Jerusalem, the form of their question revealing the fact that they were not Jews, the Messianic significance of their question and its appreciation by the people and by Herod, the consequent effect on the city and on the king, Herod's questioning of the scribes where the Christ, i.e. the Messiah, should be born, the answer according well not only with OT prophecy, but with the Messianic ideas of the time (cf. ^ahn, Matth. 94, n. 86 ; Bousset, Religion dcs Jud. 214), and, finally, the character of Herod, suspicious, dissimulating, treaclierous,— the whole description vividly reflects the historical conditions of the closing years of Herod's reign. The local colouring betrays no false touch. The ideas and scenes are appropriate to the times, and the character of Herod is quite his own. When St. Matthew tells us that Herod in his an^er at being deceived by the Magi slew all the children of two years and under in Bethlehem and its borders, we still recognize perfectly the man whose closing years were tilled with passion and blood- shed, josephus, indeed, does not mention the in- cident. What he does narrate of Herod, however, bears indirect testimony to a fact so entirely con- sistent with Herod's character. If the fact there- fore be denied, the denial will rest on subjective rather than historical grounds.
i how, in a passion, he ordered 1 Bethlehem and the sur- _ . , had heard that
ise of David Iiad been bor But Herod, criminal as he was, was innocent of this crime.' Similarly I. Broydi (Jewish Enajc. vi. 360), who, however, makes appeal to the fact that ' the massacre of the Innocents as related in the NT is now generally admitted by independent Christian thinkers to be legendary.' For this opinion, however, no historical evidence is advanced. The asserted legendary character of St. Matthew's* narrative and its later date, even when strengthened by appeal to independent Christian thinkers, is only subjective and dogniatical. In the latter case, indeed (cf. Holtzniann, Handcom.^ 41), the attempt is made to (ground such a judgment historically by comparing .Mt. and Lk., and inferring from their differences the untrustworthy character of each. The fundamental objection to the historifity of the Gospel narratives is, however, not so much the differences be- tween them, which simply prove their relative independence, as VOL. I.— 46
the supernatural facts which they record, and in particular, in this part of St. Matthew's narrative, the star of the Magi. Dr. Zahn (Matth. 08 f.) has suggested an interpretation of this a purely natural occurrence, described, how- not in terms of scientific precision but in popular lan-
the historicity of the narrative could be denied, and the narra- tive itself justly described as legendary, only on principles of interpretation whose ' independei — ' ' " * +i.«;« .j..«.,r,H_
For an account of Herod's son Archelaus see Archelaus.
2. Antipas. — The second son of Herod and Mai- thake, the full brother of Archelaus, is called by Josephus 'AvH-n-as {Ant. XVII. vii. 1) or 'HpySTjs (XVIII. ii. 1). In the NT and on the coins only the name 'Hp^dtj^ appears. Under his father's last will, as ratified by Augustus, Antipas received Perrea and Galilee, with the title Terpaipxt^ (see TetkaeCH). He is commonly designated by this title in the NT, although the popular 6 ^aaCKiv^ occurs in Mk G"*-, Mt 14".
We know little concerning the events of Antipas' long reign (B.C. 4-A.D. 39). The narrative given by Josephus is very meagre after the death of Herod the Great.* Having little to tell_ of Arche- laus, Josephus introduced very interesting digres- sions about the Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, and Essenes (Ant. xviil. i.-vi. ; BJu. viii. 1-14). But, having eq^ually little to tell of Antipas, he filled in his narrative in ^?i<. with an account of thePartliians and their relations with Rome — with wliicli, in- deed, Antijjas was incidentally connected (cf. Ant. xvill. ii. 4, iv. 4 ; Schiirer^, i. 447). We learn from Josephus, however, that Antipas rebuilt and strongly fortified Sepphoris and Betharamphtha for the pro- tection of Galilee and Persea. He also built and colonized Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee. On one occasion, when in Rome at the house of his brother Herod Philip (Ant. XVIll. v. 1 ; cf. Mk 6"), son of Mariamne the high priest's daughter, Antipas secured the consent of Herodias, his brother's wife, to leave her husband and marry him, on condition that he put away his own wife, the daughter of Aretas, king of the Nabatseans. When Antipas returned, his wife, who had learned of his under- standing with Herodias, asked permission to go to Macha;rus, a fortress near the border of her father's territory. Without suspecting her purpose, Antipas granted' lici ir,|ucst; but sliu coiitinucd lier journey to Arii).i;i. ,■111.1 niliuhtcii.'a li.r l.illifr concerning the dutiful iiilciiUnii^ ,u' lii> s..ii in \n\\. Because of this iiii.l .■crtain licuii.l.-iry .lisi,utc>, cmiiity arose between Aretas and Antipas, which eventually issued in war, and a crushing defeat for Antipas.
and thus naturally disposed to make haste slowl; his assistance, was, nevertheless, under orders from Home, marching against Aretas to punish him for his rough treatment of Antipas, and had got as far as Jerusalem when news came of the death of Tiberius (a.d 37). The defeat of Antipas can hardly have been later than the year 36. Josephus, however, remarks (Ant. xvill. V. 2) that the defeat of Antipas was popularly regarded as a Divine punishment for the murder of John the Baptist. Hence it has been inferred by Keim and others that neither the death of John nor the marriage with Herodias c have preceded this ewnt by many