Book One: CHAPTER IV--The Roman Occupation

CHAPTER IV

 

The Roman Occupation

 

                        The Roman’s traced their origins back to the mythical figures of Romulus and Remus, twin brothers who were credited with founding the city of Rome in 753 B.C.E., although there is evidence that the actual date of the settlement of Rome predates the traditional chronology. The city of Rome was governed by a series of kings until 509 B.C.E. when an Etruscan nobleman raped a virtuous Roman woman. The Romans rose up against their Etruscan rulers, chased them out of Rome and decided to be done with kings forever, establishing the Republic. The Roman Republic proved to be long-lived, lasting nearly five centuries before it collapsed into military dictatorship. During these five centuries, the power and territory of Rome were constantly expanding.

 

160s B.C.E.                Roman influence in Palestine began around 189 B.C.E. with the defeat of Antiochus III, who was forced to pay the Romans an indemnity of 15,000 talents, the largest war payment the wold had yet seen. The defeat of Antiochus III and the ever increasing influence of the Roman Republic in the region may explain why Antiochus IV felt it was necessary to “unite” his dominions under the guiding force of Hellenism, thus checking Roman power in Palestine. This attempt at forced unity failed. Far from uniting his subjects Antiochus IV triggered a war for independence in Judea. To make matters worse for Antiochus IV, the Judeans, under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus, formed an alliance with Rome, allowing the Republic a legal inroad to intervene in Palestinian affairs. 

 

63 B.C.E.                In the 60s B.C.E., the Roman general, Pompey the Great, conquered the Seleucid monarchy, making Syria a Roman province. The power struggle between Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II provided the Romans with an excuse to intervene in that dispute. The Romans, under the advisement of an ambitious Idumean leader, Antipater, chose Hyrcanus II as High Priest, probably because he was the weaker of the two contestants, and therefore, easier for Rome to manipulate. 

 

                        The Idumeans were made subject to the Maccabean state during the time of John Hyrcanus, who forced the Idumeans to convert to Judaism. Nevertheless, the Idumeans were never truly considered authentically Jewish by the people of Judea. Antipater, the grandfather of the future Herod the Great, successfully maneuvered himself to the post of commander-in-chief of Idumea during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus. His son, also named Antipater, won Roman citizenship for his assistance to Pompey and Julius Caesar, the latter granting him the post of procurator (a sort of military sheriff under the authority of the Syrian Governor) of Judea around 50 B.C.E.

 

                        The Maccabees, however, refused to quietly disappear from the historical scene. Antigonus II, the son of the deposed Aristobulus II, reasserted Maccabean claims of Judean leadership. In 40 B.C.E., with the assistance of the Parthians, he made himself king of Judea. The Romans responded by naming Antipater’s son, Herod, King of the Jews. This gave Herod Roman permission to initiate a civil war against the remnants of the Maccabean dynasty. Herod succeeded in his war with the help of his friend Mark Antony, capturing Jerusalem in 37 B.C.E. and persuading the Romans to execute Antigonus for him. Herod then shrewdly married into the Maccabean family in an attempt to legitimize his reign in the eyes of the Judean populous. Once he became a member of the Maccabean family through his marriage to Mariamme I, the daughter of Alexander Jannaeus and Alexandra, Herod began to systematically kill the last remnants of that dynasty, including his wife and the sons that she bore him.

 

31 B.C.E.                Herod backed his friend Mark Antony in his campaign against Augustus (then known as Octavian), which should have put him in jeopardy when Augustus won the contest at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C.E., becoming the sole ruler of Rome and its first Emperor a few years later. Yet, Herod so effectively transferred his loyalty from the defeated Antony to the victorious Augustus, that the latter allowed him to continue as king until his death in 4 B.C.E.

 

20 B.C.E.                Herod’s long reign is marked by his total and unwavering allegiance to Roman authority. This makes sense since Herod’s rise to power occurred because of Roman backing. Other rulers in Palestine would use their Roman connections to gain power, and then seek to undermine Roman authority once they felt that their power was secure. Herod never did this. 

 

                        Herod’s reign is also marked by his elaborate building projects. In honor of Augustus, Herod rebuilt the city of Samaria and constructed an artificial port at Caesarea Maritima. He also constructed fortresses all over Palestine in case of revolution. His crowning achievement was the renovation of the Temple in Jerusalem, which began in 20 B.C.E. and continued long past his death, finally being complete in 62 C.E., a few short years before its destruction by the Roman general Titus. The Temple priests did not trust Herod’s intention to renovate the Temple. Many of them believed that it was merely an excuse to dismantle the Temple and the priesthood. As a result, the priests were trained as carpenters and educated in other building skills so that they could oversee the renovation and so that the daily sacrifices would never be interrupted. 

 

7 B.C.E.?                The Gospel of Matthew places the birth of Jesus of Nazareth during the last few years of Herod’s reign. If this is historically accurate then Jesus would have been born sometime between 8 to 4 B.C.E. Matthew’s birth narrative states that Jesus’ birth coincided with a mass murder of the children of Bethlehem, which was ordered by Herod. Typically, there is no historical source outside of Matthew’s Gospel that confirms this action of Herod. Whether or not the story reflects actual history, Matthew clearly intended the story to call to mind the biblical story of Moses, identifying the infant Jesus with the infant Moses, casting Herod in the role of the obstinate Pharaoh. Yet, in spite of this obvious thematic device, and in spite of the lack of corroborating evidence to support its historicity, the story of the slaughter of the children of Bethlehem does reflect an historical element pertaining to Herod’s reign.

 

                        To put it simply, Herod was a brutal ruler. In fact he was so brutal that the manner of his rule has inspired debate throughout the years relating his mental stability. Yet, even though Herod’s rule may appear to contemporary sensibilities to be that of a psychopathic-misanthrope, it was very much in keeping with the type of rule of any other Oriental despot of the time. Add to this the fact that Herod’s hold over his subjects was tenuous at best, and that Herod’s rise to power was through political manipulation and it is not difficult to understand the source of Herod’s ruthlessness. 

 

                        It is true that those who rise to power through conniving and intrigue are often suspicious of the motives of those around them. Herod was well aware that his family’s rise to prominence was directly the result of political scheming and manipulation, a skill at which Herod proved to be extremely successful. Herod was also aware that there were many within his kingdom who would also prove to be just as successful if given the opportunity. The result was that anyone who registered on Herod’s radar as a potential political rival was quickly disposed of, even if it meant the death of his own children. This ruthless attempt to keep his palace in order inspired the Emperor Augustus to remark that “It is better to be Herod’s swine than his son.” Therefore, even if the so-called “Slaughter of the Innocents” was simply a literary fiction intended by Matthew to make a bold theological statement, it is not beyond belief that Herod would have done such a thing if he felt that it were politically expedient.

 

4 B.C.E.                        The story of the slaughter of the Bethlehem children may also relate to an actual reportedly event. Nicholas of Damascus, Herod’s biographer and friend, reported that when Herod realized that he was dying, he knew that if any tears at all were shed on the event of his death, they would be tears of joy. So Herod decided to create the sufficient level of genuine mourning by locking well-loved and prominent men in the hippodrome of Jericho, with orders that they were to be killed at the exact moment of his death. This order was never carried out.

 

                        The Romans divided up Herod’s kingdom at his death. Herod’s principal heir was his son, Archelaus. The citizens of Judea petitioned the Emperor to merge their territory with that of the province of Syria. Augustus, however, decided to honor Herod’s will, although he appears to have been sympathetic to the Judean request. Archelaus received about half of his father’s kingdom (Judah, Samaria, Idumea, and several cities, including Jerusalem), and the title of ethnarch, with the promise of an eventual royal title should he rule well. He did not rule well at all, causing the Romans, at the request of the Judeans, to depose him in 7 C.E. He was banished to the province of Gaul. His territory was placed under the authority of the Syrian governor, directly administered by a procurator, who resided in Caesarea Maritima. In 41 C.E., Archelaus’ former territory was given to his nephew, Herod Agrippa, by the Emperor Claudius.

 

                         Archelaus’ brother, Herod Antipas, received the region of Galilee and the title of tetrarch (the ruler of a quarter of a region). This is the Herod mentioned in the New Testament as the executioner of John the Baptist and the taunter of Jesus. Like his father, Herod Antipas possessed a feeble hold over his subjects loyalty, a loyalty he strained further by marrying the wife of his brother, Philip. When the Emperor Gaius Caligula, made his nephew, Herod Agrippa, the King of Philip’s (Herod Antipas’ half-brother who was also made tetrarch upon Herod the Great’s death) former territories, Herod Antipas’ wife convinced him into traveling to Rome to ask the Emperor to make him King of Galilee. Instead of becoming king, however, Herod Antipas arrived in Rome to discover that his nephew had accused him of conspiring against the Romans. In 39 C.E. Herod Antipas was banished to Gaul, where, like his brother before him, he faded from history. His territory of Galilee was added to that of his nephew, Herod Agrippa.

 

                        Herod Agrippa was the grandson of Herod the Great and a descendant of the Maccabean family. He had spent his youth in the city of Rome, educated along side of the members of the Imperial family, including the future emperor, Claudius, and Drusus, the son of Tiberias. Herod Agrippa was also appointed the companion of young Gaius Caligula. This arrangement allowed him first hand knowledge of the workings of Imperial government, as well as providing the opportunity of making powerful friends, who would serve him well when they obtained power. It is said that Tiberias was not fond of Herod Agrippa because of the influence he had on Drusus, though that influence mainly applied to late-night reveling. 

 

                        Herod Agrippa attempted to live in the manner of his friend’s opulence, generating more debt than he could pay. His uncle, Herod Antipas, attempted to help him out of his financial troubles by providing a post for him in the Galilean government. It was not long, however, before the two Herods quarreled and Herod Agrippa found himself once more heading for Rome. Tiberias, who had grown decadent and suspicious in his old age, arrested Herod Agrippa, imprisoning him until his death a few months later.

 

37 C.E.                        The death of Tiberias brought good fortune for Herod Agrippa. The new emperor was his childhood companion, Gaius Caligula. Caligula granted Herod Agrippa the territories of his uncle Philip, making him a king rather than a mere tetrarch. In 40 C.E., Herod Agrippa received from Caligula the gift of Galilee. Caligula was assassinate in 41 C.E. and the new emperor, Claudius, granted Herod Agrippa the former territories of his uncle, Archelaus, as a reward for his assistance in helping to secure the succession of the Imperial seat for Claudius. From 41 to 44 C.E., Herod Agrippa ruled a kingdom larger than that of his grandfather’s.

 

44 C.E.                        Herod Agrippa may have lived like a Roman in his youth, but he became the model of Judaism upon his ascension of royal authority. So much so that he received praise from many of his contemporaries for his devotion to his religion. This devotion caused him to persecute the early-Christian movement based in Jerusalem, killing prominent members of the new sect. It may be that Herod Agrippa conceived of his own reign as a messianic event. It is clear that he was attempting to form an alliance with other Palestinian and Middle-Eastern nations for the purpose of rebelling against Roman occupation. He died unexpectedly before anything could come of this attempted alliance. The Jewish historian Josephus and the Book of Acts in the New Testament agree that while addressing a crowd in Caesarea, he suffered from some sort of seizure, dying soon afterward. The pronouncement of both sources is that his death was the result of divine judgement. Herod Agrippa received divine honors from the crowd, embezzling the honor due to God. Josephus adds to the account that just before his seizure, an owl entered the chamber. According to Josephus, an owl had appeared to Herod Agrippa while he was imprisoned during the reign of Tiberias, which foretold his good fortune. The owl had now returned to foretell of his death.

 

                        Upon Herod Agrippa’s death, a portion of his holdings were given to his son, Herod Agrippa II, but the majority, including Judea, came under the direct rule of a Roman procurator once more. For the next twenty years, the Roman administrators in Palestine seemed intent on alienating and angering the Jewish populace as much as possible. Jewish resentment finally exploded into open revolt in 66 C.E., which resulted in the complete destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple in 70 C.E. by the Roman general, and future emperor, Titus. Sixty years later, the Jews would rise up in revolt once more, this time leading to their expulsion from their homeland. From 135 C.E. until the twentieth century, there was no longer a chosen people in the promised land.