William Foxwell Albright a conventional scholar who was at times capable of ‘thinking outside the box’

by Damien F. Mackey Both directly and indirectly, I have found certain insights of William Foxwell Albright to have been enormously beneficial in helping to piece together the biblico-historical (archaeological) picture puzzle. In one particular case, though, I consider his proposed reconstruction to have been an unmitigated disaster. 1. The big positives (a) - (d) “W.F. Albright, in full William Foxwell Albright, (born May 24, 1891, Coquimbo, Chile—died Sept. 19, 1971, Baltimore, Md., U.S.), American biblical archaeologist and Middle Eastern scholar, noted especially for his excavations of biblical sites”. https://www.britannica.com/biography/W-F-Albright I find that professor W. F. Albright - although a scholar working within the restricting confines of the conventional model of archaeologico-history - had the unusual ability sometimes to burst through the seams of that tight model and to produce some very insightful new observations. (a) His smashing impact on early dynastic chronology One of his (as Dr. Albright) most remarkable forays beyond the suffocating walls of convention was his important synchronisation of the first ruler of Egypt, Menes, or Min (conventionally dated to c. 3100 BC), with the latter’s conqueror, Naram-Sin (conventionally dated to c. 2250 BC), of the famous Sargonid dynasty of Akkad. On this, see my article: Dr. W.F. Albright’s Game-Changing Chronological Shift (3) Dr. W.F. Albright's game-changing chronological shift | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu This synchronisation by Dr. Albright involved a massive shift in time, one to the tune of about a millennium, of conventional ancient dating. That was bold, indeed! It all at once brought into synthesis, the First Dynasty of Egypt; the Akkadian Dynasty; and the era of Abram (Dr. John Osgood’s research) and everything associated with that Patriarch (all of this, though, more accurately to be dated downwards to c. 1900 BC). The importance of such a right synchronisation of this early (Patriarchal) period of biblico-history cannot be over-stated. And we must be grateful to W.F. Albright for having been prepared to make this courageous leap out of the conventional box. However, as we are going to learn later on, in 2. (b), he, in 1922, wrongly re-set, back, also by about a millennium, later phases of the Bible such as the Joshuan Conquest and Jericho. (b) Shifting the goalposts for biblical “Shinar” Albright also was an early one to suggest a location, otherwise than southern Mesopotamia, for the biblical “land of Shinar”. This may perhaps, in part, have prompted various Creationists more recently to transfer their attention for Shinar away from that southern region. See, for example Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White’s: An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel (11) An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel | Kenneth Griffith - Academia.edu leading to their prize discovery – as I would regard it – of the Mountain of Noah’s Ark’s landing: A Candidate Site for Noah’s Ark, Altar, and Tomb (11) A Candidate Site for Noah's Ark, Altar, and Tomb. | Kenneth Griffith and Darrell K White - Academia.edu W.F. Albright had newly situated the land of Shinar to the N. Syrian kingdom of Hana: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/370017 Critical Notes SHINAR-ŠANḠAR AND ITS MONARCH AMRAPHEL Until recently no one seems to have suspected that the biblical Shinar might not have been identical with Southern Mesopotamia - using this term in its wider sense, following a classical usage which has now become all but universal. This view was only natural, since the identification of Shinar with Babylonia was practically required by the LXX translations of Is. 11:11, Zech. 5:11, to say nothing of the direct equivalence in Dan. 1:2. Until the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions most scholars associated the name with that of the classical district of Singara, modern Jebel Sinjâr, though the geographical equivalence appeared to be only approximate, since Singara is west of Assyria and considerably to the north of Babylonia. The discovery of the native Babylonian term Šumer, "Southern Babylonia," altered the situation, especially since Šumer was then believed to stand for an older *Sungir, for *Sugir, assumed to be the more correct form of Girsu, the name of a town near Lagaš (if not a quarter of the latter). Mackey’s comment: But see my re-identification of Girsu and Lagaš (Lakish) as, respectively, Jerusalem and Lachish. For example: Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu (4) Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Albright continues: The combination with Singara was now given up in favor of that with Šumer, hardly anyone attempting the paradoxical identification with both. It is the writer's purpose here to point out that the old identification with Singara is not only correct so far as the name is concerned, but also geographically. In the Amarna correspondence of the king of Cyprus with the Pharaoh (EA, No. 35, 49 f.) the former warns the latter to avoid entangling alliances with the king of the Hittites and the king of Šanḫar. While most scholars have agreed with Weber's view that Šanḫar is Šincar, "Babylonia," the recent tendency has been to accept his later view (WA 1082) that it represents Mitanni. Knudtzon's suggestion (loc. cit.) that it was the district about the Sagûr river, in Northern Syria, has not found favor. In a Hittite list of countries published by Weber, after Winckler, Šanḫar is mentioned after Aššur and Bâbilu, before a gap which presumably contained the name Mitanni, since it is followed immediately by Alzîya and Papaḫḫi in Northern Mesopotamia. In the Egyptian inscriptions of the fifteenth century B.C. Sngr appears as an autonomous Mesopotamian state, along with Babylonia, Assyria, and Mitanni (Nhrn). At first sight Sngr seems rather remote from Šanḫar, but we must remember that the Egyptians often represented a š which came to them through west-Semitic channels by s, and that cuneiform ḫ often stands for ḡ. The Egyptians wrote the name of the important district of Nuḫašši in central Syria as Ngs, pointing to a pronunciation Nugaš. In the Aramaean monument of Zkr, king of Hamath and Nuḫašši the name is written Lcš, pronounced approximately Luḡáš - the old identification of Lcš with Luḫuti is hardly acceptable, though phonetically possible, since the Aramaeans often replaced š by t, on the principle of back-formation (Assûr - Atûr, etc.). From a number of other illustrations we may take the name Gilu-Hepa, written in Egyptian as Kr(l)gp, i.e., Gilu-Ǧepa. It is therefore certain that the forms Šanḫar, Sngr, and Šangar (Šincar has its i-vowel by Philippi's Law) of the Hebrews all represent the correct Šangar, the name of an important state or province in Mesopotamia, between Assyria, Babylonia, and Mitanni. What could this state have been? In a paper in the Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, I, 72-4, the writer has endeavored to show that Šanḡar represents the land known to its own sovereigns as Hana, on the Middle Euphrates. The capital of Hana, was situated at Tirqa, which has been located at a mound just south of the mouth of the Hâbûr. [End of quote] (c) Recognising the closeness of Ugaritic to biblical Hebrew W. F. Albright even went rather close to realising that some of the El Amarna [EA] correspondents were writing in Hebrew. Here is what I wrote about it in my university thesis (2007): A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf (Volume One, pp. 87-88): Lab’ayu’s Speech Lab’ayu is thought to have been no timid lackey of pharaoh, at least according to Albright:221 “The truculence of Labaya’s tone in writing to the court contrasts oddly with the grovelling subservience of most Palestinian chieftains”. Most grovelling of all perhaps was Abdi-Ashirta himself, who had written to pharaoh during a time of crisis: LETTER 64: To the king, my lord, say. Thus says Abdi-Ashtarti [Ashirta], the servant of the king: At the feet of my king, my lord, I have fallen seven times ... and seven times in addition, upon breast as well as back. May the king, my lord, learn that enmity is mighty against me .... Like Lab’ayu, the biblical Ahab [with whom I have identified Lab’ayu] could indeed be an outspoken person, bold in speech to both fellow kings and prophets (cf. 1 Kings 18:17; 20:11). But Lab’ayu, like all the other duplicitous Syro-Palestinian kings, instinctively knew when, and how, to grovel …. Thus, when having to protest his loyalty and readiness to pay tribute to the crown, Lab’ayu really excelled himself:222 “Further: In case the king should write for my wife, would I refuse her? In case the king should write to me: “Run a dagger of bronze into thy heart and die”, would I not, indeed, execute the command of the king?” Lab’ayu moreover may have - like Ahab - used Hebrew speech. The language of the EA letters is Akkadian, but one letter by Lab’ayu, EA 252, proved to be very difficult to translate.223 Albright,224 in 1943, published a more satisfactory translation than had hitherto been possible by discerning that its author had used a good many so-called ‘Canaanite’ words plus two Hebrew proverbs! EA 252 has a stylised introduction in the typical EA formula and in the first 15 lines utilises only two ‘Canaanite’ words. Thereafter, in the main body of the text, Albright noted (and later scholars have concurred) that Lab’ayu used only about 20% pure Akkadian, “with 40% mixed or ambiguous, and no less than 40% pure Canaanite”. Albright further identified the word nam-lu in line 16 as the Hebrew word for ‘ant’ (nemalah), נְמָלָה, …the Akkadian word being zirbabu. Lab’ayu had written: “If ants are smitten, they do not accept (the smiting) quietly, but they bite the hand of the man who smites them”. Albright recognised here a parallel with the two biblical Proverbs mentioning ants (6:6 and 30:25). Ahab likewise was inclined to use a proverbial saying as an aggressive counterpoint to a potentate. When the belligerent Ben-Hadad I sent him messengers threatening: ‘May the gods do this to me and more if there are enough handfuls of rubble in Samaria for all the people in my following [i.e. my massive army]’ (1 Kings 20:10), Ahab answered: ‘The proverb says: The man who puts on his armour is not the one who can boast, but the man who takes it off’ (v.11). “It is a pity”, wrote Rohl and Newgrosh,225 “that Albright was unable to take his reasoning process just one step further because, in almost every instance where he detected the use of what he called ‘Canaanite’ one could legitimately substitute the term ‘Hebrew’.” Lab’ayu’s son too, Mut-Baal - my tentative choice for Ahaziah of Israel (c. 853 BC) … - also displayed in one of his letters (EA 256) some so-called ‘Canaanite’ and mixed origin words. Albright noted of line 13:226 “As already recognized by the interpreters, this idiom is pure Hebrew”. Albright even went very close to admitting that the local speech was Hebrew:227 ... phonetically, morphologically, and syntactically the people then living in the district ... spoke a dialect of Hebrew (Canaanite) which was very closely akin to that of Ugarit. The differences which some scholars have listed between Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic are, in fact, nearly all chronological distinctions. But even these ‘chronological distinctions’ cease to be a real issue in the Velikovskian context, according to which both the EA letters and the Ugaritic tablets are re-located to the time of the Divided Monarchy. …. (d) Balaam as an ‘Edomite sage’ “Balaam was an ancient Edomite sage”. W. F. Albright In his article, “The Home of Balaam” (JAOS, Vol. 35, 1915, p. 387), W. F. Albright stated: Balaam was an ancient Edomite sage. The reading Aram in Num. 23, 7 is simply a corruption of Edom, a confusion which is common in the OT. The Koranic Iramu, or Aramu, which, according to the commentators, was situated south-east of Elath, apparently owes its existence to the same misunderstanding. The two passages in Num. 22, 5, and Deut. 23, 5, where the alleged Aramean home of Balaam is more definitely located at Pethor, represent late glosses. This localization may perhaps be due to a popular etymology of Pethor, connecting it with Heb. פִתְר֣וֹן . interpretation of dreams … which exhibits a ת in Hebrew, while in Assyrian and Aramaic we have a שׁ (pašâru, פשר). … [End of quote] Thanks to this new appreciation of the ethnicity of Balaam, I was able to progress on to identifying the conqueror, Cushan-rishathaim as, not Aramean, but Edomite as well. Thus I wrote in my article: Cushan rishathaim was a king of Edom (3) Cushan rishathaim was king of Edom | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu …. Having previously thought to have identified Balaam in that Edomite list (following Albright) … and knowing that Balaam (at the time of Joshua) to have pre-existed Cushan (the time of Othniel), I checked for an appropriate name not far below King No. 1 in the list, Bela ben Beor (or Balaam son of Beor): 1. Bela ben Beor from Dinhabah 2. Jobab ben Zerah from Bozrah 3. Husham from Teman 4. Hadad ben Bedad from Avith 5. Samlah from Masrekah 6. Saul from Rehoboth 7. Baal-Hanan ben Achbor 8. Hadar/d from Pau King No. 3 looked perfect for Cushan, or Chushan: namely, Husham (or Chusham, חֻשָׁם). Later I would learn that other scholars … had already come to this same conclusion (i.e., Husham = Cushan). …. [Ends of quote] At about this time I was given, in an e-mail, some rather sobering information about W. F. Albright that I shall be taking up in 2. (b): …. Hi Damien. I am just coming up to the Balaam material in my thesis-writing, so this is welcome. I have had my sympathy for Albright considerably reduced, however, to find he was among those present at the secret meeting in Jerusalem in 1922 that 'fixed' the wrong dates to the archaeological eras ... Fr Pere Vincent's initiative, but Albright was complicit. …. Continuing on with Balaam for the moment, W. F. Albright would also in his article, “The Home of Balaam”, conclude that Islam’s sage, Loqmân (Lukman), was based on the biblical Balaam. “Loqmân seems to be a translation of Balaam, as both Hebrew baláʹ and Arab. láqama mean to swallow”. W. F. Albright Regarding this I had written previously: …. We have already found that the sage Loqmân (Lukman, Lokman) of the Islamic sura is based on (at least in part) as to his wise sayings the famous sage, Ahiqar, who was the nephew of the Israelite (Naphtalian) Tobit of the Book of Tobit. Like Mohammed, Loqmân, emerging from the unreliable Qurân, would no doubt be a non-historical character, a composite, perhaps bearing likenesses to both Ahiqar, and Balaam centuries before Ahiqar. W. F. Abright, following Dérenbourg et al., linked Loqmân to Balaam in his 1915 article, “The House of Balaam” (Jstor): In 1850 Joseph Dérenbourg, in his Fables de Loqmân le Sage, following the suggestion of Ewald and Rödiger, identified the pre-Islamic prophet, Loqmân, mentioned in the thirty-first sura of the Qurân, with Balaam. …. Loqmân seems to be a translation of Balaam, as both Hebrew baláʹ and Arab. láqama mean to swallow. Translations of proper names from Hebrew are not infrequent; e. g. the modern Tell el-Qáḍî represents the ancient Dan. In the same way, the modern name of Megiddo, which means garrison, is Lejjun = Lat. Legio. …. Mohammedan commentators say that Loqmân belonged to the tribe of tribe of ‘Ad, and lived at Elath in Midian. Other reports concerning him, e. g., that he was a Nubian freedman, and was born in the tenth year of David’s reign … are late inventions. …. [End of quote] 2. The big negatives (a) - (b) According to the New World Enyclopedia article, “William F. Albright”: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/William_F._Albright …. Despite his focus on the archaeology of the Bible, Albright was not a biblical literalist. He accepted the basic idea of the documentary hypothesis and the mainstream opinions of the preceding two centuries of biblical criticism: Namely, that many of the books of the Hebrew Bible are comprised of various literary sources, each with its own theological view and agenda. In Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, he expressed the view that the religion of the Israelites had evolved out of Canaanite polytheism into the biblical monotheism that saw God acting in history through the Jews as His "chosen people." However, unlike some other bible scholars and archaeologists, Albright held that archaeology confirmed the basic historicity of the Bible. In this, Albright's American Evangelical upbringing was clearly apparent. He insisted that "as a whole, the picture in Genesis is historical, and there is no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the biographical details" (Finkelstein, 2007, 42). Similarly, he claimed that archaeology had proved the essential historicity of the book of Exodus, and the conquest of Canaan as described in the book of Joshua and the book of Judges. …. [End of quote] It was inevitable that W. F. Albright, as a follower of the JEDP documentary hypothesis and, as we shall learn, of the conventional (Sothic-based) chronology, would fail miserably in some areas to bring convincing evidential support to his view that the historicity of the Bible was validated by archaeology. Take, for instance, the two cases of: (a) King Hammurabi, and Pharaoh Shoshenq as the biblical “Shishak” According to the same New World Encyclopedia article: …. Although primarily a biblical archaeologist, Albright also made contributions in many other fields of Near Eastern studies. For example, his … work on the Mari letters helped established an accurate date for Hammurabi, and a paper titled, "New Light from Egypt on the Chronology and History of Israel and Judah," established that Shoshenq I—the Biblical Shishak—came to power somewhere between 945 and 940 B.C.E. His work also laid the foundation for the understanding of ancient West Semitic culture in general, including the study of Canaanite religion as distinct from biblical literature. …. [End of quote] Yet something of a pioneer, W. F. Albright can be excused for not having been able to - just like so many others - secure a right date for King Hammurabi. It would take until 1986 for Dean Hickman to establish that Hammurabi was a contemporary of King Solomon of Israel. Almost half a century before Hickman, in 1938, W. F. Albright dated King Hammurabi to 1800 B.C., which is about 800 years too early. Still, this was - like his synthesis of Menes and Naram-Sin - a very significant downward re-setting of King Hammurabi by some 275 years from his former place. And he fully realised it, entitling his article, “A revolution in the chronology of ancient Western Asia” (BASOR 69, Feb., 1938). W. F. Albright made another fateful choice when he embraced François Champollion’s identification of the biblical Shishak, at the time of King Rehoboam of Judah, with pharaoh Shoshenq I. This, a rare occasion when non biblically-minded historians insist upon a biblical connection with an historical person, has disastrously offset the history of the Bible against a wrong Sothically estimated date. What Dr. David Rohl had said about the EA letters: “It is a pity that Albright was unable to …” applies here as well, because Dr. Rohl has, as well as anyone else, managed to debunk the conventional (Sothic) view that Shoshenq I could have been Shishak (A Test of Time: The Bible—from Myth to History, 1996). Shoshenq I has been Sothically mis-dated and mis-identified. Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky would get the identification right in Ages in Chaos I (1952), when he showed that Shishak was the Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh, Thutmose III. For my development of this important identification, see e.g. my article: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (4) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu (b) Back-dating the Joshuan Conquest by a millennium Returning to my friend’s concerned e-mail: …. Hi Damien. I am just coming up to the Balaam material in my thesis-writing, so this is welcome. I have had my sympathy for Albright considerably reduced, however, to find he was among those present at the secret meeting in Jerusalem in 1922 that 'fixed' the wrong dates to the archaeological eras ... Fr Pere Vincent's initiative, but Albright was complicit. …. Mathilde Sigalas will recount how W. F. Albright came to be in Jerusalem in 1922, there connecting with “a French scholar from the École biblique, Father Louis-Hugues Vincent”: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-55540-5_10 Between Diplomacy and Science: British Mandate Palestine and Its International Network of Archaeological Organisations, 1918–1938 …. The collaboration was also effective in terms of archaeological methodology at the beginning of the 1920s. The Presidents of the BSAJ, John Garstang (1920–1926), and of ASOR, William F. Albright (1920–1929/1933–1936), joined by a French scholar from the École biblique, Father Louis-Hugues Vincent, reflected together on a new dating method to classify antiquities.Footnote71 This classification was designated as that of the “Three Ages”Footnote72; dating of the Bronze Age, Iron Age and Modern period was modified to adapt to recent discoveries and ethnographic information on Palestine. The three scholars submitted their method to the scientific community during meetings of the POS. Adopted in 1922, the classification was implemented in archaeological sites for antiquities registration and analysis. The political context was also a reason for the policy, in an attempt to avoid subjective interpretations in favour of a particular civilisation. This classification is an example of the effects of international collaboration within a foreign intellectual knowledge network, which developed in Jerusalem at the beginning of the 1920s. The three scholars were from “the three archaeological Schools in Jerusalem”Footnote73 and two were on the Board of Directors of the Palestine Oriental Society in 1922, Albright as President and Garstang as Director. The “New Chronological Classification of Palestinian Archaeology” was published in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (no. 7. October 1922) and the Revue Biblique (vol. 32. 1923) of the EBAF. This example demonstrates the openness of the scientific community based in Palestine and the shared aim of anchoring Palestinian archaeology as a scientific and formal discipline. …. [End of quote] My friend has since corrected the original description, “secret meeting in Jerusalem”, by clarifying that it was not actually “secret”. The outcome of all this, a most unfortunate marrying of the Sothic chronology of Eduard Meyer with the skewed Palestinian chronology of père Vincent, has been to set back by a millennium real historical events such as the Conquest of Canaan by Joshua and his forces (the Middle Bronze I people of archaeology) and the overthrowing of (Early Bronze III) Jericho. This was a great mistake on the part of W. F. Albright, whose correcting of conventional history by a millennium, which would work so well in the case of Menes, now backfired spectacularly on him in the case of the Fall of Jericho. Had W. F. Albright been consistent in his view about the reliability of the Bible, he would have realised that the entire history of the Book of Joshua is verified by archaeology, the Bible being the key for accurately dating the archaeology. Now we have the sad situation that it must be insisted that there was a Book of Joshua type of scenario, but occurring a millennium before Joshua, whose story must have been based upon this earlier set of archaeologically verifiable events. Madness! Critics are prepared to concede a ‘Proto-Joshua’, to ‘explain’ this, but heaven forbid that they should connect that vague entity to a real biblical Joshua.

The inconvenient death of which King Herod vitiated his apotheosis?

by Damien F. Mackey “A severe pain also arose in [King Agrippa’s] belly, and began in a most violent manner… And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life”. Josephus (Antiquities) Poor King Herod. Just as he was turning into a god right before his adoring people, he suffered severe intestinal pain and began to be eaten away by worms (Acts 12:21-23). Thereby was fulfilled, once again - as it had been with king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ - the pronouncement made by Judith the Simeonite more than half a millennium earlier (conventional reckoning) (Judith 16:17): ‘Woe to [those] that rise up against my people. The Lord Almighty will punish them on the day of judgment. He will send fire and worms into their flesh; they shall weep with pain forever’. But about which King Herod are we talking here? The Jewish historian, Josephus, who gave an account of the king’s spectacular demise somewhat akin to that which we find recorded in Acts 12, called the ill-fated king, “Agrippa”, not “Herod”. Luke Wayne has written of it: https://carm.org/evidence-and-answers/the-historicity-of-acts-12-and-the-death-of-herod-agrippa-i/ The Historicity of Acts 12 and the Death of Herod Agrippa I by Luke Wayne | Feb 26, 2021 | Evidence and Answers, Apologetics The Ancient Jewish historian Josephus, also writing in the first century AD, reported a strikingly similar account of Herod Agrippa’s demise: “Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Cesarea, which was formerly called Strato’s Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honor of Caesar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province. On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theater early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good,) that he was a god; and they added, “Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.” Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But as he presently afterward looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner…And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life,” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter 19, Chapter 8, Section 2).3 The overall outline between these two accounts is precisely the same. During his reign as king in Judea, Herod Agrippa came to Caesarea. While there, he made a planned public appearance during which the crowd praised him as a god. He accepted this worshipful praise and, as a result, the true God struck him down by inflicting him with an internal condition that was immediately obvious to the lauding crowd and that ultimately killed him. Josephus and Acts both agree on this order of events. [End of quotes] Josephus, I suspect, may have confused the one called “King Agrippa” (but not Herod), who turned up later at Caesarea, at the trial of Paul (Acts 25:13-26:32), with the “Herod” who, in Acts 12:21-23, met his humiliating public demise. For, according to Luke Wayne again: The Jewish leaders had a favorable view of Herod Agrippa I and that he was apt to show favor to them is attested in Rabbinic sources as well. Indeed, the Mishna even records that Herod Agrippa not only participated in the Jewish feasts at Jerusalem1 but even publically [sic] read from the Torah and delivered a blessing during them. And Josephus, of course, shared this Mishnaïc view: As with the Rabbinic writings, Josephus consistently presents a positive view of Herod Agrippa I.4 Even while reluctantly reporting the above account, Josephus also claims that Herod was repentant before his death and waxes eloquently on how all the people wept and mourned for him. Josephus includes the story not because he had an interest in discrediting and shaming Herod Agrippa but rather because this really is how Herod actually died. That such an end is contrary to Josephus’ overall view of the man gives us all the more reason to conclude that Josephus reported this event only because it was a known fact of history and he thus could not do otherwise. These descriptions, however, read to me more like what one might have expected from the King Agrippa of later Acts, to whom Paul had said (Acts 26:2-3): “King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate to stand before you today as I make my defense against all the accusations of the Jews, and especially so because you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies”. Following through Luke, also the author of Acts, from late Luke 3 into Acts 12, we first encounter “Herod the Tetrarch” at the time of the Baptism of Jesus (Luke 3:1) and, soon afterwards, the imprisonment of John the Baptist. There we learn that Herod was already an inveterate evil-doer (Luke 3:19-20): “But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done, Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison”. By Luke 9, the befuddled Herod is hearing about Jesus (vv. 7-9): Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was going on. And he was perplexed because some were saying that John had been raised from the dead, others that Elijah had appeared, and still others that one of the prophets of long ago had come back to life. But Herod said, ‘I beheaded John. Who, then, is this I hear such things about?’ And he tried to see him. By Luke 13, Herod, who had previously “tried to see” Jesus, is now wanting to kill him (vv. 31-33): At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, ‘Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you’. He replied, ‘Go tell that fox, ‘I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’ In any case, I must press on today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!’ Luke 23 becomes Herod’s chance to meet Jesus face to face. It happened like this (vv. 4-12): Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, ‘I find no basis for a charge against this man’. But they insisted, ‘He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here’. On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean. When he learned that Jesus was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time. When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform a sign of some sort. He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him no answer. The chief priests and the teachers of the law were standing there, vehemently accusing him. Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate. That day Herod and Pilate became friends—before this they had been enemies. That is all that we read about King Herod in Luke. The author now passes seamlessly into Acts, with mention of Herod and Pilate in Acts 4:27-28: ‘Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen’. Following hard upon the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:60), we read (8:1): “On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria”. King Herod will soon join in on this, Acts 12, and this chapter will be the very last that we shall read of him. Firstly vv. 1-4: It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread. After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover. Peter is miraculously freed by an angel. Herod will search for him (vv. 6-18): The night before Herod was to bring him to trial, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries stood guard at the entrance. Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. ‘Quick, get up!’ he said, and the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. Then the angel said to him, ‘Put on your clothes and sandals’. And Peter did so. ‘Wrap your cloak around you and follow me’, the angel told him. Peter followed him out of the prison, but he had no idea that what the angel was doing was really happening; he thought he was seeing a vision. They passed the first and second guards and came to the iron gate leading to the city. It opened for them by itself, and they went through it. When they had walked the length of one street, suddenly the angel left him. Then Peter came to himself and said, ‘Now I know without a doubt that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from Herod’s clutches and from everything the Jewish people were hoping would happen’. When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying. Peter knocked at the outer entrance, and a servant named Rhoda came to answer the door. When she recognized Peter’s voice, she was so overjoyed she ran back without opening it and exclaimed, ‘Peter is at the door!’ ‘You’re out of your mind’, they told her. When she kept insisting that it was so, they said, ‘It must be his angel’. But Peter kept on knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were astonished. Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. ‘Tell James and the other brothers and sisters about this’, he said, and then he left for another place. In the morning, there was no small commotion among the soldiers as to what had become of Peter. After Herod had a thorough search made for him and did not find him, he cross-examined the guards and ordered that they be executed. This wondrous narrative is immediately followed by the account of the death of Herod, the same King Herod, I believe, who slew John the Baptist, who mocked Jesus Christ, and who had Peter imprisoned. A man in whom wickedness was now full (vv. 19-24): Then Herod went from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there. He had been quarreling with the people of Tyre and Sidon; they now joined together and sought an audience with him. After securing the support of Blastus, a trusted personal servant of the king, they asked for peace, because they depended on the king’s country for their food supply. On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. They shouted, ‘This is the voice of a god, not of a man’. Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died. But the word of God continued to spread and flourish. ‘He will send fire and worms into their flesh; they shall weep with pain forever’. It is fitting that the death of the great persecutor of the Jews-Christians should be mentioned in the Scriptures just as were those of other evil persecutors and blasphemers such as kings Antiochus Epiphanes and Sennacherib of Assyria.

Why this obsession with Aramaïc?

by Damien F. Mackey “But there is another issue at stake. Aramaic is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament. Yet on numerous occasions it speaks of the “Hebrew” language in first century Judaea – from the title over Jesus’ cross “in Hebrew” (John 19:20), to descriptions of places like Gabbatha and Golgotha “in the Hebrew tongue” (John 5:2; 19:13, 17; Rev. 9:11; 16:16), to Paul gaining the silence of the Jerusalem crowd by addressing them “in the Hebrew tongue” (Acts 21:40; 22:2), to Jesus himself calling out to Paul, on the Damascus road, “in the Hebrew tongue” (Acts 26:14)”. Brenton Minge The NIV version of Acts 26:14 translates, quite misleadingly: “We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads’.” What is the justification for this, when the Greek text has clearly, in the Hebrew language (τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ)? I, heavily dependent upon the fine research of Brenton Minge, wrote about this controversy in my article: Jesus was a Hebrew, not Aramaïc, speaker (2) Jesus was a Hebrew, not Aramaïc, speaker | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Here is a part of what I wrote there: Jesus Spoke Hebrew, written by Brenton Minge, is a most important book for, as its sub-title reads: Busting the “Aramaic” Myth. I give here only the beginning of it, but recommend that one reads the entire book itself: JESUS SPOKE HEBREW The powerful Mel Gibson movie, The Passion of the Christ, has once again raised the question of what language Jesus actually spoke. Some say it doesn’t matter, and in one sense they are right. Jesus is still the Saviour of the world, who walked on water, raised the dead, and made atonement for our sins by his blood, whether he spoke Hebrew or Hindustani. Yet in another sense it DOES matter. If your natural language is, say, English, and I go about claiming it to be Dutch, I am clearly misrepresenting you. While there is nothing whatever wrong with Dutch, it is a simple matter of fidelity to the record, and of doing justice to the person. By the same token, if Jesus’ “mother-tongue” was Hebrew, then it is as much a misrepresentation to claim he spoke Aramaic – as is all but universally held – as to say Churchill spoke in Spanish, or Tolstoy wrote in Norwegian. But there is another issue at stake. Aramaic is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament. Yet on numerous occasions it speaks of the “Hebrew” language in first century Judaea – from the title over Jesus’ cross “in Hebrew” (John 19:20), to descriptions of places like Gabbatha and Golgotha “in the Hebrew tongue” (John 5:2; 19:13, 17; Rev. 9:11; 16:16), to Paul gaining the silence of the Jerusalem crowd by addressing them “in the Hebrew tongue” (Acts 21:40; 22:2), to Jesus himself calling out to Paul, on the Damascus road, “in the Hebrew tongue” (Acts 26:14). In each instance, the Greek text reads “Hebrew” (Hebrais, Hebraios or Hebraikos), the natural translation followed by nearly all the English versions, as also by the Latin Vulgate and the German Luther Bible. Do we have the right to insert “Aramaic” for this plain reading – particularly when the Jewish people of the period, as we shall see, were so insistent on distinguishing them? The evidence is compelling that we do not, and that the New Testament expression, “in the Hebrew language”, ought to be taken as read. …. Regarding Paul’s encounter with Ananias, see my articles: Luke may be Paul’s healer, Ananias of Damascus. Part Two: St. Luke kept returning to Damascus incident (2) Luke may be Paul's healer, Ananias of Damascus. Part Two: St. Luke kept returning to Damascus incident | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Luke may be Paul’s healer, Ananias of Damascus. Part Three: Benedictus "… redacted in a Semitic language" (2) Luke may be Paul's healer, Ananias of Damascus. Part Three: Benedictus "… redacted in a Semitic language" | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Nero’s missing architecture

by Damien F. Mackey “Early in his reign, [Nero] began building a gymnasium and a bath-house, which was used to stage the Neronia. Although one can find reconstructions, these are highly speculative and there is nothing left”. Some great names in history, belonging to rulers considered to have been significant builders, appear to be lacking crucial evidence for their building works. This phenomenon I usually explain by a need for one or more alter egos, as I did in the case of pharaoh Psibkhenno (Psusennes), when I wrote: But Psibkhenno needs an alter ego, because much of his building work is thought no longer to exist. This is typical of the Twenty-First Dynasty, which is quite archaeologically deficient, as argued above. N. Grimal has written, re “The historical interpretation of Tanis”, for instance (p. 317): “Nothing remains of the actual buildings of Psusennes I …”. And again (p. 315): “At Tanis, Psusennes I built a new enclosure around the temple dedicated to the triad of Amun, Mut and Khonsu. If the few traces of reuse of earlier monuments are to be believed, he made many other contributions to the temple, but because of the current conditions of the site little is known concerning this work”. …. Far more surprising is the much more modern case of: Henry VIII’s palaces missing (3) Henry VIII's palaces missing | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Another surprise: Nero’s buildings are missing. Taken from (emphasis added): https://ancientromanhistory31-14.com/nero/the-politics-of-culture/architecture/ ROMAN HISTORY 31 BC – AD 117 ROMAN IMPERIAL HISTORY TEACHING RESOURCE …. HOME » NERO » THE POLITICS OF CULTURE » ARCHITECTURE Architecture Nero appears to have been a grandiose builder, though few of the buildings he constructed survive. Early in his reign, he began building a gymnasium and a bath-house, which was used to stage the Neronia. Although one can find reconstructions, these are highly speculative and there is nothing left. There is even disagreement as to whether [the] baths and gymnasium formed a single complex or were separate buildings, partly because the limited sources are unclear. Nevertheless, a gymnasium was a Hellenistic ideal imported from the East and there is an association of gymnasia and bath houses. The building was in itself innovative, but not wildly so. Agrippa built the Laconicum Gymnasium in 25 BC, which seems to have associated a large public bath house with a gymnasium. The building was adorned with Greek statuary and may have been built as a public amenity to echo the grand private villas of the rich and powerful. It is possible to understand Nero’s building both as … a civic improvement echoing the work of Augustus and Agrippa and as making available the benefits of Greek culture to the wider Roman public. More obviously regal was … his building of the Domus Transitoria. This building is also lost, destroyed in the great fire of Rome and buried under the Domus Aurea. It appears to have been a major construction designed to encompass some of the grand gardens in Rome (horti maecenatis) into the imperial palace. The topography of the region is extremely complex, partly because of the repeated building over of the area in this period. Augustus, Tiberius, and Gaius had all built palatial structures or extended existing buildings. …. In 64, a fire swept through much of Rome. Only four of the fourteen districts survived more or less intact, while seven were badly damaged and three destroyed. Nero had been away from the city when the fire broke out, and returned when it threatened his palace. He was not able to save the palace. It was at this point that he was moved to sing of the calamities that befell cities (Tacitus, Annales 15.38-39). After five days, the flames were put out by creating a large fire break. Almost immediately, a further fire broke out, and it is this second fire for which Nero was blamed. In part, it was because it was associated with the estate of Tigellinus, the praetorian prefect. In response to the fire, Nero spent money housing the displaced and rebuilding the city. There were people who might benefit from a conflagration. Property would be left unguarded. There were opportunities for the organised to loot. Chaos allowed mischief (Dio, 62 16-17). But Rome was a city built chaotically, using a mix of materials, especially wood in upper stories. It was and is a hot city and without pressurised water or anything like a fire-brigade, it was a fire risk. There had been major fires: this was just one of the biggest. Nero made the most of this opportunity. Rubble was cleared and used to fill the marshes at Ostia. The city was replanned with wider streets. Building regulations imposed an upper height limit on tenements. Wooden beams were restricted and each building was required to have its own wall to create the smallest of firebreaks. Water supplies were better regulated so that each district would have a substantial supply. Much of the vast sums required appear to have come from the emperor, though he may have required aristocratic contributions (Suetonius, Nero 16.1; Tacitus, Annales 15. 40–43). The fire gave Nero room for the most extravagant of buildings, the Domus Aurea, the Golden House of Nero …The site was rapidly remodeeled after AD 69 and formed the basis of buildings of Vespasian and Trajan. The remains are fragmentary and subject to on-going archaeological investigation and restoration. This was a huge construction that bridged the Palatine and Esquiline Hills. The vestibule was of sufficient size to accommodate a 120-foot-high statue of Nero. The palace was fronted by a triple colonnade stretching for a mile. Extensive gardens were attached to the house, including vineyards, woods and pastures, all stocked with appropriate animals and, around a pool, there were models of buildings. There were rooms of immense luxury: a dining room with an ivory ceiling, another that revolved somehow. His baths were filled with sea water and sulphur water. It was a dominating monument of conspicuous luxury. The building monumentalised Nero’s domination of the city of Rome. Here was a representation of the world within a city, all overseen by the towering presence of Nero (Suetonius, Nero 31; Tacitus, Annales 15. 42). Nero’s house was a public expression of his power, a palace of unbelievable opulence that marked imperial civilization. The palace was later dismantled: its meanings too tyrannical for imperial Rome. The massive statue of the emperor which gave the name to the Colosseum was reworked into a statue of Sol. The Colosseum itself, built under Vespasian, became the grand democratic location of games and public celebrations, turning the palatial into the public, turning away from the ideologies of Neronian Rome. But the Flavian remaking of the area draws attention to the ideologies embedded within the architecture. We may dismiss the palace is grandiosity and luxury, symbolic of how out of touch Nero was with the mood and needs of his people, but that is to put the story before the evidence: we supposedly know Nero was out of touch and so we see his buildings as reflecting his moral failings. But what if turn the question round? A great palace was not a private house. A gymnasium was a public amenity not just a gesture of cultural allegiance to the Greek world. Is it possible that Nero’s ideological construction of Rome’s greatness needed the great palaces and Greek-style buildings? Augustus is praised for his extensive monumental building programme. Why is Nero critiqued? [End of quote]

Let us not over multiply the Herods and Agrippas

Part One: The many parts of Augustus and Herod by Damien F. Mackey King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, of the Seleucid and Infancy era, is the same as the emperor Augustus. He is also the emperor Hadrian, again ruling during a Jewish revolt. His signet, second man, is Philip (and the combination Herod Philip is attested), and is Marcus Agrippa, and is Herodes “Atticus” (surname of the wife of Marcus Agrippa). King Herod ‘the Great’ Starting with King Herod traditionally known as ‘the Great’, the infanticide monster of Matthew 2:16-18, he - and the whole Nativity/Infancy era - needs to be re-set in a revised Seleucid period, when King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ was persecuting the Yahwistic (and Maccabean) Jews. That this was the era to which King Herod rightly belonged is apparent from the following statement by Ray Vander Laan, about King Herod seeking to Hellenise his subjects: ““Herod brought the "games" into the Jewish culture as part of his attempt to Hellenize his kingdom”. I commented on this most extraordinary situation in my article: Herod and Games at Caesarea - Agrippa and Games at Caesarea (4) Herod and Games at Caesarea - Agrippa and Games at Caesarea | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Doesn’t this statement read a little bit strangely, to say the least? King Herod ‘the Great’, supposedly a half-Idumean and (perhaps) half-Jew, a presumed client of Imperial Rome, introducing into Jewish culture a pagan Hellenistic phenomenon in order to make Greek (“to hellenize”) a Jewish kingdom subject to the Romans. …. With the Matthew 2 and Luke 2 narratives now re-set to the Maccabean era, and with: Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus (5) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then the emperor Augustus must be newly identified with Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’. Rome is never actually mentioned in the Lucan narrative: Rome surprisingly minimal in [the] Bible (2) Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Philip, second to King Antiochus, whom the latter appoints to rule over Jerusalem, must then be King Herod himself: Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man https://www.academia.edu/113954468/Herod_the_emperors_signet_right_hand_man This is where we need to start connecting up names. A Herod Philip, thought to have been the son of ‘the Great’, will later rule over Iturea and Trachonitis (Luke 3:1). But I have also included an Agrippa connection in the above article, by identifying King Herod (= the “Philip” serving King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’) with the favourite, and second, of the emperor Augustus, Marcus Agrippa. Another famous Herod (Herodes), “Atticus”, will serve the emperor Hadrian in Judah. “Atticus” just happens to be a name of the wife of Marcus Agrippa, and Hadrian – who, in Jewish legend can sometimes substitute for Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ – has been called “a mirror-image” of the same Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, and he is, too: [Hadrian] a reincarnation of Augustus (5) Hadrian a reincarnation of Augustus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu So, we just keeping going around in ever-decreasing circles. Let us pause here to take a much-needed breath and to recapitulate. King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, of the Seleucid and Infancy era, is the same as the emperor Augustus. He is also the emperor Hadrian, again ruling during a Jewish revolt. His signet, second man, is Philip (and the combination Herod Philip is attested), and is Marcus Agrippa, and is Herodes “Atticus” (surname of the wife of Marcus Agrippa). Further, compare the face of Marcus Agrippa with that of Herod Agrippa: Oh, but, so far I have not included this Herod Agrippa in the mix. But I shall need to. In my article on the Games in Caesarea, above, I had hinted that King Herod and Agrippa so-called I were one and the same king, celebrating a Games for the emperor in Caesarea. Also in that article there was found an uncanny connection between Herod and Marcus Agrippa: Apropos of this connection, Herod as Marcus Agrippa, there is an intriguing article by Robert L. Hohlfelder, “Beyond Coincidence? Marcus Agrippa and King Herod's Harbor” (JNES, 59(4), 2000): The Roman harbour at Caesarea “commissioned by Herod the Great in 22 BCE and sponsored by Augustus' military commander Marcus Agrippa …”. Now I am presuming that Agrippa I and II must also have been one and the same, particularly given that II had the other name of - wait for it - Marcus Julius Agrippa. And, so, the merry-go-round continues. I think that the Herod and (Marcus) Agrippa combination pertains just to King Herod. Then there is one “King Herod” in Acts 12, generally thought to have been Herod Agrippa I, but never actually called Agrippa. (See Part Two) Then there is one “King Agrippa” in Acts 25-26, generally thought to have been Herod Agrippa II, but never actually called Herod. (See Part Three) Part Two: Herod Antipas, the king who would be a god With Agrippa I and II taken out of a late context, and connected with Herod ‘the Great’ (Part One), then the “King Herod” of Acts 12 can only be (so I think) Herod Antipas, also known as “Herod the Tetrarch” (cf. Matthew 14:1). The Great Persecutor He was the confused king who gave permission for the beheading of John the Baptist. By so doing, Herod Antipas was symbolically (though unwittingly) removing the head of the Old Testament, and thereby enabling for the manifestation of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Herod, whom Jesus had earlier called ‘that fox’ (some insist, ‘vixen’) (Luke 13:32), and who had warned his disciples to ‘Beware of … the leaven of Herod’ (Mark 8:15), would, with his soldiers, mock the captive Jesus (Luke 23:11). Not much later, after the martyrdom of Stephen, he had the Apostle James beheaded. Acts 12:1-2: “It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword”. Uncannily like Henry VIII, Herod Antipas first beheaded a John (Fisher) and then, afterwards, a ‘James the Greater’ (Thomas More). Am I missing something? Henry VIII certainly is: Henry VIII’s palaces missing (3) Henry VIII's palaces missing | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Goaded on by a rising popularity, Herod Antipas then had the Apostle Peter arrested (Acts 12:3-11): When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread. After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover. So Peter was kept in prison, but the church was earnestly praying to God for him. The night before Herod was to bring him to trial, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries stood guard at the entrance. Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. ‘Quick, get up!’ he said, and the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. Then the angel said to him, ‘Put on your clothes and sandals’. And Peter did so. ‘Wrap your cloak around you and follow me’, the angel told him. Peter followed him out of the prison, but he had no idea that what the angel was doing was really happening; he thought he was seeing a vision. They passed the first and second guards and came to the iron gate leading to the city. It opened for them by itself, and they went through it. When they had walked the length of one street, suddenly the angel left him. Then Peter came to himself and said, ‘Now I know without a doubt that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from Herod’s clutches and from everything the Jewish people were hoping would happen’. It does not pay for kings to aspire to divinity and to persecute the children of God. Judith (the prophetess Huldah) told of what the fate of such would be (Judith 16:17): ‘Woe to the nations that rise up against my people! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment; he will send fire and worms into their flesh; they shall weep in pain forever’. ‘The Lord Almighty … will send fire and worms into their flesh …’. This is what happened to King Antiochus known as ‘Epiphanes’, or ‘God Manifest’. Though some preferred for him the epithet, ‘Epimenes’, ‘The Madman’. We read the account of the terrible death of The Madman in e.g. 2 Maccabees 9:4-12: Overcome with anger, he planned to make the Jews suffer for the injury done by those who had put him to flight. Therefore he ordered his charioteer to drive without stopping until he finished the journey. Yet the condemnation of Heaven rode with him, because he said in his arrogance, ‘I will make Jerusalem the common graveyard of Jews as soon as I arrive there’. So the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him down with an incurable and invisible blow; for scarcely had he uttered those words when he was seized with excruciating pains in his bowels and sharp internal torment, a fit punishment for him who had tortured the bowels of others with many barbarous torments. Far from giving up his insolence, he was all the more filled with arrogance. Breathing fire in his rage against the Jews, he gave orders to drive even faster. As a result he hurtled from the speeding chariot, and every part of his body was racked by the violent fall. Thus he who previously, in his superhuman presumption, thought he could command the waves of the sea, and imagined he could weigh the mountaintops in his scales, was now thrown to the ground and had to be carried on a litter, clearly manifesting to all the power of God. The body of this impious man swarmed with worms, and while he was still alive in hideous torments, his flesh rotted off, so that the entire army was sickened by the stench of his corruption. Shortly before, he had thought that he could reach the stars of heaven, and now, no one could endure to transport the man because of this intolerable stench. At last, broken in spirit, he began to give up his excessive arrogance, and to gain some understanding, under the scourge of God, for he was racked with pain unceasingly. When he could no longer bear his own stench, he said, ‘It is right to be subject to God, and not to think one’s mortal self equal to God’. And Todd Bolen (July 2010) tells of the extraordinary death of King Herod, whom he identifies (wrongly, I believe) as Herod Agrippa I: https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/opeds/agrippa357926 The death of Herod Agrippa I is one of the few events that is reported by both the book of Acts and Josephus. Bible readers recall that Agrippa was struck down by an angel of the Lord while delivering a public address in Caesarea (Acts 12:19-23). The account is brief, but the immediate cause of his illness is clearly given in the text: the crowd hailed Herod as a god and the king passively accepted their praise. Despite the miraculous elements, most scholars believe that the account in Acts is generally accurate because of a parallel record in Josephus (Ant. 19.8.2 §§343-50). Most scholars believe that the two reports had independent sources, and though they agree in several respects, Josephus’s longer account contains more details, including the incident’s occasion, location, and aftermath. …. Acts records that Herod gave the address in Caesarea, and Josephus places it in the theater of Caesarea. Acts does not say anything about the time of day, but Josephus writes that it occurred early in the morning. Acts connects the episode with the resolution of a quarrel with the people of Tyre and Sidon, but says of the public address itself only that it occurred “on the appointed day.” Josephus relates that Agrippa appeared to the crowd on the second day of a festival intended to honor Caesar. Both sources speak of Herod’s clothing, but whereas Acts says simply that he was “wearing his royal robes,” Josephus describes the garments as made “wholly of silver” and when “illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays . . . was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him.” Josephus indicates that the crowd hailed Agrippa as a god because of his radiant clothing, but Luke’s brief account may imply that they did so in response to the sound of Agrippa’s voice. Both agree that Agrippa accepted the crowd’s enthusiastic praise and consequently died shortly thereafter. Excavations at Caesarea are helpful in reconstructing this event. It is likely that as successor to most of the vast holdings of his grandfather King Herod, Agrippa I took up residence in the promontory palace on the south side of the city. …. About a decade later, Agrippa’s successor, the Roman governor Felix, occupied the same palace (Acts 24:35). Presumably, then, on the morning in which he was struck down, Agrippa left this palace and proceeded to his appointed place in order to address the crowd. According to Josephus, Agrippa came to the theater (θέατρον) where he so inspired the gathered populace that he was hailed as a god. On this basis, tourists today usually visit the Herodian theater and envision the event occurring in this semi-circular entertainment venue. I believe, however, that Josephus’s designation of the location was inaccurate. Analysis of his account indicates that the amphitheater, rather than the theater, was the setting for Herod’s public address. …. The first clue that Josephus gives is the time of day. He says that it occurred at “the beginning of the day” (ἀρχομένης ἡμέρας). Dressed in a garment made “wholly of silver,” Agrippa dazzled the crowd when his robes were “illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it.” The theater, however, faces west. If the king was positioned on the stage, the sun would not have reached over the multi-storied seating area before mid-morning. And if he was speaking from the seating area, the sun would not have reflected off his clothes until even later. The amphitheater, by contrast, is wide, and the twelve rows of seating would not have blocked the sun. Agrippa could have been addressing the crowd from the western side of the amphitheater where the sun would be able to reflect off his clothes early in the morning. The second indication that Agrippa was struck down in the amphitheater is the occasion of his death. Acts says only that it occurred “on the appointed day” (τακτῇ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ), but Josephus describes the event occurring on the second day of a festival in honor of Caesar in which a great multitude was assembled. …. These games included combats and horse races (Josephus, Ant. 16.5.1 §§136-141), and were conducted in the amphitheater, not in the theater which was designed for dramatic performances. The emperor’s birthday was also celebrated with sports, and thus a setting in the amphitheater is most likely for this event as well.’ A third piece of supporting evidence can be adduced from Josephus’s report of an encounter between Pilate and a large crowd about a decade earlier (War 2.9.3 §§172). When the Roman governor sent standards with Caesar’s image into Jerusalem, a large delegation traveled to Caesarea to entreat Pilate to remove these offensive placards. Josephus writes that “on the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal [βήμα] in the great stadium [μεγάλῳ σταδίῳ].” …. The word for stadium more naturally refers to the amphitheater, particularly with the modifier “great.” …. It is reasonable that the bema was located in the same place in Agrippa’s day, and that he addressed the crowd from the customary place. Finally, it should be noted that Josephus’s use of terms designating buildings of entertainment is known to be imprecise. In Jerusalem he states at one point that Herod built a theater and an amphitheater (Ant. 15.8.1 §268), and elsewhere he mentions a hippodrome (War 2.3.1 §44; Ant 17.10.2§255). None of these buildings have been located in Jerusalem today, and most scholars conclude that only one, or at most two, existed, and that Josephus referred to a single building by multiple terms. The model at the Israel Museum (formerly located at the Holyland Hotel), for instance, reconstructs only a theater and a hippodrome in the city. …. In other words, if Josephus could refer to an amphitheater as a hippodrome in Jerusalem, he certainly could have identified an amphitheater as a theater in Caesarea. He appears to have made precisely this mistake in describing sporting events and horse races as occurring in the theater of Jerusalem (Ant. 15.8.1-4 §§269-85). …. The lines of evidence thus converge to locate the amphitheater of Caesarea as the place where Agrippa addressed the people and contracted his fatal illness. It was here that the Roman governor’s bema was located, and it was here where the crowds gathered to hear Agrippa’s address in advance of the day’s games. Unlike the theater, the design of the amphitheater best suits illumination of Agrippa’s garments by the rays of the early morning sun. One other aspect is elucidated by an understanding of the event’s location. Immediately adjacent to the northern end of the amphitheater was the imperial temple, the center of worship of the emperor and the goddess Roma. …. The crowds that hailed Agrippa that day were very familiar with the practice of honoring the emperor as a god. Only a few years earlier, Agrippa’s close friend, Emperor Caligula, demanded that he be revered as a god. One way that Caligula signaled his desire for worship was by the clothing he wore, oftentimes dressing himself in the attire of one of the deities. …. Unfortunately for Agrippa, the God of Israel was less willing to overlook such blasphemy in a king with Jewish heritage ruling in the Promised Land. The king who called himself “the great” recognized that his punishment was just—the intense pain apparently brought moral clarity—for he declared with irony that “I, who was called immortal by you, am now under sentence of death” (Josephus, Ant. 19.8.2 §347). …. [End of quotes] ‘The Lord Almighty … will send fire and worms into their flesh …’. One wonders what sort of death greeted King Herod ‘the Great’’, who, if he was Philip as I am saying, was even “more barbarous” - according to 2 Maccabees - than his master, ‘Epiphanes’ (5:22): “In Jerusalem there was Philip of the Phrygians, who had a manner more barbarous than that of the man who appointed him”. Part Three: King Agrippa, Queen Bernice, and Paul This King Agrippa, who is later than the two Herods, was apparently a far more benign character than they, with a good understanding of Judaïsm. We read in Acts 25-26 of his arrival, with his Queen, during the trial of Paul in Caesarea: Acts 25:13-27: Festus Consults King Agrippa A few days later King Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to pay their respects to Festus. Since they were spending many days there, Festus discussed Paul’s case with the king. He said: ‘There is a man here whom Felix left as a prisoner. When I went to Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews brought charges against him and asked that he be condemned. ‘I told them that it is not the Roman custom to hand over anyone before they have faced their accusers and have had an opportunity to defend themselves against the charges. When they came here with me, I did not delay the case, but convened the court the next day and ordered the man to be brought in. When his accusers got up to speak, they did not charge him with any of the crimes I had expected. Instead, they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive. I was at a loss how to investigate such matters; so I asked if he would be willing to go to Jerusalem and stand trial there on these charges. But when Paul made his appeal to be held over for the Emperor’s decision, I ordered him held until I could send him to Caesar’. Then Agrippa said to Festus, ‘I would like to hear this man myself’. He replied, ‘Tomorrow you will hear him’. Paul Before Agrippa Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” The next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp and entered the audience room with the high-ranking military officers and the prominent men of the city. At the command of Festus, Paul was brought in. Festus said: ‘King Agrippa, and all who are present with us, you see this man! The whole Jewish community has petitioned me about him in Jerusalem and here in Caesarea, shouting that he ought not to live any longer. I found he had done nothing deserving of death, but because he made his appeal to the Emperor I decided to send him to Rome. But I have nothing definite to write to His Majesty about him. Therefore I have brought him before all of you, and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that as a result of this investigation I may have something to write. For I think it is unreasonable to send a prisoner on to Rome without specifying the charges against him’. Acts 26:1-32: Then Agrippa said to Paul, ‘You have permission to speak for yourself’. So Paul motioned with his hand and began his defense: ‘King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate to stand before you today as I make my defense against all the accusations of the Jews, and especially so because you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies. Therefore, I beg you to listen to me patiently. The Jewish people all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that I conformed to the strictest sect of our religion, living as a Pharisee. And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our ancestors that I am on trial today. This is the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to see fulfilled as they earnestly serve God day and night. King Agrippa, it is because of this hope that these Jews are accusing me. Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead? I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the Lord’s people in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. I was so obsessed with persecuting them that I even hunted them down in foreign cities. On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Hebrew, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ ‘Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’’ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ ‘So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds. That is why some Jews seized me in the Temple courts and tried to kill me. But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles’. At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. ‘You are out of your mind, Paul!’ he shouted. ‘Your great learning is driving you insane’. ‘I am not insane, most excellent Festus’, Paul replied. ‘What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do’. Then Agrippa said to Paul, ‘Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?’ Paul replied, ‘Short time or long—I pray to God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains’. The king rose, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them. After they left the room, they began saying to one another, ‘This man is not doing anything that deserves death or imprisonment’. Agrippa said to Festus, ‘This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar’. This King Agrippa is nowhere, as already stated, called Herod.

Herod and Games at Caesarea - Agrippa and Games at Caesarea

by Damien F. Mackey “Herod brought the "games" into the Jewish culture as part of his attempt to Hellenize his kingdom”. Ray Vander Laan Doesn’t this statement read a little bit strangely, to say the least? King Herod ‘the Great’, supposedly a half-Idumean and (perhaps) half-Jew, a presumed client of Imperial Rome, introducing into Jewish culture a pagan Hellenistic phenomenon in order to make Greek (“to hellenize”) a Jewish kingdom subject to the Romans. According to Ray Vander Laan: https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/herods-arena The remains of a great arena (or hippodrome-meaning "horse track") are emerging from the sand dunes of the Mediterranean shore. The stone seats show the beginning of the curve of the southern end of the stadium. The Mediterranean Sea has eaten away the other side of the arena. In several places, walls were built by later civilizations who no longer used the arena. Since no results have as yet been published of these excavations, it is not clear who built this arena. Herod built a stadium in Caesarea, but it may not have been this one. The magnitude and style of this arena, however, do reflect those he constructed at places like Jericho and Jerusalem. Herod brought the "games" into the Jewish culture as part of his attempt to Hellenize his kingdom. The events included Olympic contests of running, wrestling, and throwing the javelin. Chariot races were quite popular, as were gladiatorial contests involving men and animals. The games were often dedicated to pagan gods. The religious Jewish community found these arenas and their contests at odds with their belief in God, but the arenas were present in most large, Hellenistic cities. They certainly had an influence on the local population, religious or not. Paul's use of athletic imagery (1 Cor. 9:24-27; 1 Tim. 4:7) indicates his ability to communicate in the language and pictures that were familiar to his audience. As in our society, it would have been difficult to participate in activities like the games without accepting the pagan cultural values they encouraged. …. [End of quote] But isn’t this exactly what the Seleucid king, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, and his cronies, had done, “… brought the "games" into the Jewish culture as part of his attempt to Hellenize his kingdom”. Or, more accurately, they had pressurised - and later forced - the Jews to conform to Greek practices (I Maccabees 1:14-15): “So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem according to the customs of the nations, and made foreskins for themselves, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the nations and sold themselves to do evil”. So, doesn’t this bear out my radical view that King Herod ruled as King Antiochus’ right-hand man, Philip - Antiochus then being the same as the emperor Augustus, whilst Herod was the emperor Augustus’ virtual second self, Marcus Agrippa: Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man https://www.academia.edu/113954468/Herod_the_emperors_signet_right_hand_man and with: Rome surprisingly minimal in [the] Bible (2) Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Apropos of this connection, Herod as Marcus Agrippa, there is an intriguing article by Robert L. Hohlfelder, “Beyond Coincidence? Marcus Agrippa and King Herod's Harbor” (JNES, 59(4), 2000): The Roman harbour at Caesarea “commissioned by Herod the Great in 22 BCE and sponsored by Augustus' military commander Marcus Agrippa …”. According to Todd Bolen (July 2010), Herod’s Games at Caesarea, in honour of Augustus, occurred about half a century before Agrippa’s games at Caesarea, in honour of Claudius: https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/opeds/agrippa357926 Scholars identify this festival with either the quinquennial celebration of the city’s founding, on March 5, AD 44, or a celebration of Emperor Claudius’s birthday on August 1 of that same year. The former was originally organized by King Herod in 12 BC. …. It was styled after the Olympic Games, but called “Caesar’s Games” (Josephus, War 1.21.8 §415). Do we need not only to re-write the life and career of King Herod, in his partnership with the emperor, as I have already begun to do, but, as well, to consider that Herod, as Marcus Agrippa, was the same person as Herod Agrippa, also involved with Games at Caesarea? This composite Herod cannot, however, be the same person as the would-be divinised and later “Herod” of Acts 12:19-23, who, note, is never therein referred to as “Agrippa”.