Selections From Josephus

References, e.g. Ant. XVII. 6.5 f. (171-181). The figures 6.5 f. refer to the older division, found in all editions (Niese’s included), of the books into sections (6 or vi) and subsections (5 and following subsection). The bracketed figures (171-181) indicate the smaller divisions first introduced by Niese.

SELECTIONS FROM JOSEPHUS
INTRODUCTION

Life

Josephus, son of Matthias the priest, and on his mother’s side claiming descent from the royal Hasmonæan house—or Flavius Josephus, to give him the name which he adopted out of gratitude to his Imperial patrons—was born in the first year of the Emperor Caligula, A.D. 37-38. St. Paul’s conversion had probably taken place a few years earlier.[^[1]] His life of upwards of sixty years falls into two nearly equal parts, spent respectively in Palestine and in Rome. The Palestinian portion, again, is sharply divided into the pre-war period (to A.D. 65), of which we know comparatively little, and the great four years’ war (A.D. 66-70), of which we know a great deal.

Of his precocious youth, when, if we may believe him, Rabbis flocked to hear the wisdom of the boy of fourteen; how he himself two years later “did eagerly frequent Doctor and Saint,” making trial successively of the three sects of his nation, and ending his education by three years passed as an ascetic with a hermit in the wilderness; how on his return to Jerusalem at the age of nineteen he joined the popular and influential party of the Pharisees; of the one outstanding incident of his early manhood, his visit to Rome at the age of twenty-six—of all these things we may read in his own words.[^[2]] Although he finally threw in his lot with the Pharisees, we may judge from the three years’ stay with Ban(n)us, the specially full account which he gives of the Essenes,[^[3]] and other indications, that the tenets and communistic life of that order left a lasting impression. If we may again attempt a synchronism with events in the life of St. Paul, we may say that the Rabbis were listening to the boy about the time of the first Council of the Church at Jerusalem, he was receiving his schooling during the third missionary journey, and his return to Jerusalem nearly coincided with the arrest of the Apostle in that city.

The journey to Rome (A.D. 63-4), like St. Paul’s a few years earlier, began with a shipwreck. Its nominal purpose was to plead the cause of certain priests who had been sent by Felix to Italy for trial. Chronology [^[4]] will hardly permit us to accept the suggestion of Edersheim [^[5]] to connect St. Paul’s liberation with the mission of Josephus; but he cannot have failed, during his stay in the city on the eve of the Neronian persecution, to become acquainted, if not with the work of the Apostle, at least with the existence of the Christian community. Through the influence of Poppæa, the mistress and afterwards wife of Nero, who coquetted with Judaism (Josephus’s words imply that she was a proselyte), he was successful in obtaining the release of the priests and returned to Judæa laden with presents. Besides the expressed object, was there any ulterior motive in this visit to the capital? Edersheim suggests that, foreseeing the trend of events, Josephus was already fired with the ambition of becoming the intermediary between Rome and his nation.

At any rate, his visit had impressed him with a sense of Rome’s invincible power; and on his return to Judæa, where he found the Jews drifting towards revolt and everything pointing to the immediate outbreak of war, he at first tried to pacify the war-party, but in vain. The turbulent state of the country at length induced Cestius Gallus, the governor of Syria, to advance against Jerusalem. With the disastrous rout of his army in the defiles of Beth-Horon towards the end of A.D. 66, following upon his unexpected withdrawal from the gates of the metropolis,[^[6]] it was realized that the irrevocable step had been taken, and all preparations were made for the impending war.

Josephus, then but twenty-nine years of age, was entrusted with the command of Galilee. The reason for the selection of the young priest for so important a post, for which, notwithstanding his frequent assertions of his skill and strategy, he seems to have been ill-qualified, is obscure. The history of the sequel fills the greater part of the Life, but it is not very easy to follow the course of events and to read the motives of the leaders at Jerusalem and the conflicting aims of the various cities of Galilee, which Josephus found in a divided state. His first steps were to fortify the principal places, to reform the army on the Roman model by appointing subordinate officers, and to set up a council of seventy of the principal Galilæans to try cases and to act as hostages for the loyalty of the district. But his efforts to enforce discipline and to secure the allegiance of the Galilæans were unavailing. He had many opponents, in particular John of Gischala, who afterwards played an important part in the siege of Jerusalem. The spring of A.D. 67 was chiefly spent by Josephus in civil strife and in avoiding plots against his life. He was suspected, perhaps justly, of harbouring designs of betraying the country to Rome; he may have hoped to stave off war by some form of compromise. At length John succeeded in inducing the Jerusalem leaders to supersede Josephus, and an embassy was sent to relieve him of his command. He, however, refused to accept the order, and obtained letters from the capital reinstating him. Meanwhile, Vespasian was advancing upon Galilee from Antioch. On the fall of Gadara Josephus was at first inclined to surrender and wrote to Jerusalem for instructions, but finally resolved to stand a siege in the fortified town of Jotapata.

Of the forty-seven days’ siege of Jotapata and the various machinations and counter-machinations of the belligerents Josephus has given us a graphic account in the third book of the Jewish War. The story of its fall (July, A.D. 67) and of the sequel—the capture of the general, after a narrow escape, through a ruse, from death at the hands of his compatriots, and his prophecy of Vespasian’s rise to power—will be found in the text.[^[7]]

“By the end of A.D. 67,” I quote from what I have written elsewhere, “the whole of northern Palestine was in the hands of the Romans. Only Jerusalem, where a bloody civil war was raging, remained to be taken. But its capture was delayed by the events of A.D. 68, which drew the attention of the generals to the west. News came first of the death of Nero, which took place in June, and then, in rapid succession, of the accession of Galba, Otho and Vitellius. In July, A.D. 69, Vespasian’s legions took the law into their own hands, and proclaimed him emperor. One of his first acts as emperor was to liberate Josephus, whose prophecy had now come true.[^[8]]... [Josephus] now accompanied the emperor to Alexandria, and from there was sent back with Titus to take part in the siege of Jerusalem.... [His] services as interpreter and intercessor were more than once requisitioned by Titus;[^[9]] on one occasion he was hit by a stone, and barely escaped capture and death at the hands of his countrymen. He was, he tells us, at this time between two fires; for, while bitterly hated by the Jews, he was suspected by the Romans of treachery whenever they met with a reverse.”[^[10]]

For his life in Rome, where he witnessed (with what feelings we are left to imagine) the triumphal procession of the two emperors,[^[11]] and for the various privileges bestowed on him by Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, we may refer to his own narrative.[^[12]] Awarded the rights of Roman citizenship, he was also among the first to be placed on the “civil list” newly instituted by Vespasian.[^[13]] He was still pursued by Jewish hatred; among his opponents he names in particular Justus, a rival historian of the war, and Jonathan, the leader of a revolt in Cyrene, who accused him of complicity in his designs; but with his unfailing tact he succeeded in retaining the favour of the Flavian emperors and defeating his enemies. He appears to have survived into the second century, since he outlived Agrippa II,[^[14]] whose death is placed by Photius in A.D. 100. Eusebius (H. E. III. 9) tells us that our author was honoured by the erection of his statue in Rome, and that his works were placed in the public library. He was married at least four times;[^[15]] one wife deserted him, another he divorced.

Works

During the leisure of his life in Rome Josephus composed the four works which, owing largely, no doubt, to their popularity with early Christian writers, have survived entire: the Jewish War (7 books), the Jewish Antiquities (20 books), the Life and the treatise Against Apion (2 books). There is no adequate ground for thinking that he published anything further.

(i) The Jewish War. This, the earliest of the works, was, in its present Greek form, finished in the latter half of Vespasian’s reign, between A.D. 75 and 79. It cannot be earlier than A.D. 75, because it mentions the completion of the temple of Pax (B. J. VII. 158), which was dedicated in that year; it had, moreover, been preceded by other histories of the war. The Greek, as the author tells us,[^[16]] is a translation, made for the use of the learned Roman world at large, of a first draft, written in his native Aramaic for the benefit of a smaller circle of readers in upper (or inland) Syria. The Aramaic has not survived. The Greek—for which assistance was obtained, “employing certain collaborateurs with a view to the Greek style” are his words, c. Ap. I. 50—shows no sign of its Semitic parentage and probably amounted to practically a new work. It is unlikely, e. g., that the first draft contained the summary sketch of Jewish history from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, which occupies Books I and II of the Greek. The work seems to have been issued in parts.[^[17]] Copies were presented to Vespasian and Titus and other Romans who had taken part in the war, and sold to Herod Agrippa II and other learned Jews (c. Ap. I. 51). Titus himself affixed his imprimatur. A long correspondence on the work passed between the author and his friend, Agrippa; two specimens of the king’s letters, in rather slipshod Greek, are quoted.[^[18]]

Books I and II give a rapid sketch (expanded in the Ant.) of Jewish history from the capture of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes (168 B.C.) down to the defeat of Cestius Gallus in A.D. 66 and the preparations for the war. Book III narrates the coming of Vespasian and Titus, the siege of Jotapata and the fighting in Galilee; Book IV the close of the Galilæan campaign, the factions in Jerusalem, the advance of Vespasian upon the city and his return to Rome on being elected emperor by his army; Book V describes the city and Temple, the investment by Titus and the capture of the first and second walls; Book VI the horrors of the famine, the taking of the fortress of Antonia, followed by the burning of the Temple and the capture and destruction of the city; Book VII the return of Titus to Rome, the triumphal procession and the capture of the last strongholds of the Jewish fanatics.

(ii) The Jewish Antiquities. In this, his magnum opus, Josephus undertook to write the history of his nation from the creation to the outbreak of the Jewish War. He tells us of his misgivings in entering on so large a task, the toil which it involved, and how it was only through the encouragement of his patron Epaphroditus (to whom Ant., the Life and the Apion treatise are all dedicated) that it was finally completed in the thirteenth year of Domitian’s reign and the fifty-sixth of his own life, A.D. 93-94 (Ant. I. 6 ff.; XX. 267). The work towards the close shows some marks of weariness. The title (Ἰουδαïκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία) and the division into twenty books were doubtless derived from the great Roman history (Ῥωμαïκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία) of Dionysius of Halicarnassus.

In Books I-X the narrative closely follows the Biblical account down to the Babylonian captivity; XI carries on the story to Alexander the Great; XII to the death of Judas Maccabæus (161 B.C.); XIII contains the history of the Hasmonæan house to the death of Queen Alexandra (67 B.C.); XIV the intervention of Pompey and the Romans and the accession of Herod the Great (37 B.C.), whose reign (37-4 B.C.) fills XV, XVI and the first half of XVII; the rest of XVII comprises the reign of Archelaus (4 B.C. to A.D. 6); XVIII, XIX and XX cover the remainder of the period of the Gospels and the Acts, including notices of Quirinius, Pilate, Tiberius, Herod the Tetrarch, and the two later Herods; the greater part of XIX is occupied with a full, but irrelevant, account of the assassination of the emperor Gaius and the accession of Claudius (A.D. 41); XX summarizes the events to the outbreak of the war (A.D. 66).

As regards the historian’s authorities for the first half of his work, the main source was the Greek Bible (“the Septuagint”), occasional use being made of the Hebrew. This was supplemented by (1) legends and commentary, drawn, in part at least, from Rabbinic tradition (Haggadah and Halachah); (2) Hellenistic reproductions of the Biblical history by Alexandrians such as Demetrius and Artapanus; (3) secular historians and non-Biblical documents such as Berosus, the annals of Tyre, etc. The number of authorities named under this last head is considerable, but it is probable that many of them were known to Josephus only through the great Universal History of Nicolas of Damascus, the friend of Herod the Great and Augustus, to which he is largely indebted throughout the whole of Ant. For the centuries following the Captivity his authorities are unfortunately scanty and of little value. From the Captivity to Antiochus Epiphanes his main sources are the LXX books of 1 Esdras and Esther, some legends of Alexander the Great, the Letter of Aristeas, 1 Maccabees and (occasionally) Polybius. From this point he relies largely on two lost Universal Histories of Augustan writers, Strabo and Nicolas of Damascus. The latter was undoubtedly his chief authority for the very full account of the reign of Herod the Great, though he does not accept all his statements without question, and appears to have had access to some less eulogistic history of that monarch. Mention is once made of the “Memoirs of King Herod” (XV, 174). With the accession of Archelaus the history, unfortunately for the student of the N.T., again becomes meagre, expanding into greater fullness when the reign of Agrippa I is reached. With regard to him Josephus would obtain information from his son, Agrippa II, and for the events leading up to the war he could draw on his own recollections. The account of the assassination of Gaius, which is of primary importance for the Roman historian, was thought by Mommsen to be derived from the work of Cluvius Rufus, a witness of the events which immediately preceded it. Besides these authorities Josephus had access to priestly records (he notes the succession of high priests throughout the narrative) and to important decrees concerning privileges granted on various occasions to Jews resident in Asia and elsewhere.

(iii) The Life was written as a sequel to the Antiquities, to which it is appended in the MSS. A promise of such an appendix is made at the end of Ant. (XX. 266); and the Life closes with a dedication of the whole history to Epaphroditus, the patron named in the exordium to the larger work. But the Life seems to have been an afterthought, added only after an interval of some six or seven years, since it is implied that, Agrippa II is already dead,[^[19]] and his death is said to have occurred in A.D. 100. The immediate occasion for its production was the appearance of a rival history of the Jewish War by Justus of Tiberias, in which the writer accused Josephus of being the real cause of the war with Rome. “The appearance of Justus’s work, with its damaging criticisms, was likely to endanger the secure position which Josephus had won for himself at Rome, and the earlier historian of the war felt bound to defend himself. The Life, then, by no means answers to its name. It is not a complete autobiography, but simply an apologetic statement as to the actions of Josephus as commander in Galilee, to which have been added a few details as to the earlier and later events of his life, by way of prologue and epilogue.”[^[20]] The defence, in which Josephus attempts to pose as friendly to the Romans, while he has to admit the part which he took in organizing the Jewish forces to oppose them, is extremely weak; and the work, which is characterized by inordinate self-praise, is the least satisfactory of the historian’s writings.

(iv) The treatise Against Apion (in two books) is, on the other hand, the most pleasing of our author’s works, showing a well-designed plan, great literary skill, and a more genuine patriotism, a warmer and more impassioned zeal for his country’s religion, than we find elsewhere. The title (not the author’s) is, like that of the Life, unsuitable, Apion not being mentioned until Book II is reached. Older titles were: “On the Antiquity of the Jews” (not sufficiently distinctive), and “Against the Greeks.” It is designed as a reply to criticisms on the Antiquities and a refutation of current attacks upon, and groundless prejudices against, the Jewish nation; it is, in short, an Apology for Judaism with a demonstration of the antiquity of the race. It gives an interesting insight into the anti-Semitism of the first century. Apion is merely one representative of Israel’s enemies; a grammarian and interpreter of Homer, he is best known as the leader of the embassy to Caligula in A.D. 38, which brought accusations against the Jewish residents in Alexandria, and was opposed by a counter-embassy of Alexandrian Jews, headed by Philo. Josephus challenges the extreme antiquity claimed for the Greeks; accounts for the silence of Greek writers with regard to Jewish history; cites evidence for the antiquity of his nation from Egyptian, Phœnician, Babylonian and Greek sources; refutes the malignant and absurd accusations of the anti-Semites; and concludes with an able and eloquent defence of the lawgiver and his code,[^[21]] contrasting his conception of God with the immoral ideas current among the Greeks. The numerous quotations from lost writings give the work a special value. Its date must be later than A.D. 93 (the date of Ant.), but whether written before or after the Life is uncertain.

Two further works, as he tells us at the end of Ant., were projected by Josephus, viz.: (1) A summary sketch of the war and the subsequent history of his nation down to A.D. 93-4; (2) “A work in four books concerning God and His being and concerning the Laws, why some actions are permitted to us by them and others are forbidden.” It is unlikely that either was ever completed. But the work on “Customs and Causes,” as he elsewhere calls it, appears, from the mention of the four books and from scattered allusions in the Antiquities to its intended contents, to have already taken shape in his mind, and was perhaps begun. The failure to carry out this scheme is regrettable.

From the repeated occurrence, usually with reference to the Seleucid dynasty or Parthian affairs, of the phrase “as we have shown elsewhere,” Josephus might appear to have written a monograph on Syrian history. But the variations on the phrase, “as has been shown elsewhere” (lit. “in others”) and (twice) “... by others,” make it probable that the use of the first person, where it occurs, has been carelessly taken over from one of his authorities.

The fourth book of Maccabees (in vol. iii. of Dr. Swete’s LXX) appears in the older editions of Josephus, but has no claim to have come from his pen.

The Man and the Historian. Importance of his Work [^[22]]

The personal character of Josephus and his credibility as a historian have been often impugned, more especially by his own compatriots. Edersheim’s article in the Dictionary of Christian Biography (where our author finds himself in strange company), while not lacking in appreciation of his merits, displays some of this rancour, though not in its more virulent form. He has been denounced as traitor and renegade, as a flatterer of the Romans and one whose statements must always be regarded with suspicion.

His character is somewhat of an enigma. We may grant that it is not one to arouse any feeling of keen admiration. He was no ardent patriot, like Judas Maccabæus, no missionary in a great cause to which he was ready to devote his whole heart and soul and to sacrifice his life. His three years’ sojourn in the wilderness was not, like the visit to Arabia of an older contemporary, the prelude to a life-work of strenuous and unremitting toil ending in imprisonment and martyrdom. His faults are patent; and among them we should rank first an inordinate egotism and a concern, above all other considerations, for his personal interests. His life was constantly in danger; like St. Paul, he encountered perils in the sea, perils from his own countrymen, perils from the Gentiles; but his instinct for self-preservation, aided by ready tact and resourcefulness, carried him safely through the most desperate situations. In his account of the shipwreck [^[23]] we read that “I and certain others, about eighty in all [out of a crew of six hundred], outstripped the others and were taken on board.” There is no thought of the unfortunate swimmers who were left behind; nothing corresponding to the Apostle’s words of encouragement in similar circumstances, and to his biographer’s joy in recording that “all escaped safe to the land.” In Galilee, before the siege of Jotapata, he narrates with evident self-satisfaction the various stratagems by which he outwitted his enemies who plotted against his life. During the siege he meditated flight; “Josephus, dissembling his anxiety for his own safety, said that it was for their sakes that he proposed to retire”—such is his own naïve statement of his reply to the remonstrances of the besieged citizens (B.J. III. 7. 15 f. (197)). Then there is the final scene in the cave; we cannot but admire the dexterity with which he eluded death at the hands of his fellow-prisoners and the vividness of his description; but by what ruse (“should one say by fortune or by the providence of God?” are his own words) he managed to be, with one companion, the last survivor in the drawing of the lots, remains a mystery.[^[24]] Later, as Roman prisoner and Roman citizen, he always steered a safe course and retained the favour of a succession of imperial patrons. He was, it seems, a man of the world with a thoroughly secular disposition.

What was his real attitude to Judaism? Though he devoted the latter part of his life to writing the history of his nation and a very able defence of their religion, we may doubt whether he was profoundly affected by their beliefs. Traill finds something “unnational” in the first act of his life, when he “looked around him upon the sects and factions of his times ... with a philosophic, supercilious independence.”[^[25]] Though we need not, perhaps, go so far as this, nor blame him for what appears to have been a genuine quest of truth, we may allow that he was a cosmopolitan, alienated in many ways from his own nation, and that there was a lack of depth and sincerity in his adherence to Jewish dogmas.

With this must be considered his attitude to Christianity. If we set aside the one brief “testimony” to Jesus Christ, which must be rejected as an interpolation,[^[26]] we are left with the story of the death of James, “the brother of Jesus who was called Christ,”[^[27]] and the reference to the murder of John the Baptist,[^[28]] as the sole allusions to the Founder of Christianity and the movement which prepared the way for it. This glaring omission cannot be other than deliberate. Josephus had every opportunity of acquainting himself with the events of the life of Christ and of his followers; certainly he did not lack the curiosity to investigate the facts, and he must surely have watched with interest the fortunes and rapid spread of the rising sect which, even in St. Paul’s lifetime, had gained a footing in “Cæsar’s household.”[^[29]] The Apostle’s words with reference to an intimate friend of Josephus might have been said of the historian himself: “I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him; for this hath not been done in a corner.”[^[30]] Yet there is this silence. He does not attack Christianity; he simply ignores it. And, with our knowledge of the character of Josephus, the reason is not far to seek. He studiously avoids a topic to which, in the circumstances of the time, it would have been dangerous to allude. “Not only was he informed on these subjects; he was far too well informed of what the Christians had already and recently suffered ... not to be on his guard against the imprudence of giving any testimony in their favour which might implicate himself in their misfortunes.”[^[31]]

To the same motive must be attributed the historian’s reticence on the subject of a Messiah. The words addressed to the serpent: “It shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel,”[^[32]] occasion no allusion to a future deliverer, nor yet the prophecies of Balaam; Jacob’s blessing is omitted; the oracle which foretold the coming of a world-ruler out of Judæa is interpreted of Vespasian.[^[33]] On the other hand, there are a few passages which suggest that Josephus did not regard the fulfilment of prophecy as closed with the destruction of Jerusalem, and that he may have entertained a belief in a Messianic era involving the downfall of Rome, of which he dared not speak openly. On Balaam he writes (Ant. IV. 6. 5 [125]): “From the accomplishment of all these things in accordance with his prediction one may conjecture what will happen in the future”; and again, in the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Ant. X. 10. 4 [210]): “Daniel also showed the king the meaning of the stone, but I have not thought proper to relate this, my duty being to describe past, not future, events,” while curious enquirers are referred to the prophetical book.

In his public life as statesman and general Josephus scarcely deserves the hard names of traitor and renegade. Involved in early manhood in the rush of events arising out of a popular movement which had long been gathering force, with which he did not sympathize, which he could not stem and vainly tried to direct, realizing from the first the hopelessness of combating the Roman legions, and anxious to find some means of compromise by which to save his country from ruin, he nevertheless accepted the post with which he was entrusted, and threw himself into the task of organizing, to the best of his ability, the defences of Galilee, so long as resistance was possible; while he devoted the energies of his later life, when his position might have tempted him to disown his nation, to writing its history and defending his countrymen against the slanders of a malignant world.

On the position of Josephus as a historian, widely different opinions have been held, from that of Jerome who extolled him as a “Greek Livy,” to the criticisms of some modern writers who have accused him of bias and gross misrepresentation.

The apologetic nature of the Antiquities is self-evident. The author’s purpose was to represent his maligned nation in the best light to Greek readers, “to break down, if possible, the wall of partition that had hitherto secluded the Hebrew race from the communion and cut them off from the sympathies of mankind,” to “plead the cause of the injured Jew at the bar of the world” (Traill). This object has occasioned the suppression of some (though not all) of the less creditable incidents in the Biblical narrative. With a view to attractiveness the narrative is diversified by legendary additions culled from various sources, while occasionally, it must be admitted, the author seems to have added minor details of his own invention (see below on the imitation of Thucydides). Granted some blemishes of this kind, there remains no very serious charge against the writer of Ant. That work is, on the whole, a skilful compilation, its value varying with that of the authorities consulted, while the criticisms passed on some of them show that these were not always used without discrimination.[^[34]] He professes in several passages to have a high ideal of a historian’s duty, and, speaking generally, one may allow that he so far comes up to it as to deserve a fairly high, if not a foremost, place among the historians of antiquity.

As the historian of the Jewish War, Josephus comes before us with the highest credentials. Holding command in Galilee in its opening stages and behind the Roman lines throughout the siege of Jerusalem, he was exceptionally well qualified for this task, and must have relied mainly on his own recollections and the notes which he made at the time (c. Ap. I. 49). Deserters kept him informed of events within the city (ib.). He seems also to have had access to the emperor’s memoirs (Life 358). He submitted the books as they were finished to Herod Agrippa and the completed work to Vespasian and Titus, and from them and others received testimonials to his accuracy (c. Ap. I. 50 ff., Life 361 ff.).[^[35]] We may therefore unhesitatingly accept the general trustworthiness of his account. Exception should, perhaps, be made for a tendency to exaggeration, e. g. in the matter of numbers, and for some, though not a marked, bias for extolling the achievements and clemency of the Roman generals. His statement that Titus desired to spare the Temple [^[36]] runs counter to that of another historian (Sulpicius Severus), who asserts that the destruction received his sanction; the Jewish historian was, at any rate, in a better position to know the facts.

Besides the authorities whom he names in the Antiquities, Josephus, who devoted much attention to style, made a special study of the great masters. The use which he has made of his chief model forms an interesting study. Was it Dionysius of Halicarnassus (to whom, as we saw, he owed the title and arrangement of his Ant.) and his essays on the style of Thucydides that first introduced him to the historian of the Peloponnesian War? Or did he trace a likeness to himself in the great Athenian? Widely different as were the characters of the two men, there were points of similarity in their careers. Like Josephus, Thucydides combined the duties of general and historian of the great war; like him he failed as a military commander (IV. 104 ff.), and through his consequent exile was enabled to associate with the enemy and to view the war from the standpoint of both belligerents (V. 26).[^[37]] However that may be (and it is to the credit of our author that he does not suggest the comparison), there is a marked imitation of the style of Thucydides in portions of the Antiquities, especially in Books XVII-XIX, which possess peculiarities of their own. The imitation is seen in the recurrent use of some striking phrase, and occasionally in the bold attempt to reproduce the difficult and involved style characteristic of parts of Thucydides. One instance of a borrowed phrase must suffice. In his account of the plague of Athens, Thucydides writes, “When they were afraid to visit one another, the sufferers died in their solitude ... or if they ventured they perished, especially those who aspired to heroism.”[^[38]] The phrase in italics has taken the fancy of Josephus, who employs it repeatedly.[^[39]] But imitation did not stop at the diction. The narrative of incidents in the history of Israel has been heightened, it seems, by touches from the account of the siege of Platæa and the Sicilian expedition; this last exploit in particular has aroused the emulation of our author.[^[40]]

Beside this indebtedness to former historians, Josephus doubtless derived inspiration from the literary circle of living authors by whom he was surrounded in Rome. The account of the assassination of Caligula was, as stated, possibly derived from Cluvius Rufus; and it is interesting to reflect that our author must have known a writer just rising to fame, the historian of the Emperors, who has also left us a brief account of the Jewish War, Cornelius Tacitus.

The high literary standard attained by the historian, writing in a language which he acquired with difficulty, and the power of vivid and dramatic description, evident in many brilliant passages, are in the circumstances very remarkable.

Every allowance being made for our author’s defects, the importance of his work is unquestionable. His writings bridge the gulf between sacred and profane literature; they bring the Jewish nation out of its isolation into the main current of world history. The task which he set himself could only be accomplished by a Jew, and few Jews possessed the requisite qualifications of a wide outlook and an intimate knowledge of the world and of Greek literature. His detachment from his nation and other characteristics which may appear as deficiencies in the man are not without their advantages for the historian.

For the O.T. period we may consult him as a store-house of Rabbinical and Alexandrian lore, though his acquaintance with Palestinian tradition is considered by experts [^[41]] to have been as superficial as, judged by his interpretation of proper names, was his knowledge of Hebrew. But it is only when we come down to about the last century before our era and to the N.T. period itself that his evidence acquires supreme importance. Here he gives us the background of Jewish and world history in the time of our Lord and the infant Church; without his labours such a work as Schürer’s Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ could not have been written. Some figures which in the N.T. are little more than names become clothed with life; side-lights are cast on others with which we are more familiar. We may follow in detail the story, told with all the moving pathos of Greek tragedy, of the rise of Herod the Great to the height of his fame and of the nemesis which blasted his domestic happiness. We have full and lifelike portraits of Roman governors and generals, comparable with the slighter sketches in the Gospels and Acts; on the one hand we may read of the causes of the unpopularity of Pilate [^[42]] and of his successors, the last of the procurators, whose corrupt administration and shameless peculation precipitated the war,[^[43]] on the other of high-minded governors like Petronius,[^[44]] claiming kinship with similar noble characters in the N.T.

Among other such illustrations of the N.T. which will be found in the selected passages below the following may be noted. Herod’s dying provision to secure himself a national mourning exhibits the cruelty of the murderer of the innocents.[^[45]] In illustration of St. Luke’s account of the infancy (ii. 1 ff.) we may read the full story of an enrolment under Quirinius;[^[46]] also of the revolt of Judas to which it gave rise and of the later insurrection of Theudas, both of which are mentioned in Gamaliel’s speech in the Sanhedrin (Acts v. 36 f.).[^[47]] In the full account of the succession of Archelaus we may discover the historical event which suggested our Lord’s parable of the nobleman travelling to a far country (Luke xix. 12 ff.).[^[48]] We have independent narratives, partly inconsistent with those in the N.T., of the marriage of Herod the Tetrarch with Herodias [^[49]] and of the death of Herod Agrippa I.[^[50]] In a beautiful story we read of a royal lady who, like Paul and Barnabas, brought relief to famine-stricken Jerusalem in the days of Claudius.[^[51]] The expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Tiberius forms a precedent for the similar action of Claudius (Acts xviii. 2).[^[52]] With the later scenes in St. Paul’s life we may compare what is told us of Felix and Festus,[^[53]] and again of Agrippa II and the marriage of Felix and Drusilla; while the account of the Cypriot magician and his influence over Felix strangely resembles that of Elymas and Sergius Paulus (Acts xiii. 6 ff.).[^[54]] We may read, moreover, of the death of James “the Lord’s brother”;[^[55]] of the use of the word “Corban” (Mark vii. 11) as an oath;[^[56]] of the tenets of the Jewish sects (in more than one passage),[^[57]] and how the Pharisees acquired their power a century before the time of Christ;[^[58]] we have a detailed account of the Jewish treatment in the first century of a case of demoniacal possession;[^[59]] and, last but not least, we find in the scenes from the Jewish War the fulfilment of our Lord’s predictions of the fate of Jerusalem.

Other alleged connexions between Josephus and the N.T. are open to serious question. Few will be inclined to follow Wellhausen, who finds in the murder of Zacharias son of Baris (or Bariscæus or Baruch)[^[60]] the incident referred to in our Lord’s words about “the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar” (Matt. xxiii. 35). Many critics have maintained that there is a direct literary connexion between the Jewish historian and St. Luke, whose writings (not unnaturally, since he alone of the Evangelists composed a “second treatise”) furnish the majority of the parallels. There is very little probability in the suggestion [^[61]] that Josephus, in his description of himself in boyhood being consulted by the Rabbis, was influenced by Luke ii. 46 f. There is more to be said for the theory that St. Luke had made a cursory perusal of parts of the Antiquities and had been thereby led, in at least one instance, into serious error; reasons for rejecting this view will be found elsewhere.[^[62]]

Texts and Translations

The literature on Josephus is immense. It will suffice here to mention two standard editions of the Greek text and two English translations.

Older editions have been practically supplanted by the great critical edition of B. Niese in seven volumes, including a full critical apparatus and introductions on the MSS (Berlin 1887-1895). It cannot be said that Niese has established a final text; he seems to err in placing too great reliance on a single class of MSS, with the result that the true reading is often to be found in the notes rather than in the text. In his editio minor without critical apparatus (1888-1895) some corrections of the errors of the MSS have been introduced. On the basis of the older work of Bekker (1855) and with assistance from Niese, a handy edition has been issued in the Teubner series of classical authors by S. A. Naber (6 vols., Leipzig, 1888-1896). Niese’s larger edition is indispensable to the student, but that of Naber forms a useful auxiliary and check upon it. Notwithstanding Niese’s work, much remains to be done in establishing the text on a firm basis. In many difficult passages all MSS seem to have gone astray and we are left to conjectural emendation; there are also occasional small lacunæ.

In English Josephus is best known through the translation of William Whiston, first published nearly two centuries ago (1736). A revision of Whiston was produced by the Rev. A. R. Shilleto in Bohn’s Standard Library, with brief topographical notes by Sir C. W. Wilson (5 vols., London, G. Bell, 1889-1890). The revised Whiston is the most serviceable rendering of the complete works available. Whiston has many merits, but he had not access to a good text, his rendering is often at fault and he had little regard for style; while Shilleto’s revision, which appeared inopportunely just before the two modern editions of the Greek text, unfortunately leaves much to be desired.

Of a very different character is the admirable translation of the Jewish War and the Life made by the Rev. Dr. R. Traill and edited, after his death, with notes by Isaac Taylor (London, 1862). Dr. Traill fell a victim to his exertions in relieving his parishioners during the Irish famine of 1846-7, and the version which he contemplated of the remaining works never appeared. In his translation, which combines faithfulness to the original with a fastidious regard for English style, Traill went far towards accomplishing for Josephus what Jowett did for Thucydides.

My procedure in the following selections has been first to produce a version of my own, and then carefully to revise it with the help of both Shilleto’s, Whiston and Traill. In several instances I had the satisfaction of finding that my rendering practically agreed with Traill’s, but I have not scrupled elsewhere to avail myself of happy turns of expression where, as often, he had the advantage of me. Josephus, with his feeling for good style and the pains which he took to acquire it, deserves and demands much care in translation. While in parts of his work his Greek is simple and easy, passages, on the other hand, where he gives his reflections on the character, or estimates the motives, of his dramatis personæ,[^[63]] in the involved manner of Thucydides, are extraordinarily difficult both to understand and to reproduce in readable English.

I have selected the passages most relevant to Christian origins and New Testament study, neglecting almost entirely the first twelve books of the Antiquities.

For further literature reference may be made to the articles in the Dictionary of Christian Biography (Edersheim), the Jewish Encyclopædia (S. Krauss), Hastings’ Dictionary of the Apostolic Church (von Dobschütz), Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, Extra Volume (Thackeray), and to Schürer’s Jewish People in the time of Christ (E.T.), div. i. vol. i. pp. 77-110.

I have to acknowledge my gratitude to my sister-in-law, Miss Harriette G. Orr, for her kind assistance in the compilation of the Index.

July 1919.

I. AUTOBIOGRAPHY

(1) The Boy among the Doctors. His Education

I was brought up with Matthias, my own brother by both parents, and made great progress in my education, gaining a reputation for an excellent memory and understanding. |A.D. 51-2| While still a mere boy, about fourteen years old, I won universal applause for my love of letters; insomuch that the chief priests and the leading men of the city used constantly to meet in order to obtain from me more accurate information on some particular in our legal institutions. |A.D. 53-4| At about the age of sixteen I determined to gain personal experience of the several sects into which our nation is divided. These, as I [^[64]] have frequently mentioned, are three in number—the first that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes. I thought that, after a thorough investigation, I should be in a position to select the best. So I submitted myself to hard training and laborious exercises and passed through the three courses. Not content, however, with the experience thus gained, on hearing of one named Bannus, who dwelt in the wilderness, wearing only such raiment as trees provided, feeding on such things as grew of themselves, and using frequent ablutions of cold water, by day and night, for purity’s sake, I became his ardent disciple. With him I lived for three years and, having accomplished my purpose, returned to the city. |A.D. 56-7| Being now in my nineteenth year I began to govern my life by the rules of the Pharisees, a sect which is akin to that which the Greeks call the Stoic school.—Vita 2 (8-12).

(2) A Shipwreck on the Voyage to Rome. The Eve of the War

Josephus meets with the same fate as St. Paul within a few years of the event so graphically described in Acts xxvii.

c. A.D. 64

Soon after I had completed my twenty-sixth year it fell to my lot to go up to Rome for a reason which I will proceed to relate. At the time when Felix was procurator of Judæa, certain priests of my acquaintance, very excellent men, were on a slight and trifling charge sent by him in bonds to Rome to render an account to Cæsar.[^[65]] I was anxious to discover some means of delivering these men, more especially as I learnt that, even in affliction, they had not forgotten the pious practices of religion, but supported themselves on figs and nuts. I reached Rome after being in great jeopardy at sea. For our ship foundered in the midst of the sea of Adria, and our crew of some six hundred souls had to swim all that night. About daybreak, through God’s good providence, we sighted a ship of Cyrene, and I and certain others, about eighty in all, outstripped the others and were taken on board. Landing safely at Dicæarchia, which the Italians call Puteoli, I became on friendly terms with Aliturus, an actor who was a special favourite of Nero and of Jewish origin. Through him I became known to Poppæa, Cæsar’s wife, and took the earliest opportunity of soliciting her aid to secure the liberation of the priests. In addition to this kind service, I received large gifts from Poppæa, and so returned to my own country.

There I found revolutionary movements already on foot, and that many were building high hopes on the prospect of revolt from Rome. I accordingly endeavoured to repress these promoters of sedition and to bring them over to another frame of mind. I urged them to picture to themselves the nation on which they were about to make war, and to remember that they were inferior to the Romans, not only in military skill, but in good fortune; and I warned them not thus recklessly and with such utter madness to expose their country,[^[66]] their families and themselves to the direst perils. With such words I earnestly and insistently sought to dissuade them from their purpose, foreseeing that the end of the war would be most disastrous for us. But my efforts were unavailing; the madness of desperation was far too strong for me.—Vita 3-4 (13-19).

(3) The “Jewish War” and its Reception. Criticism of a rival Historian (Justus)

I cannot but wonder at your impudence in daring to assert that your narrative is to be preferred to that of all who have written on this subject, when you neither knew what happened in Galilee—for you were then at Berytus [^[67]] with the king [^[68]]—nor acquainted yourself with [^[69]] all that the Romans endured or inflicted upon us at the siege of Jotapata; nor was it in your power to ascertain the part which I myself played in the siege, since all possible informants perished in that conflict. Perhaps, however, you will say that you have accurately narrated the events which took place at Jerusalem. How, pray, can that be, seeing that neither were you a combatant nor had you perused the Memoirs of Cæsar, as is abundantly proved by your contradictory account? But, if you are so confident that your history excels all others, why did you not publish it in the lifetime of the Emperors Vespasian and Titus, who conducted the war, and while King Agrippa and all his family, persons thoroughly conversant with Hellenic culture, were still among us? You had it written twenty years ago, and might then have obtained the evidence of eyewitnesses to your accuracy. But not until now, |After A.D. 100| when those persons are no longer with us and you think you cannot be confuted, have you ventured to publish it.

I had no such apprehensions concerning my work. No; I presented the volumes to the Emperors themselves, when the events had hardly passed out of sight, conscious as I was that I had preserved the true story. I expected to receive testimony to my accuracy and was not disappointed. To many others also I immediately presented my History, some of whom had taken part in the war, such as King Agrippa and some of his relatives. Indeed, so anxious was the Emperor Titus that my volumes should be the sole authority from which the world should learn the facts, that he affixed his own signature to them and gave orders for their publication; while King Agrippa wrote [^[70]] sixty-two letters testifying to the truth of the record. Two of these I subjoin, from which you may, if you will, learn the nature of his communications:—

“King Agrippa to dearest Josephus greeting. I have perused the book with the greatest pleasure. You seem to me to have written with much greater care and accuracy than any who have dealt with the subject. Send me the remaining volumes. Farewell.”

“King Agrippa to dearest Josephus greeting. From what you have written you appear to stand in no need of instruction, to enable us all to learn (everything from you) from the beginning.[^[71]] But when you meet me, I will myself instruct you in many things of which you are ignorant.”[^[72]]—Vita 65 (357-366).

(4) After the War. Josephus as Roman Citizen

A.D. 67

After the siege of Jotapata I was in the hands of the Romans and was kept under guard, while receiving every attention. Vespasian showed in many ways the honour in which he held me, and it was by his command that I married one of the women taken captive at Cæsarea, a virgin and a native of that place. She did not, however, remain long with me, for she left me on my obtaining my release and accompanying Vespasian to Alexandria. There I married again. From Alexandria I was sent |A.D. 70| with Titus to the siege of Jerusalem, where my life was frequently in danger, both from the Jews, who were eager to get me into their hands, to gratify their revenge, and from the Romans, who attributed every reverse to some treachery on my part, and were constantly and clamorously demanding of the Emperor that he should punish me as their betrayer. Titus Cæsar, however, knowing well the varying fortunes of war, repressed by his silence the soldiers’ outbursts against me.

Again, when at last Jerusalem was on the point of being carried by assault, Titus Cæsar repeatedly urged me to take whatever I would from the wreck of my country, stating that I had his permission. And I, now that my native place had fallen, having nothing more precious to take and preserve as a solace for my personal misfortunes, made request to Titus for the freedom of some of my countrymen; I also received by his gracious favour a gift of sacred books.[^[73]] Not long after I made petition for my brother and fifty friends, and my request was granted. Again, by permission of Titus, I entered the Temple, where a great multitude of captive women and children had been imprisoned, and liberated all the friends and acquaintances whom I recognized, in number about a hundred and ninety; I took no ransom for their release and restored them to [^[74]] their former fortune. Once more, when I was sent by Titus Cæsar with Cerealius and a thousand horse to a village called Tekoa, to prospect whether it was a suitable place for an entrenched camp, and on my return saw many prisoners who had been crucified and recognized three of my acquaintances among them, I was cut to the heart and came and told Titus with tears what I had seen. He gave orders immediately that they should be taken down and receive the most careful treatment. Two of them died in the physicians’ hands; the third survived.

When Titus had quelled the disturbances in Judæa, conjecturing that the lands which I held at Jerusalem would be unprofitable to me, because a Roman garrison was to be quartered there, he gave me another parcel of ground in the plain. On his departure for Rome, he took me with him on board, treating me with every mark of respect. On our arrival in Rome, I met with great consideration from Vespasian. He gave me a lodging in the house which he had occupied before he came to the throne; he honoured me with the privilege of Roman citizenship; and he assigned me a pension. He continued to honour me up to the time of his departure from this life, without any abatement in his kindness towards me.... Vespasian also presented me with a considerable tract of land in Judæa.

About this time I divorced my wife, being displeased at her behaviour. She had borne me three children, of whom two died; one, whom I named Hyrcanus, is still alive. Afterwards I married a woman of Jewish extraction who had settled in Crete. She came of very distinguished parents, indeed the most notable people in that country. In character she surpassed many of her sex, as her subsequent life showed. By her I had two sons, Justus the elder, and then Simonides, surnamed Agrippa. Such is my domestic history.

The treatment which I received from the Emperors continued unaltered. On Vespasian’s decease |A.D. 79| Titus, who succeeded to the empire, showed the same esteem for me as did his father, and never credited the accusations to which I was constantly subjected. Domitian succeeded |A.D. 81| Titus and added to my honours. He punished my Jewish accusers, and for a similar offence gave orders for the punishment of a slave who was a eunuch and my son’s tutor. He also exempted my property in Judæa from taxation—a mark of the highest honour to the privileged individual. Moreover, Domitia, Cæsar’s wife, never ceased conferring favours upon me.

Such are the events of my whole life; from them let others judge as they will of my character.—Vita 75-76 (414-430).

For further autobiographical details see below, §§ ([38]), ([43]), ([44]), ([46]), ([48]).

II. SPECIMENS OF AMPLIFICATION OF THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE

(5) Moses, the Infant Prodigy, introduced to Pharaoh

For Moses’ beauty, cf. Acts vii. 20. The name of Pharaoh’s daughter, Thermuthis, occurs also in the Book of Jubilees (xlvii. 5, Tharmuth); elsewhere she is called Bithiah (cf. 1 Chron. iv. 18). For Rabbinical parallels, see art. “Moses” in the Jewish Encyclopædia.

When he was three years old, God added wondrously to his stature; and there was no one so lost to an appreciation of beauty as, on seeing Moses, not to be amazed at his comeliness. It often happened that persons meeting him as he was carried along the road, attracted by the child’s appearance, turned round and, leaving their pursuits, gave themselves up to gazing at him. Such boyish charm, so remarkable and perfect as his, held the onlookers spellbound.

Such was Moses when Thermuthis, who was not blessed with offspring of her own, adopted him as her son. Now on one occasion she brought him to her father and showed him to him, and told him how, in case it was God’s will that she should have no child of her own, she had made provision for a successor, by bringing up a boy of divine beauty and noble spirit, and by what a miracle she had received him from the bounteous river. “And I thought,” she added, “to make him my child and the heir to your kingdom.”

With these words she laid the babe in her father’s arms; and he took him and hugged him to his breast, and, to please his daughter, affectionately placed his diadem upon his head. But Moses, in mere childishness, tore it off and dashed it to the ground and trampled upon it.

The incident was thought ominous, portending ill to the kingdom. The sacred scribe, who had foretold that the child’s birth would cause the humiliation of the Egyptian Empire, witnessed the scene and rushed forward to kill him, with an alarming cry. “This, O king,” so he cried, “is that child of whom God told us that if we kill him we need fear nothing. By his action [^[75]] in trampling on (the symbol of) thy sovereignty and treading the diadem under foot [^[76]], he bears out my prediction. Kill him, then, and at one stroke relieve the Egyptians of their fear of him and deprive the Hebrews of the confident hopes which he inspires.”

But Thermuthis was too quick for him and snatched the child away. The king, too, was reluctant to slay him, being inclined to mercy by God, whose providence watched over Moses’ life. Great care was accordingly devoted to his upbringing; the Hebrews resting high hopes upon him for their future, while the Egyptians viewed his education with suspicion.—Ant. II. 9. 6 f. (230-237).

(6) Exorcism in the name of Solomon

“By whom do your sons cast them out?”

God also enabled Solomon, for man’s benefit and cure, to learn the art of encountering devils. He both composed charms for the alleviation of diseases and also left behind him certain methods of exorcism, by which the poor prisoners [^[77]] may expel the devils so that they never return.

This treatment even to this day is of the greatest efficacy among the Jews. I have myself witnessed one of my countrymen, a certain Eleazar, in the presence of Vespasian and his sons and some tribunes and a crowd of soldiers of other ranks, releasing [^[78]] (from their bondage) persons who were possessed by these [^[79]] devils. The mode of treatment was as follows. To the demoniac’s nose he applied his ring which held beneath the seal a root obtained in accordance with Solomon’s prescription, and then as the man smelt it he drew the devil out through his nostrils. The patient at once fell down and Eleazar adjured the devil never to return into him again, using Solomon’s name and reciting the incantations which that monarch composed. Moreover, in his desire to convince the bystanders and to prove that he really possessed this power, Eleazar used to place a little in front of the demoniac a cup or basin [^[80]] full of water, with a command to the devil on his exit from the man to overturn these vessels and so to let the spectators know that he had left him. On this taking place, the skill and wisdom of Solomon were clearly established.—Ant. VIII. 2. 5 (45-49).

(7) Micaiah and Zedekiah prophesy before Ahab

Cf. 1 Kings xxii. With the alleged discrepancy between prophecies of Elijah and Micaiah, cf. Jos. Ant. X. 7. 2 (106 f.) for seeming inconsistency between Jeremiah and Ezekiel which led King Zedekiah to disbelieve both.

So Ahab summoned his own prophets, in number about four hundred, and bade them enquire of God whether, if he led his forces against Ader,[^[81]] He would grant him victory and enable him to overthrow the city [^[82]] which was his objective in going to war. The prophets advised him to undertake the expedition, assuring him that he would defeat the Syrian (king) and get him into his power as on the former occasion. But Jehoshaphat understood from their words that they were false prophets, and asked Ahab whether there was some other prophet of God besides, that they might obtain more accurate information about the issue. Ahab replied that there was such a man, but that he hated him because he prophesied evil and had foretold that he would be defeated and slain by the Syrian (king). “I have him now in ward,” he said, “and his name is Micaiah, the son of Omblaiah.”[^[83]] However, as Jehoshaphat urged that he should be produced, Ahab sent a eunuch to fetch Micaiah.

The eunuch explained to him on the road how all the other prophets had foretold that the king would be victorious; to which he replied that it was impossible for him to give a false report of God’s word, but he would speak whatever God should tell him concerning the king. So when he came before Ahab, and had been adjured by him to tell him the truth, he said that God had shown him the Israelites in flight, pursued by the Syrians and scattered by them to the mountains like flocks that had lost their shepherds. He added that it was revealed to him that they would return to their homes in peace, but he, and he only, would fall in the battle.

When Micaiah had thus spoken, Ahab said to Jehoshaphat, “See, I told you but now of this fellow’s disposition towards me and how he predicted for me nothing but the worst.”

Micaiah replied that Ahab ought to listen to all that God foretold, and that the false prophets were inciting him to make this war, hoping that he would be victorious, whereas he was destined to fall in the battle.

This caused the king to reflect; but Zedekiah, one of the false prophets, approached and advised him to pay no heed to Micaiah. “There is,” he said, “no truth in his words, as I can prove from a prophecy of one who could read the future better than this fellow, I mean Elijah. Elijah foretold that dogs would lick up your blood in the field of Naboth, as they had licked the blood of Naboth who for your sake was stoned to death by the people.[^[84]] Clearly, then, this fellow is a liar, when he contradicts a prophet greater than himself, by asserting that you will die at a distance of three days’ journey from that spot. But you shall all learn whether he speaks the truth and possesses the power of the divine spirit. The instant I strike him, let him injure my hand, as Jadaus withered king Jeroboam’s right hand when he wished to arrest him.[^[85]] You have heard, I presume, that that actually happened.”

So he struck Micaiah, and, when no harm happened to him, Ahab took courage and was ready to lead his army against the king of Syria. Fate, I suppose, was winning the day and causing the false prophets to appear more plausible than the true, that so she might find a handle to bring about his end.—Ant. VIII. 15. 4 (401-439).

III. THE COMING OF THE ROMANS

(8) Loss of Jewish Independence. Palestinian Settlement under Pompey

The quarrels between the brothers Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II bring about the intervention of Rome in Palestinian affairs. Pompey takes Jerusalem, and Syria becomes a Roman province. |63 B.C.| See Map 40 in the Hist. Atlas of Holy Land of G. A. Smith and J. G. Bartholomew.

The sanctuary, which hitherto had been inaccessible and screened from view, suffered gross outrage. Pompey, with several of his staff, penetrated into the inner court and saw things which it was unlawful for any save the high priests to behold. There stood the golden table, and the holy candlestick,[^[86]] and the cups for libations, and a mass of spices;[^[87]] besides these, in the treasury was the sacred money amounting to two thousand talents. Yet Pompey out of piety touched none of these, acting here again in a manner worthy of his noble nature.

On the following day he gave orders to those in charge of the Temple to cleanse the precincts and to offer to God the offerings prescribed by the Law. The high priesthood he restored to Hyrcanus, in gratitude for his other services and chiefly because he had restrained the Jews of the country from taking up arms for Aristobulus. Those who had been responsible for the war were beheaded; Faustus and all who had gallantly scaled the wall received at his hands the appropriate rewards of valour.

Jerusalem he made tributary to Rome, and the cities of Cœle-Syria which had in times past been subdued by the inhabitants (of the metropolis) were taken from them and placed under a governor [^[88]] appointed by himself; and the whole nation, whose power had until then been greatly increasing, was strictly confined within its own bounds. He rebuilt Gadara, which had recently been destroyed,[^[89]] to gratify his freedman Demetrius who was a Gadarene. The other cities—Hippos, Scythopolis, Pella, Dium, Samaria, also Marisa, Azotus, Jamnia and Arethusa—he restored to their inhabitants. These, as well as the cities which had been razed, were all in the interior of the country. On the sea-board Gaza, Joppa, Dora and Strato’s Tower—afterwards magnificently rebuilt by Herod and embellished with harbours and temples under the new name of Cæsarea—all these were liberated by Pompey and attached to the province (of Syria).

Jerusalem owed this calamity to the quarrels of Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. We lost our liberty and became subject to the Romans; we were forced to give back to the Syrians the territory which we had taken from them by our arms. Moreover, within a short period the Romans exacted from us over ten thousand talents. The kingship, formerly a privilege bestowed on those who were high priests by right of birth, now passed into plebeian hands;[^[90]] of this we shall speak in due course.

Pompey then handed over Cœle-Syria with the rest of Syria,[^[91]] from the river Euphrates to Egypt, to Scaurus, leaving him two Roman legions, and departed for Cilicia en route for Rome. He took with him Aristobulus as a prisoner with his children.—Ant. XIV. 4. 4 f. (71-79).

(9) Division of the Country into Five Districts by Gabinius

Gabinius completes Pompey’s work in the settlement of the province of Syria.

c. 57 B.C.

After this Gabinius reinstated Hyrcanus in Jerusalem and committed to him the custody of the Temple. The civil administration he reconstituted under the form of an aristocracy. He divided the whole nation into five unions;[^[92]] one of these he attached to Jerusalem, another to Gadara, the third had Amathus as its centre of government, the fourth was allotted to Jericho, the fifth to Sepphoris, a city of Galilee. The Jews welcomed their release from the rule of an individual and were from that time forward governed by an aristocracy.—B. J. I. 8. 5 (169 f.).

(10) Settlement under Julius Cæsar

47 B.C.

In due course Cæsar concluded the war [^[93]] and set sail for Syria. There he confirmed the appointment of Hyrcanus to the high priesthood, while he bestowed high honours on Antipater—the privilege of Roman citizenship with exemption from taxation everywhere....

Cæsar then appointed Hyrcanus high priest and Antipater civil governor, allowing him to select his own title. Antipater leaving the decision to him, Cæsar made him viceroy [^[94]] of Judæa. He further permitted Hyrcanus, at his request, to rebuild the walls of the capital,[^[95]] which had lain in ruins since their demolition by Pompey. He sent instructions to the consuls at Rome that a record of these decisions should be placed in the Capitol.—Ant. XIV. 8. 3, 5 (137, 143 f.).

IV. HEROD THE GREAT

(11) The Youth Herod frees Galilee from the Brigands

c. 47-6 B.C.

Antipater, when he saw that Hyrcanus was of an inert and sluggish disposition, put his eldest son Phasael in command of Jerusalem and the surrounding district, and committed Galilee to his second son, Herod, then a mere stripling; he was but fifteen [^[96]] years old. Still his youth was no hindrance to him, and, being a lad of high spirit, he at once met with an opportunity for the display of his quality. Finding that one Ezekias, the captain of a band of brigands, with a large horde, was overrunning the adjoining parts of Syria, he caught him and put him to death with many of his confederates. This achievement of his won him the warmest affection of the Syrians; he had purged their country of this nest of robbers of which they were longing to be rid. They would sing his praises for this feat throughout their villages and cities, acclaiming him as one who had brought them peace and the secure enjoyment of their possessions. This action, moreover, brought him to the notice of Sextus Cæsar, a kinsman of the great Cæsar and now governor of Syria.—Ant. XIV. 9. 2 (158-160).

(12) Herod on his Trial before the Sanhedrin

c. 47-6 B.C.

But the principal Jews, when they saw Antipater and his sons growing so great through the good-will of the nation and the revenues which they derived from Judæa and from the wealth of Hyrcanus, became ill-disposed to him. For Antipater had made an alliance with the Roman Emperors and had induced Hyrcanus to send them money; he then appropriated this money and despatched it as a gift from himself and not from Hyrcanus. Hyrcanus, when the matter came to his ears, was indifferent. Not so the Jewish leaders. The sight of Herod—violent, audacious and hankering after autocratic power [^[97]]—filled them with alarm. So they approached Hyrcanus and now openly accused Antipater. “How much longer,” they said, “will you remain unmoved by what is happening? Do you not see that Antipater and his sons have girded themselves with the ruler’s power, leaving you but the barren name of king? Mark these things and do not expect to escape peril by carelessness for yourself and your kingdom. Antipater and his sons are no longer stewards of your realm—do not deceive yourself with that thought—but openly and confessedly despots. One son, Herod, by killing Ezekias,[^[98]] with many of his followers, has transgressed our law, which forbids the slaying of any man, even a malefactor, unless he has first been condemned to this penalty by the Sanhedrin. Yet Herod took it upon him to do this without your authority.”

This speech had its effect upon Hyrcanus. His indignation was further roused by the mothers of Herod’s victims, who continued day by day in the Temple to petition the king and the people to bring Herod to judgement before the Sanhedrin for his actions. Thus instigated, Hyrcanus summoned Herod to trial upon the charges laid against him. He came. His father had advised him to meet his judges not as a private individual but with a bodyguard to protect him, after securing his position in Galilee in the manner that seemed most to his own advantage. He set his affairs in order accordingly, and with an escort just sufficient for his journey, so as neither to intimidate Hyrcanus by appearing with a larger body, nor yet to be quite exposed and unprotected, went to his trial.

However, Sextus, the governor of Syria, sent written instructions to Hyrcanus to acquit Herod, adding threats in the event of his disregarding them. This letter of Sextus gave Hyrcanus a handle for delivering Herod unscathed from the Sanhedrin, for he [^[99]] loved him as his own son.

Herod, as he stood in the Sanhedrin with his body-guard round him, overawed them all, and none of those who before his arrival had been maligning him, now dared to accuse him. There was deep silence and perplexity how to proceed.

In this critical situation one Sameas, a man whose upright character made him superior to fear, rose up and said: “Fellow-councillors and King, I know of none, nor, I suppose, can you name any, of those who in times past have been summoned before you, who appeared in such guise as this. Every one, of whatever rank, entering this council-chamber on his trial, comes with an air of humility and the appearance of one in fear and craving your mercy, with his hair long and in black raiment. But this most worthy Herod, a defendant on trial for murder, when summoned to answer so grave a charge, stands here in purple array, with well-trimmed hair adorning his head, and with armed men around him, ready, if we condemn him in accordance with the law, to kill us and to save himself in defiance of justice. Yet it is not Herod I would blame for such conduct, if he puts his own interests above the laws, but you and the King for giving him so great licence. Be assured, however, I call God Almighty to witness, that this man, whom, to gratify Hyrcanus, you now desire to acquit, will one day punish both you and your King.”

And his words came true. For Herod, on inheriting his kingdom, slew all those who were in the Sanhedrin, and Hyrcanus with them, Sameas alone excepted. For he had a high regard for Sameas on account of his upright character and because, when the city was afterwards |37 B.C.| besieged by Herod and Sossius, he advised the people to admit Herod, telling them that for their sins they could not escape him.—Ant. XIV. 9. 3 f. (163-176).

(13) Herod and Cassius. Murder of Antipater, Herod’s Father

44 B.C.

After the death of Julius Cæsar, when civil war was impending, Cassius came to Syria and exacted heavy taxes, in the collection of which he was assisted by Antipater and his sons. Malichus had plotted against Antipater; Antipater had pardoned him, and had also saved his life when he was in danger from the Romans.

c. 43 B.C.

In saving Malichus, however, Antipater, as the event proved, had saved his own murderer. For Cassius and Murcus [^[100]] collected an army and entrusted the entire charge of it to Herod, appointing him to the command of Cœle-Syria with a fleet and a force of horse and foot. They promised, moreover, to make him King of Judæa after the war, which had already broken out, against Antony and the young Cæsar.[^[101]] Malichus was then more in terror than ever of Antipater, and endeavoured to put him out of the way.[^[102]] So he bribed the butler of Hyrcanus, at whose house the two were being entertained, and had him poisoned. With his armed men he was able to keep the city quiet.

When Herod and Phasael heard of the plot against their father and were indignant at it, Malichus, as on the former occasion, denied any part in it, and professed that he had not been murdered. Such was the end of Antipater, a man pre-eminent for his piety, justice and patriotism. Of the two sons, Herod at once resolved to lead his army against Malichus and avenge his father; Phasael, the elder, preferred to defeat him by resort to craft, for fear they should seem guilty of provoking civil war. So he accepted Malichus’ defence, feigning belief in his innocence in the matter of Antipater’s death, and arranged a splendid funeral for his father.—Ant. XIV. 11. 4 (280-284).

(14) Antony makes Herod and Phasael Tetrarchs of Judæa

See the Historical Atlas of Smith and Bartholomew, Map 41.

42 B.C.

After the death of Cassius at Philippi, the victors departed, Cæsar going to Italy, Antony to Asia. Embassies from the |c. 41 B.C.| various states waited upon Antony in Bithynia, and among them came the Jewish leaders, who accused Phasael and Herod of usurping the government and leaving to Hyrcanus merely titular honours. Herod thereupon appeared and by large bribes so wrought upon Antony that he refused his adversaries a hearing. So for the time being these enemies were dispersed. But on a later occasion a hundred Jewish officials approached Antony, now a slave to his passion for Cleopatra, at Daphne beside Antioch, and, putting forward the most eminent and eloquent of their number, laid accusations against the brothers. The defence was undertaken by Messala, Hyrcanus supporting him because of his marriage connexion with Herod. After hearing both parties, Antony enquired of Hyrcanus who was the best qualified ruler. Hyrcanus pronouncing in favour of Herod and his brother, Antony was delighted, because he had formerly been their father’s guest, and had been hospitably entertained by Antipater when he accompanied Gabinius on his Judæan campaign. So he |57-55 B.C.| made the brothers tetrarchs and entrusted them with the administration of the whole of Judæa.—Ant. XIV. 12. 4 f. (242-244).

(15) How Herod won his Kingdom

40 B.C.

Herod, forced to flee from Palestine by a great invasion of Parthians, who reinstate Antigonus, son of Aristobulus, as King of Judæa, arrives a suppliant at Rome in mid-winter.

Antony commiserated the reversal of Herod’s fate. The trite reflection arose in his mind that even those in the highest rank are at the mercy of fortune. He was moved partly by the memory of Antipater’s hospitality,[^[103]] partly by Herod’s promise, as on a former occasion when he was made tetrarch, to give him money if he were made king. But his main incentive to assist Herod in his suit was animosity towards Antigonus, whom he regarded as a promoter of sedition and an enemy of the Roman people.

Cæsar [^[104]] was even more ready to meet Herod’s claim and to further his ends because of the part which Antipater had played in his father’s campaigns in Egypt and his hospitality and undeviating loyalty; the desire to gratify Antony, who was a warm admirer of Herod, was a further motive.

The senate was accordingly summoned, and Messala, followed by Atratinus, introduced Herod and rehearsed his father’s services and reminded the assembly of the good-will which Herod himself had always borne to the Roman people. At the same time they denounced Antigonus and proved him to be an enemy, not merely from his former antagonism to them, but because he had now been guilty of indignity to the Roman people in accepting his rulership at Parthian hands. At this the senate was exasperated. Antony also came forward and advised them that it was expedient for the war with Parthia that Herod should be king. This met with unanimous approval and a decree was passed accordingly.

The clearest evidence of Antony’s regard for Herod was afforded not merely by his obtaining for him the kingdom for which he had not looked, but by his procuring this unexpected honour so expeditiously that he was enabled to leave Italy within the space of seven days. For Herod had not come to the capital to ask the kingship for himself. He did not suppose that the Romans, whose custom was to confer such a privilege on members of the royal family, would grant it to him. He had come to ask for it for his wife’s brother Alexander, the grandson on his father’s side of Aristobulus, on his mother’s of Hyrcanus. How this youth was afterwards put to death by Herod will be told in due course.

When the senate was dissolved, Antony and Cæsar left the senate-house to offer sacrifice and to deposit a copy of the decree in the Capitol. Herod was between them, and the consuls and other magistrates led the way. Antony celebrated the king’s accession-day by a festival. Thus did Herod obtain his kingdom in the 184th Olympiad, under the consulship of Gnæus Domitius Calvinus (for the second time) and Gaius Asinius Pollio.—Ant. XIV. 14. 4 f. (381-389).

(16) How Herod made his peace with Augustus (after the Battle of Actium)

Herod was soon filled with anxiety about the security of his position. He was Antony’s friend, and Antony had been defeated by |31 B.C.| Cæsar [^[105]] at Actium. His fears, however, proved worse than his fate; for Cæsar considered his victory to be incomplete so long as Herod remained Antony’s ally. |30 B.C.| The king resolved to confront the danger and set sail for Rhodes, where Cæsar was then stationed. He presented himself before him without a diadem, a commoner in dress and demeanour, but with the spirit of a king. His speech was direct; he told the truth without reserve.

“I was made king by Antony,” he said, “and I acknowledge, Cæsar, that I have in all things devoted my services to him. Nor will I shrink from saying that, had not the Arabians detained me,[^[106]] you would assuredly have found me in arms at his side.[^[107]] I sent him, however, such auxiliary troops as I could and many thousand measures of corn;[^[108]] nor even after his defeat at Actium did I desert my benefactor. When no longer useful as an ally, I became his best counsellor; I told him the one remedy for his disasters—the death of Cleopatra. Would he but kill her, I promised him money, walls to protect him, an army, and myself as his brother in arms in the war against you. But his ears, it seems, were stopped by his infatuation for Cleopatra and by God who has graciously given you the victory. I share Antony’s defeat and with his downfall lay down my diadem. I am come to you resting my hope of safety upon my integrity, anticipating that the subject of enquiry will be not whose friend, but how loyal a friend, I have been.”

To this Cæsar replied: “Nay, be assured of your safety, and reign henceforth more securely than before. So staunch a champion of the claims of friendship deserves to be ruler over many subjects. Endeavour to remain as loyal to those who have been more fortunate, since I, too, entertain the most brilliant hopes for your high spirit. Antony, however, did well in obeying Cleopatra’s behests rather than yours; for through his folly we have gained you. But you take the lead, it seems, in acts of beneficence; for Quintus Didius [^[109]] writes to me that you have sent him a force to assist him against the gladiators. I therefore now confirm your kingdom to you by decree; and hereafter I shall endeavour to do you some further service, that you may not feel the loss of Antony.”

Having thus graciously addressed the king, he placed the diadem on his head, and signalized the grant by a decree, containing many generous expressions in eulogy of the monarch.—B.J. I. 20. 1 ff. (386-393).

(17) Herod and Mariamne

But Fortune, in revenge for his successes in the field, visited Herod with troubles at home; his ill-fated career originated with a woman to whom he was passionately attached....

On the eve of his departure abroad he committed his wife [^[110]] to the care of Joseph, his sister Salome’s husband, with private injunctions to kill her, should Antony kill him. He could trust Joseph; the ties which united them made him a true friend. Joseph, out of no malice but from a desire to convince her of the love which the king bore her, since even in death he could not endure to be separated from her, betrayed the secret. When Herod, on his return, |c. 29 B.C.| in familiar intercourse was protesting with many oaths his affection for her and that he had never (so) loved any other woman, “A fine exhibition you gave,” she replied, “of your love for me [^[111]] by your orders to Joseph to put me to death!”

He was beside himself, the moment he heard the secret was out. Joseph, he exclaimed, would never have disclosed his orders, had he not seduced her; and, frenzied with passion, he leapt from the bed and paced the palace to and fro in his distraction. His sister Salome, seizing this opportunity to slander Mariamne, confirmed his suspicion of Joseph. Mad with ungovernable jealousy, he ordered that both should instantly be put to death. But remorse followed hard upon rage; his wrath subsided, his love revived. So consuming, indeed, was the flame of his passionate desire that he believed she was not dead and in his affliction would address her as though she were alive; until time taught him the reality of his loss, when his grief was as profound as the love he had for her while she was alive.—B.J. I. 22 (431, 441-444).

(18) Extension of Herod’s Realm. His Popularity with Augustus and Agrippa

For Palestine under Herod see the Hist. Atlas of Smith and Bartholomew, Map 42.

27 B.C.

When Herod was engaged on these enterprises [^[112]] and had already completed the rebuilding of the city of |23 B.C.| Sebaste,[^[113]] he resolved to send his sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, to Rome, to have audience of Cæsar.[^[114]] On their arrival at the capital they were given lodging in the house of Pollio, one who was very assiduous in cultivating Herod’s friendship; permission was also given them to lodge in the palace of the Emperor, who gave the lads the most kindly reception. The Emperor, moreover, empowered Herod to bequeath his kingdom to any of his children at his discretion; and added to his realm the district of Trachonitis,[^[115]] Batanæa and Auranitis, which he gave him for the following reason....

Here follows a description of Herod’s subjugation of Zenodorus and the robber bands in Trachonitis.

So Cæsar bestowed upon Herod the territory of Zenodorus, an extensive region lying between Trachonitis and Galilee (and embracing) Ulatha and Paneas [^[116]] and the neighbouring country. He attached it [^[117]] to the province of Syria, but instructed the provincial governors to do nothing without obtaining Herod’s approval.

In short, he reached such a height of prosperity that, whereas the burden of government of the vast Roman Empire rested upon two men, first Cæsar, and then (as Cæsar’s favourite) Agrippa, Cæsar preferred no one to Herod after Agrippa, and Agrippa made Herod his chief friend after Cæsar.—Ant. XV. 10. 1 and 3 (342 f.; 360 f.).

(19) The Historian’s Reading of Herod’s Character

It is usual to remark with astonishment on the inconsistency of Herod’s character. When we have regard to his munificent actions and the benefits which he conferred on the world at large, even one who is not among his warm admirers [^[118]] cannot deny that he was by nature supremely beneficent. If, on the other hand, one looks at the penalties inflicted and the wrongs done by him to his subjects and nearest relations, and takes note of his harsh and unrelenting disposition, one will be forced to the conclusion that he was of a brutal nature and an alien to all humanity.[^[119]] Hence the common opinion that his character was, as it were, a compound of conflicting and antagonistic elements.

I do not share this opinion; my view is that both these sides of his character had one and the same cause. He was ambitious, indeed an abject slave to that passion; and where there appeared any promise of posthumous fame or present reputation, he might even attain magnanimity. But, since his expenditure outran his means, necessity drove him to be cruel to his subjects. His lavish bounty to his beneficiaries forced him to procure his supplies by criminal methods [^[120]] from his victims. He was conscious that his subjects hated him for the wrongs which he did them, but found it no easy matter to atone for his sins without loss to his exchequer. Instead he fought his opponents, converting even their disaffection into a source of revenue. As for his nearest and dearest, if any one omitted to address him in obsequious language and to display a subservient attitude, or was suspected of plotting against the realm, he was incapable of self-control and punished relatives and friends alike, one after another, as though they were open enemies; to such crimes was he driven by his desire that honour should be paid to himself alone.

I find confirmation for my belief that this passion was the key to his character in the manner in which he conferred his honours on Cæsar and Agrippa and the rest of his friends. He looked for a return in kind of the service which he paid to his superiors; his gifts were the most excellent he could conceive, but the way in which he gave them revealed his desire to receive the like.

The Jewish nation, however, is by its law alienated from all such things; its training has taught it to prefer righteousness to the pursuit of glory. For this reason it was out of favour with Herod, because it was incapable of flattering the king’s vanity by erecting images or shrines or by any such practices. This, I think, explains at once the crimes of which he was guilty against his relatives and advisers and his benefactions to foreigners and those outside his family.—Ant. XVI. 5. 4 (150-159).

(20) Reflections on the Tragic Fate of Herod’s Sons

A quarrel extending over many years between Herod and his sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, after a reconciliation had been effected first by Augustus and then by others, ends in his putting them to death on the charge of treason.

(?) 7 B.C.

Alexander and Aristobulus were then, by their father’s orders, removed to Sebaste [^[121]] and there strangled. Their bodies were conveyed by night to Alexandrium,[^[122]] where their mother’s father [^[123]] and most of their ancestors lay buried.

Now some, perhaps, may not find it strange that a long cherished hatred should grow so great as to surpass all bounds and overpower the natural affections. Yet the apportionment of the guilt for so grave a crime may well give pause for reflection. Should it be laid to the charge of the youths that they drove their father to extremities [^[124]] and by long and persistent recalcitrance paved the way for their own ruin? Or was the father himself the culprit—without feelings and so extravagant in his lust for dominion and fame that he was prepared to sacrifice any one [^[125]] to ensure unquestioning obedience to his every whim? Or, again, was it Fortune—Fortune whose power is mightier than any considerate thought,[^[126]] so that we believe that human actions are foreordained by her by an inevitable necessity, and we call her Destiny, because we think that nothing happens of which she is not the ultimate cause?

It will suffice, I think,[^[127]] merely to propound this last view as an alternative to the other.[^[128]] We do not thereby deprive ourselves [^[129]] of all free-will nor disclaim responsibility for acting in this way or that in matters which long before our time have been elsewhere philosophically treated in the Law.

As between the two other alternatives, one might censure the lads, in that, with youthful impetuosity and princely insolence, they tolerated calumnies upon their father, and were no fair critics of the actions of his life.[^[130]] Malicious in their suspicions, and intemperate in speech, they were on both grounds an easy prey to the flattering informers who lay in wait for them.

As for the father, his impious treatment of his sons seems to admit of no extenuation. With no clear evidence of a plot, with no proof of any preparations for an attempt on his life, he had the heart to slay his own flesh and blood. Men of the noblest presence, the darlings of all outside the family, proficient in their pursuits, whether hunting or military exercises or discourse on everyday topics—they had all these gifts, in particular Alexander, the elder of the two. Granted that he had actually found them guilty, it would have been punishment enough to confine them in prison or to banish them from the realm, without taking their lives; he had the sure shield of the power of the Roman Empire [^[131]] to secure him from assault and violence. But to kill them out of hand to gratify an overmastering passion was a clear case of impiety beyond measure; this appalling crime was, moreover, the act of an old man. The long struggle and procrastination cannot be urged in his excuse. That a man taken by surprise should in a fit of excitement commit some monstrous crime, though distressing, is an event of common occurrence. But this deliberate and leisurely procedure—often to take the deed in hand and as often to postpone it, and then at last to undertake it and carry it through—that was the work of a murderous mind, rooted in depravity.

He displayed the same character in the sequel, when he did not stay his hand even from those whom he held dearest of the remaining members of his family.[^[132]] In their case the justice of the sentence created less sympathy for the victims, but the barbarity was the same as was shown in his refusal of mercy to the others.—Ant. XVI. 11. 7 f. (394-404).

(21) Herod’s Dying Provision for a National Mourning

With this passage we reach the N.T. period. The grim story of an intended massacre, happily in this case averted, affords a parallel to the Gospel story of the murder of the innocents.

4 B. C.

Now, although his sufferings seemed beyond human endurance, he did not despair of recovery. He sent for physicians, and consented to try every remedy which they prescribed. He crossed over the river Jordan, and surrendered himself to treatment in the hot springs at Callirrhoe. These waters, besides their general remedial properties, are fit to drink; they debouch into the so-called Bituminous [^[133]] Lake. Here, the physicians deciding that a higher temperature was needed, he was placed in a vat of oil. To this treatment he appeared to have succumbed, but when his attendants fell to lamentation, he rallied, and now abandoning all hope of recovery, gave orders that every soldier should be paid fifty pieces of silver;[^[134]] he made further large bequests to their commanding officers and to his personal friends. Returning to Jericho, he had an attack of black bile, which rendered him so savage with all the world [^[135]] that, although now nearing his end, he contrived the scheme which I proceed to describe.

By his orders, the principal men from every quarter of the entire Jewish nation waited upon him. They came in large numbers, as the summons was to the nation and was universally obeyed, death being the penalty for disregard of the injunctions. For the king was mad with rage against all alike, whether innocent or suspected of guilt. He then locked them all up in the hippodrome, and sent for his sister Salome and her husband Alexas.

He told them that his bodily sufferings were now so great that death could not be far off. Death could be borne, and came to all as a welcome guest; but what grieved him most was the thought that he would lack the lamentations and miss the mourning usually accorded to a king. He was not blind to the feelings of the Jews, and knew what relief and intense delight his death would bring them,[^[136]] because, even in his lifetime, they were always ready to rebel and to treat his projects with contumely. “It is therefore your task,” he proceeded, “to resolve [^[137]] to afford me some alleviation of this particular pain. If you do not refuse your consent to my wishes, I shall receive a great funeral, such as no king ever had before me, and a heartfelt national lamentation for my sport and delectation. When, therefore, you see that I have given up the ghost, let the troops be drawn up round the hippodrome, still unaware of my death—the news must not be published to the world till you have done this—and the order given to shoot down the prisoners within with their javelins. If you kill them all in this manner, you will without fail do me a double favour. You will execute my dying injunctions; you will also get me the honour of a memorable mourning.”

Such was the charge which, with tears and supplication and appeals to the loyalty due to a kinsman and their faith in God, he laid upon them, and bade them preserve him from dishonour. And they promised not to fail him.

From these final injunctions even a friendly critic of the king’s former actions, who attributed his treatment of his family to self-preservation, might read the mind of the man and see how destitute it was of every spark of humanity; since on the very verge of his exit from life he could lay his plans for throwing the whole nation into mourning and desolation for their nearest and dearest. For his orders were to butcher one out of every household, men who had done him no wrong and were not accused on any other ground; and these orders were given at an hour when persons with any pretensions to virtue commonly lay aside their rancour, even towards those whom they justly regard as enemies.—Ant. XVII. 6. 5 f. (171-181).

V. ARCHELAUS AND PILATE

(22) Archelaus in Quest of a Kingdom

“A certain nobleman went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom and to return.... But his citizens hated him, and sent an ambassage after him, saying, We will not that this man reign over us. And it came to pass, when he was come back again, having received the kingdom.... Howbeit these mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (Luke xix. 12 ff.).

“There is little doubt that” this parable “was suggested by contemporary history. The remarkable feature of the opposing embassy makes the reference to Archelaus highly probable; and Jericho, which he had enriched with buildings, would suggest his case as an illustration” (Plummer). The fact that Archelaus came back with only a provisional promise of kingship does not detract from the probability.

Herod’s death was the signal for a national outbreak against his successor. A riot took place at Passover, |4 B.C.| and Archelaus left for Rome to have his title confirmed (Cf. the Hist. Atlas previously cited, Map 43).

Archelaus then issued a proclamation that all should withdraw to their homes. So they abandoned the feast and departed, for fear of worse evils, although in their ignorant way they had shown boldness enough.[^[138]]

Archelaus then went down to the sea-board with his mother; he took with him also his friends Nicolaus,[^[139]] Ptolemy and Ptolla.[^[140]] He committed the entire charge of his family and realm to his brother Philip. There also sailed with him Salome, Herod’s sister, with her children, and many of his relations; ostensibly to assist Archelaus to obtain his kingdom, but in reality intending to oppose him, and in particular to protest loudly against his proceedings in the Temple.—Ant. XVII. 9. 3 (218-220).

After the departure of Archelaus, Sabinus, the procurator of Judæa, tries to get possession of Herod’s treasures in the Temple.

A Rival Claimant to the Kingdom

About this time Antipas, another of Herod’s sons, also set sail for Rome, to make a rival claim to the throne, to which he was instigated to aspire by Salome’s promises. He claimed that he had a much better right than Archelaus to the succession, in virtue of his nomination as king in Herod’s former will, which, in his opinion, had greater validity than the later codicils. He took with him his mother and the brother of Nicolaus, Ptolemy, one of Herod’s most honoured friends, and now a staunch champion of Antipas. But the man who more than any other prompted him to think of claiming the throne was Irenæus, a professional speaker, who on account of his reputation for ability had been entrusted with the administration of the realm. Thus supported, Antipas declined to listen to those who advised him to make way for Archelaus as the elder son and the one who had been declared king in their father’s later will.

When Antipas reached Rome, his relatives went over to him in a body; not for love of Antipas, but from hatred of Archelaus. What they really desired was to be free and placed under a Roman governor; but, if anything prevented this, they thought Antipas would serve their ends better than Archelaus, and therefore lent him their aid in his suit. Another of Archelaus’s accusers was Sabinus in a letter addressed to Cæsar.[^[141]]—Ant. XVII. 9. 4 (224-227).

Augustus holds a council and hears both sides; Antipater, son of Salome, undertaking the prosecution, Nicolaus the defence, of Archelaus.

Here Nicolaus ended his harangue. Archelaus then fell on his knees before Cæsar,[^[142]] who graciously raised him up and declared that he was very worthy of the kingdom; he showed, moreover, that he was strongly inclined [^[143]] to act only in accordance with the tenor of the will and in the interests of Archelaus. Nothing, however, was decided which could afford Archelaus any sure ground for confidence; and on the dismissal of the assembly, the Emperor privately considered whether he should confirm the kingdom to Archelaus or should divide it between the whole Herodian family, as they all stood much in need of assistance.

However, before any final settlement was reached on these matters, Malthace, the mother of Archelaus, fell ill and died, and letters arrived from Varus, the governor of Syria, announcing a revolt of the Jews. For, after Archelaus had sailed, the whole nation was in an uproar.—Ant. XVII. 9. 7-10. 1 (248-251).

Passover had been the occasion of the former riot; this new insurrection broke out at Pentecost. At this feast the Jews laid siege to the Roman force in Jerusalem under Sabinus, who had plundered the Temple treasury. During the fighting the porticoes of the Temple were burnt down. Simultaneously various claimants to the kingdom appeared in Judæa. The revolt was quelled by Varus, who relieved Sabinus and crucified two thousand of the Jewish ringleaders.

Selections From Josephus

Selections From Josephus

CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS