HEROD hĕr’ əd (̔Ηρῴδης, G2476). The ruling dynasty in Jewish Pal. during Rom. domination.

Outline

I. The Herodian dynasty (67-47 b.c.)

The dynasty of the Herods became prominent during the confusion which resulted from the decay of the Hasmonean dynasty, the transference of Syria and Pal. to the rule of the Romans, and the civil wars which marked the decay of the nation. The first of the Herodian dynasty was Antipater (or Antipas) who was appointed governor of Idumea (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 1. 3 § 10). His son was also named Antipater and Josephus considered him an Idumean by race and of great wealth (Jos. War i. 6. 2. § 123; cf. also Antiq. xiv. 1. 3 § 9; Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho lii. 3; Euseb. Hist. i. 6. 2; 7. 11; BT: Baba Bathra 3b-4a; Kiddushin 70b).

Antipater, Herod’s father, came into prominence after the death of Alexandra, the Maccabean queen. Her eldest son, Hyrcanus II, assumed the royal power in 67 b.c. Being a quiet and peaceful man he was set aside by his younger brother Aristobulus after only three months’ reign (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 1. 2 § 4-7; xv. 6. 4 § 180; War i. 5. 4 § 117-119). Hyrcanus, declaring that he never really had desired the throne, surrendered all his honors to Aristobulus who became king and high priest. Although Hyrcanus and Aristobulus publicly made peace with each other it was short lived. Antipater saw in the position of Hyrcanus an opportunity to fulfill his own dream of being a political power in Judea. It was not difficult for Antipater to persuade Hyrcanus that he had been unjustly deprived of his hereditary rights by his younger brother, and suggested he should flee to Aretas, king of Arabia, with a view to recovering his rightful kingdom. Thus he fled to Petra (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 1. 3-4 § 8-18).

It was at this point that Rome intervened. Pompey, the Rom. general who had been so successful in bringing the Rom. power to the E, determined to act. Scaurus, one of his subordinates, felt that Pompey should support Aristobulus, for prob. he was better able to pay the bribe for the Rom. support which had been offered by each of the contestants. However, Pompey decided to side with Hyrcanus because there was evidence of Aristobulus revolting against Rome (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 3. 3 § 46, 47). Pompey made war against Aristobulus, besieging the Jerusalem temple three months. When Pompey won the war he went into the holy of holies but did not plunder it of its valuables (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 4. 4 § 69-72; War i. 6. 5-7. 6 § 133-153; Tac. Hist. v. 9; Appian Mithridatic Wars 106, 114; Florus i. 40. 30; Livy 102; Plutarch Pompey xxxix; cf. Dio Cassius xxxvii. 15-17). Because of Hyrcanus’ loyalty, Pompey reinstated him as high priest (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 4. 4 § 73; War i. 7. 6 § 153). Jerusalem was made a tributary of Rome and it was placed under Scaurus whom Pompey made legate of the province of Syria.

Antipater proved himself useful to the Romans both in government and in their operations against the Hasmoneans. Gabinius defeated Alexander, Aristobulus’ son, for the second time (in 55 b.c.); he went to Jerusalem and reorganized the government according to Antipater’s wishes.

Antipater married a woman named Cypros, of an illustrious Arabian, by whom he had four sons: Phasael, Herod, Joseph, Pheroras, and a daughter, Salome (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 7. 3 § 121; War i. 8. 9 § 181).

After Pompey was defeated by Julius Caesar in 48 b.c. in Egypt (at Pharsalus), Hyrcanus and Antipater attached themselves to Caesar’s party. Antipater had risked his life for Caesar in the fighting in Egypt in 48-47 b.c. Because of this Caesar made Antipater a Rom. citizen with exemption of taxes and appointed him procurator of Judea. Also he confirmed the appointment of Hyrcanus to the office of high priest and gave him the title of ethnarch of the Jews (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 8. 1-5 § 127-155; 10. 2 § 191; War i. 9. 3—10. 4 § 187-203). Immediately after, Antipater went about the country to suppress the disorders and appealed to the restless Judean population to be loyal to Hyrcanus. Although appealing to the people in this fashion, he felt that Hyrcanus was an unsuitable leader of Judea so he took the country in his own hands and appointed his son Phasael as governor of Jerusalem and his second son Herod as governor of Galilee (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 9. 1-2 § 156-158; War i. 10. 4 § 201-203). Antipater continued his loyalty to Hyrcanus, yet it can be seen that Antipater was the power behind the throne.

II. Herod the Great 47-4 b.c.

A. As governor of Galilee (47-37 B.C.)

1. His rule. Herod became governor at the young age of twenty-five years. Immediately he was admired by the Galilean Jews and Rom. officials in Syria because of his promptness in capturing and executing the bandit leader Ezekias and many of his followers. Some in Hyrcanus’ court persuaded him that Herod was getting too powerful and that he had violated the Jewish law in the execution of Ezekias and his followers and thus should be tried before the Sanhedrin. So Hyrcanus ordered Herod to trial. Herod came to the trial not appearing as an accused person but as a king in purple and attended by a bodyguard. Sextus Caesar, governor of Syria, ordered Hyrcanus to acquit Herod or there would be consequences following. Herod was released and fled to join Sextus Caesar at Damascus. Sextus appointed Herod governor of Coele-Syria because of his popularity, and thus Herod became involved with the affairs of Rome in Syria. Herod began to march against Jerusalem in order to avenge himself for the insult Hyrcanus had given him but was persuaded by his father and brother to refrain from violence (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 9. 2-5 § 158-184; War i. 10. 5-9 § 204-215; cf. BT: Kiddushin 43a). All this occurred in 47 b.c. or the beginning of 46 b.c.

Caecilius Bassus, a partisan of Pompey who was Julius Caesar’s foe, murdered Sextus Caesar and became the leader of Syria (Dio Cassius xlvii. 26. 7-27. 2; Livy 114; Jos. Antiq. xiv. 11. 1 § 268; War i. 10. 10 § 216). Antipater, a friend of Julius Caesar, sent troops under his two sons against Bassus. This minor war dragged on indecisively for about three years. After Cassius, Brutus, and their followers murdered Caesar in 44 (Mar. 15), Cassius came to Syria and defeated Bassus and became leader of Syria. In the need of raising certain required taxes exacted by Cassius, Antipater selected Herod, Phasael, and Malichus for the job.

Because of Herod’s success in collecting taxes, Cassius not only appointed him as governor of Coele-Syria (as he had been under Sextus) but also promised to make him king of Judea after the war that he (Cassius) and Brutus were fighting against Caesar and Antony. The Herodians were definitely growing in power under the Romans and because of this Malichus, whose life Antipater had previously saved, bribed a butler to poison Antipater (43 b.c.). Finally, in revenge Herod killed Malichus by stabbing him (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 11. 3-6 § 277-293; War i. 11. 2-8 § 220-235).

When Cassius had moved out of Syria to join Brutus for the campaign against Octavius and Antony, troubles caused by Hyrcanus broke out again in Judea. With some difficulty Herod quieted the revolt (43 b.c.). Hardly was this revolt crushed when another broke out. Ptolemy, the prince of the Itureans, had taken Antigonus, son of Aristobulus, under his protection and saw a chance to use him. Herod defeated them (42 b.c.) and was received with acclamations by the people and warm congratulations by Hyrcanus (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 12. 1 § 297-299; War i. 12. 2-3 § 238-240).

By this time Herod had a wife, Doris, and by her a son, Antipater. Although she is described as a native of Jerusalem, she most likely was an Idumean. But also during this time Herod became betrothed to Mariamne who was the granddaughter of Hyrcanus II and daughter of Aristobulus’ son, Alexander, and thus a niece to Antigonus, the rival of Herod (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 12. 1 § 300; War i. 12. 3 § 241). This strengthened Herod’s position immensely, for he would marry into the royal house of the Hasmoneans and would become the natural regent when Hyrcanus, who was growing old, should eventually pass away. Being an Idumean, Herod’s betrothal to Mariamne won him an acceptance in the Judean circles.

In 42 b.c. Antony defeated Cassius at Philippi and then proceeded to Bithynia of Asia Minor and was met by Jewish leaders there who brought accusations against Herod and Phasael (governor of Jerusalem) to the effect that they had usurped the power of the government while leaving Hyrcanus with titular honors. Herod defended himself against the accusers with the result that the charges were neutralized (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 12. 2-6 § 301-323; War i. 12. 4-6 § 242-245; Plutarch Antony xxiv; Dio Cassius xlviii. 24; Appian Civil Wars v. 4). Soon after, in the autumn of 41, when Antony had gone to Antioch, the Jewish leaders again made accusations against Herod and Phasael. Since Hyrcanus was there, Antony asked him who would be the best qualified ruler and Hyrcanus pronounced in favor of Herod and Phasael. Antony thus appointed them as tetrarchs of Judea (Jos. War i. 12. 5 § 243, 244; Antiq. xiv. 13. 1 § 324-326).

2. His struggle against the Parthians. The new tetrarchs of Judea enjoyed their office for only a brief period. The next year (40 b.c.) the Parthians appeared in Syria. Pacorus, a Parthian prince, joined with Antigonus in the effort to place the latter on the throne held by Hyrcanus. This began a complicated series of incidents which resulted in Jerusalem being besieged by the invaders (Jos. War i. 13. 2 § 250-252; cf. also 12. 3 § 240; Antiq. xiv. 13. 3 § 335). A civil war was inevitable. There were daily skirmishes between the two forces.

As the feast of Pentecost drew near, thousands of Jews came to Jerusalem. At this moment, Pacorus, a Parthian cup-bearer, named like the prince Pacorus, appeared with a Parthian force and claimed to come to settle the dispute in the name of Barzaphranes, the Parthian king. Though Herod was suspicious of the good intention of the proposal, Phasael and Hyrcanus decided to meet the Parthian king in Galilee. Phasael and Hyrcanus were treacherously put in chains, and simultaneously a Parthian detachment which was left behind in Jerusalem tried to convince Herod to accompany them outside the Jerusalem walls. Having heard of the mistreatment given to Phasael and Hyrcanus, Herod with his troops, close relatives, and Mariamne made their escape and took refuge in Masada and then finally moved to Petra, the capital of the Nabatean kingdom (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 13. 7-9 § 352-364; War i. 13. 6-7 § 261-264).

Meanwhile in Jerusalem the Parthians began a pillage which they extended into the other parts of Judea. Antigonus was made king (Dio Cassius xlviii. 41; inferred in Jos. Antiq. xiv. 13. 10 § 368, 369; War i. 13. 9 § 268-270; cf. also Dio Cassius xlviii. 26). In order to prevent the possibility of Hyrcanus’ restoration to the high priesthood, Antigonus mutilated him. Phasael died either by suicide, poisoning, or in battle (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 13. 10 § 365-369; War i. 13. 10-11 § 271-273). Hyrcanus was taken to Parthia (Jos. Antiq. xv. 2. 1 § 12).

Malchus, the Arabian king from whom Herod had expected help, asked Herod to leave. Herod thus departed to Egypt and then to Rome where he was welcomed by Antony and Octavius Caesar. After hearing Herod’s story, they with the Senate’s confirmation designated him as king of Judea (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 14. 6 § 381-385; War i. 14. 4 § 282-285; cf. also Strabo xvi. 2. 46; Appian Civil Wars v. 75; Tac. Hist. v. 9). This occurred in late 40 b.c. From Italy he sailed back to Ptolemais in late 40 b.c. or early 39 b.c., marched through Galilee, and then captured Joppa and finally moved to Masada where his relatives were under attack (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 15. 1 § 394-398; War i. 15. 3-4 § 290-294). With the help of the Rom. armies, Herod then proceeded to encamp on the W side of Jerusalem. He proclaimed that he was the lawful king and promised to forget all the past offenses against himself. Antigonus made counter-proclamations, stating that Herod was a commoner and an Idumean, i.e., a half Jew, and thus not a legitimate heir to the throne.

In 38 b.c. Herod put down the guerrilla bands in Galilee. Herod, being discontent with the slow progress, went to Antony to get effective aid from the Romans. Thus he divided his forces and left part of the forces with his brother Joseph under the orders not to fight until he received reinforcements, and with the rest he went to Samosata where Antony was besieging Antiochus, king of Commagene, who had sided with the Parthians. Herod hoped by giving timely assistance to Antony, who had not been very successful with the siege, that Antony might help him in return. Antony was pleased with Herod’s unsolicited demonstration of loyalty, and after the defeat of Samosata, he ordered one of his legates, Sossius, to use the Rom. army to support Herod.

On returning to Antioch with Sossius and two legions, Herod received the bad news that his brother Joseph had been killed at Jericho, which was a result of disobedience to Herod. Finally Herod defeated the opposition in Galilee (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 15. 8-13 § 439-464; War i. 16. 7-17. 7 § 320-341).

Next spring (37 b.c.), the third year since he had been proclaimed king when at Rome, Herod moved his troops to Jerusalem and prepared for the siege. Having assigned his army to several tasks, he appointed his most efficient lieutenants to supervise the work while he left for Samaria to marry Mariamne with whom he had been betrothed for about five years. This was certainly a contemptuous move against Antigonus, the uncle of Mariamne, since she was a Hasmonean, for it strengthened Herod’s claim to the throne.

After the wedding he returned to Jerusalem. After a long and bitter siege, Jerusalem fell and Antigonus fell captive to Sossius in the summer of 37 b.c. (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 16. 2 § 470-480; War i. 18. 2 § 349-352; Tac. Hist. v. 9; Dio Cassius xlix. 22). One of the great problems that faced Herod was to stop the Rom. allies from profaning and plundering the Temple and the city of their great wealth. Herod did not want to be a king of a wilderness, and he knew that if the Temple were desecrated by the Romans it would never be forgiven him by the Jews. He appealed to Sossius to prevent this pillage of the Temple and city by promising a reward for each soldier as well as a sizable gift for Sossius out of his own purse. The troops were called in, the promised donation was paid and Sossius marched away taking Antigonus to Antony in chains. According to Josephus (Antiq. xiv. 16. 4 § 489, 490), Herod gave a large bribe to persuade the Romans to put Antigonus out of the way. It is recorded that Antigonus fell beneath the axe (Jos. War i. 18. 3 § 357; Plutarch Antony xxxvi; cf. also Dio Cassius xlix. 22). This, of course, ends the Hasmonean rule of 129 years. Herod, therefore, ceased to be the nominee for king for he now became king de facto.

B. As king (37-4 B.C.). The reign of Herod is divided by most scholars into three periods: first, consolidation from 37 to 25; second, prosperity from 25 to 14; and finally, the period of domestic troubles from 14 to 4.

1. Consolidation (37-25 B.C.). This period extends from his accession as king in 37 b.c. to the death of the sons of Babas (with Costobarus, the second husband of Salome, Herod’s sister) in 25 b.c., when the last male representative of the Hasmonean family was removed from his pathway. During this time of rule he had to contend with many powerful adversaries: the people and the Pharisees, the ruling class, the Hasmonean family, and Cleopatra.

The first adversaries were the people and the Pharisees. The people were under the Pharisees’ persuasion. The Pharisees did not like Herod as their king because of his being an Idumean, a half-Jew, and a friend of the Romans. Therefore, he had to secure the obedience of the population. Those of Judea’s population who opposed him were punished while those whom he won to his side he rewarded with favors and honors (Jos. Antiq. xv. 1. 1 § 2, 3; War i. 18. 4 § 358).

The second of the adversaries were the aristocracy who were with Antigonus. Herod executed forty-five of the most wealthy and the most prominent of this class. He confiscated their properties and replenished his coffers which had been depleted due to the payment of Sossius and his soldiers and the payment of money to Antony in order to gain a firmer hold upon him (Jos. Antiq. xv. 1. 2 § 5, 6; War i. 18. 4 § 359).

The third of the adversaries were the Hasmonean family. It was Alexandra, Herod’s mother-in-law, who caused so much of the troubles. Herod needed a high priest to replace Hyrcanus. Although Hyrcanus had come back from his Parthian exile, Antigonus had mutilated him, which disqualified him to be the high priest. It is assumed, then, that Herod did not choose himself as high priest, as did Antigonus, because he was an Idumean (though he liked to be considered as of a priestly family). He wanted a high priest of insignificance and yet belonging to the Zadokite family, who are considered to be the descendants of Aaron and who held the office before the Hasmoneans. This would seem to be a legitimate change. Herod found his man in Ananel (Hananeel), a priest of the Babylonian Diaspora (Jos. Antiq. xv. 2. 1-4 § 11-22). See Hasmoneans.

This was taken as an insult by Herod’s mother-in-law Alexandra, who thought it was an infringement on the Hasmonean line and felt that the position should be given to the only rightful heir, her sixteen-year-old son Aristobulus, the brother of Mariamne. She, therefore, used every conceivable means in order to secure her wishes. Particularly she wrote to Cleopatra urging her to exert her influence on Antony who in turn would force Herod to appoint Aristobulus as high priest (Jos. Antiq. xv. 2. 5 § 23, 24). Mariamne also pled with Herod to have her brother as high priest. Thus Herod finally gave way to the petitions and set aside Ananel (which was unlawful because the high priest was to hold the office for life) and made Aristobulus high priest. He was only in his seventeenth year (c. late 36 or early 35 b.c.).

This brought peace between Herod and Alexandra but it was short lived. Herod mistrusted Alexandra and so he kept a watchful eye on her. Alexandra grew tired of this careful watch and Cleopatra told her to escape with her son and come to Egypt. Two coffins were prepared for the flight from the city to the sea coast but the scheme was betrayed. Herod allowed the scheme to be carried on and caught them in the act. Even though he overlooked the offense, he became all the more suspicious of her (Jos. Antiq. xv. 3. 2 § 42-49).

When the next feast of Tabernacles was celebrated, there arose among the people a great affection for Aristobulus who officiated. Because of Aristobulus’ growth in popularity, Herod determined to get rid of this dangerous rival and enemy. After the festivities, Herod was invited by Alexandra to a feast at Jericho. Herod acted with friendliness toward Aristobulus and suggested they go swimming since the day was very hot. While swimming in a pool Aristobulus was pushed under the water, as if in sport, by some of those with him who had been bribed by Herod. He was kept down so long that he was drowned. Herod displayed the most profound grief and gave him a most magnificent funeral. No one questioned the official version of the death, but Alexandra was not deceived and resolved to devote her life to revenge (Jos. Antiq. xv. 3. 3-4 § 50-61; War i. 22. 2 § 437).

Since Alexandra believed Aristobulus’ death to be murder, she sent a report to Cleopatra, who persuaded Antony to summon Herod for an account of such actions. Herod was under obligation to go, and, realizing that Antony could and might sentence him to death, he put Mariamne under the surveillance of his uncle Joseph who was also Herod’s sister’s (Salome) husband, instructing him in strict secrecy that he should kill Mariamne if Herod were killed, so that she would not become someone else’s lover.

By eloquence and bribery Herod persuaded Antony to free him of any charges. When Herod returned, Salome charged her husband Joseph of having unlawful intercourse with Mariamne. Herod questioned Mariamne but was satisfied with her denial. But when he learned that Mariamne knew about the secret command which he had given Joseph, who told her as a proof of Herod’s love to her, Herod believed this was a confirmation of Salome’s charge and had Joseph executed without giving him an opportunity to be heard (34 b.c.). He also put Alexandra in chains and under guard for he blamed her in part for all these troubles (Jos. Antiq. xv. 3. 5-9 § 62-87; War i. 22. 4-5 § 441-444).

The fourth of the adversaries of Herod was Cleopatra. In connection with Alexandra she made trouble for Herod. By her influence over Antony she obtained an increase of territory. Although at first he would not yield to her, finally during his expedition against Armenia (c. 34 b.c.) he was induced to give her the whole of Phoenicia, the coast of Philistia south of Eleutherus River (with the exception of the free cities of Tyre and Sidon), a portion of Arabia, and the district of Jericho with its palm trees and balsams, which was the most fertile area of Herod’s kingdom (Jos. Antiq. xv. 4. 1-2 § 88-96; War i. 18. 4-5 § 360-363). Cleopatra visited the territories and Herod, though reluctantly, received her with great honor and splendor. But when she tried to entrap Herod by her devices, he would not give in (Jos. Antiq. xv. 4. 2 § 97-103).

Civil war broke out between Antony and Octavius. Herod wished to help Antony but at the instigation of Cleopatra he was instead ordered by Antony to fight against Malchus, the Arabian king. Malchus failed to pay his tribute and she wanted him to be punished. Actually she hoped that when the two kingdoms weakened each other, she could absorb both (Jos. Antiq. xv. 5. 1 § 108-110). Initially Herod was victorious over the Arabs, but Cleopatra helped the Arabians resulting in Herod’s defeat. In the spring of 31 b.c. a destructive earthquake occurred in Herod’s domain costing the lives of 30,000 and when Herod sent envoys to Arabia for the purpose of making peace, the Arabians slew them. After encouraging his troops who were despondent because of these circumstances, he attacked and defeated the Arabs and then returned home (Jos. Antiq. xv. 5. 2-5 § 121-160; War i. 19. 3-6 § 369-385).

Soon after, on 2 September 31 b.c., Antony was defeated by Octavius in the Battle of Actium. This was a blow to Herod. With political skill Herod had to convince Octavius that he should be regarded as the only legitimate ruler of Judea. Since Hyrcanus II was his only possible rival, he charged Hyrcanus of plotting with the king of the Nabateans and subsequently killed him (Jos. Antiq. xv. 6. 1-4 § 161-182; War i. 20. 1 § 386).

On setting out to see Octavius in Rhodes (spring, 30 b.c.), Herod thought it wise to prevent Alexandra from stirring up any revolts. He placed her and Mariamne in Alexandreion (three m. SW of the confluence of the Jabbok and Jordan Rivers) under the custody of his steward Joseph (not Herod’s brother-in-law) and Soēmus, the Iturean who was a trusted friend of Herod. He instructed them to kill the two women if Herod were to be killed and to preserve the kingdom for his sons and his brother Pheroras (Jos. Antiq. xv. 6. 5 § 183-186).

At Rhodes Herod played his part skillfully. He admitted his loyalty to Antony although actually he did not fight against Octavius because of his war against the Arabs. He showed that his loyalty would benefit Octavius. Octavius confirmed Herod in his royal rank. Herod, then, returned to his own home. In that same summer Octavius left Asia Minor and landed on the Phoen. coast on his way to Egypt. Herod met him with great pomp at Ptolemais and gave him 800 talents and provided supplies for Octavius’ soldiers during that hot season. This was appreciated by Octavius (Jos. Antiq. xv. 6. 6-7 § 188-201; War i. 20. 1-3 § 387-395).

Octavius gained control of Egypt when he defeated Antony. Antony and Cleopatra committed suicide in August of 30 b.c. Having heard this, Herod went to Egypt to congratulate Octavius and to secure a great reward for himself. Octavius gave him the title of king (Strabo xvi. 2. 46). Also Octavius now gave back to him not only Jericho, but also Gadara, Hippos, Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, and Straton’s Tower (later became Caesarea) (Jos. Antiq. xv. 7. 3 § 215-217; War i. 20. 3 § 396, 397). Thus Herod secured much for himself.

While Herod seemed to enjoy the outward success of having his kingdom conferred to him by Octavius and of having gained control of new areas, his domestic affairs were far from peaceful. While he was at Rhodes, Mariamne found out from Soēmus that Herod had ordered him and Joseph to kill her if he were killed. When Herod returned she was very unfriendly to him. Since Herod was caught between loving and hating her, his sister Salome and their mother Cyprus saw their opportunity to satisfy their hatred toward Mariamne and spread slanderous stories about her which would fill Herod with hatred and jealousy at the same time. Herod would not listen to them. Later when he returned from Egypt, after congratulating Octavius and receiving the new territories, Mariamne’s attitude toward him was more irritating. Salome seized upon this opportunity by bribing Herod’s butler to say that Mariamne prepared a love-potion for the king. Herod inquired with regards to the love-potion but the butler did not know. Being in an ugly mood Herod had Mariamne’s eunuch examined by torture regarding this love-potion. He also knew nothing of it but did confess of Mariamne’s hatred of him because of the command he had given Soēmus. Because Soēmus, as well as Joseph, had betrayed his secret, Herod felt this was proof of unlawful intercourse and had Soēmus immediately executed. Mariamne, after a judicial investigation, was condemned and then finally executed at the end of 29 b.c. (Jos. Antiq. xv. 7. 1-5 § 202-236).

Herod never sanely accepted Mariamne’s death. He fell ill, and because his recovery was doubtful, Alexandra began to scheme so that if he died she would secure the throne. She tried to win over those in command of the two fortified places in Jerusalem. When this was reported to Herod, Alexandra was executed in 28 b.c. (Jos. Antiq. xv. 7. 6-8 § 237-252).

After Herod recovered from his depression over Mariamne, he found occasion for further bloodshed in this period. Soon after Herod’s accession as king he appointed a distinguished Idumean, Costobarus, as governor of Idumea and gave him his sister Salome, after putting to death her former husband Joseph (in 34 b.c.). Even during this first period Costobarus secretly conspired with Cleopatra against Herod, but Herod granted him pardon at the entreaty of Salome. However, now Salome was getting tired of her husband and so she wanted to get rid of him. She had learned that he along with Antipater, Lysimachus, and Dositheus was planning to revolt. As a proof of her charges she revealed that her husband had preserved the influential sons of Babas who remained loyal to Antigonus and always spoke ill of Herod. When Herod heard this, Costobarus and his followers, whose place of concealment was betrayed by Salome, were seized and executed in 25 b.c. Herod now could console himself that all the male relatives of Hyrcanus (who could dispute the occupancy of the throne) were no longer living (Jos. Antiq. xv. 7. 9-10 § 253-266). This ends the first period of Herod’s reign.

2. Prosperity (25-14 B.C.). This period is marked with splendor and enjoyment although there were moments of disturbance.

The first thing mentioned of this period by Josephus is Herod’s violations of the Jewish law by his introduction of the quinquennial games in honor of Caesar and by the building of theaters, amphitheaters, and race courses for both men and horses (Jos. Antiq. xv. 8. 1 § 267-276). Some time later, c. 24 b.c., Herod built for himself a royal palace and also built or rebuilt a good many fortresses and Gentile temples, including the rebuilding of Straton’s Tower which was renamed Caesarea (Jos. Antiq. xv. 8. 5-9. 6 § 292-341). Of course, his greatest building was the Temple in Jerusalem which was begun c. 20 b.c. Josephus considers it the most noble of all his achievements (Jos. Antiq. xv. 11. 1 § 380). Rabbinic lit. states: “He who has not seen the Temple of Herod has never seen a beautiful building” (BT: Baba Bathra 4a). Also, it is suggested that it was his “atonement for having slain so many sages of Israel” (Midrash: Num 14:8). Also, during this period, he took great interest in culture and surrounded himself with a circle of men accomplished in Gr. lit. and art. The highest offices of state were entrusted to Gr. rhetoricians, one of whom, Nicolas of Damascus, was Herod’s instructor. He was Herod’s advisor and figured much in Herod’s dealings both before and after his death. Herod received instructions from him in philosophy, rhetoric, and history.

Regarding domestic affairs he married Mariamne (who will be designated as Mariamne II), daughter of Simon, a well-known priest in Jerusalem c. late 24 b.c. In 22 b.c. Herod sent his two sons of Mariamne I, Alexander and Aristobulus, to Rome for their education. Augustus (Octavius’ title since 27 b.c.) himself received the sons and they stayed at the house of Asinius Pollio who professed to be one of Herod’s most devoted friends. At this time Augustus gave him the territories of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis which had been occupied by nomad robber tribes with whom the neighboring tetrarch Zenodorus had made common cause (Jos. Antiq. xv. 10. 1-2 § 342-349; War i. 20. 4 § 398, 399). It is seen that there was a friendly relationship between Caesar and Herod. Herod, undoubtedly, was considered an important king to Rome for he kept that section of the Rom. empire well in control.

Augustus came to Syria in 20 b.c. and bestowed upon Herod the territory of Zenodorus or that which laid between Trachonitis and Galilee (containing Ulatha and Paneas) and made it so the procurators of Syria had to get Herod’s consent for all their actions (Jos. Antiq. xv. 10. 3 § 354-360; War i. 20. 4; cf. Dio Cassius liv. 7. 4-6; 9. 3). He also asked Augustus for a territory for his brother Pheroras and apparently Augustus granted the request and he was given Perea (Jos. Antiq. xv. 10. 3 § 362; cf. War i. 24. 5 § 483). Because of these gracious bestowments of Augustus, Herod erected a beautiful temple for Augustus in the territory of Zenodorus, near the place called Paneion (Jos. Antiq. xv. 10. 3 § 363; War i. 21. 3 § 404-406). Also, at this same time Herod remitted a third of the taxes under the pretext of crop failure but actually it was to bring goodwill among those who were displeased with his emphasis of Graeco-Roman culture and religion. The remittance of taxes was effective for the most part. There seemingly was a great dissatisfaction because Herod would not allow the people to congregate for fear of a revolt. He demanded a loyalty oath by the people, but excluded Pollion the Pharisee and his disciple Samaias, as well as most of their disciples. The Essenes did not have to submit to this oath because Josephus states that Herod had a high regard for them (Jos. Antiq. xv. 10. 4 § 365-372).

Herod made a trip to Rome to meet Augustus and fetch his two sons who had completed their education (in 17 or 16 b.c.). Upon their return to Judea with Herod, Aristobulus was married to Salome’s daughter Berenice and Alexander married Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia (Jos. Antiq. xvi. 1. 2 § 6-11; War i. 23. 1 § 445, 446).

One can conclude that this period from 25 b.c. to 14 b.c. was the most brilliant in his entire reign. His building program was of great splendor. His domestic affairs were reasonably good, but the end of this period was the beginning of great troubles in this area. Although he had some trouble within his political sphere, he had good control of his people and twice he favored them by lowering taxes (in 14 b.c. he reduced taxes by one-fourth, Jos. Antiq. xvi. 2. 5 § 64, 65).

3. Domestic troubles (14-4 B.C.). Herod had married ten wives (Jos. Antiq. xvii. 1. 3 § 19-22; War i. 28. 4 § 562, 563). His first wife was Doris by whom he had one son, Antipater (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 12. 1 § 300). Herod repudiated Doris and Antipater when he married Mariamne I but they were allowed to visit Jerusalem only during the festivals (Jos. War i. 22. 1 § 433). In 37 b.c. Herod married Mariamne I, the granddaughter of Hyrcanus, who bore him five children. The two daughters were Salampsio and Cypros (Jos. Antiq. xviii. 5. 4 § 130-132). The youngest son died during the course of his education in Rome (Jos. War i. 22. 2 § 435). The older sons were Alexander and Aristobulus, who played an important part during this period of Herod’s life. Herod married his third wife Mariamne II in late 24 b.c. by whom he had Herod (Philip). His fourth wife was a Samaritan, Malthace, by whom he had Archelaus and Antipas. His fifth wife, Cleopatra of Jerusalem, was the mother of Philip. Of the other five wives only Pallas, Phaedra, and Elpsis are known by name, and none of these are of significance (Jos. Antiq. xvii. 1. 3 § 19-22; War i. 28. 4 § 562, 563).

Herod’s favorite sons were the sons of Mariamne I, Alexander and Aristobulus. After they had returned from Rome and had married Glaphyra and Berenice respectively, troubles domestically began to come to the forefront. Salome, Herod’s sister and mother of Berenice, hated these two sons and tried desperately to establish her own son. It may well be that to a certain degree the haughtiness by the two sons of Mariamne I was because of being a part of the Hasmonean dynasty. Salome aggravated them by speaking ill of their mother whom Herod had killed, which caused them to defend her. Salome and Pheroras (brother of Herod and Salome) reported to Herod that his life was in danger because the two sons were not going to leave the murder of their mother unavenged and that Archelaus, king of Cappadocia (father of Glaphyra), would help them to reach the emperor and bring charges against their father (Jos. Antiq. xvi. 3. 1-2 § 66-77).

In order to provide a counterbalance to their aspirations and to show them that there might be another who could be heir to the throne, he recalled his exiled son Antipater. In the spring of 13 b.c. Herod sent Antipater to Rome in the company of Agrippa (friend of Augustus), who left the E to go to Rome, so that he might present Antipater to the emperor. Instead of being a counterbalance, Antipater used every conceivable means to acquire the throne. He used slander against his two half brothers. The rift between Herod and Mariamne I’s two sons became so great that Herod decided to accuse his two sons before the emperor. In 12 b.c. the two sons went with Herod and they were tried before Augustus in Aquileia. After the case was heard Augustus was able to reconcile Herod and his sons, and having restored domestic peace, the father, the two sons, and Antipater returned home. When they arrived home Herod named Antipater as his first successor and next after him were to be Alexander and Aristobulus (Jos. Antiq. xvi. 3. 3-4. 6 § 86-135; War i. 23. 2-5 § 451-466).

Scarcely had they arrived home when Antipater, being helped by Herod’s sister Salome and Herod’s brother Pheroras, began to slander the two sons of Mariamne I. Alexander and Aristobulus became more decidedly hostile in their attitude. Herod became suspicious and became more and more morbid about the situation. Antipater played on Herod’s morbid fears. He even caused the friends of Alexander to be tortured so that they might confess any attempt to take Herod’s life and one friend made the admission that Alexander, with the help of Aristobulus, had planned to kill him and then flee to Rome to lay claim on his kingdom. For this Alexander was committed to prison. When the Cappadocian king Archelaus, Alexander’s father-in-law, heard of this state of affairs, he began to fear for his daughter and son-in-law and thus made a journey to Jerusalem to see if there could be reconciliation. He appeared before Herod very angry over his good-for-nothing son-in-law and threatened to take his daughter back with him. Because of this Herod defended his son against Archelaus. By this sly maneuver on the part of Archelaus, he accomplished the reconciliation he desired and then returned to his home (Jos. Antiq. xvi. 7. 2-8. 6 § 188-270; War i. 24. 1-25. 6 § 467-512). This prob. occurred in 10 b.c. Thus there was peace once again in Herod’s household.

In this same period Herod had troubles with some foreign enemies and with the emperor. Syllaeus, who ruled in the place of the Arabian king Obodas and who was determinedly hostile to Herod, gave shelter to forty rebels of Trachonitis and tried to relieve his country from paying a debt contracted with Herod. Herod demanded the handing over of the rebels and the payment of the debt. With the consent of the governor of Syria, Saturninus, Herod invaded Arabia and enforced his rights (c. 9 b.c.). This was only to be a punitive measure with no intentions of territorial gain, but Syllaeus had meanwhile gone to Rome and distorted the picture with the result that Augustus became suspicious and intimated to Herod that their friendship was at an end and that he would henceforth treat him no longer as a friend but as a subject. In order to justify himself Herod sent an embassy to Rome and when this failed he sent a second under the leadership of Nicolas of Damascus (Jos. Antiq. xvi. 9. 1-4 § 271-299).

Meanwhile the domestic discord again came to the forefront. A certain Eurycles from Lacedemon, a man of bad character, inflamed the father against the sons and the sons against the father (Jos. Antiq. xvi. 10. 1 § 300-310; War i. 26. 1-4 § 513-533; cf. also Pausanias Description of Greece ii. 3. 5; Strabo viii. 5. 1; Plutarch Antony 67).

As other mischief-makers became involved, Herod’s patience was exhausted and he put Alexander and Aristobulus into prison, and laid a complaint against them before the emperor of their being involved in treasonable plots.

Meanwhile Nicolas of Damascus had accomplished his mission and had again won over the emperor to Herod. When the messengers who were bringing the accusations of Herod reached Rome, they found Augustus in a favorable mood and he gave Herod absolute power to proceed in the matter of his sons as he wished but advised him that the trial should take place outside of Herod’s territory at Berytus (Beirut), before a court of which Rom. officials would form part and to have the charges against his sons investigated by it (Jos. Antiq. xvi. 10. 5-11. 1 § 320-360; War i. 27. 1 § 534-537).

Herod accepted the advice of the emperor. Although the governor of Syria, Saturninus, and his three sons thought that the sons were guilty but should not be put to death, the court almost unanimously pronounced the death sentence upon the sons. Tiro, an old soldier, publicly proclaimed that the trial had been unjust and the truth suppressed. But he and 300 others were denounced as friends of Alexander and Aristobulus and thus were put to death. Therefore, at Sebaste (Samaria), where Herod had married Mariamne thirty years before, her two sons were executed by strangling, prob. in 7 b.c. (Jos. Antiq. xvi. 11. 2-8 § 361-404; War i. 27. 2-6 § 538-551).

Antipater, now remaining as the sole heir and enjoying the full confidence of his father, was still not satisfied, for he wished to have the government wholly in his own hands. He held secret conferences with Herod’s brother Pheroras, tetrarch of Perea, which Salome reported to her brother Herod, stating that they were contriving to kill him. Thus the relationship of Antipater and his father became strained. Realizing this strain Antipater wrote his friends in Rome to ask if Augustus would instruct Herod to send Antipater to Rome. Herod sent him to Rome and designated in his will that Antipater was his successor to the throne and in the event that Antipater’s death might occur before his own, Herod (Philip), son of Mariamne II, the high priest’s daughter, was named as his successor.

While Antipater was in Rome, Pheroras died which proved to be the seal of Antipater’s fate. Freedmen of Pheroras went to Herod to relate to him that Pheroras had been poisoned and that Herod should investigate the matter more closely. It was found out that the poison was sent by Antipater with the intention not to kill Pheroras but rather that Pheroras might give it to Herod. Herod also learned from the female slaves of Pheroras’ household of the complaints that Antipater had made at those secret meetings regarding the king’s long life and about the uncertainties of his prospects. Consequently Herod recalled Antipater under false pretenses and Antipater returned with no suspicion. When he arrived he was committed to prison in the king’s palace and was tried the next day before Varus, the governor of Syria. In light of the many proofs against him, he could make no defense. Herod put him in chains and made a report of the matter to the emperor. This occurred c. 5 b.c.

Another plot of Antipater against Herod was unveiled and Herod desired to kill him. Herod became very ill with a disease from which he would not recover. Therefore, he drew up a new will in which he by-passed his eldest sons, Archelaus and Philip, because Antipater had poisoned his mind against them. Instead he chose the youngest son, Antipas, as his sole successor (Jos. Antiq. xvii. 2. 4-6. 1 § 32-146; War i. 29. 1-32. 7 § 567-646).

Shortly before his death the Magi had come to Judea to worship the newborn king of the Jews. Herod summoned the wise men, asking them to report to him the location of the Christ child when they found Him in Bethlehem. Being warned in a dream, the Magi did not return to Herod but departed to the E by another route. The Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him to flee to Egypt because of Herod’s intention to kill Jesus. They fled to Egypt and Herod killed all the male children of Bethlehem who were two years and under.

Herod was now nearly seventy years old and his sickness grew worse. As news spread that he had an incurable disease, two rabbis, Judas, son of Sepphoraeus, and Matthias, son of Margalus, stirred up the people to tear down the offensive eagle from the Temple gate. These rabbis stated that this action would be pleasing to God. Herod, having heard this, seized the offenders and passed sentences of death upon them and had the principal leaders burned alive.

As Herod’s disease grew worse the baths at Callirrhoe no longer benefited him. When he returned to Jericho he commanded all notable Jews from all parts of the nation to come to him and when they arrived he shut them up in the hippodrome, summoned his sister Salome and her husband Alexas, and ordered that all these leaders should be cut down at the moment he died so that there would be a national mourning rather than a festival. At the time he was giving these instructions, he received a letter from Rome in which the emperor gave him permission to execute his son, Antipater, which he did immediately. Herod again altered his will by nominating Archelaus, the older son of Malthace, as king and his brothers Antipas as tetrarch of Galilee and Perea and Philip as tetrarch of Gaulanitis, Trachonitis, Batanea, and Paneas.

Finally, on the fifth day after the execution of Antipater, Herod died at Jericho in the spring of 4 b.c. Salome and Alexas dismissed those who were summoned to the hippodrome and Ptolemy, who had been entrusted with the king’s seal, read Herod’s last will in public and the crowd acclaimed Archelaus as their king. A pompous funeral procession accompanied the body from Jericho, a distance of one mile in the direction of Herodion, where it was finally laid (Jos. Antiq. xvii. 6. 1-8. 3 § 147-199; War i. 33. 1-9 § 647-673).

Herod’s reign lasted thirty-three to thirty-four years if one reckons from 37 b.c. It was one of violence. The brightest portion lay in the middle. It must be realized that though his reign was characterized by violence, the rulers of that day were not greatly different than he was. Many times he was not liked by the Jews because of his infidelity to or his unconcern for their law. Although he was the king of the Jews, many of his subjects would not characterize him as truly a Jewish king.

III. Herod’s will disputed

During his life Herod had written six wills (actually the sixth will was only a codicils of the fifth will). As mentioned above the sixth will was made only five days before his death. Hence it needed the ratification of the emperor. So as soon as Herod died Archelaus took over the leadership but he did not accept the title of king nor allow himself to be crowned (Jos. Antiq. xvii. 8. 4. § 202, 203; War ii. 1. 1 § 2, 3). Immediately after the Passover Archelaus and Antipas left for Rome to dispute the last two wills of Herod while Philip took care of the home front. Archelaus claimed that Augustus should ratify Herod’s last will because it expressed Herod’s desire just before he died. On the other hand Antipas claimed that the fifth will which already had been ratified did have greater validity than the codicils because when Herod designated Antipas as king he was in good physical and mental health, whereas when he named Archelaus as king in the codicils he was stricken both in mind and body and was incapable of good reasoning. To complicate the situation further, there was a revolt in Pal. while the two brothers were in Rome disputing the will. The result of this revolt was that a Jewish delegation was sent to Rome pleading for the autonomy of the nation and for its union with the province of Syria. By now Philip had also gone to Rome.

After considerable debate and delay Augustus decided on a compromise solution, viz., Archelaus was designated ethnarch with the promise to be made king if he proved capable of that position and was to rule over Idumea, Judea, and Samaria. Antipas was made tetrarch over Galilee and Perea and Philip was made tetrarch over Gaulanitis, Tranchonitis, Batanea, and Paneas (Jos. Antiq. xvii. 11. 4 § 317-320; War ii. 6. 3 § 93-100). Therefore, although Antipas lost claim to kingship, he prevented Archelaus from being king over the whole realm.

IV. Archelaus 4 b.c.-a.d. 6

He was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace (a Samaritan) who was born c. 22 b.c.

As soon as Herod died, Ptolemy, to whom the king had entrusted his signet-ring, read the codicils which designated Archelaus as king and Philip and Antipas as tetrarchs. Although the codicils were not ratified Archelaus assumed the leadership. The people began making demands with which Archelaus complied in order to ingratiate himself with them. There were, however, revolutionaries among the crowd who were out to revenge the blood of those whom Herod killed for cutting down the eagle from the Temple gate. Archelaus, wanting to prevent an uprising of the mob at Passover, sent out an army and killed 3000 people (Jos. Antiq. xvii. 8. 4-9. 3 § 200-218; War ii. 1. 1-3 § 1-13). Consequently his rule got off to a bad start.

While on his way to Rome another revolt broke out at Pentecost lasting prob. for one and a half to two and a half months which resulted in the Temple porticoes being burned and its treasury pillaged by the Romans. This revolt spread to the countryside of Judea as well as to Galilee and Perea (Jos. Antiq. xvii. 10. 2-5 § 254-272; War ii. 3. 1-4. 1 § 40-56). Thus when Herod’s sons returned to Pal. (prob. in the spring of 3 b.c.) after the trial the situation was all but ideal for them to begin their rule.

After returning from Rome Archelaus treated both the Jews and Samaritans with great brutality (Jos. War ii. 7. 3 § 111). This is corroborated by the gospels, for Joseph, after returning from the flight to Egypt, heard that Archelaus was the ruler of Judea, and being afraid to go to Judea, he withdrew to Galilee (Matt 2:22). Furthermore, Archelaus removed the high priest Joazar, the son of Boethus, on the pretext that he sided with the insurgents and appointed in his stead Joazar’s brother Eleazar who in turn was later replaced by Jesus, son of See (Jos. Antiq. xvii. 13. 1 § 339-341). He divorced his wife Mariamne to marry Glaphyra, the daughter of King Archelaus of Cappadocia and the former wife of Alexander (Herod’s son and Archelaus’ half brother) and thus transgressed the ancestral law (Jos. Antiq. xvii. 13. 1, 4-5 § 341, 350-353; War ii. 7. 4 § 114-116). Either or both of these last mentioned events may have caused unrest in the country and, if so, Archelaus’ methods of suppression of unrest were oppressive.

Finally in a.d. 6 Archelaus was deposed. Although there are divergencies in the accounts, it can be reasonably reconstructed. It was triggered by a formal complaint to Augustus by a delegation of Jews and Samaritans concerning Archelaus’ cruelty and tyranny. The co-operation of these two communities, normally bitter enemies, indicates the seriousness of the grievances. Furthermore, Archelaus’ brothers, Antipas and Philip, went to Rome to bring charges against him presumably of his oversight of them since he was ethnarch or the Rom. representative for Pal. The outcome of this was that Archelaus was banished to Vienna in Gaul (modern Vienne on the Rhône, S of Lyons) and Antipas and Philip retained their domains. Archelaus’ domains were reduced to a province under the rule of prefects or procurators (Jos. Antiq. xvii. 13. 1-5 § 342-355; War ii. 7. 3-8. 1 § 111-118; Strabo xvi. 2. 46; Dio Cassius lv. 27. 6).

V. Antipas 4 b.c.-a.d. 39

He was the son of Herod and Malthace (a Samaritan) born c. 20 b.c., hence was the younger brother of Archelaus.

A. Antipas’ realm. Of all the Herodians, he figures most prominently in the NT, for he was the tetrarch over Galilee and Perea, the two areas in which John the Baptist and Christ had most of their ministry.

When Antipas returned from Rome to begin his rule in the domains alloted to him, he found them ravaged by the rebellion at the feast of Pentecost in 4 b.c. He had to restore order and rebuild what had been destroyed. Following in the footsteps of Alexander the Great and his father Herod the Great, he founded cities. He began by rebuilding Sepphoris which was the largest city in Galilee as well as being the capital for his domains until he built Tiberias. It was prob. completed c. a.d. 8 to 10 and it is very possible that Joseph, Mary’s husband, plied his trade as a carpenter (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3) during its rebuilding, since Nazareth was only four m. SSW of Sepphoris. Probably the second city to be rebuilt was Livias (or Julias) of Perea in honor of Livia, the wife of Augustus. This city was most likely completed in a.d. 13.

The building of Tiberias should be considered as one of the most important of all those built by the Herodian family (they built twelve cities) for it was the first city in Jewish history to be founded within the municipal framework of a Gr. polis. It was built in honor of the reigning Emperor Tiberius. While building it they struck upon a cemetery. Because Antipas destroyed the cemetery, he had difficulty in getting devout Jews to settle there for they considered the city unclean. He offered free houses and lands and exemption from taxes for the first few years if anyone moved into the new city. It was completed c. a.d. 23 and became Antipas’ capital.

B. Antipas’ rule

1. Antipas and Archelaus.

The only significant event that occurred early in Antipas’ career was in a.d. 6 when a delegation of Jews and Samaritans as well as Philip and himself went to Rome to bring about the downfall of his brother Archelaus. Although Antipas remained a tetrarch, he at least gained the dynastic title Herod (cf. Jos. Antiq. xviii. 2. 1 § 26; War ii. 9. 1 § 167) which was of great significance both to his subjects and to the political and social circles of the Rom. world. This title given by the emperor may have been a concession in lieu of giving the title king.

2. Antipas and John the Baptist. The episode for which Antipas is remembered is his involvement in the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19, 20; Jos. Antiq. xviii. 5. 2 § 116-119). Antipas had married the daughter of Aretas IV (her name is not known), Nabatean king, which prob. was instigated by Augustus who was known to favor intermarriages among the various rulers for the sake of peace in the Rom. empire. This marriage would have not only made for peace between the Jews and the Arabs, but also Aretas’ territory served as a buffer between Rome and Parthia. Hence they were married before a.d. 14.

Around a.d. 29 Antipas made a journey to Rome. On his way he paid a visit to his half brother Herod (Philip) who apparently lived in one of the coastal cities of Pal. Antipas fell in love with his host’s wife Herodias who was also his own niece. She was ambitious and this was her opportunity to become the wife of a tetrarch and so she agreed to marry Antipas on his return from Rome upon the stipulation that Aretas’ daughter must be ousted (Jos. Antiq. xviii. 5. 1 § 109, 110). Aretas’ daughter got wind of the arrangement and consequently fled to her father. This divorce was not only a personal insult to Aretas but also a breach of a political alliance which later led to a retaliation by Aretas.

Soon after Aretas’ daughter’s departure, Antipas and Herodias were married. John the Baptist spoke boldly against this marriage and consequently Antipas incarcerated him. John’s denouncement was that Antipas had married his brother Philip’s wife. The Mosaic law forbad the marriage of a brother’s wife (Lev 18:16; 20:21) with the exception of raising children to a deceased childless brother by levirate marriage (Deut 25:5; Mark 12:19). However, in Antipas’ case his brother had offspring, viz., Salome, and even more blatantly Antipas’ brother was still alive!

A problem arises over the identification of Herodias’ first husband for the gospels state that he was Philip (Matt 14:3; Mark 6:17) whereas Josephas states that he was Herod, son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II, daughter of Simon the high priest (Antiq. xviii. 5. 1 § 109). Many scholars think that the gospel accounts are incorrect. Since the Herodian family is hopelessly confusing, it is thought that Matthew and Mark confused this Herod with Philip the tetrarch who later married Herodias’ daughter Salome. However, as easy as this solution may be at first sight, it is untenable for several reasons.

First, the gospels would be guilty of three historical errors, viz. (1) that they confused this Herod with his half brother Philip, (2) that they made Philip the tetrarch husband of Herodias instead of the husband of her daughter, and (3) Salome would have been the daughter of Philip the tetrarch who according to Josephus had no children—three blunders in matters of well-known history with which the evangelists otherwise show familiarity. Also, when the Christian community had such as Joanna, wife of Chuza who was Antipas’ financial minister (Luke 8:3), and Manaen who was an intimate friend of Antipas (Acts 13:1) it seems that to have such a historical blunder as this is incredible.

Second, the gospels speak of a daughter of Herodias before she was married to Antipas (Matt 14:6, 8-11; Mark 6:22, 24-26, 28) which harmonizes exactly with Josephus’ reference to having a daughter named Salome (Jos. Antiq. xviii. 5. 4 § 136). There are too many details to be mere coincidence and consequently it is improbable that the evangelists confused the Philips.

Third, the objection that Herod the Great would not have had two sons with the name Philip is untenable for although they had the same father, they had different mothers. Also, Herod the Great had two sons named Antipas/Antipater and two sons named Herod.

Fourth, it is not unreasonable for Herodias’ first husband to have a double name, viz., Herod Philip. Certainly no one disputes that the Herod of Acts 12:1, 6, 11, 19, 20, 21 is the Agrippa of Josephus or accuses Luke of confusing this Herod with Herod, king of Chalcis (a.d. 41-48) or that Archelaus is Herod Archelaus.

Fifth, if the evangelists meant that Herodias’ former husband was Philip the tetrarch, why did they not call him by that title as they had Antipas right within that same pericope (Matt 14:1; Mark 6:14, 26)?

Therefore, it is most reasonable to consider that the Philip in the gospels and the Herod in Josephus to be one and the same person. In fact, to do otherwise would seem to create inextricable confusion.

Herodias was not satisfied to leave John in prison and so at a suitable time she arranged for a banquet, prob. for Antipas’ birthday, at Machaerus in Perea in order to get rid of John. Her daughter Salome danced before Antipas’ dignitaries and he promised her with an oath that he would give her anything up to half of his kingdom. Being advised by her mother, she requested John the Baptist’s head on a platter. Antipas was sorry he had made the promise under oath but due to the presence of his underlords he had to follow through with the request. Consequently John the Baptist’s ministry had come to an end c. a.d. 31 or 32.

3. Antipas and Jesus. Antipas’ relationship to Jesus is seen in three episodes. The first event is upon Antipas’ hearing of Jesus’ ministry and concluding, possibly, with a note of irony, that this one is John the Baptist resurrected (Matt 14:1, 2; Mark 6:14-16; Luke 9:7-9). He had put to end one dangerous movement headed by John the Baptist, but now there appeared a still more remarkable and successful people’s preacher. Hence, it was John the Baptist all over again.

Antipas wanted to see Jesus but was not able to do so because He not only withdrew from his territories, but also he did not want to use force because he might rouse his people again as he had with John.

The second episode to be noted is when Jesus was on His final journey to Jerusalem. Some of the Pharisees came to Jesus and stated that He had better remove Himself from Antipas’ territories because he wanted to kill Jesus (Luke 13:31-33). Jesus replied by saying, “Go tell that fox” that He would continue His ministry of casting out demons and curing diseases for a short time at least, but only after He had finished would He go to Jerusalem to perish. Antipas saw the potential danger of Christ’s popular movement and wanted Him to leave his domains by threatening to kill Him. Antipas did not dare to use force because there was no evidence that Jesus was causing potential trouble and the people had not forgiven Antipas for his treatment of John the Baptist whom they considered a prophet. But Jesus saw through Antipas’ scheme and called him a “fox” (the animal which is weak and uses cunning deceit to achieve its aims), hence a crafty coward. The lion of Judah was not going to be ordered