why we shouldn't believe the surviving Josephus tradition

copyright 2008 Stephan Huller

The only reason that scholars take for granted that there ever were two historical Marcus Agrippas is because of the surviving texts of Josephus. Of course the ‘two Agrippa’ theory posited in this tradition isn’t the only one from the period. The Seder ‘Olam Rabba, written by one person between 150 and 160 CE only gives the dates for one Agrippa. This is exactly the period that our existing Josephus material went under the knife of a Christian redactor, making the leader of the Jewish revolt a full fledged ‘believer’ in Jesus Christ.

This is not the place to prove my contention that the existing texts of Josephus have suffered from the interpolation of a Christian editor. As I just indicated, the Testamonium Flavium betrays that fact unmistakably. I just happen to take that fact one step further than most scholars. According to my way of thinking, this one generally acknowledged editorial manipulation was part of a greater effort to diminish Agrippa’s standing.

Is it really possible that this claim of Josephus’ “secret faith” in Jesus Christ was connected with a broader attempt to deny Agrippa’s messiahood? Unfortunately, this isn’t the proper place for that argument. At the very least we can say that the presence of corruption in Josephus’ existing narrative – editorial manipulation with a clear theological agenda - helps explain why the rest of the material is so inaccurate.

Indeed it is nothing short of amazing how naively scholars employ Josephus. For them, Josephus is nothing short of a gift fallen from heaven. It often seems that they are all convinced that all you have to do is open the magic book and the exact details of everything that happened in the first century of the Common Era miraculously come to life.

The truth is that it is only because so little information from that period has survived that the Josephus canon can maintain its air of authority. Indeed if we match up what is written about ‘Agrippa’ against the only real and abiding pieces of evidence regarding their rule – the coins and inscriptions which mention his name – the underlying (and deliberate) inaccuracies immediately become manifest.

The existing copies of Josephus, with their claim that one Marcus Agrippa reigned from 38 – 44 CE and another Marcus Agrippa (his son) ruled from 49 CE is plainly disputed by the calmative numismatic evidence. As Ya’akov Meshorer repeatedly notes in his definitive Jewish Coins of the Second Commonwealth Period “one of the most perplexing problems in Jewish numismatics [has been] that of the dates on the coins of Agrippa II” and specifically “the date mentioned by Josephus as the first regnal year … [which is] incompatible with at least some dates on his coins.”

As Meshorer readily recognizes, “because Josephus gives the first year of Agrippa II’s rule as 49/50 many have mistakenly counted the beginning of his regnal year from that date. However the inscriptions foun at Jebel Druze and elsewhere containing dates according to the era of Agrippa I, his coins issued in the days of Domitian mentioning the twelfth consulship of the emperor, as well as the coins under the Flavian emperors with dates below year 20 – all these rule out the possibility of an era of Agrippa II beginning in 50 CE.”

This devastating contradiction to the claims of the beginning of one Agrippa’s rule in the existing text of Josephus pale in comparison to a careful scrutiny of the end of the other. If we are to believe Josephus’ text Agrippa coins should simply disappear after ‘year 8’ of his rule (or 44 CE). The facts however demonstrate that Agrippa coins with Claudius as Emperor continue through years 9, 10, 13 and 15. Only the most pathetic effort to make the numismatic evidence fit Josephus’ surviving text helps scholars turn a blind eye to this problem.

When confronted with the existence of ‘year 9’ `coins of Agrippa Marsden, in his International Numismata Orientalia (p. 132), simply brushes aside the evidence because it doesn’t fit Josephus’ chronology. He cites De Sauley’s argument in French – “Josephe dit on toutes lettres que le regne d’Agrippa Ier n’a pas ete de pius sept ans, puisqu’il est mort dans le cours de sa septieme annee.” De Sauley says that this ‘fact’ allows for coins up to ‘year seven’ but adds that a date of ‘year nine’ “me parait toujour inexplicable; d’ailleurs, les faussaires ne manquant pas a Jerusalem!” (cf De Sauley, ‘Num Chron.’ N. S. 1871 vol xi, 255).

So it is that scholars deliberately ‘stop’ now at ‘year eight’ coins for Agrippa and push aside not only these ‘year nine’ coins but as I mentioned other coins which demonstrate clearly his reign never actually ended. Indeed in 1862, H. C. Reichardt published a coin with the bust of Agrippa to left, on the obverse and an anchor on the reverse. It also read L I (= year 10) on the reverse. As Deutsch notes ‘his reading of the legend and date was accepted -- initially -- with some reservations.’
The problem was again that the coin ‘didn’t fit’ Josephus’ chronology so alternative explanations had to be developed. As Deutsch again notes the style of the coin was clearly that of ‘Agrippa I.’ Yet Josephus ‘makes clear’ that Agrippa I couldn’t have reigned beyond his eighth year. So what to do? Again the simplest explanation is to ignore the anomaly and stick to the rule.

However given that we are not as sophisticated as these men, it is difficult for as to avoid a clear continuation of coinage of one ‘king Agrippa’ through to his tenth year. Of course not every regnal year yields numismatic evidence. As Meshorer notes “except for two coins, one of his second year and the other of his fifth year, all of the coins of Agrippa I were struck under the Emperor Claudius.”

As such, when we turn this observation around for our ‘one Agrippa’ theory, we find no coins minted in year one (which is only natural because Agrippa hadn’t yet taken his kingdom), a coin in year two, no coins in year three and four, a coin in year five, many coins in years six and seven. One or a few coins in years eight, nine and ten and then no coins again in years eleven and twelve followed by a new development in years thirteen and fifteen.

Scholars typically point to the fact that ‘Agrippa I’ tried to avoid offending his Jewish subjects by having images which might be considered ‘graven’ on his coins. This is usually cited as an important distinction between ‘father’ and ‘son,’ the former being somehow ‘closer’ to the Jews and Judaism. Of course this division is ultimately quite artificial. Offensive images do indeed appear on coins usually attributed to ‘Agrippa I.’ Scholars have to push these to the side when making that argument. The better explanation here is clearly that Agrippa was ‘encouraged’ to behave differently towards his Jewish subjects by different Roman Emperors.

Indeed in years thirteen and fifteen it becomes immediately apparently that Agrippa’s own name and likeness were so reprehensible to Jews that they disappear completely. Maltiel-Gerstenfeld (Jewish Coins 1982) begins his section on coins of Agrippa II with a series of coins through these years which simply say ‘Claudius Caesar’ or have images related to the Emperors family. Maltiel-Gerstenfeld makes clear that the identification of ‘year thirteen’ and ‘year fifteen’ on these coins make clear that they are again a continuation of Agrippa’s reign because, after all, Claudius only ruled for fourteen years. He demonstrates at least one coin which explicitly mentions ‘year 15’ as well as three more which he dates to that period. They necessarily prove that an Agrippa continued to rule into 51/52 CE.

The straightforward interpretation of these coins which continue through years 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 15 of a king named Agrippa is that there was only one such ruler. Only a completely arbitrary effort to attribute some coins to two otherwise indistinguishable men of the same name rescues the apparent falseness of Josephus’ surviving account. Indeed one wonders how an Agrippa I whose rule went from year 2 – year 8 and an ‘Agrippa II’ whose reign started at ‘year nine and went up to year 15’ didn’t arouse the suspicion of at least some academics as to the farcical nature of the whole enterprise.

Of course we are still left with Meshorer’s original problem of a ‘restarting’ of Agrippa coins in the Neronian period. Nevertheless the existing text of Josephus has already been proven utterly useless to reconcile the difficulty. As he continues a little later in the same chapter:

The conclusion of Seyrig is that there were two eras of Agrippa II, one that commenced in 56 CE and the other in 61 CE. The higher era (61 CE) was used very much less than that beginning in 56 CE. The one era that of 61 CE was employed for the coins struck in the twelfth consulship of Domitian and appears also on the [Neronian] coins with the double dates. In every instance where these double dates occur on coins and in inscriptions, the difference between the one date and the other is 5 years.

The point again is that the existing text of Josephus’ claim that one Agrippa ended his rule in 44 CE and the other began again in 49 CE is absolutely contradicted by the surviving evidence.

As Meshorer again reemphasizes a little later still in his analysis of the data:
The coins of Agrippa under the Flavian emperors bear dates starting from year 14 and concluding with the year 35. This era could not possibly begin in 49/50 CE, as Josephus would have it, for then ‘year 14,’ the year Agrippa commenced to strike coins under the Flavians, would fall under the rule of Nero, four years before Vespasian became Emperor, even as all the coins under the Flavians bearing the dates below year 20 would have been issued before Vespasian’s accession. The era commencing in 56 CE fits in well, for according to it Agrippa, immediately on the accession of the Flavians in 69/70 CE began to strike coins with their names on them.
The point of course now is that Josephus’ chronology has been utterly disproved by two prominent experts in Jewish numismatics.

Once we see 44 CE cannot plausibly be offered up as the end of the reign of one Agrippa nor 49 CE the beginning of another, there is no need to accept the claims regarding two different Marcus Agrippas. The coins only suggest that the one and the same Agrippa had his rule terminated near the end of Claudius rule and reinstated in the second year of Nero’s. When all the evidence is taken together from Josephus and rabbinic sources the infamous ‘Passover of the Crushed’ – an event which the rabbinic tradition blames Agrippa for and which Josephus identifies as having occurred near the end of Claudius’ reign – i.e. 51 CE.