Bible Dictionaries
Herod (2)

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

Search for…

Enter query below:

or

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Prev Entry
Herod

Next Entry
Herodians

Resource Toolbox

Print Article

HEROD (Ἡρῴδης).—The rise of the Herodian dynasty^{* [Note: On the origin of the Herodian family, cf. Ant. xiv. i. 3; BJ l. vi. 2; Strabo, xvi. 2; Euseb. HE i. 7. 11, Chron., ed. Schoene, ii. 134, 138; Epiph. Hœr. xx. 1; Derenbourg, Hist. de la Pal. 154; and Schurer, GJV3 i. 292, n. 3.]} to the throne of the Hasmonaean priest-kings, begun by Antipater the Idumaean, and realized by his second son, Herod the Great,^{† [Note: On the title ὁ μέγας cf. Ewald, HI v. 418, n. 4; Madden, Coins, 105, n. 1.]} was closely connected with the ascendency of Roman power in Palestine. Antipas or Antipater, the grandfather of Herod, had indeed been appointed governor of Idumaea by Alexander Jannaeus (Ant. xiv. i. 3), but it was not until after the death of Alexandra (b.c. 67) that Antipater, who had succeeded his father Antipas in Idumaea, found opportunity to advance his interests in the dissensions between Hyrcanus, the legal but weak heir to the throne in Jerusalem, and the younger but more vigorous Aristobulus. Allying himself with Hyrcanus, Antipater secured the aid of the Arabian king Aretas to establish his candidate in the government. Thereupon appeals were made by Hyrcanus and Aristobulus to the Roman general Scaurus, who had been sent by Pompey to Damascus. The Roman power, thus appealed to, at first favoured Aristobulus, but eventually, after Pompey had taken Jerusalem in b.c. 63, made Hyrcanus high priest (Ant. xiv. iv. 4; BJ i. vii. 6), and committed the administration to Scaurus, who in turn was succeeded by Gabinius. Antipater, however, proved himself useful to the Romans, both in the government and in their military operations against the Arabs, and also against the Hasmonaeans, Aristobulus and his sons Alexander and Antigonus. He thus acquired considerable political influence (Ant. xiv. vi. 4, viii. 1; BJ i. viii. 7; cf. Schürer, GJ^{V [Note: JV Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} i. 343, n^{. [Note: note.]} 14). After the battle of Pharsalus (b.c. 48) and the death of Pompey, Caesar confirmed Hyrcanus in the high priesthood, and made him ethnarch. Upon Antipater he conferred Roman citizenship and constituted him procurator of Judaea (Ant. xiv. viii. 3, 5, ἐπίτροπος in the sense of ἐπιμελητής; cf. Wellhausen, IJ^{G [Note: JG Israelitische und Jüdische Geschichte.] 4 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} 316, n^{. [Note: note.]} 2). Soon afterwards (b.c. 47) Antipater appointed his eldest son Phasael governor of Jerusalem, and committed the administration of Galilee to his second son Herod, a young man about twenty-five years of age (Ant. xiv. ix. 2; the transmitted text reads πέντε καὶ δέκα, but is conjecturally emended by Dindorf and Bekker to read πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι; cf. Schürer, i. 348, n^{. [Note: note.]} 30; Grätz, Hist. 77, reads ‘twenty’). The present article is concerned only with the Herods of the Gospels.

1. Herod the Great.—Among the first acts of Herod’s-administration of Galilee was the suppression of a band of robbers^{* [Note: Gratz (Hist. 78, less distinctly, ‘All true patriots mourned’) and Derenbourg (160 ff.) regard these robbers as patriots, the predecessors of the Zealots, Judas the Galilaean being the son of Hezekias (Ant. xvii. x. 5; BJ ii. iv. 1;} Acts 5:37^{). I. Broydé (Jewish Encyc. vi. 356) calls them ‘a band of fanatics, who had attacked heathen cities and robbed caravans’ (cf. also Well-hausen4, 317).]} that harassed his country and parts of Syria (Ant. xiv. ix. 2; BJ i. x. 5). These he captured, and their captain, a certain Hezekias, he slew, along with many of the robbers,—revealing in the energy with which he suppressed disorders a trait of character that even at this time attracted the attention of the Roman governor of Syria, Sextus Caesar, and that subsequently made him an acceptable ally of the Romans. This act, however, brought Herod under the suspicion of the leaders at Jerusalem, who persuaded Hyrcanus that Herod should be summoned before the Sanhedrin for trial for violation of the national law in putting Hezekias to death without trial. Herod obeyed the summons, but took care to have a sufficient bodyguard to accompany him. At first the members of the Sanhedrin were overawed by such a show of force. They were recalled to a proper sense of their duty by the courageous words of scornful rebuke spoken by Sameas the Pharisee (Ant. xiv. ix. 4; BJ i. x. 5).^{† [Note: Ant. xv. i. 1, where Pollio is said to have made this speech, and Sameas is called his disciple. In Talmudic tradition (cf. Derenbourg, 147 ff.) Sameas is called Simeon ben Shetah, identified by Derenbourg with Shemaia, who, with Abtalion (Pollio), was, he thinks, at that time at the head of the Sanhedrin (similarly Gratz, Hist. 79, and I. Broydé, Jewish Encyc. vi. 356; cf. also Schurer3, ii. 358 f.).]} When the Sanhedrin was about to condemn Herod, Hyrcanus, who had received instructions from Sextus Caesar to have him acquitted, adjourned the sitting and advised Herod to withdraw from Jerusalem. This he did, returning to Damascus. When he had been appointed governor of Cœle-Syria by Sextus Caesar, he threatened Jerusalem with an army; but, having so far satisfied his anger, he withdrew, on the advice of his father Antipater and his brother Phasael.

After the murder of Caesar (15 Mar. b.c. 44), and the poisoning of Antipater (43),—apparently with the knowledge, if not the consent and participation, of Hyrcanus (Ant. xiv. xi. 3, 6; cf. Wellhausen⁴, 319, n. 1, 327, n. 3),—Herod’s fortunes reached their lowest ebb. Antony, indeed, while he was in the East, made Herod and Phasael tetrarchs (Ant. xiv. xiii. 1; BJ i. xii. 5); but not long afterwards, Antigonus, with the help of the Parthians, gained possession of Jerusalem, capturing Phasael and Hyrcanus. Phasael killed himself; and Hyrcanus, after his ears had been cut off, was taken by the Parthians to Babylon. Herod, who with his family was in Jerusalem, escaped by night, and, after many difficulties, in the midst of which he was on the point of taking his life, came to the fortress Masada. Here he left his family in charge of his brother Joseph and hastened to Rome. Antigonus, in the meantime, had established himself in Jerusalem, where he reigned for three years (b.c. 40–37) as Matthias, the coins of Antigonus bearing the inscription ΒΑΧΙΛΕΩΧ ΑΝΤΙΓΟΝΟΥ חבר יהמתתיה כהן נרל (cf. Madden, Coins, 99 ff.).

In Rome, Herod had little difficulty, with the aid of Antony and the concurrence of Octavius, in convincing the Senate that they would be serving their own interests by making him king of Judaea instead of Antigonus, who had been placed on the throne by the Parthians (Ant. xiv. xiv. 4; BJ i. xiv. 4). Appointed king by a decree of the Senate (b.c. 40), Herod now had before him the difficult task of conquering his kingdom. He returned to Palestine, raised an army, subdued Joppa, relieved Masada, and was eager to invest Jerusalem. The assistance of the Roman forces under Ventidius and Silo was far from effective; Galilee had to be conquered; it was not until the spring of 37 b.c. that the siege of Jerusalem could be seriously begun. It was during this siege that Herod, having put away his wife Doris and her son Antipater, celebrated in Samaria his marriage with Mariamne,^{* [Note: This conventional spelling is retained here, although Μαριαμμή is adopted in the Greek text, both of Naher and of Niese (though Niese reads in the text of BJ i. § 241, Μαριαμήν). The spelling Μαριαμνή is given as a variant by Niese in Ant. xv. § 207, but in BJ i. § 433 Μαριαμην. In Ant. the MS E spells consistently Μαριαμή (except in xvii. § 335, where Μαριας occurs) as M does in BJ.]} daughter of Alexander (son of Aristobulus) and Alexandra (daughter of Hyrcanus) (Ant. xiv. xv. 14; BJ i. xvii. 8; cf. Ant. xiv. xii. 1; BJ i. xii. 3).

Three months after the siege began, Jerusalem fell (Ant. xiv. xvi. 4; BJ i. xviii. 2; cf. Sieffert, PR^{E [Note: RE Real-Encyklopädie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} vii. 762, l. 24 ff.). The city was saved from plunder and desecration only by a plentiful use of money on Herod’s part. Antigonus surrendered himself to the Romans (Ant. xiv. xvi. 2; BJ i. xviii. 2), and at Herod’s urgent request was beheaded in Antioch (Ant. xiv. xvi. 4; BJ i. xviii. 3). Herod also had forty-five members of the Sanhedrin slain, but passed over Pollio and Sameas because during the siege they had advised the city to yield to him (Ant. xv. i. 2).

Established in his kingdom by force of the Roman arms, and occupying the status of a rex socius, Herod fully understood that his continuance in power was dependent on the goodwill of Rome and her rulers. Hence, throughout his reign of thirty-four years, he did not fail to cultivate in every possible way friendly relations with his overlords. His government, however, though not without some following among the people, never obtained the cordial support or willing consent of the great majority of its subjects. At the beginning of his reign he treated the Sadducaean aristocracy with severity, made the high priesthood subject to his own appointment, and deprived the Sanhedrin of all political influence. The Essenes and many of the Pharisees refused to take the oath of allegiance to him or to the Roman emperor. The incipient Zealots or patriotic nationalists, whether gathered in the robber bands of Galilee or cherishing more quietly the old Hasmonaean ideals, were his natural and determined enemies. Herod, moreover, had no natural claims to his throne. Of Idumaean descent, he was in the eyes of his subjects but half-Jew (Ant. xiv. xv. 2), and had to endure, not only from his enemies but within the circle of his own family, taunts upon his low origin. Careful though he was not to offend the religious prejudices of the people in some respects,—for Herod was wiser and more cautious than Antiochus Epiphanes,—his whole reign breathed the spirit of Hellenism and pagan secularization so offensive to the Jews. Even his self-denying and efficient provision for the country when visited by famine, or his remission in part of a burdensome taxation, or his magnificent restoration of the Temple, called forth only momentary gratitude in the hearts of the people. Successful at Rome, unsuccessful in Jerusalem, Herod greatly increased the material interests of his country, and by the favour of Rome enlarged its borders. But while he rebuilt the Temple and dedicated it with great splendour and large sacrifices—boasting that he had done what the Hasmonaeans were not able to accomplish—he placed above the Temple gate a golden eagle in honour of the Romans, built a theatre, amphitheatre, and hippodrome in or near Jerusalem for Greek plays and heathen games, and in other places erected temples for the cult of the emperor Augustus. He built or restored many cities and fortresses throughout his territory, and constructed a splendid harbour (Sebastus) at Strato’s Tower, which he enlarged and called Caesarea. He colonized restless Trachonitis with Jewish warriors from Babylon, and extended his munificence far beyond the bounds of his own country, to Syria, Asia Minor, Rhodes, Greece, and Macedonia. Antony, Cleopatra, Agrippa, and Augustus were entertained by him with royal honours, and in his will he made handsome bequests to his friends of the imperial household in Rome.

It is customary to divide the reign of Herod into three periods. The first extends from his accession in b.c. 37 to the death of the sons of Babas in b.c. 25, when the last male representatives of the Hasmonaean family were removed from his pathway. This period was characterized by the establishment and extension of Herod’s power. The principal forces that he had to combat came from the royal family he had supplanted and to which he was allied by marriage. Alexandra, the mother of Mariamne, knew how to enlist the interest of Cleopatra, and Cleopatra had the ear of Antony. The measures adopted by Herod to meet the situation were not of the gentlest kind. He recalled Hyrcanus from Babylon, and though he treated him with every consideration, Josephus attributes to Herod the motive of wishing to get Hyrcanus in his power.^{* [Note: Mathews (Hist. of NT Times, 118, n. 1) rejects Josephus’ account of Herod’s motive (cf. also Schürer3, i. 378; Wellhausen4, 324; and Woodhouse, Encyc. Bibl. ii. 2206, n. 4). On the other hand, cf. Sieffert, PRE3 vii. 762, 1. 48ff., and the indications given above that Hyrcanus was implicated in the death of Antipater.]} In view of the fact that Hyrcanus could not be appointed to the high priesthood, and that Aristobulus, the brother of Mariamne, was only about seventeen years of age, Herod made Ananel, a Babylonian Jew of priestly family, high priest. This did not please Alexandra, and she appealed to Cleopatra on behalf of her son. Thereupon Herod deposed Ananel and appointed Aristobulus in his stead. But the popularity of the young Hasmonaean aroused Herod’s suspicion, and Aristobulus was drowned soon after the feast of Tabernacles in the year b.c. 35. At the instance of Cleopatra, who learned of the event from Alexandra, Herod was summoned before Antony to give an account of the death of Aristobulus. Before answering the summons, Herod gave instructions to his uncle Joseph, in whose hands he left the government, that Mariamne should be put to death in the event of an unfavourable issue of his mission. Herod regained the favour of Antony, but had eventually to surrender to Cleopatra one of the most fruitful parts of his territory, the famous palm- and balsam-growing country about Jericho, together with the coast cities from the river Eleutherus to Egypt, with the exception of Tyre and Sidon. On his return from the conference with Antony at Laodicaea (Syrian), Herod learned through his sister Salome, the evil genius of his family troubles, that Joseph had revealed his command to Mariamne. Joseph was put to death, but a fruitful soil for suspicion against Mariamne remained. When Cleopatra, who had accompanied Antony on his expedition to Armenia, returned through Judaea, Herod entertained her; and, although he successfully withstood her charms, he was compelled to rent from her the territory about Jericho, and to guarantee similar payments due to her from the king of Arabia. The debt thus contracted proved to be a bad one, for the king of Arabia was slow in meeting his financial obligations. Hence, when war broke out between Antony and Octavius, and Herod was desirous of giving aid to Antony, Cleopatra, never doubting that Antony would be victor, thwarted Herod’s purpose and sent him instead against the Arabians, in the hope that the two kings would destroy one another. Herod at first defeated the Arabians, but finally suffered a severe reverse, through the treacherous intervention of Cleopatra’s general Athenio. About this time an earthquake brought great suffering on the people, and Herod’s soldiers were discouraged. The Jewish ambassadors sent to the Arabians had been slain, and Herod’s condition seemed desperate. His own courage, however, inspired his troops, and a decisive victory was gained over the enemy.

But Herod had scarcely re-established his power when news of the battle of Actium (2nd Sept. b.c. 31) brought him face to face with the crisis of his reign. Before going to Octavius to learn his fate, Herod had the aged Hyrcanus put to death for plotting with the Arabian governor Malchus to escape from Jerusalem.^{* [Note: Josephus (Ant. xv. vi. 1), consistently with his account of Herod’s motive in recalling Hyrcanus from Babylon, intimates that Herod sought an occasion of removing Hyrcanus. Schurer (i. 384) questions Josephus’ account of the treasonable letter, on the ground that such an action would be unlikely in a man of Hyrcanus’ age. He accepts the account of Herod’s motive in this instance, however, regarding it as a more probable and a sufficient explanation of Hyrcanus’ death (cf. also Mathews, 120, n. 3. On the participation of the Sanhedrin, cf. Ant. xv. xvi. 2, and Wellhausen, 327, n. 1).]} Placing the government in charge of his brother Pheroras, and leaving his mother and sister at Masada, but Mariamne and Alexandra at Alexandrinum in care of Sohemus, with instructions that Mariamne and her mother should he killed if disaster overtook him,^{† [Note: On the historicity of the two incidents related in Ant. xv. iii. 5–6, 9; BJ i. xxii. 4, 5; Ant. xv. vi. 5, vii. 1–6, cf. Schürer3, i. 385, n. 51; Mathews, 120, n. 4.]} Herod went to meet Octavius in Rhodes. He appeared before the emperor in royal apparel, laying aside only his diadem. His appeal for favour was based on a frank avowal of his friendship for Antony, and of his desire to aid him at Actium. But Antony had refused to take his advice about Cleopatra, and had fallen. He now offered Octavius the same loyalty and support that he had given Antony. Moreover, Herod had already had opportunity of proving his loyalty to his new master by preventing Antony’s gladiators from passing through his territory to join Antony in Egypt. At the close of the interview Octavius restored Herod’s diadem, and confirmed him in his kingdom. In a short time Octavius even enlarged Herod’s kingdom, restoring the territory taken from it by Antony for Cleopatra, and a number of cities, such as Gadara, Hippos, Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, and Strato’s Tower. This was done in recognition of Herod’s aid to the imperial army as it passed into Egypt.

When Herod returned from Rhodes, his old suspicions against Mariamne were aroused by discovering that Sohemus had repeated the folly of Joseph. Sohemus was executed, and soon afterwards Mariamne was tried on the charge of attempting to poison Herod, and put to death about the year b.c. 29. But Herod had loved her with a wild passion. After her death his remorse and an uncontrollable yearning for her (which Byron has finely expressed in one of his Hebrew Melodies) quickly brought him to the verge of insanity (cf. also Stephen Phillips, Herod). At length, when he fell sick in Samaria, Alexandra sought to gain possession of the fortresses in Jerusalem. But Herod, rousing himself from his stupor, had her put to death (b.c. 28). Costobar also and the sons of Babas were put to death on the evidence of Salome, who revealed the hiding-place of these men of Hasmonaean descent^{* [Note: Just what their descent was does not clearly appear from Josephus. They seem to have been related to the Hasmonaeans. They were to have been killed when Herod took Jerusalem. But Costobar saved them, and had kept them concealed until Salome, his wife, left him, and made the matter known to Herod.]} and partizanship, and the part played by her husband in their protection (b.c. 25). Herod was now well established on his throne, in favour with Augustus, and triumphant over his enemies.

The second period of Herod’s reign, extending from b.c. 25 to b.c. 13, was characterized by extension of his kingdom and great building operations. Trachonitis, Batanaea, and Auranitis were given to him by Augustus about b.c. 23 (Ant. xv. x. 1; BJ i. xx. 4), and to these the tetrarchy of Zenodorus together with the country of Ulatha and Panias was added about three years later (Ant. xv. x. 3; BJ i. xx. 4; Dio Cass. xlv. 9). During this period many cities were built or beautified by Herod, both in his own territory and in surrounding countries. Fortresses were constructed, and temples in honour of Augustus adorned Samaria (Sebaste), Panias (Caesarea Philippi), and Strato’s Tower (Caesarea). But the greatest of Herod’s works of construction were the harbour at Strato’s Tower and the Temple at Jerusalem. The latter, begun about b.c. 19, was partially completed in a year and a half (the inner temple), and the whole brought to a temporary completion in about eight years, when it was formally dedicated, although work was continued on it until the time of Albinus (procurator a.d. 62–64, cf. Ant. xv. xi. 5, 6, xx. ix. 7; John 2:20). Herod also built himself a magnificent palace in Jerusalem. Theatre, amphitheatre, and hippodrome were the scenes of plays and games not only in Caesarea and Jericho, but in Jerusalem. Mercenary troops, aided by spies and strict police regulations, kept the people in subjection. Outlying districts such as Trachonitis were colonized to suppress disturbances. Herod’s power was at its height. In his court were men of Greek learning, such as Nicolaus of Damascus and his brother Ptolemy. As a rex socius, Herod had the right to issue copper coinage. His friendship with Rome was firmly established. He interested himself in the Jews of the Dispersion, and helped to secure them their rights in Asia Minor. He also made generous provision from his private means to alleviate the suffering caused by a famine (b.c. 25), and on two occasions remitted part of the people’s taxes, one-third in b.c. 20 and one-fourth in b.c. 14. But the glory of his reign and the material splendour of his works were offensive to the religious consciousness of his subjects, and his sporadic acts of unselfishness failed to arouse any permanently cordial response in the people.

The last period of Herod’s reign, from b.c. 13 to b.c. 4, was one of family intrigue which formed, as Wellhausen aptly puts it, ‘a chapter of court history in true Oriental style.’ After the death of Mariamne, Herod had married another Mariamne, daughter of a certain Simon, a priest whom Herod had made high priest. He had also other wives, seven in number. His first wife had been recalled to court. His sister Salome and his mother Cypros had already shown some ability in the gentle art of false suggestion. Herod’s brother Pheroras, whom he had made tetrarch of Peraea and Idumaea, was at hand with his wife. There were present also the two heirs to the throne, Alexander and Aristobulus, sons of Mariamne I., both proud of their Hasmonaean descent, possibly a little haughty in their manner, certainly a little unwise in their confidential conversations; having a grievance in the unjust death of their mother, but no protection against its misuse by their enemies; holding their mother’s opinion of Herod’s kindred,—an opinion shared by Glaphyra, wife of Aristobulus and daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and fully reciprocated in kind by Salome and Cypros. If to this we add the villainy of a scoundrel like Euryclus, the presence of Antipater, Herod’s eldest son, recalled to court for the purpose of checking presumptuous hopes of succession on the part of Alexander and Aristobulus; and, finally, the suspicious nature of Herod, now made more so by age, and the use of an absolute power over the lives of his subjects to extort evidence by torture,—under such conditions as these, ‘where many things were done and more were believed and repeated,’ intrigue could hardly fail to ripen into tragedy.

Soon after the return of Alexander and Aristobulus from Rome, where they had been educated, they were suspected of plotting vengeance on Herod for their mother’s death, and of entertaining premature hopes of succession to the throne. Herod himself preferred charges against them before the Emperor at Aquileia, but Augustus succeeded in effecting a temporary reconciliation. Subsequently Alexander was arrested, but released through the influence of Archelaus. Gradually, however, the meshes of intrigue closed around the Hasmonaean brothers. Permission was obtained from Augustus to bring them to trial, but the Emperor’s suggestions about the constitution of the court were not strictly adhered to. Herod himself appeared as a witness against his sons, and the court condemned them by a majority vote, Saturninus and his sons dissenting. They were strangled at Sebaste (Samaria), and buried at Alexandrinum about the year b.c. 7. Finally, on the death of his brother Pheroras, Herod discovered that Antipater, who had gone to Rome bearing the will of his father, which named him as successor to the throne, was himself implicated in a patricidal plot. Thereupon Herod wrote to Antipater, urging with great solicitude and paternal affection his speedy return. On arriving in Jerusalem, Antipater was brought to trial before Varus, Nicolaus of Damascus appearing to prosecute the case for Herod. And when Antipater failed to clear himself, he was cast into prison, while Herod awaited permission from Augustus to put him to death.

Herod was now grown old. His physical constitution, naturally powerful and robust, began to give way. The hot baths of Callirhoë gave little or no relief to his disorders. It soon became known that he was suffering from an incurable disease, and the signs of popular rejoicing only embittered the last hours of his despotic reign. The stirring of his anger, as on a former occasion, seemed to rouse his waning energy. When the disciples of two popular teachers of the Law in Jerusalem, Judas and Matthias, cut down the golden eagle from the gate of the Temple, Herod promptly returned, and had forty-two of the participants, including their teachers, burned to death. His sufferings now became more intense. A bath in warm oil ordered by his physicians almost killed him, and in a fit of despair he even attempted to take his own life. Josephus also reports that he gave orders that at the moment of his death all the principal men of the country, whom he had gathered in the hippodrome at Jericho, should be put to death, in order that the people might have cause to sorrow at his departure. But this order was never carried out (cf. Wellhausen^{4 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} , 345, n^{. [Note: note.]} 2). The imprisoned Antipater about this time, thinking that his father was dead, sought to escape; but Herod, learning of it, and having just received authority for his execution from Rome, gave the order for his death. On the fifth day after the death of Antipater, Herod died at Jericho, in March or April of the year b.c. 4, being about seventy years of age, and having reigned thirty-seven years since his appointment by the Roman Senate and thirty-four since the taking of Jerusalem. His body was carried to Herodium, and interred with military honours.

Herod had received from Augustus at Aquileia the right to dispose of his kingdom as he willed, and apparently at that time contemplated abdication in favour of his sons, but was restrained by the Emperor (Ant. xvi. iv. 5). When he returned to Jerusalem, he made public announcement of his intention that the succession should go to Antipater first, and then to Alexander and Aristobulus. Before his death he made three wills. In the first, made about b.c. 6, Antipater was named to succeed to the throne, or, in case of his death, Herod (Philip) the son of Mariamne the high priest’s daughter (Ant. xvii. iii. 2; BJ i. xxix. 2). In the second, made after the treachery of Antipater had been discovered, Antipas was named as his heir (Ant. xvii. vi. 1; BJ i. xxxii. 7). In the third, made shortly before his death, Archelaus was appointed to succeed to Judaea and Samaria, with the title of king; Antipas was given Peraea, with the title of tetrarch; and Philip, with a similar title, received Trachonitis, Auranitis, and Batanaea (Ant. xvii. viii. 1: BJ i. xxxiii. 7).

Although Josephus gives a very detailed account of Herod’s reign, depending to a far greater extent on Nicolaus of Damascus than his occasional citations would indicate (cf. Schürer^{3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} , i. 82 ff.), it is not historically probable that he has recorded every incident found in his sources, much less every incident that occurred during this period. For, while his representation has in its main features and even in most of its details the appearance of a faithful and trustworthy narrative, it is not unlikely that he has misunderstood or misrepresented some movements, such as the character of the robbers in Galilee; others he has neglected for some reason, such as the Messianic ideas of the time, and their popular influence witnessed by the Psalms of Solomon and the NT (cf. Matthew 2:1 ff.; and Mathews, Hist. 126, The Messianic Hope in the NT, 13 ff.). It is possible also that Josephus misrepresented some details of the history through misunderstanding his sources, such, for example, as the day of the fall of Jerusalem, or, again, assigned wrong motives for actions, and even narrated as fact what did not happen. There are some descriptions of different events which reveal striking similarities, and there are some apparent inconsistencies. The narrative in BJ is closely parallel with that in Ant., but in some instances the one contains what the other omits. However highly, therefore, we may estimate the trustworthiness of Josephus as an historian, his silence can be used as an argument against the historicity of an event, otherwise attested, only in case it can be shown that Josephus or his source could not have been in ignorance of the event, and would have had good reason to mention it had it occurred, and no good reason for omitting it if known. But even should this be established, the argument from silence would have only secondary value in confirming a negative judgment, since any judgment in such a case must depend primarily upon the character of the source in which the event is recorded.

Both St. Matthew and St. Luke assign the birth of Jesus to a time shortly before the death of Herod (Matthew 2:1 ff., Luke 1:5; Luke 1:26; Luke 1:56; Luke 2:1 ff.). This event, although not mentioned by Josephus, could not have taken place later than the spring of b.c. 4. St. Luke, indeed, brings the event more directly into connexion with the emperor Augustus by mentioning the imperial decree of enrolment, which caused the journey of Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem. St. Matthew, on the other hand, by narrating the visit of the Wise Men from the East (μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν, Matthew 2:1), gives us a glimpse of Jerusalem and Herod wonderfully true to the historical and psychological probabilities that may be inferred from Josephus and other sources. The arrival of the Magi in Jerusalem, the form of their question revealing the fact that they were not Jews, the Messianic significance of their question and its appreciation by the people and by Herod, the consequent effect on the city and on the king, Herod’s questioning of the scribes where the Christ, i.e. the Messiah, should be born, the answer according well not only with OT prophecy, but with the Messianic ideas of the time (cf. Zahn, Matth. 94, n^{. [Note: note.]} 86; Bousset, Religion des Jud. 214), and, finally, the character of Herod, suspicious, dissimulating, treacherous,—the whole description vividly reflects the historical conditions of the closing years of Herod’s reign. The local colouring betrays no false touch. The ideas and scenes are appropriate to the times, and the character of Herod is quite his own. When St. Matthew tells us that Herod in his anger at being deceived by the Magi slew all the children of two years and under in Bethlehem and its borders, we still recognize perfectly the man whose closing years were filled with passion and bloodshed. Josephus, indeed, does not mention the incident. What he does narrate of Herod, however, bears indirect testimony to a fact so entirely consistent with Herod’s character. If the fact therefore be denied, the denial will rest on subjective rather than historical grounds.

Grätz, indeed, remarks (Hist. of the Jews, ii. 116): ‘A legend of later date tells how Herod was not satisfied with shedding the blood of his own children, but how, in a passion, he ordered all children under two years of age in Bethlehem and the surrounding country to be massacred, because he had heard that the Messiah of the house of David bad been born in that place. But Herod, criminal as he was, was innocent of this crime.’ Similarly I. Broydé (Jewish Encyc. vi. 360), who, however, makes appeal to the fact that ‘the massacre of the Innocents as related in the NT is now generally admitted by independent Christian thinkers to be legendary.’ For this opinion, however, no historical evidence is advanced. The asserted legendary character of St. Matthew’s narrative and its later date, even when strengthened by appeal to independent Christian thinkers, is only subjective and dogmatical. In the latter case, indeed (cf. Holtzmann, Handcom.^{3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} 41), the attempt is made to ground such a judgment historically by comparing Mt. and Lk., and inferring from their differences the untrustworthy character of each. The fundamental objection to the historicity of the Gospel narratives is, however, not so much the differences between them, which simply prove their relative independence, as the supernatural facts which they record, and in particular, in this part of St. Matthew’s narrative, the star of the Magi. Dr. Zahn (Matth. 98 f.) has suggested an interpretation of this phenomenon as a purely natural occurrence, described, however, not in terms of scientific precision but in popular language, and from the point of view of the Magi. But even should such an explanation be thought exegetically inadequate, the historicity of the narrative could be denied, and the narrative itself justly described as legendary, only on principles of interpretation whose ‘independence,’ by reason of their dependence on naturalistic premises, logically excluded from the sphere of history all miraculous events, and necessarily explained the narratives of such events as legendary in character and origin.

For an account of Herod’s son Archelaus see Archelaus.

2. Antipas.—The second son of Herod and Malthake, the full brother of Archelaus, is called by Josephus Ἀντίπας (Ant. xvii. vii. 1) or Ἡρῴδης (xviii. ii. 1). In the NT and on the coins only the name Ἡρῴδης appears. Under his father’s last will, as ratified by Augustus, Antipas received Peraea and Galilee, with the title τετραάρχης (see Tetrarch). He is commonly designated by this title in the NT, although the popular ὁ βασιλεύς occurs in Mark 6:14 ff., Matthew 14:9.

We know little concerning the events of Antipas’ long reign (b.c. 4–a.d. 39). The narrative given by Josephus is very meagre after the death of Herod the Great.^{* [Note: This meagreness, as compared with the detailed account of the life and reign of Herod the Great, is due doubtless to the failure, after Herod’s death, of one of the principal sources upon which Josephus depended, Nicolaus of Damascus (cf. Schurer3. i. 53; Mathews, Hist. 134, n. 1).]} Having little to tell of Archelaus, Josephus introduced very interesting digressions about the Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, and Essenes (Ant. xviii. i.–vi.; BJ ii. viii. 1–14). But, having equally little to tell of Antipas, he filled in his narrative in Ant. with an account of the Parthians and their relations with Rome—with which, indeed, Antipas was incidentally connected (cf. Ant. xviii. ii. 4, iv. 4; Schürer^{3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} , i. 447). We learn from Josephus, however, that Antipas rebuilt and strongly fortified Sepphoris and Betharamphtha for the protection of Galilee and Peraea. He also built and colonized Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee. On one occasion, when in Rome at the house of his brother Herod Philip (Ant. xviii. v. 1; cf. Mark 6:17), son of Mariamne the high priest’s daughter, Antipas secured the consent of Herodias, his brother’s wife, to leave her husband and marry him, on condition that he put away his own wife, the daughter of Aretas, king of the Nabataeans. When Antipas returned, his wife, who had learned of his understanding with Herodias, asked permission to go to Machaerus, a fortress near the border of her father’s territory. Without suspecting her purpose, Antipas granted her request; but she continued her journey to Arabia, and enlightened her father concerning the dutiful intentions of his son-in-law. Because of this and certain boundary disputes, enmity arose between Aretas and Antipas, which eventually issued in war, and a crushing defeat for Antipas.

It is difficult to determine just how soon after the marriage with Herodias the war between Antipas and Aretas broke out. Vitellius, although harbouring an old grudge against Antipas, and thus naturally disposed to make haste slowly in coming to his assistance, was, nevertheless, under orders from Rome, marching against Aretas to punish him for his rough treatment of Antipas, and had got as far as Jerusalem when news came of the death of Tiberius (a.d 37). The defeat of Antipas can hardly have been later than the year 36. Josephus, however, remarks (Ant. xviii. v. 2) that the defeat of Antipas was popularly regarded as a Divine punishment for the murder of John the Baptist. Hence it has been inferred by Keim and others that neither the death of John nor the marriage with Herodias can have preceded this event by many years. Keim advocated the year 34 as the date of John’s death, and assigned the death of Jesus to the year 35 (Jesus of Nazara, ii. 387 ff.). Sieffert dates the journey of Antipas to Rome, when he gained the consent of Herodias to their marriage, in the year 34 (PR^{E [Note: RE Real-Encyklopädie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} vii. 769, l. 49). The concise character of Josephus’ narrative, however, as well as the condition of the text in this section of Ant., renders it precarious to infer, from the order of events, close chronological sequence (cf. Schürer^{3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} , i. 443 ff.; Wellhansen^{4 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} , 354). Equally uncertain is the chronological inference from the popular connexion of Antipas’ defeat with the death of John, since such a judgment is too flexible to furnish any very definite chronological datum.

The arrest, imprisonment, and death of John the Baptist are narrated in the Gospels and in Josephus (cf. Matthew 4:12; Matthew 11:2 ff; Matthew 14:3 ff., Mark 1:14; Mark 6:17 ff., Luke 3:19 f., 7:18ff., 9:7ff., John 3:24; Ant. xviii. v. 2). Both sources give an account of John’s preaching and baptism. Josephus mentions a political motive for John’s arrest; but, while such a motive is not unlikely in view of the popularity of John’s ministry (Mark 1:5, Matthew 3:5, Luke 3:21, cf. John 5:35) and the Messianic character of his preaching (Mark 1:9 ff., Matthew 3:11 f., Luke 3:15 ff., cf. John 1:15; John 1:19 ff; John 1:37; John 3:28 ff.), it does not fully explain his death. We learn also from Josephus that John was imprisoned in the fortress of Machaerus, but nothing is said concerning the length of the imprisonment. The Gospels, however, give a personal motive for the arrest of John, indicate that the imprisonment lasted for some time,—probably about a year,^{* [Note: Jesus’ Galilaean ministry began just after the imprisonment of John (}Mark 1:14^, Matthew 4:12^{). John’s ministry was looked back upon as past at the feast of} John 5:1^{; cf.} John 5:35^{. Messengers came from the imprisoned John to Jesus in the midst of the early Galilaean ministry. News of Jesus reached Herod about the time of the mission of the Twelve, and in this connexion the Gospels mention the fears of Herod that John was risen from the dead. The inference is not improbable that John’s death was a matter of recent occurrence.]} —and attribute his death to the enmity of Herodias (Mark 6:17-29, Matthew 14:3-12, Luke 3:19-20). For John had rebuked Herod for his marriage with Herodias, and for this had been imprisoned. The imprisonment seems to have been moderated by the free access of his disciples to him, and Herod himself heard John from time to time. At length, however, on the occasion of a birthday feast,^{† [Note: On the meaning of γενέσιος in} Mark 6:21^, Matthew 14:6^{, cf. Schürer3, i. 439, n. 27; Zahn, Matth. 504, n. 81; Jos. Ant. xix. vii. 1; Oxyr. Pap. i. 112. 4, iii. 494. 24, 521, iv. 736. 56, 57; Fay. Pap. i. 114. 20, 115. 6, 119. 30.]} celebrated by Herod with the chief men of his government, probably at the palace in Machaerus, a favourable opportunity presented itself for Herodias to be avenged on John for his attack on her marriage. Salome, the daughter of her former marriage,^{‡ [Note: The reading} Mark 6:22^{αὐτοῦ in א BDLΔ, adopted by WH, is probably a corruption for αὑτῆς (cf. Swete, Gosp. acc. to St. Mk. 118; Schurer3, i. 441, n. 29).]} danced before Herod and his guests. Herod was pleased, and promised to do for her what she might ask. At the suggestion of her mother, her request took an unexpected form; but because of his promise Herod granted her the death of the prophet, who, like his predecessor in the days of Ahab, had been bold to arraign immorality in high places.

The boyhood of Jesus and most of His public ministry were spent within the territory of Antipas. It was not, however, until the mission of the Twelve that Herod’s attention was attracted to Jesus; for, though labouring on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and from Capernaum as a centre extending His work into the surrounding country, Jesus apparently did not visit Tiberias. Shortly after Jesus learned that Herod had heard of Him, He withdrew from Galilee, going into the region of Tyre and Sidon (part of the Roman province of Syria). On one occasion Jesus warned His disciples against the leaven of Herod (Mark 8:15); on another the Pharisees, manifesting an unwonted interest in Jesus’ safety, brought Him word that Herod was planning His death (Luke 13:31). The reply of Jesus on the latter occasion—‘Go tell that fox’—shows that He saw through the cunning design of Herod to be rid of Him. True to His own word,—‘for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem,’—it was not at the hand of Herod that the Saviour of the world suffered, but at the hands of the Roman world-rulers and their procurator, Pontius Pilate. At the trial of Jesus, Herod’s wish to see Him was at length gratified. For Pilate, when he learned that Jesus was of Galilee, and thus subject to Herod’s jurisdiction, at once sent him to Herod, who was in Jerusalem at that time. This act of consideration, prompted possibly by the strained relations between the two rulers (Luke 23:12; cf. Luke 13:1), proved an effectual peace-offering, and cemented anew the bonds of friendship between them. Herod, however, had no desire to assume responsibility for the death of Jesus. His desire to see Jesus sprang from simple curiosity, stimulated by the hope that He would perform some miracle in his presence. But Jesus was silent before Herod and His accusers. Herod, therefore, when he had mocked Him, sent Him back to Pilate arrayed in fine garments. [The part taken by Herod in the trial of Jesus is the subject of legendary elaboration in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter].

Stirred by envy at the advancement of her brother Agrippa to royal dignity, Herodias persuaded Herod, against his better judgment, to seek from Caligula a similar honour. When he came to Rome, however, Agrippa preferred charges against him, and called attention to the military supplies that had been collected by Herod. Herod was unable to deny the existence of the supplies, and was banished by Caligula to Lyons in Gaul, probably in the summer of a.d. 39 (cf. Schürer^{3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} , i. 448, n^{. [Note: note.]} 46; Madden, however, Coins, 122, gives the year 40). Herodias proudly refused the Emperor’s generosity, and accompanied her husband in his banishment (Ant. xvii. vii. 2; BJ ii. ix. 6). Herod’s tetrarchy was given to Agrippa.

3. Philip.—Philip was son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem. When Archelaus went to Rome to secure the ratification of his father’s will, he left Philip in Jerusalem in charge of his affairs. Later, when Varus gave the Jews of Jerusalem permission to send an embassy to Rome to oppose Archelaus, Philip went also, at the suggestion of Varus, to profit by whatever course events might take. When Augustus ratified Herod’s will, Philip received Batanaea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulanitis, and the territory of Panias (Ant. xvii. viii. 1, xi. 4, xviii. iv. 6; BJ ii. vi. 3). In Luke 3:1 the territory of Philip is described by the phrase, ‘the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis’ (τῆς Ἰτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας; cf. Schürer^{3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} , i. 425, n^{. [Note: note.]} 23). The Trachonitis had on two occasions been colonized by Herod the Great—once with three thousand Idumaeans, and again with Jewish warriors from Babylon (Ant. xvi. ix. 2, xvii. ii. 1–3). But the population of Philip’s territory was chiefly Gentile, his coins, unlike those of his brothers, bearing the image of the Emperor. Philip rebuilt Panias, and called it Caesarea in honour of Augustus, and also Bethsaida on the Sea of Galilee, calling it Julias after the Emperor’s daughter. His reign was a mild and peaceful one. He lived in his own country and administered justice as he travelled from place to place (Ant. xviii. iv. 6). He married his niece Salome, daughter of Herodias and Herod Philip (Ant. xviii. v. 4). The Gospels narrate a journey of Jesus into the territory of Philip when He went north from Galilee into the region of Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:27, Matthew 16:13; cf. Caesarea Philippi). Philip died in the year 33 or 34, in the twentieth year of Tiberius, having reigned thirty-seven years. His territory was added to the province of Syria, but was given shortly afterwards by Caligula to Agrippa. See also art. Herodias.

Literature.—Josephus; Derenbourg, Hist. de la Palestine; Madden, Coins of the Jews; Schürer, GJ^{V [Note: JV Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} (English translation of 2nd ed.) i. 338 ff. and index [very full citation of literature]; Hausrath, Hist. of NT Times, i. 207 ff.; O. Holtzmann, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte, 71 ff.; Riggs, Hist. of the Jewish People, 143 ff.; Muir-head, Times of Christ; Farrar, The Herods; S. Mathews, Hist. of NT Times, 100 ff.; Mommsen, Roman Provinces, ii. 189 ff.; Ewald, H^{I [Note: I History of Israel.]} v. 395ff.; Grätz, Hist. of the Jews, ii. 57ff.; de Saulcy, Hist. d’Hérode; Wellhausen, IJ^{G [Note: JG Israelitische und Jüdische Geschichte.] 4 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} 323 ff.; Keim in Schenkel’s Bibel-lexikon, iii. 27 ff.; Westcott in Smith’s D^{B [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] 2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} , ii. 1048 ff.; Sieffert, art. ‘Herodes’ in PR^{E [Note: RE Real-Encyklopädie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} ; Hausleiter, art. ‘Antipas,’ ib.; von Dobschutz, art. ‘Philippus der Tetrareh,’ ib.; Woodhouse in Encyc. Bibl. ii. 2023 ff.; Headlam in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible ii. 353ff.; J. D. Davis, D^{B [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.]} , artt. ‘Herod,’ ‘Philip’; W. Milwitzky, art. ‘Antipas’ in Jewish Encyc.; I. Broydé, art. ‘Herod,’ ib.; S. Ochser, art. ‘Philip,’ ib.

W. P. Armstrong.