Herod of Tipton |
Then when Herod saw that he had been
tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male
children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and
under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the magi, (Matt. 2:16).
Most folk
know King Herod (74BC - 4BC) through a few passages in the bible, and that is
all. Glorious ignorance and brevity- great men deserve better. And according to
that source, he cruelly put to death all the Bethlehem infants under 2 years to forestall
a future rival king. The only known mention of the atrocity is a few scant
verses in Mathew's gospel (2:16-18). Luke, Mark and John did not deem the event
worthy of note to formulate comment. Luckily we have an independent source for
Herod's life and deeds: Josephus, a Jewish writer under the protection of the
Romans, wrote copiously about this intriguing Jewish King in the latter half of
the first century AD.
Actually,
Herod was an Idumaean and therefore an Arab by birth. He was 'Jewish' due to
the conquest of Idumaea during a Jewish expansionary phase under the Hasmonean dynasty
(140BC - 63BC). King of Judea he may have been but many of his subjects considered
him a foreign usurper placed upon the throne by hated Roman power. This
sentiment was particularly strong amongst the priestly elite. And it was widely
suspected that Herod's commitment to strict Judaism was lack lustre at best.
Josephus
was no fan of Herod and described in lurid detail Herod's cruelty (Antiquities
of the Jews). King Herod was certainly a cruel man if challenged and dealt with
rebellion, or even dissension, with ruthless efficiency. During his reign he
had three sons and a wife put to death as well as other close relatives.
Augustus, the first Roman Emperor, had this to say about Herod: "I would rather be his pig than his
son." The saying in Greek is more elegant than the English version due
to the similar sounding words for 'pig' and 'son'.
Nowhere in
Josephus' writing is any mention of the 'slaughter of the innocents'. If this
had taken place Josephus would have mentioned it. The biblical story is fiction.
It was placed there to draw parallels between the Patriarch of the Old Testament,
Moses and the life of Jesus. Jewish literature is resplendent with such
examples.
At the time of Herod's reign, Judea was
a client kingdom
of Rome . Herod owed his
position and continued reign as a consequence of Roman power. The Romans were a
most practical of people and although they had an extensive Empire they did not
always annex foreign territory, although within their military capability to do
so. This policy was notable on the fringes of the Empire. Sometimes it was
expedient for the Romans to rule through client kings. Although nominally free,
the rulers had certain obligations and were effectively Roman vassals. They
were more or less free to pursue an independent domestic policy unless catastrophic
internal disorder intervened. The wise ruler maintained internal order and appeased
the Romans. Herod was painfully aware of the brutal reality for his family and
his people if he failed. Foreign policy was determined by the Romans. In
addition, the client king had to supply the Romans with tribute, often a
mixture of goods and hard currency. In return, the client had a degree of
political freedom and enjoyed Roman military protection. However, if the
Emperor beckoned the king would have to supply troops for Roman campaigns. For
the Romans, client kingdoms represented imperialism on the cheap. The Romans
received tribute but did not have the burden and cost of supplying garrison
troops or maintaining order. Smart buggers them Romans. To be a successful
Roman client, Herod had to maintain internal order. This was not easy in the Judea of the period. The land was awash with religious
zealots and warring factions. There was an expectation that the Jewish god was
about to intervene and to cleanse the land of the unjust and rule the known
world through the Jewish people. Charismatic leaders and preachers sprang up in
the land like nettles and whipped the people into a frenzy of ecstatic welts. Herod
had a fine balancing act to perform if he wanted to maintain peace and prevent
Roman intervention. Often his cruelty was not arbitrary, but the act of sound
policy. But not always, sometimes Herod acted in pure irrational paranoia and
spite. This is the Herod of biblical description.
Nasty, paranoid
and vicious, Herod was not a man you would want to cross, even when he was
having a good day (and sober). Nonetheless, a smart and politically canny man
for all his foibles and faults. On balance, Herod, was an able ruler of Judea ; he had to be. The Romans certainly thought so and
Herod remained in power for 37 years until his death in 4BC. And I haven't
touched upon the great building projects he initiated which enriched his nation
and provided much needed employment for his people.
Does Herod
deserve to be considered as belonging to the pantheon of 'Great Men'? I think
so, although my viewpoint is controversial. Herod's early life was hard- go
read about it. Astute Romans recognised his talents when he was a young man. He
negotiated the turbulent politics of the Roman civil wars with raw/rare talent
and came out on top. He out-smarted the indomitable ruler of Egypt , Cleopatra and let's face it,
Cleopatra was no political or intellectual slouch herself. Into this mix we
have to add the strangest people in antiquity; the Jews. Strange in their
fanatical observance to their deity; and what an odd and demanding deity Yahweh
was/is. The Jews deserve to be called a people drenched in their love and
devotion to a god which rarely returns the complement. Herod ruled a turbulent
folk in turbulent times; maintained internal order and kept his Roman masters
satisfied for his reign of 37 years. No mean feat. This is why, in my book, he
deserves the title, 'The Great'. Great men are not born, they are forged in the
white heat of circumstance. Tranquil times make great men, not at all. And this
is why I'm happy with the title: 'Herod
the Great'.
Massacre of the innocents: Dat one ugly baby |
In fact, although the story of the Magi and the flight to Egypt are conflated with the other nativity tale, any reading of this version shows that it is a story of a child Jesus, not a newborn. The Magi mention that they saw 'the star' two years earlier, hence the fiction of Herod ordering the death of all children under two years old - a fate which John the Baptist (6 months older than Jesus, allegedly) survived! Since Herod died in 4 BCE this means Jesus was born in about 6 BCE in this version. In the other version Jesus was born between 6 and 12 CE when Cyrenius was governor. These must both be true of course because they are in the Bible!
ReplyDeleteI've heard the argument that the 'slaughter of the innocents' could be a historical event. This is based on the supposition that the Bethlehem of 2,000 years ago had a small population and that the number of infants slaughtered would have been less than 20 and therefore not worthy of reporting by Josephus. Desperate pleading by those who insist on the historical accuracy of the bible.
Delete