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.
On hearing of the death of Festus, [Sidenote: A.D. 62] Cæsar[227] sent
Albinus to Judæa as governor. King (Agrippa) at the same time deprived
Joseph of the high priesthood and appointed the son of Ananus, also
named Ananus, as his successor. The elder Ananus, they say, was
exceptionally fortunate; he had five sons, all of whom became God’s high
priests, their father having previously enjoyed the same privilege for a
very long period; an experience without parallel in the history of our
high priests.
The younger Ananus, who now, as I[228] said, took over the office, was a
rash man and extraordinarily audacious; he belonged to the sect of the
Sadducees, who, as I have already explained, are more ruthless than all
other Jews when they sit in judgement. Such was the character of this
Ananus, who, thinking that a favourable opportunity now presented
itself—Festus being dead and Albinus still on the road—summoned the
judicial court of the Sanhedrin, brought before it the brother of Jesus
who was called Christ—James was his name—with some others, and after
accusing them of transgressing the law, delivered them over to be stoned
to death. This action aroused the indignation of all citizens with the
highest reputation for moderation and strict observance of the laws; and
they sent a secret message to King (Agrippa), petitioning him to
restrain Ananus, who had been wrong in what he had done already, from
similar proceedings in future. Some of them, moreover, went to meet
Albinus on his road from Alexandria and explained that it was illegal
for Ananus to convene a meeting of the Sanhedrin without his consent.
Albinus was persuaded by their arguments and wrote an angry letter to
Ananus threatening to punish him. King Agrippa, on his side, for this
action deposed Ananus from the high priesthood, when he had held office
but three months, and appointed Jesus, son of Damnæus, in his
place.—_Ant._ XX. 9. 1 (197-203).
Footnote 227:
Nero.
Footnote 228:
Lit. “we.”
VII. SCENES FROM THE JEWISH WAR
(38) Introduction to “The Jewish War”
[Sidenote: A.D. 66-70]
The war of the Jews against the Romans—the greatest not only of the wars
of our own time, but well-nigh of all that ever broke out between cities
or nations, so far as accounts have reached us—has not lacked its
historians. Of these, some, having taken no part in the action, have
collected from hearsay futile and contradictory stories which they have
then edited in a rhetorical style; while others, who witnessed the
events, have, either from flattery of the Romans or from dislike of the
Jews, misrepresented the facts, their writings exhibiting alternately
invective and encomium, but nowhere historical accuracy. In these
circumstances, I—Josephus, son of Matthias,[229] a native of Jerusalem,
of the priestly order, who at the opening of the war myself fought
against the Romans and in the sequel was perforce an onlooker—propose to
provide the subjects of the Roman Empire with a narrative of the facts,
by translating into Greek the account which some while since I composed
in my vernacular tongue[230] and sent to the natives of upper
Syria.[231]
I spoke of this upheaval as one of the greatest magnitude. The Romans
had their own internal disorders. The Jewish revolutionary party, whose
numbers and fortunes were at their zenith, seized the occasion of the
turbulent times for insurrection. As a result of these vast disturbances
the whole of the Eastern Empire was in the balance; the insurgents were
fired with hopes of its acquisition, their opponents feared its loss.
For the Jews hoped that all their fellow-countrymen beyond the Euphrates
would join with them in revolt; while the Romans, on their side, were
occupied with their neighbours the Gauls, and the Celts were in motion.
Nero’s death, [Sidenote: June A.D. 68] moreover, brought universal
confusion; many were induced by this opportunity to aspire to the
sovereignty, and a change which might make their fortune was after the
heart of the soldiery.
I thought it monstrous, therefore, to allow the truth in affairs of such
moment to go astray, and that, while Parthians and Babylonians and the
most remote tribes of Arabia with our countrymen beyond the Euphrates
and the inhabitants of Adiabene[232] had, through my assiduity, been
accurately informed as to the origin of the war, the various phases of
calamity through which it passed and its conclusion, the Greeks and such
Romans as were not engaged in the contest should remain in ignorance of
these matters, with flattering or fictitious narratives as their only
guide.
Though the writers in question presume to give their works the title of
histories, yet throughout these, apart from the utter lack of sound
information, they seem, in my opinion, to miss their own mark. They
desire to represent the Romans as a great nation, and yet they
continually depreciate and disparage the actions of the Jews. But I fail
to see how the conquerors of a puny people deserve to be accounted
great. Again, these writers respect neither the long duration of the
war, nor the vast numbers of the Roman army that it engaged, nor the
prestige of the generals, who, after such herculean labours under the
walls of Jerusalem, are, I suppose, of no repute in these writers’ eyes,
if their achievement is to be underestimated.