Part 7
... Herod admitted that he had the arms in his armoury; he could not do otherwise as the facts were there to confute him. Gaius, accordingly, accepting this as proof of the accusation of conspiracy, deprived him of his tetrarchy, which he added to Agrippa’s kingdom; he also presented the latter with Herod’s wealth. He further punished Herod by banishing him for life, appointing Lugdunum,[192] a city of Gaul, as his place of abode.—_Ant._ XVIII. 6. 10-7. 2 (224-252).
Footnote 188:
Or, possibly, “suspected the use of a strange language,” viz. Hebrew.
Footnote 189:
Cf. Acts. xxiv. 23, where the same word ἄνεσις (R.V. “indulgence”) occurs; Moulton-Milligan (_Vocab. of Gr. Test._) suggest “a kind of _libera custodia_.”
Footnote 190:
The grandmother of Gaius and wife of Drusus, the brother of Tiberius.
Footnote 191:
Philip had recently died.
Footnote 192:
Lyons.
(31) Petronius and the Statue of Gaius
The crisis produced by the mad order of the Emperor Gaius (Caligula) to have his statue erected in the Temple at Jerusalem nearly precipitated a Jewish war. Some have seen an allusion to this incident in St. Paul’s description of “the man of sin” (2 Thess. ii. 4, “so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God”): “but though the sacrilegious conduct of Caligula ... may have influenced the writer’s language in _v._ 4, the real roots of the conception lie elsewhere” (Milligan, _Thess._, p. 164).
The favourable portrait given of the Roman governor, who was placed in a very difficult position, may be compared with similar portraits in St. Luke’s writings.
[Sidenote: _c._ A.D. 40-41]
Gaius, indignant at being thus slighted by the Jews and by them alone, sent Petronius to Syria as his lieutenant to take over the governorship of Vitellius, with instructions to advance into Judæa with a large force and to erect his statue in the temple of God. The order was in any case to be executed; if they admitted the statue without demur, well and good; if they showed themselves recalcitrant, he was to overcome their resistance by resort to arms....
At Ptolemais Petronius was met by crowds of petitioners who stubbornly refused to submit. Similar scenes were repeated at Tiberias for forty critical days in the agricultural year, during which all sowing operations were neglected. The multitude were supported by Aristobulus, brother of Herod Agrippa, and other leading men. Petronius, moved by this unanimous national protest, decided to lay the case before the Emperor.
Such was the request which Aristobulus and his followers made to Petronius. Petronius, on his side, was influenced partly by the importunity of Aristobulus and the leaders, who, considering the great issues at stake, left no stone unturned to press their suit, partly by the spectacle of the stubborn and solid front presented by the Jewish opposition. He shrank from the thought of putting to death, as the instrument of Gaius’s madness, such myriads of men, solely on the ground of their reverence of God, and of spending the rest of his life in remorse.[193] It was far better, he thought, to write to Gaius (and inform him of) their desperate determination.[194] The Emperor might be enraged with him for not having executed his orders at once; again, he might conceivably convince him. If Gaius still adhered to his original mad resolution, he (Petronius) would then make war on the Jews without further delay. But if, after all, his anger was partly directed against himself, to die for so vast a multitude of one’s fellow-creatures was honourable in the eyes of those who aspired to heroism.[195] He decided accordingly to give way to the appeal....
Petronius informs the petitioners of his intention to write to Gaius.
After this speech Petronius dismissed the assembled Jews, bidding those in authority to see that agricultural operations were resumed and to conciliate the people with hopes of a successful issue. But now, while he was doing his best to cheer the multitude, God made known to Petronius His presence[196] and assistance in furthering the whole scheme. For no sooner had he ended his address to the Jews than God forthwith sent a great rain. This was contrary to general expectation, as the morning of that day had been fine and the sky showed no sign of a shower; moreover, the whole year had been subject to such drought as to make men despair of any rainfall even when they saw the heavens overcast. So, when now at length there came a great downpour, contrary to experience and to all expectation, the Jews had hopes of Petronius’s success in his petition on their behalf, while Petronius was astounded when he saw God’s evident care for the Jews, and how He had given so signal a manifestation of Himself as to leave even those who had intended to defy Him openly no possibility of contradiction....
Meanwhile, in Rome, Gaius’ friend, Herod Agrippa, had prevailed on the Emperor to desist from his purpose. Gaius thereupon counter-ordered his previous instructions, but on receipt of Petronius’s appeal wrote him an angry letter, advising him, in view of his disregard of orders, “to judge for himself what course he should take,” _i. e._ to commit suicide.
Such was the letter which Gaius wrote to Petronius; but it did not reach him in the Emperor’s lifetime, the messengers entrusted with it having so slow a passage that before it arrived [Sidenote: January A.D. 41] Petronius received other letters which told him that Gaius was dead. God, as the event proved, was not to forget the risks which Petronius had run on behalf of the Jews and His own honour, but was to pay him his reward by removing Gaius, in indignation at his daring action in claiming divine worship for himself. Petronius, moreover, was supported[197] by the good-will of Rome and of all the magistrates, in particular the most eminent senators, because Gaius had treated them with unmitigated severity.
The Emperor died not long after writing to Petronius the letter which was intended to be his death-warrant. The cause of his death and the manner of the plot I shall relate in the course of my work. Petronius received first the letter announcing the death of Gaius, and shortly afterwards the other with the order to put himself to death. He was delighted at the happy coincidence of Gaius’s end and marvelled at the providence of God, who instantly and without delay gave him his reward for his regard for the Temple and for his assistance to the Jews in their hour of danger. Thus easily, in a way which none would have conjectured, did Petronius escape the peril of death.—_Ant._ XVIII. 8. 2, etc. (261, 276-8, 284-6, 305-9).
Footnote 193:
Lit. “with bad hope.”
Footnote 194:
The text is uncertain in this and the next sentence. Probably some words have fallen out.
Footnote 195:
The phrase, “those with pretensions to virtue,” is borrowed from Thuc. II. 51. I adopt Jowett’s rendering.
Footnote 196:
So the Epitome and Latin VS. (παρουσίαν); the Gr. MSS have “frankness” (παρρησίαν).
Footnote 197:
Text doubtful.
(32) Herod Agrippa’s Kingdom enlarged by Claudius
Cf. Map 44 in the _Historical Atlas_ above cited.
[Sidenote: A.D. 41]
Claudius lost no time in discharging all suspected units of the forces. He then issued a decree, in which he confirmed to Agrippa the kingdom which he had received from Gaius and highly commended the king. Moreover, he added to his realm all the territory over which his grandfather Herod had reigned, namely Judæa and Samaria.[198] Beside these districts, which he restored to him as his hereditary due, he added from his own domain Abila, which had once belonged to Lysanias,[199] and all the mountain region of Lebanon. He ratified these gifts by a solemn treaty with Agrippa in the middle of the forum in the city of Rome.—_Ant._ XIX. 5. 1 (274 f.).
Footnote 198:
_B.J._ (parallel passage) adds “Trachonitis and Auranitis.”
Footnote 199:
Killed _c._ 34 B.C.; Lysanias of Abilene (Luke iii. 1.) was probably a descendant.
(33) Death of Herod Agrippa
This should be compared with the account in Acts xii. 19-23. St. Luke differs from Josephus in representing the scene as a court of judgement, instead of a theatre.
[Sidenote: A.D. 44]
Agrippa had completed the third year of his reign over (all)[200] Judæa when he came to the city of Cæsarea, formerly called Strato’s Tower. There he exhibited spectacles in Cæsar’s honour, at a festival which he had instituted[201] to commemorate the preservation of the Emperor’s life, and a great multitude of the provincial magistrates and men of rank was assembled for the occasion.
On the second day of the performance he entered the theatre at daybreak, arrayed in a wonderfully woven robe made entirely of silver; whereupon the silver, caught by the first rays of the sun, was lit up and glittered in a marvellous manner, with dazzling flashes that struck terror and awe into the onlookers. His flatterers straightway, from one quarter and another, raised cries, which even to him seemed ill-omened, calling him a god and adding, “O be gracious! If hitherto we have feared thee as a man, from henceforth we own thee as of more than mortal nature.” The king neither rebuked them nor rejected their impious adulation; but not long after he looked up and saw the owl sitting on a rope above his head, and at once recognized the former bringer of good tidings as now the messenger of ill.[202] Pangs pierced his heart; a spasm of pain with violent onset shot straight to[203] his stomach. Leaping up[204] he addressed his friends: “I, your god, even now receive orders to quit this life; destiny at the instant confutes those lying voices which this moment filled my ears; I, whom you called immortal, am already being led off to die. But I must accept such fate as it has pleased God to send me; for my[205] life has been no ignoble one, but passed in blissful splendour.”
As he spoke these words intense pain prostrated him. He was quickly carried into the palace, and a report ran through the assembly that his death was certainly imminent. At once the multitude, including women and children, according to their national custom sat in[206] sackcloth and besought God for the king’s life, and the whole scene was one of wailing and lamentation. The king himself, who lay in a chamber above, as he looked down and saw them falling on their faces, could not restrain his tears. For five days he was racked continuously by abdominal pains, and so departed this life in the fifty-fourth year of his age and the seventh of his reign. He reigned [Sidenote: A.D. 37-40] four years under Gaius Cæsar, during three of them over Philip’s tetrarchy, while in the fourth [Sidenote: A.D. 40-1] he took over that of Herod[207] as well; and three more years [Sidenote: A.D. 41-44] under the Emperor Claudius Cæsar, having Judæa, Samaria and Cæsarea added to his former realm.—_Ant._ XIX. 8. 2 (343-351).
Footnote 200:
Lat. VS. omits.
Footnote 201:
With a slight emendation of the text of the MSS (ἐπιστησάμενος for ἐπιστάμενος).
Footnote 202:
The reference is to an incident in the earlier life of Agrippa, when a prisoner at Rome under Tiberius. A fellow-prisoner, a German, seeing an owl sitting on a tree against which Agrippa was leaning, had foretold his rise to power, adding a warning: “Remember when you see this bird again, you will have but five days to live” (_Ant._ XVIII. 6. 7). Eusebius, in citing the present passage (_H.E._ II. 10), omits the words “the owl” and “on a rope,” writing “saw _an angel_ sitting above his head,” no doubt under the influence of Acts xii. 23 (ἄγγελος Κυρίου).
Footnote 203:
Reading προσίθυσεν.
Footnote 204:
Many MSS have “looking up” (ἀναθεωρῶν for ἀναθορὼν).
Footnote 205:
Lit. “our.”
Footnote 206:
Lit. “on.”
Footnote 207:
Antipas.
(34) The Story of King Izates and his mother Helena
The pleasing story of the conversion to Judaism of Helena, Queen of Adiabene (in the upper Tigris region), and her son Izates in two particulars illustrates the narrative of the _Acts_. The famine at Jerusalem which was the occasion of the charitable services of the Queen was that “which came to pass in the days of Claudius” (A.D. 41-54), and led the Antiochene Christians to send similar relief by the hands of Barnabas and Saul (Acts xi. 28-30). Again, it is interesting to read of the conflicting opinions of Jewish Rabbis as to the necessity for circumcision in a proselyte to Judaism. The same question, with relation to converts to Christianity, was soon to come to the front in the councils of the infant church (Acts xv.).
Izates, on hearing that his mother found such great delight in the Jewish observances, was eager on his part to become a convert to that religion; and, supposing that he could not be a thorough Jew unless he were circumcised, he was prepared to take the necessary action. His mother, however, on learning his intention, tried to prevent him, and told him that he would bring himself into peril. He was a king and would create great ill-will among his subjects, when they learnt of his devotion to customs that were strange and alien to them; they would never tolerate a Jew as their king. Thus she spoke, trying by every means to dissuade him from his purpose; and he referred for counsel on her words to Ananias.[208] Ananias took the mother’s side and threatened to leave Izates if he did not obey her.[209] He said he feared that, if the matter became public, he would run the risk of being punished himself as the responsible party who had instructed the king in unseemly practices. He added that, if he was fully determined to follow[210] the Jews’ ancestral customs, he might worship God[211] even without being circumcised; worship was more essential than circumcision; and God Himself would forgive him because the omission of the act was due to necessity and fear of his subjects. So for the time the king was persuaded. But he had not altogether relinquished his desire, when there came, later on, another Jew from Galilee, named Eleazar, with a reputation for the strictest observance of the customs of his fathers, and prevailed on him to do the deed. For, on entering to salute the king, Eleazar found him reading the Law of Moses, and said: “In your ignorance, O king, you are sinning grievously against the laws and thereby against God. It behoves you not merely to read them but even more to do what they command. How long will you remain uncircumcised? If you have not yet read the law concerning this matter, read it now, that you may know what impiety is yours.”
On hearing this speech the king delayed no longer; he withdrew to another room, summoned his physician, carried out the injunctions, and sent for his mother and his instructor Ananias and announced that he had done the deed. And they were at once filled with dismay and fear beyond measure, lest the king should be convicted of the deed and risk the loss of his kingdom (since his subjects would not endure a devotee of foreign customs as their ruler), and they themselves should be in jeopardy as responsible for his action. However, as the sequel showed, God was to prevent their fears from being realized. Great perils, indeed, befell Izates and his children, but God delivered them, providing a way out of their extremities to salvation, thereby showing that those who look to Him and believe in Him only do not lose the fruit of their piety. But we shall tell this story hereafter.
* * * * *
Now Helena the Queen-mother, seeing the kingdom at peace and her son blessed and envied of all men, even by those of other nations, because the providence of God was upon him, had a desire to visit the city of Jerusalem, to do reverence to the Temple of God that was renowned among all men and to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving. So she entreated her son’s permission; and he very willingly consented to his mother’s request, and made large preparations for her sending off and gave her abundance of money; and she went down to the city of Jerusalem, her son accompanying her a good way.
Now [Sidenote: _c._ A.D. 44-48] her arrival was very timely to them of Jerusalem; for, as their city at that time was oppressed by a famine and many of the inhabitants were perishing for lack of means to buy food,[212] Queen Helena sent some of her retinue to Alexandria to purchase corn at a great price, and others to Cyprus to bring a cargo of dried figs. Then, when they had returned with all speed bringing their purchases, she distributed food to the destitute. By this beneficent act she has left to our whole nation the highest remembrance of herself. Her son Izates, likewise, on hearing of the famine, sent large sums of money to the chief of the inhabitants of Jerusalem.—_Ant._ XX. 2. 4 f. (38-53).
Footnote 208:
His Jewish mentor.
Footnote 209:
Text doubtful.
Footnote 210:
Perhaps “was determined to follow ... in their entirety.”
Footnote 211:
Lit. “the divinity.”
Footnote 212:
Lit. “lack of expenses.”
(35) The Fate of the Impostor Theudas, and of the Sons of Judas the Galilæan
For the relation of this passage to Acts v. 36 f., where Theudas and Judas occur in juxtaposition, see Appendix, Note IV.
[Sidenote: A.D. 44-(?)]
Now when Fadus was procurator of Judæa, a certain impostor named Theudas persuaded the mass of the rabble to take their belongings with them and follow him to the river Jordan; for he said that he was a prophet and would by a word of command divide the river and afford them an easy passage;[213] and by these words he deceived many. Fadus, however, did not allow them to reap the benefit of their folly. He despatched against them a troop of horse which fell upon them unexpectedly and slew many and took many of them prisoners. They caught Theudas himself alive, cut off his head and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews under the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus.
Tiberius Alexander came as successor to Fadus. He was the son of that Alexander who was Alabarch[214] in Alexandria, and was by birth and wealth the foremost man of his time in that city. The father excelled the son, moreover, in his pious worship of God; for the latter did not hold fast to his hereditary religion. It was under his governorship that the great famine befell Judæa, when Queen Helena purchased corn from Egypt at a great price and distributed it to the starving population, as I have already narrated.[215]
It was now, too, that there were brought up (for trial)[216] the sons of that Judas of Galilee who induced the people to revolt from the Romans when Quirinius was engaged in the assessment of Judæa, as we have narrated in a previous book.[217] Alexander gave orders that (the sons of Judas named) James and Simon should be crucified.—_Ant._ XX. 5. 1 f. (97-102).
Footnote 213:
Like an Elijah _redivivus_.
Footnote 214:
“The office of _alabarch_, probably chief collector of customs on the Arabian side of the Nile, was repeatedly held by wealthy Jews” (Schürer, _J.P.T.C._ II. 2. 280). Alexander was the brother of Philo the philosopher.
Footnote 215:
See § (34).
Footnote 216:
Another reading, “were put to death.”
Footnote 217:
See § (24).
(36) Agrippa II, Felix and Drusilla
All three characters appear in the _Acts_. Agrippa II (the son of Agrippa I) with his sister Bernice and Festus, the Roman governor, listened to St. Paul’s defence at Cæsarea (Acts xxv. xxvi.). Felix, the predecessor of Festus, with Drusilla his wife had a private interview with the Apostle; the circumstances of their marriage described below throw light on the governor’s terror “as” Paul “reasoned of righteousness and temperance and the judgement to come” (Acts xxiv. 24 f.).
The influence exercised by the Cypriot sorcerer, Atomos, over the Roman governor, finds a curious parallel in the relations of Elymas and Sergius Paulus (Acts xiii. 6 ff.). The Jewish magician there too resides in Cyprus, and in the “Western” text bears a name strangely similar to that of the friend of Felix (Ετ[ο]ιμας, Etoemas, _ib._ xiii. 8, cod. D).
The Emperor then [Sidenote: A.D. 52] sent Claudius Felix, the brother of Pallas,[218] to take over the administration of Judæa. Moreover, when he had now completed the twelfth year of his reign, [Sidenote: A.D. 53] he bestowed upon Agrippa the tetrarchy of Philip and (the region of) Batanæa, adding also Trachonitis, together with the former tetrarchy of Lysanias, namely Abella.[219] At the same time he deprived him of the kingdom of Chalcis,[220] which he had held for four years.
After receiving this award from Cæsar,[221] Agrippa gave his sister Drusilla in marriage to Azizus, king of Emesa,[222] on his consenting to be circumcised. Epiphanes, son of King Antiochus, had declined the marriage from reluctance to adopt Jewish practices, although he had previously promised her father that he would do so....
The marriage of Drusilla and Azizus was, however, not long afterwards broken off on the following ground. Drusilla was the most beautiful of women, and Felix, while procurator of Judæa, saw and fell in love with her. He accordingly sent to her one of his friends named Atomos,[223] a Jew born in Cyprus, who pretended to be a magician, and tried to persuade her to desert her husband and marry him, promising to make her happy[224] if she did not reject him. And she, because she was unhappy in her life[225] and desired to escape from her sister Berenice’s envy of her beauty, ...[226] was prevailed upon to transgress the laws of her race and to marry Felix. By him she bore a son whom she called Agrippa.—_Ant._ XX. 7. 1 f. (137-143).
Footnote 218:
A freedman and favourite of the Emperor Claudius and a man of great influence.
Footnote 219:
Cf. § (32) and Luke iii. 1, “Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene.”
Footnote 220:
A petty kingdom in the Lebanon district.
Footnote 221:
_i.e._ Claudius.
Footnote 222:
In northern Syria (mod. Homs).
Footnote 223:
Some MSS read “Simon.”
Footnote 224:
We can hardly miss the Roman’s jest on his name: “make a _Felix_ of her.”
Footnote 225:
Lit. “faring ill”; Whiston’s rendering, “acted wickedly,” is scarcely possible.
Footnote 226:
A line of corrupt and unintelligible text follows in Niese’s MSS. The older editions read “for she was constantly being ill-treated by her because of her beauty.”
(37) The Death of James, “the Lord’s Brother”
A description of the death by stoning, after a perfunctory trial by the Sanhedrin, of James “the brother of Jesus who was called Christ,” the head of the early Church in Jerusalem (Acts xv.; Gal. i. 19).
An alternative melodramatic account of the martyrdom of James—in which he is represented as hurled down from the “pinnacle” of the Temple, stoned, and finally despatched by a fuller’s club—is given by Hegesippus (quoted by Euseb. _H. E._ II. 23).
The account of Josephus seems much the more trustworthy of the two, and there appears to be no reason for questioning its authenticity. As Lightfoot writes, “This notice ... is probable in itself (which the account of Hegesippus is not), and is such as Josephus might be expected to write if he alluded to the matter at all.... On the other hand, if the passage had been a Christian interpolation, the notice of James would have been more laudatory” (_Galatians_, ed. 10, p. 366, n. 2).
On the other hand, a passage quoted by Eusebius (_loc. cit._) as from Josephus, ascribing the miseries of the siege of Jerusalem to divine vengeance for the murder of James the Just, does not occur in his extant works and is probably spurious.