Herod the Great reigned in Judæa for 37 years from 41 BC to 4 BC. According to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born during his reign (Matthew 2:1; Luke 1:5). According to the Gospel of Matthew, Herod ordered the young children in Bethlehem to be slaughtered when he found out about the birth of Jesus (Matthew 2:16).  Josephus summarizes his reign in Antiquities 17.8.1:

When he had done these things, he died, the fifth day after he had caused Antipater to be slain; having reigned, since he had procured Antigonus to be slain, thirty-four years; but since he had been declared king by the Romans, thirty-seven. A man he was of great barbarity towards all men equally, and a slave to his passion; but above the consideration of what was right; yet was he favored by fortune as much as any man ever was, for from a private man he became a king; and though he were encompassed with ten thousand dangers, he got clear of them all, and continued his life till a very old age. But then, as to the affairs of his family and children, in which indeed, according to his own opinion, he was also very fortunate, because he was able to conquer his enemies, yet, in my opinion, he was herein very unfortunate.

Tacitus’ mentions Herod in one section of his work:

The Histories 5.9:

The royal power, which had been bestowed by Antony on Herod, was augmented by the victorious Augustus. On Herod’s death, one Simon, without waiting for the approbation of the Emperor, usurped the title of king. He was punished by Quintilius Varus then governor of Syria, and the nation, with its liberties curtailed, was divided into three provinces under the sons of Herod.

Herod the Great willed his kingdom to three of his sons, Herod Archelaus, [Herod] Philip, and Herod Antipas as Josephus relates (Antiquities 17.8.1:):

And now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind; for he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left the kingdom, to be tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and granted the kingdom to Archclaus. He also gave Gaulonitis, and Trachonitis, and Paneas to Philip, who was his son, but own brother to Archclaus by the name of a tetrarchy; and bequeathed Jarnnia, and Ashdod, and Phasaelis to Salome his sister, with five hundred thousand [drachmae] of silver that was coined.

Herod Archelaus is only mentioned once in the New Testament in Matthew 2:22 where he is identified as the ruler of Judæa:

But when he [Joseph] heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee.

According to Josephus, Joseph was right to fear Archelaus because soon after the death of Herod Archelaus had 3,000 people killed (Antiquities 17.9.3). Josephus also says the Archelaus was the ruler of Judea (Antiquities 17.11.4)

[Herod] Philip is mentioned once or four times in the Gospels (Luke 3:1 and possibly Matthew 14:3; Mark 6:17;  and Luke 3:19). The issue about who is being referred to in the latter three references surrounds who “Philip” is.  If it is Philip the Tetrarch (the Philip that Tacitus refers to) then either Mark and Matthew are incorrect in claiming that Herodias was formerly married to him or Josephus is incorrect in claiming that Herodias was formerly married to Herod II, the son of Herod the Great.  Another option is that Herod II was really called “Herod Philip.” And that Josephus is correct in calling him “Herod” and the Gospel writers are correct in calling him “Philip.”  Herod the Great’s family tree is very confusing, with people being called the same names numerous times, so it seems plausible that any of the above possibilities could be correct.

Herod Antipas is mentioned dozens of times in the Gospels. It was he who beheaded John the Baptist for criticizing his marriage with Herodias (Matthew 14; Mark 6; Luke 9), and according to Luke mocked Jesus before sending him back to Pontius Pilate (Luke 23). He is also mentioned once in Acts 4:27.

These three sons are mentioned by Tacitus, but not by name, in the previous quote:

The Histories 5.9

He was punished by Quintilius Varus then governor of Syria, and the nation, with its liberties curtailed, was divided into three provinces under the sons of Herod.

Gallio, the proconsul of Achaea, is described in Acts 18:12-17 as allowing Sosthenes to be beaten without trial.  Interestingly, Gallio appears to have been the son of Seneca the Elder, and brother of the famed Seneca the Younger the tutor of Nero, as well as the brother of the poet Lucan , all three of whom (Seneca Sr. Seneca Jr. and Lucan) have works extent.

Tacitus says that Gallio was exiled during the reign of Tiberius, then recalled and given house arrest. It is probable that he was released after Tiberius died, which is perhaps how he ended up as proconsul of Achaea during the reign of Claudius.

The Annals 6.3

“Junius Gallio however, who had proposed that the prætorian soldiers, after having served their campaigns, should acquire the privilege of sitting in the fourteen rows of the theatre, received a savage censure. Tiberius, just as if he were face to face with him, asked what he had to do with the soldiers, who ought not to receive the emperor’s orders or his rewards except from the emperor himself? He had really discovered something which the Divine Augustus had not foreseen. Or was not one of Sejanus’s satellites rather seeking to sow discord and sedition, as a means of prompting ignorant minds, under the pretence of compliment, to ruin military discipline? This was Gallio’s recompense for his carefully prepared flattery, with immediate expulsion from the Senate, and then from Italy. And as men complained that he would endure his exile with equanimity, since he had chosen the famous and lovely island of Lesbos, he was dragged back to Rome, and confined in the houses of different officials.”

The Annals 15:73:

“Nero meanwhile summoned the Senate, addressed them in a speech, and further added a proclamation to the people, with the evidence which had been entered on records, and the confessions of the condemned. He was indeed perpetually under the lash of popular talk, which said that he had destroyed men perfectly innocent out of jealousy or fear. However, that a conspiracy was begun, matured, and conclusively proved was not doubted at the time by those who took pains to ascertain the truth, and is admitted by those who after Nero’s death returned to the capital. When every one in the Senate, those especially who had most cause to mourn, abased himself in flattery, Salienus Clemens denounced Junius Gallio, who was terror-stricken at his brother Seneca’s death and was pleading for his life. He called him an enemy and traitor to the State, till the unanimous voice of the senators deterred him from perverting public miseries into an occasion for a personal resentment, and thus importing fresh bitterness into what by the prince’s clemency had been hushed up or forgotten.”

While Paul was in prison he was sent to Felix, the governor of Judea (which was the same government position Pontius Pilate held years before).  A letter to Felix is transcribed in Acts 23:26-30.  His dealings with Paul are spoken of in Acts 24-25.  Josephus also mentions him many times and corroborates Luke’s note that he was married to a Jewess named Drusilla (Acts 24:24 and Antiquities 20.7.1-2).

Josephus (Antiquities 20.8.5) also agrees with Tacitus’ statement below that Judea was overrun with various seditions and outbreaks of violence. In fact, Felix was probably concerned that Paul may have been one of these rabble rousers and may have not released him just to cover his own hide in case Paul did foment rebellion. Tacitus mentions both Felix and Drusilla.

The Annals 12.54:

“Not equally moderate was his brother, surnamed Felix, who had for some time been governor of Judæa, and thought that he could do any evil act with impunity, backed up as he was by such power. It is true that the Jews had shown symptoms of commotion in a seditious outbreak, and when they had heard of the assassination of Caius [Caligula-ed], there was no hearty submission, as a fear still lingered that any of the emperors might impose the same orders. Felix meanwhile, by ill-timed remedies, stimulated disloyal acts; while he had, as a rival in the worst wickedness, Ventidius Cumanus, who held a part of the province, which was so divided that Galilea was governed by Cumanus, Samaria by Felix. The two peoples had long been at feud, and now less than ever restrained their enmity, from contempt of their rulers. And accordingly they plundered each other, letting loose bands of robbers, forming ambuscades, and occasionally fighting battles, and carrying the spoil and booty to the two procurators, who at first rejoiced at all this, but, as the mischief grew, they interposed with an armed force, which was cut to pieces. The flame of war would have spread through the province, but it was saved by Quadratus, governor of Syria. In dealing with the Jews, who had been daring enough to slay our soldiers, there was little hesitation about their being capitally punished. Some delay indeed was occasioned by Cumanus and Felix; for Claudius on hearing the causes of the rebellion had given authority for deciding also the case of these procurators. Quadratus, however, exhibited Felix as one of the judges, admitting him to the bench with the view of cowing the ardour of the prosecutors. And so Cumanus was condemned for the crimes which the two had committed, and tranquillity was restored to the province.”

The Histories 5.9

The kings were either dead, or reduced to insignificance, when Claudius entrusted the province of Judæa to the Roman Knights or to his own freedmen, one of whom, Antonius Felix, indulging in every kind of barbarity and lust, exercised the power of a king in the spirit of a slave. He had married Drusilla, the granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra, and so was the grandson-in-law, as Claudius was the grandson, of Antony.

Here it appears that Tacitus is incorrect about Drusilla’s parents.  Josephus very clearly states that she was Agrippa II’s sister and also the sister of Bernice (Antiquities 20.7.1-2) which of course means that she is likely not the granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra.  Whiston (the great english translator of Josephus) points out in his footnote on this passage that Felix had three wives, one of whom may very well have been the grandaughter of Antony and Cleopatra, and that Tacitus simply confused them.  Interestingly, if this is true, Luke seems to have been correct in calling her a “jewess” while Tacitus is incorrect.

Bernice (also spelled Berenice) is mentioned in three places in Acts as she accompanies her brother, Agrippa II, during Paul’s legal hearing (Acts 25:13, 23; 26:30).  From Josephus’ description (War 2.15.1)she seems to have been a devout Jew who begged Florus, another later governor of Judea, to stop massacring the Jews. Tacitus describes her as quite charming, so much that she even, at one point, attracted the attentions of the future Emperors Vespasian and Titus.

The Histories 2.81

Queen Berenice too, who was then in the prime of youth and beauty, and who had charmed even the old Vespasian by the splendour of her presents, promoted his cause with equal zeal. All the provinces washed by the sea, as far as Asia and Achaia, and the whole expanse of country inland towards Pontus and Armenia, took the oath of allegiance.”

The Histories 2.2

These and like thoughts made him [Titus] waver between hope and fear; but hope triumphed. Some supposed that he retraced his steps for love of Queen Berenice, nor was his young heart averse to her charms, but this affection occasioned no hindrance to action. He passed, it is true, a youth enlivened by pleasure, and practised more self-restraint in his own than in his father’s reign.

Tactitus also mentions Agrippa II, before whom Paul preached while given a legal hearing in Acts 25-26. According to Luke, Agrippa was quite moved by Paul’s words and said “You almost persuade me to become a Christian” (Acts 26:28). Josephus admired Agrippa II greatly and said that he was “a person that deserved the greatest admiration.” (Against Apion 1.9).  Agrippa II opposed the Jewish revolt in 69-70AD and tried to convince them (quite correctly) that it would only end badly.  His eloquent and stirring speech to the Jews is given by Josephus in War 2.16.4.

Tacitus’ notice of Agrippa II is, again, quite brief:

The Annals 13:7:

“Amidst this and like popular talk, Nero ordered the young recruits levied in the adjacent provinces to be brought up for the supply of the legions of the East, and the legions themselves to take up a position on the Armenian frontier while two princes of old standing, Agrippa and Antiochus, were to prepare a force for the invasion of the Parthian territories. The Euphrates too was to be spanned by bridges; Lesser Armenia was intrusted to Aristobulus, Sopheneto Sohæmus, each with the ensigns of royalty. There rose up at this crisis a rival to Vologeses in his son Vardanes, and the Parthians quitted Armenia, apparently intending to defer hostilities.”

-Update-

I am currently reading Tacitus’ Histories which cover the period of Roman history from the death of Nero to Domitian, however only the portion of it up to Vespasian’s reign have survived. It is also another good read, though I am not quite done with it yet. In it Tacitus mentions Agrippa II twice as follows:

The Histories 5.1

“Early in this year Titus Cæsar, who had been selected by his father to complete the subjugation of Judæa, and who had gained distinction as a soldier while both were still subjects, began to rise in power and reputation, as armies and provinces emulated each other in their attachment to him. The young man himself, anxious to be thought superior to his station, was ever displaying his gracefulness and his energy in war. By his courtesy and affability he called forth a willing obedience, and he often mixed with the common soldiers, while working or marching, without impairing his dignity as general. He found in Judæa three legions, the 5th, the 10th, and the 15th, all old troops of Vespasian’s. To these he added the 12th from Syria, and some men belonging to the 18th and 3rd, whom he had withdrawn from Alexandria. This force was accompanied by twenty cohorts of allied troops and eight squadrons of cavalry, by the two kings Agrippa and Sohemus, by the auxiliary forces of king Antiochus, by a strong contingent of Arabs, who hated the Jews with the usual hatred of neighbours, and, lastly, by many persons brought from the capital and from Italy by private hopes of securing the yet unengaged affections of the Prince. With this force Titus entered the enemy’s territory, preserving strict order on his march, reconnoitring every spot, and always ready to give battle. At last he encamped near Jerusalem.”

The Histories 2.81

“Before the 15th of July the whole of Syria had adopted the same allegiance. There joined him, each with his entire kingdom, Sohemus, who had no contemptible army, and Antiochus, who possessed vast ancestral wealth, and was the richest of all the subject-kings. Before long Agrippa, who had been summoned from the capital by secret despatches from his friends, while as yet Vitellius knew nothing, was crossing the sea with all speed. Queen Berenice too, who was then in the prime of youth and beauty, and who had charmed even the old Vespasian by the splendour of her presents, promoted his cause with equal zeal. All the provinces washed by the sea, as far as Asia and Achaia, and the whole expanse of country inland towards Pontus and Armenia, took the oath of allegiance.”

Berenice is also mentioned in the book of Acts, I’ll post more on her soon.

One of Tactitus’ works of history is called The Annals. It details the history of Rome from Tiberius to Nero.  It’s most famous passage is when Tacitus mentions Jesus, Pontius Pilate, and Nero’s persecution of early Roman Christians (The Annals 15.44). I finally got around to reading the book and really enjoyed it; in places it reads like a good murder plot (and another murder plot…and another murder plot..etc).   Other than Jesus and Pontius Pilate, I noticed several references to other Biblical figures whom are mentioned in the book of Acts.

The first concerned is Agrippa I, King of Judea who died in 44AD.  He is mentioned several times in Acts 12 where he is described as executing the apostle James the brother of John and also as being struck down by God while giving a speech.  Interestingly, Josephus in his Antiquities 19.8.2 [343-353] also discusses Agrippa’s death and also claims that he was struck down by God while giving a speech.

Tacitus gives far fewer details and writes as follows in The Annals 12.23:

“Narbon Gaul, for its special reverence of the Senate, received a privilege. Senators belonging to the province, without seeking the emperor’s approval, were to be allowed to visit their estates, a right enjoyed by Sicily. Ituræa and Judæ, on the death of their kings, Sohæmus and Agrippa, were annexed to the province of Syria.”

More to come later.

(edited “Herod Agrippa I” to simply “Agrippa I” for clarity’s sake -1/7/09)