The common claim that Herod was Idumean is built entirely on one passage in Josephus that itself acknowledges that isn't the only view of Herod’s ancestry. Yet everyone on this issue is inclined to trust Josephus over Nicolaus of Damascus in spite of the fact that Josephus himself had an agenda in writing this History the way he did.
First I’m going to Copy/Paste here exactly the relevant passage from Josephus.
Antiquities of The Jews Book 14 Chapter 1 Section 3.
“ But there was a certain friend of Hyrcanus, an Idumean, called Antipater, who was very rich, and in his nature an active and a seditious man; who was at enmity with Aristobulus, and had differences with him on account of his good-will to Hyrcanus. It is true that Nicolaus of Damascus says, that Antipater was of the stock of the principal Jews who came out of Babylon into Judea; but that assertion of his was to gratify Herod, who was his son, and who, by certain revolutions of fortune, came afterward to be king of the Jews, whose history we shall give you in its proper place hereafter. However, this Antipater was at first called Antipas, and that was his father's name also; of whom they relate this: That king Alexander and his wife made him general of all Idumea, and that he made a league of friendship with those Arabians, and Gazites, and Ascalonites, that were of his own party, and had, by many and large presents, made them his fast friends.”
Here are my issues with what Josephus says about this.
First: It makes no sense to me that Alexander Janneus would appoint someone who was an Idumean to govern a people they’d recently conquered and forcibly converted in a region they intend to fully annex. In that situation like when Rome appointed governors of full provinces you appoint someone fully of the ruling nation not the local population. What was called Idumea during this period was Biblically the heart of Judah's tribal allotment, so I see a lot of logic in letting a descendent of David govern it.
Second: When Rome appointed Client Kings they were always someone with legitimate verifiable Royal Ancestry of the people they are being appointed to rule. Even Tigranes V of Armenia did descend from Tigranes The Great through his mother. I know a lot of modern fictionalizations of Ancient Rome want to make it seem like anyone with enough money could just bride the Senate into making them a King, but the Romans understood that in order for a puppet King to be accepted in a culture used to hereditary Monarchy he needed something of a valid ancestry. Herod would have needed to be of Davidic Ancestry especially if he indeed wasn’t a Hasmonean. Because Rome didn’t crown him King of the Idumeans but King of The Jews.
Third: Look into the history of Costobarus the man who actually led the Idumeans during Herod’s reign, Herod oppressed the Idumeans in a way distinct from the way he can be said to have oppressed the Jews, he clearly viewed them as a Subjugated people not his own people. Josephus talks about this in Antiquities of The Jews Book 15 Chapter 7 sections 9 and 10.
Now you may object that “Josephus wasn’t even hostile to all the Herodians, he seems to have liked both Agrippas?". Those Herods had Hasmonean heritage either way through Mariamne. Josephus claimed a Hasmonean connection for himself at the start of his autobiography so that kinship may have meant more to him than descent from David anyway. So Josephus' genealogy makes the Herodians he doesn't like foreigners who shouldn't have ruled Israel and the ones he does like part of a unified dynasty with equal right to rule both Israel and Idumea.
It frustrates me how many Christians take this so for granted they try to read it sub-textually into Herod’s New Testament significance, saying that when The Magi said “Born King of The Jews” it’s partially a dig at Herod’s Idumean heritage. The New Testament doesn’t address Herod’s ancestry one way or the other. But by showing that Jesus’ descent from David could still be documented it does testify against the plausibility of Nicolas of Damascus being able to get away with simply making a Davidic ancestry up. When Josephus wrote Antiquities however much of those records had been destroyed with The Temple in the War, so he could lie about Herod’s ancestry (or uncritically repeat lies others told) without being fact checked.
If the Magi were commenting on an issue with Herod's legal right to rule at all, it could just be him not being the Senior Heir even to his father, he was not Anipater's First-Born.
But mostly I think they are only referring to how Jesus Kingship is more valid because it's ordained by God.
I often allude to this view of mine when discussing other things, so I felt it was about time I devoted a BlogPost to defending it.
No comments:
Post a Comment