... scholars often see a natural dichotomy between the Herod of [Josephus'] War and the Herod of Antiquities. Generally speaking, Herod is categorized as being a loyal client king for the Roman Empire in War, since Josephus is intent on proving the innocence of the Jews as a whole in concern to the Jewish-Roman war of the 60’s and 70’s CE (War 1.9-12). ...in Antiquities Herod is generally described as an example of an immoral Jewish leader and betrayer of Jewish culture because of Josephus’s goal: proving the antiquity and relevance of the Jewish people to the Greco-Roman world through their history.
Often, not enough credit is give to the similarities shared between the Herod characters in War and Antiquities because of the differing literary goals in the respective writings. ... Steve Mason understands the relation between Josephus’s writings in their wider context, “Josephus wrote both War and Antiquities to try to maintain a secure place for his people in the political-religious scene,” [Mason, Josephus & the New Testament, 70].
While Herod does have distinct characteristics and portrayals worth noting in both writings, we must examine the binding feature of Josephus’s Herod: his role as a middleman between the Jews and the Romans.
Herod stood between the affairs of Judea and Rome, much like Josephus himself during the Jewish-Roman war of the late first century.
One innovation of Herod’s that exposes this duality is the Court of the Gentiles addition to the Temple ...
...Tamar Landau..noticed, “by placing Herod the Judean king and Octavian the Roman emperor opposite each other, Josephus enhances the developing metaphor of Herod as Judea…it is Judea’s political interests that here presents, just as Octavian represents Rome”, [Landau, Out-Heroding Herod: Josephus, Rhetoric, and the Herod Narratives, 85].
Similarly to Matthew’s usage of Herod within a larger literary structure, Josephus manipulates Herod’s character in War in order to personify Judea within Herod, with all of its economic growth, Hellenization, and internal instability ...
... Josephus recognizes his own position among the Hasmoneans (Ant. 16.7.1), and would likely understand Herod as the usurper of his royal family. Even though Herod’s misfortunes reveal that he is a corrupt non-Hasmonean king, he is still the last independent ruler of Judea before the Romans fully incorporated Judea as a province. Herod [likely] ends up with a conflicting portrayal because of Josephus’s conflicting intentions and beliefs, since both men [were] who [stood] culturally between Judea and Rome. Both men were seen as betrayers of Jewish culture in their own time, which could [have led] Josephus to present Herod as similarly willing to bend to Rome’s will in Judea. ...
.
The author of this essay, Chance Bonar, then further analyzes the relationship between Herod and Octavian in Josephus’s narrative, noting many striking similarities. He also notes
"The pax of Rome and the pax of Judea might even be interconnected [or be seen to have been] because of Herod’s apparent compliance with Roman culture and Octavian’s superiority" and "With the increasing criticism of later emperors and uprising rebellions against the Romans in Judea, Josephus could be using Herod and Octavian as ideal figures of a more prosperous and relatively peaceful time."
pp. 9-10, -
The main interaction between Herod and Octavian in War is Herod’s appeal after the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C.E., when Antony was defeated by Octavian and Herod’s security as King of Judea was threatened for his previous allegiance. The uneasiness of Herod’s position is emphasized by dual fights: Herod against Malichus, and Octavian against Antony.
Josephus portrays Herod as humble and recognizing his weakness in the situation, as he comes before Octavian with no royal garb, in order to present an honest speech. Herod’s humility at this point, near the end of the public accomplishment segment of War, acts as transfer of authority from Herod, the last Jewish King, to Octavian, the first Roman “King” in a sense. ...
... By the submission of Herod to Octavian’s authority, Judea as well is represented as ideally submitting. ... Josephus cleverly placed this submission at the climax of the Herod narrative, as the end goal and height of Herod’s socio-economic decisions. Josephus historically knows that Judea will not submit, and that the Temple will be destroyed; he subtly uses Herod to represent his desire for Judea to give up hopes of rebelling against Rome. ...
.
Similar to Josephus' portrayal of himself, Bonar notes Josephus' portrayal of Herod’s character seems to fit into a "greater desire of Josephus to prove that the majority of Jews side with the Romans, and that only a few zealous rabble-rousers [were] causing..issues [that led to] war."
re Antiquities, p. 17., -
Antiquities’s Herod becomes the antithesis of all Hasmonean and earlier Jewish virtue,and appears to break Jewish law and philosophy dating back to Moses. Because of the nationalistic and philosophical-religious tendencies of Antiquities, Herod’s character appears to be more autonomous in his actions and cruel in his reign. In order to emphasize the succession of uncorrupted leadership through the priesthood and few kings, “Antiquities’ thesis of inevitable divine retribution for good and evil conduct invites some changes to the presentation.” [Mason, Josephus & the New Testament, 72].
Herod is more highly criticized for his lack of piety, justice, and love for Judea. Josephus presents Herod as a slave to his passions, an opponent of Jewish leaders, and a ruler who brings divine justice upon himself. Rather than being a Greco-Roman, tragic, innocent victim to Fate as in War, Antiquities is more accusatory concerning Herod’s decisions, forming him as a king who fails to live up to either Greco-Roman or Jewish standards.
.
Previously, pp.13-14 [re-ordered slightly here], -
One of the most noticeable differences between War and Antiquities concerning Antigonus is his death. The portrayal in War [gave] a much stronger hostility against Antigonus, in the midst of Herod’s military successes. In War, Josephus omits Herod’s reasoning and the Hasmonean eulogy, but more abruptly present[ed] Antigonus' [end] in this way: “Therefore, an axe took him, desiring life until the end through a frigid hope, yet he was worthy for his cowardice” (War 1.18.3).
Josephus [likely] downplayed the Hasmonean dynasty because of their association with zealous rebellion against Rome, which would work against his desire to reconcile the two cultures and reveal commonalities between their rulers.
In Antiquities, Herod’s great fear of Antigonus’s freedom and legitimacy as a blood-line royal led to his execution, yet the execution itself is omitted and followed by a glorious Hasmonean eulogy (Ant. 14.16.4).
.
.
By examining both Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities, we can see that Josephus was aware of his ability to write Greco-Roman history from his Jewish perspective, and intentional in his portrayals of Herod in each work.
In War, Josephus is able to use a Herod/Octavian parallel in order to emphasize the transfer of power from Judea to Rome, by personifying the states in their respective leaders. In doing so, Josephus argues that the Jews have always supported Rome, and forcibly downplays the rebellious Hasmoneans to show the common Jews’ ability to submit. Whether or not Josephus was forced to write War as propaganda under the Flavians, he appears to give warning to those who rebel against the Romans as Judea did in their war. Although Herod remains faithful to the Romans in War, misfortune lands upon him and tears him apart through his domestic affairs. Josephus builds Herod in a way that he is an extravagant civil and military leader, who understands the superiority of the Romans. However, Herod and Judea both fall prey to misfortune much larger than their own affairs, and hopes of a temperate king or nation fall apart.
In Antiquities, Josephus focuses rather more on the achievements and relevance of the Jewish people in the context of the Roman Empire, and strongly emphasizes issues of Jewish impiety and divine retribution. Unlike the undeserved misfortune of Herod in War, Antiquities makes clear that Herod brings suffering upon himself by his impiety and lack of care for Judea. Yet even with these negative characteristics, Josephus does not hesitate to flaunt the military ability of Herod in reference to the Romans. Josephus again makes parallels between Herod and another major Roman character, Antony, through their simultaneous struggles with both women and war. While Antony loses the battle of Actium and is overwhelmed by Cleopatra, Herod appears temporarily victorious and very quickly kills his irksome wife, Mariamne. Herod, representing Judea as a whole, is portrayed as more successful than Antony. The superiority of Herod’s scenario suggests that Josephus [was] attempt[ing] to present Judea as a relevant nation within the Greco-Roman world.
In any case, Josephus is able to portray Herod by emphasizing the parallels between Jewish and Roman rulers. Herod’s role in Jewish and Roman culture easily allowed for this portrayal, since client kings were not “a permanent part of the machinery of the Empire. Their rule was intended to be a preparatory stage to the full incorporation of their districts into the provincial system.”
In both of his works, Josephus recognizes the potential of Herod’s character and utilizes him for his own purposes; whether Josephus viewed himself as a mediator between Judea and Rome, a Flavian propagandist, or a firsthand historian of the Jewish affairs. Herod [was] the intermediary needed in order to show that Judea, and the larger Jewish community, is able to relate to the larger Greco-Roman world and flourish within the context of the Roman Empire.
.
CONCLUSION [Re-ordered premises of the beginning sentence & added italics]
.By examining both Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities, we can see that Josephus was aware of his ability to write Greco-Roman history from his Jewish perspective, and intentional in his portrayals of Herod in each work.
In War, Josephus is able to use a Herod/Octavian parallel in order to emphasize the transfer of power from Judea to Rome, by personifying the states in their respective leaders. In doing so, Josephus argues that the Jews have always supported Rome, and forcibly downplays the rebellious Hasmoneans to show the common Jews’ ability to submit. Whether or not Josephus was forced to write War as propaganda under the Flavians, he appears to give warning to those who rebel against the Romans as Judea did in their war. Although Herod remains faithful to the Romans in War, misfortune lands upon him and tears him apart through his domestic affairs. Josephus builds Herod in a way that he is an extravagant civil and military leader, who understands the superiority of the Romans. However, Herod and Judea both fall prey to misfortune much larger than their own affairs, and hopes of a temperate king or nation fall apart.
In Antiquities, Josephus focuses rather more on the achievements and relevance of the Jewish people in the context of the Roman Empire, and strongly emphasizes issues of Jewish impiety and divine retribution. Unlike the undeserved misfortune of Herod in War, Antiquities makes clear that Herod brings suffering upon himself by his impiety and lack of care for Judea. Yet even with these negative characteristics, Josephus does not hesitate to flaunt the military ability of Herod in reference to the Romans. Josephus again makes parallels between Herod and another major Roman character, Antony, through their simultaneous struggles with both women and war. While Antony loses the battle of Actium and is overwhelmed by Cleopatra, Herod appears temporarily victorious and very quickly kills his irksome wife, Mariamne. Herod, representing Judea as a whole, is portrayed as more successful than Antony. The superiority of Herod’s scenario suggests that Josephus [was] attempt[ing] to present Judea as a relevant nation within the Greco-Roman world.
In any case, Josephus is able to portray Herod by emphasizing the parallels between Jewish and Roman rulers. Herod’s role in Jewish and Roman culture easily allowed for this portrayal, since client kings were not “a permanent part of the machinery of the Empire. Their rule was intended to be a preparatory stage to the full incorporation of their districts into the provincial system.”
In both of his works, Josephus recognizes the potential of Herod’s character and utilizes him for his own purposes; whether Josephus viewed himself as a mediator between Judea and Rome, a Flavian propagandist, or a firsthand historian of the Jewish affairs. Herod [was] the intermediary needed in order to show that Judea, and the larger Jewish community, is able to relate to the larger Greco-Roman world and flourish within the context of the Roman Empire.
.