This is compiled from the unrevised E.T. of Schurer's Jewish People and a little from Wikipedia:
Around 63 BCE, when the Romans entered the civil war between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, Aristobulus II was forced to offer the surrender of Jerusalem to Pompey, but when the people of the city refused to open the gates to Pompey's general Gabinus, Pompey imprisoned Aristobulus II. Pompey returned with an army, and this time the partisan's of Hyrcanus II admitted the Romans into the city. Hyrcanus II was established as HP of the Jews, subject to the Roman governor (i.e., he was head of a "temple state," which functioned much like an autonomous Greek city state would, with the governor being Antipas).
Around 62 BCE the imprisoned Aristobulus II, his older son Alexander, his youngest son Antigonus II, and his two daughters, were sent to Rome. Alexander almost immediately escaped his captors and returned to Judea. He was likely in his early 20s at this point.
In 57 BCE Alexander raised an army of over 10,000 men against Hyrcanus II and captured the fortresses of Alexandrium, Hyrcania and Machaerus, but the Romans forced him to surrender these all, and tender hearted as those Romans were, set him free! I think this suggests that he was old enough to rally supporters, but young enough for the Romans to forgive his impatience, so I'd guess that Alexander at this time was between 25 and 30 years of age. IMHO, I would place his birth between 87 and 82 BCE.
In 56 BCE, Aristobulus II and his youngest son Antigonus II, escaped their exile in Rome and returned to Judea to raise rebellion against Hyrcanus II. Aristobulus II was quickly defeated by a Roman division and forced to surrender his last stronghold at Machaerus. It does not seem that Alexander accompanied his father and younger brother, but Alexander was likely arrested by the Romans, as in the aftermath the Romans sent Aristobulus II back to his exile in Rome, but the Roman Senate set all his children free! All four of them (Alexander, Antigonus II, and Aristobulus' two daughters) appeared to have resided, in Palestine, with Aristobolus II's wife. Again, this suggests that even Alexander was under 30 at this time, and since it is not stated that Antigonus II was active in the campaigns of his father, but only was captured along with him, suggests that he was still a minor child.
In 49 BCE, when the Roman civil war broke out, Caesar released Aristobulus II from his house arrest in Rome and placed him in command of two legions to assist him with the retaking of Syria from the rebels, but friends of Pompey managed to poison him on the way to Syria, and he was buried with honor in Judea by Marc Antony.
Around 48 BCE, Pompey also ordered Alexander to be arrested by Scipio, Governor of Syria, who had him beheaded in Antioch for supporting Caesar. I take this to mean that Alexander was now at least 30 years of age. At this time Antigonus II and his sisters were taken away from Aristobulus II's widow by Philippio, son of Ptolemy Menneus of Chalcus. Ptolemy Menneus later killed his own son for the opportunity to marry one of Aristobolus II's daughters, Alexandra, who Philippo had a fancy for. He took it upon himself to look after Antigonus II and his other sister, who must have still been minors.
In 47 BCE, after Caesar had won the Roman civil war, Antigonus II visited him and complained that Hyrcanus II (HP) & Antipater (Roman Procurator) were too self-assertive and he was a better choice as ruler of Judea. Caesar ignored his claims, possibly because of his young age (early 20's?). Hyrcanus II was designated as Ethnarch of the Jewish people (he was already HP) and Antipater was confirmed as Epitropos (procurator). Herod was nominated Strategos (commander) of Coele-Syria, probably including Samaria, by Sextus Caesar, governor of Syria, which he used to his advantage to threaten the Sanhedrim in Jerusalem with a large military force outside the city if they proceeded to pursue charges against him for exceeding his authority in dealing with malcontents in Galilee.
In 43 BCE, Antipater the Roman Procurator of Judea was poisoned by a rival for his place, Malichus, who was in turn assassinated by agents of Herod, who was governor of Galilee. Herod's brother Phasael was probably the Roman procurator at this point.
In 40 BCE, after the Parthians overran northern Syria and were proceeding against the rest of the province and the Near East in general, Antigonus II made a pact with them. As one detachment of Parthian troops advanced on Jerusalem, Antigonus II raised his own troops, and entered Jerusalem to engage with forces loyal to Phasael (commander of Jerusalem) and Herod (commander of Galilee). I would think this suggests that at this point Antigonus II was about 30 years of age.
By trick, the Parthian commander pretended to be a mediator, and arrested Phasael and Hyrcanus when they arrived for a meeting. Herod, too wary to fall for this, had not gone to the meeting but was forced to flee Jerusalem for Rome, stashing his wife and family in the fortress of Masada. Phasael committed suicide, and Hyrcanus II had his ears cut off to terminate his suitability as HP and was sent into exile in northern Mesopotamia. Thus Antigonus II was established as king of Judea. Meanwhile, Herod succeeded in having the Roman senate appoint him as rival King of Judea, but at that point only in title, not possession (although he still retained control of Galilee).
By 39 BCE, the Romans had expelled the Parthians from Syria, but Ventidius, the Roman governor of Syria, and his general Silo, merely forced Antigonus II to pay a heavy tribute to retain Judea. When Herod arrived with the decree of the Roman senate, he found that his brother Joseph, whom he had left in command of Macharus where his family had taken refuge, had been killed in an engagement with Antigonus's forces. The Galileans had subsequently revolted and drowned Herod's associates in the Lake of Gennesaret. With the "help" of Roman forces, he was able to take back Galilee and all of Palestine except Jerusalem by 38 BCE.
Still, it was not until summer of 37 BCE, when the new Roman governor of Syria, Sosius, also showed with a powerful army, that Herod broke into Jerusalem and besieged Antigonus' forces in the inner temple and upper city, but soon even these were overtaken and Sosius' army began pillaging. Antigonus II threw himself at Sosius' feet and begged for mercy, and Sosius made fun of him calling him "Antigone" and "clapped him in irons." Herod bribed Sosius to withdraw his forces before the pillaging got out of hand, and Marc Antony had Antigonus II taken to Antioch.
Afraid that Antigonus II might persuade Antony to switch allegiance to him over Herod, Herod bribed Marc Antony to have Atigonus II beheaded. So Josephus and Plutarch. However, Cassius Dio said "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus [II Matthias] he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him" (Roman History, book xlix, c.22).
Personally, I am inclined top think that Cassius Dio was wrong about the method of execution. He may have heard that the method used "had never before been done to someone of royal family" but not knowing that it was by beheading, may have thought that it was by scourging. Beheading was the manner by which death sentences were carried out on Roman citizens, while non-citizens were scourged and/or hung on a cross. So, using the analogy that a royal scion equated with a Roman citizen, he assumed that the execution could not have been by beheading, but was rather carried out as if he were a pretender = rebel, which the Romans routinely scourged and hung on a cross.
DCH
maryhelena wrote:Where does the idea come from that Antigonus was in his 30's when he was executed?
ALEXANDER II., of Judea: Born about 100 B.C.; died 47 B.C.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... i-of-judea
I don't see where the encyclopedia gets this date from. However, this dating would make Alexander around 53 years old when he was beheaded. Antigonus was the younger brother; beheaded 10 years later in 37 b.c. If this dating has any value - then Antigonus would not have been in his 30's when executed. Possibly late 40's or early 50's. (giving a 10 year gap between the two brothers). Therefore, on this dating, Smith did not error in her evaluation of the skull - that it was not the skull of a young person. However, the idea that a female was crucified and then beheaded seems strange to me....
As to the skull being judged to be that of a female - Antigonus could well have been of small stature - being mockingly called by a female name by the Roman general Sosius in 37 b.c.
