HEROD
290
HEROD
Sebaste, from the Greek name for Augustus. Csesarea
with its fine harbour was also built; and, being a
Greek in his tastes, Herod erected theatres, amphi-
theatres, and hippodromes for games, which were
celebrated at stated times even at Jerusalem (Jos.,
"Ant.", XV, viii, 1, XVI, v, 1 ; " Bel. Jud.", I, xxi, 1,5).
As he built temples to the false gods — one at Rhodes,
for instance, to Apollo (Jos., ".\nt.", XVI, v, 3) — we
may judge that vanity rather than piety suggested the
freatest work of his reign, the temple of Jerusalem, t was begun in his eighteenth year as king (Jos., "Ant.", XV, xi, 1), i.e. about 22 B.C. (Griitz, "Gesch. d. Jud.", V, iii, 1S7). In Jo.sephus (Bel. Jud., I, xxi, 1) the text has the fifteenth year, but here the histo- rian counts from the death of Antigonus, 37 B.C., which gives the same date as above. The speech of Herod on the occasion, though full of piety, may be inter- preted by what he said to the wise men: "that I also may come and adore him" (Matt., ii, 8; Jos., "Ant.", XV, xi, 1). The temple is described by Joseph us ("Ant.", XV, xi; cf. Edersheira, "The Temple its Ministry and Services", i and ii), and the solidity of its architecture referred to in the N. T. (Matt., xxiv, 1; Mark, xiii, 1). In John, ii, 20, forty-six years are mentioned since the building was undertaken, but it requires some juggling with figures to make this number square with the history of either the second temple, or the one built by Herod (see Maldonatus, who thinks the text refers to the second temple, and MacRory, "The Gospel of St. John", for the other view).
The horrors of Herod's home were in strong contrast with the splendour of his reign. As he had married ten wives (Jos., " Bel. Jud.", I, x.wTii, 4 — note in Whis- ton) by whom he had many children, the demon of discord made domestic tragedies quite frequent. He put to death even his own sons, Aristobulus and Alexander (6 B.C.), whom Antipater, his son by Doris, had accused of plotting against their father's life (Jos., "Ant.", XVI, xi). This same Antipater, who in crueltj' was a true son of Herod, and who had caused the death of so many, was himself accused and convicted of having prepared poison for his father, and put to death (Jos., "Bel. Jud.", I, x.xxiii, 7). The last joy of the dj-ing king was afforded by the letter from Rome authorizing him to kill his son ; five days later, like another Antiochus under a curse, he died. The account of his death and of the circvmistances aceompanj-ing it is so graphically given by Josephus ("Ant.", XVII, vi, vii, viii; "Bel. Jud.", I, xxxiii), who follows Nicholas of Damascus, Herod's friend and biographer, that only an eye-witness could have furnished the details. In the hot springs of Callirrhoe, east of the Dead Sea, the king sought relief from the sickness that was to bring him to the grave. When his end drew near, he gave orders to ha\'e the principal men of the coimtry shut up in the hippiulronie at Jericho and slaughtered as soon as he had passed away, that his grave might not be without the tribute of tears. This barbarous command was not carried into effect; but the Jews celebrated as a festival the day of his death, by which they were delivered from his tyrannical rule (Griitz, "Gesch. d. Jud.", Ill, 195 — "Hist." (in Eng.), II, 117). Archelaus, whom he had made his heir on discovering the perfidy of Anti- pater, buried him with great pomp at Herodiura — now called Frank Mountain — S.E. of Bethlehem, in the tomb the king had prepared for himself (Jos., "Ant.", XVII, viii, 2, 3; "Bel. Jud.", I, xxxiii, 8, 9). The death of Herod is important in its relation to the birth of Christ. The eclipse mentioned by Josephus (Ant., XVII, ^•i, 4), who also gives the length of Herod's reign — thirty-seven years from the time he was appointed by the Romans, 40 B.C.; or thirty-four from the death "of Antigonus, .37 B.C. (.\nt., XVII, viii, 1) — fixes the death of Herod in the .';pring of 750 A.u.c, or 4 B.C. Christ was bom before Herod's
death (Matt., ii, 1), but how long before is imcertain:
the possible dates lie between 740 and 750 .\.u.c. (see
a summarj' of opinions and reasons in Gigot, " Out-
lines of N. T. Hist.", 42, 43).
Herod's gifts of mind and body were many. "He was such a warrior as could not be withstood .... fortune was also very favourable to him" (Jos., "Bel. Jud.", I, xxi, 13), yet "a man of great barbarity to- wards all men equally and a slave to his passions; but above the consideration of what was right" (Jos., "Ant.", XVII, viii, 1). His ruling pa.ssions were jealousy and ambition, which urged hmi to sacrifice even those that were nearest and dearest to him: murder and munificence were equally good as means to an end. Tlie slaughter of the Innocents squares perfectly with what history relates of him, and St. Matthew's positive statement is not contradicted by the mere silence of Josephus; for the latter follows Nicholas of Damascus, to whom, as a courtier, Herod was a hero. Hence .\rmstrong ( in Hastings, " Diet . of Christ and the Gospels", s. v. "Herod") justly blames those who, like Griitz (Gesch. d. Jud., Ill, 19"4 — Hist. (Eng.), II, IIG), for subjective reasons, call the evange- list's account a later legend. Macrobius, who wrote in the beginning of the fifth century, narrates that Augustus, having heard that among the children whom Herod had ordered to be slain in Syria was the king's own son, remarked: "It is belter to be Herod's swine than his son" (Saturn., II, 4). In the Greek text there is a ban mot and a relationship between the words used that etJ^uologists may recognize even in English. The law among the Jews against eating pork is hinted at, and the anecdote .seems to contain extra-biblical elements. " Cruel as the slaughter may appear to us, it disappears among the cruelties of Herod. It cannot, then, surprise us that history does not speak of it" [Maas, "Life of Christ" (1897), .38 (note) ; the author shows, as others have done, that the number of children slain may not have been very great].
II. Archel.\us, son of Herod the Great, was, with Antipas his brother, educated at Rome (Jos., "Ant.", XVII, i, 3), and he liecame heir in his father's last will (Jos., "Ant.", XVII, viii, 1). After the death of his father he received the acclamations of the people, tt whom he made a speech, in which he stated that his title and authority depended upon the good will of C:fsar (Jos., "Ant.", XVII, viii, 4). The death of Herod having doli\-ered the Jews from his tyrannical rule, they petitioned Ca'sar to put them imder the jurisdiction of the presidents of Sj-ria. He, however, not willing to set aside Herod's will, gave to .\rchelaus the half of his father's king<lom, with the title of eth- narch, the royal title to follow should he rule "virtu- ously". The" N. T. says that he reigned (Matt., ii, 22) and in Josephus (.\nt., XVII, viii, 2, ix, 2) he is called king, by courte.sy, for the Romans never so styled him. His territorj' included Jutlca, Samaria, and Iduma>a, with the cities of Jerusalem, Ca-sarea, Sebaste, and Joppa (Jos., "Ant.", X\TI, xi, 2, 4, 5). He soon aroused opposition by marrying his brother's wife — a crime like that of Antipas later — and having been ac- cu.sed of cruelty bj- his subjects, "not able to bear his barbarous and tjTannical usage of them", he was banished to Vienne, Ciaul, .\.d. 7, in the tenth year of his government (Jos., "Ant.", XVII, ix, xiii, 1, 2). The N. T. tells us that Joseph, fearing Archelaus, went to live at Nazareth (Matt., ii, 22, 23); and some inter- preters think that in the parable (Luke, xix, 12-27) our Lord refers to Archelaus, whom the Jews did not wish to rule over them, and who, having been placed in power by Ciesar, took vengeance upon his enemies. "AVhether our Lord had Archelaus m view, or only spoke generally, the circumstances admirably suit his ca.se" (MacE\-illy, "Exp. of the Gosp. of St. Luke").
III. ,\ntip.\s was a .son of Herod the Great, after whose death he became ruler of Galilee. He married
