Herod’s golden eagle on the Temple gate: a reconsideration jonath an Bourgel l ava l u n i v e r s i t y, Q u e B e c , c a n a da a B s t r ac t Flavius Josephus reports that Herod the Great erected a golden eagle over the great gate of the Jerusalem Temple ( JW 1:648–55; Ant 17:149–63). Sometime before his death, two doctors of the law convinced their disciples to pull the eagle down, for it ‘had been erected in defiance of their fathers’ laws’. Eventually, they were arrested and sentenced to be burned alive by Herod. This account is often taken to reflect Herod’s impious attitudes towards Jewish law, on the one hand, and his unfailing loyalty to the Romans, on the other, the golden eagle supposedly being a symbol of Roman power. However, a careful reading of this account does raise questions serious enough to reconsider its historicity. The present article proposes that the episode of the golden eagle is a martyrdom narrative conveying a legend. F l av i u s jo s e p h u s (37–100 c e) ascribed to the last days of Herod the Great (37–4 B c e) a singular incident which has had significant influence on the manner in which we usually perceive the end of his reign. The socalled ‘golden eagle’ episode, of which Josephus gives two almost identical versions (BJ 1:648–55; Ant 17:148–67), can be summarized as follows: on an unspecified date, Herod had a large golden eagle erected above the great door of the Jerusalem Temple (BJ 1:650; Ant 17:151). Sometime later, as the illness of the king worsened, and his end seemed near, two famous doctors of the law, Judas son of Sepphoraeus and Matthias son of Margalus,1 urged their young disciples to tear down the eagle. Since according to the Mosaic law any human or animal representation was forbidden,2 they therefore argued that it would be a beautiful gesture to die in the law’s defence. Hearing a rumour that Herod I thank Professor Benjamin Isaac and Professor Étienne Nodet for reading and critically commenting on an earlier draft of this paper. It overlaps with and develops certain questions addressed in my book Hérode, Roi d’Israël (in French; JACP; Paris: Cerf, 2019), pp. 249–75. 1. In Ant 17:149 they are named Judas son of Sariphaeus, and Matthias son of Margalothus. 2. Exod. 20:4–5; Deut. 5:89. See also Exod. 34:17; Lev. 19:4, 26:1; Deut. 27:15, 34:17. journal of jewish studies | vol. lxxii no. 1 | spring 2021 | pp. 23–44 | issn 0022-2097 | https://doi.org/10.18647/3480/jjs-2021 | https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5716-9494 | copyright © Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, 2021. Open access article under c c - B y- n c - n d licence, freely available from the JJS website. 24 | jou r na l of j ew ish stu di es had expired, the young men went up to the roof of the Temple, let themselves down by means of ropes, and in the sight of all snatched the eagle and finally destroyed it. Forty of them were arrested by the king’s captain and led with their masters before Herod. After questioning them about the reasons for their actions, the king sent them chained to Jericho where he had himself carried. Herod then summoned the leading representatives of the Jews to the theatre of the city,3 where he delivered a virulent speech, reproaching the Jews for their ingratitude considering all the many benefits that he had showered on them. Finally, Herod ordered that the leaders of the sedition be burned alive and their accomplices tortured. On the following night, an eclipse of the moon occurred (Ant 17:167), which has been dated to 12 or 13 March, 4 B c e.4 To the best of my knowledge, the authenticity of the golden eagle affair has never been challenged; however, a careful reading of this episode does raise questions serious enough to reconsider its historicity. The first section of this study questions the trustworthiness of the golden eagle narrative by confronting it with concrete facts in order to show that the disciples of Judas and Matthias could not have destroyed the golden eagle. The second section treats issues of narrative and historical context to demonstrate how awkwardly this episode fits into the general background of Herod’s reign. It deals with the date of the erection of the eagle, Herod’s general policy towards his Jewish subjects and the aftermath of the golden eagle affair as Josephus presents it. In the third section, we shall see that this account contains many motifs and ideas characteristic of martyrdom literature. Finally, it is proposed that the golden eagle episode is a martyrdom narrative conveying a legend. Is it likely that the disciples of Judas and Matthias could have destroyed the golden eagle? In what follows, we shall see that the description of the destruction of the golden eagle at the hands of Judas’ and Matthias’ disciples is fraught with serious difficulties, which render the whole account highly suspicious. 3. Only Ant (17:161) reports that these events took place in Jericho. 4. See, for instance, Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B c – a d 135) (New English Version, rev. and ed. Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar; 3 vols; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–87), p. 1,327 n. 165; Nikos Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse (JSP Suppl. 30; Sheffield: SAP, 1998), pp. 372–3. h e r o d’s g o l d e n e a g l e o n t h e t e m p l e g a t e | 25 It is first necessary to determine the golden eagle’s precise location. As already said, Josephus states that it was mounted ‘above the great gate of the Temple’ (hypèr toû megálou pylō̂ nos toû naoû). Many scholars have deduced that it was erected above the entrance of the sanctuary itself.5 Peter Richardson, though, has dismissed this proposition on the grounds that placing a golden eagle at this spot would have been too offensive to the more devout Jews; he deems it more likely that it ‘was over the gate above what is now called Wilson’s arch’, on the west side of the Temple Mount enclosure.6 Others have suggested that the eagle was mounted above the Eastern Gate, the Corinthian Gate or the Gate of Nicanor, all located within or at the limits of the inner courts of the Temple, which were forbidden to non-Jews.7 These propositions, however, are themselves highly questionable. First, it appears that Josephus is relatively constant in his use of the word naós to designate the edifice of the Temple itself, rather than the sacred enclosure surrounding it.8 Besides, in BJ 5:204 we also find the expression tē̂ s toû naoû pýlēs, which unmistakably designates the gate of the sanctuary itself, and which Josephus himself distinguishes from the other gates of the sacred inner court. 5. See e.g. Erwin R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, Volume 8: Pagan Symbols in Judaïsm (Bollingen series 37; New York: Pantheon, 1958), pp. 123–4; Abraham Schalit, King Herod: Portrait of a Ruler (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1960), pp. 396–7; Yaakov Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, vol. 2 (Dix Hills NY: Amphora Books, 1982), p. 29; Duane W. Roller, The Building Program of Herod the Great (Berkeley CA: University of California Press, 1998), p. 178; Steven Fine, Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish Archaeology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 73. 6. Peter Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1996), pp. 15–18; p. 117. 7. See Lisa Ulman in Flavius Josephus, History of the Jewish War against the Romans (trans. Lisa Ullman; ed. Israel Shatzman; intro. Jonathan J. Price; in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Carmel, 2009), p. 203 n. 650. 8. Asher S. Kaufman has noted in this regard: ‘Some years ago, I made a survey of Josephus’ choice of naós and hierón in his descriptions of the Second Temple in the two main passages, cited in The Jewish War and Antiquities. Josephus is perfectly consistent. The word naós is used exclusively for the House, the central feature of the Temple. In tractate Middot IV, 6 of the Mishnah it is called heikhal, in the enlarged sense of the word. For Josephus, hierón has two meanings. The first is the Temple as a whole. This is the use of the word hierón in the enlarged sense. The word hierós, hierón also means holy and is used by Josephus in the restricted sense for specific limited areas of the Temple, e.g. deúteron hierón, meaning second holy [court]…’; Asher S. Kaufman, ‘The Temple Compound Made Rectangular (Josephus’ The Jewish War, VI, 311)’, in Proceedings of the 11th World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. B1 (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994), pp. 41–8, esp. p. 43. See also Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 1b: Judean War 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), p. 4 n. 13, p. 9 n. 43; Meir Ben Shahar, ‘When Was the Second Temple Destroyed? Chronology and Ideology in Josephus and in Rabbinic Literature’, JSJ 46 (2015), pp. 547–73, esp. p. 550 n. 6. For a somewhat different position, see Israel Shatzman, ‘Appendix 8: Har ha-Bait, ha-Mikdash v-haheikhal’, in Flavius Josephus, History of the Jewish War (trans. Lisa Ullman), pp. 648–59, esp. pp. 651–4. 26 | jou r na l of j ew ish stu di es Accordingly, it is clear that the passages of Josephus under discussion are to be understood as meaning that the golden eagle was indeed erected above the main entrance of the Temple building. Actually, there are two possible locations. The first is above the entrance carved into the external facade of the edifice and leading into the vestibule (olam).9 This gate was of considerable dimensions (70 cubits10 high according to Josephus, or about 35 metres;11 40 cubits according to the Mishnah, or about 20 metres); it was devoid of leaves and topped with ornaments composed of beams and stones.12 The second likely spot is above the ‘great gate [haShar-haGadol]’,13 which pierced the inner (western) wall of the vestibule, and led to the sanctuary (heikhal).14 It was 55 cubits high according to Josephus, or about 27.5 metres,15 and 20 cubits according to the Mishnah, or about 10 metres.16 It had leaves, was surmounted by a golden vine17 and was flanked on both sides by two smaller gates.18 In any case, whichever of these two propositions proves to be correct, Josephus’ accounts suppose that in order to bring down the eagle, the disciples of Matthias and Judas had to enter the court of the priests, access to which was usually forbidden to non-priests.19 This implies either that they were all of priestly descent, or that they violated the law in the very name of its defence. Moreover, according to BJ (1:651), the young men ‘let themselves down from the roof [of the Temple] by stout cords and then began chopping off the golden eagle’.20 However, according to the Mishnah, one reached the roof of the Temple via the upper room, which, located above the Holy of Holies and the sanctuary, constituted the second floor of the building. The 9. Joseph Patrich, ‘The Structure of the Second Temple – A New Reconstruction’, Qadmoniot 21 (1988), pp. 32–40, esp. p. 35 (in Hebrew); Fine, Art and Judaism, p. 73. 10. For a discussion on the precise length of the cubit (Ama) at the time of Herod, see Asher S. Kaufman, ‘Determining the Length of the Medium Cubit’, PEQ 116 (1984), pp. 120–32. 11. BJ 5:208. 12. mMid. III:VII. 13. mMid. IV:II. 14. The interior of the Temple was divided into three parts: the vestibule or entrance porch (olam), the sanctuary or holy place (heikhal) and the Holy of Holies (devir or kodesh-hakodashim). 15. BJ 5:211. 16. mMid. IV:I. 17. BJ 5:210; Ant 15:395; mMid. III:VIII. 18. mMid. IV:II. 19. mKel I:VIII. ‘The Court of the Priests is still more holy, for Israelites may not enter therein save only when they must perform the laying on of hands (Lev. 3:2), slaughtering, and waving (Lev. 7:30)’, in The Mishnah (trans. Herbert Danby; London: Oxford University Press, 1933), p. 606. 20. Josephus, The Jewish War, Books I–III, vol. II: (LCL 203; trans. Henry St J. Thackeray; London: Heinemann, 1956 [1927]), p. 309. h e r o d’s g o l d e n e a g l e o n t h e t e m p l e g a t e | 2 7 upper chamber leaned against the upper part of the vestibule with which it shared a common roof.21 To reach the upper chamber, it was necessary to cross a series of cells arranged on three floors along the side walls of the Temple, used as store reserves.22 It seems certain that access to these rooms was closely guarded;23 this is all the more evident since the floor of the upper chamber was pierced with orifices, thus giving a direct view onto the Holy of Holies, and through which craftsmen were also let down in boxes to effect needed repairs.24 If, in spite of the above-mentioned difficulties, we were to accept that the disciples of Judas and Matthias did manage to reach the roof of the Temple, there is still a further important question that needs to be asked: is it conceivable that they were really able to descend along its facade by means of ropes? In the first place, they would have had to step over the ‘sharp golden spikes’ which protruded from the summit of the Temple to prevent birds from settling on it and polluting the roof.25 Besides, according to both Josephus and the Mishnah, the Temple’s facade rose to the considerable height of 100 cubits26 (about 50 metres).27 If we now take into consideration that the golden eagle was mounted above the opening in the Temple’s facade that led to the vestibule (location no. 1), it would mean that the disciples of Judas and Matthias would have had to descend a distance of 30 cubits (about 15 metres) according to the measurements given by Josephus, and 60 cubits (about 30 metres) according to those in the Mishnah.28 Alternatively, if we consider that the eagle was fixed above the great gate located between the vestibule and the sanctuary (location no. 2), it means that Judas’ and Matthias’ disciples would have had to make a descent of 45 cubits (about 22.5 metres) according to Josephus, and 80 cubits (about 40 metres) according to the 21. mMid. IV:V; BJ 5:221. 22. mMid. IV:III–V. 23. Ehud Netzer, The Architecture of Herod the Great Builder (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2008), p. 149. 24. mMid IV:V. 25. BJ 5:224; mMid IV:VI. 26. BJ 5:207; mMid IV:VI. Elsewhere, Josephus reports that the height of the Temple reached 120 cubits (about 60 metres; Ant 15:391). On the architecture of the Temple, see e.g. Patrich, ‘The Structure’; David Jacobson, ‘The Jerusalem Temple of Herod the Great’, in Nikos Kokkinos (ed.), The World of the Herods (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2007), pp. 145–76. 27. This is 52 metres according to the calculation of Joseph Patrich, (‘The Structure’, p. 33); 48 metres according to the calculation of David Jacobson (‘The Jerusalem Temple’, p. 150 n. 25). 28. This opening was 70 cubits high (about 35 metres) according to Josephus, 40 cubits high (about 20 metres) according to the Mishnah. 28 | jou r na l of j ew ish stu dies Mishnah. In addition, there would have been a further serious obstacle: the great gate was set back 16 cubits (about 8 metres) from the exterior facade of the Temple.29 So it appears from the aforementioned that in order to tear the golden eagle down, the disciples of the two sages should have not only performed physically unrealistic acrobatics, but also entered areas of the Temple certainly forbidden to them. Is it likely that Herod would have erected the golden eagle on the Temple gate? When was the eagle actually erected? First, it is noteworthy that Josephus does not say a word about the circumstances in which the golden eagle was raised in the Temple. His apparent silence on this point has occasioned considerable scholarly debate. According to Arnold H.M. Jones, the erection of the eagle occurred at the end of Herod’s reign.30 For Erwin R. Goodenough, however, the use of the pluperfect tense in BJ 1:650 (kateskeuákei) suggests that the sculpture had been erected years earlier and was part of the original ornaments of Herod’s rebuilt Temple.31 Peter Richardson, too, believes that the eagle may have been set up at the outset of the reconstruction of the sanctuary (which he has dated to the late 20s B c e).32 A roughly similar opinion was advanced by Gideon Fuks according to which the eagle already adorned the Temple at the time of its inauguration in 18 B c e.33 Donald Ariel and Jean-Philippe Fontanille have proposed, for their part, that it was raised at the latest in 15 B c e , on the occasion of the visit of Marcus Agrippa to Judea.34 This widely accepted early dating, however, raises a delicate question: why did Matthias, Judas and their followers wait so long before protesting what they considered to be a serious violation of the law? The reason was, if one accepts Aryeh Kasher’s supposition, that because of the terror with which Herod had intimidated 29. According to mMid IV:VII, the vestibule was 11 cubits wide (about 5.5 metres), to which was added 5 cubits (about 2.5 metres) at its eastern wall. 30. Arnold H.M. Jones, The Herods of Judea (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1938), p. 148. 31. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, p. 123. 32. Richardson, Herod, p. 16. 33. Gideon Fuks, ‘Josephus on Herod’s Attitude Towards Jewish Religion: The Darker Side’, JJS 53:1 (2002), pp. 238–46, esp. p. 241. 34. Donald T. Ariel and Jean-Philippe Fontanille, The Coins of Herod: A Modern Analysis and Die Classification (AJEC 79; Leiden: Brill, 2012), p. 183. h e r o d’s g o l d e n e a g l e o n t h e t e m p l e g a t e | 2 9 them during his lifetime, only the erroneous announcement of the king’s death filled them with sufficient courage to rebel.35 However, it does seem odd that individuals who at a later time proved their willingness to perish for the defence of the law would have been dissuaded from acting at this juncture out of fear of Herod. It is also worth pointing out that it is not stated in any of the relevant sources that the eagle was ever raised again after its destruction, whether it be in Josephus’ depictions of the Temple (BJ 1:401; 5:184–247; Ant 15:380–425), or in those found in the Mishnah (Mid I–V) or even in Philo’s writings (De specialibus legibus 1.71–5). And yet does it not seem very likely that in order to erase the affront he had suffered, Herod would have immediately ordered the destroyed offering to be restored? Finally, we must stress that the golden eagle episode is recorded only by Josephus, and had it not been for this report, Judas son of Sepphoraeus and Matthias son of Margalus would be otherwise unknown.36 Herod’s general policy towards his Jewish subjects We shall now see how uneasily the golden eagle episode fits into the historical context of Herod’s reign. It is generally accepted that in the Jewish areas of his kingdom, and in Jerusalem in particular, Herod made every effort to respect the generally strict observance of the aniconic principle by the Jews of his time.37 Most illustrative in this respect is the argument, advanced by the Gentiles of Caesarea in their claim to primacy over the Jews on the eve of the Great Jewish Revolt (66 c e), that the city itself [Caesarea] belonged to the Greeks, since Herod would never have erected the statues and temples which he placed there had he destined it for Jews. (BJ 2:266) 38 35. Aryeh Kasher (in collaboration with Eliezer Witztum), King Herod: A Persecuted Persecutor. A Case Study in Psychohistory and Psychobiography (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2007), pp. 387–8. 36. See Ullman in Flavius Josephus, p. 202 n. 648. 37. I share the opinion of Jodi Magness that the rarity of figurative representations reinforces rather than undermines the thesis of a rigorous application of the second commandment by the Jews of that time. For a partial list of representations of animated beings from the end of the Second Temple period found in Judea (and corresponding references), see Jodi Magness, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Daily Life in the Time of Jesus (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2011), p. 221 n. 80. 38. Trans. Henry St J. Thackeray, in Josephus, The Jewish War, Books I–III, vol. II, p. 427. 30 | jou r na l of j ew ish st u di e s Furthermore, the almost total absence of figurative art in the decoration of Herod’s private palaces illustrates the sensitivity of Herod,39 who appears to have been fully aware of the limits to what most Jews would accept in such a delicate matter. Also relevant are passages in Josephus’ writings that allude to Herod as a man extremely respectful of the integrity and sanctity of the Jewish sanctuary. Thus, in the account of his capture of Jerusalem from Antigonus (37 B c e), Herod is reported to have used every effort, including wealthy presents, threats and coercion, to prevent his Roman allies from entering the Temple and thus profaning it.40 Likewise, he appears to have acted with great caution when he undertook the rebuilding of the Temple, so much so that before launching the work of reconstruction he made a speech to explain his project to his Jewish subjects (Ant 15:381). When Herod realized that his words had produced great concern among them, he pledged himself to demolish the sanctuary only after collecting the materials necessary for its reconstruction (Ant 15:388–90). He also made sure that only priests participated in the construction of the Temple itself, as entry to non-priests, as mentioned previously, was strictly forbidden (Ant 15:390, 421). Interestingly, Josephus (Ant 15:419) points out that Herod himself never entered the Court of the Priests (in contradistinction to what is reported of Judas’ and Matthias’ disciples). Many scholars believe that the authorship of the speech announcing the rebuilding of the Temple should be ascribed, rather than to Herod himself, to Nicolaus of Damascus, whose lost writings Josephus copied extensively.41 39. To the best of my knowledge, to date, there are only four examples of figured representations that have been found in Herodian sites in Judea and that could be ascribed to the reign of Herod. Three of these come from Herodium: the aquatic birds painted on the walls of the tepidarium of the baths of the upper palace; the painted pinakes with open shutters on the walls of the so-called ‘royal box’; and the three-footed labrum decorated with sirens and busts of Selinus found in the bathhouse of Lower Herodium. These figured representations may be related to the visit of Marcus Agrippa in Judaea in 15 B c e . See Ehud Netzer, Greater Herodium (with contributions by Rachel Bar-Nathan, Rivka Birger, Y. Meshorer, J. Naveh, Silvia Rozenberg; Qedem 13; Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology; Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 145–6; Virgilio C. Corbo, Herodion, gli edifgice della reggia-fortezza (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1989), p. 47; Ehud Netzer, Yaakov Kalman, Ro’i Porath and Rachel Chachy-Laureys, ‘Preliminary Report on Herod’s Mausoleum and Theatre with a Royal Box at Herodium’, in Greater Herodium, p. 101. The fourth example is a stone foot of a griffin that belonged to a chair or a table, discovered in the desert fortress of Cypros. See Ehud Netzer, ‘Cypros’, in Ephraim Stern et al. (eds), New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), pp. 315–17, esp. p. 316. 40. BJ 1:354–6; Ant 14:482–6. 41. See, for instance, Richardson, Herod, p. 247; Samuel Rocca, Herod’s Judaea: A Mediterranean h e r o d’s g o l d e n e a g l e o n t h e t e m p l e g a t e | 31 Yet, as court historian, it is very clear that Nicolaus depicted Herod as he himself wished to be portrayed. Thus it is very significant that in these accounts Herod always appears as the guardian of the Jerusalem Temple. It may well be that Herod was actuated by a sincere feeling of religious piety towards the Jewish sanctuary; at the least, it is plain that he was fully aware of the significance the Temple had for the Jews. A further illustration of Herod’s general care not to push past the limits of what most Jews deemed acceptable can be found in the so-called ‘trophies incident’ (Ant 15:267–79). In the early 20s Herod built a theatre in Jerusalem, decorated with trophies of gold and silver dedicated to Octavian’s victories. Yet according to Josephus, these trophies irked the Jews for they took them to be ‘images surrounded by weapons, which it was against their national custom to worship’.42 In reaction, Herod summoned the most eminent Jews to come to meet him at the theatre. There, he gave orders to remove the outward ornaments of the trophies, in order to lay bare the naked pieces of wood they were made of, and thus prove that they did not amount to images. The stripping of the trophies, adds Josephus, caused general laughter among the invitees. There is, though, apparently a singular exception to Herod’s general aniconic policy, namely the eagle with closed wings appearing on one type of his coins,43 whose date of issue has been the subject of controversy.44 It is noteworthy though that, with this one exception, the Herodian coin types are devoid of figural representations. However, this issue is significant as not a few scholars45 have seen a connection between Herod’s eagle coin and the golden eagle on the Temple gate. Given Herod’s great consideration for his Jewish subjects’ strict aniconic observance, how are we to understand his minting of a coin with an eagle? It is admitted that this coin provides State in the Classical World (TSAJ 122; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), p. 26; Eyal Regev, ‘Herod’s Jewish Ideology Facing Romanization: On Intermarriage, Ritual Baths, and Speeches’, JQR 100 (2010), pp. 197–222, esp. p. 213. 42. Ralph Marcus and Allen P. Wikgren, in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, Volume 8: Books XV–XVII (LCL 410; Cambridge MA: HUP / London: Heinemann, 1969 [1963]), p. 131. 43. See e.g. Ariel and Fontanille, The Coins of Herod, pp. 73, 182–3. 44. Circa 20–18 B c e according to Adam K. Marshak (The Many Faces of Herod the Great [Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2015], p. 287); before 12 B c e according to Ariel and Fontanille (The Coins of Herod, pp. 182–4); in 4 B c e according to Josef Meyshan (‘The Symbols on the Coinage of Herod the Great and Their Meanings’, PEQ 2 [1959], pp. 109–21, esp. pp. 119–20). 45. See e.g. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, pp. 123–4; Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, pp. 13, 29; Marshak, The Many Faces, p. 287. 32 | jou r na l of j ew ish st u di e s a likely parallel to the silver Tyrian shekel, used as the currency of the Temple.46 Strikingly enough, this coin depicted the effigy of the Phoenician god Melqart (or Heracles) on its obverse side, and that of the Ptolemaic eagle on its reverse side. Nevertheless, despite the figurative representations on it, this silver Tyrian shekel had been, because of its stability,47 required for the payment of the tax due to the Jerusalem Temple48 since the Hasmonean era.49 Thus, by stamping the effigy of an eagle on his own coins Herod did not introduce anything novel, but was only imitating a monetary type which had long been, for practical reasons, tolerated by the Jews.50 It has been proposed that the eagle was chosen by Herod to pay tribute to the Roman Empire, of which this animal was supposedly the emblem.51 We should note though, with Benjamin Isaac, that ‘to the Romans the eagle was primarily associated with the legionary standard (aquila), an object of cultic significance, but, … not a symbol of the state.’ 52 At any rate, as just noted, the fact that Herod was not introducing anything new by engraving the figure of an eagle on one type of his coins shows that, in this specific case too, he did not deviate from his general caution about offending Jewish susceptibilities. But, this being said, it must also be stressed that Herod’s eagle coin does raise an essential question: would the erection of an eagle on the gate of the Temple have been equally tolerated by the majority of Jews? 53 For some scholars, the very fact that only a handful of rigourists is reported to have taken offence at the presence of an eagle representation in the sanctuary proves that its construction was acceptable to the majority 46. Ariel and Fontanille, The Coins of Herod, pp. 56, 115, 118–19, 183; Fine, Art and Judaism, p. 74. 47. See P. Sanders (ed.), Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 B c e –66 c e (London: SCM / Philadelphia: TPI, 1992), p. 243; Albert Baumgarten, ‘Herod’s Eagle’, in Aren M. Maeir, Jodi Magness and Lawrence H. Schiffman (eds), ‘Go Out and Study the Land’ (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel (JSJ Suppl. 148; Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 7–21, esp. p. 13 n.13. 48. mBer VIII: VII; tKet XII:III (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 275). 49. Arie Kindler, Coins of the Land of Israel: Collection of the Bank of Israel, a Catalogue (Jerusalem: Bank of Israel Publishing House, 1974), p. iii; Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, pp. 7–9; Eyal Regev, The Hasmoneans: Ideology, Archaeology, Identity (JAJ Suppl. 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), p. 75. 50. Ariel and Fontanille, The Coins of Herod, pp. 117, p. 173; Andreas J.M. Kropp, Images and Monuments of Near Eastern Dynasts, 100 B c –a d 100 (OSACP; Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 247. 51. See e.g. Fine, Art and Judaism, p. 74. 52. Benjamin Isaac, ‘Roman Victory Displayed: Symbols, Allegories, and Personifications’, in Empire and Ideology in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), pp. 45–68, esp. p. 51. 53. See e.g. Baumgarten, ‘Herod’s Eagle’, p. 13. h e r o d’s g o l d e n e a g l e o n t h e t e m p l e g a t e | 33 of Jews and, as such, did not derogate from Herod’s general approach.54 And yet, it might be methodologically questionable to draw conclusions from the very account whose authenticity we are discussing here. To answer this question we shall rather turn to certain writings of Philo of Alexandria (c.20 B c e –c.50 c e). In his work Legatio ad Caium (Leg.), he relates the dramatic circumstances surrounding the decision of the emperor Caligula (37–41 c e) to have his statue set up in the Temple of Jerusalem (39/40 c e). Philo was then in Rome where he had been deputed to defend the rights of the Jews of Alexandria. When every hope seemed lost, Agrippa I (10 B c e –44 c e), Herod’s grandson, still tried to convince the emperor to give up his plans. To this end he sent him a missive, reproduced in Leg. 276–329. While there is no doubt that this document is, at least in part, the work of Philo, it nevertheless likely reflects the thoughts of Agrippa.55 Several details of this letter directly concern our discussion. In the first place, one must stress the insistence of Agrippa on establishing that the Temple was devoid of any representation of animated creatures56 and that no ‘man-made image’ had ever been introduced therein (Leg. 290, 310, 317–19). Such an assertion directly denies the possibility that Herod did erect an eagle above the Temple gate. On the other hand, an objection could be put forward that it also contradicts the biblical accounts of the presence of figurative representations 54. See e.g. Richardson, Herod, p. 18; Baumgarten, ‘Herod’s Eagle’, p. 13. 55. On this, see for instance Jean-Pierre Lémonon, Ponce Pilate. Préface de Maurice Sartre (Paris: Éd. de l’Atelier / Éd. ouvrières, 2007), pp. 191–2. 56. We find the same insistence in Josephus when he notes, for example, that the magnificence of the porticoes of the Temple offered an impressive spectacle, ‘without any adventitious embellishment of painting or sculpture’ (BJ 5:191): trans. Henry St J. Thackeray, in Josephus, The Jewish War, Books IV–VII, vol. III (LCL 210; London: Heinemann, 1961 [1928]), p. 257s. Likewise, Josephus states that on the outer veil of the Sanctuary ‘was portrayed a panorama of the heavens, the signs of the Zodiac excepted,’ (BJ 5:214; LCL 210:265). It seems pertinent to make a remark here concerning the relief of Arch of Titus in Rome, which represents the menorah (seven-branch candelabrum) from Jerusalem’s destroyed Temple, carried along during the triumph of Vespasian and Titus over the Jews (70 c e). A close observation reveals that the base on which the menorah stands is decorated with representations of animals and monsters. The origin of this pedestal has given rise to many discussions concerning, by extension, the question of the application of the second commandment at the end of the Second Temple period. For certain scholars, it is a faithful reproduction of the base on which was fixed the menorah in the Temple; Daniel Sperber has even attributed the fabrication of the pedestal to Herod himself (‘Between Jerusalem and Rome: The History of the Base of the Menorah as Depicted on the Arch of Titus’, in Yael Yisraeli [ed.], In the Light of the Menorah: Story of a Symbol [Jerusalem: Israel Museum / Philadelphia PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1999], pp. 50–53). However, in the eyes of many specialists it is more likely a ferculum (a frame to carry anything on) built by the Romans themselves for the transport of the menorah. On this point, see Rachel Hachlili’s compelling demonstration, The Menorah, the Ancient Seven-armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form and Significance [SJSJ 68; Leiden: Brill, 2001], pp. 46–50). 34 | jou r na l of j ew ish st u di es in Solomon’s First Temple.57 However, the question still remains how Agrippa could have overlooked a relatively recent event, such as that of the golden eagle, supposed to have occurred only four decades earlier. At the time of this alleged incident, Agrippa himself would have been a child and Philo a young man. Moreover, if Agrippa had really intended to silence this affair, would he not have judged it more prudent to omit all mention of his grandfather in his letter to the emperor Caligula, in which Agrippa refers to Herod in at least four instances (Leg. 294, 296, 297, 299)? The general impression that therefore emerges from this letter is that Agrippa and Philo knew nothing about the golden eagle affair. Another remarkable fact is that in order to illustrate the gravity of Caligula’s project, Agrippa reported an incident relating to Pontius Pilatus, the prefect of Judea from 26 to 36 c e. Pilate had shields dedicated to the emperor Tiberius in the palace of Herod located in ‘the holy city’ (Leg. 299). These shields, says Agrippa, bore no effigy but only inscriptions including the names of Pilate and Tiberius. Yet when the fact was known to the Jews at large, they deputed the highest dignitaries of the people to ask the prefect to remove these shields as they were judged a violation of biblical law. Pilate finally yielded to their authority only when the emperor Tiberius himself ordered him to move the shields to Caesarea.58 It is remarkable that the religious ground of the offence provoked by the shields remains unexplained to this day. Various explanations have been advanced to account for this: thus, for example, it has been presumed that the engraved inscriptions might have included references to the deity of Tiberius,59 or to his worship60 or to his affiliation to the ‘divine Augustus’.61 For others, it was not the inscriptions themselves that aroused the wrath of the Jews, but the dedication ceremony 57. See, for instance, 1 Kgs 6:23–9; 2 Chron. 4:3–4. 58. In spite of their apparent similarities, it is generally agreed that the account of the shields affair and the incident concerning Pilate’s military standards (BJ 2:169–71; Ant 18:55–9) refer to two separate events. See Gideon Fuks, ‘Again on the Episode of the Gilded Roman Shields at Jerusalem’, HTR 75 (1982), pp. 503–7; p. 504. For a different opinion, see Daniel R. Schwartz, ‘Josephus and Philo on Pontius Pilate’, The Jerusalem Cathedra 3 (1983), pp. 26–45. 59. Samuel G.F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967), p. 74. 60. E. Mary Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (2nd edn; Leiden: Brill, 1970), p. 304. 61. Fuks, ‘Again on the Episode of the Gilded Roman Shields at Jerusalem’, p. 507. h e r o d’s g o l d e n e a g l e o n t h e t e m p l e g a t e | 35 of the shields.62 In any case, the narrative context in which this episode is reported assumes that the display of the shields dedicated to Tiberius in Herod’s palace of Jerusalem and the erection of a statue of Caligula in the Holy of Holies fell within the same category of offences, thanks probably to a very broad interpretation of the second commandment. Agrippa points out, however, that the profanations of Pilate and Caligula differed in the degree of gravity: Now at that time it was shields on which no likeness had been painted; now it is a colossal statue. Then too the installation was in the house of the governors;63 now they say it is to be in the inner most part of the temple in the special sanctuary itself, into which the Grand Priest enters once a year only on the Fast… (Leg. 306) 64 Thus, according to Agrippa (or Philo), the degree of gravity assigned to this type of profanation was based on a double criterion that can be formulated as follows: 1. Was the object of the offence iconic or aniconic? 2. Was it situated inside or outside the Temple? It should also be further noted that, while the sanctuary was singled out from the rest of Jerusalem because of its sanctity, the ‘holy city’ also was singled out from the rest of Judea.65 If evaluated in light of Agrippa’s own (or Philo’s) criteria, the mounting of a golden eagle above the great gate of the Temple turns out to have been a much more serious offence than that perpetrated by Pilate. In other words, it would have fallen into the spectrum of the category of offences discussed by Philo somewhere between the profanation actually perpetrated by Pilate and that intended by Caligula. Thus, it can safely be inferred from the general and immediate opposition of the Jews to Pilate’s action that the dedication of an eagle in the sanctuary would have aroused not only the tardy reaction of a handful of zealots, but more certainly the instantaneous and much more virulent reactions of the whole people. 62. Philip S. Davies, ‘The Meaning of Philo’s Text about the Gilded Shields’, JTS 37 (1986), pp. 109–14. 63. When they stayed in Jerusalem, Roman procurators took up residence in Herod’s palace (BJ 2:301). 64. Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius. General Indexes (LCL 379; trans. Francis H. Colson; Index by John W. Earp; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962 [1929]), p. 309. 65. See e.g. Ant 18:55–9. 36 | j o u r n a l o f j e w i s h s t u d i e s It may be pertinent to refer here to the opinion that already in the late Second Temple period the prohibition of a figurative representation depended on its destination, or in other words whether it belonged to the sacred or the secular sphere.66 Assuming that this kind of discussion actually took place at that time (which is not certain),67 it is obvious that the golden eagle by its very location could not have been considered a mere ornamental element. Located above the great gate of the Temple, it overlooked the altar from which rose the smoke of the sacrifices. In this very respect, Benjamin W. Bacon has recalled with great pertinence the deed of King Hezekiah, who ‘brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it…’ 68 A further point should be made. While certain scholars have considered the golden eagle to be of Seleucid,69 Nabatean70 or even biblical71 inspiration, most scholars have seen in its construction a gesture of deference to Rome on the part of Herod.72 This proposal, however, is somewhat problematic: first, because the eagle, as Benjamin Isaac has shown, was not considered by the Romans to be a symbol of the Roman state;73 second, in normal times the Roman emperors never demanded such honours from the Jews. This point is clearly established by Agrippa (or Philo) in his letter to Caligula when referring to the emperor Augustus: He [sc. Augustus] gave orders for a continuation of whole burnt offerings every day to the Most High God to be charged to his own purse. These are carried out to this day. Two lambs and a bull are the victims with which he added lustre to the altar, knowing well that there is no image there openly or secretly set up. Indeed this great ruler, this philosopher second to none, reasoned in his mind that within the precincts of earth there must needs be a special place assigned as sacred to the invisible God which would contain no visible image, a 66. Ariel and Fontanille, The Coins of Herod, p. 117. 67. See Sacha Stern, ‘Figurative Art and Halakha in the Mishnaic-Talmudic Period,’ Zion 61 (1996), pp. 397–419; p. 415 (in Hebrew). 68. 2 Kgs 18:4; Benjamin W. Bacon, ‘Eagle and Basket on the Antioch Chalice’, AASOR 5 (1923–24), pp. 1–22, esp. p. 9. 69. Walter Otto, ‘Herodes’, in August F. Pauly et al. (eds), Realencyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Suppl. II (Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 1913), cols 1–158; cols 109–10. 70. Richardson, Herod, p. 16 n. 4. 71. Ya’akov Meshorer (Ancient Jewish Coinage, pp. 29–30) sees a connection between Herod’s golden eagle and Ezekiel 1:10; 17:7. 72. See e.g. Jones, The Herods of Judea, p. 148; Kasher, King Herod, p. 387. 73. See above n. 52. h e r o d’s g o l d e n e a g l e o n t h e t e m p l e g a t e | 37 place to give us participation in good hopes and enjoyment of perfect blessings. (Leg. 317–18) 74 Furthermore, it should be stressed that one of the main missions of Rome’s client kings (such as Herod) was to maintain calm and order in the territories they ruled. It is therefore questionable whether a decision like the erection of an eagle in the Temple that was likely to ignite the Jews of Judea would have ever been favourably considered by Augustus. The aftermath of the golden eagle affair according to Josephus To end this section we shall say a few words about the aftermath of the golden eagle affair as Josephus presents it. In his last will, Herod designated his son Archelaus to be king over the major portion of his kingdom. Yet during Archelaus’ first apparition in the Temple after his father’s death, he was requested by the people to lower taxes and release the prisoners. At some point, the most turbulent among the crowd decreed mourning for Judas, son of Sepphoraeus and Matthias, son of Margalus. Moreover, they demanded that Archelaus punish Herod’s advisers who had brought about the deaths of the doctors of the law and appoint another high priest in place of Joazar, son of Boethus. Archelaus, who was preparing to set out for Rome to obtain confirmation of his crown from Augustus, tried in vain to appease them. This was during the Passover festival, and extremist Jews sought to incite the large numbers of pilgrims streaming to Jerusalem. Archelaus, fearing disorder, sent troops against the agitators. In the confrontation that followed, some three thousand Jews were slaughtered in the Temple (BJ 2:5–13; Ant 17:206–18). Soon after, Archelaus embarked for Rome, where he was joined by Antipas his brother, who disputed his right to the crown (BJ 2:14–15; Ant 17:219–20, 224–7). In Rome, both Archelaus and Antipas were allowed to plead their case in front of Augustus. The first to speak was Herod Antipas’ advocate, Antipater, the son of Salome, who concentrated on blaming Archelaus for the slaughter perpetrated in the Jerusalem Temple. Then came the turn of Archelaus’ advocate, Nicolaus of Damascus, who by a brilliant plea succeeded in convincing Augustus of the validity of his arguments (BJ 2:26–38; Ant 17:228–49). But then a delegation of Jews from Judea appeared, 74. Trans. Colson, (LCL 379:159). 38 | j o u r n a l o f j e w i s h s t u d i e s intending to denounce to the emperor the crimes of Herod and Archelaus, and to request that the authority of the Herodian dynasty be abolished and that Judea be incorporated into Syria. Nicolaus pleaded a second time to refute the accusations against Archelaus. After deliberation, Augustus finally decided to appoint Archelaus not king of Judea but ethnarch (BJ 2:80–100; Ant 17:317). Comments on the above accounts: 1. It is remarkable that in the narration of the riots that marked the beginning of Archelaus’ reign, the golden eagle is mentioned only once, in what is most likely just an explanatory note of Josephus himself (BJ 2:5; Ant 17:206). Indeed, neither the pleading of Antipater son of Salome, nor that of Nicolaus of Damascus, nor even the indictment of the Jews of Judea, who all deal with the bloody riots and suppression in the Temple, contain the slightest allusion to the affair of the golden eagle. Moreover, according to Antipater, these popular troubles were provoked not by the partisans of Judas and Matthias, but by the supposedly outrageous attitude taken by Archelaus during the ceremonies arranged for his father’s mourning (BJ 2:30). The silence of Nicolaus of Damascus on the destruction of the golden eagle in his two pleas is even more significant. Stressing that the leaders of the rioters massacred by Archelaus had destroyed a sacred offering would have constituted a very strong argument; for profaners of holy things were guilty of a sacrilegious act in the eyes of the Romans.75 Yet Nicolaus only made a general accusation against the Jews, of whom he said they have always been prone to sedition (BJ 2:92; Ant 17:316). A similar observation can be made on the few fragments of Nicolaus’ work that have been preserved in Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus’ (905–959 c e) Excerpta de Virtutibus et Vitiis and Excerpta de Insidiis. Although Nicolaus does refer in one of these fragments to the riots repressed by Archelaus and to Augustus’ arbitration between Herod’s sons, he does not make the slightest allusion to the golden eagle affair, or to the partisans of Judas and Matthias.76 Moreover, he casts a somewhat different light on these events, reporting that 75. Sacred offerings were considered by the Romans to be the property of the gods to whom they were dedicated. See e.g. Gregory Stevenson, Power and Place: Temple and Identity in the Book of Revelation (BZnW 107; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001), p. 73. 76. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Excerpta de insidiis, in Excerpta historica (ed. Carl de Boor; Berlin: Weidmannos, 1905), pp. 1–3; Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, vol. II, A90 (Leiden: Brill, 1928), frag. 136. h e r o d’s g o l d e n e a g l e o n t h e t e m p l e g a t e | 39 the Jews rose not only against Herod’s family but also against the Greek inhabitants of the kingdom.77 In this regard, for Ben Zion Wacholder, the superiority of Nicolaus’ version of the event following Herod’s death to that of Josephus, ‘his copyist’, is obvious, especially since it contains facts missing in Josephus’ writings.78 It is essential to recall here that Nicolaus was a direct witness and an active participant in the events marking the end of Herod’s reign and the beginning of that of Archelaus, a fact which makes his silence on the golden eagle all the more noteworthy. 2. It is also remarkable that the question of the dismissal of the high priest Joazar, son of Boethus, which appears to have been most important to Archelaus’ Jewish opponents (BJ 2:7; Ant 17:207), finds no direct echo in the account of the golden eagle episode. At most, there is a brief reference to the removal of Matthias, son of Theophilus, by Herod (Ant 17:164), which is likely to be, according to Seth Schwartz, a dubious addition of Josephus himself.79 This confusion is most likely the result of Josephus’ use of different sources about the end of Herod and the rise of Archelaus and his attempt to collate and harmonize them, with more or less success. The golden eagle episode: a tale of martyrdom The above considerations lead me to doubt the authenticity of the account of the golden eagle affair, even though it might reflect a memory of real political disorders on the eve of Herod’s death, whose instigators were, perhaps, Judas son of Sepphoraeus and Matthias son of Margalus. In any case, in my view, the details relating to the construction and subsequent destruction of the golden eagle have no historical reality. However, the question of the origin of this story does need to be addressed. The golden eagle affair offers obvious analogies to certain martyrdom narratives, the most famous of which are to be found in the second book of Maccabees (2 Macc.). 2 Macc. claims to be 77. Interestingly enough, Nicolaus reports that the Greek cities of Herod’s kingdom also sent envoys to Rome requesting their transfer to the authority of the imperial legate of Syria; Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, vol. II, A90, frag. 136. 78. Ben Zion Wacholder, Nicolaus of Damascus (UCPH 75; Berkeley CA: University of California Press, 1962), pp. 63–4. 79. See Seth Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (CSCT 18; Leiden: Brill, 1990), pp. 60 n. 6, 60–61 n. 7. 40 | jou r na l of j ew ish stu di es an epitome of Jason of Cyrene’s lost work comprising five volumes. While Jason’s work is usually ascribed to the first Hasmonean generation, the date of its abridged version is still disputed; it has been variously dated between the reign of John Hyrcanus (134–104 B c e) and Pompey’s conquest of Judea (63 B c e). 2 Macc. gives an account of the events leading up to the Jewish revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the details of the revolt itself up to the defeat of the Seleucid general Nicanor (161 B c e).80 Two famous martyrdom tales in 2 Macc. are of direct concern to our discussion. The first (2 Macc. 6:18–31) is the story of an old man named Eleazar, tortured to death because he refused to eat pork. The second account (2 Macc. 7) relates the suffering of seven brothers and their mother, who, when they were being forced to violate their national law by Antiochus IV Epiphanes himself, preferred to die. As already said, these stories present analogies to the account of the golden eagle. First, we note with Shmuel Shepkaru that the depiction of Eleazar as one of the most famous scribes (2 Macc 6:18) recalls Judas and Matthias, who are described as eminent doctors of the law (BJ 1:649; Ant 17:149).81 Besides, Jan W. van Henten has found similarities between the figure of Herod and that of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who became the archetype of the tyrant in martyrdom literature.82 One may also mention here the early-first-century c e Testament of Moses, which depicts the martyrdom of a certain Levite called Taxo, who with his seven sons chose to die rather than transgress the law. Interestingly enough, according to Kenneth Atkinson, this work portrays Herod as ‘Antiochus Redivivus’.83 Likewise, dialogues between the martyrs and their executioner is also a recurring theme; their purpose is to establish an absolute opposition between the unjust orders of the impious persecutor and the divine law in whose defence it is good to die (2 Macc 7:2, 9, 11, 24, 30; BJ 1:653; Ant 17:158–60). And, finally, the execution of martyrs by 80. On 2 Macc., see Daniel R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees (CEJL; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008), pp. 3–126. 81. Shmuel Shepkaru, Jewish Martyrs in the Pagan and Christian Worlds (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 43–4. 82. Jan W. van Henten, ‘Ruler or God? The Demolition of Herod’s Eagle’, in John Fotopoulos (ed.), New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune (NovTSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 257–86, esp. pp. 265, 268. 83. Kenneth R. Atkinson, ‘Herod the Great as Antiochus Redivivus: Reading the Testament of Moses as an Anti-Herodian Composition’, in Craig A. Evans (ed.), Of Scribes and Sages: Early Jewish Interpretation and Transmission of Scripture, Volume 1: Ancient Versions and Traditions (LSTS, 50; SSEJC, 9; London and New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004), pp. 134–49. h e r o d’s g o l d e n e a g l e o n t h e t e m p l e g a t e | 4 1 fire also occurs frequently as a motif in martyrdom literature (Daniel 3:6; 2 Macc. 6:10–11, 7:5).84 Thus it would seem that the golden eagle episode is in reality a martyrdom tale, and it is therefore also worth observing that it is not rare in martyrdom literature to find depictions of the death of the tyrants as the just punishment for their crimes. Thus, for example, in 2 Macc. (7:16–19, 31–6), the martyrs themselves announce to Antiochus IV his impending doom.85 Remarkably enough, certain hints suggest that, in its original version, the story of the golden eagle ended not with the execution of Judas, Matthias and their followers, but with the death of the ‘tyrant’ Herod. A significant reference is made concerning two diviners who declared that the king would suffer atrocious agony as a punishment for his treatment of Judas and Matthias (BJ 1:656). We shall now review the order of the events following the destruction of the eagle, as it appears in Josephus’ writings. As already mentioned, after their arrest, Judas, Matthias and their followers are taken to Jericho to be tortured. Herod then summons the ‘principal men among the Jews’ to attend him at the theatre (théatron) in the city (Ant 17:160–61), where he harshly reprimands them. However, despite his anger, Herod is reported to have dealt rather mildly with the distinguished Jews; he punishes only the high priest Matthias, son of Theophilus, whom he deprives of the high priesthood, holding him ‘partly to blame for what had happened’ (Ant 17:164). Joazar son of Boethus is appointed high priest in his place. The mention of Matthias86 is peculiar since he is not referred to in the account of the golden eagle,87 and as a result has led some to propose that it may be an insertion of Josephus.88 Immediately after the dismissal of Matthias, Herod’s illness worsens; at his doctors’ advice, he goes to the therapeutic baths at Callirhoe (Ain ez-Zara89), located on the north-eastern shores of the Dead Sea. But the treatment with hot baths and warmed oil affords him no relief and he returns dying to Jericho after an unspecified period of time. Josephus reports that Herod proceeds 84. Jan Willem van Henten and Friedrich Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian Antiquity (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), p. 52. 85. The punishment of Antiochus IV Epiphanes is described in 2 Macc. 9; 4 Macc. 12:11–14; 14:37–46. 86. A short mention of the appointment of Matthias son of Theophilus appears in Ant 17:78. 87. See Gustav Hölscher, ‘Josephus’, PWRE 9 (1916), pp. 1934–2000, esp. p. 1975 ***. 88. See above n. 79. 89. See, for instance, Christa Clamer, Fouilles archéologiques de ’Aïn ez-Zâra/Callirhoé, villégiature hérodienne (Beyrouth: Institut Français d’archéologie du Proche-Orient, 1997). 4 2 | jou r na l of j ew ish stu di es then to devise a wicked scheme: he orders the distinguished men ‘from every village throughout Judaea’ (BJ 1:659 90) to come to him, and when they arrive he imprisons them in the hippodrome (hippódromos) at Jericho. Then, knowing how he is hated by his own people, he orders his sister Salome and her husband Alexas to put to death the captive Jews at the very moment of his demise, to cause national mourning rather than rejoicing. However, after he dies, Salome and Alexas do not carry out Herod’s last instructions and order the prisoners to be freed.91 Close reading reveals remarkable similarities between the account of the golden eagle and the story of Herod’s ultimate scheme against the dignitaries of Judea, the most obvious of which is the imprisonment of the Jewish notables at Jericho. It is interesting to note, however, that while in the golden eagle episode the distinguished Jews were locked up in the theatre (théatron) of Jericho (Ant 17:151), in that of ‘Herod’s ultimate scheme’ they were held captive in the hippodrome (hippódromos) of the city. Ehud Netzer has uncovered at Tell es-Samarat (some 1,500 metres north of the royal palaces of Jericho) the vestiges of a Herodian complex that combines the functions of theatre, amphitheatre and hippodrome. Accordingly, he has proposed that the two stories we are dealing with (the ‘golden eagle’ and ‘Herod’s ultimate scheme’) actually refer to one and the same building.92 Thus, as it stands, Josephus’ account reports that Herod twice imprisoned the Jewish notables in the Jericho theatre/hippodrome, apparently within a short period of time. Could this singularity be the result of literary editing and composition by Josephus himself? If so, this discussion may shed some indirect light on the controversial issue of Josephus’ historical method.93 Indeed, it is not 90. Ant 17:174 (LCL 410:451) reads: ‘The notable Jews were commanded to come to him from all parts of the entire nation.’ 91. The similarities between this account and a story from the commentary (Scholion) of Megillat Ta’anit are well known. When he fell ill, Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 B c e) imprisoned 70 elders and ordered their execution upon his death. But, after he died, his wife Alexandra Salome gave order to release the prisoners. For many commentators, this tradition is most likely an adaptation of the account of ‘Herod’s ultimate scheme’. See e.g. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, vol. 1, p. 326 n. 162; Joshua Efron, Studies on the Hasmonean Period (SJLA 39; Leiden: Brill, 1987), p. 211. 92. Netzer, The Architecture of Herod the Great Builder, pp. 72–80. 93. Two divergent approaches have been predominant in modern Josephan scholarship. The source-critical approach, whose aim is to identify the sources used by Josephus, has fostered the view that Josephus was mainly a compiler of sources. See e.g. Daniel R. Schwartz, ‘Composition and Sources in Antiquities 18: The Case of Pontius Pilate’, in Zuleika Rodgers (ed.), Making History: Josephus and Historical Method (JSJ Suppl. 110; Leiden: Brill, 2007) pp. 125–46. In contradistinction, h e r o d’s g o l d e n e a g l e o n t h e t e m p l e g a t e | 43 unlikely that Josephus had in his possession at least two accounts of Herod’s death, which he now sought to combine. One, most probably by Nicolaus of Damascus, reported that, following the trial of his son Antipater in Jerusalem (BJ 1:620–46; Ant 17:93–145), Herod then went to the baths at Callirhoe, and from there to Jericho where he died. The other version of Herod’s last moments was derived from the story of the golden eagle affair. According to the original version of this account, after the destruction of the eagle in Jerusalem, Herod sent Judas, Matthias and their disciples to Jericho, and summoned the principal Jews, whom he then imprisoned in the theatre/ hippodrome of the city. He did not free them but enjoined Salome and Alexas to put them all to death as soon as he had died. Soon after his death in Jericho, Salome and Alexas released those who had been confined in the theatre/hippodrome. To combine these two accounts of Herod’s death, Josephus divided the story of the golden eagle affair into two parts, between which he inserted Herod’s therapeutic stay at Callirhoe.94 This simple change made it necessary to introduce additional modifications. Indeed, in order to preserve, on the one hand, Herod’s speech to the Jewish leaders condemning the eagle’s destruction and, on the other hand, the order he gave while dying to have the Jewish dignitaries killed, Josephus probably deemed it necessary to add an account of a second convocation of the Jewish notables to give credence to Herod’s order to murder the latter. Conclusion In consideration of these arguments, I now suggest that the episode of the golden eagle is a martyrdom narrative of legendary character, although it may preserve to a certain extent the memory of authentic tensions at the end of Herod’s reign. One can only conjecture about the purpose of this story and the circumstances of its composition. Perhaps it was intended to incite the composition-critical approach has seen Josephus as an author in his own right. Steve Mason has defined this latter approach as an ‘effort to interpret an author’s writings in and of themselves, as self-contained compositions’; Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (SPB XXXIX; Brill: Leiden, 1991), p. 43. 94. It might be useful to mention here Schwartz’s conclusion that Josephus composed Ant by setting in chronological order passages from various sources; Daniel R. Schwartz, ‘Many Sources but a Single Author: Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities’, in Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers (eds), A Companion to Josephus (Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell, 2016), pp. 36–58. 4 4 | jou r na l of j ew ish stu di es the Jews at a time of crisis and bring them into conflict with the Roman authorities on certain religious issues, as for instance during the incident of the ‘standards’; or during that of the ‘shields’ under the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate; or in the wake of Caligula’s order to erect a statue of himself in the Jerusalem Temple. Accordingly, Judas, Matthias and their disciples, like other martyrs, were to constitute models of virtue and constancy whose example was to be followed. In this respect, we may mention the last words of Eleazar the Elder (2 Macc. 6:27–28): Therefore, passing out of life manfully I will on the one hand show myself worthy of old age, and on the other I will leave to the youth a noble example of enthusiastically and nobly dying the good death for the august and holy laws.95 Placed in larger historical perspective, the account of the golden eagle affair can be likened to further legendary tales that contributed to the blackening of the memory of Herod after his death, and among which are these famous examples: the massacre of the innocents in the Gospel of Matthew (2:13–18) and the Talmudic story of Herod’s killing of the sages (bBabab 3b–4a). 95. Trans.: Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, p. 272.