Herod the Great is surely one of the most fascinating persons from Jewish history in the Roman era. He is certainly the best described in the ancient sources at our disposal and likewise one of the most researched and biographed. Considering the amount of recent scholarly publications, one therefore wonders if there is room left for any real innovation and fresh insights. Czajkowski and Eckhardt prove that there is. Traditionally, the aim in research has been to establish a secure ground for portraying the Herod of history, but how to do this when our primary source, Josephus, differs vastly in his portrayal of Herod in his two historical works, just as he obviously was heavily dependent upon a certain writer with whom he also disagreed? Czajkowski and Eckhardt offer a fresh approach to this impasse by shifting focus from the ‘Herod of history’ to the ‘Herod in history’. That is to say: the way in which the character of Herod was used to serve the needs and aims of his first biographer, Nicolaus of Damascus, who wrote in the Augustan age, and later his second biographer, Flavius Josephus, who wrote in the Flavian age. By focusing on the first, Nicolaus, the authors’ aim is to overthrow the old consensus, viewing Nicolaus as a mere ‘court historian’, paving the way for a new understanding, according to which Nicolaus wrote to secure his own legacy not handcuffed by propagandist limitations.
Though an iterant philosopher and historian, Nicolaus spent the better part of his active career at the court of Herod. Since a large portion of the later part of Nicolaus’ magnum opus, his Universal History in 144 books, was devoted to the reign of Herod, it is often assumed that these now lost books were mere propaganda on behalf of his patron for whom he served as a claqueur. This view is supported by Josephus’ outspoken critique of Nicolaus for portraying Herod in an encomiastic manner (AJ 16.183–7). It is further surmised that the substantial difference between Josephus’ early and generally positive portrait of Herod in Jewish War and the later and much more critical portrayal in Antiquities of the Jews is to be explained as a consequence of Josephus using Nicolaus’ work as his main source in Jewish War, whereas other sources were at his disposal for his later writing just as he changed his mind on the role of Herod and the Herodian house in the downfall of the Jewish nation. Following this trajectory, the usual way for reaching ‘the true Herod’ of history has been to follow the principle: ‘propaganda (Nicolaus) minus demonization (Josephus) equals truth’ (p. 173).
The core contribution of Czajkowski and Eckhardt's book is to revise this picture and in the process in a sense to rehabilitate Nicolaus from his Herodian shadow, capable of casting his presentation of Herod within the reverberations of the recent seismic event: the transition from the republic to the Augustan principate. In outline, rather than surmising that Nicolaus’ presentation of Herod was a one-levelled praise of his deeds, the authors suggest that Nicolaus cast the reign of Herod in the mould of the ‘energetic usurper’ who, like Augustus before him, seized the throne from the old, incompetent and corrupt system or house of rulers, but who – unlike Augustus – fell prey to his own pathetic nature by becoming slave to his emotions, which turned him into a mix of a weak, manipulative character and a brutal, excessive tyrant. In his description hereof, Nicolaus made sure to present himself as Herod's best friend and advisor. Further, when the reign of Herod eventually collapsed, in the sense that Herod suffered the most painful death imaginable, Nicolaus presented this as the inevitable outcome of the Jewish nation being an ‘unruly people’, something even his assistance of Herod could not hinder.
There are two main obstacles to this picture. Czajkowski and Eckhardt treat the minor of these in the first chapter, namely the dating of Nicolaus’ writings on Herod. Traditionally, the Universal History has been seen as completed in 12 bce, leaving little room for Nicolaus to write on Herod in any other way than encomiastic when his patron was alive. Czajkowski and Eckhardt oppose this and postpone its date of completion to after Herod's death in 4 bce and likely even to after the dethroning of his son, Archelaos, in 6 ce. If the finalisation of the latter part of Nicolaus’ work took place this late, this would drastically improve his ability to shape his story on Herod to his needs. The other problem is much more complex and in reality what occupies the bulk of the book: since we do not have access to Nicolaus’ writings on Herod apart from its influence on and adaptation in Josephus’ work, any reconstruction of Nicolaus’ purposes and aims is in a sense double-blind-folded: not only does the text need to be extrapolated from the surface of Josephus’ text; the ideological use of Nicolaus by Josephus also needs to be reconstructed and taken into account. Czajkowski and Eckhardt readily admit that their endeavour is situated within the realm of Quellenforschung with all of its perils and arbitrariness, for which reason they express their hope as one of establishing a new plausible scenario, which in the end is not so much focused on finding ‘the real Herod’ as it is focused on discovering the story of Nicolaus and his achievement by presenting Herod in the way in which he did.
In order to do this and in order to address the latter and major problem, Czajkowski and Eckhardt present some seven case studies, covering the entirety of Herod's life from his ascension to the throne (Chapter 2), over his early interventions on behalf of his subjects (Chapter 3), the clash between Roman and Jewish understanding of freedom (Chapter 4), the marital problems between Herod and his Hasmonean family-in-law (Chapter 5), the fatal relationship between Herod and his sons (Chapter 6), to finally the description of Herod's painful death (Chapter 7). Throughout, the authors offer a number of fresh and surprising readings. This is especially true for their suggestion that the deterioration of Herod into tyranny goes back to Nicolaus who did not hide how Herod increasingly got overwhelmed by his passions, lost his ability to rule according to justice, and eventually became highly prone to manipulation since this deterioration could serve as a scaffold for Nicolaus to present himself as a true friend and the best advisor one could get, who managed at least partially to demask the forces working against his patron. If this is correct, the real collision of opinion between Nicolaus and Josephus is not so much to be found in their portrayal of Herod's tyrannical nature. Rather, while Nicolaus eventually accused the Jewish nation of being an ‘unruly people’ that was partially to blame for the downfall of Herod, Josephus needs, in post-war Flavian Rome, to circumvent any suggestion that the Jewish people will never be accommodable within the Roman hegemony – and, for this reason, Josephus goes out of his way to present Herod as an impious lawbreaker whose actions provoked a nascent resistance that eventually grew into full-scale rebellion.
Czajkowski and Eckhardt have provided a highly learned study that leaves plenty of room for thought and further interaction. This is the case even if one eventually remains unconvinced at the end. Indeed, the authors readily admit that their study is conjectural and that ‘possibility is not certainty’ (p. 169). There is no way of doing away with the fact that our access to the Herod of history is shielded behind the aims and purposes of the ‘historians’ Nicolaus and Josephus. By rethinking how Herod was treated in history, Czajkowski and Eckhardt have provided a fresh start for further Herodian biographical prospects. A final caveat: considering the difficulty of accessing the partly lost writings of Nicolaus, it would have been beneficial to provide an outline of the preservation of his texts and modern editions hereof.
