Tacitus and the death of Agrippa in 49 CE

There is a belief out there in academia that all scholars have to do to understand Agrippa and his place in history is to open up the works of Josephus as preserved by the Catholic Church in Greek. We should reconstruct our understanding of history based on the fact that these works of Josephus tell us that 'Agrippa I' ruled over Judea from 41 - 44 CE. They also tell us that his son - also named Agrippa - was prevented from immediately taking over his father's kingdom owing to his immaturity. He was given the relatively small Syrian kingdom of Chalcis according to the tradition and later received an ever expanding Palestinian domain which never included Judea.

Whenever you question this over-simplistic reliance on Josephus you are immediately reminded that the surviving literary, numismatic and epigraphical evidence 'proves' his account. What these men are really saying is that THEY found no conflict between Josephus and these other traditions. But where they really scrutinizing the evidence or - as I suppose - they set out to prove their own presuppositions.

As Meshorer and others have repeatedly noted the numismatic evidence does not fit Josephus' account whatsoever. Meshorer goes so far as to declare Josephus a distraction to determine the date of 'Agrippa II.' According to Meshorer the coins make clear that he began his reign in 49 CE. Other numismatic experts point to contradicts in the claims of a seven or eight year reign for 'Agrippa I.' There are coins which demonstrate that his reign lasted at least until 'year 10' (or 46 - 47 CE) thus contradicting the claims of Josephus regarding his 'death by bird' in Caesarea in 44 CE.

Of course one might argue that 'coins are difficult to interpret' or that 'epigraphy is impossible to sort out.' That is why the almost complete silence of academics on the subject of Tacitus' explicit identification OF THE DEATH OF AGRIPPA IN 49 CE is so stunning. How could both Josephus and Tacitus be so completely at odds with one another. For we read in Tacitus' account of the eight year of Claudius' reign (49 CE) that:

Mithridates was given up and brought to Rome by Junius Cilo, the procurator of Pontus. There in the emperor's presence he was said to have spoken too proudly for his position, and words uttered by him to the following effect became the popular talk: "I have not been sent, but have come back to you; if you do not believe me, let me go and pursue me." He stood too with fearless countenance when he was exposed to the people's gaze near the Rostra, under military guard. To Cilo and Aquila were voted, respectively, the consular and praetorian decorations.

In the same consulship, Agrippina, who was terrible in her hatred and detested Lollia ... a tribune was despatched to Lollia, who was to force her to suicide. Next on the prosecution of the Bithynians, Cadius Rufus, was condemned under the law against extortion.

Narbon Gaul, for its special reverence of the Senate, received a privilege. Senators belonging to the province, without seeking the emperor's approval, were to be allowed to visit their estates, a right enjoyed by Sicily. Ituraea and Judaea, on the death of their kings, Sohaemus and Agrippa, were annexed to the province of Syria.

It was also decided that the augury of the public safety, which for twenty-five years had been neglected, should be revived and henceforth observed. The emperor likewise widened the sacred precincts of the capital, in conformity with the ancient usage, according to which, those who had enlarged the empire were permitted also to extend the boundaries of Rome. But Roman generals, even after the conquest of great nations, had never exercised this right, except Lucius Sulla and the Divine Augustus. Annals Book 12

It is utterly impossible for anyone to claim that Tacitus takes the events as already having happened five years earlier and only now mentions them. Nor can one suppose that he 'just got mixed up about the dates.' We are told that Josephus agrees with everything out there and then just as suddenly - when we examine things carefully - we see that this claim is nothing more than a projection of inherited prejudice.

The claims regarding Josephus' reliability are entirely unfounded. Yet the passage in Tacitus is also puzzling. The reference to Sohemus and Agrippa's death seems to have been 'dropped' into the middle of a discussion of Claudius reforms of various laws. If we take out the reference to 'the death of Agrippa' the rest of the passage flows naturally from one sentence to the other:

Senators belonging to the province, without seeking the emperor's approval, were to be allowed to visit their estates, a right enjoyed by Sicily ... It was also decided that the augury of the public safety, which for twenty-five years had been neglected, should be revived and henceforth observed. The emperor likewise widened the sacred precincts of the capital, in conformity with the ancient usage, according to which, those who had enlarged the empire were permitted also to extend the boundaries of Rome. But Roman generals, even after the conquest of great nations, had never exercised this right, except Lucius Sulla and the Divine Augustus.

Another unusual aspect of the chapter is that Junius Cilo was earlier identified as receiving the consulship when in fact his name does not show up in any known list of consuls from the period:

List of consuls

41 Caligula
Cn. Sentius Saturninus
42 Claudius
C. Caecina Largus
43 Claudius
L. Vitellius
44 C. Passienus Crispus
T. Statilius Taurus
45 M. Vinicius
T. Statilius Taurus Corvinus
46 Decimus Valerius Asiaticus
M. Junius Silanus
47 Claudius
L. Vitellius
48 Vitellius
L. Vipstanus Publicola
49 Q. Veranius
C. Pompeius Longus Gallus
50 C. Antistius Vetus
M. Suillius Nerullinus
51 Vespasian
Ser. Cornelius Salvidienus Orfitus
52 Faustus Cornelius Sulla Felix
L. Salvius Otho Titianus
53 Decimus Junius Silanus Torquatus
Q. Haterius Antoninus
54 M' Acilius Aviola
M. Asinius Marcellus