Herod the Liberator

Abstract The chapter starts with a discussion of two speeches, one by Nicolaus and one by Herod, that seem to make the very same point: the establishment of Roman rule in the East was a process of liberation, because it did away with the Hellenistic kings and secured everyone’s right to live under their own laws. The chapter discusses Herod’s role as a mediator of this kind of liberty, but the main concern is with the apparent simplicity of this image of Rome. Based on a discussion of other late Republican or Augustan texts that leave more room for an ambiguous presentation of Roman rule, the hypothesis is put forward that Nicolaus did actually offer just that by incorporating dissenting voices from Judea. These voices claimed that the exact opposite was true: true Judaism and Roman rule were incompatible, because accepting Roman rule lead to a dissolution of traditional laws. Nicolaus’ audience would have expected to see both sides argued; he did, however, make clear that the pro-Roman protagonists (including himself) were in the right.