sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alexander Jannaeus, Aretas III, Aristobulus I, Aristobulus II, Boethusians, Flavius Hyrcanus

Herodian and the Construction of Identity James Windsor Donaldson BA (Hons), MA Qld; GDipMusmSt Deakin

A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2014 School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Abstract

The Herodian family drew on multiple identities in order to consolidate their power and influence at home and abroad. This thesis investigates the family’s construction of identity through the institution of marriage. It is situated within the context of ongoing discussions over the nature of identity construction in the ancient world, the influence of Greek and Roman culture in , and the way that Jewish marriage restrictions were understood and practised.

Drawing upon Flavius as its primary source, this thesis uses prosopographical methods to collect and analyse marriage relationships in the Herodian family. While previous studies have touched on topics of alliance and family reconciliation, this research argues for marriage as the marker of complex individual and group identities. In doing so, it utilises new theories of identity construction that draw on code-switching, a phenomenon identified by the discipline of linguistics. This more nuanced approach to the family provides a better understanding of the religious, social and political implications surrounding individual during the early empire.

Herod I’s own marriages demonstrate his desire to construct a religious and social identity to legitimise his position as usurper. Equally, Herod I uses marriage as a tool both to draw together disparate ethnic groups in his kingdom and to make alliances with client kings. Marriage is also used to heal divisions amongst his diverse family. After Herod I’s death, the family is divided into two main groups. The Armenian branch abandons for Greek customs and uses ancestral marriages to distance themselves from their Herodian roots. In Judea, the offspring of Agrippa I continue to marry for religious and political purposes, but also to consolidate their position within the Eastern dynastic network and Roman court.

Herodian marriage strategies were diverse, acting to define and redefine the position of various members of the family through the use of multiple identities. They were also key elements in the maintenance of an important network of contacts throughout the Mediterranean world. The Herodian patriarch was often the central figure in this construction of identity, with Herod I contracting marriages internally within his own kingdom, while later patriarchs preferred external marriages. Ancestry and genealogy are also important tools in constructing an identity based on historical, rather than ii contemporary, marriages. This thesis demonstrates that the examination of identity, and its change according to time and place, is an important part of understanding elites in the ancient world.

iii

Declaration by author

This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly authored works that I have included in my thesis.

I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my research higher degree candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.

I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the General Award Rules of The University of Queensland, immediately made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968.

I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis.

iv

Publications during candidature

No publications

Publications included in this thesis

No publications included

v

Contributions by others to the thesis

No contributions by others

Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another degree

None

vi

Acknowledgements

To Janette and John, my supervisors, for advice and guidance. To Tom, and Amelia for feedback through the Milestone process and helpful comments. Special thanks to Caillan for his particularly insightful contributions. To Mum and Dad, and Anne and Glenn, for quiet confidence and encouragement, cups of coffee, chats and dinner. To Yvette, Julian, Steven and especially Mark for feedback on draft material. To Paola for reading and helpful discussions, and for a bed and library in Munich. To Dan, Jess and Katee, for putting up with my inflexible work schedule.

But mostly to Libby.

Funding provided by the Australian Government in the form of the Australian Postgraduate Award Scholarship.

vii

Keywords

Herod, Herodian, marriage, identity, Jewish, Roman, family, Greek, code-switching

Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC)

ANZSRC code: 210306 Classical Greek and Roman History (includes Classical Archaeology) 100%

Fields of Research (FoR) Classification

FoR code: 2103 Historical Studies 100%

viii

Table of Contents

Figures ...... x Abbreviations ...... xi Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Motivation ...... 1 Aim and Scope ...... 2 Theorising Identity ...... 3 Code-Switching ...... 4 Jewish Identity and Hellenism ...... 6 Jewish Marriage ...... 8 Herodian Family ...... 12 Prosopography ...... 15 Significance ...... 16 Overview ...... 16 Chapter 2: Jewish Elite Culture ...... 18 Introduction ...... 18 Judea after ...... 19 The ...... 21 The ...... 24 The ...... 29 Conclusion ...... 31 Chapter 3: Herodian Marriages under Herod I ...... 32 Introduction ...... 32 Antipater I and Cyprus I ...... 33 Antipater I as Patriarch ...... 35 Herod I’s Marriages ...... 36 Royal Marriages ...... 37 Herod I as Client King ...... 41 Hasmonean Marriages ...... 45 The surviving Hasmoneans ...... 47 Betrothals in 7 BCE ...... 49 Religion and the Region ...... 52 Judea and ...... 57 of ...... 58 the Samaritan ...... 62 I and Idumea ...... 69 Salome I’s identity ...... 76 Conclusion ...... 78 Chapter 4: Herodian Marriages after Herod I ...... 80 Introduction ...... 80 The later Herodian family ...... 81 The Armenian Line ...... 83 Herodian Apostasy ...... 86 Herodians as citizens ...... 88 The Judean line ...... 93 Agrippa I ...... 94 Piety and the Diaspora ...... 99 The Eastern Dynastic Network ...... 104 Marrying Romans ...... 112 Conclusion ...... 115 Chapter 5: Conclusion ...... 117 ix

Introduction ...... 117 The Patriarch ...... 117 Lineage and Descent ...... 118 Endogamy and Identity ...... 119 Exogamy and Identity ...... 120 Limitations ...... 121 Further Research ...... 122 Conclusion ...... 123 Bibliography ...... 124 Ancient Sources ...... 124 Modern Sources ...... 126 Appendix 1 – Herodian Prosopography ...... 143

Figures Figure 1 Map of the Kingdom of Herod I at its greatest extent. The names of major cities and regions are marked...... 33 Figure 2 The family of Antipater I and Cyprus I denoting his patriarchal marriage strategy and origins of family members...... 35 Figure 3 The marriages of Herod I including divorces and origins of wives...... 37 Figure 4 Herod I’s marriages to the Hasmonean and Cappadocian royal dynasties before 7 BCE...... 38 Figure 5 Herod I's marriages to the Hasmonean Dynasty including the betrothal of Salampsio to Pheroras...... 46 Figure 6 Relationship of those involved in the betrothals of 7 BCE. See Table 2 (below) for explanation of changing betrothals...... 51 Figure 7 The relationship between Herod I and High Priestly families including those of Mariamme I and Mariamme II...... 54 Figure 8 The relationship of Herod I and Cleopatra including their children who inherited in the first generation after Herod I's death...... 59 Figure 9 The family of Herod I and Malthace including marriages of their descendants who inherited in the first generation after Herod I's death...... 63 Figure 10 The family and descendants of Salome I including distant relatives of unknown connection...... 70 Figure 11 The immediate descendants of Alexander II and Aristobulus IV, along with selected step- brothers who inherited following the death of Herod I...... 82 Figure 12 The descendants of Alexander II and down to the second century CE...... 84 Figure 13 The Descendants of Aristobulus IV and Berenice I including the important line of Agrippa I and Cyprus III...... 94 Figure 14 The descendants of Herod IV of Chalcis and Berenice II daughter of Agrippa I down to the second century CE...... 96 Figure 15 The Descendants of Mariamme V Daughter of Agrippa I...... 98 Figure 16 The descendants of Drusilla daughter of Agrippa I, including the associated marriage to the Emesene dynasty contracted by Agrippa I’s brother...... 99 Figure 17 Relations of Leaders Present at the Meeting of the Dynasts, 44 CE...... 105 Figure 18 Map illustrating the major areas controlled by rulers present at the 'Meeting of the Dynasts' in 44 CE...... 105

Tables Table 1 Hasmonean rulers holding the title of High or King from the foundation of the Dynasty to the time of Herod I ...... 25 Table 2 Comparison of betrothals in 7 BCE before and after the input of Antipater II...... 51

x

Abbreviations ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (1972- ) BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique BM British Museum CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (1863- ) Gell. Aulus Gellius NA Noctes Atticae IG Inscriptiones Graecae (1873- ) IGR Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes (1906- ) ILS H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (1892-1916) Joseph Josephus AJ Antiquitates Judaicae Ap. Contra Apionem BJ Bellum Judaicum NT Luke Luke Matt Matthew Mark Mark OGIS Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae OT Old Testament 1 Chr 1 Chronicles 1 Macc 1 Deut Deuteronomy P. Yadin The documents from the Bar Kokhba period in the Cave of Letters, eds N. Lewis, Y. Yadin, J. Greenfield, A. Yardeni and B. Levine (1989- 2002) Philo Judaeus In Flacc. In Flaccum PIR2 Prosopographia Imperii Romani Saec. I. II. III, Berolini (Berlin): apud Georgium Reimerum.

Rev. Phil. Revue de Philologie NS (1877- ) SEG Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum (1923- ) Suet. Aug. Divus Tit. Divus Titus xi

Tac. Ann. Annales

xii

Chapter 1: Introduction

Introduction Elites in the Greco-Roman East were subject to a wide variety of cultural, political and religious influences that influenced their construction of identity. This is especially true of Jewish elites in general and the Herodian family in particular, whose religion specifically emphasised the differences between adherents of the Jewish faith and Gentile communities. One of the main markers of this tension, between religion and culture, is the Jewish prohibition on intermarriage, which barred from marrying outside their religion. But marriage is a far more complex institution with the potential to provide insights into the way individuals in antiquity sought to construct their identity within broader religious, social and political groups.

Jewish marriage in law and practice is a topic of ongoing discussion among researchers.1 Biblical law is placed alongside an increasingly large corpus of papyrological legal texts dealing directly with Jewish marital practice. When scholars make this comparison, it becomes clear that there is often a disparity between Jewish marriage law and practice during the period (530 BCE – 70 CE). This is symptomatic of the wider changes affecting Jewish society as a result of contact with the Greek and Roman worlds. In the literature, this process of acculturation is generally defined as ‘Hellenisation’ or ‘Romanisation’, with a major focus placed on the role of elites in this transition.2 Although these terms have been debated in recent decades, the scholarly consensus is that local cultures did change in response to contact with Hellenic and Roman civilisation.3

Motivation The idea of multiple identities is a recent development in the study of ancient identity. In this approach, also known as code-switching, 4 individuals and groups could simultaneously maintain diverse identities for use in different contexts. Wallace-Hadrill’s recent contribution to this discussion is wide-ranging, touching on language and dress, architecture and ancestor cult, primarily on the Italian mainland. 5 Earlier, Levine recognised the uneven distribution of Hellenic culture among different groups in Judea,

1 Epstein 1942; Neufeld 1944; Satlow 2005. 2 Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1987; Waldbaum 1997. See also Bickerman 1988; Collins and Sterling 2001; Woolf 1994; Woolf 1997. 3 Wallace-Hadrill 1989; Webster 2001. 4 Heller 1988; Milroy and Muysken 1995. 5 Wallace-Hadrill 2008. 1 noting the wide variety of languages spoken in the area,6 while Gruen remarked on the futility of the common assumption that Judaism and Hellenism were competing entities.7 Discussing Jewish legal practice in the Roman period, Katzoff and Schaps noted a characteristic pluralism of practice, as distinct from hybridity, where Jewish law coexisted alongside Greco-Roman legal traditions.8 Over the past twenty years this concept of plural or multiple identity has started to replace the idea of cultural hybridity.9

One of the key elite groups in this period is the Herodian family, but as both elites and royalty, their identity draws simultaneously from Jewish, Greek and Roman culture.10 Despite Kokkinos’s call to reassess the family as a social, political ethnic and religious unit,11 few studies have approached the subject of multiple identities in relation to the Herodians.12 As the Herodian family is highly visible in the sources, and was both socially mobile and politically active, it is a group that is likely to have assumed multiple identities, and thus deserves further study. Notable is Moen’s recent work on Herodian marriage practices that reacted against the tendency to question Herodian religious identity.13 Moen concludes that the Herodians ‘were free to adopt either Jewish or in adjudicating their marital plans’, but that they consistently ‘demonstrate their commitment to Judaism in this sphere.’14 Moen, however, stops short of examining the way that marriage could articulate multiple identities, instead merely stating ‘that the Herodians knew how central marital decisions were to establishing issues of identity.’15

Aim and Scope Because it is difficult to separate Herodian identity into discrete categories such as Jewish, Roman or Greek, a new approach is called for that examines how this important family used marriage as a component in its construction and reconstruction of identity. Thus, the aim of this research is to understand how Herodian marriage strategies reflect their individual and group identity over time. This aim necessarily restricts the scope of the thesis, which will not attempt any revaluation of approaches to Jewish elite identity, or the

6 Levine 1998: 72-81. 7 Gruen 1997: 73, 88. 8 Katzoff and Schaps 2005: 12-13. 9 Woolf 1994; Woolf 1997. 10 Jacobson 1988; Sartre 2004. 11 Kokkinos 1998: 26-9. 12 But see Jacobson and Kokkinos 2009; Moen 2009; Rocca 2008. 13 Moen 2009: 101-105. Responding to Kokkinos 1998: 360; Schwartz 1990: 219-222. 14 Moen 2009: 346. 15 Moen 2009: 346. 2 identity of the Jewish populace. Nor will it engage in any new discussion of the technicalities of Jewish, Hellenic or Roman marriage practices in any period of antiquity. Both of these topics are wide-ranging and have been dealt with in detail by other scholars.16 Finally, the thesis will not attempt to look beyond the limits of the Herodian family, defined as any individual in direct descent from Antipas I of Idumea, Herod I’s grandfather, including spouses and betrothals. However, the thesis does not limit itself to a specific geographical location, so long as the individuals belong to this immediate Herodian family. Members of the family lived in many areas of the ancient Mediterranean, a factor contributing to their changing and complex identity.

The works of Flavius Josephus underpin this study, although no attempt is made to reassess his writings as sources for . However, a wide variety of supporting material is brought together to extend and corroborate Josephus’s testimony, including inscriptional material and numismatics, some papyrological documents, sculpture and architecture. Together these sources are used to construct a Herodian family prosopography, tracing their marriages and descendants as well as other critical details, including ethnic descriptors, titles and locality of residence. Tables are included in Appendix 1 and have been compiled from references to Herodian family relationships in the sources. Critically, this study includes both betrothals and consummated marriages, as betrothals are an important signal for the intent to marry between two parties. Typically, prosopographies of the Herodians have not considered betrothals as a part of their analysis, to their detriment.17

Theorising Identity The terms Romanisation and Hellenisation are commonly used to express the idea that local cultures underwent a variety of changes in response to contact with Greek or Roman civilisation. In the first half of the twentieth century, studies in ancient identity mainly discussed these processes in terms of colonialism. This is the so-called ‘top down’ approach,18 divided into two historical eras:19 the period of Hellenic ascendancy in the East, followed by that of Rome in the West.20 In the East, the dominant cultural force was

16 Collins 1997; Epstein 1942; Jackson 2011; Katzoff 1996; Larsson Lovén and Strömberg 2010; Neufeld 1944; Satlow 2001; Shaw and Saller 1984. 17 One exception is the betrothal of Salome I and Syllaeus, which has received unusual attention. 18 Woolf 1997: 339-40. 19 Droysen 1877. 20 Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 17. 3

Greek,21 moving into the region by the fourth century BCE.22 This process of cultural dispersion was first described by Droysen23 and called ‘Hellenisation,’ drawing on the Greek Hellenizein, meaning ‘to become Greek’. In the West, the was seen as a civilising force, replacing barbarian culture with Roman institutions, material culture and architecture.24 Likewise, Romanisation is therefore initially associated with the spread of the Roman Empire and its effect on native cultures. Haverfield assisted in defining the term in a British context, as did Mommsen more generally for the Roman Empire.25 In each case, it was believed to be the upper classes who most quickly took on Roman or Greek customs, through a systematic process of cultural assimilation.26

This emphasis on the role of local elites increasingly led scholars to rethink such linear approaches to cultural identity and change. 27 A new idea of ‘self-Romanisation’ was applied to the West, informed by the post-colonial desire to attach agency to local groups in negotiating identity;28 explicit comparisons between post-colonialism and Romanisation became common.29 Now the process these terms described was more fluid, envisaging a two-way exchange between cultures, resulting in a hybrid or creole ‘provincial culture.’30 The gradual and mutual blending of cultures created what Woolf terms the 'Roman imperial culture.'31 In this period, theories of subjugation and conflict began to be replaced by the concept of negotiation, defined by Whittaker as a middle-ground approach.32

Code-Switching Building on these ideas of cultural hybridity and multiple identities, Wallace-Hadrill 33 recently hypothesised a more individual and context-driven understanding of how identity can be constructed and changed. This new theory draws heavily on Wallace-Hadrill’s own research and on the considerable number of case studies across the Mediterranean that

21 Haverfield 1915: 12. 22 Rajak 1990: 265. 23 Droysen 1877. 24 Haverfield 1915: 12-14. 25 Mommsen 1865. 26 Rostovtzeff 1941: 29, 34; Eddy 1961: 207; Tcherikover 1979: 118. 27 Woolf 1997: 339-40. 28 Hengel 1974: 55-74; Gruen 1997: 72; Woolf 1997: 339-40. 29 Bartel 1980. 30 Dougherty and Kurke 2003; Webster 2001; Young 1995. 31 Woolf 1997. 32 Webster 2001; Whittaker 1995. 33 Wallace-Hadrill 2008. 4 have sought nuanced understandings of culture and identity within very specific contexts.34 The hybrid model, Wallace-Hadrill insists, is flawed. Like language, culture is not a 'melting pot,’ but instead an individual experience made up of multiple cultures and identities based on context.35 Drawing on examples primarily from , Wallace-Hadrill begins with the example of , the Oscan poet who Aulus Gellius describes as having three hearts: ‘Quintus Ennius said that he had three hearts, since he was proficient in three tongues, Greek, Oscan and .’36 But it is possible to continue Aulus Gellius’s quotation with his next example, this time from the East:

But Mithridates, the celebrated king of Pontus and … was proficient in the languages of the twenty-five races which he held under his sway. He never spoke to the men of all those nations through an interpreter, but whenever it was necessary for him to address any one of them, he used his language and speech with as much skill as if he were his fellow-countryman.37

This is just another example of Wallace-Hadrill’s assertion that individuals and groups could maintain multiple, distinctive identities, just as they could languages, which could be drawn upon in different contexts.38 Often the evidence shows this was a consciously assertive act, as in the case of Mithridates who could use the dialect appropriate to a particular subject. Over time, the process of drawing on multiple identities results in the development of dominant identities, in a process compatible with hybridisation theories.39 Indeed this individual and contextual approach over the short term helps to clarify many issues of variation and individual choice identified by previous scholars implicit to Hellenisation and Romanisation. Identity is a fluid idea that changes over time, based on individual circumstances and responding to external and internal stimulus. Instead of Roman culture replacing native culture, individuals respond in various ways, sometimes predictable, other times not, resulting in the gradual and natural drift of cultural outlook over time.

Wherever possible the use of the terms ‘Hellenisation’ and ‘Romanisation’ are avoided in this thesis because they often mask the multiple identity model, defined above, which is

34 Wallace-Hadrill 1989; Wallace-Hadrill 1998. For case studies, see Collins and Sterling 2001; Goldhill 2001; Goodman 1990; Habinek and Schiesaro 1997; Millar 1998; Woolf 1994. 35 Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 3-8, 78. 36 Gellius Noctes Atticae 17.17.1. 37 Gell. AN 17.17.1. 38 Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 16-17. See also Kokkinos 1998: 28. 39 Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 75-6. 5 employed in this thesis. These terms are highly charged with connotations of acculturation and assimilation that can often act to conceal the construction of identity in complex situations.

Jewish Identity and Hellenism In the East, the Jewish experience dominated research into identity, drawing on ideas of negotiation first theorised for the West. The primary case study for the Jewish experience of Hellenism is the conflict between the Maccabean rebels and the Greek ruler Antiochus Epiphanes IV. 40 In 1937, Bickerman’s Der Gott der Makkerbaer 41 redefined the Maccabean revolt as a civil conflict between Jewish factions, rather than a religious conflict between and Jews, leading to a new era of research into this cultural phenomenon.42 In this case, Jewish aristocrats themselves made the choice to take on Greek culture, characterised by the spread of among the aristocracy.43 Yet even in this early period scholars noted the marked differences in the ways local communities came to be affected by or Rome44 and there is an increased desire to understand the role of the common people.45

Hengel’s46 Judaism and Hellenism is the defining modern study of Greek culture in Judea, building on the earlier work of Lieberman. 47 By the 1990s this ongoing dialogue concerning the nature and extent of Hellenism led Levine to remark that Hellenism was 'one of the most engaging and productive areas of research in the modern study of Jewish history.'48 Perhaps the most important concept to come out of this period of intense discussion is the idea that identity was constructed by the individual’s response.49 But Rajak also notes continued debate over the extent of the influence Greek culture had over Jewish.50 While Hengel is notable for his stance in favour of Hellenism, Feldman is equally notable for his resistance to the Hellenised model.51 Yet for most Jerusalemites, even well into the Roman period, religious matters remained largely off-limits. Collins has argued

40 Gruen 1997: 72; Rostovtzeff 1941: 36. 41 Bickerman 1937. First published in English in 1979. 42 Hengel 1980: 52; Tcherikover 1979: 184. 43 Lieberman 1950. 44 Haverfield 1915: 14, 22. 45 Rostovtzeff 1941: 30. 46 Hengel 1974. 47 Lieberman 1950. 48 Levine 1998: 3. See also Avi-Yonah 1978; Hengel 1974; Hengel 1980; Lieberman 1950; Peters 1983; Tcherikover 1979. 49 Woolf 1995. 50 Rajak 1990; Rajak 2001. 51 Feldman 1986: 85. 6 extensively for this division between culture and cult, which takes on new meaning in light of code-switching theory. While the dialogue between Judaism and the Hellenic world is quite lively in other areas such as politics, literature and architecture, religion consistently remains an area of conservatism amongst scholars.52 Judaism's staunch resistance to religious hybridity in the fundamental matters of cult is not incompatible with the process of Hellenisation and Romanisation. While Feldman sees religious syncretism among Gentile groups as the marker for cultural homogenisation and stagnation, 53 Rajak sees the rejection of syncretism in Judaism as an example of Hellenisation in action:54 'Thus, by the late , symbolic opposition with Hellenism was indubitably a part of the way in which the Jews of constituted their own identity.' While the individual's experience of Hellenism between 300 BCE and 100 CE differed greatly based on social class, and personal preference, Greek and Roman culture clearly had a lasting impact on Judea.

Thus, using a form of the hybridity model, Levine, Rajak, Collins and Gruen all argue that in the Hasmonean and Herodian periods, the traditional view of Greek and Roman culture systematically replacing Judaism is untenable.55 From the middle of the second century BCE, Hellenism is mixed skilfully with national pride, resulting in 'an undercurrent of diffused cultural change.’56 Hellenism is no longer seen to preclude Jewish ingenuity.57 Gruen is a particularly good example in his discussions of Jewish fiction in antiquity,58 where he notes the tension between scholars like Hengel and Feldman. Instead of a 'zero- sum game in which every gain for Hellenism was a loss for Judaism,' he argues that the impetus for cultural change actually comes from within the society, not from external forces.59 The idea of Judaism being replaced by Greek culture he says is 'simplistic and misleading,' noting instead that 'by selectively appropriating Hellenic culture they could redefine it in their own terms.'60 By the time of Herod I, Kokkinos remarks:

52 Collins 2001: 46. 53 Feldman 1996: 500. 54 Rajak 2001: 250. 55 Cartledge, Garnsey and Gruen 1997; Collins 1997b; Collins 2001; Collins 2005; Collins and Sterling 2001; Gruen 1993; Gruen 1997; Levine 1998; Rajak 1990; Rajak 2001. 56 Rajak 1990: 267-77. 57 Levine 1998: 30; Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 58. 58 Gruen 1993; Gruen 1997. 59 Gruen 1997: 73. 60 Gruen 1997: 88. 7

An individual could legitimately be characterised as Phoenician by descent, Hellenised by culture, Idumean by place of birth, Jewish by official religions, Jerusalemite by place of residence, and Roman by citizenship.61

A wide variety of studies suggest that in many aspects of elite Jewish life, diversity was the rule, rather than the exception. From at least the third century BCE, aristocratic Jews had been exposed to and began to learn the Greek language, and by the second century BCE traces of Greek-style education began to appear in Jerusalem:62

Greek language and institutions were most prominent within these Palestinian urban centres and the Jews’ adaptation to their surroundings was far more pronounced than in the rest of the country.63

Urban elites were also more likely to be in contact with cosmopolitan culture and 'some Jews were undoubtedly more receptive to foreign models than others.'64 Poor came to mean pious, rich to mean ‘progressive.’ Hellenism was the lifestyle of the ruling classes and by the second century BC a strong philosophical, literary and religious renaissance can be detected.65 The ultimate expression of this cultural process is to be found in the that combined Jewish, Hellenistic, Idumaean and Roman culture in first century BCE Jerusalem.66 Hengel argues for an atmosphere of 'mutual interpenetration' whereby Greek and Jewish culture combined, rather than an aggressive Greek or Roman cultural process that consumed traditional Judaism.67 Meanwhile, in the religious sphere the cultural conservatism that marked post-exilic Judaism continued to be a strong force in maintaining Jewish aspects of identity.68 By the Roman period, an influx of diaspora Jews and foreigners from all over the Roman Empire further enhanced the cultural dialogue between first-century CE Judaism and the Gentile nations.69

Jewish Marriage

The defining studies of the twentieth century on Jewish marriage law and practice were Neufeld and Epstein, who provided broad compilations of Jewish law based on the

61 Kokkinos 1998: 28. 62 Adams, Janse and Swain 2002; Tcherikover 1958; Van der Horst 2001. With reference to the Maccabees see, Borg 2004; Morgan 1998. 63 Levine 1998: 24. 64 Levine 1998: 22-3. 65 Hengel 1974; Hengel 1980: 31 and 66. 66 Bowersock 1994; Isaac 1998b; Millar 1993; Sartre 2004; Smallwood 1981. 67 Hengel 1980: 54. 68 Collins 2005; Collins and Sterling 2001. See also Southwood 2011. 69 Hengel 2001: 24-28. 8 scriptural evidence in the 1940s.70 The results of these early works suffered from the lack of access to the documentary papyri of the Judean desert, only discovered in the last 50 years. Consequently, in 2001 Satlow revisited the topic for the first major review of Jewish marriage law since the discovery of the Scrolls.71 Access to this practical material allowed Satlow a much more critical approach to the topic. However, Blenkinsopp also notes four useful qualifications for discussions of Jewish marriage, particularly in the First Temple period: 1) that theological statements are not reality, 2) that ancient and modern families are different, 3) that more than one form of marriage existed, and 4) that marriage is economic. He concludes that the scriptures cannot be considered comprehensive legal manuals as demonstrated by the continuing discussion of Jewish marriage law from antiquity to the modern day.72 Consequently, the Second Temple period (c. 350 BCE – 70 CE) is defined by the relative abundance of legal documents demonstrating contemporary practice, with Collins noting that despite a 'lack of narrative context… the primary, unedited evidence of the papyri is especially welcome.'73 However, these observations should not diminish the centrality of scripture in defining Jewish legal practice in antiquity. As Steinberg notes, these laws were critical in that they provide a discussion of various inheritance problems and solutions within the narrative to establish suitable outcomes.74 The foremost topic in the study of Jewish marriage in the last fifty years has therefore been the disparity between biblical law and the papyrological and scriptural evidence for ancient practice.

A large body of literature also exists concerning families in ancient , typically touching on issues of marriage and divorce.75 Marriage was typically endogamous (that is, marriage within families or religions), while elites occasionally contracted exogamous marriages, (those outside the family or religion), for practical purposes and in order to form alliances.76 In such marriages, gentiles could convert to Judaism, but there is a lack of contemporary scripture on this issue.77 Some scholars have attempted to approach this problem of law and practice through the Rabbinic material,78 with Goodman declaring that

70 Epstein 1942; Neufeld 1944. 71 Satlow 2001. 72 Blenkinsopp 1997: 58-9. 73 Collins 1997a: 107. 74 Steinberg 1991: 45. 75 Moen 2009; Perdue, Blenkinsopp, Collins and Meyers 1997; Rattray 1987a; Weisberg 2009. 76 Blenkinsopp 1991; Davidovich 2010; Diebner 1990; Hanson 1989b; Hanson 1989b; Jacobson 2001b; Moen 2009; Rattray 1987a; Satlow 2001; Winslow 2005. 77 Cohen 1989; Eichhorn 1954; Goodman 1985; Kulp 2004; Neusner 1964. 78 Bar-Ilan 2000; Gillihan 2002. 9 while a Jew and gentile could marry socially, their offspring would not be Jewish.79 Overwhelmingly, close marriages within families were preferred for reasons of geography and economics, keeping dowry payments within the kinship network.80 Fathers arranged marriages for sons and for daughters,81 who had little or no say in the outcome. Additional reasons for endogamy have been attributed to enmity with other groups, religious or racial differences and self-preservation. 82 However, the basic economic argument remains popular.83 In practice, endogamy is usually defined by episodes from the Old Testament, with scholarly discussion ranging from Levirate marriage to polygamy.84

Prior to the publication of the , papyrus documents, usually of the ketubah (marriage contract) type were known primarily from Hellenistic Egypt and formed a small but important part of the literature.85 However, with the discovery of archives from the community86 and the widow Babatha,87 a much wider range of sources is now available for the discussion of Jewish marriage practice. An important and ongoing discussion concerns the way these documents utilise Jewish, Roman or Hellenistic law in defining marriage.88 The Qumran community, who produced a wide range of legal material based on the Torah, focused on the importance of ritual purity in marriage. They also go beyond the Old Testament in restricting sexual behaviour.89 Some have even suggested an allegorical rather than practical purpose to the Qumran community’s legal scrolls.90 The archive of the widow Babatha,91 dating to the late first or early second century CE, has raised questions over the legal jurisdiction under which Jewish law was enforced in the Roman period.92 Anomalous practices have also been identified, from suggestions of cohabitation prior to marriage, to polygamy in the Jewish lower classes.93 Precise legal

79 Goodman 1985. 80 Meyers 1997; Rattray 1987b. 81 Neufeld 1944: 118; Fleishman 2009; Goodman 1985. 82 Hayes 1999. 83 Blenkinsopp 1991. 84 Ilan 1993c; Neufeld 1944; Schremer 1997; Weisberg 2009. 85 Fitzmyer 1971. 86 Bernstein 2004; Harrington and Strugnell 1993; Lange 2007; Pryke 1968; Qimron and Strugnell 1994; Strugnell 1996; Tigay 1993; Weinert 1974; Yardeni 1997. 87 Cotton 1993; Ilan 1992; Ilan 1993a; Katzoff and Schaps 2005; Oudshoorn 2007; Strugnell 1996; Wasserstein 1989. 88 Katzoff 1996; Katzoff and Schaps 2005; Oudshoorn 2007; Satlow 2005. 89 Büchler 1926; Klawans 1995; Schiffman 2011; Strugnell 1996. 90 Bernstein 2004; Strugnell 1996. 91 Lewis, Yadin and Greenfield 1989; Yadin 2002; Yadin, Greenfield, Yardeni and Levine 2002. 92 Cotton 1993; Ilan 1992; Katzoff and Schaps 2005. 93 Ilan 1993b; Lewis 1997; Ranon 1995. 10 information is also available on the status of a woman’s dowry,94 her ability to inherit and own property, and restrictions around guardianship and betrothal. 95 In each case, documents seem to suggest diverse practices drawing on multiple legal traditions, sometimes contravening Jewish scriptural traditions.

One of the most often discussed elements of Jewish marriage practice after the Persian period is the prohibition on intermarriage, due to its implication for contact between Jews and other groups.96 This prohibition was first defined in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah:

The people of Israel, the , and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the land with their abominations … they have taken some of their daughters and wives for themselves and for their sons.97

Following the Jewish return from exile, these books extend and modify the central tenets of the Deuteronomic and exilic marriage codes. For example:

Do not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for that would turn away your children from following me, to serve other gods.'98

Although not strictly a biblical law, Hayes points out that Ezra’s core concern here is the ritual purity of Israel’s seed, rather than the economic concerns of earlier laws99 Others have further identified as a key legal method of conversion,100 providing a gateway for marriage partners to enter the community of Israel. But this discussion neglects the issue of women’s agency in marriage and the lack of laws around a woman’s legal status at marriage, particularly if she is a foreigner.101 This legal discussion is also commonly affected by difficulty in the changing interpretations of legal practice from the Persian to Roman periods.102 This includes the issue of diasporic communities from Hellenistic Elephantine103 to Imperial Rome.104 This constant dialogue between law and

94 Cotton and Greenfield 1994; Friedman 1996; Ranon 2007; Yadin, Greenfield and Yardeni 1994. 95 Cotton 1993; Cotton 1997. 96 Cohen 1983; Diebner 1990; Hayes 1999; Knoppers 2001; 1960; Werman 1997. 97 Ezra 9.1-2. 98 Deuteronomy 7.3; Hayes 1999; Knoppers 2001. 99 Hayes 1999. 100 In particular, Cohen 1989; Cohen 2002b; Weitzman 1999. 101 Winslow 2005, reviewed by Plietzsch 2008. 102 Cohen 1983; Hayes 1999; Perdue, Blenkinsopp, Collins and Meyers 1997. 103 Fitzmyer 1971;Katzoff 1996; Rabinowitz 1953. 104 Cappelletti 2006; Grant 1973; Rutgers 1994; Snyder 1998. 11 practice is an emerging area of research that seeks to address some of the issues associated with a lack of historical sources for Jewish marriage practice.105

Herodian Family Modern approaches to the Herodians have often focused on histories of the family as a whole, or profiles of individuals, with a minority of studies examining the family’s divergent marriage practices. These narrative works are usually syntheses of Josephus, placing the Herodian family within a context related to the Jewish revolt or early Christianity. As Kokkinos notes, 'despite a plethora of examinations, it is extraordinary that previous studies have had no real depth in terms of social and family history.'106 Jones’s early work on the subject remains important, but is restricted by lack of access to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Babatha archive, thus necessitating more recent revisions.107 Richardson’s contribution skilfully uses archaeological material to supplement Josephus and the study of Herod I’s architecture is one of Richardson’s strengths.108 The archaeological remains of Herod I’s kingdom are another fruitful area of research, with Netzer making significant contributions.109 Some studies have also focused on individuals, with Antipas II,110 Agrippa I111 and Berenice II112 all receiving their own studies. Attention on these individuals is largely due to their role in the New Testament canon and this remains one of the primary reasons for studying the Herodian family.113 The most significant recent study of the Herodian family is Kokkinos’s The Herodian Dynasty,114 which uses a prosopographical methodology and examines a number of under-researched individuals in the family. Although the study of Herodian marriage was not Kokkinos’s primary purpose, his contextual approach provides a wealth of information to the researcher of Herodian marriages that is not available elsewhere.

105 Fleishman 2009; Garrett 2011; Katzoff and Schaps 2005; Modrzejewski 2005; Oudshoorn 2007; Satlow 2005. 106 Kokkinos 1998: 26. 107 Jones 1938. 108 Richardson 1996: 174-215; Richardson 2004. 109 Netzer 1979. See also Bahat 2009; Burrell 2009; Chancey and Porter 2001; Geiger 2009; Netzer 2009; Patrich 2009. 110 Hoehner 1972. 111 Goodblatt 1987a; Schwartz 1990. 112 1974. 113 Bacon 1920; France 1979; Meier 2000. 114 Kokkinos 1998. 12

The other main approach to the Herodians has been to study their place within the Greek and Roman worlds, particularly as client kings.115 The Herodians are seen as the driving force behind cultural change in first-century CE Judea,116 influenced by both Greek and Roman culture. Herod I’s relationship with the Romans, most importantly with Augustus, remains an important topic.117 Early Herodians are also placed within the context of the ethnic groups of the East, as their family includes Jewish, Idumean and Arab members.118 This has often resulted in discussion of the family’s religious identity and also the status of the marriages they contracted. 119 But only two recent studies have made use of Josephus’s writings on the Herodian family to discuss Jewish marriage practice in the Roman period. In the late 1980s Hanson attempted to use the family as an example of Jewish and Mediterranean marriage practices.120 Based on an anthropological approach, Hanson’s study suffered from a definition of exogamous marriage more suited to the Old Testament than the Roman period and its scope was narrowly defined. Despite not being well-grounded in contemporary Jewish practice or regional history, the three-part study was critical in demonstrating the value of a systematic approach to the study of Jewish marriage and ancient identity through the institution of marriage. 121 Using a largely prosopographical methodology, it also demonstrated the value of Josephus as a source for reconstructing the Herodian family.

Building on this background literature and on the work of Hanson, Moen’s unpublished doctoral dissertation explores the gap in scholarly knowledge between Jewish marital law and practice and the study of the Herodian family. Using a legal approach, Moen investigates examples of Herodian marriage and divorce in light of Jewish legal writings and evidence for contemporary practice. She concludes that 'despite questionable morals and a strong connection to the Roman way of life, when it came time to marry and divorce, the Herodians largely followed established Jewish guidelines.' Thus, while Hanson asks whom the Herodians married, Moen advances this investigation to ask on what legal basis these marriages were contracted. Moen also observes that 'marital choices are at the crux of ethnic boundaries' and that they can 'bridge, confirm or even redraw ethnic

115 Isaac 1998a; Jacobson 2001a; Jacobson and Kokkinos 2009. 116 Cohen 1972; Collins 2001; Collins 2005; Jacobson and Kokkinos 2009; McCollough 1975; Richardson 1996; Rocca 2008; Van der Horst 2001. 117 Jacobson 2001b; Jacobson and Kokkinos 2009. 118 Freyne 2001; Isaac 1998a; Kasher 1988; Wright 1938. 119 Kasher 1988: 126-131. 120 Hanson 1989a; Hanson 1989b; Hanson 1990. 121 Hanson is used by many of the most recent surveys of Herod I’s reign for this very reason, including Kokkinos 1998; Moen 2009; Richardson 1996. 13 boundaries.'122 She acknowledges the key role of marriage in constructing identity, but relies on traditional approaches to identity that work in such discrete categories as Roman, Jewish and Hellenic. However, the issue of identity is never the primary focus of Moen’s work, and while the discussion of identity and ethnicity is highly pertinent, her contribution to this topic is necessarily restricted.

The primary source for the Herodian family is Flavius Josephus. Born to a priestly family with ties to the Hasmonean dynasty in 37 CE, Josephus adhered to the Pharisaic sect and took part in the Jewish revolt from 66 to 73 CE.123 To Rajak, his most prominent modern supporter, Josephus:

embodies… the tension between local patriotism and the classes of the imperial order, between native culture and the allure of Greco-Roman civilisation, between Semitic languages and Greek, between pragmatic flexibility and committed sectarians, between class loyalty and group loyalty.124

The reason for Rajak ascribing such a complex character to Josephus is the volume of work he produced, unprecedented for any other first-century CE Jewish author. But Josephus was not always so highly respected. For many years his works were seen as derivative and amateurish, with little historical or literary value. This view is most completely summarised by Bilde, who notes three phases in Josephean scholarship: early Christian positive reactions, followed by a period of modern animosity towards him, followed more recently by his revival and synthesis.125 This new approach accepts that Josephus’s work incorporates work by a number of important historians who are now lost, including Nicolas of , and makes excellent use of other primary sources.126 Josephus is also a member of an elite and writes for an elite audience, actively participating in the reception of Greek and Roman culture in Judea.127 In fact, his style shows a great affinity towards Hellenic culture, while retaining a strongly Jewish outlook, leading Rajak to remark that 'traditional Jewish themes were not unimportant, but were viewed through a Hellenising glass.'128 Understandably, then, Josephus had a complex

122 Moen 2009: 340-45. 123 Bilde 1988: 20-21; Rajak 2002: 1. 124 Rajak 2002: 1. 125 Bilde 1988: 17; Cohen and Shwartz 2006; Otto 1913; Rajak 2002. 126 Bilde 1988: 61-2; Huitink and van Henten 2009: 49. 127 A good discussion of Josephus’ readership is Huitink and van Henten 2009: 49-60. 128 Rajak 2002: 46-52. 14 relationship with the contemporary Roman and Herodian rulers, arguably his main subject matter.

Prosopography Previous approaches to the study of the Herodian family, including their marriages and identity, have used a variety of methods including archaeology, 129 numismatics, 130 papyrology and epigraphy,131 and literary analysis.132 A small number of studies also approached these topics by employing prosopographical methods, 133 examining individuals and group relationships over time to identify patterns and change. These include works by Hanson,134 Kokkinos135 and Richardson.136 Many members of the family also appear in the PIR and in Halfmann,137 mostly concentrated in the first and second centuries CE. However, only Hanson has systematically attempted to apply the data from the Herodian family to answer specific historical questions. In recent years, scholars such as Rajak and Bilde have demonstrated the value and importance of the works of Josephus, although neither used a specifically prosopographic method when approaching his works.138 The Herodians present many opportunities for the prosopographer: they are documented well enough to provide a large sample and the number of studies on Jewish marriage and identity provides ample contextual information for the family.

Traditional prosopographies of the Roman world have often consisted of collated lists of individuals within a particular scope, for example the Prosopographia Imperii Romani,139 or the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. 140 Similar studies have also been completed for the Greek world.141 Applications of this data have been wide-ranging, including studies of the army142 and of individuals143 and religious associations.144 Carney,

129 Berlin 1997. 130 Hoover 2003; Jacobson 1988a; Zarrow 2006. 131 Katzoff 1996; Katzoff and Schaps 2005; Van der Horst 2001; Yadin, Greenfield, Yardeni and Levine 2002. 132 Gruen 1993; Gruen 1997; Johnson 2004; Rajak 2001. 133 Hanson 1989a; Hanson 1989b; Hanson 1990; Kokkinos 1998; Moen 2009; Richardson 1996. 134 Hanson 1989a; Hanson 1989b; Hanson 1990. 135 Kokkinos 1998. 136 Richardson 1996. 137 Halfmann 1979. 138 Bilde 1988; Rajak 2002. 139 PIR 1897. 140 Jones, Martindale and Morris 1971. 141 Davies 1971; Kirchner 1901; Sundwall 1910; Traill 1994. 142 Breeze and Dobson 1993; Devijver 1989; Suolahti 1955. 143 Badian 1959. 144 Rüpke 2008; Szemler 1971. 15

Eck, and Salomies each provide critical evaluations of modern prosopography, noting that while any group of persons may be suitable for prosopographical study, in antiquity it is undoubtedly the elite who are best suited.145 Carney in particular has documented the limitations of the prosopographical method, warning against drawing conclusions from sparse data, making inferences from circumstantial evidence, and over-analysis.146 Indeed it is most important to get to grips with individual situations and firmly place them within their historical context. Without doing so, it is impossible for prosopography to be a useful historical tool.147

Significance On a practical level, this thesis contributes to the study of Herodian identity. It examines how the family constructed and reconstructed individual and group identity, and how other groups viewed them. This contextual approach is key, in that it provides what Kokkinos calls an ‘internal’ study of the family, embedding them in a social, political and economic context and examining how their identity developed and changed.148 This thesis also extends the theoretical study of code-switching and multiple identities into the East, building on and extending foundational studies. It expands Wallace-Hadrill’s code- switching approach, applying it to a variety of new areas beyond language and ethnicity, including the construction of social, political, religious and economic identity. Evidence from the wide range of marriages undertaken by the Herodian family over time confirms the need to develop a more robust system of understanding multiple identities in the ancient world. The final contribution of the study is to demonstrate a method for studying identity through the application of prosopographical techniques, especially an approach based on marriage. While not suitable for the study of common classes, this approach has many applications for the study of ancient elites that have yet to be fully explored.

Overview This thesis consists of three core chapters and a conclusion. Chapter Two continues to situate the thesis in relation to current research trends and methods, with a case study of Jewish elite identity tracing the rise of the Herodian family to power. It also introduces the study of Jewish identity by examining the historical processes that contributed to the Herodian family’s rapid rise to power between the second and first centuries BCE. This

145 Carney 1973: 156-7; Eck 2002; Salomies 2001: 73. 146 Carney 1973. 147 Graham 1974. 148 Kokkinos 1998: 26-7. 16 chapter argues that the Herodian family grew out of a new class of Jewish elites who contributed to the administration of the Hasmonean kingdom and replaced the traditional theocratic elites in terms of social, economic and political power. Typically, these elites were either converts or Jews from the diaspora and thus were highly conversant in Greek and Roman culture while maintaining a strongly Jewish identity.

Chapters Three and Four examine Herodian marriage strategies over time, roughly divided between the reigns of Herod I and his immediate successors (c. 37 BCE to 39 CE – Chapter Three), and the reigns of Agrippa I and Agrippa II (c. 37 to 93 CE – Chapter Four). The third chapter considers the earliest recorded marriages of the Herodian family, categorising them into four broad classes: local royalty, client kingship, religion and ethnicity. Utilising the prosopographical method, this chapter begins to contextualise Herodian construction of identity in relation to Herod I’s role as both Jewish patriarch and client king, and his family’s changing status in Judea and the East. The fourth chapter primarily investigates the descendants of Alexander II and Aristobulus IV, sons of Herod I and Mariamme I, during the first and early second centuries CE. Its first section examines the way the Armenian branch of the Herodian family draws on their ancestors to alter their identity, fitting into a Greek rather than Jewish political context. The second section examines the Judean branch of the Herodian family, most notably Agrippa I and his children. This branch consistently uses marriage as a tool to realign family identity with strategically important groups, including client kings, the diaspora and the Roman aristocracy, but within a Jewish context. Chapter Five, the Conclusion, serves as a discussion of the major themes developed throughout the thesis and provides an evaluation of its conclusions, suggesting further areas of study.

17

Chapter 2: Jewish Elite Culture

Introduction The Herodian family was the product of a Jewish culture that had undergone significant changes since the second century BCE. The Introduction to this thesis identified three key themes in the modern research: Jewish identity as it responded to Greek and Roman culture, Jewish marriage in law and practice, and the role of the Herodian family as the principal elite group of the Roman period. This chapter is particularly interested in how the Herodian family rose to power as a result of the social, political, and religious changes occurring in Judea since the late . Taking a chronological approach, this chapter traces the erosion of old theocratic elites in favour of a monarchy and group of new economic elites who drew their power from a construction of identity aligned with Jewish, Greek and Roman culture. In particular, it considers the Herodian family as the quintessential example of these new, powerful elites, and the methods this family used to construct, negotiate and change its multiple identities.

After the conquests of , Judea experienced many political, economic and social changes that had a lasting effect on the elite classes. In order to understand the historical processes that made it possible for the Herodian dynasty to rise to power, this chapter considers the extent to which Greek and Roman culture influenced Jewish elite communities from prior to the Maccabean revolt, until the Roman period. Like other peoples of the East, Jewish elites were not immune to the new cultural forces of Greece and Rome. Instead, they responded in various ways including the widespread acceptance of Greek language and education by the early years of the first century BCE and the establishment of a variety of institutions in the Greek or Roman mode. In fact, significant change can be demonstrated in both the structure of the Jewish political system and in the extent to which Jewish elites came to use Greek and Roman customs in different contexts. Ultimately, the chapter considers how Jewish elites responded, sometimes unsuccessfully, to this influence of Greek and Roman culture and how this response was manifested in changes to Jewish political institutions and personal identity from around 200 BCE - 40 BCE.

The new Jewish elite groups created from the Hasmonean administration in the second and first centuries BCE benefitted most from the opportunities offered by Greek and Roman culture. This group is represented most fully by the Herodian family. By examining

18 these changes to elite culture in the lead up to the Herodian period, it is possible to understand not only how and why the Herodian family came to power in Judea, but also how they used marriage as a strategy to retain this power. This discussion is considered under three main categories: The Maccabean revolt as a social, rather than a religious conflict; Hasmonean support of emerging elite groups at the expense of traditional theocrats and finally, the proto-Herodian family as members and supporters of this new elite class.

Judea after Alexander With the conquests of Alexander in the East and subsequent division of his territories among his generals, Judea came into close contact with Greek culture for the first time.149 By the time of Antiochus III, beginning the Seleucid period (c. 199 - 143 BCE), more political power was placed in the hands of the Jewish elite. Increased contact between elites and Seleucids resulted, and by the and 160s BCE the Jewish high priest,150 his new financial officer, the prostates tou hierou,151 and the gerousia, were routinely in official contact with the Seleucid King and were given considerable tax concessions 152 and religious freedom.153

One of the chief sources for this period is the first book of the Maccabees, written sometime after 104 BCE,154 with the first twelve books originally in Hebrew and soon after translated into Greek. It records the story of the Hasmonean dynasty from their revolt against Greek aggression, to their eventual success in establishing a Jewish hereditary monarchy. It is the primary source for the history of the Maccabean period.155 Its content and tone embed it firmly within the biblical-historical tradition and it is regarded as largely accurate and authentic, containing many important primary documents. The second book of the Maccabees is slightly later, written in Greek between 104 and 63 BCE and much more emotive in its presentation and interpretation of events. It parallels portions of 1

149 For historical overviews covering the same general territory see: Bickerman 1979: Tcherikover, 1979; Hengel 1980. 150 Now both the highest religious and political position. 151 3.4. Literally, ‘Administrator of the Temple’. The name might suggest a broader role than Hengel 1974 suggests. 152 For further examples under the early Hasmoneans see 1 Maccabees 12.6: ', high priest and the Council of the nation and the priests and the rest of the Jewish people, to our Spartan brothers, greetings.' or 1 Macc 13.36: 'King Demetrius to Simon, high priest and friend of kings, and the elders and nation of the Jews, greetings.' 153 Josephus AJ 12.145-46. This possibly spurious decree of Antiochus III sets out Jewish religious freedom and codifies certain aspects of Jewish religious observance, including a fine for violation. 154 Johnson and Callaway 1991a. 155 Grintz 2007a. 19

Maccabees but does not use it as a source. Rather, it draws on a five-book history by of Cyrene, now lost.156 Its dramatic style has been likened to that of the Greek historians, but its tone is theologically Jewish.157 The principal modern study of these texts is Bickerman’s God of the Maccabees.158 Other useful studies include Bartlett’s extensive commentary and Harrington’s theological synthesis. 159 2 Maccabees mentions two instances of official contact between Hellenistic monarchs and the Jewish administration:

When Seleucus died and Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, succeeded to the kingdom, Jason the brother of Onias obtained the high priesthood by corruption, promising the king at an interview three hundred and sixty talents of silver.160

The king sent an Athenian senator to compel the Jews to forsake the laws of their ancestors and no longer to live by the laws of God.161

This direct contact is in contrast to the Ptolemaic system and suggests that the Jewish people were probably 'allowed a considerable degree of independence' under the Seleucids.162 Tcherikover has remarked that during the early Hellenistic period, Judea's government was in fact a powerful theocracy headed by the high priest and gerousia and supported by temple attendants.163

In the case of the Jewish high priest, Bickerman notes a critical point: the position acted at once as the head of the Jewish priesthood but also the representative of the Seleucid King.164 Hengel165 identifies Simon, the Captain of the Temple, as the primary financial official in Jerusalem166 while the high priest looked after the people's religious needs and was the Seleucid representative. The high priest was therefore required to embody the pinnacle of Jewish religious practice (to satisfy the priests and populace) and

156 Grintz 2007b; Johnson and Callaway 1991b. 157 Grintz 2007b. 158 Bickerman 1979. 159 Bartlett 1973; Harrington 1988. 160 2 Macc 4.7-8. 161 2 Macc 6.1. 162 Hengel 1980: 44. 163 Tcherikover 1979 notes that during the preceding centuries the priestly class had, ‘gradually transformed into … an exclusive caste, superior to the people, sometimes oppressing it with a high hand; they constituted the Jewish aristocracy, the wealthy landed group, and quite naturally drew away from the poor and their troubles.’ 164 Bickerman 1979: 37. 165 Hengel 1974: 24. 166 The prostates tou hierou, above. 20 simultaneously to work within the world of Hellenistic administration,167 politics and society (to satisfy the Seleucid king). 168 For this reason, a trend of increased conflict and competition among high-priestly candidates is visible throughout the first half of the second century BCE.169 The result of this ongoing conflict was the erosion of the high priest's religious role and authority, in favour of Seleucid approved candidates who were motivated by politics and economics.

The Maccabean Revolt This increased comfort with Greek culture, including a process of identity construction that placed Jewish traditions alongside Greek, culminated in a series of escalating confrontations between members of elite factions. This extended period of unrest is known as the Maccabean revolt (c. 175 – 143 BCE). The revolt was characterised by a conflict between Hellenisers (who wished to turn Jerusalem into a Greek polis) and Nationalists (who wished to retain the ancestral customs of the Jews).170 Under a series of Seleucid- supported high priests who had bribed their way into the position,171 a gymnasium172 and ephebion173 were introduced to Jerusalem174 and the temple treasuries were plundered.175 The resulting civil war was marked by the Seleucids destroying Jerusalem's walls, the ravaging of the temple and the establishment of a Greek polis beside Jerusalem that outlawed the Law of Moses.176 The subsequent revolt was led by Mattathias, a priest from the village of Modi'in, north of Jerusalem, and his sons who eventually established the Hasmonean dynasty (c. 143 - 63 BCE). 177 The foundational modern study on the Maccabean revolt is Bickerman's Der Gott der Makkabaer. 178 This important work convincingly argues for the revolt as a civil war between rival Jewish elite groups, rather than a despotic attempt by Antiochus Epiphanes to exert religious control over his

167 For a rare glimpse into the connection between the Jewish and Seleucid governments, see the so called Olympiodorus inscription, probably from Tel Maresha, that details the appointment of one Olympiodorus to act as a local Seleucid official in Koile and Phoenicia. Cotton and Wörrle 2007; Goren 2007; Jones 2009. 168 In 2 Macc 3.1-4, Onias the high priest is lauded for his piety and strict observance of the laws and then in conflict with Simon, Captain of the Temple (his financial officer), over the administration of the city market. 169 2 Macc 4.4-34. 170 Bickerman 1979; Hengel 1974; Hengel 1980; Levine 1998; Tcherikover 1979. 171 2 Macc 4.7-9, 23-25; Bickerman 1979: 36-37. 172 School, especially for physical activity in the Greek mode. 173 Institution involving the official training of youths (epheboi) at the Gymnasium or Palestra as the gateway to citizenship of a polis. 174 2 Macc 4.12-14. 175 1 Macc 1.26. This is particularly true under Menealus. Bickerman 1979: 38-40. 176 1 Macc 1.41-50. 177 1 Macc 1.62-3, 2.15-17. 178 Bickerman 1979. 21 kingdom. 179 Subsequent studies have all drawn on Bickerman's thesis, including Lieberman,180 who studied Greek language and Palestine, and Tcherikover181 and Hengel, who both studied the influence and extent of Hellenism.182

Tcherikover assumes that the high priest and the whole gerousia can be considered the revolt's Hellenising party.183 While it is true that the council's members were able to read and speak Greek and that they were in close contact with Greek administrators and traders, his assumption needs to be considered in light of new approaches to identity construction.184 The core source for this argument is a passage in 2 Maccabees where Jerusalem's aristocratic youth is enrolled in the gymnasium, spreading debased morals through the priestly class:185

There was such an extreme case of Hellenization186 and increase in the adoption of foreign ways because of the surpassing wickedness of Jason… that the priests were no longer intent upon their service at the altar. Despising the sanctuary and neglecting the sacrifices, they hurried to take part in the unlawful proceedings in the wrestling arena after the signal for the discus throwing, disdaining the honours prized by their ancestors and putting the highest value upon Greek forms of prestige.187

Undoubtedly, this event demonstrates that a portion of the Jerusalem aristocracy willingly took part in Greek forms of display and were beginning to understand the Greek cultural language. But it does not necessarily follow that the entire Jewish elite and priesthood were induced by Greek culture to abandon their religion.188 This older idea of cultural assimilation, where Greek culture replaced Jewish, can be reinterpreted as Jewish individuals starting to supplement their Jewish identity, focused around distinctive religious practices, with Greek cultural pastimes including the gymnasium. Priests now begin to negotiate an identity consisting of both Jewish and Greek elements. Obviously, this was not supported by some elements of Jewish society, such as the author of 2 Maccabees, but the distinction should be made between the diversifying practices of these few priests and the total abolition of Jewish religious practice advocated by an absolute minority.

179 Bickerman 1962; Bickerman 1988. 180 Lieberman 1950. 181 Tcherikover 1979. 182 Hengel 1980. 183 Tcherikover 1979: 162. 184 The source in question is the problematic 2 Macc 4.10: ‘When the king assented and Jason came to office, he at once shifted his compatriots over to the Greek way of life.’ 185 2 Macc 4.12-14. 186 This is the source for Droysen’s term. 187 2 Macc 4.13-15. 188 Tcherikover 1979: 152-162. 22

In fact, the Hellenising faction in the revolt only consisted of 3000 men when mobilised to defend the new Greek polis, known as the Acra, by in the 160s BCE.189 It is never clear how many of these were members of the elite. The evidence suggests that there was actually a faction within the gerousia who opposed the Hellenisers. At one point emissaries were sent by the gerousia to bring charges against the high priest :190

Charges were brought against Menelaus about this incident. When the king came to Tyre, three men sent by the senate [gerousias] presented the case before him.

That the gerousia still felt itself in a position to send official ambassadors demonstrates that the Jerusalem elite was considerably more varied in its acceptance of these Hellenising reforms than previously thought. With this in mind, several other situations also suggest a more moderate faction of the gerousia. On Judas the Maccabee regaining the temple in 164 BCE, virtuous priests were chosen to cleanse it, in direct contradiction of the assertion in 2 Maccabees that the priesthood was in disorder over the Gymnasium's influence:191 'He chose blameless priests devoted to the law and they cleansed the sanctuary and removed the defiled stone to an unclean place.' At another point: ', one of the scribes in high position, a man now advanced in age and of noble presence, was being forced to open his mouth to eat swine’s flesh.'192 Surely this man must be considered a member of the elite, being described as of high position (proteuonton),193 advanced in age, pious and of noble presence. As such, there is some evidence to argue that during the Maccabean crisis, a significant portion of the elite population retained their allegiance to the ancestral customs. But equally, this is not to deny that these individuals were not able to draw on Greek culture in some way. Their outlook was demonstrably cosmopolitan, with individuals able to read and speak Greek in order to act in an official capacity and willing to work within the framework of Hellenistic government. The difference here is that they were not apostate to the Jewish faith.

189 2 Macc 4.40. 190 2 Macc 4.43-44. 191 1 Macc 4.42. 192 2 Macc 6.18. 193 More literally, being first in position. 23

The Hasmonean Dynasty For the elites, the main outcome of the Maccabean revolt was the almost complete destruction of the faction bent on this hyper-Hellenism.194 The Hasmonean family had seized control of Judea and several scholars have noted the rapidity with which the family altered its identity to include Hellenic customs. 195 In fitting with Bickerman's political explanation of the revolt,196 it is now thought that this family was actually part of the Jewish aristocracy, which would help to explain its rapid rise.197 The period between the first Hasmonean kings, related in 1−2 Maccabees, and the Herodian dynasty, is filled by Flavius Josephus. In his Jewish Antiquities Josephus traces Jewish history from Genesis to the revolt, providing an important interpretation of the Jewish scriptures and the only locally authored history of the period from the second century BCE to the first century CE.198 is an earlier, more condensed account of Herod I’s reign and its aftermath, concluding with Josephus’ account of the temple’s destruction. In his Life and Against Apion, Josephus provides a keen insight into his own life and experiences, from Judea to Rome, information often lacking in other ancient authors.199Josephus's important portrayal of the Maccabean brothers is considered in depth by Feldman,200 who concluded that Josephus demonstrates a clear aggrandisement of these individuals based on their quest for Jewish liberty, the acceptance of being martyrs, and their opposition to Jewish disunity and zealotry. This characterisation of the Hasmoneans is understood in the context of Josephus's family background as both a Hasmonean and a Romanist.201

Individually, the members of the Hasmonean dynasty differ in their relationship to Greek culture, but as Rajak has noted, the dominant pattern is of clever and articulate use of Greek culture for political purposes.202 Simon, the last of the Maccabean brothers, was remembered as a just ruler and a pious religious leader.203 His son, (c. 134 – 104 BCE) was similarly remembered well in the Maccabean sources as a good leader, gifted with prophecy. 204 Hyrcanus's coins used paleo-Hebrew inscriptions and

194 Applebaum 1989: 10-15. 195 Levine 1998: 39-40; Tcherikover 1979: 248. 196 Bickerman 1979: 40. 197 Eddy 1961: 215-17. 198 Rajak 2002. 199 Bilde 1988: 22-23; Rajak 2002: 44. 200 Feldman 1996: 137-159. 201 Rajak 2002. 202 Rajak 1990: 277. 203 Feldman 1996: 158. 204 Josephus AJ 13.282-3 but especially 13.299. 24 conservative iconography including cornucopia and lilies,205 but the issuance of coinage has also been interpreted as a conscious decision both to work within a Hellenistic economic framework and to use symbols also common on Greek issues. Comparatively, (103 – 76 BCE) used Greek206 and Hebrew207 inscriptions on his coins208 and by the first century BCE, Rajak observes that coinage was, 'an area in which we can observe how a political exploitation of Hellenism can well be juxtaposed with a resonant assertion of national values.'209 This use of Greek language and culture ensured the Hasmoneans a serious place in the Hellenistic world, while simultaneously maintaining their Jewish religious identity. Although their policies were not always popular with their citizens, 210 around this time, naming patterns on tombstone show that considerable numbers of the lower classes began to emulate elite cultural behaviours.211

Name Date (BCE) Role

Jonathan 160 – 143 High Priest Simon 143 – 135 John Hyrcanus 135 – 104 104 – 103 King and High Priest Alexander Jannaeus 103 – 76 Alexandra Salome 76 – 67 Queen Hyrcanus I 76 – 66 High Priest 67 – 66 King and High Priest Aristobulus II 66 – 63 King and High Priest Hyrcanus I (restored) 63 – 40 Antigonus I 40 – 37 Aristobulus III 35 High Priest (Herodian Period)

Table 1 Hasmonean rulers holding the title of High Priest or King from the foundation of the Dynasty to the time of Herod I

In the military, too, the Hasmoneans successfully blended Jewish national interests with Hellenistic institutions.212 Unfortunately, Shatzman is unable to identify the origin of the mercenaries used by both Hyrcanus and Jannaeus, 213 but confirms the long held

205 Meshorer 2001: 25-6, 32-33. Coin Groups A - J. 206 Meshorer 2001 Coin Groups K – N all have mixed Greek/Hebrew/ inscriptions. 207 Meshorer 2001 Coin Groups O, P, Q, R, S, T all use paleo-Hebrew. 208 Although they remain aniconographic when it comes to representations of humans and animals. Levine 1998: 42-44. 209 Rajak 1990: 170. 210 Joseph Jewish Antiquities 13. 399-402. 211 Van der Horst 2001. 212 Tcherikover 1979: 250-54. 213 McCollough 1975: 134-36. 25 assumption that the army was organised around a Hellenistic model.214 This aggressive expansion, including the of native populations, is believed by Rajak to demonstrate not only the religious nature of John and Simon's rule, but also their clever use of Greek-style military strategy.215 Thus the Hasmoneans utilise a Hellenistic institution in order to assert their distinctive Judaeo-Hellenic national identity.216 Yet the military continued to be a source of conflict between the populace and the Hasmoneans, exacerbated by examples of brutality and impiety from both Aristobulus I217 and Alexander Jannaeus, who in one episode was 'pelted with citrons,’ after which, ‘he killed some six thousand of them [the people].'218

While Rajak notes that the Hasmoneans understood the uses of Greek culture and identity for politics, leading to an 'undercurrent of diffused cultural change,’ 219 their union of political and religious power undermined the traditional ruling class and often led to general unrest. Early in the Hasmonean period, Judas and Jonathan both use official ambassadors, presumably members of the elite, in their correspondence with the Seleucid kings.220 But after Jonathan is appointed high priest in 152 BCE, the council of elders (presbuterion) is now convened only by the high priest/ruler, indicating a shift in status. Simon is designated high priest, commander and leader and, later, is granted these powers in perpetuity by a great assembly of the priests and elders. Yet, the role of the elite in the council is severely curtailed by these actions. The people and the priests are barred from nullifying the decrees of the Hasmonean rulers and the ability to convene assemblies is removed.221 Thus, while the Jerusalem elites can still be considered members of the council of elders, their official political role is removed and placed in the hands of the Hasmonean rulers and their new administration. The council of priests retained their official religious role but lost any secular authority, a situation that is also found 100 years later under Herod I.222 It is likely that in the aftermath of the Maccabean revolt, this centralised civic power was welcomed by some Jewish elites as it allowed for a return of the temple theocracy.

214 Shatzman 1991. 215 Rajak 1990: 271. 216 Hengel 2001: 22; Rajak 1990: 271; Tcherikover 1979: 233. 217 Joseph AJ 13.314-18. See also Josephus The Jewish War 1.81-84. 218 Joseph AJ 13.372-4. 219 Rajak 1990: 177. 220 1 Macc 8.17, 9.7. 221 1 Macc 13.42,14.28-44. 222 Goodman 1987: 31-5. 26

This process of institutional change created a generation of Greek-attuned elites who now turned to the Hasmonean’s Hellenistic-style administration to articulate prestige. Instead of taking part in the traditional gerousia, ambitious elites could now expect to be part of the Hasmonean administration in the army and the government.223 Non-Jewish incumbents, who lent a cosmopolitan air to the Hasmonean court, filled many of these positions.224 For most of the Hasmonean period, the new administrative elite remains largely theoretical due to the rarity of sources, but local administration continued under the Greek model. In the book of Judith the town elders, presbuteroi, of Bethulia are summoned by three magistrates, archontes, who then contact the gerousia in Jerusalem: 'the magistrates of their town … called together all the elders of the town, and all their young men and women ran to the assembly.225 Sirach includes a poetic description of town magistrates including a magistrate or judge, krites, and scribe, grammateus.226 First Maccabees describes Simon the Maccabee as high priest and also commander, strategos, and , , of the Jews.227 Josephus repeats Simon’s title as Commander and also mentions Simon’s brother Jonathan in this military role.228 Simon’s sons are also sent off on a military expedition,229 presumably also as strategoi,230 and the leading Jewish citizens begin to be seen as courtiers of the Hasmonean royalty, rather than members of a distinctive council.231

The best evidence for the new elite’s role in the Hasmonean administration comes from Josephus’s account of the early Herodian family. Antipas I, Herod I’s grandfather, a member of the Idumean elite who had been a convert to Judaism, was appointed governor, strategos, of Idumea,232 'and they say that he made friends of the neighbouring and Gazaeans and Ascalonites, and completely won them over by many large gifts.' Thus, Antipas I epitomises the rise of new elites in second-century Judea, basing his power on close contacts with the Greeks and Arabs of the coast, alongside the Hasmonean monarchy. His son, Antipater I, went on to be a close advisor to the

223 Eddy 1961: 239. 224 For example, Herod I was severely censured for his advanced position under the last Hasmoneans. Joseph AJ 14.163, 301. 225 Judith 6.14; 11.4. 226 Sirach 10.1, 5. 227 1 Macc 14.47. 228 Joseph AJ 13.6. 229 McCollough 1975: 128. 230 Joseph AJ 14.226-7. 231 Joseph AJ 13.411. 232 Joseph AJ: 14.8-11. 27

Hasmonean king Hyrcanus.233 Antipater I’s brother, Phallion, who may also have held an administrative role, was killed in an engagement between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus II, the rival to the Hasmonean brothers in the 60s BCE.234 Antipater I was eventually appointed the viceroy, epitropos, or governor, epimeletes, of Judea 235 and his honours were engraved on the Roman capital after himself granted him citizenship.236 By the 60s BCE Antipater I surpassed his father and could count on the support of the most prominent Romans of the day, including Caesar, Agrippa and Antony, over 1000 respectable Jews, and the king of the .237

Antipater I’s eldest son, I, was made strategon of Jerusalem, while his second son, 'Herod, he sent with equal authority to , though a mere lad.’238 Herod I proved himself a capable administrator and quickly endeared himself to the Syrians and Romans,239 as well as to his Jewish subjects. But perhaps the greatest marker of the Herodian rise to power is the priestly trial of Herod I over illegal executions in Galilee and his subsequent acquittal following the intervention of the of Syria. This governor, Sextus Caesar, next made Herod I the governor of Coele-Syria and Samaria240 and after Phillipi, Herod I and Phasael I were further appointed tetrarchs of Judea by Marc Antony.241 Eventually, after the Parthian invasion of the East in 40 BCE, Herod I secured for himself a designation from the as King of the Jews. After leaving the he proceeded with Caesar and Antony to the Capitol to sacrifice.242 This use of Roman social and religious conventions for political purposes is an excellent example of the way Herod I skilfully utilises multiple identities under changing circumstances.243 As Moen notes, 'here again, a Herodian seems to have drawn a boundary between fidelity to Judaism and pragmatism.'244 In 36 BCE Herod I returned to Judea and after a protracted campaign, was successful in reclaiming Jerusalem. His rapid rise to power can be directly attributed to the increased power of the new elite in Judea from the Hasmonean period,

233 Joseph AJ 14.8, 14.163. 234 Joseph AJ 14.33; Joseph BJ 1.130. 235 Joseph AJ 14.127. Strabo makes him the procurator of Judea but his terminology is comparable. 236 Joseph BJ 1.194-99; Shatzman 1991: 138. 237 Joseph AJ 14.41, 14.15. 238 Joseph AJ 14.158; Joseph BJ 1.203. 239 Joseph BJ 1.205. 240 Joseph BJ 1.210-13. Presumably part of Judea, not the Roman province of Syria. 241 Joseph AJ 14.324; Joseph BJ 1.144-47. 242 Joseph AJ 14.388. 243 Kokkinos 1998: 28. 244 Moen 2009: 147. 28 but also to his ability to strategically use Greek, Roman and Jewish identity to gain political and economic advantages.

The Herodians On gaining Jerusalem in 37 BCE, Herod I continued the process, started under the Hasmoneans, of promoting outsiders to positions of power while actively disenfranchising the traditional elite. He also pursued a policy of Roman education for his sons, guaranteeing a dynasty whose political and cultural identity looked towards Rome, as much as Judea. One of Herod I’s first actions was to murder the entire Hasmonean , except one member, and repopulate it with his own supporters.245 This council continued to play a role in the religious life of Jerusalem but its effectiveness at influencing politics was negligible. In one case, Herod I placates the council with reassuring words over effigies set up in his theatre,246 turning their religious concerns to parody, 'so soon as the trophies were stripped, they became a cause of laughter.' This is an important example of the way the Sanhedrin continue to foster a symbolic opposition to Greek and Roman culture, primarily through religious dissent. But for the majority of Herod I’s reign, the administrators rather than the priests, held control.

This conscious program of bringing foreigners and Jews from the diaspora into Jerusalem was a key part of the administrative changes that began under the Hasmoneans.247 As Hengel notes:

This special Jewish Hellenistic milieu in Jerusalem and its environment was founded by the Jewish pilgrims, returning emigrants and students of the law from the Greek- speaking Diaspora, by the members of the Herodian court, Herod's family and their clientele, by some aristocratic priestly families like the , by merchants, physicians, architects, skilled artisans and also slaves from abroad.248

These immigrants and other members of the Herodian court, situating themselves within Judea but culturally experiencing the Greek East and the Roman Empire, became a new elite whose power was dictated by the monarch, rather than tradition.249 A number of important officials can be identified by name in the literature. The high priest Ananel,

245 Joseph AJ 14.168, 15.5-6; McCollough 1975: 154-155. 246 Joseph AJ 15.277. van Henten 2008b: 151-52. 247 Hengel 2001: 24-8; Jones 1938: 83. 248 Hengel 2001: 28. 249 Goodman 1987: 29-50; Jones 1938: 84. 29

Herod I’s first appointment to the position and a Babylonian Jew; Ptolemy,250 Herod I’s chief financial officer; another Ptolemy, a General in Herod I’s army; Nicolas of Damascus, his court historian;251 Gratus, commander of the royal infantry;252 and Costobar I, the native governor of Idumea and second husband to Herod I’s sister Salome I. There were also a number of trusted officials who were eunuchs, described by Jones as foreign slaves. Jones also notes that the small region of had 20 ‘villages’ each with their own administration. 253 Multiplied across the entire kingdom, this lowest tier of administration must already have represented several hundred officials. This organisation mimicked that of larger cities such as Tiberias.254 But as Rocca notes, Herod I's ruling classes, though very similar to those of other Hellenistic cities like , were tightly controlled.255 In each case, the individuals belong to a class whose roles are usually situated within the new Herodian administration, rather than within the temple. Indeed many can be identified as diaspora Jews or Jewish converts, but even Judeans themselves must have become members of the Herodian court. In this way, they choose to diversify their identity, just as some elites in the Maccabean and Hasmonean periods did.

In each case, Herod I held absolute power, as he controlled both the high priesthood and the membership of administrative posts. Levine believes that Herod I actually made it a 'deliberate policy to introduce typical Roman institutions to his capital, thus placing Jerusalem in the cultural forefront along with other large urban centres in the East.'256 But it is also true that Herod I’s administration was largely inherited from his Hasmonean predecessors. One notable way in which the Herodian royalty differed from Hasmoneans in terms of their policy towards Rome is the education of generations of Herodian sons in the households of prominent Romans.257 While Braund has argued against Asinius Pollio, the noted consul of 40 BC, as the patron of Herod I's sons Alexander II and Aristobulus IV, Feldman has convincingly defended his position and pointed out that at least five Herodian males were educated in Rome by gentile, rather than Jewish, families.258 It is highly likely

250 McCollough 1975: 155. 251 Jones 1938: 83-4. 252 Joseph BJ 2.57. 253 Jones 1938: 83-5. 254 Rocca 2008. 255 Jones 1938: 83; Rocca 2008. 256 Joseph AJ 15.267. Josephus, as a traditional elite, says that this was a destruction of the ancient customs of the Jews. Levine 1998: 55. 257 Joseph BJ 1.622. 258 Feldman 1996: 52-56. 30 that this education in the formative years had a distinctive effect on the extent to which later Herodian leaders were integrated into the Roman political, economic and social system.259 In comparison to the Hasmoneans, the Herodian family represents a very distinctive and Romanised group within the category of Jewish rulers. Just as the Hasmoneans had done, Herod I continued a policy of promoting elites from outside of the traditional Jewish aristocracy into these councils, and of promoting members of his own family. These elites could pass with ease between Jerusalem and Damascus, Tiberias and Rome, emulating and extending the way that Herod I's family came to power.

Conclusion The Herodian family was the product of a number of historical processes that began as early as the Ptolemaic period. These processes included the reception of Hellenic culture by elites and changes to the institutions that supported their power. In particular, the Maccabean revolt resulted in the rise of the Hasmonean family who simultaneously restored the dignity of the high priesthood and eroded the power of the priestly theocracy. This transformation continued a significant process of change in Jewish institutions, whereby the priestly elite retreated into the orthodox safety of the temple, leaving newly powerful elites supported by the Hasmonean monarchy to provide for the political and needs of the state, within its Hellenic and Roman context. By the Roman period, power was focused on the Herodians, a family highly conversant in Hellenic and Roman culture, and by a new class of elites, often drawn from the Diaspora, who based their power on politics, economics and the military, rather than religion.

After being placed in the context of Judea’s long dialogue with Greek and Roman culture, the next chapter considers the first generations of the Herodian family in more detail, particularly from a prosopographical perspective. Under Herod I, the family adapted multiple identities to consolidate social, religious, political and economic power. This included a reliance on royal and religious authority, client relationships with the Roman government and with other Eastern monarchies, and support for regional areas of his kingdom. One of the key ways that Herod I maintained these competing needs of his family, was through strategic marriages to a wide variety of groups both internal to his kingdom and externally.

259 For example, Agrippa I took a leading role in ’s rise to power in Rome. 31

Chapter 3: Herodian Marriages under Herod I

Introduction The previous chapter established the key role that various non-traditional elite groups played in first-century Judea and its surrounding territories, and how these groups adapted under Herodian patronage. In the first century BCE, many Judean elites rose to prominence by skilfully utilising the diverse cultural capital of the eastern Mediterranean to establish and extend their own political, economic and social power. The Herodians were a product of this historical process and the study of their marriage strategies is a key method for understanding how their identity was constructed and changed.

This chapter considers marriages and betrothals that occurred during the reign of Herod I (c. 40 BCE – 4 BCE) that demonstrate his concern for developing political, religious and social links throughout the East. This willingness to form links with various social and cultural groups via marriage, that is, to create ‘multiple identities’ as we interpret them today, was tantamount to his success. Following Kokkinos’s260 contextual approach to the Herodian family, this chapter argues that the numerous marriages organised by Herod I indicate a man remarkably concerned with establishing a complex array of social, ethnic, religious and political identities as a way of maintaining power. Herod I was married ten times, to family members, to members of the Jewish and native elites, and to royalty. Likewise, his betrothals of family members include matches to consolidate the family’s power and gain links to key regional powers in the East, from Commagene to Nabataea. Although Richardson asserted that Herod I ‘was more successful in arranging for elite, frequently royal, exogamous marriages for family and friends than he was in arranging marriages for himself,’261 this chapter argues that his ongoing concern for beneficial marriages is a key way that Herod I constructed and consolidated multiple identities in the diverse and changing world of first century BCE Judea.

To approach this concept of identity construction through marriage, the chapter draws on prosopographical data to identify patterns in the way Herod I arranges marriages for his family.262 An initial discussion of Herod I and his father as family patriarchs is followed by a detailed analysis of marriages falling under three main categories: marriages for royal

260 Kokkinos 1998: 206. 261 Richardson 1996: 42. 262 On this approach, see Carney 1973: 178. 32 authority, cultural and religious marriages, and the unique marriages of Salome I, Herod I’s sister. A core concern of this investigation is the context of marriages in relation to local audiences, a key way in which the success of Herod I’s strategy can be assessed.

Figure 1 Map of the Kingdom of Herod I at its greatest extent. The names of major cities and regions are marked.263

Antipater I and Cyprus I

Before Herod I came to power in his kingdom, which comprised Judea, Idumea, Samaritis and Galilee, his father Antipater I had already established a marriage strategy designed to extend his influence in the region. Josephus describes Antipater I as an Idumean and a friend of the Hasmonean Hyrcanus.264 He was probably the governor of Idumea, a position that his father, Antipas I, held before him, having been appointed by Alexander Jannaeus in the late second century BCE.265 Kokkinos266 and Cohen267 have considered the idea

263Reproduced after Rozenberg and Mevorah 2013: 292-3. 264 Joseph AJ 14.8. 265 Joseph AJ 14.11. 266 Kokkinos 1998: 100-112. 33 that the family’s origins are Phoenician, most probably from the coastal city of Ascalon, but this argument rests on an untrustworthy claim in Justin the Martyr.268 All the evidence in Josephus suggests that the family’s recent history was Idumean and by the second century they had converted to Judaism and established themselves in a prominent position in Idumea and Judea.269 To extend his influence even further, Antipater I married an Arab woman, Cyprus I, who may have been related to the Nabataean royal family:270 ‘through his matrimonial alliance, he had won the friendship of the king of Arabia.’271 This marriage was a key part of Antipater I’s strategy to extend his influence in the region, ‘an Idumean by race, his ancestry, wealth and other advantages put him in the front rank of his nation.’272

Antipater I’s influence also spread as far as Rome, making him a prime example of the way early Herodians used multiple identities to advance their family. The Hasmonean brothers Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus 273 were the sons of Alexander Jannaeus and although Hyrcanus was the elder, he was a lacklustre high priest and was resented by his younger brother.274 Tension between the brothers resulted in a civil war where Antipater I sided with Hyrcanus.275 Using his influence at the Nabataean court, Antipater I negotiated their support for Hyrcanus’s claim to the Jewish throne and came into contact with and his eastern generals.276 Antipater I also made an alliance with Caesar, and for his ongoing support of Rome was granted ‘the privilege of with exemption from taxes277 and other honours and marks of friendship.’278 This citizenship was passed down to Antipater I’s family, but Braund notes that it was not until Agrippa I in the mid-first century CE that the tria nomina accompanying this status are attested. 279 Thus his marriage to Cyprus I is only one aspect of a much broader policy that sees Antipater I

267 Cohen 1999: 13-24. 268 Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 52; Cohen 1999: 13-24; Kokkinos 1998: 100-112. 269 Jones 1938: 78-9; Kokkinos 1998: 94-5; Richardson 1996: 78-9; Sartre 2004: 14. 270 This is one of only three examples of marriage between Jews and Nabateans in antiquity. 271 Joseph BJ 1.181. 272 Joseph BJ 1.123. 273 Kasher 1988: 64 suggests a marriage union between the Hasmoneans and another Idumean family, the ‘Sons of Baba’ (Joseph AJ 15.260-66), rather carelessly followed by Richardson 1996: 55 who erroneously attributes to Hyrancus II an Idumean wife. 274 Joseph AJ 13.407-408. 275 Joseph AJ 14. 004; Joseph BJ 1. 142-44. 276 Joseph AJ 14.15-35; Joseph BJ 1.187. 277 ateleia Braund 1984a: 44. 278 Joseph BJ 1.194. 279 Braund 1984a: 44. 34 skilfully utilise multiple social and ethnic identities in order to advance his own cause, a policy that was extended by his son.

Figure 2 The family of Antipater I and Cyprus I denoting his patriarchal marriage strategy and origins of family members.

Antipater I as Patriarch Not only did Antipater I arrange himself a strategic marriage, but he also organised marriages for his children. Evidence for only two of these marriages survive, those of Herod I and Salome I. Both Phasael I280 and Joseph II were survived by children,281 but no mention is made of their wives and Pheroras, the youngest, had a marriage arranged by Herod I that will be considered below.282 Like Herod I a generation later, Antipater I’s role is that of the Jewish patriarch who traditionally arranged for marriages of his children.283 From the Old Testament, it is clear that Jewish patriarchs preferred the practice of endogamy: marriage inside the Jewish faith and often within the family. This practice allowed dowry payments and property to remain within the extended family and is also linked to religious purity. 284 Exogamous marriage, outside of Judaism or the family, removed hereditary resources from the extended family system and led to apostasy from Judaism. Antipater I’s own exogamy is therefore contrasted with the endogamous unions of Herod I and Salome I, intended to support their Jewish identity.

280 Joseph BJ 1.274. 281 Joseph AJ 17.19. 282 Joseph BJ 1. 483. 283 On patriarchy in Judaism, see Cohen 2002a: 42,45; Ilan 1998: 44; Steinberg 1991: 45; Kottsieper 2000: 79-80. 284 On economic considerations, see Blenkinsopp 1997. For purity, see Gillihan 2002; Hayes 1999. 35

Herod I’s first marriage to a woman of Jewish ancestry was intended to consolidate Antipater I’s support among the Jewish elites and give Herod I a core of local support. The marriage probably took place around the time of Herod I’s governorship of Galilee from 47 BCE.285 His wife, Doris, is described three times by Josephus.286 First she is a woman ‘not undistinguished among the natives’287 then with ‘family from Jerusalem’288 and finally, a ‘fellow-citizen from the nation.’289 Kokkinos has noted that Josephus’s descriptions could indicate that Doris was from Idumea, not Jerusalem. 290 Regardless, Doris lived in Jerusalem and was religiously Jewish, making her an excellent match for a man of Herod I’s mixed heritage.291 Marriage between Herod I and Doris may have allowed Antipater I to align family identity with the Jewish elite and, in certain contexts, distance himself from his wife’s Arabian origin. This mixed marriage strategy is a part of Herod I’s own policy and demonstrates the family’s early adoption of a context-sensitive approach to marriage and identity.

Herod I’s Marriages During his lifetime, Herod I married ten times and arranged the marriages of over a dozen family members. Despite Josephus’s assertion that Herod I’s wives were desired for their beauty rather than their family,292 the number and scope of Herod I’s marriages suggest otherwise.293 This active program of marriages served to align Herod I with a variety of local groups including Jews, Idumeans and , and with many social groups including royalty, priests and elites. Herod I also arranged several marriage alliances with members of elite and royal families in his immediate region, but also arranged unions within his own family, often to reinforce family unity and provide strong leaders in subsequent generations. Thus, Herod I takes on his father’s role of patriarch but significantly expands his program of marriages.294 This role of patriarch is pervasive and is a theme that will be returned to numerous times throughout this chapter. By understanding

285 Joseph AJ 4.158; Joseph BJ 1.203. 286 These translations are drawn from Kokkinos 1998: 208-9 n. 3; however, references are provided to the Loeb translation. 287 Joseph BJ 1.241. 288 Joseph BJ 1.432. 289 Joseph AJ 14.300. 290 Kokkinos 1998: 208-9. 291 Jones 1938: 37; Richardson 1996: 121-22. 292 Joseph BJ: 1.477. 293 Moen 2009: 345-6. 294 Hanson 1989b. 36 that Herod I uses marriage to maintain multiple identities, his wives become critical players in his mission to manage his kingdom and its place in the Mediterranean world.

Figure 3 The marriages of Herod I including divorces and origins of wives.

Royal Marriages In the early part of his reign, Herod I’s marriages show a particular desire to enhance the social and political legitimacy of his rule. Two key marriages articulate this newly important aspect of his identity. Because Herod I was of the Idumean elite, rather than Jewish royalty, his marriage to Mariamme I significantly elevates his prestige, while the marriage of his eldest son by Mariamme I to a princess of the Cappadocian dynasty demonstrates his desire to be seen as a king on the Hellenistic model. This construction of identity is furthered by strategic marriages of Herod I’s sons and brothers to members of the Hasmonean royal family, and is part of a wider strategy to build Jewish elite support at Jerusalem during the early part of his reign. By extending this policy to his family and children, Herod I also established the foundations of a strong ruling dynasty.

Herod I’s marriage to Mariamme I is fundamentally political, designed to align him with the Hasmonean royal family. But by understanding Mariamme I’s own background, it is also possible to appreciate the social and religious potential of this marriage in the context of Herod I’s Jerusalem. Mariamme I’s family had controlled the high priesthood and the Jewish leadership since Simon Maccabaeus was made ‘leader and high priest forever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise,’295 during the mid-second century BCE.296 Her parents were Alexander I and Alexandra, 297 the children of the feuding Hasmonean brothers Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II.298 In fact, Mariamme I’s own parents had been

295 1 Macc 14.41. About 152 BCE. 296 Joseph AJ 20.235-46. 297 Joseph AJ 15.23. 298 Sartre 2004: 40-41. 37 married to try and bridge the divide between the two brothers and bring stability to the Hasmonean family.299 Through marriage to Mariamme I, Herod I therefore became a kinsman of both claimants to the high priesthood and monarchy,300 and any offspring of the union could equally claim this social and religious legitimacy.

Figure 4 Herod I’s marriages to the Hasmonean and Cappadocian royal dynasties before 7 BCE.

Herod I’s marriage to Mariamme I coincided with the divorce and banishment of his first wife, Doris, who provided Herod I with a level of social legitimacy appropriate to his status as a member of the new Jewish economic elite. After his father’s death in 43 BCE and just prior to his escape to Rome due to the Parthian invasion, Herod I arranged a betrothal to Mariamme I.301 This act must have been premeditated to increase his prestige and on his return from Rome as king of Judea, Herod I finalised the union and banished Doris and Antipater II, his eldest son.302 Both Moen and Hanson link Herod I’s divorce of Doris and marriage to Mariamme I to his poor claim to the throne due to his Idumean background.303 But this marriage was not designed to express Herod I’s Jewish identity, in opposition to his Idumean. Marriage to Doris had already achieved this objective, but critically, Doris was of the new elite, not the traditional priestly or royal families.304 In divorcing Doris and

299 Richardson 1996: 121. 300 Jones 1938: 37; Joseph BJ 1.240; Kokkinos 1998: 211-12. 301 Joseph AJ 14. 299; Joseph BJ 1.240. 302 Joseph BJ 1.431-34. 303 Hanson 1989b: 149; Moen 2009: 254, 283-4. 304 Kokkinos 1998: 208-9. 38 marrying Mariamme I, Herod I now creates a social identity aligned towards the Hasmoneans’ religious royalty.

Prior to his designation as king, Herod I was already balancing the roles of Roman client king and Jewish ruler.305 While in Rome, Josephus suggests that he took part in Roman sacrifices on the Capitol:

Antony and Caesar left the senate house with Herod between them, preceded by the consuls and the other magistrates, as they went to offer sacrifice and lay up the decree in the Capitol.306

This ceremony of appellate was a key part in the recognition of a client ruler and publicly demonstrated not only Rome’s support of the new ruler, but also their support of Rome.307 But Roman support did not guarantee local legitimacy and even after several years he continued to struggle with this issue. 308 Herod I’s grandfather in law, Antigonus the Hasmonean, states his opposition to Herod I, saying that his own family 'were priests; and thus they would be unworthily treated if they were deprived of this rank.'309 Josephus furthers this idea, stating that, 'not even under torture would they [the Jews] submit to proclaim him [Herod] king, so highly did they regard their former king [Antigonus].'310 And several episodes during the early years of Herod I’s reign provide additional evidence for Herod I’s concern for his low birth.311 His wife, Mariamme I ‘openly jeered at both his mother and his sister for their low birth and reviled them.’312 His daughter-in-law, Glaphyra, ‘boasted of her noble ancestry’ and ‘was constantly taunting with their low birth Herod I’s sisters and wives, all of whom had been chosen for their beauty and not for their family.’313 Even an old man hiding out in a cave with his family was ‘upbraiding him as a low-born314 upstart.’ While the support of Rome was important to Herod I, a more immediate concern was his control of social and religious authority in Jerusalem and Judea.315

305 Jones 1938: 28-40; Richardson 1996: 108-113. 306 Joseph BJ 1. 285. 307 Braund 1984a: 24-25. 308 van Henten 2001: 243-46. 309 Joseph AJ 14.403-4. 310 Joseph AJ 15.8. 311 Jones 1938: 71-2; Richardson 1996: 52-3. 312 Joseph AJ 15.219. See also van Henten 2010: 169-70. 313 Joseph AJ 14.476. This second part is discussed above and discounted as slander. The lowness of birth, however, contains a grain of truth. 314 ταπεινότητα - lowness of position. The same word is used in this episode’s retelling at Joseph AJ 15.219 14.430 where the Loeb translation is the less accurate 'meanness of spirit.' Joseph BJ 1.311. 315 This episode is noted with regard to Herod I and his populace by van Henten 2006: 267-69. 39

Each of these individuals has a particular agenda in positioning Herod I as low-born. For the princesses, Mariamme I and Glaphyra, Herod I’s family were commoners whose monarchy was given by the grace of Rome, rather than noble ancestry.316 Further, for Mariamme I, Herod I did not have any claim to the high priesthood, traditionally a centre of Jewish political and social power.317 Finally, the old man, far from being a bandit as described by Josephus, was more likely a displaced commoner,318 and due to his stance against Herod I, perhaps of an orthodox Jewish sect. His invocation of Herod I’s non-royal and non-Jewish lineage demonstrates that portions of the populace also opposed Herod I due to his family background.319 Within Jerusalem, the capital of Judea and the city of the Jewish temple, these aspects of Herod I’s identity were very important, but in other areas of his kingdom, such as Idumea or Samaria, they were not so crucial.320 By becoming king by declaration of the Roman senate, Herod I must therefore attempt to construct a new part of his identity that had previously been lacking, that of religious authority and royal power through marriage to Mariamme I and the Hasmonean dynasty.

This was part of a wider strategy of alignment with the Hasmoneans as one of Herod I’s most common coin types demonstrates. ‘The Common ’, as Meshorer designates it, was produced at the Jerusalem mint and remains one of Herod I’s best-known issues. Here, a Greek inscription is matched with symbols drawn directly from the Hasmonean lexicon, an anchor and a double cornucopia.321 Both symbols were popular under John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus and originally drew on Hellenistic motifs. The symbology is modified for Jewish use, with the cornucopia coming to represent Hasmonean Judah as a ‘land of plenty’ and the anchor motif expressing sanctuary and the coastal cities added to Judea under the Hasmoneans.322 Meshorer directly links this type with Herod I’s marriage to Mariamme I and his desire for legitimacy through this marriage. By utilising Hasmonean symbols on his coins, Herod I signals continuity of rule through the medium of Mariamme I’s Hasmonean heritage.

316 Kokkinos 1998: 96 n.41; Richardson 1996: 41-3. 317 Hanson 1989b: 146-9; Richardson 1996: 247; van Henten 2010: 169. 318 Richardson 1996: 156 n.14, 250-1. 319 Moen 2009: 124-5. 320 This draws on the idea of contextualising multiple identities in Wallace-Hadrill 2008. 321 Meshorer 2001: 33, 67 notes that the cornucopia motif was drawn from Hellenic ideas but made Jewish by the addition of the pomegranate. 322 Meshorer 2001: 34-7. 40

Herod I as Client King While Herod I’s marriages into the Hasmonean dynasty were designed to build a broad foundation of support at home, marriages to local monarchs also indicate his acceptance of the Roman client kingship system in the East. Even the Hasmoneans considered themselves a part of this network of client states, but never undertook intermarriage for religious reasons. Particularly in the East, intermarriage between ruling dynasties was the primary method of ensuring legitimacy,323 while the Roman approach to intermarriage is best summarised by Suetonius who notes that Augustus ‘united the kings with whom he was in alliance by mutual ties, and was very ready to propose of favour intermarriages or friendships among them.’324 Marriages between client kings were a key way for Rome to ensure regional stability, but also for local leaders to establish support networks to deal with internal and external threats.325 But marriage ties between kings could also be viewed suspiciously,326 as in 44 CE when many Eastern monarchs met at Tiberias.327 Herod I’s citizenship was also an important aspect of his identity as client king. In this role he was not just a Jewish ruler, but also a member of the Roman elite. Thus citizenship was separate to kingship and as Herod I noticed on his succession to the Jewish throne, elite status was not tied to royal status.328 Therefore, it was through links with others of the eastern royalty, not only the elite, that Herod I sought to establish his family’s base of power. The ability for Herod I to move between overlapping spheres of influence in the East, from pious Jewish king to client ruler to Roman elite, was facilitated by his marriages into key client states who also maintained these relationships with Rome.329

The role of the client king during peacetime was largely to ensure local law and order and act as ‘reservoirs from which she [Rome] could draw on an ad hoc basis.’330 While the client ruler may provide some revenues back to Rome, this was not an organised and regular system of tribute.331 Instead, revenues were often used to enrich the cities of their

323 Sullivan 1990: 14-15. 324 Suetonius Divus Augustus 48. 325 Sullivan 1990: 322. 326 Braund 1984a: 98. 327 Joseph AJ 19.338. 328 Braund 1984a: 46. 329 Allen 2006: 141-4; Braund 1984a: 85. 330 Braund 1984a: 66. 331 Braund 1984a: 55-67. 41 region in displays of Hellenistic euergetism,332 but supplies and military aid were expected by Rome in times of crisis, as Herod I’s descendants provided during the Jewish revolt.333 Client kings were therefore a key part in the military defences of the empire, and in turn, they could expect to be defended by Roman armies.334 Herod I himself undertook several offensive actions, including the ousting of the Parthians between 40 and 37 BCE and the destruction of bandits in Trachonitis around 23 BCE.335 Ancient and modern authorities agree that client kings were particularly well placed to deal with these issues over the long term.336 As a result, this series of complex roles required excellent relations between client states and Roman officials.

Education at court was thus a key way to demonstrate support for Rome and to establish contacts with influential Romans.337 Six of Herod I’s sons were educated in this way and three went on to be rulers endorsed by the Romans: Philip, Archelaus and Antipas II. In the following generations, a further seven Herodian descendants were either educated at Rome, or went on to be Roman appointments to Eastern thrones. As Braund notes, this policy of education at Rome acted to ‘carry over their relationship with Rome into the next generation.’338 Thus, by the first century CE, ‘the relationship with Rome had in many cases become the very core of the king’s position,’339 but a potential monarch’s marriage and his ancestors also played a role.340 The most significant Herodians to be educated at the Roman court were the sons of Herod I and Mariamme I: Alexander II, Aristobulus IV and an unnamed son who died at Rome.

Alexander II, Herod I’s eldest son by Mariamme I, allowed the Herodians to access the regional dynastic system by his marriage to Glaphyra, daughter of king Archelaus of . This marriage was organised immediately on the return of Alexander II and Aristobulus IV from education in Rome, 341 and simultaneous with Alexander II’s

332 ‘Benefaction.’ Herod I endowed Tripolis, Damascus, Ptolemais, Bertyus, Tyre, Nicopolis, Sidon, Laodoceia ad mare, Ascalon, Chios, , Cos, Rhodes, , and Pergamum. Braund 1984: 76; Lichtenberger 2009: 56. 333 Joseph BJ 2.499-506. 334 Braund 1984a: 91-95. 335 Joseph AJ 14.344-8; Joseph BJ 1.398-9. 336 Braund 1984a: 91; Strabo Geography 14.5.6. 337 Allen 2006: 20, 88. 338 Braund 1984a: 11. 339 Braund 1984a: 16-7. 340 Allen 2006: 141. 341 Joseph AJ 16.6-11; Joseph BJ 1.445-47; Jones 1938: 117; Sullivan 1990: 184. 42 designation as Herod I’s heir.342 Glaphyra’s father, Archelaus, came to rule Cappadocia through his father and grandfather, both important priests in Pontus, and probably descended from Mithridates Eupator. 343 Like Herod I, Archelaus became king after attempts to support the native regime failed,344 but unlike Herod I he was raised from elite status to monarchy on the strength of his ancestry.345 As Sullivan notes, ‘imputed descent from Mithradates Eupator enhanced his local position without compromising his alliance to Rome; his grandfather had been of sufficient eminence to achieve marriage with Queen Berenice of Egypt and jointly rule there.’346 Although he undoubtedly drew on this descent, Archelaus also noted that his reign was distinct from the previous Cappadocian dynasty, evidenced by his titles Ktistes and Philopatris. 347 And in a similar way to Herod I, Archelaus himself married an Armenian and a Queen of Pontus to consolidate sovereignty over his kingdom.348 Thus, marriage between the children of Herod I and Archelaus not only established both families within the long Hellenistic tradition of royal intermarriage, but also signalled their intentions to support Roman interests in the East.

Herod I’s marriage alliance with Cappadocia was therefore a signal to Rome that he was establishing a strong heir.349 Herod I had previously been given the right to appoint his own successor,350 and the marriage between Alexander II and Glaphyra clearly signals Herod I’s choice.351 Herod I also arranged ‘a princely education, both out of respect for their mother’s illustrious parentage, and because they had been born after his accession to the throne.’352 While these sons demonstrate the success of Herod I’s marriage strategy with the Hasmonean family, a further alliance with Cappadocian royalty extended this success into new areas. The Jewish populace celebrated Alexander II and Aristobulus IV:

The masses showed great interest in the youths… for they were adorned with the greatness of their fortune and in their persons were not unworthy of royal rank.353

342 Richardson 1996: 34. 343 Sullivan 1990: 183. 344 Sullivan 1990: 51-8, 174-81. 345 Jones 1938: 117. 346 Sullivan 1990: 183. 347 On this concept and Herod I’s cultural building program, see Lichtenberger 2009: 56. 348 Sullivan 1979b: 1159; Sullivan 1990: 185. 349 Jones 1938: 115 terms it a ‘splendid match.’ 350 Joseph AJ 15.343-46. 351 Richardson 1996: 34. 352 Joseph BJ 1.435. 353 Joseph AJ 16.10. 43

And as a princess, Glaphyra presented a royal attitude to match that of Mariamme I.354 While this attitude is revealed in Josephus only through conflict with other members of Herod I’s family,355 Glaphyra’s marriage to Alexander II clearly established the dynasty’s royal prestige and their place in the wider Roman world. Further, Herod I’s prompt designation of an heir who was popular, educated in Roman ways, and allied to another trusted dynasty, was an important signal to Rome of the family’s stability and his identity as a Roman elite.

Despite the prevalence of intermarriage for alliance among the Hellenistic kings, the Herodian family are the first Jewish dynasty to use exogamous marriage for political purposes. It is true that Jewish precedent for exogamous marriages existed, including Solomon’s marriage to the ‘daughter of the Pharaoh’ 356 and Moses’s marriage to a Cushite. 357 However, it seems unlikely that these biblical examples were Herod I’s immediate model for his alliance with the Cappadocian monarchy. 358 Both the Hasmoneans and Herod I used endogamous marriage for religious purposes, but it is only Herod I who uses multiple marriages to construct different aspects of his identity.359 Equally, marriage between the Herodian and Hasmonean families was actually a form of Hellenistic dynastic marriage for Herod I.360 Marriage into the Cappadocian dynasty was therefore another way for the Herodians to break into the Hellenistic kingship system by means not available to the religiously powerful Hasmoneans. 361 This Hellenistic-style marriage had major implications for the descendants of Alexander II and Glaphyra’s two children, Alexander III and Tigranes I, who went on to be Hellenistic-style rulers in their mother’s ancestral area around Cappadocia, and Commagene. 362 The significance of these descendants and the account of their marriages will be taken up in the following chapter, which traces Herodian marriages after Herod I.

354 For Glaphyra’s ongoing royal prestige, see IG II/III 3437/8, four joining fragments of Eleusinian marble form the Athenian acropolis, c. 1-4 CE: ‘The Council and the people, for Queen Glaphyra, daughter of King Archelaus, wife of King Juba, on account of her virtue.’ 355 Joseph BJ 1.476. 356 1 Kings 7:8 and 9:24; 2 Chronicles 8:11. See also Blenkinsopp 1991; Davidovich 2010. 357 Numbers 12:1. See also Diebner 1990; Winslow 2005. 358 Moen 2009: 151. 359 Moen 2009: 282, 346. 360 Jones 1938: 37; Moen 2009: 282. 361 Braund 1984a: 75. 362 Sullivan 1990: 325. 44

Hasmonean Marriages In addition to his marriage to Mariamme I, Herod I pursued an active policy of marriage between the Herodian and Hasmonean families, alongside a systematic eradication of male Hasmoneans. Herod I’s brother and eldest son were both married to surviving members of this dynasty, Pheroras to the sister of Mariamme I and Antipater II to the daughter of Antigonus.363 In addition, Herod I also arranged a number of marriages for individuals of mixed Herodian/Hasmonean descent, extending his patriarchal policy of integration between the two families. 364 The final aspect in Herod I’s control of the Hasmonean legacy was the murder of many important male family members, including his own sons, Alexander II and Aristobulus IV.365 Thus, by controlling and subverting the Hasmonean legacy through marriage and murder, Herod I was able to develop his own royal and religious identity that could not be extracted from that of the Hasmoneans.366 In the context of Jerusalem, individuals of mixed Herodian and Hasmonean ancestry then represented the most viable option for political and religious leadership.

The marriage of Herod I’s only surviving brother, Pheroras, to Mariamme I’s sister provided Herod I with an additional opportunity to bring the Hasmonean and Herodian families together. According to Kokkinos,367 the marriage probably took place between 37 and 26 BCE, the key period of Herod I’s consolidation from his Hasmonean predecessors.368 Thus, the marriage is comparable to Herod I’s own union with Mariamme I. However, Pheroras was the source of considerable anxiety for Herod I. As his only surviving male relative he remained an important tool for Herod I in securing his kingdom from external and internal threats. The importance of Pheroras is demonstrated by Herod I’s offer of Salampsio, his own eldest daughter, to Pheroras on the death of his Hasmomean wife,369 and his grant of a around the same time, securing his independence. 370 As Josephus notes, this grant was intended to establish Pheroras independently, so that ‘if he [Herod] should suffer death, the position of Pheroras might be

363 Joseph AJ 17.92. Joseph BJ 1. 483. Jones 1938: 113 incorrectly states that this first wife was the sister of Doris. 364 Kokkinos 1998: 156-175. 365 Jones 1938: 51-3. 366 Note also Josephus’s narrative purpose in conveying Herod I’s murders of the Hasmoneans in van Henten 2008a: 105-19. 367 Kokkinos 1998: 166. 368 Richardson 1996: 43, 234, 274-5. 369 Joseph AJ 16.194; Joseph BJ 1. 483. 370 Kokkinos 1998: 166; Richardson 1996: 274-5. 45 safe, and that his [Herod’s] sons might not seize possession of this [tetrarchy].’ 371 Salampsio was a descendant of both Mariamme I and Herod I, and the most important Herodian female of marriageable status. The weight that Herod I placed on this union is further emphasised by his dramatic reaction to Pheroras rejecting Salampsio in favour of a slave-girl:

Herod was vexed at this slight because of the many benefits that he had conferred upon his brother, to whom he had given a share of the royal power.372

Instead of marrying Pheroras, Salampsio was married to Phasael II, the son of Herod I’s eldest brother and their daughter went on to marry Agrippa I, one of Herod I’s most important descendants. Despite being banished to his tetrarchy in Perea,373 Pheroras remained politically significant to Herod I who once ‘asked [Pheroras] to return in order to receive certain confidential instructions, since it was thought that the king was about to die.’374 Indeed, Josephus also has Antipater II remark that ‘if he [Herod] should suffer death, Herod would direct the royal power to be given to his brother rather than to his son.’375

Figure 5 Herod I's marriages to the Hasmonean Dynasty including the betrothal of Salampsio to Pheroras.

371 Joseph AJ 15.362. 372 Joseph AJ 16.194. See also Joseph BJ 1. 578. 373 Joseph AJ 15.361. 374 Joseph AJ 17.58. 375 Joseph AJ 17.67. 46

The surviving Hasmoneans In addition to marriages supporting his family’s new royal and religious identity, Herod I actively sought to eliminate threats from surviving members of the Hasmonean family.376 This involved many executions, including Mariamme I’s uncle, Antigonus 377 and her brother, Aristobulus III. Herod I also executed Hyrcanus II, Mariamme I’s elderly grandfather, Mariamme I herself, and her two sons by Herod I, Alexander II and Aristobulus IV.378 In each case, members of the Hasmonean family are utilised within the Herodian family network until such time as they become a threat to Herod I’s authority and are executed.

Antigonus was son of Aristobulus II who had taken up his father’s feud against the Herodian family and been defeated by Herod I around 37 BCE. 379 Herod I feared Antigonus’s claim to the throne and eventually bribed Antony to kill him. Likewise Aristobulus III, the brother of Mariamme I, was Herod I’s first appointment to the high priesthood380 and was so popular at Jerusalem that the populace ‘called out to him good wishes mingled with prayers’, leading Herod I to ‘carry out designs against the youth.’ At , while bathing in a pool, the boy’s friends were induced to ‘hold him under water as if in sport, and they did not let up until they had quite suffocated him.’381 Hyrancus II was advanced in age and had been summoned by Herod I back to court as early as 36 BCE where he was held in honour.382 But after Actium, Josephus believed that Herod I was fearful of Hyrcanus’s rival claim to the throne and thus had him executed on a charge of treason in 30 BCE.383 Interestingly, this is one of the few points where Josephus states his sources, saying that this account was ‘found in the Memoirs of King Herod.’384 Josephus also records another similar version of this story, but in either case, the execution was a local response to Roman political events. As Josephus notes:

And Herod himself, seeing that Hyrcanus was the only one left of royal rank, thought it would be to his advantage not to let him stand as an obstacle any longer. He believed that, if, on the one hand, he were to survive and escape danger, it would be safest not

376 Jones 1938: 51; Sartre 2004: 89. 377 Joseph AJ 14.490-1. 378 Joseph AJ 15.50-55. 379 Joseph AJ 14.403. 380 Joseph AJ 15.34. 381 Joseph AJ 15.52-56. 382 Joseph AJ 15.18. 383 Joseph BJ 1.434. 384 Joseph AJ 15.174. 47

to have a man who was worthier than himself of obtaining the kingship wait to seize his opportunity at such a time of difficulty for himself; if, on the other hand, he were to suffer death at Caesar’s hand, he wished because of envy to remove the only man who might succeed him as king.385

Many, including Josephus, claim that the execution of Hyrcanus signalled the end of the Hasmonean dynasty,386 but Herod I’s sons by Mariamme I continued to identify with their mother’s Hasmonean ancestry and posed a significant threat to Herod I’s rule.387 In founding a dynasty, the children born of the three Herodian/Hasmonean marriages that Herod I organised had a strong claim to both the high priesthood and the monarchy, drawing together the power of the two families at Jerusalem.388 But even more importantly, the offspring of Herod I and Mariamme I could eventually claim the throne as descendants of the Hasmoneans.389 The union of Herod I and Mariamme I produced three sons and two daughters: Alexander II, Salampsio, Cyprus II, Aristobulus IV and an unnamed son who died at Rome.390 In establishing a dynastic line, Herod I’s marriage allowed these children to draw simultaneously on the identity of their Roman aligned father, who sent his sons to be educated in Rome, and the Hasmonean religious and royal identity of their mother’s family, who counted on significant support at home.391

The execution of these sons demonstrates Herod I’s ongoing desire to control Hasmonean identity, either through marriage or other means. In 29 BCE, Mariamme I had been executed for presumed adultery with Herod I’s brother Joseph II and other intrigues,392 and in 7 BCE Alexander II and Aristobulus IV were both executed on charges of treason.393 Mariamme I’s adultery placed Herod I in a difficult position. His royal and religious authority was completely focused on his marriage to Mariamme I and if she were to abandon him for his brother, this legitimacy would be impossible to recapture.394 Josephus poses this execution in terms of Herod I’s mad desire for his wife: ‘as for her, she was in most respects prudent and faithful to him but she had in her nature something that was at once

385 Joseph AJ 15.164. 386 Jones 1938: 58, ‘he had thus eliminated the last male member of the Hasmonean dynasty.’ Richardson 1996: 169, ‘Hyrcanus II… was the only surviving male Hasmonean.’ 387 Joseph AJ 16.66; Joseph BJ 470-744. 388 Joseph AJ 16.202-205. 389 Richardson 1996: 34-35. 390 Joseph BJ 1.562-3. 391 On the Herodian/Hasmonean struggle see van Henten 2001: 245-47. 392 Joseph AJ 15.222-37; Joseph BJ 1.443-44. 393 Joseph AJ 16.394. 394 For this concept, see van Henten 2010: 162 who also promotes Alexandra’s role. 48 womanly and cruel, and she took full advantage of his enslavement to passion.’395 But the implications for his identity and authority are a more significant explanation.

Similarly, Alexander II and Aristobulus IV were so popular with the Jewish populace that they rapidly eclipsed their father’s own prestige, ‘for they were adorned with the greatness of their fortune, and in their persons were not unworthy of royal rank.’396 The boys also showed a great disdain for their half-brothers, saying ‘they would make village clerks out of the sons born to Herod by his other wives,’397 implying that their brothers’ education at Rome would not make up for their common birth. Thus when the boys turn away from their father and are implicated in plots against him, the threat to Herod I’s rule through the boys’ Hasmonean descent prompts Herod I to have them executed. The systemic control of the Hasmonean dynasty through both marriage and execution was a key part of Herod I’s strategy to construct and control his own identity, in order to simultaneously maintain political and religious control over his territory. The Hasmoneans provided him with legitimacy as king, through his marriage to Mariamme I and his sons could become powerful heirs in their own right. But this required Herod I to control other surviving members of the family through marriage alliance and through executions. After 29 BCE, with the deaths of all surviving Hasmoneans of pure descent who were the keenest threat to his reign, Herod I’s construction of a dynastic identity turned to other areas and other marriages in order to consolidate his rule:

And when this was done, Herod was freed of his fear, and at the same time the rule of the Asamonaean [sic] line came to an end after a hundred and twenty-six years. Theirs was a splendid and renowned house because of both their lineage and their priestly office, as well as the things which its founders achieved on behalf of the nation. But they lost their royal power through internal strife, and it passed to Herod, the son of Antipater, who came from a house of common people and from a private family that was subject to the kings. Such, then, is the account we have received of the end of the Asamonean [sic] line. 398

Betrothals in 7 BCE The enduring importance of royal identity through marriage to the Hasmonean dynasty in dictating Herodian marriages is demonstrated by a series of betrothals that took place

395 Joseph AJ 15.218-9. 396 Joseph AJ 16.7-8. 397 Joseph AJ 16.203-4. 398 Joseph AJ 14.490-1. 49 after the executions of Alexander II and Aristobulus IV in 7 BCE. In a remarkable extended passage, Josephus reports Herod I gathering his family and arranging a number of important betrothals for his grandchildren, children of the unlucky brothers.399 His niece, the daughter of Pheroras was betrothed to one of Alexander II’s sons,400 Antipater II’s son was betrothed to Mariamme III, daughter of Aristobulus IV and Berenice I, and , another daughter of Aristobulus IV was given in marriage to Herod II Boethus.401 At the conclusion of the section, Josephus provides an insight into contemporary perceptions of these marriages and their broader purpose within the family. Herod I says:

And I pray to God to bless these unions, to the benefit of my realm and of my descendants, and to look with serener eyes upon these children here than those with which he beheld their fathers.402

These marriages had three purposes: to provide good marriages to the eldest children of Alexander II and Aristobulus IV; to placate both Pheroras (as Herod I’s brother and ruler of Perea) and Antipater II (as Herod I’s heir) through marriage into the Hasmonean line, and to strengthen the claim of Herod I’s second heir, Herod II son of Mariamme II.403 Antipater II’s son was brought into the Hasmonean line through Mariamme III, daughter of Aristobulus IV, while the elder son of Alexander II gained the support of both Pheroras404 ‘in order that this alliance may make you [Pheroras] his natural guardian,’405 and his connections to the Hasmoneans. Antipater II himself was isolated from Pheroras, whose support he needed to gain the kingship of Judea, and Alexander II’s sons were in a stronger position than his own. 406 Accordingly, these marriages distributed the Hasmonean’s residual identity very evenly across the family. Realising their implications, Antipater II ‘resolved accordingly at all costs to break off these betrothals.’ 407 He understood that these marriages could weaken his position and that ‘his claims to the throne would be again endangered, if Alexanders’ children were to have, in addition to the support of Archelaus,408 that of Pheroras, a tetrarch.’409 As a result of his machinations, Herod I altered the betrothals so that the daughter of Aristobulus IV now married Antipater

399 Joseph AJ 17.12-18; Joseph BJ 1.556-559. 400 It is not possible to tell whether this is Tigranes I or Alexander III. 401 Kokkinos 1998: 265. 402 Joseph BJ 1.558. 403 Kokkinos 1998: 211, 264-7. 404 They were the orphan sons of Alexander II. 405 Joseph BJ 1.557. 406 Jones 1938: 139; Richardson 1996: 35-6. 407 Joseph BJ 1.560. 408 King of Cappadocia, Glaphyra’s father and grandfather to Alexander III and Tigranes I. 409 Joseph BJ 1.559. See van Henten 2001: 246-47 on Anitpater’s conspiracies. 50

II himself and the daughter of Pheroras married his son.410 Josephus concludes the episode saying that ‘Antipater, having cut off the orphans’ expectations and arranged the marriages to his own advantage, regarded his prospects as securely anchored.’411 The actors in Josephus’s narrative implicitly understood the rival claims to identity and authority discussed here. This is a striking endorsement for the power of marriage in constructing individual and family identity.

Figure 6 Relationship of those involved in the betrothals of 7 BCE. See Table 2 (below) for explanation of changing betrothals.

Name Original Betrothal Modified Betrothal

Tigranes I/Alexander III Daughter of Pheroras No betrothal

Son of Antipater II Mariamme III, daughter of Daughter of Pheroras Aristobulus IV

Herod II, son of Herodias, daughter of Herodias, daughter of Mariamme II Aristobulus IV Aristobulus IV

Antipater II No betrothal Mariamme III, daughter of Aristobulus IV

Table 2 Comparison of betrothals in 7 BCE before and after the input of Antipater II.

Antipater II’s betrothal to Mariamme III was his second Hasmonean marriage, signalling his desire to establish his own series of dynastic marriages. He had previously been married to the cousin of Mariamme I,412 and although he was the eldest son of Herod I, his status was that of a commoner like his mother. With marriage into the Hasmonean family,

410 Joseph AJ 17.17-18; Joseph BJ 1.564-566. 411 Joseph BJ 1.567. 412 Joseph AJ 17.18; Joseph BJ 1.564-5. In this marriage Herod I passed over his son by Mariamme II, Herod II. 51 he signalled his increased status, but Antipater II could never hope to compete with his brothers Alexander II and Aristobulus IV, nor their surviving sons.413 As a result, he used this new marriage to the Hasmonean family as a convenient way of ensuring that he and his son were placed at the forefront of the Herodian family, following the events of 7 BCE.414 With his son now married to the daughter of Pheroras, Antipater II sought to build his own identity through multiple marriages just as his father and grandfather had done, now claiming both Herod I’s Judean kingdom and the tetrarchy of Perea.415 Indeed in the aftermath of these betrothals, Josephus states that Antipater II was now readily assisted by Pheroras, ‘who looked on Antipater’s claim to the throne as already assured.’416

Religion and the Region Mariamme I’s Hasmonean lineage provided Herod I with political and religious authority that transcended the regions of his kingdom. The Hasmoneans were the ultimate uniting factor and in the aftermath of Mariamme I’s execution, Herod I was forced to diversify his construction of identity. Not only did he require religious legitimacy at Jerusalem, but he also required marriages that supported his identity in the various regions of his diverse kingdom, consisting of many different ethnic and religious groups. Three marriages, contracted within a few years of each other, signal the beginning of Herod I’s use of multiple marriage identities.417 First he married a Diaspora Jewess, Mariamme II, who was the daughter of his new high priest, Simon Boethus.418 Next he contracted two marriages to women of obscure origins, Cleopatra of Jerusalem and Malthace the Samaritan.419 It is also possible that Herod I’s three later wives, Phaedra, Pallas and Elpis, also belonged to the Judean elite, or had other local ties.420 Each of these marriages can be connected with an associated building program, designed to support strategic communities on their own terms.421 This context-driven approach to identity construction is a key part of Wallace- Hadrill’s theorisation on the subject.422

413 Richardson 1996: 276-7. 414 Richardson 1996: 34-5. 415 Richardson 1996: 288-90. 416 Joseph BJ 1.568. 417 Kokkinos 1998: 236-7. 418 Joseph AJ 15.320. 419 Joseph AJ 17.19; Joseph BJ 1.562-3. 420 Kokkinos 1998: 240-1; Richardson 1996: 236. 421 Meyers 2002: 147-9; Moen 2009: 8, 340; Richardson 1996: 193-5. 422 Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 63-4. 52

Herod I’s religious identity in Jerusalem and Judea was not only supported by his marriage to Mariamme I, but also by his third marriage, to the daughter of a high priest. Even though Herod I had married into the Hasmonean family, he was careful not to claim the priesthood along with royal power, preferring instead to nominate his own candidates to the role.423 As Josephus notes, Herod I:

Abandoned the practice of appointing those of Asamonean [sic] lineage as high priests, and, with the exception of Aristobulus alone, assigned the office to some insignificant persons who were merely of priestly descent.424

He had also executed many Hasmonean supporters, including most members of the Sanhedrin on his capture of Jerusalem in 37BCE.425 As a result, while Herod I could count on the support of Jerusalem’s new elites, the traditional priestly theocracy were less supportive, but were still influential through their control of the temple. So too did observant Jews all over his kingdom look to the high priest for religious guidance. While Herod I’s initial marriage to Mariamme I was intended to promote his royal identity alongside his religious, his subsequent marriage to Mariamme II was solely about religious power and piety. After his execution of Mariamme I, Herod I found himself detached from the religious power structures he had worked to develop. As a result, he sought to marry again, this time to the daughter of his new high priest, Simon Boethus.

Marriage to Mariamme II allowed Herod I to continue his important association with the high priesthood in Jerusalem. In describing the match, Josephus cites Herod I’s ‘amorous desire’ for Mariamme II who was ‘considered to be the most beautiful woman of her time.’ Although originally from Alexandria, Mariamme II’s family was not of sufficient status to act as a replacement for Mariamme I.426 Thus, Herod I raised her father, Simon Boethus, to the high priesthood in order to increase the man’s prestige.427 One theory also argues that the family could be linked to the old Oniad high priesthood existing in exile and dating back to the pre-Maccabean era. 428 In this way, Herod I replaces his royal connection to the high priesthood through Mariamme I with an elite connection to the new high priestly family through Mariamme II and her father.

423 Jones 1938: 80; Sartre 2004: 105. But Richardson 1996: 162 argues that Herod I appointed his first high priest, Ananel, on Hyrcanus’s advice. Surely Ananel was appointed immediately after the defeat of Antigonus while Hyrcanus returned only at a later date. 424 Joseph AJ 20.247. 425 Joseph AJ 15.5-6. 426 Joseph AJ 15.319-23. 427 Kokkinos 1998: 217-18. 428 Hengel 1989: 14; Kokkinos 1998: 218-20. 53

Figure 7 The relationship between Herod I and High Priestly families including those of Mariamme I and Mariamme II.

But Mariamme II had no cultural ties to Jerusalem and Herod I pursued no building projects in Alexandria associated with this marriage.429 Rather, his reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple in the later part of the 20s BCE430 can be directly linked to his first two marriages and their associated religious identity. This program has been described by Richardson as motivated by ‘prestige, by piety and by the peace and wealth of Judea.’431 Indeed Herod I once rebuked the Jewish populace for their indifference to his generosity:

He recounted all his strenuous efforts on their behalf, and told them at what great expense to himself he had constructed the Temple, whereas the Hasmoneans had been unable to do anything so great for the Honour of God in the hundred and twenty-five years of their reign.432

This project is part of a localised strategy in Jerusalem to promote his own piety in the period following Mariamme I’s execution.433 The main audience for this new construction of identity must be Jewish, particularly those priestly families living in Jerusalem, but it is

429 On Herod I’s relationship with the Diaspora, see Gruen 2009. 430 Bahat 2009. 431 Richardson 1996: 195. See also Netzer 2009: 175-8. 432 Joseph AJ 17.161-162. 433 Kokkinos 1998: 221. 54 difficult to assess their reaction to Herod I’s program.434 Certainly on his capture of the city in 37 BCE, Herod I first secured the temple, ‘deeming victory more grievous than defeat, if these people should set eye on any objects not open to public view.’435 Josephus’s attitude here is positive to Herod I’s motives and may reveal a lasting thankfulness for Herod I’s actions among the priestly classes. So too does Josephus, a member of the Jerusalem elite and a priest, describe the temple’s precincts in glowing terms,436 and the celebrations accompanying the inner sanctuary’s completion:

All the people were filled with joy and offered thanks to God, first of all for the speed of the work and next for the king’s zeal, and as they celebrated they acclaimed the restoration.

Although Josephus later records an insurrection where Rabbis incited young men to cut down a golden eagle set up by Herod I over the temple,437 this was a fairly isolated incident and in general the populace respected the economics, if not the piety, of Herod I’s temple project.438 Indeed Josephus estimates the total number unemployed when the temple was completed at ‘over eighteen thousand’ who ‘earned their living by working on the temple.’439 Meanwhile, elites were also represented in the construction process, as Herod I chose one thousand priests and proceeded to ‘train some as masons, others as carpenters.’440 Herod I’s marriage to the daughter of his new high priest, contemporary with his pious reconstruction of the temple, was designed to support his religious identity among the people of Jerusalem, not only the elites but also the economically motivated masses.441

Coins with conservative Jewish motifs were a key way for Herod I to articulate his Jewish piety with the Jerusalem community and can also be linked with his important religious marriages. These symbols include the three-legged table, which Meshorer identifies as the

434 On the related topic of Herod I’s festivals, see van Henten 2001: 165-70. 435 Joseph BJ 1.355. 436 Joseph AJ 15.380-1; Joseph BJ 1.402. 437 Joseph BJ 1.648-50. Compare this isolated incident with episode of Christ and the money-changers in Mark 11.15-19 or :13-22. Most of the populace were happy to use the temple fore-court as a marketplace; however, a zealous (religious and/or political) minority often thought differently in this period, including the followers of Christ and other contemporary saviour-figures. See for example the disturbances in Joseph AJ 17.269-75. See also, van Henten 2006: 266-69. 438 Geiger 2009: 167. 439 Geiger 2009: 167; Joseph AJ 20.220. See also the ten thousand workers initially cited Joseph AJ 15.390. 440 Joseph AJ 15.390. 441 van Henten 2008b: 162-64 notes Herod I’s consideration of Jewish religious practice at Jerusalem in terms of his festival program. 55 silver table for the temple vessels.442 In at least two types, the table is depicted with vessels atop it and flanked by palm branches. 443 The reverse is usually a diadem, representing Herod I’s royal power, with a Greek inscription ΗΡΩΔΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ, ‘of king Herod.’444 One rare coin includes a vine motif, symbolising to Meshorer the golden vine installed at the temple and described by Josephus: ‘under the cornice, spread a golden vine with grape-clusters hanging from it.’445 These coins, minted in Jerusalem, are clearly a part of Herod I’s wider policy of constructing a pious religious identity, alongside his reconstruction of the temple and his marriages to both Mariamme I and Mariamme II.

The only son of Herod I and Mariamme II was named Herod II, after his father. Before his family fell from grace, he was named as the co-heir to Herod I’s kingdom, alongside Antipater II, and married to Herodias, the daughter of Aristobulus IV and Berenice I.446 This marriage was part of the special betrothals in 7 BCE when Herod I arranged marriages for the offspring of Alexander II and Aristobulus IV. The royalty of the Hasmoneans and the high priestly piety of Mariamme II’s family are brought together in this marriage, with Herod II now designated as heir. Richardson believes that Herod I’s older sons by Malthace were passed over in this appointment, but by Kokkinos’s reckoning, the son of Mariamme II was the elder by around a year.447 Herod II was ‘more likely to be acceptable to the population at large,’448 due to his mother’s link to the high priesthood and his wife Herodias’s Hasmonean lineage. Conversely, Malthace’s eldest son, Archelaus, was descended of a Samaritan native and not yet betrothed, meaning that his position was weak.449

By 5 BCE, Mariamme II’s family was out of favour and her son was removed from the succession over accusations of treason.450 This fall from favour signals the end of Herod I’s association with the high priestly families only a few years before his death. He had maintained a connection with this important religious position since before his elevation to the monarchy and consistently preferences the offspring of his marriages to Mariamme I

442 1 Chronicles 18:16-17. See also Seqalim 6:4; Meshorer 2001: 66-7, pl. 44-5 #48-58. 443 Meshorer 2001: pl. 44 #48, 48a, 49, 49a-c. 444 Meshorer 2001: pl. 44-5 #48-53. 445 Joseph AJ 15.394; Meshorer 2001: 69-70, pl. 45 #58. 446 Joseph AJ 17.12-15; Joseph BJ 1.557-8. 447 Kokkinos 1998: 222-23. 448 Richardson 1996: 35. 449 He would go on to marry Mariamme III, daughter of Aristobulus IV and Berenice I, but at this stage she was betrothed to Antipater II. 450 Joseph AJ 17.78; Richardson 1996: 37. 56 and Mariamme II in his wills, even though they eventually were removed altogether.451 In part this was due to their age, but they remained Herod I’s eldest children because his initial strategy to marry strategically important women would allow him to construct a royal and religious identity and to establish a dynasty whose monarchs could also draw on this heritage. But during the latter part of Herod I’s reign, two further marriages extended his influence over regional areas of his kingdom, with the offspring of these marriages eventually replacing his children by Mariamme I and Mariamme II in the dynastic succession.

Judea and Samaria Just as Herod I’s building programs in Jerusalem are associated with his marriages for religious and royal authority, so too do his building programs452 in both Judea and Samaria point to marriages he contracted with women from these regions. Cleopatra of Jerusalem and Malthace the Samaritan were married to Herod I in the later part of his reign, along with three women of unknown origins, Pheadra, Elpis and Pallas. 453 If Mariamme II represents Herod I’s pious and economic identity at Jerusalem, Cleopatra and Malthace represent many of the same attributes in a provincial context. Herod I himself has been described as one of ‘the most significant architectural patrons of his immediate period and perhaps the most exciting architectural patron of the ancient world.’454 Not only did he build extensively in his own kingdom, but Herod I also endowed many communities in the wider Mediterranean world.455 As Gruen observes, Herod I’s kingdom was diverse and his building programs were motivated by ‘internal turmoil, sectarian discontents, and widespread hostility to the regime.’456 Lichtenberger also notes that Herod I’s architectural program was related to his perceived status as a Hellenistic monarch, particularly through the use of high-quality material and the naming of buildings and cities after family members and political allies.457 Thus, while Richardson’s argument that Herod I’s building program was primarily for a Jewish elite audience is true to an extent,458 many of Herod I’s projects, even within his kingdom, benefited non-Jewish communities. His territory was diverse and like his father,459 Herod I recognised that he must be skilful at maintaining

451 Richardson 1996: 33-36. 452 Richardson 1996: 174-215. 453 Joseph AJ 17.19; Joseph BJ 1.562-3. 454 Richardson 2004: 6. 455 Gruen 2009: 13-29; Joseph AJ 16.143-5; Joseph BJ 1.407. 456 Gruen 2009: 14-18. 457 Lichtenberger 2009: 56. But see Netzer 2009: 178-9 who argues from a purely administrative motivation. 458 Richardson 2004: 6. 459 Netzer 2009: 178-9. 57 relationships with a variety of people, both Jewish and gentile.460 Even from the earliest period of his reign, Herod I demonstrates a keen awareness for the varied communities that made up his territory and how they related to one another.461 Therefore, just as his many building projects are not only about his Jewish identity, marriages to Malthace and Cleopatra articulate Herod I’s support for communities outside of the Jerusalem elite. In the same way as Aulus Gellius records Mithridates of Pontus engaging with his diverse subjects through language, Herod I could engage his kingdom through urban beneficence and marriage.462

Cleopatra of Jerusalem The core territories of Herod I’s kingdom were Judea, Idumea, Galilee and Samaritis. While building programs in Idumea often consisted of defensive forts along his Arabian frontier,463 Herod I’s programs in Judea and Samaritis were more concerned with public buildings and palaces. 464 Jerusalem is a special case, with Herod I’s temple overshadowing all other projects in the city, which included several palaces,465 a theatre and amphitheatre,466 hippodrome467 and numerous aqueducts.468 In the rest of Judea, many additional projects were completed including the palaces of , and Alexandreion469 and the new city of Phaselis.470 Perhaps the most significant project in greater Judea is the extensive work that occurred in and around the city of Jericho,471 one of the five Judean capitals established by Gabinius.472 Alongside several palaces,473 Herod I constructed a hippodrome/theatre,474 manufacturing districts for local products including balsam475 and dates,476 and a new .477 Not only do these projects

460 Jones 1938: 44-5; Joseph AJ 14.10. 461 Jones 1938: 44-46. 462 Gell. AN 17.17.1. 463 Richardson 1996: 179-183. 464 Richardson 1996: 179-183, 186-191. 465 The Antonia: Joseph AJ 15.292, 409, 424, 18.91-95; Joseph BJ 1.401, 5.238-46. The Hasmonean Palace: Joseph AJ 20.190; Joseph BJ 2.344. The Royal Palace: Joseph AJ 15.292, 318; Joseph BJ 1.402, 5.156-83, 246. After Richardson 1996: 197, 225. 466 Joseph AJ 15.268-91. 467 Joseph AJ 17.255; Joseph BJ 2.44. On these kinds of cultural projects, see Patrich 2009. 468 Richardson 1996: 198. 469 On palace architecture, see Netzer 2009: 171-5. 470 Joseph AJ 16.145; Joseph BJ 1.418, 2.98. 471 Joseph AJ 17.161, 175-78; Joseph BJ 1.407, 659. 472 Joseph BJ 1.170. 473 Joseph AJ 16.143; Joseph BJ 1.407, 417; Richardson 1996: 199. 474 Joseph AJ 17.161, 175-8; Joseph BJ 1.659, 666. 475 Richardson 1996: 199. On the importance of balsam to Jericho’s economy, see Joseph AJ 14.54, 15.96; Joseph BJ 1.138, 361. 476 Joseph BJ 4.451-75. 477 Richardson 1996: 199. 58 provide facilities for local populations, but also economic stimulus. 478 Richardson in particular notes the importance of Herod I’s water supply projects that benefited a great number of important cities and palaces in his territory, along with their associated communities.479 In each case, the projects undertaken in Judea are also designed with the local population’s religious views in mind; no Roman or Greek style temple was constructed by Herod I in Judea.

Figure 8 The relationship of Herod I and Cleopatra including their children who inherited in the first generation after Herod I's death.

Very little is known about Herod I’s wife Cleopatra of Jerusalem, suggesting that her origins were common rather than elite or royal. Certainly she was not part of the Hasmonean dynasty, nor is she connected with the high-priestly families who Josephus knew well and would surely have mentioned. Although Josephus only describes her as being a Jerusalemite, it is probable that Cleopatra was of the Jewish or Judean urban elite.480 Marriage to Cleopatra and Malthace closely followed Herod I’s wedding with Mariamme II, a sequence of events that Kokkinos attributes to ‘psychological depression.’ He also cites Herod I’s recent execution of Mariamme I as a social motive as Herod I was now no longer married at all, much less to a Jewish wife. Thus Herod I’s marriages are placed within the context of a cultural desire to establish new marriage links, replacing the lost authority and prestige of Mariamme I.481 Cleopatra’s obscure heritage suggests that

478 Geiger 2009: 165; Gruen 2009: 19; Richardson 1996: 188-89; Richardson 2004: 25. 479 Richardson 1996: 190-1. 480 Kokkinos 1998: 235; Richardson 1996: 235. Jones 1938: 116 makes Cleopatra a ‘Jewess of Jerusalem’ but makes no further comment. 481 Kokkinos 1998: 207, 221; Richardson 1996: 235. 59 this marriage was directed towards a more general Jewish audience,482 such as those groups he served by construction programs in Jerusalem and Jericho. These populations are well-known for their complaints against Herod I’s rich patronage of cities external to his kingdom:

He had not ceased to adorn neighbouring cities that were inhabited by foreigners although this led to the ruin and disappearance of cities located in his own kingdom.483

Given this resistance, after the execution of Mariamme I and since Mariamme II was of diaspora rather than Judea family, Herod I now found himself in need of a marriage to build support amongst the Judean populace. As both a benefactor of Judea in construction projects and the husband to a local woman, Herod I could therefore claim an affinity with his local constituents in an attempt to quell negative feelings towards him. Even Josephus conceded of Herod I’s generosity that ‘it is impossible for anyone, even for those who have very little respect for him, to refuse to agree that he had a most beneficent nature.’ He later adds that, ‘Herod loved honours, and… was led to display generosity whenever there was reason to hope for future remembrance or present reputation.’484 Thus, although this program seems to have failed by the end of his reign due to his harsh rule,485 Herod I’s intent in his Judean building programs and his marriage to Cleopatra was to contextualise his reign by demonstrating awareness of local cultural variation.

The offspring of Cleopatra and Herod I were also schooled at Rome, but only one succeeded to a tetrarchy after Herod I’s death.486 These sons were Herod III and Philip, and only Philip can be traced in the surviving sources.487 According to Josephus, he was married to Salome III the daughter of Herod II and Herodias, but Kokkinos deduces that Philip must have actually married Herodias as he was almost 40 when Salome III came of age around 13 CE.488 This is further supported by a passage in Matthew that states: ‘For Herod [Antipas II] had arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of

482 But note that Richardson 1996: 43 makes all of these marriages exogamous using the limited definition of Hanson 1989b. 483 Joseph AJ 17.305-6. 484 Joseph AJ 16.150-6. 485 Joseph AJ 16.155-6, 17.299-310. 486 Jones 1938: 138; Joseph AJ 17.318; Kokkinos 1998: 236-7. 487 Kokkinos 1998: 195 n.80. 488 Joseph AJ 18.136-9; Kokkinos 1998: 237. 60

Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife.’489 At any rate, on Herod I’s death Augustus granted Philip the tetrarchy of Trachonitis, Batanaea, Aurantis and Panias, all areas of gentile and Arab population rather than Jewish.490 Kokkinos attributes the grant of territory to his mother’s hypothesised heritage in the Hellenistic elites,491 but it is also possible that Augustus was less concerned with Philip’s cultural heritage, or even unaware of it, when he appointed the boy to this region.492 It is unknown whether Herod I’s final will included geographical designations for his three heirs,493 and disputes over the outcome of the will provide little further clarity.494 As a result of the social and religious context he found himself in, Philip’s identity is significant in that it draws mainly on the royal power associated with his family.495 Through his wife, whether she was Salome III or Herodias, he gained a link to the Hasmonean family who had originally conquered the regions he now controlled and this may have given him some further legitimacy.

However, Philip is careful never to draw on his Jewish identity in a region where the Jewish populace was a minority.496 Instead, his coins and building programs demonstrate a particularly gentile outlook in his public identity, but Josephus gives no impression of his private life.497 Certainly it is never mentioned that he turned away from Jewish customs as it is with other Herodian family members.498 Instead, Josephus paints him as a considered and faithful tetrarch who was well liked by his populace.499 His marriage produced no recorded children and thus it is impossible to trace the line any further.500 Meshorer describes Philip’s coins as ‘international and pagan’ in flavour, with one type depicting the emperor (either or Augustus) and Herod I’s Augusteum, built at Panias in 10 BCE.501 This Roman-directed series of issues clearly departs from previous Herodian and Hasmonean coins and contains no symbols of the Jewish faith. In fact, Philip was the first

489 Matthew 14.1. See also Hoehner 1972: 131-4. 490 Richardson 1996: 72, 301-2. 491 Kokkinos 1998: 236. 492 Also noted with Archelaus’s grant of a Jewish territory, below. 493 Richardson 1996: 36-8. 494 Joseph AJ 17.188-90; Richardson 1996: 40. 495 Kokkinos 1998: 238-9. 496 Kokkinos 1998: 239. 497 Richardson 1996: 302. 498 For example, the line of Alexander II. 499 Joseph AJ 18.106. But note some possible dissent discussed by Kokkinos 1998: 240 or Christ’s warning in NT Matt 10.17-11.8 of the ‘soft robed men in royal palaces’. 500 Joseph AJ 18.106. 501 Meshorer 2001: 85, #97-106; Joseph AJ 15.363. 61

Jewish monarch to mint coinage featuring his own portrait,502 a type that would have made great sense to his populace but not to Herod I’s.

Malthace the Samaritan The clearest example of Herod I’s desire to establish marriage connections with regions in his territory is his union with Malthace the Samaritan around 28 BCE.503 Malthace’s ethnic descriptor should not suggest that she was religiously Samaritan. Rather, her background was probably in the local Greek/Phoenician groups living in Samaritis.504 Shortly after this marriage, Herod I began his major construction projects at Samaria/Sebaste. While Kokkinos attributes this project to Herod I’s marriage at Samaria to Mariamme I,505 it is also possible to link the project with his more contemporary marriage to Malthace. Thus, by the mid 20s BCE Herod I could claim marriage links with communities in each of his territories, with the exception only of Galilee.506 Peraea was commanded by Pheroras, Herod I’s brother,507 and Batanaea, Gaulantis, Trachonitis and Panias would not be added until later that decade.508 Herod I’s marriage to Malthace therefore provides an ideological link with the north of his kingdom, an area where he already counted on significant support from the days before he was king,509 while simultaneously demonstrating his support of these areas and his understanding of their needs.

Building programs in Samaritis were less widespread than Judea, but not less significant, with Herod I funding extensive work at both Samaria, renamed Sebaste, 510 and at ,511 his new trading port. Founded on ancient Strato’s Tower around 22 BCE,512 Caesarea Maritima was a city of mixed population, probably including Greeks, Romans, Jews and potentially some Herodian veterans. 513 The city also boasted a religiously Samaritan population as attested by later inscriptions.514 These communities found themselves in occasional conflict over ownership of the city,515 with the Jewish

502 Meshorer 2001: 86, # 95-6, 108. 503 Joseph AJ 17.19; Joseph BJ 1.562-3; Kokkinos 1998: 225. 504 Kokkinos 1998: 224-5. 505 Kokkinos 1998: 225. 506 But Galilee might be seen as contiguous with Samaria’s mixed population given Herod I’s background there. 507 Joseph AJ 15.362; Kokkinos 1998: 166; Richardson 1996: 274-5. 508 Joseph BJ 1.398. Around 23 BCE. 509 Joseph AJ 14.180; Joseph BJ 1.213; Kokkinos 1998: 224. 510 Joseph AJ 13.275, 15.292-98, 16.136-41; Joseph BJ 1.64, 415. 511 Joseph AJ 14.76, 121, 15.293, 331-41, 16.136-41; Joseph BJ 1.156, 408-16, 2.266. 512 Braund 1984a: 109-13; Burrell 2009: 217. 513 Levine 1975: 15-16. 514 Lehmann and Holum 2000: 19. 515 Lichtenberger 2009: 46. 62 population claiming precedence by shared religion with Herod I and the Greco-Roman community citing the city’s Roman temples and Greek constitution and games.516 Along with its harbour and warehouse facilities, temples and theatres, 517 defences and aqueducts,518 the city was also provided with its own mint,519 and was laid out on a Hellenistic plan. 520 The harbour was of special significance as it provided the best anchorage in the region and meant that Caesarea became a major trading and industrial centre.521 This is demonstrated by a coin dating to around 10 BCE when Caesarea was inaugurated.522 This issue, with the maritime symbols of an anchor and galley, is a celebration of Herod I’s new city and a tribute to its economic function through maritime trade. While religious imagery is important in Herod I’s Jerusalem coins, in Samaria, economics was more suitable to his audience. Thus, from the early period Herod I’s Samaritan coinage shows his concern for the mixed cultural background of this region, and his later marriage to Malthace acknowledged the unique status of these communities in his kingdom.

Figure 9 The family of Herod I and Malthace including marriages of their descendants who inherited in the first generation after Herod I's death.

Contemporary with building works at Caesarea, the reconstruction of Samaria began around 27 BCE and was completed by 12 BCE. The re-foundation of Samaria followed its

516 Lehmann and Holum 2000: 16-17; Levine 1975: 16-18; Richardson 2004: 5, 229. 517 Joseph BJ 1.414-15. 518 Richardson 1996: 199-200; Richardson 2004: 61. 519 Levine 1975: 18. 520 Burrell 2009: 222; Joseph AJ 15.340; Joseph BJ 1.414; Richardson 2004: 57. 521 Burrell 2009: 218. 522 Meshorer 2001: 70, #65. 63 destruction by Aristobulus I and Antigonus, sons of John Hyrcanus, in the late second century BCE.523 Josephus describes its Herodian layout and citizens:

In the district of Samaria he built a town enclosed within magnificent walls twenty furlongs in length, introduced to it six thousand colonists and gave them allotments of highly productive land. In the centre of this settlement he erected a massive temple, enclosed in ground, a furlong and a land in length consecrated to Caesar, while he named the town itself Sebaste. The inhabitants were given a privileged constitution.

Sebaste/Samaria gained a and theatre complex,524 aqueducts and fortifications, alongside its temples to Roma and Augustus,525 and to Demeter and Persphone. Like his comparable Judean project at Jericho, Herod I’s approach to facilities at Caesarea Maritima and Samaria/Sebaste was context-specific, demonstrated by his construction of Greek temples in these cities and the institution of Greek-style games. Several coin types predate this building project and demonstrate Herod I’s early awareness of local religious preferences and sensibilities. Meshorer recently dated these coins to 40 BCE as they bear a distinctive TR monogram as representative of Herod I’s time as tetrarch in Galilee and Samaria.526 Military and religious symbols are common, including the apex, tripod and lebes,527 a helmet and shield,528 and the caduceus and poppy.529 This last type is explicitly linked with the city of Samaria and its cult to Demeter and Persephone. While Judean cities received only one temple,530 Samaritan cities also received two of the three temples of Rome and Augustus known from Herod I’s kingdom.531 Rather than Herod I constructing these temples ‘where they would cause minimum offence,’532 they were placed where they would have maximum impact on the local populations Herod I was attempting to benefit. The region of Samaritis was culturally and religiously distinct from Judea and in his marriage to Malthace, Herod I does not choose a partner for their minimum impact at Jerusalem, but rather for maximum impact in this important part of his kingdom.

523 Joseph BJ 1.64-5. 524 Patrich 2009. 525 Joseph AJ 15.296-98. 526 Meshorer 2001: 62. 527 Roman augural cap and equipment. Meshorer 2001: 64, #44. 528 Meshorer 2001: 64, #45. 529 Kokkinos 1998: 122; Meshorer 2001: 64, #46. 530 The one at Jerusalem itself. 531 Netzer 2009: 175-6. 532 Richardson 2004: 229. 64

Herod I and Malthace had two sons, Archelaus and Antipas II, and a daughter, .533 Like Herod I’s other male children, the boys were educated at Rome and after the execution or disgrace of elder,534 more suitable brothers, Archelaus and Antipas II each inherited part of Herod I’s kingdom.535 Archelaus was designated the ethnarch of Judea, Idumea and Samaritis,536 but his rule was short-lived,537 due to his own poor leadership538 and marriage choices. Originally married to Aristobulus IV and Berenice I’s daughter Mariamme III, Archelaus divorced her and married Glaphyra, his elder step- brother’s widow. Likewise Antipas II was originally married to a daughter of Aretas IV but divorced her in favour of his niece Herodias.539 In fact Olympias is the only child of Malthace not to have been divorced and remarried in the period following Herod I’s death, remaining married to Joseph, the nephew of Herod I. In the marriages of both Archelaus and Antipater II it is possible to see two important trends in the era following Herod I’s death. The first is the emergence of several new family patriarchies based around Herod I’s male heirs and the second is the rapid changes in marriage strategy that these male heirs represent.

Like his father, Archelaus attempted to use marriage as a tool to build a distinctive social and political identity for himself. But Archelaus’s marriages abandoned links to the Hasmonean and Herodian families in favour of the royal prestige of Hellenistic intermarriage. His first wife was probably Mariamme III,540 the daughter of Berenice I and Aristobulus IV, but he divorced her almost immediately in favour of his elder brother’s widow, Glaphyra.541 This is surprising as the capital of his ethnarchy was Jerusalem and Mariamme III’s background brought with it both Hasmonean and Herodian supporters. Her mother was Berenice I, the daughter of Salome I, and both these formidable women were still living at the time. Mariamme III’s father was Aristobulus IV, the second son of Herod I and Mariamme I, and this connection provided Archelaus with a convenient link to the religious authority of the Hasmoneans, not to mention Herod I’s own considerable prestige. He could also rely on some support in Samaritis due to his mother’s background,

533 Kokkinos 1998: 225. 534 Richardson 1996: 231; Hoehner 1972: 13. 535 Joseph AJ 17.188; Joseph BJ 2. 93-9. 536 Joseph BJ 2.93-99. 537 Joseph AJ 17.318. 538 Joseph AJ 17.342. 539 Hoehner 1972: 142-3. 540 Kokkinos 1998: 227. 541 Joseph AJ 17.339; Joseph BJ 2.114; Kokkinos 1998: 215, 227; Richardson 1996: 44. 65 but she had died suddenly at Rome before he came to power.542 But instead of drawing on Mariamme III’s multiple ethnic and social identities, Archelaus chose to abandon these ties in favour of Glaphyra’s royal prestige and, potentially, her connections with Alexander II, Herod I’s first heir designate.

Not only was marriage to Glaphyra insensitive to the politics of marriage, but it was also religiously improper, as noted by Josephus:

And he transgressed ancestral law in marrying Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus, who had been the wife of his brother Alexander and had borne him children, for it is abhorrent to the Jews to marry the wife of a brother.543

Immediately on becoming heir designate, Archelaus was proclaimed king of Judea and began to ingratiate himself with the populace through tax relief and religious ceremonies. 544 But after divorcing Mariamme III and marrying Glaphyra, Archelaus’s relationship with his population changed dramatically. In his tenth year, ‘the leading men among the Jews and Samaritans, finding his cruelty and tyranny intolerable, bought charges against him before Caesar.’ This petition succeeded and in 4 CE Archelaus was sent into exile.545 For all its potential political benefits to Archelaus’s identity, the marriage was in direct contravention of Jewish law, meaning that he immediately lost support of the traditional Jewish elites that his first marriage gave him. The legal problem for Archelaus was that under Jewish law, he could only marry his brother’s widow if she did not already have children.546 This was a loophole designed to further the family line in cases of untimely death,547 but as Alexander II and Glaphyra already had children,548 Archelaus committed adultery.549 He clearly valued Glaphyra for her royalty, but in constructing a royal identity for his dynasty, Archelaus alienated a key group in his territory, the Jewish priesthood.550 It is most likely that Archelaus’s impious marriage was associated with other extreme conduct against his populace, but it may have figured in the Jewish and Samaritan embassy to Rome that ousted him.

542 Joseph BJ 2.39-44; Moen 2009: 224. But see Richardson 1996: 37 on Samaritan lineage. 543 Joseph AJ 17.339. 544 Joseph AJ 17.205-16; Kokkinos 1998; Richardson 1996: 19. 545 Joseph AJ 17.342. 546 NT Deut 25.5-6; Weisberg 2009. 547 Neufeld 1944. 548 Joseph AJ 17.339-40. Richardson 1996: 298. 549 Moen 2009: 233. 550 van Henten 2001: 264-66. 66

Archelaus’s coins articulate a similarly confused identity. Some feature double cornucopias with an anchor, galley or prow,551 echoing the symbols of Herod I’s coinage. Another type uses the vine branch and helmet motif of Herod I’s Jerusalem and Samaritan issues.552 That Archelaus used religious symbols on his coinage is strange because Josephus interpreted his marriage to Glaphyra as religiously insensitive. Conversely, the helmet motif is related to Herod I’s Samaritan issues and could be linked with Malthace’s heritage in this region. The helmet also has military connotations for Archelaus’s role as ethnarch and demonstrates his power as head of the nation. When viewed in the context of his coinage, Archelaus’s marriage to Glaphyra is an extension of his royal authority to rule, through the linage of Glaphyra and his father, preferred over his ex-wife’s ties to the high priesthood.

Together, Archelaus’s remarriage and attitude towards his populace demonstrate that he was more interested in his new-found royal status than he was with the careful balance of competing identities favoured by his father. This confirms the importance of multiple identities in the increasingly complex context of the post-Herod I period.553 In marrying many people and forging a strong dynasty across his family, Herod I attempted to hold it together and support the various parts of his territory. But with Herod I missing from the role of patriarch, marriage becomes even more significant for constructing diverse and competing identities. Archelaus saw marriage for royal status with Glaphyra as more beneficial to his rule as ethnarch, than the ethnic and religious benefits of marriage with Mariamme III. Thus he accepted the trade-off between the religious implications of re- marriage and the local support that his first marriage provided. In many ways, the lineage of Archelaus was his greatest weakness in trying to rule the disparate parts of this ethnarchy, a handicap he chose to remedy by marriage. But in hindsight, being descended from an Idumean and a Samaritan, he primarily required support at Jerusalem and chose to ensure it by heavy-handed despotism, rather than the finesse of religion.554

While Archelaus chose to distance himself from the line of Mariamme I and Herod I, and focus on a direct royal link with Glaphyra in Jerusalem, his brother Antipas II used different tactics. Around 7 BCE when Herod I was busy arranging marriages for the children of

551 Meshorer 2001: 79, #67-72. 552 Meshorer 2001: 79-80, #73-4. 553 Richardson 1996: 38. 554 Moen 2009: 224. 67

Alexander II and Aristobulus IV, it seems that he also negotiated a marriage alliance with Aretas IV of Nabataea. Due to its date, this alliance has a distinct purpose compared with those between Herod I and the Hasmonean and Cappadocian royal families earlier in his reign. Josephus relates the episode well after the fact, but says that the pair had been married ‘for a long time.’ 555 Kokkinos rightly points out that this marriage was contemporary with the resolution of the hostilities with the Nabataean governor, Syllaeus, and the approval of Aretas IV as king of Nabataea.556 Given the political circumstances, it was now opportune for Antipas II to join with Aretas IV in an alliance557 and Josephus is silent on the religious implications of the marriage.558

The importance of this marriage to regional stability can be aptly demonstrated by the events following its breakdown. On visiting his brother Herod II, Antipas II conceived a desire for his wife, Herodias, resulting in a divorce from Aretas IV’s daughter and a major political situation in which the Tiberius was forced to intervene.559 Antipas II was tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, sharing a border with Aretas east of the .560 Learning of her impending divorce, Aretas IV’s daughter fled over the border and took refuge with her father.561 This was precisely the political situation that Herod I had wanted to prevent in arranging the marriage and is another example of how his marriage strategy went through a period of rapid change following his death.562 Herodias was already married to Philip, the son of Cleopatra, and like Archelaus and Glaphyra, Antipas II is censured by Josephus for the marriage that, like his brother’s, was against the Torah.563 However, Moen argues that Josephus presents his own legal interpretation of this marriage rather than reflecting authentic contemporary practice. 564 Marriage between Antipas II and Aretas’s daughter had served Herod I’s purposes as king and patriarch, but with a new territory to govern and restrictions no longer enforced by Herod I, Antipas II chose to break ties with the regionally important and contract a more

555 Joseph AJ 18.109. 556 Kokkinos 1998: 229. But note that Hoehner 1972: 142-3 still has Antipas II contracting this marriage, rather than Herod I as suggested here. 557 Bowersock 1994: 59. See Richardson 1996: 307 who places the marriage later and notes political implications for Antipas II alone, rather than Herod I. 558 Moen, 2009: 228. 559 Joseph AJ 18.123; Bowersock 1994: 65-7; Kokkinos 1998: 235; Richardson 1996: 305. 560 Joseph AJ 17.188; Joseph BJ 2.93-9; Kokkinos 1998: 233-35; Hoehner 1972: 43-4, 52-3. 561 Joseph AJ 18.109 562 Kokkinos 1998 196 alludes to this process of gaining equilibrium. 563 NT Matt 14.1; Mark 6.14; .18 Kokkinos 1998: 267-8; Moen 2009: 240-1; Richardson 1996: 307. 564 Moen 2009: 22, 184-5. 68 locally focused family marriage that drew on the important lineage of Aristobulus IV and Berenice I.565 This is not to suggest that alliance with the Nabataeans was undesirable, but to note that for Antipas II, whose territory stretched from Galilee to Macheraeus, alliance with Aretas was not necessarily his first priority. Galilee and Perea were largely Jewish and an endogamous Jewish marriage served Antipas II’s purposes better than an exogamous one to an Arabian princess.566 For now, Antipas II was isolated from the religious necessities of Jerusalem but ruled a region that would benefit from a strong show of Herodian dynastic power, drawing on Malthace’s connections to Samaritis and its gentile elites and his wife’s descent from both Mariamme I and Salome I.567 Kokkinos also cleverly ascribes a geographical motive to Antipas II’s marriage with Herodias, as marriage to the widow of his recently deceased brother potentially allowed him a claim on the territory.568 This connection with Mariamme I became more important later in Antipas II’s reign, when he began to have more influence over the temple and reaction against his marriage to Herodias had settled.569

Salome I and Idumea The final section of this chapter deals with Herod I’s sister, Salome I, who was married to two significant Idumea courtiers, Joseph570 and Costobar I,571 and to another important member of the Herodian court, Alexas I.572 Salome I’s descendants are an important branch of the Herodian family and her marriages are a compelling mix of tradition and divergent practice. Salome I’s marriages were intended to maintain the Herodians’ historic connections with Idumea and the region’s important elites.573 Even after becoming king, Herod I is identified as Idumean by his Jewish subjects,574 but to an Idumean it is likely that Herod I seemed very Jewish.575 Since the late Hasmonean period, the Herodian family had controlled the important governorship of this region.576 Herod I’s grandfather, Antipater I, was ‘appointed governor of the whole of Idumea’577 while Kokkinos follows

565 Moen 2009: 284. 566 Jones 1938 176-7. 567 Moen 2009: 284; Richardson 1996: 40. 568 Kokkinos 1998: 268-9. See also Hoehner 1972: 52-3 on Antipas II’s population. 569 Kokkinos 1998 194-5 NT Luke 23.6-16. 570 See above, Antipater as Patriarch. 571 Joseph AJ 15.252-58; Joseph BJ 1.486-87. 572 Joseph AJ 17.10; Joseph BJ 1.566. 573 On Idumean history, the best study is Kasher 1988. On its origins as seen by Josephus, see Joseph AJ 2.3, 6. 574 Kokkinos 1998: 28. 575 Richardson 1996: 62. 576 Jones 1938: 15-16; Kokkinos 1998: 94-6. 577 Joseph AJ 14.11. 69

Jones and suggests that Herod I’s father, Antipater II, and uncle Joseph I also held this position.578 Control of this area’s population was important, as the Idumeans were also a potential threat to Herodian control, demonstrated by the ten thousand who revolted following Herod I’s death.579 Idumeans also marched on Jerusalem during the later stages of the Jewish revolt.580 In both cases, the lack of a regional governor with ties to the Herodian family led to a breakdown in relations between the central authority and the Idumean region. But during his reign, Herod I used marriages to his sister to ensure his influence in this critical region.

Figure 10 The family and descendants of Salome I including distant relatives of unknown connection.

Situated south and west of Judea,581 with Gaza on its western coast582 and the Nabataean kingdom to the south,583 Idumea was an area of mixed population from at least the early Hellenistic period. 584 In the second century BCE it had been conquered by the Hasmoneans and forcibly converted, 585 but locals still maintained strong links to the Arabian country to the south.586 Because it acted as a buffer between Herod I’s kingdom

578 Jones 1938: 16; Kokkinos 1998: 94- 100. Richardson 1996: 78 n. 105 is incorrect when he states Antipater I was made governor by Alexander Jannaeus. 579 Jones 1938: 163-64; Joseph BJ 2.76-8; Sartre 2004: 12. 580 Joseph BJ 4.233. 581 Joseph AJ 8.348. 582 Josephus Against Apion 2.116. 583 Strabo Geography 16.2.2; Kokkinos 1998: 59-60. 584 Kokkinos 1998: 72-77; Richardson 1996: 58-9. 585 Joseph AJ 18.257-8; Kasher 1988: 43-78; Kokkinos 1998: 43, 91-3. 586 Kokkinos 1998: 37, 43. See also Strabo Geography 16.2.34 who says that ‘The Idumeans are Nabataeans, but owing to a sedition they were banished from there, joined with the Judeans and shared in the same customs with them.’ 70 and the Nabataeans, Idumea was an important frontier region, 587 demonstrated by numerous skirmishes mentioned by Josephus.588 Idumeans also served in Herod I’s army since he settled three thousand of them around Trachontis in order to suppress local brigandage.589 Herod I’s building programs in Idumea follow this defensive pattern, with most projects confined to forts and palaces rather than cities.590 The chief cities in Idumea, including Marisa and Gaza, received no civic benefactions from Herod I,591 unlike cities in Judea and Samaria.592 Thus, Idumea was also one of the first regions captured by Herod I in his 39–8 BCE winter campaign, not only due to the family’s historic influence there, but also its defensive importance.593

Salome I’s first marriage to her uncle Joseph I was probably arranged by her father and is an example of traditional Jewish endogamy. While Antipater I himself had married an Arab woman, the union of his brother and daughter served to reinforce family ties that supported Antipater I’s regional power in Idumea. Josephus describes Joseph I as the ‘husband of his sister Salome, a faithful friend whose loyalty was assured by this marriage connexion.’594 It has been argued that Josephus implies that Joseph I was not a member of the Herodian family, but Kokkinos rightly restores this husband of Salome I to his place as the brother of Antipater I. The importance of this marriage alliance was in controlling factions in the Herodian family, evidently already an issue for Antipater I in the 40s BCE when the marriage took place.595 Joseph I plays a leading role in many of the events around Herod I’s rise to power and his marriage to Salome I must have increased Herod I’s confidence in him. Thus, early in his reign when Herod I travelled to visit Antony in Laodicea, Joseph I was left in charge of his entire realm.596 However, on Herod I’s return, Salome I charged Joseph I and Mariamme I with adultery and he was executed.597 In this case, Salome I may well have played on Herod I’s insecurities about threats from within his own administration.

587 Kokkinos 1998: 68. 588 Joseph AJ 15.107-120, 351, 16.271-85, 292-3, 337-51; Kasher 1988: 136-156. 589 Jones 1938: 78; Joseph AJ 16.285, 292. 590 Richardson 1996: 175-6. 591 Richardson 1996: 192. 592 See below and Richardson 1996: 199-200. 593 Joseph AJ 14.413; Joseph BJ 1.303. 594 Joseph BJ 1.441. A better translation might be ‘and he was trusted because of their marriage alliance.’ 595 Kokkinos 1998: 151-52. 596 Joseph AJ 15.64-66; Kokkinos 1998: 152. 597 Jones 1938: 56. 71

With Joseph I executed, Herod I now needed to arrange a marriage for his sister and fill the vacancy in his administration, the governorship of Idumea. Salome I’s recent widowhood proved an excellent coincidence and Herod I ‘appointed Costobarus [sic] governor of Idumea and Gaza, and gave him (in marriage) his sister Salome I.’598 Jones and Kokkinos599 assume a delay between Costobar I’s appointment and his marriage to Salome I, but from Josephus’s testimony it seems likely that the appointment and marriage were simultaneous in 34 BCE. This marriage filled a difficult vacancy in Idumea and ensured Costobar I’s loyalty in the role, being tied closely to the Herodian family through his marriage to Salome I.600 Costobar I, an Idumean native, was ‘first in rank among them, and his ancestors had been priests of Koze,601 whom the Idumeans believe to be a god.’ Although the Herodians were quite successful converts to Judaism, Costobar I’s lineage suggests that this was not the case with all Idumeans, an idea promoted by Kasher602 and noted by Josephus: ‘[Costobar] did not think that it was proper… for the Idumeans to adopt the customs of the Jews and be subject to them’.603 This desire for independence brought trouble upon Costobar I who wished to cede from Judea and become a ruler in his own right,604 ‘having good reason in this both in his lineage and in the wealth which he had acquired through continual and shameless profit-seeking.’605 Costobar I’s conversion and marriage to Salome I therefore increased his local prestige, leading him to desire further powers, in the same way that Herod I’s marriage of Salome I to Costobar I was intended to signal his family’s longstanding affinity with the region and maintain traditional control there.

Salome I’s third marriage was to a man named Alexas, one of Herod I’s closest friends. Although some have assumed that Alexas I held the position of Idumean governor,606 it impossible to be sure from Josephus: ‘in the end he married her, against her will, to one of his friends named Alexas, and one of her daughters to the son of Alexas.’607 But after she

598 Joseph AJ 15.255. 599 Jones 1938: 56-7; Kokkinos 1998: 179. 600 Kokkinos 1998: 179. 601 Jones 1938: 56; Kokkinos 1998: 121. 602 Kasher 1988: 55; compare Jones 1938: 9: ‘the Idumeans soon became zealous champions of their adopted faith.’ See also Richardson 1996: 55. 603 Joseph AJ 15.256. 604 Kokkinos, 1998: 180. 605 Joseph AJ 15.257. 606 Kokkinos, 1998: 185. 607 Alexas II Calleas. Joseph BJ 1.566. See also Joseph AJ 17.10. Jones 1938: 113 merely describes him as a close supporter and ‘rather colourless.’ 72 divorced Costobar I,608 Salome I wished to marry the Nabataean governor, Syllaeus,609 a marriage that had significant political connotations for Herod I’s regional policy.610 The Nabataean kingship had developed out of a tribal chiefdom in the third and second centuries BCE, and it is possible that Herod I’s own mother was part of this royal family. Their territory extended to the south of Idumea, below the Dead Sea, far into modern Saudi Arabia611 and at one point extended as far north as Bostra612 and Damascus.613 Thus, the Nabataeans surrounded Herod I’s kingdom on two sides, being partly nomadic and having close affinities with the Idumeans.614 But the king contemporary with Herod I, Obodas II, was a weak ruler controlled by his governor, Syllaeus, 615 who sought a marriage into the Herodian royal family in order to increase his own claim to the Nabataean monarchy.616

Syllaeus’s suit for marriage to Salome I is not a typical marriage alliance in the Herodian prosopography and was designed to promote his position at the Nabataean court.617 There was a long history of conflict between Herod I and the Nabataeans, including numerous military encounters,618 a failed bid for sanctuary by Herod I,619 and a political incident over territories leased from Cleopatra VII of Egypt.620 Regional border conflicts were also a factor, with Herod I and the Nabataeans both applying to Rome for control of Trachonitis.621 This is in contrast to the excellent relationship maintained by Herod I’s father with the Nabataeans,622 but rapid changes in the Nabataean monarchy meant that Antipater I’s marriage alliance had come to mean little.623 Between 20 BCE and 10 BCE Syllaeus visited the Herodian court several times,624 coinciding with the rapid expansion of

608 Joseph AJ 15.259-65. 609 Joseph AJ 16.220, 17.10; Joseph BJ 1.487, 566. 610 Bowersock 1994: 49-51; Kokkinos 1998: 183. 611 Bowersock 1994: 1-27. 612 Bowersock 1994: 60-1. 613 For Damascus and Aretas III see Bowersock 1994: 25-27; Joseph AJ 13.392. For Damascus and Aretas IV see Acts 9.23-25; Bowersock 1994: 68-9. 614 Kokkinos 1998: 42-3, 56-7. 615 Bowersock 1994: 46-7, 50-1. 616 Kokkinos 1998: 182-3. 617 Bowersock 1994: 49-51. 618 Joseph AJ 15.107-123, 130-33, 147-60, 189, 351, 402. 619 Joseph AJ 14.370-75, 390. 620 Joseph AJ 15.106-16. 621 Joseph AJ 16.271-85. 622 Joseph AJ 14.80-1; Joseph BJ 1.159. 623 Bowersock 1994: 45-7. 624 Joseph AJ 16.220-26; Joseph BJ 1.487, 534.Richardson 1996: xix places his first visit around 15, while Kokkinos 1998: 184-5 places the first visit around 21/20 BCE. 73 the Jewish kingdom into areas traditionally held by the Nabataeans.625 At Jerusalem, Syllaeus conceived a passion for Salome I and reputedly signed a secret marriage contract with her, later approaching Herod I officially about the marriage.626 Josephus describes a mutual attraction, dictated by, ‘an erotic desire,’627 but Syllaeus certainly had other motives in courting Salome I.628 The marriage was conceived as a way to increase Syllaeus’s own prestige in Nabataea and to turn contemporary political issues to Nabataean advantage. 629 Therefore, Herod I specified that Syllaeus must convert to Judaism in order to complete the marriage, a restriction that Syllaeus refused, ‘saying that if he did submit, he would be stoned to death by the Arabs.’630 For Syllaeus, conversion to Judaism undermined the positives of his marriage to Salome I and reduced his prestige at home.631 For Herod I, the conversion was necessary to maintain his religious authority, established by previous marriages to both Mariamme I and Mariamme II; the king’s sister could not be seen to marry a non-Jewish man.632 Kasher disagrees and sees Herod I’s stipulation as a ‘clever stratagem’ designed to assert his political and social authority over Syllaeus.633 But given Herod I’s strategic marriages for religious authority, both religion and politics were probably factors.

This marriage was quite different from others considered by Herod I, in both the format of the suit and the roles of individuals involved. In the first instance, rather than negotiating the marriage directly with Herod I, Syllaeus first approached and gained agreement from Salome I.634 A woman acting as ‘marriage negotiator’ was unthinkable under the traditional Jewish marriage system,635 but it was also unprecedented in the history of Herodian marriage practices, 636 excepting perhaps Pheroras’s marriage to his slave-wife. 637 Syllaeus’s role in the Nabataean court was also not yet eminent enough for the marriage

625 Joseph AJ 16.271-81. 626 Joseph AJ 16.220-24; Kokkinos 1998: 167-8, 182-4. 627 Joseph AJ 17.9. 628 Joseph AJ 16.224. 629 Bowersock 1994: 50-1; Kokkinos 1998: 182-3. See also Moen 2009: 221 who views the marriage as desirable for Herod I. 630 Joseph AJ 16.225-6. 631 This goes against Kasher 1988: 72, 74 who argues that Herod I desired more Nabataeans to convert to Judaism through the proposed conversion of Syllaeus. 632 Kokkinos 1998: 183. 633 Kasher 1988: 163. 634 Joseph AJ 16.220-23; Joseph BJ 1.487. 635 Moen 2009: 12, 183. 636 Although Moen 2009: 183-194 discusses this topic extensively, Salome I is the first example in the Herodian family of a woman leading marriage negotiations. Other examples will be discussed in the following chapter. 637 Joseph AJ 16.194. 74 alliance to be considered a match between individuals of equal status. Syllaeus was not an elite in Herod I’s own kingdom or welcomed into the royal family due to an important new appointment, as was the case with Costobar I.638 Nor was he a client ruler himself and able to negotiate a marriage alliance to join the two kingdoms, as Herod I and Aretas IV later negotiated for their children. Rather, Syllaeus proposed the marriage for his own direct benefit at the Nabataean court and to depose the Roman-sanctioned ruler there.639

As well as eroding Herod I’s religious identity, a marriage between Syllaeus and Salome I was also problematic for Herod I’s relationship with Rome. Augustus actively encouraged alliances between his client states,640 but in this case, Syllaeus intended to seize control from the Nabataean king, Obodas II. On the marriage negotiations between Syllaeus and Herod I, Josephus says, ‘this connexion, he [Syllaeus] said, would not be unprofitable to Herod I through his association with the government of Arabia, which was even now virtually in his hands and by rights should be more so.’641 Augustus did not treat the succession of a new ruler without Roman support lightly. Indeed several years later when Obodas II’s successor, Aretas IV, took the throne, Augustus ‘was angry that Aretas had taken the throne before writing to him for permission.’ 642 So too did Herod I’s son Archelaus ‘abstain not only from the exercise of the authority, but even from the assumption of the titles, of royalty, until his right to the succession had been ratified by Caesar.’643 Syllaeus’s bid for the Nabataean throne was therefore a dangerous one, which eventually led to his execution by Augustus, who ‘condemned Syllaeus to death and became reconciled with Herod I.’644 Herod I’s rejection of marriage between Syllaeus and Salome I, by stipulating conversion in support of Herod I’s religious identity, was therefore designed to maintain his good relationship with Rome and his identity as a reliable ruler in the East. This interpretation is further supported by Herod I’s subsequent marriage alliance with Aretas IV, which was intended to normalise relations between the two kingdoms and signal Herod I’s support of the new Roman ruler.

638 Joseph AJ 15.255. 639 Kasher 1988: 156, 163. 640 Suet. Aug. 48. 641 Joseph AJ 16.224-25. 642 Joseph AJ 16.295-6. See also Joseph AJ 16.351 ‘Caesar was not well disposed to Aretas because he had seized the throne by himself and with no reference to him.’ 643 Joseph BJ 2.2. 644 Joseph AJ 16.351; Kasher 1988: 156; Kokkinos 1998: 183. 75

Salome I’s identity This failed marriage is a striking insight into Salome I’s individual identity, as distinct from that of her family. In her proposed marriage to Syllaeus, Salome I ‘was accused by her brother Pheroras of signing a contract to marry Syllaeus,’645 and intended to marry him without the support of Herod I. Josephus also notes that she ‘had recourse to the intercession of the Empress Livia to plead with him for permission to marry the Arab Syllaeus.’646 Salome I therefore enjoyed a high degree of independence, probably not available to other Jewish women of the first century.647 Not only was it possible for her to sign her own marriage documents, but she also enjoyed a special status within the Roman elite system. In this case, Salome I acts outside of the boundaries of normal female authority in this period, but was forced by politics to return to the family patriarch for permission to marry. 648 But in another case, Salome I acted completely of her own accord,649 divorcing Costobar I and sending ‘him a document dissolving their marriage, which was not in accordance with Jewish law.’650 In the same paragraph, Josephus censures Salome I for this action and notes that she ‘did not choose to follow her country’s law but acted on her own authority.’ 651 Despite his religious/legal reservations, 652 Josephus recognises Salome I’s individual liberty and ability to maintain competing identities. Further, Moen concludes that Salome I’s autonomy in these decisions, although restricted by Herod I, indicates her ability to maintain a diverse individual identity.653Along with her marriages to Joseph I and to Alexas I, Salome I is therefore a striking example of the way that multiple identities could play out in the Herodian family, when Herod I’s patriarchal authority was challenged or ignored. In fact, Salome I’s prominence in Herod I’s overall marriage strategy indicates the important role female family members played in constructing family identity through marriage. While much of this chapter has focused on Herod I’s central role as patriarch, it is clear that individual autonomy could also play a role in expressing identity through marriage partner.

645 Joseph BJ 1.487; Kokkinos 1998: 183. On the Ketubah document see Moen 2009: 80-90, 194-197 in particular. 646 Joseph BJ 1.566. 647 Moen 2009: 12. 648 Moen 2009: 179-190. 649 Kokkinos 1998: 182, 187; Moen 2009: 104; Richardson 1996: 44. 650 Joseph AJ 15.259. 651 Joseph AJ 15.259. 652 Moen 2009: 20-1, 104. 653 Moen 2009: 191. 76

Salome’s children were used to reinforce Herodian family bonds across the significant divisions created by Herod I’s diverse marriages.654 As with other examples, Herod I takes on the role of family patriarch and arranges marriages within his own family to facilitate their dynastic identity.655 Salome I has at least three recorded children,656 including one unnamed daughter who was later married to Salome I’s step-son, Alexas II Calleas, the son of Alexas I from an earlier marriage.657 Her two named children by Costobar I, Berenice I and Antipater III, married offspring of Herod I and Mariamme I: Berenice I first to Herod I and Mariamme I’s second son, Aristobulus IV,658 and then to Herod I’s brother-in- law, Theudion, and Antipater III to Aristobulus IV’s sister, Cyprus II.659 Very little is known of Antipater III’s later history,660 though he gave a strong indictment against Archelaus in 4BCE.661 In each case, Herod I initially uses marriage to unite his feuding family, ‘in the hope of welding his family together by closer bands,’662 but also appreciates the potential for future generations to build a strong dynasty by keeping genealogical resources within the family unit.

There was an ongoing feud between Mariamme I and Salome I that was also taken up by their children, causing significant problems for Herod I as early as 35 BCE.663 Around 16 BCE Aristobulus IV returned to Jerusalem and was married to Berenice I, in an attempt to draw these factions together.664 At the same time, Herod I and Mariamme I’s other son, Alexander II, was married to Glaphyra of Cappadocia who took up Mariamme I’s historic slander of Salome I’s Idumean ancestry.665 Even Aristobulus IV himself is said to have complained that he was forced to marry ‘a woman of the people.’666 Despite Herod I’s best intentions to foster family unity, Salome I used Berenice I as a spy on Aristobulus IV and made her withhold affections from him.667 While the children of Alexander II and Glaphyra drew on a doubly royal heritage and were thus marked for leadership, the children of

654 On these divisions, see van Henten 2010: 154-5. 655 Moen 2009: 172-82. 656 Kokkinos 1998: 177-205. 657 Joseph BJ 1.566. Kokkinos 1998: 192-3 notes that descendants of this line were still counted among the elite of Judea in the 1st century CE. 658 Joseph BJ 1.445-47. 659 Joseph BJ: 1.566; Kokkinos 1998: 192-4. 660 Kokkinos 1998: 192-3. 661 Jones 1938: 159-60; Joseph AJ 17.230-40; Joseph BJ 2.26-33. 662 Jones 1938: 115. 663 Joseph AJ 15.80-6, 213-37; Joseph BJ 1.438. 664 Jones 1938: 115; Joseph BJ 1.445-47. 665 Jones 1938: 117; Joseph AJ 16.193; Joseph BJ 1.476. 666 Jones 1938: 117; Joseph BJ 1. 478. 667 Joseph AJ 16.200. 77

Berenice I and Aristobulus IV brought together the Idumean and Hasmonean parts of his family and provided family leadership into the next generation.

Following the death of Aristobulus IV, Antipater II convinced Herod I to marry Berenice I to his uncle Theudion, the brother of Herod I’s first wife Doris.668 In the wake of Alexander II and Aristobulus IV’s deaths, Herod I now returned to his eldest son and first wife in an attempt to provide a strong and popular heir. According to Jones, Antipater II also hoped to court Salome I’s favour through this alliance.669 Thus, Berenice I’s marriage to Theudion was an attempt to increase connections between the families, with Theudion possibly acting as the patriarch of Doris’s family by this period.670 These unions are all examples of the way Herod I used marriage to articulate not only his varied social, political and ethnic identities, but also to claim authority as family patriarch.671 These family marriages were a key way for Herod I to consolidate and construct dynastic power into the following generation.

Conclusion Herod I’s marriages demonstrate his fundamental concern for constructing identities that supported and extended his political, religious and social power in a variety of ways. But after his death in 4 BCE, this family marriage strategy undergoes significant changes, as his remaining heirs adjust to their new roles as patriarchs. Overall, Herod I’s strategy was strongly traditional, and as family patriarch he arranged all marriages contracted during his reign. But this traditionalism was supplemented by a radical use of multiple marriages and a number of important exogamous marriages designed to extend and supplement the Herodian’s family identity in the late first century BCE. For this reason, it is possible to trace a wide variety of themes in the prosopography of Herodian marriage. Herod I’s first marriages indicate a desire for religious and political legitimacy, particularly within the context of Jerusalem, while his marriage alliances with Nabataea and Cappadocia demonstrate his concern for regional support. Herod I also maintained close relationships with important members of the elite within his own kingdom and this internally directed marriage strategy was a key way that Herod I managed his highly diverse kingdom. However, this discussion is always framed in light of the limited evidence of Josephus, who can only ever provide part of the story. Herod I’s motives are often hidden and the

668 Jones 1938: 138; Joseph AJ 17.9; Joseph BJ 1.552-55, 566. 669 Jones 1938: 138; Kokkinos 1998: 189. 670 Kokkinos 1998: 189; Moen 2009: 172-3. 671 Moen 2009: 172-3. 78 reaction of his populace to his marriages is largely silenced. One area that Josephus provides a glimpse of this reaction is in the case of individuals who contracted marriages that were divergent from Herod I’s strategy. Herod I’s sister Salome I is critical here, as are his sons Archelaus and Antipas II. Due to the number and diversity of Herod I’s marriages, later Herodians could choose from a wide range of marriage partners both within the family, and externally, to help them construct and supplement their identity. Marriage, but also betrothal and divorce, are fundamental to the maintenance of individual and family identity from very early in Herod I’s reign, processes that continued after Herod I’s death.

This chapter has considered the first generations of the Herodian family and the way that marriages played a role in establishing and extending family identity over this period. The central role of the patriarch in Jewish marriage was recognised, before considering the way that Herod I himself used this role to his advantage. Discussion then turned to Herod I’s early marriages, between his family and both the Hasmonean dynasty and the Cappadocian kingdom. These marriages were for the authority that only established royal dynasties could provide Herod I, to legitimise his identity as ruler. They are best represented by Herod I’s union with Mariamme I and their son Alexander II’s marriage with Glaphyra, princess of Cappadocia. Next, the chapter considered the diversification of Herod I’s identity in the period following Mariamme I’s execution, where he rapidly married three women who strategically supported his dynastic identity by providing links to Jewish religious groups and to his Jewish and Greek populations. These three women, Mariamme II, Malthace and Cleopatra, all produced children who were then incorporated into the family’s marriage identity through strategic unions. In this case, Archelaus and Antipas II best represent the competing demands of Herod I’s marriage strategy that saw Archelaus married to one of Herod I’s granddaughters and Antipas II married to the daughter of the Nabataean monarch, Aretas IV. In both cases, following their father’s death, these sons divorce their wives and establish their own place as patriarchs by contracting new marriages that modify their individual identities. Finally, the chapter considered the importance of Salome I’s three marriages and her own individual choices of marriage partners as divergent practice. These themes of individual practice and the marriage strategies of new patriarchs will be key themes in the following chapter, which considers the period following Herod I’s death down to the early second century CE.

79

Chapter 4: Herodian Marriages after Herod I

Introduction In the period following Herod I's death in 4 BCE the Herodian family underwent a period of change in which it adapted to its new dynastic circumstances. In the previous chapter, Herod I was identified as the main character in constructing Herodian identity through marriage. Following his death, competing elements of his family then attempted to fill this dynastic vacuum with varying degrees of success. 672 This process was made more complex by the turmoil in which Herod I's final years were played out due to intrigues of his family.673 Though representing a much longer timescale, from 4 BCE to 120 CE, the period studied in this chapter is defined by the multiplicity of strategies and identities that emerge following Herod I's death, as a direct and fundamental result of his original marriage strategy. This period of adaption and change corresponds to Wallace-Hadrill’s concept of identity drift over time, as additional layers of family identity are established through marriage and used by individuals and groups to negotiate new social, political or religious contexts.

As a result of these multiple, complicated lines of descent, this chapter considers the importance of lineage and descent as indirect markers of identity through marriage after 4 BCE. Methodologically it follows the same prosopographical approach as Chapter Three, but extends the study of the Herodian family into the second century CE, where a more diverse range of ancient sources become important.674 In this period, the Herodian family continued to utilise marriage as a strategy to construct identity and position themselves in the changing Roman East. But with new patriarchs came new strategies for branches of the family. This study identifies two main strategies. The first is the continued use of inter- dynastic marriage with groups external to the family to establish, confirm, extend and change patterns of identity construction. The second is the selective but increased use of lineage to construct identity. These two strategies are related to the broader process of Eastern dynasties being integrated into the Roman cursus structure, and into the wider

672 Joseph AJ 17.219-48, 300-38; Joseph BJ 2.93-9. The parable of the king is often noted in this regard. NT Luke 19.12. See also, Strabo Geography 16.2.46. 673 Joseph AJ Chs 16,17; Joseph BJ 1.430-660. 674 After the later part of the first century Josephus falls silent and is supplemented by additional Greek and Latin authors, alongside epigraphic sources. Generally the Prosopographia Imperii Romani has been used as the starting point for these investigations. 80

Roman world and culture.675 In this way, the later Herodian family draws on multiple identities based on contemporary, but also historical, marriages choices.

Beginning with an overview of the later Herodian family tree, the chapter then turns to a discussion of marriage prosopography, identity and descent. In this period a remarkable development in identity construction occurs: individuals begin to use descent,676 alongside contemporary marriage, to define their identity, often in ways that act to suppress their Jewish ancestry. This is particularly prominent in the Armenian branches of the Herodian family (descended from Alexander II and Glaphyra), who actively abandon Alexander II’s ancestral Judaism in favour of Glaphyra’s Greek customs, more relevant in their eastern context. This can be compared to the Judean branches (descended from Aristobulus IV and Berenice I) who passively maintain the family’s traditional place in Jewish politics and religion for a further one hundred years. These two parts of the Herodian family are contrasted with Antipas II and Archelaus, who provided initial examples of changes to Herodian marriage practice in Chapter Three. Both of these individuals were used to articulate Herod I’s identity late in the first century BCE, but then contracted new marriages on Herod I’s death to support their new positions of power. But after a generation, these lines generally die out, in favour of the strong dynastic claims of Alexander II and Aristobulus IV's offspring, whose marriages were only peripherally important to Herod I’s historic strategy. It is these two lines of descent, from Alexander II and Aristobulus IV, which form the core of this chapter.

The later Herodian family In the period following Herod I's death four main branches of the family appeared, roughly divided into two groups: the recipients of Augustus's initial grants of territory in 4/3 BCE677 and the recipients of later territorial grants under Tiberius and later emperors.678 This first group consisted of Archelaus and Antipas II, the sons of Malthace, and Philip, their step- brother, the son of Cleopatra, who were considered in the previous chapter and became the patriarchs of family groups who rapidly disappear from Josephus’s narrative. The second group consisted of the two more successful branches, descended from Herod I's children by Mariamme I, Alexander II and Aristobulus IV. It was the children of these two unfortunate sons who inherited the prestige intended for their fathers, in the period

675 Halfmann 1979; Sullivan 1978d. 676 That is, their family lineage, parts of the marriage-identities of their ancestors. 677 Archelaus, Antipas II and Philip. Joseph AJ 17.318. 678 Primarily Tigranes I and Agrippa I. Joseph AJ 18.235 (Agrippa I); Joseph AJ 18.136-9 (Tigranes I). 81 following Augustus' death.679 In the north, Tigranes I,680 son of Alexander II and Glaphyra, acts as patriarch and was granted Greater Armenia by Augustus. Later, Tigranes I is replaced by his nephew, Tigranes II, in this role. In the south, the family congregates around Agrippa I,681 the son of Aristobulus IV, who inherited large tracts of land around Herod I's historical kingdom.682

Figure 11 The immediate descendants of Alexander II and Aristobulus IV, along with selected step- brothers who inherited following the death of Herod I.

It is interesting to note that in this period, the most successful descendants of Herod I were his grandsons by Mariamme I, who did not inherit immediately, rather than his sons by either of his lesser wives, Malthace and Cleopatra, who did. In part, this can be attributed to Tigranes II and Agrippa I both being educated at Rome and thus being well known to the Imperial family.683 But the same can also be said of Herod I's other sons, meaning that an additional reason must be sought to explain their success. Largely, the lineages of

679 Tigranes I was appointed to Armenia by Augustus around 10 CE (Halfmann 1979: 119 (25b); Magie 1950: 1345. He is mentioned in the Augustus Res Gestae Divi Augusti 27 and was executed by Tiberius in 36 CE (Tacitus Annals 6.40). Agrippa I was appointed to the first of his holdings by around 37 CE (Joseph AJ 18.235) and Herod IV of Chalcis was appointed by Claudius around 41 CE (Joseph AJ 19.276). 680 PIR2 T 149. 681 PIR2 J 131. 682 Eventually Agrippa I was to hold a kingdom equal to Herod I’s at its greatest extent. Joseph AJ 19.274. 683 Both their fathers, too, had spent their education amongst this family. Joseph BJ 1. 435. 82

Tigranes II and Agrippa I are the key to their later success.684 Tigranes II could count on descent not only from Judean royalty but, perhaps more importantly, from the royal families of both Cappadocia and Armenia. Indeed in the Res Gestae, Tigranes I is mentioned not as a descendant of the Judean dynasty, but the Armenian. 685 Both Cappadocia and Armenia are important areas in the history of the first century CE, with the continued Parthian threat and the rise of the new Persian dynasty.686 In a similar way, Agrippa I could count on his descent from Herod I and also from the Hasmoneans via Aristobulus IV and Mariamme I.

This brief overview introduces the key themes of the chapter. The continued importance of marriage to individuals is contrasted with the competing use of lineage to define identity. This is particularly true of the grandsons of Mariamme I who extended Herod I's use of marriage while simultaneously drawing on an established family history. Members of the Herodian dynasty used their descent from various social, political, religious or ethnic groups to negotiate their place in the changing Roman East.687 Indeed, the ultimate expression of these two themes is found in the final generation: individuals marry for the first time into the Roman aristocracy688 and also take the first steps onto the Roman through the interplay of both marriage and descent.689

The Armenian Line Chapter Three took up the story of Alexander II and Glaphyra of Cappadocia. It noted that Herod I designed this match for two main reasons, the most important of which was to establish Alexander II as his heir through marriage to a princess of an allied Roman state. This policy was particularly common amongst client kings of the East and was noted by Suetonius in his Divus Augustus.690 The second reason was related to the first, and involved Herod I constructing a royal identity for the dynasty to embed them culturally and politically within their kingdom and also the broader eastern world of the late first century

684 Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 239 says, 'Cultural identity invested in a remote past becomes not so much a programme as an alibi.' In this way, lineage can be selectively used for diverse purposes in the present. 685 Augustus Res Gestae Divi Augusti 27. Via his grand-mother, Jotape, only daughter of Archelaus of Cappadocia and his Armenian queen. 686 Tigranes II was deposed within 2 or 3 years of taking up his kingship by the Parthians. Magie 1950: 1345. 687 As Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 39 notes, ethnicity is made, not given and identity is constructed and reconstructed. 688 Drusilla’s marriage to Felix is the best example of this. Joseph AJ 20.141. 689 For example, Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus, suffect consul in 116 CE. Degrassi 1952: 34. 690 Suet. Aug.: 48. See also the useful series of articles on Eastern dynasties in the ANRW: Sullivan 1978c; Sullivan 1978d; Sullivan 1979b. 83

CE.691 Yet the descendants of Alexander II and Glaphyra did not follow the same path as the rest of the family. Instead, they became the monarchs of Greater Armenia and were also apostate to the Jewish faith.692 The marriage of Alexander II and Glaphyra becomes more than just a political alliance. It is also fundamentally important to the way this branch of the family constructed their later identity and chose their marriages.

Following the death of Alexander II at the hands of Herod I in 7 BCE, Glaphyra was returned to her father's kingdom with her dowry, signalling the end of the relationship.693 Yet her young sons remained under the protection of their grandfather until his death.694 At this stage, Alexander III must only have been around seven years of age while Tigranes I was only four. 695 Following this setback, Glaphyra went on first to marry Juba of , who also died,696 and then, only four years after Alexander II's death, she married his brother Archelaus, the son of Herod I and Malthace.697

Figure 12 The descendants of Alexander II and Glaphyra down to the second century CE.

691 Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 39. 692 On Armenia in the Imperial period with a particular focus on Strabo, see Birley and Syme 1995; Sherwin- White 1984: 322-37. 693 Joseph AJ 17.11; Joseph BJ 1.552-55. 694 They were probably educated at Rome, or soon to be sent for education in the case of the younger Tigranes II. Joseph AJ 17.12-15. 695 Richardson 1996: 49. 696 Joseph BJ 2.114; Strabo Geography 6.4.2, 17.3.7. 697 Jones 1938: 167; Joseph AJ 17.339; Sullivan 1978c: 308-9; Sullivan 1979b: 1161-2. 84

It was during this period of upheaval from 7 to 4 BCE that Herod I arranged a marriage for Glaphyra and Alexander II's eldest son,698 probably Alexander III.699 He was betrothed to the daughter of Pheroras, 700 but this arrangement was soon revoked due to the machinations of Antipater II701 who perceived that Herod I's betrothal placed Alexander III in a position of power. In the period following Herod I's death, Alexander III did eventually marry although his wife is unknown. This union produced a single recorded child, Tigranes II.702 He shared a name with his uncle, Tigranes I,703 the brother of Alexander III, and the dynastic name is associated with Archelaus of Cappadocia's presumed Armenian wife,704 descended from the Armenian kings also of this name.705 Both these individuals, holding the dynastic name Tigranes,706 were made kings of Greater Armenia, Tigranes I under Augustus707 and Tigranes II under Nero.708 Tigranes I, however, has no recorded marriage or children, and ruled for only a few years before he was ousted by the Parthian monarch Vonones II.709 Some time later, for offences not recorded, he was executed at Rome by Tiberius,710 an ignoble end for the new king of such a problematic region.

After an interval of some 50 years, the monarchy of Armenia again passed to a member of the Herodian family, this time the grandson of Alexander II and Glaphyra, Tigranes II.711 With continued problems with the Parthians in Armenia, Nero's new appointee was not successful, as he needed to be propped up militarily by the Romans against the Parthian threat.712 Tacitus records that Tigranes II was 'a Cappadocian noble and grandson of king Archelaus, yet, from having long been a hostage at Rome he had sunk into servile submissiveness.' Despite a grant of 'a thousand legionaries, three cohorts and two

698 Their other son was named Tigranes I and is generally perceived to be the younger. 699 PIR2 A 499. 700 Joseph AJ 17.12-15; Joseph BJ 1.55-58. 701 Joseph AJ 17.18; Joseph BJ 1.564-7. Kokkinos 1998: 247. 702 Joseph AJ 18.136-9. PIR2 T 150. 703 PIR2 T 149. 704 For this speculation, see Birley and Syme 1995: 150; Sullivan 1979b; Kokkinos 1998: 259. 705 The most famous being . See the stemma on Armenia following Sullivan 1978d: 938. 706 The numbering system used here for Tigranes I and II is restricted only to the Herodian family. Other sources use a separate system that includes all monarchs in the Armenian region named Tigranes. 707 Augustus Res Gestae Divi Augusti 27. 708 Joseph AJ 18.136-9. 709 Tac. Ann. 15.1-17. 710 Tac. Ann. 6.40. 711 Joseph AJ 18.136-9. 712 Tac. Ann. 14.26. Kokkinos 1998: 248. 85 squadrons of cavalry,' some of the Armenians distrusted him and preferred the Arsacids.713

The cases of both Tigranes I and II provide interesting insights into the politics of identity being played out in the case of the Herodians in Armenia.714 Tigranes I is said to be descended from the Armenians by Augustus in the Res Gestae, drawing therefore on his mother's family legacy out of Armenia: 'I sent into that kingdom Tigranes, who was sprung from the royal family of the Armenians.'715 His nephew, Tigranes II, draws on this same lineage but is presented by Tacitus as a usurper and Roman slave in the eyes of the chief men of Adiabene, who say he is not a general,716 but 'a daring hostage, who for so many years had been numbered among slaves.' The term Tacitus uses for slave here is mancipia and the sense is that of a slave obtained by purchase, terminology discussed in the wider context of Tacitus and the provinces by Lavan.717 By Vologeses of Parthia, Tigranes II is seen as a foreign prince.718 Both kings draw on the same family identity and both are set up by Roman Emperors, yet their presentation and reception also depended on the tension surrounding this identity. In each case, the author skilfully utilises their descent to suit their own narrative. To Augustus, Tigranes I is a logical and suitable choice: of royal blood, descended from the local dynasty and well versed in Roman customs and administration. To Tacitus's characters, his nephew Tigranes II represents an imposition and impostor: certainly royal, but of an upstart southern dynasty and long kept in servitude to Roman masters.719 It is sometimes difficult to understand the construction of identity by these dynasts as so little evidence survives, but these two glimpses by Roman authors looking back on the first century CE provide some measure of how this branch might have constructed their own Roman-facing identity on the one hand, and how this obviously tenuous identity may have been received, and rejected, by their subjects.

Herodian Apostasy It is not until Tigranes II's son, Gaius Julius Alexander (V),720 that it is possible to comment on the marriage identity of the family again. Here, Vespasian chose to make Alexander V

713 Tac. Ann. 14.26. 714 Jones 1938: 259-61. 715 Augustus Res Gestae Divi Augusti 27. 716 They mean, despite his large army with which to subdue his kingdom. 717 Lavan 2013: 83-4, 142-3, 149. 718 Tac. Ann. 15.1. 719 On the concept of servitium and client kings, see Braund 1984a: 23; Lavan 2013. 720 PIR2 A 500 = J 136. 86 the king of Cetis in Cilicia, along with his wife, Jotape III,721 the daughter of Antiochus of Commagene.722 Rather than annexe the province, the Emperor preferred to use Alexander V’s residual claim to this area through his ancestor Archelaus I of Cappadocia, Glaphyra's father.723 Unfortunately the identity of Alexander V's mother is unknown, but his marriage to Jotape III of Commagene was surely an attempt by this branch of the family to further embrace their northern identity. Jotape III's parents were Gaius Julius Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his sister, Jotape Philadelphos, the last rulers of Commagene.724 His wife was thus of a local dynasty and could easily claim both Greek and Persian descent through the Seleucids, Ptolemies and Orontids. Added to Alexander V's claim through the Cappadocian dynasty, the pair should have made excellent rulers in Cilicia and in Cetis.725 Historically, this kind of marriage would have been accompanied by conversion of the wife to Judaism,726 thus preserving an aspect of Alexander V's Jewish religious identity that had been critical for his second great-grandfather, Herod I, in exerting influence over Judea. But in this case, Alexander V's Jewish identity provided no benefits727 and a revealing line in Josephus notes that Alexander V and Jotape III 'abandoned Judaism for Greek customs.'728 The cultural context of Cappadocia was Greek and by articulating his Hellenistic Greek identity aligned with the female line, Alexander V positions himself as a suitable monarch.729 These women who married Alexander II’s descendants passed down their ethnic and religious identity to Alexander V, who now chose to utilise it in constructing his contemporary identity.730 The minority of Jewish citizens in Asia Minor were often persecuted in this period. Consequently, Alexander V and Jotape III’s rejection of Jewish culture may have been a political decision, designed to align their identity with Greek culture and ensure a smooth transition to new leadership.731 This final apostasy was the

721 PIR2 J 48. 722 PIR2 J 149. Kokkinos 1998: 251-3. 723 Sullivan 1979b: 1165. 724 Sullivan 1978a: 785-94. 725 Sullivan 1978a: 795 notes that 'the greater claim may have lain with Jotape, whose portrait adorns the obverse of their joint coinage, relegating Alexander V to the other side. Her parents had ruled this city, Elaioussa-Sebaste, and far westward, where their names and cities remained.’ Kokkinos 1998: 253-4. 726 Hanson 1989b: 148. 727 Hanson 1989b: 145 notes that Alexander V married exogamously, but fails to recognise that he lived matrilocally. 728 Joseph AJ 18.136-9. Thus, the description of Alexander V marrying exogamously in Moen 2009: 350 is not necessary. 729 Also note the problematic inscription dedicated by Julia Ammia, daughter or freedwoman of one King Tigranes. This may date the apostasy of Alexander and Glaphyra’s family still earlier, but a full and nuanced discussion of this inscription and the history of its interpretation is out of the scope of this work. See CIL XI 3080 = ILS 850. Chaumont 1992. 730 Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 39. 731 For an example of the rare opposite occurrence, the conversion of an Eastern ruler to Judaism, see the example of Izates and Helena, below. 87 result of a gradual process of identity change, incrementally accumulated by marriage and life in the local cultural context of Armenia and Cappadocia.

The evidence for the Armenian Herodians, down to Alexander V and Jotape III, presents a male line that had successfully transitioned its identity from one based around descent from Herod I and Alexander II, to one based around descent from Glaphyra and Archelaus of Cappadocia. This was a politic move in terms of their new roles as kings of greater Armenia and their naming and marriage customs provide solid evidence for this shift, as does their change in religious identity.732 By arranging a marriage with Jotape III, either Alexander V or his father deliberately set out to continue aligning themselves with these great ruling families and distance themselves from the Jewish royal family. Not only were they now physically distant, but critically, they were also ideologically and religiously distant from the Jewish royals from whom they were descended. This skilful use of marriage and descent to create identity allowed the Armenian branch of the Herodian family to keep themselves aloof from the trouble diaspora Jews often found themselves in, although they were less than successful in holding on to power in this difficult region.

Herodians as citizens However, in the period of Alexander V and Jotape III, the family also took another important step into the Roman world by becoming members of the Roman senate by adlectio.733 In a Greek inscription from Ankyra set up by Gaius Julius Severus,734 his cousins Julius Quadratus and King Alexander are listed as holding consular rank, having been Consuls suffecti under Trajan, Quadratus in 104 CE and Alexander in 103 CE.735 A further inscription from Ephesus held in the British Museum reads:

The council and the people, for Gaius Julius Agrippa, King Alexander's son, and Pro- of Asia for his virtue and his goodwill towards the city.736

This king Alexander must be the Herodian as no other king of this name exists737 from this period, an identification accepted by Halfmann and Magie.738 Therefore, Alexander V's son

732 Sullivan 1978a; Sullivan 1978c; Sullivan 1979b. 733 On adlectio, see Eck 2000. 734 OGIS 544=SEG 44 1025. See also Mitchell and French 2012: #72-77. 735 Halfmann 1979: 114; Mitchell and French 2012: 229; Kokkinos 1998: 254. 736 BM 1868.0620.440. OGIS 429. 737 The most useful survey is in the excellent series of trees provided in Sullivan 1978a; Sullivan 1978b; Sullivan 1978c; Sullivan 1978d; Sullivan 1979a; Sullivan 1979b. The identification is also used in the PIR. 738 Halfmann 1979: 119; Magie 1950: 1439 n. 26. 88 by Jotape III, Gaius Julius Agrippa (V),739 also entered the senate and served as the quaestor pro-praetore of Asia. Here he was successful and well-respected enough as a public benefactor for the people to honour him with a public inscription, discovered in the Ephesian theatre complex, perhaps part of a statue base.740 Unfortunately, the reason for the dedication is not listed, but it is likely that he was honoured in his professional capacity as quaestor, rather than for any genealogical reason.741 It may be that his benefaction was purely for political reasons, but other family members are noted for economic and architectural benefactions before and after this time.742 The identity expressed here is aligned with older Hellenistic methods of expression, suitable to his eastern Greek ancestry, but also utilises a contemporary Greek vernacular whereby the city of Ephesus would honour the local Procurator with Greek inscriptions.743 These kinds of inscriptions were very common and reflect what Eck called the ‘appropriate and full expression’ of the ‘specific identity of the person(s) associated with the monument.’744 The reference to his father denotes his royal ancestry and calls on his linage traced back to Glaphyra and Alexander II's marriage. Through this line he was thus related to a wide variety of eastern dynasties as demonstrated by the inscription at Ankyra by his relative, Gaius Julius Severus.745 On the other hand, his Roman titles identify him as a loyal subject who was clearly happy to partake in Roman forms of display and advancement. This is a trait that he draws from his family's history all the way back to the first grant of citizenship to Antipater I in the first century BCE.746

Gaius Julius Agrippa's son may be one Lucius Julius Agrippa (VI), mentioned in a series of important inscriptions from Apamea on the Orontes as the 'son of Gaius, of the Fabian tribe whose ancestors were honoured by the divine Augustus on the capitol.'747 The first is dated to between 114 and 116 CE and was set up on the lintel of the baths he dedicated. The text establishes Lucius's descent from one Gaius Julius Agrippa and is a clear

739 PIR2 J 130. 740 Kokkinos 1998: 256-7. 741 Pers. Comm. Dr C Davenport, University of Queensland 2014. 742 His son, Gaius Julius Agrippa (VI), below. 743 See Eck 2009: 23-29 for Ephesian inscriptions and the tension between Greek and Latin commemoration. 744 Eck 2009: 17-18. 745 Another relative was Gaius Julius Antiochus Epiphanes Philopappus, who erected the famous ‘Philopappus Monument’ celebrating multiple identities in Athens. 746 Jones 1938: 261 says that the family then 'melts into the Roman Senatorial aristocracy.' 747 SEG 52 1552-1560, originally published by Rey-Coquais 1973 #1-2. 89 expression of the euergetistic Greek and Roman identity he expressed in the political landscape of Apamea:748

For the safety of Emperor Nerva Trajan Caesar Augustus, conqueror of the Germans, conqueror of the Dacians. Lucius Julius Agrippa, son of Gaius of the Fabian tribe, with royal honours and ancestors listed on the bronze tablets on the Capitol as allies of the Romans, with exemption from liturgies, having fulfilled all his generosity to perfection, spontaneously, having bought at his own expenses the location and having founded the baths, the basilica in them, the porticoes in front of the these buildings, with all their decorations and all their bronze works that are located there, dedicated those to his city, under Julius Bassus, consular provincial governor.749

The second inscription, from an unspecified time during the reign of Trajan, is far longer and provides more detail about Lucius Julius Agrippa's lineage and his benefactions to the city of Apamea:750

[…] with the rights of his ancestors and his own exemption from liturgy attested publicly together with other honours by bronze tablets on the Capitol in Rome, he had fulfilled for his city magistracies, liturgies and generosities; he has been priest; agoranomos with generosity, supplying for six months the wheat distributions contributing with a sum of x silver denarii; he provided oil for unguents and constructed the aqueduct […] for many miles; he was secretary of the city in an exceptional way, having himself demanded the authorisation, for one year, having himself decided his colleagues in the magistracy, and within the same year he was commissioner of the peace and of the wheat distribution and he built the baths and the porticos in front (along the street) and the basilica attached donating all the land bought at his own expenses and consecrating within the baths bronze works: the Theseus and Minotaur group, the Apollo Marsyas and Scythia group. He had often acted as embassy to the Emperors in Rome and to the governors; he has also, both on his father and mother’s side, famous and generous ancestors,751 tetrarchs, and people who had received royal honours, mainly Dexandros, the first of the province who was high-priest, his great-grandfather who was listed by Augustus in the Capitol bronze tablets as a sign of friendship and alliance toward the Romans; in these tablets were also publicly attested the other exceptional honours that he and his family received; of these tablets an excerpt has been deposited among these archives here. Year […] 28 Xandikos; he was honoured by the city, by the council and the community in the month of Peritios, the third day before the end of the month, in the decree […]

748 Rey-Coquais 1973: #1. Why Sullivan 1978c included with Lucius a brother named Gaius in his Stemma for Judea is unknown. There is no reference in the PIR to this individual, nor any historical source to evidence his existence. 749 With thanks to Ms P Moir for assistance in translation from the original Greek and French. 750 Rey-Coquais 1973: #2. For this note, see Braund 1983: 242. 751 This is a common usage in Greek inscriptions of this period and shows Apamaea’s familiarity with Lucius’s family. Pers. Comm. Dr C Davenport, University of Queensland, 2014. 90

The original publication by Rey-Coquais752 and more recent discussions by Braund753 and Kokkinos754 doubt the identification of Lucius Julius Agrippa (VI) with a member of the Herodian house, as the inscriptions do not mention any Herodian monarch in their text. These authors are cautious about a link with Gaius, son of King Alexander who served as Quaestor and Pro-Praetor in Asia.755 Another Gaius Julius Agrippa is also known from Apamea during the reign of Galba.756 It is true that the second text foregrounds one Dexandros,757 the great-grandfather of Lucius who was apparently the first high-priest of the Imperial Cult in Syria and a local dynast.758 But by understanding the way that Lucius's Herodian ancestors constructed identity over the preceeding three generations, it is perhaps not surprising that there is no specific mention of Herodian royalty in these inscriptions. Instead the text emphasises a local connection to the city of Apamea through one of Lucius’s four great-grandfathers. Therefore the lack of a Herodian ancestor need not preclude Lucius’ descent from this family. It merely shows that he chose not to emphasise this portion of this identity, like his relatives in Asia Minor. It was not neccesarily advantageous for a young politician in Greco-Roman Apamea to style his outward identity on that of royal, Jewish ancestors.

Far from providing evidence against Herodian ancestry, this inscription may simply provide evidence for the changing identity of this branch of the Herodian family. In the first place, the inscription mentions 'famous and generous ancestors' on both his father’s and mother's sides, both tetrarchs and royalty.759 This ambiguous statement could easily refer to members of the Herodian dynasty who fit this description, including his grand-father Alexander V and great-grandfather Tigranes I. The lack of specificity is not surprising, given that none of these individuals ruled locally in Apamea and that more distant ancestors were not necessarily highly thought of in Syria. Herod I may have been a king, but it was not necessarily politic to point out descent from him. Instead the inscription draws specifically on duality of descent represented by the marriage alliance of Lucius's parents. The inscription then turns to one very specific individual, Dexandros the high

752 Rey-Coquais 1973. 753 Braund 1983: 242. 754 Kokkinos 1998: 256 n. 41. 755 BM 1868.0620.440. OGIS 429. Kokkinos 1998: 256 n. 41 includes a minor discussion of Lucius’s lineage. 756 One G. Julius Agrippa of Apamea is listed as a witness to this diploma from the short reign of Galba in 68 CE. CIL XVI 8 (3) 20. 757 Halfmann 1979: 140-141 incorrectly identifies Dexandros as Alexander V, the king of Cetis, a Herodian. Despite this, the identification with a Herodian prince is still likely. 758 On Apamea in this period see Balty 1988; Millar 1993: 261. 759 Rey-Coquais 1973: #2.26-28. 91 priest of the Cult of Augustus,760 Lucius's great-grandfather.761 This Dexandros was a local who possessed high status in the region. He must have been a maternal great- grandfather, meaning that Lucius's father Gaius would have married into the Apamean dynasty. Finally, there is reference to the other honours of his family, a further tangential reference to his illustrious ancestors on both sides,762 perhaps even Tigranes I who was mentioned on the Res Gestae in Rome.763 Given that it is a public inscription set up by the Apamean council, this presents Lucius Julius Agrippa (VI) in a locally appropriate context. The formulaic description of connections to the local dynasty and service to the city are foregrounded for and by the council, while his family’s royal status is only alluded to in a generic way, serving as a marker of his character, rather than a precise genealogy.764

Seven additional inscriptions survive at the base of statues dedicated to Lucius Julius Agrippa (VI) in thanks for his benefactions of the city of Apamea, presumably after his construction of the baths.765 These were highly visible, public statues, lining the famous colonnaded street of this city outside of the bath he dedicated and are excellent evidence for the public response to his benefaction and role as an important public figure.766 These benefactions, in the style of his ancestor Herod I and the great Hellenistic statesmen, are evidence of Lucius's desire to project a primarily Greek identity. Five individuals along with his entire household dedicated seven statues in total. Most are inscribed for their patron and benefactor, but two767 stand out with an additional line describing his royal honours, clearly an aspect of his identity of which Lucius Julius Agrippa (VI) was proud.768 The date must be contemporary with or after that of the bathhouse inscription, locating it in the first half of the second century CE. By this period, members of the Armenian-Herodian family were therefore very clearly defining their identity in a way quite different from that of their predecessors or their Judean cousins.769 There was never really a possibility of Lucius Julius Agrippa (VI) drawing on his Jewish ancestry, even though he lived nearby his paternal homeland and there is no evidence for benefactions in other Eastern cities. By now, he is embedded in a local community who chose to commemorate him in a standard,

760 This is hypothesised in the ed. pr. by Rey-Coquais 1973 and supported by Balty 1988; Braund 1983: 242. 761 Rey-Coquais 1973: #2.29. 762 Rey-Coquais 1973: #2.33-36. 763 Augustus Res Gestae Divi Augusti 27. 764 Ma 2013: 58-9, 62-3. 765 Rey-Coquais 1973: #3-9. 766 Ma 2013: 67-9. 767 Rey-Coquais 1973: #7-9. 768 On formulas in inscriptions of this type, see Ma 2013: 24-38. 769 Contra Braund 1983. 92 but still very public method. 770 In the same way as Wallace-Hadrill discusses the incremental changes to language and identity in Italy, Lucius Julius Agrippa’s identity was a result of the gradual accumulation and drift of family identity over time, as much as it was about contemporary marriages.771 This is an excellent example of what Woolf might term the hybridity model, in which this long-term drift results in an 'integrated' identity for this member of the eastern elite.772

Just as Wallace-Hadrill cites Ennius's three ethnic hearts – Roman, Greek and Oscan – at the beginning of Rome's Cultural Revolution,773 so too might Lucius Julius Agrippa (VI) cite his hearts indirectly in this inscription. He is an Apamean with an excellent record of service to his city and ancestors who may claim the same. He is further aligned religiously with the imperial cult in Syria through this line. He is loyal to Rome, with all the political baggage that goes with it, and has similarly aligned ancestors. Finally, he is of royal stock and claims the dignity of kings, even though they might not be named. His Jewish ancestry is not relevant in this context, even if it was known. The Jews of Syria in this period were not positively viewed by most of the populace, nor had his family claimed Jewish descent for more than three generations. His connections to Jewish royalty were even less important. Together, this is as rich a statement of identity as Wallace-Hadrill identifies, so long as the language being used is understood. Rather than viewing all Herodians as part of a static identity, it is necessary to place them within the context and history of the family's evolution through marriage alliance and selective construction of identity through descent.

The Judean line While Alexander II's descendants made a successful transition to life in the North, his brother Aristobulus IV and his family remained in Judea. The previous chapter discussed how Aristobulus IV, the second son of Mariamme I and Herod I, was married to Berenice I, the daughter of Salome I and Costobar I in an attempt to heal the family divisions between Salome I and Mariamme I.774 The success of this policy is questionable, but Aristobulus IV and Berenice I's five children went on to become the second significant descent group in the Herodian family. Interestingly, unlike the Armenian line, this group never abandoned

770 Ma 2013: 55-6. 771 Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 78. 772 Woolf 1994; Woolf 1997. But see also Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 75-6 on language usage and change over time. 773 Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 4-6. 774 See for example, Joseph AJ 15.81, 219. van Henten 2010: 154-5. 93

Judaism, but set up their identity primarily within a Jewish context. It is therefore not surprising that the two lines never again intermarried, despite the prevalence of cross- cousin marriage in the Herodian family up to 4 BCE. In many ways, this shift in marriage strategy demonstrates a new focus for the disparate parts of the family, away from the hyper-regional policy of Herod I and towards a broader, eastern marital system. In fact, it becomes clear that with Herod I removed, the two families re-emerged around new patriarchs, who organised marriages and betrothals based on their own dynastic needs. This is particularly prominent around Agrippa I, one of the five children of Aristobulus IV and Berenice I who set himself up as a Judeo-Hellenic monarch with connections across the East.775

Figure 13 The Descendants of Aristobulus IV and Berenice I including the important line of Agrippa I and Cyprus III.

Agrippa I Agrippa I776 was the first Herodian after his grandfather to use marriage effectively as a strategic option in constructing family identity. Unlike the Armenian branch of the family, evidence for this Judean line is much more complete. His wife, Cyprus III, was also his cousin, the daughter of Salampsio and Phasael II, Herod I's nephew. This marriage was not particularly remarkable and was probably arranged by his mother, linking him doubly to the powerful Idumean and Hasmonean elements of the family.777 Nor was his initial role following Herod I's death particularly important.778 For one, he had yet to come to his

775 The others were Herod IV (later king of Chalcis), Herodias, Mariamme V and Aristobulus V. 776 PIR2 J 131. Schwartz 1990. On mothers as ‘brokers’ for sons, see van Henten 2010: 155. 777 Schwartz 1990: 219-22; Schwartz 2005: 65 778 Joseph AJ 18.147; Joseph BJ 2.178-184. 94 majority and spent much time at Rome.779 But the contacts he made in Rome contributed to his rapid rise some years later, 780 and his own children contracted particularly advantageous marriages during his monarchy. With the death of Tiberius in 37 CE, Agrippa I was released from his captivity, installed by his friend, the new emperor Gaius , as the ruler of his uncle Philip's tetrarchy.781 He was also granted praetorian ornaments at this time, signalling his new rank.782 Later Gaius and Claudius both provided further grants of territory to Agrippa I, extending his kingdom to encompass the entire territory of Herod I's original holdings and granting him consular ornaments, increasing his Roman status.783 Installed at Jerusalem, but spending much time at Rome, Agrippa I played the role of pious monarch and Roman statesman. Immediately, he is seen as a figure of changing fortunes.784 As Jones noted over 80 years ago, 'with amazing versatility he was able to adapt himself to the most diverse company. He could be with equal ease one of the young bloods at Rome and a pious pupil of the Pharisee doctors.'785

But it is Agrippa I’s daughters, Berenice II, Mariamme V and Drusilla,786 who provide the best insight into this part of the Herodian family.787 Prior to his death, Agrippa I had ensured that each daughter was betrothed or married to a suitable husband and each went on to remarry at least once.788 Berenice II's first husband was Marcus, son of Alexander, Alabarch of Alexandria.789 Jones described him as a commoner790 although Hanson notes his elite pedigree and makes no further comment. In fact his father, Alexander the Alabarch, was an important and wealthy Jewish official in Alexandria.791 His brother was Tiberius Julius Alexander, the equestrian governor of Alexandria and later governor of Judea, and his uncle was the Jewish author Philo. 792 Sometime during Agrippa I's lifetime, Berenice II's husband Marcus died and she was then married to her

779 Joseph AJ 18.143. Schwartz 1990: 39-44. 780 He served as Commisioner of Markets at Tiberias before being raised to the kingship of Batanaea, Trachonitis, Auranitis and Panias and the Peraea and Galilee. After this he was restored to Herod I’s historical kingdom in Judea and was granted Praetorian honours by the Senate under Gaius. Joseph AJ 18.128, 147; Joseph BJ 2. 214-15. 781 Joseph AJ 18.106. Schwartz 1990: 53-54. 782 Braund 1984a: 29. 783 Joseph AJ 18.251-2, 19.274. Kokkinos 1998: 277-9. 784 Schwartz 1990: 116-144. 785 Jones 1938. 786 PIR2 J 651; 681 and D 195. 787 Note that Hanson 1989b: 147 incorrectly has Drusilla and Mariamme V as daughters of Herod IV. 788 Drusilla was only about six years old. 789 PIR2 J 138; Joseph AJ 19.276. 790 This is correct to a degree, in that he was not of a royal house, but an overly simplistic view. 791 Joseph AJ 20.98. Jordan 1974: 63-5. 792 On Tiberius Julius Alexander’s time as governor of Judea, see Joseph AJ 20.98. A more general modern study is Turner 1954 or Burr 1955 (in German). 95 uncle, Herod IV of Chalcis.793 It was at this time that Agrippa I requested a kingdom be granted to Herod IV by Claudius, a move designed to provide Berenice II's new husband with the prestige to match marriage to a Diaspora princess.794 This elevation in Herod IV’s local status was accompanied by the granting of praetorian ornaments, recognising the support of Rome.795 Herod IV of Chalcis actually divorced a previous Herodian wife, Mariamme IV,796 daughter of Joseph II and Olympias,797 in order to marry Berenice II,798 demonstrating that his match was particularly desirable in constructing his own identity of royal power. They had two children, Berenicianus and Hyrcanus. 799 From his first marriage, Herod IV of Chalcis produced a son, named Aristobulus VI800 who married another family member, Salome III801 the daughter of Herod II and Herodias.

Figure 14 The descendants of Herod IV of Chalcis and Berenice II daughter of Agrippa I down to the second century CE.

After the death of Herod IV of Chalcis in 48 CE, Berenice II next married Polemo of Cilicia.802 This was some four years after her father had died and it is possible to detect

793 PIR2 H 155. 794 Joseph AJ 19.276; Joseph BJ 2.217. 795 Braund 1984a: 29. 796 PIR2 M 205. 797 Olympias’s husband was also descended from Herod I’s brother Joseph, meaning that Mariamme IV represented a link back to the old Idumean elements in the family who remained important. 798 Kokkinos 1998: 308. 799 PIR2 B 109. Possibly also to be identified as PIR2 J 141 Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus; PIR2 H 246. Jordan 1974: 92-100. 800 PIR2 A 1052. 801 PIR2 S 76. 802 PIR2 J 472. 96

Berenice II's own influence in the marriage. Certainly Josephus notes that Berenice II herself persuaded Polemo to convert to Judaism and marry her,803 although the match was short-lived and Polemo soon returned to his ancestral Greek customs.804 Polemo’s family had been Roman citizens for many years, as had Berenice II’s. Thus the marriage is characterised not only by the conversion of Polemo to Judaism, but also by being contracted between two citizens, as was the case with most marriages between dynasties in this era.805 The final relationship of Berenice II that requires discussion is her proposed marriage with Titus. Although this proposal never came to fruition, the relationship is revealing.806 In the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem, and with her role in the Jewish religious life rapidly diminishing, Berenice II seems to have recognised the need to trade her Jewish religious identity for that of the Roman matron.

Berenice II's sister Mariamme V was only around 10 years old when her father died807 and at the time of his death, had been betrothed808 to one Julius Archelaus,809 the son of Helcias.810 Given the naming conventions, it seems likely that this Helcias was Alexas III Helcias,811 the son of Alexas II Calleas, who was in turn the son of Salome I’s third husband Alexas I. He had married Cyprus IV, a descendant of Herod I and Mariamme I’s daughter of the same name and Antipater III, the son of Salome I and Costobar I. Certainly there is no evidence for Helcias being a local independent dynast, discounting the other standard method of finding a suitable match for a Herodian princess. The marriage did not last and Mariamme V divorced Julius Archelaus and married a member of the Alexandrian elite, Demetrius the Alabarch.812 It is possible that Demetrius was part of the family of Alexander the Alabarch with whom Mariamme V's sister Berenice II already had ties. The date of this marriage seems also to have been after her father's death and from this union was produced a single son, Agrippinus.813

803 Hanson 1989b: 148, notes that Berenice II would typically have resided at Pontus. 804 Joseph AJ 20.145. 805 Braund 1984a: 43-45. Jordan 1974: 108-10. 806 Suet. Aug..1-2. 807 Richardson 1996: 49. 808 Joseph AJ 20.139. 809 It is probably the same person as Josephus forwards a copy of his works to. Joseph Ap. 1.51. PIR2 J 173. 810 Probably the treasurer of the temple under Agrippa II in the reign of Nero. Joseph AJ 20.194. 811 He may also be mentioned as going along with Aristobulus V, the youngest brother of Agrippa I in an embassy to the Romans. Joseph AJ 18.273. 812 PIR2 D 40. 813 PIR2 A 462. 97

Figure 15 The Descendants of Mariamme V Daughter of Agrippa I.

Agrippa I's youngest daughter, Drusilla, was originally betrothed to Antiochus Epiphanes IV,814 the prominent client king of Commagene.815 This match is comparable in terms of the eastern dynastic network, with that of Alexander II and Glaphyra or perhaps Antipas II and the daughter of Aretas IV. However, the marriage was never finalised due to Agrippa I's death and it was left to his son, Agrippa II, eventually to find a husband for his sister. This husband was Azizus,816 heir of the Emesene dynasty. Azizus, Josephus tells us, converted to Judaism without the problems encountered with Epiphanes, but the relationship did not last for long. This sort of conversion followed by divorce is an interesting case as it must surely mean that Azizus returned to the religious customs of his parents, centred around the cult of Baal at Emesa. But this can only ever be conjectured as Drusilla next found herself married to a Roman freedman, Marcus Antonius Felix817 the procurator of Judea. Surely this was not a match that was approved of by her brother, nor does any evidence survive for Felix's conversion. Instead, Josephus's narrative is one of mutual desire and the transgression of Jewish law. Drusilla thus represents the first Herodian to marry into the Roman world and in this way, deliberately puts aside her Jewish identity for the benefits that a more Roman outlook and husband could present. Drusilla and Felix had one known child, Antonius Agrippa (III). 818 Unfortunately both Antonius and his mother perished in the eruption of Vesuvius which buried in 79 CE.

814 PIR2 J 149. The father of Alexander V of Cetis’ wife, Jotape III, above. 815 Joseph AJ 19.354. 816 PIR2 A 1693. 817 PIR2 A 828. Jones 1938: 219. 818 PIR2 A 809. Another might be Antonia Agrippina PIR2 A 887. 98

Figure 16 The descendants of Drusilla daughter of Agrippa I, including the associated marriage to the Emesene dynasty contracted by Agrippa I’s brother.

In investigating these individuals and their numerous marriages, several core themes become apparent that affect the family's construction of identity in the first century CE. The first is the importance to Agrippa I of marriages within his own family or within important families of the Diaspora. Often these marriages seem to be as much about politics as they are about piety. The second is the quantity of conversions to Judaism in this period, usually resulting in failed marriages within the eastern dynastic network. This particular theme demonstrates the tensions between the usually Greek character of eastern dynasties and the restrictions on intermarriage imposed by traditional Jewish thought. The final related theme is the category of Herodians who, in this period, abandoned their traditional religious identity in favour of non-Jewish marriage to Roman individuals. In general, these themes follow a pattern similar to the one evident in the Armenian branch of the family, as the Herodians sought to construct an identity that allowed them to remain at the forefront of a changing eastern world.

Piety and the Diaspora The family's place among Diaspora Jewry and the populace of Judea itself meant that a number of endogamous marriages took place in the first century CE to extend and reinforce the family’s Jewish identity. In many ways the family built on the success of Herod I's policy in this area, including his promotion of key diaspora families to positions of power, but the critical difference was more frequent intermarriage with core diaspora groups. Two of Agrippa I's children, Berenice II and Mariamme V, contracted marriages 99 into the Alexandria Jewry819 and a cousin, Alexandra II, married an elite Jew from Cyprus named Timius.820 At the same time, marriages continued to be routinely contracted within the family. Both diaspora and family endogamy served to strongly reinforce Jewish religious identity, with particular emphasis on religious piety, as well as supporting the economic and social benefits of elite intermarriage.

For many years before he became king, Agrippa I had been closely involved in the politics of Alexandria and in supporting the cause of the Jewish diaspora communities of the East more generally.821 Indeed he had been the beneficiary of Alexander the Alabarch's good will when he had been in need and this may have prompted him to seek a highly desirable and very strategic marriage alliance with him.822 This was a time of great problems for the Jewish diaspora, a fact often overshadowed by the problems experienced in Judea itself. 823 As a member of the Judean royalty, with the ear of the emperor, Agrippa I therefore represented a key asset for members of the diaspora seeking to further their cause at home.824 Agrippa I's marriage of his daughter to a prominent member of the Alexandrian aristocracy was therefore a calculated match. Alexander the Alabarch was well-known in the diaspora and at Jerusalem for his piety as he had adorned the gates of the temple, 'With massive plates of silver and gold'.825 So too did Agrippa I construct a pious identity for himself and marriage to this devout family must have contributed to this. The connection goes deeper, according to Turner,826 who theorises that Marcus's brother Tiberius owed his rapid rise to the equestrian order to the intercession of Agrippa I with Claudius.827 If this is correct, and there are good reasons to think so,828 the closeness of these families extended beyond piety and economics into the realms of politics. Although later history showed Tiberius to be an apostate in the eyes of Josephus,829 the union of Marcus and Berenice II brought mutual benefits to each family that are articulated clearly

819 These are Marcus son of Alexander the Alabarch (Joseph AJ 19.276) and Demetrius the Alabarch (Joseph AJ 20.147), respectively. 820 Joseph AJ 18.130-133 821 Philo notes how Agrippa I spent much time in Alexandria and also how he served as an embassy to represent Jewish interests at Rome. Philo The Embassy to Giaus. 822 Turner 1954: 54. 823 There were two pogroms against the Jews in Alexandria at this time, as noted by Philo. Philo Against Flaccus. 824 Philo In Flacc.. 825 Joseph BJ 5.205; Turner 1954: 54-55. 826 Turner 1954: 58. 827 Tiberius served successively as Governor of Judea, an officer under Corbulo and the of Egypt. PIR2 I 138. 828 For example, Agrippa I used precisely this tactic to raise his brother, Herod IV of Chalcis to the kingship. 829 Joseph AJ 20.98. 100 in their development of family identity over the following decades. Thus, far more than Herod I, Agrippa I used strategic marriage into the Diaspora elite as a method of ensuring multi-faceted support at home and abroad.

Agrippa I's second daughter Mariamme V may also have married into the family of Alexander. Unfortunately, Josephus does not mention whether her marriage to Demetrius the Alabarch, after the death of her first husband, was arranged by her father or her brother. This Demetrius is presumed to belong to the same family as Alexander the Alabarch, since he is described by Josephus as 'an Alexandrian Jew who stood first in birth and wealth. He also held at that time the office of Alabarch.'830 Doubtless he was a wealthy and influential member of the Alexandrian Jewish community and, like Berenice II's marriage to Marcus son of Alexander, this marriage served to support both families’ religious, political and economic identities. Although these marriages share many similarities with the eastern dynastic network, the critical element is the way that the shared religious identity of each party serves to mutually reinforce their identity through a pious adherence to the law.

Mariamme V’s first husband was Julius Archelaus, the temple treasurer and probably a member of Salome I's household and descendant from Salome I’s third husband, Alexas I.831 After 4 BCE Salome I had been granted significant estates in key regions of Judea, including Jamnia, Azotus and Phaeselis,832 and her husband, Alexas I, was most likely a rich Jewish man of the new elite.833 Indeed, following Herod I's death in 4 BCE, Alexas I and Salome I were largely responsible for ensuring a smooth transition to Archelaus's reign and preventing a civil war from the slaughter of Jewish notables held captive by Herod I until his death.834 Nor is Salome I's family completely absent from the historical record after 4 BCE. Three individuals from the royal family are mentioned by Josephus in relation to an embassy to Rome just prior to the Revolt.835 These are , Costobar II and Antipas III who were later stranded in the siege of Jerusalem.836 Costobar II in particular should be identified as a relative of Salome I, descended from her second husband of the same name. It is thus possible to add Julius Archelaus to this list of descendants of

830 Joseph AJ 20.147. 831 Hanson 1989b: 145 cannot place him but notes that he is probably a member of the elite. 832 Joseph AJ 17.188. 833 Joseph AJ 17.10. 834 Joseph AJ 17.193-98. 835 Joseph BJ 2.411-21. 836 Joseph BJ 2. 556. 101

Salome I and identify a more or less invisible fragment of the family who retained their Jewish roots while serving as private citizens.837 In the same spirit of marriage with Jewish economic elites and within the royal family that Herod I first triumphed in the first century BCE, Mariamme V's marriage to Julius Archelaus thus becomes a clear indication that Agrippa I continued to recognise the importance of articulating the family as controllers of not just the religious and royal power in Judea and associated areas, but also its role in forging strong and effective links to powerful families of the economic elite.

This marriage is just one example of the broader continuance of the interfamilial marriage policy of the Judean Herodians. Additional examples may also be found in the cases of Agrippa I's marriage to Cyprus III, Herod IV’s two marriages, and also the marriage of his eldest son, Aristobulus VI. This Aristobulus VI was the son of Herod IV of Chalcis and Mariamme IV, his first wife,838 and married Salome III, the daughter of Herod II and Herodias.839 She had previously been married to ,840 meaning that this marriage draws on multiple constructions of identity in the family's past, opening up considerable options for him in expressing his identity in the mid to late first century CE. In her father's line, Salome III could claim descent from high priests841 and kings,842 and on her mother's side, could claim descent from Hasmonean kings and high priests. 843 Through this very advantageous marriage, Aristobulus VI eventually received the monarchy of Armenia Minor in 54 CE,844 an appointment that can directly be attributed to his descent from a wide variety of influential Jewish figures. Although this neighbour in Greater Armenia was a distant cousin, Tigranes I, it would be wrong to assume that these two families had much in common.845 Instead, the placement of Aristobulus VI should be seen in terms of him being one of a multitude of possible choices to rule this troublesome region, drawing on the prestige of many eastern dynasties. 846 As evidence for this

837 To this class of private citizens it is also possible to add Agrippa I’s brother Aristobulus V, below. 838 Joseph BJ 2. 218-21. 839 Joseph AJ 18.136-9. 840 Joseph AJ 18.136-9. She was the same Salome (III) who supposedly danced before Antipas II for the head of . NT Matt 14.1; Mark 6.22. 841 Simon Boethus. 842 Herod I. 843 via Aristobulus IV’s mother Mariamme I, a Hasmonean. 844 Joseph AJ 20.158; Joseph BJ 2. 252. He replaced Cotys at the time when Corbulo was preparing for war in the area. Mitford 1979: 1175. 845 Thus Sullivan’s (Sullivan 1978a: 795) emotive statement that Alexander V and Jotape III 'glance[ed] back towards Cilicia and toward Agrippa II still in his kingdom' is probably a little far-fetched. 846 Mitford 1979: 1177 notes that following Corbulo’s campaigns in 59 CE, parts of Greater Armenia were annexed to local rulers including 'Pharasmanes of Iberia, Polemon of Pontus, Aristobulus V of Armenia Minor, and Antiochus of Commagene.' 102 difference of family identity, Aristobulus VI inherited the right to appoint the Jewish High Priest and control over their robes in 48 CE on the death of his father, Herod IV of Chalcis.847 Herod IV claimed descent from the Hasmoneans, but Aristobulus VI's marriage had strengthened his claim to this important post in that he was also married to a descendant of Simon Boethus, another High Priest.848 Therefore, Aristobulus VI must have retained a strong religious identity drawing on his lineage from high priests and from kings, despite his northern appointment. Again this contrasts strongly with the abandonment of Jewish identity by the Armenian branch of the family. At the same time as his appointment to Lesser Armenia, Agrippa II, his cousin, was appointed the ruler of Chalcis and several surrounding regions by Nero in the period leading up to the Jewish revolt. 849

The final example of family marriage concerns Agrippa I's elder brother, Herod IV of Chalcis. Located in his new kingdom, Herod IV’s marriage to Berenice II linked him strongly not just to a brother but to a local leader of incredible prestige among both Jewish and Greek subjects.850 The fact that Agrippa I was related to him is less important in this case than the fact that his religious piety, political and social power were important to Herod IV Chalcis's own power. In this way, the marriage to Berenice II should be viewed in the same way as any other local dynastic marriage between the Herodian family and another kingdom. 851 But this was not Herod IV of Chalcis's first marriage. He had previously been married to Mariamme IV, descended from Joseph II and Olympias, and the mother of his son Aristobulus VI of Armenia Minor.852 In ending a previous family marriage in favour of another wife, he echoed his uncle Archelaus who divorced his wife, Mariamme V,853 in 4 BCE and married Glaphyra, the widow of Alexander II.854 This served to link him dynastically with the Hasmoneans in order to consolidate his rule.855 In ensuring that his brother was granted a kingship at the time of marriage to Berenice II, Agrippa I crafts a dynastic link not just within his own family, but between two royal dynasties. This

847 Joseph AJ 20.15. 848 Joseph BJ 1.557-58. 849 Nothing is known of his children by Salome III, Herod VI (PIR2 H 158); Agrippa IV (PIR2 A 461) and Aristobulus VII (PIR2 A 1053) Joseph AJ 18.136-9. 850 Josephus compared him to Herod I who was more friendly with Gentiles than with Jews. Joseph AJ 19.328. 851 For example, those between Drusilla and Azizus of Emesa or Berenice II and Polemo II of Pontus. See below for further discussion. 852 Joseph BJ 2. 218-21. 853 Probably the daughter of Aristobulus IV and Berenice I, sister to Agrippa I and Herod IV of Chalcis. Josephus is unclear on this Joseph AJ 17.346. 854 Joseph AJ 17.339 855 Archelaus takes on the role of Alexander II as ruler of Judea and husband of Glaphyra. He may also have been the guardian of their children. 103 marriage is a clear expression of the ideal of elite marriage: by himself, Herod IV was not powerful enough to marry his niece and required the monarchy to be seen as a suitable match. Agrippa I also thinks here of how he might ensure the success of Herod IV's reign. By linking the two families, Herod IV inherits the royal prestige and the piety of Agrippa I, important factors in establishing himself in a new area. Thus the marriage of Berenice II and Herod IV of Chalcis moves away from the realms of pure endogamy with its emphasis on religion and lineage and toward the political and social emphasis of marriages within the eastern dynastic network.

The Eastern Dynastic Network The prompt remarriage of Berenice II to Herod IV of Chalcis highlights the importance of daughters in the continuing reconstruction of Herodian family identity. A daughter widowed or otherwise unmarried was not particularly worthwhile to the first century CE elite family in the East.856 Having lost the marriage connection to Alexandria, a rapid marriage for Berenice II served to further the construction of the family's identity in another area. In some ways it is possible to argue that remarriage was a critical aspect in the Herodian marriage strategy during the first century CE. The Deuteronomic code presents a variety of marriage and remarriage laws, including those for divorce.857 In the first century CE remarriage and divorce remained an important aspect of Jewish legal practice and there was no definitive ruling on the subject.858 Previously, Herod I had engaged in a mixture of remarriage and polygamy to articulate multiple changing identities, as noted by Josephus: 'his wives were numerous, since polygamy was permitted by Jewish custom and the king gladly availed himself of the privilege.'859 But among the later Herodians remarriage rather than polygamy becomes the preferred method for continuing to develop family and individual identity.860

856 Blenkinsopp 1997; Collins 1997a; Hanson 1989b; Hanson 1989b; Jackson 2011; Perdue, Blenkinsopp, Collins and Meyers 1997; Satlow 2001; Satlow 2001; Satlow 2005. 857 NT Deut 24.1-4; Garrett 2011. 858 See for example the New Testament discussions of the subject (NT .1-12, 16.18; NT Matt 5.31-2, 19.1-12) placed in their historical context by Elledge 2010. 859 Joseph BJ 1.477. Although it was permitted, the practice had mostly fallen out of use. Neufeld 1944 devotes two entire chapters to polygamy and concubinage. See Lewis, Yadin and Greenfield 1989: 22-4 for a discussion of polygamy in the early second century CE. 860 It was a smarter choice too. Herod I was censured for his polygamy, a practice open to him but not used since the First Temple kings. Moen 2009: 253. 104

Figure 17 Relations of Leaders Present at the Meeting of the Dynasts, 44 CE.

Figure 18 Map illustrating the major areas controlled by rulers present at the 'Meeting of the Dynasts' in 44 CE.

This marriage also raises the issue of increased Herodian marriage into other Eastern dynasties, a type of marriage which Herod I had mostly avoided during his reign. The only definitive case where Herod I used this kind of intermarriage is the union of Alexander II and Glaphyra, indicating that he recognised its importance, but wanted to limit its use to special cases.861 The best starting point to discuss this concept in the later period is the

861 In the related case of Salome I and Syllaeus, Herod I likely already suspected Syllaeus would refuse conversion. 105

'Meeting of the Dynasts' in 44 CE, where Agrippa I arranged for five other monarchs from the East to meet in conference at Tiberias.862 Viewed purely in terms of marriage and remarriage, this is a remarkable conference as the dynasties in attendance were either already connected by marriage, or soon would be. In attendance were Herod IV of Chalcis and Agrippa I, Sampsigeramus II of Emesa,863 Polemo II of Pontus, Cotys of Armenia Minor and Antiochus IV of Commagene. These dynasts controlled critical areas of the East, stretching from Judea and Idumea in the South (Agrippa I) to Chalcis (Herod IV) and Emesa (Sampsigeramus II) within the territory of Syria, to Commagene (Antiochus IV) and Pontus (Polemo II) far in the North by the Taurus Mountains and Black Sea respectively. Agrippa I and Herod IV of Chalcis were not the only relatives present. Agrippa I's daughter, Drusilla864, and brother, Aristobulus V, 865 were both married to children of Sampsigeramus II, and Polemo II of Pontus was soon to be the third husband of Berenice II.866 Antiochus IV had been sought as husband to Drusilla867 and Herod IV of Chalcis was now married to Berenice II.868 In this way, Berenice II's marriage to Herod IV of Chalcis was not so much to do with family as it was to do with regional politics. By remarrying his daughter to his brother, and raising that brother to a local kingdom, Agrippa I gained another powerful ally in the East. This was equally the case with Drusilla's marriage to Azizus and Aristobulus V's marriage to Jotape I.869 Agrippa I's strategy was to emulate the practices of Eastern dynasties that had served them well for over 300 years.870 By doing so, he achieved a powerful network of friends and supporters through dynastic marriage.871

In two further instances of inter-dynastic marriage, Berenice II and Drusilla both contract marriages into non-Jewish dynasties of the Near East.872 Berenice II's third marriage was to Polemo II of Cilicia,873 who Berenice II 'induced… to be circumcised and to take her in marriage.'874 Meanwhile, Drusilla's second betrothal and first marriage was to Azizus of

862 Joseph AJ 19.338. 863 PIR2 J 541. 864 Joseph AJ 20.139. 865 Joseph AJ 18.130-133. 866 Joseph AJ 20.145. 867 Joseph AJ 19.354. His daughter, Jotape III was eventually married to Alexander V, the son of Tigranes II of Armenia, his cousin. 868 Joseph BJ 2.217. 869 Hanson 1989b: 145; Kokkinos 1998: 314-15. 870 For the regional view, including discussions of this practice into the early Hellenistic period, see the informative series of articles by Sullivan in the ANRW. 871 Indeed Claudius thought, perhaps rightly, that Agrippa I had imperial pretensions over the entire east. 872 Hanson 1989b: 145. 873 Jones 1938: 220. 874 Joseph AJ 20.145. 106

Emesa, 'who had consented to be circumcised.'875 These marriages raise two interesting points concerning the construction of identity in the first century CE: the role of Herodian women in constructing their own identity through marriage876 and the issue of conversion to Judaism as a marker of identity. In the first case, Berenice II's arrangement of her own marriage with Polemo of Cilicia breaks the traditional method of betrothal through the agency of a father or brother.877 But it is not the first time that this non-standard type of marriage occurred in the Herodian dynasty. Other examples include the proposed marriage of Salome I to Syllaeus878 and the marriage of Pheroras to his slave,879 against the wishes of the Patriarch, Herod I.880 However, Berenice II's case is the first example of a female Herodian entirely acting of her own accord and this shows a keen awareness on Berenice II's part concerning marriage as a method for securing her future.881 Although she acts independently, her marriage is comparable to any other inter-dynastic marriage contracted by a Herodian in this period.882 It is also possible to compare Berenice II's role in her third marriage to the near-contemporary marriage practices preserved in the Babatha Archive. 883 Here Babatha, widowed twice, takes a leading role in the legal negotiations over her own property,884 marriages885 and the marriage of her daughter-in- law. 886 Although men still act as the principal actors legally, 887 the Babatha archive demonstrates the role that women played behind the scenes in negotiating marriages to their own, and their family's, advantage.888

875 Joseph AJ 20.139. Agrippa II arranges the marriage after Drusilla’s initial betrothal to Epiphanes fails to be completed. Agrippa I had died by this point (53 CE). 876 On patrilocality, see Hanson 1989b: 148. 877 This was established traditionally by the Torah. For example, see Genesis 24.3-4 'I will make you swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and earth , that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughter of the Canaanites, among whom I live, but will go to my country and to my kindred and get a wife for my son Isaac.' On the role of family and patriarch in marriage see Epstein 1942: 145-48; Satlow 2001: 111- 124. 878 Joseph AJ 16.220, 17.10; Joseph BJ 1.486-87, 566. 879 Joseph AJ 16.194, 197; Joseph BJ 1. 483. 880 On patriarchal power over marriage see Hanson 1989b: 147. 881 Hanson 1989b: 149 could ascribe no reason to Berenice II’s divorce from Polemo. See also, Moen 2009: 236 on patriarchy. 882 In other words, it is concerned not with traditional Jewish marriage policies, but with a more regional approach to marriage alliance. 883 Published in three volumes as P. Yadin: Lewis, Yadin and Greenfield 1989; Yadin 2002; Yadin, Greenfield, Yardeni and Levine 2002. 884 P. Yadin 21, 22, 27, 16.33-36. 885 P. Yadin 10. 886 She provided part of her dowry. P. Yadin 17. 5-10; 40-43. 887 P. Yadin 14 line 23 (her representative) and 15 line 4-5 (her son’s guardians). 888 On the marriages of the Babatha Archive see Katzoff and Schaps 2005; Katzoff and Schaps 2005; Oudshoorn 2007; Wasserstein 1989. 107

The second issue, that of conversion, is raised in both cases. Both Berenice II's marriage to Polemo and Drusilla's marriage to Azizus are part of a wider class of marriages where the spouse was required to convert to Judaism.889 This is seen to contrast with the marriages of the Armenian branch where conversion to Judaism at the time of marriage stopped being a principal way of negotiating family identity. Not only does conversion alter the identity of the proselyte,890 but it serves to reinforce the Jewish identity of the family into whom they married. 891 Thus, conversion is seen negatively by some potential husbands, 892 particularly in cases where their cultural heritage is Greek. Drusilla's betrothal to Antiochus Epiphanes provides an interesting case study. The initial betrothal failed due to Antiochus's resistance to conversion,893 recalling the failed betrothal of Syllaeus and Salome I. This demonstrates, on the one hand, the perception of Jewish religion by members of the Greek aristocracy in the East and on the other, the continued significance of Jewish religious identity to this branch of the family.894 This should be placed in the context of ongoing aggression between Greeks, Jews and Syrians across the East during the first century CE. Agrippa I required a husband for Drusilla who would symbolically take on Jewish identity through its outward physical and religious requirements. In this way he could continue to situate himself within the Diaspora elite and draw on its associated prestige. Likewise, Herod I in deference to the conservative portions of his kingdom could not have his sister marry a non-Jewish husband as it threatened his identity of religious legitimacy constructed through various other marriages. To distance themselves from Jewish religion and Jewish culture through poor marriage choices, was to ostracise the entire family from the cultural identity that had supported it for over a hundred years.

With the benefit of hindsight, many of these conversions in the first century CE seem to only be a symbolic effort on the part of the proselyte, without any actual weight in terms of individual identity.895 It is possible to cite no less than six marriage-type arrangements between a Herodian woman and a non-Jewish man where conversion is an issue:896

889 See Satlow 2001: 146, n. 107 on this topic. 890 Conversion required a stringent set of rituals to be observed properly. See Cohen 1989; Eichhorn 1954; Kulp 2004; Rowley 1940. 891 To marry a non-Jew caused significant censure among conservative groups. See Cohen 1983; Goodman 1985; Hayes 1999. Thus, marrying ‘correctly’ reinforced piety. 892 There is no evidence for wives and conversion. 893 Joseph AJ 20.139. 894 Moen 2009: 225. 895 However, there are no other recorded instances of this occurring. 896 An additional two occur in this period where conversion was not even considered an option. 108

These are the cases of Epiphanes, Azizus, Syllaeus, Polemo, Felix and Titus, five of which happen in the first century CE with two of Agrippa I's daughters. In each case the male either refuses to convert or else the marriage breaks down very rapidly, with the male presumably returning to his own religion. Polemo, for example, 'was relieved simultaneously of his marriage and of further adherence to the Jewish way of life,'897 while Drusilla divorced Azizus and, 'was persuaded to transgress the ancestral laws and to marry Felix.'898 Herod I's strategy was one of adherence to the word, if not the spirit, of these traditions, and in most cases Agrippa I attempts to emulate this policy. But following Herod I’s death, religious identity constructed through marriage was overshadowed by the associated political identity the marriage could also represent and the individual desires of the family members involved.

This discussion brings to mind a particularly strange series of stories in the final books of Josephus's Jewish Antiquities, after the point where Nicolaus of Damascus stops being his primary source.899 The first of these is inserted just after the death of Caligula is reported and involves two Jewish brothers, Asinaeus and Anilaeus, who lead a revolt of the Jewish inhabitants of .900 Goodblatt presents the evidence for this story being historically based, with supporting references from Tacitus, but makes no mention of its instructional tone.901 After a series of victories, Anilaeus marries the wife of a defeated Parthian general who, after bringing her household gods into their marriage, causes the brothers' downfall.902 The marriage, according to the elders, was:

Without their consent and was not in accordance with the laws which they were accustomed to follow, and that the worship which the woman practised showed disrespect for the God of their religion.903

The second, historical case is that of a proselyte family from Adiabene, the Queen Helena and her son, King Izates. In this case, Izates is born of a brother-sister union and through

897 Joseph AJ 20.146. 898 Joseph AJ 20.141. 899 Wacholder 1962: 4-6, 52-64 discusses the role of Nicolaus in Josephus’s work extensively and places it within the context of 19th and 20th century scholarship concerning the sources of Josephus’s work. Josephus stops using Nicolaus around book 17. 900 Joseph AJ 18.314-73. 901 Tac. Ann. 6.42. There are few studies on this passage, but those that exist are summarised by Feldman in the ANRW 2.21.2 815-20. Goodblatt 1987b; 902 Joseph AJ 18.340-50. 903 Joseph AJ 18.349. 109 conversion is raised to high station with the grace of the deity.904 Izates, however, fails to be circumcised in fear of his subjects and is censured by one Eleazar of Galilee.905 On conversion, despite fears of his populace rising against him, Izates is protected and successful in all his endeavours:

For although Izates himself and his children were often threatened with destruction, God preserved them, opening a path to safety from desperate straits. God thus demonstrated that those who fix their eyes on Him and trust in Him alone do not lose the reward of their piety.906

These two stories present different sides of the marriage and conversion question through a mixture of history and fiction. In the case of Anilaeus, marriage without conversion leads to the downfall of all parties involved. Izates finds that trust in God through conversion and adherence to the covenant is rewarded with success. Neusner prefers a historical reading to this story,907 but this is not to discount that Josephus could use history to serve a religious purpose. He was after all a priest and frequently makes religious judgements based on historical episodes. Read in this way, Josephus's inclusion of these stories in his narrative of the later Herodians reveals his own sentiments towards their marriages, perhaps also reflecting the views of his Pharisee contemporaries. This is a rare insight into the opinions of Jewish elites into the Herodian family and its construction of Jewish religious identity.

Berenice II's marriage to Polemo, and her sister's marriages to Azizus and Felix, can therefore be interpreted through these anecdotal stories. The breakdown in the efficacy of conversion through the traditional signs of the covenant, circumcision being chief among them in this later period, was viewed quite negatively. Whereas Herod I had maintained adherence to these most central customs of the Jews, the abandonment of this concern for the law in later generations in some ways recalls the problematic situation of the Maccabean revolt two centuries prior.908 These three marriages represent a shift towards the importance of royal power based on dynastic lineage, a move already detected among

904 Joseph AJ 20.17-91. 905 Joseph AJ 20.34-47. 906 Joseph AJ 20.48. 907 Neusner 1964. 908 Certainly the response is similarly zealous. The author of 1 Maccabees had claimed that 'In those days certain renegades came out from Israel and misled many, saying, “Let us go an make a covenant with the Gentiles around us…”' 1 Macc 1.11. Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 21-2 notes the problem with the traditional Hellenisation model in this regard. 110 the Armenian Herodians. 909 Effectively, as members of the Roman elite only now emerging out of the Greek-dominated East, the children of Agrippa I began to rely on the importance of their place in the eastern dynastic network, rather than their Jewish religious identity. Social and political power in the form of Roman honours came to replace religious and royal identity drawn from their family's historical client kingship. Whereas Herod I controlled his subjects through a mixture of rhetoric and force, Agrippa II and his sister Berenice II are ineffective in subduing an out-of-control public just prior to the Jewish revolt. Josephus notes they, 'heaped abuse upon the king and formally proclaimed his banishment from the city.'910 In this way, it is possible to link the marriage practice of these Herodians with both official censure on the part of Josephus, the general historical context of Judaism in the first century CE, and anecdotal accounts of conversion and marriage that provide what Gruen would term the eastern cultural consciousness.911

The only example of a marriage between a Herodian and Eastern Dynasty that did not result in failure was that of Agrippa I and Herod IV of Chalcis's brother Aristobulus V. He had chosen not to join the ranks of Herodian royalty and instead preferred the private life, but despite this reclusiveness, Aristobulus V still contracted a marriage into the Emesene dynasty.912 It is not clear who was responsible for negotiating this dynastic marriage. Like his nieces and brother, it is most probable that Agrippa I arranged this marriage for him. Jotape I was the only daughter of Sampsigeramus II and the marriage supported the prestige of both the Judeans and Emesenes. Emesa was a small principality located not far north of the Jewish and Herodian districts of Judea and a marital alliance between these two families was of great significance to both houses.913 In addition, the family of Emesa had connected itself to both the Commagene dynasty914 and the Armenia branch of the Herodian family. This line eventually married into the Herodian family with Jotape III and Alexander V of Cetis. Unfortunately, the marriage of Aristobulus V and Jotape I resulted in only one daughter, also named Jotape (II), who was deaf and it is here that the line ends.

909 See Schwartz 1990: 134 briefly on this topic. 910 Joseph BJ: 2.406-7. 911 Gruen 1993: 3. 912 Joseph AJ 18.130-33; Kokkinos 1998: 315-16. 913 Sullivan 1978b. 914 Sampsigeramus II’s wife, Jotape was of the Commagene dynasty and sister of Jotape II, who married their brother Antiochus.Sullivan 1978a. 111

Marrying Romans Like the Armenian branch of the family, the Judean Herodians eventually found themselves drawn towards increasingly Roman forms of identity construction. While they maintained some of their Jewish religious identity even into the second century CE, two relationships in particular stand out as demonstrating their new roles in the Roman, rather than Jewish, elite. Like the heirs of the Emesene dynasty who eventually found themselves holding the imperial power at Rome, the descendants of Agrippa I contracted marriages into the Roman elite and also became part of the Roman Senate.

It was difficult for Berenice II to fit into the elite culture at Rome,915 despite being both a Jewish adherent and a royal.916 The Flavians themselves were closely involved in the contemporary resolution of the Jewish War and the Herodians had become well-known to them.917 But although notable individuals including Poppaea and Saturnina had become enamoured of Judaism in the first century CE, members of the Flavian court were staunchly opposed to her relationship with the younger Titus.918 Suetonius remarks upon Berenice II’s relationship with Titus,919 noting that a marriage between an Emperor and a Jewish princess was not yet considered appropriate.920 Berenice II was 'sent from Rome at once, against her will and against his own.'921 But Berenice II, as much as her brother and father, was a player in the game of marriage that constantly served to strengthen alliances in the Roman world across ethnic, geographic and religious boundaries. An excellent reminder of how far Berenice II had travelled since her marriage with Marcus son of Alexander is the inscription set up to 'the Great Queen Julia Berenice, daughter of King Julius Agrippa' by the magistrates and people of Athens between 61/2 and 93 CE.922 Located on the base of a large statue, discovered in Athens, this inscription shows Berenice II's Mediterranean appeal and demonstrates that the Jewish royalty had successfully made the transition to Eastern royalty that would see them through the next century of the Roman world.923

915 Braund 1984b: 120-3. 916 Bowersock 2005: 53-62. 917 Schwartz 2005: 65-7. 918 Joseph AJ 18.83; 66.15.5. Braund 1984b: 122; Jordan 1974: 184-9, 208-10. 919 Suetonius Divus Titus 7.1. 920 On the complexities of reconstructing this relationship, see Rogers 1980: 86-95 contra Crook 1951: 162- 75. Braund 1984b: 120-3 and Jones 1984: 91-1 also contribute. 921 Suet. Tit. 7.2. 922 IG II/III 3449. 923 Jones 1984: 61-2 includes and important discussion of Berenice II. 112

Berenice II's son, Berenicianus, might be related to the Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus, who served as Proconsul of Asia in 132/133 and who is mentioned in two inscriptions.924 He was suffect Consul in 116 CE925 and might also be the Pro-Praetorian Legate in the Parthian War mentioned by Cassius Dio.926 There is some debate over his precise lineage, whether Armenian or Judean, but most attribute to him a place among the Herodians. Based on his name it seems most likely that he descends from Berenice II, the daughter of Agrippa I whose son Berenicianus is mentioned twice in Josephus.927 Descent from the Armenian line, as a brother to Lucius Julius Agrippa (VI) of Apamea is also postulated, mostly from the name Alexander.928 Regardless, this Berenicianus represents another member of the Herodian family who presents the mixed Roman and traditionally Hellenistic identity typical of this period, at least from the variety of inscriptions from the second century CE. His citizenship, inherited from his distant ancestors in the first century BC and reflected in the tria nomina, allowed him to enter the Senate by adlectio at some point early in the second century. His daughter may be the Julia Crispina, daughter of Berenicianus who is mentioned as a guardian in the Babatha Archive,929 according to a recent article by Ilan.930 The dates of the document match Berenicianus's consulships above and if this link could be proven, it would be evidence for a Roman-named member of the Herodian family continuing to live in Judea into the mid-second century CE.

Unlike her sister, Drusilla did in fact contract a marriage to a member of the Roman elite, Felix the procurator of Judea. She breaks away from the family's previous strategy in a number of key ways, but interestingly, her marriage to Felix is broadly in keeping with the Herodian marriage strategy. But Josephus specifically censures Drusilla for her third marriage to the Roman equestrian, Felix, being in breach of tradition.931 Traditionally, marriages were contracted between two men for their daughters or sisters, but by now Herodian women were independent enough that these choices fell to individuals. In this way, Drusilla specifically decides to turn away from her Jewish identity and through marriage identifies more as a Roman matron than as a Jewish princess. However, the

924 BCH 1,1877,292,Anm. 80 = BCH 6, 1882, 289 (Ephesos) and BCH 18, 1894, 217 = Rev. Phil 22, 1898, 261 Nr. 3 - JOAI 8, 1905, 168f. Nr. IV 3 = IGR IV 1587 (Klaros). 925 Degrassi 1952: 34. 926 Cassius Dio 68.30.2. 927 Joseph AJ 20.104; Joseph BJ 2. 218-21. 928 Halfmann 1979: 141. 929 P. Yadin 25.1-3. 930 Ilan 1992. See also Cotton 1993: 96 who mentions Crispina’s special status. Descent from a Roman official and Herodian monarch could go some way to explaining this. 931 Joseph AJ 20.141. 113 match was certainly mutually advantageous. As a member of the new elite at Rome, Felix's marriage to a Jewish princess was particularly important for his prestige. Famously, he was known for 'becom[ing] the husband of three queens.'932 Likewise with Drusilla, the choice to marry such a powerful Roman figure has some affinities to her family's history of marrying into ascendant local dynasties. This is not to say that Drusilla stopped being Jewish and became Roman.933 Rather, as Wallace-Hadrill notes, it was possible for her to maintain key aspects of her Jewish identity, drawing on her royal lineage rather than her religion, while simultaneously becoming part of the Roman world.934 By the middle of the first century, many female members of the Judean Herodians where exhibiting this tendency away from traditionally Jewish forms of marriage that reinforced their religious identity. 935 But in each case, their royal descent is of critical importance to these marriages. While their father Agrippa I had skilfully retained a Jewish identity that found him beloved of Jews and Greeks alike, his children, including Agrippa II,936 established a much more Roman identity through both marriage and associated political alliances. This was symptomatic of the changing social, political and religious landscape of the Near East during this time, with increased religious tensions in Judea and a reduction in opportunities for the old dynastic elites at home. Rome, and Roman political and social institutions, thus became much more prominent in their construction of identity.

Drusilla's son was named Antonius Agrippa (III), but tragically both perished in the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE.937 That Drusilla was living in the south of Italy at this time, rather than her ancestral Judea, is an important insight into her changing identity. Many members of the family had chosen to settle in areas that reinforced their social, religious, economic or political power and this case is no different.938 Felix and Drusilla promote their elite identity by establishing themselves in Italy, among the new Roman elites of the Imperial period. 939 The evidence for Jews and Judaism at Pompeii is sparse. No synagogue has been discovered, although a wall painting in the 'House of the Doctor'

932 Suetonius Divus Claudius 28.1. 933 Although it would be interesting to know, for example, the extent to which she used Latin. Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 39-41. 934 Multi-lingualism, rather than hybridity. Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 27-8. 935 Thus, Berenice II, above. 936 Like his father, Agrippa II had been granted praetorian ornaments on his succession. Braund 1984a: 29. 937 Joseph AJ 20.141. 938 For example, Alexander V and Jotape III or Agrippa I and Cyprus III. 939 This is perhaps the closest example to Wallace-Hadrill, but as he notes (Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 7) Roman culture does not ‘wash away’ or ‘mix up’ identity, but rather it adds to it. 114 suggests familiarity with the story of Solomon. 940 Kosher food seems to have been available, based on several inscriptions for Kosher .941 Some discussion has been made of inscriptions with Jewish names, including one in Hebrew, but no good evidence for elites partaking of Judaism exists.942 Physically distant from her family's traditional homeland of Judea and Idumea, Drusilla must surely have settled into a very Roman way of life. Marriage had been a key tool for Drusilla to forge her identity in the most advantageous way, but it did not mean that she gave up her Herodian roots entirely. Her son is named for her brother, Agrippa II, and father, Agrippa I, with echoes of that distant family history of Antipater I's close relationship with the famous Roman Agrippa.943 In this case, the name draws not just on the Roman history of this name, but also on its Herodian heritage.

Conclusion

The families of both Alexander II and Aristobulus IV, the sons of Herod I and Mariamme I, went on to be prosperous and important members of the Roman elite during the first and second centuries CE. Following the death of Herod I and the failure of his immediate successors to establish workable dynasties in the East, these families drew on their heritage to construct multiple identities. They also utilised contemporary marriages with strategic groups, including their own family, the Diaspora, Eastern client kings and Romans to renegotiate their place in the changing Roman east. The Armenian branch of the family had quickly abandoned Judaism and preferred to craft an identity based on the lineage of Glaphyra, princess of Cappadocia. In this way they suppressed the Jewish portion of their identity, from at least the period of Tigranes II and perhaps even earlier, and constructed an identity based on local descent, Greek heritage and Roman alliance. In part, they achieved this by continuing to marry members of local dynasties and eventually entered the Roman Senate.

In Judea, the descendants of Aristobulus IV and Berenice I constructed an identity much closer to their forefathers, drawing on their Jewish religious identity and royal heritage. In particular, marriages contracted by Agrippa I evoke religious piety and recognise the importance of Diaspora communities in constructing power. Equally, Agrippa I and his

940 Small 2007: 195. 941 For example, CIL IV 2569, drawing on Pliny’s description in HN 31.95. See also, Cooley and Cooley 2004: 109. 942 CIL IV 8010 is a sale document in Hebrew, while CIL IV 6990 records 'Felix, slave of Judaicus.' Cooley and Cooley 2004: 109; Lazer 2009: 72. 943 Joseph AJ 14.137. 115 family used marriage into local dynasties to extend their influence across the region, but in doing so, attempted to maintain a Jewish religious identity through conversion of spouses. This policy was not always successful, resulting in an ongoing tension between their religious and ethnic identity, and the importance of their more regional royal identity within the Eastern dynastic network. As Wallace-Hadrill noted, this tension results from the construction of multiple identities and their continued re-negotiation over time. Like their Armenian cousins, this line eventually found itself part of the Roman Senatorial and Equestrian elite, but critically, seems to have retained significant portions of its Jewish identity. 944 In this way, Wallace-Hadrill's theories of multiple identities meet Woolf's hybridisation model, suggesting an interface between short- and long-term processes in identity construction. 945

From their earlier beginnings as part of the new Jewish economic elite in Idumea during the second century BCE, the Herodian family continued to use marriage as a key way in which to adapt to changing social, political and even religious circumstances in the Eastern Mediterranean. While Herod I's focus had been on consolidating his power within Judea by marrying individuals from key economic and ethnic groups, his successors took a much more regional view. In the next chapter, the overall history of Herodian marriage practice is synthesised in order to consider the ways that marriage was used to construct identity over time.

944 This might be what Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 78 would term the indirect versus direct change in identity. 945 In particular Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 14 notes that these process are most easily seen in the East. Wallace- Hadrill 2008: 75-6 already goes some way to conceptualising this interface. 116

Chapter 5: Conclusion

Introduction Herodian marriage practice was diverse and allowed the family to continually adapt to changing circumstances during their history. Chapter Three presented evidence for Herod I’s marriage practice and argued for a centralised strategy that consolidated Herod I’s control over his territory. In contrast, Chapter Four examined the Herodian family during the first century CE, when the absence of Herod I as a central patriarchal figure resulted in a diversification of marriage strategy among different parts of the family. This chapter noted the importance of lineage and descent to the identities of these groups, particularly as they relate to the geographical and political contexts in which they lived. Thus it is clear that over time the Herodians utilise marriage in a number of ways that reflect their changing social, political and religious situation. The present chapter presents the conclusions to this study and responds to the aim of the thesis, that is, to understand how Herodian marriage strategies reflect their individual and group identity over time. In doing so, this chapter will also discuss the limitations of the study and suggest some avenues of further research.

Herodian identity was constantly changing and dynamic, dependent on a number of factors including choice of spouse, descent, and locality of residence. Under Herod I, a kingdom-wide identity was expressed, using primarily endogamous marriage as a tool in aligning the family with important local groups. Conversely, after Herod I's death, a number of new Herodian dynasties were founded who also used marriage in their own distinctive way. Wallace-Hadrill's theory of code-switching provides an exceptional model for understanding this identity construction, but the thesis also extends Wallace-Hadrill's work. As well as ethnic identity, this study of the Herodian family makes it possible to understand the way elites more generally used marriage to construct political, social and religious identity, which exist alongside ethnicity.

The Patriarch Herodian marriage was diverse but the patriarch plays the most important role in developing and maintaining family marriage strategy. This position of patriarch is traditionally very important in Judaism, but under Herod I’s leadership this role is subverted and made to serve Herod I’s dynastic purposes. His position as king also allowed Herod I the scope to marry multiple wives and, therefore, his children become involved in a second

117 generation of identity construction through marriage. Herod I also extended the traditional patriarchal model to exert influence over his siblings and their children. This complex network of marriages allowed him to draw his feuding family together and also constructed a diverse family identity to consolidate his rule.

In the wake of Herod I's death, his family struggled with the establishment of new patriarchal authorities. With Herod I absent from the head of the family, two interesting phenomena can be observed. First, Herod I's immediate successors divorce wives married under Herod I’s marriage strategy and contract new marriages that serve their own purposes. Second, new patriarchs exhibit a similar diversity of approaches to siblings and to children as those observed under Herod I's reign. This is best examined in the case of Agrippa I as this is the only area where sufficient evidence survives to examine the phenomenon fully. Unlike his uncles Antipas II, Archelaus and Philip, who set themselves up individually as patriarchs to govern distinct kingdoms, Agrippa I exerts authority over his siblings and children to construct a dynastic, rather than individual, identity. But on his death, Agrippa I's children, particularly his daughters, exploit the absence of a patriarch to contract advantageous marriages that articulate their own individual identity. Interestingly, in the cases of Agrippa I's daughters, the use of both divorce and non-Jewish marriage is very common, suggesting that the patriarch's role was also to ensure the religious legitimacy of marriage.

Lineage and Descent Marriages also had implications for the identity of individuals and groups in future generations of the Herodian family. This is even true of Herod I's first marriages, to Doris and to Mariamme I, which were intended to distance himself from his mother's Arabian heritage. In both his administrative role in Judea prior to 40 BCE and as a newly crowned monarch after 37 BCE, Herod I's common descent from Idumeans was a source of slander. The importance of linage is transmitted through the generations and over time contributes to significant changes in the family's identity. Mariamme I's descendants are the best examples of this theme. By drawing on diverse parts of their ancestors' identity, descendants of Mariamme I and Herod I constructed a Greek identity for themselves, most suited to their roles as kings of Armenia and Cappadocia. Thus when Glaphyra and Alexander II's descendants moved into Greek areas of the Roman Empire, Glaphyra's historic connection to these areas became more important than their descent from a Jewish dynasty. Likewise Aristobulus IV and Berenice I's descendants, who mostly stayed

118 in Judea, drew on the historic figures of Mariamme I, Herod I and Salome I to reinforce their religious, political and social roles at the head of the Judean elite. Lineage and descent therefore provide a background of identity to inform contemporary identity and also marriage choice.

Endogamy and Identity The Herodian family used a primarily endogamous marriage strategy and these types of marriage are a critical part of their family and regional identity. In particular, Herod I’s marriages were designed to establish and maintain control in his kingdom, drawing on religious, royal and ethnic identities to varying degrees. Marriages within the Herodian family itself were also an important method of sharing and consolidating dynastic prestige and resources. In this way, Herod I’s eldest son, Antipater II, used family marriage to increase his prestige. Not only did Antipater II arrange advantageous marriage within the family for the benefit of his son and for himself, but he also succeeded in rearranging marriages decreed by Herod I to hinder his primary enemy within the dynasty, Pheroras.

The most important of Herod I's Jewish marriages were to the Hasmonean dynasty. Far from being about his Jewish or Idumean background, Herod I’s marriage to Mariamme I allowed him to claim the authority of royalty through a marriage to a Hasmonean princess. This was part of a concerted effort by Herod I to neutralise threats from the Hasmoneans, by bringing them under his influence through marriage or by executing them. But the legitimacy of the Hasmoneans was also linked to the high priesthood and although Herod I never claimed this position for himself, his Hasmonean marriages provided him with a level of religious legitimacy.

Herod I also contracted a number of marriages later in his reign to diversify his identity, often to a member of his kingdom's elite. In this period the code-switching model of multiple identity is most useful, as Herod I’s marriages to Mariamme II, Cleopatra of Jerusalem and Malthace the Samaritan, all articulate different aspects of his identity that must be contextualised in different regions of his kingdom. Herod I's sister Salome I was also used to maintain the family's historic connections with Idumea, first through marriage to a family member and then through marriage to a member of a local elite. In the cases of both Mariamme II and Costobar I, Herod I's marriages not only support his regional and political identity, but ensure the loyalty of important officials by tying them closely to the royal family. This internally focused strategy served numerous communities in Herod I's

119 kingdom, meaning that alongside his own Idumean identity, Herod I could demonstrate his religious, political and ethnic affinity with a number of local groups. In many cases building programs, either at Jerusalem or within Herod I’s kingdom, accompanied these new marriages. These building programs are important as they provide some of the only evidence for the response to Herod I's reign among the populace. Instead of an endogamous marriage strategy defined strictly in terms of legality, this thesis defines Herod I’s endogamy as serving dynastic interests within his kingdom. Herod I's successors continue to use endogamous marriages to further dynastic interests, primarily by marrying back into their own family. But Agrippa I took Herod I’s endogamous strategy in a new direction by creating a marriage alliance between his family and prominent Diaspora elites. It is true that Herod I married Mariamme II who hailed from a Diaspora family, but Agrippa I's marriage into the family of Alexander the Alabarch was a Jewish marriage designed to consolidate support for Agrippa I in Alexandria, rather than Jerusalem. Thus, endogamy was not only a religious requirement for many Herodian marriages, but could also support the family's connections with a wide variety of groups, initially within Herod I's kingdom and afterwards to diversify and consolidate their base of support in the Diaspora.

Exogamy and Identity In comparison, the early Herodian family used exogamous marriage less often, but like endogamy, it is linked to specific parts of the family’s geographical, political or religious identity. The best example of exogamous marriage during the reign of Herod I is his marriage alliance with Archelaus of Cappadocia. Herod I's eldest son by Mariamme I, Alexander II, was married to Archelaus's daughter Glaphyra in a mutually beneficial match that signalled their ongoing support for Rome. But for Herod I, this marriage also had implications at home as Alexander II could now draw on multiple layers of identity, achieved through marriage that supported his position as the heir presumptive to Herod I's kingdom. In a Jewish context, Alexander II's descent from the Hasmonean dynasty provided him with political and religious authority, while his descent from Herod I and marriage to Glaphyra placed him in a strong position when dealing with Roman officials. Here it is possible to see the way that marriages could affect family identities on multiple levels. Herod I benefited personally from his marriage alliance with Archelaus, but Alexander II could also draw on the identity associated with his wife and parents. This is a critical part of the way that lineage and descent came to have importance for later generations. These aspects of Alexander II's identity, achieved through marriage do not exist alone, but supplement his education at Rome and his Jewish religious heritage.

120

For Alexander II's descendants in Armenia, the Jewish endogamy model is not appropriate as they abandoned their Jewish religion in favour of Greek customs from early in the first century CE. In this branch of the Herodian family, marriage to local Greek elites is a way to maintain the new Hellenic part of their identity. They claimed descent from Glaphyra's Greek and Armenian ancestors and deliberately suppressed their Jewish identity by continuing to choose culturally Greek marriage partners. Even in Judea, the Herodian family realised the importance of exogamous marriages with members of the Eastern dynastic network, but used spousal conversion to maintain their Jewish religious identity. Thus Agrippa I organised alliances with both Emesa and Pontus to consolidate his support in the region. But in these marriages religious identity competed with the political and social needs of the dynasts involved, leading to a number of divorces.

In many cases of marriage contracted against the wishes of a patriarch or without patriarchal input, Herodians preferred to marry outside of their family and religion. In part these marriages fall outside of patriarchal control precisely because the family mainly used a traditionally Jewish marriage strategy. In the rare cases of individuals contracting exogamous marriages against patriarchal wishes, they articulate individual rather than family identity. In some cases this was for personal power, such as Salome I's failed betrothal to Syllaeus, but in others, such as Pheroras's marriage to a slave wife, personal preference and desire also played a role. In the later period, Agrippa I's daughter Drusilla marries the Roman freedman, , while her sister Berenice II is a mistress of the future Emperor Titus. In both cases Herodian women act outside of the patriarchal system and use exogamous marriage to access the Roman elite, a transition that their male relatives secured through the process of adlectio.

Limitations Despite this study providing a number of useful conclusions, it is also necessary to note its limitations. Josephus is an excellent source for Herodian prosopography, but evidence for intent in marriages is never presented by the Herodians themselves. Thus the perspective is external to the family’s original intent and other evidence must be collected in an attempt to reveal the original purpose of a marriage. Inscriptions and other sources of information are even more problematic than Josephus who used Herod I’s memoirs for part of his narrative and whose cultural background is well-known. A further way of overcoming this problem is to view Herodian marriages as a large, interrelated group, rather than as

121 individual marriages.

But equally, the sheer number of marriages contracted by the Herodians makes it impossible to cover all unions in a single work. Further, not all the evidence survives for Herodian marriages and there are several parts of the family where no information is available. While every care has been taken to ensure a balanced view, the discussion therefore reflects the marriages about which the most information is known. In many cases this preferences marriages of elites and royalty, while suppressing information on family marriages. Anomalous marriages are also often discussed, presumably because they elicited contemporary public reaction, whereas relatively straightforward marriages are neglected. Indeed there are many family members, particularly wives, who must have existed, but can only be hypothesised. Many children are also only mentioned by name with no supporting information about their life, let alone their spouse. In particular this affects the families of Herod I's brothers and sister, his minor wives and his distant relatives into the second century CE. By this stage, Herodian identity merged so fully with that of the Greek and Roman groups that is becomes impossible by normal prosopographical methods to continue tracing the family through written texts and through inscriptional material.

It is also very difficult to gauge how Herodian subjects responded to these marriages. Josephus is an excellent source in many ways, but he often fails to give a voice to the people and their own reactions to contemporary events. When this does happen, the populace are often homogenised and represented as a mob. Josephus's elite status is best at providing an insight into the religious context of Herodian marriages but except in rare instances of censure he is mostly silent on the subject of the religious implications of marriage. Moen's study has gone some way to filling this gap in the literature but needs to be updated to reflect the multiple identity model more fully. This may be an accurate portrayal, but more work is needed on Josephus’s relationship with the Jewish populace, particularly at Jerusalem, in order to understand the way that he positions them against the Herodians.

Further Research This study has identified a number of areas in which further research would be beneficial. Extension of a prosopographical approach into the Hasmonean family, particularly its final generations, could prove enlightening and contextualise the significant contribution

122

Hasmoneans made to Herodian identity. Likewise a dedicated study of Herodian women and marriage would be beneficial, to understand the way that patriarchal authority, personal preference, conversion and divorce interacted. While not relevant to the study of all Jewish women in the Roman period, a study of Herodian women and their marriage practices would provide valuable insights into this neglected area of elite marriages and changes to the construction of female identity in antiquity. Herodian identity in Armenia is another area in which a dedicated study of individuals and spouses could extend the conclusions of the present work and provide insights into the only branch of the Herodian family to move away from the Jewish faith and eventually merge with the Roman elite.

Conclusion Herodian identity was significantly influenced by marriage choice, resulting in a family marriage strategy that was constantly changing and adapting to new circumstances. By understanding the way that the Herodians used marriage to construct multiple identities for themselves, it is possible to better understand this family's relationship with a wide variety of groups. Situated within a firmly Jewish patriarchal setting, the Herodians primarily used an endogamous marriage strategy that allowed them to forge links with a wide variety of religious, social and cultural groups within their kingdom. At the head of this strategy, and influencing its development for the next century, was Herod I who married ten wives, produced at least fifteen children and countless grandchildren. Using their descent from such a diverse range of individuals, the family went on to use marriage as a way to construct new identities.

123

Bibliography

Ancient Sources 1 Chronicles (trans. E. E. Tilden and B. M. Metzger). 1991. 1 Chronicles, in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press 2 Chronicles (trans. E. E. Tilden and B. M. Metzger). 1991. 2 Chronicles, in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press 1 Kings (trans. E. E. Tilden and B. M. Metzger). 1991. 1 Kings, in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press 1 Maccabees (trans. S. E. Johnson and M. C. Callaway). 1991. 1 Maccabees, in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press 2 Maccabees (trans. S. E. Johnson and M. C. Callaway). 1991. 2 Maccabees, in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press Acts (trans. S. E. Johnson and B. M. Metzger). 1991. Acts, in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press Augustus (trans. P. A. Brunt and J. M. Moore). 1967. Res Gestae Divi Augusti, London: Oxford University Press. Cassius Dio (trans. E. Cary). 2005. Roman History, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Deuteronomy (trans. B. Anderson). 1991. Deuteronomy, in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press Ezra (trans. A. Jeffery and J. J. Collins). 1991. Ezra, in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press Gellius, A. (trans. J. C. Rolfe). 1927. Noctes Atticae, London: Heinemann.

124

Genesis (trans. E. E. Tilden and B. M. Metzger). 1991. Genesis, in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press John (trans. D. G. Miller and B. M. Metzger). 1991. John, in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press Josephus (trans. H. S. J. Thackeray, R. Marcus, A. Wikgren and L. H. Goldman). 1950- 1964a. Against Apion, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Josephus (trans. H. S. J. Thackeray, R. Marcus, A. Wikgren and L. H. Goldman). 1950- 1964b. The Jewish Antiquities, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Josephus (trans. H. S. J. Thackeray). 1956-1961. The Jewish War, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Judith (trans. R. C. Dentan and C. A. Moore). 1991. Judith, in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press Luke (trans. E. E. Tilden and B. M. Metzger). 1991. Luke, in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press Mark (trans. E. E. Tilden and B. M. Metzger). 1991. Mark, in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press Matthew (trans. E. E. Tilden and B. M. Metzger). 1991. Matthew, in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press Martyr, J. t. (trans. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson). 1956-1962. Dialogue with Trypho, Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans. Mishnah (trans. J. Neusner). 1988. Seqalim, New Haven: Yale University Press. Numbers (trans. B. Anderson). 1991. Numbers, in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press Philo (trans. F. H. Colson). 1941-1967a. Against Flaccus, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Philo (trans. F. H. Colson). 1941-1967b. The Embassy to Giaus, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

125

Sirach (trans. B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy). 1991. Sirach, in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press. Strabo (trans. H. L. Jones). 1931-2005. Geography, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Suetonius (trans. J. C. Rolfe). 1928a. Divus Augustus, London: Heinemann. Suetonius (trans. J. C. Rolfe). 1928b. Divus Claudius, London: Heinemann. Suetonius (trans. J. C. Rolfe). 1928c. Divus Titus, London: Heinemann. Tacitus (trans. A. Church and W. Brodribb). 1942. Annals, New York: Modern Library.

Modern Sources Adams, J. N., Janse, M. and Swain, S. 2002. Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Allen, J. 2006. Hostages and Hostage-Taking in the Roman Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Applebaum, S. 1989. Judaea in Hellenistic and Roman Times: Historical and Archaeological Essays, Leiden: Brill. Avi-Yonah, M. 1978. Hellenism and the East. Contacts and Interrelations from Alexander to the Roman Conquest, Jerusalem: Hebrew University Institute of Language, Literature and Arts. Bacon, B. W. 1920. ‘ and Herodians in Mark,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 39(3/4): 102-112. Badian, E. 1959. ‘Caesar's Cursus and the Intervals between Offices,’ The Journal of Roman Studies 49(1): 81-89. Bahat, D. 2009. ‘The Architectural Origins of Herod’s ’, in D. M. Jacobson and N. Kokkinos eds. Herod and Augustus: Papers Presented at the IJS Conference, 21st-23rd June 2005 Leiden: Brill, 235-47. Balty, J. C. 1988. ‘Apamea in Syria in the Second and Third Centuries AD,’ The Journal of Roman Studies 78(1): 91-104. Bar-Ilan, M. 2000. ‘The Attitude toward Mamzerim in Jewish Society in Late Antiquity,’ Jewish History 14(2): 125-170. Bartel, B. 1980. ‘Colonialism and Cultural Responses: Problems Related to Roman Provincial Analysis,’ World Archaeology 12(1): 11-26. Bartlett, J. R. 1973. The First and Second Books of the Maccabees, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

126

Berlin, A. M. 1997. ‘Archaeological Sources for the : Between Large Forces: Palestine in the Hellenistic period,’ The Biblical Archaeologist 60(1): 2-51. Bernstein, M. J. 2004. ‘Women and Children in Legal and Liturgical texts from Qumran,’ Dead Sea Discoveries 11(2): 191-211. Bickerman, E. J. 1937. Der Gott der Makkabaer, Berlin: Schocken Verlag. Bickerman, E. J. 1947. ‘The Warning Inscriptions of Herod's Temple,’ The Jewish Quarterly Review 37(4): 387-405. Bickerman, E. J. 1962. From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees: Foundations of Post- Biblical Judaism, New York: Schocken Books. Bickerman, E. J. 1979. The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, Leiden: Brill. Bickerman, E. J. 1988. The Jews in the Greek Age, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bilde, P. 1988. Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and their Importance, Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press. Birley, A. and Syme, R. S. 1995. Anatolica: Studies in Strabo, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Blenkinsopp, J. 1991. ‘The Social Context of the "Outsider Woman" in Proverbs 1-9,’ Biblica 72(4): 457-473. Blenkinsopp, J. 1997. ‘The Family in First Temple Israel’, in L. Perdue, J. Blenkinsopp, J. J. Collins and C. Meyers eds. Familes in Ancient Israel, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 48-103. Borg, B. 2004. Paideia: The World of the Second Sophistic, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bowersock, G. 1994. Roman Arabia, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bowersock, G. 2005. ‘Foreign Elites at Rome’, in J. Edmondson, S. Mason and J. Rives eds. Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 53-62. Braund, D. 1983. ‘Four Notes on the Herods,’ The Classical Quarterly 33(1): 239-242. Braund, D. C. 1984a. Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of the Client Kingship, London: Croom Helm. Braund, D. C. 1984b. ‘Berenice in Rome,’ Historia 33(1): 120-23. Breeze, D. J. and Dobson, B. 1993. Roman Officers and Frontiers, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Büchler, A. 1926. ‘The Levitical Iimpurity of the Gentile in Palestine before the Year 70,’ The Jewish Quarterly Review 17(1): 1-81. Burr, V. 1955. Tiberius Iulius Alexander, Bonn: Habelt.

127

Burrell, B. 2009. ‘Herod’s Caesarea on Sebastos: Urban Structures and Influences’, in D. M. Jacobson and N. Kokkinos eds. Herod and Augustus: Papers Presented at the IJS Conference, 21st-23rd June 2005, Leiden: Brill, 217-33. Cappelletti, S. 2006. The Jewish Community of Rome from the Second Century BC to the Third Century CE, Leiden: Brill. Carney, T. F. 1973. ‘Prosopography: Payoffs and Pitfalls,’ Phoenix 27(2): 156-179. Cartledge, P., Garnsey, P. and Gruen, E. S. 1997. Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography, Berkeley: University of California Press. Chancey, M. A. and Porter, A. L. 2001. ‘The Archaeology of Roman Palestine,’ Near Eastern Archaeology 64(4): 164-203. Chaumont, M. 1992. ‘Remarques sur la Dédicace d'un Monument (ex-voto) élevé à Cybèle par la Fille d'un Roi Tigrane à Falerii Veteres (Cività Castellana),’ Ancient Society 23(1): 43-60. Cohen, G. M. 1972. ‘The Hellenistic Military Colony. A Herodian Example,’ Transactions of the American Philological Association 103(1): 83-95. Cohen, J. M. 2002a. ‘Displacement in the Matriarchal Home: A Psychological Study of the Abraham-Sarah marriage,’ Jewish Bible Quarterly 30(2): 90-96. Cohen, S. 1983. ‘From the Bible to the : The Prohibition of Intermarriage,’ Hebrew Annual Review 7(1): 23-39. Cohen, S. and Shwartz, J. eds. 2006. Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism, Leiden: Brill. Cohen, S. J. D. 1989. ‘The Rabbinic Conversion Ceremony,’ Journal of Jewish Studies 40(2): 177-203. Cohen, S. J. D. 1999. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, Berkeley: University of California Press. Cohen, S. J. D. 2002b. ‘Judaism without Circumcision and "Judaism" without "Circumcision" in Ignatius,’ The Harvard Theological Review 95(4): 395-415. Collins, J. J. 1997a. ‘Marriage, Divorce, and Family in Second Temple Judaism’, in L. Perdue, J. Blenkinsopp, J. J. Collins and C. Meyers eds. Families in Ancient Israel, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 104-162. Collins, J. J. 1997b. ‘Varieties of Judaism in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods,’ The Journal of Religion 77(4): 605-611. Collins, J. J. 2001. ‘Cult and Culture: the Limits of in Judea’, in J. J. Collins and G. E. Sterling eds. Hellenism in the , Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 38–61. 128

Collins, J. J. 2005. Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule, Leiden: Brill. Collins, J. J. and Sterling, G. E. 2001. Hellenism in the Land of Israel, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Cooley, M. G. L. and Cooley, A. E. 2004. Pompeii: A Sourcebook, Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Cotton, H. 1993. ‘The Guardianship of Son of Babatha: Roman and Local Law in the Province of Arabia,’ The Journal of Roman Studies 83(1): 94-108. Cotton, H. 1997. ‘The Guardian (ἐπίτροπος) of a Woman in the Documents from the Judaean Desert,’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 118(1): 267-273. Cotton, H. and Greenfield, J. C. 1994. ‘Babatha's Property and the Law of Succession in the Babatha Archive,’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 104(1): 211-224. Cotton, H. M. and Wörrle, M. 2007. ‘Seleukos IV to Heliodoros. A New Dossier of Royal Correspondence from Israel,’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 159(1): 191-205. Crook, J. 1951. ‘Titus and Berenice,’ The American Journal of Philology 72(2): 162-75. Davidovich, T. 2010. ‘Emphasizing the Daughter of Pharaoh,’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 24(1): 71-84. Davies, J. 1971. Athenian Propertied Families, 600-300 BC, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Degrassi, A. ed. 1952. I Fasti Consolari Dell'Impero Romano, Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Dentan, R. and Moore, C. 1991. ‘Judith’, in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press, 18. Devijver, H. 1989. The Equestrian Officers of the Roman Imperial Army, Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Diebner, B. J. 1990. ‘"For he had married a Cushite woman" (Num 12:1),’ Nubica 2(1): 499-504. Dougherty, C. and Kurke, L. 2003. The Cultures within Ancient Greek Culture: Contact, Conflict, Collaboration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Droysen, J. G. 1877. Geschichte des Hellenismus, Gotha: Perthes. Eck, W. 2000. ‘Emperor, Senate and Magistrates’, in A. K. Bowman, P. Garnsey and D. Rathbone eds. The Cambridge Ancient History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 214-237.

129

Eck, W. 2002. ‘Imperial Administration and Epigraphy: In Defence of Prosopography’, in A. K. Bowman, H. M. Cotton, M. Goodman and S. Price eds. Representations of Empire: Rome and the Mediterranean World, Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy, 131-152. Eck, W. 2009. ‘ The Presence, Role and Significance of Latin in the Epigraphy and Culture of the Roman Near East’, in H. M. Cotton, R. G. Hoyland, J. J. Price and D. J. Wasserstein eds. From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East, Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 14-52. Eddy, S. K. 1961. The King is Dead. Studies in the Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism, 334-331 B.C, Lincoln: Nebraska University Press. Edgar, C. C. and Mathaf, A.-M. 1971. Zenon Papyri, New York: Olms. Eichhorn, D. M. 1954. ‘Conversions to Judaism by Reform and Conservative Rabbis,’ Jewish Social Studies 16(4): 299-318. Elledge, C. D. 2010. ‘"From the Beginning it was not so...": Jesus, Divorce, and Remarriage in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,’ Perspectives in Religious Studies 37(4): 371-389. Epstein, L. M. 1942. Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Feldman, L. 1986. ‘How Much Hellenism in Jewish Palestine?,’ Hebrew Union College Annual 57(1): 83-111. Feldman, L. 1996. Studies in , Leiden: Brill. Fitzmyer, J. A. 1971. ‘A Re-Study of an Elephantine Aramaic Marriage Contract (AP 15)’, in H. Goedicke ed. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 137-168. Fleishman, J. 2009. ‘Recognition of Children in Ancient Near Eastern Law (Part One),’ Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 35(2): 63-91. France, R. T. 1979. ‘Herod and the Children of Bethlehem,’ Novum Testamentum 21(2): 98-120. Freyne, S. 2001. ‘Galileans, Phoenicians and Itrureans: A Study of Regional Contrasts in the Hellenistic Age’, in J. J. Collins and G. E. Sterling eds. Hellenism in the Land of Israel, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 182 - 215. Friedman, M. A. 1996. ‘Babatha's "Ketubba": Some Preliminary Observations,’ Israel Exploration Journal 46(1/2): 55-76. Garrett, A. 2011. ‘A New Understanding of the Divorce and Remarriage Legislation in Deuteronomy 24:1-4,’ Jewish Bible Quarterly 39(4): 245-250. 130

Geiger, J. 2009. ‘Rome and Jerusalem: Public Building and the Economy’, in D. M. Jacobson and N. Kokkinos eds. Herod and Augustus: Papers Presented at the IJS Conference, 21st-23rd June 2005, Leiden: Brill, 157-69. Gillihan, Y. M. 2002. ‘Jewish Laws on Illicit Marriage, the Defilement of Offspring, and the Holiness of the Temple: A New Halakic Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:14,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 121(4): 711-744. Goldhill, S. 2001. Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodblatt, D. 1987a. ‘Agrippa I and Palestinian Judaism in the First Century,’ Jewish History 2(1): 7-32. Goodblatt, D. 1987b. ‘Josephus on Parthian Babylonia (Antiquities XVIII, 310-379),’ Journal of the American Oriental Society 107(4): 605-622. Goodman, A. M. 1985. ‘Rationale for "Matrilineal" and the Failure of "Patrilineal",’ Judaism 34(1): 28-31. Goodman, M. 1987. The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome AD 66-70, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodman, M. 1990. ‘Identity and Authority in Ancient Judaism,’ Judaism 39(2): 192-201. Goren, Y. 2007. ‘Scientific Examination of a Seleucid Limestone Stele,’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 159(1): 206-216. Graham, A. J. 1974. ‘The Limitations of Prosopography in Roman Imperial History (With Special Reference to the Severan Period) ’ Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2(1): 136-157. Grant, M. 1973. The Jews in the Roman World, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Grintz, Y. M. 2007a. ‘First Book of Maccabees’, in M. Berenbaum and F. Skolnik eds. Encyclopaedia Judaica, Detroit: Macmillan, 316-317. Grintz, Y. M. 2007b. ‘Second Book of Maccabees’, in M. Berenbaum and F. Skolnik eds. Encyclopaedia Judaica, Detroit: Macmillan, 317-318. Grintz, Y. M. and Bayer, B. 2007. ‘Book of Judith’, in M. Berenbaum and F. Skolnik eds. Encyclopaedia Judaica, Detroit: Macmillan, 566-569. Gruen, E. S. 1993. ‘Cultural Fictions and Cultural Identity,’ Transactions of the American Philological Association 123:1-14. Gruen, E. S. 1997. ‘Fact and Fiction: Jewish Legends in Hellenistic Context’, in P. Cartledge, P. Garnsey and E. S. Gruen eds. Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography, Berkeley: University of California Press, 72-88.

131

Gruen, E. S. 2009. ‘Herod, Rome and the Diaspora’, in D. M. Jacobson and N. Kokkinos eds. Herod and Augustus: Papers Presented at the IJS Conference, 21st-23rd June 2005, Leiden: Brill, 13-27. Habinek, T. N. and Schiesaro, A. 1997. The Roman Cultural Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halfmann, H. 1979. Die Senatoren aus dem Ostlichen Teil des Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Hanson, K. C. 1989a. ‘The Herodians and Mediterranean Kinship Part I: Genealogy and Descent,’ Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 19(3): 75-84. Hanson, K. C. 1989b. ‘The Herodians and Mediterranean Kinship Part II: Marriage and Divorce,’ Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 19(4): 142-151. Hanson, K. C. 1990. ‘The Herodians and Mediterranean Kinship Part III: Economics,’ Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 20(1): 10-21. Harrington, D. J. 1988. The Maccabean Revolt: Anatomy of a Biblical Revolution, Wilmington: M. Glazier. Harrington, D. J. and Strugnell, J. 1993. ‘Qumran Cave 4 Texts: A New Publication,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 112(3): 491-499. Haverfield, F. 1915. The of , Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hayes, C. 1999. ‘Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,’ Harvard Theological Review 92(1): 3-36. Heller, M. 1988. Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hengel, M. 1974. Judasim and Hellenism, Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Hengel, M. 1980. Jews, Greeks, and Barbarians: Aspects of the Hellenization of Judaism in the pre-Christian Period, London: SCM Press. Hengel, M. 1989. The "Hellenization" of Judaea in the First Century after Christ, London: SCM Press. Hengel, M. 2001. ‘Judaism and Hellenism Revisted’, in J. J. Collins and G. E. Sterling eds. Hellenism in the Land of Israel, Norte Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 6-37. Hoehner, H. 1972. , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoover, O. D. 2003. ‘The Seleucid Coinage of John Hyrcanus I: The Transformation of a Dynastic Symbol in Hellenistic Judaea,’ American Journal of Numismatics 15(1): 29-39. Huitink, L and van Henten, J. W. 2009. ‘The Publication of Flavius Josephus’ Works and their Audiences,’ Zutot 6(1): 49-60. 132

Ilan, T. 1992. ‘Julia Crispina, Daughter of Berenicianus, a Herodian Princess in the Babatha Archive: A Case Study in Historical Identification,’ The Jewish Quarterly Review 82(3/4): 361-381. Ilan, T. 1993a. ‘Premarital Cohabitation in Ancient Judea: The Evidence of the Babatha Archive and the Mishnah (Ketubbot 1.4),’ Harvard Theological Review 86(3): 247- 264. Ilan, T. 1993b. ‘Queen Salamzion Alexandra and Judas Aristobulus I's Widow: Did Jannaeus Alexander Contract a Levirate Marriage?,’ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 24(2): 181-190. Ilan, T. 1998. ‘Patriarchy, the Land of Israel and the Legal Position of Jewish Women in Rabbinic Literature,’ Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women's Studies & Gender Issues 1(1): 42-50. Isaac, B. H. 1998a. The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers, Leiden: Brill. Jackson, B. S. 2011. ‘The ‘Institutions’ of Marriage and Divorce in the Hebrew Bible,’ Journal of Semitic Studies 56(2): 221-251. Jacobson, D., M. 1988a. ‘King Herod's Heroic Public Image,’ Revue Biblique 95(1): 386- 403. Jacobson, D. M. 2001a. ‘Three Roman Client Kings: Herod of Judaea, Archelaus of Cappadocia and Juba of Mauretania,’ Palestine Exploration Quarterly 133(1): 22- 38. Jacobson, D. M. and Kokkinos, N. 2009. Herod and Augustus: Papers Presented at the IJS conference, 21st-23rd June 2005, Leiden: Brill. Johnson, S. and Callaway, M. 1991a. ‘1 Maccabees,’ in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical Books, New York: Oxford University Press, 186. Johnson, S. and Callaway, M. 1991b. ‘2 Maccabees,’ in B. W. Anderson, B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical books, New York: Oxford University Press, 228. Johnson, S. R. 2004. Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish identity: Third Maccabees in its Cultural Context, Berkeley: University of California Press. Jones, B. 1984. The Emperor Titus, London: Croom Helm. Jones, A. H. M. 1938. The Herods of Judaea, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jones, A. H. M., Martindale, J. R. and Morris, J. 1971. The Prosopography of the later Roman Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

133

Jones, C. P. 2009. ‘The Inscription from Tel Maresha for Olympiodoros,’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 171(1): 100-104. Jordan, R. 1974. Berenice, New York: Barnes & Noble Books. Kasher, A. 1988. Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs: Relations of the Jews in Eretz- Israel with the Nations of the Frontier and the Desert during the Hellenistic and Roman Era (332 BCE-70 CE), Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr. Katzoff, R. 1996. ‘Greek and Jewish Marriage Formulas,’ in D. Schaps, R. Katzof, Y. Petroff and D. Sohlberg eds. Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg, Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 223-234. Katzoff, R. and Schaps, D. eds. 2005. Law in the Documents of the Judaean Desert, Leiden: Brill. Kirchner, J. 1901. Prosopographia Attica, Berlin: Georg Reimer. Klawans, J. 1995. ‘Notions of Gentile Impurity in Ancient Judaism,’ AJS Review 20(2): 285-312. Knoppers, G. N. 2001. ‘Intermarriage, Social Complexity, and Ethnic Diversity in the Genealogy of Judah,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 120(1): 15-30. Kokkinos, N. 1998. The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Kottsieper, I. 2000. ‘”We have a Little Sister”: Aspects of the Brother-Sister Relationship in Ancient Israel,’ in J. W. van Henten and A. Brenner eds. Families and Family Relations as Represented in Early and Early Christianities: Texts and Fictions, Leiden, Deo Publishing. Kulp, J. 2004. ‘The Participation of a Court in the Jewish Conversion Process,’ The Jewish Quarterly Review 94(3): 437-470. Lange, A. 2007. ‘The Significance of the pre-Maccabean Literature from the Qumran Library for the Understanding of the Hebrew Bible’, in A. Lemaire ed. Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007, Leiden: Brill, 171-218. Larsson Lovén, L. and Strömberg, A. 2010. Ancient Marriage in Myth and Reality, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Lavan, M. 2013. Slaves to Rome: Paradigms of Empire in Roman Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lehmann, C. M. and Holum, K. G. 2000. The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima, Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Levine, L. I. 1975. Caesarea under Roman Rule, Leiden: Brill.

134

Levine, L. I. 1998. Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence?, Seattle: University of Washington Press. Lewis, N. 1997. ‘Judah's Bigamy,’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 116(1): 152. Lewis, N., Yadin, Y. and Greenfield, J. C. eds. 1989. The Documents from the Bar Kokbha Period in the Cave of Letters: Greek Papyri, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Lichtenberger, A. 2009. ‘Herod and Rome: Was Romanisation a Goal of the Building Policy of Herod?’, in D. M. Jacobson and N. Kokkinos eds. Herod and Augustus: Papers Presented at the IJS conference, 21st-23rd June 2005 Leiden: Brill, 43-63. Lieberman, S. 1950. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century BCE - IV Century CE, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary. Ma, J. 2013. Statues and Citites: Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Magie, D. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Magness, J. 2001. ‘Where is Herod's Tomb at Herodium?,’ Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 322(1): 43-46. McCollough, W. S. 1975. The History and Literature of the Palestinian Jews from Cyrus to Herod, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Meier, J. P. 2000. ‘The Historical Jesus and the Historical Herodians,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 119(4): 740-746. Meshorer, Y. 2001. A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba, Jerusalem: Yad ben-Zvi Press. Meyers, C. 1997. ‘The Family in Early Israel’, in L. Perdue, J. Blenkinsopp, J. J. Collins and C. Meyers eds. Families in Ancient Israel, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1-47. Meyers, E. 2002. ‘Jewish Culture in Greco-Roman Palestine’, in D. Biale ed. Cultures of the Jews: A New History, New York: Schocken Books, 135-180. Millar, F. 1993. The Roman Near East, 31 BC-AD 337, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Millar, F. 1998. ‘Ethnic Identity in the Roman Near East, 325-450: Language, Religion, and Culture,’ Mediterranean Archaeology 11(1): 159-176. Milroy, L. and Muysken, P. 1995. One Speaker, Two Languages: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Code-Switching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

135

Mitchell, S and French, D. eds. 2012. The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Ankara (Ancyra), Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck. Mitford, T. 1979. ‘Cappadocia and Armenia Minor: Historical Setting of the Limes’, in H. Temporini ed. Aufstieg und Niedergang Der Römischen Welt II.7.2, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1169-1228. Modrzejewski, J. M. 2005. ‘What is Hellenistic Law? The Documents of the Judaean Desert in the Light of the Papyri from Egypt’, in R. K. D. Schaps ed. Law in the Documents of the Judaean Desert, Leiden: Brill, 7-21. Moen, I. J. 2009. ‘Marriage and Divorce in the Herodian family: A Case Study of Diversity in Late Second Temple Judaism.’ Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation Thesis, Duke University. Mommsen, T. 1865. Romische Geschichte, Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Moore, C. A. 1985. Judith: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Garden City: Doubleday. Morgan, T. 1998. Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Netzer, E. 1979. ‘Herodium, 's prestige building project,’ Epistimoniki epetiris tis Filosofikis Scholis tou Panepistimiou Athinon 28(1): 523-547. Netzer, E. 2009. ‘Palaces and the Planning of Complexes in Herod’s Realm,’ in D. M. Jacobson and N. Kokkinos eds. Herod and Augustus: Papers Presented at the IJS Conference, 21st-23rd June 2005 Leiden: Brill, 171-9. Neufeld, E. 1944. Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws: With Special References to General Semitic Laws and Customs, London: Longmans, Green and Company. Neusner, J. 1964. ‘The Conversion of Adiabene to Judaism: A New Perspective,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 83(1): 60-66. Otto, W. 1913. Herodes: Beitrage zur Geschichte des Letzten Judischen Konigshauses, Stuttgart: JB Metzler. Oudshoorn, J. G. 2007. The Relationship between Roman and Local Law in the Babatha and Salome Komaise Archives: General Analysis and Three Case Studies on the Law of Succession, Guardianship and Marriage, Leiden: Brill. Patrich, J. 2009. ‘Herodian Entertainment Structures,’ in D. M. Jacobson and N. Kokkinos eds. Herod and Augustus: Papers Presented at the IJS Conference, 21st-23rd June 2005, Leiden: Brill, 181-215. Perdue, L., Blenkinsopp, J., Collins, J. J. and Meyers, C. eds. 1997. Familes in Ancient Israel, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. 136

Pestman, P. W. 1981. A Guide to the Zenon Archive, Leiden: Brill. Peters, F. E. 1983. ‘Hellenism and the Near East,’ The Biblical Archaeologist 46(1): 33-39. Plietzsch, S. 2008. ‘Early Jewish and Christian Memories of Moses' Wives: Exogamist Marriage and Ethnic Identity,’ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 39(3): 443-444. Prosopographia Imperii Romani. 1897. Prosopographia imperii romani. Saec. I. II. III, Berolini: Georgium Reimerum. Pryke, E. J. 1968. ‘The Identity of the Qumran Sect: A Reconsideration,’ Novum Testamentum 10(1): 43-61. Qimron, E. and Strugnell, J. eds. 1994. Qumran Cave 4: V Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-Torah, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rabinowitz, J. J. 1953. ‘Marriage Contracts in Ancient Egypt in the Light of Jewish Sources,’ Harvard Theological Review 46(2): 91-98. Rajak, T. 1990. ‘The Hasmoneans and the Uses of Hellenism,’ in P. Davies and R. White eds. A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 261-280. Rajak, T. 2001. ‘Greeks and Barbarians in Josephus,’ in J. J. Collins and G. E. Sterling eds. Hellenism in the Land of Israel, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 158-181. Rajak, T. 2002. Josephus: The Historian and his Society, London: Duckworth. Ranon, K. 1995. ‘Polygamy in "P. Yadin?",’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 109(1): 128-132. Ranon, K. 2007. ‘"P. Yadin" 21 and Rabbinic Law on Widows' Rights,’ The Jewish Quarterly Review 97(4): 545-575. Rattray, S. 1987a. ‘Marriage Rules, Kinship Terms and Family Structure in the Bible,’ Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 26(1): 537-544. Rey-Coquais, J. P. 1973. ‘Inscriptions Grecques d'Apamée,’ Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 23(1): 39-84. Richardson, P. 1996. Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Richardson, P. 2004. Building Jewish in the Roman East, Waco: Baylor University Press. Rocca, S. 2008. Herod's Judaea: a Mediterranean State in the Classical World, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Rogers, P. 1980. ‘Titus, Berenice and Mucianus,’ Historia 29(1): 86-95.

137

Rostovtzeff, M. I. 1941. ‘The Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman Times,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 1(1): 25-40. Rowley, H. H. 1940. ‘Jewish Proselyte Baptism and the Baptism of John,’ Hebrew Union College Annual 15(1): 131-34. Rozenberg, S and Mevorah, D. 2013. Herod the Great: The King’s Final Journey, Jerusalem: The Israel Museum. Rüpke, J. 2008. Fasti Sacerdotum: A Prosopography of Pagan, Jewish, and Christian Religious Officials in the City of Rome, 300 BC to AD 499, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rutgers, L. V. 1994. ‘Roman Policy towards the Jews: Expulsions from the City of Rome during the First Century CE,’ 13(1): 56-74. Salomies, O. 2001. ‘Names and Identities: Onomastics and Prosopography,’ in J. Bodel ed. Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient History from Inscriptions, London: Routledge, 57- 94. Sartre, M. 2004. The under Rome, Cambridge: The Belknap Press. Satlow, M. L. 2001. Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Satlow, M. L. 2005. ‘Marriage Payments and Succession Strategies in the Documents from the Judaean Desert,’ Law in the Documents of the Judaean Desert, Leiden: Brill, 51-65. Schiffman, L. H. 2011. ‘Laws Pertaining to Women and Sexuality in the Early Stratum of the Damascus Document’, Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture, Leiden: Brill, 547-569. Schremer, A. 1997. ‘How Much Jewish Polygyny in Roman Palestine?,’ Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 63(1): 181-223. Schwartz, D. R. 1990. Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea, Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr. Schwartz, D. R. 2005. ‘Herodians and Ioudaioi in Flavian Rome,’ in J. Edmondson, S. Mason and J. Rives eds. Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 63-78. Shatzman, I. 1991. The Armies of the Hasmoneans and Herod, Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr. Shaw, B. D. and Saller, R. P. 1984. ‘Close-Kin Marriage in Roman Society?,’ Man 19(3): 432-444. Sherwin-White, A. N. 1984. Roman Foreign Policy in the East: 168 BC to AD 1, London: Duckworth.

138

Sherwin-White, S. M. and Kuhrt, A. eds. 1987. Hellenism in the East: Interaction of Greek and non-Greek Civilizations from Syria to after Alexander, London: Duckworth. Small, A. 2007. ‘Urban, Suburban and Rural Religion in the Roman Period,’ in P. Foss and J. J. Dobbins eds. The World of Pompeii, Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 184-211. Smallwood, E. M. 1981. The Jews under Roman Rule: from Pompey to : A Study in Political Relations, Leiden: Brill. Snyder, G. F. 1998. ‘The Interaction of Jews with non-Jews in Rome,’ in K. P. Donfried and P. Richardson eds. Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 69-90. Solomon, Z. 1960. ‘The Offspring of Intermarriage,’ The Jewish Quarterly Review 51(2): 135-140. Southwood, K. 2011. ‘"And they Could not Understand Jewish Speech": Language, Ethnicity, and Nehemiah's Intermarriage Crisis,’ Journal of Theological Studies 62(1): 1-19. Steinberg, N. 1991. ‘Alliance or Descent: The Function of Marriage in Genesis,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 51(1): 45-55. Stern, M. 2007. ‘Papyri of Zenon’, in M. Berenbaum and F. Skolnik eds. Encyclopaedia Judaica, Detroit: Macmillan, 509. Strugnell, J. 1996. ‘More on Wives and Marriage in the Dead Sea Scrolls: (4Q416 2 ii 21),’ Revue de Qumran 17(1-4): 537-547. Sullivan, R. 1978a. ‘The Dynasty of Commagene’, in J. Vogt ed. Aufstieg und Niedergang Der Römischen Welt II.8, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 732-798. Sullivan, R. 1978b. ‘The Dynasty of Emesa’, in J. Vogt ed. Aufstieg und Niedergang Der Römischen Welt II.8, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 198-219. Sullivan, R. 1978c. ‘The Dynasty of Judea in the First Century’, in J. Vogt ed. Aufstieg und Niedergang Der Römischen Welt II.8, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 296-354. Sullivan, R. 1978d. ‘Papyri Reflecting the Eastern Dynastic Network’, in J. Vogt ed. Aufstieg und Niedergang Der Römischen Welt II.8, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 908- 939. Sullivan, R. 1979a. ‘Dynasts in Pontus’, in H. Temporini ed. Aufstieg und Niedergang Der Römischen Welt II.7.2, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 913-930. Sullivan, R. 1979b. ‘The Dynasty of Cappadocia’, in H. Temporini ed. Aufstieg und Niedergang Der Römischen Welt II.7.2, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1125-1168.

139

Sullivan, R. D. 1990. Near Eastern Royalty and Rome, 100-30 BC, Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. Sundwall, J. 1910. Nachtrage zur Prosopographia Attica, Helsinfors: J. Simelli Arfvingars Boktryckeriaktiebolag. Suolahti, J. 1955. The Junior Officers of the in the Republican Period: A Study in Social Structure, Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Szemler, G. J. 1971. ‘Religion, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the ,’ Numen 18(2): 103-131. Tcherikover, A. 1979. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, New York: Atheneum. Tcherikover, V. 1958. ‘The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas,’ The Harvard Theological Review 51(2): 59-85. Thompson, D. 2005. ‘Apollonius (3)’, in S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth eds. Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tigay, J. H. 1993. ‘Examination of the Accused Bride in 4Q159 : Forensic Medicine at Qumran,’ Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 22: 129-134. Traill, J. 1994. Persons of Ancient Athens, Toronto: Athenians. Turner, E. G. 1954. ‘Tiberivs Ivlivs Alexander,’ The Journal of Roman Studies 44(1-2): 54- 64. Van der Horst, P. 2001. ‘Greek in Jewish Palestine in Light of Jewish Epigraphy’, in J. J. Collins and G. E. Sterling eds. Hellenism in the Land of Israel, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 158-181. Van Henten, J. W. 2001. ‘Rebellion Under Herod the Great and Archelaus: Prominent Motifs and Narrative Function,’ in M. Popovic ed. The Jewish Revolt Against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Leiden: Brill, 241-270. Van Henten, J. W. 2006. ‘Ruler of God? The Demolition of Herod’s Eagle,’ in J. Fotopoulos ed. The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune, Leiden: Brill, 257-286. Van Henten, J. W. 2008a. ‘Matthew 2:16 and Josephus’ Portrayals of Herod,’ in R. Buitenwerf, H. Hollander and J. Tromp eds. Jesus, Paul, and Early Christianity: Studies in Honour of Henk Jan de Jonge, Leiden: Brill, 101-122. Van Henten, J. W. 2008b. ‘The Panegyris in Jerusalem: Responses to Herod’s Initiative (Josephus, Antiquities 15.268-291),’ in A. Houtman, A.F. de Jong and M. Misset- van de Weg eds. Empyschoi Logoi – Religious Innovations in Antiquities. Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst, Leiden: Brill, 151-173.

140

Van Henten, J. W. 2010. ‘Blaming the Women: Women at Herod’s Court in Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities 15.23-231,’ in S. Ahearne-Kroll, P. Holloway and J. Kelhoffer eds. Women and Gender in Ancient Religions: Interdisciplinary Approaches, Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. Wacholder, B. 1962. Nicolaus of Damascus, Berkeley: University of California Press. Waldbaum, J. 1997. ‘Greeks in the East or Greeks and the East?: Problems in the Definition and Recognition of Presence,’ Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 305(1): 1-17. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1989. ‘Rome's Cultural Revolution,’ The Journal of Roman Studies 79(1): 157-164. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1998. ‘To be Roman, go Greek: Thoughts on Hellenization at Rome,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 42(1): 79-91. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 2008. Rome's Cultural Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wasserstein, A. 1989. ‘A Marriage Contract from the Province of Arabia Nova: Notes on Papyrus Yadin 18,’ Jewish Quarterly Review 80(1-2): 93-130. Webster, J. 2001. ‘Creolizing the Roman Provinces,’ American Journal of Archaeology 105(2): 209-225. Weinert, F. D. 1974. ‘4Q159: Legislation for an Eessene Community Outside of Qumran?,’ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 5(2): 179-207. Weisberg, D. E. 2009. Levirate Marriage and the Family in Ancient Judaism, Waltham: Brandeis University Press. Weitzman, S. 1999. ‘ and the Shifting Role of Gentiles in Hasmonean Ideology,’ The Harvard Theological Review 92(1): 37-59. Werman, C. 1997. ‘"Jubilees 30": Building a Paradigm for the Ban on Intermarriage,’ The Harvard Theological Review 90(1): 1-22. Whittaker, C. R. 1995. ‘Integration of the Early Roman West: The example of Africa’, in J. Metzler, M. Millett, N. Roymans and J. Slofstra eds. Integration in the Early Roman West: The Role of Culture and Ideology, Luxembourg: Musée National d'Histoire et d'Art, 19-32. Winslow, K. S. 2005. Early Jewish and Christian Memories of Moses' Wives: Exogamist Marriage and Ethnic Identity, Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.

141

Woolf, G. 1994. ‘Becoming Roman, Staying Greek: Culture, Identity and the Civilizing Process in the Roman East,’ Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 40(1): 116-143. Woolf, G. 1995. ‘The Formation of Roman Provincial Cultures’, in J. Metzler, M. Millett, N. Roymans and J. Slofstra eds. Integration in the early Roman West: The Role of Culture and Ideology, Luxembourg: Musée National d'Histoire et d'Art, 9-18. Woolf, G. 1997. ‘Beyond Romans and Natives,’ World Archaeology 28(3): 339-350. Wright, G. E. 1938. ‘Herod's Nabataean Neighbor,’ The Biblical Archaeologist 1(1): 3-4. Yadin, Y. ed. 2002. The Documents from the Bar Bokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Plates, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Yadin, Y., Greenfield, J. C. and Yardeni, A. 1994. ‘Babatha's "Ketubba",’ Israel Exploration Journal 44(1/2): 75-101. Yadin, Y., Greenfield, J. C., Yardeni, A. and Levine, B. A. eds. 2002. The Documents from the Bar Kokbha Period in the Cave of Letters: Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabataean- Aramaic Papyri, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Yardeni, A. 1997. ‘A Draft of a Deed on an Ostracon from Khirbet Qumrân,’ Israel Exploration Journal 47(3/4): 233-237. Young, R. 1995. Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture, and Race, London: Routledge. Zarrow, E. M. 2006. ‘Imposing Romanisation: Flavian Coins and Jewish Identity,’ Journal of Jewish Studies 57(1): 44-55. Zeitlin, S. 1972. The Book of Judith, Leiden: Brill.

142

Appendix 1 – Herodian Prosopography Sorted alphabetically by name and integrated with the prosopography of Kokkinos 1998: 363-6. A brief explanatory relationship is noted, where possible, after each name. Individuals with unknown names listed separately. Individuals included in this prosopography are either direct descendants of Antipas I, grandfather of Herod I, or are spouses by marriage or betrothal. The parents and siblings of spouses are also included, where known.

Key: s. - son; d. - daughter; h. - husband; w. - wife; r. - relative; ? - uncertain.

Name (relationship)

Achaibus (s. of Joseph I?)

Agrippa I (s. of Aristobulus IV and Berenice I, h. of Cyprus III)

Agrippa II (s. of Agrippa I and Cyprus III)

Agrippa III (s. of Drusilla and Felix)

Agrippa IV (s. Aristobulus VI and Salome III)

Agrippa V, C. J. (s. of Alexander V)

Agrippa VI, L. J. (s. G. J. Agrippa)

Agrippinus (s. of Mariamme V and Demetrius)

Alexander I (s. of Aristobulus II, h. of Alexandra)

Alexander II (s. of Herod I and Mariamme I, h. of Glaphyra)

Alexander III (s. of Alexander II and Glaphyra)

Alexander IV (s. of Phasael II and Salampsio)

Alexander V (s. of Tigranes I, h. of Jotape III)

Alexander, M. J. (s. of Alexander, h. of Berenice II)

Alexandra (d. of Hyrcanus, w. of Alexander I)

Alexandra II (d. of Phasael II and Salampsio, w. Timius of Cyprus)

Alexas I (h. of Salome I)

Alexas II Calleas? (w. of Daughter of Salome I, s. of Alexas I)

Alexas III Helcias (s. of Alexas II Calleas and Daughter of Salome I?, h. of Cyprus IV)

143

Ammia, Julia (d. of Tigranes?)

Antigonus I (s. of Aristobulus)

Antipas I (Herodian founder)

Antipas II (s. Herod I and Malthace, h. of d. of Aretas IV, h. of Herodias)

Antipas III (r. to Salome I?)

Antipater I (s. of Antipas I, h. of Cyprus I)

Antipater II(s. of Herod I and Doris)

Antipater III (s. of Salome I and Costobar I, h. of Cyprus II)

Antipater IV(s. of Phasael II and Salampsio)

Archelaus I (s. Herod I and Malthace, h. of Mariamme III, h. of Glaphyra)

Archelaus, J. (s. to Cyprus IV and Alexas Helcias?, h. of Mariamme V)

Aregetas?

Aristobulus I (s. John Hyrcanus)

Aristobulus II (s. Alexander Jannaeus and Alexandra I)

Aristobulus III (s. of Alexander I and Alexandra)

Aristobulus IV (s. of Herod I and Mariamme I, h. of Berenice I)

Aristobulus V (s. of Aristobulus IV and Berenice I, h. of Jotape I)

Aristobulus VI (s. Herod IV and Mariamme IV, h. of Salome III)

Aristobulus VII(s. Aristobulus VI and Salome III)

Azizus (s. of Sampsigeramus II, h. of Drusilla)

Berenice I (d. of Salome I and Costobar I, w. of Aristobulus IV, w. of Theudion)

Berenice II (d. of Agrippa I and Cyprus III, w. of M. J. Alexander, w. of Herod IV, w. of Polemo II)

Berenice III (d. Mariamme V and J. Archelaus)

Berenicianus (s. of Herod IV and Berenice II)

Berenicianus, C. J. A.? (s. of Alexander and Jotape III?)

Cleopatra (w. of Herod I)

Costobar I (h. of Salome I)

Costobar II (r. to Salome I)

144

Cyprus I (w. of Antipater I)

Cyprus II (d. of Herod I and Mariamme I, w. of Antipater III)

Cyprus III (d. of Phasael II and Salampsio, w. of Agrippa I)

Cyprus IV (d. of Antipater III and Cyprus II, w. of Alexas III Helcias)

Cyprus V (d. of Cyprus IV and Alexas III Helcias)

Demetrius (h. of Mariamme V)

Doris (w. of Herod I)

Drusilla (d. of Agrippa I and Cyprus III, w. of Azizus, w. of Felix)

Drusus (s. of Agrippa I and Cyprus III)

Eleazar (s. Simon Boethus)

Elpis (w. of Herod I)

Epiphanes IV of Commagene (betrothed to Drusilla)

Felix (h. of Drusilla)

Glaphyra (d. of Archelaus of Cappadocia, h. of Alexander I, h. of Archelaus I)

Herod I (s. of Antipater I and Cyprus I)

Herod II (s. of Herod I and Mariamme II, h. of Herodias)

Herod III (s. of Herod I and Cleopatra)

Herod IV (s. of Aristobulus IV and Berenice I, h. of Mariamme IV, h. of Berenice II, b. to Daughter of Antipater)

Herod V (s. of Phasael II and Salampsio)

Herod VI (s. Aristobulus VI and Salome III)

Herodias (d. of Aristobulus IV and Berenice I, h. of Herod II, h. of Philip, h. of II)

Hyrcanus II (c. of Herod IV and Berenice II)

Joazar (s. Simon Boethus)

Joseph I (s. of Antipas I, h. of Salome I)

Joseph II (s. of Antipater I)

Joseph III (s. of Joseph II, h. of Olympias)

Jotape I (d. of Sampsigeramus II, w. of Aristobulus V)

145

Jotape II (d. of Aristobulus V and Jotape I)

Jotape III (d. of Antiochus of Commagene, w. of Alexander V)

Malthace (w. of Herod I)

Mariamme I (d. of Alexander I and Alexandra)

Mariamme II (w. of Herod I, d. of Simon Boethus)

Mariamme III (d. of Aristobulus IV and Berenice I, h. of Archelaus I)

Mariamme IV (d. of Joseph III and Olympias, w. of Herod IV)

Mariamme V (d. of Agrippa I and Cyprus III, w. of J. Archelaus, w. of Demetrius)

Olympias (d. of Herod I and Malthace)

Pallas (w. of Herod I)

Phaedra (w. of Herod I)

Phallion (s. of Antipas I)

Phasael I (s. of Antipater I and Cyprus I)

Phasael II (s. of Phasael I, h. of Salampsio)

Phasael III (s. of Herod I and Pallas)

Pheroras (s. of Antipater I and Cyprus I)

Philip (s. of Herod I and Cleopatra, h. of Herodias)

Polemo II (s. of Cotys I, h. of Berenice II)

Roxana (d. of Herod I and Phaedra)

Salampsio (d. of Herod I and Mariamme I)

Salome I (d. of Antipater I and Cyprus I)

Salome II (d. of Elpis)

Salome III (d. of Herod II and Herodias, w. of Aristobulus VI)

Saul (r. to Salome I)

Simon (s. Boethus)

Syllaeus (betrothed to Salome I)

Syphas? (s. Aregetas)

Theudion (b. of Doris)

146

Tigranes I (s. of Alexander II and Glaphyra)

Tigranes II (s. of Alexander III)

Timius of Cyprus (h. of Alexandra II)

Titus (s. of Vespasian)

Unnamed Family Members – Identifier (relationship)

Daughter of Alexander I and Alexandra (betrothed to Pheroras)

Daughter of Antigonus I (w. of Antipater II)

Daughter of Antipater (d. of Daughter of Antigonus, betrothed to Herod IV)

Daughter of Aretas IV (w. of Antipas II)

Daughter of Joseph I (w. of Herod I)

Daughter of Joseph II (w. of Herod I)

Daughter of Pheroras (betrothed to Alexander or Tigranes, b to s. of Antipater II)

Daughter of Pheroras (d. of Slave-wife of Pheroras)

Daughter of Salome I (w. of Alexas II Calleas?)

Mother of Slave-wife of Pheroras

Sister of Slave-wife of Pheroras

Slave-wife of Pheroras

Son of Antipater II (h. of Daughter of Pheroras, betrothed to Mariamme III)

Son of Herod I and Mariamme I

Son of Pheroras (h. of Roxana)

Son of Pheroras (h. of Salome II)

147