. We can also assume that Herod planned his speech and his appearance before the court so as to frustrate any sentimental attempt to reduce the severity of the punishment or steer the proceedings in an unwanted direction. Indeed, the verdicts of most of the judges did not disappoint him: only Saturninus and his sons expressed reservations about imposing the death penalty on the sons, raising the humane argument of the great tragedy this would represent between a father and his sons (AJ XVI, 368–369; BJ I, 541). By contrast, Volumnius, Herod’s personal friend, was the first to pass the death sentence, without the slightest amount of pity. All of the remaining judges followed his lead,14 so 13

14

The reference to “a law of their country” or “ancestral law” (pátrion nómon) in the same context as “nature” (t ™Ä fúsei) is significant; cf. BJ I, 544; Schröder 1996, pp. 103 ff. The “ancestral law” in this instance obviously means the obligation to honor one’s parents as well as the practice of stoning a “wayward and rebellious son” (see below). According to BJ I, 542 there were some judges who sentenced the sons “out of flattery, and some out of hatred to Herod; but none out of indignation at their crimes.” AJ XVI, 369 simply reported that “Volumnius’ sentence was to inflict death on such as had been so impiously (Àsebäsantav) undutiful to their father; and the greatest part of the rest said the same, inasmuch that the conclusion seemed to be, that the young men were condemned to die.”

344

16. The Tragic End of Alexander and Aristobulus

that the expected verdict was passed down virtually unanimously and without objection. The description of the trial demonstrates that Herod made no pretense from the start of acting in accordance with accepted Greco-Roman judicial norms; in fact, judging by his speech, he based himself, paradoxically, on Jewish law, specifically the obligation to honor one’s father and one’s mother as set forth in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16) and expressed in the statement that he who curses his parents shall be put to death (Exodus 21:17; Leviticus 20:9). He may also have had in mind the law concerning a “wayward and rebellious son” (Deuteronomy 21:18–21), who is subject to death by stoning.15 There is reason to question the parallel that he seemingly drew between biblical law and the “natural law” of patria potestas (the supreme judicial authority granted to the father of the family, or pater familias, over his wife and children), which was the norm in the Greco-Roman world. In our opinion, this was a calculated juridical tactic intended to secure the most stringent seal of approval for the verdict, on the basis of both Jewish and Hellenist-Roman criteria. It appears that such crafty minds as Antipater, Pheroras, and Salome were behind this approach. As we have already seen, Herod’s legal advisor Nicolaus of Damascus held a completely different opinion even prior to the trial. Moreover, he was not present at the special tribunal convened in Berytus as he was in Rome at the time as emissary in the “Syllaeus affair” (AJ XVI, 370).16 Upon his return, he met with Herod in Tyre, when the latter was already en route to Caesarea with his sons following their sentencing. It was only then that he received a full report of the proceedings; at the same time, he was asked by Herod to inform him of the mood in Rome. According to Josephus, it was at this point that he expressed his opinion of the verdict: [370] … after he (Herod) had related to him (Nicolaus) what had passed at Berytus, what his sentiments were about his sons, and what his friends at Rome thought of that matter. [371] His answer was, “That what they had determined to do to thee was impious, and that thou oughtest to keep them in prison; [372] and if thou thinkest any thing further necessary, thou mayest indeed so punish them, that thou mayst not appear to indulge thy anger more than to govern thyself by judgment; but if thou inclinest to the milder side, thou mayest absolve them, lest perhaps thy 15 16

Cf. Klausner 1958, IV, p. 160. Herod may even have wished to hold the trial in Nicolaus’ absence precisely so that he would not be influenced by him, but unfortunately this theory must remain in the realm of speculation.

Reactions of the Public and the Army to the Verdict against Herod’s Sons

345

misfortunes be rendered incurable; and this is the opinion of the greatest part of thy friends at Rome also.” Whereupon Herod was silent, and in great thoughtfulness, and bade Nicolaus sail along with him.

In truth, Nicolaus’ response was rather evasive, as befits a shrewd jurist whose words can be interpreted in more than one way; but there is virtually no question that Nicolaus was noticeably uncomfortable (to say the least) with the severity of the verdict.

Reactions of the Public and the Army to the Verdict against Herod’s Sons It seems that Herod had no intention of heeding Nicolaus’ advice; yet he did not rush to carry out the sentence, since he first wished to test the reaction of the Jewish public and observe the response to the verdict in the Greek and Roman worlds. Indeed, in the province of Syria and Herod’s own kingdom, the mood was one of watchful suspense and great anxiety as the drama drew to a close. Among the Jewish masses, no one dared to object openly, and many simply found it hard to imagine that Herod’s cruelty would extend to carrying out a death sentence against his own offspring (BJ I, 543; AJ XVI, 373–374). In the army, by contrast, more than a few voices were raised in protest. The individual who led the way was a longtime soldier named Tiro, who was extremely fond of the Hasmonaean brothers and whose son was the same age as Alexander and a close friend of his. He raged bravely and sincerely against the injustice of the verdict, stating openly what many were thinking but dared not say in public. At first, he cried out that justice had been trampled and truth destroyed, that the laws of nature had been disrupted and life was filled with evil. Finally, he attacked Herod to his face, stating in part (BJ I, 545–546): [545] … Most god-forsaken (kakoda monéstatov) of men, that is my opinion of you, you who to the injury of your nearest and dearest trust the worst of the basest of scoundrels (ponhrotátoiv),17 if it be true that Pheroras and Salome, whom you have so often sentenced to death,18 have now made you believe their slanders upon your children. They are cutting 17

18

The Greek word ponhróv can mean a “morally worthless,” “base,” or “evil individual” in addition to a “person of low political standing”; see Liddell & Scott, p. 1447. In reality, Herod never sentenced either of them to death. It is more reasonable to assume that in Tiro’s eyes, they were deserving of the death penalty because of the wickedness of their schemes.

346

16. The Tragic End of Alexander and Aristobulus

off your legitimate heirs, leaving you none but Antipater, choosing him for king as the most manageable in their leading-strings. [546] But take care that the death of his brothers does not one day rouse against him, the hatred of the army; for there is not a man there who does not pity the lads, and many of the officers are freely expressing their indignation.” He forthwith named these malcontents; and they were promptly arrested by the king, together with Tiro and his son. (trans. by Thackeray)

The parallel version in AJ XVI, 375–386 offers a more detailed account of Tiro’s emotional speech, which contains statements that are highly relevant for our purposes. As recounted by Josephus, he addressed Herod privately and spoke with great freedom. This alone raises questions; but even if his speech reflects only partially the mood in certain circles of the army, its content can be considered credible, since there were other manifestations of resentment against Herod within the military (below). Tiro’s insolent words are as follows: [380] “Whither is thy understanding gone, and left thy soul empty? Whither is that extraordinary sagacity of thine gone, whereby thou hast performed so many and such glorious-actions? Whence comes this solitude, and desertion of thy friends and relations? [381] Of which I cannot but determine that they are neither thy friends nor relations, while they overlook such horrid wickedness in thy once happy kingdom. Dost not thou perceive what is doing? [382] Wilt thou slay these two young men, born of thy queen, who are accomplished with every virtue in the highest degree, and leave thyself destitute in thy old age, but exposed to one son, who hath very ill managed the hopes thou hast given him, and to relations whose death thou hast so often resolved on thyself? [383] Dost not thou take notice, that the very silence of the multitude at once sees the crime, and abhors the fact? The whole army and the officers have commiseration on the poor unhappy youths, and hatred to those that are the actors in this matter.”

Obviously, these rhetorical questions were directed at Herod’s extreme behavior. At first, Herod listened to Tiro’s speech and “was moved at it”, but the moment the latter went too far in speaking of his tragedy and lack of faith in his family, “he was greatly disturbed, and seeming to be rather reproached by this speech” (ibid., 384–386). When Herod realized that the soldier’s words truly reflected the prevailing mood among many of the troops, including officers, he ordered that Tiro be thrown into prison together with all those whose names he had mentioned. In other words, he “purged” the army, since he saw in these sentiments a challenge to his authority as king from the one body in the kingdom that was the most important to him and the most loyal.19 19

Soldiers and officers are mentioned three times in the same context (AJ XVI, 383, 386, 393), including one reference to 300 officers(!) For their role in Tiro’s protest against Herod’s actions, see also BJ I, 546. 550; Fenn 1992, p. 99.

Reactions of the Public and the Army to the Verdict against Herod’s Sons

347

Such a behavior pattern is well known among paranoid dictators in the modern era as well, such as Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin to name but a few. Herod’s over-sensitivity to perceived insults and criticism, which is a hallmark of Paranoid Personality Disorder,20 also plays a dominant role in the incident in question. From his perspective, it was simply inconceivable that an ordinary soldier would dare to disparage such a great and celebrated king as himself, whose glory was known throughout the land and the Empire. His immediate counter-attack demonstrates his need and determination to strike back swiftly, meeting aggression with aggression and hostility with hostility – or to be precise, greater aggression and hostility – thereby making a bad situation worse. 21 Adding fuel to the fire was the “confession” of Trypho, the king’s barber, who claimed that Tiro had tried on several occasions to persuade him to slit the throat of the king with a razor while attending to him. According to Trypho, he was promised that if he would do so, “he should be among the chief of Alexander’s friends, and receive great rewards from him” (ibid., 387). Upon hearing these words, Herod seized Tiro and his son along with Trypho and tortured them severely. Tiro bravely withstood the torture, but his son broke at the sight of his father’s suffering and promised Herod that he would tell him the whole truth on condition that he and his father would be left in peace. When Herod agreed to the request, the son told him that Herod’s murder had been planned by his father at the instigation of Alexander. Herod immediately arrested 300 army officers suspected of identifying with Tiro, along with Tiro, his son, and the barber who had informed on them, and abandoned them to the mob to be stoned to death. 22 The reservations (in those sources that base themselves on Josephus’ accounts) as to the sincerity of the declaration attributed to Tiro’s son, which may only have been intended to put an end to his father’s suffering, are not as important for our purposes as the mention of the methods of interrogation and torture employed by Herod to produce the desired “evidence.”23 Indeed, the regimes of paranoid 20 21

22

23

Cf. Robins & Post 1997, pp. 15, 17. Robins & Post 1997, p. 26. In this same context, Fenn (1992, pp. 100 ff.) adopted Freudian terminology with respect to depressive melancholy and panic that strike a person as a result of losing close family members. This type of behavior is also well known among paranoid dictators of the modern era, who do not content themselves with the torture of suspected individuals but also torment their family members, ultimately executing them all, including the informers. See for example AJ XVI, 387–393, in particular the end of the passage: “This was what Tiro’s son said, and thereby freed his father from the distress he was in; but

348

16. The Tragic End of Alexander and Aristobulus

tyrants like Herod are notorious to this very day for their use of such sadistic techniques.

Execution of Alexander and Aristobulus In accordance with their sentence, Alexander and Aristobulus were brought under heavy guard from Caesarea to Sebaste, where they were strangled to death (in the winter of 7 BCE). It should be recalled that Herod felt more secure in Sebaste since it was situated in a loyal Samarian region. 24 Nevertheless, he executed them in the dead of night and in great haste, 25 after which he ordered that the bodies quickly be transferred for burial to the fortress of Alexandrium. Its location in the Samarian desert suggests two reasons for burying them there: (a) the geographical proximity to Sebaste, which explains how it was technically possible to transfer the bodies in one night; (b) the desire to complete the burial quickly, and as far as possible from the eyes of the Jewish public in Jerusalem, thereby avoiding a mass funeral and any spontaneous outburst of emotion. Herod’s haste presumably also indicates a wish to establish a fait accompli before any outside political intervention could take place (for instance that of Archelaus king of Cappadocia) that might have been likely not only to delay but even to thwart entirely the implementation of the sentence. But while certain questions remain unanswered, these do not obscure the displays of severe paranoid disorder on Herod’s part, as manifest in the haste of his actions. The pretext for the burial in Alexandrium, namely, that this was “where their uncle by the mother’s side, and the greatest part of their ancestors, had been deposited.” (AJ XVI, 394; cf. BJ I, 551) is intriguing but puzzling.26 Even if it is true that Herod bestowed a

24 25

26

uncertain it is whether he had been thus forced to speak what was true, or whether it were a contrivance of his, in order to procure his own and his father’s deliverance from their miseries.” See Kasher 2005, pp. 23–39, and above p. 73. Cf. AJ XVI, 402; this is further substantiated by the aforementioned fragment from Nicolaus of Damascus that survived in the writings of the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus. There, it is stated explicitly that Herod felt that he would be safe only by having them put to death quickly (dià tacéwn ehkpodôn a$jtouv), which is why he sent their executioners in the middle of the night (Àllà núktwr toùv Ànairäsontav Úpopémyv); see Stern 1974, I, no. 97 (p. 251). The term “uncle by the mother’s side” (Ó mhtropátwr) should be understood as referring to their maternal grandfather Alexander, the father of their mother. The version in BJ I, 551 leaves no room for doubt in this matter; cf. Kokkinos 1998, p. 215. Roller (1999, p. 130), however, thought that the reference was to their grandfather’s

Josephus’ Summary of Herod’s Character

349

final kindness on his sons by burying them at a family gravesite, this was a rather ironic act. 27 Even after the sons had been brought to burial, he continued to act in an extreme and brutal manner when he sent away Glaphyra, leaving her two orphaned sons under his sole custody at his court in Jerusalem. Such was his behavior with the three sons and two daughters of Aristobulus as well (BJ I, 553; AJ XVII, 11–12), who remained under his guardianship so that he could control their fate.

Josephus’ Summary of Herod’s Character After recounting the above events, Josephus felt the need to offer his readers an analysis of Herod’s character (AJ XVI, 395–404). 28 While traces shine through of the apologetic approach of Nicolaus, who wished to paint Herod in the most positive light possible so as to mitigate the cruelty of the terrible sentence, Josephus’ “even-handed”

27

28

grandfather on their mother’s side (i. e., five generations back), namely King Alexander Jannaeus, after whom the fortress was named. In reality, though, there is no support for this suggestion in the sources. On the contrary, from AJ XIII, 405–406 we learn that the funeral of Alexander Jannaeus took place in Jerusalem, in addition to which it is stated clearly in BJ V, 304 that his tomb was located facing the Antonia fortress. And who were “the greatest part of their ancestors” (tôn pleístwn aÙtoîv progónwn) who were supposedly buried in Alexandrium? Unfortunately, nothing further is added on this point either; this is the sole reference in the matter, and it is not substantiated elsewhere. Nevertheless, there may be a vague allusion to a family grave in AJ XIV, 123–124 with regard to Judas Aristobulus II, who was poisoned to death by the aides of Pompey the Great, and whose “dead body also lay, for a good while, embalmed in honey, till Antony afterward sent it to Judea, and caused him to be buried in the royal sepulchers (Èn taìv basilikaîv qäkaiv)”; cf. also BJ I, 184. Of his son Alexander, it is said in this context that he was beheaded with an axe, but nothing is said of his burial place. Indeed, it is probable that he was buried near his brother, but again there is no confirmation of this. Alexandra, Mariamme’s mother, was likely also buried in Alexandrium; this is a reasonable possibility since she was arrested there prior to her death, and Herod executed her while he lay ill in nearby Sebaste (AJ XVI, 185, 247–251). Nonetheless, the expression “the greater part of their ancestors,” with reference to Hasmonaean family members buried in Alexandrium, remains a riddle. See Roller 1998, p. 19, although he wrongly believes that Alexander Jannaeus was buried there (see previous note). Indeed, it would be an even greater irony were he to suggest that Mariamme, Herod’s wife, was buried there, but in fact the location of her tomb is unknown. Schalit’s hypothesis (1984, pp. 356–363) that she was buried in the round structure on the Masada promontory facing north, has yet to be proven and is in fact highly doubtful. A summary of this kind is missing from the version in BJ , which immediately continues its chronology of events.

350

16. The Tragic End of Alexander and Aristobulus

treatment actually has the opposite effect. Already in the opening section, the dilemma of who is to blame is forcefully expressed: [395] Now perhaps it may not seem absurd to some that a long nourished hate should grow so great and go so far as to overpower nature. But one might reasonably hesitate to decide whether the blame for this should be laid upon the youths, who drove their father to the extreme of anger and by their intransigence over a period of time made him irreconcilably hostile to them. (trans. by Marcus & Wikgren)

Schalit (1964, pp. 309–310; idem 1969, pp. 625 ff.) believed that this passage from Josephus highlights one of the root causes of the Herodian tragedy: the terrible blow by the sons to their father’s honor coupled with their own Hasmonaean arrogance. As stated, Herod’s over-sensitivity regarding his Idumaean ancestry had been a part of him since childhood and remained so to his dying day. The shameful label of “half-Jew” that had stuck to him from the time of his struggle with Mattathias Antigonus was apparently one of the motives for humiliating the latter in death by beheading him with an axe (above). Likewise, the Hasmonaean contempt for Herod’s Idumaean origins on the part of his wife Mariamme was doubtless one of the major reasons for her execution, as was the case with most of the other Hasmonaean family members. In our opinion, however, such feelings of inferiority were an integral part of the family and sociocultural background that shaped Herod’s Paranoid Personality Disorder, which degenerated over the course of his life into an acute persecutory delusional disorder. The latter found expression in his lability in response to external events, and extreme and rapid mood swings from depression and despair to joy and elation. Josephus noted, not without reason, that there were some who pointed to Herod’s “destiny” as a way of resolving the dilemma of his culpability in the death of his sons; such a position could only have been inspired by a Hellenist source, judging by the following: [396] … Herod himself [was] so immoderated in his desire to rule and enjoy other forms of glory that he thought nothing should be left undone by which he could obtain invincibly all that he wanted, [397] or upon Fortune (4 túch), who has a power greater than all prudent reflection … and (which) we (Jews) call her Fate (4 eÍmarménh) on the ground that there is nothing that is not brought about by her. (trans. idem)

In Josephus’ view, such a “solution” should be rejected out of hand, since according to Jewish belief, individuals should bear personal responsibility for their actions, for “we should hold ourselves not unaccountable for the differences in our behaviour, as has been philosophically discussed before our time in the Law” (ibid., 398; trans.

Josephus’ Summary of Herod’s Character

351

idem). 29 Although he admitted that the boys were partly to blame for the tragedy that befell them – owing to their youthful brazenness and kingly pride; the fact that they listened to assorted gossip-mongers; their basic antagonism regarding their father’s actions, and the lack of restraint in their speech – none of these in any way justified their execution, in his opinion. This was true not only because the verdict in the matter was not backed by clear and unequivocal factual evidence (ibid., 399–400) but also, and primarily, because of Herod’s morbid personal jealousy of his sons (in particular Alexander) as a result of their handsome appearance, athletic prowess, and skills at hunting and the martial arts (ibid., 400–401). Of prime importance in the summary of Herod’s character is the explicit statement that he should have treated his sons differently, even after their conviction. According to Josephus, he should have kept them imprisoned or banished them from his kingdom – but under no circumstances put them to death. This was precisely the verdict of the governor of Syria, G. Sentius Saturninus, much as Augustus himself had counseled prior to the opening of the trial. Nicolaus of Damascus had also advised that the boys be incarcerated in one of the fortresses; rather than taking a rash and fatal action in a state of anger, matters should be weighed with careful deliberation since the boys’ innocence might yet emerge. 30 To justify his argument, he stressed that Herod “was surrounded by the Roman forces, which were a strong security to him, whose help would prevent his suffering any thing by a sudden onset” (ibid., 401). The conclusion that arises from these words is unmistakable: Herod was in the grip of baseless fears dictated by uncontrolled obsessive impulses rooted in his Paranoid Personality Disorder, which had already degenerated into severe delusional disorder-persecutory type, in modern parlance. This assumption is reinforced by additional remarks by Josephus in the same context (AJ XVI, 402–404): [402] … but for him to kill them (i. e. Alexander and Aristobulus) on the sudden, in order to gratify a passion that governed him, was a demonstration of insufferable impiety (Àsebeía). 31 He also was guilty of so great 29

30 31

According to Josephus, this was a central principle of the Pharisees (AJ XVIII, 12–15, esp. 13), whom he himself identified with; cf. also AJ XIII, 172; BJ II, 163; and mAvoth 3:16; Schürer 1979, II, pp. 392–394. See the aforementioned fragment from Nicolaus of Damascus, in Stern 1974, I, no. 97. As stated above, the expression is much more extreme than simple “wickedness,” since it chiefly denotes “ungodliness” or “impiety.” In Rome, it also meant disloyalty to the emperor; see Liddell & Scott, p. 255. Indeed, with regard to this last

352

16. The Tragic End of Alexander and Aristobulus

a crime in his older age; [403] nor will the delays that he made, and the length of time in which the thing was done, plead at all for his excuse; for when a man is on a sudden amazed, and in commotion of mind, and then commits a wicked action, although this be a heavy crime, yet is it a thing that frequently happens; but to do it upon deliberation, and after frequent attempts, and as frequent puttings-off, to undertake it at last, and accomplish it, was the action of a murderous mind, and such as was not easily moved from that which was evil (fonöshv kaì dusmetakinätou yucêv Àpò tôn ceirónwn). [404] And this temper he showed in what he did afterward, when he did not spare those that seemed to be the best beloved of his friends that were left, wherein, though the justice of the punishment caused those that perished to be the less pitied, 32 yet was the barbarity of the man here equal, in that he did not abstain from their slaughter also. But of those persons we shall have occasion to discourse more hereafter.

According to Josephus, Herod himself was aware that his actions against his sons were based on uncontrolled urges; yet at the same time, they had been carried out in a planned, calculated manner, indicating (in Josephus’ eyes) that he was a premeditated killer by any legal standard. The impression also arises that Herod took pleasure in drawing out the proceedings against his sons and delaying the carrying-out of the sentence – unforgivable acts in and of themselves. The sarcastic remark attributed to Augustus (melius est Herodis porcum esse quam filium = “better to be Herod’s pig than his son”) is a reliable indication of the attitude of condemnation toward his crime. 33 In our assessment, the execution of Herod’s Hasmonaean sons stemmed from the flare-up of an ongoing delusional disorder that eventually reached a state resembling paranoid psychosis, as reflected in the trial he conducted of his oldest son, Antipater, in 5 BCE (below).

32 33

aspect, the execution of Herod’s sons seems to have been in direct opposition to the emperor’s wishes and advice. There is no question that the reference here is, first and foremost, to the execution of his son Antipater (below). This literary “pearl” was attributed to Macrobius (beginning of the fifth century); see above chapter 3, note 40 and chapter 13, note 31 at length.

Chapter 17 Antipater’s Subversion in the Royal Court of Jerusalem (7–5 BCE) Increasing Influence of Antipater over Herod The central figure in Herod’s life as it reached its final chapter was unquestionably his oldest son, Antipater. He was actively involved behind the scenes, in particular after Herod named him his official successor (BJ I, 433, 448),1 and at times was even the prime mover in the complicated plot that led to the deaths of his Hasmonaean brothers. Yet he was cunning enough to consistently worm his way out of trouble (cf. AJ XVII, 7) and survive to await his next opportunity. Like his father, he tried to establish a suitable Roman “lobby,” initially gambling on high-ranking figures who were close to him geographically, led by the governor of Syria, G. Sentius Saturninus, and the members of his staff. Toward this end, he showered them with gifts (BJ I, 554; AJ XVII, 6), a practice he had begun during the trial of his Hasmonaean brothers where they sat as judges, to ensure that they rendered a guilty verdict (AJ XVI, 269). Following his brothers’ execution, his path to the throne seemed clear since the latter had been his most dangerous rivals, not to mention the fact that his father was firmly under his influence (ibid., XVII, 3). But events were to prove otherwise: not long after the execution, Herod began to show signs of regret, which he even voiced in public. These sentiments were expressed in a highly emotional fashion in the following passage in BJ I, 556–558: [556] For Herod, one day, assembled his relatives and friends, 2 set the young children before them, 3 and said, with tears in his eyes: “I have 1 2

3

See Kokkinos 1998, p. 209 (note 5), and p. 371 (Appendix 2, § 4). The reference is of course to a gathering of the body known as “the kings’ relatives and friends,” a familiar institution in Hellenist kingdoms. In BJ I, 539, this body is referred to as sunédruon, but it should in no way be confused with the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. Namely, his seven grandsons (two sons of Alexander, and three sons and two daughters of Aristobulus), who were mentioned by name in BJ I, 552: Alexander’s sons

354

17. Antipater’s Subversion in the Royal Court of Jerusalem

been bereaved by some evil genius (daímwn) of the sires of these infants, but pity for the orphans and nature alike commend them to my care. If I have been the most unfortunate of fathers, I will try at any rate to prove myself a more considerate grandfather and to leave their tutelage, after my death, to those most dear to me. [557] I affiance your daughter, Pheroras, to the elders of these brothers, Alexander’s sons, in order that this alliance may make you his natural guardian. To your son, Antipater, I betroth the daughter of Aristobulus; so may you become a father to this orphan girl. Her sister my own Herod shall take, for on his mother’s side he is grandson of a high-priest. [558] Let then effect be given to my wishes, and let no friend of mine frustrate them. And I pray God to bless these unions, to the benefit of my realm and of my descendants, and to look with serener eyes upon these children here than those with which he beheld their fathers.” (translated by Thackeray)4

It is worth noting here once again the astonishing dichotomy in Herod’s behavior, manifest on the one hand in his maudlin display of pity for his poor, orphaned grandchildren – accompanied by wailing, embraces, and the public joining of hands – and on the other, in his stern warning to his family members not to thwart his wishes regarding them (BJ I, 556–560; cf. AJ XVII, 13).5 Apart from its maudlin aspect, his show of remorse attests to his ambivalence and affective lability (rapid and extreme mood swings), but even he realized that he could not turn back the hands of time. More than testifying to his regret and concern for the orphans, the new matches that he planned for his family members should be understood as an expression of his obsessive desire to maintain control over his family – a direct consequence of his paranoid personality. At least some of Herod’s marriage plans worried Antipater greatly, in particular after he discerned signs of remorse in his father over the

4

5

from his wife Glaphyra were Tigranes and Alexander; Aristobulus’ sons from his wife Berenice (daughter of Salome) were Herod, Agrippa and Aristobulus, and his two daughters were Herodias and Mariamme; see in further detail: Kokkinos 1998, pp. 246 ff., 264 ff. Cf. AJ, XVII, 12–14. The name of Pheroras’ daughter is unknown, but her husband was Tigranes, the elder son of Alexander (cf. ibid., 552; and XVIII, 139; Kokkinos 1998, pp. 264 ff.). Antipater’s son is also unnamed, but Herodias, daughter of Aristobulus, is known from the New Testament as the one who danced before the tetrarch Herod Antipas; for details derived from the sources that shed further light on Herodias’ identity, see Kokkinos, ibid. It should be recalled that the version in BJ has a tendency toward rhetorical historiography, characterized by a dramatic, emotional style of writing; see for example: Sh. Cohen 1979, p. 90; Landau 2003, passim. For this reason, the version in BJ is more detailed when presenting subjects of this nature, whereas the AJ version only alludes briefly to the “breach of humanity” in Herod’s behavior. Thus the former reflects more strongly the apologetic-panegyric approach of Nicolaus, and the latter (AJ), the literary handiwork of Josephus.

Increasing Influence of Antipater over Herod

355

execution of his Hasmonaean sons. His concerns were also focused on the likely possibility that his uncle Pheroras and Archelaus king of Cappadocia would “stir the political pot,” so to speak, in order to promote their own interests in inheriting the throne (BJ I, 559; AJ XVII, 16) and even collaborate with one another if the marriage between Alexander (son of Glaphyra and grandson of Archelaus) and the daughter of Pheroras was a success (BJ I, 557; AJ XVII, 14, 16). Antipater therefore decided to prevent the marriage (BJ I, 560), making every effort to influence his father against it (and ultimately succeeding, but only with great difficulty). Thus he conceived the notion of becoming betrothed to Mariamme, the young daughter of his step-brother Aristobulus who had been executed (AJ XVII, 9). From AJ XVII, 18, we learn that the change in marriage plans initially displeased Herod. In our opinion, he agreed to the change only after Antipater succeeded in convincing him that closer ties between Pheroras and Archelaus the Cappadocian were liable to develop into a plot against him (Herod). Although this is not substantiated by the sources, it is highly probable, particularly since there is no better explanation for Herod’s agreement to retract his earlier decision. Judging by similar instances in the past, apparently only suspicions such as these would be capable of changing his mind. Antipater also tried to use flattering words to win over his aunt Salome, who had recently married Alexas (above), an individual who held great influence over Herod at the time. But it seems that he failed to deceive her with his false affection, since she knew him too well and was constantly on guard against any trickery on his part (ibid.). An example of the latter was his idea to “mend” the conflicts of the past and bring about a “reconciliation” between Salome and himself by arranging various marriages within the family. For example, he initiated the marriage of his uncle on his mother’s side, Theudion,6 to Berenice (daughter of Salome from her husband Costobarus), who was the widow of Herod’s son Aristobulus (BJ I, 553; AJ, ibid.), while he himself became betrothed to Mariamme, the daughter of Aristobulus and Mariamme (AJ XVII, 9).7 Apparently, Antipater saw these 6 7

Theudion appears again later in AJ (XVII, 70). See Kokkinos 1998, pp. 170, 210–211, 340. Initiailly, she was promised to Antipater’s son (name unknown), but later she was betrothed to Antipater himself, while Antipater’s son married Pheroras’ daughter (also unnamed), in spite of the fact that she had previously been promised to Alexander (BJ I, 557, 565, 567; AJ XVII, 14, 16, 18). According to Kokkinos’ calculations (as opposed to those of other scholars), Antipater was aged forty at the time. In his opinion (which we support), Antipater did not marry Mariamme but only became betrothed to her, since she was then a minor of only seven. Moreover, his first Hasmonaean wife (also unnamed), the

356

17. Antipater’s Subversion in the Royal Court of Jerusalem

family marriages as some sort of game of “musical chairs,” indicating a manipulative nature not unlike his father’s. His success in persuading Herod to change his plans can therefore be explained by the fact that he was able to speak to him in his own language and according to his own way of thinking, as attested to by the following passages from BJ (I, 561–562; 564–565): [561] Afraid of practicing a ruse upon so harsh a father, whose suspicions were easily aroused, he boldly ventured into his presence and besought him outright not to deprive him from the honour which he had designed to confer on him, nor to leave him the mere title of king while others enjoyed the power; for he would be master of affairs, should Alexander’s son, with Archelaus as his grandfather, also have Pheroras as his father-in-law. [562] He therefore earnestly entreated him, as the palace contained a numerous family …8 [564] The king, on discovering Antipater’s attitude to the orphans, was highly indignant, and the thought crossed his mind - might not his murdered sons also have been the victims of this man’s slanders? [565] He accordingly, at the moment, replied in a long and angry speech, and dismissed Antipater from his presence. Subsequently, however, seduced by his flatteries, he made other arrangements, and gave the daughter of Aristobulus to Antipater himself, and the daughter of Pheroras to his son. (trans. Thackeray)

It is clear from the above that Herod’s mistrust and delusions of persecution were stronger than his love as a grandfather for his grandchildren, and triumphed over all other considerations. True, he momentarily harbored some suspicions concerning Antipater, but the latter’s candid disclosure of his own fears seemed sincere – and of course the sweet words with which he plied his father were music to his ears. The changes in marriage plans were only a minor matter, and too unimportant for him to consider at length; the moment he understood their potential benefit to him, he acted at once and without hesitation.

8

daughter of Mattathias Antigonus (AJ XVII, 92; BJ I, 619), was still alive. If he would have married the minor Mariamme, he would have committed bigamy, which was already an uncommon and unacceptable practice at the time (a point that we will not be discussing here). It is thus more reasonable to assume that he planned to marry her several years later when he would be crowned king, since the prohibition against polygamy did not apply to kings (cf. AJ XVII, 14; BJ I, 477). But eventually Herod “solved” the problem for him, since a short time later (in 7 BCE), he forced him to leave the kingdom, and upon his return (5 BCE) he imprisoned him prior to his trial and execution (4 BCE), which we will be discussing below. The account is interrupted at this point to offer some background information on Herod’s extensive family, consisting of his wives and their respective children (BJ I, 562–563). The same holds true for the parallel version in AJ XVII, 19–22.

Increasing Influence of Antipater over Herod

357

Thus Antipater succeeded in advancing his own interests by reducing the Hasmonaean orphans’ prospects of succession, not to mention the fact that the change in marital arrangements gave him a dynastic advantage in the long term, in light of the young age of his intended Hasmonaean bride. He deluded himself that these achievements would ultimately guarantee his chances of being the sole successor to his father’s throne. But his over-confidence quickly made him a persona non grata in the royal palace, especially since he was stalked by too many enemies. The Jewish public abhorred him as well, since many of them rightfully suspected him of bearing the primary responsibility for the deaths of Alexander and Aristobulus. The fact that he made it a practice to threaten his opponents, whether overtly or indirectly, only increased the hatred toward him. He frequently laid complicated traps for his rivals, and the first to be ensnared was his uncle Pheroras. Since the latter interpreted Antipater’s excessive self-confidence as a sign that his prospects of inheriting the throne were good, he did his best to ingratiate himself with him. Antipater was pleased with this development since it meant he had succeeded in bringing him over to his side, and therefore responded with similar words of flattery. But in the end, he fell victim to his own schemes. How did this come to pass? It is important to be aware that behind the palace intrigues stood several women: the wife of Pheroras, her sister, and her mother, as well as Doris, mother of Antipater, who had wielded a great deal of power in the royal court since her return to Jerusalem in 14 BCE – influence that reached its height in approximately 10 BCE. Since the majority of the women were in league with Antipater, he had information about most of the goings-on in the palace. However, his aunt Salome had not been idle all this time, and she turned out to be an even more dangerous foe than Pheroras. With her well-honed instincts, she looked upon the actions of the other women with suspicion and envy, in particular the fact that they would meet in secret from time to time. The more they tried to evade her scrutiny, the more suspicious she became, until she decided to inform Herod. However, she added numerous embellishments designed to arouse his fear and suspicion that a conspiracy to murder him was being hatched right under his nose – and she did so with the full knowledge and cooperation of her younger brother Pheroras. Being intimately acquainted with Herod’s suspicious nature, she knew that this would instantly spur him into action. As an added impetus, she “confided” in him that at their secret meetings, the women spoke disparagingly of his two spinster daughters, something that he considered a tremen-

358

17. Antipater’s Subversion in the Royal Court of Jerusalem

dous personal insult.9 It seems that this was all that was needed to reawaken his paranoid suspicions.10 The more detailed version, in Antiquities, digresses here from the sequence of events and recounts several other matters, one of which relates to the founding of the Jewish military settlement of Ecbatana (= Bathyra) in the Batanea region, where Jewish horsemen-archers of Babylonian origin served under an officer by the name of Zamaris (AJ XVII, 23–31).11 Since this passage opens with the word tóte (“and now”, or “at this time” in Marcus and Wikgren’s translation), it gives us a precise chronological indication of the date of these events, namely, 7/6 BCE. The reference to the Roman governor of Syria, G. Sentius Saturninus (ibid., 24), who granted Herod formal permission to establish this colony, further supports this date since the years of his tenure (10/9–7/6 BCE) correspond exactly to this period.12 The account was inserted here by Josephus for two reasons: the proximity to the end of the “Syllaeus affair,” and the connection with the intrigues in the royal palace. For these same reasons, Antipater was sent to Rome as Herod’s official emissary – to argue on his behalf alongside Nicolaus of Damascus in the trial against Syllaeus, and to formally revise Herod’s will (AJ XVII, 52–57). The second matter is dealt with at length by Josephus at a later point, in an account filled with fascinating details that shed light on the major participants.

Machinations of the Women of the Court, Led by Salome and the Wife of Pheroras At this point, the text in AJ XVII, 32 ff. resumes the account of the intrigues of the palace women, in which the wife of Pheroras and Herod’s sister Salome each play a major role. In AJ XVII, 41–45, which 9

10 11

12

Herod’s sensitivity to the perceived insult of his daughter is also emphasized later in the text (AJ XVII, 46). It is possible that they resembled him in appearance, meaning that they were short and unattractive. Since our suggestion has no direct support in the sources, it should be considered merely speculative. This description is based on both versions of Josephus (BJ I, 567–571; AJ XVII, 32–40), which complement each other in various details. See Applebaum 1970, pp. 79–89; G. M. Cohen 1972, pp. 83–95; cf. Debevoise 1968, pp. 145–146. Klausner (1958, IV pp. 56–57) was likely in error when he declined to identify the Sages referred to in the Talmud as the “Sons of Bathyra” with members of the aforementioned military colony; see Graetz 1893, pp. 115–120; Alon 1957, I, pp. 263–267; Stern 1991, pp. 197–198; Ben-Shalom 1983, pp. 62 ff. See for further details: Schürer 1973, I, p. 257.

Machinations of the Women of the Court

359

has no parallel in BJ, it is stated that more than 6,000 Pharisees refused to take an oath of allegiance to the Emperor and the King,13 and that the wife of Pheroras paid the fine imposed on them by Herod.14 According to the text, they repaid her by revealing a heavenly prophecy that the rule of Herod and his sons would come to an end and the throne would pass to Pheroras, his wife, and their sons. Flusser entertained the possibility that the wife of Pheroras was descended from the House of David. In his opinion, this was the ostensible basis for the Pharisees’ hope of removing Herod from the throne, for if this were not the case, one would be hard-pressed to explain both the content of the prophecy and Pheroras’ stubborn refusal to divorce his wife.15 His thesis apparently stemmed from a desire to substantiate, at least indirectly, the tradition of Jesus’ Davidic origins as contained in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. According to Flusser, the wife of Pheroras could also trace her ancestry to one 13

14

15

In AJ XV, 370 it is recounted that Herod exempted the leaders of the Pharisees Samias (or Sameas) and Pollion (the zug, or “pair,” of Mishnaic sages, Shemaiah and Avtalion) and their followers from punishment for their refusal to swear allegiance to him; cf. AJ XV, 368–372. This exemption was explained by the fact that Pollion advised the besieged population of Jerusalem to open the city gates before Herod in 37 BCE to avoid bloodshed (cf. AJ XV, 3; and also XIV, 175–176; see Rivkin 1978, pp. 51–53; Levine 1978, p. 26; Ben-Shalom 1983, pp. 40–109 (esp. 81–82); Sanders 1992, pp. 383–388; Regev 2003, n. 5. As for the custom of taking an oath of loyalty to the Emperor, it seems that this was the first known case in the Roman Empire; as such, it may have been be an outcome of Herod’s initiative; see: Schürer 1973, I, p. 314, n. 94. It is worth noting that Herod exempted only the Essenes as a group from the oath of loyalty to the Emperor and to himself, perhaps due to the “prophecy” by their leader Menahem during his childhood that he would be king (AJ XV, 373–379). Flusser (2002, pp. 71–72) thought that the Pharisees objected to taking the oath since Herod’s reign was illegal in their eyes, pointing to the Mishnah in mNedarim 3:4. By contrast, he claimed that the Essenes, paradoxically enough, found common ground with the hated king (idem, p. 169), basing himself on AJ XV, 371–372. However his conclusion seems to be erroneous, since AJ XV, 370 stated only that “Essenes also were excused from this imposition,” exactly like the Pharisees led by Sameas and Pollion. Indeed, it is said in the same context that “Herod had these Essenes in such honor, and thought higher of them than their mortal nature required,” but this does not indicate that mutual understanding actually prevailed between them. It implies only that Herod was aware of the limits of his power over the Essenes and the Pharisaic leaders due to the great esteem in which they were held by the public. In BJ I, 571 it is written that “she had supplied the Pharisees with money, by way of rewards for what they had done against him.” The version in BJ, which offers a better reflection than AJ of the views of Nicolaus and hence of Herod, alludes to the political aspects of her action, which Herod likely saw as a genuine conspiracy against him (see below). As Mason correctly concludes (1991, 116–119, 260–261), this account clearly proves that the Pharisees numbered among Herod’s adversaries. The same holds true with regard to AJ XVII, 42 ff. For details, see Flusser 2001, pp. 182–184.

360

17. Antipater’s Subversion in the Royal Court of Jerusalem

of the branches of the dynasty. However, the problem with this line of reasoning is that there are no dynastic records of females in the sources, and even the Davidic lineage of Jesus that appears in the New Testament (Matthew 1:1–17; Luke 3:23–38) relates entirely to males. A comparison of both references therefore cannot tell us anything, leaving this theory in the realm of speculation. Moreover, it is not suggested in any source that Herod feared Pheroras’ wife due to her Davidic ancestry. Josephus’ account states explicitly, on more than one occasion, that Herod’s ultimatum to Pheroras to divorce his wife was strictly a matter of honor, due to his preference for his maidservantconcubine over the brides of noble birth that Herod had designated for him. As we have indicated above, the insult inherent in such a choice could not be tolerated by a paranoid personality such as Herod – a much more likely explanation for the conflict between them. However, there is an additional aspect to Herod’s behavior in this matter. Since the “prophecy” of the Pharisees contradicted the “prophecy” of Menahem the Essene from his childhood, which predicted that the throne was destined to be his (AJ XV, 373–379), one can assume that the matter was a source of distress. His entire life, he had treated the first prophecy as a given, based on an understandable tendency to accept only what he wanted to hear. Stated otherwise: the prophecy of the Pharisees was a major upheaval for him, with all that that implied. To reinforce his suspicions regarding the ties between Pheroras and the Pharisees, it was also related to him (apparently once again by his sister Salome) that the Pharisees had bribed several members of the court to oppose his rule. Upon hearing this, Herod immediately ordered the execution of all Pharisees who appeared suspect in his eyes, without taking any legal steps to verify the accusation (6 BCE?). Although it is stated in AJ XVII, 46 that “Herod had punished those Pharisees who had been convicted of the foregoing crimes,” this should not be taken to mean that a hearing was conducted to prove their guilt. Since in most cases, such “proof” was obtained under duress, there is no reason to believe that this instance was any different. A similar fate awaited Herod’s eunuch Bagoas (Bagöav), who “had been puffed by them (i. e. the Pharisees), as though he should be named the father and the benefactor of him who by the prediction, was foretold to be their appointed king; for that this king would have all things in his power, and would enable Bagoas to marry and to have children of his own body begotten” (AJ XVII, 45). However, we would take issue with the claim that Herod considered the Phari-

Machinations of the Women of the Court

361

sees’ “prophecy” as being in conflict with his “messianic destiny” to rule,16 since the execution of the eunuch was not carried out for this reason but because Bagoas’ presumption, bolstered by the Pharisees, was seen by Herod as undermining his rule. In other words, it was not the notion of “messianic destiny” that bothered him but the real fear of Pheroras and his descendants inheriting his throne and engineering a coup together with their collaborators inside the palace. Indeed, Salome passed information to him with the clear intent of arousing his suspicions of a plot against him. On the same occasion, Herod also executed an individual by the name of Carus or Karos (Kârov), about whom it was said that he was “outstanding among his contemporaries for his surpassing beauty and was loved by the king” (ibid., 44; trans by Marcus & Wikgren).17 Since those of Herod’s young male servants (paidika) who believed the Pharisees’ “prophecy” were also executed at this time, there is reason to believe that Carus belonged in this category. Briefly put, these executions can serve as an indicator of the nature of Herod’s suspicions concerning the “prophecy,” or at the very least, his severe emotional distress and the depth of his paranoid thinking, in that he equated the following attracted by the “prophecy” with an actual rebellion. Moreover, he was plagued by the notion that danger lurked around every corner and that he could not feel safe even within the confines of his palace or in the company of his personal eunuch and servant boy. Further proof of the above came at the same time (7/6 BCE) with the revelation that his most trusted bodyguard, Corinthus, had been lured by Syllaeus into agreeing to kill Herod in exchange for a large sum of money. The matter became known to Herod through Syllaeus’ rivals in Petra following the many acts of murder committed by the latter among the Nabataean nobility. Corinthus confessed to the plot after being captured and severely tortured. Two other prominent Arabs were arrested after him – one a tribal chief, and the other, a personal friend of Syllaeus – for collaborating with him in the murder plot. The two were of course interrogated under torture and admitted to the plot they had been about to carry out against Herod. When the plan was uncovered and its three principals captured, Herod reported the entire episode to Saturninus, the Roman governor in Syria, 16 17

As we noted earlier, this was Schalit’s opinion (1969, pp. 450 ff.), but it is not supported by the sources. In our opinion, this statement reinforces the impression that Herod had bisexual inclinations; see also above, p. 301.

362

17. Antipater’s Subversion in the Royal Court of Jerusalem

who ordered that all three be sent to Rome (AJ XVII, 54–57). With the agreement of the governor, he delayed their execution since they could also serve as an excellent source of evidence in his “settling of accounts” with Syllaeus at the imperial tribunal in Rome, which was then in session. There is no question that the timing of events is highly significant in understanding Herod’s state of anxiety, for from his perspective he was never safe from pursuers, both at home and abroad. While his survival instincts had saved him once more, his narrow escape produced a kind of “snowball effect” whereby every fear and suspicion in turn fueled even greater trepidation. After the Pharisees had been punished, Herod convened a special session of his “friends,” an improvised tribunal of sorts where he railed against the wife of Pheroras for insulting his virgin daughters.18 In the version in BJ I, 568, it is noted that, as a result of her pact with her mother and sister and the mother of Antipater, she displayed great insolence within the palace; indeed, her audacity in belittling Herod’s daughters made her all the more hated by him. We have already seen evidence of Herod’s over-sensitivity to insult, but his reaction in this instance was particularly excessive, not only because he turned an insult against his daughters into a personal affront but because he raised the matter for public discussion at an official session of the “friends of the king.” He even used it as a pretext for accusing Pheroras’ wife of a series of offenses, namely, inciting his brother against him so as to deepen the rift between them, having the arrogance to countermand the fine he had imposed on the Pharisees,19 and being personally involved in all the recent plots against him. In short, he had lost all patience with her, viewing her as a “troublemaker” who had to be removed from his presence once and for all. In the end, he forcefully demanded that Pheroras do so himself (that is, divorce her), even going so far as to issue an ultimatum (AJ XVII, 48): “‘And if you really claim kinship with me, give up your wife, for in that way you

18

19

See BJ I, 568, 571; AJ XVII, 34, 46. The reference is to Salome (his daughter by his wife Elpis) and Roxane (by his wife Phaedra). As stated above, the text implies that these two spinsters, who could not find husbands, were unappealing in appearance, as speculated about their father as well (above, pp. 32–33). If our theory is true, Herod must have identified with their feelings of shame and humiliation. This is stated explicitly in AJ XVII, 47; but to be more precise, all she did was pay the fine for the Pharisees (ibid., 42), not cancel it. There is a fundamental difference between the two actions, although for Herod, they were presumably one and the same thing.

Appointment of Antipater as Successor

363

will remain my brother and will not change in your affection for me’” (trans. Marcus & Wikgren; cf. BJ I, 571). Pheroras refused to accede to Herod’s demand and responded that he would rather die than divorce his wife. In a state of fury, Herod ordered him to leave the palace and return to his tetrarchy in eastern Transjordan. Only then did Pheroras display signs of regret and agree to leave out of fear for his own life and that of his beloved wife. 20 In addition to exiling Pheroras, Herod prohibited his son Antipater and Antipater’s mother Doris from having any contact with him (since he still suspected the existence of secret ties between them) and banned any gatherings among the women of the palace. These sweeping decrees had little effect, for the clandestine meetings continued along with the secret encounters between Pheroras and Antipater, including parties and licentious gatherings held by the two men. Moreover, it was rumored in the palace that the wife of Pheroras was secretly involved in an intimate relationship with Antipater and that Doris, his mother, was even helping them to meet (AJ XVII, 48–51). Since the version in BJ (I, 571–572) makes no mention of such parties or of a romantic connection between Antipater and the wife of Pheroras, it is entirely possible that the rumors to this effect in the version in AJ simply reflected pro-Herodian propaganda “manufactured” to incriminate Pheroras’ wife along with Antipater and their close circle and take revenge on them at the earliest possible opportunity (below).

Appointment of Antipater as Successor, and Dawning of Suspicions against Him Realizing that his father was suspicious of him, and fearful of the prying eyes of his aunt Salome, Antipater decided to distance himself from the scene of events in Jerusalem in hopes that by keeping a “low profile” he would manage to conceal his role in the conspiracy and thereby avoid harming his chances to inherit the throne. At the same time, 20

This was the opinion of Schalit (1969, pp. 629–630), for example. Although there is no direct support for it in the sources, this account is highly credible, especially given Pheroras’ altruistic behavior toward his wife to date. Thus, for example, Pheroras’ anger toward Herod over his wife is demonstrated in AJ XVII, 58, where it is recounted that he “sware many oaths that he would not come again (to Jerusalem) till he heard that Herod was dead. And indeed when, upon a sickness of the king, he was desired to come to him before he died, that he might intrust him with some of his injunctions, he had such a regard to his oath, that he would not come to him.”

364

17. Antipater’s Subversion in the Royal Court of Jerusalem

he took steps behind the scenes with his influential circle of Roman friends, led by the governor of Syria, to get himself sent on an official mission to Rome. The pretext employed was the conclusion of the trial in the Syllaeus affair, since the Nabataean scoundrel had returned from Petra (7 BCE) without carrying out the verdict of the Emperor Augustus. Herod acceded to Antipater’s urging and sent him with written authorization to represent him at the trial. On the occasion of the journey, he even entrusted him with an updated version of his will, the fourth in number, in which it was stated that Antipater would be his chief successor, and that only if he died precipitously would his stepbrother Herod (son of Mariamme the Boethusian) be appointed in his place. 21 As was his habit, he sent with Antipater generous gifts for the Emperor as well as a distinguished entourage to impress all the “powers that be” in Rome (BJ I, 573–577; AJ XVII, 52–53). While Antipater was in Rome, Pheroras fell ill and died suddenly (ca. 7/6 BCE). 22 Herod had his body brought to Jerusalem, held a magnificent funeral for him, and saw to it that he was suitably mourned (BJ I, 578–581; AJ XVII, 58–59). As usual, the version in BJ praises him lavishly for his actions, noting that he displayed “great moderation” toward Pheroras and cared for him on his deathbed with love and devotion. Nor did he content himself with a splendid funeral but also declared a state of national mourning in his memory. It is difficult to determine whether or not his personal grief was genuine, for Pheroras had been a source of trouble to him on more than one occasion. Nevertheless, since it is recounted of him that he had once favored his younger brother over all his family members, there is reason to believe that he may have restrained himself over the sorrows Pheroras had caused him and the acts of subversion and disloyalty he had committed. In reality, the splendid funeral cannot, and should not, be construed as a true indication of grief, for in the past he had also held a stately funeral for his brother-in-law Aristobulus, brother of Mariamme the Hasmonaean, despite the fact that he himself had been the cause of his death (AJ XV, 60–61). Indeed, the passage in BJ I, 581 raises many questions, noting as it does that “though Herod had so great an affection for him to the last day of his life, yet was a report spread abroad that he had killed him by poison.” As we saw with the 21

22

See Richardson 1996, p. 35. The heir to the throne was mistakenly referred to by various scholars as Herod-Philip, although there is no support for this name in the sources; see Kokkinos 1998, p. 223, 266. Kokkinos (p. 132, n. 84) held that Pheroras died in 7 BCE, as opposed to Schürer (1973, I, p. 294) and Richardson (1996, p. xx) who favored 5 BCE.

Appointment of Antipater as Successor

365

death of Mariamme the Hasmonaean, Herod was capable of executing her on unproven charges of infidelity even though he loved her greatly; moreover, this did not prevent him from mourning her and weeping bitterly at her loss. Both versions of Josephus concerning the death of Pheroras (BJ I, 582–591; AJ XVII, 61–67)23 indicate that Herod was convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt regarding the charge made by two of his late brother’s freedmen (liberated slaves) that Pheroras had been poisoned by his wife. According to them, the poison had been purchased from a certain Arabian woman at the explicit request of Pheroras’ wife, her mother, and her sister, and had been provided by a close friend of the wife of Syllaeus. This friend had supposedly been asked to prepare a love potion for Pheroras, but had given him a lethal poison instead. 24 Upon hearing these words, Herod ordered that several of Pheroras’ maidservants be brutally tortured, along with a number of freedwomen from his court. Their interrogation yielded nothing apart from the desperate cry to God from one of the women that He punished Doris, Antipater’s mother, who had brought his calamity on all of them. Herod seized this opening and continued the woman’s interrogation until she revealed the plot hatched by Doris with Pheroras and the women of the family. In this way, he learned of the secret meetings and revelry in which Pheroras and Antipater had participated in his palace over a lengthy period together with the women of the court, 25 at which people had spoken freely and wished openly for his death. Comparing the testimonies of the maidservants, he came to the conclusion that they corroborated one another and thus could serve as incriminating evidence. The information that emerged from the interrogations should of course be treated with skepticism since, like most of Herod’s investigations, these too elicited “confessions” tailored to the charges, and the secret of their “success” lay in the intense torture inflicted on the subjects.

23 24

25

On other differences between the two versions, see Kasher 1988, pp. 172–173 and note 111. Suspicion is cast against Syllaeus only in BJ (I, 583), whereas in AJ XVII, 62 it is stated clearly that the poison was provided by Pheroras’ wife. In our opinion, it is reasonable that Pheroras’ wife and her mother would join forces with Syllaeus, considering the latter’s shady connections in the Arab world and his personal experience at eliminating rivals, as well as his desire to take revenge on Herod’s family, including Pheroras, who had played an active role in thwarting his marriage to Salome. Cf. also AJ XVII, 121.

366

17. Antipater’s Subversion in the Royal Court of Jerusalem

Increasing Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State The version in BJ I, 586–589) goes into much greater detail concerning the agreement between Pheroras and Antipater, and contains several comments that shed light on Herod’s character, as viewed by them and apparently by others as well: [586] Herod had each of the slave girls separately tortured. All their evidence agreed with that already stated; they added that it was by a mutual arrangement that Antipater had withdrawn to Rome and Pheroras to Peraea; for they were constantly saying to each other, “After Alexander and Aristobulus, we and our wives will be Herod’s next victims. Having slain Mariamme and her offspring, he will spare none; so it will be better to flee as far as possible from the ferocious beast.”26 [587] Antipater, they continued, would often complain to his mother that he was already grey-headed, while his father grew younger every day, 27 he would be the first to die, before he began to be really king. Even supposing his father ever did die (and when would that be?) his enjoyment of his heritage must be extremely short. Then there were these hydra heads, the sons of Aristobulus and Alexander, shooting up. His father had robbed him of his hopes for his children, but nominating as the next heir to the throne not one of his own children, but Herod, the son of Mariamme. In that at least he betrayed his extreme senility, if he supposed that that part of his will would stand; for he, Antipater, would take good care to leave none of the family alive. [589] Never had a father so hated his children, yet Herod hated his brother far more; only the other day he had given him (Antipater) a hundred talents to break off all intercourse with Pheroras. And when Pheroras remarked, “Why, what harm were we doing him?” he had replied: “Would to heaven he would rob us of everything and leave us to live in nakedness. But it is impossible to escape so bloodthirsty a beast, who will not even allow us to show affection for anyone. Now we must meet in secret; we shall be able to do so openly, if ever we possess the courage and arms of men.”

The preceding offers further proof that the “apple does not fall far from the tree,” meaning that Antipater intended to employ the same murderous methods toward his potential rivals for the throne as his father had done – and even more brutally. His denunciation of his father as a “ferocious beast” not only underscores the well-known maxim that the flaws we see in others are really our own, but also indicates the values on which he was raised and to which he was accustomed. In our view, 26

27

On the likening of Herod to a “ferocious beast,” see above (AJ XVI, 152, 258; XVII, 117); compare with the bestial image of Antipater: ibid., XVII, 109, 120; BJ I, 632. Regarding Herod and Antipater’s gray hair, and Herod’s coloring of his hair, see AJ XVI, 233; XVII, 66; BJ I, 490, 587; Kokkinos 1998, p. 209 (n. 4).

Increasing Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State

367

there is particular importance to the fact that these words were placed in the mouth of those closest to Herod, namely, his brother and his son. They should not even be compared to the words of criticism uttered by his Hasmonaean sons, for these were much more vehement and extreme. Antipater’s likening of the Hasmonaean offspring to heads of a Hydra monster can serve as an indication of how he himself planned to implement his father’s methods if and when he succeeded in ascending the throne. In fact, the reference here is not only to the descendants of the Hasmonaeans but to other branches of Herod’s family who might jeopardize his rule in future. This was a typical Herodian “norm,” suggesting that Antipater resembled his father as a manipulative paranoid personality and perhaps even a sociopath. We are inclined to suggest that Antipater’s character was directly related to his family origins, in particular if one takes into account the personalities of Cyprus his grandmother and Salome his aunt. As stated, Herod believed the testimonies of the tortured women after verifying the information forcibly extracted from them; but what convinced him above all was the revelation of his promise to Antipater to give him one hundred talents in exchange for breaking off all contact with Pheroras – something which was supposed to be known only to the two of them. This disclosure proved to Herod that Antipater had indeed betrayed him (BJ I, 590; AJ XVII, 65). At first, he took out his anger on Doris, reclaiming all the expensive jewelry he had given her and banishing her a second time from the palace (7/6 BCE). From the interim summary brought in BJ I, 591, it emerges that he was overtaken once more by delusions of persecution; judging by the following words, his connection with reality became distorted and caused him to commit such acts as the torture of innocents: “… But he was scared with fright and flared up at the least suspicion, and many innocent persons were hauled by him to torture, for fear that a single culprit should escape him.” Further evidence of Antipater’s disloyalty – perhaps the most significant in Herod’s eyes – came from one of those tortured in the interrogations, 28 a “Samaritan” also named Antipater who was the steward of his son. 29 The former confessed that his master Antipa28

29

Interrogation under torture in the presence of the ruler is familiar from such modern tyrants such as Josef Stalin in Soviet Russia, Idi Amin in Uganda, Hafez el-Assad in Syria, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and many others. BJ I, 592 (Samareíthn); AJ XVII, 69 (Samareíthv). His “Samaritan” identity is self-evident, since the polis of Samaria turned into Sebastia. Although Egger (1986, p. 175, 311) questions his Samaritan origins, she does not rule out such a possibility.

368

17. Antipater’s Subversion in the Royal Court of Jerusalem

ter (the son of Herod) had ordered a poison from Egypt through his friend Antiphilus for delivery to Pheroras. The poison was sent by way of Theudion his uncle (that is, the brother of his mother Doris), and when it reached Pheroras, it was given over to his wife for safekeeping. Antipater instructed Pheroras to poison Herod with it, but only after he himself had arrived in Rome, where he would be far removed from suspicion. During Antipater’s journey, however, Pheroras suddenly fell ill and died unexpectedly (apparently in 7 BCE), throwing the entire plot into disarray. In light of the revelations from the interrogations of the women and of Antipater the Samaritan, Herod began to question the wife of Pheroras more intensely. When she realized that she was trapped, she attempted to commit suicide by jumping off a roof, but she did not die since she landed on her feet and not her head, in addition to which Herod saw that she was tended to after the shock of the fall. When she had regained her strength, he asked her why she had tried to kill herself, which obviously appeared suspicious in his eyes. He promised that he would let her live if she would admit the truth, and at the same time, threatened that if she would not cooperate he would execute her and have her dismembered until there was nothing left to bury. Under these circumstances, she decided that she had nothing to lose and thus revealed the whole truth of Antipater’s part in the poisoning scheme. What is more, according to her, Pheroras had realized his mistake and been very moved by Herod’s concern for his health and his devotion to him when he came to attend to him during his illness. As a result of his pangs of conscience, Pheroras had directed her while lying on his deathbed to immediately dispose of the poison in a fire before his eyes so that he would not take to his grave the terrible guilt of poisoning his own brother. She related further that she had fulfilled his instruction and thrown most of the poison onto the fire, but had retained a small amount for her own use in the event that Herod decided to torture her. When she had completed her confession, she handed over the original box of poison, which indeed contained the small quantity she had spoken of. Upon seeing the box, Herod bound over the mother and brother of Antiphilus (supplier of the poison) for torture, and they confirmed that they had obtained the potion from a brother of Antiphilus who was a physician in Alexandria.

Being “Samaritan”, he was raised to hate virtually everything Jewish; cf. Kasher 1995, pp. 222–223.

Increasing Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State

369

To these shocking revelations was added another disclosure that emerged from the interrogation of two of Herod’s brothers-in-law, the brothers of his wife Mariamme the Boethusian, according to which she herself had known of the crime and kept silent. As a result, Herod banished her as well and struck her son Herod from his will, 30 in addition to which he removed her father Simon son of Boethus from the high priesthood and appointed in his stead Mattathias son of Theophilus (BJ I, 592–600; AJ XVII, 68–78). 31 These events are presented rather ambiguously, and without the necessary background. Thus for example, it is not made clear why Mariamme the Boethusian kept secret what she knew. Was she an active participant in the conspiracy or only “conscious of [the] plot,” as written in BJ I, 599? Why did she not share the matter with her husband? Was she threatened by the plotters? Or was she only a passive supporter of the scheme? An allusion to the latter possibility can be found in the version in BJ , which recounts that her guilt came to light only when her brothers revealed it under torture as part of the cross-questioning (eÌv toùv Èléncouv) initiated by Herod. It seems that this “revelation” was sufficient reason, as far as he was concerned, to banish her and erase her son’s name from his will as a potential successor. Based on this passage, there is reason to believe that Herod wrote a fifth will at this time (6 BCE). 32 Unfortunately, the lack of available information prevents us from reaching any definite conclusions in the matter, but such a move would be highly consistent with his instability and affective lability – traits typical of an individual in a delusional state. Although a comparison of Josephus’ versions of this episode indicates that in principle they complement one another without fundamental contradictions, there is still one significant difference that is deserving of attention for the light it can shed on Herod’s unstable mental state at the time. In BJ I, 599, the following instructive sentence is inserted almost as an after-thought and without any factual connection to the account: The ghosts (daímonev) of Alexander and Aristobulus were indeed patrolling the palace from end to end, detaching and disclosing all the mysteries and dragging to judgment persons who seemed farthest removed from suspicion. 30 31

32

As mentioned above (note 21), he was mistakenly referred to as Herod-Philip. Of the dismissal of Simon son of Boethus, we learn only from the version in Antiquities; however nothing is mentioned of his fate. On Herod’s reform regarding the nominations of high priests, see also S. Schwartz 1990, p. 86. Cf. Hoehner 1972, p. 271; Richardson 1996, pp. 35–36.

370

17. Antipater’s Subversion in the Royal Court of Jerusalem

This description is no slip of the pen, for the ghosts of the Hasmonaean brothers are also mentioned later on (BJ I, 607) as participants in the drama. Since this motif of ghostly apparitions could not have come from a Jewish source, 33 it was no doubt based on the account of Nicolaus of Damascus, a skilled dramatist. An interesting question is whether this was only a literary embellishment or if it reflected what Herod himself saw in his mind’s eye at the time. We would opt for the second possibility, equating it with the nightmare-hallucinations that he experienced concerning his son Alexander who “attacked” him with a drawn sword to kill him (AJ XVI, 259). As stated immediately thereafter (ibid., 260): “So intent upon this thought was his mind both night and day that he took on the appearance of suffering from madness and foolishness (manía kaì Ànoia) as well” (trans. Marcus & Wikgren). The final proof of Antipater’s guilt in the conspiracy reached Herod with the capture of Bathyllus, the freedman of Antipater who arrived at this point from Rome. 34 Under torture, he admitted that he had in his possession a deadly poison made of snake venom and the secretions of other reptiles which was supposed to be handed over to Pheroras and his wife to kill Herod in the event that the Arab poison was too weak for this purpose. He of course was unaware that the first scheme had failed. Bathyllus also carried with him forged letters commissioned by Antipater and written in the name of Archelaus (Herod’s son from Malthace the Samaritan) and Philip (his son from Cleopatra of Jerusalem), 35 who were in Rome at the time for their studies. Antipater had paid a handsome sum for the forgeries, some of which he took from the money his father had given him to cover his expenses at the trial of Syllaeus. The forged letters were intended to incriminate Archelaus and Philip, who had supposedly written words of condemnation against Herod for the execution of his sons Alex33 34

35

Cf. Thackeray 1927, II, p. 285, note a. On this and subsequent events, see BJ I, 601–619; AJ XVII, 70–92. The two versions are not contradictory; in fact, they complement each another on certain minor details. Nevertheless, the version in BJ is richer in dramatic motifs, as we shall see below. This is not the first time that forgery is mentioned in connection with Herod. We have already seen that the “royal scribe” Diophantus was very skilled at forging handwriting, and even falsified a letter from Alexander (Herod’s son) to the commander of the Alexandrium fortress (AJ XVI, 317–319; BJ I, 528–529, 644). Antipater himself was experienced at forging letters, witness those supposedly written by Salome and addressed to Livia (Augustus’ wife) (AJ XVII, 138; BJ I, 644–645). It is entirely possible that the Babylonian lineage that Nicolaus of Damascus invented for Herod was based on a forgery of this type as well.

Increasing Deterioration in Herod’s Mental State

371

ander and Aristobulus; in addition, they bemoaned their imminent deaths, stating that their father had ordered them to return to Jerusalem so that he might kill them. This directive from Herod was already known to Antipater, for he was fully apprised of goings-on in Jerusalem by means of an efficient exchange of letters throughout his stay in Rome (6 BCE), and even during his return journey. 36 Thus for example, on his way back to Jerusalem, when he passed through Tarentum in southern Italy, he learned of the death of Pheroras and the failure of the plot to poison Herod with his help.

36

It appears that Herod had already discovered Antipater’s machinations seven months before he returned to Jerusalem (BJ I, 606; AJ XVII, 82), that is in 6 BCE, since he departed for Rome prior to that date.

Chapter 18 The Bitter Fate of Antipater Antipater’s Trial (5 BCE) When Antipater passed through Cilicia en route to Jerusalem, word reached him that Herod had banished his mother. This was obviously cause for alarm, but several of his advisors attempted to persuade him to wait for additional information before returning while others felt that, on the contrary, he would be advised to hurry back to Jerusalem to be near the scene of events and try to steer them to his benefit. Herod, however, remained silent, apparently to conceal his attentions and mislead Antipater. In his letter to Antipater, he downplayed the importance of his mother’s exile, even expressing the hope that upon Antipater’s return all misunderstandings surrounding the matter could be resolved. Antipater fell into the trap, only to discover the bitter truth the moment he landed at the port of Sebastos in Caesarea. There was no one on hand to welcome him officially, and he was largely shunned – when he was not met with angry curses over his guilt in the death of his Hasmonaean brothers. But despite his great fear at this turn of events, he held onto the hope that he could nonetheless manage to influence matters in his favor when he arrived at the royal palace in Jerusalem and carefully navigate his way with all the cunning that had marked his actions until now. Outwardly, his selfconfidence was such that he was bold enough to enter the palace attired in a royal purple robe (porphyra);1 but when the members of his entourage were not permitted to enter the palace together with him, he understood precisely how dire his situation was. Indeed, when he 1

AJ XVI, I 90. This account has no parallel in BJ I, 617. It is hard to tell if it was true or if it was added by Josephus himself to lend a dramatic aspect to Antipater’s appearance. If the report is reliable, then Antipater was (perhaps unknowingly) emulating his father, who had dressed similarly when appearing before the Jewish court in 46 BCE (AJ XIV, 173). Conversely, if the description is not grounded in fact, it is reasonable to assume that Josephus inserted it for literary purposes.

Antipater’s Trial

373

drew near to his father to kiss him, the latter waved him away, turned his head aside, and loudly accused him of murdering his brother Pheroras and conspiring to poison himself. 2 Herod also informed him on this occasion of the brief trial that would be conducted the following day, led by the new Roman governor of the province of Syria, P. Quinctilius Varus. That same day, Antipater met with his mother and his wife, and they of course filled him in on the latest developments. The decision to set up a special court to try Antipater, and the fact that so little time was given him to prepare his defense, indicate that Herod intended from the start to conduct a show trial before an ad hoc tribunal – a “kangaroo court” of sorts that would reach a summary judgment without taking into account the accepted rules of evidence. The fact that Varus presided over the court was meant to provide the necessary judicial “sanction” in case anyone dared to protest. No doubt, a trial of this type also answered Herod’s powerful emotional need as a typical litigious personality for official legal vindication in the eyes of the public. In BJ I, 620 (cf. AJ XVII, 93), it is stated that the king convened a Court of Justice (sunésrion) composed of his “relatives and friends” (oÍ suggeneîv kaì fíloi), as in similar instances in the past; this was done in accordance with the accepted Hellenist model (as signified by the term), with himself seated at the head of the tribunal (prokaqézeta) together with the governor Varus. 3 This clearly indicates that the outcome of the trial had been determined in advance – a fact that was obvious to Antipater himself immediately upon entering the court (BJ I, 621; AJ XVII, 94). Even before the panel convened, Herod, as one of the judges, summoned the friends of Antipater along with all the witnesses who would appear before the tribunal, including the members of Doris’ household, who had recently been caught with her letters to him among their belongings. The letters warned Antipater not to go near his father as the latter had already discovered all the conspiracies against him; his mother therefore advised Antipater to try first to enlist the support of the Emperor before returning (BJ I, 621; AJ XVII, 93). The 2 3

See BJ I, 618. Concerning this dramatic description, which was aimed at embellishing the narrative, see. also Sh. Cohen 1979, p. 90. From BJ I, 635 we learn that Varus (the Roman governor of Syria) was the chief judge. In AJ XVII, 92 it is also stated that Varus was the judge (dikastäv), and that Nicolaus himself addressed him directly as such. Furthermore, the account of the course of the trial gives the impression that indeed Varus was the one in charge, at least until he departed for Syria (ibid., 127, 131–132).

374

18. The Bitter Fate of Antipater

obvious question arises here: Why did the “all-powerful” Doris not try herself to influence Herod, since this concerned the fate of her son, to whom she had devoted her entire life?4 Antipater was well aware of his father’s attitude toward the Emperor, whom he considered second only to God; yet he knew he had no chance of misleading Herod into thinking that he enjoyed the support of the Emperor (AJ XVII, 103). He quickly realized his strategic error in not making it a point to secure the Emperor’s documented support beforehand. In addition, he had deluded himself that he would be able to “recruit” the Emperor to his cause through a show of self-confidence, claiming that he had only to ask and the latter would attest to his innocence (AJ XVII, 103). Under the circumstances, this was only a rhetorical statement, but in his desperation he clung to a sliver of hope that his declaration might have some effect. Upon entering the court room, however, he understood immediately that all was lost and hastened to prostrate himself before his father and beg him not to decide his fate in advance and at last listen without prejudice to his words of self-justification (Àpología), which would prove his innocence (BJ I, 621; AJ XVII, 94). Until now, the two versions of Josephus correspond to one another, for the most part; but from this point onward they diverge considerably, particularly in the description of Herod’s behavior upon seeing Antipater. Since this is directly relevant to the subject of our discussion, we will now relate to it in greater detail: The version in BJ recounts that Herod reacted with fury to the sight of Antipater lying at his feet, shouting at him to remain silent (BJ I, 622). As portrayed in the text, his was a spontaneous response typical of someone unable to control his rage. True, the presence of Varus curtailed his outburst somewhat, but Herod immediately addressed him directly as follows (BJ I, 622–628): [622] “That you, Varus, and every honest judge will condemn Antipater as an abandoned criminal, I am fully persuaded. What I fear is that my fate may also appear hateful to you and that you may judge me deserving of every calamity for having begotten such sons. And yet you ought rather to pity me for having been the most devoted of fathers to such abominable wretches. [623] My late sons, whom they were quite young I thought fit to destine for the throne, whom I not only expensively educated in Rome, but introduced to Caesar’s friendship, and made an object of envy to other sovereigns, these I found to be conspirators. They have died, mainly to further Antipater’s interests: he was young, he was the heir, and to secure him was the object which I had most at heart. [624] 4

This rhetorical question of course demonstrates the limits of Doris’ influence on Herod, in response to Bar-Kochva’s reservations (2003, pp. 8 ff.).

Antipater’s Trial

375

And now this foul monster, 5 gorged with the benefits of my forbearance, has turned his bloated insolence upon me. He thought me too long lived; my old age oppressed him; he could not endure the idea of becoming king by other means than parricide. Justly indeed has he served me for bringing him back, a castaway, from the country, ousting the sons whom a princess6 bore me and declaring him heir to the throne! [625] I admit, Varus, my own infatuation. It was I who exasperated those sons against me by cutting off their just expectations in the interests of Antipater. When did I ever indulge them as I have this scoundrel? To him in my own lifetime I well nigh resigned my power; I nominated him in my will, in the public eye, heir to the throne; I assigned him a private income of fifty talents, apart from liberal contributions from my personal revenues; recently, when he set sail for Rome, I presented him with three hundred talents, and recommended him to Caesar, alone of all my children, as his father’s preserver. [626] What crime did those others commit comparable to that of Antipater? Or what proof was brought against them so convincing as that which establishes this traitor’s guilt? [627] However, this parricide has presumed to open his mouth, hoping once more to smother the truth under his wiles. Varus, you must be on your guard. I know the creature and foresee the plausible pleading, the hypocritical lamentations, that are to follow. This is the man who, in former days, when Alexander was alive, advised me to beware of him and not to trust my life to all men’s hands; this is he who conducted me to my couch and looked round to see that no assassin was concealed; this is he who dispensed my hours of slumber, ensured my freedom from care, consoled me in my sorrow for my victims, and sounded the feelings of his surviving brothers; this is my buckler, my bodyguard! [628] When I recall, Varus, his knavery and hypocrisy on each occasion, I can scarce believe I am alive and marvel how I escaped so deep a schemer. But since some demon (tÄn 2dikon eÍmarménhn) [translated here as “evil genius” (daímwn tiv)]7 is bent on desolating my house and raising up against me one after another those who are nearest to my heart, I may weep over my unjust destiny (tÄn 2dikon eÍmarménhn),8 I may groan in spirit over my forlorn state, but not one shall escape who thirsts for my blood, no, not though conviction should extend to all my children.” (translated by Thackeray)

5 6

7 8

The “wild beast” motif appears repeatedly, indicating its prominence in Herod’s thinking. The use of this term attests to the great importance placed by Herod on his matrimonial ties to the Hasmonaean family, thereby indirectly demonstrating his sense of inferiority, on the one hand, and his desire to marry into the family for reasons of lineage and power, on the other. Cornfeld (1982, p. 118) makes the interesting comment on this expression that it contains an unconscious admission that the son, like the father, is paranoid. Literally, “my unjust fate.” From Herod’s perspective, this was one of the rare cases where he bemoaned his destiny, for he considered fate to have smiled upon him thus far, witness the fact that he had been chosen by God to rule for so many years.

376

18. The Bitter Fate of Antipater

Reading the above, one cannot help but conclude that this brief portrayal of Antipater’s character only proves the adage that we are quick to spot the shortcomings of others yet blind to our own. Upon completing his speech, Herod was so emotionally overcome that he ordered Nicolaus of Damascus to continue presenting the incriminating evidence against Antipater. Herod’s address to the tribunal was maudlin and dramatic, full of rhetorical questions aimed largely at the judge Varus but also at the assembly, indicating that already from the outset Herod sought to lead Varus in a particular direction and at the same time prepare public opinion to accept a guilty verdict without question. Almost certainly, the speech was composed, and essentially reconstructed, by Nicolaus himself, although one can discern the imprint of Josephus as editor. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that the content and style of the speech were a faithful reflection of Herod’s way of thinking. The appeal to those present stemmed, in our opinion, from his intense desire for empathy and acceptability, so typical of the paranoid personality, and from his emotional need for legal vindication. In our view, the most instructive part of the address is Herod’s reluctant admission that he himself had supplied his Hasmonaean sons with a reason for their hostility toward him: “I admit, Varus, my own infatuation. It was I who exasperated those sons against me by cutting off their just expectations in the interests of Antipater” (BJ I, 625). Still, it is important to note that he did not accept responsibility for their death, since the plot that they had hatched against him was, in his eyes, a proven fact and therefore a crime punishable by death. In other words, he admitted, at most, solely to the mistake of not knowing all the facts; thus he understood that he had indirectly helped arouse his sons’ animosity, but in no way admitted to being responsible for their deaths. Mea culpa-style confessions are rare among paranoids because, in their view, their actions are always justified. According to them, mistakes are possible, but never guilt or responsibility. Taking refuge in “destiny” was a compelling alternative to taking personal responsibility, and it is no accident that the notion of fate figured prominently in his address (see BJ I, 622, 628). Only in this way can we understand Herod’s statement that his Hasmonaean sons were “put to death … in great measure, for the sake of Antipater” (ibid., 623). This is a prime example of a fatalistic outlook, in which man’s fate is seen as something predetermined that cannot be changed; there is no way to escape it, so why even try. The fact that Herod convinced himself that some sort of “evil genius” was bent on destroying his home and causing his loved ones to rise up against him

Antipater’s Trial

377

(ibid., 628) can also be understood in a similar manner. As we have already seen, his belief in the power of demonic forces, ghosts, hallucinations, delusions, and the like was an extremely significant factor in his life. This further underscores his paranoid personality, which is clearly expressed in the speech attributed to him before the court. The most noticeable difference between the two versions of Josephus in this context is that Herod’s words in AJ are not presented as a speech but indirectly as part of the narrative. In terms of content, Herod opens his address in this version by bemoaning the fact that he gave birth to children who had brought him such misfortune (AJ XVII, 94). His lament groups together his Hasmonaean sons and Antipater, for all three had enjoyed numerous kindnesses from him, in particular the promise of inheriting the throne, yet all of them without distinction had shown a lack of gratitude. He accused them of undermining him so as to receive the kingdom “after an impious manner, by taking away his life before the course of nature” (ibid., 95). As noted above, although it was now clear to him that Antipater had misled him with malicious lies, he did not accept any personal responsibility for the death of his Hasmonaean sons; rather, he washed his hands of all blame and asserted with certainty that Antipater was the guilty party (ibid., 97–98): [97] He also objected to him the case of his brethren whom he had accused; and if they were guilty, he had imitated their example; and if not, he had brought him groundless accusations against his near relations; [98] for that he had been acquainted with all those things by him, and by nobody else, and had done what was done by his approbation, and whom he now absolved from all that was criminal, by becoming the inheritor of the guilt of such their parricide.

It is clear from these words that, in Herod’s eyes, not only had Antipater driven Alexander and Aristobulus into sinning against their father but he had placed the blame on their shoulders; hence Herod now saw fit to absolve them of guilt and accuse Antipater himself. This is of course the interpretation of Josephus, who was interested in emphasizing the innocence of the Hasmonaean sons even in the eyes of their executioner, Herod. Such an approach is entirely missing from BJ, which is more faithful to the position of Nicolaus and thus apparently to that of Herod as well. Moreover, in the version in BJ I, 629, it is noted that Herod was so filled with emotion (toiaûta légwn aÙtòv mèn Úpò sugcúsewv Ènekóph) that he could no longer speak, whereas in AT XVII, 99) it is recounted that “when Herod had thus spoken, he fell a weeping, and

378

18. The Bitter Fate of Antipater

was not able to say any more” (taûj "ma légwn eÌv dákrua trépetai légein te 2porov ãn). The difference is more than merely semantic, for BJ refers to emotional upset alone whereas AJ speaks of prolonged wailing that was beyond control. In this instance, the choice of words shapes the content, and in our opinion the version in AJ reflects more strongly the literary redaction of Josephus, who sought to portray Herod as a man tormented by the death of his Hasmonaean sons, the intent being to convey their innocence to his readers by showing that even such a bestial individual as Herod wept bitterly over their death.9 From a dramatic standpoint, this was a strong message that could easily bring the reader to catharsis, and for that reason alone, Josephus did not want to forgo it. Another, even more noticeable difference between the two versions involves Herod’s reaction upon hearing Antipater’s speech of justification (AJ XVII, 100–105). In the words of Josephus (ibid., 106): Hereupon there was a change observed in the assembly, while they greatly pitied Antipater, who by weeping and putting on a countenance suitable to his sad case made them commiserate the same, insomuch that his very enemies were moved to compassion; and it appeared plainly that Herod himself was affected in his own mind, although he was not willing it should be taken notice of.

In BJ I, 636, by contrast, it is stated explicitly that Antipater’s words, which were uttered amid much weeping and lamentation, aroused the pity of all those present including Varus; Herod alone did not shed a tear and remained furious because he knew that Antipater’s accusations were true. The implication is that here too Josephus edited his writing to serve his pro-Hasmonaean goals. It is important to be aware that in AJ, he notes that Herod considered weeping to be a sign of weakness (AJ XV, 241). But surprisingly enough, it is actually in AJ, and not in BJ, that we see mention of most of the instances where Herod cried – and this is no accident. The first scene of weeping attributed to Herod involves the great rift between him and his wife Mariamme the Hasmonaean following his return from Laodicea (AJ XV, 84); the second takes place during his state of mourning over the death of Mariamme (AJ XV, 241); the third instance relates to his great reconciliation with his sons in Rome in 12 BCE (AJ XVI, 100); and the fourth such scene occurs in the present context (AJ XVII, 99), while the fifth takes place on the same occasion, following Antipater’s speech (cf. ibid., 106). 9

Regarding the metaphor of beastly behavior, see note 5 above. For a literary analysis of the trial and the speeches delivered there, see Landau, 2003, pp. 134 ff., 202 ff.

Antipater’s Trial

379

Since none of these scenes of weeping is referred to in any of the parallel versions in War, it seems that they were the product of literary editing by Josephus himself. In reality, Josephus did not intend to repair the negative image of Herod by portraying him as a man sincerely tormented over his sins; on the contrary, since AJ is actually more extreme and unequivocal with respect to Herod’s negative character, it is more likely that the scenes of weeping were intended to convince the reader of the innocence of the Hasmonaean family members, since from a literary point of view, there is nothing more persuasive than “enlisting” the evil person himself toward this end. While crying, and even hysterical weeping, can be understood as fairly common behavior among normal individuals, all of Herod’s outbursts of wailing, if indeed they took place, were bound up with displays of self-pity, disappointment, fury, loathing, fear, and desperation coupled with expressions of resignation at the bitter destiny and “evil genius” (i. e., “perverse spirit,” or “demon”) that controlled his life. Whether they were accompanied by weeping (as in AJ) or not (as in BJ), such behaviors, occurring together and with great intensity, attest to the emotional distress typical of an individual suffering from Paranoid Personality Disorder. Thus the scenes of weeping in AJ to not enhance or detract from the portrayal of Herod’s character but only add a dramatic-emotional dimension from a literary perspective. Only in one instance did Herod openly display the “weakness” of crying in BJ, when he presented his grandsons before his kinsmen and friends and promised to care for them (BJ I, 556, 559; cf. AJ XVII, 13). In our opinion, whether this is an accurate portrayal or the product of the original literary redaction of Nicolaus of Damascus the dramatist (or perhaps Josephus himself), it does not color the other crying scenes in any way since all of these, without exception, had clear dramaticsentimental objectives. The refusal to accept any responsibility in the death of his Hasmonaean sons is also manifest in the richly rhetorical speech delivered by the advocate Nicolaus of Damascus, who detailed Antipater’s offenses before the court (AJ XVII, 106–130).10 The address included points that were acceptable to Herod and may even have reflected his explicit instructions. Nicolaus of course was extravagant in his praise 10

The first portion of his speech (AJ XVII, 106–110) is rendered as part of the overall account, whereas the second section (ibid., 100–120) is presented directly as a speech, and the concluding segment (ibid., 121–130) returns to the ongoing account. Such a literary structure highlighted the rhetorical brilliance of the speech, all the better to serve Nicolaus’ goals.

380

18. The Bitter Fate of Antipater

of his patron, placing emphasis on Herod’s virtues (ibid., 106–107) and presenting him as a pitiful old man (ibid., 114, 117), loving and beneficent (ibid., 114), whose world had been shattered by a cruel fate. In this way, Nicolaus sought to highlight Antipater’s ingratitude and reveal him at his most evil: a devious, lying, arrogant, shameless, bloodthirsty beast guilty of fratricide and patricide. In one instance (ibid., 109), he even refers to Antipater’s “madness” (manía; based on several manuscripts).11 In our opinion, this catalogue of Antipater’s character traits unintentionally corresponds to the qualities of his father Herod, indicating once again that the apple does not fall far from the tree. From the perspective of Nicolaus (which we believe was also that of Herod himself), the Hasmonaean sons were simply misled in their stupidity or naïveté, and were brought so low through the maliciousness of their advisors (ibid., 108) that they became involved in a truly despicable act (ibid., 110). In other words, the version in AJ portrays Nicolaus’ as trying to “have it both ways”: indirectly ascribing to Herod the intention to “absolve” his Hasmonaean sons of guilt, while at the same time not freeing them completely from blame. Apparently, this rhetorical ploy was intended to leave the reader to judge this difficult question for himself. For Josephus, this was of course an excellent literary opportunity to clear the sons of guilt, based on the words of Herod himself. Following Nicolaus’ speech, Varus directed Antipater to defend himself in the face of the testimony given against him, but he said nothing of substance except for a pathetic cry to God proclaiming his innocence (ibid., 131). This in effect marked the end of the legal proceedings, and Varus returned to Antioch to manage the affairs of Syria, leaving Herod by himself to preside over the court. Before leaving, Varus held secret conversations with him (BJ I, 639; AJ XVII, 133), during which the details pertaining to Antipater’s fate after the trial were apparently arranged. The formal conclusion of the trial, that is, the verdict and sentencing, were postponed to a later date since it was necessary to first receive the official approval of the Emperor; after all, Antipater was not an ordinary private figure but the official successor to the throne of Judaea. It is therefore not surprising that Herod sent special envoys for this purpose bearing letters to the Emperor with a detailed report on all that had happened, together with a new will 11

See Marcus & Wikgren 1927, VIII, p. 420; Josephus (ed. Niese), ad loc. If this rendering is correct, it might allude to a genetic component to the “insanity” in Herod’s family.

Antipater’s Trial

381

(BJ I, 639; AJ XVII, 133, 146, 182). He was very meticulous in formal matters relating to the authority of the Emperor and his status in Rome, as he was a victim of bitter past experience in this area. While awaiting the Emperor’s answer, another episode involving Antipater’s machinations began to emerge, which we shall refer to as the “Acme affair.”12 “Now at this very time” (as the passage in AJ XVII, 134 begins), a letter was seized that had been sent to Antipater from Antiphilus in Egypt (above). This epistle contained a reference to an exchange of letters between Antipater and Acme, the former maidservant of Livia the Emperor’s wife,13 who it turns out was a Jew by birth (AJ XVII, 140). Acme, who had been bribed with a large sum of money by Antipater, wrote him that she had carried out his instructions and sent a letter to Herod casting suspicion on his sister Salome as a conspirator against him. Along with her letter to Herod, she sent a second letter (forged by Antipater) that was purportedly written by Salome. This letter had supposedly come into her possession when it was sent to her mistress Livia, and alluded to Salome’s desire to marry Syllaeus the Nabataean and to Herod’s role in thwarting the marriage. Acme closed her letter to Herod with the hope that the information she had conveyed would be of benefit to him; at the same time, however, she noted that she had placed her life in danger by sending the missive and was fearful of being harmed by Salome. For this reason, she asked him to tear up the letter so that no written evidence against her would remain. In addition, she reported to Antipater on all her actions and expressed the hope that when Herod read her letter he would no longer spare his sister’s life and would see her as disloyal and subversive, precisely as Antipater wanted. She ended the report to Antipater with a request that he recall his promise to her after this scenario took place.14 Astonished at the letters that had fallen into his hands, Herod reacted with alarm and “was ready to have ordered him to be slain immediately” (AJ XVII, 142). His readiness to spontaneously take revenge on Antipater is consistent with the impulsive response pat12

13 14

This episode is recounted in detail in AJ XVII, 134–145, and in a more abridged form in BJ I, 641–645. In fact there is no contradiction between the versions, and they complement one other in several details (see below). In BJ, Augustus’ wife is referred to as Livia, whereas in AJ she is called Julia, which was her name after Augustus’ death. Presumably, he had promised to release Acme from slavery, which was apparently a very persuasive enticement to cooperate fully in his scheme. Such a convoluted undertaking is difficult to fathom, only proving the adage that truth is stranger than fiction.

382

18. The Bitter Fate of Antipater

terns of the paranoid personality. But since he knew that the wife of the Emperor was also indirectly involved, his fear held him back and caused him to reconsider his actions. The version in BJ I, 644, by contrast, notes briefly that he was in a state of acute depression. While he suspected that the letters against Alexander might also have been a forgery, he did not dwell on feelings of guilt for his death and that of his brother Aristobulus but only on the fact that he had almost killed his sister as a result of Antipater’s scheming (ibid.). This would seem to demonstrate his primitive tribal perception, in which members of one’s original family (that is, brothers and sisters from a common father and mother) were ranked above all others, thereby giving his sister priority over his sons. Apparently, he was particularly troubled by the fact that he had almost fallen into the trap laid for him by Antipater and ended the life of his sister (AJ XVII, 142), not to mention the fact that she put on a convincing display of theatrical grief, beating her breasts and inviting him to kill her if he could produce any credible testimony against her. Herod was inclined to believe her, precisely as he had on a similar occasion in the past (AJ XVI, 216). But in fact, what worried him more than anything was the thought that harming Salome could complicate matters with the Emperor’s household, since the “discoveries” concerning Acme pointed to the close ties between Salome and Livia the Emperor’s wife. Herod could not allow this to happen when his standing in Rome had already suffered a serious blow as a result of his second war with the Nabataeans and the “Syllaeus affair.”15 In truth, he was ready to sacrifice anyone on the altar of his ambitions, fears and egocentric interests, and in that regard, there was no difference between his sister and his sons. Fortune simply smiled on Salome in that he feared for his fate due to her close ties with the Emperor’s wife. In light of the new “revelations,” Antipater was interrogated once again, with the focus placed on the Acme affair and amid vehement denials by Salome. Finding himself in dire straits, Antipater reacted with shock and confusion and tried unsuccessfully to place the blame on his friend Antiphilus (ibid., 142–143). At first, Herod considered sending him to Rome to stand trial before the Emperor, but on second thought he decided to leave him imprisoned in his kingdom since “he soon became afraid, lest he might there, by the assistance 15

As mentioned earlier, Syllaeus’ machinations were eventually discovered and he was sentenced to death. Augustus in fact reconciled with Herod, although the residue of bitterness and suspicion was not easily erased.

Antipater’s Trial

383

of his friends, escape the danger he was in” (ibid., 145). He therefore contented himself with sending additional emissaries to the Emperor to report on the Acme affair, entrusting them with indictments against Antipater with all the accompanying documentation (ibid., 143–145). The emissaries received explicit instructions on what to say if they were asked the purpose of their mission (ibid., 146). Reading between the lines, the impression emerges that Herod feared that an investigation of the matter in Rome was liable to have a negative effect on internal relations in the imperial court and perhaps even bring out unpleasant details about the goings-on there. Antipater’s presence in Rome was therefore not desirable from any perspective – and not only in light of the loyal following he had secured there. Thus it seems that Herod decided to maintain as low a profile as possible and to shy away completely from a private investigation of the Acme affair lest he be accused of stirring up trouble in the imperial court and arouse the anger of the Emperor’s wife.

Chapter 19 Descent into Oblivion (4 BCE) Severe Decline in Herod’s Mental and Physical State While awaiting Augustus’ approval of the verdict against Antipater, Herod was struck by a grave illness (5 BCE).1 Fearing that he did not have long to live, he decided to immediately revise his will (AJ XVII, 146 ff.). In the new version (the sixth in number), he designated as his successor Herod Antipas, who was the youngest of his sons with Malthace the Samaritan (BJ I, 646) and roughly 19 years old at the time, 2 thereby passing over both Philip, his son by Cleopatra of Jerusalem, and Archelaus, another of his sons by Malthace. The reason for this decision lay in his hatred of them as a result of Antipater’s slander against them (BJ I, 602–603; AJ XVII, 80). On the face of it, this seems rather surprising since he had already learned that the libel was completely unfounded and that their “guilt” was based solely on letters forged by Antipater. But the thoughts running through his head were a mixture of fact and fiction, and at least some of his delusions had become fixated in his mind, spurring him to write a sixth will and initiate the marriage of his son Antipas to the daughter of Aretas IV, the Nabataean king.3 There is no question that such thinking and its accompanying behavior are classic symptoms of a persecutory delusional disorder.4 1 2

3

4

There will be a separate discussion devoted to his illness below. Cf. Kokkinos 1998, pp. 225 (& n. 71), 229, as opposed to Richardson, who thought that he was 16 or 17 years old, but did not support this hypothesis with decisive proof from the sources. This is apparently the explanation for the retrospective allusion to the daughter of Aretas in AJ XVIII, 109. Kokkinos (pp. 230–232) rightfully believed, on the basis of epigraphic and numismatic evidence, that the reference is to Phasaelis, the oldest of Aretas’ five daughters, who was then twelve years old. The timing of the marriage suits the political situation at the time, specifically the attempt to reconcile with the Nabataeans following the execution of Syllaeus. It seems fitting in this context to relate to Herod’s mental state as a full-blown delusional disorder-persecutory type; cf. chap. 16, above.

Severe Decline in Herod’s Mental and Physical State

385

Herod’s sense of resignation regarding his impending death also found expression in the generous sums of money he bestowed on those whom he wished to honor: 1,000 silver talents to the Emperor Augustus, and 500 talents to Augustus’ wife Livia, her children, and the Emperor’s freedman. 5 In addition, he distributed gifts to his family members, although the value of these is not enumerated. There is only a general statement that the gifts designated for his sons and grandsons included various stipends and grants of land. Particularly large gifts were given to his sister Salome, of whom it is written in AJ (ibid., 147) that “she had continued faithful to him in all his circumstances, and was never so rash as to do him any harm.” Since such a remark is likely to be greeted with cynicism on the part of the reader, we can only assume that Josephus was simply being sarcastic, unless we believe that Herod had already lost his mind completely. His condition at this point is described differently in each of the versions of Josephus. In BJ I, 647, it is written: His illness (nósov) steadily grew worse, aggravated as were the attacks of disease by age and despondency (gär˜a kaì Àqumía). For he was now nearly seventy years old, and his tragic experiences with his children had so broken his spirit, that even in good health he no longer enjoyed any of the pleasures of life. His malady was further increased by the thought that Antipater was still alive; for he had determined that his execution should be no casual affair, but seriously undertaken on his recovery.

By contrast, in AJ XVII, 148, the text states: … as he despaired of recovering, for he was about the seventieth year of his age, he grew fierce, and indulged the bitterest anger upon all occasions; the cause whereof was this, that he thought himself despised, and that the nation was pleased with his misfortunes …

Since we have chosen to devote a separate discussion to his physical illness and its manifestations (see below), we will be focusing here on his mental state. From the first version above (BJ I, 647), it emerges clearly that as a result of his physical illness and advanced age he suffered from depression, or stated otherwise, both his emotional condition and his physical ailments were exacerbated by his old age and state of depression (Àqumía),6 which caused him to lose his enjoyment in life. At first 5

6

We will be returning to this matter below, in our discussion of Herod’s last will and testament. The silver coins are of course Tyrian shekels; see Meshorer 1997, pp. 68 ff. The Greek term means “lack of spirit” or “faintheartedness, despondency” (see Liddell & Scott, p. 33), but Schalit’s Hebrew rendering (which translates into English as “depression”) is preferable in this context. Indeed, in BJ I, 649 it is written that

386

19. Descent into Oblivion

glance, one can interpret his emotional state as a “normal” depression in individuals suffering from a critical illness; but the loss of hope in his chances of recovery, accompanied by uncontrolled rage and bitterness, is not an indicator of reactive or situational depression (which frequently appears in cases of severe illness), but is more consistent with a depressive state as part of a delusional disorder. The mention in the text that Herod hoped for a respite from his illness, if only to witness with his own eyes the carrying out of the death sentence against Antipater, is also highly suited to the above condition. No less than the execution itself, the public nature of the punishment was extremely important to him.7 His lust for revenge simply overcame him, developing into an obsessive preoccupation; hence the obvious conclusion that he suffered from “delusional depression.”

Killing of Judas Son of Sepphoraeus and Matthias Son of Margalus, Who Cut Down the Golden Eagle from the Temple Gate When rumors spread in Jerusalem of Herod’s incurable illness, which many saw as Divine punishment for his transgressions against the laws of the forefathers, several dozen young men were encouraged by their teachers, Judas son of Sepphoraeus and Matthias son of Margalus, to cut off the large golden eagle placed atop the main gate leading into the Temple. Although the eagle is referred to in the Bible as the most important of birds, to which God Himself is compared, and its flight is viewed as a wondrous thing (Proverbs 30:18–19),8 many scholars have postulated that the objection to the adornment of the Temple gate with the image of a golden eagle came from extremist circles who identified it with the symbol of Rome and felt that Herod was expressing his political subjugation to the Empire through this ornament.9 In-

7 8

9

Herod “was wearing away with melancholies (taîv Àqumíaiv),” or “sinking under despondency” (according to Thackeray’s translation). As we shall see below, circumstances dictated otherwise, and he was unable to fulfill his wish. See Deuteronomy 32:11 – “Like an eagle who rouses his nestlings, Gliding down to his young, So did He spread his wings and take him, Bear him along on His pinions” (Tanakh: The New JPS Translation). In the Solomonic Temple, there were also ornamentations depicting animals (I Kings 6:29, 36, 44), and this was a very well-known phenomenon in Jewish synagogues of the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods. See, for example, Graetz 1893, I, p. 503, 510; Klausner 1958, IV, p. 154; Jones 1938, p. 149; Smallwood 1981, pp. 99 (& n. 139), 103–104. By contrast, there were those

Killing of Judas Son of Sepphoraeus and Matthias Son of Margalus

387

deed, since the conquest of Judaea by Pompey (63 BCE), those opposed to the Romans had viewed the eagle as a pagan symbol of imperial rule, proudly displayed on the standards of the Roman army.10 The account of the burning of the sages and their students is presented by Josephus in two versions: BJ I, 648–655; and AJ XVII, 148– 167. Although the two versions do not conflict with one another, AJ is noticeably more extreme in its negative stance toward Herod. Undeniably, the young Jerusalemites exhibited patently fanatic behavior, under the inspiration of their teachers “Judas son of Sepphoraeus and Matthias son of Margalus, two of the most eloquent men among the Jews, and the most celebrated interpreters of the Jewish laws, and men well beloved by the people, because of their education of their youth; for all those that were studious of virtue frequented their lectures every day” (AJ XVII, 149; cf. BJ I, 648).11 One might well speculate that they had refrained from such exploits until now out of fear of Herod, and it was only the rumors of his imminent death that spurred them to act

10

11

who actually saw the eagle as a Jewish symbol, which is how it was depicted in this context (AJ XVII, 156), namely, as an object “dedicated to God” (tò Ànáqhma). This is in keeping with the translation of Whiston (ad loc.), Goodenough, VIII, p. 925; Meshorer 1997, pp. 65–66, 68–69. The latter even pointed to Herodian coins stamped with the image of an eagle as proof of this notion. Schürer (1973, I, p. 313) believed, with reason, that the eagle was first mounted on the main Temple gate toward the end of Herod’s reign, which would explain why the public outrage erupted only then. For a detailed discussion of this issue, see Fuks 2002, pp. 241–242. No doubt the fury of Judas son of Sepphoraeus and Matthias son of Margalus, who led their disciples to cut down the image of the eagle with axes, derived from a zealous Pharisaic interpretation of the biblical prohibition against the use of sculpted images and pictures (see for example: Deuteronomy 5:8); see Ben-Shalom 1993, pp. 108–109. Compare the explicit statements of Josephus himself in BJ I, 649–650, 653; AJ XVII, 150–154, 157–160; CA II, 74–75; see also Hengel 1989, p. 192; Kasher 1996, pp. 372–374; Levine 2000, pp. 43, 56, 82–83, 92–93; Tsafrir 2003, pp. 103–104. Only in the period of the Mishnah and Talmud did a “liberalism” of sorts emerge with regard to the use of animal figures as ornamentation; see Avigad 1971, pp. 203–208; Tsafrir 1984, II, pp. 204 ff., 215 ff.; Levine 2000, pp. 93–97, 107. See for example BJ III, 123. On the standards of the Roman legions, which were topped with a golden eagle (aquila) from the imperial period onward, see: G. Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, London 1969 (1979), pp. 134–140 and plate X. In several instances in the Bible, the eagle symbolized the Babylonian and Egyptian kings (Deuteronomy 28:49; Jeremiah 48:40; Habakkuk 1:8). In Talmudic terminology, the eagle symbolized Rome; see for example bSanhedrin 12a: “a pair came from Rakkath, and the eagle (Roman army) caught them.” It is worth noting the possibility, as suggested by Meshorer (1997, p. 65), that the eagle engraved on the Herodian coins indeed symbolized subordination to Rome. Landau (2003, pp. 205–206) has analyzed the words of the Jewish sages (AJ XVII, 152–154, 159) as if they were uttered by them directly, thereby indicating the literary skills of Josephus, who employed a common Roman rhetorical technique here, to much better effect than in BJ.

388

19. Descent into Oblivion

spontaneously and publicly (BJ I, 649, 651; AJ XVII, 150, 155). When Herod learned of the incident, he saw it as an act of rebellion (BJ I, 650; AJ XVII, 148). The two sages, together with no less than forty young men, were captured by the military force charged with guarding the site and brought immediately (on Herod’s orders) to Jericho, where he was confined to bed for medical treatments. At the same time, the “leaders of the Jews” (oÍ Èn télei) were brought there under a separate order to be publicly accused (BJ I, 659; AJ XVII, 174), since for Herod the use of legal proceedings was a way of legitimizing his suspicions and his murderous urges. Typically for a litigious paranoid, he wished to make his accusation in an official public forum, charging those who had cut down the eagle with the terrible crime of being “impious persons” and “guilty of sacrilege.”12 From his personal perspective, this was a rare opportunity to accuse two Jewish sages of the same offense that he himself had been accused of for most of his life. While lying on his deathbed unable to rise, he marshaled his last ounce of strength to give an impassioned speech in which he emphasized how hard he had labored to construct the Temple and how he had decorated it with “valuable donations” (or “votive offerings,” according to Marcus & Wikgren’s translation), including the golden eagle. The portrayal of the accused as “guilty of sacrilege” was, as he saw it, a fitting response to their actions, based on his own extrapolation of the concept of “sacrilege” or “heresy” (Àsébeia), which he used in this context to refer to the destruction of the Temple’s “valuable donations.” This was a presumptuous and brazen dialectical tactic to counter the charge that he had systematically conspired against the Jewish “ancestral laws.” It would most likely be mistaken to ascribe this piece of manipulation to Herod’s advisor, Nicolaus of Damascus, although had demonstrated his outstanding skills as a polemicist on other occasions,13 since he was known as a lucid, moderate individual given to compromise who avoided setting off Herod’s temper in the most painful and personal matters. Herod ended his speech rather dramatically as follows (AJ XVII, 163–164): [163] He then cried out, that these men had not abstained from affronting him, even in his lifetime, but that in the very day time, and in the sight of the multitude, they had abused him to that degree, as to fall upon what he 12 13

That is to say Íerosúloi or Àsebeîv, see BJ I, 654; cf. AJ XVII, 163. As we know, this was one of the gravest offenses in the ancient world. As stated earlier, Nicolaus had employed sophisticated polemics of this sort on a prior occasion, in his defense of the rights of the Jews in Asia Minor and Ionia (14 BCE).

Killing of Judas Son of Sepphoraeus and Matthias Son of Margalus

389

had dedicated, and in that way of abuse had pulled it down to the ground. They pretended, indeed, that they did it to affront him; but if any one consider the thing truly, they will find that they were guilty of sacrilege against God therein. [164] But the people, on account of Herod’s barbarous temper, and for fear he should be so cruel as to inflict punishment on them, said what was done was done without their approbation, and that it seemed to them that the actors might well be punished for what they had done. (cf. BJ I, 654–655)

Herod’s impulsive and brutal reaction doubtless stemmed from his agitated delusional state. According to AJ (XVII, 167), the matter ended with Matthias son of Margalus being burned at the stake along with a number of his students. The text recounts that a lunar eclipse took place that same night, which can be interpreted as a Divine symbol of the enormity of the crime. In BJ I, 654, by contrast, it is noted that both sages were burned alive together with several of their students who had been involved in cutting down the golden eagle. The remainder of the young men was handed over to the officers of the king to be put to death in a more commonly accepted manner. At first glance, the account in BJ appears more credible and more persuasive. The omission of any mention of Judas son of Sepphoraeus from the version in AJ is somewhat puzzling, and may have been due to a digression to mention the removal from the high priesthood of Matthias son of Theophilus, who was suspected of involvement in this same episode (below). However, there is no way of knowing whether the lunar eclipse referred to in this context (and omitted from BJ) actually took place,14 or was a literary embellishment on the part of Josephus, intended to signal revulsion on a “cosmic” level at the brutal act of burning people alive.15 Burning, one of the four forms of death penalty meted out by the Sanhedrin, dated back to the biblical era. Initially, this form of punishment was prescribed only in the case of adultery or other immoral sexual behavior by the daughter of a priest,16 but it was later applied to other crimes as well. It was also 14

15

16

Because of the lunar eclipse mentioned in this connection, certain scholars attempted to date the event to March 13 in the year 4 BCE; see for example: Schürer 1973, I, p. 327, n. 165; Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, p. 449. Kokkinos (1998, pp. 372–373) raised reservations regarding this date, but space does not permit us to cite them here, leaving the question open to debate. This possibility appears the more plausible of the two. Either way, the text conveys the strong impression that Josephus’ sympathies lay entirely with the two sages and their disciples. Likewise, the fact that he devoted such a lengthy account to this issue (AJ XVII, 148–167) is self-explanatory. See Leviticus 21:9; compare also the case of Tamar in Genesis 38:24. See also EB, IV (1963), cols. 949–950. On the strict judicial interpretations of the Sadducees,

390

19. Descent into Oblivion

practiced during the Second Temple era; indeed the Mishnah states (mSanhedrin 7:2): “It once happened that a daughter of a priest committed adultery, and they surrounded her with bundles of branches and burned her” (cf. idem, 9:1), concerning which it is written in the name of Rabbi Eleazar son of Tzadok (a second-generation Tannaitic scholar) that he recalled the incident or heard of it from the days preceding the destruction of the Temple. However, the Mishnah goes on to add: “They said to him: The Sanhedrin at that time was not competent.” The reason, according to the Talmud (bSanhedrin 52b), lies in the fact that it was “a court of Sadducees.” But given the fact that the High Priests under Herod were either Sadducees or Boethusians, it could just as easily have been called “a court of Boethusians,” the more so as Sadducees and Boethusians were synonymous in Herod’s time.17 The killing of the sages and their students was an act so shocking that it earned Herod a lasting reputation as a bestial “killer of scholars”; for this reason, the date of his death is referred to in Megillat Ta’anit (Fasting Scroll) as a day of celebration on which mourning, fasting, or eulogizing are prohibited.18 The account in AJ XVII, 164–167 of the dismissal of Matthias son of Theophilus from the post of High Priest “as being partly to blame for what had happened (trans. Marcus & Wikgren),” and his replacement by Joazar son of Boethus (brother of Herod’s wife Mariamme II, the daughter of Simon of Boethus), raises substantial questions, and suggests that the public agitation against him was not limited to those circles that were close to the two zealots and their students.19 But unfortunately, we are unable to answer these questions due to the paucity of information at our disposal. In any event, this passage offers a chronological point of reference regarding the final events in Herod’s life and perhaps even the precise date of his death.20

17

18 19 20

and their great influence during Herod’s reign, see recently Regev 2005, pp. 116 ff., 126–131, 216, 224, 294–295, 309, 313–317, 378–379. On the interchangeable nature of the terms, see the able analysis offered by Regev (2005, pp. 32–58). We wish to take the opportunity here to thank Moshe Assis, whose proficiency in Talmudic literature helped us to better understand the reference to “an incompetent court” in this context. The implication arising from the text is that such instances of punishment were extremely rare. See the commentary in Noam 2003, pp. 99–110, 260–261 (7 Kislev), 280–282 (2 Shevat). We will be returning to this reference below. See Ben-Shalom 1993, pp. 108–109. See D. Schwartz 1993, pp. 65–74.

Herod’s Final Illness

391

Herod’s Final Illness Josephus reports at this juncture on the worsening of Herod’s illness, which overcame him relatively quickly. The descriptions in BJ I, 656 and AJ XVII, 168–169 have captured the imagination of numerous scholars for over 200 years, from 1762 to the present, in an effort to diagnose his condition. 21 A comprehensive survey of their theories, admirable for its skill, conscientiousness, and deliberation, was recently compiled by Kokkinos. 22 But before we relate to Herod’s illness using modern medical terminology, with all the limitations inherent in transposing Josephus’ description into contemporary terms, let us examine the original depiction, in BJ I, 656: From this time onwards Herod’s malady (nósov) began to spread to his whole body and his sufferings took a variety of forms. He had fever (puretòv), an intolerable itching of the whole skin, continuous pains in the intestines, tumours (oÌdämata) in the feet as in dropsy ('sper Údrwpiôntov), inflammation of the abdomen and gangrene of the privy parts, engendering worms (skölhkav), in addition to asthma, 23 with great difficulty in breathing (dúspnoia), and convulsions in all his limbs.

AJ XVII, 168–169 offers a similar description, but somewhat richer in detail:24 [168] But now Herod’s distemper greatly increased upon him after a severe manner, and this by God’s judgment upon him for his sins; for a fire glowed in him slowly, which did not so much appear to the touch outwardly, as it augmented his pains inwardly; [169] for it brought upon him a vehement appetite to eating, which he could not avoid to supply with one sort of food or other. 25 His entrails were also ex-ulcerated, and the chief violence of his pain lay on his colon; an aqueous and transparent liquor also had settled itself about his feet, and a like matter afflicted him at the bottom of his belly. Nay, further, his privy-member was putrefied, and 21 22 23 24 25

See for example: Perowne 1957, pp. 185–186; Schalit 1969, pp. 637 ff.; Sandison 1967, pp. 381–388; see also the following note. Kokkinos 1998, pp. 34–35, 62, including a comprehensive bibliography (although it lacks mention of the much earlier study by Mead (1762, pp. 633–636). The Greek term Òrqópnoia translates literally as “breathing only in an upright position”; see Liddell & Scott, p. 1249. Schalit’s Hebrew translation of this passage is overly influenced by Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, I, viii, 6–9. Compare the translation by Marcus & Wikgren (ad loc.), which was influenced by Naber and by the parallel version in BJ I, 656, and seems preferable to Eusebius’ paraphrase. Schalit’s translation echoed Eusebius with regard to Herod’s hunger, and perhaps also his custom of eating apples pared by him with a knife. The latter reference, however, was not related to his hunger but to his attempt to commit suicide. See also Kokkinos’ arguments on this point, rejecting the possibility that Herod died of diabetes.

392

19. Descent into Oblivion

produced worms;26 and when he sat upright, he had a difficulty of breathing, which was very loathsome, on account of the stench of his breath, and the quickness of its returns; he had also convulsions in all parts of his body, which increased their strength to an insufferable degree.

Certain scholars have been inclined from the outset to refrain from any attempt to diagnose Herod’s condition, with the argument that the description provided by Josephus is unreliable since his illness was interpreted as the symbolic punishment of a sinner, as recounted of Jehoram king of Judaea (II Chronicles 21:15, 18–19), of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (II Maccabees 9:9–12), and of the notorious enemy of the Jews, Apion of Alexandria (CA II, 143).27 These reservations are not evident in the medical studies on Herod’s final illness: on the contrary, attempts have been made to reach a diagnosis on the basis of Josephus’ relatively detailed descriptions. Of these diagnoses, we will be limiting ourselves to the two most recent, which unintentionally coincide with, and complement, one other to a remarkable degree. Kokkinos writes that he consulted with Dr. Walter Y. Loebl, a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in London, who noted four symptoms contained in Josephus’ descriptions that lend themselves to a diagnosis of the illness that killed Herod. The first is a terrible itching of the skin, which can be diagnosed as a side effect of kid26

27

For similar descriptions of worms emerging from the body, see: Job 7:5; Isaiah 14:11, 66:24; Siracides 6:17; Judith 16:17. The account in the New Testament (Acts 12:23) of King Agrippa I, who was struck by an angel and eaten by worms, was probably influenced by the form of punishment inflicted on his grandfather Herod, as recounted in AJ XVII, 169; cf. D. Schwartz 1987, pp. 226–227. Efron (2004, p. 250, 353, n. 102) pointed out the symbolism of such a torturous death in the New Testament; see also the following note. Cf. Grant 1971, pp. 210–211; Flusser 2002, p. 87 and n. 5; Goldstein 1983, pp. 352–353. The latter (p. 354) and Africa (1982, pp. 1–17), and recently D. Schwartz (2004, pp. 44, 46, 196–198), have pointed to the existence in Greek rhetorical literature of the motif of an “unnatural death” by worms or necrosis as punishment for cruel evildoers. However, this is not sufficient, in our opinion, to disprove the genuine illness of Herod or of such other notorious figures as Apion, for example; cf. Kasher 1996, pp. 430–431. While Josephus does not make a direct reference to II Maccabees (cf. D. Schwartz 2004, pp. 58–59 and n. 8), the similarity between the deaths of Antiochus Epiphanes (II Maccabees 9:9) and Herod suggests that he wished to highlight the similarity as symbolic proof of the humiliating end awaiting such wicked individuals as these; see Efron, ibid. Stemberger (1995, pp. 58–59) has called our attention to aggadic material in yYoma 1, 39a and bYoma 19b concerning the case of a Sadducean or Boethusian High Priest in which worms came out of his nose as punishment for his improper service in the Holy of Holies. The same fate is mentioned in bSotah 35a as well, with reference to the biblical spies who spoke ill of the Land of Israel, and were therefore punished with an “unnatural death” (hnw#m htym) in which worms came out of their tongue and penetrated their navel and vice versa.

Herod’s Final Illness

393

ney failure and uremia. The second symptom refers to edema (an accumulation of fluid generally occurring in the joints) that developed around his feet. Patients who are bedridden as a result of weakness can also suffer from edema in the lower back and genitalia. The most common cause of edema is renal failure, but coronary insufficiency and anemia are also implicated. A different, and more severe, form of edema can also develop in the lungs (pulmonary edema), causing breathing difficulties and death (below). A third diagnosable symptom that developed in Herod is putrefaction of the genitalia (attributable to myiasis). According to Dr. Loebl, moist skin coupled with edema in the hot climate of Jericho would have attracted many flies whose eggs, laid in the gangrenous tissues, would quickly produce larvae (the “worms” referred to by Josephus) that feed on putrefying flesh and its secretions. 28 The fourth symptom, which he considers the most reliable, consists of difficulty breathing when not in an upright position (Òrqópnoia), that is, when the back is not straight. According to him, this is a typical symptom of heart failure, kidney failure, and anemia. To summarize, he is inclined to believe that Herod suffered from all of the above organ failures, which are easily explained by his advanced age, and ultimately succumbed to severe pulmonary edema, causing him to choke to death. 29 The eighth Historical Clinical Pathologic Conference, which took place in Baltimore, Maryland, on January 25, 2002, focused on diagnosing the nature of the final illness that killed Herod. Founded by Dr. Philip A. Mackowiak and sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System and the University of Maryland School of Medicine, these annual conferences are devoted to diagnosing the illnesses of famous historical figures on the basis of written accounts. In his well reasoned diagnosis of Herod’s final illness at this conference, Dr. Jan Hirschmann of the University of Washing28

29

At least on the face of it, this explanation appears unsatisfactory, since this type of parasitic worm is not common in the geographical area in question. It therefore seems that such an interpretation was proposed by certain scholars out of an excessive eagerness to corroborate Josephus’ description, for example R. Mead (1762, pp. 363–366), who referred to worms that penetrated Herod’s body due to malnutrition. Even if there is a kernel of truth to Josephus’ account, we would tend to favor the explanation offered in the previous note. The same is true with regard to the odor emitted by his “putrefying” body, which should also be understood as a literary motif symbolizing the death of a wicked individual, as in the case of Antiochus Epiphanes; cf. D. Schwartz, 2004, p. 203. Dr. Loebl lectured on his diagnosis at a conference organized by Kokkinos in April 2001 at the British Museum on the topic: “The World of the Herods and the Nabataeans.”

394

19. Descent into Oblivion

ton at Seattle, concluded that he suffered from arteriosclerosis, which damaged his heart and kidneys, and uremia that led to intense itching, difficulty breathing, and convulsions in various limbs; ultimately, he developed a complication known as Fournier’s gangrene, an infection of the male genitalia. 30 A comparison with the diagnosis of Dr. Loebl of London is quite instructive since their findings coincide on most points, differing only in the immediate cause of death. 31

Herod’s Final Attack of Madness Regrettably, Herod’s mental state on his deathbed has not been studied as closely as his physical condition. According to Drs. Loebl and Hirschmann, his severe physical illness did in fact have an effect on his depressive and delusional state of mind; but they were unaware of the fact that the emotional deterioration that accompanied his final physical illness was only an exacerbation of an existing condition that had developed many years previously. The latter took the form of paranoid personality disorder, which eventually degenerated into a delusional disorder – persecutory type. As stated, this was a chronic mental condition with deep roots in his past. As we saw earlier, when he fell ill with his final disease, he was in a depressive state with symptoms of despair and anhedonia (in Josephus’ words: “he no longer enjoyed any of the pleasures of life” (BJ I, 647, trans. by Thackeray; cf. also AJ XVII, 148). It seems that his emotional distress only intensified following the execution of Judas son of Sepphoraeus and Matthias son of Margalus together with their students. 32 Due to the importance of Josephus’

30

31

32

This diagnosis has been widely reported on the Internet. An updated summary of Hirschmann’s findings from the conference in Baltimore, which also touches on the emotional components of Herod’s final illness, has recently been published in the medical journal Archives of Internal Medicine; see Hirschmann et al. 2004, pp. 833–839. According to Hirschmann, the cause of death, as stated, was a complication of chronic kidney disease known as Fournier’s gangrene, to which Herod succumbed within about a week. By contrast, Dr. Loebl indicated a pulmonary edema as the final cause of death. To avoid controversy, we will steer a middle course and state that perhaps both conditions in tandem led to his death. According to Smallwood (1981, p. 103): “During the last two or three years of his life, Herod was suffering from a serious and painful illness causing acute mental instability as well as severe physical degeneration, and it is charitable to suppose that during that period he was not fully responsible for his actions.”

Herod’s Final Attack of Madness

395

descriptions to our understanding Herod’s behavior, we will be comparing the two parallel versions. In BJ I, 657, it is written: Yet, struggling as he was with such numerous sufferings, he clung to life, hoped for recovery, and devised one remedy after another. Thus he crossed the Jordan to take the warm baths at Callirrohe …33

The text in AJ XVII, 171 is quite similar, but with a more dramatic tone: Yet was he still in hopes of recovering, though his afflictions seemed greater than any one could bear. He also sent for physicians, and did not refuse to follow what they prescribed for his assistance, and went beyond the river Jordan, and bathed himself in the warm baths that were at Callirrhoe …

When Herod despaired of finding a cure at the hot springs, and realized that his death was imminent, the version in BJ I, 659–660 describes simply and matter-of-factly his terrible plan to cause the entire Jewish nation to be in a state of mourning on the day of his death: [659] He started on his return journey and reached Jericho in an artabilious condition (paragínetai melagcolô *dh), in which, hurling defiance as it were at death itself, he proceeded to devise an outrageous scheme. Having assembled the distinguished men from every village from one end of Judaea to the other, he ordered them to be locked into the hippodrome. [660] He then summoned his sister Salome and her husband Alexas and said: “I know that the Jews will celebrate my death by a festival; yet I can obtain a vicarious mourning and a magnificent funeral, if you consent to follow my instructions. You know these men here in custody; the moment I expire have them surrounded by the soldiers and massacred; so shall Judaea and every household weep for me, whether they will or no.”

The parallel text in AJ XVII, 173–181 recounts the following with great drama and pathos: [173] … and came again to Jericho, where he grew so choleric, that it brought him to do all things like a madman (mélauná te colÄ a$ròn ™+rei Èpî pâsin Èxagriaínousa); and though he were near his death, he contrived the following wicked designs. He commanded that all the principal men of the entire Jewish nation, wheresoever they lived, should be called to him. [174] Accordingly, they were a great number that came, because the whole nation was called, and all men heard of this call, and death was the penalty of such as should despise the epistles that were sent to call them. And now the king was in a wild rage

33

Regarding the hot springs on the banks of the Dead Sea, see: Donner 1963, pp. 59– 89; Perowne 1957, pp. 172 ff.; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 48–50; Sagiv 2003, pp. 50– 54, 130–131, 162, 167–168. Flusser (2002, p. 262) attempted to identify the text in Enoch 66:8–10 as referring to the Callirrhoe baths, but apart from an associative similarity, there is no real proof of this.

396

19. Descent into Oblivion

(Èmmainoménou)34 against them all, the innocent as well as those that had afforded ground for accusations; [175] and when they were come, he ordered them to be all shut up in the hippodrome, and sent for his sister Salome, and her husband Alexas, and spake thus to them: “I shall die in a little time, so great are my pains; which death ought to be cheerfully borne, and to be welcomed by all men; but what principally troubles me is this, that I shall die without being lamented, and without such mourning as men usually expect at a king’s death.” [176] For that he was not unacquainted with the temper of the Jews, that his death would be a thing very desirable, and exceedingly acceptable to them, 35 because during his lifetime they were ready to revolt from him, [177] and to abuse the donations he had dedicated to God that it therefore was their business to resolve to afford him some alleviation of his great sorrows on this occasion; for that if they do not refuse him their consent in what he desires, he shall have a great mourning at his funeral, and such as never had any king before him; for then the whole nation would mourn from their very soul, which otherwise would be done in sport and mockery only. [178] He desired therefore, that as soon as they see he hath given up the ghost, they shall place soldiers round the hippodrome, while they do not know that he is dead; and that they shall not declare his death to the multitude till this is done, but that they shall give orders to have those that are in custody shot with their darts; and that this slaughter of them all will cause that he shall not miss to rejoice on a double account; that as he is dying, they will make him secure that his will shall be executed in what he charges them to do; and that he shall have the honor of a memorable mourning at his funeral. [179] So he deplored his condition, with tears in his eyes, and obtested them by the kindness due from them, as of his kindred, and by the faith they owed to God, and begged of them that they would not hinder him of this honorable mourning at his funeral. So they promised him not to transgress his commands. [180] Now any one may easily discover the temper of this man’s mind, which not only took pleasure in doing what he had done formerly against his relations, out of the love of life, but by those commands of his which savored of no humanity; [181] since he took care, when he was departing out of this life, that the whole nation should be put into mourning, and indeed made desolate of their dearest kindred, when he gave order that one out of every family should be slain, although they had done nothing that was unjust, or that was against him, nor were they accused of any other crimes; while it is usual for those who have any regard to virtue to lay aside their hatred at such a time, even with respect to those they justly esteemed their enemies. 36 34 35 36

On the meaning of the Greek verb maínomai (“to be furious” or “to be driven mad”), see Liddell & Scott, p. 1073. Herod guessed correctly that the day of his death would likely become a “festival,” as is indeed commemorated in Megillat Ta’anit The previous passage condemning Herod as lacking in all humanity is of course a reflection of Josephus’ own views, since it would be unreasonable to assume that

Herod’s Final Attack of Madness

397

The preceding passage sheds further light on Herod’s character as portrayed by Josephus. It seems that, even on his deathbed, what was uppermost in his mind was his own honor. 37As he lay dying, he was filled with fear that he would not be honored in a manner befitting his status, and no less so, that his Jewish subjects would actually rejoice at his passing. In fact, even before swearing his sister Salome and her husband to carry out his final wish, he had already resolved that his funeral would be grander than that of any previous king, supporting our conclusion regarding his megalomanic thinking even at this final moment of truth. Herod’s wish to have the entire people weep at his passing and not engage in celebration indicates, conversely, that he was tormented by a sense of inferiority even at the hour of his death. This is consistent with his narcissistic, paranoid feelings regarding anything that he interpreted as an insult, and his strong need to “compensate” himself with a degree of honor unprecedented in the Roman-Hellenist world. It would also explain his pleas to his sister Salome and brother-in-law Alexas to see to it that he was not treated with disrespect. Insisting on their taking an oath was, in his eyes, the ultimate answer to his fears, for only in this way did he believe he could ensure control over events following his death. Since it was quite rare to see him weep, given that he saw crying as a sign of weakness (AJ XV, 241), 38 we would not be wrong here in labeling it a manipulative tactic to achieve his ends. According to Josephus, while Herod was relaying his final instructions to his sister and brother-in-law, he received the Emperor’s answers to the letters he had sent to Rome. In BJ I, 661, it is stated that by order of the Emperor, Acme was put to death and “Antipater [was] condemned to death” (qanátšw d’ )Antípatrov katákritov) as well. But Augustus also consented to a second possibility: that Herod would

37

38

such a negative assessment would find its way into Nicolaus’ writings. In BJ I, 659 it is noted briefly that he committed a “terrible crime” (Àqemítou práxewv), a term that can also be understood as referring in general to an illegal act (cf. Liddell & Scott, p. 31). The denunciation of Herod in AJ XVII, 180 is much stronger in dramatic-literary terms, as it was intended to expose Herod’s beastly and inhuman character; cf. AJ XVI, 151–152, 258; XVII, 109, 117, 120; BJ I, 632. Jones (1938, p. 155), Stern (1983b, p. 253, n. 57), and M. Smith (1999, pp. 230– 231) were inclined to doubt the authenticity of the narrative concerning the captives in the Hippodrome, and believed it to be a false account hostile to Herod. Echoing Otto (1913, col. 148), Stern suggested that the arrest in Jericho of the representatives from the settlements was aimed at holding them hostage to prevent disturbances. Since there is no support in the sources for these theories, we would not subscribe to this view. For other instances of Herod weeping, see above, chapter 18, pp. 378–379.

398

19. Descent into Oblivion

limit himself to banishing Antipater rather than executing him. What this meant in practical terms was that Augustus left the final decision to Herod himself. In AJ XVII, 182, by contrast, it is not stated that the Emperor actually sentenced Antipater to death but simply that he left it up to Herod to do as he saw fit, as father and as king. This seeming contradiction can be resolved if we “bend” the meaning of the first version to state that the Emperor merely expressed his opinion that in principle Antipater was deserving of death but the actual decision lay with Herod. In any event, according to BJ I, 661, the Emperor’s answer gave Herod much satisfaction, and his spirits were momentarily revived upon hearing the news (AJ XVII, 183): When Herod heard this, he was some-what better, out of the pleasure he had from the contents of the letters, and was elevated at the death of Acme, and at the power that was given him over his son …

While his drastic mood swings, or affective lability, were once gain manifest here, it was the torment of his physical illness that so overpowered him emotionally that he tried to end his life. As recounted, his lack of appetite, intense agony, and physical weakness led to a frailty of spirit to the point where he “endeavored to anticipate the hour of destiny” (BJ I, 662; trans. by Thackeray). A severe attack of coughing accompanied by choking and asthma (ibid., 662)39 was apparently the final impetus for his decision to kill himself. His suicide attempt was an impulsive, spur-of-the-moment act after checking that there was no one observing him. He asked for a knife to peel an apple, as was his habit, then seized the opportunity to stab himself (ibid.; AJ XVII, 183–184). It is hard to imagine that in his weakened physical state he would been capable of successfully committing suicide, in particular since a paring knife was not exactly suited to the task; but the very attempt reflected the intensity of his state of despair. In our opinion, this was an extreme case of major depression rooted in severe paranoid delusional disorder. It was his cousin Achiabus who took hold of his hand and prevented him from carrying out the deed.40 Achiabus’ cry of alarm was followed by the sounds of weeping throughout the palace, and a great commotion as if the king had died. Rumors to that effect spread quickly and even reached Antipater, who tried to con39

40

The intense coughing is not mentioned in AJ, but is accepted as genuine by most physicians who have examined the case; they diagnosed it as a symptom of pulmonary insufficiency, which, without proper treatment, can quickly lead to death. On Achiabus, see Kokkinos 1998, pp. 150, 153–154, 217. There is reason to assume that he was the commander of Herod’s royal body guard, which would explain why he was always nearby.

Herod’s Final Attack of Madness

399

vince his jailers to let him go with the promise that he would reward them if and when he ascended the throne as he expected. However, the head jailkeeper hurried to report this to Herod, who reacted in typical “Herodian” fashion: He let out a mighty cry, much louder than his illness would lead one to expect (BJ I, 664), and according to the description in AJ XVII, 187: … when he heard what the jailer said, he cried out, and beat his head, although he was at death’s door, and raised himself upon his elbow, and sent for some of his guards, and commanded them to kill Antipater without any further delay, and to do it presently (mhdèn Ànabollàv Àll’ Èk toû Àxéo), and to bury him in an ignoble manner (tafàv Àsämouv poieîsqi) at Hyrcania.41

Owing to the great resentment that Herod bore him, Antipater’s burial was carried out quickly and simply to prevent him from receiving any sign of honor. This is emphasized in particular by the use of the Greek adjective 2shmov to describe the burial, meaning “insignificant,” “worthless,” “unimportant,” even “humiliating.”42 This of course indicates how obsessively vindictive Herod was just five days before his death (BJ I, 665; AJ XVII, 191); even in the final days of his life, he still focused on any detail that could express his need for revenge. Immediately after the above, the text notes the following (AJ XVII, 188): “And now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind.” This laconic remark gives the impression that his mood swings continued to the last moment, and that the amending of the will took place after his “release” from the emotional stress he had been under following Antipater’s execution. But before we discuss the contents of the will, we wish to contend that, this testament also reflected Herod’s determination to use the opportunity to stymie, once and for all, the prospects of a Hasmonaean presence on the political and national scene in Judaea after his death. The proof of this lies in the fact that no mention is made of his Hasmonaean grandsons, as if they simply did not exist. According to the will (AJ XVII, 188–190), he appointed Archelaus, his son by Malthace the Samaritan, as his principal successor and inheritor of the title “king of Judaea.” Herod Antipas, Archelaus’ brother from the same mother, was only appointed tetrarch of the Galilee and Per41 42

Antipater was held, like other political opponents, in the Hyrcania fortress, which was the central prison for political prisoners at the time. See Liddell & Scott, pp. 255–256. In an interesting coincidence, this very term in the negative sense oÙk was used in connection with Antipater’s mother Doris (see above, p. 36).

400

19. Descent into Oblivion

aea, while Philip, his son from Cleopatra of Jerusalem, was granted the position of tetrarch of Gaulonitis, Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and Panaeas.43 Of the other heirs from his immediate family, mention is made only of Salome his sister, to whom he bequeathed Jamnia, Ashdod and Phasaelis in addition to a large monetary gift of 500,000 silver coins.44 The remaining family members also received generous sums of money, but information regarding their identities and the size of their gifts is provided only at a later point, when the will was officially approved by the Emperor.45 Augustus of course received the largest sum of money: 100 million silver coins in addition to vessels of gold and silver and the most costly garments. Livia his wife,46 along with several others whose names are not provided, received five million silver coins. It seems that Herod, in his typical fashion, sought to (literally) buy imperial approval of the will, thereby granting Roman legitimacy to the political arrangements that he had put in place before his death, namely, that the House of Herod would replace the Hasmonaean dynasty finally and undisputedly. Indeed, when the will was presented for the Emperor’s approval in Rome, Augustus endorsed most of the provisions relating to the division of the kingdom among Herod’s heirs; however, he did not approve the granting of the title “king” to Archelaus but only “ethnarch,” promising that he would reconsider the matter at a future date if and when the latter would prove himself worthy of the coveted title (BJ I, 93; AJ XVII, 317). As for the enormous sum of money bequeathed to him personally by Herod, he refused to accept it, preferring to distribute it among the sons of Herod47 while he contented himself with a few gold and silver vessels as a personal memento. 43

44

45 46

47

In what was probably a slip of the pen, Josephus incorrectly noted that Philip was the brother of Archelaus from the same mother, whereas in truth it was Archelaus and Herod Antipas who were brothers from the same mother (Malthace). Another error in the same context relates to the omission of the Gaulanitis from Philip’s tetrarchy; cf. BJ II, 95; AJ XVII, 319. In Àrguríou Èpisämou, literally “stamped coins.” The reference is to Tyrian shekels or half-shekels; see Meshorer 1997, pp. 68 ff. The value of one silver talent was 6,000 drachmas. For details, see BJ II, 93–100; AJ XVII, 317–323. In his account of Herod’s will, Josephus refers to her as Julia, an abridged form of Julia Augusta, the name given to her following the death of Augustus; see Suetonius, Augustus 101, 2; Cassius Dio, LVI, 46, 1; Tacitus, Annales I, 8. She used this name till her death (29 BCE). According to BJ II, 100 it was 1,000 talents, and according to AJ XVII, 323, 1,500 talents.

Herod’s Final Attack of Madness

401

It is hard to know his reasons for declining such a generous gift. Perhaps it was a form of “compensation” for breaking up the kingdom, reducing its status, and placing it under the jurisdiction of the province of Syria (cf. BJ II, 22); but one should not negate the possibility that it was done to make peace between Herod Antipas and Archelaus in their fierce battle of succession following their father’s revision of his will (below). It is important to note in this context that when Herod’s family members journeyed to Rome for the approval of his will, a rivalry erupted between Herod Antipas and Archelaus over their eligibility to the throne, for the latest version of the will favored Archelaus while the previous one had given preference to Herod Antipas (BJ II, 20 ff.; AJ XVII, 224 ff.). Each of the rivals was of course supported by those family members closest to him, in addition to a distinguished advocate who argued on his behalf. Antipas was backed by his mother Malthace and by Herod’s sister Salome and her son Antipater, along with Ptolemy, brother of Nicolaus of Damascus; but in fact, he relied mainly on the counsel of Irenaeus (or Eirenaios), a well-known orator who was then a prominent member of Herod’s royal court (BJ II, 21; AJ XVII, 226).48 The latter encouraged him not to forgo the earlier will, and expressed his legal opinion that the revision was invalid. Antipas was represented before the Emperor by Antipater (son of his aunt Salome), who is portrayed as an extremely gifted speaker. Among the arguments that he raised, the following is especially noteworthy (AJ XVII, 238): Antipas … had been named king by his father when Herod was not yet ill in body and mind but was in possession of an unimpaired reasoning power and was presided over the affairs of state in robust health. (trans. by Marcus & Wikgren)

Nicolaus of Damascus, who (as we have seen) was no ignoramus in the ways of rhetoric, responded to the above with the following counter-claim (AJ XVII, 244–247): [244] … as to this testament, it was made by the king when he was of a sound mind, and so ought to be of more authority than his former testament; and that for this reason, because Caesar is therein left to be the judge and disposer of all therein contained; [245] and for Caesar, he will not, to be sure, at all imitate the unjust proceedings of those men, who, during Herod’s whole life, had on all occasions been joint partakers of power with him, and yet do zealously endeavor to injure his determination, while they have not themselves had the same regard to their kinsman [which Archelaus had]. [246] Caesar will not therefore disannul the 48

Regarding his identity, see Roller 1998, p. 59.

402

19. Descent into Oblivion

testament of a man whom he had entirely supported, of his friend and confederate, and that which is committed to him in trust to ratify; nor will Caesar’s virtuous and upright disposition, which is known and uncontested through all the habitable world, imitate the wickedness of these men in condemning a king as a madman, and as having lost his reason, [247] while he hath bequeathed the succession to a good son of his, and to one who flies to Caesar’s upright determination for refuge. Nor can Herod at any time have been mistaken in his judgment about a successor, while he showed so much prudence (swfrosúnh) as to submit all to Caesar’s determination.

On the face of it, one can maintain that the tactic employed by Irenaeus-Antipater was a legal maneuver typical of experienced advocates who seek to use any ploy they can to help their client; yet one cannot ignore the weight of the legal argument concerning Herod’s mental illness and his irrationality, which was raised by them in public and to the Emperor himself, indicating that it was already treated as an accepted fact. At this point, Nicolaus stepped in, proving his talents as a polemicist with extraordinary success – for had this not been the case, his position would not have been accepted by the Emperor. Surprisingly enough, he did not win the legal disputation because he was able to refute the claims of Irenaeus-Antipater but because he managed to “enlist” the Emperor himself to bolster his claim, thereby winning him over to his side. The winning argument was that by sending his will to Rome for formal approval, Herod demonstrated “so much prudence as to submit all to Caesar’s determination”49 Moreover, according to Nicolaus (BJ II, 35–36): [35] … the testament should … be esteemed valid, because Herod had therein appointed Caesar to be the person who should confirm the succession; for he who showed such prudence as to recede from his own power, and yield it up to the lord of the world, cannot be supposed mistaken in his judgment about him that was to be his heir; and he that so

49

The term 4 swfrosúnh (“soundness of mind,” “prudence”) should be understood in this context as the opposite of “insanity”; see Liddell & Scott, p. 1751. It appears that such an argument could not be refuted, even by the Emperor. Nicolaus was well aware of the Emperor’s rejection of any deviation from the powers granted under the status of rex socius et amicus populi Romani. This was illustrated in his (short-lived) disappointment with Herod against the backdrop of his second war against the Nabataeans. He was very angry with Aretas IV when he declared himself king without receiving his approval (9 BCE), but eventually reconciled with him over the Syllaeus’ affair; see AJ XVI, 296–297, 353–355; XVII, 54; BJ I, 574–577; Schürer 1973, I, p. 581.

Herod’s Final Attack of Madness

403

well knew whom to choose for arbitrator of the succession could not be unacquainted with him whom he chose for his successor. 50

Upon hearing this persuasive argument, even Augustus himself could not object. There is reason to believe that it was Nicolaus who wrote the final will, and if so, he was already aware of the incompatibility between this version and its predecessor, and made it a point to close any legal “loopholes” and to ground it legally on the very arguments that he later raised before the Emperor. Paradoxically however, Herod’s madness was actually proven by the contravening of his order to execute all the representatives of the Jewish settlements in his kingdom at the Hippodrome in Jericho so as to ensure that the entire Jewish nation would be in mourning at the hour of his passing. The idea of violating his command came from Salome and Alexas, the individuals closest to him at the time, in whom he had placed his trust and whom he had sworn to obey his order. This can be seen as indicating indirectly that even they understood this to be the edict of an unbalanced man. As it turns out, not only did Salome not honor her commitment but she lied when she told those condemned to death that the king had changed his mind and that they were allowed to return to their homes unharmed (BJ I, 666; AJ XVII, 193). This breach of trust by her and her husband, despite their explicit oath, could be justified only if they were convinced that Herod was insane when he ordered them to carry out this monstrous crime. In other words, from their perspective the order was not only inhuman, immoral, and illegal but also bore the hallmarks of madness. The obvious conclusion is that in promising to carry out this order they simply intended to deceive Herod, knowing that he would not be alive much longer. It is no accident that even Josephus, who generally abhorred them, praised their action in this case, “which was esteemed by the nation a great benefit” (AJ XVII, 193). 51 The scholium to Megillat Ta’anit (Fasting Scroll) places Herod’s death at the 7th of Kislev, which should be observed as a day of celebration since he was considered a “hater of Israel,” and a “killer of sages,” and “because he hated the sages,” and “it is a joyous occasion

50

51

The meaning is as follows: just as Herod was wise enough to choose the Emperor Augustus, lord of the world, as his benefactor; so too was he capable of choosing the one who should inherit his realm. Cf. Macurdy 1937, pp. 68–77. BJ makes no mention of such a compliment, although in general it contains far fewer negative comments regarding Salome than does AJ.

404

19. Descent into Oblivion

before God when evil ones depart from the world.”52 The historical reliability of specifically establishing a “holiday” on this date is further reinforced if we consider it a counter-reaction to Herod’s plan to turn the day of his death into a time of mass mourning (AJ XVII, 175–176). Schürer, by contrast, associates the date of Herod’s death with the Passover holiday, on the basis of BJ II, 10 and AJ XVII, 213. 53 But we favor the view of those who place it earlier, in the winter of early 4 BCE. 54

52

53 54

For details see Noam 2003, pp. 99–100, 260–261, 280–281; cf. also Otzar Ha-Midrashim, Eser Galuyoth, 25. On the basis of the preceding, Barnes (1968, pp. 204– 209) sought to date Herod’s death one year earlier, in 5 BCE, but his suggestion was rejected, inter alia because of the confusion between Herod and King Alexander Jannaeus in these texts; see Noam, pp. 260–261, 280–281. See Schürer 1973, I, pp. 326–328, n. 165. See Barnes 1968, pp. 204–209; Smallwood 1981, p. 104, n. 156; and especially Kokkinos 1998, pp. 372–373, whose work includes a comprehensive updated bibliography. Regrettably, a detailed discussion of this complex issue is beyond the purview of the present study.

Chapter 20 Post-Mortem Josephus’ Final Assessment of Herod’s Character There is no question that it was the execution of his Hasmonaean sons that caused Herod’s final deterioration into a paranoid delusional state, as manifest in the trial of his eldest son Antipater in 5 BCE (above). Josephus saw fit at this point to offer his readers a personal cum historical summary of Herod as individual and as ruler. In addition to his character assessment in AJ XVII, 180–181 (cited in the preceding chapter), he added a final appraisal, as follows (ibid., 191–192): [191] When he had done these things, he died, the fifth day after he had caused Antipater to be slain; having reigned, since he had procured Antigonus to be slain, thirty-four years; but since he had been declared king by the Romans, thirty-seven. A man he was of great barbarity towards all men equally, and a slave to his passion; but above the consideration of what was right;1 yet was he favored by fortune as much as any man ever was, for from a private man he became a king; [192] and though he were encompassed with ten thousand dangers, he got clear of them all, and continued his life till a very old age. But then, as to the affairs of his family and children, in which indeed, according to his own opinion, he was also very fortunate, because he was able to conquer his enemies, yet, in my opinion, he was herein very unfortunate.2

Herod’s description as a brutal individual, furious and sullen – a slave to his anger who twisted justice to suit his ends – fits the portrait of a mentally unstable person with obsessive tendencies and unrestrained impulses. In our opinion, the diagnosis that emerges clearly from the above is that of Paranoid Personality Disorder. 1 2

Since this negative assessment has no parallel in BJ, we think it was a later judgment on the part of Josephus. Compare with the end of BJ I, 665: “in his domestic affairs (i. e., family life – Èn dè toîv kat’ oÎkon) he was a most unfortunate man.” Although there are only minor differences between the two versions, an implicit empathy toward Herod emerges from BJ, which of course reflects Nicolaus’ views. For a comparison of both versions, see also Landau 2003, pp. 182–183.

406

20. Post-Mortem

Herod’s Funeral The megalomanic aspect of Herod’s character was especially conspicuous at his funeral, which was conducted in accordance with his explicit instructions, as described in AJ XVII, 196–199: [196] After this was over, they prepared for his funeral, it being Archelaus’s care that the procession to his father’s sepulcher should be very sumptuous. Accordingly, he brought out all his ornaments to adorn the pomp of the funeral. [197] The body was carried upon a golden bier, embroidered with very precious stones of great variety, and it was covered over with purple, as well as the body itself; he had a diadem upon his head, and above it a crown of gold: he also had a scepter in his right hand. 3 [198] About the bier were his sons and his numerous relations; next to these was the soldiery, distinguished according to their several countries and denominations; and they were put into the following order: First of all went his guards, then the band of Thracians, and after them the Germans; and next the band of Galatians, every one in their habiliments of war; [199] and behind these marched the whole army in the same manner as they used to go out to war, and as they used to be put in array by their muster-masters and centurions; these were followed by five hundred of his domestics carrying spices.4 So they went eight stades (namely one mile; cf. BJ I, 673) to Herodium; for there by his own command he was to be buried. And thus did Herod end his life.

The preceding account calls to mind the magnificent funeral of Alexander the Great, recounted by Diodorus Siculus (XVIII, 26, 3–28, 2), although a comparison of the two suggests that the funeral of Alexander was a great deal more opulent and impressive. Nevertheless, both funerals had certain elements in common, including the carrying of the deceased on a golden bier adorned with precious stones, the body dressed in the regal porphyra and bedecked with gold ornaments, costly jewels, a royal crown, and a golden scepter, and escorted by the royal bodyguard and a colorful procession of the various army units 3 4

The purple robe, the golden crown (and diadem), the scepter, and the golden bier were classic symbols of royalty, with which Herod sought to flaunt his status. The term “spices” most likely refers primarily to those produced in Judaea, in particular a type of balsam known as “balsam of Judaea,” which was grown in a unique manner. The production methods were a closely guarded secret, creating a commercial monopoly of sorts. In the so-called Great Revolt against Rome (66–70 CE), Jewish rebels from the Dead Sea area tried to burn down the balsam plantations, so that the special techniques would not fall into the hands of the Romans, but they were unsuccessful in this attempt. In fact, at Titus’ victory procession in Rome, the spice bearers attracted much attention. The high cost of spices made them a privilege that only the wealthy could afford, and consequently, a token of great prestige; see Feliks 1968, pp. 230–231; idem 1992, pp. 59–61; EB, II (1954), cols. 371–375; Stern 1979, I, index, p. 110 (s. v. balsam) for detailed information.

Herod’s Funeral

407

in battle dress. Indeed, Herod achieved in death one of the grandiose ambitions that had been so important to him, namely, that “he shall have a great mourning at his funeral, and such as never had any king before him” (AJ XVII, 177). Reading the descriptions by Josephus (or Nicolaus) of the funeral and the monumental gravesite erected at the Herodium, it is hard to ignore the stark contrast with the simple, modest mourning and burial practices customary among the Jews of the Second Temple period. Suffice it to read Josephus’ comments on the subject in CA II, 205: Our law hath also taken care of the decent burial of the dead, but without any extravagant expenses for their funerals, and without the erection of any illustrious monuments for them; but hath ordered that their nearest relations should perform their obsequies; and hath showed it to be regular, that all who pass by when any one is buried should accompany the funeral, and join in the lamentation.

In his praise of the Torah for the simplicity of its customs of mourning and burial of the dead, Josephus wished to emphasize that such basic human kindness was part and parcel of daily life; for this reason, one was expected to refrain from ostentatious ceremonies, great feasts, and the construction of elaborate and costly monuments to the dead. It is quite possible that these remarks contained implicit criticism of the accepted norms of non-Jews in the lands of the ancient East (Egypt, Phoenicia, and Babylonia), which were associated with the gods Osiris, Adonis, and Tammuz, as well as in the Greco-Roman world. This disapproval was directed, inter alia, against excessive displays of grief; lavish funerals with music and song; splendid processions; dancing; and athletic contests. 5 Even an ostensibly minor detail such as the bearing of spices at Herod’s funeral ceremony (AJ XVII, 199) finds a parallel in the depiction of the funeral of Alexander the Great. One should recall in this context the halachic prohibition against this practice, out of a desire to set the Jews apart from the customs of non-Jews.6 The criticism raised in CA II, 205 is also directed against the custom of certain peoples to hold a great feast following burial – a “last meal” of sorts for the deceased. Rituals of this type were not the accepted practice among Jews, and were only encountered on rare occasions, such as the funeral ceremony of King Asa (II Chronicles 16:14). As a rule, even in cases where certain Jewish kings or other notables had handsome 5 6

Such was the custom in Homeric Greece, for example. In Rome, even deceased relatives (played by costumed actors) took part in the funeral. See Efron 2004, p. 175, 329 (nn. 214, 215).

408

20. Post-Mortem

gravesites, they did not compare with those of distinguished non-Jews, and the same holds true for their funerals. During the Second Temple era, elaborate burials were the exception among Jews, and only a few vague mentions have survived with respect to King Alexander Jannaeus, whose widow Salome Alexandra brought about a reconciliation with the Pharisees upon his death, of whom it is recounted that “by the commendation they gave him, they brought them to grieve, and to be in heaviness for him, so that he had a funeral more splendid than had any of the kings before him” (AJ XIII, 406; compare ibid., 404). True, Hasmonaean rulers prior to Jannaeus had also been given lavish burials, but these should not be equated with the standards observed among the Gentiles, which Herod sought to emulate. We would not be wrong in stating that the funeral ceremony of King Jannaeus paled in comparison with that of Herod; and this was perhaps deliberate, in light of his rivalry with the Hasmonaean dynasty, which continued to his death and beyond. As for monuments to the dead in the Jewish world, during the First Temple period there were elaborate graves in Jerusalem – in the City of David and the Shiloah Pool area, for example7 – but these were still the exception rather than the rule. By the Second Temple era, however, the phenomenon had already become more widespread, judging by the elaborate headstones in Modein;8 but there was still no comparison with Herod’s grandiose monument in Herodium (BJ I, 265, 419–421, 673; AJ XV, 323–325). Incidentally, indirect testimony to Herod’s megalomanic attitude toward death also comes to us from another direction: Following Herod’s burial ceremony, Archelaus held a mourners’ meal for the public amid great splendor, most likely in keeping with earlier instructions left by Herod (BJ II, 1; AJ XVII, 200). In the version in BJ, Josephus roundly criticized this practice as well, primarily due the great expense involved, which brought ordinary people to poverty.9 Unexpected confirmation of Herod’s insanity, as viewed at the time, comes from an archeological find discovered in the late 1980s by G. M. H. King and cited by Kokkinos, which surprisingly has still not been widely publicized. The reference is to an inscription written in Safaitic (an early Arabic script) found in the lava desert of northeast7 8 9

See E. Stern, EB, VI (1974), cols. 18 ff.; Barkay 1994, pp. 109, 121 ff., 144 ff., 148, 156 ff. I Maccabees 13:27–30; AJ XIII, 211–212; Goldstein 1976, pp. 474–475; Rappaport 2004, p. 299. See also CA II, 305; Kasher 1996, pp. 496–498; cf. Ben Sira 3:17; 4:2, 9.

Herod’s Funeral

409

ern Jordan, in which an Arab nomad (apparently Nabataean) expresses his hatred for Herod with the astonishing chronological notation: “the year when mad Herod died.”10 While Kokkinos acknowledges that this may have been the personal opinion of one individual, in our opinion its importance lies in the fact that it is a contemporaneous source, independent of Josephus, and confirms our conclusion regarding Herod’s “madness.” As aptly stated by Kokkinos, “it converges well with what we would otherwise conclude: Herod, reviled king of Israel, was horribly troubled in both body and mind when he finally met his end.”11 And there is no denying that if this is how he was perceived in a remote corner of the desert, his image was presumably a good deal worse among the subjects of his kingdom. Indeed, one can safely state that Herod was a historical figure despised in Jewish and Christian tradition alike, from ancient times to the modern era. Only in the past one hundred years has there been a change in attitude, with a willingness to examine the positive aspects of his reign. But it is important to note that modern historiography portrays him in ways that are diametrically opposed: on the one hand, a king who was active as a statesman and builder, and on the other, a brutal despot who treated both his subjects and his family with the utmost cruelty. To this day, his monumental building projects in the Land of Israel and its environs have not lost their capacity to astound, in particular among fanciers of archeology and classical culture. But by the same token, a review of events cannot fail to evoke painful thoughts concerning his character, his life, and his death. A fitting description can be found in the words of Rabbi Yehoshua: “An evil eye, the evil inclination, and hatred of people remove a man from the world” (mAvoth 2:11) and of Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kapar: “Envy, lust and the search for glory remove a man from the world” (ibid., 4:21). A deranged individual, and a ruler brutal to the point of madness, he is perhaps best exemplified by the following remark: “Herod crept into power like a fox, ruled like a tiger, and died like a dog.”12

10

11 12

See: Kokkinos 2002, p. 36, 62 (n. 11). The inscription has not yet been published, and to date has been referred to only briefly by M. C. A. Macdonald, “Herodian Echoes in the Syrian Desert,” in: S. Bourke & J.-P. Descoeudres (eds.), Trade, Contact and the Movement of Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean: Studies in Honour of J. B. Hennessy, Sydney: Meditarch 1995, p. 286. Kokkinos 2002, p. 35. See Kastein 1933, p. 116; Klausner 1958, IV, p. 9; idem 1969, I, p. 203. The proverb was attributed to the 19th century French historian Jean-Baptiste Honore Raymond Capefigue.

Afterword The following is a brief overview of the major ramifications of Herod’s personality disorders during his lifetime and the ensuing generations:

1. Herod’s “Hasmonaean Complex” Without a doubt, Herod’s “Hasmonaean complex” was the dominant feature of his life, overshadowing every other aspect and thus exacting a heavy toll on the nation: the annihilation of the Hasmonaean dynasty. In the Jewish national consciousness, Herod was (and remains) the fiercest enemy of the Hasmonaeans, since they – more than any other group in the Second Temple period – symbolized Jewish sovereignty at its height; as such, they represented the nation’s most treasured collective memories, which it clung to throughout the generations with a unique sense of nostalgia. One has only to look at the great number of festivals enumerated in Megillat Ta’anit that are associated with the Hasmonaeans; this is particularly telling, given the fact that the work is the earliest Tannaitic source from the Second Temple era. Since the eradication of the Hasmonaean dynasty was seen, historically and nationally, as an unforgivable sin, Herod was eternally disgraced in Jewish tradition as y)nwm#x tybd )db( (a slave to the Hasmonaean dynasty) and \wlmy yk db( (literally: “a slave who reigns,” namely, an individual of lowly birth whose newfound power has gone to his head). While he eliminated the Hasmonaean dynasty physically and politically, he was unsuccessful in expunging them from the collective national and historical memory.

2. Herod’s Systematic Trampling of the “Ancestral Laws” Herod’s disregard for Jewish law and legal processes, and conversely, his arbitrary preference for Hellenist-Roman laws and administrative procedures, aroused fierce opposition among most classes of the

Afterword

411

Jewish public, in particular the spiritual leadership established by the Pharisees, with the sages of the “School of Shamai” at the forefront. The fact that the majority of the Pharisees were persecuted and even executed by him explains why he was permanently stigmatized as a “killer of Sages.” Since his trial before the Sanhedrin early in his political career, there had been an unbridgeable gap between him and the nation’s supreme leadership body; indeed, from that point onward, he never made use of them. For criminal cases, he turned to synedria made up of non-Jews, where even his closest family members were sentenced to death. On many occasions, he had his opponents – or more precisely, those whom he perceived as such – executed without any trial or legal foundation other than his hardheartedness and the false illusions of his pathological imagination. In response to Herod’s adherence to Hellenist-Roman laws, two opposing trends began to emerge among the Jewish public: on the one hand, an inclination toward increased observance of the “ancestral laws,” which was of course influenced by the ongoing development of the Oral Law; and on the other, a tendency toward zealotry of the type manifest in the Hasmonaean revolt. The inescapable consequence of all this was the widening of the rift between the Jewish and non-Jewish worlds within the kingdom, as indicated by the “Eighteen Decrees” and the increased influence of the sages of the “School of Shammai,” who inspired the nationalist movement of the Zealots; this in turn led to the outbreak of the Great Revolt, and later, the Bar Kochba rebellion.1 Open protests, and even a popular uprising by the supporters of the Pharisees, had already taken place during the time of Herod himself, for example when the former had refused to swear allegiance to his rule (AJ XV, 370; XVII, 42–45); when they had protested vehemently against the Hellenistic games held in Jerusalem (ibid., XV, 267–278); and even when they had hatched a plot to kill him, causing him to fear mass gatherings and public disturbances (ibid., 280–291). 2 The sages Judas son of Sepphoraeus and Matthias son of Margalus were burned to death together with their students over the smashing of the eagle on the Temple gate because Herod saw

1 2

See in detail Ben-Shalom 1993, passim, especially pp. 252 ff. For this reason, as stated, Herod “resolved to encompass the multitude every way, lest such innovations should end in an open rebellion” (§ 291). This decision was carried out through the establishment of Sebaste and Caesarea, which were called “a fortress … against all the people” (§ 292) and “a stronghold against the country” (§ 293) (see section d, below).

412

Afterword

this as a clear sign of rebellion (AJ XVII, 149 ff.). 3 The conduct of the sages and their students, however, was a harbinger of similar patterns of behavior soon to emerge under the rule of the Roman governors.

3. Idealization of Hellenist-Roman Culture From his first day as king, Herod did not hesitate to take part (if only passively) in pagan rituals (hrz hdwb(, or idol worship). As stated, his first public act of this nature was when he marched arm in arm with Antony and Octavian to Capitol Hill in Rome to offer sacrifices at the temple of Jupiter and deposit there the Senate’s resolution crowning him king, thereby formally confirming his appointment (BJ I, 285; AJ XIV, 388). It is doubtful whether, in so doing, he was seeking to symbolize the objectives of his reign, which were ostensibly to bridge the spiritual world of the Jews and the accepted forms of rule in the Greco-Roman world;4 rather, it would be more accurate to view his act as akin to an overt transgression of Jewish “ancestral law.” Even if we assume that Herod did not personally offer a sacrifice to Jupiter but was only present at the ceremony in his honor, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that if this is how he behaved on his first day as king, he had no religious scruples about acting similarly in future. Indeed, he demonstrated his “infatuation” with the imperial cult of the Emperor Augustus in the construction of pagan temples and monuments in his honor in all the Hellenist cities that he built in Palestine. This stood in direct contrast to the Torah commandments relating to cleansing the land of pagan idols, thereby arousing extreme resentment among the Jews which later led to unrest and rebellion. At times, the only thing preventing a popular uprising was the fear of Herod’s reign of terror. It is no coincidence that such a revolt broke out in full force immediately upon word of his death, spreading over much of Palestine. It was only prompt, massive intervention on the 3

4

Perhaps it was for this reason that Jones (1938, p. 149) wrote: “It is difficult not to sympathize with Herod in this matter.” Moreover, Jones (p. 148) believed this to be a typical example of Herod’s attempts to eradicate the “superstitious beliefs” of his Jewish subjects with regard to the Biblical prohibition against icons and images. Accordingly, he added that “Herod’s aim was to break down the rigid barrier which the Jews had created between themselves and the rest of the world” (p. 153). To our way of thinking, however, this is at best the naive approach of a fancier of classical culture, unacquainted with Jewish values, who was captivated by the “logical” arguments of Jew haters of the ancient era. Cf. Cornfeld 1982, p. 58 (n. a), 285.

Afterword

413

part of Varus, governor of Syria, that brought it to an end; but this did not douse the flames of zealotry that burned in the Jewish public from that point onward. With the Jews denied the ability to bear arms, assorted messianic movements began to spring up – a phenomenon that had been virtually unknown before then. Indeed, after Herod’s death, movements of this sort began to proliferate, already during the time of the Roman governors.

4. Establishment of Hellenist Cities within the Kingdom and Support of Hellenist Cultural Norms This policy was initially intended to strengthen the non-Jewish sector as a means of offsetting the Jewish sector, which Herod feared throughout his life. Of the city of Sebaste, it was stated explicitly that he saw it as a “fortress for himself … against all the people.” For this reason, he decided “that this place would be a stronghold against the country,” in particular since it was located “a day’s journey distant from Jerusalem … which would be useful to him in common, to keep both the country and the city in awe” (AJ XV, 293). The same was said of Caesarea, which was also designated to serve, among other things, as a “fortress for the whole nation” (ibid.). Not without reason was this city traditionally considered the symbolic rival of Jerusalem. 5 The dissemination of Hellenist cultural norms throughout the kingdom, including among the Jewish population, was evident in the construction of the appropriate public buildings (theaters, stadiums, hippodromes), and in contests and games of a clearly Hellenist nature, which upset the Jews and aroused their opposition.6

5. Hostility and Suspicion toward His Jewish Subjects Amid Friendly Relations with Their Samaritan Rivals Herod’s close ties with the Samaritans – the historic rivals of the Jewish people – even led to his marriage to a Samaritan woman (Malthace) immediately following the death of Mariamme the Hasmonaean; moreover, her son Archelaus became his principal heir upon his death. 5 6

See for example: bMegillah, 6a; cf. Midrash Psalms 9, 43b; Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 1:6; and further in section e, below. See the fine updated summary offered by Dvorjetski 2005, pp. 453 ff.

414

Afterword

The alliance with the Samaritans was no doubt intended to strengthen his position, serving as a counterweight vis-à-vis the Jewish population of the kingdom. The Caesarea-Sebaste corridor, which is contiguous with the area of Samaritan settlement surrounding Shechem, created a geographic and strategic wedge between the two largest and strongest demographic concentrations of Jews in Palestine: Judaea to the south and the Galilee to the north.7 This buffer zone was reinforced by the military colony of cavalry veterans, Geva Parashim (Gaba Hippeon), established by Herod to afford him complete control of the Jezreel Valley. Herod and Archelaus placed also their faith in their friendship with the Samaritans, which they considered an important strategic asset. It seems that the Roman governors during the provincial period, in particular Ventidius Cumanus, followed in their footsteps as well.8

6. Adoption of Hellenist Methods of Governance In keeping with Herod’s reverence for Hellenist-Roman culture in all its manifestations, he maintained a policy of employing foreign soldiers, in whom he placed his complete trust. This mass recruitment of Roman and Hellenist mercenaries, in numbers greatly exceeding those of his Jewish soldiers, further aroused the opposition of the Jewish population. In practice, most of the Jews who served in his army were mobilized from among his fellow Idumaeans and from the Babylonian military colonizers settled by him in the Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and Gaulonitis regions. Herod was inclined not to risk recruiting Jews from within Judaea or the Galilee, since he suspected them of longstanding loyalties to the Hasmonaean dynasty. Thus the upper echelons of the civilian administration and of the army came, for the most part, from the Hellenist segment of the population.9 This 7 8 9

In later Talmudic texts, this region is referred to as {ytwk l# tyl+m (enclave of Cuthaeans). See on this subject: Kasher 2005b, pp. 205–221. See in greater detail: Kasher 1983, pp. 70–74; idem 1995, pp. 223–236; idem 2005, pp. 23–39. Since an analysis of the extent of Herod’s policy of Hellenization is beyond the framework of this study, we will content ourselves with referring the reader to Otto 1913, pp. 104 ff. and to the excellent fourth chapter of Schalit 1969, pp. 146 ff. Also noteworthy is Otzen’s (1990, p. 38) opinion that Herod’s support of the Hellenist cities in his kingdom provided him with an effective political tool for maintaining a balance between hostile sectors of the population by employing the well-known Roman strategy of divide et impera.

Afterword

415

of course deepened the tensions among the different sectors, a factor that was to have far-reaching implications in the period of the Roman governors. The fact that the urban militias of Sebaste and Caesarea made up the core of the military police in the auxilia of the Roman governors was highly significant, especially since they did everything within their power to inflame the religious sentiments of the Jews past the point of tolerance;10 indeed it is no accident that the spark that set off the conflagration of the Great Revolt came from Caesarea.

7. Herod’s Non-Jewish Origins Herod’s origins proved to be a stumbling block for him throughout his political career, from the time of his first appointment as strategos of the Galilee (46 BCE), and perhaps even earlier, from the selection of his father Antipater the Idumaean as epimeletes and epitropos of Judaea. In the eyes of his Jewish subjects, Herod was perceived as a “foreign king” and therefore prohibited by the Torah (Deuteronomy 17:15: “… you cannot place over yourself a foreign man …”). This stricture is reflected in the Mishnaic literature as well (mSotah 7:8), although the latter adopts a completely different stance with regard to his grandson, King Agrippa I (below). But even if there was no official, inherent fault with his conversion and his Jewishness (based on the Mishnah in Yebamoth 8:3 – “An Egyptian or an Edomite, whether male or female, is forbidden only for three generations”; Danby trans.), a negative attitude crystallized against him as a result of his actions, which were “foreign” to the spirit of Israel and the Torah.11 Indeed, Josephus’ comparison between his reign and that of his grandson Agrippa I is highly enlightening (AJ XIX, 328–331): [328] Now this king was by nature very beneficent and liberal in his gifts, and very ambitious to oblige people with such large donations; and he made himself very illustrious by the many chargeable presents he made them. He took delight in giving, and rejoiced in living with good reputation. He was not at all like that Herod who reigned before him; [329] for that Herod was ill-natured, and severe in his punishments, and had no mercy on them that he hated; and every one perceived that he was more friendly to the Greeks than to the Jews; for he adorned foreign cities with large presents in money; with building them baths and theatres besides; nay, in some of those places he erected temples, and porticoes in others; 10 11

See Jankelewitz 1990, pp. 33–42; Kasher 1990, pp. 225–229, 245–268, 250–251. See in detail Alon 1957, I, pp. 26 ff.; Kasher 1990, pp. 127 ff.; Ben-Shalom 1993, passim.

416

Afterword

but he did not vouchsafe to raise one of the least edifices in any Jewish city, or make them any donation that was worth mentioning. [330] But Agrippa’s temper was mild, and equally liberal to all men. He was humane to foreigners, and made them sensible of his liberality. He was in like manner rather of a gentle and compassionate temper. [331] Accordingly, he loved to live continually at Jerusalem, and was exactly careful in the observance of the laws of his country. He therefore kept himself entirely pure; nor did any day pass over his head without its appointed sacrifice.

A similar comparison, though only implied, can be seen in the following Mishnah (mSotah 7:8): How was the “portion of the King” observed? At the conclusion of the first holy day of the Festival of Tabernacles, in the eighth year, following the end of the seventh year, they prepared for him in the Temple Court a platform of wood, on which he sat … The minister of the synagogue took a Torah scroll and gave it to the chief of the synagogue, and the chief of the synagogue gave it to the deputy [of the High Priest], and the deputy gave it to the High Priest, and the High Priest gave it to the king, and the king stood and received it and read it sitting. King Agrippa12 stood when he received it and read it standing, and the Sages praised him for this. And when he reached: “… you cannot place over yourself a foreign man,” his eyes streamed with tears. They said to him: Fear not, Agrippas! You are our brother! You are our brother! You are our brother! (adapted from Blackman trans.)13

8. Strong Pro-Roman Orientation Herod’s total political and military reliance on the rulers of Rome, coupled with his unquestioning obedience and persistent obsequiousness, were perceived by most of his Jewish subjects as proof that, for all intents and purposes, they were living under Roman rule. It is no coincidence that in the Talmudic literature of future generations, “Edom” became the classic symbol for Rome, synonymous with such 12

13

Although scholars are unsure whether the reference is to Agrippa I or Agrippa II, or a composite of both (see Schwartz 1987, pp. 173 ff.), all are in agreement that the end of the passage alludes to King Herod; were this not the case, the sages would not have felt the need to calm King Agrippas, who shed tears lest they would consider him to be of foreign birth like Herod. Cf. bSotah, 41a-b; and see Schwartz 1987, pp. 171–184. Ben-Shalom 1993, p. 283 and n. 38) rightly argued that, based on the Mishnah in Sotah 7:8, the Biblical verse in question (Deuteronomy 17:15) took on greater significance with Herod’s accession to the throne. At the time of the redaction of the Mishnah, the halachic position against Herod’s kingship was already deeply rooted; cf. also Maimonides, Hilkhoth Melakhim 1:4.

Afterword

417

concepts as h(#rh twklm (literally: “kingdom of evil)”, a Talmudic term for Roman rule) or the “fourth beast” of the Book of Daniel.14

9. Herod’s Emotional Makeup – His Sense of Inferiority and Paranoid Personality Disorder 15 Herod’s inferiority complex over his lowly Idumaean origins stood out all the more in light of the pride and condescension of the Hasmonaeans, which led to a constant sense of insult, lack of acceptability, fear, and intense suspiciousness on his part. Due to his Paranoid Personality Disorder, these feelings intensified into delusions of persecution that had a profound effect on his decision-making and his behavior, to the point that his rule became a reign of terror. As a result of his fears of a conspiracy in the later stages of his life, he terrified his subjects with frequent executions, show trials of groups and individuals, a network of spies and secret police at every turn, the encouraging of informants, brutal interrogation under torture, and reliance on a personal bodyguard and a trained army of foreign mercenaries.16 Ruled by his fears and persecutory delusions, he felt the need to ensure his survival by building numerous fortresses throughout the country that in fact never served any actual military purpose. From the time he had consolidated his hold over the throne, no external enemy capable of posing a serious threat to the boundaries of his kingdom had risen against him (or even tried to), and in any event, he enjoyed the strong military and political backing of Rome through its legate, the governor of Syria. Ironically enough, all the citadels that he never used for military purposes (and especially, Masada and Machaerus) in fact served the “zealots” of the Great Revolt – the descendants of his greatest enemies.

14

15 16

For details on the use of these metaphors in the Talmudic literature, see Jastrow 1985, p. 16; Ben-Shalom 1980, pp. 333, 390–391 (nn. 160–161); Feldman 2004, pp. 64–83 (including additional references from the sources and the professional literature). See the closing remarks on Herod’s psychological state, below pp. 430–434. It is sufficient to recall the list of military units that took part in his funeral: the Thracians, the Germans and the Galatians (BJ I, 672; AJ XVII, 198); cf. Shatzman 1983, pp. 83, 86, 91; idem 1991, passim.

418

Afterword

10. Pretensions of Grandeur Herod invested tremendous effort and financial resources in extravagant and showy construction projects in Palestine and numerous other sites in the eastern Mediterranean Basin, an undertaking that did not fulfill any objective national function. All the superlatives in Josephus’ writings with respect to his colossal building projects clearly reflect such motivations, indicating that there is no difference in this regard between Herod and a host of modern dictators who wished to immortalize themselves through grandiose building projects that masked a deep inferiority complex.17 The fact that there were complaints from the public over the heavy financial burden imposed on them (taxes, customs, and forced labor) attests to the social implications of his ostentatious building projects.18 There is reason to believe that the worsening socioeconomic disparity in Judaea was aggravating domestic tensions and fomenting unrest that was liable at any moment to erupt into a genuine rebellion; indeed, the revolt (referred to in Seder Olam Rabbah as swryws) l# swmlwp “The Varus war”) that took place immediately following Herod’s death (4 BCE) should be understood against this backdrop. The process gathered further momentum during the period of the Roman governors, almost reaching a full-fledged insurrection under Pontius Pilate (26–36 CE). During the rule of Albinus (62–64 CE), a crisis was sparked by the threat of widespread unemployment as a result of the dismissal of over 18,000 day workers who had been employed continuously in the building and maintenance of the Temple and surrounding area from the start of the project under Herod until 64 CE. Thus the fate of some 70,000 individuals hung in the balance in Jerusalem alone – a figure that attests to the potentially explosive situation. Disaster was averted at the last moment by Agrippas II, who initiated a plan to pave the streets of Jerusalem with white stone (AJ XX, 219–222). While Herod’s building projects did provide widespread employment, it is impossible to ignore the severe socioeconomic polarization that took place as a result of both the heavy fiscal burden on 17 18

Some examples that come to mind are Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Josef Stalin and Saddam Hussein. For a detailed examination of economic life under Herod, see Schalit 1969, pp. 256 ff. A critical approach to his economic policy can be found in Ben-Shalom 1993, pp. 52–59; Pastor 1997, pp. 110 ff. Even Schalit (p. 670) was forced to admit that a great portion of Herod’s revenues was directed toward serving his “Baulust zu frönen und seinen Ruhmzu mehren.”

Afterword

419

the public and Herod’s inequitable economic policy, which supported and encouraged mainly his inner circle while discriminating against the general public. Urban development in the non-Jewish sector also accelerated this division, with the strengthening of the Hellenist cities helping to sow the seeds of the coming destruction.

11. Removal of the High Priesthood from the Hasmonaean Dynasty Herod’s “Hasmonaean complex” led him to systematically and deliberately strike at the status of the high priesthood in general. He did so by arbitrary appointments of high priests from the circle of priestly families who adhered to his dictates or from those who had come from the Diaspora and lacked roots in the Palestinian Jewish community. No other ruler before him had dared to tamper with the authority of the high priests or tried to interfere in their appointments, with the exception of the notorious promulgator of decrees prohibiting basic Jewish religious practices, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Josephus himself (AJ XV, 41) drew a comparison between the two rulers, a point that is worthy of further examination. The process of reducing the status of the high priesthood that took place during the period of direct rule by Rome, had actually been set in motion by Herod. He alone replaced the holders of this lofty position no less than six times, setting a precedent for all the Roman governors up to the outbreak of the Great Revolt.19 He did so because he himself was barred from occupying the post. His despotism led to the physical eradication of the revered Hasmonaean dynasty, and later, to damage to the high priesthood overall, for he stripped the post of all its power. He was not satisfied until the high priests could not pose any threat to his rule or even overshadow his kingdom with their prestige. For this reason, the description of him in Assumptio Mosis (6:2) as a “wicked king” and “terrible person” is very fitting.

12. Rise of the Boethusians The term “Boethusian” was doubtless derived from the name of the family of high priests that Herod appointed in place of the Hasmonae19

See for further information: Alon 1957, pp. 48–76; Smallwood 1962, pp. 14–34.

420

Afterword

an dynasty. The first of them was Simon son of Boethus from Alexandria, the father of Herod’s wife Mariamme (the second of his wives by that name), whom he had married in 28 BCE. 20 The Boethusians are mentioned in the Talmud along with the Sadducees as the sworn enemies of the Pharisees, and in fact their name is often interchanged with that of the Sadducees, making it difficult to distinguish between them. It emerges from the Talmudic accounts that the Boethusians tried to mislead the Sages on various issues, even hiring false witnesses for this purpose. The former of course belonged to the upper socioeconomic class, and were not hesitant to use force to exercise their rights as priests – a point that emerges, for example, from the wellknown text in bPesachim 57a (cf. tMenachot 13:21, Zuckermandel ed., p. 533): “Woe is me because of the House of Boethus; woe is me because of their sticks! For they are High Priests and their sons are [Temple] treasurers and their sons-in-law are trustees and their servants beat the people with staves” (from Soncino trans.)21

13. The Title “Herod the Great” In light of the above, we would take issue with the title “Herod the Great” conferred on him in modern historiography, mainly by archeologists and classical historians.22 It seems that the term can also be found among writers of the 19th-century Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah) and Renaissance movements, who wished to reassess Herod’s rule in accordance with more modern standards, that is, material and political criteria as well as religious-spiritual. At times, these attempts fall into the category of counter-history or counter-literature, 20

21

22

See above p. 176. In our opinion, the reference in Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan (Version A, 65 [Schechter ed., p. 26]) to their being named after the student of Antigonus of Sokhu (third century BCE) is without basis in nature and is too late to be relevant; cf. Stemberger 1995, pp. 64–66; see also note 21 below. Unfortunately, space does not permit us to discuss the various opinions concerning the identity of the Boethusians, so we will suffice with referring the reader to BenShalom 1993, pp. 301–302; and recently to Regev 2005, passim; see also note 20 above. This approach is exemplified by Jones (1938, p. 153), a well-known and respected historian. Although, he was aware of the problematic nature of the relationship between Herod and his Jewish subjects, like many others he was mistaken with regard to the stance of the Pharisees, viewing them as an isolationist sect, estranged from political concerns and secluded in Torah learning (ibid., 80–82, 94–98, 100–101, etc.) The list of modern scholars who have referred to Herod as “the Great” is too lengthy to be presented here; it is sufficient to refer to the comprehensive bibliographies of Roller, Kokkinos, and Lichtenberger, and the present volume.

Afterword

421

which aims to portray the Herodian saga differently from the conventional perspective of Jewish historical memory. 23 The epic study of Abraham Schalit of course greatly encouraged such trends, along with the impressive archeological findings throughout Israel, until the title “the Great” eventually became the accepted historical “currency” in these parts – and remains so to this day. Various literary attempts have been made, and with reason, to portray Herod as a tragic figure deserving of understanding and pity, and even sympathy and admiration. At times, the impression arises that Nicolaus of Damascus was largely successful in his literary objective of writing an apologetic, panegyric history for Herod. In analyzing the use of the term, we must take note of the fact that the title “Great” was not associated with Herod’s name by any ancient source. Indeed, scholars have already commented, with justification, that it is used in Josephus (AJ XVIII, 130, 133, 136) only in terms of genealogy, to distinguish him from other members of his family who were named Herod, in the sense of “Herod the elder.”24 Similarly, Josephus refers to Agrippas I as “the Great” in order to differentiate him from others of the same name. 25 Historians regularly attach the term “Great” to the names of prominent individuals to set them apart by virtue of their great importance, their prestige, and their impressive heritage, for example: Alexander the Great, Constantine the Great, Friedrich the Great, Peter the Great, and others. Indeed, none would dispute the fact that Herod was a celebrated builder, a resourceful statesman who enjoyed excellent political ties with Rome, and even a talented military man. There are those who have tried to make the argument that the title “Great” is only fitting since he devoted all of his talents to peace and prosperity for his kingdom; this he did by accepting Roman authority without question and by suppressing any nationalist militancy and expressions of rebellion against Roman rule or against himself as the Empire’s loyal servant.26 This is of course a modern interpretation, not innocent of later political or historiographic motives.

23 24

25 26

See Shavit 1983, pp. 166–180, which is the first study of its type and hopefully a harbinger of others to come. See Otto 1913, cols. 140–156; Schürer 1979, I, p. 329 and n. 167; Klausner 1958, IV, p. 37; Perowne 1957, p. 15, 176; Smallwood 1981, p. 60; Lurie 1974, p. 323; Lichtenberger 1999, p. 9 and n. 13; Kasher 2001, pp. 183–184. See for example AJ XVII, 28; XVIII, 110, 142; XX, 104; and apparently certain inscriptions and coins as well; see Schwartz 1987, pp. 148–149. See for example: Grant 1971, p. 231, 234. We mention this study in particular because of its popularity with the general public and its impact on a large number

422

Afterword

By contrast, there are those who see Herod as “Great” in a derogatory sense, primarily those who judge him from the perspective of Jewish tradition over the centuries or the multi-faceted Christian tradition. In Jewish belief, his “greatness” takes the form of a brutal tyrant who exterminated the Hasmonaean dynasty, including his wife and his own offspring. He is also remembered as the enemy and murderer of the great sages of his time together with their students, and as one who knowingly rejected the Jewish ancestral laws and exchanged them for the laws of the hated Greco-Roman world. He was not even repulsed by “idol worship,” and scorned the religious inhibitions of Jews who observed the commandments. From the Christian perspective, by contrast, the title “Great” is understood as being inspired by such theological concepts as the “king of evil,” “the malicious one,” “Satan,” “the antichrist,” “the slaughterer of infants,” and the sworn enemy of Jesus Christ the Savior and Son of God. 27 In short, it is reasonable to assume that both these perspectives, that is, the Jewish and the Christian traditions, were the primary sources of the unconscious tendency in modern scholarship to refer to Herod as “the Great,” a title that has become almost de rigueur in modern Israeli scholarship. The similarity between Herod and Antiochus IV Epiphanes on this point is most enlightening. Unlike his father Antiochus III, who earned the title “the Great” by virtue of his political and military achievements, Antiochus IV found “greatness” in the eyes of those scholars who pointed to his fierce loyalty to Hellenism: for this reason, they considered him to be the prime example of a “Hellenizer,” which would explain his religious edicts against the Jews. They also extolled his friendship with Rome and his deference to its authority, which was intended, as they saw it, to strengthen his rule so as to better disseminate Hellenist culture.28 The similarity to Herod is self-explanatory, both in terms of his policy of political and cultural Hellenization, and his loyalty to Rome. Other parallels include the despotic regimes of both men, the reign of terror and the spying that they instituted in their kingdoms, their political opportunism, their megalomanic tendencies and pretensions, their insanity, and lastly,

27

28

of educated readers who are not necessarily conversant with the professional literature. See, for example, II Thessalonians, chap. 2; Revelation, chap. 12–13; cf. Klausner 1958, IV, pp. 167–169. Space does not permit us to include the many references in the patristic literature. For further information on this approach in modern research, see Tcherikover 1961, pp. 158–160.

Afterword

423

their deaths. One should of course distinguish between the two, since Herod never persecuted the Jewish religion per se; but by the same token, he never understood it (nor tried to), yet in his ignorance and obstinacy nevertheless sought to “improve” it.29 Since there is no questioning the fact that Herod left a lasting imprint on the history of his era and those that followed, we have undertaken to examine his personality from every conceivable perspective, the better to highlight its impact. It is our hope that, at the very least, we have succeeded in making a modest contribution to the fields of psychobiography and psychohistory.

29

Cf. Perowne 1957, pp. 103–104. Taking a balanced overview of Herod’s actions, he concluded that due to the economic prosperity under his rule, the many building projects he undertook, the peace and security he achieved under Roman patronage, and the admiration shown him by the Jews of the Diaspora and the local peoples, Herod should not be seen as a monstrous figure but rather as a tragic personality who was totally ignorant with regard to Judaism. We do not share this view, which tries to “have it both ways,” so to speak. Perowne simply did not take into account Herod’s paranoid personality disorder, which deteriorated into full-blown insanity.

Appendix Herod’s Relations with His Immediate Family Herod was married ten times, fathered ten sons and five daughters, and died at the age of 69. He was born in 73/72 BCE, the second of five children. His older brother was five years his senior, and he had a sister and two brothers who were younger than him. The family was of mixed ethnicity, with his father an Idumaean by birth, and his mother of Arabic (Nabataean) origin. Since Herod’s Idumaean grandfather had converted to Judaism, his father was born a Jew, making him a third-generation convert and a Jew for all intents and purposes. While information is scanty regarding his upbringing and childhood, they appear to have been normal. The fostering of family ties was seen as an important value, in the best tribal patriarchal tradition. Members of the family were generally loyal to one another, with the exception of a few cases related to specific circumstances. Apart from certain conspiracies within the family, there was no internecine bloodshed, a typical phenomenon in families from closed tribal societies of this type. Herod was the one who breached this principle in the case of his uncle/brother-in-law Joseph over his supposed adultery with Herod’s wife Mariamme, and the execution of his sons from her; but he did not harm his brother Pheroras or his sister Salome even when it was proven that they had betrayed him and hatched malicious schemes against him. All of his brothers were raised to lust for power, and engaged in endless subterfuge to advance their careers. From an early age, the belief was instilled in Herod that he was destined for greatness, possibly under the influence of his mother, who favored him and was much loved by him in return. Herod spent his childhood in the typical Hellenist cities of Maresha and Ascalon, most of whose native populations (Phoenician and Idumaean) had undergone an intense process of Hellenization. His early education was thus decidedly Hellenist, augmented by the impressive cultural inspiration of Ascalon, a well-known center of Hellenist culture in the region.

Milestones in Herod’s Life

425

In 47 BCE, Herod was granted Roman citizenship by Julius Caesar for his help in the Alexandrian War. From that point onward, he embraced several parallel identities: Idumaean on his father’s side, Arab-Nabataean on his mother’s, Jewish by virtue of the conversion of his ancestors, Hellenist as a result of his education, and Roman due to his Roman citizenship. In practice, no single clear-cut identity crystallized from all of these, which could be an indicator of a significant identity crisis (see below).

Milestones in Herod’s Life The following is a brief enumeration of the significant events in Herod’s life, with emphasis on their personal and familial contexts: Age 25 (47 BCE) – Herod entered into marriage with Doris, the 13-year-old daughter of an Idumaean-Jewish family of aristocratic lineage like his own. She was the mother of his firstborn son, Antipater. During this same period, he was appointed strategos (governor) of the Galilee, his first senior administrative-military position. Not long afterward, he encountered difficulties in this post after executing a mutinous local leader by the name of Hezekiah the Galilean. The latter was considered by Herod a rebel or listim (bandit), but was well liked locally. The execution angered the Jewish high court (the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem), and as a result, Herod was put on trial for murder and faced a death sentence (46 BCE). At first, he made light of the danger, relying on the support of his father and the Roman governor in nearby Syria, but in the end he became truly alarmed. On the advice of his father and his older brother, he fled to Syria and took refuge with the Roman governor there. Although he escaped unharmed, the incident traumatized him, causing him to decide to eliminate the Jewish court at the first available opportunity. Age 29 (43 BCE) – Herod’s father, with whom he was very close, was poisoned to death mysteriously. Herod resolved to take revenge on the killers, whom he suspected of belonging to the faction of John Hyrcanus II, although their identity remained uncertain. Age 30 (42 BCE) – Herod became betrothed to Mariamme, daughter of the Hasmonaean royal family. He fell in love with her immediately due to her great beauty, but his engagement to her was also based on political calculation, as a way of “buying” legitimacy for his future rule. Age 33 (40 BCE) – During the Parthian invasion of Judaea, Herod’s older brother Phasael was taken captive, later committing suicide

426

Appendix

when he gave up hope of reaching an agreement with the invaders. When the Parthians placed Mattathias Antigonus on the throne (from the branch of Aristobulus II family hostile to Rome), Herod fled with his family, among them his betrothed and her mother, sheltering them in the desert fortress of Masada until the danger had passed. In the course of their escape, his beloved mother was injured in a serious accident, which threw Herod into such turmoil that he attempted to take his life. His close friends stopped him and calmed him down, and even entrusted him with saving them from their pursuers. In a brief battle near Thecoa, described only as a “hand to hand fight,” he was saved thanks to his resourcefulness. From that point on, he convinced himself that he was “beloved by God” and that his quickwittedness was testimony to his greatness. He later built his grandiose burial site there (Herodium) to express his lofty stature and perpetuate his name (out of all proportion). Later that year, he was crowned “king of Judaea” in a pagan ceremony atop Capitol Hill in Rome, by decision of the Roman Senate. Age 34 (39/38 BCE) – Herod led the war to conquer Judaea, and at the same time helped the Romans to repel the Parthian invaders. In 38 BCE, his brother Joseph fell in battle near Jericho and was beheaded by order of Antigonus. Herod now began to suffer nightmares for the first time. He also became extremely fearful over the unstable political situation in the region, as evident in his drastic mood swings. Age 35 (37 BCE) – Herod married his betrothed Mariamme the Hasmonaean in Samaria, and entered the conquered city of Jerusalem as a married king. At the same time, he divorced his first wife Doris (after ten years of marriage) and banished her for many years together with their son Antipater. Upon conquering Jerusalem, he persuaded Mark Antony to behead Antigonus so as to debase his memory and avenge the death of his brother Joseph. He then hastened to execute a group of Jerusalem notables loyal to Antigonus, identified as the leaders of the Sanhedrin. Age 37 (36 BCE) – This year marked the birth of Herod’s firstborn son by Mariamme the Hasmonaean, Alexander, whom Herod considered his official heir to the throne. Roughly one year later, his second son by this wife, Aristobulus, was born. Age 38 (35 BCE) – Herod secretly ordered his brother-in-law Aristobulus drowned at the pool in Jericho. The decision took shape when Herod realized the depth of the nation’s love for him, out of fear that the Romans would prefer Aristobulus over him to serve as their king. His mother-in-law Alexandra’s ties with Cleopatra added to Herod’s

Milestones in Herod’s Life

427

fears that she would influence Antony in the matter, not to mention the fact that Cleopatra herself had set her sights on his kingdom. Herod’s envy of his brother-in-law stemmed, among other things, from his unique beauty and imposing stature, which aroused intense jealousy and feelings of inferiority in Herod. Age 39 (34 BCE) – Serious marital problems arose with Mariamme the Hasmonaean, stemming from Herod’s delusions of her “infidelity” with his uncle Joseph (the husband of his sister Salome), who had been ordered to watch over her while Herod met with Antony to clarify the circumstances surrounding the mysterious death of his brother-inlaw Aristobulus. His “unfaithful” uncle/brother-in-law was executed without any investigation, pleasing his widow Salome, who was happy to be rid of him as he was much older than her, in addition to which the match had been forced on her by her family. Age 40–41 (32/31 BCE) – In this, his first war against the Nabataeans, Herod gambled his political fate and displayed great manipulative ability and impressive political survival skills in the “battle of the Titans” between Antony and Octavian. Age 41 (31 BCE) – Herod was saved along with his army from a tremendous earthquake, an event that he saw as a miracle that confirmed his good fortune and his Divinely chosen status. Age 42 (30 BCE) – Herod staged a show trial of John Hyrcanus II, in which the latter was accused of committing treason with the Nabataeans and subsequently executed. That same year, Herod met with Octavian in Rhodes, and was “recrowned” king, consolidating their close friendship. From then on, Octavian was considered his patron and the supreme authority in his life, a surrogate father of sorts. But Herod’s time in Rhodes deepened the rift between him and Mariamme the Hasmonaean after she discovered the order to execute her in the event that Herod’s journey to Rhodes ended in failure. Age 43 (29 BCE) – Herod engaged in a show trial of his wife Mariamme the Hasmonaean due to his pathological jealousy and delusions of her infidelity while he was in Rhodes. After she was found “guilty” and executed, he was in a state of torment, exhibiting signs of acute mourning. His inability to resign himself to her death led him to such a state of denial that he ordered his servants to bring her to him as if she were still alive. In his grief, he left Jerusalem to be alone with his sorrow in the desert, and was struck by a serious physical illness accompanied by severe depression. Age 44/45 (28 BCE) – Herod executed his mother-in-law Alexandra (Mariamme’s mother), an act that brought him much satisfac-

428

Appendix

tion. That same year, he married Malthace the Samaritan, knowingly transgressing the prohibitions of Ezra and Nehemia against marrying a non-Jewish woman. He then married another young woman aged thirteen, with the same name as his late wife Mariamme, out of “love … not suffering his reason to hinder him from living as he pleased.” According to Josephus, he was “was much affected with what was said of her; and when he saw the damsel, he was smitten with her beauty.” He appointed her father Simon son of Boethus as high priest, thereby ending the tenure of the Hasmonaean dynasty in this office. Age 46 (26 BCE) – Herod executed his brother-in-law Costobarus (the second husband of his sister Salome) in response to her informing him of her husband’s earlier scheme with Cleopatra VII to turn Idumaea into an autonomous region under her patronage, and as punishment for hiding certain Hasmonaean loyalists, the Sons of Baba (or Sons of Saba), on his land for twelve years. Age 49 (23/22 BCE) – Herod sent both his sons by Mariamme the Hasmonaean to be educated in Rome. Age 55 (18/17 BCE) – Herod brought his sons back from Rome, and matched Alexander with Glaphyra, daughter of Archelaus Philopatris king of Cappadocia; and Aristobulus with the daughter of his sister Salome. Age 58 (14 BCE) – The first conflict broke out between Herod and his sons by Mariamme the Hasmonaean, incited by his brother Pheroras and sister Salome. For the sake of “balance,” he brought his first wife Doris back to Jerusalem and restored her rights as queen, also bringing back her son Antipater. Age 59 (13 BCE) – Herod sent his oldest son Antipater to Rome to formally present him to the Emperor. Age 60 (12 BCE) – He journeyed with his two Hasmonaean sons to Rome and, in the presence of his son Antipater, accused them of conspiracy before the Emperor. With the direct intervention of the Emperor (as arbitrator), a temporary reconciliation was secured. Age 62 (10 BCE) – As the conflict with his Hasmonaen sons escalated, Alexander was arrested on suspicion of plotting against his father, following the torture of his inner circle and the extraction of false testimony from them. Archelaus Philopatris, king of Cappadocia and the father of Herod’s daughter-in-law, came to Jerusalem and, using a sophisticated tactical ploy, succeeded in effecting a reconciliation between Herod and his sons. Age 63 (9 BCE) – The second war with the Nabataeans cast a dark cloud over Herod politically since he was suspected of having insti-

Milestones in Herod’s Life

429

gated the conflict, thereby overreaching his authority as a rex socius et amicus populi Romani. His fears, along with his melancholy state of mind, further exacerbated his relations with his family members. Age 64 (8 BCE) – The major split between himself and his sons erupted over the “Eurycles affair,” set in motion by Antipater. The second attempt at intervention by Archelaus king of Cappadocia was a failure, and both of Herod’s bodyguards “confessed” under torture (as part of a show trial) to a conspiracy on the part of Herod’s Hasmonaean sons. As a result, Herod decided to send indictments to the Emperor against his sons and request permission to judge them. Age 65 (7 BCE) – After receiving the Emperor’s authorization, Herod held what was an obvious show trial of his sons in Berytus. He himself served as both judge and defender, and was aided by a panel of judges hand-picked by him that included his inner circle and local Roman administrators. After he had delivered a fiery oration, his sons were convicted and hastily executed in Sebaste. Following their death, he suffered nightmares in which Alexander attacked him with sword drawn, seeking to kill him. Antipater of course became “all-powerful” in the royal court. Age 66 (6 BCE) – Antipater went to Rome to be officially recognized by the Emperor as heir to the throne in accordance with Herod’s will. At this period, the final split took place between Herod and his brother Pheroras over the latter’s devotion to his wife-concubine, which Herod resented, not to mention the fact that their secret ties with several leaders of the Pharisees worried him because of the “prophecy” circulating among them that predicted his imminent demise and replacement by Pheroras as king. Needless to say, the suspect Pharisees, along with certain of his household servants, were executed. Age 68 (5 BCE) – Early in the year, Pheroras died suddenly of a mysterious poisoning. Herod had trouble solving the murder since the suspects included individuals considered especially close to him, such as Doris and her son Antipater, as well as persons in the Emperor’s court. He was ultimately persuaded of Antipater’s guilt on two counts, namely, the plot against Pheroras and the false accusations that jsf led to the deaths of his Hasmonaean sons. Determined to punish Antipater, Herod proceeded with caution, luring him back to Jerusalem from Rome and immediately arresting him when he arrived. He then brought him before the court in an expedited show trial that was of course well staged, as was his practice. Following his conviction, Herod sent a report to the Emperor and requested his permission to execute Antipater. The exposure of Antipater’s schemes reawakened

430

Appendix

Herod’s anguish over the death of his Hasmonaean sons, setting off nightmares in which they appeared to him as ghosts and struck him. Thus “he took the appearance of suffering from madness and from foolishness as well (AJ XVI, 260 (trans. Marcus-Wikgren)”. Precisely at this time, symptoms of his terminal disease erupted with full force. But despite his grave condition, he revived briefly and changed his will yet another time in favor of his youngest son Herod Antipas (by Malthace the Samaritan). Age 69 (4 BCE) – The Emperor approved in principle Herod’s right to execute Antipater, which pleased Herod greatly. Five days before he breathed his last, he was “privileged” to carry out his sentence and debase Antipater’s memory in a common grave. As part of the preparations for his impending death, he managed to find the emotional strength to change his will one last time, naming Archelaus, his elder son from Malthace the Samaritan, as his principal successor, and appointing his sons Herod Antipas (from Malthace) and Philip (from Cleopatra of Jerusalem) to serve as tetrarchs. These appointments created immediate legal problems and sparked conflicts among his heirs that required the legal intervention of the Emperor. Herod’s final scheme – to slaughter the representatives of all Jewish settlements at the hippodrome in Jericho so that he could be certain of widespread public mourning when he died – was foiled by his sister Salome and her third husband, Alexas. They did so despite their pledge to Herod to carry out his wishes, since even they understood that the order was completely “insane.”

Concluding Remarks on Herod’s Mental State The portrait that emerges from Herod’s personal history and the course of his disease is harsh and unmistakable – that of a person who grew up with a lack of clarity surrounding his identity. He was “half-Jew” and “half-Nabataean,” but did not enjoy the benefits of a Jewish education and hence did not internalize Jewish values and ethics. His identity problems were exacerbated as a result of being sent away from home at an early age to foreign cities that were inherently hostile to the Jewish people and its values, and even held them in contempt. There, he absorbed and came to identify with the values of Hellenist culture. In terms of his personality structure, not only did he suffer from an insufficiently consolidated identity but he also possessed feelings of inferiority related to his relatively short stature and his unattractive

Concluding Remarks on Herod’s Mental State

431

external appearance. This was manifest in his envy of his brotherin-law Aristobulus and his Hasmonean sons, who were known for their great height and beauty. Similar feelings of jealousy apparently also existed with respect to certain of his bodyguards and favored courtiers. But Herod’s envy of his sons was especially remarkable in that fathers are not normally jealous of their sons. He suffered greatly from the fact that his sons surpassed him in their physiques as well as their athletic prowess, in particular since Herod was known for his physical strength and his excellent skills in hunting and marksmanship. Knowing his personality and the competitive norms of his Hellenistic upbringing, his sons made it a point to lose to him in any physical contest, in order to appease him. Herod attempted to resolve the problem of his confused and unintegrated identity by idealizing the Roman world, in particular the Pax Romana policy orchestrated by Augustus, whom he held in the highest esteem (to the point of virtually idolizing him). As a result of his basic insecurity, however, Herod was extremely sensitive to political upheaval; for this reason, he lived in constant fear of a challenge to his status. He was highly suspicious of others and sensitive to any potential slight to his honor, apparently to the point of exhibiting traits associated with the definition of Paranoid Personality Disorder in DSM-IV (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association). This disorder generally surfaces in early adolescence and is marked by several outstanding features: generalized suspicion and basic mistrust of others rooted in fear of their supposedly malicious intentions (exploitation, sabotage, deceit, and the like), even when these have no genuine basis in reality. An individual who suffers from this disorder is suspicious of others for no apparent reason, and can attack them without warning at any time when he feels threatened or hurt by them, even in the absence of any objective proof. He is constantly casting doubt on people’s loyalty and trustworthiness, including friends and romantic partners, such that their actions are continually being judged to find proof of their hostile hidden intentions. Expressions of faith and loyalty from those around him usually come as surprise to him, leaving him unconvinced of their sincerity. He attaches hurtful, humiliating, even threatening significance to truthful comments or innocuous, positive events. Such a person persists in holding grudges, and is unable to forgive anything he considers to be insulting or demeaning to his dignity. Paradoxically, as a result of his excessive caution, he is always braced for, or anticipating, a strike at his character

432

Appendix

and his honor, in effect placing him in a constant state of alert in order to respond to such situations with a furious counter-attack. A person suffering from Paranoid Personality Disorder tends to exhibit pathological jealousy toward his spouse as a result of recurring, unjustified suspicions of infidelity, adultery and betrayal. He seeks to maintain total control in all his relationships to protect himself from disloyalty; thus he is ready, willing and able to check up on their actions and intentions at any given moment. It is very difficult to communicate with him or forge any close ties. His suspiciousness and hostility are often expressed in a tendency toward argumentativeness, repeated complaints and criticism, and hostile alienation. Since he exercises extreme caution with regard to potential threats and dangers, he frequently adopts a defensive posture, acting covertly and in devious ways. Although he is capable of appearing objective, rational, and unemotional, he generally shows signs of a shaky emotional makeup characterized by social estrangement, antagonism, obstinacy, and sarcasm. Since his combative and mistrustful personality can arouse hostile counter-reactions in others, such responses provide him with actual “evidence” that his original expectations are being realized (self-fulfilling prophecy). Due to his basic lack of faith in others, he has an exaggerated need for independence and autonomy, while at the same time finding it necessary to maintain a high degree of power and control over those around him. Although he is highly critical of others, he has difficulty accepting criticism of himself. For this reason, he tends to accuse others of his own failings by projecting his attitudes onto them. Quick to retaliate against alleged threats and dangers, he seeks legal vindication in as public a forum as possible. A close examination of Herod’s life history reveals that he was subjected to extreme stress and numerous episodes of traumatic loss at a relatively early age. His father and authority figure, who should have been there to support and guide him, was poisoned to death, greatly intensifying Herod’s insecurity and mistrust. Not long afterward, when he was forced to flee for his life, his mother suffered a serious accident, leaving Herod so panic-stricken that he tried to kill himself. At the same time, his older brother fell into Parthian captivity and took his own life. One year later, another brother was brutally decapitated, causing Herod to have nightmares. (It should be noted that the preceding chronology refers only to significant events on the personal and familial level; there were also grandiose aspects of Herod’s life as expressed in his massive building projects both in Palestine and throughout the Roman world.)

Concluding Remarks on Herod’s Mental State

433

Another topic worthy of discussion in this context are Herod’s mood swings, which were extreme and spontaneous in nature. Since these became more severe over the course of his life, there is reason to speculate that he suffered from cyclothymic disorder as well. It is interesting to consider at what point Herod’s emotional problems intensified and turned into a psychotic illness of the type defined in the professional literature as a delusional disorder. The key lies in tracing the loss of self-control and the shift from delusions of persecution and conspiracy into the realm of action. The first hint of this decline came at age 38 with Herod’s execution of his young brother-in-law (only 17 years old at the time), who was especially handsome and tall for his age and became the subject of fierce envy on the part of Herod. The moment that he was perceived as a threat, Herod lost control and ordered his execution while attempting to conceal this act of murder. One year later, he was overcome by pathological jealousy toward his wife, who had allegedly been unfaithful to him. Initially, he fought against these thoughts, taking out his fury and aggression on his uncle with whom she had supposedly betrayed him. In a fit of rage, Herod immediately had him executed without benefit of trial. The terrible suspicions gnawed away obsessively at Herod for four years, fed by his family members who inflamed him to the point where he could no longer control his actions. At the age of 43, he staged a show trial of his wife Mariamme, after which he had her executed. This was apparently the point of no return for him; indeed, immediately after her execution he was struck by feelings of deep pain and remorse that manifested themselves in intense mourning with psychotic aspects. From this point onwards, the executions increased, often in the absence of any external logic. The killings seem to fulfill all the criteria for a diagnosis of delusional disorder-persecutory type, as described in DSM-IV: The central theme of the delusions is the individual’s belief that there is a conspiracy against him; that he is being deceived, spied against or followed; or that someone is trying to poison or harm him in various ways so as to prevent him from carrying out his long-term goals. It should be emphasized that the content of the delusions is frequently related to the individual’s circumstances. It is also interesting to note that ICD-10, the European system of psychiatric and diagnostic classification used by the World Health Organization, states the following in its description of delusional disorders (F22.0): “Depressive symptoms or even a full-blown depressive episode may be present intermittently, provided that the delusion persists at times when there is no disturbance of

434

Appendix

mood.” Indeed, this description correlates strongly with Herod’s frequent and sudden mood swings. The disorder worsened over the course of his life, as evidenced by the number and frequency of the executions, which swelled to include virtually all his family members: his sons from Mariamne, his son from Doris, his bodyguards, officers in his army, personal servants, chamberlains, and courtiers. Each was subjected to a brutal interrogation, followed generally by a grotesque staged trial; immediately upon confessing to the charge at hand, they were executed. These ordeals of torture and humiliation suggest that Herod suffered from sadistic tendencies in addition to the paranoid and grandiose aspects of his disease, for he derived genuine enjoyment from the suffering of others. During his final years, he was struck by several severe physical ailments, including possible dementia, which exacerbated his paranoid psychotic disorder. There is a widespread tendency to be lenient in passing historical judgment on Herod, based on the argument that his many acts of murder fell into the category of accepted “norms” among the Hellenist and Roman rulers of his time, and even the Hasmonaean kings Judah Aristobulus I and Alexander Jannaeus. However, it is important to recall in this context that even the moderate Roman emperor Augustus was repelled by Herod’s actions and related to him with biting sarcasm (above, p. 70), indicating that Herod actually deviated from contemporary norms. Incidentally, Josephus recounts that the Hasmonaean kings regretted their actions and were greatly tormented by them. Of Aristobulus II, it is stated that he was so overcome with remorse over killing his brother that he became physically ill, and was disconsolate over the atrocity he had committed (AJ XIII, 314–318) And it is said of Jannaeus that not only did he regret his political path, but toward the end of his life he charged his wife Salome Alexandra with the task of achieving a reconciliation with the Pharisees. Indeed, upon his death, it is written that they came before the people and spoke favorably on his behalf, stating that they had lost a righteous king; moreover, they stirred the people to such a state of mourning that they buried him amid greater splendor than any king who had gone before him (AJ XIII, 399–407). Herod, by contrast, never expressed any remorse. No wonder then that he remains notorious in Jewish tradition (both religious and national) as a brutal ruler and symbol of the “kingdom of evil.”

Chronological Table (With brief references to Herod’s psychological state) BCE 73/72

Birth of Herod to a family of mixed ancestry: Antipater his father, was an Idumaean notable (3rd generation to Jewish conversion) and Cyprus, his mother, apparently an Arab/Nabataean princess. Probably his non-Jewish ancestry caused him to suffer from both personal and group inferiority feelings. It is not accident that his court historian, Nicolaus of Damascus, invented a new genealogy for him, enabling Herodin to claim a respectable Jewish Babylonian origin from the Persian period.

72–63 Early Childhood under the Hasmonaean Queen Salome-Alexandra or Shlomzion-Alexandra (76–67 BCE), and the civil war between Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II (67–63 BCE). The great political rise of Antipater, Herod’s father, with the support of Hyrcanus II. The ‘prophecy’ by Menahem the Essene that Herod would become King of the Jews. As a child he suffered from low self esteem of his ancestry feeling embarassed by his ancestry, but later he fostered hidden dreams of the throne, and felt that he was destined by God and by ‘fate’ to rule. From that time on, both his feelings of inferiority and his unrestrained ambition for the crown and for exhibiting grandeur and power affected on his behavior. 73–63 His education in Marisa (Maresha) was a major factor in shaping a cultural Hellenist identity foreign to Jewish values. The fact that he was never brought up with Hasmonean youngsters, nor with Jews, served to aggravate his sense of social alienation. He ‘compensated’ himself by indulging in physical training and excelling in competitive sports. Since he suffered from a non-attractive appearance, and short stature (compared with the Hasmonaean family), his inferiority feelings were aggravated, and as a result his ambition for success, power and grandeur continued to grow.

436

Chronological Table

63

The conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey served as a political springboard in Antipater’s career during the Hasmonaean political eclipse. Growth of alienation of Antipater’s family to the Jewish people at large, and mutual disdain between the Hasmonaeans and Herod’s family.

47

Antipater’s assistance to Julius Caesar in the Alexandrine War was rewarded with a grant of Roman citizenship to him and his sons. Herod now had a third ‘identity’ in addition to his Idumaean and Jewish ones. The nomination of Antipater as epitropus of Judaea, as well as the sub-nominations of Phasael (strategos of Jerusalem), and of Herod (strategos of Galilee). were perceived as an Idumaean threat to the Hasmonaean dynasty and Jewish sovereignty. Under those circumstances, Herod’s sense of inferiority and feelings of social alienation were expressed in his marrying Doris, a daughter of an Idumaean aristocratic family. He believed this could enhance his status within the upper class of Idumaean society and serve his political ambitions.

47/46

Execution of the ‘brigand’ Hezekiah the Galilean without trial. Herod was tried brfore the Great Jewish Sanhedrin for taking the law into his own hands. He was traumatized by the trial, since his life was threatened by the Jewish religious establishment. From then on he suffered from an obsessive fear of the Jewish public and its leadership (the Sages). His dependency on Rome became a fundamental element during his whole life.

44

The assassination of Julius Caesar (15 March) Herod’s patron, and the outbreak of the Roman ‘civil war’: a real political “earthquake” for Antipater’s family.

44–42 Proconsulate of Gaius Cassius Longinus in Syria, and the ‘political zigzag’ of Antipater and his sons in support of Cassius. Cassius’ harsh treatment of Judaea with the full cooperation of Antipater and his sons, which deepened the split between the Idumaean family and the Jewish people. Herod’s nomination as strategos of Coele-Syria. His confidential talks with Cassius behind the back of Phasael, in which Cassius promised him the throne of Judaea on the condition

Chronological Table

437

of his supporting Cassius’ rule over the eastern parts of the Roman Empire. Herod’s personal, political ambitions surpassed his loyalty to his family, and became a main factor in his political opportunism, even at the cost of endangering his own life. 43/42

Death of Antipater by poisoning. Herod did not lose his pulse, since he was prepared for his father’s death as a result of old age or other means. He initiated some political maneuvers to expedite his success in local politics, such as the settling of a civil dispute in the city of Samaria, which became a political stronghold for him. This was a great strategical achievement, since Samaria was fairly close to Jerusalem, as well as being an adversary of the Jews.

42

The victory of Antony and Octavian in the Civil War and the creation of the Second Triumvirate. The Idumaean brothers quickly shifted their loyalty to Antony and Octavian. The failure of a Jewish demand from Antony to dismiss the Idumaean brothers from their high positions. The rift between the latter and the Jewish people was aggravated to the point of being rendered permanent. Herod’s betrothal to Mariamme the Hasmonaean, granddaughter of John Hyrcanus II, which could give him legitimacy in the eyes of at least part of the Jewish public. His strife for power impelled him to act behind the back of his elder brother Phasael, and at the risk of his marriage to Doris.

41 40

The great Parthian invasion of Syria. Herod’s meeting with Antony in Bithynia. The coronation of Mattathias Antigonus by the Parthians as King of Judaea. Antigonus appointed High Priest. The exile of John Hyrcanus II to captivity in Babylonia. Phasael commits suicide. Herod’s night escape from Jerusalem to Masada. His conflict with the Nabataeans, because of their refusal to assist him. Herod’s survival in a battle in the Thekoa desert. His mother’s accident , which was a terribly traumatic event for him. Suffering from depression, he tried to commit suicide, but his close friends stopped from doing so (Summer).

438

Chronological Table

A big political gamble: Herod sails to Rome via Egypt and Rhodes, where he stayed for several months. Herod reached Italy in November and arrived Rome in December. There he was crowned King of Judaea, through the initiative of Antony and Octavian, and with the approval by a Senatus Consultum, after vigorous lobbying by his friends. His coronation on the Capitol Hill was followed by a Roman sacrificial ceremony. 39–37 Herod’s campaign to establish his rule in Judaea as part of the Roman effort to repulse the Parthian invaders from the eastern Empire. 39

Propaganda rivalry between Herod and Antigonus surrounding their legitimacy as kings. Herod’s feelings of inferiority are fully exposed, in addition to his false fear of a possible shift in the Roman policy in favor of the Hasmonaeans. His failure to conquer Jerusalem in a sudden attack (AutumnWinter).

38

Conquest of the Galilee. The cruel elimination of Jewish pockets of resistance in the caves of Arbel (Spring). Suffers from nightmares after his brother Joseph’s death near Jericho. Intensification of his fight against Antigonus with the assistance of Antony’s forces. His miraculous rescue in Jericho is seen by him as a sign of his being favored by God. Shows a mixture of delusions and realistic thinking, indicative of Paranoid Personality Disorder, along with egocentric and grandiose thought.

37

Siege and conquest of Jerusalem (Spring-Summer). Divorce and banishment of Herod’s first wife Doris, and the marriage with Mariamme the Hasmonaean instead, which took place in Samaria before the conquest of Jerusalem , in order to present his marriage in the Jewish capital as a fait compli. The beheading of Antigonus, following Herod’s advice, in order to humiliate the Hasmonaeans, and at the same time to elevate his own status as the new king of Judaea. The act of decapitation was in full imitation of both Antony and Octavian, who in this way sought to humiliate their own rivals, Cicero and Brutus eleven years earlier.

Chronological Table

439

The execution of 45 Jerusalem aristocrats considered Antigonus’ supporters, and the confiscation of their property. Termination of the Great Sanhedrin authority, and the execution of several of their leaders (Sages). The nomination of Costobarus as strategos of Idumaea and Gaza. 36

The birth of Alexander, Herod’ elder son by Mariamme. Antony’s territorial concessions to Cleopatra VII: Chalcis, Coele-Syria, the coastal shore of Phoenicia and Palestine (excluding Tyre and Sidon), Cilicia and Cyprus, left Herod extremely anxious about his personal and political survival. Alarmed by the honor bestowed upon John Hyrcanus II in Babylonia, Herod tempts him to return to Jerusalem, with a promise to share authority with him, but secretly plans to kill Hyrcanus at the first opportunity. Nomination of Ananel (either Hananel the Babylonian, or Hanamel the Egyptian) as High Priest, in order to control the high office and to block any access for a Hasmonaean candidate.

35

Herod becomes frightened by the possibility of a meeting between Antony and his beautiful wife Mariamme and her brother Aristobulus III. Under the pressure of Alexandra, Cleopatra VII’s close friend, Herod was obliged to nominate Aristobulus III as High Priest. Noticing Aristobulus’ beauty and height, as well as the public affection he received during the Feast of Tabernacles ceremonies, Herod becomes extremely envious and (obsessively) plans to eliminate him as soon as possible. He is afraid that Alexandra would influence Antony and Cleopatra to depose him from the throne and instead to crown Aristobulus. The mysterious ‘accident’ of Aristobulus’ death by drowning in the royal pool at Jericho.

35/34

Exile of Antipater, Herod’s son from Doris. Herod became frightened at the invitation to meet Antony in Laodiceia (Syria) to report on Aristobulus’ death, but he survived the meeting unharmed. The start of Herod’s building projects in Jerusalem: the palace-fortress called Antonia (in honor of Antony), as well as

440

34

32

31

30

Chronological Table

the fortress of Masada, being motivated by his exxaggerated fears for his survival. In addition he wanted to demonstrate grandeur and political power, as well as the ability to ‘compete’ with the Hasmonaeans and even ‘beat’ them. The first split with his wife Mariamme. The execution of Joseph (his uncle and husband of his sister Salome), because of a false suspiscion of adultery with Mariamme (‘Othelo Syndrome’). The danger of Cleopatra on the background of Antony’s political declarations in her favor, in which he granted her the balsam plantations of the Jordan valley. Herod was very cautious to escape the danger of the queen’s plots when she visited Jerusalem. He also became aware of the growing criticism in Rome against Antony for his exaggerated dependance upon Cleopatra. The marriage of Salome, Herod’s sister, to Costobarus. The hidden plans of the latter with Cleopatra to restore in Idumaea the pagan cult of the local deity Cos (Kos), which was abolished by the Hasmonaeans. The outbreak of Herod’s first war against the Nabataeans (Summer). The outbreak of hostilities between Antony and Octavian. Herod’s desertion of Antony, a brilliant but dangerous political gamble, showing his remarkable capability for political maneuvering. The devastating earthquake in Judaea (Spring). The victory over the Nabataeans (Summer). His address before his army, praising in exaggerated rhetoric his own greatness, claiming to be “God’s beloved”. The Battle of Actium (2 September). Herod assists Didius against Antony’ gladiators. Execution of John Hyrcanus II (Spring) because of envy and delusional fears. Mariamme and her mother Alexandra were put under custody in the fortress of Alexandrium to prevent their conspiring against him while he was meeting with Octavian in Rhodes. His kingship was officially reconfirmed by Octavian, so as to prove that there was no basis for his delusional fears of punishment for his loyalty to Antony. He met Octavian in Ptolemais, and shortly afterwards (Autumn) in Alexandria. Octavian restored Herod’s domination

Chronological Table

441

of territories which were previously given by Antony to Cleopatra: Jericho, Gadara, Hippus, Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa and Strato’s Tower. Herod escorted Octavian on his return from Alexandria all the way up to Antioch on the river Orontes, and gave his army lavish presents. 29

Mariamme the Hasmonaean was sentenced to death (end of the year), blamed officially with adultery. In her trial, she exhibited a Hasmonaean pride, and by contrast showed her contempt and disdain for Herod. She was sentenced in a typical “showtrial”, the result of which was decided long beforehand. Herod soon realized his great loss, and mourned her death, seeking solitude in the Judaean desert. After being afflicted by “a very bad illness”, he tried to recover in Samaria, but was overcome by his agony, deep grief and an iability to exert judgement and common sense.

28–27 The execution of Alexandra, which pleased Herod very much. Herod’s marriage to Malthace the Samaritan, ignoraning the Jewish religious prohibition of intermarriage with Samaritan women. His quick marriage to a beautiful girl, Mariamme the Boethusian. He was ‘conquered’ by unrestrained passion in seeming ‘compensation’ for the loss of Mariamme the Hasmonaean. The nomination of Mariamme II’s father, Simon son of Boethus, a respected Jewish priest from Egypt, to the High Priesthood in Jerusalem, ebabled Herod to control this imprtant position. Beginning construction of Herod’s magnificent tomb in Herodium (lasted until 15 BCE), motivated by a megalomanic drive to perpetuate his memory, and to ‘compete’ with the Hasmonean burial site in Modein. Additional ambitious building projects in Jerusalem and Jericho to strengthen his ego hoping to overshaddow Hasmonaean achievements. The dimensions and splendor of the royal palace had no rival in the whole eastern basin of the Mediterranean Sea. 27

The inauguration of the Jerusalem theater and amphitheater, where Herod introduced quadrennial athletic contests in the pattern of the Olympic games. This was aimed to achieve

442

Chronological Table

world-wide recognition for the games even at the cost of ignoring the religious Jewish resentments of such games. The conspiracy to kill Herod, which was smashed with cruelty. The establishment of a regime of terror by means of secret police and spuing. 27/26

The start of reconstruction of the city of Samaria, renamed Sebastia in honor of Augustus.

26

Execution of Costobarus and the Sons of Saba (Sons of Baba).

24

Augustus’s annexation of Trachonitis, Batannaea and Auranitis to Herod’s realm.

23

Sons of Herod and Mariamme the Hasmonaean, Alexander and Aristobulus, are sent to Rome for their education.

23/22

Heavy famine in Judaea followed by pestilence and a heavy drought. Herod helps to improve the situation by importing grain from Egypt. Herod meets with Marcus Agrippa in Lesbos (Mytilene).

22

Herod began building Caesarea Maritima (completed in 10 BCE) including its famous harbor Sebastos, which was equal in size to Pireus at Athens.

20

Emperor Augustus visits Syria and grants Herod control over Zenodorus’ tetrarchy. Herod rewards Augustus by building a temple in his honor at Paneion (at the source of the Jordan River). The nomination of Pheroras to the position of Peraea’s tetrarch. The death of Pheroras’ wife (sister of Mariamme the Hasmonaean). Pheroras falls in love with his maidservent, and refuses Herod’s initiative to have him marry one of his daughters by Mariamme the Hasmonaean.

20/19

Herod reduceces taxes by a third. The building of the Jerusalem Temple, and the glorious extravagant festivity of its dedication (December). The hidden motives: “rivalry” with the Hasmonaeans, which was similarly vented in his attempt to change the nature of the Hanukkah festival. Herod’s public oration of self-encomium,which reflected his euphoria at constructing “the most beautiful building”. The

Chronological Table

443

‘Messianic’ atmosphere which surrounded Herod and gave him the feeling of acting as a messenger of the pax Romana policy of Augustus. 18/17

The shift from a state of euphoria to a daily sense of being threatened and persecuted as indicated by “The law against thieves”. Herod’s second visit to Rome in order to bring back home his sons Alexander and Aristobulus.

16

The renewal of the Olympic Games under Herod’s sponsorship. Herod arranges marriage of his Hasmonaean sons: Alexander to Glaphyra daughter of King Archelaus Philopatris of Cappadocia, and Aristobulus to Berenice, daughter of Salome and Costobarus. In this way he hoped to control their lives. Herod’s marriage to three additional wives (Pallas, Phaedra and Elpis) in order to signal that he was still healthy and strong, in order to damper expectations of his impending death.

15

Marcus Agrippa’s visit to Judaea and Jerusalem, in which Herod exhibited both his greatness and grandeur, as well as his total loyalty to Rome.

14

Herod’s meets with Marcus Agrippa in Asia Minor, in support of civil rights for the Jewish communities of Asia Minor, Ionia and Cyrene. This action enhenced imperial recognition of his being King of the Jewish nation, like the Hasmonaeans, and in addition won Jewish sympathy and won Jewish sympathy for his leadership in the Diaspora. Herod also used this successful intervention in order to raise huge amounts of donations from abroad, so as to further enlarge his international prestige. Beginnings of conflicts with Alexander and Aristobulus because of incitements by Salome and Pheroras. Return of Antipater and his mother Doris to Jerusalem: a decisive factor in the intensification of the quarrel between Herod and his sons. Evidence of Herod’s paranoid personality disorder is revealed in his anger, bitterness, hostility, and excessive suspiciousnes and fear that his children would lead a rebellion against him.

444

Chronological Table

13

Antipater’s journey with Marcus Agrippa to Rome in order to introduce him to Augustus. He brought with him Herod’s second will. Antipater sends accusatory letters letterd from Rome concerning his Hasmonaean brothers. He foments trouble with the aid of his mother Doris and Ptolemy (Herod’s minister of royal finances), Thus Antipater kept his hidden involvement in the royal court at Jerusalem.

12

Herod took his Hasmonaean sons with him to Rome in order to officially complain against them before Augustus, but the Emperor settled the family conflict in a dramatic trial. Augustus succeeded in raising doubts again temporary family reconciliationst the sons’ rebeliousness and brought about some. Augustus grants Herod half the income fromthe Cyprus copper mines. On his return from Rome, Herod mets Archelaus King of Cappadocia and celebrates the family reconciliation. Upon the arrival back to Jerusalem, Herod gathers a general assembly with the aim of proclaiming the reconciliation of the family. In his festive speech, Herod declared his absolute belief in being favored by God. He also warns the public against any attempt at rebellious activity and he threatens potential antagonists with severe punishement. However, his delusional tendencies are only temporarily quieted. An Arab terror activity in the region of Trachonitis. The sudden death of Marcus Agrippa.

10

Completion of the Caesarea construction project. The festive dedication of Caesarea in the presence of many delegations from all over the Roman Empire – a testimony to Herod’s megalomanic drive to exhibit grandeur and gain world-wide publicity. The alleged robbery and desecration of King David’ burial cave. Antipater stirs up Herod’s suspiciousness against his Hasmonaean sons, Alexander in particular. The feud within the Herodian family gathers momentum because of bad relations between Salome and Pheroras, which increases Herod’s fears of a conspiracy against him.

Chronological Table

445

Herod attempts to establish Alexander’s guilt by employing torture in interrogating potential witnesses. Alexander along with Herod’s three eunuchs are suspected of plotting against and insulting Herod. The expulsion from Jerusalem of the Emperor’s friends, Andromachus and Gemellus, who were suspected of conspiring with Alexander. Herod could not restrain his duspiciousness and began to execute any suspect without trial. Archelaus, King of Cappadocia, arrived in Jerusalem and succeeded in his reconciliation efforts. Herod’s third journey to Rome in order to personally report to the Emperor on the family’s reconciliation. 9

The outbreak of the second war against the Nabataeans. The Emperor rebukes and warns Herod for initiating the war without Roman permission. This put Herod in great alarm and distress. The mysterious death of Obodas III and the coronation of Aretas IV as the Nabataean king without the approval of Rome. Arrival of the Spartan Eurycles to Jerusalem as a result of Antipater’s initiative.

8

Herod’s dispatch of Nicolaus of Damascus to Rome to try to restore Herod’s friendship with the Emperor. The so-called ‘Eurycles Affair’, and Herod’s growing suspicions that his Hasmonaean sons were plotting against him. The arrest of Alexander and Aristobulus who are charged with conspiracy and treason. Investigation and torture of Herod’s bodyguards, Jucundus and Tyranus, for taking part in a dubious plot, and their lynch by the mob.

7

Nicolaus’ political success in Rome in blaming Syllaeus as responsible for the second Nabataean war. Emperor Augustus permits Herod to put his Hasmonaean sons on trial, but advises him to act in moderation. The ‘show-trial’ of his sons in Berytus. Their hasty execution (by strangling) in Sebastia, and their sneak burial in Alexandrium on a wintry night.

7/6

Intensification of intrigues by Salome and Pheroras’ wife. Refusal of 6,000 Pharisees to take an oath of loyalty to the

446

Chronological Table

Emperor and Herod, followed by the execution of their leaders, as well as Carus (his beloved young protégé) for being influenced by them. Execution of the bodyguard Corinthus suspected of participating in a plot to murder Herod in the service of Syllaeus. Final split between Herod and his brother Pheroras, and the mysterious death of Pheroras. The diplomatic dispatch of Antipater to Rome because of the “Syllaeus’ Affair”. 6

Herod becomes aware of the intrigues by Antipater and his mother Doris, who is expelled from the royal palace. The investigation of Pheroras’ wife for plotting to poison Herod, which led to her death. Herod divorced Mariamme the Boethusian on grounds of her connections with Pheroras’ wife. Deposition of her father from the High Priesthood, and the appointment of Mattathias son of Theophilus instead. Herod’s fifth will. Conviction of Syllaeus, after revealing his part in the failure of Gallus’ campaign to Arabia.

5

The return of Antipater from Rome, his trial and conviction. Herod reported to the Emperor of Antipater’s guilt, and asked approval for the verdict and execution. The ‘Acme Affair’. Herod’s sixth will. Herod’s final illness and treatment at the hot baths of Callirrhoe.

4

Deterioration of Herod’s medical condition while lying on his sickbed in Jericho. Popular spontaneous uprising of two Pharisees, Judas son of Sepphoraeus and Mattathias son of Margalus, who led their disciples in destroying the golden eagle erected by Herod at the Temple’s gate. Both sages are captured and burnt alive in the hippodrome of Jericho. The appointment by Herod of three High Priests, one after another: Joseph son of Ellemus (Elam) for one day, and then Joazar son of Boethus, and Eleazar son of Boethus.

Chronological Table

447

Herod’s last will, which recommends the nomination of Archelaus (his son from Malthace) as king, of Herod Antipas (his second son from Malthace) as a tetrarch of the Galilee and Peraea, and of Herod Philip (his son from Cleopatra of Jerusalem) as a tetrarch of Batanaea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulanitis, Panias and parts of Ituraea. Herod’s death, five days after the execution of Antipater his oldest son. Herod’s magnificent funeral, arranged according to his own instructions.

448

Maps

Fig. 1: Herod’s Conquest of his Kingdom

Maps

449

Fig. 2: Herod’s First War with the Nabataeans (32–31 BCE) (A. Kasher, Jews, Idumaeans and Ancient Arabs, Tübingen 1988, p. 147)

450

Maps

Fig. 3: Herod’s Defense System against the Nabataeans in South-East Judaea (op. cit., p. 155)

Maps

451

Fig. 4: Herod and the Hellenistic Cities within and outside his Kingdom (A. Kasher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel, Tübingen 1990, p. 300)

452

Maps

Fig. 5: The Growth of Herod’s Kingdom

Fig. 6: Jewish Pilgrimage to Jerusalem

Maps

453

Fig. 7: Herod’s Building Projects out of Judaea

454 Maps

Bibliography and Abbreviations Abel, F.-M. (O. P.), 1952 Histoire de la Palestine, I–II, Paris, Gabalda. 1967 Géographie de la Palestine, I–II, Paris, Gabalda. Africa, Th., 1982 ‘Worms and the Death of Kings: A Cautionary Note on Desease and History, Classical Antiquity, I, pp. 1– 17. Aibshitz, A., 1980 Ha-Heichal veha-Ulam be-Bayit Sheni’, Sinai, 86 (1980), pp. 226–237 (Hebrew). AJ = Flavii Josephi Antiquitates Judaicae. Allen, O. W., 1997 The Death of Herod: The Narrative and Theological Function of Retribution in Luke-Acts, Scholars Press, Atlanta Georgia. Alon, G., 1952, 1956 Toldot ha-Yehudim be-Erets Yisrael bi-Tekufat haMishnah veha-Talmud, I–II, Tel-Aviv, Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House Ltd. (Hebrew). 1957/58 Mehkarim be-Toldot Yisrael bi-Tekufat Bayit Sheni, ha-Mishnah veha-Talmud, I–II, Tel-Aviv, Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House Ltd. (Hebrew). 1977 Jews, Judaism and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud (English translation by I. Abrahams), Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University. 1980 The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640 C. E.), Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University.

456

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Alloy, L. B., Jacobson, N. S., Acocella, J., 1988 Abnormal Psychology, 8th Edition, New York 1999, MacGraw-Hill College. Amit, M., 2002 A History of the Roman Empire, The Hebrew University Magnes Press, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Aruch Completum 1878–1892 Aruch Completum sive Lexicon, vocabula et res, quae in libris Targumicis, Talmudicis et Midraschicis continentur, explicans auctore Nathane filio Jechielis (ed. A. Kohut), I–IX, Vienna, “Im Selbstverlage des Autors” (Hebrew). See also Kohut. Applebaum, S., 1960 ‘A. Schalit, King Herod – Portrait of a Ruler, (Book Review), Kiryath Sepher, 36, pp. 12–15 (Hebrew). 1969 Greeks and Jews in Ancient Cyrene, Jerusalem, The Bialik Institute (Hebrew). 1969a ‘Hordus’, EH XIII, cols. 929–937 (Hebrew). 1970 ‘The Troops of Zamaris’. Studies in the History of the Jewish People and The Land of Israel, I, University of Haifa, pp. 79–88 (Hebrew). 1976 ‘Economic Life in Palestine’, in: S. Safrai & M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum), II, Assen-Amsterdam 1976, Van Gorcum, pp. 631– 700. Attridge, H. W., 1984 ‘Josephus and his Works’, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarun ad Novum Testamentum, Section Two (ed. M. Stone), Assen-Philadelphia, Van Gorcum, pp. 185–232. Avigad, N., 1967 ‘Jewish Rock-Cut Tombs in Jerusalem and in Judean Hill-Country’, in: Eretz-Israel, VIII: E. L. Sukenik Memorial Volume (eds. N. Avigad, M. Avi-Yonah, H. Z. Hirschberg, B. Mazar), Jerusalem, pp. 119–142. 1971 Beth She’arim, III, The Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1980 The Upper City of Jerusalem. Jerusalem, Shiqmona; 19884 (Hebrew). 1983 Discovering Jerusalem, Nashville, Thomas Nelson.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

1989, 1991

457

The Herodian Quarter in Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Wohl Archaeological Museum. Israel Antiquities Authority.

Avi-Yonah, M. 1984 Historical Geography of Palestine. From the Babylonian Exile to the Arab Conquest (536 BC–AD 640), Jerusalem, The Bialik Institute (Hebrew). 2002 Op. cit., (An English version), Jerusalem, Carta. 1980 (ed.) Carta’s Atlas of the Period of the Second Temple, the Mishnah and the Talmud (ed. M. Avi-Yonah) Jerusalem (1980), Carta (Hebrew). Ayali, M., 1987 Labourers and Craftsmen: Their Labour and Status in the Literature of the Sages, Givatayim, Masada & Yad La-Talmud Publishing House (Hebrew). Ball, W., 2000 Bammel, E., 1952 Barag, D., 1993 1996

Barbutz, D., 1985

Rome in the East, London-New York, Routledge. ‘fílov toû kaísarov’, Theologische Literaturzeitung, 78, pp. 205–210. ‘King Herod’s Royal Castle at Samaria-Sebaste’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 125, pp. 3–17. ‘The Legal and Administrative Status of the Port of Sebastos during the Early Roman Periods’, in: A. Raban & K. G. Holum (eds.), Caesarea Maritima, pp. 609–614.

‘King Herod - Good or Bad to Jews?’, in: M. Naor (ed.), King Herod and his Period, Idan, 5, Yad BenZvi, Jerusalem, pp. 43–57 (Hebrew). Bar-Deroma, H., 1958 WEZEH GEVUL HAARES’ – “And this shall be the border of the land” (Ezekiel, 47:15), The True Boundaries of the Holy Land according to the Sources, Jerusalem, B. E. R. Publishing (Hebrew). Barkay, G., 1994 ‘Burial Caves and Burial Practices in Judah in the Iron Age’, in: I. Singer, Graves and Burial Practices in Israel in the Ancient Period, pp. 96–164, Yad Izhak

458

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Ben-Zvi & The Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Bar-Kochva, B., 1977 ‘Manpower, Economics, and Internal Strife in the Hasmonean State’, Colloque National CNRS no. 936 Armées et Fiscalité dans le monde antique (organisé par H. van Effenterre), Paris, pp. 167–196. 1980 The Battles of the Hasmonaeans: The Times of Judas Maccabaeus, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi & Ministry of Defence-Publishing House, Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1989 Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 2002 ‘The Conquest of Samaria by John Hyrcanus: The Pretext for the Siege, Jewish Settlement in the ‘Akraba District, and the Destruction of the City of Samaria’, Cathedra, 106, pp. 7–34 (Hebrew). 2003 ‘Doris, Herod’s First Wife’, Cathedra, 110, pp. 5–18 (Hebrew). Barnes, T. D., 1968 ‘The Date of Herod’s Death’, Journal of Theological Studies, 19, pp. 204–209. Baruch, E., 1998 ‘The Economic Hinterland of Jerusalem in the Herodian Period’, Cathedra, 89, pp. 41–62 (Hebrew). Baruch, E., Peleg Y., 2003 ‘A New Suggestion for the Royal Stoa Structure in the Temple Mount’, in: E. Regev, A. Faust (eds.), News in the Study of Jerusalem, 8th Collection, The Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, BarIlan University, pp. 49–57 (Hebrew). Baumgarten, A. I., 1993 ‘On the Legitimacy of Herod and his Sons as Kings of Israel’, in: I. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer, M. Stern (eds.), Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Period: Studies in Honor of Shmuel Safrai, Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, pp. 31–37 (Hebrew). Beebe, H. K., 1983 ‘Caesarea Maritima: Its Strategic and Political Significance to Rome’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 42 (1983), pp. 195–208.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Beloch, H., 1879 Ben-Dov, M., 1980

459

Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, Leipzig.

‘The Seleucid Akra – South of the Temple’, Cathedra, 18, pp. 22–35 (Hebrew). 1982 The Dig at the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Keter Publishing House (Hebrew). 1986 ‘Herod’s Mighty Temple Mount’, Biblical Archaeology Review, 12.6, pp. 40–49. Bennett Jr., W. J., 1975 ‘Herodians of Mark’s Gospel’, Novum Testamentum, 17, pp. 9–14. Benoit, P., 1971 ‘L’Antonia d’Hérode le Grand et le forum oriental d’Aelia Capitolina’, Harvard Theological Review, 64, pp. 135–167. 1972 ‘The Archaeological Reconstruction of the Antonia Fortress’, Qadmoniot, 5, Nos. 3–4, pp. 127–129 (Hebrew). Benowitz, M., 2003 ‘Herod and Hanukka’, Zion, 68, pp. 5–40 (Hebrew). Ben-Shalom, I., 1980 The Shammai School and its Place in the Political and Social History of Eretz Israel in the First Century A. D., I–II, Ph. D., Tel-Aviv University (Hebrew). 1993 The School of Shammai and the Zealots’ Struggle against Rome, Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Press (Hebrew). Bernegger, P. M., 1983 ‘Affirmation of Herod’s Death in 4 B. C.’, Journal of Theological Studies, 34, pp. 526–531. Bernett, M., 2002 Der Kaiserkult als Teil der politischen Geschichte Iudaeas unter den Herodiern und Römern (30 v.–66 n.Chr.), Habilitationsschrift eingereicht an der Philosophischen Fakultät für Geschichts- und Kunstwissenschaften der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Bickerman(n), E., 1976, 1980, 1986, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, I–III, Leiden, E. J. Brill.

460

Bibliography and Abbreviations

1938 (1986)

1946/7 (1980)

‘Les Hérodiens’, Revue Biblique, 48, pp. 184–197 (= Studies in Jewish and Christian History, III, Leiden, E. J. Brill, pp. 22–33). Warning Inscription of Herod’s Temple’, Jewish Quarterly Review, 37, pp. 387–405 (= Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II.2, pp. 211–224).

Bilde, P., 1988 BJ = Bonime, W., 1982

Bosworth, A., 1972

Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome, Sheffield Academic Press. Flavii Josephi. De Bello Judaico. The Paranoid and the Depressive: Dynamic Considerations’, Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 18, pp. 556– 574.

‘Asinius Pollio and Augustus’, Historia, 21, pp. 441– 473. Bowersock, G. W., 1962 ‘Eurycles of Sparta’, Journal of Roman Studies, 51, pp. 112–118. 1965 Augustus and the Greek World, Oxford 1965, Oxford University Press. 1983 Roman Arabia, Cambridge, Mass.-London, Harvard University Press. Brachfeld, O., 1952 Inferiority Feeling in the Individual and the Group, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul. Brandon, Ch., 1996 ‘Cement, Concrete and Settling Barges at Sebastos: Comparison with other Roman Harbour Examples and the Description of Vitruvius’, in: A. Raban & K. G. Holum (eds.), Caesarea Maritima, pp. 25– 40 Braund, D. C., 1984 Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of Client Kingship, London–Canberra–New York, Croom Helm. Briend, J., 1981 ‘L’Antonia et le Palais Royal [construit par Hérode] à Jérusalem’, Monde de la Bible, 17, pp. 35–37. Brom, D., Witztum E.,

Bibliography and Abbreviations

1995

461

Loss, Mourning and Trauma, Tel-Aviv, Keren HaShekhol (Hebrew).

Broshi, M., 1977

The Population Number of Ancient Jerusalem’, in: M. Broshi (chief ed.), Between Hermon and Sinai – Memorial to Amnon: Studies in Archaeology and Geography of Eretz Israel, Jerusalem, Ronlad Press, pp. 65–74 (Hebrew). 1982 ‘The Credibility of Josephus’. Journal of Jewish Studies, 33, pp. 379–384. 1985 ‘The Economics of Eretz Israel and its Population in Herod’s Period’, in: M. Naor (ed.), King Herod and his Period, Idan, 5, pp. 11–19 (Hebrew). 1987 ‘The Role of the Temple in the Herodian Economy’, Journal of Jewish Studies, 38, pp. 31–37. Buchanan, G. W., 1959 ‘Mark 11,15–19: Brigands in the Temple’, Hebrew Union College Annual, 30, pp. 169–177. Burr, V., 1955 Tiberius Julius Alexander, Bonn, R. Habelt.

CA = Cameron, N., 1963

Flavii Josephi. Contra Apionem

Personality Development and Psychopathology: A Dynamic Approach, Boston, H. Mifflin. 1967 Psychotic Disorders II: Paranoid Reactions, in: A. M. Freedman & H. I. Kaplan (eds.), Comprehensive Textbook in Psychiatry, Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins. 1974 “Paranoid Conditions and Paranoia”, in: S. Arieti & E. B. Brody (eds.), American Handbook of Psychiatry, III: Adult Clinical Psychiatry, 2nd ed., New York, Basic Books, pp. 676–693. Cartledge, P., Spawforth, A., 1989 (2002) Hellenistic and Roman Sparta, London–New York, Routledge. Chancey, M. A., 2002 The Myth of a Gentile Galilee, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

462

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Charles, R. H., 1913 (1963) The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Vols. I–II, Oxford, The Clarendon Press. Clermont-Ganneau, Ch., 1872 “Une stèle du Temple de Jérusalem,” Revue Archéologique NS 23, pp. 214–234. Cohen, G. M., 1972 ‘The Hellenistic Military Colony: A Herodian Example’, Transactions of the American Philological Association, 103, pp. 83–95. Cohen, Shaye J. D., 1979 Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian, Leiden, E. J. Brill 1994 )Ioudaîov tò génov and Related Expressions in Josephus’, in: Josephus and the History of the GrecoRoman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (eds. F. Parente & J. Sievers), E. J. Brill, Leiden–New York–Köln, pp. 23–38. 1999 The Beginning of Jewishness, Berkeley–Los Angeles–London, University of California Press. Connolly, P., 1987 Living in the Time of Jesus of Nazareth – A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus From Herod the Great to Masada, New York; Bnei Brak Steimatzki 1993. Corbishley, T., 1935 ‘The Chronology of the Reign of Herod the Great’, Journal of Theological Studies, 36, pp. 22–32. Cornfeld, G. (gen. ed.), 1982 Josephus: The Jewish War. Newly translated with extensive commentary and archaeological background illustrations, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House & Givatayim, Masada Ltd. Publishers. Crowfoot, J. W., Kenyon, K. M., Sukenik, E. L., 1935, 1942 Samaria-Sebaste: Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931–1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935, I, The Buildings of Samaria, London, Palestine Exploration Fund.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Danby, H., 1933 (1967)

Daniel, C., 1967–1970

463

The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Notes, London, Oxford University Press. ‘“Les Hérodiens” du Nouveau Testament, sont-ils des Esséniens?’, Revue de Qumran, 6, pp. 34–53; VII, 397–402.

Dar, S., 1993

‘The Estate of Ptolemy, Senior Minister of Herod’, in: Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Period: Studies in Honour of Shmuel Safrai (eds. I. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer, M. Stern), Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, pp. 38–50 (Hebrew). Debevoise, N. C., 1968 A Political History of Parthia, New York, Greenwood Press Publishers. DeLaine, J., 2000 ‘Building the Eternal City: the construction industry of imperial Rome’, in: J. Coulston & H. Dodge (eds.), Ancient Rome: The Archaeology of the Eternal City, Oxford University School of Archaeology, Monograph 54, pp. 119–141. Demsky, A., 1985 ‘The Trumpeter’s Inscription from the Temple Mount’, in: Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies (Nahman Avigad Volume), Jerusalem, The Israel Exploration Society, pp. 40–42 (Hebrew). 2002 (ed.) These Are The Names: Studies in Jewish Onomastics, III, Ramat-Gan, Bar-Ilan University Press (Hebrew). Derenbourg, J., 1867 Essai sur l’histoire et la géographie de la Palestine, Paris, Imprimerie Impériale. Deriin, E., 1987 Mental Illnesses and Behavior Disorders, Haifa University (Hebrew). Destinon, J. von, 1882 Die Quellen des Josephus Flavius I: Die Quellen der Archäologie Buch XII–XVII = Jüdischer Krieg Buch I, Kiel, Lipsius & Tischer.

464

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Donner, H., 1963

‘Kallirrhoë. Das Sanatorium Herodes des Grossen’, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 79, pp. 59–89. Droge, A. J., Tabor, J. D., 1992 A Noble Death: Suicide & Martyrdom among Christians and Jews in Antiquity, San Francisco, Harper Collins. DSM-IV 1994 (2000) DSM-IV-TRTM: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, The American Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC. Dvorjetski, E., 2001 ‘The Economy Activity and Special Agricultural Products of Ashkelon from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine Periods’, A City on the Seashore (eds. A. Sasson, Z. Safrai, N. Sagiv), Tel-Aviv, pp. 119–134 (Hebrew). 2005 ‘Kfar Agun and its Relation to the Culture of Leisure and Entertainment in the Land of Israel in Antiquity’, in: M. Mor, J. Pastor, I. Ronen. Y. Ashkenazi (eds.), For Uriel – Studies in the History of Israel in Antiquity Presented to Professor Uriel Rappaport, The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, Jerusalem, pp. 439–466 (Hebrew). EB =

Encyclopaedia Biblica: Thesaurus Rerum Biblicarum Alphabetico Ordine Digestus, Institutum Bialik, I–IX (1955–1989) (Hebrew). Encyclopaedia Hebraica, I–XXXIII (1969), Encyclopaedia Publishing House Company, Ramat Gan – Givatayim (Hebrew).

EH =

Edwards, O., 1982 Efron, J., 1961 1980 1987

‘Herodian Chronology’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 114, pp. 29–42. The Hasmonean Kingdom and Simon Ben Shetah, Ph. D. Dissertation, The Hebrew University (Hebrew). Studies of the Hasmonean Period, Tel-Aviv, Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House Ltd. (Hebrew). Studies on the Hasmonean Period (revised English edition), Leiden–New York–Københaven–Köln, Brill.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

2004

2006

Egger, R., 1986 Eisenman, R., 1996

465

The Origins of Christianity and Apocalypticism, Tel-Aviv, Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House Ltd. (Hebrew). Formation of the Primary Christian Church, TelAviv, Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House Ltd. (Hebrew). Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner, Freiburg– Göttingen: Universitätsverlag. ‘Paul as Herodian’, Journal of Higher Criticism, III.1, pp. 110–122.

Elitzur, I., 2002

‘Talmai-Talim-Talmi’im’, in: A. Demsky (ed.), These Are the Names: Studies in Jewish Onomastics, III, Bar-Ilan University, pp. xiii–xx (Hebrew). Elitzur, A. et al., 1995 A. Elitzur, S. Tiano, H. Munitz, Selected Chapters in Psychiatry, Tel-Aviv, Papyrus (Hebrew). Eusebius, 1953–57 Ecclesiastical History, LCL ed. I–II vols. (Translation by J. E. L.Oulton & K. Lake, London-Cambridge, Mass. Feldman, L. H., 1953 ‘Asinius Pollio and his Jewish Interests’, Transactions of the American Philological Association, 84, pp. 73–80. 1965 Josephus with an English Translation, IX (LCL ed.), Harvard University Press. 1984 Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1980), Berlin–New York, W. de Gruyter. 1985 ‘Asinius Pollio and Herod’s Sons’, Classical Quarterly, 35, pp. 240–243. 1986 JOSEPHUS: A Supplementary Bibliography, New York–London, Garland Publishing, inc. 1992 Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World, Princeton, Princeton University Press. 2004 “Remember Amalek!” Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group Destruction in the Bible, according to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus. Cincinnati, Hebrew Union College.

466

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Feliks J. (Y.), 1968 1992 Fenn, R., 1992 Filmer, W. E., 1966

Plant World of the Bible, Ramat-Gan, Givatayim, Masada Ltd. (Hebrew). Nature and Land in the Bible, Jerusalem, Reuben Mas Publications (Hebrew). The Death of Herod: An Essay in the Sociology of Religion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

‘The Chronology of the Reign of Herod the Great’, Journal of Theological Studies, 17, pp. 283–298 Fitschen, K., Foerster, G. (eds.), 1996 Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Flusser, D., 2001 Jesus, 3 Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, Magnes Press. 2002 Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Qumran and Apocalypticism (ed. S. Ruzer), Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi & The Hebrew University Magnes Press (Hebrew). 2002a Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Sages and Literature (ed. S. Ruzer), Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi & The Hebrew University Magnes Press (Hebrew). Foerster, G., 1993 ‘Herodium’, NEAE, II, pp. 618–621. 1995 The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 (Masada V), Jerusalem. Frey, J.-B., 1936, 1952 Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum – Recueil des inscriptions juives qui vont du IIIe siècle avant Jesus-Christ au VIIIe siècle de notre ère, I–II, Città del Vaticano. Fry, V. R. L., 1986 The Warning Inscriptions from the Herodian Temple (Dissertation: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1974), Ann Arbor, Michigan. Fried, Y., Agassi, J., 1976 Paranoia: A Study in Diagnosis, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science L. (= Hebrew Version: 1997, Tel-Aviv, Hakibbutz Hameuchad).

Bibliography and Abbreviations

467

Friedman, M., 1986 Polygamy in Israel: New Sources from the Cairo Genizah, The Bialik Institute (Hebrew). Fuks, G., 1983 Scythopolis – A Greek City in Eretz-Israel, Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi (Hebrew). 2001 A City of Many Seas: Ashkelon during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Jerusalem, Yad Izhak BenZvi (Hebrew). 2002 ‘Josephus on Herod’s Attitude towards the Jewish Religion: the Darker Side’, Journal of Jewish Studies, 53, pp. 238–245. 2003 ‘Ashkelon and The Jews’, in: Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishnah, and the Talmud (eds. M. Mor, A. Oppenheimer, J. Pastor, D. R. Schwartz), Yad Izhak BenZvi, pp. 102–122 (Hebrew). Gabba, E., 1990

1999

The Finances of King Herod’, in: A. Kasher, G. Fuks, U. Rappaport (eds.), Greece and Rome in Eretz-Israel, Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, and The Israel Exploration Society, pp. 161–168. ‘The Social, Economic and Political History of Palestine 63 BCE–CE 70’, in: W. Horbury et. al. (eds.), Cambridge History of Judaism, III, pp. 94–167.

Gay, P., 1988

Geiger, J., 1985 1987

1991

‘Psychoanalysis in History’, in: W. M. Runyan (ed.), Psychology and Historical Interpretation, New York– Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 107–120. ‘Athens in Syria: Greek Intellectuals of Gadara’, Cathedra, 35, pp. 3–16 (Hebrew). ‘The Ruler’s Cult as an Ideology of the Roman Empire’ in: Priesthood and Monarchy – Studies in the Historical Relationships of Religion and State (eds. I. Gafni, G. Motzkin), Jerusalem, The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, pp. 51–60 (Hebrew). ‘Greek Intellectuals in Ascalon’, Cathedra, 60, pp. 5– 16 (Hebrew).

468

Bibliography and Abbreviations

1996

1997 Geva, H., 1981 1983 Gihon, M., 1967 Gilboa, A., 1970

1972

1979/80

1980

Gnuse, R. K., 1996

‘Herod and Rome: New Aspects’, in: The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World – Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern (eds. I. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer, D. R. Schwartz), Jerusalem, The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History and The Historical Society of Israel, Jerusalem, pp. 133–144 (Hebrew). ‘Herodes “Philorhomaios”’, Ancient Society, 28, p. 75–88. ‘The “Tower of David” – Phasael or Hippicus?’, Israel Exploration Journal, 31, pp. 57–65. ‘Jerusalem: The Second Temple Period’, NEAE II pp. 725–749. ‘Idumea and the Herodian Limes’, Israel Exploration Journal, 17, pp. 27–42. ‘The Grant of Roman Citizenship to Antipatros’, Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, I, Haifa University, pp. 71–77 (Hebrew). ‘L’octroi de la citoyenneté romaine et de l’immunté à Antipater, père d’Hérode’, Revue d’histoire du droit Français et étranger, 4, pp. 609–614. The Intervention of Sextus Julius Caesar, Governor of Syria in the Affair of Herod’s Trial’, Scripta Classica Israelica, 5, pp. 185–194. ‘On the Trial of Herod’, in: Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period – Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume (eds. A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport, M. Stern), Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben Zvi & Ministry of Defence. pp. 98–107 (Hebrew). Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus: A Traditio-Historical Analysis, LeidenNew York–Köln, E. J. Brill.

Goldstein, J. A., 1976 I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Garden City NY, The Anchor Bible, Doubleday. 1983 II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Garden City NY, The Anchor Bible, Doubleday.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

469

Goodenough, E. R., 1953 Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, I–XIII, New York 1953–1968, Pantheon Books. Goodman, M., 1987 The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome AD 66–70, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 1989 Who is a Jew?, Yarnton Manor, Oxford. 1996 ‘Judaea’, in: Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.), 10, pp. 737–781. Goodwin, F. K., Jamison, K. R., 1990 Manic-Depressive Illness, New York, Oxford University Press. Graetz, H., 1852 ‘Die Söhne Bethera’, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1, pp. 115–120. 1897 Geschichte der Juden von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, I–XI, Leipzig, O. Leiner. 1893 Divrei Yemei Israel (Hebrew translation by S. P. Rabinowitz), Warsawa, Achi-Sepher Publishing House. Grant, M., 1971 Herod the Great, New York, American Heritage Press.; Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London. 1973 The Jews in the Roman World, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London. Grintz, J. M., 1974 ‘The Giv’at ha-Mivtar Inscription – Historical Interpretation’, Sinai, 75, pp. 20–23. (Hebrew). 1979 Studies in the Bible, Jerusalem, J. Marcus Publications (Hebrew). Gross, W. J., 1962 Herod the Great, Baltimore 1962, Helicon Press. Gulak, A., 1936 ‘King Herod’s Law on the Punishment of Thieves’, in: H. Torczyner, A.A Kabak, V. Tcherikover, B. Shochetmann (eds.), Sefer Klausner, Tel-Aviv. pp. 132– 136 (Hebrew). Guri-Rimon, O., 1996 ‘Treasure Houses and Administrative Centers: The Primary Purpose of the Desert Strongholds’, Cathedra, 82, pp. 7–16 (Hebrew).

470

Bibliography and Abbreviations

2005

‘Land of the Jericho Valley – Its Continuity as Royal Land During the Second Temple Period’, in: M. Mor, J. Pastor, I. Ronen. Y. Ashkenazi (eds.), For Uriel – Studies in the History of Israel in Antiquity Presented to Professor Uriel Rappaport, The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, Jerusalem, pp. 577–595 (Hebrew).

Guttmann, M., 1949 ‘Enslavement for Debt in Jewish Teaching’, Dinaburg Anniversary Book (eds. J. Gutman, M. Schwabe), Jerusalem, pp. 68–82 (Hebrew). Hadas-Lebel, M., 1993 ‘Les mariages mixtes dans la famille d‘Hérode et la halakha prétalmudique sur la patrilinéarité’, Revue des études juives, 152, pp. 397–404. 2003 ‘L’éducation des princes Hérodiens à Rome et l’évolution du clientélisme romain’, in: Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishnah and the Talmud (eds. M. Mor, A. Oppenheimer, J. Pastor, D. R. Schwartz), Jerusalem, Yad Ben-Zvi, pp. 44–62. Hagai, S., 1964 Yosef Ben-Matitiyahu: Milhemet ha-Yehudim, Erez Press (Hebrew). Hahn, I., 1965 ‘Herodes als Procurator’, Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte der alten Welt, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, pp. 25–43. Hammond, P. C., 1973 The Nabataeans: Their History, Culture and Archaeology, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, XXXVII, Gothenburg, Paul Åström. Hänlein-Schäfer, H., 1985 Veneratio Augusti. Eine Studie zu den Tempeln des ersten römischen Kaisers, Roma, Giorgio Bretschneider. Hanson, K. C., 1989–90 ‘The Herodians and Mediterranean Kingship’, Part 1: Genealogy and Descent; Part 2: Marriage and Di-

Bibliography and Abbreviations

471

vorce; Part 3: Economics, Biblical Theology Bulletin, 19.3 (1989), pp. 75–84; 19.4 (1989), pp. 142–151; 20.1 (1990), pp. 10–21. Harder, G., 1962

‘Herodes-Burgen und Herodes-Städte im Jordangraben’, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästinavereins, 78, pp. 49–63.

Heinemann, I., 1940 ‘Josephus’ Method in the Presentation of Jewish Antiquities’, Zion, 5, pp. 180–203 (Hebrew). Hengel, M., 1974 Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, I–II, London, SCM Press LTD. 1989 The Zealots: Investigation into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A. D., Edinburgh, T & T Clark. Herschkowitz, J., 1940 ‘Ha-Cutim be-Divrei Tanaim’, Yavneh, 2, pp. lxxi–cv (Hebrew). Hilgenfeld, A., 1884 (1966) Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums: urkundlich dargestellt, Leipzig; Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Hirschfeld, Y., 2004 Longing for the Desert, The Dead Sea Valley in the Second Temple Period, Tel-Aviv, Yediot Aharonot & Sifrei Hemed. 2006 ‘The Library of King Herod in the Northern Palace of Masada’, Qadmoniot, 113 (2006), pp. 20–24 (Hebrew). Hirschmann, J. V., Richardson, P., Kraemer, R. S. Mackowiak, P. A., 2004 ‘Death of an Arabian Jew’, Archive of Internal Medicine, 164, pp. 833–839. Hoehner, H. W., 1972 Herod Antipas: A Contemporary of Jesus Christ, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Hohlfelder, R. L., 1988 Procopius, De Aedificiis, 1, 11, 18–20: Caesarea Maritima and the Building of the Harbours in Late Antiquity, in: I. Malkin & R. L. Hohlfelder (eds.),

472

Bibliography and Abbreviations

2000

Mediterranean Cities: Historical Perspectives, London, pp. 54–62. ‘Beyond Coincidence? Marcus Agrippa and King Herod’s Harbour’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 59, pp. 141–253.

Hölscher, G., 1904

Die Quellen des Josephus für die Zeit vom Exil bis zum jüdischen Kriege, Teubner, Leipzig. 1916 ‘Josephus’, RE (PW), IX, cols. 1834–1899. Holum, K. G., Hohlfelder, R. L., Bull, R. L., Raban, A., 1988 King Herod’s Dream: Caesarea on The Sea, New York–London, W. W. Norton & Company. Horbury, W., 1991 ‘Herod’s Temple and “Herod’s days”’, Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel (ed. W. Horbury), Sheffield, pp. 103– 149. Horbury, W., Davis, W. D., Sturdy, J. (eds.), 1999 The Cambridge History of Judaism, III: The Early Roman Period, Cambridge. Humphrey, J. H., 1996 ‘“Amphitheatrical” Hippo-Stadia’, in: A. Raban & K. G. Holum (eds.), Caesarea Maritima, pp. 121– 129. IGRR = Ilan, T.,

Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes. 1984

1995

1998 1999 2001

Ha-Shemot ha-Yehudim be-Eretz-Israel bi-Yemei Bayit Sheni ubi-Tekufat ha-Mishnah (Statistical Study), M. A. Thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1984 (Hebrew). Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine: An Inquiry into Image and Status, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). ‘King David, King Herod and Nicolaus of Damascus’, Jewish Studies Quarterly, 5, pp. 195–240. Integrating Jewish Women into Second Temple History, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). ‘A Witch-Hunt in Ashkelon’, in: Ashkelon – A City on the Seashore (eds. A. Sasson, Z. Safrai, N. Sagiv), Tel-Aviv, pp. 135–146 (Hebrew).

Bibliography and Abbreviations

2002

2002a

Isaac, B., 1981 1983

1984

473

Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, I: Palestine 330 B. C. E.–200 C. E., Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). ‘Intermarriage in the Herodian Family as a Paradigm for Intermarriage in Second Temple Judaism’, 2002 SBL Josephus Seminar (pdf-format: http://josephus. yorku.ca/pdf/ilan2002.pdf). ‘The Decapolis in Syria’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 44, pp. 67–74. ‘A Donation for Herod‘s Temple in Jerusalem’, Israel Exploration Journal, 33, pp. 86–92 (= op. cit., EretzIsrael, 18: N. Avigad Volume, pp. 1–4 [Hebrew]). ‘Bandits in Judaea and Arabia’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 88, pp. 171–203 (= op. cit., Cathedra, 39, pp. 3–36 [Hebrew]).

Jacobson, D. M., 1984 ‘The Design of the Fortress of Herodium’, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 100, pp. 22–40. 1983/4 ‘King Herod, Roman Citizen and Benefactor of Cos’, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, 13, pp. 31–35. 1988 ‘King Herod’s “Heroic” Public Image’, Revue Biblique, 95, pp. 386–403. 1990 ‘The Plan of Herod’s Temple’, Bulletin of the AngloIsrael Archaeological Society, 10, pp. 36–66. 2001 ‘Three Roman Client Kings: Herod of Judaea, Archelaus of Cappadocia and Juba of Mauritania’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 133, pp. 22–38. 2002 ‘Herod’s Roman Temple’, Biblical Archaeological Review, 28.3, pp. 19–27, 60–61. 2002a ‘Placing Herod the Great and his Works in Context’ (Review Article), Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 134, pp. 84–91. Jacobson, E., 1977 ‘Contribution to the Metapsychology of Cyclothymic Depression’, in: E. A. Wolpert (ed.), Manic Depressive Illness: History of a Syndrome, New York, pp. 237–255.

474

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Jacoby, F., 1926

Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, II A 90, Berlin–Leiden, pp. 324–430.

Jankelewitz, R., 1980 ‘The Auxiliary Troops from Caesarea and Sebaste as a Decisive Factor in the Rebellion against Rome’, Tarbitz, 49, pp. 33–42 (Hebrew). Japp, S., 2000 Die Baupolitik Herodes des Großen: Die Bedeutung der Architektur für die Herrschaftslegitimation eines römischen Klientelkönigs, Rahden (Westf.), Leidorf. Jastrow, M., 1985 A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmu, and the Midrashic Literature, New York, The Judaica Press. Jeremias, J., 1969 Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, London, SCM Press. Jones, A. H. M., 1938 (1967) The Herodes of Judaea, Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1940 The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian, Oxford University Press. Josippon (D. Flusser [ed.]), 1978, 1980 The Josippon (Josephus Gorionides), Edited with an Introduction, Commentary and Notes, I–II, Jerusalem, The Bialik Institute. Juster, J., 1914 Les Juifs dans l’Empire Romain: leur condition juridique, économique et sociale, I–II, Paris, Geuthner (Burt Franklin, N. Y.). Kahana, A., 1937 Kanael, B., 1957 1957a

Ha-Sfarim ha-Hitzonim, I–II. Tel-Aviv, Masada Ltd. (Hebrew). ‘Gabinius’ of Judaea’, Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society, 18, pp. 168–175 (Hebrew). ‘The Partition of Judaea by Gabinius, Israel Exploration Journal, 7, pp. 98–106.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

475

Karpaas, M. J., 1915 ‘Socrates in the Light of Modern Psychopathology’, Journal of Abnormal Psychopathology, 10 (1915), pp. 185–200. Kasher, A., 1977 ‘The Isopoliteia Question in Caesarea Maritima’, Jewish Quarterly Review N. S., 68, pp. 16–27. 1982 ‘Gaza during the Graeco-Roman Era’, The Jerusalem Cathedra, 2, pp. 63–78. 1983 (ed.) The Great Jewish Revolt: Factors and Circumstances Leading to its Outbreak, The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History and The Historical Society of Israel, Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1985 The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). 1985a ‘Herod’s Wars with the Nabataeans’, Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences. 1986 ‘Historical Writings’ in: S. Daniel-Nataf (ed.), Philo of Alexandria Writings, I (= In Flaccum, Legatio ad Gaium), Jerusalem, The Bialik Institute & The Israeli Academy of Sciences, pp. 1–150 (Hebrew). 1988 Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). 1990 Jews and the Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). 1995 ‘Josephus on Jewish-Samaritan Relations under Roman Rule (BCE 63-CE 70)’, in: New Samaritan Studies in Honour of G. D. Sixdenier (eds. A. D. Crown & L. Davey), University of Sydney, Mandelbaum Publishing, pp. 217–236. 1996 Flavius Josephus, Against Apion: a New (Hebrew) Translation with Introduction and Commentary, I-II, Jerusalem, The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History and The Historical Society of Israel, (Hebrew). 1996a ‘Herod and the Jewish Diaspora’, in: B. Isaac & A. Oppenheimer (eds.), Te’uda XII: Studies on the Jewish Diaspora in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Tel-Aviv University, Ramot Publishing, pp. xi–xxii (Hebrew). 2001 ‘On the Character and Origin of the Herodian Dynasty’, Cathedra, 103, pp. 165–184 (Hebrew).

476

Bibliography and Abbreviations

2003

2005

2005a

2005b

Kastein, J., 1933 Keen, S., 1985 (1991) Kershaw, I., 1999 2000 Kitron, R., 2000

‘Comments and Reflections on the History of Jerusalem from the Herodian Period to the Outbreak of the Jewish Revolt against Rome’, in: Y. Ben-Arieh & E. Reiner (eds.), Studies in the History of Eretz Israel, Presented to Yehuda Ben Porat, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem, pp. 57–90 (Hebrew). ‘Those Confident on the Hill of Samaria’, in: M. BarAsher & M. Florentin (eds.), Samaritam, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies to. Presented to Professor Abrahm Tal, Jerusalem, The Bialik Institute, pp. 23–39 (Hebrew). ‘When a Slave Reigns: The Inferiority Feeling of King Herod and its Impacts on his Life and Deeds’, in: The Path of Peace – Studies in Honor of Israel Friedman Ben-Shalom (eds. M. Pucci-Ben Zeev & D. Gera), Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press & Sapir College, Beer-Sheba 2005; The Bialik Institute, Jerusalem, pp. 179–224 (Hebrew). ‘“The Enclave of Cuthaeans” – A Factor in JewishSamaritan Relations in Antiquity’, Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritaines (Helsinki, August 1–4, 2000), Studies in Memory of Ferdinand Dexinger (edited by H. Shehadeh, H. Tawa, with collaboration of R. Pummer), Paris, S. N. Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner S. A., pp. 205–221. History and Destiny of the Jews. New York, The Viking Press. Faces of the Enemy: Reflections of the Hostile Imagination, San Francisco, Harper & Row. Hitler, 1889–1936: Hybris; London, A. Lane/Penguin Books. Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis; London, A. Lane/Penguin Books. ‘Intelligence and Internal Security in King Herod’s Kingdom’, Cathedra, 97, pp. 25–46 (Hebrew).

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Klausner, J., 1948–1958

1969 Klein, S., 1939

477

Historia shel ha-Bayit ha-Sheni (= History of the Second Temple), 5 I–V, Jerusalem, Achiasaf Press (Hebrew). Yeshu ha-Notzri (= Jesus of Nazareth),6 I–II, Givatayim-Ramat-Gan, Masada Ltd. (Hebrew).

Eretz Yehudah mi-Yemei ha-Aliah mi-Bavel ad Hathimat ha-Talmud, Tel-Aviv, Dvir Publishing House. (Hebrew). Klijn, A. F. J., Reinink, G. J., 1973 Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects, Leiden, E. J. Brill. Kloner, A., 1972 ‘A Burial Cave from Second Temple Days at Giv’at ha-Mivtar in Jerusalem’, Qadmoniot, 5, pp. 108–109 (Hebrew). 1974 ‘Columbarium in Maresha’, Qadmoniot, 6, pp. 113– 115 (Hebrew). 1980 Kvarim u-Kvurah be-Yehrushalayim be-Yemei haBait ha-Sheni. Ph. D. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1980a ‘A Burial-Cave of the Second Temple Period at Giv’at Hamivtar, Jerusalem’, in: A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport, M. Stern (eds.), Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period – Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume. Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi & Ministry of Defence, Jerusalem, pp. 191–224 (Hebrew). 1985 ‘The Archaeology of Jerusalem in Herod’s Days’, in: M. Naor (ed.), King Herod and his Period, Idan, 5, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem, pp. 113–139 (Hebrew). 1991 ‘Maresha’, Qadmoniot, 95–96, pp. 70–85 (Hebrew). 2000 ‘Columbaria in Jerusalem’, in: J. Schwartz, Z. Amar, I. Ziffer (eds.). Jerusalem and Eretz Israel – Arie Kindler Volume, pp. 61*–66*, The Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, Bar-Ilan University & Eretz-Israel Museum, Ramat Gan 2001 ‘The Economy of Hellenistic Maresha’, in: Z. H. Archibald, J. Davies, V. Gabrielsen and G. J. Oliver (eds.), Hellenistic Economies, London, Routledge, pp. 103–131.

478

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Kloner, A., Hess, O., 1985 A Columbarium in Complex 21 at Maresha’, Atiqot, 17, pp. 122–133. Kloner A., Zissu, B., 2003 The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period, Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi & The Israel Exploration Society (Hebrew). Kochavi, M., 1977 Aphek-Antipatris: Five Seasons of Excavations at Tel Aphek (1971–1976), Tel-Aviv University (Hebrew and English). 1989 ‘Excavations at Aphek-Antipatris’, Qadmoniot, 22, pp. 2–20 (Hebrew). Kochman, M., 1980 Status and Extent of Judah (= Yehud Medinta) in the Persian Period, Ph. D. Thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Koets, P. J., 1929 Deisidaimonia – A contribution to the Knowledge of the Religious Terminology in Greek, Ph. D. Thesis, Utrecht. Kohut, A. (ed.), Nathane filio Jechielis, 1878–1892 Aruch Completum sive Lexicon, vocabula et res, quae in libris Targumicis, Talmudicis et Midraschicis continentur, I–IX, Vienna, “Im Selbstverlage des Autors”, see also Aruch Completum (Hebrew). Kokkinos, N., 1985 ‘A Coin of Herod the Great Commemorating the City of Sebaste’, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Liber Annus, 35, pp. 303–306. 1986 ‘Which Salome Did Aristobulus Marry?’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 118, pp. 33–50. 1998 The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press. 2000 ‘Recension on: P. Richardson, Herod, King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans, Columbia SC 1996’, Biblica, 81, pp. 141–144. 2001 ‘Cleopatra and Herod: A Failed Seduction’, British Museum Magazine, 39, p. 17. 2002 ‘Herod’s Horrid Death’, Biblical Archaeology Review (March/April 2002), pp. 29–32.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

2002a Korach, L., 1894

479

‘The City of “Mariamme”: an Unknown Connection?’, Mediterraneo Antico, Anno V, Fasc. 2, pp. 715–746. ‘Die Reisen des Königs Herodes nach Rom’, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 38, pp. 529–535.

Kost, J., 2003

Economic Aspects in the Decision to Build Sebastos, Caesarea’s Harbor, MA Thesis, Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan.

Ladouceur, J. D., 1981 ‘The Death of Herod the Great’, Classical Philology, 76, pp. 25–34. Lammer, M., 1982 ‘King Herod’s Contribution to the Olympian Games’, Reading Chapters in the History of Physical Training, Tel-Aviv, pp. 37–44 (Hebrew). Landau, T., 2003 Out-Heroding Herod: Josephus, Rhetoric and the Herod Narratives, D. Phil. Thesis, Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Laperrousaz, E.-M., 1989 ‘Hérode le Grand est-il “l’ennemi (qui) a agi en étranger” des Psaumes de Salomon?’, in: D. Tollet (ed.), Politique et religion dans le judaisme ancien et médiéval, Paris, Desclée, pp. 29–32. Laqueur, R., 1920 Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: Ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage, Gießen (repr. Darmstadt 1970), von Münchow. 1936 ‚Nikolaos‘, No. 20, in: A. Pauly, G. Wissowa et al. [eds.], Realencyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, XVII, cols. 362–424; ‚Nachträge‘, col. 1269. Lee, R. Y. T., 2003 Romanization in Palestine: A Study of Urban Development from Herod to 70 AD, Oxford, Archeopress.

480

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Le Moyne, J., 1972 Les Sadducéens, Paris, Lecoffre. Lerner, V., Margolin J., Witztum, E., 2005 ‚Vladimir Bekhterev: his life, his work and the mystery of his death, History of Psychiatry, 16, pp. 217– 227. Levi, A., 1997 Rodfei Mishpat, ha-Hagshamah ha-Simlit: Mishpatim be-Paranoia, Jerusalem, Keter (Hebrew). Levine, L. I., 1975 Caesarea under Roman Rule, Leiden, E. J. Brill. 1978 ‘On the Political Involvement of the Pharisees under Herod and the Procurators’, Cathedra, 8, pp. 12–28 (Hebrew). 1985 ‘Herod the Man and his Period’, in: M. Naor (ed.), Herod and his Period, Idan, 5, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem, pp. 2–10 (Hebrew). 1994 ‘Josephus’ Description of the Jerusalem Temple: War, Antiquities, and Other Sources’, in: Josephus and the History of the Graeco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (eds. F. Parente & J. Sievers), Studia Post-Biblica, 41, Leiden, E. J. Brill, pp. 233–246. 1995 ‘The Second Temple of Jerusalem: Josephus’ Description and Other Sources’, Cathedra, 77, pp. 3–16 (Hebrew). 2000 Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence?, The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History and The Historical Society of Israel, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Levy, J. H., 1960 Olamot Niphgashim: Studies in Jewish Hellenism, Jerusalem, The Bialik Institute (Hebrew). Lewis, A., 1970 ‘Paranoia and Paranoid: A Historical Perspective’, Psychological Medicine, I (1970), pp. 2–12. Lichtenberger, A., 1999 Die Baupolitik Herodes des Großen, Abhandlungen des deutschen Palästinavereins, Bd. 26, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

481

Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., 1968 A Greek-English Lexicon, Revised and Augmented Throughout by Sir H. St. Jones, 9th edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Lieberman, S., 1962 Greek and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, Jerusalem, The Bialik Institute (Hebrew). 1969–74 ‘Notes on the Giv’at ha-Mivtar Inscription’, P’rakim: Yearbook of the Schocken Institute for Jewish Research, 2, pp. 374–379. 1991 ‘Le-Ktovet Giv’at ha-Mivtar’, in: D. Rosental (ed.), Mehkarim be-Torat Eretz-Israel, Jerusalem, pp. 393– 398 (Hebrew). Lindsay, H., 1992 ‘Augustus and Eurycles’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 135, pp. 290–297. Lipsius, R. A., 1865 Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, Leipzig, W. Braumüller. LCL = Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press. Lurie, B. Z., 1974 From Jannaeus to Herod: Studies in the Second Temple History, Jerusalem, The Israel Society of the Bible Study & Kiryat Sefer Publishing Ltd. (Hebrew). 1964 Megillath Ta’anith with Introduction and Notes, The Bialik Institute, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Macurdy, G. H., 1932 Hellenistic Queens: A Study of Women-Power in Macedonia, Seleucid Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt, Baltimore MD (repr. 1977), The Johns Hopkins University Press. 1937 Vassal-Queen and Some Other Contemporary Women in the Roman Empire, Baltimore MD, The Johns Hopkins University Press. Maier, J., 1994 ‘Amalek in the Writings of Josephus’, in: F. Parente & J. Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of GrecoRoman Period, Leiden–New York–Köln, E. J. Brill, 109–126.

482

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Malkinson, R., Rubin, S., Witztum, E. (eds.), 2000 Traumatic and Nontraumatic Loss and Bereavement, Connecticut Madison, Psychological Press. 2003 ‘Trauma and Bereavement: Conceptual and Clinical Issues Revolving around Relationships’, Death Studies, 27, pp. 1–23. Mandelkern, S., 1959 Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae Hebraicae atque Chaldaicae4, Tel-Aviv–Jerusalem, Schocken. Mantel, H., 1969 Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin, Tel-Aviv, The Dvir Publication House (Hebrew). Ma’oz, Z. U., 1985 ‘On the Hasmonean and Herodian Town-Plan of Jerusalem’, Eretz Israel, 18, Nahman Avigad Volume, The Israel Exploration Society, pp. 46–57 (Hebrew). 1993 ‘Banias’, NEAE, I, pp. 136–143. Marcus, R., 1943 Josephus with an English Translation, VII–VIII (LCL ed.), London–Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press. Marcus, R., Wikgren, A., 1963 Josephus with an English Translation, VIII (LCL ed.), London–Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press. Mason, S., 1991 Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition Critical Study, Leiden, E. J. Brill. Mayer-Schärtel, B., 1995 Das Frauenbild des Josephus: Eine sozialgeschichtliche und kulturanthropologische Untersuchung, Stuttgart–Berlin–Köln, Kohlhammer. Mazar, B., 1975 ‘The Archaeological Excavations near the Temple Mount’, In: Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City, 1968–1974 (ed. Y. Yadin), Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, pp. 25–51. 1978 ‘Herodian Jerusalem in the Light of the Excavations South and Southwest of the Temple Mount’, Israel Exploration Journal, 28, pp. 230–237(= op. cit., Cathedra, 8 [1978], pp. 29–41 [Hebrew]).

Bibliography and Abbreviations

1980

1988 (ed.)

Mead, R., 1762

Mendels, D., 1992 Meshel, Z., 1995 Meshorer, Y., 1982 1985

1997

Meyshan, J., 1959

1960

483

‘The Royal Stoa in the Southern Part of the Temple Mount’, In: American Academy for Jewish Research Jubilee Volume, II (ed. Salo W. Baron and Isaac E. Barzilay, Jerusalem, American Academy for Jewish Research, pp. 381–387. GEVA – Archaeological Discoveries at Tell Abu-Shusha, Mishmar Ha-’Emeq, The Israel Exploration Society, Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House Ltd. (Hebrew). The Medical Works of Richard Mead, M. D. (Physician of the Late Majesty King George II. Fellow of the Royal Colleges of Physicians at London and Edinburgh, and of the Royal Society), Chapter XIV: “The disease of King Herod”, pp. 633–636, London. The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, New York, Doubleday. ‘The Nabataean “Rock” and the Judean Desert Fortresses’, Cathedra 76, pp. 40–48 (Hebrew). Ancient Jewish Coinage, I–II, New York, Amphora Books. ‘Herod’s Coins’, in: M. Naor (ed.), King Herod and his Period, Idan, 5, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem, pp. 153–165 (Hebrew). A Treasury of Jewish Coins From the Persian Period to Bar-Kochba, Jerusalem Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Press (Hebrew). ‘The Symbols on the Coinage of Herod the Great and their Meaning’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 91, pp. 109–121. ‘Chronology of the Coins of the Herodian Dynasty’, Eretz-Israel, 6, Israel Exploration Society, pp. 100– 108 (Hebrew).

Millar, F. G. B., 1964 A Study of Cassius Dio, Oxford, Oxford University P. 1993 The Roman Near East 31 BC–AD 337, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press.

484

Bibliography and Abbreviations

2002

Rome, the Greek World and the East, vol. I: The Roman Republic and the Augustan Revolution, Chapel Hill and London. Momigliano, A. D., 1934 Ricerche sull’ organizzazione delle Giudea sotto il dominio romano (63 A. C.–70 D. C.), Atti della Reale Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa (Lettere, Storia e Filosofia), Series 2, vol. 3, fasc. 2, 3, Bologna (Amsterdam 1967, Adolf M. Hakkert). 1934a ‘Herod of Judaea’, Cambridge Ancient History, 10, 316–339. Moore, G. F., 1932 (1950) Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, 3 vols., Cambridge Mass., Harvard University Press. Naveh, J., 1970 1973 1992

NEAE = 1993

Negev, A., 1983 Netzer, E., 1972 1980 1981

1981a

The Ossuary Inscriptions from Giv’at ha-Mivtar’, Israel Exploration Journal, 20, pp. 33–37. ‘An Aramaic Tomb Inscription Written in Paleo-Hebrew Script’, Israel Exploration Journal, 23, pp. 82–91. On Sherd and Papyrus: Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University (Hebrew). The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land; (eds. E. Stern et alia), The Israel Exploration Society, Carta, Jerusalem. The Masters of the Desert: The Story of the Nabateans, Jerusalem Keter Press (Hebrew). ‘Herodium’, Israel Exploration Journal, 22, pp. 247– 249. ‘The Hippodrom which Herod built in Jericho’. Qadmoniot, 13, pp. 104–107 (Hebrew). Greater Herodium, Qedem 13, Monograph of the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. ‘Jéricho: les constructions hérodiennes’, Monde de la Bible, 17, pp. 28–34.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

1981b

1985

1987

1989

1989a

1992 1999 1999a

485

‘Herod’s Building Program: State Necessity or Personal Need’. Jerusalem Cathedra, I, pp. 48–61, 73– 80. ‘The Builder King’ in: M. Naor (ed.), King Herod and his Period, Idan, 5, Yad Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem, pp. 58–82. ‘The Augusteum at Samaria-Sebaste – A New Outlook’, Eretz-Israel, 19, Michael Avi-Yonah Memorial Volume (eds.: D. Barag, G. Foerster, A. Negev), Israel Exploration Journal, Jerusalem, pp. 97–105 (Hebrew). Masada: The Yigael Yadin Excavations, 1963–1965: Final Reports, III, The Masada Reports, Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. ‘Jericho und Herodium; verschwenderisches Leben in den Tagen der Hasmonäer und Herodes des Großen’, Judaica, 45, pp. 21–44. ‘Masada’, in: The Anchor Bible Dictionary, New York, Doubleday, IV, pp. 586–587. The Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great, Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Press (Hebrew). Die Paläste der Hasmonäer und Herodes des Großen, Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philip von Zabern.

Niese, B. (ed.), 1887–95 Flavii Josephi opera. Ed. et apparatu critico instruxit Benedictus Niese, I–VII Berolini (reprint 1955), Weidmann, Berlin 1896 ‘Der jüdische Historiker Josephus’, Historische Zeitschrift, 76, pp. 193–237. Nodet, É., 2000 ‘Jewish Features in the “Slavonic” War of Josephus’, SBL Josephus Seminar (pdf-format: http://josephus. yorku.ca/pdf/nodet2000.pdf). Noam, V., 2003 Megillat Ta’anit: Versions, Interpretation, History, with a Critical Edition, Jerusalem, Yad Izhak BenZvi Press (Hebrew). Oesterley, W. O. E., 1932 A History of Israel, II, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

486

Bibliography and Abbreviations

OGIS = Oleson, J. P., 1985

Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae. ‘Herod and Vitruvius: Preliminary Thoughts on Harbour Engineering at Sebastos; the Harbour of Caesarea Maritima’, in: A. Raban (ed.) Harbour Archaeology, Oxford, pp. 165–172.

Oren, E. D., 1965

‘The “Herodian Doves” in Talmudic Literature and in the Columbaria Caves of Maresha’, Tarbitz, 34, pp. 356–362 (Hebrew). 1968 The “Herodian Doves” in the Light of Recent Archaeological Discoveries, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 100, pp. 54–61. Oren, E. D., Rappaport U., 1984 ‘The Necropolis of Maresha – Beth Govrin’, Israel Exploration Journal, 34, pp. 114–153. Otto, W., 1913 Herodes: Beiträge zur Geschichte des letzten jüdischen Königshauses, Stuttgart, J. B. Metzler (= A. Pauly, G. Wissowa et al. [eds.], Realencyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Supplementband, II, Sp. 167, s. v. ‚Herodes‘, Nr. 22, cols. 1–158. Otzen, B., 1990 Judaism in Antiquity: Political Development and Religious Currents from Alexander to Hadrian, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press. Paltiel, E., 1991

Parker, T. S., 1975 Pastor, J., 1997 2003

Vassals and Rebels in the Roman Empire: JulioClaudian Policies in Judaea and the Kingdoms of the East (Collections Latomus 212), Brüssel. “The Dekapolis Reviewed,” Journal of Biblical Literature XCIV, pp. 437–441. Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine, LondonNew York, Routledge. ‘Herod, King of Jews and Gentiles: Economic Policy as a Measure of Evenhandedness’, in: Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishnah and the Talmud (eds. M. Mor,

Bibliography and Abbreviations

2005

Patrich, J., 1987 1988 1992

1996

2001

2003

2003a 2005

487

A. Oppenheimer, J. Pastor, D. R. Schwartz), Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, pp. 151–164. ‘Why Straton’s Tower? An examination of Herod’s choice of location of Caesarea’, in: M. Mor, J. Pastor, I. Ronen. Y. Ashkenazi (eds.), For Uriel – Studies in the History of Israel in Antiquity Presented to Professor Uriel Rappaport, The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, Jerusalem, English Section, pp. 77*–89*. ‘The Mesibah of the Temple According to the Mishnah Middot, Cathedra, 42, pp. 39–52 (Hebrew). ‘Reconstructing the Magnificent Temple Herod Built’, Bible Review, 45, pp. 16–29. ‘Hyrcania’, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, II, Jerusalem, The Israel Exploration Society, pp. 447–450 (Hebrew). ‘Warehouses and Granaries in Caesarea Maritima’, in: A. Raban & K. G. Holum (eds.), Caesarea Maritima, pp. 146–176. ‘The Carceres of the Herodian Hippodrome/Stadium at Caesarea Maritima and Connections with Circus Maximus’, Journal of Roman Archaeology, XIV, pp. 269–283. ‘Herod’s Hippodrome/Stadium at Caesarea in the Context of Greek and Roman Contests’, Studies in the History of Eretz Israel, Presented to Yehuda Ben Porat, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Press, Jerusalem, pp. 119– 167 (Hebrew). ‘Herod’s Theater in Jerusalem – A New Proposal’, Cathedra,119, pp. 19–28 (Hebrew). “Herodian Caesarea – The Urban Framework”, in: M. Mor, J. Pastor, I Ronen, Y. Ashkenazi (eds.), For Uriel: Studies in the History of Israel in Antiquity Presented to Professor Uriel Rappaport, The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, Jerusalem, pp. 497–537 (Hebrew).

Pelling, C. B. R., 1990 ‘Childhood and Personality in Greek Biography’, in: C. B. R. Pelling (ed.), Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature, Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp. 213–244.

488

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Perowne, S., 1957 1958

Piccirillo, M., 1981 Porath, Y., 1989

The Life and Times of Herod the Great, London and Southampton, Hodder & Stoughton. The Later Herods. The Political Background of the New Testament, London and Southampton, Hodder & Stoughton. ‘Machéronte’, Monde de la Bible, 17, pp. 10–16.

‘The Development of the Arid Regions of Judea During Herod’s Reign’, 53, pp. 13–23 (Hebrew). 1995 ‘Herod’s “Amphitheatre” at Caesarea: Multipurpose Entertainment Building’, The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research, Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supp. 14, pp. 15–17. 2001 ‘Herod’s “Amphitheater” at Caesarea’, Qadmoniot, 29/112, pp. 93–99 (Hebrew). 2003 ‘Herod’s Circus at Caesarea: a response to J. Patrich (JRA 14, 269)’, Journal of Roman Archaeology, 16, pp. 451–455. 2003a ‘Theater, Racing and Athletic Installations in Caesarea’, Qadmoniot, 36/125, pp. 25–42 2004 ‘Why did Josephus Name the Chariot-Racing Facility at Caesarea “Amphitheater’’’, Scripta Classica Israelica, 23, pp 63–67. Post, J. M., Robins, R. S., 1993 When Illness Strikes the Leader: The Dilemma of the Captive King, New Haven–London, Yale University Press. Price, J. J., 1992 Jerusalem Under Siege: The Collapse of the Jewish State 66–70 C.E., Leiden–New York–Köln, E. J. Brill. 1999 ‘Drama and History in Josephus’ BJ’, 1 SBL, Josephus Seminar (pdf-format: http://josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/ PriceBJ.pdf), pp. 1–28. Pucci-Ben Zeev, M., 1981 ‘An Unknown Source on a Possible Treaty Between Hyrcanus I and the Parthians’, Zion, 46, pp. 331– 338 (Hebrew). 1998 Jewish Rights in the Roman World, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Bibliography and Abbreviations

2003

Raban A., 1982

489

‘Augustus’ Policy towards Asian Jews’, in: Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishnah and the Talmud (eds. M. Mor, A. Oppenheimer, J. Pastor, D. R. Schwartz), Yad BenZvi, pp. 15–26.

‘Josephus and the Herodian Harbour’, in: U. Rappaport (ed.), Josephus Flavius: Historian of EretzIsrael in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, pp. 165–184. 1983 The Ancient Harbours of Caesarea Maritima – Guide to: Sebastos, Center for Maritime Studies – Haifa University, Schalgi LTD. 1989 The Harbours of Caesarea Maritima, I: The Site and the Excavations (British Archaeological Reports – International Series 491), London. 1992 ‘Two Harbours for Two Entities’, in: R. L. Vann (ed.), Caesarea Papers (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplement 5), Ann Arbor, pp. 68–74. 1992a ‘Sebastos, The Royal Harbour at Caesarea Maritima – a Short-lived Giant’, The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 21.2, pp. 111–124. 1998 ‘Sebastos, The Royal Harbour of Herod at Caesarea Maritima: 20 Years of Underwater Research’, in: G. Volpe (ed.), Archeologia Subacquea VIII Ciclo de Lezioni in Archeologia, Siena 1996, Firenze, pp. 217–269. 2004 ‘The History of the Caesarea Harbors’, Qadmoniot, 127, pp. 2–22 (Hebrew). Raban, A., Holum, K. G. (eds.), 1996 Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia, Leiden–New York-Köln, E. J. Brill. Rabello, A. M., 1972 ‘The Prohibition on Gentiles to enter the Temple’, Sinai, 70, pp. cclxvi–cclxxxi (Hebrew). 1980 ‘Hausgericht in the House of Herod the Great?’, in: A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport, M. Stern (eds.), Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period – Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume, Yad Ben-Zvi & Ministry of Defence, Jerusalem, pp. 119–135 (Hebrew).

490

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Radzinsky, E., 2005 Stalin (Hebrew transl. by A. Hashavia), Tel-Aviv, Ma’ariv Book Guild. Rajak, T., 1983 Josephus: The Historian and his Society, London, Gerald Duckworth (Philadelphia 1984, Fortress Press). Rappaport, U., 1969 ‘La Judée et Rome pendant le règne d’Alexandre Jannée’, Revue des Études Juives, 127, pp. 329–345. 1992 The Hellenization of the Hasmoneans’, in: M. Mor (ed.), Jewish Assimilation, Acculturation and Accomodation: Past Traditions, Current Issues and Future Prospects, Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposium of the Philip M. and Ethel Klutznik Chair in Jewish Civilization (September 24–25, 1989), Creighton University, Lanham–New York–London, University Press of America, pp. 1–13. 1993 ‘On the Meaning of “Hever ha-Yehudim”’, in: The Hasmonean State: The History of the Hasmoneans during the Hellenistic Period – Collection of Articles (eds. U. Rappaport, I, Ronen), Jerusalem–TelAviv, The Open University and Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, pp. 280–288 (Hebrew). 1998 ‘Herod’s Rule’, in: U. Rappaport (ed.), Jewish History during the Second Temple Period: Judea and Rome, Vol. I, pp. 88–175, Open University, Tel-Aviv (Hebrew). 2004 The First Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary, Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Press (Hebrew). Regev, E., 2003 ‘The Traditions about the Authority of the Pharisees and Sadducees in the Temple during the Second Temple and Early Roman Periods, Jerusalem & EretzIsrael (Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies: Bar-Ilan University), I, pp. 5–46 (Hebrew). 2005 The Sadducees and Their Halakhah: Religion and Society in the Second Temple Period, Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Press (Hebrew).

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Reich, R., 2002

491

‘The Virtual Model in Davidson Center (near the Temple Mount) and the Reconstruction of the Royal Stoa’, Qadmoniot, 123, pp. 48–52 (Hebrew). Reich, T., Cleiton, P. J., Winkur, G., 1977 ‚Family History Studies: The Genetics of Mania‘, in: E. A.Wolpert (ed.), Manic-Depressive Illness: History of a Syndrome, New York, International. Reinold, M., 1970 History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity, Bruxelles. Reisner, G. A., Fischer, C. S., Lyon, D. G., 1924 Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908–1910, I, Cambridge M., Harvard University Press. Rengstorf, K. H. (ed.), 1973–1983 Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, I–IV, Leiden, E. J. Brill. Rhoads, M. D., 1976 Israel in Revolution 6–74 C.: A Political History based on the Writings of Josephus, Philadelphia, Fortress Press. RE (PW) = Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (eds A. Pauly, G. Wissowa et al.). Richardson, P., 1996 Herod King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans, Columbia, South Carolina, University of South Carolina Press. Rivkin, E., 1978 A Hidden Revolution, Abingdon Nashville, The Parthenon Press at Nashville, Tenn. Robins, R. S., Post, J. M., 1997 Political Paranoia: The Psychopolitics of Hatred, New Haven, Yale University Press. Roller, D. W., 1998 The Building Program of Herod the Great, Berkeley– Los Angeles–London, University of California Press. Ronen, I., 1988 ‘Formation of Jewish Nationalism among the Idumaeans’, Apendix B in: A. Kasher, Jews, Idumaeans and Ancient Arabs, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), pp. 214–239.

492

Bibliography and Abbreviations

1998

‘Decline of the Hasmonean State and the Rise of the House of Antipater’, in: U. Rappaport (ed.), Jewish History during the Second Temple Period: Judea and Rome, Vol. I, pp. 15–87, Open University, Tel-Aviv (Hebrew). 2003 ‘The Findings from Maresha and the Conversion of the Idumaeans’, in: M. Mor, A. Oppenheimer, J. Pastor, D. R. Schwartz (eds.), Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishnah and the Talmud (eds.),Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Press, pp. 123–131 (Hebrew). Rosenhan, D. L., Seligman, M. E. P., 1989 Abnormal Psychology, 2 New York–London, W. W. Norton and Company. Rosenthal, E.-S., 1973 ‘The Giv’at Ha-Mivtar Inscription’, Israel Exploration Journal, 23, pp. 72–81. 1969–74 ‘The Giv’at ha-Mivtar Inscription’, P’rakim: Yearbook of the Schocken Institute for Jewish Research, II, pp. 335–373 (cf. 374–379). Rostovtzeff, R., 1941 The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, I–III, Oxford (reprint 1972), Oxford University Press. Roth-Gerson, L., 1972 The Civil and the Religious Status of the Jews in Asia Minor from Alexander the Great to Constantine B. C. 336–A. D. 337, Ph. D., Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1987 The Greek Inscriptions from the Synagogues in EretzIsrael, Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi (Hebrew). 2001 The Jews of Syria as Reflected in the Greek Inscriptions, Jerusalem, The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History (Hebrew). Rowley, H. H., 1940 ‘The Herodians in the Gospels’, Journal of Theological Studies, 41, pp. 14–27. Rozen, M., Witztum, E., 1992 ‘The Dark Mirror of the Soul: Dreams of Jewish Physician in Jerusalem at the End of the 17th Century’, Revue des Études juives, 151, pp. 5–42.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Rudnik, A., 1999

493

Cognition and Psychosis: A Study in Clinic Epistemology, Ph. D., Tel-Aviv University (Hebrew).

Runyan, W. M., 1984 Life Histories and Psychobiography: Explorations in Theory and Method, New York–Oxford, Oxford University Press. 1988 (ed.) Psychology and Historical Interpretation, New York–Oxford, Oxford University Press. Safrai, S., 1965

Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple, TelAviv, Am Hassefer Publishers Ltd. (Hebrew). Safrai, S., Stern, M. (eds.), 1974, 1976 The Jewish People in the First Century, I–II, Assen 1974, 1976, Van Gorcum. Sagan, E., 1991 (1994) The Honey and the Hemlock: Democracy and Paranoia in Ancient Athens and Modern America, Princeton, Basic Books. Sagiv, N., 2003 The Jewish Settlements in Transjordan during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods: The Historical Data and Archaeological Evidence, Ph. D., Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan (Hebrew). Sanders, E. P., 1991 (1992) Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE–66 CE, London, SCM Press; Philadelphia, Trinity Press International. Sandison, A. T., 1967 ‘The Last Illness of Herod the Great, King of Judaea’, Medical History, 11.4, pp. 381–388. Sandmel, S., 1962 ‘Herodians’, Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, II, New York–Nashville, pp. 594–595. 1967 Herod: Profile of a Tyrant, Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott Co. Satlow, M. I., 2001 Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, Princeton-Oxford, Princeton University Press. Schäfer, P., 1983 Geschichte der Juden in der Antike. Die Juden Palästinas von Alexander dem Großen bis zur ara-

494

Bibliography and Abbreviations

1997 Schalit, A., 1962

1963 1963a

1964 1968

1968a

1969 1975

1975a

1984

1985

bischen Eroberung, Stuttgart, Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk; Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag. Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press. ‘Die frühchristliche Überlieferung über die Herkunft der Familie des Herodes’, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, I, pp. 109–160. Flavii Josephi Antiquitates Judaicae, vol. 3, Libri XI–XX, Jerusalem, The Bialik Institute (Hebrew). ‘Herod’s Family in the Christian Tradition: A Chapter in the Political History of Hatred in the Second Temple Period’, Ha-Umah, I, pp. 579–598 (Hebrew). King Herod: Portrait of a Ruler, 3 Jerusalem, The Bialik Institute (Hebrew). Namenwörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus in: K. H. Rengstorf (ed.), A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, Supplement I, Leiden, E. J. Brill. ‘Die “Herodianischen” Patriarchen und der “Davidische” Herodes’, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, VI (1968), pp. 114–123. König Herodes: Der Mann und sein Werk, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter. ‘The Fall of the Hasmonean Dynasty and the Roman Conquest’, in: M. Avi-Yonah (ed.), The Herodian Period (The World History of the Jewish People), New Brunswick, pp. 26–43. The End of the Hasmonean Dynasty and the Rise of Herod’, in: Avi-Yonah (ed.), The Herodian Period (The World History of the Jewish People), New Brunswick, pp. 44–70. ‘The Round Building on Masada: The Tomb of the Hasmonaean Mariamme’, Ha-Umah, II, pp. 356– 363 (Hebrew). ‘Herod and Mariamme’, in: M. Naor (ed.), King Herod and his Period, Idan, 5, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem, pp. 100–112 (Hebrew).

Schmitt, G. von, 1995 Siedlungen Palästinas in griechisch-römischer Zeit; Ostjordanland, Negeb und (in Auswahl) Westjordanland, Wiesbaden, Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Schremer, A., 2001

2003

Schröder, B., 1996

Schürer, E., 1901 1973–1987

495

Men’s Age of Marriage in Eretz-Israel during the Second Temple and the Mishnah and Talmud Period’, Zion, 61, pp. 45–65 (Hebrew). Male and Female He Created Them: Jewish Marriage in the late Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Periods, Jerusalem, The Historical Society of Israel (Hebrew). Die “väterlichen Gesetze”: Flavius Josephus als Vermittler von Halachah an Griechen und Römer, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,3–4 I–III, Göttingen (repr. 1964) Georg Olms. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I–III.1–2, (revised English edition by G. Vermes, F. Millar et al.), Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark Ltd.

Schwartz, D. R., 1983 ‘Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees’, Journal of the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period, 14, pp. 157–171. 1985 ‘Herod in the Jewish Sources’, in: M. Naor (ed.), King Herod and his Period, Idan, 5, Yad Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem, pp. 38–42 (Hebrew). 1987 Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea, Jerusalem, The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History (Hebrew). 1990 (Op. cit., English Version), Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). 1993 ‘Joseph ben Illem and Herod’s Death’, in: I. Gafni, A, Oppenheimer, M. Stern (eds.), Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Period: Studies in Honor of S. Safrai, Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, pp. 65–74 (Hebrew). 2004 The Second Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary, Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Press. Schwartz, S., 1990 Josephus and Judaean Politics, Leiden–New York– Københaven–Köln, E. J. Brill.

496

Bibliography and Abbreviations

2000

SEG = Segal, A., 1973 1974 1975

1989

1995 1998

Segal, E., 1996 Segal, P., 1989

Shahar, Y., 2004 Shatzman, I., 1983 1989 I991

‘Herod, Friend of the Jews’, in: J. Schwartz, Z. Amar, I. Ziffer (eds.), Jerusalem and Eretz-Israel: Arie Kindler Volume, Ramat Gan–Tel-Aviv, The Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies & Eretz-Israel Museum, pp. 67–76. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. ‘Herodion’, Israel Exploration Journal, 23, pp. 27– 29. ‘Herodion and the Mausoleum of Augustus’, Qadmoniot, 7, pp. 46–49 (Hebrew). ‘The Stages of Construction of Herodium’, EretzIsrael – The Nelson Glueck Memorial Volume, 12, pp. 109–115, Israel Exploration Society (Hebrew). ‘Theatres in Ancient Palestine during the RomanByzantine Period’, Scripta Classica Israelica ,8–9, pp. 145–165. Theatres in Roman Palestine and Provincia Arabia, Leiden, E. J. Brill. ‘Architecture in the Land of Israel during the Herodian Period’, in: U. Rappaport (ed.), Jewish History during the Second Temple Period: Judea and Rome, vol. I, pp. 177–280, Open University, Tel-Aviv (Hebrew). ‘The Tomb of the Last Hasmonean?’, Jewish Free Press, December 5, 1996, p. 16. ‘The Penalty of the Warning Inscription from the Temple of Jerusalem’, Israel Exploration Journal, 39, pp. 79–84. Josephus Geographicus: The Classical Context of Geography in Josephus, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck. ‘Herod’s Kingdom – Army and Security Problems’, Milet, I, pp. 75–98 (Hebrew). A History of the Roman Republic, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, The Magnes Press (Hebrew). The Armies of the Hasmoneans and Herod, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Shavit, J., 1985

Shaw, B. D., 1993

497

‘King Herod, A Historic Figure who Looks for an Author: Herod’s Figure and the Literary Polemic on him in Modern Hebrew Literature’, in: M. Naor (ed.), King Herod and his Period, Idan, 5, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem, pp. 166–180 (Hebrew). ‘Tyrants, Bandits and Kings: Personal Power in Josephus’, Journal of Jewish Studies, 44, pp. 176–204.

Shutt, R. J. H., 1961 Studies in Josephus, London, S. P. C. K. Simhoni, I. N., 1961 Yoseph Ben-Matitiyhu: Toldot Milhemet ha-Yehudim im ha-Romayim,Tel-Aviv, Masadah Ltd. (Hebrew). Smallwood, E. M., 1962 ‘High Priests and Politics in Roman Palestine’, Journal of Theological Studies, 13, pp. 14–34. 1981 The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian, Leiden 1976 (Repr. & Corrections 1981), E. J. Brill. Smith, M., 1999 The Gentiles in Judaism 125 BCE–CE 66’, in: W. Horbury, W. D. Davis, J. Sturdy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, III, pp. 192–249. Smith, P., 1977 ‘The Giv’at ha-Mivtar Inscription’, Israel Exploration Journal, 27, pp. 121–124. Stein, A., 1950 Die Präfekten von Ägypten in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Bern, A. Francke. Stemberger, G., 1995 Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (English trans. by A. W. Mahnke), Minneapolis, Fortress Press. 1999 ‘The Sadducees – Their History and Doctrines’, in: W. Horbury, W. D. Davies, J. Sturdy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, III, pp. 428–443. Stern, E. (Senior ed.), 1993 The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 4 vol.s, Jerusalem, The Israel Exploration Society.

498 Stern, M., 1960

Bibliography and Abbreviations

‘A. Schalit’s Herod’, Journal of Jewish Studies, 11, pp. 49–57. 1965 The Documents on the History of the Hasmonean Revolt with Commentary and Introduction, TelAviv, Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House (Hebrew). 1974, 1980, 1984 Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, I–III, Jerusalem, The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 1980a ‘Jerusalem, the Most Famous of the Cities of the East’ (Pliny, Natural History V, 70, in: A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport, M. Stern (eds.), Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period – Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi & Ministry of Defence, Jerusalem, pp. 257–270 (Hebrew). 1982 ‘Social and Political Realignments in Herodian Judaea’, The Jerusalem Cathedra, 2, pp. 40–62. 1983 ‘The End of the Hasmonaean Kingdom and the Roman Conquest’, in: M. Avi-Yonah (ed.), The Herodian Period (The World History of the Jewish People), pp. 71–123, New Brunswick (= op. cit., Jerusalem, Am Oved, pp. 20–32 [Hebrew]). 1983a ‘The End of the Hasmonaean Kingdom and the Rise of Herod’, in: M. Avi-Yonah & Z. Baras (eds.) The Herodian Period, Jerusalem, Am Oved, pp. 33–52 (Hebrew). 1983b ‘Herod’s Kingship’, in: M. Avi-Yonah & Z. Baras (eds.) The Herodian Period, Jerusalem, Am Oved, pp. 53–90 (Hebrew). 1985 ‘Herod and Rome’, in: M. Naor (ed.), King Herod and his Period, Idan, 5, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem, pp. 20–37 (Hebrew). 1985b ‘A New Ruling Class in Herod’s Days’, in: M. Naor (ed.), King Herod and his Period, Idan, 5, Yad BenZvi, Jerusalem, pp. 89–99 (Hebrew). 1991 Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (eds. M. Amit., I. Gafni, M. D. Herr), Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi (Hebrew). 1995 Hasmonaean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History (ed. D. Schwartz), Jerusalem,

Bibliography and Abbreviations

499

The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History (Hebrew). Sullivan, R. D., 1978 ‘The Dynasty of Judaea in the First Century’, in: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Berlin, de Gruyter, II. 8, pp. 296–354. Tal, A., A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic, Leiden–Boston–Köln, E. J. Brill Tcherikover, V. A., 1959 Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (trans. S. Applebaum), Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society of America. 1961 The Jews in The Graeco-Roman World, Tel-Aviv, M. Neuman Ltd. (Hebrew). 1963 Ha-Yehudim veha-Yevanim ba-Tekufah ha-Hellenistit, 2 Tel-Aviv, Dvir Publishing House (Hebrew). 1963a The Jews in Egypt in the Hellenistic-Roman Age in the Light of the Papyri, Second revised edition, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University (Hebrew). Tepper, Y., 1986 ‘The Rise and Fall of Dove-Raising’, in: Land and Man in Eretz-Israel in Antiquity (eds. A. Kasher, A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport), Jerusalem, pp. 170– 196 (Hebrew). Thackeray, H. St. J., 1927 Josephus with an English Translation, (Loeb Classical Library ed.), II, London–Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press. 1929 Josephus, the Man and the Historian, New York (rep. 1967), Jewish Institute of Religion, Ktav Publishing House. Thomas, K. R., 1995 ‘A Psychoanalytical Study of Alexander the Great’, Psychoanalytic Review, 82.6, pp. 859–901. Trebilco, P. R., 1991 Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, Cambridge England; New York: Cambridge University Press. 2000

500

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Tsafrir, Y., 1980a

‘The Site of the Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem’, Cathedra, 14, pp. 17–40 (Hebrew). 1980 ‘Symmetry at Herodium, “Megalomania” in Herod’s Architecture and Roman Technology in its Formation’, The Jerusalem Cathedra, I, pp. 68–72). 1982 ‘The Desert Fortresses of Judaea in the Second Temple Period’, The Jerusalem Cathedra, II, pp. 120–245. 1982–1984 Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest, I–II, Yad Izhak Ben Zvi Jerusalem (Hebrew). 2003 ‘The Romanization of Judaea and the Building Projects of Herod the Great’, in: Y. Ben-Arieh & E. Reiner (eds.), Studies in the History of Eretz Israel, Presented to Yehuda Ben Porat, Yad Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem, pp. 91–104. Tsafrir, Y., Di Segni, L., Green, J., 1994 Tabula Imperii Romani-Judaea Palaestina, Jerusalem, The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities (Hebrew). Tzaferis, V., 1974 ‘The “Abba” Burial Cave in Jerusalem’, Atiqot, VII, pp. 61–64 (Hebrew). Turner, E. G., 1954 ‘Tiberius Julius Alexander’, Journal of Roman Literature, XLIV, pp. 54–64. Urbach, E. E., 1984

The Halacha: Its Origins and Development, Givatayim 1984, Yad La-Talmud (Hebrew).

Vallency, M. J., 1940 The Tragedies of Herod and Mariamme, New York, Columbia University Press. Vann, R. L., 1991 ‘The Drusion: A Candidate for Herod’s Lighthouse at Caesarea’, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 20.2, pp. 123–139. 2000 ‘Caesarea Maritima and its Harbour’, Journal of Roman Archaeology, 13, pp. 671–677. Villalba i Varneda, P., 1986 The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus, Leiden, E. J. Brill.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

501

Wacholder, B. Z., 1962 Nicolaus of Damascus, Berkeley & Los Angeles University of California Press. 1983 ‘The Calendar of Sabbath Years During the Second Temple Era’, Hebrew Union College Annual, 54, pp. 123–133 1989 ‘Josephus and Nicolaus of Damascus’, in: L. H. Feldman & G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, the Bible and History, Detroit, Wayne State University Press, pp. 147–172. Waelder, R., 1951 ‘The Structure of Paranoid Ideas: A Critical Survey of Various Theories’, International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 32, pp. 167–177. Warszawski, A., Peretz, A., 1992 ‘Building the Temple Mount: Organization and Execution’, Cathedra, 66, pp. 3–46 (Hebrew). Wellhausen, J., 1924 Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte9, Hannover (repr. of Greifswald 1874 ed.), Berlin 1958, de Gruyter. Whiston, W. (Trans.), 1737 (1890) The Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus (revised by A. R. Shilleto), London. Williams, F., 1987–1994 The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, I–II, Leiden, E. J. Brill. Williamson, G. A. (Trans.), 1981 Josephus: The Jewish War, Revised with a New Introduction, Notes and Appendixes (by E. Mary Smallwood), Great Britain, Penguin Books. Willrich, H., 1929 Das Haus des Herodes zwischen Jerusalem und Rom, Heidelberg, C. Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung. Witztum, E., 2004 Mind, Loss and Bereavement, Tel-Aviv, Ministry of Defence, Israel (Hebrew). Witztum, E., Brom, R. (eds.), 1993 Loss, Mourning and Trauma, School of Social Work, Tel-Aviv University (Hebrew). Wolpert, E. A. (ed.), 1977 Manic-Depressive Illness: History of a Syndrome, New York, International Universities Press, Inc.

502

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Yadin, Y., 1965

1966 1976 (ed.) 1974 1977

Yavetz, Z., 1988 1999

Zeitlin, S., 1962–1978 1963/4 1968 Zeligman, A., 1970 Zissu, B., 1999

Masada: First Season of Excavations, 1963–1964, Preliminary Report, Jerusalem, The Israel Exploration Society (Hebrew). (= ‘The Excavation of Masada 1963/64: Preliminary Report’, Israel Exploration Journal, 15, pp. 1–120.) Masada: Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots Last Stand, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City 1968–1974. New Haven, Yale University Press. The Temple Scroll, Jerusalem, Sifriyat Ma’ariv. ‘Masada’, Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (eds. M. Avi-Yonah and E. Stern), III, Jerusalem, The Israel Exploration Society & Masada Press, pp. 793–816. Augustus: The Victory of Moderation, Tel-Aviv, Dvir Publishing House.(Hebrew). Claudius and Nero: From Systematization to Dilettantism, Tel-Aviv, Dvir Publishing House (Hebrew).

The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State, I–III, Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society of America. ‘Herod: A Malevolent Maniac’, Jewish Quarterly Review, 54, pp. 1–27. Koroth Bayith Scheiny, I–II, Tel-Aviv, M. Neuman Ltd. (Hebrew). ‘Herodian Columbarium Near Ma’agan Michael’, Atiqot, 6, pp. 70–73 (Hebrew). ‘Two Herodian Columbarium Towers at Khirbet Aleq and Khirbet Abu-Hof’, Qadmoniot, 29, pp. 100–106 (Hebrew).

Index of Names Aaron the High Priest 91 Aba 90 Abishag the Shunammite 178 Abraham (Biblical forefather) 35 Abtalion (Avtalion) 85 Achiab(us) (Herod’s cousin) 174, 398 Acme 294, 381, 383, 396 Adonis (Phoenician god) 407 Agatharchides of Cnidus 188, 314 Agrippa, Marcus 118, 123, 181, 187, 192, 194, 199, 200, 207, 239, 240, 248– 254, 256, 259, 272, 273, 277, 312, 321, 442–444 Agrippa I (King of Judaea) 11, 179, 192, 233, 249, 354, 392, 415, 416, 421 Agrippa II 213, 232, 416, 418 Albinus (Roman governor of Judaea) 131, 418 Alexander the Alabarch 234 Alexander (Herod’s grandson by Alexander and Glaphyra) 354 Alexander son of Judas Aristobulus II 88, 95, 349 Alexander (son of Antony and Cleopatra) 126 Alexander (Herod’s son by Mariamme I) 32, 80, 96, 97, 164, 207, 208, 246–248, 252, 255, 257, 263, 265, 266, 268, 286, 288, 293–295, 301–303, 306–308, 310–320, 327–330, 332, 333, 335, 336, 339, 347, 348, 351, 354, 357, 366, 369, 370, 377, 426, 428, 429, 439, 442–445 Alexander the Great 162, 406, 407, 421

Alexander Jannaeus 20, 71, 81, 99, 114, 145, 182, 299, 349, 407, 434 Alexandra 52, 60, 94, 96, 104, 105, 107–109, 113–116, 122–124, 128, 133, 134, 159, 165, 169, 174, 190, 193, 349, 426, 427, 439–441 Alexas (Salome’s husband) 299, 355, 396, 403 Ananel the Babylonian (High Priest), see also Hanamel 104, 108, 439 Andromachus (Herod’s friend) 303, 312, 321, 445 Antichrist 10, 11, 14, 422 Antigonus (Mattathias Antigonus) 26, 51, 55, 58, 59, 68–70, 72–75, 79, 81, 84, 86–88, 91, 99, 101, 136, 177, 211, 289, 319, 350, 356, 426, 437, 438 Antiochus I of Commagene 78 Antiochus III the Great 422 Aniochus IV Epiphanes xii, 76, 90, 184, 241, 392, 393, 419, 422 Antiochus VII Sidetes 283 Antipas (Herod’s grandfather) 18, 20, 38, 114 Antipas (Herod’s son, tetrarch) see Herod Antipas Antipater (Herod’ father) 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 34, 38, 39, 46, 47, 49, 52–55, 61, 64, 80, 86, 114, 118, 152, 157, 223, 298, 415, 436, 437 Antipater (Herod’s son from Doris) 35, 70, 94, 96–99, 257–260, 265, 268, 285–288, 301, 302, 304, 306, 313, 325–328, 333, 335, 339, 344, 352–358, 362–368, 370, 372–386, 396, 398, 399,

504

Index of Names

425, 429, 439, 443, 444, 446, 447 Antipater the Samaritan 368 Antipater Gadia (Herod’s friend) 191 Antiphilus (Alexandrian physician) 368, 381, 382 Antony, Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) 23, 47, 51, 54, 55, 65, 67–68, 71, 72, 78–80, 86–89, 91, 94, 102, 104–110, 113–116, 119, 126–129, 131, 132, 134–143, 148, 152, 155, 159, 162, 165, 166, 177, 238, 319, 326, 411, 427, 437–440 Aphrodite (goddess) 18 Apion of Alexandria 392 Appian 107 Archelaus (Herod’s son by Malthace) 3, 4, 204, 298, 370, 384, 399, 400, 401, 406, 413, 430, 447 Archelaus Philopatris (King of Cappadocia) 247, 252, 257, 258, 267, 288, 311, 312, 315–320, 327, 328, 336–340, 348, 355, 356, 428, 429, 443–445 Aretas III (Nabatean King) 157 Aretas IV (Nabatean King) 322, 323, 384, 402, 445 Aristobulus I xiii, 26, 99, 434 Aristobulus II 24, 29, 30, 34, 53, 68, 88, 107, 349, 434, 435 Aristobulus III 32, 70, 96, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110–114, 127, 128, 131, 132, 159, 160, 212, 426, 427, 431, 439 Aristobulus (Herod’s son by Mariamme I) 96, 97, 164, 207, 246, 247, 255, 292, 308, 309, 312, 332, 335, 349, 351, 354, 357, 366, 369, 370, 377, 426, 439, 442, 443 Aristobulus (King Herod’s grandson by his son Aristobulus and Berenice) 354 Arsinoe (Queen of Egypt) 115 Asa (King of Judaea) 407 Athenion 139, 140, 141, 144 Augustus (Caesar, Emperor) 21, 22, 23, 26, 31, 32, 70, 98, 107,

123, 152, 177, 183–185, 192, 194, 198, 200, 202, 207, 218, 219, 240, 243, 246–248, 251, 253, 260– 268, 272, 273, 288, 290, 299, 312, 313, 321–323, 325, 329, 335, 339–342, 351, 352, 364, 373–375, 380–383, 385, 396–403, 411, 428–430, 442–446 Baalshamin (god) 224 Baba son of Buta 210, 232 Bagoas (Herod’s eunuch) 221, 360, 361 Bar-Kochba 28, 411 Bassus Caecilius (Roman commander) 46 Bassus, Ventidius Publius (Roman commander) 45, 73 Bathyllus (freedman of Antipater son of Herod) 370 Bazapharanes (or Brazaphranes) 5 Berenice (daughter of Salome and Costobarus) 247, 287 Boethusian(s) (House of Boethus) 176, 178, 220, 390, 392, 419, 420 Brutus 89, 438 Caesarion (son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra) 126 Caligula (Emperor) 240, 249 Carus (Herod’s servant/lover) 332, 361 Cassius Dio 45, 61, 88, 89, 106, 126, 137, 142, 229, 400 Cassius Longinus (Roman governor of Syria) 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 69, 92, 211, 436, 437 Catiline 89 Ceausescu 190 Cicero, Marcus Tulius 89, 253, 438 Claudius (tribune) 94 Claudius Pulcher 95 Cleopatra II (Queen of Egypt) 180 Cleopatra III (Queen of Egypt) 180 Cleopatra VII 65, 66, 95, 104– 108, 115–117, 124, 127, 129–154, 155, 159, 162, 426–428, 439, 440

Index of Names

Cleopatra of Jerusalem (Herod’s wife) 180, 192, 370, 384, 400, 430, 447 Corinthus (Herod’s bodyguard) 361, 446 Constantine the Great 11, 421 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus 31, 147, 262, 321, 348 Cos, Kos (Idumaean god) 298 Costobarus 123, 131, 133–135, 174, 190, 191, 298, 299, 439, 440, 442, 443 Crassus, Marcus Licinius 78 Cyprus (Herod’s mother) 18, 23, 30, 60, 119, 123, 298, 367 Cyprus (Herod’s daughter from Mariamme I) 114, 164, 166, 288, 290, 304 Cyrus 216 Darius 216 David (King of Israel) xiii, 14, 52, 89, 178, 219, 222, 223, 235, 359, 560, 408, 444 Demetrius (son of Andromachus) 303, 312 Dionysius Tyrant of Tripolis 88 Dellius 106, 107 Didius (Roman governor of Syria) 142 Diodorus Siculus 406 Dionysius (god), Dionysia 184 Diophantes (Herod’s royal scribe) 332, 333, 370 Dolabella, Publius Cornellius (Roman consul and tribune) 94 Doris (Herod’s first wife) 34, 36–38, 55, 56, 59, 92–99, 114, 255, 260, 286, 292, 328, 357, 363, 365, 367, 373, 374, 399, 426, 428, 429, 434, 439, 443, 444, 446 Dorothea 35 Dositheus (Herod’s friend) 191 Dositheus (friend of Hyrcanus II) 157, 191 Drusus, Nero Claudius (Augustus and Livia’s son) 202, 313 Dushara (Nabataean god) 154

505

Eleazar son of Boethus (High Priest) 446 Eleazar son of Yair 147 Eleazar, Priest (called in Givat Hamivtar inscription) 90 Elpis (Herod’s wife) 180, 247, 362, 443 Essene(s) 24, 26, 220, 359 Euaratus (Euarastus) of Cos 330 Eurycles (Spartan notable and King) 278, 325–330, 429, 445 Eusebius 11, 12, 104, 223 Ezra 175, 298, 428 Fatma (Mohammad’s daughter) 21 Flaccus (Roman governor of Asia Minor) 67 Flavius Josephus passim Franco 118 Friedrich the Great 421 Fulvia (wife of Dolabella) 94 Gabinius, Aulus 39, 41, 46, 107 Gallus, Marcus Aelius (Roman Prefect of Egypt) 192, 324, 446 Gemellus (Herod’s friend) 303, 312, 321, 445 Glaphyra 247, 286, 288, 293, 298, 315, 318, 328, 336, 349, 354, 355, 428, 443 Hafez al-Assad 190, 367 Hanamel the Egyptian (High Priest) 104, 176, 439 Hasidim 187 Hasmonaean(s) xi, 4, 21, 22, 24, 26–30, 36, 38, 52, 53, 59, 71, 72, 74, 75, 84, 86, 87, 88, 91, 93, 99, 100, 104, 114, 116, 119, 123, 130, 133, 134, 145, 147, 155–160, 163, 164, 166, 169, 174–178, 180, 182, 185, 186, 190, 212, 225–227, 232, 241, 242, 244, 255–259, 263, 265, 266, 268, 269, 281, 282, 284–286, 292, 295, 305, 308, 309, 312, 314, 321, 326, 330, 331, 333, 335, 340, 341, 349, 350, 353, 355, 375, 377, 378, 399, 400, 408,

506

Index of Names

410, 411, 414, 419, 428–431, 434, 435, 438–440, 442, 444, 445 Helix (or Felix) 50 Herod (King of Judaea) passim Herod Antipas (Herod’s son by Malthace) 204, 210, 298, 384, 399, 400, 430, 447 Herod (King Herod’s grandson by his son Aristobulus and Berenice) 354 Herod Philip (Herod’s son by Cleopatra of Jerusalem) 369, 400, 430, 447 ‘Herodians’ 220–222 Herodias (Herod’s granddaughter by his son Aristobulus and Berenice) 354 Herodotus 26 Hezekiah the Galilean 40, 52, 76, 101, 195, 211, 425, 436 Hillel 222 Hitler 26, 118, 120, 136, 145, 177, 190, 209, 217, 347, 418 Holophernes 90 Hyrcanus I 18, 27, 37, 71, 99, 195, 254, 281, 283 Hyrcanus II 21, 24, 29, 30, 34, 40–44, 48, 49, 51, 53–55, 57, 68, 99, 101, 102, 104, 107, 112, 116, 155–158, 160, 167, 223, 254, 328, 425, 435, 437, 439, 440 Idi Amin 178, 189, 367 Irenaeus (an orator in Herod’s court) 401, 402 Jaddus (High Priest) 175 Jehoram, King of Judaea 392 Jesus Christ 10, 11, 422 Joab ben Zeruyah 89 Joazar son of Boethus 390, 446 John Baptist 210 Joseph (Herod’s brother) 35, 60, 87, 89, 289, 426 Joseph (Herod’s uncle and Salome’s first husband) 118, 119, 121– 123, 125, 133, 166, 256, 424, 440 Joseph (Herod’s major-domo) 159

Joseph (the Tobaid) 46 Joseph son of Ellemus (Elam) 446 Joseph (Biblical) 165 Juba II King of Mauritania 298 Judas son of Sepphoraeus 386, 387, 394, 411, 446 Jucundus (Herod’s bodyguard) 306, 330–334, 445 Judas Maccabaeus 226 Judith 90 Jugurtha 47 Julia (Augustus’ wife) 204 Julia Augusta see Livia Julius Ceasar 19, 21, 34, 41, 44, 45, 46, 50, 53, 65, 66, 69, 89, 126, 156, 240, 436 Julius Africanus 223 Livia (Augustus’ wife) 299, 370, 381, 385, 400 Lucius Cornelius Lentulus Crus 191 Lysanius 115 Lysimachus (Herod’s friend) 191 Macrobius 352 Magi 10, 11 Malichus (Idumaean notable) 24, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 59, 60 Malichus I (Nabataean King) 61, 64, 65, 95, 136, 137, 141, 152, 157, 158 Malthace (Herod’s wife) 95, 175, 192, 277, 298, 370, 384, 413, 428, 430, 441, 447 Mariamme I the Hasmonaean xiii, 4, 17, 33, 51–55, 59, 60, 91–96, 103, 105, 106, 107, 114, 118–123, 125, 157–159, 163–171, 175, 177, 179, 180, 193, 207, 252, 255, 272, 275, 284, 288–290, 292, 305, 307, 314, 328, 349, 350, 364–366, 424–428, 434, 437–442 Mariamme II the Boethusian 35, 94, 95, 176, 178, 180, 181, 192, 248, 369, 378, 390, 420, 441, 446 Mariamme (Herod’s granddaughter by his son Aristobulus and Berenice) 354, 355

Index of Names

Marion (Tyrant of Tyre) 51 Martin Luther 2 Matthias (Mattathias) son of Margalus 386, 387, 389, 394, 411, 446 Mattathias (father of the Hasmonaean dynasty) 226 Mattathias son of Judah 90, 91 Mattathias (Matthias) son of Theophilus (priest) 369, 389, 390, 446 Mausolus King of Caria 183 Menahem the Essene 24, 25, 27, 81, 359, 360, 435 Micha (prophet) 11 Michal (daughter of King Saul) 52 Mnaseas (Menashe) 175 Mohammed 21 Moses 10 Murcus see Statius L. Murcus Mussolini 118, 145, 190, 217, 418 Nanaea (Babylonian goddess) 90 Nehemiah 175, 281, 298, 428 Nero (Emperor) 130, 199 Nicanor (Seleucian officer) 90 Nicanor of Alexandria 234 Nicolaus (of Damascus) 3, 4, 6, 7, 21, 22, 26, 30, 31, 36, 37, 40, 47, 48, 62, 63, 75, 81, 82, 87, 93, 97, 99, 111, 115, 120–123, 128, 129, 131, 137, 143, 144, 146, 147, 150, 152, 153, 165, 169, 170, 189, 203, 206, 215, 216, 222, 246, 250, 252, 255, 256, 260–263, 265, 266, 279, 282, 283, 287, 291, 293, 294, 296, 301, 306, 312, 316, 318, 322, 323, 327–330, 338, 340, 344, 345, 348, 351, 354, 358, 359, 370, 376, 377, 379, 380, 396, 401, 402, 405, 407, 421, 445 Nikaso (daughter of Sanaballat the Samaritan) 175 Obaistus son of Sadus 224 Obodas III (Nabataen King) 322 Octavia 54, 95, 138

295,

507

Octavian 23, 67, 68, 71, 72, 89, 95, 106, 107, 116, 128, 133, 135, 136, 138, 142, 152, 155, 157, 158, 160–163, 184, 185, 239, 277, 289, 427, 437, 438, 440, 441 Olympias (Herod’s daughter from Malthace) 277 Olympus (Herod’s friend) 335, 337 Osiris (Egyptian god) 407 Othello 119, 123, 171, 440 Pacorus (Parthian King) 77, 78, 88, 119 Pallas (Herod’s wife) 180, 247, 443 Pannychis (a concubine) 319 Pappus 87, 89 Pausanias 202 Pericles 145 Peter the Great 421 Petronius, Publius (Roman governor of Syria) 196 Phaedra (Herod’s wife) 180, 247, 362, 443 Pharisees 9, 43, 176, 215, 220, 221, 290, 351, 359, 360, 362, 387, 411, 420, 429, 434, 445, 446 Phasael (Herod’s elder brother) 39, 46, 47, 49–52, 57, 64, 80, 193, 276, 289, 290, 425, 436 Pheidias (the renowned Greek artist, 5th century BCE) 201 Pheroras (Herod’s youngest brother) 35, 60, 87, 89, 123, 166, 191, 207, 257–259, 285, 287, 289– 294, 296, 298, 304, 317, 334, 341, 344, 345, 355–363, 365, 367, 371, 424, 429, 442–446 Philip see Herod Philip Philo Alexandreus 234, 237, 240, 243, 249, 253 Pinochet 190 Pliny the Elder 183, 186, 228 Plutarch 72, 78, 88, 94, 107, 126, 127, 137, 142, 152, 162, 177 Pollio, Gaius Asinius 207 Pollion (Abtalion) 85 Pompey the Great 21, 39, 41, 45, 53, 72, 85, 88, 210, 349, 387

508

Index of Names

Ptolemaeus (Herod’s minister of finances) 98, 99, 286, 291, 334, 336 Ptolemy (son of Anthony and Cleopatra) 126 Ptolemy (a Rhodian citizen) 66, 67, 162 Ptolemy (son of Mennaeus) 51 Ptolemy XIV 115 Pythius (Greek architect, 4th century BCE) 183 Quintus Dellius

106, 177

Rabbi eleazar Ha-Kapar 409 Rabban Johanan son of Zakkai 110 Rabbi Judah 90 Rabbi Yehoshua (Joshua) 409 Roma (goddess) 204 Roxane (Herod’s daughter by Phedra) 362 Sabbatai Zvi 223 Sabinus (Roman procurator in Syria) 210 Saddam Hussein 21, 158, 178, 189, 209, 217, 242, 367, 418 Sadducees 220, 389, 390, 392, 420 Sages 29, 53, 226, 301, 358, 403, 411 Salampsio or Shlomzion (Mariame I’s daugter) 164, 290, 300 Salome-Alexandra (Shlomzion, Hasmonaean Queen) 114, 210, 408, 434, 435 Salome (Herod’s sister) 60, 97, 99, 119, 123, 133, 134, 166–168, 190, 191, 246, 254–259, 287–294, 296–300, 304, 310, 311, 335, 341, 344, 345, 355, 358, 360, 363, 370, 381, 382, 385, 396, 401, 427, 430, 440, 444, 445 Salome (Herod’s daughter by Elpis) 362 Samson (Biblical judge) 310 Sanaballat (Satrap of Samaria) 175 Sanaias (Sameas, Shemaiah) 43, 44, 85, 359

Sappinas, Sapphinius (Rhodian citizen) 66, 67, 162 ‘Satan’ 10, 422 Saturninus, C. Sentius (Roman governor of Syria) 323, 341, 343, 351, 358, 361 School of Shamai 411 Sextus Caesar (Roman governor of Syria) 41–43, 45, 49, 92 Seneca xii, 94 Sheba ben Bichri (rebel against King David) 89 Silo or Silon (Roman commander in Syria) 73–75 Simeon builder of the Temple 231 Simeon (Simon) the Hasmonaean 226 Simeon ben-Shatah 28 Simon son of Boethus 38, 176, 178, 369, 390, 428, 441 Soemus the Ituraean 159, 165, 167 Solomon (King of Israel) 218, 281, 282 Sons of Baba (Saba) 135, 190, 232, 442 Sons of Bathyra 358 Sossius, Gaius (Roman governor of Syria) 79, 80, 84–87 Strabo 21, 36, 88, 201, 202, 324 Stalin 113, 118, 120, 145, 158, 189, 209, 217, 347, 367, 418 Statius L. Murcus (Roman Governor of Syria) 45, 46 Suetonius 23, 26, 32, 89, 130, 152, 177, 201, 229, 240, 247, 272, 274, 290 Syllaeus (Nabataen notable) 71, 117, 134, 295–300, 322–326, 335, 338, 339, 344, 358, 361, 363, 365, 370, 381, 382, 384, 402, 445, 446 Tacitus xi, xii, 5, 229, 230, 400 Tamar (King David’s daughter) 389 Tamuz (Babylonian god) 407 Theudion (conspirator against Herod) 355

509

Index of Names

Thucydides 145, 171 Tiberius (Emperor) 21 Tiberius Julius Alexander 234 Tigranes (King Herod’s grandson by his son Alexander and Glaphyra) 354 Tiro (King Herod’s veteran soldier) 345–347 Titius, Marcus (Roman quaestor under Antony) 319 Titus (Emperor) 192–194, 230 Tobaids 46, 207 Trajan (Emperor) 70, 230 Trotsky 113 Trypho (Herod’s barber) 347 Tyranus (Herod’s bodyguard) 306, 330–334, 445

Varus, P. Quinctilius (Roman governor of Syria) 212, 373–375, 378, 380, 413 Ventidius, Publius (Roman governor of Syria) 73, 77–79, 88 Ventideius Cumnus (Roman procurator of Judaea) 414 Vitruvius, Pollio 200 Venus (goddess) 18 Vetus, Gaius Antistius (Roman Commander) 45 Volumnius (Roman military tribune, Herod’s friend) 335, 337, 341 Zamaris 358 Zealots 220, 417 Zenodorus (tetrarch)

206, 442

Geographical Index Acarnania 138 Actium 51, 112, 128, 137, 138, 140–142 , 155, 161, 277, 325 Adoraim 75 Aegean Sea 67, 277 Aegean Islands 277 Agripias (formerly Anthedon) 248, 249, 273 Agripion, Agripeum (wing in Herod’ Palace at Jerusalem) 192, 248 Akra 129 Alexandria 38, 39, 65, 66, 142, 176, 184, 190, 193, 200, 234, 275, 368, 392, 420, 425, 440 Alexandrium Fortress 130, 163, 164, 197, 210, 250, 289, 333, 348, 370, 445 Amalek 152, 328 Amman 153 Anthedon 162, 183, 248, 248, 273, 441 Antioch (on River Orontes, Syria) 54, 79, 80, 163, 277, 319, 441 Antonia Fortress 128–130, 188, 194, 226, 439 Aquilea 261, 264 Arab, Arabic, Arabia, Arabian(s) 18, 19, 23, 140, 143, 148, 149, 153, 154, 183, 192, 242, 297, 324, 338, 370, 408, 409, 424, 425 Arbel (Mount and caves) 76, 77 Armenia 126 Ascalon (Ashkelon) 19, 28–31, 66, 183, 232, 276, 309, 424 Asia Minor 54, 67, 77, 142, 183, 191, 229, 239, 248, 252–254, 256, 259, 267, 281, 443 Athens, Athenian(s) 30, 146, 198, 199, 273, 277, 442

Augusteum in Caesarea 184, 201 Augusteum in Sebaste 195, 228, 274 Auran, Auranitis (also Hauran) 206, 400, 414, 442, 447 Avel beit Ma’acha 89 Azotus (Ashdod) 183 Babylon, Babylonia, Babylonian(s) 21, 22, 90, 156, 211, 216, 222, 407, 430, 439 Batanaea 206, 211 Baths of Trajan near Rome 230 Bathyra (Ecbatana) 358 Batanea 358, 400, 442, 447 Ben-Hinom Valley 59 Berythus (modern Beirut) 323, 338, 429, 445 Beth-Haruri, Bet-Haroro (see also Herodium) 182 Bethlehem 10, 11, 14 Birah, Baris 129, 130, 226 Bithynia 54, 437 Bosphorus 250 Bronze Gate (Jerusalem Temple) 234 Brundisium 67, 71 Caesarea Maritima 11, 181, 183, 185, 196–208, 212, 217, 249, 272–275, 281, 286, 296, 344, 372, 413–415, 442, 444 Caesarea Philippi 208 Caesareans 212 Caesarion (wing of Herod’ Palace at Jerusalem) 192 Callirohe 395 Canatha, Kanatha (Al Qanawat) 139, 154, 224

Geographical Index

Cappadocia 77, 251, 267, 298, 316, 318, 319, 337 Capitol Hill (Rome) 72, 229, 240, 412, 426, 438 Caracalla Baths near Rome 231, 232 Chalcis 115, 275 Chios, Chius 252, 277 Cilicia (Asia Minor) 126, 267, 277, 337, 372, 439 Coele-Syria 43, 92, 132, 436, 439 Commagene (Asia Minor) 78 Corinthian Gate (Jerusalem Temple) 234 Cos, Kos (island in Aegean Sea) 19, 135, 277, 330, 440 Court of Priests (Jerusalem Temple Mount) 237 Cyprus (Fortress) 187, 274 Cyprus (island) 200, 267, 439, 444 Cyrene 252, 253, 256, 443 Cysicus (Asia Minor) 142 Damascus 276 Daphne (near Antioch) 54, 80 David Tomb (Jerusalem) 281–285 Dead Sea 183, 395, 406 Decapolis (Transjordan) 132, 195 Delos (island) 322 Diospolis (Transjordan) 139 Dora (on Palestine coast) 198 Drusus (wave-braker in Caesarea harbor) 198 Drusium (lighthouse at Caesarea harbor) 202, 313 Edom, Edomite(s) 27, 204, 216, 328, 415, 416 Egypt, Egyptian(s) 37, 65, 107, 109, 126, 127, 133, 134, 136, 138, 162, 163, 176, 182, 192, 196, 198, 200, 205, 207, 234, 272, 367, 407, 415, 438, 439, 441 Elis (in Peloponnesus) 277, 326 Emmaus (in west Judaea) 212 Epirus 138 Euphrates River 70, 78 Forum Romanum

229

511

Gaba Hippeon see Geva Gadara 30, 162, 441 Galatians 211, 406, 417 Galilee 26, 35, 39, 40, 46, 51, 74–77, 195, 196, 211, 333, 414, 415, 425, 447 Gallia 112 Gaulan, Gaulanitis 400, 447 Gaza 20, 133, 162, 183, 248, 273, 441 German merceneries 211, 406, 417 Geva a Cavalry City 195, 211, 414 Gindarus Mountain (Asia Minor, east) 78 Givat Ha-Mivtar (Jerusalem) 90, 91, 231 Greece, Greeks 35, 37, 149, 150, 152, 180, 201, 203, 214, 224, 247, 276, 277, 326, 407, 415 Gythium (Greece) 329 Hasmonaean Citadel (Jerusalem) 59 Hasmonaean Palace (Jerusalem) 57, 188, 192 Heptastadium (Alexandria’s harbor) 193, 275 Hera statue in Caesarea 202 Herodia (Lower Herodium) 183 Herodium 60, 64, 130, 181, 182, 183, 228, 406, 407, 408, 441 Herodium (Qasr Riyashi, east of the Dead Sea) 183 Heshbon (Transjordan) 211 Hippodromes (Caesarea, Sebaste, Jerusalem, Jericho) 184, 203, 395, 396, 397, 403, 446 Hippus (Hippos), Susita 162, 183, 441 Holy of Holies, Dvir (Sanctuary), Sacred precinct (Jerusalem Temple) 231, 234–236, 238, 392 Homs (Syria) 275 Hyrcania Fortress (Judean desert) 118, 130, 209, 210, 250 Idumaea, Idumaean(s) xiv, 18–22, 24, 27, 34–40, 48, 55, 59–61, 64, 66, 71–74, 93, 133–135, 180,

512

Geographical Index

191, 211, 223, 242, 349, 414, 415, 437, 439 Illium (Troy) 251, 252 Ionia, Ionian Sea 250–253, 256, 277, 443 Italy 186, 200, 371 Ituraea, Ituraean(s) 126, 159, 447 Jaffa (Joppa) 73, 75, 162, 183, 198, 234, 441 Jamnia 183 Jericho 65, 75, 80, 81, 127, 128, 130, 173, 184, 185, 187, 274, 334, 426, 438, 439, 441 Jerusalem xii, 5, 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, 50, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 64, 67, 68, 70–75, 77, 79, 85, 86, 90–92, 95, 99–103, 105, 110, 114, 136, 151, 156–158, 173, 174, 176, 177, 180, 185–187, 191–194, 205, 210–214, 227, 240, 249, 250, 253, 254, 256, 257, 259, 267, 271, 274–276, 282, 283, 286, 296, 312, 313, 316, 326, 349, 359, 364, 372, 387, 395, 397, 403, 413, 425, 426, 436–441, 443–446 Joppa see Jaffa Jordan River, Jordan Valley 30, 65, 75, 132, 162, 206, 208, 442 Jezreel Valley 211, 414, 440 Judaea 11, 21, 34, 36, 39, 47, 51, 53, 57, 65, 68, 69, 71, 80, 81, 101, 105, 133, 135, 151, 156, 176, 181, 184, 195, 196, 198, 200, 203, 205, 211–214, 226, 229, 247, 256, 349, 380, 387, 395, 406, 414, 425, 436, 441, 443 Kidron Valley (Jerusalem) Kos see Cos

233

Land of Israel 29, 53, 392, 409 Laodicea (Syria) 113, 115, 116, 118, 123, 128, 129, 165, 166, 276, 439 Lebanon Mount 80, 211 Lesbos (island) 207, 442 Libya 253 Lycia (Asia Minor) 277

Macedonia, Macedonian(s) 175, 216 Machaerus Fortress (Transjordan) 130, 210, 417 Maresha, Marisa (Idumaea) 27– 29, 31, 61, 75, 424, 435 Marmora Sea 229 Masada 31, 50, 60, 62, 73, 92, 116–118, 122, 130, 147, 159, 164, 165, 187, 227, 349, 417, 426, 437, 440 Mausoleum at Halicarnasus 183, 184 Mausoleum of Augustus in Rome 183 Mediterranean Sea, Mediterranen Basin 46, 66, 186, 194–196, 198, 201, 205, 273, 274, 276, 281, 294, 418, 441 Menorah (Candelabrum) 236, 237 Miletos (Asia Minor) 322 Misenum (Italy) 200 Mitylene (in island of Lesbos) 207, 442 Modein 182, 408, 441 Mysia (Asia Minor) 277 Nabatea, Nabataean(s) 20, 23, 24, 30, 61, 63–66, 70, 79, 116, 117, 136–147, 151–154, 157, 161, 202, 206, 218, 226, 295, 296, 298, 299, 313, 323, 324, 326, 338, 361, 382, 384, 393, 425, 427, 428, 430, 437, 440, 445 Nicpolis (Greece) 183, 277 Nicaea (Bithynia in Asia Minor) 11 Nicanor Gate (Bronze Gate) 234 Nile 200 Numidia (North Africa) 47 Oikumene (“the settled world”) xiii, 219 Olympian Zeus statue in Caesarea 201 Oressa (Juadean desert) 60 Palestine 34, 43, 46, 57, 71–73, 126, 136, 139, 276, 411, 414, 417

Geographical Index

Paneas, Paneon (sources of the Jordan) 206, 208, 214, 273, 442, 447 Paphlagonia (North Asia Minor) 251 Paphos (in Cyprus) 200 Parthia, Parthian(s) 50, 57, 58, 61, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 75, 77–79, 81, 88, 92, 95, 105, 106, 126, 135, 156, 426, 437 Peloponnesus 35, 145, 171, 277 Pelusium (Egypt) 66, 104 Peraea (Transjordan) 132, 207, 290, 290, 297 Pergamum (Asia Minor) 277 Persia, Persian(s) 90 Petra (Transjordan) 134, 154, 295, 322, 361, 364 Pharos Lighthouse (in Alexandria) 184, 193, 275 Phasaelis (Jericho Valley) 274, 277 Philadelphia (Transjordan) 153 Philippi (Macedonia) 50, 54, 55, 56 Phoenicia, Phoenician(s) 126, 162, 175, 180, 182, 198, 200, 276, 407, 439 Phrygia (Asia Minor) 251 Piraeus (harbor of Athens) 198, 199, 273, 442 Platane (village near Sidon) 341 Pontus (Asia Minor) 250 Praetorium (Jerusalem) 129 Procymatia (wave breaker in Caesarea harbor) 198 Psephinus Tower (Jerusalem) 194 Ptolemaic Kingdom 126, 180 Ptolemais (Acre) 72, 73, 162, 276, 440 Puteoli 200 Qarn Sartaba see Alexandrium Ramesses II (Egyptian Pharaoh) 182 Raphia, Rhinocoloura, Rhinocorrura (south to Gaza) 183 Red Sea 324 Rohdes 66, 67, 142, 143, 155, 157, 159–161, 163, 260, 289, 427, 438, 440

513

Roma Temple at Caesarea 184 Rome 47–50, 54–56, 65, 67–71, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 86, 88, 89, 100, 102, 107, 116, 135, 136, 138, 143, 157, 161, 164, 168, 196, 198, 200, 202–204, 207, 213, 229, 247, 248, 255, 256, 260, 281, 283, 286, 295, 296, 308, 309, 311, 312, 319, 341, 344, 362, 364, 370, 375, 378, 381, 382, 386, 387, 401, 402, 406, 411, 416, 419, 421, 422, 426, 428, 429, 438, 440, 443–446 Royal Palace (Jerusalem) 31, 128, 129, 192, 228, 230–233, 245, 246, 319, 320, 372, 446 Rubion River (Italy) 72 Samaria 43, 48, 73–75, 91–93, 122, 159, 162, 164, 173, 175, 176, 183, 194, 289, 348, 437, 438 Samaritan(s) 10, 73, 91, 175, 176, 196, 367, 368, 413, 414, 428, 430, 441 Sanctuary see Holy of Holies Samos (island in Aegean Sea) 251, 277 Samosata (near the Euphrates River) 78, 79, 80, 319 Scamander River (Asia Minor) 251 Scopus, Mount 234 Sebaste, Sebastia 194–197, 199, 212, 249, 273, 274, 348, 413, 415, 445 Sebastians 212 Sebastos (Port of Caesaea) 199– 200, 313, 372, 442 Sebasteum see Augusteum Se’eia, Si’a (Transjordan) 154, 224 Sepphoris (in Galilee) 333 Shechem 175 Shiloah Pool (Jerusalem) 408 Sidon 276, 340, 341, 439 Sinai 115, 200 Sinope (in Pontus, Asia Minor) 250 Soreg 234 Sparta, Spartan(s) 35, 325, 326, 329, 445

514

Geographical Index

Strato’s Tower (later Caesarea Maritima) 162, 273 Syria 41–46, 50, 52, 57, 73, 77–79, 84, 88, 126, 162, 163, 199, 205, 207, 211, 272, 276, 319, 338, 341, 409, 417, 425, 437 Tarentum (Italy) 371 Taricheas (Galilee) 183 Taurus Mountains (Asia Minor) 77 Temple (Jerusalem) xii, xiv, 5, 9, 38, 67, 71, 112, 128–130, 192, 213–245, 248, 249, 253, 268, 281, 386, 388, 408, 411, 418, 420, 442, 446 Thecoa, Thekoa (Judean desert) 64, 437 Thracia, Tracian(s) (Greece) 211, 406, 417 Tiberias 183 Tikrit (Iraq) 21 Tower of David (Jerusalem) 193 Tower of Hippicus (Jerusalem) 193, 228, 275

Tower of Mariamme (Jerusalem) 193, 194, 228, 275 Tower of Phasael (Jerusalem) 228, 274, 275 Trachon, Trachonitis (Transjordan) 211, 442, 444, 447 Transjordan 162, 211 Tripolis (Phenicia) 276 Tunnel (underground security passage in the Temple Mount) 244 Tyre, Tyrian(s) 51, 276, 344, 400, 439 Tyropoeon (Valley of the Cheesemakers) 233 Ulam (the Porch of Jerusalem Temple) 235, 236 Ulata (Galilee) 206 Upper City (of Jerusalem) 192, 194 Women Court on Temple Mount 238 Zephyrium (in Asia Minor) 267