the house of her first husband-στελλόμενος ἐπὶ Ῥώ uns b-when preparing to go to Rome. There is μης no mention of his ever going to Rome, after he became tetrarch, except on this occasion, and on the last, U. C. 792; when he was deposed by Caius. The building however of Tiberias had been projected by him in honour of Tiberius —whose intimate friend Cossus; that is, Cossus Cornelius Lentulus, consul in U. C. 753; and therefore, probably an old man in U. C. 786: which makes it less surprising that Sanquinius Maximus is mentioned as in office U. C. 7 792, in euntes. Josephus then has unquestionably made a mistake either in his first or his second mention of Piso; and the last supposition is much the more probable of the two. For after the death of Piso, the succession of prefects is manifestly obscure and intricate; and each was a very short time in office. But before his death Piso had been in office twenty years; and was much more likely to be generally known. Besides, the first of these occasions was an important one in the history of Agrippa; but the last had nothing to do with it. The trial of Eutychus ultimately led to his master's imprisonment. I think then we may trust to the accuracy of the first allusion: which is in fact placed beyond a question by the circumstance just before noticed: viz. that this Piso was prefect of the city some time before Tiberius came to Tusculum, that is, before U. C. 787. In this case Agrippa must have been in Rome before the middle of U. C. 785. that is, the end of Tiberius' eighteenth at least. The note of time, therefore, xviii. v. 3. is either an oversight of the writer's, or it refers to some other return of Agrippa's, not to his first. Eutychus had been long in confinement after he had been imprisoned by Piso, before he was admitted to an audience of Tiberius. In the mean while his master might have gone back to Judæa-to see his wife and children, whom he certainly left there at firstaand have again returned to Rome, a year before the death of Tiberius. Agrippa, during his imprisonment, as well as before, was much indebted to the good offices of Antonia, the grandmother of Caius. Suetonius, Caius, 10, and 23: she was still living both U. C. 785, and U.C. 790, or 791. y Dio, lix. 13. Tacitus, Ann. vi. 4. speaks of Sanquinius Maximus as Vir Consularis, U. C. 785. Dio says he was Consul Suffect, after Caius, U. C. 792. The Fasti that year shew a Sabinus Maximus, and U. C. 782. a Sanquinius Maximus. Probably in the former instance the Fasti are to be corrected by the latter. z Philo, Operum ii. 536. 4. Adv. Flaccum: mentions an instance in which Tiberius suffered a case to go on for two years at least, without coming to an hearing. Λάμπων μὲν, ἀσεβείας τῆς εἰς Τιβέριον Καίσαρα δίκην σχὼν, καὶ ἐπὶ διετίαν τριβομένου τοῦ πράγματος ἀπειρηκώς. κ', τ. λ. a xviii. vi. 3. b xviii. V. I. c Ant. Jud. xviii. ii. 3. De Bello, ii. ix. 1. he was and from the place of the fact in the War, we may reasonably conclude that he founded it upon, or soon after, that emperor's accession to the throne. Hence if it took up the same length of time as Cæsarea, in his father's instance, it would not be ready to dedicate under ten or eleven years afterwards. Its foundation is placed by Eusebius in Chronico, U. C. 780; but the date of its coins, as determined by cardinal Noris, or by Eckhel ↳, requires it to be placed not earlier than U. C. 770, nor later than U. C. 775: and this very discrepancy confirms our conjecture. It might have been begun in U. C. 770: but it could not have been finished before U. C. 780. The journey to Rome might be preparatory to its dedication. Let us suppose then that the journey in question was made about this time. We may take it for granted it would be made in the spring quarter of the year. If so, in the spring quarter of U. C. 780. Herod would be lodging in his brother's house: and it is plainly implied by Josephus, that he stayed long enough with him not merely to fall in love with his wife, but to take the necessary steps for their future union-to enter into the usual spousal contract—by which they were to divorce themselves from their existing consorts, and then to be married to each other. All this might be arranged in the spring of Tiberius' thirteenth year, U. C. 780. Now this engagement was not so secret, but that it became known before it could be executed even to the parties most injured by it. The daughter of Aretas at least was aware of its existence, before she was actually divorced; and the object of her escape to her father seems to have been to anticipate this divorce by b Eckhel, iii. 427. Eusebius, Chronicon Armeno-Latinum, ad annum Abraami 2043. a voluntary flight. If so, there is no need to have recourse to supernatural modes of communication, to bring it to the knowledge of the Baptist. The existence of such a contract, however, though it was not yet completed, was equivalent in every sense to a marriage; and the language ascribed to John, in each of the Evangelists, Matt. xiv. 4. Mark vi. 18: It is not allowed thee ἔχειν τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου—applies as properly to a marriage intended, as to a marriage completed, between them *. The most probable time when the remonstrance on the part of the Baptist would take place, is upon his first hearing of the contract: for to denounce the crime beforehand was, if possible, to prevent its commission. His message would probably be sent by a disciple; and the reception of his message, at the very juncture when the passion of Herod, the influence of Herodias, Herod's desire of present concealment, and his regard to the reputation and authority of John, now at their highest, were most likely to combine together; would be the necessary prelude to his imprisonment. Both love, and pride, and policy, would concur to suggest this measure. It would not have been prudent in Herod to leave John at large behind him; nor would he continue his journey until *Nor is it any objection, that St. Mark just before says, ὅτι αὐτὴν ἐγάμησεν: for so also does Josephus express himself, concerning Herod and Mariamne; though he had only espoused her, and they were not married until six or seven years afterwards: and about the contract of Marcus, the son of Alexander the Alabarch of Alexandria, to Bernice the daughter of Herod Agrippa; though that match was never consummated. Gen. xix. 14: “ And Lot went "out, and spake unto his sons in "law, which married his daugh"ters:" and yet they were only espoused to these sons in law. The truth is, espousals among the Jews were equivalent to marriage, and the breach of the spousal contract in either of the parties amounted to the crime of adultery. c De Bello, i. xii. 3. xvii. 8. Ant. xix. v. i. he had committed him to prison: and in selecting Machærus as the place of his confinement, he seems to have been desirous to remove him as far off as possible d. If so, the imprisonment of the Baptist would take place some time in the spring. f Nevertheless, I think there is reason to believe that the remonstrances of John were attended by some good effect, and delayed for a time the consummation of this incestuous union. It is not credible that Herod would hear him gladly, and do many things by his advice, while he continued to disregard him in this respect. Still less credible is it that John would cease to denounce the commission of this crime; which even Josephus acknowledges to be a flagrant violation of the law. But what is chiefly to be observed, Herodias herself could scarcely have continued to entertain so deadly a resentment against him, after her ambition had once been gratified by obtaining its wish. is no mode of accounting for this long-cherished animosity, with which, as the Evangelist tells us, she fastened upon him and clung to him, as some ferocious beast to its preys, except by supposing that the life and authority of John stood still between herself and the crown of Galilee. There If this was the case; even when Herod was returned from Rome, (which there is no reason to suppose he would do in the summer of Tiberius' thirteenth; nor consequently, before the spring quarter of his fourteenth,) it does not follow that he would complete his marriage with her immediately. Josephus himself implies that there was some delay, longer or shorter, be d Cf. De Bello, vii. vi. 1-3. e Mark vi. 20. f Ant. xvii. xiii. 1. xviii. v. 4. g Mark vi. 19. éveîxev avтw—that is, what would otherwise be expressed by uφυναί τινι. Ælian, De Natura Animalium, ὁ δὲ ὡς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐνέφυ, εἴχετο, lib. viii. 1 and again, åλλóμevov dè πapaxpîμa èvéqv, ibid. 13. Theocritus, αἱ αἱ, ἔρως ανιαρὲ, τί μεν μέλαν ἐκ χροὺς αἷμα ἐμφὺς ὡς λιμνᾶτις ἅπαν ἐκ βδέλλα πέπωκας ; Idyll. ii. 55. tween the return and the marriage; of which the daughter of Aretas took advantage to make her escape -and in the course of which, Machærus might previously pass into the hands of her father. The time of the death of the Baptist, as it has been seen heretofore, is agreeable to these suppositions for we have had reason to conclude that it fell out soon after the middle of U. C. 781, the beginning of Tiberius' fifteenth year. It will follow only, that the birthday, which Herod was celebrating at that time, happened in the autumnal quarter of the year, and after, or at least not before the Jewish feast of Tabernacles; which fell that year on September 22 or 23. And it was about this time of the year, that he had been originally confirmed in his tetrarchy by Augustus; and on the demise of Augustus, by his personal friend and patron, Tiberius. It was the practice of his father to keep the day of his inauguration as an annual festival; and a similar custom was very generally prevalent in the Easth. The day of a king's accession was both considered and celebrated as his birthday: and in the Mishna it is actually called soi. The magnificence of Herod's entertainment, as described by St. Markk, naturally suggests the inference that he was commemorating something more than his birthday*. The chronological arrangement of these events may therefore very probably be stated as follows: In the spring quarter of the thirteenth of Tiberius, U. C. 780, Herod fell in love with Herodias, and imprisoned John; and afterwards proceeded to Rome. * In the Paschal Chronicon, i. 407. 1. 18. the death of John is placed on the 29th of Lous, or August. h Gen. xl. 20. Dan. v. 1. Esther i. i iv. 364. 3. k vi. 21. g Vide Dissertation xxiii. vol. ii. 341. 3.5. Herodotus, Calliope, 110. |