Nadav Sharon, «Herod's Age When Appointed Strategos of Galilee: Scribal Error or Literary Motif?», Vol. 95 (2014) 49-63
In Antiquities Josephus says that Herod was only fifteen-years-old when appointed strategos of Galilee in 47 BCE. This is often dismissed as scribal error and corrected to twenty-five, because it contradicts other Herodian biographical information. However, this unattested emendation does not fit the immediate context, whereas 'fifteen' does. This paper suggests that rather than a scribal error, this is a literary motif, presenting Herod as a particularly young military hero. The specific age of fifteen may have had a deeper intention, fictively linking Herod's birth to the year 63, the year of Augustus' birth and Pompey's conquest of the Temple.
03_Biblica_Sharon_Layout 1 01/04/14 11:46 Pagina 60
60 NADAV SHARON
2. Jerusalem and its Temple were taken by Pompey in the sum-
mer or autumn of 63 BCE 36. It is quite possible that Nicolaus, or,
more likely, Herod himself, wanted to connect his birth with the con-
quest of the Temple, in an attempt to portray himself as a messiah.
A brief digression is necessary in order to clarify the possibility
of Herodian messianic claims and its connection to the conquest of
the Temple. The early Roman period in Judea witnessed a new phe-
nomenon of the appearance of numerous messianic figures 37. A
few such figures are known to have operated immediately after
Herod’s death and the ensuing Polemos Varus in which the Temple
was nearly destroyed (War 2.39-65; Ant. 17.250-284), and there
were also later figures (cf. Ant. 20.97-98; War 2.261-263; Ant.
20.167-172), of whom Jesus was, of course, the most notable.
Additionally, we should consider the well-known legend from the
Jerusalem Talmud about the Messiah, whose name is said to be Mena-
hem, being born on the day of the destruction (y. Ber. 5a). Hillel Neu-
man rejects interpretations of this Talmudic legend as referring to
Menahem son of Judas who was one of the rebel leaders in the Great
Revolt, but he still argues that it is based on material much older than
the legend’s final compilation (see esp. Rev 12,1-6) 38. It is possible,
then, that there were similar traditions prior to 70 CE 39. Although the
36
Josephus says the Temple was taken on “the day of the fast†(Ant. 14.66,
487-488; cf. Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.40), which plainly means the Day of Atone-
ment. While many scholars reject that date and conclude that the conquest
must have taken place earlier in the summer (e.g., Marcus’ notes ad loc. in the
Loeb edition; M.B. DAGUT, “The Habbakuk [sic] Scroll and Pompey’s Capture
of Jerusalemâ€, Bib 32 [1951] 542-548; STERN, Greek and Latin Authors, I,
276-277, 307; SCHÃœRER, History, I, 285; SMALLWOOD, Jews under Roman
Rule, 565-567), as I argue elswhere that rejection is unwarranted (“The Con-
quests of Jerusalem by Pompey and Herod: On Sabbath or ‘Sabbath of Sab-
baths’?†JSQ [forthcoming]). Be that as it may, the conquest surely took place
sometime in the summer or autumn of 63.
37
Cf. D. MENDELS, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism (Grand
Rapids, MI 21997) 223-232.
38
H. NEUMAN, “The Birth of the Messiah on the Day of Destruction –
Historical and Anti-Historical Commentsâ€, For Uriel. Studies in the History
of Israel in Antiquity Presented to Professor Uriel Rappaport (eds. M. MOR
et al.) (Jerusalem 2005) 85-110 (Hebrew).
39
Cf. Mark 13, esp. v. 8 — “the birth pangs†(of the Messiah?) and vv.
24-27. This natural human inclination is also manifest in traditions according
to which salvation occurs on the exact same date as a related catastrophe
which occurred some years earlier. Noteworthy examples are the tradition
FOLLOW US