Drew Ski (42:48)
Yes, I think that's kind of what Josephus wants us to think. And I think there's actually, it's not necessarily the worst analysis either. Herod did things that no previous Jewish ruler would have ever had the temerity to do. You know, in the year 167 BCE, the Hasmonean revolt broke out against the Seleucids. In part, not the only thing, but in part because the Seleucids had built a gymnasium or had given permission for the construction of a gymnasium at Jerusalem. Herod took the initiative and built both a theater and an amphitheater at Jerusalem, which is roughly the same thing in terms of its cultural baggage. And he kind of got away with it. I mean, partly times had changed. The fact is that after Herod's time, we don't hear another word about these buildings and there's no archaeological trace of them. So it doesn't look as if they completely survived very long. They might have been built of wood or something. But he's doing things in an effort to kind of claim Jerusalem as a proper Eastern Roman city and to claim his kingdom as a proper client kingdom of the Romans interested in playing the political game that the Romans want them to play. He's taking fairly drastic steps, and they're steps which actually seem to have displeased many of his subjects. Not all, I mean, not all of them, but they seem to have displeased many of them. But what Herod, I think was trying to do, maybe partly by instinct, was just to try to, you know, thread the needle, to try to give the Romans enough to keep them happy and to give his various constituents enough to keep them happy with all the internal zero sum games within his kingdom, possibly a zero sum game between Jews and Romans. On the broader international stage, it may have been a losing proposition, but he was part of the Romans tinkering in the East. That is, Herod is doing the tinkering himself. And he almost gets it, but he doesn't quite get it. And maybe if he hadn't been such an awful person as a human being, he might have been more successful. I mean, by the way, there's an interesting distinction in Jewish tradition between the reception of Herod and the reception of his grandson, who for a brief period ruled the entire Herodian kingdom. King Agrippa I, who in the year 41, inherited the entirety of his grandfather's kingdom, which was given to him by the newly crowned Emperor Claudius as an act of gratitude for his friendship. There is no way to spot any political difference between Herod and Agrippa and his grandson. They seem to be doing exactly the same things to try to please the exact same constituencies. But there was something about him, something maybe slightly intangible. Josephus himself said that Herod was widely reputed to have favored the Greeks over the Jews, and Agrippa was widely understood to have favored the Jews over the Greeks. And this is confirmed in the way rabbinic literature receives King Agrippa because they regard him as someone who is of tainted ancestry. But nevertheless, he's a member of the team. He's a good guy. The fact that he was like the moon companion of the future Emperor Caligula and, you know, and all of these things, they didn't even know that, but Josephus did. But he still writes what he writes. I mean, that's clearly a correct description of the memory of Agrippa compared to the memory of Herod. So there was just something about him. Maybe he was a better actor than his grandfather had been. He figured it out, but it was probably too late.