Josephus, Pilate and Paul: It’s Just a Matter of Time (Part 3)

Ignatius on the Warpath

Ignatius of Antioch is perhaps the first Christian author to mention Pilate. Ignatius and his letters constitute a whole problem
unto themselves. According to Christian legend, he was the third “bishop” of Antioch, a student of John the Apostle, and he
penned a series of letters before his martyrdom ca. 110 AD. The surviving letter collection is framed within Ignatius’ final days:
they are addressed to various churches around the Empire (in Asia Minor, Italy, Syria) as he visits other churches on his way to
Rome to be executed.
But modern scholars have brought most of these details into question. While seven letters are judged “authentic”, the
collection grew over the centuries with numerous forged letters and editorial additions. But even the seven letters contain
oddities.[216] While they present themselves as individual letters addressed to individual churches, each letter builds on
information in the previous one, suggesting they were designed to be read as a single work. They also contain details that
wouldn’t have been included if they were written for the stated recipients. For example, they specify that the cities addressed
are “in Asia”, as if the churches there needed to be told that. Such details are clearly for non-Asian readers.
The context also seems fictitious: it’s implausible that Ignatius was free to travel the Empire, write letters and visit churches,
while being escorted to Rome under guard. It is very similar to the Acts fiction of Paul doing the same thing on his way to
Rome after his arrest in Judea. The letters also suggest some knowledge of Valentinian (a Christian gnostic from the same
period) and perhaps Marcion (an early- to mid-second century “heretic” who rejected Judaism and used an early “New
Testament” of Paul’s 10 letters and an early, shorter gospel of Luke).
These data suggest the letters may have been composed later than previously thought (perhaps 130–135 AD, perhaps later).
Like the Pastoral Epistles (the three letters forged in Paul’s name around the same time), Ignatius’ letters may have been
composed after his death as a way to create retrospective legitimacy for a later power struggle against “heresy”.
A possible suspect is “bishop of Smyrna” Polycarp (ca. 70–160 AD), another legendary martyr and “disciple of John”, to whom
“Ignatius” wrote one of his seven letters. Only one of his works survives, a letter to the Philippians. Polycarp had a role in
collecting and publishing Ignatius’ letters.[217] Polycarp was anti-Marcionite, anti-Valentinian, and an alleged associate of
Ignatius.[218] If Ignatius’ letters were forged, Polycarp fits the bill as their author.
Bible scholar David Trobisch has argued that Polycarp also collected, edited and published the original New Testament, more
or less in the form in which it survives today, somewhere between 155–168 AD. Other writings composed around the same
time were brought together in this “first edition”, including the Pastorals and Luke-Acts, which are also anti-Marcionite in
nature.[219] They also, like Ignatius, write of false teachings in and around Ephesus.[220] All these texts appear in the same
period and have similar agendas: to retroactively reconcile Paul and Peter, combat various heresies, and bring the fledgling
church into harmony and under the power of a central authority, i.e. Polycarp and his designees.
If Polycarp published the New Testament – by collecting original first-century documents (Paul’s 10 letters, James, Jude, 1
Peter, Hebrews, Revelation) together with his alleged master John’s letters (1, 2, 3 John), later forgeries produced during his
lifetime (the three Pastorals, 2 Peter) and the four gospels plus Acts – the question is: were the Ignatian letters written before
or after the gospels? The first explicit awareness and quotation of the gospels as we know them come from the writings of
Irenaeus, ca. 180 AD. Before that, we only have probably quotations from Justin (ca. 150 AD), and less probable allusions.
Polycarp’s letter contains possible allusions to numerous books in the New Testament, including the first known references to
Acts and the forged Pauline letters (the Pastorals). So there is nothing against the possibility that the gospels were composed
after the publication of Ignatius’ letters; echoes in Polycarp simply reflect his editorial activity and the possible sources of
thoses same passages in the NT.
Whatever is finally decided about Ignatius, we still find there an early, explicit connection between an alleged Jesus and
Pontius Pilate:
You must be completely convinced of the birth, the passion and the resurrection which happened under the governorship of Pontius
Pilate.[221]
We also find the first witness to the alleged parents of Jesus – God and Mary:
¼ Jesus Christ, who came from David’s seed, who was truly born from Mary, who ate and drank, and was truly persecuted under Pilate,
truly crucified, and who died, seen by the inhabitants of the heavens, the earth, and the underworld, who has also been truly raised
from the dead … For if he has only seemingly suffered … why am I in chains … Is it for nothing that I deliver myself to death? In that
case I am lying against God.[222]
Some people say, “if I do not find it in the ancient records, I do not believe in the gospel.” And when I said, “It is written”, they said,
“That is just the question.” For me, the ancient records are Jesus Christ, the inviolable ancient records are his cross, his death, and his
resurrection and the faith which comes from him … For the most beloved Prophets have announced him, but the gospel is the
completion of immortality.[223]
The “ancient records” mentioned, or lack thereof, were possibly the same records that we find missing today: historical
documentation proving the existence of Jesus and his execution by Pontius Pilate. But the only records Ignatius can turn to for
proof are the “most beloved Prophets” – the Hebrew Scriptures. “The gospel” doesn’t refer to any of the gospel books; it
simply means the “good news” that exegetes extracted from their interpretive – or ecstatic – readings of those texts. Paul
himself did the same thing; he declares clearly that his revelation came “not beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). In terms of
Christian writings that came before, this insistence of an earthly Jesus/Messiah seems to be a new thing. Nobody else in early
Christian writings up to this point in time had made this claim. If they thought of Jesus as fleshly at all, they were content to
focus on his divine nature.
Ignatius comes off sounding like a schoolboy whose classmate has told him there is no Santa Claus: “Yes there is! He lives at
the North Pole, his wife is Mrs. Claus, and he has eight reindeer and tons of elves helping him!” He writes that true Christians
are:
¼ fully persuaded ¼ that he [our Lord] really was descended from David ‘according to the flesh’, and the Son of God according to the
will and power of God; that he really was born of a virgin, and baptized by John … nailed up [to the cross] under Pontius Pilate and the
Tetrarch Herod on our behalf, in the flesh. …
For I know that even after his resurrection [Jesus] was in the flesh, and I believe that he is so now. When, for instance, he came to
those who were with Peter, he said to them, ‘Lay hold, handle me, and see that I am no bodiless demon.’ And immediately they
touched him, and believed, being convinced both by his flesh and by the spirit. And this is why they thought nothing of dying, and were
found to be about death. After his resurrection he even ate and drank with them, as one of flesh, although spiritually he was united to
the Father.[224]
This reveals two aspects of his agenda: to defend against “false” Christians who believed that Jesus was not a flesh-and-blood
man, and to provide a rationale for martyrdom. As Jesus mythicist Richard Carrier writes, “Ignatius cannot abide the view ¼
that our bodies of flesh will be discarded and replaced with entirely new bodies of cosmically superior material. Willingness to
die, and thus the glory of martyrdom, only makes sense to him if we will live again in the flesh ¼ Thus Docetism [the belief
that Christ wasn’t flesh-and-blood], if true, would destroy everything Ignatius needed to be true.”[225]
Ignatius is the source of the first known mention of Mary, the virgin birth, and Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist. He offers no
evidence whatsoever other than “the Prophets” of the Old Testament, messianic interpretations of which were inferred or
created by exegesis or ecstatic utterances. The “biographical” details sound very much like fictions retrojected into the past,
based very loosely on clues he could extract from the life and words of Paul, historical elements from Josephus, the Didache,
Barnabas, Essene writings and prophecies collected by the various ecclesia around the Empire, and with some sort of
“wolves” in view. Richard Pervo writes:
The “wolves” (actually feral dogs; [Ephesians] 7.1) are out there, but Ignatius says that they have not gained a foothold. In 9.1 he
intimates that the representatives of evil teaching are itinerant. … Nothing specific about the nature and contents of the opposed
teaching emerges. Elsewhere the good bishop attacks Judaizers and docetists, probably two different groups. Nowhere does Ignatius
address teachings that are particularly characteristic of Marcion. …
Ignatius, who views himself as did Polycarp and the Pastor as a leader in the mold and tradition of Paul, identifies his readers as, with
him, “fellow initiates of Paul” …[226]
Indeed it seems that the war Ignatius was fighting was simply for dominance, control, and to exclude those pesky itinerant
prophets traveling about, attracting followers and the resulting benefits. Such “prophets” could too easily be in touch with a
supernatural messiah and had no need of a historical Jesus for their livelihood – exactly as Paul had been.
The eventual system of bishop, presbyter, and deacon is strongly recommended by Ignatius. In the churches he addressed, the
authority of a single bishop was apparently accepted. The images Ignatius employs to illustrate the roles of each order reveal that
presbyters have been imposed upon a deacon-bishop structure. He likens the bishop to God or God’s grace (Magn. 6.1; 2.1) or
commandment (Trall. 13.2), to the father (Magn. 3.1; Trall. 3.1; Smyrn. 8.1), to the lord (Eph. 6.1), or to Jesus Christ (Trall. 2.1). The …
“presbytery council” is compared to the apostles (Magn. 6.1; Trall. 2.2; 3.1; Phld. 5.1; Smyrn. 8.1), and the law of Jesus Christ (Magn.
6.1; Trall. 3.1), and a divine commandment (Smyrn. 8.1). Deacons are routinely compared to Christ. The odd group is the presbyters,
always characterized as a body, compared to a body, the apostles, and to the function of judgment and rule.
The pattern of bishop/deacon is associated with the Didache, which lacks the word presbyter. This may reflect church organization in
the region of Antioch before Ignatius. It is also Pauline (Phil 1:1).[227]
Ignatius (or someone writing in his name) appears to have been laying the groundwork for the invention of a list of
disciples/apostles. He was fighting a battle against an enemy and he needed to firmly establish his control over his flock via the
apostolic succession, which had to come from a physically existent Jesus. In the end, it might be said that this was the ultimate
reason for creating Jesus and his disciples: to have a physical power structure from which early church leaders could draw their
ineluctable authority to slap down rival prophets. Jesus to the apostles to the bishops consecrated by apostles.
Even though he is adamant that Jesus came “in the flesh”, Ignatius also includes a surprising detail not found in any of the
gospels:
Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the Prince of this World, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three
mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence by God. How, then, was he manifested to the world? A star shone forth in heaven
above all the other stars, the light of which was inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment. And all the rest of the
stars, with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to this star, and its light was exceedingly great above them all. And there was agitation
felt as to whence this new spectacle came, so unlike everything else above. Hence every kind of magic was destroyed, and every bond
of wickedness disappeared, ignorance was removed, and the old kingdom abolished, when God appeared in human form [or, in a way
perceptible to humans – the Greek is ambiguous] for the renewal of eternal life.[228]
This is incompatible with the gospel accounts, where Jesus was known to the world and “Satan”, as was his death. Ignatius
also shows no familiarity with Matthew’s or Luke’s birth stories for Jesus (Bethlehem, the star in the East, the magi,
shepherds, etc.); rather he associates this remarkable celestial event with the resurrection, after his death, when he defeats
the forces of darkness. Carrier observes: “Ignatius appears to be saying this is how Jesus manifested to the world: not as a
Galilean preacher but as a bright light in heaven. ¼ This ‘Gospel’ that Ignatius is describing has the very birth and death of
Jesus being hidden from the world and revealed only in the bright light demonstrating his triumph ¼ and that was the event
that granted men eternal life.”[229]
This account makes it almost certain that Ignatius was not familiar with the gospels – at least in the versions we know today –
and that the gospel accounts referenced Ignatius. As to when this was happening, Pervo notes:
Recent scholarship tends to move Ignatius’ martyrdom forward from the Trajanic date proposed, without substantive support, by
Eusebius (H.E. 3.22; 3.3436) to the second quarter of the century, perhaps 130–135. At the time of his letters, the churches of Asia with
which he communicates have accepted, with varying degrees of consensus and enthusiasm, the idea that each will have a single leader,
the bishop.[230]
In addition to the fact that what we see here is the first intimation of a historical “Life of Jesus” in the process of creation: we
have here also the idea that the earliest testimony to the connection between Pilate and a Jesus wasn’t very clear as to what,
exactly, that connection was. That was probably developed during the later writing of the gospels, utilizing possibly Ignatius,
Josephus, Paul, the texts discussed above, Greek myths and legends, and whatever else came to hand.
Notice very particularly that in the above claims of Ignatius, Pilate is in no way implicated personally in the actual events but is
simply mentioned as a marker of a period of time, and this marker could easily have been picked up by a reading of Josephus
(or Philo). If Ignatius had known more, or had a text to refer to, it seems almost certain he would have declared its authority.
We notice in particular that he was obviously not aware of what Tacitus had said, that “Christus … suffered the extreme
penalty at the hands of … Pontius Pilate.” The implication is that the details and timeline of the mythical Jesus were in the
process of being worked out independently of possible historical facts at the time of Ignatius; they needed a real, flesh-andblood guy on their team to validate their claimed god-given authority and, for all we know, it was Ignatius (and/or Polycarp)
himself who masterminded the process. What is also clear is that the Christus who suffered at the hands of Pilate referenced
by Tacitus was probably not the same Jesus that Ignatius and Polycarp were in the process of creating. On this process, Wells
writes:
Sanday has observed that ‘we know that types and prophecies were eagerly sought out by the early Christians, and were soon collected
into a kind of common stock from which every one drew at his pleasure.’[231] And we have already had evidence that the early
Christians possessed manuals of OT quotations, on which they drew for teaching purposes. Collections of Messianic passages from the
OT would stimulate believers to invent incidents in the life of Jesus which fulfilled the supposed predictions.
All this evidence does not exclude the possibility that there was a preacher who was tried and executed and that his career formed the
basis of the existing narratives. … Sectarians meeting in the second century for some common purpose, e.g. to advocate purer living,
would cast about for traditions on which to base their precepts. They would, perhaps, fasten on one particular man of the past who
had led a pure life, and being semi-literate, they would not check details, but father all sorts of deeds on him, perhaps many of them
performed by other men with whom they had confused him.[232]
Philo and Josephus on Pilate
One of the troubling aspects about Pilate is that he was an obscure, equestrian class official with a small military unit under
his command, ruling over a very minor part of the Roman Empire. An inscription with his name and title on it was discovered
at Caesarea Maritima in 1961. It doesn’t refer to anything datable except the emperor Tiberius, who reigned 22 years.[233]
Yet, thanks to the gospels and Pilate’s few hours of alleged interaction with Jesus, Christians have chanted every Sunday for
the last 1,500 years or so that Jesus Christ “suffered under Pontius Pilate.” I think we have a gross misunderstanding due to
Josephus’ tendency to novelize and apologize and the fraudulent claims of Ignatius fighting his war [234] to thank for that
falsehood.
Philo is extremely negative about Pilate, and he lived in Alexandria, far away from the “scene of the crime”. Josephus, on the
other hand, is less condemnatory, though his descriptions of Pilate’s actions are also quite negative. This creates a big
problem when we consider the gospels’ representation of Pilate as the Diet Coke of evil: just one calorie – not evil enough!
Poor Pilate is not allowed to let Jesus go because the bad Jews made him do it! That is patently ridiculous, as reasonable
familiarity with Roman history will show. The Roman governor was able to release anyone he wanted to in order to
implement his decision about their guilt or innocence. Furthermore, the Pilate described by Philo and Josephus would not
have brooked any interference from the Jews. The whole story is a pathetic farce.
In a flashback to the time of Tiberius, the grandfather of Caligula, Philo makes an interesting remark about persecutions of the
Jews:
¼ at that time things in Italy were thrown into a great deal of confusion when Sejanus was preparing to make his attempt against our
nation; for he [Tiberius] knew immediately after his [Sejanus] death that the accusations which had been brought against the Jews who
were dwelling in Rome were false calumnies, inventions of Sejanus, who was desirous to destroy our nation … And he sent commands
to all the governors of provinces in every country to comfort those of our nation in their respective cities, as the punishment intended
to be inflicted was not meant to be inflicted upon all, but only on the guilty; and they were but few. And he ordered them to change
none of the existing customs, but to look upon them as pledges, since the men were peaceful in their dispositions and natural
characters, and their laws trained them and disposed them to quiet and stability.[235]
Philo appears to be saying that Sejanus was responsible for a persecution of the Jews in Italy and elsewhere, and this was only
revealed after the death of Sejanus. Probably, this persecution began with the expulsion in 19 AD, which will play a big part in
this discussion further on. Sejanus was executed in 31 AD and, apparently, at this point in time, Philo suggests that Tiberius
sent edicts around to counter some of those that had been made by his former second-in-command.[236]
Further on in the text, Philo quotes a letter that Herod Agrippa wrote to Caligula, who had planned to erect a statue of himself
in the temple, in defense of the Jews, where he includes a flashback to the time of Tiberius:
“What again did your other grandfather, Tiberius Caesar, do? ... during the three and twenty years that he was emperor, he preserved
the form of worship in the temple as it had been handed down from the earliest times, without abrogating or altering the slightest
particular of it.
“Moreover, I have it in my power to relate one act of ambition on his part … Pilate was one of the emperor’s lieutenants, having been
appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude,
dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city; which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on
them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and
the person in whose honour they were so placed there.
“But when the multitude heard what had been done, and when the circumstance became notorious, then the people, putting forward
the four sons of the king, who were in no respect inferior to the kings themselves, in fortune or in rank, and his other descendants, and
those magistrates who were among them at the time, entreated him to alter and to rectify the innovation which he had committed in
respect of the shields; and not to make any alteration in their national customs, which had hitherto been preserved without any
interruption, without being in the least degree changed by any king or emperor.
“But when he steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very
obstinate), they cried out: ‘Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not destroy the peace which exists. The honour of
the emperor is not identical with dishonour to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a pretence for heaping insult on our nation.
Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some
command from him, or some letter; or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to
trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master.’
“But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared lest they might in reality go on an embassy to the
emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of
insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and
uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity.
“Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither
venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do anything which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the
same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points. And those who were in power in our nation,
seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought
to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius. And he, when he had read it, what did he say of Pilate, and what threats did he
utter against him.
“But it is beside our purpose at present to relate to you how very angry he was, although he was not very liable to sudden anger;
since the facts speak for themselves. Immediately, without putting anything off till the next day, he wrote a letter, reproaching and
reviling him in the most bitter manner for his act of unprecedented audacity and wickedness, and commanding him immediately to
take down the shields and to convey them away from the metropolis of Judaea to Caesarea, on the sea which had been named
Caesarea Augusta, after his grandfather, in order that they might be set up in the temple of Augustus. And accordingly, they were set
up in that edifice. And in this way he provided for two matters: both for the honour due to the emperor, and for the preservation of
the ancient customs of the city.
“Now the things set up on that occasion were shields, on which there was no representation of any living thing whatever engraved.
But no, the thing [now] proposed to be erected is a colossal statue. Moreover, then the erection was in the dwelling-house of the
governor; but they say, that which is now contemplated is to be in the inmost part of the temple, in the very holy of holies itself
…”[237]
In this account we see a Pilate who would never back down if he had either condemned or released a prisoner. The entire
gospel story of Pilate being such a fair guy and washing his hands is just ridiculous in the light of this historical data. However,
we can also see how a reading of this account might incline a novelistic disposition to select Pilate as the evil procurator who
did in Jesus. But there was probably a more significant reason, as we will see.
It is quite clear that there was an exchange between Tiberius and Pilate and that Pilate came to heel and did as he was told,
moving the shields to Caesarea, and this is the probable reason for the existence of the “Pilate stone” in that location. Nor is
there any indication at all that Tiberius died before Pilate got his just deserts.
It is in no way possible to date the events in this little digression about Pilate in the letter of Agrippa to Caligula. Some scholars
also think that the letter is more or less authentic, because Philo would have had access to it. In fact, since he was there with
Agrippa at the time, it is possible that he assisted in composing the document, the memories of the time of Tiberius being his
own.
Let’s look now at Josephus’ version of the story:
But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Caesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to
abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our
law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with
such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which
was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in
multitudes to Caesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their
requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his
soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place
of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the
soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would
leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they
would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply
affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from
Jerusalem to Caesarea.[238]
Again we see Josephus’ tendency to exaggerate, to glorify Jewish devotion to their religion, as well as a softening of Pilate’s
attitude: he was “deeply affected” by their firm resolution. No mention of the Judean princes and magistrates being the ones
appealing to Pilate, or his fear that they would communicate with the emperor, or of Tiberius stepping in and correcting his
behavior. According to Josephus, it was only later, after Pilate attacked a crowd of Samaritans, that the Samaritans sent a
delegation to Vitellius, who then sent a Marcellus to replace Pilate and ordered Pilate to Rome. Keep the form in mind: the
governor of Syria was notified and he called Pilate to him and replaced him. Keep also in mind what Philo said: “And those
who were in power in our nation… wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius.”
[NOTE: What is the significance of the last sentence above? Where does it become relevant? It should be deleted and moved
there.]
Josephus finishes off Pilate with the following:
So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst
not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius was dead.[239]
Following this, we read the glorious account of how friendly Vitellius was with the Jews, immediately followed by the Vitellius–
Artabanus story recounted above. While the presence of Vitellius at this point in the narrative would seem to indicate that
Pilate was in Judea until the mid 30s AD, there is another explanation. However, in order to really examine the conundrum
that Josephus presents us, we have to go back in time to get the proper perspective, beginning with the time of the death of
Herod the Great, presumably in 4 BC. Remember the reference made earlier to Herod ruling for 37 years since he was made
king by the Romans? Well, here we are going to find out that it wasn’t necessarily so.
The Problem of the Death of Herod the Great
Prior to the death of Herod the Great, Josephus tells the story of the "Golden Eagle Temple cleansing" by Judas and Matthias,
an event that parallels that of Pilate’s “shields”. Here is Josephus’ account of how it came about, quoted at length:
But Herod now fell into a distemper, and made his will, and bequeathed his kingdom to [Antipas], his youngest son; and this out of
that hatred to Archelaus and Philip, which the calumnies of Antipater had raised against them. He also bequeathed a thousand talents
to Caesar, and five hundred to Julia, Caesar's wife, to Caesar's children, and friends and freed-men. He also distributed among his sons
and their sons his money, his revenues, and his lands. He also made Salome his sister very rich, because she had continued faithful to
him in all his circumstances, and was never so rash as to do him any harm; and as he despaired of recovering, for he was about the
seventieth year of his age, he grew fierce, and indulged the bitterest anger upon all occasions; the cause whereof was this, that he
thought himself despised, and that the nation was pleased with his misfortunes; besides which, he resented a sedition which some of
the lower sort of men excited against him, the occasion of which was as follows.
There was one Judas, the son of Saripheus, and Matthias, the son of Margalothus, two of the most eloquent men among the Jews, and
the most celebrated interpreters of the Jewish laws, and men well beloved by the people, because of their education of their youth; for
all those that were studious of virtue frequented their lectures every day. These men, when they found that the king's distemper was
incurable, excited the young men that they would pull down all those works which the king had erected contrary to the law of their
fathers, and thereby obtain the rewards which the law will confer on them for such actions of piety; for that it was truly on account of
Herod's rashness in making such things as the law had forbidden, that his other misfortunes, and this distemper also, which was so
unusual among mankind, and with which he was now afflicted, came upon him; for Herod had caused such things to be made which
were contrary to the law, of which he was accused by Judas and Matthias; for the king had erected over the great gate of the temple a
large golden eagle, of great value, and had dedicated it to the temple. Now the law forbids those that propose to live according to it,
to erect images or representations of any living creature. So these wise men persuaded [their scholars] to pull down the golden eagle;
alleging, that although they should incur any danger, which might bring them to their deaths, the virtue of the action now proposed to
them would appear much more advantageous to them than the pleasures of life; since they would die for the preservation and
observation of the law of their fathers; since they would also acquire an everlasting fame and commendation; since they would be both
commended by the present generation, and leave an example of life that would never be forgotten to posterity; since that common
calamity of dying cannot be avoided by our living so as to escape any such dangers; that therefore it is a right thing for those who are
in love with a virtuous conduct, to wait for that fatal hour by such behavior as may carry them out of the world with praise and honor;
and that this will alleviate death to a great degree, thus to come at it by the performance of brave actions, which bring us into danger
of it; and at the same time to leave that reputation behind them to their children, and to all their relations, whether they be men or
women, which will be of great advantage to them afterward.
And with such discourses as this did these men excite the young men to this action; and a report being come to them that the king
was dead, this was an addition to the wise men's persuasions; so, in the very middle of the day, they got upon the place, they pulled
down the eagle, and cut it into pieces with axes, while a great number of the people were in the temple. And now the king's captain,
upon hearing what the undertaking was, and supposing it was a thing of a higher nature than it proved to be, came up thither, having a
great band of soldiers with him, such as was sufficient to put a stop to the multitude of those who pulled down what was dedicated to
God; so he fell upon them unexpectedly, and as they were upon this bold attempt, in a foolish presumption rather than a cautious
circumspection, as is usual with the multitude, and while they were in disorder, and incautious of what was for their advantage; so he
caught no fewer than forty of the young men, who had the courage to stay behind when the rest ran away, together with the authors
of this bold attempt, Judas and Matthias, who thought it an ignominious thing to retire upon his approach, and led them to the king.
And when they were come to the king, and he asked them if they had been so bold as to pull down what he had dedicated to God,
"Yes, [said they,] what was contrived we contrived, and what hath been performed we performed it, and that with such a virtuous
courage as becomes men; for we have given our assistance to those things which were dedicated to the majesty of God, and we have
provided for what we have learned by hearing the law; and it ought not to be wondered at, if we esteem those laws which Moses had
suggested to him, and were taught him by God, and which he wrote and left behind him, more worthy of observation than thy
commands. Accordingly we will undergo death, and all sorts of punishments which thou canst inflict upon us, with pleasure, since we
are conscious to ourselves that we shall die, not for any unrighteous actions, but for our love to religion." And thus they all said, and
their courage was still equal to their profession, and equal to that with which they readily set about this undertaking. And when the
king had ordered them to be bound, he sent them to Jericho …
But the people, on account of Herod's barbarous temper, and for fear he should be so cruel and to inflict punishment on them, said
what was done was done without their approbation, and that it seemed to them that the actors might well be punished for what they
had done. But as for Herod, he dealt more mildly with others [of the assembly] but he deprived Matthias of the high priesthood, as in
part an occasion of this action, and made Joazar, who was Matthias's wife's brother, high priest in his stead. Now it happened, that
during the time of the high priesthood of this Matthias, there was another person made high priest for a single day, that very day
which the Jews observed as a fast. The occasion was this: This Matthias the high priest, on the night before that day when the fast was
to be celebrated, seemed, in a dream, to have conversation with his wife; and because he could not officiate himself on that account,
Joseph, the son of Ellemus, his kinsman, assisted him in that sacred office. But Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood,
and burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of
the moon.[240]
Notice this in particular in the tale of Judas and Matthias: “two of the most eloquent men among the Jews, and the most
celebrated interpreters of the Jewish laws, and men well beloved by the people, because of their education of their youth; for
all those that were studious of virtue frequented their lectures every day.” I would suggest that this little bit of description
later went into the NT as part of the story about Jesus with the additional spin of the tale of Josephus advising the doctors of
the law when just a lad.
Also note that the people, fearing Herod, “said what was done was done without their approbation, and that it seemed to
them that the actors might well be punished for what they had done.” Again and again one reads in Josephus how the masses
supported this or that person, but then “the people” disavow that individual to save their own skins. We find the same
problematical behavior in the gospels. At one moment, the priests are afraid to act against Jesus because of his popular
support, at the next moment, they are arresting him without fear, and the next, the crowd is calling for his crucifixion and
Barabbas’ release. Most peculiar behavior, but certainly well represented by the accounts of Josephus.
Notice Joseph, “son of Ellemus,” or Heli. Luke, in his faked genealogy of Jesus, tells us that Jesus’ father was “Joseph, son of
Heli”. Also, the odd add-on about Matthias the rebel and Matthias the high priest being two different individuals: with just
such an insertion as this a whole context can be changed. And if, ultimately, Josephus proved to be a member of the rebels of
his own time, he might very much have wanted to separate them from the priests. Keep in mind Joazar, the high priest who
replaces Matthias,
Last, the eclipse: Theologians have placed the alleged birth of Jesus before the spring of 4 BC because of this reference to an
eclipse, shortly following which, Herod the Great dies, before Passover. Jesus has to be born before Herod dies or there’s no
“Wise Men from the East” and “Slaughter of the Innocents”. However, by selecting the eclipse of 13 March 4 BC as the
chronological hook, they force a whole lot of events into a period of just 29 days. It is well nigh impossible for all the events
mentioned by Josephus (not to mention the claims of the gospels and theologians) to have transpired in that short window.
There are two other possible candidates for the right eclipse that would have been visible in Palestine: 15 September 5 BC
(10:30 pm), which could then preserve the 4 BC death of Herod and birth of Jesus, or 10 January 1 BC. The first provides 7
months in which all the things Josephus describes could have happened, with Herod dying the following year. The second
gives a little over three months of time before Herod dies in April. Either would work. However, if the latter is correct, then
Herod the Great’s death has to be moved forward to 1 BC.
Ernest Martin has written a fascinating little book on the topic entitled The Star of Bethlehem: The Star That Astonished the
World. I've adapted his list of the events that occurred between the eclipse and the death of Herod and his subsequent
funeral just to give you an idea of the problem. Following the executions of Matthias and his followers, the following things
are recorded as happening in the life of Herod:
1) On that night, an eclipse.
2) Josephus informs us that Herod’s condition worsened the morning after the eclipse. He had already been ill for several
months and the people attributed this accelerated decline to the execution of the righteous teachers.
3) Herod then tried “one remedy after another” and after these efforts, each of which must have taken some days or a week
each, was advised by his physicians to go take mineral baths. He traveled 25 miles to the resort, tried the baths for at least a
week before deciding that they were doing no good, and then went back to Jericho.
4) Back at home, Herod, knowing his death was getting closer, plotted his revenge on the Jews, who he felt did not love or
appreciate him after all he had done for them:
He commanded that all the principal men of the entire Jewish nation, wheresoever they lived, should be called to him. Accordingly,
they were a great number that came, because the whole nation was called, and all men heard of this call, and death was the penalty of
such as should despise the epistles that were sent to call them. And now the king was in a wild rage against them all, the innocent as
well as those that had afforded ground for accusations; and when they were come, he ordered them to be all shut up in the
hippodrome, and sent for his sister Salome, and her husband Alexas, and spake thus to them: "I shall die in a little time, so great are
my pains; which death ought to be cheerfully borne, and to be welcomed by all men; but what principally troubles me is this, that I
shall die without being lamented, and without such mourning as men usually expect at a king's death."
For that he was not unacquainted with the temper of the Jews, that his death would be a thing very desirable, and exceedingly
acceptable to them, because during his lifetime they were ready to revolt from him, and to abuse the donations he had dedicated to
God that it therefore was their business to resolve to afford him some alleviation of his great sorrows on this occasion; for that if they
do not refuse him their consent in what he desires, he shall have a great mourning at his funeral, and such as never had any king
before him; for then the whole nation would mourn from their very soul, which otherwise would be done in sport and mockery only.
He desired therefore, that as soon as they see he hath given up the ghost, they shall place soldiers round the hippodrome, while they
do not know that he is dead; and that they shall not declare his death to the multitude till this is done, but that they shall give orders
to have those that are in custody shot with their darts; and that this slaughter of them all will cause that he shall not miss to rejoice
on a double account; that as he is dying, they will make him secure that his will shall be executed in what he charges them to do;
and that he shall have the honor of a memorable mourning at his funeral. So he deplored his condition, with tears in his eyes, and
begged them by the kindness due from them, as of his kindred, and by the faith they owed to God, and begged of them that they
would not hinder him of this honorable mourning at his funeral. So they promised him not to transgress his commands.
Now anyone may easily discover the temper of this man's mind, which not only took pleasure in doing what he had done formerly
against his relations, out of the love of life, but by those commands of his which savored of no humanity; since he took care, when he
was departing out of this life, that the whole nation should be put into mourning, and indeed made desolate of their dearest
kindred, when he gave order that one out of every family should be slain, although they had done nothing that was unjust, or that
was against him, nor were they accused of any other crimes …[241]
Notice the elements of the Massacre of the Innocents contained within the above passage. Clearly, there was no such event
as Herod sending around his soldiers to kill babies, but apparently he planned to raise a hue and cry as soon as he was dead
by a massacre of innocent citizens! (Not to forget his execution of the youths following Matthias and Judas.)
By any measure of time, considering travel times in those days and Herod’s condition, we are well past the allotted 29 days
between the March eclipse and the Passover. But there is more.
5) While this was happening, Herod’s ambassadors to Augustus returned with letters from the emperor, giving Herod the
power to kill or banish his son Antipater. This news “elevated” his spirits:
¼ but as his pains were become very great, he was now ready to faint for want of somewhat to eat; so he called for an apple and a
knife; for it was his custom formerly to pare the apple himself, and soon afterwards to cut it, and eat it. When he had got the knife, he
looked about, and had a mind to stab himself with it; and he [would have] done it, had not his first cousin, Achiabus, prevented him,
and held his hand, and cried out loudly. Whereupon a woeful lamentation echoed through the palace, and a great tumult was made, as
if the king were dead.
Upon which Antipater, who verily believed his father was deceased, grew bold in his discourse, as hoping to be immediately and
entirely released from his bonds, and to take the kingdom into his hands without any more ado; so he discoursed with the jailer about
letting him go, and in that case promised him great things, both now and hereafter, as if that were the only thing now in question. But
the jailer did not only refuse to do what Antipater would have him, but informed the king of his intentions, and how many solicitations
he had had from him [of that nature]. Hereupon Herod, who had formerly no affection nor good-will towards his son to restrain him,
when he heard what the jailer said, he cried out, and beat his head, although he was at death's door, and raised himself upon his
elbow, and sent for some of his guards, and commanded them to kill Antipater without tiny further delay, and to do it presently, and to
bury him in an ignoble manner at Hyrcania.[242]
It seems reasonable that the above activities would have required a few days’ time. But we have just a little way to go before
Herod is dead.
6) Herod changes his will. This apparently took a few days to get written up and signed:
And now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind; for he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left the
kingdom, to be tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and granted the kingdom to Archelaus. He also gave Gaulonitis, and Trachonitis, and
Paneas to Philip, who was his son, but own brother to Archelaus by the name of a tetrarchy; and bequeathed Jamnia, and Ashdod, and
Phasaelis to Salome his sister, with five hundred thousand [drachmae] of silver that was coined. He also made provision for all the rest
of his kindred, by giving them sums of money and annual revenues, and so left them all in a wealthy condition. He bequeathed also to
Caesar ten millions [of drachmae] of coined money, besides both vessels of gold and silver, and garments exceeding costly, to Julia,
Caesar's wife; and to certain others, five millions. When he had done these things, he died, the fifth day after he had caused Antipater
to be slain; having reigned, since he had procured Antigonus to be slain, thirty-four years; but since he had been declared king by the
Romans, thirty-seven.
[243]
7) After Herod’s death, a grand funeral was planned and carried out. It probably took some time to organize this. Josephus
tells us that the whole army was represented in the funeral, and it would have taken a number of days to summon and
assemble them. Then followed a slow procession of the funeral cortege, probably traveling about a mile a day, 25 miles in
total, to reach the destination where Herod was to be buried. The public mourning period was 30 days, so Herod would just
have been tucked in for eternity by the time this period was over.
8) After Herod’s death, Archelaus gave an audience to the people, made changes in the army, gave out promotions, liberated
prisoners (Herod’s sister and her husband had not followed through on his order to execute the dignitaries – they had been set
free upon his death), and sat in judgment on lawsuits. He did all these things “and many other things” before the beginning of
Passover.
Thus, I think it is safe to conclude that the partial eclipse of 13 March 4 BC was not the eclipse mentioned in Josephus. There
is absolutely no way possible that all of these events could have occurred between that March eclipse and the beginning of
Passover 29 days later. That leads to the next question: which eclipse was it?
The War of Varus featuring Gaius Caesar
Martin's book The Star of Bethlehem is largely devoted to figuring out which eclipse actually fits the historical events. One has
to filter while reading this work because his underlying agenda is to prove that "Jesus of Nazareth" was born at the time of a
dramatic planetary conjunction of Jupiter and Venus (his "Star of Bethlehem") that occurred in 3 and 2 BC. In order to do this,
he must have Herod still living at that point, so his targeted eclipse is the one that occurred on 10 January 1 BC. Driven by this
idea, he actually did a great deal of excellent work bringing many obscure items to light and showing them in context; he just
didn't realize that they really weren't proof that Jesus was born at that time at all, but rather that the events of the time were
attached to the Jesus myth after the fact. Martin asks this question:
Recognizing that the January 10, 1 BCE eclipse is the one mentioned by Josephus has much historical value in another way. Scholars
have wondered for years why Josephus referred only to this one eclipse out of the hundreds that occurred over the generations that
he covered in his histories. Why single out this one? Indeed, during the reign of Herod there were at least 32 lunar eclipses visible in
Palestine (20 partial and 12 total). There must have been special reasons for heralding this single eclipse associated with Herod's death.
...
Other than the historical importance of Herod's death itself, it should be remembered that it was also the very day following the
martyrdom of the two illustrious rabbis whom the whole nation admired and esteemed. This was an important event for
commemoration to the Jewish people. But there was a national event even more disastrous than that. The occasion of the rabbis’
deaths led directly to 3000 Jewish worshippers at the next Passover being slaughtered in the temple precincts. This massacre, which
was ordered by Archelaus (the successor to Herod) resulted in the unusual cancellation of the whole Passover services ...
This was a most extraordinary event. ... Nothing like it had ever happened before. ... This slaughter of the 3000 Jewish worshippers in
the temple led directly to a major war between the Jews and the Romans that occupied the whole of the following summer and
autumn. Josephus said that this war was no minor skirmish. It was the most significant conflict to occur in Palestine from the time of
Pompey in 63 BCE to the Roman/Jewish War of CE 66 to 73. In order to subdue this Jewish rebellion, the Romans had to muster their
three legions in Syria, plus auxiliary forces (about 20,000 armed men in all), to put down the rebellion that erupted. At the end of the
war, 2,000 Jews were crucified and 30,000 sold into slavery. ... and what started it? It was the death of the rabbis associated with the
eclipse of the Moon near Herod's death.[244]
Martin's discussion, following the above, points out the obvious: the mis-dating of Herod’s death makes the events recounted
by Josephus Roman records three years out of sync with the Roman records. He shows convincingly, with excellent evidence,
how the records (written and archaeological) can be reconciled.[245] While we cannot pursue this fascinating line of evidence
here, there is something that is of some relevance to showing the general environment of the empire at the time, particularly
in respect of Rome's relationship to Palestine: the participation of Augustus’ adopted son, Gaius Caesar, in the "War of Varus"
in Palestine. Gaius was the oldest son of Marcus Agrippa and Julia, the daughter of Augustus. He was Augustus’ most favored
heir and when he died, at the age of 24 on campaign in Armenia in February of 4 AD, Augustus was devastated. He was then
forced to adopt his stepson, Tiberius, who was no blood relation, as his heir.[246] Again, Martin:
So, Gaius, instead of going to Armenia went first to Egypt and hurriedly continued on to Idumaea to bring the war in Palestine to an
end. He then went to Jerusalem where he failed to allow the customary devotions to be given "to the Jewish God." (Suetonius,
Augustus, 93.) From there, he and Varus must have gone to Antioch with two of the legions while one legion was left in Judaea. He
would have arrived in the provincial capital of Antioch by late 1 BC or at the beginning of CE 1. He would then have joined forces with
the one or two legions he sent to Syria from the Danubian reserves. This would have given him the needed reinforcement he required
for his own operations soon to occur against the Armenians. ...
Two other historical documents ¼ now make sense whereas before they were a puzzle to historians. There is an eyewitness account of
the War of Varus which tells about the person who secured the victory. This Jewish writer who lived in Judaea (and wrote a work called
The Assumption of Moses) said that the war was conducted by a "king" who had come from the west to gain the triumph. The
reference has normally been applied to Quintilius Varus because historians up to now have assumed the war mentioned by this Jewish
writer took place in 4 BCE. This, of course, was three years before Gaius Caesar arrived on the scene in late 1 BCE. ... Gaius came
directly from the west to end the war and he had all the credentials to be called a "king." ...
The next point is more significant. In 1960 an inscription was found in Greece that mentioned these activities of Gaius while he was on
his mission to the east. It refers to some splendid victories. Though it does not specify exactly what they were, what was written on
this inscription has an important bearing on our question under discussion. The inscription states, "Gaius, the son of Augustus, who was
fighting the barbarians for the safety of all mankind." ...
Added to this, we have the Pisan cenotaph (another inscription) which mentions this same expedition of Gaius and it states that Gaius'
victories were accomplished "beyond the Roman frontiers." The region of Idumaea in 1 BC would fit the description precisely. The
areas of Galilee, Judaea, Peraea (across the Jordan River) and Idumaea were formerly the lands controlled by Herod. Though Herod was
associated politically with the Empire in close alliance, his kingdom was technically outside imperial territory. It only became provincial
in CE 6/7 when Quirinius assumed the governorship of Syria and Palestine. However, in 1 BCE, Idumaea was still "beyond the Roman
frontiers." ...
Besides this, there were other reasons to call the area of Palestine "barbarian" at that time. Rome would have considered the Jewish
rebels as fighting against the philosophical and political concepts within the Hellenistic principles that then dominated Roman thinking.
If there were any people at the time who would naturally have been against such Roman philosophical thinking and would have been
called "barbarians", it would have been the Jews of Palestine after the death of Herod. ...
This belief is further strengthened because the inscription found in 1960 stated that Gaius had been fighting "for the safety of all
mankind." The Romans must have considered their victory of great consequence. After all, as stated before, there were Jews who had
messianic convictions at that time scattered throughout the Empire as well as Parthia. What if all the Jews decided to fight against
Rome? This, of course, was an unlikely proposition but the potential for such a thing was always there. There was also the possibility
for fifth column subversion by the Jews as well as their active aggression against the Empire which gave Rome concern. Putting an end
to the resistance in Palestine must have given the Romans the feeling of having accomplished a major victory ... "for the safety of all
mankind."
Such an appraisal is reflective of Roman beliefs at this period. Tacitus, a century later, gave ordinary Roman opinion of the Jews when
he said they customarily hated "all mankind." Even the apostle Paul felt that Jewish social beliefs at the time were "contrary to all
men." (I Thessalonians 2:15) Josephus records a plethora of Gentile antipathy against the Jews within this period ... The emperor
Claudius wrote to the people of Alexandria in CE 41 saying that the Jews and their opinions were "a general plague infecting the whole
world." ... If there were ever a people "out of step" with the rest of the world at that time, it was the Jews. It is well within reason that
those mentioned on the inscription as being like "barbarians" that Gaius subdued "for the safety of all mankind" were the final Jewish
insurgents in Idumaea who fought in the War of Varus.[247]
There are a couple of major items in the above quotation, which is only excerpted in part. The first is, of course, the necessity
to subtract three years from the timeline leading up to Pontius Pilate, and the second is the fact that Quirinius assumed the
governorship of Syria and Palestine in 6/7 AD, around the time of Archelaus’ exile.
A Closer Look at the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing
Coming back now to the death of Herod who has just been tucked in for eternity after a long funeral procession. Recall the
terms of Herod’s changed will:
… he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left the kingdom, to be tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and granted the kingdom to
Archelaus. He also gave Gaulonitis, and Trachonitis, and Paneas to Philip, who was his son, but own brother to Archelaus by the name
of a tetrarchy; and bequeathed Jamnia, and Ashdod, and Phasaelis to Salome his sister ¼[248]
The fact that Herod had previously said he would leave the kingdom of Judea to Antipas, but then changed his mind and gave
it to Archelaus, while tossing Antipas only Galilee and Perea, set up a serious conflict between the two. Not only was it
necessary for Augustus to confirm the terms of the will of Herod the Great; there was also going to be a legal contest about
who got the kingdom. Josephus says nothing in particular about Antipas and Philip needing to have their inheritance
confirmed; just Archelaus, because if confirmed, he would be a king. According to Josephus, before Archelaus could depart for
his “confirmation”, things took an ugly turn. In the following excerpt, notice carefully how Josephus spins the two revered
teachers, Judas and Matthias (and their followers), whom he had just previously described as "two of the most eloquent men
among the Jews, and the most celebrated interpreters of the Jewish laws, and men well beloved by the people, because of their
education of their youth."
At this time also it was that some of the Jews got together out of a desire of innovation. They lamented Matthias, and those that were
slain with him by Herod, who had not any respect paid them by a funeral mourning, out of the fear men were in of that man; they
were those who had been condemned for pulling down the golden eagle. The people made a great clamor and lamentation hereupon,
and cast out some reproaches against the king also, as if that tended to alleviate the miseries of the deceased. The people assembled
together, and desired of Archelaus, that, in way of revenge on their account, he would inflict punishment on those who had been
honored by Herod; and that, in the first and principal place, he would deprive that high priest whom Herod had made, and would
choose one more agreeable to the law, and of greater purity, to officiate as high priest. This was granted by Archelaus, although he
was mightily offended at their importunity, because he proposed to himself to go to Rome immediately to look after Caesar's
determination about him. However, he sent the general of his forces to use persuasions, and to tell them that the death which was
inflicted on their friends was according to the law …
So when the king had suggested these things, and instructed his general in what he was to say, he sent him away to the people; but
they made a clamor, and would not give him leave to speak, and put him in danger of his life … they had more concern to have all
their own wills performed than to yield obedience to their governors; thinking it to be a thing insufferable, that, while Herod was
alive, they should lose those that were most dear to them, and that when he was dead, they could not get the actors to be punished.
So they went on with their designs after a violent manner …
Now, upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread, which the law of their fathers had appointed for the Jews at this time,
which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial of their deliverance out of Egypt, when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity; and
when they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festival; and when an innumerable multitude came thither
out of the country, nay, from beyond its limits also, in order to worship God, the seditious lamented Judas and Matthias, those
teachers of the laws, and kept together in the temple … And as Archelaus was afraid … he sent a regiment of armed men, and with
them a captain of a thousand, to suppress the violent efforts of the seditious before the whole multitude should be infected with the
like madness … But those that were seditious on account of those teachers of the law, irritated the people by the noise and clamors
they used to encourage the people in their designs; so they made an assault upon the soldiers, and came up to them, and stoned the
greatest part of them, although some of them ran away wounded, and their captain among them; and when they had thus done, they
returned to the sacrifices which were already in their hands.
Now Archelaus thought there was no way to preserve the entire government but by cutting off those who made this attempt upon it;
so he sent out the whole army upon them, and sent the horsemen to prevent those that had their tents without the temple from
assisting those that were within the temple, and to kill such as ran away from the footmen when they thought themselves out of
danger; which horsemen slew three thousand men, while the rest went to the neighboring mountains.
[249]
Obviously, Archelaus was not off to a good start. But, supposedly, immediately following this massacre, he headed out for
Rome. However, before he could even get on a ship:
… Sabinus, Caesar's steward for Syrian affairs, as he was making haste into Judea to preserve Herod's effects, met with Archelaus at
Caesarea; but Varus [president of Syria] came at that time, and restrained him from meddling with them, for he was there as sent for
by Archelaus, by the means of Ptolemy. And Sabinus, out of regard to Varus, did neither seize upon any of the castles that were among
the Jews, nor did he seal up the treasures in them, but permitted Archelaus to have them, until Caesar should declare his resolution
about them; so that, upon this his promise, he tarried still at Caesarea. But after Archelaus was sailed for Rome, and Varus was
removed to Antioch, Sabinus went to Jerusalem, and seized on the king's palace. He also sent for the keepers of the garrisons, and for
all those that had the charge of Herod's effects, and declared publicly that he should require them to give an account of what they had;
and he disposed of the castles in the manner he pleased …[250]
The Varus in the story is Publius Quinctilius Varus. Varus was a member of a patrician family that had fallen on hard times.
Things began to look up for them when Varus became consul in 13 BC. He was governor of the province of Africa from 8 to 7
BC and he hit the jackpot when he was appointed governor of Syria. Velleius Paterculus said that Varus entered the rich
province as a poor man, and left a poor province as a rich man.[251] He was known for his harshness and high taxation.
Josephus, who is blowing smoke over the rapaciousness of the Roman rulers, tries to present Varus as lenient. However,
according to a popular TV documentary presentation of that period, the authors of which I haven’t been able to track down, at
the time of Varus, the Jews, nearly en masse, either began to boycott Roman pottery, or could not afford it, because it
disappears almost entirely from the archaeological record.[252] If this is true, it is a silent testimony to the cruelty of this
man. Coins have been found which show that Varus was governor of Syria in the 25th, 26th, and 27th years after the Battle of
Actium (2 September 31 BC), i.e. 7/6 to 4 BC.[253] Later, Varus became infamous for losing three entire legions in the Battle
of the Teutoburg Forest, where he committed suicide.
Meanwhile, as already mentioned, Archelaus, Antipas, and the whole Herodian circus are in Rome and Josephus takes some
time lovingly describing the alleged debate before Augustus as to who was going to get what, borrowing heavily from the work
of Nicolaus of Damascus, Herod the Great’s friend and chronicler. Obviously, since Nicolaus' work was available at the time
Josephus was writing, he didn't have a lot of wiggle room, but we will soon see how creative he could be with the materials he
had to work with.
As Josephus would have it, Archelaus’ alleged massacre of 3,000 rebels apparently didn’t dampen the ardor of the innovators,
as he called them, because he relates two additional revolts: one put down by Varus after Archelaus left for Rome, and
another provoked by Sabinus after Varus left for Antioch.
Since Nicolaus of Damascus had also sailed with the Herodian party, Josephus is free to invent things in his absence. The
opening line of the following refers to the debate over the inheritance going on in Rome:
But before these things could be brought to a settlement, Malthace, Archelaus's mother, fell into a distemper, and died of it; and
letters came from Varus, the president of Syria, which informed Caesar of the revolt of the Jews; for after Archelaus was sailed, the
whole nation was in a tumult. So Varus, since he was there himself, brought the authors of the disturbance to punishment; and
when he had restrained them for the most part from this sedition, which was a great one, he took his journey to Antioch, leaving
one legion of his army at Jerusalem to keep the Jews quiet, who were now very fond of innovation. Yet did not this at all avail to
put an end to that their sedition; for after Varus was gone away, Sabinus, Caesar's procurator, staid behind, and greatly distressed
the Jews, relying on the forces that were left there that they would by their multitude protect him; for he made use of them, and
armed them as his guards, thereby so oppressing the Jews, and giving them so great disturbance, that at length they rebelled; for he
used force in seizing the citadels, and zealously pressed on the search after the king's money, in order to seize upon it by force, on
account of his love of gain and his extraordinary covetousness.[254]
It sounds to me as if Josephus is trying to "spread the blame" so as to save face for his Roman masters. Notice that Sabinus is
the bad guy acting, for all the world, like the rapacious Varus. The passage would make more sense as a description of Varus’
acts. Notice also that it seems that the revolt occurred after Archelaus left – he may have had nothing to do with it. It could
take weeks for letters to be sent to Rome and it had certainly taken some time for the Archelaus party to get there, so time is
passing here. Martin’s description of what was going on begins to make a lot more sense in the face of all this Josephan
confusion.
But on the approach of Pentecost [i.e. 50 days after Passover], which is a festival of ours, so called from the days of our forefathers, a
great many ten thousands of men got together; nor did they come only to celebrate the festival, but out of their indignation at the
madness of Sabinus, and at the injuries he offered them. A great number there was of Galileans, and Idumeans, and many men from
Jericho, and others who had passed over the river Jordan, and inhabited those parts. This whole multitude joined themselves to all the
rest, and were more zealous than the others in making an assault on Sabinus, in order to be avenged on him; so they parted
themselves into three bands, and encamped themselves in the places following:—some of them seized on the hippodrome and of the
other two bands, one pitched themselves from the northern part of the temple to the southern, on the east quarter; but the third
band held the western part of the city, where the king's palace was. Their work tended entirely to besiege the Romans, and to enclose
them on all sides.
Now Sabinus was afraid of these men's number, and of their resolution, who had little regard to their lives, but were very desirous not
to be overcome, while they thought it a point of puissance to overcome their enemies; so he sent immediately a letter to Varus, and,
as he used to do, was very pressing with him, and entreated him to come quickly to his assistance, because the forces he had left were
in imminent danger, and would probably, in no long time, be seized upon, and cut to pieces; while he did himself get up to the highest
tower of the fortress …
So Sabinus gave thence a signal to the Romans to fall upon the Jews, although he did not himself venture so much as to come down …
a terrible battle ensued; wherein, though it is true the Romans beat their adversaries, yet were not the Jews daunted in their
resolutions, even when they had the sight of that terrible slaughter that was made of them; but they went round about, and got upon
those cloisters which encompassed the outer court of the temple, where a great fight was still continued, and they cast stones at the
Romans, partly with their hands, and partly with slings, as being much used to those exercises.[255]
Now, it is not unusual that the Jews were slinging stones at the Romans, but remember this from the rebellion against
Archelaus that happened just a bit earlier: “so they made an assault upon [Archelaus’] soldiers, and came up to them, and
stoned the greatest part of them, although some of them ran away wounded, and their captain among them; and when they
had thus done, they returned to the sacrifices which were already in their hands.” One wonders if Archelaus was really the
one who slaughtered 3000 Jews? Perhaps it was really Varus and/or Sabinus.
After all, this is the "War of Varus" that we are witnessing here. And it seems rather certain that it was occurring in the late
spring/early summer of 1 BC.
And this sort of fight lasted a great while, till at last the Romans, who were greatly distressed by what was done, set fire to the cloisters
so privately that those that were gotten upon them did not perceive it. This fire being fed by a great deal of combustible matter,
caught hold immediately on the roof of the cloisters; so the wood, which was full of pitch and wax, and whose gold was laid on it with
wax, yielded to the flame presently, and those vast works, which were of the highest value and esteem, were destroyed utterly, while
those that were on the roof unexpectedly perished at the same time; for as the roof tumbled down, some of these men tumbled down
with it, and others of them were killed by their enemies who encompassed them.
There was a great number more, who, out of despair of saving their lives, and out of astonishment at the misery that surrounded
them, did either cast themselves into the fire, or threw themselves upon their swords, and so got out of their misery. But as to those
that retired behind the same way by which they ascended, and thereby escaped, they were all killed by the Romans, as being unarmed
men, and their courage failing them; their wild fury being now not able to help them, because they were destitute of armor, insomuch
that of those that went up to the top of the roof, not one escaped. The Romans also rushed through the fire, where it gave them room
so to do, and seized on that treasure where the sacred money was reposited; a great part of which was stolen by the soldiers, and
Sabinus got openly four hundred talents.
[256]
Sabinus found himself under siege and the Jewish army of Archelaus (formerly Herod’s army), which was supposed to be
supporting the Romans, apparently defected to the rebels. However, 3,000 troops under “Rufus and Gratus” sided with the
Romans. It is at this point that Josephus reports:
Now at this time there were ten thousand other disorders in Judea, which were like tumults, because a great number put themselves
into a warlike posture, either out of hopes of gain to themselves, or out of enmity to the Jews.[257]
He lists and describes a whole crew of messianic contenders and their activities, which are fascinating, but not yet relevant.
The main thing is that Varus received the message from Sabinus and headed out for the war zone. Here we encounter Aretas,
keeping in mind that this is supposed to be the same Aretas who later on has the toss-up with Antipas that we discussed at
the beginning in relation to Paul and his Basket Adventure:
As soon as Varus was once informed of the state of Judea by Sabinus's writing to him, he was afraid for the legion he had left there; so
he took the two other legions, [for there were three legions in all belonging to Syria,] and four troops of horsemen, with the several
auxiliary forces which either the kings or certain of the tetrarchs afforded him, and made what haste he could to assist those that were
then besieged in Judea. He also gave order that all that were sent out for this expedition, should make haste to Ptolemais. The citizens
of Berytus also gave him fifteen hundred auxiliaries as he passed through their city. Aretas also, the king of Arabia Petrea, out of his
hatred to Herod, and in order to purchase the favor of the Romans, sent him no small assistance, besides their footmen and
horsemen; and when he had now collected all his forces together, he committed part of them to his son, and to a friend of his, and
sent them upon an expedition into Galilee, which lies in the neighborhood of Ptolemais; who made an attack upon the enemy, and put
them to flight, and took Sepphoris, and made its inhabitants slaves, and burnt the city.
But Varus himself pursued his march for Samaria with his whole army; yet did not he meddle with the city of that name, because it had
not at all joined with the seditious; but pitched his camp at a certain village that belonged to Ptolemy, whose name was Arus, which
the Arabians burnt, out of their hatred to Herod, and out of the enmity they bore to his friends; whence they marched to another
village, whose name was Sampho, which the Arabians plundered and burnt, although it was a fortified and a strong place; and all along
this march nothing escaped them, but all places were full of fire and of slaughter.[258]
One wonders whether this early “invasion” of Aretas, at the invitation of the Romans, was the inspiration for Josephus’
novelized version in respect of Antipas, Herodias, and Vitellius? In any event, continuing to read about the events of this war,
we realize that it was quite a rebellion, though Josephus has shifted the responsibility for starting it from Varus to Archelaus
and Sabinus.
Emmaus was also burnt by Varus's order, after its inhabitants had deserted it, that he might avenge those that had there been
destroyed. From thence he now marched to Jerusalem; whereupon those Jews whose camp lay there, and who had besieged the
Roman legion, not bearing the coming of this army, left the siege imperfect: but as to the Jerusalem Jews, when Varus reproached
them bitterly for what had been done, they cleared themselves of the accusation, and alleged that the conflux of the people was
occasioned by the feast; that the war was not made with their approbation, but by the rashness of the strangers, while they were on
the side of the Romans, and besieged together with them, rather than having any inclination to besiege them. There also came
beforehand to meet Varus, Joseph, the cousin-german of king Herod, as also Gratus and Rufus, who brought their soldiers along with
them, together with those Romans who had been besieged; but Sabinus did not come into Varus's presence, but stole out of the city
privately, and went to the seaside.[259]
What a handy way to get rid of Sabinus and send him off into obscurity with the loot when, in all likelihood, it was Varus who
got the lion's share of the plunder, as was reported by Velleius!
Upon this, Varus sent a part of his army into the country, to seek out those that had been the authors of the revolt; and when they
were discovered, he punished some of them that were most guilty, and some he dismissed: now the number of those that were
crucified on this account were two thousand. After which he disbanded his army, which he found no way useful to him in the affairs
he came about; for they behaved themselves very disorderly, and disobeyed his orders, and what Varus desired them to do, and this
out of regard to that gain which they made by the mischief they did.
As for himself, when he was informed that ten thousand Jews had gotten together, he made haste to catch them; but they did not
proceed so far as to fight him, but, by the advice of Achiabus,[260] they came together, and delivered themselves up to him: hereupon
Varus forgave the crime of revolting to the multitude, but sent their several commanders to Caesar, many of whom Caesar dismissed;
but for the several relations of Herod who had been among these men in this war, they were the only persons whom he punished,
who, without the least regard to justice, fought against their own kindred.[261]
The likelihood of the above whitewash of Varus and this rebellion actually being historical as Josephus has written it is
vanishingly remote to anyone who has a good general grasp of how the Empire operated at the time.
[NOTE: Can you give some reasons above?]
Here is where we come to something rather puzzling, or so it seems to me. In Wars, Josephus says:
But now came another accusation from the Jews against Archelaus at Rome, which he was to answer to. It was made by those
ambassadors who, before the revolt, had come, by Varus's permission, to plead for the liberty of their country; those that came were
fifty in number, but there were more than eight thousand of the Jews at Rome who supported them ¼[262]
Nicolaus of Damascus defended the Herodian kingship and Archelaus. Here we have something of a doublet: 1) the argument
that was said to have taken place between Archelaus and Antipas for possession of the kingdom according to the two wills of
Herod the Great and 2) the argument of the Jewish embassy pleading for a governor vs. Nicolaus pleading Archelaus’ case.
Which really happened? And if both happened, when?
And we can’t forget this:
… letters came from Varus, the president of Syria, which informed Caesar of the revolt of the Jews; for after Archelaus was sailed, the
whole nation was in a tumult. So Varus, since he was there himself, brought the authors of the disturbance to punishment…
Notice that the text says these ambassadors came before the revolt, yet we are to understand that there was already a revolt
in progress just before Archelaus left, and another immediately after, the second being due to the nastiness of the Roman
governor. So, if that is the case, why would the Jews still want a Roman governor? You see how Josephus blows smoke? What
is he hiding here?
In any event, this was the alleged result:
So Caesar, after he had heard both sides, dissolved the assembly for that time; but a few days afterward, he gave the one half of
Herod's kingdom to Archelaus, by the name of Ethnarch, and promised to make him king also afterward, if he rendered himself worthy
of that dignity. But as to the other half, he divided it into two tetrarchies, and gave them to two other sons of Herod, the one of them
to Philip, and the other to that Antipas who contested the kingdom with Archelaus. Under this last was Perea and Galilee … but
Batanea, and Trachonitis, and Auranitis, and certain parts of Zeno's house about Jamnia … were made subject to Philip; while Idumea,
and all Judea, and Samaria were parts of the ethnarchy of Archelaus, although Samaria was eased of one quarter of its taxes, out of
regard to their not having revolted with the rest of the nation. He also made subject to him the following cities, viz. Strato's Tower, and
Sebaste, and Joppa, and Jerusalem; but as to the Grecian cities, Gaza, and Gadara, and Hippos, he cut them off from the kingdom, and
added them to Syria. … Salome also, besides what the king had left her in his testaments, was now made mistress of Jamnia, and
Ashdod, and Phasaelis. Caesar did moreover bestow upon her the royal palace of Ascalon … but he put her house under the ethnarchy
of Archelaus. And for the rest of Herod's offspring, they received what was bequeathed to them in his testaments ¼[263]
Obviously some of the mud slung at Archelaus stuck and Augustus didn’t feel inclined to confirm his father’s will or Archelaus’
claims.
[NOTE: Suggest deleting the 3 paragraphs below. They don’t say much.]
There is some issue here in considering the terms "ethnarch" and "tetrarch". The word tetrarch suggests four rulers ("ruler of
a quarter"). Josephus arguably mentions four rulers here: Archelaus as ethnarch, Antipas and Philip as tetrarchs, and Salome,
without a title. As a general rule I don’t bring in testimony from the gospels. However, Luke refers to Lysanias, tetrarch of
Abilene (a small realm on the western slopes of Mount Hermon), in his list of rulers at the time of John the Baptist, alongside
Pontius Pilate, Herod Antipas, and Philip.[264] Since it is rather certain that Luke used Josephus as one of his sources, this
may be a clue as to what the text of Antiquities said before some slight, but effective, editing took place.
According to Josephus, the emperor Claudius in 42 AD confirmed Agrippa I in the possession of Abila of Lysanias (already
bestowed upon him by Caligula), which had formed the tetrarchy of Lysanias: "He added to it the kingdom of Lysanias, and
that province of Abilene."[265]
In support of the excerpt from Luke, there is a temple inscription found at Abila, naming Lysanias as the tetrarch of the
locality and dated to the reign of either Augustus or Tiberius, so there is a good likelihood of the tetrarchy actually being
exactly that: four rulers of more or less ethnarchic authority (excluding Salome, perhaps, whose authority Josephus says was
under Archelaus’ ethnarchy).
In any event, all of the above is a whole lot of goings-on in Judea while Archelaus and the gang were dancing attendance on
Augustus. Notice, particularly, Archelaus was not really put in charge of things as one might be given to believe, but that in
fact, the kingdom was put under the ultimate oversight of the Syrian provincial governor, whoever that might be (probably
Varus at that moment). And finally, all of this was settled and set in motion at the end of 1 BC and early 1 AD, not three years
earlier.
The Ethnarchy of Archelaus
Now, let’s look at Josephus’ two versions of the ethnarchy of Archelaus. Keep in mind that the version in Wars is the one
most likely to stick closest to the facts though certainly Josephus felt free to innovate.:
Wars 2.7.3–4 (111–6) Antiquities 17.13.1–4 (339–52)
And now Archelaus took possession of his
ethnarchy, and used not the Jews only, but
the Samaritans also, barbarously; and this
out of his resentment of their old quarrels
with him. Whereupon they both of them sent
ambassadors against him to Caesar; and in
the ninth year of his government he was
banished to Vienna, a city of Gaul, and his
effects were put into Caesar's treasury.
But the report goes, that before he was sent
for by Caesar, he seemed to see nine ears of
corn, full and large, but devoured by oxen.
When, therefore, he had sent for the diviners,
and some of the Chaldeans, and inquired of
them what they thought it portended; and
when one of them had one interpretation,
and another had another, Simon, one of the
sect of Essenes, said that he thought the ears
of corn denoted years, and the oxen denoted
a mutation of things, because by their
ploughing they made an alteration of the
country. That therefore he should reign as
many years as there were ears of corn; and
after he had passed through various
alterations of fortune, should die. Now five
days after Archelaus had heard this
interpretation he was called to his trial.
When Archelaus was entered on his
ethnarchy, and was come into Judea, he
accused Joazar, the son of Boethus, of
assisting the seditious, and took away the
high priesthood from him, and put Eleazar
his brother in his place. He also magnificently
rebuilt the royal palace that had been at
Jericho, and he diverted half the water with
which the village of Neara used to be
watered, and drew off that water into the
plain, to water those palm trees which he
had there planted: he also built a village, and
put his own name upon it, and called it
Archelaus. Moreover, he transgressed the law
of our fathers and married Glaphyra, the
daughter of Archelaus, who had been the wife
of his brother Alexander, which Alexander had
three children by her, while it was a thing
detestable among the Jews to marry the
brother's wife. Nor did this Eleazar abide long
in the high priesthood, Jesus, the son of Sie,
being put in his room while he was still
living.
But in the tenth year of Archelaus's
government, both his brethren, and the
principal men of Judea and Samaria, not
being able to bear his barbarous and
I cannot also but think it worthy to be
recorded what dream Glaphyra, the daughter
of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, had, who
had at first been wife to Alexander, who was
the brother of Archelaus, concerning whom
we have been discoursing. This Alexander was
the son of Herod the king, by whom he was
put to death, as we have already related. This
Glaphyra was married, after his death, to
Juba, king of Libya; and, after his death, was
returned home, and lived a widow with her
father. Then it was that Archelaus, the
ethnarch, saw her, and fell so deeply in love
with her, that he divorced Mariamne, who
was then his wife, and married her. When,
therefore, she was come into Judea, and had
been there for a little while, she thought she
saw Alexander stand by her, and that he said
to her; "Thy marriage with the king of Libya
might have been sufficient for thee; but thou
wast not contented with him, but art returned
again to my family, to a third husband; and
him, thou impudent woman, hast thou chosen
for thine husband, who is my brother.
However, I shall not overlook the injury thou
hast offered me; I shall [soon] have thee
again, whether thou wilt or no." Now
Glaphyra hardly survived the narration of this
dream of hers two days.
tyrannical usage of them, accused him before
Caesar, and that especially because they
knew he had broken the commands of Caesar,
which obliged him to behave himself with
moderation among them. Whereupon Caesar,
when he heard it, was very angry, and called
for Archelaus's steward, who took care of his
affairs at Rome, and whose name was
Archelaus also; and thinking it beneath him to
write to Archelaus, he bid him sail away as
soon as possible, and bring him to us: so the
man made haste in his voyage, and when he
came into Judea, he found Archelaus feasting
with his friends; so he told him what Caesar
had sent him about, and hastened him away.
And when he was come [to Rome], Caesar,
upon hearing what certain accusers of his had
to say, and what reply he could make, both
banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city
of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and
took his money away from him.
Now, before Archelaus was gone up to Rome
upon this message, he related this dream to
his friends: That he saw ears of corn, in
number ten, full of wheat, perfectly ripe,
which ears, as it seemed to him, were
devoured by oxen. And when he was awake
and gotten up, because the vision appeared
to be of great importance to him, he sent for
the diviners, whose study was employed
about dreams. And while some were of one
opinion, and some of another, [for all their
interpretations did not agree,] Simon, a man
of the sect of the Essenes, desired leave to
speak his mind freely, and said that the vision
denoted a change in the affairs of Archelaus,
and that not for the better; that oxen,
because that animal takes uneasy pains in his
labors, denoted afflictions, and indeed
denoted, further, a change of affairs, because
that land which is ploughed by oxen cannot
remain in its former state; and that the ears
of corn being ten, determined the like
number of years, because an ear of corn
grows in one year; and that the time of
Archelaus's government was over. And thus
did this man expound the dream. Now on the
fifth day after this dream came first to
Archelaus, the other Archelaus, that was sent
to Judea by Caesar to call him away, came
hither also.
The like accident befell Glaphyra his wife, who
was the daughter of king Archelaus, who, as I
said before, was married, while she was a
virgin, to Alexander, the son of Herod, and
brother of Archelaus; but since it fell out so
that Alexander was slain by his father, she
was married to Juba, the king of Libya; and
when he was dead, and she lived in
widowhood in Cappadocia with her father,
Archelaus divorced his former wife Mariamne,
and married her, so great was his affection for
this Glphyra; who, during her marriage to him,
saw the following dream: She thought she
saw Alexander standing by her, at which she
rejoiced, and embraced him with great
affection; but that he complained to her, and
said, O Glaphyra! thou provest that saying to
be true, which assures us that women are not
to be trusted. Didst not thou pledge thy faith
to me? and wast not thou married to me
when thou wast a virgin? and had we not
children between us? Yet hast thou forgotten
the affection I bare to thee, out of a desire of
a second husband. Nor hast thou been
satisfied with that injury thou didst me, but
thou hast been so bold as to procure thee a
third husband to lie by thee, and in an
indecent and imprudent manner hast entered
into my house, and hast been married to
Archelaus, thy husband and my brother.
However, I will not forget thy former kind
affection for me, but will set thee free from
every such reproachful action, and cause
thee to be mine again, as thou once wast.
When she had related this to her female
companions, in a few days' time she departed
this life.
It's not hard to see the model of the dream of the pharaoh of Egypt interpreted by Joseph in Genesis 41 as the basis of the
dream sequence. As you can see, the version in Antiquities is somewhat elaborated with many details and flourishes, most
interesting being the inclusion of the bit about the high priest aiding the rebellion. The number of years is increased (by only
one, so we won’t quibble over it but assume that Wars is the correct version), the threatening tone of the Glaphyra story in
Wars is softened in Antiquities, etc. The building projects are added, as well as the bringing of water from a distant source to
water palm trees, a theme that we will see again.
As for Archelaus himself, he is only mentioned briefly in other sources. Strabo, writing in the early 20s AD, seems to refer to
him without giving his name: “However, [Herod the Great’s] sons were not successful, but became involved in accusations;
and one of them spent the rest of his life in exile, having taken up his abode among the Allobrogian Gauls, whereas the
others, by much obsequiousness, but with difficulty, found leave to return home, with a tetrarchy assigned to each.”[266]
Vienna was the capital of the Allobroges. The chronology is not clear; it sounds as if Archelaus was banished before his
brothers, Antipas and Philip, entered their tetrarchies.
Dio, writing close to 200 years later, also refers to him, dating his banishment to 6 AD: “Herod of Palestine, who was accused
by his brothers of some wrongdoing or other, was banished beyond the Alps and a portion of the domain was confiscated to
the state.”[267] Dio mentions Josephus, so he probably had access to his works. Either Judea became a Roman province when
Josephus says (and Dio implies), in 6 AD, or it happened in 1 BC, and Dio used Josephus’ mangled history.
Musical Priests
On the matter of the high priest, recall that the people petitioned Archelaus at the very beginning to give them back an
acceptable high priest and Josephus said he did so. Let’s review a couple of details quickly. Herod replaced Matthias with
Joazar, Matthias’ brother-in-law, as high priest. After describing Matthias’ holiness, Josephus says that during his tenure as
high priest, Joseph son of Ellemus officiated for a single fasting day, because Matthias had dreamed that he spoke with his
wife, which disqualified him for the day. Then he comes back to the immediate concern, which is the burning of the Golden
Eagle Rebellion rabbis and their followers:
But Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his
companions, alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon.[268]
One gets the impression that Josephus "protests too much" when he declares that there are two Matthiases. But there may
be more. Martin points out that the Megillath Taanith (“Scroll of Fasting”, which records festivals, etc.), composed not long
after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, mentions two semi-festival days during which no mourning was permitted. One of
the days is Kislev 7, which corresponds in most years with December. The other was Schebat 2, which corresponds with late
January or early February. An early Jewish commentator who wrote quite some time after the composition of this text added
a brief remark to Kislev 7 (December 5th in 1 BC): "The day of Herod's death." This has been disputed by Moise Schwab, who
says that Schebat 2 (January 28 in 1 BC) was the day commemorating Herod's death, which, in the retrocalculations, would
put it 18 days after the lunar eclipse of that year. But what about Kislev 7, which the early commentator associated with
Herod's death? It appears that this date may have been the day of the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing. Such an event may
very well have inspired a commemoration, especially if we keep in mind Josephus' description of the men involved as “two of
the most eloquent men among the Jews, and the most celebrated interpreters of the Jewish laws, and men well beloved by
the people”.
And hasn't Matthias the high priest also been described by Josephus as a man of extraordinary virtue? And didn't Josephus
say that Herod took the rabbis captive, along with the youths who followed them, and transferred them to Jericho where they
were tried and executed? Why was he afraid to do this in Jerusalem?
The Megillath Taanith records an unknown fast day, Tebeth 9 (January 6th in 1 BC). Martin proposes that this was the day of
the trial and sentencing, after which, three days later, on January 9th, the rabbis were burned alive on the night of the eclipse.
The people assembled together, and desired of Archelaus, that ¼ he would deprive that high priest whom Herod had made, and would
choose one more agreeable to the law, and of greater purity, to officiate as high priest. This was granted by Archelaus …[269]
And now:
When Archelaus was entered on his ethnarchy, and was come into Judea, he accused Joazar, the son of Boethus, of assisting the
seditious, and took away the high priesthood from him, and put Eleazar his brother in his place.[270]
So, we have Matthias, who may actually have been the same Matthias who was one of the leaders of the Golden Eagle
rebellion, being deprived of the priesthood, and Joazar – Matthias’ brother-in-law – installed by Herod the Great. Then, soon
after Herod’s death, Archelaus replaces Joazar with some unnamed high priest demanded by the people; and then, after
Archelaus returns from Rome and enters his ethnarchy, we learn that Joazar was high priest during the rebellion all along and
is now being replaced with an Eleazar who is the brother of Joazar? I guess that makes Eleazar also a brother of Matthias’
wife. One feels just a bit vertiginous with all these high priests under the shells being moved about.
Nor did this Eleazar abide long in the high priesthood, Jesus, the son of Sie, being put in his place while he was still living.[271]
I don't want to digress onto the problem of the various Jesuses mentioned by Josephus in both Antiquties and Wars; just note
that there is not another mention of anyone named "Sie" anywhere else in the texts, though there were other Jesuses
(Joshua/Yeshua) who were high priests, and some of them, in Wars, were implicated in the Great Rebellion.
Apparently, when a high priest was appointed, custom had it that he normally stayed in the office until he died. Josephus tells
us regarding Herod the Great's first act of this kind:
So king Herod immediately took the high priesthood away from Ananelus … He was one of the stock of the high priests and had been of
old a particular friend of Herod; and when he was first made king, he conferred that dignity upon him, and now put him out of it again,
in order to quiet the troubles in his family, though what he did was plainly unlawful, for at no other time [of old] was anyone that had
once been in that dignity deprived of it. It was Antiochus Epiphanes who first broke that law, and deprived Jesus, and made his brother
Onias high priest in his stead. Aristobulus was the second that did so, and took that dignity from his brother [Hyrcanus]; and this Herod
was the third, who took that high office away [from Ananelus], and gave it to this young man, Aristobulus, in his stead.[272]
Either Josephus is playing fast and loose with his high priests, or something strange was going on at the time to necessitate
such rapid changes in the high priesthood.
Musical Rebels
Now, back to Archelaus who, as Josephus tells us in Antiquities, has undertaken magnificent building projects including
diverting “half the water with which the village of Neara used to be watered”, and drawing off that water into the plain “to
water those palm trees which he had there planted".[273] Next we have Archelaus marrying his brother's widow and having a
dream interpreted by Simon the Essene, five days[274] after which "the other Archelaus” finds him and hauls him off to
Augustus and exile. Glaphyra then has a dream and dies "a few days" later. This was in the tenth (or ninth) year of Archelaus's
government. Archelaus is exiled to Gaul.
There is something odd about Josephus’ tale of Archelaus. In Wars, he tells much the same story about the trip to Rome, the
legal arguments about who gets what from the will of Herod the Great, the decision made, etc. So, since this is in Wars, we
can assume that it is mostly historical. But then, when we come to the Varus War that apparently had gotten underway in
Archelaus’ absence, we find a number of interesting items.
We are told that the revolt has begun while Archelaus and the family are dancing attendance on Augustus, who learns of it
from letters of Varus. The following description of the war appears as though it is part of the report of Varus. Apparently,
Herod's army that had devolved onto Archelaus deserted to the rebel side. However, here we meet the soon-to-be famous
Rufus and Gratus, captains of the men of Sebaste.
There were also a great many of the king's party who deserted the Romans, and assisted the Jews; yet did the most warlike body of
them all, who were three thousand of the men of Sebaste, go over to the Romans. Rufus also, and Gratus, their captains, did the
same, [Gratus having the foot of the king's party under him, and Rufus the horse,] each of whom, even without the forces under them,
were of great weight, on account of their strength and wisdom, which turn the scales in war.[275]
Now during all this, things were also being stirred up throughout the countryside from many quarters, and the opportunity induced
large numbers to [seek] sovereignty. For example, in Idumea 2,000 of those who had once been soldiers under Herod united in arms
and fought strenuously against the royalists [i.e. supporters of Archelaus]. Among the latter Achiab, the king’s cousin, was giving battle
from the most fortified positions, evading the entanglement of the plains.
[276]
In Sepphoris also, a city of Galilee, there was one Judas (the son of that arch-robber Hezekias, who formerly overran the country, and
had been subdued by king Herod); this man got no small multitude together, and broke open the place where the royal armor was laid
up, and armed those about him, and attacked those that were so earnest to gain the dominion.[277]
This Judas of Sepphoris brings to mind "Judas, son of Saripheus", the greatly esteemed teacher of the law mentioned in
Antiquities. In fact, earlier in Wars, when the story of Judas and Matthias is told, we read:
There also now happened to him, among his other calamities, a certain popular sedition. There were two men of learning in the city
[Jerusalem,] who were thought the most skillful in the laws of their country, and were on that account had in very great esteem all over
the nation; they were, the one Judas, the son of Sepphoris, and the other Matthias, the son of Margalus. There was a great concourse
of the young men to these men when they expounded the laws, and there got together every day a kind of an army of such as were
growing up to be men.[278]
Clearly the Judas of the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing was not burnt alive along with his pal, Matthias. However, we are a bit
puzzled to find Judas of Sepphoris being said to be the son of "that arch-robber Hezekias" who, according to Antiquities 14.9.2
(159–60), had been executed by Herod forty-five years earlier. In the description of the Varus war from Book 17 of Antiquities,
this same Hezekias is called "Ezekias":
There was also Judas, the son of that Ezekias who had been head of the robbers; which Ezekias was a very strong man, and had with
great difficulty been caught by Herod. This Judas, having gotten together a multitude of men of a profligate character about
Sepphoris in Galilee, made an assault upon the palace [there,] and seized upon all the weapons that were laid up in it, and with
them armed every one of those that were with him, and carried away what money was left there; and he became terrible to all
men, by tearing and rending those that came near him; and all this in order to raise himself, and out of an ambitious desire of the
royal dignity; and he hoped to obtain that as the reward not of his virtuous skill in war, but of his extravagance in doing injuries.[279]
We will see a son of Judas of Sepphoris/Galilee who does a similar deed in respect of Masada many years further on. The
point I wish to make is that we must be extremely cautious about extracting any historical facts from the works of Josephus.
He is clearly blowing smoke over who was who, who did what, and when! Continuing with Wars, Josephus describes another
royal contender:
In Perea also, Simon, one of the servants to the king, relying upon the handsome appearance and tallness of his body, put a diadem
upon his own head also; he also went about with a company of robbers that he had gotten together, and burnt down the royal palace
that was at Jericho, and many other costly edifices besides, and procured himself very easily spoils by rapine, as snatching them out of
the fire. And he had soon burnt down all the fine edifices, if Gratus, the captain of the foot of the king's party, had not taken the
Trachonite archers, and the most warlike of Sebaste, and met the man. His footmen were slain in the battle in abundance; Gratus also
cut to pieces Simon himself, as he was flying along a strait valley, when he gave him an oblique stroke upon his neck, as he ran away,
and broke it.[280]
[NOTE: Deleted the sentences about rising from the dead in 3 days. Knohl has changed his position on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel%27s_Revelation]
This Simon of Perea is the subject of discussion in Israel Knohl's book Messiahs and Resurrection in the Gabriel Revelation.
Gabriel's Revelation, also called Hazon Gabriel or the Jeselsohn Stone, is a three-foot-tall stone tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew
text written in ink, containing a collection of short prophecies written in the first person and dated to the late 1st century BC.
The unprovenanced tablet was found near the Dead Sea some time around the year 2000 and has been associated with the
same community that created the Dead Sea Scrolls. Because the manner of death of the individual is described in the text,
and rather closely matches that of Josephus' description of the death of Simon of Perea, Knohl argues that the text shows
Simon’s death to be "an essential part of the redemptive process. The blood of the slain messiah paves the way for the final
salvation".[281]
Knohl’s work suggests there was more to this rebellion than Josephus lets on, and he is busy obfuscating who was who and
connected to who else and why. With that in mind, let's look at the next "messianic king" that Josephus mentions:
At this time it was that a certain shepherd ventured to set himself up for a king; he was called Athrongeus. It was his strength of body
that made him expect such a dignity, as well as his soul, which despised death; and besides these qualifications, he had four brethren
like himself. He put a troop of armed men under each of these his brethren, and made use of them as his generals and
commanders, when he made his incursions, while he did himself act like a king, and meddled only with the more important affairs;
and at this time he put a diadem about his head, and continued after that to overrun the country for no little time with his brethren,
and became their leader in killing both the Romans and those of the king's party; nor did any Jew escape him, if any gain could
accrue to him thereby. He once ventured to encompass a whole troop of Romans at Emmaus, who were carrying corn and weapons
to their legion; his men therefore shot their arrows and darts, and thereby slew their centurion Arius, and forty of the stoutest of his
men, while the rest of them, who were in danger of the same fate, upon the coming of Gratus, with those of Sebaste, to their
assistance, escaped. And when these men had thus served both their own countrymen and foreigners, and that through this whole
war, three of them were, after some time, subdued; the eldest by Archelaus, the two next by falling into the hands of Gratus and
Ptolemeus; but the fourth delivered himself up to Archelaus, upon his giving him his right hand for his security. However, this their
end was not till afterward, while at present they filled all Judea with a piratic war.
[282]
The version in Antiquities is more elaborate, but says basically the same things; there is a slight change in the spelling of the
name: Athronges. About this fellow's name, we are told:
Rapoport has explained the name "Athronges" by the Hebraized Persian word "orange," or "melon"¼, and identified it with Ben
Baṭiaḥ, "Son of the Cucumber" (that is, like a cucumber), the popular hero, the size of whose fist has become proverbial in ancient
rabbinical literature (Kelim xvii. 12; Tosef., Kelim, B. M. vii. 2); the form of his hand having, as Rapoport thinks, given rise to both terms.
At a later time, legend identified him with the leader of the insurrection, Abba Saḳḳara, the nephew of Johanan ben Zakkai.[283]
Curiously, Josephus doesn't associate this Athronges/Athrongeus with any particular location. We notice his four brothers. We
also notice, particularly, that one brother was apparently brought to heel by Archelaus, though this was "a good while
afterward", and that Archelaus let him live. Josephus makes no mention of Ahtronges’ fate.
After almost no real details of the “reign” of Archelaus, we are told in both Wars and Antiquities that complaints were made
against him by both Samaritans and Jews and he was banished. As we have seen above, the same was said about Pilate in
almost the exact same terms.
And now Archelaus's part of Judea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one of the equestrian order among the Romans, was
sent as a procurator, having the power of [life and] death put into his hands by Caesar. Under his administration it was that a certain
Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt, and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a
tax to the Romans and would after God submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and
was not at all like the rest of those their leaders.
[284]
Judas is back again! We notice in Josephus' description of the "Fourth Philosophy" of Judas the Galilean:
... for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil
government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were
before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence
among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction. ... of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas
the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to
liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed
the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of
theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that anything I have said of them
should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain.
[285]
Notice what Josephus had written about Athronges/Athrongeus: "his soul, which despised death". It is easy to see how Judas
of Sepphoris/Galilee could have been conflated with a legendary strong man "the size of whose fist has become proverbial in
ancient rabbinical literature". We should also recall the descriptions of the teachings given by Matthias and Judas to the young
men who were tasked with the Golden Eagle Rebellion, that it was a good thing to die in the service of their god. Judas the
Galilean is certainly Judas the great teacher of the Golden Eagle Rebellion and, possibly, Athronges/Athrongeus, some of
whose brothers were captured and killed:
¼ three of them were, after some time, subdued; the eldest by Archelaus, the two next by falling into the hands of Gratus and
Ptolemeus; but the fourth delivered himself up to Archelaus, upon his giving him his right hand for his security. However, this their end
was not till afterward …[286]
As we’ve seen, the chronology of this time is tricky. If Archelaus embarked upon his rule of his ethnarchy in 1 AD and reigned
9 years, that would place his exile in 9 AD.[287] However, Dio places it in 6 AD. Getroux resolves this problem by arguing that
Archelaus and his brothers dated the beginning of their rule not to the year of their father’s death, but to the time of Herod’s
testament of 4 BC. Herod the Great had done something similar: while he only officially started to rule Judea in 36 BC, after
the death of Antigonus, he minted his first coin with “year 3”, retrodating his reign back to 39 BC. (He had been made king by
Rome in December of 40 BC, but Jewish kings began their reign on Nisan 1 [April] after their accession.)
This whole Archelaus period is furiously vague and suggestive of things that are being covered up and deliberately obfuscated.
He is accused by Josephus of being brutal to the point that the people complain about him. But did they complain at the
beginning or at the end? There is nothing particular about his alleged brutality that is not also ascribed to Varus and others. In
fact, there are a whole lot more details about what the Romans were doing without punishment, so why was Archelaus
exiled? Is Dio correct, and if so, what accusations did his brothers bring up against him?
In his Histories, Tacitus tells us:
On Herod’s death, one Simon, without waiting for the approbation of the Emperor, usurped the title of king. He was punished by
Quintilius Varus then governor of Syria, and the nation, with its liberties curtailed, was divided into three provinces under the sons of
Herod. Under Tiberius, all was quiet. But when the Jews were ordered by Caligula to set up his statue in the temple, they preferred
the alternative of war. The death of the Emperor put an end to the disturbance. The kings were either dead or reduced to
insignificance, when Claudius entrusted the province of Judea to the Roman Knights or to his own freedmen, one of whom, Antonius
Felix, indulging in every kind of barbarity and lust, exercised the power of a king in the spirit of a slave… Yet the endurance of the Jews
lasted till Gessius Florus was procurator. In his time the war broke out.[288]
Apparently, Simon of Peraea was considerably more important than Josephus lets on, important enough to be known about in
Rome. How long did he prevail as king? How long did it take for Varus to “punish” him? Tacitus says nothing about a literal
tetrarchy, but rather says that the nation was divided into three provinces under the sons of Herod. He makes no mention of
the exile of Archelaus. Was Archelaus-the-evil invented to some degree by Josephus to take some of the blame for Roman
incitement to rebellion? Why is Josephus so deliberately confusing about the events of this period? What is he covering up?
There are more questions than answers. One is reminded of the interesting findings of Ernest Martin discussed above
regarding the participation of Augustus’ adopted son, Gaius Caesar, in the "War of Varus".
[NOTE: Either delete the last sentence above, or make he connection to Gaius Caesar explicit.]
Enter Pilate
The period following the exile of Archelaus is covered very briefly in Josephus’ Wars. Above, we saw that "Coponius, one of
the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as a procurator" and immediately faced the rebellion against taxation led
by Judas the Galilean. Apparently, while that was going on:
And now as the ethnarchy of Archelaus was fallen into a Roman province, the other sons of Herod, Philip, and that Herod who was
called Antipas, each of them took upon them the administration of their own tetrarchies; for when Salome died, she bequeathed to
Julia, the wife of Augustus, both her toparchy, and Jamnia, as also her plantation of palm trees that were in Phasaelis.
But when the Roman empire was translated to Tiberius, the son of Julia, upon the death of Augustus, who had reigned fifty-seven
years, six months, and two days, both Herod and Philip continued in their tetrarchies; and the latter of them built the city Caesarea, at
the fountains of Jordan, and in the region of Paneas; as also the city Julias, in the lower Gaulonitis. Herod also built the city Tiberius in
Galilee, and in Perea [beyond Jordan] another that was also called Julias.
Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images of Caesar that are called ensigns into
Jerusalem.[289]
It is obvious that Josephus intends us to understand that, following Coponius, Pilate is the next procurator. That would fit with
the general tendency of things thus far. From 6 AD until the death of Augustus in 14, Coponius was procurator for eight years,
replaced by Pilate upon the ascension of Tiberius. That would put Pilate in Judea in 14/15 AD.
However, things are more complex in Antiquities. When Archelaus is exiled, we are introduced right away to "Cyrenius", who
is not mentioned at this point in Wars:
So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of
people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus.[290]
It almost sounds like the strictly fiscal role of Sabinus after the death of Herod the Great. However, Josephus expands on this
further on:
Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been
consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to
be a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together
with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the
province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning
they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was
the son of Boethus, and high priest; so they, being over-persuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any
dispute about it ¼[291]
"Cyrenius" is Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. He was consul in 12 BC, when he was 39, so he would have been 57 years old when he
came to Syria in 6 AD after the exile of Archelaus! That is a bit odd. At that age, he should have been retired. Apparently,
Quirinius served as governor of Syria with nominal authority over Judaea until 12 AD, when he returned to Rome as a close
associate of Tiberius. Nine years later he died and was given a public funeral.
[NOTE: Provide a source for the Roman age of retirement. I can’t find a good one.]
The Sons of Judas: Pillars of the Church?
Searching through Wars, we find two references to Cyrenius/Quirinius, both of which just happen to mention Judas the
Galilean:
In the meantime [66 AD], one Manahem, the son of Judas, that was called the Galilean, [who was a very cunning sophister, and had
formerly reproached the Jews under Cyrenius, that after God they were subject to the Romans,] took some of the men of note with
him, and retired to Masada, where he broke open king Herod's armory, and gave arms not only to his own people, but to other
robbers also. These he made use of for a guard, and returned in the state of a king to Jerusalem ...[292]
In Antiquities, there is a Manahem, an Essene acquainted with Herod the Great, but no mention of a Manahem, son of Judas
the Galilean.[293] Two other sons of Judas are mentioned in Antiquities:
Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; ¼ the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused
the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The
names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified ¼[294]
Tiberius Alexander was procurator of Judea under Claudius, from 46 to 48 AD. That puts him there in the period of Paul. In
Acts 12:2, the story about James, the brother of John, being executed, and Simon-Peter seized, was perhaps inspired by this
passage in Josephus. The way Josephus writes this is as though there were no other sons, but we know he had another
Menahem who shows up at Masada at the beginning of the Great Rebellion, as we saw above. We also wonder about this
execution in light of the remark made in 1 Clement: “By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of
the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.”[295]
Were these individuals, James and Simon, two of the “pillars” of the Jerusalem ecclesia? We can note that Cephas/Peter is
also referred to as Simon-Peter. Was this son of Judas the Galilean, this Simon, also the “rock” of the gospels? And was Peter
someone else entirely, as suggested by the text of 1 Clement and Paul’s letters? Was there another son of Judas, a Jude? If
these identifications are on target, they support the other lines of evidence suggesting the whole of the early history of the
Jerusalem ecclesia as presented by Acts is a total fraud. Not only does Acts misrepresent facts, as a comparison with Paul’s
letters shows; it also displaces seed historical events in time, such as the start of the “Christian” movement, the activities of
Paul, and the fate of the pillars. If these two are the James and Cephas that Paul met in Jerusalem, that means his second visit
was before these executions.[296]
The next reference to Cyrenius in Wars is just prior to the siege of Masada in 73 AD, conducted by Lucius Flavius Silva and the
Roman legion X Fretensis:
When Bassus was dead in Judea, Flavius Silva succeeded him as procurator there; who, when he saw that all the rest of the country
was subdued in this war, and that there was but one only stronghold that was still in rebellion, he got all his army together that lay in
different places, and made an expedition against it. This fortress was called Masada. It was one Eleazar, a potent man, and the
commander of these Sicarii, that had seized upon it. He was a descendant from that Judas who had persuaded abundance of the
Jews, as we have formerly related, not to submit to the taxation when Cyrenius was sent into Judea to make one …[297]
"Descendant"? Does that mean grandson? One of the sons of the sons of Judas executed 25 years earlier during the reign of
Tiberius Alexander? Or was he, too, a son? One might wish to note that Tiberius Alexander was second in command to Titus
during the Siege of Jerusalem. If he could come back 25 years later, it’s altogether possible that this Eleazar was a brother of
James and Simon, executed in 48 AD.
Since Josephus regularly refers to Judas the Galilean as the initiator of the revolt against the tax census of Cyrenius/Quirinius,
it is clear that this is the same person as the following:
¼ yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous
to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to
assert their liberty ¼ They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in
such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not
grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height.
All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one
violent war came upon us after another ¼ [F]or Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great
many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this
system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather
because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.[298]
So, we have had a "War of Varus" in 1 BC immediately following the death of Herod the Great, possibly triggered by the
actions of Archelaus and Sabinus, or Simon of Peraea. We have Judas the Galilean who seems to be the same Judas of
Sepphoris, the great expounder of the law who encouraged the Golden Eagle Rebellion that led to, at the very least, the
execution of a group of young Jews and possibly one of their teachers, Matthias, whom we don't find showing up again as we
do Judas.
Josephus tells us a lot more about Cyrenius/Quirinius than he ever told us about Varus and Sabinus, and that seems odd. But
then, we do have more background on Quirinius in Tacitus than on Varus. However, Josephus notes that, despite the fact that
Coponius had the authority, "Cyrenius came himself into Judea". So, it plays again along the same model that was set by Varus
and Sabinus after the death of Herod the Great (where Varus had the authority, but Sabinus came into Judea).
The period is very mysterious because, during that time, it seems Archelaus was on the scene and was involved in the capture
of one of the Athronges gang – and then let them go. I suspect that Athronges was just a folk name for Judas of
Sepphoris/Galilee, the warrior, and he then shows up again as “Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala” creating
the same problems for Cyrenius that he had created during the Varus War. (Gamala overlooks the Sea of Galilee and
Sepphoris is also nearby.)
[NOTE: Above, Price says the Athronges/Judas link “seems like just a convenient guess”.]
The Mystery Priest
Most amazing of all is that Joazar, son of Boethus, reappears as high priest! However, here, instead of fomenting rebellion, he
is credited with quelling it.[299]
When Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus’s money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the
thirty-seventh year of Caesar’s victory over Antony at Actium [i.e. 6–7 AD, 37 years after 2 September 31 BC], he deprived Joazar of
the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus the son of Seth while
Herod [Antipas] and Philip had each of them received their own tetrarchy, and settled the affairs thereof.[300]
Now wait a minute! Our list of priests looks like this:
· Matthias
· Joazar son of Boethus, appointed by Herod to replace Matthias
· Unnamed mystery priest appointed by Archelaus on the demand of the people
· Joazar son of Boethus, accused by Archelaus of assisting the sedition/war
· Eleazar (brother of Joazar), appointed by Archelaus to replace Joazar
· Jesus son of Sie replaced Eleazar "while he was still living"
And now we learn that Joazar, the high priest in office at the time of the arrival of Cyrenius/Quirinius was supposed to have
been selected by the multitude? That would mean he is the "mystery priest" and that all that business about changing priests
is just blowing smoke.
In any event, earlier we saw that Josephus was born in 37 years after the Varus war. The tetrarch Philip died after reigning 37
years. Herod the Great died 37 years after he was made king by Antony and Octavian (Augustus), and now we have the 37th
year of the victory of Octavian over Antony noted as the year of the tax census. It could be a coincidence, but it strikes me as
curious:
· After 37 years (since Antony made Herod king), Sabinus disposes Herod’s money
· After 37 years (since Antony lost to Octavian), Cyrenius disposes of Archelaus’ money
There are a few possibilities:
1) Coincidence: both events happened as Josephus relates them. Unfortunately, Josephus is our only source, so his
accounts can’t be externally verified.
2) Doubling: Josephus is “rounding out” his history by doubling up events.
3) Redaction: Perhaps the text originally read, “Cyrenius had now disposed of Herod’s money”, and the date was the
same as the year Herod died, 37 years after he had been made king by Antony. That would make the coincidence
intelligible, but would also require additional tinkering by tying it to Archelaus’ exile. Since it comes after a description
of Archelaus’ career, that whole chapter would also need to be an interpolation.
What if the War of Varus was so destructive that it took quite a few years for recovery? In other words, there wasn’t much
history to write for the years immediately following Herod the Great’s death, and Josephus did his best to fill it up with
plausible narrative. Recall the archaeological claim mentioned earlier that there was a considerable period of time when
Roman pottery disappears from the record. Taken with the oddities reviewed thus far, along with those to come, these
numbers are just too coincidental to blithely assume that there is no prestidigitation going on here.
The doublet factor, which is going to get worse, suggests that a fake history for the period of Herod’s death and the reign of
Archelaus has been created. Josephus is the only source for Quirinius’ census; the relevant years, 6 BC–4 AD, are missing in
Dio, who records regular censuses every five years or so. Dio does mention a census in 4 AD when Sentius Saturninus was
consul, but he explicitly says that this census was limited to Italy, “for [Augustus] did not compel the poorer citizens or those
living outside out of Italy to be listed, fearing that if they were disturbed, they would become rebellious.”[301]
The problem of Cyrenius/Quirinius
We do know a few things about Cyrenius/Quirinius, because Tacitus mentions him.[302] Tacitus briefly recaps his career when
his death is mentioned, but never mentions his appointment as governor of Syria. However, his presence there is attested by
an inscription, the Titulus Venetus, which describes the career of a knight, Aemilius Secundus:
Q[uintus] Aemilius Secundus s[on] of Q[uintus], of the tribe Palatina, who served in the camps of the divine Aug[ustus] under P.
Sulpicius Quirinius, legate of Caesar in Syria, decorated with honorary distinctions, prefect of the 1st cohort Aug[usta], prefect of the
cohort II Classica. Besides, by order of Quirinius I made the census of 117 thousand citizens of Apamea. Besides, sent on mission by
Quirinius, against the Itureans, I took their citadel on Mount Lebanon. And prior military service, (I was) Prefect of the workers,
detached by two co[nsul]s at the "aerarium [The State Treasury]". And in the colony, quaestor, aedile twice, duumvir twice,
pontiff.[303]
Unfortunately, it is difficult to date when these events took place. Given that Quirinius would have been old by Roman
standards in 6 AD, I suspect that if Cyrenius/Quirinius played this role at all, he did so in conjunction with Varus; that Publius
Sulpicius Quirinius was Augustus’ special taxman and Josephus replaced him in the tale for political reasons. Sabinus may have
accompanied him as his legate; he was there at the time that Varus was governor, and the census took place upon the death
of Herod, not at the time of the exile of Archelaus.
Archelaus may never have ruled his ethnarchy at all. Perhaps Augustus ruled against him when he was in Rome, based on the
testimony of his brothers and the Jewish embassy, and sent him into exile there and then? That’s how Strabo makes it sound.
However, we can’t know for sure; it is only speculation based on the oddities of Josephus’ text. One thing seems certain:
Josephus didn’t know much about that period after which he no longer had the works of Nicholaus of Damascus to rely on,
and he wasn’t as smart as he portrayed himself in his autobiography, either. Or he knew a great deal and felt it necessary to
rewrite history for that period and just wasn’t that clever about it.
Samaritans third time around
Just like Sabinus and Archelaus, Coponius has a set-to with the Jews at Passover, only this time it is attributed to Samaritan
issues (recall that Samaritan issues brought the downfall of Pilate and Archelaus, according to Josephus).
As Coponius, who we told you was sent along with Cyrenius, was exercising his office of procurator, and governing Judea, the following
accidents happened. As the Jews were celebrating the feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover, it was customary for the
priests to open the temple-gates just after midnight. When, therefore, those gates were first opened, some of the Samaritans came
privately into Jerusalem, and threw about dead men's bodies, in the cloisters; on which account the Jews afterward excluded them
out of the temple, which they had not used to do at such festivals; and on other accounts also they watched the temple more carefully
than they had formerly done. A little after which accident Coponius returned to Rome, and Marcus Ambivius came to be his successor
in that government; under whom Salome, the sister of king Herod died and left to Julia, [Caesar's wife,] Jamnia, all its toparchy, and
Phasaelis in the plain, and Arehelais, where is a great plantation of palm trees, and their fruit is excellent in its kind. After him
[Ambivius] came Annius Rufus, under whom died Caesar ...[304]
The Samaritans just threw dead bodies around? Where did they get the dead bodies? Did they, perhaps, kill people, on site
even? Dead bodies being scattered around in the temple on Passover? A shadow of the rebellion under Varus and
Sabinus/Archelaus? A triplet, now? The story is ridiculous. Also, is that the same plantation of palm trees that Archelaus was
supposed to have brought water to? Was Salome, possibly, the other actual ruler? She was given territory – that is abundantly
clear; why does Josephus make a special point of saying that she was “under Archelaus”? What if she wasn’t? Why did he
specifically mention her plantation of palm trees?
[NOTE: Price adds: “Could this be a story, or an actual event, inspired by the Harmonean prank of defiling the Samaritan
temple by scattering dead men’s bones in the sanctuary?” But I can’t find the source for that.]
Gratus and Rufus, and Musical Priests
Getting back to our procurators/governors with authority in Judea: from Antiquities, we have the following list:
· Varus and Gaius Caesar (with Sabinus) – 1 BC/AD
· Archelaus – a shadow, either 9 or 10 years or not at all
· Coponius (with Cyrenius/Quirinius) – 3 years?
· Marcus Ambivius (Ambivulus) – 3 years?
· Annius Rufus – 3 years?
· Death of Augustus – 14 AD
Then we come to Valerius Gratus, who is said to have served from 15 to 26 AD (!), to be replaced by Pilate (which opposes
what Josephus says in Wars, where Marcus Ambivius, Annius Rufus and Valerius Gratus are not even mentioned):
But when the Roman empire was translated to Tiberius… both Herod and Philip continued in their tetrarchies… Now Pilate, who was
sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images of Caesar that are called ensigns into Jerusalem.[305]
As opposed to:
[Tiberius] sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus.
[306]
Now, wait a minute. Where have we seen the names Gratus and Rufus juxtaposed before? Remember back during the
rebellion against Sabinus that was quelled by Varus, helped by Aretas et al.? Recall that many of the Herodian army went over
to the rebels, but with a couple of notable exceptions:
… yet did the most warlike body of them all, who were three thousand of the men of Sebaste, go over to the Romans. Rufus also, and
Gratus, their captains, did the same, [Gratus having the foot of the king's party under him, and Rufus the horse,] each of whom, even
without the forces under them, were of great weight, on account of their strength and wisdom, which turn the scales in war.[307]
Gratus had a number of adventures in Wars, including chasing down and killing Simon of Perea, the self-declared king of the
Jews, which, as noted, may be the event that was recorded in the “Gabriel Revelation” on the Jeselsohn Stone.
Josephus’ account in Antiquities of the Judean governorship of the highly questionable Gratus, who followed the equally
highly questionable Annius Rufus, should be read in its entirety:
After him [Marcus Ambivius] came Annius Rufus, under whom died Caesar [Augustus], the second emperor of the Romans, the
duration of whose reign was fifty-seven years, besides six months and two days [of which time Antonius ruled together with him
fourteen years; but the duration of his life was seventy-seven years]; upon whose death [14 AD] Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia's son,
succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This
man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed [1] Ismael, the son of Phabi ... He also deprived him in a little time, and
ordained [2] Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been a high priest before, to be high priest; which office when he had held for a year,
Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to [3] Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no
longer than a year, [4] Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he
had waited in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.[308]
According to this, Valerius Gratus, not Pontius Pilate, was sent as soon as Tiberius became emperor and, at some point – we
don’t know when – started playing musical high priests. He appointed four in what seems to be rapid succession over possibly
3 or 4 years and then, apparently, was satisfied with his choice and did nothing else that Josephus considered worth
recording. Notice the last bit of text in bold. Even assuming that the list of governors of Judea is not a complete fabrication, it
would only require a change in the number of years, or the addition of the whole sentence, to alter the chronology. Josephus
also tells us that the proconsul Vitellius deposed Caiaphas sometime around the Artabanus affair already discussed.
Nevertheless, if Gratus was sent out in 14 AD and was there eleven years, we would have Pilate showing up in 25. And that is
why there are governors and years added: to make Pilate fit the Jesus timeline.
Besides which, he also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of
Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him. After which, he took his journey back to Antioch. [309]
If Caiaphas was appointed within, say, five years of the alleged arrival of Gratus, about 18/19 AD, after he had gone through a
selection of unsatisfactory high priests, and Caiaphas was then removed from office by Vitellius in 35/36, that would mean he
held the high priesthood for 16 years or so. Let’s recap our high priests:
· Joazar, son of Boethus, brother of Eleazar – deposed 6 AD
· Ananus, son of Seth – supposed to have been high priest from 6 to 15 AD
· Ismael, son of Phabi – "deprived him in a little time", which sounds like months
· Eleazar, son of Ananus – one year
· Simon son of Camithus – one year
· Joseph Caiaphas – then Gratus departs, leaving him in office
In this extended chronology, it seems that Caiaphas was appointed in approximately AD 18, and he was the high priest who is
said in the gospels to have organized the plot to kill Jesus, being Jesus’ major antagonist.[310] But the way the text is written
suggests that Gratus began changing high priests soon after arriving, and left as soon as he had installed Caiaphas. But that
only covers about three or four years, not eleven.
Apparently, neither the alleged Marcus Ambivius nor the putative Annius Rufus saw fit to change the high priests. Or if they
did, Josephus makes no remark about it, despite the fact that he’s constantly tabulating – or making up – the high priests. All
of this is very problematical, especially if we recall how it is presented Wars, where there is no account of the revolving-door
governors and it is more or less matter of fact that when the transfer of the Empire was made on the death of Augustus, a new
procurator was sent out by Tiberius: Pontius Pilate.
Dio makes Maecenas give the advice to Augustus not to let any legate of his rule a province less than three years or more than five for
so they would stay long enough to know their province thoroughly, not long enough to become dangerous. And this was perhaps the
generally observed rule. … But the exceptions are very numerous. Galba governed Spain for eight years, Sabinus was in Moesia for
seven, and we find C. Silius legate in Gaul AD. 14, and still in Gaul ten years afterwards. Sometimes these appointments lasted even for
life: Tiberius in particular was famous for keeping his governors long at their posts.[311]
That is to say, Tiberius probably sent Pilate immediately upon his accession to power and only disturbing events brought
Pilate’s rule to an end, as we have already read in both Philo and Josephus.