Herod, up to the execution of Aristobulus and Alexander
Chapter 1 Herod against thievery. Mariamne’s sons indicted; Herod assigns them wives
Chapter 2 Herod meets Marcus Agrippa, and maintains Roman favour. Agrippa’s judgment
Chapter 3 Intrigues in Herod’s family, for preferring Antipater over his other sons.
Chapter 4 Before Augustus, Herod accuses his two sons of disloyalty. Alexander’s defence
Chapter 5 Completion of Caesarea-Sebaste. Magnificent Herodian building projects
Chapter 6 Asian and Libyan Jews appeal to Rome, and get the imperial support
Chapter 7 Herod robs the tomb of David, to fund building projects. Family revolt grows
Chapter 8 Herod imprisons his son Alexander, but is again reconciled through Archelaus
Chapter 9 Trachonitis revolts. Accused before Caesar, Herod sends Nicolaus to Rome
Chapter 10 Further accusations of Herod’s sons, by the Spartan, Eurycles
Chapter 11 Trial and execution of Herod’s sons, Aristobulus and Alexander
| Translation Format | |
| Greek: Benedikt Niese’s edition (Berlin, 1885-1895) | English: John Barach, Canada, 2025 |
| English: William Whiston, 1737 | English: Patrick Rogers, Dublin, 2010-2016 |
Chapter 1
[001-11]
Herod against thievery. Mariamne’s sons indicted; Herod assigns them wives
[001-11]
Herod against thievery. Mariamne’s sons indicted; Herod assigns them wives
| 1 Ἐν δὲ τῇ διοικήσει τῶν ὅλων πραγμάτων ἐσπουδακὼς ὁ βασιλεὺς τὰς κατὰ μέρος ἀδικίας ἀναστεῖλαι τῶν περὶ τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὴν χώραν ἁμαρτανομένων τίθησι νόμον οὐδὲν ἐοικότα τοῖς πρώτοις, ὃν αὐτὸς ἐβεβαίου, τοὺς τοιχωρύχους ἀποδιδόμενος ἐπ᾽ ἐξαγωγῇ τῆς βασιλείας, ὅπερ ἦν οὐκ εἰς τὴν τιμωρίαν μόνον τῶν πασχόντων φορτικόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατάλυσιν περιεῖχεν τῶν πατρίων ἐθῶν. | 1 "In his governance of all affairs, the King was eager to suppress the individual injustices committed in the city and the countryside. He established a law quite unlike those before it, which he himself confirmed: he sold burglars as slaves to be exported out of the kingdom. This was not only a burdensome punishment for those who suffered it, but it also contained a subversion of the ancestral customs. |
| 1 As king Herod was very zealous in the administration of his entire government, and desirous to put a stop to particular acts of injustice which were done by criminals about the city and country, he made a law, no way like our original laws, and which he enacted of himself, to expose house-breakers to be ejected out of his kingdom; which punishment was not only grievous to be borne by the offenders, but contained in it a dissolution of the customs of our forefathers; | 1 The king was busily administering his entire realm and keen to put a stop to the injustice of criminals around the city and country. He made a law apart from our original laws, condemning house-breakers to exile from his kingdom, a punishment that was not only very severe upon the offenders, but also was alien to the customs of our ancestors. |
| 2 τὸ γὰρ ἀλλοφύλοις καὶ μὴ τὴν αὐτὴν δίαιταν ἔχουσιν τοῦ ζῆν δουλεύειν καὶ βιάζεσθαι πάνθ᾽ ὅσα προσέταττον ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐκεῖνοι ποιεῖν ἁμαρτία πρὸς τὴν θρησκείαν ἦν, οὐ κόλασις τῶν ἁλισκομένων, πεφυλαγμένης ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις τῆς τοιαύτης τιμωρίας· | 2 For to serve as a slave to foreigners—those who do not share the same way of life—and to be forced to do everything those masters commanded by necessity was a sin against their religion, rather than a mere punishment for those caught; such a penalty had been carefully avoided in the former laws. |
| 2 for this slavery to foreigners, and such as did not live after the manner of Jews, and this necessity that they were under to do whatsoever such men should command, was an offense against our religious settlement, rather than a punishment to such as were found to have offended, such a punishment being avoided in our original laws; | 2 To put them into slavery to foreigners who did not live by Jewish customs, so they had to obey the commands of such people, was an offence against our religious tradition, rather than just a penalty for wrongdoing. |
| 3 ἐκέλευον γὰρ οἱ νόμοι τετραπλᾶ καταβάλλειν τὸν κλέπτην, οὐκ ἔχοντα δὲ πιπράσκεσθαι μέν, ἀλλ᾽ οὔτι γε τοῖς ἀλλοφύλοις οὐδ᾽ ὥστε διηνεκῆ τὴν δουλείαν ὑπομένειν· ἔδει γὰρ ἀφεῖσθαι μετὰ ἑξαετίαν. | 3 For the laws commanded that a thief pay fourfold, and if he did not have the means, he was indeed to be sold—but certainly not to foreigners, nor so that he should endure perpetual slavery; for he was required to be released after six years. |
| 3 for those laws ordain, that the thief shall restore fourfold; and that if he have not so much, he shall be sold indeed, but not to foreigners, nor so that he be under perpetual slavery, for he must have been released after six years. | 3 Such a penalty was avoided in our original laws, which require the thief to restore fourfold, and if he does not have the amount, he must be sold, but not to foreigners, nor so as to be in perpetual slavery, for he must be released after six years. |
| 4 τὸ δ᾽ ὥσπερ ὡρίσθη τότε χαλεπὴν καὶ παράνομον γενέσθαι τὴν κόλασιν ὑπερηφανίας ἐδόκει μέρος, οὐ βασιλικῶς ἀλλὰ τυραννικῶς αὐτοῦ καὶ πρὸς τὰ κοινὰ τῶν ἀρχομένων ὀλιγώρως θεῖναι τὴν τιμωρίαν νενοηκότος. | 4 But the way it was determined then—that the punishment should be so harsh and illegal—seemed a piece of arrogance (hyperephanias). It was thought that he had devised this penalty not like a king, but like a tyrant, with a disregard for the common customs of his subjects. |
| 4 But this law, thus enacted, in order to introduce a severe and illegal punishment, seemed to be a piece of insolence of Herod, when he did not act as a king, but as a tyrant, and thus contemptuously, and without any regard to his subjects, did he venture to introduce such a punishment. | 4 But this severe and illegal punishment seemed a kind of insolence. To introduce such a penalty rashly and without regard to his subjects, was the act of a tyrant and not of a king. |
| 5 ταῦτα μὲν οὖν καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα τοῦ λοιποῦ τρόπου γιγνόμενα μέρος ἦν τῶν διαβολῶν καὶ τῆς ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ δυσνοίας. | 5 These actions, being consistent with the rest of his character, formed a part of the slanders against him and the ill-will he inspired." |
| 5 Now this penalty, thus brought into practice, was like Herod’s other actions, and became a part of his accusation, and an occasion of the hatred he lay under. | 5 Like Herod’s other actions, this penalty he brought in became a part of his guilt and aroused hatred against him. |
The Clash of Legal Systems
Josephus highlights a fundamental conflict between Biblical Law (Exodus 22:1-3) and Herodian Policy.
The phrase "ἁμαρτία πρὸς τὴν θρησκείαν" (a sin against religion) is crucial. To a Jew of this period, being sold to a "foreigner" meant it would be impossible to keep the Sabbath, observe dietary laws (Kashrut), or avoid idolatry. Herod wasn't just punishing a crime; he was forcibly stripping the criminal of their identity and their relationship with God.
The Definition of a Tyrant
Josephus uses the distinction between "βασιλικῶς" (kingly) and "τυραννικῶς" (tyrannically). In ancient political thought:
Economic Motivation
While Josephus frames this as a "suppression of injustice," there was likely an economic motive. Selling slaves "for export" generated immediate revenue for Herod’s treasury—money he desperately needed for his massive building projects like the Temple and Caesarea. It turned the criminal justice system into a profitable state enterprise.
The Radicalization of the Populace
Josephus notes that this law contributed to the "δυσνοίας" (ill-will) toward Herod. Actions like this explain why, despite his magnificent rebuilding of the Temple, the people never truly accepted him. To the Judeans, a king who sells his own people into permanent pagan slavery is not a "Protector of the Jews," but a Roman agent wearing a crown.
Josephus highlights a fundamental conflict between Biblical Law (Exodus 22:1-3) and Herodian Policy.
1) Biblical Law: Focused on restitution (fourfold payment) and rehabilitation. If a thief is sold into service, he remains within the covenant community and must be freed in the Sabbatical year (the 7th year).
2) Herodian Law: Focused on permanent removal and profit. By selling criminals abroad ("ἐπʼ ἐξαγωγῇ"), Herod treated human beings as a commodity to be exported, effectively imposing a life sentence in a pagan environment.
Religious "Death" through SlaveryThe phrase "ἁμαρτία πρὸς τὴν θρησκείαν" (a sin against religion) is crucial. To a Jew of this period, being sold to a "foreigner" meant it would be impossible to keep the Sabbath, observe dietary laws (Kashrut), or avoid idolatry. Herod wasn't just punishing a crime; he was forcibly stripping the criminal of their identity and their relationship with God.
The Definition of a Tyrant
Josephus uses the distinction between "βασιλικῶς" (kingly) and "τυραννικῶς" (tyrannically). In ancient political thought:
1) A King rules according to the established laws of the nation.
2) A Tyrant makes his own will the law, disregarding "ancestral customs" (patria ethe).
By bypassing the Sanhedrin and the Torah to create his own penal code, Herod signaled that his loyalty to Roman-style efficiency was higher than his loyalty to the Jewish covenant.Economic Motivation
While Josephus frames this as a "suppression of injustice," there was likely an economic motive. Selling slaves "for export" generated immediate revenue for Herod’s treasury—money he desperately needed for his massive building projects like the Temple and Caesarea. It turned the criminal justice system into a profitable state enterprise.
The Radicalization of the Populace
Josephus notes that this law contributed to the "δυσνοίας" (ill-will) toward Herod. Actions like this explain why, despite his magnificent rebuilding of the Temple, the people never truly accepted him. To the Judeans, a king who sells his own people into permanent pagan slavery is not a "Protector of the Jews," but a Roman agent wearing a crown.
| 6 Ἐν δὲ τούτῳ τῷ καιρῷ καὶ τὸν εἰς τὴν ἸταλίανItaly πλοῦν ἐποιήσατο ΚαίσαρίCaesar τε συντυχεῖν ὁρμηθεὶς καὶ θεάσασθαι τοὺς παῖδας ἐν τῇ ῬώμῃRome διατρίβοντας. ΚαῖσαρCaesar δὲ τά τε ἄλλα φιλοφρόνως αὐτὸν ἐξεδέξατο καὶ τοὺς παῖδας ὡς ἤδη τελειωθέντας ἐν τοῖς μαθήμασιν ἀπέδωκεν ἄγειν εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν. | 6 "At this time, Herod made a voyage to Italy, being eager to meet with Caesar [Augustus] and to see his sons who were living in Rome. Caesar received him with great kindness in all respects and gave him his sons to take back to their own country, as they had now completed their education. |
| 6 Now at this time it was that he sailed to Italy, as very desirous to meet with Caesar, and to see his sons who lived at Rome; and Caesar was not only very obliging to him in other respects, but delivered him his sons again, that he might take them home with him, as having already completed themselves in the sciences; | 6 Meanwhile he sailed to Italy, eager to meet with Caesar and to see his sons who lived in Rome, and Caesar was not only very pleasant to him in other respects, but also returned his sons to take home with him, having completed their studies. |
| 7 ὡς δ᾽ ἧκον ἀπὸ τῆς ἸταλίαςItaly, σπουδὴ περὶ τὰ μειράκια τῶν ὄχλων ἦν, καὶ περίοπτοι πᾶσιν ἐγεγόνεισαν τῷ τε μεγέθει τῆς περὶ αὐτοὺς τύχης κοσμούμενοι καὶ βασιλικοῦ κατὰ τὰς μορφὰς ἀξιώματος οὐκ ἀποδέοντες. | 7 When they returned from Italy, the crowds showed great enthusiasm for the youths; they were the object of everyone's attention, distinguished by the greatness of their fortune and possessing a royal dignity in their appearance that was second to none. |
| 7 but as soon as the young men were come from Italy, the multitude were very desirous to see them, and they became conspicuous among them all, as adorned with great blessings of fortune, and having the countenances of persons of royal dignity. | 7 As soon as the young men had come from Italy, the people wanted to see them and they became celebrities among all, enhanced with great blessings of fortune and having the features of persons of royal dignity. |
| 8 ἐπίφθονοί τε εὐθέως ἐδόκουν ΣαλώμῃSalome τε τῇ τοῦ βασιλέως ἀδελφῇ καὶ τοῖς ΜαριάμμηνMariamne ταῖς διαβολαῖς κατηγωνισμένοις· οὗτοι γὰρ ᾤοντο δυναστευόντων αὐτῶν δίκην δώσειν τῶν εἰς τὴν μητέρα τὴν ἐκείνων παρανομηθέντων. | 8 Immediately, they became objects of envy to Salome, the King's sister, and to those who had successfully brought down Mariamne through slanders. For these people believed that if the youths should ever come into power, they themselves would pay the penalty for the crimes committed against the youths' mother. |
| 8 So they soon appeared to be the objects of envy to Salome, the king’s sister, and to such as had raised calumnies against Mariamne; for they were suspicious, that when these came to the government, they should be punished for the wickedness they had been guilty of against their mother; | 8 Soon they were envied by Salome, the king’s sister and those who had spread lies against Mariamne, suspecting that once these came to rule, they themselves would be punished for the harm they had done to their mother. |
| 9 τὴν αὐτὴν οὖν ταύτην ὑπόθεσιν τοῦ δέους εἰς τὴν κατ᾽ ἐκείνων διαβολὴν μετέφερον λογοποιοῦντες οὐ καθ᾽ ἡδονὰς συνεῖναι τῷ πατρὶ διὰ τὸν τῆς μητρὸς θάνατον, ὡς μηδὲ ὅσιον εἶναι δοκεῖν ἐπὶ ταὐτὸν συνιέναι τῷ τῆς τεκούσης φονεῖ· | 9 Therefore, using this same fear as a basis for slandering the sons, they spread rumors that the youths did not find pleasure in being with their father because of their mother’s death, and that it seemed unholy to them to associate with the murderer of the woman who gave them birth. |
| 9 so they made this very fear of theirs a motive to raise calumnies against them also. They gave it out that they were not pleased with their father’s company, because he had put their mother to death, as if it were not agreeable to piety to appear to converse with their mother’s murderer. | 9 This fear became a motive to spread allegations about them, so they alleged that the youths abhorred their father’s company, since he had put their mother to death, and it would be an impiety to converse with their mother’s murderer. |
| 10 ταῦτα γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπὶ τὸ πιθανὸν τῆς αἰτίας φέροντες κακοῦν ἐδύναντο καὶ τῆς εὐνοίας ἧς εἶχεν εἰς τοὺς παῖδας ἀφαιρεῖν· οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἄντικρυς ἔλεγον, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸ λοιπὸν πλῆθος ἐσκόρπιζον τοὺς τοιούτους λόγους· ἐξ οὗ πρὸς τὸν ἩρώδηνHerōd ἀναφερομένων ὑποκατεσκευάζετο μῖσος οὐδ᾽ αὐτῇ τῇ φύσει χρόνῳ νικώμενον. | 10 By twisting the truth toward a plausible cause, they were able to do harm and strip away the goodwill Herod felt for his children. They did not say these things directly to him at first, but scattered such talk among the rest of the multitude. When these reports were carried back to Herod, they gradually built up a hatred that, over time, could not even be overcome by natural fatherly instinct. |
| 10 Now, by carrying these stories; that had indeed a true foundation [in the fact], but were only built on probabilities as to the present accusation, they were able to do them mischief, and to make Herod take away that kindness from his sons which he had before borne to them; for they did not say these things to him openly, but scattered abroad such words, among the rest of the multitude; from which words, when carried to Herod, he was induced [at last] to hate them, and which natural affection itself, even in length of time, was not able to overcome; | 10 By spreading such stories, which indeed were based on fact but were only surmises at the time, they could do them harm and turn Herod away from his previous favour toward his sons. They did not say these things to him directly, but spread such rumours among the rest of the people. When such words came back to Herod, he was induced to hate them, something which his affection in the long term could not overcome. |
| 11 ἐν μέντοι τῷ τότε πάσης ὑποψίαςsuspicion, jealousy καὶ διαβολῆς μείζονι χρώμενος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῇ τοῦ γεγεννηκέναι φιλοστοργίᾳ καὶ τιμῆς ἧς ἔδει μετεδίδου καὶ γυναῖκας ἐν ἡλικίᾳ γεγονόσιν ἐζεύγνυεν, ἈριστοβούλῳAristobulous μὲν τὴν ΣαλώμηςSalome θυγατέρα ΒερενίκηνBerenice, ἈλεξάνδρῳAlexander δὲ τὴν ἈρχελάουArchelaus τοῦ ΚαππαδόκωνCappadocia βασιλέως ΓλαφύρανGlaphyra. | 11 At that time, however, the King’s affection for his offspring was stronger than any suspicion or slander; he granted them the honor they deserved and joined them to wives, now that they were of age: to Aristobulus he gave Salome’s daughter, Berenice; and to Alexander he gave Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus, King of Cappadocia." |
| 11 yet was the king at that time in a condition to prefer the natural affection of a father before all the suspicions and calumnies his sons lay under. So he respected them as he ought to do, and married them to wives, now they were of an age suitable thereto. To Aristobulus he gave for a wife Bernice, Salome’s daughter; and to Alexander, Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia. | 11 For the present, the king could let his natural paternal affection over-rule the suspicions and allegations heaped upon his sons. So he showed them due respect and married them to wives as soon as they were of the right age for it. To Aristobulus he gave in marriage Berenice, Salome’s daughter, and to Alexander, Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia. |
The "Hasmonean" Look
Josephus notes that the boys possessed "βασιλικοῦ... ἀξιώματος" (royal dignity). This wasn't just physical beauty; it was the Hasmonean "brand." To the Jewish people, Herod was an Idumaean upstart, but his sons were the grandsons of high priests and kings. Their presence in Jerusalem was a living reminder of the dynasty Herod had supplanted.
The Logic of Preemptive Slander
Salome’s motivation was purely existential. In the ancient world, "Justice" often meant the next generation avenging the previous one. Salome knew that if Alexander or Aristobulus took the throne, her involvement in Mariamne's execution would lead to her own death. Her only path to survival was to ensure the sons never inherited the crown.
"Twisting the Truth toward Plausibility"
Josephus provides a masterclass in propaganda: "ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπὶ τὸ πιθανὸν" (from the truth to the plausible). It was true that Herod killed their mother. It was plausible that the sons would be angry about it. By emphasizing this "unholy" tension, the conspirators created a narrative that Herod—himself a man of deep insecurities—was primed to believe.
The Weaponization of the Multitude
Note the tactic: they did not go to Herod directly ("οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἄντικρυς ἔλεγον"). Instead, they leaked rumors to the public. When Herod eventually heard the rumors, they seemed more "authentic" because they appeared to be the general consensus of the city, rather than the complaints of a few courtiers.
The Marriage Strategy
Herod attempted to use marriage as a "seal" of peace:
The Failure of "Physis" (Nature)
Josephus makes a tragic philosophical point: "οὐδʼ αὐτῇ τῇ φύσει χρόνῳ νικώμενον" (not even overcome by nature over time). He is suggesting that Herod’s paranoia was so powerful it eventually "rewrote" his biological instincts as a father. While Herod starts Book 16 with "φιλοστοργίᾳ" (affection), the "toxic" environment of the court is already working to destroy it.
Josephus notes that the boys possessed "βασιλικοῦ... ἀξιώματος" (royal dignity). This wasn't just physical beauty; it was the Hasmonean "brand." To the Jewish people, Herod was an Idumaean upstart, but his sons were the grandsons of high priests and kings. Their presence in Jerusalem was a living reminder of the dynasty Herod had supplanted.
The Logic of Preemptive Slander
Salome’s motivation was purely existential. In the ancient world, "Justice" often meant the next generation avenging the previous one. Salome knew that if Alexander or Aristobulus took the throne, her involvement in Mariamne's execution would lead to her own death. Her only path to survival was to ensure the sons never inherited the crown.
"Twisting the Truth toward Plausibility"
Josephus provides a masterclass in propaganda: "ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπὶ τὸ πιθανὸν" (from the truth to the plausible). It was true that Herod killed their mother. It was plausible that the sons would be angry about it. By emphasizing this "unholy" tension, the conspirators created a narrative that Herod—himself a man of deep insecurities—was primed to believe.
The Weaponization of the Multitude
Note the tactic: they did not go to Herod directly ("οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἄντικρυς ἔλεγον"). Instead, they leaked rumors to the public. When Herod eventually heard the rumors, they seemed more "authentic" because they appeared to be the general consensus of the city, rather than the complaints of a few courtiers.
The Marriage Strategy
Herod attempted to use marriage as a "seal" of peace:
1) Aristobulus + Berenice: This was intended to neutralize Salome. By making Salome the mother-in-law of one son, Herod hoped to give her a vested interest in his success.
2) Alexander + Glaphyra: This was a high-level geopolitical move. Glaphyra was the daughter of the King of Cappadocia, a powerful Roman client-state. This marriage elevated Alexander’s status to that of an international prince.
The Failure of "Physis" (Nature)
Josephus makes a tragic philosophical point: "οὐδʼ αὐτῇ τῇ φύσει χρόνῳ νικώμενον" (not even overcome by nature over time). He is suggesting that Herod’s paranoia was so powerful it eventually "rewrote" his biological instincts as a father. While Herod starts Book 16 with "φιλοστοργίᾳ" (affection), the "toxic" environment of the court is already working to destroy it.
Chapter 2
[012-065]
Herod sails to meet Agrippa, and maintain Roman favour.
Agrippa avenges the Ionians against the Greeks
[012-065]
Herod sails to meet Agrippa, and maintain Roman favour.
Agrippa avenges the Ionians against the Greeks
| 12 Ταῦτα διοικήσας, ἐπειδὴ καὶ ΜᾶρκονMarcus ἈγρίππανAgrippa ἐπύθετοto ask, inquire καταπεπλευκέναι πάλιν ἐκ τῆς ἸταλίαςItaly εἰς τὴν ἈσίανAsian, ἐπειχθεὶς πρὸς αὐτὸν ἠξίωσεν εἴς τε τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ παρελθεῖν καὶ τυχεῖν ὧν ἔδει παρὰ ἀνδρὸς ξένου καὶ φίλου. | 12 "Having settled these affairs, and having learned that Marcus Agrippa had sailed back from Italy to Asia, Herod hurried to him and urged him to come to his kingdom and receive the hospitality due from a host and a friend. |
| 12 When Herod had despatched these affairs, and he understood that Marcus Agrippa had sailed again out of Italy into Asia, he made haste to him, and besought him to come to him into his kingdom, and to partake of what he might justly expect from one that had been his guest, and was his friend. | 12 After dealing with these matters and learning that Marcus Agrippa had sailed again from Italy to Asia, he hurried to him and wished him to come to visit his kingdom and enjoy what was due to him by his friend and former guest . |
| 13 κἀκεῖνος μὲν εἴξας λιπαρῶς ἐγκειμένου ἧκεν εἰς τὴν ἸουδαίανJudea, ἩρώδηςHerod δὲ οὐδὲν ἀρεσκείας ἀπέλιπεν ἔν τε ταῖς νεοκτίστοις πόλεσιν ὑποδεχόμενος αὐτὸν καὶ μετὰ τοῦ τὰς κατασκευὰς ἐπιδεικνύναι πᾶσαν ἀπόλαυσιν διαίτης καὶ πολυτελείας ἐξαλλάττων αὐτῷ καὶ τοῖς φίλοις ἔν τε τῇ Σεβαστῇ καὶ ΚαισαρείᾳCaesarea περὶ τὸν λιμένα τὸν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κατεσκευασμένον κἀν τοῖς ἐρύμασιν, ἃ πολλαῖς δαπάναις ἐξῳκοδόμησεν, τό τε ἈλεξάνδρειονAlexandreion καὶ ἩρώδειονHerodium καὶ τὴν Ὑρκανίαν. | 13 Agrippa yielded to his persistent entreaties and came to Judea. Herod left nothing undone to please him, receiving him in his newly founded cities. While showing off his constructions, he provided every luxury of diet and magnificence for Agrippa and his friends—both in Sebaste and in Caesarea near the harbor he had built, as well as in the fortresses which he had constructed at great expense: the Alexandreion, the Herodium, and Hyrcania. |
| 13 This request he greatly pressed, and to it Agrippa agreed, and came into Judea; whereupon Herod omitted nothing that might please him. He entertained him in his new-built cities, and showed him the edifices he had built, and provided all sorts of the best and most costly dainties for him and his friends, and that at Sebaste and Caesarea, about that port that he had built, and at the fortresses which he had erected at great expenses, Alexandrium, and Herodium, and Hyrcania. | 13 Under strong persuasion he agreed and came to Judea, and Herod spared no efforts to please him in his newly founded cities and showing him his building works and entertaining him and his friends with all the best and finest sorts of foods, both in Sebaste and around the port he had built at Caesarea, and in the fortresses of Alexandreion and Herodium and Hyrcania, which he had refurbished at huge expense. |
| 14 ἦγεν δὲ καὶ εἰς τὴν πόλιν τῶν ἹεροσολυμιτῶνJerusalem ὑπαντῶντός τε τοῦ δήμου παντὸς ἐν ἑορτώδει στολῇ καὶ δεχομένου τὸν ἄνδρα σὺν εὐφημίαις. ἈγρίππαςAgrippa δὲ τῷ θεῷ μὲν ἑκατόμβην κατέθυσεν, ἑστιᾷ δὲ τὸν δῆμον οὐδενὸς τῶν μεγίστων πλήθει λειπόμενον. | 14 He also led him to the city of the Jerusalemites, where the entire populace met him in festive garments and received the man with acclamations. Agrippa sacrificed a hecatomb (one hundred oxen) to God and feasted the people, a multitude surpassed by none in size. |
| 14 He also conducted him to the city Jerusalem, where all the people met him in their festival garments, and received him with acclamations. Agrippa also offered a hecatomb of sacrifices to God; and feasted the people, without omitting any of the greatest dainties that could be gotten. | 14 He brought him also to the city of Jerusalem, where all the people met him in festive clothing and welcomed him with acclamations. Agrippa offered a hecatomb sacrifice to God, and gave a feast for the population, who were no fewer than in the greatest of cities. |
| 15 αὐτὸς δὲ ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ καθ᾽ ἡδονὴν κἂν ἔτι πλείους ἐπιμείνας ἡμέρας διὰ τὸν καιρὸν ἠπείγετο· τὸν γὰρ πλοῦν ἐπιβαίνοντος τοῦ χειμῶνος οὐκ ἐνόμιζεν ἀσφαλῆ κομιζομένῳ πάλιν ἐξ ἀνάγκης εἰς τὴν ἸωνίανIonia. | 15 Agrippa himself, as far as his own pleasure was concerned, would have stayed even more days, but he was hurried by the season; for with winter approaching, he did not consider the voyage safe, as he was compelled to return to Ionia." |
| 15 He also took so much pleasure there, that he abode many days with them, and would willingly have staid longer, but that the season of the year made him make haste away; for as winter was coming on, he thought it not safe to go to sea later, and yet he was of necessity to return again to Ionia. | 15 He enjoyed his stay with them for many days and would willingly have stayed longer but for the time of year, since at the approach of winter he thought it unsafe to postpone his unavoidable return voyage to Ionia. |
The Strategic "Flex"
This was the ultimate "soft power" display. By taking Agrippa to Sebaste (Samaria) and Caesarea, Herod was showing off his loyalty to the Roman aesthetic. By taking him to the desert fortresses (Herodium, Hyrcania), he was showing off his military security. Herod was effectively saying to Agrippa, "Look at what I have built for Rome with the resources you gave me."
The People's "Festive Garments"
Josephus notes that the people of Jerusalem met Agrippa in "ἑορτώδει στολῇ" (festive dress). This is a rare moment of civic harmony. Usually, the sight of a Roman general in Jerusalem sparked riots or resentment, but here, the populace followed Herod’s lead. They recognized that Agrippa’s favor was the only thing keeping the peace and the economy stable.
The Roman Hecatomb in the Jewish Temple
Agrippa’s sacrifice of 100 oxen ("ἑκατόμβην") to the Jewish God was a massive diplomatic gesture. It signaled Roman respect for the Jewish cult. For Herod, this was a validation of his newly built Temple. If the second-in-command of the Empire honored the sanctuary, it made the Temple a recognized "world-class" site in the eyes of the Mediterranean elite.
The "Second Man" of the Empire
Marcus Agrippa was not just any general; he was Augustus's son-in-law and designated successor. His visit to Judea in 15 BCE was a geopolitical event of the highest order. The fact that Herod could "persistently entreat" ("λιπαρῶς ἐγκειμένου") such a man to visit shows the extraordinary level of personal intimacy Herod enjoyed with the Roman high command.
The Race Against Winter
The mention of the "χειμῶνος" (winter) and the safety of the voyage refers to the ancient Mare Clausum (closed sea). From November to March, Mediterranean shipping largely stopped due to dangerous storms. Agrippa’s haste to return to Ionia (modern-day Turkey) reminds us that despite the luxury of the Judean court, Herod’s kingdom was still a peripheral frontier that had to stay connected to the Roman center.
The Shadow of the Fortresses
It is telling that Herod included Hyrcania and Alexandreion on the tour. These were not just "luxury resorts"; they were high-security prisons and treasuries. Herod was subtly reminding Agrippa (and his own subjects) that he possessed the literal "iron fist" inside the velvet glove of his hospitality.
This was the ultimate "soft power" display. By taking Agrippa to Sebaste (Samaria) and Caesarea, Herod was showing off his loyalty to the Roman aesthetic. By taking him to the desert fortresses (Herodium, Hyrcania), he was showing off his military security. Herod was effectively saying to Agrippa, "Look at what I have built for Rome with the resources you gave me."
The People's "Festive Garments"
Josephus notes that the people of Jerusalem met Agrippa in "ἑορτώδει στολῇ" (festive dress). This is a rare moment of civic harmony. Usually, the sight of a Roman general in Jerusalem sparked riots or resentment, but here, the populace followed Herod’s lead. They recognized that Agrippa’s favor was the only thing keeping the peace and the economy stable.
The Roman Hecatomb in the Jewish Temple
Agrippa’s sacrifice of 100 oxen ("ἑκατόμβην") to the Jewish God was a massive diplomatic gesture. It signaled Roman respect for the Jewish cult. For Herod, this was a validation of his newly built Temple. If the second-in-command of the Empire honored the sanctuary, it made the Temple a recognized "world-class" site in the eyes of the Mediterranean elite.
The "Second Man" of the Empire
Marcus Agrippa was not just any general; he was Augustus's son-in-law and designated successor. His visit to Judea in 15 BCE was a geopolitical event of the highest order. The fact that Herod could "persistently entreat" ("λιπαρῶς ἐγκειμένου") such a man to visit shows the extraordinary level of personal intimacy Herod enjoyed with the Roman high command.
The Race Against Winter
The mention of the "χειμῶνος" (winter) and the safety of the voyage refers to the ancient Mare Clausum (closed sea). From November to March, Mediterranean shipping largely stopped due to dangerous storms. Agrippa’s haste to return to Ionia (modern-day Turkey) reminds us that despite the luxury of the Judean court, Herod’s kingdom was still a peripheral frontier that had to stay connected to the Roman center.
The Shadow of the Fortresses
It is telling that Herod included Hyrcania and Alexandreion on the tour. These were not just "luxury resorts"; they were high-security prisons and treasuries. Herod was subtly reminding Agrippa (and his own subjects) that he possessed the literal "iron fist" inside the velvet glove of his hospitality.
| 16 Ἐκεῖνος μὲν οὖν ἀπέπλει πολλαῖς αὐτὸν δωρεαῖς τετιμηκότος ἩρώδουHerod καὶ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ τοὺς ἐπισημοτάτους. ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς χειμάσας ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις ἔαρος ἠπείγετο συντυχεῖν αὐτῷ τὴν εἰς Βόσπορον εἰδὼς στρατείαν προηγούμενον. | 16 "Agrippa, then, sailed away, after Herod had honored him and the most distinguished of his companions with many gifts. The King, having spent the winter in his own realm, hurried in the spring to meet him, knowing that Agrippa was leading an expedition to the Bosporus. |
| 16 So Agrippa went away, when Herod had bestowed on him, and on the principal of those that were with him, many presents; but king Herod, when he had passed the winter in his own dominions, made haste to get to him again in the spring, when he knew he designed to go to a campaign at the Bosptiorus. | 16 So when Herod had honoured him and the main people with him with many gifts, he sailed away but in the springtime king Herod, after wintering in his own dominions, hurried to him again, knowing he was planning a campaign to the Bosphorus. |
| 17 καὶ πλεύσας διὰ Ῥόδου καὶ Κῶ προσέσχεν, περὶ Λέσβον οἰόμενος ἐπικαταλήψεσθαι τὸν ἈγρίππανAgrippa. ἐκεῖ δ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀπολαμβάνει πνεῦμα βόρειον εἶργον τὴν ἀναγωγὴν τῶν νεῶν. | 17 Having sailed by way of Rhodes and Cos, he touched land at Lesbos, thinking he would overtake Agrippa there. However, a north wind caught him there, preventing the ships from putting out to sea. |
| 17 So when he had sailed by Rhodes and by Cos, he touched at Lesbos, as thinking he should have overtaken Agrippa there; but he was taken short here by a north wind, which hindered his ship from going to the shore; | 17 After sailing past Rhodes and Cos, he touched at Lesbos, thinking to catch up with Agrippa there, but a north wind prevented his ships from landing. |
| 18 ὁ δ᾽ ἐπιδιέτριβεν ἡμέρας πλείους ἐν τῇ Χίῳ καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν τῶν προσιόντων αὐτῷ δεξιούμενος ἀνελάμβανενto take up βασιλικαῖς δωρεαῖς, αὐτῆς δὲ τῆς πόλεως ἰδὼν πεπτωκυῖαν στοάν, ἣν ἐν τῷ Μιθριδατικῷ πολέμῳ καθαιρεθεῖσαν οὐχ ὥσπερ τὰ ἄλλα διὰ μέγεθος καὶ κάλλος ἀναστῆναι ῥᾴδιον ἦν, | 18 He delayed for several days at Chios, where he cordially received many who came to see him, reviving them with royal gifts. Seeing that a portico in the city had fallen—one which had been destroyed in the Mithridatic War and, due to its size and beauty, was not easy to rebuild— |
| 18 so he continued many days at Chius, and there he kindly treated a great many that came to him, and obliged them by giving them royal gifts. And when he saw that the portico of the city was fallen down, which as it was overthrown in the Mithridatic war, and was a very large and fine building, so was it not so easy to rebuild that as it was the rest, | 18 Instead he stayed for many days at Chios where he kindly treated many who came to him and captivated them with royal gifts. He noticed how the portico of the city, destroyed in the Mithridatic war, had fallen down and because of its size and beauty was not easy to rebuild. |
| 19 χρήματα δοὺς ὅσα μὴ μόνον ἐπαρκεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ περιττεύειν ἐδύνατο πρὸς τὴν συντέλειαν τοῦ κατασκευάσματος, ἐνετέλλετο μὴ περιορᾶν, ἀλλὰ θᾶττον ἐγείρειν ἀποκαθιστάντας τῇ πόλει τὸν ἴδιον κόσμον. | 19 he gave enough money not only to suffice but to exceed what was needed for the completion of the work. He instructed them not to neglect it, but to raise it up quickly to restore the city’s proper splendor. |
| 19 yet did he furnish a sum not only large enough for that purpose, but what was more than sufficient to finish the building; and ordered them not to overlook that portico, but to rebuild it quickly, that so the city might recover its proper ornaments. | 19 He provided enough money to do so and more than sufficient to complete the building, and ordered them not to ignore the portico but to quickly rebuild it, so that the city might regain its proper appearance. |
| 20 αὐτὸς δὲ λήξαντος τοῦ πνεύματος εἰς ΜιτυλήνηνMitylene κἀκεῖθεν εἰς Βυζάντιον παρακομισθείς, ὡς ἤκουσεν ἐντὸς Κυανέων ἤδη πεπλευκέναι τὸν ἈγρίππανAgrippa, μετέσπευδεν ὡς ἐνῆν. | 20 When the wind ceased, he arrived at Mitylene and from there was carried to Byzantium. Learning that Agrippa had already sailed within the Cyanean Rocks (the Bosporus entrance), he followed as fast as possible. |
| 20 And when the high winds were laid, he sailed to Mytilene, and thence to Byzantium; and when he heard that Agrippa was sailed beyond the Cyanean rocks, he made all the haste possible to overtake him, | 20 When the high winds ceased, he sailed to Mytilene and from there to Byzantium, and on hearing that Agrippa had sailed beyond the Cyanean rocks, he hurried on with all speed. |
| 21 καὶ περὶ Σινώπην τὴν ἐν Πόντῳ καταλαβὼν ἀπροσδόκητος μὲν ὤφθη ταῖς ναυσὶ προσπλέων, ἄσμενος δὲ ἐφάνηto give light, shine πολλαί τε φιλοφρονήσεις ἦσαν, ἅτε καὶ μεγίστην πίστιν εἰληφέναι δοκοῦντος εὐνοίας καὶ φιλοστοργίας τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν ἈγρίππουAgrippa, τοσοῦτον μὲν πλοῦν ἀνύσαντος τοῦ βασιλέως, οὐκ ἀπολειφθέντος δὲ τῆς ἐκείνου χρείας, ἣν μετὰ τοῦ καταλιπεῖν ἀρχὴν καὶ διοίκησιν οἰκείων πραγμάτων προυργιαιτέραν ἔθετο. | 21 He caught up with him near Sinope in Pontus. His arrival was unexpected as he sailed up with his fleet, and he was seen with great joy. There were many expressions of friendship, as Agrippa felt he had received the greatest proof of goodwill and affection: the King had completed such a long voyage and had not failed him in his need, setting this duty above the administration of his own kingdom. |
| 21 and came up with him about Sinope, in Pontus. He was seen sailing by the ship-men most unexpectedly, but appeared to their great joy; and many friendly salutations there were between them, insomuch that Agrippa thought he had received the greatest marks of the king’s kindness and humanity towards him possible, since the king had come so long a voyage, and at a very proper season, for his assistance, and had left the government of his own dominions, and thought it more worth his while to come to him. | 21 When he caught up with him near Sinope in Pontus, the sailors were surprised and pleased to see him, and many friendly greetings were exchanged, so that Agrippa thought it the greatest possible sign of the king’s favour and goodwill toward him that he had made so long a voyage to come to his help, setting his needs above his own concerns and even above the administration of his own realm. |
| 22 πᾶν γοῦν ἦν αὐτῷ κατὰ τὴν στρατείαν ἩρώδηςHerod, ἔν τε τοῖς πραγματικοῖς συναγωνιστὴς κἀν τοῖς κατὰ μέρος σύμβουλος, ἡδὺς δὲ κἀν ταῖς ἀνέσεσι καὶ μόνος ἁπάντων κοινωνὸς ὀχληρῶν μὲν διὰ τὴν εὔνοιαν, ἡδέων δὲ διὰ τὴν τιμήν. | 22 Indeed, Herod was everything to him during the campaign: a fellow-soldier in practical matters, a counselor in specific details, pleasant in times of relaxation, and the only one to share in all his burdens out of goodwill and in all his pleasures out of honor. |
| 22 Accordingly, Herod was all in all to Agrippa, in the management of the war, and a great assistant in civil affairs, and in giving him counsel as to particular matters. He was also a pleasant companion for him when he relaxed himself, and a joint partaker with him in all things; in troubles because of his kindness, and in prosperity because of the respect Agrippa had for him. | 22 Herod meant everything to him in this campaign and was a great help in civil affairs and in advising him on particular matters. He was also a pleasant companion in times of relaxation and shared with him every way, loyal in time of trouble and respectful amid his pleasures. |
| 23 ὡς δ᾽ αὐτοῖς κατείργαστο καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν ΠόντονPontus, ὧν ἕνεκεν ἈγρίππαςAgrippa ἐστάλη, τὴν ἀνακομιδὴν οὐκέτ᾽ ἐδόκει ποιεῖσθαι πλέουσιν, ἀλλὰ διαμειψάμενοι τήν τε Παφλαγονίαν καὶ ΚαππαδοκίανCappadocia κἀκεῖθεν ἐπὶ τῆς μεγάλης Φρυγίας ὁδεύσαντες εἰς Ἔφεσον ἀφίκοντο, πάλιν δὲ ἐξ Ἐφέσου διέπλευσαν εἰς Σάμον. | 23 When they had settled the affairs in Pontus for which Agrippa had been sent, they decided not to return by sea. Instead, they traveled through Paphlagonia and Cappadocia, and from there, marching through Great Phrygia, they arrived at Ephesus; from Ephesus, they sailed again to Samos. |
| 23 Now as soon as those affairs of Pontus were finished, for whose sake Agrippa was sent thither, they did not think fit to return by sea, but passed through Paphlagonia and Cappadocia; they then traveled thence over great Phrygia, and came to Ephesus, and then they sailed from Ephesus to Samos. | 23 When Agrippa’s mission in Pontus was accomplished, they decided not to return by sea, but passed through Paphlagonia and Cappadocia and from there journeyed across great Phrygia as far as Ephesus and then they sailed from Ephesus to Samos. |
| 24 πολλαὶ μὲν οὖν καὶ κατὰ πόλιν ἑκάστην εὐεργεσίαι τῷ βασιλεῖ κατὰ τὰς χρείας τῶν ἐντυγχανόντων ἐγένοντο· καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς ὅσα διὰ χρημάτων ἦν ηπίξεως οὐ παρέλειπεν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὰς δαπάνας ποιούμενος καὶ τῶν παρὰ ἈγρίππαAgrippa τισὶν ἐπιζητουμένων μεσίτης ἦν καὶ διεπράττετο μηδενὸς ἀτυχῆσαι τοὺς δεομένους. | 24 In every city, the King performed many acts of benevolence according to the needs of those who petitioned him. He did not fail to provide funds from his own purse for those needing financial relief, and he acted as a mediator for those seeking favors from Agrippa, ensuring that no petitioner went away unsuccessful. |
| 24 And indeed the king bestowed a great many benefits on every city that he came to, according as they stood in need of them; for as for those that wanted either money or kind treatment, he was not wanting to them; but he supplied the former himself out of his own expenses: he also became an intercessor with Agrippa for all such as sought after his favor, and he brought things so about, that the petitioners failed in none of their suits to him, | 24 The king bestowed many benefits on every city he came to, according to their need. Whether they needed money or an intercessor he was not found wanting. The former he supplied from his own revenues and whenever anyone sought a favour, he interceded with Agrippa so effectively that none of the petitioners were refused. |
| 25 ὄντος δὲ κἀκείνου χρηστοῦ καὶ μεγαλοψύχου πρὸς τὸ παρέχειν ὅσα τοῖς ἠξιωκόσιν ὠφέλιμα ὄντα μηδένα τῶν ἄλλων ἐλύπει, πλεῖστον ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐποίει ῥοπὴ προτρέπουσα πρὸς τὰς εὐεργεσίας οὐ βραδύνοντα τὸν ἈγρίππανAgrippa. | 25 Because Agrippa was himself kind and magnanimous in granting what was useful to those who asked (so long as it harmed no one else), the King’s influence carried great weight, urging Agrippa—who was already not slow to act—toward these benefactions. |
| 25 Agrippa being himself of a good disposition, and of great generosity, and ready to grant all such requests as might be advantageous to the petitioners, provided they were not to the detriment of others. The inclination of the king was of great weight also, and still excited Agrippa, who was himself ready to do good; | 25 The latter was well disposed and most generous and ready to grant any requests that were useful to the petitioners and not to the detriment of others. The king’s influence was strong in moving him to good deeds, although Agrippa himself was also quick enough to do so on his own. |
| 26 Ἰλιεῦσι μέν γε αὐτὸν διήλλαξεν, διέλυσεν δὲ Χίοις τὰ πρὸς τοὺς ΚαίσαροςCaesar ἐπιτρόπους χρήματα καὶ τῶν εἰσφορῶν ἀπήλλαξεν, τοῖς δὲ ἄλλοις καθὸ δεηθεῖεν ἕκαστοι παρίστατο. | 26 Indeed, Herod reconciled him with the people of Ilium (Troy); he settled the financial debts the Chians owed to Caesar’s procurators and freed them from tributes; and he assisted all others according to their specific needs." |
| 26 for he made a reconciliation between the people of Ilium, at whom he was angry, and paid what money the people of Chius owed Caesar’s procurators, and discharged them of their tributes; and helped all others, according as their several necessities required. | 26 He managed to reconcile him with the people of Ilium, and paid the money owed to Caesar’s agents by the people of Chios and eased their taxes, and helped all others according to their requests. |
The "Indispensable Partner" Strategy
Herod’s decision to leave his kingdom and sail to the Bosporus (modern Crimea/Ukraine region) was a brilliant move of "asymmetric diplomacy." While other client kings stayed home to manage their borders, Herod acted as a Roman legate. Josephus’s description of Herod as a "συναγωνιστής" (fellow-soldier) and "σύμβουλος" (counselor) shows that Herod had transitioned from a subordinate to a trusted peer of the Roman elite.
The Architecture of Influence
The episode at Chios is a classic example of "Evergetism" (public Greek philanthropy). By rebuilding a portico that had been in ruins since the Mithridatic Wars (nearly 70 years prior), Herod was buying "eternal memory" in a major Greek city. It wasn't just charity; it was a way to make the name "Herod" synonymous with the restoration of Greek civilization.
The Logistics of the Voyage
The mention of the "πνεῦμα βόρειον" (north wind) and the "Κυανέων" (the Symplegades or "Clashing Rocks" at the mouth of the Black Sea) highlights the genuine danger of Herod's journey. Sailing into the Euxine (Black) Sea was treacherous for Mediterranean fleets. Herod’s willingness to brave these waters was the "greatest proof" (μεγίστην πίστιν) of his loyalty to Agrippa.
Herod as the "Power Broker"
Josephus notes that Herod was a "μεσίτης" (mediator/broker). In the Roman system of clientela, access was everything. Herod used his personal intimacy with Agrippa to solve the problems of Greek cities (like Ilium and Chios). This made Herod a "King of Kings" in the eastern Mediterranean; cities all over Asia Minor now owed their tax exemptions and architectural splendors to the King of the Jews.
Reconciling the People of Troy
The reconciliation of the Ilians (Troy) is a fascinating detail. According to other sources, Agrippa had been furious with Troy because his wife, Julia (Augustus's daughter), had almost drowned in the river Scamander there. Agrippa had fined the city heavily. Herod’s successful intervention on behalf of the "ancestral city of Rome" (as the Romans claimed descent from Troy) was a high-stakes diplomatic save.
The "Soft Power" of a Client King
This campaign represents the peak of Herod’s international "brand." He is wealthy enough to pay off the debts of entire cities ("ἀπήλλαξεν τῶν εἰσφορῶν") and influential enough to guide the hand of the Roman Vice-Emperor. Ironically, while he is the most powerful man in the East, he is about to return home to a family that is more dangerous to him than the storms of the Black Sea.
Herod’s decision to leave his kingdom and sail to the Bosporus (modern Crimea/Ukraine region) was a brilliant move of "asymmetric diplomacy." While other client kings stayed home to manage their borders, Herod acted as a Roman legate. Josephus’s description of Herod as a "συναγωνιστής" (fellow-soldier) and "σύμβουλος" (counselor) shows that Herod had transitioned from a subordinate to a trusted peer of the Roman elite.
The Architecture of Influence
The episode at Chios is a classic example of "Evergetism" (public Greek philanthropy). By rebuilding a portico that had been in ruins since the Mithridatic Wars (nearly 70 years prior), Herod was buying "eternal memory" in a major Greek city. It wasn't just charity; it was a way to make the name "Herod" synonymous with the restoration of Greek civilization.
The Logistics of the Voyage
The mention of the "πνεῦμα βόρειον" (north wind) and the "Κυανέων" (the Symplegades or "Clashing Rocks" at the mouth of the Black Sea) highlights the genuine danger of Herod's journey. Sailing into the Euxine (Black) Sea was treacherous for Mediterranean fleets. Herod’s willingness to brave these waters was the "greatest proof" (μεγίστην πίστιν) of his loyalty to Agrippa.
Herod as the "Power Broker"
Josephus notes that Herod was a "μεσίτης" (mediator/broker). In the Roman system of clientela, access was everything. Herod used his personal intimacy with Agrippa to solve the problems of Greek cities (like Ilium and Chios). This made Herod a "King of Kings" in the eastern Mediterranean; cities all over Asia Minor now owed their tax exemptions and architectural splendors to the King of the Jews.
Reconciling the People of Troy
The reconciliation of the Ilians (Troy) is a fascinating detail. According to other sources, Agrippa had been furious with Troy because his wife, Julia (Augustus's daughter), had almost drowned in the river Scamander there. Agrippa had fined the city heavily. Herod’s successful intervention on behalf of the "ancestral city of Rome" (as the Romans claimed descent from Troy) was a high-stakes diplomatic save.
The "Soft Power" of a Client King
This campaign represents the peak of Herod’s international "brand." He is wealthy enough to pay off the debts of entire cities ("ἀπήλλαξεν τῶν εἰσφορῶν") and influential enough to guide the hand of the Roman Vice-Emperor. Ironically, while he is the most powerful man in the East, he is about to return home to a family that is more dangerous to him than the storms of the Black Sea.
| 27 Τότε δὲ περὶ τὴν ἸωνίανIonia αὐτῶν γενομένων πολὺ πλῆθος ἸουδαίωνJews, ὃ τὰς πόλεις ᾤκει, προσῄει καιροῦ καὶ παρρησίας ἐπειλημμένοι, καὶ τὰς ἐπηρείας ἔλεγον, ἃς ἐπηρεάζοντο μήτε νόμοις οἰκείοις ἐώμενοι χρῆσθαι δίκας τε ἀναγκαζόμενοι διδόναι κατ᾽ ἐπήρειαν τῶν εὐθυνόντων ἐν ἱεραῖς ἡμέραις, | 27 "At that time, while they [Herod and Agrippa] were in Ionia, a great multitude of Jews who inhabited the cities approached them, taking advantage of the opportunity and the freedom of speech [now available to them]. They spoke of the outrages they were suffering, being prevented from following their own laws and being forced to appear in court on their sacred days due to the malice of those who prosecuted them. |
| 27 But now, when Agrippa and Herod were in Ionia, a great multitude of Jews, who dwelt in their cities, came to them, and laying hold of the opportunity and the liberty now given them, laid before them the injuries which they suffered, while they were not permitted to use their own laws, but were compelled to prosecute their law-suits, by the ill usage of the judges, upon their holy days, | 27 Then when they were in Ionia, a large crowd of Jews living in those cities came to them and taking advantage of the freedom of speech now afforded them, set out the wrongs they suffered in not being allowed to follow their own laws and having to go to court on their holy days because of the malice of the magistrates. |
| 28 καὶ τῶν εἰς ἹεροσόλυμαJerusalem χρημάτων ἀνατιθεμένων ἀφαιροῖντο στρατειῶν καὶ λειτουργιῶν ἀναγκαζόμενοι κοινωνεῖν καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα δαπανᾶν τῶν ἱερῶν χρημάτων, ὧν ἀφείθησαν αἰεὶ ῬωμαίωνRoman, Latin αὐτοῖς ἐπιτρεψάντων κατὰ τοὺς οἰκείους ζῆν νόμους. | 28 They also complained that they were being robbed of the money sent to Jerusalem, and were being forced to participate in military services and public duties (leitourgion), spending the sacred funds on these things—despite the fact that they had always been exempted from such burdens by the Romans, who permitted them to live according to their own laws. |
| 28 and were deprived of the money they used to lay up at Jerusalem, and were forced into the army, and upon such other offices as obliged them to spend their sacred money; from which burdens they always used to be freed by the Romans, who had still permitted them to live according to their own laws. | 28 They told of how the money they used to set aside for Jerusalem was taken from them and how they were forced into the army and to take part in ceremonies that made them spend their sacred money, whereas the Romans had freed them of such burdens and had always let them live by their own laws. |
| 29 τοιαῦτα καταβοώντων παρεστήσατο μὲν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἀκοῦσαι τὸν ἈγρίππανAgrippa αὐτῶν δικαιολογουμένων, Νικόλαον δέ τινα τῶν αὐτοῦ φίλων ἔδωκεν εἰπεῖν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν τὰ δίκαια. | 29 As they made these outcries, the King [Herod] arranged for Agrippa to hear them as they pleaded their cause, and he appointed Nicolaus, one of his own friends, to speak on their behalf concerning their rights. |
| 29 When this clamor was made, the king desired of Agrippa that he would hear their cause, and assigned Nicolaus, one of his friends, to plead for those their privileges. | 29 After this complaint, the king asked Agrippa to hear their cause and assigned one of his friends, Nicolaus, to plead on behalf of their rights. |
| 30 τοῦ δὲ ἈγρίππουAgrippa ῬωμαίωνRoman, Latin τε τοὺς ἐν τέλει καὶ βασιλέων καὶ δυναστῶν τοὺς παρόντας αὐτῷ συνέδρους ποιησαμένου καταστὰς ὁ ΝικόλαοςNicolaus ὑπὲρ τῶν ἸουδαίωνJews ἔλεξεν· | 30 When Agrippa had assembled a council consisting of the Roman officials in high command and the kings and dynasts who were present with him, Nicolaus stood up and spoke on behalf of the Jews." |
| 30 Accordingly, when Agrippa had called the principal of the Romans, and such of the kings and rulers as were there, to be his assessors, Nicolaus stood up, and pleaded for the Jews, as follows: | 30 When Agrippa had called as assessors the leading Romans and any kings and officers who were present, Nicolaus stood up and spoke on behalf of the Jews, as follows: |
The Diaspora Dilemma
The Jews of Ionia (modern-day western Turkey) lived in a precarious legal state. While Rome granted them religious liberty, the local Greek city-states often viewed Jewish exemptions as an unfair "tax dodge." The Greeks resented that money left their local economies to go to the Temple in Jerusalem. By forcing Jews into court on the Sabbath, the Greeks were using local bureaucracy as a weapon of religious harassment.
The "Sacred Money" Pipeline
The "χρημάτων ἀνατιθεμένων" refers to the annual half-shekel Temple tax paid by every adult Jewish male in the Diaspora. This was a massive transfer of wealth. Local Greek magistrates often "confiscated" this money under the guise of requiring Jews to pay for "λειτουργιῶν" (liturgies)—public works or festivals that were often pagan in nature. This wasn't just a financial theft; it was a religious violation.
Nicolaus of Damascus: The "Power Attorney"
Herod appointed Nicolaus of Damascus to argue the case. Nicolaus was a world-class intellectual, historian, and diplomat who eventually became Herod’s biographer. By providing his own top advisor to represent the Diaspora Jews, Herod was signaling to all of Asia Minor that he was the supreme protector of Jewish rights worldwide, not just in Judea.
The Roman "Exemption" vs. Local Reality
Josephus emphasizes that the Romans had "αἰεὶ" (always) permitted the Jews to live by their own laws. This highlights a recurring theme in Antiquities: the Romans were generally tolerant, but the local Greek populations were the primary persecutors. The Jews were appealing to the central Roman authority (Agrippa) to override local Greek malice.
"Parrhesia" (Freedom of Speech)
The text mentions the Jews took advantage of "παρρησίας". In the presence of Agrippa and Herod, the local Greek magistrates couldn't suppress the Jewish voice. This moment represents a "Legal Summit" where the Jewish community felt safe enough to speak truth to power because they had a King (Herod) who had the ear of the Emperor's deputy.
Herod’s PR Masterstroke
By championing this cause, Herod achieved two goals:
The Jews of Ionia (modern-day western Turkey) lived in a precarious legal state. While Rome granted them religious liberty, the local Greek city-states often viewed Jewish exemptions as an unfair "tax dodge." The Greeks resented that money left their local economies to go to the Temple in Jerusalem. By forcing Jews into court on the Sabbath, the Greeks were using local bureaucracy as a weapon of religious harassment.
The "Sacred Money" Pipeline
The "χρημάτων ἀνατιθεμένων" refers to the annual half-shekel Temple tax paid by every adult Jewish male in the Diaspora. This was a massive transfer of wealth. Local Greek magistrates often "confiscated" this money under the guise of requiring Jews to pay for "λειτουργιῶν" (liturgies)—public works or festivals that were often pagan in nature. This wasn't just a financial theft; it was a religious violation.
Nicolaus of Damascus: The "Power Attorney"
Herod appointed Nicolaus of Damascus to argue the case. Nicolaus was a world-class intellectual, historian, and diplomat who eventually became Herod’s biographer. By providing his own top advisor to represent the Diaspora Jews, Herod was signaling to all of Asia Minor that he was the supreme protector of Jewish rights worldwide, not just in Judea.
The Roman "Exemption" vs. Local Reality
Josephus emphasizes that the Romans had "αἰεὶ" (always) permitted the Jews to live by their own laws. This highlights a recurring theme in Antiquities: the Romans were generally tolerant, but the local Greek populations were the primary persecutors. The Jews were appealing to the central Roman authority (Agrippa) to override local Greek malice.
"Parrhesia" (Freedom of Speech)
The text mentions the Jews took advantage of "παρρησίας". In the presence of Agrippa and Herod, the local Greek magistrates couldn't suppress the Jewish voice. This moment represents a "Legal Summit" where the Jewish community felt safe enough to speak truth to power because they had a King (Herod) who had the ear of the Emperor's deputy.
Herod’s PR Masterstroke
By championing this cause, Herod achieved two goals:
1) He proved to his critics in Jerusalem that he was a "Good Jew" who protected the faith abroad.
2) He demonstrated to the Roman elite that he was the essential "manager" of Jewish affairs, capable of settling disputes that might otherwise lead to riots or instability in the provinces.
| 31 " Ἅπασι μὲν, ὦ μέγιστε ἈγρίππαAgrippa, τοῖς ἐν χρείᾳ γεγενημένοις ἀνάγκη καταφεύγειν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀφελέσθαι τὰς ἐπηρείας αὐτῶν δυνησομένους, τοῖς δὲ νῦν ἐντυγχάνουσιν καὶ παρρησία· | 31 "O most mighty Agrippa, it is necessary for all who are in need to flee to those capable of removing their grievances; but for those who now petition you, there is also a right of free speech (parrhesia). |
| 31 "It is of necessity incumbent on such as are in distress to have recourse to those that have it in their power to free them from those injuries they lie under; and for those that now are complainants, they approach you with great assurance; | 31 "Great Agrippa, all people in need must have recourse to those with the power to set them free from whatever oppresses them, and so the suppliants approach you with assurance, |
| 32 τυχόντες γὰρ πρότερον ὑμῶν οἵους ηὔξαντο πολλάκις, τὸ μὴ τὰς χάριτας ἀφαιρεῖσθαι δι᾽ ὑμῶν αἰτοῦνται τῶν δεδωκότων, καὶ ταῦτα εἰληφότες μὲν αὐτὰς παρὰ τούτων, οἷς μόνοις διδόναι δύναμις, ἀφαιρούμενοιto separate δ᾽ ὑπ᾽ οὐδενὸς κρείττονος, ἀλλ᾽ οὓς ἴσον ἔχειν αὐτοῖς ἀρχομένους ὁμοίως ὑμῶν ἴσασιν. | 32 Having previously obtained from you such favors as they often prayed for, they now ask through you—the very givers—that these graces not be taken away. They received them from those who alone have the power to grant them, yet they are being robbed by those who are no better than themselves, but whom they know to be subjects of yours just as they are. |
| 32 for as they have formerly often obtained your favor, so far as they have even wished to have it, they now only entreat that you, who have been the donors, will take care that those favors you have already granted them may not be taken away from them. We have received these favors from you, who alone have power to grant them, but have them taken from us by such as are no greater than ourselves, and by such as we know are as much subjects as we are; | 32 Just as they have obtained your favour in the past as often as they sought it, now they ask that you, the donors, will ensure that only what you have granted may not be taken from them, favours which you alone have power to grant but have been taken away by people no greater than ourselves, who are subjects like ourselves. |
| 33 καίτοι γε εἴτε μεγάλων ἠξιώθησαν, ἔπαινός ἐστιν τῶν τετυχηκότων ὅτι τοσούτων παρέσχον αὑτοὺς ἀξίους, εἴτε μικρῶν, αἰσχρὸν μὴ καὶ ταῦτα βεβαιοῦν δεδωκότας. | 33 Whether they were granted great things, it is a credit to the recipients that they were found worthy; if small things, it is shameful for the givers not to confirm even these. |
| 33 and certainly, if we have been vouchsafed great favors, it is to our commendation who have obtained them, as having been found deserving of such great favors; and if those favors be but small ones, it would be barbarous for the donors not to confirm them to us. | 33 If we have been granted great favours, it is to our credit to have been deemed worthy of them, and if the favours were only minor it would be shameful for the donors not to renew them. |
| 34 οἵ γε μὴν ἐμποδὼν ὄντες καὶ πρὸς ἐπήρειαν χρώμενοι ἸουδαίοιςJews εὔδηλον ὡς ἄμφω ἀδικοῦσιν, τοὺς εἰληφότας, εἰ μὴ νομίζοιεν ἀγαθοὺς οἷς οἱ κρατοῦντες ἐμαρτύρησαν ἐν τῷ καὶ τοιαῦτα δεδωκέναι, καὶ τοὺς δεδωκότας, εἰ τὰς χάριτας αὐτῶν ἀβεβαίους ἀξιοῦσιν γενέσθαι. | 34 It is clear that those who obstruct the Jews and act out of malice do a double wrong: to the recipients, by suggesting they are not the 'good men' the rulers testified they were by granting such gifts; and to the givers, by demanding that their favors be made void. |
| 34 And for those that are the hinderance of the Jews, and use them reproachfully, it is evident that they affront both the receivers, while they will not allow those to be worthy men to whom their excellent rulers themselves have borne their testimony, and the donors, while they desire those favors already granted may be abrogated. | 34 It is clear that those who are thwarting and mistreating the Jews are wronging both our people, by not accepting as good those whom their leaders have honoured in this way, and the donors themselves, by seeking to undermine favours already granted. |
| 35 εἰ δέ τις αὐτοὺς ἔροιτο δύο τούτων θάτερον ἐθέλοιεν ἂν ἀφαιρεθῆναι, τὸ ζῆν ἢ τὰ πάτρια ἔθη τὰς πομπὰς τὰς θυσίας τὰς ἑορτάς, ἃς τοῖς νομιζομένοις προσάγουσι θεοῖς, εὖ οἶδ᾽, ὅτι πάντα μᾶλλον αἱρήσονται παθεῖν ἢ καταλῦσαί τι τῶν πατρίων· | 35 If one were to ask these people which they would rather lose—their lives or their ancestral customs, their processions, sacrifices, and festivals—I know well they would choose to suffer anything rather than abolish their traditions. |
| 35 Now if any one should ask these Gentiles themselves, which of the two things they would choose to part with, their lives, or the customs of their forefathers, their solemnities, their sacrifices, their festivals, which they celebrated in honor of those they suppose to be gods? I know very well that they would choose to suffer any thing whatsoever rather than a dissolution of any of the customs of their forefathers; | 35 If one should ask them which of two things they would choose to abandon, their lives or their ancestral customs, solemnities, sacrifices and the festivals they celebrate in honour of those they deem to be gods, I know full well they would choose to suffer everything rather than do away with any of their heritage. |
| 36 καὶ γὰρ τοὺς πολέμους οἱ πολλοὶ διὰ ταῦτα αἱροῦνται φυλαττόμενοι μὴ παραβαίνειν αὐτά, καὶ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν, ἣν νῦν τὸ σύμπαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος δι᾽ ὑμᾶς ἔχει, τούτῳ μετροῦμεν τῷ ἐξεῖναι κατὰ χώραν ἑκάστοις τὰ οἰκεῖα τιμῶσιν αὔξειν καὶ διαζῆν. | 36 Indeed, many choose war for this very reason: to avoid transgressing them. We measure the prosperity which the whole human race now enjoys through you by this: that each is permitted to live according to their own customs and to honor their own traditions. |
| 36 for a great many of them have rather chosen to go to war on that account, as very solicitous not to transgress in those matters. And indeed we take an estimate of that happiness which all mankind do now enjoy by your means from this very thing, that we are allowed every one to worship as our own institutions require, and yet to live [in peace]; | 36 Indeed, many of them have rather chosen to go to war in defence of them, rather than transgress them. A sign of the well-being which all of mankind now enjoys on account of you is that we are each allowed to worship and live as required by our own heritage. |
| 37 τοῦτο μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἂν αὐτοὶ παθεῖν ἑλόμενοι βιάζονται δρᾶν κατ᾽ ἄλλων ὥσπερ οὐχ ὁμοίως ἀσεβοῦντες, εἴτε τῶν οἰκείων εἰς θεοὺς ὁσίων ἀμελοῖεν, εἴτε τὰ οἰκεῖα τισὶν ἀνοσίως καταλύοιεν. | 37 Now, they choose not to suffer this themselves, yet they force it upon others—as if they were not equally impious whether they neglect their own duties to the gods or unholily abolish the duties of others. |
| 37 and although they would not be thus treated themselves, yet do they endeavor to compel others to comply with them, as if it were not as great an instance of impiety profanely to dissolve the religious solemnities of any others, as to be negligent in the observation of their own towards their gods. | 37 But though they do not wish to be so treated themselves, they try to make others subject, as if it were not as impious to set aside the religious practice of others as to neglect to show fidelity toward one’s own gods. |
| 38 τόδ᾽ ἕτερον δ᾽ ἤδη σκοπήσομεν· ἔστι τις δῆμος ἢ πόλις ἢ κοινὸν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων, οἷς οὐ μέγιστον ἀγαθῶν πέφυκε προστασία τῆς ὑμετέρας ἀρχῆς καὶ τὸ ῬωμαικὸνRoman κράτος; ἐθέλοι δ᾽ ἄν τις ἀκύρους τὰς ἐντεῦθεν εἶναι χάριτας; | 38 Consider this also: is there any people or city for whom your leadership and the Roman power is not the greatest of blessings? Would anyone wish the favors coming from that source to be invalid? |
| 38 And let us now consider the one of these practices. Is there any people, or city, or community of men, to whom your government and the Roman power does not appear to be the greatest blessing ‘. Is there any one that can desire to make void the favors they have granted? | 38 Furthermore, is there any people or city or human community to whom your rule and patronage and Roman power does not appear as the greatest of blessings? Would anyone seek to minimize the benefits it has brought? |
| 39 οὐδεὶς οὐδὲ μαινόμενος· οὐδὲ γὰρ εἰσὶν οἱ μὴ μετέχοντες αὐτῶν ἰδίᾳ καὶ κοινῇ. Καὶ μὴν οἱ τινὰς ὧν ὑμεῖς ἔδοτε παραιρούμενοι βέβαιον οὐδ᾽ αὐτοῖς οὐδὲν ὧν δι᾽ ὑμᾶς ἔχουσιν ὑπολείπονται. | 39 no one—not even a madman [would deny this]. For there are none who do not participate in these [benefits] both privately and publicly. Furthermore, those who would strip away any of the rights you have granted leave nothing certain even for themselves among the things they hold because of you. |
| 39 No one is certainly so mad; for there are no men but such as have been partakers of their favors, both public and private; and indeed those that take away what you have granted, can have no assurance but every one of their own grants made them by you may be taken from them also; | 39 No one, not even a madman! No one is ruled out from sharing in these blessings, both public and private, and any who deny what you have granted cannot be sure that all you have given them may be taken from them. |
| 40 καίτοι τὰς μὲν τούτων χάριτας οὐδὲ μετρῆσαι δυνατόν ἐστιν· εἰ γὰρ ἐκλογίσαιντο τὴν πάλαι βασιλείαν καὶ τὴν νῦν ἀρχήν, πολλῶν ὄντων ὅσα πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπέδωκεν, ἔτι κατὰ πάντων ἀρκεῖ τὸ μηκέτι δούλους ἀλλ᾽ ἐλευθέρους φαίνεσθαι. | 40 And yet, it is not even possible to measure the favors granted by these [Roman leaders]; for if they were to calculate the old kingdom and compare it to the current rule—though there are many things which have added to their happiness—above all else, it is sufficient that they no longer appear as slaves, but as free men. |
| 40 which grants of yours can yet never be sufficiently valued; for if they consider the old governments under kings, together with your present government, besides the great number of benefits which this government hath bestowed on them, in order to their happiness, this is instead of all the rest, that they appear to be no longer in a state of slavery, but of freedom. | 40 These favours you have brought cannot be prized highly enough, for if they compare the ancient kingdoms to your present rule, besides the many aspects of prosperity this government has brought, the main thing is that they no longer live as slaves, but as free people. |
| 41 τὰ δ᾽ ἡμέτερα καὶ λαμπρῶς πραττόντων οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπίφθονα· δι᾽ ὑμᾶς γὰρ καὶ μετὰ πάντων εὐτυχοῦμεν καὶ τούτου μόνου μετέχειν ἠξιώσαμεν, ἀκωλύτως τὴν πάτριον εὐσέβειαν διαφυλάττειν, ὃ καὶ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ δόξειεν οὐκ ἐπίφθονον καὶ πρὸς τῶν συγχωρούντων εἶναι· | 41 As for our own affairs, even when we are prospering brilliantly, they are not a cause for envy; for it is because of you [Romans] and along with everyone else that we are fortunate. We have deemed it worthy to participate in only this one thing: to preserve our ancestral piety without hindrance—a matter which, in and of itself, should not seem enviable and is, in fact, to the advantage of those who grant it. |
| 41 Now the privileges we desire, even when we are in the best circumstances, are not such as deserve to be envied, for we are indeed in a prosperous state by your means, but this is only in common with others; and it is no more than this which we desire, to preserve our religion without any prohibition; which as it appears not in itself a privilege to be envied us, so it is for the advantage of those that grant it to us; | 41 What we seek, even if we seem to be doing very well, need not be envied, for if we are flourishing on account of you it is shared by others. All we want is to guard our religious heritage without hindrance, a privilege for which we should not be envied, as it benefits those who allow it. |
| 42 τὸ γὰρ θεῖον, εἰ χαίρει τιμώμενον, χαίρει τοῖς ἐπιτρέπουσι τιμᾶν, ἐθῶν τε τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀπάνθρωπον μὲν οὐδέν ἐστιν, εὐσεβῆ δὲ πάντα καὶ τῇ συνήθει δικαιοσύνῃ συγκαθωσιωμένα. | 42 For the Divine, if it takes pleasure in being honored, takes pleasure in those who permit it to be honored. There is nothing inhuman in our customs; they are all pious and dedicated to customary justice. |
| 42 for if the Divinity delights in being honored, it must delight in those that permit them to be honored. And there are none of our customs which are inhuman, but all tending to piety, and devoted to the preservation of justice; | 42 If the Divinity is pleased to be honoured, He must be pleased with those who allow this honour. None of our customs are inhuman, but all of them tend to piety and tend to preserve justice. |
| 43 καὶ οὔτε ἀποκρυπτόμεθα τὰ παραγγέλματα, οἷς χρώμεθα πρὸς τὸν βίον ὑπομνήμασιν τῆς εὐσεβείας καὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἐπιτηδευμάτων, τήν τε ἑβδόμην τῶν ἡμερῶν ἀνίεμεν τῇ μαθήσει τῶν ἡμετέρων ἐθῶν καὶ νόμου, μελέτην ὥσπερ ἄλλου τινὸς καὶ τούτων ἀξιοῦντες εἶναι δι᾽ ὧν οὐχ ἁμαρτησόμεθα. | 43 We do not hide the precepts we use as reminders of piety and human conduct. We set aside the seventh day for the learning of our customs and Law, considering this study—like any other—necessary so that we may not fall into sin. |
| 43 nor do we conceal those injunctions of ours by which we govern our lives, they being memorials of piety, and of a friendly conversation among men. And the seventh day we set apart from labor; it is dedicated to the learning of our customs and laws, we thinking it proper to reflect on them, as well as on any [good] thing else, in order to our avoiding of sin. | 43 We do not conceal the teachings by which we rule our lives, as they are the basics of piety and friendly human interaction. The seventh day we set apart for the learning of our customs and law, considering that there is no better form of study by which to avoid sin. |
| 44 καλὰ μὲν οὖν, ἐὰν ἐξετάζῃ τις καὶ καθ᾽ αὑτὰ τὰ ἔθη, παλαιὰ δ᾽ ἡμῖν, κἂν μή τισιν δοκῇ, ὥστ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ τοῦ χρόνου τιμητὸν δυσαποδίδακτον εἶναι τοῖς ὁσίως παρειληφόσιν καὶ διαφυλάττουσιν. | 44 Our customs are beautiful and ancient; even if some do not think so, their antiquity makes them venerable to those who have piously received and preserved them. |
| 44 If any one therefore examine into our observances, he will find they are good in themselves, and that they are ancient also, though some think otherwise, insomuch that those who have received them cannot easily be brought to depart from them, out of that honor they pay to the length of time they have religiously enjoyed them and observed them. | 44 If one examines our ways he will find they are good in themselves and ancient too, despite what some may think, so that those who have received and observed them cannot be easily brought to abandon what they have honoured for so long. |
| 45 τούτων ἡμᾶς ἀφαιροῦνται κατ᾽ ἐπήρειαν, χρήματα μὲν ἃ τῷ θεῷ συμφέρομεν ἐπώνυμα διαφθείροντες καὶ φανερῶς ἱεροσυλοῦντες, τέλη δ᾽ ἐπιτιθέντες κἀν ταῖς ἑορταῖς ἄγοντες ἐπὶ δικαστήρια καὶ πραγματείας ἄλλας, οὐ κατὰ χρείαν τῶν συναλλαγμάτων, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ ἐπήρειαν τῆς θρησκείας, ἣν συνίσασιν ἡμῖν, μῖσος οὐ δίκαιον οὐδ᾽ αὐτεξούσιον αὐτοῖς πεπονθότες. | 45 Yet we are robbed of these things by malice. They seize the money we contribute to God under His name, committing open sacrilege. They impose taxes upon us and haul us to law courts and other business on our festivals—not out of necessity for contracts, but out of malice toward our religion. |
| 45 Now our adversaries take these our privileges away in the way of injustice; they violently seize upon that money of ours which is owed to God, and called sacred money, and this openly, after a sacrilegious manner; and they impose tributes upon us, and bring us before tribunals on holy days, and then require other like debts of us, not because the contracts require it, and for their own advantage, but because they would put an affront on our religion, of which they are conscious as well as we, and have indulged themselves in an unjust, and to them involuntary, hatred; | 45 It is these that our opponents spitefully take from us when they destroy the money we set aside for God and publicly scorn his temple by imposing taxes on us and on our holy days making us come to court and do other practical business, not because our legal obligations require it but to spite our religion, whose rules they know as well as we, all because of an unjustified and arbitrary hatred. |
| 46 ἡ γὰρ ὑμετέρα κατὰ πάντων ἀρχὴ γενομένη μία τὴν μὲν εὔνοιαν ἐνεργὸν τὴν δὲ δύσνοιαν ἄνεργον ποιεῖ τοῖς τὸ τοιοῦτον ἀντ᾽ ἐκείνου προαιρουμένοιςto bring forth, produce. | 46 Your rule, being one over all, makes goodwill active and ill-will inactive for those who would choose the latter. |
| 46 for your government over all is one, tending to the establishing of benevolence, and abolishing of ill-will among such as are disposed to it. | 46 On the contrary, your government over all is consistent in promoting people’s disposition toward goodwill and curbing their malice. |
| 47 ταῦτ᾽ οὖν ἀξιοῦμεν, ὦ μέγιστε ἈγρίππαAgrippa, μὴ κακῶς πάσχειν μηδ᾽ ἐπηρεάζεσθαι μηδὲ κωλύεσθαι τοῖς ἔθεσι χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἡμετέροις μηδ᾽ ἀφαιρεῖσθαι τῶν ὄντων μηδ᾽ ἃ μὴ βιαζόμεθα τούτους ὑπὸ τούτων βιάζεσθαι· καὶ γὰρ οὐ δίκαια μόνον ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν δεδομένα πρότερον. | 47 We ask, therefore, most mighty Agrippa, that we not be mistreated, nor hindered from using our customs, nor robbed of our possessions, nor forced by these people to do what we do not force upon them. These things are not only just, but have been granted by you before. |
| 47 This is therefore what we implore from thee, most excellent Agrippa, that we may not be ill-treated; that we may not be abused; that we may not be hindered from making use of our own customs, nor be despoiled of our goods, nor be forced by these men to do what we ourselves force nobody to do; for these privileges of ours are not only according to justice, but have formerly been granted us by you. | 47 So what we beg, great Agrippa, is not to let us be ill-treated or abused, or prevented from following our own customs, not to be robbed of our property or be oppressed by these people whom we do not oppress, for our claims are not only just but also were granted to us earlier by you. |
| 48 ἔτι καὶ δυναίμεθ᾽ ἂν πολλὰ δόγματα τῆς συγκλήτου καὶ τὰς ἐν τῷ ΚαπετωλίῳCapitol κειμένας δέλτους ὑπὲρ τούτων ἀναγινώσκειν, ἃ δῆλον μὲν ὡς μετὰ πεῖραν τῆς ἡμετέρας εἰς ὑμᾶς πίστεως ἐδόθη, κύρια δὲ κἂν εἰ μηδενὸς ὕπαρξιν ἐχαρίσασθε. | 48 Furthermore, we would be able to read out many decrees of the Senate and the tablets kept in the Capitol concerning these matters. It is clear that these were granted after you had experienced our loyalty toward you; yet, they would remain valid even if you had granted us nothing else in addition. |
| 48 And we are able to read to you many decrees of the senate, and the tables that contain them, which are still extant in the capitol, concerning these things, which it is evident were granted after you had experience of our fidelity towards you, which ought to be valued, though no such fidelity had been; | 48 About them we can read you many decrees of the senate, recorded on the tablets in the Capitol, which clearly were granted as a result of our loyalty to you, although you should concede them even if we done nothing to please you. |
| 49 σχεδὸν γὰρ οὐ μόνοις ἡμῖν ἀλλὰ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις τὰ μὲν ὄντα φυλάξαντες, μείζω δὲ τῶν ἐλπισθέντων προσθέντες εὐεργετεῖτε τῷ κρατεῖν, καὶ δύναιτ᾽ ἄν τις ἐπεξιὼν τὰς ἑκάστων εὐτυχίας, ἃς δι᾽ ὑμῶν ἔχουσιν, ἀπερίληπτον ποιῆσαι τὸν λόγον. | 49 For you [Romans] act as benefactors through your rule—scarcely for us alone, but for all mankind—by preserving what people already possess and by adding greater things than were ever hoped for. Indeed, if one were to recount the individual successes that everyone holds because of you, he would make his discourse boundless. |
| 49 for you have hitherto preserved what people were in possession of, not to us only, but almost to all men, and have added greater advantages than they could have hoped for, and thereby your government is become a great advantage to them. And if any one were able to enumerate the prosperity you have conferred on every nation, which they possess by your means, he could never put an end to his discourse; | 49 For you have guarded not alone our property but that of almost all others, so that your empire has brought benefits beyond all their hopes, and if one were to try to list all the advantages each of them has received through you the list would never come to an end. |
| 50 ἵνα μέντοι καὶ δικαίως ἁπάντων αὐτῶν τυγχάνοντας ἑαυτοὺς ἐπιδείξωμεν, ἀρκεῖ πρὸς παρρησίαν ἡμῖν τὰ πρότερον σιωπήσασιν τὸν βασιλεύοντα νῦν ἡμῶν καὶ σοὶ παρακαθεζόμενον εἰπεῖν. | 50 However, in order that we may demonstrate that we obtain all these [rights] justly, it is sufficient for us—speaking now with boldness (parrhesia) where we were previously silent—to point to the man who is currently our King and who is now sitting by your side. |
| 50 but that we may demonstrate that we are not unworthy of all those advantages we have obtained, it will be sufficient for us, to say nothing of other things, but to speak freely of this king who now governs us, and is now one of thy assessors; | 50 Still, that we may show ourselves worthy of all the benefits granted to us, suffice it to speak of this king who now governs us and is one of your assessors. |
| 51 ᾧ ποία μὲν εὔνοια πρὸς τὸν ὑμέτερον οἶκον παραλέλειπται; ποία δὲ πίστις ἐνδεής ἐστιν; τίς δὲ οὐ νενόηται τιμή; ποία δὲ χρεία μὴ εἰς πρῶτον ὁρᾷ; τί δὴ κωλύει καὶ τὰς ἡμετέρας χάριτας τῶν εἰς τοσούτων εὐεργεσιῶν ἀριθμὸν εἶναι; | 51 What goodwill toward your house has he omitted? What loyalty is lacking? Is he not the first you look to in times of need? Why should our favors not be numbered among his many benefactions? |
| 51 and indeed in what instance of good-will, as to your house, hath he been deficient? What mark of fidelity to it hath he omitted? What token of honor hath he not devised? What occasion for his assistance of you hath he not regarded at the very first? What hindereth; therefore, but that your kindnesses may be as numerous as his so great benefits to you have been? | 51 Where has he shown any lack of goodwill toward your house? What sign of loyalty has he not given to it? What proof of honour has he not devised? In what crisis has he not shown foresight on your behalf? So then, what prevents your favour from equalling his great favours to you? |
| 52 καλὸν δ᾽ ἴσως μηδὲ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἈντιπάτρουAntipater παραλιπεῖν ἀνδραγαθίαν ἀμνημόνευτον, ὃς εἰς ΑἴγυπτονEgypt εἰσβεβληκότος ΚαίσαροςCaesar δισχιλίοις ὁπλίταιςarmed warrior βοηθήσας οὔτ᾽ ἐν τοῖς κατὰ γῆν ἀγῶσιν οὔθ᾽ ὅτε νεῶν ἔδει δεύτερος ἐξητάζετο. | 52 It is right also not to leave the bravery of his father, Antipater, unmentioned. When Caesar [Julius] invaded Egypt, Antipater assisted him with two thousand soldiers and was second to none in battles by land or sea. |
| 52 It may also perhaps be fit not here to pass over in silence the valor of his father Antipater, who, when Caesar made an expedition into Egypt, assisted him with two thousand armed men, and proved inferior to none, neither in the battles on land, nor in the management of the navy; | 52 Probably we should not fail to mention the bravery of his father Antipater, who, when Caesar invaded Egypt, helped him with two thousand warriors and was second to none in his efforts, both in the battles on land and in those by sea. |
| 53 καὶ τί δεῖ λέγειν, ὅσην ἐκεῖνοι παρέσχον ῥοπὴν τῷ τότε καιρῷ καὶ πόσων καὶ τίνων δωρεῶν ὑπὸ ΚαίσαροςCaesar ἠξιώθησαν καθ᾽ ἕνα, δέον ἀναμνῆσαι τῶν ἐπιστολῶν, ἃς ἔγραψεν τότε ΚαῖσαρCaesar τῇ συγκλήτῳ, καὶ ὡς δημοσίᾳ τιμὰς καὶ πολιτείαν ἔλαβεν ἈντίπατροςAntipater; | 53 And what need is there to speak of how much weight they [the Jewish forces] provided at that critical moment, and how many and what kind of gifts they were deemed worthy of by Caesar individually? It is necessary only to remind you of the letters which Caesar wrote at that time to the Senate, and how Antipater received honors and citizenship in a public capacity. |
| 53 and what need I say any thing of how great weight those soldiers were at that juncture? or how many and how great presents they were vouchsafed by Caesar? And truly I ought before now to have mentioned the epistles which Caesar wrote to the senate; and how Antipater had honors, and the freedom of the city of Rome, bestowed upon him; | 53 Need we mention how important their contribution was at that juncture, or of how many gifts each of them received from Caesar? And I should recall the letters Caesar wrote to the senate, and the public honours and citizenship conferred upon Antipater. |
| 54 ἀρκέσει γὰρ ταῦτα τὰ τεκμήρια τοῦ καὶ τὰς χάριτας ἡμᾶς κατ᾽ ἀξίαν ἔχειν καὶ παρὰ σοῦ τὸ βέβαιον αὐτῶν αἰτεῖν, παρ᾽ οὗ καὶ μὴ πρότερον δοθείσας ἦν ἐλπίσαι τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως πρὸς ὑμᾶς διάθεσιν καὶ τὴν ὑμετέραν πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁρῶσιν. | 54 For these proofs will be sufficient to show that we possess these favors according to our merit, and that we ask for their confirmation from you—from whom we might have hoped to receive them even if they had not been granted previously, seeing as we do the King's disposition toward you and your own toward him. |
| 54 for these are demonstrations both that we have received these favors by our own deserts, and do on that account petition thee for thy confirmation of them, from whom we had reason to hope for them, though they had not been given us before, both out of regard to our king’s disposition towards you, and your disposition towards him. | 54 Such things suffice to prove that we received these favours by our own merits, and therefore we ask you to confirm them, confident that even if not already granted to us you would grant them, due to our king’s support for you and yours for him. |
| 55 ἀπαγγέλλεται δ᾽ ἡμῖν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκεῖ ἸουδαίωνJews, ὡς μὲν ἐπέβης τῆς χώρας εὐμενής, ὡς δὲ ἀπέδωκας τῷ θεῷ τέλεια θύματα τιμῶν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τελείαις εὐχαῖς, ὡς δὲ τὸν δῆμον εἱστίασας καὶ τὰ παρ᾽ ἐκείνου ξένια προσήκω. | 55 It is reported to us by the Jews living there [in Jerusalem] that when you entered the country, you were well-disposed; and that you offered to God perfect sacrifices, honoring Him with complete prayers; and that you feasted the people and received the gifts of hospitality from them in a fitting manner. |
| 55 And further, we have been informed by those Jews that were there with what kindness thou camest into our country, and how thou offeredst the most perfect sacrifices to God, and honoredst him with remarkable vows, and how thou gavest the people a feast, and acceptedst of their own hospitable presents to thee. | 55 We have been told by the Jews who were present how benevolently you came to our land and offered the most perfect sacrifices to God and honoured him with remarkable vows and how you gave a feast for the people and accepted their hospitality to you. |
| 56 ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα καὶ ἔθνει καὶ πόλει πρὸς ἄνδρα τοσούτων ἐπιστατοῦντα πραγμάτων δεξιώματα καὶ σύμβολα φιλίας χρὴ δοκεῖν, ἣν ἀπέδωκας τῷ ἸουδαίωνJews ἔθνει τῆς ἩρώδουHerod προξενούσης αὐτὴν ἑστίαςhome,hearth. | 56 For all these things must be regarded as tokens of welcome and symbols of friendship from a man presiding over such vast affairs; a friendship which you have granted to the Jewish nation, with the hospitality of Herod acting as the mediator of that bond. |
| 56 We ought to esteem all these kind entertainments made both by our nation and to our city, to a man who is the ruler and manager of so much of the public affairs, as indications of that friendship which thou hast returned to the Jewish nation, and which hath been procured them by the family of Herod. | 56 We reckon all these things done by our nation and city for a man who rules and manages so much of the administration to be signs of the friendship between you and the Jewish nation, won for us by the hospitality of Herod’s family. |
| 57 τούτων ὑπομιμνήσκοντές σε καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ παρόντος καὶ συγκαθεζομένου βασιλέως ἠξιώκαμεν περιττὸν οὐδέν, ἃ δ᾽ αὐτοὶ δεδώκατε ταῦθ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἄλλων μὴ περιιδεῖν ἀφαιρουμένους." | 57 Reminding you of these things, and in the presence of the King sitting here, we ask for nothing extra—only that you do not permit others to take away what you yourselves have given." |
| 57 So we put thee in mind of these things in the presence of the king, now sitting by thee, and make our request for no more but this, that what you have given us yourselves you will not see taken away by others from us." | 57 Reminding you of these matters in the presence of the king sitting beside you, we ask no more than this: Do not look on while others rob us of what you yourselves have given us." |
The Strategy of "Roman Universalism"
Nicolaus’s most brilliant rhetorical move is linking Jewish Law to Roman Peace (Pax Romana). He argues that the greatness of Rome is measured by the freedom of its subjects to follow their own traditions ("τῷ ἐξεῖναι κατὰ χώραν ἑκάστοις τὰ οἰκεῖα"). He turns the Greeks into the "rebels" by suggesting that when they harass Jews, they are actually insulting the Roman decrees that authorized Jewish life.
Defending the Sabbath as "Education"
Nicolaus describes the Sabbath not just as a day of rest, but as a day of "μαθήσει" (learning). This was a sophisticated way to explain the "laziness" that Greeks often attributed to the Jews for not working on the seventh day. By framing it as a day of ethical and legal study, he appealed to the Greco-Roman respect for philosophy and education.
The "Sacred Money" as Private Property
The Greeks claimed the Temple Tax was an illegal drain on their local economy. Nicolaus refutes this by calling their seizure of the money "ἱεροσυλοῦντες" (sacrilege). He argues that once the money is dedicated to God, it is no longer secular property. Therefore, any Greek magistrate who "taxes" or "seizes" it is committing a crime against the Divine—a concept even pagans feared.
The Shadow of Julius Caesar
Nicolaus invokes the memory of Antipater (Herod's father) saving Julius Caesar in Egypt (47 BCE). This was the "foundation myth" of the Herod-Rome alliance. By reminding Agrippa of this, he is saying: "The rights we enjoy were paid for in Jewish blood during the Roman Civil Wars." It transforms Jewish religious rights into a military debt owed by the Roman state.
The "Plausible" High Ground
Nicolaus notes that Jewish customs contain "ἀπάνθρωπον μὲν οὐδέν" (nothing inhuman). This was a direct rebuttal to the common "Blood Libel" or rumors that Jews were misanthropes who hated non-Jews. He presents Judaism as a transparent, ancient, and highly ethical system that actually supports the "customary justice" of the Empire.
Agrippa’s Role as "Judge"
By sitting next to Herod and hearing this case in a formal "συνέδρους" (council), Agrippa was acting as the living voice of the Emperor. The fact that he allowed Nicolaus to speak at such length shows that the "Herodian lobby" in Rome was at the absolute zenith of its power.
Nicolaus’s most brilliant rhetorical move is linking Jewish Law to Roman Peace (Pax Romana). He argues that the greatness of Rome is measured by the freedom of its subjects to follow their own traditions ("τῷ ἐξεῖναι κατὰ χώραν ἑκάστοις τὰ οἰκεῖα"). He turns the Greeks into the "rebels" by suggesting that when they harass Jews, they are actually insulting the Roman decrees that authorized Jewish life.
Defending the Sabbath as "Education"
Nicolaus describes the Sabbath not just as a day of rest, but as a day of "μαθήσει" (learning). This was a sophisticated way to explain the "laziness" that Greeks often attributed to the Jews for not working on the seventh day. By framing it as a day of ethical and legal study, he appealed to the Greco-Roman respect for philosophy and education.
The "Sacred Money" as Private Property
The Greeks claimed the Temple Tax was an illegal drain on their local economy. Nicolaus refutes this by calling their seizure of the money "ἱεροσυλοῦντες" (sacrilege). He argues that once the money is dedicated to God, it is no longer secular property. Therefore, any Greek magistrate who "taxes" or "seizes" it is committing a crime against the Divine—a concept even pagans feared.
The Shadow of Julius Caesar
Nicolaus invokes the memory of Antipater (Herod's father) saving Julius Caesar in Egypt (47 BCE). This was the "foundation myth" of the Herod-Rome alliance. By reminding Agrippa of this, he is saying: "The rights we enjoy were paid for in Jewish blood during the Roman Civil Wars." It transforms Jewish religious rights into a military debt owed by the Roman state.
The "Plausible" High Ground
Nicolaus notes that Jewish customs contain "ἀπάνθρωπον μὲν οὐδέν" (nothing inhuman). This was a direct rebuttal to the common "Blood Libel" or rumors that Jews were misanthropes who hated non-Jews. He presents Judaism as a transparent, ancient, and highly ethical system that actually supports the "customary justice" of the Empire.
Agrippa’s Role as "Judge"
By sitting next to Herod and hearing this case in a formal "συνέδρους" (council), Agrippa was acting as the living voice of the Emperor. The fact that he allowed Nicolaus to speak at such length shows that the "Herodian lobby" in Rome was at the absolute zenith of its power.
| 58 Τοιαῦτα μὲν τοῦ ΝικολάουNicolaus διελθόντος ἐγένετο οὐδεμία τῶν ἙλλήνωνGreeks ἀντικατάστασις· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὡς ἐν δικαστηρίῳ περὶ τῶν προκειμένων διελάμβανον, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ἔντευξις ὧν ἐβιάζοντο. | 58 "After Nicolaus had spoken in this manner, there was no rebuttal from the Greeks; for they did not treat the proceedings as a formal trial concerning the matters at hand, but rather as a petition regarding the violence they were suffering. |
| 58 When Nicolaus had made this speech, there was no opposition made to it by the Greeks, for this was not an inquiry made, as in a court of justice, but an intercession to prevent violence to be offered to the Jews any longer; | 58 When Nicolaus had made this speech, no counter-argument was made to it by the Greeks, for this was not a legal trial but a petition against the violence being done to them. |
| 59 κἀκείνων ἀπολογία μὲν οὐδεμία τοῦ μὴ ταῦτα ποιεῖν, πρόφασις δέ, ὡς τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν νεμόμενοι πάντα νῦν ἀδικοῖεν. οἱ δὲ ἐγγενεῖς τε αὑτοὺς ἐδείκνυσαν κἀν τῷ τὰ οἰκεῖα τιμᾶν μηδὲν λυποῦντες οἰκεῖν. | 59 The Greeks offered no defense for their actions, except for the pretext that since the Jews inhabited their territory, they were doing wrong in everything they did now. The Jews, for their part, showed that they were native-born and lived there without causing any trouble in the honoring of their own traditions. |
| 59 nor did the Greeks make any defense of themselves, or deny what it was supposed they had done. Their pretense was no more than this, that while the Jews inhabited in their country, they were entirely unjust to them [in not joining in their worship] but they demonstrated their generosity in this, that though they worshipped according to their institutions, they did nothing that ought to grieve them. | 59 The others made no defence nor did they at all deny what they were doing, only stating that they did them all sorts of wrong simply by living in their country. The [Jews] replied that they too belonged there and that they harmed no one by honouring their own customs. |
| 60 συνιδὼν οὖν ἈγρίππαςAgrippa βιαζομένους ἀπεκρίνατοto answer ταῦτα· διὰ μὲν τὴν ἩρώδουHerod πρὸς αὐτὸν εὔνοιάν τε καὶ φιλίαν ἕτοιμοςprepared εἶναι πᾶν ὁτιοῦνanyone, anything χαρίζεσθαι ἸουδαίοιςJews, ἃ δὲ ἀξιοῦσιν καὶ καθ᾽ αὑτὰ δίκαια δοκεῖν· ὥστ᾽, εἰ μὲν ἐδέοντο καὶ πλειόνων, οὐκ ἂν ὀκνῆσαι τά γε μὴ λυποῦντα τὴν ῬωμαίωνRoman, Latin ἀρχὴν παρασχεῖν. ἐπεὶ δὲ ἃ καὶ πρότερον εἰλήφασιν ἄκυρα μὴ γενέσθαι, βεβαιοῦν αὐτοῖς ἀνεπηρεάστοις ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις διατελεῖν ἔθεσιν. | 60 Agrippa, therefore, seeing that the Jews were being treated with violence, gave this reply: Because of Herod's goodwill and friendship toward him, he was ready to grant the Jews anything whatsoever, and that what they requested appeared to be just in its own right. Thus, even if they had asked for more, he would not have hesitated to provide it, provided it did not harm the Roman Empire. Since they asked only that what they had previously received not be made void, he confirmed that they should continue to live by their own customs without harassment. |
| 60 So when Agrippa perceived that they had been oppressed by violence, he made this answer: That, on account of Herod’s good-will and friendship, he was ready to grant the Jews whatsoever they should ask him, and that their requests seemed to him in themselves just; and that if they requested any thing further, he should not scruple to grant it them, provided they were no way to the detriment of the Roman government; but that while their request was no more than this, that what privileges they had already given them might not be abrogated, he confirmed this to them, that they might continue in the observation of their own customs, without any one offering them the least injury. And when he had said thus, he dissolved the assembly; | 60 When Agrippa saw that they had been subjected to violence he replied that on account of Herod’s goodwill and friendship, he was ready to grant the Jews whatever they asked and that what they wanted seemed justified, and that if they requested anything else he would not hesitate to grant it provided it was not harmful to Roman rule. Since they had asked only that their already existing rights not be set aside, he confirmed that they could continue observing their customs undisturbed. |
| 61 τοιαῦτα εἰπὼν διέλυε τὸν σύλλογον. ἩρώδηςHerod δὲ προσεστὼς κατησπάζετο καὶ τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν διαθέσεως ὡμολόγει χάριν. ὁ δὲ καὶ εἰς ταῦτα φιλοφρονούμενος ἴσον αὑτὸν παρεῖχεν ἀντεμπλεκόμενος καὶ κατασπαζόμενος. | 61 Having said this, he dissolved the assembly. Herod stood by him, embraced him, and expressed his gratitude for Agrippa's disposition toward him. Agrippa, responding with equal affection, showed himself an equal, embracing and greeting him in return. |
| 61 upon which Herod stood up and saluted him, and gave him thanks for the kind disposition he showed to them. Agrippa also took this in a very obliging manner, and saluted him again, and embraced him in his arms; | 61 After saying this, he dissolved the assembly, and Herod stood up and embraced him and thanked him for his kindness toward him. Agrippa also accepted this most affably and similarly put his arms around him. |
| 62 καὶ τότε μὲν ἀνεχώρησεν· ἀπὸ δὲ Σάμου πλεῖν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐπ᾽ οἴκου διέγνω καὶ τὸν ἈγρίππανAgrippa παραιτησάμενος ἀνήχθη, κατάγεται δ᾽ εἰς ΚαισάρειανCaesarea οὐ πολλαῖς ὕστερον ἡμέραις πνευμάτων ἐπιτηδείωνuseful, necessary τυχών. κἀκεῖθεν ἐλθὼν εἰς ἹεροσόλυμαJerusalem συνήγαγεν ἐκκλησίαν πάνδημον· ἦν δὲ πολὺς κἀκ τῆς χώρας ὄχλος. | 62 Then Herod departed; from Samos the King decided to sail for home, and having taken leave of Agrippa, he set out. He landed at Caesarea not many days later, having met with favorable winds. From there he went up to Jerusalem and gathered a general assembly of the whole people; there was also a great crowd from the countryside. |
| 62 after which he went away from Lesbos; but the king determined to sail from Samos to his own country; and when he had taken his leave of Agrippa, he pursued his voyage, and landed at Caesarea in a few days' time, as having favorable winds; from whence he went to Jerusalem, and there gathered all the people together to an assembly, not a few being there out of the country also. | 62 Then he left for Lesbos, but the king decided to sail from Samos to his own country, and after taking leave of Agrippa voyaged with favourable winds and landed in Caesarea not many days later. From there he went to Jerusalem and gathered a full assembly of the people and many from the country were there too. |
| 63 ὁ δὲ παρελθὼν ἀπολογισμόν τε τῆς ὅλης ἐκδημίας ἐποιήσατο καὶ τὰ περὶ τοὺς ἸουδαίουςJews, ὅσοι κατὰ τὴν ἈσίανAsian ἦσαν, ὡς δι᾽ αὐτὸν ἀνεπηρεάστως εἰς τὸ λοιπὸν ἕξουσιν διηγήσατο. | 63 He came forward and gave an account of his entire journey abroad, and he related the matters concerning the Jews living throughout Asia—how, through his intervention, they would henceforth live without harassment. |
| 63 So he came to them, and gave them a particular account of all his journey, and of the affairs of all the Jews in Asia, how by his means they would live without injurious treatment for the time to come. | 63 He came and explained all about his journey and gave them a detailed report of how due to him the Jews in Asia would live undisturbed in future. |
| 64 τό τε σύμπαν ἐπὶ ταῖς εὐτυχίαις καὶ τῇ διοικήσει τῆς ἀρχῆς [ὡς] οὐδενὸς παραλείποιτο τῶν ἐκείνοις συμφερόντων, ἀγαλλόμενος τὸ τέταρτον τῶν φόρων ἀφίησιν αὐτοῖς τοῦ παρεληλυθότος ἔτους. | 64 Being exultant over his overall successes and the administration of his realm, and showing that he neglected nothing that was to their advantage, he remitted one-fourth of the taxes for the past year. |
| 64 He also told them of the entire good fortune he had met with and how he had administered the government, and had not neglected any thing which was for their advantage; and as he was very joyful, he now remitted to them the fourth part of their taxes for the last year. | 64 He gave them a summary of his good fortune and of his administration of power and how he neglecting nothing that would benefit them, and then in a joyful mood he deducted for them a quarter of their taxes for the last year. |
| 65 οἱ δὲ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ καὶ τῇ χάριτι δεδημαγωγημένοι μετὰ πλείστης χαρᾶς ἀπῄεσαν πολλὰ ἀγαθὰ συνευχόμενοι τῷ βασιλεῖ. | 65 The people, won over both by his speech and by this favor, departed with the greatest joy, offering many blessings for the King." |
| 65 Accordingly, they were so pleased with his favor and speech to them, that they went their ways with great gladness, and wished the king all manner of happiness. | 65 They were so pleased with his speech and with this favour that they went away happily, full of good wishes toward the king. |
The Greek "Silence"
Josephus notes there was "οὐδεμία τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἀντικατάστασις" (no rebuttal from the Greeks). This was not because the Greeks agreed with the Jews, but because they realized that arguing against Herod in front of Agrippa was a losing game. The Greeks relied on "pretext" (πρόφασις), claiming that Jewish religious exemptions were a violation of local civic unity. Agrippa’s ruling effectively told the Greek cities that Roman imperial law on religious tolerance trumped local municipal "annoyances."
Herod as the "Global Jew"
This is the pinnacle of Herod’s "Grand Strategy." By using his Roman connections to protect Jews in Turkey and Greece, he silenced his critics in Jerusalem. He proved that an "Idumaean" king could be more effective at protecting the Torah than the Hasmonean priests ever were. He wasn't just King of Judea; he was the Patron of the Diaspora.
The "Equal" Embrace
The description of Agrippa and Herod embracing as "ἴσον αὑτὸν παρελθεῖν" (showing himself an equal) is a significant detail. Agrippa was the second most powerful man in the world. For him to treat a client king as an "equal" (isos) in public was a massive boost to Herod's prestige. It signaled to everyone—including Herod’s rebellious sons—that the King was untouchable.
The Tax Cut: The Ultimate "Demagoguery"
Herod was a master of political theater. After returning with a massive diplomatic win, he immediately gave a 25% tax break ("τέταρτον τῶν φόρων"). Josephus uses the word "δεδημαγωγημένοι" (won over like a crowd/demagogued). Herod knew that religious rights were great, but direct financial relief was what truly moved the masses. For this brief window in 14 BCE, Herod was genuinely loved.
The "Countryside" (Chora) Presence
Josephus mentions a "πολὺς κἀκ τῆς χώρας ὄχλος" (great crowd from the countryside). Usually, the rural Jewish farmers were the most conservative and most hostile to Herod. The fact that they came to Jerusalem to hear him shows how far his reputation had grown. He was no longer just the "Builder of Cities," but the "Savior of the People."
The "Calm Before the Storm"
This passage is the structural "breathing room" of Book 16. The description ends with "πολλὰ ἀγαθὰ συνευχόμενοι" (offering many blessings). However, Josephus knows—and the reader knows—that this is the absolute end of Herod's happiness. The very next section plunges back into the "poison" of the palace. The "joy" of the people will soon be replaced by the screams of the King's own children in the torture chambers of the Antonia.
Josephus notes there was "οὐδεμία τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἀντικατάστασις" (no rebuttal from the Greeks). This was not because the Greeks agreed with the Jews, but because they realized that arguing against Herod in front of Agrippa was a losing game. The Greeks relied on "pretext" (πρόφασις), claiming that Jewish religious exemptions were a violation of local civic unity. Agrippa’s ruling effectively told the Greek cities that Roman imperial law on religious tolerance trumped local municipal "annoyances."
Herod as the "Global Jew"
This is the pinnacle of Herod’s "Grand Strategy." By using his Roman connections to protect Jews in Turkey and Greece, he silenced his critics in Jerusalem. He proved that an "Idumaean" king could be more effective at protecting the Torah than the Hasmonean priests ever were. He wasn't just King of Judea; he was the Patron of the Diaspora.
The "Equal" Embrace
The description of Agrippa and Herod embracing as "ἴσον αὑτὸν παρελθεῖν" (showing himself an equal) is a significant detail. Agrippa was the second most powerful man in the world. For him to treat a client king as an "equal" (isos) in public was a massive boost to Herod's prestige. It signaled to everyone—including Herod’s rebellious sons—that the King was untouchable.
The Tax Cut: The Ultimate "Demagoguery"
Herod was a master of political theater. After returning with a massive diplomatic win, he immediately gave a 25% tax break ("τέταρτον τῶν φόρων"). Josephus uses the word "δεδημαγωγημένοι" (won over like a crowd/demagogued). Herod knew that religious rights were great, but direct financial relief was what truly moved the masses. For this brief window in 14 BCE, Herod was genuinely loved.
The "Countryside" (Chora) Presence
Josephus mentions a "πολὺς κἀκ τῆς χώρας ὄχλος" (great crowd from the countryside). Usually, the rural Jewish farmers were the most conservative and most hostile to Herod. The fact that they came to Jerusalem to hear him shows how far his reputation had grown. He was no longer just the "Builder of Cities," but the "Savior of the People."
The "Calm Before the Storm"
This passage is the structural "breathing room" of Book 16. The description ends with "πολλὰ ἀγαθὰ συνευχόμενοι" (offering many blessings). However, Josephus knows—and the reader knows—that this is the absolute end of Herod's happiness. The very next section plunges back into the "poison" of the palace. The "joy" of the people will soon be replaced by the screams of the King's own children in the torture chambers of the Antonia.
Chapter 3
[066-086]
Salome plots against Mariamne’s sons.
Herod prefers Antipater over them; they are enraged
[066-086]
Salome plots against Mariamne’s sons.
Herod prefers Antipater over them; they are enraged
| 66 Προύβαινε δ᾽ ἀεὶ τὰ κατὰ τὴν στάσιν τῆς οἰκίας καὶ χαλεπωτέραν ἐλάμβανε τὴν ἐπίδοσιν, ἀντιμεταλαβούσης μὲν ὥσπερ ἐκ κληρονομίας τὸ κατὰ τῶν νεανίσκων μῖσος τῆς ΣαλώμηςSalome καὶ πᾶν ὅσον εὐδοκιμήκει κατὰ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτῶν εἰς ἀπόνοιαν καὶ θράσος λαμβανούσης μηδένα τῶν ἐξ ἐκείνης καταλιπεῖν, ὃς δυνήσεται τιμωρῆσαι τῷ θανάτῳ τῆς δι᾽ αὐτὴν ἀνῃρημένης, | 66 "The discord within the household continued to advance, making a progress toward something ever more severe. Salome had taken up her hatred against the young men as if it were an inheritance; she drew upon everything she had successfully accomplished against their mother [Mariamne] to fuel her desperation and her boldness, determined to leave none of her descendants alive who might be able to avenge the death of the woman she had destroyed. |
| 66 But now the affairs in Herod’s family were in more and more disorder, and became more severe upon him, by the hatred of Salome to the young men [Alexander and Aristobulus], which descended as it were by inheritance [from their mother Mariamne;] and as she had fully succeeded against their mother, so she proceeded to that degree of madness and insolence, as to endeavor that none of her posterity might be left alive, who might have it in their power to revenge her death. | 66 The disharmony in his household grew ever worse due to Salome’s hatred of the youths, which as it were came to them by inheritance. As she had succeeded fully against their mother, she progressed to such madness and malice that she wanted none of that woman’s descendants to be left alive and in a position to avenge her death. |
| 67 ἐχόντων δέ τι καὶ τῶν νεανίσκων θρασὺ καὶ δύσνουν εἰς τὸν γεγεννηκότα μνήμῃ τε τῆς μητρὸς οἷα πάθοι παρὰ τὴν ἀξίαν καὶ τῇ τοῦ κρατεῖν ἐπιθυμίᾳ. | 67 The young men also possessed a certain boldness and ill-will toward their father, both because of the memory of what their mother had suffered—which was contrary to her merit—and because of their own desire for power. |
| 67 The young men had also somewhat of a bold and uneasy disposition towards their father occasioned by the remembrance of what their mother had unjustly suffered, and by their own affectation of dominion. | 67 Furthermore, those[two] youths had a rather reckless hostility toward their father, based on the memory of the injustice their mother had suffered and on their own desire to rule. |
| 68 πάλιν τε τὸ κακὸν ὅμοιον ἐγεγόνει τοῖς πρώτοις, βλασφημίαι μὲν ἐξ ἐκείνων εἴς τε τὴν ΣαλώμηνSalome καὶ τὸν ΦερώρανPheroras, κακοήθειαι δὲ τούτων εἰς τὰ μειράκια καὶ μετὰ πραγματείας ἐπιβουλή· | 68 Thus the evil returned to its original state: there were slanders from the youths against Salome and Pheroras [Herod's brother], while the latter responded with malice and a calculated conspiracy against the lads. |
| 68 The old grudge was also renewed; and they east reproaches on Salome and Pheroras, who requited the young men with malicious designs, and actually laid treacherous snares for them. | 68 The situation now grew worse than before and they said harsh things against Salome and Pheroras, who in revenge felt malicious toward the young men and was busily plotting against them. |
| 69 τὸ μὲν γὰρ μῖσος ἴσον ἦν ἐξ ἀλλήλων, ὁ δὲ τρόπος τοῦ μισεῖν οὐχ ὅμοιος· ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν ἐν τῷ φανερῷ λοιδορηθῆναι καὶ προσονειδίσαι προπετεῖς εὐγενὲς ὑπὸ τῆς ἀπειρίας οἰόμενοι τὸ τῆς ὀργῆς ἀνυπόστολον, οἱ δ᾽ οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, ἀλλὰ πραγματικῶς καὶ κακοήθως ἐχρῶντο ταῖς διαβολαῖς, προέλκοντες ἀεὶ τὰ μειράκια καὶ τὸ θρασὺ καταλογιζόμενοι βίαιον ἔσεσθαι πρὸς τὸν γεγεννηκότα. | 69 For while the hatred on both sides was equal, the manner of hating was not the same. The young men were headstrong, prone to open insults and reproaches, thinking it noble in their inexperience to be unrestrained in their anger. The others, however, did not act in the same way, but employed slanders in a calculated and malicious fashion, constantly provoking the youths and interpreting their boldness as a sign that they would eventually turn violent against their father. |
| 69 Now as for this hatred, it was equal on both sides, but the manner of exerting that hatred was different; for as for the young men, they were rash, reproaching and affronting the others openly, and were inexperienced enough to think it the most generous to declare their minds in that undaunted manner; but the others did not take that method, but made use of calumnies after a subtle and a spiteful manner, still provoking the young men, and imagining that their boldness might in time turn to the offering violence to their father; | 69 The hatred was equal on both sides, but they differed in their way of expressing that hatred. The young men were rash, publicly insulting and confronting the others, and were so inexperienced as to think it nobler to declare their minds quite openly, but the others more effectively opted for spiteful allegations, forever goading the youths in the anticipation that their boldness would eventually lead them to violence. |
| 70 τὸ γὰρ οὐκ αἰδεῖσθαι ταῖς τῆς μητρὸς ἁμαρτίαις οὐδ᾽ οἴεσθαι δίκαια παθεῖν ἐκείνην ἄσχετον εἶναι πρὸς τὸ μὴ τὸν αἴτιον δοκοῦντα τιμωρήσεσθαι καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοχειρίας. | 70 They claimed that the youths' refusal to be ashamed of their mother’s alleged crimes, or to believe that she had suffered justly, was proof of an unbridled spirit that would lead them to seek revenge against the one they held responsible—even by their own hands. |
| 70 for inasmuch as they were not ashamed of the pretended crimes of their mother, nor thought she suffered justly, these supposed that might at length exceed all bounds, and induce them to think they ought to be avenged on their father, though it were by dispatching him with their own hands. | 70 For as they were not ashamed of their mother’s faults and did not believe that her execution was just, one could expect them to finally go overboard and in revenge even kill him with their own hands. |
| 71 τέλος οὖν ἀνεπλήσθηto fill up πᾶσα ἡ πόλις τῶν τοιούτων λόγων καὶ καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς ἀγωνίσμασιν ἠλεεῖτο μὲν ἡ τῶν μειρακίων ἀπειρία, κατίσχυεν δὲ ἡ τῆς ΣαλώμηςSalome ἐπιμέλεια καὶ παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐκείνων τὰς ἀφορμὰς τοῦ μὴ ψευδῆ λέγειν ἐλάμβανεν. | 71 In the end, the whole city was filled with such talk. As if watching a contest, people pitied the inexperience of the youths, yet the calculated persistence of Salome prevailed, as she drew from the boys themselves the pretexts that made her words seem true. |
| 71 At length it came to this, that the whole city was full of their discourses, and, as is usual in such contests, the unskilfulness of the young men was pitied; but the contrivance of Salome was too hard for them, and what imputations she laid upon them came to be believed, by means of their own conduct; | 71 At last the whole city was full of rumours like these, and naturally in such a conflict the naivety of the young men was pitied. Salome’s plan, however, prevailed and her lies against them came to be believed because of their own conduct. |
| 72 οἱ γὰρ οὕτως ἀχθόμενοιto be loaded, vexed τῷ θανάτῳ τῆς μητρός, ἐπειδὴ κἀκείνηνand that one/place/time καὶ σφᾶς αὐτοὺς κακῶς ἔλεγεν, ἐφιλονείκουν ἐλεεινὴν μέν, ὥσπερ ἦν, ἀποφαίνειν τὴν καταστροφὴν τῆς μητρός, ἐλεεινοὺς δὲ αὐτούς, οἳ τοῖς ἐκείνης φονεῦσιν ἀναγκάζονται συζῆν καὶ τῶν αὐτῶν μεταλαμβάνειν. | 72 For since they were so grieved by the death of their mother, and since she [Salome] spoke ill of both her and them, they contended in making their mother's end appear as pitiable as it truly was, and themselves as pitiable for being forced to live with and share the table of their mother’s murderers." |
| 72 for they who were so deeply affected with the death of their mother, that while they said both she and themselves were in a miserable case, they vehemently complained of her pitiable end, which indeed was truly such, and said that they were themselves in a pitiable case also, because they were forced to live with those that had been her murderers, and to be partakers with them. | 72 They were so grieved by their mother’s death that when both she and they were badly spoken of, they complained that she had been pitiably treated, which indeed was true, and that they were also to be pitied for being forced to live close to her murderers and to be civil with them. |
The "Inheritance" of Hatred
Josephus uses the striking term "ὥσπερ ἐκ κληρονομίας" (as if by inheritance) to describe Salome's hatred. In the Herodian court, trauma and vendettas were the only things passed down reliably. Salome recognized a fundamental rule of dynastic survival: if you kill the parents, you must eventually kill the children, or they will kill you.
Symmetrical Hatred, Asymmetrical Tactics
This is a brilliant psychological observation.
The Weaponization of Grief
Salome’s greatest trick was making the sons' love for their mother look like a crime against their father. By mourning Mariamne, the sons were implicitly calling Herod a murderer. Salome framed this mourning as "βίαιον" (violent intent). She convinced Herod that a son who misses his mother is a son who wants to kill his father.
The Role of the "City" (Jerusalem)
Josephus notes that the "πᾶσα ἡ πόλις" (the whole city) was watching. The palace was not a private residence; it was a theater. The public treated the royal family’s collapse like an "ἀγωνίσμασιν" (athletic contest or drama). This highlights how the domestic tragedy of the King was actually a matter of national security and public entertainment.
The Tragedy of the "Murderer's Table"
The passage ends with a heartbreaking image: the sons are "ἀναγκάζονται συζῆν" (forced to live with) the people who killed their mother. In the ancient world, sharing a table was a sign of "koinonia" (fellowship). For the sons, every meal with Herod, Salome, and Pheroras was a ritual of psychological torture. This "forced intimacy" is what ultimately drove them to the reckless behavior that Salome exploited.
Herod’s Disappearing "Nature"
In earlier sections, Josephus mentioned Herod's natural fatherly affection (philsostorgia). Here, we see that affection being eroded by a "plausible" narrative. Salome didn't have to prove the boys had a sword; she only had to prove they had the motive to pick one up.
Josephus uses the striking term "ὥσπερ ἐκ κληρονομίας" (as if by inheritance) to describe Salome's hatred. In the Herodian court, trauma and vendettas were the only things passed down reliably. Salome recognized a fundamental rule of dynastic survival: if you kill the parents, you must eventually kill the children, or they will kill you.
Symmetrical Hatred, Asymmetrical Tactics
This is a brilliant psychological observation.
1) The Sons (Alexander & Aristobulus): They represent "ἀπειρία" (inexperience). They believe that being "honest" and "noble" means being loud. They insult Salome to her face, which makes them feel brave but leaves them vulnerable.
2) The Conspirators (Salome & Pheroras): They represent "πραγματικῶς" (calculated/practical) malice. They don't fight; they observe. They wait for the sons to say something impulsive, then they report it to Herod as evidence of a "murderous plot."
The Weaponization of Grief
Salome’s greatest trick was making the sons' love for their mother look like a crime against their father. By mourning Mariamne, the sons were implicitly calling Herod a murderer. Salome framed this mourning as "βίαιον" (violent intent). She convinced Herod that a son who misses his mother is a son who wants to kill his father.
The Role of the "City" (Jerusalem)
Josephus notes that the "πᾶσα ἡ πόλις" (the whole city) was watching. The palace was not a private residence; it was a theater. The public treated the royal family’s collapse like an "ἀγωνίσμασιν" (athletic contest or drama). This highlights how the domestic tragedy of the King was actually a matter of national security and public entertainment.
The Tragedy of the "Murderer's Table"
The passage ends with a heartbreaking image: the sons are "ἀναγκάζονται συζῆν" (forced to live with) the people who killed their mother. In the ancient world, sharing a table was a sign of "koinonia" (fellowship). For the sons, every meal with Herod, Salome, and Pheroras was a ritual of psychological torture. This "forced intimacy" is what ultimately drove them to the reckless behavior that Salome exploited.
Herod’s Disappearing "Nature"
In earlier sections, Josephus mentioned Herod's natural fatherly affection (philsostorgia). Here, we see that affection being eroded by a "plausible" narrative. Salome didn't have to prove the boys had a sword; she only had to prove they had the motive to pick one up.
| 73 Ταῦτα προῄει μειζόνως καιρὸν ἐχούσης τῆς στάσεως ἐν ἀποδημίᾳ τοῦ βασιλέως. ὡς δ᾽ ἐπανῆλθεν ἩρώδηςHerod καὶ τῷ πλήθει διελέξατο, καθὼς προειρήκαμεν, προσέπιπτον εὐθὺς οἱ λόγοι παρά τε τοῦ ΦερώραPheroras καὶ τῆς ΣαλώμηςSalome μέγαν αὐτῷ τὸν κίνδυνον εἶναι τὸν παρὰ τῶν νεανίσκων ἀνάφανδα διαπειλουμένων, ὡς οὐκ ἀνέξονται μὴ τισάμενοι τῆς μητρὸς τὸν φόνον. | 73 "These matters proceeded to grow worse while the discord had its opportunity during the King’s absence. When Herod returned and addressed the multitude, as we said before, reports immediately fell upon him from Pheroras and Salome that he was in great danger from the young men, who were openly threatening that they would not endure the murder of their mother without taking vengeance. |
| 73 These disorders increased greatly, and the king’s absence abroad had afforded a fit opportunity for that increase; but as soon as Herod was returned, and had made the forementioned speech to the multitude, Pheroras and Salome let fall words immediately as if he were in great danger, and as if the young men openly threatened that they would not spare him any longer, but revenge their mother’s death upon him. | 73 These grounds of dissension greatly increased during the king’s absence and when Herod returned and had addressed the crowd as we have said, Pheroras and Salome immediately prompted the rumour that he was in great danger and that the youths were publicly threatening to no longer postpone taking revenge for their mother’s death. |
| 74 προσετίθεσαν δ᾽ ἔτι καὶ ὡς ταῖς παρ᾽ ἈρχελάουArchelaus τοῦ Καππάδοκος ἐλπίσιν ἐπανέχοιεν, ὡς δι᾽ ἐκείνου πρός τε ΚαίσαραCaesar ἀφιξόμενοι καὶ κατηγορήσοντες τοῦ πατρός. | 74 They further added that the youths were leaning on their hopes from Archelaus, the King of Cappadocia, intending to go to Caesar [Augustus] through his mediation and bring accusations against their father. |
| 74 They also added another circumstance, that their hopes were fixed on Archelaus, the king of Cappadocia, that they should be able by his means to come to Caesar, and accuse their father. | 74 To this they added that their hopes were fixed on Archelaus, the king of Cappadocia, with whose help they would go to Caesar and accuse their father. |
| 75 ἩρώδηςHerod δὲ ἐτετάρακτο μὲν εὐθὺς ἀκούσας τοιούτων, ἐξεπέπληκτο δὲ μᾶλλον, ὅτι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τινὲς ἀπήγγελλον, ἀνέκαμπτε τῇ συμφορᾷ τά τε πρῶτα καταλογιζόμενος ὡς οὔτε τῶν φιλτάτων οὔτε τῆς στεργομένης αὐτῷ γυναικὸς ὤνατο διὰ τὰς ἐγγινομένας ταραχὰς κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν, τό τε μᾶλλον τοῦ προσπεπτωκότος ἤδη βαρὺ καὶ μεῖζον ἐκείνων ὑπολαμβάνων ἐν συγχύσει τῆς ψυχῆς ἦν. | 75 Herod was immediately troubled upon hearing such things, but he was even more terrified because others also reported the same. He was unhinged by the calamity, reflecting on how he had enjoyed neither his closest kin nor the wife he had loved because of the disturbances arising within his household. Believing this present report to be even heavier and greater than those past troubles, he was in a state of mental confusion. |
| 75 Upon hearing such things, Herod was immediately disturbed; and indeed was the more astonished, because the same things were related to him by some others also. He then called to mind his former calamity, and considered that the disorders in his family had hindered him from enjoying any comfort from those that were dearest to him or from his wife whom he loved so well; and suspecting that his future troubles would soon be heavier and greater than those that were past, he was in great confusion of mind; | 75 Hearing such things, Herod was immediately troubled, all the more so when the same things were reported to him by others. He called to mind his earlier plight and considered that the disorders within his family were preventing him from enjoying any comfort from those dearest to him or from his wife whom he loved so well. Suspecting also that his troubles in future would soon be weightier and greater than those of the past, he was confused in mind, |
| 76 τῷ γὰρ ὄντι πλεῖστα μὲν καὶ παρ᾽ ἐλπίδας τῶν ἔξωθεν εἰς εὐτυχίαν αὐτῷ τὸ δαιμόνιον προσετίθει, μέγιστα δὲ τῶν οἴκοι καὶ μηδὲ προσδοκώμενα δυστυχεῖν αὐτῷ συνέβαινεν, ἑκατέρου προιόντος ὡς οὐκ ἄν τις ᾠήθη καὶ παρέχοντος ἀμφήριστον τὴν ὑπερβολήν, εἰ | 76 In truth, the demon (daimonion) was adding to his outward success far beyond his hopes, yet it happened that he suffered the greatest and most unexpected misfortunes at home. Each side of his life proceeded in a way one would not have thought possible, providing a contest of extremes: |
| 76 for Divine Providence had in reality conferred upon him a great many outward advantages for his happiness, even beyond his hopes; but the troubles he had at home were such as he never expected to have met with, and rendered him unfortunate; nay, both sorts came upon him to such a degree as no one could imagine, and made it a doubtful question, | 76 for some daemon had truly conferred upon him many outward advantages even beyond his hopes, but his domestic troubles were beyond the normal and rendered him unfortunate. Indeed both of these affected him to such an unimaginable degree that comparing them it is hard to say |
| 77 δέον τὴν τοσαύτην εὐτυχίαν τῶν ἔξωθεν πραγμάτων ἀλλάξασθαι τῶν οἴκοι κακῶν, ἢ τοιοῦτο μέγεθος τῶν περὶ τοὺς οἰκείους συμφορῶν διαφυγεῖν ἐν τῷ μηδὲ τὰ τῆς βασιλείας θαυμαζόμενα κεκτῆσθαι. | 77 whether it was worth exchanging such great outward success for his domestic evils, or whether it would have been better to escape such a magnitude of family disasters by not possessing even the most admired glories of his kingship. |
| 77 whether, upon the comparison of both, he ought to have exchanged so great a success of outward good things for so great misfortunes at home, or whether he ought not to have chosen to avoid the calamities relating to his family, though he had, for a compensation, never been possessed of the admired grandeur of a kingdom. | 77 whether he would have exchanged his great success in outward things for such misfortunes at home, or whether he ought not choose to avoid his domestic troubles even if he must never experience his remarkably successful kingship. |
The "Ambush" of the Return
Notice the timing of the conspirators. They waited until Herod had finished his public "victory lap" with the people before striking. By hitting him while he was still "high" from his diplomatic success, they made the contrast of the "threat" even more jarring. Salome and Pheroras knew that Herod’s greatest fear was losing the very power he had just consolidated.
The Cappadocia Connection
The mention of Archelaus of Cappadocia was a masterstroke of slander. Archelaus was the father-in-law of Herod's son, Alexander. By claiming the boys were looking to a foreign king for help to reach Caesar, the conspirators turned a family squabble into a matter of High Treason. In Herod's mind, a son who appeals to Rome against his father is a son who is already reaching for the crown.
The "Confused Soul" (Synchysei tēs Psychēs)
Josephus uses the term "ἐν συγχύσει τῆς ψυχῆς" (in a confusion of the soul). This is a clinical description of Herod's mental breakdown. He was a man who ruled with iron logic in public, but in private, he was haunted by the ghosts of those he had killed—most notably Mariamne. The mention that he "enjoyed neither his kin nor the wife he loved" shows that his guilt was the primary engine of his paranoia.
The Philosophical Paradox
Josephus pauses the narrative to offer a profound meditation on the "Extreme of Fortune." He frames Herod’s life as a zero-sum game:
Josephus frequently uses "τὸ δαιμόνιον" to describe a semi-impersonal divine force or fate. In this context, it suggests a "poetic justice." Because Herod rose to power through the blood of the Hasmoneans, the "Deity" ensures that his power brings him no joy. His "outward success" is almost a mockery of his "inward ruin."
Open Threats or Calculated Lies?
The text says the youths were "ἀνάφανδα διαπειλουμένων" (openly threatening). Whether the boys actually said these things or Salome simply convinced Herod they did is the central mystery. In the Herodian court, the rumor of a threat was just as lethal as a drawn sword. Herod was now "terrified" (exepeplēkto), and a terrified Herod was a man who would soon begin the executions.
Notice the timing of the conspirators. They waited until Herod had finished his public "victory lap" with the people before striking. By hitting him while he was still "high" from his diplomatic success, they made the contrast of the "threat" even more jarring. Salome and Pheroras knew that Herod’s greatest fear was losing the very power he had just consolidated.
The Cappadocia Connection
The mention of Archelaus of Cappadocia was a masterstroke of slander. Archelaus was the father-in-law of Herod's son, Alexander. By claiming the boys were looking to a foreign king for help to reach Caesar, the conspirators turned a family squabble into a matter of High Treason. In Herod's mind, a son who appeals to Rome against his father is a son who is already reaching for the crown.
The "Confused Soul" (Synchysei tēs Psychēs)
Josephus uses the term "ἐν συγχύσει τῆς ψυχῆς" (in a confusion of the soul). This is a clinical description of Herod's mental breakdown. He was a man who ruled with iron logic in public, but in private, he was haunted by the ghosts of those he had killed—most notably Mariamne. The mention that he "enjoyed neither his kin nor the wife he loved" shows that his guilt was the primary engine of his paranoia.
The Philosophical Paradox
Josephus pauses the narrative to offer a profound meditation on the "Extreme of Fortune." He frames Herod’s life as a zero-sum game:
1) Outward Success: The Temple, the cities, the friendship of Augustus and Agrippa.
2) Inward Misery: The execution of his wife, the betrayal of his sister, the looming death of his sons.
Josephus suggests that Herod’s life was a "contest" (amphēriston) between these two poles, posing a question common in Greek tragedy: Is any amount of power worth the destruction of one's own house? The "Deity/demon" (To Daimonion)Josephus frequently uses "τὸ δαιμόνιον" to describe a semi-impersonal divine force or fate. In this context, it suggests a "poetic justice." Because Herod rose to power through the blood of the Hasmoneans, the "Deity" ensures that his power brings him no joy. His "outward success" is almost a mockery of his "inward ruin."
Open Threats or Calculated Lies?
The text says the youths were "ἀνάφανδα διαπειλουμένων" (openly threatening). Whether the boys actually said these things or Salome simply convinced Herod they did is the central mystery. In the Herodian court, the rumor of a threat was just as lethal as a drawn sword. Herod was now "terrified" (exepeplēkto), and a terrified Herod was a man who would soon begin the executions.
| 78 Ταρασσόμενος δὲ καὶ διακείμενος τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ἐπὶ καθαιρέσει τῶν μειρακίων ἕτερον αὐτῷ γενόμενον ἰδιωτεύοντι παῖδα προσήγετο καὶ τοῦτον ἐδόκει τιμᾶν, ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ ἈντίπατροςAntipater, οὐχ ὥσπερ ἐν ὑστέρῳ καὶ τελέως ἡττηθεὶς αὐτοῦ καὶ πάντ᾽ εἰς ἐκεῖνον ἀναφέρων, | 78 "Being troubled and disposed in this manner toward the downfall of the youths, Herod brought forward another son of his, who had been living as a private citizen, and decided to honor him; he was called Antipater. He did this not because he was yet entirely overcome by him— |
| 78 As he was thus disturbed and afflicted, in order to depress these young men, he brought to court another of his sons, that was born to him when he was a private man; his name was Antipater; yet did he not then indulge him as he did afterwards, when he was quite overcome by him, and let him do every thing as he pleased, | 78 In this troubled and unhappy state, in order to quell these youths, he brought to court another of his sons who was born to him before he came to power, the one called Antipater. At first he did not indulge him as he did later, when he was quite dominated by him and let him do as he pleased. |
| 79 οἰόμενος δὲ παραιρήσεσθαι τοῦ θράσους τοὺς ἐκ ΜαριάμμηςMariamne καὶ μᾶλλον εἰς νουθεσίαν τὴν ἐκείνων οἰκονομῶν αὐτό. τὸ γὰρ αὔθαδες οὐκ ἂν [εἴη] παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς, εἰ τοῦτο πεισθεῖεν, ὅτι μὴ μόνοις μηδ᾽ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἡ διαδοχὴ τῆς βασιλείας ὀφείλεται. | 79 as happened later when he referred everything to him—but thinking that he would strip the sons of Mariamne of their boldness, managing the situation as a form of admonition to them. For he believed they would lose their arrogance if they were convinced that the succession of the kingdom was not owed to them alone nor by necessity. |
| 79 but rather with a design of depressing the insolence of the sons of Mariamne, and managing this elevation of his so, that it might be for a warning to them; for this bold behavior of theirs [he thought] would not be so great, if they were once persuaded that the succession to the kingdom did not appertain to them alone, or must of necessity come to them. | 79 Now however, wanting to quell the insolence of the sons of Mariamne he elevated his other son as a warning to them. Their bold behaviour would calm down once they were persuaded that the succession to the kingdom did not automatically belong to them alone. |
| 80 διὸ καὶ καθάπερ ἔφεδρόν τινα τὸν ἈντίπατρονAntipater εἰσῆγεν οἰόμενος ὀρθῶς προνοεῖν καὶ κατασταλέντων τῶν μειρακίων ἐξεῖναι εὐκαίρως χρῆσθαι βελτίοσιν. | 80 Therefore, he introduced Antipater as a kind of 'reserve' (ephidron), thinking he was providing wisely for the future so that, once the youths were subdued, he might be able to make timely use of those who proved better. |
| 80 So he introduced Antipater as their antagonist, and imagined that he made a good provision for discouraging their pride, and that after this was done to the young men, there might be a proper season for expecting these to be of a better disposition; | 80 So he introduced Antipater as their rival, thinking this would succeed and that once the pride of the youths was checked they would be easier for him to manage. |
| 81 τὸ δ᾽ οὐχ ὥσπερ ἐνόησεν ἀπέβη· τοῖς τε γὰρ παισὶν οὐ μετρίως ἐδόκει κεχρῆσθαι τῇ πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐπηρείᾳ, καὶ δεινὸς ὢν τὸν τρόπον ἈντίπατροςAntipater, ἐπειδὴ παρρησίας τινὸς τῆς οὐ πρότερον οὔσης ἐλπίδος ἀντεποιήσατο, μίαν ἔσχεν ὑπόθεσιν κακοῦ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς μὴ παραχωρεῖν τῶν πρωτείων, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχεσθαιto have, hold τοῦ πατρός, ἤδη μὲν ἠλλοτριωμένου ταῖς διαβολαῖς, εὐμεταχειρίστου δ᾽ ὄντος εἰς ὅπερ ἐσπουδάκει, πολὺ χαλεπώτερον ἀεὶ γενέσθαι τοῖς διαβεβλημένοις. | 81 But it did not turn out as he intended. To the sons, it seemed a great outrage against them; and Antipater, being terrible in his character, once he had laid claim to a freedom of speech (parrhesia) he previously had no hope for, had only one objective: not to yield the first place to his brothers. He took hold of his father, who was already alienated by slanders and easily handled for the purpose Antipater intended, ensuring that things became ever more severe for those already being slandered. |
| 81 but the event proved otherwise than he intended, for the young men thought he did them a very great injury; and as Antipater was a shrewd man, when he had once obtained this degree of freedom, and began to expect greater things than he had before hoped for, he had but one single design in his head, and that was to distress his brethren, and not at all to yield to them the pre-eminence, but to keep close to his father, who was already alienated from them by the calumnies he had heard about them, and ready to be brought upon in any way his zeal against them should advise him to pursue, that he might be continually more and more severe against them. | 81 But it did not turn out as planned, for the boys felt that his action was unjust and provocative to them, and as Antipater was shrewd in his ways, when he got this level of freedom and began to have previously unhoped-for prospects, the only thought in his head was how to harm his brothers. To stop them from gaining pre-eminence he would keep close to his father, already alienated from them by allegation and apt to become much more severe on them if stirred by any further means he could plot. |
| 82 ἦσαν οὖν οὐ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ μόνου οἱ λόγοι φυλαττομένου δι᾽ αὑτοῦ δόξαι τὰ τοιαῦτα καταμηνύειν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἐχρῆτο συνεργοῖς τοῖς ἀνυπόπτοις καὶ διὰ τὴν εὔνοιαν τὴν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα πιστευθησομένοις αὐτὸ ποιεῖν. | 82 Thus, the reports did not come from Antipater alone; he was careful not to appear to be the informant himself. Instead, he made use of accomplices who were above suspicion and who would be believed to be acting out of goodwill toward the King. |
| 82 Accordingly, all the reports that were spread abroad came from him, while he avoided himself the suspicion as if those discoveries proceeded from him; but he rather chose to make use of those persons for his assistants that were unsuspected, and such as might be believed to speak truth by reason of the good-will they bore to the king; | 82 Not every rumour spreading around came from him as he avoided being suspected of starting them by using collaborators who were above suspicion and would be believed to be speaking out because of their goodwill toward the king. |
| 83 ἤδη δὲ πλείους ἐγεγόνεισαν οἱ κἀκεῖνον ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἠλπίκει θεραπεύοντες καὶ τὸν ἩρώδηνHerōd ἐκ τοῦ δοκεῖν κατ᾽ εὔνοιαν τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγειν ὑπαγόμενοι. Καὶ τούτων πολυπροσώπως καὶ πιστῶς ἀλλήλοις συναγωνιζομένων ἔτι καὶ μᾶλλον αἱ παρὰ τῶν μειρακίων ἀφορμαὶ προσεγίνοντο· | 83 By now, many had gathered—some courting Antipater for what they hoped to gain, others inducing Herod to believe they spoke out of goodwill. With these people acting as teammates in many guises and with mutual trust, even more pretexts were provided by the youths. |
| 83 and indeed there were already not a few who cultivated a friendship with Antipater, in hopes of gaining somewhat by him, and these were the men who most of all persuaded Herod, because they appeared to speak thus out of their good-will to him: and with these joint accusations, which from various foundations supported one another’s veracity, the young men themselves afforded further occasions to Antipater also; | 83 Already there were not a few cultivating his friendship on account of his prospects and it was mainly they who persuaded Herod, seeming to say such things out of goodwill. On top of these accusations, all the more credible for coming from various sides, the youths furnished further chances to attack them. |
| 84 καὶ γὰρ καὶ δάκρυα πολλάκις ἦν κατ᾽ ἐπήρειαν ὧν ἠτιμάζοντο καὶ τῆς μητρὸς ἀνάκλησις καὶ τὸν πατέρα φανερῶς ἤδη πρὸς τοὺς φίλους οὐ δίκαιον ἐλέγχειν ἐπετήδευον, ἅπερ ἅπαντα κακοήθως ὑπὸ τῶν περὶ τὸν ἈντίπατρονAntipater καιροφυλακούμενα καὶ μειζόνως πρὸς τὸν ἩρώδηνHerōd ἐξαγγελλόμενα προύβαινεν οὐ μικρὰν ἀπεργαζόμενα τὴν τῆς οἰκίας στάσιν. | 84 For there were often tears because of the insults they suffered, and they would call upon the name of their mother, and they openly made it their habit to accuse their father of injustice before their friends. All these things were maliciously watched for by the circle of Antipater and reported to Herod in an exaggerated way, advancing the discord of the household to no small degree. |
| 84 for they were observed to shed tears often, on account of the injury that was offered them, and had their mother in their mouths; and among their friends they ventured to reproach their father, as not acting justly by them; all which things were with an evil intention reserved in memory by Antipater against a proper opportunity; and when they were told to Herod, with aggravations, increased the disorder so much, that it brought a great tumult into the family; | 84 For they were often seen in tears for the cruel dishonour done to them and talking about their mother, and among their friends they blamed their father for treating them unjustly. All such things were maliciously stored up by Antipater for the right occasion and when they were told to Herod, and elaborated upon, they heightened the tension and brought great discord into the family. |
| 85 ἀχθόμενος γὰρ ὁ βασιλεὺς ταῖς διαβολαῖς καὶ ταπεινῶσαι βουλόμενος τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ΜαριάμμηςMariamne μείζονα ἀεὶ πρὸς τιμὴν ἈντιπάτρῳAntipater παρεῖχεν, καὶ τέλος ἡττηθεὶς ἐπεισήγαγε μὲν τὴν ἐκείνου μητέρα, ΚαίσαριCaesar δὲ πολλάκις γράφων ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰδίᾳ συνίστη σπουδαιότερον. | 85 The King, distressed by the slanders and wishing to humble the sons of Mariamne, constantly granted greater honor to Antipater. Finally, being overcome, he brought back Antipater’s mother [Doris] and wrote frequently to Caesar [Augustus] in his favor, recommending him most earnestly in private. |
| 85 for while the king was very angry at imputations that were laid upon the sons of Mariamne, and was desirous to humble them, he still increased the honor that he had bestowed on Antipater, and was at last so overcome by his persuasions, that he brought his mother to court also. He also wrote frequently to Caesar in favor of him, and more earnestly recommended him to his care particularly. | 85 The king was very angry about these allegations and wishing to humble Mariamne’s sons he continued to show more honour to Antipater, and finally was so won over by him that he brought back his mother and often wrote to Caesar in his favour, commending him to his particular care. |
| 86 ἈγρίππουAgrippa γε μὴν ἀνιόντος εἰς τὴν ῬώμηνRome μετὰ τὴν διοίκησιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς ἈσίαςAsia δεκαετῆ γεγενημένην, πλεύσας ἀπὸ τῆς ἸουδαίαςJudea καὶ συντυγχάνων μόνον τε τὸν ἈντίπατρονAntipater ἐπήγετο καὶ παρέδωκεν εἰς ῬώμηνRome ἀνάγειν μετὰ πολλῶν δώρων ΚαίσαριCaesar φίλον ἐσόμενον, ὥστε ἤδη πάντα δοκεῖν ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνῳ καὶ παρεῶσθαι παντάπασιν ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς τὰ μειράκια. | 86 When Agrippa returned to Rome after his ten-year administration of Asia, Herod sailed from Judea and met him, taking only Antipater with him. He delivered Antipater to be taken to Rome with many gifts, that he might become a friend to Caesar; thus, it seemed that everything now depended on him, and that the youths were entirely pushed aside from the succession." |
| 86 And when Agrippa was returning to Rome, after he had finished his ten years' government in Asia. Herod sailed from Judea; and when he met with him, he had none with him but Antipater, whom he delivered to Agrippa, that he might take him along with him, together with many presents, that so he might become Caesar’s friend, insomuch that things already looked as if he had all his father’s favor, and that the young men were already entirely rejected from any hopes of the kingdom. | 86 When Agrippa was returning to Rome after administering Asia for ten years, Herod sailed from Judea, and when they met, the only one to accompany him was Antipater, whom he gave over to Agrippa to bring with him, along with many gifts, to become a friend of Caesar. Now he seemed to have all in his hands and that the youths were excluded from any prospect of the kingdom. |
Antipater as the "Ephidros"
Josephus uses the technical term "ἔφεδρον" (ephidros). In Greek athletics, this was the "spare" or "reserve" athlete who sat out a match to wrestle the winner. Herod viewed Antipater as a tool of psychological warfare—a way to tell Alexander and Aristobulus, "You are replaceable." He did not realize that by giving a man like Antipater a taste of power, he was creating a competitor who would stop at nothing to eliminate the "rightful" heirs.
The "Terrible" Character of Antipater
Antipater is the true villain of the latter half of Herod's life. Josephus describes him as "δεινὸς ὢν τὸν τρόπον" (terrible/formidable in character). Unlike the Hasmonean sons, who were impulsive and loud, Antipater was a master of "πολυπροσώπως" (acting with many faces). He realized that he shouldn't be the one reporting the rumors to Herod; he needed "unsuspecting" third parties to do it so that the slanders seemed objective.
The Trap of the "Murderer's Table" (Part II)
The Hasmonean sons reacted to their father's insults with "δάκρυα" (tears) and "ἀνάκλησις" (calling upon their mother). In the ancient world, public grief for a person the King had executed was viewed as a political protest. Antipater’s spies "watched for the right moment" ("καιροφυλακούμενα") to report these emotional outbursts as evidence of a coup in the making.
The Return of Doris
By bringing back Doris, the wife he had divorced to marry the royal Hasmonean Mariamne, Herod was signaling a total reversal of his dynastic policy. He was effectively "un-making" the Hasmonean alliance. This was a massive insult to the Jewish aristocracy and the priesthood, who saw the Hasmonean sons as their only hope for a legitimate future.
Diplomacy as Disinheritance
The most crushing blow was Herod's decision to take only Antipater to meet Agrippa and send him to Rome. Sending a son to Rome was the ancient equivalent of declaring him the "Heir Apparent." By presenting Antipater to Augustus, Herod was attempting to override the previous promises he had made to the Hasmonean line.
The Failure of "Admonition"
Herod’s plan to use Antipater for "νουθεσίαν" (admonition/warning) failed because he underestimated the lethality of palace politics. He thought he was "managing" (oikonomōn) his sons' behavior, but he was actually fueling a fire. By the end of this passage, Herod is no longer the master of his house; he is a man "ἡττηθεὶς" (overcome/defeated) by the slanders of his own eldest son.
Josephus uses the technical term "ἔφεδρον" (ephidros). In Greek athletics, this was the "spare" or "reserve" athlete who sat out a match to wrestle the winner. Herod viewed Antipater as a tool of psychological warfare—a way to tell Alexander and Aristobulus, "You are replaceable." He did not realize that by giving a man like Antipater a taste of power, he was creating a competitor who would stop at nothing to eliminate the "rightful" heirs.
The "Terrible" Character of Antipater
Antipater is the true villain of the latter half of Herod's life. Josephus describes him as "δεινὸς ὢν τὸν τρόπον" (terrible/formidable in character). Unlike the Hasmonean sons, who were impulsive and loud, Antipater was a master of "πολυπροσώπως" (acting with many faces). He realized that he shouldn't be the one reporting the rumors to Herod; he needed "unsuspecting" third parties to do it so that the slanders seemed objective.
The Trap of the "Murderer's Table" (Part II)
The Hasmonean sons reacted to their father's insults with "δάκρυα" (tears) and "ἀνάκλησις" (calling upon their mother). In the ancient world, public grief for a person the King had executed was viewed as a political protest. Antipater’s spies "watched for the right moment" ("καιροφυλακούμενα") to report these emotional outbursts as evidence of a coup in the making.
The Return of Doris
By bringing back Doris, the wife he had divorced to marry the royal Hasmonean Mariamne, Herod was signaling a total reversal of his dynastic policy. He was effectively "un-making" the Hasmonean alliance. This was a massive insult to the Jewish aristocracy and the priesthood, who saw the Hasmonean sons as their only hope for a legitimate future.
Diplomacy as Disinheritance
The most crushing blow was Herod's decision to take only Antipater to meet Agrippa and send him to Rome. Sending a son to Rome was the ancient equivalent of declaring him the "Heir Apparent." By presenting Antipater to Augustus, Herod was attempting to override the previous promises he had made to the Hasmonean line.
The Failure of "Admonition"
Herod’s plan to use Antipater for "νουθεσίαν" (admonition/warning) failed because he underestimated the lethality of palace politics. He thought he was "managing" (oikonomōn) his sons' behavior, but he was actually fueling a fire. By the end of this passage, Herod is no longer the master of his house; he is a man "ἡττηθεὶς" (overcome/defeated) by the slanders of his own eldest son.
Chapter 4
[087-135]
Before Augustus, Herod accuses Mariamne’s sons of disloyalty.
Alexander’s defence, and reconciliation with his father
[087-135]
Before Augustus, Herod accuses Mariamne’s sons of disloyalty.
Alexander’s defence, and reconciliation with his father
| 87 Πρὸς μὲν οὖν τιμὴν καὶ τὸ πρῶτον εἶναι δοκεῖν ἈντιπάτρῳAntipater προυχώρει τὰ κατὰ τὴν ἀποδημίαν · καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῇ ῬώμῃRome πᾶσιν ἐπεσταλκότος ἩρώδουHerod τοῖς φίλοις διάσημος ἦν· | 87 "As for Antipater, the matters concerning his journey abroad proceeded toward honor and the appearance of being the foremost heir; for even in Rome, he became distinguished since Herod had written to all his friends. |
| 87 And now what happened during Antipater’s absence augmented the honor to which he had been promoted, and his apparent eminence above his brethren; for he had made a great figure in Rome, because Herod had sent recommendations of him to all his friends there; | 87 During his absence the status and preeminence of Antipater grew, for he became a celebrity in Rome, where Herod had written to all his friends about him. |
| 88 ἤχθετο δὲ τῷ μὴ παρεῖναι μηδὲ ἔχειν ἐξ εὐκαίρου διαβάλλειν ἀεὶ τοὺς ἀδελφούς, καὶ μᾶλλον ἐδεδοίκει μεταβολὴν τοῦ πατρός, εἴ τι καὶ καθ᾽ αὑτὸν ἀξιώσει ἐπιεικέστερον εἰς τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ΜαριάμμηςMariamne φρονεῖν. | 88 However, he was vexed at not being present, as he lacked the opportunity to constantly slander his brothers. He feared a change of heart in his father, should Herod, on his own, decide to think more kindly toward the sons of Mariamne. |
| 88 only he was grieved that he was not at home, nor had proper opportunities of perpetually calumniating his brethren; and his chief fear was, lest his father should alter his mind, and entertain a more favorable opinion of the sons of Mariamne; | 88 But it irked him not to be at home with a constant opportunity to calumniate his brothers, and his main fear was that left on his own his father might change his mind and come to view the sons of Mariamne more favourably. |
| 89 ταῦτα δὲ δι᾽ ἐννοίας ἔχων οὐκ ἀφίστατο τῆς ἑαυτοῦ προαιρέσεως, ἀλλὰ κἀκεῖθεν, ὅτε ἀνιάσειν τι καὶ παροξυνεῖν ἤλπιζεν τὸν πατέρα κατὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν, συνεχῶς ἐπέστελλεν, πρόφασιν μὲν ὡς ὑπεραγωνιῶν αὐτοῦ, τὸ δὲ ἀληθὲς ἀφ᾽ ἧς εἶχεν [ἐν] φύσει κακοηθείας τὴν ἐλπίδα μεγάλην καὶ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν οὖσαν ἐμπορευόμενος, | 89 Keeping these thoughts in mind, he did not stray from his purpose; even from Rome, whenever he hoped to grieve or provoke his father against his brothers, he sent letters continuously. He used the pretext of being exceedingly concerned for Herod’s safety, but in truth, he was trading on the great hope he held—which was inherent in his malicious nature. |
| 89 and as he had this in his mind, he did not desist from his purpose, but continually sent from Rome any such stories as he hoped might grieve and irritate his father against his brethren, under pretense indeed of a deep concern for his preservation, but in truth such as his malicious mind dictated, in order to purchase a greater hope of the succession, which yet was already great in itself: | 89 With this in mind, he did not relent in his endeavour but kept sending from Rome stories that he hoped would irritate and anger his father against the brothers, under pretext of a deep concern for him but in fact prompted by his malicious nature and to strengthen his hopes, which were already strong. |
| 90 ἕως εἰς τοῦτο προήγαγεν τὸν ἩρώδηνHerōd ὀργῆς καὶ δυσφημίας, ὡς ἤδη μὲν ἔχων δυσμενῶς τοῖς μειρακίοις, ἐν δὲ κατοκνεῖν εἰς τοιοῦτον ἐμβῆναι πάθος, ὡς μήτ᾽ ἀμελῶν μήτ᾽ ἐκ προπετείας ἁμαρτάνοι, κρεῖττον ἡγήσατο πλεύσας εἰς ῬώμηνRome ἐκεῖ τῶν παίδων κατηγορεῖν παρὰ ΚαίσαριCaesar, καὶ μηδὲν αὑτῷ τοιοῦτον ἐπιτρέπειν, ὃ καὶ διὰ μέγεθος τῆς ἀσεβείαςungodliness ὕποπτον ἦν. | 90 Eventually, he drove Herod to such a point of rage and ill-repute that the King, though already hostile to the youths, hesitated to give way to such a violent passion [as execution] on his own. To ensure he neither neglected his safety nor erred through rashness, he judged it better to sail to Rome and there accuse his sons before Caesar, rather than taking upon himself a deed so suspected of great impiety. |
| 90 and thus he did till he had excited such a degree of anger in Herod, that he was already become very ill-disposed towards the young men; but still while he delayed to exercise so violent a disgust against them, and that he might not either be too remiss or too rash, and so offend, he thought it best to sail to Rome, and there accuse his sons before Caesar, and not indulge himself in any such crime as might be heinous enough to be suspected of impiety. | 90 Eventually Herod was roused to great anger and resentment toward the youths; yet he delayed giving vent to this violent feeling. So in order neither to be too lax nor to give offence by acting too rashly, he thought it best to sail to Rome and there accuse his sons before Caesar, so as not to commit a crime so grievous that he could be accused of impiety. |
| 91 ὡς δὲ ἀνῆλθεν εἰς τὴν ῬώμηνRome, ἐγένετο μὲν μέχρι τῆς Ἀκυληίας πόλεως ΚαίσαριCaesar συντυχεῖν ἐπειγόμενος, ἐλθὼν δ᾽ εἰς λόγους καὶ καιρὸν αἰτησάμενος ἐπὶ μεγάλοις οἷς ἐδόκει δυστυχεῖν παρεστήσατο μὲν τοὺς παῖδας, ᾐτιᾶτο δὲ τῆς ἀπονοίας καὶ τῆς ἐπιχειρήσεως, | 91 When he arrived in Rome, he hurried as far as the city of Aquileia to meet Caesar. Having gained an audience and requested a time to speak regarding the great misfortunes he believed he was suffering, he presented his sons. He accused them of madness and of a conspiracy, claiming they were hostile in every way and had eagerly sought to hate their own father, to treat him as a victim, and to seize the kingdom in the most cruel manner. |
| 91 But as he was going up to Rome, it happened that he made such haste as to meet with Caesar at the city Aquilei so when he came to the speech of Caesar, he asked for a time for hearing this great cause, wherein he thought himself very miserable, and presented his sons there, and accused them of their mad actions, and of their attempts against him: | 91 As he hurried toward Rome to meet Caesar, he happened to meet him at the city of Aquileia and when they had a chance to speak he asked him to hear this great case where he thought himself most unfortunate, and had his sons present, whom he accused of their rash actions and of their plotting |
| 92 ὡς ἐχθρῶς ἔχουσιν ἅπαντα τρόπον ἐσπουδακότες [μισεῖν] τὸν ἑαυτῶν πατέρα μεταχειρίσασθαι καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν ὠμοτάτῳ τρόπῳ παραλαβεῖν· ὁ δ᾽ οὐδὲ θνήσκων ἐξ ἀνάγκης μᾶλλον ἢ κρίσει παραδοῦναι τῷ διαμείναντι πρὸς αὐτὸν εὐσεβεστέρῳ παρὰ ΚαίσαροςCaesar ἐξουσίαν ἔχοι. | 92 He asserted that even in death, he should not be forced to hand over power, but rather have the authority from Caesar to give it by judgment to the one who remained more pious toward him. |
| 92 That they were enemies to him; and by all the means they were able, did their endeavors to show their hatred to their own father, and would take away his life, and so obtain his kingdom, after the most barbarous manner: that he had power from Caesar to dispose of it, not by necessity, but by choice, to him who shall exercise the greatest piety towards him; | 92 and how hostile they were to him in every way and hated their own father enough to take his life and brutally take over the kingdom, which he had received from Caesar with power to dispose of it not by force but by his free choice, to the one who remained most loyal to him. |
| 93 τοῖς δ᾽ οὐχ ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀρχῆς τὸ πλέον, ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ ταύτης στεροῖντο καὶ τοῦ ζῆν ἐλάττων λόγος, εἰ μόνον ἀποκτεῖναι τὸν πατέρα δυνηθεῖεν· οὕτως ἄγριόν τι καὶ μιαρὸν ἐντετηκέναι ταῖς ψυχαῖς αὐτῶν μῖσος. Καὶ ταύτην τὴν ἀτυχίαν αὐτὸς ἐκ μακροῦ φέρων ἀναγκασθῆναι νῦν ἐξηγεῖσθαι ΚαίσαριCaesar καὶ μιαίνειν αὐτοῦ τὰς ἀκοὰς τοιούτοις λόγοις. | 93 He claimed that their primary concern was not the kingdom; rather, even if they were deprived of it and had little regard for their own lives, their only goal was the ability to kill their father—so savage and foul was the hatred that had melted into their souls. He said he had borne this misfortune for a long time and was now forced to explain it to Caesar and defile his ears with such words. |
| 93 while these my sons are not so desirous of ruling, as they are, upon a disappointment thereof, to expose their own life, if so be they may but deprive their father of his life; so wild and polluted is their mind by time become, out of their hatred to him: that whereas he had a long time borne this his misfortune, he was now compelled to lay it before Caesar, and to pollute his ears with such language, | 93 But even stronger than their desire to rule is their willingness to risk their lives if it is withheld from them, if only they could kill their own father, so wild and degenerate has hatred made their minds. Having borne this misfortune for a long time, he was now compelled to lay it before Caesar and to pollute his ears with such matters. |
| 94 καίτοι τί μὲν εἴησαν παθόντες ἐξ αὐτοῦ δυσχερές; ἐπὶ τίνι δὲ μέμφονται βαρὺν ὄντα; πῶς δ᾽ οἷόν τε καὶ δίκαιον ἣν αὐτὸς ἐκτήσατο πολλοῖς πόνοις καὶ κινδύνοις ἀρχήν, ταύτης οὐκ ἐᾶν κύριον εἶναι κρατεῖν τε καὶ διδόναι τῷ κατ᾽ ἀξίαν; | 94 Yet, what hardship had they suffered from him? For what did they blame him as being burdensome? How was it possible or just that the kingdom he had acquired through many labors and dangers should not be his to master and to give to the one who deserved it? |
| 94 while he himself wants to know what severity they have ever suffered from him, or what hardships he hath ever laid upon them to make them complain of him; and how they can think it just that he should not be lord of that kingdom which he in a long time, and with great danger, had gained, and not allow him to keep it and dispose of it to him who should deserve best; | 94 But what harshness had they ever suffered from him, or what reason for complaint did he give them? How could they think it right to remove him from the kingdom which he had gained over so long a time and at such peril, and not let him hold it and hand it on to whoever deserved it best? |
| 95 ὡς τοῦτό γε μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἆθλονprize εὐσεβείας ἐκτίθεται τῷ μέλλοντι πρὸς τὸν ποτὲ γενήσεσθαι τοιούτῳ τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν, ἅτε καὶ τῆς ἀμοιβῆς τοσῆσδε οὔσης ἐπιτυγχάνειν. | 95 For he argued that this, along with other rewards, is the prize of piety set forth for those who would hereafter show care to their father—since the reward for such conduct was to succeed him. |
| 95 and this, with other advantages, he proposes as a reward for the piety of such a one as will hereafter imitate the care he hath taken of it, and that such a one may gain so great a requital as that is: | 95 He proposed to give this and other favours in return for the loyalty of the son who would show most care for his father, and that would be the great reward for the chosen one. |
| 96 ὅτι δὲ μηδὲ εὐσεβὲς αὐτοῖς ὑπὲρ τούτου πολυπραγμονεῖν, εὔδηλον· ὁ γὰρ ἀεί τι περὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐνθυμούμενος συγκαταλογίζεται τὸν θάνατον τοῦ γεγεννηκότος, μεθ᾽ ὃν ἄλλως οὐκ ἔστιν τὴν ἀρχὴν παραλαβεῖν. | 96 He claimed it was clearly impious for them to even busy themselves with this matter, for anyone who constantly thinks about the kingship is also calculating the death of his father, without which it is impossible to receive the throne. |
| 96 and that it is an impious thing for them to pretend to meddle with it beforehand; for he who hath ever the kingdom in his view, at the same time reckons upon procuring the death of his father, because otherwise he cannot come at the government: | 96 clearly it was impious for them to try to determine this, for anyone who is always thinking about becoming king is also reckoning upon his father’s death, since otherwise he cannot take over the leadership. |
| 97 αὐτὸς δ᾽ ὅσα βασιλευομένοις καὶ βασιλέως παισὶν οὐχ ὑστέρησεν μέχρι νῦν ἀποδιδούς, οὐ κόσμον, οὐχ ὑπηρεσίαν, οὐ τρυφήν, ἀλλὰ καὶ γάμους τοὺς ἐπισημοτάτους παρεσχῆσθαι, τῷ μὲν ἐκ τῆς ἀδελφῆς, ἈλεξάνδρῳAlexander δὲ τὴν ἈρχελάουArchelaus τοῦ βασιλέως θυγατέρα συνοικίσας, | 97 He stated that he had not failed to provide them with everything due to subjects and the sons of a king: not in adornment, nor in attendance, nor in luxury; rather, he had even provided them with the most distinguished marriages—joining one to the daughter of his own sister, and Alexander to the daughter of King Archelaus. |
| 97 that as for himself, he had hitherto given them all that he was able, and what was agreeable to such as are subject to the royal authority, and the sons of a king; what ornaments they wanted, with servants and delicate fare, and had married them into the most illustrious families, the one [Aristobulus] to his sister’s daughter, but Alexander to the daughter of king Archelaus; | 97 For his part, he had up to now not failed to give them all that was due to the sons of a king but still subject to his royal authority. They did not lack ornaments or servants or comfort, and he had married them into the most illustrious families, one of them to his sister’s daughter, and Alexander to the daughter of king Archelaus. |
| 98 τὸ δὲ μέγιστον οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ τοιούτοις ἣν εἶχεν ἐξουσίαν ταύτῃ κατ᾽ αὐτῶν χρησάμενος ἀγαγεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν κοινὸν ΕὐεργέτηνEuergetes ΚαίσαραCaesar, καὶ παρελόμενον αὑτοῦ πᾶν, ὅσον ἢ πατὴρ ἀσεβούμενος ἢ βασιλεὺς ἐπιβουλευόμενος δύναται, κρίσεως ἰσοτιμίᾳ παρεστακέναι· | 98 He said he had divested himself of all that a father who has been treated impiously or a king who is being plotted against could do, standing before them instead on the level ground of a trial. |
| 98 and, what was the greatest favor of all, when their crimes were so very bad, and he had authority to punish them, yet had he not made use of it against them, but had brought them before Caesar, their common benefactor, and had not used the severity which, either as a father who had been impiously abused, or as a king who had been assaulted treacherously, he might have done, but made them stand upon a level with him in judgment: | 98 The greatest sign of his favour was that even in this crisis he did not use his authority to execute them, as a father wrongly treated or as a king plotted against might do, but instead had brought them for judgment as equals before Caesar, their mutual benefactor. |
| 99 δεήσει μέντοι μὴ παντάπασιν αὐτὸν ἀτιμώρητον γενέσθαι μηδ᾽ ἐν τοῖς μεγίστοις φόβοις καταζῆν, οὐδ᾽ ἐκείνοις λυσιτελοῦντος ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐνεθυμήθησαν ὁρᾶν τὸν ἥλιον, εἰ νῦν διαφύγοιεν, ἔργωιdeed μέγιστα τῶν ἀνθρωπείωνhuman καὶ δράσαντας καὶ πεισομένους. | 99 He concluded that it would be necessary that he not be left entirely unavenged, nor live out his life in the greatest fears; nor would it be profitable for them to see the sun after what they had intended, if they should now escape—having both done and being destined to suffer the greatest of human deeds." |
| 99 that, however, it was necessary that all this should not be passed over without punishment, nor himself live in the greatest fears; nay, that it was not for their own advantage to see the light of the sun after what they have done, although they should escape at this time, since they had done the vilest things, and would certainly suffer the greatest punishments that ever were known among mankind. | 99 He begged that they not be left completely unpunished, nor that he go on living in such great fear. After what they had planned they did not deserve to go on seeing the light of the sun, even should they escape this time, for they had done the vilest things known to mankind and deserved to be punished. |
Antipater’s "Remote Control" Slander
Antipater’s strategy in Rome was a masterpiece of manipulation. By writing letters from a distance, he made his slanders seem like objective "intelligence reports" rather than the jealous rants of a rival. Josephus uses the word "ἐμπορευόμενος" (trading/trafficking), suggesting Antipater was "selling" a narrative to Herod to buy his own future.
The Legal Trap of "Anticipated Death"
Herod’s argument before Augustus is logically ruthless: "ὁ γὰρ ἀεί τι περὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐνθυμούμενος συγκαταλογίζεται τὸν θάνατον τοῦ γεγεννηκότος" (he who thinks of the kingdom calculates the death of the father). In a hereditary monarchy, there is no "promotion" without a funeral. Herod successfully frames his sons' natural ambition as a literal death wish for him.
Aquileia: The Imperial Bench
The trial took place in Aquileia (northern Italy) rather than Rome. Augustus was often on the move, and Herod’s desperation was so great he intercepted the Emperor near the border. This shows Herod’s prestige; he didn't wait in an anteroom in Rome but was granted an audience while the Emperor was traveling.
The "Father" vs. the "King"
Herod makes a show of his "restraint" by not executing them on his own authority. He claims to have stepped down from the role of a sovereign to meet them in "κρίσεως ἰσοτιμίᾳ" (equality of judgment). This was a calculated move to flatter Augustus. By placing the lives of his sons in Augustus’s hands, Herod was acknowledging that the Emperor was the "Father of the Empire," superior even to Herod’s own paternal rights.
Marriage as a Defense
Herod cites the marriages he arranged (Glaphyra and Berenice) as evidence of his love. This is ironic, as the reader knows these marriages actually fueled the fire—Glaphyra’s royal arrogance and Berenice’s proximity to Salome were the primary sources of palace gossip. Herod presents the form of fatherly care while ignoring the substance of the family's misery.
The "Savage Hatred" (Agrion Miseos)
Herod uses extreme language: "ἄγριόν τι καὶ μιαρὸν" (something savage and foul). He describes the hatred as having "melted into" (entetēkenai) their souls. This is a common Herodian theme: once he perceives an enemy, he decribes them in non-human, animalistic terms to justify their eventual destruction.
Antipater’s strategy in Rome was a masterpiece of manipulation. By writing letters from a distance, he made his slanders seem like objective "intelligence reports" rather than the jealous rants of a rival. Josephus uses the word "ἐμπορευόμενος" (trading/trafficking), suggesting Antipater was "selling" a narrative to Herod to buy his own future.
The Legal Trap of "Anticipated Death"
Herod’s argument before Augustus is logically ruthless: "ὁ γὰρ ἀεί τι περὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐνθυμούμενος συγκαταλογίζεται τὸν θάνατον τοῦ γεγεννηκότος" (he who thinks of the kingdom calculates the death of the father). In a hereditary monarchy, there is no "promotion" without a funeral. Herod successfully frames his sons' natural ambition as a literal death wish for him.
Aquileia: The Imperial Bench
The trial took place in Aquileia (northern Italy) rather than Rome. Augustus was often on the move, and Herod’s desperation was so great he intercepted the Emperor near the border. This shows Herod’s prestige; he didn't wait in an anteroom in Rome but was granted an audience while the Emperor was traveling.
The "Father" vs. the "King"
Herod makes a show of his "restraint" by not executing them on his own authority. He claims to have stepped down from the role of a sovereign to meet them in "κρίσεως ἰσοτιμίᾳ" (equality of judgment). This was a calculated move to flatter Augustus. By placing the lives of his sons in Augustus’s hands, Herod was acknowledging that the Emperor was the "Father of the Empire," superior even to Herod’s own paternal rights.
Marriage as a Defense
Herod cites the marriages he arranged (Glaphyra and Berenice) as evidence of his love. This is ironic, as the reader knows these marriages actually fueled the fire—Glaphyra’s royal arrogance and Berenice’s proximity to Salome were the primary sources of palace gossip. Herod presents the form of fatherly care while ignoring the substance of the family's misery.
The "Savage Hatred" (Agrion Miseos)
Herod uses extreme language: "ἄγριόν τι καὶ μιαρὸν" (something savage and foul). He describes the hatred as having "melted into" (entetēkenai) their souls. This is a common Herodian theme: once he perceives an enemy, he decribes them in non-human, animalistic terms to justify their eventual destruction.
| 100 Ταῦτα μὲν ἩρώδηςHerod ἐμπαθῶς ᾐτιάσατο παρὰ ΚαίσαριCaesar τοὺς αὐτοῦ παῖδας. τῶν δὲ νεανίσκων ἤδη μὲν καὶ λέγοντος δάκρυα καὶ σύγχυσις ἦν· μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἐπεὶ κατέπαυσεν ἩρώδηςHerod τὸν λόγον τῷ μὲν ἔξω τῆς τοιαύτης ἀσεβείαςungodliness γενέσθαι τὸν λόγον πιστὸν εἶχον ἐν τῷ συνειδότι, | 100 "In this passionate manner, Herod accused his own sons before Caesar. As for the young men, even while he was still speaking, there were tears and confusion; but this increased even more once Herod finished his speech. While they held the conviction in their own consciences that they were innocent of such impiety, they knew that defending themselves against slanders brought by their own father was, in itself, a nearly impossible task. |
| 100 These were the accusations which Herod laid with great vehemency against his sons before Caesar. Now the young men, both while he was speaking, and chiefly at his concluding, wept, and were in confusion. Now as to themselves, they knew in their own conscience they were innocent; | 100 Herod accused his sons vehemently in this way before Caesar, and the young men wept with emotion as he was speaking. Particularly as Herod ended, though conscious of their innocence of any such filial impiety they rightly felt it hard to make their defence. |
| 101 τὸ δ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐπιφέρεσθαι τὰς διαβολὰς δυσαπολόγητον ὥσπερ ἦν ᾔδεσαν, οὐκ εὐσχημονοῦντος οὐδὲ τοῦ κατὰ παρρησίαν λόγου πρὸς τὸν καιρόν, εἰ μέλλοιεν ἐκ βίας ἀεὶ καὶ κατὰ σπουδὴν ἐλέγχειν πεπλανημένον. | 101 For it was neither decorous nor appropriate for them to use a freedom of speech (parrhesia) at that moment, if they were to try to forcefully and vehemently prove that their father was completely deluded. |
| 101 but because they were accused by their father, they were sensible, as the truth was, that it was hard for them to make their apology, since though they were at liberty to speak their minds freely as the occasion required, and might with force and earnestness refute the accusation, yet was it not now decent so to do. | 101 After the accusations made by their father, although they were free to speak their minds as freely as needed to forcibly and earnestly refute the accusations, it did not now seem quite decent to do so. |
| 102 ἦν οὖν ἀπορία τοῦ δύνασθαι λέγειν καὶ δάκρυα καὶ τέλος οἰμωγὴ συμπαθεστέρα, δεδοικότων μέν, εἰ δόξουσιν ἐκ τοῦ συνειδότος ἠπορῆσθαι, ῥᾳδίαν δ᾽ οὐχ εὑρισκομένων τὴν ἀπολογίαν ὑπό τε νεότητος καὶ ταραχῆς, ἣν ἐπεπόνθεισαν. | 102 There was, therefore, an inability to speak, accompanied by tears and, finally, a most pathetic wailing. They feared that if they remained silent, they would seem to be at a loss because of a guilty conscience; yet, because of their youth and the agitation they suffered, they could find no easy way to formulate a defense. |
| 102 There was therefore a difficulty how they should be able to speak; and tears, and at length a deep groan, followed, while they were afraid, that if they said nothing, they should seem to be in this difficulty from a consciousness of guilt,—nor had they any defense ready, by reason of their youth, and the disorder they were under; | 102 Therefore, uncertain of how they should reply, his speech was followed by their tears and deep sighing. They feared that if they said nothing it might seem to be an acknowledgement of guilt, but they had no defence ready, because of their youth and the confusion they felt. |
| 103 οὐ μὴν ὅ γε ΚαῖσαρCaesar ἐπιβλέπων αὐτοὺς ὡς εἶχον ἀσύνετον ἐποιεῖτο τὸ μὴ κατὰ συνείδησιν ἀτοπωτέραν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἀπειρίας καὶ μετριότητος ὀκνεῖν, ἐλεεινοί τ᾽ ἐγεγόνεισαν τοῖς παροῦσιν ἰδίᾳ καὶ τὸν πατέρα διεκίνησαν ἀληθινῷ τῷ πάθει συνεχόμενον. | 103 However, Caesar, observing them as they were, did not interpret their state as being due to a guilty or monstrous conscience; rather, he saw that they hesitated out of inexperience and a sense of modesty (metriotētos). They became objects of pity to all those present, and they even moved their father, who was overcome by an emotion that was—for a moment—genuine." |
| 103 yet was not Caesar unapprised, when he looked upon them in the confusion they were in, that their delay to make their defense did not arise from any consciousness of great enormities, but from their unskilfulness and modesty. They were also commiserated by those that were there in particular; and they moved their father’s affections in earnest till he had much ado to conceal them. | 103 Looking at them, Caesar was not unaware that their delay in offering their defence did not come from a guilty conscience, but from shyness and lack of experience. They were also pitied by the people present, and even their father’s feelings were genuinely moved. |
The Paradox of "Parrhesia" (Free Speech)
Josephus highlights a fascinating legal and moral dilemma. In a Roman court, a defendant usually has the right to speak freely. However, for the sons, using "παρρησία" to prove Herod was a liar ("πεπλανημένον") would actually confirm Herod's accusation. If they spoke aggressively against their father to save their lives, they would look like the "impious" and "disrespectful" sons Herod claimed they were. Their silence was their only way to maintain their dignity.
"Conscience" vs. "Slander"
The text contrasts "συνειδότι" (conscience/internal knowledge) with "διαβολὰς" (slanders/external reports). The boys knew they were innocent, but they realized that in the theater of the Herodian court, the truth was irrelevant compared to the plausibility of the lie. The weight of being accused by the very person who was supposed to protect them created a psychological paralysis ("ἀπορία").
Augustus as the "Expert Observer"
Augustus Caesar is portrayed here as a master of human nature. He rejects Herod’s interpretation of their silence. While Herod saw "guilt," Augustus saw "μετριότητος" (modesty/moderation) and "ἀπειρίας" (inexperience). This is a classic Josephan theme: the Roman leader is often the "rational" third party who can see through the pathological drama of the Near Eastern royal families.
The "Pathetic" Power of Tears
The shift from silence to "οἰμωγὴ" (wailing/lamentation) is what finally breaks the tension. In ancient rhetoric, Pathos (emotion) was often more effective than Logos (logic). By weeping, the sons appealed to a universal human law—the bond between parent and child—which superseded Herod’s legalistic complaints.
Herod’s Brief Moment of "True Emotion"
Josephus notes that Herod was "ἀληθινῷ τῷ πάθει συνεχόμενον" (overcome by true emotion). This is a rare and haunting glimpse into Herod's fractured psyche. For a fleeting second, the "Father" returned and the "Tyrant" vanished. The sight of his own children's genuine terror reminded him of his love for them (and perhaps his love for their mother, Mariamne). It suggests that Herod was not a cardboard villain, but a man profoundly at war with his own paranoia.
The "Modesty" of the Princes
The term "μετριότητος" is significant. It implies a sense of proportion and propriety. By not fighting back, Alexander and Aristobulus showed they possessed the "royal character" that Herod had spent his life trying to acquire. Their behavior in court proved they were more "Hasmonean" (and thus more traditionally noble) than their father, even in their moment of greatest weakness.
Josephus highlights a fascinating legal and moral dilemma. In a Roman court, a defendant usually has the right to speak freely. However, for the sons, using "παρρησία" to prove Herod was a liar ("πεπλανημένον") would actually confirm Herod's accusation. If they spoke aggressively against their father to save their lives, they would look like the "impious" and "disrespectful" sons Herod claimed they were. Their silence was their only way to maintain their dignity.
"Conscience" vs. "Slander"
The text contrasts "συνειδότι" (conscience/internal knowledge) with "διαβολὰς" (slanders/external reports). The boys knew they were innocent, but they realized that in the theater of the Herodian court, the truth was irrelevant compared to the plausibility of the lie. The weight of being accused by the very person who was supposed to protect them created a psychological paralysis ("ἀπορία").
Augustus as the "Expert Observer"
Augustus Caesar is portrayed here as a master of human nature. He rejects Herod’s interpretation of their silence. While Herod saw "guilt," Augustus saw "μετριότητος" (modesty/moderation) and "ἀπειρίας" (inexperience). This is a classic Josephan theme: the Roman leader is often the "rational" third party who can see through the pathological drama of the Near Eastern royal families.
The "Pathetic" Power of Tears
The shift from silence to "οἰμωγὴ" (wailing/lamentation) is what finally breaks the tension. In ancient rhetoric, Pathos (emotion) was often more effective than Logos (logic). By weeping, the sons appealed to a universal human law—the bond between parent and child—which superseded Herod’s legalistic complaints.
Herod’s Brief Moment of "True Emotion"
Josephus notes that Herod was "ἀληθινῷ τῷ πάθει συνεχόμενον" (overcome by true emotion). This is a rare and haunting glimpse into Herod's fractured psyche. For a fleeting second, the "Father" returned and the "Tyrant" vanished. The sight of his own children's genuine terror reminded him of his love for them (and perhaps his love for their mother, Mariamne). It suggests that Herod was not a cardboard villain, but a man profoundly at war with his own paranoia.
The "Modesty" of the Princes
The term "μετριότητος" is significant. It implies a sense of proportion and propriety. By not fighting back, Alexander and Aristobulus showed they possessed the "royal character" that Herod had spent his life trying to acquire. Their behavior in court proved they were more "Hasmonean" (and thus more traditionally noble) than their father, even in their moment of greatest weakness.
| 104 Ἐπεὶ δὲ συνεῖδον εὐμένειάν τινα καὶ παρ᾽ ἐκείνου καὶ παρὰ τοῦ ΚαίσαροςCaesar, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων δὲ ἕκαστον τοὺς μὲν συνδακρύοντας, ἅπαντας δὲ συναλγοῦντας, ἅτερος αὐτῶν ἈλέξανδροςAlexander ἐπικαλεσάμενος αὐτὸν ἐπεχείρειto put one’s hand in διαλύειν τὰς αἰτίας καί, | 104 "When they perceived a certain kindness both from their father and from Caesar, and saw that everyone else was joined in their tears and shared in their grief, Alexander, the elder of the two, called upon his father and attempted to dissolve the accusations. |
| 104 But when they saw there was a kind disposition arisen both in him and in Caesar, and that every one of the rest did either shed tears, or at least did all grieve with them, the one of them, whose name was Alexander, called to his father, and attempted to answer his accusation, and said, | 104 When they saw some goodwill both in him and in Caesar and that some of the others were shedding tears, and all felt pity for them, one of them, Alexander, tried to answer his accusation, and calling to his father he said, |
| 105 " πάτερ, εἶπεν, ἡ μὲν σὴ πρὸς ἡμᾶς εὔνοια δήλη καὶ παρ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν κρίσιν· οὐκ ἂν γάρ, εἴ τι δυσχερὲς ἐνενόεις ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν, ἐπὶ τὸν πάντας σώζοντα προήγαγες· | 105 'Father,' he said, 'your goodwill toward us is clear even by this very trial; for if you had intended anything harsh against us, you would not have brought us before the man who preserves all people. |
| 105 "O father, the benevolence thou hast showed to us is evident, even in this very judicial procedure, for hadst thou had any pernicious intentions about us, thou hadst not produced us here before the common savior of all, | 105 "Father, your goodwill to us is clear, even in this trial, for if you had intended any severity toward us, you would not have led us here before the common saviour of all. |
| 106 καὶ γὰρ παρούσης μὲν ἐξουσίας ὡς βασιλεῖ, παρούσης δὲ ὡς πατρὶ τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας ἐπεξιέναι, τὸ εἰς ῬώμηνRome ἄγειν καὶ τοῦτον ποιεῖσθαι μάρτυρα σώζοντος ἦν· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀποκτεῖναί τινα προαιρούμενος εἰς ἱερὰ καὶ ναοὺς ἄγει. | 106 Since you had the power as a king and the power as a father to punish those who do wrong, bringing us to Rome and making this man a witness was the act of a savior. No one who intends to kill someone brings them to sacred places and temples. |
| 106 for it was in thy power, both as a king and as a father, to punish the guilty; but by thus bringing us to Rome, and making Caesar himself a witness to what is done, thou intimatest that thou intendest to save us; for no one that hath a design to slay a man will bring him to the temples, and to the altars; | 106 It was in your power, both as a king and as a father, to punish the guilty, so that bringing us to Rome and making this man a witness suggests that you intend to spare us, for no one who intends to kill somebody will bring him to the temples and to the altars. |
| 107 τὸ δ᾽ ἡμέτερον ἤδη χεῖρον· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ὑπομείναιμεν ἔτι ζῆν, εἰ τοιοῦτον ἠδικηκέναι πατέρα πεπιστεύμεθα. Καὶ μήποτε τοῦτ᾽ ἐκείνου χεῖρον ἀντὶ τοῦ τεθνάναι μηδὲν ἀδικοῦντας τὸ ζῆν ἀδικεῖν ὑποπτευομένους. | 107 But our situation is now worse; for we could no longer endure to live if it were believed that we had wronged such a father. It is perhaps worse than death to live while being suspected of such injustice, even if we are innocent. |
| 107 yet are our circumstances still worse, for we cannot endure to live ourselves any longer, if it be believed that we have injured such a father; nay, perhaps it would be worse for us to live with this suspicion upon us, that we have injured him, than to die without such guilt. | 107 Our situation is now even worse, for we cannot bear to live any longer if we are thought to have wronged such a father. To live under the suspicion of having wronged you would be worse for us than to die without such guilt. |
| 108 εἰ μὲν οὖν εὕροι λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας ἡ παρρησία, μακάριον καὶ σὲ πεῖσαι καὶ τὸν κίνδυνον διαφυγεῖν, εἰ δ᾽ οὕτως ἡ διαβολὴ κρατεῖ, περιττὸς ἡμῖν ὁ νῦν ἥλιος, ὃν τί δεῖ βλέπειν μετὰ τῆς ὑποψίαςsuspicion, jealousy; | 108 If, therefore, our freedom of speech (parrhesia) can find a way to the truth, it would be a blessed thing to convince you and escape the danger; but if slander prevails so strongly, the sun is superfluous to us—for why should we look upon it under such suspicion? |
| 108 And if our open defense may be taken to be true, we shall be happy, both in pacifying thee, and in escaping the danger we are in; but if this calumny so prevails, it is more than enough for us that we have seen the sun this day; which why should we see, if this suspicion be fixed upon us? | 108 If our frank defence is accepted as true, we shall be happy, both for persuading you and escaping the danger we are in, but if the allegation prevails, it is more than enough for us to have seen the sun this day. For why should we see it, if this suspicion against us be true? |
| 109 τὸ μὲν οὖν φάναι βασιλείας ἐπιθυμεῖν, εὔκαιρος εἰς νέους αἰτία, καὶ τὸ προστιθέναι τὴν τῆς ἀθλίας μητρός, ἱκανὸν ἐκ τῆς πρώτης τὴν νῦν ἀτυχίαν ἐξεργάζεσθαι. | 109 To say that we desire the kingdom is a convenient accusation against young men; and to add the matter of our wretched mother is enough to turn our former misfortune into our current ruin. |
| 109 Now it is easy to say of young men, that they desire to reign; and to say further, that this evil proceeds from the case of our unhappy mother. This is abundantly sufficient to produce our present misfortune out of the former; | 109 Now it is easy to say that young men desire to reign, and to add that this resentment proceeds from the case of our unfortunate mother, which easily could lead to our present misfortune. |
| 110 βλέψον δέ, εἰ μὴ κοινὰ ταῦτα καὶ πᾶσιν ὁμοίως λέγεσθαι δυνησόμενα· κωλύσει γὰρ οὐδέν, τῷ βασιλεύοντι παῖδες εἰ εἰσὶν νέοι καὶ μήτηρ αὐτῶν ἀποθανοῦσα, πάντας ὑπόπτους εἶναι τοῦ πατρὸς ἐπιβούλους δοκεῖν. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τὸ ὕποπτον πρὸς τοιαύτην ἀσέβειαν ἀρκετόν. | 110 But look and see if these things are not commonplaces that could be said against anyone. Nothing would prevent every son of a reigning king who is young and whose mother has died from being suspected of plotting against his father. But suspicion is not sufficient to prove such impiety. |
| 110 but consider well, whether such an accusation does not suit all such young men, and may not be said of them all promiscuously; for nothing can hinder him that reigns, if he have children, and their mother be dead, but the father may have a suspicion upon all his sons, as intending some treachery to him; but a suspicion is not sufficient to prove such an impious practice. | 110 But consider whether this charge does not apply to everyone equally. What is to stop a king who has children whose mother is dead, from suspecting all his sons of plotting against their father? But mere suspicion is not sufficient to prove such a impiety. |
| 111 εἰπάτω δέ τις, ἡμῖν εἰ τετόλμηται τοιοῦτον, ᾧ καὶ τὰ μὴ πιστὰ πίστιν εἴωθεν ὑπ᾽ ἐνεργείας λαμβάνειν. φαρμάκου παρασκευὴν ἐλέγχειν δύναταί τις ἢ συνωμοσίαν ἡλικιωτῶν ἢ διαφθορὰν οἰκετῶν ἢ γράμματα κατὰ σοῦ γεγραμμένα; | 111 Let someone say if we have actually dared such a deed—the kind of deed that usually gains belief through some action. Can anyone prove the preparation of poison, a conspiracy of peers, the corruption of servants, or letters written against you? |
| 111 Now let any man say, whether we have actually and insolently attempted any such thing, whereby actions otherwise incredible use to be made credible? Can any body prove that poison hath been prepared? or prove a conspiracy of our equals, or the corruption of servants, or letters written against thee? | 111 Let any man prove that we have dared any such thing, and make the incredible seem credible! Can anyone prove that poison was prepared, or that we conspired with our peers, or the corrupted servants, or wrote letters against you? |
| 112 καίτοι τούτων ἕκαστον ἔσθ᾽sometimes ὅπη καὶ μὴ γενόμενον ἐκ διαβολῆς ἐπλάσθη· χαλεπὸν γὰρ οὐχ ὁμονοῶν οἶκος ἐν βασιλείᾳ· καὶ τὴν ἀρχήν, ἣν σὺ φῂς ἔπαθλον εὐσεβείας, συμβαίνει πολλάκις αἰτίαν γενέσθαι τοῖς πονηροτάτοις ἐλπίδων, δι᾽ ἃς οὐδεμίαν ὑποστολὴν ποιοῦνται κακοηθείας. | 112 Yet each of these things can be fabricated by slander even when they haven't happened; for a household in a kingdom that is not in harmony is a difficult thing. The very power which you call the "prize of piety" often becomes the source of hope for the most wicked people, for the sake of which they show no restraint in their malice. |
| 112 though indeed there are none of those things but have sometimes been pretended by way of calumny, when they were never done; for a royal family that is at variance with itself is a terrible thing; and that which thou callest a reward of piety often becomes, among very wicked men, such a foundation of hope, as makes them leave no sort of mischief untried. | 112 No such things exist but they have been invented by way of allegation. Now a kingdom divided within itself is a disaster, and among scoundrels what you call a reward for loyalty often prompts such hopes as to get them to leave no sort of malice untried. |
| 113 ἀδίκημα μὲν οὖν οὐδεὶς ἐρεῖ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν· τὰς δὲ διαβολὰς πῶς ἂν λύσειεν ὁ ἀκοῦσαι μὴ θέλων; ἐλαλήσαμέν τι μετὰ παρρησίας. οὐκ εἰς σέ· τοῦτο γὰρ ἦν ἄδικον· ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τοὺς οὐδ᾽ ὅ τι λελάλητο μὴ σιωπῶντας. | 113 No one will find a crime against us. But how can one dissolve slanders if the listener does not wish to hear? We spoke with some freedom (parrhesia). Not against you—for that would be unjust—but against those who would not keep silent about what had been spoken. |
| 113 Nor does any one lay any wicked practices to our charge; but as to calumnies by hearsay, how can he put an end to them, who will not hear what we have to say? Have we talked with too great freedom? Yes; but not against thee, for that would be unjust, but against those that never conceal any thing that is spoken to them. | 113 No one directly accuses us of such wicked practices but how can we put an end to allegations by hearsay, if you will not listen to us? Have we talked too freely? Yes, but not against you, for that would be unjust, but against those who never conceal anything that is spoken to them. |
| 114 τὴν μητέρα τις ἡμῶν ἔκλαυσεν. οὐχ ὅτι τέθνηκεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι καὶ νεκρὰ κακῶς ἤκουσεν ὑπὸ τῶν οὐκ ἀξίων. ἀρχῆς ἐπιθυμοῦμεν ἧς ἴσμεν ἔχοντα τὸν πατέρα; τί καὶ θέλοντες; εἰ μὲν εἰσὶν ἡμῖν τιμαὶ βασιλέων, ὥσπερ εἰσίν, οὐ κενοσπουδοῦμεν; | 114 One of us wept for our mother. Not merely because she died, but because even in death she was spoken ill of by those who were unworthy. Do we desire the power we know our father holds? To what end? If we already have the honors of kings—as we do—are we not pursuing vanity? |
| 114 Hath either of us lamented our mother? Yes; but not because she is dead, but because she was evil spoken of by those that had no reason so to do. Are we desirous of that dominion which we know our father is possessed of? For what reason can we do so? If we already have royal honors, as we have, should not we labor in vain? And if we have them not, yet are not we in hopes of them? | 114 Did either of us mourn our mother? Yes, but not for her death, but that bad things were said of her which she did not deserve. Do we want the kingship which we know is held by our father? Why should we? If we already have royal honours, it would be senseless to still seek them. If we don't have them, should we not still hope for them? |
| 115 εἰ δ᾽ οὐκ εἰσίν, οὐκ ἐλπίζομεν; ἢ σὲ διαχειρισάμενοι κρατήσεινto be strong τὴν βασιλείαν προσεδοκήσαμεν, οἷς οὔτε γῆ βάσιμος οὔτε πλωτὴ θάλαττα μετὰ τοιοῦτον ἔργον; ἡ δὲ τῶν ἀρχομένων εὐσέβεια καὶ θρησκεία τοῦ παντὸς ἔθνους ἠνέσχετο ἂν πατροκτόνους ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων εἶναι καὶ εἰς τὸν ἁγιώτατον ὑπὸ σοῦ κατασκευασθέντα ναὸν εἰσιέναι. | 115 If we do not have them, do we not hope for them? Or did we expect to seize the kingdom by murdering you, for whom neither the walkable land nor the navigable sea would be safe after such a deed? Would the piety of your subjects and the religion of the entire nation endure to have parricides in charge of affairs and have them enter the most holy Temple built by you? |
| 115 Or supposing that we had killed thee, could we expect to obtain thy kingdom? while neither the earth would let us tread upon it, nor the sea let us sail upon it, after such an action as that; nay, the religion of all your subjects, and the piety of the whole nation, would have prohibited parricides from assuming the government, and from entering into that most holy temple which was built by thee. | 115 If we laid hands on you, how could we expect to win your kingship, for after such a deed we could not walk the earth or sail the sea? The piety and loyalty of the whole nation would stop patricides from taking over, or entering the holy temple built by you. |
| 116 τί δ᾽ εἰ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων κατεφρονήσαμεν, ἐδύνατό τις φονεύσας ἀτιμώρητος μένειν ζῶντος ΚαίσαροςCaesar; οὔτ᾽ ἀσεβεῖς οὕτως ἐγέννησας οὔτ᾽ ἀλογίστους, ἀτυχεστέρους δ᾽ ἴσως ἢ σοὶ καλῶς εἶχεν. | 116 Even if we despised all else, could someone remain unpunished after a murder while Caesar is alive? You did not father sons so impious or so irrational—though perhaps we are more unfortunate than was good for you. |
| 116 But suppose we had made light of other dangers, can any murderer go off unpunished while Caesar is alive? We are thy sons, and not so impious or so thoughtless as that comes to, though perhaps more unfortunate than is convenient for thee. | 116 But even setting aside other dangers, can any murderer go unpunished while Caesar lives? We your sons are not so disloyal or thoughtless, though perhaps more unfortunate than is good for you. |
| 117 εἰ δὲ μήτ᾽ αἰτίας ἔχεις μήτ᾽ ἐπιβουλὰς εὑρίσκεις, τί σοι πρὸς πίστιν αὔταρκες τοιαύτης δυσσεβείας; ἡ μήτηρ τέθνηκεν· ἀλλά τοι τὰ κατ᾽ ἐκείνην οὐδὲ παροξύνειν ἡμᾶς ἀλλὰ νουθετεῖν ἠδύνατο. | 117 Since you have no evidence and find no plots, what is sufficient for you to believe such irreligion? Our mother is dead; but her fate could only serve to warn us, not to provoke us. |
| 117 But in case thou neither findest any causes of complaint, nor any treacherous designs, what sufficient evidence hast thou to make such a wickedness of ours credible? Our mother is dead indeed, but then what befell her might be an instruction to us to caution, and not an incitement to wickedness. | 117 But if you find no true complaint or treachery, what proper evidence have you to make such a wickedness on our part credible? Our mother is dead, but her fate might as well lead us to caution as incite us to wickedness. |
| 118 πλείω μὲν ἀπολογεῖσθαι δυνάμεθα, λόγον δ᾽ οὐκ ἐπιδέχεται τὰ μὴ γενόμενα. διόπερ ἐπὶ τῷ πάντων δεσπότῃ ΚαίσαριCaesar μεσιτεύοντι τὸν παρόντα καιρὸν συντιθέμεθα ταύτην τὴν συνθήκην· | 118 We could say more in our defense, but things that never happened do not admit of lengthy argument. Therefore, before the master of all, Caesar, acting as mediator at this present time, we make this covenant: |
| 118 We are willing to make a larger apology for ourselves; but actions never done do not admit of discourse. Nay, we will make this agreement with thee, and that before Caesar, the lord of all, who is now a mediator between us, | 118 We are willing to defend ourselves further, but actions never done cannot be discussed. We could reach agreement with you before Caesar, the lord of all, who is now mediating between us, |
| 119 εἰ μὲν ἀνύποπτον ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς διάθεσιν ἀπολαμβάνεις, ὦ πάτερ, ζήσομεν, οὐδ᾽ οὕτως μὲν εὐτυχῶς· δεινὸν γὰρ τῶν μεγάλων κακῶν καὶ ψευδὴς αἰτία. | 119 If, O father, you can recover a disposition toward us that is free of suspicion through the truth itself, we shall live—though even then not happily, for a false accusation of great evils is a terrible thing. |
| 119 if thou, O father, canst bring thyself, by the evidence of truth, to have a mind free from suspicion concerning us let us live, though even then we shall live in an unhappy way, for to be accused of great acts of wickedness, though falsely, is a terrible thing; | 119 if you, father, by the evidence of truth can bring yourself to free your mind from suspecting us and let us live. Even then we are unfortunate, since it is a terrible thing to be falsely accused of such wickedness. |
| 120 παρούσης δέ τινος ὀρρωδίας σὺ μὲν ἐν τῇ κατὰ σαυτὸν εὐσεβείᾳ μένε, δώσομεν δὲ λόγον ἡμεῖς ἑαυτοῖς. οὐχ οὕτως ὁ βίος ἡμῖν τίμιος, ὡς ἔχειν αὐτὸν ἐπ᾽ ἀδικίᾳ τοῦ δεδωκότος." | 120 But if some dread remains, you remain in your own piety; we will give an account to ourselves. Life is not so precious to us that we would hold it to the injury of the one who gave it to us.'" |
| 120 but if thou hast any fear remaining, continue thou on in thy pious life, we will give this reason for our own conduct; our life is not so desirable to us as to desire to have it, if it tend to the harm of our father who gave it us." | 120 But if you still have any fear of us, continue with your devout existence, for our life is not so precious to us as to want to keep it, if it seems to threaten injustice to our father who gave it to us." |
The Rhetoric of "The Savior"
Alexander begins with a masterstroke of flattery. By calling Herod's decision to go to Augustus an act of "preservation" (σώζοντος), he traps Herod in a narrative of mercy. He essentially tells Herod: "By bringing us here, you proved you are a good father who wants us to be saved, not a tyrant who wants us dead." It makes it very difficult for Herod to pivot back to a demand for execution without looking like he is contradicting his own "piety."
The Practical Impossibility of Parricide
Alexander appeals to the logic of the Pax Romana. He argues that in an empire ruled by Augustus, a son who kills his father (especially a client king) has nowhere to hide. Neither the "γῆ βάσιμος" (walkable land) nor the "πλωτὴ θάλαττα" (navigable sea) would offer refuge. This is a brilliant nod to Augustus's total control over the Mediterranean world.
The Temple as a Moral Barrier
Alexander uses Herod’s own pride—the Temple in Jerusalem—against him. He asks how a "parricide" could ever walk into the "ἁγιώτατον... ναὸν" (most holy Temple). This appeals to the Jewish identity of the court. He reminds Herod that the Jewish people would never accept a king whose hands were stained with his father's blood, effectively arguing that the crime would be politically self-defeating.
Slander as the "Ghost" in the Household
Alexander gives a chillingly accurate description of palace life: "χαλεπὸν γὰρ οὐχ ὁμονοῶν οἶκος ἐν βασιλείᾳ" (a household not in harmony in a kingdom is a difficult thing). He identifies that the "prize" of the throne attracts "the most wicked people" who use slander to clear their own path to power—a clear, though unnamed, reference to Antipater and Salome.
The "Parrhesia" of Grief
Alexander admits they spoke with "παρρησίας" (freedom of speech/boldness), but he reframes it. They weren't plotting; they were grieving. He argues that weeping for a mother is a natural human instinct, not a political conspiracy. This is a direct appeal to the emotions of Augustus, who valued "pietas" (duty/devotion to family) above almost all else.
The Final Ultimatum
The speech ends with a "suicide pact" of sorts. Alexander says that if Herod cannot truly let go of his suspicion, the sons would rather die than live as a source of "dread" (ὀρρωδίας) to their father. This final display of submission—placing their lives entirely in Herod's hands—is the ultimate proof of their "piety." It leaves Herod with no choice but to reconcile or appear as a heartless monster in front of the Roman Emperor.
Alexander begins with a masterstroke of flattery. By calling Herod's decision to go to Augustus an act of "preservation" (σώζοντος), he traps Herod in a narrative of mercy. He essentially tells Herod: "By bringing us here, you proved you are a good father who wants us to be saved, not a tyrant who wants us dead." It makes it very difficult for Herod to pivot back to a demand for execution without looking like he is contradicting his own "piety."
The Practical Impossibility of Parricide
Alexander appeals to the logic of the Pax Romana. He argues that in an empire ruled by Augustus, a son who kills his father (especially a client king) has nowhere to hide. Neither the "γῆ βάσιμος" (walkable land) nor the "πλωτὴ θάλαττα" (navigable sea) would offer refuge. This is a brilliant nod to Augustus's total control over the Mediterranean world.
The Temple as a Moral Barrier
Alexander uses Herod’s own pride—the Temple in Jerusalem—against him. He asks how a "parricide" could ever walk into the "ἁγιώτατον... ναὸν" (most holy Temple). This appeals to the Jewish identity of the court. He reminds Herod that the Jewish people would never accept a king whose hands were stained with his father's blood, effectively arguing that the crime would be politically self-defeating.
Slander as the "Ghost" in the Household
Alexander gives a chillingly accurate description of palace life: "χαλεπὸν γὰρ οὐχ ὁμονοῶν οἶκος ἐν βασιλείᾳ" (a household not in harmony in a kingdom is a difficult thing). He identifies that the "prize" of the throne attracts "the most wicked people" who use slander to clear their own path to power—a clear, though unnamed, reference to Antipater and Salome.
The "Parrhesia" of Grief
Alexander admits they spoke with "παρρησίας" (freedom of speech/boldness), but he reframes it. They weren't plotting; they were grieving. He argues that weeping for a mother is a natural human instinct, not a political conspiracy. This is a direct appeal to the emotions of Augustus, who valued "pietas" (duty/devotion to family) above almost all else.
The Final Ultimatum
The speech ends with a "suicide pact" of sorts. Alexander says that if Herod cannot truly let go of his suspicion, the sons would rather die than live as a source of "dread" (ὀρρωδίας) to their father. This final display of submission—placing their lives entirely in Herod's hands—is the ultimate proof of their "piety." It leaves Herod with no choice but to reconcile or appear as a heartless monster in front of the Roman Emperor.
| 121 Τοιαῦτα δὲ λέγοντος ὅ τε ΚαῖσαρCaesar οὐδὲ πρότερον πιστεύων τῷ μεγέθει τῆς διαβολῆς ἔτι μᾶλλον ἐξηλλάττετο καὶ συνεχὲς εἰς τὸν ἩρώδηνHerōd ἀπέβλεπεν ὁρῶν κἀκεῖνον ὑποσυγχυνόμενον, ἀγωνία τε τοῖς παροῦσιν ἐνεπεπτώκει καὶ περὶ τὴν αὐλὴν ὁ λόγος διαδοθεὶς ἐπίφθονον ἐποίει τὸν βασιλέα. | 121 "As Alexander spoke in this way, Caesar, who even before had not believed the gravity of the slander, was moved even further and looked continuously at Herod, seeing that he too was becoming somewhat confused and troubled. A sense of distress had fallen upon those present, and as the report spread throughout the court, it made the King an object of resentment. |
| 121 When Alexander had thus spoken, Caesar, who did not before believe so gross a calumny, was still more moved by it, and looked intently upon Herod, and perceived he was a little confounded: the persons there present were under an anxiety about the young men, and the fame that was spread abroad made the king hated, | 121 When Alexander had said this, Caesar, who even before had not believed so gross an accusation, was still more moved and glancing constantly at Herod saw him look a little depressed. The others present were anxious on behalf of the young men and the rumours going around the hall made the king quite loathed. |
| 122 τὸ γὰρ ἄπιστον τῆς διαβολῆς καὶ τὸ περὶ τοὺς νεανίσκους ἐν ἀκμῇ καὶ κάλλει σωμάτων ἐλεεινὸν ἐπεσπᾶτο βοήθειαν· ἔτι δὲ μᾶλλον ἐπειδὴ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ δεξιῶς καὶ μετὰ φρονήσεως ὑπήντησεν ἈλέξανδροςAlexander, ἦν οὐδ᾽ ἐκείνοις ἔτι ταὐτὸν σχῆμα, κλαίουσι μὲν ὅμως καὶ σὺν κατηφείᾳ πρὸς τὴν γῆν νενευκόσιν, | 122 For the incredibility of the slander, combined with the pitiable state of the young men in the prime and beauty of their bodies, drew forth support. This was even more so because Alexander had met the accusation with a skillful and prudent speech. Even the appearance of the youths was no longer the same; though they were still weeping and leaning toward the ground in dejection, a better hope began to shine through. |
| 122 for the very incredibility of the calumny, and the commiseration of the flower of youth, the beauty of body, which were in the young men, pleaded strongly for assistance, and the more so on this account, that Alexander had made their defense with dexterity and prudence; nay, they did not themselves any longer continue in their former countenances, which had been bedewed with tears, and cast downwards to the ground, | 122 The incredibility of the accusation plus sympathy for the young men’s bloom of youth and physical beauty worked on their behalf, all the more so since Alexander had made their defence so skilfully and wisely. No longer did they look as before, weeping and with their eyes on the floor, |
| 123 ἡ δ᾽ ἐλπὶς ἀμείνων ὑπεφαίνετο, καὶ δόξας ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐξ ὧν αὐτὸν ἔπειθεν εὔλογα κατηγορηκέναι διὰ τὸ μηδὲν ἔχειν [ ἐξελέγχειν] ἀπολογίας τινὸς ἐδεῖτο. | 123 The King, who had thought his accusations seemed reasonable based on what he had been persuaded to believe, now found himself needing some excuse, since he had nothing to refute their defense. |
| 123 but now there arose in them hope of the best; and the king himself appeared not to have had foundation enough to build such an accusation upon, he having no real evidence wherewith to convict them. Indeed he wanted some apology for making the accusation; | 123 for now they began to hope for better things, and while the king seemed to have persuaded himself about the accusation, he now needed to apologize for it, having no solid proof. |
| 124 ΚαῖσαρCaesar δὲ μικρὸν ἐπισχὼν τοὺς μὲν νεανίσκους, εἰ καὶ πόρρω τῆς ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς διαβολῆς δοκοῦσιν, αὐτό γε τοῦτο ἁμαρτεῖν ἔφη τὸ μὴ τοιούτους αὐτοὺς παρασχεῖν τῷ πατρί, ὡς μηδὲ γενέσθαι τὸν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς λόγον. | 124 Caesar, after waiting a short while, said that although the young men appeared far removed from the slanders against them, they had erred in this one thing: they had not conducted themselves toward their father in such a way as to prevent such a report from even arising. |
| 124 but Caesar, after some delay, said, that although the young men were thoroughly innocent of that for which they were calumniated, yet had they been so far to blame, that they had not demeaned themselves towards their father so as to prevent that suspicion which was spread abroad concerning them. | 124 After a pause, Caesar said that, although the young men were fully innocent of the charge against them, yet they shared some blame in that they had not been docile enough toward their father to prevent such a report about them. |
| 125 ἩρώδηνHerōd δὲ παρεκάλει πᾶσαν ὑπόνοιαν ἐκβαλόντα διαλλάττεσθαι τοῖς παισίν· οὐ γὰρ εἶναι δίκαιον οὐδὲ πιστεύειν τὰ τοιαῦτα κατὰ τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ. δύνασθαι δὲ τὴν μετάνοιαν ἀμφοτέροις οὐ μόνον ἰάσασθαι τὰ συμβεβηκότα, παροξῦναι δὲ τὴν εὔνοιαν, ἐν ᾧ τὸ προπετὲς ἑκάτεροι τῆς ὑποψίαςsuspicion, jealousy ἀπολογούμενοι σπουδῇ πλείονι περὶ ἀλλήλους ἀξιώσουσι κεχρῆσθαι. | 125 He exhorted Herod to cast out all suspicion and be reconciled with his children; for it was not just, he said, to believe such things against his own offspring. He added that mutual repentance could not only heal what had happened but also sharpen their goodwill; in the process of each side apologizing for their rash suspicions, they would resolve to treat one another with even greater earnestness. |
| 125 He also exhorted Herod to lay all such suspicions aside, and to be reconciled to his sons; for that it was not just to give any credit to such reports concerning his own children; and that this repentance on both sides might still heal those breaches that had happened between them, and might improve that their good-will to one another, whereby those on both sides, excusing the rashness of their suspicions, might resolve to bear a greater degree of affection towards each other than they had before. | 125 He urged Herod to set aside all his suspicions and be reconciled to his sons, as it was not right to believe such things of one’s own children. Mutual repentance could still heal the breaches that had arisen between them and enliven their goodwill, so that both sides would apologize for their rash suspicions and resolve to show more concern for each other than before. |
| 126 τοιαῦτα νουθετῶν ἔνευσε τοῖς νεανίσκοις. ἐκείνων δὲ βουλομένων ὑποπεσεῖν ἐπὶ δεήσει προαναλαβὼν αὐτοὺς ὁ πατὴρ δακρύοντας ἠσπάζετο παρ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐν μέρει περιπτύσσων, ὡς μηδένα τῶν παρατυγχανόντων ἐλεύθερον ἢ δοῦλον ἀπαθῆ γενέσθαι. | 126 With this admonition, he signaled to the young men. When they wished to throw themselves down in entreaty, their father reached out first and embraced them as they wept, clasping each in turn, so that no one present—whether free or slave—could remain unmoved." |
| 126 After Caesar had given them this admonition, he beckoned to the young men. When therefore they were disposed to fall down to make intercession to their father, he took them up, and embraced them, as they were in tears, and took each of them distinctly in his arms, till not one of those that were present, whether free-man or slave, but was deeply affected with what they saw. | 126 After this admonition he beckoned to the young men, who were disposed to fall down and beg for pardon; and when their father raised them up, still in tears, and embraced them one by one, no one present, whether free-man or slave, remained unmoved. |
The "Resentment" (Epiphthonon) of the Court
Josephus notes that Herod became "an object of resentment" to the Roman court. In the Roman aristocratic code, pietas (devotion to family) was a core virtue. By publicly attacking his own sons—who were handsome, eloquent, and half-royal Hasmoneans—Herod looked less like a victim and more like a paranoid Eastern despot. The Roman elite saw his behavior as a violation of natural law.
The Power of "Physiognomy"
The text mentions the "ἀκμῇ καὶ κάλλει σωμάτων" (the prime and beauty of their bodies). In antiquity, physical beauty was often equated with moral goodness (the concept of kalokagathia). To the Romans watching, it seemed impossible that such "beautiful" young men could harbor "ugly" murderous thoughts. Their physical presence was a silent but powerful rebuttal to Herod’s verbal slanders.
Augustus as the Master Diplomat
Augustus’s verdict is a masterpiece of "both-sidesism."
By doing this, Augustus saves the lives of the princes without officially calling the King of Judea a liar.
The "Healed" Wound
The Emperor suggests that "μετάνοιαν" (repentance/change of mind) would lead to an even stronger bond. He uses a medical metaphor—"ἰάσασθαι" (to heal). He frames the trial not as a legal battle but as a family therapy session. He understood that Herod needed a "way out" that allowed him to keep his dignity while abandoning his lethal accusations.
The Universal Emotion
The scene ends with a total breakdown of social barriers: "μηδένα... ἐλεύθερον ἢ δοῦλον ἀπαθῆ γενέσθαι" (no one, free or slave, remained unmoved). This is Josephus’s way of emphasizing the "naturalness" of the reconciliation. Even a slave, who has no stake in the kingdom, recognizes the power of a father embracing his sons. It is the only moment in the entire Antiquities where Herod’s palace feels like a home rather than a prison.
The "Better Hope" and the Tragic Irony
Josephus uses the phrase "ἐλπὶς ἀμείνων ὑπεφαίνετο" (a better hope began to shine through). To the people in the room at Aquileia, the tragedy was over. But the reader knows that Antipater is still in Rome, and Salome is still in Jerusalem. Augustus has fixed the "symptoms" of the family's disease, but he has not removed the "poisoners" who created the suspicion in the first place.
Josephus notes that Herod became "an object of resentment" to the Roman court. In the Roman aristocratic code, pietas (devotion to family) was a core virtue. By publicly attacking his own sons—who were handsome, eloquent, and half-royal Hasmoneans—Herod looked less like a victim and more like a paranoid Eastern despot. The Roman elite saw his behavior as a violation of natural law.
The Power of "Physiognomy"
The text mentions the "ἀκμῇ καὶ κάλλει σωμάτων" (the prime and beauty of their bodies). In antiquity, physical beauty was often equated with moral goodness (the concept of kalokagathia). To the Romans watching, it seemed impossible that such "beautiful" young men could harbor "ugly" murderous thoughts. Their physical presence was a silent but powerful rebuttal to Herod’s verbal slanders.
Augustus as the Master Diplomat
Augustus’s verdict is a masterpiece of "both-sidesism."
1) He exonerates the sons of treason.
2) He blames the sons for "bad optics"—suggesting they should have been more careful not to provoke their father.
3) He exhorts Herod to "cast out suspicion," effectively telling the King that his paranoia is the real threat to the state.
By doing this, Augustus saves the lives of the princes without officially calling the King of Judea a liar.
The "Healed" Wound
The Emperor suggests that "μετάνοιαν" (repentance/change of mind) would lead to an even stronger bond. He uses a medical metaphor—"ἰάσασθαι" (to heal). He frames the trial not as a legal battle but as a family therapy session. He understood that Herod needed a "way out" that allowed him to keep his dignity while abandoning his lethal accusations.
The Universal Emotion
The scene ends with a total breakdown of social barriers: "μηδένα... ἐλεύθερον ἢ δοῦλον ἀπαθῆ γενέσθαι" (no one, free or slave, remained unmoved). This is Josephus’s way of emphasizing the "naturalness" of the reconciliation. Even a slave, who has no stake in the kingdom, recognizes the power of a father embracing his sons. It is the only moment in the entire Antiquities where Herod’s palace feels like a home rather than a prison.
The "Better Hope" and the Tragic Irony
Josephus uses the phrase "ἐλπὶς ἀμείνων ὑπεφαίνετο" (a better hope began to shine through). To the people in the room at Aquileia, the tragedy was over. But the reader knows that Antipater is still in Rome, and Salome is still in Jerusalem. Augustus has fixed the "symptoms" of the family's disease, but he has not removed the "poisoners" who created the suspicion in the first place.
| 127 Τότε μὲν οὖν εὐχαριστήσαντες ΚαίσαριCaesar μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων ἀπῄεσαν καὶ σὺν αὐτοῖς ἈντίπατροςAntipater ὑποκρινόμενος ἐφήδεσθαι ταῖς διαλλαγαῖς. | 127 "At that time, then, having given thanks to Caesar, they departed together; and Antipater went with them, pretending to be delighted by the reconciliation. |
| 127 Then did they return thanks to Caesar, and went away together; and with them went Antipater, with an hypocritical pretense that he rejoiced at this reconciliation. | 127 After thanking Caesar they went off together, and the hypocritical Antipater went with them, pretending to be glad at the reconciliation. |
| 128 ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὑστέραις ἡμέραις ἩρώδηςHerod μὲν ἐδωρεῖτο ΚαίσαραCaesar τριακοσίοις ταλάντοις θέας τε καὶ διανομὰς ποιούμενον τῷ ῬωμαίωνRoman, Latin δήμῳ, ΚαῖσαρCaesar δὲ αὐτῷ τοῦ μετάλλου τοῦ Κυπρίων χαλκοῦ τὴν ἡμίσειανhalf πρόσοδον καὶ τῆς ἡμισείας τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἔδωκεν καὶ τἆλλα ξενίαις καὶ καταγωγαῖς ἐτίμησεν, | 128 In the days that followed, Herod presented Caesar with three hundred talents, as the Emperor was providing spectacles and distributions to the Roman people. In return, Caesar gave Herod half the revenue from the copper mines of Cyprus and the management of the other half. He further honored him with other tokens of hospitality and lodging. |
| 128 And in the last days they were with Caesar, Herod made him a present of three hundred talents, as he was then exhibiting shows and largesses to the people of Rome; and Caesar made him a present of half the revenue of the copper mines in Cyprus, and committed the care of the other half to him, and honored him with other gifts and incomes; | 128 In their final days with Caesar, who was then providing shows and handouts for the Roman populace, Herod made him a gift of three hundred talents and Caesar granted him half the revenue of the Cypriot copper mines and entrusted him with managing the other half and honoured him with hospitality and lodging. |
| 129 καὶ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτῷ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἐφῆκεν ὃν ἂν αἱρῆται τῶν παίδων διάδοχον καθιστάνειν ἢ καὶ διανέμειν μέρος ἑκάστῳ τῆς τιμῆς εἰς πάντας ἐλευσομένης. ἐκείνου δὲ ἤδη θέλοντος αὐτὸ ποιεῖν οὐκ ἐπιτρέψειν ἔφη ζῶντι μὴ καὶ τῆς βασιλείας καὶ τῶν παίδων κρατεῖν. | 129 Regarding the kingdom, Caesar granted Herod the authority to appoint whichever of his sons he chose as successor, or even to divide the honor among all of them. When Herod wished to do this immediately, Caesar said he would not permit him, while still living, to cease being master of both his kingdom and his sons. |
| 129 and as to his own kingdom, he left it in his own power to appoint which of his sons he pleased for his successor, or to distribute it in parts to every one, that the dignity might thereby come to them all. And when Herod was disposed to make such a settlement immediately, Caesar said he would not give him leave to deprive himself, while he was alive, of the power over his kingdom, or over his sons. | 129 Furthermore, he left him the right to appoint whichever of his sons he pleased to succeed to his kingdom, or to distribute it among them in parts so that each of them could share in that dignity. When he wanted to do it there and then, he would not let him give up control over his kingdom or his sons during his lifetime. |
| 130 Ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐπανῄει πάλιν εἰς τὴν ἸουδαίανJudea. ἀποδημοῦντος δὲ οὐ μικρὸν μέρος ἀπέστη τῆς ἀρχῆς τὸ περὶ τὸν ΤράχωναTrachonitis, καὶ τούτους οἱ καταλειφθέντες στρατηγοὶ χειρωσάμενοι πάλιν ὑπακούειν ἠνάγκασαν. | 130 Following these events, Herod returned again to Judea. During his absence, a significant part of his domain around Trachonitis had revolted; however, the generals he had left behind had subdued them and forced them back into obedience. |
| 130 After this, Herod returned to Judea again. But during his absence no small part of his dominion about Trachon had revolted, whom yet the commanders he left there had vanquished, and compelled to a submission again. | 130 After this he returned to Judea, but in his absence a large part of his realm around Trachonitis had rebelled, but the officers he had left behind had defeated them and brought them back into submission. |
| 131 ἩρώδηςHerod δὲ πλέων σὺν τοῖς παισὶν ὡς ἐγένετο κατὰ ΚιλικίανCilicia ἐν Ἐλαιούσῃ τῇ μετωνομασμένῃ νῦν Σεβαστῇ καταλαμβάνει τὸν βασιλέα τῆς ΚαππαδοκίαςCappadocia ἈρχέλαονArchelaus, ὃς αὐτὸν ἐκδέχεται φιλοφρόνως ἡδόμενος ἐπὶ ταῖς τῶν παίδων διαλλαγαῖς καὶ τῷ τὸν ἈλέξανδρονAlexander, ὃς εἶχεν αὐτοῦ τὴν θυγατέρα, τῆς αἰτίας ἀπολελύσθαι, δωρεάς τε ἀντέδοσαν ἀλλήλοις ἃς εἰκὸς βασιλεῖς. | 131 As Herod sailed with his sons and reached Cilicia, at Elaeusa (now renamed Sebaste), he met Archelaus, the King of Cappadocia. Archelaus received him cordially, being delighted by the reconciliation of the sons and the fact that Alexander, who was married to his daughter, had been cleared of the charges. They exchanged the gifts customary between kings. |
| 131 Now as Herod was sailing with his sons, and was come over against Cilicia, to [the island] Eleusa, which hath now changed its name for Sebaste, he met with Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, who received him kindly, as rejoicing that he was reconciled to his sons, and that the accusation against Alexander, who had married his daughter, was at an end. They also made one another such presents as it became kings to make, | 131 Now as Herod was sailing with his sons and arrived near Cilicia, to Elaiousa, whose name has now changed to Sebaste, he met with Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, who received him kindly, delighted that he was reconciled to his sons and that Alexander, to whom his daughter was married, was cleared of all charges, and they exchanged the usual gifts among kings. |
| 132 ἐντεῦθεν ἩρώδηςHerod ἐπὶ ἸουδαίαςJudea ἐλθὼν καὶ γενόμενος ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ περὶ τῶν πεπραγμένων κατὰ τὴν ἀποδημίαν διελέγετο, τὴν ΚαίσαροςCaesar εἰς αὐτὸν φιλοφροσύνην καὶ τἆλλα διεξιὼν ὅσα κατὰ μέρος αὐτῷ πραχθέντα συμφέρειν ἡγεῖτο καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους εἰδέναι. | 132 From there, Herod came to Judea, and going into the Temple, he spoke about what had been accomplished during his journey. He detailed Caesar's kindness toward him and everything else that had transpired which he thought was to his advantage for the people to know. |
| 132 From thence Herod came to Judea and to the temple, where he made a speech to the people concerning what had been done in this his journey. He also discoursed to them about Caesar’s kindness to him, and about as many of the particulars he had done as he thought it for his advantage other people should be acquainted with. | 132 From there Herod came to Judea and to the temple, where he made a speech to the people about what had been achieved during his journey. He also spoke to them about Caesar’s favour to him and about as many of his activities as he thought it useful for others to know. |
| 133 τέλος ἐπὶ νουθεσίᾳ τῶν παίδων κατέστρεφε τὸν λόγον τοὺς περὶ τὴν αὐλὴν καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν πλῆθος εἰς ὁμόνοιαν παρακαλῶν καὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς μετ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀποδεικνύων βασιλέας γενέσθαι, πρῶτον μὲν ἈντίπατρονAntipater, εἶτα καὶ τοὺς ἐκ ΜαριάμμηςMariamne ἈλέξανδρονAlexander καὶ ἈριστόβουλονAristobulus. | 133 Finally, he turned his speech toward an admonition of his sons, urging the court and the rest of the multitude toward harmony. He designated his sons to be kings after him: first Antipater, and then the sons of Mariamne, Alexander and Aristobulus. |
| 133 At last he turned his speech to the admonition of his sons; and exhorted those that lived at court, and the multitude, to concord; and informed them that his sons were to reign after him; Antipater first, and then Alexander and Aristobulus, the sons of Mariamne: | 133 Finally he turned to admonishing his sons, and urging the courtiers and the people to harmony, and telling them that his sons were to be kings after him, Antipater first and then the sons of Mariamne, Alexander and Aristobulus. |
| 134 ἐν δὲ τῷ τότε πάντας ἀποβλέπειν εἰς αὐτὸν ἀξιῶν καὶ βασιλέα καὶ δεσπότην ἁπάντων δοκεῖν μήτε γήρᾳ παραποδιζόμενον, ἐν ᾧ τοῦ χρόνου τὸ πρὸς ἀρχὴν ἐμπειρότατον ἔχειν, οὔτε τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐπιτηδεύμασιν ἐλαττούμενον, ἃ δύναται καὶ βασιλείας κρατεῖν καὶ παίδων ἄρχειν, τούς τε ἡγεμόνας καὶ τὸ στρατιωτικὸν εἰ πρὸς ἕνα βλέποιεν αὐτὸν ἀτάραχον ἔφη τὸν βίον ἕξειν καὶ πᾶσαν ἀφορμὴν εὐδαιμονίας ἐξ ἀλλήλων ἔσεσθαι. | 134 For the present time, however, he demanded that everyone look to him as king and master of all, noting that he was not hindered by old age—an age in which he possessed the greatest experience for ruling—nor diminished in any other qualities necessary to govern a kingdom and rule over children. He stated that if the officers and the military looked to him alone, they would have a life free of disturbance, and every source of happiness would come to them through one another. |
| 134 but he desired that at present they should all have regard to himself, and esteem him king and lord of all, since he was not yet hindered by old age, but was in that period of life when he must be the most skillful in governing; and that he was not deficient in other arts of management that might enable him to govern the kingdom well, and to rule over his children also. He further told the rulers under him, and the soldiery, that in case they would look upon him alone, their life would be led in a peaceable manner, and they would make one another happy. | 134 But for the present he wanted all to look to himself as king and lord of everything, since he was not yet weakened by old age but rather in his prime at ruling, and not lacking the ability to govern the kingdom or rule over his children. He assured the officers and soldiers that if they heeded him alone, their life would be peaceful and every chance of happiness would be provided on all sides. |
| 135 ταῦτ᾽ εἰπὼν ἀφίησιν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, τοῖς πλείστοις μὲν ἀρεστὰ διειλεγμένος, ἐνίοις δ᾽ οὐχ ὁμοίως· ἤδη γὰρ ὑπὸ τῆς ἁμίλλης καὶ τῶν ἐλπίδων ἃς ἐδεδώκει τοῖς παισὶ νενεωτέριστο πολλὰ καὶ νεωτέρων ἐφιέμενοι | 135 Having said this, he dismissed the assembly. His speech was pleasing to most, but to some, it was not; for already, because of the rivalry and the hopes he had given to the sons, many things had been stirred up, and people were longing for political innovations." |
| 135 And when he had said this, he dismissed the assembly. Which speech was acceptable to the greatest part of the audience, but not so to them all; for the contention among his sons, and the hopes he had given them, occasioned thoughts and desires of innovations among them. | 135 With that he dismissed the assembly. Most of the audience, but not all of them, welcomed his speech, since thoughts and desires of revolt sprang from the struggle between his sons and the hopes he had given them. |
The "Pretence" of Antipater
Josephus uses the chilling word "ὑποκρινόμενος" (acting/hypocritically pretending) to describe Antipater’s joy. While Herod and the Hasmonean brothers were embracing, Antipater was recalculating. He realized that the "Aquileia Peace" had failed his primary goal: the execution of his brothers. From this moment on, Antipater’s plots become more covert and more desperate.
The Copper Mines of Cyprus
The gift of the Cypriot copper mines was a massive economic boon. Copper was essential for the Roman military and for coinage. By granting Herod half the revenue and total management, Augustus was effectively making Herod his "Minister of Resources" in the East. This explains how Herod continued to fund his massive building projects despite the heavy taxes and famines in Judea.
The "Three-King" Compromise
Herod’s solution to the succession was a disaster. By naming Antipater first, and then Alexander and Aristobulus, he created a hierarchy that satisfied no one.
Trachonitis and the Limits of "Pax Romana"
While Herod was playing the diplomat in Italy, his subjects in Trachonitis (the volcanic region of modern southern Syria) revolted. This highlights the fragility of Herod's rule. He was a superstar in Rome, but to the nomadic and rebellious tribes on his borders, he was a tyrant. His power rested entirely on his military "generals" (στρατηγοὶ) and the fear he inspired in his absence.
Archelaus of Cappadocia: The Royal Mediator
The meeting at Elaeusa shows the "International Club" of client kings. Archelaus was not just a neighbor; he was Alexander's father-in-law. His "cordial" reception of Herod was a sign of relief. If Alexander had been executed, it would have been a diplomatic insult to Cappadocia. The exchange of "customary gifts" (δωρεάς) was the ritualized way these kings maintained the balance of power in the East.
The Temple Speech: Propaganda as Piety
Herod chose the Temple as the venue for his report. This was intentional. By associating his Roman diplomatic successes and his "generosity" (the tax cuts and copper revenues) with the Temple, he was trying to wrap his Hellenized, Roman-client identity in the mantle of Jewish religious legitimacy.
The "Master of All" (Despotēn)
Herod’s insistence that he is still the "δεσπότην ἁπάντων" (master of all) reveals his insecurity. He felt he had to remind the army and the people that he was not "hindered by old age" (γήρᾳ). In the ancient world, a king’s power was tied to his perceived physical and mental vigor. Herod sensed that the naming of his sons as "future kings" might make him a "lame duck" ruler, so he reasserted his absolute authority with almost desperate force.
Josephus uses the chilling word "ὑποκρινόμενος" (acting/hypocritically pretending) to describe Antipater’s joy. While Herod and the Hasmonean brothers were embracing, Antipater was recalculating. He realized that the "Aquileia Peace" had failed his primary goal: the execution of his brothers. From this moment on, Antipater’s plots become more covert and more desperate.
The Copper Mines of Cyprus
The gift of the Cypriot copper mines was a massive economic boon. Copper was essential for the Roman military and for coinage. By granting Herod half the revenue and total management, Augustus was effectively making Herod his "Minister of Resources" in the East. This explains how Herod continued to fund his massive building projects despite the heavy taxes and famines in Judea.
The "Three-King" Compromise
Herod’s solution to the succession was a disaster. By naming Antipater first, and then Alexander and Aristobulus, he created a hierarchy that satisfied no one.
1) It insulted the Hasmonean brothers, who considered themselves of higher birth.
2) It terrified Antipater, who now had to share his "rightful" crown with two rivals who hated him.
This move effectively turned the Jerusalem palace into three separate warring camps.Trachonitis and the Limits of "Pax Romana"
While Herod was playing the diplomat in Italy, his subjects in Trachonitis (the volcanic region of modern southern Syria) revolted. This highlights the fragility of Herod's rule. He was a superstar in Rome, but to the nomadic and rebellious tribes on his borders, he was a tyrant. His power rested entirely on his military "generals" (στρατηγοὶ) and the fear he inspired in his absence.
Archelaus of Cappadocia: The Royal Mediator
The meeting at Elaeusa shows the "International Club" of client kings. Archelaus was not just a neighbor; he was Alexander's father-in-law. His "cordial" reception of Herod was a sign of relief. If Alexander had been executed, it would have been a diplomatic insult to Cappadocia. The exchange of "customary gifts" (δωρεάς) was the ritualized way these kings maintained the balance of power in the East.
The Temple Speech: Propaganda as Piety
Herod chose the Temple as the venue for his report. This was intentional. By associating his Roman diplomatic successes and his "generosity" (the tax cuts and copper revenues) with the Temple, he was trying to wrap his Hellenized, Roman-client identity in the mantle of Jewish religious legitimacy.
The "Master of All" (Despotēn)
Herod’s insistence that he is still the "δεσπότην ἁπάντων" (master of all) reveals his insecurity. He felt he had to remind the army and the people that he was not "hindered by old age" (γήρᾳ). In the ancient world, a king’s power was tied to his perceived physical and mental vigor. Herod sensed that the naming of his sons as "future kings" might make him a "lame duck" ruler, so he reasserted his absolute authority with almost desperate force.
Chapter 5
[136-159]
Herodian games, to celebrate the completion of Caesarea-Sebaste.
His magnificent building projects
[136-159]
Herodian games, to celebrate the completion of Caesarea-Sebaste.
His magnificent building projects
| 136 περὶ δὲ τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον συντέλειαν ἔλαβεν ἡ ΚαισάρειαCaesar Σεβαστή, ἣν ᾠκοδόμει δεκάτῳ μὲν ἔτει πρὸς τέλος ἐλθούσης αὐτῷ τῆς ὅλης κατασκευῆς, ἐκπεσούσης δὲ τῆς προθεσμίας εἰς ὄγδοον καὶ εἰκοστὸν ἔτος τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐπ᾽ ὀλυμπιάδος δευτέρας καὶ ἐνενηκοστῆς πρὸς ταῖς ἑκατόν. | 136 "At about this time, the city of Caesarea Sebaste, which he had been building, reached completion. The entire construction came to its end in the tenth year of work, the deadline falling in the twenty-eighth year of his reign, during the 192nd Olympiad [approx. 10–9 BCE]. |
| 136 About this time it was that Caesarea Sebaste, which he had built, was finished. The entire building being accomplished: in the tenth year, the solemnity of it fell into the twenty-eighth year of Herod’s reign, and into the hundred and ninety-second olympiad. | 136 About this time Caesarea Sebaste, which he had been building, was completed in ten years, which had it ready by the twenty-eighth year of Herod’s reign and the hundred and ninety-second Olympiad. |
| 137 ἦν οὖν εὐθὺς ἐν καθιερώσει μείζονες ἑορταὶ καὶ παρασκευαὶ πολυτελέσταται· κατηγγέλκει μὲν γὰρ ἀγῶνα μουσικῆς καὶ γυμνικῶν ἀθλημάτων, παρεσκευάκει δὲ πολὺ πλῆθος μονομάχων καὶ θηρίων ἵππων τε δρόμον καὶ τὰ πολυτελέστερα τῶν ἔν τε τῇ ῬώμῃRome καὶ παρ᾽ ἄλλοις τισὶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων. | 137 There were, accordingly, great festivals and the most lavish preparations at the dedication. For he had announced a contest of music and gymnastic athletic games, and he had prepared a vast multitude of gladiators and wild beasts, as well as horse racing, and the most expensive spectacles practiced in Rome and elsewhere. |
| 137 There was accordingly a great festival and most sumptuous preparations made presently, in order to its dedication; for he had appointed a contention in music, and games to be performed naked. He had also gotten ready a great number of those that fight single combats, and of beasts for the like purpose; horse races also, and the most chargeable of such sports and shows as used to be exhibited at Rome, and in other places. | 137 Immediately a great and sumptuous festival was prepared for its dedication, for which he arranged musical competition and gymnastic games, complete with a whole troop of gladiators and wild beasts, horse races and the very elaborate kind of shows that are customary in Rome and some other places. |
| 138 ἀνετίθει δὲ καὶ τοῦτον τὸν ἀγῶνα ΚαίσαριCaesar κατὰ πενταετηρίδα παρεσκευασμένος ἄγειν αὐτόν· ὁ δ᾽ αὐτῷ πᾶσαν τὴν εἰς τὰ τοιαῦτα παρασκευὴν ἀπὸ τῶν οἰκείων διεπέμπετο τὴν φιλοτιμίαν ἐπικοσμῶν. | 138 He dedicated this contest to Caesar [Augustus], having prepared to hold it every five years. The Emperor himself sent him the entire equipment for such preparations from his own resources, thus adding further ornament to Herod's ambition. |
| 138 He consecrated this combat to Caesar, and ordered it to be celebrated every fifth year. He also sent all sorts of ornaments for it out of his own furniture, that it might want nothing to make it decent; | 138 He planned for its celebration every fifth year and dedicated these first games to Caesar, who from his own stores sent all sorts of equipment for the occasion, to add to its splendour. |
| 139 Ἰδίᾳ δὲ καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ΚαίσαροςCaesar Ἰουλία πολλὰ τῶν ἐκεῖ πολυτελεστάτων ἀπέστειλεν, ὡς μηδὲν ὑστερεῖν τὰ πάντα συντιμώμενα ταλάντων πεντακοσίων. | 139 Julia, the wife of Caesar, also sent many of the most costly items from Rome, so that the total value of all the gifts contributed reached five hundred talents. |
| 139 nay, Julia, Caesar’s wife, sent a great part of her most valuable furniture [from Rome], insomuch that he had no want of any thing. The sum of them all was estimated at five hundred talents. | 139 Caesar’s wife, Julia, sent much of her most valuable furnishings, so that the whole value of the equipment was estimated at no less than five hundred talents. |
| 140 συνελθόντος δ᾽ εἰς τὴν πόλιν ὄχλου πλείονος κατὰ θεωρίαν καὶ πρεσβείας, ἃς ἔπεμπον οἱ δῆμοι δι᾽ ἃς ἐπεπόνθεισαν εὐεργεσίας, ἅπαντας ἐξεδέξατο καὶ καταγωγαῖς καὶ τραπέζαις καὶ διηνεκέσιν ἑορταῖς, τῆς πανηγύρεως ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐχούσης τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν θεαμάτων ψυχαγωγίας, ἐν δὲ ταῖς νυξὶ τὰς εὐφροσύνας καὶ τὴν εἰς τοῦτο πολυτέλειαν, ὡς ἐπίσημον γενέσθαι τὴν μεγαλοψυχίαν αὐτοῦ· | 140 When a vast crowd gathered in the city for the spectacles, along with embassies sent by various peoples on account of the benefits they had received from Herod, he welcomed them all with lodgings, banquets, and continuous festivities. During the days, the festival offered the entertainment of the spectacles, and during the nights, there were merry-makings and great luxury, so that his magnanimity (megalopsychia) became famous. |
| 140 Now when a great multitude was come to that city to see the shows, as well as the ambassadors whom other people sent, on account of the benefits they had received from Herod, he entertained them all in the public inns, and at public tables, and with perpetual feasts; this solemnity having in the day time the diversions of the fights, and in the night time such merry meetings as cost vast sums of money, and publicly demonstrated the generosity of his soul; | 140 A large crowd gathered in the city to see the games, as well as the envoys sent by various groups on account of his benefactions to them. Herod entertained them all with lodgings and meals and continuous feasting, so that the festival offered by day the enjoyment of the games and by night merry-making on a lavish scale, costing huge sums of money and demonstrating his magnanimity. |
| 141 εἰς πάντα γὰρ ἅπερ [ἂν] ἐπιτηδεύσειεν ἐφιλονείκει τὴν τῶν ἤδη γεγενημένων ἐπίδειξιν ὑπερβαλέσθαι, καί φασιν αὐτόν τε ΚαίσαραCaesar καὶ ἈγρίππανAgrippa πολλάκις εἰπεῖν, ὡς ἀποδέοι τὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἩρώδῃHerod τῆς οὔσης ἐν αὐτῷ μεγαλοψυχίας· ἄξιον γὰρ εἶναι καὶ ΣυρίαςSyria ἁπάσης καὶ ΑἰγύπτουEgypt τὴν βασιλείαν ἔχειν. | 141 For in everything he undertook, he strove to surpass the displays of those who had come before him. They say that both Caesar and Agrippa often remarked that Herod’s current realm was too small for the greatness of his soul, and that he was worthy of holding the kingdom of all Syria and Egypt." |
| 141 for in all his undertakings he was ambitious to exhibit what exceeded whatsoever had been done before of the same kind. And it is related that Caesar and Agrippa often said, that the dominions of Herod were too little for the greatness of his soul; for that he deserved to have both all the kingdom of Syria, and that of Egypt also. | 141 In all his undertakings he was ambitious to surpass whatever had been done before, and they say that Caesar and Agrippa often noted that Herod’s realm was too small for the greatness of his soul, and that he deserved to rule the whole of Syria and Egypt as his kingdom. |
The Timing: A Monument to Stability
The completion of Caesarea in the 28th year of his reign was a calculated political statement. After the chaos of the trial at Aquileia, Herod needed to show the world that his kingdom was stable, wealthy, and fully integrated into the Roman world. By naming the city Sebaste (the Greek equivalent of Augustus), he permanently etched the Emperor's name into the Judean coastline.
The Cultural "Trojan Horse"
Herod introduced gladiators, wild beast hunts (venationes), and musical contests into Judea. To traditional Jews, these were "un-Jewish" and potentially idolatrous. However, by framing these as a "gift to Caesar" and inviting international embassies, Herod made it difficult for local religious leaders to protest without appearing to insult the Roman Emperor himself.
Julia’s Patronage
The mention of Julia (Augustus’s wife, Livia) sending gifts worth 500 talents is significant. It shows that Herod’s "charm offensive" extended into the inner sanctum of the Roman imperial family. This level of investment from the Roman Empress suggests that Herod was viewed not just as a client king, but as a personal friend of the dynasty.
The Megalopsychia (Magnanimity)
Josephus uses the word "μεγαλοψυχία" (greatness of soul/magnanimity). In Aristotelian ethics, the megalopsychos is the man who is worthy of great things and knows it. Herod’s hospitality—providing "τραπέζαις" (tables/banquets) for an entire international crowd—was designed to prove he had the "soul of an Emperor" even if he only had the "territory of a King."
The Dangerous Compliment
The claim that Augustus and Agrippa said Herod deserved Syria and Egypt is the ultimate "double-edged sword."
The "Continuous Festivities"
The detail about the days being for "spectacles" and the nights for "merry-making" ("εὐφροσύνας") suggests a 24-hour cycle of propaganda. Herod wanted his guests to be so overwhelmed by the sensory experience of his new city that they would forget the whispers of his family's dysfunction.
The completion of Caesarea in the 28th year of his reign was a calculated political statement. After the chaos of the trial at Aquileia, Herod needed to show the world that his kingdom was stable, wealthy, and fully integrated into the Roman world. By naming the city Sebaste (the Greek equivalent of Augustus), he permanently etched the Emperor's name into the Judean coastline.
The Cultural "Trojan Horse"
Herod introduced gladiators, wild beast hunts (venationes), and musical contests into Judea. To traditional Jews, these were "un-Jewish" and potentially idolatrous. However, by framing these as a "gift to Caesar" and inviting international embassies, Herod made it difficult for local religious leaders to protest without appearing to insult the Roman Emperor himself.
Julia’s Patronage
The mention of Julia (Augustus’s wife, Livia) sending gifts worth 500 talents is significant. It shows that Herod’s "charm offensive" extended into the inner sanctum of the Roman imperial family. This level of investment from the Roman Empress suggests that Herod was viewed not just as a client king, but as a personal friend of the dynasty.
The Megalopsychia (Magnanimity)
Josephus uses the word "μεγαλοψυχία" (greatness of soul/magnanimity). In Aristotelian ethics, the megalopsychos is the man who is worthy of great things and knows it. Herod’s hospitality—providing "τραπέζαις" (tables/banquets) for an entire international crowd—was designed to prove he had the "soul of an Emperor" even if he only had the "territory of a King."
The Dangerous Compliment
The claim that Augustus and Agrippa said Herod deserved Syria and Egypt is the ultimate "double-edged sword."
1) On one hand, it confirms Herod's status as the premier client king of the East.
2) On the other hand, Egypt was the personal province of the Emperor. Saying Herod "deserved" Egypt was the highest possible praise, but it also highlighted the fact that Herod’s ambitions were constantly pushing against the boundaries of his actual status.
The "Continuous Festivities"
The detail about the days being for "spectacles" and the nights for "merry-making" ("εὐφροσύνας") suggests a 24-hour cycle of propaganda. Herod wanted his guests to be so overwhelmed by the sensory experience of his new city that they would forget the whispers of his family's dysfunction.
| 142 μετὰ δὲ τὴν πανήγυριν ταύτην καὶ τὰς ἑορτὰς πόλιν ἄλλην ἀνήγειρεν ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ τῷ λεγομένῳ Καφαρσαβᾶ τόπον ἔνυδρον καὶ χώραν ἀρίστηνbest φυτοῖς ἐκλέξας, ποταμοῦ τε περιρρέοντος τὴν πόλιν αὐτὴν καὶ καλλίστου κατὰ μέγεθος τῶν φυτῶν περιειληφότος ἄλσους. | 142 "After this festival and the celebrations, he raised up another city in the plain called Capharsaba, selecting a well-watered site and land excellent for plants, with a river flowing around the city itself and a grove of the finest and largest trees surrounding it. |
| 142 After this solemnity and these festivals were over, Herod erected another city in the plain called Capharsaba, where he chose out a fit place, both for plenty of water and goodness of soil, and proper for the production of what was there planted, where a river encompassed the city itself, and a grove of the best trees for magnitude was round about it: | 142 After this festival and the feasting were over, Herod built another city in the plain called Capharsaba, where he chose a piece of excellent, fruitful and well-watered land, with a river flowing close to the city and a grove of fine tall trees surrounding it. |
| 143 ταύτην ἀπὸ ἈντιπάτρουAntipater τοῦ πατρὸς ἈντιπατρίδαAntipatris προσηγόρευσεν. ἐπώνυμον δὲ καὶ τῇ μητρὶ χωρίον ὑπὲρ ἹεριχοῦνJericho οἰκοδομήσας ἀσφαλείᾳ τε διάφορον καὶ καταγωγαῖς ἥδιστονmost gladly ἐκάλεσεν ΚύπρονCyprus. | 143 This city he named Antipatris, after his father, Antipater. He also built a place named after his mother [Cypros] above Jericho; it was exceptional for its security and most pleasant for its accommodations, and he called it Cypros. |
| 143 this he named Antipatris, from his father Antipater. He also built upon another spot of ground above Jericho, of the same name with his mother, a place of great security and very pleasant for habitation, and called it Cypros. | 143 This he named Antipatris, after his father Antipater; and on another site above Jericho he built a very secure and pleasant place to live, and named it after his mother, Cypros. |
| 144 ΦασαήλῳPhasael τε τῷ ἀδελφῷ μνημεῖα διὰ τὴν γεγενημένην εἰς αὐτὸν φιλοστοργίαν ἀνετίθει τὰ κάλλιστα, πύργον ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς πόλεως ἀναστήσας οὐδὲν ἐλάττω τοῦ κατὰ τὴν Φάρον, ὃν προσηγόρευσεν ΦασάηλονPhasael, ἀσφαλείας τε τῇ πόλει μέρος ὄντα καὶ μνήμης τῷ τετελευτηκότι διὰ τὴν προσηγορίαν. | 144 To his brother Phasael, because of the deep natural affection (philostorgia) that had existed between them, he dedicated the most beautiful monuments. He erected a tower in the city [Jerusalem] itself, no smaller than the famous Pharos [Lighthouse of Alexandria], which he called Phasaelus; it served both as a part of the city’s defense and as a memorial to the deceased through its name. |
| 144 He also dedicated the finest monuments to his brother Phasaelus, on account of the great natural affection there had been between them, by erecting a tower in the city itself, not less than the tower of Pharos, which he named Phasaelus, which was at once a part of the strong defenses of the city, and a memorial for him that was deceased, because it bare his name. | 144 He dedicated a monument of the finest kind to his brother Phasael, too, whom he had held in the great affection, by raising a tower in the city itself, not smaller than the tower of Pharos, which he named Phasael, both to form part of the strong defences of the city and as a memorial to the dead man after whom it was named. |
| 145 ὁμώνυμον δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ πόλιν περὶ τὸν αὐλῶνα τῆς ἹεριχοῦντοςJericho ἔκτισεν ἀπιόντων κατὰ βορρᾶν ἄνεμον, δι᾽ ἧς καὶ τὴν περὶ χώραν ἔρημον οὖσαν ἐνεργοτέραν ἐποίησεν ταῖς ἐπιμελείαις τῶν οἰκητόρων. ΦασαηλίδαPhasaelis καὶ ταύτην ἐκάλει. | 145 He also founded a city named after him in the valley of Jericho as one goes toward the north wind [northward]; through this city, he made the surrounding land—which had been a desert—more productive through the industry of its inhabitants. This also he called Phasaelis." |
| 145 He also built a city of the same name in the valley of Jericho, as you go from it northward, whereby he rendered the neighboring country more fruitful by the cultivation its inhabitants introduced; and this also he called Phasaelus. | 145 He also built a city of that name in the valley as you go north from Jericho, whose cultivation by its inhabitants made the neighbouring country more fruitful. This too he called Phasael. |
The Strategy of "Toponymic Immortality"
Herod was the first ruler in Judea to systematically rename the landscape after his own family. By naming Antipatris after his father and Cypros after his mother, he was signaling that the Herodian house was not a passing political phase, but a permanent fixture of the land. It was a way of "anchoring" his non-royal Idumaean ancestry into the geography of the high-status coastal and valley regions.
Antipatris: The Strategic Oasis
The choice of Capharsaba (modern Tel Afek/Antipatris) was brilliant. It sat at the headwaters of the Yarkon River. By describing it as "ἔνυδρον" (well-watered) and surrounded by a "καλλίστου... ἄλσους" (most beautiful grove), Josephus highlights Herod’s eye for both aesthetics and logistics. Antipatris became a vital stop on the road from Jerusalem to Caesarea, ensuring that anyone traveling to the capital would have to pass through a city named after Herod’s father.
Cypros: Security and Luxury
The fortress of Cypros sat on a high peak overlooking Jericho. Josephus notes it was built for "ἀσφαλείᾳ" (security) but was also "ἥδιστον" (most pleasant). This "fortress-palace" model was a Herodian trademark (seen also at Masada and Herodium). It allowed the royal family to enjoy the luxury of the Jericho winter climate while remaining safe from the potentially rebellious population below.
The Pharos of Jerusalem
Herod’s comparison of the Phasaelus Tower to the Pharos of Alexandria (one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World) is a bold architectural claim. Located at the modern "Tower of David" site, this massive tower was meant to dominate the Jerusalem skyline. It wasn't just a military bastion; it was a visible symbol of Herod’s grief and his brother’s legacy. Even today, the massive Herodian masonry at the base of the citadel reminds visitors of this "Pharos-like" scale.
Phasaelis: Engineering the Desert
The founding of Phasaelis north of Jericho is a classic example of Herod as a "Civilizing King." He took a region that was "ἔρημον οὖσαν" (being a desert) and made it "ἐνεργοτέραν" (more productive/active). By introducing sophisticated irrigation and settling inhabitants there, he turned the Jordan Valley into a garden of dates and balsam. This was economic development used as a tool of dynastic glorification.
"Philostorgia": The Lost Virtue
Josephus uses the word "φιλοστοργίαν" (natural family affection) to describe Herod’s relationship with his brother Phasael. This is deeply ironic. While Herod went to extreme lengths to honor his dead relatives (his father, mother, and brother), he was at that very moment systematically destroying his living family (his sons). It suggests that Herod found it much easier to love his family when they were monuments of stone rather than living competitors for his throne.
Herod was the first ruler in Judea to systematically rename the landscape after his own family. By naming Antipatris after his father and Cypros after his mother, he was signaling that the Herodian house was not a passing political phase, but a permanent fixture of the land. It was a way of "anchoring" his non-royal Idumaean ancestry into the geography of the high-status coastal and valley regions.
Antipatris: The Strategic Oasis
The choice of Capharsaba (modern Tel Afek/Antipatris) was brilliant. It sat at the headwaters of the Yarkon River. By describing it as "ἔνυδρον" (well-watered) and surrounded by a "καλλίστου... ἄλσους" (most beautiful grove), Josephus highlights Herod’s eye for both aesthetics and logistics. Antipatris became a vital stop on the road from Jerusalem to Caesarea, ensuring that anyone traveling to the capital would have to pass through a city named after Herod’s father.
Cypros: Security and Luxury
The fortress of Cypros sat on a high peak overlooking Jericho. Josephus notes it was built for "ἀσφαλείᾳ" (security) but was also "ἥδιστον" (most pleasant). This "fortress-palace" model was a Herodian trademark (seen also at Masada and Herodium). It allowed the royal family to enjoy the luxury of the Jericho winter climate while remaining safe from the potentially rebellious population below.
The Pharos of Jerusalem
Herod’s comparison of the Phasaelus Tower to the Pharos of Alexandria (one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World) is a bold architectural claim. Located at the modern "Tower of David" site, this massive tower was meant to dominate the Jerusalem skyline. It wasn't just a military bastion; it was a visible symbol of Herod’s grief and his brother’s legacy. Even today, the massive Herodian masonry at the base of the citadel reminds visitors of this "Pharos-like" scale.
Phasaelis: Engineering the Desert
The founding of Phasaelis north of Jericho is a classic example of Herod as a "Civilizing King." He took a region that was "ἔρημον οὖσαν" (being a desert) and made it "ἐνεργοτέραν" (more productive/active). By introducing sophisticated irrigation and settling inhabitants there, he turned the Jordan Valley into a garden of dates and balsam. This was economic development used as a tool of dynastic glorification.
"Philostorgia": The Lost Virtue
Josephus uses the word "φιλοστοργίαν" (natural family affection) to describe Herod’s relationship with his brother Phasael. This is deeply ironic. While Herod went to extreme lengths to honor his dead relatives (his father, mother, and brother), he was at that very moment systematically destroying his living family (his sons). It suggests that Herod found it much easier to love his family when they were monuments of stone rather than living competitors for his throne.
| 146 Τὰς δὲ ἄλλας εὐεργεσίας ἄπορονwithout passage εἰπεῖν ὅσαςall who, as much ἀπέδωκεν ταῖς πόλεσιν ἔν τε ΣυρίᾳSyria καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἙλλάδαGreek καὶ παρ᾽ οἷς ποτ᾽ ἂν ἀποδημήσας τύχοι· καὶ γὰρ πλείους λειτουργίας καὶ δημοσίων ἔργων κατασκευὰς καὶ χρήματα τοῖς δεομένοις [ἔργοις] εἰς ἐπιμέλειαν τῶν προτέρων ἔργων ἐκλελοιπότων ἄφθονα χαρίσασθαι δοκεῖ. | 146 "As for his other benefactions, it is nearly impossible to enumerate how many he bestowed upon cities in Syria, throughout Greece, and wherever he happened to travel. Indeed, he appears to have generously granted numerous public services (leitourgias), the construction of public works, and abundant funds to those whose previous projects had failed for lack of maintenance. |
| 146 But as for his other benefits, it is impossible to reckon them up, those which he bestowed on cities, both in Syria and in Greece, and in all the places he came to in his voyages; for he seems to have conferred, and that after a most plentiful manner, what would minister to many necessities, and the building of public works, and gave them the money that was necessary to such works as wanted it, to support them upon the failure of their other revenues: | 146 It is impossible to calculate all his other benefactions done for cities in Syria and Greece and in all the places he called at in his travels. He seems to have generously funded many public functions and building projects and provided the necessary money in cases where works were languishing for lack of funds. |
| 147 τὰ δὲ μέγιστα καὶ διασημότατα τῶν πεπραγμένων αὐτῷ Ῥοδίοις μὲν τό τε Πύθιονtemple of the Pythian Apollo ἀνέστησεν οἰκείοις ἀναλώμασιν καὶ παρέσχεν ἀργυρίου πολλὰ τάλαντα πρὸς ναυπηγίαν. Νικοπολίταις δὲ τοῖς ἐπ᾽ ἈκτίῳActium κτισθεῖσιν ὑπὸ ΚαίσαροςCaesar τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν δημοσίων συγκατεσκεύασεν. | 147 The greatest and most famous of his deeds include the following: for the Rhodians, he rebuilt the Pythian temple at his own expense and provided many talents of silver for shipbuilding. For the citizens of Nicopolis, which was founded by Caesar near Actium, he helped construct most of the public buildings. |
| 147 but what was the greatest and most illustrious of all his works, he erected Apollo’s temple at Rhodes, at his own expenses, and gave them a great number of talents of silver for the repair of their fleet. He also built the greatest part of the public edifices for the inhabitants of Nicopolis, at Actium; | 147 Among his greatest and most famous of his works was building the Pythian temple at Rhodes at his own expense, and providing many talents of silver for ship-building. He also built most of the public buildings for the people of Nicopolis, founded by Caesar at Actium. |
| 148 Ἀντιοχεῦσι δὲ τοῖς ἐν ΣυρίᾳSyria μεγίστην πόλιν οἰκοῦσιν, ἣν κατὰ μῆκος τέμνει πλατεῖα, ταύτην αὐτὴν στοαῖς παρ᾽ ἑκάτερα καὶ λίθῳ τὴν ὕπαιθρον ὁδὸν ξεστῷ καταστορέσας πλεῖστον εἰς κόσμον καὶ τὴν τῶν οἰκούντων εὐχρηστίαν ὠφέλησεν. | 148 To the Antiochenes in Syria, who inhabit a very great city split lengthwise by a broad main street, he provided a magnificent adornment and practical benefit to the residents by paving the open road with polished stone and erecting colonnades on either side. |
| 148 and for the Antiochians, the inhabitants of the principal city of Syria, where a broad street cuts through the place lengthways, he built cloisters along it on both sides, and laid the open road with polished stone, and was of very great advantage to the inhabitants. | 148 For the Antiocheans, the people of the principal city of Syria, where a broad street cuts lengthways through it, he built porticoes along both sides of it and paved the uncovered part of the street with polished stone, to the great pleasure and benefit of the inhabitants. |
| 149 τόν γε μὴν ὈλυμπίασινOlympian ἀγῶνα πολὺ τῆς προσηγορίας ἀδοξότερον ὑπ᾽ ἀχρηματίας διατεθειμένον τιμιώτερον ἐποίει χρημάτων προσόδους καταστήσας καὶ πρὸς θυσίας καὶ τὸν ἄλλον κόσμον ἐσεμνοποίησεν τὴν πανήγυριν. διὰ δὴ ταύτην τὴν φιλοτιμίαν διηνεκὴς ἀγωνοθέτης παρὰ τοῖς ἨλείοιςEleans ἀνεγράφη. | 149 Furthermore, regarding the Olympic Games, which had fallen into low repute and lacked prestige due to a want of funds, he made them more honorable by establishing permanent revenues for sacrifices and other adornments, thus adding dignity to the festival. Because of this ambition (philotimia), he was recorded by the inhabitants of Elis as a perpetual agonothete (president of the games)." |
| 149 And as to the olympic games, which were in a very low condition, by reason of the failure of their revenues, he recovered their reputation, and appointed revenues for their maintenance, and made that solemn meeting more venerable, as to the sacrifices and other ornaments; and by reason of this vast liberality, he was generally declared in their inscriptions to be one of the perpetual managers of those games. | 149 He also restored the honour of the Olympic Games, which had fallen into decline for lack of money, and assigned a revenue for their upkeep and for sacrifices and other things to hallow the festival. For this generosity, an inscription by the Elians calls him the perpetual patron of the games. |
Herod as the "Global Architect"
Herod’s building program was not limited to Judea. He understood that in the Roman Empire, power was expressed through Evergetism (public benefaction). By funding temples in Rhodes and streets in Antioch, Herod ensured that his name was spoken in the most influential salons of the empire. He was essentially a "client king" acting with the budget and ego of an Emperor.
The Paving of Antioch: Urban Planning as Power
The description of the main street in Antioch is one of the most famous passages in ancient urban history. Antioch was the third-largest city in the empire. By paving the Cardo Maximus with "polished stone" and adding covered colonnades (στοαῖς), Herod solved a major practical problem (mud and heat) while creating a literal "walk of fame" for himself. To this day, archaeologists look for the "Herodian layer" in the ruins of ancient Antioch.
Savior of the Olympics
By the late 1st Century BCE, the Olympic Games were in financial ruin. Herod’s intervention was not merely a one-time gift; he established "προσόδους" (permanent revenues). This effectively made the Jewish King the "Sponsor-in-Chief" of the most famous pagan festival in the world. His title as "διηνεκὴς ἀγωνοθέτης" (perpetual president) was an extraordinary honor for a non-Greek, non-Roman ruler.
Strategic Loyalty: Rhodes and Nicopolis
Herod’s choices were always political:
The "Impossible" Scale
Josephus uses the word "ἄπορον" (impossible/difficult) to describe the total list of Herod's gifts. This reflects Herod's pathological "φιλοτιμίαν" (ambition/love of honor). He wanted to be indispensable. If a city’s theater was crumbling or its harbor was silted, Herod was the man with the silver.
The Paradox of the "Jewish" King
For a king of Judea to spend massive amounts of Jewish tax money on the Pythian Temple (dedicated to Apollo) and the Olympic Games (dedicated to Zeus) was a profound scandal to his subjects in Jerusalem. Josephus presents these acts as "magnanimity," but for the Pharisees and the common people, this was a betrayal. It explains why Herod was beloved in the Greco-Roman world but loathed by his own people: he was using their survival to buy his own international glory.
Herod’s building program was not limited to Judea. He understood that in the Roman Empire, power was expressed through Evergetism (public benefaction). By funding temples in Rhodes and streets in Antioch, Herod ensured that his name was spoken in the most influential salons of the empire. He was essentially a "client king" acting with the budget and ego of an Emperor.
The Paving of Antioch: Urban Planning as Power
The description of the main street in Antioch is one of the most famous passages in ancient urban history. Antioch was the third-largest city in the empire. By paving the Cardo Maximus with "polished stone" and adding covered colonnades (στοαῖς), Herod solved a major practical problem (mud and heat) while creating a literal "walk of fame" for himself. To this day, archaeologists look for the "Herodian layer" in the ruins of ancient Antioch.
Savior of the Olympics
By the late 1st Century BCE, the Olympic Games were in financial ruin. Herod’s intervention was not merely a one-time gift; he established "προσόδους" (permanent revenues). This effectively made the Jewish King the "Sponsor-in-Chief" of the most famous pagan festival in the world. His title as "διηνεκὴς ἀγωνοθέτης" (perpetual president) was an extraordinary honor for a non-Greek, non-Roman ruler.
Strategic Loyalty: Rhodes and Nicopolis
Herod’s choices were always political:
1) Rhodes: A vital naval power. By funding their shipbuilding, he ingratiated himself with the masters of the Eastern Mediterranean.
2) Nicopolis: This city was Augustus’s personal "victory city" built to commemorate the Battle of Actium. By funding its public works, Herod was directly stroking the Emperor’s ego, showing that he supported the new Imperial order with his own wallet.
The "Impossible" Scale
Josephus uses the word "ἄπορον" (impossible/difficult) to describe the total list of Herod's gifts. This reflects Herod's pathological "φιλοτιμίαν" (ambition/love of honor). He wanted to be indispensable. If a city’s theater was crumbling or its harbor was silted, Herod was the man with the silver.
The Paradox of the "Jewish" King
For a king of Judea to spend massive amounts of Jewish tax money on the Pythian Temple (dedicated to Apollo) and the Olympic Games (dedicated to Zeus) was a profound scandal to his subjects in Jerusalem. Josephus presents these acts as "magnanimity," but for the Pharisees and the common people, this was a betrayal. It explains why Herod was beloved in the Greco-Roman world but loathed by his own people: he was using their survival to buy his own international glory.
| 150 Τοῖς μὲν οὖν ἄλλοις ἐπέρχεται θαυμάζειν τὸ διεστὸς τῆς ἐν τῇ φύσει προαιρέσεως· ὅταν μὲν γὰρ εἰς τὰς φιλοτιμίας καὶ τὰς εὐεργεσίας ἀπίδωμεν, αἷς ἐκέχρητο πρὸς ἅπαντας ἀνθρώπους, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως οὐκ ἄν τις αὐτὸν καὶ τῶν ἔλαττονsmaller, less τετιμημένων ἠρνήθη μὴ συνομολογεῖν εὐεργετικωτάτῃ κεχρῆσθαι τῇ φύσει. | 150 "Now, others are inclined to marvel at the contrast in his natural character. For when we look upon his ambition (philotimias) and the benefactions he bestowed upon all men, one cannot deny—even those least honored by him—that he possessed a most naturally generous nature. |
| 150 Now some there are who stand amazed at the diversity of Herod’s nature and purposes; for when we have respect to his magnificence, and the benefits which he bestowed on all mankind, there is no possibility for even those that had the least respect for him to deny, or not openly to confess, that he had a nature vastly beneficent; | 150 The diversity of his nature and decisions has struck others as amazing. When we think of his munificence and the benefits he conferred on all mankind, not even those who respected him the least could possibly deny, or fail to acknowledge, that by nature he had a vast inclination to do good. |
| 151 ὅταν δὲ εἰς τὰς τιμωρίας καὶ ἀδικίας, ἃς εἰς τοὺς ἀρχομένους καὶ τοὺς οἰκειοτάτους ἐπεδείξατο βλέψῃ καὶ καταμάθῃ τὸ σκληρὸν καὶ τὸ δυσπαράκλητον τοῦ τρόπου, νικηθήσεται θηριώδη δοκεῖν καὶ πάσης μετριότητος ἀλλότριον. | 151 But when one looks at the punishments and injustices he inflicted upon his subjects and his closest kin, and observes the hardness and unyielding nature of his character, one is overcome by the impression that he was beast-like (thēriōdē) and a stranger to all moderation. |
| 151 but when any one looks upon the punishments he inflicted, and the injuries he did, not only to his subjects, but to his nearest relations, and takes notice of his severe and unrelenting disposition there, he will be forced to allow that he was brutish, and a stranger to all humanity; | 151 On the other hand, when one looks at the penalties he inflicted and the wrongs he did, not only to his subjects, but also to his nearest relatives and notes his severe and unrelenting disposition there, one must also acknowledge that he was brutish and alien to all moderation. |
| 152 ἔνθεν καὶ διάφορόν τινα καὶ μαχομένην ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ νομίζουσιν γενέσθαι τὴν προαίρεσιν. ἐγὼ δ᾽ οὐχ οὕτως ἔχων μίαν αἰτίαν ἀμφοτέρων τούτων ὑπολαμβάνω· | 152 Hence, people think that his character was a contradictory thing, at war with itself. I, however, do not hold this view; I believe there was a single cause for both these traits. |
| 152 insomuch that these men suppose his nature to be different, and sometimes at contradiction with itself; but I am myself of another opinion, and imagine that the occasion of both these sort of actions was one and the same; | 152 From this they conclude that he was inconsistent and in contradiction with himself, but I see him in another way and think the cause of both kinds of action was one and the same. |
| 153 φιλότιμος γὰρ ὢν καὶ τούτου τοῦ πάθους ἡττημένος ἰσχυρῶς, προήγετο μὲν εἰς μεγαλοψυχίαν, εἴ που μνήμης εἰς αὖθις ἢ κατὰ τὸ παρὸν εὐφημίας ἐλπὶς ἐμπέσοι. | 153 Being ambitious and strongly defeated by this passion, he was led toward magnanimity whenever a hope for future memory or present fame occurred to him. |
| 153 for being a man ambitious of honor, and quite overcome by that passion, he was induced to be magnificent, wherever there appeared any hopes of a future memorial, or of reputation at present; | 153 As one with a strong passion for fame, he was led to magnanimity wherever there seemed any hopes of being remembered in the future or famous in the present. |
| 154 ταῖς δὲ δαπάναις ὑπὲρ δύναμιν χρώμενος ἠναγκάζετο χαλεπὸς εἶναι τοῖς ὑποτεταγμένοις· τὰ γὰρ εἰς οὓς ἐδαπάνα πολλὰ γενόμενα κακῶν ποριστὴν ἐξ ὧν ἐλάμβανεν ἐποίει. | 154 Yet, because he spent beyond his means, he was forced to be harsh to his subjects; for the vast sums he spent on those he favored made him a procurer of evils from those from whom he took the money. |
| 154 and as his expenses were beyond his abilities, he was necessitated to be harsh to his subjects; for the persons on whom he expended his money were so many, that they made him a very bad procurer of it; | 154 Then as his expenses were beyond his means, he was driven to be harsh on his subjects, for those on whom he spent his money were so many that they made him harmful to those from whom he procured it. |
| 155 καὶ συνειδὼς ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἠδίκει τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους μισούμενον ἑαυτὸν τὸ μὲν ἐπανορθοῦσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας οὐ ῥᾴδιον ἐνόμιζεν· οὐδὲ γὰρ εἰς τὰς προσόδους λυσιτελὲς ἦν. ἀντεφιλονείκει δὲ τὴν δύσνοιαν αὐτὴν εὐπορίας ἀφορμὴν ποιούμενος. | 155 Aware that he was hated for the wrongs he did to his subjects, he did not find it easy to correct his errors, as it was not profitable for his revenues. Instead, he fought back by making that very ill-will a pretext for seeking wealth. |
| 155 and because he was conscious that he was hated by those under him, for the injuries he did them, he thought it not an easy thing to amend his offenses, for that it was inconvenient for his revenue; he therefore strove on the other side to make their ill-will an occasion of his gains. | 155 In turn, being conscious of the hatred of his subjects for the wrongs he did to them, he saw no easy means of mending his ways, for that would lessen his revenue, so he strove on the contrary to turn their ill-will into a source of profit. |
| 156 περὶ γε μὴν τοὺς οἰκείους, εἴ τις ἢ λόγῳ μὴ θεραπεύοι τὸ δοῦλον ἐξομολογούμενος ἢ δόξειεν εἰς τὴν ἀρχήν τι παρακινεῖν, οὐχ ἱκανὸς ἑαυτοῦ κρατεῖν ἐγίνετο καὶ διεξῆλθεν ὁμοῦ συγγενεῖς καὶ φίλους ἴσα πολεμίοις τιμωρούμενος ἐκ τοῦ μόνος ἐθέλειν τετιμῆσθαι τὰς τοιαύτας ἁμαρτίας ἀναλαμβάνων. | 156 Furthermore, regarding his kin, if anyone failed to serve him with words confessing a slave-like devotion, or seemed to disturb his authority in any way, he became unable to restrain himself; he went through relatives and friends alike, punishing them as if they were enemies, committing such crimes because of his desire to be the only one honored. |
| 156 As to his own court, therefore, if any one was not very obsequious to him in his language, and would not confess himself to be his slave, or but seemed to think of any innovation in his government, he was not able to contain himself, but prosecuted his very kindred and friends, and punished them as if they were enemies and this wickedness he undertook out of a desire that he might be himself alone honored. | 156 Within his own court, if anyone’s speech was not subservient and did not profess himself a slave, or seemed to think of any change in his regime, he could not contain himself, but treated even his relatives and friends as enemies and executed them, a sin stemming from his desire to be the sole centre of all honour. |
| 157 μαρτύριον δέ μοι τούτου τοῦ πάθους, ὅτι μέγιστον περὶ αὐτὸν ἦν, καὶ τὰ γινόμενα κατὰ τὰς ΚαίσαροςCaesar καὶ ἈγρίππαAgrippa καὶ τῶν ἄλλων φίλων τιμάς· οἷς γὰρ ἐθεράπευεν τοὺς κρείττονας, τούτοις καὶ αὐτὸς ἠξίου θεραπεύεσθαι καὶ τὸ κάλλιστον ὧν ᾤετο παρέχων ἐν τῷ διδόναι τὴν τοῦ τυχεῖν τῶν ὁμοίων ἐπιθυμίαν ἐδήλου. | 157 A witness to this passion—that it was the greatest thing in him—is what happened regarding the honors for Caesar, Agrippa, and his other friends. For the same ways in which he courted his superiors, he demanded to be courted himself; by providing what he thought was the finest thing in giving, he revealed his desire to receive the same. |
| 157 Now for this, my assertion about that passion of his, we have the greatest evidence, by what he did to honor Caesar and Agrippa, and his other friends; for with what honors he paid his respects to them who were his superiors, the same did he desire to be paid to himself; and what he thought the most excellent present he could make another, he discovered an inclination to have the like presented to himself. | 157 My evidence of this being his main passion is what he did to honour Caesar and Agrippa and his other friends, for he wanted the self-same honours that he paid his respects to them as his superiors to be also paid to himself, and whatever was the most excellent gift he could make to another, he seemed to want given to him also. |
| 158 τό γε μὴν ἸουδαίωνJews ἔθνος ἠλλοτρίωται νόμῳ πρὸς πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα καὶ συνείθισται τὸ δίκαιον ἀντὶ τοῦ πρὸς δόξαν ἠγαπηκέναι. διόπερ οὐκ ἦν αὐτῷ κεχαρισμένον, ὅτι μὴ δυνατὸν εἰκόσιν ἢ ναοῖς ἢ τοιούτοις ἐπιτηδεύμασιν κολακεύειν τοῦ βασιλέως τὸ φιλότιμον. | 158 The Jewish nation, however, is alienated by Law from all such things, having been accustomed to love justice instead of glory. Therefore, they were not pleasing to him, because it was not possible to flatter the King’s ambition with statues, temples, or similar practices. This, it seems to me, was the cause of Herod’s crimes against his kin and counselors, and his benefactions toward those outside his realm." |
| 158 But now the Jewish nation is by their law a stranger to all such things, and accustomed to prefer righteousness to glory; for which reason that nation was not agreeable to him, because it was out of their power to flatter the king’s ambition with statues or temples, or any other such performances; | 158 The Jewish nation is by their law a stranger to all such things and accustomed to prefer righteousness to glory, and for this reason was not in favour with him, because they could not flatter the king’s ambition with statues or temples, or such paraphernalia. |
| 159 αἰτία μὲν αὕτη μοι δοκεῖ τῆς ἩρώδουHerod περὶ μὲν τοὺς οἰκείους καὶ συμβούλους ἁμαρτίας, περὶ δὲ τοὺς ἔξω καὶ μὴ προσήκοντας εὐεργεσίας. | 159 This, it seems to me, was the cause of Herod’s crimes against his own kin and counselors, and of his benefactions toward those who were outsiders and unrelated to him. |
| 159 And this seems to me to have been at once the occasion of Herod’s crimes as to his own courtiers and counselors, and of his benefactions as to foreigners and those that had no relation to him. | 159 This seems to me to have caused both Herod’s crimes against his own household and counsellors and his benefactions to foreigners and people unrelated to him. |
The Single-Source Theory
Josephus rejects the idea that Herod was "bipolar" or had a "dual nature." Instead, he identifies "μίαν αἰτίαν" (one cause): Philotimia (the love of honor/ambition). In the ancient world, philotimia was a virtue in moderation but a "passion" (pathos) when it became an addiction. For Herod, people were merely tools to reflect his own glory. If they flattered him, he gave them cities; if they threatened his ego, he gave them a grave.
The Economics of Tyranny
Josephus provides a brilliant economic critique: Herod spent "ὑπὲρ δύναμιν" (beyond his means). His international philanthropy—paving Antioch, sponsoring the Olympics—was funded by the "evils" he inflicted on his own taxpayers. He was essentially a "reverse Robin Hood," robbing his poor subjects to buy the applause of the Roman elite.
"Slave-like" Devotion (To Doulon)
The standard for survival in Herod’s court was "τὸ δοῦλον ἐξομολογούμενος" (confessing a slave-like status). This is why his Hasmonean sons failed. They were "noble" and "free-spoken," which Herod interpreted as a direct assault on his status. To Herod, the only "good" family member was one who acted like a servant.
The Cultural Clash: Justice vs. Glory
Josephus identifies a fundamental friction between Herod and the Jewish people:
Because the Jews could not "flatter" him with the pagan honors he craved, Herod looked elsewhere (to Greeks and Romans) for validation, growing increasingly resentful of his own people.
Reciprocity as a Weapon
Josephus observes that Herod’s gifts to Caesar and Agrippa were actually "requests" for how he wanted to be treated. When he gave a gift, he was setting a price-tag on his own worth. He didn't want friends; he wanted "θεραπεύεσθαι" (to be courted/served).
The "Beast" (Thēriōdē)
By calling Herod "beast-like," Josephus uses a term that, in Greek philosophy, refers to someone who has lost their "Logos" (reason) and is ruled entirely by animalistic drives. Herod had become so enslaved to his ego that he could no longer distinguish between a son and a "foe" (πολεμίοις).
Josephus rejects the idea that Herod was "bipolar" or had a "dual nature." Instead, he identifies "μίαν αἰτίαν" (one cause): Philotimia (the love of honor/ambition). In the ancient world, philotimia was a virtue in moderation but a "passion" (pathos) when it became an addiction. For Herod, people were merely tools to reflect his own glory. If they flattered him, he gave them cities; if they threatened his ego, he gave them a grave.
The Economics of Tyranny
Josephus provides a brilliant economic critique: Herod spent "ὑπὲρ δύναμιν" (beyond his means). His international philanthropy—paving Antioch, sponsoring the Olympics—was funded by the "evils" he inflicted on his own taxpayers. He was essentially a "reverse Robin Hood," robbing his poor subjects to buy the applause of the Roman elite.
"Slave-like" Devotion (To Doulon)
The standard for survival in Herod’s court was "τὸ δοῦλον ἐξομολογούμενος" (confessing a slave-like status). This is why his Hasmonean sons failed. They were "noble" and "free-spoken," which Herod interpreted as a direct assault on his status. To Herod, the only "good" family member was one who acted like a servant.
The Cultural Clash: Justice vs. Glory
Josephus identifies a fundamental friction between Herod and the Jewish people:
1) Herod's Value: Doxa (Glory/Fame). He wanted statues and monuments.
2) The Jewish Value: Dikaion (Justice/Law). The Torah forbade the very images Herod used to validate his ego.
Because the Jews could not "flatter" him with the pagan honors he craved, Herod looked elsewhere (to Greeks and Romans) for validation, growing increasingly resentful of his own people.
Reciprocity as a Weapon
Josephus observes that Herod’s gifts to Caesar and Agrippa were actually "requests" for how he wanted to be treated. When he gave a gift, he was setting a price-tag on his own worth. He didn't want friends; he wanted "θεραπεύεσθαι" (to be courted/served).
The "Beast" (Thēriōdē)
By calling Herod "beast-like," Josephus uses a term that, in Greek philosophy, refers to someone who has lost their "Logos" (reason) and is ruled entirely by animalistic drives. Herod had become so enslaved to his ego that he could no longer distinguish between a son and a "foe" (πολεμίοις).
Chapter 6
[160-178]
Some Jews appeal to Rome.
They are supported by Caesar and Agrippa
[160-178]
Some Jews appeal to Rome.
They are supported by Caesar and Agrippa
| 160 Τοὺς δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἈσίανAsian ἸουδαίουςJews καὶ ὅσους ἡ πρὸς ΚυρήνῃCyrene Λιβύη κατέσχεν ἐκάκουν αἱ πόλεις, τῶν μὲν πρότερον βασιλέων ἰσονομίαν αὐτοῖς παρεσχημένων, ἐν δὲ τῷ τότε δι᾽ ἐπηρείας ἐχόντων τῶν ἙλλήνωνGreeks αὐτούς, ὡς καὶ χρημάτων ἱερῶν ἀφαίρεσιν ποιεῖσθαι καὶ καταβλάπτειν ἐν τοῖς ἐπὶ μέρους. | 160 "The Jews in Asia [Minor] and those in Cyrenian Libya were being mistreated by the cities. While the previous kings had granted them equal rights (isonomia), the Greeks were now treating them with insolence—even going so far as to seize their sacred funds and inflict injury in particular matters. |
| 160 Now the cities ill-treated the Jews in Asia, and all those also of the same nation which lived in Libya, which joins to Cyrene, while the former kings had given them equal privileges with the other citizens; but the Greeks affronted them at this time, and that so far as to take away their sacred money, and to do them mischief on other particular occasions. | 160 The cities ill-treated the Jews in Asia as well as those who were oppressed in Libya near Cyrene. While earlier kings had given them equal rights as citizens, the Greeks now persecuted them to the point of stealing their temple money and harming them in other ways. |
| 161 πάσχοντες δὲ κακῶς καὶ πέρας οὐδὲν εὑρίσκοντες τῆς τῶν ἙλλήνωνGreeks ἀπανθρωπίαςinhuman cruelty ἐπρεσβεύσαντο παρὰ ΚαίσαραCaesar καὶ περὶ τούτων. ὁ δ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὴν αὐτὴν ἰσοτέλειαν ἔδωκεν γράψας τοῖς κατὰ τὰς ἐπαρχίας, ὧν ὑπετάξαμεν τὰ ἀντίγραφα μαρτύρια τῆς διαθέσεως, ἣν ἔσχον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἄνωθεν οἱ κρατοῦντες. | 161 Suffering under this ill-treatment and finding no limit to the inhumanity of the Greeks, they sent an embassy to Caesar [Augustus] regarding these things. He granted them the same tax-exempt status (isoteleia), writing to those in the provinces, whose copies we have subjoined as evidence of the favorable disposition which the rulers have held toward us from the beginning. |
| 161 When therefore they were thus afflicted, and found no end of their barbarous treatment they met with among the Greeks, they sent ambassadors to Caesar on those accounts, who gave them the same privileges as they had before, and sent letters to the same purpose to the governors of the provinces, copies of which I subjoin here, as testimonials of the ancient favorable disposition the Roman emperors had towards us. | 161 In this affliction and seeing no end of their cruel treatment by the Greeks, they sent envoys to Caesar about it. He restored their former privileges and sent letters to that effect to the officers of the provinces, copies of which I subjoin here, as proof of the favourable disposition the Roman emperors formerly had toward us. |
| 162 " ΚαῖσαρCaesar Σεβαστὸς ἀρχιερεὺς δημαρχικῆς ἐξουσίας λέγει. ἐπειδὴ τὸ ἔθνος τὸ τῶν ἸουδαίωνJews εὐχάριστον εὑρέθη οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ ἐνεστῶτι καιρῷ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ προγεγενημένῳ καὶ μάλιστα ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοκράτορος ΚαίσαροςCaesar πρὸς τὸν δῆμον τὸν ῬωμαίωνRoman, Latin ὅ τε ἀρχιερεὺς αὐτῶν ὙρκανόςHyrcanus, | 162 'Caesar Augustus, High Priest with tribunician power, says: Since the Jewish nation has been found grateful not only in the present time but also in the past—and especially in the time of my father, the Emperor [Julius] Caesar—toward the Roman people, as has their high priest Hyrcanus; |
| 162 "Caesar Augustus, high priest and tribune of the people, ordains thus: Since the nation of the Jews hath been found grateful to the Roman people, not only at this time, but in time past also, and chiefly Hyrcanus the high priest, under my father Caesar the emperor, | 162 "Caesar Augustus, high priest and tribune of the people, declares: Since the Jewish nation has found favour with the Roman people, not only at this time but also in time past, and Hyrcanus the high priest in particular, under my father Caesar the emperor, |
| 163 ἔδοξέ μοι καὶ τῷ ἐμῷ συμβουλίῳ μετὰ ὁρκωμοσίας γνώμῃ δήμου ῬωμαίωνRoman, Latin τοὺς ἸουδαίουςJews χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἰδίοις θεσμοῖς κατὰ τὸν πάτριον αὐτῶν νόμον, καθὼς ἐχρῶντο ἐπὶ ὙρκανοῦHyrcanus ἀρχιερέως θεοῦ ὑψίστου, τά τε ἱερὰ Εἶναι ἐν ἀσυλίᾳ καὶ ἀναπέμπεσθαι εἰς ἹεροσόλυμαJerusalem καὶ ἀποδίδοσθαι τοῖς ἀποδοχεῦσιν ἹεροσολύμωνJerusalem, ἐγγύας τε μὴ ὁμολογεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐν σάββασιν ἢ τῇ πρὸ αὐτῆς παρασκευῇ ἀπὸ ὥρας ἐνάτης. | 163 It has seemed good to me and to my council, under oath and with the consent of the Roman people, that the Jews shall follow their own customs according to their ancestral law, just as they did under Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Most High God; and that their sacred things shall be inviolable and sent up to Jerusalem, delivered to the receivers at Jerusalem; and that they shall not be required to give bond on the Sabbath, nor on the day of preparation before it from the ninth hour [3:00 PM]. |
| 163 it seemed good to me and my counselors, according to the sentence and oath of the people of Rome, that the Jews have liberty to make use of their own customs, according to the law of their forefathers, as they made use of them under Hyrcanus the high priest of the Almighty God; and that their sacred money be not touched, but be sent to Jerusalem, and that it be committed to the care of the receivers at Jerusalem; and that they be not obliged to go before any judge on the Sabbath day, nor on the day of the preparation to it, after the ninth hour. | 163 it seems good to me and my council, by the oath and decree of the people of Rome, that the Jews have freedom to follow their own customs, according to their ancestral law, as they did under Hyrcanus the high priest of the Almighty God, and that their temple money be untouched and be sent to Jerusalem and given to the care of the receivers in Jerusalem, and that they not be obliged to go before any judge on the sabbath day, nor on the eve of it, after the ninth hour. |
| 164 ἐὰν δέ τις φωραθῇ> κλέπτων τὰς ἱερὰς βίβλους αὐτῶν ἢ τὰ ἱερὰ χρήματα ἔκ τε ΣαββατείουJew (Sabbath keeper) ἔκ τε ἀνδρῶνος, εἶναι αὐτὸν ἱερόσυλον καὶ τὸν βίον αὐτοῦ ἐνεχθῆναι εἰς τὸ δημόσιον τῶν ῬωμαίωνRoman, Latin. | 164 If anyone is caught stealing their sacred books or their sacred money from a synagogue (sabbateion) or a men's hall (andrōnos), he shall be deemed a temple-robber, and his property shall be confiscated to the public treasury of the Romans. |
| 164 But if any one be caught stealing their holy books, or their sacred money, whether it be out of the synagogue or public school, he shall be deemed a sacrilegious person, and his goods shall be brought into the public treasury of the Romans. | 164 If anyone is caught stealing their holy books or their temple money, from the synagogue or school, he shall be reckoned as sacrilegious and his goods shall be confiscated to the public treasury of the Romans. |
| 165 τό τε ψήφισμα τὸ δοθέν μοι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐμῆς εὐσεβείας ἧς ἔχω πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους καὶ ὑπὲρ ΓαίουGaius Μαρκίου Κηνσωρίνου καὶ τοῦτο τὸ διάταγμα κελεύω ἀνατεθῆναιto lay upon, burden ἐν ἐπισημοτάτῳ τόπῳ τῷ γενηθέντι μοι ὑπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς ἈσίαςAsia ἐν Ἀγκύρῃ. ἐὰν δέ τις παραβῇ τι τῶν προειρημένων, δώσει δίκην οὐ μετρίαν. ἐστηλογραφήθη ἐν τῷ ΚαίσαροςCaesar ναῷ." | 165 Regarding the decree given to me by them for the piety I have toward all mankind, and on behalf of Gaius Marcius Censorinus, I command this edict to be posted in the most conspicuous place dedicated to me by the community of Asia in Ancyra. If anyone transgresses any of the aforementioned points, he shall pay no small penalty.' This was inscribed on a pillar in the Temple of Caesar. |
| 165 And I give order that the testimonial which they have given me, on account of my regard to that piety which I exercise toward all mankind, and out of regard to Caius Marcus Censorinus, together with the present decree, be proposed in that most eminent place which hath been consecrated to me by the community of Asia at Ancyra. And if any one transgress any part of what is above decreed, he shall be severely punished." This was inscribed upon a pillar in the temple of Caesar. | 165 I will that their testimonial to me, about the piety I show toward all mankind and about Gaius Marcus Censorinus, along with this present decree, be set in the prominent place dedicated to me by the community of Asia at Ancyra. If anyone transgresses any part of the above decree, he shall be severely punished." This was inscribed on a pillar in the temple of Caesar. |
| 166 " ΚαῖσαρCaesar Νωρβανῷ Φλάκκῳ χαίρειν. ἸουδαῖοιJews ὅσοι ποτ᾽ οὖν εἰσίν, [οἳ] δι᾽ ἀρχαίαν συνήθειαν εἰώθασιν χρήματά τε ἱερὰ φέροντες ἀναπέμπεινto send back ἀκωλύτως τοῦτο ποιείτωσαν εἰς ἹεροσόλυμαJerusalem. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ΚαῖσαρCaesar. | 166 'Caesar to Norbanus Flaccus, greeting: Let the Jews, whoever they may be, who according to ancient custom are used to bringing sacred money and sending it up, do so without hindrance to Jerusalem.' So much for Caesar. |
| 166 "Caesar to Norbanus Flaccus, sendeth greeting. Let those Jews, how many soever they be, who have been used, according to their ancient custom, to send their sacred money to Jerusalem, do the same freely." These were the decrees of Caesar. | 166 "Caesar to Norbanus Flaccus, greetings. Let the Jews, however many they are, whose ancient practice it was to send their sacred money to Jerusalem, be free to do so." These were the decrees of Caesar. |
| 167 ἈγρίππαςAgrippa δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἔγραψεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἸουδαίωνJews τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον· " ἈγρίππαςAgrippa ἘφεσίωνEphesians ἄρχουσι βουλῇ δήμῳ χαίρειν. τῶν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τὸ ἐν ἹεροσολύμοιςJerusalem ἀναφερομένων ἱερῶν χρημάτων τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν καὶ φυλακὴν βούλομαι τοὺς ἐν ἈσίᾳAsia ἸουδαίουςJews ποιεῖσθαι κατὰ τὰ πάτρια. | 167 Agrippa also wrote on behalf of the Jews in this manner: 'Agrippa to the magistrates, council, and people of the Ephesians, greeting: I desire that the Jews in Asia should have the care and custody of the sacred money sent to the temple in Jerusalem according to their ancestral customs. |
| 167 Agrippa also did himself write after the manner following, on behalf of the Jews: "Agrippa, to the magistrates, senate, and people of the Ephesians, sendeth greeting. I will that the care and custody of the sacred money that is carried to the temple at Jerusalem be left to the Jews of Asia, to do with it according to their ancient custom; | 167 Agrippa also wrote as follows, on behalf of the Jews: "Agrippa, to the officers, council and people of the Ephesians, greetings. I will that the care and custody of the sacred money to be brought to the temple in Jerusalem be left with the Jews of Asia, according to their custom. |
| 168 τούς τε κλέπτοντας ἱερὰ γράμματα τῶν ἸουδαίωνJews καταφεύγοντάς τε εἰς τὰς ἀσυλίας βούλομαι ἀποσπᾶσθαι καὶ παραδίδοσθαι τοῖς ἸουδαίοιςJews, ᾧ δικαίῳ ἀποσπῶνται οἱ ἱερόσυλοι. ἔγραψα δὲ καὶ Σιλανῷ τῷ στρατηγῷ, ἵνα σάββασιν μηδεὶς ἀναγκάζῃ ἸουδαῖονJew ἐγγύας ὁμολογεῖν." | 168 And I desire that those who steal the sacred books of the Jews or flee into places of sanctuary should be dragged away and delivered to the Jews, by the same law that temple-robbers are dragged away. I have also written to Silanus the praetor that no one should compel a Jew to give bond on the Sabbath.'" |
| 168 and that such as steal that sacred money of the Jews, and fly to a sanctuary, shall be taken thence and delivered to the Jews, by the same law that sacrilegious persons are taken thence. I have also written to Sylvanus the praetor, that no one compel the Jews to come before a judge on the Sabbath day." | 168 Any who steal the sacred books of the Jews and flee to a sanctuary, shall be taken from there and handed over to the Jews, just as sacrilegious persons are removed. I have also written to Sylvanus the praetor, that none shall compel a Jew to come before a judge on the sabbath." |
The Legal Defense of the Diaspora
This passage highlights a recurring theme in the 1st century: the tension between Imperial protection and local Greek hostility. While the Roman Emperors viewed the Jews as loyal "clients," the local Greek citizens often viewed them as a privileged minority that avoided civic duties and taxes. Augustus’s intervention was essential for the survival of Jewish life outside of Judea.
The "Sabbateion" (Synagogue)
This is one of the earliest literary references to a synagogue using the term "σαββατείου" (sabbateion). It shows that by the time of Augustus, the synagogue was not just a house of prayer but a recognized legal entity where "sacred books" and "sacred money" (the Temple Tax) were kept.
The "Ninth Hour" and the Friday Preparation
The decree includes a fascinating detail: Jews were exempt from legal obligations starting from the "ὥρας ἐνάτης" (the ninth hour, or 3:00 PM) on the day of Preparation (paraskeuē). This matches the New Testament descriptions of the "Preparation Day" before the Sabbath and shows that the Roman state officially recognized the Jewish need for time to transition into sacred space.
Protecting the "Sacred Money"
The primary source of conflict was the Temple Tax (the half-shekel). Greek cities often tried to "freeze" this gold, arguing that it drained wealth from the local economy to send to a "foreign" temple. Augustus and Agrippa both rule that this is "ἱεροσυλία" (sacrilege/temple-robbery). By linking Jewish funds to the Roman treasury ("δημόσιον τῶν Ῥωμαίων"), Augustus made an attack on a synagogue a direct offense against the Roman state.
Historical Continuity: The Role of Hyrcanus
Augustus repeatedly mentions Hyrcanus II. This proves that the alliance forged by Herod’s father and the Hasmonean high priest with Julius Caesar remained the legal foundation for Jewish rights 40 years later. The Romans valued "ἀρχαίαν συνήθειαν" (ancient custom) above almost all else; if it was old, it was protected.
The Monument at Ancyra
Augustus orders the decree to be posted in Ancyra (modern-day Ankara, Turkey). This is the site of the famous Monumentum Ancyranum (the Res Gestae). Josephus is pointing his readers to a physical, verifiable location where these laws were carved in stone, effectively saying: "If you don't believe me, go read the pillar in the Temple of Caesar."
This passage highlights a recurring theme in the 1st century: the tension between Imperial protection and local Greek hostility. While the Roman Emperors viewed the Jews as loyal "clients," the local Greek citizens often viewed them as a privileged minority that avoided civic duties and taxes. Augustus’s intervention was essential for the survival of Jewish life outside of Judea.
The "Sabbateion" (Synagogue)
This is one of the earliest literary references to a synagogue using the term "σαββατείου" (sabbateion). It shows that by the time of Augustus, the synagogue was not just a house of prayer but a recognized legal entity where "sacred books" and "sacred money" (the Temple Tax) were kept.
The "Ninth Hour" and the Friday Preparation
The decree includes a fascinating detail: Jews were exempt from legal obligations starting from the "ὥρας ἐνάτης" (the ninth hour, or 3:00 PM) on the day of Preparation (paraskeuē). This matches the New Testament descriptions of the "Preparation Day" before the Sabbath and shows that the Roman state officially recognized the Jewish need for time to transition into sacred space.
Protecting the "Sacred Money"
The primary source of conflict was the Temple Tax (the half-shekel). Greek cities often tried to "freeze" this gold, arguing that it drained wealth from the local economy to send to a "foreign" temple. Augustus and Agrippa both rule that this is "ἱεροσυλία" (sacrilege/temple-robbery). By linking Jewish funds to the Roman treasury ("δημόσιον τῶν Ῥωμαίων"), Augustus made an attack on a synagogue a direct offense against the Roman state.
Historical Continuity: The Role of Hyrcanus
Augustus repeatedly mentions Hyrcanus II. This proves that the alliance forged by Herod’s father and the Hasmonean high priest with Julius Caesar remained the legal foundation for Jewish rights 40 years later. The Romans valued "ἀρχαίαν συνήθειαν" (ancient custom) above almost all else; if it was old, it was protected.
The Monument at Ancyra
Augustus orders the decree to be posted in Ancyra (modern-day Ankara, Turkey). This is the site of the famous Monumentum Ancyranum (the Res Gestae). Josephus is pointing his readers to a physical, verifiable location where these laws were carved in stone, effectively saying: "If you don't believe me, go read the pillar in the Temple of Caesar."
| 169 " ΜᾶρκοςMark ἈγρίππαςAgrippa Κυρηναίων ἄρχουσιν βουλῇ δήμῳ χαίρειν. οἱ ἐν ΚυρήνῃCyrene ἸουδαῖοιJews, ὑπὲρ ὧν ἤδη ὁ Σεβαστὸς ἔπεμψεν πρὸς τὸν ἐν ΛιβύῃLibya στρατηγὸν τόντε ὄντα Φλάβιον καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπιμελουμένους, ἵνα ἀνεπικωλύτωςunhindered ἀναπέμπηται τὰ ἱερὰ χρήματα εἰς ἹεροσόλυμαJerusalem, ὡς ἔστιν αὐτοῖς πάτριον, | 169 "Marcus Agrippa to the magistrates, council, and people of Cyrene, greeting: The Jews in Cyrene—on whose behalf Augustus has already sent instructions to Flavius, the then-governor in Libya, and to the others in charge of the province, so that the sacred money might be sent up to Jerusalem without hindrance according to their ancestral custom... |
| 169 "Marcus Agrippa to the magistrates, senate, and people of Cyrene, sendeth greeting. The Jews of Cyrene have interceded with me for the performance of what Augustus sent orders about to Flavius, the then praetor of Libya, and to the other procurators of that province, that the sacred money may be sent to Jerusalem freely, as hath been their custom from their forefathers, | 169 "Marcus Agrippa to the officers, council and people of Cyrene, greetings. The Jews of Cyrene have asked me to effect what Augustus has written about to Flavius, then praetor of Libya, and the other procurators of that province, that the temple money may be freely sent to Jerusalem, as is their custom. |
| 170 ἐνέτυχόν μοι νῦν, ὡς ὑπό τινων συκοφαντῶν ἐπηρεαζόμενοι καὶ ὡς ἐν προφάσει τελῶν μὴ ὀφειλομένων κωλύοιντο· οἷς ἀποκαθιστάνειν κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον ἐνοχλουμένοις, καὶ εἴ τινων ἱερὰ χρήματα ἀφῄρηνται τῶν πόλεων τοὺς εἰς ταῦτα ἀποκεκριμένους καὶ ταῦτα διορθώσασθαι τοῖς ἐκεῖ ἸουδαίοιςJews κελεύω." | 170 ...have now petitioned me, claiming they are being harassed by certain informers (sycophants) and are being hindered under the pretext of taxes they do not owe. I command that these men be restored to their rights without being troubled in any way, and if the sacred money of any of the cities has been taken from them, those appointed to such matters must rectify this for the Jews there. |
| 170 they complaining that they are abused by certain informers, and under pretense of taxes which were not due, are hindered from sending them, which I command to be restored without any diminution or disturbance given to them. And if any of that sacred money in the cities be taken from their proper receivers, I further enjoin, that the same be exactly returned to the Jews in that place." | 170 They complain to me of being abused by certain sycophants and being prevented from sending them under pretext of taxes which were not owed. I order that they be restored without any disturbance to them, and if that sacred money in any of the cities was taken, I order those in charge to restore it exactly to the Jews in that place." |
| 171 " ΓάιοςGaius Νωρβανὸς Φλάκκος ἀνθύπατος Σαρδιανῶν ἄρχουσι χαίρειν. Καῖσάρ μοι ἔγραψεν κελεύων μὴ κωλύεσθαι τοὺς ἸουδαίουςJews ὅσα ἂν ὦσιν κατὰ τὸ πάτριον αὐτοῖς ἔθος συναγαγόντες χρήματα ἀναπέμπεινto send back εἰς ἹεροσόλυμαJerusalem. ἔγραψα οὖν ὑμῖν, ἵν᾽ εἰδῆτε, ὅτι ΚαῖσαρCaesar κἀγὼ οὕτως θέλομεν γίνεσθαι." | 171 Gaius Norbanus Flaccus, Proconsul, to the magistrates of Sardis, greeting: Caesar [Augustus] wrote to me, commanding that the Jews should not be hindered from collecting whatever sums they wish according to their ancestral custom and sending them up to Jerusalem. I have therefore written to you so that you may know that both Caesar and I wish things to be so. |
| 171 "Caius Norbanus Flaccus, proconsul, to the magistrates of the Sardians, sendeth greeting. Caesar hath written to me, and commanded me not to forbid the Jews, how many soever they be, from assembling together according to the custom of their forefathers, nor from sending their money to Jerusalem. I have therefore written to you, that you may know that both Caesar and I would have you act accordingly." | 171 "Gaius Norbanus Flaccus, proconsul, to the officers of the Sardians, greetings. Caesar has written to me and ordered me not to forbid the Jews, however many they be, from assembling according to their ancestral custom, nor from sending their money to Jerusalem. I have written to you that you may know that both Caesar and I want you to act accordingly." |
| 172 Οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ ἸούλιοςJulius ἈντώνιοςAntony ἀνθύπατος ἔγραψεν " ἘφεσίωνEphesians ἄρχουσιν βουλῇ δήμῳ χαίρειν. οἱ ἐν τῇ ἈσίᾳAsia κατοικοῦντες ἸουδαῖοιJews εἰδοῖς Φεβρουαρίοις δικαιοδοτοῦντί μοι ἐν ἘφέσῳEphesus ὑπέδειξαν ΚαίσαραCaesar τὸν ΣεβαστὸνSebaste καὶ ἈγρίππανAgrippa συγκεχωρηκέναι αὐτοῖς χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἰδίοις νόμοις καὶ ἔθεσιν, ἀπαρχάς τε, ἃς ἕκαστος αὐτῶν ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας προαιρέσεως εὐσεβείας ἕνεκα τῆς πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἀνακομιδῆς συμπορευομένους ποιεῖν ἀνεμποδίστως. | 172 No less did Julius Antonius, Proconsul, write to the magistrates, council, and people of the Ephesians, greeting: The Jews residing in Asia [Minor] showed me, while I was administering justice in Ephesus on the Ides of February, that Augustus and Agrippa had permitted them to use their own laws and customs, and to bring their first-fruits—which each of them contributes out of their own free will and piety toward the Divine—by traveling together without impediment. |
| 172 Nor did Julius Antonius, the proconsul, write otherwise. "To the magistrates, senate, and people of the Ephesians, sendeth greeting. As I was dispensing justice at Ephesus, on the Ides of February, the Jews that dwell in Asia demonstrated to me that Augustus and Agrippa had permitted them to use their own laws and customs, and to offer those their first-fruits, which every one of them freely offers to the Deity on account of piety, and to carry them in a company together to Jerusalem without disturbance. | 172 No less was what Julius Antony, the proconsul, wrote: "To the officers, council and people of the Ephesians, greetings. As I was holding court at Ephesus, on the Ides of February, the Jews living in Asia proved to me that Augustus and Agrippa had let them follow their own laws and customs and offer their first-fruits, which each freely dedicates out of piety to the Deity and sent them up under escort, unimpeded. |
| 173 ᾔτουν τε, ὅπως κἀγὼ ὁμοίως τοῖς ὑπὸ τοῦ ΣεβαστοῦAugustus καὶ ἈγρίππαAgrippa δοθεῖσιν τὴν ἐμὴν γνώμην βεβαιώσω. ὑμᾶς οὖν βούλομαι εἰδέναι ἐν τοῖς τοῦ ΣεβαστοῦAugustus καὶ ἈγρίππαAgrippa βουλήμασιν συνεπιτρέπειν αὐτοῖς χρῆσθαι καὶ ποιεῖν κατὰ τὰ πάτρια χωρὶς ἐμποδισμοῦ." | 173 They asked that I likewise confirm my own opinion in accordance with the grants made by Augustus and Agrippa. I wish you to know, therefore, that in agreement with the will of Augustus and Agrippa, I permit them to act and do according to their ancestral customs without hindrance." |
| 173 They also petitioned me that I also would confirm what had been granted by Augustus and Agrippa by my own sanction. I would therefore have you take notice, that according to the will of Augustus and Agrippa, I permit them to use and do according to the customs of their forefathers without disturbance." | 173 They also asked me that I also would confirm what had been granted by Augustus and Agrippa by my own sanction. Note therefore that according to the will of Augustus and Agrippa, I permit them to use and follow their ancestral customs, without impediment." |
The "Sycophant" Problem in Cyrene
Agrippa mentions "συκοφαντῶν" (informers/sycophants) in Cyrene. In the Roman legal system, professional informers made a living by accusing minority groups of tax evasion. Here, the Greeks were trying to claim that the Temple Tax was actually a local civic tax that the Jews were "stealing" from the city. Agrippa’s ruling is a sharp rebuke: he classifies these "informers" as harassers and demands the immediate return of any confiscated funds.
The "Ides of February" at Ephesus
The letter from Julius Antonius provides a rare, precise date: the Ides of February (February 13th). This was likely during the Conventus, the period when the Roman proconsul traveled to major cities like Ephesus to hold court. This detail adds immense historical credibility to Josephus's account, as it places the Jewish petition within the standard Roman administrative calendar.
"Free Will and Piety" (Idias Proaireseōs)
Julius Antonius describes the Jewish contributions as coming from "ἰδίας προαιρέσεως εὐσεβείας" (one's own free will and piety). This was a brilliant legal framing by the Jewish advocates. By defining the money as a voluntary religious gift rather than a mandatory national tax, they made it legally distinct from the taxes owed to the Roman state or local city. It moved the money from the realm of "finance" to the realm of "sacred property."
Traveling Together (Symporeuomenous)
The mention of "συμπορευομένους" (traveling together) refers to the pilgrim caravans. Because carrying large amounts of gold was dangerous due to bandits, Jews in the Diaspora would gather their funds and travel in large, organized groups. The Greeks often viewed these large gatherings with suspicion, fearing they were political or military in nature. The Roman decree specifically protects the right of these groups to assemble and travel.
The Chain of Command: "Caesar and I"
Norbanus Flaccus’s phrase, "Καῖσαρ κἀγὼ οὕτως θέλομεν" (Caesar and I wish it so), is a classic example of Roman provincial administration. It shows that while the Emperor set the policy, the local Proconsul had to put his own authority behind it to make it stick. It was a "top-down" enforcement of Jewish rights that must have deeply frustrated the local Greek elites in Sardis and Ephesus.
Ancestral Customs (Patria) as a Shield
Throughout all these letters, the phrase "κατὰ τὰ πάτρια" (according to ancestral customs) is the recurring legal heartbeat. For the Romans, the antiquity of a practice was the ultimate proof of its legitimacy. Josephus includes these letters to show that the Jews were not "revolutionaries" or "innovators," but a conservative people simply trying to maintain an ancient way of life—a value that Romans deeply respected.
Agrippa mentions "συκοφαντῶν" (informers/sycophants) in Cyrene. In the Roman legal system, professional informers made a living by accusing minority groups of tax evasion. Here, the Greeks were trying to claim that the Temple Tax was actually a local civic tax that the Jews were "stealing" from the city. Agrippa’s ruling is a sharp rebuke: he classifies these "informers" as harassers and demands the immediate return of any confiscated funds.
The "Ides of February" at Ephesus
The letter from Julius Antonius provides a rare, precise date: the Ides of February (February 13th). This was likely during the Conventus, the period when the Roman proconsul traveled to major cities like Ephesus to hold court. This detail adds immense historical credibility to Josephus's account, as it places the Jewish petition within the standard Roman administrative calendar.
"Free Will and Piety" (Idias Proaireseōs)
Julius Antonius describes the Jewish contributions as coming from "ἰδίας προαιρέσεως εὐσεβείας" (one's own free will and piety). This was a brilliant legal framing by the Jewish advocates. By defining the money as a voluntary religious gift rather than a mandatory national tax, they made it legally distinct from the taxes owed to the Roman state or local city. It moved the money from the realm of "finance" to the realm of "sacred property."
Traveling Together (Symporeuomenous)
The mention of "συμπορευομένους" (traveling together) refers to the pilgrim caravans. Because carrying large amounts of gold was dangerous due to bandits, Jews in the Diaspora would gather their funds and travel in large, organized groups. The Greeks often viewed these large gatherings with suspicion, fearing they were political or military in nature. The Roman decree specifically protects the right of these groups to assemble and travel.
The Chain of Command: "Caesar and I"
Norbanus Flaccus’s phrase, "Καῖσαρ κἀγὼ οὕτως θέλομεν" (Caesar and I wish it so), is a classic example of Roman provincial administration. It shows that while the Emperor set the policy, the local Proconsul had to put his own authority behind it to make it stick. It was a "top-down" enforcement of Jewish rights that must have deeply frustrated the local Greek elites in Sardis and Ephesus.
Ancestral Customs (Patria) as a Shield
Throughout all these letters, the phrase "κατὰ τὰ πάτρια" (according to ancestral customs) is the recurring legal heartbeat. For the Romans, the antiquity of a practice was the ultimate proof of its legitimacy. Josephus includes these letters to show that the Jews were not "revolutionaries" or "innovators," but a conservative people simply trying to maintain an ancient way of life—a value that Romans deeply respected.
| 174 Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν παρεθέμην ἐξ ἀνάγκης, ἐπειδὴ μέλλουσιν αἱ τῶν ἡμετέρων πράξεων ἀναγραφαὶ τὸ πλέον εἰς τοὺς ἝλληναςGreeks ἰέναι, δεικνὺς αὐτοῖς ὅτι πάσης τιμῆς ἄνωθεν ἐπιτυγχάνοντες οὐδὲν τῶν πατρίων ἐκωλύθημεν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων πράττειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ συνεργούμεθα τὰ τῆς θρησκείας ἔχοντες καὶ τῶν εἰς τὸν θεὸν τιμῶν. | 174 "I have, therefore, set these documents forth out of necessity, since my accounts of our deeds are intended primarily for the Greeks. I do this to show them that, having obtained every honor from the beginning, we have not been hindered by our rulers from practicing any of our ancestral customs; rather, we have even been assisted in maintaining our religious rites and the honors due to God. |
| 174 I have been obliged to set down these decree because the present history of our own acts will go generally among the Greeks; and I have hereby demonstrated to them that we have formerly been in great esteem, and have not been prohibited by those governors we were under from keeping any of the laws of our forefathers; nay, that we have been supported by them, while we followed our own religion, and the worship we paid to God; | 174 I am obliged to set down these decrees because the history of our recent actions will be generally known among the Greeks, and I have hereby shown them that we were formerly in high esteem and were not prohibited by our governors from keeping our ancestral customs, and that we were supported by them in following our own religion and the worship we paid to God. |
| 175 ποιοῦμαι δὲ πολλάκις αὐτῶν τὴν μνήμην ἐπιδιαλλάττων τὰ γένη καὶ τὰς ἐμπεφυκυίας τοῖς ἀλογίστοις ἡμῶν τε κἀκείνων μίσους αἰτίας ὑπεξαιρούμενος. | 175 I make mention of these things frequently in order to reconcile the different races and to remove the causes of hatred which have taken root in the thoughtless among us and among them. |
| 175 and I frequently make mention of these decrees, in order to reconcile other people to us, and to take away the causes of that hatred which unreasonable men bear to us. | 175 I often mention these decrees in order to reconcile other people to us and remove the causes of that hatred which unreasonable men bear to us. |
| 176 ἔθεσιν μὲν γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστιν γένος ὃ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἀεὶ χρῆται καὶ κατὰ πόλεις ἔσθ᾽sometimes ὅπη πολλῆς ἐγγιγνομένης τῆς διαφορᾶς· τὸ δίκαιον δὲ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ὁμοίως ἐπιτηδεύοντες λυσιτελέστατον ὂν Ἕλλησίν τε καὶ βαρβάροις, | 176 For there is no race that always uses the same customs, and even city by city, there is often a great deal of difference. But since practicing justice (to dikaion) is equally beneficial to all mankind—Greeks and barbarians alike— |
| 176 As for our customs there is no nation which always makes use of the same, and in every city almost we meet with them different from one another; | 176 There is no other nation that always follows the same customs, for in almost every city we find differing practices. Now natural justice is mostly found in what is equally favourable to all people, both Greeks and barbarians, |
| 177 οὗ πλεῖστον οἱ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν νόμοι λόγον ἔχοντες ἅπασιν ἡμᾶς, εἰ καθαρῶς ἐμμένοιμεν αὐτοῖς, εὔνους καὶ φίλους ἀπεργάζονται. | 177 our laws, which hold this principle in the highest regard, make us well-disposed and friendly to all, provided we strictly adhere to them. |
| 177 but natural justice is most agreeable to the advantage of all men equally, both Greeks and barbarians, to which our laws have the greatest regard, and thereby render us, if we abide in them after a pure manner, benevolent and friendly to all men; | 177 and our laws have the greatest regard to this and render us benevolent and friendly to all, if we keep them properly. |
| 178 διὸ καὶ ταῦτα παρ᾽ ἐκείνων ἡμῖν ἀπαιτητέον καὶ δέον οὐκ ἐν τῇ διαφορᾷ τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων οἴεσθαι τὸ ἀλλότριον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ πρὸς καλοκαγαθίαν ἐπιτηδείως ἔχειν· τοῦτο γὰρ κοινὸν ἅπασιν καὶ μόνον ἱκανὸν διασώζειν τὸν τῶν ἀνθρώπων βίον. ἐπάνειμι δὲ πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ συνεχῆ τῆς ἱστορίας. | 178 Therefore, we must demand these same things from them [the Greeks], and it is necessary not to consider 'otherness' as lying in the difference of our practices, but in whether one is properly disposed toward noble virtue (kalokagathia). For this is common to all men, and it alone is sufficient to preserve the life of mankind. But now I shall return to the continuation of my history." |
| 178 on which account we have reason to expect the like return from others, and to inform them that they ought not to esteem difference of positive institutions a sufficient cause of alienation, but [join with us in] the pursuit of virtue and probity, for this belongs to all men in common, and of itself alone is sufficient for the preservation of human life. I now return to the thread of my history. | 178 Therefore we should expect a similar response from others and we declare to them they ought not to regard otherness as a reason for alienation, but should look rather to good standards of behaviour, which is the duty of us all and it alone is what preserves human society. I now return to the main line of my narrative. |
The Target Audience: The "Greeks"
Josephus admits his work is intended "εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας" (for the Greeks). In the 1st century, "Greek" was shorthand for the educated, culturally dominant class of the Roman East. Josephus isn't just writing a history for his own people; he is writing a legal and moral defense of Judaism to a world that often viewed Jews as anti-social or "misanthropic."
A Plea Against "Thoughtless" Hatred
Josephus identifies the root of antisemitism (and ethnic conflict in general) as "ἀλογίστοις" (thoughtless/irrationality). He sees himself as a bridge-builder, using historical documents to "ἐπιδιαλλάττων" (reconcile) the races. He argues that if people actually looked at the laws and the history, the "causes of hatred" would vanish.
Cultural Relativism vs. Universal Ethics
Josephus makes a strikingly modern argument:
Kalokagathia: The Common Ground
He uses the quintessentially Greek term "καλοκαγαθίαν" (noble virtue/the ideal of being "beautiful and good"). He tells the Greeks: "You value Kalokagathia; so do our Laws. Therefore, we are not 'others' (ἀλλότριον); we are colleagues in virtue." This is a brilliant rhetorical "handshake" offered to his critics.
The Role of Law as a Social Glue
Josephus argues that the Torah doesn't make Jews "clannish"; rather, if followed "καθαρῶς" (purely/strictly), it makes them "εὔνους καὶ φίλους" (well-disposed and friendly) to everyone. He is countering the common Roman charge of odium humani generis (hatred of the human race) by asserting that true Judaism is inherently pro-social.
The "Necessity" of the Digression
He concludes by saying he included these documents "ἐξ ἀνάγκης" (out of necessity). This is a meta-commentary on his role as a historian. He knows that a long list of legal edicts is boring for a reader, but he views it as a "necessary" shield against the very real violence the Jewish Diaspora was facing in his own day.
Josephus admits his work is intended "εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας" (for the Greeks). In the 1st century, "Greek" was shorthand for the educated, culturally dominant class of the Roman East. Josephus isn't just writing a history for his own people; he is writing a legal and moral defense of Judaism to a world that often viewed Jews as anti-social or "misanthropic."
A Plea Against "Thoughtless" Hatred
Josephus identifies the root of antisemitism (and ethnic conflict in general) as "ἀλογίστοις" (thoughtless/irrationality). He sees himself as a bridge-builder, using historical documents to "ἐπιδιαλλάττων" (reconcile) the races. He argues that if people actually looked at the laws and the history, the "causes of hatred" would vanish.
Cultural Relativism vs. Universal Ethics
Josephus makes a strikingly modern argument:
1) Customs vary: No race is identical to another, and even Greeks differ from city to city.
2) Justice is universal: While "ἔθεσιν" (customs) divide us, "τὸ δίκαιον" (justice) unites us.
By framing Judaism as a system centered on justice rather than just "weird dietary laws," he makes the Jewish faith accessible and respectable to a Stoic or Platonic Roman audience.Kalokagathia: The Common Ground
He uses the quintessentially Greek term "καλοκαγαθίαν" (noble virtue/the ideal of being "beautiful and good"). He tells the Greeks: "You value Kalokagathia; so do our Laws. Therefore, we are not 'others' (ἀλλότριον); we are colleagues in virtue." This is a brilliant rhetorical "handshake" offered to his critics.
The Role of Law as a Social Glue
Josephus argues that the Torah doesn't make Jews "clannish"; rather, if followed "καθαρῶς" (purely/strictly), it makes them "εὔνους καὶ φίλους" (well-disposed and friendly) to everyone. He is countering the common Roman charge of odium humani generis (hatred of the human race) by asserting that true Judaism is inherently pro-social.
The "Necessity" of the Digression
He concludes by saying he included these documents "ἐξ ἀνάγκης" (out of necessity). This is a meta-commentary on his role as a historian. He knows that a long list of legal edicts is boring for a reader, but he views it as a "necessary" shield against the very real violence the Jewish Diaspora was facing in his own day.
Chapter 7
[179-228]
Herod’s historian conceals his robbery of David’s tomb.
Dissension increases in Herod’s family
[179-228]
Herod’s historian conceals his robbery of David’s tomb.
Dissension increases in Herod’s family
| 179 Ὁ γὰρ ἩρώδηςHerod πολλοῖς τοῖς ἀναλώμασιν εἴς τε τὰς ἔξω καὶ τὰς ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ χρώμενος, ἀκηκοὼς ἔτι τάχιον ὡς ὙρκανὸςHyrcanus ὁ πρὸ αὐτοῦ βασιλεὺς ἀνοίξας τὸν ΔαυίδουDavid τάφον ἀργυρίου λάβοι τρισχίλια τάλαντα κειμένων πολὺ πλειόνων ἔτι καὶ δυναμένων εἰς ἅπαν ἐπαρκέσαι ταῖς χορηγίαις, ἐκ πλείονος μὲν δι᾽ ἐννοίας εἶχεν τὴν ἐπιχείρησινan attempt, attack, | 179 "Now Herod, who was using vast sums for projects both abroad and within his kingdom, had heard long ago that Hyrcanus, the king before him, had opened the Tomb of David and taken three thousand talents of silver, even though much more remained which could satisfy all his expenses. He had long intended to make the attempt himself. |
| 179 As for Herod, he had spent vast sums about the cities, both without and within his own kingdom; and as he had before heard that Hyrcanus, who had been king before him, had opened David’s sepulcher, and taken out of it three thousand talents of silver, and that there was a much greater number left behind, and indeed enough to suffice all his wants, he had a great while an intention to make the attempt; | 179 Herod had spent vast sums on projects outside as well as inside his kingdom, and when he heard how Hyrcanus, the king before him, had opened David’s burial vault and taken three thousand talents of silver from it but that there was still much more there, enough to suffice all his needs, he had long intended to lay hands upon it. |
| 180 ἐν δὲ τῷ τότε νυκτὸς ἀνοίξας τὸν τάφον εἰσέρχεται πραγματευσάμενος ἥκιστα μὲν τῇ πόλει φανερὸς εἶναι, παρειληφὼς δὲ τοὺς πιστοτάτους τῶν φίλων. | 180 At that time, having waited for night, he opened the tomb and entered, taking great care not to be seen by the city, and bringing only his most trusted friends. |
| 180 and at this time he opened that sepulcher by night, and went into it, and endeavored that it should not be at all known in the city, but took only his most faithful friends with him. | 180 One night he opened the burial vault and went into it taking care to be unseen from the city, and bringing with him only his most trusted friends. |
| 181 ἀποθέσιμα μὲν οὖν χρήματα καθάπερ ὙρκανὸςHyrcanus οὐχ εὗρεν, κόσμον δὲ χρυσοῦν καὶ κειμηλίων πολύν, ὃν ἀνείλετο πάντα. σπουδὴν δ᾽ εἶχεν ἐπιμελεστέραν ποιούμενος τὴν ἔρευνανinquiry ἐνδοτέρωinner τε χωρεῖν καὶ κατὰ τὰς θήκας, ἐν αἷς ἦν τοῦ ΔαυίδουDavid καὶ τοῦ ΣολομῶνοςSolomon τὰ σώματα. | 181 He did not find stored-up money as Hyrcanus had, but he did find a great quantity of gold ornaments and precious heirlooms, all of which he carried away. He had an even more eager desire to make a careful search further inside, even down to the sarcophagi where the bodies of David and Solomon were laid. |
| 181 As for any money, he found none, as Hyrcanus had done, but that furniture of gold, and those precious goods that were laid up there; all which he took away. However, he had a great desire to make a more diligent search, and to go farther in, even as far as the very bodies of David and Solomon; | 181 He did not, like Hyrcanus, find any money, but took all the golden furniture and precious things that were stored there. Then he wanted to make a fuller search and go farther in, to where the bodies of David and Solomon lay. |
| 182 καὶ δύο μὲν αὐτῷ τῶν δορυφόρων διεφθάρησαν φλογὸς ἔνδοθεν εἰσιοῦσιν ἀπαντώσης, ὡς ἐλέγετο, περίφοβος δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐξῄει, καὶ τοῦ δέους ἱλαστήριον μνῆμα λευκῆς πέτρας ἐπὶ τῷ στομίῳ κατεσκευάσατο πολυτελὲς τῇ δαπάνῃ. | 182 But it is said that two of his bodyguards were destroyed by a flame that burst out from the inner recesses as they entered. Herod himself fled, terrified, and out of fear, he constructed a propitiatory monument of white stone at the entrance, most expensive in its cost. |
| 182 where two of his guards were slain, by a flame that burst out upon those that went in, as the report was. So he was terribly affrighted, and went out, and built a propitiatory monument of that fright he had been in; and this of white stone, at the mouth of the sepulcher, and that at great expense also. | 182 They say that two of his bodyguard were killed there, by a flame bursting out on them as they entered. So he left in terror and in his fear built a splendid and expensive memorial of white stone at the mouth of the burial vault. |
| 183 τούτου καὶ ΝικόλαοςNicolaus ὁ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἱστοριογράφος μέμνηται τοῦ κατασκευάσματος, οὐ μὴν ὅτι καὶ κατῆλθεν, οὐκ εὐπρεπῆ τὴν πρᾶξιν ἐπιστάμενος. διατελεῖ δὲ καὶ τἆλλα τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον χρώμενος τῇ γραφῇ· | 183 Nicolaus [of Damascus], the historian of his time, mentions this construction, but not that the king actually went down into the tomb, for he knew that the act was unseemly. He continues to treat his writing in this manner: |
| 183 And even Nicolaus his historiographer makes mention of this monument built by Herod, though he does not mention his going down into the sepulcher, as knowing that action to be of ill repute; and many other things he treats of in the same manner in his book; | 183 His historiographer, Nicolaus, mentions this structure but not that he went down to it, knowing that the act was improper, and he treats many other things in the same way in his writings. |
| 184 ζῶντι γὰρ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ κεχαρισμένως ἐκείνῳ καὶ καθ᾽ ὑπηρεσίαν ἀνέγραφεν, μόνων ἁπτόμενος τῶν εὔκλειαν αὐτῷ φερόντων, πολλὰ δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐμφανῶς ἀδίκων ἀντικατασκευάζων καὶ μετὰ πάσης σπουδῆς ἐπικρυπτόμενος, | 184 for since he lived during the king's reign and was his associate, he wrote to please him and serve him, touching only upon those things that brought him glory, and either justifying or carefully concealing many of his clearly unjust deeds. |
| 184 for he wrote in Herod’s lifetime, and under his reign, and so as to please him, and as a servant to him, touching upon nothing but what tended to his glory, and openly excusing many of his notorious crimes, and very diligently concealing them. | 184 He wrote during Herod’s lifetime and under his reign, to please and serve him, and described nothing except what tended to his good name, clearly excusing many of his notorious crimes or very carefully concealing them. |
| 185 ὅς γε καὶ τὸν ΜαριάμμηςMariamne θάνατον καὶ τῶν παίδων αὐτῆς οὕτως ὠμῶς τῷ βασιλεῖ πεπραγμένον εἰς εὐπρέπειαν ἀνάγειν βουλόμενος ἐκείνης τε ἀσέλγειαν καὶ τῶν νεανίσκων ἐπιβουλὰς καταψεύδεται, καὶ διατετέλεκεν τῇ γραφῇ τὰ μὲν πεπραγμένα δικαίως τῷ βασιλεῖ περιττότερον ἐγκωμιάζων, ὑπὲρ δὲ τῶν παρανομηθέντων ἐσπουδασμένως ἀπολογούμενος. | 185 Indeed, wanting to give a decent appearance to the deaths of Mariamne and her sons, which had been so cruelly carried out by the king, he falsely accused her of licentiousness and the young men of treachery. Throughout his work, he went to extremes in praising the king's just deeds and was earnest in his defense of his lawless ones. |
| 185 And as he was desirous to put handsome colors on the death of Mariamne and her sons, which were barbarous actions in the king, he tells falsehoods about the incontinence of Mariamne, and the treacherous designs of his sons upon him; and thus he proceeded in his whole work, making a pompous encomium upon what just actions he had done, but earnestly apologizing for his unjust ones. | 185 As he wished to portray in a good light the death of Mariamne and her sons, which were cruel acts of the king, he invented her unchastity and the treachery of the young men. So he went on in his whole work, lavishing praise on the king’s good actions and carefully defending his crimes. |
| 186 ἐκείνῳ μὲν οὖν πολλὴν ἄν τις, ὡς ἔφην, ἔχοι τὴν συγγνώμην· οὐ γὰρ ἱστορίαν τοῖς ἄλλοις, ἀλλὰ ὑπουργίαν τῷ βασιλεῖ ταύτην ἐποιεῖτο. | 186 One might, as I said, grant him much forgiveness, for he was not writing a history for the public, but performing a service for the king. |
| 186 Indeed, a man, as I said, may have a great deal to say by way of excuse for Nicolaus; for he did not so properly write this as a history for others, as somewhat that might be subservient to the king himself. | 186 As I said, one could say much to excuse this, for he did not write history for others, but was acting in service of the king. |
| 187 ἡμεῖς δὲ καὶ γένους ὄντες ἀγχοῦ τῶν ἐξ ἈσαμωναίουHasmoneus βασιλέων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο σὺν τιμῇ τὴν ἱερωσύνην ἔχοντες τὸ ψεύσασθαί τι περὶ αὐτῶν οὐκ εὐπρεπὲς ὑπειληφότες καθαρῶς καὶ δικαίως ἐκτίθεμεν τὰς πράξεις, πολλοὺς μὲν τῶν ἐγγόνων τῶν ἐκείνου καὶ βασιλεύοντας ἔτι δι᾽ ἐντροπῆς ἔχοντες, τὴν δ᾽ ἀλήθειαν πρὸ ἐκείνων τετιμηκότες, ἣν ὅτε δικαίως ἐγίνετο συνέβη τε παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐκείνοις ὀργῆ τυγχάνειν. | 187 But as for us, being closely related to the Hasmonean kings and thus holding the priesthood with honor, we consider it unseemly to lie about them. Therefore, we set forth the facts purely and justly. Although we hold many of Herod's descendants—who are still kings—in respect, we have honored the truth above them, even when its just telling happened to meet with their anger." |
| 187 As for ourselves, who come of a family nearly allied to the Asamonean kings, and on that account have an honorable place, which is the priesthood, we think it indecent to say any thing that is false about them, and accordingly we have described their actions after an unblemished and upright manner. And although we reverence many of Herod’s posterity, who still reign, yet do we pay a greater regard to truth than to them, and this though it sometimes happens that we incur their displeasure by so doing. | 187 But we, who come from a family linked to the Hasmonean kings and therefore having the honour of the priesthood, think it improper to make up stories about them and have described their actions honestly and justly. Although we respect many of Herod’s descendants still reigning, we honour the truth even more, even if we sometimes incur their displeasure by doing so. |
The "Forbidden" Tomb of David
The story of Herod raiding the tomb is a classic piece of ancient "True Crime." Herod’s financial desperation (due to his massive building projects) led him to commit what many Jews considered the ultimate sacrilege. The "burst of flame" that killed his guards serves as a divine warning in the narrative—a sign that even Herod’s power stopped at the gates of the underworld.
The Propitiatory Monument (Hilastērion)
Herod attempted to "buy off" God’s anger by building a magnificent monument of "λευκῆς πέτρας" (white stone) at the tomb's entrance. This was typical Herodian psychology: when he committed a sin, he tried to fix it with architecture. To the people of Jerusalem, this monument was a permanent, shimmering reminder of a crime he tried to hide.
The Critique of Nicolaus of Damascus
This is one of the most famous passages in ancient historiography. Josephus "breaks the fourth wall" to criticize his primary source, Nicolaus of Damascus.
Josephus’s Identity Crisis
Josephus asserts his own authority based on his Hasmonean lineage. He reminds the reader that he is a priest and a relative of the very family Herod destroyed. He frames his writing as a moral duty: "τὴν δʼ ἀλήθειαν πρὸ ἐκείνων τετιμηκότες" (having honored the truth above them). He is essentially saying, "Nicolaus wrote for the King; I write for the Truth."
Historical Revisionism in Real Time
Josephus admits that writing the truth makes people angry ("ὀργῆ τυγχάνειν"). In his day, Herodian descendants (like Agrippa II) were still alive and in power. By writing this, Josephus was taking a genuine political risk, positioning himself as the "Revisionist Historian" who pulls back the curtain on the "Glory of Herod."
The "Hidden" King Solomon
The mention of the bodies of David and Solomon being in these "inner recesses" ("ἐνδοτέρω") highlights the legendary status of the royal tombs in Jerusalem. For Herod to attempt to open their actual sarcophagi was seen as a move to steal the "essence" or the "glory" of the ancient monarchy for himself.
The story of Herod raiding the tomb is a classic piece of ancient "True Crime." Herod’s financial desperation (due to his massive building projects) led him to commit what many Jews considered the ultimate sacrilege. The "burst of flame" that killed his guards serves as a divine warning in the narrative—a sign that even Herod’s power stopped at the gates of the underworld.
The Propitiatory Monument (Hilastērion)
Herod attempted to "buy off" God’s anger by building a magnificent monument of "λευκῆς πέτρας" (white stone) at the tomb's entrance. This was typical Herodian psychology: when he committed a sin, he tried to fix it with architecture. To the people of Jerusalem, this monument was a permanent, shimmering reminder of a crime he tried to hide.
The Critique of Nicolaus of Damascus
This is one of the most famous passages in ancient historiography. Josephus "breaks the fourth wall" to criticize his primary source, Nicolaus of Damascus.
1) The Conflict of Interest: Nicolaus was Herod’s personal friend and secretary. Josephus argues that Nicolaus’s history was not History but "ὑπουργίαν" (service/propaganda).
2) The Slander of Mariamne: Josephus explicitly notes that Nicolaus lied about Mariamne’s "licentiousness" to justify Herod murdering her. This is a vital moment where a later historian corrects the "official record" of a tyrant.
Josephus’s Identity Crisis
Josephus asserts his own authority based on his Hasmonean lineage. He reminds the reader that he is a priest and a relative of the very family Herod destroyed. He frames his writing as a moral duty: "τὴν δʼ ἀλήθειαν πρὸ ἐκείνων τετιμηκότες" (having honored the truth above them). He is essentially saying, "Nicolaus wrote for the King; I write for the Truth."
Historical Revisionism in Real Time
Josephus admits that writing the truth makes people angry ("ὀργῆ τυγχάνειν"). In his day, Herodian descendants (like Agrippa II) were still alive and in power. By writing this, Josephus was taking a genuine political risk, positioning himself as the "Revisionist Historian" who pulls back the curtain on the "Glory of Herod."
The "Hidden" King Solomon
The mention of the bodies of David and Solomon being in these "inner recesses" ("ἐνδοτέρω") highlights the legendary status of the royal tombs in Jerusalem. For Herod to attempt to open their actual sarcophagi was seen as a move to steal the "essence" or the "glory" of the ancient monarchy for himself.
| 188 ἩρώδηςHerod δὲ διὰ τὴν ἐπιχείρησινan attempt, attack, ἣν ἐποιήσατο τῷ τάφῳ, χεῖρον ἐδόκει πράττειν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν, εἴτε δὴ τοῦ μηνίματος ἐπιδόντος εἰς ἃ μάλιστα καὶ πρότερον ἐνόσει πλείω γενέσθαι πρὸς ἀνηκέστουςincurable, fatal ἐξελθεῖν συμφοράς, εἴτε καὶ τῆς τύχης ἐν ἐκείνῳ τὴν ἐπίθεσιν ποιουμένης ἐν οἷς τὸ κατὰ τὴν αἰτίαν εὔκαιρον οὐ μικρὰν πίστιν παρεῖχεν τοῦ διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν αὐτῷ τὰς συμφορὰς ἀπηντηκέναι. | 188 "Because of the attempt he made upon the tomb, Herod seemed to fare even worse in his domestic affairs. Whether it was that the divine wrath (mēnima) increased those maladies he already suffered from, leading them to issue in incurable calamities, or whether Fortune made her attack at that moment when the timing of the cause provided no small proof that these disasters met him because of his impiety— |
| 188 And indeed Herod’s troubles in his family seemed to be augmented by reason of this attempt he made upon David’s sepulcher; whether divine vengeance increased the calamities he lay under, in order to render them incurable, or whether fortune made an assault upon him, in those cases wherein the seasonableness of the cause made it strongly believed that the calamities came upon him for his impiety; | 188 Herod’s troubles in his family seemed to increase because of his violating the burial vault; whether God’s wrath increased his troubles and rendered them insoluble, or whether fortune deserted him just at the time where the circumstances made it seem that his troubles came as a penalty for his impiety. |
| 189 στάσις γὰρ ἦν ὥσπερ ἐμφυλίουkinsfolk πολέμου κατὰ τὴν αὐλὴν καὶ μίση πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀνθυπερβαλλομένων ταῖς διαβολαῖς. | 189 For there was a strife, like a civil war, within the court, and a mutual hatred that surpassed itself in slanders (diabolais). |
| 189 for the tumult was like a civil war in his palace, and their hatred towards one another was like that where each one strove to exceed another in calumnies. | 189 Conflict raged like civil war in the palace and their hatred for each other came to look like a contest in allegation. |
| 190 ἐστρατήγει δ᾽ ἀεὶ κατὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἈντίπατροςAntipater δεινὸς ὢν ἔξωθεν μὲν περιβάλλειν αὐτοὺς ταῖς αἰτίαις, αὐτὸς δὲ πολλάκις ἀπολογουμένου τόπον λαμβάνων, ἵν᾽ ᾖ τὸ δοκοῦν εὔνουν πιστὸν αὐτῷ πρὸς τὰς ἐπιχειρήσεις ὧν ἐδόκει. Καὶ τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ ποικίλως ἐκπεριεληλύθει τὸν πατέρα μόνος ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκείνου σωτηρίας ἅπαντα πράττειν αὐτὸς πεπιστευκώς. | 190 Antipater was always generaling the campaign against his brothers; he was cunning in surrounding them with accusations from the outside, while he himself often took the role of their defender—only so that his apparent goodwill might make his planned attacks against them seem more credible. By this varied craftiness, he had so completely circumvented his father that he alone was trusted to be doing everything for the king's safety. |
| 190 However, Antipater used stratagems perpetually against his brethren, and that very cunningly; while abroad he loaded them with accusations, but still took upon him frequently to apologize for them, that this apparent benevolence to them might make him be believed, and forward his attempts against them; by which means he, after various manners, circumvented his father, who believed all that he did was for his preservation. | 190 Antipater was always very cunning in his plots against his brothers, for while he heaped accusations on them from afar, he often gave the impression of defending them, in order to be trusted for his apparent goodwill to them. In this way he used various ruses to deceive his father, who believed he was doing everything for his safety. |
| 191 ὁ δὲ καὶ ΠτολεμαῖονPtolemy, ὃς ἦν αὐτῷ διοικητὴς τῶν τῆς βασιλείας πραγμάτων, ἈντιπάτρῳAntipater συνίστη καὶ μετὰ τῆς ἐκείνου μητρὸς ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπειγόντων ἐβουλεύετο. Καὶ καθόλου τὰ πάντα ἦσαν οὗτοι καὶ πράττειν ὅσα θέλοιεν καὶ πρὸς δύσνοιαν ἄγειν τὸν βασιλέα τῶν ἔξωθεν οἷς ἐδόκει συμφέρειν. | 191 Moreover, the king introduced Ptolemy, who was his administrator of the kingdom's affairs, to Antipater, and he consulted with Antipater’s mother [Doris] concerning urgent matters. In short, these individuals were everything; they could do whatever they wished and could lead the king into ill-will toward anyone outside their circle as they saw fit. |
| 191 Herod also recommended Ptolemy, who was a great director of the affairs of his kingdom, to Antipater; and consulted with his mother about the public affairs also. And indeed these were all in all, and did what they pleased, and made the king angry against any other persons, as they thought it might be to their own advantage; | 191 He commended Ptolemy, the chief administrator of his kingdom, as a friend to Antipater, and consulted his mother on public affairs. These had full rein and did what they pleased and roused the king to anger at outsiders, when they thought it helped their own cause. |
| 192 οἱ δ᾽ ἐκ τῆς ΜαριάμμηςMariamne χαλεπώτερον ἀεὶ διετίθεντο, καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν ὑπ᾽ εὐγενείας οὐκ ἔφερον παρεωσμένοι καὶ τάξιν ἀτιμοτέραν ἔχοντες. | 192 Meanwhile, the sons of Mariamne grew ever more resentful. Because of their noble birth (eugeneia), they could not bear being pushed aside and held in a less honorable rank. |
| 192 but still the sons of Mariamne were in a worse and worse condition perpetually; and while they were thrust out, and set in a more dishonorable rank, who yet by birth were the most noble, they could not bear the dishonor. | 192 The status of the sons of Mariamne continually worsened, and they who were noblest by birth were downgraded to a less honoured rank which they found hard to bear. |
| 193 αἵ γε μὴν γυναῖκες, ἡ μὲν ἈλεξάνδρῳAlexander συνοικοῦσα θυγάτηρ ἈρχελάουArchelaus ΓλαφύραGlaphyra μῖσος εἶχεν εἰς τὴν ΣαλώμηνSalome κατά τε τὴν πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα διάθεσιν κἀκ τοῦ πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνης θυγατέρα δοκεῖν ὑπερηφανώτερον διακεῖσθαι· συνῴκει μὲν γὰρ ἈριστοβούλῳAristobulous, τὴν δὲ ἰσοτιμίαν αὐτῆς ἀναξιοπάθει ΓλαφύραGlaphyra. | 193 As for the women: Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus and wife of Alexander, held a hatred for Salome, both because of her [Salome's] disposition toward her husband and because she [Glaphyra] seemed to behave more haughtily toward Salome's daughter. For although Salome's daughter was married to Aristobulus, Glaphyra felt it an indignity that she should be her equal in rank." |
| 193 And for the women, Glaphyra, Alexander’s wife, the daughter of Archelaus, hated Salome, both because of her love to her husband, and because Glaphyra seemed to behave herself somewhat insolently towards Salome’s daughter, who was the wife of Aristobulus, which equality of hers to herself Glaphyra took very impatiently. | 193 Among the women, there was hatred between Alexander’s wife, Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus, and Salome, because of her pact with her husband and because Glaphyra was insolent toward Salome’s daughter, the wife of Aristobulus, whose equal status Glaphyra could not bear. |
Impiety as a Narrative Pivot
Josephus uses the "Tomb Raid" as a literary device to explain Herod’s subsequent madness. Whether the cause was a literal "μήνιμα" (divine grudge/wrath) or just bad "τύχης" (fortune), the timing allowed the Judean public to view Herod’s domestic misery as a direct punishment for his religious "ἀσέβειαν" (impiety). In Josephus's world, a king who violates the tombs of the fathers loses the right to peace in his own house.
Antipater: The "General" of Slander
The military metaphor "ἐστρατήγει" (he acted as general/strategized) is striking. Antipater did not just lie; he conducted a psychological campaign. His most effective tactic was playing the "defender" of his brothers in public to gain Herod's trust, making his "private" concerns about their loyalty seem reluctant and therefore more believable. This is the hallmark of a master manipulator.
The Shadow Cabinet
The alliance between Antipater, his mother Doris, and the administrator Ptolemy created a "state within a state." By controlling the flow of information to Herod, they effectively held the power of life and death. Josephus notes they could lead Herod to "δύσνοιαν" (ill-will) against anyone, effectively isolating the king from any objective truth.
The Curse of "Eugēneia" (Noble Birth)
The sons of Mariamne (Alexander and Aristobulus) are victims of their own pedigree. As Hasmoneans, they possessed "εὐγενείας" (noble birth), which made them popular with the people but arrogant in the palace. Their inability to "play the game" or accept a lower rank than the "low-born" Antipater made them easy targets for the slanders of those who envied their bloodline.
The War of the Women
The conflict between Glaphyra (a Cappadocian princess) and Salome (Herod’s sister) adds a layer of class warfare to the tragedy. Glaphyra’s haughtiness toward Salome's daughter (her own sister-in-law) was based on the fact that Glaphyra came from an ancient royal line, whereas the Herodians were viewed as "upstarts." This petty social friction provided the "kindling" for the lethal political fire Salome would eventually light.
Josephus uses the "Tomb Raid" as a literary device to explain Herod’s subsequent madness. Whether the cause was a literal "μήνιμα" (divine grudge/wrath) or just bad "τύχης" (fortune), the timing allowed the Judean public to view Herod’s domestic misery as a direct punishment for his religious "ἀσέβειαν" (impiety). In Josephus's world, a king who violates the tombs of the fathers loses the right to peace in his own house.
Antipater: The "General" of Slander
The military metaphor "ἐστρατήγει" (he acted as general/strategized) is striking. Antipater did not just lie; he conducted a psychological campaign. His most effective tactic was playing the "defender" of his brothers in public to gain Herod's trust, making his "private" concerns about their loyalty seem reluctant and therefore more believable. This is the hallmark of a master manipulator.
The Shadow Cabinet
The alliance between Antipater, his mother Doris, and the administrator Ptolemy created a "state within a state." By controlling the flow of information to Herod, they effectively held the power of life and death. Josephus notes they could lead Herod to "δύσνοιαν" (ill-will) against anyone, effectively isolating the king from any objective truth.
The Curse of "Eugēneia" (Noble Birth)
The sons of Mariamne (Alexander and Aristobulus) are victims of their own pedigree. As Hasmoneans, they possessed "εὐγενείας" (noble birth), which made them popular with the people but arrogant in the palace. Their inability to "play the game" or accept a lower rank than the "low-born" Antipater made them easy targets for the slanders of those who envied their bloodline.
The War of the Women
The conflict between Glaphyra (a Cappadocian princess) and Salome (Herod’s sister) adds a layer of class warfare to the tragedy. Glaphyra’s haughtiness toward Salome's daughter (her own sister-in-law) was based on the fact that Glaphyra came from an ancient royal line, whereas the Herodians were viewed as "upstarts." This petty social friction provided the "kindling" for the lethal political fire Salome would eventually light.
| 194 Δευτέρας οὖν ταύτης ἔριδος ἐμπεπτωκυίας οὐδ᾽ ὁ τοῦ βασιλέως ἀδελφὸς ΦερώραςPheroras ἔξω ταραχῆς ἦν, ἰδίαν δὲ ὑπόθεσιν ὑποψίαςsuspicion, jealousy καὶ μίσους εἶχεν· ἐμπεπτώκει μὲν γὰρ εἰς ἔρωταto ask δουλευούσης αὐτῷ γυναικός, ἥττητο δὲ τῆς ἀνθρώπου μεμηνότως ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον κρατούμενος, ὥστ᾽ αὐτῷ καὶ τῆς τοῦ βασιλέως ἐγγυηθείσης θυγατρὸς τὴν μὲν ὑπερηφανῆσαι, πρὸς δὲ τῇ δούλῃ τὸν νοῦν εἶχεν. | 194 "While this second strife had fallen upon them, the king’s brother Pheroras was not free from the turmoil, having his own grounds for suspicion and hatred. For he had fallen in love with a woman who was his slave, and was so maddened and overcome by the creature that when the king betrothed his own daughter to him, Pheroras treated her with disdain, his mind entirely fixed upon the slave-girl. |
| 194 Now, besides this second contention that had fallen among them, neither did the king’s brother Pheroras keep himself out of trouble, but had a particular foundation for suspicion and hatred; for he was overcome with the charms of his wife, to such a degree of madness, that he despised the king’s daughter, to whom he had been betrothed, and wholly bent his mind to the other, who had been but a servant. | 194 Apart from this second quarrel, the king’s brother Pheroras still did not keep out of trouble, but caused further suspicion and hatred. He had fallen in love with one of his slave-girls, who held him so besotted that he scorned the king’s daughter, to whom he was betrothed and gave his heart to the slave-girl. |
| 195 ἤχθετο δὲ ἀτιμασθεὶς ἩρώδηςHerod τῷ πολλὰ μὲν εὐεργετῆσαι τὸν ἀδελφόν, δυνάμει δὲ καὶ κοινωνὸν ἔχειν τῆς βασιλείας, οὐχ ὅμοιον εἰς τὰς ἀμοιβὰς ὁρῶν, κἀν τῷ προσώπῳ δυστυχεῖν ᾤετο. | 195 Herod was grieved by this insult, for he had bestowed many benefits upon his brother and had made him a virtual partner in the kingdom; seeing no equal return, he felt he was being unfortunate in his own kin. |
| 195 Herod also was grieved by the dishonor that was done him, because he had bestowed many favors upon him, and had advanced him to that height of power that he was almost a partner with him in the kingdom, and saw that he had not made him a due return for his labors, and esteemed himself unhappy on that account. | 195 Herod felt dishonoured by this as he had favoured his brother in many ways and let him share the kingship with him, and was unhappy to see him not playing his proper part. |
| 196 καὶ τὴν μὲν κόρην μὴ τυχὼν ΦερώραPheroras δικαίου παιδὶ ΦασαήλουPhasael δίδωσιν, αὐτὸς δὲ χρόνου διελθόντος οἰόμενος ἤδη παρηκμακέναι τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τἀδελφῷ περὶ τε τῶν πρώτων ᾐτιᾶτο καὶ τὴν δευτέραν ἠξίου λαμβάνειν, ΚύπροςCyprus ἐκαλεῖτο. | 196 When he failed to get Pheroras to marry the girl, he gave her to the son of Phasael [Herod's nephew]. After some time, thinking the passion had cooled, Herod accused his brother regarding the first insult and urged him to take his second daughter, whose name was Cypros. |
| 196 So upon Pheroras’s unworthy refusal, he gave the damsel to Phasaelus’s son; but after some time, when he thought the heat of his brother’s affections was over, he blamed him for his former conduct, and desired him to take his second daughter, whose name was Cypros. | 196 As Pheroras did not take the girl, he gave her to Phasael’s son; but after some time, thinking his brother’s passion had cooled, he reproached him for his previous conduct and asked him to take his second girl, named Cypros. |
| 197 ΦερώρᾳPheroras δὲ συμβουλεύει ΠτολεμαῖοςPtolemy ἤδη ποτὲ παυσαμένῳ τῆς εἰς τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἀτιμίας καταβαλεῖν τὸν ἔρωταto ask· καὶ γὰρ αἰσχρὸν εἶναι δούλης ἡττώμενον ἀποστερεῖνto rob, defraud μὲν αὑτὸν τῆς εὐνοίας τῆς παρὰ βασιλέως, αἴτιον δὲ κἀκείνῳ ταραχῆς καὶ μίσους πρὸς αὐτὸν καθίστασθαι. | 197 Ptolemy advised Pheroras to finally cease his insults toward his brother and cast off this love; for it was shameful to be so mastered by a slave as to deprive himself of the king’s goodwill and become a cause of turmoil and hatred. |
| 197 Ptolemy also advised him to leave off affronting his brother, and to forsake her whom he had loved, for that it was a base thing to be so enamored of a servant, as to deprive himself of the king’s good-will to him, and become an occasion of his trouble, and make himself hated by him. | 197 Ptolemy also told Pheroras he should stop bringing disgrace to his brother and abandon his affair, since it is ignoble to belong to a slave and so lose the king’s goodwill and cause trouble to him and bring hatred on himself. |
| 198 ταῦτ᾽ ἐκεῖνος ἰδὼν λυσιτελήσοντα τῷ καὶ πρότερον ἐν διαβολαῖς γενόμενος συνεγνῶσθαι, τὴν μὲν ἄνθρωπον ἤδη καὶ παῖδα ἐξ αὐτῆς ἔχων ἀποπέμπεται, βασιλεῖ δ᾽ ὡμολόγει λήψεσθαι τὴν δευτέραν αὐτοῦ θυγατέρα καὶ τριακοστὴν ἡμέραν συνέθετο τοῦ γάμου, συνεπομνύμενος ὡς οὐδὲν ἔτι κοινώνημα πρὸς τὴν ἀποπεμφθεῖσαν ἔσται. | 198 Pheroras, seeing it was to his advantage—especially since he had been forgiven for previous slanders—sent the woman away, even though he already had a child by her. He promised the king he would marry his second daughter and set a date thirty days hence, swearing an oath that he would have no further commerce with the woman he had sent away. |
| 198 Pheroras knew that this advice would be for his own advantage, particularly because he had been accused before, and forgiven; so he put his wife away, although he already had a son by her, and engaged to the king that he would take his second daughter, and agreed that the thirtieth day after should be the day of marriage; and sware he would have no further conversation with her whom he had put away; | 198 Knowing that this advice was for his own good, as he had earlier been accused and forgiven, he did put her away, even though he already had a son by her, and he promised the king to marry his second daughter and agreed to be wed in thirty days, and swore to have no further contact with the one he had set aside. |
| 199 διελθουσῶν δὲ τῶν τριάκοντα ἡμερῶν τοσοῦτον ἦν ἥττων τοῦ ἔρωτος, ὥστε μηδὲν μὲν ἔτι ποιῆσαι τῶν ὡμολογημένων, πάλιν δὲ διατελεῖν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ. | 199 But when the thirty days passed, he was so overcome by his passion that he performed none of his promises, but returned to his first love. |
| 199 but when the thirty days were over, he was such a slave to his affections, that he no longer performed any thing he had promised, but continued still with his former wife. This occasioned Herod to grieve openly, and made him angry, | 199 But when the thirty days had passed, he was such a slave to his feelings that he did not keep his promise, but continued with his first woman. |
| 200 ταῦτα φανερῶς ἤδη τὸν ἩρώδηνHerōd ἐλύπει καὶ πρὸς ὀργὴν ἦγεν. ἦσαν οὖν λόγοι τινὲς ἀεὶ παραπίπτοντες παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ πολλοὶ τὴν ὀργὴν τοῦ βασιλέως ἀφορμὴν τῶν κατὰ ΦερώρουPheroras διαβολῶν ἐποιοῦντο. διέλειπεν δὲ οὐκ ἔσθ᾽sometimes ἥτις ἡμέρα οὐδ᾽ ὥρα, καθ᾽ ἣν ἀτρεμεῖν αὐτῷ συνέβαινεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεί τι προσέπιπτεν καινῶν ἀγωνισμάτων συγγενῶν καὶ φιλτάτων εἰς ἀλλήλους πεποιημένων. | 200 This now openly pained Herod and drove him to rage. Many took the king’s anger as an opportunity for slanders against Pheroras. Not a day or hour passed in which Herod was at peace; always some new struggle arose between his kinsmen and loved ones. |
| 200 while the king dropped one word or other against Pheroras perpetually; and many made the king’s anger an opportunity for raising calumnies against him. Nor had the king any longer a single quiet day or hour, but occasions of one fresh quarrel or another arose among his relations, and those that were dearest to him; | 200 This caused Herod to be publicly sad and angry, so that he was always saying one thing or other against him, and many took opportunity from the king’s anger to tell lies against Pheroras. Not a day or hour passed but Herod met some new quarrel or other among his relatives and those dearest to him. |
| 201 τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ ἡ ΣαλώμηSalome χαλεπὴ καὶ δύσνους οὖσα τοῖς ἐκ ΜαριάμμηςMariamne οὐδὲ τὴν ἑαυτῆς θυγατέρα συνοικοῦσανto dwell together ἈριστοβούλῳAristobulous θατέρῳ τῶν νεανίσκων εἴα τῇ τοῦ γάμου πρὸς ἐκεῖνον εὐνοίᾳ χρῆσθαι, λέγειν τε εἴ τι λαλήσειεν κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ἀναπείθουσα καὶ μηνύειν ἑαυτῇ κἀν τοῖς προσκρούμασιν, οἷα συμβαίνει, πολλὰς ὑποψίαςsuspicion, jealousy εἰσάγουσα. | 201 Salome, being harsh and ill-disposed toward the sons of Mariamne, would not even allow her own daughter (who was married to Aristobulus, one of the youths) to enjoy the goodwill of marriage. Instead, she persuaded the girl to report whatever Aristobulus said in private and to inform her of every friction. |
| 201 for Salome was of a harsh temper, and ill-natured to Mariamne’s sons; nor would she suffer her own daughter, who was the wife of Aristobulus, one of those young men, to bear a good-will to her husband, but persuaded her to tell her if he said any thing to her in private, and when any misunderstandings happened, as is common, she raised a great many suspicions out of it; | 201 Salome had a harsh temper and was malicious to Mariamne’s sons. She kept her own daughter, the wife of one of those young men, Aristobulus, from loving her husband, persuading her to tell her all that he said to her in private and when friction arose, as it often does, she raised many faults about it. |
| 202 δι᾽ ὧν αὐτὴ μὲν ἅπαντα τὰ κατ᾽ ἐκείνους ἐμάνθανεν, δύσνουν δὲ τὴν παῖδα τῷ νεανίσκῳ πεποιήκει. | 202 By these means, Salome learned everything regarding the youths and made the girl ill-disposed toward her husband. |
| 202 by which means she learned all their concerns, and made the damsel ill-natured to the young man. | 202 In this way she learned all about them and caused the girl to dislike the young man. |
| 203 χαριζομένη δ᾽ ἐκείνη τῇ μητρὶ πολλάκις ἔλεγεν, ὡς μέμνηνταιto remember μὲν ἰδιάζοντες ἐκεῖνοι τῆς ΜαριάμμηςMariamne, ἐστυγήκασι δὲ τὸν πατέρα, συνεχὲς δὲ διαπειλοῦσιν, εἰ τύχοιεν αὐτοί ποτε τῆς ἀρχῆς, τοὺς μὲν ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων γυναικῶν παῖδας ἩρώδῃHerod γεγενημένους κωμογραμματεῖς καταστήσειν· ἁρμόσειν γὰρ εἰς τοιαύτην χρείαν τὸ νῦν ἐπιμελὲς αὐτῶν καὶ πρὸς παιδείαν ἐσπουδασμένον. | 203 To please her mother, the girl often reported that when the brothers were alone, they remembered Mariamne, loathed their father, and constantly threatened that if they ever came to power, they would appoint the sons of Herod by his other wives as village scribes—mocking that their current careful education made them fit for such a lowly task. |
| 203 And in order to gratify her mother, she often said that the young men used to mention Mariamne when they were by themselves; and that they hated their father, and were continually threatening, that if they had once got the kingdom, they would make Herod’s sons by his other wives country-schoolmasters, for that the present education which was given them, and their diligence in learning, fitted them for such an employment. | 203 To gratify her, the girl told her mother that when they were alone they often spoke of Mariamne, and that they hated their father and often threatened that if they came to rule, they would make village schoolmasters of Herod’s sons by his other wives, as their education and their diligence in study fitted them for that work. |
| 204 τὰς δὲ γυναῖκας, εἴ ποτε καὶ ταύτας ἴδοιεν τοῦ μητρῴου κόσμου μετειληφυίας, ἀντὶ τῆς παρούσης ἁβρότητος ἀπειλεῖν, ὡς τρύχεσιν ἠμφιεσμέναι καθειργοῦνται μηδὲ τὸν ἥλιον βλέπουσαι. | 204 They also threatened that if they ever saw those other wives wearing their mother’s [Mariamne's] jewelry, they would strip them of their luxury and shut them up in rags where they would never see the sun. |
| 204 And as for the women, whenever they saw them adorned with their mother’s clothes, they threatened, that instead of their present gaudy apparel, they should be clothed in sackcloth, and confined so closely that they should not see the light of the sun. | 204 Also, if ever they saw the women wearing their mother’s finery, they threatened that instead of their present things, they would be clothed in sackcloth and kept where they would never see the sun. |
| 205 ταῦτ᾽ εὐθὺς ἀπηγγέλλετο διὰ τῆς ΣαλώμηςSalome τῷ βασιλεῖ· κἀκεῖνος ἤκουεν μὲν ἀλγεινῶς, ἐπειρᾶτο δὲ διορθοῦν, ἐκακοῦτο δὲ ταῖς ὑποψίαις καὶ χείρων ἀεὶ γινόμενος ἅπασιν κατὰ πάντων ἐπίστευεν. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ τότε μὲν ἐπιπλήξας τοῖς παισὶν ἀπολογησαμένων ῥᾴων εἰς τὸν καιρὸν ἐγίνετο, ταῖς δ᾽ ἑξῆς πολὺ χείρω προσέπεσεν. | 205 These reports were immediately carried to the king by Salome. He heard them with great pain and tried to correct matters, but he was wasted by suspicion; growing worse, he began to believe everyone against everyone else. Nevertheless, at that time, having rebuked the boys and heard their defense, he grew easier for a moment, but far worse things were soon to follow." |
| 205 These stories were presently carried by Salome to the king, who was troubled to hear them, and endeavored to make up matters; but these suspicions afflicted him, and becoming more and more uneasy, he believed every body against every body. However, upon his rebuking his sons, and hearing the defense they made for themselves, he was easier for a while, though a little afterwards much worse accidents came upon him. | 205 These tales were soon brought back by Salome to the king, who hated to hear them and tried to resolve things; but the suspicions made him worse and he came to believe that everyone was against everyone else. After rebuking his sons and hearing their response, he was easier for a while, though soon afterward much worse things happened to him. |
The Pheroras Paradox: Love vs. Power
Pheroras is a fascinating study in irrationality. Despite being a "partner in the kingdom," he risks his entire political standing for a slave-woman. Josephus uses the word "μεμηνότως" (maddened), suggesting that in the Herodian world, romantic passion is a form of insanity that destabilizes the state. Herod views this not as a personal choice, but as "ἀτιμία" (dishonor/insult) to the crown.
The "Village Scribes" Insult
The threat to turn Herod’s other sons into "κωμογραμματεῖς" (village scribes) is a biting class insult. A village scribe was a low-level bureaucrat—literate, but socially insignificant. Aristobulus and Alexander were asserting their Hasmonean "blue blood" by suggesting their half-brothers were only fit for paperwork, not for the throne.
Salome’s "Spy Network"
Salome’s weaponization of her own daughter’s marriage is peak Herodian intrigue. By turning a wife against her husband, she destroys the most private sanctuary of the princes. The daughter is caught between her "εὐνοίᾳ" (goodwill) toward her husband and her desire to please her mother ("χαριζομένη"). This effectively turns the marriage bed into a site of state surveillance.
The Jewelry of the Dead Queen
The mention of "μητρῴου κόσμου" (the mother's ornaments/jewelry) highlights the emotional trauma underlying the political conflict. To the princes, seeing their father’s other wives wearing Mariamne’s jewels was a visual desecration of her memory. Their threats were born of grief, but Salome successfully reframed them as treason.
Herod’s Psychological Decay
Josephus describes Herod as being "ἐκακοῦτο ταῖς ὑποψίαις" (wasted/damaged by suspicions). Suspicion in this context is like a biological disease; it eats away at the king's ability to reason. By the end of this passage, Herod reaches a tipping point where he believes "ἅπασιν κατὰ πάντων" (everyone against everyone). He is now a king with no allies, only competing accusers.
Pheroras is a fascinating study in irrationality. Despite being a "partner in the kingdom," he risks his entire political standing for a slave-woman. Josephus uses the word "μεμηνότως" (maddened), suggesting that in the Herodian world, romantic passion is a form of insanity that destabilizes the state. Herod views this not as a personal choice, but as "ἀτιμία" (dishonor/insult) to the crown.
The "Village Scribes" Insult
The threat to turn Herod’s other sons into "κωμογραμματεῖς" (village scribes) is a biting class insult. A village scribe was a low-level bureaucrat—literate, but socially insignificant. Aristobulus and Alexander were asserting their Hasmonean "blue blood" by suggesting their half-brothers were only fit for paperwork, not for the throne.
Salome’s "Spy Network"
Salome’s weaponization of her own daughter’s marriage is peak Herodian intrigue. By turning a wife against her husband, she destroys the most private sanctuary of the princes. The daughter is caught between her "εὐνοίᾳ" (goodwill) toward her husband and her desire to please her mother ("χαριζομένη"). This effectively turns the marriage bed into a site of state surveillance.
The Jewelry of the Dead Queen
The mention of "μητρῴου κόσμου" (the mother's ornaments/jewelry) highlights the emotional trauma underlying the political conflict. To the princes, seeing their father’s other wives wearing Mariamne’s jewels was a visual desecration of her memory. Their threats were born of grief, but Salome successfully reframed them as treason.
Herod’s Psychological Decay
Josephus describes Herod as being "ἐκακοῦτο ταῖς ὑποψίαις" (wasted/damaged by suspicions). Suspicion in this context is like a biological disease; it eats away at the king's ability to reason. By the end of this passage, Herod reaches a tipping point where he believes "ἅπασιν κατὰ πάντων" (everyone against everyone). He is now a king with no allies, only competing accusers.
| 206 Ὁ γὰρ ΦερώραςPheroras ἐλθὼν παρὰ τὸν ἈλέξανδρονAlexander ἔχοντα τὴν ἈρχελάουArchelaus θυγατέρα ΓλαφύρανGlaphyra, ὡς ἐδηλώσαμεν, ΣαλώμηςSalome ἔφη λεγούσης ἀκηκοέναι τὸν ἩρώδηνHerōd ἡττῆσθαι τοῦ τῆς ΓλαφύραςGlaphyra ἔρωτος καὶ δυσπαρηγόρητον αὐτῷ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν εἶναι. | 206 "For Pheroras, coming to Alexander—who, as we have stated, was married to Archelaus's daughter Glaphyra—claimed he had heard from Salome that Herod was overcome by a passion for Glaphyra and that his desire for her was difficult to restrain. |
| 206 For Pheroras came to Alexander, the husband of Glaphyra, who was the daughter of Archelaus, as we have already told you, and said that he had heard from Salome that Herod has enamored on Glaphyra, and that his passion for her was incurable. | 206 Pheroras came to Alexander, the husband of Glaphyra, who was the daughter of Archelaus as already said, and told him that he heard Salome say that Herod was hopelessly in love with Glaphyra. |
| 207 τοῦτο οὖν ἐκεῖνος ἀκούσας ὑπό τε νεότητος καὶ ζηλοτυπίας ἐξεκαίετο καὶ τὰ κατὰ τιμὴν εἰς τὴν παῖδα γινόμενα παρ᾽ ἩρώδουHerod, πολλάκις δ᾽ ἦσαν αἱ τοιαῦται φιλοφρονήσεις, ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον ἐλάμβανεν ἐξ ὑπονοιῶν διὰ τὸν ἐκπεσόντα λόγον. | 207 When Alexander heard this, he was set ablaze by the impetuosity of youth and by jealousy; he began to interpret the honors Herod bestowed upon the young woman (for such courtesies were frequent) in the worst possible light, fueled by suspicions arising from the rumor that had been dropped. |
| 207 When Alexander heard that, he was all on fire, from his youth and jealousy; and he interpreted the instances of Herod’s obliging behavior to her, which were very frequent, for the worse, which came from those suspicions he had on account of that word which fell from Pheroras; | 207 The youth flared up with youthful jealousy and saw a bad meaning in Herod’s frequent signs of courtesy to the girl, his suspicions were aroused by what he had heard. |
| 208 οὐκ τε τὴν ὀδύνην τοῦ πράγματος, ἀλλὰ ἐλθὼν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καταμηνύει τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ ΦερώραPheroras ῥηθέντα μετὰ δακρύων. ἩρώδηςHerod δὲ πολὺ μᾶλλον ἐκπαθὴς γενόμενος καὶ τὸ σὺν αἰσχύνῃ τῆς διαβολῆς ἐψευσμένον οὐ φέρων ἐτετάρακτο. | 208 He could not endure the pain of the matter, but went to his father and, with tears, reported what had been said by Pheroras. Herod, becoming far more distraught and unable to bear the shame of such a falsely fabricated slander, was utterly confounded. |
| 208 nor could he conceal his grief at the thing, but informed him what word: Pheroras had said. Upon which Herod was in a greater disorder than ever; and not bearing such a false calumny, which was to his shame, was much disturbed at it; | 208 He could not hide his distress but went to his father in tears and told him what Pheroras had said. This shameful and malicious accusation upset Herod and he took it badly. |
| 209 καὶ πολλάκις μὲν ὠδύρετο τὴν πονηρίαν τῶν οἰκείων οἷος εἰς αὐτοὺς γενόμενος οἵων τυγχάνοι, Μεταπέμπεται δὲ τὸν ΦερώρανPheroras καὶ προσονειδίσας " κάκιστε πάντων, εἶπεν, εἰς τοῦτο τῆς ἀμέτρου καὶ περιττῆς ἦλθες ἀχαριστίας, ὡς τοιαῦτα μὲν περὶ ἡμῶν νοῆσαι, τοιαῦτα δὲ λαλεῖν; | 209 He frequently lamented the wickedness of his kin, reflecting on how he had behaved toward them and what he was receiving in return. He then summoned Pheroras and, after rebuking him, said: 'Most wicked of all men, have you reached such a height of immeasurable and excessive ingratitude as to conceive such thoughts about us and to speak such things? |
| 209 and often did he lament the wickedness of his domestics, and how good he had been to them, and how ill requitals they had made him. So he sent for Pheroras, and reproached him, and said, "Thou vilest of all men! art thou come to that unmeasurable and extravagant degree of ingratitude, as not only to suppose such things of me, but to speak of them? | 209 He often complained about the malice of his household and how good he had been to them and how little thanks he got for it. So he sent for Pheroras and rebuked him and said, |
| 210 ἆρ᾽then, so then οὐχ ὁρῶ τὴν σὴν προαίρεσιν, ὡς οὐ βλασφημίας ἐστοχασμένος τοὺς τοιούτους λόγους τῷ παιδὶ προσήνεγκας, ἐπιβουλὴν δὲ καὶ φάρμακον αὐτοὺς ποιούμενος τῆς ἐμῆς ἀπωλείας; τίς γὰρ ἄν, εἰ μὴ δαιμόνων ἀγαθῶν ἔτυχεν, ὥσπερ οὗτος ὁ παῖς, ἠνέσχετο τὸν πατέρα μὴ τίσασθαι διὰ τοιαύτην ὑποψίαν; | 210 Do I not see your intent? You did not bring such words to the boy merely for the sake of blasphemy, but as a plot and a poison for my destruction! For who, unless he possessed a noble spirit like this boy, would have refrained from taking vengeance on his father because of such a suspicion? |
| 210 I now indeed perceive what thy intentions are. It is not thy only aim to reproach me, when thou usest such words to my son, but thereby to persuade him to plot against me, and get me destroyed by poison. And who is there, if he had not a good genius at his elbow, as hath my son, but would not bear such a suspicion of his father, but would revenge himself upon him? | 210 "You wretch, do you think I don't see your plan? Not only do you think such vile things of me but you even say them to the boy! Was it your plan to get rid of me by such poison? And who is there except my son, without a good spirit at his elbow, who would not take revenge on his father, on such a suspicion? |
| 211 πότερον δὲ λόγον εἰς τὴν ψυχὴν ἢ ξίφος εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν ἐμβαλεῖν αὐτῷ δοκεῖς κατὰ τοῦ γεγεννηκότος; τί δέ σοι βούλεται τὸ μισοῦντά τε αὐτὸν καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ πρὸς μόνην τὴν κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ βλασφημίαν εὔνοιαν ὑποκρίνασθαι καὶ περὶ τούτων λέγειν, ἃ τῆς σῆς ἀσεβείαςungodliness ἦν καὶ νοῆσαι καὶ διαβαλεῖν; | 211 Do you think you have cast a mere word into his soul, or rather a sword into his right hand against his own father? What is your purpose in pretending goodwill toward him and his brother—whom you actually hate—only for the sake of blasphemy against me, and in speaking of things that were yours alone to conceive and to slander in your impiety? |
| 211 Dost thou suppose that thou hast only dropped a word for him to think of, and not rather hast put a sword into his hand to slay his father? And what dost thou mean, when thou really hatest both him and his brother, to pretend kindness to them, only in order to raise a reproach against me, and talk of such things as no one but such an impious wretch as thou art could either devise in their mind, or declare in their words? | 211 Do you think you put only a word in his mind? Rather was it not a sword in his hand to kill his father? You who hate both him and his brother, why do you pretend to care for them, just to say against me such things as only an impious wretch like you could think or declare? |
| 212 ἔρρε κάκιστος εἰς ΕὐεργέτηνEuergetes καὶ ἀδελφὸν γενόμενος. Καὶ σοὶ μὲν ἡ συνείδησις αὕτη συζήσειεν, ἐγὼ δὲ νικῴην ἀεὶ τοὺς ἐμοὺς μήτε ἀμυνόμενος κατ᾽ ἀξίαν καὶ μειζόνως εὐεργετῶν ἢ τυχεῖν εἰσι δίκαιοι." | 212 Be gone, you who have proven most wicked toward your benefactor and brother! May this conscience of yours live with you; as for me, may I always conquer my kinsmen not by punishing them as they deserve, but by bestowing greater benefits than they are worthy to receive.'" |
| 212 Begone, thou that art such a plague to thy benefactor and thy brother, and may that evil conscience of thine go along with thee; while I still overcome my relations by kindness, and am so far from avenging myself of them, as they deserve, that I bestow greater benefits upon them than they are worthy of." | 212 Begone, you abomination to your benefactor and brother, and take your bad conscience with you! For I have heaped favour on my relatives and instead of taking due revenge on them, I give them more good than they deserve." |
The "Incest" Slander as a Political Weapon
The rumor Pheroras spreads—that Herod lusts after his own daughter-in-law, Glaphyra—is a "poison pill" designed to destroy the relationship between father and son. In the ancient world, sexual transgression within the family was a mark of a tyrant. By planting this thought, Pheroras hoped Alexander would kill Herod in a fit of "jealousy" (ζηλοτυπίας), effectively doing Pheroras's dirty work.
The Psychology of "Impetuous Youth"
Josephus notes that Alexander was moved by "νεότητος" (youth). Young, noble, and Hasmonean, Alexander was emotionally volatile. Herod’s natural "courtesies" (φιλοφρονήσεις) toward Glaphyra, which were likely standard court etiquette, were instantly re-contextualized as predatory behavior. This shows how a single lie can change the "lens" through which an entire reality is viewed.
Words as "Poison" and "Swords"
Herod’s response contains a profound observation on the power of rhetoric. He calls the rumor a "φάρμακον" (poison/drug) and a "ξίφος" (sword). He recognizes that Pheroras wasn't just gossiping; he was arming a young man’s hand. In the paranoid world of the Herodian palace, a suggestion of betrayal was as lethal as a physical weapon.
The Irony of Herod’s "Benefaction"
Herod’s closing line—that he "conquers" his family by being too kind to them—is deeply ironic given what we know of his history. While he did shower his family with titles and wealth, he also demanded absolute psychological submission. He frames himself as the "long-suffering benefactor" while ignoring the fact that his own atmosphere of terror made such slanders believable in the first place.
Pheroras’s Failure of Character
Pheroras is depicted as "κάκιστε πάντων" (the most wicked of all). His attempt to use Salome as a "shield" (claiming he heard it from her) shows the circular nature of palace lies. Everyone used everyone else as a source to avoid accountability. Herod, however, sees through the tactic, identifying the "impiety" (ἀσεβείας) of even imagining such a crime.
The rumor Pheroras spreads—that Herod lusts after his own daughter-in-law, Glaphyra—is a "poison pill" designed to destroy the relationship between father and son. In the ancient world, sexual transgression within the family was a mark of a tyrant. By planting this thought, Pheroras hoped Alexander would kill Herod in a fit of "jealousy" (ζηλοτυπίας), effectively doing Pheroras's dirty work.
The Psychology of "Impetuous Youth"
Josephus notes that Alexander was moved by "νεότητος" (youth). Young, noble, and Hasmonean, Alexander was emotionally volatile. Herod’s natural "courtesies" (φιλοφρονήσεις) toward Glaphyra, which were likely standard court etiquette, were instantly re-contextualized as predatory behavior. This shows how a single lie can change the "lens" through which an entire reality is viewed.
Words as "Poison" and "Swords"
Herod’s response contains a profound observation on the power of rhetoric. He calls the rumor a "φάρμακον" (poison/drug) and a "ξίφος" (sword). He recognizes that Pheroras wasn't just gossiping; he was arming a young man’s hand. In the paranoid world of the Herodian palace, a suggestion of betrayal was as lethal as a physical weapon.
The Irony of Herod’s "Benefaction"
Herod’s closing line—that he "conquers" his family by being too kind to them—is deeply ironic given what we know of his history. While he did shower his family with titles and wealth, he also demanded absolute psychological submission. He frames himself as the "long-suffering benefactor" while ignoring the fact that his own atmosphere of terror made such slanders believable in the first place.
Pheroras’s Failure of Character
Pheroras is depicted as "κάκιστε πάντων" (the most wicked of all). His attempt to use Salome as a "shield" (claiming he heard it from her) shows the circular nature of palace lies. Everyone used everyone else as a source to avoid accountability. Herod, however, sees through the tactic, identifying the "impiety" (ἀσεβείας) of even imagining such a crime.
| 213 Τοιαῦτα μὲν οὖν ὁ βασιλεύς. ΦερώραςPheroras δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοφώρῳ τῇ μοχθηρίᾳ ΣαλώμηνSalome ἔφη ταῦτα συμπείσειν καὶ παρ᾽ ἐκείνης εἶναι τοὺς λόγους. ἡ δὲ ὡς μόνον ἤκουσεν, ἐτύγχανεν δὲ παροῦσα, πιθανῶς ἀνεβόησεν, | 213 "So spoke the king. But Pheroras, caught in the act of his own villainy, claimed that Salome had persuaded him of this and that the rumors originated from her. |
| 213 Thus did the king speak. Whereupon Pheroras, who was caught in the very act of his villainy, said that "it was Salome who was the framer of this plot, and that the words came from her." | 213 So said the king. Pheroras, caught in the act of his villainy, said that Salome had framed this plot and that the words came from her. |
| 214 ὡς οὐδὲν εἴη παρ᾽ αὐτῆς τοιοῦτον, καὶ ὅτι διὰ σπουδῆς ἐστιν ἅπασιν εἰς μῖσος ἀγαγεῖν αὐτὴν τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ πάντα τρόπον ἐνέχειν διὰ τὴν εὔνοιαν, ἣν ἔχοι περὶ τὸν ἩρώδηνHerōd ἀεὶ προγινώσκουσα τοὺς κινδύνους. | 214 She, as it happened, was present, and as soon as she heard this, she let out a persuasive shriek: She cried that no such thing had come from her, and that everyone was eager to drive her into the king’s hatred and implicate her in every way because of the goodwill she held for Herod, always foreseeing his dangers. |
| 214 But as soon as she heard that, for she was at hand, she cried out, like one that would be believed, that no such thing ever came out of her mouth; that they all earnestly endeavored to make the king hate her, and to make her away, because of the good-will she bore to Herod, and because she was always foreseeing the dangers that were coming upon him, | 214 As soon as she heard this, for she was nearby, she shouted out convincingly that nothing of the kind ever came from her lips; that all were trying to make the king hate her, because in her love for Herod she was always foreseeing the dangers to him. |
| 215 ἐν δὲ τῷ παρόντι καὶ μᾶλλον ἐπιβουλεύεσθαι· μόνη γὰρ ἀναπείθουσα τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἐκβάλλειν ἣν εἶχε γυναῖκα, λαμβάνειν δὲ θυγατέρα τὴν βασιλέως εἰκότως ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου μεμισῆσθαι. | 215 She claimed that in the present moment she was being plotted against even more; for because she alone was persuading her brother to cast out the wife he had and take the king’s daughter, she was naturally hated by him. |
| 215 and that at present there were more plots against him than usual; for while she was the only person who persuaded her brother to put away the wife he now had, and to take the king’s daughter, it was no wonder if she were hated by him. | 215 Now there were more plots than ever. And since it was only she who advised her brother to put away his former wife and marry the king’s daughter, it was no wonder she was hated by him. |
| 216 τοιαῦτα λεγούσης καὶ πολλάκις μὲν ἐπιδραττομένης τῶν τριχῶν, πολλάκις δὲ τυπτούσης τὰ στέρνα, ἡ μὲν ὄψις εἶχέ τι πρὸς τὴν ἄρνησιν πιθανόν, ἡ δὲ κακοήθεια τοῦ τρόπου τὴν ἐν τοῖς γινομένοις ὑπόκρισιν ἀπεσήμαινεν. | 216 While she spoke thus, repeatedly tearing at her hair and beating her breast, her outward appearance lent a certain persuasiveness to her denial, yet the underlying malice of her character signaled the hypocrisy in her actions. |
| 216 As she said this, and often tore her hair, and often beat her breast, her countenance made her denial to be believed; but the perverseness of her manners declared at the same time her dissimulation in these proceedings; | 216 As she said this, often tearing her hair and beating her breast, her face made her denial credible, but the malice of her character marked her as deceitful in these matters. |
| 217 ὁ δὲ ΦερώραςPheroras εἰς μέσον ἀπείληπτο μηδὲν εὔσχημον εἰς ἀπολογίαν ἔχων, εἰπεῖν μὲν ὡμολογηκώς, ἀκοῦσαι δ᾽ οὐ πιστευόμενος. ἐγένετο δ᾽ ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἥ τε σύγχυσις καὶ ἡ τῶν λόγων εἰς ἀλλήλους ἅμιλλα. | 217 Pheroras was trapped in the middle, having no decent defense; for while he confessed to having spoken the words, he was not believed in his claim that he had heard them from someone else. The confusion and the contest of words against one another intensified. |
| 217 but Pheroras was caught between them, and had nothing plausible to offer in his own defense, while he confessed that he had said what was charged upon him, but was not believed when he said he had heard it from Salome; so the confusion among them was increased, and their quarrelsome words one to another. | 217 Pheroras was caught in the middle and had really nothing he could say for himself. He admitted saying the thing, but was not believed about hearing it from her, so the confusion of their stories only increased. |
| 218 τέλος δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς τόν τε ἀδελφὸν καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν μεμισηκὼς ἀπεπέμπετο καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἐπαινέσας τῆς ἐγκρατείας καὶ τοῦ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀνενεγκεῖν τοὺς λόγους ὀψὲ τῆς ὥρας περὶ θεραπείαν τοῦ σώματος ἐγένετο. | 218 Finally, the king, having come to loathe both his brother and his sister, sent them away; and after praising his son [Alexander] for his self-restraint and for bringing the reports to him, it being late, he attended to the care of his body. |
| 218 At last the king, out of his hatred to his brother and sister, sent them both away; and when he had commended the moderation of his son, and that he had himself told him of the report, he went in the evening to refresh himself. | 218 At last the king, who hated both his brother and sister, sent both of them away, and after praising his son for his balance and for reporting it to him, he went in the evening to rest his body. |
| 219 τοιαύτης δὲ τῆς μάχης ἐμπεσούσηςto fall upon κακῶς ἤκουσεν ἡ ΣαλώμηSalome· παρ᾽ αὐτῆς γὰρ ἐδόκει κεκινῆσθαι τὰ περὶ τὴν διαβολήν· αἵ τε τοῦ βασιλέως γυναῖκες ἤχθοντο φύσει δυσχερεστάτην εἰδυῖαι καὶ γινομένην ἄλλοτ᾽ ἄλλην κατὰ καιροὺς ἐχθρὰν καὶ φίλην. ἔλεγον οὖν ἀεί τι πρὸς τὸν ἩρώδηνHerōd κατ᾽ αὐτῆς καί τι συμπεσὸν ἐπὶ μεῖζον ἤγαγεν τὴν εἰς τοῦτο παρρησίαν. | 219 After such a battle had broken out, Salome fell into ill-repute; for it seemed that the movement behind the slander had originated with her. The king’s wives also resented her, knowing her to be naturally most difficult and someone who became an enemy or a friend at different times as it suited the occasion. They, therefore, were always saying something to Herod against her, and a certain event occurred that increased their boldness in this regard." |
| 219 After such a contest as this had fallen out among them, Salome’s reputation suffered greatly, since she was supposed to have first raised the calumny; and the king’s wives were grieved at her, as knowing she was a very ill-natured woman, and would sometimes be a friend, and sometimes an enemy, at different seasons: so they perpetually said one thing or another against her; and somewhat that now fell out made them the bolder in speaking against her. | 219 Salome’s reputation suffered a lot from this conflict since she was thought to have begun the allegation. The king’s wives were angry with her, knowing her to be such an ill-natured woman, who at various times would be a friend or an enemy, so they were always telling Herod one thing or other against her, and something now happened that made them speak out the more. |
The "Theatrical" Denial
Salome’s response is a masterclass in ancient histrionics. Josephus uses the word "πιθανῶς" (persuasively/plausibly) twice—once for her cry and once for her appearance—to emphasize that she is a skilled actress. Her actions—"ἐπιδραττομένης τῶν τριχῶν" (tearing her hair) and "τυπτούσης τὰ στέρνα" (beating her breast)—were the standard Greco-Roman physical expressions of grief and innocence. Josephus, however, warns the reader to look past the "ὑπόκρισιν" (hypocrisy/acting) to her "κακοήθεια" (malice).
Pheroras: The Trapped Amateur
Unlike Salome, who is a political professional, Pheroras is depicted as "ἀπείληπτο" (trapped/cornered). He makes the fatal mistake of admitting he spoke the words while trying to shift the blame for the source. In the cynical world of the court, a half-confession is often worse than a flat lie. He lacked the "εὔσχημον" (graceful/becoming) rhetorical skill to navigate the trap he set for himself.
The King's Exhaustion
Herod's reaction is one of "μεμισηκώς" (loathing) for his entire family. His retreat to "θεραπείαν τοῦ σώματος" (the care of his body/rest) suggests a man physically and mentally drained by the constant "σύγχυσις" (confusion) of his own house. This exhaustion is precisely what allowed manipulators like Antipater to eventually succeed; the king becomes so tired of the "contest of words" that he eventually stops looking for the truth and starts looking for an end to the noise.
The Harem's Revenge
The mention of the "γυναῖκες" (wives) of Herod reveals a hidden layer of palace power. These women lived in a "natural" state of resentment toward Salome, who functioned as the king's primary gatekeeper and spy. They identified her as "ἄλλοτʼ ἄλλην" (sometimes one way, sometimes another)—a "chameleon" whose loyalty changed with the wind. The fact that they gained "παρρησίαν" (boldness/freedom of speech) against her suggests a rare moment of unity among the wives to take down a common enemy.
The "Chain of Slander"
This scene illustrates how slander worked in the Herodian court: it was a circular economy. Pheroras blames Salome, Salome blames a conspiracy against her "goodwill," and the wives blame Salome's malice. In this environment, truth is irrelevant; what matters is who is left standing when the king leaves the room.
Salome’s response is a masterclass in ancient histrionics. Josephus uses the word "πιθανῶς" (persuasively/plausibly) twice—once for her cry and once for her appearance—to emphasize that she is a skilled actress. Her actions—"ἐπιδραττομένης τῶν τριχῶν" (tearing her hair) and "τυπτούσης τὰ στέρνα" (beating her breast)—were the standard Greco-Roman physical expressions of grief and innocence. Josephus, however, warns the reader to look past the "ὑπόκρισιν" (hypocrisy/acting) to her "κακοήθεια" (malice).
Pheroras: The Trapped Amateur
Unlike Salome, who is a political professional, Pheroras is depicted as "ἀπείληπτο" (trapped/cornered). He makes the fatal mistake of admitting he spoke the words while trying to shift the blame for the source. In the cynical world of the court, a half-confession is often worse than a flat lie. He lacked the "εὔσχημον" (graceful/becoming) rhetorical skill to navigate the trap he set for himself.
The King's Exhaustion
Herod's reaction is one of "μεμισηκώς" (loathing) for his entire family. His retreat to "θεραπείαν τοῦ σώματος" (the care of his body/rest) suggests a man physically and mentally drained by the constant "σύγχυσις" (confusion) of his own house. This exhaustion is precisely what allowed manipulators like Antipater to eventually succeed; the king becomes so tired of the "contest of words" that he eventually stops looking for the truth and starts looking for an end to the noise.
The Harem's Revenge
The mention of the "γυναῖκες" (wives) of Herod reveals a hidden layer of palace power. These women lived in a "natural" state of resentment toward Salome, who functioned as the king's primary gatekeeper and spy. They identified her as "ἄλλοτʼ ἄλλην" (sometimes one way, sometimes another)—a "chameleon" whose loyalty changed with the wind. The fact that they gained "παρρησίαν" (boldness/freedom of speech) against her suggests a rare moment of unity among the wives to take down a common enemy.
The "Chain of Slander"
This scene illustrates how slander worked in the Herodian court: it was a circular economy. Pheroras blames Salome, Salome blames a conspiracy against her "goodwill," and the wives blame Salome's malice. In this environment, truth is irrelevant; what matters is who is left standing when the king leaves the room.
| 220 Ἦν μὲν γὰρ ὁ τῆς ἈραβίαςArabia βασιλεὺς Ὀβόδας ἀπράγμων καὶ νωθὴς τὴν φύσιν, Σύλλαιος δ᾽ αὐτῷ διῴκει τὰ πολλὰ δεινὸς ἀνὴρ καὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν νέος ἔτι καὶ καλός. | 220 "Now the King of Arabia, Obodas, was inactive and sluggish by nature, and Syllaeus managed most of his affairs for him—a man clever in mind, still young in age, and handsome. |
| 220 There was one Obodas, king of Arabia, an inactive and slothful man in his nature; but Sylleus managed most of his affairs for him. He was a shrewd man, although he was but young, and was handsome withal. | 220 Obodas, king of Arabia, was by nature inactive and slothful, and Syllaeus, a shrewd and handsome young man, handled most things for him. |
| 221 ὑπὸ χρείας οὖν τινος ἐλθὼν ὡς τὸν ἩρώδηνHerōd συνδειπνῶν εἶδεν τὴν ΣαλώμηνSalome, καὶ τὸν νοῦν ἔσχεν πρὸς αὐτήν, γινώσκων δ᾽ ὅτι καὶ χήρα τυγχάνοι διελέγετο. | 221 Having come to Herod on some business, he saw Salome while dining with them and set his mind upon her; and learning that she happened to be a widow, he spoke with her. |
| 221 This Sylleus, upon some occasion coming to Herod, and supping with him, saw Salome, and set his heart upon her; and understanding that she was a widow, he discoursed with her. | 221 When this Syllaeus once came to dine with Herod, he saw Salome and his heart was set on her, so he spoke with her, knowing she happened to be a widow. |
| 222 ΣαλώμηSalome δὲ καὶ χεῖρον ἢ πάλαι φερομένη παρὰ τἀδελφῷ καὶ τὸν νεανίσκον οὐκ ἀπαθῶς ὁρῶσα πρὸς τὸν γάμον ὥρμητο, ταῖς τε μεταξὺ φοιτώντων ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον ἐνεφαίνετο πλείω τε καὶ μὴ μέτρια τῆς ἐκείνων πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὁμολογίας. | 222 Salome, who was faring worse than before in her brother’s favor and who did not look upon the young man without passion, was eager for the marriage. During his frequent visits to dinner, she displayed more than a little evidence of their mutual agreement. |
| 222 Now because Salome was at this time less in favor with her brother, she looked upon Sylleus with some passion, and was very earnest to be married to him; and on the days following there appeared many, and those very great, indications of their agreement together. | 222 Since by this time Salome was out of favour with her brother, she felt something for the young man and was inclined to marry him, so during supper they showed many signs of mutual attraction. |
| 223 ταῦτα δὲ αἱ γυναῖκες ἀνέφερον τῷ βασιλεῖ διαγελῶσαι τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην, ἩρώδηςHerod δὲ καὶ παρὰ τοῦ ΦερώραPheroras προσεπυνθάνετο καὶ τηρεῖν ἠξίου παρὰ τὸ δεῖπνον, πῶς τὰ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐσχήκασιν. ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἀπήγγελλενto bring a report, ὅτι καὶ νεύμασιν καὶ βλέμμασιν οὐκ ἄδηλοι τῆς ὁρμῆς εἰσιν ἀμφότεραι. | 223 The women reported these things to the King, mocking the indecency of it. Herod inquired further from Pheroras and asked him to observe their behavior during dinner. He reported back that by their nods and glances, both made their passion quite clear. |
| 223 Now the women carried this news to the king, and laughed at the indecency of it; whereupon Herod inquired about it further of Pheroras, and desired him to observe them at supper, how their behavior was one toward another; who told him, that by the signals which came from their heads and their eyes, they both were evidently in love. | 223 The women reported it to the king and laughed at its impropriety so Herod asked Pheroras about it and told him to watch how they acted toward each other at supper. He reported that it was clear from their faces and their eyes, that they were both in love. |
| 224 μετὰ τοῦτο ὁ μὲν ἈράβωνArabian ὕποπτος ὢν ἀπῄει · διαλιπὼν δὲ δύο μῆνας ἢ τρεῖς ἔρχεταιto come/go πάλιν ὡς ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ τούτῳ καὶ λόγους ἩρώδῃHerod προσέφερεν, ἀξιῶν αὐτῷ τὴν ΣαλώμηνSalome δοθῆναι πρὸς γάμον· ἔσεσθαι γὰρ οὐκ ἀλυσιτελὲς τὸ κῆδος ἐπιμιξίᾳ τῆς τῶν ἈράβωνArabian ἀρχῆς, ἣν αὐτῷ καὶ νῦν ἤδη παρεῖναι δυνάμει καὶ μᾶλλον ὀφείλεσθαι. | 224 After this, the Arab, being under suspicion, departed; but after two or three months, he returned for this very purpose and proposed to Herod, asking that Salome be given to him in marriage. He argued that the alliance would be beneficial through a connection with the Arabian realm, which he claimed was already practically his and was increasingly owed to him. |
| 224 After this, Sylleus the Arabian being suspected, went away, but came again in two or three months afterwards, as it were on that very design, and spake to Herod about it, and desired that Salome might be given him to wife; for that his affinity might not be disadvantageous to his affairs, by a union with Arabia, the government of which country was already in effect under his power, and more evidently would be his hereafter. | 224 After this the Arab went away under suspicion, but came again in two or three months for the same purpose, and spoke to Herod about it and asked for Salome as his wife. Such a union with Arabia might not be a disadvantage, as the country was effectively in his hands already and would later be more obviously his. |
| 225 τοῦ δὲ ἩρώδουHerod τὸν λόγον ἀναφέροντος καὶ πυνθανομένου τῆς ἀδελφῆς, εἰ πρὸς τὸν γάμον ἑτοίμως ἔχει, ταχέως μὲν ἐκείνη προσήκατο, Σύλλαιος δὲ ἀξιούντωνto think worthy αὐτὸν ἐγγραφῆναι τοῖς τῶν ἸουδαίωνJews ἔθεσι καὶ τότε γαμεῖν, ἄλλως γὰρ οὐκ εἶναι δυνατόν, οὐχ ὑπομείνας, ἀλλὰ καὶ καταλευσθήσεσθαι πρὸς τῶν ἈράβωνArabian εἰπών, εἰ τοῦτο πράξειεν, ἀπαλλάττεται. | 225 When Herod brought the matter to his sister and asked if she was ready for the marriage, she accepted quickly. But when they required Syllaeus to be initiated into Jewish customs and then marry—stating it was impossible otherwise—he would not endure it, saying he would be stoned to death by the Arabs if he did so, and thus he departed. |
| 225 Accordingly, when Herod discoursed with his sister about it, and asked her whether she were disposed to this match, she immediately agreed to it. But when Sylleus was desired to come over to the Jewish religion, and then he should marry her, and that it was impossible to do it on any other terms, he could not bear that proposal, and went his way; for he said, that if he should do so, he should be stoned by the Arabs. | 225 When Herod spoke of it to his sister and asked if she was prepared to marry the man, she quickly agreed. But when Syllaeus was asked to join the Jewish religion in order to marry her, as it could not happen on any other terms, he did not accept it and left, saying that if he did so he would be stoned by the Arabs. |
| 226 ΣαλώμηνSalome οὖν ὅ τε ΦερώραςPheroras ἤδη διέβαλλεν εἰς ἀκρασίαν καὶ μᾶλλον αἱ γυναῖκες, λέγουσαι κοινωνίαν αὐτῇ γενέσθαι πρὸς τὸν ἌραβαArabian. | 226 Pheroras then slandered Salome for her lack of self-control, and the women even more so, saying she had already had an affair with the Arab. |
| 226 Then did Pheroras reproach Salome for her incontinency, as did the women much more; and said that Sylleus had debauched her. | 226 Pheroras then rebuked Salome for her passion, and the women went further and said she had defiled herself with the Arab. |
| 227 τήν τε κόρην, ἣν τἀδελφῷ κατενεγύησεν ὁ βασιλεύς, ἣν ὁ μὲν ΦερώραςPheroras οὐκ ἔλαβεν, ὡς προεῖπον, ἡττημένος τῆς γυναικός, αἰτούσης ΣαλώμηςSalome εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τὸν ἐκ Κοστοβάρου γενόμενον ὥρμητο μὲν ἐκείνῳ συνοικίσαι, | 227 As for the girl [Herod's daughter] whom the King had betrothed to his brother—the one Pheroras did not take because he was mastered by his wife—Salome asked that she be married to her son by Costobarus. |
| 227 As for that damsel which the king had betrothed to his brother Pheroras, but he had not taken her, as I have before related, because he was enamored on his former wife, Salome desired of Herod she might be given to her son by Costobarus; | 227 Now the girl the king had betrothed to his brother and whom Pheroras had not married, as already reported, because of his love for his former wife, was, at Salome’s request, to be given to her son by Costobarus. |
| 228 μεταπείθεται δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ ΦερώραPheroras τόν τε νεανίσκον οὐκ εὔνουν ἔσεσθαι λέγοντος διὰ τὴν ἀπώλειαν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ δικαιότερον εἶναι λαβεῖν τὸν αὐτοῦ παῖδα τῆς τετραρχίας ὄντα διάδοχον. οὕτω δὲ συγγνώμην ᾐτεῖτο καὶ μὴ πείσας οὕτως. ἐκείνη μὲν οὖν ἀντιμετατεθείσης τῆς ἐγγύης ἐγαμεῖτο τῷ ΦερώραPheroras μειρακίῳ φερνὴν ἐπιδόντος ἑκατὸν τάλαντα τοῦ βασιλέως. | 228 Herod was initially moved to arrange this union; however, he was persuaded otherwise by Pheroras, who claimed the youth would not be well-disposed because of the execution of his father, and that it was more just for his own son, the successor to his tetrarchy, to take her. Thus Pheroras sought forgiveness, and though he did not persuade Herod at first, the betrothal was eventually transferred, and she was married to Pheroras's son, with the King providing a dowry of one hundred talents." |
| 228 which match he was very willing to, but was dissuaded from it by Pheroras, who pleaded that this young man would not be kind to her, since his father had been slain by him, and that it was more just that his son, who was to be his successor in the tetrarchy, should have her. So he begged his pardon, and persuaded him to do so. Accordingly the damsel, upon this change of her espousals, was disposal of to this young man, the son of Pheroras, the king giving for her portion a hundred talents. | 228 Herod agreed to this match but was dissuaded by Pheroras, who said the young man would not be kind to her, because of his father’s murder and that it would be better if his son, who was to be his successor in the tetrarchy, could have her. So asking his pardon, he got him to do so. By this change of her espousals, the girl was given to this young man, the son of Pheroras, and the king gave her a dowry of a hundred talents. |
The Character of Syllaeus
Syllaeus is presented as the classic "vizier" archetype: the power behind a weak throne (Obodas). Josephus describes him as "δεινὸς" (clever/dangerous) and "καλός" (handsome), a combination that made him a formidable threat both in the bedroom and the boardroom. His claim that the Arabian kingdom was "practically his" foreshadows the massive border conflicts between Judea and Nabataea that occupy the later chapters of Book 16.
The Conversion Barrier
This is a pivotal moment in ancient social history. Herod insists on circumcision and the adoption of "Ἰουδαίων ἔθεσι" (Jewish customs) for the marriage to proceed. Syllaeus’s refusal—citing the fear of being "καταλευσθήσεσθαι" (stoned to death) by his own people—illustrates the "Identity Wall" of the ancient world. Even for a powerful man like Syllaeus, religious conversion was seen as a total betrayal of his ethnic "hearth," punishable by death.
The Power of "Glances and Nods"
The description of the romance unfolding through "νεύμασιν καὶ βλέμμασιν" (nods and glances) at a royal banquet highlights the lack of privacy in Herod's court. Every look was a data point for a spy. Pheroras and the other wives used Salome’s public display of affection as "ἀκρασίαν" (lack of self-control) to undermine her influence with the King.
The Ghost of Costobarus
Salome’s past comes back to haunt her. Her son was the child of Costobarus, whom Herod had executed for treason years earlier. Pheroras uses a sophisticated psychological argument to block the marriage: he warns Herod that the boy will never be loyal because he can never forget that Herod killed his father. In the Herodian world, resentment is considered an inherited trait.
Marriage as a Financial Transaction
The conclusion of the passage treats marriage as a tool for political stability. Herod gives a massive dowry of "ἑκατὸν τάλαντα" (100 talents) to Pheroras's son. By redirecting the bride from Salome’s line to Pheroras’s line, Herod was trying to balance the power between his siblings. Unfortunately, as the next chapters show, this "balancing act" only provided more opportunities for the siblings to conspire against the Hasmonean princes.
Syllaeus is presented as the classic "vizier" archetype: the power behind a weak throne (Obodas). Josephus describes him as "δεινὸς" (clever/dangerous) and "καλός" (handsome), a combination that made him a formidable threat both in the bedroom and the boardroom. His claim that the Arabian kingdom was "practically his" foreshadows the massive border conflicts between Judea and Nabataea that occupy the later chapters of Book 16.
The Conversion Barrier
This is a pivotal moment in ancient social history. Herod insists on circumcision and the adoption of "Ἰουδαίων ἔθεσι" (Jewish customs) for the marriage to proceed. Syllaeus’s refusal—citing the fear of being "καταλευσθήσεσθαι" (stoned to death) by his own people—illustrates the "Identity Wall" of the ancient world. Even for a powerful man like Syllaeus, religious conversion was seen as a total betrayal of his ethnic "hearth," punishable by death.
The Power of "Glances and Nods"
The description of the romance unfolding through "νεύμασιν καὶ βλέμμασιν" (nods and glances) at a royal banquet highlights the lack of privacy in Herod's court. Every look was a data point for a spy. Pheroras and the other wives used Salome’s public display of affection as "ἀκρασίαν" (lack of self-control) to undermine her influence with the King.
The Ghost of Costobarus
Salome’s past comes back to haunt her. Her son was the child of Costobarus, whom Herod had executed for treason years earlier. Pheroras uses a sophisticated psychological argument to block the marriage: he warns Herod that the boy will never be loyal because he can never forget that Herod killed his father. In the Herodian world, resentment is considered an inherited trait.
Marriage as a Financial Transaction
The conclusion of the passage treats marriage as a tool for political stability. Herod gives a massive dowry of "ἑκατὸν τάλαντα" (100 talents) to Pheroras's son. By redirecting the bride from Salome’s line to Pheroras’s line, Herod was trying to balance the power between his siblings. Unfortunately, as the next chapters show, this "balancing act" only provided more opportunities for the siblings to conspire against the Hasmonean princes.
Chapter 8
[229-270]
Herod imprisons his son Alexander.
They are reconciled through Archelaus, king of Cappadocia.
[229-270]
Herod imprisons his son Alexander.
They are reconciled through Archelaus, king of Cappadocia.
| 229 Οὐκ ἀνεῖτο δὲ τὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν ἀεὶ καὶ μείζους τὰς ταραχὰς λαμβάνοντα, καὶ συμπίπτει τι τοιοῦτον ἐξ αἰτίας μὲν οὐκ εὐπρεποῦς, χωρῆσαν δὲ πρόσω κατὰ δυσχέρειαν· | 229 "The domestic troubles did not abate, but continuously grew into greater disturbances; and an event of such a nature occurred, arising from an unseemly cause, yet proceeding to further difficulty. |
| 229 But still the affairs of Herod’s family were no better, but perpetually more troublesome. Now this accident happened, which arose from no decent occasion, but proceeded so far as to bring great difficulties upon him. | 229 But still the affairs of his family were no better but grew more troubled and then a shameful thing happened, which brought him into even more difficulties. |
| 230 ἦσαν εὐνοῦχοι τῷ βασιλεῖ διὰ κάλλος οὐ μετρίως ἐσπουδασμένοι. τούτων ὁ μὲν οἰνοχοεῖν, ὁ δὲ δεῖπνον προσφέρειν, ὁ δὲ κατακοιμίζειν βασιλέα πεπίστευτο καὶ τὰ μέγιστα τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς. | 230 There were certain eunuchs held in no small esteem by the King because of their beauty. One was entrusted to be his cupbearer, another to serve his dinner, and a third to lull the King to sleep—these being among the highest positions in the administration. |
| 230 There were certain eunuchs which the king had, and on account of their beauty was very fond of them; and the care of bringing him drink was intrusted to one of them; of bringing him his supper, to another; and of putting him to bed, to the third, who also managed the principal affairs of the government; | 230 The king had eunuchs of whom he was very fond on account of their beauty, and one of them he entrusted with bringing him his drink, another with bringing his supper, and the third with putting him to bed. This one also managed the major items of his regime. |
| 231 καί τις ἀγγέλλει τῷ βασιλεῖ διαφθαρῆναι τούτους ὑπὸ ἈλεξάνδρουAlexander τοῦ παιδὸς ἐπὶ πολλοῖς χρήμασιν. ἀνακρίναντι δὲ περὶ μὲν τῆς γεγενημένης πρὸς αὐτὸν κοινωνίας καὶ μίξεως ὡμολόγουν, ἄλλο δὲ οὐδὲν δυσχερὲς εἰς τὸν πατέρα συνειδέναι. | 231 Someone reported to the King that these men had been corrupted by his son Alexander with large sums of money. When Herod interrogated them regarding their relationship and intimacy with him [Alexander], they confessed; however, they knew of nothing else hostile intended against the father. |
| 231 and there was one told the king that these eunuchs were corrupted by Alexander the king’s son with great sums of money. And when they were asked whether Alexander had had criminal conversation with them, they confessed it, but said they knew of no further mischief of his against his father; | 231 Someone told the king that these eunuchs had been bribed by his son Alexander with a large sum of money. When they were asked if Alexander had had intimacy and intercourse with them, they confessed it, but said they knew of no further harm he had done to his father |
| 232 βασανιζόμενοι δὲ μᾶλλον κἀν ταῖς ἀνάγκαις ὄντες ἐπιτεινόντων ἀεὶ τῶν ὑπηρετῶνassistant minister καὶ χαριζομένων τῷ ἈντιπάτρῳAntipater τὸ τοιοῦτον, ἔλεγον ὡς εἴη δυσμένεια πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ μῖσος ἔμφυτον ἈλεξάνδρῳAlexander. | 232 But when they were tortured more severely and placed under extreme duress—as the attendants constantly intensified the pain to please Antipater—they finally said that Alexander felt an innate hostility and hatred toward his father. |
| 232 but when they were more severely tortured, and were in the utmost extremity, and the tormentors, out of compliance with Antipater, stretched the rack to the very utmost, they said that Alexander bare great ill-will and innate hatred to his father; | 232 Under more severe torture and racking to the limits at Antipater’s request, they told of the great ill-will and hatred that Alexander bore his father |
| 233 παραινοίη δ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἩρώδηνHerōd μὲν ἀπεγνωκέναι περιττὸν ἤδη τετυχηκότα καὶ τῷ γήρᾳ παρακάλυμμα τοῦ χρόνου ποιούμενον, μελαίνοντα τὰς τρίχας καὶ κλέπτοντα τὸν ἔλεγχον τῆς ἡλικίας· εἰ δ᾽ αὐτῷ προσέχοιεν τὸν νοῦν, περιγενομένης τῆς βασιλείας, ἣν καὶ μὴ βουλομένου τοῦ πατρὸς οὐκ ἄλλου τινὸς εἶναι, ταχὺ τὸν πρῶτον ἕξειν ἐν αὐτῇ τόπον· | 233 They claimed he advised them that they should give up on Herod, who was already a superfluous old man attempting to cloak his time by dyeing his hair and stealing a concealment of his true age. [Alexander supposedly said] that if they paid attention to him, once the kingdom came to him—which, even if the father were unwilling, could belong to no one else—they would quickly hold the first place in it. |
| 233 and that he told them that Herod despaired to live much longer; and that, in order to cover his great age, he colored his hair black, and endeavored to conceal what would discover how old he was; but that if he would apply himself to him, when he should attain the kingdom, which, in spite of his father, could come to no one else, he should quickly have the first place in that kingdom under him, | 233 and that he had indicated to them Herod could not hope to live much longer and that he blackened his hair to hide the effect of his age, but that if they supported him now, they would soon get prime places in the kingdom whenever he gained it, for in spite of his father it would come to no one else. |
| 234 οὐ γὰρ μόνον διὰ τὸ γένος, ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη καὶ ταῖς παρασκευαῖςpreparation, supply ἕτοιμον αὐτῷ τὸ κρατεῖν εἶναι· πολλοὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἡγεμόνων, πολλοὶ δὲ τῶν φίλων συνεστᾶσιν οὐχὶ πονηροὶ πᾶν ὁτιοῦνanyone, anything καὶ δρᾶν καὶ πάσχειν. | 234 For [he argued] it was not only because of his noble birth, but because his preparations were already made, that the power was ready for him; for many of the commanders and many of his friends had stood together with him, men of no small account, ready to do or suffer anything whatsoever." |
| 234 for that he was now ready to take the kingdom, not only as his birth-right, but by the preparations he had made for obtaining it, because a great many of the rulers, and a great many of his friends, were of his side, and those no ill men neither, ready both to do and to suffer whatsoever should come on that account. | 234 The kingship belonged to him not only by birth-right but also by planning, for he was ready to seize it and many of the king’s officers and friends were on his side, ready to do and to endure anything to achieve it. |
The Vulnerability of the Inner Circle
The role of these eunuchs—cupbearer, server, and sleep-guardian—represents the absolute pinnacle of proximity to power. In an age of poisonings and bedside assassinations, these men were Herod’s biological shield. By attacking them, Alexander (or the slanderers) wasn't just attacking servants; they were attacking the King’s sense of physical safety.
Torture as a "Truth-Making" Machine
Josephus provides a chilling look at the mechanics of ancient judicial torture. He notes that the confession changed as the pain was "ἐπιτεινόντων" (intensified). Crucially, he identifies the motive of the torturers: they were "χαριζομένων τῷ Ἀντιπάτρῳ" (seeking to please Antipater). This reveals that the "truth" produced by torture was actually a product manufactured to satisfy the political goals of the man paying the torturers.
The Vanity of the Tyrant
The most "believable" lie the eunuchs told—and the one most likely to enrage Herod—was the mockery of his aging. The image of Herod "μελαίνοντα τὰς τρίχας" (dyeing his hair) to hide his age is a devastating psychological blow. It portrays Herod not as a majestic king, but as a pathetic, vain man "stealing" time. This personal insult likely did more to turn Herod against Alexander than the accusations of a political coup.
The "Noble Birth" vs. "Preparation"
The eunuchs’ confession cleverly hits two notes:
"To Do or Suffer Anything"
The phrase "πᾶν ὁτιοῦν καὶ δρᾶν καὶ πάσχειν" (to do or suffer anything whatsoever) is a standard formula for absolute loyalty or a revolutionary oath. By putting these words in the mouths of the tortured eunuchs, the accusers were painting Alexander as the head of a fanatical cult of personality that could not be negotiated with—only destroyed.
The role of these eunuchs—cupbearer, server, and sleep-guardian—represents the absolute pinnacle of proximity to power. In an age of poisonings and bedside assassinations, these men were Herod’s biological shield. By attacking them, Alexander (or the slanderers) wasn't just attacking servants; they were attacking the King’s sense of physical safety.
Torture as a "Truth-Making" Machine
Josephus provides a chilling look at the mechanics of ancient judicial torture. He notes that the confession changed as the pain was "ἐπιτεινόντων" (intensified). Crucially, he identifies the motive of the torturers: they were "χαριζομένων τῷ Ἀντιπάτρῳ" (seeking to please Antipater). This reveals that the "truth" produced by torture was actually a product manufactured to satisfy the political goals of the man paying the torturers.
The Vanity of the Tyrant
The most "believable" lie the eunuchs told—and the one most likely to enrage Herod—was the mockery of his aging. The image of Herod "μελαίνοντα τὰς τρίχας" (dyeing his hair) to hide his age is a devastating psychological blow. It portrays Herod not as a majestic king, but as a pathetic, vain man "stealing" time. This personal insult likely did more to turn Herod against Alexander than the accusations of a political coup.
The "Noble Birth" vs. "Preparation"
The eunuchs’ confession cleverly hits two notes:
1) The Hasmonean Pedigree: Alexander’s "γένος" (lineage) gave him a natural right to the throne in the eyes of the people.
2) The Military Threat: The mention of "ἡγεμόνων" (commanders) and "φίλων" (friends) suggested that a shadow government already existed. This transformed Alexander from a disgruntled son into a rebel leader with "preparations" (παρασκευαῖς) ready for a coup.
"To Do or Suffer Anything"
The phrase "πᾶν ὁτιοῦν καὶ δρᾶν καὶ πάσχειν" (to do or suffer anything whatsoever) is a standard formula for absolute loyalty or a revolutionary oath. By putting these words in the mouths of the tortured eunuchs, the accusers were painting Alexander as the head of a fanatical cult of personality that could not be negotiated with—only destroyed.
| 235 Τούτων τῶν λόγων ἀκούσας ἩρώδηςHerod ὅλος ἐγένετο τῆς ἐπηρείας καὶ τοῦ δέους, τὰ μὲν εἰς ὕβριν ῥηθέντα χαλεπῶς, τὰ δ᾽ εἰς ὑπόνοιαν οὐκ ἀκινδύνως ἐκλαβών, ὥστε καὶ μᾶλλον ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων ἠρεθίζετο καὶ πικρὸς ὢν ἐδεδοίκει, μὴ καί τι ταῖς ἀληθείαις συνέστηκεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἰσχυρότερον ἢ φυλάξασθαι πρὸς ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρόν. | 235 "Upon hearing these words, Herod was entirely consumed by the insult and by fear; he took the things said in mockery to heart with bitterness, and the things that sparked suspicion as no small danger. Consequently, he was even more provoked by both, and in his bitterness, he feared that something truly stronger than he could guard against at that moment had been conspired against him. |
| 235 When Herod heard this confession, he was all over anger and fear, some parts seeming to him reproachful, and some made him suspicious of dangers that attended him, insomuch that on both accounts he was provoked, and bitterly afraid lest some more heavy plot was laid against him than he should be then able to escape from; | 235 When Herod heard this confession, he was full of anger and fear, as it seemed a great affront to him and made him think himself in danger and both things together provoked in him a bitter fear that the plot against him was stronger than he could guard against. |
| 236 ἔνθεν οὐδ᾽ ἐκ φανεροῦ τὴν ἔρευνανinquiry ἐποιεῖτο, κατασκόπους δὲ τῶν ὑπονοουμένων διέπεμψεν. ὑποψίαsuspicion, jealousy τε καὶ μίση πρὸς ἅπαντας ἦν, καὶ τὴν ὑπόνοιαν ἐπ᾽ ἀσφαλείᾳ λαμβάνων πολλὴν καὶ κατὰ τῶν οὐκ ἀξίων αὐτῇ χρώμενος διετέλει. | 236 Hence, he did not conduct his investigation openly, but sent out spies among those under suspicion. There was suspicion and hatred toward everyone; and taking suspicion as a means of safety, he persisted in using it extensively even against those who did not deserve it. |
| 236 whereupon he did not now make an open search, but sent about spies to watch such as he suspected, for he was now overrun with suspicion and hatred against all about him; and indulging abundance of those suspicions, in order to his preservation, he continued to suspect those that were guiltless; | 236 Meanwhile he did not make a public investigation, but sent around spies to watch anyone he suspected, for being full of anxiety and hatred to all around him and much concerned for his own safety, he continued suspecting the guiltless. |
| 237 πέρας τε οὐδὲν ἦν, ἀλλὰ μένειν οἱ νομιζόμενοι μᾶλλον ὡς ἂν καὶ μᾶλλον ἰσχύοντες ἐδόκουν αὐτῷ φοβεροί· τοῖς δ᾽ οἷς οὐκ ἦν συνήθεια πλείων ὀνομάσαι μόνον ἐδόκει, καὶ μέρος εὐθὺς ἀσφαλείας ἐδόκουν ἀπολλύμενοι. | 237 There was no limit to this; rather, those who were thought to remain [loyal] seemed more fearsome to him the more they appeared to gain influence. To those with whom he had no long-standing intimacy, he merely needed to mention a name, and they seemed to lose a portion of their safety immediately. |
| 237 nor did he set any bounds to himself, but supposing that those who staid with him had the most power to hurt him, they were to him very frightful; and for those that did not use to come to him, it seemed enough to name them [to make them suspected], and he thought himself safer when they were destroyed. | 237 There was no limit to it, for thinking that those closest to him had the most power to harm him, he feared them the most and those who did not normally visit him had only to be named and it immediately seemed safer to him to have them destroyed. |
| 238 τέλος τε οἱ περὶ αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ μηδὲν ἔχειν βέβαιον εἰς ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας ἐπ᾽ ἀλλήλους ἐτράπησαν, νομίζοντες μέν, εἰ φθάσας ἕτερος τὸν ἕτερον διαβάλοι, τοῦτ᾽ αὐτῷ πρὸς σωτηρίαν φέρειν, ἐπίφθονοι δ᾽ εἴ ποτε τύχοιεν ὧν ἠξίουν γενόμενοι καὶ τὸ δικαίως αὐτοὶ παθεῖν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἄλλους ἠδίκησαν προσλαμβάνοντες μόνον. | 238 Finally, those around him, having no firm hope for safety, turned against one another, believing that if one could strike first and slander the other, it would bring him security—only to find themselves hated if they ever obtained what they sought, adding to their misery the fact that they justly suffered for the wrongs they had done to others. |
| 238 And at last his domestics were come to that pass, that being no way secure of escaping themselves, they fell to accusing one another, and imagining that he who first accused another was most likely to save himself; yet when any had overthrown others, they were hated; and they were thought to suffer justly who unjustly accused others, and they only thereby prevented their own accusation; | 238 Finally those around him reached the point that being so unsure of saving their own lives, they began accusing each other, thinking that whoever was first to accuse his neighbour was most likely to save himself. But anyone who caused the death of others was hated, and whoever accused others unjustly was considered deserving to suffer and only hurried his own accusation. |
| 239 ἤδη γοῦν οἰκείας τινὲς ἔχθρας ἐπεξῄεσαν τῷ τοιούτῳ τρόπῳ καὶ καταφωραθέντες ἐν τοῖς ὁμοίοις ἐγένοντο, τὸν καιρὸν ὥσπερ ὄργανον καὶ πάγην ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς νοοῦντες καὶ συναλισκόμενοι τῇ πείρᾳ, καθ᾽ ἣν ἑτέροις ἐπεβούλευον. | 239 Indeed, some pursued personal enmities in this manner and were caught in the very same traps; they viewed the crisis as a tool or a snare against their enemies, only to be caught themselves in the very schemes they plotted against others. |
| 239 nay, they now executed their own private enmities by this means, and when they were caught, they were punished in the same way. Thus these men contrived to make use of this opportunity as an instrument and a snare against their enemies; yet when they tried it, were themselves caught also in the same snare which they laid for others: | 239 People now pursued their private vendettas, and were similarly punished whenever they were caught. Some saw this as an opportunity to entrap their enemies, but when they tried it, were caught in the same trap they set for the others. |
| 240 ἥ τε γὰρ μετάνοια τῷ βασιλεῖ ταχὺ διὰ τὸ μὴ προφανῶς ἁμαρτάνοντας ἀναιρεῖν ἐπεγίνετο καὶ ταύτης τὸ χαλεπὸν οὐκ εἰς τὸ παύσασθαι τὰ ὅμοια δρᾶν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸ τιμωρήσασθαιto avenge, punish τοῖς ἴσοις τοὺς ἐνδειξαμένους ἀπηρτίζετο. | 240 For a sense of regret quickly came upon the King because he was executing men who were not clearly guilty; yet the harshness of this regret did not lead him to stop doing such things, but rather culminated in punishing his informers with the same fate." |
| 240 and the king soon repented of what he had done, because he had no clear evidence of the guilt of those whom he had slain; and yet what was still more severe in him, he did not make use of his repentance, in order to leave off doing the like again, but in order to inflict the same punishment upon their accusers. | 240 The king soon had a change of heart because he had no clear evidence of the guilt of the people he had killed. But sadly he did not learn from his repentance to avoid doing it again, but went on to inflict similar punishment upon their accusers. |
The Paradox of "Safety through Suspicion"
Josephus notes that Herod took "τὴν ὑπόνοιαν ἐπʼ ἀσφαλείᾳ" (suspicion as a means of safety). This is the hallmark of a decaying autocracy. When a ruler no longer trusts the law or his family, paranoia becomes his only "shield." However, as the text shows, this shield is double-edged: by treating everyone as an enemy, Herod ensured that everyone became a desperate actor capable of betrayal just to survive.
The Logic of the "Pre-emptive Strike"
The court became a "zero-sum game" where "εἰ φθάσας ἕτερος τὸν ἕτερον διαβάλοι" (if one could strike first and slander the other) was seen as the only path to survival. This created a feedback loop of false accusations. If you didn't accuse your neighbor today, your neighbor might accuse you tomorrow to prove their loyalty. The truth became irrelevant; speed and ruthlessness were the only currencies.
The "Spies" and the Death of Intimacy
Herod moved from open inquiry to "κατασκόπους" (spies). This destroyed the "hearth" of the palace. When spies are everywhere, speech is no longer used for communication, but for performance. Even long-standing friends became "φοβεροί" (fearsome) because their very influence made them potential rivals.
The Perversion of Regret (Metanoia)
Josephus offers a chilling psychological insight into Herod's "μετάνοια" (regret/repentance). In a healthy mind, regret leads to a change in behavior. In Herod’s fractured mind, regret over killing an innocent person led him to punish the person who gave him the false information. Instead of stopping the cycle of violence, Herod’s "guilt" simply added more bodies to the pile—now including his own former informers.
The "Snare" of the Crisis
The crisis is described as an "ὄργανον καὶ πάγην" (tool and a snare). Opportunists tried to use Herod's paranoia to settle old scores ("οἰκείας τινὲς ἔχθρας"). Josephus finds a grim poetic justice here: the very people who used the King's madness to destroy their enemies were eventually consumed by that same madness. The "trap" they set for others became their own execution chamber.
The Totalitarian Atmosphere
Josephus describes a state where merely "ὀνομάσαι μόνον" (mentioning a name) was enough to destroy someone's safety. This is a classic description of a "reign of terror." The King's whim was so volatile that he didn't even need a formal charge; he only needed a name to focus his fear upon.
Josephus notes that Herod took "τὴν ὑπόνοιαν ἐπʼ ἀσφαλείᾳ" (suspicion as a means of safety). This is the hallmark of a decaying autocracy. When a ruler no longer trusts the law or his family, paranoia becomes his only "shield." However, as the text shows, this shield is double-edged: by treating everyone as an enemy, Herod ensured that everyone became a desperate actor capable of betrayal just to survive.
The Logic of the "Pre-emptive Strike"
The court became a "zero-sum game" where "εἰ φθάσας ἕτερος τὸν ἕτερον διαβάλοι" (if one could strike first and slander the other) was seen as the only path to survival. This created a feedback loop of false accusations. If you didn't accuse your neighbor today, your neighbor might accuse you tomorrow to prove their loyalty. The truth became irrelevant; speed and ruthlessness were the only currencies.
The "Spies" and the Death of Intimacy
Herod moved from open inquiry to "κατασκόπους" (spies). This destroyed the "hearth" of the palace. When spies are everywhere, speech is no longer used for communication, but for performance. Even long-standing friends became "φοβεροί" (fearsome) because their very influence made them potential rivals.
The Perversion of Regret (Metanoia)
Josephus offers a chilling psychological insight into Herod's "μετάνοια" (regret/repentance). In a healthy mind, regret leads to a change in behavior. In Herod’s fractured mind, regret over killing an innocent person led him to punish the person who gave him the false information. Instead of stopping the cycle of violence, Herod’s "guilt" simply added more bodies to the pile—now including his own former informers.
The "Snare" of the Crisis
The crisis is described as an "ὄργανον καὶ πάγην" (tool and a snare). Opportunists tried to use Herod's paranoia to settle old scores ("οἰκείας τινὲς ἔχθρας"). Josephus finds a grim poetic justice here: the very people who used the King's madness to destroy their enemies were eventually consumed by that same madness. The "trap" they set for others became their own execution chamber.
The Totalitarian Atmosphere
Josephus describes a state where merely "ὀνομάσαι μόνον" (mentioning a name) was enough to destroy someone's safety. This is a classic description of a "reign of terror." The King's whim was so volatile that he didn't even need a formal charge; he only needed a name to focus his fear upon.
| 241 Τοιαύτη μὲν ἦν τῶν περὶ τὴν αὐλὴν ταραχή. πολλοῖς δὲ τῶν φίλων ἤδη καὶ τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ προεῖπεν, ὡς οὔτ᾽ ἐμφανίζεσθαι δέον αὐτῷ λοιπὸν οὔτ᾽ εἰς τὸ βασίλειον εἰσιέναι. ταύτην δὲ τὴν παραγγελίαν ἐποιεῖτο καθ᾽ ὧν ἡ παρρησία ἐλάττονος ἢ πλείονος ἐντροπῆς μετειλήφει· | 241 "Such was the turmoil surrounding the court. To many of his friends, Herod had already issued a prior warning that they were neither to appear before him nor to enter the palace. He made this command against those whose freedom of speech (parrhēsia) was shared with more or less familiarity. |
| 241 And in this state of disorder were the affairs of the palace; and he had already told many of his friends directly that they ought not to appear before him, her come into the palace; and the reason of this injunction was, that [when they were there], he had less freedom of acting, or a greater restraint on himself on their account; | 241 Such disorder ruled in the palace, and he had already told many of his friends not to enter his sight or even come to the palace, and his reason for this prohibition was that they inhibited his freedom of action and put some restraint upon him. |
| 242 καὶ γὰρ Ἀνδρόμαχον καὶ Γέμελλον ἄνδρας ἄνωθεν φίλους αὐτῷ, καὶ πολλὰ μὲν περὶ τὰς βασιλικὰς χρείας ἔν τε πρεσβείαις καὶ συμβουλίαις ὀνήσαντας αὐτοῦ τὸν οἶκον, συμπαιδεύσαντας δὲ τοὺς υἱοὺς καὶ τί γὰρ ἢ πρῶτον παρρησίας τόπον ἐσχηκότας παρῃτήσατο τότε, | 242 Indeed, even Andromachus and Gemellus—men who were his friends of old, and who had greatly benefited his house in royal matters through embassies and councils, and who had even helped educate his sons (for what was their role if not holding the first place of freedom of speech?)—were then dismissed. |
| 242 for at this time it was that he expelled Andromachus and Gamellus, men who had of old been his friends, and been very useful to him in the affairs of his kingdom, and been of advantage to his family, by their embassages and counsels; and had been tutors to his sons, and had in a manner the first degree of freedom with him. | 242 For instance, he expelled Andromachus and Gemellus, who had formerly been his friends and were very useful to him in the affairs of his kingdom and had helped his family as envoys and counsellors, and had been tutors to his sons and had the greatest freedom with him. |
| 243 τὸν μὲν, ὅτι ΔημήτριοςDemetrius ὁ παῖς αὐτοῦ συνήθης ἦν ἈλεξάνδρῳAlexander, Γέμελλον δὲ εὔνουν ἐπιστάμενος ἐκείνῳ· καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς τροφαῖς κἀν τῇ παιδείᾳ παραγεγόνει καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ ῬώμῃRome συνδιέτριβεν ἀποδημίαν . παρῃτήσατο δὲ καὶ τούτους ἡδέως μὲν ἂν καὶ χεῖρον, ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ μὴ κατ᾽ ἀνδρῶν οὐκ ἀσήμωνunmarked ἔχειν τὴν ἄχρι τοσούτων παρρησίαν τήν τε τιμὴν καὶ τὸ δύνασθαι κωλύειν ἁμαρτάνοντας παραιρούμενος | 243 The former [Andromachus] was rejected because his son, Demetrius, was an intimate friend of Alexander; the latter, Gemellus, because Herod knew him to be well-disposed toward the prince, for he had been present during his upbringing and education, and had even accompanied him during his long stay in Rome. Herod would have gladly treated these men even more harshly, but since he did not have the pretext to do so against men of such high standing, he contented himself with stripping them of their honor and their ability to prevent him from falling into error." |
| 243 He expelled Andromachus, because his son Demetrius was a companion to Alexander; and Gamellus, because he knew that he wished him well, which arose from his having been with him in his youth, when he was at school, and absent at Rome. These he expelled out of his palace, and was willing enough to have done worse by them; but that he might not seem to take such liberty against men of so great reputation, he contented himself with depriving them of their dignity, and of their power to hinder his wicked proceedings. | 243 One of them he expelled because his son Demetrius was a companion to Alexander, and the other, Gemellus, because he knew of his liking for Alexander, having been with him at school and in Rome. These he expelled and would have done worse to them, but in order not to seem to take such liberty against men so well reputed, he contented himself with depriving them of their dignity and their power to hold him back from sinning. |
The Death of "Parrhēsia"
Josephus repeatedly uses the term "παρρησίας" (freedom of speech/frankness). In the ancient world, a good king was defined by his willingness to allow his advisors to speak the hard truth. By banning those with parrhēsia, Herod officially transitions from a "King" to a "Tyrant." He creates an echo chamber where only sycophants are allowed, and where any voice that might "prevent him from falling into error" (κωλύειν ἁμαρτάνοντας) is silenced.
Guilt by Association
The dismissal of Andromachus is particularly chilling. He was not accused of a crime; he was exiled simply because his son, Demetrius, was friends with Alexander. In Herod’s fractured logic, loyalty is not an individual trait but a biological or social contagion. If your son loves the prince, you are a traitor. This destroyed the concept of individual merit in the Judean administration.
The Exile of the Mentors
Gemellus had been with the princes since their "τροφαῖς" (upbringing) and even during their years in Rome. These men represented the "Old Guard" who knew Alexander’s character better than Herod did. By removing them, Herod wasn't just clearing the palace; he was deleting his own memory. He removed the only people who could have testified to the princes' true intentions.
The "Inability to Intervene"
Josephus notes that Herod stripped these men of their "δύνασθαι κωλύειν ἁμαρτάνοντας" (power to prevent mistakes). This is a profound political observation. A leader's greatest safety is not his guards, but friends who are brave enough to tell him "No." By removing the "brakes" from his own government, Herod ensures that his next steps will be fatal.
High Standing as a Shield
There is a rare moment of restraint mentioned: Herod would have liked to treat them "καὶ χεῖρον" (even worse/more harshly), but their high status ("οὐκ ἀσήμων") protected them from torture or execution—for now. This shows that even a tyrant like Herod still felt some pressure from international "optics." Executing well-known Roman-educated diplomats without cause would have looked bad to Augustus.
Josephus repeatedly uses the term "παρρησίας" (freedom of speech/frankness). In the ancient world, a good king was defined by his willingness to allow his advisors to speak the hard truth. By banning those with parrhēsia, Herod officially transitions from a "King" to a "Tyrant." He creates an echo chamber where only sycophants are allowed, and where any voice that might "prevent him from falling into error" (κωλύειν ἁμαρτάνοντας) is silenced.
Guilt by Association
The dismissal of Andromachus is particularly chilling. He was not accused of a crime; he was exiled simply because his son, Demetrius, was friends with Alexander. In Herod’s fractured logic, loyalty is not an individual trait but a biological or social contagion. If your son loves the prince, you are a traitor. This destroyed the concept of individual merit in the Judean administration.
The Exile of the Mentors
Gemellus had been with the princes since their "τροφαῖς" (upbringing) and even during their years in Rome. These men represented the "Old Guard" who knew Alexander’s character better than Herod did. By removing them, Herod wasn't just clearing the palace; he was deleting his own memory. He removed the only people who could have testified to the princes' true intentions.
The "Inability to Intervene"
Josephus notes that Herod stripped these men of their "δύνασθαι κωλύειν ἁμαρτάνοντας" (power to prevent mistakes). This is a profound political observation. A leader's greatest safety is not his guards, but friends who are brave enough to tell him "No." By removing the "brakes" from his own government, Herod ensures that his next steps will be fatal.
High Standing as a Shield
There is a rare moment of restraint mentioned: Herod would have liked to treat them "καὶ χεῖρον" (even worse/more harshly), but their high status ("οὐκ ἀσήμων") protected them from torture or execution—for now. This shows that even a tyrant like Herod still felt some pressure from international "optics." Executing well-known Roman-educated diplomats without cause would have looked bad to Augustus.
| 244 Ἦν δὲ τούτων ἁπάντων αἴτιος ἈντίπατροςAntipater, ὃς ἐπειδὴ τὸ νενοσηκὸς τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς παρρησίας κατέμαθεν, ἔκπαλαι μὲν συνεδρεύων αὐτῷ προσέκειτο καὶ μᾶλλον ἐδόκει τι περαίνειν, τῶν ἀντέχειν δυναμένων ἕκαστος εἰ ὑπεξαιρεθείη. | 244 "Antipater was the cause of all these things. Having observed the diseased state of his father's mind regarding freedom of speech, he remained constantly by his side in council, appearing to achieve more whenever those capable of resisting him were removed one by one. |
| 244 Now it was Antipater who was the cause of all this; who when he knew what a mad and licentious way of acting his father was in, and had been a great while one of his counselors, he hurried him on, and then thought he should bring him to do somewhat to purpose, when every one that could oppose him was taken away. | 244 Antipater was behind all this, for knowing his father’s lack of restraint, and having long been one of his advisers, he urged him on, believing he could accomplish something effective once all who could oppose him were out of the way. |
| 245 τότε γοῦν τῶν περὶ τὸν Ἀνδρόμαχον ἀπελαθέντων λόγου καὶ παρρησίας πρῶτον μὲν ὁ βασιλεὺς ὅσους ᾤετο πιστοὺς ἈλεξάνδρῳAlexander βασάνοις ἀνέκρινεν, εἴ τι κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ τολμηθὲν εἰδείησαν· οἱ δὲ ἀπέθνησκον οὐδὲν ἔχοντες λέγειν. | 245 Then, once Andromachus and his circle had been driven away from influence and speech, the King first interrogated with tortures as many as he thought were loyal to Alexander, to see if they knew of any daring plot against him; but they died having nothing to say. |
| 245 When therefore Andromachus and his friends were driven away, and had no discourse nor freedom with the king any longer, the king, in the first place, examined by torture all whom he thought to be faithful to Alexander, Whether they knew of any of his attempts against him; but these died without having any thing to say to that matter, | 245 When Andromachus and his friends had been excluded from conversing freely with the king, he first examined under torture all whom he judged faithful to Alexander, to see if they knew of any plot against him, but they died having nothing to say of it. |
| 246 τῷ δ᾽ ἦν φιλονεικίας αἴτιον, εἰ μή τι τοιοῦτον οἷον ἐδόκει κακῶς εὑρίσκοιτο, καὶ δεινὸς ἈντίπατροςAntipater τὸν μὲν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας ἀναίτιον εἰς ἐγκράτειαν καὶ πίστιν διαβαλεῖν, ἐπιπαροξῦναι δὲ ζητεῖν ἐκ πλειόνων τὸ λανθάνον τῆς ἐπιχειρήσεως. | 246 This became a source of frustration to Herod—that nothing of the sort he expected was being discovered to justify his ill-will. But Antipater was cunning at slandering those who were proved innocent by the truth itself, attributing their silence to 'self-restraint' and 'loyalty' [to the prince], while seeking to further provoke Herod by suggesting the depth of the hidden plot. |
| 246 which made the king more zealous [after discoveries], when he could not find out what evil proceedings he suspected them of. As for Antipater, he was very sagacious to raise a calumny against those that were really innocent, as if their denial was only their constancy and fidelity [to Alexander], and thereupon provoked Herod to discover by the torture of great numbers what attempts were still concealed. | 246 His inability to prove his suspicions only spurred him on and Antipater shrewdly alleged that the denials of those who were really innocent only showed their obstinate fidelity, and thereby spurred him further to find out the hidden aspects of the plot, by torturing many more. |
| 247 καί τις ἐν πολλοῖς τοῖς βασανιζομένοις εἶπεν, ὡς εἰδείη τὸν νεανίσκον λέγοντα πολλάκις, ὅταν ἐπαινούμενος αὐτὸς τύχῃ τό τε σῶμα ὡς εἴη μέγας καὶ τὴν τοξικὴν εὔστοχος καὶ τἆλλα τὰ πρὸς ἀρετὴν ὑπὲρ ἅπαντας, ὅτι ταῦτ᾽ αὐτῷ κακὰ μᾶλλον ἤπερ ἀγαθὰ παρὰ τῆς φύσεώς ἐστιν· ἄχθεσθαι γὰρ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὸν πατέρα καὶ φθονεῖν, | 247 Finally, one among the many being tortured said he knew the young man had often remarked, whenever he happened to be praised for his tall stature, his skill in archery, or his other superior virtues: 'These things are a curse to me rather than a blessing from nature; |
| 247 Now there was a certain person among the many that were tortured, who said that he knew that the young man had often said, that when he was commended as a tall man in his body, and a skillful marksman, and that in his other commendable exercises he exceeded all men, these qualifications given him by nature, though good in themselves, were not advantageous to him, | 247 One of the many who were tortured alleged how the young man had often said, when he was praised for being tall in stature and a fine marksman and how he excelled others in virtue, that the good traits with which he was endowed by nature were rather doing him harm, since they only provoked his father to envy him. |
| 248 αὐτός τε ὅταν μὲν ἅμα περιπατῶν συστέλλειν αὑτὸν καὶ καθαιρεῖν ὡς μὴ μείζων ὁρᾶσθαι, τοξεύων δὲ ἐν τοῖς κυνηγεσίοις ἐκείνου παρόντος ἀπὸ σκοποῦ ῥίπτειν· τὴν γὰρ φιλοτιμίαν εἰδέναι τοῦ γεγεννηκότος τούτων εὐδοκιμούντων. | 248 For my father is distressed by them and envies them.' [He claimed Alexander said] that whenever he walked with his father, he would stoop and contract his body so as not to appear taller, and when hunting with him, he would purposely miss the mark with his arrows, knowing the competitive vanity of his father regarding such excellence. |
| 248 because his father was grieved at them, and envied him for them; and that when he walked along with his father, he endeavored to depress and shorten himself, that he might not appear too tall; and that when he shot at any thing as he was hunting, when his father was by, he missed his mark on purpose, for he knew how ambitious his father was of being superior in such exercises. | 248 He said that when he walked around with his father, he tried to hunch and lower himself, so as not be seen to be taller, and that when he shot at anything while hunting, if his father was near, he would purposely miss, knowing how his father took pride in excelling at such things. |
| 249 Βασανιζομένῳ τῷ τε λόγῳ καὶ προσγινομένης ἀνέσεως τῷ σώματι προσετίθει δ᾽ ὅτι καὶ συνεργὸν ἔχων τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἈριστόβουλονAristobulus ἐν κυνηγεσίῳ λοχήσας Φεύγειν εἰς ῬώμηνRome, ἐπειδὰν τοῦτ᾽ αὐτῷ πραχθῇ, τὴν βασιλείαν αἰτησόμενος. | 249 While being tortured, and during a moment of physical relief, the man added that Alexander, with his brother Aristobulus as an accomplice, had planned to lie in wait during a hunt and then flee to Rome to ask for the kingdom. |
| 249 So when the man was tormented about this saying, and had ease given his body after it, he added, that he had his brother Aristobulus for his assistance, and contrived to lie in wait for their father, as they were hunting, and kill him; and when they had done so to fly to Rome, and desire to have the kingdom given them. | 249 When tortured about this and then given some ease, the man added how the brother, Aristobulus, had planned to help him by ambushing their father out hunting and killing him, and fleeing to Rome after the deed, to ask for the kingdom. |
| 250 εὑρέθη δὲ καὶ γράμματα τοῦ νεανίσκου πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφόν, ἐν οἷς ἐμέμφετο τὸν πατέρα μὴ δίκαια ποιεῖν, ἈντιπάτρῳAntipater χώραν ἀπονέμοντα πρόσοδον διακοσίων ταλάντων φέρουσαν. | 250 Letters were also found from the youth to his brother, in which he complained that the father was acting unjustly by granting Antipater a territory yielding a revenue of two hundred talents. |
| 250 There were also letters of the young man found, written to his brother, wherein he complained that his father did not act justly in giving Antipater a country, whose [yearly] revenues amounted to two hundred talents. | 250 Letters of the young man to his brother were also found, where he complained that his father was not acting justly in assigning a country to Antipater, that yielded a revenue of two hundred talents. |
| 251 ἐπὶ τούτοις εὐθὺς μὲν ἔδοξέν τι πιστὸν ἔχειν ἩρώδηςHerod, ὡς ᾤετο, κατὰ τῆς τῶν παίδων ὑποψίαςsuspicion, jealousy καὶ συλλαβὼν ἔδησεν τὸν ἈλέξανδρονAlexander. αὖθις δὲ οὐκ ἀνίει χαλεπὸς ὤν, τὰ μὲν οὐδ᾽ οἷς ἤκουσεν ἄγαν πεπιστευκώς· ἀναλογιζομένῳ γὰρ ἄξιον μὲν ἐπιβουλῆς ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐδὲν ἐφαίνετο, μέμψεις δὲ καὶ νεανικαὶ φιλοτιμίαι, καὶ τὸ κτείναντα φανερῶς εἰς τὴν ῬώμηνRome ὁρμᾶν ἀπίθανον. | 251 Upon this, Herod immediately seemed to have some credible proof, as he thought, for his suspicion against his sons, and he seized and bound Alexander. Yet his mind was not at rest, for he was troubled; when he reflected, nothing in these reports seemed worthy of a real conspiracy—only complaints and youthful ambitions—and the idea of a man fleeing to Rome openly after a murder seemed implausible. |
| 251 Upon these confessions Herod presently thought he had somewhat to depend on, in his own opinion, as to his suspicion about his sons; so he took up Alexander and bound him: yet did he still continue to be uneasy, and was not quite satisfied of the truth of what he had heard; and when he came to recollect himself, he found that they had only made juvenile complaints and contentions, and that it was an incredible thing, that when his son should have slain him, he should openly go to Rome [to beg the kingdom]; | 251 With these Herod immediately thought he had firm ground for his suspicions about his sons, so he put Alexander in chains. But though he did not cease being rigorous he was not quite satisfied with the truth of what he had heard, and after pondering it, found that they had made only juvenile complaints and objections, and furthermore, it was not credible that his son would kill him and afterward go publicly to Rome. |
| 252 ἠξίου δὲ καὶ μεῖζόν τι λαβεῖν τῆς περὶ τὸν υἱὸν παρανομίας τεκμήριον καὶ φιλόνεικος ἦν μὴ δόξαι προπετῶς τὰ δεσμὰ κατεγνωκέναι. τῶν τε φίλων τῶν ἈλεξάνδρουAlexander βασανίζων τοὺς ἐν τέλει διέφθειρεν αὐτῶν οὐκ ὀλίγους οὐδὲν εἰπόντας ὧν ἐκεῖνος ᾤετο. | 252 He desired to find some greater evidence of his son’s lawlessness, for he was contentious and did not wish to appear to have decreed the imprisonment rashly. Of Alexander’s high-ranking friends whom he tortured, he destroyed not a few, though they said nothing of what he expected. |
| 252 so he was desirous to have some surer mark of his son’s wickedness, and was very solicitous about it, that he might not appear to have condemned him to be put in prison too rashly; so he tortured the principal of Alexander’s friends, and put not a few of them to death, without getting any of the things out of them which he suspected. | 252 He wanted a surer proof of his son’s crime and was anxious not to seem to have put him in chains too rashly, so he proceeded to torture Alexander’s main friends and put not a few of them to death, but without their saying any of the things he expected. |
| 253 πολλῆς δὲ τῆς εἰς τὸ τοιοῦτον ἑτοιμότητος οὔσης καὶ φόβου καὶ ταραχῆς περὶ τὸ βασίλειον, εἷς τις τῶν νεωτέρων ὡς ἐν ταῖς ἀνάγκαις ἐγένετο, διαπέμπειν ἔφη τοῖς ἐν ῬώμῃRome φίλοις τὸν ἈλέξανδρονAlexander ἀξιοῦντα κληθῆναι θᾶττον ὑπὸ ΚαίσαροςCaesar· ἔχειν γὰρ αὐτῷ πρᾶξιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν συνισταμένην μηνῦσαι ΜιθριδάτηνMithridates τὸν βασιλέα ΠάρθωνParthians τοῦ πατρὸς ᾑρημένου κατὰ ῬωμαίωνRoman, Latin φίλον· εἶναι δ᾽ αὐτῷ καὶ φάρμακον ἐν ἈσκάλωνιAskalon παρεσκευασμένον. | 253 While there was great readiness for such things, and fear and turmoil filled the palace, one of the younger men, under duress, claimed that Alexander was sending letters to friends in Rome asking to be summoned quickly by Caesar; for he said he had a plot to reveal against Herod—namely, that his father had chosen Mithridates, King of the Parthians, as a friend against the Romans. He also claimed Alexander had a poison prepared at Ascalon." |
| 253 And while Herod was very busy about this matter, and the palace was full of terror and trouble, one of the younger sort, when he was in the utmost agony, confessed that Alexander had sent to his friends at Rome, and desired that he might be quickly invited thither by Caesar, and that he could discover a plot against him; that Mithridates, the king of Parthia, was joined in friendship with his father against the Romans, and that he had a poisonous potion ready prepared at Askelon. | 253 While he was most intent on this matter and terror and upheaval racked the palace, one of the younger men, in direst agony, confessed that Alexander had sent to his friends in Rome asking to have himself quickly invited there by Caesar so that he could reveal a plot against him, namely that his father had opted for a friendship with Mithridates, the king of Parthia, against the Romans and that he had a poison ready prepared for him at Askelon. |
The Weaponization of Father-Son Competition
The most psychologically acute part of the "confession" involves the hunt. Herod was famously proud of his physical prowess and hunting skills. By claiming that Alexander intentionally "ἀπὸ σκοποῦ ῥίπτειν" (threw away his shots/missed the mark) to avoid outshining his father, the torturers struck Herod’s ego directly. It portrayed Alexander as someone who saw his father as a fragile, jealous old man—an insult that, to Herod, was more painful than a literal threat of death.
Antipater’s "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" Logic
Antipater's brilliance as a manipulator is on full display here. When the tortured men said nothing, he didn't let that prove Alexander’s innocence. Instead, he framed their silence as "ἐγκράτειαν καὶ πίστιν" (self-restraint and loyalty). In this twisted logic, the absence of evidence became proof of a conspiracy so deep that men would die rather than speak.
The "Two Hundred Talents" Grievance
The discovery of the letters regarding the 200 talents given to Antipater provided the "smoking gun" Herod needed. It proved that Alexander was bitter about his inheritance. While a dispute over money is a far cry from a murder plot, in Herod’s paranoid mind, a son who complains about his allowance is a son who is ready to kill his father.
The Geopolitical Slander: The "Parthian" Card
The final accusation—that Herod was secretly allying with Mithridates of Parthia against Rome—was the most dangerous lie of all. Parthia was Rome's greatest superpower rival. If Alexander were to whisper such a thing to Augustus, it could mean the end of Herod’s reign. Even though the charge was likely absurd, it gave Herod a "state security" reason to keep his son in chains.
Contentiousness vs. Justice
Josephus describes Herod as "φιλόνεικος" (contentious/fond of winning an argument). Herod wasn't looking for the truth; he was looking for a way to "μὴ δόξαι προπετῶς" (not appear rash). He was more concerned with his reputation as a "just" judge than with the actual guilt or innocence of his son. He continued the tortures not to find a plot, but to justify the arrest he had already made.
The "Poison at Ascalon"
The mention of "φάρμακον ἐν Ἀσκάλωνι" (poison at Ascalon) is a classic "thriller" detail. Ascalon was a coastal city known for international trade, making it a plausible place to acquire exotic toxins. Such specific details are hallmarks of effective lies—they provide a "place" for the fear to reside.
The most psychologically acute part of the "confession" involves the hunt. Herod was famously proud of his physical prowess and hunting skills. By claiming that Alexander intentionally "ἀπὸ σκοποῦ ῥίπτειν" (threw away his shots/missed the mark) to avoid outshining his father, the torturers struck Herod’s ego directly. It portrayed Alexander as someone who saw his father as a fragile, jealous old man—an insult that, to Herod, was more painful than a literal threat of death.
Antipater’s "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" Logic
Antipater's brilliance as a manipulator is on full display here. When the tortured men said nothing, he didn't let that prove Alexander’s innocence. Instead, he framed their silence as "ἐγκράτειαν καὶ πίστιν" (self-restraint and loyalty). In this twisted logic, the absence of evidence became proof of a conspiracy so deep that men would die rather than speak.
The "Two Hundred Talents" Grievance
The discovery of the letters regarding the 200 talents given to Antipater provided the "smoking gun" Herod needed. It proved that Alexander was bitter about his inheritance. While a dispute over money is a far cry from a murder plot, in Herod’s paranoid mind, a son who complains about his allowance is a son who is ready to kill his father.
The Geopolitical Slander: The "Parthian" Card
The final accusation—that Herod was secretly allying with Mithridates of Parthia against Rome—was the most dangerous lie of all. Parthia was Rome's greatest superpower rival. If Alexander were to whisper such a thing to Augustus, it could mean the end of Herod’s reign. Even though the charge was likely absurd, it gave Herod a "state security" reason to keep his son in chains.
Contentiousness vs. Justice
Josephus describes Herod as "φιλόνεικος" (contentious/fond of winning an argument). Herod wasn't looking for the truth; he was looking for a way to "μὴ δόξαι προπετῶς" (not appear rash). He was more concerned with his reputation as a "just" judge than with the actual guilt or innocence of his son. He continued the tortures not to find a plot, but to justify the arrest he had already made.
The "Poison at Ascalon"
The mention of "φάρμακον ἐν Ἀσκάλωνι" (poison at Ascalon) is a classic "thriller" detail. Ascalon was a coastal city known for international trade, making it a plausible place to acquire exotic toxins. Such specific details are hallmarks of effective lies—they provide a "place" for the fear to reside.
| 254 Τούτοις ἐπίστευσεν ἩρώδηςHerod καί τινα παραμυθίαν τῆς προπετείας εἴληφεν ἐν τοῖς κακοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν χειρόνων κολακευόμενος. Καὶ τὸ μὲν φάρμακον εὐθὺς ἐσπουδακότι ζητεῖν οὐχ εὑρέθη. | 254 "Herod believed these things and took some consolation for his own rashness by being flattered in his misfortunes by those who were even worse than himself. He immediately and eagerly sought for the poison, but it was not found. |
| 254 To these accusations Herod gave credit, and enjoyed hereby, in his miserable case, some sort of consolation, in excuse of his rashness, as flattering himself with finding things in so bad a condition; but as for the poisonous potion, which he labored to find, he could find none. | 254 Herod believed this and since it offered some excuse for his urgency, seemed pleased to find things in such dire straits. But the poison was not found, despite all his efforts. |
| 255 τὴν δ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν τῶν κακῶν ἈλέξανδροςAlexander ἐκ φιλονεικίας ἐπιρρῶσαι θέλων εἰς μὲν ἄρνησιν οὐκ ἐτράπετοto turn toward, μετῄει δὲ τὴν προπέτειαν τοῦ πατρὸς ἁμαρτίᾳ μείζονι, τάχα δὲ καὶ διὰ τούτου βουλόμενος δυσωπῆσαι τὸ πρὸς τὰς διαβολὰς ἕτοιμον, οὐχ ἥκιστα δὲ εἰ καὶ ἔτυχεν πιστευθεὶς κακοῦν αὐτόν τε καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν βασιλείαν προῃρημένος. | 255 As for Alexander, wishing out of a spirit of contention to strengthen the excess of these evils, he did not turn to a denial. Instead, he pursued his father’s rashness with an even greater error—perhaps wishing by this means to put to shame Herod's readiness to believe slanders, or perhaps choosing, if he were believed, to ruin both himself and the entire kingdom. |
| 255 As for Alexander, he was very desirous to aggravate the vast misfortunes he was under, so he pretended not to deny the accusations, but punished the rashness of his father with a greater crime of his own; and perhaps he was willing to make his father ashamed of his easy belief of such calumnies: he aimed especially, if he could gain belief to his story, to plague him and his whole kingdom; | 255 Alexander, out of obstinacy, seemed to want to make his troubles worse and did not bother to deny the accusations, but punished his father’s rashness with a greater fault of his own. Perhaps he wanted to make him ashamed for too readily believing in the allegations, so he aimed to snub both him and his whole kingdom, if he could gain credence for his story. |
| 256 γράμματα γὰρ γράψας ἐν βιβλίοις τέσσαρσιν ἀπέστειλεν, ὡς οὐδὲν δεῖ βασανίζειν οὐδὲ περαιτέρω χωρεῖν· γενέσθαι γὰρ τὴν ἐπιβουλὴν καὶ ταύτης συλλαμβάνειν τόν τε ΦερώρανPheroras καὶ τοὺς πιστοτάτους αὐτῷ τῶν φίλων, ΣαλώμηνSalome δὲ καὶ νύκτωρ ἐπεισελθοῦσαν ἄκοντι μιγῆναι· | 256 For he wrote documents in four books and sent them, stating that there was no need for further tortures or for proceeding any further: for the conspiracy had indeed taken place, and Pheroras and the most trusted of his [Herod's] friends were accomplices in it, and that Salome had even broken in at night and lain with him against his will. |
| 256 for he wrote four letters, and sent them to him, that he did not need to torture any more persons, for he had plotted against him; and that he had for his partners Pheroras and the most faithful of his friends; and that Salome came in to him by night, and that she lay with him whether he would or not; | 256 He wrote a work in four volumes and sent it off, saying there was no need to torture any more people, for there was a plot against him, involving Pheroras and the most faithful of his friends, and that Salome had come to him by night and lain with him against his will, |
| 257 καὶ πάντας ἐπὶ ταὐτὸν ἥκειν τοὺς θᾶττον ἐκεῖνον ἐκποδὼν ποιησαμένους χρόνου τῆς ἀεὶ προσδοκίας ἔχειν. ἐν τούτοις καὶ ΠτολεμαῖοςPtolemy διεβέβλητο καὶ Σαπίννιος οἱ πιστότατοι τῷ βασιλεῖ. | 257 He claimed that everyone had come to the same conclusion: that they must put Herod out of the way as quickly as possible so they could have security from their constant apprehension. In these documents, even Ptolemy and Sapinnius, the men most loyal to the King, were slandered. |
| 257 and that all men were come to be of one mind, to make away with him as soon as they could, and so get clear of the continual fear they were in from him. Among these were accused Ptolemy and Sapinnius, who were the most faithful friends to the king. | 257 and that all people were agreed to do away with him as soon as they could and so get away from their continual fear under him. Among those he accused were Ptolemy and Sapinnius, who were the king’s most faithful friends. |
| 258 καὶ τί γὰρ ἢ καθάπερ λύττης τινὸς ἐμπεσούσηςto fall upon κατ᾽ ἀλλήλων οἱ πάλαι φίλτατοι τεθηρίωντο, μήτ᾽ ἀπολογίας μήτ᾽ ἐλέγχου τόπον ἕως ἀληθείας ἐχόντων, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ γινομένης ἀκρίτου τινὸς εἰς ἅπαντας ἀπωλείας, καὶ τῶν μὲν δεσμά, τῶν δὲ θανάτους, τῶν δὲ τὸ ταῦτα μέλλειν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς ὀδυρομένων, ἡσυχία τε καὶ κατήφεια τὸ βασίλειον ἀπεκόσμει τῆς πρώτης εὐδαιμονίας. | 258 What can one say? It was as if some sort of madness (lyttēs) had fallen upon them; those who were formerly the dearest of friends had turned into wild beasts toward one another. There was no place for defense or for cross-examination to reach the truth; instead, there was a continuous, unjudged destruction falling upon everyone—some lamenting their chains, others their deaths, and others the fact that these things were about to happen to them. Silence and dejection stripped the palace of its former prosperity. |
| 258 And what more can be said, but that those who before were the most intimate friends, were become wild beasts to one another, as if a certain madness had fallen upon them, while there was no room for defense or refutation, in order to the discovery of the truth, but all were at random doomed to destruction; so that some lamented those that were in prison, some those that were put to death, and others lamented that they were in expectation of the same miseries; and a melancholy solitude rendered the kingdom deformed, and quite the reverse to that happy state it was formerly in. | 258 In the upshot, those who had previously been closest friends now savaged each other, and there was no room for defence or refutation or finding the truth, since all were doomed at random. Some grieved at being imprisoned, some at being put to death and others that such things were in store for them, so that silence and darkness made the kingdom ugly, so different from its former happy state. |
| 259 καὶ χαλεπὸς ἦν ἩρώδῃHerod πᾶς ὁ βίος ἐκτεταραγμένῳ καὶ τὸ μηδενὶ πιστεύειν μέγα τῆς προσδοκίας κολαστήριον ἔχοντι· πολλάκις γοῦν ὡς ἐπανιστάμενον αὐτῷ τὸν υἱὸν ἢ καὶ ξιφήρη παρεστῶτα διὰ φαντασίας ἐλάμβανεν. | 259 Life became harsh for Herod; he was utterly distraught and possessed a great tormentor in his expectation of trusting no one. Often, in his imagination (phantasias), he perceived his son rising up against him or standing over him with a sword. |
| 259 Herod’s own life also was entirely disturbed; and because he could trust nobody, he was sorely punished by the expectation of further misery; for he often fancied in his imagination that his son had fallen upon him, or stood by him with a sword in his hand; | 259 Herod’s own life was utterly troubled, and as he could trust no one, he was deeply troubled by the prospect of further misery, and he often imagined that his son was attacking him, or stood beside him with a sword in his hand. |
| 260 οὕτως ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν πρὸς τούτῳ γινομένη πάθος ἀνεμάξατο μανίας οὐχ ἧττον δὲ καὶ ἀνοίας. Καὶ τὰ περὶ ἐκεῖνον εἶχεν οὕτως. | 260 Thus his soul, occupied by this night and day, took on a condition that was no less mania than it was folly. And such was the state of his affairs." |
| 260 and thus was his mind night and day intent upon this thing, and revolved it over and over, no otherwise than if he were under a distraction. And this was the sad condition Herod was now in. | 260 Night and day his mind revolved around this matter and he was obsessed with this mania as if he were mad, such was his condition at the time. |
Alexander’s "Scorched Earth" Strategy
Alexander’s decision to write "βιβλίοις τέσσαρσιν" (four books) of "confessions" is a brilliant, desperate piece of psychological theatre. By "admitting" to everything and implicating everyone—including the King’s beloved sister Salome and his chief administrator Ptolemy—Alexander effectively said: "If you want a conspiracy, Father, I will give you the mother of all conspiracies." He aimed to make the lie so big that it became absurd, hoping to force Herod to realize how ridiculous his suspicions had become.
The Slander of Salome: Sexual Sabotage
The detail that Salome forced herself upon Alexander ("ἄκοντι μιγῆναι") was a masterstroke of character assassination. Alexander knew that Herod viewed Salome as his "loyal watchdog." By framing her as a sexual predator and a co-conspirator, Alexander struck at the one person Herod still trusted. It was a "poison pill" designed to make Herod doubt the very source of all his previous information.
"Lytta": The Madness of the Palace
Josephus uses the word "λύττης" (rabies/frenzy/madness) to describe the atmosphere. This wasn't just a political disagreement; it was a contagion. The palace, once a place of "εὐδαιμονίας" (prosperity/happiness), had become a "cage of wild beasts" (τεθηρίωντο). In this environment, the social contract had completely dissolved—no one was safe, and no one was "innocent" because the King had abandoned "ἐλέγχου" (cross-examination/testing).
Herod’s Hallucinations (Phantasias)
The description of Herod’s mental state is clinically precise. He suffers from "phantasias"—visual hallucinations where he sees Alexander standing over him with a "ξιφήρη" (sword). This is the ultimate price of the "surveillance state" Herod built: he can no longer distinguish between the physical world and his own internal fears. His "tormentor" is no longer a rebel son, but his own "μηδενὶ πιστεύειν" (trusting no one).
The "Folly" of the Tyrant
Josephus concludes that Herod’s condition was a mix of "μανίας" (mania) and "ἀνοίας" (folly/senselessness). This is a heavy judgment from the historian. He suggests that Herod isn't just a "villain"; he has lost the fundamental human faculty of reason. He is a king who is "ruling" a graveyard of his own making, hallucinating enemies in every shadow.
Alexander’s decision to write "βιβλίοις τέσσαρσιν" (four books) of "confessions" is a brilliant, desperate piece of psychological theatre. By "admitting" to everything and implicating everyone—including the King’s beloved sister Salome and his chief administrator Ptolemy—Alexander effectively said: "If you want a conspiracy, Father, I will give you the mother of all conspiracies." He aimed to make the lie so big that it became absurd, hoping to force Herod to realize how ridiculous his suspicions had become.
The Slander of Salome: Sexual Sabotage
The detail that Salome forced herself upon Alexander ("ἄκοντι μιγῆναι") was a masterstroke of character assassination. Alexander knew that Herod viewed Salome as his "loyal watchdog." By framing her as a sexual predator and a co-conspirator, Alexander struck at the one person Herod still trusted. It was a "poison pill" designed to make Herod doubt the very source of all his previous information.
"Lytta": The Madness of the Palace
Josephus uses the word "λύττης" (rabies/frenzy/madness) to describe the atmosphere. This wasn't just a political disagreement; it was a contagion. The palace, once a place of "εὐδαιμονίας" (prosperity/happiness), had become a "cage of wild beasts" (τεθηρίωντο). In this environment, the social contract had completely dissolved—no one was safe, and no one was "innocent" because the King had abandoned "ἐλέγχου" (cross-examination/testing).
Herod’s Hallucinations (Phantasias)
The description of Herod’s mental state is clinically precise. He suffers from "phantasias"—visual hallucinations where he sees Alexander standing over him with a "ξιφήρη" (sword). This is the ultimate price of the "surveillance state" Herod built: he can no longer distinguish between the physical world and his own internal fears. His "tormentor" is no longer a rebel son, but his own "μηδενὶ πιστεύειν" (trusting no one).
The "Folly" of the Tyrant
Josephus concludes that Herod’s condition was a mix of "μανίας" (mania) and "ἀνοίας" (folly/senselessness). This is a heavy judgment from the historian. He suggests that Herod isn't just a "villain"; he has lost the fundamental human faculty of reason. He is a king who is "ruling" a graveyard of his own making, hallucinating enemies in every shadow.
| 261 ἈρχέλαοςArchelaus δὲ ὁ τῶν ΚαππαδόκωνCappadocia βασιλεύς, ὡς ἐπύθετοto ask, inquire τὰ κατὰ τὸν ἩρώδηνHerōd, ἀγωνιῶν τε ὑπὲρ τῆς θυγατρὸς καὶ τοῦ νεανίσκου καὶ συναλγῶν ἀνδρὶ φίλῳ τῆς ἐπὶ τοσόνδε ταραχῆς, ἧκεν οὐκ ἐν παρέργῳ θέμενος τὰ πράγματα. | 261 "When Archelaus, the King of the Cappadocians, learned of Herod’s situation, he was distressed for his daughter [Glaphyra] and the young man, and he grieved for his friend who was in such great turmoil. He came at once, considering the matter a priority. |
| 261 But when Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, heard of the state that Herod was in, and being in great distress about his daughter, and the young man [her husband], and grieving with Herod, as with a man that was his friend, on account of so great a disturbance as he was under, he came [to Jerusalem] on purpose to compose their differences; | 261 When Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, heard of the goings-on in Herod’s court he was anxious about his daughter and her young man until, sympathetic with his friend’s suffering amid such stress, he came to help resolve the affair. |
| 262 καὶ καταλαβὼν οὕτως ἔχοντα τὸ μὲν ἐπιτιμᾶν ἢ φάναι γενέσθαι τι προπετὲς αὐτῷ τελέως ἀνοίκειον εἰς τὸν καιρὸν ἡγήσατο· φιλονεικήσειν γὰρ κεκακωμένον καὶ μᾶλλον ἀπολογεῖσθαι σπεύδοντα πλείονος ὀργῆς ἀναπλησθήσεσθαι· | 262 Finding Herod in such a state, Archelaus decided that to rebuke him or to say he had acted rashly would be entirely inappropriate for the moment; for he knew that a man so embittered and eager to justify himself would only be filled with greater rage if countered. |
| 262 and when he found Herod in such a temper, he thought it wholly unseasonable to reprove him, or to pretend that he had done any thing rashly, for that he should thereby naturally bring him to dispute the point with him, and by still more and more apologizing for himself to be the more irritated: | 262 Seeing how things were, he thought it untimely to reproach him or charge him with acting rashly, because this would make him argue the point with him and by again having to defend himself he would become the more irritated. |
| 263 μετῄει δὲ τάξιν ἑτέραν τὴν ἐπανόρθωσιν τῶν ἠτυχημένων, ὀργιζόμενος τῷ νεανίσκῳ κἀκεῖνον ἐπιεικῆ λέγων τῷ μηδὲν ἐκ προπετείας ἐργάσασθαι, τόν τε γάμον διαλύσειν ἔφη πρὸς τὸν ἈλέξανδρονAlexander, καὶ μηδ᾽ ἂν τῆς θυγατρὸς φείσασθαι, εἴ τι συνειδυῖα τούτῳ οὐ κατεμήνυσεν. | 263 Instead, he pursued a different path for rectifying these misfortunes: he feigned anger at the young man [Alexander] and called Herod 'reasonable' for having done nothing out of haste. He even threatened to dissolve the marriage to Alexander and said he would not even spare his own daughter if she had been an accomplice and failed to report the plot. |
| 263 he went, therefore, another way to work, in order to correct the former misfortunes, and appeared angry at the young man, and said that Herod had been so very mild a man, that he had not acted a rash part at all. He also said he would dissolve his daughter’s marriage with Alexander, nor could in justice spare his own daughter, if she were conscious of any thing, and did not inform Herod of it. | 263 So in order to correct the unfortunate situation, he set about it another way. Seeming to be angry with the young man, he declared that Herod had not acted at all rashly but had in fact been very mild. He said also that if his own daughter had been aware of anything and did not inform Herod of it, he would not spare her but would dissolve her marriage with Alexander. |
| 264 τοιούτου δ᾽ ὄντος οὐ κατὰ προσδοκίαν ὧν ἩρώδηςHerod ᾤετο, τὸ δὲ πλέον ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ τὴν ὀργὴν ἐπιδεικνυμένου, μετέπιπτεν ὁ βασιλεὺς τῆς χαλεπότητος καὶ λαβὼν ἐκ τοῦ δικαίου δοκεῖν τὰ πεπραγμένα πεποιηκέναι κατὰ μικρὸν εἰς τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀντιμεθίστατο πάθος. | 264 Because this was so contrary to what Herod expected—seeing Archelaus display an even greater anger on Herod's behalf—the King began to change from his harshness. Believing that his previous actions had been proved just, he gradually shifted back into his fatherly affection. |
| 264 When Archelaus appeared to be of this temper, and otherwise than Herod expected or imagined, and, for the main, took Herod’s part, and was angry on his account, the king abated of his harshness, and took occasion from his appearing to have acted justly hitherto, to come by degrees to put on the affection of a father, | 264 As he seemed to be in this mood, quite other than what Herod had expected and in the main, sided with him and was angry on his behalf, the king’s harshness abated and he took the opportunity, now that he seemed to have acted justly up to this, of gradually taking a paternal stance. |
| 265 οἰκτρὸς δ᾽ ἦν ἐν ἀμφοτέροις, ὅτε μὲν ἀπελύοντό τινες τὰς τοῦ νεανίσκου διαβολὰς εἰς ὀργὴν ἐκταραττόμενος, ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἈρχέλαοςArchelaus συγκατηγόρει, πρὸς δάκρυα καὶ λύπην οὐκ ἀπαθῆ μεθιστάμενος· ἐδεῖτο γοῦν ἐκείνου μήτε διαλύειν τὸν γάμον ὀργῆς τε ἔλαττονsmaller, less ἔχειν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ὁ νεανίσκος ἠδίκησεν. | 265 It was a piteous sight: when others had tried to clear the youth of slanders, Herod had been driven to a frenzy of rage; but now that Archelaus joined in the accusation, Herod was moved to tears and deep grief. Indeed, he began to plead with Archelaus not to dissolve the marriage and to feel less anger for the wrongs the youth had committed. |
| 265 and was on both sides to be pitied; for when some persons refuted the calumnies that were laid on the young man, he was thrown into a passion; but when Archelaus joined in the accusation, he was dissolved into tears and sorrow after an affectionate manner. Accordingly, he desired that he would not dissolve his son’s marriage, and became not so angry as before for his offenses. | 265 He was to be pitied in two ways, for when some people refuted the allegations against the young man it roused him to anger, but when Archelaus joined in the accusation, he emotionally dissolved into tears and sorrow, and even asked him not to dissolve the marriage and was less angry than before at the young man’s offences. |
| 266 ἈρχέλαοςArchelaus δὲ παραλαβὼν ἐπιεικέστερον εἴς τε τοὺς φίλους μετέφερεν τὰς διαβολάς, ἐκείνων εἶναι λέγων νέον ὄντα καὶ κακοηθείας ἀναίσθητον διαφθεῖραι, τόν τε ἀδελφὸν αὐτῷ μᾶλλον εἰς ὑποψίαν καθίστη· | 266 Archelaus, having led Herod to a more reasonable state, then diverted the slanders toward Herod's friends. He argued that they had corrupted the youth—who was young and unacquainted with malice—and he placed Herod’s brother [Pheroras] under greater suspicion. |
| 266 So when Archelaus had brought him to a more moderate temper, he transferred the calumnies upon his friends; and said it must be owing to them that so young a man, and one unacquainted with malice, was corrupted; and he supposed that there was more reason to suspect the brother than the soft. | 266 After Archelaus had made him more lenient, he turned his accusations onto his friends, saying that it was their fault that so young a man and one unused to malice, was corrupted, and he suspected his brother more than the rest. |
| 267 τοῦ γὰρ ἩρώδουHerod χαλεπῶς καὶ πρὸς τὸν ΦερώρανPheroras ἔχοντος ὁ μὲν ἀπορίᾳ τοῦ διαλλάξοντος ἈρχέλαονArchelaus ὁρῶν μάλιστα δυνάμενον αὐτὸς τυχὼν πρὸς ἐκεῖνον ἐτράπετοto turn toward μελανείμων καὶ πάντα τὰ σημεῖα τῆς μετὰ μικρὸν ἀπωλείας ἔχων, | 267 For since Herod was also harshly disposed toward Pheroras, and since Pheroras saw no one else capable of reconciling them, he turned to Archelaus. Pheroras appeared in black mourning clothes, showing every sign of imminent destruction. |
| 267 Upon which Herod was very much displeased at Pheroras, who indeed now had no one that could make a reconciliation between him and his brother. So when he saw that Archelaus had the greatest power with Herod, he betook himself to him in the habit of a mourner, and like one that had all the signs upon him of an undone man. | 267 As Herod was now very angry with him, Pheroras, who had no one to act as his reconciler, noted how much power Archelaus had with Herod, so he went to him in a mourning robe, with all the signs of a ruined man. |
| 268 ἈρχέλαοςArchelaus δὲ οὔτε ὑπερεῖδεν τὴν ἔντευξιν οὔτ᾽ ἔφη δυνατὸς εἶναι ταχὺ μεταπείθειν οὕτως ἔχοντα τὸν βασιλέα· βέλτιον δὲ εἶναι αὐτῷ προσιέναι καὶ δεῖσθαι, τῶν πάντων αἴτιον αὑτὸν ὁμολογοῦντα· ὠφελήσειν γὰρ οὕτως τοῦ θυμοῦ τὸ περιττόν, αὐτὸς δὲ συλλήψεσθαι παρών. | 268 Archelaus did not ignore his plea, though he said he could not easily change the King's mind while he was in such a state. He advised Pheroras that it was better to go to Herod himself and plead, confessing that he was the cause of everything; for this would mitigate the excess of the King's wrath, and Archelaus promised to assist him in person. |
| 268 Upon this Archelaus did not overlook the intercession he made to him, nor yet did he undertake to change the king’s disposition towards him immediately; and he said that it was better for him to come himself to the king, and confess himself the occasion of all; that this would make the king’s anger not to be extravagant towards him, and that then he would be present to assist him. | 268 Archelaus did not ignore his petition but did not immediately undertake to change the king’s disposition toward him. He said that it was better for him to go to him in person, and confess himself the cause of it all; this would help to allay the wrathfulness and then he would be present to help him. |
| 269 ταῦτα δὲ πεισθέντος αὐτοῦ συναμφότερον ἦν διαπεπραγμένον, αἵ τε διαβολαὶ παρὰ δόξαν ἀφῄρηντο τοῦ νεανίσκου καὶ ΦερώρανPheroras ἈρχέλαοςArchelaus διαλλάξας οὕτως εἰς ΚαππαδοκίανCappadocia ἀπῄει, κεχαρισμένος ὡς οὐκ ἄλλος ἐν τῇ τότε περιστάσει τῶν καιρῶν ἩρώδῃHerod γενόμενος. ὅθεν καὶ δώροις αὐτὸν ἐτίμησεν πολυτελεστάτοις κἀν τοῖς ἄλλοις μεγαλοπρεπῶς ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα φίλτατον ἡγησάμενος. | 269 When Pheroras followed this advice, both objectives were achieved: the slanders were unexpectedly lifted from the youth, and Archelaus reconciled Pheroras to Herod. Thus he departed for Cappadocia, having become more dear to Herod than anyone else in that crisis. Consequently, Herod honored him with the most expensive gifts and regarded him as his most beloved friend. |
| 269 When he had persuaded him to this, he gained his point with both of them; and the calumnies raised against the young man were, beyond all expectation, wiped off. And Archelaus, as soon as he had made the reconciliation, went then away to Cappadocia, having proved at this juncture of time the most acceptable person to Herod in the world; on which account he gave him the richest presents, as tokens of his respects to him; and being on other occasions magnanimous, he esteemed him one of his dearest friends. | 269 After he was persuaded about this, both sides were satisfied. Beyond all expectation the allegations against the young man were set aside and Archelaus also reconciled Pheroras with the king. Then he went off to Cappadocia, and as at this juncture he had been the most acceptable person of all to Herod, he gave him lavish gifts as tokens of his respect and cordially regarded him as one of his dearest friends. |
| 270 ἐποιήσατο δὲ καὶ συνθήκας εἰς ῬώμηνRome ἐλθεῖν, ἐπειδὴ περὶ τούτων ἐγέγραπτο ΚαίσαριCaesar, καὶ μέχρις ἈντιοχείαςAntioch ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ παρῆλθον. ἐκεῖ καὶ τὸν ἡγεμόνα ΣυρίαςSyria Τίτιον ἐκ διαφορᾶς ἈρχελάῳArchelaus κακῶς ἔχοντα διήλλαξεν ἩρώδηςHerod καὶ πάλιν εἰς ἸουδαίανJudea ὑποστρέφει. | 270 They also made an agreement to go to Rome, since Herod had already written to Caesar [Augustus] about these matters, and they traveled together as far as Antioch. There, Herod even reconciled Archelaus with Titius, the governor of Syria, with whom Archelaus had a dispute, and then Herod returned again to Judea." |
| 270 He also made an agreement with him that he would go to Rome, because he had written to Caesar about these affairs; so they went together as far as Antioch, and there Herod made a reconciliation between Archelaus and Titus, the president of Syria, who had been greatly at variance, and so returned back to Judea. | 270 They had also agreed that he [Herod] should go to Rome, since someone had written to Caesar about these matters, and he accompanied him as far as Antioch. There Herod reconciled Archelaus with Titius, the ruler of Syria, who had been hostile to him because of some dispute, and then returned to Judea. |
The Strategy of "Hyper-Agreement"
Archelaus’s maneuver is one of the most brilliant psychological interventions in ancient literature. He realized that Herod’s paranoia was driven by a need for validation. By out-Heroding Herod—threatening to kill his own daughter and divorce the prince—Archelaus removed the "resistance" Herod was fighting against. Once Herod felt he had "won" the argument, his natural fatherly instincts ("τοῦ πατρὸς ἀντιμεθίστατο πάθος") were finally free to resurface.
The Piteous Reversal
Josephus paints a "piteous" ("οἰκτρὸς") picture of Herod’s mental instability. The king is so broken that he begins to defend the very son he was just about to execute. It reveals that Herod’s rage was not a firm conviction, but a storm of insecurity. He needed a peer (another King) to tell him he was right before he could give himself permission to be merciful.
Diverting the "Lightning"
Once the heat was off Alexander, Archelaus skillfully diverted the King's anger toward the "φίλους" (friends/advisors). He utilized the "corrupting influence" argument—portraying Alexander as a naive youth ("νέον ὄντα") who was a victim of bad company. This allowed Herod to save face: he wasn't wrong about the "conspiracy," he was just wrong about who the mastermind was.
Pheroras in "Sackcloth"
The image of Pheroras appearing in "μελανείμων" (black mourning clothes) is a vivid reminder of how close to death everyone lived in Herod's court. Pheroras, a tetrarch and the King's brother, was reduced to a state of total abjection. Archelaus’s advice to "confess to everything" was the only way out; in Herod’s court, a "false confession" was often safer than a "true denial."
The Geopolitical Aftermath
The journey to Antioch and the reconciliation with Titius (the Roman Governor of Syria) reminds us that Judea was part of a larger Roman chessboard. Archelaus didn't just save his son-in-law; he stabilized a Roman client kingdom. Herod’s trip to see Augustus was necessary because he had already "sent the files" to Rome; he now had to go in person to tell the Emperor, "Never mind, we’re all friends again."
The False Peace
The passage ends on a note of "μεγαλοπρεπῶς" (magnificence) and friendship, but the reader knows it is a fragile peace. The "Four Books" of Alexander's confession still existed, and the "vultures" (Antipater and Salome) were still in the palace. Archelaus had performed a miracle, but he couldn't change the fundamental rot of the Herodian house.
Archelaus’s maneuver is one of the most brilliant psychological interventions in ancient literature. He realized that Herod’s paranoia was driven by a need for validation. By out-Heroding Herod—threatening to kill his own daughter and divorce the prince—Archelaus removed the "resistance" Herod was fighting against. Once Herod felt he had "won" the argument, his natural fatherly instincts ("τοῦ πατρὸς ἀντιμεθίστατο πάθος") were finally free to resurface.
The Piteous Reversal
Josephus paints a "piteous" ("οἰκτρὸς") picture of Herod’s mental instability. The king is so broken that he begins to defend the very son he was just about to execute. It reveals that Herod’s rage was not a firm conviction, but a storm of insecurity. He needed a peer (another King) to tell him he was right before he could give himself permission to be merciful.
Diverting the "Lightning"
Once the heat was off Alexander, Archelaus skillfully diverted the King's anger toward the "φίλους" (friends/advisors). He utilized the "corrupting influence" argument—portraying Alexander as a naive youth ("νέον ὄντα") who was a victim of bad company. This allowed Herod to save face: he wasn't wrong about the "conspiracy," he was just wrong about who the mastermind was.
Pheroras in "Sackcloth"
The image of Pheroras appearing in "μελανείμων" (black mourning clothes) is a vivid reminder of how close to death everyone lived in Herod's court. Pheroras, a tetrarch and the King's brother, was reduced to a state of total abjection. Archelaus’s advice to "confess to everything" was the only way out; in Herod’s court, a "false confession" was often safer than a "true denial."
The Geopolitical Aftermath
The journey to Antioch and the reconciliation with Titius (the Roman Governor of Syria) reminds us that Judea was part of a larger Roman chessboard. Archelaus didn't just save his son-in-law; he stabilized a Roman client kingdom. Herod’s trip to see Augustus was necessary because he had already "sent the files" to Rome; he now had to go in person to tell the Emperor, "Never mind, we’re all friends again."
The False Peace
The passage ends on a note of "μεγαλοπρεπῶς" (magnificence) and friendship, but the reader knows it is a fragile peace. The "Four Books" of Alexander's confession still existed, and the "vultures" (Antipater and Salome) were still in the palace. Archelaus had performed a miracle, but he couldn't change the fundamental rot of the Herodian house.
Chapter 9
[271-299]
Trachonitis revolts against Herod’s rule.
Accused before Caesar, he sends an advocate to Rome
[271-299]
Trachonitis revolts against Herod’s rule.
Accused before Caesar, he sends an advocate to Rome
| 271 Γενομένῳ δὲ ἐν τῇ ῬώμῃRome κἀκεῖθεν ἐπανήκοντι συνέστη πόλεμος πρὸς τοὺς ἌραβαςArabs ἐξ αἰτίας τοιαύτης· οἱ κατοικοῦντες τὸν ΤράχωναTrachonitis ΚαίσαροςCaesar ἀφελομένου ΖηνόδωρονZenodorus καὶ προσθέντος ἩρώδῃHerod τὴν χώραν λῃστεύειν μὲν οὐκ εἶχον ἐξουσίαν ἔτι, γεωργεῖν δὲ καὶ ζῆν ἡμέρως ἠναγκάζοντο. | 271 "When Herod had been in Rome and returned from there, a war broke out against the Arabs for the following reason: The inhabitants of Trachonitis, after Caesar had taken the region from Zenodorus and added it to Herod’s territory, no longer had the liberty to practice brigandage, but were compelled to farm and live a civilized life. |
| 271 When Herod had been at Rome, and was come back again, a war arose between him and the Arabians, on the occasion following: The inhabitants of Trachonitis, after Caesar had taken the country away from Zenodorus, and added it to Herod, had not now power to rob, but were forced to plough the land, and to live quietly, which was a thing they did not like; | 271 When Herod had gone to Rome and had returned, a war arose between him and the Arabs, as follows: After Caesar had taken their land from Zenodorus and given it to Herod, the people of Trachonitis were no longer able to rob, but were forced to till the land and to live at peace. |
| 272 τόδ᾽ ἦν ἐκείνοις οὐχ αἱρετὸν οὐδὲ λυσιτέλειαν ἔφερεν ἡ γῆ πονούντων. ὅμως δὲ κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς μὲν οὐκ ἐπιτρέποντος τοῦ βασιλέως ἀπείχοντο τῶν εἰς τοὺς περιοίκους ἀδικημάτων, καὶ πολλὴ διὰ τοῦτο ἦν εὐδοξία τῆς ἐπιμελείας ἩρώδῃHerod. | 272 This was not to their liking, nor did the land yield a profit for their labors. Nevertheless, at the beginning, as the King did not permit it, they refrained from injustices against their neighbors, and Herod gained a great reputation for his care in this matter. |
| 272 and when they did take that pains, the ground did not produce much fruit for them. However, at the first the king would not permit them to rob, and so they abstained from that unjust way of living upon their neighbors, which procured Herod a great reputation for his care. | 272 This was not what they wished and even though they laboured, their land was not very fruitful. At first the king curbed the robbers and stopped them from living unjustly off their neighbours, which gained Herod a great reputation for effectiveness. |
| 273 πλεύσαντος δ᾽ εἰς τὴν ῬώμηνRome, ὅτε καὶ τοῦ παιδὸς ἈλεξάνδρουAlexander κατηγόρει καὶ παραθησόμενος ἈντίπατρονAntipater τὸν υἱὸν παρεληλύθει ΚαίσαριCaesar, λόγον ὡς ἀπολωλὼς εἴη διασπείροντες οἱ τὸν ΤράχωναTrachonitis νεμόμενοι τῆς τε ἀρχῆς ἀπέστησανto mislead, rebel καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ συνήθη τοὺς πλησιοχώρους ἀδικεῖν ἐτρέποντο. | 273 But when he sailed to Rome—at the time he went to accuse his son Alexander and had come before Caesar to present his son Antipater—the inhabitants of Trachonitis spread a rumor that he was dead. They revolted from his rule and turned again to their accustomed practice of injuring those who dwelt nearby. |
| 273 But when he was sailing to Rome, it was at that time when he went to accuse his son Alexander, and to commit Antipater to Caesar’s protection, the Trachonites spread a report as if he were dead, and revolted from his dominion, and betook themselves again to their accustomed way of robbing their neighbors; | 273 But when he was sailing to Rome, at the time when he went to accuse his son Alexander and entrust Antipater to the care of Caesar, the Trachonites spread a rumour that he was dead and rebelled from his rule and went back to robbing the neighbouring districts as before. |
| 274 τότε μὲν οὖν αὐτοὺς οἱ στρατηγοὶ τοῦ βασιλέως ἀπόντος ἐχειρώσαντο. περὶ τετταράκοντα δέ τινες ἀρχιλῃσταὶ κατὰ δέος τῶν ἡλωκότων ἐξέλιπον μὲν τὴν χώραν, | 274 At that time, the King’s generals overcame them in his absence. However, about forty of the chief brigands, out of fear of those who had been captured, left the country and fled to Arabia. |
| 274 at which time the king’s commanders subdued them during his absence; but about forty of the principal robbers, being terrified by those that had been taken, left the country, | 274 During the king’s absence his officers kept them subdued and about forty of the principal brigands, terrified by the capture of the others, left the country and went to Arabia. |
| 275 εἰς δὲ τὴν ἈραβίανArabia ἀφορμήσαντες ΣυλλαίουSyllaeus δεξαμένου μετὰ τὴν ἀποτυχίαν τοῦ ΣαλώμηςSalome γάμου, τόπον τε ἐρυμνὸν ἐκείνου δόντος ᾤκησαν καὶ κατατρέχοντες οὐ μόνον τὴν ἸουδαίανJudea ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν κοίλην ΣυρίανSyria ἅπασαν ἐλῄζοντο, παρέχοντος ὀρμητήρια τοῦ ΣυλλαίουSyllaeus καὶ κακῶς ποιοῦσιν χρόνου. | 275 Syllaeus received them—following his failure to obtain Salome in marriage—and giving them a fortified place to dwell, they settled there. They overran not only Judea but all of Coele-Syria and plundered it, with Syllaeus providing them a base of operations and security for their wicked deeds. |
| 275 and retired into Arabia, Sylleus entertaining them, after he had missed of marrying Salome, and gave them a place of strength, in which they dwelt. So they overran not only Judea, but all Celesyria also, and carried off the prey, while Sylleus afforded them places of protection and quietness during their wicked practices. | 275 Syllaeus, who was disappointed at not marrying Salome, made them welcome and gave them a stronghold in which to live. So they overran and plundered not only Judea but also all of Coele-Syria, while Syllaeus gave them places of refuge from which to make their raids in safety. |
| 276 ἩρώδηςHerod δὲ ἐπανελθὼν ἀπὸ τῆς ῬώμηςRome ἔγνω πολλὰ τῶν οἰκείων αὐτῷ κεκακωμένα, καὶ τῶν μὲν λῃστῶν ἐγκρατὴς γενέσθαι οὐκ ἠδυνήθη διὰ τὴν ἀσφάλειαν, ἣν ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἈράβωνArabian προστασίας ἐπορίσαντο, χαλεπῶς δὲ ἔχων αὐτὸς τῶν ἀδικημάτων περιελθὼν τὸν ΤράχωναTrachonitis τοὺς οἰκείους αὐτῶν ἀπέσφαξεν. | 276 When Herod returned from Rome, he found that much of his own property had been ravaged. Since he was unable to get the brigands into his power because of the protection they obtained from the Arabs, he was greatly distressed; he marched around Trachonitis and slaughtered their kinsmen. |
| 276 But when Herod came back from Rome, he perceived that his dominions had greatly suffered by them; and since he could not reach the robbers themselves, because of the secure retreat they had in that country, and which the Arabian government afforded them, and yet being very uneasy at the injuries they had done him, he went all over Trachonitis, and slew their relations; | 276 Returning from Rome, Herod saw how much his people had suffered from them, but since he could not reach the brigands because of the protection they had from the rulers of Arabia, he was so indignant at their crimes that he went all around Trachonitis slaughtering their relatives. |
| 277 ἐντεῦθεν ἐκεῖνοι καὶ μᾶλλον πρὸς ὀργὰς ὧν ἐπεπόνθεισαν ὄντος αὐτοῖς καὶ νόμου πάντα τρόπον ἐπεξιέναι τοὺς τῶν οἰκείων φονεῖς ἀνυποτιμήτως τὴν ἩρώδουHerod πᾶσαν ἄγοντες καὶ φέροντες διετέλουν. ἐκεῖνος δὲ διελέγετο περὶ τούτων τοῖς ΚαίσαροςCaesar ἡγεμόσιν ΣατορνίνῳSaturninus τε καὶ Οὐολομνίῳ ἐπὶ κολάσει τοὺς λῃστὰς ἐξαιτούμενος. | 277 Consequently, they were even more driven to rage by what they had suffered; and as it was a law among them to pursue the slayers of their kinsmen by every means without regard for cost, they continued to drive off and carry away everything in Herod’s land. He discussed these matters with Caesar’s governors, Saturninus and Volumnius, demanding the brigands for punishment. |
| 277 whereupon these robbers were more angry than before, it being a law among them to be avenged on the murderers of their relations by all possible means; so they continued to tear and rend every thing under Herod’s dominion with impunity. Then did he discourse about these robberies to Saturninus and Volumnius, and required that they should be punished; | 277 This drove these brigands to a fury, as their law demanded vengeance by all possible means against anyone who murdered their relatives, so they continued with impunity to harass and steal everything in Herod’s realm, so that he spoke about these robbers to Saturninus and Volumnius, demanding that they be handed over to him for punishment. |
| 278 ὅθεν ἔτι καὶ μᾶλλον ἰσχυρῶς ἐχόντων πλείους μὲν ἐγίνοντο, πάντα δὲ ἐτάραττον ἐπ᾽ ἀναστάσει τῆς ἩρώδουHerod βασιλείας χωρία καὶ κώμας πορθοῦντες καὶ τοὺς λαμβανομένους τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπέσφαττον, ὡς εἶναι πολέμῳ τὴν ἀδικίαν ἐοικυῖαν· ἐγεγόνεισαν γὰρ ἤδη περὶ χιλίους. | 278 As they grew even more powerful, their numbers increased, and they threw every place into turmoil to the destruction of Herod’s kingdom, sacking villages and hamlets and slaughtering the men they captured, so that the injustice resembled a formal war; for they had already become about a thousand. |
| 278 upon which occasion they still the more confirmed themselves in their robberies, and became more numerous, and made very great disturbances, laying waste the countries and villages that belonged to Herod’s kingdom, and killing those men whom they caught, till these unjust proceedings came to be like a real war, for the robbers were now become about a thousand;— | 278 But they robbed all the more and grew in numbers and revolt was in the air as they plundered the towns and villages of Herod’s kingdom, killing their captives, until their ravaging came to be like a real war, for their numbers had grown to about a thousand. |
| 279 ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἀχθόμενος ἩρώδηςHerod τούς τε λῃστὰς ἐξῄτει καὶ χρέος ὃ διὰ ΣυλλαίουSyllaeus δανείσας ἔτυχεν Ὀβάδᾳ τάλαντα ἑξήκοντα, παρηκούσης αὐτῷ τῆς προθεσμίας ἀπολαβεῖν ἠξίου. | 279 Aggrieved by this, Herod demanded both the brigands and a debt of sixty talents which he had happened to lend to Obodas through Syllaeus, insisting on receiving it since the deadline had passed. |
| 279 at which Herod was sore displeased, and required the robbers, as well as the money which he had lent Obodas, by Sylleus, which was sixty talents, and since the time of payment was now past, he desired to have it paid him; | 279 Incensed by this, Herod demanded that Obodas hand over the brigands, as well as the sixty talents which he had lent him through Syllaeus, since the time for its repayment was now overdue. |
| 280 Σύλλαιος δὲ τὸν μὲν Ὀβάδαν παρεωσμένος αὐτὸς δὲ ἅπαντα διοικῶν τούς τε λῃστὰς ἔξαρνος ἦν μὴ κατὰ τὴν ἈραβίανArabia εἶναι καὶ περὶ τῶν χρημάτων ἀνεβάλλετο, περὶ ὧν ἐπί τε ΣατορνίνουSaturninus καὶ Οὐολομνίου τῶν ΣυρίαςSyria ἐπιστατούντων ἐγίνοντο λόγοι. | 280 Syllaeus, having pushed Obodas aside and managing everything himself, denied that the brigands were in Arabia and kept putting off the matter of the money, about which arguments were made before Saturninus and Volumnius, the overseers of Syria. |
| 280 but Sylleus, who had laid Obodas aside, and managed all by himself, denied that the robbers were in Arabia, and put off the payment of the money; about which there was a hearing before Saturninus and Volumnius, who were then the presidents of Syria. | 280 But Syllaeus, who had set aside Obodas and now managed everything himself, denied that the brigands were in Arabia and postponed repayment of the money; about which there was a hearing before Saturninus and Volumnius, who were then the officers of Syria. |
| 281 τέλος δὲ συνέθεντο δι᾽ ἐκείνων ἐντὸς ἡμερῶν τριάκοντα τά τε χρήματα τὸν ἩρώδηνHerōd ἀπολαβεῖν καὶ τοὺς ἀλλήλων ἐν ἑκατέρᾳ τῇ βασιλείᾳ Καὶ παρὰ μὲν ἩρώδῃHerod τῶν ἈράβωνArabian οὐδεὶς εὑρέθη τὸ σύνολον οὔτε ἐπ᾽ ἀδικίας οὔτε κατ᾽ ἄλλον τρόπον, οἱ δ᾽ ἌραβεςArabs ἠλέγχοντο τοὺς λῃστὰς παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἔχειν. | 281 Finally, it was agreed through them that within thirty days Herod should receive his money and that they should return the subjects of each other’s kingdoms. While not a single Arab was found in Herod’s territory, either for wrongdoing or any other reason, the Arabs were proven to have the brigands among them." |
| 281 At last he, by their means, agreed, that within thirty days' time Herod should be paid his money, and that each of them should deliver up the other’s subjects reciprocally. Now, as to Herod, there was not one of the other’s subjects found in his kingdom, either as doing any injustice, or on any other account, but it was proved that the Arabians had the robbers amongst them. | 281 Through their intervention he finally agreed that Herod would be paid his money within thirty days and that they would reciprocally hand over [any refugees] from each other’s kingdoms. None of the other’s subjects were found in Herod’s kingdom, either held for crime or for any other reason, whereas it was proven that the Arabs had the brigands among them. |
The Economics of Banditry
Josephus provides a rare "bottom-up" look at the causes of revolt. The inhabitants of Trachonitis (modern-day Lajat in Syria) lived in a volcanic, rugged terrain that was historically a haven for raiders. Herod’s attempt to force them into "γεωργεῖν" (farming) failed not just culturally, but economically—the land simply didn't pay. This displacement created a desperate class of "ἀρχῃλησταὶ" (chief brigands) for whom war was the only viable industry.
Syllaeus’s Revenge
The Nabataean minister Syllaeus is the "shadow protagonist" of this section. His hospitality toward the brigands was a calculated act of asymmetrical warfare against Herod. By providing them an "ὀρμητήρια" (base of operations/jumping-off point), he successfully harassed Herod’s borders without committing the formal Arabian army, effectively punishing Herod for the humiliation of the failed marriage to Salome.
The Blood Feud (Lex Talionis)
Josephus highlights a specific local "νόμου" (law/custom): the obligation to avenge kinsmen "ἀνυποτιμήτως" (without regard for value/cost). When Herod slaughtered the families of the brigands in Trachonitis, he didn't suppress the rebellion; he fundamentally fueled it by turning a political revolt into a sacred blood feud. This "eye-for-an-eye" cycle is what swelled their ranks from forty to a thousand.
The Sixty-Talent "Cassus Belli"
Herod uses a financial dispute—a debt of 60 talents—as a legal pretext to exert pressure on the Arabs. This is a classic diplomatic maneuver: using a private contract to force a public, military concession. It forced the Roman governors, Saturninus and Volumnius, to mediate, effectively making the Roman Empire the debt collector for Herod.
The Arbitrators: Saturninus and Volumnius
The presence of Gaius Sentius Saturninus and Volumnius reminds us that Herod was not a sovereign king in the modern sense. He was a client king whose foreign policy was strictly supervised by the Syrian governors. The thirty-day ultimatum they issued was meant to prevent a regional war, but as we see in the following sections, Syllaeus’s refusal to comply would lead Herod to take the law into his own hands—a move that nearly cost him his crown.
Josephus provides a rare "bottom-up" look at the causes of revolt. The inhabitants of Trachonitis (modern-day Lajat in Syria) lived in a volcanic, rugged terrain that was historically a haven for raiders. Herod’s attempt to force them into "γεωργεῖν" (farming) failed not just culturally, but economically—the land simply didn't pay. This displacement created a desperate class of "ἀρχῃλησταὶ" (chief brigands) for whom war was the only viable industry.
Syllaeus’s Revenge
The Nabataean minister Syllaeus is the "shadow protagonist" of this section. His hospitality toward the brigands was a calculated act of asymmetrical warfare against Herod. By providing them an "ὀρμητήρια" (base of operations/jumping-off point), he successfully harassed Herod’s borders without committing the formal Arabian army, effectively punishing Herod for the humiliation of the failed marriage to Salome.
The Blood Feud (Lex Talionis)
Josephus highlights a specific local "νόμου" (law/custom): the obligation to avenge kinsmen "ἀνυποτιμήτως" (without regard for value/cost). When Herod slaughtered the families of the brigands in Trachonitis, he didn't suppress the rebellion; he fundamentally fueled it by turning a political revolt into a sacred blood feud. This "eye-for-an-eye" cycle is what swelled their ranks from forty to a thousand.
The Sixty-Talent "Cassus Belli"
Herod uses a financial dispute—a debt of 60 talents—as a legal pretext to exert pressure on the Arabs. This is a classic diplomatic maneuver: using a private contract to force a public, military concession. It forced the Roman governors, Saturninus and Volumnius, to mediate, effectively making the Roman Empire the debt collector for Herod.
The Arbitrators: Saturninus and Volumnius
The presence of Gaius Sentius Saturninus and Volumnius reminds us that Herod was not a sovereign king in the modern sense. He was a client king whose foreign policy was strictly supervised by the Syrian governors. The thirty-day ultimatum they issued was meant to prevent a regional war, but as we see in the following sections, Syllaeus’s refusal to comply would lead Herod to take the law into his own hands—a move that nearly cost him his crown.
| 282 Διελθούσης δὲ τῆς προθεσμίας Σύλλαιος οὐδὲν τῶν δικαίων πεποιηκὼς εἰς ῬώμηνRome ἀνέρχεται. ῥύσια δὲ τῶν χρημάτων καὶ τῶν παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις λῃστῶν ἩρώδηςHerod ἐποιεῖτο, | 282 "When the deadline had passed and Syllaeus had performed none of his obligations, he went up to Rome. Herod, meanwhile, began to take reprisals for the money and for the brigands held among the Arabs. |
| 282 When this day appointed for payment of the money was past, without Sylleus’s performing any part of his agreement, and he was gone to Rome, Herod demanded the payment of the money, and that the robbers that were in Arabia should be delivered up; | 282 When this day appointed for payment of the money passed without Syllaeus' fulfilling either part of his agreement, and he had gone to Rome, Herod acted to ensure the repayment of the money and the capture of the brigands who were in the other land. |
| 283 καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν ΣατορνῖνονSaturninus καὶ Οὐολόμνιον ἐπιτρεπόντων ἀγνωμονοῦντας ἐπεξιέναι στρατιάν τε ἔχων προήγαγεν εἰς τὴν ἈραβίανArabia τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἑπτὰ σταθμοὺς διανύσας, καὶ γενόμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ φρουρίου τοῦ τοὺς λῃστὰς ἔχοντος αἱρεῖ μὲν ἐξ ἐφόδου πάντας αὐτούς, κατασκάπτει δὲ τὸ χωρίον Ῥάεπτα καλούμενον· τῶν δὲ ἄλλων οὐδὲν ἐλύπησεν. | 283 With Saturninus and Volumnius permitting him to take action against those who were acting in bad faith, Herod led an army into Arabia, covering seven days' journey in just three days. Arriving at the fortress where the brigands were staying, he captured them all in a single assault and razed the place, which was called Raepta; but he did no harm to any of the other inhabitants. |
| 283 and, by the permission of Saturninus and Volumnius, executed the judgment himself upon those that were refractory. He took an army that he had, and let it into Arabia, and in three days' time marched seven mansions; and when he came to the garrison wherein the robbers were, he made an assault upon them, and took them all, and demolished the place, which was called Raepta, but did no harm to any others. | 283 With the permission of Saturninus and Volumnius, he acted against those defaulters, took his army into Arabia and reached the brigands' stronghold after covering seven days march in three days. There he attacked them and took them all and demolished the place, which was called Raepta, without harming any others. |
| 284 ἐκβοηθησάντων δὲ τῶν ἈράβωνArabian ἡγουμένου Νακέβου μάχη γίνεται, καθ᾽ ἣν ὀλίγοι μὲν τῶν ἩρώδουHerod, Νάκεβος δὲ ὁ τῶν ἈράβωνArabian στρατηγὸς καὶ περὶ εἰκοσιπέντε τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ πίπτουσιν, οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι πρὸς φυγὴν ἐτράποντο. | 284 When the Arabs came out to bring aid under the leadership of Nacebus, a battle took place in which a few of Herod's men fell, but Nacebus, the Arabian general, and about twenty-five of his men were killed, while the rest turned to flight. |
| 284 But as the Arabians came to their assistance, under Naceb their captain, there ensued a battle, wherein a few of Herod’s soldiers, and Naceb, the captain of the Arabians, and about twenty of his soldiers, fell, while the rest betook themselves to flight. | 284 But as the Arabs came to their help, under their general, Nakeb, a battle ensued where a few of Herod’s soldiers and Nakeb, the general of the Arabs and about twenty of his soldiers, fell, while the rest took to flight. |
| 285 τισάμενος δὲ τούτους τρισχιλίους ἸδουμαίωνIdumaea ἐπὶ τῇ ΤραχωνίτιδιTrachonitis κατοικίσας ἦγεν λῃστὰς τοὺς ἐκεῖ, καὶ περὶ τούτων τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν ἔπεμπεν περὶ ΦοινίκηνPhoenicia οὖσιν, ἀποδεικνὺς ὅτι μηδὲν πλέον ὧν ἀγνωμονοῦντας ἐπεξελθεῖν ἔδει τοὺς ἌραβαςArabs αὐτῷ πέπρακται. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐκεῖνοι πολυπραγμονοῦντες εὕρισκον οὐ ψευδόμενον. | 285 Having taken vengeance on these men, Herod settled three thousand Idumaeans in Trachonitis to keep the brigands there in check. He sent word of these events to the governors who were in Phoenicia, demonstrating that he had done nothing more than what was necessary to proceed against the Arabs for their breach of faith. Upon investigation, they found that he was not speaking falsely." |
| 285 So when he had brought these to punishment, he placed three thousand Idumeans in Trachonitis, and thereby restrained the robbers that were there. He also sent an account to the captains that were about Phoenicia, and demonstrated that he had done nothing but what he ought to do, in punishing the refractory Arabians, which, upon an exact inquiry, they found to be no more than what was true. | 285 When he had punished these he placed three thousand Idumaeans in Trachonitis and thereby put a restraint on the brigands who were there. He also sent a report to the leaders around Phoenicia, saying that he had done nothing but his duty in punishing the refractory Arabs, which on investigation they found to be no more than the truth. |
The "Blitzkrieg" of the First Century
Josephus notes Herod's remarkable speed: "τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἑπτὰ σταθμοὺς διανύσας" (completing seven stages of journey in three days). This was not just a military necessity to achieve surprise at the fortress of Raepta; it was a psychological tactic. Herod’s career was defined by rapid, decisive strikes that left his enemies (and often his Roman superiors) breathless.
The Legal Fiction of "Permission"
The phrase "ἐπιτρεπόντων" (permitting/giving leave) is the crux of the entire political scandal that follows. Herod claimed the Syrian governors Saturninus and Volumnius gave him a green light to collect his debt by force. However, as Syllaeus would later argue in Rome, a client king has no right to lead an army across an international border without the Emperor's explicit decree. Herod relied on "local" Roman support, forgetting that in Augustus’s new world order, only one man’s permission truly mattered.
Precision Warfare vs. Total War
Josephus makes a point to say that Herod "τῶν δὲ ἄλλων οὐδὲν ἐλύπησεν" (did no harm to any of the others). Herod was playing a very careful game. He wanted to frame this as a "police action" against specific criminals ("λῃστὰς") rather than an act of war against the Arabian nation. By razing only the rebel stronghold, he hoped to satisfy Roman requirements for "proportional response."
Nacebus and the Skirmish at Raepta
The death of Nacebus and only twenty-five men might seem like a minor skirmish, but in the halls of power in Rome, Syllaeus would magnify this into a "slaughter of the Arabian nobility." This illustrates how a tactical victory on the ground can become a strategic disaster in the diplomatic arena.
Demographic Engineering: The Idumaean Colony
Herod’s solution to the Trachonitis problem was demographic. By settling 3,000 Idumaeans (his own ethnic kinsmen) in the region, he created a permanent "buffer state" of loyalist soldiers who were culturally distinct from the local brigands. This was a classic Herodian move: if you cannot change the people’s behavior, replace the people.
The Governors’ Investigation
The governors "πολυπραγμονοῦντες εὕρισκον οὐ ψευδόμενον" (investigating, they found he was not lying). Herod had successfully "papered his trail" with the local authorities. At this moment, he felt secure. He had his money (or its equivalent in booty), his brigands were dead, and his border was fortified.
Josephus notes Herod's remarkable speed: "τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἑπτὰ σταθμοὺς διανύσας" (completing seven stages of journey in three days). This was not just a military necessity to achieve surprise at the fortress of Raepta; it was a psychological tactic. Herod’s career was defined by rapid, decisive strikes that left his enemies (and often his Roman superiors) breathless.
The Legal Fiction of "Permission"
The phrase "ἐπιτρεπόντων" (permitting/giving leave) is the crux of the entire political scandal that follows. Herod claimed the Syrian governors Saturninus and Volumnius gave him a green light to collect his debt by force. However, as Syllaeus would later argue in Rome, a client king has no right to lead an army across an international border without the Emperor's explicit decree. Herod relied on "local" Roman support, forgetting that in Augustus’s new world order, only one man’s permission truly mattered.
Precision Warfare vs. Total War
Josephus makes a point to say that Herod "τῶν δὲ ἄλλων οὐδὲν ἐλύπησεν" (did no harm to any of the others). Herod was playing a very careful game. He wanted to frame this as a "police action" against specific criminals ("λῃστὰς") rather than an act of war against the Arabian nation. By razing only the rebel stronghold, he hoped to satisfy Roman requirements for "proportional response."
Nacebus and the Skirmish at Raepta
The death of Nacebus and only twenty-five men might seem like a minor skirmish, but in the halls of power in Rome, Syllaeus would magnify this into a "slaughter of the Arabian nobility." This illustrates how a tactical victory on the ground can become a strategic disaster in the diplomatic arena.
Demographic Engineering: The Idumaean Colony
Herod’s solution to the Trachonitis problem was demographic. By settling 3,000 Idumaeans (his own ethnic kinsmen) in the region, he created a permanent "buffer state" of loyalist soldiers who were culturally distinct from the local brigands. This was a classic Herodian move: if you cannot change the people’s behavior, replace the people.
The Governors’ Investigation
The governors "πολυπραγμονοῦντες εὕρισκον οὐ ψευδόμενον" (investigating, they found he was not lying). Herod had successfully "papered his trail" with the local authorities. At this moment, he felt secure. He had his money (or its equivalent in booty), his brigands were dead, and his border was fortified.
| 286 Ἄγγελοι δὲ ΣυλλαίῳSyllaeus καταταχήσαντες εἰς ῬώμηνRome τὰ πεπραγμένα διεσάφουν εἰς μεῖζον, ὡς εἰκός, ἕκαστον τῶν γεγονότων αἴροντες. | 286 "Messengers having hurried to Rome to reach Syllaeus, they reported the events, magnifying each occurrence far beyond reality, as is likely. |
| 286 However, messengers were hasted away to Sylleus to Rome, and informed him what had been done, and, as is usual, aggravated every thing. | 286 However, messengers were hurried away to Syllaeus in Rome to report the events to him and, as usual, they exaggerated everything. |
| 287 ὁ δὲ ἤδη μὲν ἐπεπραγμάτευτο γνώριμος εἶναι ΚαίσαριCaesar, τότε δὲ περὶ τὴν αὐλὴν ἀναστρεφόμενος ὡς ἤκουσεν εὐθὺς μεταμφιέννυται μέλαιναν ἐσθῆτα καὶ παρελθὼν ἔλεγεν ὡς αὐτόν, ὅτι πολέμῳ τὰ περὶ τὴν ἈραβίανArabia εἴη κεκακωμένα καὶ πᾶσα ἀνάστατος ἡ βασιλεία στρατιᾷ πορθήσαντος αὐτὴν ἩρώδουHerod. | 287 Syllaeus had already managed to become an acquaintance of Caesar [Augustus]; so when he heard the news while frequenting the court, he immediately changed into black clothing. Entering before Caesar, he claimed that Arabia had been ravaged by war and that the entire kingdom was in ruins because Herod had plundered it with an army. |
| 287 Now Sylleus had already insinuated himself into the knowledge of Caesar, and was then about the palace; and as soon as he heard of these things, he changed his habit into black, and went in, and told Caesar that Arabia was afflicted with war, and that all his kingdom was in great confusion, upon Herod’s laying it waste with his army; | 287 Now he had already managed to get acquainted with Caesar and was then attending the court, so as soon as he heard of these events he changed into black clothing and went in and told Caesar that Arabia was embroiled in war and all his kingdom was in turmoil, for Herod had laid it waste with his army. |
| 288 δακρύων δὲ πεντακοσίους μὲν ἐπὶ δισχιλίοις ἈράβωνArabian ἀπολωλέναι τοὺς πρώτους ἔλεγεν, ἀνῃρῆσθαι δὲ καὶ τὸν στρατηγὸν αὐτῶν Νάκεβον οἰκεῖον αὐτῷ καὶ συγγενῆ, πλοῦτον δὲ διηρπάσθαι τὸν ἐν Ῥαέπτοις, καταπεφρονῆσθαι δὲ τὸν Ὀβόδαν ὑπὸ ἀσθενείας οὐκ ἀρκέσαντα τῷ πολέμῳ διὰ τὸ μήτ᾽ αὐτὸν μήτε τὴν ἈραβικὴνArabia δύναμιν παρεῖναι. | 288 With tears, he claimed that two thousand five hundred of the leading Arabs had perished, and that their general, Nacebus—his own kinsman and relative—had been slain; he added that the wealth at Raepta had been pillaged, and that Obodas had been treated with contempt because of his weakness, having been unable to withstand the war because neither he himself [Syllaeus] nor the Arabian forces had been present. |
| 288 and he said, with tears in his eyes, that two thousand five hundred of the principal men among the Arabians had been destroyed, and that their captain Nacebus, his familiar friend and kinsman, was slain; and that the riches that were at Raepta were carried off; and that Obodas was despised, whose infirm state of body rendered him unfit for war; on which account neither he, nor the Arabian army, were present. | 288 With tears in his eyes, he told how two thousand five hundred leading Arabs had been destroyed and their general Nakebus, his associate and kinsman, was also killed, and the wealth at Raepta had been pillaged and Obodas scorned because his physical infirmity made him unfit for war, which was the reason why neither he nor the Arabian army, had been present. |
| 289 τοιαῦτα τοῦ ΣυλλαίουSyllaeus λέγοντος καὶ προστιθέντος ἐπιφθόνως, ὡς οὐδ᾽ ἂν αὐτὸς ἀπέλθοι τῆς χώρας μὴ πεπιστευκὼς ὅτι ΚαίσαριCaesar μέλοι τὴν εἰρήνην ἅπασιν εἶναι πρὸς ἀλλήλους, μηδ᾽ εἰ παρὼν ἐτύγχανεν ἐκεῖ λυσιτελῆ ποιῆσαι τὸν πόλεμον ἩρώδῃHerod, παροξυνθεὶς ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις ὁ ΚαῖσαρCaesar ἀνέκρινε τῶν ἩρώδουHerod τοὺς παρόντας καὶ τῶν ἰδίων τοὺς ἀπὸ ΣυρίαςSyria ἥκοντας αὐτὸ μόνον, εἰ τὴν στρατιὰν ἩρώδηςHerod ἐξαγάγοι. | 289 As Syllaeus spoke in this way, adding provocatively that he himself would never have left the country had he not believed Caesar cared for the peace of all with one another—nor, had he been present, would Herod have found the war so profitable—Caesar was provoked by these words. He questioned Herod's representatives who were present and his own officials who had come from Syria on this point alone: whether Herod had led out an army. |
| 289 When Sylleus said so, and added invidiously, that he would not himself have come out of the country, unless he had believed that Caesar would have provided that they should all have peace one with another, and that, had he been there, he would have taken care that the war should not have been to Herod’s advantage; Caesar was provoked when this was said, and asked no more than this one question, both of Herod’s friends that were there, and of his own friends, who were come from Syria, Whether Herod had led an army thither? | 289 As Syllaeus said this he maliciously added that he would not have come from his land in person if he had not trusted that Caesar would ensure that all would stay at peace with each other and that, had he been there, he would have ensured that the war would not have gone in Herod’s favour. Enraged by this, Caesar asked just this one question, both of Herod’s friends there present and of his own friends who had come from Syria: "Had Herod led his army abroad?" |
| 290 τῶν δὲ τοῦτο μὲν αὐτὸ λέγειν ἀνάγκην ἐχόντων, τὸ δὲ ἐφ᾽ ὅτῳ καὶ πῶς οὐκ ἀκούοντος, ὀργή τε μείζων ἐγίνετο τῷ ΚαίσαριCaesar καὶ γράφει πρὸς τὸν ἩρώδηνHerōd τά τε ἄλλα χαλεπῶς καὶ τοῦτο τῆς ἐπιστολῆς τὸ κεφάλαιον, ὅτι πάλαι χρώμενος αὐτῷ φίλῳ νῦν ὑπηκόῳ χρήσεται. | 290 Since they were compelled to admit this very fact, but Caesar would not listen to the reasons 'why' or 'how,' his anger grew even greater. He wrote to Herod harshly in other respects, but the core of the letter was this: that whereas he had long treated him as a friend, he would now treat him as a subject. |
| 290 And when they were forced to confess so much, Caesar, without staying to hear for what reason he did it, and how it was done, grew very angry, and wrote to Herod sharply. The sum of his epistle was this, that whereas of old he had used him as his friend, he should now use him as his subject. | 290 When they were forced to admit it, without staying to hear why he did it and how it was done, Caesar was still more annoyed and wrote sharply to Herod that whereas he formerly used to regard him as a friend, he would now treat him as a subject. |
| 291 γράφει δὲ καὶ Σύλλαιος ὑπὲρ τούτων τοῖς ἌραψινArabs. οἱ δ᾽ ἐπαρθέντες οὔτε τῶν λῃστῶν ὅσοι διέφυγον ἐξεδίδοσαν οὔτε τὰ χρήματα διευλύτουν, νομάς τε ἃς ἐκείνου μισθωσάμενοι διακατεῖχον ἀμισθὶ ταύταις ἐχρῶντο, τεταπεινωμένου τοῦ τῶν ἸουδαίωνJews βασιλέως διὰ τὴν ὀργὴν τοῦ ΚαίσαροςCaesar. | 291 Syllaeus also wrote to the Arabs concerning these matters. Emboldened, they neither surrendered the brigands who had escaped nor paid back the money; they even used the pastures they had rented from Herod without paying, since the King of the Jews had been humbled by Caesar's wrath. |
| 291 Sylleus also wrote an account of this to the Arabians, who were so elevated with it, that they neither delivered up the robbers that had fled to them, nor paid the money that was due; they retained those pastures also which they had hired, and kept them without paying their rent, and all this because the king of the Jews was now in a low condition, by reason of Caesar’s anger at him. | 291 Syllaeus also wrote an account of this to the Arabs, who were so elated by it that they neither handed over the brigands who had fled to them nor paid the money that was overdue. They also held onto the pastures which they had rented without paying their rent, all because the king of the Jews had been humbled due to Caesar’s anger with him. |
| 292 ἐπιτίθενται δὲ τῷ καιρῷ καὶ οἱ τὴν ΤραχωνῖτινTrachonitis ἔχοντες τῆς τῶν ἸδουμαίωνIdumaea φρουρᾶς κατεξαναστάντες καὶ λῃστηρίοις χρώμενοι μετὰ τῶν ἈράβωνArabian, οἳ ἐλεηλάτουν τὴν ἐκείνων χώραν οὐκ ἀπὸ ὠφελείας μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ μνησικακίας χαλεπώτεροι τὰς ἀδικίας ὄντες. | 292 The inhabitants of Trachonitis also seized the opportunity, rising up against the Idumaean garrison and engaging in banditry alongside the Arabs, who plundered their territory. They were driven not only by a desire for profit but by a spirit of revenge, making their injustices even more severe." |
| 292 Those of Trachonitis also made use of this opportunity, and rose up against the Idumean garrison, and followed the same way of robbing with the Arabians, who had pillaged their country, and were more rigid in their unjust proceedings, not only in order to get by it, but by way of revenge also. | 292 The people of Trachonitis also took this opportunity to rise against their Idumaean garrison and adopted the same sort of robbery as the Arabs who had pillaged their country, but were even fiercer in their lawlessness, not only for profit, but also for revenge. |
The Power of "Optics" over Facts
This is one of the most famous diplomatic blunders in Herod's career. Syllaeus uses theatricality—the "black clothing" (μέλαιναν ἐσθῆτα) and "tears" (δακρύων)—to frame a minor border skirmish (where 25 Arabs died) as a genocidal slaughter of 2,500 nobles. Augustus, who prided himself on the Pax Romana (Roman Peace), was particularly sensitive to any client king acting like an independent warmonger.
The "Binary" Trap
Augustus’s interrogation of the Syrian officials is a lesson in legal manipulation. He asked "αὐτὸ μόνον" (on this point alone): Did Herod lead an army across the border? By refusing to hear the "ἐφʼ ὅτῳ καὶ πῶς" (the why and the how), Augustus stripped away the context of the brigands and the debt. In the eyes of the Emperor, the process (unauthorized invasion) was a greater crime than the provocation (the debt).
"Friend" vs. "Subject"
The phrase "πάλαι χρώμενος αὐτῷ φίλῳ νῦν ὑπηκόῳ χρήσεται" is a devastating demotion. In Roman diplomacy, a Rex Amicus (Friend-King) enjoyed high status and a degree of sovereignty. A "ὑπήκοος" (subject/underling) was someone who obeyed orders without question. This letter signaled that Herod’s special relationship with the Imperial house was effectively dead.
The Geopolitical "Vacuum"
As soon as the word of Caesar’s anger reached the East, Herod’s authority collapsed. The Arabs stopped paying rent, and the Trachonite rebels (whom Herod had tried to settle with Idumaeans) rose up again. This shows that Herod's power was not based on his own strength, but on the perceived backing of Rome. Once that shadow of Roman protection moved, the "wild beasts" of the frontier returned.
Syllaeus the Strategist
Syllaeus managed to turn a military defeat into a diplomatic total victory. By staying in Rome and "working" the court, he proved that a silver tongue at the center of the Empire was more powerful than a sword at its edges. He used Augustus's own ego—the idea that Caesar is the ultimate arbiter of peace—against Herod.
This is one of the most famous diplomatic blunders in Herod's career. Syllaeus uses theatricality—the "black clothing" (μέλαιναν ἐσθῆτα) and "tears" (δακρύων)—to frame a minor border skirmish (where 25 Arabs died) as a genocidal slaughter of 2,500 nobles. Augustus, who prided himself on the Pax Romana (Roman Peace), was particularly sensitive to any client king acting like an independent warmonger.
The "Binary" Trap
Augustus’s interrogation of the Syrian officials is a lesson in legal manipulation. He asked "αὐτὸ μόνον" (on this point alone): Did Herod lead an army across the border? By refusing to hear the "ἐφʼ ὅτῳ καὶ πῶς" (the why and the how), Augustus stripped away the context of the brigands and the debt. In the eyes of the Emperor, the process (unauthorized invasion) was a greater crime than the provocation (the debt).
"Friend" vs. "Subject"
The phrase "πάλαι χρώμενος αὐτῷ φίλῳ νῦν ὑπηκόῳ χρήσεται" is a devastating demotion. In Roman diplomacy, a Rex Amicus (Friend-King) enjoyed high status and a degree of sovereignty. A "ὑπήκοος" (subject/underling) was someone who obeyed orders without question. This letter signaled that Herod’s special relationship with the Imperial house was effectively dead.
The Geopolitical "Vacuum"
As soon as the word of Caesar’s anger reached the East, Herod’s authority collapsed. The Arabs stopped paying rent, and the Trachonite rebels (whom Herod had tried to settle with Idumaeans) rose up again. This shows that Herod's power was not based on his own strength, but on the perceived backing of Rome. Once that shadow of Roman protection moved, the "wild beasts" of the frontier returned.
Syllaeus the Strategist
Syllaeus managed to turn a military defeat into a diplomatic total victory. By staying in Rome and "working" the court, he proved that a silver tongue at the center of the Empire was more powerful than a sword at its edges. He used Augustus's own ego—the idea that Caesar is the ultimate arbiter of peace—against Herod.
| 293 ἩρώδηςHerod δὲ ταῦτα πάντα φέρων ἠνείχετο μεταβεβληκυίας αὐτῷ τῆς παρρησίας, ἣν εἶχε διὰ ΚαίσαραCaesar, καὶ τὸ μεῖζον ἀφῄρητο τοῦ φρονήματος· οὐδὲ γὰρ πέμψαντος αὐτοῦ πρεσβείαν ἀπολογησομένην ὁ ΚαῖσαρCaesar ἠνέσχετο, πάλιν δὲ τοὺς συνελθόντας ἀπράκτους ἀνέπεμψεν. | 293 "Herod endured all these things, though his freedom of speech—which he used to possess because of Caesar—had been changed, and the greater part of his confidence had been taken away. For when he sent an embassy to offer a defense, Caesar did not endure them, but sent those who had gathered back again without having accomplished anything. |
| 293 Now Herod was forced to bear all this, that confidence of his being quite gone with which Caesar’s favor used to inspire him; for Caesar would not admit so much as an embassage from him to make an apology for him; and when they came again, he sent them away without success. | 293 Herod had to bear the loss of all the confidence with which he used to be inspired by Caesar’s favour, and was dispirited that Caesar would not even admit a delegation from him to make his excuses, and sent them away unheard even when they went a second time. |
| 294 ἦν δ᾽ οὖν ἐπὶ τούτοις ἀθυμία καὶ δέος, ὅ τε Σύλλαιος οὐ μετρίως ἐλύπει πιστευθείς τε καὶ παρὼν ἐν τῇ ῬώμῃRome, τότε δὲ καὶ μειζόνων ἁπτόμενος· ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ὀβόδας ἐτεθνήκει, παραλαμβάνει δὲ τὴν τῶν ἈράβωνArabian ἀρχὴν ΑἰνείαςEneas ὁ μετονομασθεὶς αὖθις ἈρέταςAretas. | 294 There was, therefore, dejection and fear because of these things, and Syllaeus caused no small distress, being believed and present in Rome, and at that time grasping for even greater things. For Obodas had died, and Aeneas—who was later renamed Aretas—took up the rule of the Arabs. |
| 294 So he was cast into sadness and fear; and Sylleus’s circumstances grieved him exceedingly, who was now believed by Caesar, and was present at Rome, nay, sometimes aspiring higher. Now it came to pass that Obodas was dead; and Aeneas, whose name was afterward changed to Aretas, | 294 This depressed and alarmed him, and he was grieved that Syllaeus was now a trusted presence in Rome, with further aspirations, for Obodas was now dead, and Aeneas, whose name later changed to Aretas, had taken on the leadership of the Arabs. |
| 295 τοῦτον γὰρ ἐπεχείρειto put one’s hand in διαβολαῖς παρωσάμενος αὐτὸς ἀναλαμβάνειν τὴν ἀρχήν, χρήματα μὲν πολλὰ διδοὺς τοῖς περὶ τὴν αὐλήν, πολλὰ δὲ ΚαίσαριCaesar δώσειν ὑπισχνούμενος. ὁ δὲ τῷ μὴ τὸν ἈρέτανAretas ἐπιστείλαντα πρότερον αὐτῷ βασιλεύειν ὠργίζετο. | 295 Syllaeus attempted to thrust him [Aretas] aside with slanders and take the rule for himself, giving much money to those about the court and promising to give much to Caesar. But Caesar was angry with Aretas because he had taken the kingship without first writing to him. |
| 295 took the government, for Sylleus endeavored by calumnies to get him turned out of his principality, that he might himself take it; with which design he gave much money to the courtiers, and promised much money to Caesar, who indeed was angry that Aretas had not sent to him first before he took the kingdom; | 295 For by allegations he was seeking to get this man expelled from his rule, to gain it for himself, giving large sums to the courtiers and promising much to Caesar, who was angry with Aretas for not sending to him first before taking over as king. |
| 296 πέμπει δὲ κἀκεῖνος ἐπιστολὴν καὶ δῶρα τῷ ΚαίσαριCaesar στέφανόν τε χρυσοῦν ἀπὸ πολλῶν ταλάντων· ἡ δὲ ἐπιστολὴepistle κατηγόρει Σύλλαιον ὄντα πονηρὸν δοῦλον Ὀβόδαν τε φαρμάκοις διαφθεῖραι καὶ ζῶντος ἔτι κρατεῖν αὐτὸν τάς τε τῶν ἈράβωνArabian μοιχεύοντα καὶ χρήματα δανειζόμενον, ὥστ᾽ ἐξιδιώσασθαι τὴν ἀρχήν. | 296 Aretas also sent a letter and gifts to Caesar, including a gold crown worth many talents. The letter accused Syllaeus of being a wicked slave who had destroyed Obodas with poisons; it claimed that while Obodas was still alive, Syllaeus had mastered him, committed adultery with the women of Arabia, and borrowed money in order to make the kingdom his own private property. |
| 296 yet did Aeneas send an epistle and presents to Caesar, and a golden crown, of the weight of many talents. Now that epistle accused Sylleus as having been a wicked servant, and having killed Obodas by poison; and that while he was alive, he had governed him as he pleased; and had also debauched the wives of the Arabians; and had borrowed money, in order to obtain the dominion for himself: | 296 But Herod also sent a letter and gifts to Caesar and a golden crown, of the weight of many talents. The letter accused Syllaeus of being an unfaithful servant and killing Obodas by poison, and that in his lifetime he had ruled him as he pleased, and of debauching the wives of the Arabs, and borrowing money to win the realm for himself. |
| 297 προσέσχεν δὲ οὐδὲ τούτοις ὁ ΚαῖσαρCaesar, ἀλλ᾽ ἀποπέμπει μηδὲν τῶν δώρων λαβών. τὰ δὲ περὶ τὴν ἸουδαίανJudea καὶ ἈραβίανArabia ἀεὶ καὶ μᾶλλον ἐπεδίδου τὰ μὲν εἰς ἀταξίαν τὰ δ᾽ ὡς καταφθειρομένων μηδένα προεστάναι· | 297 Caesar did not pay attention to these things either, but sent them away without receiving any of the gifts. The affairs of Judea and Arabia grew constantly worse, some falling into disorder and others into ruin, as there was no one presiding over them. |
| 297 yet did not Caesar give heed to these accusations, but sent his ambassadors back, without receiving any of his presents. But in the mean time the affairs of Judea and Arabia became worse and worse, partly because of the anarchy they were under, and partly because, as bad as they were, nobody had power to govern them; | 297 Yet Caesar did not heed these accusations but rejected his envoys without receiving any of his gifts. Meanwhile affairs in Judea and Arabia grew ever worse, partly due to anarchy and partly because, in their dire state, no one could govern them. |
| 298 τῶν γὰρ βασιλέων ὁ μὲν οὐδέπω τὴν ἀρχὴν βεβαίαν ἔχων οὐχ ἱκανὸς ἦν κωλύειν τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας, ἩρώδηςHerod δὲ ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἠμύνατο τάχιον ὀργισθέντος αὐτῷ ΚαίσαροςCaesar ἁπάσας τὰς εἰς αὐτὸν παρανομίας φέρειν ἠναγκάζετο. | 298 For of the kings, the one [Aretas] did not yet have his rule confirmed and was not capable of restraining those doing wrong, while Herod, because Caesar had been moved to anger by his earlier defense, was compelled to endure all the lawless acts committed against him. |
| 298 for of the two kings, the one was not yet confirmed in his kingdom, and so had not authority sufficient to restrain the evil-doers; and as for Herod, Caesar was immediately angry at him for having avenged himself, and so he was compelled to bear all the injuries that were offered him. | 298 Of the two kings, one was not yet confirmed in power and so had not the authority to restrain the evil-doers, and as Herod had incurred Caesar’s anger by taking revenge too soon, he had to bear all the crimes committed against him. |
| 299 πέρας δ᾽ οὐδὲν ὁρῶν τῶν περιεστώτων κακῶν ἔγνω πάλιν εἰς ῬώμηνRome ἀποστέλλειν, εἴ τι δύναιτο μετριώτερον εὑρεῖν διά τε τῶν φίλων καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ΚαίσαραCaesar τὴν ἐντυχίαν ποιησάμενος. κἀκεῖ μὲν ὁ ΔαμασκηνὸςDamascus ἀπῄει ΝικόλαοςNicolaus. | 299 Seeing no end to the surrounding evils, he decided to send to Rome again, to see if he could find some more moderate treatment through his friends and by making an appeal to Caesar himself. And so, Nicolaus of Damascus departed for that place." |
| 299 At length, when he saw no end of the mischief which surrounded him, he resolved to send ambassadors to Rome again, to see whether his friends had prevailed to mitigate Caesar, and to address themselves to Caesar himself; and the ambassador he sent thither was Nicolaus of Damascus. | 299 Seeing no end to the troubles surrounding him, he again decided to send envoys to Rome, to see whether his friends could mollify Caesar and also to contact the man directly. The envoy he sent was Nicolaus of Damascus. |
The Loss of "Parrhēsia"
Josephus notes that Herod's "παρρησίας" (freedom of speech/confidence) was gone. In the Roman client-system, a king’s power was psychological. If the Emperor refused to see your envoys ("ἀπράκτους ἀνέπεμψεν"), you were "dead in the water" politically. Herod, a man used to commanding every room, was now reduced to "ἀθυμία καὶ δέος" (dejection and fear).
The Rise of Aretas IV
We are introduced to Aretas IV (originally Aeneas), who would go on to be one of Nabataea’s greatest kings (reigning until 40 AD). However, his start was disastrous. By taking the throne without Augustus's "επιτείλαντα" (instruction/permission), he violated the fundamental rule of the Roman Empire: No one wears a crown unless Caesar places it there. This technicality gave the villain Syllaeus an opening to try to buy the kingdom for himself.
Syllaeus: The "Wicked Slave"
The accusation that Syllaeus was a "πονηρὸν δοῦλον" (wicked slave) is a potent piece of ancient polemic. In the Greco-Roman hierarchy, there was nothing more offensive than a "slave" (or a man of low birth) ruling over free men and royalty. The charges of poisoning Obodas and adultery with royal women were the standard "villain kit" used to discredit a political rival at the Roman court.
The Regional Power Vacuum
Josephus describes a terrifying state of "ἀταξίαν" (disorder). Because Augustus had frozen both Herod and Aretas out of his favor, neither king had the "legal" authority to use their armies to stop border raids. The frontier became a "no-man's-land" where criminals thrived because the local kings were too afraid of Caesar to arrest them. It is a stark reminder that Roman "Peace" (Pax) often required the local suppression of violence that Rome itself sometimes prohibited.
Nicolaus of Damascus: The Ultimate Diplomat
The passage ends with the departure of Nicolaus of Damascus. Nicolaus was one of the most brilliant polymaths of the age—a historian, philosopher, and tutor to the children of Antony and Cleopatra. Herod knew that where soldiers and family members had failed, only a world-class intellectual and orator could talk Augustus out of his rage.
Josephus notes that Herod's "παρρησίας" (freedom of speech/confidence) was gone. In the Roman client-system, a king’s power was psychological. If the Emperor refused to see your envoys ("ἀπράκτους ἀνέπεμψεν"), you were "dead in the water" politically. Herod, a man used to commanding every room, was now reduced to "ἀθυμία καὶ δέος" (dejection and fear).
The Rise of Aretas IV
We are introduced to Aretas IV (originally Aeneas), who would go on to be one of Nabataea’s greatest kings (reigning until 40 AD). However, his start was disastrous. By taking the throne without Augustus's "επιτείλαντα" (instruction/permission), he violated the fundamental rule of the Roman Empire: No one wears a crown unless Caesar places it there. This technicality gave the villain Syllaeus an opening to try to buy the kingdom for himself.
Syllaeus: The "Wicked Slave"
The accusation that Syllaeus was a "πονηρὸν δοῦλον" (wicked slave) is a potent piece of ancient polemic. In the Greco-Roman hierarchy, there was nothing more offensive than a "slave" (or a man of low birth) ruling over free men and royalty. The charges of poisoning Obodas and adultery with royal women were the standard "villain kit" used to discredit a political rival at the Roman court.
The Regional Power Vacuum
Josephus describes a terrifying state of "ἀταξίαν" (disorder). Because Augustus had frozen both Herod and Aretas out of his favor, neither king had the "legal" authority to use their armies to stop border raids. The frontier became a "no-man's-land" where criminals thrived because the local kings were too afraid of Caesar to arrest them. It is a stark reminder that Roman "Peace" (Pax) often required the local suppression of violence that Rome itself sometimes prohibited.
Nicolaus of Damascus: The Ultimate Diplomat
The passage ends with the departure of Nicolaus of Damascus. Nicolaus was one of the most brilliant polymaths of the age—a historian, philosopher, and tutor to the children of Antony and Cleopatra. Herod knew that where soldiers and family members had failed, only a world-class intellectual and orator could talk Augustus out of his rage.
Chapter 10
[300-355]
Further accusations of Herod’s sons, by the Spartan, Eurycles.
[300-355]
Further accusations of Herod’s sons, by the Spartan, Eurycles.
| 300 Ἐξετετάρακτο δὲ τὰ περὶ τὴν οἰκίαν καὶ τοὺς παῖδας αὐτῷ πολὺ χεῖρον ἐσχηκότα περὶ τὸν καιρὸν ἐκεῖνον. ὅλως μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲ τὸν ἔμπροσθε χρόνον ἀσύνοπτον ἦν, ὡς τὸ μέγιστον καὶ δυσχερέστατον τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων παθῶν ἀπειλεῖται τῇ βασιλείᾳ διὰ τῆς τύχης, ἐπέβαινεν δὲ καὶ μᾶλλον ηὐξήθη τότε παρὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν. | 300 "The affairs concerning his household and his sons had become far worse for him around that time. Indeed, even in the period before, it was not difficult to see that the greatest and most distressing of human passions was threatening the kingdom through fortune; but it advanced and grew even more then for the following reason. |
| 300 The disorders about Herod’s family and children about this time grew much worse; for it now appeared certain, nor was it unforeseen before-hand, that fortune threatened the greatest and most insupportable misfortunes possible to his kingdom. Its progress and augmentation at this time arose on the occasion following: | 300 At that time the disorders around Herod’s family and children grew much worse, as it now seemed certain that fortune threatened his kingdom with the worst and most dire of human sorrows. The matter that developed on this occasion was as follows. |
| 301 ΕὐρυκλῆςEurycles ἀπὸ Λακεδαίμονος οὐκ ἄσημος τῶν ἐκεῖ κακὸς δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν ἄνθρωπος καὶ περὶ τρυφὴν καὶ κολακείαν δεινὸς ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν ἔχειν τε καὶ μὴ δοκεῖν, ἐπιδημήσας ὡς τὸν ἩρώδηνHerōd δῶρά τε δίδωσιν αὐτῷ καὶ πλείω παρ᾽ ἐκείνου λαβὼν ταῖς εὐκαιρίαις τῶν ἐντεύξεων ἐπραγματεύσατο Φίλος ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα γενέσθαι βασιλέως. | 301 Eurycles, a man from Lacedaemon [Sparta] of no small renown there, but a man wicked in soul and skilled in both luxury and flattery—possessing both traits while appearing to have neither—came to visit Herod. He gave him gifts and, having received even more from him, managed through well-timed interviews to become one of the King’s closest friends. |
| 301 One Eurycles, a Lacedemonian, (a person of note there, but a man of a perverse mind, and so cunning in his ways of voluptuousness and flattery, as to indulge both, and yet seem to indulge neither of them,) came in his travels to Herod, and made him presents, but so that he received more presents from him. He also took such proper seasons for insinuating himself into his friendship, that he became one of the most intimate of the king’s friends. | 301 A Spartan named Eurycles, a man of note there but a perverse character and so cunning that he could indulge in both luxury and flattery without seeming to do either, came in his travels to Herod and gave him gifts, but in such a way that he received even more gifts from him. He also availed of his chances to ingratiate himself to him so that he became one of the king’s closest friends. |
| 302 ἦν δ᾽ αὐτῷ καταγωγὴ μὲν ἐν τοῖς ἈντιπάτρουAntipater, πρόσοδος δὲ καὶ συνήθεια πρὸς τὸν ἈλέξανδρονAlexander· ἈρχελάῳArchelaus γὰρ ἔλεγεν εἶναι τῷ Καππάδοκι διὰ σπουδῆς. | 302 He had lodging in the house of Antipater, but he also had access to and intimacy with Alexander; for he claimed to be a devoted friend of Archelaus the Cappadocian. |
| 302 He had his lodging in Antipater’s house; but he had not only access, but free conversation, with Alexander, as pretending to him that he was in great favor with Archelaus, the king of Cappadocia; | 302 His lodging was in Antipater’s house, but he also had access and familiarity with Alexander, telling him that he was on close terms with Archelaus, the king of Cappadocia. |
| 303 ὅθεν καὶ τὴν ΓλαφύρανGlaphyra ὑπεκρίνατο τιμᾶν, καὶ πολὺς ἦν ἀφανῶς μὲν ἐκθεραπεύων ἅπαντας ἀεὶ δὲ τοῖς λαλουμένοις ἢ γινομένοις προσέχων, ὡς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀντιχαρίζεσθαι τὰς διαβολάς. | 303 For this reason, he also pretended to honor Glaphyra. He was very active, secretly courting everyone while always paying attention to what was said or done, so that he might trade these things for the favor of slanders. |
| 303 whence he pretended much respect to Glaphyra, and in an occult manner cultivated a friendship with them all; but always attending to what was said and done, that he might be furnished with calumnies to please them all. | 303 Thus he pretended to have respect for Glaphyra and secretly cultivated friendship with them all, but always paying close attention to what was said and done, so as to be supplied with allegations to please all of them. |
| 304 τέλος δὲ τοιοῦτος ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰς συντυχίας ἀπέβαινεν, ὡς ἐκείνῳ μὲν εἶναι Φίλος τοῖς δὲ ἄλλοις δοκεῖν κατὰ τὸ συμφέρον ἐκείνῳ προσεῖναι. Οὗτος ἈλέξανδρονAlexander παράγει νέον ὄντα καὶ περὶ ὧν ἐπεπόνθει μηδενὶ μὲν πρὸς ἐκεῖνον δὲ μόνον ἀδεῶς πεπεισμένον ἐξεῖναι λέγειν· | 304 Ultimately, he turned out to be such a man to each person in their meetings that he appeared to be that person's friend, while seeming to the others to be associated with them only for their own benefit. He led astray Alexander, who was young, and who had been persuaded that he could speak safely and without fear to him alone concerning the things he had suffered. |
| 304 In short, he behaved himself so to every body in his conversation, as to appear to be his particular friend, and he made others believe that his being any where was for that person’s advantage. So he won upon Alexander, who was but young; and persuaded him that he might open his grievances to him with assurance and with nobody else. | 304 In short, in his conversation he behaved himself to everyone so as to seem to be his particular friend while giving him to believe that wherever he was, it was for the other’s advantage. This man won over the young Alexander, persuading him that he could reveal his grievances to him in confidence, but to no one else. |
| 305 ἐνέφαινεν οὖν ἀχθόμενος, ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ἠλλοτρίωτο, καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν μητέρα διηγεῖτο καὶ τὸν ἈντίπατρονAntipater, ὅτι παρωθούμενος αὐτοὺς τῆς τιμῆς τὰ πάντα ἤδη δύναται. τούτων δὲ ἀνεκτὸν οὐδὲν ἔφη κατεσκευασμένου πρὸς μῖσος ἤδη τοῦ πατρός, ὡς μηδὲ συμποσίοις ἢ συλλόγοις ἀνέχεσθαι λέγων. | 305 Alexander thus revealed his distress: how his father had become estranged, and he recounted the matters concerning his mother [Mariamne] and Antipater—how the latter, by thrusting them aside from honor, now possessed all the power. He said none of this was endurable now that his father was prepared for hatred, stating that Herod would not even tolerate him at banquets or public assemblies. |
| 305 So he declared his grief to him, how his father was alienated from him. He related to him also the affairs of his mother, and of Antipater; that he had driven them from their proper dignity, and had the power over every thing himself; that no part of this was tolerable, since his father was already come to hate them; and he added, that he would neither admit them to his table, nor to his conversation. | 305 So he revealed to him how upset he was that his father was alienated from him. He also told him all about his mother and about how Antipater had driven them from their proper dignity and already held power over everything, and that all this was intolerable, for his father’s hatred was such that he could not bear to speak with them at parties or other gatherings. |
| 306 τοιαῦτα μὲν ἐκεῖνος, ὡς εἰκός, ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἤλγει· τοὺς δὲ λόγους ΕὐρυκλῆςEurycles ἈντιπάτρῳAntipater τούτους ἀνέφερεν, λέγων μὲν ὡς οὐχ ἕνεκα σοῦ τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸν ποιεῖν, νικᾶσθαι δὲ ὑπὸ σοῦ τιμώμενος τῷ μεγέθει τοῦ πράγματος καὶ φυλάττεσθαι παρακελευόμενος τὸν ἈλέξανδρονAlexander· οὐ γὰρ ἀπαθῶς τούτων ἕκαστον λέγειν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ῥήμασιν αὐτοῖς εἶναι τὴν αὐτοχειρίαν. | 306 The youth spoke in this way, as was natural, regarding the things for which he grieved; but Eurycles reported these words to Antipater, saying that he did not do this for Antipater’s sake, but because he was overcome by the honor he received from him and the magnitude of the matter, and he urged him to be on guard against Alexander. He claimed that Alexander did not speak of these things without passion, but that the 'murder' was present in the words themselves. |
| 306 Such were the complaints, as was but natural, of Alexander about the things that troubled him; and these discourses Eurycles carried to Antipater, and told him he did not inform him of this on his own account, but that being overcome by his kindness, the great importance of the thing obliged him to do it; and he warned him to have a care of Alexander, for that what he said was spoken with vehemency, and that, in consequence of what he said, he would certainly kill him with his own hand. | 306 Such were his natural feelings about what troubled him, and Eurycles carried these words to Antipater saying that he was doing this not for his own sake but moved by kindness and obliged by the importance of the matter, and he warned him to watch out for Alexander, since his words were spoken with passion and that they were of a kind that could lead to murder. |
| 307 ἈντίπατροςAntipater μὲν οὖν εὔνουν ὑπολαμβάνων ἐκ τούτων μεγάλας αὐτῷ παρ᾽ ἕκαστα δωρεὰς ἐδίδου καὶ τέλος ἤδη πείθει πρὸς τὸν ἩρώδηνHerōd ἀναφέρειν τὸν λόγον. | 307 Antipater, therefore, assuming Eurycles was well-disposed, gave him great gifts at every opportunity and finally persuaded him to report the matter to Herod. |
| 307 Whereupon Antipater, thinking him to be his friend by this advice, gave him presents upon all occasions, and at length persuaded him to inform Herod of what he had heard. | 307 Antipater, thinking this to be friendly advice, lavished gifts on him on many occasions and finally persuaded him to inform Herod of what he had heard. |
| 308 ὁ δ᾽ οὐκ ἦν τὴν ἈλεξάνδρουAlexander δύσνοιαν ἐξ ὧν ἔλεγεν ἀκηκοέναι διηγούμενος ἀπίθανος, ἀλλ᾽ οὕτω διέθηκε τὸν βασιλέα περιάγων ἀεὶ τοῖς ῥήμασι καὶ παροξύνων, ὡς ἀμετάγνωστον ποιῆσαι τὸ μῖσος. ἐδήλωσεν δὲ καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν τὸν καιρόν· | 308 Eurycles was not unconvincing when he recounted Alexander’s ill-will from what he claimed to have heard; rather, he so affected the King, always leading him around with his words and provoking him, as to make his hatred unalterable. |
| 308 So when he related to the king Alexander’s ill temper, as discovered by the words he had heard him speak, he was easily believed by him; and he thereby brought the king to that pass, turning him about by his words, and irritating him, till he increased his hatred to him and made him implacable, | 308 When he plausibly reported Alexander’s bad feeling to the king, as revealed by the words he had heard him say, his words got the king so worked up and angry that his hatred toward the lad became implacable. |
| 309 εὐθὺς γὰρ ΕὐρυκλεῖEurycles δίδωσιν πεντήκοντα τάλαντα δωρεάν. ὁ δὲ ταῦτα λαβὼν καὶ πρὸς ἈρχέλαονArchelaus ἀναβὰς τὸν βασιλέα τῶν ΚαππαδόκωνCappadocia τὸν ἈλέξανδρονAlexander ἐπῄνειto approve, commend καὶ χρήσιμος ἔλεγεν αὐτῷ πολλὰ πρὸς τὰς διαλλαγὰς τὰς πρὸς τὸν πατέρα γεγενῆσθαι. | 309 He showed this at that very moment: for he immediately gave Eurycles a gift of fifty talents. After receiving this, Eurycles went up to Archelaus, the King of the Cappadocians, where he praised Alexander and claimed he had been very useful to him in the reconciliations with his father. |
| 309 which he showed at that very time, for he immediately gave Eurycles a present of fifty talents; who, when he had gotten them, went to Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and commended Alexander before him, and told him that he had been many ways of advantage to him, in making a reconciliation between him and his father. | 309 He showed this at the time, for immediately he gave Eurycles a gift of fifty talents. When the man received them he went to Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, praising Alexander to him and telling him how much he had done for him, to ensure his reconciliation with his father. |
| 310 χρηματισάμενος δὲ καὶ παρ᾽ ἐκείνου πρὶν καταφωραθῆναι τῆς κακοηθείας ἀπῄει . ΕὐρυκλῆςEurycles μὲν οὖν οὐδὲ ἐν τῇ Λακεδαίμονι παυσάμενος εἶναι μοχθηρὸς ἐπὶ πολλοῖς ἀδικήμασιν ἀπεστερήθη τῆς πατρίδος. | 310 Having made a profit from him as well, he departed before his malice could be detected. Eurycles, however, did not cease being a rogue even in Lacedaemon, and for many crimes, he was eventually banished from his homeland." |
| 310 So he got money from him also, and went away, before his pernicious practices were found out; but when Eurycles was returned to Lacedemon, he did not leave off doing mischief; and so, for his many acts of injustice, he was banished from his own country. | 310 Having received money from him also, he left before his deviousness was found out, but even when Eurycles had returned to Sparta he did not give up his mischief, and so was banished from his own country for his many acts of injustice. |
The "Double-Agent" Archetype
Eurycles is the ultimate "confidence man." Josephus notes his terrifying ability to "ἔχειν τε καὶ μὴ δοκεῖν" (possess [vices] while appearing not to). He played a three-way game:
One of the most chilling lines in the passage is Eurycles’s claim to Antipater that "τοῖς ῥήμασιν αὐτοῖς εἶναι τὴν αὐτοχειρίαν" (the murder itself was in the words). He wasn't just reporting speech; he was performing a "lexical alchemy," turning a son's frustrated venting into a legal confession of intent to commit parricide. To a paranoid mind like Herod's, the description of the crime became indistinguishable from the act itself.
The Price of Betrayal: 50 Talents
The economic scale of the betrayal is staggering. Herod pays Eurycles 50 talents on the spot. To put this in perspective, the entire debt that nearly caused a war with Arabia earlier in the book was only 60 talents. Herod was willing to pay a king's ransom for the "certainty" that his son hated him.
Demographic Engineering and "Foreign Experts"
It is telling that Herod, who prided himself on his Greco-Roman sophistication, was so easily fooled by a Spartan. Eurycles traded on the "brand name" of Sparta—a city-state associated with discipline and ancient honor—to mask his own "κακὸς δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν" (wickedness of soul). Herod’s desire for the approval of prestigious Greeks left him vulnerable to a predator who knew exactly how to play the role of an aristocrat.
The "Cycle of the Grift"
Eurycles’s exit strategy was as brilliant as his entry. After destroying Alexander’s reputation with Herod, he went to Archelaus (Alexander’s father-in-law) and collected a "consultation fee" for "helping" Alexander. He essentially sold the same fire to the arsonist and the insurance to the victim, then fled before the smoke cleared.
Justice at the End of the Road
Josephus adds a "moral postscript" common in his writings: Eurycles didn't get away with it forever. His nature was so fundamentally "μοχθηρὸς" (depraved/mischievous) that he eventually committed crimes in his own home city of Lacedaemon and was "ἀπεστερήθη τῆς πατρίδος" (deprived of his homeland). In the world of Josephus, character is destiny.
Eurycles is the ultimate "confidence man." Josephus notes his terrifying ability to "ἔχειν τε καὶ μὴ δοκεῖν" (possess [vices] while appearing not to). He played a three-way game:
1) To Alexander, he was a sympathetic ear and a link to his father-in-law, Archelaus.
2) To Antipater, he was a high-level informant and security consultant.
3) To Herod, he was an objective foreign dignitary confirming his worst fears.
The Semantic MurderOne of the most chilling lines in the passage is Eurycles’s claim to Antipater that "τοῖς ῥήμασιν αὐτοῖς εἶναι τὴν αὐτοχειρίαν" (the murder itself was in the words). He wasn't just reporting speech; he was performing a "lexical alchemy," turning a son's frustrated venting into a legal confession of intent to commit parricide. To a paranoid mind like Herod's, the description of the crime became indistinguishable from the act itself.
The Price of Betrayal: 50 Talents
The economic scale of the betrayal is staggering. Herod pays Eurycles 50 talents on the spot. To put this in perspective, the entire debt that nearly caused a war with Arabia earlier in the book was only 60 talents. Herod was willing to pay a king's ransom for the "certainty" that his son hated him.
Demographic Engineering and "Foreign Experts"
It is telling that Herod, who prided himself on his Greco-Roman sophistication, was so easily fooled by a Spartan. Eurycles traded on the "brand name" of Sparta—a city-state associated with discipline and ancient honor—to mask his own "κακὸς δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν" (wickedness of soul). Herod’s desire for the approval of prestigious Greeks left him vulnerable to a predator who knew exactly how to play the role of an aristocrat.
The "Cycle of the Grift"
Eurycles’s exit strategy was as brilliant as his entry. After destroying Alexander’s reputation with Herod, he went to Archelaus (Alexander’s father-in-law) and collected a "consultation fee" for "helping" Alexander. He essentially sold the same fire to the arsonist and the insurance to the victim, then fled before the smoke cleared.
Justice at the End of the Road
Josephus adds a "moral postscript" common in his writings: Eurycles didn't get away with it forever. His nature was so fundamentally "μοχθηρὸς" (depraved/mischievous) that he eventually committed crimes in his own home city of Lacedaemon and was "ἀπεστερήθη τῆς πατρίδος" (deprived of his homeland). In the world of Josephus, character is destiny.
| 311 Ὁ δὲ τῶν ἸουδαίωνJews βασιλεὺς οὐχ ὥσπερ πρότερον εἶχεν πρός τε τὸν ἈλέξανδρονAlexander καὶ τὸν ἈριστόβουλονAristobulus ἀκούειν μόνον τὰς κατ᾽ αὐτῶν διαβολάς, ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη διὰ μίσους οἰκείου γεγενημένος αὐτὸς εἰ καὶ μὴ λέγοι τις ἐξειργάζετο, | 311 "But the King of the Jews no longer held the same attitude toward Alexander and Aristobulus as before—merely listening to the slanders against them—but having now himself become filled with a personal hatred, he worked toward their destruction even if no one else spoke. |
| 311 But as for the king of the Jews, he was not now in the temper he was in formerly towards Alexander and Aristobulus, when he had been content with the hearing their calumnies when others told him of them; but he was now come to that pass as to hate them himself, and to urge men to speak against them, though they did not do it of themselves. | 311 The king of the Jews was no longer as well disposed toward Alexander and Aristobulus as formerly, when he had simply listened to stories against them; now he hated them and urged others to speak against them, even against their inclination. |
| 312 παρατηρῶν ἕκαστα καὶ πυνθανόμενος καὶ πᾶσιν ἐνδιδοὺς τοῖς βουλομένοις, εἴ τις ἔχοι τι κατ᾽ ἐκείνων εἰπεῖν, Εὐάρατόν τε ΚῷονCos ἈλεξάνδρῳAlexander συνειδέναι. Καὶ τοῦτο μὲν οὖν καθ᾽ ἡδονὴν τὸ πάντων ἥδιστονmost gladly ἩρώδηςHerod ἐλάμβανεν. | 312 He watched every detail, making inquiries and giving way to all who wished to say anything against them, [such as the claim that] Euaratus of Cos was a co-conspirator with Alexander. And indeed, Herod received this report with a pleasure that was the greatest of all. |
| 312 He also observed all that was said, and put questions, and gave ear to every one that would but speak, if they could but say any thing against them, till at length he heard that Euaratus of Cos was a conspirator with Alexander; which thing to Herod was the most agreeable and sweetest news imaginable. | 312 He noted all that was said and asked questions and listened to whatever anyone wished to say against them, until finally he heard that Euaratus of Cos had conspired with Alexander, news which Herod received with the greatest of pleasure. |
| 313 Ἐπιγίνεται δὲ κατὰ τῶν νεανίσκων μεῖζόν τι σκευωρουμένης ἀεὶ τῆς κατ᾽ αὐτῶν διαβολῆς καὶ πᾶσιν, ὡς εἰπεῖν, ἄθλου τούτου προκειμένου λέγειν τι περὶ ἐκείνων δυσχερὲς πρὸς τῆς τοῦ βασιλεύοντος ἐδόκει σωτηρίας. | 313 There followed a more significant fabrication against the young men, as the slander against them was constantly being engineered; it seemed as if a prize were set before everyone to say something difficult about them for the sake of the King's safety. |
| 313 But still a greater misfortune came upon the young men; while the calumnies against them were continually increased, and, as a man may say, one would think it was every one’s endeavor to lay some grievous thing to their charge, which might appear to be for the king’s preservation. | 313 Further misfortune befell the young men while the allegations against them were continually increasing, and, so to speak, it seemed that everyone wanted to charge them with some grievous fault, ostensibly for the king’s safety. |
| 314 σωματοφύλακες ἦσαν ἩρώδῃHerod δύο κατ᾽ ἰσχὺν καὶ μέγεθος τιμώμενοι ἸούκουνδοςJucundus καὶ τύραννος. οὗτοι προσκρούσαντος αὐτοῖς τοῦ βασιλέως ἀπεωσμένοι περὶ ἈλέξανδρονAlexander ἦσαν συνιππαζόμενοι καὶ κατὰ τὰ γυμνάσια τιμώμενοι καί τι χρυσίον καὶ δωρεὰς ἄλλας ἔλαβον. | 314 There were two bodyguards of Herod, Jucundus and Tyrannus, who were honored for their strength and stature. These men, having clashed with the King and been dismissed, were now associates of Alexander, riding with him and being honored during his exercises; they had even received gold and other gifts. |
| 314 There were two guards of Herod’s body, who were in great esteem for their strength and tallness, Jucundus and Tyrannus; these men had been cast off by Herod, who was displeased at them; these now used to ride along with Alexander, and for their skill in their exercises were in great esteem with him, and had some gold and other gifts bestowed on them. | 314 Herod had two bodyguards who were esteemed for their strength and size, Jucundus and Tyrannus. These had been cast off by the king, who was displeased with them and now used to ride along with Alexander who esteemed them for their skill in gymnastics and gave them gold and other gifts. |
| 315 εὐθὺς οὖν καὶ τούτους ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐν ὑποψίαις ἔχων ἐβασάνιζεν, οἱ δὲ διακαρτερήσαντες πολὺν χρόνον ὕστερον ἔλεγον, ὅτι πείθοι φονεύειν αὐτοὺς ἩρώδηνHerōd ἈλέξανδροςAlexander, ἐπεὶ περὶ κυνηγέσιονhuntng, a hunt θηρίων διώκων προλάβοι· δυνατὸν γὰρ εἶναι λέγειν ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἵππου κατενεχθεὶς ἐμπαρείη ταῖς αὐτοῦ λόγχαις· | 315 Immediately, the King, holding these men in suspicion, put them to torture. After they had held out for a long time, they finally said that Alexander was persuading them to murder Herod while he was pursuing beasts during a hunt; for [Alexander argued] it would be possible to say that having fallen from his horse, he had been impaled upon his own spears— |
| 315 Now the king having an immediate suspicion of those men, had them tortured, who endured the torture courageously for a long time; but at last confessed that Alexander would have persuaded them to kill Herod, when he was in pursuit of the wild beasts, that it might be said he fell from his horse, and was run through with his own spear, for that he had once such a misfortune formerly. | 315 Immediately suspecting these men, the king had them tortured. For a long time they held out but finally they confessed that Alexander tried to persuade them to kill Herod, when he was hunting wild beasts, so that he could be said to have fallen from his horse and been pierced by his own spear, a thing that had befallen him once before. |
| 316 καὶ γὰρ πρότερον αὐτῷ τοιοῦτον γενέσθαι πάθος. ἐπέδειξαν δὲ καὶ τὸ χρυσίον ἐν ἱππῶνι κατορωρυγμένον καὶ τὸν ἀρχικύνηγον ἐξήλεγχον, ὅτι καὶ λόγχας αὐτοῖς δοίη βασιλικὰς καὶ τοῖς ἈλέξανδρονAlexander θεραπεύουσιν ὅπλα κελεύοντος ἐκείνου. | 316 For such an accident had happened to him once before. They also pointed out the gold buried in the stable and accused the master of the hunt, claiming he had given them royal spears and weapons to those serving Alexander, at the prince’s command." |
| 316 They also showed where there was money hidden in the stable under ground; and these convicted the king’s chief hunter, that he had given the young men the royal hunting spears and weapons to Alexander’s dependents, at Alexander’s command. | 316 They also showed where money was hidden under ground in the stable and they stated that the king’s hunt-master had given them the royal hunting spears and weapons to Alexander’s dependants, at his command. |
The Proactive Tyrant: From Victim to Hunter
Josephus marks a terrifying shift in Herod’s psychology. Previously, Herod was "led" by the slanders of others (Antipater, Salome, Eurycles). Now, he is "διὰ μίσους οἰκείου" (moved by personal hatred). He has become the hunter, actively "παρατηρῶν" (observing/spying) and "πυνθανόμενος" (inquiring). When a judge becomes the lead investigator and the primary hater, the possibility of a fair trial vanishes.
Slander as a Competitive Sport
The text describes a palace culture where slandering the princes had become an "ἄθλου" (a prize or contest). This creates a toxic incentive structure: courtiers realized that the fastest way to gain Herod's favor ("σωτηρίας") was to invent a new "threat" to his life. This is the hallmark of a totalitarian environment where loyalty is proven through the destruction of others.
The "Hunt" as the Perfect Crime
The plan attributed to Alexander is chillingly plausible for the era. Hunting was the primary theater for displays of royal manhood, but also the most dangerous. The suggestion that Herod would be "ἐμπαρείη ταῖς αὐτοῦ λόγχαις" (impaled on his own spears) after a fall from a horse exploited Herod's own history of near-accidents. It was a lie built on a foundation of reality, which made it impossible for the paranoid King to dismiss.
The Fall of the Giants: Jucundus and Tyrannus
The names of the bodyguards are significant: Jucundus (Latin for "Pleasant") and Tyrannus (Greek for "Master" or "Tyrant"). That men of such "ἰσχὺν καὶ μέγεθος" (strength and stature) could be broken by torture underscores the absolute power of the King. Their "confession" only came after they had "διακαρτερήσαντες πολὺν χρόνον" (endured for a long time), a detail Josephus often uses to imply that the confession was forced and likely false.
Material Evidence: The Buried Gold
The discovery of gold "ἐν ἱππῶνι κατορωρυγμένον" (buried in the stable) provided the "physical proof" Herod craved. In the ancient world, unexplained wealth in the hands of dismissed soldiers was the universal sign of a coup in progress. By finding the money and the "royal spears," the accusers provided a material reality to the psychological fears Eurycles had planted.
The Corruption of the "Master of the Hunt"
Involving the "ἀρχικύνηγον" (master of the hunt) was the final nail in the coffin. This official controlled the King's armory and his safety during his most vulnerable moments. By suggesting that the very man responsible for Herod's weapons was arming Alexander’s servants, the conspirators ensured that Herod would never feel safe in the field again.
Josephus marks a terrifying shift in Herod’s psychology. Previously, Herod was "led" by the slanders of others (Antipater, Salome, Eurycles). Now, he is "διὰ μίσους οἰκείου" (moved by personal hatred). He has become the hunter, actively "παρατηρῶν" (observing/spying) and "πυνθανόμενος" (inquiring). When a judge becomes the lead investigator and the primary hater, the possibility of a fair trial vanishes.
Slander as a Competitive Sport
The text describes a palace culture where slandering the princes had become an "ἄθλου" (a prize or contest). This creates a toxic incentive structure: courtiers realized that the fastest way to gain Herod's favor ("σωτηρίας") was to invent a new "threat" to his life. This is the hallmark of a totalitarian environment where loyalty is proven through the destruction of others.
The "Hunt" as the Perfect Crime
The plan attributed to Alexander is chillingly plausible for the era. Hunting was the primary theater for displays of royal manhood, but also the most dangerous. The suggestion that Herod would be "ἐμπαρείη ταῖς αὐτοῦ λόγχαις" (impaled on his own spears) after a fall from a horse exploited Herod's own history of near-accidents. It was a lie built on a foundation of reality, which made it impossible for the paranoid King to dismiss.
The Fall of the Giants: Jucundus and Tyrannus
The names of the bodyguards are significant: Jucundus (Latin for "Pleasant") and Tyrannus (Greek for "Master" or "Tyrant"). That men of such "ἰσχὺν καὶ μέγεθος" (strength and stature) could be broken by torture underscores the absolute power of the King. Their "confession" only came after they had "διακαρτερήσαντες πολὺν χρόνον" (endured for a long time), a detail Josephus often uses to imply that the confession was forced and likely false.
Material Evidence: The Buried Gold
The discovery of gold "ἐν ἱππῶνι κατορωρυγμένον" (buried in the stable) provided the "physical proof" Herod craved. In the ancient world, unexplained wealth in the hands of dismissed soldiers was the universal sign of a coup in progress. By finding the money and the "royal spears," the accusers provided a material reality to the psychological fears Eurycles had planted.
The Corruption of the "Master of the Hunt"
Involving the "ἀρχικύνηγον" (master of the hunt) was the final nail in the coffin. This official controlled the King's armory and his safety during his most vulnerable moments. By suggesting that the very man responsible for Herod's weapons was arming Alexander’s servants, the conspirators ensured that Herod would never feel safe in the field again.
| 317 μετὰ τούτους ὁ φρούραρχος ἈλεξανδρείουAlexander συλληφθεὶςto seize, arrest, collect ἐβασανίζετο· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος αἰτίαν εἶχεν δέξεσθαι τῇ φρουρᾷ καὶ παρέξειν χρήματα τοῖς νεανίσκοις ὑπεσχῆσθαι τὰ κείμενα τῶν βασιλικῶν κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνο τὸ φρούριον. | 317 "After these men, the commander of the fortress of Alexandreion was seized and tortured; for he was accused of having promised to receive the young men into the garrison and to provide them with the royal funds stored in that fortress. |
| 317 After these, the commander of the garrison of Alexandrium was caught and tortured; for he was accused to have promised to receive the young men into his fortress, and to supply them with that money of the king’s which was laid up in that fortress, | 317 After this, the commander of the garrison of Alexandreion was caught and tortured, accused of promising to welcome the young men into his protection and to supply them money from the king’s treasury, deposited in that fortress. |
| 318 αὐτὸς μὲν οὖν οὐδὲν ὡμολόγησεν, υἱὸς δὲ αὐτοῦ παρελθὼν ταῦτ᾽ ἔφη γενέσθαι, καὶ γράμματα ἐπέδωκεν ὡς εἰκάσαι τῆς ἈλεξάνδρουAlexander χειρός· " τελέσαντες σὺν θεῷ εἰπεῖν ἃ προεθέμεθα πάντα ἥξομεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς· ἀλλὰ πειράθητε, καθὼς ὑπέσχησθε, | 318 He himself confessed to nothing, but his son came forward and said these things had happened, and he produced a letter supposedly in Alexander’s hand, which said: 'Having finished, with God's help, all that we proposed, we shall come to you; but try, as you promised, to receive us into the fortress.' |
| 318 yet did not he acknowledge any thing of it himself; but his son came in, and said it was so, and delivered up the writing, which, so far as could be guessed, was in Alexander’s hand. Its contents were these: "When we have finished, by God’s help, all that we have proposed to do, we will come to you; but do your endeavors, as you have promised, to receive us into your fortress." | 318 The man himself did not admit any of this, but his son came and affirmed that it was so and handed over writings which seemed to be in Alexander’s hand, which said: "When with God’s help, we complete all our plans, we will come to you; then try, as you promised, to receive us into the fortress." |
| 319 δέξασθαι ἡμᾶς τῷ φρουρίῳ. μετὰ τοῦτο τὸ γραμματεῖον ὁ μὲν ἩρώδηςHerod οὐκ ἐνδοιασίμως εἶχεν περὶ τῆς τῶν παίδων εἰς αὐτὸν ἐπιβουλῆς, ἈλέξανδροςAlexander δὲ ΔιόφαντονDiophantus ἔφη τὸν γραμματέα μιμήσασθαι τὸν τύπον καὶ δι᾽ ἈντιπάτρουAntipater κακουργηθῆναι τὸ γραμματίδιον· ὁ γάρ τοι ΔιόφαντοςDiophantus ἐδόκει τὰ τοιαῦτα δεινὸς ἐν ὑστέρῳ τε διελεγχθεὶς ἐπ᾽ ἄλλοις οὕτως ἀπέθανεν. | 319 After seeing this document, Herod no longer had any doubt about his sons' conspiracy against him. Alexander, however, claimed that Diophantus the secretary had forged the handwriting and that the letter had been wickedly planted through Antipater’s influence; for Diophantus was known to be skilled in such things, and was later convicted for other forgeries and executed. |
| 319 After this writing was produced, Herod had no doubt about the treacherous designs of his sons against him. But Alexander said that Diophantus the scribe had imitated his hand, and that the paper was maliciously drawn up by Antipater; for Diophantus appeared to be very cunning in such practices; and as he was afterward convicted of forging other papers, he was put to death for it. | 319 After this writing was produced, Herod had no doubt that his sons had plotted against him. But Alexander said that Diophantus the scribe had imitated his hand and that the document had been maliciously composed by Antipater, for Diophantus seemed skilled in such practices, and was later convicted of forging other papers, for which he was put to death. |
| 320 Τοὺς δὲ βασανισθέντας ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ εἰς τὸ πλῆθος προήγαγεν ἐν ἹεριχοῦντιJericho κατηγοροῦντας τῶν παίδων· καὶ τούτους μὲν ἐκ χειρὸς οἱ πολλοὶ βάλλοντες ἀπέκτειναν. | 320 The King then brought those who had been tortured before the multitude in Jericho to accuse the sons; and the crowd, taking matters into their own hands, pelted them with stones and killed them. |
| 320 So the king produced those that had been tortured before the multitude at Jericho, in order to have them accuse the young men, which accusers many of the people stoned to death; | 320 So the king produced before the people in Jericho the men who had been tortured, to have them accuse the young men, after which the mob stoned the accusers to death, |
| 321 ὡρμημένων δὲ καὶ τοὺς περὶ τὸν ἈλέξανδρονAlexander ὁμοίως κτεῖναι, τοῦτο μὲν ὁ βασιλεὺς παρῃτήσατο διὰ ΠτολεμαίουPtolemy καὶ ΦερώραPheroras τὸ πλῆθος ἀναστείλας, ἦν δὲ φυλακὴ καὶ τήρησις αὐτῶν καὶ προσῄει μὲν οὐδείς, πάντα δ᾽ ἐπεσκοπεῖτο τὰ γινόμενα καὶ λαλούμενα, καὶ τί γὰρ ἢ καταδίκων εἶχον ἀδοξίαν καὶ δέος. | 321 When they were about to kill Alexander and his circle in the same way, the King intervened through Ptolemy and Pheroras, restraining the crowd. But there was a close guard and watch over them, and no one was permitted to visit them; everything said or done was scrutinized. Indeed, they lived in the disgrace and fear of condemned men. |
| 321 and when they were going to kill Alexander and Aristobulus likewise, the king would not permit them to do so, but restrained the multitude, by the means of Ptolemy and Pheroras. However, the young men were put under a guard, and kept in custody, that nobody might come at them; and all that they did or said was watched, and the reproach and fear they were in was little or nothing different from those of condemned criminals: | 321 and would have likewise killed Alexander and Aristobulus, but the king would not let them, restraining the mob with the help of Ptolemy and Pheroras. Instead they were put under such close custody that no one could come to them, and everything they did or said was watched and their disgrace and fear differed little from that of men who were condemned. |
| 322 ἕτερος δ᾽ αὐτῶν ἈριστόβουλοςAristobulus ἐκ βαρυθυμίας ὑπαγόμενος καὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ τηθίδα καὶ πενθερὰν συναλγεῖν αὐτῷ ταῖς συμφοραῖς καὶ μισεῖν τὸν τοιαῦτα πειθόμενον " οὐ γάρ, ἔφη, καὶ σοὶ κίνδυνος ἀπωλείας διαβεβλημένῃ ΣυλλαίῳSyllaeus κατ᾽ ἐλπίδα | 322 One of them, Aristobulus, driven by deep dejection, drew his aunt and mother-in-law [Salome] into his grief, saying she ought to feel for his misfortunes and hate the man who believed such things. 'For,' he said, 'are you not also in danger of destruction, having been slandered for revealing all that happens here to Syllaeus in the hope of marriage?' |
| 322 and one of them, who was Aristobulus, was so deeply affected, that he brought Salome, who was his aunt, and his mother-in-law, to lament with him for his calamities, and to hate him who had suffered things to come to that pass; when he said to her, "Art thou not in danger of destruction also, while the report goes that thou hadst disclosed beforehand all our affairs to Syllcus, when thou wast in hopes of being married to him?" | 322 One of them, Aristobulus, felt so oppressed that he expected his aunt and Salome his mother-in-law to be sorry for his troubles and to hate the man who had caused all this. He asked her, "Are you not in danger too, since it is rumoured that when you were hoping to marry Syllaeus you told him all that was happening here?" |
| 323 γάμων ἅπαντα τἀνθάδε προμηνύειν; τούτους ἐκείνη ταχὺ μάλα τἀδελφῷ προσφέρει τοὺς λόγους. ὁ δ᾽ οὐκέτι κατασχὼν αὑτὸν δῆσαί τε κελεύει καὶ διαστήσαντας ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων ὅσα κακῶς ἐποίησαν ἐπὶ τῷ πατρὶ ταῦτα γραψαμένους ἀποφέρειν. | 323 She immediately carried these words to her brother [Herod]. No longer able to contain himself, he ordered them to be bound and separated from one another, and commanded them to write down and report all the evils they had plotted against their father. |
| 323 But she immediately carried these words to her brother. Upon this he was out of patience, and gave command to bind him; and enjoined them both, now they were kept separate one from the other, to write down the ill things they had done against their father, and bring the writings to him, | 323 She quickly passed on these words to her brother, which riled him so that he had him chained, and ordered both of them, separated from each other, to list the wrongs they had done to their father, for the writings to be sent to Caesar. |
| 324 οἱ δ᾽ ἐπεὶ τοῦτο προσετέτακτο αὐτοῖς, ἐγγράφουσιν ἐπιβουλὴν μὲν οὔτε νοῆσαι κατὰ τοῦ γεγεννηκότος οὔτε συσκευάσασθαι, δρασμῷ δὲ ἐπιβαλέσθαι καὶ τοῦτο δι᾽ ἀνάγκην ὑπόπτου καὶ δυσχεροῦς ὄντος αὐτοῖς τοῦ βίου. | 324 When this was commanded of them, they wrote that they had neither conceived nor prepared a conspiracy against their father, but that they had intended to flee; and this they had attempted out of necessity, because their lives had become suspicious and unbearable." |
| 324 So when this was enjoined them, they wrote this, that they had laid no treacherous designs, nor made any preparations against their father, but that they had intended to fly away; and that by the distress they were in, their lives being now uncertain and tedious to them. | 324 At this order, they wrote that they had no plot or project against their father, but had simply planned to escape, since in their predicament their life was unsafe and harsh. |
The Alexandreion: A Strategic Pivot
The Alexandreion was one of the most formidable desert fortresses in Judea. By implicating the commander there, the accusers shifted the narrative from "youthful grumbling" to "civil war." The claim that the princes sought the "βασιλικῶν" (royal funds) stored there suggested they weren't just fleeing, but were seeking the capital necessary to hire a mercenary army.
Diophantus and the Art of Forgery
Alexander’s defense introduces a fascinating detail about the Herodian court: the existence of Diophantus, a professional forger. This reveals a "shadow department" within the administration where handwriting was mimicked ("μιμήσασθαι τὸν τύπον") to frame rivals. Josephus validates Alexander’s claim by noting that Diophantus was eventually executed for this very crime, though too late to save the princes.
Mob Justice in Jericho
The scene in Jericho shows Herod’s mastery of "staged" justice. By bringing the tortured witnesses before the "πλῆθος" (the multitude), he let the populace act as his executioners. This served a dual purpose: it distanced Herod from the direct blood-guilt of the first executions and demonstrated to the princes that they had lost the "mandate of the people."
Aristobulus’s Fatal Error
While Alexander was the "man of action," Aristobulus was clearly the more emotional brother. His appeal to Salome was a desperate attempt to find an ally in the woman who was actually his chief tormentor. By bringing up her failed marriage to Syllaeus, he thought he was showing her they were in the same boat; instead, he gave her the perfect weapon to prove her loyalty to Herod by betraying her own nephew.
The "Confession" of Flight
When forced to write down their "crimes," the brothers’ admission of "δρασμῷ" (flight/escape) is telling. In a tyranny, wanting to leave is legally equivalent to treason. To Herod, "flight" meant going to Rome or Cappadocia to complain to Augustus or Archelaus—actions that would threaten his crown just as much as an assassin's blade.
The Alexandreion was one of the most formidable desert fortresses in Judea. By implicating the commander there, the accusers shifted the narrative from "youthful grumbling" to "civil war." The claim that the princes sought the "βασιλικῶν" (royal funds) stored there suggested they weren't just fleeing, but were seeking the capital necessary to hire a mercenary army.
Diophantus and the Art of Forgery
Alexander’s defense introduces a fascinating detail about the Herodian court: the existence of Diophantus, a professional forger. This reveals a "shadow department" within the administration where handwriting was mimicked ("μιμήσασθαι τὸν τύπον") to frame rivals. Josephus validates Alexander’s claim by noting that Diophantus was eventually executed for this very crime, though too late to save the princes.
Mob Justice in Jericho
The scene in Jericho shows Herod’s mastery of "staged" justice. By bringing the tortured witnesses before the "πλῆθος" (the multitude), he let the populace act as his executioners. This served a dual purpose: it distanced Herod from the direct blood-guilt of the first executions and demonstrated to the princes that they had lost the "mandate of the people."
Aristobulus’s Fatal Error
While Alexander was the "man of action," Aristobulus was clearly the more emotional brother. His appeal to Salome was a desperate attempt to find an ally in the woman who was actually his chief tormentor. By bringing up her failed marriage to Syllaeus, he thought he was showing her they were in the same boat; instead, he gave her the perfect weapon to prove her loyalty to Herod by betraying her own nephew.
The "Confession" of Flight
When forced to write down their "crimes," the brothers’ admission of "δρασμῷ" (flight/escape) is telling. In a tyranny, wanting to leave is legally equivalent to treason. To Herod, "flight" meant going to Rome or Cappadocia to complain to Augustus or Archelaus—actions that would threaten his crown just as much as an assassin's blade.
| 325 Κατὰ δὲ τὸν χρόνον ἥκοντος ἐκ ΚαππαδοκίαςCappadocia πρεσβευτοῦa messenger, envoy παρὰ ἈρχελάουArchelaus Μήλα τινός, ὃς ἦν δυνάστης τῶν ἐκείνου, βουλόμενος ἩρώδηςHerod ἐνδείξασθαι τὴν δύσνοιαν ἈρχελάουArchelaus πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐκάλει τὸν ἈλέξανδρονAlexander ὡς ἦν ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς καὶ πάλιν ἠρώτα περὶ τῆς φυγῆς, ὅπου καὶ πῶς ἐγνώκασιν ἀποχωρεῖν. | 325 "At that time, an envoy named Melas, one of the powerful men of Cappadocia, arrived from Archelaus. Herod, wishing to demonstrate Archelaus’s ill-will toward him, summoned Alexander from his chains and asked him again about the flight—where and how they had intended to depart. |
| 325 About this time there came an ambassador out of Cappadocia from Archelaus, whose name was Melas; he was one of the principal rulers under him. So Herod, being desirous to show Archelaus’s ill-will to him, called for Alexander, as he was in his bonds, and asked him again concerning his flight, whether and how they had resolved to retire. | 325 About this time an envoy named Melas came from Archelaus in Cappadocia, one of his chief men. Wanting to prove the hostility of Archelaus toward him, Herod brought Alexander to him in chains and asked him again about his flight, and how they had planned to escape. |
| 326 ὁ δὲ ἈλέξανδροςAlexander πρὸς ἈρχέλαονArchelaus ἔφη κἀκεῖθεν εἰς ῬώμηνRome ὁμολογήσαντα διαπέμψειν· ἄλλο δ᾽ οὐδὲν οὔτ᾽ ἄτοπον οὔτε δυσχερὲς ἐντεθυμῆσθαι κατὰ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐδ᾽ ὅσα συνεσκεύασται κακοηθείᾳ τῶν ἐναντίων ἀληθὲς εἶναί τι τούτων. | 326 Alexander stated they had intended to go to Archelaus, and that he had agreed to send them from there to Rome; but he insisted that he had intended nothing else improper or difficult against his father, and that none of the malicious fabrications of his adversaries were true. |
| 326 Alexander replied, To Archelaus, who had promised to send them away to Rome; but that they had no wicked nor mischievous designs against their father, and that nothing of that nature which their adversaries had charged upon them was true; | 326 Alexander replied that Archelaus had promised to send them away to Rome, but that they had no wicked plans against their father and that none of the things their opponents accused them of was true. |
| 327 βούλεσθαι δ᾽ ἂν ἔτι ζῆν καὶ τοὺς περὶ τύραννος εἰς ἐξέτασινa close exam ἀσφαλεστέραν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτους ἀπολέσθαι θᾶττον ἈντιπάτρουAntipater τῷ πλήθει τοὺς ἰδίους ἐγκαθιστάντος φίλους. | 327 He added that he wished Tyrannus and his circle were still alive for a more certain examination, but that they had been destroyed prematurely because Antipater had planted his own friends among the multitude [to kill them]. |
| 327 and that their desire was, that he might have examined Tyrannus and Jucundus more strictly, but that they had been suddenly slain by the means of Antipater, who put his own friends among the multitude [for that purpose]. | 327 They did wish that Tyrannus and his friends were alive to be examined more fully, but these had been summarily killed since Antipater had placed some of his men among the crowd. |
| 328 Τοιαῦτα λέγοντος ἐκέλευσεν ἅμα τόν τε Μήλαν καὶ τὸν ἈλέξανδρονAlexander ἄγειν ὡς ΓλαφύρανGlaphyra τὴν ἈρχελάουArchelaus καὶ πυνθάνεσθαι παρ᾽ αὐτῆς, εἰ μηδὲν ἠγνόειnot to know τῶν εἰς ἐπιβουλὴν ἩρώδουHerod γιγνομένων. | 328 When he said these things, Herod ordered both Melas and Alexander to be led to Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus, to inquire of her whether she was ignorant of anything being done regarding the plot against Herod. |
| 328 When this was said, Herod commanded that both Alexander and Melas should be carried to Glaphyra, Archelaus’s daughter, and that she should be asked, whether she did not know somewhat of Alexander’s treacherous designs against Herod? | 328 When this was said, Herod ordered that both Alexander and Melas should be brought to Archelaus' daughter Glaphyra, to inquire if she knew anything about the plot against Herod. |
| 329 ὡς δὲ ἧκον, εὐθὺς μὲν ΓλαφύραGlaphyra δεσμώτην ἰδοῦσα τὸν ἈλέξανδρονAlexander ἔπληξε τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ καταπληξαμένη μέγα καὶ συμπαθὲς ἀνῴμωξεν. ἦν δὲ καὶ τοῦ νεανίσκου δάκρυα καὶ τῶν παρόντων ὀδυνηρά τις θέα, μέχρι πλείονος οὐδὲ ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἧκον εἰπεῖν ἢ πράττειν δυναμένων. | 329 When they arrived, Glaphyra, seeing Alexander in chains, immediately beat her head and, being struck with great and sympathetic grief, cried out lamentably. There were tears from the youth as well, and the sight was a painful one for those present, who for a long time were unable to speak or act upon the reason for their coming. |
| 329 Now as soon as they were come to her, and she saw Alexander in bonds, she beat her head, and in a great consternation gave a deep and moving groan. The young man also fell into tears. This was so miserable a spectacle to those present, that, for a great while, they were not able to say or to do any thing; | 329 When they reached her and she saw Alexander in chains, she struck her head and in a panic gave a deep and pitiful groan. The young man also began to weep and for all present it was so miserable a spectacle that for a long time they were unable to say or to do anything. |
| 330 ὀψὲ δὲ τοῦ ΠτολεμαίουPtolemy, τούτῳ γὰρ ἄγειν αὐτὸν ἐπετέτακτο, φράζειν κελεύοντος εἴ τι τῶν πραττομένωνto do ἡ γυνὴ σύνοιδεν αὐτῷ, " τί δ᾽ οὐκ ἄν, ἔφη, συνέγνω τῆς ψυχῆς ἐμοὶ | 330 At length, Ptolemy, who had been ordered to lead him, commanded Alexander to say whether his wife was privy to his actions. 'How could she not be?' he said. 'She who is more beloved to me than my own soul and who shares my children?' |
| 330 but at length Ptolemy, who was ordered to bring Alexander, bid him say whether his wife was conscious of his actions. He replied, "How is it possible that she, whom I love better than my own soul, and by whom I have had children, should not know what I do?" | 330 Finally Ptolemy, who was told to bring Alexander, ordered him to say if his wife knew what he was doing. He answered, "How could she not, she whom I love better than my own soul and by whom I have had my children?" |
| 331 στεργομένη πλέον καὶ κοινωνοῦσα τέκνων; ἡ δὲ πρὸς ταῦτα μὲν ἀνεβόησεν, ὡς συνειδείη μὲν οὐδὲν ἄτοπον, εἰ δὲ φέροι πρὸς τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν ἐκείνου τὸ καὶ καθ᾽ αὑτῆς τι ψεύσασθαι, πάνθ᾽ ὁμολογεῖν. ὁ δὲ ἈλέξανδροςAlexander " ἀσεβὲς μὲν οὐδέν, εἶπεν, οὐδ᾽ ὧν ὑπονοοῦσιν οὓς ἥκιστα ἐχρῆν οὔτ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐνόησα σύ τε οὐδὲν οἶσθα, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι | 331 She cried out in response that she was privy to nothing improper; yet, if it would contribute to his safety to lie even against herself, she would confess to everything. But Alexander said, 'I have conceived nothing impious, nor do you know anything of the sort—despite the suspicions of those who least ought to have them; but you do know that we had decided to depart to Archelaus and from there to Rome.' |
| 331 Upon which she cried out that she knew of no wicked designs of his; but that yet, if her accusing herself falsely would tend to his preservation, she would confess it all. Alexander replied, "There is no such wickedness as those (who ought the least of all so to do) suspect, which either I have imagined, or thou knowest of, but this only, that we had resolved to retire to Archelaus, and from thence to Rome." | 331 At this she cried out that she knew of no scheming of his, but that if by accusing herself falsely she could help to save him, she would confess anything at all. Alexander answered, "I have neither committed nor thought of the unholy crimes suspected by those who least of all ought to do so, except that we had resolved to go back to Archelaus and from there to Rome." |
| 332 παρ᾽ ἈρχέλαονArchelaus ἀποχωρεῖν ἐγνώκειμεν κἀκεῖθεν εἰς ῬώμηνRome. ταῦτ᾽ ἐκείνης ὁμολογούσης ὁ μὲν ἩρώδηςHerod ἈρχέλαονArchelaus ἐξεληλέγχθαι τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν δυσνοίας ὑπολαβὼν δίδωσιν Ὀλύμπῳ καὶ Οὐολομνίῳ γράμματα κελεύσας ἐν παράπλῳ μὲν Ἐλαιούσῃ τῆς ΚιλικίαςCilicia προσσχόντας ἈρχελάῳArchelaus τε περὶ τούτων ἀποδοῦναι καὶ μεμψαμένους ὅτι τῆς ἐπιβουλῆς ἐφάψαιτο τοῖς παισὶν ἐκεῖθεν εἰς ῬώμηνRome πλεῖν. | 332 As she confessed to this, Herod—supposing that Archelaus’s ill-will toward him had been proven—gave letters to Olympus and Volumnius. He ordered them to touch at Elaeussa in Cilicia during their voyage, to deliver the letters to Archelaus, and to reproach him for taking part in the sons' plot; from there, they were to sail to Rome. |
| 332 Which she also confessed. Upon which Herod, supposing that Archelaus’s ill-will to him was fully proved, sent a letter by Olympus and Volumnius; and bid them, as they sailed by, to touch at Eleusa of Cilicia, and give Archelaus the letter. And that when they had ex-postulated with him, that he had a hand in his son’s treacherous design against him, they should from thence sail to Rome; | 332 When she also confessed this, Herod reckoned that Archelaus' hostility to him was fully proven and handed a letter to Olympus and Volumnius, with instructions to call at Eleusa in Cilicia as they sailed past and deliver it to Archelaus, and only after accusing him of being party to his son’s plot against him should they sail on from there to Rome. |
| 333 κἂν εὕρωσιν ἀνύσαντά τι Νικόλαον, ὡς μηκέτ᾽ αὐτῷ δυσχεραίνειν ΚαίσαραCaesar, διδόναι τὰς ἐπιστολὰς καὶ τοὺς ἐλέγχους τοὺς κατὰ τῶν νεανίσκων συνεσκευασμένως ἐπέστειλεν. | 333 He also instructed them that if they found Nicolaus had achieved anything so that Caesar was no longer angry with him, they should then deliver the letters and the manufactured proofs against the young men. |
| 333 and that, in case they found Nicolaus had gained any ground, and that Caesar was no longer displeased at him, he should give him his letters, and the proofs which he had ready to show against the young men. | 333 If they found that Nicolaus had made any headway and that Caesar was no longer displeased with him, they should hand over the letters and the proofs he had ready against the young men. |
| 334 ἈρχέλαοςArchelaus μὲν οὖν ἀπελογεῖτο δέξασθαι μὲν τοὺς νεανίσκους ὁμολογήσας διὰ τὸ συμφέρειν αὐτοῖς τε ἐκείνοις καὶ τῷ πατρὶ μὴ χαλεπώτερόν τι προστεθῆναι κατ᾽ ὀργὴν ὧν ὑπόπτως ἔχοντες ἐστασίαζον· οὐ μὴν καὶ πρὸς ΚαίσαραCaesar πέμψειν οὐδ᾽ ἄλλο τι κατὰ δύσνοιαν τὴν πρὸς ἐκεῖνον ὁμολογῆσαι τοῖς νεανίσκοις. | 334 Archelaus, for his part, offered a defense: he admitted he had agreed to receive the young men because it was beneficial both for them and for their father—to prevent any harsher consequence from arising out of the anger with which they were revolting due to their suspicions. However, he denied that he had agreed to send them to Caesar or that he had promised anything else to the young men out of ill-will toward Herod." |
| 334 As to Archelaus, he made his defense for himself, that he had promised to receive the young men, because it was both for their own and their father’s advantage so to do, lest some too severe procedure should be gone upon in that anger and disorder they were in on occasion of the present suspicions; but that still he had not promised to send them to Caesar; and that he had not promised any thing else to the young men that could show any ill-will to him. | 334 But Archelaus said in his own defence that he had promised to welcome the young men, as this would benefit both them and their father, to keep them from doing anything rash in their anger arising from his suspicions. He had not, however, promised to send them to Caesar, nor promised the young men anything else, to cause any ill-will against him. |
The Manipulation of Glaphyra
The confrontation between the chained Alexander and his wife Glaphyra is a masterclass in psychological cruelty. Herod’s intent was to force a confession, but he instead provoked a display of absolute marital loyalty. Glaphyra’s offer to "καθʼ αὑτῆς τι ψεύσασθαι" (lie even against herself) if it would save him shows that in this fractured court, love was the only thing that hadn't been corrupted—though it was ultimately powerless.
The "Flight" vs. "The Plot"
Note the semantic gap between Herod and Alexander. To Herod, "φυγῆς" (flight) was synonymous with treason. To Alexander and Archelaus, it was a safety valve. Archelaus’s defense is strategically sound: he argued that by offering the boys a place to stay, he was actually protecting Herod from having to kill his sons in a fit of rage. He frames his "conspiracy" as an act of family counseling.
Antipater’s "Mob" Control
Alexander reveals a critical detail about the Jericho executions: Antipater didn't just let the crowd get angry; he "ἐγκαθιστάντος" (planted) his own friends in the mob to ensure the witnesses were killed before they could recant their tortured testimonies. This confirms that the "popular uprising" against the princes was a managed event.
The Stop at Elaeussa
Elaeussa (or Sebaste) was an island city off the coast of Cilicia that Archelaus had received as a gift from Augustus. Herod’s choice to have his envoys stop there to "reproach" Archelaus shows that he felt strong enough—provided he regained Caesar's favor—to bully a fellow client king.
Nicolaus: The Gatekeeper of Evidence
Herod’s instructions to Olympus and Volumnius are telling. He tells them not to deliver the "proofs" against his sons unless Nicolaus has first succeeded in softening Augustus. This proves that Herod knew the "evidence" was weak; he didn't want to risk presenting a flawed case to a hostile Emperor. He needed the relationship repaired before he asked for permission to commit filicide.
The Archelaus Defense
Archelaus plays a very careful game. He admits to the "lesser crime" (offering sanctuary) to deny the "greater crime" (sending them to Caesar to complain). He essentially tells Herod: "I was trying to help you manage your difficult children." It is a diplomatic way of calling Herod a bad father while claiming to be a good friend.
The confrontation between the chained Alexander and his wife Glaphyra is a masterclass in psychological cruelty. Herod’s intent was to force a confession, but he instead provoked a display of absolute marital loyalty. Glaphyra’s offer to "καθʼ αὑτῆς τι ψεύσασθαι" (lie even against herself) if it would save him shows that in this fractured court, love was the only thing that hadn't been corrupted—though it was ultimately powerless.
The "Flight" vs. "The Plot"
Note the semantic gap between Herod and Alexander. To Herod, "φυγῆς" (flight) was synonymous with treason. To Alexander and Archelaus, it was a safety valve. Archelaus’s defense is strategically sound: he argued that by offering the boys a place to stay, he was actually protecting Herod from having to kill his sons in a fit of rage. He frames his "conspiracy" as an act of family counseling.
Antipater’s "Mob" Control
Alexander reveals a critical detail about the Jericho executions: Antipater didn't just let the crowd get angry; he "ἐγκαθιστάντος" (planted) his own friends in the mob to ensure the witnesses were killed before they could recant their tortured testimonies. This confirms that the "popular uprising" against the princes was a managed event.
The Stop at Elaeussa
Elaeussa (or Sebaste) was an island city off the coast of Cilicia that Archelaus had received as a gift from Augustus. Herod’s choice to have his envoys stop there to "reproach" Archelaus shows that he felt strong enough—provided he regained Caesar's favor—to bully a fellow client king.
Nicolaus: The Gatekeeper of Evidence
Herod’s instructions to Olympus and Volumnius are telling. He tells them not to deliver the "proofs" against his sons unless Nicolaus has first succeeded in softening Augustus. This proves that Herod knew the "evidence" was weak; he didn't want to risk presenting a flawed case to a hostile Emperor. He needed the relationship repaired before he asked for permission to commit filicide.
The Archelaus Defense
Archelaus plays a very careful game. He admits to the "lesser crime" (offering sanctuary) to deny the "greater crime" (sending them to Caesar to complain). He essentially tells Herod: "I was trying to help you manage your difficult children." It is a diplomatic way of calling Herod a bad father while claiming to be a good friend.
| 335 Εἰς δὲ τὴν ῬώμηνRome ἀποκομισθέντες ἔσχον καιρὸν ἐπιδοῦναι τὰ γράμματα τῷ ΚαίσαραCaesar διηλλαγμένον εὑρεῖν ἩρώδῃHerod· τὰ γὰρ περὶ τὴν ΝικολάουNicolaus πρεσβείαν ἀπέβη τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον· | 335 "When the envoys [Olympus and Volumnius] were brought to Rome, they found an opportunity to deliver their letters at a time when Caesar had been reconciled to Herod. For the matter of Nicolaus’s embassy had turned out in this way: |
| 335 When these ambassadors were come to Rome, they had a fit opportunity of delivering their letters to Caesar, because they found him reconciled to Herod; for the circumstances of Nicolaus’s embassage had been as follows: | 335 When these envoys arrived in Rome, they had a chance to deliver their letters to Caesar, as they found him reconciled to Herod, for Nicolaus' mission had gone as follows. |
| 336 ὡς ἀνῆλθεν εἰς τὴν ῬώμηνRome καὶ περὶ τὴν αὐλὴν ἐγένετο, πρῶτον μὲν οὐκ ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐληλύθει μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ΣυλλαίουSyllaeus κατηγορεῖν ἠξίου, καὶ δῆλοι πρὸ τῆς ἐντυχίας ἦσαν ἀλλήλους πολεμοῦντες. | 336 When he arrived in Rome and attended the court, he sought not only to fulfill his mission but also to accuse Syllaeus; and even before their audience, it was clear they were at war with each other. |
| 336 As soon as he was come to Rome, and was about the court, he did not first of all set about what he was come for only, but he thought fit also to accuse Sylleus. | 336 When he came to Rome and was in the court circles, he did not at first go directly about his mandate, but he thought fit also to accuse Syllaeus, for even before he met with them, the Arabs were quarrelling with each other. |
| 337 οἱ δὲ ἌραβεςArabs ὑπονοήσαντες ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ ΝικολάῳNicolaus προσελθόντες τὰς ἀδικίας ἁπάσας ἐμήνυον καὶ τῶν Ὀβόδου ὡς διαφθαρέντων πάντων ἐμφανῆ τεκμήρια παρέχοντες, ἦν γὰρ καὶ τῶν γραμμάτων αὐτοῦ ὃ κατὰ τὴν ἀπόστασινa revolt ὑφῃρημένοι διὰ τούτων ἤλεγχον. | 337 The Arabs, suspecting Syllaeus, approached Nicolaus and reported all his injustices, providing clear evidence that Obodas and all his circle had been destroyed; for they had intercepted one of Syllaeus's letters during his absence, by which they proved these things. |
| 337 Now the Arabians, even before he came to talk with them, were quarrelling one with another; and some of them left Sylleus’s party, and joining themselves to Nicolaus, informed him of all the wicked things that had been done; and produced to him evident demonstrations of the slaughter of a great number of Obodas’s friends by Sylleus; for when these men left Sylleus, they had carried off with them those letters whereby they could convict him. | 337 Some of them changed sides and joined Nicolaus, telling him of all the evil that had been done, and making clear to him that many of Obodas' friends had been slaughtered, for when these men left Syllaeus, they took with them letters by which they could convict him. |
| 338 ὁ δὲ ΝικόλαοςNicolaus εὐτυχίαν τινὰ ταύτην ὁρῶν αὐτῷ προσγεγενημένην δι᾽ αὐτῆς ἐπραγματεύετο τὸ μέλλον, ἐπείγων εἰς διαλλαγὰς ἐλθεῖν ἩρώδῃHerod ΚαίσαραCaesar· σαφῶς γὰρ ἠπίστατο βουλομένῳ μὲν ἀπολογεῖσθαι περὶ ὧν ἔπραξεν οὐκ ἔσεσθαι παρρησίαν, ἐθέλοντι δὲ κατηγορεῖν ΣυλλαίουSyllaeus γενήσεσθαι καιρὸν ὑπὲρ ἩρώδουHerod λέγειν. | 338 Nicolaus, seeing this stroke of luck had fallen to him, used it to manage the future, urging Caesar to be reconciled with Herod. For he knew clearly that if he wished to offer a defense for Herod's actions, he would have no freedom of speech (parrhēsia); but if he chose to accuse Syllaeus, an opportunity would arise to speak on Herod's behalf. |
| 338 When Nicolaus saw such an opportunity afforded him, he made use of it, in order to gain his own point afterward, and endeavored immediately to make a reconciliation between Caesar and Herod; for he was fully satisfied, that if he should desire to make a defense for Herod directly, he should not be allowed that liberty; but that if he desired to accuse Sylleus, there would an occasion present itself of speaking on Herod’s behalf. | 338 Nicolaus saw this as a chance to be later used to his advantage, and immediately tried to reconcile Caesar to Herod, knowing that if he tried to defend the king directly he would not be allowed to do so, but that if he asked to bring a charge against Syllaeus, he would get the chance to speak on behalf of Herod. |
| 339 συνεστώτων οὖν ἐπ᾽ ἀλλήλους καὶ δοθείσης ἡμέρας ὁ ΝικόλαοςNicolaus παρόντων αὐτῷ τῶν ἈρέταAretas πρέσβεων τά τε ἄλλα κατηγόρει τοῦ ΣυλλαίουSyllaeus, τήν τε τοῦ βασιλέως ἀπώλειαν λέγων καὶ πολλῶν ἈράβωνArabian, | 339 Therefore, when they stood against one another and a day was appointed, Nicolaus—with the envoys of Aretas present—accused Syllaeus of many things, speaking of the destruction of the King [Obodas] and of many Arabs. |
| 339 So when the cause was ready for a hearing, and the day was appointed, Nicolaus, while Aretas’s ambassadors were present, accused Sylleus, and said that he imputed to him the destruction of the king [Obodas], and of many others of the Arabians; | 339 When the two sides agreed and the day was appointed, Nicolaus indicted Syllaeus in the presence of the envoys from Aretas, accusing him of the death of the king and of many other Arabs, |
| 340 χρήματά τε ὡς εἴη δεδανεισμένος ἐπ᾽ οὐδὲν ὑγιές, καὶ μοιχείας ἐξελέγχων οὐ τῶν ἐν ἈραβίᾳArabia μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἐν ῬώμῃRome γυναικῶν· προσετίθει δὲ τὸ μέγιστον, ὡς ἐξαπατήσειεν ΚαίσαραCaesar μηδὲν ἀληθὲς διδάξας ὑπὲρ τῶν ἩρώδῃHerod πεπραγμένων. | 340 He showed that Syllaeus had borrowed money for no honest purpose and proved him guilty of adultery, not only with women in Arabia but even with those in Rome. He added the greatest charge: that he had deceived Caesar by teaching him nothing true regarding Herod’s deeds. |
| 340 that he had borrowed money for no good design; and he proved that he had been guilty of adultery, not only with the Arabian, but Reinan women also. And he added, that above all the rest he had alienated Caesar from Herod, and that all that he had said about the actions of Herod were falsities. | 340 of borrowing money for no good motive, and of committing adultery, not only with Arabian women, but also with Romans. He added that above all else he had alienated Caesar from Herod and had given a falsified account of his actions. |
| 341 ὡς δ᾽ ἧκεν ἐπὶ τοῦτον τὸν τόπον, ὁ μὲν ΚαῖσαρCaesar ἐξεῖργεν αὐτὸν τοῦτο μόνον ἀξιῶν ὑπὲρ ἩρώδουHerod λέγειν, εἰ μὴ στρατιὰν ἤγαγεν εἰς ἈραβίανArabia μηδὲ δισχιλίους πεντακοσίους ἀποκτείνειεν τῶν ἐκεῖ μηδ᾽ αἰχμαλώτους λάβοι τὴν χώραν διαρπάσας. | 341 When he reached this point, Caesar cut him short, demanding he speak only on Herod's behalf: whether he had not led an army into Arabia, killed two thousand five hundred men there, taken captives, and plundered the country. |
| 341 When Nicolaus was come to this topic, Caesar stopped him from going on, and desired him only to speak to this affair of Herod, and to show that he had not led an army into Arabia, nor slain two thousand five hundred men there, nor taken prisoners, nor pillaged the country. | 341 When Nicolaus raised this topic, Caesar stopped him and asked him to speak specifically on this matter about Herod and to prove that he had not led an army into Arabia, or killed two thousand five hundred men there, or taken prisoners, or pillaged the country. |
| 342 πρὸς ταῦτα ὁ ΝικόλαοςNicolaus ὑπὲρ τούτων ἔφη καὶ μάλιστα διδάξειν, ὅτι μηδὲν ἢ τὰ πλεῖστά γε αὐτῶν οὐ γέγονεν, ὡς σὺ ἀκήκοας καὶ δίκαιον ἦν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς χαλεπώτερον φέρειν. | 342 To this, Nicolaus replied that he would demonstrate precisely concerning these matters that either they had not happened at all, or at least the majority of what Caesar had heard was false, and that it was right for Caesar to have been moved to such harshness by such reports. |
| 342 To which Nicolaus made this answer: "I shall principally demonstrate, that either nothing at all, or but a very little, of those imputations are true, of which thou hast been informed; for had they been true, thou mightest justly have been still more angry at Herod." | 342 To this Nicolaus replied, "I shall clearly show that either nothing or very little of what was told to you really happened, for if they had, you could in fairness have been still more angry with Herod." |
| 343 πρὸς δὲ τὸ παράδοξον ΚαίσαροςCaesar ἐνδόντος αὑτὸν ἀκροατήν, τὸ δάνειον εἰπὼν τῶν πεντακοσίων ταλάντων καὶ τὴν συγγραφήν, ἐν ᾗ καὶ τοῦτο ἦν προσγεγραμμένον ἐξεῖναι τῆς προθεσμίας παρελθούσης ῥύσια λαμβάνειν ἐξ ἁπάσης τῆς χώρας, τὴν μὲν στρατείαν οὐ στρατείαν ἔλεγεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ δικαίαν τῶν ἰδίων ἀπαίτησιν χρημάτων· | 343 When Caesar, struck by the paradox of this claim, gave himself as a listener, Nicolaus spoke of the loan of five hundred talents and the contract, in which it was written that once the deadline had passed, Herod was permitted to take "pledges" (rhysia) from the entire country. He argued that the expedition was not a war, but a legal demand for his own money. |
| 343 At this strange assertion Caesar was very attentive; and Nicolaus said that there was a debt due to Herod of five hundred talents, and a bond, wherein it was written, that if the time appointed be lapsed, it should be lawful to make a seizure out of any part of his country. "As for the pretended army," he said, "it was no army, but a party sent out to require the just payment of the money; | 343 This strange assertion made Caesar very attentive, and Nicolaus said that a debt of five hundred talents was owed to Herod and a bond in which it was written that if the time appointed should expire, he was entitled to recover the loan from any part of the country. "The so-called army," he said, "was no army, but an attempt to demand the just payment of the money. |
| 344 καὶ μηδὲ ταύτην ταχὺ μηδ᾽ ὡς ἐπέτρεπον αἱ συγγραφαί, πολλάκις μὲν ἐπὶ ΣατορνῖνονSaturninus ἐλθόντα καὶ Οὐολόμνιον τοὺς τῆς ΣυρίαςSyria ἡγεμόνας, τελευταῖον δὲ ἐν ΒηρυτῷBerytus τούτων ἐναντίον ΣυλλαίουSyllaeus τὴν σὴν τύχην ἐπομόσαντος, ἦ μὴν ἐντὸς ἡμερῶν τριάκοντα παρέξειν τὰ χρήματα καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς ἩρώδουHerod πεφευγότας. | 344 He added that this was not done hastily nor even as the contracts allowed, but only after going many times to Saturninus and Volumnius, the governors of Syria; and finally, in Berytus, in their presence, Syllaeus had sworn by 'Your Fortune' [Augustus] that within thirty days he would provide the money and return the fugitives from Herod’s realm. |
| 344 that this was not sent immediately, nor so soon as the bond allowed, but that Sylleus had frequently come before Saturninus and Volumnius, the presidents of Syria; and that at last he had sworn at Berytus, by thy fortune, that he would certainly pay the money within thirty days, and deliver up the fugitives that were under his dominion. | 344 Neither had this demand been sent immediately, or as soon as the bond allowed, for Syllaeus had often come before the governors of Syria, Saturninus and Volumnius, and finally he had sworn at Berytus, by your fortune, to certainly pay the money within thirty days and hand over the fugitives from Herod’s dominion who had taken refuge with him. |
| 345 ὧν οὐδὲν ποιήσαντος ΣυλλαίουSyllaeus πάλιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἡγεμόνας ἐλθεῖν ἩρώδηνHerōd κἀκείνων ἐφέντων αὐτῷ λαμβάνειν τὰ ῥύσια μόγις οὕτως ἐξελθεῖν σὺν τοῖς περὶ αὐτόν. | 345 When Syllaeus did none of these things, Herod went again to the governors, and only when they permitted him to take the pledges did he finally go out with those around him. |
| 345 And that when Sylleus had performed nothing of this, Herod came again before the presidents; and upon their permission to make a seizure for his money, he, with difficulty, went out of his country with a party of soldiers for that purpose. | 345 But when Syllaeus had fulfilled none of this, Herod came again before the governors and with their permission reluctantly left his country with some soldiers to recover his money. |
| 346 ὁ μὲν δὴ πόλεμος, ὡς οὗτοι τραγῳδοῦντες ἔλεγον, καὶ τὰ τῆς ἐπιστρατείας τοιαῦτα. καίτοι πῶς ἂν εἴη πόλεμος, ἐπιτρεψάντων μὲν τῶν σῶν ἡγεμόνων, δεδωκυίας δὲ τῆς συνθήκης, ἠσεβημένου δὲ μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν καὶ τοῦ σοῦ, ΚαῖσαρCaesar, ὀνόματος; | 346 'This, then,' [Nicolaus said], 'is the "war" and the "invasion" that these men have turned into a tragedy! Yet how could it be a war when your governors permitted it, the contract granted it, and your own name, Caesar—along with the other gods—was profaned by Syllaeus's broken oath?' |
| 346 And this is all the war which these men so tragically describe; and this is the affair of the expedition into Arabia. And how can this be called a war, when thy presidents permitted it, the covenants allowed it, and it was not executed till thy name, O Caesar, as well as that of the other gods, had been profaned? | 346 This was the 'war' and expedition so tragically described by these men. But how can it be called a war, when it was permitted by your governors, allowed by the agreement, and not begun until your name, O Caesar, as well as that of the other gods, had been profaned? |
| 347 τὰ δὲ περὶ τοὺς αἰχμαλώτους ἑξῆς ἤδη λεκτέον. λῃσταὶ τῶν τὸν ΤράχωναTrachonitis κατοικούντων τετταράκοντα τὸ πρῶτον εἶτ᾽ αὖθις πλείονες τὰς ἩρώδουHerod κολάσεις διαφεύγοντες ὁρμητήριον ἐποιήσαντο τὴν ἈραβίανArabia. τούτους ὑπεδέξατο Σύλλαιος ἐπὶ πάντας ἀνθρώπους τρέφων καὶ χώραν ἔδωκε νέμεσθαι καὶ τὰ κέρδη τῶν λῃστῶν αὐτὸς ἐλάμβανεν. | 347 'Next, I must speak regarding the captives. First forty, then more, of the brigands dwelling in Trachonitis fled Herod’s punishments and made Arabia their base. Syllaeus received them, feeding them in defiance of all men, gave them land to graze, and took the profits of their robbery for himself. |
| 347 And now I must speak in order about the captives. There were robbers that dwelt in Trachonitis; at first their number was no more than forty, but they became more afterwards, and they escaped the punishment Herod would have inflicted on them, by making Arabia their refuge. Sylleus received them, and supported them with food, that they might be mischievous to all mankind, and gave them a country to inhabit, and himself received the gains they made by robbery; | 347 At this point I must explain about the prisoners. There were brigands who lived in Trachonitis; at first was no more than forty in number though they became more numerous later and they escaped from Herod’s punishment by taking refuge in Arabia. Syllaeus received them and let them become a scourge to all mankind by giving them food and a place to live; and he shared in the profits of their robbery. |
| 348 ὡμολόγησε δὲ καὶ τούτους ἐπὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὅρκοις ἀποδώσειν κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν τοῦ δανείου προθεσμίαν. Καὶ δύναιτ᾽ ἂν οὐκ ἐπιδεῖξαι κατὰ τὸ παρὸν οὔτ᾽ ἄλλον τινὰ τῆς ἈράβωνArabian χώρας ἢ τούτους ἐξῃρημένους οὔτε πάντας, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσοι μὴ λαθεῖν ἴσχυσαν. | 348 He agreed under the same oaths to return these men at the same time as the loan. He cannot show at this moment that anyone from the land of the Arabs was taken away except these men—and not even all of them, but only those who could not remain hidden.' |
| 348 yet did he promise that he would deliver up these men, and that by the same oaths and same time that he sware and fixed for payment of his debt: nor can he by any means show that any other persons have at this time been taken out of Arabia besides these, and indeed not all these neither, but only so many as could not conceal themselves. | 348 Then he promised to hand over these men with the same oaths and at same time as he solemnly swore to repay his debt. But he cannot at all prove that apart from these any others have at this time been removed from Arabia, and not even all of these, but only those who could not hide themselves. |
| 349 οὕτως οὖν καὶ τοῦ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας ἐπιφθόνου συκοφαντήματος πεφηνότος μέγιστον, ὦ ΚαῖσαρCaesar, κατάμαθε πλάσμα καὶ ψεῦσμα πρὸς τὴν σὴν ὀργὴν αὐτῷ ποιηθέν. | 349 'Thus, Caesar, having shown this envious slander regarding the "captivity" for what it is, learn the greatest fiction and lie created to provoke your anger. |
| 349 And thus does the calumny of the captives, which hath been so odiously represented, appear to be no better than a fiction and a lie, made on purpose to provoke thy indignation; | 349 The vile allegation of the prisoners seems to be just a fiction told in order to provoke your anger. |
| 350 Φημὶ γὰρ ἐπελθούσης ἡμῖν τῆς τῶν ἈράβωνArabian δυνάμεως καὶ τῶν περὶ ἩρώδηνHerōd πεσόντος ἑνὸς καὶ δευτέρου, τότε μόλις ἀμυνομένου Νάκεβον τὸν στρατηγὸν αὐτῶν καὶ περὶ πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι τοὺς πάντας ὧν ἕκαστον αὐτὸς εἰς ἑκατὸν ἀναφέρων δισχιλίους καὶ πεντακοσίους τοὺς ἀπολωλότας ἔλεγεν." | 350 For I say that when the Arabian force attacked us, and one or two of Herod’s men had fallen, only then did he barely defend himself, killing their general, Nacebus, and about twenty-five men in total—each of whom Syllaeus reported as a hundred, claiming to you that two thousand five hundred had perished!'" |
| 350 for I venture to affirm that when the forces of the Arabians came upon us, and one or two of Herod’s party fell, he then only defended himself, and there fell Nacebus their general, and in all about twenty-five others, and no more; whence Sylleus, by multiplying every single soldier to a hundred, he reckons the slain to have been two thousand five hundred." | 350 I dare say that when the forces of the Arabs attacked us and one or two of Herod’s party fell, only then did he defend himself, and only Nacebus their general and about twenty-five others in all, died. And so, if Syllaeus reckons those who were killed at two thousand five hundred it is by multiplying every single soldier to a hundred." |
The Strategy of "Accusation as Defense"
Nicolaus’s tactical genius lies in his understanding of Augustus's psychology. He realized that a direct defense of Herod's "illegal" invasion would be met with a closed door ("οὐκ ἔσεσθαι παρρησίαν"). By focusing on Syllaeus's crimes—adultery, the murder of King Obodas, and financial fraud—he framed the dispute not as "Herod vs. Rome," but as "Civilization vs. a Criminal." This shift allowed him to sneak the defense of Herod in through the "back door" of a counter-accusation.
The Legalism of "Rhysia" (Pledges)
Nicolaus uses the technical language of international law. He reframes a military invasion as the execution of a debt contract ("ἀπαίτησιν χρημάτων"). By focusing on the "συγγραφήν" (written contract), he appeals to the Roman obsession with the sanctity of contracts (pacta sunt servanda). If Syllaeus signed a paper allowing Herod to take "pledges" (cattle or property) upon default, then Herod was merely acting as a bailiff, not a general.
Profaning the "Fortune of Caesar"
In the ancient world, swearing by a ruler's "τύχην" (Fortune/Genius) was a serious matter. By pointing out that Syllaeus broke an oath made in Caesar's name, Nicolaus transformed a local property dispute into an act of "ἠσεβημένου" (impiety) against Augustus himself. This was a "checkmate" move: to side with Syllaeus was to ignore a personal insult to the Emperor's own divinity.
The Trachonitis Brigands
The mention of Trachonitis reminds Augustus of Herod’s primary value to Rome: he was the "policeman" of the frontier. By showing that Syllaeus was harboring the very brigands Herod was supposed to suppress, Nicolaus proved that Syllaeus was undermining Roman security interests in the East.
Statistics as Slander
The final blow is the numerical discrepancy. Syllaeus reported 2,500 deaths; Nicolaus claims it was only 25 ("περὶ πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι"). In the age of ancient communications, "inflating the numbers" was a common way to provoke an imperial reaction. Nicolaus uses this math to paint Syllaeus as a "πλάσμα καὶ ψεῦσμα" (fiction and lie) personified.
Nicolaus’s tactical genius lies in his understanding of Augustus's psychology. He realized that a direct defense of Herod's "illegal" invasion would be met with a closed door ("οὐκ ἔσεσθαι παρρησίαν"). By focusing on Syllaeus's crimes—adultery, the murder of King Obodas, and financial fraud—he framed the dispute not as "Herod vs. Rome," but as "Civilization vs. a Criminal." This shift allowed him to sneak the defense of Herod in through the "back door" of a counter-accusation.
The Legalism of "Rhysia" (Pledges)
Nicolaus uses the technical language of international law. He reframes a military invasion as the execution of a debt contract ("ἀπαίτησιν χρημάτων"). By focusing on the "συγγραφήν" (written contract), he appeals to the Roman obsession with the sanctity of contracts (pacta sunt servanda). If Syllaeus signed a paper allowing Herod to take "pledges" (cattle or property) upon default, then Herod was merely acting as a bailiff, not a general.
Profaning the "Fortune of Caesar"
In the ancient world, swearing by a ruler's "τύχην" (Fortune/Genius) was a serious matter. By pointing out that Syllaeus broke an oath made in Caesar's name, Nicolaus transformed a local property dispute into an act of "ἠσεβημένου" (impiety) against Augustus himself. This was a "checkmate" move: to side with Syllaeus was to ignore a personal insult to the Emperor's own divinity.
The Trachonitis Brigands
The mention of Trachonitis reminds Augustus of Herod’s primary value to Rome: he was the "policeman" of the frontier. By showing that Syllaeus was harboring the very brigands Herod was supposed to suppress, Nicolaus proved that Syllaeus was undermining Roman security interests in the East.
Statistics as Slander
The final blow is the numerical discrepancy. Syllaeus reported 2,500 deaths; Nicolaus claims it was only 25 ("περὶ πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι"). In the age of ancient communications, "inflating the numbers" was a common way to provoke an imperial reaction. Nicolaus uses this math to paint Syllaeus as a "πλάσμα καὶ ψεῦσμα" (fiction and lie) personified.
| 351 Ταῦτα μᾶλλον ἐκίνει τὸν ΚαίσαραCaesar καὶ πρὸς τὸν Σύλλαιον ἐπιστραφεὶς ὀργῆς μεστὸς ἀνέκρινεν, ὁπόσοιhow great, how much τεθνήκασιν ἈράβωνArabian. ἀπορουμένου δ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ πεπλανῆσθαι λέγοντος αἵ τε συνθῆκαι τῶν δανείων ἀνεγινώσκοντο καὶ τὰ τῶν ἡγεμόνων γράμματα πόλεις τε ὅσαιall who, as much τὰ λῃστήρια κατῃτιῶντο, | 351 "These matters moved Caesar even more; and turning toward Syllaeus, filled with rage, he demanded to know how many Arabs had died. When Syllaeus was at a loss and claimed he had been mistaken, the contracts of the loans were read aloud, as were the letters of the governors and the reports of the cities that had complained about the brigandage. |
| 351 This provoked Caesar more than ever. So he turned to Sylleus full of rage, and asked him how many of the Arabians were slain. Hereupon he hesitated, and said he had been imposed upon. The covenants also were read about the money he had borrowed, and the letters of the presidents of Syria, and the complaints of the several cities, so many as had been injured by the robbers. | 351 More than ever provoked by this, Caesar turned angrily to Syllaeus and asked him how many of the Arabs were killed, but he hesitated and said he had been mistaken. The deeds about the money he had borrowed were also read, and the letters of the officers of Syria and the complaints of the various cities that had been harmed by the brigands. |
| 352 καὶ πέρας εἰς τοῦτο μετέστη ΚαῖσαρCaesar, ὡς τοῦ μὲν ΣυλλαίουSyllaeus καταγνῶναι θάνατον, ἩρώδῃHerod δὲ διαλλάττεσθαι μετάνοιαν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐκ διαβολῆς πικρότερον ἔγραψεν αὐτῷ πεπονθώς, καί τι τοιοῦτον εἰπεῖν εἰς τὸν Σύλλαιον, ὡς ἀναγκάσειεν αὐτὸν ψευδεῖ λόγῳ πρὸς ἄνδρα φίλον ἀγνωμονῆσαι. | 352 Finally, Caesar reached this conclusion: he condemned Syllaeus to death and reconciled with Herod, expressing regret for the harsh things he had written to him based on slanders; he said something to the effect that Syllaeus had forced him, by means of a false account, to act unfairly toward a man who was his friend. |
| 352 The conclusion was this, that Sylleus was condemned to die, and that Caesar was reconciled to Herod, and owned his repentance for what severe things he had written to him, occasioned by calumny, insomuch that he told Sylleus, that he had compelled him, by his lying account of things, to be guilty of ingratitude against a man that was his friend. | 352 The upshot was that Syllaeus was condemned to die and that Caesar was reconciled to Herod and expressed regret for the severe way he had written to him, on account of the allegation, and he told Syllaeus that by his false version of things he had made him guilty of ingratitude toward a man who was his friend. |
| 353 τὸ δὲ σύμπαν ὁ μὲν Σύλλαιος ἀνεπέμπετο τὰς δίκας καὶ τὰ χρέα τοῖς δεδανεικόσιν ἀποδώσων εἶθ᾽ οὕτω κολασθησόμενος. ἈρέτᾳAretas δ᾽ οὐκ εὐμενὴς ἦν ΚαῖσαρCaesar, ὅτι τὴν ἀρχὴν μὴ δι᾽ ἐκείνου καθ᾽ αὑτὸν δὲ ἔλαβεν. ἐγνώκει δὲ καὶ τὴν ἈραβίανArabia ἩρώδῃHerod διδόναι, διεκώλυσεν δὲ τὰ παρ᾽ ἐκείνου πεμφθέντα γράμματα. | 353 In short, Syllaeus was sent back to settle his legal cases and pay his debts to those who had lent him money, after which he was to be executed. However, Caesar was not well-disposed toward Aretas, because he had taken the rule for himself rather than receiving it through him. Indeed, Caesar had intended to give Arabia to Herod, but the letters sent from Herod’s camp prevented this. |
| 353 At the last all came to this, Sylleus was sent away to answer Herod’s suit, and to repay the debt that he owed, and after that to be punished [with death]. But still Caesar was offended with Aretas, that he had taken upon himself the government, without his consent first obtained, for he had determined to bestow Arabia upon Herod; but that the letters he had sent hindered him from so doing; | 353 The final result was that Syllaeus was sent off to answer Herod’s charge and to repay the debt he owed and then to be executed. But Caesar was still offended with Aretas for taking power without first obtaining his consent, for he had decided to bestow Arabia upon Herod, except that the letters he had sent stopped him from doing so. |
| 354 τοῖς γὰρ περὶ τὸν ὌλυμπονOlympus καὶ Οὐολόμνιον εὐμενῆ ΚαίσαραCaesar πυνθανομένοις εὐθὺς ἔδοξεν ἐξ ἐντολῆς ἩρώδουHerod τὰ περὶ τῶν παίδων γράμματα καὶ τοὺς ἐλέγχους ἀναδιδόναι. | 354 For when Olympus and Volumnius learned that Caesar was well-disposed, they immediately decided, according to Herod’s instructions, to deliver the letters and the proofs concerning the sons. |
| 354 for Olympus and Volumnius, perceiving that Caesar was now become favorable to Herod, thought fit immediately to deliver him the letters they were commanded by Herod to give him concerning his sons. | 354 The reason was that Olympus and Volumnius, noting how favourable Caesar had become to Herod, had immediately decided to give him the letters Herod had ordered them to deliver about his sons. |
| 355 ΚαῖσαρCaesar δὲ ἀναγνοὺς τὸ μὲν ἀρχὴν ἄλλην προσθεῖναι γέροντι καὶ κακῶς πράττοντι τὰ περὶ τοὺς παῖδας οὐκ ᾠήθη καλῶς ἔχειν, δεξάμενος δὲ τοὺς παρὰ ἈρέταAretas καὶ τοῦτο μόνον ἐπιτιμήσας, ὡς προπετείᾳreckless attitude χρήσαιτο τῷ μὴ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὴν βασιλείαν ἀναμεῖναι λαβεῖν, τά τε δῶρα προσήκατο καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐβεβαίωσεν. | 355 Caesar, having read them, did not think it right to add another kingdom to an old man who was faring so poorly regarding his own children. Therefore, he received the envoys from Aretas, and having rebuked him only for his haste in not waiting to receive the kingship from him, he accepted the gifts and confirmed his rule." |
| 355 When Caesar had read them, he thought it would not be proper to add another government to him, now he was old, and in an ill state with relation to his sons, so he admitted Aretas’s ambassadors; and after he had just reproved him for his rashness, in not tarrying till he received the kingdom from him, he accepted of his presents, and confirmed him in his government. | 355 When Caesar had read them, he thought it would not be right to give him another kingdom, now he was old and in a bad relationship with his sons, so he admitted Aretas' envoys, and after only reproaching him for his rashness in not waiting to receive the kingdom from him, he accepted his gifts and confirmed him in office. |
The "Paper Trail" Victory
Nicolaus of Damascus won this case not with flowery metaphors, but with "τὰ γράμματα" (the documents). By reading the actual loan contracts and the official reports from Syrian cities, he proved that Herod wasn't an invader, but a debt collector authorized by Roman governors. This moved Augustus from a state of moral outrage to one of "μετάνοιαν" (regret/change of mind).
Syllaeus: The Debt Before the Death
The Roman sense of justice is perfectly encapsulated in Syllaeus's sentence. Augustus didn't just execute him immediately; he sent him back to pay his debts first ("τὰ χρέα... ἀποδώσων"). To the Romans, the sanctity of a contract was almost as holy as the life of a citizen. Syllaeus had to balance the books before he could pay the ultimate penalty.
The Crown Herod Almost Wore
This is one of the great "What Ifs" of history. Augustus actually intended to annex Nabataean Arabia to Herod’s kingdom ("τὴν Ἀραβίαν Ἡρώδῃ διδόναι"). Had this happened, Herod would have ruled a massive, unified territory stretching from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. The only thing that stopped Herod from becoming a "Super-King" was his own domestic tragedy.
The "Old Man" Clause
Augustus’s reasoning for not giving Arabia to Herod is deeply psychological. He looked at the evidence against Alexander and Aristobulus and concluded that Herod was "γέροντι καὶ κακῶς πράττοντι" (an old man faring badly). Caesar realized that a man who could not govern his own house was in no position to govern a second, rebellious kingdom. The tragedy of the sons effectively cost Herod the greatest territorial expansion of his life.
Aretas IV: The Accidental Survivor
Aretas IV kept his crown purely by default. He had committed the cardinal sin of "Haste" ("προπετείᾳ")—taking power without a Roman permit. He only survived politically because Herod’s family life was such a disaster that Augustus decided a "hasty" Aretas was a safer bet than an "unstable" Herod.
The Deadly Timing of Olympus and Volumnius
Herod’s envoys followed their instructions to a fault. They waited until Augustus was "happy" to hand him the "proofs" against the sons. This timing was fatal. If they had waited longer, or if Augustus had remained angry, the princes might have been spared. Instead, the reconciliation with Caesar became the death warrant for the princes; once Herod was "back in favor," Augustus granted him the authority to proceed with a trial.
Nicolaus of Damascus won this case not with flowery metaphors, but with "τὰ γράμματα" (the documents). By reading the actual loan contracts and the official reports from Syrian cities, he proved that Herod wasn't an invader, but a debt collector authorized by Roman governors. This moved Augustus from a state of moral outrage to one of "μετάνοιαν" (regret/change of mind).
Syllaeus: The Debt Before the Death
The Roman sense of justice is perfectly encapsulated in Syllaeus's sentence. Augustus didn't just execute him immediately; he sent him back to pay his debts first ("τὰ χρέα... ἀποδώσων"). To the Romans, the sanctity of a contract was almost as holy as the life of a citizen. Syllaeus had to balance the books before he could pay the ultimate penalty.
The Crown Herod Almost Wore
This is one of the great "What Ifs" of history. Augustus actually intended to annex Nabataean Arabia to Herod’s kingdom ("τὴν Ἀραβίαν Ἡρώδῃ διδόναι"). Had this happened, Herod would have ruled a massive, unified territory stretching from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. The only thing that stopped Herod from becoming a "Super-King" was his own domestic tragedy.
The "Old Man" Clause
Augustus’s reasoning for not giving Arabia to Herod is deeply psychological. He looked at the evidence against Alexander and Aristobulus and concluded that Herod was "γέροντι καὶ κακῶς πράττοντι" (an old man faring badly). Caesar realized that a man who could not govern his own house was in no position to govern a second, rebellious kingdom. The tragedy of the sons effectively cost Herod the greatest territorial expansion of his life.
Aretas IV: The Accidental Survivor
Aretas IV kept his crown purely by default. He had committed the cardinal sin of "Haste" ("προπετείᾳ")—taking power without a Roman permit. He only survived politically because Herod’s family life was such a disaster that Augustus decided a "hasty" Aretas was a safer bet than an "unstable" Herod.
The Deadly Timing of Olympus and Volumnius
Herod’s envoys followed their instructions to a fault. They waited until Augustus was "happy" to hand him the "proofs" against the sons. This timing was fatal. If they had waited longer, or if Augustus had remained angry, the princes might have been spared. Instead, the reconciliation with Caesar became the death warrant for the princes; once Herod was "back in favor," Augustus granted him the authority to proceed with a trial.
Chapter 11
[356-404]
Trial and execution of Herod’s sons, Aristobulus and Alexander
[356-404]
Trial and execution of Herod’s sons, Aristobulus and Alexander
| 356 ἩρώδῃHerod δὲ γράφει διηλλαγμένος ἐπί τε τοῖς παισὶν ἄχθεσθαι λέγων καὶ δέον, εἰ μὲν ἀνοσιώτερόν τι τετολμήκασιν, ἐπεξιέναι πατραλόας ὄντας· αὐτῷ γὰρ ἐφεῖναι ταύτην τὴν ἐξουσίαν· εἰ δὲ δρασμὸν ἐνόησαν, ἄλλως νουθετήσαντα μηδὲν ἀνήκεστον διαπράττεσθαι. | 356 "Having been reconciled, Caesar wrote to Herod, saying that he was grieved for the sons and that it was necessary, if they had dared any impious act, to proceed against them as parricides; for he granted him this authority. However, if they had only contemplated flight, he advised him to admonish them and not to perpetrate anything incurable. |
| 356 So Caesar was now reconciled to Herod, and wrote thus to him: That he was grieved for him on account of his sons; and that in case they had been guilty of any profane and insolent crimes against him, it would behoove him to punish them as parricides, for which he gave him power accordingly; but if they had only contrived to fly away, he would have him give them an admonition, and not proceed to extremity with them. | 356 He wrote conciliatingly to Herod saying he was sorry about his sons, and that if they dared to be impious to him, he should punish them as patricides, and was empowered to do so; but if they had only planned to escape, he should warn them but not go to extremes. |
| 357 συμβουλεύειν δὲ ἔχειν αὐτῷ συνέδριον ἀποδείξαντα περὶ ΒηρυτόνBerytus, ἐν ᾗ κατοικοῦσιν ῬωμαῖοιRomans, καὶ παραλαβόντα τούς τε ἡγεμόνας καὶ τὸν βασιλέα τῶν ΚαππαδόκωνCappadocia ἈρχέλαονArchelaus ὅσους τε τῶν ἄλλων οἴεται φιλίᾳ τε καὶ ἀξιώματι ἐπιφανεῖςto display μετὰ τῆς ἐκείνων γνώμης ὅ τι χρὴ διαλαμβάνειν. | 357 He advised him to hold a council, appointing it at Berytus [Beirut], where Romans dwell, and to take as assessors the governors, Archelaus the King of the Cappadocia, and whoever else among the others he thought prominent for their friendship and dignity, and to determine with their opinion what ought to be done. |
| 357 He also advised him to get an assembly together, and to appoint some place near Berytus, which is a city belonging to the Romans, and to take the presidents of Syria, and Archelaus king of Cappadocia, and as many more as he thought to be illustrious for their friendship to him, and the dignities they were in, and determine what should be done by their approbation. | 357 He advised him to call a meeting near Berytus, a city belonging to the Romans, and bring the officers of Syria and Archelaus king of Cappadocia and as many others as he wished, either special friends of his or people of eminence, and with their approval decide what to do. These were Caesar’s directions. |
| 358 ΚαῖσαρCaesar μὲν τοιαῦτα ἐπέστελλεν. ὁ δὲ ἩρώδηςHerod τῶν γραμμάτων ὡς αὐτὸν ἀπενεχθέντων περιχαρὴς μὲν εὐθὺς ἐπὶ ταῖς διαλλαγαῖς ἐγεγόνει, περιχαρὴς δὲ καὶ τῷ πάντ᾽ ἐξεῖναι κατὰ τῶν παίδων αὐτῷ. | 358 Caesar sent these instructions. But Herod, as soon as the letter was delivered to him, became overjoyed—overjoyed at the reconciliation, but also overjoyed because everything regarding his sons was now permitted to him. |
| 358 These were the directions that Caesar gave him. Accordingly Herod, when the letter was brought to him, was immediately very glad of Caesar’s reconciliation to him, and very glad also that he had a complete authority given him over his sons. | 358 When the letter was brought to him, Herod was immediately pleased with the reconciliation and glad also to be given complete authority over his sons. |
| 359 καί πως τὸ μὲν οὐκ εὖ πράττειν ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ χαλεπὸν μὲν ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε θρασὺν οὔτε προπετῆ πρὸς τὴν ἀπώλειαν τῶν τέκνων παρεῖχεν αὐτόν, ἐν δὲ τῷ τότε μεταβολῆς ἀμείνονος καὶ παρρησίας ἐπιλαβόμενος τὸ μῖσος ἐκενοδόξει τὴν ἐξουσίαν. | 359 And somehow, his lack of success in the previous period, though difficult, had made him neither bold nor headlong toward the destruction of his children; but at that time, having obtained a change for the better and the freedom to speak, his hatred made a vain display of his authority. |
| 359 And it strangely came about, that whereas before, in his adversity, though he had indeed showed himself severe, yet had he not been very rash nor hasty in procuring the destruction of his sons; he now, in his prosperity, took advantage of this change for the better, and the freedom he now had, to exercise his hatred against them after an unheard-of manner; | 359 Oddly, whereas when things were not going well he had shown himself severe, but had been neither rash nor hasty in seeking to kill his sons, now that he was prospering he availed of this improvement and his present freedom to vent his hatred of them in an unheard-of manner. |
| 360 διέπεμπεν οὖν ὅσους ἐδόκει καλεῖν εἰς τὸ συνέδριον ἈρχελάουArchelaus χωρίς· ἐκεῖνον δὲ δι᾽ ἔχθος οὐκ ἠξίου παρατυγχάνειν ἢ καὶ τῇ προαιρέσει νομίζων ἐμποδὼν ἔσεσθαι. | 360 He sent out summons, therefore, to as many as he thought fit to call to the council, with the exception of Archelaus; for because of his enmity, he did not think it right for him to be present, or perhaps he believed Archelaus would be an obstacle to his predetermined purpose." |
| 360 he therefore sent and called as many as he thought fit to this assembly, excepting Archelaus; for as for him, he either hated him, so that he would not invite him, or he thought he would be an obstacle to his designs. | 360 He sent for as many as he wanted to this assembly, except Archelaus, either because he hated him too much to invite him or thought he would oppose his plans. |
The Augustus "Trap"
Augustus’s advice was intended as a Roman check on Herodian temper. By suggesting Berytus (a Roman colony) and the presence of Archelaus (the boys' grandfather), Augustus was surrounding Herod with "moderators." He gave Herod the "ἐξουσίαν" (authority) to kill them for parricide, but explicitly warned against "ἀνήκεστον" (anything incurable/irreparable) if it was merely a matter of flight. Augustus provided a way out; Herod chose to see it as a way in.
The Perversion of "Joy"
Josephus uses the word "περιχαρὴς" (overjoyed) twice to describe Herod's reaction. It is a haunting juxtaposition: Herod is equally happy to be Caesar's friend again and to have the legal right to kill his children. This confirms the historian's earlier observation that Herod's "lust for power" had entirely overcome his "nature" as a father.
"Parrhēsia" and the Return of Hatred
The term "παρρησίας" (freedom of speech/boldness) returns here. While Herod was in Augustus's "doghouse," his fear of Rome kept his homicidal urges in check. Paradoxically, the Pax Romana (Roman Peace) was the only thing keeping the princes alive. The moment Herod felt secure in his relationship with the Emperor, his hatred "ἐκενοδόξει" (made a vain or arrogant display). His political security became his sons' physical insecurity.
The Exclusion of Archelaus
Herod’s refusal to invite Archelaus of Cappadocia is a clear admission of guilt. Archelaus had previously reconciled the family, and as the father of Glaphyra, he had a vested interest in the princes' survival. By excluding him from the "συνέδριον" (council), Herod signaled that he wasn't looking for a fair trial or a "determination of what ought to be done," but for a rubber-stamped execution.
Berytus: A Roman Stage
Choosing Berytus (modern Beirut) was strategic. As a Roman colonia, it represented the highest authority of the West in the East. Herod wanted the trial to look like an official Roman proceeding to insulate himself from the inevitable backlash in Judea. He wanted to be able to say, "The Romans agreed with me."
Augustus’s advice was intended as a Roman check on Herodian temper. By suggesting Berytus (a Roman colony) and the presence of Archelaus (the boys' grandfather), Augustus was surrounding Herod with "moderators." He gave Herod the "ἐξουσίαν" (authority) to kill them for parricide, but explicitly warned against "ἀνήκεστον" (anything incurable/irreparable) if it was merely a matter of flight. Augustus provided a way out; Herod chose to see it as a way in.
The Perversion of "Joy"
Josephus uses the word "περιχαρὴς" (overjoyed) twice to describe Herod's reaction. It is a haunting juxtaposition: Herod is equally happy to be Caesar's friend again and to have the legal right to kill his children. This confirms the historian's earlier observation that Herod's "lust for power" had entirely overcome his "nature" as a father.
"Parrhēsia" and the Return of Hatred
The term "παρρησίας" (freedom of speech/boldness) returns here. While Herod was in Augustus's "doghouse," his fear of Rome kept his homicidal urges in check. Paradoxically, the Pax Romana (Roman Peace) was the only thing keeping the princes alive. The moment Herod felt secure in his relationship with the Emperor, his hatred "ἐκενοδόξει" (made a vain or arrogant display). His political security became his sons' physical insecurity.
The Exclusion of Archelaus
Herod’s refusal to invite Archelaus of Cappadocia is a clear admission of guilt. Archelaus had previously reconciled the family, and as the father of Glaphyra, he had a vested interest in the princes' survival. By excluding him from the "συνέδριον" (council), Herod signaled that he wasn't looking for a fair trial or a "determination of what ought to be done," but for a rubber-stamped execution.
Berytus: A Roman Stage
Choosing Berytus (modern Beirut) was strategic. As a Roman colonia, it represented the highest authority of the West in the East. Herod wanted the trial to look like an official Roman proceeding to insulate himself from the inevitable backlash in Judea. He wanted to be able to say, "The Romans agreed with me."
| 361 Γενομένων δὲ ἐν ΒηρυτῷBerytus τῶν ἡγεμόνων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὅσους τῶν πόλεων ἐκάλεσεν, τοὺς μὲν παῖδας, οὐ γὰρ ἠξίου παράγειν εἰς τὸ συνέδριον, ἐν κώμῃ τινὶ ΣιδωνίωνSidonians εἶχεν Παλαεστῶ καλουμένῃ πλησίον τῆς πόλεως, ὡς ἔχειν εἰ κληθεῖεν παραστῆσαι. | 361 "When the governors and the others whom Herod had summoned from the cities arrived at Berytus, he did not think it right to bring the sons before the council. Instead, he kept them in a certain village of the Sidonians called Palaesto, near the city, so that he might produce them if they were called. |
| 361 When the presidents, and the rest that belonged to the cities, were come to Berytus, he kept his sons in a certain village belonging to Sidon, called Platana, but near to the city, that if they were called, he might produce them, | 361 When the officers and the others he had called from the cities came to Berytus, since he did not want to present his sons before the assembly he kept them in a village of Sidon, called Palesto, near enough to this city to be able to bring them if they were called for. |
| 362 μόνος δὲ καὶ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν εἰσελθὼν ἑκατὸν καὶ πεντήκοντα συγκαθημένων ἀνδρῶν κατηγόρει κατηγορίαν οὐκ ὀδυνηρὰν ὡς πρὸς ἀνάγκην ὧν ἠτύχει, πλεῖστον δὲ ἀπεοικυῖαν ᾗ πατὴρ ἐπὶ παισὶν εἴποι· | 362 He entered alone before the hundred and fifty men who were seated together and began his accusation—an accusation not delivered with the pain of a man compelled by misfortune, but one entirely unlike what a father would say of his sons. |
| 362 for he did not think fit to bring them before the assembly: and when there were one hundred and fifty assessors present, Herod came by himself alone, and accused his sons, and that in such a way as if it were not a melancholy accusation, and not made but out of necessity, and upon the misfortunes he was under; indeed, in such a way as was very indecent for a father to accuse his sons, | 362 He came alone before the hundred and fifty assessors and accused his sons as though he regretted accusing them and did so under compulsion, a strange way for a father to speak of his sons. |
| 363 βίαιος γὰρ ἦν καὶ περὶ τὴν ἀπόδειξιν τῆς αἰτίας ἐτετάρακτο καὶ μέγιστα θυμοῦ καὶ ἀγριότητος ἐνεδίδου σημεῖα, τούς τε ἐλέγχους οὐκ ἐκείνοις ἐπιτρέπων καταμαθεῖν, ἀλλὰ συνηγορίαν αὐτοῖς προτιθεὶς πατρὶ κατὰ παίδων ἀσχήμονα, καὶ τὰ γραφέντα δι᾽ αὐτῶν ἐκείνων ἀναγινώσκων, ἐν οἷς ἐπιβουλὴ μὲν ἤ τις ἐπίνοια δυσσεβείας οὐκ ἐγέγραπτο, μόνον δὲ ὡς φυγεῖν βουλεύοιντο καὶ λοιδορίαι τινὲς εἰς αὐτὸν ὀνείδη περιέχουσαι διὰ τὴν δύσνοιαν. | 363 For he was violent, and in the demonstration of his charge, he was in a state of turmoil, giving the greatest signs of rage and ferocity. He did not permit the assessors to examine the proofs for themselves, but instead presented an unseemly advocacy against his own children. He read aloud the documents written by the sons themselves, in which no plot or intention of impiety had been written, but only that they had intended to flee, along with certain reproaches containing insults against him due to their ill-will. |
| 363 for he was very vehement and disordered when he came to the demonstration of the crime they were accused of, and gave the greatest signs of passion and barbarity: nor would he suffer the assessors to consider of the weight of the evidence, but asserted them to be true by his own authority, after a manner most indecent in a father against his sons, and read himself what they themselves had written, wherein there was no confession of any plots or contrivances against him, but only how they had contrived to fly away, and containing withal certain reproaches against him, on account of the ill-will he bare them; | 363 He was vehement and incoherent about the proof of their crime and gave signs of extreme rage and savagery, not letting the assessors consider the weight of the evidence, but asserting it as true by his own authority, an ugly way for a father to treat his sons. He read out what they had written, even where no mention was made of plots or plans against him, only of their wish to escape, but containing some insults about him arising from ill-will. |
| 364 ἐφ᾽ αἷς ἐκεῖνος ὡς ἐγένετο μᾶλλόν τε ἐξεβόα καὶ τὸ περιὸν εἰς ὁμολογίαν τῆς ἐπιβουλῆς δι᾽ ἐκείνων ηὔξανεν ἐπομνύμενος, ὡς ἥδιον ἂν στέροιτο τοῦ ζῆν ἢ τοιούτων ἀκούειν λόγων. | 364 At these points, Herod cried out even louder, and he magnified the remaining evidence into a confession of a conspiracy by swearing that he would rather be deprived of life than hear such words. |
| 364 and when he came to those reproaches, he cried out most of all, and exaggerated what they said, as if they had confessed the design against him, and took his oath that he had rather lose his life than hear such reproachful words. | 364 He shouted loudest about these insults, exaggerating them into the confession of a plot, and swore that he would rather lose his life than listen to such words. |
| 365 τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον εἰπών, ὅτι καὶ τῇ φύσει καὶ τῇ ΚαίσαροςCaesar δόσει τὴν ἐξουσίαν αὐτὸς ἔχοι, προσέθηκεν αὐτῷ καὶ πάτριον νόμον κελεύειν, εἴ του κατηγορήσαντες οἱ γονεῖς ἐπιθοῖεν τῇ κεφαλῇ τὰς χεῖρας, ἐπάναγκες εἶναι τοῖς περιεστῶσιν βάλλειν καὶ τοῦτον ἀποκτείνειν τὸν τρόπον. | 365 Finally, having stated that both by nature and by Caesar’s grant he held the authority himself, he added that his ancestral law commanded that if parents, after making an accusation, should lay their hands upon the head [of a child], it was mandatory for those standing around to pelt him and kill him in that manner. |
| 365 At last he said that he had sufficient authority, both by nature and by Caesar’s grant to him, [to do what he thought fit]. He also added an allegation of a law of their country, which enjoined this: That if parents laid their hands on the head of him that was accused, the standersby were obliged to cast stones at him, and thereby to slay him; | 365 Finally he said that himself he had the authority, both from nature and by Caesar’s grant and mentioned an ancestral law that if parents laid their hands on the head of the accused, the bystanders were obliged to stone him and kill him. |
| 366 ὅπερ ἕτοιμοςprepared ὢν αὐτὸς ἐν τῇ πατρίδι καὶ τῇ βασιλείᾳ ποιεῖν ὅμως ἀναμεῖναι τὴν ἐκείνων κρίσιν, ἥκειν μέντοι δικαστὰς μὲν οὐχ οὕτως ἐπὶ φανεροῖς οἷς ἐκ τῶν παίδων ὀλίγου πάθοι, συνοργισθῆναι δὲ καιρὸν ἔχοντας, ὡς οὐδενὶ καὶ τῶν πόρρω γεγονότων ἀμελῆσαι τοιαύτης ἐπιβουλῆς ἄξιον. | 366 He said that although he was ready to do this himself in his own country and kingdom, he nevertheless awaited their judgment; yet he claimed they had come as judges not because the facts of what he had nearly suffered from his sons were in doubt, but because they had an opportunity to share in his indignation, since it was not fitting for anyone—even those far removed—to neglect such a conspiracy." |
| 366 which though he were ready to do in his own country and kingdom, yet did he wait for their determination; and yet they came thither not so much as judges, to condemn them for such manifest designs against him, whereby he had almost perished by his sons' means, but as persons that had an opportunity of showing their detestation of such practices, and declaring how unworthy a thing it must be in any, even the most remote, to pass over such treacherous designs [without punishment]. | 366 Although prepared to do this in his own country and kingdom, he still would abide by their decision, for they were there not so much as judges, to condemn them for such blatant plots, by which his sons had almost killed him, but as men who had the chance to share his anger at such actions and declare how unworthy it is for anyone, however distant, to turn a blind eye on such treachery. |
The Physical Isolation of the Accused
Herod kept his sons in Palaesto, a village outside the city. This was a calculated move to prevent them from speaking. Alexander and Aristobulus were famously handsome and eloquent; Herod knew that if the 150 Roman and Greek assessors actually saw the young men or heard their defense, the "indignation" he was trying to manufacture might turn into pity.
Rhetorical "Ferocity" vs. Paternal Grief
Josephus highlights the lack of "ὀδυνηρὰν" (pain/grief) in Herod's speech. In a Roman or Greek court, a father prosecuting a son was expected to show extreme reluctance and sorrow. Herod’s "ἀγριότητος" (ferocity/wildness) broke the social contract of the Pater Familias. He wasn't a grieving father seeking justice; he was a tyrant seeking a "legal" kill.
The Distortion of the "Evidence"
Herod’s handling of the letters is a masterclass in gaslighting. He read letters that explicitly mentioned only "φυγεῖν" (flight), yet he shouted ("ἐξεβόα") and swore oaths to convince the judges that "flight" was actually a "confession of conspiracy" ("ὁμολογίαν τῆς ἐπιβουλῆς"). He used his own volume and status to bridge the gap between the actual words and his paranoid interpretation.
The Weaponization of the "Ancestral Law"
Herod refers to the "πάτριον νόμον" (ancestral law), likely a reference to Deuteronomy 21:18–21, which details the procedure for a "stubborn and rebellious son."
"Judges" as "Co-Mourners"
Herod’s final argument is the most honest part of his speech. He tells them they are not there as "δικαστὰς" (judges) to determine the facts—since he claims the facts are "obvious"—but to "συνοργισθῆναι" (be angry along with him). He is demanding a show of political solidarity, not a verdict. He is telling the 150 most powerful men in the region: "If you do not vote for death, you are neglecting a conspiracy against a Friend of Caesar."
The 150 Assessors
The size of the council (150 men) was massive. By involving so many prominent men from various cities, Herod ensured that the blood-guilt was shared. If the execution was a crime, it was a crime committed by the entire Roman administration of the East.
Herod kept his sons in Palaesto, a village outside the city. This was a calculated move to prevent them from speaking. Alexander and Aristobulus were famously handsome and eloquent; Herod knew that if the 150 Roman and Greek assessors actually saw the young men or heard their defense, the "indignation" he was trying to manufacture might turn into pity.
Rhetorical "Ferocity" vs. Paternal Grief
Josephus highlights the lack of "ὀδυνηρὰν" (pain/grief) in Herod's speech. In a Roman or Greek court, a father prosecuting a son was expected to show extreme reluctance and sorrow. Herod’s "ἀγριότητος" (ferocity/wildness) broke the social contract of the Pater Familias. He wasn't a grieving father seeking justice; he was a tyrant seeking a "legal" kill.
The Distortion of the "Evidence"
Herod’s handling of the letters is a masterclass in gaslighting. He read letters that explicitly mentioned only "φυγεῖν" (flight), yet he shouted ("ἐξεβόα") and swore oaths to convince the judges that "flight" was actually a "confession of conspiracy" ("ὁμολογίαν τῆς ἐπιβουλῆς"). He used his own volume and status to bridge the gap between the actual words and his paranoid interpretation.
The Weaponization of the "Ancestral Law"
Herod refers to the "πάτριον νόμον" (ancestral law), likely a reference to Deuteronomy 21:18–21, which details the procedure for a "stubborn and rebellious son."
1) The Law: Parents bring the son to the elders, and if found guilty, the community stones him.
2) Herod’s Twist: He claims that the mere act of parents laying hands on the head makes the execution "ἐπάναγκες" (mandatory). He was using a selective, archaic interpretation of Jewish Law to intimidate a council of mostly Roman and Greek judges.
"Judges" as "Co-Mourners"
Herod’s final argument is the most honest part of his speech. He tells them they are not there as "δικαστὰς" (judges) to determine the facts—since he claims the facts are "obvious"—but to "συνοργισθῆναι" (be angry along with him). He is demanding a show of political solidarity, not a verdict. He is telling the 150 most powerful men in the region: "If you do not vote for death, you are neglecting a conspiracy against a Friend of Caesar."
The 150 Assessors
The size of the council (150 men) was massive. By involving so many prominent men from various cities, Herod ensured that the blood-guilt was shared. If the execution was a crime, it was a crime committed by the entire Roman administration of the East.
| 367 Ταῦτα τοῦ βασιλέως εἰπόντος καὶ τῶν νεανίσκων οὐδὲ ἕως ἀπολογίας παρηγμένων συμφρονήσαντες οἱ κατὰ τὸ συνέδριον, ὡς ἐπιεικείας καὶ διαλλαγῶν χεῖρον ἔχοι, τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἐβεβαίουν αὐτῷ. | 367 "When the King had spoken these things and the young men had not even been produced for a defense, the members of the council, perceiving that matters had gone beyond the point of clemency or reconciliation, confirmed his authority. |
| 367 When the king had said this, and the young men had not been produced to make any defense for themselves, the assessors perceived there was no room for equity and reconciliation, so they confirmed his authority. | 367 When the king said this and the young men were not brought in to defend themselves, the assessors saw no hope for fair play or for reconciliation, so they affirmed his authority. |
| 368 καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ΣατορνῖνοςSaturninus ἀνὴρ ὑπατικὸς καὶ τῶν ἐπ᾽ ἀξιώματος ἀπεφήνατο γνώμην ἀηδεστάτῃ περιστάσει χρώμενος· ἔφη γὰρ καταδικάζειν μὲν τῶν ἩρώδουHerod παίδων, κτείνειν δ᾽ οὐκ οἴεσθαι δικαιοῦν αὐτὸς παῖδας ἔχων καὶ τοῦ πάθους μείζονος ὄντος, εἰ καὶ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοὺς δεδυστύχηκεν. | 368 And first, Saturninus, a man of consular rank and high dignity, delivered his opinion, though he found himself in a most unpleasant situation; for he said that he condemned the conduct of Herod’s sons, but he did not think it right to kill them, as he himself had children and the suffering would be too great, even if Herod had endured every misfortune because of them. |
| 368 And in the first place, Saturninus, a person that had been consul, and one of great dignity, pronounced his sentence, but with great moderation and trouble; and said that he condemned Herod’s sons, but did not think they should be put to death. He had sons of his own, and to put one’s son to death is a greater misfortune than any other that could befall him by their means. | 368 Saturninus, who had been consul and was a man of great dignity, first pronounced his verdict, very carefully, in the circumstances. He said that he found Herod’s sons guilty, but did not think they should be put to death. He had sons of his own and to execute one’s own son would be the greatest harm they could cause him. |
| 369 μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνον οἱ ΣατορνίνουSaturninus παῖδες, εἵποντο γὰρ αὐτῷ πρεσβευταὶ τρεῖς ὄντες, τὴν αὐτὴν γνώμην ἀπεφήναντοto display, show forth, Οὐολόμνιος δὲ ἄντικρυς ἔφη κολάζειν θανάτῳ τοὺς οὕτως ἀσεβήσαντας εἰς τὸν πατέρα. τὰ δ᾽ αὐτὰ καὶ τῶν ἑξῆς οἱ πλείους, ὥστε καὶ μηκέτι ἄλλο τι δοκεῖν ἢ καταδεδικάσθαι τὴν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ τοὺς νεανίσκους. | 369 After him, the sons of Saturninus—for there were three of them serving as his legates—delivered the same opinion. But Volumnius spoke out directly, saying that those who had been so impious toward their father ought to be punished with death. Most of those who followed said the same, so that it seemed there was no other verdict than that the young men had been condemned to die. |
| 369 After him Saturninus’s sons, for he had three sons that followed him, and were his legates, pronounced the same sentence with their father. On the contrary, Volumnius’s sentence was to inflict death on such as had been so impiously undutiful to their father; and the greatest part of the rest said the same, insomuch that the conclusion seemed to be, that the young men were condemned to die. | 369 After him Saturninus' sons, for three of them had come with him as legates, expressed the same view. On the contrary, Volumnius voted the death penalty on those who had been so ignobly disloyal to their father, and most of the others said the same, so that in conclusion it seemed the young men were condemned to die. |
| 370 κἀκεῖθεν μὲν εὐθὺς ἩρώδηςHerod ἧκεν ἄγων αὐτοὺς εἰς ΤύρονTyre, καὶ τοῦ τε ΝικολάουNicolaus πλεύσαντος ὡς αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς ῬώμηςRome ἐπυνθάνετο προδιηγησάμενος τὰ ἐν ΒηρυτῷBerytus, ἥντιν᾽ ἔχοιεν γνώμην περὶ τῶν παίδων αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἐν ῬώμῃRome αὐτοῦ φίλοι, | 370 From there, Herod immediately brought them to Tyre. When Nicolaus had sailed to him from Rome, Herod recounted the proceedings at Berytus and asked what opinion his friends in Rome held concerning his sons. |
| 370 Immediately after this Herod came away from thence, and took his sons to Tyre, where Nicolaus met him in his voyage from Rome; of whom he inquired, after he had related to him what had passed at Berytus, what his sentiments were about his sons, and what his friends at Rome thought of that matter. | 370 Immediately Herod left and took his sons to Tyre, where Nicolaus met him on his voyage from Rome. After telling him what had happened at Berytus, he asked what he felt about the matter of his sons and what his friends in Rome thought of it. |
| 371 κἀκεῖνος εἶπεν, ὅτι δοκεῖ μὲν ἀσεβῆ εἶναι τὰ ἐκείνοις περὶ σὲ ἐγνωσμένα, χρῆναι μέντοι αὐτοὺς καθείρξαντα δεσμώτας φυλάττειν, | 371 Nicolaus replied: 'It seems that what they devised against you was indeed impious; nevertheless, you ought to keep them in prison as bound captives. |
| 371 His answer was, "That what they had determined to do to thee was impious, and that thou oughtest to keep them in prison; | 371 He answered, "What they wanted to do to you was foul and you ought to keep them in prison. |
| 372 καὶ εἰ μὲν ἑτέρως σοι δοκοίη κολάζειν αὐτούς, μὴ φαίνοιο ὀργῇ τὸ πλεῖον ἢ γνώμῃ κεχρῆσθαι, εἰ δὲ τἀναντία ἀπολύειν, μὴ ἀνεπανόρθωτον εἴη σοι τὸ ἀτύχημα. ταῦτα δοκεῖ καὶ ἐν ῬώμηRome τοῖς πλείστοις τῶν σῶν φίλων. Καὶ ὃς σιωπήσας ἐν πολλῇ ἐγένετο συννοίᾳ κἀκεῖνον ἐκέλευσεν συμπλεῖν αὐτῷ. | 372 And if it should seem best to you to punish them in some other way, let it not appear that you have acted more out of rage than out of judgment; but if you should decide otherwise and release them, let the misfortune not be beyond remedy for you.' He added, 'This is also the opinion of most of your friends in Rome.' Upon hearing this, Herod remained silent, falling into deep reflection, and he commanded Nicolaus to sail with him." |
| 372 and if thou thinkest any thing further necessary, thou mayest indeed so punish them, that thou mayest not appear to indulge thy anger more than to govern thyself by judgment; but if thou inclinest to the milder side, thou mayest absolve them, lest perhaps thy misfortunes be rendered incurable; and this is the opinion of the greatest part of thy friends at Rome also." Whereupon Herod was silent, and in great thoughtfulness, and bid Nicolaus sail along with him. | 372 If you think anything more is required, you should punish them in such a way that you do not seem to be yielding to anger instead of being guided by judgment. If you are inclined to clemency, you may absolve them so that your misfortunes do not grow beyond repair. This is the view of most of your friends in Rome." Silent and deep in thought, Herod ordered the man to sail along with him. |
The Consular Conscience: Saturninus
The response of Saturninus is a rare moment of humanity in a dark text. As a "ὑπατικὸς" (man of consular rank), he represented the highest level of Roman nobility. His refusal to vote for death is rooted in "πάθους" (passion/suffering) and his own identity as a father. He acknowledges the sons' guilt but rejects the "incurable" penalty. It is a classic Roman distinction between legal guilt and moral execution.
The Volumnius Contrast
In contrast to the diplomatic caution of Saturninus, Volumnius represents the "hawk" faction. Josephus notes he spoke "ἄντικρυς" (straight out/directly) for death. This split within the Roman leadership suggests that Herod had successfully "lobbied" enough of the council to ensure a majority, even if the most prestigious member (Saturninus) dissented.
The "Silent" Verdict
Josephus observes that once the majority swung toward death, it was no longer a deliberation but a "καταδεδικάσθαι" (a finished condemnation). The sons were never even brought into the room. This was a trial in absentia, which under Roman law was generally discouraged for capital crimes, highlighting the procedural "turmoil" Herod had orchestrated.
Nicolaus’s Middle Path
Returning from Rome, Nicolaus of Damascus provides a masterclass in "Safe Counsel." He doesn't tell Herod the sons are innocent—he knows Herod wouldn't listen. Instead, he appeals to Herod's "γνώμῃ" (judgment/reason) over his "ὀργῇ" (rage). He suggests imprisonment ("δεσμώτας φυλάττειν") as a way to keep Herod’s options open. In Greek political thought, the ability to undo a mistake ("ἀνεπανόρθωτον") was the hallmark of a wise ruler.
Herod’s Silence: The Final Turning Point
The phrase "σιωπήσας ἐν πολλῇ ἐγένετο συννοίᾳ" (having been silent, he fell into deep reflection) is a chilling cinematic moment. Herod is weighing the "moderate" Roman opinion brought by Nicolaus against his own long-nurtured hatred. The silence indicates that for a brief moment, the execution was not inevitable. However, as the next sections of the text show, this reflection did not lead to mercy, but perhaps only to a final calculation of how to carry out the deed.
The Geography of the End
The move from Berytus to Tyre signifies the final journey. Tyre was a major international port, a place where Herod often sought refuge or held court when dealing with the outside world. It serves as the staging ground for the final logistical commands that lead to the strangling of the princes at Sebaste.
The response of Saturninus is a rare moment of humanity in a dark text. As a "ὑπατικὸς" (man of consular rank), he represented the highest level of Roman nobility. His refusal to vote for death is rooted in "πάθους" (passion/suffering) and his own identity as a father. He acknowledges the sons' guilt but rejects the "incurable" penalty. It is a classic Roman distinction between legal guilt and moral execution.
The Volumnius Contrast
In contrast to the diplomatic caution of Saturninus, Volumnius represents the "hawk" faction. Josephus notes he spoke "ἄντικρυς" (straight out/directly) for death. This split within the Roman leadership suggests that Herod had successfully "lobbied" enough of the council to ensure a majority, even if the most prestigious member (Saturninus) dissented.
The "Silent" Verdict
Josephus observes that once the majority swung toward death, it was no longer a deliberation but a "καταδεδικάσθαι" (a finished condemnation). The sons were never even brought into the room. This was a trial in absentia, which under Roman law was generally discouraged for capital crimes, highlighting the procedural "turmoil" Herod had orchestrated.
Nicolaus’s Middle Path
Returning from Rome, Nicolaus of Damascus provides a masterclass in "Safe Counsel." He doesn't tell Herod the sons are innocent—he knows Herod wouldn't listen. Instead, he appeals to Herod's "γνώμῃ" (judgment/reason) over his "ὀργῇ" (rage). He suggests imprisonment ("δεσμώτας φυλάττειν") as a way to keep Herod’s options open. In Greek political thought, the ability to undo a mistake ("ἀνεπανόρθωτον") was the hallmark of a wise ruler.
Herod’s Silence: The Final Turning Point
The phrase "σιωπήσας ἐν πολλῇ ἐγένετο συννοίᾳ" (having been silent, he fell into deep reflection) is a chilling cinematic moment. Herod is weighing the "moderate" Roman opinion brought by Nicolaus against his own long-nurtured hatred. The silence indicates that for a brief moment, the execution was not inevitable. However, as the next sections of the text show, this reflection did not lead to mercy, but perhaps only to a final calculation of how to carry out the deed.
The Geography of the End
The move from Berytus to Tyre signifies the final journey. Tyre was a major international port, a place where Herod often sought refuge or held court when dealing with the outside world. It serves as the staging ground for the final logistical commands that lead to the strangling of the princes at Sebaste.
| 373 ὡς δ᾽ ἦλθεν εἰς ΚαισάρειανCaesarea γίνεται λόγος οὖν ἦν εὐθὺς ἅπασιν τῶν παίδων καὶ μετέωρος ἡ βασιλεία, ποῖ ποτε χωρήσειεν τὰ κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἐκδεχομένων· | 373 "When Herod arrived in Caesarea, there was immediate talk among all the people, and the entire kingdom was in a state of suspense, waiting to see where the affairs concerning the sons would end. |
| 373 Now as they came to Caesarea, every body was there talking of Herod’s sons, and the kingdom was in suspense, and the people in great expectation of what would become of them; | 373 As they came to Caesarea, all were talking about the sons and the kingdom was in suspense, wondering what would become of them. |
| 374 δεινὸν γὰρ ὑπῄει πάντας δέος ἐκ παλαιοῦ καταστασιαζομένους εἰς αὐτὸ τὸ πέρας ἐλθεῖν, καὶ τοῖς μὲν πάθεσιν ἐδυσχέραινον, οὐκ ἦν δ᾽ οὔτε εἰπεῖν τι προπετὲς οὔτ᾽ ἄλλου λέγοντος ἀκούειν ἀκίνδυνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγκεκλεισμένοι τὸν ἔλεον ὀδυνηρῶς μὲν ἀναύδως δὲ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τοῦ πάθους ἔφερον. | 374 For a terrible fear stole over everyone—having been agitated by these factions for a long time—that they might finally reach the ultimate end. While they were distressed by these sufferings, it was not possible to say anything boldly, nor was it safe to listen to another speaking; rather, having shut up their pity within themselves, they bore the excess of their suffering painfully and in silence. |
| 374 for a terrible fear seized upon all men, lest the ancient disorders of the family should come to a sad conclusion, and they were in great trouble about their sufferings; nor was it without danger to say any rash thing about this matter, nor even to hear another saying it, but men’s pity was forced to be shut up in themselves, which rendered the excess of their sorrow very irksome, but very silent; | 374 All were fearful that the old dispute in the family should come to such an end and they were deeply sorry for the victims, but it was not safe to say anything forthright about it, or even to listen to others, and so they had to hide their pity under a silence that made their grief all the worse. |
| 375 εἷς δὲ αὐτῶν πάλαι στρατιώτης ὄνομα ΤίρωνTiro, υἱοῦ αὐτῷ καθ᾽ ἡλικίαν ὄντος ἈλεξάνδρῳAlexander φίλου, πάνθ᾽ ὅσα καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὑποδυόμενα δι᾽ ἡσυχίας ἦν, αὐτὸς ὑπ᾽ ἐλευθεριότητος ἐξελάλει καὶ βοᾶν ἠναγκάζετο πολλάκις ἐν τοῖς πλήθεσιν ἀπαρακαλύπτως λέγων, | 375 But there was one among them, a soldier of long standing named Tiron, who had a son of the same age as Alexander and who was his friend. Everything that others kept buried in silence, he spoke out because of his nobility of spirit, and he was often compelled to cry out, speaking openly among the multitudes. |
| 375 yet was there an old soldier of Herod's, whose name was Tero, who had a son of the same age with Alexander, and his friend, who was so very free as openly to speak out what others silently thought about that matter; and was forced to cry out often among the multitude, | 375 Then an old soldier of Herod’s named Tiro, who had a son who was a friend of Alexander’s and of the same age as him, took the liberty to say out publicly what others were silently thinking about it, and often said aloud among the populace, |
| 376 ὡς ἀπόλοιτο μὲν ἡ ἀλήθεια, τὸ δὲ δίκαιον ἐκ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀνῃρημένον εἴη, κρατοίη δὲ τὰ ψεύσματα καὶ ἡ κακοήθεια καὶ τοσοῦτο νέφος ἐπάγοι τοῖς πράγμασιν, ὡς μηδὲ τὰ μέγιστα τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων παθῶν ὁρᾶσθαι τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσιν. | 376 He exclaimed that Truth had perished and that Justice had been snatched away from mankind; that falsehood and malice prevailed and brought such a cloud over affairs that even the greatest of human sufferings were not seen by those committing the sins. |
| 376 and said, in the most unguarded manner, that truth was perished, and justice taken away from men, while lies and ill-will prevailed, and brought such a mist before public affairs, that the offenders were not able to see the greatest mischiefs that can befall men. | 376 quite unambiguously, that truth was destroyed and justice was removed from mankind, while lies and malice prevailed and enveloped public affairs in such a fog that the offenders could not see the greatest evils that can happen to human beings. |
| 377 τοιοῦτος ὢν ἐδόκει μὲν οὐκ ἀκινδύνως παρρησιάζεσθαι, τὸ δ᾽ εὔλογον ἐκίνει πάντας οὐκ ἀνάνδρωςhusbandlessly αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν καιρὸν ἱσταμένου. | 377 Being such a man, it seemed that he did not speak with freedom without danger; yet his reasonableness moved everyone, as he stood up with courage against the crisis. |
| 377 And as he was so bold, he seemed not to have kept himself out of danger, by speaking so freely; but the reasonableness of what he said moved men to regard him as having behaved himself with great manhood, and this at a proper time also, | 377 The man seemed to speak without fear of the danger, and the rightness of what he said made people admire his bravery at this time. |
| 378 διὸ καὶ πάνθ᾽ ἅπερ αὐτὸς ἕκαστος εἴποιεν ἡδέως ἤκουον ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου λεγόμενα καὶ τὸ καθ᾽ αὑτοὺς ἀσφαλὲς ἐν τῷ σιγᾶν προορώμενοι τὴν ἐκείνου παρρησίαν ὅμως ἀπεδέχοντο· τὸ γὰρ προσδοκώμενον πάθος ἐβιάζετο πάνθ᾽ ὁντινοῦν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ λαλεῖν. | 378 For this reason, they gladly listened to him saying all the things that each of them would have liked to say themselves; and while they looked out for their own safety by remaining silent, they nevertheless welcomed his freedom of speech. For the expected suffering forced every single person to speak out regarding it." |
| 378 for which reason every one heard what he said with pleasure; and although they first took care of their own safety by keeping silent themselves, yet did they kindly receive the great freedom he took; for the expectation they were in of so great an affliction, put a force upon them to speak of Tero whatsoever they pleased. | 378 All were glad to hear his words and though they took care of their own safety by keeping silent, they were pleased with the great freedom he took, for their anticipation of misfortune drove them to say whatever they pleased about him. |
The Psychology of a Police State
Josephus provides a masterful description of life under a late-stage autocracy. The phrases "ἀναύδως" (speechlessly) and "ἐγκεκλεισμένοι τὸν ἔλεον" (having shut up their pity) describe a collective trauma. In Herod’s Judea, even listening to a critic ("ἄλλου λέγοντος ἀκούειν") was a capital risk. The "excess of suffering" was so great that it became a physical weight, yet the safety of the individual depended entirely on the maintenance of a mask.
Tiron: The "Old Guard" Protagonist
The introduction of Tiron is significant. He is not a courtier or a philosopher, but a "πάλαι στρατιώτης" (soldier of long standing). In the ancient world, veteran soldiers often held a unique status that allowed them a bit more leeway to speak the truth to power. Tiron’s motivation is deeply personal: his son is a peer and friend of Prince Alexander. He represents the "conscience of the army," a group Herod traditionally relied upon but was now alienating.
The Death of Abstract Virtues
Tiron’s lament is essentially a funeral oration for the moral order. He claims that "Ἀλήθεια" (Truth) and "Δίκαιον" (Justice) are gone. The metaphor of the "νέφος" (cloud/mist) over affairs is particularly apt for the Herodian court, where slanders and "fake news" had so obscured reality that the King could no longer see the "greatest of human sufferings"—the murder of his own children.
"Parrhēsia" vs. Safety
The word "παρρησιάζεσθαι" (to speak freely) appears again. For the common people, silence was a survival strategy ("τὸ καθʼ αὑτοὺς ἀσφαλὲς ἐν τῷ σιγᾶν"). They lived vicariously through Tiron. By listening to him, they could feel they were participating in the truth without the immediate risk of the executioner's sword. Tiron became a "proxy" for the collective soul of the kingdom.
The Looming "Ultimate End"
Josephus uses the word "πέρας" (end/limit) to describe the impending execution. There was a sense that the kingdom had reached a boundary beyond which it could not return. The execution of the Hasmonean heirs wasn't just a family tragedy; it was the symbolic end of a specific era of Jewish history.
Josephus provides a masterful description of life under a late-stage autocracy. The phrases "ἀναύδως" (speechlessly) and "ἐγκεκλεισμένοι τὸν ἔλεον" (having shut up their pity) describe a collective trauma. In Herod’s Judea, even listening to a critic ("ἄλλου λέγοντος ἀκούειν") was a capital risk. The "excess of suffering" was so great that it became a physical weight, yet the safety of the individual depended entirely on the maintenance of a mask.
Tiron: The "Old Guard" Protagonist
The introduction of Tiron is significant. He is not a courtier or a philosopher, but a "πάλαι στρατιώτης" (soldier of long standing). In the ancient world, veteran soldiers often held a unique status that allowed them a bit more leeway to speak the truth to power. Tiron’s motivation is deeply personal: his son is a peer and friend of Prince Alexander. He represents the "conscience of the army," a group Herod traditionally relied upon but was now alienating.
The Death of Abstract Virtues
Tiron’s lament is essentially a funeral oration for the moral order. He claims that "Ἀλήθεια" (Truth) and "Δίκαιον" (Justice) are gone. The metaphor of the "νέφος" (cloud/mist) over affairs is particularly apt for the Herodian court, where slanders and "fake news" had so obscured reality that the King could no longer see the "greatest of human sufferings"—the murder of his own children.
"Parrhēsia" vs. Safety
The word "παρρησιάζεσθαι" (to speak freely) appears again. For the common people, silence was a survival strategy ("τὸ καθʼ αὑτοὺς ἀσφαλὲς ἐν τῷ σιγᾶν"). They lived vicariously through Tiron. By listening to him, they could feel they were participating in the truth without the immediate risk of the executioner's sword. Tiron became a "proxy" for the collective soul of the kingdom.
The Looming "Ultimate End"
Josephus uses the word "πέρας" (end/limit) to describe the impending execution. There was a sense that the kingdom had reached a boundary beyond which it could not return. The execution of the Hasmonean heirs wasn't just a family tragedy; it was the symbolic end of a specific era of Jewish history.
| 379 Ὁ δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα μετὰ πάσης παρρησίας ὠσάμενος μόνος μόνῳ λέγειν ἠξίου, καὶ συγχωρήσαντος " οὐ δυνάμενος, εἶπεν, ὦ βασιλεῦ, διακαρτερεῖν ἐπὶ τοιούτῳ πάθει τὴν τολμηρὰν ταύτην παρρησίαν, ἀναγκαίαν δὲ σοὶ καὶ συμφέρουσαν, εἰ λάβοις τι χρήσιμον ἐξ αὐτῆς, προύκρινα τῆς ἐμῆς ἀσφαλείας. | 379 "But Tiron, having pushed his way toward the King with total freedom of speech (parrhēsia), demanded to speak with him man-to-man. When Herod granted this, Tiron was unable to restrain himself and said: 'O King, I have preferred this bold freedom of speech—necessary and advantageous to you if you would take something useful from it—above my own safety, rather than endure such suffering in silence. |
| 379 This man had thrust himself into the king’s presence with the greatest freedom, and desired to speak with him by himself alone, which the king permitted him to do, where he said this: "Since I am not able, O king, to bear up under so great a concern as I am under, I have preferred the use of this bold liberty that I now take, which may be for thy advantage, if thou mind to get any profit by it, before my own safety. | 379 With great temerity he made his way into the king’s presence and asked to speak with him alone. When the king let him, he said, "Your majesty, since I cannot bear the anxiety I feel, I choose to take this audacious liberty which may be for your good, if you wish to profit from it, rather than look after my own safety. |
| 380 ποῖ ποτε οἴχονταί σου καὶ πεπτώκασιν ἐκ τῆς ψυχῆς αἱ φρένες; ποῖ δὲ καὶ ὁ περιττὸς ἐκεῖνος νοῦς, ᾧ πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα κατώρθους; τίς δὲ ἡ τῶν φίλων καὶ συγγενῶν ἐρημίαdesert, wilderness; | 380 Where has your mind gone? Where has it fled from your soul? Where is that exceptional intellect by which you used to achieve so many great things? And what is this emptiness of friends and kinsmen? |
| 380 Whither is thy understanding gone, and left thy soul empty? Whither is that extraordinary sagacity of thine gone whereby thou hast performed so many and such glorious-actions? | 380 Where is your wisdom gone, to leave your soul so empty? Where is your great prudence, by which you have done many glorious deeds? Why have your friends and relatives deserted you? |
| 381 κρίνω δὲ οὐδὲ παρόντας αὐτοὺς συγγενεῖς εἶναι ἢ φίλους, οἳ περιορῶσι τοιοῦτο μῦσος ἐπὶ τῇ μακαριζομένῃ ποτὲ βασιλείᾳ. σὺ δ᾽ οὐ σκέψει τί τὸ πραττόμενόν ἐστιν; | 381 For I judge that even those who are present are neither kinsmen nor friends, since they look on as such a pollution is brought upon a kingdom that was once called blessed. Will you not consider what is being done? |
| 381 Whence comes this solitude, and desertion of thy friends and relations? Of which I cannot but determine that they are neither thy friends nor relations, while they overlook such horrid wickedness in thy once happy kingdom. Dost not thou perceive what is doing? | 381 I judge them to be neither true relatives or friends, if they ignore such terrible wickedness in your once flourishing kingdom. Don't you see what is happening? |
| 382 δύο νεανίσκους ἐκ βασιλίδος γυναικὸς γενομένους εἰς πᾶσαν ἀρετὴν ἄκρους ἀναιρήσεις σεαυτὸν ἐν γήρᾳ καταλιπὼν ἐφ᾽ ἑνὶ παιδὶ κακῶς οἰκονομήσαντι τὴν εἰς αὐτὸν ἐλπίδα καὶ συγγενέσιν, ὧν αὐτὸς τοσαυτάκιςso great, so large, so many ἤδη κατέγνωκας θάνατον; | 382 Will you destroy two young men born of a royal woman, who have reached the peak of every virtue, leaving yourself in your old age dependent on a single son [Antipater] who has managed his hopes for you wickedly, and on kinsmen against whom you yourself have already so often pronounced death? |
| 382 Wilt thou slay these two young men, born of thy queen, who are accomplished with every virtue in the highest degree, and leave thyself destitute in thy old age, but exposed to one son, who hath very ill managed the hopes thou hast given him,' and to relations, whose death thou hast so often resolved on thyself? | 382 These two young men, borne by your queenly wife, who are supremely gifted with every virtue,—would you kill them and leave yourself destitute in your old age, at the mercy of one son who has badly managed the hope you have given him, and of relatives, whom you so often resolved to kill? |
| 383 οὐκ ἐννοεῖς, ὅτι καὶ τῶν ὄχλων ἡ σιωπὴ τὴν ἀμογίαν ὅμως ὁρᾷ καὶ μισεῖ τὸ πάθος, ἥ τε στρατιὰ πᾶσα καὶ ταύτης οἱ πρωτεύοντες ἔλεον μὲν τῶν ἀτυχούντων, | 383 Do you not perceive that even the silence of the masses sees the unreasonableness of it and hates the suffering, and that the entire army and its leaders have pity for the unfortunate and hatred for those committing these deeds?' |
| 383 Dost not thou take notice, that the very silence of the multitude at once sees the crime, and abhors the fact? The whole army and the officers have commiseration on the poor unhappy youths, and hatred to those that are the actors in this matter." | 383 Do not you know from the crowds' very silence that they see the wrong and abhor their suffering? The whole army and its officers pity the poor unhappy youths and feel hatred toward those who are promoting this matter." |
| 384 μῖσος δὲ τῶν ταῦτα διαπραττομένων ἐσχήκασιν; ἤκουεν τούτων ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐν ἀρχῇ μὲν οὐ παντάπασιν ἀγνωμόνως, ἀλλὰ τί δεῖ καὶ λέγειν, διεκίνησεν αὐτὸν ἁψαμένουto ignite τοῦ ΤίρωνοςTiro ἐναργῶς τοῦ τε πάθους καὶ τῆς περὶ τοὺς οἰκείους ἀπιστίας. | 384 At the beginning, the King listened to these things not entirely without reason; indeed, it must be said that Tiron moved him by touching vividly upon the suffering and the lack of trust regarding his own household. |
| 384 These words the king heard, and for some time with good temper. But what can one say? When Tero plainly touched upon the bad behavior and perfidiousness of his domestics, he was moved at it; | 384 For some time the king listened equably to these words, and was moved when Tiro clearly touched on his suffering and on the treachery of his household. |
| 385 αὖθις δὲ ὁ μὲν ἐπεδίδου κατὰ μικρὸν ἀμέτρῳ καὶ στρατιωτικῇ χρώμενος παρρησίᾳ· τὸ γὰρ ἀπαίδευτον ὑπεξέπιπτε τοῦ καιροῦ, ταραχῆς δὲ ἩρώδηςHerod ἐνεπίμπλατο, | 385 But soon, Tiron went further, little by little, using an immoderate and soldierly freedom of speech; for his lack of education caused him to overshoot the occasion. Herod was filled with turmoil, |
| 385 but Tero went on further, and by degrees used an unbounded military freedom of speech, nor was he so well disciplined as to accommodate himself to the time. So Herod was greatly disturbed, | 385 But when he went further and spoke out with a soldier’s freedom of speech, too little disciplined to adapt himself to the occasion, Herod grew agitated |
| 386 καὶ μᾶλλον ὀνειδίζεσθαι δοκῶν ἢ πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον ἀκούειν τῶν λόγων, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τοὺς διακειμένους στρατιώτας καὶ τοὺς ἀγανακτοῦντας ἡγεμόνας ἐπύθετοto ask, inquire, προστάττει τῷ τε ὀνόματι δηλωθέντων ἁπάντων καὶ τὸν ΤίρωναTiro δήσαντας ἔχειν ἐν φυλακῇ. | 386 and thinking himself insulted rather than hearing words for his own benefit—especially when he learned of the soldiers' disposition and the indignant leaders—he ordered that Tiron be bound and kept in prison, and that all those he had named be recorded." |
| 386 and seeming to be rather reproached by this speech, than to be hearing what was for his advantage, while he learned thereby that both the soldiers abhorred the thing he was about, and the officers had indignation at it, he gave order that all whom Tero had named, and Tero himself, should be bound and kept in prison. | 386 and seemed to feel insulted rather than helped by the speech. When he inquired about the names of the disapproving soldiers and their officers he ordered that all who had been named, and Tiro himself, be chained up in prison. |
The Psychology of the "Man-to-Man" Appeal
Tiron requests a "μόνος μόνῳ" (man-to-man/alone-to-alone) meeting. He is appealing to the Herod of old—the warrior and strategist—rather than the King surrounded by fawning courtiers. His opening question, "ποῖ ποτε οἴχονταί σου... αἱ φρένες;" (Where has your mind gone?), is a direct challenge to Herod's identity as a rational, capable ruler. He frames Herod's current state as a cognitive and moral collapse.
The "Pollution" of the Kingdom
Tiron uses the word "μῦσος" (pollution/defilement). In the ancient world, the murder of one's own children was not just a legal crime; it was a ritual stain that could bring divine wrath upon an entire land. He is warning Herod that he is transforming a "μακαριζομένῃ" (blessed) kingdom into a cursed one.
The Critique of Antipater
Tiron correctly identifies the structural weakness of Herod’s plan. By killing the two Hasmonean sons (Alexander and Aristobulus), Herod is leaving himself "ἐφʼ ἑνὶ παιδὶ" (dependent on a single son)—Antipater. Tiron points out the irony: Herod is trusting the son who has "wickedly managed his hopes" while killing the sons who represent the "peak of virtue."
The Fatal Mistake: Invoking the Army
Tiron's most powerful argument is also his death warrant. By telling Herod that the "στρατιὰ πᾶσα" (entire army) and its "πρωτεύοντες" (leaders) hate what is happening, he crosses the line from advisor to threat. To a paranoid tyrant, being told "the army pities your victims" sounds like "the army is ready to revolt."
"Soldierly" vs. "Courtly" Speech
Josephus makes a brilliant linguistic observation about Tiron’s "ἀπαίδευτον" (lack of education/unrefined nature). Tiron spoke with "στρατιωτικῇ... παρρησίᾳ" (soldierly freedom). While Herod was initially moved by the truth of the words, the delivery—the blunt, unpolished, and repetitive nature of the soldier's speech—began to feel like "ὀνειδίζεσθαι" (reproach/insult). In the Herodian court, how you said something was often more important for survival than what you said.
The Record of Names
The passage ends with Herod ordering "ὀνόματι δηλωθέντων ἁπάντων" (all the names to be declared). This signifies the start of a "purge." Herod is no longer interested in the moral debate; he is now mapping out the "conspiracy" Tiron inadvertently suggested by mentioning the army's discontent.
Tiron requests a "μόνος μόνῳ" (man-to-man/alone-to-alone) meeting. He is appealing to the Herod of old—the warrior and strategist—rather than the King surrounded by fawning courtiers. His opening question, "ποῖ ποτε οἴχονταί σου... αἱ φρένες;" (Where has your mind gone?), is a direct challenge to Herod's identity as a rational, capable ruler. He frames Herod's current state as a cognitive and moral collapse.
The "Pollution" of the Kingdom
Tiron uses the word "μῦσος" (pollution/defilement). In the ancient world, the murder of one's own children was not just a legal crime; it was a ritual stain that could bring divine wrath upon an entire land. He is warning Herod that he is transforming a "μακαριζομένῃ" (blessed) kingdom into a cursed one.
The Critique of Antipater
Tiron correctly identifies the structural weakness of Herod’s plan. By killing the two Hasmonean sons (Alexander and Aristobulus), Herod is leaving himself "ἐφʼ ἑνὶ παιδὶ" (dependent on a single son)—Antipater. Tiron points out the irony: Herod is trusting the son who has "wickedly managed his hopes" while killing the sons who represent the "peak of virtue."
The Fatal Mistake: Invoking the Army
Tiron's most powerful argument is also his death warrant. By telling Herod that the "στρατιὰ πᾶσα" (entire army) and its "πρωτεύοντες" (leaders) hate what is happening, he crosses the line from advisor to threat. To a paranoid tyrant, being told "the army pities your victims" sounds like "the army is ready to revolt."
"Soldierly" vs. "Courtly" Speech
Josephus makes a brilliant linguistic observation about Tiron’s "ἀπαίδευτον" (lack of education/unrefined nature). Tiron spoke with "στρατιωτικῇ... παρρησίᾳ" (soldierly freedom). While Herod was initially moved by the truth of the words, the delivery—the blunt, unpolished, and repetitive nature of the soldier's speech—began to feel like "ὀνειδίζεσθαι" (reproach/insult). In the Herodian court, how you said something was often more important for survival than what you said.
The Record of Names
The passage ends with Herod ordering "ὀνόματι δηλωθέντων ἁπάντων" (all the names to be declared). This signifies the start of a "purge." Herod is no longer interested in the moral debate; he is now mapping out the "conspiracy" Tiron inadvertently suggested by mentioning the army's discontent.
| 387 Τούτου γενηθέντος ἐπιτίθεται τῷ καιρῷ καὶ ΤρύφωνTryphon τις κουρεὺς τοῦ βασιλέως, ὃς ἔφη προσελθὼν ὡς πείθοι πολλάκις αὐτὸν ὁ ΤίρωνTiro, ὁπόταν θεραπεύῃ βασιλέως ξυρῷ τὸν λαιμὸν ἀποτέμνειν· ἔσεσθαι γὰρ ἐν πρώτοις περὶ ἈλέξανδρονAlexander καὶ μεγάλας λήψεσθαι δωρεάς. | 387 "When this had happened, a certain Tryphon, the King's barber, took advantage of the opportunity. He came forward and claimed that Tiron had often tried to persuade him, whenever he was attending to the King's throat with a razor, to cut it; for [Tiron said] he would then be among the foremost of Alexander's friends and would receive great gifts. |
| 387 When this was over, one Trypho, who was the king’s barber, took the opportunity, and came and told the king, that Tero would often have persuaded him, when he trimmed him with a razor, to cut his throat, for that by this means he should be among the chief of Alexander’s friends, and receive great rewards from him. | 387 When this was done the king’s barber, Trypho, came and told him that Tiro had often tried to persuade him to cut his throat, when he trimmed him with the razor, with a promise that he would be among Alexander’s principal friends and receive great rewards from him. |
| 388 ταῦτ᾽ εἰπόντα συλλαμβάνειν κελεύει, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα βάσανος ἦν τοῦ τε ΤίρωνοςTiro καὶ τοῦ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ κουρέως. | 388 After he said these things, Herod ordered Tiron to be seized, and after this, there was a session of torture for Tiron, his son, and the barber. |
| 388 When he had said this, the king gave order that Tero, and his son, and the barber should be tortured, which was done accordingly; | 388 At this, the king had him arrested, and later had Tiro and his son and the barber put to the torture. |
| 389 διακαρτεροῦντός τε τοῦ ΤίρωνοςTiro ὁρῶν ὁ νεανίσκος τὸν πατέρα χαλεπῶς μὲν ἤδη διακείμενον, ἔχοντα δὲ οὐδεμίαν ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας αὑτῷ τε τὸ μέλλον ἐκ τῆς περὶ τὸν πάσχοντα δυσχερείας προῦπτον, ἔφη μηνύσειν τῷ βασιλεῖ τὴν ἀλήθειαν, εἰ παραιτήσεται διὰ τοῦ φράσαι τῆς βασάνου καὶ τῆς αἰκίας αὐτόν τε καὶ τὸν πατέρα. | 389 As Tiron was enduring the torture, his son—seeing his father already in a wretched state and having no hope of safety for himself, since the future was clearly visible from the distress of the one suffering—said he would reveal the truth to the King if he would spare both him and his father from the torture and the outrages by his speaking. |
| 389 but while Tero bore up himself, his son seeing his father already in a sad case, and had no hope of deliverance, and perceiving what would be the consequence of his terrible sufferings, said, that if the king would free him and his father from these torments for what he should say, he would tell the truth. | 389 During this, although Tiro himself bore up, his son seeing his father in a wretched state and with no hope of survival himself, and knowing what awful sufferings lay ahead, said that he would tell the king the truth if only he would spare him and his father from the torture in return. |
| 390 δόντος δὲ πίστιν ἐπὶ τούτοις ἔλεγεν ὡς εἴη τις συνθήκη ἐπιθέσθαι δι᾽ αὐτοχειρίας βασιλεῖ τὸν ΤίρωναTiro, προσελθεῖν γὰρ εὔπορον εἶναι μόνον μόνῳ καὶ δράσαντα παθεῖν τι τῶν εἰκότων οὐκ ἀγεννὲς ἈλεξάνδρῳAlexander χαριζόμενον. | 390 When Herod gave his word on these terms, the youth said there was a pact that Tiron would attack the King with his own hand, for it was easy to approach him man-to-man; and after doing the deed, he [Tiron] would suffer whatever followed, thinking it not ignoble to do so as a favor to Alexander. |
| 390 And when the king had given his word to do so, he said that there was an agreement made, that Tero should lay violent hands on the king, because it was easy for him to come when he was alone; and that if, when he had done the thing, he should suffer death for it, as was not unlikely, it would be an act of generosity done in favor of Alexander. | 390 When he received a guarantee about this, he said it had been agreed for Tiro to assassinate the king, as he could easily come to him when he was alone, and that if he later died for it, as seemed likely, it would be a noble act done on behalf of Alexander. |
| 391 ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐκεῖνος εἰπὼν ἐξαιρεῖται τὸν πατέρα τῆς ἀνάγκης, ἄδηλον εἴτε τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐκβιασθεὶς φράζειν, εἴτε κἂν παραγραφὴν νοήσας τινὰ ταύτην τῶν κακῶν αὐτῷ καὶ τῷ γεγεννηκότι. | 391 By saying these things, the youth released his father from the necessity [of torture]; it is unclear whether he spoke the truth because it was forced out of him, or whether he devised this as a way to put an end to the evils for himself and his father." |
| 391 This was what Tero’s son said, and thereby freed his father from the distress he was in; but uncertain it is whether he had been thus forced to speak what was true, or whether it were a contrivance of his, in order to procure his own and his father’s deliverance from their miseries. | 391 This was what he said, to free his father from his plight, but what is uncertain is whether he had spoken the truth under compulsion, or whether it was something invented to save himself and his father from their predicament. |
The Barber's Opportunism
The name Tryphon (derived from tryphē, meaning "luxury" or "softness") stands in stark contrast to the rugged soldier Tiron. The barber represents the "low-level" informant who thrives in a paranoid regime. He turns a routine, intimate act—shaving—into a potential site of regicide. The image of the "ξυρῷ τὸν λαιμὸν" (razor at the throat) is a classic trope of the "Damocles" variety, perfectly calculated to trigger Herod's specific phobias.
The Logic of Forced Confession
Josephus provides a profound psychological insight into the "son's confession." The youth does not confess because he is guilty, but because he sees the "οὐδεμίαν ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας" (no hope of safety). He calculates that a false confession that ends the physical "αἰκίας" (outrage/torture) is preferable to a slow death in silence.
"Man-to-Man" Revisited
Note the echo of the previous scene: Tiron had asked to speak with Herod "μόνον μόνῳ" (man-to-man). The son’s confession uses this exact detail to make the "plot" sound plausible. He tells Herod what Herod already fears: that Tiron's request for a private meeting was actually a search for a tactical opening. It is a brilliant, tragic use of a true fact to support a (likely) false narrative.
The Historian's Skepticism
Josephus explicitly leaves the truth-value of the confession "ἄδηλον" (unclear). This is a hallmark of his "Antiquities" style—he invites the reader to consider the possibility of a "παραγραφὴν" (a way to stop/cancel a legal action). He suggests the son was a "tactical liar" who sacrificed his reputation to save his father from the rack.
The Institutionalization of Torture
The fact that Herod subjects his own barber to torture alongside the accused shows the total breakdown of trust. In Herod’s world, even the "witness" is a suspect. The "βάσανος" (torture) was not a search for truth, but a machine for generating justifications for the King's pre-existing rage.
The name Tryphon (derived from tryphē, meaning "luxury" or "softness") stands in stark contrast to the rugged soldier Tiron. The barber represents the "low-level" informant who thrives in a paranoid regime. He turns a routine, intimate act—shaving—into a potential site of regicide. The image of the "ξυρῷ τὸν λαιμὸν" (razor at the throat) is a classic trope of the "Damocles" variety, perfectly calculated to trigger Herod's specific phobias.
The Logic of Forced Confession
Josephus provides a profound psychological insight into the "son's confession." The youth does not confess because he is guilty, but because he sees the "οὐδεμίαν ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας" (no hope of safety). He calculates that a false confession that ends the physical "αἰκίας" (outrage/torture) is preferable to a slow death in silence.
"Man-to-Man" Revisited
Note the echo of the previous scene: Tiron had asked to speak with Herod "μόνον μόνῳ" (man-to-man). The son’s confession uses this exact detail to make the "plot" sound plausible. He tells Herod what Herod already fears: that Tiron's request for a private meeting was actually a search for a tactical opening. It is a brilliant, tragic use of a true fact to support a (likely) false narrative.
The Historian's Skepticism
Josephus explicitly leaves the truth-value of the confession "ἄδηλον" (unclear). This is a hallmark of his "Antiquities" style—he invites the reader to consider the possibility of a "παραγραφὴν" (a way to stop/cancel a legal action). He suggests the son was a "tactical liar" who sacrificed his reputation to save his father from the rack.
The Institutionalization of Torture
The fact that Herod subjects his own barber to torture alongside the accused shows the total breakdown of trust. In Herod’s world, even the "witness" is a suspect. The "βάσανος" (torture) was not a search for truth, but a machine for generating justifications for the King's pre-existing rage.
| 392 Ὁ δὲ ἩρώδηςHerod οὐδ᾽ εἴ τι πρότερον ἦν αὐτῷ ἐνδοιάσιμον περὶ τὴν τεκνοκτονίαν τούτῳ τόπον ἢ χώραν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ καταλελοιπώς, ἀλλὰ πᾶν ἐξῃρημένος τὸ δυνησόμενον αὐτῷ μετάνοιαν ἀμείνονος λογισμοῦ παρασχεῖν ἔσπευσεν ἤδη τέλος ἐπιθεῖναι τῇ προαιρέσει. | 392 "But Herod, not having left even a place or room in his soul for any doubt he might have previously held regarding the slaying of his children, but having entirely rooted out everything that could have provided him with the regret of a better reason, hastened now to put the final touch to his purpose. |
| 392 As for Herod, if he had before any doubt about the slaughter of his sons, there was now no longer any room left in his soul for it; but he had banished away whatsoever might afford him the least suggestion of reasoning better about this matter, so he already made haste to bring his purpose to a conclusion. | 392 If Herod had previously had any doubts about killing his sons, there no longer room for them in his soul, for setting aside any inclination to think better of it, he hurried to carry out his decision. |
| 393 καὶ προαγαγὼν εἰς ἐκκλησίαν τριακοσίους τε τῶν ἡγεμόνων τοὺς ἐν αἰτίᾳ γενομένους καὶ τὸν ΤίρωναTiro σὺν τῷ παιδὶ καὶ τῷ πρὸ ἐκείνου διελέγχοντι κουρεῖ κατηγορίαν ἁπάντων αὐτῶν ἐποιήσατο. | 393 Having brought before the assembly the three hundred leaders who had been accused, as well as Tiron with his son and the barber who had previously accused them, he made an accusation against them all. |
| 393 He also brought out three hundred of the officers that were under an accusation, as also Tero and his son, and the barber that accused them before an assembly, and brought an accusation against them all; | 393 He brought before the assembly three hundred of the officers who were charged, along with Tiro and his son and the barber who had denounced them, and indicted them all. |
| 394 κἀκείνους μὲν τὸ πλῆθος ἀεὶ τοῖς παρατυχοῦσιν βάλλοντες ἀπέκτειναν. ἈλέξανδροςAlexander δὲ καὶ ἈριστόβουλοςAristobulus ἀχθέντες εἰς ΣεβαστὴνSebaste ἐπιτάξαντος τοῦ πατρὸς στραγγάλῃ κτείνονται. τὰ δὲ σώματα νύκτωρ εἰς ἈλεξάνδρειονAlexandreion ἀπέθεντο τοῦ τε μητροπάτορος ἐκεῖ καὶ τῶν πλείστων αὐτοῖς προγόνων κειμένων. | 394 And the multitude killed those men by pelting them with whatever happened to be at hand. As for Alexander and Aristobulus, they were brought to Sebaste and, by the command of their father, were killed by strangulation. Their bodies were deposited by night at the Alexandreion, where their maternal grandfather and most of their ancestors lay." |
| 394 whom the multitude stoned with whatsoever came to hand, and thereby slew them. Alexander also and Aristobulus were brought to Sebaste, by their father’s command, and there strangled; but their dead bodies were in the night time carried to Alexandrium, where their uncle by the mother’s side, and the greatest part of their ancestors, had been deposited. | 394 The mob simply took up whatever came to hand and stoned them to death, and at their father’s command Alexander and Aristobulus were brought to Sebaste and strangled there, and their corpses were brought by night to Alexandreion, where their maternal uncle and most of their ancestors lay buried. But one may also wonder if the young men were culpable for giving their father so many reasons for anger over a period of time and so bringing his merciless vengeance on themselves. |
The Anatomy of a Hardened Soul
Josephus uses striking psychological language to describe Herod's internal state: "οὐδʼ... τόπον ἢ χώραν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ" (not even a place or room in his soul). The historian suggests that Herod consciously performed a "purge" of his own conscience, rooting out "μετάνοιαν" (regret/repentance). In Greek thought, when a man systematically destroys his capacity for "better reason," he moves from being a tragic figure to a purely monstrous one.
The Jericho Pattern Repeated
Just as he did in Jericho earlier, Herod uses the "ἐκκλησίαν" (assembly/multitude) as his executioner. By having the crowd stone the three hundred leaders and Tiron, he creates a communal blood-guilt. It is a tactical move: if the people are the ones throwing the stones, they cannot easily revolt against the king for the outcome.
The Choice of Sebaste (Samaria)
The execution of the princes takes place in Sebaste. This is deeply symbolic and cruel. Sebaste was the city Herod had rebuilt and named in honor of Augustus (Sebastos). It was also the city where Herod had married their mother, Mariamne, years earlier. To end their lives in the city of his greatest romantic triumph and his greatest political loyalty was a final, chilling irony.
The Method: Strangulation
The use of the "στραγγάλῃ" (strangle/noose) is significant. It is a silent, intimate form of execution—unlike the public stoning of the soldiers. It allowed the deed to be done behind closed doors, preventing the princes from making a final, eloquent appeal to a crowd that might have been moved by their Hasmonean lineage.
Burial at Alexandreion: A Silent Homecoming
The bodies are moved "νύκτωρ" (by night) to the Alexandreion. This fortress was not just a military stronghold; it was the burial place of the Hasmonean dynasty. By placing them there with their "μητροπάτορος" (maternal grandfather, Alexander Jannaeus), Josephus subtly notes that in death, the boys were finally returned to their mother’s side of the family, away from the Idumaean house of Herod that had consumed them.
Josephus uses striking psychological language to describe Herod's internal state: "οὐδʼ... τόπον ἢ χώραν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ" (not even a place or room in his soul). The historian suggests that Herod consciously performed a "purge" of his own conscience, rooting out "μετάνοιαν" (regret/repentance). In Greek thought, when a man systematically destroys his capacity for "better reason," he moves from being a tragic figure to a purely monstrous one.
The Jericho Pattern Repeated
Just as he did in Jericho earlier, Herod uses the "ἐκκλησίαν" (assembly/multitude) as his executioner. By having the crowd stone the three hundred leaders and Tiron, he creates a communal blood-guilt. It is a tactical move: if the people are the ones throwing the stones, they cannot easily revolt against the king for the outcome.
The Choice of Sebaste (Samaria)
The execution of the princes takes place in Sebaste. This is deeply symbolic and cruel. Sebaste was the city Herod had rebuilt and named in honor of Augustus (Sebastos). It was also the city where Herod had married their mother, Mariamne, years earlier. To end their lives in the city of his greatest romantic triumph and his greatest political loyalty was a final, chilling irony.
The Method: Strangulation
The use of the "στραγγάλῃ" (strangle/noose) is significant. It is a silent, intimate form of execution—unlike the public stoning of the soldiers. It allowed the deed to be done behind closed doors, preventing the princes from making a final, eloquent appeal to a crowd that might have been moved by their Hasmonean lineage.
Burial at Alexandreion: A Silent Homecoming
The bodies are moved "νύκτωρ" (by night) to the Alexandreion. This fortress was not just a military stronghold; it was the burial place of the Hasmonean dynasty. By placing them there with their "μητροπάτορος" (maternal grandfather, Alexander Jannaeus), Josephus subtly notes that in death, the boys were finally returned to their mother’s side of the family, away from the Idumaean house of Herod that had consumed them.
| 395 Ἴσως μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἄλογον ἐνίοις καταφαίνεται τρεφόμενον ἐκ πολλοῦ τὸ μῖσος οὕτως αὐξηθῆναι καὶ περαιτέρω προελθὸν ἀπονικῆσαι τὴν φύσιν. ἐπίστασις δὲ γένοιτ᾽ ἂν εἰκότως, εἴτε εἰς τοὺς νεανίσκους ἀνοιστέον τὴν τοιαύτην αἰτίαν πρὸς αἰτίαν ἐνάγοντας τὸν πατέρα καὶ χρόνῳ παρασκευάσαντας ὑπὸ χαλεπότητος ἀνήκεστον αὐτοῖς, | 395 "Perhaps, then, it does not seem unreasonable to some that a hatred nurtured over a long time should grow in this way and, proceeding further, overcome nature itself. Yet one might reasonably pause to consider whether the blame should be attributed to the young men, who by bringing charge against charge provoked their father and in time prepared an incurable harshness for themselves; |
| 395 And now perhaps it may not seem unreasonable to some, that such an inveterate hatred might increase so much [on both sides], as to proceed further, and overcome nature; but it may justly deserve consideration, whether it be to be laid to the charge of the young men, that they gave such an occasion to their father’s anger, and led him to do what he did, and by going on long in the same way put things past remedy, and brought him to use them so unmercifully; | 395 Some may find it not unreasonable for a hatred so long nourished to finally increase to the extent of overcoming nature. But one may also wonder if the young men were culpable for giving their father so many reasons for anger over a period of time and so bringing his merciless vengeance on themselves. |
| 396 εἴτε καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον, ἀπαθῆ καὶ περιττὸν ὄντα περὶ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ τῆς ἄλλης εὐδοξίας, ὡς μηδένα οἴεσθαι παραλειπτέον ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πᾶν τὸ βουλόμενον ἀνίκητον ἔχειν, | 396 Or whether it should be attributed to the man himself, who was dispassionate and immoderate in his desire for rule and other sorts of renown, so that he thought no one should be spared if it meant he could hold his every whim unconquered; |
| 396 or whether it be to be laid to the father’s charge, that he was so hard-hearted, and so very tender in the desire of government, and of other things that would tend to his glory, that tae would take no one into a partnership with him, that so whatsoever he would have done himself might continue immovable; | 396 Perhaps, again, the blame was his, for being so dour and so obsessed with ruling and with everything concerning his reputation, that he would stop at nothing and wanted to continue having his way, unchallenged. |
| 397 ἢ καὶ τὴν τύχην παντὸς εὐγνώμονος λογισμοῦ μείζω τὴν δύναμιν ἐσχηκυῖαν, ὅθεν καὶ πειθόμεθα τὰς ἀνθρωπίνας πράξεις ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνης προκαθωσιῶσθαι τῇ τοῦ γενέσθαι πάντως ἀνάγκῃ καὶ καλοῦμεν αὐτὴν εἱμαρμένην, ὡς οὐδενὸς ὄντος, ὃ μὴ δι᾽ αὐτὴν γίνεται. | 397 Or whether Fortune (Tychē), possessing a power greater than every reasonable calculation, is the cause; whence we are persuaded that human actions are pre-consecrated by her to the absolute necessity of coming to pass, and we call her Fate (Heimarmenēn), since nothing exists that does not happen through her. |
| 397 or, indeed, whether fortune have not greater power than all prudent reasonings; whence we are persuaded that human actions are thereby determined beforehand by an inevitable necessity, and we call her Fate, because there is nothing which is not done by her; | 397 Or perhaps Fortune’s power is above all intelligent explanation, and we should take the view that human actions are thereby decided in advance by the inevitable necessity we call Fate, so that there is nothing which is not done by her. |
| 398 τοῦτον μὲν οὖν τὸν λόγον ὡς μείζω πρὸς ἐκεῖνον ἀρκέσει κινεῖν ἡμῖν τε αὐτοῖς ἀποδιδόντας τι καὶ τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων οὐκ ἀνυπευθύνους ποιοῦντας, ἃ πρὸ ἡμῶν ἤδη πεφιλοσόφηται καὶ τῷ νόμῳ. | 398 Now, as this argument is too vast for the present purpose, it will suffice to move on by ascribing something to ourselves and not making the differences in our conduct unaccountable—matters which have already been philosophized upon by those before us and by the Law. |
| 398 wherefore I suppose it will be sufficient to compare this notion with that other, which attribute somewhat to ourselves, and renders men not unaccountable for the different conducts of their lives, which notion is no other than the philosophical determination of our ancient law. | 398 It is sufficient to compare this with the opposite notion which attributes things to ourselves and makes us accountable for the various conduct of our lives, which is the philosophical basis for our Law. |
| 399 τῶν δὲ ἄλλων δύο τὸν μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν παίδων μέμψαιτ᾽ ἄν τις αἰτίαν ὑπό τε αὐθαδείας νεωτερικῆς καὶ βασιλικῆς οἰήσεως, ὅτι καὶ διαβολῶν ἠνείχοντο κατὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τῶν πραττομένωνto do αὐτῷ περὶ τὸν βίον οὐκ εὐμενεῖς ἦσαν ἐξετασταί, καὶ κακοήθεις μὲν ὑπονοεῖν, ἀκρατεῖς δὲ λέγειν, εὐάλωται δὲ δι᾽ ἀμφότερα τοῖς ἐπιτηροῦσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ πρὸς χάριν καταμηνύουσιν. | 399 As for the other two causes: one might blame the sons for a fault stemming from youthful arrogance and royal conceit, in that they tolerated slanders against their father and were not well-disposed observers of his private life; they were malicious in their suspicions, unrestrained in their speech, and thus easily caught by those watching them and reporting for favor. |
| 399 Accordingly, of the two other causes of this sad event, any body may lay the blame on the young men, who acted by youthful vanity, and pride of their royal birth, that they should bear to hear the calumnies that were raised against their father, while certainly they were not equitable judges of the actions of his life, but ill-natured in suspecting, and intemperate in speaking of it, and on both accounts easily caught by those that observed them, and revealed them to gain favor; | 399 Of the other two causes we mentioned, one may blame the young men for acting out of youthful vanity and sense of royalty, ready to listen to allegations against their father, and certainly not fair in judging the actions of his life, but ill-natured in their suspicion and intemperate in speech and on both counts an easy prey to those who watched them and denounced them to gain favour. |
| 400 ὁ μέντοι πατὴρ οὐδ᾽ ἐντροπῆς ἄξιος ἔοικεν φαίνεσθαι τοῦ περὶ ἐκείνους ἀσεβήματος, ὃς οὔτε πίστιν ἐπιβουλῆς ἐναργῆvisible λαβὼν οὔτε παρασκευὴν ἐπιχειρήσεως ἐλέγχειν ἔχων ἐτόλμησεν ἀποκτεῖναι τοὺς ἐξ αὐτοῦ φύντας, ἀρίστους μὲν τὰ σώματα καὶ περιποθήτους πᾶσιν τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις, οὐκ ἀποδέοντας δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασιν, εἴ που θηρᾶν ἢ γυμνάζεσθαι τὰ πολέμων ἢ λέγειν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐμπεσόντων ἔδει. | 400 However, the father seems to appear worthy of no respect regarding the impiety toward them; he who, having obtained no clear proof of a plot nor being able to demonstrate any preparation for an attack, dared to kill those born of him—men excellent in body and desired by all strangers, and who were not lacking in their pursuits, whether it was necessary to hunt, or to practice the exercises of war, or to speak on behalf of those in trouble. |
| 400 yet cannot their father be thought worthy of excuse, as to that horrid impiety which he was guilty of about them, while he ventured, without any certain evidence of their treacherous designs against him, and without any proofs that they had made preparations for such attempt, to kill his own sons, who were of very comely bodies, and the great darlings of other men, and no way deficient in their conduct, whether it were in hunting, or in warlike exercises, or in speaking upon occasional topics of discourse; | 400 On the other hand, their father cannot be excused for his horrific treatment of them, when, without any certain proof of a plot against him or evidence that they were planning it, he dared to kill his own sons, who were so handsome in body and so cherished by others and proficient in action, in hunting, or in military exercises, or in speaking about various topics. |
| 401 τούτων γὰρ ἁπάντων μετεῖχον, ἈλέξανδροςAlexander δὲ καὶ μᾶλλον ὁ πρεσβύτερος· ἤρκει γάρ, εἰ καὶ κατέγνω, καὶ ζῶντας ὅμως ἐν δεσμοῖς ἢ ξενιτεύοντας ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἔχειν μεγάλην ἀσφάλειαν αὐτῷ περιβεβλημένῳ τὴν ῬωμαίωνRoman, Latin δύναμιν, δι᾽ ἣν οὐδὲν οὐδ᾽ ἐξ ἐφόδου καὶ βίας παθεῖν ἐδύνατο. | 401 For they shared in all these qualities, and Alexander, the elder, even more so. It would have been sufficient, even if he had condemned them, to keep them alive in chains or living abroad from the kingdom; this would have provided great security for him, surrounded as he was by the power of the Romans, through which he could suffer nothing by assault or force. |
| 401 for in all these they were skillful, and especially Alexander, who was the eldest; for certainly it had been sufficient, even though he had condemned them, to have kept them alive in bonds, or to let them live at a distance from his dominions in banishment, while he was surrounded by the Roman forces, which were a strong security to him, whose help would prevent his suffering any thing by a sudden onset, or by open force; | 401 In all these they were skilled, especially the elder of them, Alexander. Even if he condemned them, it would have sufficed to keep them alive in chains, or to let them live in exile, far from his dominions, while he had the strong security of Roman forces around him, to protect him from any attack or violence. |
| 402 τὸ δ᾽ ἀποκτεῖναι ταχὺ καὶ πρὸς ἡδονὴν τοῦ νικῶντος αὐτὸν πάθους ἀσεβείαςungodliness τεκμήριον ἀνυποτιμήτου Καὶ τῆς ἡλικίας οὔσης ἐν γήρᾳ τοσοῦτον ἐξήμαρτεν. | 402 But to kill them quickly and for the pleasure of the passion that conquered him is a token of unmeasurable impiety; and he committed such a sin while being in the old age of his life. |
| 402 but for him to kill them on the sudden, in order to gratify a passion that governed him, was a demonstration of insufferable impiety. He also was guilty of so great a crime in his older age; | 402 But to kill them hastily, simply to gratify his fierce passion, was a woeful act of impiety especially as this crime was committed in his old age. |
| 403 ἥ γε μὴν παρολκὴ καὶ τὸ χρονίζον οὐκ ἂν αὐτῷ συγγνώμην τινὰ φέροι· ταχὺ μὲν γὰρ ἐκπλαγέντα καὶ κεκινημένον χωρῆσαι πρός τι τῶν ἀτόπων, εἰ καὶ δυσχερές, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ συμβαῖνον, ἐν ἐπιστάσει δὲ καὶ μήκει πολλάκις μὲν ὁρμηθέντα πολλάκις δὲ μελλήσαντα τὸ τελευταῖον ὑποστῆναι καὶ διαπράξασθαι, φονώσης καὶ δυσμετακινήτου ψυχῆς ἀπὸ τῶν χειρόνων. | 403 Furthermore, his stalling and the long delay bring him no excuse. For while it is a common occurrence for a man to be quickly stunned and moved to proceed toward something out of the ordinary—even if it is difficult—yet to have been driven many times and to have hesitated many times, only at last to submit to and carry out the act, is the mark of a murderous soul that is difficult to turn from worse things. |
| 403 nor will the delays that he made, and the length of time in which the thing was done, plead at all for his excuse; for when a man is on a sudden amazed, and in commotion of mind, and then commits a wicked action, although this be a heavy crime, yet is it a thing that frequently happens; but to do it upon deliberation, and after frequent attempts, and as frequent puttings-off, to undertake it at last, and accomplish it, was the action of a murderous mind, and such as was not easily moved from that which is evil. | 403 Nor can he be excused because of the postponements or the length of time over which it was done, since a man may be excused for committing a crime, even a major one, when he is suddenly caught off guard and troubled in mind, but to do so after reflection and frequent impulses and as many delays, and then finally carry it out, was the act of a murderous mind not easily turned aside from evil. |
| 404 ἐδήλωσεν δὲ καὶ τοῖς αὖθις οὐκ ἀποσχόμενος οὐδὲ τῶν περιλοίπων ὅσους ἐδόκει φιλτάτους, ἐφ᾽ οἷς τὸ μὲν δίκαιον ἔλαττονsmaller, less ἐποίει συμπαθεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀπολλυμένους, τὸ δ᾽ ὠμὸν ὅμοιον ἦν τὸ μηδὲ ἐκείνων φεισάμενον. διέξιμεν δὲ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἑξῆς ἀφηγούμενοι. | 404 He demonstrated this also to those who came after, by not sparing even those remaining who seemed most dear; because of which, the justice of the matter made the destruction of those who perished less pitied, but his cruelty was the same in that he did not spare them either. We shall relate the details concerning them in the following account." |
| 404 And this temper he showed in what he did afterward, when he did not spare those that seemed to be the best beloved of his friends that were left, wherein, though the justice of the punishment caused those that perished to be the less pitied, yet was the barbarity of the man here equal, in that he did not abstain from their slaughter also. But of those persons we shall have occasion to discourse more hereafter. | 404 He showed the same mindset elsewhere, not sparing others who seemed his closest friends, and if the justice in those cases caused those who died to be less pitied, his savagery was such that he did not refrain from killing them either. We shall have occasion to talk more of these, later. |
The Tripartite Theory of Causality
Josephus presents three potential reasons for the tragedy, a common trope in Greco-Roman historiography to explain "unnatural" events:
Note how Josephus dismisses the "Fate" argument quickly ("as it is too vast"). He wants to maintain human accountability ("not making the differences in our conduct unaccountable"). This aligns with his description elsewhere of the Pharisaic sect, which held a middle-ground position: God/Fate determines the general course of history, but the individual is responsible for their moral choices.
The Critique of the Sons: "Royal Conceit"
Josephus avoids making the sons pure martyrs. He blames their "βασιλικῆς οἰήσεως" (royal conceit). They were "unrestrained in speech" ("ἀκρατεῖς δὲ λέγειν") and "easy targets" ("εὐάλωται") for spies. Their tragedy was a lack of Phronēsis (practical wisdom); they lived in a shark tank but acted like they were in a gymnasium.
The "Old Age" Argument
Josephus notes Herod was "ἐν γήρᾳ" (in old age). In ancient thought, age was supposed to bring the cooling of passions and the growth of wisdom. For Herod to become more murderous in his 70s was seen as a perversion of the natural order. It signaled that his soul was "δυσμετακινήτου" (immovable/difficult to turn) from evil.
The "Delay" as Evidence of Malice
Usually, taking one's time is a virtue. Here, Josephus argues the opposite. If Herod had killed them in a "fit of rage," it might be a human failing. But because he "hesitated many times" ("πολλάκις δὲ μελλήσαντα") and still chose to kill them, it proves his soul was "murderous" ("φονώσης") at its core. The delay wasn't deliberation; it was a slow-simmering malice.
Josephus presents three potential reasons for the tragedy, a common trope in Greco-Roman historiography to explain "unnatural" events:
1) The Psychological/Natural: The sons' arrogance provoked a defensive, "incurable" reaction from their father.
2) The Volitional/Tyrannical: Herod’s insatiable ego and "lust for power" (epithymian tēs archēs).
3) The Metaphysical: Fortune (Tychē) or Fate (Heimarmenēn).
The Pharisaic View of FateNote how Josephus dismisses the "Fate" argument quickly ("as it is too vast"). He wants to maintain human accountability ("not making the differences in our conduct unaccountable"). This aligns with his description elsewhere of the Pharisaic sect, which held a middle-ground position: God/Fate determines the general course of history, but the individual is responsible for their moral choices.
The Critique of the Sons: "Royal Conceit"
Josephus avoids making the sons pure martyrs. He blames their "βασιλικῆς οἰήσεως" (royal conceit). They were "unrestrained in speech" ("ἀκρατεῖς δὲ λέγειν") and "easy targets" ("εὐάλωται") for spies. Their tragedy was a lack of Phronēsis (practical wisdom); they lived in a shark tank but acted like they were in a gymnasium.
The "Old Age" Argument
Josephus notes Herod was "ἐν γήρᾳ" (in old age). In ancient thought, age was supposed to bring the cooling of passions and the growth of wisdom. For Herod to become more murderous in his 70s was seen as a perversion of the natural order. It signaled that his soul was "δυσμετακινήτου" (immovable/difficult to turn) from evil.
The "Delay" as Evidence of Malice
Usually, taking one's time is a virtue. Here, Josephus argues the opposite. If Herod had killed them in a "fit of rage," it might be a human failing. But because he "hesitated many times" ("πολλάκις δὲ μελλήσαντα") and still chose to kill them, it proves his soul was "murderous" ("φονώσης") at its core. The delay wasn't deliberation; it was a slow-simmering malice.