copyright 2008 Stephan Huller
Scholars never know what to make of this Samaritan messianic narrative. They say it ‘had to have occurred in 36 CE” for reasons which are quite easily disproved. The truth is that there can only be one date possible for this event which is the Samaritan Passover of 37 CE. It we know for certain that it fell in late March that year, likely a few days before the Jewish date of March 21st. In my mind Agrippa’s announcement (Flaccus ) that his release out of a Jerusalem prison signaled the first sign of Caligula’s ascension (March 28th) makes it at least possible that he was one of the one’s arrested at that gathering mentioned in Antiquities 18:3. There are several circumstantial bits of evidence we should consider including the interesting fact that he is later crowned as “king of Samaria.”
For the moment however I am content to merely demonstrate that the existing narrative of Josephus is unmistakably corrupt. A later editor doesn’t want the readers to know that this Agrippa – the eight year old Marcus Julius Agrippa – is the one who was placed in prison and ‘miraculously’ released. In other words, there can be no mistake now that the Samaritan messianic narrative frame the context which for Agrippa’s imprisonment. This becomes obvious when we return again to our outline of the material which follows the section.
Remember that story about ‘little Agrippa’ being the one whom Vitellius gave the robes to? It appears immediately after the Pilate’s departure to Rome (March 25th?) “Vitellius sent Marcellus … to take care of the affairs of Judea.” Yet who is this “little Mark” who has never appeared in the narrative before? The text now says that he was just “a friend of his” but this is likely an editor’s gloss. In my mind there is good reason to suppose that he might well be the nine year old Marcus Agrippa who ultimately receives this post from Caligula a few months later.
For the moment however we need only note that just as chapter 15 connected “little Agrippa” with Vitellius and the high priests robes almost the very next line in the narrative deals with this very issue. We read that:
Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to Jerusalem; it was at the time of that festival which is called the Passover. Vitellius was there magnificently received, and released the inhabitants of Jerusalem from all the taxes upon the fruits that were bought and sold, and gave them leave to have the care of the high priest's vestments, with all their ornaments, and to have them under the custody of the priests in the temple, which power they used to have formerly, although at this time they were laid up in the tower of Antonia
What follows is almost an exact retelling of the information which appears three chapters earlier only now without specific mention of “little Agrippa.”
Clearly the editor doesn’t want us to see that Agrippa received the robes of the high priest because we will immediately release that he was an eight year old boy. In order to perpetuate the false story of ‘Agrippa I” the text has to obscure Josephus’ original chronological account.
To this end immediately following the repeat of historical information from chapter fifteen we read Josephus write that:
Vitellius put those garments into our own power, as in the days of our forefathers, and ordered the captain of the guard not to trouble himself to inquire where they were laid, or when they were to be used; and this he did as an act of kindness, to oblige the nation to him. Besides which, he also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him. After which, he took his journey back to Antioch.
This particular line “after which [Vitellius] took his journey back to Antioch” is absolutely critical to make sense of the adultery which took place to the original text. This because immediately after these words “Josephus” is made to go back in time and tell stories about things Tiberius supposedly instructed Vitellius to do in previous years. Once again we must remind the readers that the exact timing of Pilate’s dismissal was the Passover of 37 CE. The reason the text ‘goes back’ to previous years is a later development.
So it is that we read in the surviving text:
After which, he took his journey back to Antioch. Moreover, Tiberius sent a letter to Vitellius, and commanded him to make a league of friendship with Artabanus, the king of Parthia …
Now the details which follow all come from things which the Roman historian Tacitus make clear occurred in 34 CE. Vitellius went to dictate the terms of peace with the king of Parthia over the issue of the ruler of Armenia. There is no doubt about this. This is followed by a series of stories which also can be framed in 34 CE including:
• death of Philip identified as 34 CE (Chapter Four)
• Herod’s war with Aretas the Arab king (Chapter Five)
• recollection of John the Baptist (who died c. 34 CE) (Chapter Five)
• more on Herod’s war with Aretas (Chapter Five)
There can be no doubt about any of these dates. They certainly can’t be understood to have occurred in the four week period that it took Pilate to sail to Rome!
Why does the text ‘jump back’ to 34 CE? The editor doesn’t want our eyes to fixate on that last chronological reference to Vitellius being said to have taken “his journey back to Antioch” in Chapter Four. If we go to the end of the sections just mentioned we find a parallel statement that after Vitellius defeated Aretas the Arabian king in battle it is said now that:
he ordered the army to march along the great plain, while he himself, with Herod the tetrarch and his friends, went up to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice to God, an ancient festival of the Jews being then just approaching; and when he had been there, and been honorably entertained by the multitude of the Jews, he made a stay there for three days, within which time he deprived Jonathan of the high priesthood, and gave it to his brother Theophilus. But when on the fourth day letters came to him, which informed him of the death of Tiberius, he obliged the multitude to take an oath of fidelity to Caius; he also recalled his army, and made them every one go home, and take their winter quarters there, since, upon the devolution of the empire upon Caius, he had not the like authority of making this war which he had before. It was also reported, that when Aretas heard of the coming of Vitellius to fight him, he said, upon his consulting the diviners, that it was impossible that this army of Vitellius's could enter Petra; for that one of the rulers would die, either he that gave orders for the war, or he that was marching at the other's desire, in order to be subservient to his will, or else he against whom this army is prepared. So Vitellius truly retired to Antioch [emphasis mine]
I know what scholars have been trained to think here. They tell us that Pilate leaves for Rome and then all this other stuff happened including a war with a foreign king and then suddenly - wham! – he gets the news that Tiberius has died. Yet this simply doesn’t make sense. The Christian editor has been casting sand in our eyes for two thousand years.
The Samaritan messianic gathering had to have happened on a religious holiday. It is unimaginable that they would have gotten together on just any day of the week. In order for them to have acknowledged someone as ‘the one predicted by Moses’ in this way we have to imagine a religious holiday on which they assembled and one which is also naturally close enough to Tiberius’ death that Pilate could have left thinking Tiberius’ was still the ruler only to arrive four weeks later and discover otherwise.
The only holiday which fits the bill here is the Samaritan Passover of 37 CE. If it was Sukkoth of 36 CE the month would be September and Pilate would have to be imagined to be riding a donkey through Asia Minor in order to arrive sometime after March 26th 37 CE! Thus once we accept March 37 CE it becomes utterly impossible to believe that any of the material which makes its way into the existing text was actually there originally. A Christian editor added it in order to obscure Marcus Agrippa’s presence.
Just look at what happens when you remove all the stuff which actually happened in 34 CE from the narrative. We jump from Antiquities Book 18 chapter 4 line which reads:
So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews.
We read the story about Vitellius coming to Jerusalem as the Passover week was still taking place when he gave the high priest garments back to the Jewish people which concludes with the words:
he also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him. After which, he took his journey back to Antioch.
Then when we get rid of all these recycled details from 34 CE falsely claimed to have happened in 37 CE we read:
So Vitellius truly retired to Antioch; but Agrippa, the son of Aristobulus, went up to Rome
There can be no doubt now why the editor has perpetrated this greatest fraud in history. He doesn’t want us to take for granted that ‘Agrippa’ was here in Jerusalem (as it is claimed in Philo’s Embassy to Gaius) rather than imprisoned in Rome (as is later claimed in the counterfeit text of Josephus).
I take the ‘second return’ of Vitellius to Antioch as especially suspicious. The use of the emphasizing word ‘truly’ strikes me as a little like the liar who always says ‘honestly’ whenever he is lying. There must have been well known in the period that the Christian editor manipulated the text that Agrippa was here liberated from prison and was now heading to Rome to ultimately receive his kingdom from Caligula. Yet the piling on of layer after layer of what amounts to being literary ‘garbage’ serves only to obscure that realization.
Indeed the problem actually goes well beyond this issue. If we go back to the story in Book Fifteen which we cited earlier here there is no doubt how corrupt the narrative is. I will cite the whole section as it appears now:
Now on the north side [of the temple] was built a citadel, whose walls were square, and strong, and of extraordinary firmness. This citadel was built by the kings of the Asamonean race, who were also high priests before Herod, and they called it the Tower, in which were reposited the vestments of the high priest, which the high priest only put on at the time when he was to offer sacrifice. These vestments king Herod kept in that place; and after his death they were under the power of the Romans, until the time of Tiberius Caesar; under whose reign Vitellius, the president of Syria, when he once came to Jerusalem, and had been most magnificently received by the multitude, he had a mind to make them some requital for the kindness they had shewn him; so, upon their petition to have those holy vestments in their own power, he wrote about them to Tiberius Caesar, who granted his request: and this their power over the sacerdotal vestments continued with the Jews till the death of king Agrippa; but after that, Cassius Longinus, who was president of Syria, and Cuspius Fadus, who was procurator of Judea, enjoined the Jews to reposit those vestments in the tower of Antonia, for that they ought to have them in their power, as they formerly had. However, the Jews sent ambassadors to Claudius Caesar, to intercede with him for them; upon whose coming, king Agrippa, junior, being then at Rome, asked for and obtained the power over them from the emperor, who gave command to Vitellius, who was then commander in Syria, to give it them accordingly.
The typical approach of the scholar is to see repeated mention of something in the text and simply go along with what is written. For some reason they are reluctant or unable to actually calculate the Passover of the Jews in relation to the death of Tiberius in order to see how corrupt the material here actually is.
Tacitus makes clear that Vitellius left for Armenia at the end of 34 CE. He was almost exclusively involved with affairs of this region during the summers of 35 and 36 CE. He arrived back in Syria in the fall of 36 CE and a few months later found himself engaged in cleaning up the mess from Pilate’s Samaritan Passover debacle. It is simply impossible that Vitellius managed to send Tiberius a letter which answered his question regarding what to do with the high priest robes after attending the Jewish Passover that year. Tiberius was at the latest assassinated March 26th, 37 CE. The Jewish Passover March 21st, 37 CE. Tiberius could not have responded to this letter.
Thus it is my belief that the whole business about the holy garments being given to Agrippa Jr. during the reign of Caligula’s successor Claudius is false. It deliberately avoids the obvious idea that which follows from our reconstruction of the text that Agrippa simply went to Rome and got Caligula to let him take possession of the garments that year. Indeed the reader needn’t think that my claims for a deliberate transfer of material dealing with Agrippa from Caligula to Claudius is without precedent. Schwartz actually makes the case for us over a stretch of three or four pages in his work.
Schwartz acknowledges to his readers that it might seem outlandish at first but he can’t accept the existing narrative in Josephus about things which supposedly occurred to Agrippa I at the beginning of his reign. He notes that the section begins with a statement that Claudius sent Agrippa “to take up his kingdom” and in what followed he notes Agrippa “thereupon took part in the Temple cult, regulated the affairs of the high priesthood and certain tax in Jerusalem and appointed a commander in chief for his army.”
As Schwartz goes on to note “the second purportedly refers to the year 41 CE … however it seems that serious considerations indicate that Josephus erred and that this section is really from [the original narrative dealing with] … Agrippa’s inheritance of Philip’s territory and describes his return to Palestine in 38 CE.” Indeed I would counter that the two accounts can be brought together in another way entirely. makes clear that in 38 CE Agrippa received from Caligula all that was formerly held by his grandfather Herod the Great. In other words, even the claim that Judea and Samaria fell under his control only in 41 CE has been deliberately disconnected from his miraculous good fortune under Caligula.
The point now clearly is that the definitive work on the figure of Agrippa I acknowledges that ‘things were moved around’ in his story. Schwartz figures that many of the details of Agrippa’s authority over the religious institutions of Judea have been conveniently removed away from association with Caligula. He points to the fact that “in both cases the emperor sent Agrippa back to Palestine to organize his new kingdom” and offers up the following “considerations” to prove that a “confusion” occurred on the part of Josephus including:
1) Josephus places the hanging up of the chains which formerly bound Agrippa in prison to the Claudian period. He spends “two paragraphs [to] explain that the dedication was meant to memorialize Agrippa’s release from prison and rise from the depths to the royal heights.” As Schwartz notes it doesn’t make sense why Agrippa would wait until 41 CE as the text now claims. Yet beyond this Caligula had just tried to destroy the temple a few months earlier. Indeed as he notes “dedicating a gift from Caligula [at this time] and one from Beelzebub would in popular estimation have stood on a par.”
2) While the Christianized texts of Josephus say that Agrippa appointed a certain Simon as high priest in Claudius reign the rabbinic tradition says it was done during the reign of Caligula.
3) His appointment of Silas as his military commander is placed under Claudius but is better suited for the previous reign of Caligula.
4) There was no Roman governor in Judea during Caligula’s reign which makes it all the more likely that “Agrippa would have been entrusted with some authority with regard to the Holy City and the Temple.”
5) The name “Claudius” does not appear anywhere in the main body of the narrative outside of the introductory sentence which connects the events to his reign. All the details are attributed simply to “Caesar.”
Now the underlying question which is never answered by Schwartz is why someone would have done this. Why would the existing text of Josephus deliberately misrepresent these details? Schwartz in my mind cops out by claiming that it was all a misunderstanding on Josephus’ part. It couldn’t have been a misunderstanding. He was living under the authority of a man scholar’s claim was the son of this man. Surely he would have known critical details which stemmed from his miraculous release from prison. Yet then again this is the very point. The real Josephus of history like all the Jews ever since his time knew that there was only one Agrippa – Marcus Julius Agrippa – and so his text wouldn’t just have said that after the details of the Samaritan Passover debacle “Vitellius retired to Antioch; but Agrippa, the son of Aristobulus, went up to Rome.” As we read at the end of the narrative in chapter fifteen the idea would also have been present that “upon whose coming, king Agrippa, junior, being then at Rome, asked for and obtained the power over them from the emperor, who gave command to Vitellius, who was then commander in Syria, to give it them accordingly.”
Thursday, May 29, 2008
a very emotional fifty year old man
copyright 2008 Stephan Huller
We now stand before the central problem of this entire book – whether there is enough surviving evidence to suggest that Marcus Julius Agrippa’s trip to Alexandria around 37 CE had something to do with the event described on throne of St. Mark. Agrippa’s age is entirely crucial to our argument; a significance which goes beyond the particular size of the chair. The question ultimately goes back to ‘which Agrippa’ was released from prison by the Emperor Caligula.
If we accept the claims of the surviving texts of Josephus, it was Marcus Agrippa’s father - presumably an ‘Agrippa’ with another given name - who was freed by Caligula. Josephus doesn’t mention anything about a trip to Alexandria thereafter however. All of this information comes from a thoroughly Hellenized Jew named Philo from the same Egyptian city. It is Philo who seems to pick up on the details exactly where Josephus leaves off – or at least that’s how scholars have traditionally looked at the problem. I see things quite differently.
There was always something inherently implausible about Josephus’ portrait of Agrippa’s ‘friendship’ with Claudius. If we accept the portrait of ‘Agrippa I’ which emerges from the Christianized pages of Josephus we have to imagine that Caligula the raving lunatic remained steadfastly loyal throughout his life to a devout Jew. Yet Philo makes absolutely clear that Caligula detested Jews. Why then would he have liked Agrippa I?
Furthermore ‘Agrippa I’ would have been forty eight at the enthronement of the twenty five year old Caesar in 37 CE. It is utterly implausible. What could a twenty five year old have in common with a man of nearly fifty? How could a friendship have emerged between these two men? Again it just doesn’t make intuitive sense.
We have to imagine that the twenty five year old Caesar took a devoted forty eight year old man on various trips to Germany. It has to be accepted now that during all the depravity and bloodshed that characterized his reign, Claudius managed to avoid killing this strange old Jewish man that stood at his right hand. Indeed we are told by a range of sources that Caligula was a very angry young man who killed people on a mere whim. He is said to have killed his grandmother, his brother, his father-in-law and most of the other people around him. The only one who survived was his uncle Claudius who Suetonius says was spared “merely as a laughing-stock.”
How then can we imagine that in the midst of all this brutality and carnage a fifty year old Jew somehow survived the fate of all his other companions? It simply doesn’t make sense. Of course if we imagine that he was a beautiful young lad, the scenario makes perfect sense. Young Agrippa represented the ‘perfect innocent’ Caligula wanted to protect from the brutality he was inflicting on the world around him. There was a deep psychological connection between them which contemporary therapists would have enjoyed dissecting.
To this end if we look carefully at Philo’s alternative account of their relationship it immediately becomes obvious that Agrippa wasn’t anywhere near fifty years old. He was instead a young boy who was continually emotionally traumatized by his ‘older brother.’ This becomes clear when we follow Philo’s reporting of Caligula’s attempt to goad the Jews into outright rebellion by installing statues of himself in all their places of worship including the temple of Jerusalem. The incident occurred in CE when Agrippa was either 13 or 50 years of age.
The story goes that as ‘Agrippa’ walks into the Emperor’s palace and sees that he is angry he finds himself unable to hide his trepidation. ‘Agrippa’ throughout appears as a young innocent with absolutely no control over his emotions. Philo says that when Gaius immediately saw that Agrippa was in a state of great alarm and perplexity he went out of his way to assure him that he bore him no ill will. At this ‘Agrippa’ calms down until he learns about the Emperor’s plan to install a statue in the temple. The innocent of the young lad comes shining through yet again.
We are immediately told again by Philo that:
Agrippa fell into such a state of grief that he changed into all sorts of colours, becoming at the same moment bloodshot, and pale, and livid, for he was all over agitation and trembling from the top of his head down to his feet, and a quivering and shaking seized upon and disordered all his limbs and every member of his body, all his sinews, and muscles, and nerves being relaxed and enfeebled, so that he fainted away, and would have fallen down if some of the bystanders had not supported him. And they being commanded to carry him home, bore him to his palace, where he lay for some time in a state of torpor without any one understanding what sudden misfortune had brought him into this state.
I know already what people are going to say. Perhaps Philo was exaggerating the emotional state of Agrippa for literary effect. Yet this would be utterly absurd such wild displays of pathos would have been unimaginable for man of over fifty years especially a cultured student of philosophy like Agrippa.
The ancient world believed that fifty was the age that a educated man could finally become ‘master’ of his own passions. By contrast children were seen as essentially emotionally uncontrollable owing to their lack of training. It all came down to the philosophical ideal of apatheia which Agrippa surprisingly is unable to demonstrate throughout the whole report. We are told again that he is eventually carried home where he
lay in a state of profound stupor, being completely unconscious of everything that passed; but about evening he raised his head a little, and for a short time opened, though with difficulty, his languid eyes, and with dim and indistinct vision looked upon the people who surrounded him, though he was not as yet able to distinguish clearly between their several forms and features.
Agrippa is so shaken that he relapses into such a deep sleep that those around him wonder if he was still breathing. When he finally wakes up he realizes that he is back in his own palace. It is at this point that he does the unimaginable for a fifty year old philosopher; he is portrait as “shedding abundance of tears” once more.
For the moment it doesn’t matter that all of these histrionics actually lead to the desired result – Caligula does indeed relent from his mad plan. Yet most scholars don’t even think twice about Agrippa’s pathetic display. This pathetic display seems all the more ridiculous when we compare the equivalent behaviour of an embassy of ‘elders’ from the city of Alexandria when they have to face the Emperor attempting much the same thing in the synagogues of their city.
These fifty plus year old gentlemen are confronted with actually something a lot more serious than in Agrippa’s case. The Emperor’s plan to install statues of himself wasn’t theoretical. It actually took place. Nevertheless it is noteworthy that none of these old men end up behaving like Agrippa. They somehow can muster enough courage to carry on a rational dialogue with these men even as he inflicts unimaginable injuries to their community.
When Gaius threatens them for not worshipping him as a God it is acknowledged that the Jewish elders “immediately” had a profound shuddering came upon them. Yet they manage somehow to carry on a conversation. As Gaius entered into their synagogues to drive the Jews into the street alongside hostile pagan adversaries mocking and deriding them they managed to stay calm and quiet in perfect philosophic detachment. As he shouted insults against their idiosyncratic customs they somehow managed to carry on a conversation.
It is utterly ridiculous to maintain Agrippa could possibly have been the same age as the elders of Alexandria especially when compare their behavior. After all this abuse we hear that:
when our pleadings on behalf of justice were thus broken up, and cut short, and interrupted, and crushed as one may almost say, we, being wearied and exhausted, and having no strength left in us, but being in continual expectation of nothing else than death, could not longer keep our hearts as they had been, but in our agony we took refuge in supplications to the one true God, praying him to check the wrath of this falsely called god.
In the end Gaius again relented from his plan to force the Jews into open rebellion. Nevertheless what almost never said in all of this is how clear the proof that Agrippa was not a ‘master.’ He was clearly still a boy and his behavior clearly demonstrates that.
Philo of Alexandria adored Agrippa with every bone in his body. This is absolutely clear from other treatises we shall examine shortly. The ‘sissy’ portrait of Agrippa cannot be attributed to malice on his part. The answer has eluded scholars for so long owing to their slavish devotion to the falsified text of Josephus. Agrippa was a little boy. The elders acted like fifty year old men did in antiquity. Agrippa didn’t because he wasn’t yet a man.
I would argue furthermore that we can apply these same arguments to Agrippa’s slinking into Alexandria’s harbor only a few years earlier.
Philo makes up an excuse that it was all Caligula’s fault because he was the one who instructed Agrippa to carry on like this. As ridiculous as the excuse is it only makes sense if Caligula was directing a nine year old boy. Surely a king of almost fifty years wouldn’t need help to get home!
We now stand before the central problem of this entire book – whether there is enough surviving evidence to suggest that Marcus Julius Agrippa’s trip to Alexandria around 37 CE had something to do with the event described on throne of St. Mark. Agrippa’s age is entirely crucial to our argument; a significance which goes beyond the particular size of the chair. The question ultimately goes back to ‘which Agrippa’ was released from prison by the Emperor Caligula.
If we accept the claims of the surviving texts of Josephus, it was Marcus Agrippa’s father - presumably an ‘Agrippa’ with another given name - who was freed by Caligula. Josephus doesn’t mention anything about a trip to Alexandria thereafter however. All of this information comes from a thoroughly Hellenized Jew named Philo from the same Egyptian city. It is Philo who seems to pick up on the details exactly where Josephus leaves off – or at least that’s how scholars have traditionally looked at the problem. I see things quite differently.
There was always something inherently implausible about Josephus’ portrait of Agrippa’s ‘friendship’ with Claudius. If we accept the portrait of ‘Agrippa I’ which emerges from the Christianized pages of Josephus we have to imagine that Caligula the raving lunatic remained steadfastly loyal throughout his life to a devout Jew. Yet Philo makes absolutely clear that Caligula detested Jews. Why then would he have liked Agrippa I?
Furthermore ‘Agrippa I’ would have been forty eight at the enthronement of the twenty five year old Caesar in 37 CE. It is utterly implausible. What could a twenty five year old have in common with a man of nearly fifty? How could a friendship have emerged between these two men? Again it just doesn’t make intuitive sense.
We have to imagine that the twenty five year old Caesar took a devoted forty eight year old man on various trips to Germany. It has to be accepted now that during all the depravity and bloodshed that characterized his reign, Claudius managed to avoid killing this strange old Jewish man that stood at his right hand. Indeed we are told by a range of sources that Caligula was a very angry young man who killed people on a mere whim. He is said to have killed his grandmother, his brother, his father-in-law and most of the other people around him. The only one who survived was his uncle Claudius who Suetonius says was spared “merely as a laughing-stock.”
How then can we imagine that in the midst of all this brutality and carnage a fifty year old Jew somehow survived the fate of all his other companions? It simply doesn’t make sense. Of course if we imagine that he was a beautiful young lad, the scenario makes perfect sense. Young Agrippa represented the ‘perfect innocent’ Caligula wanted to protect from the brutality he was inflicting on the world around him. There was a deep psychological connection between them which contemporary therapists would have enjoyed dissecting.
To this end if we look carefully at Philo’s alternative account of their relationship it immediately becomes obvious that Agrippa wasn’t anywhere near fifty years old. He was instead a young boy who was continually emotionally traumatized by his ‘older brother.’ This becomes clear when we follow Philo’s reporting of Caligula’s attempt to goad the Jews into outright rebellion by installing statues of himself in all their places of worship including the temple of Jerusalem. The incident occurred in CE when Agrippa was either 13 or 50 years of age.
The story goes that as ‘Agrippa’ walks into the Emperor’s palace and sees that he is angry he finds himself unable to hide his trepidation. ‘Agrippa’ throughout appears as a young innocent with absolutely no control over his emotions. Philo says that when Gaius immediately saw that Agrippa was in a state of great alarm and perplexity he went out of his way to assure him that he bore him no ill will. At this ‘Agrippa’ calms down until he learns about the Emperor’s plan to install a statue in the temple. The innocent of the young lad comes shining through yet again.
We are immediately told again by Philo that:
Agrippa fell into such a state of grief that he changed into all sorts of colours, becoming at the same moment bloodshot, and pale, and livid, for he was all over agitation and trembling from the top of his head down to his feet, and a quivering and shaking seized upon and disordered all his limbs and every member of his body, all his sinews, and muscles, and nerves being relaxed and enfeebled, so that he fainted away, and would have fallen down if some of the bystanders had not supported him. And they being commanded to carry him home, bore him to his palace, where he lay for some time in a state of torpor without any one understanding what sudden misfortune had brought him into this state.
I know already what people are going to say. Perhaps Philo was exaggerating the emotional state of Agrippa for literary effect. Yet this would be utterly absurd such wild displays of pathos would have been unimaginable for man of over fifty years especially a cultured student of philosophy like Agrippa.
The ancient world believed that fifty was the age that a educated man could finally become ‘master’ of his own passions. By contrast children were seen as essentially emotionally uncontrollable owing to their lack of training. It all came down to the philosophical ideal of apatheia which Agrippa surprisingly is unable to demonstrate throughout the whole report. We are told again that he is eventually carried home where he
lay in a state of profound stupor, being completely unconscious of everything that passed; but about evening he raised his head a little, and for a short time opened, though with difficulty, his languid eyes, and with dim and indistinct vision looked upon the people who surrounded him, though he was not as yet able to distinguish clearly between their several forms and features.
Agrippa is so shaken that he relapses into such a deep sleep that those around him wonder if he was still breathing. When he finally wakes up he realizes that he is back in his own palace. It is at this point that he does the unimaginable for a fifty year old philosopher; he is portrait as “shedding abundance of tears” once more.
For the moment it doesn’t matter that all of these histrionics actually lead to the desired result – Caligula does indeed relent from his mad plan. Yet most scholars don’t even think twice about Agrippa’s pathetic display. This pathetic display seems all the more ridiculous when we compare the equivalent behaviour of an embassy of ‘elders’ from the city of Alexandria when they have to face the Emperor attempting much the same thing in the synagogues of their city.
These fifty plus year old gentlemen are confronted with actually something a lot more serious than in Agrippa’s case. The Emperor’s plan to install statues of himself wasn’t theoretical. It actually took place. Nevertheless it is noteworthy that none of these old men end up behaving like Agrippa. They somehow can muster enough courage to carry on a rational dialogue with these men even as he inflicts unimaginable injuries to their community.
When Gaius threatens them for not worshipping him as a God it is acknowledged that the Jewish elders “immediately” had a profound shuddering came upon them. Yet they manage somehow to carry on a conversation. As Gaius entered into their synagogues to drive the Jews into the street alongside hostile pagan adversaries mocking and deriding them they managed to stay calm and quiet in perfect philosophic detachment. As he shouted insults against their idiosyncratic customs they somehow managed to carry on a conversation.
It is utterly ridiculous to maintain Agrippa could possibly have been the same age as the elders of Alexandria especially when compare their behavior. After all this abuse we hear that:
when our pleadings on behalf of justice were thus broken up, and cut short, and interrupted, and crushed as one may almost say, we, being wearied and exhausted, and having no strength left in us, but being in continual expectation of nothing else than death, could not longer keep our hearts as they had been, but in our agony we took refuge in supplications to the one true God, praying him to check the wrath of this falsely called god.
In the end Gaius again relented from his plan to force the Jews into open rebellion. Nevertheless what almost never said in all of this is how clear the proof that Agrippa was not a ‘master.’ He was clearly still a boy and his behavior clearly demonstrates that.
Philo of Alexandria adored Agrippa with every bone in his body. This is absolutely clear from other treatises we shall examine shortly. The ‘sissy’ portrait of Agrippa cannot be attributed to malice on his part. The answer has eluded scholars for so long owing to their slavish devotion to the falsified text of Josephus. Agrippa was a little boy. The elders acted like fifty year old men did in antiquity. Agrippa didn’t because he wasn’t yet a man.
I would argue furthermore that we can apply these same arguments to Agrippa’s slinking into Alexandria’s harbor only a few years earlier.
Philo makes up an excuse that it was all Caligula’s fault because he was the one who instructed Agrippa to carry on like this. As ridiculous as the excuse is it only makes sense if Caligula was directing a nine year old boy. Surely a king of almost fifty years wouldn’t need help to get home!
Justus of Tiberias on 'Agrippa the seventh'
copyright 2008 Stephan Huller
I know everyone and their uncle takes for granted that there were two Marcus Agrippas, a father and son of the same name (no matter how ludicrous that may seem to Jews). According to the account of Josephus John Hyrcanus was the first in a line of Hasmonaean kings which Herod the Great eventually married into. His son Archelaus had control over Judea and Samaria but never attained the title of king (he was only an 'ethnarch'). After him 'Agrippa' ('Agrippa I' owing to the claims of the surviving text of Josephus) was finally made king of the Jews during the reign of Claudius. His supposed son of the same name ('Agrippa II' according to scholars and Josephus) eventually followed in his father's footsteps.
What rarely gets mentioned is that this 'Agrippa II' is specifically identified in the tenth century Byzantine writer Photius' citation of Agrippa's secretary Justus of Tiberias as 'the seventh' king of the Jews. This necessarily makes a father 'Marcus Agrippa I' who was 'king of the Jews' impossible as we can easily count six Jewish kings before him:
1. John Hyrcanus I
2. Alexander Jannaeus
3. Aristobulos
4. Hyrcanus II
5. Antigonus
6. Herod
7. Marcus Agrippa
There simply isn't any room for two Agrippa's in Justus' chronology. The whole idea of another Agrippa would have made Marcus Agrippa - the guy Justus was writing about - necessarily the eighth. Photius however makes him the seventh quite explicitly as we read in the original Greek:
Photius, Bibliotheca 33:
Ανεγνωσθη Ιουστου Τιβεριεως χρονικον, ου η επιγραφη Ιουστου Τιβεριεως Ιουδαιων βασιλεων των εν τοις στεμμασιν. ουτος απο πολεως της εν Γαλιλαια Τιβεριαδος ωρματο. αρχεται δε της ιστοριας απο Μωυσεως, καταληγει δε εως τελευτης Αγριππα του εβδομου μεν των απο της οικιας Ηρωδου, υστατου δε εν τοις Ιουδαιων βασιλευσιν, ος παρελαβε μεν την αρχην επι Κλαυδιου, ηυξηθη δε επι Νερωνος και ετι μαλλον υπο Ουεσπασιανου, τελευτα δε ετει τριτω Τραιανου, ου και η ιστορια κατεληξεν. εστι δε την φρασιν συντομωτατος τε και τα πλειστα των αναγκαιοτατων παρατρεχων. ως δε τα Ιουδαιων νοσων, Ιουδαιοις και αυτος υπαρχων γενος, της Χριστου παρουσιας και των περι αυτον τελεσθεντων και των υπ αυτου τερατουργηθεντων ουδεν ολως μνημην εποιησατο. ουτος παις μεν ην Ιουδαιου τινος ονομα Πιστου, ανθρωπων δε, ως φησιν Ιωσηπος, κακουργοτατος, χρηματων τε και ηδονων ηττων. αντεπολιτευετο δε Ιωσηπω, και πολλας κατ εκεινου λεγεται επιβουλας ραψαι, αλλα τον γε Ιωσηπον, καιτοι υπο χειρα πολλακις λαβοντα τον εχθρον, λογοις μονον ονειδισαντα απαθη κακων αφειναι. και την ιστοριαν δε ην εκεινος εγραψε πεπλασμενην τα πλειστα φασι τυγχανειν, και μαλιστα οις τον Ρωμαικον προς Ιουδαιους διεξεισι πολεμον και την Ιεροσολυμων αλωσιν.
The Greek says this. “…. and brings it down to the end, to Agrippa, the seventh, of the house of Herod, the last of the kings of the Jews….”. This is absolutely certainly the meaning given by the case endings. To clarify. It does not say he was made king of the Jews by Claudius. It says he was king of the Jews already, but Claudius gave him some effective power.
The Greek word APXH αρχη archê does not mean the quality of being a king or having royal status. It means either effective power over territory or delegated authority over a nation. (Think of the title Exilarch. Remember that in the opera Salome keeps reminding Herod that he is not a king but only Tetrarch, whereas she is Prinzessin von Judäa and therefore royal). This is what was given and increased. I suppose this means his recognised territory was increased. We are not told how he became king, but from the context, he was always a king, before Claudius did anything.
The Greek word “teleutê” meaning “end” [here in the genitive case, teleutês] is the noun equivalent of the verb “teteleuthê” meaning “It is finished”, the word uttered by Jesus. [The Greek says “It has been finished” or “It has ended” (perfect), not “It was finished” or “It ended” (preterite). The choice of word by Justin might be significant. If so, the implication might be that with the coming of Agrippa (and perhaps implicitly the death of Jesus), Priesthood and Prophethood are removed to Heaven, and with the death of Agrippa, Kingship is removed to Heaven. Thus all three qualities of Moses are occulted. The Tabernacle has manifested, done its work, and been occulted again after the successful end.
I know everyone and their uncle takes for granted that there were two Marcus Agrippas, a father and son of the same name (no matter how ludicrous that may seem to Jews). According to the account of Josephus John Hyrcanus was the first in a line of Hasmonaean kings which Herod the Great eventually married into. His son Archelaus had control over Judea and Samaria but never attained the title of king (he was only an 'ethnarch'). After him 'Agrippa' ('Agrippa I' owing to the claims of the surviving text of Josephus) was finally made king of the Jews during the reign of Claudius. His supposed son of the same name ('Agrippa II' according to scholars and Josephus) eventually followed in his father's footsteps.
What rarely gets mentioned is that this 'Agrippa II' is specifically identified in the tenth century Byzantine writer Photius' citation of Agrippa's secretary Justus of Tiberias as 'the seventh' king of the Jews. This necessarily makes a father 'Marcus Agrippa I' who was 'king of the Jews' impossible as we can easily count six Jewish kings before him:
1. John Hyrcanus I
2. Alexander Jannaeus
3. Aristobulos
4. Hyrcanus II
5. Antigonus
6. Herod
7. Marcus Agrippa
There simply isn't any room for two Agrippa's in Justus' chronology. The whole idea of another Agrippa would have made Marcus Agrippa - the guy Justus was writing about - necessarily the eighth. Photius however makes him the seventh quite explicitly as we read in the original Greek:
Photius, Bibliotheca 33:
Ανεγνωσθη Ιουστου Τιβεριεως χρονικον, ου η επιγραφη Ιουστου Τιβεριεως Ιουδαιων βασιλεων των εν τοις στεμμασιν. ουτος απο πολεως της εν Γαλιλαια Τιβεριαδος ωρματο. αρχεται δε της ιστοριας απο Μωυσεως, καταληγει δε εως τελευτης Αγριππα του εβδομου μεν των απο της οικιας Ηρωδου, υστατου δε εν τοις Ιουδαιων βασιλευσιν, ος παρελαβε μεν την αρχην επι Κλαυδιου, ηυξηθη δε επι Νερωνος και ετι μαλλον υπο Ουεσπασιανου, τελευτα δε ετει τριτω Τραιανου, ου και η ιστορια κατεληξεν. εστι δε την φρασιν συντομωτατος τε και τα πλειστα των αναγκαιοτατων παρατρεχων. ως δε τα Ιουδαιων νοσων, Ιουδαιοις και αυτος υπαρχων γενος, της Χριστου παρουσιας και των περι αυτον τελεσθεντων και των υπ αυτου τερατουργηθεντων ουδεν ολως μνημην εποιησατο. ουτος παις μεν ην Ιουδαιου τινος ονομα Πιστου, ανθρωπων δε, ως φησιν Ιωσηπος, κακουργοτατος, χρηματων τε και ηδονων ηττων. αντεπολιτευετο δε Ιωσηπω, και πολλας κατ εκεινου λεγεται επιβουλας ραψαι, αλλα τον γε Ιωσηπον, καιτοι υπο χειρα πολλακις λαβοντα τον εχθρον, λογοις μονον ονειδισαντα απαθη κακων αφειναι. και την ιστοριαν δε ην εκεινος εγραψε πεπλασμενην τα πλειστα φασι τυγχανειν, και μαλιστα οις τον Ρωμαικον προς Ιουδαιους διεξεισι πολεμον και την Ιεροσολυμων αλωσιν.
The Greek says this. “…. and brings it down to the end, to Agrippa, the seventh, of the house of Herod, the last of the kings of the Jews….”. This is absolutely certainly the meaning given by the case endings. To clarify. It does not say he was made king of the Jews by Claudius. It says he was king of the Jews already, but Claudius gave him some effective power.
The Greek word APXH αρχη archê does not mean the quality of being a king or having royal status. It means either effective power over territory or delegated authority over a nation. (Think of the title Exilarch. Remember that in the opera Salome keeps reminding Herod that he is not a king but only Tetrarch, whereas she is Prinzessin von Judäa and therefore royal). This is what was given and increased. I suppose this means his recognised territory was increased. We are not told how he became king, but from the context, he was always a king, before Claudius did anything.
The Greek word “teleutê” meaning “end” [here in the genitive case, teleutês] is the noun equivalent of the verb “teteleuthê” meaning “It is finished”, the word uttered by Jesus. [The Greek says “It has been finished” or “It has ended” (perfect), not “It was finished” or “It ended” (preterite). The choice of word by Justin might be significant. If so, the implication might be that with the coming of Agrippa (and perhaps implicitly the death of Jesus), Priesthood and Prophethood are removed to Heaven, and with the death of Agrippa, Kingship is removed to Heaven. Thus all three qualities of Moses are occulted. The Tabernacle has manifested, done its work, and been occulted again after the successful end.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
what did the original text(s) of Josephus say?
The rabbinic tradition [Sefer Olam Zutra etc.] knows of only one Agrippa. While most scholars simply employ Jewish Antiquities uncritically and take for granted its implicit claims of an 'Agrippa I' and an 'Agrippa II' there is good reason to be skeptical. As Thackeray notes, the surviving Greek works of Josephus betray contact with latter day 'helpers' who apparently transformed a lost original text. What did the authentic compositions of Josephus actually look like? We will likely never know for sure. What we are left with - in the case of Jewish Antiquities at least - is a mid-second century work, 'corrected' by at least one writer who read too much Thucydides.
In point of fact it seems highly unlikely to me at least that Josephus ever attempted a work like the present day Jewish Antiquities. The earliest references to his historical works inevitably focus on the Jewish War which interestingly survives in various lengths and forms in cultures throughout the world. Is there a version of this original Josephus tradition which mentions only one Agrippa rather than two? At the present moment the answer would have to be no - all texts make at least passing reference to two Agrippas. Nevertheless it is worth noting that a careful examination of the various surviving versions of the text makes a compelling case that the original core material likely did not reference two Agrippas.
The reason for this assertion is that the underlying structure of the surviving texts CAN BE READ AS IF THERE ONE AGRIPPA. There is only a short message of a 'transition' between the one and the other. The original structure seems to be borrowed from the Latin Hegesipus (see below). You could easily read the texts as if there was only one Agrippa. IN MY MIND THE UNDERLYING ORIGINAL TEXT UNDOUBTEDLY READ THIS WAY in order to account for all the strange variations in other translations (and developments) in the literature.
The Slavonic text, while acknowledging two Agrippas again, emphasizes that there was no relation between the two. How could this have been developed? The answer must be that there was one original text which simply told the story of one Agrippa from the time of Caligula which was eventually 'corrected' by various Christian editors in slightly different ways. We read:
Pseudo-Hegesipus [Latin]:
Agrippa was very powerful in his state, but while he wished to encircle Jerusalem with a great wall, so that it would become impregnable to the Romans---for he foresaw its imminent destruction---prevented by death he left the task unfinished. Nor did he exercise less power while Claudius was ruling, because he was also in the midst of his own beginnings, since with Gaius having been killed he had been thrust by the soldiers into the rule of the empire, the senate resisting him from weariness of the royal power, he sent Agrippa as his deputy, with whom as negotiator the promise of moderation having been given, an accommodation having been begun, a peace is agreed upon. In place of Agrippa the father Agrippa his son is substituted as king by Claudius Caesar.
Slavonic Josephus
Agrippa had pacified [the soldiers]. [Claudius] gave him all his father’s kingdom and added to it the land of Trachonitis and Auranitis, apart from these, he handed over to him another kingdom, which Lysanias had ruled. He order his magistrates to write out bronze tablets all [his] honours. And to deposit them at the Capitol, to make it known also to later generations, what honours Agrippa had received from Claudius. And [Agrippa] speedily acquired wealth untold. And at Jerusalem he immediately began to build walls of such height and thickness as never before. If he had completed them in his own lifetime, the Romans could by no means have taken Jerusalem. But before finishing the work he himself died at Caesarea after a reign of three years having no son. [XI 5, 6]
Jewish War [Greek]
Upon Agrippa he forthwith conferred the whole of his grandfather’s kingdom, annexing to it from over the border not only the districts of Trachonitis and Auranitis, of which Augustus had made a present to Herod, but a further principality known as the kingdom, of Lysanias. This donation he announced to the people by an edict, and order the magistrates to have it engraved on brazen tablets to be deposited in the Capitol. He moreover presented Herod, who was at once the brother, and by marriage with Berenice, the son in law of Agrippa, with the kingdom of Chalcis. From so extensive a realm wealth soon flowed into Agrippa, nor was he long in expending his riches. For he began to surround Jerusalem with a wall on such a scale as, had it been completed, would have rendered ineffectual all the efforts of the Romans in the subsequent siege. But before the wall had reached the projected heights, he died at Caesarea, after a reign of three year, to which must be added his previous three years’ tenure of his tetrarchies. He left issue by his wife Cypros, three daughters Berenice, Mariamme and Drusilla – and one son. And the last was a minor. Claudius again reduced the kingdoms to a province … [215 – 220]
In point of fact it seems highly unlikely to me at least that Josephus ever attempted a work like the present day Jewish Antiquities. The earliest references to his historical works inevitably focus on the Jewish War which interestingly survives in various lengths and forms in cultures throughout the world. Is there a version of this original Josephus tradition which mentions only one Agrippa rather than two? At the present moment the answer would have to be no - all texts make at least passing reference to two Agrippas. Nevertheless it is worth noting that a careful examination of the various surviving versions of the text makes a compelling case that the original core material likely did not reference two Agrippas.
The reason for this assertion is that the underlying structure of the surviving texts CAN BE READ AS IF THERE ONE AGRIPPA. There is only a short message of a 'transition' between the one and the other. The original structure seems to be borrowed from the Latin Hegesipus (see below). You could easily read the texts as if there was only one Agrippa. IN MY MIND THE UNDERLYING ORIGINAL TEXT UNDOUBTEDLY READ THIS WAY in order to account for all the strange variations in other translations (and developments) in the literature.
The Slavonic text, while acknowledging two Agrippas again, emphasizes that there was no relation between the two. How could this have been developed? The answer must be that there was one original text which simply told the story of one Agrippa from the time of Caligula which was eventually 'corrected' by various Christian editors in slightly different ways. We read:
Pseudo-Hegesipus [Latin]:
Agrippa was very powerful in his state, but while he wished to encircle Jerusalem with a great wall, so that it would become impregnable to the Romans---for he foresaw its imminent destruction---prevented by death he left the task unfinished. Nor did he exercise less power while Claudius was ruling, because he was also in the midst of his own beginnings, since with Gaius having been killed he had been thrust by the soldiers into the rule of the empire, the senate resisting him from weariness of the royal power, he sent Agrippa as his deputy, with whom as negotiator the promise of moderation having been given, an accommodation having been begun, a peace is agreed upon. In place of Agrippa the father Agrippa his son is substituted as king by Claudius Caesar.
Slavonic Josephus
Agrippa had pacified [the soldiers]. [Claudius] gave him all his father’s kingdom and added to it the land of Trachonitis and Auranitis, apart from these, he handed over to him another kingdom, which Lysanias had ruled. He order his magistrates to write out bronze tablets all [his] honours. And to deposit them at the Capitol, to make it known also to later generations, what honours Agrippa had received from Claudius. And [Agrippa] speedily acquired wealth untold. And at Jerusalem he immediately began to build walls of such height and thickness as never before. If he had completed them in his own lifetime, the Romans could by no means have taken Jerusalem. But before finishing the work he himself died at Caesarea after a reign of three years having no son. [XI 5, 6]
Jewish War [Greek]
Upon Agrippa he forthwith conferred the whole of his grandfather’s kingdom, annexing to it from over the border not only the districts of Trachonitis and Auranitis, of which Augustus had made a present to Herod, but a further principality known as the kingdom, of Lysanias. This donation he announced to the people by an edict, and order the magistrates to have it engraved on brazen tablets to be deposited in the Capitol. He moreover presented Herod, who was at once the brother, and by marriage with Berenice, the son in law of Agrippa, with the kingdom of Chalcis. From so extensive a realm wealth soon flowed into Agrippa, nor was he long in expending his riches. For he began to surround Jerusalem with a wall on such a scale as, had it been completed, would have rendered ineffectual all the efforts of the Romans in the subsequent siege. But before the wall had reached the projected heights, he died at Caesarea, after a reign of three year, to which must be added his previous three years’ tenure of his tetrarchies. He left issue by his wife Cypros, three daughters Berenice, Mariamme and Drusilla – and one son. And the last was a minor. Claudius again reduced the kingdoms to a province … [215 – 220]
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
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
the Ethiopic text of Josephus
This is an email I received from an inquiry into a variant text of Josephus which is an integral part of the Ethiopic canon:
Dear Stephan,
Your question regarding the text of Josephus finally landed on my table (I am a member of the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, responsible, more or less for the Ethiopic literature). I follow Murad Kamil’s edition, Des Josef Ben Gorion (Josippon) Geschichte der Juden, New York 1937; further MK).
Indeed, the Ethiopic version, called Zena Ayhud, reports of two Agrippas: the first is a son of Astrobolos (I keep more or less Ethiopic versions of the names), who had three sons: Astrobolos, Agrippas "who was the one who reigned after Andafir, son of Herodos" and Herodos (MK 184:10). Agrippas is said to have reigned 23 years, to be followed by his son, also Agrippas (MK 204:23), who reigned 20 years (MK 205:20).
I do not know the text very well, and just looking through the index ... As to the second Agrippas, it is reported, for instance, that the hatred and baseless quarrels rose among the Jews (MK 206), that he was the one "in front of whom Paul stood" (MK 207:15); Agrippas went to Nero, and after that there a war broke out between the Jews and Rome, because of the transgressions done by "Filfos, the Roman governor" (MK 208); Al’azar killed Roman officials who "came with Agrippas", while the latter did not know that; as he tried to revenge, but his troops were defeated and he "left the county" (MK 213); later he appears fighting Al’azar back, having come to Nero and received from his assistance (MK 216-17).
Hope this information will be helpful,
Greetings – Denis Nosnitsin
Dear Stephan,
Your question regarding the text of Josephus finally landed on my table (I am a member of the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, responsible, more or less for the Ethiopic literature). I follow Murad Kamil’s edition, Des Josef Ben Gorion (Josippon) Geschichte der Juden, New York 1937; further MK).
Indeed, the Ethiopic version, called Zena Ayhud, reports of two Agrippas: the first is a son of Astrobolos (I keep more or less Ethiopic versions of the names), who had three sons: Astrobolos, Agrippas "who was the one who reigned after Andafir, son of Herodos" and Herodos (MK 184:10). Agrippas is said to have reigned 23 years, to be followed by his son, also Agrippas (MK 204:23), who reigned 20 years (MK 205:20).
I do not know the text very well, and just looking through the index ... As to the second Agrippas, it is reported, for instance, that the hatred and baseless quarrels rose among the Jews (MK 206), that he was the one "in front of whom Paul stood" (MK 207:15); Agrippas went to Nero, and after that there a war broke out between the Jews and Rome, because of the transgressions done by "Filfos, the Roman governor" (MK 208); Al’azar killed Roman officials who "came with Agrippas", while the latter did not know that; as he tried to revenge, but his troops were defeated and he "left the county" (MK 213); later he appears fighting Al’azar back, having come to Nero and received from his assistance (MK 216-17).
Hope this information will be helpful,
Greetings – Denis Nosnitsin
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
the so-called 'Queen Cypros' coins of Agrippa
1. the so-called "Queen Cypros" coin
We have already begun to see how the Christian editor of Josephus developed his narrative. According to our thesis he took bits and pieces of authentic historical fragments in order to 'disprove' the original understanding of Agrippa as the messiah. The invention of his wife or mother 'Cypros' is another case in point. According to the existing texts of Josephus Aristobulos and Berenice were the parents of Agrippa I while Agrippa and his wife Cypros had Agrippa, Berenice and two other daughters named Drusilla and Mariamme.
Under our one Agrippa thesis there can be only Marcus Agrippa son of Aristobulos (himself possibly surnamed Agrippa). Already in the existing texts of Josephus there is a report which seems to tackle the 'rumor' that at least one half of the two brothers murdered by their father Herod the Great actually survived into the next era. Could there have been a rival tradition which held that Marcus Agrippa's father Aristobulos also survived like his uncle? There are only tantalizing clues but no definitive answers.
I find it hard to see that the Alexandrian tradition identify Aristobulos and Mary as the parents of St. Mark. The Mary in question is clearly Mary Salome the mother of the disciple John (also called Mark?) as the Copts still infer. The fact that St. Mark is always said to be related to Alexander the Abilarch might also account for his disappearance (he may have moved to Alexandria where he became an influential citizen?). More significant is the fact that the first century Acts of Isidore from Alexandria identifies Salome as the mother of Agrippa. Buried in the Herodian genealogies of Josephus is an Agrippa the son of Aristobulos and Salome.
For the moment however we had better confront the claim of ancient Jewish numismatics experts that "in recent times" Agrippa coins have been discovered which make reference to "Queen Kypros." The first time that this claim was made was in Maltiel-Gerstenfeld's Ancient Jewish Coins (1982) and it was quickly followed by numerous other discoveries of the same coin type and championed by the great Israeli expert on Jewish coins Ya'akov Meshorer.
What almost inevitably gets lost in all the hype is the fact that many scholars aren't as sure as these two that the coins actually say "Queen Kypros." In Andrew Burnetts' much more cautious treatment of the same coin type Roman Provincial Coinage (RPC 1 1992 listed as no. 4975) we read that 'the identity of the portrait is uncertain' and Burnett reads the obverse as [ ]NA SEBAST[ .
As Andrew Burnett noted in a personal correspondence with me recently "Yaakov was a great man but at times he was a bit optimistic in his coin readings." The sentiment has been echoed to me by many other experts in the field as well. Indeed Burnett is honest enough to admit that "the coins are very hard to read" and that is why he goes to such lengths to avoid simply writing out his hunches as definitive readings as we see with Maltiel-Gerstenfeld and Meshorer.
As he notes even though he became more convinced of the arguments of those scholars regarding the "Cypros" reading it is by no means definitive. He notes that in his supplement to RPC (1996):
S-4975 The obverse is probably to be read as
ΚYΠΡΟC ΒΑССI[ΛIССΑ]. 4975/1 can be read
better as [ ]POC ΒΑ-СI[ ], as M. Amandry has
confirmed ; 2. (see Maltiel-Gerstenfield) is illegible; 3.
(Meshorer, Suppl.) can be read [ ]ΚYΠΡΟС [ ; 4.
(Gamala find) perhaps reads [ΚYΠ]ΡΟ[С ] (note
that the illustrations of Gamala 33 and 34 have been
mixed up, as the darkness of the relevant photos
shows)
So what are we to make of the coin? Burnett's approach is the right one. It might say BASILISSA KYPROS but it doesn't definitively say this. It is only the solution which is readily available owing to scholar's unfortunate dependence on Josephus. What is an alternative hypothesis? To dig deeper within the father-son relationship that the one Agrippa had with the Emperor Caligula.
If we go back to the Christian corruptions of Josephus for a moment it is difficult not to wonder at the claim that Agrippa had at least one other sister beside Berenice . Her name was Drusilla and we only know about her because the texts of Josephus make rather starling claims about her. A careful examination of all the references makes clear in my mind that "Drusilla" was only invented as a way of distracting attention from the fact that she evidences more of the Agrippa "son of Caligula" relationship. You see Caligula had a sister named Drusilla as well as a daughter which given Agrippa's status as "his son" would lead to him to be brother to at least one of Caligula's "Drusillas."
What does this have to do with the "Queen Cypros" coins? It is a well documented fact that Caligula - the "Basileos" - married his sister Drusilla - the "Basilissa" - and had a baby by her before she died in 38 CE. After her death she was deified as Aphrodite whose most famous title in antiquity was "Queen OF Cypros." The title appears as early as the Homeric Hymns, Xenophon, Sappho and many others.
Did Agrippa ever honor the Claudian Drusilla in his coinage. He most certainly did as we see from the most ready source - Meshorer's Treasury of Jewish Coins (2001):
Far closer to the "BASILISSA KYPROS" coin we will encounter later is the Drusilla coin listed as RPC I 4977; Meshorer 117; SNG ANS Dated RY 5 (AD 40/1) of Agrippa I of Judaea. Draped bust of Caesonia/Antonia left, wearing hair in long plait / Drusilla standing facing, head right, holding something and staff:
The point is that there are a number of Agrippa coins which acknowledge and revere the sisters of Caligula (notice the number is THREE the number of sisters attributed to Agrippa in Josephus too):
Yet the RPC I 4977; Meshorer 117 bears a striking resemblance to the so-called BASILISSA KYPROS coins. The fact that she is not explicitly named will be answered shortly. At the very least we must recognize that if there are Agrippa coins which EXPLICITLY honor Drusilla the sister of Caligula it is not out of the question that there are others which honor her COVERTLY as the personified Aphrodite - i.e. "Queen of Cyprus" or "Queen on Cyprus" or by some such similar title.
We can already see the line begin to get blurred when we read Allen Kerkeslager's Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla in Alexandria [Journal for the Study of Judaism, Volume 37, Number 3]. He connects the riots in Alexandria in 38 CE with the Jewish communities refusal to venerate Drusilla as Aphrodite. The issue of the aforementioned Drusilla coin three years after his death is puzzling to him. Why should Agrippa have waited so long to finally recognize the divine Sister of Caligula given the Emperor's suspicion regarding their loyalty. Treating the "Queen (of) Cypros" coins as memorials of Drusilla's divine status neatly plugs up that hole for him.
It is interesting that if we look at the Agrippan "Queen (of) Cypros" coins that there is some remarkable similarity with official Roman Drusilla coins from the period. The same woman is depicted carrying a staff in all images and holding an object (an apple?) in her other hand (see bottom coin):
MESHORER 118
MALTIEL-GERSTENBERG 134
This image is supposed to be the Jewish wife of the king!!!! It is utterly ridiculous. Other images of contemporary queens feature only their heads:
It is downright unbelievable that this provocative image of AN UNVEILED WOMAN is that of the wife of the supposedly law-abiding 'Agrippa I'!!! Why is she holding that staff? What is that strange cultic object on her head?
At the very least we have to begin to recognize that the Drusilla carrying a staff and holding something in her other hand coin:
begins to look remarkably similar to the "Queen (of) Cyprus" coins issued under Agrippa in the same regnal period:
and these in turn imitate the standard Aphrodite/Venus prototype that repeats itself over and over again throughout the Roman period (i.e. a woman holding a staff in one hand and an apple in the other):
Before we get there we should note that the original image of "BASILISSA CYPROS" has a one wearing a hairstyle identified by scholars as belonging to Aphrodite:
The point is of course that there is a very good explanation for the uncanny resemblance between (a) the Drusilla coins (b) the so-called BASILISSA KYPROS coins and (c) coins featuring Aphrodite/Venus the Queen of Cyprus. DRUSILLA, THE SISTER OF CALIGULA WAS VENERATED AS APHRODITE "THE QUEEN OF CYPRUS" AFTER HER DEATH. Agrippa's reference to her in his coinage was as close as he could go to acknowledge the divinity of Caligula's household without infuriating his Jewish subjects.
We have already begun to see how the Christian editor of Josephus developed his narrative. According to our thesis he took bits and pieces of authentic historical fragments in order to 'disprove' the original understanding of Agrippa as the messiah. The invention of his wife or mother 'Cypros' is another case in point. According to the existing texts of Josephus Aristobulos and Berenice were the parents of Agrippa I while Agrippa and his wife Cypros had Agrippa, Berenice and two other daughters named Drusilla and Mariamme.
Under our one Agrippa thesis there can be only Marcus Agrippa son of Aristobulos (himself possibly surnamed Agrippa). Already in the existing texts of Josephus there is a report which seems to tackle the 'rumor' that at least one half of the two brothers murdered by their father Herod the Great actually survived into the next era. Could there have been a rival tradition which held that Marcus Agrippa's father Aristobulos also survived like his uncle? There are only tantalizing clues but no definitive answers.
I find it hard to see that the Alexandrian tradition identify Aristobulos and Mary as the parents of St. Mark. The Mary in question is clearly Mary Salome the mother of the disciple John (also called Mark?) as the Copts still infer. The fact that St. Mark is always said to be related to Alexander the Abilarch might also account for his disappearance (he may have moved to Alexandria where he became an influential citizen?). More significant is the fact that the first century Acts of Isidore from Alexandria identifies Salome as the mother of Agrippa. Buried in the Herodian genealogies of Josephus is an Agrippa the son of Aristobulos and Salome.
For the moment however we had better confront the claim of ancient Jewish numismatics experts that "in recent times" Agrippa coins have been discovered which make reference to "Queen Kypros." The first time that this claim was made was in Maltiel-Gerstenfeld's Ancient Jewish Coins (1982) and it was quickly followed by numerous other discoveries of the same coin type and championed by the great Israeli expert on Jewish coins Ya'akov Meshorer.
What almost inevitably gets lost in all the hype is the fact that many scholars aren't as sure as these two that the coins actually say "Queen Kypros." In Andrew Burnetts' much more cautious treatment of the same coin type Roman Provincial Coinage (RPC 1 1992 listed as no. 4975) we read that 'the identity of the portrait is uncertain' and Burnett reads the obverse as [ ]NA SEBAST[ .
As Andrew Burnett noted in a personal correspondence with me recently "Yaakov was a great man but at times he was a bit optimistic in his coin readings." The sentiment has been echoed to me by many other experts in the field as well. Indeed Burnett is honest enough to admit that "the coins are very hard to read" and that is why he goes to such lengths to avoid simply writing out his hunches as definitive readings as we see with Maltiel-Gerstenfeld and Meshorer.
As he notes even though he became more convinced of the arguments of those scholars regarding the "Cypros" reading it is by no means definitive. He notes that in his supplement to RPC (1996):
S-4975 The obverse is probably to be read as
ΚYΠΡΟC ΒΑССI[ΛIССΑ]. 4975/1 can be read
better as [ ]POC ΒΑ-СI[ ], as M. Amandry has
confirmed ; 2. (see Maltiel-Gerstenfield) is illegible; 3.
(Meshorer, Suppl.) can be read [ ]ΚYΠΡΟС [ ; 4.
(Gamala find) perhaps reads [ΚYΠ]ΡΟ[С ] (note
that the illustrations of Gamala 33 and 34 have been
mixed up, as the darkness of the relevant photos
shows)
So what are we to make of the coin? Burnett's approach is the right one. It might say BASILISSA KYPROS but it doesn't definitively say this. It is only the solution which is readily available owing to scholar's unfortunate dependence on Josephus. What is an alternative hypothesis? To dig deeper within the father-son relationship that the one Agrippa had with the Emperor Caligula.
If we go back to the Christian corruptions of Josephus for a moment it is difficult not to wonder at the claim that Agrippa had at least one other sister beside Berenice . Her name was Drusilla and we only know about her because the texts of Josephus make rather starling claims about her. A careful examination of all the references makes clear in my mind that "Drusilla" was only invented as a way of distracting attention from the fact that she evidences more of the Agrippa "son of Caligula" relationship. You see Caligula had a sister named Drusilla as well as a daughter which given Agrippa's status as "his son" would lead to him to be brother to at least one of Caligula's "Drusillas."
What does this have to do with the "Queen Cypros" coins? It is a well documented fact that Caligula - the "Basileos" - married his sister Drusilla - the "Basilissa" - and had a baby by her before she died in 38 CE. After her death she was deified as Aphrodite whose most famous title in antiquity was "Queen OF Cypros." The title appears as early as the Homeric Hymns, Xenophon, Sappho and many others.
Did Agrippa ever honor the Claudian Drusilla in his coinage. He most certainly did as we see from the most ready source - Meshorer's Treasury of Jewish Coins (2001):
Far closer to the "BASILISSA KYPROS" coin we will encounter later is the Drusilla coin listed as RPC I 4977; Meshorer 117; SNG ANS Dated RY 5 (AD 40/1) of Agrippa I of Judaea. Draped bust of Caesonia/Antonia left, wearing hair in long plait / Drusilla standing facing, head right, holding something and staff:
The point is that there are a number of Agrippa coins which acknowledge and revere the sisters of Caligula (notice the number is THREE the number of sisters attributed to Agrippa in Josephus too):
Yet the RPC I 4977; Meshorer 117 bears a striking resemblance to the so-called BASILISSA KYPROS coins. The fact that she is not explicitly named will be answered shortly. At the very least we must recognize that if there are Agrippa coins which EXPLICITLY honor Drusilla the sister of Caligula it is not out of the question that there are others which honor her COVERTLY as the personified Aphrodite - i.e. "Queen of Cyprus" or "Queen on Cyprus" or by some such similar title.
We can already see the line begin to get blurred when we read Allen Kerkeslager's Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla in Alexandria [Journal for the Study of Judaism, Volume 37, Number 3]. He connects the riots in Alexandria in 38 CE with the Jewish communities refusal to venerate Drusilla as Aphrodite. The issue of the aforementioned Drusilla coin three years after his death is puzzling to him. Why should Agrippa have waited so long to finally recognize the divine Sister of Caligula given the Emperor's suspicion regarding their loyalty. Treating the "Queen (of) Cypros" coins as memorials of Drusilla's divine status neatly plugs up that hole for him.
It is interesting that if we look at the Agrippan "Queen (of) Cypros" coins that there is some remarkable similarity with official Roman Drusilla coins from the period. The same woman is depicted carrying a staff in all images and holding an object (an apple?) in her other hand (see bottom coin):
MESHORER 118
MALTIEL-GERSTENBERG 134
This image is supposed to be the Jewish wife of the king!!!! It is utterly ridiculous. Other images of contemporary queens feature only their heads:
It is downright unbelievable that this provocative image of AN UNVEILED WOMAN is that of the wife of the supposedly law-abiding 'Agrippa I'!!! Why is she holding that staff? What is that strange cultic object on her head?
At the very least we have to begin to recognize that the Drusilla carrying a staff and holding something in her other hand coin:
begins to look remarkably similar to the "Queen (of) Cyprus" coins issued under Agrippa in the same regnal period:
and these in turn imitate the standard Aphrodite/Venus prototype that repeats itself over and over again throughout the Roman period (i.e. a woman holding a staff in one hand and an apple in the other):
Before we get there we should note that the original image of "BASILISSA CYPROS" has a one wearing a hairstyle identified by scholars as belonging to Aphrodite:
The point is of course that there is a very good explanation for the uncanny resemblance between (a) the Drusilla coins (b) the so-called BASILISSA KYPROS coins and (c) coins featuring Aphrodite/Venus the Queen of Cyprus. DRUSILLA, THE SISTER OF CALIGULA WAS VENERATED AS APHRODITE "THE QUEEN OF CYPRUS" AFTER HER DEATH. Agrippa's reference to her in his coinage was as close as he could go to acknowledge the divinity of Caligula's household without infuriating his Jewish subjects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
