stephan huller

Yes, I have more than a passing interest in Marcus Julius Agrippa, the last king of Israel. Agrippa is key to understand the Jewish concept of messiah given what is written in the Pentateuch:

The prophesy clearly identifies the messiah appearing during the reign of the last Jewish king who turns out to have been Agrippa. Shiloh has a numerical value of 345 which is the same as the name Moses. The one who is to come is explicitly identified as 'like Moses' (Deut 18:18) hence the underlying association. The Samaritans - whose literature speak very favorably of the Herodians - render the Roman name 'Marcus' in their native Aramaic dialect as 'Marqeh' which preserves the same numerical value and the connection with Moses is also always referenced. The founder of the existing tradition of Samaritanism was so named and he is explicitly likened to Moses in a number of references (i.e. a prophet 'like' Moses). Numerology is always invoked.

I have already noted that Agrippa is the messiah according to the authoritative exegesis of Daniel 9:26 as well as a number of other passages. This knowledge isn't limited to Jewish writers. Origen as well as other Alexandrian Church Fathers are aware of it so it goes back almost to the time of Agrippa's death c. 100 CE. Jews and Christians continued to debate who was the real messiah - Agrippa vs. Jesus - almost into the modern period. Yet the real question that has puzzled me for decades is - where is the burial place of Agrippa?

When you see the Herodium and read about its association with Herod the Great one would expect something similar for Herod's descendant Marcus Agrippa. After all, Herod may have been wealthy but Agrippa was surely richer still. Herod may have ruled for 41 years (37–4 BCE) but Agrippa's rule was even longer at about 50 years (48 - 97/98 CE?).

The argument that Agrippa was a 'puppet' of the Roman government would only make it MORE likely that some massive, lasting monument would be associated with his person. There were no wars or unrest associated with the date for his death 100 CE. Agrippa had the money, means and the precedent needed to establish some gaudy memorial. So where is it? Why don't we hear anything about it anywhere? Indeed where would we expect it to be located?

Despite the fact that Agrippa never had children (in itself an especially strange thing for a Jew) there were descendants of Berenice, Agrippa's sister who gained some prominence in the second and third centuries. It wasn't as if the family was wiped out. It wasn't as if Agrippa's legacy was any less than Herod the Great. Agrippa ruled in the period in which Judaism was officially wiped out. All of which makes it utterly baffling to figure out why almost all traces of Agrippa have been wiped out in Palestine (most of the inscriptions which survive are found outside Judea).

Did the Jewish revolutionaries of the Bar Kochba revolt eradicate his memory? Why then wasn't the Herodium demolished? Why does the Herodium survive? It is utterly baffling and one of the most important questions and unsolved mysteries of the first century that gets far too little attention from scholarship.

stephan huller

"Agrippa never had children" - a quick side note. Have you ever wondered why Jews don't mass produce children as Catholics did (at least traditionally)? The Catholics usually point to the original 'commandment' in the Garden 'be fruitful and multiply.' Yet the rabbinic interpretation is different - fruitfulness (= the having of many children) is contingent upon whether or not it is a blessing. In other words, only be fruitful if it is a blessing. This logic is invoked in the Mishnah during the discussion of the growing asceticism in the period of Jewish revolutions (66 - 136 CE). Jews apparently became ascetics because of the Roman persecution. Yet this was also the period Agrippa was king and he had no children. Puzzling.

stephan huller

Here is what Danny Schwartz wrote about his Agrippa before the recent work at the Herodium:

Schwartz's book was written in 1990. The work has disproved the theory that any Agrippa was located near or on the Herodium. So it is that we have a whole host of lost Jewish royalty - Agrippa I, Agrippa II (assuming against the rabbinic tradition they were two separate people), Berenice etc. Very, very puzzling. The location of the grave of Alexander the Great is disputed but at least there are existing references and traditions. The situation with respect to Agrippa and Berenice is especially curious given the Samaritan's love of all things Herodian. I suspect that this points to their burial outside of Palestine. Otherwise one would expect a traditional burial site location to be passed along by word of mouth which - even if inaccurate - would point to the existence of the grave SOMEWHERE in Palestine. As it is the silence is deafening.

mountainman

Agrippa II


Rome?

maryhelena

Schwartz on that rabbinic tradition......

The Beirut inscription:

So, Stephan, you have no support for your published theory re there being only one King Agrippa.

As to where Agrippa II died - most probably at his capital of Caesarea Philippi. After the drama, or the fiasco/scandal, of his sister Berenice' affair with Titus - and her leaving Rome - It would be most unlikely for her brother, Agrippa II, to have remained in Rome. And as Agrippa II coins continued to be minted at Banias after 70 c.e. that is the most logical place for them both, Agrippa II and Queen Berenice, to have lived. Particularly since Agrippa II was still King, albeit a client king, of his territory - a territory which did not include Judea. The last king of Judea was Agrippa I - the father of Agrippa II. (and the Herodian coins support this position re father and son...)

stephan huller

Let's get this straight one last time. Even Schwartz acknowledges that for the rabbinic tradition there is only one Agrippa. It isn't my theory. There are those who accept Josephus against the rabbinic tradition and there are a few who accept the rabbinic tradition against Josephus. That is all there is. There is one against the other and in this case you have the even more curious situation that TWO of the last kings of Israel have no known burial sites. Very, very puzzling. Josephus mentions Herod the Great's burial place. There is no such reference for Agrippa I. What did they do with his body? Just throw the corpse in the gutter?

maryhelena

Stephan, it is not a case of being able to accept one tradition, either the rabbinic tradition (which does not identify which Agrippa it is referencing - ie that tradition does not, in and of itself, reject the historical existence of two Kings by the name of Agrippa) or the Josephan account of two kings by the name of Agrippa. It is not a choice between these two accounts. It is the reality of the Herodian coins which reference a father and son, Agrippa I and Agrippa II. Herodian coins that support Josephus.

Since Agrippa II was expelled from Jerusalem prior to the events of 70 c.e., it is hardly likely that it is this King Agrippa that is finding favor in the rabbinic tradition. Agrippa II was not a king over Judea.

Yes, the Agrippa history, Agrippa I and Agrippa II is indeed puzzling - but I fail to see how rejecting the Herodian coins with their testimony to two Kings by the name of Agrippa - is going to be offering anything at all in the way of resolving the questions around these two kings.

Schwartz does not support the one Agrippa story. He says the rabbinic tradition is problematic. He asks questions:

One Agrippa forgotten in the rabbinic tradition - or one Agrippa viewed, for whatever reasons, to be not in favor with Jewish interests.

Page 36 of the book by John Wilson - link in earlier post.

stephan huller

I have spoken with Wilson on a number of occasions. His point here is most perplexing as the “rabbinic tradition” didn't exist when the coin was minted. The understanding may have been rooted in Phariseeism but Agrippa wouldn't have given a hoot about what they had to say. They didn't represent normative belief in any way at that time. So what's his point? That a ruler offended the sensibilities of the rabble? Wow, who'd believe that. If anything that shows that (a) his worldview was compatible with Christianity and (b) that he wasn't such a weak ruler after all.

maryhelena

Great! A ruler who did his own thing regardless of whose foot he might trample upon - just the type of figure that could have found common cause with 'Paul'.....

stephan huller

His people were annoying back then. The Romans won the war and offered the world a better civilization than the kind of theocracy being advocated by the Pharisees. The closest modern example to what the Pharisees embodied was the rabid theocracy of Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood. This is not my idea of an 'ideal society' by any means.

You can understand Agrippa's sentiment. Jews were typically accused in those days of 'hatred of the human race' which is a roundabout way of saying they thought they were better than everyone else. The small matter being of course that they were a subjugated people. This must have puzzled and annoyed the Romans and Agrippa for that matter too (as their unbridled hubris affected his status as their ruler).

Agrippa was superior to his subjects. Anyone who argues with this is a hypocrite. He was the perfect embodiment of the messiah and was recognized as such by Jews until the modern era. He is recognized for his authority in Jewish religious matters as well as Greek philosophy. He was the embodiment of the philosopher king. IMO he felt himself called to the role of improving his subjects because they were for the most part a bunch of idiots. As you know I think that we have Christianity today as the fruits of his labors to improve his subjects. Let's not forget this used to be the core doctrine of Christianity (i.e. the repentance of Jews and still is the Orthodox tradition).

Placed in its original historical context - i.e. the superiority of Alexandrian Judaism (and Samaritanism for that matter cf. Broadie's work) over its Palestinian Jewish cousin - such a doctrine makes sense. I firmly believe Philo is superior to every Jewish authority in terms of his depth, profundity, insight etc. I don't think anyone, save for rabid Jewish believers, could think otherwise.

Plato improved Judaism. This is the original formula for Christianity and Agrippa was its architect