Herod

HEROD

The name of four princes, Idumaeans by descent, who governed either the whole or a part of Judea, under the Romans, and are mentioned in the New Testament.1. HEROD THE GREAT, Mat 2:1-23 Luk 1:5 . He was the son of Antipater, an Idumaean, who was in high favor with Julius Caesar. At the age of fifteen years, Herod was constituted by his father procurator of Galilee under Hyrcanus II, who was then at the head of the Jewish nation; while his brother Phasael was intrusted with the same authority over Judea. In these stations they were afterwards confirmed by Antony, with the title of tetrarch, about the year 41 B. C. The power of Hyrcanus had always been opposed by his brother Aristobulus; and now Antigonus, the son of the latter, continued in hostility to Herod, and was assisted by the Jews. At first he was unsuccessful, and was driven by Herod out of the country; but having obtained the aid of the Parthians, he at length succeeded in defeating Herod, and acquired possession of the whole of Judea, about the year 40 B. C. Herod meanwhile fled to Rome; and being there declared king of Judea through the exertions of Antony, he collected an army, vanquished Antigonus, recovered Jerusalem, and extirpated all the family of the Maccabees, B. C. 37. After the battle of Actium, in which his patron Antony was defeated, Herod joined the party of Octavius, and was confirmed by him in all his possessions. He endeavored to conciliate the affections of the Jews, by rebuilding and decorating the temple, (see TEMPLE,) and by founding or enlarging many cities and towns; but the prejudices of the nation against a foreign yoke were only heightened when he introduced quinquennial games in honor of Caesar, and erected theatres and gymnasia at Jerusalem. The cruelty of his disposition also was such as ever to render him odious. He put to death his own wife Mariamne, with her two sons Alexander and Aristobulus; and when he himself was at the point of death, he caused a number of the most illustrious of his subjects to be thrown into prison at Jericho, and exacted from his sister a promise that they should be murdered the moment he expired, in order, as he said, that tears should be shed at the death of Herod. This promise, however, was not fulfilled. His son Antipater was executed for conspiring to poison his father; and five days after, Herod died, A. D. 2, aged sixty-eight, having reigned as king about thirty-seven years. It was during his reign that Jesus was born at Bethlehem; and Herod, in consequence of his suspicious temper, and in order to destroy Jesus, gave orders for the destruction of all the children of two years old and under in the place, Mat 2:1-23 . This is also mentioned by Macrobius. After the death of Herod, half of his kingdom, including Judea, Ideumaea, and Samaria, was given to his son Archelaus, with the title of Ethnarch; while the remaining half was divided between two of his other sons, Herod Antipas and Philip, with the title of Tetrarchs; the former having the regions of Galilee and Perea, and the latter Batanea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis.2. HEROD PHILIP. See PHILP.3. HEROD ANTIPAS, Luk 3:1, was the son of Herod the Great by Malthace his Samaritan wife, and own brother to Archelaus, along with whom he was educated at Rome. After the death of his father, he was appointed by Augustus to be tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, that is, the southern part of the country east of the Jordan, Luk 3:1, whence also the general appellation of king is sometimes given to him, Mar 6:14 . The Savior, as a Galilean, was under his jurisdiction, Luk 23:6-12 . He first married a daughter of Aretas, and Arabian king; but afterwards becoming enamoured of Herodias, the wife of his brother Herod Philip, and his own niece, he dismissed his former wife, and induced Herodias to leave her husband and connect herself with him. At her instigation he afterwards went to Rome to ask for the dignity and title of the king; but being there accused before Caligula, at the instance of Herod Agrippa, his nephew and the brother of Herodias, he was banished to Lugdunum (now Lyons) in Gaul, about A. D. 41, and the provinces which he governed were given to Herod Agrippa. It was Herod Antipas who caused John the Baptist to be beheaded, Mat 14:1-12 Mar 6:14-29 . He also appears to have been a follower, or at least a favorer, of the sect of the Sadducees, Mar 8:15 . Compare Mat 16:6 . See HERODIANS.4. HEROD AGRIPPA MAJOR or I, Acts 12.1-25; 23.35, was the grandson of Herod the Great and Mariamne, the son of the Aristobulus who was put to death with his mother, by the orders of his father. (See above, HEROD I.) On the accession of Caligula to the imperial throne, Agrippa was taken from prison, where he had been confined by Tiberius, and received from the emperor, A. D. 38, the title of king, together with the provinces which had belonged to his uncle Philip the tetrarch Lysanias. (See ABILENE.) He was afterwards confirmed in the possession of these by Claudius, who also annexed to is kingdom all those parts of Judea and Samaria which had formerly belonged to his grandfather Herod, A. D. 43. In order to ingratiate himself with the Jews, he commenced a persecution against the Christians; but seems to have proceeded no further than to put to death James, and to imprison Peter, since he soon after died suddenly and miserably at Cesarea, A. D. 44, Mal 12:1-25 . He is mentioned by Josephus only under the name of Agrippa.5. HEROD AGRIPPA MINOR or II, Mal 25:1-26 :32, was the son of Herod Agrippa I, and was educated at Rome, under the care of the emperor Claudius. On the death of his father, when he was seventeen years old, instead of causing him to succeed to his father’s kingdom of Chalcis, which had belonged to his Uncle Herod. He was afterwards transferred (A. D. 53) from Chalcis, with the title of king, to the government of those provinces which his father at first possessed, namely, Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and Abilene, to which several other cities were afterwards added. He is mentioned in the New Testament and by Josephus only by the name of Agrippa. It was before him that St. Paul was brought by Festus, Mal 25:13 26:32. He died on the third year of Trajan’s reign, at the age of seventy years.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Herod

1. Antipas, son of Herod the Great by the Samaritan Malthace. Made tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea after the death of his father in 4 b.c., he ruled over these regions till a.d. 39, when, through the intrigues of Herod Agrippa and his own ambition, he incurred the disfavour of Caligula, and was banished to Lugdunum in Gaul. Capable and successful as an administrator, he is held up to reproach in the Gospels for the scandal of his private life, and his treatment of John the Baptist and Jesus (Mat 14:1-12, Luk 13:31 f.; Luk 23:7-12.). Elsewhere in the NT there are only two references to him. The first (Act 4:27) occurs in the thanksgiving of the early disciples over the release of Peter and John from imprisonment, and indicates their view of Herods relation to the tragedy of Calvary. The basis of the thanksgiving is a Messianic interpretation of the 2nd Psalm and a belief in its fulfilment in Jesus. Herod and Pontius Pilate are represented as the kings and rulers of the earth who conspired (Luk 23:12) against the Lords Anointed, and wreaked their will on Him, while all the time they were being used by God to further His purpose of redemption. The fact, however, that God over-ruled their evil intentions for good, and caused their wrath to praise Him, though it redounds to His own glory and augments the wonder of His working, is not regarded as any alleviation of their guilt. The sin of Herod, as of Pilate, in relation to Jesus, is clearly implied, and evidently seemed as heinous to the early believers as did his crime against John to the Baptists followers, who saw in the disasters of his Arabian war (a.d. 36) a Divine retribution for his murder of their master (Jos. Ant. xviii. v.). The other reference to Herod Antipas (Act 13:1) is unimportant, though of some interest for the sidelight it casts upon the age of Manaen (q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] ), one of the leaders in the Church at Antioch, who is said to have been his foster-brother or early companion.

2. Agrippa I., son of Aristobulus, Herod the Greats son by the Hasmonaean Mariamne. After his fathers execution in 7 b.c. he was sent to Rome with his mother Bernice, and lived on terms of intimacy with the Imperial family. In a.d. 23 his intrigues and extravagances had brought him to such straits that he was forced to retire to the Idumaean stronghold of Malatha till be found an asylum with Antipas in Galilee. Evading his creditors, he returned to Rome in a.d. 36, and shortly afterwards was committed to prison for an incautious remark that had reached the ears of Tiberius. There he lay till the following year, when the death of the old Emperor and the accession of his friend Caius (Caligula) restored him to freedom and fortune. The new Emperor bestowed on him the eastern tetrarchy of his half-uncle Philip, which had been vacant for three years, with the title of king, and added to it Abilene, the former tetrarchy of Lysanias in north-eastern Palestine (Luk 3:1); at the same time he commanded the Senate to decree him praetorian honours, and gave him a golden chain of the same weight and pattern as that which he had worn in his captivity. A few years later the tetrarchy of the exiled Antipas was also conferred on him; and in a.d. 41 Claudius, on his succession to the throne, still further enlarged his possessions with the gift of Samaria and Judaea , and raised him to consular rank. In the splendour of his good fortune Agrippa did not forget his Jewish countrymen, but fitfully at least, and probably from motives of policy, exerted his influence at the Roman court to mitigate the wrongs and restrictions entailed on them by their religion. On assuming the government of his new dominions-greater than Jewish king ever possessed-he set himself to observe the laws of his country and the Practices of the Jewish faith (Jos. Ant. xix. vii.). During his three years of rule, he showed himself sagacious, liberal, and humane; though, in his desire to propitiate the Pharisaic element among his subjects, he raised his hand against the followers of Christ, killed James with the sword, and would have sacrificed Peter also, had he not miraculously escaped (Act 12:1-19). He saw it pleased the Jews is the explanation given of this severity in Acts (acts 12:3), and there is no reason to doubt its substantial accuracy. The end came to Agrippa with tragic suddenness in a.d. 44, when his glory was at its height. Between the account of his death given in Acts (acts 12:20-23) and that of Josephus (Ant. xix. viii.) there is no more inconsistency than might have been expected from the different circles in which they originated. The latter is more detailed, and yet omits to mention the deputation from Tyre and Sidon who sought reconciliation with King Agrippa through the good offices of his chamberlain. According to Josephus, the occasion of Agrippas display at Caesarea was a series of games in honour of Claudius; no angel of the Lord smote him, but an owl appeared as a portent before the fatal seizure; he was carried to his palace, and lingered in agony for five days. There is nothing about his having been eaten of worms, which may have been only a descriptive phrase commonly used of the death of tyrants (2Ma 9:9). Both accounts, however, suggest the interposition of a higher, avenging hand in the sudden death of the king.

3. Agrippa II., son of Agrippa I. and Cypros, the daughter of Phasael, a son-in-law of Herod the Great. At the time of his fathers death, he was resident in Rome, and only seventeen years of age. Disposed at first to grant him the succession to the Jewish kingdom, Claudius allowed himself to the dissuaded by his ministers, and re-transformed it into a Roman province. Detaining Agrippa in Rome, the Emperor compensated him six years afterwards for the loss of his paternal inheritance by giving him his uncle Herods kingdom of Chalcis, as well as the rights, which Herod had possessed, of supervising the Temple and choosing the high priest. A year before his death, Claudius allowed Agrippa to exchange the meagre principality of Chalcis for those parts of his fathers dominions, east and north-east of the Sea of Galilee, which had formerly been the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias (Batanaea, Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, and Abila). In a.d. 56 Nero, who had meanwhile succeeded to the throne and expected his aid against the Parthians, added to his kingdom the regions of Tiberias and Taricheae, with Julias, a city of Peraea, and fourteen villages in its vicinity. Agrippa showed his gratitude by changing the name of his capital from Caesarea Philippi to Neronias, in honour of the Emperor, on whose birthday also he had Greek plays annually performed in a theatre which he erected at Berytus. Precluded by his position from independent political action, he contented himself with adorning his cities and conserving his possessions. A Roman at heart, and devoted by education and circumstances to the Roman influence, he endeavoured to bring the customs of his people into conformity with those of the Gentiles. At the same time, he evinced an occasional interest in the Jewish religion, and sought to win over the Pharisees to his projects. In the final struggle between the Jews and Rome, which he did his utmost to avert, he maintained his loyalty to the Imperial power, and at the close of the war was rewarded with an enlargement of his territories. We hear of him in Rome in a.d. 75, when he was raised to praetorian rank. Later on, he corresponded with Josephus about his History of the Jewish War. He died, without issue, about the end of the century. It was this king, Agrippa II., who was associated with Porcius Festus, the Roman procurator of Palestine (a.d. 60-62), in the trial of St. Paul recorded in Act 25:13-27; Act 26:1-32. The remark imputed to him on that occasion (almost then persuadest me to be a Christian, 26:28) is interesting for the evidence it affords of the early currency of the name Christian. The character of Agrippa has caused doubt to be thrown on its ordinary interpretation as an admission of the profound impression made on him by St. Pauls appeal. It has been taken to mean either you are persuading me somewhat to act the part of a Christian, or on slight grounds would make me a believer in your assertion that the Messiah has come (Encyclopaedia Biblica i. 754 n. [Note: . note.] , ii. 2037).

Literature.-The great authority for the lives of the Herods is Josephus. E. Schrer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des jdischen Volkes (Schrer).] 4, Leipzig, 1901-11 (Eng. translation of 2nd ed. History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of GJV).] , Edinburgh, 1885-90); A. Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte (Holtzmann and others).(Eng. translation of 2nd ed., London, 1895); and other Histories of NT Times, give more or less full accounts of the family. See also articles s.v. in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) and Encyclopaedia Biblica .

D. Frew.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

Herod

Name of many rulers mentioned in the Bible. See:

Herod the Great

Herod Archelaus

Herod Antipas

Herod Agrippa I the Great

Herod Agrippa II

New Catholic Dictionary

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Herod

(Gr. Herodes, from Heros.)

Herod was the name of many rulers mentioned in the N.T. and in history. It was known long before the time of the biblical Herods. (See Schürer, “Hist. of the Jewish People”, etc., Div. I, v. I, p. 416, note.) The Herods connected with the early history of Christianity are the following:

I. HEROD THE GREAT

Herod, surnamed the Great, called by Grätz “the evil genius of the Judean nation” (Hist., v. II, p. 77), was a son of Antipater, an Idumæan (Jos., “Bel. Jud.”, I, vi, 2). The Idumæans were brought under subjection by John Hyrcanus towards the end of the second century B. C., and obliged to live as Jews, so that they were considered Jews (Jos., “Ant.”, XIII, ix, 4). Yet Antigonus called Herod a half-Jew (Jos., “Ant.”, XIV, xv, 2, and note in Whiston), while the Jews, when it furthered their interests, spoke of Herod their king as by birth a Jew (Jos., “Ant.” XX, viii, 7). Antipater, the father of Herod, had helped the Romans in the Orient, and the favour of Rome brought the Herodian family into great prominence and power. Herod was born 73 B. C., and he is first mentioned as governor of Galilee (Jos., “Ant.”, XIV, ix, 2). Here the text says he was only fifteen years old, evidently an error for twenty-five, since about forty-four years later he died, “almost seventy years of age” (Jos., “Bel. Jud.”, I, xxxiii, 1). His career was more wonderful than that of many heroes of fiction. Among the rapidly changing scenes of Roman history he never failed to win the goodwill of fortune’s favourites. In 40 B. C. the young Octavian and Antony obtained for him from the Roman senate the crown of Judea, and between these two powerful friends he went up to the temple of Jupiter to thank the gods of Rome. Antigonus was beheaded in 37 B. C., and from this date Herod became king in fact as well as in name. He married Mariamne in 38 B. C., and thereby strengthened his title to the throne by entering into matrimonial alliance with the Hasmoneans, who were always very popular among the Jews (Jos., “Bel. Jud.”, I, xii, 3).

The reign of Herod is naturally divided into three periods: 37-25 B. C., years of development; 25-13, royal splendour; 13-4, domestic troubles and tragedies. During the first period he secured himself on the throne by removing rivals of the Hasmonean line. He put to death Hyrcanus, grandfather of Mariamne, and Aristobulus her brother, whom though but seventeen years old he had appointed high-priest. Their only offence was that they were very popular (Jos., “Ant.”, XV, vi, 1, iii, 3). Mariamne also was executed in 29 B. C.; and her mother Alexandra, 28 B. C. (Jos., “Ant”, XV, vii; “Bel. Jud.”, I, xxii). As Herod was a friend to Antony, whom Octavian defeated at Actium 31 B. C., he was in great fear, and set out for Rhodes like a criminal with a halter around his neck to plead with the conqueror; but Cæsar confirmed him in the kingdom, with a grant of additional territory (Jos., “Bel. Jud.”, I, xx).

Herod and his children were builders. Having the reins of government well in hand, and having wreaked vengeance upon his enemies, he adorned his kingdom by building cities and temples in honour of the emperor and of the gods. Samaria was built and called Sebaste, from the Greek name for Augustus. Cæsarea with its fine harbour was also built; and, being a Greek in his tastes, Herod erected theatres, amphitheatres, 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 builds temples to the false gods — one at Rhodes, for instance, to Apollo (Jos., “Ant.”, XVI, v, 3) — we may judge that vanity rather than piety suggested the greatest work of his reign, the temple of Jerusalem. It was begun in his eighteenth year as king (Jos., “Ant.” XV, xi, 1), i.e. about 22 B. C. (Grätz, “Gesch. d. Jud.” V, iii, 187). In Josephus (Bel. Jud., I, xxi, 1) the text has the fifteenth year, but here the historian 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 interpreted 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 Josephus (“Ant.”, XV, xi; cf. Edersheim, “The Temple its Ministry and Services”, i and ii), and the solidity of its architecture referred to in the N. T. (Matthew 24:1; Mark 13:1). 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, xxviii, 4 — note in Whiston) 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 cruelty 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, xxxiii, 7). The last joy of the dying 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 circumstances accompanying 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 have the principal men of the country shut up in the hippodrome 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 (Grätz, “Gesch. d. Jud.”, III, 195 — “Hist.” (in Eng.), II, 117). Archelaus, whom he had made his heir on discovering the perfidy of Antipater, buried him with great pomp at Herodium — 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, vi, 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. (Ant., XVII, viii, 1)– fixes the death of Herod in the spring of 750 A. U. C., or 4 B. C. Christ was born before Herod’s death (Matthew 2:1), but how long before is uncertain: the possible dates lie between 746 and 750 A. U. C. (see a summary of opinions and reasons in Gigot, “Outlines 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 towards all men equally and a slave to his passions; but above the consideration of what was right” (Jos., “Ant.”, XVII, viii, 1). His ruling passions were jealousy and ambition, which urged him to sacrifice even those that were nearest and dearest to him: murder and munificence were equally good as means to an end. The 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 Armstrong (in Hastings, “Dict. of Christ and the Gospels”, s. v. “Herod”) justly blames those who, like Grätz (Gesch. d. Jud., III, 194 — Hist. (Eng.), II, 116), for subjective reasons, call the evangelist’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 better to be Herod’s swine than his son” (Saturn., II, 4). In the Greek text there is a bon mot and a relationship between the words used that etymologists 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. ARCHELAUS

Archelaus, son of Herod the Great, was, with Antipas his brother, educated at Rome (Jos., “Ant.”, XVII, i, 3), and he became 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, to whom he made a speech, in which he stated that his title and authority depended upon the good will of Cæsar (Jos., “Ant.”, XVII, viii, 4). The death of Herod having delivered the Jews from his tyrannical rule, they petitioned Cæsar to put them under the jurisdiction of the presidents of Syria. He, however, not willing to set aside Herod’s will, gave to Archelaus the half of his father’s kingdom, with the title of ethnarch, the royal title to follow should he rule “virtuously”. The N. T. says that he reigned (Matthew 2:22), and in Josephus (Ant., XVII, viii, 2, ix, 2) he is called king, by courtesy, for the Romans never so styled him. His territory included Judea, Samaria, and Idumæa with the cities of Jerusalem, Cæsarea, Sebaste, and Joppa (Jos., “Ant.”, XVII, xi, 2, 4, 5). He soon aroused opposition by marrying his brother’s wife — a crime like that of Antipas later — and having been accused of cruelty by his subjects, “not able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them”, he was banished to Vienne, Gaul, A. 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 (Matthew 2:22, 23); and some interpreters think that in the parable (Luke 19:12-27) our Lord refers to Archelaus, whom the Jews did not wish to rule over them, and who, having been placed in power by Cæsar, took vengeance upon his enemies. “Whether our Lord had Archelaus in view, or only spoke generally, the circumstances admirably suit his case” (MacEvilly, “Exp. of the Gosp. of St. Luke”).

III. ANTIPAS

Antipas was a son of Herod the Great, after whose death he became ruler of Galilee. He married the daughter of Aretas, King of Arabia, but later lived with Herodias, the wife of his own half-brother Philip. This union with Herodias is mentioned and blamed by Josephus (Ant., XVIII, v) as well as in the N. T., and brought Antipas to ruin. It involved him in a war with Aretas in which he lost his army, a calamity that Josephus regarded “as a punishment for what he did against John that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism” (Ant., XVIII, v, 2). The N. T. gives the reason why Herodias sought John’s head. As she had married Herod Philip — not the tetrarch of the same name — who lived as a private citizen at Rome, by whom she had a daughter, Salome, she acted against the law in leaving him to marry Antipas. John rebuked Antipas for the adulterous union, and Herodias took vengeance (Matthew 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29). Josephus does not say that John’s death was caused by the hatred of Herodias, but rather by the jealousy of Herod on account of John’s great influence over the people. He was sent to the frowning fortress of Machærus on the mountains east of the Dead Sea, and there put to death (Jos., “Ant.”, XVIII, v, 2). Grätz (Gesch. d. Jud., III, xi, 221 — Hist. (Eng.), II, 147) as in other instances thinks the gospel story a legend; but Schürer admits that both Josephus and the evangelists may be right, since there is no contradiction in the accounts (Hist. of the Jewish People, etc., Div. I, V, ii, 25). The most celebrated city built by Antipas was Tiberias on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. He named it after his friend the Emperor Tiberius, and made it the capital of the tetrarchy. The city gave its name to the sea, and yet stands; it was for a long time a great school and centre of Jewish learning. It was before this Herod that Our Lord appeared and was mocked (Luke 23:7-13). Antipas had come to Jerusalem for the Pasch, and he is named with Pilate as a persecutor of Christ (Acts 4:27). The enmities that existed between him and Pilate were caused by Pilate’s having put to death some Galileans, who belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction (Luke 13:1); a reconciliation was effected as related in Luke, xxiii, 12. When Herodias saw how well her brother Agrippa had fared at Rome, whence he returned a king, she urged Antipas to go to Cæsar and obtain the royal title, for he was not king, but only tetrarch of Galilee — the N. T. however sometimes calls him king (Matthew 14:9; Mark 6:14), and Josephus likewise so styles Archelaus (Ant., XVIII, iv, 3), though he was never king, but only ethnarch. Contrary to his better judgment he went, and soon learned that Agrippa by messengers had accused him before Caligula of conspiracy against the Romans. The emperor banished him to Lyons, Gaul (France), A. D. 39, and Herodias accompanied him (Jos., “Ant.”, XVIII, vii, 2). Josephus (Bel. Jud., II, ix, 6) says: “So Herod died in Spain whither his wife had followed him”. The year of his death is not known. To reconcile the two statements of Josephus about the place of exile and death, see Smith, “Dict. of the Bible”, s. v. “Herodias” (note).

IV. AGRIPPA I

Agrippa I, also called the Great, was a grandson of Herod the Great and Mariamne, son of Aristobulus, and brother of Herodias. The history of his life and varying fortunes is stranger than romance. He was deeply in debt and a prisoner in Rome under Tiberius; but Caius, having come to the throne in A. D. 37, made him king over the territories formerly ruled by Philip and Lysanias, to which the tetrarchy of Antipas was added when the latter had been banished in A. D. 39 (Jos., “Ant.”, XVIII, vi, vii). In A. D. 41 Judea and Samaria were given to him by the Emperor Claudius, whom he had helped to the throne (Jos., “Ant.”, XIX, iv, 1), so that the whole kingdom which he then governed was greater than that of Herod his grandfather (Jos., “Ant.”, XIX, v, 1). He was, like many other Herods, a builder, and, according to Josephus, he so strengthened the walls of Jerusalem that the emperor became alarmed and ordered him “to leave off the building of those walls presently” (“Ant.”, XIX, vii, 2). He seems to have inherited from his Hasmonean ancestors a great love and zeal for the law (Jos., “Ant.”, XIX, vii, 3). This characteristic, with his ambition to please the people (ibid.), explains why he imprisoned Peter and beheaded James (Acts 12:1-3). His death is described in “Acts”, xii, 21-23; “eaten up by worms, he gave up the ghost.” He died at Cæsarea during a grand public festival; when the people having heard him speak cried out, “It is the voice of a god and not of a man”, his heart was elated, and “an angel of the Lord struck him, because he had not given the honour to God”. Josephus gives substantially the same account, but states that an owl appeared to the king to announce his death, as it had appeared many years before to predict his good fortune (Jos., “Ant.”, XIX, viii, 2). His death occurred in A. D. 44, the fifty-fourth year of his age, the seventh of his reign (ibid.). Grätz considers him one of the best of the Herods (Gesch. d. Jud., III, xii — Hist. (Eng.), II, vii); but Christians may not be willing to subscribe fully to this estimate.

V. AGRIPPA II

Agrippa II was the son of Agrippa I and in A. D. 44, the year of his father’s death, the emperor Claudius wished to give him the kingdom of his father, but he was dissuaded from his purpose because a youth of seventeen was hardly capable of assuming responsibilities so great (Jos., “Ant.”, XIX, ix). About A. D. 50 he was made King of Chalcis (Jos., “Bel. Jud.”, II, xii, 1), and afterwards ruler of a much larger territory including the lands formerly governed by Philip and Lysanias (Jos., “Bel. Jud.”, II, xii, 8). He was also titular king of Judea, and in twenty years appointed seven high-priests (Grätz, “Gesch. d. Jud.”, III, xiv — “Hist.” (Eng.), II, ix). When the Jews wished to free themselves from the dominion of Rome in the time of Florus, Agrippa showed them the folly of violent measures, and gave them a detailed account of the vast resources of the Roman empire (Jos., “Bel. Jud.”, II, xvi, 4). St. Paul pleaded before this king, to whom Festus, the governor, referred the case (Acts 26). The Apostle praises the king’s knowledge of the “customs and questions that are among the Jews” (v. 3); Josephus likewise appeals to his judgment and calls him a most admirable man — thaumasiotatos (Cont. Ap., I, ix). It was, therefore, not out of mere compliment that Festus invited him to hear what St. Paul had to say. His answer to the Apostle’s appeal has been variously interpreted: it may mean that St. Paul had not quite convinced him, which sense seems to suit the context better than the irony that some see in the king’s words. The indifference, however, which he manifested was in harmony with the” great pomp” with which he and his sister Berenice had entered the hall of audience (Acts 25:23). After the fall of Jerusalem he lived at Rome, where he is said to have died in the third year of Trajan, A. D. 100. Grätz (Gesch. d. Jud., III, xvii, 410) gives A. D. 71-72 as the date of his death, a date based upon a more correct reading of a Greek text as authority.

———————————–

Many histories and special studies throw light upon the Herodian age and family, but nearly all we know about the Herods comes through Josephus. The following, among many works, may be consulted:

SCHÜRER, Gesch. d. Jüd. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (Leipzig, 1898-1901), with comprehensive bibliography; tr. A Hist. of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh, 1897-1898); GRÄTZ, Gesch. d. Jud. (III, 11 vols., Leipzig); tr. Hist. of the Jews, 6 vols. (Jew. Pub. Soc., Phila., 1891-1902), without notes or references, II; MILMAN, The History of the Jews (3 vols. New York, 1870); and histories by JOST, EWALD, etc.; HASTINGS, A Dict. of Christ and the Gospels (New York, 1907); EDERSHEIM, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, I; FARRAR, The Herods; JOSEPHUS, Ant., Books XIV-XX; IDEM, Bel. Jud., Books I and II.

JOHN J. TIERNEY. Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIICopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Herod

( , hero-like, a name that appears likewise among the Greeks, Dio. Cass. 71, 35; Philost. Soph. 2, 1, etc.), the name of several persons of the royal family of Judaea in the time of Christ and the apostles (see Noldius, De vita et gestis Herodum, in Havercamp’s edit. of Josephus; Reland, Palaest. p. 174 sq.; Jost, Gesch. d. Israeliten, 1, 160 sq. Other monographs are named by Volbeding, Index Progammatum, p. 16,77, and by Frst, Bibliotheca Judaica, 1, 386; 2, 127-130. See also De Saulcy, Hist. d’Hierode, Par. 1867; Gder, Ierodes, Bern, 1869), Whose history is incidentally involved in that of the N. Testament, but is copiously detailed by Josephus notices of it also occur in the classical writers, especially Strabo (16, c. 2, 16). We therefore devote a large space to consideration of the subject.

The history of the Herodian family presents one side of the last development of the Jewish nation. The evils which had existed in the hierarchy that grew up after the Return, found an unexpected embodiment in the tyranny of a foreign usurper. Religion was adopted as a policy; and the hellenizing designs of Antiochus Epiphanes were carried out, at least in their spirit, by men who professed to observe the law. Side by side with the spiritual kingdom of God proclaimed by John the Baptist, and founded by the Lord, a kingdom of the world was established, which in its external splendor recalled the traditional magnificence of Solomon. The simultaneous realization of the two principles, national and spiritual, which had long variously influenced the Jews, in the establishment of a dynasty and a church, is a fact pregnant with instruction. In the fulness of time a descendant of Esau established a false counterpart of the promised glories of the Messiah. Various accounts are given of the ancestry of the Herods. The Jewish partisans of Herod (Nicolas Damascenus, ap; Josephus, Ant. 14, 1, 3) sought to raise him to the dignity of a descent from one of the noble families which returned from Babylon; and, on the other hand, early Christian writers represented his origin as utterly mean and servile. Africanus has preserved a tradition (Routh, Rell. Sacr. 2, 235), on the authority of the natural kinsmen of the Savior, which makes Antipater, the father of Herod, the son of one Herod, a slave attached to the service of a temple of Apollo at Ascalon, who was taken prisoner by Idummean robbers, and kept by them, as his father could not pay his ransom. The locality (comp. Philo, Leg. ad Caium, 30), no less than the office, was calculated to fix a heavy reproach upon the name (comp. Routh, 1. c.). This story is repeated with great inaccuracy by Epiphanius (Hoer. 20). Neglecting, however, these exaggerated statements of friends and enemies, it seems certain that the family was of Idumaean descent:'(Josephus, Ant. 14, 1, 3), a fact which is indicated by the forms of some of the names that were retained in it (Ewald, Geschichte, 4, 477, note). But, though aliens by race, the Herods were Jews in faith. The Idumaeans had been conquered and brought over to Judaism by John Hyrcanus (B.C. 130; Josephus, Ant. 13, 9,1); and from the time of their conversion they remained constant to their new religion, looking upon Jerusalem as their mother city, and claiming for themselves the name of Jews (Josephus, Ant. 20, 7, 7; War, 1, 10, 4; 4, 4, 4).

The general policy of the whole Herodian family, though modified by the personal characteristics of the successive rulers, was the same. It centered in the endeavor to found a great and independent kingdom, in which the power of Judaism should subserve the consolidation of a state. The protection of Rome was in the first instance a necessity, but the designs of Herod I and Agrippa I point to an independent Eastern empire as their end, and not to a mere subject monarchy. Such a consummation of the Jewish hopes seems to have found some measure of acceptance at first SEE HERODIAN; and by a natural reaction the temporal dominion of the Herods opened the way for the destruction of the Jewish nationality. The religion which was degraded into the instrument of unscrupulous ambition lost its power to quicken a united people. The high priests were appointed and deposed by Herod I and his successors, with such a reckless disregard for the character of their office (Jost, Gesch. d. Judenthums, 1, 322, 325, 42 1), that the office itself was deprived of its sacred dignity (compare Act 23:2 sq.; Jost, 1, 430, etc.). The nation was divided, and amidst the conflict of sects a universal faith arose, which more than fulfilled the nobler hopes that found no satisfaction in the treacherous grandeur of a court. See the name of each member of the family in its order in this CYCLOPEDIA.

1. HEROD THE GREAT, as he is usually surnamed, mentioned in Mat 2:1-22; Luk 1:5; Act 23:35 was the second son of Antipater and Cypros, an Arabian lady of noble descent (Josephus, Ant. 14:7, 3). See ANTIPATER. In B.C. 47 Julius Caesar made Antipater procurator of Judea, and the latter divided his territories among his four sons, assigning the district of Galilee to Herod (Josephus, Ant. 14, 9, 3; War, 1, 10, 4). At the time when he was invested with the government he was fifteen years of age, according to Josephus (Ant. 14, 9, 2); but this must be a mistake. Herod died, aged sixty-nine, in B.C. 4, consequently he must have been twenty-six or twenty-five in the year B.C. 47, when he was made governor of Galilee ( , given by Dindorf in the ed. Didot, but no stated authority). One of his first acts was to repress the brigands who were infesting his provinces, and to put many of their dealers to death upon his own authority. This was made known to Hyrcanus, and Herod was summoned to take his trial before the Sanhedrim for his deeds of violence. Herod, instead of appearing before the Sanhedrim clothed in mourning, came in purple, attended by armed guards, and bearing in his hands a letter from the Roman commander Sextus Caesar for his acquittal. This overawed the assembly; but Sameas, a just man (Josephus, Ant. 14:9, 4), stepped forward, and, boldly addressing the assembly, predicted that, should the offender escape punishment, he would live to kill all those who were his judges, and would not grant the pardon which the assembly seemed inclined to extend to him. He, however, escaped, and took refuge with Sextus Caesar, who soon appointed him governor () of Caele-Syria. He then determined to march against Jerusalem, and would have done so had not his father Antipater and his family restrained him from committing any fresh acts of violence. In B.C. 44, after Caesar’s death, Cassius took the government of Syria. Herod and his father Antipater willingly assisted Cassius in obtaining the taxes levied upon the Jews for the support of the troops. For this Herod was confirmed in the government of Caele-Syria (Josephus, War, 1, 11, 4). In B.C. 41 Antony came to Syria, and Herod, by making him valuable presents, soon formed with him a close personal intimacy (Josephus, Ant. 14:12,2). Hyrcanus, to whose beautiful granddaughter Mariamne Herod was betrothed, induced Antony to make Herod and his brother Phasael tetrarchs of Judaea (Josephus, Ant. 14, 13, 1; War, 1, 12, 5). The invasion of the Parthians, who sided with Antigonus the Asmonsean, compelled Herod to give up Judaea and fly to Rome. Antony was then in great power, and took Herod under his protection, and, seeing that he might prove useful to him, obtained a decree of the senate appointing him king of Judaea, to the extinction of all the living Asmonaean princes (Josephus, Ant. 14, 9-14; War, 1, 10-14; Dion Cass. 48). These events took place in B.C. 40, and Herod, only staying seven days at Rome, returned speedily to Jerusalem within three months from the time he had first fled.

It was not, however, so easy for Herod to obtain possession of Jerusalem, or to establish himself as king of Judaea, as it had been to obtain this title from the Romans. The Jews still held firmly to Antigonus as the representative of the Asmonaean line, and it was not for several years that Herod made any material advance whatever. With the assistance of the Romans Herod made preparations to take Jerusalem. He had endeavored to conciliate the people by marrying Mariamne, thinking that by so doing the attachment of the Jews to the Asmonaean family would be extended to him. After six months’ siege the Romans entered the city (B.C. 37), and, to revenge the obstinate resistance they had received, began to ransack and plunder, and it was no easy task for Herod to purchase from the conquerors the freedom from pillage of some part of his capital. Antigonus was taken and conveyed to Antioch, where, having been previously beaten, he was ignominiously executed with the axe by the order of Antony, a mode of treatment which the Romans had never before used to a king (Dion Cass. 69, 22; Josephus, Ant. 15, 1, 2) Thus ended the government of the Asmonaeans, 126 years after it was first set up (Josephus, Ant. 14, 16, 4). Immediately on ascending the throne Herod put to death all the members of the Sanhedrim, excepting Pollio and Sameas (the famous Hillel and Shammai of the Rabbinical writers), who had predicted this result, and also all the adherents of Antigonus who could be found. Having confiscated their property, he sent presents to Antony to repay him for his assistance and to further secure his favor. He then gave the office of high-priest, which had become vacant by the death of Antigonus, and the mutilation of Hyrcanus, whose ears had been cut off by Antigonus (comp. Lev 21:16-24), to an obscure priest from Babylon named Ananel. At this insult Alexandra, the mother of Mariamne and Aristobulus, to whom the office of high-priest belonged by hereditary succession, appealed to Cleopatra to use her powerful influence with Antony, and Herod was thus compelled to depose Ananel, and to elevate Aristobulus to the high-priesthood. The increasing popularity of Aristobulus, added to the further intrigues of Alexandra, so excited the jealousy of Herod that he caused him to be drowned while bathing, and expressed great sorrow at the accident. SEE ARISTOBULUS.

Alexandra again applied to Cleopatra, who at last persuaded Antony to summon Herod to Laodicea to answer for his conduct. Herod was obliged to obey, but was dismissed with the highest honors (Josephus, Ant. 15:3,1-8; comp. 14 Wa., 1, 22, 2). After the defeat of Antony at Actium, in B.C. 31, Herod had an audience at Rhodes with Octavius, who did not think that Antony was quite powerless while Herod continued his assistance to him (Josephus, War, 1, 20, 1). Herod so conciliated him that he obtained security in his kingdom of Judaea, to which Octavius added Gadara, Samaria, and the maritime cities Gaza and Joppa. Shortly after the regions of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis were given him (Josephus, Ant. 15:5, 6, 7; 10, 1; War, 1, 20, 3, 4; comp. Tacit. Hist. 5, 9). Herod’s domestic life was troubled by a long series of bloodshed. Hyrcanus, the grandfather of his wife Mariamne, was put to death before his visit to Octavius, and Mariamne, to whom he was passionately attached, fell a victim to his jealousy soon after his return. SEE HYRCANUS; SEE MARIAMNE.

His remorse for the deed is well described by Josephus, who says that Herod commanded his attendants always to speak of her as alive (Ant. 15, 7, 7; War, 1, 22, 5). In B.C. 20, when Augustus visited Judaea in person; another extensive addition was made to his territories. The district of Paneas was taken away from its ruler Zenodorus for leaguing himself with the Arabs, and given to Herod. In return, Herod adorned this place by erecting a temple, which he dedicated to Augustus (Josephus, Ant. 15, 10,.3, War, 1, 20, 4; Dion. Cass. 54, 9). Not long after this, the death of his wife was followed by other atrocities. Alexander and Aristobulus, the sons of Mariamne, were put to death; and at last, in B.C. 4, Herod ordered his eldest son, Antipater, to be killed. SEE ALEXANDER; SEE ARISTOBULUS; SEE ANTIPATER.

Herod’s painful disease no doubt maddened him in his later years, and in anticipation of his own death he gave orders that the principal Jews, whom he had shut up in the Hippodrome at Jericho, should immediately after his decease be put to death, that mourners might not be wanting at his funeral (Josephus, Ant. 17. 6, 5). Near his death, too, he must have ordered the murder of the infants at Bethlehem, as recorded by Matthew (Mat 2:16-18). The number of children in a village must have been very few; and Josephus has passed this story over unnoticed; yet it is worthy of remark that he has given an account of a massacre by Herod of all the members of his family who had consented to what the Pharisees foretold, viz. that Herod’s government should cease, and his posterity be deprived of the kingdom (Ant. 17, 2, 4). A confused account of the massacre of the children and the murder of Antipater is given in Macrobius: Augustus cum audisset inter pueros, quos in Syria Herodes, rex Judaeorum, intra bimatum jussit intefici, filium quoque ejus occisum, ait: Melius est Herodis porcum (?, swine) esse quam filium (? , son) (Sat. 2, 4). Macrobius lived in the 5th century (c. A.D. 420), and the words intra bimatum (a bimatu et infra, Mat 2:16. Vulg.) seem to be borrowed; the story, too, is erong, as Antipater was of age when he was executed (Alford, ad-loc.). Macrobius may have made some mistake on account of Herod’s wish to destroy- the heir to the throne of David. The language of the evangelist leaves in complete uncertainty the method in which the deed was effected ( ). The scene of open and undisguised violence which has been consecrated by Christian art is wholly at variance with what may be supposed to have been the historic reality.

Herod was married to no less than ten wives, by most of whom he had children. He died a few days before the Passover, B.C. 4, his deathbed being the scene of the most awful agonies in mind and body. According to the custom of the times, he made his sons the heirs to his kingdom by a formal testament, leaving its ratification to the will of the emperor. Augustus assenting to its main provisions, Archelaus, became tetrarch of Juduea, Samaria, and Idumnea; Philip, of Trachonitis and Ituraea; and Herod Antipas, of Galilee and Perrua. His body was conveyed by his son Archelaus from Jericho, where he died, to Herodium, a city and fortress 200 stadia distant, and he was there buried with great pomp (Josephus, Ant. 17, 2; War, 1, 38, 9).

On the extirpation of the Asmonaean family, finding that there was then no one who could interfere with him, Herod had introduced heathenish customs, such as plays, shows, and chariot-races, which the Jews condemned as contrary to the laws of Moses (Josephus, Ant. 15, 1); and on the completion of the building of Caesarea he also introduced Olympic games and consecrated them to Caesar, ordering them to be celebrated every fifth year (Josephus, Ant. 15, 9, 6; 16:5, 1). With regard to the prejudices of the Jews, Herod showed as great contempt for public opinion as in the execution of his personal vengeance. He signalized his elevation to the throne by offerings to the Capitoline Jupiter (Jost, Gesch. d. Judenthums, 1, 318), and surrounded his person by foreign mercenaries, some of whom had formerly been in the service of Cleopatra (Josephus, Ant. 15, 7,3; 17:1, 1; 8, 3). His coins and those of his successors bore only Greek legends; and he introduced heathen games even within the walls of Jerusalem (Josephus, A nt. 15, 8, 1). He displayed ostentatiously his favor towards foreigners (Josephus, Ant. 16, 5, 3), and oppressed the old Jewish aristocracy (Josephus, Ant. 15, 1, 1). The later Jewish traditions describe him as successively the servant of the Asmonaeans and the Romans, and relate that one Rabbin only survived the persecution which he directed against them, purchasing his life by the loss of sight (Jost, 1, 319, etc.).

Notwithstanding that he thus alienated his subjects from him, he greatly improved his country by the number of fine towns and magnificent public buildings which he had erected. He built a temple at Samaria, and converted it into a Roman city under the name of Sebaste. He also built Gaba in Galilee, and Heshbonitis in Persea (Josephus, Ant. 15, 8, 5), besides several other towns, which he called by the names of different members of his family, as Antipatris, from the name of his father Antipater, and Phasaelis, in the plains of Jericho, after his brother Phasael (Josephus, Ant. 16, 5, 2). On many other towns in Syria and Greece he bestowed money, but his grandest undertaking was the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem. It was commenced in the 18th year of his reign (B.C. 21), and the work was carried on with such vigor that the Temple itself (), i.e. the Holy House, was finished in a year and a half (Josephus, Ant. 15:11,1, 6). The cloisters and other buildings were finished in eight years (Josephus, Ant. 15:11, 5). Additions and repairs were continually made, and it was not till the reign of Herod Agrippa II (c. A.D. 65) that the Temple ( ) was completed (Josephus, Ant. 20, 9, 7). Hence the Jews said to our Lord, Forty and six years was this Temple in building [ and is not even yet completed], and wilt thou raise it up in three days! (Joh 2:20). This took place in A.D. 26, not long after our Lord’s baptism, who was about thirty years of age (Luk 3:23), and who was born some two years before the death of Herod, in B.C. 4, according to the true chronology. This beautiful Temple, though built in honor of the God of Israel, did not win the hearts of the people, as is proved by the revolt which took place shortly before Herod’s death, when the Jews tore down the golden eagle which he had fastened to the Temple, and broke it in pieces (Josephus, Antig. 17, 6, 2, 3)

The diversity of Herod’s nature is remarkable. On regarding his magnificence, and the benefits he bestowed upon his people, one cannot deny that he had a very beneficent disposition; but when we read of his cruelties, not only to his subjects, but even to his own relations, one is forced to allow that he was brutish and a stranger to humanity (comp. Josephus, Ant. 16, 5, 4). His servility to Rome is amply shown by the manner in which he transgressed the customs of his nation and set aside many of their laws, building cities and erecting temples in foreign countries, for the Jews did not permit him so to do in Judaea, even though they were under so tyrannical a government as that of Herod. His confessed apology was that he was acting to please Caesar and the Romans, and so through all his reign he was a Jewish prince only in name, with a Hellenistic disposition (comp. Josephus, Ant. 15, 9, 5; 19:7, 3). It has even been supposed (Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth. 1, 323) that the rebuilding of the Temple furnished him with the opportunity of destroying the authentic collection of genealogies which was of the highest importance to the priestly families. Herod, as appears from his public designs, affected the dignity of a second Solomon, but he joined the license of that monarch to his magnificence; and it was said that the monument which he raised over the royal tombs was due to the fear which seized him after a sacrilegious attempt to rob them of secret treasures (Josephus, Ant. 16, 7,1). He maintained peace at home during a long reign by the vigor and timely generosity of his administration. Abroad he conciliated the goodwill of the Romans under circumstances of unusual difficulty. His ostentatious display, and even his arbitrary tyranny, was calculated to inspire Orientals with awe. Bold and yet prudent, oppressive and yet profuse, he had many of the characteristics which make a popular hero; and the title which may have been first given in admiration of successful despotism now serves to bring out in clearer contrast the terrible price at which the success was purchased.

Josephus gives Herod I the surname of Great ( ). Ewald suggests that the title elder is only intended to distinguish him from the younger Herod (Antipas), and compares the cases of (Ant. 18:8, 4) and Agrippa the Great, in contradistinction to Helcias, the keeper of the sacred treasure (Ant. 20:11, 1), and to Agrippa II. The title Agrippa the Great is confirmed by coins, on which he is styled (Eckhel, Doct. Nun. Vet. 3, 492; Akerman, Nusm. Chronicles 9:23), and so, says Ewald, it may similarly have been given upon the coins of Herod, and from this the origin of the surname may have been derived (Geschichte, 4, 473, note). There are, however, no coins of Herod I with the title great. It is best to suppose that the title in Josephus is merely a distinguishing epithet, and not meant to express greatness of character or achievements.

2. HEROD ANTIPAS ( , Matt., Mark, Luke; , Josephus) was the son of Herod the Great, by Malthace, a Samaritan (Joseph. Ant. 17, 1, 3; War, 1, 28, 4). His father had already given him the kingdom in his first will. but in the final arrangement left him the tetrarchy of Galilee and Persea (Josephus, Ant. 17, 8,1; War, 2, 9,1; Mat 14:1; Luk 3:1; Luk 3:19; Luk 9:1; Act 13:1), which brought him the yearly revenue of 200 talents (Josephus, Ant. 18, 5, 1). On his way to Rome he visited his brother Philip, and commencing an intrigue with his wife Herodias, daughter of Aristobulus, the son of Mariamne, he afterwards incestuously married her. He had previously been married to a daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia Petrsea, who avenged this insult by invading his dominions, and defeated him with great loss (Josephus, Ant. 18, 5, 1). An appeal to the Romans afforded the only hope of safety. Aretas was haughtily ordered by the emperor to desist from the prosecution of the war, and Herod accordingly escaped the expected overthrow. Josephus says that the opinion of the Jews was that the defeat was a punishment for his having imprisoned John the Baptist on account of his popularity, and afterwards put him to death, but does not mention the reproval that John gave him, nor that it was at the instigation of Herodias that he was killed, as recorded in the Gospels (Joseph. Ant. 18, 5, 4; Mat 14:1-11; Mar 6:14-16; Luk 3:19; Luk 9:7-9). The evangelists evidently give the true reason, and Josephus the one generally received by the people. In A.D. 38, after the death of Tiberius, he was persuaded, especially at the ambitious instigation of Herodias. to go to Rome to procure for himself the royal title. Agrippa, who was high in the favor of Caligula, and had already received this title, opposed this with such success that Antipas was condemned to perpetual banishment at Lyons, a city of Gaul (Joseph. Ant. 18, 7, 2), and eventually died in Spain, whither his wife Herodias had voluntarily followed him (War, 2, 9, 6). He is called (by courtesy) kiny by Matthew (Mat 14:9) and by Mark (Mar 6:14). See No. 5. Herod Antipas was in high favor with Tiberius; hence he gave the name of Tiberias to the city he built on the lake of Gennesareth (Josephus, Ant. 18, 2, 3). He enlarged and improved several cities of his dominions, and also built a wall about Sepphoris, and round Betharamphtha, which latter town he named Julias, in honor of the wife of the emperor (Josephus, Ant. 18; 2,1 1 comp. War, 2, 9, 1).

It was before Herod Antipas, who came up to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover (comp. Joseph. Ant. 18:6, 3), that our Lord was sent for examination when Pilate heard that he was a Galilaean, as Pilate had already had several disputes with the Galileans, and was not at this time on veer good terms with Herod (Luk 13:1; Luk 23:6-7), and on the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together (Luk 23:12; comp. Josephus, Ant. 18, 3, 2; Psa 83:5). The name of Herod Antipas is coupled with that of Pilate in the prayer of the apostles mentioned in the Acts (4, 24-30). His personal character is little touched upon by either Josephus or the evangelists, yet from his consenting to the death of John the Baptist to gratify the malice of a wicked woman, though for a time he had heard him gladly (Mar 6:20), we perceive his cowardice, his want of spirit, and his fear of ridicule. His wicked oath was not binding on him, for Herod was bound by the law of God not to commit murder. He was in any case desirous to see Jesus, and hoped to have seen a miracle from him (Luk 23:8). His artifice and cunning are specially alluded to by our Lord, Go ye and tell that fox ( , Luk 13:32). Coins of Herod Antipas bear the title TETPAPXOY. SEE ANTIPAS.

3. HEROD ARCHELAUS (, Matt.; Josephus; , Dion Cassius; coins), son of Herod the Great and Malthace, uterine and younger brother of Herod Altipas, and called by Dion Cassius (4, 57). He was brought up with his brother at Rome (Josephus, Ant. 17, 1, 3). His father had disinherited him in consequence of the false accusations of his eldest brother Antipater, the son of Doris; but Herod, on making a new will, altered his mind, and gave him the kingdom, which had before been left to Antipas (Josephus, Ant. 17, 8, 1). It was this unexpected arrangement which led to the retreat-of Joseph to Galilee (Mat 2:22). He was saluted as king by the army, bit refused to accept that title till it should be confirmed by Augustus (Joseph. Ant. 17, 8, 2,4; War, 1, 1). Shortly after this a sedition was raised against him, which he quelled by killing 3000 persons, and he then set sail with his brother Antipas to Rome (Josephus, Ant. 17, 9, 2, 4; War, 2, 2,3). Upon this the Jews sent an embassy to Augustus, to request that they might be allowed to live according to their own laws under a Roman governor. Our Lord seems to allude to this circumstance in the parable of the nobleman going into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom: But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us (Luk 19:12-27). While he was at Rome, Jerusalem was under the care of Sabinus, the Roman procurator, and a quarrel ensued in consequence of the manner in which the Jews were treated. Quiet was again established through the intervention of Varus, the president of Syria, and the authors of the sedition were punished (Josephus, Ant. 17, 10). Augustus, however, ratified the main points of Herod’s will, and gave Archelaus Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea, with the cities of Caesarea, Sebaste, Joppa, and Jerusalem, the title of ethnarch, and a promise that he should have the royal dignity hereafter if he governed virtuously (Joseph. Ant. 17, 11, 4; War, 2, 6,3). Archelaus never really had the title of king (), though at first called so by the people (Josephus, Ant. 17:8, 2), yet we cannot object to the word ( in Matthew, for Archelaus regarded himself as king (Josephus, War, 2, 1, 1), and Josephus speaks of the province of Lysanias, which was only a tetrarchy, as (War, 2, 11, 5). Herod (Antipas) the tetrarch is also called (Mat 14:9; Mar 6:14). When Archelaus returned to Judaea he rebuilt the royal palace at Jericho, and established a village, naming it after himself, Archelaus (Joseph. Ant. 17, 13, 1). Shortly after Archelaus’s return he violated the Mosaic law by marrying Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and the Jews complaining again loudly of his tyranny, Augustus summoned him to Rome, and finally, A.D. 6, sent him into exile at Vienna in Gaul, where he probably died, and his dominions were attached to the Roman empire (Josephus, Ant. 17, 13, 2; War, 2, 7; compare Strabo, 16, 765; Dion Cassius, 55, 25, 27). Jerome, however, relates that he was shown the tomb of Archelaus near Bethlehem (Onomasticon, s.v.). Coins with the title CONAPXOY belong to Archelaus. SEE ARCHELAUS.

4. HEROD PHILIP I (, Mar 6:17; , Josephus) was the son of Herod the Great by a second Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high-priest (Josephus, Ant. 18:5, 4), and must be distinguished from Philip the tetrarch, No. 6. He was the husband of Herodias, by whom he had a daughter, Salome. Herodias, however, contrary to the laws of her country, divorced herself from him, and married her uncle Antipas [see Nos. 2 and 5] (Josephus, Ant. 18:5, 4; Mat 14:3; Mar 6:17; Luk 3:19). He was omitted in the will of Herod in consequence of the discovery that Mariamne was conscious of the plots of Antipater, Herod the Great’s son by Doris (Josephus, War, 1, 30,7). SEE PHILIP.

5. HERODIAS ( , Mat 14:1-11; Mar 6:14-16; Luk 3:19) was the daughter of Aristobulus, one of the sons of Herod I by the first Mariamne, and of Berenice, the daughter of Salome, Herod’s sister, and was consequently sister of Herod Agrippa I (Josephus, Ant. 18:5,4; War, 1, 28, 1). She was first married to her uncle, Herod Philip I, the son of Herod I and the second Mariamne, by whom she had a daughter Salome, probably the one that danced and pleased Herod Antipas, and who afterwards married her uncle Philip II. Herodias soon divorced herself from him, and married Herod Antipas, who was also her uncle, being the son of Herod I and Malthace, and who agreed, for her sake, to put away his own wife, the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia (Josephus, Ant. 18:5,1, 4). John the Baptist reproved her for her crimes in thus living in adultery and incest, and she took the first opportunity to cause him to be put to death, thus adding thereto the crime of murder. Her marriage was unlawful for three reasons: first, her former husband, Philip, was still alive ( , Josephus, Ant. 18, 5,4); secondly, Antipas’s wife was still alive; and, thirdly, by her first marriage with Philip she became the sister-in-law of Antipas, who was consequently forbidden by the Jewish law to marry his brother’s wife (Lev 18:16; Lev 11:21; comp. Alford on Mat 14:4). When Antipas was condemned by Caius to perpetual banishment, Herodias was offered a pardon, and the emperor made her a present of money, telling her that it was her brother Agrippa (I) who prevented her being involved in the same calamity as her husband. The best trait of her character is shown when, in true Jewish spirit, she refused this offer, and voluntarily chose to share the exile of her husband [No. 2] (Josephus, Ant. 17, 7, 2). SEE HERODIAS.

6. HEROD PHILIP II (, Luke and Josephus) was son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem ( ), and was with his half brothers Archelaus and Antipas brought up at Rome (Josephus, Ant. 17, 1,3; War, 1, 28, 4). He received as his share of the empire the tetrarchy of Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and certain parts about Jamnia, with a revenue of 100 talents (Josephus, Ant. 17, 11, 4; War, 2, 6, 3). He is only mentioned once in the N.T. (Luke 3 :I, ). He was married to Salome, the daughter of Herod Philip I and Herodias, but left no children (Joseph. Ant. 18, 5, 4). He reigned over his dominions for 37 years (B.C. 4-A.D. 34), during which time he showed-himself to be a person of moderation and quietness in the conduct of his life and government (Josephus, Ant. 18, 4, 6). He built the city of Paneas and named it Caesarea, more commonly known as Caesarea-Philippi (Mat 16:13; Mar 8:27), and also advanced to the dignity of a city the village Bethsaida, calling it by the name of Julias, in honor of the daughter of Augustus. He died at Julias, and was buried in the monument he had there built (Josephus, Ant. 18, 2, 1; 4,6; War, 2, 9, 1). Leaving no children, his dominions were annexed to the Roman province of Syria (Josephus, Ant. 18 , 56). Coins of Philip II bear the title TETPAPXOY. SEE PHILIP.

7. HEROD AGRIPPA I ( , Acts; , Josephus) was the son of Aristobulus and Berenice, and grandson of Herod the Great (Josephus, Ant. 17, 1, 2; War, 1, 28, 1). He is called Agrippa the Great by Josephus (Ant. 17, 2, 2). A short time before the death of Herod the Great he was living at Rome and was brought up with Drusus, the son of fiberius, and with Antonia, the wife of Drusus (Josephus, Ant. 18, 6, 1). He was only one year older than Claudius, who was born in B.C. 10, and they were bred up together in the closest intimacy. The earlier part of his life was spent at Rome, where the magnificence and luxury in which he indulged involved him so deeply in debt that he was compelled to fly from Rome, and betook himself to a fortress at Malatha, in Idumaea. Through the mediation of his wife Cypros and his sister Herodias, he was allowed to take up his abode at Tiberias, and received the rank of edile in that city, with a small amnnity (Joseph. Ant. 16:6,2). But, having quarreled with his brother-in-law, he fled to Flaccus, the proconsul of Syria. Soon afterwards he was convicted, through the information of his brother Aristobulus, of having received a bribe from the Damascenes, who wished to purchase his influence with the proconsul, and was again compelled to fly. He was arrested, as he was about to sail to Italy, for a sum of money which he owed to the Roman treasury, but made his escape and reached Alexandria, where his wife succeeded in procuring a supply of money from Alexander the alabarch. He then set sail, and landed at Puteoli. He was favorably received by Tiberius; but he one day incautiously expressed the wish that Caius might soon succeed to the throne, which being reported to Tiberius, he was arrested and thrown into prison, where he remained till the accession of Cains in A.D. 37 (Josephus, Ant. 18, 6,10).

Caius shortly after gave him the tetrarchy of Philip, the iron chain with which he had been fastened to a soldier being exchanged for a gold one (Josephus, Ant. 18, 6,10). He was also invested with the consular dignity, and a league was publicly made with him by Claudius. He then started to take possession of his kingdom, and at Alexandria was insulted by the people, who dressed up an idiot, and bore him in mock triumph through the streets to deride the new king of the Jews (Philo, in Flaccuns, 6). The jealousy of Herod Antipas and his wife Herodias was excited by the distinctions conferred upon Agrippa by the Romans, and they sailed to Rome in the hope of supplanting him in the emperor’s favor. Agrippa was aware of their design, and anticipated it by a countercharge against Antipas of treasonous correspondence with the Parthians. Antipas failed to answer the accusations, and, after his exile, Agrippa received from Caius the tetrarchy of Galilee and Pereea (Josephus, Ant. 18:7, 2); and in A.D. 41, for having greatly assisted Claudius, he received his whole paternal kingdom (Judeea and Samaria), and, in addition, the tetrarchy of Lysanias II (comp. Luk 3:1). Josephus says in one passage that Caius gave him this tetrarchy (Ant. 18, 6, 10), but afterwards, in two places, that Claudius gave it to him (Ant. 19, 5, 1; War, 2, 11, 5). Caius probably promised it, and Claudius actually conferred it. Agrippa now possessed the entire kingdom of Herod the Great. At this time he begged of Claudius the kingdom of Chalcis for his brother Herod (Josephus, Ant. 19, 5, 1; War, 2, 11, 5).

Agrippa loved to live at Jerusalem, and was a strict observer of the laws of his country, which will account for his persecuting the Christians, who were hated by the Jews (Josephus, Ant. 19, 7, 3). Thus influenced by a strong desire for popularity, rather than from innate cruelty, he stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the Church. He put to death James the elder, son of Zebedee, and cast Peter into prison, no doubt with the intention of killing him also. This was frustrated by his miraculous deliverance from his jailers by the angel of the Lord (Act 12:1-19). Agrippa I, like his grandfather, displayed great taste in building, and especially adorned the city of Berytus (Josephus, Ant. 19, 7, 5). The suspicions of Claudius prevented him from finishing the impregnable fortifications with which he had begun to surround Jerusalem. His friendship was courted by many of the neighboring kings and rulers. In A.D. 44 Agrippa celebrated games at Caesarea in honor of the emperor, and to make vows for his safety. At this festival a number of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity in the province, attended. Josephus does not mention those of Tyre and Sidon as recorded in the Acts (Act 12:20). Though Agrippa was highly displeased, it does not appear that any rupture worthy of notice had taken place. On the second day Agrippa appeared in the theatre in a garment interwoven with silver. On closing his address to the people, they saluted him as a god, for which he did not rebuke them, and he was immediately seized with violent internal pains, and died five days after (Josephus, Ant. 19, 8, 2). This fuller account of Josephus agrees substantially with that in the Acts. The silver dress ( ,Josephus; , Acts); and the disease ( , Joseph.; , Acts). The owl ( ), which on this occasion appeared to Agrippa as the messenger of ill tidings ( , Josephus, Ant. 19:8, 2), though on a former one it had appeared to him as a messenger of good news (Josephus, Ant. 18, 6, 7), is converted by Eusebius (H. E. 2, ch. 10), who professes to quote Josephus, into the angel of the Acts ( , Act 12:23. For an explanation of the confusion, compare Eusebius, 1. c., ed. Heinichen, Excurs. 2, vol. 3:p. 556; Alford, ad loc.). SEE AGRIPPA.

8. HEROD AGRIPPA II (, Acts; Josephus) was the son of- Herod Agrippa I and Cypros (War, 2, 11, 6). At the time of his father’s death (A.D. 44) he was only seventeen years of age, and the emperor Claudius, thinking him too young to govern the kingdom, sent Cuspius Fadus as procurator, and thus made it again a Roman province (Josephus, Ant. 19, 9, 2; Tacit. Hist. 5, 9). After the death of his uncle Herod in A.D. 48, Claudius bestowed upon him the small kingdom of Chalcis (Josephus, Ant. 20, 5, 2; War, 2, 12,1), and four years after took it away from him, giving him instead the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias (Josephus, Ant. 20, 7, 1; War, 2, 12, 8) with the title of king (Act 25:13; Act 26:2; Act 26:7). In A.D. 55 Nero gave him the cities of Tiberias and Taricheae in Galilee, and Julias, a city of Peraea, with fourteen villages near it (Josephus, Ant. 20, 8, 4; comp. War, 2, 13, 2).

Agrippa II exhibited the Herodian partiality for building. He much enlarged the city of Caesarea Philippi, and in honor of Nero called it Neronias. He also supplied large sums of money towards beautifying Jerusalem (which he encircled with the third wall) and Berytus, transferring almost everything that was ornamental from his own kingdom to this latter place. These acts rendered him most unpopular (Josephus, Ant. 20, 9,4). In A.D. 60 king Agrippa and Bernice (q.v.) his sister, concerning the nature of whose equivocal intercourse with each other there had been much grave conversation (Juvenal, Sat. 6, 155 sq.), and who, in consequence, persuaded Polemo, king of Cilicia, to marry her (Josephus, A nt. 20:7, 3), came to Caesarea (Act 25:13). It was before him and his sister that the apostle Paul made his defense, and somewhat ( ) persuaded him to be a Christian. Agrippa seems to have been intimate with Festus (Josephus, Ant. 20, 7, 11), and it was natural that the Roman governor should avail himself of his judgment on a question of what seemed to be Jewish law (Act 25:18; Acts cf., 26; comp. Josephus, A t. 20, 8, 7). The pomp ( ) with which the king came into the audience chamber (Act 25:23) was accordant with his general bearing.

The famous speech which Agrippa made to the Jews, to dissuade them from waging war with the Romans, is recorded by Josephus (War, 2, 16, 4). At the commencement of the war he sided with the Romans, and was wounded by a sling-stone at the siege of Gamala (Josephus, War, 4, 1, 3). After the fall of Jerusalem he retired with his sister Berenice to Rome, and there died in the seventieth year of his age, and in the third year of Trajan (A.D. 100). He was on intimate terms with Josephus, who gives two of his letters Life, 65), and he was the last Jewish prince of the Herodian line.

As regards his coins, Eckhel gives two with the head of Nero, one with the legend , confirming the account of Josephus as regards the city of Caesarea-Philippi, and the other bearing the pruenomen of Marcus, which he may have received on account of his family being indebted to the triumvir Antony, or else, as Eckhel thinks, more likely from Marcus Agrippa (Eckhel, Doct. Num. Vet. 3:493, 494; comp. Akerman, Num. Chronicles 9:42). There are other coins with the heads of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. SEE MONEY. SEE AGRIPPA.

9. BERENICE SEE BERENICE (q.v.).

10. DRUSILLA SEE DRUSILLA (q.v.).

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Herod

Of Idumean descent (Josephus, Ant. 14:1, section 3). The Idumeans were conquered and brought to Judaism by John Hyrcanus, 130 B.C. Thus the Herods, though aliens by birth, were Jews in faith. They made religion an engine of state policy. Eschewing Antiochus Epiphanes’ design to Graecize Jerusalem by substituting the Greek worship and customs for the Jewish law, the Herod’s, while professing to maintain the law, as effectively set at nought its spirit by making it a lever for elevating themselves and their secular kingdom. For this end Herod adorned gorgeously the temple with more than Solomonic splendor.

Thus a descendant of Esau tried still to get from Jacob the forfeited blessing (Gen 27:29; Gen 27:40), in vain setting up an earthly kingdom on a professed Jewish basis, to rival Messiah’s spiritual kingdom, as it was then being fore-announced by John Baptist. The “Herodians” probably cherished hopes of Herod’s kingdom becoming ultimately, though at first necessarily leaning on Rome, an independent Judaic eastern empire. The Jewish religion thus degraded into a tool of ambition lost its spiritual power, and the theocracy becoming a lifeless carcass was the ready prey for the Roman eagles to pounce upon and destroy (Mat 24:28). (See HERODIANS.)

1. HEROD THE GREAT (Matthew 2; Luk 1:5), second son of Antipater (who was appointed by Julius Caesar procurator of Judaea, 47 B.C.) and Cypros, a noble Arabian. At the time of Antipater’s elevation, though only 15 (or as other passages of Josephus make probable, 20), he received the government of Galilee and soon afterwards Coelo-Syria. He skillfully gained the favor of Antony, who made him and his elder brother Phasael joint tetrarchs of Judea. Forced to abandon Judaea by the Parthians, who supported Antigonus the representative of the Asmonaean dynasty, Herod fled to Rome (40 B.C.), where he was well received by Antony and Octavian, and made by the senate “king of Judea.” With Roman help he took Jerusalem (37 B.C.), slew his leading adversaries there, including the whole Sanhedrin except two, and established his kingly authority.

Undertaking next for Antony an expedition to Arabia against Malchus, he thereby escaped taking share in the war between Antony his patron and Octavian. After the battle of Actium he gained, by a mixture of humility and boldness at Rhodes, the favor of Octavian the conqueror, who confirmed him in the kingdom, and added several cities along with the province of Trachonitis and district of Paneas. But external prosperity did not save him from internal troubles, the fruits of his own lust and insatiable cruelty. He put to death successively Hyrcanus, his wife Mariamne’s grandfather, Mariamne herself to whom he had been passionately attached, his two sons by her, Alexander and Aristobulus, and just four days before his death signed the order for executing their bitter accuser, his oldest son Antipater.

At last, seized with a fatal disease in the stomach and bowels, he became more cruel than ever; he ordered that the nobles whom he had called to him should be slain immediately after his decease, that there might be no lack of mourners at his death. It was at this time that he ordered the slaughter of all males, from two years old and under, in and about Bethlehem, the foretold birthplace of the expected Messiah. Josephus does not notice this, probably both because of his studied reserve as to Jesus’ claims, and also because the slaughter of a comparatively few infants in a village seemed unimportant as compared with his other abounding deeds of atrocity. Macrobius long subsequently (A.D. 410) says that “when Augustus heard that among the children whom Herod ordered to be killed Herod’s own son (Antipater) was slain, he remarked, It would be better to be one of Herod’s swine than Herod’s sons,” punning on the similar sounding Greek terms for “son” and “swine”, hus, huios.

Herod being a professed Jew his swine as unclean were safe from death, his sons were not. Josephus records what illustrates the Scripture account of the massacre of the innocents; “Herod slew all those of his own family who sided with the Pharisees, looking forward to a change in the royal line” (Ant. 17:2, section 6). As Matthew says, “Herod privily called the wise men and inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.” So Josephus says: “an Essene, Menahem, foretold when Herod was a boy he should be king. Accordingly when he was in full power he sent for Menahem and inquired of him how long he should reign. Menahem did not define the time, but in answer to Herod’s question whether ten years or not, replied, Yes 20, nay 30 years” (Ant. 15:10, section 5).

Herod’s keenness to establish his dynasty, jealousy of any rival, craft, hypocrisy, cruelty, recklessness of any sacrifice to gain his object, appear as vividly in the Scripture narrative as in Josephus. The wise men’s question, “Where is he that is born king of the Jews?” was precisely one to excite Herod’s jealousy. For Herod was not a born Jew, much less born king of the Jews, but an Idumean alien, made king by the anti-Jewish world power, Rome. Unimportant as the event seemed to the world, the murder of the innocents was the consummation of his guilt before God, and places him among the foremost of Satan’s and the world’s foretold (Jer 31:15) representative adversaries of the Lord and His church, answering to the Pharaoh who oppressed Christ’s type, Israel, murdering the male children in the nation’s infancy in order to stifle the nation’s first beginnings; but in vain, for God secured the nation’s Exodus from Egypt by the tyrant’s overthrow, just as subsequently He saved Jesus and destroyed Herod, and in due time “called His (antitypical) Son out of Egypt” (Mat 2:15; compare Hos 11:1).

Herod’s death and Jesus’ birth therefore must have been at least four years before the era known as A.D. Ambition was his ruling passion. For its sake he compromised the Jewish religion which he professed, in order to conciliate Rome, by offerings to the Capitoline Jupiter at his elevation to the throne. He rebuilt the temple of Apollo at Rhodes, which had been consumed by fire, “the greatest and most illustrious of all his works” according to Josephus. He built a theater and amphitheater, and introduced pagan games in honour of Caesar every fifth year at Jerusalem. He rebuilt Samaria and its temple, and called it Sebaste (Greek for Augusta) in honour of Augustus; also Caesarea on the site of Straton, and made provision at it for pagan worship. At Paneas he dedicated a temple of white marble to Augustus. The stricter Jews were so offended that ten men conspired to kill him in the theater at Jerusalem.

Being detected by a spy they were put to death, but the spy was torn to pieces afterward by the mob. Thereupon he erected the castle of Antonia, near the temple, to overawe the disaffected. However, he turned the tide of feeling in his favor by two acts. In the 13th year of his reign during a severe famine he spent all his resources and sold even valuable works of art to import grain from Egypt for the relief of the people. Still more did he win popularity by rebuilding the temple on a magnificent scale, to vie with that of Solomon; yet with such scrupulous care that it seemed a restoration rather than a new building. He inaugurated the work with a set speech. The building of the temple itself began in 20 B.C., and was finished in a year and a half. The surrounding buildings occupied eight years more. But still fresh additions continued to be made, so that at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry the Jews said, “Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt Thou rear it up in three days?”

At that time He was 30 years old, which added to 16 years (for 20 B.C., when Herod began building, means only 16 before His real date of birth) makes 46. It has been thought that he used the opportunity of building the temple to destroy the authentic genealogies of the priesthood, and that the monument which he raised over the tombs of the kings was owing to superstitious fear after his sacrilegious attempt to rob them of treasures. His title “Herod the Great” was given him in admiration of splendid and successful, though often awfully impious and cruel, tyranny. How vastly different it is to be “great in the sight of the Lord” (Luk 1:15).

2. HEROD THE TETRARCH (Mat 14:1, etc.; Mar 7:17, etc.; Luk 3:1; Luk 3:19; Luk 9:7; Act 13:1). Called “King Herod” by courtesy, not right (Mar 6:14). ANTIPAS contracted for Antipater; son of Herod the Great by a Samaritan, Malthake. Originally Herod the Great destined him to succeed to the throne, but in his last will made him tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, which yielded him a yearly revenue of 200 talents. He married the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia Petraea; but afterwards, meeting at Rome, he became enamoured of and took, his half-brother Herod Philip’s wife, and his own niece, daughter of Aristobulus, Herodias. This sin against God became the retributive source of evil to him. Aretas in consequence invaded his land and defeated him severely. Herod stood to John Baptist in the same relation that Ahab did to Elijah.

Herod “feared” John at first (compare Ahab’s fear of Elisha, 1Ki 21:20), “knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him (preserved him from Herodias, or else respected, regarded him); and when he heard him he did many things and heard him gladly.” But Herod when reproved for his sin by John preferred keeping his sin to gaining God’s favor and the approval of God’s minister. A slight breath of temptation, regard for the world’s opinion, and dislike of reproof, were enough to dry up his shallow religion. His first downward step was, he cast John his faithful reprover into prison (compare Asa, 2Ch 16:10). Herodias having gained this first step, like her prototype Jezebel, found the next step an easy one; at the first “convenient day” (his birthday, which he observed with the Herodian characteristic aping of Roman ways, in defiance of Jewish abhorrence of the pagan custom) when Herod made a supper to his lords, and Herodias’ daughter by dancing so pleased him that he promised to give whatever she might ask, Herodias prompted her to ask for John’s head.

(Josephus, Ant. 19:7, section 1, notices the Herods’ magnificent celebration of their” birthdays,” which became proverbial and were celebrated by the Herodians even at Rome, as noticed by the pagan Persius, 5:180). So “she came in straightway with haste” to give him no time to repent, and though “exceeding sorry, yet for his oath’s sake and for their sakes which sat with him he would not reject her.” So John was beheaded in fort Machaerus, facing the Dead Sea from the S. on the borders between Herod’s and Aretas’ dominions. How scrupulous men are as to the law of opinion among men, how reckless of the law of God! True conscientiousness would see his oath, which involved the sacrifice of an innocent life in violation of God’s law, would be more honoured in its breach than in its observance. Not to let conscience have time to restrain him, he ordered the execution as “immediately” as she had demanded it.

When Christ appeared conscience reasserted her supremacy; he said unto his servants, “This is John the Baptist, therefore mighty works do show forth themselves in him.” In comparing Mar 8:15 with Mat 16:6 we find “the leaven of Herod” is “the leaven of the Sadducees,” i.e. disbelief of angel or spirit or resurrection. Luke (Luk 9:7) says, “Herod was perplexed because it was said of some that John was risen from the dead.” A Pharisee would have regarded John’s reappearance in Jesus as an instance of the transmigration of the souls of good men, and would have felt no perplexity; Herod’s “perplexity” is just what we might expect from a Sadducee, accused by a guilty conscience and trembling lest the world of spirits and the judgment should prove after all to be realities.

And that he was so comes out in the most incidental and undesigned way, a clear mark of the truth of the narrative: On his lending himself, fox-like, to the Pharisees’ design to get Christ out of Galilee into Judea (see Fox) his superstitious fears were too great to admit of his repeating in Christ’s case the execution which, to his own torment of conscience, he had perpetrated in John’s case; but he was glad of any, means to relieve himself of Christ’s presence which “perplexed” him (Luk 13:32). Yet “he desired to see Him” (Luk 9:9), for he had “heard of the fame of Jesus” (Mat 14:1); and so in Christ’s last hours “when he saw Him he was exceeding glad, for he was desirous to see Him of a long season, because he had heard many things of Him (doubtless through Joanna, wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and through Manaen his foster brother: Luk 8:1-3; Act 13:1), and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by Him.”

So “he questioned with Him in many words, but He answered him nothing.” Christ would not gratify Herod’s idle curiosity, but He did answer Pilate when the honour of His Messianic kingship was at stake, “Art Thou the King of the Jews?” (Luk 23:3-12). Baffled in his idle wish, Herod in proud scorn “with his men of war set Him at nought, and mocked Him, and arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent Him again to Pilate.” The Roman governor in the first instance had sent Him to Herod as soon as he knew that He as a Galilean belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction. So “the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together,” doubtless owing to Pilate’s courtesy and recognition of Herod’s jurisdiction, even as their estrangement was owing to the contrary conduct on Pilate’s part toward Galileans (Luk 13:1). At variance at other times and on other points, the world potentates agree in this, to insult and persecute Christ.

So Herod and Pilate are coupled together in their divinely foretold anti-Christianity (Act 4:25-27; Psa 2:1-2, etc.). Another incidental and therefore unstudied coincidence with truth is the implication that neither Pilate nor Herod resided at Jerusalem: “Herod who himself ALSO was at Jerusalem at that time.” Josephus states that the Herod who slew James (Acts 12) was “not at all like that Herod who reigned before him, he took pleasure in constantly living in Jerusalem” (Ant. 19:7, section 3); this proves that Herod Antipas did not reside much at Jerusalem. So Pilate’s usual residence was at Caesarea, the abode of the Roman governors of Judea (Ant. 18:4, section 1; 20:4, section 4; Bell. Judaeorum 2:9, section 2). The danger of popular outbreaks at the Passover was what brought Pilate to Jerusalem for a brief time.

Finally, Herodias, the source of Herod’s sin, became his source of shame, for at her instigation he went to Rome, A.D. 38, to sue the emperor Caligula for the title of” king,” just conferred on his nephew Herod Agrippa. Instead of this, through Agrippa’s influence, H. lost his kingdom and was banished to Lyons, thence to Spain, where he died. The one faithful (humanly speaking) act of her life was her preferring to share Herod’s exile rather than stay at home in her own country; surely sinners “eat of the fruit of their own ways, and are filled with their own devices” (Pro 1:31; Jer 2:19).

Herod was wicked in other respects besides adultery, and was accordingly “reproved by John for all the evils which he had done” (Luk 3:19). Cruel yet cunning, like his father (Luk 13:32), he was the very type of an oriental despot, sensual, capricious, yet with a sense of honour and having a respect for piety in others; but like Ahab too weak to resist a bad woman’s influence, under which false scrupulosity outweighed right conscientiousness, to be succeeded by superstitious terrors. Tiberias, which he founded and named after the emperor, was one of his greatest works.

3. HEROD PHILIP I. Son of Herod the Great and Mariamne, the high priest. Simon’s daughter. Distinct from the tetrarch Herod Philip II. He married Herodias, sister of Agrippa I, by whom he had Salome, the daughter who by dancing pleased Herod ANTIPAS (see above), the paramour of her own mother and dishonourer of her father! Owing to his own mother Mariamne’s treachery, Herod Philip I was excluded from all share in his father’s dominions, and lived privately. His being without a kingdom was doubtless a cause of the ambitious Herodias deserting him for his brother the tetrarch. But “vaulting ambition o’erleaps itself and falls on the other side”; and seeking the name of “king” besides the reality which her paramour had, she and he ended their days in shame and exile.

4. HEROD PHILIP II. Son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra. Advocated Archelaus’ claims before Augustus, on the death of his father. His own kingdom was Batanaea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and some parts about Jamnia, with the title “tetrarch.” He ruled justly, without taking part in the intrigues which rent his family asunder. He built Caesarea Philippi at the site of Paneas, near the sources of the Jordan (Mat 16:13). His wife was Salome, daughter of Herod Philip I and Herodias. He died at Julius, the city which he raised Bethsaida into, A.D. 34. As he died childless his dominions were added to the Roman province, Syria.

5. HEROD AGRIPPA I. Son of Aristobulus Herod the Great’s son) and Berenice. Imprisoned by Tiberius for an unguarded speech. Caius Caligula, A.D. 37, on his accession set him free, and gave him the governments formerly held by the tetrarchs Philip and Lysanias, Abilene, etc., with the title of “king” (Act 12:1). Galilee and Peraea were added to his dominions on the exile of Herod ANTIPAS (see above), whom, notwithstanding the kindnesses he formerly when in difficulties received from him, Agrippa supplanted by intrigues at Rome. By services to Claudius, Caligula’s successor, he secured in return the addition of Judaea and Samaria, so that now his kingdom equaled that of Herod the Great.

Unlike his predecessors he strictly kept the law. A legend states that once he burst into tears on reading in a public service Deu 17:15, on which the Jews exclaimed, “Be not distressed, thou art our brother,” namely, by half-descent from the Hasmonaeans. It was on his entreaty at the risk of his interest and life that Caligula desisted from his attempt to set up his statue in the temple, which so engrossed the Jews that for a time they let the Christians alone (Act 9:31). To “please the Jews” he slew James the brother of John, and imprisoned Peter with the intention of bringing him forth to the people for execution after the Passover (“Easter”.) Love of popularity was his ruling principle, to which his ordinary humanity was made to give way. Self seeking vanity led him to design Peter’s death, but the issue was his own death.

The church’s “prayer without ceasing” (Isa 62:6-7; Luk 18:7) saved Peter, whereas the church’s Lord avenged His own and her cause on the church’s persecutor. In the fourth year of his reign over the whole kingdom (A.D. 44) he attended games at Caesarea “in behalf of the emperor’s safety” (possibly on his return from Britain), according to Josephus (Ant. 19:8). When he appeared in the theater in a robe all of silver stuff which shone in the morning light, his flatterers saluted him as a god, and suddenly he was afflicted with a terrible pain in the bowels, of which he died in five days, in the 54th year of his age. The sacred writer unveils the unseen world in his account, which Josephus so remarkably confirms. The authorities of Tyre and Sidon offended him, “but came with one accord and, having made Blastus the king’s chamberlain their friend, desired peace because their country” was dependent on the king’s country for grain, etc. (1Ki 5:9; 1Ki 5:11; Eze 27:17).

Then upon a set day” Herod arrayed in royal apparel sat upon his throne and made an oration. And the people gave a shout, saying It is the voice of a god and not of a man. And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory; and he was eaten of worms and gave up the ghost. But the word of God (which he bad thought to stifle) grew and multiplied.” So Belshazzar (Daniel 5); “pride teeth before destruction” (Pro 16:18). Josephus states that Herod said in his pain, “I whom you call a god am ordered to depart this life immediately.

Providence thus instantly reproves the lying words you just now addressed to me, and I who was by you called immortal am immediately to be hurried away by death.” Thus fell he whom the world called Agrippa the Great! a monument to warn proud men, “Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth” (Isa 45:9).

6. HEROD AGRIPPA II. Son of Herod Agrippa I and Cypros, grandniece of Herod the Great. Being but 17 at his father’s death (A.D. 44), he was thought too young to succeed his father in the kingdom, but six years later (A.D. 50) the emperor Claudius conferred on him Chalcis which had been under his uncle, shortly before deceased (A.D. 48). Then (A.D. 52) he was transferred to the tetrarchies formerly held by Philip and Lysanias with the title “king.” Accurately he is called so in Act 25:13; Act 26:2; Act 26:7. Nero added several cities of Galilee and Persea to his kingdom (A.D. 55). Five years later Paul pleaded before him, who naturally consulted him on a question of Jewish law). (See FESTUS.)

The great pomp with which he and his sister Berenice (whose connection with him caused grave suspicion) “entered into the place of hearing with the chief captains and principal men of the city” accorded with his character, fond of show. In the last Roman war he took part with the Romans in the destruction of his nation in the same spirit of cold cynicism with which he met the impassioned appeal of the apostle. After the fall of Jerusalem he retired with Berenice to Rome, where he died in the third year of Trajan (A.D. 100).

He was the last of the race of Herod commemorated in history. Act 25:13 represents his losing no time in going to Caesarea to salute the new Roman governor. In exact consonance with this Josephus (Bell. Judg., 2:15, section 1; Life, section 11) records his anxiety to stand well with the Roman governors, Alexander in Egypt, and Gessius Florus in Judaea, in the latter case Berenice accompanying him.

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

HEROD

Several rulers bearing the name Herod feature in the New Testament record. Chief of these was Herod the Great, from whom the other Herods took their name. The prominence of the Herods had its origins in the confusion and corruption associated with Romes rise to power just before the opening of the New Testament era.

Herod the Great

When Rome took control of Judea in 63 BC, it appointed as ruler a man who proved to be weak and easily used by others. He was very much under the influence of a part-Jewish Idumean friend, Antipater, who was carefully and cunningly planning to gain control himself. (Idumea was a region in the south of Judea. It was inhabited by a mixture of Arabs, Jews and the remains of the nation once known as Edom.)

In the end Antipater won Romes appointment as governor of Judea, with his two sons in the top positions beneath him. Throughout that period, the entire eastern Mediterranean region was troubled by power struggles and bitter conflicts, one of which resulted in Antipater being murdered and his two sons overthrown. One of these sons, who had developed even greater cunning than his father, escaped to Rome, where he persuaded the Romans to appoint him king over the entire Palestine region. This was the person who became known as Herod the Great.

Through treachery and murder, Herod removed all possible rivals. Having made his position safe, he took firm control of Palestine and ruled it for the next thirty-three years (37-4 BC). He carried out impressive building programs, two of his most notable achievements being the rebuilding of the city of Samaria (which he renamed Sebaste) and the construction of Caesarea as a Mediterranean port. In Jerusalem he built a military fortress, government buildings, a palace for himself and a magnificent temple for the Jews (Mat 27:27; Mar 13:1; Joh 2:20; Joh 19:13; Act 23:10; Act 23:35).

In spite of Herods attempts to win Jewish support, the Jews hated him. This was partly because of his mixed-Jewish nationality (though he had adopted the Jewish religion) and partly because of his ruthlessness in murdering any that he thought were a threat to his position. His massacre of the Bethlehem babies was one example of his butchery (Mat 2:1-5; Mat 2:13; Mat 2:16-18).

Other members of Herods family

Before he died (4 BC), Herod divided his kingdom among his three sons. Like their father, they could rule only within the authority Rome gave them.

The southern and central parts of Palestine (Judea and Samaria) were given to Archelaus, a man as cruel as his father but without his fathers ability (Mat 2:22). The northern part of Palestine (Galilee) and part of the area east of Jordan (Perea) were given to Herod Antipas, the man who later killed John the Baptist and who agreed to the killing of Jesus (Mar 6:14-29; Luk 3:1; Luk 23:6-12). The regions to the north and east of Lake Galilee (Iturea and Trachonitis) were given to Philip, a man of more moderate nature than the rest of his family (Luk 3:1). This man was half-brother to another Philip (mentioned in Mar 6:17).

Archelaus was so cruel and unjust that in AD 6 the people of Judea and Samaria asked Rome to remove him and rule them directly. From that time on, Judea and Samaria were governed by Roman governors (or procurators) until the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The only exception to this was the brief reign of Herod Agrippa I, a grandson of Herod the Great. In AD 37 he took control of the former territory of Philip, and in AD 39 took control of the former territory of Herod Antipas. In AD 41 he gained Judea and Samaria, and for the next three years ruled virtually the whole area that Herod the Great once ruled (Act 12:1-4; Act 12:20-23). Upon his death in AD 41, Judea and Samaria returned to the rule of Roman governors.

Herod Agrippa II, son of Herod Agrippa I, received territories in the far north of Palestine, where he served Rome loyally from AD 48 to the destruction of the Jewish state in AD 70. He was an expert on Jewish affairs and bore the ceremonial title of king, but he had no authority over the Jews of Judea (Act 25:13; Act 26:3; Act 26:27; Act 26:31). His sisters were Bernice and Drusilla (Act 24:24; Act 25:13).

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Herod

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

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

After the murder of Caesar (15 Mar. b.c. 44), and the poisoning of Antipater (43),apparently with the knowledge, if not the consent and participation, of Hyrcanus (Ant. xiv. xi. 3, 6; cf. Wellhausen4, 319, n. 1, 327, n. 3),Herods fortunes reached their lowest ebb. Antony, indeed, while he was in the East, made Herod and Phasael tetrarchs (Ant. xiv. xiii. 1; BJ i. xii. 5); but not long afterwards, Antigonus, with the help of the Parthians, gained possession of Jerusalem, capturing Phasael and Hyrcanus. Phasael killed himself; and Hyrcanus, after his ears had been cut off, was taken by the Parthians to Babylon. Herod, who with his family was in Jerusalem, escaped by night, and, after many difficulties, in the midst of which he was on the point of taking his life, came to the fortress Masada. Here he left his family in charge of his brother Joseph and hastened to Rome. Antigonus, in the meantime, had established himself in Jerusalem, where he reigned for three years (b.c. 4037) as Matthias, the coins of Antigonus bearing the inscription (cf. Madden, Coins, 99 ff.).

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

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

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

It is customary to divide the reign of Herod into three periods. The first extends from his accession in b.c. 37 to the death of the sons of Babas in b.c. 25, when the last male representatives of the Hasmonaean family were removed from his pathway. This period was characterized by the establishment and extension of Herods power. The principal forces that he had to combat came from the royal family he had supplanted and to which he was allied by marriage. Alexandra, the mother of Mariamne, knew how to enlist the interest of Cleopatra, and Cleopatra had the ear of Antony. The measures adopted by Herod to meet the situation were not of the gentlest kind. He recalled Hyrcanus from Babylon, and though he treated him with every consideration, Josephus attributes to Herod the motive of wishing to get Hyrcanus in his power.* [Note: Mathews (Hist. of NT Times, 118, n. 1) rejects Josephus account of Herods motive (cf. also Schrer3, i. 378; Wellhausen4, 324; and Woodhouse, Encyc. Bibl. ii. 2206, n. 4). On the other hand, cf. Sieffert, PRE3 vii. 762, 1. 48ff., and the indications given above that Hyrcanus was implicated in the death of Antipater.] In view of the fact that Hyrcanus could not be appointed to the high priesthood, and that Aristobulus, the brother of Mariamne, was only about seventeen years of age, Herod made Ananel, a Babylonian Jew of priestly family, high priest. This did not please Alexandra, and she appealed to Cleopatra on behalf of her son. Thereupon Herod deposed Ananel and appointed Aristobulus in his stead. But the popularity of the young Hasmonaean aroused Herods suspicion, and Aristobulus was drowned soon after the feast of Tabernacles in the year b.c. 35. At the instance of Cleopatra, who learned of the event from Alexandra, Herod was summoned before Antony to give an account of the death of Aristobulus. Before answering the summons, Herod gave instructions to his uncle Joseph, in whose hands he left the government, that Mariamne should be put to death in the event of an unfavourable issue of his mission. Herod regained the favour of Antony, but had eventually to surrender to Cleopatra one of the most fruitful parts of his territory, the famous palm- and balsam-growing country about Jericho, together with the coast cities from the river Eleutherus to Egypt, with the exception of Tyre and Sidon. On his return from the conference with Antony at Laodicaea (Syrian), Herod learned through his sister Salome, the evil genius of his family troubles, that Joseph had revealed his command to Mariamne. Joseph was put to death, but a fruitful soil for suspicion against Mariamne remained. When Cleopatra, who had accompanied Antony on his expedition to Armenia, returned through Judaea, Herod entertained her; and, although he successfully withstood her charms, he was compelled to rent from her the territory about Jericho, and to guarantee similar payments due to her from the king of Arabia. The debt thus contracted proved to be a bad one, for the king of Arabia was slow in meeting his financial obligations. Hence, when war broke out between Antony and Octavius, and Herod was desirous of giving aid to Antony, Cleopatra, never doubting that Antony would be victor, thwarted Herods purpose and sent him instead against the Arabians, in the hope that the two kings would destroy one another. Herod at first defeated the Arabians, but finally suffered a severe reverse, through the treacherous intervention of Cleopatras general Athenio. About this time an earthquake brought great suffering on the people, and Herods soldiers were discouraged. The Jewish ambassadors sent to the Arabians had been slain, and Herods condition seemed desperate. His own courage, however, inspired his troops, and a decisive victory was gained over the enemy.

But Herod had scarcely re-established his power when news of the battle of Actium (2nd Sept. b.c. 31) brought him face to face with the crisis of his reign. Before going to Octavius to learn his fate, Herod had the aged Hyrcanus put to death for plotting with the Arabian governor Malchus to escape from Jerusalem.* [Note: Josephus (Ant. xv. vi. 1), consistently with his account of Herods motive in recalling Hyrcanus from Babylon, intimates that Herod sought an occasion of removing Hyrcanus. Schurer (i. 384) questions Josephus account of the treasonable letter, on the ground that such an action would be unlikely in a man of Hyrcanus age. He accepts the account of Herods motive in this instance, however, regarding it as a more probable and a sufficient explanation of Hyrcanus death (cf. also Mathews, 120, n. 3. On the participation of the Sanhedrin, cf. Ant. xv. xvi. 2, and Wellhausen, 327, n. 1).] Placing the government in charge of his brother Pheroras, and leaving his mother and sister at Masada, but Mariamne and Alexandra at Alexandrinum in care of Sohemus, with instructions that Mariamne and her mother should he killed if disaster overtook him, [Note: On the historicity of the two incidents related in Ant. xv. iii. 56, 9; BJ i. xxii. 4, 5; Ant. xv. vi. 5, vii. 16, cf. Schrer3, i. 385, n. 51; Mathews, 120, n. 4.] Herod went to meet Octavius in Rhodes. He appeared before the emperor in royal apparel, laying aside only his diadem. His appeal for favour was based on a frank avowal of his friendship for Antony, and of his desire to aid him at Actium. But Antony had refused to take his advice about Cleopatra, and had fallen. He now offered Octavius the same loyalty and support that he had given Antony. Moreover, Herod had already had opportunity of proving his loyalty to his new master by preventing Antonys gladiators from passing through his territory to join Antony in Egypt. At the close of the interview Octavius restored Herods diadem, and confirmed him in his kingdom. In a short time Octavius even enlarged Herods kingdom, restoring the territory taken from it by Antony for Cleopatra, and a number of cities, such as Gadara, Hippos, Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, and Stratos Tower. This was done in recognition of Herods aid to the imperial army as it passed into Egypt.

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

The second period of Herods reign, extending from b.c. 25 to b.c. 13, was characterized by extension of his kingdom and great building operations. Trachonitis, Batanaea, and Auranitis were given to him by Augustus about b.c. 23 (Ant. xv. x. 1; BJ i. xx. 4), and to these the tetrarchy of Zenodorus together with the country of Ulatha and Panias was added about three years later (Ant. xv. x. 3; BJ i. xx. 4; Dio Cass. xlv. 9). During this period many cities were built or beautified by Herod, both in his own territory and in surrounding countries. Fortresses were constructed, and temples in honour of Augustus adorned Samaria (Sebaste), Panias (Caesarea Philippi), and Stratos Tower (Caesarea). But the greatest of Herods works of construction were the harbour at Stratos Tower and the Temple at Jerusalem. The latter, begun about b.c. 19, was partially completed in a year and a half (the inner temple), and the whole brought to a temporary completion in about eight years, when it was formally dedicated, although work was continued on it until the time of Albinus (procurator a.d. 6264, cf. Ant. xv. xi. 5, 6, xx. ix. 7; Joh 2:20). Herod also built himself a magnificent palace in Jerusalem. Theatre, amphitheatre, and hippodrome were the scenes of plays and games not only in Caesarea and Jericho, but in Jerusalem. Mercenary troops, aided by spies and strict police regulations, kept the people in subjection. Outlying districts such as Trachonitis were colonized to suppress disturbances. Herods power was at its height. In his court were men of Greek learning, such as Nicolaus of Damascus and his brother Ptolemy. As a rex socius, Herod had the right to issue copper coinage. His friendship with Rome was firmly established. He interested himself in the Jews of the Dispersion, and helped to secure them their rights in Asia Minor. He also made generous provision from his private means to alleviate the suffering caused by a famine (b.c. 25), and on two occasions remitted part of the peoples taxes, one-third in b.c. 20 and one-fourth in b.c. 14. But the glory of his reign and the material splendour of his works were offensive to the religious consciousness of his subjects, and his sporadic acts of unselfishness failed to arouse any permanently cordial response in the people.

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

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

Herod was now grown old. His physical constitution, naturally powerful and robust, began to give way. The hot baths of Callirho gave little or no relief to his disorders. It soon became known that he was suffering from an incurable disease, and the signs of popular rejoicing only embittered the last hours of his despotic reign. The stirring of his anger, as on a former occasion, seemed to rouse his waning energy. When the disciples of two popular teachers of the Law in Jerusalem, Judas and Matthias, cut down the golden eagle from the gate of the Temple, Herod promptly returned, and had forty-two of the participants, including their teachers, burned to death. His sufferings now became more intense. A bath in warm oil ordered by his physicians almost killed him, and in a fit of despair he even attempted to take his own life. Josephus also reports that he gave orders that at the moment of his death all the principal men of the country, whom he had gathered in the hippodrome at Jericho, should be put to death, in order that the people might have cause to sorrow at his departure. But this order was never carried out (cf. Wellhausen4 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , 345, n. [Note: note.] 2). The imprisoned Antipater about this time, thinking that his father was dead, sought to escape; but Herod, learning of it, and having just received authority for his execution from Rome, gave the order for his death. On the fifth day after the death of Antipater, Herod died at Jericho, in March or April of the year b.c. 4, being about seventy years of age, and having reigned thirty-seven years since his appointment by the Roman Senate and thirty-four since the taking of Jerusalem. His body was carried to Herodium, and interred with military honours.

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

Although Josephus gives a very detailed account of Herods reign, depending to a far greater extent on Nicolaus of Damascus than his occasional citations would indicate (cf. Schrer3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , i. 82 ff.), it is not historically probable that he has recorded every incident found in his sources, much less every incident that occurred during this period. For, while his representation has in its main features and even in most of its details the appearance of a faithful and trustworthy narrative, it is not unlikely that he has misunderstood or misrepresented some movements, such as the character of the robbers in Galilee; others he has neglected for some reason, such as the Messianic ideas of the time, and their popular influence witnessed by the Psalms of Solomon and the NT (cf. Mat 2:1 ff.; and Mathews, Hist. 126, The Messianic Hope in the NT, 13 ff.). It is possible also that Josephus misrepresented some details of the history through misunderstanding his sources, such, for example, as the day of the fall of Jerusalem, or, again, assigned wrong motives for actions, and even narrated as fact what did not happen. There are some descriptions of different events which reveal striking similarities, and there are some apparent inconsistencies. The narrative in BJ is closely parallel with that in Ant., but in some instances the one contains what the other omits. However highly, therefore, we may estimate the trustworthiness of Josephus as an historian, his silence can be used as an argument against the historicity of an event, otherwise attested, only in case it can be shown that Josephus or his source could not have been in ignorance of the event, and would have had good reason to mention it had it occurred, and no good reason for omitting it if known. But even should this be established, the argument from silence would have only secondary value in confirming a negative judgment, since any judgment in such a case must depend primarily upon the character of the source in which the event is recorded.

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

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

For an account of Herods son Archelaus see Archelaus.

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

We know little concerning the events of Antipas long reign (b.c. 4a.d. 39). The narrative given by Josephus is very meagre after the death of Herod the Great.* [Note: This meagreness, as compared with the detailed account of the life and reign of Herod the Great, is due doubtless to the failure, after Herods death, of one of the principal sources upon which Josephus depended, Nicolaus of Damascus (cf. Schurer3. i. 53; Mathews, Hist. 134, n. 1).] Having little to tell of Archelaus, Josephus introduced very interesting digressions about the Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, and Essenes (Ant. xviii. i.vi.; BJ ii. viii. 114). But, having equally little to tell of Antipas, he filled in his narrative in Ant. with an account of the Parthians and their relations with Romewith which, indeed, Antipas was incidentally connected (cf. Ant. xviii. ii. 4, iv. 4; Schrer3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , i. 447). We learn from Josephus, however, that Antipas rebuilt and strongly fortified Sepphoris and Betharamphtha for the protection of Galilee and Peraea. He also built and colonized Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee. On one occasion, when in Rome at the house of his brother Herod Philip (Ant. xviii. v. 1; cf. Mar 6:17), son of Mariamne the high priests daughter, Antipas secured the consent of Herodias, his brothers wife, to leave her husband and marry him, on condition that he put away his own wife, the daughter of Aretas, king of the Nabataeans. When Antipas returned, his wife, who had learned of his understanding with Herodias, asked permission to go to Machaerus, a fortress near the border of her fathers territory. Without suspecting her purpose, Antipas granted her request; but she continued her journey to Arabia, and enlightened her father concerning the dutiful intentions of his son-in-law. Because of this and certain boundary disputes, enmity arose between Aretas and Antipas, which eventually issued in war, and a crushing defeat for Antipas.

It is difficult to determine just how soon after the marriage with Herodias the war between Antipas and Aretas broke out. Vitellius, although harbouring an old grudge against Antipas, and thus naturally disposed to make haste slowly in coming to his assistance, was, nevertheless, under orders from Rome, marching against Aretas to punish him for his rough treatment of Antipas, and had got as far as Jerusalem when news came of the death of Tiberius (a.d 37). The defeat of Antipas can hardly have been later than the year 36. Josephus, however, remarks (Ant. xviii. v. 2) that the defeat of Antipas was popularly regarded as a Divine punishment for the murder of John the Baptist. Hence it has been inferred by Keim and others that neither the death of John nor the marriage with Herodias can have preceded this event by many years. Keim advocated the year 34 as the date of Johns death, and assigned the death of Jesus to the year 35 (Jesus of Nazara, ii. 387 ff.). Sieffert dates the journey of Antipas to Rome, when he gained the consent of Herodias to their marriage, in the year 34 (PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] vii. 769, l. 49). The concise character of Josephus narrative, however, as well as the condition of the text in this section of Ant., renders it precarious to infer, from the order of events, close chronological sequence (cf. Schrer3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , i. 443 ff.; Wellhansen4 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , 354). Equally uncertain is the chronological inference from the popular connexion of Antipas defeat with the death of John, since such a judgment is too flexible to furnish any very definite chronological datum.

The arrest, imprisonment, and death of John the Baptist are narrated in the Gospels and in Josephus (cf. Mat 4:12; Mat 11:2 ff; Mat 14:3 ff., Mar 1:14; Mar 6:17 ff., Luk 3:19 f., 7:18ff., 9:7ff., Joh 3:24; Ant. xviii. v. 2). Both sources give an account of Johns preaching and baptism. Josephus mentions a political motive for Johns arrest; but, while such a motive is not unlikely in view of the popularity of Johns ministry (Mar 1:5, Mat 3:5, Luk 3:21, cf. Joh 5:35) and the Messianic character of his preaching (Mar 1:9 ff., Mat 3:11 f., Luk 3:15 ff., cf. Joh 1:15; Joh 1:19 ff; Joh 1:37; Joh 3:28 ff.), it does not fully explain his death. We learn also from Josephus that John was imprisoned in the fortress of Machaerus, but nothing is said concerning the length of the imprisonment. The Gospels, however, give a personal motive for the arrest of John, indicate that the imprisonment lasted for some time,probably about a year,* [Note: Jesus Galilaean ministry began just after the imprisonment of John (Mar 1:14, Mat 4:12). Johns ministry was looked back upon as past at the feast of Joh 5:1; cf. Joh 5:35. Messengers came from the imprisoned John to Jesus in the midst of the early Galilaean ministry. News of Jesus reached Herod about the time of the mission of the Twelve, and in this connexion the Gospels mention the fears of Herod that John was risen from the dead. The inference is not improbable that Johns death was a matter of recent occurrence.] and attribute his death to the enmity of Herodias (Mar 6:17-29, Mat 14:3-12, Luk 3:19-20). For John had rebuked Herod for his marriage with Herodias, and for this had been imprisoned. The imprisonment seems to have been moderated by the free access of his disciples to him, and Herod himself heard John from time to time. At length, however, on the occasion of a birthday feast, [Note: On the meaning of in Mar 6:21, Mat 14:6, cf. Schrer3, i. 439, n. 27; Zahn, Matth. 504, n. 81; Jos. Ant. xix. vii. 1; Oxyr. Pap. i. 112. 4, iii. 494. 24, 521, iv. 736. 56, 57; Fay. Pap. i. 114. 20, 115. 6, 119. 30.] celebrated by Herod with the chief men of his government, probably at the palace in Machaerus, a favourable opportunity presented itself for Herodias to be avenged on John for his attack on her marriage. Salome, the daughter of her former marriage, [Note: The reading Mar 6:22 in BDL, adopted by WH, is probably a corruption for (cf. Swete, Gosp. acc. to St. Mk. 118; Schurer3, i. 441, n. 29).] danced before Herod and his guests. Herod was pleased, and promised to do for her what she might ask. At the suggestion of her mother, her request took an unexpected form; but because of his promise Herod granted her the death of the prophet, who, like his predecessor in the days of Ahab, had been bold to arraign immorality in high places.

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

Stirred by envy at the advancement of her brother Agrippa to royal dignity, Herodias persuaded Herod, against his better judgment, to seek from Caligula a similar honour. When he came to Rome, however, Agrippa preferred charges against him, and called attention to the military supplies that had been collected by Herod. Herod was unable to deny the existence of the supplies, and was banished by Caligula to Lyons in Gaul, probably in the summer of a.d. 39 (cf. Schrer3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , i. 448, n. [Note: note.] 46; Madden, however, Coins, 122, gives the year 40). Herodias proudly refused the Emperors generosity, and accompanied her husband in his banishment (Ant. xvii. vii. 2; BJ ii. ix. 6). Herods tetrarchy was given to Agrippa.

3. Philip.Philip was son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem. When Archelaus went to Rome to secure the ratification of his fathers will, he left Philip in Jerusalem in charge of his affairs. Later, when Varus gave the Jews of Jerusalem permission to send an embassy to Rome to oppose Archelaus, Philip went also, at the suggestion of Varus, to profit by whatever course events might take. When Augustus ratified Herods will, Philip received Batanaea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulanitis, and the territory of Panias (Ant. xvii. viii. 1, xi. 4, xviii. iv. 6; BJ ii. vi. 3). In Luk 3:1 the territory of Philip is described by the phrase, the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis ( ; cf. Schrer3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , i. 425, n. [Note: note.] 23). The Trachonitis had on two occasions been colonized by Herod the Greatonce with three thousand Idumaeans, and again with Jewish warriors from Babylon (Ant. xvi. ix. 2, xvii. ii. 13). But the population of Philips territory was chiefly Gentile, his coins, unlike those of his brothers, bearing the image of the Emperor. Philip rebuilt Panias, and called it Caesarea in honour of Augustus, and also Bethsaida on the Sea of Galilee, calling it Julias after the Emperors daughter. His reign was a mild and peaceful one. He lived in his own country and administered justice as he travelled from place to place (Ant. xviii. iv. 6). He married his niece Salome, daughter of Herodias and Herod Philip (Ant. xviii. v. 4). The Gospels narrate a journey of Jesus into the territory of Philip when He went north from Galilee into the region of Caesarea Philippi (Mar 8:27, Mat 16:13; cf. Caesarea Philippi). Philip died in the year 33 or 34, in the twentieth year of Tiberius, having reigned thirty-seven years. His territory was added to the province of Syria, but was given shortly afterwards by Caligula to Agrippa. See also art. Herodias.

Literature.Josephus; Derenbourg, Hist. de la Palestine; Madden, Coins of the Jews; Schrer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des Jdischen Volkes.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] (English translation of 2nd ed.) i. 338 ff. and index [very full citation of literature]; Hausrath, Hist. of NT Times, i. 207 ff.; O. Holtzmann, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte, 71 ff.; Riggs, Hist. of the Jewish People, 143 ff.; Muir-head, Times of Christ; Farrar, The Herods; S. Mathews, Hist. of NT Times, 100 ff.; Mommsen, Roman Provinces, ii. 189 ff.; Ewald, HI [Note: I History of Israel.] v. 395ff.; Grtz, Hist. of the Jews, ii. 57ff.; de Saulcy, Hist. dHrode; Wellhausen, IJG [Note: JG Israelitische und Jdische Geschichte.] 4 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] 323 ff.; Keim in Schenkels Bibel-lexikon, iii. 27 ff.; Westcott in Smiths DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] 2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , ii. 1048 ff.; Sieffert, art. Herodes in PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] ; Hausleiter, art. Antipas, ib.; von Dobschutz, art. Philippus der Tetrareh, ib.; Woodhouse in Encyc. Bibl. ii. 2023 ff.; Headlam in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ii. 353ff.; J. D. Davis, DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] , artt. Herod, Philip; W. Milwitzky, art. Antipas in Jewish Encyc.; I. Broyd, art. Herod, ib.; S. Ochser, art. Philip, ib.

W. P. Armstrong.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

Herod

HEROD.The main interest attaching to the Herods is not concerned with their character as individual rulers. They acquire dignity when they are viewed as parts of a supremely dramatic situation in universal history. The fundamental elements in the situation are two. First, the course of world-power in antiquity, and the relation between it and the political principle in the constitution of the Chosen People. Second, the religious genius of Judaism, and its relation to the political elements in the experience of the Jews.

A glance at the map shows that Palestine is an organic part of the Mediterranean world. When, under the successors of Alexander, the centre of political gravity shifted from Persia to the shores of the Great Sea, the door was finally closed against the possibility of political autonomy in the Holy Land. The kingdom of the Seleucids had a much larger stake in the internal affairs of the country than the Persian Empire thought of claiming. For one thing, the political genius of the Greeks demanded a more closely knit State than the Persian. For another, the fact that Palestine was the frontier towards Egypt made its political assimilation to Northern Syria a military necessity. The Maccaban War gave rise to the second Jewish State. But it was short-lived. Only during the disintegration of the house of Seleucus could it breathe freely. The moment Rome stretched out her hands to Syria its knell was rung.

The Hasmonasan house was obliged to face a hopeless foreign situation. World-politics made a career impossible. In addition, it had to face an irreconcilable element in the constitution of Judaism. The rise of the Pharisees and the development of the Essenes plainly showed that the fortune of the Jews was not to be made in the political field. In truth, Judaism was vexed by an insoluble contradiction. The soul of this people longed for universal dominion. But efficient political methods for the attainment of dominion were disabled by their religion. The Hasmonan house was caught between the upper and the nether millstone.

The foundations of the Herodian house were laid by Antipater, an Iduman (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XIV. i. 3). Apparently the Idumans, converted by the sword, were never Jewish to the core. More than once the Pharisees flung the reproach half-Jew in the teeth of Herod. Antipater was a man of undistinguished family, and fought his way up by strength and cunning. The decay of the Hasmonan house favoured his career. Palestine needed the strong hand. The power of Syria and the power of Egypt were gone. Rome was passing through the decay of the Senatorial rgime. The Empire had not appeared to gather up the loose ends of provincial government. Pompeys capture of Jerusalem had shattered what little was left of Hasmonan prestige. Yet Rome was not ready to assume direct control of Palestine.

1. Herod the Great.Antipaters son, Herod, had shown himself before his fathers death both masterful and merciless. His courage was high, his understanding capable of large conceptions, and his will able to adhere persistently to a distant end of action. His temperament was one of headlong passion; and when, in the later period of his life, the power and suspiciousness of the tyrant had sapped the real magnanimity of his nature, it converted him into a butcher, exercising his trade upon his own household as well as upon his opponents. His marriage with Mariamme, the heiress of the Hasmonan house, and his league with Rome, indicate the story of his life. His marriage was one both of love and of policy. His league was a matter of clear insight into the situation. He was once driven out of Palestine by an alliance between the Hasmonan house and the Parthians (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XIV. xiii. 9, 10). But, backed by Rome, he returned with irresistible force. Mutual interest made the alliance close. Herod served the Empire well. And Augustus and his successors showed their appreciation. They stood by Herod and his descendants even when the task was not wholly pleasing.

Josephus calls Herod a man of extraordinary fortune. He was rather a man of extraordinary force and political discernment. He owed his good fortune largely to himself, manifesting powers which might have made him, in a less difficult field, fully deserving of his title the Great. He enjoyed the life-long favour of Augustus and his minister Agrippa. He made life and property in Palestine safe from every foe but his own tyranny. And though he showed himself a brutal murderer of Mariamme and his own children, not to speak of the massacre of the Innocents (Mat 2:1-23), it must be remembered that Jerusalem was a hot-bed of intrigue. This does not justify him, but it explains his apparently insensate blood-lust.

His sympathy with Hellenism was a matter of honest conviction. The Empire was slowly closing in on Palestine. An independent Jewish power was impossible. The man who ruled the country was bound to work in the interest of Rome. Hellenism in the Holy Land was the political order of the day. So Herod built cities and gave them imperial names. He built amphitheatres, patronized the Greek games and, so far as his temperament and opportunities permitted, Greek literature. At the same time, while he was but half-Jew, he sincerely desired to do large things for Judaism. He was a stout defender of the rights of the Jews in the Diaspora. He rebuilt the Temple with great splendour. But his supreme gift to the Jews, a gift which they were not capable of appreciating, was a native Palestinian power, which, whatever its methods, was by profession Jewish. When he died, after a long reign (b.c. 37 to a.d. 4), and the Jews petitioned the Emperor for direct Roman rule (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XVII. ii. 2), they showed their incompetence to read the signs of the times. Roman rule was a very different thing from Persian rule. When it came, the iron entered into the soul of Judaism.

2. Archelaus.After some delay Herods will was carried out. His sons were set up in power,Archelaus over Juda and Iduma, Antipas over Galilee and Pera, Philip over Batana, Trachonitis, and Auranitis. To Archelaus had fallen the greatest prize, and at the same time the hardest task. Having maintained himself till the year 6 of our era, his misgovernment and weakness, co-operating with the impossible elements in Judaism, caused his downfall and exile. The Jews now had their own wish. Juda came under direct Roman rule. A tax was levied. Judas of Gamala rose in rebellion. He was easily put down. But the significance of his little rebellion was immense. For now was born what Josephus calls the fourth philosophical sect amongst the Jews (Ant. XVII. i. 6). The Zealots dragged into the light the self-contradiction of Judaism. The Jews could not build a State themselves. Their principles made it impossible for them to keep the peace with their heathen over-lord. Conflict was inevitable.

3. Herod Antipas, called the tetrarch (Mat 14:1, Luk 3:19; Luk 9:7, Act 13:1), had better fortune. Our Lord described him as a fox (Luk 13:32). The name gives the clue to his nature. He was a man of craft rather than strength. But cunning served him well, and he kept his seat until the year 39. The corroding immorality of his race shows itself in his marriage with Herodias, his brothers wife, and the wanton offence thereby given to Jewish sensibilities. (See John the Baptist.) His lost proved his undoing. Herodias, an ambitious woman, spurred him out of his caution. In rivalry with Herod Agrippa, he asked of Caligula the royal title. This exciting suspicion, his doings were looked into and he was banished.

4. Philip (Luk 3:1) seems to have been the best among the sons of Herod. And it was his good fortune to rule over an outlying country where the questions always rife in Jerusalem were not pressed. His character and his good fortune together gave him a long and peaceful rule (d. a.d. 34).

5. Another Philip (son of Herod the Great and Mariamme) is mentioned in Mat 14:3 || Mar 6:17 as the first husband of Herodias.

6. In Herod Agrippa I. the Herodian house seemed at one time to have reached the highwater-mark of power. He had served a long apprenticeship in the Imperial Court, where immorality, adaptability, and flattery were the price of position. That he was not altogether unmanned is proved by his dissuading Caligula from his insane proposal to set up a statue of himself in the Temple; for, in setting himself against the tyrants whim, he staked life and fortune (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XVII, viii.). In high favour with Caligulas successor, he came to Jerusalem in the year 39, and was welcomed by the Jews with open arms. He continued to hold the Imperial favour, and his territory was expanded until his rule had a wider range than that of his grandfather. His reign was the Indian summer of Judaism. Even the Pharisees thought well of him. When he was at Rome he lived as one who knew Rome well. But in Jerusalem he wore his Judaism as a garment made to order. He was quite willing to gratify the Jews by putting leading Christians to death (Act 12:1-25). In high favour both at Jerusalem and at Rome, he seemed to be beyond attack. But the veto put on his proposal to rebuild the walls of his capital showed clearly that he was on very thin ice. And the pagan streak in him was sure, sooner or later, to come to light. The story of his death, wherein the Book of Acts (Act 12:20-23) and Josephus (Ant. XIX. viii. 2) substantially agree, brings this out. At Csarea he paraded himself before a servile multitude as if he were a little Csar, a god on earth. Smitten by a terrible disease, he died in great agony (a.d. 42). Jews and Christians alike looked on his end as a fitting punishment for his heathenism. The house of Herod was half-Jew to the last.

Genealogical Table Of The Family Of Herod.

7. Herod Agrippa II., son of the last named, before whom St. Paul delivered the discourse contained in Act 26:1-32.

[The genealogical table will bear out the opinion that Herod and his family brought into history a very considerable amount of vigour and ability.]

Henry S. Nash.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Herod

It may be proper, for the better apprehension of the name of Herod to state some short account of the several we meet with in the New Testament. There are several mentioned, but they are different men. Indeed, but for their history being incorporated with the history of our Lord and his apostle, their names would not be worth recording, but their memory might have perished with them.

The first Herod made mention of in holy Scripture, was called Herod the Great. He reigned in Judea at the time of our Lord’s birth. (Mat 2:1) His name, according to the Greek language, signified the glory of the skin. But it became a very unsuitable name for the miserable end he made, according to the historians of his time, for he died of an universal rottenness. He reigned more than thirty years, and by his death, as we read Mat 2:19, gave opportunity for the return of the Lord Jesus, to depart from Egypt about the third year before we begin the date of Anno Domino. I mention this the more particularly, to guard the reader against the mistake into which some have fallen, in confounding this Herod with the Herod mentioned Acts. xii. which was his grandson.

The second Herod we meet with in the Bible, is Herod called Philip. (See Mar 6:17 and Luk 3:1) This Herod, as history informs us, was son to the former. And the third Herod went by the name of Antipas. This man was also son of Herod the Great, and brother to Philip. And this was he who, during the life of his brother, had married Herodias, his brother’s wife; and John the Baptist faithfully reproving him for the shameful deed, Herod, at the instance of her daughter, whom she had by Philip her first husband, caused John to be beheaded. (See Mat 14:1-12; Mar 6:14-29)

The fourth Herod we meet with in Scripture, is the one mentioned with such everlasting infamy in the twelfth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. His name was Agrippa, but surnamed Herod; the son of Aristobulus and Mariamne, and grandson to Herod, the Great. So much for the Herods! An awful though short account of such awful characters; while living, a terror to all around them, and when dead, lamented by none!

Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures

Herod

herud: The name Herod (, Herodes) is a familiar one in the history of the Jews and of the early Christian church. The name itself signifies heroic, a name not wholly applicable to the family, which was characterized by craft and knavery rather than by heroism. The fortunes of the Herodian family are inseparably connected with the last flickerings of the flame of Judaism, as a national power, before it was forever extinguished in the great Jewish war of rebellion, 70 ad. The history of the Herodian family is not lacking in elements of greatness, but whatever these elements were and in whomsoever found, they were in every case dimmed by the insufferable egotism which disfigured the family, root and branch. Some of the Herodian princes were undeniably talented; but these talents, wrongly used, left no marks for the good of the people of Israel. Of nearly all the kings of the house of Herod it may truly be said that at their death they went without being desired, unmissed, unmourned. The entire family history is one of incessant brawls, suspicion, intrigue arid shocking immorality. in the baleful and waning light of the rule of the Herodians, Christ lived and died, and under it the foundations of the Christian church were laid.

1. The Family Descent

The Herodians were not of Jewish stock. Herod the Great encouraged the circulation of the legend of the family descent from an illustrious Babylonian Jew (Ant., XIV, i, 3), but it has no historic basis. It is true the Idumeans were at that time nominal Jews, since they were subdued by John Hyrcanus in 125 bc, and embodied in the Asmonean kingdom through an enforced circumcision, but the old national antagonism remained (Gen 27:41). The Herodian family sprang from Antipas (died 78 bc), who was appointed governor of Idumaea by Alexander Janneus. His son Antipater, who succeeded him, possessed all the cunning, resourcefulness and unbridled ambition of his son Herod the Great. He had an open eye for two things – the unconquerable strength of the Roman power and the pitiable weakness of the decadent Asmonean house, and on these two factors he built the house of his hopes. He craftily chose the side of Hyrcanus II in his internecine war with Aristobulus his brother (69 bc), and induced him to seek the aid of the Romans. Together they supported the claims of Pompey and, after the latter’s defeat, they availed themselves of the magnanimity of Caesar to submit to him, after the crushing defeat of Pompey at Pharsalus (48 bc). As a reward, Antipater received the procuratorship of Judea (47 bc), while his innocent dupe Hyrcanus had to satisfy himself with the high-priesthood. Antipater died by the hand of an assassin (43 bc) and left four sons, Phasael, Herod the Great, Joseph, Pheroras, and a daughter Salome. The second of these sons raised the family to its highest pinnacle of power and glory. Pheroras was nominally his co-regent and, possessed of his father’s cunning, maintained himself to the end, surviving his cruel brother, but he cuts a small figure in the family history. He, as well as his sister Salome, proved an endless source of trouble to Herod by the endless family brawls which they occasioned.

2. Herod the Great

With a different environment and with a different character, Herod the Great might have been worthy of the surname which he now bears only as a tribute of inane flattery. What we know of him, we owe, in the main, to the exhaustive treatment of the subject by Josephus in his Antiquities and Jewish War, and from Strabo and Dio Cassius among the classics. We may subsume our little sketch of Herod’s life under the heads of (1) political activity, (2) evidences of talent, and (3) character and domestic life.

(1) Political Activity

Antipater had great ambitions for his son. Herod was only a young man when he began his career as governor of Galilee. Josephus’ statement, however, that he was only fifteen years old (Ant., XIV, ix, 2) is evidently the mistake of some transcriber, because we are told (XVII, viii, 1) that he continued his life till a very old age. That was 42 years later, so that Herod at this time must have been at least 25 years old. His activity and success in ridding his dominion of dangerous bands of freebooters, and his still greater success in raising the always welcome tribute-money for the Roman government, gained for him additional power at court. His advance became rapid. Antony appointed him tetrarch of Judea in 41 bc, and although he was forced by circumstances temporarily to leave his domain in the hands of the Parthians and of Antigonus, this, in the end, proved a blessing in disguise. In this final spasm of the dying Asmonean house, Antigonus took Jerusalem by storm, and Phasael, Herod’s oldest brother, fell into his hands. The latter was governor of the city, and foreseeing his fate, he committed suicide by dashing out his brains against the walls of his prison. Antigonus incapacitated his brother Hyrcanus, who was captured at the same time, from ever holding the holy office again by cropping off his ears (Ant., XIV, xiii, 10). Meanwhile, Herod was at Rome, and through the favor of Antony and Augustus he obtained the crown of Judea in 37 bc. The fond ambition of his heart was now attained, although he had literally to carve out his own empire with the sword. He made quick work of the task, cut his way back into Judea and took Jerusalem by storm in 37 bc.

The first act of his reign was the extermination of the Asmonean house, to which Herod himself was related through his marriage with Mariamne, the grandchild of Hyrcanus. Antigonus was slain and with him 45 of his chief adherents. Hyrcanus was recalled from Babylon, to which he had been banished by Antigonus, but the high-priesthood was bestowed on Aristobulus, Herod’s brother-in-law, who, however, soon fell a victim to the suspicion and fear of the king (Ant., XV, iii, 3). These outrages against the purest blood in Judea turned the love of Mariamne, once cherished for Herod, into a bitter hatred. The Jews, loyal to the dynasty of the Maccabees, accused Herod before the Roman court, but he was summarily acquitted by Antony. Hyrcanus, mutilated and helpless as he was, soon followed Aristobulus in the way of death, 31 bc (Ant., XV, vi, 1). When Antony, who had ever befriended Herod, was conquered by Augustus at Actium (31 bc), Herod quickly turned to the powers that were, and, by subtle flattery and timely support, won the imperial favor. The boundaries of his kingdom were now extended by Rome. And Herod proved equal to the greater task. By a decisive victory over the Arabians, he showed, as he had done in his earlier Galilean government, what manner of man he was, when aroused to action. The Arabians were wholly crushed, and submitted themselves unconditionally under the power of Herod (Ant., XV, v, 5). Afraid to leave a remnant of the Asmonean power alive, he sacrificed Mariamne his wife, the only human being he ever seems to have loved (28 bc), his mother-in-law Alexandra (Ant., XV, vii, 8), and ultimately, shortly before his death, even his own sons by Mariamne, Alexander and Aristobulus 7 bc (Ant., XVI, xi, 7). in his emulation of the habits and views of life of the Romans, he continually offended and defied his Jewish subjects, by the introduction of Roman sports and heathen temples in his dominion. His influence on the younger Jews in this regard was baneful, and slowly a distinct partly arose, partly political, partly religious, which called itself the Herodian party, Jews in outward religious forms but Gentiles in their dress and in their whole view of life. They were a bitter offense to the rest of the nation, but were associated with the Pharisees and Sadducees in their opposition to Christ (Mat 22:16; Mar 3:6; Mar 12:13). In vain Herod tried to win over the Jews, by royal charity in time of famine, and by yielding, wherever possible, to their bitter prejudices. They saw in him only a usurper of the throne of David, maintained by the strong arm of the hated Roman oppressor. innumerable plots were made against his life, but, with almost superhuman cunning, Herod defeated them all (Ant., XV, viii). He robbed his own people that he might give munificent gifts to the Romans; he did not even spare the grave of King David, which was held in almost idolatrous reverence by the people, but robbed it of its treasures (Ant., XVI, vii, 1). The last days of Herod were embittered by endless court intrigues and conspiracies, by an almost insane suspicion on the part of the aged king, and by increasing indications of the restlessness of the nation. Like Augustus himself, Herod was the victim of an incurable and loathsome disease. His temper became more irritable, as the malady made progress, and he made both himself and his court unutterably miserable. The picture drawn by Josephus (Ant., XVII) is lifelike and tragic in its vividness. in his last will and testament, he remained true to his life-long fawning upon the Roman power (Ant., XVII, vi, 1). So great became his suffering toward the last that he made a fruitless attempt at suicide. But, true to his character, one of the last acts of his life was an order to execute his son Antipater, who had instigated the murder of his halfbrothers, Alexander and Aristobulus, and another order to slay, after his death, a number of nobles, who were guilty of a small outbreak at Jerusalem and who were confined in the hippodrome (Ant., XVI, vi, 5). He died in the 37th year of his reign, 34 years after he had captured Jerusalem and slain Antigonus. Josephus writes this epitaph: A man he was of great barbarity toward all men equally, and a slave to his passions, but above the consideration of what was right. Yet was he favored by fortune as much as any man ever was, for from a private man he became a king, and though he were encompassed by ten thousand dangers, he got clear of them all and continued his life to a very old age (Ant., XVII, viii, 1).

(2) Evidences of Talent

The life of Herod the Great was not a fortuitous chain of favorable accidents. He was unquestionably a man of talent. in a family like that of Antipus and Antipater, talent must necessarily be hereditary, and Herod inherited it more largely than any of his brothers. His whole life exhibits in no small degree statecraft, power of organization, shrewdness. He knew men and he knew how to use them. He won the warmest friendship of Roman emperors, and had a faculty of convincing the Romans of the righteousness of his cause, in every contingency. In his own dominions he was like Ishmael, his hand against all, and the hands of all against him, and yet he maintained himself in the government for a whole generation. His Galilean governorship showed what manner of man he was, a man with iron determination and great generalship. His Judean conquest proved the same thing, as did his Arabian war. Herod was a born leader of men. Under a different environment he might have developed into a truly great man, and had his character been cordinate with his gifts, he might have done great things for the Jewish people. But by far the greatest talent of Herod was his singular architectural taste and ability. Here he reminds one of the old Egyptian Pharaohs. Against the laws of Judaism, which he pretended to obey, he built at Jerusalem a magnificent theater and an amphitheater, of which the ruins remain. The one was within the city, the other outside the walls. Thus he introduced into the ascetic sphere of the Jewish life the frivolous spirit of the Greeks and the Romans. To offset this cruel infraction of all the maxims of orthodox Judaism, he tried to placate the nation by rebuilding the temple of Zerubbabel and making it more magnificent than even Solomon’s temple had been. This work was accomplished somewhere between 19 bc and 11 or 9 bc, although the entire work was not finished till the procuratorship of Albinus, 62-64 ad (Ant., XV, xi, 5, 6; XX, ix, 7; Joh 2:20). it was so transcendently beautiful that it ranked among the world’s wonders, and Josephus does not tire of describing its glories (BJ, V, v). Even Titus sought to spare the building in the final attack on the city (BJ, VI, iv, 3). Besides this, Herod rebuilt and beautified Struto’s Tower, which he called after the emperor, Caesarea. He spent 12 years in this gigantic work, building a theater and amphitheater, and above all in achieving the apparently impossible by creating a harbor where there was none before. This was accomplished by constructing a gigantic mole far out into the sea, and so enduring was the work that the remains of it are seen today. The Romans were so appreciative of the work done by Herod that they made Caesarea the capital of the new regime, after the passing away of the Herodian power. Besides this, Herod rebuilt Samaria, to the utter disgust of the Jews, calling it Sebaste. in Jerusalem itself he built the three great towers, Antonia, Phasaelus and Mariamne, which survived even the catastrophe of the year 70 ad. All over Herod’s dominion were found the evidences of this constructive passion. Antipatris was built by him, on the site of the ancient Kapharsaba, as well as the stronghold Phasaelus near Jericho, where he was destined to see so much suffering and ultimately to die. He even reached beyond his own domain to satisfy this building mania at Ascalon, Damascus, Tyre and Sidon, Tripoli, Ptolemais, nay even at Athens and Lacedaemon. But the universal character of these operations itself occasioned the bitterest hatred against him on the part of the narrowminded Jews.

(3) Characteristics and Domestic Life

The personality of Herod was impressive, and he was possessed of great physical strength. His intellectual powers were far beyond the ordinary; his will was indomitable; he was possessed of great tact, when he saw fit to employ it; in the great crises of his life he was never at a loss what to do; and no one has ever accused Herod the Great of cowardice. There were in him two distinct individualities, as was the case with Nero. Two powers struggled in him for the mastery, and the lower one at last gained complete control. During the first part of his reign there were evidences of large-heartedness, of great possibilities in the man. But the bitter experiences of his life, the endless whisperings and warnings of his court, the irreconcilable spirit of the Jews, as well as the consciousness of his own wrongdoing, changed him into a Jewish Nero: a tyrant, who bathed his own house and his own people in blood. The demons of Herod’s life were jealousy of power, and suspicion, its necessary companion.

He was the incarnation of brute lust, which in turn became the burden of the lives of his children. History tells of few more immoral families than the house of Herod, which by intermarriage of its members so entangled the genealogical tree as to make it a veritable puzzle. As these marriages were nearly all within the line of forbidden consanguinity, under the Jewish law, they still further embittered the people of Israel against the Herodian family. When Herod came to the throne of Judea, Phasael was dead. Joseph his younger brother had fallen in battle (Ant., XIV, xv, 10), and only Pheroras and Salome survived. The first, as we have seen, nominally shared the government with Herod, but was of little consequence and only proved a thorn in the king’s flesh by his endless interference and plotting. To him were allotted the revenues of the East Jordanic territory. Salome, his sister, was ever neck-deep in the intrigues of the Herodian family, but had the cunning of a fox and succeeded in making Herod believe in her unchangeable loyalty, although the king had killed her own son-in-law and her nephew, Aristobulus, his own son. The will of Herod, made shortly before his death, is a convincing proof of his regard for his sister (Ant., XVII, viii, 1).

His domestic relations were very unhappy. Of his marriage with Doris and of her son, Antipater, he reaped only misery, the son, as stated above, ultimately falling a victim to his father’s wrath, when the crown, for which he plotted, was practically within his grasp. Herod appears to have been deeply in love with Mariamne, the grandchild of Hyrcanus, in so far as he was capable of such a feeling, but his attitude toward the entire Asmonean family and his fixed determination to make an end of it changed whatever love Mariamne had for him into hatred. Ultimately she, as well as her two sons, fell victims to Herod’s insane jealousy of power. Like Nero, however, in a similar situation, Herod felt the keenest remorse after her death. As his sons grew up, the family tragedy thickened, and the court of Herod became a veritable hotbed of mutual recriminations, intrigues and catastrophes. The trials and executions of his own conspiring sons were conducted with the acquiescence of the Roman power, for Herod was shrewd enough not to make a move without it. Yet so thoroughly was the condition of the Jewish court understood at Rome, that Augustus, after the death of Mariamne’s sons (7 bc), is said to have exclaimed: I would rather be Herod’s hog than his son. At the time of his death, the remaining sons were these: Herod, son of Mariamne, Simon’s daughter; Archelaus and Antipas, sons of Malthace, and Herod Philip, son of Cleopatra of Jerusalem. Alexander and Aristobulus were killed, through the persistent intrigues of Antipater, the oldest son and heir presumptive to the crown, and he himself fell into the grave he had dug for his brothers.

By the final testament of Herod, as ratified by Rome, the kingdom was divided as follows: Archelaus received one-half of the kingdom, with the title of king, really ethnarch, governing Judea, Samaria and Idumaea; Antipas was appointed tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea; Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitis, Gaulonitis and Paneas. To Salome, his intriguing sister, he bequeathed Jamnia, Ashdod and Phasaelus, together with 500,000 drachmas of coined silver. All his kindred were liberally provided for in his will, so as to leave them all in a wealthy condition (Ant., XVII, viii, 1). In his death he had been better to his family than in his life. He died unmourned and unbeloved by his own people, to pass into history as a name soiled by violence and blood. As the waters of Callirhoe were unable to cleanse his corrupting body, those of time were unable to wash away the stains of a tyrant’s name. The only time he is mentioned in the New Testament is in Mt 2 and Lk 1. In Matthew he is associated with the wise men of the East, who came to investigate the birth of the king of the Jews. Learning their secret, Herod found out from the priests and scribes of the people where the Christ was to be born and ordered the massacre of the innocents, with which his name is perhaps more generally associated than with any other act of his life. As Herod died in 4 bc and some time elapsed between the massacre and his death (Mat 2:19), we have here a clue to the approximate fixing of the true date of Christ’s birth. Another, in this same connection, is an eclipse of the moon, the only one mentioned by Josephus (Ant., XVII, vi, 4; text and note), which was seen shortly before Herod’s death. This eclipse occurred on March 13, in the year of the Julian Period, 4710, therefore 4 bc.

3. Herod Antipas

Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace, a Samaritan woman. Half Idumean, half Samaritan, he had therefore not a drop of Jewish blood in his veins, and Galilee of the Gentiles seemed a fit dominion for such a prince. He ruled as tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea (Luk 3:1) from 4 bc till 39 ad. The gospel picture we have of him is far from prepossessing. He is superstitious (Mat 14:1 f), foxlike in his cunning (Luk 13:31 f) and wholly immoral. John the Baptist was brought into his life through an open rebuke of his gross immorality and defiance of the laws of Moses (Lev 18:16), and paid for his courage with his life (Mat 14:10; Ant, XVIII, v, 2).

On the death of his father, although he was younger than his brother Archelaus (Ant., XVII, ix, 4 f; BJ, II, ii, 3), he contested the will of Herod, who had given to the other the major part of the dominion. Rome, however, sustained the will and assigned to him the tetrarchy of Galilee and Peraea, as it had been set apart for him by Herod (Ant., XVII, xi, 4). Educated at Rome with Archelaus and Philip, his half-brother, son of Mariamne, daughter of Simon, he imbibed many of the tastes and graces and far more of the vices of the Romans. His first wife was a daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia. But he sent her back to her father at Petra, for the sake of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, whom he had met and seduced at Rome. Since the latter was the daughter of Aristobulus, his half-brother, and therefore his niece, and at the same time the wife of another half-brother, the union between her and Antipas was doubly sinful. Aretas repaid this insult to his daughter by a destructive war (Ant., XVIII, v, 1). Herodias had a baneful influence over him and wholly dominated his life (Mat 14:3-10). He emulated the example of his father in a mania for erecting buildings and beautifying cities. Thus, he built the wall of Sepphoris and made the place his capital. He elevated Bethsaida to the rank of a city and gave it the name Julia, after the daughter of Tiberius. Another example of this inherited or cultivated building-mania was the work he did at Betharamphtha, which he called Julias (Ant., XVIII, ii, 1). His influence on his subjects was morally bad (Mar 8:15). If his life was less marked by enormities than his father’s, it was only so by reason of its inevitable restrictions. The last glimpse the Gospels afford of him shows him to us in the final tragedy of the life of Christ. He is then at Jerusalem. Pilate in his perplexity had sent the Saviour bound to Herod, and the utter inefficiency and flippancy of the man is revealed in the account the Gospels give us of the incident (Luk 23:7-12; Act 4:27). It served, however, to bridge the chasm of the enmity between Herod and Pilate (Luk 23:12), both of whom were to be stripped of their power and to die in shameful exile. When Caius Caligula had become emperor and when his scheming favorite Herod Agrippa I, the bitter enemy of Antipas, had been made king in 37 ad, Herodias prevailed on Herod Antipas to accompany her to Rome to demand a similar favor. The machinations of Agrippa and the accusation of high treason preferred against him, however, proved his undoing, and he was banished to Lyons in Gaul, where he died in great misery (Ant., XVIII, vii, 2; BJ, II, ix, 6).

4. Herod Philip

Herod Philip was the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem. At the death of his father he inherited Gaulonitis, Traehonitis and Paneas (Ant., XVII, viii, 1). He was Philip apparently utterly unlike the rest of the Herodian family, retiring, dignified, moderate and just. He was also wholly free from the intriguing spirit of his brothers, and it is but fair to suppose that he inherited this totally un-Herodian character and disposition from his mother. He died in the year 34 ad, and his territory was given three years later to Agrippa I, his nephew and the son of Aristobulus, together with the tetrarchy of Lysanias (Ant., XVIII, iv, 6; XIX, v, 1).

5. Herod Archelaus

Herod Archelaus was the oldest son of Herod the Great by Malthace, the Samaritan. He was a man of violent temper, reminding one a great deal of his father. Educated like all Archelaus the Herodian princes at Rome, he was fully familiar with the life and arbitrariness of the Roman court. In the last days of his father’s life, Antipater, who evidently aimed at the extermination of all the heirs to the throne, accused him and Philip, his half-brother, of treason. Both were acquitted (Ant., XVI, iv, 4; XVII, vii, 1). By the will of his father, the greater part of the Herodian kingdom fell to his share, with the title of ethnarch. The will was contested by his brother Antipas before the Roman court. While the matter was in abeyance, Archelaus incurred the hatred of the Jews by the forcible repression of a rebellion, in which some 3,000 people were slain. They therefore opposed his claims at Rome, but Archelaus, in the face of all this opposition, received the Roman support (Ant., XVII, xi, 4). It is very ingeniously suggested that this episode may be the foundation of the parable of Christ, found in Lk 19:12-27. Archelaus, once invested with the government of Judea, ruled with a hard hand, so that Judea and Samaria were both soon in a chronic state of unrest. The two nations, bitterly as they hated each other, became friends in this common crisis, and sent an embassy to Rome to complain of the conduct of Archelaus, and this time they were successful. Archelaus was warned by a dream of the coming disaster, whereupon he went at once to Rome to defend himself, but wholly in vain. His government was taken from him, his possessions were all confiscated by the Roman power and he himself was banished to Vienna in Gaul (Ant., XVII, xiii, 2, 3). He, too, displayed some of his father’s taste for architecture, in the building of a royal palace at Jericho and of a village, named after himself, Archelais. He was married first to Mariamne, and after his divorce from her to Glaphyra, who had been the wife of his half-brother Alexander (Ant., XVII, xiii). The only mention made of him in the Gospels is found in Mat 2:22.

Of Herod, son of Herod the Great and Mariamne, Simon’s daughter, we know nothing except that he married Herodias, the daughter of his dead halfbrother Aristobulus. He is called Philip in the New Testament (Mat 14:3), and it was from him that Antipas lured Herodias away. His later history is wholly unknown, as well as that of Herod, the brother of Philip the tetrarch, and the oldest son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem.

6. Herod Agrippa I

Two members of the Herodian family are named Agrippa. They are of the line of Aristobulus, who through Mariamne, grand-daughter of Hyrcanus, carried down the line of the Asmonean blood. And it is worthy of note that in this line, nearly extinguished by Herod through his mad jealousy and fear of the Maccabean power, the kingdom of Herod came to its greatest glory again.

Herod Agrippa I, called Agrippa by Josephus, was the son of Aristobulus and Bernice and the grandson of Herod the Great and Mariamne. Educated at Rome with Claudius (Ant., XVIII, vi, 1, 4), he was possessed of great shrewdness and tact. Returning to Judea for a little while, he came back to Rome in 37 ad. He hated his uncle Antipas and left no stone unturned to hurt his cause. His mind was far-seeing, and he cultivated, as his grandfather had done, every means that might lead to his own promotion. He, therefore, made fast friends with Caius Caligula, heir presumptive to the Roman throne, and his rather outspoken advocacy of the latter’s claims led to his imprisonment by Tiberius. This proved the making of his fortune, for Caligula did not forget him, but immediately on his accession to the throne, liberated Agrippa and bestowed on him, who up to that time had been merely a private citizen, the tetrarchies of Philip, his uncle, and of Lysanias, with the title of king, although he did not come into the possession of the latter till two more years had gone by (Ant., XVIII, vi, 10). The foolish ambition of Herod Antipas led to his undoing, and the emperor, who had heeded the accusation of Agrippa against his uncle, bestowed on him the additional territory of Galilee and Peraea in 39 ad. Agrippa kept in close touch with the imperial government, and when, on the assassination of Caligula, the imperial crown was offered to the indifferent Claudius, it fell to the lot of Agrippa to lead the latter to accept the proffered honor. This led to further imperial favors and further extension of his territory, Judea and Samaria being added to his domain, 40 ad. The fondest dreams of Agrippa had now been realized, his father’s fate was avenged and the old Herodian power had been restored to its original extent. He ruled with great munificence and was very tactful in his contact with the Jews. With this end in view, several years before, he had moved Caligula to recall the command of erecting an imperial statue in the city of Jerusalem; and when he was forced to take sides in the struggle between Judaism and the nascent Christian sect, he did not hesitate a moment, but assumed the role of its bitter persecutor, slaying James the apostle with the sword and harrying the church whenever possible (Acts 12.). He died, in the full flush of his power, of a death, which, in its harrowing details reminds us of the fate of his grandfather (Act 12:20-23; Ant, XIX, viii, 2). Of the four children he left (BJ, II, xi, 6), three are known to history – Herod Agrippa II, king of Calchis, Bernice of immoral celebrity, who consorted with her own brother in defiance of human and Divine law, and became a byword even among the heathen (Juv. Sat. vi. 156-60), and Drusilla, the wife of the Roman governor Felix (Act 24:24). According to tradition the latter perished in the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 ad, together with her son Agrippa. With Herod Agrippa I, the Herodian power had virtually run its course.

7. Herod Agrippa II

Herod Agrippa II was the son of Herod Agrippa I and Cypros. When his father died in 44 ad he was a youth of only 17 years and considered too young to assume the government of Judea. Claudius therefore placed the country under the care of a procurator. Agrippa had received a royal education in the palace of the emperor himself (Ant., XIX, ix, 2). But he had not wholly forgotten his people, as is proven by his intercession in behalf of the Jews, when they asked to be permitted to have the custody of the official highpriestly robes, till then in the hands of the Romans and to be used only on stated occasions (Ant., XX, i, 1). On the death of his uncle, Herod of Calchis, Claudius made Agrippa II tetrarch of the territory, 48 ad (BJ, II, xii, 1; XIV, iv; Ant, XX, v, 2). As Josephus tells us, he espoused the cause of the Jews whenever he could (Ant., XX, vi, 3). Four years later (52 ad), Claudius extended the dominion of Agrippa by giving him the old tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias. Even at Calchis they had called him king; now it became his official title (Ant., XX, vii, 1). Still later (55 ad), Nero added some Galilean and Perean cities to his domain. His whole career indicates the predominating influence of the Asmonean blood, which had shown itself in his father’s career also. If the Herodian taste for architecture reveals itself here and there (Ant., XX, viii, 11; IX, iv), there is a total absence of the cold disdain wherewith the Herods in general treated their subjects. The Agrippas are Jews.

Herod Agrippa II figures in the New Testament in Act 25:13; Act 26:32. Paul there calls him king and appeals to him as to one knowing the Scriptures. As the brother-in-law of Felix he was a favored guest on this occasion. His relation to Bernice his sister was a scandal among Jews and Gentiles alike (Ant., XX, vii, 3). In the fall of the Jewish nation, Herod Agrippa’s kingdom went down. Knowing the futility of resistance, Agrippa warned the Jews not to rebel against Rome, but in vain (BJ, II, xvi, 2-5; XVII, iv; XVIII, ix; XIX, iii). When the war began he boldly sided with Rome and fought under its banners, getting wounded by a sling-stone in the siege of Gamala (BJ, IV, i, 3). The oration by which he sought to persuade the Jews against the rebellion is a masterpiece of its kind and became historical (BJ, II, xvi). When the inevitable came and when with the Jewish nation also the kingdom of Herod Agrippa II had been destroyed, the Romans remembered his loyalty. With Bernice his sister he removed to Rome, where he became a praetor and died in the year 100 ad, at the age of 70 years, in the beginning of Trajan’s reign.

Literature

Josephus, Josephus, Antiquities and BJ; Strabo; Dio Cassius. Among all modern works on the subject, Schrer, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (5 vols) is perhaps still the best.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Herod

1. King of Judah

Mat 2

2. Tetrarch of Galilee:

– General references

Luk 3:1; Luk 23:7

– Incest of

Mat 14:3-4; Mar 6:17-19

– Beheads John the Baptist

Mar 6:16-28; Mat 14:3-11

– Desires to see Jesus

Luk 9:7; Luk 9:9; Luk 23:8

– Tyranny of

Luk 13:31-32

– Jesus tried by

Luk 23:6-12; Luk 23:15; Act 4:27

3. Son of Aristobulus

Act 12:1-23

Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible

Herod

Herod (hr’od), hero-like. A family of Idumean origin. Not less than six Herods exclusive of Archelaus are noted in Scripture:

1. Herod the Great was the second son of Antipater and appointed procurator of Juda by Julius Csar, b.c. 47. In b.c. 41 he was appointed by Antony tetrarch of Juda. Forced to abandon Juda the following year, he fled to Rome, and received the appointment of king of Juda. It was some time before his fatal illness that he must have caused the slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem. Mat 2:16-18. He adorned Jerusalem with many splendid monuments of his taste and magnificence. The temple, which he built with scrupulous care, was the greatest of these works. The restoration was begun b.c. 20, and the temple itself was completed in a year and a half. But fresh additions were constantly made in succeeding years, so that it was said that the temple was building forty and six years, Joh 2:20, the work continuing long after Herod’s death. Herod died at Jericho, b.c. 4.

2. Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, first married a daughter of Aretas, “king of Arabia Petra,” but afterward Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Aretas, indignant at the insult to his daughter, invaded the territory of Herod, and defeated him with great loss. This defeat, according to the famous passage in Josephus, was attributed by many to the murder of John the Baptist, which had been committed by Antipas shortly before, under the influence of Herodias. Mat 14:4; Mar 6:17 ff.; Luk 3:19. At a later time Herodias urged him to go to florae to gain the title of king, cf. Mar 6:14; but he was opposed at the court of Caligula by the emissaries of Agrippa, and condemned to perpetual banishment at Lugdunum, a.d. 39. Herodias voluntarily shared his “punishment, and he died in exile. Pilate took occasion from our Lord’s residence in Galilee to send Jesus to Herod Antipas, Luk 23:6 ff. The city of Tiberias, which Antipas founded and named in honor of the emperor, was the most conspicuous monument of his long reign.

3. Herod Philip I., Philip, Mar 6:17, was the son of Herod the Great and Mariamne. He married Herodias, the sister of Agrippa I., by whom he had a daughter, Salome. He was excluded from all share in his father’s possessions in consequence of his mother’s treachery, and lived afterward in a private station.

4. Herod Philip II. was the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra. He received as his own government Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis (Gaulanitis), and some parts about Jamnia, with the title of tetrarch. Luk 3:1. He built a new city on the site of Paneas, near the sources of the Jordan, which he called Csarea Philippi, Mat 16:13; Mar 8:27, and raised Bethsaida to the rank of a city under the title of Julias, and died there a.d. 34. He married Salome, the daughter of Herod Philip I. and Herodias.

5. Herod Agrippa I. was the son of Aristobulus and Bernice, and grandson of Herod the Great. Caligula made him king, first of the tetrarchy of Philip and Lysanias; afterward the dominions of Antipas were added, and finally Judea and Samaria. Agrippa was a strict observer of the law, and he sought with success the favor of the Jews. It is probable that it was with this view he put to death James the son of Zebedee, and further imprisoned Peter. Act 12:1 ff. But his sudden death interrupted his ambitious projects. Act 12:21; Act 12:23.

6. Herod Agrippa II. was the son of Herod Agrippa I. In a.d. 52 the emperor gave him the tetrarchies formerly held by Philip and Lysanias, with the title of king. Act 25:13. The relation in which he stood to his sister Bernice, Act 25:13, was the cause of grave suspicion. It was before him that Paul was tried. Act 26:28.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

Herod

Her’od. (hero-like). This family, though of Idumean origin and thus alien by race, was Jewish in faith.

I. Herod the Great was the second son of Antipater, an Idumean, who was appointed procurator of Judea by Julius Caesar, B.C. 47. Immediately after his father’s elevation, when only fifteen years old, he received the government of Galilee, and shortly afterward, that of Coele-Syria. (Though Josephus says he was 15 years old at this time, it is generally conceded that there must be some mistake, as he lived to be 69 or 70 years old, and died B.C. 4; hence, he must have been 25 years old at this time. — Editor).

In B.C. 41, he was appointed by Antony, tetrarch of Judea. Forced to abandon Judea, the following year, he fled to Rome, and received the appointment of king of Judea. In the course of a few years, by the help of the Romans, he took Jerusalem (B.C. 37), and completely established his authority throughout his dominions. The terrible acts of bloodshed which Herod perpetrated in his own family were accompanied by others, among his subjects, equally terrible, from the number who fell victims to them.

According to the well-known story, he ordered the nobles whom he had called to him in his last moment, to be executed immediately after his decease, so that, at least, his death might be attended by universal mourning. It was at the time of his fatal illness, that he must have caused the slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem. Mat 2:16-18. He adorned Jerusalem with many splendid monuments of his taste and magnificence. The Temple, which he built with scrupulous care, was the greatest of these works. The restoration was begun B.C. 20, and the Temple itself was completed in a year and a half. But fresh additions were constantly made in succeeding years, so that it was said that the Temple was “built in forty and six years,” Joh 2:20, the work continued long after Herod’s death. (Herod died of a terrible disease at Jericho, in April, B.C. 4, at the age of 69, after a long reign of 37 years. — Editor).

II. Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great by Malthake, a Samaritan. He first married a daughter of Aretas, “king of Arabia Petraea,” but afterward, Herodias, the wife of his half-brother, Herod Philip. Aretas, indignant at the insult offered to his daughter, found a pretext for invading the territory of Herod, and defeated him with great loss. This defeat, according to the famous passage in Josephus, was attributed by many to the murder of John the Baptist, which had been committed by Antipas shortly before, under the influence of Herodias. Mat 14:4 ff.; Mar 6:17 ff.; Luk 3:19.

At a later time, the ambition of Herodias proved the cause of her husband’s ruin. She urged him to go to Rome to gain the title of king, compare Mar 6:14, but he was opposed at the court of Caligula by the emissaries of Agrippa, and condemned to perpetual banishment at Lugdunum, A.D. 39. Herodias voluntarily shared his punishment, and he died in exile. Pilate took occasion from our Lord’s residence in Galilee to send him for examination, Luk 23:6 ff., to Herod Antipas, who came up to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover. The city of Tiberias, which Antipas founded and named in honor of the emperor, was the most conspicuous monument of his long reign.

III. Herod Philip I, Mar 6:17, was the son of Herod the Great and Mariamne. He married Herodias the sister of Agrippa I by whom he had a daughter, Salome. He was excluded from all share in his father’s possessions in consequence of his mother’s treachery, and lived afterward in a private station.

IV. Herod Philip II. was the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra. He received, as his own government, Batanea Trachonitis, Auramtis (Gaulanitis), and some parts about Jamnia, with the title of tetrarch. Luk 3:1. He built a new city on the site of Paneas, near the sources of the Jordan, which was called Caesarea Philippi, Mat 16:13; Mar 8:27, and raised Bethsaida to the rank of a city under the title of Julias and died there A.D. 34. He married Salome, the daughter of Herod Philip I and Herodias.

V. Herod Agrippa I was the son of Aristobulus and Berenice, and grandson of Herod the Great. He was brought up at Rome, and was thrown into prison by Tiberius, where he remained till the accession of Caligula, who made him king, first of the tetrarchy of Philip and Lysanias; afterward the dominions of Antipas were added, and finally Judea and Samaria. Unlike his predessors, Agrippa was a strict observer of the law, and he sought, with success, the favor of the Jews. It is probable that it was with this view, he put to death James the son of Zebedee, and further imprisoned Peter. Act 12:1 ff. But his sudden death interrupted his ambitious projects. Act 12:21; Act 12:23.

VI. Herod Agrippa II was the son of Herod Agrippa I. In A.D. 62, the emperor gave him the tetrarches formerly held by Philip and Lysanias, with the title of king. Act 25:13. The relation in which he stood to his sister Berenice, Act 25:13, was the cause of grave suspicion. It was before him that Paul was tried. Act 26:28.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary

Herod

surnamed the Great, king of the Jews, second son of Antipater the Idumean, born B.C. 17. At the age of twenty-five he was made by his father governor of Galilee, and distinguished himself by the suppression of a band of robbers, with the execution of their leader, Hezekiah, and several of his comrades. As he had performed this act of heroism by his own authority, and had executed the culprits without the form of trial, he was summoned before the sanhedrim, but, through the strength of his party and zeal of his friends, he escaped any censure. In the civil war between the republican and Caesarian parties, Herod joined Cassius, and was made governor of Coelo-Syria; and when Mark Antony arrived victorious in Syria, Herod and his brother found means to ingratiate themselves with him, and were appointed as tetrarchs in Judea; but in a short time an invasion of Antigonus, who was aided by the Jews, obliged Herod to make his escape from Jerusalem, and retire first to Idumea, and then to Egypt.

He at length arrived at Rome, and obtained the crown of Judea upon occasion of a difference between the two branches of the Asmodean family. Hyrcanus had been for a considerable time prince and high priest of the Jewish nation; but while the Roman empire was in an unsettled state, after the death of Julius Caesar, Antigonus, son of Aristobulus, brother of Hyrcanus, made himself master of the city and all Judea. In this state Herod found things when he came to Rome, and the most that he then aimed at was to obtain the kingdom for Aristobulus, his wife’s brother; but the senate of Rome, moved by the recommendations of Mark Antony, conferred the kingdom of Judea upon Herod himself. Having met with this unexpected success at Rome, he returned without delay to Judea, and in about three years got possession of the whole country. He had, however, to fight his way to the throne, which, as we have seen, was in the possession of Antigonus. Though aided by the Roman army, he was obliged to lay siege to Jerusalem, which held out for six months, when it was carried by assault, and a vast slaughter was made of the inhabitants, till the intercession and bribes of Herod put an end to it. Antigonus was taken prisoner and put to death, which opened the way to Herod’s quiet possession of the kingdom. His first cares were to replenish his coffers, and to repress the faction still attached to the Asmodean race, and which regarded him as a usurper. He was guilty of many extortions and cruelties in the pursuit of these objects. Shortly after this, an accusation was lodged against Herod before Mark Antony by Cleopatra, who had been influenced to the deed by his mother-in-law, Alexandra. He was summoned to answer to the charges exhibited against him before the triumvir; and on this occasion he gave a most remarkable display of the conflict of opposite passions in a ferocious heart. Doatingly fond of his wife, Mariamne, and not being able to bear the thought of her falling into the hands of another, he exacted a solemn promise from Joseph, whom he appointed to govern in his absence, that should the accusation prove fatal to him he would put the queen to death. Joseph disclosed the secret to Mariamne, who, abhorring such a savage proof of his love, from that moment conceived the deepest and most settled aversion to her husband. Herod, by great pecuniary sacrifices, made his peace with Antony, and returned in high credit. Some hints were thrown out respecting Joseph’s familiarity with Mariamne during his absence; he communicated his suspicions to his wife, who, recriminating, upbraided him with his cruel order concerning her. His rage was unbounded; he put Joseph to death for communicating the secret entrusted to him alone, and he threw his mother-in-law, Alexandra, into prison.

2. In the war between Antony and Octavius, Herod raised an army for the purpose of joining the former; but he was obliged first to engage Malchus, king of Arabia, whom he defeated and obliged to sue for peace. After the battle of Actium, his great object was to make terms with the conqueror; and, as a preliminary step, he put to death Hyrcanus, the only surviving male of the Asmodeans; and having secured his family, he embarked for Rhodes, where Augustus at that time was. He appeared before the master of the Roman world in all the regal ornaments excepting his diadem, and with a noble confidence related the faithful services he had performed for his benefactor, Antony, concluding that he was ready to transfer the same gratitude to a new patron, from whom he should hold his crown and kingdom. Augustus was struck with the magnanimity of the defence, and replaced the diadem on the head of Herod, who remained the most favoured of the tributary sovereigns. When the emperor afterward travelled through Syria, in his way to and from Egypt, he was entertained, with the utmost magnificence by Herod; in recompense for which he restored to him all his revenues and dominions, and even considerably augmented them.

His good fortune as a prince, was poisoned by domestic broils, and especially by the insuperable aversion of Mariamne, whom at length he brought to trial, convicted, and executed. She submitted to her fate with all the intrepidity of innocence, and was sufficiently avenged by the remorse of her husband, who seems never after to have enjoyed a tranquil hour.

3. His rage being quenched, Herod endeavoured to banish the memory of his evil acts from his mind by scenes of dissipation; but the charms of his once loved Mariamne haunted him wherever he went: he would frequently call aloud upon her name, and insist upon his attendants bringing her into his presence, as if willing to forget that she was no longer among the living. At times he would fly from the sight of men, and on his return from solitude, which was ill suited to a mind conscious of the most ferocious deeds, he became more brutal than ever, and in fits of fury spared neither foes nor friends. Alexandra, whose malignity toward her daughter has been noticed, was an unpitied victim to his rage. At length. he recovered some portion of self-possession, and employed himself in projects of regal magnificence. He built at Jerusalem a stately theatre and amphitheatre, in which he celebrated games in honour of Augustus, to the great displeasure of the zealous Jews, who discovered an idolatrous profanation in the theatrical ornaments and spectacles. Nothing, it is said, gave them so much offence as some trophies which he had set round his theatre in honour of Augustus, and in commemoration of his victories, but which the Jews regarded as images devoted to the purposes of idol worship. For this and other acts of the king a most serious conspiracy was formed against him, which he, fortunately for himself, discovered; and he exercised the most brutal revenge on all the parties concerned in it. He next built Samaria, which he named Sebaste, and adorned it with the most sumptuous edifices; and for his security he built several fortresses throughout the whole of Judea, of which the principal was called Caesarea, in honour of the emperor. In his own palace, near the temple of Jerusalem, he lavished the most costly materials and curious workmanship; and his palace Herodion, at some miles’ distance from the capital, by the beauty of its situation, and other appropriate advantages, drew round it the population of a considerable city.

4. To supply the place of his lost Mariamne, he married a new wife of the same name, the beautiful daughter of a priest, whom he raised to the high rank of the supreme pontificate. He sent his two sons, by the first Mariamne, to be educated at Rome, and so ingratiated himself with Augustus and his ministers, that he was appointed imperial procurator for Syria. To acquire popularity among the Jews, and to exhibit an attachment to their religion, he undertook the vast enterprise of rebuilding the temple of Jerusalem, which he finished in a noble style of magnificence in about a year and a half. During the progress of this work he visited Rome, and brought back his sons, who had attained to man’s estate. These at length conspired against their father’s person and government, and were tried, convicted, and executed. Another act deserving of notice, performed by Herod, was the dedication of his new city of Caesarea, at which time he displayed such profuse magnificence, that Augustus said his soul was too great for his kingdom. Notwithstanding the execution of his sons, he was still a slave to conspiracies from his other near relations. In the thirty-third year of his reign, OUR SAVIOUR was born. This event was followed, according to the Gospel of St. Matthew, by the massacre of the children of Bethlehem. About this time, Antipater, returning from Rome, was arrested by his father’s orders, charged with treasonable practices, and was found guilty of conspiring against the life of the king. This and other calamities, joined to a guilty conscience, preying upon a broken constitution, threw the wretched monarch into a mortal disease, which was doubtless a just judgment of heaven on the many foul enormities and impieties of which he had been guilty. His disorder was attended with the most loathsome circumstances that can be imagined. A premature report of his death caused a tumult in Jerusalem, excited by the zealots, who were impatient to demolish a golden eagle which he had placed over the gate of the temple. The perpetrators of this rash act were seized, and by order of the dying king, put to death. He also caused his son Antipater to be slain in prison, and his remains to be treated with every species of ignominy. He bequeathed his kingdom to his son Archelaus, with tetrarchies to his two other sons. Herod, on his dying bed, had planned a scheme of horrible cruelty which was to take place at the instant of his own death. He had summoned the chief persons among the Jews to Jericho, and caused them to be shut up in the hippodrome, or circus, and gave strict orders to his sister Salome to have them all massacred as soon as he should have drawn his last breath: for this, said he, will provide mourners for my funeral all over the land, and make the Jews and every family lament my death, who would otherwise exhibit not signs of concern. Salome and her husband, Alexas, chose rather to break their oath extorted by the tyrant, than be implicated in so cruel a deed; and accordingly, as soon as Herod was dead, they opened the doors of the circus, and permitted every one to return to his own home. Herod died in the sixty-eighth year of his age. His memory has been consigned to merited detestation, while his great talents, and the active enterprise of his reign, have placed him high in the rank of sovereigns.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary