THE POLITICAL BORDERLINES OF HEROD THE GREAT JASON M. SCHLUDE College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University _______________ his issue of the University of Toronto Journal of Jewish Thought celebrates the work of Daniel Boyarin and how it has enriched our understanding of cultural and social T borderlines in the history shared—and indeed actively constructed—by Jews and non-Jews. Often the concept of a borderline involves a boundary between two parties. Yet as Boyarin has shown in his research and writing, borderlines are more complex than that. The process of creating a borderline demands a negotiation of identity involving multiple parties. When discussing religious borderlines in late antiquity, these parties could be Christians, Jews and those branded heretics by each. In more modern times, these parties could be Christians, Jews and Muslims, as Boyarin points out in the preface of his namesake volume, Border Lines.1 Indeed, the process of determining borderlines is complex. One figure who demonstrates this complexity effectively is Herod the Great. Herod was a borderline figure in several ways. Attention routinely has been given to his Jewishness and the degree to which he belonged to a Jewish or to a non-Jewish world.2 For example, his father, Antipater, was an Idumaean, which may speak for or against Herod’s Jewishness. Idumaea was the land of Edom, but in the late second century BCE. John Hyrcanus theoretically converted the resident population, only allowing those who agreed to circumcision and to follow Jewish laws to remain in the territory.3 So perhaps Herod was an “authentic” Jew. Or perhaps he was more truly of Edom. We know that Herod declined to permit the marriage of his sister Salome to the Nabataean Syllaeus because the latter refused to adopt Jewish customs (including circumcision).4 And we may consider the quip by the fifth century CE source Macrobius that it was better to be Herod’s pig than his son, which, if true, suggests that Herod kept kosher.5 These references seem to speak to Herod’s 1 Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), xii-xv. 2 A topic discussed in some form in any comprehensive treatment of Herod. See: Peter Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999). Richardson deals with the issue from several different angles in chapters on Herod’s family (33-51), building program (174-215), and religious orientation (240-261). 3 Josephus, Ant. 13.257-8. 4 Josephus, Ant. 16.220-5; War 1.401. 5 Macrobius, Saturnalia 2.4.11. University of Toronto Journal of Jewish Thought, Volume 1, no. 5 (2015) | 9 The Political Borderlines of Herod the Great observance of Jewish customs. Herod’s expansion and elaboration of the Jewish temple, one of his greatest building projects, further points to his dedication to Judaism.6 Perhaps the tendency of Herod to avoid figural art in wall paintings, mosaics and coins should be read similarly, as Jewish law traditionally prohibits this practice.7 Yet one must bear in mind that this was also the individual who endorsed the placement of an eagle sculpture above the great gate of the Jewish temple, a controversial decision for Jews who viewed the eagle as a violation of the second commandment.8 More problematic still would have been the sacred statuary associated with the three Roman imperial cult temples that Herod built at Samaria Sebaste, Caesarea Maritima and Banias!9 One might say that such decisions were more appropriate for a pagan. Considering these choices, where did Herod’s cultural loyalties lie? While more evidence could be cited and discussed, it appears clear from this selective review that Herod stood at the border between Jewish and non-Jewish worlds. Whatever his internal motivations, he actively participated in both. The subject of the following article is related, but follows a more focused line of inquiry: the political borderlines of Herod the Great. Over the years, scholars have explored what kind of king Herod was and have strived to highlight many of his political interests and roles. Most of this discussion has centered on his responsibilities as a Roman client- king. Appointed by Rome in 40 BCE, Herod was sensitive to his relationship with Rome and cultivated it with care. Yet he was also a king of the Jews and ruled with an eye on their interests (though some may question to what precise degree). Scholars also have considered Herod as a Hellenistic king—a model that better helps to explain Herod’s many benefactions, not only at home, but also abroad, in Syria, Phoenicia, Asia Minor, the Aegean islands, and Greece. From these various perspectives, we have come to appreciate 6 Josephus, Ant. 15.380-425; see also War 1.401 and 5.184-226. David Jacobson, for one, reviews the monument’s architectural details and Herod’s motivations. However, he explains the project less as an issue of personal Jewish piety and more in the context of Hellenistic and Roman patronage and style. David Jacobson, “The Jerusalem Temple of Herod the Great,” in The World of the Herods, ed. Nikos Kokkinos (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2007), 145-176. For the architecture, see also Ehud Netzer, The Architecture of Herod the Great Builder (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 137-178. 7 For this issue and what follows, see Sarah Japp, “Public and Private Decorative Art in the Time of Herod the Great,” in The World of the Herods, 227-246, especially 242-244. 8 Josephus, Ant. 17.149-67; War 1.648-55. 9 Joesphus, War 1.403-14; Ant. 15.331-41. Netzer provides a convenient and streamlined review of the archaeological evidence, with reference to key bibliography: 85-89 (Samaria Sebaste), 103-106 (Caesarea Maritima), and 218-222 (Banias). The location of the Augusteum at Banias has proven a point of debate. Excavations since 1999 at the site Omrit, just south of Banias, have produced an excellent candidate: the temple identified as “Temple One” at Omrit. For a final report on its architecture, see Michael C. Nelson, The Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit: Volume 1: The Architecture, ed. J. Andrew Overman, Daniel Schowalter, and Michael C. Nelson (Leiden: Brill, 2015). See also Overman and Schowalter, eds., The Roman Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit: An Interim Report (Oxford: BAR International Series, 2011), which provides additional discussion. For a review of the latter, see Andrea Berlin in BASOR 369 (2013): 244-247, who suggests alternative explanations for this and another Omrit temple (called “Temple Two”). While Netzer was less inclined to accept the identification (222), other excavators at Banias have received it with more favor, e.g., John Francis Wilson and Vassilios Tzaferis, “An Herodian Capital in the North: Caesarea Philippi (Panias),” in The World of the Herods, 141; see John Francis Wilson, Caesarea Philippi: Banias, The Lost City of Pan (London: I. B. Tauris, 2004), 16. See below for further discussion. University of Toronto Journal of Jewish Thought, Volume 1, no. 5 (2015) | 10 Schlude the many political roles negotiated by Herod: Roman client, Jewish king and Hellenistic ruler.10 This complexity, however, runs deeper still, and the concept of a borderline as employed by Boyarin helps us see the full extent of it. Most efforts to understand Herod’s political world have been subject to the gravitational pull of Rome, sometimes with the result of diminishing Herod’s agency.11 This is in part inevitable and not entirely inaccurate. Rome played a key role in Herod’s rise to prominence and kingship, and Herod lived within the confines of a territory that Rome dominated for most of his lifetime. I say “most” since this was not always the case. For a crucial window of time from 40-39 BCE, Judaea and its environs actually fell into the empire of Parthia, when its prince Pacorus led a force west of the Euphrates that conquered the Roman east, from Idumaea to Caria in Asia Minor. This is just the most striking example of how the geopolitical world of the Near East was not only Rome’s playground. Indeed, Herod was not only in Rome’s orbit, but also in that of Parthia. While scholars have acknowledged the Roman-Parthian borderline of Herod, there is still more to explore in this issue, and Boyarin’s emphasis on the active creation of borderlines (rather than their inevitable and impersonal genesis) enables the richest appreciation of it.12 In the first century BCE, Roman and Parthian efforts resulted in an evolving imperial boundary and dynamic to which those in the Near East had to respond. We can only fully understand Herod in relation to this Roman-Parthian borderline and through his manipulation of it in the interests of his own advancement. As the following investigation will show, Herod adeptly positioned himself between Rome and Parthia, sometimes embracing one while rejecting the other, sometimes extending his hand to each where possible, with the result 10 For a number of excellent studies that explore these roles of Herod, see David Jacobson and Nikos Kokkinos, eds., Herod and Augustus (Leiden: Brill, 2009). As the title indicates, the focus of this scholarly corpus is Herod’s relationship with Augustan Rome. But sensitivity is shown to elements of his behavior best explained in reference to the culture of Hellenistic kingship. See Erich S. Gruen, “Herod, Rome, and the Diaspora,” in Herod and Augustus, 13-27, who investigates the image that Herod projected of himself for various audiences as a “partner” of Rome, “benefactor of the multi-ethnic peoples of Palestine,” and Hellenistic king.