Herod was now grown old tution, naturally powerful and ro" give way. The" hot baths of Callirhoe gave little
physical jbust, bej
consti-
or no relief to his disorders. It soon became known that he was suffering from an incurable disease, and the signs of popular rejoicing only embittered the last hours of his despotic reign. The stirring of his anger, as on a former occasion, seemed to rouse his waning energy. When the disciples of two popular teachers of the Law in Jerusalem, Judas and Matthias, cut do\\-n the golden eagle from the gate of the Temple, Herod promptly returned, and had forty-two of the participants, including their teachers, burned to death. His sufferings now became more intense. A bath in warm oil ordered by his physicians almost killed him, and in a tit of despair he even attempted to take his own life. Josephus also reports that he gave orders that at the moment of his death all the principal men of the country, whom he had gathered in the hippodrome at Jericho, should be put to death, in order that the people might have cause to sorrow at his departure. But this order was never carried out (ef. Wellhausen*, 345, n. 2). The im- prisoned Antipater about this time, thinkin" that his father was dead, sought to escape ; but Herod, learning of it, and ha\-ing just received authority for his execution from Rome, gave the order for his death. On the fifth day after the death of Anti- pater, Herod died at Jericho, in March or April of the year B.C. 4, being about seventy years of age, and having reigned thirty-seven years since his appointment bj the Roman Senate and thirty-four since the taking of Jerusalem. His body was carried to Herodium, and interred with military honours.
Herod had received from Augustus at Aquileia the right to dispose of his kingdom as he willed, and apparently at that time contemplated abdica- tion in favour of his sons, but was restrained by the Emperor {Ant. XVI. iv. 5). When he returned to Jerusalem, he made public announcement of his intention that the succession should go to Antipater first, and then to Alexander and Aristobulus. Be- fore his death he made three ■n'ills. In the first, made about B.C. 6, Antipater was named to suc- ceed to the throne, or, in case of his death, Herod (Philip) the son of Mariamne the high priest's daughter {Ant. XVII. iii. 2 ; BJ I. xxix. 2). In the second, made after the treachery of Antipater had been discovered, Antipas was named as his heir {Ant. XVII. vi. 1 ; BJ I. xxxii. 7). In the third, made shortly before his death, Archelaus was appointed to succeed to Judiea and Samaria, with the title of king ; Antipas was given Peraea, with the title of tetrarch ; and Pliilip, with a similar title, received Trachonitis, Auranitis, and Batana?a {Ant. xvil. \'iii. 1 : BJ i. xxxiii. 7).
Although Josephus gives a very detailed account of Herod's reign, depending to a far greater extent on Nicolaus of Damascus than his occasional cita- tions would indicate (cf. Schlirer', i. 82 ff.), it is not historically probable that he has recorded everj- incident found in his sources, much less every in- cident that occurred during this period. For, while liis representation has in its main features and even in most of its details the 'appearance of a faithful and tru.stworthy narrative, it is not un- likely that he has misunderstood or misrepresented some movements, such as the character of the rob- bers in Galilee ; others he has neglected for some reason, such as the Messianic ideas of the time, and their popular influence witnessed by the Psalms of Solomon and the NT (cf. Mt 2'<'-; and Mathews, Hist. 126, The Messianic Hope in the NT, ]3ff.). It is possible also tliat Josephus misropresented some details of the history through misunder- standing his sources, such, for example, as the day of the fall of Jerusalem, or, again, assigned wrong motives for actions, and even narrated as fact what did not happen. There are some de-
I
heeod
scriptions of different events which reveal striking similarities, and there are some apparent inconsist- encies. The narrative in BJ is closely parallel with that in Ant., but in some instances the one contains what the other omits. However highly, therefore, we may estimate the trustworthiness of Josephus as an historian, his silence can be used as an argument against the historicity of an event, otherwise attested, only in case it can be shown that Josephus or liis source could not Iiave been in ignor- ance of the event, and would have had good reason to mention it had it occurred, and no good reason for omitting it if known. But even should this be established, the argument from silence would have only secondary value in confirming a negative judgment, since any judgment in such a case must depend primarily upon tlie character of the source in which the event is recorded.
Both St. Matthew and St. Luke assign the birth of Jesus to a time shortly before the death of Herod (Mt 2"f-, Lk F- »• ^^ i'T-)- This event, although not mentioned liy Josephus, could not have taken place later than the spring of B.C. 4. St. Luke, indeed, brings the event more directly into connexion with the emperor Augustus by men- tioning the imperial decree of enrolment, which caused the journey of Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem. St. Matthew, on the other hand, by narrating the visit of the Wise Men from the East (iiiiyoi. dirb dvaToKQn, Mt 2'), gives us a glimpse of Jerusalem and Herod won- derfully true to the historical and psychological probabilities that may be inferred from Josephus and other sources. The arrival of the Magi in