� 19. The Roman Procurators, A.D. 44-66

§ 19. THE ROMAN PROCURATORS, A.D. 44-66
SOURCES
JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xx. 1 and 5-11; Wars of the Jews, ii. 11-14 ZONARAS, Annales, vi. 12-17 (summary from Josephus).
LITERATURE
EWALD, History of Israel, vii. 412-426, 479-485.
GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. pp. 361 ff., 426 ff., 724 ff.
HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 588-594.
SCHNECKENBURGER, Zeitgeschichte, pp. 215-224.
HAUSRATH, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. ii. 362 ff., iii. 331-374, 423-426.
LEWIN, Fasti sacri, 1865, ad. ann. 44-46.
GERLACH, Die Römischen Statthalter in Syrien und Judäa, 1865, p. 67 ff.
GRÄTZ, “Chronologische Präcisirung der Reihenfolge der letzten römischen Landpfleger in Judäa,” etc. (Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums), 1877, pp. 401 ff., 443 ff.). Compare, Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. p. 724 ff., where the treatise from the Monatsschrift is almost entirely reproduced.
ROHDEN, De Palaestina et Arabia provinciis Romanis quaestiones selectae, Berol. 1885, pp. 34-36.
KELLNER, “Die römischen Statthalter von Syrien und Judäa zur Zeit Christi und der Apostel.” Zweiter Artikel. “Die kaiserlichen Procuratoren von Judäa” (Zeitschrift für katholischen Theologie, 1888, p. 630 ff.).
MENKE’S Bibelatlas, Bl. V. Special Map of “Judea and neighbouring countries in the time of Felix and Festus.”
WHEN we glance over the history of the Roman procurators, to whom once more the government of Palestine was entrusted, we might readily suppose that all of them, as if by secret arrangement, so conducted themselves as most certainly to arouse the people to revolt. Even the best among them, to say nothing at all of the others who trampled right and law under foot, had no appreciation of the fact that a people like the Jews required, in a permanent degree, consideration for their prejudices and peculiarities. Instead of exercising mildness and toleration, they had only applied themselves with inexorable strictness to suppress any movement of the popular life.—As compared with those who followed, the words of Josephus are true regarding the first two procurators, that, “making no alterations of the ancient laws and customs, they kept the nation in tranquillity.”[1104]
[1104] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 6.
1. The first procurator whom Claudius sent to Palestine was Cuspius Fadus (A.D. 44-?).[1105] Immediately after he had entered upon his office he had an opportunity for affirming his determination to maintain order. When he arrived in Palestine the inhabitants of Perea were in a state of open war with the city of Philadelphia.[1106] The conflict had arisen over disputes about the boundaries of their respective territories. Inasmuch as the Pereans were the parties at fault, Fadus caused one of the three leaders of the party to be executed and the other two to be banished from the country.—But that Fadus with all his uprightness and love of justice had no appreciation of the peculiar characteristics of the Jewish people, is proved by his demand that the beautiful robe of the high priest, which in earlier times, A.D. 6-36, had laid under Roman keeping, and had been afterwards given up by Vitellius (see above, p. 88), should again be committed to the charge of the Romans.[1107] Thus, without any occasion whatever, by petty annoyances, the feelings of the people, which were most sensitive in matters of this sort, were outraged. Fortunately, Fadus and the governor of Syria, Cassius Longinus, who on account of this important affair had gone up to Jerusalem, were considerate enough as to at least allow a Jewish embassy to proceed to Rome, which by the mediation of the younger Agrippa obtained an order from Claudius that in the matter of the garments things should continue as they had been.[1108]
[1105] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 9. 2.
[1106] On Philadelphia, see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 119-121.
[1107] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 1.
[1108] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 1-2. Compare xv. 11. 4.—The rescript of Claudius to the officials of Jerusalem, in which this decision of the emperor is communicated to them (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 2), bears date of 28th June A.D. 45, Claud. tribunic. potest. V., in the consulship of Rufus and Pompeius Silvanus. On these Consules suffecti, see Klein, Fasti consulares, p. 33.—Compare also: Kindlmann, “Utrum litterae, quae ad Claudium Tiberium imperatorem apud Josephum referuntur, ad eum referendae sint necne, quaeritur. Mährisch-Neustadt, Progr. 1884. This treatise I have had no opportunity of examining.
More serious than this conflict was one which occurred at a later period, and led to open war and shedding of blood. One who pretended to be a prophet, Theudas by name, gathered a large multitude of followers after him, with whom he marched down to the Jordan, giving them the assurance that he by his mere word would part the stream and lead them across on dry land. This, indeed, was only to be a proof of his divine mission, and what he had mainly in view, the contest with Rome, would follow. At any rate this was how the matter was regarded by Fadus. He sent a detachment of horsemen against Theudas, which completely defeated him and slew a portion of his followers or took them prisoners; and when Theudas himself had been apprehended, they struck off his head and carried it to Jerusalem as a sign of their victory.[1109]
[1109] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5. 1=Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ii. 11.—The name Theudas is met with also elsewhere (Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 2684, 3563, 3920, 5698; Wetstein, Nov. Test. on Acts 5:36; Pape-Benseler, Wörterbuch der griech. Eigennamen, s.v.). Θευδᾶς is a contraction for Θεοδόσιος, Θεόδοτος, Θεόδωρος, or such like name derived from θεός. The contraction for εο into ευ is very frequent in proper names connected with θεός and κλέος. Even in rabbinical works we find תודוס (Buxtorf, Lexicon Chaldaicum, col. 2565 sq.; Lightfoot, Opera, ii. 704; Schoettgen, Horae hebraicae, i. 423). But the name of the physician תידוס, Mishna, Bechoroth iv. 4, reads according to the best manuscripts תודרוס (as in the Cambridge manuscript and cod. de Rossi, 138).—Our rebel chief Theudas is well known from the reference made to him in Acts 5:36, where the allusion to him occurs in a speech of Gamaliel delivered a considerable time before the actual appearance of Theudas. Indeed, according to the representation of the narrative of the Acts, the appearance of Theudas is placed before that of Judas of Galilee in A.D. 6. But as many are unwilling that so serious an error should be attributed to the author of the Acts of the Apostles, several theologians have assumed the existence of two different rebels of the name of Theudas. But such an assumption is not justified in consideration of the slight authority of the Acts in such matters. Compare on the pro and con of this controversy: Sonntag, “Theudas der Anfrührer” (Studien und Kritiken, 1837, p. 622 ff.); Zuschlag, Theudas, Anführer eines 750 R. in Palästina erregten Aufstandes, Cassel 1849; Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, p. 90 f.; Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelier, p. 101 ff.; Winer, Realwörterbuch, ii. 609 f.; Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, v. 510-513; Köhler in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. xvi. 39-41; K. Schmidt in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. xv. 553-557; Zeller, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1854, pp. 132-137; Lewin, Fasti sacri, n. 903, 933, 1469. The Commentaries on Acts by Kuinoel, De Wette, Meyer, Overbeck, Wendt, Nösgen, and others. The older literature is given in Wolf, Curae philol. in Nov. Test. on Acts 5:36.
2. The successor of Fadus was Tiberius Alexander, down to A.D. 48, descended from one of the most illustrious Jewish families of Alexandria, a son of the Alabarch Alexander, and nephew of the philosopher Philo.[1110] He had abandoned the religion of his fathers and taken service under the Romans. During the period of his government Palestine was visited by a sore famine.[1111] The one fact of any importance that is recorded about him is that he caused James and Simon, the sons of Judas of Galilee, to be crucified, ostensibly because they were entertaining schemes similar to those of their father.[1112]
[1110] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5. 2, xviii. 8. 1—On the office of Alabarch, see Div. II. vol. ii. pp. 280, 281.
[1111] Compare in regard to this famine, besides Antiq. xx. 5. 2, also Antiq. iii. 15. 3, xx. 2. 6; Acts 11:28-30; Anger, De temporum in actis apostolorum ratione (1833), pp. 41-49; Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, pp. 156-161; Karl Schmidt, Die Apostelgeschichte, Bd. i. 1882, pp. 157-164.—Josephus refers the famine to the time of Tiberius Alexander, but states that it had its beginning in the days of his predecessor: ἐπὶ τούτοις δὴ καὶ τὸν μέγαν λιμὸν κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν συνέβη γενέσθαι. The reading ἐπὶ τούτοις is confirmed by Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ii. 12. 1. In the connection in which it occurs, however, it is certainly not to be rendered propter haec (as Credner, Einleitung, p. 330, does), nor even by ad haec nor post haec (as Keim does in his Aus dem Urchristenthum, p. 19, note), but by horum temporibus. On this incorrect use of ἐπί with the dative instead of the genitive, see Wahl, Clavis librorum V. T. apocryph. s.v. ἐπί. The narrative of the Acts is in agreement with this when it refers the famine to somewhere about the time of Agrippa’s death in A.D. 44.—In all the three passages Josephus names Judea only as the district affected by the famine (xx. 5. 2: τὴν Ἰουδαίαν; iii. 15. 3: τὴν χώραν ἡμῶν; xx. 2. 6: τὴν πόλιν). The author of the Acts of the Apostles describes it as extending over the whole world (11:28: ἐφʼ ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην), which is a generalization quite as unhistorical as that about the census of Quirinias. Certainly the reign of Claudius had been remarked by assiduae sterilitates (Suetonius, Claudius, 18). Besides the famine that occurred in Palestine we are told of the following: (1) A famine in Rome in the beginning of his reign (Dio Cassius, lx. 11; Aurel., Victor Caesar, 4; Coins in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. vi. 238 sq.); (2) Another famine in Greece in the 8th or 9th year of his reign (Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 152 sq., in the Armenian and according to Jerome); and (3) yet another famine in Rome in the 11th year of his reign, according to Tacitus, Annals, xii. 43, or according to Eusebius, Chronicon, in the 10th or 9th year; Orosius also, vii. 6. 17, giving the 10th year as the date. But a famine that extended over the whole world is as improbable in itself as it is unsupported by the statement of any authority.
[1112] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5. 2.—Tiberius Alexander served at a late period under Corbulo against the Parthians (Tacitus, Annals, xv. 28), was then made governor of Egypt (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 15. 1, 18. 7, iv. 10. 6; Tacitus, History, i. 11, ii. 74, 79; Suetonius, Vespasian, 6), and was the most distinguished and trusted counsellor of Titus at the siege of Jerusalem (Wars of the Jews, v. 1. 6, vi. 4. 3). His full name is given in an edict which he issued as governor of Egypt: “Tiberius Julius Alexander” (Corpus Inscr. Graec. n. 4957).—The conjecture of Bernays, that it is to him that the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise περὶ κόσμου is dedicated, is highly improbable, although it has been accepted as an established fact by Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 494, 566. According to Zeller, that work is actually a production of Aristotle, and he to whom it is dedicated is Alexander the Great. See the literature given above in vol. i. p. 63.—On Tiberius Alexander compare generally: Rudorff, “Das Edict des Tiberius Julius Alexander” (Rhein Museum, 1828, pp. 64-84, 133-190); Franz, Corpus Inscr. Graec. n. 4957; Haakh in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2 (1852), p. 1943 f.; Renier in the Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, t. xxvi. 1 (1867), pp. 294-302; Lumbroso, Recherches sur l’économie politique de l’Égypte sous les Lagides (Turin 1870), p. 216 sq.—The family of Tiberius Alexander continued also in later times in the service of the Romans. A Julius Alexander, perhaps a son or grandson of the one of whom we have been speaking, served as legate under Trajan in the Parthian war (Dio Cassius, lxviii. 30), was consul in A.D. 117, and member of the priestly College of the Arvales, A.D. 118-119. The Acts of the Arvales give his full name as Tiberius Julius Alexander Julianus (Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. vi. n. 2078, 2079; compare also, Henzen, Acta fratrum Arvalium, Index, p. 188). One Τιβέριος Ἰούλιος Ἀλέξανδρος, commander of cohors I Flavia and agoranomos over the second city district of Alexandria, in the 21st year of Antoninus Pius, erected a statue to the great goddess Isis (Annali dell’ Instituto di corrisp. archeolog. 1875, p. 15).
Although even the days of those first procurators did not pass without troubles and upheaval, these came to be regarded as altogether insignificant in comparison with the excitement and turmoil that followed. Even under the governorship of the next procurator Cumanus popular tumults, not without faults on both sides, broke out in far more formidable proportions.
3. The first rebellion against which Ventidius Cumanus, A.D. 48-52,[1113] had to contend was occasioned by the coarse insolence of a Roman soldier. This man had the presumption at the feast of the Passover, when to maintain order and preserve the peace a detachment of soldiers was always situated in the court of the temple,[1114] to insult the festive gathering by assuming an indecent posture. The enraged multitude demanded satisfaction from the procurator. As Cumanus, however, attempted first of all to hush up the matter, he too was assailed with reproachful speeches, until at length he called for the intervention of the armed forces. The excited crowds were utterly routed; and their overthrow was so complete that, according to Josephus’ estimate, in the crush which took place in the streets in consequence of their flight, 20,000 (!) men lost their lives.[1115]
[1113] Ventidius, according to Tacitus, Annals, xii. 54; in Josephus called only Cumanus.—The date of Cumanus’ entrance upon office may be discovered, though only approximately, from this, that Josephus at the same time reports the death of Herod of Chalcis in the 8th year of Claudius=A.D. 48 (Antiq. xx. 5. 2). Without sufficient ground Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, pp. 68, 126 f., fixes the date of Cumanus’ entrance upon his office as late as A.D. 50; whereas, on the other hand, Anger, De temporum in actis apostolorum ratione, p. 44; Gerlach, Die römische Statthalter, p. 71; Ewald, History of Israel, vii. 415; Hitzig, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 589; Lewin, Fasti sacri, n. 1719; Grätz, Monatsschrift, 1877, pp. 402-408=Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. pp. 725-728; Rohden, De Palaestina, p. 35, assume the date A.D. 48.
[1114] Compare Wars of the Jews, v. 5. 8; Antiq. xx. 8. 11.
[1115] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5. 3; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 1.
The fault in this case lay with the Romans, but in the next upheaval the occasion was given by the Jewish people themselves. An imperial official called Stephanus was attacked on a public road not far from Jerusalem, and robbed of all his belongings. As a punishment for this the villages which lay in the neighbourhood of the spot where the deed was committed were subjected to a general pillage. It was through a pure mischance that out of this pillage further mischief was very nearly occasioned; for a soldier, before the eyes of all, amid contumelious and reproachful speeches tore up a Thorah roll which he had found. In order to obtain revenge and satisfaction for such profanity, a mass deputation visited Cumanus at Caesarea, demanding the punishment of the offender. This time the procurator saw it to be advisable to give way, and so sentenced the offender to be put to death.[1116]
[1116] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 2.
Far more bitter and bloody was a third collision with the people under Cumanus, which though it did not indeed cost him his life, yet led to his loss of office. Certain Galilean Jews, who on their way to the feast at Jerusalem had to pass through Samaria, had been murdered in a Samaritan village. When Cumanus, who had been bribed by the Samaritans, took no steps to secure the punishment of the guilty, the Jewish people took upon themselves the duty of revenge. Under the leadership of two Zealots, Eleasar and Alexander, a great multitude of armed men made an attack upon Samaria, hewed down old men, women, and children, and laid waste the villages. But then Cumanus with a portion of his military force fell upon the Zealots; many were slain, others were taken prisoners. Meanwhile ambassadors from the Samaritans appeared before Ummidius Quadratus, governor of Syria, and lodged a complaint with him about the robber raid of the Jews. At the same time, however, a Jewish embassy also came to Quadratus, and accused the Samaritans and Cumanus, who had accepted bribe from them. Quadratus, therefore, went himself to Samaria and made a strict investigation. All the revolutionists taken prisoners by Cumanus were crucified; five Jews, who were proved to have taken a prominent part in the struggle, were beheaded; but the ringleaders both of the Jews and of the Samaritans were sent along with Cumanus to Rome in order to answer for their conduct there. The Jews were indebted to the intercession of the younger Agrippa, who happened then to be in Rome, for their success in their securing their rights. The decision of Claudius was to this effect, that the ringleaders of the Samaritans, who had been discovered by him to be the guilty parties, should be executed, while Cumanus was to be deprived of his office and sent into banishment.[1117]
[1117] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6. 1-3; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 3-7.—There is a divergence in regard to essential points between this representation of Josephus and that given by Tacitus, Annals, xii. 54. According to the Roman historian, Cumanus was only procurator of Galilee, while during the same period Felix had the administration of Samaria, and indeed of Judea also (Felix … jam pridem Judaeae impositus … aemulo ad deterrima Ventidio Cumano, cui pars provinciae habebatur, ita divisae, ut huic Galilaeorum natio, Felici Samaritae parerent). Felix and Cumanus were equally to blame for the bloody conflicts that took place. But Quadratus condemned only Cumanus, and even allowed Felix to take part in the trial as judge.—It is really impossible to do away with the contradiction between Tacitus and Josephus; for Josephus leaves no doubt of this, that, according to his understanding of the matter, Cumanus was the only governor in the territory of the Jews, and that Felix only went to Palestine as his successor Compare especially the definite statement that the high priest Jonathan, who was in Rome at the time of the deposition of Cumanus, had besought the emperor that he should send Felix (see note 15). But it seems a matter scarcely to be questioned that the very detailed narrative of Josephus deserves to be preferred to the indeterminate remarks made by Tacitus. So also thinks Wurm, Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, 1833, 1 Heft, pp. 14-21; Anger, De temporum in actis apostolorum ratione, pp. 88-90; Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, p. 67; Winer, Realwörterbuch, art. “Felix;” Lewin, Fasti sacri, n. 1777.—In favour essentially of Tacitus: Nipperdey, Anmerkungen zu Tacitus Annales, xii. 54; Grätz, Monatsschrift, 1877, p. 403 ff.=Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii. 4 Aufl. pp. 725-728; Rohden, De Palaestina et Arabia, p. 35; Kellner, Zeitschrift für katholischen Theologie, 1888, p. 639 f.
4. At the request of the high priest Jonathan, one of the Jewish aristocracy whom Quadratus had sent to Rome,[1118] the Emperor Claudius transferred the administration of Palestine to one of his favourites, the brother of the influential Pallas, whose name was Felix (A.D. 52-60).[1119] This man’s term of office constitutes probably the turning-point in the drama which had opened with A.D. 44 and reached its close in the bloody conflicts of A.D. 70. During the days of the first two procurators things had continued relatively quiet; under Cumanus, indeed, there were more serious uprisings of the people; yet even then they were only isolated and called forth by particular occurrences; under Felix rebellion became permanent.
[1118] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 6. Compare Antiq. xx. 8. 5: Αἰτησάμενος ἐκεῖνον παρὰ τοῦ Καίσαρος πεμφθῆναι τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἐπίτροπον.
[1119] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 8; Suetonius, Claudius, 28.—That Felix entered upon his office in A.D. 52 is probable for this reason, that Josephus immediately after making that statement mentions that Claudius after the completion of his twelfth year (τῆς ἀρχῆς δωδέκατον ἔτος ἤδη πεπληρωκώς), i.e. after the 24th January A.D. 53, bestowed upon Agrippa II., Batanea and Trachonitis (Antiq. xx. 7. 1). This indeed leaves the year 53 open as a possible date, which some actually adopt. But in favour of 52 is the fact that Tacitus, Annals, xii. 54, relates the deposition of Cumanus among the events of this year; no doubt with the assumption that Felix had been already before this, contemporary with Cumanus, carrying on the government of a portion of Palestine. Although, indeed, this assumption can scarcely be regarded as correct (see note 14), yet the year 52 must be firmly adhered to as the time of the deposition of Cumanus.
Compare on Felix generally: C. W. F. Walch, De Felice, Judaeae procuratore, Jenae 1747; Haakh in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iii. 443 f.; Winer, Realwörterbuch, i. 368 f.; Paret in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. iv. 354 f.; K. Schmidt, Herzog, 2 Aufl. iv. 518 f.; Kellner in Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlexikon, 2 Aufl. iv. 1311 ff.; Overbeck to Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, ii. 263 ff.
He was, like his brother Pallas, a freedman of the imperial family,[1120]—a freedman probably of Antonia the mother of Claudius, and having therefore as his full name, Antonius Felix.[1121] The conferring of a procuratorship with military command upon a freedman was something unheard of, and is only to be accounted for by the influence which the freedmen had at the court of Claudius.[1122] As procurator of Palestine Felix proved worthy of his descent. “With all manner of cruelty and lust he exercised royal functions in the spirit of a slave;” in these words Tacitus sums up his estimate of the man.[1123]
[1120] Tacitus, History, v. 9; Suetonius, Claudius, 28.
[1121] Antonius Felix, according to Tacitus, History, v. 9.—This name and the circumstance that Pallas, the brother of Felix, was a freedman of Antonia (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 6), favours the hypothesis that Felix also was a freedman, not of Claudius, but of his mother Antonia (see Nipperdey on Tacitus, Annals, xi. 29 and xii. 54).—That Felix also bore the name Claudius (so e.g. Winer, Realwörterbuch, art. “Felix,” and Rohden, De Palaestina et Arabia, p. 35) cannot be proved from the original documents; for in Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7. 1, as well as in Suidas, Lexicon, s.v. Κλαύδιος, instead of Κλαύδιον Φήλικα we should read Κλαύδιος Φήλικα (scil. πέμπει, resp. ἐπέστησεν). The reading of the manuscript in the Suidas passage is indeed Κλαύδιον; but the conjecture Κλαύδιος is rightly favoured by Bernhardy, and has been adopted by Bekker into the text. Compare in general on the name of Felix, Walch, De Felice, pp. 2-7.
[1122] Suetonius, Claudius, 28, gives prominence to it as something unusual: “Felicem, quem cohortibus et alis provinciaeque Judaeae praeposuit.” Compare in addition, Hirschfeld, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1889, p. 423.—Besides the freedman it is well known that in the latter years of the reign of Claudius, A.D. 49-54, his wife Agrippina also exercised an unwholesome influence. The Palestinian coins also of the 13th and 14th years of Claudius afford evidence of his powerful influence, since on them her name (Ἰουλια Ἀγριππινα) appears alongside of that of her husband (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 498; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 554; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, i. 66, ii. 52; De Saulcy, Recherches sur la Numismatique Judaïque, p. 149; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, p. 151 sq.; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, p. 76 sq.; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, p. 190 sq.; Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 184 sq.; Stickel, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, vii. 1884, p. 213).—Probably also a town on the east of the Jordan is named after her, namely, one lying between the Mount Sartaba and the Hauran: Agrippina, אגריפינא. This is the reading of the Mishna, Rosh-Hashana ii. 4, according to the Cambridge manuscript edited by Lowe. A Hamburg manuscript and the editio princeps have Agropina; the Jerusalem Talmud and the cod. de Rossi, 138: Gripina the common printed text: Gropina. The place is named only in that one passage in the Mishna. The Greek form would be Αγριππινας, after the pattern of Τιβεριας from טבריא.
[1123] History, v. 9: “per omnem saevitiam ac libidinem jus regium servili ingenio exercuit.”
Felix was three times married. All the three wives, of whom two are known to us, belonged to royal families.[1124] The one was a granddaughter of the triumvir Marc Antony and Cleopatra, and by this marriage Felix was brought into relationship with the Emperor Claudius.[1125] The other was the Jewish princess Drusilla, the daughter of Agrippa I. and sister of Agrippa II.; and the way in which the marriage with her was brought about serves to confirm the estimate of Tacitus quoted above. Drusilla at the time when Felix entered upon his office was fourteen years of age.[1126] Soon after this she was married by her brother Agrippa II. to Azizus, king of Emesa, after the marriage with the son of King Antiochus of Commagene, to whom she had been before betrothed, had been broken off because he refused to submit to circumcision.[1127] Soon after her marriage Felix saw the beautiful queen, became inflamed with passion, and determined to possess her. By the help of a magician of Cyprus called Simon, he prevailed on her to marry him. In defiance of the law, which strictly forbade the marriage of a Jewess with a pagan, Drusilla gave her hand to the Roman procurator.[1128]
[1124] Suetonius, Claudius, 28, calls him trium reginarum maritum.
[1125] Tacitus, History, v. 9: “Drusilla Cleopatrae et Aatonii nepts matrimonium accepta, ut ejusdem Antonii Felix progener, Claudius nepos esset.”—The name Drusilla is introduced through a confusion with the other wife of Felix.
[1126] As appears evidently from Antiq. xix. 9. 1, according to which Drusilla, the youngest of the daughters of Agrippa I., was six years old at the time of his death.
[1127] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7. 1.
[1128] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7. 2. Compare Acts of the Apostles 24:24. Since Azizus died in the first year of Nero (Antiq. xx. 8. 4), the marriage with Felix must have taken place in the time of Claudius, in A.D. 53 or 54. Compare Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, p. 80 f.—Drusilla bore a son to Felix called Agrippa, who, “together with his wife” (σὺν τῇ γυναικί, it is certainly not Drusilla, but the wife of Agrippa that is meant), perished in an irruption of Vesuvius (Antiq. xx. 7. 2).—Compare on Drusilla, besides the articles in Winer, Herzog, and Schenkel, also Gerlach, Zeitschrift für luth. Theologie, 1869, p. 68 f.
The public career of Felix was no better than his private life. As brother of the powerful and highly favoured Pallas, “he believed that he might commit all sorts of enormities with impunity.”[1129]—It can be easily understood how under such a government as this the bitter feeling against Rome grew rapidly, and the various stages of its development were plainly carried out to the utmost extent under Felix and by his fault.[1130]
[1129] Tacitus, Annals, xii. 54: “Cuncta malefacta sibi impune ratus tanta potentia subnixo.”
[1130] This appears most distinctly from the account given in Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 2-6, which is much more lucid and clear than that given in the Antiq. xx. 8. 5-6.
First of all, on account of his misgovernment the Zealots, who entertained so fanatical a hatred of the Romans, won more and more sympathy among the ranks of the citizens. How far Josephus had grounds for styling them simply robbers may remain undetermined. In any case, as their following from among the people shows, they were not robbers of the common sort; and their pillaging was confined wholly to the property of their political opponents. Felix, who was not very scrupulous about the means he used, contrived to get Eleasar, the head of the party, into his hands by means of treachery, and sent him, together with those of his adherents whom he had already in prison, to Rome. “But the number of the robbers whom he caused to be crucified was incalculable, as also that of the citizens whom he arrested and punished as having been in league with them.”[1131]
[1131] Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 2; Antiq. xx. 8. 5.
Such preposterous severity and cruelty only gave occasion to still further troubles.[1132] In the place of the robbers of whom Felix had rid the country, the Sicarii made their appearance, a still more fanatical faction of the patriots, who deliberately adopted as their special task the removal of their political opponents by assassination. Armed with short daggers (sicae), from which they received their name,[1133] they mixed among the crowds especially during the festival seasons, and unobserved in the press stabbed their opponents (τοὺς διαφόρους, i.e. the friends of the Romans), and feigning deep sorrow when the deed was done, succeeded in thereby drawing away suspicion from themselves. These political murders were so frequent that soon no one any longer felt safe in Jerusalem. Among others who fell victims to the daggers of the Sicarii was Jonathan the high priest, who, as a man of moderate sentiments, was hated by the Sicarii as well as by the procurator Felix, whom he often exhorted to act more worthily in the administration of his office, lest he (Jonathan) should be blamed by the people for having recommended the emperor to appoint him governor. Felix wished to have the troublesome exhorter put out of the way, and found that this could be most simply accomplished by means of assassination, to which the Sicarii, although otherwise the deadly foes of Felix, readily lent themselves.[1134]
[1132] Tacitus, Annals, xii. 54: “intempestivis remediis delicta accandebat.”
[1133] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8. 10.
[1134] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 3; Antiq. xx. 8. 5.—The Sicarii are also referred to during the war, when they had in their possession the fortress of Masada. See Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 6, iv. 7. 2, 9. 5, vii. 8. 1 ff., 10. 1, 11. 1. The author of the Acts of the Apostles was also aware of their existence as a political party (Acts 21:38 : τοὺς τετρακισχιλίους ἄνδρας τῶν σικαρίων).—In Latin sicarius is the common designation for a murderer. Thus, for example, the law passed under Sulla against murderers is called “lex Cornelia de Sicariis” (Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iv. 969, and generally the article “Sicarius” in the same Encyclopaedie, vi. 1. 1153 f.). It also occurs in the Mishna in this same general sense: Bikkurim i. 2, ii. 3; Gittin v. 6; Machshirin i. 6. In none of these passages is the term Sicarii used to designate a political party. In the passage Machshirin i. 6 the story told is this, that on one occasion the inhabitants of Jerusalem hid their fig-cakes in water from fear of the סיקרים. In the other passages a case is supposed in which a robber-murderer has violently appropriated to himself a piece of land. It is asked what is to be done in this case with reference to the taxes (Bikkurim i. 2, ii. 3), and whether one would be able by process of law to buy from the robber-murderer such a piece of land (Gittin v. 6). In reference to this last point it is said that since the war, which here clearly means the war of Hadrian, it had been decreed that the purchase would be valid only when the property had been first obtained from the lawful possessors and then from the robber who had taken it by force, but not when it had been bought first from the robber and then from the legal owners. Here we are to understand by the Sicarii rather non-Jewish than Jewish robber-murderers. Compare generally: Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, iv. 422 f., who wrongly makes the Sicarii a Jewish political party; Derenbourg, Historie de la Palestine, pp. 280, 475 sqq.; Levy, Neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, iii. 518.—The correct form סיקרים=sicarii, is found in Machshirin i. 6 (e.g. in the Cambridge manuscript edited by Lowe). But it is deserving of remark that in the other passages the best texts, e.g. the Cambridge manuscript, constantly have סיקריקון, sicaricon, and that indeed as a mas. sing.=“the murderer.”
With these political fanatics there were associated religious fanatics “not so impure in their deeds, but still more wicked in their intentions.” Advancing the claim of a divine mission, they roused the people to a wild enthusiasm, and led the credulous multitude in crowds out into the wilderness, in order that there they might show them “the tokens foreshadowing freedom” (σημεῖα ἐλευθερίας)—that freedom which consisted in casting off the Roman yoke and setting up the kingdom of God, or, to use the language of Josephus, in innovation and revolution. Since religious fanaticism is always the most powerful and the most persistent, Josephus is certainly right when he says that those fanatics and deceivers contributed no less than the “robbers” to the overthrow of the city. Felix also recognised clearly enough the dangerous tendency of the movement, and invariably broke in upon all such undertakings with the sword.[1135]—The most celebrated enterprise of this sort was the exploit of that Egyptian to whom Acts 21:38 refers. An Egyptian Jew who gave himself out for a prophet, gathered around him in the wilderness a great crowd of people, numbering, according to Acts, 4000, according to Josephus, 30,000, with whom he wished to ascend the Mount of Olives, because he promised that at his word the walls of Jerusalem would fall down and give them free entrance into the city. Then they would get the Roman garrison into their power and secure to themselves the government. Felix did not give the prophet time to perform his miracle, but attacked him with his troops, slew and scattered his followers or took them prisoners. But the Egyptian himself escaped from the slaughter and disappeared.[1136]
[1135] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 4; Antiq. xx. 8. 6.
[1136] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 5; Antiq. xx. 8. 6: ὁ δὲ Αἰγύκτιος αὐτὸς διαδρὰς ἐκ τῆς μάχης ἀφανὴς ἐγένετο. Undoubtedly the people believed in a wonderful deliverance and escape, and hoped for a return, to which even Acts 21:38 contains a reference.—Compare also Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ii. 21.
The result of this unfortunate undertaking was temporary strengthening of the anti-Roman party. The religious and the political fanatics (οἱ γόητες καὶ λῃστρικοί) united together for a common enterprise. “They persuaded the Jews to revolt, and exhorted them to assert their liberty, inflicting death on those that continued in obedience to the Roman government, and saying that such as willingly chose slavery ought to be forced from such their desired inclinations; for they parted themselves into different bodies, and lay in wait up and down the country, and plundered the houses of the great men, and slew the men themselves, and set the villages on fire; and this till all Judea was filled with their madness.”[1137]
[1137] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 6; Antiq. xx. 8. 6.
Thus did the misgovernment of Felix in the end bring about this result, that a large portion of the people from this time forth became thoroughly roused, under the constant strain of this wild reign of terror, to wage war against Rome, and rested not until at last the end was reached.
Besides these wild movements of the popular agitators, internal strifes and rivalries among the priests themselves led to the increase of confusion. The high priests were at feud with the other priests, and in consequence of the illegal arrangements which prevailed in Palestine under Felix’ government, they could even go the length of sending their servants to the threshing-floor, and carrying away by force the tithes which belonged to the other priests, so that many of these unfortunate priests actually died for want.[1138]
[1138] Josephus, Antiq. xx, 8. 8.
In the last two years of Felix occurred also the imprisonment of the Apostle Paul at Caesarea, of which an account is given in Acts 23, 24. We are familiar with the story of the personal interview which the apostle had with the Roman procurator and his wife Drusilla, at which the apostle did not fail to speak to both of that which it was specially fit that they should hear: “of righteousness and of temperance, and of judgment to come.”[1139]
[1139] Acts of the Apostles, 24:24 f.
While Paul lay a prisoner at Caesarea, a conflict arose there between the Jewish and Syrian inhabitants of the city over the question of equality in citizen rights (ἰσοπολιτεία), The Jews laid claim to the possession of certain advantages and privileges, since Herod was the founder of the city. The Syrians were naturally unwilling that any such preference should be given to the Jews. For a long tims both parties fought with one another in riots on the public streets. At last on one occasion, when the Jews had obtained an advantage, Felix stepped in, reduced the Jews to order by military force, and gave up some of their houses to be plundered by the soldiers. But when, nevertheless, the disorders still continued, Felix sent the most prominent of both parties to Rome, in order that the question of law might be decided by the emperor.[1140] Before, however, the matter had been settled, Felix, probably in A.D. 60, was recalled by Nero.[1141]
[1140] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8. 7; Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 7.
[1141] On the date of the recall of Felix and of Festus’ entrance upon office, see the thoroughgoing researches of Wurm, Tübinger Theologische Zeitschrift, 1883, 1 Heft, pp. 8-25; Anger, De temporum in actis apostolorum ratione, pp. 88-106; Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, pp. 66-99; Wieseler in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. xxi. 553-558; Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien, pp. 322-328; Wieseler, Zur Geschichte der neutestamentlichen Schrift (1880), p. 93 ff.; an anonymous paper, “St. Paul and Josephus,” in the Journal of Sacred Literature, new series, vol. vi. 1854, pp. 166-183; Lehmann, Studien und Kritiken, 1858, pp. 313-330; Lewin, Fasti sacri, p. 72 sqq.; J. Chr. K. v. Hofmann, Die heilige Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhängend untersucht, Thl. v. 1873, pp. 13-16; Grätz, Monatsschrift, 1877, p. 443 ff.=Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. p. 729 ff.; Aberle, Zur Chronologie der Gefangenschaft Pauli (Theologische Quartalschrift, 1883, pp. 553-572; Kellner, art. “Felix” in Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlexikon, 2 Aufl. iv. 1311 ff. (1886); Kellner in the Katholik, 1867, 1 Hälfte, pp. 146-151; Kellner, Zeitschrift für Katholisch-Theologie, 1888, pp. 640-646; Schanz, “Das Jahr der Gefangennahme des heiligen Apostels Paulus” (Historisches Jahrbuch der Görres-Gesellschaft, 1887, pp. 199-222, with supplement by Kellner, pp. 222-224; Wandel, Zeitschrift für kirchlichen Wissenschaft und kirchlichen Leben, 1888, p. 169 ff.; V. Weber, Kritische Geschichte der Exegese des 9. Kapitels des Römerbriefes, 1889, pp. 177-197.—An exact and certain determination of the year in which Felix was recalled is clearly impossible. Most of recent investigators assume A.D. 60 as the most probable date (so Wurm, Anger, Wieseler, the anonymous writer in the Journal of Sacred Literature, Lewin, Hoffmann, Aberle, Schanz, Wandel). Some go a year or two farther back (Grätz, A.D. 59; Lehmann, A.D. 58). Only Kellner and V. Weber, after the example of some earlier scholars (Bengel, Süskind, Rettig, on whom see Wieseler, Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters, p. 72), place the recall of Felix in the very beginning of Nero’s reign: Kellner in November A.D. 54, Weber in the summer of A.D. 55. The grounds for this last hypothesis are: (1) In the Chronicle of Eusebius, according to the Armenian text, it is said that the recall of Felix took place in the last year of Claudius, A.D. 54 (Euseb. Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 152); in the Chronicle of Jerome it is placed in the second year of Nero (Euseb. Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 155). (2) When Felix after his recall was accused in Rome by the Jews, Pallas secured his acquittal (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8. 9). Pallas had therefore at this time still great influence; but he had clearly fallen into disfavour in the beginning of Nero s reign, in A.D. 55 (Tacitus, Annals, xiii. 14). (3) The office of the procurators came to an end with the death of the emperor unless it were renewed by his successor. In answer to these statements it is to be remarked: (1) The statements in the Chronicle of Eusebius are often quite arbitrary, and so prove nothing. Moreover, the Armenian translation of the Chronicle can hardly contain the original text of Eusebius, since Eusebius himself in his Ecclesiastical History represents Felix as officiating under Nero (ii. 20. 1, 22. 1). (2) Josephus puts almost everything that he relates of the proceedings of Felix under the reign of Nero (Antiq. xx. 8. 1-9; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 8-14, 1). Felix must therefore have exercised his office for at least some years under Nero. If, therefore, Pallas was in favour with Nero at the time of Felix’ deposition, he must then have been restored to favour. There is no difficulty in making such an assumption, since we also know from Tacitus that before the expiry of A.D. 55 he had been found not guilty of charges that had been brought against him (Tacitus, Annals, xiii. 23). (3) The third argument made use of by Kellner falls to the ground before the statement of Josephus, that Felix officiated as procurator for a long while under Nero, and must therefore have been confirmed by him in office.—We can only fix with any degree of certainty upon the terminus ad quem of Felix’ recall. It occurred at any rate in the summer, since the Apostle Paul, who, not long after the departure of Felix, was sent by ship to Rome, arrived in Crete about the time of the Great Day of Atonement in October (Acts 27:9). But this summer cannot well have been later than that of A.D. 60. Seeing that the second successor of Felix, Albinus, arrived in Palestine late in the summer of A.D. 62, were we to assume that Felix left early in the summer of A.D. 61, we should be able to assign only one year to Festus, which in consideration of the incidents recorded as occurring in his time (Antiq. xx. 8. 9-11) is evidently too short. Very strange indeed is the argument in favour of A.D. 61 drawn from Antiq. xx. 8. 11. Because, forsooth, there in connection with an incident that occurred some time after Festus’ entrance upon office, Poppea is spoken of as the wife of Nero, who was not married to her before A.D. 62 (Tacitus, Annals, xiv. 60), it has been maintained that Festus’ entrance upon office cannot be placed earlier than A.D. 61. But there is nothing to prevent us from setting down that occurrence to a period more than a year after Festus’ entrance upon office. Moreover, the marriage of Nero with Poppea did not take place till somewhere about the time of Festus’ death, perhaps even somewhat later. Although that event had not occurred during Festus’ lifetime, we can quite understand Josephus proleptically describing Nero’s concubine as his wife.—Should we then accept the year 60 as the terminus ad quem, it is, on the other hand, not advisable to go much further back; for two years before the departure of Felix the imprisonment of Paul begins. But at the time of Paul’s apprehension Felix is described as already in possession of his office ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν (Acts 24:10). If we place the apprehension of Paul in the year 58, Felix was then already six years in office. Much less it could not have been. Also the chronology of the life of Paul in other particulars does not require that we place the apprehension of the apostle earlier. There is at least a possibility of assuming the year 57, and so it is evidently possible to assign the removal of Felix to A.D. 59. It is most correct to say with Wurm, at the earliest in A.D. 58, at the latest in A.D. 61, most probably in A.D. 60.
5. As successor of Felix, Nero sent Porcius Festus, A.D. 60-62,[1142] a man who, though disposed to act righteously, found himself utterly unable to undo the mischief wrought by the misdeeds of his predecessor.
[1142] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8. 9; Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 1.—Compare on Festus: Winer, Realwörterbuch, i. 372 f.; Klaiber in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. iv. 394; Overbeck in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, ii. 275 ff.
Soon after Festus’ entrance upon office the dispute between the Jewish and Syrian inhabitants of Caesarea was decided in favour of the Syrians by means of an imperial rescript. The Jewish ambassadors at Rome had not been able to press their charges against Felix, because Pallas took the side of his brother. On the other hand, the two Syrian ambassadors succeeded by bribery in winning over to their interests a certain man called Beryllus, who was Nero’s secretary for his Greek correspondence,[1143] and by this means obtained an imperial rescript, by which even that equality with the Syrians, with which before they had not been satisfied, was now taken away from the Jews, and the “Hellenes” declared to be the lords of the city. The embittered feelings excited by this decision among the Jews of Caesarea burst forth a few years later, in A.D. 66, in violent revolutionary movements, which Josephus regards as the beginning of the great war.[1144]
[1143] Instead of the name Beryllus given by all the manuscripts of Antiq. xx. 8. 9, the editions of Josephus since those of Hudson and Havercamp read Burrus. This conjecture, upon which some have built important chronological conclusions, is particularly foolish, for this reason, that the description given (παιδαγωγὸς δὲ οὗτος ἦν τοῦ Νέρωνος, τάξιν τὴν ἐπὶ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν ἐπιστολῶν πεπιστευμένος) does not suit Burrus, the well-known praefectus praetorio, with whom Josephus is quite well acquainted as such (Antiq. xx. 8. 2).
[1144] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8. 9; Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 4.—The two representations of Josephus are inconsistent with one another in certain particulars. According to Antiq. xx. 8. 9, the ambassadors of the Jews of Caesarea did not go to Rome to make their complaint against Felix until after the entrance of Festus upon his office. According to Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 7 fin., however, the ambassadors of both parties had been sent by Felix himself to Rome, which is probable for this reason, that even according to Antiq. xx. 8. 9 the ambassadors of the Syrians were also in Rome.—According to Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 4, it would seem as if the decision of the emperor had not been given before A.D. 66. But this is not possible, since Pallas, who died in A.D. 62 (Tacitus, Annals, xiv. 65), played an important part in the proceedings.
Festus, after repeated hearings, caused the Apostle Paul, whom Felix had left in prison (Acts 24:27), at the apostle’s own demand as a Roman citizen to be judged before the emperor, to be sent to Rome (Acts 25:26; Acts 27:1-2; compare also, in addition, pp. 59, 74 of the present work).
The trouble in connection with the Sicarii continued under Festus just as great as it had been under Felix. During his government also a deceiver, so at least Josephus designates him, led the people into the wilderness, promising redemption and emancipation from all evils to those who should follow him. Festus proceeded against him with the utmost severity, but was unable to secure any lasting success.[1145]
[1145] Josephus, Antiq. xx, 8. 10; Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 1.
Details in regard to a conflict between the priests and King Agrippa II., in which Festus took the side of Agrippa, will be given under the section that treats of the history of that king.
After he had held office for a period of scarcely two years, Festus died while administering his procuratorship, and two men succeeded him, one after the other, who, like genuine successors of Felix, contributed, as far as it lay in their power to intensify the bitterness of the conflict, and hurry on its final bloody conclusion.
In the interval between the death of Festus and the arrival of his successor, in A.D. 62, utter anarchy prevailed in Jerusalem, which was turned to account by the high priest Ananus, a son of that elder Ananus or Annas who is well known in connection with the history of Christ’s death, in order to secure in a tumultuous gathering the condemnation of his enemies, and to have them stoned. His arbitrary government was not indeed of long duration, for King Agrippa, even before the arrival of the new procurator, again deposed him after he had held office only for three months.[1146] James, the brother of Jesus Christ (ὁ ἀδελφὸς Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ), is said to have been among those executed by Ananus. So at least the words run in our present text of Josephus; and the words had been read even by Eusebius in his copy of Josephus precisely as they occur in our manuscripts.[1147] There is considerable ground, however, for suspicion of Christian interpolation, especially as Origen read in Josephus another passage regarding the death of James, in which the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is described as a divine judgment in consequence of the execution of James. This passage occurs in some of our manuscripts of Josephus, and ought therefore certainly to be regarded as a Christian interpolation which has been excluded from our common text.[1148] Also in the account given by Hegesippus of the execution of James it is brought into close connection with the destruction of Jerusalem. The year 62 cannot by any means be accepted as the date of his death.[1149]
[1146] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 1.
[1147] Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ii. 23. 21-24; literally the same as Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 1.
[1148] Origen makes reference three times to that passage in Josephus:- (1) Comment. in Matth. tom. x. c. 17 (on Matthew 13:55): “So high was the reputation of this James among the people for his righteousness, that Josephus in his Antiquities, when he is explaining the cause of the destruction of the temple, says, κατὰ μῆνιν θεοῦ ταῦτα αὐτοῖς ἀπηντηκέναι, διὰ τὰ εἰς Ἰάκωβον, τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου. χριστοῦ, ὑπʼ αὐτῶν τετολμημένα. … Λέγει δὲ, ὅτι καὶ ὁ λαὸς ταῦτα ἐνόμιζε διὰ τὸν Ἰάκωβον πεπονθέναι.” (2) Contra Celsum, i. 47: Ὁ δʼ αὐτὸς … ζητῶν τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων πτώσεως καὶ τῆς τοῦ ναοῦ καθαιρέσεως … Φησὶ ταῦτα συμβεβηκέναι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις κατʼ ἐκδίκησιν Ἰακώβου τοῦ δικαίου, ὃς ἦν ἀδελφὺς Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, ἐπειδήπερ δικαιότατον αὐτὸν ὄντα ἀπέκτειναν. (3) Contra Celsum, ii. 13 fin.: Τίτος καθεῖλε τὴν Ἱερουσαλήμ· ὡς μὲν Ἰώσηπος γράφει, διὰ Ἰάκωβον τὸν δίκαιον, τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ.—In the same style as Origen, contra Celsus, i. 47, and presumably following him, the passage is quoted in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ii. 23. 20. From Eusebius are derived the short statements in Jerome, De viris illustr. c. 2 and 13; adversus Jovinianum, i. 39 (Opera, ed. Vallarsi, ii. 301). The Greek translation of Jerome, De viris illustr., is reproduced by Suidas, Lexicon, s.v. Ἰώσηπος.—Hilgenfeld, Einleitung in das N. T. p. 526, regards this passage of Josephus as genuine, after the example of some older critics!
[1149] Eusebius has preserved for us (Hist. eccl. ii. 23. 11-18) a literal transcript of the account given by Hegesippus. According to him, James was cast down from the pinnacle of the temple, then stoned, and at last beaten to death by a fuller (γναθεύς) with a fuller’s club. The narrative concludes with these words: Καὶ εὐθὺς Οὐεσπασιανὸς πολιορκεῖ αὐτούς. Clement of Alexandria, in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ii. 1. 4, and Epiphanius, Haer. 78. 14, base their statements upon Hegesippus. The close connection in time between the execution of James and the destruction of Jerusalem is also emphasized by Eusebius in his own exposition (Hist. eccl. iii. 11. 1): μετὰ τὴν Ἰακώβου μαρτυραν καὶ τὴν αὐτίκα γενομένην ἅλωσιν τῆς Ἱερουσαλήμ. Though much that is legendary is contained in the narrative of Hegesippus, it is nevertheless, from a chronological point of view, at least as deserving of consideration as the passage in Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 1, which is open to the suspicion of interpolation.—It should, however, be remarked, that the casting down from a height before the stoning, is a regular injunction of the Jewish law (Mishna, Sanhedrin vi. 4).—Compare generally on the year of the death of James, and on the genuineness of the statement in Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 1; Clericus, Ars critica, p. iii. sec. 1, c. 14; Credner, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, pp. 580-582 (against the genuineness); Rothe, Die Anfänge der christliche Kirche und ihrer Verfassung, pp. 274-276 (similar to Credner); Gieseler, Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. (Edin. 1846) pp. 95-98; Koessing, Dissertatio de anno quo mortem obierit Jacobus frater Domini, Heidelb. 1857; Gust. Boettger, Die Zeugnisse des Flavius Josephus von Johannes dem Täufer, von Jesu Christo und von Jakobus, dem Bruder des Herrn, Dresden 1863; Gerlach, Die Weissagungen des Alten Testaments in den Schriften des Flavius Josephus, 1863, p. 117 ff.; Ebben, Genuinum esse Flavii Josephi de Jacobo fratre Jesu testimonum, Cleve 1864; J. Chr. K. v. Hofmann, Die heilige Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhängend untersucht, Thl. vii. 3 Abth. 1876, p. 4 f.; Wieseler, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1878, pp. 99-109; Volkmar, Jesus Nazarenus, 1882, pp. 345-348; Wandel, Zeitschrift für kirchlichen Wissenschaft und kirchlichen Leben, 1888, pp. 142-144; Kellner, “Der wahre Todestag [und das Todesjahr] Jakobus des Alphäiden” (Katholik, 1888, erste Hälfte, pp. 394-399).
6. The testimony of Josephus in regard to the new procurator Albinus, A.D. 62-64,[1150] is to the effect that there was no sort of wickedness that could be mentioned which he had not a hand in. The leading principle of his procedure seems however, to have been: To get money from whomsoever he might obtain it. Public as well as private treasures were subjected to his plunderings, and the whole people had to suffer oppression under his exactions.[1151] But he also found it to his advantage to seek money as bribes for his favour from both political parties in the country, from the friends of the Romans, as well as from their opponents. From the high priest Ananias, inclined to favour the Romans, as well as from his enemies, the Sicarii, he accepted presents, and then allowed both of them without restraint to do as they liked. He made, indeed, a pretence of opposing the Sicarii; but for money any one who might be taken prisoner could secure his release. “Nobody remained in prison as a malefactor, but he who gave him nothing.”[1152] The Sicarii, indeed, found out another means for securing the liberation of those of their party who had been taken prisoners. They were in the habit of seizing upon adherents of the opposite party only. Then at the wish of the Roman party, by whom also he was bribed, Albinus would set free as many of the Sicarii as they would of their opponents. Once on a time the Sicarii seized the secretary of the ruler of the temple, Eleasar, a son of Ananias,[1153] and in return for the liberation of the secretary they secured the restoration of ten of their own comrades.[1154] Under such a government the anti-Roman party gained footing more and more, or, as Josephus puts it, “the boldness of those desirous of change became more and more obtrusive.”[1155] And seeing that, on the other hand, their opponents also had full scope, utter anarchy soon prevailed in Jerusalem. It was a war of all against all. Ananias, the high priest, behaved in the most outrageous manner. He allowed his servants quite openly to take away from the threshing-floors the tithes of the priests, and those who opposed them were beaten.[1156] Two noble relatives of King Agrippa, called Costobar and Saul, also tried their hand at the robber business,[1157] and with them was associated the man who had committed to him the maintaining of law and order, even the procurator Albinus himself.[1158] In such times it was indeed nothing calculated to excite surprise when on one occasion a high priest, Jesus, son of Damnäos, engaged in pitched battle in the streets with his successor, Jesus, son of Gamaliel, because he had no wish to give up to him the sacred office.[1159]
[1150] The date of Albinus’ entrance upon his office may be discovered from Wars of the Jews, vi. 5. 3. According to the statement given there Albinus was already procurator when, at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles, four years before the outbreak of the war, and more than seven years and five months before the destruction of the city, a certain mas Jesus, son of Ananos, made his appearance, prophesying misfortune. These two indications of time carry us to the Feast of Tabernacles A.D. 62. Hence Albinus entered upon his office, at the latest, in the summer of A.D. 62.—Our Albinus is very probably identical with Lucceius Albinus, who, under Nero, Galba, and Otho, was procurator of Mauritania, and, during the conflicts between Otho and Vitellius, was, in A.D. 69, put to death by Vitellius’ party (Tacitus, History, ii. 58-69). Compare Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iv. 1158; Rohden, De Palaestina at Arabia, p. 36.
[1151] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 1.
[1152] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 1.
[1153] Instead of Ἀνάνου we should undoubtedly read Ἀνανίου. Compare Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 2, 20. 4; Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 248, note 1.
[1154] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 3.
[1155] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 1.
[1156] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 2.
[1157] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 4.
[1158] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 1.
[1159] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 4.
When Albinus was recalled, in order to do a pleasure to the inhabitants of the capital, and also to make the work of his successor as heavy as possible, he left all the prisons empty, having executed the ordinary malefactors, and set at liberty all the other prisoners. “Thus the prisons were left empty of prisoners, but the country full of robbers.”[1160]
[1160] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 5.
7. The last procurator, Gessius Florus, A.D. 64-66,[1161] was at the same time also the worst. He belonged to Clazomenae, and had through the influence of his wife Cleopatra, who was a friend of the Empress Poppea, obtained the procuratorship of Judea. For the utter baseness which characterized his administration of his office, Josephus can scarcely find words sufficiently strong to express his feelings. In comparison with him, he thinks that even Albinus was extraordinarily law honouring (δικαιότατος). So unbounded was his tyranny, that in view of it the Jews praised Albinus as a benefactor. Whereas Albinus wrought his wickednesses at least in secret, Florus was impudent enough to parade them openly. The robbing of individuals seemed to him quite too small. He plundered whole cities, and ruined whole communities. If only the robbers would share their spoil with him, they would be allowed to carry on their operations unchecked.[1162]
[1161] Seeing that Florus, according to Antiq. xx. 11. 1, had entered upon the second year of his administration. when, in May A.D. 66 (Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 4), the war broke out, he must have entered upon his office in A.D. 64.—The name Gessius Florus is also attested by Tacitus, History, v. 10. In the Chronicle of Eusebius it is corrupted into Γέστιος Φλῶρος (the Greek form as given in Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 637; in the Latin rendering of Jerome [Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 157], Cestius Florus); in the Armenian translation it is further converted into Cestius filius Flori (Euseb. Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 156, on the 14th year of Nero).
[1162] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 11. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 2.
By such outrages the measure which the people could endure was at last filled up to the brim. The combustible materials which had been gathering for years had now grown into a vast heap. It needed only a spark, and an explosion would follow of fearful and most destructive force.
SUPPLEMENT. AGRIPPA II., A.D. 50-100
LITERATURE
EWALD, History of Israel, vii. 273, 421, 422, 432, and elsewhere; viii. 18.
LEWIN, Fasti sacri, ad ann. 44-69 (see in the same work, Index, p. 390).
WINER, Realwörterbuch, i. 485.
KEIM in SCHENKEL’S Bibellexikon, iii. 56-65.
DERENBOURG, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 252-254.
HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclopaedie, Abth. ii. artikel “Agrippa.”
DE SAULCY, Etude chronologique de la vie et des monnaies des rois juifs Agrippa I. et Agrippa II. 1869 (see vol. i. of the work, p. 27).
GERLACH, Zeitschrift für lutherischen Theologie, 1869, pp. 62-68.
BRANN, “Biographie Agrippa’s II.” (Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, xix. 1870, pp. 433-444, 529-548; xx. 1871, pp. 13-28).
BAERWALD, Josephus in Galiläa, sein Verhältniss zu den Parteien insbesondere zu Justus von Tiberias und Agrippa II., Breslau 1877.
GRÄTZ, “Das Lebensende des Königs Agrippa II.” u.s.w. (Monatsschrift, 1877, p. 337 ff.); “Agrippa II. und der Zustand Judäa’s nach dem Untergange Jerusalems” (Monatsschrift, 1881, p. 481 ff.).
The inscriptions referring to Agrippa II. are collected from Waddington in the Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1873, pp. 248-255. On an addition to this list see vol. i. of this work, p. 30.
Agrippa II, son of Agrippa I., whose full name, as given on coins and inscriptions, was Marcus Julius Agrippa,[1163] seems like almost all the members of the Herodian family, to have been educated and brought up in Rome. There, at least, we find him at the time of his father’s death in A.D. 44, when Claudius wished to appoint him as successor to hif father.[1164] That the emperor, at the instigation of his counsellors on the plea of Agrippa’s youth, did not carry out this purpose has been already narrated above. The youth remained for a while at Rome, and found there abundant opportunities of being useful to his countrymen by making use of his influence and connections with the court. Notable instances of his successful intervention are those of the dispute about the high priest’s robe[1165] and the conflict waged during the time of Cumanus.[1166] To him also it was mainly due that Cumanus did not escape the punishment he deserved. With this last-mentioned incident we are already brought down to A.D. 52. But even before this there had been bestowed upon him by Claudius, in compensation for the loss of his father’s territories, another kingdom, though, indeed, a smaller one. After the death of his uncle, Herod of Chalcis, whose life and history are given in detail in Appendix I., he obtained, though not probably just at once, but only in A.D. 50, his kingdom in the Lebanon, and, at the same time, what that prince also had had, the oversight of the temple and the right to appoint the high priests.[1167] Of this latter right he frequently available himself by repeated depositions and nominations of high priests down to the outbreak of the war in A.D. 66. Probably after this gift had been bestowed upon him Agrippa continued still to reside for a while in Rome, where we meet with him in A.D. 52, and only after this date actually entered upon the government of his kingdom.
[1163] Compare on the coins of Agrippa generally: Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 493-496; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 570-676; Supplem. viii. 280 sq.; Lenormant, Trésor de Numismatique, pp. 127-130, pl. lx.-lxii.; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, i. 53 f., 61-64, ii. 38 f.; Levy, Geschichte der jüdischen Münzen, p. 82; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 113-133; De Saulcy, Etude chronologique, 1869 (see above in the general list of literature); Reichardt in the Wierter Numismatische Zeitschrift, Bd. iii. 1871, p. 83 ff.; Mommsen, Weiner Num. Zeitschr. 1871, p. 449 ff.; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, pp. 101-139; Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 139-169 (containing the most complete list). The name Marcus on a coin of the time of Nero: Βασιλέος (sic) Μάρκον Ἀγριππου (Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 146). In accordance with this, probably an inscription at Helbon, not far from Abila, of Lysanias, may be filled out in the following manner: Ἐπὶ βασιλέος μεγάλου Μάρκο[υ … Ἀγρίππα φιλο]καίσαρος καὶ φιλορωμαίων (sic), Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 2552. The name Julius on an inscription at El-Hit, north of the Hauran: Ἐπὶ βασιλέω[ς … Ἰου]λίου Ἀγρίππα, Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 2112. The reference of the inscription to Agrippa II. is not indeed certain, but it is highly probable. See Zeitschrift für wissenschafliche Theologie, 1873, p. 250. Even without this witness the name Julius might à priori be assumed for Agrippa II., since the whole family had borne it. See above, p. 162.
[1164] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 9. 2.
[1165] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 2; xv. 11. 4. Compare above, p. 167.
[1166] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6. 3. Compare above, p. 173.
[1167] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 1. Compare Antiq. xx. 9. 7: Ἐπεπίστευτο ὑπὸ Κλαυδίου Καίσαρος τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν τοῦ ἱεροῦ. There is indeed no mention of the conferring of the right of appointing the high priests, but only of the practical exercise of that right. Compare below, § 23. IV. That the gift of the kingdom was not made before A.D. 50, may be concluded from Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 4, according to which Agrippa had reached the seventeenth year of his reign when, in the month Artemisios (Ijjar) of A.D. 66, the war broke out. His seventeenth year therefore began, if we count the reign of Agrippa II. as Jewish king, according to Mishna, Rosh-hashana i. 1, from 1st Nisan to 1st Nisan, on the 1st Nisan of A.D. 66, and his first year at the earliest on 1st Nisan A.D. 50, but probably somewhat later. Compare Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, p. 48, note 2; Chronologie des Apostolischen Zeitalters, p. 68.
He can only seldom, or perhaps not even once, have revisited Palestine, when, in A.D. 53, in the thirteenth year of Claudius, in return for the relinquishment of the small kingdom of Chalcis, he received a larger territory, namely, the tetrarchy of Philip, including Batanea, Trachonitis, and Gaulanitis, and the tetrarchy of Lysanias, consisting of Abila and the domains of Varus.[1168] This territory, after the death of Claudius, was still further enlarged, through Nero’e favour for him, by the addition of important parts of Galilee and Perea, namely, the cities of Tiberias and Tarichea, together with the lands around belonging to them, and the city Julias, together with fourteen surrounding villages.[1169]
[1168] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 8. To the tetrarchy of Lysanias undoubtedly belongs also Helbon, not far from Abila Lysanias, where the inscription referred to in note 1 was found. Of the ἐπαρχία Οὐάρου Josephus gives us an explanation in his Life, c. xi.; for the Varus there referred to, the Noarus of Wars of the Jews, ii. 18. 6, whom Josephus describes as ἔκγονος Σοέμου τοῦ περὶ τὸν Λίβανον τεταρχοῦντος, is most probably to be identified with our Varus. Then, again, his father Soemus will be no other than the Soemus who, at the end of A.D. 38, obtained from Caligula τὴν τῶν Ἰτυραίων τῶν Ἀράβων (Dio Cassius, lix. 12), which territory he governed till his death in A.D. 49, when it was incorporated in the province of Syria (Tacitus, Annals, xii. 23). It may therefore be assumed that to his son Varus a portion of the territory on the Lebanon had been left for a time, and that this is the ἐπαρχία Οὐάρου which Claudius bestowed upon Agrippa.—Seeing then that Agrippa obtained the new territory in the thirteenth year of Claudius (that year including from 24th January A.D. 53 till the same day in A.D. 54), after he had ruled over Chalcis for four years (δυναστεύσας ταύτης ἔτη τέσσαρα), and seeing that further his fourth year, according to the reckoning we have accepted above, began on 1st Nisan A.D. 53, the gift must have been bestowed toward the end of A.D. 53.
[1169] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 2. In the latter passage Abila is spoken of as still in Perea. Compare on this point Div. II. vol. i. p. 105.—At what time this gift was bestowed cannot be with any certainty determined. On the later coins of Agrippa the years of his reign are reckoned according to an era which begins with A.D. 61. It is possible that this era has its distinctive basis in this, that Agrippa had in that year obtained the enlarged territory from Nero. This is the view of Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iii. 58; but Wieseler opposes it in Chronologie des Apostolischen Zeitalters, pp. 90-92. Then the abstraction of portions of Galilee and Perea spoken of have taken place immediately after the removal of Felix and Festus’ entrance upon office. This perhaps is the meaning of a passing allusion in Josephus, according to which Tiberias remained under Roman rule μέχρι Φήλικος προϊσταμένου τῆς Ἰονδαίας (Life, ix.). Yet this μέχρι does not of itself mean “down to the end of Felix’s term of office.” The hypothesis is therefore uncertain that it also marks an era of Agrippa beginning in A.D. 56. We might also take as the basis for this the enlargement of territory by Nero. This is the opinion of Grätz, Monatsschrift, 1877, pp. 344-349. He assumes as the basis of this era of A.D. 61 the rebuilding of Caesarea Philippi under the name of Neronias; which, however, is improbable, for this reason, that this incident might have been the beginning of a new system of chronology for the city Neronias but not for Agrippa. The era of A.D. 61 can be determined with certainty according to certain coins on which the 26th year of Agrippa is made to synchronize with the 12th consulship of Domitian, Dom. Cos. xii. (in Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 157 sq.), and according to another, on which the 25th year of Agrippa is also made to synchronize with the 12th consulship of Domitian (in Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 157). De Saulcy believes indeed that it is not the 25th and 26th years of Agrippa that are there meant, but the 25th and 26th years of an era belonging to the city of Caesarea Philippi. See Étude chronologique, 1869, and Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, p. 315. But the date is given thus: επι βα. Αγρ. ετ. κεʹ, which can only mean, under King Agrippa in his 25th year, etc. Seeing then that the 12th consulship of Domitian belongs to A.D. 86, the 26th year of Agrippa began also in that year, and consequently the era, according to which he reckons, began in A.D. 61.—An era beginning five years earlier is witnessed to by two coins and an inscription. The two coins bear the date ἔτους αί τοῦ καὶ (the figure which represents the number VI.). See Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 146. The eleventh year of the reign of Agrippa, according to the one era, is therefore identical with the sixth year according to the other era. Both of these eras are made use of upon an inscription found at Sanamen on the Hauran: ἔτους λζʹ τοῦ καὶ λβʹ βασιλέως Ἀγρίππα (Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, vii. 1884, p. 121 f.=Archäol.-epigr. Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich, viii. 1884, p. 189 f.). There, too, the one era begins five years before the other. Seeing then that we may there fairly assume that among the various eras of Agrippa the latest was, in later times, the one most commonly used, and seeing that, also according to the coins of A.D. 86, the era usually employed is that of A.D. 61, the one era must have begun in A.D. 56 and the other in A.D. 61.
Of Agrippa’s private life there is not much that is favourable to report. His sister Berenice,[1170] who, from the time of the death of Herod of Chalcis in A.D. 48, was a widow (see under Appendix I.), lived from that date in the house of her brother, and soon had the weak man completely caught in the meshes of her net, so that regarding her, the mother of two children, the vilest stories became current. When the scandal became public, Berenice, in order to cut away occasion for all evil reports, resolved to marry Polemon of Cilicia, who, for this purpose, was obliged to submit to be circumcised. She did not, however, continue long with him, but came back again to her brother, and seems to have resumed her old relations with him. At least this somewhat later came to be the common talk of Rome.[1171]
[1170] Compare on Agrippa and Berenice, Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, i. 2, 2 Aufl. p. 2352; Hausrath in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, i. 396-399.
[1171] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7. 3; Juvenal, Satires, vi. 156-160:—
“…… adamas notissimus et Berenices In digito factus pretiosior; hunc dedit olim Barbaras incestae, dedit hunc Agrippa sorori, Observant ubi festa mero pede sabbata reges, Et vetus indulget senibus clementia porcis.”
In the matter of public policy Agrippa was obliged to give up even the little measure of independence which his father sought to secure, and had unconditionally to subordinate himself to the Roman government. He provided auxiliary troops for the Parthian campaign of A.D. 54;[1172] and when, in A.D. 60, the new procurator Festus arrived in Palestine, he hastened, along with his sister Berenice, surrounded with great pomp (μετὰ πολλῆς φαντασίας), to offer him a welcome.[1173] His capital Caesarea Philippi was named by him Neronias in honour of the emperor, and the city of Berytus, which his father had adorned with magnificent specimens of pagan art, was still further indebted to his liberality.[1174] His coins, almost without exception, bear the names and images of the reigning emperor: of Nero, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. Like his father, he also caused himself to be styled βασιλεὺς μέγας φιλόκαισαρ εὐσεβὴς καὶ φιλορώμαιος.[1175]
[1172] Tacitus, Annals, xiii. 7.
[1173] Acts of the Apostles 25:13, 23.
[1174] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 4. The name of the city Neronias is also on the coins (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 343; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 315; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 116, 117; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 316, 318; Madden, Coins of the Jews, pp. 145, 146. That the capital was not Tiberias, therefore, certainly Neronias, is quite clear from Josephus, Life, c. ix.
[1175] He is so named in an inscription given by Waddington, n. 2365 (see above, p. 162); also compare n. 2552.
That upon the whole he was attached to the Roman rather than to the Jewish side is made very evident from an incident which, in yet another direction, is characteristic of his indolence and general feebleness. When he paid a visit to Jerusalem, he was wont to occupy the house that had formerly been the palace of the Asmoneans.[1176] This building, lofty even in its original form, he caused to be considerably heightened by the addition of a tower, in order that from it he might overlook the citadel and the temple, and to observe in his idle hours the sacred proceedings in the temple. This lazy onlooker was obnoxious to the priests, and they thwarted his scheme by building a high wall to shut off his view. Agrippa then applied for assistance to his friend, the procurator Festus, and he was very willing to give him any help he could. But a Jewish deputation, which went on its own authority about the business to Rome, managed by means of the mediation of the Empress Poppea to obtain permission to keep up the wall, so that Agrippa was obliged forthwith to abandon his favourite diversion.[1177]
[1176] This palace lay, according to Antiq. xx. 8. 11 and Wars of the Jews, ii. 16. 3, on the so-called Xystus, an open plain, from which a bridge led directly to the temple (Wars of the Jews, vi. 6, 2).
[1177] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8. 11.
Notwithstanding his unconditional submission to Rome, Agrippa yet sought also to keep on good terms with the friends of Judaism. His brothers-in-law, Azizus of Emesa and Polemon of Cilicia, were required on their marriage with his sisters to submit to circumcision.[1178] The rabbinical tradition tells of questions pertaining to the law which were put by Agrippa’s minister or by the king himself to the famous scribe Rabbi Elieser.[1179] Yea on one occasion we find even Berenice, a bigot as well as a wanton, a Nazarite in Jerusalem.[1180] Judaism was indeed as little a matter of heart conviction with Agrippa as it had been with his father. The difference was only this, that as a matter of policy the father took up decidedly the side of the Pharisees, whereas the son with less disguise exhibited his utter indifference. When it is told in the Acts of the Apostles how Agrippa and Berenice desired out of curiosity to see and hear the Apostle Paul, while the king could make no other reply to the apostle’s enthusiastic testimony on behalf of Christ than: “With little wouldest thou win me over to be a Christian,” and therewith allows the matter to pass away from his mind, we can see not only that he was free from all fanaticism, but also that he had no interest whatever in the deeper religious questions of the time.[1181]
[1178] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7. 1, 3.
[1179] Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 252-254; Grätz, Monatsschrift, 1881, pp. 483-493. Tradition names sometimes Agrippa’s minister, sometimes Agrippa himself as the party in question.
[1180] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 15. 1.
[1181] On the meaning of the words of Agrippa in Acts 26:28, see especially Overbeck on the passage. They were certainly not used ironically, but in thorough earnest. “The king confesses that with the few words that he had spoken Paul had made him feel inclined to become a Christian.” But then his indifference is shown in this, that he does nothing further in the matter.—It should not indeed be left unrecorded that instead of γενέσθαι very good manuscripts (אAB) read ποιῆσαι, and instead of πείθεις one manuscript (A) has πείθῃ, which would give the translation: “With little thinkest thou to make me a Christian.” But πείθῃ is too weakly supported, and unless we could adopt that reading the ποιῆσαι would be untranslatable.
His interest in Judaism extended only to external matters, and, indeed, only to merely trifling and insignificant points. In order to support the temple when its foundations had begun to sink, and to raise the buildings twenty cubits higher, he caused, at great expense, wood of immense size and fine quality to be imported from the Lebanon. But the wood, owing to the outbreak of the war in the meantime, was never put to that use, and subsequently served for the manufacture of engines of war.[1182] He allowed the psalm-singing Levites, when they made the request of him, to wear the linen garments which previously had been a distinctive badge of the priests. For such an offence against the law, the war, as Josephus thinks, was a just punishment.[1183] When, in the time of Albinus, the building of the temple of Herod was completed, in order to secure employment for the multitudes of builders, Agrippa had the city paved with white marble.[1184] “And thus at least as costume maker, wood-cutter, pavier, and practical inspector of the temple, did he render his services to the sinking Jerusalem.”[1185]
[1182] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 1. 5; Antiq. xv. 11. 3.
[1183] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 6.—The combinations which Grätz (Monatsschrift, 1886, p. 97 f.) makes in this connection are more than doubtful.
[1184] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 7.
[1185] Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iii. 59.
When, in the spring of A.D. 66, the revolution broke out, Agrippa was in Alexandria, where he had gone to pay his respects to the governor of that place, Tiberius Alexander, while his sister Berenice remained in Jerusalem in consequence of a Nazarite vow.[1186] Agrippa then immediately hasted back, and both brother and sister did all in their power to avert the threatening storm. But all in vain. Open hostilities were now begun in Jerusalem between the war and the peace parties, and the king’s troops, which he had sent to help, fought on the side of the peace party. When this latter party had been defeated, and among other buildings, the palaces of Agrippa and Berenice had fallen victims to the popular fury,[1187] he became the decided choice of that party. Unhesitatingly throughout the whole war he stood on the side of the Romans. Even when Cestius Gallus undertook his unfortunate expedition against Jerusalem, King Agrippa was found in his following with a considerable number of auxiliary troops.[1188] As the further course of the revolt proved favourable to the Jews he lost a great part of his territory. The cities Tiberias, Tarichea, and Gamala joined the revolutionary party; but the king remained unflinchingly faithful to the Roman cause.[1189] After the conquest of Jotapata, in the summer of A.D. 67, he entertained the commander-in-chief Vespasian in the most magnificent manner in his capital of Caesarea Philippi,[1190] and was able soon, after he had been slightly wounded at the siege of Gamala,[1191] to take possession again of his kingdom; for at the end of the year 67 the whole of the north of Palestine was again subject to the Romans.
[1186] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 15. 1.
[1187] Ibid. ii. 17. 6.
[1188] Ibid. ii. 18. 9, 19. 3.
[1189] Further details regarding Agrippa’s conduct during the war are given in Keim, Bibellexikon, iii. 60-63.—Agrippa was not present in Palestine during the interval between the defeat of Cestius Gallus and the advance of Vespasian. He gave over the administration of his kingdom to a certain Noarus or Varus, and, when this man began to indulge in the most despotic and high-handed procedure, to a certain Aequus Modius (Wars of the Jews, ii. 18. 6; Life, c. xi. and xxxvi., compare also xxiv.).—Of the three cities named (Tiberias, Tarichea, Gamala), Gamala was of special importance as a strong fortress. It was at first held faithfully for the king by Philip, an officer of Agrippa (Life, c. xi.). But when Philip was recalled by Agrippa the city went over to the side of the rebels (Life, xxxv.-xxxvii.; Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 4, 6, ii. 21. 7). Agrippa then ordered Aequus Modius to recapture Gamala (Life, xxiv.). But even a seven months’ siege failed to secure this end (Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 2). Another officer of Agrippa fought against Josephus (Life, lxxi.-lxxiii.).—Agrippa remained in Berytus till the spring of A.D. 67 (Life, xxxvi., lxv., ed. Bekker, p. 342, 32), then waited in Antioch along with his troops the arrival of Vespasian’s army (Wars of the Jews, iii. 2. 4), advanced with Vespasian to Tyre (Life, lxxiv.) and Ptolemais (Life, lxv., ed. Bekker, p. 340, 19-25, and c. lxxiv.), and seems now to have taken up his quarters more generally in Vespasian’s camp (Wars of the Jews, iii. 4. 2, 9. 7-8, 10. 10, iv. 1. 3).
[1190] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 9. 7.
[1191] Ibid. iv. 1. 3.
When, after the death of Nero, which occurred on 9th June A.D. 68, Titus went to Rome to pay his respects to the new emperor Galba, he took Agrippa with him also for the same purpose. On the way they received tidings of Galba’s murder, which took place on 15th January A.D. 69. While Titus now returned with as great speed as possible to his father, Agrippa continued his journey to Rome, where for a time he continued to reside.[1192] But after Vespasian had been, on 30th July A.D. 69, elected emperor by the Egyptian and Syrian legions, Berenice, who had been throughout a hearty supporter of the Flavian party, urged her brother to return without delay to Palestine to take the oath of allegiance to the new emperor.[1193] From this time forward Agrippa is to be found in the company of Titus, to whom Vespasian had entrusted the continued prosecution of the war.[1194] When Titus, after the conquest of Jerusalem, gave magnificent and costly games at Caesarea Philippi, King Agrippa was undoubtedly present, and as a Roman joined in the rejoicings over the destruction of his people.[1195]
[1192] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 2; Tacitus, History, ii. 1-2.
[1193] Tacitus, History, ii. 81.
[1194] Ibid. v. 1.
[1195] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 2. 1.
After the war had been brought to an end Agrippa, as a faithful partizan of Vespasian, was not only confirmed in the possession of the kingdom which he had previously governed, but had also considerable additions made to his territories, though we have no more detailed account of the precise boundaries of his domains.[1196] Josephus mentions only incidentally that Arcaia (Arca, at the north end of the Lebanon, north-east of Tripolis) belonged to the kingdom of Agrippa.[1197] We are therefore obliged to conclude that his new possessions stretched very far to the north. The omission on the part of Josephus in Wars of the Jews, iii. 3. 5, to refer to these northern possessions, can be accounted for only by the hypothesis that at the time of the composition of that work this extension of territory had not yet taken place. As a matter of fact, Josephus does not refer to them there, because in that passage he does not propose to describe the whole kingdom of Agrippa, but only those districts which were inhabited more or less by Jews (compare Div. II. vol. i. p. 2). Of the southern possessions certain portions seem at a later period to have been taken away from Agrippa. At least, at the time when Josephus wrote his Antiquities, i.e. in A.D. 93-94, the Jewish colony of Bathyra in Batanea no longer belonged to the territory of Agrippa.[1198]
[1196] Photius in his Bibliotheca, cod. 33, gives the following extract about Agrippa from Justus of Tiberias: παρέλαβε μὲν τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου, ηὐξήθη δὲ ἐπὶ Νέρωνος καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον ὑπὸ Οὐεσπασιανοῦ, τελευτᾷ δὲ ἔτει τρίτῳ Τραϊανοῦ.
[1197] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 5. 1. Josephus there tells how that Titus, on the march from Berytus to Antioch, came upon the so-called Sabbath-river, which flows μέσος Ἀρκαίας τῆς Ἀγρίππα βασιλείας καὶ Ῥαφαναίας. A city therefore is intended which lay north of Berytus, and so undoubtedly the same Arcae which according to the old itineraries lay between Tripolis and Antaradus, 16 or 18 Roman miles north of Tripolis and 32 Roman miles south of Antaradus (18 mil. pass.: Itinerarium Antonini, edd. Parthey et Pinder, 1848, p. 68; 16 mil. pass.: Itinerarium Burdigalense, edd. Parthey et Pinder, p. 275=Itinera Hierosolymitana, edd. Tobler et Molinier, i. 1879, p. 14; they agree in giving the distance from Antaradus at 32 mil. pass.). The name is retained to the present day in that of a village at the north end of the Lebanon on the spot indicated in the itineraries. In ancient times the city was very well known. The Arkites are named in the list of peoples in Genesis 10:17 (עַרְקִי). Josephus, Antiq. i. 6. 2, calls it: Ἄρκην τὴν ἐν τῷ Λιβάνῳ. Quite distinct from this is the Arce mentioned in Antiq. v. 1. 22, which lay much farther south. In Antiq. viii. 2. 3, Niese reads, indeed, Ἀκή; but for this Antiq. ix. 14. 2 has Ἄρκη. Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 18. 74, and Ptolemy, v. 15. 21, simply mention the name. Stephen of Byzantium remarks: Ἄρκη, πόλις Φοινίκης, ἡ νῦν Ἄρκαι καλουμένη. Jerome explains Genesis 10:17 thus: “Aracaeus, qui Arcas condidit, oppidum contra Tripolim in radicibus Libani situm” (Quaest. Hebr. in Genesin, Opera, ed. Vallarsi, iii. 321). In the days of the empire, Arca was specially known as the birthplace of Alexander Severus (Lamprid. Alexander Severus, c. 1, 5, 13; Aurel. Victor, Caesar, c. 24). It was there also called Caesarea (Lamprid. Alexander Severus, c. 13: “Apud Aream Caesaream;” Aurel. Victor, Caesar, c. 24: “Cui duplex, Caesarea et Arca, nomen est”). On coins this name occurs as early as the time of Marcus Aurelius (Καισαρεων των εν τω Λιβανω or Καισαρειας Λιβανου). From the time of Heliogabalus, if not even earlier, it is ranked on the coins as a Roman colony: “Col. Caesaria Lib(ani).” An inscription, found by Renan in the neighbourhood of Botrys, refers to a dispute about a boundary between the Caesarians and the Gigartenians, Corp. Inscr. Lat. iii. n. 183=Renan, Mission de Phénicie, p. 149: “Fines positi inter Caesarenses ad Libanum et Gigartenos de vico Sidonior[um] jussu …). From this, however, it should not be concluded that their regular frontiers touched one another. See Mommsen’s remarks in Corp. Inscr. Lat., and those of Renan in his work referred to. The situation of Gigarta may be determined from the order of enumeration in Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 78: “Botrys, Gigarta, Trieris, Calamos, Tripolis.” The plural form Ἄρκαι, used by Stephen of Byzantium, is also confirmed by the itineraries, by Jerome, Socrates (Hist. eccl. vii. 36), and Hierocles (Synecdemus, ed. Parthey, p. 43).—Compare generally, Belley, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, first series, vol. xxxii. 1768, pp. 685-694; Ritter, Erdkunde, xvii. 1. 808 ff., 842; Robinson, Later Researches in Palestine; Forbiger, Handbuch der alten Geographie, ii. 672; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, i. 2, 2 Aufl. p. 1423 f.; Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des römischen Reichs, ii. 331 f.; Gesenius, Thesaurus, p. 1073; Winer, Realwörterbuch, i. 86; Baudissin, art. “Arkiter” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. i. 645 f.; Knobel, Die Völkertafel der Genesis, 1850, p. 327 f.; Renan, Mission de Phénicie, p. 115 sq.; Furrer, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, viii. 1885, p. 18; Neubauer, La géographie du Talmud, p. 299.—On the coins: Belley, Mémoires de l’Académie, xxxii. (1768); Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 360-362; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 356-358; Suppl. viii. 255-257; De Saulcy, Annuaire de la Société francaise de Num. et d’Archéologie, iii. 2, 1869, pp. 270-275; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 117-120.
[1198] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 2. 2. In the Wars of the Jews, iii. 3. 5, Batanea is reckoned as still belonging to the territory of Agrippa.
In A.D. 75 the brother and sister, Agrippa and Berenice, arrived in Rome, and there those intimate relations begun in Palestine between Berenice and Titus were resumed, which soon became a public scandal.[1199] The Jewish queen lived with Titus on the Palatine, while her brother was raised to the rank of a praetor. It was generally expected that there would soon be a formal marriage, which it is said that Titus had indeed promised her. But the dissatisfaction over the matter in Rome was so great that Titus found himself under the necessity of sending his beloved one away.[1200] After the death of Vespasian, on 23rd June A.D. 79, she returned once more to Rome; but Titus had come to see that love intrigues were not compatible with the dignity of an emperor, and so left her unnoticed.[1201] When she found herself thus deceived she returned again to Palestine.
[1199] Even Titus’ return to Palestine on receiving intelligence of Galba’s death was ascribed by his defamers to his longing for the society of Berenice (Tacitus, History, ii. 2).
[1200] Dio Cassius, lxvi. 15; Suetonius, Titus, 7: “Insignem reginae Berenices amorem cui etiam nuptias poilicitus ferebatur.”—Berenice had even already publicly assumed the name of Titus’ wife (πάντα ἤδη ὡς καὶ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ οὖσα ἐποίει, Dio Cassius, lxvi. 15). Any suspected of having intercourse with her were rigorously punished by Titus. Aurel. Victor, Epit. 10: “Caecinam consularem adhibitum coenae, vixdum triclinio egressum, ob suspicionem stupratae Berenices uxoris suae, jugulari jusait.”—Compare also Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. iv. 52-55.
[1201] Dio Cassius, lvi. 18; Aurel. Victor, Epit. 10: “Ut subiit pondus regium, Berenicen nuptias suas sperantem regredi domum … praecepit.” Suetonius, Titus, 7: “Berenicen statim ab urbe dimisit, invitus invitam.”—Aurelius Victor and Suetonius speak only of a dismissal of Berenice after the enthronement of Titus; for even in Suetonius “statim” can be understood only in this sense. But Dio Cassius clearly makes a distinction between the two occurrences: the involuntary dismissal before his succession to the throne, and the non-recognition of Berenice after that event.—On her travels between Palestine and Borne, Berenice seems to have gained for herself a certain position in Athens which the council and people of the Athenians have made memorable by the following inscription (Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 361=Corp. Inscr. Atticarum, iii. 1, n. 556; on the name Julia, see above, p. 162):—
Ἡ βουλὴ ἡ ἐξ Αρείου πάγου καὶ
ἡ βουλὴ τῶν χʼ καὶ ὁ δῆμος Ιου-
λίαν Βερενείκην βασίλισσαν
μεγάλην, Ἰουλίου Ἀγρίππα βασι
λέως θυγατέρα καὶ μεγάλων
βασιλέων εὐεργετῶν τῆς πό-
λεως ἔκγονον …
Of her later life, as well as of that of Agrippa, we know practically nothing. We know indeed only this, that Agrippa corresponded with Josephus about his History of the Jewish War, praised it for its accuracy and reliability, and purchased a copy of it.[1202]
[1202] Josephus, Life, lxv.; Against Apion, i. 9.
Numerous coins of Agrippa confirm the idea that his reign continued to the end of that of Domitian. The many inaccuracies which are found on these coins with reference to the imperial title have caused much trouble to numismatists. Yet, in reality, these inaccuracies are in various directions highly instructive.[1203]
[1203] For the literature on the coins, see above, p. 192.—The real facts of the case are as follows. Besides the coins of the time of Nero (see in regard to them above, pp. 193-194) there are coins of Agrippa—(1) of the years of his reign, 14, 18, 26, 27, 29, with the inscription, Αὐτοκρά(τορι) Οὐεσπασι(ανῷ) Καίσαρι Σεβαστῷ; (2) of the years of Agrippa, 14, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27, 29, with the inscription, Αὐτοκρ(άτωρ) Τίτος Καῖσαρ Σεβασ(τός); (3) of the years of Agrippa, 14, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 35, with the name of Domitian, and indeed down to the year 23 inclusive, only Δομιτιανὸς Καῖσαρ, in the year 24 with the addition Γερμανικός, in the year 35: Αὐτοκρά(τορα) Δομιτια(νον) Καίσαρα Γερμανι(κόν). For the fullest exhibition of the evidence, see Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 148-159.—The agreement in the year numbers on the coins of all the three Flavians puts it beyond doubt that on all these coins the same era is employed. Hence Agrippa in his fourteenth year has had coins stamped at the same time bearing the name of Vespasian, Titus, Domitian. But the era used can only be that of A.D. 61, which is employed on the bilingual coins of Agrippa of the 25th and 26th years of his reign (= Domitian. Cos. xii., i.e. A.D. 86). Compare what is said above at p. 194. From these data the following results may be deduced: (1) The coins of the years 26, 27, and 29 were stamped after the deaths of Vespasian and Titus; nevertheless, in the title of both emperors the term “divus” is wanting, suppressed probably on religious grounds. (2) The coins of the years 14 and 18 were stamped while Vespasian was still living; nevertheless Titus is already called Σεβαστός. Thus, incorrect as it is, it indicates in a striking manner how Titus had already gained in the East a supreme position. He was regarded even then as practically co-regent. (3) The title given to Domitian is so far correct, since he is called on the coins of the years 14-19 only Καῖσαρ, and on the coins of the year 24 (= A.D. 84) bears the title Γερμανικός, which, as a matter of fact, he did receive in A.D. 84. On the other hand, it was a great mistake to omit the title of Σεβαστός, and in some instances also the title Αὐτοκράτωρ from the coins of the years 23-25, which all belong to the period of Domitian’s reign, A.D. 83-95. The coins therefore show “that in Galilee they were not altogether en rapport with the mighty empire of this world” (Mommsen). Only the bilingual coins of the year 26 have the correct Latin title: “Imp(erator) Caes(ar) divi Vesp. f(ilius) Domitian(us) Au(gustus) Ger(manicus).”—Several numismatists, especially De Saulcy and Madden, partly at least in order to get rid of these results, have, in the most extremely arbitrary manner, assumed for these coins from three to four different eras. The correct point of view has in the most convincing manner been indicated by Mommsen (Wiener Numismatuche Zeitichrift, iii. 1871, pp. 451-457).
According to the testimony of Justus of Tiberias,[1204] Agrippa died in the third year of Trajan, in A.D. 100; and there is no reason for doubting the correctness of this statement, as Tillemont and many modern writers have done.[1205] Agrippa, it would appear, left no children.[1206] His kingdom was undoubtedly incorporated in the province of Syria.
[1204] On Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 33, see vol. i. of this present work, pp. 68-69.
[1205] Tillemont, Historie des empereurs, t. i. (Venise 1732) pp. 646-648, note xli.; Jost, Geschichte der Israeliten, Bd. ii., Anhang, p. 103 f.; Brann, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1871, pp. 26-28; Grätz, Monatsschrift für Gesch. u. Wissensch. des Jude. 1877, pp. 337-352; Brüll, Jahrbücher für jüdisch. Geschichte und Literatur, vii. 1885, pp. 51-53.—The reason why some would reject altogether the report of Justus as given by Photius, while others would improve it by an alteration or modification of the text, is simply this, that it had been assumed that the Autobiography of Josephus was written immediately after his Antiquities, in A.D. 93 or 94. In that case then Agrippa must have died before the year 93; for when Josephus wrote his Autobiography, Agrippa was already dead (Life, lxv.). But that assumption is altogether untenable, since Josephus, at the end of the Antiquities, expresses his intention of continuing the work in another way than he afterwards actually did by appending the Life. On this question see vol. i. of this work, pp. 90-92.—The coins of Agrippa of the year 35 of his reign prove that, at least in A.D. 95, he was still alive. Compare in regard to the reckoning of the date, what is said in note 41. The inscription with the date ἔτους λζʹ τοῦ καὶ λβʹ βασιλέως Ἀγρίππα, if we fix the latter date at A.D. 61 (compare above at note 7), will bring us to A.D. 92-93.
[1206] Whether he was married or not, we do not know. In the Talmud (bab. Succa 27a) the story is told of the steward of Agrippa putting a question to R. Elieser, which seems to imply that the questioner had two wives. Founding upon this, many assign to Agrippa two wives, asauming that the steward put the question in the name of the king. So, for instance, Derenbourg, Historie de la Palestine, pp. 252-254, and Brann, Monatsschrift, 1871, p. 13 f. There is, however, no sufficient foundation for such an assumption. See Grätz, Monatsschrift, 1881, p. 483 f.