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.

Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI

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. JewsHistory586 B.C.-70 A.D.
I. Witztum, Eliezer.
II. Title.
DS122.3.K2613 2006
933.05092dc22
[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.

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, Gttingen

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
(73/7263 BCE)
Herods Origins and Their Impact on His Personality. . . . .
Political Ambitions since Childhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18
24

Chapter 2
Adolescence in the Shadow of the Roman Conquest
(6342 BCE)
Consolidation of Power in the House of Antipater . . . . . . .
Appointment as Strategos of Galilee, and Trial before Sanhedrin (4746 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
(4137 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
(3734 BCE)
The Problem of John Hyrcanus II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
The Murder of Aristobulus III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Alexandra and Cleopatras 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 VIIs Influence on Relations between Herod
and Antony (3431 BCE)
Antonys 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 Antonys Camp Under Cover of the First
War against the Nabataeans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Chapter 7
Elimination of Herods Hasmonaean Family Members
(3028 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
Herods 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 (2710 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 Herods 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
Herods 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 Peoples 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 Herods 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 (1814 BCE)
From the Euphoria of Building to an Ongoing Persecution
Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Law against Thieves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Return of Herods Sons from Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

viii

Table of Contents

Visit of Marcus Agrippa to Judaea (15 BCE). . . . . . . . . . . . 248

Herods 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 (1410 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 Herods Mental State and
Worsening Relations with his Hasmonaean Sons
(109 BCE)
Looting of King Davids 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 (97 BCE)
The Ring of Suspicion Tightens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alexanders Fateful Blunder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Archelaus King of Cappadocia Comes to the Aid of Alexander. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Herods Second War against the Nabateans . . . . . . . . . . . .

305
310
315
320

Chapter 15
Lead-Up to the Great Explosion (87 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
Herods Sons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Execution of Alexander and Aristobulus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
Josephus Summary of Herods Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349

Chapter 17
Antipaters Subversion in the Royal Court of Jerusalem
(75 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 Herods Mental State . . . . . . . . 366

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

372

Chapter 19
Descent into Oblivion (4 BCE)
Severe Decline in Herods 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
Herods Final Illness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
Herods Final Attack of Madness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394

Chapter 20
Post-Mortem
Josephus Final Assessment of Herods Character . . . . . . . .
Herods Funeral. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

405
406

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

410

Table of Contents

Appendix
Herods Relations with His Immediate Family . . . . . . . . . .
Milestones in Herods Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Concluding Remarks on Herods 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, Knig 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. ixx).
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 Herods deeds, even the progressive and beneficial ones, were intended solely to serve the personal needs of this evil individual (ibid.). In Schalits 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 Herods 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 Schalits 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 turned3 and he too was no lover of Israel, to put it mildly.
According to Schalit, Graetzs sin was that he examined Herods
history from the perspective of Talmudic tradition; Klausner erred
similarly in exploring it from a national standpoint. In Schalits 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 Herods honor in modern Jewish historiography. We will
limit ourselves below to excerpts from Schalits concluding remarks,
1
2
3

Levy 1960, pp. 115189; Stern 1980, II, pp. 193; Feldman 1992, passim; Schfer
1997, esp. pp. 3133. 185192, 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. 338342; cf. the German version,
pp. 671675):
[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 Herods messianic-Roman
ideal yawned a gaping chasm that could not be bridged
Herod remained in eternal disgrace in the nations 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 kings 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 others spirit, Herods kingdom would have been
highly revered in the peoples memory, like that of David, for Herods
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 Herods time that stood in the kings way. Herods political
achievements, whose benefits are unquestioned, as well as the curse saddling the man and his ways in the nations 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 kings actions in his dealings
4

For the different meanings of oikumene in Greco-Roman literature, see: Shahar

2004 (index), in particular pp. 256267 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 Gods
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 persons 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 Herods Roman policy; had
the peoples 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 Herods
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 todays 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 Herods 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 lifes work, which have
ramifications for Jewish history as a whole.

7
8

Runyan 1988, pp. 202241.

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
Herods 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 Yaakov 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 fr Judaistik der Universitt 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 Dhnert 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 Herods 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, Tbingen.

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 historians
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 peoples 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

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 tudes juives, 151:
542, esp. pp. 56

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 Eriksons 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.

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. ixxv.
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

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 Herods 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 (pomnmata to basilwv (Hrwdou), 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 kings 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 Herods 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 Herods official court historian.7 It is unclear
4

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: Schrer 1973, I, pp. 4363; S. Cohen 1979; Rajak
1983; Stern 1991, pp. 378413; Attridge 1984, pp. 185232; Bilde 1988; Mason
1991; Landau 2003. References to other studies will of course be provided with
regard to specific issues.
Schrer, 1973, I, pp. 2627. Indeed, there are many scholars (like Schalit) who feel
that Josephus did not read Herods 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. 147172;
Schrer 1973, I, pp. 2233; Bowersock 1965, pp. 134138; Stern 1974, I, pp. 227
260; idem 1991, pp. 445 ff.; Attridge 1984, pp. 185232, 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
Herods 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.

Introduction

at which point in Herods 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
Herods 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, 184186):
[184] For he wrote in Herods 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

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 Herods 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 lifes work. He stars in four entire
volumes of AJ (XIVXVIII) 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.

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 Herods 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 Herods 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. 256275, 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. 6567; Schalit 1963,

Methodology

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. xilxxxii; Schrer 1973, I, pp. 4352; S. Cohen 1979, pp. 4867, 148151,
155160; Bilde 1968, pp. 59 ff.; Stern 1991, pp. 378413, 455464; Landau 2003,
chapters 34 etc.
By way of illustration, see: AJ XV, 267, 274276, 326330; XVI, 5, 150159, 395
404; XVII, 80181.
Compare with the excellent writing of S. Cohen 1979, pp. 233 ff.; and Landau
2003, passim.
See BJ I, 116, 30; AJ I, 14; XX, 154157, 259266; cf. also CA I, 16, 1227,
4652; Schalit 1963, pp. xi ff.; Stern 1991, pp. 408413.

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
readers 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

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 Herods 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) Herods 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 kings
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 kingdoms 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. 2647, esp. 4042; Klausner 1959, IV, pp. 3647; 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 kingdoms
subjects to swear allegiance to Herod and to Caesar; (o) imposition
of heavy taxes to finance Herods 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 (2:118) concerning the birth of Jesus in a manger in Bethlehem in the final year of
Herods 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-Shaloms study is a good example of a subsequent work that even expanded the scope of Alons 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 Herods enormous financial
investments in the non-Jewish Greco-Roman world.
Compare with the version of Luke 2:120, which is inferior to that of Matthew.
The reference here is to the astrologers from the East, namely the Magi (mgoi),
who predicted future events by watching the stars; see more recently: Efron 2004,
pp. 185187.

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. 260339 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, 15):
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. 180181,
355 (n. 92), 194195.

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 Herods
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 Herods 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. ixlvi.
See the excellent recent study by Efron 2004, passim.

Psychopathological Aspects of Herod

13

century, inspired by Freuds work, that the first tentative efforts were
made to unlock the mystery of Herods 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 Schalits 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 Herods 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
Herods 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. 602606, 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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
(1:118). 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 Herods 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 Herods life.30
29
30

Fenn 1992, pp. 6, 3141, 70, 77, 79, 86, 103.

See: Hirschmann et al. 2004, pp. 833839.

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. 634638.

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 persons 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 individuals 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 Herods 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 (73/7263 BCE)
Herods 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 (Kprov), 2 an Arab. During the time of his grandfather Antipas, under the rule of John Hyrcanus I (135104 BCE), the
Idumaeans converted to Judaism and joined the Jewish nation. 3 As1

With regard to this date, cf. Smallwood 1981, p. 44; Richardson 1996, p. xv; Kokkinos 1998, pp. 109, 144145, 156 (n. 2). It is stated in BJ I, 647 that when Herod died
(4 BCE) he was already approximately (n mn gr +dh scedn tn bdomkonta)
seventy years of age, but it is unclear if the reference is to 69 or 68, since scedn
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 (per 3tov bdomkoostn n) 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.
Kprov 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. Kpriv). However, in our opinion the name of Herods 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, 4:1213 and even referred to in the
Septuagint (hereafter LXX) as Kprov]; see also M. Zahari, EB, IV, cols. 230231;
mShebiith 7:6; Feliks 1968, pp. 270271.
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. 4677) and Ronen (2003, pp. 123131), 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, 8892; idem 2000, p. 143) and Bar-Kochva (2002, p. 10 and

Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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

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. 1324, esp. 2123. His analysis of Herods identity is correct, in particular his
statement that in the eyes of most of Herods Jewish subjects he was a bad Jew.
This assessment was arrived at not as a result of Herods 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
Schrer 1979, pp. 49, 107108; G. Fuks 2001, pp. 6671, esp. 6869. On education
in ancient Greek cities, see: Jones 1940, pp. 220226.
AJ XIV, 10; Kasher 1988, pp. 8990; idem 1990, p. 149 f. In our opinion, Kokkinos
(1998, passim, chaps. 34 in particular) went too far in claiming that Herods family origins were Phoenician-Ascalonian; see: Kasher 2001, pp. 165184.
Cf. Fenn 1992, p. 6, and esp. Kokkinos 1998, pp. 350351. On the granting of Roman citizenship to Herod by Julius Caesar, see: BJ I, 194; AJ XIV, 137; Gilboa 1972,
pp. 609614; Sullivan 1978, pp. 296354; Smallwood 1981. p. 39, 45. Jacobson
(1983/4, pp. 3135) makes reference to an inscription on the island of Cos indicating that Herods Roman name was changed accordingly to Gaius Julius Herodes. It
is worth mentioning here that the Herodian dynastys close relationship with Cos
continued for several generations.
Cf. Otzen 1990, p. 37; Kasher 2005a, pp. 179224.

20

1. Residues of Childhood

level almost unprecedented for a person of Eastern origins. The Jewish element came into play primarily in Herods 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 Herods 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, Herods grandfather and
the first member of the family to convert to Judaism, the Hasmonaean
king Alexander Jannaeus (10376 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 Herods 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. 602603; 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).

Herods 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 Pompeys 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, Herods 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 Antipaters assistance iduring the Alexandrian War.
Cf. also Strabo, Geographica XVI, 2, 46 (765). Strabo lived in Herods 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. 726727
(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
Mohammads 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 Herods 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, 183187):
[183] and many other things he treats of in the same manner in his
book; [184] for he wrote in Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods sense of inferiority regarding his birth accompanied him throughout his life. The term half-Jew (4miioudaov; 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, Herods 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).

Herods 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 familys 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 mothers 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 fathers 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. 1819, 272372; Ben-Shalom 1993, pp. 283284;
Kasher 1988, pp. 76, 123126; idem 2005, pp. 185188.
Suetonius, Augustus 12; 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. 6263; 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 Herods 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, 373378):
[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, 207209; AJ XIV, 162, 165167. 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. 3446.
BJ I, 123 ff.; see also AJ XIV, 8 ff., esp. 44; cf. also 158, 165167, 179.
Certain modern scholars as well have been captivated by the notion that Herod was
born to rule; see for example: Schrer 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 (didskalov), 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 (dithv); 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

Schalits Hebrew translation of AJ (ad loc.) rendered didskalov 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. 421422 (s. v. didskalov). 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 didskalov nqrpwn, 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
Herods tutor in Greek studies.
On the various attempts to identify Menahem the Essene, see: Klausner 1958, IV,
pp. 148149; 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, 6994 (Flusser ed., pp. 225226).
Landau (2003, pp. 121122) has taken note of this fact and rightly argued that BJ
I, 203 ff. emphasized only Herods 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 Herods
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 Herods 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 masters 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 Herods 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 Herods lack of self-

29
30

one ascribed to Judas the Essene regarding Aristobulus I and Antigonus (BJ I,
7880; AJ XIII, 311313); 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 ones personal destiny, on the other. For similar literary motifs in the writings of Herodotus, see Landau 2003, p. 172.
See: Schalit 1969, pp. 459460, cf. 471 ff.
Compare for example AJ XV, 138, 144146, 198, 373379, 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, 9094)
all the more so since he himself believed it. It is our opinion that such a tradition
might have inspired Nicolaus when writing Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods
childhood that can be extracted from Josephus writings? Although
the answer is negative, there is a reasonable possibility that most of
Herods 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 familys
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) Herods home town.
Tcherikover 1959, pp. 9495; Schrer 1979, II, pp. 107108; Hengel 1974, I,
pp. 8687; Geiger 1991, pp. 516; 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
(6670 CE) and the Bar Kochba Revolt (132135 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 Ascalons 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 Herods 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 Herods consciousness, particularly when he encoun34
35
36
37

Cf. S. Cohen 1999, pp. 110 ff.

Regarding Herods Ascalonite education, see Kokkinos 1998, pp. 112128.
See Efron, appendix in: Kasher 1990, pp. 318341. In our opinion, the reservations
raised by Ilan (2001, pp. 136146) do not undermine Efrons analysis.
On Ascalons enmity and hatred toward Jews during the Roman era, see: Kasher
1983, pp. 5860; idem 1990, pp. 230 ff.; Fuks 2001, pp. 122145.

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 Herods 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
Herods 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 Herods 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. Herods 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 fathers 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 fathers 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.
Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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. 316.

Political Ambitions since Childhood

31

parently beginning in 20 BCE.40 Of this friendship, it is related that it

reawakened Herods 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, 905959 CE) testifying to Herods
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 Herods 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 Herods physical education as well, there is only indirect evidence, chiefly from Josephus BJ I, 429430 (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. 2223) rightfully sought to correct the date suggested by Laqueur (1936, cols. 366367), 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. 8183)
pointed out that in Herods 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 Herods 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 kings
chief advisor in matters involving the library, in addition to his other tasks as political
advisor and court historian. Wacholder (pp. 8286) believed that the writings of the
44 Hellenist writers referred to by Josephus were housed in Herods 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 Herods 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. 2024.

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, Herods 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 Herods
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 Herods
prowess as a hunter (AJ XVI, 247248).
The writings of Josephus also offer indirect clues concerning Herods physical appearance. Thus for example, AJ XV, 2530, 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 Herods character in his concluding remarks

in AJ XVII, 191192: 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 (6342 BCE)
Consolidation of Power in the House of Antipater
The launching point for Herods 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 Herods family. The turbulent years of 6347 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. 1530; Schrer, I, pp. 267272; Smallwood, pp. 30
43; Kokkinos, pp. 97100.
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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 (gnov x (Ierosolmwn), and elsewhere (BJ I, 449) as a

5
6

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,
216217. Endogamy was apparently a well-known phenomenon in Eastern societies (including Jews); cf. Satlow 2001, pp. 144, 147151; Schremer 2003, pp. 159 ff.
Herods 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. 73101, 127; cf. Satlow 2001, pp. 104111, esp. 109111.
Bar-Kochva 2003, pp. 67. 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, 316317; 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 (ditidov mhtrv) 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 (gunaka dhmtin) of his own nation (k to 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 (kto gunka
tn picwron ok 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 picwroi 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
picwroi 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 nr picriov 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 (ok
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
Strabos mistaken remark that Herod snuck his way into the priesthood, referred
the reader to the truth concerning Herods lowly origins, as contained in AJ XIV, 9.
See above chapter 1, pp. 2223.
See Rengstorf, I, p. 252; cf also Liddell & Scott, pp. 255256 (s. v. 2shmov, IIIV).
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 Rengstorfs concordance and Liddell & Scotts 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-Kochvas 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-Kochvas 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 Herods 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 Herods 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. 208209 and n. 3.
Herods father-in-law, Simon son of Boethus, was referred to similarly as a Jerusalemite ((Ierosolumthv), although he was Alexandrian in origin according
to AJ XV, 320: tinov )Alecandrwv). Bar-Kochva (2003, p. 9, n. 13) makes the
claim that the latter reference in Kasher (2001, p. 179, n. 50) is based on Schalits
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-Kochvas view, would not have erred in translating such a simple sentence.
Unfortunately, we have no means of clarifying Schalits 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 Schalits 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 Schalits Hebrew translation. Surprisingly enough, Kokkinos (1998, pp. 208209, 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. 2338) 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. Cohens view; unfortunately,
however, Bar-Kochva comments on the matter in rather vague terms without offering an appropriate explanation. In support of Sterns (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 (5557 BCE; AJ, XIV, 127, 139; Schrer, 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 others
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 Pompeys conquest, so that at the time of Herods
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 (4746 BCE)
Following Julius Caesars 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 Herods 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 Herods 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. 4043; Schrer 1973, I, p. 275, 359;
Smallwood 1981, pp. 34 f., 44 ff.
In AJ XIV, 158, it is written: pntapasin 0nti nw pentekadeka gr ault
genei mnon 3th. Subsequently ( 159), Josephus uses synonymous terms of reference such as nethv, neanav. In BJ I, 203, however, he writes in general terms
that Herod was komid non (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. drastriov). A similar description is found in AJ XIV 159, where Herod is depicted as t
frnhma gennaov.
AJ XIV, 165: tn (Hrdhn baion ka tolmhrn ka turanndov. 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 (dithv), 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 Herods estrangement from the ancestral laws (i. e. Torah laws) in this context,
see Schrder 1996, pp. 3234, and recently Fuks 2002, pp. 238239
BJ I, 203 ff.; AJ XIV, 158 ff. Schalit (1969, p. 42 and n. 131) had shown that the dubious title rcilhstv 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, 169177, esp. 171 ff.; Kasher 1990, p. 174, n. 155; Isaak
1984, pp. 171203; Rhoads 1976, Appendix; Cornfeld 1982, p. 47; Rajak 1983,
p. 84; Hengel 1989, pp. 41 ff., 313 ff.; Shaw 1993, pp. 176204. Schfer (1997,
p. 87) rightly argued that, in Herods view, the Galilee was a stronghold of fanatic
Hasmonaean loyalists.
Josippon, xxxix, 2426 (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. 101103; Smallwood 1981, pp. 38 ff, esp. 4446.

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 latters explicit directive to Hyrcanus to withdraw the charges
against him and refrain from putting him on trial (BJ I, 210211; AJ
XIV, 170, 177178). 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 sons royal airs and the unqualified support of Sextus Caesar would intimidate the Jewish court.29
Herod indeed accepted Antipaters 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 Herods
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, 15:3539; 22:2430; 25:15
27; our thanks to G. Rosenblum, who called our attention to this similarity.
AJ XIV, 169, 173. porfra 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. 2936; D. Schwartz 2004, p. 134.
According to Kokkinos (1998, p. 98, relying on AJ XIV, 45), Antipater (Herods
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 14:4344; Rappaport 2004, pp. 325. Ironic as it might sound,
Herods 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. 207211.
Concerning the nature of this Sanhedrin, see the instructive study by Efron 1980,
pp. 311312. He cast doubt as to whether Josephus account of Herods 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. 151154) 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, 34) 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, 768771). See also: Efron 1980, pp. 192196; 311312; BenShalom 1993, pp. 289291; cf. Regev 2003, p. 18.
This was Rivkins initial opinion (1978, pp. 5053, 71), except that according to
him the Pharisees underwent a complete change of heart to become Herods 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. 321324). In our opinion, the best analysis of Herods trial is offered
by Efron, loc. cit.; cf. also Mason 1991, pp. 26 ff.; Stemberger 1995, pp. 114115.
The attempt made by Mantel (1969, pp. 357365) to bridge the contradictions between Josephus account and the Talmudic tradition on Herods trial before the
Great Sanhedrin is disingenuous, in our opinion, although not so his criticism
(p. 357358, n. 1) of Laqueur (1920, pp. 177178).
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. 3637; Smallwood 1981, pp. 3637; BenShalom 1993, p. 27 and n. 16; Gabba 1999, p. 103 and n. 47. On the geographic significance of the term Kolh Sura, 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. 6364.
See also Smallwood 1981, p. 14 (n. 38), 45 (n. 4), 47 (n. 8), 61 (n. 94); for further
details, see Kokkinos 2002a, pp. 717718 (n. 7), 423424, 727, 734740.

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, 181184). 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).
Herods 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. Herods 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 4746 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 Caesars 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 Herods 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 Caesars 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, 218222; AJ XIV, 271276). 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 (6355 BCE), after which he shifted his loyalty to Julius
Caesar and served him in the Alexandrian Wars (4847 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 (prtov) 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 Schfer (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. 144145).
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 Herods 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 Caesars loyalists (BJ I,
255; AJ XIV, 280).
Schalit (1969, pp. 8182) was inclined to question the timing of
the above, believing that Herods 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 Herods 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 (naresiv), 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. 177178 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 Phasaels
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, 226235; AJ
XIV, 280293; Schalit 1969, pp. 31, 4851, 5359; Ben-Shalom 1993, pp. 3033.
Cf. Perowne 1957, p. 45.
Cf. BJ I, 227228; AJ XIV, 283287. The superiority of the AJ version lies in its
wealth of detail, especially in 285286. A convincing analysis of Phasaels more
considered approach as opposed to Herods impulsive style is offered by Schalit
(1969, pp. 5759). The inner strife in Samaria is addressed in detail by Kasher
2005, pp. 2326.

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, 234235; AJ XIV, 288293. According to Schalit (1969, pp. 5966), Herod

succeeded in persuading Cassius not only that Malichus was responsible for Antipaters 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 Herods personal and
political conduct vis--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 Caesars
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 Herods 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 3230 BCE), he had still enjoyed unlimited maneuverability, in
his second war (129 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. 556574.

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
cra (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,
Herods 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. Herods success in stopping Antigonus convinced
Hyrcanus that Herod could be exploited as an effective ally to protect
47

BJ I, 236238; AJ XIV, 294296. It is not inconceivable that Herods 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 Herods
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 Phasaels 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, 160161).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 Phasaels 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, 238240; AJ XIV, 297300; Schalit 1969, pp. 5966; Smallwood, pp. 4849;
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 18:2026).
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. 735742.
See also on this issue the pragmatic approach of Jones 1938 (1967), pp. 4142.

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 Antipaters
meddling in political affairs provoked a Nabatean siege of Jerusalem;
but it coalesced following Pompeys conquest (63 BCE) and after the
appointment of Antipater as epitropos of Judea under Julius Caesar (47
BCE). Herods 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 Antipaters 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 Herods 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, Herods rule became loathsome to the majority of the Jewish
people residing in the Land of Israel, marking the start of the Jewish
peoples 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 Herods anger over
John Hyrcanus IIs 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. 3843 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. 7475; 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 Herods 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 (psin gaphtv), as seemingly
supported by the statement in AJ XIV, 300 that when he reached Jerusalem, Hyrcanus and the people ( dmov) placed on him ceremonial
garlands.
However, we should not deceive ourselves that the entire Jewish
people gave its blessing to Herods 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, 301302). 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, 242245; 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 Herods 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 husbands 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 Herods 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 (peid gr ev tn
rcn harlqen), 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 Herods 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. 328329.

Chapter 3
From the Utmost Depths to the
Conquest of Jerusalem (4137 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 Herods 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 tch), 3 or from Herods 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 Kokkinoss 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. 249255. Flusser (2002a, pp. 282283) suggested that the passage in Enoch
56:58 describes the great Parthian invasion, which reached as far as Palestine and
likely created a messianic atmosphere.
BJ I, 284385; AJ XIV, 384385, 403404; 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, 386387, 455; XV, 20,
209, 373379, XVII, 191192.
BJ I, 248252; AJ XIV, 330341; 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, 253255,
263264; 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

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, 367369). 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, 371372, 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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. 7475; Smallwood 1980, p. 52.
It is important to note that there is no parallel in BJ to the passage in AJ XIV
352358, with the exception of a few conjunctions.
Graetz (I, p. 482, 484) considered this detail to be further proof of the Jewish peoples hatred of Herod and their determination to be rid of him despite his marriage to
Mariamme. In Graetzs view, this was the real reason for the flight toward Masada.

60

3. From the Utmost Depths to the Conquest of Jerusalem

(prosbllontv te ka ev cerav rcmenoi kat tn dn), 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 Herods 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 (pollo plqouv) 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 (tosoton 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 Herods
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. 8081. 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 (56/728
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 Herods aid (BJ I, 274249; AJ XIV, 370375),16
thereby causing Herods 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 Herods mental state (which is especially significant for our purposes), Josephus wrote in AJ XIV, 355358:
[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. 3637 and nn. 10, 1214.

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 mothers 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, 357358).
From Josephus description, it emerges that Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Schalits 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 Herods 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 (Hrdhv, 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, 429430, 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 Herods 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 Herods 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, 183185.
The Greek source uses the term o enai gennaou, meaning not noble (cf. Marcuss translation, ad loc.). Schalits Hebrew translation interprets the phrase to
mean the quality of a brave man, apparently inspired by Whiston.
Schrer 1973, I, pp. 294295, n. 20; Perowne 1957, p. 23; cf. Liddell & Scott,
p. 778 (s. v. rwv, 4rwstv).
Especially blatant is his negative portrayal in AJ XV, 150159, 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 mothers 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 Herods having tormented himself over this.

24
25

BJ I, 265; AJ XIV, 359360, and see above.

BJ I, 274275; AJ XIV, 371372.

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 Herods relationship with the
Nabateans. A perusal of Josephus indicates that Malichus refusal to
help made him a traitor in Herods 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
phgreue t pqov), 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 Antonys 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 Cleopatras 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, 97103).
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, 375377 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. 5758.
On the prominent role of Ascalon in international trade during this period, see Fuks
2001, pp. 8496; Dvorjetski 2001, pp. 99134. 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 (Sappnov, Sapfniov, Sapniov, Sappnav,
Sapnov, 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 Kings will
upon his death; see AJ XVI, 191, 330; XVII, 195, 228; BJ I, 473, 667; II, 24, 69;
Schalit 1969, p. 84 (nn. 9798); Schrer 1973, I, p. 311 (and n. 79); Stern 1983b,
pp. 70, 77, 78, 86; Dar 1993, pp. 3850, esp. 3841; Roller 1998, pp. 6364, 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 Herods encounter with them there (BJ, I 280; AJ XIV, 377) should not
necessarily imply that they had escaped from Jerusalem with Herods 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, 8687, 232
234. Jones (1938, p. 42) believed, reasonably enough, that Herods 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, 14. 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 Herods 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 fathers
prime, when Antony had served in the Roman army under Pompey.
The meeting between the two is eloquently described by Josephus (AJ
XIV, 381382):
[381] This account made Antony commiserate the change that had happened in Herods 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, 386387):
[386] And this was the principal instance of Antonys 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 wifes 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. 574576.

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 Herods 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 Romes 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 Herods
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, 195197, 202204, 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. 284285.
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 Herods throughout his life was
for himself alone something that is true, incidentally, of individuals
whose egocentrism is the product of Paranoid Personality Disorder.
Herods 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. 38Herods 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. 249274. One should bear in
mind that the Parthian threat loomed over Rome at least until the days of Emperor
Trajan (114116 CE).
According to a later tradition, when Augustus learned of the execution of Antipater, Herods elder son, he is said to have stated sarcastically: Better to be Herods
pig than his son; see Stern 1980, II, no. 543, pp. 665666.

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 (10376 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,
279281 and AJ XIV, 376380.46 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. 4354. According to Pucci-Ben Zeev (1981, pp. 331338),
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. 2526; Marcus 1943, VII, p. 6489, n. a; Schalit 1969, pp. 8388;
Grant 1971, p. 41; Schrer 1973, I, pp. 281282 (n. 3); Smallwood 1981, pp. 5556;
Roller 1998, p. 12 (n. 8); Kokkinos 1998, pp. 367369; and see further, below.
Meyshan 1960, pp. 100108.

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 Herods 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 Pompeys 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 Herods 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 Josephuss descriptions of Herods 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. 1920; Shatzman 1989, pp. 574576;
Kokkinos 1998, loc. cit.; Banowitz 2003, p. 3; see more below, pp. 241242.
BJ I, 285; AJ XIV, 388389. 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. 412413.

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, 288289 and AJ
XIV, 392393) 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 Jerusalems 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 (xnoi) mercenaries and fellow Idumaeans (mofloi); 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, 394412) 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 Silos 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, 297299).
Toward this end, he enlisted the help of the polis of Samaria, including
that of his Samaritan friends in the area, 53 to supply Silos 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. 114120;
Amit 2002, pp. 129130.
Smallwood (1981, p. 56) felt that the bribe could be explained by the reference in
Cassius Dio (xlviii, 41, 45) to the heavy fines imposed by Ventidius on Antigonus
and other local rulers for allying themselves with the Parthians .
The words tov te per Samreian 6keuwmnoiv in AJ XIV 408 can be interpreted
as referring to Samaritans (cf. BJ I, 299: tov per Samreian, assuming that the
inhabitants of the Samarian periphery (chora) were mostly Samaritans. On Herods

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, 403404), 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 (4miioudaov), 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 Herods 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. 2339, and chapter
4 below.
On the meaning of this expression, see Ben-Shalom 1993, pp. 283284. His explanation is preferable to that of M. Smith (1999, pp. 232233), who struggled
too much with the question of whether the appellation of )Ioudaov in relation to
Herod was religious or ethnic in nature (loc. cit., pp. 322 ff., 237239). His preference for the second possibility appears to be erroneous for the reason cited earlier
(chapter 1, pp. 2223), 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 Herods perspective, he knew not a moments
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 Herods 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 Herods obsessive insistence on destroying every
last trace of his enemies. The description in both versions of Josephus,
in particular that of AJ (XIV, 423427), 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 Herods 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 (dok dkei mnein
f 4sucav); cf. BJ I, 303.
BJ I, 304306, 309314; AJ XIV, 415417, 421430.

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. 418419). 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, 272275), the troops of Antiochus Epiphanes
burned them alive (katflexan). In addition, it is written that there were about
a thousand, with their wives and children, who were smothered and died in these
caves (pqanon mn on sn gunaix ka tknoiv mpnigntev tov sphlaoiv
6se clio). 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 Herods 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., 312313), 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
Herods 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 Herods 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 (suneflogsqhsan), 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 armys 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 Antonys 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. 116120, and various sources cited by him. Among these,
Plutarch is noteworthy for his account of Antonys 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

Antonys aid (BJ I, 321322, 327; AJ XIV, 439447), 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
Herods 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,
Herods 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: o d swtra ka prostthn a$tn pekloun. Incidentally, he

acquired for himself those very titles savior (swtr) and protector (prostthv) 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 Josephs 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 brothers death.65 This incident obviously indicates
the extent to which Herods 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 Herods 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, 328330; AJ XIV, 452453), Herod
eagerly charged into action.
64
65

66

BJ I, 323326 is much more extreme than AJ XIV, 448 ff. regarding the cruel abuse
of Josephs body in order to justify the subsequent mistreatment of Antigonus.
The use of the Greek verb prosdcomai 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 (proshmanousin) him of the death of his
brother. On the use of the verb proshmanw see Liddell & Scott, p. 1513, and on
the dreams veracity see Jones 1938, pp. 130131, 191193, 198.
This phenomenon repeat itself with the deterioration of Herods relationship with
his son Alexander (AJ XVI, 259260).

The War against Mattathias Antigonus

81

When word spread in Judea of the size of Herods 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 (daimnion) 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 (qeofilasttov).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 Gods 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 Gods 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 (to basilwv tn k to qeo enoian) insomuch that all the people
believed that Herod was beloved of God (qeofilv)
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, 373379). 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 Herods 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
Herods 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, 202203 (nn. 1819), etc. This is illustrated by the clever saying: If I am
persecuted, it means that I am a distinguished personality.

A Selection from Herods 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 (4037 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 (4037 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 (374 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 Herods 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 (tlh) 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
citys 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

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. 8285. 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, 175176).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 Herods attempts to block the Roman
army under Sossius from committing rampant acts of killing and looting (AJ XIV, 484487). 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, 485486). And what was in this
purse if not the monies stolen from occupied Jerusalem?
In BJ I, 355356, 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

Cf. Josippon, xliii, 512 (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. 4849) is most likely based on AJ XV, 24; 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. 5152, 7172, 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. 311312.
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 Herods 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 Herods 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, 489491):
[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 (dithv), 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 Herods 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 (okav 0nta dhmotikv ka gnouv diwtikou), 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 Herods 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 ()Antignh)
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 Herods 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 Herods way of thinking, as brought out in BJ I, 357
and AJ XV, 810.11 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

10

11

Such a description is absent from BJ, probably because Nicolaus (the source) wished
to diminish Herods 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 Josephs 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.
Herods 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 Herods having initiated the execution, it can be understood indirectly from Strabos words as quoted in Josephus (AJ XV, 910):
[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 Antigonuss
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, 152154; 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. 283285; cf. Plutarch, Antony, 36, 4 (Stern, op. cit., pp. 568
472); Cassius Dio, xlix, 22, 6 (Stern, op. cit., pp. 359362). 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,
Herods involvement in the decision to execute Antigonus is alluded to in Cassius
Dios 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
Antonys 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. 454455.
Grant (1971, p. 59), by contrast, felt that the account of Herods 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, 4748),
supplemented by that of Cassius Dio (XLVII, 8), Antony ordered one
of his tribunes to cut off Ciceros head and right hand (or both hands)
to be placed on public display on the speakers 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, 45451). 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 Davids act against Goliath the Philistine (I Samuel 17:5051, 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
Maacha (II Samuel 20:2122)? 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. 798800.

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. 7273).

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. 8182.
Bar-Kochva, pp. 368372.
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. 6164 (Hebrew); Grintz 1974, pp. 2023; idem 1979,
pp. 245262 (Hebrew); cf. Cornfeld 1982, pp. 6465.
Among the scholars opposed to the aforementioned identification are Naveh 1973,
pp. 8291; P. Smith 1977, 121124; Lieberman 1991, pp. 393398; 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. 2957) 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 196974,
pp. 374379.

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 Herods
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 3938 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, 2425, 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 peoples 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
Herods 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. 5961.
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 Mariammes 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 Antipaters chances of inheriting the throne
as well. With Herods marriage to Mariamme the Hasmonaean, this
privilege passed to her firstborn son, as officially expressed in Herods
first will in 18/17 BCE, as we shall see below.
In effect, Herods 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. 211212) 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. Mariammes beauty and its impact on
Herod will be discussed at a later stage. Suffice it to state at this point that a brides
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. 1318.

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 Antonys marriages and divorces stemmed
in each instance from clearly identifiable political and social interests.
A similar motive seems to have been at play in Herods 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, 370373) 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 Herods
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
Herods 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 Herods marriage to
Mariamme is unclear from the sources. A rather confused and confusing account is offered in BJ I, 432433:
[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 Herods 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 Antipaters 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, 401430) 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
432433), 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 Mariammes children
suggests a date later than 37 BCE since Alexander, Mariammes 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 tceion (at the start)
would seem to denote an earlier time,33 it could also indicate a point
proximate to Herods departure to meet Antony in Laodicea (35/34
BCE) and following the death of his brother-in-law Aristobulus III.
Antipaters 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 Herods 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 queens bed (i. e., Mariammes 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 Herods 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 womens spat of marginal importance. 37 Moreover, the
word tceion 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 Antipaters perspective,
the matter of the bed was an important symbolic achievement of sorts
since his mothers 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 Herods 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 Herods
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 (ka tlov 4tthqev peisgage
tn kenou mhtra).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 (pnta 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 kings 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 kings last will and testament (BJ I, 666669; AJ XVII, 195).
39

40

41

The matter of Mariammes bed is not mentioned in Antiquities. Josephus likely

omitted it because he thought in might detract from Mariammes dignity, all the
more so as he himself was related to her family. At any rate, Antipaters 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] (ka telwv 4tthqev ajtou); cf. also 153: quite
overcome by that passion (totou to pqouv 4tthmov scurv). Both passages
have negative overtones.
In Greek: dioikhtv tn tv basileav pragmtwn); see Otto 1913, cols. 60 ff.;
Schalit 1969, pp. 220 ff.; Roller 1998, 6364.

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, Herods 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 Herods first steps after conquering Jerusalem
(37 BCE) was the execution of 45 of the citys 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
Schrer 1973, I, p. 211; Rappaport 1993, pp. 280288. Regarding Hasmonaean
coins stamped with the phrase Hever ha-Yehudim, see further: Meshorer, 1997,
pp. 2957, 257295 (plates 543). 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 13:4142), 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 Herods 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 kings 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. 6062.
See further: Efron 1987, pp. 287338.
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. 4950; Fuks 2002, pp. 238245.

Chapter 5
Roots and Ramifications of the
Hasmonaean Trauma (3734 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 publics 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 Antonys 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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
Herods 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

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. 4748).
Only a short time after Herods 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 Herods 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 4037 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 anothers 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 Herods 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. 684686. From the Hellenistic period
onward, it is transcribed in Greek as Salmh (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. 249253.
See BJ I, 263264, 281, 294, 303; AJ XIV, 353, 397, 400, 413, 467.
Mayer-Schrtel 1995, pp. 54 ff., 191196, 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, 4548). This aroused Herods 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-laws 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., 3435). 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

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. 7576; 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. 6669; Smallwood
1981, p. 69; Stern 1991, pp. 190191; Kasher 1996a, 6364 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, 910: 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, 2324), 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 Herods 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 Ananels 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 Herods
great concern over the visit to Judaea at the time by Dellius, a close

his successor, Archelaus, and after him the Romans, pursued the same policy. See
also Kasher 1996a, pp. xixii; Levine 2000, p. 49; Regev 2005, pp. 315319.
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. 634635 (n. a).

106

5. Roots and Ramifications of the Hasmonaean Trauma

friend of Antonys 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 sons
path to the high priesthood and perhaps the royal throne as well (AJ
XV, 2530).11
Dellius was intimately acquainted with Antonys 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, 2930):
[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 Antonys bisexual inclinations (below). The historian Quintus Dellius chronicled Antonys war against the
Parthians; see Schalit 1969, p. 90 (nn. 117118). 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 Mariammes 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, 438440, in which
we are informed that Mariamme herself took the initiative of sending the portraits,
and was therefore accused of adultery (moicea) and fornication (slgeia). One
should not deduce too much from this, since there is good reason to believe that
this defamation of Antonys 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 Antonys licentious tendencies, as depicted in

Plutarchs 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 latters 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 (5756 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), Alexandras letter to Cleopatra prompted Antony to seek clarification from Herod regarding
Aristobulus appointment as High Priest. While this point is plausible,
Antonys request that Herod send Aristobulus to Egypt for an assignation with him, as well as Herods refusal and apology, are totally
illogical for the aforementioned reasons.14 In any event, Alexandras
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 kings
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, 2528, 451454. 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
3634 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 Herods 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., 3233):
[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 Antonys 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 Ananels 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 Herods

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, Herods
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 sons 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 sons 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., 3637).
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., 4243):
[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, 4548). In
the words of Josephus (ibid., 4849):
[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 Herods 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, 5153):
[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. 110111, 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. 219252, 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 Schrer 1973, I, pp. 287288, and nn. 34; Klausner 1958,
IV, p. 14. Taking issue with this opinion are Otto (1913, pp. 3640), Schalit (1969,
pp. 110111, n. 48) and Smallwood (1981, pp. 6566 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods physical attributes (BJ I, 429430), 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 Herods 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. Schalits words in
this context amply reinforce our own position: Herods 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, 2527, 29, 60.
AJ XV, 247248; 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, 2223 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods decision to eliminate him, since he saw in Aristobulus a
significant threat to his rule. The depiction exposes not only Herods
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. 7374 and note 105); cf.
idem 1969, pp. 125126 (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 Cleopatras 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, 403404, 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 Cleopatras 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 childs 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.,
6365), 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 Cleopatras 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 Trotskys 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., 6061). 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 Mariammes 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. Herods second
daughter, by contrast, had been named Cyprus, in memory of Herods
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. 158159.
See above chapter 5, passim; cf. AJ XV, 36, 42, 73, 166167, 183, 206, 247249;
see also Richardson 1996, p. 163.

Alexandra and Cleopatras 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., 3395).31 True, Antony had proven that he was realistic and level-headed, but this was not
enough to assuage Herods fear that Cleopatra still exercised considerable influence over him. He was simply afraid of the prospect that she
might ultimately manage to sway Antonys 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
Antonys 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
Herods sycophancy and extended persuasive arguments and speeches
(AJ XV, 7476). 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 Herods way of thinking and his apologetic rewriting of his own history. On a similar note, see BJ I, 359361.

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
Herods 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 Herods
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 Masadas 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, 300303 places greater emphasis on the dangers of Cleopatra, which apply
particularly to the early years of Herods 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 Herods 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. 8889, 9798, cf. Levine 1985, p. 6; Otzen 1990, p. 36. This
fear was substantiated by the attempt to kill him in 27 BCE (AJ XV, 280291),
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. 187190; Netzer 1999, pp. 71 ff., esp.
8089; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 3134.

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, 280303, 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

Richardsons (1996, p. 192) statement that apart from the rebuilding of the Maccabaean fortresses there is no evidence of self-preservation or of paranoia behind
Herods 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 (Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Mariammes 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 Herods 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. 121122 concerning Mariammes 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 98 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 Herods return from
Laodicea merited a rather dramatic and maudlin description by
Josephus, who undoubtedly based himself on Nicolaus of Damascus44
as follows (AJ XV, 8287):
[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, 183186 (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, 442443), 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. Herods sister Salome, taking
advantage of the opportunity to defame Mariamme, confirmed his
suspicions. Crazed with jealousy (zhlotupav kmanev), 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 Herods
pathological jealousy was apparently a sophisticated dramatic ploy
on the part of Nicolaus, who sought to diminish, if only indirectly,
Herods responsibility for the terrible crime of her execution. Indeed,
in AJ XVI, 183186 (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 Herods 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 t pqov is repeated three times in this context: BJ I, 443444.
Cf. Klausner 1958, IV, pp. 18 ff. Presumably, Hitlers 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. 1718
(esp. notes 3132). On his tendency toward a dramatic writing style, see also Wa-

122

5. Roots and Ramifications of the Hasmonaean Trauma

all of Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods even bothering to see him or give him an opportunity to state his
version of events. 51 Mariammes 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 Mariammes haughtiness towards her and the residual hostility between the two since their enforced sojourn together
at Masada and Samaria (4037 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, 6869, 76; Schalit 1969, pp. 575588, 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 Josephs execution, as well as the date it was carried out,
see Otto 1913, cols. 4042, 5051; Smallwood 1981, p. 67 and n. 19.
On the calculations of his age, see Kokkinos 1998, pp 150152, 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 Herods 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 Mariammes 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 Alexandras plans to escape to the Romans following the false rumors of his death at Laodicea (AJ XV, 7173, 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 & Schrtel 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. 211212) 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, 6976. 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

Mariammes 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 Mariammes 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, 8187). 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 Alexandras political clout.
Of Mariammes 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 Herods conduct throughout this episode suggests
that his uncontrolled morbid mistrust and jealousy were triggered by
an insignificant catalyst unsubstantiated womens 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 Mariammes 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

Herods 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, Herods 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
Salomes path. From Herods point of view, Josephs 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 VIIs Influence on Relations
between Herod and Antony (3431 BCE)
Antonys Declarations
In this chapter, we will attempt to present the unique political circumstances of the year 34 BCE and their ramifications with respect to Herods emotional state. It appears that he was extremely concerned at
the time by Antonys 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 Cleopatras 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, 8895).2 He was therefore convinced that he too would
1

Plutarch, Antony, 36, 54; Cassius Dio, xlix, 32, 4: see Otto 1913, cols. 4345;
Schrer 1973, I, pp. 165, 287288, 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).

Antonys Declarations

127

be forced to pay for the Egyptian queens 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 Herods mind of
Cleopatras attempt to seduce him so as to fabricate the appearance
of rape, with the aim of arousing Antonys 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 Cleopatras
enticements while showering her with presents and tokens of flattery

It is quite possible that Herod was aware of this, and consequently thought he was
under Cleopatras 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,
Macurdys argument that the story was disproved by Cleopatras 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 Antonys part and presented Herod
as a man completely subject to his bestial instincts; cf. also Kokkinos 1991, p. 7.

128

6. Cleopatra VIIs Influence

(AJ XV, 97103). 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 Herods guilt or innocence in light
of Cleopatra and Alexandras 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, 361363; AJ XV, 96, 106107. For the date of this territorial annexation, see
Schrer 1973, I, pp. 288289 (n. 5).
The timing also fits Smallwoods theory (1981, pp. 7374); see also Schrer, op. cit.,
pp. 287288, including n. 5.
There is no question that Herods rhetorical skills were also a factor to be reckoned
with (more on this below). Even Nicolaus took the opportunity here to praise Herods persuasive abilities. However we should not detract from Antonys independent stance vis--vis Cleopatra, which he had already demonstrated on several occasions.

Construction of the Antonia Fortress in Jerusalem

129

porting him (ibid., 7479). It is difficult to assess whether Antony was

swayed by Herods 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 Herods powers
of persuasion. In any event, Herods 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 (Briv),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, 238246) 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 (t fsei
megalnoun).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

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. 1740; BarKochva, pp. 445465. 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 15:120). For further details, see: Schalit 1963,
pp. 366 ff.; Netzer 1999, pp. 115116; and a helpful summary by Lichtenberger
1999, pp. 3539.
AJ XV, 44; XVIII, 9195. 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 (t fsei
megaloycw) 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
Herods architectural achievements in building the Antonia or the other projects
mentioned below as this is not our field of expertise.

130

6. Cleopatra VIIs 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 Herods 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, 160163, 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. 8586.
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. 127129.

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 Herods 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 Herods 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, 7479, offers even clearer proof of the realistic policy
maintained by Antony, who did not heed Cleopatras 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 Cleopatras persuasions had less force
12

13

Compare with earlier remarks on Antonys level-headed political approach and the
tendency in both ancient and modern historiography to overstate Cleopatras influence on him.
The reference is to Cleopatras letter accusing Herod of responsibility in the death
of Aristobulus III (AJ XV, 6365).

132

6. Cleopatra VIIs 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 kings 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
Cleopatras 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, 7679), and did
not renounce all ties with him, there was still the potential danger of
an erosion in Antonys status. In Herods eyes, Antonys concessions
to Cleopatra (ibid., 8895) embodied a veiled threat to his future. Nor
did Cleopatras 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. 4344; Smallwood 1981, p. 15 (n. 38), 45 (n. 4), 61 (n. 4), 8688; cf.
Schalit 1969, pp. 772777; Kasher 1988, pp. 143145 (and nn. 3536).
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 Herods brother-in-law Costobarus, who until then he had
considered completely trustworthy (AJ XV, 259266).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 Herods sister Salome after her first husband
Joseph was executed (see above).17 The suspicion may already have
crept into Herods 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 Cleopatras desire at
the time (3634 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 Cleopatras entreaties for the reasons enumerated above. Nevertheless, the danger (in Herods 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 husbands plan as all
the information about him is brought only as an addendum in a later
chronological context the events of 2827 BCE (AJ XV, 253266)
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 Octavians victory and the
16
17
18
19

There is no parallel to this account in War; see Ronen 1988, pp. 205213; Kokkinos 1998, pp. 179182.
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 Cleopatras protection; he therefore
preferred to wait for another opportunity.

134

6. Cleopatra VIIs 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 Antonys
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 (crnon d
dielqntov), when Salome happened to quarrel with Costobarus
Cf. also Fenn 1992, pp. 91 ff.

Desertion from Antonys 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 Antonys 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 Antonys 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 Antonys 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 latters growing power
base in the western part of the Empire nor of the ramifications of
Antonys 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 Antonys 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 Octavians 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. 235236; Kasher 1988,
pp. 64, 214220, and below p. 190.

136

6. Cleopatra VIIs Influence

later exploit this fact by presenting himself as the queen of Egypts

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 fathers 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 Herods 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 Cleopatras
23

24

See AJ XV, 191192; BJ I, 390391; cf. also AJ XV, 88 ff.; BJ I, 359 ff. All of these
references emphasize Cleopatras influence over Antony and were included in Herods 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 Antonys 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 Cleopatras 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 Antonys military effort since it
prevented the Nabataeans from rendering assistance as well which
we believe was precisely Herods 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 Antonys war effort as a symbolic gesture
intended to pay off a political debt, we are left with no contradiction
between Plutarchs 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 Cleopatras 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
Herods 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, 189190. The version in BJ I, 464365 is much shorter and does
not offer a detailed account of the process of Herods deliberate entanglement in
the Nabataean war.
Cornfeld 1982, p. 72, and see below.

138

6. Cleopatra VIIs 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 Herods calculated plan to launch a war aimed at weakening
Antony and Cleopatra, and at the same time, to offer a persuasive
explanation for Herods absence from the battle of Actium. This rewriting of history could also have been a further defamation of Cleopatra, Romes 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 Cleopatras behest) to go to war
against the Nabataeans. The matter obviously raises questions, since
it is difficult to reconcile Herods initiative, on the one hand, with
Antonys 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
Herods involvement in the conflict was intentional. The actual preparations for the military confrontation between Antony and Octavian
began in late 32 BCE, after Antonys 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 Octavians 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 Antonys Camp

139

earthquake that took place in Palestine in early spring of 31 BCE27

was one of the later events during Herods war against the Nabataeans, since by the summer of that year Herod had apparently already
defeated his rivals (BJ I, 371385; AJ XV, 123160).
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 Cleopatras 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 Cleopatras 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 Athenions 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, 121122; see Otto 1913, p. 40; Schalit 1969, pp. 122 ff.; Schrer
1973, I, p. 289, n. 6.

140

6. Cleopatra VIIs 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 Herods 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 Athenions 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 Athenions military intervention. How so? The order that he received from Cleopatra
to attack Herod had to receive Antonys approval because it is inconceivable that a queen of Egypt could be given free rein to intervene in
28
29

The rewriting of Herods history did not escape the notice of Josephus either; cf. AJ
XV 174178.
Klausner (1958, IV, pp. 2223 and n. 39) did not accept at face value Josephus account of Cleopatras 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
(Cleopatras officer) out of whole cloth in order to provide a more convincing
explanation for Herods defeat. In our opinion, however, it is difficult to ignore
Athenions 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 Cleopatras wiliness when in truth he was the one who
maneuvered himself into the war in order to survive.

Desertion from Antonys Camp

141

so fundamental a matter behind Antonys 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, 7778; BJ I, 361362). 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
Herods 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
Antonys 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 Herods 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 VIIs Influence

And can we simply accept at face value Josephus account that it

was Herods 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 Antonys 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 Antonys gladiators en route from Cyzicus in Asia Minor (where they
practiced for the triumph expected to be held in Antonys 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 Antonys 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 Herods 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, Antonys failure indicates
clearly that he possessed prior information concerning the shift in Herods 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, 190192). But this information can easily be revealed as false, 32
30
31

32

Plutarch, Antony, 7172; 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 Herods war against the Nabataeans.

Desertion from Antonys 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 mans 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. 127129.

BJ I, 386392; AJ XV, 187193. 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, 121126; cf. BJ I, 370372. On the dating of this event, see Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, pp. 5859 (n. b); Otto (1913, p. 40; Schalit 1969, p. 121; Schrer
1973, I, p. 289 (n. 6); Kasher 1988, p. 138, 148 and n. 41.
Herods 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 VIIs Influence

in accordance with Herods wishes and directives.38 The two versions

of the speech (in BJ I, 373379 and AJ XV, 127146) 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 (daimonouv plhgv) 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 mens 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,
Athenions 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
(daimnion) 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 Herods speeches quoted by
Nicolaus were basically authentic.

Desertion from Antonys 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,
(to patrov fronmatov) 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 Gods 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. 174175 (n. b); Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, pp. 6061 (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 VIIs 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 (daimonouv
plhgv), 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 ones own
strength but on the bad fortunes of ones 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 (tn qen) 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
daimnion, daimniov, damwn, 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., 378379).

Desertion from Antonys Camp

147

nor lengthy arm of God (AJ XV, 144145), 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, 321388), 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., 399400, 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
Herods 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 Herods
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, 127146) is not only longer but places more emphasis on Herods 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. 248250).
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, 370372), suggesting that he himself had doubts in the matter.

148

6. Cleopatra VIIs 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 Antonys 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 VIIs 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 speakers opinions and accept his status as leader.
This style, which characterizes most sections of the speech, stresses
Herods 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., 144146). 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 readers 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 Herods duplicity. Nevertheless,
this should not undermine the credibility of the speech in terms of its
47

Cf. Stern 1991, pp. 455457; Landau 2003, pp. 187189.

Desertion from Antonys 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 Herods 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 Herods 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, Herods
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 VIIs 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 Herods counterattack (AJ XV, 133144,
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 citys destruction a role that involved horrible
acts of atrocity (BJ V, 548562). 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 Herods 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 Herods
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). Herods 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, 124126. On Amalek as
symbolizing the enemies of the Jewish people in Josephus writings, see Feldman
2004, pp. 85, 271272, 277278.
This can be inferred from Nicolaus account as well; see note 45 above.
See for example Plutarch, Antony, 2 (end); Suetonius, Augustus, 8489.

Desertion from Antonys Camp

153

is reason to speculate that Herods 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, 128129, 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.
Herods counterattack and victory in the Philadelphia region
(present-day Amman) also merited parallel mentions (in BJ I, 380
385 and AJ XV, 147160);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. 142144.

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 VIIs 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 Herods 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 (prostthv to 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 BCE34 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. Herods 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. 7677 (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 Herods Hasmonaean
Family Members (3028 BCE)
Execution of John Hyrcanus II
Octavians 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, 162163):
[162] At that time both Herods 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 latters behest. Ostensibly, there was a realistic basis for Herods 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 Herods 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

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. 4041, 4950, 63, 6566, 9293, 103, 105,
141, 145, 194, 196197.
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 Pompeys 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. 1517.

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 Herods 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 Herods 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, 170172).
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 Herods 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. 124126.

His execution took place in the spring of 30 BCE; see BJ I, 431434; AJ XV, 161
182. For further details on Herods plot, see Schalit, pp. 125126; Kasher 1988,
pp. 149150.

158

7. Elimination of Herods Hasmonaean Family Members

criticism,7 it is hard to escape the conclusion that the entire episode is

yet another example of Herods 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., t sundrion 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 Herods need for a higher judicial authority to prove his
victims 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 Herods suspicious attitude toward his
7
8
9

10

Compare for example Otto 1913, cols. 52 ff.; Schalit 1969, pp. 126, 698699;
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 Levis 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, Herods major-domo, and Soemus the Ituraean, with strict
instructions that they be killed if his mission to Rhodes ended in failure (AJ XV, 183186).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 Alexandras 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 Herods Hasmonaean Family Members

Personality Disorder, even if he did not use this precise term.13 On the
other hand, we do not share Schalits 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 Schalits 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 Herods 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 (dca diadmatov), with the
outward appearance of a commoner (ka t scma dithv), but with
the sense of entitlement of a king (t d frnhma basilev).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. 600610, 637 ff., esp. 610 (and n. 112); 639640
(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 t frnhma 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 Herods 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 latters 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 Octavians 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 Herods Hasmonaean Family Members

to assess how much he was convinced by Herods 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 Herods, 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 Octavians complete trust as well as the longed-for
official recognition of his rule (AJ XV, 196). Moreover, he assuaged
Herods 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, 386393; AJ XV, 187195), some of which had been severed from
his kingdom and given over to Cleopatra on Antonys orders, namely,
the cities of Gadara and Hippus in eastern Transjordan, and such cities as Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, and Stratos 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. 232234.
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 Caesars 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, 394395).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 Herods paranoid
personality in particular, as we shall see below.

The Trial and Execution

of Mariamme the Hasmonaean
From the time of Mariammes 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 Herods Hasmonaean Family Members

nant when arrested and apparently gave birth at Alexandrium. The

daughter was given the name Cyprus in memory of Herods 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 4037 BCE when they had resided together in Masada and
Samaria (see above). The daughters 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, Mariammes 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 Mariammes 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 childs 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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

Mariammes 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
Mariammes 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
Herods 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 Mariammes execution by presenting her as an
unfaithful, defiant wife. Thus for example, the accusation fabricated
21

22
23

According to Schalit (1969, pp. 114119), the execution took place in 29/30 BCE.
Schrer (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, 438444; AJ XV, 202239.
See for greater detail: Schalit 1969, pp. 575588. 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 Potiphars wife (Genesis 39:615;
AJ II, 3959). His argument (p. 282) that Josephus could not have read such a description in Herods 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 Herods Hasmonaean Family Members

by Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Mariammes demise.25 Indeed, events were to prove just
how right they were.
Herods response to Mariammes 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 Mariammes
faithlessness, as attested to by the following (AJ XV, 211214):
[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. 167169 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 Herods 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 Mariammes
infidelity by way of the kings 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 (krsin peddou); and got together
those that were most faithful to him, and laid an elaborate accusation (tn
kathgoran) 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, 438440 along with Perownes 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, 222223.

168

7. Elimination of Herods 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 Schalits 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 Mariammes 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 Herods 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 Mariammes trial is instructive for
the glimpse that it offers into Herods 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 Herods wife Mariamme (above)
or the hearings of other family members, most of which were also typical show trials.
Of Mariammes 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 (Herods) 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. 251253.

This is evident even from a superficial comparison with the Jewish strictures concerning a suspected adulteress; see Numbers 5:1231; 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 Mariammes 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, 233234). This scene apparently served in Herods eyes as additional legal proof in support of the delayed verdict. Schalit (1964,
pp. 284285) 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 Herods 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 Mariammes death from his shoulders alone.
Josephus brief epilogue on the noble character of Mariamme (AJ
XV, 237239), admiringly referred to by him as a woman of an excellent character, both for chastity and greatness of soul; (gun ka prv
gkrteian ka prv megaloyucan 2rista gegenhmnh) may also
have served Nicolaus of Damascus as a way of explaining Herods
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 Herods 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 kings 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., 238239). 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 Herods emotional outbursts as classic attacks of morbid jealousy and suspiciousness rooted in his paranoid personality.
According to Josephus, Herod was extremely affected by Mariammes execution (BJ I, 443444; AJ XV, 240246), 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, Josephuss 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, 218222; BJ I 438. It is highly probable that rumors concerning the
deterioration of the royal couples 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 Mariammes treason was real. He may have been influenced by Nicolaus descriptions of Herods
tragic remorse, which have echoes in modern European literature as well.
Graetz (1893, p. 498) showed awareness of this diagnosis when he claimed that
Herods 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 Mariammes 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 Herods 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 Mariammes
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 ones social ties, and
indeed Herod went off by himself to the desert to wallow in his sorrow
(ibid., 244). When a plague (loimdhv nsov) 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 (Herods 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. 208209) cited a similar case referred to by Thucydides (II,
4755) in relation to the Peloponnesian War, but she was well aware of the differences in the publics interpretation of the events.

172

7. Elimination of Herods 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 (flgwsiv
gr n n ka pesiv to nou ka tv dianoav 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. 5588.
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 Herods
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 Herods 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, 245246; there is no parallel in War.

174

7. Elimination of Herods 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

Herods grave illness and prospective death were exploited by Alexandra in an attempt to seize control of Jerusalems fortifications. According to Josephus (AJ XV, 247250), 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, Herods cousin, reported this to the ailing king. He reacted swiftly, ordering Alexandras 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 Herods
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 (Malqkh) means tenderness; for its uses see
Ilan 2002, s. v. See also Egger 1986, pp. 122125; 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 (Sammretidov), 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 (to Samarwn 3qnouv); cf. also Kokkinos 1998, pp. 216, 221222,
223226. 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, 139153). 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, 306312). The prohibition against
Jewish-Samaritan intermarriage remained in force throughout the Second Temple

176

7. Elimination of Herods 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 Herods 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
Herods 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 17:4849. 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. lxxiiilxxiv, lxxix ff. (esp. lxxxiilxxxiii); Alon 1952, I, pp. 350352;
II, pp. 248251; idem 1958, II, pp. 2 ff. On the halachic reservations concerning
exogamy in general, see Satlow 2001, pp. 133161.
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. 431432, 434.
See above chapter 5, p. 104.
Cf. Klausner 1958, III, p. 128; Schrer 1979, II, pp. 229, 234, 406 (n. 16); see also
Afterword (below), pp. 419420.

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 everyones 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.
Herods 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 Schrer (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 Antonys close friend (or favorite); see Antiquities XV, 27;
cf. also 25, 6667. 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. 211212), 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 Herods brides recalls Hitlers preference for much younger
women, over whom he could exert total control; see Kershaw 1999, pp. 250251,
304307.
Regarding Antony, cf. AJ XV, 2530; Plutarch, Antony, 4, 10; on Augustus, see
Suetonius, Augustus, 69.

178

7. Elimination of Herods 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 Herods 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 1:14).57
It is noteworthy that Herods 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. 212213. 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. 397404.
The unmistakable conclusion emerging from between the lines is that Herod suffered from a severe inferiority complex; see Kasher 2005, pp. 179224.

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 ones 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 priesthoods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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. 122124); cf. also Kasher
1996, II, pp. 449 ff.
Otto 1913, cols. 105, 115 ff.; Schalit 1969, pp. 301 ff.
AJ XV, 403404; 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. 6263.

180

7. Elimination of Herods Hasmonaean Family Members

wife: Cleopatra of Jerusalem,64 meaning that within a relatively short

time span he filled Mariamme the Hasmonaeans 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, Herods 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, 236237) 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. 14411444), 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., 6778; 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. 240242), 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 (2710 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 Herods 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

AJ XV, 323325. 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, 419421, 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 Agrippas 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 (pliv) around it by
3
4

See NEAE II, pp. 618626; Roller 1998, pp. 164166; Netzer 1972; idem 1989a;
idem 1999, pp. 90108; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 99112.
On the splendor of the burial site in Modein, see I Maccabees, 13:2630; AJ XIII,
211212; Kahana 1937, pp. clxiiclxiii; Goldstein 1976, pp. 474475; Bar-Kochva
1989, pp. 400401; Rappaport 2004, p. 299.
Netzer 1999, p. 92. It is entirely possible that this was deliberate on Herods 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. 496498. 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, 2:119.

Beginning of Construction at the Herodium

183

the name of Herodia ((Herwda).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 Herods 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

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., 6869; 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. 164165. 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. 99108.
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. 165166) felt that there was a Roman-Augustan influence in the
architecture of the Herodium, a point actually noticed earlier by Tsafrir (1980,
pp. 5660). 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 (frorion) 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. 113115; for other possibilities, see Sagiv 2003, pp. 4950, 143.

184

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

spread his fame during his own lifetime. The pretentiousness inherent
in modeling ones 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 Herods 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, 267276).13 These contests apparently centered around a special festivity in the Emperors honor,
properly referred to as Kaisarea, 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. 186188, 223224; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 7479. According to a recent theory, the theater was constructed of wood, and for this reason no
remnant of it survived; see Patrich 2003a, pp. 1928. 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 Herods time, which is probably
why it was not mentioned in Josephus detailed description of Jerusalem in BJ I,
401492; V, 176183, 238243.
See Geiger 1987, pp. 89.
For a comprehensive discussion see: Bernett 2002, pp. 4559. 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
Herods 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 familys 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. 1112). On the full significance of the title Augustus (literally, revered one), see Yavetz 1988, pp. 299
303; Amit 2002, pp. 1920. 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, 659660; AJ XVII, 168179). Regarding the Hippodrome in Jericho, see:
Netzer 1989a, pp. 5659. For an instructive survey of the Herodian building projects
in Jericho, see Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 5573; these included the fortress called Cypros, after Herods 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. Herods 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. Herods 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 sebv (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 Herods
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. 257270. Noteworthy in this
context are Tacitus (Historiae, V, 2, 8, 1112) 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 Herods 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, 192193; Kasher 1996, pp. 189 ff.; Levine
2000, pp. 5258; Fuks 2002, p. 239
AJ XV, 275; Schalit translated this as sin, Marcus & Wikgren as impiety; cf.
Liddell & Scott, s. v. sbeia; and see also Fuks, loc. cit.
AJ XV 267279; XVII, 255, cf. also BJ II 44; Ben-Dov 1982, pp. 180183; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 7479; Kasher 2003, pp. 6566 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, 275276:
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 Herods innovations in his building projects, see
Tsafrir 2003, pp. 93 ff.
In Greek deisdaimona; 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 (to pantv 3qnouv), namely the Jerusalem community as a whole, who became furious and concerned at how the countrys
practices were being forcibly altered under Herods 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, 277283, 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., 282290). 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, 285286; 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, 317318; 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 Herods 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 Herods 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. 244300; S. Abu-Rish,
Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge, 2000, passim.

190

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

Herods 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., 285287, 289290). 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 Herods 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. 5354, 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. 144145); but we are of the opinion that the
twelve years should be counted from 40 or 39 BCE, namely, from Herods 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 Herods
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 Herods
brother Pheroras. According to the account in BJ (I, 485487), Costobarus aided Pheroras in his plan to flee with his beloved maidservant
to the Parthians as a result of Herods 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 Herods closest friends, including Dositheus, Lysimachus and
Antipater Gadia (AJ XV, 252, 260). Roller (1998, pp. 5859) 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
Herods plot against him (AJ XV, 168172); see Kokkinos 1998, pp. 151152. 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, 206219. 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 Herods 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 Herods 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, 317218. 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 Schrer 1973, I, p. 290, & n. 8.
Cf. Kokkinos 1998, pp. 232, 237.
For an architectural description of Herods palace, see BJ I, 402; V 156183; AJ
XVII, 318; Schalit 1969, pp. 368 ff.; NEAE II, p. 742 f.; Roller 1998, p. 176; Netzer
1999, pp. 117122; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 9394. 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 Herods 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 Jerusalems 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 Herods older brother Phasael (ibid., 166169), 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 Herods 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, 170171), 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 Mariammes 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, 247251).
It appears that Roller (1998, pp. 178179) was influenced by Schalit on this point.
For a view that runs counter to the early dating, at least in the case of Mariammes
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 yhfw (meaning
to work in mosaic; see Liddell-Scotts dictionary, p. 2023), which was
an octagonal structure that stood at the northwestern corner of the
third wall (BJ V, 159160). 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 Agrippas 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, 292293):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 days 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 Schrer (1973, I, pp. 290291, n. 9); others, however, such as
Kokkinos (1998, p. 325, 369), prefer an earlier date (26/27 BCE). In either case,
Bernett (2002, pp. 6085) was correct in claiming that the establishment of Sebaste
reflected Herods 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. 8288. There was great religious significance
to this act from the Jewish point of view, as it obviously indicated Herods 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 Herods 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, 269298):
[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 Herods ties with Samaria-Sebaste, see recently: idem
2005a, pp. 31 ff.
See above pp. 4041; Otzen 1990, pp. 131134.
AJ XV, 293, 296298. For details on the citys topography and fortifications, see:
Reisner & Fischer & Lyon 1924, pp. 170180; Crowfoot & Kenyon & Sukenik
1935, pp. 3135, 3941; 123129; Avigad, in NEAE IV pp. 13001310. On the
Augusteum, see also Barag 1993, pp. 48; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 8092; Bernett
2002, pp. 6085. This temple was one of the citys 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 Sebastes 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, 299316).48
46

47

48

We do not intend to enumerate Herods 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. Schrers 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. 303305; Richardson 1996, p. 199; Roller 1999, pp. 26, 134
136 and others. According to the dates cited in AJ (XV, 341; XVI, 136137), the
construction of Caesarea was completed during the 192nd Olympiad (namely 129
BCE), or more precisely, in the twenty-eighth year of Herods reign, that is, 10 BCE;
cf. also NEAE IV, pp. 13071308.
It is difficult to accurately date this event, since the account opens with a somewhat
obscure reference to that year ( kat toton). 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
(2421 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 Herods

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 (22/2310 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, 408415) and AJ (XV, 331341)
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 Stratos 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. 1718; 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 2313 BCE (cf. AJ XVI, 136); however, the commonly accepted view (for example, Schrer 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 Stratos 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. (535536 in particular).
Patrich (2005, pp. 506507 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 pliv)
and the port ( limn) in BJ I, 414. 54 Josephus notes here that Herod
dedicated Caesarea to the eparchy (4 parca) 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. 102104.
Cf. Raban 2004, pp. 1416; Patrich 2005, pp. 537538.
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. 1718.
See Rengstorf, II, pp. 137138.

200

8. Construction and Prosperity in the Shadow of Oppression

for many years, since Pompeys 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 Herods 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. Herods builders, by con56
57
58

59

See: Parker 1975, pp. 437441; Isaac 1981, pp. 6774; Kasher 1990, pp. 176, 193 ff.
For an updated account of the archaeological findings, see Raban 2004, pp. 218;
Patrich 2005, pp. 497538.
A close examination of Josephus account indicates that Herods 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. 3538.
On the credibility of Josephus description, see Raban 1982, pp. 165184 and his
other articles on Caesarea; see also Brandon 1996, pp. 2450; and the first six
studies in Raban-Holum (eds.) 1996, pp. 3101. In the wake of these studies, Kost
(2003, pp. 3958) offered an interesting examination of various economic aspects
of the ports 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 Herods kingdom and the province of Syria owing
to its major contribution to the development of the Empires trade in
the eastern basin of the Mediterranean. From this standpoint, it was
Herods 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 Herods 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 (kolossv Kasarov) that reportedly was no less grand
than the statue of the Olympian Zeus ()Olumpasin Div) 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 temples 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. 6073.

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. 513515. 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 Herods 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 Caesars 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 Caesars 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. 123139.
BJ I, 408415; AJ XV, 331341. As noted above, we will not be offering a detailed
survey of Herods architectural achievements in Caesarea, but will content ourselves
with providing the relevant bibliographical references: Cornfeld 1982, pp. 8284;
NEAE I, pp. 270291; Raban & Holum 1996, pp. 681687; Roller 1999, pp. 133
144; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 116130. 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
Herods 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, 328330):
[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. 119167,
524528, 528532; 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. 239241.
See the instructive conclusions of Bernett 2002, pp. 86109; cf. also Lichtenberger
1999, 150153; Geiger 1987, pp. 5160.
Cf. mAvodah Zarah 1, 6; CA I, 192193; Kasher 1996, pp. 189 ff.; Fuks 2002,
p. 240.
At first glance, this statement appears erroneous, since Sebaste and Caesarea were
included within Herods 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 Caesars 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 filotima 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 Herods intentions (AJ XVI, 137141):
[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, Caesars 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: yTaanit, 65d; cf. Klausner IV, p. 33; Ben-Shalom 1980, pp. 333,
390391 (nn. 160161); Noam 1993, pp. 68, 141, 193195, 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 Herods 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. 318319).
Ibid., 140. Schalit (in the Hebrew) and Whiston translated the Greek term 4 yucagwga 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 citys 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 Caesars 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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
Herods megaloyuca and his yucagwga.
Cf. BJ I, 415. It is unclear whether or not Augustus and Agrippa actually considered
the possibility of expanding Herods realm to include Syria and Egypt. It is more
likely that this reflected Herods own secret aspirations (compare below).
See Meshorer 1997, pp. 6667.
The economic situation during his days was examined by Jones 1938, pp. 68 ff.;
Klausner 1958, IV, pp. 58100; Grant 1971, pp. 165174; Applebaum 1976,
pp. 664667, 669, 683684; Baruch 2003, pp. 4142; Pastor 1997, 98127.

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
Herods 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 Herods 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, 398400; AJ XV, 343346; for further details see Schrer 1973, I, p. 291.
n. 10; Kokkinos 2202a, p. 736.
For details on the so-called Zenodorus affair, see Kasher 1988, pp. 157160.
See AJ XV, 354360; Kasher 1988, pp. 156160; idem 1990, pp. 194197. According to BJ I, 399 Augustus appointed Herod epitropos of Coele-Syria; see Otto
1913, col. 74; Schrer 1973, I, p. 319 and n. 122. Smallwood (1981, pp. 8788 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 4644 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. 6366; 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 Herods 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 Herods 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--vis the Roman Empire, and Romes 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 Emperors 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 Herods appointment to the office
of epitropos of all of Syria.
AJ XV, 350. On the date of the meeting, see Schrer, 1973, I, p. 291, n. 11; on the
friendship between Herod and Marcus Agrippa, see Stern 1983b, pp. 6263; Roller
1998, pp. 4353. On Marcus Agrippas great stature in Rome, see Yavetz 1988,
pp. 7779.
AJ XV, 342343. It is noteworthy that the emperor showed great affection toward
Herods sons, even allowing them to stay in his house; see Otto 1913, cols. 7071;
Feldman 1953, pp. 7380; Schrer 1973, I, p. 291; Hoehner 1972, p. 9; Smallwood
1981, p. 89 and n. 103; Amit 2002, pp. 2627, 226; Hadas-Lebel 2003, pp. 4651;
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.
Herods appreciation for the Emperors 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 Herods 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. 269271) 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, 363364; BJ I, 404406; III, 509515; Roller 1998, pp. 190192; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 150153. 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; Schrer 1979, II, pp. 169171; Kasher 1990, pp. 220221. Regarding
the archaeological findings, see Maoz 1993, pp. 136143.
See Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 121, 150151, 153, 177; Bernett 2002, pp. 110126;
cf. also Geiger 1987, pp. 89.
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, 365368):
[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 Herods 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. 447450; Roller 1998,
pp. 170171; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 5154.
Cf. AJ XV, 285290; 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 Herods 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, Herods 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 Herods
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: Schrer 1973, I, p. 315; Shatzman 1983, pp. 8889, 9697; BenShalom 1993, p. 49; cf. Guri-Rimon, pp. 716.
AJ XVIII, 117119; cf. BJ I, 664; AJ XVII, 187; Roller 1998, pp. 170171; NEAE,
II, pp. 639641; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 1720, 4047; for further details, see
Sagiv 2003, pp. 4648.
AJ XVII, 117119; on the site and its military characteristics, see Kasher 1988,
pp. 88, 91, 102, 153, 155, 178, 179, 233; Roller 1998, pp. 184186; Shatzman
1991, pp. 263266; Sagiv 2003, pp. 24, 146, 160, 168.
AJ XVI, 317; Roller 1998, pp. 129130; NEAE, IV, pp. 13181320; Guri-Rimon,
p. 10; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 1720. Other fortresses also served the same purpose, judging by the attempt of the Roman procurator Sabinus to lay his hands
on them immediately after Herods death, since he apparently knew that he stored
great treasures there along with large quantities of weapons; see BJ II, 1718, 41;
AJ XVII, 222223. 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. 7282.

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. Shatzmans 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 Shatzmans
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, 2329).101 Jews
from Judaea are rarely mentioned in the various sources, a fact that
presumably reflected reality. In the description of Herods 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, 159160; Shatzman 1983, pp. 5798; cf. Kasher 1990, pp. 208212.
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. 4445, 9192,
147148; Sagiv 2003, p. 172. 177.
Applebaum 1970, pp. 7988; Ben-Shalom 1993, pp. 63 ff.
BJ I, 672; AJ XVII, 198. Of the 400 Galatians, we know that they had previously
served as Cleopatras 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

Herods 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 Herods paranoid feelings.

103

104

Aristobulus III in the swimming pool near the royal palace of Jericho at Herods
request (35 BCE); cf. Thackeray 1927, II, p. 206; cf. Shatzman 1983, pp. 9192.
Indeed, 2,000 Jewish-Idumaean troops took part in the popular uprising after
Herods 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 Schrer 1973, I, pp. 33
42; Smallwood 1981, pp. 146147, 256257; Shatzman 1983, p. 92; Jankelewitz
1980, pp. 3342; Kasher 1990, pp. 213214, 218, 241242, 245 ff., etc.

Chapter 9
Herods 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

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. 2627; Smallwood 1981, pp. 9192 and n. 12;
cf. Isaac 1983, p. 2 and n. 8 (without conclusion as to the date); see also recently
Banowitz 2003, pp. 67, n. 6. In fact, Corbishley had already resolved the problem
of the conflicting accounts raised by Schrer (1973, I, p. 292, n. 12); cf. Otto (1913,
cols. 8384), Thackeray (1927, II, pp. 188189, n. a), Marcus & Wikgren (1963,
VIIII, p. 205, n. c), Schalit (1969, p. 372), and Roller (1968, pp. 176177). 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
Temples 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, Herods 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--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, 329330). 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, 184237; AJ XV, 380425; cf. Mark 13:1. On the archaeological findings,

including bibliography, see Ben-Dov 1982, pp. 72147; NEAE, II, pp. 736744;
Roller 1968, pp. 176182; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 131142; Levine 1995, pp. 316;
idem 2000, pp. 6365; Jacobson 2002, pp. 1927.
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 Peoples 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, Herods 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 Herods 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 peoples
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
peoples 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 Peoples Assembly

Leading Up to Construction of the Temple
As part of Herods efforts to lay the groundwork for the building of
the Holy Temple, a great Peoples 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

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 Herods 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, 382387):
[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 Gods 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 Gods
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 Herods 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. 189190.

Speech at the Great Jerusalem Peoples 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 Herods 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 Herods
origins as an Idumaean) became synonymous with the Roman Empire
as a kingdom of evil.11

10

11

This is consistent with the basic political outlook of the Hellenist monarchs, and
is somewhat reminiscent of the Europe absolutism of the 16th18th centuries, as
symbolized by Louis XIVs declaration: ltat cest 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. 5259; Pastor 1997, pp. 98 ff.; Gabba 1990, pp. 161168;
idem 1999, pp. 118125.
Indeed, Caesarea Maritima, the most important of the cities built by Herod, was
referred to by the dubious name Edom; see Feldman 2004, pp. 6483; Kasher,
below pp. 416417 and n. 14.

218

9. Preparation for the Building of the Holy Temple

Euphoria of Construction:
A Form of Herodian Messianism?
Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 (eergthv). To support this argument, Schalit points to the deification of such rulers in the Roman Empire of Herods time (referring
largely to Emperor Augustus); indeed, Herod, with his classical Hellenist education, entertained similar expectations, in Schalits view.
12
13
14
15

Cf. Schalit 1969, pp. 456 ff. In this regard, there is much in common with Hitlers
behavior, as indicated in Kershaws biography of him, passim.
See e. g. AJ XIV, 9, 414, 455,462; XV, 4, 144146, 373379. 387, 425; XVI, 188;
cf. XVII, 192; and the opposite XV, 298; XVI, 300.
AJ XV,385; cf also XV, 396398. On the analogy to King Solomon, see Otzen
1990, p. 36, 38.
See Schalit 1969, pp. 476482.

Euphoria of Construction

219

From Herods own perspective, Augustus was not only his personal
savior or deliverer (swtr) 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 (swthra) 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, Schalits 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. Herods 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. 16; Yavetz
1988, pp. 192204.
Schalit 1969, pp. 450 ff., 464 ff., 671675.
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. 3940) 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 Schalits 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 Herods men, and thus the term should not be interpreted in terms of theology or sectarianism, but in the simplest
most pragmatic sense, that is, Herods 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. 2233; A. F. J. Klijn, G. J. Reinink. Patristic Evidence for Jewish
Christian Sects, Leiden 1973, passim; U. Kellermann, Exegetisches Wrterbuch
zum Neuen Testament, II (1981), cols. 30330; Bennett 1975, pp. 915; 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. 114123; Klausner 1969, I, pp. 235237.
Since space does not permit us to pursue this topic further, we will content ourselves
with referring the reader to Otto 1913, pp. 200202; Momigliano 1934, pp. 7677;
Le-Moyen 1972, pp. 340342; and more recently: Regev 2005, pp. 5058.
See Bickerman, op. cit., pp. 2233; Rowley 1940, pp. 1427; Sandmel 1962,
pp. 594595; Hoehner 1972, pp. 184 ff., 331342; Bennett 1975, pp. 9 ff.; Smallwood 1981, pp. 163164, 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 Herods trusted followers as a whole, an interpretation consistent with
Josephus reference (in AJ XIV, 450) to (o t (Hedou fronontav)
those who were aligned with Herod.25
Flusser raised the possibility, almost incidentally, that the ideologues among Herods followers attempted to persuade their audience
that Herods building was the realization of their hopes for the future
to come. As proof of this, he pointed to one of the passages from
Herods address concerning the building of the Holy Temple (AJ XV,
385387). 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 Herods 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 Herods 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, 4345) 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). Schrer (1979, II, p. 505 and

24
25

26

and more recently, Efron 2004, pp. 7172, 102, 119120. 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 emperors loyalists, namely the so-called kaisarianoi. He relied on the philologic analysis of Bickerman, who maintained that the suffix -iano derived (at least in this case)
from the Latin.
Flusser 2002a, pp. 265266 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!
Schalits 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, 89), 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 Herods 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. 260280, esp. 267 ff.,
272 ff.
See Stern 1960, pp. 5557; idem 1991, pp. 591592. In our opinion, the reservations offered by Kokkinos (1998, p. 204. n. 72) do not weaken Sterns arguments;
furthermore, the issue of the Herodians, which he refers to indirectly, is not
instructive here for the reason cited in notes 2324 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. 233234, 237238; 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 Herods 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 Herods 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, 23) relied on Julius Africanus (ca. 160240

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. 183184 and n. 13.
Eusebius, ibid., VI, 13, which indirectly confirms Josephus account of Herods 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 (34); 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 (Sia), 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]sile (Hrdei
kurw )Obasatov Sadou 3qhka tn ndrinta tav mav dapnai[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 Hengels words, as there is no
support whatsoever for such a conclusion. For further details see: Schrer 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. 206207; Geiger 1987, p. 8 and n. 18; Kokkinos 1998,
p. 137 (and n. 195), 288, 352.
Cf. Millar 1993, pp. 395396; also Richardson 1996, pp. 6567, 206207.
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 Herods 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 Tsafrirs assessment of the megalomanic motives behind most of Herods 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, 160163):
[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 Herods financial resources, see Gabba 1990, pp. 161168; Pastor 1997, pp. 98
109.

226

10. Hidden Motivations for Building the Holy Temple

Herods 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 Herods 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 peoples 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

According to Ball (200, p. 52), the main reason for Herods 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
Israels 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; 14:415). See also Josephus summary

What Was Herods 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, 392396):
[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

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, 190192. The descriptions of the Jerusalem Temple are mainly based on
BJ V 184227 and AJ XV 380420, and to some degree on the Mishnah in Middoth (chapters IV). For a concise but comprehensive description correlated with
archaeological findings, see Avi-Yonah in: EH, VIII, cols. 568576; 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 Herods projects, and the enormous labor and financial effort entailed,
in order to expose Herods 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
todays 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
viewers eye and arousing admiration at the architectural power of his
construction and his own greatness.
The abundance of superlatives in the description point to Herods
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: leuko mn lqou, cf. 305: Leukn d ajtn &n mazon.
Josephus emphasized in particular that the three towers were built with hewn stones
of white marble (BJ V, 174: leuk mrmarov). This was true also with regard to the
royal stoa (ibid., 190).
In Greek leukotthv marmrou (BJ I, 420); cf. Thackerays 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 mrmarov 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 Herods 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,
Romes 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, 2930; Yavetz 1988, pp. 6264. 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. 255256), 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 (leuk mrmarov) 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. 4049; Patrich 1987, pp. 3952; idem 1988,
pp. 1629; NEAE II, pp. 736744, 736; Warszawski & Peretz 1966, pp. 346; Bahat (in: Horbury), pp. 3858, 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] Herods 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. 56; 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 Herods 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, 219222), 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. 7793; NEAE II, pp. 736 ff.; R. Reich
2002, pp. 4852.
3mpeirov refers to an expert craftsman while mpeira 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. 1617. 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. 2223. An ossuary bearing the Aramaic inscription )lkh hnb/)nb }wms
(Simeon builder of the Temple) was found in Givat Hamivtar north of Jerusalem,
and most likely relates to one of the priestly builders; see Naveh 1970, pp. 3037.
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, Herods 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
Jerusalems 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 Herods
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 3b4a). 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-Dovs (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., 135136) concerning the
construction of the Caracalla Baths, which suggest that the population of Jerusalem did not exceed 80,000; cf. Broshi 1977, pp. 6574; 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. 190191.

What Was Herods 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, Romes mistrust of Agrippa I (Herods grandson), for which
reason he was forced to abandon construction of the third wall
in Jerusalem (AJ XIX 326327; BJ II, 218; ibid., V, 148154), such
suspicions were quite plausible.29 On the other hand, if we consider
Herods 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 Romes 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 514 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 Jerusalems 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. 7677.

It should be recalled here that the building of the Temple in the days of the Return
to Zion (520516 BCE) sparked similar fears, especially considering the libelous accusations of the neighboring nations and their warnings concerning a Jewish revolt
(Ezra 4:1213).
On the policy of evacuating populations for building purposes, see Ben-Dov 1982,
pp. 7980. 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 (4648 CE); the son was later nominated
by Titus as his chief of staff during the siege of Jerusalem (6970 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, 193194). A complete copy of
31
32
33

34

Cf. Ben-Dov 1982, pp. 7677.

On Alexander, Philos brother, see Tcherikover 1963a, pp. 68, 141, 147. On his son
see: Turner 1954, pp. 5464; Burr 1955.
See also BJ V, 201; II, 411; VI, 283295; 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. Nicanors
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. 119125; Kloner &
Zissu 2003, pp. 57, 9699.

What Was Herods 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 ( erv perbolov) from desecration by Gentiles visiting the Temple Mount in order that the Temple be
recognized the world over as a site protected from defilement (tpov
2sulov). This status was of course supported officially by Rome, as
was the case with other temples throughout the Empire. Josephus recounts (BJ V, 206227) 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 faade 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 21:2831; mMiddoth 2:3;
mKelim 1:8. On the scholarly publications of the inscription, see: Clermont-Ganneau 1872, pp. 214234, 290296; Frey 1952, II, no. 1440; OGIS, no. 598; SEG
VIII, no. 169; for further information see: Rabello 1972, pp. cclxvicclxxxi; Fry
1986; Bickerman 1976, I, pp. 221224; Safrai & Stern 1976, II, pp. 865 ff.; Schrer
1979, II, pp. 284285 and n. 57.
This is Danbys translation (which, according to Schrer [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 (kinqov), crimson (kkov), and purple (porfra) together
with fine white linen (bssov). 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 faade, the exterior of the
Temple on its three sides was mesmerizing and a delight to behold (BJ
V, 222224). The suns 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, 215221, 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. 584585, 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( hlK (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, 198199; Kasher 1996, I, pp. 201203.
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 Herods 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 Herods individual motivations, as evidenced by the following citation (AJ XV, 411417):
[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, 180187. 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., 102103, 118130; 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, 389390).
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. 4957. Supplementing the description of the Soreg, the
Womens Court, and the Sacred Precinct (accessible to priests only) is the passage in AJ
XV, 417420. The construction of the three Stoas with their adjacent structures lasted
eight years (ca. 2012 BCE); cf. Schrer 1973, I, p. 292; Baruch & Peleg. Ibid.
BTaanith 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 Herods 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 latters 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 Herods assistance to the
Jews of the Diaspora before Marcus Agrippas tribunal in Asia Minor (14 BCE).
For details, see Tsafrir 2003, pp. 9498.
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 17); for details see: EB, II, cols. 901904; VII,
cols. 222255.
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 Herods 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 (qusa) 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
Herods public feast. Assuming that each guest would eat around half a kilogram,
the number of diners could have reached 50,00060,000. This number includes of
course a considerable portion of Jerusalems 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. 7784) and Safrai (1965, pp. 7174) 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 (883859 BCE) for the inauguration of his royal palace in the second Assyrian
capital Kalkhu, which, according to the kings records, reached 69,574; cf. EB, IV
(1962, col. 116. Thus in our opinion, Herods feast is certainly worthy of inclusion
in R. Strongs 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 Jerusalems population at the time, see below (p. 232); cf.
also Broshi 1977, pp. 6574; idem 1985, pp. 1119; 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, 3739; idem, Augustus, 23, 43, 7475.

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 kings 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 publics attention from his true ambition: the association of
the Temples 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 Herods 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 Herods coronation in Rome
took place during the winter (BJ I, 279280; 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 Herods 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. 69.

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
Herods coronation and of the dedication of Herods 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 publics 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 Herods time, as well as his analysis of the
pseudo-epigraphic epistle in II Maccabees 1:12:18 (ibid., 915). 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, 202203 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 Husseins 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 Herods personal initiative and earned the Emperors
approval retroactively. The former possibility seems more likely, given
the personality of the individuals involved. It is likely that, from Herods 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 kings welfare was considered legitimate according to Jewish law from the time of the Persian and Hellenist eras; see Schrer 1979, II, pp. 309313.

Chapter 11
Return to Daily Reality amid
New Tensions (1814 BCE)
From the Euphoria of Building
to an Ongoing Persecution Complex
Despite Herods 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 Herods 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. 1547.

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
Herods 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, 15):
[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 Herods 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. 138145), 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 Schrer, 1973, I, p. 292; Kokkinos (1998, pp. 369370 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. 132136; Guttmann 1949, pp. 68 ff.; Schalit 1969, pp. 231 ff.;
Stern 1983a, p. 81 and n. 51; Ben-Shalom 1983, pp. 4950 and n. 57; Fuks 2002,
pp. 240241. Most scholars agree with Josephus that the inspiration for Herods

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 Herods 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 Herods 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 mothers 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 mans character
and reactions (ibid., 810). Initially, he repressed the rumors, treat-

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,
1314; cf. I, cols. 191192, 477478; HE, XXXI, cols. 480382.
There are differences of opinion as to the exact date of the sons return from Rome.
Some, like Schrer (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. 2729).

Return of Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods

family, see Mayer & Schrtel 1995, pp. 211 ff.; Richardson 1996, pp. 4345.
Kokkinos (1968, pp. 208, 241243) well-substantiated and logical opinion appears
reasonable to us. By contrast, Richardsons (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 Alexanders eagerness and imagination, and signal to him
that despite his fathers 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. Herods 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)

Herods 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. 711; 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 Agrippas 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 Agrippas
visit, we have the following instructive passage from the writings of
Philo Alexandreus. The excerpt, attributed to Herods 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 latters notorious edict that an enormous golden image of
him be erected in the Temple (Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 294297):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, 1215):
[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 emperors 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

Herods 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., 2122):
[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 kings 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 Agrippas 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, 4856).
Regarding this campaign and the unreliable information provided by Nicolaus in this
regard, see Otto 1913, col. 75; Schalit 1969, pp. 424425; cf. AJ XV, 16, 2223.

Herods 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 Herods 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

Herods 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 (didocov Kasari) in the
government of the countries beyond the Ionian Sea, i. e., Caesars 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 emperors 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, 2326). 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods
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, Herods 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, Herods 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, 2765; cf. ibid., XII, 125127; see in detail Kasher 1996a, pp. xvxxii;
Pucci-Ben Zeev 1998, pp. 223 ff.; on Nicolaus impressive rhetorical skills at this
hearing, see also Landau 2003, pp. 190192.

Herods 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., 3234, 4748).
A resounding legal victory was achieved, with far-reaching implications for every Jew in the Roman Empire.19 This of course greatly
enhanced Herods 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 peoples 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. Herods
speech before the peoples 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 Herods 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, 160173; Philo, Legatio ad Gaium, 315316. We learn from Josephus account
that further imperial orders concerning Jewish rights there were issued until Herods
death; see the recent historical analysis by Pucci-Ben Zeev 1998, pp. 233293.
To compare the scope of the contributions and their sources, see Ciceros 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. 196201. 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 peoples
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. 8692; Roth-Gerson 1987, pp. 7686; 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; Schrer
1973, I, p. 310 and n. 77; Oren 1965, pp. 356362; Zeligman 1970, pp. 7073; Tepper 1986, pp. 170196; Zissu 1999, pp. 100106; Kloner 2000, pp. 113115.
The first Hasmonaean to earn this title was Simeon; see Stern 1965, pp. 132135.
On John Hyrcanus I and John Hyrcanus II, see Pucci-Ben Zeev 1998, pp. 4041,
4950, 6566, 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, 431432, 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
Herods and Salomes paranoid personality disorder that was the primary cause of his tragedy and that of his family.
[66] But now the affairs in Herods 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
(pnoia)24 and insolence or auducity (qrsov)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 Salomes 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 bels.
The Greek term is made up of two elements: p (beyond); and nov (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 brothers madness or renewed emotional turmoil squarely on Salomes
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. 6977; 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 naivet stemming from their youth and
political inexperience (AJ XVI, 66 ff.). The crafty slanderers launched
their attack immediately after Herod convened the great peoples assembly in Jerusalem to report on his achievements on behalf of the
Jews of the Diaspora. The following passage (AJ XVI, 7375) 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 mothers 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 (n sugcosei tv yucv n) 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., 7677). 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, 447448. 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 (tarasamenov d ka diakemenov tn trpon), 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 (genmeenon diwteont); 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, 6769; BJ I, 447448).

28

In BJ I, 448 there is no dramatic emphasis (as in AJ XVI, 7578) on Herods great

confusion of mind (sugcsei tv yucv nor on his being disturbed and afflicted
(tarassmenov d ka diakemenov tn trpon toton). 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 (1410 BCE)
Antipater Deepens the Rift between Herod
and his Hasmonaean Sons
Herods 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, 7880):
[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. 556574.
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 (pi tecisma) 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 (Kasari flon);
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 Antipaters prestige and boost his political stock
as a potential successor to the royal crown (AJ XVI, 8587). The version in War (I, 451), by contrast, notes simply:
For both in his fathers 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., 8789), 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 Herods furious response despite the fact that the information that reached him
3
4
5
6

This is Herods second will; see Hoehner 1972, p. 271; Richardson 1996, p. 34.
This recalls Herods first visit to Rhodes, when he presented himself in full royal
attire but without a crown.
Richardson 1996, p. 34; cf. also below, pp. 257258.
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 Herods 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, 9199 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 Herods accusatory speech but only relays its content;
however the inclusion of three rhetorical questions, together with the
dramatic style of writing (AJ XVI, 9199), 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 (sotima) 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 Herods 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 Schrer 1973, I, p. 250, and cf. Kokkinos
1998, pp. 371372, 4.
Wacholder (1962, pp. 3032) 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 [Herods] habitual and hasty use of
force (ibid., 101; trans. idem; cf. also Schalit, ad loc.). These last
words can also be indicative of Herods 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 Herods 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. 246248). It is important to note here that
Nicolaus tried to present Herod as being in a state of confusion (tarcqh).

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 Herods

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, 105120). 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 Herods 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., 117120):
[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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods
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, 451454 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

Herods 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 fathers 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 Alexanders 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 t martmata, 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 Antipaters 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. 214218.
It is perhaps at this point that Herod wrote his third will (12 BCE), see BJ I, 454,
457466; AJ XVI, 127129, 132139; 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, 127129, 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.,
121126). The show began with his directing a piercing glance at
Herod during Alexanders 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
Herods appreciation for the Emperors 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 Schalits 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, 8081). 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 Herods 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, 455466 and AJ XVI, 130135), 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 peoples 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 Emperors 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 peoples
assembly was to publicly report on the accomplishments of his trip
to Rome, and in particular to highlight the Emperors 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 peoples assembly,
if only because Herods 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, 459465). 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, 461465):
[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 ltat
cest 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 Herods 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, 134135, 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
peoples 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 familys
reconciliation; (c) Herods own wishes, particularly since he was advising them rather than imposing his will. The public rapprochement
before the peoples assembly in Jerusalem concluded with Herods
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 Herods 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 worlds 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 Herods 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,
137141 (cited above in chapter 8, pp. 204205).
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 Herods 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, Herods 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. 58100; Applebaum 1976, pp. 664667, 669. 683684;
Broshi 1985, pp. 1119; idem 1987, pp. 3137; Gabba 1990, pp. 161168; Pastor
1997, pp. 98127.

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, Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Caesareas name around the world,
turning the city instantly from a small, remote Hellenist city (Stratos
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, 32833 (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. 195204.
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 Hnlein & Schfer 1985, pp. 196
203; Geiger 1987, pp. 5160; Bernett 2002, pp. 21149, esp. 45 ff. Regarding the
Roman influence on Herod, see Geiger 1996, pp. 133 ff.; idem 1997, pp. 7588;
D. M. Jacobson 2002a, pp. 84 ff. This was likely an important contributing factor
in Herods 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 Herods projects built to memorialize the
members of his family (AJ XVI, 142145; BJ I, 417418): 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. 7173; 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. 210212.
See Kochavi 1977; idem 1989, pp. 220; idem, NEAE I, pp. 7071; Roller 1998,
pp. 131132; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 73. 156157, 177.
See Roller 1998, pp. 182183; Netzer 1999, pp. 6263; 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. 7188.
See BJ V, 166169; Kokkinos 1998, p. 159; Roller 1999, p. 178; Netzer 1999,
p. 118 ff.; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 9495.
See Roller 1999, pp. 192 ff.; Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 157158.

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 Herods wife
Mariamme the Hasmonaean (BJ V, 172175), 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, Mariammes Tower was built prior to the queens
death, see above chapter 8, pp. 193194. But the very fact that Josephus stated that
all three towers (Phasael, Hippicus and Mariamme) were built to commemorate
(tn mnmhn) 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, 715746),
Herod may indeed have established a new city in Mariammes 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 Herods 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, 166169,

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 Herods 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 Herods
largesse towards various Hellenist cities in Syria, Greece, and other locations in the eastern Mediterranean Basin (AJ XVI, 146149), 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 Herods 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, 408416; II, 266; AJ XIV, 76; XV, 293
298, 316, 327364; 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. 168175; Roth-Gerson 2001, pp. 24. 3133, 35; Jacobson
1988, pp. 389391; idem 1993/4, pp. 3135; idem 2001, pp. 3233; idem 2002,
pp. 20 ff. and more.
On Ascalon, see the recent studies by Fuks (2001, pp. 127128; 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 Herods meeting there with Marcus Agrippa in 14 BCE. The list
of these donations is as follows: Cos merited a generous grant to the
citys gymnasiarch; Rhodes, a donation for the building of ships and
a temple to Apollo; and Chius enjoyed monetary assistance for renovating the citys 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 Herods 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, 426427; 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 mans 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, 423425; AJ XVI, 147.
The city of Nicopolis was founded near the site of the battle of Actium, and its
name was intended to commemorate Octavians victory over Mark Antony there
(31 BCE). Herod built most of the citys public buildings, presumably in order to
curry favor with the victor; see Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 168. 172, 175; Jacobson
1993/4, pp. 3136.
Schalit 1969, pp. 416 ff.; Smallwood 1981, p. 81 and n. 66; Lammer 1982, pp. 37
44. Kokkinos (1998, pp. 225226) struggled with the question of whether or not
Olympias, Herods daughter with his wife Malthace, was named after the city of
Olympia (on the assumption that the idea crossed Herods 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 Herods 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, 150159):
[150] Now some there are who stand amazed at the diversity of Herods
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 Herods 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
kings ambition with statues or temples, or any other such performances;
[159] And this seems to me to have been at once the occasion of Herods
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: Herods 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 Herods 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
Herods 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 Herods 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. 386403. 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 Herods Mental
State and Worsening Relations with
his Hasmonaean Sons (109 BCE)
Looting of King Davids Tomb
One of the most serious offenses committed by Herod in the last decade of his life was the looting of King Davids tomb, from which he removed costly objects of value in order to finance his many expenditures
(AJ XVI, 179183, 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 1412 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, 392394; XIII, 249. Regarding King Davids 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 Davids 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. 96164 (Hebrew), esp. 150155; N. Avi-Gad,
Ancient Tombstones from the Qidron Valley, Jerusalem 1954, pp. 216217; D. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan: The Necropolis from the Period of the Judean Kingdom, Jerusalem 1986, Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, pp. 216217 (Hebrew); S. Achituv, A
Collection of Hebrew Inscriptions, Jerusalem 1993, pp. 2731. 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. 133136; cf. ibid., 167, 213, 224225, 229.

282

13. Further Deterioration in Herods 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 Herods
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 Herods 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 Herods 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
Davids tomb on a previous occasion by John Hyrcanus I (ibid., 179;
BJ I, 61; AJ VII, 393394; ibid., XIII, 249), for if a revered Hasmonaean leader could do such a thing, why not Herod as well?3
2

See Lichtenberger 1999, pp. 154155. 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 (tumah 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. 181185) cast doubt on the authenticity of this account; however, he

Looting of King Davids 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 (134132 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, Herods 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 patrons 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 Herods motive in
looting Davids 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, 183187):

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 Is 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 Schrer 1973, I, pp. 202204, esp. n. 5.
Not without reason did Kokkinos (1998, p. 362) consider this act one of Herods
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 Herods Mental State

[183] and many other things he treats of in the same manner in his
book; [184] for he wrote in Herods 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
Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods troubles in his family seemed to be augmented by
reason of this attempt he made upon Davids sepulcher; whether Divine
vengeance increased the calamities he lay under, in order to render them
incurable, or whether fortune (tch) 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 (sbeia).7

In Schalits translation of AJ (ad loc.), he rendered sbeia 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 Davids grave provoked

Gods 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, Herods 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 Herods
relations with his family, which takes up the lions share of Books XVI
and XVII of Antiquities and chapters 2433 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
Herods public declaration in Jerusalem establishing Antipaters 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. 227229.

286

13. Further Deterioration in Herods 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 Herods 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 fathers 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 kings 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 kings last will and testament (following his death) and
overseeing its execution (BJ I, 666669; 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 (stsiv) [that] was like a civil war
('sper mfulou polmou); 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, 132135; BJ I, 457466.

See above pp. 9699, in our discussion of Doris standing in the royal court.

Rivalry between Antipater, His Hasmonaean Brothers, Salome

287

law Berenice, the daughter of Salome (Herods 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 fathers
loyalty with deceit (ibid., 190), and at the same time, relentlessly instill doubts about his brothers.
The version in BJ I, 467462 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 Antipaters 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 Herods 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 fathers 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 Herods 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. Antipaters 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 fathers 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 Alexanders. 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 Herods 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 latters 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, Herods 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 (gora) 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,
Herods steward ( tamav), 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. 164175).

290

13. Further Deterioration in Herods 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, 483484, Herods 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 Herods 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, 4243). 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, 194195, 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-Schrtel 1995, pp. 172173.
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 (pqesia
ka msouv); for he was overcome with the charms of his wife, to such a
degree of madness, that he despised the kings 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 kings 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 kings
good-will to him, and become an occasion of his trouble, and make himself hated by him.

Since this advice was not given on Ptolemys 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 kings 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 masters severe
emotional distress, which drove him to the most serious of his crimes the murder
of his own sons.

292

13. Further Deterioration in Herods 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 Salomes activities, jumping from one episode to another.
In his introductory remarks, he makes a point of referring to Salomes
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., 201204). 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
Berenices Idumaean origins (ibid., 193). Matters reached the point
where Salomes daughter even fabricated complete untruths, reporting that the Hasmonaean brothers had said that when they achieved
power they would turn all of Herods descendants who were not from
the Hasmonaean dynasty into simple, worthless village scribes (kwmogrammatev),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 (o laoi) could serve in this position;
see e. g. Rostovtzeff 1941, p. 320.
This recalls the use by Doris (Herods first wife) of Mariammes 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 Herods 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 Herods
having become so deeply enamored with Alexanders 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 fathers signs of affection toward his wife in light of the sordid revelation instigated by
Pheroras. Such behavior was apparently also in keeping with Herods
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, 208212):
[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 Herods over-sensitivity to insult

294

13. Further Deterioration in Herods 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 Herods 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
kings 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).
Herods 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. 4045. 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 Herods 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., 273275). 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 Herods 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 Herods
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 Herods 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 Salomes 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 Herods 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, 221225, 232; XVII, 139; cf. BJ I, 487, 534535.
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. 1011 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. 227228.
This is the opinion of Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, pp. 298299 (n. a); cf. also
Schalit 1969, p. 599; Kokkinos 1998, pp. 182184, 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 Herods pig than his son) attributed to Augustus by a later source (Macrobius, in the fifth century CE; see Stern 1980, II, pp. 665666); 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 Herods 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 Herods 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.
Herods 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, 163164, 167, 170171, esp. 268273. One of the three
husbands of Herods 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, 253266); see Kasher
1988, pp. 74, 143, 214218; Kokkinos 1998, pp. 179182. 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. 2931 and n. 16. Alexander, Herods 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, 349350); for further information see Schrer 1973, I, pp. 354356 (n. 6);
Kokkinos 1998, p. 228; S. Cohen 1999, p. 170. Her later marriage to Archelaus
(Herods 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. 397404; 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 Herods 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 brothers 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 Herods 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 Salomes 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, Herods 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
()Alexv, and the Hebrew equivalent was most likely whyqlx, as suggested by Stern
1985, pp. 9596; idem 1991, pp. 188189; Kokkinos 1998, pp. 184186 (including
details on his possible ethnic origins); Roller 1999, pp. 5758.

300

13. Further Deterioration in Herods 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 sisters 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Salomes 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., 227228).
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 (enocoi), all highly favored servants (t 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 (sugkateklneto). 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 Herods 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, Herods official favored successor at the time.37 He did so
with great cunning for, knowing his fathers 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 pgw in BJ I, 489 should be noted in this context
(cf. Liddell & Scott, p. 1850). The same is true of t paidik (ibid., p. 1287) and
sunousa (ibid., 1723). Moreover, a similar interpretation can be applied to the use
of the verb diafqerw (AJ XVI, 231) (cf. ibid., 418), as well as pav (ibid., 1289)
and diafqerw (ibid., 970); compare with the translations of Thackeray 1927, II,
p. 223; Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, p. 301 Schalit 1963, p. 255 etc.; MayerSchrtel 1995, pp. 267268.
This point was argued convincingly by Otto (1913, col. 137) and by Schalit (1969,
p. 599) with regard to the inclusion of Antipaters name in this context (AJ XVI,
232).

302

13. Further Deterioration in Herods Mental State

persuaded them that they could not depend on the aging Herod (AJ
XVI, 233234; cf. BJ I, 490491):
[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 Herods 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, 235240 (cf. BJ I, 492494):
[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, Antipaters 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 fathers successor, he was convinced that he was already on the brink of old age. On the calculations concerning
Antipaters 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Alexanders who was educated together with him in Rome.

304

13. Further Deterioration in Herods 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 peid t nenoshkv tv to patrv parrhsav
katmaqen).41 In summation: Antipater acted with full knowledge of
his fathers 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. 13441345; 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. 261261. In the parallel version in BJ I, 492, Josephus
used the term noma 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 fathers mood), but it is nonetheless accurate; see Schalit 1969, pp. 603604 (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 (97 BCE)
The Ring of Suspicion Tightens
Up until this point, Herods 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 latters handsome appearance and impressive physical and athletic attributes.2 In truth, this
was nothing new, for Herods 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, 2530, 51) and later with respect
to Mariamme herself (AJ XV, 6667, 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
Alexanders remarkable physical characteristics but also because of
his athletic abilities, for example his gift for archery. These talents
aroused Herods jealousy to an extent that he found virtually unbearable (AJ XVI, 247248). 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, 233235, 248,
399.
Cf. ibid., 314, 400401. 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 Alexanders company in such shared
pastimes as horseback-riding and gymnastics (ibid., 314 ff.).4 Herods
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.
Herods 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
Herods 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 (tn dunatn)
4

We will be returning to this point below, but it is worth noting here that the parallel
version in BJ I, 527529 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, 247248 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 fathers 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 (tov te 4gemnav) had
also met with him surreptitiously (BJ I, 491). Indeed, the prevailing
atmosphere can be summed up as follows (BJ I, 492494):
[492] These disclosures so terrified (xefbhsen) 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 (noma). 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 kings
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 Herods 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
Antipaters 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 Alexanders 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, 247248):

This delusion is also mentioned in a later context (AJ XVI, 259260), 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Antipaters 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

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 Herods 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 Herods 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, 252253):
[252] So he was desirous to have some surer mark of his sons 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
Alexanders 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 (38/73/2 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 Herods 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 (tv propteiav) in this bad situation, for
he was flattered when things became worse than had been expected
(ibid., 255; trans. by Marcus & Wikgren).

Alexanders 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 (k filoneikav)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 Samsons 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 Herods court had supposedly
joined Alexanders 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, 255258 and BJ I, 498499 regarding the juicy
tale of Salome, who supposedly entered Alexanders 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 k filoneikav should have been translated with a more negative
connotation, i. e., out of a sense of rivalry; cf. Liddell & Scott, pp. 19371938.
Schalit 1969, pp. 600 ff.; cf. also Klausner 1958, IV, p. 159.

Alexanders 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 Schalits 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 Herods 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 Salomes 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, (Thackerays 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, 242243), 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.

Alexanders 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 latters
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 (Livias 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 Alexanders 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, 259260):
[259] Herods 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 Herods 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 (mana) and foolishness (noa) (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 fathers mood (}v
peid t nenoshk`v tv to patrov parrhsav katmaqen).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 latters sudden death (12 BCE); see Yavetz 1988, p. 84, 110, 181.
The same quote, based on Schalits Hebrew translation, is cited above (chap. 13,
note 41). The term parrhsa 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, Herods 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 paranoa
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. 603604 and notes
108109). Josephus uses the same term in CA I, 211 as a variation of pnoia,
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. 603610, esp. note 112. In order to obtain a professional diagnosis of Herods 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. 127, esp. 2227. A
similar view was held by Jones (1938, p. 211), who wrote of the last stage of Herods
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, 499512; AJ XVI, 261266),
both of them relying of course on Nicolaus of Damascus but emended
by Josephus himself. Both accounts offer a clear indication of Herods
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 (mla promhqv ka tcnhe),
or in short stratgma, while according to the second (AJ XVI, 263),
it was apparently a ruse (txiv). To better understand what went on,
the two versions must be placed side by side and compared. The version in BJ I, 500501 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 persons 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 fathers heart unnerves you for punishing a rebellious son, let us each lend the other his hand, each take the others 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, 263265):
[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 daughters 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 Herods 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 sons 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
kings 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 naivet, 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 Alexanders hatred of
his father as he had enjoyed all the royal symbols of honor and stood
a good chance of inheriting his fathers throne (BJ I, 502503). 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, Herods fury at Alexander
was instantly diminished and diverted instead toward Pheroras, indicating Herods 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 brothers 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 kings anger toward him (BJ I, 504505).
The plan succeeded beyond all expectations, in particular since
Pheroras put on a flawless show of confession, remorse and atonement. He threw himself at Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods
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 Herods 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
Herods court. Finally, Herod and his nobles accompanied him as far
as Antioch in northern Syria when he returned to his homeland of
Cappadocia (ibid., 510512). 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 Schrer 1973, I, p. 257; Bowersock 1965,
pp. 2122. 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 Schrer 1973, I, p. 293, and n. 17; Stern
1974, I, p. 250; idem 1983b, p. 253 (n. 48); Kokkinos 1998, pp. 371372, 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 Alexanders 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

Herods Second War against the Nabateans

(AJ XVI, 273296)
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, Herods 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. 610613). 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.

Herods 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 (flov, or
amicus in Latin), he should now use him as his subject (pkoov, 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 Herods 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 Emperors letter
of reprimand were an extremely serious matter in Herods 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 Emperors 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., 293294). A similar response greeted the
claims that Herods 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 Emperors 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. 18711872.
Regarding this honor, see: Bammel 1952, pp. 205210; J. Crook, Consilium Principis: Imperial Councils and Counsellors from Augustus to Diocletian, Cambridge
1955, pp. 2130; 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 latters 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 Emperors 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, 296297).
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 IVs 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 Kings brother) expected Obodas to die en route to Rome; see
Schrer 1973, p. 581 (nn. 2224).
See Bowersock 1983, pp. 5152 and notes 2627.

Herods 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 Herods
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 Herods 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., 352353). Augustus political about-face in Herods favor was
striking, and even excessive, since it is stated that he considered annexing the entire land of the Nabataeans to Herods 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 Herods 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. 169170, nn. 101103.

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. 170173; Amit 2002, pp. 8990.

Chapter 15
Lead-Up to the Great Explosion (87 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 Herods 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, Herods
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

For details regarding Eurycles, see: Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, p. 311, n. a;
Bowersock 1962, pp. 112118; idem 1983, pp. 5960, 92, 105, 108, 120; Schrer
1973, I, pp. 311312 and n. 83; idem 1983b, p. 77, 252 (n. 27); Cartledge & Spawforth 1989, pp. 97101; Lindsay 1992, pp. 290297; D. M. Jacobson 1983/4, p. 33;
Kokkinos 1998, pp. 209, 344, 371; Roller 1999, pp. 5960.
See Kokkinos 1998, p. 209, n. 5.

326

15. Lead-Up to the Great Explosion

abandoned Antonys camp in favor of Octavians; (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 Antipaters 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 mans 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 Herods 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 (ok 2shmov tn ke).
This was stated clearly in BJ I, 518. Regarding Spartas stature among the Jews of the
Second Temple period, see Stern 1965, pp. 9193, 111114, 116, 126127.
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 Antipaters 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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
Alexanders 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, 513526; AJ XVI, 300312) 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 lions 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, 519520).
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 Alexanders 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 (nqov)7 as his successor and to offer their grandfathers
kingdom to the pest (t fqrw)8, Antipater. But he, Alexander (so Eurycles reported him), would avenge the spirits (damosin) 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 (egenea), his father gratuitously insulted him by
remarking, Nobody is noble but Alexander here, who scorns his father
for the baseness (gneian) 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 nqov means bastard or lowly of birth (i. e., born of a slave
or concubine). Compare noqea, 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. 79) has shown that Josephus followed Philo and Pseudo-Philos lead in
associating this negative label with Esau, Edom and Amalek.
The word fqrov means a destructive and dangerous man, see Liddell & Scott,
p. 1930; see also fqor, fqorhgenv, fqora, fqoroergv (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 egenea (noble origins) and gneian (base/inferior birth) highlights the Herodian familys
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 ones 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 Herods 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 (dramatourgv }olou to msouv
Erukla),11 the king called him his saviour and benefactor (swtr ka
ergth),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 (dramatourgv) 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 Alexanders 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. 2930; 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: Schrer, 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, 313320); BJ I, 526529). 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 kings chief hunter, that he had given the young men the royal
hunting spears and weapons to Alexanders dependents, at Alexanders
command.

In terms of its content, the story is certainly plausible, since its narrative elements are indeed compatible with Herods 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 (dramatourgv). 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, Herods 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 Herods 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,
528529 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 kings scribe, who was known to be especially talented at forging handwriting. It is even recounted that the latter was
18

See Kasher 2005a, pp. 220221; 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, 317319 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
kings 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 Alexanders hand. Its contents were these: When we have finished, by Gods
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 patrons 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 Herods 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. 618619.
In fact, we already saw at the time of the great family reconciliation in 12 BCE
that Nicolaus believed strongly in the innocence of Herods 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 Herods (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, 320321, Herod ultimately brought Jucundus and Tyrannus before the masses (t plqov) 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 peoples
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
Antipaters men, 26 apparently with the aim of destroying the evidence
to Herods 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., 322323).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-laws 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, 323324) 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, 325327).
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 Herods
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, 325334, 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, Herods 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 fathers 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 Herods paranoid behavior: the instantaneous transformation of a suspicion of betrayal into a certainty. This episode proves,
once again, that Herods 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, 335352, 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,
354355. The impression arising from between the lines is that Herods
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 Herods kingdom as
a possible political solution to the Syllaeus affair.
In his response to Herods 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 Emperors 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, 536537 emphasizes that the Emperor did not wish to take
away Herods 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 Emperors 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, 358359). In our opinion, Herods 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 Emperors acknowledgment of his hatred for his
sons, and the authority (xousa) that Augustus granted him to treat
them as he saw fit. Mood swings such as Herods 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. 183184 (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 Herods 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 Alexanders
father-in-law.
The use of the verb sumbouleein (to advise) is appropriate here.
This can also be seen from other manuscripts, in which it is stated explicitly:
prokaqzousn te o 4gemnev grafn [LTRC: kat t grafn PAM] atov p
Kasarov; see Rengstorf, p. 394 (s. v. grfw).

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
(mla promhqv)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
Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 (o to basilwv suggenev ka floi),9 led by his
brother Pheroras and sister Salome. Completing the list are individuals referred to collectively as all the aristocracy of Syria (o pshv
Surav 2ristoi), who were apparently distinguished figures from the
Hellenist cities mentioned earlier.
4

5
6
7

Cf. AJ XVI, 370372 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 Herods 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: promhqsteron.
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, 368369. For details see Schrer 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 Herods
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 Herods
expectations. The trial itself was also conducted along predetermined
lines, with total disregard for even the most basic legal procedures (AJ
XVI, 362329; BJ I, 540542).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, 362366:
[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 Caesars 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. 110112. 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 Herods 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, Herods 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, 368369; BJ I, 541). By contrast, Volumnius, Herods 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 (ptrion nmon) in

the same context as nature (t fsei) is significant; cf. BJ I, 544; Schrder 1996,
pp. 103 ff. The ancestral law in this instance obviously means the obligation to
honor ones 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 (sebsantav) 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 ones
father and ones 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 21:1821), 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, Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods cruelty would extend to carrying out a death
sentence against his own offspring (BJ I, 543; AJ XVI, 373374).
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, 545546):
[545] Most god-forsaken (kakoda monstatov) 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 (ponhrottoiv),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 ponhrv 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 Tiros 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, 375386 offers a more detailed account of Tiros 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). Tiros 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 Herods extreme

behavior. At first, Herod listened to Tiros 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., 384386). When Herod
realized that the soldiers 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 Tiros protest
against Herods actions, see also BJ I, 546. 550; Fenn 1992, p. 99.

Reactions of the Public and the Army to the Verdict against Herods 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. Herods 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 kings
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 Alexanders 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 fathers 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
Herods 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
Tiros son, which may only have been intended to put an end to his
fathers 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, 387393, in particular the end of the passage: This was
what Tiros 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. Herods 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 Herods 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 mothers 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 fathers deliverance
from their miseries.
See Kasher 2005, pp. 2339, 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 (di tacwn ehkpodn a$jtouv),
which is why he sent their executioners in the middle of the night (ll nktwr
tov nairsontav popmyv); see Stern 1974, I, no. 97 (p. 251).
The term uncle by the mothers side ( mhtroptwr) 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 grandfathers

Josephus Summary of Herods 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, 1112), who remained
under his guardianship so that he could control their fate.

Josephus Summary of Herods Character

After recounting the above events, Josephus felt the need to offer his
readers an analysis of Herods character (AJ XVI, 395404). 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 mothers 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, 405406
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 (tn plestwn atov
prognwn) 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, 123124 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 (n tav basilikav qkaiv); 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, Mariammes 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, 247251). 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, Herods wife, was buried there, but in fact the location
of her tomb is unknown. Schalits hypothesis (1984, pp. 356363) 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. 309310; 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 fathers honor
coupled with their own Hasmonaean arrogance. As stated, Herods
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 Herods 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
Herods 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 Herods 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 tch), who has a power greater than all prudent reflection
and (which) we (Jews) call her Fate (4 emarmnh) 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 Herods 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 fathers 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., 399400) but also, and primarily, because of Herods 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., 400401).
Of prime importance in the summary of Herods 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, 402404):
[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 (sebea). 31 He also was guilty of so great
29

30
31

According to Josephus, this was a central principle of the Pharisees (AJ XVIII,
1215, esp. 13), whom he himself identified with; cf. also AJ XIII, 172; BJ II, 163;
and mAvoth 3:16; Schrer 1979, II, pp. 392394.
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 (fonshv ka dusmetakintou yucv p tn ceirnwn). [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 Herods pig than his son) is a reliable
indication of the attitude of condemnation toward his crime. 33
In our assessment, the execution of Herods 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 Herods sons seems to have been in direct opposition to the
emperors 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
Antipaters Subversion in the Royal
Court of Jerusalem (75 BCE)
Increasing Influence of Antipater over Herod
The central figure in Herods 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, 556558:
[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

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 sundruon, 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: Alexanders sons

354

17. Antipaters Subversion in the Royal Court of Jerusalem

been bereaved by some evil genius (damwn) 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, Alexanders 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 mothers
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 Herods 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, 556560; 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 Herods marriage plans worried Antipater greatly,
in particular after he discerned signs of remorse in his father over the

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, 1214. 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.). Antipaters 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 mothers side, Theudion,6
to Berenice (daughter of Salome from her husband Costobarus), who
was the widow of Herods 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, 210211, 340. Initiailly, she was promised to Antipaters son (name unknown), but later she was betrothed to Antipater himself, while
Antipaters 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. Antipaters Subversion in the Royal Court of Jerusalem

family marriages as some sort of game of musical chairs, indicating

a manipulative nature not unlike his fathers. 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, 561562; 564565):
[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 Alexanders 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 Antipaters 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 mans 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 Herods 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 latters
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.

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
Herods extensive family, consisting of his wives and their respective children (BJ I,
562563). The same holds true for the parallel version in AJ XVII, 1922.

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 fathers 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 Antipaters 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 Herods 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. Antipaters 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, 2331).11 Since this passage opens with the word tte (and
now, or at this time in Marcus and Wikgrens 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
(10/97/6 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
Herods official emissary to argue on his behalf alongside Nicolaus
of Damascus in the trial against Syllaeus, and to formally revise Herods will (AJ XVII, 5257). 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 Herods sister Salome each play a major role. In AJ XVII, 4145, which
9

10
11

12

Herods 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, 567571; AJ XVII,
3240), which complement each other in various details.
See Applebaum 1970, pp. 7989; G. M. Cohen 1972, pp. 8395; cf. Debevoise
1968, pp. 145146. Klausner (1958, IV pp. 5657) 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. 115120;
Alon 1957, I, pp. 263267; Stern 1991, pp. 197198; Ben-Shalom 1983, pp. 62 ff.
See for further details: Schrer 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, 368372. 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, 175176; see Rivkin
1978, pp. 5153; Levine 1978, p. 26; Ben-Shalom 1983, pp. 40109 (esp. 8182);
Sanders 1992, pp. 383388; 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 Herods initiative; see: Schrer
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, 373379). Flusser (2002, pp. 7172) thought that the Pharisees objected
to taking the oath since Herods 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, 371372. 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, 116119, 260261),
this account clearly proves that the Pharisees numbered among Herods adversaries.
The same holds true with regard to AJ XVII, 42 ff.
For details, see Flusser 2001, pp. 182184.

360

17. Antipaters 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 1:117; Luke 3:2338) 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 Herods 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 Herods 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, 373379), 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 Herods eunuch Bagoas (Bagav), 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 (Krov), 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Schalits 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. Antipaters Subversion in the Royal Court of Jerusalem

who ordered that all three be sent to Rome (AJ XVII, 5457). 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 Herods 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 Herods
daughters made her all the more hated by him. We have already seen
evidence of Herods 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. 3233). 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 Herods 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
Antipaters 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, 4851). Since the
version in BJ (I, 571572) 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. 629630), 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. Antipaters 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 Antipaters 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, 573577; AJ XVII, 5253).
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, 578581; AJ XVII, 5859). 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, 6061). 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 Schrer
(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, 582591; AJ XVII, 6167)23 indicate that Herod was convinced
beyond a shadow of a doubt regarding the charge made by two of his
late brothers 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, Antipaters mother, who had brought his calamity
on all of them. Herod seized this opening and continued the womans
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 Herods 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. 172173 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 latters shady connections in the Arab world and his personal experience at eliminating rivals, as well as his desire to take revenge on Herods family,
including Pheroras, who had played an active role in thwarting his marriage to
Salome.
Cf. also AJ XVII, 121.

366

17. Antipaters Subversion in the Royal Court of Jerusalem

Increasing Deterioration in Herods Mental State

The version in BJ I, 586589) goes into much greater detail concerning
the agreement between Pheroras and Antipater, and contains several
comments that shed light on Herods 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 Herods 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 Antipaters gray hair, and Herods coloring of his hair, see AJ
XVI, 233; XVII, 66; BJ I, 490, 587; Kokkinos 1998, p. 209 (n. 4).

Increasing Deterioration in Herods 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. Antipaters likening of the Hasmonaean offspring to heads of a
Hydra monster can serve as an indication of how he himself planned to
implement his fathers 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 Herods 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 Antipaters 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 Antipaters disloyalty perhaps the most significant in Herods 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 (Samarethn); AJ XVII, 69 (Samarethv). 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. Antipaters 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 Antipaters 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 Antipaters part
in the poisoning scheme. What is more, according to her, Pheroras
had realized his mistake and been very moved by Herods 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. 222223.

Increasing Deterioration in Herods Mental State

369

To these shocking revelations was added another disclosure that

emerged from the interrogation of two of Herods 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, 592600; AJ XVII, 6878). 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 (ev tov lncouv)
initiated by Herod. It seems that this revelation was sufficient reason, as far as he was concerned, to banish her and erase her sons
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 Herods 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 (damonev) 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 Herods reform regarding the
nominations of high priests, see also S. Schwartz 1990, p. 86.
Cf. Hoehner 1972, p. 271; Richardson 1996, pp. 3536.

370

17. Antipaters 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 minds 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 (mana ka noia) as well (trans. Marcus &
Wikgren).
The final proof of Antipaters 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
(Herods 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, 601619; AJ XVII, 7092. 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 (Herods son) to the commander of the Alexandrium fortress (AJ XVI, 317319; BJ I, 528529, 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, 644645).
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 Herods 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 Antipaters 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
Antipaters 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 mothers exile, even expressing the hope
that upon Antipaters 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 Antipaters 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.

Antipaters 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 Herods 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 (sunsrion) composed of his relatives and friends
(o suggenev ka floi), 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 (prokaqzeta) 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 (dikastv), 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, 131132).

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 fathers 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 Emperors 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 (pologa),
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 Herods 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, 622628):
[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 Caesars friendship, and made an object
of envy to other sovereigns, these I found to be conspirators. They have
died, mainly to further Antipaters 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-Kochvas reservations (2003, pp. 8 ff.).

Antipaters 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
fathers 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 traitors 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 mens 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 (tn 2dikon emarmnhn) [translated here as evil genius
(damwn 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 (tn 2dikon emarmnhn),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 Herods
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 Herods 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 Antipaters 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. Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 mans 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

Antipaters 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 Herods 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., 9798):
[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 Herods 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 (toiata lgwn atv mn p sugcsewv
nekph) 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 (taj "ma lgwn ev dkrua trpetai
lgein te 2porov n). 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 Herods reaction upon hearing Antipaters speech of justification (AJ XVII, 100105). 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 Antipaters 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 Antipaters 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 Antipaters
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.

Antipaters 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 Herods 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 Herods
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 Herods 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 Antipaters offenses before the court (AJ XVII, 106130).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, 106110) is rendered as part of the overall account, whereas the second section (ibid., 100120) is presented directly as
a speech, and the concluding segment (ibid., 121130) 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 Herods virtues (ibid., 106107)

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 Antipaters 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 Antipaters madness (mana; based on
several manuscripts).11 In our opinion, this catalogue of Antipaters
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 navet, 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 Antipaters 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
Herods family.

Antipaters 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 Emperors answer, another episode involving
Antipaters 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 Emperors 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 Salomes desire to marry Syllaeus the
Nabataean and to Herods 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 sisters 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, 134145, and in a more abridged

form in BJ I, 641645. 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 Antipaters scheming (ibid.). This would seem
to demonstrate his primitive tribal perception, in which members of
ones 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 Emperors household, since the discoveries
concerning Acme pointed to the close ties between Salome and Livia
the Emperors 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 Emperors
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., 142143). 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.

Antipaters 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.,
143145). 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. Antipaters 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 Emperors wife.

Chapter 19
Descent into Oblivion (4 BCE)
Severe Decline in Herods 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 Antipaters
slander against them (BJ I, 602603; 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

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. 230232) 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 Herods mental state as a full-blown delusional disorder-persecutory type; cf. chap. 16, above.

Severe Decline in Herods Mental and Physical State

385

Herods 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 Emperors 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 (nsov) steadily grew worse, aggravated as were the attacks
of disease by age and despondency (gra ka quma). 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 (quma),6 which caused him to lose his enjoyment in life. At first
5

We will be returning to this matter below, in our discussion of Herods 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 Schalits 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 Herods 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 30:1819),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

Herod was wearing away with melancholies (tav qumaiv), or sinking under
despondency (according to Thackerays 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), 103104. 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, 648655; 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 (t nqhma). This
is in keeping with the translation of Whiston (ad loc.), Goodenough, VIII, p. 925; Meshorer 1997, pp. 6566, 6869. The latter even pointed to Herodian coins stamped
with the image of an eagle as proof of this notion. Schrer (1973, I, p. 313) believed,
with reason, that the eagle was first mounted on the main Temple gate toward the end
of Herods reign, which would explain why the public outrage erupted only then. For
a detailed discussion of this issue, see Fuks 2002, pp. 241242. 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. 108109. Compare
the explicit statements of Josephus himself in BJ I, 649650, 653; AJ XVII, 150154,
157160; CA II, 7475; see also Hengel 1989, p. 192; Kasher 1996, pp. 372374; Levine 2000, pp. 43, 56, 8283, 9293; Tsafrir 2003, pp. 103104. 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. 203208; Tsafrir 1984, II,
pp. 204 ff., 215 ff.; Levine 2000, pp. 9397, 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. 134140 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. 205206) has analyzed the words of the Jewish sages (AJ XVII,
152154, 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 Herods orders) to Jericho, where
he was confined to bed for medical treatments. At the same time, the
leaders of the Jews (o n tlei) 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 &
Wikgrens 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 (sbeia), which he used
in this context to refer to the destruction of the Temples 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 Herods 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 Herods temper in the
most painful and personal matters. Herod ended his speech rather
dramatically as follows (AJ XVII, 163164):
[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 erosloi or sebev, 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 Herods 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, 654655)

Herods 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: Schrer
1973, I, p. 327, n. 165; Marcus & Wikgren 1963, VIII, p. 449. Kokkinos (1998,
pp. 372373) 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, 148167) is self-explanatory.
See Leviticus 21:9; compare also the case of Tamar in Genesis 38:24. See also EB,
IV (1963), cols. 949950. 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 Herods
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
Taanit (Fasting Scroll) as a day of celebration on which mourning,
fasting, or eulogizing are prohibited.18
The account in AJ XVII, 164167 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 Herods 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
Herods life and perhaps even the precise date of his death.20

17

18
19
20

and their great influence during Herods reign, see recently Regev 2005, pp. 116 ff.,
126131, 216, 224, 294295, 309, 313317, 378379.
On the interchangeable nature of the terms, see the able analysis offered by Regev
(2005, pp. 3258). 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. 99110, 260261 (7 Kislev), 280282 (2
Shevat). We will be returning to this reference below.
See Ben-Shalom 1993, pp. 108109.
See D. Schwartz 1993, pp. 6574.

Herods Final Illness

391

Herods Final Illness

Josephus reports at this juncture on the worsening of Herods illness,
which overcame him relatively quickly. The descriptions in BJ I, 656
and AJ XVII, 168169 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 Herods 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 Herods malady (nsov) began to spread to
his whole body and his sufferings took a variety of forms. He had fever
(puretv), an intolerable itching of the whole skin, continuous pains in
the intestines, tumours (odmata) in the feet as in dropsy ('sper drwpintov), inflammation of the abdomen and gangrene of the privy parts,
engendering worms (sklhkav), in addition to asthma, 23 with great difficulty in breathing (dspnoia), and convulsions in all his limbs.

AJ XVII, 168169 offers a similar description, but somewhat richer

in detail:24
[168] But now Herods distemper greatly increased upon him after a severe manner, and this by Gods 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. 185186; Schalit 1969, pp. 637 ff.; Sandison
1967, pp. 381388; see also the following note.
Kokkinos 1998, pp. 3435, 62, including a comprehensive bibliography (although
it lacks mention of the much earlier study by Mead (1762, pp. 633636).
The Greek term rqpnoia translates literally as breathing only in an upright
position; see Liddell & Scott, p. 1249.
Schalits Hebrew translation of this passage is overly influenced by Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, I, viii, 69.
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. Schalits translation echoed Eusebius with regard to Herods 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 Herods 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, 1819), of Antiochus
IV Epiphanes (II Maccabees 9:912), 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 Herods 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. 226227. 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. 210211; Flusser 2002, p. 87 and n. 5; Goldstein 1983,
pp. 352353. The latter (p. 354) and Africa (1982, pp. 117), and recently D.
Schwartz (2004, pp. 44, 46, 196198), 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. 430431. While Josephus does not make a direct
reference to II Maccabees (cf. D. Schwartz 2004, pp. 5859 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. 5859) 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.

Herods 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
(rqpnoia), 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 Herods 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. 363366), who referred to worms that penetrated Herods 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 Fourniers 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

Herods Final Attack of Madness

Regrettably, Herods 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
Hirschmanns findings from the conference in Baltimore, which also touches on
the emotional components of Herods final illness, has recently been published in
the medical journal Archives of Internal Medicine; see Hirschmann et al. 2004,
pp. 833839.
According to Hirschmann, the cause of death, as stated, was a complication of
chronic kidney disease known as Fourniers 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.

Herods Final Attack of Madness

395

descriptions to our understanding Herods 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, 659660 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 (paragnetai melagcol *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, 173181 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 (mlaun te col a$rn
+rei p psin xagrianousa); 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. 4850; Sagiv 2003, pp. 50
54, 130131, 162, 167168. Flusser (2002, p. 262) attempted to identify the text in
Enoch 66:810 as referring to the Callirrhoe baths, but apart from an associative
similarity, there is no real proof of this.

396

19. Descent into Oblivion

(mmainomnou)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 kings 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 mans 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 manomai (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 Taanit
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

Herods Final Attack of Madness

397

The preceding passage sheds further light on Herods 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.
Herods 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 Emperors 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 (qantw d )Antpatrov katkritov) 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 (qemtou prxewv), 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 Herods beastly and inhuman
character; cf. AJ XVI, 151152, 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. 378379.

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 Emperors 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,
183184). 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, 153154, 217. There is reason to assume that he was the commander of Herods royal body guard, which would explain why he was always nearby.

Herods 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 deaths 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 (mhdn nabollv ll k
to xo), and to bury him in an ignoble manner (tafv smouv poiesqi) at Hyrcania.41

Owing to the great resentment that Herod bore him, Antipaters 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 Antipaters execution.
But before we discuss the contents of the will, we wish to contend
that, this testament also reflected Herods 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, 188190), 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. 255256. In an interesting coincidence, this very term in
the negative sense ok was used in connection with Antipaters 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 Emperors approval in
Rome, Augustus endorsed most of the provisions relating to the division of the kingdom among Herods 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 Philips
tetrarchy; cf. BJ II, 95; AJ XVII, 319.
In rgurou pismou, 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, 93100; AJ XVII, 317323.
In his account of Herods 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.

Herods 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 fathers
revision of his will (below). It is important to note in this context that
when Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods
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, 244247):
[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 Herods 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 Caesars 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 Caesars 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 (swfrosnh) as to submit all to
Caesars 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 Herods 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 Caesars determination49 Moreover, according to
Nicolaus (BJ II, 3536):
[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 swfrosnh (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 Emperors 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, 296297, 353355; XVII, 54; BJ I, 574577;
Schrer 1973, I, p. 581.

Herods 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, Herods 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 Taanit (Fasting Scroll) places Herods
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. 6877. 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 Herods plan
to turn the day of his death into a time of mass mourning (AJ XVII,
175176). Schrer, by contrast, associates the date of Herods 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. 99100, 260261, 280281; cf. also Otzar Ha-Midrashim, Eser Galuyoth, 25. On the basis of the preceding, Barnes (1968, pp. 204
209) sought to date Herods 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. 260261, 280281.
See Schrer 1973, I, pp. 326328, n. 165.
See Barnes 1968, pp. 204209; Smallwood 1981, p. 104, n. 156; and especially
Kokkinos 1998, pp. 372373, 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 Herods Character
There is no question that it was the execution of his Hasmonaean sons
that caused Herods 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, 180181 (cited in the preceding
chapter), he added a final appraisal, as follows (ibid., 191192):
[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

Herods 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 n d
tov kat okon) 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. 182183.

406

20. Post-Mortem

Herods Funeral
The megalomanic aspect of Herods character was especially conspicuous at his funeral, which was conducted in accordance with his
explicit instructions, as described in AJ XVII, 196199:
[196] After this was over, they prepared for his funeral, it being Archelauss care that the procession to his fathers 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, 328, 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 (6670 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. 230231; idem 1992, pp. 5961; EB, II (1954), cols. 371375; Stern 1979,
I, index, p. 110 (s. v. balsam) for detailed information.

Herods 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
Herods 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 Herods grandiose monument in Herodium (BJ I, 265,
419421, 673; AJ XV, 323325). Incidentally, indirect testimony to
Herods megalomanic attitude toward death also comes to us from
another direction: Following Herods 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 Herods 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 13:2730; AJ XIII, 211212; Goldstein 1976, pp. 474475; Rappaport
2004, p. 299.
See also CA II, 305; Kasher 1996, pp. 496498; cf. Ben Sira 3:17; 4:2, 9.

Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods
personality disorders during his lifetime and the ensuing generations:

1. Herods Hasmonaean Complex

Without a doubt, Herods 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 nations 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 Taanit 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. Herods Systematic Trampling of the Ancestral Laws

Herods 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
nations 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 Herods 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, 4245); when they
had protested vehemently against the Hellenistic games held in Jerusalem (ibid., XV, 267278); and even when they had hatched a plot to
kill him, causing him to fear mass gatherings and public disturbances
(ibid., 280291). 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 Senates 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 Herods 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

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 Herods attempts to eradicate the superstitious beliefs of
his Jewish subjects with regard to the Biblical prohibition against icons and images.
Accordingly, he added that Herods 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 Herods 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 days 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
Herods 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--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 Herods 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. 205221.
See in greater detail: Kasher 1983, pp. 7074; idem 1995, pp. 223236; idem 2005,
pp. 2339.
Since an analysis of the extent of Herods 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 Otzens (1990, p. 38) opinion that Herods 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. Herods Non-Jewish Origins

Herods 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, 328331):
[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. 3342; Kasher 1990, pp. 225229, 245268, 250251.
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
Agrippas 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

Herods 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. 171184. 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 Herods
accession to the throne. At the time of the redaction of the Mishnah, the halachic
position against Herods 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. Herods Emotional Makeup His Sense of Inferiority

and Paranoid Personality Disorder 15
Herods 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, 390391 (nn. 160161); Feldman 2004,
pp. 6483 (including additional references from the sources and the professional
literature).
See the closing remarks on Herods psychological state, below pp. 430434.
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 Herods 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 (2636 CE).
During the rule of Albinus (6264 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, 219222).
While Herods 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. 5259; Pastor 1997, pp. 110 ff. Even Schalit (p. 670) was forced to admit
that a great portion of Herods revenues was directed toward serving his Baulust
zu frnen und seinen Ruhmzu mehren.

Afterword

419

the public and Herods 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
Herods 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. 4876; Smallwood 1962, pp. 1434.

420

Afterword

an dynasty. The first of them was Simon son of Boethus from Alexandria, the father of Herods 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 Herods 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. 6466; 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. 301302; 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., 8082, 9498, 100101,
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 Herods 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 Empires 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. 166180, which is the first study of its type and hopefully a
harbinger of others to come.
See Otto 1913, cols. 140156; Schrer 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. 183184.
See for example AJ XVII, 28; XVIII, 110, 142; XX, 104; and apparently certain
inscriptions and coins as well; see Schwartz 1987, pp. 148149.
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. 1213; cf. Klausner
1958, IV, pp. 167169. 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. 158160.

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. 103104. Taking a balanced overview of Herods 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
Herods paranoid personality disorder, which deteriorated into full-blown insanity.

Appendix
Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods
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 Herods 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 fathers side,
Arab-Nabataean on his mothers, 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 Herods Life

The following is a brief enumeration of the significant events in Herods 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) Herods 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, Herods 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 Herods 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 nations love for him, out of fear that
the Romans would prefer Aristobulus over him to serve as their king.
His mother-in-law Alexandras ties with Cleopatra added to Herods

Milestones in Herods 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. Herods 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 Herods 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 4041 (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
Herods time in Rhodes deepened the rift between him and Mariamme the Hasmonaean after she discovered the order to execute her
in the event that Herods 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 (Mariammes 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 husbands 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods bodyguards confessed under torture
(as part of a show trial) to a conspiracy on the part of Herods 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 Emperors 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 Herods will.
At this period, the final split took place between Herod and his brother
Pheroras over the latters 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 Emperors court. He was ultimately persuaded of Antipaters 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 Antipaters schemes reawakened

430

Appendix

Herods 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 Herods 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 Antipaters 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. Herods 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 Herods Mental State

The portrait that emerges from Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 peoples 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 Herods 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 Herods 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 Herods life as expressed in his massive building projects both in Palestine
and throughout the Roman world.)

Concluding Remarks on Herods Mental State

433

Another topic worthy of discussion in this context are Herods

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 Herods 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 Herods 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 individuals 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
individuals 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 Herods 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 Herods 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, 314318) 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, 399407).
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 Herods 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.

7263 Early Childhood under the Hasmonaean Queen Salome-Alexandra or Shlomzion-Alexandra (7667 BCE), and the civil
war between Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II (6763 BCE). The
great political rise of Antipater, Herods 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.
7363 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 Antipaters career during the Hasmonaean
political eclipse. Growth of alienation of Antipaters family
to the Jewish people at large, and mutual disdain between the
Hasmonaeans and Herods family.

47

Antipaters 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, Herods 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) Herods patron, and the outbreak of the Roman civil war: a real political earthquake for Antipaters family.

4442 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.
Herods 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.
Herods 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 fathers 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.
Herods 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. Herods 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.
Herods night escape from Jerusalem to Masada. His conflict
with the Nabataeans, because of their refusal to assist him.
Herods survival in a battle in the Thekoa desert.
His mothers 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.
3937 Herods 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. Herods 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 Josephs death near
Jericho.
Intensification of his fight against Antigonus with the assistance of Antonys 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 Herods 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 Herods 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.

Antonys 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 VIIs 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, Herods 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 Herods 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 Antonys
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 queens 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, Herods 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 Herods first war against the Nabataeans
(Summer). The outbreak of hostilities between Antony and
Octavian. Herods 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 Gods 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 Herods domination

Chronological Table

441

of territories which were previously given by Antony to Cleopatra: Jericho, Gadara, Hippus, Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon,
Joppa and Stratos 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.

2827 The execution of Alexandra, which pleased Herod very much.

Herods 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 IIs 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 Herods 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

Augustuss annexation of Trachonitis, Batannaea and Auranitis to Herods 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 Peraeas
tetrarch.
The death of Pheroras wife (sister of Mariamme the Hasmonaean). Pheroras falls in love with his maidservent, and
refuses Herods 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.
Herods 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.
Herods second visit to Rome in order to bring back home his
sons Alexander and Aristobulus.

16

The renewal of the Olympic Games under Herods 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.
Herods 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 Agrippas visit to Judaea and Jerusalem, in which

Herod exhibited both his greatness and grandeur, as well as
his total loyalty to Rome.

14

Herods 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 Herods 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

Antipaters journey with Marcus Agrippa to Rome in order

to introduce him to Augustus. He brought with him Herods
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 (Herods 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 Herods
megalomanic drive to exhibit grandeur and gain world-wide
publicity.
The alleged robbery and desecration of King David burial
cave.
Antipater stirs up Herods 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 Herods fears of a conspiracy against him.

Chronological Table

445

Herod attempts to establish Alexanders guilt by employing

torture in interrogating potential witnesses.
Alexander along with Herods three eunuchs are suspected of
plotting against and insulting Herod.
The expulsion from Jerusalem of the Emperors 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. Herods third journey to
Rome in order to personally report to the Emperor on the
familys 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
Antipaters initiative.

Herods dispatch of Nicolaus of Damascus to Rome to try to

restore Herods friendship with the Emperor.
The so-called Eurycles Affair, and Herods 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
Herods bodyguards, Jucundus and Tyranus, for taking part
in a dubious plot, and their lynch by the mob.

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 protg) 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.
Herods fifth will.
Conviction of Syllaeus, after revealing his part in the failure
of Gallus campaign to Arabia.

The return of Antipater from Rome, his trial and conviction.

Herod reported to the Emperor of Antipaters guilt, and asked
approval for the verdict and execution.
The Acme Affair. Herods sixth will.
Herods final illness and treatment at the hot baths of Callirrhoe.

Deterioration of Herods 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 Temples 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

Herods 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.
Herods death, five days after the execution of Antipater his
oldest son.
Herods magnificent funeral, arranged according to his own
instructions.

448

Maps

Fig. 1: Herods Conquest of his Kingdom

Maps

449

Fig. 2: Herods First War with the Nabataeans (3231 BCE)

(A. Kasher, Jews, Idumaeans and Ancient Arabs, Tbingen 1988, p. 147)

450

Maps

Fig. 3: Herods 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, Tbingen 1990, p. 300)

452

Maps

Fig. 5: The Growth of Herods Kingdom

Fig. 6: Jewish Pilgrimage to Jerusalem

Maps

453

Fig. 7: Herods Building Projects out of Judaea

454
Maps

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Abel, F.-M. (O. P.),
1952 Histoire de la Palestine, III, Paris, Gabalda.
1967 Gographie de la Palestine, III, 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. 226237 (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, III, Tel-Aviv, Hakibbutz
Hameuchad Publishing House Ltd. (Hebrew).
1957/58 Mehkarim be-Toldot Yisrael bi-Tekufat Bayit Sheni,
ha-Mishnah veha-Talmud, III, 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 (70640
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
18781892 Aruch Completum sive Lexicon, vocabula et res,
quae in libris Targumicis, Talmudicis et Midraschicis
continentur, explicans auctore Nathane filio Jechielis (ed. A. Kohut), IIX, 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. 1215 (Hebrew).
1969 Greeks and Jews in Ancient Cyrene, Jerusalem, The
Bialik Institute (Hebrew).
1969a Hordus, EH XIII, cols. 929937 (Hebrew).
1970 The Troops of Zamaris. Studies in the History of
the Jewish People and The Land of Israel, I, University of Haifa, pp. 7988 (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. 185232.
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. 119142.
1971 Beth Shearim, 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 BCAD 640),
Jerusalem, The Bialik Institute (Hebrew).
2002 Op. cit., (An English version), Jerusalem, Carta.
1980 (ed.) Cartas 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.

flov to kasarov, Theologische Literaturzeitung, 78, pp. 205210.
King Herods Royal Castle at Samaria-Sebaste, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 125, pp. 317.
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. 609614.

King Herod - Good or Bad to Jews?, in: M. Naor

(ed.), King Herod and his Period, Idan, 5, Yad BenZvi, Jerusalem, pp. 4357 (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. 96164, 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
Armes et Fiscalit dans le monde antique (organis
par H. van Effenterre), Paris, pp. 167196.
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. 734 (Hebrew).
2003 Doris, Herods First Wife, Cathedra, 110, pp. 518
(Hebrew).
Barnes, T. D.,
1968 The Date of Herods Death, Journal of Theological
Studies, 19, pp. 204209.
Baruch, E.,
1998 The Economic Hinterland of Jerusalem in the Herodian Period, Cathedra, 89, pp. 4162 (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. 4957 (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. 3137 (Hebrew).
Beebe, H. K.,
1983 Caesarea Maritima: Its Strategic and Political Significance to Rome, Journal of Near Eastern Studies,
42 (1983), pp. 195208.

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. 2235 (Hebrew).
1982 The Dig at the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Keter Publishing House (Hebrew).
1986 Herods Mighty Temple Mount, Biblical Archaeology Review, 12.6, pp. 4049.
Bennett Jr., W. J.,
1975 Herodians of Marks Gospel, Novum Testamentum, 17, pp. 914.
Benoit, P.,
1971 LAntonia dHrode le Grand et le forum oriental
dAelia Capitolina, Harvard Theological Review,
64, pp. 135167.
1972 The Archaeological Reconstruction of the Antonia
Fortress, Qadmoniot, 5, Nos. 34, pp. 127129
(Hebrew).
Benowitz, M.,
2003 Herod and Hanukka, Zion, 68, pp. 540 (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., III, 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 Herods Death in 4 B. C., Journal of
Theological Studies, 34, pp. 526531.
Bernett, M.,
2002 Der Kaiserkult als Teil der politischen Geschichte Iudaeas unter den Herodiern und Rmern (30 v.66 n.Chr.),
Habilitationsschrift eingereicht an der Philosophischen
Fakultt fr Geschichts- und Kunstwissenschaften der
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitt Mnchen.
Bickerman(n), E.,
1976, 1980, 1986, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, IIII,
Leiden, E. J. Brill.

460

Bibliography and Abbreviations

1938 (1986)

1946/7 (1980)

Les Hrodiens, Revue Biblique, 48, pp. 184197

(= Studies in Jewish and Christian History, III, Leiden, E. J. Brill, pp. 2233).
Warning Inscription of Herods Temple, Jewish
Quarterly Review, 37, pp. 387405 (= Studies in
Jewish and Christian History, II.2, pp. 211224).

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. 112118.
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, LondonCanberraNew York, Croom
Helm.
Briend, J.,
1981 LAntonia et le Palais Royal [construit par Hrode]
Jrusalem, Monde de la Bible, 17, pp. 3537.
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. 6574 (Hebrew).
1982 The Credibility of Josephus. Journal of Jewish Studies, 33, pp. 379384.
1985 The Economics of Eretz Israel and its Population in
Herods Period, in: M. Naor (ed.), King Herod and
his Period, Idan, 5, pp. 1119 (Hebrew).
1987 The Role of the Temple in the Herodian Economy,
Journal of Jewish Studies, 38, pp. 3137.
Buchanan, G. W.,
1959 Mark 11,1519: Brigands in the Temple, Hebrew
Union College Annual, 30, pp. 169177.
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. 676693.
Cartledge, P., Spawforth, A.,
1989 (2002) Hellenistic and Roman Sparta, LondonNew 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. III, Oxford, The Clarendon Press.
Clermont-Ganneau, Ch.,
1872 Une stle du Temple de Jrusalem, Revue Archologique NS 23, pp. 214234.
Cohen, G. M.,
1972 The Hellenistic Military Colony: A Herodian Example, Transactions of the American Philological Association, 103, pp. 8395.
Cohen, Shaye J. D.,
1979 Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian, Leiden, E. J. Brill
1994 )Ioudaov t gnov 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, LeidenNew
YorkKln, pp. 2338.
1999 The Beginning of Jewishness, BerkeleyLos AngelesLondon, 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. 2232.
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 19311933 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.,
19671970

463

The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Notes, London, Oxford University Press.
Les Hrodiens du Nouveau Testament, sont-ils
des Essniens?, Revue de Qumran, 6, pp. 3453;
VII, 397402.

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. 3850 (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. 119141.
Demsky, A.,
1985 The Trumpeters Inscription from the Temple
Mount, in: Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical
and Geographical Studies (Nahman Avigad Volume), Jerusalem, The Israel Exploration Society,
pp. 4042 (Hebrew).
2002 (ed.) These Are The Names: Studies in Jewish Onomastics, III, Ramat-Gan, Bar-Ilan University Press (Hebrew).
Derenbourg, J.,
1867 Essai sur lhistoire et la gographie de la Palestine,
Paris, Imprimerie Impriale.
Deriin, E.,
1987 Mental Illnesses and Behavior Disorders, Haifa University (Hebrew).
Destinon, J. von,
1882 Die Quellen des Josephus Flavius I: Die Quellen der
Archologie Buch XIIXVII = Jdischer Krieg Buch
I, Kiel, Lipsius & Tischer.

464

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Donner, H.,
1963

Kallirrho. Das Sanatorium Herodes des Grossen,

Zeitschrift des deutschen Palstina-Vereins, 79,
pp. 5989.
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. 119134 (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. 439466 (Hebrew).
EB =

Encyclopaedia Biblica: Thesaurus Rerum Biblicarum Alphabetico Ordine Digestus, Institutum Bialik, IIX (19551989) (Hebrew).
Encyclopaedia Hebraica, IXXXIII (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. 2942.

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), LeidenNew YorkKbenhavenKln, 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
Gttingen: Universittsverlag.
Paul as Herodian, Journal of Higher Criticism,
III.1, pp. 110122.

Elitzur, I.,
2002

Talmai-Talim-Talmiim, in: A. Demsky (ed.), These

Are the Names: Studies in Jewish Onomastics, III,
Bar-Ilan University, pp. xiiixx (Hebrew).
Elitzur, A. et al.,
1995 A. Elitzur, S. Tiano, H. Munitz, Selected Chapters in
Psychiatry, Tel-Aviv, Papyrus (Hebrew).
Eusebius,
195357 Ecclesiastical History, LCL ed. III 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. 7380.
1965 Josephus with an English Translation, IX (LCL ed.),
Harvard University Press.
1984 Josephus and Modern Scholarship (19371980),
BerlinNew York, W. de Gruyter.
1985 Asinius Pollio and Herods Sons, Classical Quarterly, 35, pp. 240243.
1986 JOSEPHUS: A Supplementary Bibliography, New
YorkLondon, 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. 283298
Fitschen, K., Foerster, G. (eds.),
1996 Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of
Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence, Gttingen, 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. 618621.
1995 The Yigael Yadin Excavations 19631965 (Masada
V), Jerusalem.
Frey, J.-B.,
1936, 1952 Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum Recueil des inscriptions juives qui vont du IIIe sicle avant Jesus-Christ
au VIIIe sicle de notre re, III, Citt 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 Herods Attitude towards the Jewish
Religion: the Darker Side, Journal of Jewish Studies,
53, pp. 238245.
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. 102122 (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. 161168.
The Social, Economic and Political History of Palestine 63 BCECE 70, in: W. Horbury et. al. (eds.),
Cambridge History of Judaism, III, pp. 94167.

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. 107120.
Athens in Syria: Greek Intellectuals of Gadara, Cathedra, 35, pp. 316 (Hebrew).
The Rulers 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. 5160 (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. 133144 (Hebrew).
Herodes Philorhomaios, Ancient Society, 28,
p. 7588.
The Tower of David Phasael or Hippicus?, Israel Exploration Journal, 31, pp. 5765.
Jerusalem: The Second Temple Period, NEAE II
pp. 725749.
Idumea and the Herodian Limes, Israel Exploration Journal, 17, pp. 2742.
The Grant of Roman Citizenship to Antipatros, Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land
of Israel, I, Haifa University, pp. 7177 (Hebrew).
Loctroi de la citoyennet romaine et de limmunt
Antipater, pre dHrode, Revue dhistoire du droit
Franais et tranger, 4, pp. 609614.
The Intervention of Sextus Julius Caesar, Governor
of Syria in the Affair of Herods Trial, Scripta Classica Israelica, 5, pp. 185194.
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. 98107 (Hebrew).
Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of
Josephus: A Traditio-Historical Analysis, LeidenNew YorkKln, 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, IXIII,
New York 19531968, Pantheon Books.
Goodman, M.,
1987 The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome AD 6670, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
1989 Who is a Jew?, Yarnton Manor, Oxford.
1996 Judaea, in: Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.),
10, pp. 737781.
Goodwin, F. K., Jamison, K. R.,
1990 Manic-Depressive Illness, New York, Oxford University Press.
Graetz, H.,
1852 Die Shne Bethera, Monatsschrift fr Geschichte
und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1, pp. 115120.
1897 Geschichte der Juden von den ltesten Zeiten bis auf
die Gegenwart, IXI, 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 Givat ha-Mivtar Inscription Historical Interpretation, Sinai, 75, pp. 2023. (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 Herods 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. 716 (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. 577595 (Hebrew).

Guttmann, M.,
1949 Enslavement for Debt in Jewish Teaching, Dinaburg
Anniversary Book (eds. J. Gutman, M. Schwabe), Jerusalem, pp. 6882 (Hebrew).
Hadas-Lebel, M.,
1993 Les mariages mixtes dans la famille dHrode et la
halakha prtalmudique sur la patrilinarit, Revue
des tudes juives, 152, pp. 397404.
2003 Lducation des princes Hrodiens Rome et lvolution du clientlisme 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. 4462.
Hagai, S.,
1964 Yosef Ben-Matitiyahu: Milhemet ha-Yehudim, Erez
Press (Hebrew).
Hahn, I.,
1965 Herodes als Procurator, Neue Beitrge zur Geschichte der alten Welt, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag,
pp. 2543.
Hammond, P. C.,
1973 The Nabataeans: Their History, Culture and Archaeology, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology,
XXXVII, Gothenburg, Paul strm.
Hnlein-Schfer, H.,
1985 Veneratio Augusti. Eine Studie zu den Tempeln des
ersten rmischen Kaisers, Roma, Giorgio Bretschneider.
Hanson, K. C.,
198990 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. 7584; 19.4 (1989), pp. 142151;
20.1 (1990), pp. 1021.
Harder, G.,
1962

Herodes-Burgen und Herodes-Stdte im Jordangraben, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palstinavereins,

78, pp. 4963.

Heinemann, I.,
1940 Josephus Method in the Presentation of Jewish Antiquities, Zion, 5, pp. 180203 (Hebrew).
Hengel, M.,
1974 Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter
in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, III,
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. lxxicv
(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. 2024 (Hebrew).
Hirschmann, J. V., Richardson, P., Kraemer, R. S. Mackowiak, P. A.,
2004 Death of an Arabian Jew, Archive of Internal Medicine, 164, pp. 833839.
Hoehner, H. W.,
1972 Herod Antipas: A Contemporary of Jesus Christ,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Hohlfelder, R. L.,
1988 Procopius, De Aedificiis, 1, 11, 1820: 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. 5462.

Beyond Coincidence? Marcus Agrippa and King
Herods Harbour, Journal of Near Eastern Studies,
59, pp. 141253.

Hlscher, G.,
1904

Die Quellen des Josephus fr die Zeit vom Exil bis

zum jdischen Kriege, Teubner, Leipzig.
1916 Josephus, RE (PW), IX, cols. 18341899.
Holum, K. G., Hohlfelder, R. L., Bull, R. L., Raban, A.,
1988 King Herods Dream: Caesarea on The Sea, New
YorkLondon, W. W. Norton & Company.
Horbury, W.,
1991 Herods Temple and Herods 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, Tbingen, J. C. B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck).
King David, King Herod and Nicolaus of Damascus, Jewish Studies Quarterly, 5, pp. 195240.
Integrating Jewish Women into Second Temple History, Tbingen, 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. 135146 (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., Tbingen, 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 fr Papyrologie
und Epigraphik, 44, pp. 6774.
A Donation for Herods Temple in Jerusalem, Israel
Exploration Journal, 33, pp. 8692 (= op. cit., EretzIsrael, 18: N. Avigad Volume, pp. 14 [Hebrew]).
Bandits in Judaea and Arabia, Harvard Studies in
Classical Philology, 88, pp. 171203 (= op. cit., Cathedra, 39, pp. 336 [Hebrew]).

Jacobson, D. M.,
1984 The Design of the Fortress of Herodium, Zeitschrift
des deutschen Palstina-Vereins, 100, pp. 2240.
1983/4 King Herod, Roman Citizen and Benefactor of Cos,
Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society,
13, pp. 3135.
1988 King Herods Heroic Public Image, Revue Biblique, 95, pp. 386403.
1990 The Plan of Herods Temple, Bulletin of the AngloIsrael Archaeological Society, 10, pp. 3666.
2001 Three Roman Client Kings: Herod of Judaea, Archelaus of Cappadocia and Juba of Mauritania, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 133, pp. 2238.
2002 Herods Roman Temple, Biblical Archaeological
Review, 28.3, pp. 1927, 6061.
2002a Placing Herod the Great and his Works in Context
(Review Article), Palestine Exploration Quarterly,
134, pp. 8491.
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. 237255.

474

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Jacoby, F.,
1926

Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, II A 90,

BerlinLeiden, pp. 324430.

Jankelewitz, R.,
1980 The Auxiliary Troops from Caesarea and Sebaste
as a Decisive Factor in the Rebellion against Rome,
Tarbitz, 49, pp. 3342 (Hebrew).
Japp, S.,
2000 Die Baupolitik Herodes des Groen: Die Bedeutung
der Architektur fr die Herrschaftslegitimation eines
rmischen Klientelknigs, 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, III, Jerusalem, The Bialik Institute.
Juster, J.,
1914 Les Juifs dans lEmpire Romain: leur condition juridique, conomique et sociale, III, Paris, Geuthner
(Burt Franklin, N. Y.).
Kahana, A.,
1937
Kanael, B.,
1957
1957a

Ha-Sfarim ha-Hitzonim, III. Tel-Aviv, Masada Ltd.

(Hebrew).
Gabinius of Judaea, Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society, 18, pp. 168175 (Hebrew).
The Partition of Judaea by Gabinius, Israel Exploration Journal, 7, pp. 98106.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

475

Karpaas, M. J.,
1915 Socrates in the Light of Modern Psychopathology,
Journal of Abnormal Psychopathology, 10 (1915),
pp. 185200.
Kasher, A.,
1977 The Isopoliteia Question in Caesarea Maritima,
Jewish Quarterly Review N. S., 68, pp. 1627.
1982 Gaza during the Graeco-Roman Era, The Jerusalem
Cathedra, 2, pp. 6378.
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, Tbingen, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
1985a Herods 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. 1150 (Hebrew).
1988 Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs, Tbingen,
J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
1990 Jews and the Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel, Tbingen, 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. 217236.
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.), Teuda XII: Studies on the Jewish Diaspora in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods,
Tel-Aviv University, Ramot Publishing, pp. xixxii
(Hebrew).
2001 On the Character and Origin of the Herodian Dynasty, Cathedra, 103, pp. 165184 (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. 5790 (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. 2339
(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. 179224 (Hebrew).
The Enclave of Cuthaeans A Factor in JewishSamaritan Relations in Antiquity, Proceedings of the
Fifth International Congress of the Socit dtudes
Samaritaines (Helsinki, August 14, 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. 205221.
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, 18891936: Hybris; London, A. Lane/Penguin Books.
Hitler, 19361945: Nemesis; London, A. Lane/Penguin Books.
Intelligence and Internal Security in King Herods
Kingdom, Cathedra, 97, pp. 2546 (Hebrew).

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Klausner, J.,
19481958

1969
Klein, S.,
1939

477

Historia shel ha-Bayit ha-Sheni (= History of the

Second Temple), 5 IV, Jerusalem, Achiasaf Press
(Hebrew).
Yeshu ha-Notzri (= Jesus of Nazareth),6 III, 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 Givat
ha-Mivtar in Jerusalem, Qadmoniot, 5, pp. 108109
(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 Givat
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. 191224 (Hebrew).
1985 The Archaeology of Jerusalem in Herods Days, in:
M. Naor (ed.), King Herod and his Period, Idan, 5, Yad
Izhak Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem, pp. 113139 (Hebrew).
1991 Maresha, Qadmoniot, 9596, pp. 7085 (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. 103131.

478

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Kloner, A., Hess, O.,

1985 A Columbarium in Complex 21 at Maresha, Atiqot,
17, pp. 122133.
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 (19711976), Tel-Aviv University (Hebrew and English).
1989 Excavations at Aphek-Antipatris, Qadmoniot, 22,
pp. 220 (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,
18781892 Aruch Completum sive Lexicon, vocabula et res,
quae in libris Targumicis, Talmudicis et Midraschicis continentur, IIX, 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. 303306.
1986 Which Salome Did Aristobulus Marry?, Palestine
Exploration Quarterly, 118, pp. 3350.
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. 141144.
2001 Cleopatra and Herod: A Failed Seduction, British
Museum Magazine, 39, p. 17.
2002 Herods Horrid Death, Biblical Archaeology Review (March/April 2002), pp. 2932.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

2002a
Korach, L.,
1894

479

The City of Mariamme: an Unknown Connection?,

Mediterraneo Antico, Anno V, Fasc. 2, pp. 715746.
Die Reisen des Knigs Herodes nach Rom, Monatsschrift fr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 38, pp. 529535.

Kost, J.,
2003

Economic Aspects in the Decision to Build Sebastos,

Caesareas 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. 2534.
Lammer, M.,
1982 King Herods Contribution to the Olympian Games,
Reading Chapters in the History of Physical Training, Tel-Aviv, pp. 3744 (Hebrew).
Landau, T.,
2003 Out-Heroding Herod: Josephus, Rhetoric and the
Herod Narratives, D. Phil. Thesis, Corpus Christi
College, Oxford.
Laperrousaz, E.-M.,
1989 Hrode le Grand est-il lennemi (qui) a agi en tranger des Psaumes de Salomon?, in: D. Tollet (ed.),
Politique et religion dans le judaisme ancien et mdival, Paris, Descle, pp. 2932.
Laqueur, R.,
1920 Der jdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: Ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer
Grundlage, Gieen (repr. Darmstadt 1970), von
Mnchow.
1936 Nikolaos, No. 20, in: A. Pauly, G. Wissowa et al.
[eds.], Realencyclopdie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, XVII, cols. 362424; Nachtrge,
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 Sadducens, 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. 1228
(Hebrew).
1985 Herod the Man and his Period, in: M. Naor (ed.),
Herod and his Period, Idan, 5, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi,
Jerusalem, pp. 210 (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. 233246.
1995 The Second Temple of Jerusalem: Josephus Description and Other Sources, Cathedra, 77, pp. 316 (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. 212.
Lichtenberger, A.,
1999 Die Baupolitik Herodes des Groen, Abhandlungen
des deutschen Palstinavereins, 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).
196974 Notes on the Givat ha-Mivtar Inscription, Prakim:
Yearbook of the Schocken Institute for Jewish Research, 2, pp. 374379.
1991 Le-Ktovet Givat ha-Mivtar, in: D. Rosental (ed.),
Mehkarim be-Torat Eretz-Israel, Jerusalem, pp. 393
398 (Hebrew).
Lindsay, H.,
1992 Augustus and Eurycles, Rheinisches Museum fr
Philologie, 135, pp. 290297.
Lipsius, R. A.,
1865 Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, Leipzig, W. Braumller.
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 Taanith 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, LeidenNew YorkKln, E. J. Brill,
109126.

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. 123.
Mandelkern, S.,
1959 Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae Hebraicae atque
Chaldaicae4, Tel-AvivJerusalem, Schocken.
Mantel, H.,
1969 Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin, Tel-Aviv,
The Dvir Publication House (Hebrew).
Maoz, Z. U.,
1985 On the Hasmonean and Herodian Town-Plan of Jerusalem, Eretz Israel, 18, Nahman Avigad Volume,
The Israel Exploration Society, pp. 4657 (Hebrew).
1993 Banias, NEAE, I, pp. 136143.
Marcus, R.,
1943 Josephus with an English Translation, VIIVIII (LCL
ed.), LondonCambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press.
Marcus, R., Wikgren, A.,
1963 Josephus with an English Translation, VIII (LCL
ed.), LondonCambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press.
Mason, S.,
1991 Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition
Critical Study, Leiden, E. J. Brill.
Mayer-Schrtel, B.,
1995 Das Frauenbild des Josephus: Eine sozialgeschichtliche und kulturanthropologische Untersuchung,
StuttgartBerlinKln, Kohlhammer.
Mazar, B.,
1975 The Archaeological Excavations near the Temple
Mount, In: Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the
Holy City, 19681974 (ed. Y. Yadin), Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, pp. 2551.
1978 Herodian Jerusalem in the Light of the Excavations
South and Southwest of the Temple Mount, Israel
Exploration Journal, 28, pp. 230237(= op. cit., Cathedra, 8 [1978], pp. 2941 [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. 381387.
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. 633636, London.
The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, New York,
Doubleday.
The Nabataean Rock and the Judean Desert Fortresses, Cathedra 76, pp. 4048 (Hebrew).
Ancient Jewish Coinage, III, New York, Amphora
Books.
Herods Coins, in: M. Naor (ed.), King Herod and
his Period, Idan, 5, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem,
pp. 153165 (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. 109121.
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 BCAD 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,
316339.
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 Givat ha-Mivtar, Israel Exploration Journal, 20, pp. 3337.
An Aramaic Tomb Inscription Written in Paleo-Hebrew
Script, Israel Exploration Journal, 23, pp. 8291.
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. 104107 (Hebrew).
Greater Herodium, Qedem 13, Monograph of the
Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem.
Jricho: les constructions hrodiennes, Monde de la
Bible, 17, pp. 2834.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

1981b

1985

1987

1989

1989a

1992
1999
1999a

485

Herods Building Program: State Necessity or Personal Need. Jerusalem Cathedra, I, pp. 4861, 73
80.
The Builder King in: M. Naor (ed.), King Herod
and his Period, Idan, 5, Yad Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem,
pp. 5882.
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. 97105
(Hebrew).
Masada: The Yigael Yadin Excavations, 19631965:
Final Reports, III, The Masada Reports, Jerusalem,
Israel Exploration Society: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Jericho und Herodium; verschwenderisches Leben in
den Tagen der Hasmoner und Herodes des Groen,
Judaica, 45, pp. 2144.
Masada, in: The Anchor Bible Dictionary, New
York, Doubleday, IV, pp. 586587.
The Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great,
Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Press (Hebrew).
Die Palste der Hasmoner und Herodes des Groen,
Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philip von Zabern.

Niese, B. (ed.),
188795 Flavii Josephi opera. Ed. et apparatu critico instruxit Benedictus Niese, IVII Berolini (reprint 1955),
Weidmann, Berlin
1896 Der jdische Historiker Josephus, Historische Zeitschrift, 76, pp. 193237.
Nodet, .,
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 Taanit: 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. 165172.

Oren, E. D.,
1965

The Herodian Doves in Talmudic Literature and

in the Columbaria Caves of Maresha, Tarbitz, 34,
pp. 356362 (Hebrew).
1968 The Herodian Doves in the Light of Recent Archaeological Discoveries, Palestine Exploration Quarterly,
100, pp. 5461.
Oren, E. D., Rappaport U.,
1984 The Necropolis of Maresha Beth Govrin, Israel
Exploration Journal, 34, pp. 114153.
Otto, W.,
1913 Herodes: Beitrge zur Geschichte des letzten jdischen Knigshauses, Stuttgart, J. B. Metzler (= A.
Pauly, G. Wissowa et al. [eds.], Realencyclopdie der
klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Supplementband,
II, Sp. 167, s. v. Herodes, Nr. 22, cols. 1158.
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), Brssel.
The Dekapolis Reviewed, Journal of Biblical Literature XCIV, pp. 437441.
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. 151164.

Why Stratons Tower? An examination of Herods
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. 3952 (Hebrew).
Reconstructing the Magnificent Temple Herod
Built, Bible Review, 45, pp. 1629.
Hyrcania, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, II, Jerusalem, The
Israel Exploration Society, pp. 447450 (Hebrew).
Warehouses and Granaries in Caesarea Maritima,
in: A. Raban & K. G. Holum (eds.), Caesarea Maritima, pp. 146176.
The Carceres of the Herodian Hippodrome/Stadium
at Caesarea Maritima and Connections with Circus
Maximus, Journal of Roman Archaeology, XIV,
pp. 269283.
Herods 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).
Herods Theater in Jerusalem A New Proposal,
Cathedra,119, pp. 1928 (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. 497537 (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. 213244.

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.
Machronte, Monde de la Bible, 17, pp. 1016.

The Development of the Arid Regions of Judea During Herods Reign, 53, pp. 1323 (Hebrew).
1995 Herods Amphitheatre at Caesarea: Multipurpose
Entertainment Building, The Roman and Byzantine
Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research,
Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supp. 14, pp. 1517.
2001 Herods Amphitheater at Caesarea, Qadmoniot,
29/112, pp. 9399 (Hebrew).
2003 Herods Circus at Caesarea: a response to J. Patrich
(JRA 14, 269), Journal of Roman Archaeology, 16,
pp. 451455.
2003a Theater, Racing and Athletic Installations in Caesarea, Qadmoniot, 36/125, pp. 2542
2004 Why did Josephus Name the Chariot-Racing Facility at Caesarea Amphitheater, Scripta Classica Israelica, 23, pp 6367.
Post, J. M., Robins, R. S.,
1993 When Illness Strikes the Leader: The Dilemma of
the Captive King, New HavenLondon, Yale University Press.
Price, J. J.,
1992 Jerusalem Under Siege: The Collapse of the Jewish State
6670 C.E., LeidenNew YorkKln, E. J. Brill.
1999 Drama and History in Josephus BJ, 1 SBL, Josephus
Seminar (pdf-format: http://josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/
PriceBJ.pdf), pp. 128.
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, Tbingen, 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. 1526.

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. 165184.
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. 6874.
1992a Sebastos, The Royal Harbour at Caesarea Maritima
a Short-lived Giant, The International Journal of
Nautical Archaeology, 21.2, pp. 111124.
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. 217269.
2004 The History of the Caesarea Harbors, Qadmoniot,
127, pp. 222 (Hebrew).
Raban, A., Holum, K. G. (eds.),
1996 Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia, LeidenNew York-Kln, E. J. Brill.
Rabello, A. M.,
1972 The Prohibition on Gentiles to enter the Temple, Sinai, 70, pp. cclxvicclxxxi (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. 119135 (Hebrew).

490

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Radzinsky, E.,
2005 Stalin (Hebrew transl. by A. Hashavia), Tel-Aviv,
Maariv Book Guild.
Rajak, T.,
1983 Josephus: The Historian and his Society, London, Gerald Duckworth (Philadelphia 1984, Fortress Press).
Rappaport, U.,
1969 La Jude et Rome pendant le rgne dAlexandre Janne, Revue des tudes Juives, 127, pp. 329345.
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 2425, 1989),
Creighton University, LanhamNew YorkLondon,
University Press of America, pp. 113.
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), JerusalemTelAviv, The Open University and Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi,
pp. 280288 (Hebrew).
1998 Herods Rule, in: U. Rappaport (ed.), Jewish History during the Second Temple Period: Judea and
Rome, Vol. I, pp. 88175, 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. 546 (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. 4852 (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 19081910, I,
Cambridge M., Harvard University Press.
Rengstorf, K. H. (ed.),
19731983 Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, IIV,
Leiden, E. J. Brill.
Rhoads, M. D.,
1976 Israel in Revolution 674 C.: A Political History
based on the Writings of Josephus, Philadelphia, Fortress Press.
RE (PW) =
Realencyclopdie 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 AngelesLondon, University of California Press.
Ronen, I.,
1988 Formation of Jewish Nationalism among the Idumaeans, Apendix B in: A. Kasher, Jews, Idumaeans
and Ancient Arabs, Tbingen, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul
Siebeck), pp. 214239.

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. 1587, 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. 123131 (Hebrew).
Rosenhan, D. L., Seligman, M. E. P.,
1989 Abnormal Psychology, 2 New YorkLondon, W. W.
Norton and Company.
Rosenthal, E.-S.,
1973 The Givat Ha-Mivtar Inscription, Israel Exploration Journal, 23, pp. 7281.
196974 The Givat ha-Mivtar Inscription, Prakim: Yearbook of the Schocken Institute for Jewish Research,
II, pp. 335373 (cf. 374379).
Rostovtzeff, R.,
1941 The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic
World, IIII, 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. 336A. 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. 1427.
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 tudes juives, 151, pp. 542.

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 YorkOxford, Oxford
University Press.
1988 (ed.) Psychology and Historical Interpretation, New
YorkOxford, 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, III, 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 BCE66 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. 381388.
Sandmel, S.,
1962 Herodians, Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, II,
New YorkNashville, pp. 594595.
1967 Herod: Profile of a Tyrant, Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott Co.
Satlow, M. I.,
2001 Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, Princeton-Oxford,
Princeton University Press.
Schfer, P.,
1983 Geschichte der Juden in der Antike. Die Juden Palstinas von Alexander dem Groen 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 frhchristliche berlieferung ber die Herkunft
der Familie des Herodes, Annual of the Swedish
Theological Institute, I, pp. 109160.
Flavii Josephi Antiquitates Judaicae, vol. 3, Libri
XIXX, Jerusalem, The Bialik Institute (Hebrew).
Herods Family in the Christian Tradition: A Chapter
in the Political History of Hatred in the Second Temple Period, Ha-Umah, I, pp. 579598 (Hebrew).
King Herod: Portrait of a Ruler, 3 Jerusalem, The
Bialik Institute (Hebrew).
Namenwrterbuch 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. 114123.
Knig 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. 2643.
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. 4470.
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. 100112 (Hebrew).

Schmitt, G. von,
1995 Siedlungen Palstinas in griechisch-rmischer Zeit;
Ostjordanland, Negeb und (in Auswahl) Westjordanland, Wiesbaden, Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Schremer, A.,
2001

2003

Schrder, B.,
1996

Schrer, E.,
1901
19731987

495

Mens Age of Marriage in Eretz-Israel during the Second Temple and the Mishnah and Talmud Period,
Zion, 61, pp. 4565 (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 vterlichen Gesetze: Flavius Josephus als Vermittler von Halachah an Griechen und Rmer, Tbingen, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Geschichte des jdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu
Christi,34 IIII, Gttingen (repr. 1964) Georg Olms.
The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, IIII.12, (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. 157171.
1985 Herod in the Jewish Sources, in: M. Naor (ed.),
King Herod and his Period, Idan, 5, Yad Ben-Zvi,
Jerusalem, pp. 3842 (Hebrew).
1987 Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea, Jerusalem, The
Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History (Hebrew).
1990 (Op. cit., English Version), Tbingen, J. C. B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck).
1993 Joseph ben Illem and Herods 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. 6574 (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, LeidenNew York
KbenhavenKln, 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 GanTel-Aviv, The Ingeborg
Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies & Eretz-Israel
Museum, pp. 6776.
Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum.
Herodion, Israel Exploration Journal, 23, pp. 27
29.
Herodion and the Mausoleum of Augustus, Qadmoniot, 7, pp. 4649 (Hebrew).
The Stages of Construction of Herodium, EretzIsrael The Nelson Glueck Memorial Volume, 12,
pp. 109115, Israel Exploration Society (Hebrew).
Theatres in Ancient Palestine during the RomanByzantine Period, Scripta Classica Israelica ,89,
pp. 145165.
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. 177280, 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. 7984.
Josephus Geographicus: The Classical Context of
Geography in Josephus, Tbingen, Mohr Siebeck.
Herods Kingdom Army and Security Problems,
Milet, I, pp. 7598 (Hebrew).
A History of the Roman Republic, Jerusalem, The
Hebrew University, The Magnes Press (Hebrew).
The Armies of the Hasmoneans and Herod, Tbingen, 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: Herods 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. 166180 (Hebrew).
Tyrants, Bandits and Kings: Personal Power in
Josephus, Journal of Jewish Studies, 44, pp. 176204.

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. 1434.
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 BCECE 66, in: W.
Horbury, W. D. Davis, J. Sturdy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, III, pp. 192249.
Smith, P.,
1977 The Givat ha-Mivtar Inscription, Israel Exploration Journal, 27, pp. 121124.
Stein, A.,
1950 Die Prfekten von gypten in der rmischen 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. 428443.
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. Schalits Herod, Journal of Jewish Studies, 11,

pp. 4957.
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,
IIII, 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. 257270 (Hebrew).
1982 Social and Political Realignments in Herodian Judaea, The Jerusalem Cathedra, 2, pp. 4062.
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. 71123, New Brunswick (= op. cit., Jerusalem,
Am Oved, pp. 2032 [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. 3352
(Hebrew).
1983b Herods Kingship, in: M. Avi-Yonah & Z. Baras
(eds.) The Herodian Period, Jerusalem, Am Oved,
pp. 5390 (Hebrew).
1985 Herod and Rome, in: M. Naor (ed.), King Herod
and his Period, Idan, 5, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem, pp. 2037 (Hebrew).
1985b A New Ruling Class in Herods Days, in: M. Naor
(ed.), King Herod and his Period, Idan, 5, Yad BenZvi, Jerusalem, pp. 8999 (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 rmischen Welt, Berlin, de
Gruyter, II. 8, pp. 296354.
Tal, A.,
A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic, LeidenBostonKln, 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, LondonCambridge (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. 859901.
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. 1740 (Hebrew).
1980 Symmetry at Herodium, Megalomania in Herods
Architecture and Roman Technology in its Formation, The Jerusalem Cathedra, I, pp. 6872).
1982 The Desert Fortresses of Judaea in the Second Temple
Period, The Jerusalem Cathedra, II, pp. 120245.
19821984 Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest, III, 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. 91104.
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. 6164 (Hebrew).
Turner, E. G.,
1954 Tiberius Julius Alexander, Journal of Roman Literature, XLIV, pp. 5464.
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 Herods Lighthouse
at Caesarea, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 20.2, pp. 123139.
2000 Caesarea Maritima and its Harbour, Journal of Roman Archaeology, 13, pp. 671677.
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. 123133
1989 Josephus and Nicolaus of Damascus, in: L. H. Feldman & G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, the Bible and History,
Detroit, Wayne State University Press, pp. 147172.
Waelder, R.,
1951 The Structure of Paranoid Ideas: A Critical Survey
of Various Theories, International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 32, pp. 167177.
Warszawski, A., Peretz, A.,
1992 Building the Temple Mount: Organization and Execution, Cathedra, 66, pp. 346 (Hebrew).
Wellhausen, J.,
1924 Israelitische und jdische 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.,
19871994 The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, III, 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 Universittsbuchhandlung.
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.,
19621978
1963/4
1968
Zeligman, A.,
1970
Zissu, B.,
1999

Masada: First Season of Excavations, 19631964,

Preliminary Report, Jerusalem, The Israel Exploration Society (Hebrew). (= The Excavation of Masada 1963/64: Preliminary Report, Israel Exploration
Journal, 15, pp. 1120.)
Masada: Herods Fortress and the Zealots Last
Stand, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City
19681974. New Haven, Yale University Press.
The Temple Scroll, Jerusalem, Sifriyat Maariv.
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. 793816.
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, IIII, Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society of America.
Herod: A Malevolent Maniac, Jewish Quarterly
Review, 54, pp. 127.
Koroth Bayith Scheiny, III, Tel-Aviv, M. Neuman
Ltd. (Hebrew).
Herodian Columbarium Near Maagan Michael,
Atiqot, 6, pp. 7073 (Hebrew).
Two Herodian Columbarium Towers at Khirbet Aleq
and Khirbet Abu-Hof, Qadmoniot, 29, pp. 100106
(Hebrew).

Index of Names
Aaron the High Priest 91
Aba 90
Abishag the Shunammite 178
Abraham (Biblical forefather) 35
Abtalion (Avtalion) 85
Achiab(us) (Herods 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, 442444
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 (Herods grandson by
Alexander and Glaphyra) 354
Alexander son of Judas Aristobulus
II 88, 95, 349
Alexander (son of Antony and
Cleopatra) 126
Alexander (Herods son by Mariamme I) 32, 80, 96, 97, 164, 207,
208, 246248, 252, 255, 257,
263, 265, 266, 268, 286, 288,
293295, 301303, 306308,
310320, 327330, 332, 333, 335,
336, 339, 347, 348, 351, 354, 357,
366, 369, 370, 377, 426, 428, 429,
439, 442445
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, 107109, 113116, 122124,
128, 133, 134, 159, 165, 169, 174,
190, 193, 349, 426, 427, 439441
Alexas (Salomes husband) 299,
355, 396, 403
Ananel the Babylonian (High Priest),
see also Hanamel 104, 108, 439
Andromachus (Herods friend)
303, 312, 321, 445
Antichrist 10, 11, 14, 422
Antigonus (Mattathias Antigonus)
26, 51, 55, 58, 59, 6870, 7275,
79, 81, 84, 8688, 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 (Herods grandfather) 18,
20, 38, 114
Antipas (Herods son, tetrarch)
see Herod Antipas
Antipater (Herod father) 18, 19,
21, 23, 24, 34, 38, 39, 46, 47, 49,
5255, 61, 64, 80, 86, 114, 118,
152, 157, 223, 298, 415, 436, 437
Antipater (Herods son from Doris)
35, 70, 94, 9699, 257260, 265,
268, 285288, 301, 302, 304,
306, 313, 325328, 333, 335,
339, 344, 352358, 362368,
370, 372386, 396, 398, 399,

504

Index of Names

425, 429, 439, 443, 444, 446,

447
Antipater the Samaritan 368
Antipater Gadia (Herods friend)
191
Antiphilus (Alexandrian physician)
368, 381, 382
Antony, Marcus Antonius (Mark
Antony) 23, 47, 51, 54, 55, 65,
6768, 71, 72, 7880, 8689, 91,
94, 102, 104110, 113116, 119,
126129, 131, 132, 134143, 148,
152, 155, 159, 162, 165, 166, 177,
238, 319, 326, 411, 427, 437440
Aphrodite (goddess) 18
Apion of Alexandria 392
Appian 107
Archelaus (Herods 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, 315320,
327, 328, 336340, 348, 355,
356, 428, 429, 443445
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, 110114, 127, 128,
131, 132, 159, 160, 212, 426,
427, 431, 439
Aristobulus (Herods 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 Herods 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, 183185, 192, 194,

198, 200, 202, 207, 218, 219, 240,
243, 246248, 251, 253, 260
268, 272, 273, 288, 290, 299,
312, 313, 321323, 325, 329, 335,
339342, 351, 352, 364, 373375,
380383, 385, 396403, 411,
428430, 442446
Baalshamin (god) 224
Baba son of Buta 210, 232
Bagoas (Herods 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 (Herods 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, 115117, 124, 127, 129154,
155, 159, 162, 426428, 439,
440

Index of Names

Cleopatra of Jerusalem (Herods

wife) 180, 192, 370, 384, 400,
430, 447
Corinthus (Herods bodyguard)
361, 446
Constantine the Great 11, 421
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus
31, 147, 262, 321, 348
Cos, Kos (Idumaean god) 298
Costobarus 123, 131, 133135,
174, 190, 191, 298, 299, 439,
440, 442, 443
Crassus, Marcus Licinius 78
Cyprus (Herods mother) 18, 23,
30, 60, 119, 123, 298, 367
Cyprus (Herods 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 (Herods royal scribe)
332, 333, 370
Dolabella, Publius Cornellius
(Roman consul and tribune) 94
Doris (Herods first wife) 34,
3638, 55, 56, 59, 9299, 114,
255, 260, 286, 292, 328, 357,
363, 365, 367, 373, 374, 399,
426, 428, 429, 434, 439, 443,
444, 446
Dorothea 35
Dositheus (Herods friend) 191
Dositheus (friend of Hyrcanus II)
157, 191
Drusus, Nero Claudius (Augustus
and Livias 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 (Herods wife) 180, 247, 362,
443
Essene(s) 24, 26, 220, 359
Euaratus (Euarastus) of Cos 330
Eurycles (Spartan notable and King)
278, 325330, 429, 445
Eusebius 11, 12, 104, 223
Ezra 175, 298, 428
Fatma (Mohammads 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 (Herods 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,
2630, 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, 155160,
163, 164, 166, 169, 174178,
180, 182, 185, 186, 190, 212,
225227, 232, 241, 242, 244,
255259, 263, 265, 266, 268,
269, 281, 282, 284286, 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, 428431, 434,

435, 438440, 442, 444, 445
Helix (or Felix) 50
Herod (King of Judaea) passim
Herod Antipas (Herods son by
Malthace) 204, 210, 298, 384,
399, 400, 430, 447
Herod (King Herods grandson by
his son Aristobulus and Berenice)
354
Herod Philip (Herods son by Cleopatra of Jerusalem) 369, 400,
430, 447
Herodians 220222
Herodias (Herods 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,
4044, 48, 49, 51, 5355, 57, 68,
99, 101, 102, 104, 107, 112, 116,
155158, 160, 167, 223, 254,
328, 425, 435, 437, 439, 440
Idi Amin 178, 189, 367
Irenaeus (an orator in Herods 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 (Herods brother) 35, 60,
87, 89, 289, 426
Joseph (Herods uncle and Salomes
first husband) 118, 119, 121
123, 125, 133, 166, 256, 424,
440
Joseph (Herods 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 (Herods bodyguard)
306, 330334, 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 (Herods 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 (Herods wife) 95, 175,
192, 277, 298, 370, 384, 413,
428, 430, 441, 447
Mariamme I the Hasmonaean xiii,
4, 17, 33, 5155, 59, 60, 9196,
103, 105, 106, 107, 114, 118123,
125, 157159, 163171, 175, 177,
179, 180, 193, 207, 252, 255, 272,
275, 284, 288290, 292, 305,
307, 314, 328, 349, 350, 364366,
424428, 434, 437442
Mariamme II the Boethusian 35,
94, 95, 176, 178, 180, 181, 192,
248, 369, 378, 390, 420, 441, 446
Mariamme (Herods 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, 120123, 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, 260263, 265,
266, 279, 282, 283, 287, 291,
293, 294, 296, 301, 306, 312,
316, 318, 322, 323, 327330,
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, 160163, 184, 185, 239, 277,
289, 427, 437, 438, 440, 441
Olympias (Herods daughter from
Malthace) 277
Olympus (Herods friend) 335, 337
Osiris (Egyptian god) 407
Othello 119, 123, 171, 440
Pacorus (Parthian King) 77, 78,
88, 119
Pallas (Herods 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 (Herods 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 (Herods elder brother) 39,
46, 47, 4952, 57, 64, 80, 193,
276, 289, 290, 425, 436
Pheidias (the renowned Greek artist, 5th century BCE) 201
Pheroras (Herods youngest brother)
35, 60, 87, 89, 123, 166, 191,
207, 257259, 285, 287, 289
294, 296, 298, 304, 317, 334,
341, 344, 345, 355363, 365,
367, 371, 424, 429, 442446
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 (Herods 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 (Herods 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
Is daugter) 164, 290, 300
Salome-Alexandra (Shlomzion,
Hasmonaean Queen) 114, 210,
408, 434, 435
Salome (Herods sister) 60, 97,
99, 119, 123, 133, 134, 166168,
190, 191, 246, 254259, 287294,
296300, 304, 310, 311, 335, 341,
344, 345, 355, 358, 360, 363, 370,
381, 382, 385, 396, 401, 427, 430,
440, 444, 445
Salome (Herods 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) 4143, 45, 49, 92
Seneca xii, 94
Sheba ben Bichri (rebel against King
David) 89
Silo or Silon (Roman commander in
Syria) 7375
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, 8487
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, 295300, 322326,
335, 338, 339, 344, 358, 361,
363, 365, 370, 381, 382, 384,
402, 445, 446
Tacitus xi, xii, 5, 229, 230, 400
Tamar (King Davids 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 Herods grandson by
his son Alexander and Glaphyra)
354
Tiro (King Herods veteran soldier)
345347
Titius, Marcus (Roman quaestor
under Antony) 319
Titus (Emperor) 192194, 230
Tobaids 46, 207
Trajan (Emperor) 70, 230
Trotsky 113
Trypho (Herods barber) 347
Tyranus (Herods bodyguard) 306,
330334, 445

Varus, P. Quinctilius (Roman governor of Syria) 212, 373375,

378, 380, 413
Ventidius, Publius (Roman governor
of Syria) 73, 7779, 88
Ventideius Cumnus (Roman procurator of Judaea) 414
Vitruvius, Pollio 200
Venus (goddess) 18
Vetus, Gaius Antistius (Roman
Commander) 45
Volumnius (Roman military tribune,
Herods friend) 335, 337, 341
Zamaris 358
Zealots 220, 417
Zenodorus (tetrarch)

206, 442

Geographical Index
Acarnania 138
Actium 51, 112, 128, 137, 138,
140142 , 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 128130, 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, 2831, 66,
183, 232, 276, 309, 424
Asia Minor 54, 67, 77, 142, 183,
191, 229, 239, 248, 252254,
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 Maacha 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, 196208, 212, 217, 249,
272275, 281, 286, 296, 344,
372, 413415, 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) 281285
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,
7477, 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 (Alexandrias 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, 234236, 238, 392
Homs (Syria) 275
Hyrcania Fortress (Judean desert)
118, 130, 209, 210, 250
Idumaea, Idumaean(s) xiv, 1822,
24, 27, 3440, 48, 55, 5961,
64, 66, 7174, 93, 133135, 180,

512

Geographical Index

191, 211, 223, 242, 349, 414,

415, 437, 439
Illium (Troy) 251, 252
Ionia, Ionian Sea 250253, 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,
7075, 77, 79, 85, 86, 9092, 95,
99103, 105, 110, 114, 136, 151,
156158, 173, 174, 176, 177, 180,
185187, 191194, 205, 210214,
227, 240, 249, 250, 253, 254, 256,
257, 259, 267, 271, 274276, 282,
283, 286, 296, 312, 313, 316, 326,
349, 359, 364, 372, 387, 395, 397,
403, 413, 425, 426, 436441,
443446
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, 211214, 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,
116118, 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, 194196,
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, 6366, 70, 79, 116, 117,
136147, 151154, 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, 7173,
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, 7779,
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,
159161, 163, 260, 289, 427, 438,
440

513

Roma Temple at Caesarea 184

Rome 4750, 5456, 65, 6771,
75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 86, 88, 89,
100, 102, 107, 116, 135, 136,
138, 143, 157, 161, 164, 168, 196,
198, 200, 202204, 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, 443446
Royal Palace (Jerusalem) 31, 128,
129, 192, 228, 230233, 245,
246, 319, 320, 372, 446
Rubion River (Italy) 72
Samaria 43, 48, 7375, 9193,
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 194197, 199,
212, 249, 273, 274, 348, 413,
415, 445
Sebastians 212
Sebastos (Port of Caesaea) 199
200, 313, 372, 442
Sebasteum see Augusteum
Seeia, Sia (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

Stratos Tower (later Caesarea

Maritima) 162, 273
Syria 4146, 50, 52, 57, 73,
7779, 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, 128130, 192,
213245, 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