Listed 32 sub titles with search on: Biographies for wider area of: "ISRAEL Country MIDDLE EAST" .
JUDAEA (Ancient country) ISRAEL
Hyrcanus, Joannes, (Hurkanos), prince and high-priest of the Jews, was the son
and successor of Simon Maccabaeus, the restorer of the independence of Judaea.
In B. C. 137, Antiochus VII. having established himself on the throne of Syria
after the defeat and death of Tryphon, determined to effect the reduction of Judaea
to its former condition of a tributary province of the Syrian monarchy, and sent
a force, under his general, Cendebeus, to invade the country. Simon, being now
a man of advanced years, confided the command of the force which he opposed to
them, to his two sons, Judas and Joannes Hyrcanus: they were completely successful,
defeated Cendebeus, and drove him out of Judaea. But Simon did not long enjoy
the fruits of this victory, being treacherously seized and assassinated by his
son-in-law, Ptolemy, the governor of Jericho, B. C. 135. Two of his sons, Judas
and Mattathias, perished with him, but Hyrcanus escaped the snares of the assassin,
and assumed the dignity of high-priest and prince of the Jews, and advanced with
an army against Ptolemy, who took refuge in the fortress of Dagon, where he was
able to defy the arms of Hyrcanus. It is not improbable that the crime of Ptolemy
had been previously concerted with Antiochus Sidetes: at least, that monarch immediately
took advantage of it to invade Judaea with a large army; and, Hyrcanus being unable
to meet him in the field, laid siege to Jerusalem itself. The siege was closely
pressed, and the Jews suffered severely from famine; but at length Antiochus consented
to conclude a treaty, by which Jerusalem and its inhabitants were spared, on condition
of the fortifications being dismantled and the payment of an annual tribute, B.
C. 133. (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 7.3, 4, 8.1-3, B. J. i. 2.5; 1 Mace. xv. xvi.; Justin.
xxxvi. 1.; Diod. Exc. Hoesch. xxxiv. 1.; Plut. Apophth. p. 184. f.; Euseb. Arm.)
Four years afterwards Hyrcanus accompanied Antiochus in his expedition against
Parthia, and bore an important part in his first successes, but returned with
his auxiliaries to Jerusalem, at the approach of winter, by which means he fortunately
escaped the final disaster that overwhelmed the Syrian king and his army. But
as soon as he heard of the death of Antiochus, he took advantage of the unsettled
state of the Syrian monarchy to prosecute his own schemes, reduced several cities
on the confines of Judaea; among others, Sichem, in Samaria, and destroyed the
temple on Mount Gerizim: after which he completely subdued the Idumaeans, whom
he compelled to adopt the laws and customs of the Jews. (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 9.1.)
At the same time he took a still more important measure in order to secure his
independence, by sending an embassy to Rome, which was favourably received by
the senate, who confirmed the alliance already concluded by them with Simon. (Id.
ibid § 2.)
Demetrius II., who had returned from his captivity in Parthia, and
re-established himself on the throne of Syria, after the death of his brother,
Antiochus, was preparing to direct his arms against Jndaea, when he was prevented
by the breaking out of the civil war, which ended in his own defeat and death,
B. C. 125. Hyrcanus afterwards concluded an alliance with the pretender, Alexander
Zebina, but does not appear to have afforded him any active assistance: his object
was not to take part in the civil wars that distracted the Syrian monarchy, but
to take advantage of these to strengthen and extend his own power, for which the
ceaseless contests of the Seleucidae among themselves left him free scope. A long
interval elapsed, during which he appears to have been content to govern Judaea
in peace, and the country is said to have enjoyed the utmost prosperity under
his mild and equitable rule, while he himself amassed vast treasures. At length,
he felt sufficient confidence in his own strength to invade Samaria, and lay siege
to the city of that name, which had been for ages the rival and enemy of Jorusalem.
The Samarians invoked the assistance of Antiochus Cyzicenus, who advanced with
an army to their support, but was defeated by Antigonus and Aristonus, the two
sons of Hyrcanus; his generals, Epicrates and Callimander, were equally unsuccessful:
and Samaria, at length, fell into the hands of Ilyrcanus, who razed to the ground
the hated city, B. C. 109. (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 9.3. 10.1-3. B. J. i. 2.7.) The
tranquillity of the latter years of his reign appears to have been in some measure
disturbed by the dissensions between the two powerful sects of the Pharisees and
Sadducees; Hyrcanus, who had been at first attached to the former party, quitted
them on some disgust, and threw himself into the arms of their rivals. But these
disputes did not break out into open insurrection, and Hyrcanus closed his long
reign in peace and prosperity. There is much confusion in the chronology of Josephus,
who in one place assigns to Hyrcanus a reign of thirty-one years, in another one
of thirty-three: Eusebius, on the contrary, allows him only twenty-six: it appears
probable that he reigned in fact between twenty-nine and thirty years, and died
in B. C. 106, or the beginning of 105. He left five sons, of whom the eldest,
Aristobulus, succeeded him. (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 10.5-7, B. J. i. 2.8; Euseb. Arm.)
Although Joannes Hyrcanus did not himself assume the title of king,
lie may be justly regarded as the founder of the monarchy of Judaea, which continued
in his family till the accession of Herod. The foregoing genealogical table exhibits
the line of the kings and princes of the Asamonean race, as well as their descent
from the Maccabees.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Flavius Josephus: The Catholic Encyclopedia
Josephus: Perseus Project index
Editor's Information
The e-texts of the works by Josephus are found in Greece (ancient country) under the category Ancient Greek Writings.
JUDAEA (Ancient country) ISRAEL
Eupolemus, a Greek historian who lived previous to the Christian era and wrote several works on the history of the Jews, of which the following are known by their titles : 1. Peri ton en tei Ioudaiai Basileon (Clem. Alex. Strom. i. pp. 146, 148.) 2. Peri tes Eliou propheteias (Joseph. c. Apion. i. 23), and Peri ton tes Assurias Ioudaion. It has been supposed that Eupolemus was a Jew, but from the manner in which Josephus (l. c.) speaks of him, we must infer that he was not a Jew.
TIBERIAS (Ancient city) ISRAEL
Justus (Ioustos) a Jewish historian of Tiberias in Galilaea, was a contemporary of the Jewish historian Josephus, who was very hostile to him. Justus wrote, according to Photius (Bibl. cod. 33), a chronicle of the Jewish kings, from the time of Moses down to the death of Herod, in the third year of the reign of Trajan. The style of the work, which is lost, is said by Photius to have been concise, and the author omitted many of the most important events, such as the history of Christ, which it was a common practice with Jewish writers to pass over unnoticed. Justus is further charged with having falsified the history of the wars with Rome, which led to the destruction of Jerusalem. (Comp. Joseph. Vit. B 37, 65, 74, who gives a long account of him, and censures him very severely.) He edited his work after the death of Agrippa and the other great men of the time, because, as Josephus says, he knew that his accounts were false, and had reason to fear the consequences. Some writers (Euseb. H. E. iii. 9; Steph. Byz. s. v. Tiberias) speak of a work of his on the Jewish war, but this may refer only to the last portion of his chronicle, which Diogenes Laertius (ii. 41) calls a Ztimma Suidas (s. v. Ioustos) mentions some other works of Justus, of which however not a trace has come down to us.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
JUDAEA (Ancient country) ISRAEL
Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judaea from 26 CE to 36 CE; in this
capacity, he was responsible for the execution of Jesus of Nazareth. This was
not the only incident during his tenure of office, however. In this article, all
these incidents are discussed. An attempt is made to show that Pilate was sincerely
interested in Jewish culture and did his best to prevent unnecessary violence.
Sources
The forty something provinces of the Roman Empire were ruled by a
governor whose term lasted twelve or thirty-six months. These powerful men are
virtually unknown to modern historians, who consider themselves lucky when they
happen to know who was responsible for a province at a certain moment. There are,
however, some exceptions. One governor, Pliny the Younger, left a collection of
letters showing us something of the provincial administration. The other exception
is Pontius Pilate, who is mentioned in the gospels and in several almost contemporary
Jewish sources.
If we are to believe the gospels, Pilate refused to condemn Jesus
of Nazareth, but was forced to execute him by a hysterical Jewish crowd. Unfortunately,
it is difficult to infer the historical truth from the gospels, which are theological
treatises. Written in the last decades of the first century, when some Christians
had been martyred by the Roman authorities, the authors wanted to show that Christianity
was not a subversive organization. Stories about Pilate's doubts and Jewish agitation
may have been exaggerated if not invented.
If we turn to the Jewish sources, we encounter the opposite problem.
Writing after the war between the Jews and the Romans of 66-70, the Jewish historian
Flavius Josephus tries to explain to the non-Jewish public that misgovernment
by certain governors added fuel to a smoldering fire. Although his main scapegoat
is one Gessius Florus, his portrait of Pilate is little short of a murder of character.
In the text known as the Embassy to Caligula, Philo of Alexandria
includes a letter by the Jewish prince Herod Agrippa to the emperor Caligula,
in which the latter's attempt to have his statue erected in the Temple at Jerusalem
is compared to Pilate's attempt to have shields with pagan inscriptions placed
in his Jerusalem palace. According to the author of this letter, Pilate was corrected
by the emperor Tiberius, whose behavior is presented as exemplary. To present
Tiberius as a virtuous ruler, Pilate had to be presented as a despot. Besides,
it should be noted that Agrippa wanted to become king of Judaea; a negative portrait
of Roman government could convince the emperor that there was a real need for
his accession. (The letter served both purposes; Caligula backed down and Herod
Agrippa was made king of Judaea.) Summing up, we may conclude that
the gospels do not represent the historical truth when they show us a well meaning
but weak Pilate. On the other hand, the two Jewish sources have their own agendas.
If we want to reconstruct the historical truth, we will have to be extremely careful.
Jona Lendering, ed.
This text is cited July 2003 from the Livius Ancient History Website URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks.
Speculations about Pilate's early years
Judaea was so unimportant a province, that no senator would have deigned
to become its governor. Consequently, its governors belonged to the second class
of the Roman elite, the order of the knights. These men were not entitled to the
position of 'legate' or 'proconsul', but had to content themselves with the military
title 'prefect'.
Like all members of the Pontius family, Pilate belonged to this equestrian
order. We know that the Pontii originated from a region called Samnium in central
Italy, which had a reputation
for its stubborn resistance to Roman expansionism. The Pontii could boast of a
brilliant victory over the Romans (at the Caudine Forks in 321 BCE), had lead
several armies against Rome
in the first quarter of the first century BCE, and prided itself on its resistance
to the coup d' etat of Julius Caesar. But in the days of Pontius Pilate, this
was just the folklore of a family that was now thoroughly Roman. The family may
have upheld its military traditions, especially since the emperor Augustus had
done his best to stress the military character of the order of the knights. We
may accept as a fact that Pontius Pilate had started his career as a soldier;
after all, 'prefect' was a military title, and the Romans were right to demand
at least some military experience before one could become governor of a province.
In the Roman Empire, advancement depended on patronage. There has
been some scholarly speculation that Pilate was promoted by the powerful commander
of the guard of the emperor Tiberius, a man named Seianus. It may be true and
is perhaps even plausible, but we simply cannot know.
Before Pilate assumed the governorship of his province in 26 CE, he
must have sought advice. We know one of his advisors: the high priest Joseph Caiaphas.
Pilate's predecessor Valerius Gratus (tenure of office: 15-26 CE) had been looking
for a high priest he could rely on, and had dismissed three high priests before
appointing Caiaphas in 18. (It is tempting to link this appointment to the Jewish
embassy that in 17 had appealed to the emperor Tiberius for a reduction in the
tribute of Judaea. Was Caiaphas rewarded for his tactful behavior in Rome?) Pilate
never changed the high priest, which can only mean that he had found in Caiaphas
a man who could be trusted.
Pilate must have studied the Jewish religion before he went to Judaea.
Like all Romans, he must have been intrigued by its old age, its philosophical
depth, its resistance to the Greco-Roman culture, and its barbarian custom of
circumcision. He must have read about the policy of the Syrian king Antiochus
IV Epiphanes, who had tried to civilize the Jews and had persecuted those who
had continued their atrocious practice of mutilating the genitals of boys before
they had reached the age of consent. It has been argued that Pilate tried to follow
in Antiochus' footsteps, and that the incidents we will discuss below were deliberate
provocations. This point of view is untenable, since it ignores the negative bias
of the Jewish sources.
Besides, there is positive proof that Pilate embarked upon a policy
of cooperation. Since there was no Syrian governor to mint coins, Pilate had to
do it himself. These coins show the staff of an Italian seer; on the reverse,
one could have seen a bunch of grapes, which is the usually picture on any Jewish
coin. Pilate thus combined an inoffensive pagan and an inoffensive Jewish symbol,
which probably reflects a policy of equal rights to Jews and pagans. He would
not force the Jews to lay down their ancestral ways; he invited them to be Rome's
equals.
Jona Lendering, ed.
This text is cited July 2003 from the Livius Ancient History Website URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks.
Jesus
The trial against Jesus is the best attested incident from Pilate's
career. We have four independent reports: the Jewish Antiquities by Flavius
Josephus (below), Mark's gospel, John's gospel and the Annals of the Roman historian
Tacitus. The passion narratives of Matthew and Luke are derived from Mark's,
but contain extra information which may be authentic.
At first sight, is is strange that the Jewish leaders handed Jesus
over to Pilate to have him executed. Of course, the carpenter from Galilee had
predicted the destruction of the Temple, and he had -in a fit of temper- overturned
the banks of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, calling
the sanctuary 'a den of robbers'. But this was just a serious misdemeanor, not
sufficient to have a man executed. The real reason why Caiaphas
wanted to get rid of the man from Nazareth was -probably- that he had claimed
to be 'the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming
on the clouds of Heaven,' which meant that Jesus was to share God's throne and
to judge the Temple authorities. The high priest considered this blasphemy.
Of course, Pilate was not interested in a blasphemer, and therefore
Caiaphas presented him a different case: Jesus had claimed to be the 'King of
the Jews'. In other words, he was charged with high treason. Although we learn
about this from the sometimes biased gospels, we must consider this a historical
fact, because it is too embarrassing to be invented.
Caiaphas could charge Jesus with high treason because some of his
disciples considered him the Messiah, an identification to which Jesus seems
to have responded ambiguously because there were connotations to the concept
he did not like.
Unfortunately, there were many messianologies. Some thought that
the Messiah was a military leader who was to defeat the Romans; others agreed
that the Messiah was to restore Israel, but preferred a moral revival inaugurated
by a sage explaining Moses' law. All these messianologies used titles like 'king'
and 'son of David'; most of them predicted that the twelve tribes would be re-established;
many assumed that the Messiah's ministry would bring about God's personal rule
of this world (known in the gospels as the 'kingdom of God'). The many similarities
made it easy to confuse these messianologies.
It is probable that Jesus considered himself a teacher, but it must
have been easy for Caiaphas to interpret Jesus' action against the Temple in
a military way. He had been arrested after a riot, was called 'king Messiah',
claimed to be a descendant of David, had twelve disciples, had announced the
destruction of the Temple, and had threatened to judge the high priest, stating
that he was God's personal representative. Pilate had to crucify this would-be
king. If he did not execute the pretender, he had failed as a governor.
According to the gospels, the governor sensed that Caiaphas' interpretation
of the claim that Jesus was the Messiah was biased ('for he knew that the chief
priests had handed him over because of envy': Mark 15.10). There is a possibility
that this is confirmed by Flavius Josephus, who writes in his Jewish Antiquities
18.63-64:
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling
deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained
a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate,
because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to
the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up
until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.
This is a strange description of the case. Any straightforward report
would have told that Pilate had ordered the man from Nazareth to be executed
because he had committed this or that crime. But instead of naming the accusation,
Flavius Josephus mentions the accusers. This is all the more remarkable because
the Jewish historian detested the would-be kings and protesters he held responsible
for the great war between the Jews and Romans of 66-70, and usually delights
in writing about their deserved punishment. The fact that he now refrains from
telling about the charge of high treason strongly suggests that he considered
it to be a false accusation; and the fact that Flavius Josephus explicitly mentions
the Jewish leaders may suggest that his source told him that Pilate had refused
to accept the sole responsibility.
However we may read the testimony of Flavius Josephus, at least
the gospels assume that Pilate was not convinced that the carpenter from Nazareth
was guilty. Both Mark and John -independent sources- show us how the governor
forced the Jews to take a part of the responsibility: Pilate declares that he
can not find fault in Jesus and repeatedly refers to Jesus as 'your king' -
thereby pushing the Jerusalem populace into declaring that they want the man
from Galilee crucified. According to Matthew -whose report cannot be corroborated-
Pilate even washed his hands: a Pharisean custom to wash away impurity, such
as the impurity caused by convicting an innocent man.
Of course, this was nonsense. As the supreme magistrate of Judaea,
Pilate carried the full responsibility. But it is not implausible that the governor
used the occasion to obtain pledges of loyalty from his subjects. John's statement
that the Jews even declared to have 'no king but Caesar' may indeed be a historical
fact. Pilate may have regretted that he had to crucify a man who was fairly
innocent, but he may have considered this human sacrifice an acceptable prize
to be paid for the smooth cooperation with the Temple authorities.
Although it is possible that the governor wanted to lay the responsibility
with the Jews, he was not looking for a conflict with his subjects. The gospels
mention several instances where Pilate shows respect for their customs. According
to Matthew 27.24, he washed his hands; according to John 18.29 he allowed Jesus'
opponents to speak from without his headquarters, the Praetorium (entering a
pagan building would defile the Jewish priests); and Mark 15.43 and John 19.38
state that he allowed Joseph of Arimathea to bury the dead man before the beginning
of the sabbath. (Since they state this independently, this has to be authentic.)
The latter story is very remarkable: the emperor Augustus' directive
that those who had suffered the death penalty were allowed a decent burial,
did not pertain to those executed on a charge of high treason. As a matter of
fact, it was almost proverbial that the crucified were the prey of dogs and
a feast for birds. Pilate's permission to have Jesus buried and -according to
John 19.39- regally embalmed, is the act of a governor anxious to respect the
religious feelings of the Jews.
It should also be noted that Pilate did not round up the other suspects,
although it must have been possible to demand the angry Jerusalem populace to
help searching for people speaking with a Galilean tongue. If Pilate really
believed that the Galileans had stormed the Temple and wanted to establish the
kingdom of God by violent means, this was almost irresponsible. This fact -Mark,
John and Flavius Josephus confirm that Jesus was the only Galilean executed-
almost proves that Pilate did not believe that Jesus was a political Messiah.
In an age when executions were used as deterrents, his behavior suggests dislike
for excessive violence.
On the other hand, he had condemned an almost innocent man to a
brutal, slow, and extremely painful death. On the same day, Pilate released
a man named Barabbas who had been arrested after a riot which had cost some
deaths. The narratives of Mark and John, which state that it was Pilate's custom
to free a prisoner at Passover, cannot be taken at face value: the idea of a
yearly release of murderers is ridiculous. Besides, their stories are colored
by Christian theology and apology: Barabbas is presented as the first to be
saved by Jesus' passion, and the Jews rather than Pilate demand Jesus' death.
However, the release of this man is twice attested, and it must be a historical
fact.
The irony of the situation was not lost to the first Christians:
a guilty man was released, an innocent man was killed. Although Pilate had ensured
the future cooperation with Caiaphas and had obtained pledges of loyalty from
the crowd, he had not set an example of Roman justice.
Jona Lendering, ed.
This text is cited July 2003 from the Livius Ancient History Website URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks.
Alexander, Jannaeus (Alexandros Iannaios), was the son of Johannes Hyrcanus, and brother of Aristobulus I., whom he succeeded, as King of the Jews, in B. C. 104, after putting to death one of his brothers, who laid claim to the crown. He took advantage of the unquiet state of Syria to attack the cities of Ptolemais (Acre), Dora, and Gaza, which, with several others, had made themselves independent. The people of Ptolemais applied for aid to Ptolemy Lathyrus, then king of Cyprus, who came with an army of thirty thousand men. Alexander was defeated on the banks of the Jordan, and Ptolemy ravaged the country in the most barbarous manner. In B. C. 102, Cleopatra came to the assistance of Alexander with a fleet and army, and Ptolemy was compelled to return to Cyprus (B. C. 101). Soon afterwards Alexander invaded Coele Syria, and renewed his attacks upon the independent cities. In B. C. 96 he took Gaza, destroyed the city, and massacred all the inhabitants. The result of these undertakings, and his having attached himself to the party of the Sadducees, drew upon him the hatred of the Pharisees, who were by far the more numerous party. He was attacked by the people in B. C. 94, while officiating as high-priest at the feast of Tabernacles; but the insurrection was put down, and six thousand of the insurgents slain. In the next year (B. C. 93) he made an expedition against Arabia, and made the Arabs of Gilead and the Moabites tributary. But in B. C. 92, in a campaign against Obedas, the emir of the Arabs of Gaulonitis, he fell into an ambush in the mountains of Gadara; his army was entirely destroyed, and he himself escaped with difficulty. The Pharisees seized the opportunity thus afforded, and broke out into open revolt. At first they were successful, and Alexander was compelled to fly to the mountains (B. C. 88); but two years afterwards he gained two decisive victories. After the second of these, he caused eight hundred of the chief men amongst the rebels to be crucified, and their wives and-children to be butchered before their eyes, while he and his concubines banqueted in sight of the victims. This act of atrocity procured for him the name of " the Thracian." It produced its effect, however, and the rebellion was shortly afterwards suppressed, after the war had lasted six years. During the next three years Alexander made some successful campaigns, recovered several cities and fortresses, and pushed his conquests beyond the Jordan. On his return to Jerusalem, in B. C. 81, his excessive drinking brought on a quartan ague, of which he died three years afterwards, while engaged in the siege of Ragaba in Gerasena, after a reign of twenty-seven years. He left his kingdom to his wife Alexandra. Coins of this king are extant, from which it appears that his proper name was Jonathan, and that Alexander was a name which he assumed according to the prevalent custom. (Josephus, Ant. Jud. xiii. 12-15.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Antigonus (Antigonos), king of Judaea, the son of Aristobulus II. and the last of the Maccabees who sat on the royal throne. After his father had been put to death by Pompey's party, Antigonus was driven out of Judaea by Antipater and his sons, but was not able to obtain any assistance from Caesar's party. He was at length restored to the throne by the Parthians in B. C. 40. Herod, the son of Antipater, fled to Rome, and obtained from the Romans the title of king of Judaea, through the influence of Antony. Herod now marched against Antigonus, whom he defeated, and took Jerusalem, with the assistance of the Roman general Sosius, after a long and obstinate siege. Antigonus surrendered himself to Sosius,who handed him over to Antony. Antony had him executed at Antioch as a common malefactor in B. C. 37 (Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 13-16; Dion Cass. xlix. 22)
This text is from: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890) (eds. William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Herodes, surnamed the Great, of the Jews. He was the second son of Antipater,
and consequently of Idumaean origin. When, in B. C. 47, his father was appointed
by Julius Caesar procurator of Judaea, the young Herod, though only fifteen years
of age, obtained the important post of governor of Galilee. In this situation
he quickly gave proof of his energetic and vigorous character, by repressing the
bands of robbers which at that time infested the province, the leaders of whom
he put to death. But the distinction he thus obtained excited the envy of the
opposite party, and he was brought to trial before the sanhedrim, for having put
to death Jewish citizens without trial. He presented himself before his judges
in the most arrogant manner, clad in a purple robe, and attended by a guard of
armed men; but becoming apprehensive of an unfavourable decision, he departed
secretly from Jerusalem, and took refuge with Sex. Caesar, the Roman governor
of Syria, by whom he was received with the utmost favour, and shortly after appointed
to the government of Coele-Syria. Of this he immediately availed himself to levy
an army and march against Jerusalem, with the view of expelling Hyrcanus and the
party opposed to him, but the entreaties of his father Antipater and his brother
Phasael induced him to withdraw without effecting his purpose.
These events took place in B. C. 46. Not long after, Sex. Caesar being
put to death by Caecilius Bassus, Antistius, the Roman general in command in Cilicia,
collected a large force, with which he marched against Bassus, and blockaded him
in Apameia. Herod and his brother united their forces with those of Antistius,
but notwithstanding the subsequent arrival and co-operation of Statius Murcus,
the war was protracted until after the death of Caesar, when Cassius Longinus
arrived in Syria (B. C. 43), and terminated the war by conciliation. Herod quickly
rose to a high place in the favour of Cassius, which he gained particularly by
the readiness with which he raised the heavy tribute imposed on his province:
he was confirmed in the government of Coele-Syria, and placed at the head of a
large force both by sea and land. Meanwhile, his father Antipater was poisoned
by Malichus, whose life he had twice saved. Herod at first pretended to believe
the exeuses of Malichus, and to be reconciled to him, but soon took an opportunity
to cause him to be assassinated near Tyre. As soon as Cassius had quitted Syria,
the friends and partisans of Malichus sought to avenge his death by the expulsion
of Herod and Phasael from Jerusalem, but the latter were triumphant; they succeeded
in expelling the insurgents, with their leader, Felix, and even in defeating Antigonus,
the son of Aristobulus, who had invaded Judaea with a large army. The pretensions
of Antigonus to the throne of Judaea were supported by Marion, king of Tyre, and
by Ptolemy Menneus, prince of Chalcis; but Herod soon obtained a far more powerful
auxiliary in the person of Antony, who arrived in Syria in B. C. 4 1, and whose
favour he hastened to secure, by the most valuable presents. The aged Hyrcanus
also, who had betrothed his grand-daughter Mariamne to the young Herod, threw
all his influence into the scale in favour of him and his brother Phasael; and
it was at his request that Antony appointed the two brothers tetrarchs of Judaea.
Their power now seemed established, but the next year (B. C. 40) brought with
it a complete revolution in the state of affairs. The exactions of the Roman governors
in Syria had excited general discontent, of which the Parthians took advantage,
to invade the country with a large army under Pacorus, the king's son, and the
Roman general, Labienus. They quickly made themselves masters not only of all
Syria, but great part of Asia Minor, when Antigonus invoked their assistance to
establish him on the throne of Judaea. Pacorus sent a powerful army, under Barzapharnes,
against Jerusalem, and Herod and Phasael, unable to meet the enemy in the field,
or even to prevent their entrance into Jerusalem, took refuge in the strong fortress
of Baris. Phasael soon after suffered himself to be deluded by a pretended negotiation,
and was made prisoner by the Parthians, but Herod effected his escape in safety,
with his family and treasures, to the strong fortress of Masada, on the shores
of the Dead Sea. Here he left a strong garrison, while he himself hastened to
Petra to obtain the assistance of the Arabian king Malchus, on whose support he
reckoned with confidence. But Malchus proved false in the hour of need, and refused
to receive him; on which Herod, dismissing the greater part of his followers,
hastened with a small band to Pelusium, and from thence to Alexandria, where he
embarked at once for Rome. On his arrival in that capital, he was received with
the utmost distinction both by Antony and Octavian, between whom a reconciliation
had just been effected. Antony was at the time preparing to take the field against
the Parthians, and foresaw in Herod an useful ally; hence he obtained a decree
of the senate in his favour, which went beyond his own most sanguine hopes, as
it constituted him at once king of Judaea, passing over the remaining heirs of
the Asmonean line. (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 9, 11-14, B. Jud. i. 10-14; Dion Cass. xlviii.
26; Appian, B. C. v. 75.)
It was before the close of the year 40 that Herod obtained this unexpected
elevation. So quickly had the whole matter been transacted, that he was able to
leave Rome again only seven days after he arrived there, and sailing directly
to Syria, landed at Ptolemais within three months from the time he had first fled
from Jerusalem. He quickly assembled an army, with which he conquered the greater
part of Galilee, raised the siege of Masada, took the strong fortress of Ressa,
and then, in conjunction with the Roman general Silo, laid siege to Jerusalem.
But, rapid as his progress was at first, it was long before he could complete
the establishment of his power; and the war was protracted for several years,
a circumstance owing in part to the jealousy or corruption of the Roman generals
appointed to co-operate with him. The Jews within the city appear to have been
strongly attached to Antigonus, as the representative of the popular line of the
Asmonean princes, and they held out firmly. Even when, in B. C. 37, Herod at length
obtained vigorous assistance from Antony's lieutenant, Sosius, at the head of
a regular army of Roman troops, it was only by hard fighting and with heavy loss
that they were able to carry in succession the several lines of wall that surrounded
the city, and it was with still more difficulty that Herod was able to purchase
from the Roman soldiery the freedom from pillage of a part at least of his capital.
(Joseph. Ant. xiv. 15, 16, B. J. i. 15-18; Dion Cass. xlix. 22.) This long and
sanguinary struggle had naturally irritated the minds of the people against him;
and his first measures, when he found himself in secure possession of the sovereignty,
were certainly not well calculated to conciliate them. All the members of the
sanhedrim, except two, were put to death, and executions were continually taking
place of all those persons who had taken an active part against him. These severities
were prompted not only by vengeance but cupidity, for the purpose of confiscating
their wealth, as Herod sought to amass treasures by every means in his power,
for the purpose of securing the favour of Antony by the most lavish presents.
He was indeed not without cause for apprehension. Immediately on his becoming
master of Jerusalem, he had bestowed the high-priesthood (vacant by the death
of Antigonus, whom Antony, at the instigation of Herod, had executed like a common
malefactor) upon an obscure priest from Babylon, named Ananel, and by this measure
had given bitter offence to Alexandra, the mother of his wife Mariamne, who regarded
that dignity as belonging of right to her son Aristobulus, a youth of sixteen,
and the last male descendant of the Asmonean race. Alexandra sought support for
her cause by entering into secret correspondence with Cleopatra, whose influence
with Antony rendered her at this time all-powerful in the East; and this potent
influence, united with the constant entreaties of his beloved wife Mariamne, compelled
Herod to depose Ananel, and bestow the highpriesthood upon Aristobulus. But the
continued intrigues of Alexandra, and the growing popularity of the young man
himself, so alarmed the jealousy of Herod, that he contrived to effect his secret
assassination, in a manner that enabled him to disclaim all participation in the
scheme. (Joseph. Ant. xv. 1-3.) But the mind of Cleopatra was alienated from him,
not only by the representations of Alexandra, but by her own desire to annex the
dominions of Herod to her own, and it was with difficulty that the king could
make head against her influence. Antony, however, resisted all her entreaties;
and though he summoned Herod to meet him at Laodiceia, and give an account of
his conduct towards Aristobulus, he dismissed him with the highest honours. Cleopatra
herself, on her return from the Euphrates, whither she had attended Antony, passed
through Judaea, and visited Herod, who received her with the utmost distinction,
and even accompanied her as far as the confines of Egypt, but successfully avoided
all her snares. (Id. xv. 4.)
Hostilities soon after broke out between Antony and Octavian. Herod
had assembled a large force, with which he was preparing to join Antony, when
he received orders from that general to turn his arms against Malchus, king of
Arabia, who had refused payment of the appointed tribute to Cleopatra: and these
hostilities (which appear to have occupied the greater part of two years) fortunately
prevented him from taking any personal part in the civil war. Still, when the
battle of Actium had decided the fortunes of the Eastern world, Herod could not
but feel his position to be one of much danger, from his well-known attachment
to the cause of Antony. Under these circumstances, he adopted the daring resolution
of proceeding at once in person to meet Caesar at Rhodes, and not only avowing,
but dwelling upon, the warmth of his attachment to Antony, and the great services
he had rendered him, so long as it was possible to do so: concluding that Caesar
might thence learn the value and steadiness of the friendship which he now offered
him. By this magnanimous conduct, he completely secured the favour of Octavian,
who not only confirmed him in the possession of Judaea, but on his return from
Egypt in the following year (B. C. 30), extended his dominions by the restitution
of some districts which had been assigned by Antony to Cleopatra, and by the addition
of Gadara and Samaria, as well as Gaza, Joppa, and other cities on the sea-coast.
(Joseph. Ant. xv. 5. 6, 7.3, B. J. i. 19, 20; comp. Plut. Ant. 72; Tac. Hist.
v. 9; Strab. xvi.) Just before he had proceeded to Rhodes, Herod had thought fit
to remove the only person whom he could any longer regard as in any degree a competitor
for his throne, by putting to death the aged and feeble Hyrcanus, on a charge,
real or pretended, of treasonable correspondence with Malchus, king of Arabia.
Thus secured in the possession of an ample sovereignty, and supported by the favour
of one who was now undisputed master of the world, Herod was apparently at the
highest summit of prosperity. But his happiness was now clouded by a dark domestic
calamity, which threw a shade over the whole of his remaining life. He was passionately
attached to his beautiful wife, Mariamne; but with a strange and barbarous jealousy,
he had left orders, when he repaired to meet Antony at Laodiceia, in B. C. 34,
that in case of his falling a victim to the machinations of his enemies, Mariamne
should be immediately put to death, to prevent her falling into the hands of Antony.
The same savage command was repeated when he went to Rhodes to meet Octavian:
on both occasions the fact became known to Mariamne, and naturally alienated her
mind from her cruel husband. Her resentment was inflamed by her mother, Alexandra,
while Cypros and Salome, the mother and sister of Herod, did their utmost to excite
his suspicions against Mariamne. The king was at length induced to bring her to
trial on a charge of adultery; and the judges having condemned her, he reluctantly
consented to her execution. But his passion appears to have been unabated; and
so violent were his grief and remorse, that he was for a long time on the verge
of insanity, and was attacked by so violent a fever, that his life was despaired
of. He recovered at length, but his temper was henceforth so gloomy and ferocious,
that the slightest suspicion would lead him to order the execution even of his
best friends. Immediately after his recovery he put to death Alexandra, whose
restless ambition had been intriguing to obtain possession of Jerusalem, in case
of his death: and not long afterwards, at the instigation of his sister, Salome,
he ordered the execution of her husband, Costobarus, together with several of
his own most intimate friends and counsellors. (Joseph. Ant. xv. 3.5-9, 7, B.
J. i. 22.)
But Herod's domestic calamities did not in any degree affect the splendour
either external or internal of his administration. He continued to cultivate with
assiduity the all-important friendship of Augustus, as well as that of his prime
minister and counsellor Agrippa, and enjoyed throughout the remainder of his life
the highest favour both of the one and the other. Nor were his services ever wanting
when called for. In B. C. 25 he sent a chosen force to the assistance of Aelius
Gallus, in his expedition into Arabia; and in B. C. 17, after having received
Agrippa with the utmost honour at Jerusalem, he set out himself early in the following
spring with a powerful fleet to join him in his expedition to the Bosporus and
the interior of the Euxine Sea. For this ready zeal, he was rewarded by obtaining,
without difficulty, almost all that he could ask at the hands of Augustus; and
when the latter, in B. C. 20, visited Judaea in person, he not only refused to
listen to the complaints of his subjects and neighbours against Herod, but increased
his dominions by the addition of the district of Paneas, as he previously had
by those of Ituraea ard Trachonitis. (Joseph. Ant. xv. 10.1-3, B. J. i. 21.4;
Dion Cass. liv. 9.) Herod displayed his gratitude for this new favour by erecting
at Paneas itself a magnificent temple of white marble, which he dedicated to Augustus.
It was indeed by costly and splendid public works that he loved above all to display
his power and magnificence: nor did he fail to avail himself of these opportunities
of flattering the pride of the Roman emperor by the most lasting as well as conspicuous
compliments. Thus he rebuilt the city of Samaria, which had been destroyed by
Joannes Hyrcanus, and bestowed on it the name of Sebaste; while he converted a
small town on the sea-coast, called the Tower of Straton, into a magnificent city,
with an artificial port, on a scale of the utmost grandeur, to which he gave the
name of Caesareia. And not only did he adorn these new cities with temples, theatres,
gymnasia, and other buildings in the Greek style, but he even ventured to erect
a theatre at Jerusalem itself, and an amphitheatre without the walls, in which
he exhibited combats of wild beasts and gladiators, according to the Roman fashion.
But these innovations naturally gave the deepest offence to the Jewish people:
a conspiracy was formed against the king by ten persons, who attempted to assassinate
him in the theatre: and though, after the discovery of this plot, we hear no more
of any distinct attempts upon the life of Herod, he was obliged to guard himself
against the increasing spirit of disaffection, not only by the employment of numerous
spies and secret agents, and by prohibiting all unusual assemblages, but by the
construction of several fortresses or citadels around the city of Jerusalem itself,
by which means he sought to hem in the populace on all sides, and prevent any
possibility of an outbreak. The most remarkable of these forts was that called
Antonia, in the immediate neighbourhood of the temple: another of them, called
the Hyrcania, was converted into a prison, into which all persons who incurred
his suspicions were hurried at once, without form of trial, and from whence they
never again appeared. At the same time we find him repeatedly endeavouring to
conciliate his subjects by acts of munificence and liberality, in all of which
we discern the same spirit of ostentatious grandeur which appears to have been
so deeply implanted in his character. Thus, on occasion of a great famine, which
afflicted Judaea, as well as all the neighbouring countries, he at once opened
the hoards of his treasury, brought up vast quantities of corn from Egypt, and
not only fed the whole mass of the population at his own cost, but supplied many
of the neighbouring provinces with seed corn for the next harvest. (Joseph. Ant.
xv. 9.) More than once also we find him remitting a great part of the heavy taxation,
which was usually paid by his subjects. Yet these occasional acts of indulgence
could but imperfectly compensate for the general arbitrary and oppressive character
of his government: and the magnificence displayed in his public works, far from
conciliating the minds of his subjects, served only to increase their mistrust
and disaffection, as a proof of his leaning towards an idolatrous religion. In
order, if possible, to dispel this feeling, he at length determined on the great
work of rebuilding the temple of Jerusalem itself, which, on account of its being
frequently used as a fortress. had suffered much during the late wars. The porticoes
and the inner temple itself were completed in nine years and a half; but it appears
that the whole structure was not finished until long after the death of Herod.
(Joseph. Ant. xv. 11, xx. 9.7, B. J. i. 21.1.) Nor was it only in his own dominions
that Herod loved to give proofs of his wealth and munificence: he also adorned
the cities of Tripolis, Damascus, Berytus, and many others not subject to his
rule, with theatres, porticoes, and other splendid edifices. On his voyage to
join Agrippa in Greece, he gave large sums of money to the cities of Mytilene
and Chios for the repair of their public buildings; and in B. C. 18, having touched
in Greece, on his way to Rome, he not only presided in person at the Olympic games,
but gave such large sums towards the revival of that solemnity, that he was honoured
with the title of its perpetual president. (Joseph. Ant. xvi. 2.2, B. J. i. 21.11,
12.)
Herod had the singular good fortune to rule over his dominions during
a period of near thirty years, from his confirmation on the throne by Augustus
till his death, undisturbed by a single war, foreign or domestic; for the occasional
hostilities with the robbers of Trachonitis, or the Arab chiefs that supported
them, scarcely deserve the name. Once only, during his temporary absence from
Syria, did these plundering tribes ravage Judaea to a considerable extent, but
they were repressed immediately on his return. But the more prosperous appears
the condition of Herod as a sovereign, whether we regard his internal policy or
his external relations, the darker shows the reverse of the picture when we look
to the long series of domestic tragedies that mark the latter years of his reign.
Into the details of this complicated tissue of crimes and intrigues it is impossible
for us here to enter: they are given by Josephus (our sole authority) with a circumstantial
minuteness, that naturally leads us to inquire whence his knowledge was derived,--a
question which we have unfortunately no means of answering. A lively abridgment
of his picturesque narrative will be found in Milman's History of the Jews, vol.
ii. book xi. A very brief outline is all that can be here given.
In B. C. 18, Herod paid a visit to Rome in person, where he was received
with the utmost distinction by Augustus. When he returned to Judaea, he took with
him Alexander and Aristobulus, his two sons by the unfortunate Mariamne, whom
he had previously sent to Rome to be brought up at the court of Augustus. Having
thus reccived an excellent education, and being just in the prime of their youth,
the two young men quickly attained the greatest popularity, and enjoyed especial
favour of Herod himself. Among other marks of this, he married Alexander to the
daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and Aristobulus to Berenice, the daughter
of his sister Salome. But the favour of the young princes excited the envy of
Pheroras and Salome, the brother and sister of Herod, who contrived to poison
the mind of the king against his two sons. In an evil hour Herod was induced to
recal to his court Antipater, his son by a former wife, Doris; and this envious
and designing man immediately set to work, not only to supplant, but destroy,
his two brothers. So far did the combined artifices of Antipater, Salome, and
Pheroras succeed in working upon the mind of Herod, that in B. C. 11, he took
the two princes with him to Aquileia, where Augustus then was, and accused them
before the emperor of designs upon the life of their father. But the charge was
manifestly groundless, and Augustus succeeded in bringing about a reconciliation
for a time. This, however, did not last long: the enemies of the young princes
again obtained the ascendancy, and three years afterwards Herod was led to believe
that Alexander had formed a conspiracy to poison him. On this charge he put to
death and tortured many of the friends and associates of the young prince. Alexander,
in return, accused Pheroras and Salome of designs upon the life of Herod; and
the whole court was in confusion, when the intervention of Archelaus, king of
Cappadocia, once more effected a reconciliation. A third attempt of Antipater
was more successful: by the instrumentality of Eurycles, a Lacedaemonian, at that
time resident at the court of Herod, he brought a fresh accusation against Alexander
and his brother; to which the king lent a willing ear, and having first obtained
the consent of Augustus, Herod brought his two sons to a mock trial at Berytus,
where they were condemned without being even heard in their defence, and soon
after put to death at Sebaste, B. C. 6. But the execution of these unhappy youths
was far from removing all the elements of discord within the house of Herod. Repeated
dissensions had arisen between him and his brother Pheroras, whom he at length
ordered to withdraw into his own tetrarchy of Peraea. Here he soon after died:
his widow was accused of having poisoned him, and the investigations consequent
upon this charge led to the discovery of a more important conspiracy, which had
been formed by Antipater and Pheroras in concert, against the life of Herod himself.
Antipater was at the time absent at Rome: he was allowed to return to Judaea without
suspicion, when he was immediately seized, brought to trial before Quintilius
Varus, the Roman governor of Syria, and condemned to death. His execution was,
however, respited until the consent of Angustus could be obtained. (Joseph. Ant.
xv. 10.1, xvi. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, xvii. 1-5, B. J. i. 23-32; Strab. xvi.)
Meanwhile, it was clear that the days of Herod himself were numbered.
He was attacked by a painful disease, which slowly consumed his stomach and intestines,
and the paroxysms of pain that he suffered from this disorder served to exasperate
the natural ferocity of his temper. During his last illness a sedition broke out
among the Jews, with the view of tearing down the golden eagle which he had set
up over the gate of the temple, and which the bigoted people regarded as an idolatrous
emthe blem; but the tumult was quickly suppressed, and the leaders punished with
unsparing cruelty. On his deathbed, too, he must have ordered that massacre of
the children at Bethlehem which is recorded by the Evangelist. (Matth. ii. 16.)
Such an act of cruelty, confined as it was to the neighbourhood of a single village,
may well have passed unnoticed among the more wholesale atrocities of his reign,
and hence no argument can fairly be drawn from the silence of Josephus against
the credibility of the fact itself. Almost the last act of his life was to order
the execution of his son Antipater, permission having at length arrived from Rome
for him to act in this matter as he thought fit. Five days afterwards he himself
died, in the thirty-seventh year of his reign (dating from his first appointment
to the throne by Antony and Octavian) and the seventieth of his age, B. C. 4.
(1) He was honoured with a splendid funeral by his son Archelaus,
whom he had appointed his successor in the kingdom, and was buried at Herodium,
a fortified palace which he had himself erected, not far from Jericho. (Joseph.
Ant. xvii. 8, B. J. i. 33.8, 9.) Of his character it seems unnecessary to speak,
after the narrative above given. There is abundant proof that he possessed great
talents, and even great qualities, but these were little able to compensate for
the oppression and tyranny which marked his government towards his subjects, not
to speak of his frightful barbarities towards his own family.
Josephus is almost our sole authority for the events of his reign;
though the general outline of the facts which he relates is supported by incidental
notices in the Greek and Roman writers, especially by Strabo (xvi.). Nevertheless,
we cannot but deeply regret the loss of the contemporary history of Nicolas of
Damascus, the friend and apologist of Herod, notwithstanding the partiality with
which he is taxed by the Jewish historian.
Herod was married to not less than ten wives: viz. 1. Doris, the mother
of Antipater, already mentioned; 2. Mariamne, the mother of Aristobulus and Alexander,
as well as of two daughters ; 3, and 4, two of his own nieces, whose names are
not mentioned, and by whom he had no children; 5. another Mariamne, a daughter
of Simon, whom he appointed high-priest; she was the mother of Herod Philip; 6.
a Samaritan, named Malthace, by whom he left three children, viz. Archelaus, Herod
Antipas, and a daughter named Olympias ; 7. Cleopatra of Jerusalem, who was the
mother of a son called Herod, otherwise unknown, and Philip, the tetrarch of Ituraea;
8. Pallas, by whom he had a son named Phasael; 9. Phaedra, mother of Roxana; and,
lastly, Elpis, mother of Salome. In the preceding genealogical table those only
of his wives are inserted whose offspring are of any importance in history.
(1) It must be observed that the death of Herod took place in
the same year with the actual birth of Christ, but it is well known that this
is to be placed four years before the date in general use as the Christian era.
(See Clinton, F. H. vol. iii. p. 254)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Mariamne, daughter of Alexander, the son of Aristobulus II., and Alexandra, the
daughter of Hyrcanus II., was betrothed to Herod the Great, by her grandfather
Hyrcanus, in B. C. 41. Their actual union, however, did not take place till B.
C. 38. At this period Herod was besieging Antigonus, son of Aristobulus II., in
Jerusalem, and, leaving the operations there to be conducted for a time by trust-worthy
officers, he went to Samaria for the purpose of consummating his marriage, --a
step to which he would be urged, not by passion only, but by policy and a sense
of the importance to his cause of connecting his blood with that of the Asmonean
princes. In B. C. 36, Herod, moved partly by the entreaties of Mariamne, deposed
Ananel from the priesthood and conferred it on her brother, the young Aristobulus.
The murder of the latter, however, in B. C. 35, would naturally alienate from
Herod any affection which Mariamne may have felt for him; and this alienation
was increased when she discovered that, on being summoned to meet Antony at Laodiceia
(B. C. 34) to answer for his share in the fate of Aristobulus, he had left orders
with his uncle Josephus, that, if he were condemned, his wife should not be permitted
to survive him. The object of so atrocious a command was to prevent her falling
into the hands of Antony, who had conceived a passion for her from the mere sight
of her picture, which her mother Alexandra, by the advice of Dellius, had sent
to him two years before, in the hope of gaining his favour. On Herod's return
in safety, his mother Cypros and his sister Salome, whom Mariamne, proud of her
descent from the Maccabees, had taunted overbearingly with their inferiority of
birth, excited his jealousy by accusing her of improper familiarity with Josephus;
and his suspicions were further roused when he found that she was aware of the
savage order he had given on his departure, for he thought that such a secret
could never have been betrayed by Josephus had she not admitted him to too close
an intimacy. He was on the point of killing her in his fury, but was withheld
by his fierce and selfish passion for her, --love we cannot call it,--and vented
his revenge on Josephus, whom he put to death, and on Alexandra, whom he imprisoned.
In B. C. 30, the year after the battle of Actium, Herod, aware of the danger in
which he stood in consequence of his attachment to the cause of Antony, took the
bold step of going in person to Octavian at Rhodes, and proffering him the same
friendship and fidelity which he had shown to his rival. But, before his departure,
he resolved to secure the royal succession in his own family, and he therefore
put to death the aged Hyrcanus, and, having shut up Alexandra and Mariamne in
the fortress of Alexandreium, gave orders to Josephus and Soemus, two of his dependants,
to slay them if he did not come back in safety. During Herod's absence, this secret
command was revealed by Soemus to Mariamne, who accordingly exhibited towards
him, on his return, the most marked aversion, and on one occasion went so far
as to upbraid him with the murder of her brother and father, or (as perhaps we
should rather read) her grandfather. So matters continued for a year, the anger
which Herod felt at her conduct being further increased by the instigations of
his mother and sister. At length Salome suborned the royal cup-bearer to state
to his master that he had been requested by Mariamne to administer to him in his
wine a certain drug, represented by her as a love-potion. The king, in anger and
alarm, caused Mariamne's favourite chamberlain to be examined by torture, under
which the man declared that the ground of her aversion to Herod was the information
she had received front SoΓ«mus of his order for her death. Herod thereupon had
Soemus immediately executed and brought Mariamne to trial, entertaining the same
suspicion as in the former case of his uncle Josephus of an adulterous connection
between them. He appeared in person as her accuser, and the judges, thinking from
his vehemence that nothing short of her death would satisfy him, passed sentence
of condemnation against her. Herod, however, was still disposed to spare her life,
and to punish her by imprisonment; but his mother and sister, by urging the great
probability of an insurrection of the people in flivour of an Asmonean princess,
if known to be living in confinement, prevailed on him to order her execution,
B. C. 29. (Jos. Ant. xiv. 12. 1, 15, 14, xv. 2, 3, 6, 5, 7, Bell. Jud. i. 12,
3, 17, 8, 22.) His grief and remorse for her death were excessive, and threw him
into a violent and dangerous fever. According to the ordinary reading in Bell.
Jud. i. 22, 5, we should be led to suppose that Mariamne was put to death on the
former suspicion of adultery with Josephus; but there can be no doubt as to the
text in that place having been mutilated. For the tower which Herod built at .Jerusalem
and called by her name, see Jos. Bell. Jud. ii. 17, 8, v. 4, 3.
Mariamne's overbearing temper has been noticed above. That she should
have deported herself, however, otherwise than she did towards such a monster
as Herod, was not to be expected, and would have been inconsistent with the magnanimity
for which Josephus commends her. She was distinguished by a peculiar grace and
dignity of demeanour, and her beauty was of the most fascinating kind. The praise
given her by Josephus for chastity was doubtless well merited in general, and
entirely so as far as regards any overt act of sin. But some deduction, at least,
must be made from it, if she countenanced her mother's conduct in sending her
portrait to Antony.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Mariamne, daughter of Simon, a priest at Jerusalem. Herod the Great was struck with her beauty and married her, B. C. 23, at the same time raising her father to the high-priesthood, whence he deposed Jesus, the son of Phabes, to make room for him. In B. C. 5, Mariamne being accused of being privy to the plot of Antipater and Pheroras against Herod's life, he put her away, deprived Simon of the high-priesthood, and erased from his will the name of Herod Philip, whom she had borne him, and whom he had intended as the successor to his dominions after Antipater. (Jos. Ant. xv. 9, 3, xvii. 1, 2, 4, 2, xviii. 5, 1, xix. 6, 2, Bell. Jud. i. 28, 2, 30, 7.)
Herodes, surnamed Philippus, was son of Herod the Great by Mariamne, the daughter of the high-priest Simon (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 5.4). He was the first husband of Herodias, who afterwards divorced him, contrary to the Jewish law, and married his half-brother, Herod Antipas. The surname of Philippus is not mentioned by Josephus, but it is clear that it is he, and not the tetrarch of Ituraea, who is meant by the Evangelists (Matth. xiv. 3; Mark, vi. 17; Luke, iii. 19), where they speak of Philip, the brother of Herod.
Archelaus (Archelaos) , son of Herod the Great by Malthace, a Samaritan woman, is called by Dion Cassius Herodes Palaistenos, and was whole brother to Herod Antipas (Dion Cass. lv. 27; Joseph. Ant. xvii. 1.3, 10.1; Bell. Jud. i. 28.4). The will of Herod, which had at first been so drawn up as to exclude Archelaus in consequence of the false representations of his eldest brother Antipater, was afterward altered in his favour on the discovery of the latter's treachery; and, on the death of Herod, he was saluted as king by the army. This title, however, he declined till it should be ratified by Augustus; and, in a speech to the people after his father's funeral, he made large professions of his moderation and his willingness to redress all grievance. (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 4.3, 6.1, 8.2-4; Bell. Jud. i. 31.1, 32.7, 33.7-9.) Immediately after this a serious sedition occurred, which Archelaus quenched in blood (Ant. xvii. 9.1-3; Bell. Jud. ii. 1; comp. Ant. xvii. 6; Bell. Jud. i. 33), and he then proceeded to Rome to obtain the confirmation of his father's will. Here he was opposed by Antipas, who was supported by Herod's sister Salome and her son Antipater, and ambassadors also came from the Jews to complain of the cruelty of Archelaus, and to entreat that their country might be annexed to Syria and ruled by Roman governors. The will of Herod was, however, ratified in its main points by Augustus, and in the division of the kingdom Archelaus received Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea, with the title of Ethnarch, and a promise of that of king should he be found to deserve it. On his return from Rome be set the Jewish law at defiance by his marriage with Glaphyra (daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia), the widow of his brother Alexander, by whom she had children living (Levit. xviii. 16, xx. 21; Dent. xxv. 5); and, his general government being most tyrannical, he was again accused before Augustus by the Jews in the 10th year of his reign (A. D. 7), and, as he was unable to clear himself from their charges, he was banished to Vienna in Gaul, where he died. (Ant. xvii. 13; Bell. Jitd. ii. 7.3; Strab. xvi. p. 765; Dion Cass. Iv. 27; Euseb. Hist. Ecc. i. 9).
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Mariamne, wife of Archelaus, who was ethnarch of Judaea and son of Herod the Great. Archelaus divorced her, and married Glaphyra, daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and widoxv of his brother Alexander, (Jos. Ant. xvii. 13, 4.)
Aretas, a contemporary of Alexander Jannaeus, king of Judaea. This Aretas is probably the same who reigned in Coele-Syria after Antiochus XII., surnamed Dionysus. He was invited to the kingdom by those who had possession of Damascus (Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 13.3, 15.2). Subsequently he seems to have been compelled to relinquish Syria; and we next hear of his taking part in the contest between Aristobulus and Hyrcanus for the Jewish crown, though whether this Aretas is the same as the one who ruled over Syria may be doubted. At the advice of Antipater, Hyrcanus fled to Aretas, who invaded Judaea in B. C. 65, in order to place him on the throne, and laid siege to Jerusalem. Aristobulus, however, purchased the intervention of Scaurus and Gabinius, Pompey's legates, who compelled Aretas to raise the siege (Joseph. Ant. xiv. i.4, c. 2, Bell. Jud. i. 6.2). After Pompey had reduced Syria to the form of a Roman province, he turned his arms against Aretas, B. C. 64, who submitted to him for a time. This expedition against Aretas preceded the war against Aristobulus in Judaea, which Plutarch erroneously represents as the first (Dion Cass. xxxvii. 15; Appian, Mithr. 106; Plut. Pomp. 39, 41). The war against Aretas was renewed after Pompey's departure from Asia; and Scaurus, Pompey's legate, who remained behind in Syria, invaded Arabia Petraea, but was unable to reach Petra. He laid waste, however, the surrounding country, and withdrew his army on Aretas' paying 300 talents (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 5.1). This expedition of Scaurus is commemorated on a coin, which is given under Scaurus. The successors of Scaurus in Syria also prosecuted the war with the Arabs. (Appian, Syr. 50)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Aristobulus (Aristoboulos), princes of Judaea, the eldest son of Johannes Hyrcanus. In B. C. 110 we find him, together with his second brother Antigonus, successfully prosecuting for his father the siege of Samaria, which was destroyed in the following year (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 10.2, 3; Bell. Jud. i. 2.7). Hyrcanus dying in 107, Aristobulus took the title of king, this being the first instance of the assumption of that name among the Jews since the Babylonish captivity (but comp. Strab. xvi.), and secured his power by the imprisonment of all his brothers except his favourite Antigonus, and by the murder of his mother, to whom Hyrcanus had left the government by will. The life of Antigonus himself was soon sacrificed to his brother's suspicions through the intrigues of the queen and her party, and the remorse felt by Aristobulus for this deed increased the illness under which he was suffering at the time, and hastened his death. (B. C. 106.) In his reign the Ituraeans were subdued and compelled to adopt the observance of the Jewish law. He also received the name of Philellen from the favour which he shewed to the Greeks. (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 11; Bell. Jud. i. 3)
This text is from: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890) (eds. William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Aristobulus (Aristoboulos), the younger son of Alexander Jannaeus and Alexandra (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 16.1; Bell. Jud. 1. 5.1). During the nine years of his mother's reign he set himself against the party of the Pharisees, whose influence she had restored; and after her death, B. C. 70, he made war against his eldest brother Hyrcanus, and obtained from him the resignation of the crown and the high-priesthood, chiefly through the aid of his father's friends, whom Alexandra had placed in the several fortresses of the country to save them from the vengeance of the Pharisees (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 16, xiv. 1.2; Bell. Jud. i. 5, 6.1). In B. C. 65 Judaea was invaded by Aretas, king of Arabia Petraea, with whom, at the instigation of Antipater the Idumaean, Hyrcanus had taken refuge. By him Aristobulus was defeated in a battle and besieged in Jerusalem but Aretas was obliged to raise the siege by Scaurus and Gabinius, Pompey's lieutenants, whose intervention Aristobulus had purchased (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 2, 3.2; Bell. Jud. i. 6.2, 3). In B. C. 63, he pleaded his cause before Pompey at Damascus, but, finding him disposed to favour Hyrcanus, he returned to Judaea and prepared for war. On Pompey's approach, Aristobulus, who had fled to the fortress of Alexandreion, was persuaded to obey his summons and appear before him; and, being compelled to sign an order for the surrender of his garrisons, he withdrew in impotent discontent to Jerusalem. Pompey still advanced, and Aristobulus again met him and made submission; but, his friends in the city refusing to perform the terms, Pompey besieged and took Jerusalem, and carried away Aristobulus and his children as prisoners (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 3, 4; Bell. Jud. i. 6, 7; Plut. Pomp. cc. 39, 45; Strab. xvi.; Dion Cass. xxxvii. 15, 16). Appian (Bell. Mith. c. 117) erroneously represents him as having been put to death immediately after Pompey's triumph. In B. C. 57, he escaped from his confinement at Rome with his son Antigonus, and, returning to Judaea, was joined by large numbers of his countrymen and renewed the war; but he was besieged and taken at Machaerus, the fortifications of which he was attempting to restore, and was sent back to Rome by Gabinius (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 6.1; Bell. Jud. 1. 8.6; Plut. Ant. c. 3; Dion Cass. xxxix. 56). In B. C. 49, he was again released by Julius Caesar, who sent him into Judaea to forward his interests there; he was, however, poisoned on the way by some of Pompey's party (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 7.4; Bell. Jud. i. 9.1; Dion Cass. xli. 18) .
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Aristobulus (Aristoboulos), son of Herod king of Chalcis, grandson of the Aristobulus
who was strangled at Sebaste, and great-grandson of Herod the Great. In A. D.
55, Nero made Aristobulus king of Armenia Minor, in order to secure that province
from the Parthians, and in A. D. 61 added to his dominions some portion of the
Greater Armenia which had been given to Tigranes (Joseph. Ant. xx. 8.4; Tac. Ann.
xiii. 7, xiv. 26). Aristobulus appears also (Joseph. Bell. Jud. vii. 7.1) to have
obtained from the Romans his father's kingdom of Chalcis, which had been taken
from his cousin Agrippa II., in. A. D. 52; and he is mentioned as joining Caesennius
Paetus, proconsul of Syria, in the war against Antiochus, king of Commagene, in
the 4th year of Vespasian, A. D. 73. (Joseph. l. c.) He was married to Salome,
daughter of the infamous Herodias, by whom he had three sons, Herod, Agrippa,
and Aristobulus; of these nothing further is recorded. (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 5.4)
Agrippa, Herodes I., called by Josephus (Ant. Jud. xvii. 2.2), "Agrippa the Great", was the son of
Aristobulus and Berenice, and grandson of Herod the Great. Shortly before the
death of his grandfather, he came to Rome, where he was educated with the future
emperor Claudius, and Drusus the son of Tiberius. He squandered his property in
giving sumptuous entertainments to gratify his princely friends, and in bestowing
largesses on the freedmen of the emperor, and became so deeply involved in debt,
that he was compelled to fly from Rome, and betook himself to a fortress at Malatha
in Idumaea. Through the mediation of his wife Cypros, with his sister Herodias,
the wife of Herodes Antipas, he was allowed to take up his abode at Tiberias,
and received the rank of aedile in that city, with a small yearly income. But
having quarrelled with his brother-in-law, he fled to Flaccus, the proconsul of
Syria. Soon afterwards he was convicted, through the information of his brother
Aristobulus, of having received a bribe from the Damascenes, who wished to purchase
his influence with the proconsul, and was again compelled to fly. He was arrested
as he was about to sail for Italy, for a sum of money which he owed to the treasury
of Caesar, but made his escape, and reached Alexandria, where his wife succeeded
in procuring a supply of money from Alexander the Alabarch. He then set sail,
and landed at Puteoli. He was favourably received by Tiberius, who entrusted him
with the education of his grandson Tiberius. He also formed an intimacy with Caius
Caligula. Having one day incautiously expressed a wish that the latter might soon
succeed to the throne, his words were reported by his freedman Eutychus to Tiberius,
who forthwith threw him into prison. Caligula, on his accession (A. D. 37), set
him at liberty, and gave him the tetrarchies of Lysanias (Abilene) and Philippus
(Batanaca, Trachonitis, and Auranitis). He also presented him with a golden chain
of equal weight with the iron one which he had worn in prison. In the following
year Agrippa took possession of his kingdom, and after the banishment of Herodes
Antipas, the tetrarchy of the latter was added to his dominions.
On the death of Caligula, Agrippa, who was at the time in Rome, materially
assisted Claudius in gaining possession of the empire. As a reward for his services,
Judaea and Samaria were annexed to his dominions, which were now even more extensive
than those of Herod the Great. He was also invested with the consular dignity,
and a league was publicly made with him by Claudius in the forum. At his request,
the kingdom of Chaleis was given to his brother Herodes (A. D. 41). IIe then went
to Jerusalem, where he offered sacrifices, and suspended in the treasury of the
temple the golden chain which Caligula had given him. His government was mild
and gentle, and he was exceedingly popular amongst the Jews. In the city of Berytus
he built a theatre and amphitheatre, baths, and porticoes. The suspicions of Claudius
prevented him from finishing the impregnable fortifications with which he had
begun to surround Jerusalem. His friendship was courted by many of the neighbouring
kings and rulers. It was probably to increase his popularity with the Jews that
he caused the apostle James, the brother of John, to be beheaded, and Peter to
be cast into prison (A. D. 44. Acts, xii.). It was not however merely by such
acts that he strove to win their favour, as we see from the way in which, at the
risk of his own life, or at least of his liberty, he interceded with Caligula
on behalf of the Jews, when that emperor was attempting to set up his statue in
the temple at Jerusalem. The manner of his death, which took place at Caesarea
in the same year, as he was exhibiting games in honour of the emperor, is related
in Acts xii., and is confirmed in all essential points by Josephus, who repeats
Agrippa's words, in which he acknowledged the justice of the punishment thus inflicted
on him. After lingering five days, he expired, in the fifty-fourth year of his
age.
By his wife Cypros he had a son named Agrippa, and three daughtters
Berenice, who first married her uncle Herodes, king of Chalcis, afterwards lived
with her brother Agrippa, and subsequently married Polamo, king of Cilicia; she
is alluded to by Juvenal (Sat. vi. 156); Mariamne, and Drusilla, who married Felix,
the procurator of Judaea (Joseph. Ant. Jud. xvii. 1.2, xviii. 5-8, xix. 4-8; Bell.
Jud. i. 28.1, ii. 9. 11; Dion Cass. ix. 8 ; Euseb. Hist. Eccles. ii. 10).
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Agrippa, Herodes II., the son of Agrippa I., was educated at the court of the emperor Claudius, and at the time of his father's death was only seventeen years old. Claudius therefore kept him at Rome, and sent Cuspius Fadus as procurator of the kingdom, which thus again became a Roman province. On the death of Herodes, king of Chaleis (A. D. 48), his little principality, with the right of superintending the temple and appointing the high priest, was given to Agrippa, who four years afterwards received in its stead the tetrarchies formerly held by Philip and Lysanias, with the title of king. In A. D. 55, Nero added the cities of Tiberias and Taricheae in Galilec, and Julias, with fourteen villages near it, in Peraea. Agrippa expended large sums in beautifying Jerusalem and other cities, especially Berytus. His partiality for the latter rendered hint unpopular amongst his own subjects, and the capricious manner in which he appointed and deposed the high priests, with some other acts which were distasteful, made him an object of dislike to the Jews. Before the outbreak of the war with the Romans, Agrippa attempted in vain to dissuade the people from rebelling. When the war was begun, he sided with the Romans, and was wounded at the siege of Gamala. After the capture of Jerusalem, he went with his sister Berenice to Rome, where he was invested with the dignity of practor. He died in the seventieth year of his age, in the third year of the reign of Trajan. He was the last prince of the house of the Herods. It was before this Agrippa that the apostle Paul made his defence. A. D. 60 (Acts. xxv. xxvi.). He lived on terms of intimacy with the historian Josephus, who has preserved two of the letters he received from him (Joseph. Ant. Jud. xvii. 5.4, xix. 9.2, xx. 1.3, 5.2, 7.1, 8.4 & 11, 9.4 ; Bell. Jud. ii. 11.6, 12.1, 16, 17.1, iv. 1.3; Vit. s. 54; Phot. cod. 33).
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Herodes Antipas, son of Herod the Great, by Malthace, a Samaritan. (Joseph. Ant.
xvii. 1.3, B. J. i. 28.4.) According to the final arrangements of his father's
Will, Antipas obtained the tetrarchy of Galilee and Peraea, with a revenue of
200 talents, while the kingdom of Judaea devolved on his elder brother Archelaus.
On the death of Herod both Antipas and Archelaus hastened to Rome, where the former
secretly endeavored, with the support of his aunt Salome, to set aside this arrangement,
and obtain the royal dignity for himself. Augustus, however, after some delay,
confirmed in all essential points the provisions of Herod's will, and Antipas
returned to take possession of his tetrarchy. On his way to Rome, he had seen
and become enamoured of Herodias, the wife of his half-brother, Herod Philip;
and after his return to Palestine, he married her, she having, in defiance of
the Jewish law, divorced her first husband. He had been previously married to
a daughter of the Arabian prince Aretas, who quitted him in disgust at this new
alliance, and retired to her father's court. Aretas subsequently avenged the insult
offered to his daughter, as well as some differences that had arisen in regard
to the frontiers of their respective states, by invading the dominions of Antipas,
and totally defeating the army which was opposed to him. He was only restrained
from farther progress by the fear of Rome; and Tiberius, on the complaint of Antipas,
sent orders to Vitellius, the praefect of Syria, to punish this aggression. Antipas
himself is said by Josephus (xviii. 7.2) to have been of a quiet and indolent
disposition, and destitute of ambition; but he followed the example of his father
in the foundation of a city on the lake of Gennesareth, to which he gave the name
of Tiberias; besides which, he fortified and adorned with splendid buildings the
previously existing cities of Sepphoris and Betharamphtha, and called the latter
Julia in honour of the wife of Augustus. In A. D. 38, after the death of Tiberius
and accession of Caligula, Herod Antipas was induced to undertake a journey to
Rome, to solicit from Caligula in person the title of king, which had just been
bestowed upon his nephew, Herod Agrippa. To this step he was instigated by the
jealousy and ambition of his wife Herodias; but it proved fatal to him. Agrippa,
who was high in the favour of the Roman emperor, made use of all his influence
to oppose the elevation of his uncle, whom he even accused of entertaining a treasonable
correspondence with the Parthians. On this charge Antipas was deprived of his
dominions, which were given to Agrippa, and sent into exile at Lyons (A. D. 39);
from hence he was subsequently removed to Spain, where he ended his days in banishlment.
Herodias, as she had been the cause of his disgrace, became the partner of his
exile. (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 9, 11, xviii. 2, 5, 7, B. J. ii. 2, 6, 9.)
It was Herod Antipas who imprisoned and put to death John the Baptist,
who had reproached him with his unlawful connection with Herodias. (Matt. xiv.
3; Mark, vi. 17-28; Luke, iii. 19.) It was before him, also, that Christ was sent
by Pontius Pilate at Jerusalem, as belonging to his jurisdiction, on account of
his supposed Galilean origin. (Luke, xxiii. 6-12.) He is erroneously styled king
by St. Mark (vi. 14). We learn little either from Josephus or the Evangelists
concerning his personal character or that of his administration but there are
not wanting indications that if his government was milder than that of his father,
it was yet far from an equitable one. (Concerning the chronology of his reign,
see Winer's Biblisches Real Werterbuch, vol. i.; and Eckhel, vol. iii.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Hyrcanus II, (Hurkanos), high priest and king of the Jews, was the eldest son of
Alexander Jannaeus, and his wife, Alexandra. On the death of Alexander (B. C.
78) the royal authority devolved, according to his will, upon his wife Alexandra,
who immediately appointed Hyrcanus to the high-priesthood -- a choice which he
probably owed not so much to his seniority of age, as to his feeble, indolent
character, which offered a strong contrast to the daring, ambitious spirit of
his younger brother, Aristobulus. Accordingly, during the nine years of his mother's
reign, he acquiesced uniformly in all her measures, and attached himself to the
party of the Pharisees, which she favoured. On the death of Alexandra (B. C. 69),
he succeeded, for a time, to the sovereign power, but Aristobulus, who had already
taken his measures, quickly raised an army, with which he defeated him near Jericho,
and compelled him to take refuge in the citadel of Jerusalem, where he was soon
induced to consent to a treaty, by which he resigned the sovereignty into the
hands of Aristobulus, and retired unmolested into a private station. The easy,
unambitious disposition of Hyrcanus would probably have led him to acquiesce permanently
in this arrangement: but he was worked upon by the artifices and intrigues of
Antipater, who succeeded in exciting his apprehensions, and ultimately induced
him to fly from Jerusalem, and take refuge at the court of Aretas, king of Arabia
Petraea, B. C. 65. That monarch now assembled an army, with which he defeated
Aristobulus in his turn, and blockaded him in the temple of Jerusalem, Hyrcanus
and his partisans being masters of the rest of the city. But their progress was
now stopped by the intervention of Pompey's lieutenant, M. Aemilius Scaurus, who
had arrived at Damascus with a Roman army, and being gained over by the bribes
and promises of Aristobulus, ordered Aretas and Hyrcanus to withdraw from Judaea.
The next year, Pompey himself arrived in Syria, and the two brothers hastened
to urge their respective claims before him: but Aristobulus gave offence to the
Roman general by his haughty demeanour, and the disposition of Pompey to favour
Hyrcanus became so apparent, that Aristobulus, for a time, made preparations for
resistance. But when Pompey returning victorious from his campaign against the
Nabathaean Arabs, entered Judaea at the head of his army, he abandoned all hopes
of defence, and surrendered himself. into the hands of the Roman general. The
Jews, however, refused to follow his example: they shut the gates of Jerusalem,
and prepared to hold out the last; nor was it till after a long and arduous siege,
that Pompey was able to make himself master of the city, B. C. 63.
After his victory, the conqueror reinstated Hyrcanus in the high-priesthood,
with the authority, though not the name, of royalty. (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 16, xiv.
1-4, B. J. i. 5-7; Dion Cass. xxxvii. 15, 16; Diod. xl. Exc. Vat.; Oros. vi. 6.;
Euseb. Arm.)
Hyrcanus, though supported by the powerful aid of Rome, and the abilities
of Antipater, did not long enjoy his newly recovered sovereignty in quiet: Alexander,
one of the sons of Aristobulus, who had been carried prisoner to Rome by Pompey,
made his escape from captivity, and quickly excited a revolt in Judaea, which
Hyrcanus was unable to suppress, until he called in the assistance of Gabinius,
the proconsul of Syria. By his aid, Alexander was defeated, and compelled to submit
(B. C. 56): but the next year a fresh insurrection was excited by Aristobulus
himself, who had also made his escape from Rome: and though this was again put
down by Gabinius and his lieutenant, M. Antony, and Aristobulus a second time
made prisoner, yet as soon as the arms of the proconsul were occupied in an expedition
to Egypt, Alexander once more assembled a large army, and invaded Judaea. Nor
were the Jewish governors able to oppose his progress: but on the return of Gabinius
from Egypt. he was quickly defeated and put to flight. Previous to this, the Roman
general had changed the form of the government of Judaea, and deprived the high-priest
of the supreme authority, which he transferred to five provincial councils or
sanhedrimns. Antipater, however, appears to have maintained his former power and
influence; but neither he nor Hyrcanus were able to prevent the plunder of the
temple and its sacred treasures by Crassus, who succeeded Gabinius in the command
of Syria. On the breaking out of the civil war between Pompey and Caesar (B. C.
49), the latter at first sought to effect a diversion against his rival in the
East, by inducing Aristobulus to set up anew his claim to the throne of Judaea:
but Hyrcanus was saved from this threatened danger, for Aristobulus was poisoned
by the partizans of Pompey, and his son, Alexander, put to death by Scipio at
Antioch. After the battle of Pharsalia, Hyrcanus, or rather Antipater in his name,
rendered such important services to Caesar during the Alexandrian war (B. C. 47),
that the dictator, on his return from Egypt, settled the affairs of Judaea entirely
in accordance with their wishes, re-established the monarchical form of government,
and restored Hyrcanus to the sovereign power, though with the title only of high-priest,
while Antipater, under tile name of procurator of Judaea, possessed all the real
authority. A striking proof of this occurred soon after: Herod, the younger son
of Antipater, whom he had made governor of Galilee, being accused of having committed
needless severities in the administration of his province, Hyrcanus was induced
to bring him to trial before the sanhedrim: but as soon as he saw that the adverse
party were disposed to condemn him, he gave private warning to him to withdraw
from Jerusalem. The young prince complied, but having soon after obtained by the
favour of Sextus Caesar the government of Coele-Syria, he advanced against Jerusalem
at the head of an army; and it was only by the prayers and entreaties of his father
and brother, that he was induced to desist from the enterprise. The feeble and
spiritless character of lvyrcanuts was still more strongly displayed shortly after,
when he acquiesced first in the assassination of Antipater, who was poisoned by
Malichus, and again in the vengeance exacted for his death by Herod, who caused
Malichus to be assassinated almost before the eves of Hvrcanus. (Joseph. Ant.
xiv. 5-9, 11, B. JJ. i. 8-11.)
From this time forth Hyrcanus bestowed upon the youthful Herod the
same favour, and conceded to him the same unlimited influence that had been enjoyed
by his father, Antipater: he also betrothed to the young prince his grand-daughter,
the beautiful Mariamne.
When the battle of Philippi (B. C. 42) had rendered M. Antony supreme
arbiter of the affairs of the East, both Hyrcanus and Herod hastened to pay their
court to him, and obtained from him the confirmation of their power. It was not
long, however, before this was suddenly overthrown from an unexpected quarter.
Pacorus, the son of the Parthian king Orodes I., had invaded Syria with a mighty
army (B. C. 40), and overrun a great part of that province, when Antigonus, the
surviving son of Aristobulus, applied to him for aid in recovering his father's
throne. Neither Hyrcanus nor the sons of Antipater were able to oppose the force
sent by the Parthian prince against Jerusalem, and they took refuge in the fortress
of Baris, from whence Hyrcanlus and Phasael were soon after decoyed under pretence
of negotiation, and made prisoners by the faithless barbarians. Hyrcanus had his
ears cut off, by order of Aristobulus, in order for ever to incapacitate him from
resuming the high-priesthood, and was then sent a prisoner to Seleuceia, on the
Tigris. Here, however, he was treated with much liberality by the Parthian king,
and allowed to live in perfect freedom at Babylon, where the oriental Jews received
him with the utmost distinction, and where he led a life of dignified repose for
some years. But when he at length received an invitation from Herod, who had meanwhile
established himself firmly on the throne of Judaea, and married his betrothed
Mariamne, the old man could not resist his desire to return to Jerusalem, and
having obtained the consent of the Parthian king, he repaired to the court of
Therod. IIe was received with every demonstration of respect by that monarch,
to whom he could no longer be an object of apprehension, nor does it appear that
any change took place in the conduct of Herod towards him, until after the battle
of Actium, when the king who was naturally suspicious of the disposition of Augustus
towards himself, deemed it prudent to remove the only person whose claim to the
throne might appear preferable to his own. It is not unnlikely that the feeble
old man, who was now above eighty years of age, might really have been induced
to tamper in the intrigues of his daughter Alexandra; but whether true or false,
a charge was brought against him of a treasonable correspondence with Malchus,
king of Arabia, and on this pretext he was put to death, B. C. 30. (Joseph. Ant.
xiv. 12, 13, xv. 2, 6, B. J. i. 12, 13, 22 Dion Cass. xlviii.26 )
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Antipater (Antipatros), the eldest son of Herod the Great by his first wife, Doris (Jos. Ant. xiv. 12.1), a monster of wickedness and craft, whose life is briefly described by Josephus (Bell. Jud. i. 24.1) in two words -kakias musterion. Herod, having divorced Doris and married Mariamne, B. C. 38, banished Antipater from court (Bell. Jud. i. 22.1), but recalled him afterwards, in the hope of checking, by the presence of a rival, the violence and resentment of Mariamne's sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, who were exasperated by their mother's death. Antipater now intrigued to bring his half-brothers under the suspicion of his father, and with such success, that Herod altered his intentions in their behalf, recalled Doris to court, and sent Antipater to Rome, recommending him to the favour of Augustus (Jos. Ant. xvi. 3, Bell. Jud. i. 23,2). He still continued his machinations against his brothers, and, though Herod was twice reconciled to them, yet his arts, aided by Salome and Pheroras, and especially by the Spartan Eurycles (comp. Plut. Ant.), succeeded at length in bringing about their death, B. C. 6 (Jos. Ant. xvi. 4-11, Bell. Jud. i. 23-27). Having thus removed his rivals, and been declared successor to the throne, he entered into a plot against his father's life with his uncle Pheroras ; and, to avoid suspicion, contrived to get himself sent to Rome, taking with him, for the approbation of Augustus, Herod's altered will. But the investigation occasioned by the death of Pheroras (whom his wife was suspected of poisoning) brought to light Antipater's murderous designs, chiefly through the disclosures of the wife of Pheroras, of Antipater's own freedman, and of his steward, Antipater the Samaritan. He was accordingly recalled from Rome, and kept in ignorance of the charges against him till his arrival at Jerusalem. Here he was arraigned by Nicolaus of Damascus before Quintilius Varus, the Roman governor of Syria, and the sentence against him having been confirmed by Augustus (who recommended, however, a mitigation of it in the shape of banishment), he was executed in prison, five days before the termination of Herod's mortal illness, and in the same year as the massacre of the innocents (Jos. Ant. xvii. 1-7, Bell. Jud. i. 28-33; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. i. 8.12). The death of Antipater probably called forth the well-known sarcasm of Augustus : "Melius est Herodis porcum esse quam filium" (Macrob. Saturn. ii. 4).
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Aristobulus (Aristoboulos), one of the sons of Herod the Great by Mariamne, was sent with his brother Alexander to Rome, and educated in the house of Pollio (Joseph. Ant. xv. 10.1). On their return to Judaea, the suspicions of Herod were excited against them by their brother Antipater, aided by Pheroras and their aunt Salome, though Berenice, the daughter of the latter, was married to Aristobulus; the young men themselves supplying their enemies with a handle against them by the indiscreet expression of their indignation at their mother's death. In B. C. 11, they were accused by Herod at Aquileia before Augustus, through whose mediation, however, he was recon ciled to them. Three years after, Aristobulus was again involved with his brother in a charge of plotting against their father, but a second reconciliation was effected by Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, the father-in-law of Alexander. A third accusation, through the arts of Eurycles, the Lacedaemonian adventurer, proved fatal: by permission of Augustus, the two young men were arraigned by Herod before a council convened at Berytus (at which they were not even allowed to be present to defend themselves), and, being condemned, were soon after strangled at Sebaste, B. C. 6 (Joseph. Ant. xvi. 1-4, 8, 10, 11; Bell. Jud. i. 23-27; comp. Strab. xvi.).
This text is from: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890) (eds. William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Drusilla, daughter of Herodes Agrippa I., king of the Jews, by his wife Cypros,
and sister of Herodes Agrippa II., was only six years old when her father died
in A. D. 44. She had been already promised in marriage to Epiphanes, son of Antiochus,
king of Comagene, but the match was broken off in consequence of Epiphanes refusing
to perform his promise of conforming to the Jewish religion. Hereupon Azizus,
king of Emesa, obtained Drusilla as his wife, and performed the condition of becoming
a Jew. Afterwards, Felix, the procurator of Judaea, fell in love with her, and
induced her to leave Azizus--a course to which she was prompted not only by the
fair promises of Felix, but by a desire to escape the annoyance to which she was
subjected by the envy of her sister Berenice, who, though ten years older, vied
with her in beauty. She thought, perhaps, that Felix, whom she accepted as a second
husband, would be better able to protect her than Azizus, whom she divorced. In
the Acts of the Apostles (xxiv. 24), she is mentioned in such a manner that she
may naturally be supposed to have been present when St. Paul preached before her
second husband in A. D. 60. Felix and Drusilla had a son, Agrippa, who perished
in an eruption of Vesuvius (Josephus, Ant. Jud. xix. 7, xx. 5).
Tacitus (Hist. v. 9) says, that Felix married Drusilla, a granddaughter
of Cleopatra and Antony. The Drusilla he refers to, if any such person ever existed,
must have been a daughter of Juba and Cleopatra Selene, for the names and fate
of all the other descendants of Cleopatra and Antony are known from other sources;
but the account given by Josephus of the parentage of Drusilla is more consistent
than that of Tacitus with the statement of Holy Writ, by which it appears that
Drusilla was a Jewess. Some have supposed that Felix married in succession two
Drusillae, and countenance is lent to this otherwise improbable conjecture by
an expression of Suetonius (Claud. 28), who calls Felix trium reginarum maritum.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Dec 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!
