Herod in History is a stimulating book. Central to it is a provocative premise that Nicolaus of Damascus, a courtier of Herod I of Judaea and one of Josephus’ main sources for him, did not write to praise Herod. Instead, his characterisation reflects his views on what made kings good or evil in the ancient world, and in particular the Augustan era. He was also casting his own questionable role at Herod's court in a positive light.
Reconstructing Nicolaus’ material on Herod (reigned c. 37–34 b.c.e.) is challenging. Originating from Damascus, Nicolaus was an adviser to Herod and perhaps other eastern Mediterranean dynasts under the triumvirs and then Augustus. As an historian, Nicolaus’ achievements included an autobiography, a life of Augustus and a Universal History that fielded his material on Herod. His works, however, only survive in fragments, and while Josephus borrowed heavily from the Universal History in his Jewish War and his Jewish Antiquities, he does not always cite Nicolaus explicitly. People have therefore posited different theories, by necessity circular, about what originated from Nicolaus. A widespread assumption is that Nicolaus, keen to praise Herod, was responsible for favourable material (Josephus, AJ 16.183–7 states as much). More critical matter was produced by other sources, or Josephus himself. Notionally, this would explain differences in Josephus’ portrayals of Herod in War, mainly positive, and in Antiquities, which is more hostile.
The authors disagree. They posit that Nicolaus completed his Universal History, probably totaling 144 books, after Herod died; Books 123–4 recount parts of Herod's reign, and Nicolaus must have reached his death by Book 144 (8–9). A critical retrospective on Herod was possible. The authors also observe that Nicolaus had his own intellectual and moral reputation to consider. His longevity at Herod's court, even at its most violently depraved, plausibly affected his portrayal of Herod and his own conduct (22–4). They accordingly surmise that Nicolaus’ treatment of Herod is best understood by reconstructing how he treats ancient kingship and Roman governance in his undisputed fragments, along with his debt to prior treatments (like Xenophon's Cyropaedia). One can then read his fragments against thematic parallels in Josephus’ material on Herod, along with contradictions in Josephus’ narrative suggesting that he used an external source (18). The enterprise enables plausible theories of where Josephus was indebted to Nicolaus.
This approach often leads the authors to differ from past scholarship regarding what Nicolaus’ narrative arc for Herod was. Herod, a usurper without an ancestral claim, came to power in a Roman imperial system that rewarded merit, unlike the late Hellenistic and Hasmonaean contexts that preceded (ch. 1). Being energetic, skilled and ambitious, he behaved like a good king; spending lavishly, he relieved his people of famine, built impressive cities and fortresses and distributed land (chs 2–3). Cooperating with the benign oversight of Rome, he enabled his subjects to live by their ancestral laws (their ‘freedom’ and ‘autonomy’: ch. 4). But he eventually degenerated because life at a royal court is morally toxic, and surviving members of the Hasmonaean family into which he had married (especially his female in-laws and his sons by Mariamne) had motives to ruin him (chs 5–6). Instead of being untrammelled praise, Nicolaus’ history offered a balanced portrait of a flawed man at his best and vilest. Herod may have executed a wife and several children. But the people closest to him were often deceitful, manipulating and plotting against him, and the strain and isolation of governance had poisoned him. If Nicolaus’ material on Herod is flattery, this is because Nicolaus praises himself: for being a moderating influence and an opponent of the evil, cunning people at Herod's court.
A key argument of the authors is that by understanding Nicolaus’ complicated treatment of Herod, we can grasp how Josephus integrated it into his narrative agenda (19–20), more or less as he did with inscriptions (Miriam Pucci ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World (1998)). Nicolaus portrayed Herod as a virtuous usurper who ruled legitimately but then declined due to factors beyond his control. His Jewish subjects were unreasonably critical of him, since his mediating with Rome enabled them to practise their ancestral traditions (69–71, 90–3, 139–63). In turn, Josephus reworked Nicolaus’ material to portray Herod as the problem, especially in his Antiquities. Instead of being a virtuous usurper, Herod was an illegitimate one (41) who unjustly killed the Hasmonaeans into whose dynasty he had married (110). Instead of being a liberator, his relationship with Rome often prompted him to violate the sacred principles of Jews or alienate them (42–6, 88–93). The infamous trophy incident and eagle affair (Josephus, BJ 1.648–50; AJ 15.269–79, 17.149–64) probably reflect how Nicolaus portrayed Herod's Jewish subjects as unreasonable. Josephus recast this material to make Herod the impious transgressor (139–63). Ultimately, despite their different backgrounds and aims, Nicolaus and Josephus were kindred spirits. They sought to justify their past behaviour in the face of valid criticism. They were dynamic historians who sought sources and reworked them, while also claiming superiority.
The authors consistently communicate that their views rely on plausible inferences and not incontrovertible proof (for example: 18, 169). Specialists will undoubtedly critique how they interpret various parts of Josephus. But their overall theory for Nicolaus and his version of Herod is compelling and warrants serious consideration.
