ABSTRACT The central question under consideration in this article is whether the various trials to which Herod, the well-known king of Judaea, subjected family members qualify as instances of the Roman iudicium domesticum. Modern debate among legal historians has been shaped by the views of two scholars in particular, Wolfgang Kunkel, who argues that one of them so qualifies, and Alfredo Mordechai Rabello, who contends that the rest do not, asserting that Herod simply followed the rules and procedures associated with a Hellenistic court. For the first time in modern scholarship, this article scrutinizes in detail all six examples of such trials. By itself, the evidence, though relatively copious, does not permit us to resolve this dispute as clearly and unambiguously as we would like. Much depends, for example, on precisely how one wishes to define the institution in question. Recent scholarly advances in the area of legal pluralism, however, point in the direction of a solution that does justice to both sides of this debate, as well as, perhaps, to Herod himself.

中文翻译：

---

希律大帝和 Iudicium Domesticum：为之而死的法律多元化

摘要 本文所考虑的中心问题是，著名的犹太国王希律 (Herod) 对家庭成员进行的各种审判是否符合罗马的家训。法律历史学家之间的现代辩论尤其受到两位学者的观点的影响，沃尔夫冈·昆克尔（Wolfgang Kunkel）认为其中一位如此有资格，而阿尔弗雷多·莫迪凯·拉贝罗（Alfredo Mordechai Rabello）则认为其他人没有资格，断言希律只是遵守规则和与希腊化法庭相关的程序。在现代学术界，本文首次详细审查了此类试验的所有六个例子。就其本身而言，尽管证据相对丰富，但并不允许我们像我们希望的那样清楚明确地解决这一争议。很大程度上取决于，例如，关于人们希望如何定义相关机构。然而，法律多元化领域的最新学术进展指出了一个解决方案的方向，该解决方案对这场辩论的双方，也许还有希律本人都公正。