Agrippa I and the Judeans of Alexandria in the Wake of the Violence in 38 Ce

AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 1

Allen KERKESLAGER Saint Joseph's University

AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA IN THE WAKE OF THE VIOLENCE IN 38 CE

RÉSUMÉ

Le roi de Judée Agrippa Ier, ne peut plus être considéré comme un avocat des Judéens d’Alexandrie. Après sa visite à la ville en 38 de l’ère commune, le compor- tement d’Agrippa révèle à plusieurs reprises la volonté de se disculper de la violence qui avait éclaté pendant sa visite. Cela resort d'In Flaccum et Legatio ad Caium de Philon d’Alexandrie, du procès d’Isidoros dans les Actes des Alexan- drins, de la lettre de Claudius aux Alexandrins (P. Lond. 6.1912 = CPJ 2.153), des œuvres de Flavius Josèphe et d’autres sources. L’analyse de ces sources procède chronologiquement, à partir de la visite d’Agrippa à Alexandrie en 38. Suit une discussion du rôle éventuel d’Agrippa et d’autres Hérodiens dans la composition et la description des violences par Philon. À chaque étape, Agrippa montra qu’il se pré- occupe davantage de conforter sa position dans l’administration romaine que du sort des Judéens d’Alexandrie. Cette conclusion pourrait résoudre plusieurs questions liées aux événements de 38, telle la nature des accusations portées contre le gouverneur romain, Flaccus.

SUMMARY

This study argues that the Judean king Agrippa I can no longer be viewed as a champion for the Judeans of Alexandria. After his visit to the city in 38 CE, Agrippa's behavior repeatedly reveals an effort to avoid incrimination in the violence that had erupted during his visit. This is apparent from Philo's In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium, the lawsuit of Isidoros in the Acts of the Alexandrians, the papyrus letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians (P. Lond. 6.1912 = CPJ 2.153), the works of Josephus, and other sources. Analysis of these sources proceeds in order of the events, beginning with Agrippa's visit to Alexandria in 38 and ending with the possible influence of Agrippa and other Herodians on the composition and copying of Philo's descriptions of the violence in 38. At every stage, Agrippa betrayed far more interest in the security of his status in the Roman administration than the plight of the Judeans of Alexan- dria. This conclusion may help resolve numerous questions related to the violence in 38, such as the nature of the charges brought against the Roman governor Flaccus.

Revue des études juives, 168 (1-2), janvier-juin 2009, pp. 1-49. doi: 10.2143/REJ.168.1.2035300

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 1 09-15-2009, 14:38 2 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

Introduction

At one time it was common to describe the Judean king Marcus Julius Agrippa I as a defender of Judean religious traditions1. Contradictory evidence was accommodated by expressing skepticism about Agrippa's personal piety2. In the last few decades support for this view of Agrippa has eroded. Scholarship has developed greater sensitivity to the source-critical problems, rhetorical agendas, and finer details of the ancient literary portraits of Agrippa3. More attention also has been given to Agrippa's family heritage, his upbringing in Rome, his coins, his building projects, and other clues to his cultural priorities4. Agrippa's proclivities now appear typical of

1. E.g., M. STERN, “The Herodian Dynasty and the Province of Judea at the End of the Period of the Second Temple,” in M. Avi YONAH and Z. BARAS, eds., The World History of the Jewish People, Vol. 7: The Herodian Period (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1975) 136-49; W. WIRGIN, Herod Agrippa I (Leeds: Department of Semitic Languages and Literature, Leeds University, 1968), esp. 53-61, 84-86; S. PERONE, The Later Herods (New York: Abingdon, 1958) 68-83. The likely praenomen (Marcus) is only attested for his son Agrippa II; see OGIS 420 (SEG 7.217), 421, 428 (IG 2[2].3449); SEG 7.216; 7.970; 50.1398 (SEG 49.2011); Y. MESHORER, A Treasury of Jewish Coins (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi and Nyack: Amphora, 2001; henceforth TJC) nos. 133, 133a, 133b; A. BURNETT, M. AMANDRY, P. RIPOLLÈS, et al., Roman Provincial Coinage (London: British Museum Press, 1992 and ongoing; henceforth RPC) 1.4992. The praenomen Gaius was argued by A. STEIN, “Gaius Julius, An Agoranomos from Tiberias,” ZPE 93 (1992) 144-48, based on SEG 38.1646 (the reading in AE 1992, no. 1695 may exclude her proposal). She appeals to Herod's expected tria nomina (Gaius Julius Herod, now in SEG 45.1131). But the name of Agrippa's son suggests that Agrippa I was named after Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, who died about a year before Agrippa's birth in ca. 11 BCE; N. KOKKINOS, The Herodian Dynasty (Sheffield: Shef- field Academic Press, 1998) 271-72. 2. E.g., E. M. SMALLWOOD, The Jews Under Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 193-99; E. SCHÜRER, with G. VERMES, F. MILLAR, et al., eds., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (Revised edition, Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1973) 1.442-54; A. H. M. JONES, The Herods of Judaea (2nd edition, Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 206-16. For related issues, see J. M. BAUMGARTEN, “Exclusions from the Temple: Proselytes and Agrippa I,” JJS 33 (1982) 215-25. 3. E.g., K.-S. KRIEGER, “Die Darstellung König Agrippas I. in Flavius Josephus' Antiquitates Judaicae,” in J. U. KALMS und F. SIEGERT, Hrsg., Internationales Josephus- Kolloquium Dortmund 2002 (Münster: Lit, 2003) 94-118; KRIEGER, “A Synoptic Approach to B 2:117-283 and A 18-20,” in F. SIEGERT und J. U. KALMS, Hrsg., Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Dortmund 2001 (Münster: Lit, 2003) 90-100; A. KUSHNIR-STEIN, “Agrippa I in Josephus,” SCI 22 (2003) 153-61; M. ALEXANDRE, Jr., Rhetorical Argumenta- tion in Philo of Alexandria (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999) 158-75; O. W. ALLEN, Jr., The Death of Herod (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997); D. R. SCHWARTZ, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1990); ID., “On Drama and Authenticity in Philo and Josephus,” SCI 10 (1989/90) 113-29; D. GOODBLATT, “Agrippa I and Palestin- ian Judaism in the First Century,” Jewish History 2 (1987) 7-32. 4. E.g., M. HADAS-LEBEL, “L'éducation des princes hérodiens à Rome et l'évolution du clientélisme romain,” in M. MOR, A. OPPENHEIMER, J. PASTOR, and D. R. SCHWARTZ, eds., Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishnah, and the Talmud (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003) 44-62; KOKKINOS, Herodian Dynasty, 86-139, 284-

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 2 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 3

any other Hellenized elite who grew up in Rome and shared a similar mix- ture of Idumaean, Judean, and perhaps Phoenician and Nabatean ancestry5. But it has become increasingly apparent that his cultural and political ten- dencies were fundamentally Roman6.

87, 291-304, 351-52; D. C. DULING, “'[Do Not Swear… ] By Jerusalem Because It Is the City of the Great King' (Matt 5:35),” JBL 110 (1991) 291-309; SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 40-45; A. BURNETT, “The Coinage of King Agrippa I of Judaea and a New Coin of King Herod of Chalcis,” in H. HUVELIN, M. CHRISTOL, and G. GAUTIER, eds., Mélanges de numismatique offerts à Pierre Bastien (Wetteren: Numismatique Romaine, 1987) 25-38 and plates 3-4; M. LÄMMER, “Griechische Agone und römische Spiele unter der Regierung des jüdischen Königs Agrippa I,” Kölner Beitrage zur Sportwissenschaft 10-11 (1982) 199-237; ID., “The Attitude of King Agrippa I Towards Greek Contests and Roman Games,” in U. SIMRI, ed., Physical Education and Sport in the Jewish History and Culture (Jerusalem: Wingate Insti- tute for Physical Education and Sport, 1981) 7-17; C. M. KRAAY, “Jewish Friends and Allies of Rome,” American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 25 (1980) 53-57. For Agrippa's coins, see MESHORER, TJC, nos. 112-26; BURNETT, AMANDRY, and RIPOLLÈS, RPC 1.4973-87. The practice of fortifying the Roman frontier makes revolutionary designs unlikely in Agrippa's project on Jerusalem's walls; Josephus AJ 19.326-27; BJ 2.218-19; 5.152-54; cf. S. BEN-ARIEH and E. NETZER, “Excavations Along the ‘Third Wall' of Jerusalem, 1972- 1974,” IEJ 24 (1974) 97-107. 5. On Herodian ancestry, see KOKKINOS, Herodian Dynasty, 36-146; with qualifications in D. J. BRYAN, “The Herodians: A Case of Disputed Identity,” TynBul 53 (2002) 223-38; Shaye J. D. COHEN, The Beginnings of Jewishness (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999) 13-24, 109-39. E.g., OGIS 418 might indicate that the Idumaean Qos/ Apollo was the “ancestral god” shared by Agrippa and the dedicant; cf. Apollo and Herod the Great in Josephus BJ 1.424; AJ 16.147; and Antipas in NOY, PANAYATOV, and BLOED- HORN, IJO 1, Ach69 (OGIS 417). But on Qos and Yahweh, see L. ZALCMAN, “Shield of Abraham, Fear of Isaac, Dread of Esau,” ZAW 117 (2005) 405-10. A “Qostabar” is among Agrippa's close relatives; Josephus, BJ 2.418-19, 556-58; AJ 20.214; cf. also the earlier Qostabar in BJ 1.486; AJ 15.252-64; 16.227; 18.133. Herod's mother was probably Nabatean (though arguably Idumaean); Josephus BJ 1.181; AJ 14.121-22; cf. the marriage of Antipas in AJ 18.109-12. A Phoenician heritage might partly explain Agrippa's building projects in Berytus (Josephus AJ 19.335-37) and Heliopolis/Baalbek (probably ILS 8957). But trade relations must also be taken into account. The claim of Ashkelonite origins in Justin, Dial. 52.3, is easily dismissed as an error similar to Justin, Apol. 1.31.2-3; but see Julius Africanus in Eusebius, HE 1.6.2-3; 1.7.11 and other evidence in KOKKINOS. For the Judean identity of the Herodians, see, e.g., TMos. 6.2; Josephus, AJ 16.225; Philo, Flacc. 29. 6. E.g., HADAS-LEBEL, “Éducation,” 52-62; BURNETT, “Coinage of King Agrippa,” 34- 37; LÄMMER, “Griechische Agone,” 201-21; ID., “Attitude of King Agrippa,” 8-15; already in E. CIACERI, Processi Politici e Relazioni Internationali (Roma: A. Nardecchia, 1918) 319- 62, who emphasizes the Augustan program of Romanizing the heirs of client kings, as does SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 39-49, 66, 91-93. Agrippa's Romanization was unavoidable because he spent most of his early years in Rome; for the following summary, see SCHWARTZ and esp. KOKKINOS, Herodian Dynasty, 271-79. Agrippa lived in Rome from age 5 or 6 (ca. 5 BCE) to sometime in his 30s (perhaps ca. 32-33 CE); Josephus, AJ 18.143-54; 19.350. Livia's absence from Berenice's will might indicate that Berenice's death and Agrippa's subsequent departure from Rome followed the death of Livia in 29 CE; cf. Josephus, AJ 18.145, 155-57. An even later date for Agrippa's first known return to Judea is suggested by the prefecture of Lucius Pomponius Flaccus in Syria, for which the popular dating to 32-35 is probably correct; Josephus, AJ 18.150-54. Probably Flaccus was appointed in 31 and began his tenure in 32; Suetonius, Tib. 41-42; Dio 58.19.5; Tacitus, Ann. 6.27; attested in 33; RPC 1.4274-75

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 3 09-15-2009, 14:38 4 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

In spite of these developments, scholars continue to assert that Agrippa acted as a champion for the beleaguered Judeans of Alexandria in the conflicts associated with his visit to the city in 38 CE7. This article will demonstrate that Agrippa stubbornly refused this role. Agrippa's concern was to diminish the threat that these conflicts posed to his own privileged status in the Roman administration. This complements previous arguments that the catalyst for the most devastating phase of the violence in 38 was a Judean crime against Rome8.

1. Philo's portraits of Agrippa Much of the evidence for Agrippa's activity in Alexandria comes from Philo's In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium9. A summary of the rhetorical functions of their portraits of Agrippa is a useful starting point. (1) One of the functions of Agrippa in the In Flaccum is to demonstrate Judean loyalty to Rome. Nowhere in this text does Agrippa appear as an advocate of distinctively Judean practices. Philo's description of Agrippa's visit to Alexandria in Flacc. 25-40 exploits Agrippa's identity as a Judean (Flacc. 29). Philo created the illusion that Agrippa sided with the Judeans of Alexandria in conflicts with local Greeks by emphasizing the mockery of Agrippa by the Alexandrian Greeks (Flacc. 29, 33-34, 36-39). But the only similarity between Agrippa and the Judeans that Philo mentions in explaining this ridicule is Agrippa's affiliation with the region of “Syria” (Flacc.

(33/34 CE). Tacitus mentioned Flaccus' death in Ann. 6.27 because it was suggested by other events at the end of 33, but Tacitus assigns it to a later time (enim). Tiberius' complaint in this passage implies that Flaccus' successor had completed his year as consul (consularium aliqui; despite Dio 58.20.1-5). Since his successor Vitellius was consul in 34, this places Flaccus' death at the end of 34 or in the first half of 35. This fits the appointment of Vitellius in 35 described in Tacitus, Ann. 6.32. Thus Agrippa had little experience in Judea before re- turning to Rome in the spring of 36; Josephus, AJ 18.126, 204; BJ 2.178-80. Agrippa also spent much of the reign of Gaius in Rome, with only about a year of it in Judea (mid-summer of 38 to mid-summer of 39; see below). 7. E.g., P. W. VAN DER HORST, Philo's Flaccus: The First Pogrom (Leiden: Brill, 2003) 187, 190-91; A. KUSHNIR-STEIN, “On the Visit of Agrippa I to Alexandria in 38 AD,” JJS 51 (2000) 227-42, esp. 237-42; SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 90-106; A. KASHER, The Jews in Hellenis- tic and Roman Egypt (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1985) 268; SMALLWOOD, Jews Under Roman Rule, 195-96, 238-55; V. A. TCHERIKOVER in CPJ 2, p. 69. 8. A. KERKESLAGER, “Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla in Alexandria,” JSJ 37 (2006) 367-400; ID., “The Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros from the Violence in Alexandria in 38 CE,” SPhA 17 (2005) 49-94. 9. On these, see VAN DER HORST, Philo's Flaccus; M. MEISER, “Gattung, Adressaten und Intention von Philos ‘In Flaccum',” JSJ 30 (1999) 418-30; E. M. SMALLWOOD, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (2nd ed., Leiden: Brill, 1970). A more tenuous Philonic allusion to Agrippa is suggested by N. G. COHEN, “Agrippa I and De Specialibus Legibus IV 151-159,” SPhA 2 (1990) 72-85.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 4 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 5

39)10. Nothing that Philo says in Flacc. 25-40 indicates that Agrippa showed any interest in Judean religious concerns. Philo's emphasis on Agrippa's identification with the local Judeans was partly an apologetic response to accusations that the Judeans were responsible for the disruption of the Roman order that followed Agrippa's arrival in the city. This is implied in Philo's repeated references to Agrippa's close relationship with the emperor in Flacc. 25-40. The distinctive honors that Philo proudly attributes to Agrippa include Roman client kingship, the title “Friend of Caesar,” praetorian insignia, and a flashy bodyguard that probably included the customary six lictors of a Roman praetor (Flacc. 25, 29- 30, 38-40)11. Philo's emphasis on both Agrippa's loyalty to Rome and his Judean identity artfully implied that Agrippa epitomized the loyalty of the Judeans of Alexandria12. Nevertheless, the distinctively Roman details in Flacc. 25-40 create an image of Agrippa that is more Roman than Judean. The apologetic motive for accentuating Agrippa's Roman identity is most poignantly revealed in Philo's insistence that Agrippa only came to Alexan- dria at the urging of the emperor (Flacc. 25-31). Philo apparently was trying to exculpate Agrippa from responsibility for any crime associated with his visit to Alexandria. The same concern is expressed when Philo quietly

10. In Flacc. 39 Agrippa is a “Syrian by descent” (génei Suróv) and rules over part of “Syria” (Suría). The contrast with Agrippa's identification as a “Judean” (ˆIouda⁄ov) in Flacc. 29 is probably an admission of Agrippa's mixed ancestry (cf. the ethnic Súra tò génov in Congr. 41). But the regional implications in Philo's use of “Syria” might indicate a rhetorical effort to blur this ethnic distinction. Philo uses “Syrian” for biblical Arameans and Canaanites; Leg. 3.16, 18; Congr. 41, 43; Fug. 7, 44-45, 49; Hypoth. 6.6 (contrasted with Israelites). However, Philo's use of “Syria” includes Aramean highlands from biblical sto- ries, coastal cities, and other localities in Palestine and the Roman province of Syria; e.g., Leg. 3.18; Congr. 41; Somn. 2.59; Mos. 1.163 (“Coele-Syria”); Spec. Leg. 2.217 (cf. Deut 26:5); Hypoth. 6.1 (cf. Spec. Leg. 2.217); Flacc. 26 (probably Caesarea Maritima, by contrast with Brundisium); Prov. 2.64 (Aucher 2.107; Ashkelon); Legat. 220, 222, 252 (also Suriakóv). In some cases “Syria” refers to biblical Palestine and the homeland of contemporary Judeans; Abr. 91; Jos. 230; Mos. 1.237; 2.56, 246; Legat. 231. This is sometimes emphasized by the adjective “Palestinian” (Palaistínj); Abr. 133; Virt. 221; Prob. 75. 11. Lictors' rods are implied in Agrippa's praetorian rank and the parody in Flacc. 38; see E. STAVELY and A. LINTOTT, “Lictores,” OCD (3rd ed.) 860. For Agrippa as “Friend of Caesar” see BURNETT, AMANDRY, and RIPOLLÈS, RPC 1.4979, 4983-86 (MESHORER, TJC, nos. 119, 121, 124-25); ILS 8957; OGIS 419, 424. On OGIS 424, see KOKKINOS, Herodian Dynasty, 287. “Friend of Caesar” or “Friend of Rome” (regi magno philo […]) may also apply to Agrippa I (less likely Agrippa II) in J. Ch. BALTY, Guide d'Apamée (Bruxelles: Cen- tre belge de recherches archéologiques à Apamée de Syrie, 1981) 203, no. 16 and plate 225; however, D. BRAUND, “Four Notes on the Herods,” CQ 33 (1983) 239-42, links this to King Sohaemus of Emesa, citing ILS 8958. 12. For Philo's emphasis on the alliance of the Judeans with Rome in Flacc. 16-52, see, e.g., G. SCHIMANOWSKI, Juden und Nichtjuden in Alexandrien: Koexistenz und Konflikte bis zum Pogrom unter Trajan (117 n. Chr.) (Münster: LIT, 2005) 113-15; KERKESLAGER, “Ab- sence,” 53-57.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 5 09-15-2009, 14:38 6 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

removed Agrippa from the narrative just before describing the installation of images of the imperial family in the synagogues in Flacc. 41-5313. The resulting impression that Agrippa was not even present for this event shielded Agrippa from the anti-Roman implications of the subsequent Judean removal of these images14. But Philo's strategic omission of any reference to intervention by Agrippa might also betray the failure of Agrippa to meet Philo's rhetorical needs at this point. Like other Romans in the city, Agrippa may have kept aloof from the distinctively Judean concerns that motivated the Judean insult to the images. Agrippa also appears in Flacc. 97-103, which is a brief flash back to events just before the violence. In this passage Agrippa reportedly promised the Judeans of Alexandria that he would help them demonstrate their “piety” (eûsebeía) toward the imperial household15. Probably Agrippa's be- nevolence was partly rooted in his kinship with the local Judeans. However, even Roman officials without any ethnic relationship to provincial suppliants often assisted these suppliants in displaying loyalty to Rome16. Agrippa's promise merely complements inscriptions that celebrate his piety toward the emperor17. Strikingly absent from his promise is any concern with piety toward the Judean God. As earlier in the In Flaccum, the loyal- ties that Agrippa demonstrates here are more Roman than Judean. (2) Philo again employs Agrippa to emphasize local Judean loyalty to the emperor in the Legatio. In this text Agrippa is also a fictional advocate for the distinctive concerns of the Judean community in Alexandria. This is especially apparent in Legat. 178-80. This passage implies that Agrippa had sided with the Judeans of Alexandria in the legal conflicts resulting from events in 38. One point that will emerge from the detailed analysis of these conflicts later in this article is that the impression of Agrippa created by this

13. On this, see KERKESLAGER, “Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla,” 368-73. 14. Josephus employed similar strategies to create the same impression in AJ 18.238-39, 256-57. On this, see below. 15. On Agrippa's promise, see more fully below. 16. E.g., the prefect's support of Alexandrian honors to the emperor in P. Lond. 6.1912 (CPJ 2.153), lines 1-51. Benefactions and protections granted for distinctively Judean practices did not guarantee a Roman official's personal interest in these practices; e.g., Philo, Legat. 153-58, possibly 133 (if honors for previous benefactions); Josephus, AJ 14.185-267; 16.160-75; 19.278-91; CJZC 71; AMELING, IJO 2.168 (CIJ 766; MAMA 6.264). See T. RAJAK, “Benefactors in the Greco-Jewish Diaspora,” in H. CANCIK, H. LICHTEN- BERGER, P. SCHÄFER, eds., Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion (3 vols.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996) 1.305-19; M. W. BALDWIN BOWSKY, “M. Tittius Sex. F. Aem. and the Jews of Berenice,” AJP 108 (1987) 495-510. 17. E.g., OGIS 419; ILS 8957 (cf. KOKKINOS, Herodian Dynasty, 299). The epithet “pious” was later transferred to his son Agrippa II; e.g., OGIS 419; SEG 7.216 (here possibly Agrippa I; cf. OGIS 419).

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 6 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 7

passage was intentionally misleading. Structural features of the Legatio reveal a more elaborate artifice. The Legatio describes Gaius' plan to install his image in the Jerusalem temple in 39-41 CE (Legat. 184-348). Philo inserted this account of the temple crisis directly between two segments of his description of the legal hearings about the violence in Alexandria in 38 (Legat. 171-83, 349-72)18. The resulting inclusio structure juxtaposed the intended violation of the Jerusalem temple with the assault on the Alexandrian synagogues. Philo probably emphasized the parallels between the two sequences of events in the hope that the positive outcome of the temple crisis would encourage more sympathetic imperial policies toward the Judeans of Alexandria. This structural parallelism transformed Agrippa into a proxy for the Judeans of Alexandria. Agrippa's reported intercession for the temple repli- cated the activity of Philo's embassy on behalf of the Alexandrian synagogues (Legat. 261-334; cf. 115-83, 349-372). The fictional letter that Agrippa supposedly sent to Gaius employed arguments that Philo's embassy itself probably employed in its hearings before the emperor19. Agrippa's purported behavior before Gaius and his detailed apologetic for the temple simultaneously emphasized both loyalty to the emperor and devotion to Judean traditions. This implied that the Judeans of Alexandria were also unshaken from their own loyalty to the emperor and devotion to Judean traditions20. The great effort that Philo expended on creating a fictional proxy who could emphasize these two points complements the other evidence that the crux of the violence in 38 was a conflict between loyalty toward the emperor and Judean traditions21. Philo's apparent need to resort to a purely fictional alliance between Agrippa and the Judeans of Alexandria might betray that Agrippa actually

18. The literary nature of this interruption is obscured when SMALLWOOD suggests two distinct and widely separated audiences before the emperor (at the end of May in 40 and after August 31 in 40); SMALLWOOD, Legatio ad Gaium, 24-27, 47-52. However, if one skips the narrative of the temple crisis and eliminates the anachronistic musings inserted as a transition into Legat. 182-185, the events flow quite naturally as a unified sequence from Legat. 180-85 to Legat. 349-67. See SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 84-85, 196-99, and the note below dating the hearing to 39 CE. The order to set up a statue in the temple thus followed the full and final audience given to Philo's embassy; so Josephus, AJ 18.257-61. Exploring Josephus' suggestion of a direct causal relationship would require a separate study. 19. On the linguistic evidence for Philo's fabrication of this letter; see esp. ALEXANDRE, Rhetorical Argumentation, 158-75; SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 200-202. 20. Similarly, S. WEITZMAN, Surviving Sacrilege (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005) 58-75, esp. 71, who argues that Agrippa and his letter exemplified Philo's use of prosopopoiia (an author's rhetorical impersonation of a literary character). 21. See more fully KERKESLAGER, “Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla,” 367- 400.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 7 09-15-2009, 14:38 8 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

demonstrated little concern for them. The Legatio is thus consistent with the In Flaccum. Both texts reveal that Agrippa may have remained more distant from the Judeans of Alexandria than Philo would like us to believe. Agrippa's own concern may have been to avoid incrimination in a Judean crime against Rome that occurred during his visit in 38.

2. Agrippa's Roman motive for coming to Alexandria Philo's apologetic for Agrippa's choice to follow a route that would take him through Alexandria has sometimes aroused speculation about Agrippa's motives for his visit (Flacc. 25-31)22. One proposal is that Agrippa wanted to aid the city's Judeans in conflicts with the local Greeks23. However, the previous seven decades of Roman rule do not attest to hostilities sufficient to merit an outsider's interference24. Agrippa had no jurisdiction in Alexandria anyway. Whatever may have been Agrippa's specific objective, his visit implies an effort to consolidate his role as an instru- ment of Roman imperialism25. (1) First, one need not dismiss Philo's claim that Gaius urged Agrippa to visit Alexandria. Official restrictions on elite travel in Egypt indicate that Agrippa probably could not have come to Alexandria without the emperor's approval26. However, this does not justify claims that Agrippa was merely functioning as a messenger, spy, or routine agent of the emperor27. These were tasks for military envoys, imperial freedmen, or even slaves, but not kings28.

22. KERKESLAGER, “Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla,” 368-70; VAN DER HORST, Philo's Flaccus, 114-23; SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 74-76. One might propose that Agrippa may have been checking on estates in Egypt inherited from his mother Julia Berenice, described in N. KOKKINOS, Antonia Augusta (2nd ed.; London: Libri, 2002) 71-72. But Agrippa already may have lost any such estates before he became king; Josephus, AJ 18.144-54. See below on the betrothal of Agrippa's daughter Berenice. 23. KUSHNIR-STEIN, “Visit of Agrippa,” 227-42, esp. 237-42. 24. Rightly emphasized in E. S. GRUEN, Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002) 66-78. Cf. KERKESLAGER, “Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros,” 49-94. 25. The role emphasized in CIACERI, Processi Politici, 319-62. 26. Cassius Dio 51.17.1-3 (cf. 53.13.2); Tacitus, Ann. 2.59; cf. Suetonius, Jul. 35.1; Tacitus, Hist. 1.11. 27. Against S. GAMBETTI, The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and their Implications for the Experience of the Jews of the Diaspora (Ph.D. Dissertation; Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley, 2003) 49-50, 85, who envisages Agrippa delivering imperial mandata; also Anthony A. BARRETT, Caligula: The Corruption of Power (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) 80, who proposes Agrippa was “sent to investigate Flaccus.” 28. E.g., freedman in Tacitus, Ann. 14.38-39; freedman and tabellarii (couriers) in Pliny, Ep. 10.63. See F. MILLAR, The Emperor in the Roman World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977) 69-83, 213-28, 313-41.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 8 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 9

(2) Second, Agrippa's visit was compatible with normal imperial policies of cultivating a loyal clientele among the provincial elite29. Probably Agrippa's chief contacts during his visit included the decidedly pro-Roman family of Philo and his wealthy brother Alexander the alabarch30. Agrippa was obligated to Alexander because of Alexander's earlier financial patron- age31. Agrippa's visit in 38 even might have furnished the occasion for Agrippa to betroth his daughter Berenice to Alexander's son Marcus Julius Alexander, whom she married sometime in 41-4332. Like Agrippa, Alexander and his family were powerful clients of Rome33. Agrippa and Alexander even shared similar ties with Antonia, the

29. Cf. HADAS-LEBEL, “Éducation,” 44-62; P. A. BRUNT, “The Romanization of the Lo- cal Ruling Classes in the Roman Empire,” in D. M. PIPPIDI, ed., Assimilation et résistance à la culture gréco-romaine dans le monde ancien (Paris: Les Belles lettres, 1976) 161-73. 30. On their possible role as hosts of Agrippa, see Philo, Flacc. 27, 103; Cher. 99; thus, e.g., SCHIMANOWSKI, Juden und Nichtjuden, 112; VAN DER HORST, Philo's Flaccus, 120-23, 190; SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 74-77. On Philo's relationship and Alexander's wealth, see Josephus, BJ 5.205; AJ 18.159-60, 259; 20.100-103; cf. 20.147; Philo, Anim. 1-2, 72, 75; CPJ 2.419a-e. Agrippa's daughter Berenice also married Alexander's son Marcus Julius Al- exander; Josephus, AJ 19.276-77, 354; cf. BJ 2.217 and below. Alexander also may have been related to Demetrius the alabarch, whom Agrippa's daughter Mariamme married ca. 53; Josephus, AJ 20.147; see KOKKINOS, Herodian Dynasty, 198-99. Agrippa II also maintained ties with Tiberius Julius Alexander; Josephus, BJ 2.309. On the office of “alabarch,” which probably is equivalent to “arabarch” and may refer to chief agent of collecting customs due on imports to Egypt from the east, see F. BURKHALTER-ARCE, “Les fermiers de l'arabarchie: notables et hommes d'affaires à Alexandrie,” in J. LECLANT and R. VIAN DES RIVES, eds., Alexandrie: une mégapole cosmopolite (Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 1999) 41-54; cf. SCHIMANOWSKI, Juden und Nichtjuden, 130; already U. WILCKEN, Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien (Leipzig: Giesecke und Devrient, 1899) 1.350-51. For Alexander's tenure and the office in general, see Josephus, AJ 15.167; 18.159- 60, 259; 19.276; 20.100, 147; Cicero, Att. 2.17.3; Juvenal, Sat. 1.130; Cod. Justinian 4.61.9; possibly Josephus, Ap. 2.64; BJ 1.175; usually “arabarch” in inscriptions and papyri, OGIS 202a; 202b; 674; 685; SB 18.13167 (esp. 2.11); P. Oslo 3.106; BGU 2.665; MUSURILLO, Acta Alex. 22 (frag. 1); IEph 627 (MCCABE, Ephesos 1141); 3056 (MCCABE, Ephesos 1142); IMT Sued-Troas 497 (ed. BARTH and STAUBER); SEG 50.1563, discussed in J. BINGEN, “Un nouvel épistratège et arabarque alexandrin,” ZPE 138 (2002) 119-120; for “alabarch,” see OGIS 570; PSI 7.776; IG 12 Suppl. 673; P. Cair. Mas. 2.67166. On the family's pro-Roman stance, see below. 31. SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 6-7, 50, suggests that Agrippa's loan came from Antonia's money managed by Alexander; cf. Josephus, AJ 18.156, 159-60, 164-65; 19.276-77. 32. Josephus, AJ 19.276-77, 354; cf. BJ 2.217. Marcus was still alive in early 44 (“year 4” of Claudius; O. Petrie 471 [CPJ 419d]); KOKKINOS, Herodian Dynasty, 302; cf. A. FUKS, “Notes on the Archive of Nicanor,” JJP 5 (1951) 207-16. COHEN, “Agrippa I and De Specialibus Legibus,” 76-77, notes that betrothals could occur by letter. The betrothal also could have occurred during Agrippa's visit in 36. But Agrippa's status held less appeal for this in 36. 33. Agrippa I and Alexander's son Tiberius Julius Alexander even appear in the same list of Roman officials in SEG 51.2020 (SEG 40.1449). On the Roman citizenship and possible Hasmonean (or Oniad?) and Herodian connections of Alexander's family, see SCHIMANOWSKI, Juden und Nichtjuden, 117-39; K. G. EVANS, “Alexander the Alabarch: Ro-

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 9 09-15-2009, 14:38 10 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

grandmother of the emperor Gaius34. Only a short time after Agrippa's visit in 38, Alexander's son Tiberius Julius Alexander began his rise through a series of offices that ultimately included the prefecture of Egypt35. Judeans like these hardly required Agrippa's aid in purported conflicts with hostile Greeks36.

man and Jew,” in E. H. LOVERING, ed., SBL Seminar Papers, 1995 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 576-94; D. R. SCHWARTZ, “Philo's Priestly Descent,” in F. E. GREENSPAHN, E. HIL- GERT, and B. L. MACK, eds., Nourished with Peace (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984) 155- 71; S. S. FOSTER, “A Note on the ‘Note' of J. SCHWARTZ,” SPhilo 4 (1976-77) 25-32; A. FUKS, CPJ 2, pp. 188-203 (on CPJ 2.418-20); J. SCHWARTZ, “Note sur la famille de Philon d'Alexandrie,” in AIPHOS 13 (1953 [Mélanges Isidore Lévy, 1955]) 591-602; FUKS, “Notes on the Archive of Nicanor,” 211-16. For the bureaucracy in general, see P. A. BRUNT, “The Administrators of Roman Egypt,” JRS 64 (1975) 124-47. E. G. TURNER proposes iden- tifying the alabarch with the ambassador to Rome in 12/13 CE in P. Oxy. 25.2435 (editio princeps). But Alexander was a common name. Philo's brother Lysimachos in Philo, Anim. 1-2 may appear in P. Fouad 1.21; as idios logos in SB 14.11640 (P. Med. inv. 66.69v) and P. Oxy. 49.3508; A. BARZANÒ, “Tiberio Giulio Alessandro, Prefetto d'Egitto (66/70),” ANRW 2.10.1 (1988) 518-80, esp. 543; SCHWARTZ, “Note,” 599. Philo's own pro-Roman stance is emphasized by SCHIMANOWSKI, Juden und Nichtjuden, 121-23, and M. R. NIEHOFF, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2001) 6-10, 78-94, 111-36. 34. For Antonia and Agrippa, see Josephus, AJ 18.143, 156, 164-67, 179-86, 202-204, 236. For Antonia and Alexander's family, see Josephus, AJ 18.159-65; 19.276-77. See KOKKINOS, Antonia Augusta, 71-73; ID., Herodian Dynasty, 246-48; on the estates, G. M. PA- RÁSSOGLOU, Imperial Estates in Roman Egypt (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1978) 15-29. A. FUKS, CPJ 2, pp. 200-203, identifies the alabarch with Gaius Julius Alexander in CPJ 2.420a-b (P. Ryl. 2.126, 166); doubted by FOSTER, “Note,” 29; rejected by KOKKINOS. However, KOKKINOS's identification of the figure in the papyrus as a Herodian is based on a tenuous reading; a similar proposal is rejected by PARÁSSOGLOU (p. 17). 35. E.g., epistrategos of the Thebaid by early 42 (OGIS 663); procurator of Judea in 46- 48 (Josephus, BJ 2.220; AJ 20.100-103; SEG 51.2020 [SEG 40.1449]); procurator of Syria by 59 (J.-P. REY-COQUAIS, “Syrie romaine, de Pompée à Dioclétien,” JRS 68 [1978] 44-73, esp. 71; cf. Tacitus, Ann. 15.28); minister of war in 63 (Tacitus, Ann. 15.28); prefect of Egypt in 66-69 (OGIS 669; CPJ 2.418a-f; Tacitus, Hist. 1.11; 2.74, 79; Suetonius, Vesp. 6.3; Josephus, BJ 2.309, 490-98; 4.616-18; 5.44-46); prefect of the forces in Judea by late 69 or early 70 (Josephus, BJ 5.44-46; 6.236-43; possibly OGIS 586, but see SEG 40.1393); praetorian prefect in Rome after 71 (CPJ 2.418b; possibly Juvenal, Sat. 1.127-31); later senator (see his son or grandson in CIL 6.32374; Cassius Dio 68.30.2). See, e.g., BARZANÒ, “Tiberio Giulio Alessandro,” 518-80 (and bibliography); E. G. TURNER, “Tiberius Iulius Al- exander,” JRS 44 (1954) 54-64. He may appear in Philo, Anim. 1-2, 72, 75 (unless Anim. 54 coincides with Anim. 27). More dubious is Philo, Providentia 2, which uses terms more appropriate for a friend in 2.1; similarly, 2.31, 40, 55, 62, 67 (AUCHER); cf. J. SCHWARTZ, “Note sur la famille,” 592. Probably not Philo, Somn. 2.123-32, pace R. KRAFT, “Philo and the Sab- bath Crisis,” in B. A. PEARSON et al., eds., The Future of Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 131-41; D. R. SCHWARTZ, “Philonic Anonyms of the Roman and Nazi Peri- ods,” SPhA 1 (1989) 63-73. 36. Josephus' personal reasons for charging Tiberius Julius Alexander with “apostasy” do not negate Alexander's Judean ethnicity; SCHIMANOWSKI, Juden und Nichtjuden, 135-39; S. ETIENNE, “Réflexion sur l'apostasie de Tibérius Julius Alexander,” SPhA 12 (2000) 122- 42; G. BOHAK, “Good Jews, Bad Jews, and Non-Jews in Greek Papyri and Inscriptions,” in B. KRAMER et al., eds., Akten des 21. internationalen Papyrologenkongresses (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1997) 1.105-12.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 10 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 11

(3) Third, alliances with the aristocratic Judean families that Agrippa visited in Alexandria helped legitimate Agrippa's rule in the eyes of his Judean subjects. This paved the way for the later addition of Judea to his kingdom while circumventing the danger of promoting powerful families in Palestine who could challenge his authority. Similar strategies appear in earlier Herodian alliances with the Alexandrian priestly aristocracy37. Agrippa renewed these older alliances in 41 and ca. 43, when he appointed members of a priestly family of Alexandrian origin to the high priesthood38. Agrippa's visit to Alexandria in 38 thus may have been part of a calculated strategy for strengthening the Roman grip on Palestine.

3. Agrippa's unfulfilled promise concerning the Judean decree In Flacc. 97-103 Philo complains that Flaccus had not allowed the Judeans of Alexandria to carry a “decree” (cßfisma) to Gaius. Flaccus also had failed to forward it to the emperor. This decree congratulated Gaius after his accession in March of 3739. Philo asserts that when Agrippa visited Alexandria in 38 he promised to forward the Judean decree to the emperor along with an addendum explaining its delay. Scholars frequently claim that the arrest of Flaccus was provoked by Agrippa's addendum or a related letter40. But the obstacles to accepting current formulations of this view are insurmountable. (1) First, Philo himself claims that Flaccus was arrested due to Gaius' own quest for personal “vengeance” (timwría; Flacc. 180-81). Philo hints that the vendettas of Lampo and Isidoros supplied pretenses (Flacc. 125-

37. The family of Boethus; Josephus, AJ 15.319-22; 17.78; cf. under Archelaus, Jose- phus, AJ 17.339, 341; 18.3. The family of Phiabi also may have been from Egypt; JIGRE 33 (CIJ 2.1510); cf. Josephus, AJ 15.322; 18.34; 20.179-80. See James C. VANDERKAM, From Joshua to Caiaphas (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004) 405-408; P. RICHARDSON, Herod (Colum- bia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1996) 43-51; M. GOODMAN, The Ruling Class of Judaea (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 40-44. 38. Simon Cantheras from the family of Boethus in 41; Josephus, AJ 19.297-98, 312-13; probably also Elionaeus “son of” or “surnamed” Cantheras, possibly in 43; Josephus, AJ 19.342; 20.16; cf. AJ 15.319-22; 17.78, 339, 341; 18.3, 26; 19.342; 20.16. See VANDERKAM, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 440-53; KOKKINOS, Herodian Dynasty, 282-84; who both date Simon's appointment in 41, against SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 11-14, 185-95, who dates it in 38. SCHWARTZ, “Philo's Priestly Descent,” 155-71, points out Philo's own possible Sadducean and Boethusian connections. 39. Correctly, SMALLWOOD, Legatio ad Gaium, 252. For such decrees, see J. H. OLIVER, Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1989), nos. 13, 14, 19, 23; cf. other decrees in nos. 7, 18, 34, 64, 107, 113, 136, et al. 40. E.g., VAN DER HORST, Philo's Flaccus, 122-23; KUSHNIR-STEIN, “Visit of Agrippa,” 238-42; SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 76-77; P. SCHÄFER, Judeophobia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997) 142; KASHER, Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 22; JONES, Herods, 194.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 11 09-15-2009, 14:38 12 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

47)41. But Philo emphasizes that the real source of Gaius' animosity was Flaccus' alliances in Rome (Flacc. 9-16, 22-23, 108, 180-85)42. The strong- est evidence for the veracity of Philo's claim is its contradiction to his effort to vilify Flaccus for uniquely Judean concerns. Philo candidly acknowledged that a relationship of cause and affect between the attacks on the Judeans and the denouement of Flaccus could only be discerned if one admitted that “Justice” and “divine providence” were responsible for mere coincidences that created ironic parallels between the attacks and the fate of Flaccus43. Philo exaggerated the significance of these artificial connections to satisfy the demands of drama and theodicy. But his need to resort to this strategy merely confirms that Flaccus was not arrested for his treatment of the Judeans. (2) Second, Philo's criminalization of Flaccus' refusal to permit a Judean congratulatory embassy to go to Rome in 37 must be rejected. Emperors frequently tried to limit the number and size of provincial embassies44. One reason for this was that stipends that provincial cities granted to their ambassadors diverted the wealth of local elites away from more productive in- vestments in provincial infrastructure45. The flood of embassies also simply burdened the emperor's already busy schedule46. The specious nature of Philo's criticism of Flaccus is highlighted by Philo's praise of the Syrian

41. On their roles, see KERKESLAGER, “Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros,” 49- 94. 42. See BARRETT, Caligula, 23, 39, 66, 80, 90; also BRUNT, “Administrators of Roman Egypt,” 124-25; despite the objections of A. N. SHERWIN-WHITE, “Philo and Avillius Flaccus: A Conundrum,” Latomus 31 (1972) 820-28. See the concluding section below. 43. E.g., Flacc. 104, 115-16, 125-28, 146-47, 170, 189-91. Note especially the three artificial connections elaborated in Flacc. 104-47 (described below). See KERKESLAGER, “Ab- sence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros,” 57-60. 44. E.g., Josephus, AJ 18.170-71; Justinian, Dig. 50.7.5.6; Pliny, Ep. 10.43-44; Cassius Dio 52.30.9-10. See F. KAYSER, “Les ambassades alexandrines à Rome (Ier-IIe siècle),” REA 105 (2003) 435-68, esp. 448-50; G. A. SOURIS, “The Size of Provincial Embassies to the Emperor Under the Principate,” ZPE 48 (1982) 235-44; MILLAR, Emperor in the Roman World, 375-85; W. WILLIAMS, “Antoninus Pius and the Control of Provincial Embassies,” Historia (Wiesbaden) 16 (1967) 470-83. 45. Vividly demonstrated in Pliny, Ep. 10.43-44; cf. Cassius Dio 52.30.9-10. Formal recognition from the embassy's native city and a stipend (viaticum) was assured to each ambassador by his registration in the list of names in the official response to the embassy; e.g., OLIVER, Greek Constitutions, nos. 18, 23, 24, 27, 39, 42, 44, 45, 47, 79; cf. Dig. 50.7.3, 9-10. Travel allowances long predate the Roman period; e.g., IG 2(2).360 (Syll. [3] 304), lines 40- 45 (325/324 BCE); SEG 1.366 (MDAI[A] 1919, 25-29, no. 13; Samos 21), lines 25-36 (ca. 240 BCE). The financial burden of hospitality imposed on the Roman treasury during the Republic already may have ceased; Plutarch, QR 43; but the Roman authorities regulated payments anyway; e.g., Dig. 50.7.3-17. On the financial implications, see OLIVER, Greek Constitutions, 6-11; MILLAR, Emperor in the Roman World, 383-85; SOURIS, “Size of the Provincial Embassies,” 235-38; and especially WILLIAMS, “Antoninus Pius,” 470-83. 46. E.g., Josephus, AJ 18.170-71; Pliny, Pan. 79.6; so also for the Senate in Tacitus, Ann. 3.63. See MILLAR, Emperor in the Roman World, 375-85.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 12 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 13

governor Petronius, who denied a Judean request to send an embassy in 39- 40 during the Jerusalem temple crisis (Legat. 239-47). In contrast to the embassy requested during the temple crisis, the Judean congratulatory embassy of 37 was superfluous. Claudius complained of exactly this kind of redundancy when he rebuked the Judeans of Alexandria for sending their own congratulatory embassy when he became emperor in 4147. As in 41, the Alexandrian citizen body undoubtedly had voted to transmit a congratulatory decree by its elected ambassadors in 37. Because they were the powerbrokers for the entire city, it was an act of social hubris for any other group in the city to send a congratulatory embassy of its own. It also was redundant for Flaccus to mention any congratulatory decree by such a group in his correspondence with the emperor. (3) Third, numerous objections can be raised against speculation that the addendum that Agrippa had promised to send with the decree of 37 included accusations against Flaccus for his role in the violence in 38 (Flacc. 103)48. Most decisive is that Philo only says that the goal of Agrippa's addendum was to explain the delay of the decree of 37 (Flacc. 103). Philo does not mention the violence in 38 in his description of this addendum.

47. P. Lond. 6.1912 (CPJ 2.153), lines 88-92. Correctly, e.g., J. J. COLLINS, Between Ath- ens and Jerusalem (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 120; V. M. SCRAMUZZA, The Emperor Claudius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940) 77, 255. The popular notion of two Judean embassies must be rejected; against, e.g., SCHIMANOWSKI, Juden und Nichtjuden, 167-68, 174-75; KAYSER, “Ambassades alexandrines à Rome,” 457; GRUEN, Diaspora, 79; KASHER, Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 322-25; SMALLWOOD, Legatio ad Gaium, 28-30; TCHERIKOVER, CPJ 2, pp. 50-53. The possibility that Philo's embassy was still in Rome in 41 is irrelevant because Claudius was quite able to distinguish the occasion for Philo's embassy (the violence in 38) from the occasion of the later Judean embassy (the accession of Claudius and subsequent violence in 41). The “two embassies” can only be the officially sanctioned Greek embassy and the superfluous Judean embassy. Proposals that Claudius objected to two Judean embassies ignore the context. The letter is primarily a response to the Alexandrian congratulatory embassy and only consequentially a response to conflicts over Judean troubles in Alexandria. The statement about the unprecedented nature of two embassies (lines 90-92) makes no sense if the primary context were a political or ju- ridical dispute, since the very nature of such disputes often generated multiple embassies, sometimes even from the same ethnic group; e.g., three parties (Syllaeus, Aretas, Herod) in Josephus, AJ 16.293-99, 335-55; multiple factions in Josephus, AJ 17.219-49, 299-320; or possibly just one embassy partitioned into multiple interests in P. Oxy. 42.3020. In contrast, two competing congratulatory embassies from the same city was indeed unprecedented. Fur- thermore, the rebuke for sending two embassies is surrounded by warnings about Judean en- croachments on Greek interests. The rebuke is more likely to have continued this theme than to have made a disruptive and temporary shift to internal Judean squabbles. In addition, the relationship of this rebuke to the conflicts between Greek and Judean embassies is also indicated by the contrast between the phrase “two embassies as if in two cities” (lines 90-91) and the statement that Greeks and Judeans have lived for a long time in “the same city” (line 84; cf. line 95). Finally, the emperor decisively emphasized that only one embassy (that of the Greeks) legitimately represented the city by his humiliating refusal to include any Judeans in the letter's list of honored ambassadors (on such lists, see note above). 48. See more below on Legat. 178-80.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 13 09-15-2009, 14:38 14 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

(4) Fourth, Philo says that he cited the congratulatory decree of 37 to il- lustrate that before the summer of 38 Flaccus already had exhibited a pen- chant for exploiting honors to the emperor to damage the reputation of the Judeans (Flacc. 97; cf. 101). This implies a parallel between the alleged failure in Judean piety toward the emperor in 37 and the Judean removal of the imperial family's images from the synagogues in 38 (Flacc. 41-53). Philo's goal in citing the decree was not to explain the arrest of Flaccus, but rather to combat accusations of impiety toward the emperor that had re- sulted from events in 3849. (5) Fifth, Philo carefully avoided making any assertion of a genuine causal relationship between Agrippa's promise concerning the Judean decree and the downfall of Flaccus. Philo does say that God gave “hope” to the frustrated Judeans through Agrippa's promise (Flacc. 102). But this is probably another case of Philo enhancing his theodicy by establishing an artificial relationship between the afflictions of the Judeans and the downfall of Flaccus. Philo precluded any proposal of a more direct relationship by interposing a decisive structural break between his description of Agrippa's promise and his subsequent description of the arrest of Flaccus. This break is indicated by a transitional phrase in Flacc. 104 (êpì d® toútoiv, “in addition to these things”). It is further emphasized when Philo says that divine Justice “first” (pr¬ton) began to act against Flaccus in the first of the following three artificial connections between the violence and the arrest of Flaccus (Flacc. 104)50. Philo's strange omission of any statement that Justice operated through the promised activity of Agrippa could be explained if Agrippa never fulfilled his promise. (6) Sixth, Philo's claim that Agrippa forwarded the decree is qualified by a rather obtrusive denial of responsibility for the veracity of this claim (Üv âkoúomen, “so we hear”; Flacc. 103)51. This again suggests that Agrippa

49. See Philo, Legat. 352-57, 367; Josephus, AJ 18.257-59. 50. Explicitly enumerated pr¬ton (“first”), kaí (“also”), and tríton (“third”); Flacc. 104, 116, 125. These are (1) the arrest of Flaccus in his very home after he had driven Judeans from their homes (Flacc. 104-15); (2) the fortuitous timing of the arrest of Flaccus during a festival celebrating the Israelite rescue from oppression in Egypt (Flacc. 116-24); (3) the ironic reversal of the role of accuser and accused in the trial of Flaccus (Flacc. 125- 47). See KERKESLAGER, “Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros,” 57-60. 51. KUSHNIR-STEIN, “Visit of Agrippa,” 239-40, views the phrase as an attempt to obscure a request for Agrippa's aid before his visit; against this, see above. Philo never uses this phrase anywhere else, so it indicates a genuine compulsion to qualify his statement. Cf. its rhetorical use (in both singular and plural) in Aeschylus, Pers. 565; Euripides, Hel. 99; Sophocles, OC 527; Isaeus, Or. 8.43; Xenophon, Anab. 5.8.23; Plato, Leg. 625.b.2; Demosthenes, Or. 34.10; Aeschines, Tim. 132, 135; Dinarchus, Dem. 48; Alexis, Frag. 220- 221 (Frag. Tar. 1-2); Polybius 31.23.11; Aristophanes Byzantinus, Epit. 2.113; Dionysius Hal., Ant. Rom. 4.29.2; Appian, Sam. 4.7.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 14 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 15

did not fulfill his promise to forward the decree. The interval between 38 and the composition of the In Flaccum sometime after 41 provided Philo with numerous opportunities to confirm that Agrippa had fulfilled his promise52. Philo's strange hesitancy to affirm that Agrippa had done so suggests that Philo knew full well that he had not. The disorders that erupted just after Agrippa made his promise in 38 may have led him quickly to re- consider53. Philo mentioned the decree of 37 because the failures of Flaccus and Agrippa did not eliminate its rhetorical value for demonstrating Judean loyalty to the emperor. But Philo's reference to this decree provides no evidence of Agrippa's advocacy for distinctively Judean rights.

4. Agrippa's failure to support the Judean embassy In Legat. 178-80 Philo mentions a “document” (grammate⁄on) that his embassy carried from Alexandria to Rome in the winter of 38-3954. Philo says that this was an abridged version or “epitome” (êpitomß) of an earlier “petition” (ïketeía) that the Judeans of Alexandria had sent to the emperor “by Agrippa” (diˆ ˆAgríppa). Most scholars believe that Agrippa sent both the Judean petition (ïketeía) and a supporting letter of his own to the emperor. Often it is claimed that these documents were placed in the same dossier as the documents in Flacc. 97-10355. More careful study suggests that Agrippa refused to participate in the legal conflicts associated with Philo's embassy. (1) First, the documents in Legat. 178-80 must be clearly distinguished from the earlier documents in Flacc. 97-103. The only documents implied in Flacc. 97-103 are the congratulatory “decree” (cßfisma) of 37 and the addendum that Agrippa had promised in 38 to “justify” (âpologéomai) its delay. While “decrees” (cjfísmata) could be transmitted for a variety of reasons, the congratulatory nature of the decree of 37 sets it apart from the later “petition” (ïketeía) of 38. Requests in congratulatory decrees were generated by the occasion for honoring the emperor and were based on an

52. E.g., in the communication with Agrippa about the later Judean petition (ïketeía; Legat. 178-79); also during the time when Philo's embassy and Agrippa were in Rome at the same time in 39-41 (below). 53. See more fully KERKESLAGER, “Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla,” 373- 400. 54. Probably not 39-40; on the date, see below. 55. E.g., VAN DER HORST, Philo's Flaccus, 191 (with a misprint instead of Legat. 179); KUSHNIR-STEIN, “Visit of Agrippa,” 238-42; SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 76-77; SMALLWOOD, Legatio ad Gaium, 251-53; more circumspect but still blurring the chronological distinctions is F. H. COLSON, Philo: Embassy to Gaius (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962) 92-93.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 15 09-15-2009, 14:38 16 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

expectation of reciprocity for the honors voted to him56. In contrast, the nature of a “petition” (ïketeía) implies suppliants (ïkétai) hoping to obtain justice or mercy57. Evidence that the focus of the “petition” was an appeal of the latter kind is Philo's statement that its “epitome” (êpitomß) furnished “a summary impression of what we suffered and what we hoped to obtain” (kefalaiÉdjv túpov ñ te êpáqomen kaì ñ tuxe⁄n ©zioÕmen; Legat. 178). The suffering emphasized in the “petition” (ïketeía) and its “epitome” (êpitomß) was most likely the violence in 38. This has been obscured by modern claims that an effort to rectify a long history of perceived injustices is implied in Philo's allusion to his embassy's legal goals (ñ tuxe⁄n ©zioÕmen; Legat. 178)58. In this view, the obstacles that Flaccus erected against the transmission of the decree of 37 are cited as examples of these purportedly earlier injustices (Flacc. 97-103)59. The greatest flaw of this approach is that it trivializes the unprecedented scope of the violence in 38. Philo's allusion to Judean legal claims associated with his embassy can be explained quite sufficiently by the embassy's efforts to rectify the conse- quences of the notorious edict of Flaccus that had precipitated the most bru- tal phase of the violence in 38 (Flacc. 53-54). This violence, not some earlier injustice, is what elicited the embassy that carried the epitome to Rome. In contrast, nothing that Philo says in Flacc. 97-103 about the congratulatory decree of 37 or Agrippa's promised addendum indicates that these documents even mentioned the violence in 38. Chronology further distinguishes the documents in Legat. 178-80 from the documents in Flacc. 97-10360. The congratulatory decree of 37 (cßfisma) was handed to Agrippa while he was in Alexandria in 38 (Flacc. 103). In contrast, since we have just seen that the original petition

56. E.g., P. Lond. 6.1912 (CPJ 2.153); IGRR 4.1693 (OLIVER, Greek Constitutions, no. 13); IGRR 4.1756 (BUCKLER and ROBINSON, Sardis 7.1.8), esp. lines 19-21; P. Oxy. 25.2435r (esp. lines 8-9); OLIVER, Greek Constitutions, no. 23. 57. LSJ s.v. The many terms used for formal petitions include cßfisma, but their con- tents and official responses clearly indicate their distinction from honorific congratulatory decrees; e.g., Syll. (3) 768 (SHERK, RDGE 60); P. Oxy. 42.3020; SEG 9.8, lines 1-40 (OLIVER, Greek Constitutions, no. 8); P. Oxy. 25.2435v (esp. line 59). 58. E.g., GAMBETTI, Alexandrian Riots, 50-51, 66, emphasizing the judicial discrimination in Philo, Flacc. 24; SMALLWOOD, Legatio ad Gaium, 3-27, 251-53, referring to judicial discrimination and purportedly earlier conflicts; KASHER, Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 244-45, 322, implying the entire history of Judean legal claims in Alexandria. 59. E.g., VAN DER HORST, Philo's Flaccus, 187, 190-91. 60. A distinction frequently blurred; e.g., VAN DER HORST, Philo's Flaccus, 190-91; GAMBETTI, Alexandrian Riots, 50-51, 66; SMALLWOOD, Legatio ad Gaium, 49, 251-53; COLSON, Embassy to Gaius, 92-93. On the chronology of Agrippa's visit, see above and KERKESLAGER, “Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla,” 367-94.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 16 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 17

(ïketeía) and the later epitome (êpitomß) carried by the Judean embassy described the subsequent violence in 38, the petition could not have been handed to Agrippa until after the violence was over in the early autumn of 3861. From this one can be sure that neither this petition (ïketeía) nor any hypothetical letter that it elicited from Agrippa could have provoked the arrest of Flaccus. Flaccus already had been arrested when the petition was written and transmitted to Agrippa in Palestine. In Legat. 179 this chronological sequence is decisively signified by a frequently neglected causal particle (gár). This marks the transition between Philo's reference to the petition (ïketeía) and the following reference to Agrippa's earlier visit to Alexandria in 38. The introduction of Agrippa's visit by a causal particle rather than a temporal particle indicates that this visit was not mentioned to identify it as the time in which the petition was passed on to Agrippa62. Instead, the visit was introduced merely to explain why the Judeans had appealed to Agrippa. Most likely the reason was that they believed that Agrippa's role as an eyewitness to the initial installation of the images in 38 enabled him to corroborate their perspective. One must conclude that both the “petition” (ïketeía) and the “epitome” (êpitomß) mentioned in Legat. 178-80 were unrelated to any earlier documents that Agrippa had received or sent while he was in Alexandria. (2) Second, Philo quite simply does not mention a letter of Agrippa or any other document from Agrippa in Legat. 178-80. Analogy with Agrippa's promise to send an addendum along with the congratulatory decree of 37 described in Flacc. 97-103 cannot be used to infer such a document. If anything, such an analogy would suggest that Agrippa refused to forward the later petition (ïketeía) to the emperor because Agrippa probably never fulfilled his promise concerning the congratulatory decree (as suggested above). An additional problem is that the watershed of violence in July-September of 38 decisively separates Agrippa's earlier promise from his much later perusal of the petition he received in Palestine63. Vari- ous factors associated with this violence, such as the Judean insult to the images installed in the synagogues, may have diminished Agrippa's will- ingness to intercede for the Judeans of Alexandria64. Thus the absence of

61. Flaccus was arrested during Sukkoth; Philo, Flacc. 116; cf. BGU 4.1078, probably referring to his successor's arrival in Alexandria on Soter 23 (October 20) of 38. 62. Against, e.g., GAMBETTI, Alexandrian Riots, 50-51, 66; SMALLWOOD, Legatio ad Gaium, 251-53; COLSON, Embassy to Gaius, 92-93, who perceptively recognized the problem created by his own view of the chronology. 63. On the chronology, see KERKESLAGER, “Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla,” 367-94. 64. The insult is implied in Philo Flacc. 43-52; see KERKESLAGER, “Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla,” 373-400.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 17 09-15-2009, 14:38 18 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

any reference to a supporting letter from Agrippa in Legat. 178-80 might betray that Agrippa had refused to forward the petition to the emperor. (3) Third, Philo's description of Agrippa's visit in Legat. 178-80 is ter- minated so abruptly that scholars often suspect a lacuna in the manu- scripts65. But this parallels the sudden disappearance of Agrippa from the In Flaccum just before Philo's description of the violence in Flacc. 41-96. This suggests that the ambiguity in Legat. 178-80 was intentional. Philo may have wanted to cover up Agrippa's involvement in events associated with his visit66. Philo also does not explain precisely what happened to the petition (ïketeía). This suggests that Philo may have been trying to hide another embarrassing detail. Once again, a likely explanation is that Agrippa refused to forward the petition to the emperor. (4) Further evidence for this conclusion is that the petition (ïketeía) had little or no impact on Gaius. Philo never mentions the emperor's response to the petition or any audience granted by the emperor to a Judean embassy from Agrippa. The hostility Gaius expressed toward Philo and his colleagues only adds to the suspicion that Agrippa had made no attempt to secure them a more favorable reception (Legat. 349-72). (5) Fifth, Philo never mentions any interaction between his embassy and Agrippa in Rome. Philo's embassy probably appeared before the emperor in the late summer or early autumn of 3967. It is also very likely that it re-

65. E.g., SMALLWOOD, Legatio ad Gaium, 41, 253; L. COHN and S. REITER, Philonis Alexandrini Opera Quae Supersunt, Vol. 6 (Berlin: George Reimer, 1915) 131. 66. See more fully below and also KERKESLAGER, “Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla,” 367-73. 67. Against date in 40 advocated by SMALLWOOD, Legatio ad Gaium, 24-27, 47-52; EAD., Jews Under Roman Rule, 242-45. For the date in 39, see GAMBETTI, Alexandrian Riots, 1-30; A. HARKER, Loyalty and Dissidence in Roman Egypt: The Case of the Acta Alexandrinorum (Ph.D. Dissertation; London: University of London, 2000) 154-55; SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 78- 88, 196-99; C. SALVATERRA, “Considerazioni sul Progetto di Caligola di Vistare Alessan- dria,” in L. CRISCUOLO and G. GERACI, eds., Egitto e Storia Antica dall'Ellenismo all'Età Araba (Bologna: CLUEB, 1989) 631-56. The movements of Philo's embassy exactly parallel those of Gaius in the summer of 39: Rome, Campania, Rome; compare Philo, Legat. 180-85, 349-72, with Cassius Dio 59.17-18; Josephus, AJ 18.248-49 (describing another hearing that dates at least two months after the opening of the sailing season, which is the time needed for Antipas to travel from Judea). This suggests that the embassy's hearing followed Gaius' return to Rome after the busy time in Campania in the summer of 39 (Cassius Dio 59.17-18; Suetonius, Gaius 19; Josephus, AJ 19.5-6). This implies a date no earlier than late summer of 39. However, the sacrifice in “hope” of a German victory in Philo, Legat. 356 implies a date not long before Gaius left for his German campaign in the autumn of 39. Josephus provides independent confirmation of the resulting date in late summer or early autumn of 39. He places the embassy's legal hearing before the movement of Petronius toward Judea in the autumn of 39 and the sowing in the winter of 39-40; Josephus, AJ 18.257-63, 272, 274. The events in the spring of 40 described by Philo in Legat. 248-49 thus followed the hearing of the embassy described in Legat. 349-73. For the inclusio that Philo created by this arrangement, see above.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 18 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 19

mained in Italy through the following winter of 39-4068. Philo and some other members of this embassy may have stayed in Rome up through the early summer of 4169. Meanwhile, Agrippa probably had returned to Rome in the autumn of 3970. He then probably spent the winter of 39-40 with Gaius in Gaul and returned with Gaius to Rome in the spring of 4071. The previous relationships between Philo's family and Agrippa make it incon- ceivable that Philo and his colleagues would have passed up the opportunities provided by these circumstances to reiterate their earlier requests for Agrippa's aid72. Probably Philo was trying to hide Agrippa's embarrass- ingly negative response. One might try to avoid this conclusion by proposing that Philo and his colleagues simply never sought Agrippa's aid for the problems in Alexan-

68. This is already implied in a date in the late summer or early autumn of 39, i.e., near the end of the sailing season; cf. Vegetius, Res. Mil. 4.39. See further next note. 69. SCHIMANOWSKI, Juden und Nichtjuden, 167-68, 174-75; GRUEN, Diaspora, 79; HAR- KER, Loyalty and Dissidence, 26-27; SMALLWOOD, Legatio ad Gaium, 28-30; TCHERIKOVER, CPJ 2, pp. 50-53. TCHERIKOVER notes that this may explain the legend in Eusebius, HE 2.18.8. However, the reference to “two embassies” in P. Lond. 6.1912 (CPJ 2.153) provides no evidence for the fate of Philo's embassy because only one Judean embassy (the one sent in 41) is implied; see note above. Nevertheless, the temple crisis may have left Philo's embassy lingering without a resolution; Philo, Legat. 190-97, 365-67. Furthermore, Philo's brother Al- exander the alabarch was imprisoned in Rome until 41; Josephus, AJ 19.276. This may have led Philo to remain in Rome to care for him; cf. the similar aid in Josephus, AJ 18.202-204, 228. Concern for Alexander might also have kept his son Tiberius Julius Alexander in Rome if he too was a member of Philo's embassy, as suggested by A. TERIAN, Philonis Alexandrini De animalibus (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981) 30-33, citing Philo, Anim. 54. How- ever, TERIAN notes that Anim. 27 refers to events in Rome in 12 CE. Furthermore, P. Oxy. 25.2435v mentions an Alexandrian embassy of 12/13 CE that includes an Alexander. E. G. TURNER tentatively identified this figure with the alabarch (editio princeps). This might require supposing a different chronology in Philo's Animalibus or a confusion between the two Alexanders in its Armenian translation. On the other hand, the appointment of the younger Alexander to epistrategos of the Thebaid must have occurred by late 41; OGIS 663 (IGRR 1.1165; dated 3 April 42). At his young age this appointment would have been easier to obtain if he was with his father in Rome in 41 and received it directly from Claudius. 70. KOKKINOS, Herodian Dynasty, 285; SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 57-58. Agrippa does not appear in descriptions of events in Palestine in the autumn of 39 and winter of 39-40; Philo, Legat. 222-54; Josephus, AJ 18.261-87. Agrippa must have reached Rome before the close of the sailing season in 39 because he was with Gaius in the winter of 39-40; Cassius Dio 59.24.1-2. In AJ 18.247-52, Josephus asserts that letters carried by Agrippa's freedman provoked the dismissal of Antipas in the summer of 39. This can be reconciled with the role played by Agrippa himself in Josephus BJ 2.183 if Agrippa and his cumbersome retinue arrived after his freedman's more hurried journey preempted Antipas. Such a delay in Agrippa's arrival is in fact implied in BJ 2.183. The result is that Agrippa was only in Judea from the summer of 38 to the summer of 39, which fits the short stay in Judea implied in Josephus AJ 18.238. 71. Cassius Dio 59.24.1-2; cf. Suetonius, Gaius 17.1; so KOKKINOS, Herodian Dynasty, 285; SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 57-58. 72. On the relationships, see above.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 19 09-15-2009, 14:38 20 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

dria. Philo pretentiously announces that his embassy diverted its attention away from its own objectives to the more universal threat posed by the plans of Gaius to install an image in the temple in Jerusalem (Legat. 189- 97). Philo's boast rings hollow, however, because he later admits that his embassy already had appeared before Gaius in a hearing dominated by Alexandrian issues (Legat. 349-72)73. Furthermore, Philo strangely claims that Agrippa knew nothing of Gaius' plans until the temple crisis already had advanced toward its final stages (Legat. 261-65; contrast 185-206). This would indicate that neither Philo's embassy nor anyone else had mentioned these plans to Agrippa during the tense months prior to Agrippa's purported intervention74. This is hardly credible. It is only one of a number of features in Philo's account of Agrippa's intercession for the temple that suggest that it is largely an elaborate fiction75. Like the very different version provided by Josephus, Philo's account may be little more than an apologetic against Judean criticisms of the ambivalence of Agrippa and his relatives toward the temple76. The obstacles to treating Philo's account as the reliable testi-

73. As noted above, the structural arrangement in Philo, Legat. 171-372 (in which 171-83 and 349-72 create an inclusio) is dictated by apologetic interests, not chronological order. Likewise, the final hearing of Philo's embassy precedes the order to install a statue in the temple in Josephus, AJ 18.257-61. 74. Some of this period was spent in Gaul, but Agrippa must have been in Italy for much of it; SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 67-68. See Cassius Dio 59.24.1-2; Josephus, AJ 18.289; Philo, Legat. 261, 267, 272. 75. The problems are now widely recognized even when Agrippa's intervention is not rejected altogether, as in ALEXANDRE, Rhetorical Argumentation, 158-75; SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 34-37, 86-89, 200-02; ID., “Drama and Authenticity,” 113-20; P. BILDE, “The Roman Em- peror Gaius (Caligula)'s Attempt to Erect His Statue in the Temple of Jerusalem,” ST 32 (1978) 67-93; against others who accept Philo's account, e.g., E. M. SMALLWOOD, “Philo and Josephus as Historians of the Same Events,” in L. H. FELDMAN and G. HATA, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987) 114-29; WIRGIN, Herod Agrippa, 14-21; JONES, Herods, 201-203. 76. Josephus, AJ 18.289-302 (note all of 18.256-309). See N. H. TAYLOR, “Popular Op- position to Caligula in Jewish Palestine,” JSJ 32 (2001) 54-70; and much less persuasively, TAYLOR, “The Temptation of Jesus on the Mountain: A Palestinian Christian Polemic Against Agrippa I,” JSNT 83 (2001) 27-49. The awkward chronological seam in Josephus, AJ 18.302 emphasizes the disruptive nature of the fictional tale in AJ 18.289-301. Agrippa's telling absence from the account in Josephus, BJ 2.184-203 may be the most accurate indica- tion of his role. This agrees with sources suggesting that only the death of Gaius prevented the installation of the image; Josephus, AJ 19.15; Tacitus, Hist. 5.9.2; Megillat Ta‘anit on Shebat 22. On Rabbinic sources, see V. NOAM, Megillat Ta‘anit: Versions, Interpretation, History (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi, 2003) 283-90. SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 18-23, 31-38, 176-82, attributes Josephus, AJ 18.273-276a, 289-301 to a Judean novelistic source from Rome (“Vita of Agrippa”) written after Josephus had written BJ. SCHWARTZ attributes the rest of AJ 18.256-309 (and also BJ 2.184-203) to Philo. However, even if Josephus derived the idea of Agrippa's intervention from a source, Josephus may have elaborated this image to defend Agrippa's son Agrippa II against criticisms by his Judean kinfolk

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 20 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 21

mony of an eyewitness merely reaffirm the impression of a disturbing dis- tance between Philo's embassy and Agrippa during the period of their si- multaneous presence in Rome. (6) Sixth, Philo explicitly states that individuals in Rome who had once “seemed” to be allies of his embassy slunk away in fear of the emperor when they were actually called on to act on the embassy's behalf (oï téwv sumpráttein ™m⁄n dokoÕntev; Legat. 372). Philo's pitiable description of his embassy's discouraged isolation partly may have served to add credence to his boasts about its unique courage (Legat. 178, 184-85, 190-95, 352-53, 366-70). But it is difficult to avoid interpreting it as a bitter criticism of the cowardice and indifference of persons who might have aided his embassy's cause. Philo's choice to preserve their anonymity could easily be explained if they included powerful Judeans whom he otherwise wanted to flatter. Even if Agrippa was not among the targets of Philo's complaint, its testi- mony to the isolation of Philo's embassy negates any claim that Agrippa assisted this embassy. (7) Seventh, Alexander the alabarch remained in prison in Rome while Agrippa was in Rome in 40-41 (Josephus AJ 19.276). This surely provides a clue to the dubious prospects confronting the embassy of his brother Philo. But it is impossible to verify the popular proposal that Alexander was a member of this embassy77. One also cannot know whether Alexander was imprisoned for charges related to events in 38, mismanagement of the imperial estates of which he was overseer, failure in his duties as alabarch, or some other crime78.

after the destruction of the temple in 70. Judean hostility toward Agrippa II must have continued long after the war because he shamelessly immortalized the Roman victory; e.g., BURNETT, AMANDRY and CARRADICE, RPC 2.2242; MESHORER, TJC no. 134; cf. Victory figure types, e.g., RPC 2.2246-51, 2253, 2255-56; TJC nos. 137-39, 147, 150. See S. QEDAR, “A Coin of Agrippa II Commemorating the Roman Victory over the Jews,” Schweizer Münzblätter 39 (1989) 33-36. 77. Often suggested; e.g., KAYSER, “Ambassades Alexandrines à Rome,” 454; HARKER, Loyalty and Dissidence, 29; TERIAN, Philonis Alexandrini de Animalibus, 30-33; TURNER, “Tiberius Iulius Alexander,” 58; but rejected by SCHIMANOWSKI, Juden und Nichtjuden, 131- 32, who proposed the obstacle of Alexander's business commitments in the imperial bureaucracy. For the possible impact on the whereabouts of Philo and the other ambassadors in early 41, see above note. 78. On Alexander's role as an imperial client and for his duties as alabarch, see notes above. Alexander's release in Josephus, AJ 19.276 might exemplify the “many” people re- leased by Claudius who had been imprisoned for impiety toward Gaius (âsebeía; i.e., maiestas); Cassius Dio 60.4.2. Unfortunately, this charge was so notoriously broad that this would not clarify Alexander's crime; e.g., Tacitus, Ann. 1.72-74; Dig. 48.4.1-11. See A. KEAVENEY and J. A. MADDEN, “The Crimen Maiestatis under Caligula,” CQ 48 (1998) 316-20; P. A. BRUNT, “Did Emperors Ever Suspend the Law of ‘Maiestas'?” in V. GIUFFRE, ed., Sodalites: Scritti in onore di Antonio Guarino (Biblioteca di Labeo 8: Napoli: Jovene, 1984) 1.469-80; R. A. BAUMAN, Impietas in Principem (München: Beck, 1974).

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 21 09-15-2009, 14:38 22 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

One can be certain, however, that Agrippa's close relationship with Al- exander made Agrippa deeply obligated to intercede for Alexander's re- lease79. Yet Agrippa's ongoing freedom indicates that any effort Agrippa made to intervene was not intense enough to threaten his own favor with Gaius. This is quite understandable if Alexander's imprisonment is any clue to the dangers that may have confronted Agrippa. However, the contrast between Agrippa's freedom and Alexander's imprisonment challenges modern claims that Agrippa was a fearless champion for other Judeans to whom he was far less obligated. All of the evidence for the ambassadorial activity resulting from the violence in 38 points in the same direction. Agrippa wanted nothing to do with the problems in Alexandria.

5. Agrippa's passive role in the legal conflict with Isidoros Agrippa presents a brief apologetic for Judean rights in Alexandria in a few fragmentary Alexandrian texts usually grouped together under the title Acts of Isidoros80. This text describes a lawsuit that the Alexandrian patriot Isidoros brought before Claudius in 4181. As with other texts in the larger

79. See above. Cf. the similar case in Josephus, AJ 18.202-204, 236. 80. Sometimes called Acts of Isidoros and Lampo because of Lampo's role. See KER- KESLAGER, “Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros,” 54-92; for the texts, H. A. MUSU- RILLO, The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1954), no. 4; MUSURILLO, Acta Alexandrinorum (Lipsiae: Teubner 1961), no. 4; CPJ 2.156a-d; possibly P. Oxy. 42.3021. HENNIG has suggested that a text completely separate from the Acts of Isidoros is represented by MUSURILLO, Acts, no. 4c (CPJ 2.156c) and P. Oxy. 42.3021, both of which may describe the Alexandrian embassy in 41; D. HENNIG, “Zu neuveröffentlichen Bruchstücken der ‘Acta Alexandrinorum',” Chiron 5 (1975) 317-35, esp. 319-25. But the tensions he notes between the fragments might simply indicate different “recensions” (as already suggested by Musurillo). The fragments are at least closely related. For more on Isidoros and Lampo, see Philo, Flacc. 20, 125-47; Legat. 355-56; P. Oxy. 8.1089 (MUSURILLO, Acts, no. 2; CPJ 2.154); P. Giss. Lit. 4.7 (ed. P. KUHLMANN; P. Giss. Univ. 5.46 + P. Yale 2.107 [inv. 1385]; CPJ 2.155; MUSURILLO, Acts, no. 3), col. 3.33-34; MUSURILLO, Acts, no. 11 (CPJ 2.159). Probably our Isidoros is not mentioned in SEG 50.1563; see BINGEN, “Nouvel épistratège,” 119-120, against A. LUKASZEWICZ, “Tiberius Claudius Isidorus,” in T. GAGOS and R. S. BAG- NALL, eds., Essays and Texts in Honor of J. David Thomas (Exeter, Great Britain: American Society of Papyrologists, 2001) 125-29 and plate 11; A. LUKASZEWICZ, “Some Remarks on the Trial of Isidoros and on Isidoros Junior,” JJP 30 (2000) 59-65. Possibly related by its reference to Balbillos is BKT 9.64 (ed. G. IOANNIDOU; P. Berol. inv. 21161v). On Agrippa's identity, see next note. 81. For the identity of Agrippa as Agrippa I (rather than Agrippa II) and the date in 41 (rather than 53), see HARKER, Loyalty and Dissidence, 27-28 (who tries to harmonize the con- flicting evidence by proposing a possible trial date in 53 fictionally projected back to 41 by the author); J. MÉLÈZE-MODRZEJEWSKI, The Jews of Egypt (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995) 173-83; ID., “J Díkj toÕ Isídwrou,” Praktika tês Akadêmias Athênôn 61 (1986) 245-75; SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 96-99; HENNIG, “Neuveröffentlichen Bruchstücken,” 331-35; SMALLWOOD, Jews Under Roman Rule, 253-55; TCHERIKOVER in CPJ 1, pp. 68-69, 79-80.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 22 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 23

corpus known as the Acts of the Alexandrians, the narrative's hostility to Roman imperialism, its exaggerated drama, and uncertainty about its sources caution us against reading it as a straightforward record of the judicial proceedings82. In its present form, however, the Acts of Isidoros provides no evidence for Agrippa's initiative in any debate about Judean rights in Alexandria. (1) First, Agrippa's function in the legal proceedings was a passive one. Despite a recent argument to the contrary, numerous details confirm that Isidoros was the prosecutor and Agrippa was the defendant83. The most explicit is the formal title of the lawsuit84. Claudius presides over “the lawsuit brought by Isidoros gymnasiarch of the city of the Alexandrians against Agrippa the King” (âkoúei Klaúdiov Ka⁄sa[r tò toÕ ÎsidÉrou] gum- nasiárxou pólewv Â[lezandréwn] katà Âgríppou basiléw[v])85. The supplement to the major lacuna in this title is derived from a shorter phrase used just a few lines later (tò toÕ ÎsidÉrou)86. Influential editions have translated this shorter phrase as “Isidoros' trial”87. But its appearance in close parallel to the title indicates that it is just an abbreviation of the title. Thus its meaning is “the lawsuit brought by Isidoros.” The prosecutorial role of Isidoros is also implied when Isidoros is pre- sented as the first one to speak to the court88. Only after a prosecutor had introduced charges could the accused enter a defense89. The same role is

82. See J. ROWLANDSON and A. HARKER, “Roman Alexandria from the Perspective of the Papyri,” in A. HIRST and M. SILK, eds., Alexandria, Real and Imagined (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004) 79-111; HARKER, Loyalty and Dissidence, 21-222; MÉLÈZE-MODRZEJEWSKI, Jews, 174-75; M. PUCCI BEN ZEEV, “New Perspectives on the Jewish-Greek Hostilities Dur- ing the Reign of Emperor Caligula,” JSJ 21 (1990) 227-35; MÉLÈZE-MODRZEJEWSKI, “Díkj toÕ Isídwrou,” 246-48. 83. Against SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 96-99, who suggests that the possible use of êpágomai by Isidoros in MUSURILLO, Acts, no. 4b, 2.34, means “I am being brought [as a defendant to trial].” This proposal implies a setting early in the legal proceedings. But the immediately following reference to the tearing of clothing and the surrounding lines (MUSURILLO, Acts, no. 4b, 2.37) indicate an advanced stage just before the execution of Isidoros. The lacuna after “I am being brought” also might be filled in a different way; e.g., “here” or “to humiliation” or “to execution.” One cannot even be certain êpágomai is passive because of its other uses in legal contexts; see s.v. LSJ. Thus its meaning might be “I adduce […] as witness” or “I cite [… ] as evidence” or “I am acting as prosecutor.” HARKER, Loyalty and Dissidence, 232, persuasively argues that êpágomai is a corruption for âpágomai (“I am being led away to death”), citing a parallel a few lines later (MUSURILLO, Acts, no. 4b, 2.46-47). On Isidoros, see KERKESLAGER, “Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros,” 74-92. 84. Correctly, LUKASZEWICZ, “Some Remarks,” 60. On the formula, e.g., BGU 3.969. 85. MUSURILLO, Acts, no. 4a, 2.2-4. 86. MUSURILLO, Acts, no. 4b, 1.4; reconstructed, ibid., Acts, no. 4a, 2.8-9. 87. TCHERIKOVER, CPJ 2, pp. 71, 76; MUSURILLO, Acts, 24-25. 88. MUSURILLO, Acts, no. 4a, 2.9; 4b, 1.5; correctly, SMALLWOOD, Jews Under Roman Rule, 251. 89. E.g., Acts 24:1-21; Tacitus, Ann. 2.28-31; 3.10-14; 11.2; Seneca, Apoc. 14.1-2; P. Oxy. 1.37; 2.237, col. 7.19-38.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 23 09-15-2009, 14:38 24 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

also implied in the text's allusion to earlier lawsuits in which Isidoros had prosecuted the emperor's friends90. The implicit parallel between these earlier lawsuits and the current one places Isidoros in the role of prosecutor and Agrippa in the role of defendant91. The execution of Isidoros is also consistent with a failed prosecution on his part. Any proposal that Isidoros was executed for a role in the violence in 38 must be rejected because Isidoros was not involved in this violence at all92. The text attributes the execution of Isidoros to his legal attacks against Agrippa and other friends of Claudius93. Such attacks may have been identified as slander (crimen calumniae) and possibly even subsumed under the broad rubric of a treasonable crime against the emperor himself (crimen maiestatis)94. However, Isidoros also charges Judeans with disrupting “the entire Roman world” (ºlj ™ oîkouménj). This suggests that Isidoros tried to implicate Agrippa in some treasonable crime committed by other Judeans95. This would have made Agrippa guilty of a capital offense96. The text's implicit parallel between the charges against Agrippa and capital charges brought against other friends of Claudius further confirms that Agrippa was being charged with some capital crime. Prosecutors who

90. Theon the exegete and Macro (“Naevius”); see HARKER, Loyalty and Dissidence, 54- 55. HARKER proposes that the authors were confused over who was responsible for the execution of Theon, since a Theon who may have been executed by Flaccus appears in P. Oxy. 1.33 (CPJ 2.159b). On the possible identification of Theon with the Dionysios who appears in Philo, Flacc. 18-21 and P. Oxy. 8.1089 (CPJ 2.154) and on Isidoros' role in the execution of Macro, see KERKESLAGER, “Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros,” 61-66, 87-92. 91. Editors indicate their preference for this interpretation by supplying diÉkeiv in the lacuna in the warning directed to Isidoros (“You, Isidoros, are prosecuting this man, Agrippa”); e.g., MUSURILLO, Acts, no. 4b, 1.17. The context almost demands this or a similar conjecture. 92. Against, e.g., SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 99. See KERKESLAGER, “Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros,” passim, esp. 74-92. 93. Macro (“Naevius”) and Theon the exegete; see note above. 94. KERKESLAGER, “Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros,” 86-92; MÉLÈZE- MODRZEJEWSKI, Jews, 178-79; ID., “Díkj toÕ Isídwrou,” 254-56; SMALLWOOD, Jews Un- der Roman Rule, 252-53. On calumnia, see Dig. 48.16.1; on maiestas, see Tacitus, Ann. 1.72- 74; Dig. 48.4.1-11. On maiestas in Cassius Dio 60.3.5-4.6, see BRUNT, “Did Emperors Ever Suspend the Law of ‘Maiestas'?” 469-80; cf. KEAVENEY and MADDEN, “Crimen Maiestatis under Caligula,” 316-20. 95. E.g., see Tacitus, Ann. 1.72; Justinian, Dig. 48.4.1 (maiestas); 48.4.11 (perduellio, which was usually subsumed under maiestas); 48.6.1-5, 9-11 (vis publica). See O. F. ROBIN- SON, The Criminal Law of Ancient Rome (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995) 74-81. On the specific disruption implied in the text, see below. Perhaps Claudius was also being implicated, although this may be a fiction of the author; MÉLÈZE-MODRZEJEWSKI, Jews, 178-79; ID., “Díkj toÕ Isídwrou,” 254-56. 96. On capital crimes, see Justinian, Inst. 4.18.1-2; Dig. 48.1.1-2; 48.4.1-11. Cf. Gnomon 36-37 (BGU 5.1210.101-108; dupl. P. Oxy. 42.3014.5-14); also death in cases of bearing arms for sedition in Chrest. Wilck. 13.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 24 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 25

brought capital charges could themselves be executed if their prosecution failed97. The execution of Isidoros thus complements the role of prosecutor. Isidoros probably did not act on his own initiative. The text opens with the postponement of the hearing of an Alexandrian embassy before the emperor on April 30 of 41. On the second day of this hearing (May 1) Isidoros brings his lawsuit. The prosecutorial activity of Isidoros sets him apart from the normal functions of an ambassador. However, the correlation between his lawsuit and the activity of the embassy suggests that the interests of the embassy were behind his lawsuit. This is also implied when Isidoros introduces his lawsuit by appealing to “the sufferings of my native city” (tà ponoÕnta t±ç patrídi). These features can be explained if Isidoros was hired as a professional legal advocate by the ambassadors. Other testimo- nies to his activity in this role add credence to this proposal98. The initiative for the lawsuit thus came from Isidoros and his patrons. Agrippa's role was entirely a passive one. (2) Second, Agrippa also was not the one who raised the issue of the Judean troubles in Alexandria during these legal proceedings. If this issue was raised at all, it was by opponents attempting to incriminate Agrippa in a capital crime. The Alexandrian embassy described in the text was most likely the one sent to Rome to congratulate Claudius after his accession on January 24 of 4199. This makes the most sense of the dates the text provides for the embassy's appearances before Claudius, which are April 30 and May 1. The Balbillos who reproaches Agrippa in one version of the text probably can be identified with Tiberius Claudius Balbillos, who is listed

97. MÉLÈZE-MODRZEJEWSKI, “Díkj toÕ Isídwrou,” 254; SMALLWOOD, Jews Under Ro- man Rule, 252-53. The penalty for libelous or vexatious claims in private suits was 10-33.3% of the amount claimed from the other person; Gaius, Inst. 4.174-81. But failed capital accusations could result in punishments appropriate to capital crimes (i.e., exile, reduction in status, or execution); e.g., Tacitus, Ann. 4.36; 6.9; 6.30; 12.42. See BRUNT, “Did Emperors Ever Suspend the Law of ‘Maiestas'?” 469-80, esp. 479-80. 98. E.g., Philo, Flacc. 125-47; Legat. 350, 354-56 (possibly among the legal advocates [oï sunagoreusóntoi] but called an informer [sukofántjv; cf. sukofantéw in 356]); MUSURILLO, Acts, no. 4A, col. 3 (CPJ 2.156d); probably P. Oxy. 42.3021 (which might distinguish Isidoros from “all the ambassadors”); possibly P. Giss. Lit. 4.7 (ed. P. KUHLMANN; P. Giss. Univ. 5.46 + P. Yale 2.107 [inv. 1385]; CPJ 2.155; MUSURILLO, Acts, no. 3), col. 3.33-34. H. MUSURILLO and G. M. PARÁSSOGLOU, “A New Fragment of the Acta Alexandrinorum,” ZPE 15 (1974) 1-7 and Plate Ia, suggest that “Isidoros” also should be supplied to fill a lacuna in P. Giss. Lit. 4.7, col. 2.1 ([… ].. rov). But the speaker here is more likely the non-citizen “prosecutor” (ö katßgorov) whose conflict with Alexandrian ambassadors dominates the first three columns. See KERKESLAGER, “Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros,” 74-92. 99. Sailing was infrequent from November through March; Vegetius, Res. Mil. 4.39. But the lure of profits or a major event such as a change in emperors sometimes justified the risk of a winter journey.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 25 09-15-2009, 14:38 26 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

among the members of the embassy of 41 in P. Lond. 6.1912 (CPJ 2.153)100. Probably this embassy was still in Alexandria during the riots that erupted between the city's Judeans and Greeks after news of the change of emperors reached Alexandria in the late winter or early spring of 41101. This violence even may have been incited partly by the Judean community's attempt to send its own congratulatory embassy102. The chronological prox- imity between the violence in early 41 and the lawsuit of Isidoros makes this violence the most likely referent for the Alexandrian “sufferings” (ponoÕnta) mentioned by Isidoros. These riots probably are also behind his charge that the Judeans were troubling “the entire Roman world” (ºlj ™ oîkouménj)103. This charge identified the Judean attacks of 41 as treasonable rebellion. In the context of the lawsuit, this implies an attempt to incriminate Agrippa in the Judean crimes of 41. But Agrippa was not in Alexandria in 41. This accusation thus might be a mere slander or evidence of outright confusion by the author of the text. However, Isidoros' opening request to give an account of his city's sufferings presents the image of a prosecutor offering a historical survey (narratio) of the background to the alleged crime104. Any account of events leading up to the Judean attacks of 41 al-

100. MUSURILLO, Acts 4c (CPJ 2.156c); spelled “Barbillos” in P. Lond. 6.1912. Balbillos also appears BKT 9.64 (ed. G. IOANNIDOU; P. Berol. inv. 21161v), which might belong to the Acts of the Alexandrians but is hopelessly fragmentary. The “Tiberius Claudius [… ]” in P. Oxy. 42.3021 is unidentifiable but could be Balbillos or one of the other two ambassadors with these nomina in P. Lond. 6.1912. This is especially likely if it refers to the same embassy; HENNIG, “Neuveröffentlichen Bruchstücken,” 319-30. For the offices of Balbillos, including director of the Museum and Alexandrian library and later prefect of Egypt in 55-59 CE, see, e.g., OGIS 666; 669 (line 28); SB 1.5797; 4.7462 (Sel. Pap. 2.281); I. Smyrna 619 (IGRR 4.1392; MCCABE, Smyrna 102); I. Eph. 3041 (MCCABE, Ephesos 1277); I. Eph. 3042 (MCCABE, Ephesos 1278); P. Oxy. 49.3464; Tacitus, Ann. 13.22; Pliny, NH 19.3; Seneca, QNat. 4a.2.13; probably Suetonius, Nero 36.1; possibly Colosse de Memnon 29; BGU 3.776. On whether these all refer to the same Balbillos, see KAYSER, “Ambassades alexandrines à Rome,” 451-53; S. DEMOUGIN, Prosopographie des chevaliers romains julio-claudiens (Palais Farnèse: École française de Rome, 1992) 447-49. Not yet available is F. KAYSER, “Tib. Claudius Balbillus, ami de Claude et préfet d'Egypte,” reportedly forth- coming, ZPE. 101. Josephus, AJ 19.278-92; probably also mentioned in P. Oxy. 42.3021; HENNIG, “Neuveröffentlichen Bruchstücken,” 319-25. Probably it is implied in P. Lond. 6.1912 (CPJ 2.153), lines 77-78, which express Claudius' frustration with the renewal of violence during the late summer of 41 after he had already settled the issue at an earlier date in 41 (possibly through the edict quoted by Josephus, if it is not a forgery). For the late summer's violence, see BGU 4.1079 (CPJ 2.152), dated 4 Aug. 41. 102. Cf. the earlier Judean attempt in 37, Philo, Flacc. 97-103; the clear evidence of a Judean embassy in 41, P. Lond. 6.1912 (CPJ 2.153); and violence associated with an embassy in 66, Josephus, BJ 2.490-92. 103. MUSURILLO, Acts, no. 4c (CPJ 2.156c), lines 22-24; cf. P. Lond. 6.1912 (CPJ 2.153), lines 98-100. Cf. the illuminating parallels in S. C. de Pisone 12-70. 104. On the narratio, see Rhet. Her. 1.4, 12-16; Quintilian, Inst. 4.2.1-132; e.g., P. Oxy. 1.37; BGU 1.361; 3.969.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 26 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 27

most certainly would have alluded to the disorders in 38. The accusation against Agrippa thus may have been an extrapolation from Agrippa's visit in 38. One tantalizing fragment of the text might even allude to Agrippa's presence in Alexandria in 38105. The possibility that the events in 38 could have been exploited to incriminate Agrippa even years afterward is demonstrated by the energy that Philo devoted to responding to accusations against Agrippa when he composed the In Flaccum and Legatio sometime after Claudius became emperor in 41106. However, one also may have to grapple with the possibility that the actual charges that Isidoros brought against Agrippa had nothing to do with Alexandria at all. The participation of Claudius and Agrippa in the legal proceedings and the date of May 1 that the text supplies for the execution of Isidoros are likely to be authentic. These details are the ones most likely to have been preserved accurately in ritual commemorations of the death of Isidoros107. In contrast, the Alexandrian congratulatory embassy very well might not yet have arrived in Rome by the time Isidoros initiated his lawsuit. The short interval between the accession of Claudius on January 24 of 41 and the execution of Isidoros on May 1 could only accommodate the transmission of news Claudius' accession from Rome to Alexandria and the subsequent travel of the congratulatory embassy from Alexandria to Rome if one assumed expeditious journeys in both directions108. Given the possi-

105. The phrase aûtoÕ pólei in MUSURILLO, Acts, 4c.1.10 (CPJ 2.156c.1.10) perhaps might refer to Agrippa if it means “while he was in the city.” Of course, not much can be based on so fragmentary a reference. 106. On Philo's portraits of Agrippa in these texts, see above. On their date, see below. 107. E.g., on the anniversary of the death, Vergil, Aen. 5.42-71; possibly SEG 33.639; on the birthday of the dead, P. Oxy. 3.494 (Sel. Pap. 1.84), lines 23-25; in special festivals for the dead such as the Roman Parentalia (Feralia) and Egyptian Nekusia, Ovid Fasti 533-70; P. Amst. 1.89; P. Lond. 7.2140, line 19; SB 4.7457 (SEG 8.529; IDelta 1.446), lines 42-47; on special “marked days,” P. Ryl. 2.153; ChrWilck 500; and perhaps in other festivals. See F. DUNAND and R. LICHTENBERG, “Pratiques et croyances funéraires en Égypte romaine,” ANRW 2.18.5 (1995) 3216-315, esp. 3290; F. PERPILLOU-THOMAS, Fêtes d'Égypte ptolémaïque et romaine d'après la documentation papyrologique grecque (Lovanii, CNRS, 1993) 23-26. 108. The journey from Rome to Alexandria usually required at least 20-30 days. See D. W. RATHBONE, “The Dates of the Recognition in Egypt of the Emperors from Caracalla to Diocletianus,” ZPE 62 (1986) 101-31, who suggests 20-25 days. But (as RATHBONE admits) examples may extend beyond this range; e.g., probably 28 days in OGIS 669 (SB 5.8444); 35 days to Oxyrhynchus in P. Oxy. 7.1021 (Sel. Pap. 2.235). See L. CASSON, Travel in the An- cient World (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994) 151-55; ID., Ships and Sea- manship in the Ancient World (2nd ed.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995) 278-99, although Casson's lower limits (citing, e.g., Pliny, NH 19.3-4) place too much weight on record journeys and overlook the stage of the journey from Rome to Puteoli; cf. R. CHE- VALLIER, Roman Roads (London: B. T. Batsford, 1976) 178-95. The journey from Alexandria to Rome usually required about two months; e.g., a period of almost two months intervened from the death of Germanicus in Antioch to the beginning of his iustitium in Rome in 19 CE; L. VIDMAN, “Inferiae und Iustitium,” Klio 53 (1971) 209-12. See L. E. LORD, “The Date of

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 27 09-15-2009, 14:38 28 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

bility that the Alexandrian embassy was not even present, it is also very possible that the only connection the lawsuit really had to Alexandria was a purely coincidental role played by Isidoros, a notorious Alexandrian gymnasiarch. The Alexandrian author may have supplemented the reliable kernel of the role of Isidoros with allusions to Judean troubles and an Alexandrian embassy that with some verisimilitude could be associated with the celebrated date of the execution of the Alexandrian hero. This may have created the misleading impression that the accusations against Agrippa were related to the author's Alexandrian audience when in reality they had more to do with unrelated political conflicts in distant Rome. On this assumption one might propose that that the true identity of the patrons of Isidoros were some unknown opponents of Agrippa among the Roman elite. These elite might have populated the advisory council (consilium) that heard the lawsuit, which reportedly included “twenty senators, sixteen men of consular rank, and the matrons”109. One possible source for animosity toward Agrippa by such elites is his choice to side with Claudius against the Roman Senate during the tense succession of emperors at the end of January in 41110. However, Agrippa's role in this succession has been greatly exaggerated111. The romantic connection that our sources created between the chaotic accession of Claudius and the later expansion of Agrippa's kingdom into Judea and the surrounding regions obscures how this award politically manipulated Agrippa's

Julius Caesar's Departure from Alexandria,” JRS 28 (1938) 19-40; CASSON, Ships and Sea- manship, 281-99. Three months was not uncommon. E.g., Lucian, Nav. 9, 35, required 70 days from Alexandria to Athens, although this was slow and would normally have been enough time to reach “Italy” (not necessarily Rome). From Athens to Rome required at least another 20 days; Procopius, Bell. 3.13.21-23. The Alexandrian ambassadors would have hurried, as was common in efforts to flatter emperors with a quick response to major changes in the imperial household; e.g., Decreta Pisana (ILS 140; CIL 11.1421), lines 7, 25, 40-59; Tabula Siarensis 2a.1-7; cf. B. ROSE, Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) 19, 223. Never- theless, the total of the journeys in both directions easily could have exceeded the period between the accession of Claudius and the execution of Isidoros; e.g., 200 days was allowed for the similar journeys from Brundisium to Berytus and back again in Dig. 45.1.122.1. 109. CPJ 2.156a.2.5-8; similarly CPJ 2.156b.1.1-4. LUKASZEWICZ, “Some Remarks,” 61- 62, proposes that Isidoros was supported by senators whose real goal was to intimidate Claudius. In either case, the presence of senators and other elites was common practice in the trial of a Roman aristocrat; B. LEVICK, Claudius (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990) 115-20. 110. On Agrippa's possible role, see Cassius Dio 60.8.2-3; Josephus, BJ 2.204-17; contrast the fantasy of both the Roman Senate and Claudius looking to Agrippa for advice in Josephus, AJ 19.236-76. See LEVICK, Claudius, 29-39. 111. PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Jewish Rights, 336-37; SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 90-96; already, L. FELDMAN, “The Sources of Josephus' ‘Antiquities,' Book 19,” Latomus 21 (1962) 320-33. For Claudius' accession, see LEVICK, Claudius, 29-39.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 28 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 29

Judean identity to soothe the Judean hostility toward Rome that had been aroused by the temple crisis112. Agrippa's personal standing with the new emperor is otherwise unlikely to have differed from that of other Roman elites113. Few would have dared to introduce a lawsuit against Agrippa in May of 41 if Agrippa had secured the new emperor's gratitude by playing a decisive role in his accession. A more demonstrable source of elite hostility toward Agrippa may be found in his close relationship with Gaius. This inadvertently implicated Agrippa in the outrages that Gaius had inflicted on the senatorial class114. This might place the lawsuit against Agrippa among other retributive lawsuits that may have been introduced in the months following the accession of Claudius, during which Roman elites sought to eliminate their own political enemies by exploiting the new emperor's attempts to consolidate his power115. Whatever the precise charges against Agrippa were, the danger they pre- sented to him must have been formidable. Isidoros was a skilled legal spe- cialist who would not have risked his life accusing Agrippa if he believed that the accusation was easily dismissed116. The text's exaggerated picture of an abrupt reversal in the fortunes of Isidoros thus may preserve the memory of a genuinely unanticipated twist in the legal proceedings117. One can be certain that Agrippa did not enter these proceedings willingly. Any comments he made about Judean rights in Alexandria during these proceedings were extracted from him as part of a desperate effort to defend himself against a serious legal threat to his own life. (3) Third, the possible motives for the lawsuit further undermine efforts to use this text as evidence for Agrippa's interest in the Judeans of Alexan- dria. Isidoros probably was motivated more by financial concerns than by the patriotism that the author of the text projected onto him. Isidoros already had secured a number of profitable legal victories in the years since 112. For the expansion, see Josephus, BJ 2.214-17; AJ 19.274-75; Dio 60.8.2-3. Cf. Suetonius, Claud. 25.5; MESHORER, TJC, nos. 121, 124-25; BURNETT, AMANDRY and RIPOLLÈS, RPC 1.4982-84; and the similar coin of Herod of Chalcis, TJC, no. 361; RPC 1.4777; discussed in MESHORER, TJC, 98-101; BURNETT, “Coinage of King Agrippa,” 31-37. 113. But neither Agrippa nor Herod had lost any previous titles or legal standing just because Gaius had been executed; correctly, D. WARDLE, “Caligula and the Client Kings,” CQ 42 (1992) 437-43; against A. A. BARRETT, “Claudius, Gaius and the Client Kings,” CQ 40 (1990) 284-86. 114. Cassius Dio 59.24.1-2; cf. Josephus, AJ 18.289, 298-99; Philo, Legat. 261, 268, 328. 115. Cassius Dio 60.3.6-4.6. Complaints about corruption in the judiciary of Claudius appear in Seneca, Apoc. 12.2-3; 14.1-2; Suetonius, Claud. 14-15 (although the names place most of the executions later in Claudius' reign). 116. Similarly, LUKASZEWICZ, “Some Remarks,” 60-61. 117. Reversal was, however, a standard literary motif; Aristotle, Poet. 1450a, 1452a-b.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 29 09-15-2009, 14:38 30 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

the devastating financial blow that accompanied his exile from Alexandria in 33-35 CE118. If he brought the lawsuit against Agrippa purely on his own initiative, his primary motive was to win the share of confiscated property normally transferred from a convicted defendant to the successful in- former119. However, evidence for his activity as a hired prosecutor suggests that the true motive for the lawsuit must be found in those who hired him120. The previous suggestion that the patrons of Isidoros were members of the Roman elite indicated that they sought revenge on Agrippa as a political enemy. In this case Agrippa's Judean identity was coincidental and the issue of Judean rights in Alexandria was completely irrelevant. On the less likely assumption that the text accurately identifies the patrons of Isidoros with the Greek embassy that recently had come from Al- exandria in early 41, the motive for the lawsuit probably would have to be found in this embassy's anticipation of a future legal conflict with a rival Judean embassy from Alexandria. Clear evidence that such a conflict occurred appears in the famous letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians (P. Lond. 6.1912 = CPJ 2.153). This letter was not published in Alexandria until November 10 of 41. The conflict it implies is unlikely to have happened by the time Isidoros brought his lawsuit on May 1. Thus at the very most, the lawsuit introduced by Isidoros might have been a preemptive assault to prevent an identifiably Judean client of the emperor from potentially aiding a rival Judean embassy in this later conflict. One must conclude that the Acts of Isidoros provides no evidence of any initiative from Agrippa on behalf of the Judeans in Alexandria. Even if one assumes that an embassy of Alexandrian Greeks played a role in the lawsuit, the true champions of Judean rights in the associated events were the unknown Judean ambassadors who traveled from Alexandria to Rome in the spring of 41.

6. Agrippa's absence from the edicts of Claudius to Alexandria Judean rights are addressed in an edict preserved by Josephus that Claudius reportedly sent to Alexandria in the late spring or early summer of

118. Against Macro, Theon, and “many friends” of Claudius; MUSURILLO, Acts, no. 4A- C (CPJ 2.156a-d); against Flaccus, Philo, Flacc. 125-28, 135, 146-47; although against his role in the execution of Theon (if the same figure is in view), see P. Oxy. 1.33 (frag. 4; CPJ 2.159b.4). On his exile and career, see KERKESLAGER, “Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros,” 74-92. 119. As much as 25% of the confiscated property; Tacitus, Ann. 4.20; cf. 2.32; 4.30. Out- side of Rome, policies for rewarding informers varied widely; e.g., 12.5% under the legate of Domitian in Pisidian Antioch, M. MCCRUM and A. G. WOODHEAD, Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966) no. 464; and 50% in Athens under Hadrian, IG 3.38 (SEG 15.108; OLIVER, Greek Constitutions, no. 92), lines 33-55. 120. See notes above.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 30 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 31

41 (Josephus AJ 19.278-86). Scholars often suspect that this edict is a Judean fabrication created from details in some authentic edict, which many identify as the letter that Claudius sent to Alexandria in the autumn of 41 (P. Lond. 6.1912 = CPJ 2.153)121. As a concession to the possibility that the Josephan edict is authentic, the most defensible procedure is to treat these two edicts independently122. Arguments that Agrippa influenced the formulation of one or both of them at first seem persuasive because he was in Rome for much of 41123. However, closer study suggests that his role in shaping these edicts was negligible. (1) The role that Josephus attributes to Agrippa in the first edict is an in- vention of Josephus himself. Josephus introduces the edict by stating that Agrippa and his brother Herod of Chalcis encouraged Claudius to issue an edict to “Alexandria and Syria” after the violence in Alexandria in early 41 (AJ 19.278-79). But the actual edict itself as it is quoted by Josephus indicates that it was directed only to Alexandria (AJ 19.280-86). Furthermore, neither Agrippa nor Herod of Chalcis are mentioned in the quoted form of the edict. The credibility of the statement by which Josephus introduces this edict cannot be preserved by arguing that he based it on an unknown source that included a comment about Judeans from Syria124. This is a case of special pleading. It can be eliminated by Occam's razor because a comment about Judeans in Syria actually does appear in the authentic letter of Claudius to Alexandria (P. Lond. 6.1912). The papyrus letter even has been proposed as

121. E.g., SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 99-106, who points out potential contradictions between the Josephan edict and other sources; e.g., its affirmation of “equal civic rights” (against P. Lond. 6.1912) and its denial of the suspension of the Judean ethnarchy (against Philo Flacc. 74); so also HENNIG, “Neuveröffentlichen Bruchstücken,” 326-35. GRUEN, Diaspora, 72, 82- 83, sees the Josephan edict as a more accurate representation of the papyrus edict but still denies its independence. SCHIMANOWSKI, Juden und Nichtjuden, 175-79, identifies the fabri- cator with Josephus but leaves open the question of his source(s). 122. Of course, if the Josephan edict is a forgery, it could not be used as evidence for Agrippa's advocacy of Judean rights; so SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 99-106. For its authenticity, see M. PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Jewish Rights in the Roman World (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1998) 294-327, esp. 305-313; cf. V. TCHERIKOVER, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999 [original 1957]) 409-15. The illuminating parallels between the Josephan edict and normal imperial patterns do not eliminate the possibility that the edict is simply a good forgery. More convincing evidence that the Josephan edict was independent from the papyrus letter includes: (1) the possible allusion to an earlier Alexandrian edict in the papyrus letter (êbebaíwsa; P. Lond. 6.1912.88); (2) statements in the papyrus letter indicating that Claudius already had tried to settle the conflicts once before (P. Lond. 6.1912.77-78); (3) the reference in a later letter of Petronius to multiple edicts (diatágmata) from Claudius to Alexandria concerning Judean rights (Josephus, AJ 19.310). 123. E.g., KRIEGER, “Darstellung König Agrippas,” 110-116, despite his sensitivity to the biases of Josephus; PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Jewish Rights, 311, 314-15; KASHER, Jews in Hellenis- tic and Roman Egypt, 23, 268; SMALLWOOD, Jews Under Roman Rule, 193-95, 245-50. 124. Pace PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Jewish Rights, 313-15.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 31 09-15-2009, 14:38 32 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

the source for Josephus' claim about the existence of an edict to Syria125. But this letter does not mention Agrippa or Herod. It also seems more likely that Josephus inferred the existence of an edict to Syria from the possible allusions to such an edict in his copy of a letter that Publius Petronius sent to Dor in the second half of 41 or first half of 42 (AJ 19.303-307). The Syr- ian edict cited by Petronius was probably the one in which Claudius decisively ended the temple crisis almost immediately after his accession126. The dexterity of Petronius and swift advice from the Roman Senate precluded any role for Agrippa and Herod in this edict to Syria, so it is unlikely that it mentioned them127. However, the letter of Petronius also might be one of the sources from which Josephus inferred Agrippa's role as an intercessor in Alexandrian affairs. Petronius claims that Agrippa read earlier Alexandrian edicts when he met with Petronius to intercede for the Judeans of Dor (AJ 19.308-11). In addition to the letter of Petronius, Josephus quotes a more general edict dating to 41 that identifies Agrippa and Herod as intercessors before Claudius (AJ 19.286-91)128. Probably Josephus credited them with a similar role in the Alexandrian edict in a legitimate attempt at historical inference from these quoted sources or through a desire to flatter his Herodian patrons. (2) Nothing in the Josephan edict to Alexandria or the papyrus letter of Claudius implies a unique favor or concession to any Judeans beyond the

125. SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 100-103; HENNIG, “Neuveröffentlichen Bruchstücken,” 326- 35. Pace SCHWARTZ, this need not imply that the papyrus letter was also published in Syria. 126. Of course, this assumes that the letter of Petronius is authentic. Petronius does not explicitly identify the original recipients of the Claudian edict cited early in his letter (AJ 19.303-307) but does assume that it applied to the people of Dor. PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Jewish Rights, 353-55, does not clearly distinguish this unidentified edict from the Alexandrian edicts (plural) mentioned near the end of Petronius' letter (AJ 19.310). But Petronius clearly states that the Alexandrian edicts were only appended to supplement what the audience already knew from the earlier edict (ÿna dè gnwrimÉteron ¥ç; AJ 19.310). While the unidentified edict could be the universal edict quoted in AJ 19.287-91, the emphasis of Petronius on its applicability to an audience in Dor, a city in the province of Syria, might easily suggest a separate Claudian edict to Syria. Such an edict dating to very early 41 seems almost necessary as the conclusion to the temple crisis. Since Petronius was both the key intercessor for the Judeans in this crisis and the region's most powerful Roman official during a time of in- stability, one can be certain that he was lavished with praise in this edict to Syria. Claudius hardly needed Agrippa's intervention to end the temple crisis and thus had no reason to mention Agrippa in this edict. On the temple crisis, see above. 127. On Agrippa's inactivity during the temple crisis, see above. Claudius' edict probably did acknowledge the tactful handling of the crisis by Petronius, the true hero. 128. This general edict would be irrelevant if it was a forgery based on the papyrus letter, as sometimes claimed; e.g., HENNIG, “Neuveröffentlichen Bruchstücken,” 326-35. For a full discussion, see PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Jewish Rights, 328-42. For its date in 41, note that the first consulship of Claudius was in 37; Suetonius, Gaius 15.2.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 32 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 33

Judean ambassadors who came from Alexandria in the spring of 41129. In the Josephan edict, the precedents cited for Judean rights ostensibly may have derived from the historical survey (narratio) in a document that the Judean ambassadors carried to Rome130. Its limited guarantees did not require additional leverage from an outsider such as Agrippa131. In the papyrus letter, comments about the Judean troubles in Alexandria are subsumed within a much larger framework entirely dominated by the interests of the Alexandrian Greek citizens (P. Lond. 6.1912). The practice of honoring ambassadors by including their names in imperial edicts indicates that the humiliating omission of Judean names from the letter's list of officially ap- proved ambassadors was intended to emphasize the rebuke of the Judeans for sending an unprecedented second congratulatory embassy132. One of the three ambassadors that Claudius singles out to receive special honor from the Alexandrian citizens (Dionysios son of Theon) even is praised for his energetic defense of the Alexandrian Greek attacks on Judeans133. In addition, one of the two ambassadors that Claudius cozily identifies as “my companion” (ö êmòv ëta⁄rov) and extols for championing Alexandrian interests is the very Balbillos who denounces Agrippa in the Acts of Isidoros134. The explicit praise accorded these figures and the letter's focus on their interests indicate that they played a far more influential role in the formulation of the papyrus letter than the unnamed Judean ambassadors from Alexandria. The role played by other Judeans who are not even mentioned at all must have been even less important.

129. Similarly, SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 105-106, concludes, “Claudius ratified the Jews' religious rights, but rejected their political ambitions out of hand, in terms so harsh that no one would ever suppose that he had a Jewish friend who exercised great influence over him. Ap- parently, therefore, he did not.” In general on these edicts, see SCHIMANOWSKI, Juden und Nichtjuden, 165-81; for their reaffirmation of the status quo, see PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Jewish Rights, 304-305. 130. PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Jewish Rights, 317-18; indicated by Josephus, AJ 19.281; cf. the implicit claims in the documents in Philo, Legat. 178-79 and the precedents in the fictive letter in Legat. 276-329. 131. The limited nature of its guarantees is emphasized by GRUEN, Diaspora, 79-83. 132. Cf. above notes on the financial implications of embassies and on the “two embassies” in P. Lond. 6.1912 as Greek and Judean congratulatory embassies, not two Judean embassies. 133. The modern tendency to castigate Dionsysios for anti-Semitism obscures the com- mendatory language that Claudius himself uses: kaíper . . . pollà t¬n ™metérwn présbewn filoteimjqéntwn kaì málista Dionusíou toÕ Qéwnov (lines 74-76). Similar vocabulary is used in praising Balbillos in lines 105-107. 134. On Balbillos, see above. In P. Lond. 6.1912, lines 105-107, he is Balbíllwi t¬i etérwi . . . ºv kaì nÕn pásji filoteimeíaç perì tÑn âg˙na tòn üpèr üm¬n kéxrjte. Agrippa had been a “companion” (ëta⁄rov) of Gaius; Philo, Legat. 286, 328.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 33 09-15-2009, 14:38 34 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

(3) As with the Josephan edict, neither Agrippa nor Herod appear in the papyrus letter. The most parsimonious explanation for this is that they had little or no role in the formulation of the Alexandrian edicts. Imperial edicts often mentioned powerful patrons who had an intercessory role in their formulation to assure that these patrons would receive due honors from their clients135. The appearance of Agrippa and Herod as intercessors in other official documents cited by Josephus only heightens the significance of the absence of their names from the Alexandrian edicts. (4) The Josephan documents in which Agrippa and Herod actually are mentioned merely indicate that the role of the two brothers in confirming Judean rights in the Diaspora was dependent on the precedent that already had been established by the earlier Alexandrian edicts. This secondary role is explicitly acknowledged in the edict in which both of their names appear (AJ 19.287-91). The same conclusion is suggested by the description of Agrippa's appeal to earlier Alexandrian edicts in the letter of Petronius to Dor (AJ 19.309-11)136. Thus the documents in which Agrippa actually is named provide no evidence for any earlier initiative on his part for the Judeans in Alexandria137. (5) As was already suggested in the previous discussion of the Acts of Isidoros, the situation of Agrippa at the beginning of the reign of Claudius probably was much more tenuous than Josephus would like us to believe138. During the months of political readjustment that followed the accession of Claudius, neither Agrippa nor Herod was likely to test the new emperor's favor by entering the legal disputes related to Alexandria, which was outside of their respective jurisdictions. Nothing even indicates that they tried to secure a special exemption for Judeans in Rome itself when Claudius placed restrictions on the assemblies of Judeans and other groups in Rome

135. E.g., Livia in SEG 32.833 (MCCABE, Aphrodisias 37; REYNOLDS, Aphrodisias and Rome, no. 13); Marcus Valerius Junianus in OLIVER, Greek Constitutions, no. 29 (MCCABE, Miletos 67); Agrippa II and perhaps Herod of Chalcis and Aristobulus his son in Josephus, AJ 20.10-14. See PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Jewish Rights, 334-37. More often, however, the individuals honored by name in edicts were ambassadors; see notes above on ambassadors and the financial implications of embassies. 136. See PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Jewish Rights, 343-56. 137. This point would be even more decisively emphasized if these documents were forgeries. For doubts about their authenticity, see H. BOTERMANN, Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1996) 107-11; HENNIG, “Neuveröffentlichen Bruchstücken,” 326-35; for their authenticity, see PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Jewish Rights, 341-42, 351. 138. E.g., contrast Josephus, AJ 19.236-77 with Josephus, BJ 2.206-215; Cassius Dio 60.8.2 (although even BJ may be exaggerated and Dio may have merely passed on the error of Josephus). Cf. PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Jewish Rights, 336-37; SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 90-106; and above notes.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 34 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 35

in 41139. At the very most, it was only after the Judean ambassadors from Alexandria had secured protection for Judean religious practice in Alexan- dria that Agrippa may have tactfully suggested that this precedent could be more broadly applied140. Even the credit for this achievement was shared with Agrippa's brother Herod. Furthermore, this later request probably was not motivated simply by a pious interest in Judean rights. Agrippa's intercession for the Judeans of Dor, for example, cannot be explained without reference to the role of Dor in his own kingdom's trade and shipping141. Once again, it appears that the true champions of Judean rights in 41 were the unnamed Judean ambassadors who sailed from Alexandria to Rome after the accession of Claudius142.

7. Agrippa's influence on the sources Previous sections of this article have suggested that the striking ambiguities and lacunae about Agrippa in the In Flaccum and Legatio may be due to a calculated effort on the part of Philo to protect Agrippa from incrimination in a Judean crime that occurred in 38. But these obscurities might also

139. Cassius Dio 60.6.6-7; on the date, see 60.3.1-2; 60.9.1; cf. the implicit criticisms of Claudius in Philo, Legat. 155-58, discussed by SLINGERLAND (below). Agrippa's influence on the edict is simply not mentioned by Dio or any other source. Nevertheless, Agrippa's role is affirmed, e.g., by SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 94-96; less elaborately, M. STERN, GLAJJ, 114-16. But their claims require too many tenuous assumptions; e.g., that one can marginalize the negative implications of Dio's edict by limiting its application to “Jewish Christians”; that Dio's edict is the same as the one in Suetonius, Claud. 25.4; that the “Chrestus” in the Suetonian edict is Jesus; that a tiny number of kosher-keeping pre-Pauline Judean followers of Jesus were easily distinguished from other Judeans as early as 41; that Agrippa himself recognized and was concerned with such quibbles in 41; that Agrippa's later execution of James was due to this concern (contrary to the candid admission that such concerns were an afterthought even in Acts 12:1-3). In contrast, see GRUEN, Diaspora, 36-38, who identifies Dio's edict with other restrictions on objectionable assemblies in 41; BOTERMANN, Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius, 103-40, who interprets Dio's edict on analogy with the contemporane- ous admonitions in P. Lond. 6.1912 (CPJ 2.153), with which Dio's edict is contemporary; and especially H. D. SLINGERLAND, Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repres- sion of Judaism at Rome (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 65-110, 219-45, who challenges any claim that Dio's edict implies special favor toward Judeans. 140. On this goal for the general edict in Josephus, AJ 19.287-91, see PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Jewish Rights, 341-42. 141. Cf. the earlier benefactions of Herod the Great to the islands and ports along the northern sea route between Judea and Rome; Josephus, BJ 1.280-81; 1.424; AJ 14.377-78; 16.16-20, 147-49; NOY, PANAYATOV and BLOEDHORN, IJO 1, Ach38 (OGIS 414); Ach39 (OGIS 427); Ach74 (SEG 38.825); also Berytus, where a “templum” built by Herod was re- stored by Agrippa II and Berenice; J. LAUFFRAY, “Forums et Monuments de Béryte,” Bulle- tin du Musée de Beyrouth 7/45 (1944) 13-80, esp. 56 (AE 1928 no. 82). 142. P. Lond. 6.1912.90-91; Josephus, AJ 19.281 in PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Jewish Rights, 316- 18, despite the speculation about Agrippa on 311, 314-15.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 35 09-15-2009, 14:38 36 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

betray the activity of Agrippa or some other members of the Herodian dynasty during the composition and the copying of these works. The manuscript history of Philo's works is normally traced to exemplars that Origen brought to Caesarea from Alexandria ca. 233143. From this point scholars often trace the transmission of Philo's works back through earlier communities in Alexandria directly to Philo himself144. But the early transmission of Philo's works was probably much more complicated145. Fragments of Philo from Oxyrhynchus that date to ca. 200 demonstrate that Origen did not possess the only copies of Philo's works146. Manuscripts from the same site and of approximately the same date include Christian literature imported into Egypt from other regions147. This suggests that the copies of

143. A. CARRIKER, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea (Leiden: Brill, 2003) 164-77; A. VAN DEN HOEK, “The ‘Catechetical' School of Early Christian Alexandria and Its Philonic Heritage,” HTR 90 (1997) 59-87; D. T. RUNIA, “Caesarea Maritima and Hellenistic Jewish Literature,” in A. RABAN and K. G. HOLUM, eds., Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 476-95, esp. 492-93; RUNIA, Philo in Early Christian Literature (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 16-25, 157-82; D. BARTHÉLEMY, “Est-ce Hoshaya Rabba qui censura le ‘Commentaire Allégorique'?” in R. ARNALDEZ, C. MONDÉSERT and J. POUILLOUX, eds., Philon d'Alexandrie: Lyon 11-15 Septembre 1966 (Paris: Éditions du CNRS, 1967) 45-79. 144. E.g., G. E. STERLING, “'The School of Sacred Laws': The Social Setting of Philo's Treatises,” VC 53 (1999) 148-64 (although see STERLING's other work cited below); G. DORI- VAL, “Les débuts du christianisme à Alexandrie,” in LECLANT and VIAN DES RIVES, Alexandrie, 157-74, esp. 165; RUNIA, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 16-25, 119-31; so probably B. A. PEARSON, Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt (New York: T. and T. Clark, 2004) 99; PEARSON, “Earliest Christianity in Egypt,” in B. A. PEAR- SON and J. E. GOEHRING, eds., The Roots of Egyptian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 132-59, esp. 149. 145. RUNIA, “Caesarea Maritima and Hellenistic Jewish Literature,” 489, 494-95; RUNIA, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 16-31 et passim, though still emphasizing the primacy of the Origen-Casearan tradition. 146. MERTENS-PACK 3 (Cedopal), no. 1344; i.e., PSI 11.1207 + P. Oxy. 9.1173 + P. Oxy. 11.1356 + P. Oxy. 18.2158 + P. Haun 1.8 (inv. 322). On the date (end of 2nd or first decade of 3rd century), see P. DEGNI, “PSI XI 1207,” in G. CAVALLO, E. CRISCI, G. MESSERI, and R. PINTAUDI, eds., Scrivere libri e documenti nel mondo antico (Papyrologica Florentina 30; Firenze, Edizioni Gonnelli, 1998) 129 and Tav. 40. Later in the third century is P. Paris inv. G 1120, Suppl. Gr. (Van Haelst 695; from Coptos). See RUNIA, Philo in Early Christian Lit- erature, 23-24; J. R. ROYSE, “The Oxyrhynchus Papyrus of Philo,” BASP 17 (1980) 155-65; BARTHÉLEMY, “Est-ce Hoshaya Rabba,” 59-60, 77. 147. E.g., from 2nd century are PGM 77 (P. Harr. 1.55, possibly alluding to Matt 5:34 and/or Isa 66:4); P. Oxy. 60.4009 (Gos. Peter; cf. Eusebius, HE 6.12.3-6 for origin in Syria); P. Oxy. 64.4404 (Matthew); late 2nd/early 3rd century are P. Oxy. 3.405 (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer.); P. Oxy. 50.3528 (Shep. Hermas); P. Oxy. 4.655 (Gos. Thomas); P. Oxy. 41.2949 (Gos. Peter?); P. Egerton 2 (P. Lond. Christ. 1 + P. Köln 6.255, probably conflated from canonical Gospels); P. Oxy. 64.4403 (Matthew); P. Oxy. 34.2683 + P. Oxy. 64.4405 (Mat- thew); beginning of 3rd century are P. Oxy. 50.3527 (Shep. Hermas); P. Ryl. 3.463 (Gos. Mary; probably Asia Minor or Syria). For other manuscripts and other sites, see Papyri from the Rise of Christianity in Egypt at http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/doccentre/PCEhome- page.htm; Leuven Database of Ancient Books at http://ldab.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/index.html;

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 36 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 37

Philo's works used at this time by Christians in Egypt might also have been introduced from other regions148. Recent research on the revolt of 116-117 also makes it unlikely that either the Judean communities in Egypt before the revolt or their Gentile Christian sympathizers could have survived to pass on Philo's works149. Philo's works may have survived this disaster only because they were already circulating outside of Egypt before the revolt150. The remarkable

and MERTENS-PACK 3 (Cedopal) at http://promethee.philo.ulg.ac.be/cedopal/index.htm. See E. J. EPP, “The Codex and Literacy in Early Christianity and at Oxyrhynchus,” CRBR 10 (1997) 15-37; EPP, “The New Testament Papyri at Oxyrhynchus in Their Social and Intellec- tual Context,” in W. L. PETERSON, J. S. VOS and H. J. DE JONGE, Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical (Leiden: Brill, 1997) 48-68; C. H. ROBERTS, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (London: Oxford University Press, 1979). 148. A similar conclusion results from the probability that Clement's use of Philo was based on a Christian library, which represents the earliest indisputable evidence of the Chris- tian use of Philo in Egypt; A. VAN DEN HOEK, “How Alexandrian was Clement of Alexan- dria? Reflections on Clement and His Alexandrian Background,” HeyJ 31 (1990) 179-94, esp. 190-91; VAN DEN HOEK, “'Catechetical' School,” 80-85. VAN DEN HOEK implies that the copies of Philo's works in this Christian library were derived from an earlier non-Christian library in Egypt. But since most of the Christian and Judean works in Clement's library had originated outside of Egypt, it is very possible that its copies of Philo's works also had been imported into Egypt. 149. See A. KERKESLAGER, “Jews in Egypt and Cyrenaica 66-235,” in S. T. KATZ, ed., Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 53- 68; M. PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116/117 CE (Leuven: Peeters, 2005); against, e.g., C. B. SMITH II, No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origins (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004); B. A. PEARSON, “Cracking a Conundrum: Christian Origins in Egypt,” ST 57 (2003) 61-75. On libraries as booty, see L. CASSON, Libraries in the Ancient World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001) 11-12, 65-71. On confiscated Judean property, see, e.g., P. Köln 2.97; SB 12.10892, 10893; CPJ 2.445, 448; 3.454; P. Giss. 4 (Chr. Wilck. 351); probably CPJ 3.458, 468; possibly 459; cf. MÉLÈZE-MODRZEJEWSKI, “Îoudaîoi âfjeirjménoi,” in G. THÜR, ed., Symposion 1985 (Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 1989) 337-61; A. SWIDEREK, “Îoudaflkòv lógov,” JJP 16/17 (1971) 45-62. 150. E.g., G. E. STERLING, “'Philo Has Not Been Used Half Enough': The Signifi- cance of Philo of Alexandria for the Study of the New Testament,” PRSt 30 (2003) 250-69; K. L. SCHENK, “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews: Ronald Williamson's Study after Thirty Years,” SPhA 14 (2002) 112-35; STERLING, “Recherché or Representative? What is the Relationship Between Philo's Treatises and Greek-Speaking Judaism?” SPhA 11 (1999) 1-30; RUNIA, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 8-31, 63-131. Early references include, e.g., Paul's opponents (Gal 4:21-31) or colleagues (especially Apollos; see 1 Corinthians 1-4; cf. Acts 18:24-28); possibly (Pseudo-) Longinus Sublim. 44.1-5 (cf. Philo, Ebr. 198, discussed by STERLING); Hebrews (pervasively); Josephus (discussed below); possibly Numenius of Apamea (see GLAJJ nos. 363-69; esp. 369 [Frag. 13] with Philo, Det. 160; 368 [Frag. 30] with Philo, Leg. 1.108). Josephus and Hebrews seem decisive. On Josephus, see below. Per- sistent hesitancy in accepting the dependence of Hebrews on Philo assumes that Philo was merely typical of numerous other Judeans. But this ignores the incredibly tiny proportion of ancient Judeans who could have competed with Philo's elite status, intellectual stature, and prodigious literary output; the distinctive and pervasive nature of the Philonisms in Hebrews; and recent demonstrations of the speed with which works like those of Philo circulated among early Christian communities (below).

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 37 09-15-2009, 14:38 38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

speed with which Judean and Christian literature circulated around the Ro- man empire almost guarantees that his writings already had become widely available before the revolt151. One place in which Philo's works were almost certainly available before the revolt of 116-117 was Rome. Possible allusions to his writings suggest that they even may have been copied frequently enough in Rome to develop an established manuscript tradition there prior to the rise of the dominant Caesarean type in the fourth century152. Among the most decisive pieces of evidence for this are the allusions to Philo's works in Josephus' Antiqui- ties153. Josephus probably had access to both the In Flaccum and Legatio when he composed this work154. Since the demonstrable use of these and other works of Philo in the Antiquities contrasts with the relative paucity of

151. H. GAMBLE, Books and Readers in the Early Church (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995) 82-143; E. J. EPP, “New Testament Papyrus Manuscripts and Letter Carrying in Greco-Roman Times,” in PEARSON et al., Future of Early Christianity, 35-56. 152. For possible allusions to Philo in Pseudo-Longinus, Hebrews, Josephus, Numenius, Plotinus, Ambrose, and other authors possibly connected with Rome, see STERLING, “Recherché or Representative?” 23-29; RUNIA, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 8-26, 74- 78, 97-105, 291-311. However, Pseudo-Longinus' interlocutor is less distinctively Philonic and uses the formula “certainly, by Zeus” (n® Dí); G. P. GOOLD, “A Greek Professorial Cir- cle at Rome,” TAPA 92 (1961) 168-92. Pseudo-Longinus, Sublim. 9.9 is also so disruptive that it must be regarded as an interpolation; against M. STERN, GLAJJ 1.361-65. On possible time spent in Rome by Numenius of Apamea, see M. FREDE, “Numenius,” ANRW 2.36.2 (1987) 1034-75, esp. 1038. Parallels with Philo also appear in Seneca; e.g., Seneca, Ep. 65.7- 10 (Philo, Opific. 17-22); 65.24 (Philo, Opific. 69); 83.9-12 (Philo, Plant. 176-77); 93.4 (Philo, Leg. All. 1.105-106); R. RADICE, “Filone Alessandrino e la tradizione platonica: Il caso di Seneca,” in F. CALABI, ed., Immagini e Rappresentazione (Binghamton, NY: Global Publications, SUNY, 2002) 59-69; G. SCARPAT, “Cultura ebreo-ellenistica e Seneca,” RivB 13 (1965) 3-30. For possible personal contact between Philo and Seneca (who had lived in Alexandria), see NIEHOFF, Philo on Jewish Identity, 9. Eusebius, HE 2.18.8, though fictional, suggests that Philo's works were in Rome well before Eusebius' day. 153. Most explicitly, Josephus, AJ 18.257-60. For Philo, Opific. 1-3 in Josephus, AJ 1.18- 26, see STERLING, “Recherché or Representative?” 27-29. SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 18-23, 38, 176-84, claims that Philo was used in Josephus, BJ 2.184-203; AJ 18.256-272, 276b-288, 302-309. Josephus clearly used a number of sources on the Essenes; e.g., R. A. ARGALL, “A Hellenistic Jewish Source on the Essenes in Philo, Every Good Man is Free 75-91 and Josephus, AJ 18.18-22,” in R. A. ARGALL, B. A. BOW, and R. A. WERLINE, eds., For a Later Generation (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000) 13-24; P. BILDE, “The Essenes in Philo and Josephus,” in F. H. CRYER and T. L. THOMPSON, eds., Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1998) 32-68. But this does not preclude his use of Philo, Prob. 75-91 (less likely, Hypoth. 11.1-18) in BJ 2.119-61; AJ 18.18-22. More dubious is the claim that Josephus used Philo's Hypothetica in Ap. 2.190- 219; G. P. CARRAS, “Dependence or Common Tradition in Philo, Hypothetica VIII 6.10-7.20 and Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.190-219,” SPhA 5 (1993) 24-47. 154. Most notably, Josephus, AJ 18.257-60. But also possible at other points, such as the presentation of the Jerusalem temple crisis and material on Pontius Pilate; SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, 18-23, 38, 176-84; cf. D. R. SCHWARTZ, “Josephus and Philo on Pontius Pilate,” in L. I. LEVINE, ed., The Jerusalem Cathedra (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1983) 3.26-45, esp. 34.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 38 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 39

possible allusions to them in the earlier War, it seems unlikely that Josephus had acquired his copies of Philo's works during the brief time he spent in Alexandria in 69-70155. Along with other Judean writings from Egypt that were circulating in the capital city, Josephus most likely found his copies of the In Flaccum and Legatio in Rome156. The interest that these two works would have had for Roman readers indicates that Philo himself might have intended them partly for an ethnically diverse audience in Rome157. As patrons of Philo's family, the imperial household may have been especially likely to receive copies directly from Philo158. These copies then might have been deposited in a palace library later consulted by Josephus159. Josephus also might have obtained his copies of Philo's works from his obscure patron Epaphroditus, who has some-

155. Josephus, Vita 414-16; Ap. 1.48-50; cf. BJ 4.656-58. However, Josephus did collect documents for BJ and was given copies of Scriptures taken as booty; Josephus, Vita 418; Ap. 1.49-50. See note above on the possible use of Philo in Josephus, BJ 2.119-61. 156. Similarly, Artapanus, Demetrius the Chronographer, Ezekiel the Tragedian, and other Judean authors whose works may have originated in Egypt are first attested in the work of Alexander Polyhistor, who wrote in Rome (first century BCE); Eusebius, PE 9.17-39; cf. RUNIA, “Caesarea Maritima and Hellenistic Jewish Literature,” 490-91. Alexander Polyhistor later was used by Josephus in Rome; Josephus, AJ 1.240. The most obvious example of a Judean source from Egypt that was circulating in Rome in the first century is the LXX. 157. Thus Eusebius, HE 2.18.8, while probably a legend, at least preserves a kernel of truth. Most likely the audience assumed in these two works included both Judeans and Ro- mans; VAN DER HORST, Philo's Flaccus, 13-16 (on In Flaccum); R. BARRACLOUGH, “Philo's Politics,” ANRW 2.21.1 (1984) 417-553, esp. 449-54 (at least for the Legatio); cf. P. BORGEN, “Philo's Against Flaccus as Interpreted History,” in K.-J. ILLMAN, T. AHLBÄCK, S.-O. BACK and R. NURMELA, eds., A Bouquet of Wisdom (Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 2000) 41-57. For a pre- dominantly Gentile audience, see MEISER, “Gattung,” 423-26; V. TCHERIKOVER, “Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered,” Eos 48/3 (1956) 169-93, esp. 182-83; E. R. GOO- DENOUGH, The Politics of Philo Judaeus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938) 4-20. For only a Judean audience, see NIEHOFF, Philo on Jewish Identity, 38-44. 158. This does not require restricting the audience to Claudius; cf. Josephus, Ap. 1.49-52. See, e.g., SLINGERLAND, Claudian Policymaking, 90-97, who suggests Claudius may have been the targeted audience of Legatio, based partly on the rhetorical contrast between Philo, Legat. 155-58 and the actions of Claudius in Suetonius, Claud. 25.4 and Cassius Dio 60.6.6- 7; similarly, SMALLWOOD, Jews Under Roman Rule, 213-14; EAD., Legatio ad Gaium, 239- 40; GOODENOUGH, Politics, 4-20, aptly citing Philo, Somn. 2.81-92, but too simply relegating the intended audience of In Flaccum to the prefect and that of Legatio to Claudius. Likewise, SLINGERLAND's suggestion of a Caligulan date for In Flaccum (p. 96) is unlikely given the vicious criticism of Gaius in Flacc. 13, 180. However, the two treatises are indeed independent. Only the Legatio is implied in the “five books” in Eusebius, HE 2.5.1 (cf. 2.5.6-6.3). See C. KRAUS REGGIANI, “L'In Flaccum e la Legatio ad Gaium di Filone Alessandrino,” in F. PARENTE, ed., Aspetti della Storiografia Ebraica (Roma: Carucci, 1987) 153-61; KRAUS REGGIANI, “I rapporti tra l'impero romano e il mondo ebraico al tempo di Caligola secondo la ‘Legatio ad Gaium' di Filone Alessandrino,” ANRW 2.21.1 (1984) 554-86, esp. 555-57, 571-74; SMALLWOOD, Legatio ad Gaium, 36-43. On gift copies and the publishing process, see below. 159. As managed by the new dynasty, of course.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 39 09-15-2009, 14:38 40 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

times been identified with a Greek bibliophile in Rome who once had been the slave of an intellectual in Alexandria160. However, Josephus also seems to have used some of Philo's biblical works161. This makes it unlikely that Josephus found his copies of Philo's works in a Gentile library or in the shop of a Roman book vendor162. Judeans in Rome from whom Josephus might have obtained his copies of Philo's works might include Tiberius Julius Alexander or some other members of Philo's own family163. Mem- bers of this family already may have owned a house in Italy while Philo was still alive164. But the most appealing option is suggested by Josephus' 160. Josephus, AJ 1.8-9; Vita 430; Ap. 1.1; 2.1, 296. “Epaphroditus” was too common a name to make any definitive choice. Only conjecture supports Nero's freedman mentioned in Tacitus, Ann. 15.55; Suetonius, Nero 49; Dom. 14; pace S. MASON, “'Should Any Wish to Enquire Further' (Ant. 1.25),” in S. MASON, ed., Understanding Josephus (Sheffield: Shef- field Academic, 1998) 64-103. M. Mettius Epaphroditus in ILS 7769 (CIL 6.9454) probably is too late based on the date of the inscription (Antonine). At least possible is Epaphroditus of Chaeronea, who may have been a slave of the Homeric scholar Achias of Alexandria; but Suda E 2004 is probably incorrect in associating him with a M. Mettius Modestus, whom it mistakenly identifies as a prefect of Egypt. See H. M. COTTON and W. ECK, “Josephus' Ro- man Audience,” in J. EDMONDSON, S. MASON and J. RIVES, eds., Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) 37-52; F. CAIRNS, “Epaphroditus, Phainianokoriois and ‘Modestus' (Suda e 2004),” ZPE 124 (1999) 218-22; P. R. C. WEAVER, “Epaphroditus, Josephus, and Epictetus,” CQ 44 (1994) 468-79. 161. E.g., on creation, compare Josephus, AJ 1.1-26 with Philo, Opific. 1-12; on the tab- ernacle and priestly robes, Josephus, AJ 3.132, 146, 180-87 with Philo, Mos. 2.88; QE 2.75- 81, 85, 109, 112-14, 117-20; Spec. Leg. 1.172; see STERLING, “Recherché or Representa- tive?” 27-29; L. H. FELDMAN, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980) (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1984) 410-18. Even many of the sources that Josephus had earlier received when composing BJ may have come from Hellenized Judeans; Josephus, BJ 1.1-16, 30; Ap. 1.47-56. 162. For libraries in Rome, see CASSON, Libraries, 61-108. On book vendors, see Horace, Sat. 1.4.71-72; Martial, Ep. 1.2, 66, 113, 117; 4.72; 13.3; Quintilian, Ep. Trypho; Pliny, Ep. 1.2; 9.11. Josephus' War probably found a wide enough readership in Rome to merit the labor of book vendors; cf. Josephus, Ap. 1.50-53; Vita 363. Theoretically, the broad appeal of Philo's In Flaccum and Legatio also may have merited vendors' attention, even if these works could not have created a market as large as the Roman heroes who populated the work of Josephus. Potential sales by vendors would have created a manuscript history for the In Flaccum and Legatio that was very different from Philo's biblical works, for which such sales are unlikely. However, the only evidence for such a distinction is the legend in Eusebius, HE 2.18.8. Even this refers to an elite audience and libraries, not a broad readership. 163. The purported apostasy of Alexander does not negate his kinship with Philo and thus Philo's possible interest in sending him copies of his works; SCHIMANOWSKI, Juden und Nichtjuden, 135-39; ETIENNE, “Réflexion sur l'apostasie de Tibérius Julius Alexander,” 122- 42. On Alexander's career in Rome, see next note. 164. As a businessman and client of Antonia, Alexander the alabarch probably spent at least some time in Rome even before his imprisonment there by Gaius; Josephus, AJ 18.159- 65; 19.276-77; possibly P. Oxy. 25.2435 (as suggested by E. G. TURNER, editio princeps); less likely, Philo, Anim. 54 (probably Tiberius Julius Alexander, but see notes above). Philo's nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander probably celebrated the triumph in Rome in 71 and remained there until his death; Josephus, BJ 7.116-23; P. Hib. 215 [CPJ 2.418b]; possibly

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 40 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 41

hints that his compositional activity was supported by Agrippa II and other members of the household of Agrippa I165. At least three of our Agrippa's four surviving children visited or lived in Rome when Josephus was there166. They and their numerous Herodian relatives in Rome may have supplied Josephus with copies of the works of Nicholas of Damascus and other sources on Herodian history used in the Antiquities167. The intersec-

Juvenal, Sat. 1.127-31; son or grandson in CIL 6.32374; Cassius Dio 68.30.2; see BARZANÒ, “Tiberio Giulio Alessandro,” 565-73. If Philo's family followed the pattern of the Herodians and other provincial elites, some of its members might even have been educated in Rome; cf. HADAS-LEBEL, “Éducation,” 44-62; BRUNT, “Romanization,” 161-73. This would be especially helpful for explaining Tiberius Julius Alexander's meteoric rise through Roman offi- cialdom. 165. Josephus clearly had contacts with Agrippa's son Agrippa II; Josephus, Vita 359-67; Ap. 1.51; cf. Cassius Dio 66.15.3; Josephus, Vita 428 (Josephus' son named after Agrippa). Julius Archelaeus, son of Helcias and also former husband of Agrippa's daughter Mariamme, purchased a copy of War; Josephus, Ap. 1.51 (cf. AJ 19.354-55; 20.140, 147). Agrippa's daughter Drusilla was married to Marcus Antonius Felix, whose procuratorship of Judea gave him reason for interest in Josephus' works; Josephus, AJ 20.137-43; Acts 24:24; cf. Josephus, BJ 2.252-71; AJ 20.160-82; Tacitus, Ann. 12.54; Hist. 5.9; Suetonius, Claud. 28. Felix and Drusilla returned to Rome in 60 CE and their son Agrippa III and his wife died in the eruption of Vesuvius in 79; Josephus, AJ 20.144, 182. While the fate of Felix is unknown, Drusilla was probably still alive in 79, since at that time she would only have been 41; Josephus, AJ 19.354. Agrippa's daughter Berenice was in Italy in the 70s and at least part of the reign of Titus; Quintilian, Inst. Or. 4.1.19; Tacitus, Hist. 2.2.1; Juvenal, Sat. 6.153-57; Suetonius, Tit. 7.1-2; Cassius Dio 65.15.3-5; 66.18.1. Josephus also may have known Thaumastus, freedman and manager of properties in Rome owned by Agrippa I and inherited by Agrippa II and Berenice; Josephus, AJ 18.192-194, suggested by COTTON and ECK, “Josephus' Roman Audience,” 41. On the support of Josephus by Agrippa II and Berenice, see MASON, “'Should Any Wish to Enquire Further',” 78-79. For Josephus' portraits of Agrippa, see KRIEGER, “Darstellung König Agrippas I,” 94-118, although he attributes the flattering portrait of Agrippa to Agrippa's purported role in the edicts under Claudius (which may be a Josephan construct) instead of Herodian influence. 166. Agrippa II, Drusilla, and Berenice; see previous note. In the mid-60s Agrippa's daughter Mariamme married Demetrius, an alabarch in Alexandria who may have been related to Alexander the alabarch; Josephus, AJ 18.132; 19.354-55; 20.140-47; also BJ 2.309 for the possible occasion for the marriage; KOKKINOS, Herodian Dynasty, 198-99, 317-40. Whether the couple remained in Alexandria or later followed their relatives to Rome is unknown. 167. Herodian relatives in Rome include a “Herod” who purchased a copy of War; Josephus, Ap. 1.51 (possibly grandson of Agrippa's brother Herod of Chalcis via Herod's son Aristobulus; cf. Josephus, AJ 18.133, 137; KOKKINOS, Herodian Dynasty, 253, 313). Un- named relatives of Agrippa II also received copies; Josephus, Vita 362. Herodians in Rome in the 70s and 80s included the royal family of Commagene, Josephus, BJ 7.238-43; probably descendants of Herod of Chalcis (brother of Agrippa I), Josephus, AJ 18.133, 137; 20.104, 158 (cf. “Herod” in Ap. 1.51 above); probably individuals mentioned in Rom 16:10 from the “household of Aristobulus” (possibly brother of Agrippa I or son of Agrippa's brother Herod of Chalchis); possibly members of Herodian royal families from Armenia and Cilicia, Josephus, AJ 18.139-141; cf. Tacitus, Ann. 14.26. Associated slaves and freedpersons of either Agrippa I or Agrippa II might have formed the “Synagogue of the Agrippesians,” JIWE 2.130, 170, 549, possibly 562. But NOY, JIWE 2, p. 110, points out Marcus Vipsanias Agrippa or the name of a building or an area in Rome (such as the Horrea Agrippiana) as possible alternative sources for the name. Sometimes a “Synagogue of the Herodians” is seen

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 41 09-15-2009, 14:38 42 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

tion of Herodian history with Philo's In Flaccum and Legatio might indicate that Josephus also secured his copies of these two works from a library in a Herodian residence in Rome. Josephus even was familiar with the ac- tivities in one such residence that had been owned by Agrippa I and was inherited by Agrippa II and Berenice after their father's death168. Philo clearly knew that our Agrippa owned this house169. The close relationship between the families of Philo and Agrippa probably assured Philo plenty of time to peruse its library during Philo's long stay in Rome in 39-41. It re- quires little speculation to imagine that Philo may have recalled this library and any other Herodian residential libraries in Rome when deciding where to send complimentary copies of his works, including the In Flaccum and Legatio170. The network of Herodians in Rome thus may provide a direct link between Agrippa I and the composition and transmission of the In Flaccum and Legatio. The early history of these works may be as follows. (1) A Judean description of the violence in 38 appeared in the “petition” (ïketeía) that the Judeans of Alexandria sent to Agrippa in Palestine in the autumn of 38 (Legat. 178-80). After reading it Agrippa may have asked these Judeans to eliminate incriminating details about himself. This may partly explain the need for an abridged version or “epitome” (êpitomß). (2) Since Philo was one of the ambassadors who carried this “epitome” to Rome, he probably was aware of any concerns of Agrippa that had influenced its composition. Philo even might have been the primary author of the original petition, the later epitome, or both. The close relationship between Agrippa and Philo's family suggests that Philo would have respected Agrippa's concerns when he wrote the In Flaccum and Legatio. (3) The process of publication in antiquity typically depended on the author's own initiative in arranging public readings and sending copies of his or her work to libraries and an extended network of elite friends and rela- tives171. Many of these friends and relatives included individuals who had

(contrary to the correct spelling) in JIWE 2.292 (CIJ 1.173; SEG 51.1436); e.g., P. LAMPE, From Paul to Valentinus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) 178, 378-79, 431; RICHARDSON, Herod, 209. But this is rejected by NOY, JIWE 2, pp. 252-54. LAMPE (pp. 177-78) probably is correct that “Herodion” in Rom 16:11 is only one of numerous Herodian slaves and freedpersons in Rome. 168. Philo, Legat. 267, 271-72, 330; Josephus, AJ 18.192-194, 235. 169. Philo, Legat. 267, 271-72, 330. 170. On the author's role in publishing, see below. 171. E.g., reading one's works before an audience, Horace, Sat. 1.4.71-76; Suetonius, Aug. 85.1; Tacitus, Ann. 3.49; Dial. 2-3, 9; Pliny, Ep. 5.3; 5.12; Eusebius, HE 2.18.8; sending to libraries and friends, Cicero, Att. 13.21a (ShB 327); 13.22 (ShB 305); 13.50 (ShB 348); 15.27 (ShB 406); Josephus, Ap. 1.50-52; Vita 361-67; Martial, Ep. 4.10; Tacitus, Dial. 21.6. Even the accuracy of later copies still could involve the author's activity; Pliny, Ep. 4.26. See R. J. STARR, “The Circulation of Literary Texts in the Roman World,” CQ 37 (1987) 213-23; B. A. VAN GRONINGEN, “‰Ekdosiv,” Mnemosyne (Batava; ser. 4) 16 (1963) 1-17.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 42 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 43

already received preliminary drafts that the authors had forwarded to them for constructive criticism172. Recipients of drafts and initial gift copies were especially likely to include individuals who had personal or political reasons for interest in the author's work173. Agrippa's participation in the events described in the In Flaccum and Legatio eminently qualified him for commenting on Philo's preliminary drafts and receiving final copies of these works. Both texts were completed after the accession of Claudius in 41 and possibly may have been finished before Agrippa died in 44174. Agrippa thus may have influenced the composition of these works or introduced some of the suspicious lacunae about himself into the finished exemplars he received. Of course, the responsibility for this editorial activity would have to be shifted to other Herodians if it occurred after Agrippa's death. The strong- est evidence that Agrippa's own children and relatives might have been the culprits is the flattering portraits of Agrippa created by Josephus175. This is almost certainly the product of influence from Herodian patrons, Herodian sources, and anticipated Herodian readers176. One example that is especially pertinent is Josephus' reference to the events in 38. Josephus distances Agrippa from these events in a way that reveals an uncanny similarity to Philo's own strategic use of omission and structural rearrangement (AJ 18.238-39, 256-57)177. But in a move that is even bolder, Josephus com-

172. E.g., Cicero, Att. 15.1a (ShB 378); 15.14 (ShB 402); 16.11 (ShB 420); Pliny, Ep. 1.2; 5.12; 7.20; 8.7; drafts also were sometimes revised after a reading among friends, Tacitus, Dial. 2-3; Pliny, Ep. 5.3; 5.12. See STARR, “Circulation of Literary Texts,” 213-16. 173. E.g., Cicero, Att. 15.1a (ShB 378); Josephus, Ap. 1.50-52; Vita 361-67. Such individuals sometimes exerted their influence at an earlier stage in the writing process; e.g., Cicero, Fam. 5.12 (Lucceius); Att. 13.16 (ShB 323); 13.19 (ShB 326). 174. For the Claudian date of the In Flaccum, see Flacc. 13, 180, where Gaius is brutally criticized; pace VAN DER HORST, Philo's Flaccus, 4. For the Legatio, see Legat. 107, 206, and the cautious but implicit criticism of Claudius in Legat. 155-58 (cf. Suetonius, Claud. 25.4; Cassius Dio 60.6.6-7); SLINGERLAND, Claudian Policymaking, 90-97; SMALLWOOD, Jews Under Roman Rule, 213-14; EAD., Legatio ad Gaium, 239-40. Cf. the legend in Eusebius, HE 2.18.8. More difficult is the latest possible date. Slingerland (p. 90-91) states “it is hard to imagine that Philo would have invented his alleged letter from Agrippa to Gaius (Legatio 276-329) prior to the death of the former in 44 C.E.” But Josephus in BJ readily attributed largely fictional speeches to Agrippa II and other characters who were still alive when he composed them. 175. Esp. evident in Josephus, BJ 2.184-203; AJ 18.256-309. For the flattery of Agrippa in these portraits, see KRIEGER, “Darstellung König Agrippas I,” 94-118; SCHWARTZ, Agrippa, esp. 1-38, 176-82; ID., “Drama and Authenticity in Philo and Josephus,” 113-29. 176. Noted above. Josephus' claim of objectivity about the Herods in AJ 16.183-87 is undermined by the ways he actually portrays them; e.g., K.-S. KRIEGER, “Berenike, die Schwester König Agrippas II., bei Flavius Josephus,” JSJ 28 (1997) 1-11. 177. Josephus omits Agrippa's visit to Alexandria from his description of Agrippa's journey to Judea in 38. He also structurally distances Agrippa's journey from his description of the violence in 38. These techniques give the impression that Agrippa had no role in the vio-

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 43 09-15-2009, 14:38 44 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

pletely severs the relationship between Agrippa's journey to Judea and the violence. This betrays a personal concern operating separately from Josephus' dependence on Philo at this point. Josephus may have been con- sciously trying to accommodate various Herodians who wanted him to present an impervious image of Herodian loyalty to Rome in the wake of the anti-Judean sentiment that followed the revolt in 66-70178. Agrippa's daughter Berenice had experienced this animosity firsthand in the Roman reaction to her relationship with Titus179. Herodian influence on Josephus thus might provide an additional clue to the individuals who edited Philo's description of the events in 38. (4) While most of this editorial activity may have occurred in Rome, one cannot rule out the possibility that some of it occurred in Palestine. The “petition” (ïketeía) of 38 certainly was sent to Agrippa in Palestine (above). Philo also may have had other elite friends and relatives in Pales- tine whom he honored with original copies of his works180. Most of their libraries could not have survived routine neglect, filching by Roman administrators who acquired some of their palaces and villas, and looting and destruction during the Judean revolts of 66-73, 116-17, and 132-35181. Never- lence. This is exactly the same impression that Philo created by his abrupt removal of Agrippa from his own narrative of the violence in Flacc. 41-96 and Legat. 178-180. 178. For the hostility and Judean apologetic response, see, e.g., Quintilian, Inst. 3.7.21; Tacitus, Hist. 5.1-13; Suetonius, Domit. 12.2; Juvenal, Sat. 1.127-31; 6.542-7; 14.96-106; Cassius Dio 67.14.1-3; Eusebius, HE 3.17-20; Josephus, BJ 7.41-62, 100-11; AJ 12.119-28; Contra Apionem (passim). Ultimately this hostility helped provoke the Judean revolt in 116- 117; KERKESLAGER, “Jews in Egypt and Cyrenaica,” 53-69; PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 123-42. 179. Suetonius, Titus 7.1-2; Cassius Dio 66.15.3-5; 18.1; cf. the rumor in Juvenal, Sat. 6.153-58. Similarly, see the probable hostility to the family of Tiberius Julius Alexander in Juvenal, Sat. 1.127-31. 180. E.g., Philo's nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander, governor of Judea ca. 46-48; Josephus, BJ 2.220; AJ 20.100-102; SEG 51.2020 (SEG 40.1449). 181. On the greed of Roman provincial governors who frequented the Herodian palaces in Caesarea Maritima and Jerusalem, see, e.g., Josephus, BJ 2.272-331. Class conflicts predict- ably inspired Judean rebels to loot royal palaces and the villas of the rich during periods of violence in Palestine; e.g., already under Varus in Josephus, AJ 17.271-77; BJ 2.39-59. For the plunder of libraries by Roman troops, see CASSON, Libraries, 65-71. During the revolt of 66-73, sites of Herodian palaces and villas were plundered or destroyed including, e.g., Tiberias, in Josephus, Vita 65-69; Masada, in BJ 2.408, 433-34; 7.275-407; Jericho, in BJ 2.567; 4.431-39, 450-51, 486; Herodium, in BJ 7.163; and Jerusalem, in BJ 2.425-54, 530; 6.358, 376-413. On the earliest Herodian palaces, see E. NETZER, “The Palaces Built by Herod µ A Research Update,” in K. FITTSCHEN and G. FOERSTER, eds., Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996) 27-54. On Masada, note esp. Y. HIRSCHFELD, “The Library of King Herod in the Northern Palace of Masada,” SCI 23 (2004) 69-83. The Herodian palace at Jericho was destroyed by an earthquake ca. 48 CE, so the relation of the Herodians to subsequent activity on this valuable estate is unclear; see E. NETZER, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, Vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society,

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 44 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 45

theless, exemplars of Philo's works in palaces in Banias (Caesarea Philippi), Caesarea Maritima, and other locations in Palestine may have survived long enough to launch his writings on a trajectory of circulation in Rome, Antioch, and other cities182. The most jarring ambiguities about Agrippa in the In Flaccum and Legatio are the ones most likely to have been introduced after Philo had completed his own compositional activity (e.g., Legat. 178-80; possibly even the unexplained disappearance of Agrippa from Flacc. 41-53). But distinguishing Philo's compositional activity from the redactional activity of Agrippa and other Herodians would be difficult. Philo, Agrippa, and various Herodians who wished to ensure their political fortunes all may have been interested in concealing events that occurred during Agrippa's visit to Alexandria in 38.

Conclusion and a proposal The case for Agrippa's advocacy for the Judeans of Alexandria now appears dismal. Agrippa's behavior after his visit to Alexandria in 38 reveals a persistent effort to avoid incrimination in any crime against Rome committed by the Judeans during this visit. This creates a dilemma. High-rank- ing Roman officials often informed the emperor of their travels and other activity in the provinces183. Agrippa probably felt the need to write the emperor a report on his voyage to Alexandria and the violence that had

2001) 10, 341. Despite similarities to a library, the niches in the monumental building at Herodium belong to a nymphaeum; R. FÖRTSCH, “The Residences of King Herod and their Relations to Roman Villa Architecture,” in FITTSCHEN and FOERSTER, Judaea and the Greco- Roman World, 71-119, esp. 81-83; already speculated by E. NETZER et al., Greater Herodium (Qedem 13; Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1981) 43-45. Nevertheless, other Herodian palace libraries certainly existed, even if not always preserved or identifiable. On Caesarea Maritima and Banias, see below. 182. Banias had been a capital city for both Agrippa I and Agrippa II and experienced peaceful administrative changes in the first two centuries; J. F. WILSON and V. TZAFERIS, “Banias Dig Reveals King's Palace (But Which King?),” BAR 24/1 (Jan.-Feb. 1998) 54-61, 85. On the Herodian palace in Caesarea Maritima, which was taken over by Roman governors after the death of Agrippa I in 44, see B. BURRELL, “Palace to Praetorium: The Romanization of Caesarea,” in RABAN and HOLUM, Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective Af- ter Two Millennia, 228-247; also note in the same volume, E. NETZER, “The Promontory Pal- ace,” 193-207; K. L. GLEASON, “Ruler and Spectacle: The Promontory Palace,” 208-27, esp. 212. On Caesarea and Philo's works, see RUNIA, “Caesarea Maritima and the Survival of Hellenistic-Jewish Literature,” 494-95; BARTHÉLEMY, “Est-ce Hoshaya Rabba,” 59-60, 77. Nothing decisively excludes the possibility that Philo's works were already circulating in Caesarea before Origen brought his own copies there. For the ambiguities, see RUNIA, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 16-26, 298. 183. E.g., Philo, Legat. 248-54; Josephus, AJ 17.250; and most notably Pliny, Ep. 10.1- 121.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 45 09-15-2009, 14:38 46 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

erupted after his arrival. If Agrippa did not champion Judean rights in this report, then what did he write? One clue is Philo's description of the jealousy Agrippa's visit aroused in Flaccus (Flacc. 29-40). This suggests that Agrippa had reason to anticipate an attempt by Flaccus to implicate him in the Judean crimes committed during this visit. Similar attempts by later opponents are implied in the need for the apologetic portraits of Agrippa in the In Flaccum and Legatio and in the charges brought by Isidoros in the Acts of Isidoros184. Agrippa's strategic use of letters in other conflicts with rival provincial officials suggests that he would have preempted an incriminating report from Flaccus by hur- riedly sending a letter of his own to the emperor185. Agrippa's objective was to defend himself, not champion Judean rights. One tactic that Agrippa could have used in his letter is suggested by a previous study arguing that the Judean resistance to the installation of images in the Alexandrian synagogues constituted an outrage against the Alexandrian funerary ceremonies for the emperor's sister Drusilla186. Agrippa may have capitalized on the prefect's role in presiding over these funerary ceremonies by charging Flaccus himself with some responsibility for this outrage187. Ironically, this made Flaccus and the Judeans of Alexan- dria guilty of essentially the same crime. The success of Agrippa's letter thus prevented him from diminishing the Judean crime. The gravity of this crime eliminated any possibility of doing so anyway188. Agrippa's own safety could only have been secured by distancing himself from the Judeans of Alexandria. In support of this proposal is Philo's claim that Gaius condemned Flaccus because of the aid that Flaccus had given to opponents of the household of Germanicus during the dynastic conflicts under Tiberius (Flacc. 9-16, 180). While these conflicts are well attested, a number of objections can be raised against Philo's formulation of the charges against

184. See above. 185. Josephus, AJ 18.246-51; 20.1. For similar use of letters by other officials and client kings, see, e.g., Tacitus, Ann. 2.65, 78; 3.8; Josephus, AJ 17.227-29; 18.104-105, 163-64; 19.326-27; BJ 7.219-25. 186. KERKESLAGER, “Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla,” 367-400. 187. On the prefect's role, see KERKESLAGER, “Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla,” 379-80, 393-94.. 188. The implications of the crime were exacerbated by the funerary setting; the violence of the Judean response to the installation of the images; the broad scope of the images, which included figures from the entire history of the Julio-Claudian dynasty; Roman sensitivity to revolutionary activity in Alexandria; and other factors unique to this particular event. See KERKESLAGER, “Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla,” 395-400.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 46 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 47

Flaccus189. For example, it does not explain why Gaius took a fresh interest in Flaccus' role in these earlier conflicts during the late summer of 38190. Such ambiguities might reflect Philo's effort to distract readers from the uncomfortable similarity between the charges against Flaccus and the charges against the Judean community of Alexandria. The timing of the arrest of Flaccus makes perfect sense if he was arrested because of the renewed sensitivity of Gaius to dynastic challenges after the death of Drusilla on June 10 of 38191. In the absence of a child of his own, Gaius had appointed Drusilla as his heir and named her husband Marcus Aemilius Lepidus as his successor when he became deathly ill in the autumn of 37192. Drusilla's death immediately reopened the question of whether some other alternative besides Gaius might better assure the succession of the Julio-Claudian dynasty193. This uncertainty probably contrib- uted to the erratic behavior that Gaius displayed during the following months of private mourning194. It was squarely within this period that Gaius ordered the arrest of Flaccus195. If Gaius had heard of the disruption of the funerary ceremonies for Drusilla in Alexandria when he gave this order, his sensitivity to earlier dynastic threats already may have been so inflamed that the administrative

189. The conflicts were already growing when Augustus demanded that Tiberius (who had a son of his own) adopt Germanicus; e.g., see Tacitus, Ann. 1.3; 2.26, 59-60, 84; 3.1-6, 18; 4.12, 17-19, 40, 52-54, 60, 68-70; 5.3-5; 6.23-26; Suetonius, Tib. 15, 52-55; Gaius 2; Cassius Dio 57.3.1, 4; 57.6.2-5; 57.18.6-19.1; 57.22.4 (a-b, Zon. 11.2); 59.4.3; 59.10.4; Josephus, AJ 18.205-24. The firm attestation of these conflicts partly explains the modern tendency to accept some elements in Philo's claims; e.g., BARRETT, Caligula, 23, 39, 66, 80, 90; BRUNT, “Administrators of Roman Egypt,” 124-25; despite the objections raised by SHERWIN-WHITE, “Philo and Avillius Flaccus,” 820-28. 190. The delay in Flaccus' arrest may be explained by the amnesty at the beginning of Gaius' reign, but the reversal of this policy in 39 occurred too late to explain this arrest; Suetonius, Gaius 15.4; Cassius Dio 59.16.2-3; thus SHERWIN-WHITE, “Philo and Avillius Flaccus,” 822-23. However, Cassius Dio 59.10.6-8 attests a renewed interest in the execution of Gaius' mother following the execution of Macro. This fits well with Philo, Flacc. 9-16 and the proposal below. On the timing of Flaccus' arrest, see below. 191. On her death, see Cassius Dio 59.10.8-12.1; Suetonius, Gaius 24.2; Fasti Ostienses June 10 of 38, in E. M. SMALLWOOD, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967) p. 28. 192. Suetonius, Gaius 24.1; Cassius Dio 59.11.1; 59.22.6-7. See BARRETT, Caligula, 81- 83. 193. Hence the sudden short-lived marriage in Cassius Dio 59.12.1; 59.23.7; Suetonius, Gaius 25.2; cf. Pliny, NH 9.117-18. See BARRETT, Caligula, 81-83; S. E. WOOD, “Diva Drusilla Panthea and the Sisters of Gaius,” AJA 99 (1995) 457-82, esp. 458-61. 194. Suetonius, Gaius 24.2; Seneca, Dial. 11.17.4-6 (Cons. Polyb.). On the distinction between this period and the earlier iustitium in Rome in Cassius Dio 59.10.8-12.1, see KERKESLAGER, “Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla,” 380-94. 195. On the precise date, see below.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 47 09-15-2009, 14:38 48 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA

role of Flaccus in the disrupted rites was by itself sufficient to seal the doom of Flaccus. If additional legal pretenses were necessary, Gaius easily could have found them in other sources (such as the accusations of Lampo and Isidoros)196. A connection between Drusilla's funerary rites in Alexan- dria and the arrest of Flaccus is also consistent with the success of Lepidus in mitigating the punishment of Flaccus (Flacc. 151, 181). The role of Lepidus as Drusilla's husband did not override the prerogatives of the Sen- ate and the emperor in making legal decisions about treasonable impiety against the imperial household197. However, it placed Lepidus in a unique rhetorical position for influencing such decisions in the case of Drusilla. This reconstruction lends itself to a reformulation of the view that a letter from Agrippa provoked the arrest of Flaccus. However, this possibility still must be entertained with caution. The death of Drusilla by itself might have goaded Gaius to brood over the role of Flaccus and other individuals in old family feuds without Agrippa's report of a fresh insult. Furthermore, an expeditious journey from Alexandria would have been necessary for a messenger carrying a report of the initial outburst of violence to arrive in Rome by the time Gaius had given orders to the soldiers who arrested Flaccus198. Nevertheless, one can be certain that any letter that Agrippa wrote to in-

196. Philo, Flacc. 125-47. On their accusations, see KERKESLAGER, “Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros,” 66-92. 197. On the roles of the Senate and the emperor, see, e.g., Tacitus, Ann. 1.72-75; 3.9-15, 49-51, 70; 4.34-35; 6.8-9; 11.1-5; S. C. de Pisone; Josephus, AJ 19.13; Cassius Dio 59.11.5- 6; 59.18.1-19.7; 60.4.2-4. See R. A. BAUMAN, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome (New York: Routledge, 1996) 50-76; cf. KEAVENEY and MADDEN, “Crimen Maiestatis under Caligula,” 316-20; BRUNT, “Did Emperors Ever Suspend the Law of ‘Maiestas'?” 1.469-80. 198. Correctly, SMALLWOOD, Jews Under Roman Rule, 241-42, despite problems in her chronology. The violence in Alexandria began sometime in the first two weeks of July; KERKESLAGER, “Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla,” 389-94. Two months were necessary for news of this violence to arrive in Rome (see note above on travel between Rome and Alexandria). Hence this news could not have reached the emperor before late Au- gust and easily might have been delayed until mid-September. However, by this time the soldiers who arrested Flaccus already might have departed from Rome. Flaccus was arrested during Sukkoth (Flacc. 116); i.e., late September or the first half of October. Philo's statement about the speed of the journey of the soldiers must be disregarded because of its literary role in creating an inclusio; Flacc. 26-28, 109-111. One must assume a normal journey of at least 20-30 days (above note). Thus the soldiers probably left Rome between mid-August and late September. A departure early in this range is required if Sukkoth coincided with the autumn equinox as Philo suggests. This might be especially likely if the Judeans of Alexandria followed a solar calendar as the native Egyptians did; despite VAN DER HORST, Philo's Flaccus, 198. Judeans did not agree about calendrical systems before 70; e.g., 4Q319-30; 4Q394; 1 Enoch 72-82; possibly Philo, Contempl. 65 (which might assume a fifty-day Jubi- lee cycle). Of course, difficulties of travel may have made the combined total of the journeys of Agrippa's messenger and Gaius' soldiers much longer than the period between the beginning of the violence and the arrest of Flaccus; cf. Dig. 45.1.122.1. In this case Gaius would have had to order the arrest of Flaccus before receiving any news of the violence.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 48 09-15-2009, 14:38 AGRIPPA I AND THE JUDEANS OF ALEXANDRIA 49

criminate Flaccus arrived in time to influence the trial of Flaccus in the winter of 38-39. For Agrippa, the downfall of Flaccus may have represented a personal triumph in a conflict with Flaccus over elite honor199. This conflict may have begun with some insult that Flaccus cast on Agrippa when Agrippa was a prodigal prince passing through Alexandria on his way to Rome in 36200. The conflict may have reached its climax when Agrippa's proud return in 38 aroused the jealousy of Flaccus201. Flaccus then may have retali- ated during the funerary ceremonies for Drusilla by cunningly hinting that the Roman Senate's wishes to honor Drusilla in various temples could be respected partly by installing her images in the synagogues of Agrippa's ethnic compatriots202. While this provoked an epic disaster for the Judeans of Alexandria, Flaccus' handling of the funerary ceremonies provided grounds for a fatal accusation against him in Agrippa's letter to the emperor. If this is correct, Agrippa's primary concern in the entire sequence of events was not the Judeans of Alexandria. Instead he was motivated primarily by personal interests typical of other Roman elites, whose petty strug- gles for honor and power had a long history of initiating civil wars and other forms of violence in which the brunt of the suffering usually was borne by the lower classes.

Allen KERKESLAGER, [email protected]

199. Already implied, KERKESLAGER, “Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla,” 393-94. As far as I know, the only other researcher to take this possibility seriously is F. MILLAR, The Roman Near East (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993) 57-58. 200. Josephus, AJ 18.126, 151-60. 201. Philo, Flacc. 25-40. 202. For these honors, see Cassius Dio 59.10.8-11.4; Seneca, Apoc. 1; cf. AFA 46e.12-13 in G. HENZEN, Acta Fratrum Aravalium Quae Supersunt (Berolini: Georgii Reimeri, 1874) 46e.12-13, 164. For the role of an insinuating speech by Flaccus in inciting the violence, see Philo, Flacc. 51; cf. 41, 43, 44. For other examples of exploiting funerary orations and dis- plays, see, e.g., Appian, BC 2.143-47; 3.2-3; Cicero, Brut. 61-62; Livy 8.40.4-5; Cassius Dio 59.3.8; Suetonius, Gaius 15.1; Tacitus, Ann. 3.4. Cf. the prefect's self-serving introduction in P. Lond. 6.1912.

1888-08-REJ09/1-2_01 49 09-15-2009, 14:38