� 18. Herod Agrippa I., A.D. 37, 40, 41-44

§ 18. HEROD AGRIPPA I., A.D. 37, 40, 41-44
SOURCES
JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xviii. 6, xix. 5-9; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 1; Zonares, Annales, vi. 7-11 (an Abstract of Josephus).
In the New Testament: Acts 12.
Rabbinical Traditions in Derenbourg, pp. 205-219.
The coins are most completely given in Madden, Coins of the Jews (1881), pp. 129-139.
LITERATURE
EWALD, History of Israel, vii. 236-247, 257-270.
GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. pp. 318-361.
HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 568-571.
SCHNECKENBURGER, Zeitgeschichte, pp. 211-215.
HAUSRATH, Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. ii. 212-225, 266-283.
LEWIN, Fasti sacri (1865), ad ann. 31-44. See also the Index, p. 389 sq.
WINER, Realwörterbuch, i. 484 f.
KEIM, Jesus of Nazara, i. 272-275. In Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iii. 49-56.
HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud., Abthl. ii. art. “Agrippa.”
DE SAULCY, Étude chronologique de la vie et des monnaies des rois juifs Agrippa I. et Agrippa II. 1869 (see above, vol. i. p. 27).
GERLACH, Zeitschrift für lutherische Theologie, 1869, pp. 53-62.
MENKE’S Bibelatlas, Bl. v., Special Map of “Judea and Neighbouring Countries in the last years of King Agrippa I.”
I
WHEN Agrippa I.[1056] ascended the throne of Herod the Great, he had already passed through an eventful and adventurous career. He was born in B.C. 10,[1057] as the son of Aristobulus, who was executed in A.D. 7, and Berenice, a daughter of Salome and Costobar.[1058] Shortly before the death of his grandfather he was, while a boy of scarcely six years old, sent for his education to Rome. His mother Berenice was there treated in a friendly manner by Antonia, the widow of the elder Drusus, while the young Agrippa himself became attached to the younger Drusus, the son of the Emperor Tiberius. The influence of the Roman society seems not to have been a favourable or healthy one. He was trained up to entertain ambitious projects and in habits of extravagance, which, especially after the death of his mother, knew no measure or bounds. He soon ran through his means. His debts accumulated upon him. And when by the death of Drusus, which took place in A.D. 23, he lost support and favour at court, he found himself obliged to leave Rome and go back again to Palestine.[1059] He betook himself to Malatha, a stronghold in Idumea,[1060] and meditated committing suicide. When these tidings reached his wife Cypros, she wrote to Agrippa’s sister Herodias, who was by this time married to Antipas, and entreated her help. Herod Antipas was in this way induced to give to his distressed brother-in-law what would be at least sufficient for the support of his life, and gave him, in addition, the appointment of Agoranomos (overseer of markets) in the capital, Tiberias. This new position in life did not indeed continue long. At a banquet in tyre the two brothers-in-law once engaged in a dispute, which ended in Agrippa resigning his situation at Tiberias, and betaking himself to the Roman governor Flaccus in Antioch.[1061] But here, too, his stay was not of long duration. In a dispute which broke out on one occasion between the inhabitants of Sidon and those of Damascus, Agrippa took the side of the Damascenes, apparently in a thoroughly disinterested manner, but really in consequence of bribes which he had taken from them. When this came to the ears of Flaccus, he broke off friendly relations with him; and Agrippa found himself once again deprived of all means of subsistence. He then resolved to try his fortune again in Rome. After he had meanwhile raised a loan in Ptolemais by the assistance of a freedman of his mother Berenice, called Peter, and at Anthedon had only with difficulty escaped the hands of Capito, the procurator of Jamnia, who wished to apprehend him as a debtor of the emperor’s, and had finally in Alexandria succeeded in raising large sums on the credit of his wife, he arrived in Italy in the spring of A.D. 36,[1062] and on the island of Capri[1063] presented himself before Tiberius.[1064] The emperor entrusted him with the oversight of his grandson Tiberius. He became particularly intimate with Caius Caligula, the grandson of his patroness Antonia, who afterwards became emperor. But even now he could not keep himself out of debt. Yea, in order to appease his old creditors he was obliged always to borrow new and even larger sums.[1065] It was not therefore to be wondered at that he eagerly desired an improvement in his circumstances; but there seemed at that time no prospect of accomplishing it until the aged Tiberius should be succeeded on the throne by Caligula, whom he had befriended. Unthinkingly he once expressed his wish aloud to Caligula in the presence of his coachman Eutychus. At a later period he happened to bring a charge of theft against this same Eutychus, and had him brought before the city prefect Piso.[1066] Eutychus now made a declaration that he had an important secret to communicate to the emperor. Tiberius at first gave no heed to the matter.[1067] But when, after some time,[1068] a hearing was granted, and Tiberius came to know what Agrippa had said, he had him immediately put in fetters and cast into prison. Agrippa now continued in confinement for six months, until the death of the emperor on 16th March A.D. 37.[1069]
[1056] The New Testament, Acts 12, names him simply as Herod. By Josephus, however, and on the coins, he is always designated Agrippa.
[1057] As is evident from Antiq. xix. 8. 2, according to which he had reached at his death, in A.D. 44, the age of fifty-four years.
[1058] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 4.
[1059] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 1.—Wieseler, Beweis des Glaubens, 1870, p. 168 f., places the journey of Agrippa from Rome to Palestine in A.D. 29 or 30, which may perchance be correct. At any rate it did not take place, as what follows shows, until after the marriage of Herodias with Antipas.
[1060] Μαλαθά or Μαλααθά also several times referred to in the Onomasticon of Eusebius (ed. Lagarde, pp. 214, 255, 266). It lay fully 20 Roman miles south of Hebron, probably on the site of the modern Tell-el-Milh. See Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 201; Ewald, History of Israel, vii. 237; Guérin, Judée, iii. 184-188; The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii. pp. 404, 415 sq.; also Sheet xxv. of the large English Map.
[1061] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 2.
[1062] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3: ἐνιαυτῷ πρότερον ἢ τελευτῆσαι Τιβέριον.—Wieseler rejects this fact, and, on account of the Piso mentioned in what follows, places the arrival of Agrippa in A.D. 32. Beiträge, p. 13: “probably A.D. 31, at latest A.D. 32;” but in his article in the Beweis des Glaubens, 1870, p. 169, he says distinctly: “not before A.D. 32.”
[1063] Where Tiberius lived almost without interruption from A.D. 27 (Tacitus, Annals, iv. 67) down to his death.
[1064] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 3.
[1065] Ibid. xviii. 6. 4.
[1066] The Piso here referred to cannot have been the same as the one who was dead, according to Tacitus, Annals, vi. 10, in A.D. 32, as Wieseler, Beiträge, p. 8 ff., wishes to make out; for he is still referred to in Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 10, after the death of Tiberius.—Josephus in two passages designates him φύλαξ τῆς πόλεως. On other Greek designations of the praefectus urbi, see Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, ii. 2. 981.
[1067] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 5.
[1068] χρόνου ἐγγενομένου (Antiq. xviii. 6. 6), of which Wieseler makes four years. See the Beweis des Glaubens, 1870, p. 169.
[1069] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 6-7; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 5.
With the death of Tiberius and the accession of Caligula began for Agrippa the period of his good fortune. Caligula scarcely waited till the solemnities of the funeral of Tiberius were over before he had delivered his friend from his imprisonment and conferred upon him what had been the tetrarchy of Philip, and that also of Lysanias, with the title of king. To this gift the Senate further added the honorary rank of a praetor.[1070] Instead of the iron chain which he had worn, Caligula gave him a golden chain of equal weight.[1071] But Agrippa still continued to stay in Rome for a year and a half. It was not before autumn of A.D. 38 that he went back by way of Alexandria to Palestine, that he might set in order the affairs of his kingdom.[1072]
[1070] Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 6, ed. Mangey, ii. 523. Compare above, vol. i. p. 450. The loan was obtained, not through the emperor, but through the Senate. See Philo, l.c.: βαοιλέα καὶ φίλον Καίσαρος καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς Ρωμαίων βουλῆς τετιμημένον στρατηγικαῖς τιμαῖς.
[1071] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 10; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 6; Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 5 init., ed. Mangey, ii. 520 sq.; Dio Cassius, lix. 8.—From the inscription at El-Muschennef (in Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions Grecques et Latines, t. iii. n. 2211) we see that the territories of Agrippa extended as far as what is now the Haurân.
[1072] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 11; Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 5, ed. Mangey, ii. 521. Compare above, p. 37 and p. 95.
Soon afterwards, through imperial favour, he obtained yet more important territorial additions. It has been already told (above, at p. 36) how Herod Antipas in A.D. 39, by his own fault, had lost his tetrarchy, and now, probably not before A.D. 40, Caligula bestowed it also upon Agrippa.
In the autumn of that same year we find Agrippa once more at Rome or Puteoli, where he contrived by his personal intercession to prevent Caligula, at least for a long time, from persisting in his attempt to set up his statue in the temple of Jerusalem (see above, p. 102). He then remained in the company of Caligula, and was still present in Rome when his patron, on 24th January A.D. 41, was murdered by Chärea, and contributed not a little to secure the succession to the throne of the Caesars to the feeble Claudius.[1073] It may readily be supposed that he was not the man to perform such services without securing some personal advantage. The new emperor was obliged, in return, not only to confirm him in the possessions which he had previously, but also to add to these Judea and Samaria; so that Agrippa now united under his sway the whole territory of his grandfather. Besides this, he obtained consular rank. For the confirming of this grant, according to ancient custom, a solemn covenant was concluded in the Forum, but the documentary deed of gift was engraved on brazen tablets and placed in the Capitol.[1074]
[1073] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 1-4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 11.
[1074] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 5; Dio Cassius, lx. 8. Josephus expresses himself in such a manner as to imply that the tetrarchy of Lysanias was now anew conferred upon Agrippa. But seeing that he had already received that territory from Caligula, the statement can only mean that now the gift was formally confirmed. It is in the highest degree probable that Josephus found in the documents which he used the statement that Agrippa, by the favour of Claudius, held possession of the tetrarchy of Lysanias in addition to the whole territories of his grandfather.—The concluding of the covenant is represented on a coin, of which the superscription is indeed no longer perfectly legible; on which, however, at any rate there is mention of a συμμαχία of King Agrippa with the Roman Senate and people (σύνκλητος καὶ δῆμος Ῥωμαίων). See especially Reichardt in the Numismatische Zeitschrift of Huber and Karabacek, iii. 1871, pp. 83-88; Mommsen, Num. Zeitschrift, iii. pp. 449 ff.; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, pp. 69-76; Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, p. 136 sq. Among the six different attempted readings enumerated by Madden, the most successful is that of Mommsen.—That Claudius was generally inclined toward such old covenants is affirmed by Suetonius, Claudius, 25: “Cum regibus foedus in foro icit porca caesa ac vetere fetialium praefatione adhibita.”
A return home of Agrippa I. or II. (possibly the present return of Agrippa I.) is referred to in the inscription of El-Muschennef in Le Baa et Waddington, Inscriptions Grecques et Latines, t. iii. n. 2211:
Υπὲρ σωτηρίας κυρίου βασι-
λέως Ἀγρίππα καὶ ἐπανόδου κα-
τʼ εὐχὴν Διὸς καὶ πατρίου (?) ….
….. ὁμονοίας τὸν οἶκον ᾠκοδόμ[ησεν].
II
The first act by which Agrippa celebrated his return to Palestine was significant of the spirit and disposition with which he was to conduct the government of his kingdom. It was an act of piety. The golden chain which Caligula had bestowed upon him on his liberation from imprisonment “he hung up within the limits of the temple, over the treasury, that it might be a memorial of the severe fate he had lain under, and a testimony of his change for the better; and that it might be a demonstration how the greatest prosperity may have a fall, and that God sometimes raises what is fallen down.”[1075] At the same time he presented a thank-offering, “because he would not neglect any precept of the law;” and bore the expenses of a large number of Nazarites, in order that they might discharge the obligation of their vow.”[1076]
[1075] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 6. 1.—The golden charms which, according to the Mishna, Middoth iii. 8, were hung on the curtain of the temple court, can scarcely be the same as are referred to here. See the contrary in Derenbourg, p. 209.
[1076] Josephus, Antiq. xii. 6. 1.
With such acts the quondam adventurer began his new reign; and he maintained the same tone throughout the three years during which he was allowed to live and govern. There were again golden days for Pharisaism; a revival of the age of Alexandra. Hence Josephus and the Talmud are unanimous in sounding forth the praises of Agrippa. “He loved to live continually at Jerusalem, and was exactly careful in the observance of the laws of his country. He therefore kept himself entirely pure; nor did any day pass over his head without its appointed sacrifice.” Thus runs the eulogistic strain of Josephus;[1077] and the Talmud relates how he as a simple Israelite with his own hand presented the first-fruits in the temple.[1078] And not only at home, but also abroad, he represented the interests and claims of Judaism. When on one occasion in the Phoenician city of Dora, a mob of young people erected a statue of the emperor in the Jewish synagogue, he used his influence with the governor of Syria, P. Petronius, so that not only for the future was any such outrage strictly forbidden, but also the guilty parties were called to account for their proceedings.[1079] And when he betrothed his daughter Drusilla to Epiphanes, son of King Antiochus of Commagene, he made him promise that he would submit to be circumcised.[1080] By such displays of piety he gave abundant satisfaction to the people who were under the guidance of the Pharisees. This was shown in a very striking manner when, at the Feast of Tabernacles in A.D. 41, according to the old custom, he read the Book of Deuteronomy,[1081] and in the passage, “Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee that is not thy brother” (Deuteronomy 17:15), he burst forth in tears, because he felt himself referred to in it. Then cried out the people to him, “Be not grieved, Agrippa! Thou art our brother! Thou art our brother!”[1082]
[1077] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 7. 3: Ἡδεῖα γοῦν αὐτῷ δίαιτα καὶ συνεχὴς ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις ἦν, καὶ τὰ πάτρια καθαρῶς ἐτήρει. Διὰ πάσης γοῦν αὑτὸν ἦγεν ἁγνείας, οὐδὲ ἡμέρα τις παρώδευεν αὐτῷ χηρεύουσα θυσίας.
[1078] Mishna, Bikkurim iii. 4: When the procession with the firstlings of the fruits of the fields reached the temple mount “every one, even King Agrippa himself, took his basket upon his shoulder, and went up until he came into the court,” etc.—Here, as generally throughout the rabbinical traditions, it is not, indeed, quite certain whether Agrippa I. or II. is meant.—On the ceremonial ritual in connection with the presentation of the first-fruits, see, especially, Mishna, Bikkurim iii. 1-9; also Philo’s tract, de festo cophini (Opera, ed. Richter, v. 48-50=Tischendorf, Philonea, pp. 69-71); Gratz, Monatsschrift, 1877, p. 433 ff., and generally the literature referred to in Div. II. vol. i. p. 238.
[1079] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 6. 3.
[1080] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7. 1.—Epiphanes afterwards refused to fulfil his promise, and therefore the marriage was not consummated.
[1081] At the close of each Sabbatical year, i.e. in the beginning of the eighth year, Deuteronomy had to be read at the Feast of Tabernacles (Deuteronomy 31:10 ff.; Sota vii. 8). Seeing, then, that the year 68-69 was a Sabbatical year (see above, vol. i. p. 41), the year 40-41 must also have been one, and, indeed, it would be the only one occurring during the period of Agrippa’s reign. Accordingly, this incident took place in A.D. 41.
[1082] Mishna, Sota vii. 8. The declaration of the people could also be vindicated in accordance with strictly Pharisaic ideas; for when the Edomites (Idumeans) went over to Judaism, their descendants in the third generation became full members and citizens of the Israelitish commonwealth (Deuteronomy 23:8-9).—Hitzig, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 571, makes the narrative refer to Agrippa II., and Brann, Monatsschrift für Gcschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthumus, 1870, pp. 541-548, gives himself great trouble in order to prove that this reference is correct; whereas the majority of scholars (see the list given by Brann at p. 541) prefer Agrippa I. And this latter view is right; for a decided inclination to favour the Pharisees is far more clearly proved in the case of Agrippa I. than in that of his son.
The careful observance of Pharisaic traditions, however does not seem to have been the only ground of his popularity. We must also allow to him a certain natural amiability. Josephus, at least, ascribes to him an amiable disposition and unbounded benevolence.[1083] That he was grateful for service that had been rendered him is proved by his appointment of Silas, a faithful companion who had shared his adventures, to the supreme command of his troops.[1084] He must, indeed, have had many unpleasant experiences with this Silas, for he was frequently reminded by him in a rude, rough way of his earlier troubles, and the service which he had rendered him. In order to rid himself of this troublesome prattler, Agrippa was obliged to cast him into prison. But it was a new proof of his goodheartedness that on the next celebration of his birthday he caused the prisoner to be called, so that he might share in the enjoyments of the banquet. This kindly offer, however, had no effect, for Silas would take nothing as a matter of favour, and so was obliged to remain in prison.[1085] Agrippa on one occasion exhibited his clemency towards Simon the Pharisee,[1086] who in the king’s absence had excited a popular tumult in Jerusalem, and had charged the king with transgression of the law. Agrippa obtained information of these proceedings at Caesarea, summoned Simon to his presence, caused him to be seated alongside of himself in the theatre, and said to him in a gentle and kindly tone: “Tell me now, what was done here contrary to the law?” Overcome with shame the learned scribe could give no answer, and was dismissed by the king with presents.[1087]
[1083] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 7. 3: Πραῢς ὁ τρόπος Ἀγριππᾳ, καὶ πρὸς πάντας τὸ εὐεργετικὸν ὅμοιον.
[1084] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 6. 3.
[1085] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 7. 1.
[1086] Frankel, Darke-ha-Mishna, p. 58 sq., regards him as identical with Simon, the reputed son of Hillel and father of Gamaliel I. But the existence of this Simon is more than questionable (see Div. II. vol. i. p. 363). Besides, the chronology does not rightly fit in, since Gamaliel I. was already head of the school before the time of Agrippa (Acts 5:34).
[1087] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 7. 4.
To a Pharisaic-national policy belonged also emancipation from a position of dependence upon Rome. And even in this direction Agrippa made, at least, two rather shy and timid attempts. In order to strengthen the fortifications of Jerusalem, the capital, he began to build on the north of the city a powerful new wall, which, according to Josephus’ account, would, if it had been completed, have made the city impregnable. But, unfortunately, before the work could be carried out, the emperor, at the instigation of Marsus, the governor of Syria, issued an injunction against the continuance of it.[1088] Of yet greater significance for Rome was the conference of princes assembled by Agrippa soon after this at Tiberias. No fewer than five Roman vassal kings: Antiochus of Commagene, Sampsigeram[1089] of Emesa, Cotys of Lesser Armenia, Polemon of Pontus, and Herod of Chalcis, answered the invitation of Agrippa. But this enterprise also was broken up by Marsus. The Syrian governor himself put in an appearance at Tiberias, and ordered the other guests without delay to return home.[1090]
[1088] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 7. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 6, v. 4. 2. Compare also Derenbourg, p. 218 f. The original forbearance of the emperor toward the building of the wall seems to have been purchased by Agrippa through the bribing of the imperial councillors. Compare Tacitus, History, v. 12: “per avaritiam Claudianorum temporum empto jure muniendi struxere muros in pace tamquam ad bellum.”
[1089] Aramic שמשגרם in De Vogüé, Syrie Centrale, Inscriptions, p. 54 (n. 75).—On an inscription at Emesa, of the Seleucid year 390=A.D. 78-79, one Σαμσιγέραμος is referred to, probably a member of the royal family (Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 2567. In the Corpus Inscr. Graec. n. 4511, the date is wanting). At a later period, too, the name Σαμσιγέραμος is found also in that region (Waddington, n. 2564, of the Seleucid year 494=A.D. 182-183).
[1090] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 8. 1.—Compare in general, on the above-named vassal kings, the paragraphs referring thereto in Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des römischen Reichs, Bd. ii.; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i. 2 Aufl. 1881 (p. 398 f.; Commagene; p. 403 f.: Emesa; p. 369: Lesser Armenia; p. 359 f.: Pontus; p. 400 f.: Chalcis); also Lewin, Fasti sacri, n. 1662. On the dynasty of Commagene see especially: Mommsen, “Die Dynastie von Commagene” in Mittheilungen des deutschen archaeologischen Institutes in Athen, Bd. i. 1876, pp. 27-29. (See vol. i. pp. 184, 185, of the present work.) On the kings of Pontus, the treatises of Sallet and Waddington named by Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 360, note 7. On Herod of Chalcis, see Appendix I.
Finally, it was a further consequence of his Jewish policy that the otherwise good-natured king should become the persecutor of the young Christian community, especially of the apostles. James the elder, son of Zebedee, was put by him to a martyr’s death; and Peter escaped his hand only by the intervention of a miracle.[1091]—Moreover, he was an enemy not of the Christians only. The heathen cities also within his territories hated him on account of his Jewish policy, as is proved by the unconcealed jubilation with which the news of his death was received by the Caesareans and Sebasteans.[1092]
[1091] Acts 12:1-19.
[1092] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 9. 1.—The Σεβαστηνοί are soldiers of Samaria (Sebaste), who lay in garrison in Caesarea. Compare above, p. 53.
That Agrippa’s Pharisaic piety was a real conviction of the heart is, in view of his earlier life, not in the least probable. He who had spent fifteen years in gaiety and debauchery is not one of whom it could be expected that in the evening of his days he should from hearty conviction assume the Pharisaic yoke. Besides this, we have the most certain proofs that the king’s Jewish piety was maintained only within the limits of the Holy Land. When he went abroad he was, like his grandfather, a liberal latitudinarian patron of Greek culture. Thus, for example, Berytus had much to tell of the pagan magnificence which he there cultivated. He had erected there at his own expense a beautiful theatre, an amphitheatre, baths, and piazzas. At the opening of the building, games and sports of all sorts were performed, and among the rest in the amphitheatre there was a gladiatorial combat, at which 1400 malefactors were made to slaughter one another.[1093] Also at Caesarea he caused games to be performed.[1094] There also statues of his daughters were erected.[1095] So, too, the coins which were stamped during Agrippa’s reign are in thorough agreement with the description of the state of matters now given. Only those stamped in Jerusalem had on them no image, while of those that were minted in other cities some had the image of Agrippa, others that of the emperor.[1096] The official title of Agrippa is the same as that of the other Roman vassal kings of that time. From an inscription we know that his family had been adopted into the gens Julia;[1097] and from another that he bore the title βασιλεὺς μέγας φιλόκαισαρ εὐσεβὴς καὶ φιλορώμαιος.[1098] From a survey of all the facts it is evident that his concessions to Pharisaism were purely matters of policy. Upon the whole he was a careful imitator of the old Herod, “only milder in disposition and somewhat more sly.”[1099] Yet even the grandfather felt himself obliged to make concessions to the Pharisees. Agrippa was in this matter only consistently following out his general lines of policy, for he very well knew that the peace which he loved could be secured in no other way.
[1093] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 7.5.—The favour shown to Berytus is explained by the circumstance that it was a Roman colony. Compare above, vol. i. p. 460.
[1094] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 8. 2.
[1095] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 9. 1.
[1096] Compare on the coins of Agrippa generally: Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 491 sq.; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 567-569; Lenormant, Trésor de Numismatique, p. 126 sq. pl. lx. n. 3-7; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, i. 53 f., 61-64 (ascribes all to Agrippa II.); De Saulcy, Recherches, p. 147 sq.; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, ii. 35-37; Levy, Geschichte der jüdischen Münzen, p. 80 f.; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 103-111; De Saulcy, Étude chronologique de la vie et des monnaies des rois juifs Agrippa I. et Agrippa II. 1869 (compare above, vol. i. p. 27); Reichardt in the Wiener Numismatische Zeitschrift, Bd. iii. 1871, p. 83 ff.; Mommsen, Wiener Num. Zeitschr. iii. 1871, p. 449 ff.; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, pp. 58-80; Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 129-139; Stickel, Zeitschrift des deutschen Pälestina-Vereins, vii. 1884, p. 213.—Those of most frequent occurrence among the coins of Agrippa are those without an image, with merely emblems (sunshade? and three ears of corn), which almost all have the year-number VI. and the simple inscription βασιλεωσαγριπα. They were by the older numismatists ascribed to Agrippa II., but since De Saulcy have been rightly assigned to Agrippa I., in consequence of their having been minted at Jerusalem. The existence of examples with other year-numbers (V., VII., VIII., IX.) is very questionable. Compare especially De Saulcy, Numismatic Chronicle, 1871, p. 255: “J’ai encore recueilli un très-grand nombre de monnaies d’Agrippa au parasol, cent au moins! Toutes sans exception sont datées de l’an VI. Je persiste donc plus que jamais à me méfier des autres dates qui ont été signalées.”—Besides those coins properly so called of Agrippa I., there were also stamped during his reign: (1) In Caesarea by the sea (Καισαρια η προς Σεβαστω λιμενι), coins with the image of Agrippa and the superscription Βασιλευς μεγας Αγριππας Φιλοκαισαρ. (2) In Caesarea Panias, coins with the image of Caligula and the (more or less defective) name of the emperor, or without his name. (3) In Tiberias, coins with the image of Claudius, and on the reverse: επι βασιλε. Αγριπ. Τιβεριεων. (4) And besides these we have the coins referred to in the above, note 19, in remembrance of the “covenant” between Agrippa and the Roman people. On the so-called Agrippa coin in Anthedon, see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 73-74, and Imhoof-Blumer in Sallet’s Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. xiii. 1885, p. 139 f.
[1097] On the inscription at Athens, Corpus Inscr. Graec. n. 361=Corpus Inscr. Atticarum, iii. 1, n. 556, his daughter Berenice is called Ἰουλία Βερενείκη βασίλισσα μεγάλη, Ἰουλίου Ἀγρίππα βασιλέως θυγατήρ.—There is also evidence of other members of the Herodian family bearing the Gentile name of the Julians; by Agrippa II., from the inscription given by Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 2112. Agrippa I. had a son-in-law called Ἰούλιος Ἀρχέλαος (Josephus, Antiq. xix. 9. 1; Against Apion, i. 9). Probably also the Γάϊος Ἰούλιος βασιλέως Ἀλεξάνδοου υἱὸς Ἀγρίππας ταμίας καὶ ἀντιστράτηγος τῆς Ἀσίας (Wood, Discoveries at Ephesus, Inscriptions from the Great Theatre, p. 50, note 5), referred to in an inscription at Ephesus, belonged to the Herodian family.—Compare, generally, on the frequent occurrence of the Gentile name of the Julians among the Roman vassal kings of the days of the empire: Renan, Mission de Phénicie, p. 310; Bohn, Qua condicione juris reges socii populi Romani fuerint, Berol. 1877, p. 25 sq.—It should be observed that the name Julius, as well as the consular rank which Agrippa enjoyed, implied the possession of Roman citizenship, which had been conferred upon the Herodian family as early as in the days of Antipater, the father of Herod the Great. See first vol. of this work, p. 378.
[1098] The most complete form of the titles of Agrippa I. and Agrippa II. has been given us in the interesting inscriptions which Waddington found at Sîʿa, half a league from Kanawât, on the western base of the Haurân (Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions Grecques et Latines, t. iii. n. 2365). It runs as follows:—
[1099] Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iii. 55.
Ἐπὶ βασιλέως μεγάλου Ἀγριππα φιλοκαισαρος εὐσεβοῦς καὶ φιλορωμα[ί-] ου, τοῦ ἐκ βασιλέως μεγάλου Ἀγρίππα φιλοκαίσαρος εὐσεβοῦς καὶ [φι-] λορωμαίου, Ἀφαρεὺς ἀπελεύθερος καὶ Ἀγρίππας υἱὸς ἀνέθηκαν.
The titles φιλόκαισαρ and φιλορώμαιος occur very frequently during that period. Numerous examples are given in the Index of the Corpus Inscr. Graec. p. 165. Compare also Bohn, Qua condicione juris reges, p. 14.—Most precisely and perfectly in accordance with the titles of the two Agrippas are those of King Sauromates of Bosporus, Corpus Inscr. Graec. n. 2123 and 2124: βασιλέα βασιλέων μέγαν Τιβέριον Ἰούλιον Σαυρομάτην Φιλοκαίσαρα καὶ Φιλορώμαιον εὐσεβῆ. Compare also, in reference to him, Wilmanns, Exempla Inscr. Lat. n. 2689.
The country did not long enjoy his rule. After he had reigned little more than three years, if we reckon from A.D. 41, he died at Caesarea very suddenly in A.D. 44.[1100] The two accounts of his death which we have, in Acts 12:19-23, and Josephus, Antiq. xix. 8. 2, with many variations, are yet in thorough and detailed agreement on the principal points.[1101] The Acts of the Apostles relates that in Caesarea, sitting on the judgment-seat (βῆμα) dressed in his royal robes, he delivered an oration to the ambassadors representing the citizens of Tyre and Sidon, with whom, we know not why, he had been displeased. While he was speaking the people called out: It is the voice of a god, and not of a man. Immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory; and he was eaten up of worms, and gave up the ghost. According to Josephus, he was present at Caesarea while games were being celebrated there in honour of the emperor. On the second day he appeared in the theatre in a robe which was made wholly of silver. When the robe sparkled in the sun, the flatterers cried out to him declaring that he was a god (θεὸν προσαγορεύοντες), and entreating that he would have mercy upon them. The king allowed himself to be carried away by their flattery. Soon thereafter he saw an owl sitting upon a rope, which at once he accepted as a presage of a speedy death.[1102] He then knew that his hour had come. Immediately a most severe pain arose in his bowels. He had to be carried into the house, and in five days was a corpse.—It thus appears that the principal points: Caeserea as the scene of the incident, the brilliant robe, the flattering shout, the sudden death—are common to both narratives, although the details have been somewhat diversified in the course of transmission.
[1100] The date of Agrippa’s death is discussed in the most complete manner by Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, pp. 129-136. Agrippa died after he had reigned three full years over all Palestine (Josephus, Antiq. xix. 8. 2: τρίτον δὲ ἔτος αὐτῷ βασιλεύοντι τῆς ὅλης Ἰουδαίας πεπλήρωτο), consequently in A.D. 44, and indeed, soon after the feast of the Passover (Acts 12:3 ff.), while the games were being celebrated at Caesarea in honour of the emperor (εἰς τὴν Καίσαρος τιμήν, ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκείνου σωτηρίας, Josephus, Antiq. xix. 8. 2). By these games Wieseler understands those regular wrestling matches at Caesarea founded by Herod the Great, which were celebrated every fourth year. Upon the hypothesis, therefore, that they began on the 12th August, he places the death of Agrippa on the 6th August. But this hypothesis that the games began on 1st August is quite an arbitrary assumption. Indeed, the words of Josephus (ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκείνου σωτηρίας) plainly show that no regular games are here intended, but some extraordinary entertainments, and point to games which were celebrated at Rome in honour of Claudius’ return from Britain in the spring of A.D. 44 (Dio Cassius, lx. 23), and afterwards also in the provinces. Such also is the opinion of Anger, De temporum in act. ap. ratione, p. 40; Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. ii. 278 f.; Lewin, Fasti sacri, p. 279 sq. n. 1674. The regular games of Caesarea celebrated every fourth, not every fifth year (see vol. i. of present work, p. 439), would come round, not in A.D. 44, but in A.D. 43, since, according to Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 5. 1, they were instituted in the 28th year of Herod=A.U.C. 744, and so would come round in A.U.C. 796= A.D. 43.
[1101] The rendering of the story of Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ii. 10, is in all essential points in thorough agreement with that of Acts and Josephus, although he changes the owl of Josephus into an angel. Compare also Ranisch, De Lucae et Josephi in morte Herodis Agrippae consensu., Lips. 1745. In recent times: Gerlach, Zeitschrift für luth. Theologie, 1869, pp. 57-62.—On the changing of the owl into an angel, Heinichen, Eusebii Scripta historica, iii. 654-656.
[1102] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 7.—On the owl as a bird of evil omen, see Pliny, Hist. Nat. x. 12. 34-35.
Agrippa left, besides his three daughters (Berenice, Mariamme, and Drusilla), only one son, then in his seventeenth year, whose name also was Agrippa. The Emperor Claudius had been disposed to give over to him the kingdom of his father; but his advisers restrained him from carrying out his intentions. And so again the whole of Palestine, as formerly Judea and Samaria had been, was taken possession of as Roman territory, and its administration given over to a procurator under the supervision of the governor of Syria.[1103] The younger Agrippa continued meanwhile to live in retirement.
[1103] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 9. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 6.—Bormann (De Syriae provinciae Romanae partibus capita nonnulla, 1865, pp. 3-5) assumes that Palestine during the period A.D. 44-49 was administered by a procurator independent of the legate of Syria; but in A.D. 49 was attached to the province of Syria, because, forsooth, Tacitus, Annals, xii. 23, begins his narrative of the events of the year 49 with the words: “Ituraei et Judaei defunctis regibus, Sohaemo atque Agrippa, provinciae Suriae additi.” But it is evident that the narrative of Tacitus is very summary, and brings together things that in point of time lay quite apart from one another. Hence such a conclusion cannot be based upon his statement. Just in A.D. 44 or A.D. 45, immediately after the death of Agrippa I., the legate of Syria, Cassius Longinus, did interfere in the affairs of Judea. The independence of the procurator of Judea was therefore no greater then than it was subsequently, and it was subsequently no less than it was then. Compare generally above, p. 47; and especially against Bormann, Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i. 2 Aufl. 1881, p. 411, note 11.