oiN:i or rvisn s1inirs, voi. iiii, No.

2, :i1ixN 2002
Josephus on Herods Attitude towards
Jewish Religion: The Darker Side
GinroN Fixs
University of Haifa
T
he history of Herod and his reign is the largest thematic section in Jose-
phus Antiquities.
1
In the War too his story occupies a relatively large
space.
2
In both books the main source utilized by Josephus is the Universal
History of Nicolaus of Damascus.
3
But while in the War Herod is usually por-
trayed in a positive manner, this is not the case in the Antiquities. In this book
one is immediately aware of the fact that Herod is quite often depicted in a
negative manner.
4
The Antiquities is rife with hostile evaluations of the king,
5
most of them, so it seems, based on Josephus own observations of Herods
personality.
6
One of the most persistent negative undercurrents is Herods dis-
regard for Jewish law and Jewish religious feelings.
The aim of this paper is to nd out howJosephus handles this material, and
what can be learned from it about Herod. I will divide the discussion of the
evidence into two parts. The rst will deal with those cases where Josephus ex-
plicitly denounces Herods actions as injurious to Jewish law. The second part
will deal with those incidents mentioned by Josephus, but not commented
upon by him as transgressing Jewish religious laws. The order of the discus-
sion follows Josephus chronological placement of the various events in the
Antiquities, which as we shall see is much more detailed in these matters than
the War.
The rst case comes rather early in the story. The young Herod, while serv-
ing as the governor of Galilee had Ezekias and many of his men killed.
7
The leading men among the Jews (evidently the aristocratic faction opposing
the rising power of Antipater and his sons) denounced Herod to Hyracanus,
claiming that Herod had done it in violation of our law, which forbids us to
slay a man, even an evildoer, unless he is rst convicted by the Synhedrion to
suer this fate.
8
It is true that Josephus does not speak here directly, but he
1
Herod rst appears in Ant. 14:158, and leaves the stage in Ant. 17:199.
2
War 1: 203673.
3
See e.g. H. S. J. Thackeray, Josephus: the Man and the Historian (New York, 1929), p. 66;
M. Grant, Herod the Great (London, 1971), pp. 236237. For a short discussion on Josephus
sources see S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian
(Leiden, 1979), pp. 5258.
4
Cf. ibid., p. 236.
5
E.g. Ant. 16:150159, 183187, 395404; 17:191192.
6
Cf. Thackeray (above, n. 3), p. 67; Cohen (above, n. 3), p. 54, n. 102; p. 55, n. 105; p. 57, n.
112.
7
Ant. 14:159; War 1:204.
8
Ant. 14:167. In War 1:209 only the violation of the law is mentioned without reference to
the Synhedrion. On the vexed question of the Sanhedrin see H. Mantel, Studies in the History of
the Sanhedrin (Cambridge MA, 1961), pp. 54101. Cf., however, D. Goodblatt, Studies in Jewish
Self-Government in Antiquity (Tbingen, 1994), pp. 103130.
osrinis oN nrons :11i1inr 239
lets the accusation oat, in a general context which is rather hostile to Antipa-
ter and Herod.
9
It should be noted, however, that though Josephus is using
here the word , he is probably not referring to any specic biblical law,
but rather to the judicial custom that has evolved during the later part of the
Second Temple period.
Next comes a special section in which Josephus describes how Herod had
built a theatre and an amphitheatre in Jerusalem and had instituted athletic
and gladiatorial games.
10
This is a vehement attack on Herod, accusing him
not only of departing from the native customs, but actually of corrupting
the Jews ancient way of life, and causing harm to later generations who ne-
glected those things . . . which had formerly induced piety in the masses.
11
Josephus evidently regarded both the new buildings and the games as having
introduced foreign and unwanted elements into the Jewish way of life. But
probably what was most shocking for Herods Jewish contemporaries was the
throwing of condemned men to wild beasts.
12
Twice in the same paragraph
(275) Josephus employs the adjective to describe Herods sacrilegious
acts, both of throwing men to beasts for the pleasure of the spectators and
of introducing foreign practices. This usage may be intended. Alla Kushnir-
Stein has recently argued, on the basis of a new reading of an inscribed lead
weight from Ashdod, that one of the titles of Herod the Great was .
13
It seems to me that Herod have adopted this epithet following his reconstruc-
tion of the Temple.
14
Thus it seems likely that Josephus chose on purpose a
word with just the opposite meaning, when describing Herods baneful acts.
However, inadvertently Josephus introduced into this attack on Herod a miti-
gating element. The king is said to have been keen to reassure the Jews that no
transgression of the Law was involved concerning the trophies that adorned
the theatre.
15
The next case seems to be even clearer in terms of Herod breaching a re-
ligious law. It involves his activity of building pagan temples in honour of
Augustus. And yet it must be pointed out that since Josephus is following
Nicolaus of Damascus in his main narrative, his criticism of Herods deeds
does not come directly, but more in a kind of inverse order. First, Josephus
describes the building of the temple of Augustus in Sebaste.
16
No word of
censure is uttered. On the contrary, the temple is described as one that in size
9
Especially in the Antiquities, where some nancial irregularities are also mentioned
(14:164).
10
Ant. 15:267276. This section has no parallel in the War, on which see below.
11
Ant. 15:267.
12
Ant. 15:274275.
13
A. Kushnir-Stein, An Inscribed Lead Weight from Ashdod: A Reconsideration, ZPE 105
(1995), pp. 8184. Endorsed by N. Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and
Eclipse (Sheeld, 1998), pp. 128, n. 153; 307, n. 152.
14
Cf. Herods speech to the people before the beginning of the work, where and
are employed: Ant. 15:384, 387. Note also the use of in War 1:400, introducing
the restoration of the Temple.
15
Ant. 15:277279.
16
Ant. 15:298; War 1:403.
240 oiN:i or rvisn s1inirs
and beauty was among the most renowned.
17
Later, Josephus describes the
building of the temple of Augustus (and Roma) in Caesarea.
18
However, in
between these two descriptions there is a digression in which Josephus voices
his own vehement personal view of Herods benefactions to gentile cities.
19
Here Josephus atly says that because of Herods ambition to atter Augus-
tus he was forced to depart from the customs (of the Jews) and to alter many
of their regulations.
20
Although Josephus acknowledges the fact that none of
those temples was built on Jewish territory proper, he is nevertheless adamant
about the negative character of Herods deeds. This he emphasizes by accusing
Herod of having excused himself to the Jews by saying that he was doing these
things against his own will on the order of Augustus, while at the same time
telling Augustus that he [Herod] was less intent upon observing the customs
of his own nation than upon honouring them [Augustus and the Romans].
21
Even if these accusations have the appearance of a popular rumour, they still
show what the Jews (and Josephus) thought of Herod. The transgression of
Jewish law is emphasized again in another section where Josephus draws a
scathing picture of Herod, citing his wish to be honoured by temples and
statues, in much the same way as he has honoured Augustus.
22
Later, when Josephus describes how Herod built a very beautiful temple
of white stone at Paneion in honour of Augustus, his criticism is not direct.
23
Only when he passes to the next item in his description of Herods reign, he
remarks that some people were disaected, for they resented his [Herods]
carrying out such arrangements as seemed to them to mean the dissolution of
their religion and the disappearance of their customs.
24
It seems that by such
arrangements Josephus is referring to the building of the temple at Paneion.
At the beginning of the sixteenth book of the Antiquities Josephus cites for
the rst time an actual biblical law contravened by Herod, instead of just re-
ferring rather vaguely to the laws.
25
It involves a law devised by Herod to the
eect that housebreakers should be sold (into slavery) and be deported from
the kingdom.
26
Josephus rst denounces Herods law as a violation of the an-
cestral customs. Then he goes on to explain that selling Jews to be enslaved by
foreigners is an oence against the Jewish religion, because those men will be
under the authority of their masters (implying that the slaves will be unable to
practice Judaism). At this stage Josephus gives the essence of the biblical law
17
Ant. 15:298.
18
Ant. 15:339; War 1:414 with eusive praise of the temple and its colossal statues.
19
Ant. 15:328330.
20
Josephus uses here the word , which has the meaning of tradition based on a
religious law in connection with the Torah. See K. H. Rengstorf, A Complete Concordance to
Flavius Josephus, vol. III (Leiden, 1979), s.v.
21
Ant. 15:330.
22
Ant. 15:157159.
23
Ant. 15:363364; War 1:404.
24
Ant. 15:365, with no parallel in the War.
25
Ant. 16:15, especially 16:2.
26
Ant. 16:1. See A. Schalit, Knig Herodes: der Mann und sein Werk (Berlin, 1969), pp. 230
237, explaining Herods law as an astute way of allowing the king to deport his political oppo-
nents.
osrinis oN nrons :11i1inr 241
concerning housebreakers.
27
The gist of the whole episode is that Herod not
only overturned a biblical law, but that he also neglected his natural duty as
a king to protect his subjects religion.
28
We come now to the fth case in which Josephus can be perceived as accus-
ing Herod of a religious transgression. I allude to what we may call Herods vi-
olation of Davids Tomb.
29
The king is described as having entered the tomb in
order to extract many ornaments of gold and other valuable deposits (181).
Although Josephus does not say anything direct about grave-violation, he is
keen to point out that Herod took precautions not to be seen doing it (180),
and also to point out that Herods court-historian, Nicolaus of Damascus,
considered this action improper and therefore kept silent about it in his his-
tory (183). While I think that all the cases of Herods impiety mentioned so
far had a factual basis, the case of Davids Tomb seems dierent. Whatever
may have been buried with David and Solomon surely must have disappeared
after the sack and destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BCE.
And so there was no practical reason for Herod to break into the tombs. The
story is, according to my reading a agrant smear of Herod.
30
Last, but not least, among Herods impieties on which Josephus comments,
comes the erection of a great golden eagle over the main entrance of the
Temple.
31
This eagle probably adorned the Temple since the celebration of
its restoration by Herod in 18 BCE.
32
Josephus does not say when the ea-
gle was erected, but it stands to reason that Herod would have crowned the
restoration with such a potent symbol.
33
However, it is less clear what the
eagle stood for. Otto thought that, following Seleucid symbolism, the eagle
signied Herods wish to be deied.
34
Schalit rightly rejected Ottos sugges-
tion. He pointed out that Herod knew his Jewish subjects well and realized
that such a notion would not be tolerated by them.
35
Instead Schalit searched
for a dierent meaning and came up with two suggestions: (a) that it symbol-
ized Herods authority over the Temple Mount, the eagle being the symbol of
Herods kingship and his protection of the Temple, as an eagle would guard
27
Ant. 16:3, following Exodus 22:12.
28
See J. Gutman, The Order of Herod against the Thieves Caught Breaking in, in E. Bin
Gorion (ed.), Eder Ha-Yakar: Sefer Shmuel Horodezky (Tel Aviv, 1947), pp. 5986 (in Hebrew).
29
Ant. 16:179183. For a partial parallel see Ant. 7:394. Again without a parallel in the War.
30
For a similar (and equally spurious) account concerning John Hyrcanus, see Ant. 13:249;
7:393; War 1:61. See also B. Bar-Kochva, Manpower, Economics, and Internal Strife in the Has-
monean State, in H. van Eenterre (ed.), Armes et scalit dans le monde antique (Paris, 1977),
pp. 181185, who diers in his assessment of Nicolaus original description of Herods deeds.
Though Bar-Kochva seems to agree that there was no money in Davids Tomb, he nevertheless
envisages the possibility of an attempt by the king to enter the tomb. Herods motive thus remains
unclear, but his sacrilegious attempt is left to stay according to Bar Kochva.
31
Ant. 17:151; War 1:650.
32
For the date see E. Schrer, A History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised
and edited by G. Vermes and F. Millar, vol. I (Edinburgh, 1973), p. 292, n. 12.
33
For a similar view see E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, vol.
VIII (New York, 1958), p. 123. Schalit (above, n. 26), p. 734, thinks it was mounted shortly before
Herods death.
34
W. Otto, Herodes, Pauly-Wissova, Supplementband II (Stuttgart, 1913), cols. 109110.
35
Schalit (above, n. 26), p. 458.
242 oiN:i or rvisn s1inirs
over its chicks; and (b) the eagle is the Roman eagle, and its erection there
testies to Herods loyalty to Rome.
36
Quite another solution was proposed
by Goodenough, who after a long discussion came to the conclusion that
Herods eagle represented God or the power of God.
37
Whatever was the true meaning of the eagle for Herod, it is quite clear
from Josephus that for some Jews it was religiously oensive. In the Antiq-
uities Josephus explicitly says that Herod had set about doing certain things
that were contrary to the law, which forbids . . . setting up images . . . of (the
likeness of) any living creatures.
38
However, it seems that the majority of the
Jews did not share this very strict understanding of the Law. It seems, there-
fore, that only certain ultra-zealous Jews found fault with Herod concerning
the eagle, and that the majority of the people did not mind it.
39
One should
mention in this context that an eagle with closed wings (akin to the Ptolemaic
eagle) appears on one type of Herods coins.
40
It is tempting to assume that
this type was minted in order to commemorate the rebuilding of the Temple.
41
We come now to the second part of our discussion, which deals with three
cases mentioned by Josephus without any negative comment, though to us
they would seem to have involved transgression of Jewish law, some of it a-
grant. The rst and most serious transgression was Herods participation in
the solemn sacrice to Jupiter in the great temple on the Capitol to mark his
inauguration as king of Judaea.
42
Herod must have been fully aware of what
this participation in a pagan cult meant to him as a Jew.
43
One could of course
add insult to injury and take notice of the fact that on that night, the rst
of Herods reign, Anthony threw a banquet in his honour,
44
which denitely
involved Herod breaking Jewish dietary rules. It is quite astounding that Jose-
phus did not have anything to say about the kings sacricial transgression.
This goes only to show that when Josephus was following Nicolaus account,
he was not always fully aware of the implications of the latters text. Unless, of
course, Josephus himself had something similar to hide in his relations with
Vespasian or Titus.
The second case is related to Herods war with the Nabataeans before Ac-
tium. After a crushing defeat dealt him by Cleopatras general Athenion and
the Nabataeans, followed later by a devastating earthquake, Herod exhorted
his soldiers in a long speech.
45
Immediately after the speech, which uplifted
36
Ibid., p. 734. For preference of the second suggestion see already A. H. M. Jones, The
Herods of Judaea (Oxford, 1938), p. 148.
37
Goodenough (above, n. 33), p. 129.
38
Ant. 16:151. Similarly War 1:649650.
39
See also Jones (above, n. 36), pp. 149150, Goodenough (above, n. 33), pp. 123124, on
whether this really contravened Jewish law.
40
Y. Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, vol. II (Dix Hills, N.Y., 1982), p. 29.
41
Goodenough (above, n. 33), p. 124; Meshorer (above, n. 40), p. 29.
42
Ant. 14:388; War 1:285.
43
E. M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule (Leiden, 1976), pp. 5556, stresses the irony
of this kind of an inauguration to the reign of a king of the Jews. See also Grant (above, n. 3),
p. 50.
44
Ant. 14:388; War 1:285.
45
Ant. 15:115146.
osrinis oN nrons :11i1inr 243
the spirits of his men, we are told that Herod performed the customary sac-
rices, and then moving in haste led his soldiers against the Nabataeans.
46
The reference to Herod performing a sacrice is really astonishing. We expect
sacrices to be performed only in the Temple and only by priests. And in-
deed that is how R. Marcus explained the matter in his note: i.e. Herod asked
the priests of the temple in Jerusalem to oer sacrice.
47
However, a careful
reading of the Antiquities does not seem to vindicate Marcus conservative
explanation.
48
Josephus rst describes the benecial eects of Herods speech
(delivered near the battleeld), then comes the performing of the sacrice by
the king, and then the army moves in haste against the Nabataeans. The
Temple has no place in this description.
49
This leaves Herod acting in a very
unconventional manner (from a conservative Jewish point of view), though
one could argue that these were extreme circumstances. And yet, as was the
case with the sacrice on the Capitol, Josephus somehow ignores the religious
implications altogether.
The third case is a borderline case. In about 23 BCE Herod took Mari-
ammes sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, to be educated in Rome. The
sons, we are told, stayed in the house of Pollio, who professed himself one
of Herods most devoted friends.
50
Pollio is usually identied with Gaius
Asinius Pollio, the famous historian, poet and orator, who was consul in 40
BCE, when Herod received the kingship in Rome.
51
This raises the possibility
of Herods sons staying for some years at a pagan household and environ-
ment. Indeed Schalit thought that this situation must have been viewed with
displeasure by the Judaean populace.
52
Feldman, on the other hand, tried to
mitigate the shame by postulating that Pollio was friendly to Judaism, and
that Herod was thus attempting to have his sons educated in an atmosphere
sympathetic to Judaism.
53
However, this apologetic approach is unnecessary.
When in Rome the Herods always acted as Romans. So the father, so the sons,
and the best example is the grandson, Agrippa. They were not bothered by
public opinion at home, and the case of Agrippa suggests that it did not hin-
46
Ant. 15:147; similarly, War 1:380, where only a single sacrice is mentioned.
47
R. Marcus, Josephus, vol. VIII (Cambridge and London, 1963), p. 71, n.a. (Loeb).
48
Cf. the disparaging remark by M. Smith, Studies in the Cult of Yahwe, ed. S. J. D. Cohen,
vol. I (Leiden, 1996), p. 303.
49
And indeed that is how Michel and Bauernend understood it: O. Michel and O. Bauern-
end, Flavius Josephus, De Bello Judaico, Der jdische Krieg, vol. I (Bad Homburg, 1960), p. 416,
n. 171. See also A. Pelletier, Josphe: Guerre de Juifs, vol. I (Paris, 1975), p. 209, n. 5 to p. 116.
50
Ant. 15:343, with no parallel in the War.
51
See e.g. M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. I (Jerusalem, 1974), p.
213, n. 1. Symes suggestion that he may have been the notoriously cruel Vedius Pollio seems un-
likely: R. Syme, Who was Vedius Pollio?, JRS 51 (1961), p. 30, addendum. See also W. Horbury,
Herods Temple and Herods Days , in idem (ed.), Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second
Temple presented to Ernst Bammel (Sheeld, 1991), pp. 139141. Horbury vacillates between the
various identications of Pollio, but nally settles for a prominent representative of the gentile
element of the Roman friends [of Herod]. Braund (Four Notes on the Herods, CQ (1983),
pp. 240241) has revived the suggestion that Pollio was a Roman Jew. However, for matters of
education in things Roman, Asinius Pollio seems a much better choice.
52
Schalit (above, n. 26), p. 413.
53
L. H. Feldman, Asinius Pollio and his Jewish Interests, TAPA 84 (1953), pp. 7380.
244 oiN:i or rvisn s1inirs
der them either.
When we survey the evidence of Josephus one thing springs immediately to
our attention. Out of the six cases in the Antiquities in which Josephus blames
Herod for transgressions of Jewish law, three have no parallels whatsoever in
the War.
54
While of the other three, which do have parallels in the War, in one
case (the building of pagan temples) the War does not censure Herod in any
way. The much more benign attitude of Josephus towards Herod in the War
has of course been noted long ago by scholars,
55
and this observation holds
true for our topic as well. Evidently when Josephus was writing the history
of Herod in the War he was mainly following the narrative of Nicolaus of
Damascus, who of course did not indulge in any criticism of the king. But
when Josephus was writing the Antiquities his style of writing took a some-
what dierent shape. He used extra sources, and he permitted himself from
time to time to indulge in his own evaluation of events and of the characters
involved. But since Josephus was not exible and creative enough in his use
of Nicolaus even in the Antiquities, this has created, at least in the case of
the pagan temples, a rather odd situation. On the one hand the temples are
described (following Nicolaus) in glowing terms of beauty and size, while on
the other hand the very fact of them being built by Herod is castigated by
Josephus.
So far we have discussed Josephus way of handling his sopurces, but how
does the historical Herod come o this scrutiny? One thing is very clear. Any-
thing that had to do with his immediate interests in Rome took priority over
any possible breach of Jewish law or custom. This is especially conspicuous
with regard to the pagan sacricial ceremony following his formal appellatio
in Rome. Since it was part of what was expected from him as a client king and
took place far from the disapproving eyes of his new subjects, Herod probably
did not have any qualms about it. Likewise his attitude towards the education
of his sons in Rome. It was expected, it was the custom,
56
and living in the
house of such an important man of letters as Asinius Pollio, was probably a
very good introduction into the Roman society and culture of the day. The
fact that he was a gentile was no obstacle for Herod.
Slightly lower in the scale of transgressions comes Herods activity of build-
ing pagan temples. As a client king Herod was expected to build temples in
honour of Augustus as part of the ruler cult.
57
These were the temples in Se-
baste, Paneion and Caesarea. However, the king took care not to build these
temples within Jewish territory, thus showing that when he had an option he
preferred to take at least some account of Jewish religious sensitivities.
Further down the scale we nd the building of a theatre and an amphithe-
atre in Jerusalem and founding athletic and gladiatorial games. These were
54
(a) The building of a theatre and an amphitheatre in Jerusalem and the staging of gladiato-
rial games; (b) selling housebreakers abroad; (c) violating Davids Tomb.
55
See e.g. R. Laqueur, Der jdische Historiker Flavius Josephus (Giessen, 1920), pp. 127134.
56
See D. Braund, Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of the Client Kingship (London
and Canberra, 1984), pp. 921.
57
See M. Beard, J. North and S. Price, Religions of Rome, vol. I (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 348
353.
osrinis oN nrons :11i1inr 245
initiated by Herod as part of his long-term plan to build a bridge between the
Jews and the Greco-Roman culture.
58
Strictly speaking they broke no biblical
law, but according to Josephus they were abhorred by many of the Jews and
regarded as repulsive innovations.
59
All three categories mentioned above either had to do with Augustus, Rome
or the Roman culture. In the fourth and last category I have grouped those
transgressions, which have a bearing on what one may call internal matters
(for lack of a better designation). These include the sacrice before the battle
with the Nabataeans and the new law about housebreakers. Seemingly both
were clear transgressions of biblical law (but as we have seen, Josephus cas-
tigates only the second case). The rst was a morale-boosting attempt in a
very dicult military situation. The second served a political expedient. The
execution of Ezekias and his followers without trial is also part of this group,
though in this case Herod did not break any specic biblical law, but rather a
juridical usage of his day. The last internal case, that of the golden eagle, is
again a borderline case. Apparently only a small minority of Herods subjects
found strict religious fault with it.
One clear line seems to emerge from these cases. Herods prime concern was
to nd favour with Augustus, on whose goodwill depended the kings survival
as a client king. To achieve this goal Herod was ready to break the Jewish law.
This was also true of measures that were important to maintain his iron grip
on his Jewish subjects. However, in matters that were not crucial for his own
survival the king was ready to get his own way without bringing himself into
a direct clash with the majority of his subjects.
60
58
This is dwelt on at great length by Schalit (above, n. 26).
59
See especially Ant. 15:274275.
60
I think Stern is too harsh in his assertion that Herods whole policy was governed by the in-
tention of obscuring the likeness of Judaism beyond recognition (M. Stern, A. Schalits Herod,
JJS 11 (1960), p. 58).