affairs
of
the
country
than
the
Persian
Empire
thought
of
claiming.
For
one
thing,
the
pohtical
genius
of
the
Greelcs
demanded
a
more
closely
knit
State
than
the
Persian.
For
another,
the
fact
that
Palestine
was
the
frontier
towards
Egypt
made
its
political
assimila-tion
to
Northern
Syria
a
military
necessity.
The
Mac-cabaeau
War
gave
rise
to
the
second
Jewish
State.
But
it
was
short-lived.
Only
during
the
disintegration
of
the
house
of
Seleucus
could
it
breathe
freely.
The
moment
Rome
stretched
out
her
hands
to
Syria
its
Imell
was
rung.
The
Hasmonasan
house
was
obliged
to
face
a
hopeless
foreign
situation.
World-politics
made
a
career
im-possible.
In
addition,
it
had
to
face
an
irreconcilable
element
in
the
constitution
of
Judaism.
The
rise
of
the
Pharisees
and
the
development
of
the
Essenes
plainly
showed
that
the
fortune
of
the
Jews
was
not
to
be
made
in
the
poUtical
field.
In
truth,
Judaism
was
vexed
by
an
insoluble
contradiction.
The
soul
of
this
people
longed
for
universal
dominion.
But
efficient
political
methods
for
the
attainment
of
dominion
were
disabled
by
their
religion.
The
Hasmonaean
house
was
caught
between
the
upper
and
the
nether
millstone.
The
foundations
of
the
Herodian
house
were
laid
by
Antipater,
an
Idumsean
(Jos.
Ant.
xiv.
i.
3).
Appar-ently
the
Idumasans,
converted
by
the
sword,
were
never
Jewish
to
the
core.
More
than
once
the
Pharisees
flung
the
reproach
'half-Jew'
in
the
teeth
of
Herod.
Antipater
was
a
man
of
undistinguished
family,
and
fought
his
way
up
by
strength
and
cunning.
The
decay
of
the
Hasmonffian
house
favoured
his
career.
Palestine
needed
the
strong
hand.
The
power
of
Syria
and
the
power
of
Egypt
were
gone.
Rome
was
passing
through
the
decay
of
the
Senatorial
rfigime.
The
Empire
had
not
appeared
to
gather
up
the
loose
ends
of
provincial
government.
Pompey's
capture
of
Jerusalem
had
shattered
what
little
was
left
of
Hasmonaean
prestige.
Yet
Rome
was
not
ready
to
assume
direct
control
of
Palestine.
1.
Herod
the
Great.
—
Antipater's
son,
Herod,
had
shown
himself
before
his
father's
death
both
masterful
and
merciless.
His
courage
was
high,
his
understanding
capable
of
large
conceptions,
and
his
will
able
to
adhere
persistently
to
a
distant
end
of
action.
His
tempera-ment
was
one
of
headlong
passion;
and
when,
in
the
later
period
of
his
life,
the
power
and
suspiciousness
of
the
tyrant
had
sapped
the
real
magnanimity
of
his
nature,
it
converted
him
into
a
butcher,
exercising
his
trade
upon
his
own
household
as
well
as
upon
his
oppo-nents.
His
marriage
with
Mariamme,
the
heiress
of
the
Hasmonaean
house,
and
his
league
with
Rome,
indicate
the
story
of
his
life.
His
marriage
was
one
both
of
love
and
of
policy.
His
league
was
a
matter
of
clear
insight
into
the
situation.
He
was
once
driven
out
of
Palestine
by
an
alliance
between
the
Hasmonaean
house
and
the
Parthians
(Jos.
Ant.
xiv.
xiii.
9,
10).
But,
backed
by
Rome,
he
returned
with
irresistible
force.
Mutual
interest
made
the
alliance
close.
Herod
served
the
Empire
well.
And
Augustus
and
his
successors
showed
their
appreciation.
They
stood
by
Herod
and
his
de-scendants
even
when
the
task
was
not
whoUy
pleasing.
Josephus
calls
Herod
a
man
of
extraordinary
fortune.
He
was
rather
a
man
of
extraordinary
force
and
political
discernment.
He
owed
his
good
fortune
largely
to
himself,
manifesting
powers
which
might
have
made
him,
in
a
less
difficult
field,
fully
deserving
of
his
title
'
the
Great.'
He
enjoyed
the
life-long
favour
of
Augustus
and
his
minister
Agrippa.
He
made
life
and
property
in
Palestine
safe
from
every
foe
but
his
own
tyranny.
And
though
he
showed
himself
a
brutal
murderer
of
Mariamme
and
his
own
children,
not
to
speak
of
the
massacre
of
the
Innocents
(Mt
2),
it
must
be
remem-bered
that
Jerusalem
was
a
hot-bed
of
intrigue.
This
does
not
justify
him,
but
it
explains
his
apparently
insensate
blood-lust.
His
sympathy
with
Hellenism
was
a
matter
of
honest
conviction.
The
Empire
was
slowly
closing
in
on
Palestine.
An
independent
Jewish
power
was
impossible.
The
man
who
ruled
the
country
was
bound
to
work
in
the
interest
of
Rome.
Hellenism
in
the
Holy
Land
was
the
political
order
of
the
day.
So
Herod
built
cities
and
gave
them
imperial
names.
He
built
amphi-theatres,
patronized
the
Greek
games
and,
so
far
as
his
temperament
and
opportunities
permitted,
Greek
literature.
At
the
same
time,
while
he
was
but
'half-
Jew,'
he
sincerely
desired
to
do
large
things
for
Judaism.
He
was
a
stout
defender
of
the
rights
of
the
Jews
in
the
Diaspora.
He
rebuilt
the
Temple
with
great
splendour.
But
his
supreme
gift
to
the
Jews,
a
gift
which
they
were
not
capable
of
appreciating,
was
a
native
Pales-tinian
power,
which,
whatever
its
methods,
was
by
profession
Jewish.
When
he
died,
after
a
long
reign
(B.C.
37
to
A.D.
4),
and
the
Jews
petitioned
the
Emperor
for
direct
Roman
rulg
(Jos.
Ant.
xvii.
ii.
2),
they
showed
their
incompetence
to
read
the
signs
of
the
times.
Roman
rule
was
a
very
different
thing
from
Persian
rule.
When
it
came,
the
iron
entered
into
the
soul
of
Judaism.
2.
Archelaus.
—
After
some
delay
Herod's
will
was
carried
out.
His
sons
were
set
up
in
power,
—
Archelaus
over
Judaea
and
Idumsea,
Antipas
over
Galilee
and
Perasa,
PhiUp
over
Batansea,
Trachonitis,
and
Auranitis.
To
Archelaus
had
fallen
the
greatest
prize,
and
at
the
same
time
the
hardest
task.
Having
maintained
himself
till
the
year
6
of
our
era,
his
misgovernment
and
weakness,
co-operating
with
the
impossible
elements
in
Judaism,
caused
his
downfall
and
exile.
The
Jews
now
had
their
own
wish.
Judaea
came
under
direct
Roman
rule.
A
tax
was
levied.
Judas
of
Gamala
rose
in
rebellion.
He
was
easily
put
down.
But
the
significance
of
his
little
rebellion
was
immense.
For
now
was
born
what
Josephus
calls
'the
fourth
philo-sophical
sect'
amongst
the
Jews
(,Ant.
xvri.
i.
6).
The
Zealots
dragged
into
the
light
the
self-contradiction
of
Judaism.
The
Jews
could
not
build
a
State
them-selves.
Their
principles
made
it
impossible
for
them
to
keep
the
peace
with
their
heathen'over-lord.
Conflict
was
inevitable.
3.
Herod
Antipas,
called
'the
tetrarch'
(Mt
14',
Lk3'99',
Ac
13'),
had
better
fortune.
Our
Lord
described
him
as
a
'fox'
(Lk
13'2).
The
name
gives
the
clue
to
his
nature.
He
was
a
man
of
craft
rather
than
strength.
But
cunning
served
him
well,
and
he
kept
his
seat
until
the
year
39.
The
corroding
immorality
of
his
race
shows
itself
in
his
marriage
with
Herodias,
his
brother's
wife,
and
the
wanton
offence
thereby
given
to
Jewish
sensibiUties.
(See
John
the
Baptist.)
His
lust
proved
his
undoing.
Herodias,
an
ambitious
woman,
spurred
him
out
of
his
caution.
In
rivalry
with
Herod
Agrippa,
he
asked
of
Caligula
the
royal
title.
This
exciting
suspicion,
his
doings
were
looked
into
and
he
was
banished.
4.
Philip
(Lk
3')
seems
to
have
been
the
best
among
the
sons
of
Herod.
And
it
was
his
good
fortune
to
rule
over
an
outlying
country
where
the
questions
always
rife
in
Jerusalem
were
not
pressed.
His
character
and
his
good
fortune
together
gave
him
a
long
and
peaceful
rule
(.d.
A.D.
34).
5.
Another
Philip
(son
of
Herod
the
Great
and
Mariamme)
is
mentioned
in
Mt
14'
||
Mk
6"
as
the
first
husband
of
Herodias.
6.
In
Herod
Agrippa
I.
the
Herodian
house
seemed
at
one
time
to
have
reached
the
highwater-mark
of
power.
He
had
served
a
long
apprenticeship
in
the
Imperial
Court,
where
immorality,
adaptability,
and
flattery
were
the
price
of
position.
That
he
was
not
altogether
unmanned
is
proved
by
his
dissuading
Calig-ula
from
his
insane
proposal
to
set
up
a
statue
of
himself
in
the
Temple;
for,
in
setting
himself
against
the
tyrant's
whim,
he
staked
life
and
fortune
(Jos.
Ant.
XVIII.
viii.).
In
high
favour
with
Caligula's
successor,
he
came
to
Jerusalem
in
the
year
39,
and
was
welcomed
