by
Damien F. Mackey
“Then Josephus reports something quite astonishing: Augustus “mixed [Herod] in with those who were procurating Syria, ordering them to do everything
in accordance with his judgement,” or indeed, “he appointed him procurator
of all Syria, so the procurators could manage nothing against his advice”.”
Richard Carrier
Since I identified Herod ‘the Great’ with Marcus Agrippa in various articles – Agrippa being a name common to the Herod family – I learned what I did not know, today (Australia Day, 26th January 2024), that the name Marcus was held by a Herod Agrippa. So it all comes full circle.
According to Britannica.com:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Herod-Agrippa-I
Herod Agrippa I
king of Judaea
…. Also known as: Agrippa I, Marcus Julius Agrippa ….
A: Philip, Herod, made regent
With the Maccabean era now collapsed into New Testament times, as e.g. in my article:
King Herod ‘the Great’
(4) King Herod ‘the Great’ | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu
and with the Phrygian ‘Philip’ of Maccabees 1-2 now identified there as King Herod himself, it needs to be shown that Herod had been – just like this Philip in the case of king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ – exalted by the emperor Caesar Augustus above all the others. For Philip, who had been initially appointed over Jerusalem (2 Maccabees 5:22), was ultimately given the following outstanding further promotion (1 Maccabees 6:14-16):
Then [king Antiochus] called for Philip, one of his Friends, and made him ruler over all his kingdom. He gave him the crown and his robe and the signet, so that he might guide his son Antiochus and bring him up to be king. Thus King Antiochus died there in the one hundred forty-ninth year.
Philip was now virtually a second emperor.
This was a situation somewhat like that of the evil Haman in the Book of Esther, raised above his fellows by King Ahasuerus, and even given the king’s signet ring (Esther 3:10).
It may be possible to show that Herod ‘the Great’ was thus (as Philip) exalted.
Richard Carrier has written an article, entitled “Herod the Procurator: Was Herod the Great a Roman Governor of Syria?”
https://www.academia.edu/1203990/Herod_the_Procurator_Was_Herod_the_Great_a_Roman_Governor_of_Syria
At the beginning of the article we learn this intriguing detail (I do not accept the date):
In 20 B.C. Augustus toured the East, settling various affairs, finally landing in Syria, where he acquitted Herod of charges against him brought by the Gadarenes, and attached the territories of the recently-deceased tetrarch Zenodorus to Herod’s own growing kingdom. Then Josephus reports something quite astonishing: Augustus “mixed him in with those who were procurating Syria, ordering them to do everything in accordance with his judgement,” or indeed, “he appointed him procurator of all Syria, so the procurators could manage nothing against his advice.”
“… the procurators could manage nothing against [Herod’s] advice”.
And, just as king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ had highly appointed Philip at the end of the king’s campaign to the East, so here we read that Augustus himself had just “toured the East” when he gave Herod ‘the Great’ such over-arching power.
Now Philip, now Herod, made leading man in the kingdom, the king’s right-hand man.
There may be an extension to all of this:
B: Marcus Agrippa to be added to the mix?
What we have just read about Herod – but particularly what we have read about him in his guise as Philip – can now be extended to include Augustus’s right-hand man, his virtual ‘second self’, Marcus Agrippa. Perplexed historians wonder why this powerful man did not seize the kingdom for himself. For example:
When Gaius Octavius became the first emperor of Rome, Marcus Agrippa was by his side. As the emperor’s loyal deputy, he waged wars, pacified provinces, beautified Rome, and played a crucial role in establishing the Pax Romana—but he always served knowing that he would never rule in his own name.
Why he did so, and never grasped power for himself, has perplexed historians for centuries. ….
Well, actually the king’s second-in-command did seize power – if but for a brief period of time, in his guise as Philip (I Maccabees 6:55-56, 63):
Then Lysias heard that Philip, whom King Antiochus while still living had appointed to bring up his son Antiochus to be king, had returned from Persia and Media with the forces that had gone with the king, and that he was trying to seize control of the government.
….
Then [Antiochus Eupator] set off in haste and returned to Antioch. He found Philip in control of the city, but he fought against him, and took the city by force.
In the next piece: https://prabook.com/web/marcus.agrippa/3739878 we learn two intriguing things: the census (cf. Luke 2:1-2) was the dual work of the emperor Augustus and Marcus Agrippa; and, the latter was given the signet ring when the emperor was ill, “to be designated the emperor’s successor” (I do not accept the dates):
Agrippa and Octavian jointly conducted a census and carried out a purge of the Senate; in 28 and 27 Agrippa held the consulate again, both times with Octavian (from 27, Augustus) as his colleague. In 23, a year of constitutional crisis, Augustus fell ill and presented his signet ring to Agrippa, who seemed thus to be designated the emperor’s successor. ….
Philip likewise, as we read, had been given the signet ring when the emperor was ill (and dying). But, whereas in the Maccabean version, the emperor will actually die and his second-in-command will continue on; in the pseudo-historical version, the emperor will rally, and will live to bury his second-in-command, Marcus Agrippa.
King Herod ‘the Great’ was, like his supposed friend (see below) Marcus Agrippa, a monumental builder, including in Palestine.
In the following article we read this about some of the major building works of “Herod the Great”: https://www.livius.org/articles/person/herod-the-great/
And there were other cities where [Herod] ordered new buildings to be placed: Jericho and Samaria are examples. New fortresses served the security of both the Jews and their king: Herodion, Machaerus, and Masada are among them.
But Herod’s crowning achievement was a splendid new port, called Caesarea in honor of the emperor (the harbor was called Sebastos, the Greek translation of “Augustus”). This magnificent and opulent city, which was dedicated in 9 BCE, was built to rival Alexandria in the land trade to Arabia, from where spices, perfume and incense were imported. It was not an oriental town like Jerusalem; it was laid out on a Greek grid plan, with a market, an aqueduct, government offices, baths, villas, a circus, and pagan temples. (The most important of these was the temple where the emperor was worshipped; it commanded the port.) The port was a masterpiece of engineering: its piers were made from hydraulic concrete (which hardens underwater) and protected by unique wave-breaking structures. ….
[End of quote]
It is thought that Marcus Agrippa was heavily involved in some of Herod’s major constructions. Thus we read in Israel Gregory F. Votruba’s article, “Imported Building Materials of Sebastos Harbour, Israel” (pp. 327-328):
…. The massive scale of the harbour, pozzolana importation, and marine concrete architecture with its closest parallels in Italy, have led researchers to suspect that the connection with Italy is more than simply one of pozzolana supply, and that Herod would have needed both political and logistical backing from the ruling power in Rome (Hohlfelder, 2000: 251). The construction of Sebastos Harbour would have been very much in Rome’s interest. Rome would have appreciated the naval infrastructure to preserve its eastern Mediterranean hegemony (Beebe, 1983: 202; Roller, 1998: 69; Hohlfelder, 2000: 243). Others have claimed that Sebastos offered a valuable berth for the Rome-Alexandria grain fleets, securing Rome’s lifeline (Beebe, 1983: 205; Oleson and Branton, 1992: 51; Raban, in press). Rome would certainly also have been interested in the salt, bitumen and exotic eastern goods which could have been exported from Judea. Most profoundly, as Gianfrotta writes, ‘Caesarea was part of the trend toward increasing trade, which was of critical importance for Rome and for the political world system of the new Augustan order’ (1996: 74–5).
Rome is therefore assumed to have found value in the construction of Sebastos, and in particular Augustus’ military commander and confidant Marcus Agrippa is credited as being an active protagonist (Hohlfelder, 2000). Having worked on and commissioned naval building in the Bay of Naples, Agrippa would certainly have been aware of the properties of its volcanic ash for hydraulic concrete, properties known in Italy since at least the mid-1st century (Hohlfelder, 2000: 250; Oleson et al., 2004: 202). It has therefore been proposed that at a meeting between Herod and Agrippa in Mytilene in 23 BC (AJ 15.349), Herod’s conjectural mention of his Sebastos Harbour ambition, combined with Agrippa’s recognition of the importance of the sea and knowledge of harbour engineering, catalyzed the construction of Sebastos which was begun the following year (Hohlfelder, 2000: 250) (Fig. 2).
Agrippa’s role may have been a leading one in organizing the shipment of pozzolana, and even dispatching Italian manpower experienced in construction with marine concrete to Judea (Hohlfelder, 2000: 252). Considering that the practice of building with concrete in the open sea had been previously experimented with only in Italy, Italian builders are assumed to have been active in the construction of Sebastos (Hohlfelder, 1996: 78–9). It would not have been the only project of Herod’s to use Italian expertise. At Herod’s Palace in Jericho there are characteristically Roman opus reticulatum and opus incertum, floral and geometric pattern frescos, and indiscriminate use of the Ionic and Corinthian orders which are attributed to Italian builders also proposed to have been sent by Agrippa (Roller, 1998: 173). Uniquely Roman architecture and decorative aspects are also known from Masada and Herodion (Roller, 1998: 166, 188–9). ….
[End of quote]
Two points to be seriously considered here.
Was this really typical Italian building style, or was it of Greek origin – “Ionic”, “Corinthian”?
And, was Marcus Agrippa architecturally assisting Herod, or, was Herod the same person as Marcus Agrippa?
Intriguing in relation to all of this is Robert L. Hohlfelder’s provocative title to his article: “Beyond Coincidence? Marcus Agrippa and King Herod’s Harbor” (JNES, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Oct., 2000), pp. 241-253).
Now we turn to the emperor Hadrian, whom I have identified as a further extension, alter ego, of Antiochus-Augustus.
Hadrian, too, then, should have a Philip-Herod (Agrippa) type friend.
And I think that he does.
C: Herodes Atticus
Did the Grecophile emperor, Hadrian – whom I have taken right out of his chronological comfort zone, and identified as Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ (hence as “Caesar Augustus”), hence, now, as a Greek ruler – did he, likewise, have his Herod-type of friend and right-hand man?
He ought to have had, if my reconstruction of this era, revised, is on the right track.
Hadrian, who left a massive impression upon antiquity, is, strangely, poorly sourced.
Anthony Everitt writes of this in his book, Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome (Random House, 2009): “The most serious problem has been the ancient literary sources of which a mere handful survive, mangled and mutilated”.
The best that we can expect, therefore, is a garbled version of whoever Hadrian really was.
Hadrian is in need of an alter ego, and I have given him two outstanding ones (for starters): namely, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Caesar Augustus, of whom (the latter) Hadrian was thought to have been “a reincarnation”.
Hadrian’s coins featured the inscription Adrianos Sebastos, the latter word being Greek for “Augustus”.
With a garbled Hadrian we would likely get, as well, a garbled and semi-fictitious partner, Herod, if we can find one for him. Well, Hadrian’s Herod does indeed exist in alleged history, and his name is, surprisingly, Herod (or Herodes) Atticus.
Now this gains extra meaning when we learn that Marcus Agrippa, our Herod and right-hand man for the emperor Augustus (see B.), had married an “Atticus”.
Thus we read of “… the marriage of [Marcus] Agrippa to the daughter of Titus Atticus”: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Marcus-Vipsanius-Agrippa
Hadrian did have a Herod friend serving him in Asia: Herodes Atticus (ignore the dates below): https://www.britannica.com/biography/Herodes-Atticus
…. Herodes was born into an immensely wealthy Athenian family that had received Roman citizenship during the reign of the emperor Claudius (41–54). He was befriended by Hadrian (emperor 117–138), who employed him as a commissioner in charge of eliminating corruption in the free cities of the province of Asia. Herodes became consul in 143 and later contributed to the education of Hadrian’s destined successors, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. …
We recall that Philip was entrusted by Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ with the instruction of the king’s son.
Under his direction numerous buildings were constructed throughout Greece, including an odeum (called the Odeum of Herodes Atticus) at Athens.
Marcus Agrippa likewise built an Odeum: https://www.britannica.com/place/Athens/Hellenistic-and-Roman-times
Of his voluminous output of speeches and other writings, nothing unquestionably authentic survives ….
Haven’t we read that sort of thing before!’
Herod Atticus much resembles our composite Herod ‘the Great’ (= Philip/Marcus Agrippa) in his Greek-ness; he was filthy rich; had Greco-Roman connections; his friendship with the emperor; his activities in Asia; his buildings on a massive scale.
But, above all, Herodes Atticus “served as a governor of Judaea”:
Judas Maccabeus and the Downfall of Gog 