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]
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
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.
the 'Agrippa son of the king' coin
1. the 'AGRIPPA YIOY BASILEOS' coin
It is perhaps the most important of all the Agrippa coins. It is universally acknowledged to have a bust of Agrippa on one side surrounded by. the inscription 'King Agrippa.' On the reverse a male figure is depicted riding a horse with the words 'Agrippa the son of the King.' In the lower field we read 'Year 2.' For most scholars it is an open and shut case. 'King Agrippa' is 'Agrippa I'; the 'Agrippa the son of the King' figure is his nine year old son 'Agrippa II.' The coin proves everything Josephus tells us about the period.
Of course, these men can't possibly consider that there might be another solution to the problem - or even that there is a problem to begin with. Josephus tells us that 'Agrippa I' would have been about forty nine in year 38 CE and 'Agrippa II' about nine. The coin is meant to be read as a front to back to establish the relationship between 'King Agrippa' and 'Agrippa the son of the King.' That's all there is to it.
Of course there is something which these men should have found puzzling - in almost every other ancient coin where a son of a king is identified the father is always explicitly identified in the inscription i.e. 'Antiochus son of Antiochus' etc. The identification of 'Agrippa son of the king' comes only 'naturally' to those who know Josephus. 'Agrippa the son of the King' is strangely vague - akin to 'Agrippa son of what's-his-name.' It most certainly would not have been obvious to anyone living in Palestine at the time that the 'Agrippa' on the horse would have been 'Agrippa II.'
Indeed a careful examination of the best surviving coin of this type PROVES THAT THIS ASSUMPTION IS IMPOSSIBLE. As we have noted there are many things which conspire to make scholars see 'Agrippa son of the King' as 'Agrippa II' - their slavish devotion to Josephus being only the most consistent. With regards to this present coin type, it is absolutely unfortunate that most have come down to us all in very rough shape. A typical sampling of surviving pieces:
Obverse: Bust of Agrippa I r. Greek inscription: BACIΛEYC [AΓPIΠΠAC] "King [Agrippa]". Reverse: Agrippa riding on horse r. Greek inscription: AΓPIΠΠA YIOY BACIΛEΩC "Agrippa, son of the King". In lower field, date: LB (year 2 = 38 AD) AJC 1Sp (this coin). TJC 113S (this coin).
BASILEUIS AGRIPPA, diademed head of Agrippa right / AGRIPPA YIOY BACILEWC, on horseback right; date below. Meshorer 113, RPC I 4974.
Title: Coins of the Jews Type: Monograph Auth/Ed: Madden, F. W. Publication Place: London Publication Year: 1881 Pages: 138
Title: Israel Numismatic Journal 1963 In Publication: 0 Pages: 66
Æ 19mm (7.06 gm, 12h). Caesarea Paneas(?) mint. Dated RY 2 (37/8 CE). Diademed head of Agrippa right / Agrippa on horseback right; date below. Meshorer 113; RPC I 4974; Hendin 546. Fair, green patina.
Bronze (AE, 8.09 g 12), Caesarea Paneas, year 2 = 37/8. [] [] Diademed head of Agrippa to right. Rev. Agrippa on horseback to right; below, L. AJC 1. Bromberg I, 40 (choice VF, $16,000). Hendin 546. RPC 4974. TJC 113.
It turns out that Maltiel-Gerstenfeld's version of the coin makes it absolutely clear that the Agrippa riding the stallion was a full grown man. This might have been suggested in some of the other surviving coins of this type. However the one which appears below makes this absolutely certain. His legs clearly dangle over the underbelly of the horse. There can be no doubt of this for anyone who looks at the original book (these scans where made unfortunately only after a photocopy; I have had difficulty signing out the book as I am not a member of the library).
It is only the inherent laziness of scholars - people who have learned to open up Josephus as a kind of 'secular Bible' to the history of the period - which sees the Agrippa on the horse as a nine year old 'Agrippa II'!!!!!
Once we throw the idea of the coin depicting TWO DIFFERENT AGRIPPAS on each of its sides out the window we are left with the certain fact that 'KING AGRIPPA' on the front of the coin is one and same with 'AGRIPPA THE SON OF THE KING' on the other. As we shall see this is proved by other Agrippa coins from the period. However for the moment we are left with one nagging question - if 'King Agrippa' is the 'Agrippa son of the King' - who is 'the King'?
Before we answer this question we should bring forward that other Agrippa coin from the period which identifies Agrippa as 'YIOY.' It is again only to be found in Maltiel-Gerstenfeld:
The subtle manner in which scholars bolster Josephus is immediately apparent. They 'prefer' the first coin because they can construct an understanding where Josephus is utterly upheld - you read the 'first side' first (where 'Agrippa the king' is mentioned' and then you immediately 'solve' the question of who 'the King' is who is father of the 'other Agrippa' on the reverse side. If you apply the same logic to this ignored coin with 'King Agrippa friend of Caesar' on one side and 'King Agrippa, Son' on the other - THE INHERITED CHRISTIAN CLAIMS AND ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT TWO AGRIPPAS (remember the rabbinic tradition knows only of one Agrippa) IS IMMEDIATELY REFUTED.
For here in this other coin 'King Agrippa' HAS TO BE ONE AND THE SAME with 'the Son.' In other words, 'King Agrippa the Son' is 'King Agrippa' and 'the King' has to be Caligula. Of course scholars will immediately put their hands in the air at this point and shout - 'the Emperors never called themselves Basileos!' This state of affairs, they will say goes back to Julius Caesars refusal to take the title and a general reluctance to make it appear that the Republic had turned into a monarchy.
All of this might have been true for Julius Caesar and almost every other Caesar that followed him. However a careful examination reveals THAT THIS RELUCTANCE TO USE THE TITLE BASILEOS WAS NOT SHARED BY GAIUS TIBERIUS CAESAR (I.E. CALIGULA). Anyone who examines the figure of Calgula closely realizes that all of these assumptions should be immediately thrown out the window. As Suetonius explicitly states:
So much for Caligula as emperor; we must now tell of his career as a monster. After he had assumed various surnames ... chancing to overhear some kings, who had come to Rome to pay their respects to him, disputing at dinner about the nobility of their descent, he cried "Let there be one Lord, one King." [Iliad 2.204] And he came near assuming a crown at once and changing the semblance of a principate into the form of a monarchy.
At this point the Loeb edition notes that 'under Caligula the so‑called "principate" had become an absolute monarchy. Caligula proposed to assume the pomp of a king.' Suetonius makes explicit that Caligula's adoption of the title 'king' was only the beginning of his descent into madness. While his rule began well in 37 CE, we can assume that he quickly decided to adopt the title of 'king' or 'tyrant' c. 38 CE before going one step further and identifying himself as a god:
... on being reminded that he had risen above the elevation both of princes and kings, he began from that time on to lay claim to divine majesty; for after giving orders that such statues of the gods as were especially famous for their sanctity or their artistic merit, including that of Jupiter of Olympia, should be brought from Greece, in order to remove their heads and put his own in their place, he built out a part of the Palace as far as the Forum, and making the temple of Castor and Pollux its vestibule, he often took his place between the divine brethren, and exhibited himself there to be worshipped by those who presented themselves; and some hailed him as Jupiter Latiaris
Indeed as Philo and others make explicitly clear, the complete insanity of thinking that he was called god in the latter period of his rule.
We may gain further evidence that in 38 CE (year 2 of both his reign and Agrippa's rule) he was in the 'basileos' stage by another comment which appears in Dio Cassius that in this year:
All this, however, did not distress the people so much as did their expectation that Gaius' cruelty and licentiousness would go to still greater lengths. And they were particularly troubled on ascertaining that King Agrippa and King Antiochus were with him, like two tyrant-trainers.
The term tyrannodidaskalous seems inappropriate to use with 'Agrippa I' who as I note repeatedly in my critique of the existing claims of Josephus was almost fifty. How could a twenty five year old be naturally thought to be 'teaching' tyranny to these two students. The term was only used because Caligula - as the elder of the trio - was assuming the role of instructor.
There can be no doubt that this term implies that the two kings Agrippa and Antiochus were younger than Caligula. Agrippa was eight or nine and - as we suggest - lived on to 100 CE. It is worth noting that his 'fellow pupil' King Antiochus IV assumed his kingdom in Commagene at the same time and lived on to the last generation of the first century CE.
The implication clearly was that Agrippa learned to establish himself as a tyrant as a student from the master (or as a son to a father as the coins liken it). Of course it is interesting to ask - what did Caligula teach his students? Dio Cassius continues by saying that:
The senators, nevertheless, went up to the Capitol in a body, offered the regular sacrifices, and did obeisance to the chair of Gaius that was in the temple
I leave it up to the reader to see similarities between the throne of St. Mark in Alexandria and this 'chair of Gaius.' It is more important that we prove once and for all that IT WAS CALIGULA WHO WAS 'THE KING' TO WHOM AGRIPPA IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS 'THE SON.' Despite the presumptions of scholars THERE ARE COUNTLESS COINS OF SPECIFICALLY PALESTINIAN PROVENANCE WHICH IDENTIFY GAIUS AS BASILEOS. These include:
It seems pointless to continue to demonstrate the UNDENIABLE TRUTH THAT CALIGULA WAS HAILED AS 'THE KING' IN THE VERY PALESTINIAN CULTURAL CLIMATE IN WHICH 'KING AGRIPPA' IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS 'THE SON OF THE KING.' It is clearly the proper explanation of this coin type and more significantly OPENS THE DOOR TO UNDERSTAND THE CHRISTIAN TITLE OF 'THE SON' AS ONE WHICH IS CONNECTED TO MARCUS AGRIPPA IN THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE HISTORICAL PASSION.
I have another section devoted to this phenomena - - but the title should always have seemed odd when attached to a thirty year old man (let alone a fifty year old). THE ORIGINAL JEWISH IDEA REVOLVES AROUND THE CONCEPT OF BAR MITVAH ONLY IN ANTIQUITY (AS EVIDENCED BY THE TALMUD) THE DATE AT WHICH A BOY BECAME A MAN WAS NINE YEARS PLUS A DAY THE EXACT AGE THAT AGRIPPA WAS DURING 38 CE WHEN (AS WE HAVE ALREADY DEMONSTRATED) HE WAS CALLED YIOY ON COINS, HAILED AS 'BAR ABBAS' IN ALEXANDRIA AND UNDOUBTEDLY RECOGNIZED AS THE VERY MESSIANIC SON OF GOD ALL BECAUSE HE WAS THE PROPER AGE OF A BAR (I.E. A SON). It is in my mind undoubtedly why the secret message 'the ninth vision' or the 'appearance of the ninth' appears on the back of the throne.
It is perhaps the most important of all the Agrippa coins. It is universally acknowledged to have a bust of Agrippa on one side surrounded by. the inscription 'King Agrippa.' On the reverse a male figure is depicted riding a horse with the words 'Agrippa the son of the King.' In the lower field we read 'Year 2.' For most scholars it is an open and shut case. 'King Agrippa' is 'Agrippa I'; the 'Agrippa the son of the King' figure is his nine year old son 'Agrippa II.' The coin proves everything Josephus tells us about the period.
Of course, these men can't possibly consider that there might be another solution to the problem - or even that there is a problem to begin with. Josephus tells us that 'Agrippa I' would have been about forty nine in year 38 CE and 'Agrippa II' about nine. The coin is meant to be read as a front to back to establish the relationship between 'King Agrippa' and 'Agrippa the son of the King.' That's all there is to it.
Of course there is something which these men should have found puzzling - in almost every other ancient coin where a son of a king is identified the father is always explicitly identified in the inscription i.e. 'Antiochus son of Antiochus' etc. The identification of 'Agrippa son of the king' comes only 'naturally' to those who know Josephus. 'Agrippa the son of the King' is strangely vague - akin to 'Agrippa son of what's-his-name.' It most certainly would not have been obvious to anyone living in Palestine at the time that the 'Agrippa' on the horse would have been 'Agrippa II.'
Indeed a careful examination of the best surviving coin of this type PROVES THAT THIS ASSUMPTION IS IMPOSSIBLE. As we have noted there are many things which conspire to make scholars see 'Agrippa son of the King' as 'Agrippa II' - their slavish devotion to Josephus being only the most consistent. With regards to this present coin type, it is absolutely unfortunate that most have come down to us all in very rough shape. A typical sampling of surviving pieces:
Obverse: Bust of Agrippa I r. Greek inscription: BACIΛEYC [AΓPIΠΠAC] "King [Agrippa]". Reverse: Agrippa riding on horse r. Greek inscription: AΓPIΠΠA YIOY BACIΛEΩC "Agrippa, son of the King". In lower field, date: LB (year 2 = 38 AD) AJC 1Sp (this coin). TJC 113S (this coin).
BASILEUIS AGRIPPA, diademed head of Agrippa right / AGRIPPA YIOY BACILEWC, on horseback right; date below. Meshorer 113, RPC I 4974.
Title: Coins of the Jews Type: Monograph Auth/Ed: Madden, F. W. Publication Place: London Publication Year: 1881 Pages: 138
Title: Israel Numismatic Journal 1963 In Publication: 0 Pages: 66
Æ 19mm (7.06 gm, 12h). Caesarea Paneas(?) mint. Dated RY 2 (37/8 CE). Diademed head of Agrippa right / Agrippa on horseback right; date below. Meshorer 113; RPC I 4974; Hendin 546. Fair, green patina.
Bronze (AE, 8.09 g 12), Caesarea Paneas, year 2 = 37/8. [] [] Diademed head of Agrippa to right. Rev. Agrippa on horseback to right; below, L. AJC 1. Bromberg I, 40 (choice VF, $16,000). Hendin 546. RPC 4974. TJC 113.
It turns out that Maltiel-Gerstenfeld's version of the coin makes it absolutely clear that the Agrippa riding the stallion was a full grown man. This might have been suggested in some of the other surviving coins of this type. However the one which appears below makes this absolutely certain. His legs clearly dangle over the underbelly of the horse. There can be no doubt of this for anyone who looks at the original book (these scans where made unfortunately only after a photocopy; I have had difficulty signing out the book as I am not a member of the library).
It is only the inherent laziness of scholars - people who have learned to open up Josephus as a kind of 'secular Bible' to the history of the period - which sees the Agrippa on the horse as a nine year old 'Agrippa II'!!!!!
Once we throw the idea of the coin depicting TWO DIFFERENT AGRIPPAS on each of its sides out the window we are left with the certain fact that 'KING AGRIPPA' on the front of the coin is one and same with 'AGRIPPA THE SON OF THE KING' on the other. As we shall see this is proved by other Agrippa coins from the period. However for the moment we are left with one nagging question - if 'King Agrippa' is the 'Agrippa son of the King' - who is 'the King'?
Before we answer this question we should bring forward that other Agrippa coin from the period which identifies Agrippa as 'YIOY.' It is again only to be found in Maltiel-Gerstenfeld:
The subtle manner in which scholars bolster Josephus is immediately apparent. They 'prefer' the first coin because they can construct an understanding where Josephus is utterly upheld - you read the 'first side' first (where 'Agrippa the king' is mentioned' and then you immediately 'solve' the question of who 'the King' is who is father of the 'other Agrippa' on the reverse side. If you apply the same logic to this ignored coin with 'King Agrippa friend of Caesar' on one side and 'King Agrippa, Son' on the other - THE INHERITED CHRISTIAN CLAIMS AND ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT TWO AGRIPPAS (remember the rabbinic tradition knows only of one Agrippa) IS IMMEDIATELY REFUTED.
For here in this other coin 'King Agrippa' HAS TO BE ONE AND THE SAME with 'the Son.' In other words, 'King Agrippa the Son' is 'King Agrippa' and 'the King' has to be Caligula. Of course scholars will immediately put their hands in the air at this point and shout - 'the Emperors never called themselves Basileos!' This state of affairs, they will say goes back to Julius Caesars refusal to take the title and a general reluctance to make it appear that the Republic had turned into a monarchy.
All of this might have been true for Julius Caesar and almost every other Caesar that followed him. However a careful examination reveals THAT THIS RELUCTANCE TO USE THE TITLE BASILEOS WAS NOT SHARED BY GAIUS TIBERIUS CAESAR (I.E. CALIGULA). Anyone who examines the figure of Calgula closely realizes that all of these assumptions should be immediately thrown out the window. As Suetonius explicitly states:
So much for Caligula as emperor; we must now tell of his career as a monster. After he had assumed various surnames ... chancing to overhear some kings, who had come to Rome to pay their respects to him, disputing at dinner about the nobility of their descent, he cried "Let there be one Lord, one King." [Iliad 2.204] And he came near assuming a crown at once and changing the semblance of a principate into the form of a monarchy.
At this point the Loeb edition notes that 'under Caligula the so‑called "principate" had become an absolute monarchy. Caligula proposed to assume the pomp of a king.' Suetonius makes explicit that Caligula's adoption of the title 'king' was only the beginning of his descent into madness. While his rule began well in 37 CE, we can assume that he quickly decided to adopt the title of 'king' or 'tyrant' c. 38 CE before going one step further and identifying himself as a god:
... on being reminded that he had risen above the elevation both of princes and kings, he began from that time on to lay claim to divine majesty; for after giving orders that such statues of the gods as were especially famous for their sanctity or their artistic merit, including that of Jupiter of Olympia, should be brought from Greece, in order to remove their heads and put his own in their place, he built out a part of the Palace as far as the Forum, and making the temple of Castor and Pollux its vestibule, he often took his place between the divine brethren, and exhibited himself there to be worshipped by those who presented themselves; and some hailed him as Jupiter Latiaris
Indeed as Philo and others make explicitly clear, the complete insanity of thinking that he was called god in the latter period of his rule.
We may gain further evidence that in 38 CE (year 2 of both his reign and Agrippa's rule) he was in the 'basileos' stage by another comment which appears in Dio Cassius that in this year:
All this, however, did not distress the people so much as did their expectation that Gaius' cruelty and licentiousness would go to still greater lengths. And they were particularly troubled on ascertaining that King Agrippa and King Antiochus were with him, like two tyrant-trainers.
The term tyrannodidaskalous seems inappropriate to use with 'Agrippa I' who as I note repeatedly in my critique of the existing claims of Josephus was almost fifty. How could a twenty five year old be naturally thought to be 'teaching' tyranny to these two students. The term was only used because Caligula - as the elder of the trio - was assuming the role of instructor.
There can be no doubt that this term implies that the two kings Agrippa and Antiochus were younger than Caligula. Agrippa was eight or nine and - as we suggest - lived on to 100 CE. It is worth noting that his 'fellow pupil' King Antiochus IV assumed his kingdom in Commagene at the same time and lived on to the last generation of the first century CE.
The implication clearly was that Agrippa learned to establish himself as a tyrant as a student from the master (or as a son to a father as the coins liken it). Of course it is interesting to ask - what did Caligula teach his students? Dio Cassius continues by saying that:
The senators, nevertheless, went up to the Capitol in a body, offered the regular sacrifices, and did obeisance to the chair of Gaius that was in the temple
I leave it up to the reader to see similarities between the throne of St. Mark in Alexandria and this 'chair of Gaius.' It is more important that we prove once and for all that IT WAS CALIGULA WHO WAS 'THE KING' TO WHOM AGRIPPA IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS 'THE SON.' Despite the presumptions of scholars THERE ARE COUNTLESS COINS OF SPECIFICALLY PALESTINIAN PROVENANCE WHICH IDENTIFY GAIUS AS BASILEOS. These include:
It seems pointless to continue to demonstrate the UNDENIABLE TRUTH THAT CALIGULA WAS HAILED AS 'THE KING' IN THE VERY PALESTINIAN CULTURAL CLIMATE IN WHICH 'KING AGRIPPA' IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS 'THE SON OF THE KING.' It is clearly the proper explanation of this coin type and more significantly OPENS THE DOOR TO UNDERSTAND THE CHRISTIAN TITLE OF 'THE SON' AS ONE WHICH IS CONNECTED TO MARCUS AGRIPPA IN THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE HISTORICAL PASSION.
I have another section devoted to this phenomena - - but the title should always have seemed odd when attached to a thirty year old man (let alone a fifty year old). THE ORIGINAL JEWISH IDEA REVOLVES AROUND THE CONCEPT OF BAR MITVAH ONLY IN ANTIQUITY (AS EVIDENCED BY THE TALMUD) THE DATE AT WHICH A BOY BECAME A MAN WAS NINE YEARS PLUS A DAY THE EXACT AGE THAT AGRIPPA WAS DURING 38 CE WHEN (AS WE HAVE ALREADY DEMONSTRATED) HE WAS CALLED YIOY ON COINS, HAILED AS 'BAR ABBAS' IN ALEXANDRIA AND UNDOUBTEDLY RECOGNIZED AS THE VERY MESSIANIC SON OF GOD ALL BECAUSE HE WAS THE PROPER AGE OF A BAR (I.E. A SON). It is in my mind undoubtedly why the secret message 'the ninth vision' or the 'appearance of the ninth' appears on the back of the throne.
Was Drusilla really his sister (or did it all have to do with his sick relationship with Caligula)?
Now we confront whether the image which appears in the earlier 'Queen of Cyprus' coin matches any known images of Aphrodite/Venus. To begin with there is the strange (and overtly pagan) image of this BASILISSA CYPROS (or some such variant) associated with Agrippa holding an apple and staff in each hand:
I am not sure what coin you have in mind for the "enthroned Drusilla"
reference, unless you are assuming that the "Queen Cyprus" coin should be
read "Queen on Cyprus" or something like that (Meshorer's reading is, once
again, not to be trusted). But I am not bothered by the idea of Aphrodite
or some other goddess appearing on a coin of Agrippa minted in Paneas (as
opposed to Jerusalem). I do not accept the view that Agrippa I was a
model of Jewish piety with qualms about polytheism. There is too much
evidence against it and, in contrast, the evidence usually cited for this
view is ancient propaganda that quickly falls apart when carefully
analyzed.
It is better to look at these coins as presented in Roman Provincial Coinage Volume 1 ( = RPC 1), although Meshorer offers useful material if read with caution about his frequent errors.
(1) The "enthroned Drusilla" coin that the review of Meshorer mentioned is indeed the obscure [CAES]ONIA/[ANT]ONIA coin that I mentioned. She is standing, not seated, so I am not sure that "enthroned" is the best word to use here. As I mentioned before, Kokkinos, Antonia Augusta (2nd ed.) is the best discussion of this coin.
(2) As far as the Cypros coin, images of deities and images of historical personae are not always easily distinguished and were in fact of presented identically precisely for the purposes of royal and imperial propaganda. One pertinent example is the Drusilla coin in question, which presents Drusilla in a form resembling a deity. So I see no problem with Agrippa presenting his own wife as a deity, whether or not you want to identify her form as that of Aphrodite, Demeter, Tyche, or Atargatis. This is the same king who appears on another coin that may present a ritual celebrated in the rather non-kosher setting of a pig being sacrificed in the temple of Jupiter at Rome; RPC 1.4983.
(3) Agrippa was not the first Jewish king to present his image on a coin. E.g., see Philip in RPC 1.4939, who happily shows his own head on one side and a temple to Augustus on the other in 1/2 CE. It appears that such polytheistic tendencies were a family tradition long before Agrippa minted coins. Don't forget that Agrippa had set up images of his daughters in Caesarea Maritima, so a coin with an image of his wife may have been based on some image of his wife in Paneas. Agrippa was just doing what any other Roman royal figure like himself would do if indeed he presented his wife like a local deity. He was not just Jewish, but a Roman citizen of praetorian rank. Whether the "Cyprus" in question is his wife or (as you seem to suggest) the island, there is no problem with presenting the features of a female deity on his coin.
At one point it is claimed that she was betrothed to marry Antiochus the son of Antiochus the king of Commagene but the marriage was cut off by Agrippa because the foreign
She was six years of age at the time of her father's death at Caesarea in 44. Her father had betrothed her to Antiochus Epiphanes, the son of Antiochus IV of Commagene,[1] with a stipulation from her father that Epiphanes should embrace the Jewish religion.[2] The prince in the end refused to abide by his promise to do so, and the marriage had still not been contracted on her father's death. (Her 10 year old sister Mariamne was in a similar situation, with an unfulfilled betrothal to Julius Archelaus Epiphanes, the son of Antiochus, the son of Chelcias). Also on Agrippa's death:
“ ...the inhabitants of Caesarea and of Sebaste forgot the kindnesses he had bestowed on them, and acted the part of the bitterest enemies; for they cast such reproaches upon the deceased as are not fit to be spoken of; and so many of them as were then soldiers, which were a great number, went to his house, and hastily carried off the statues of [Agrippa I]'s daughters, and all at once carried them into the brothels, and when they had set them on the brothel roofs, they abused them to the utmost of their power, and did such things to them as are too indecent to be related. They also laid themselves down in public places, and celebrated general feastings, with garlands on their heads, and with ointments and libations to Charon, and drinking to one another for joy that the king was expired, not only unmindful of Agrippa, who had extended his liberality to them in abundance, but also of his grandfather Herod the Great, who had himself rebuilt their cities, and had raised them havens and temples at vast expense.[3] ”
Once Drusilla's brother Herod Agrippa II had been assigned the tetrachy of Herod Philip I (along with Batanea, Trachonites and Abila) in around 49/50, he broke off her engagement to Epiphanes and gave her in marriage to Azizus, King of Emesa, who, in order to obtain her hand, consented to be circumcised.[4] She left him for Felix, becoming his third wife while still in her teens. She was with him when Paul defended his faith. (Acts 24 and 25) He also married Mariamne to her betrothed.
[edit] Felix
It appears that it was shortly after her first marriage was contracted that Antonius Felix, the Roman procurator of Judaea, met Drusilla, probably at her brother's court (Berenice, the elder sister, lived with her brother at this time, and thus Drusilla probably did too). Felix was struck by the great beauty of Drusilla, and determined to make her his (second) wife. In order to persuade her, a practising Jew, to divorce her Jewish husband and marry him, a pagan, he took the following steps:
“ While Felix was procurator of Judea, he saw this Drusilla, and fell in love with her; for she did indeed exceed all other women in beauty; and he sent to her a person whose name was Simon[5], a Jewish friend of his, by birth a Cypriot, who pretended to be a magician. Simon endeavored to persuade her to forsake her present husband, and marry Felix; and promised, that if she would not refuse Felix, he would make her a happy woman. Accordingly she acted unwisely and, because she longed to avoid her sister Berenice's envy (for Drusilla was very ill-treated by Berenice because of Drusilla's beauty) was prevailed upon to transgress the laws of her forefathers, and to marry Felix.[6] ”
She was about twenty-two years of age when she appeared at Felix's side, during St. Paul's captivity at Caesarea - Acts 24:24 reports her thus:
"Several days later Felix came [back into court] with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess."
Acts gives no further information on her subsequent life, though Josephus states that they had a son named Agrippa after his uncle - this son perished together with his mother, Drusilla, in the eruption of Vesuvius in 79.[7]
[edit] Notes
1. ^ Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, xix. 9. § 1.
2. ^ Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, xx.7.1
3. ^ Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, xix. 9. 1 and xx.7.1
4. ^ Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, xx.7.1
5. ^ Atomos in some manuscripts
6. ^ Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, xx.7.2
7. ^ Mentioned in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, xx.7.2, and in a lost section of the work.
There certainly was an Agrippa coin where a woman appeared identified as BASILISES KYPROS on the other side of the King's portrait. The question again is whether a slavish adherence to Josephus is the only path to explain the coin:
Once again it seems an open and shut case. Agrippa is on the one side and the female figure on the other is the "Cypros" identified in the surviving works of Josephus as his wife.
Of course, there is something odd about the portrait if it truly is that of this Jewish Queen. Agrippa I was supposed to be a "law abiding" Jew. The fact that he put his own portrait on coins is odd enough in light of this consistent claim. Now his "wife" is depicted not only unveiled but in a full body portrait dressed up like a pagan goddess? One might have accepted - at least theoretically - a modest bust portrait - but what appears on the coin is indeed quite unprecedented. Why is she holding a staff in this provocative manner? Why are her legs spread open in this vulgar manner (something present even in the licentious Emperor Caligula's portrait of his wife and sisters).
I can show you dozens of Queen portraits in the period - none look like this!
So we are back to where we started, trying to make sense of this coin. Yet we ought to clear the air about this supposed wife of Agrippa I. As Daniel Schwartz notes:
This woman plays almost no role in any other part of Josephus' narrative (he mentions her elsewhere only in his genealogical lists) and she seems to be mentioned only once more in all of ancient literature.
Indeed even Schwartz recognizes that this 'other reference' isn't an actual reference to Cypros. The passage in question comes from the Greek Anthology AND DOESN'T MENTION CYPROS AT ALL. It speaks of a tapestry given by a "queen" to the reigning Roman Emperor which contained "a perfect copy of the harvest bearing Earth and all that the land encircling Ocean girdles, obedient to great Caesar and the gray Sea too." [Greek Anthology IX, 778]. You have to change the word karpos (fruit) to kypros and then you have the Queen called 'Cypros' but this is clearly a stretch.
In short we have only one meaningful reference to Cypros in Josephus and Schwartz raises questions about this one.
Of course we go much further than Schwartz. We are putting forward that there never was an 'Agrippa I' and his wife was developed from an unusual connection between Marcus Agrippa and Caligula. In the previous section (year 2) we discovered that Agrippa called himself 'the Son of the King' - i.e. Caesar. Now we will posit that as Caligula's adopted 'Son' he was developed by the editor of the existing text of Josephus to being the 'brother' of Caligula's daughter Drusilla who is universally acknowledged to have been venerated (posthumously) in the period as Aphrodite 'the Queen of Cyprus.'
Of course it is well established in numismatics that only the barest details typically appear on coins. They rarely spell out full sentences. As such I will put forward that the proper reading of this coin should not be "Queen Cyprus" but 'Queen of Cyprus.' It falls into line with what we read occurring in contemporary history namely that when his sister Drusilla died suddenly in 38 CE:
Caligula never really recovered from the loss. He buried his sister with the honors of an Augusta, acted as a grieving widower, and had the Roman Senate declare her a Goddess as "Diva Drusilla", deifying her as a representation of the goddess Venus or Aphrodite. Drusilla was consecrated as Panthea, most likely on the anniversary of the birthday of Augustus.
If Drusilla was Aphrodite then the connection with the title 'Queen of Cyprus' is unavoidable for Aphrodite was always identified by this title in the literature dating back all the way to the Homeric Hymns. The list of these references would include:
Sappho "The Anactoria Poem"
Not the thought of child nor beloved parents was remembered, after the Queen of Cyprus won her at first sight.
Aelian Various Histories Book Three
The Queen of Cyprus work'd them to prostitute themselves, insomuch as in some parts of Peloponnesus they ran up and down, as it is said, naked and raging.
Athenaeus of Naucratis The Deipnosophists
“0 Queen of Cyprus! Hither to thy sanctuary Xenophon hath brought a troupe of one hundred girls to browse, gladdened as he is now that his vows are fulfilled.'
The Homeric Hymns
Muse, tell me the things done by golden Aphrodite,the one from Cyprus, who arouses sweet desire for gods and who subdues the races of mortal humans, and birds as well, who fly in the sky, as well as all beasts all those that grow on both dry land and the sea
A fuller list of references appears in A reconsideration of the Aphrodite-Ashtart syncretism Stephanie L. Budin. As Jay Keys notes (Politics of Caligula):
A fragment of the Arval Acta, from A.D. 38, refers to the consecration of the divae Drusillae or the divine Drusilla, and a Greek inscription found in Mytilene refers to Drusilla as "The New Aphrodite". Gaius' promotion of his sisters might have begun as a political move, but his well-documented fascination with them helped fuel his image of madness rather than cunning. In fact, their unrivaled elevation helped build an image of an entire family line that was divine and worthy of producing rulers.
It is noteworthy that elsewhere in the existing texts of Josephus Drusilla is developed into an imaginary sister of Agrippa. It is claimed for instance that Felix married this Drusilla daughter of Agrippa I when in fact as Tacitus makes clear she is another Drusilla completely. Yet another 'mistake' in the existing text which have 'nothing to do' with a conspiracy against Agrippa'!!!
Æ 23mm (11.53 g, 12h). Caesarea Paneas mint. Dated RY 5. laureate head of Gaius (Caligula) left, [G]A[I]W KAISARI SEBASTW [GERMANIKW], NOM[ISMA]/BASILE[WS]/AGRIPPA, Germanicus in triumphal quadriga right, holding eagle-tipped scepter; [car decorated with Nike standing right]; LE in exergue. RPC I 4976; Burnett, Coinage 4; Meshorer, p. 93-94 and 116M (same obv. die); SNG ANS 261 (Tiberias; same dies); Hendin 549. Near VF, brown patina, areas of soft strike and porosity, light scratches in right field of obverse. Very rare.
Æ 23mm (10.72 g, 12h). Caesarea Paneas or Tiberias mint. Dated RY 5 (AD 40/1). Laureate head of Gaius (Caligula) left / Germanicus in triumphal quadriga right, holding eagle-tipped scepter; [date in exergue]. RPC I 4976; Burnett, Coinage 4; Meshorer 116; Hendin 74. Near VF, black patina with traces of orange overtones, area of hard bright-green patina on reverse. Extremely rare.
d=25 mm
Agrippa I, king of Judaea, 37-44. Bronze, Caesarea Panias year 5 circa 40-41, æ 12.09 g. [GAIW] KAISARI [SEBASTW GERMANIKW] Laureate head of Gaius l. Rev. [NOMIS] BASILEWS AGRIPPA Germanicus in triumphal quadriga r.; in exergue, LE. A. Burnett, The Coinage of King Agrippa I of Judaea, Mélanges Bastien, p. 28, 4. Hendin 74. J. Meshorer, Jewish Coins, p. 138, 186. RPC 4976.
Bronze (AE, 2.70 g 11), Caesarea Paneas, year 5 = 40/1. (beginning lower left) […] […] Bare head of Agrippa II to left; to left, L. Rev. (beginning above at 11 o’clock) [] [ ] Crossed cornucopias. AJC 4. Bromberg II, 350 (choice VF, $14,500). Hendin 552. RPC 4979. TJC 119. Very rare. One of the most legible examples of this coin known. Good fine.
Like so many of the great rarities of Jewish coinage, this piece is very worn. It is, however, nevertheless one of the best examples available (there are three in the Hecht Collection, all significantly inferior (Y. Meshorer, Ancient Means of Exchange, Weights and Coins. Haifa, 1998, 303-304a [304 and 304a are both illustrated by the same coin]).
I am not sure what coin you have in mind for the "enthroned Drusilla"
reference, unless you are assuming that the "Queen Cyprus" coin should be
read "Queen on Cyprus" or something like that (Meshorer's reading is, once
again, not to be trusted). But I am not bothered by the idea of Aphrodite
or some other goddess appearing on a coin of Agrippa minted in Paneas (as
opposed to Jerusalem). I do not accept the view that Agrippa I was a
model of Jewish piety with qualms about polytheism. There is too much
evidence against it and, in contrast, the evidence usually cited for this
view is ancient propaganda that quickly falls apart when carefully
analyzed.
It is better to look at these coins as presented in Roman Provincial Coinage Volume 1 ( = RPC 1), although Meshorer offers useful material if read with caution about his frequent errors.
(1) The "enthroned Drusilla" coin that the review of Meshorer mentioned is indeed the obscure [CAES]ONIA/[ANT]ONIA coin that I mentioned. She is standing, not seated, so I am not sure that "enthroned" is the best word to use here. As I mentioned before, Kokkinos, Antonia Augusta (2nd ed.) is the best discussion of this coin.
(2) As far as the Cypros coin, images of deities and images of historical personae are not always easily distinguished and were in fact of presented identically precisely for the purposes of royal and imperial propaganda. One pertinent example is the Drusilla coin in question, which presents Drusilla in a form resembling a deity. So I see no problem with Agrippa presenting his own wife as a deity, whether or not you want to identify her form as that of Aphrodite, Demeter, Tyche, or Atargatis. This is the same king who appears on another coin that may present a ritual celebrated in the rather non-kosher setting of a pig being sacrificed in the temple of Jupiter at Rome; RPC 1.4983.
(3) Agrippa was not the first Jewish king to present his image on a coin. E.g., see Philip in RPC 1.4939, who happily shows his own head on one side and a temple to Augustus on the other in 1/2 CE. It appears that such polytheistic tendencies were a family tradition long before Agrippa minted coins. Don't forget that Agrippa had set up images of his daughters in Caesarea Maritima, so a coin with an image of his wife may have been based on some image of his wife in Paneas. Agrippa was just doing what any other Roman royal figure like himself would do if indeed he presented his wife like a local deity. He was not just Jewish, but a Roman citizen of praetorian rank. Whether the "Cyprus" in question is his wife or (as you seem to suggest) the island, there is no problem with presenting the features of a female deity on his coin.
At one point it is claimed that she was betrothed to marry Antiochus the son of Antiochus the king of Commagene but the marriage was cut off by Agrippa because the foreign
She was six years of age at the time of her father's death at Caesarea in 44. Her father had betrothed her to Antiochus Epiphanes, the son of Antiochus IV of Commagene,[1] with a stipulation from her father that Epiphanes should embrace the Jewish religion.[2] The prince in the end refused to abide by his promise to do so, and the marriage had still not been contracted on her father's death. (Her 10 year old sister Mariamne was in a similar situation, with an unfulfilled betrothal to Julius Archelaus Epiphanes, the son of Antiochus, the son of Chelcias). Also on Agrippa's death:
“ ...the inhabitants of Caesarea and of Sebaste forgot the kindnesses he had bestowed on them, and acted the part of the bitterest enemies; for they cast such reproaches upon the deceased as are not fit to be spoken of; and so many of them as were then soldiers, which were a great number, went to his house, and hastily carried off the statues of [Agrippa I]'s daughters, and all at once carried them into the brothels, and when they had set them on the brothel roofs, they abused them to the utmost of their power, and did such things to them as are too indecent to be related. They also laid themselves down in public places, and celebrated general feastings, with garlands on their heads, and with ointments and libations to Charon, and drinking to one another for joy that the king was expired, not only unmindful of Agrippa, who had extended his liberality to them in abundance, but also of his grandfather Herod the Great, who had himself rebuilt their cities, and had raised them havens and temples at vast expense.[3] ”
Once Drusilla's brother Herod Agrippa II had been assigned the tetrachy of Herod Philip I (along with Batanea, Trachonites and Abila) in around 49/50, he broke off her engagement to Epiphanes and gave her in marriage to Azizus, King of Emesa, who, in order to obtain her hand, consented to be circumcised.[4] She left him for Felix, becoming his third wife while still in her teens. She was with him when Paul defended his faith. (Acts 24 and 25) He also married Mariamne to her betrothed.
[edit] Felix
It appears that it was shortly after her first marriage was contracted that Antonius Felix, the Roman procurator of Judaea, met Drusilla, probably at her brother's court (Berenice, the elder sister, lived with her brother at this time, and thus Drusilla probably did too). Felix was struck by the great beauty of Drusilla, and determined to make her his (second) wife. In order to persuade her, a practising Jew, to divorce her Jewish husband and marry him, a pagan, he took the following steps:
“ While Felix was procurator of Judea, he saw this Drusilla, and fell in love with her; for she did indeed exceed all other women in beauty; and he sent to her a person whose name was Simon[5], a Jewish friend of his, by birth a Cypriot, who pretended to be a magician. Simon endeavored to persuade her to forsake her present husband, and marry Felix; and promised, that if she would not refuse Felix, he would make her a happy woman. Accordingly she acted unwisely and, because she longed to avoid her sister Berenice's envy (for Drusilla was very ill-treated by Berenice because of Drusilla's beauty) was prevailed upon to transgress the laws of her forefathers, and to marry Felix.[6] ”
She was about twenty-two years of age when she appeared at Felix's side, during St. Paul's captivity at Caesarea - Acts 24:24 reports her thus:
"Several days later Felix came [back into court] with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess."
Acts gives no further information on her subsequent life, though Josephus states that they had a son named Agrippa after his uncle - this son perished together with his mother, Drusilla, in the eruption of Vesuvius in 79.[7]
[edit] Notes
1. ^ Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, xix. 9. § 1.
2. ^ Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, xx.7.1
3. ^ Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, xix. 9. 1 and xx.7.1
4. ^ Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, xx.7.1
5. ^ Atomos in some manuscripts
6. ^ Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, xx.7.2
7. ^ Mentioned in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, xx.7.2, and in a lost section of the work.
There certainly was an Agrippa coin where a woman appeared identified as BASILISES KYPROS on the other side of the King's portrait. The question again is whether a slavish adherence to Josephus is the only path to explain the coin:
Once again it seems an open and shut case. Agrippa is on the one side and the female figure on the other is the "Cypros" identified in the surviving works of Josephus as his wife.
Of course, there is something odd about the portrait if it truly is that of this Jewish Queen. Agrippa I was supposed to be a "law abiding" Jew. The fact that he put his own portrait on coins is odd enough in light of this consistent claim. Now his "wife" is depicted not only unveiled but in a full body portrait dressed up like a pagan goddess? One might have accepted - at least theoretically - a modest bust portrait - but what appears on the coin is indeed quite unprecedented. Why is she holding a staff in this provocative manner? Why are her legs spread open in this vulgar manner (something present even in the licentious Emperor Caligula's portrait of his wife and sisters).
I can show you dozens of Queen portraits in the period - none look like this!
So we are back to where we started, trying to make sense of this coin. Yet we ought to clear the air about this supposed wife of Agrippa I. As Daniel Schwartz notes:
This woman plays almost no role in any other part of Josephus' narrative (he mentions her elsewhere only in his genealogical lists) and she seems to be mentioned only once more in all of ancient literature.
Indeed even Schwartz recognizes that this 'other reference' isn't an actual reference to Cypros. The passage in question comes from the Greek Anthology AND DOESN'T MENTION CYPROS AT ALL. It speaks of a tapestry given by a "queen" to the reigning Roman Emperor which contained "a perfect copy of the harvest bearing Earth and all that the land encircling Ocean girdles, obedient to great Caesar and the gray Sea too." [Greek Anthology IX, 778]. You have to change the word karpos (fruit) to kypros and then you have the Queen called 'Cypros' but this is clearly a stretch.
In short we have only one meaningful reference to Cypros in Josephus and Schwartz raises questions about this one.
Of course we go much further than Schwartz. We are putting forward that there never was an 'Agrippa I' and his wife was developed from an unusual connection between Marcus Agrippa and Caligula. In the previous section (year 2) we discovered that Agrippa called himself 'the Son of the King' - i.e. Caesar. Now we will posit that as Caligula's adopted 'Son' he was developed by the editor of the existing text of Josephus to being the 'brother' of Caligula's daughter Drusilla who is universally acknowledged to have been venerated (posthumously) in the period as Aphrodite 'the Queen of Cyprus.'
Of course it is well established in numismatics that only the barest details typically appear on coins. They rarely spell out full sentences. As such I will put forward that the proper reading of this coin should not be "Queen Cyprus" but 'Queen of Cyprus.' It falls into line with what we read occurring in contemporary history namely that when his sister Drusilla died suddenly in 38 CE:
Caligula never really recovered from the loss. He buried his sister with the honors of an Augusta, acted as a grieving widower, and had the Roman Senate declare her a Goddess as "Diva Drusilla", deifying her as a representation of the goddess Venus or Aphrodite. Drusilla was consecrated as Panthea, most likely on the anniversary of the birthday of Augustus.
If Drusilla was Aphrodite then the connection with the title 'Queen of Cyprus' is unavoidable for Aphrodite was always identified by this title in the literature dating back all the way to the Homeric Hymns. The list of these references would include:
Sappho "The Anactoria Poem"
Not the thought of child nor beloved parents was remembered, after the Queen of Cyprus won her at first sight.
Aelian Various Histories Book Three
The Queen of Cyprus work'd them to prostitute themselves, insomuch as in some parts of Peloponnesus they ran up and down, as it is said, naked and raging.
Athenaeus of Naucratis The Deipnosophists
“0 Queen of Cyprus! Hither to thy sanctuary Xenophon hath brought a troupe of one hundred girls to browse, gladdened as he is now that his vows are fulfilled.'
The Homeric Hymns
Muse, tell me the things done by golden Aphrodite,the one from Cyprus, who arouses sweet desire for gods and who subdues the races of mortal humans, and birds as well, who fly in the sky, as well as all beasts all those that grow on both dry land and the sea
A fuller list of references appears in A reconsideration of the Aphrodite-Ashtart syncretism Stephanie L. Budin. As Jay Keys notes (Politics of Caligula):
A fragment of the Arval Acta, from A.D. 38, refers to the consecration of the divae Drusillae or the divine Drusilla, and a Greek inscription found in Mytilene refers to Drusilla as "The New Aphrodite". Gaius' promotion of his sisters might have begun as a political move, but his well-documented fascination with them helped fuel his image of madness rather than cunning. In fact, their unrivaled elevation helped build an image of an entire family line that was divine and worthy of producing rulers.
It is noteworthy that elsewhere in the existing texts of Josephus Drusilla is developed into an imaginary sister of Agrippa. It is claimed for instance that Felix married this Drusilla daughter of Agrippa I when in fact as Tacitus makes clear she is another Drusilla completely. Yet another 'mistake' in the existing text which have 'nothing to do' with a conspiracy against Agrippa'!!!
Æ 23mm (11.53 g, 12h). Caesarea Paneas mint. Dated RY 5. laureate head of Gaius (Caligula) left, [G]A[I]W KAISARI SEBASTW [GERMANIKW], NOM[ISMA]/BASILE[WS]/AGRIPPA, Germanicus in triumphal quadriga right, holding eagle-tipped scepter; [car decorated with Nike standing right]; LE in exergue. RPC I 4976; Burnett, Coinage 4; Meshorer, p. 93-94 and 116M (same obv. die); SNG ANS 261 (Tiberias; same dies); Hendin 549. Near VF, brown patina, areas of soft strike and porosity, light scratches in right field of obverse. Very rare.
Æ 23mm (10.72 g, 12h). Caesarea Paneas or Tiberias mint. Dated RY 5 (AD 40/1). Laureate head of Gaius (Caligula) left / Germanicus in triumphal quadriga right, holding eagle-tipped scepter; [date in exergue]. RPC I 4976; Burnett, Coinage 4; Meshorer 116; Hendin 74. Near VF, black patina with traces of orange overtones, area of hard bright-green patina on reverse. Extremely rare.
d=25 mm
Agrippa I, king of Judaea, 37-44. Bronze, Caesarea Panias year 5 circa 40-41, æ 12.09 g. [GAIW] KAISARI [SEBASTW GERMANIKW] Laureate head of Gaius l. Rev. [NOMIS] BASILEWS AGRIPPA Germanicus in triumphal quadriga r.; in exergue, LE. A. Burnett, The Coinage of King Agrippa I of Judaea, Mélanges Bastien, p. 28, 4. Hendin 74. J. Meshorer, Jewish Coins, p. 138, 186. RPC 4976.
Bronze (AE, 2.70 g 11), Caesarea Paneas, year 5 = 40/1. (beginning lower left) […] […] Bare head of Agrippa II to left; to left, L. Rev. (beginning above at 11 o’clock) [] [ ] Crossed cornucopias. AJC 4. Bromberg II, 350 (choice VF, $14,500). Hendin 552. RPC 4979. TJC 119. Very rare. One of the most legible examples of this coin known. Good fine.
Like so many of the great rarities of Jewish coinage, this piece is very worn. It is, however, nevertheless one of the best examples available (there are three in the Hecht Collection, all significantly inferior (Y. Meshorer, Ancient Means of Exchange, Weights and Coins. Haifa, 1998, 303-304a [304 and 304a are both illustrated by the same coin]).
Friday, May 2, 2008
Agrippa was the messiah Joseph Kimhi (1105 – 1170)
According to Yehuda Shamir Rabbi Moses ha Cohen of Tordesillas citing Ozar pp 71 - 72
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
