Roman Imperial Cult in the Galilee

Structures, Functions, and Dynamics

Monika Bernett

Modern scholarship has never ignored the fact that the imperial cult existed in
Roman and Herodian Palestine. Ancient authors, above all Josephus, record to
a certain extent the different forms of the veneration of the imperial house in
Judea and the Herodian principalities respectively. Archaeology, epigraphy, and
numismatics have added more information. It is astonishing, however, that the
imperial cult in Roman and Herodian Judea-Palestine has never been seen by
modern scholarship as a topic of historical analysis in its own right. There is no
monograph on the subject and – as far as I know – only one German article by
Regina Trummer published in 1983.1
As part of historical or archaeological studies on Herodian and Roman Judea,
the imperial cult is of course mentioned and to a certain extent discussed, but
this always happens under certain methodological limits set by an alien research
agenda not centered on the imperial cult. The imperial cult thus appears as a
necessary narrative element in, for example, a biography on Herod or a history
of Roman Judea, but it is not addressed as a topic or problem of its own.
What might be the reasons for this lack of interest? It appears that two
simplistic approaches contribute to this lack of research, one concerning the
imperial cult in general, the other concerning the relationship between Jews and
the imperial cult.

1. Structure and Impact of the Imperial Cult since Augustus

Traditionally, one of the main questions concerning the imperial cult has been
(and still, to a lesser extent, is): Was it a true religion – or was it pure and super-
¿FLDOK\SRFULV\IXQFWLRQLQJDVDQH[SUHVVLRQRISROLWLFDOOR\DOLW\"'LGSHRSOH
really believe that the Roman emperor and imperial family members were gods
DQGJRGGHVVHV"'LGSHRSOHEULQJVDFUL¿FHVWRWKHPSUD\WRWKHPEXLOGWHPSOHV
donate altars and statues for them, etc., as truely recognized divine powers?

1
“Josephus Flavius und der Kaiserkult im Heiligen Land,” in 0HTRU+D\\LP (ed. Irmtraut
Seybold; Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1983), 387–408.
338 0RQLND%HUQHWW

Since the imperial cult is mostly seen not as proper religion, modern research
tends to ask what the actions in the imperial cult were used for, especially in
WKH¿HOGRISROLWLFDOSRZHU2 But the imperial cult was a religious and a political
phenomenon, and the aspects are so interwoven that they can hardly be separated
IURPHDFKRWKHU7KHUHLVQR³PHUH´SROLWLFDODFWLQJLQWKH¿HOGRIWKHLPSHULDO
cult. Acting in the imperial cult was almost always public and it affected all areas
of public life and space. Simon R. Price has demonstrated this in his landmark
study of the imperial cult in Asia Minor: “Using their traditional symbolic sys-
tem they [i. e. the Greeks] represented the emperor to themselves in the familiar
terms of divine power. The imperial cult, like the cult of the traditional gods,
created a relationship of power between subject and ruler. It also enhanced the
dominance of local elites over the populace, of cities over other cities, and of
Greeks over indigenous cultures. That is, the cult was a major part of the web of
power that formed the fabric of society.”3 One should therefore cease marginal-
izing the relevance of the imperial cult for aspects of civic life. No cult affected
civic life in cities and provinces of the Empire more than the imperial cult. In
no public arena were relations of power more clearly visualized and symbolized
than in the imperial cult.

2
See e. g. Duncan Fishwick, “The Development of Provincial Ruler Worship in the Western
Roman Empire,” $15: 16,2 (1978), 1201–1253: “Emperor worship must be considered not
really worship at all but homage (…) a purely mechanical exercise” (1252–3). Fritz Graf,
“Kaiserkult,” DNP 6 (1999): “wie dieser [i. e. the Hellenistic ruler cult] ist der Kaiserkult, von
GHQ6WlGWHQKHUJHVHKHQ$XVGUXFNSROLWLVFKHU%LQGXQJHQXQGSROLWLVFKHU6HOEVWGH¿QLWLRQYRP
Herrscher aus betrachtet ein Mittel zur symbolischen Herrschaftssicherung” (143). Against this
perspective (and in favor of the imperial cult as a religious phenomenon as well) argue HJ
Antonie Wlosok, “Einleitung,” in 'HUU|PLVFKH.DLVHUNXOW(ed. Antonie Wlosok; Wege der For-
schung 372; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978), 1, 20, 34–35; Simon R. F.
Price, 5LWXDOVDQG3RZHU7KH5RPDQ,PSHULDO&XOWLQ$VLD0LQRU (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1984), 15–6; Géza Alföldy, “Subject and Ruler, Subjects and Methods: An
Attempt at a Conclusion,” in 6XEMHFWDQG5XOHU7KH&XOWRIWKH5XOLQJ3RZHULQ&ODVVLFDO
$QWLTXLW\(ed. Alastair Small; JRASup 17; Ann Arbor: JRA, 1996), 254–5; Manfred Clauss,
“Deus praesens. Der römische Kaiser als Gott,” .OLR 78 (1996): 400–3; Hans-Josef Klauck,
'LH UHOLJL|VH 8PZHOW GHV 8UFKULVWHQWXPV vol. 2: +HUUVFKHU XQG .DLVHUNXOW 3KLORVRSKLH
Gnosis (KST 9,2; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1996), 71–3; Jörg Rüpke, “Römische Religion
und ‘Reichsreligion’: Begriffsgeschichtliche und methodische Bemerkungen,” in 5|PLVFKH
5HLFKVUHOLJLRQ XQG 3URYLQ]LDOUHOLJLRQ (ed. Hubert Cancik and Jörg Rüpke; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1997), 12–3; Manfred Clauss, .DLVHUXQG*RWW+HUUVFKHUNXOWLPU|PLVFKHQ5HLFK
(repr. München und Leipzig: K. Saur, 2001; 1st. ed. Stuttgart und Leipzig: Teubner, 1999),
17–38; Steven J. Friesen, ,PSHULDO&XOWVDQGWKH$SRFDO\SVHRI-RKQ5HDGLQJ5HYHODWLRQLQ
WKH5XLQV (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 25–131. Compare Frank W. Walbank,
“Könige als Götter. Überlegungen zum Herrscherkult von Alexander bis Augustus,” &KLURQ17
(1987): 377–9, 381–2.
3
Price, 5LWXDOV, 248. Compare idem, “Gods and the Emperors: the Greek Language of the
Imperial Cult,” JHS 104 (1984): 79–95.
 5RPDQ,PSHULDO&XOWLQWKH*DOLOHH 339

This should be valid also for Judea, after Herod encouraged the imperial
cult with the refounding of the inland city of Sebaste in 27 b.c.e.4 Some years
later, Herod added a second monumental imperial WHPHQRV in the coastal city of
Caesarea Maritima (formerly Strato’s Tower), placed high above the impressive
new harbor (named Sebastos) and connected with quinquennial imperial games,
PRVWSUREDEO\KHOGIRUWKH¿UVWWLPHEHWZHHQDQGb.c.e.5 Herod founded
a third temple in 20 b.c.e. in the north of his realm, at the sources of the Jordan
river, close to the old natural sanctuary of Pan (the Paneion).6 Consequently the

4 On the foundation of Sebaste: Josephus, J. W. 1.403; Ant. 15.292–8. On excavations of

the Temple of Augustus on the acropolis: George A. Reisner, Clerence S. Fisher, and David
G. Lyon, +DUYDUG([FDYDWLRQVDW6DPDULD±(2 vols.; HSS 1–2; Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1924), 26–50, 170–80; John W. Crowfoot, Kathleen M. Kenyon, and Eliezer
L. Sukenik, 6DPDULD6HEDVWH5HSRUWVRIWKH:RUNRIWKH-RLQW([SHGLWLRQLQ±DQGRI
WKH%ULWLVK([SHGLWLRQLQ vol. 1: 7KH%XLOGLQJVDW6DPDULD (London: Palestine Exploration
Fund, 1942), 123–32. For archaeological evaluation (and/or interpretation) of the reports of
Reisner and Crowfoot see Ehud Netzer, “The Augusteum at Samaria-Sebaste – a New Out-
look,” (U,VU 19 (1987): 97–105; Dan Barag, “King Herod’s Royal Castle at Samaria-Sebaste,”
3(4 125 (1993): 3–18; Achim Lichtenberger, 'LH %DXSROLWLN +HURGHV GHV *UR‰HQ (ADPV
26; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999), 82–4; Sarah Japp, 'LH%DXSROLWLN+HURGHV¶GHV*UR‰HQ
'LH%HGHXWXQJGHU$UFKLWHNWXUIUGLH+HUUVFKDIWVOHJLWLPDWLRQHLQHVU|PLVFKHQ.OLHQWHON|QLJV
(IA 64; Rahden: Leidorf, 2000), 147–8; Monika Bernett, 'HU.DLVHUNXOWLQ-XGlDXQWHUGHQ
+HURGLHUQXQG5|PHUQY±Q&KU (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007).
5
On the foundation of Caesarea Maritima F 23 b.c.e.: Josephus, J. W. 1.408–15; Ant.
±)RUWKHUHFHQWH[FDYDWLRQVRIWKH7HPSOHRI5RPDDQG$XJXVWXVRQDQDUWL¿FLDOKLOO
at the harbour, see: Lisa C. Kahn, “King Herod’s Temple of Roma and Augustus at Caesarea
Maritima,” in &DHVDUHD0DULWLPD$5HWURVSHFWLYHDIWHU7ZR0LOOHQQLD (ed. Avner Raban and
Kenneth G. Holum; DMOA, 21; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 130–45; and the following two articles
in &DHVDUHD3DSHUV+HURG¶V7HPSOHWKH3URYLQFLDO*RYHUQRU¶VpraetoriumDQG*UDQDULHV
WKH/DWHU+DUERU$*ROG&RLQ+RDUGDQGRWKHU6WXGLHV (ed. Kenneth G. Holum, Avner Raban,
and Joseph Patrich; JRASup 35; Portsmouth: JRA 1999): Kenneth G. Holum, “The Temple
Platform: Progress Report on the Excavations,” 13–34, and Farland H. Stanley Jr., “The South
Flank of the Temple Platform (area Z2, 1993–95 excavations),” 35–40.
6
On the Temple of Augustus at the Paneion see Josephus, J. W. 1.404–6. Ant. 15.363–4.
,GHQWL¿FDWLRQ DQG ORFDWLRQ RI WKH WHPSOH LV VWLOO XQGHU GHEDWH &XUUUHQWO\ WKHUH DUH WKUHH
archaeologically based proposals for the location:
(1) In front of the Cave of Pan at Paneion/Caesarea Philipp: Zvi U. Ma‘oz, “Coin and Tem-
ple – the Case of Caesarea Philippi-Paneas,” INJ 13 (1994–99): 90–102; idem, “The Sanctuary
of Pan in Banias,” Qad 115 (1998): 18–25; idem, “Where Did Herod Really Build the Temple
in Honor of Augustus at Banias?,” Qad 117 (1999): 52–3; Andrea M. Berlin, “The Archaeology
of Ritual: The Sanctuary of Pan at Banias/Caesarea Philippi,” %$625 315 (1999): 31, 33–5;
idem, “Banias is Still the Best Candidate,” %$5 29:5 (2003): 22–4.
(2) West of the Cave of Pan on a terrace: Ehud Netzer, “Banias,” HA 63/64 (1977): 6; idem,
“Where Did Herod Build the Temple Dedicated to Augustus at Banias?” Qad 116 (1998):
134–35; idem, “A Third Candidate: Another Building at Banias,” %$5 29:5 (2003): 25.
(3) Omrit, a site F 2 miles southwest of Paneion/Caesarea Philippi: J. Andrew Overman,
Jack Olive, and Michael Nelson, “Discovering Herod’s Shrine to Augustus: Mystery Temple
Found at Omrit,” %$5 29:2 (2003): 40–9, 67–8; idem, “Response,” %$5 29:5 (2003): 24.
, GRXEW WKH ¿UVW DQG WKLUG RI WKHVH SRVVLELOLWLHV DQG IROORZ 1HW]HU¶V LGHQWL¿FDWLRQ IRU DU-
chaeological reasons and owing to certain features of the urban grid system of Philipp’s capital
Caesarea; see Bernett, .DLVHUNXOW.
340 0RQLND%HUQHWW

imperial cult should be considered a main public factor in civic life in Herodian-
Roman Judea-Palestine, helping to structure space, time, and the symbolic world
of the population. It should therefore receive more attention in our reconstruc-
tions of Judean and Galilean history in this period.

2. The Jews and the Imperial Cult in the Julio-Claudian Period:

Legal Exemption and a Case of Hellenization/Romanization?

There has been – and still exists – a broad consensus in research that the Jews
under Roman rule were exempted from participation in the emperor’s cult, be
it by an explicit privilege, or as an inherent part of Roman policy toward the
Jews, allowing them to practice their religion according to their SDWULRLQRPRL.7
This should have included Roman tolerance for monotheism and acceptance
of substitutional, aniconic, and non-religious forms of paying hommage to the
emperor, and to express loyality.8 According to this point of view, the imperial
cult was no problem between Jews and Rome, neither in Palestine nor elsewhere,
because Jews did not have to participate in it and therefore were not affected
by it.9
Furthermore, the imperial cult in Palestine was always discussed under the
old and still common question of “Hellenization” (or “Romanization”) in Judea.
This question has its roots in classical history as well as in New Testament
theology. It deals with a question of integration and segregation: integration of
pre-Christian history into the western, Hellenistic-Roman world, and exclusion
of the (conservative) Jews from theRLNRXPHQH. Within this frame the imperial
cult is seen as a more or less consciously used medium of Hellenization or

7
Compare now the comprehensive work of Miriam Pucci Ben Ze’ev, -HZLVK5LJKWVLQWKH
5RPDQ:RUOG7KH*UHHNDQG5RPDQ'RFXPHQWV4XRWHGE\-RVHSKXV)ODYLXV (TSAJ 74; Tü-
bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998). Pucci’s main aim is to argue against the old forgery thesis and to
prove the basic authenticity of the documents. Claude Eilers (McMaster University of Ontario,
Canada) is working on a new analysis of part of these documents. He presented a paper in a
session of the 2003 Annual Meeting of AAR and SBL at Atlanta, entitled: “Josephus’ Caesarian
Acta: History of a Dossier,” ZZZMRVHSKXV\RUNXFa/pdf/eLOHUVpdf.
8
Especially prayers for the well-being of the emperor (performed in the Jewish communi-
WLHVDOORYHUWKH5RPDQHPSLUHDQGWKHGDLO\VDFUL¿FHDWWKH7HPSOHRI-HUXVDOHPpro salute
&DHVDULV.
9
See e. g. Jean Juster, /HVMXLIVGDQVO¶HPSLUHURPDLQOHXUFRQGLWLRQMXULGLTXHpFRQRPLTXH
HW VRFLDOH vol. 1 (Paris: Geuthner 1914; repr. New York: Franklin, 1965), 339–54; Jean
Beaujeu, “Les apologètes et le culte du souverain,” in /HFXOWHGHVVRXYHUDLQVGDQVO¶HPSLUH
URPDLQ (ed. Willem den Boer; Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 19; Geneva: Fondation Hardt,
1973), 105–6; Price, 5LWXDOV, 220–1; Arnaldo Momigliano, “Some Preliminary Remarks on the
‘Religious Opposition’ to the Roman Empire,” in 2SSRVLWLRQHWUpVLVWDQFHjO¶HPSLUHG¶$XJXVWH
j7UDLDQHG.XUW$5DDÀDXEDQG$GDOEHUWR*LRYDQQLQL(QWUHWLHQVVXUO¶DQWLTXLWpFODVVLTXH
33; Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1987), 114–5; J. Rufus Fears, “Herrscherkult,” 5$& 14 (1988):
1079, 1081–2.
 5RPDQ,PSHULDO&XOWLQWKH*DOLOHH 341

Romanization. This should be the main reason – beside showing utter loyality
as a client-king – why Herod the Great would have established the imperial cult,
and why his sons, and the next two generations (Agrippa I, Agrippa II) would
have followed this tradition.10
One has to question if these presuppositions and conclusions are in this form
correct, and if perhaps more differentiated questions could help illuminate the
impact of the imperial cult on the history and culture of the Jews in Herodian
and Roman Judea.
A Jewish legal exemption from participation in the imperial cult during the 1st
c. b.c.e. and c.e. never existed. The Roman emperor, together with the senate,
answered concrete requests of cities and provinces to establish a cult for him or
for one of his family members. It was beyond Roman imperial legal thinking
to exempt a whole ethnos spread all over the empire from something that never
UHDFKHGDMXVWL¿DEOHTXDOLW\LQ5RPDQOHJLVODWLRQ1RODZUHTXLULQJYHQHUDWLRQ
of the Roman emperor in cultic forms existed, and therefore nobody could be ex-
empted from it. The Roman SDWULRLQRPRL-privileges as recorded by Josephus in
$QWLTXLWLHV 14 and 16 stem basically from the period of the late Roman republic.
They cannot include any exemption of a cult that did not exist at that time.
Therefore, the imperial cult developing under Augustus was a challenging
QHZVLWXDWLRQIRUWKH-HZV'LIIHUHQWÀH[LEOHDQGYDU\LQJDQVZHUVWRWKLVFKDO-
lenge were found in the Diaspora as well as in Herodian-Roman Judea-Palestine.
There was no standard formula for the Jews in the world of the imperial cult. A
much more important question in this respect is: How could and did Jews and
Jewish communities use the symbolic functions of the imperial cult?
The imperial cult soon developed into a huge, acknowledged symbolic com-
munication system among citizens, subjects, cities, principalities and provinces
in the Roman empire. Where was the place for Jews in this system? What did it
mean for them – individuals, groups, communities – when they participated or
refused to participate in the imperial cult?
Concerning the question of “Hellenization” and “Romanization” in Hero-
dian-Roman Judea-Palestine, the aspects of cultural dynamics and interactive
processes should be more focussed. If one comprehends, according to Jonathan
Hall, “culture” in general as a selective concept used “for the purposes of creat-
ing exclusionary distinctiveness,”11 one still can ask on the one hand, of course,

10
The connection between the Herodian promotion of imperial cult and the underlying inter-
HVWRI+HOOHQL]DWLRQDQG5RPDQL]DWLRQRI-XGHDZDV¿UVWDVVHUWHGE\:DOWHU2WWR³+HURGHV,´
PW Sup 2 (1913): 64, 104, 107, 119–28, 153–7. Research followed this concept widely, see
HJWKHLQÀXHQWLDOZRUNRI(0DU\6PDOOZRRG7KH-HZVXQGHU5RPDQ5XOH)URP3RPSH\
WR'LRFOHWLDQ (SJLA 20; Leiden: Brill, 1976; repr. 42001), 56, 78, 82, 94. One of the latest sup-
porter of this approach is Lichtenberger, %DXSROLWLN, 91, 126, 153, 182, 187–8.
11
Jonathan M. Hall, +HOOHQLFLW\%HWZHHQ(WKQLFLW\DQG&XOWXUH (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2002), 17. Compare idem, “Culture, Cultures and Acculturation,” in *ULHFKLVFKH
342 0RQLND%HUQHWW

whether processses of Hellenistic and Roman acculturation in Judea were used

for such strategic objects (with more or less success). On the other hand, how-
ever, negative side-effects and resistance (with new cultural identity formations)
have to be included in this picture. In the case of the imperial cult in Judea which
operated under the shadow of Herodian and Roman rule the question rises if its
SUHVHQFHLQÀXHQFHGDQGHYRNHGQHZVHOIGH¿QLWLRQVRI-HZLVKQHVVDQGQRQ
Jewish) otherness.

3. Presence and Political Impact of the

Imperial Cult in 1st c. c.e. Galilee

Herod did not establish a temple for Augustus in Galilee, nor did he found or
rename a city for the emperor there. Galilee was part of Herod’s territory from
the very beginning, so it probably did not need marking as an imperial gift of
Augustus after 30 b.c.e. as did Samaria (with the new city of Sebaste and its Au-
gustus temple), the coastal strip (with the new city of Caesarea and its Augustus
temple), and the Iturean land (with the Augustus temple at the Paneion).
When Antipas received Galilee and Perea in 4 b.c.e. by his father’s will,
UHFRQ¿UPHGE\$XJXVWXVKHZDVLQDIDYRUDEOHDQGDSUREOHPDWLFSRVLWLRQDWWKH
same time. Galilee and Perea were now a political unit under his rule, obtained
as a EHQH¿FLXP by the emperor’s EHQHYROHQWLD and gratitude. According to the
new communication system of the imperial cult, benevolent actions of the em-
peror were normally answered with acts in the imperial cult. Since his neighbor
and brother Philip founded very early, F2 b.c.e., his new capital in honor of
Augustus in the plain before the temple to Augustus at Paneion and named it
Caesarea, Antipas might have been under pressure to act.
Whatever the pressures he felt, Antipas refounded his capital Sepphoris as
Autokratoris.12 If it was a name designed to honor Augustus, it was a strange
choice. First, the name means in Latin LPSHUDWRULD and seems to be a weak and
old-fashioned, republican expression of Augustus’s high position as the head
RI5RPHDQGWKHHPSLUH6HFRQGWKHRI¿FLDOQDPHRIWKHFLW\UHPDLQHGPHUHO\
Sepphoris until 66 c.e. It is hard to believe that a name honoring Augustus was
dropped during the Julian-Claudian period.
It seems possible therefore that the name Autokratoris honored Gaius Caesar,
$XJXVWXV¶VJUDQGVRQ+HZDVSUHVHQWHGDV$XJXVWXV¶VVXFFHVVRURI¿FLDOO\DIWHU
5 b.c.e. In 2 b.c.e., Gaius obtained an LPSHULXPSURFRQVXODUHfor the eastern part

$UFKDLN,QWHUQH(QWZLFNOXQJHQ±([WHUQH,PSXOVH (ed. Robert Rollinger and Christoph Ulf;

Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2004), 35–50 .
12
Josephus, Ant. 18.27:
. The text follows Louis Feldman (Loeb), who ac-
cepts the conjecture from Benedictus Niese.
 5RPDQ,PSHULDO&XOWLQWKH*DOLOHH 343

of the Empire,13 and he visited Syria and Nabataea in 1 c.e., when he conducted
a successful military campaign at the VLQXV$UDELFXV.14 Within this historical
context it seems at least probable that Antipas imitated Herod, when Gaius’s
father Marcus Agrippa visited Judea, vested with an LPSHULXP PDLXV for the
East, in 15 b.c.e., and Herod founded the city Agrippias in his honor.
The untimely death of Gaius in 4 c.e. might then explain the fact that the
name Autokratoris for Sepphoris disappeared. The successor was now Tiberius,
the son of Augustus’ wife Livia. When he became the new emperor in 14 c.e.,
Antipas decided to build a new capital, named in his honor, Tiberias, at the
western shore of the Sea of Galilee.
The foundation of Tiberias, completed in 19/20 c.e., mirrored by Antipas’s
¿UVWEURQ]HFRLQDJHVHULHVLQKLV\HDU53& 115 4918–4921; see ¿J1, 53& 1
no. 4918 as largest denomination of this series16) meant a political, administra-
tive, and economic reorganization of Galilee. Antipas founded a Jewish polis
as capital of his tetrarchy, which combined elements of Hellenistic and Jewish
culture. Tiberias had a large, beautiful synagogue, serving various civic func-
tions.17 The new settlers of the city and of its huge hinterland were mainly Jew-
LVKIDUPHUVFUDIWVPHQDQG¿VKHUPHQ
The city seems to have had a Greek “mixed constitution” of monarchic, oli-
garchic, and democratic elements, the precise functioning of which is uncertain.
Below or beside the tetrarch Antipas, a self-administrative civic organization
was established, consisting of a council (boule) of 600 members18 and two
executive bodies (a SU\WDQHLD of 50 men19 and 10 prohedroi). The leading mag-
istrate was an DUFKRQ. Market affairs were controlled by an DJRUDQRPRV.20 The

13 Suetonius, Tib. 12.2.

14
Frank E. Romer, “A Numismatic Date for the Departure of C. Caesar?,” TAPA 108
(1978): 187–202; idem, “Gaius Caesar’s Military Diplomacy in the East,” TAPA 109 (1979):
199–214.
15
53& 1 = 5RPDQ 3URYLQFLDO &RLQDJH vol. 1: )URP WKH 'HDWK RI &DHVDU WR WKH 'HDWK
RI 9LWHOOLXV  B.C. ±A.D.  (ed. Andrew Burnett, Michael Amandry, and P. Paul Ripollès;
/RQGRQ%ULWLVK0XVHXP7KHFDWDORJXHLVDFFRPSDQLHGE\D¿UVWVXSSOHPHQWZLWK
additions and corrections = 5RPDQ3URYLQFLDO&RLQDJH. 6XSSOHPHQWWR9ROXPH(ed. Andrew
Burnett, Michael Amandry, and P. Paul Ripollès; London: British Museum 1998), here abbrevi-
ated 53& 1 Sup.
16
Legend of 53& 1:4918: 2EY.: ( ) ( UHHGLQ¿HOG/ (= year
24); 5HY.: ( C); in wreath. The three smaller denominations show the same designs
and legends on reverse and obverse.
17
Josephus, 9LWD 277, 280, 293.
18
Maybe constituted by 50 delegates from each of 12 (Israelite?) SK\ODL, the Tiberians might
have been organized according to the V\QRLNRVPRV?
19
Perhaps these 50 SU\WDQHLV stem from the 12 x 50 councillors of the boule and alternated
during 12 months in conducting the affairs of the boule?
20
Josephus, J. W. 2.599, 615, 639–41; Vita 64, 67, 69, 134, 169, 271, 284, 294. 296, 300,
313, 381; Ant±7KHRI¿FHRIDQDJRUDQRPRV under Antipas is also attested on a lead
weight, ed. pr. Shraga Qedar, “Two Lead Weights of Herod Antipas and Agrippa II and the
344 0RQLND%HUQHWW

city had a foundation era.21 Civic life was furnished with buildings for sport and
entertainment: a stadium at Tiberias for athletic competitions, and a hippodrome
for horse-races at Tarichaea.22 Perhaps Greek musical contests were held in a
theater, although Josephus does not mention such events, and archaeology has
not yet revealed for certain an earlier building under the 2nd c. c.e. theater at
Tiberias.
The games performed in the stadium and hippodrome could hardly be any-
thing else than games in honor of the imperial house, which means certainly
games in honor of the emperor Tiberius and probably in honor of his mother
Livia Julia. Antipas had founded the city of Livias in Perea before 14 c.e. in
honor of Livia and had renamed it Ioulias after Livia has been adopted into the
Julian JHQV according to Augustus’s last will.23
What is so special about these games established by Antipas is the fact that he
FUHDWHGDIRUPRILPSHULDOJDPHVWKDWGLGQRWFRQÀLFWZLWKFHQWUDOGHPDQGVRIWKH
Torah. The games honored the emperor, but without cultic and iconic elements.
,QFRQWUDVWWR&DHVDUHDDQG6HEDVWHWKHUHZHUHQRVDFUL¿FHVQRKRO\SURFHVVLRQV
with cult images, and probably no iconic representations of the honored imperial
persons. Nevertheless a true Greek agonistic culture was established at Tiberias,
which must have been accepted by a large proportion of the Jewish population
in Antipas’s tetrarchy. The reason for this acceptance must have been that the
games of Tiberias were not only separate from any holy or religious context – in
which traditional Greek and Roman games were always embedded – but most
probably omitted all iconic elements.24
In his coinage Antipas also avoided – with one late exception – any symbolic
reference to the imperial cult. In contrast to his brother and neighbor Philip, An-
tipas left the imperial portrait off his coins, nor are there any temples or religious

Early History of Tiberias,” INJ 9 (1986/87): 29–35 (=6(* 38, 1646) with corrections by Alla
Stein, “Gaius Iulius, an Agoranomos from Tiberias,” =3( 93 (1992), 144–8 (6(* 42, 1473;
$( 1992, 1695).
21
 6HHWKH¿UVWDXWRQRPRXVFRLQVXQGHU&ODXGLXVLQ/4 c.e.53& 1:4851–53), counting
according to the city era.
22
On the stadion in Tiberias see Josephus, J. W. 2.618–19; 3.538–41; Vita 92–96, 331; y.
µ(UXE 5:1a–c (22b). – On the hippodrome in Taricheae: Josephus, J. W. 2.599; Vita 132, 138.
23
Josephus, J. W. 2.168; Ant. 18.27. Pliny, Ptolemy, Eusebius, and later authors always
call the place /LYLDV; for references see Emil Schürer, 7KH+LVWRU\RIWKH-HZLVK3HRSOHLQWKH
$JHRI-HVXV&KULVWB. C.±A. D.$1HZ(QJOLVK9HUVLRQ5HYLVHGDQG(GLWHGE\*H]D
9HUPHV)HUJXV0LOODUDQG0DWWKHZ%ODFN (3 vols; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973–1987), 2:
n. 504. 505. It seems, that /LYLDV was the older name, and the new name Ioulias disappeared
during the 1st c. c.e.
24
 +HURG IDFHG D ULRW LQ -HUXVDOHP GXULQJ WKH SUHSDUDWLRQV RI WKH ¿UVW JDPHV IRU &DHVDU
(Augustus) in 28 b.c.e. owing to the image-like trophies that had been set up around the theater
(Josephus, Ant. 15.268–79).
 5RPDQ,PSHULDO&XOWLQWKH*DOLOHH 345

3ODWH Coins of Antipas (4918–4929. 17–19. 4937) and Agrippa I (4973–4980).

Numbers according to RPC I (four digits) and $-& II (two digits). Courtesy of British
Museum and Amphora Books.
346 0RQLND%HUQHWW

3ODWH Coins of Agrippa I (4982–4987), Caesarea Maritima (4858–4861), Caesarea

Philippi (4845–4846), and Agrippa II (4988–4992). Numbers according to RPC I.
Courtesy of British Museum.
 5RPDQ,PSHULDO&XOWLQWKH*DOLOHH 347

symbols depicted. The types of the different series are always repeated25 except
for the last series under Caligula in Antipas’s year 43 (38/39 c.e.). In this series
WKHQDPHRIWKHHPSHURUDSSHDUVIRUWKH¿UVWWLPHRQWKHOHJHQGLQRQHYDULDQW
even with the religious name Sebastos (see ¿J1, $-& 2,26 Antipas nos. 17, 17a,
18, 19 and 53& 1:4937).27
This obvious innovation on Antipas’ coins probably relates to rivalries be-
tween Antipas and his nephew and brother-in-law Agrippa, whom Gaius Ca-
ligula had declared king over Philip’s old tetrarchy in March 37 c.e.28 Agrippa
was a close friend of the new emperor and answered Caligula’s expectation of
being promptly honored in the language of the imperial cult. A short time after
arriving in his new kingdom, Agrippa let circulate a coin series with open refer-
ences to a family cult for the emperor and his sisters (imperial temple, sisters in
the guise of goddesses, a symbol for Demeter representing the female part of the
imperial household, see ¿J1, 53& 1:4973, 4974/3, 4975, 4980).29 Antipas must
have come under pressure to equal Agrippa’s demonstrated closeness to Caligula
DQGKHWKXVLVVXHGKLV&DOLJXODVHULHVZLWKWKH¿UVWDSSHDUDQFHRIWKHHPSHURU¶V
name (and his sacred title). For Antipas, this must have meant a noticeable move

25 See Antipas’s bronze coinage series 1–4 under Tiberius (year 24 = 19/20 c.e., year 33

= 28/29 c.e., year 34 = 29/30 c.e., year 37 = 32/33 c.e., 53& 1:4918–33), represented here
in ¿J. 1, 53& 1 nos. 4918. 4927. 4928. 4929. For a description of legends and symbols see n.
22.
26 $-& 2+HURGWKH*UHDWWKURXJK%DU.RFKED (ed. Ya’akov Meshorer; New York: Amphora

Books, 1982). The catalogue is supplemented by Ya’akov Meshorer, “Ancient Jewish Coinage:
Addendum I,” INJ 11 (1990/91): 104–32. Compare now the revised edition of $-& by Ya’akov
Meshorer, $7UHDVXU\RI-HZLVK&RLQV)URPWKH3HUVLDQ3HULRGRI%DU.RNKED (Jerusalem:
Yad Ben-Zvi Press; Nyack: Amphora, 2001); this edition has still to be used together with $-&
and Meshorer’s “Addendum I”. On the system of Meshorer’s publications see now Siegfried
Ostermann, 'LH0Q]HQGHU+DVPRQlHU(LQNULWLVFKHU%HULFKW]XU6\VWHPDWLNXQG&KURQRORJLH
(NTOA 55: Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005).
27
Legends: $-& 2, Antipas 17: 2EY.: C & SDOP WUHH LQ ¿HOG
C (= year 43); 5HY.: C ; in wreath. – 17a: 2EY.:
C &SDOPWUHHLQ¿HOG C ; 5HY.: C C C;
in wreath. – 18: 2EY.: C &SDOPEUDQFKLQ¿HOG/ ; 5HY.:
C . – 19: 2EY.: C &FOXVWHURIGDWHVLQ¿HOG/
; 5HY.: C . – 53& 1:4937: 2EY.: C C; palm branch; in
¿HOG/ ; 5HY.: ; in wreath.
28 Josephus, J. W. 2.181; Ant. 18.237.
29
Legends: 53& 1:4973: 2EY.: [ ; laureate head of Caligula, l.; to l., L B; 5HY:
[ ] C ; the three sisters of Caligula, holding cornucopias;
Julia leans on a column. – 53& 1:4974/3: 2EY.: C C C; diademed head
of Agrippa, r.; 5HY: C C; Agrippa II on horseback, r.; below,
L . – 53& 1:4975: 2EY.: ] (?) [ ; draped female bust, r. [Meshorer, 7UHDVXU\230
no. 114 reads on a specimen &DQGLGHQWL¿HVWKHSRUWUDLWZLWK$JULSSD¶VZLIH.\SURV
but the reading is hard to verify]; 5HY: ] [; hand holding two ears of corn and a
EXQFKRIJUDSHV>UDWKHUWKDQDV%XUQHWWQRWHVWKUHHHDUVRIFRUQ@LQ¿HOG>/@%±53& 1:4980:
2EY. C; in wreath; 5HY: Temple with four columns. Meshorer, “Coinage,” published a
VSHFLPHQRQZKLFKKHUHDGVLQ¿HOG³/ ”.
348 0RQLND%HUQHWW

towards promoting the imperial cult, connected with the expectation that Gaius
would reward this enforced and publicly demonstrated acknowledgment of the
sovereignty of the Roman emperor.
Nevertheless, Agrippa triggered an intrigue against Antipas in order to obtain
also Galilee and Perea. Antipas was accused of preparing a revolt against Rome
and was deposed and banished to Gaul in 39 c.e.30 Galilee was promised to
$JULSSD,E\&DOLJXODEXWWKHRI¿FLDOWUDQVDFWLRQRISRZHUWRRNSODFHRQO\LQ
the spring or summer of 40 c.e.31
During this period Galilee was heavily involved in the Jewish resistance
against Caligula’s order to establish him obviously as V\QQDRV, i. e. as a divine
companion of the Jewish god, in the Jerusalem temple. As part of this imposed
ruler cult in Jerusalem, the Syrian legate Petronius was ordered to take a golden
statue of Gaius, modelled as =HXV (SLSKDQHV 1HRV *DLRV, from Ptolemais in
Syria to Jerusalem, via a procession through the whole of Judea.32 I cannot
discuss here the background and the series of events of this whole enterprise.33
Concerning Galilee, it can be stated that the Jewish inhabitants were close to
open revolt, together with a large majority of the Judean Jews. Negotiations with
Petronius and the Jewish representatives took place at Tiberias, witnessed by a
large crowd of Jews, most probably Galilean Jewish farmers who had already
begun to prepare for war. One of the measures was probably the stocking of
agricultural products, which is how one should understand the references in

30 Josephus, J. W. 2.181–2. Ant. 18.240–6, 250–1, 255.

31
Josephus, Ant. 19.351.
32 Philo, /HJDW 188, 198, 203–7, 346. Compare Josephus, J. W. 2.185. Ant. 18.261. Tacitus,

Hist. 5.9.2. – Philo, /HJDW 346 is the only reference which could support the view that the
Temple of Jerusalem should be consecrated to the worship of Gaius under the name of Zeus
((SLSKDQHV1HRV*DLRV) (so Per Bilde, “The Roman Emperor Gaius (Caligula’s) Attempt to
Erect his Statue in the Temple of Jerusalem,” ST 32 [1978]: 67–95. esp. 75). All other refer-
ences in Philo, Josephus, and Tacitus describe the character of the project as Gaius’s command
to erect his statue/his “image” ( , ) in the Temple of Jerusalem; see Philo, /HJDW
188, 207, 208, 220, 233, 238, 260, 265, 292, 306, 333; Josephus, J. W. 2.185, 192, 194, 197
(always in plural: “images”); Ant. 18.261, 264. 269, 271– 2, 274, 297, 301 (always in singular);
Tacitus, Hist. 5.9.2 ([Iudaeis] LXVVLD&&DHVDUHDHI¿JLHPHLXVLQWHPSORORFDUH7KH¿JKW
was obviously not over an intended replacement of the Yahweh cult in Jerusalem with a Zeus
Gaius-cult, but over the inclusion of Gaius as Zeus Epiphanes Neos in the cult in Jerusalem
(with a cult image in the holy of holies). The information of the Zeus Gaius-cult is only found
in Philo,/HJDW188, 265, 346.
33
Josephus, J. W. 2.184–203; Ant. 18.261–309. Philo, /HJDW 201–373. – Research still
debates the sequence of events of the “statue affair” and the intentions of the actors involved in
LW&RPSDUHWKHLQÀXHQWLDOZRUNVRI(0DU\6PDOOZRRG³7KH&KURQRORJ\RI*DLXV¶$WWHPSW
to Desecrate the Temple,” /DWRPXV16 (1957): 3–17; idem, ed., 3KLORQLV$OH[DQGULQL/HJDWLR
DG*DLXP (Leiden: Brill, 1961; repr. 1970); Smallwood, Jews. – For different approaches and
results see Bilde, “Roman Emperor Gaius;” Anthony A. Barrett,&DOLJXOD7KH&RUUXSWLRQRI
Power (London: Batsford; 1989; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 182–91; Daniel
R. Schwartz, $JULSSD,7KH/DVW.LQJRI-XGHD (TSAJ 23; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990),
67–89; Aloys Winterling,&DOLJXOD(LQH%LRJUDSKLH(München: Beck, 2003), 139–52.
 5RPDQ,PSHULDO&XOWLQWKH*DOLOHH 349

Philo and Josephus to an agricultural “strike” from the autumn of 39 through

the summer of 40 c.e.
In the spring or summer of 40 c.e.,34 Agrippa I was made ruler over Galilee,
perhaps as part of the Roman measures to hand over control of a rebellious part
of Judea to a loyal Jewish client-king and to disrupt interactions between Judean
and Galilean Jews. In the end, it was only Caligula’s death in January 41 c.e.,
WKDWVROYHGWKHFRQÀLFW7KHQHZHPSHURU&ODXGLXVUHVWRUHG+HURG¶VNLQJGRP
(and even more territories) and gave it to Agrippa I, who ruled now over former
Roman Iudaea, Galilee, Philip’s former tetrarchy (Auranitis, Trachonitis, Bata-
nea, Gaulanitis, Ulatha, Paneas), and Abila in the mountains of Lebanon.
Agrippa moved to Jerusalem and acted as an autonomous king and at the
same time as a loyal Roman client-king. On the one hand he promoted Jewish
sovereignty with a city-wall project at Jerusalem, with new allies among the
eastern client-kings, and with publicly demonstrated temple piety. On the other
hand, he used the medium of the imperial cult to express his and his country’s
loyal relationship towards Rome. He continued to fund the imperial games in
Judea,35 donated imperial buildings and games in the province of Syria,36 and
represented the imperial family and non-Jewish cults on his coinage (see ¿J:
Agrippa’s second coin series in his year 5 [40/41 c.e.], 53& 1:4976–4979,37 with
Caligula, Germanicus, Caesonia, Caligula’s wife, associated with Minerva/Nike,
and ¿J: Agrippa’s third and fourth series in his years 7 and 8 [42/43 and 43/
44 c.e.], 53& 1:4982–4987,38ZLWK&ODXGLXVDSDJDQVDFUL¿FLDODFWZLWK$JULSSD
and Claudius, and the Tyche of Caesarea Maritima).

34
See above n. 31.
35 Josephus, Ant. 19.343–50.
36
Josephus, Ant$JULSSD¶VJHQHUDOPXQL¿FHQFHLQAnt. 19.328, 330, 335.
37 Legends: 53& 1:4976: 2EY [ ; laureate
head of Caligula. l.; 5HY ; Germanicus in triumphal chariot,
r.; below, L . – 53& 1:4977/6: 2EY [ ] ; draped bust of
Caesonia, l.; 5HY ; Drusilla-Minerva, standing,
holding Nike and branch; to l., L . – 53& 1:4978: 2EY [; diademed head of
Agrippa I, r.; 5HY ; Kypros, standing, facing; to l., L E. – 53& 1:4979:
2EY ] [ ; bare head of Agrippa II, l.; to l., L ; 5HY [ ]
; crossed cornucopias.
38
Legends of the “year 7”-series which is repeated in “year 8”: 53& 1:4982: 2EY
[ ]; Kings Agrippa I and Herod of Chalcis
crown the emperor Claudius, who stands wearing a toga FDSLWH YHODWR; 5HY
[ ] ( )
(M)MA (I) T( ); wreath enclosing clasped hands. – 53& 1:4983: 2EY
; laureate head of Claudius, r.; 5HY
( ); distyle temple containing King Agrippa I, Claudius and two
RWKHU ¿JXUHV LQ SHGLPHQW / . – 53& 1:4985: 2EY
; diademed head of Agrippa, r.; 5HY
7\FKHVWDQGLQJOZLWKUXGGHUDQGFRUQXFRSLDLQ¿HOG/ . – 53& 1:4987: 2EY
; bare head of Agrippa II, l.; 5HYL ; anchor.
350 0RQLND%HUQHWW

As part of Agrippa’s kingdom, Galilee witnessed this contradictory develop-

ment. Agrippa raised strong expectations among the Jews for further independ-
ance from Rome, and he enforced Jewish self-representation, which must have
strengthened Jewish identity under a seemingly autonomous king. At the same
time he promoted the imperial cult and HXHUJHVLD beyond what any previous
Judean king had done.
Jewish and Christian traditions about Agrippa mirror these contradictions.
Josephus and rabbinic tradition focus on Agrippa’s pro-Jewish policy, his piety,
DQGKLVDFWLYHGHIHQVHRI-HZLVKODZVHVSHFLDOO\LQKLV¿JKWDJDLQVWDQHQIRUFHG
imperial cult, by Caligula39 or other Gentiles (witness the incident at the coastal
Syrian city of Dora).40 Propaganda went so far that Agrippa was publicly de-
clared “pure” by Simon, a famous teacher of the Torah, when he attended games
in Caesarea (very likely imperial games).41 Nevertheless, the story of Agrip-
SD¶V GHDWK GXULQJ LPSHULDO JDPHV LQ &DHVDUHD LV VLJQL¿FDQW$JULSSD¶V GHDWK
is presented in Acts and in Josephus as a punishment by God because the king
had obviously become overly implicated in the imperial cult and even allowed
himself to be venerated as a god.42
This version of Agrippa’s death may be interpreted as a lenient warning to
moderate Jewish groups, who followed Herod’s, Antipas’s and Agrippa’s prac-
tice of drawing lines between imperial cult and Torah only in some regards:
 QRWWRSDUWLFLSDWHDFWLYHO\LQWKHFXOWHVSHFLDOO\E\VDFUL¿FHV
2. not to break actively the Second Commandment, that isnot to promote
imperial images in Judea proper and in territories with a Jewish majority
(not to donate imperial statues or temples, nor put the emperor and family
members on coins, etc.).
2QHPD\HYHQVHH-HVXVDVUHÀHFWHGLQWKHFRLQVWRU\0DUN± / Matt
22:15–22 / Luke 20:20–26,43 his early followers, and then the early Christians
as similarly compromising.
More radical Jewish positions towards the imperial cult and – interwoven
with it – Roman rule over Judea-Palestine existed. In 39 c.e. Jews in Jamnia
destroyed an altar erected by non-Jews for Caligula because of their concern
to make sure that “God’s land” remained a KLHUDFKRUD, a holy land; this status

39
Philo,/HJDW 326–29, 333 f.; Josephus, Ant. 18.289–301.
40
Josephus, Ant. 19.300–11.
41
Josephus, Ant. 19.332–34 (with Niese’s conjecture instead of the variants
or in § 332).
42
Josephus, Ant. 19.343–50; Acts 12:19–23.
43
The latest analysis of this pericope is presented by Stefan Alkier, “‘Geld’ im Neuen
Testament – Der Beitrag der Numismatik zu einer Enzyklopädie des Frühen Christentums,” in
=HLFKHQDXV7H[WXQG6WHLQ6WXGLHQDXIGHP:HJ]XHLQHU$UFKlRORJLHGHV1HXHQ7HVWDPHQW(ed.
Stefan Alkier and Jürgen Zangenberg; TANZ 42; Tübingen: Francke, 2003), 322–31.
 5RPDQ,PSHULDO&XOWLQWKH*DOLOHH 351

ZRXOGKDYHEHHQGH¿OHGE\DSDJDQDOWDU44 Such an attitude points to a stricter

observance of Torah. With a concept of (UHW],VUDHO as “holy land,” properly a
“ritually pure land,” political resistance against Roman foreign rule became a
sacred duty.45
The interpretation of purity rules among the Palestinian Jews differed among
various groups. Four of them are depicted by Josephus as “four philosophies”
or philosophical schools.46 Interestingly the most recent, fourth “philosophy,” as
established by Judah and Zaddok at the end of the 1st c. b.c.e. and continued by
Judah’s descendants,47 seemed to reject Roman rule over Judea mainly because
of their belief that Jews could not accept a ruler venerated as a god and/or claim-
ing to possess a divine nature.
7KLVZDVWKH¿UVWWLPHWKDW*DOLOHHZDVXQWHUGLUHFWUXOHVLQFH3RPSH\FRQ-
quered Jerusalem and the Hasmonean empire. The new situation lasted about
10–15 years, until a portion of eastern Galilee was added to the empire of
Agrippa II between 55 and 60 c.e.48
We do not know how the Galilean Jews reacted to this new political situation.
At the beginning of the Jewish revolt a considerable number of Galilean Jews
VXSSRUWHGWKHUHYROWRUWRRNSDUWDFWLYHO\LQWKH¿JKWLQJ7KHUHYROWZDVOHJLWL-
mated by hopes for the “redemption of Zion,” the “liberation of Zion,” and the
(re-)establishment of “Holy Jerusalem,” as explicitly stated on the autonomous

44 Philo, /HJDW 199–202; the legitimitation in § 202: “(they) felt it intolerable that the

sanctity which truly belongs to the holy land is diminished” (

). Compare Josephus, J. W. 2.195: the Jewish
QRPRV and the patrion ethos is valid not only for the Temple or Jerusalem (2.170), but for the
whole FKRUD; 2.184: Gaius extended his asebeia epi Ioudaian (i. e. not only to Jerusalem or the
Temple); similar Ant. 19.1.
45 For the connection between violation of the Torah and violation of the (holy) land

DQG *RG¶V SHRSOH DQG WKH KRO\ GXW\ WR ¿JKW LW VHH -RVHSKXV J. W. 2.230; Ant. 20.115–7;
J. W. 2.437–40. 449–54 (free withdrawal for Jews, killing of all Romans except Metilius who
promises to undergo circumcision). – This pattern is in contrast to the “Exodus” stories (when
life according to the Torah is no more possible): J. W. 2.279 (from “the whole land” to foreign
provinces), 291 (from Caesarea to Narbata).
46
The traditional “three philosophies” (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes) developing after
the second half of the 2nd c. b.c.e. are presented by Josephus in J. W. 2.119–66. Ant. 13.171–3,
293–8; 15.371–2; 18.11–22. Vita 10. The “fourth philosophy” is described in J. W. 2.118, 433.
Ant. 18.9, 23.
47
Josephus, Ant. 18.9,23 explicitly calls the school of Juda and Zadok “fourth philosophy.”
In J. W. 2.118 Juda is just called a .
§ 119 continues: “For there are three types of philosophy ( ) among the Jews.”
See C. T. R. Hayard, “Appendix B: The Fourth Philosophy: 6LFDULLand Zealots,” in Schürer,
+LVWRU\ 2.598–606.
48
See the discussion of the chronological problems of this partition in my “Zur politischen
Zeitrechnung des Königs Agrippa II,” in 6D[D/RTXHQWXU6WXGLHQ]XU$UFKlRORJLH3DOlVWLQDV/
Israels (ed. Cornelis G. den Hertog, Ulrich Hübner, und Stefan Münger; AOAT 302; Ugarit-
Verlag: Münster 2003), 25–37.
352 0RQLND%HUQHWW

silver and bronze rebel coinage.497KH¿UVWV\PEROLFDFWRIWKHUHYROXWLRQDULHV

ZDVWRVWRSVDFUL¿FHVIRUWKHHPSHURULQWKH-HUXVDOHP7HPSOH50 This seems to
have been based on the teaching of the “fourth philosophy” and its concept of
the “pure land,” free from non-Jewish rule or cult, in competition with the sole
rule of God over his people.51
The Galilean Jews under the Romans, as well as under Agrippa II, would
have witnessed the wide dissemination of the imperial cult in Judea and under
Agrippa II. A direct source is the coinage of this period, apart from all presumed
imperial cult practice as established by rituals and festivals. The following coin
groups – issued by Roman authority and circulating in Roman Galilee between
44–55 c.e., and by Agrippa II (ruling over Galilee after 55 or 60 c.e.±UHÀHFW
the public presence of the imperial cult, especially for the imperial women, in
this period:
1. coins struck presumably under Roman authority in Caesarea Maritima,52
representing:
– Claudius (¿J2, 53& 1:4858/1, F44–50 c.e.; 4859, F50–54 c.e.),
– Agrippina II as Claudius’ wife in the guise of a goddess (¿J2, 53& 1:4859,
F50–54 c.e.,
– Nero (¿J2, 53& 1:4860, 4861, F55 c.e.) together with his mother,
– Agrippina II as goddess (¿J2, 53& 1:4860, F55 c.e.).53
2. coins struck in Caesarea (Philippi)/Paneas54 under Agrippa II, representing:
– Agrippina II, Nero’s mother, as Fortuna (¿J2, 53& 1:4845, F 54–59 c.e.),
– Octavia, Nero’s wife, as a priestess making an offering (¿J2, 53& 1:4845,
F 54–59 c.e.),
– Poppaea, Nero’s wife, as GLYD with temple cult (¿J2, 53& 1:4846, 65 c.e. or
later),

49
For the rebel coinage with its legends and symbols see $-&2, The Jewish War nos. 1–30
with pp. 96–131. Meshorer, 7UHDVXU\ nos. 183–217 with pp. 115–34. 240–44
50
Josephus, J. W. 2.409–418.
51
Compare Josephus, Ant. 18.23, where a is ascribed
to the “fourth philosophy.” This “unconquerable love for freedom” was, according to Josephus,
congruent with the conviction that “God alone is leader (KHJHPRQ) and ruler (despotes).”
52 For discussion of the mint see 53& 1, p. 672–73.
53
53& 1:4858/1, F 44–50 CE: 2EY ] [; laureate head, r.; 5HY OB C S;
in wreath. – 53& 1:4859, F 50–54 c.e.: 2EY Same die as 4858; 5HY
; Agrippina II, veiled, seated l., holding branch and cornucopia; above crescent. –
53& 1:4860/15, F55 c.e.: 2EY
; draped bust of Nero, r.; 5HY ; Agrippina II veiled, seated
l., holding branch and cornucopia; above crescent. – 53& 1:4861, F55 c.e.: 2EY
; draped bust of Nero, r.; 5HY ; bust
of Agrippina II, l.
54
For discussion of the mint see 53& 1, p. 669–70.
 5RPDQ,PSHULDO&XOWLQWKH*DOLOHH 353

– Clauda, Nero’s daughter, as GLYD with temple cult (¿J2, 53& 1:4846, 65 c.e.
or later).55
3. coin series under Agrippa II, minted F 63–68 c.e. in (uncertain?) Neronias
(in Galilee?),56 representing
– Nero associated with the religious and divine attributes of lituus, star and
crescent respectively (¿J2, 53& 1:4988/6. 4989. 4990).57
4. Agrippa’s II coinage of year 6 = Year 11 (65/66 c.e. on eras of 55 and 60
c.e.)58, minted at Caesarea Neronias (Caesarea [Philippi/Paneas], renamed .DL-
saria Neronias by Agrippa II in honor of Nero)59¿J53& 1:4991. 4992).60
The coins memorialize
– the refoundation of Caesarea (Philippi) as Caesarea Neronias in honor of
Nero, and represent
– the city goddess Tyche (¿J 2, 53& 1:4991, obverse) combined with an
attribute of Demeter, i. e. a hand holding ears of corn (¿J2, 53& 1:4992,
obverse). This combination might refer to the cult for the imperial woman at
Paneas, since the symbol had been associated in Philip’s coinage with Livia
(53& 1:4949, 53& 1 Sup. S 4952A) and had been repeated by Agrippa I in
his “year 2”-series minted at Caesarea (Philippi / Paneas) (see ¿J 1, 53&
1:4975).

55 53& 1:4845/1, F 54–59 c.e.: 2EY AGRIPPIN(A) AVG; Agrippina seated l., holding

branch and cornucopia; 5HY OCTAVIA AVGVSTI or AVGOS (VLF); Octavia, veiled, standing
l., holding patera over lighted altar. – 53& 1:4846, 65 c.e. or later: 2EY DIVA POPPAEA AVG;
temple with two columns, in between cult statue; 5HY DIVA CLAVD NER F; round temple
with six columns on high podium, inside cult statue.
56
See the discussion in 53& 1.684–5. Burnett considers also a mint in Samaria due to a
countermark of one coin with XF, but it is hard to believe that Agrippa II, who is beyond doubt
the authority of this coin series, should have minted in Roman Samaria at that time. Perhaps the
coins were minted in Tiberias which had been given to Agrippa II by Nero at latest in 60 c.e. and
might therefore been renamed Tiberias Neronias by Agrippa II (like Caesarea [Philippi/Paneas]
had been renamed by him Caesarea Neronias, see above the legend on53& 1:4991).
57 Legends: 53& 1:4988/6, F. 63–68 c.e.: 2EY ; laure-
ate head, r.; to r., lituus; 5HY ; in circle (on shield?)
surrounded by wreath. – 53& 1:4989: as 4988, but smaller denomination, and star (instead of
lituus) to r. of portrait. – 53& 1:4990: as 4988, but smaller denomination, and crescent (instead
of lituus) to r. of portrait.
58
Discussion of and arguments for 55/60-eras instead of 56/61-eras c.e. in Bernett, “Zeit-
rechnung”.
59
For discussion of the mint see 53& 1: p. 685.
60
Legends: 53& 1:4991: 2EY C ; head of Tyche, r.; 5HY
C ; double cornucopia with caduceus. – 53& 1: 4992: 2EY
C C ; hand holding ears of corn; 5HY C ;
around in circle (diadem?).
354 0RQLND%HUQHWW

4. The Imperial Cult and the Outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt

The question remains whether the strong presence of the imperial cult in Judea-
Palestine (including Galilee) was one of the main reasons or triggering factors
for the revolt. Josephus says once in Ant. 15.267 that the foreign practices
and institutions ( ), contrary to Jewish law that Herod
had introduced into the country, were the reason that the Torah lost more and
more authority among the “masses,” and for this reason the Jews later suffered.
Josephus’ analysis starts with year 29/28 b.c.e.:
Herod went still farther in departing from the native customs ( ), and
through foreign practices ( ) he gradually corrupted the ancient way
of life ( ), which had hitherto been inviolable ( ).
As a result of this we suffered considerable harm at a later time as well, because those
things were neglected which had formerly induced piety ( ) in the masses (
) (Ant. 15.267).61

In the following thirty-two paragraphs (Ant. 15.268–98), Josephus recounts these

, and most of them refer to actions of Herod in connection with
the imperial cult: introducing games in honor of Caesar Augustus in Jerusalem
(15.268–79), foundation of cities in honor of the emperor, and erecting temples
IRUWKHHPSHURU±$IWHUKDYLQJQDUUDWHGWKHFRQÀLFWVGXHWRWKH¿UVW
games in honor of Caesar (Augustus) in Jerusalem, and the strategies of Herod
WRGHDOZLWKWKHVHFRQÀLFWV-RVHSKXVFRPPHQWV
[280] When Herod had put off the people in this way and had dissipated the force of
anger which they felt, most of them were inclined to change their attitude and not to be
angry longer. [281] But some of them persisted in their resentment of these practices not
according to customs ( ), and believing that
the violation of the customs ( ) would be the beginning of great
evils, they thought it a sacred duty ( ) to undertake any risk rather than, after Herod
had changed their (traditional) constitution ( ), to
appear ignorant to Herod’s forcible introduction of things not in accord with custom (
) and to his behaving by his words as the king
but in reality as the enemy of the whole nation (Ant. 15.280–1).62

Herod’s actions apparently provided the motivation for ten men to conspire
against him in 28 b.c.e. When caught by Herod’s security men, they confessed
that they had undertaken the conspiracy “with a noble and pious intent (…) on
behalf of the common customs ( ), which all men had the
duty either to preserve or to die for” (Ant. 15.288).
This was the radical point of view, not shared by everyone, at least not by
the majority ( ) of the Jews for a long time. But in the course of time the

61
Translation based on Ralph Marcus (Loeb).
62
Translation based on Ralph Marcus (Loeb).
 5RPDQ,PSHULDO&XOWLQWKH*DOLOHH 355

radical view must have gained increasing support, and the question becomes,
what had worsened the situation so much in the decades before the outbreak of
the Great Revolt? The development and dissemination of the imperial cult may
have been one of the most obvious symbols of a foreign rule that hindered an
indigenous polity according to the SDWULRLQRPRL. The slogans of “liberation of
Zion,” “redemption of Zion,” and a new “Holy Jerusalem,” proclaimed on the
autonomous silver and bronze rebel coinage, meant more than mere freedom
IURPGLUHFW5RPDQ UXOH ³/LEHUDWLRQ´DLPHG DW SXUL¿FDWLRQ RI HYHU\WKLQJ QRW
“holy” and “Jewish,” as conceptualized by the radical groups. The imperial cult
was more than a simple pagan cult. It was a ruler cult in competition with the
God of Israel, the only legitimate ruler over Jews in the Holy Land.63 This is
ZK\WKHVXVSHQVLRQRIWKHVDFUL¿FHIRUWKHHPSHURUDW-HUXVDOHPDWWKHEHJLQ-
ning of the revolt64 had such a decisive meaning for all involved: the rebels, the
PRGHUDWHVWKHXQGHFLGHGDQGWKH5RPDQV7KH¿JKWDJDLQVWWKHLPSHULDOFXOWLQ
God’s land was part of the legitimation strategy of the rebels and called on the
undecided for active support. As we know today, Josephus was among the young
radical priests who supported the revolt.65 From their perspective the imperial
cult might have been much less tolerable in (UHW],VUDHO than for moderate Jews
who remained more or less aloof from the religious aspects of the cult.
3HUKDSV ZH ¿QG WKLV OLQH DOVR DPRQJ WKH *DOLOHDQ -HZV FRQVLGHULQJ WKH
IDFWLRQDOFRQÀLFWVLQ6HSSKRULVDQG7LEHULDV7KHOLQHVEHWZHHQVXSSRUWHUVDQG
non-supporters of the rebellion ran not so much sociologically between classes
or status groups as between people holding different concepts of purity, and the
imperial cult seems to have played a role in the different concepts of purity.66
Moderates prescribed personal distance from the cult, under which conditions
SXULW\ZDVQRWGH¿OHG7KHSUR5RPDQLQKDELWDQWVRI6HSSKRULVIRUH[DPSOH
can be seen in this position. Radical concepts generalized the pure status to the
whole Jewish land itself and considered the imperial cult as a factor permanently

63
See those elements of Josephus’s narrative of the Gaius affair which are conceptualized
DV<DKZHK¶V¿JKWDVOHJLWLPDWHVROHUXOHURYHUKLVODQGDQGKLVSHRSOHLQKLVODQGDJDLQVWWKH
Roman DXWRNUDWRU Josephus, J. W. 2.184–86, 195, 199–201; Ant. 18.256, 260, 264–68, 279–81,
284–88, 304, 306, 309. 19. 16.
64 Josephus, J. W. 2.409–18. – See the analyses of this debate between rebels and moder-

DWHVFRQFHUQLQJWKLVW\SHRIVDFUL¿FHE\&HFLO5RWK³7KH'HEDWHRQWKH/R\DO6DFUL¿FHV$'
66,” +75±DQG'DQLHO6FKZDUW]³2Q6DFUL¿FHE\*HQWLOHVLQWKH7HPSOHRI
Jerusalem,” in idem, 6WXGLHVLQWKH-HZLVK%DFNJURXQGRI&KULVWLDQLW\ (WUNT 60; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 102–16.
65
Stefan Krieger, “Josephus – ein Anhänger des Aufstandsführeres El‘azar ben Hananja,” in
,QWHUQDWLRQDOHV-RVHSKXV.ROORTXLXP0QVWHUHG)RONHU6LHJHUWDQG-UJHQ8.DOPV
0-6W0QVWHU/,79HUODJ±Manuel Vogel, “Vita 64–69, das Bilderverbot und
die Galiläapolitik des Josephus,” JSJ 30 (1999): 65–79.
66
 6HH9RJHO³9LWD´RQGLIIHUHQWFRQÀLFWLQJLQWHUSUHWDWLRQVRIWKHVHFRQGFRPPDQGPHQW
between the moderate high priests and priests and the radical (fourth philosophy followers?
Zealots?) revolutionaries.
356 0RQLND%HUQHWW

GH¿OLQJ WKH KROLQHVV RI *RG¶V ODQG 6XFK ZDV WKH YLHZ RI -RVHSKXV DQG KLV
Galilean followers and rebellious rivals.

5. Summary

1. The imperial cult is both a political and a religious phenomenon and com-
municates on both levels.
2. The relationship between Jews and the imperial cult varies according to
political circumstances and purity concepts. A legal exemption from partici-
pation in the imperial cult did not exist. Jews did and could make use of the
communicative functions of the imperial cult; they thus developped grades of
SDUWLFLSDWLRQ 1HYHUWKHOHVV DFFRUGLQJ WR PRVW WKH SUREOHPV RI VDFUL¿FHV DQG
imperial images could not be harmonized with core elements of the Torah.
,Q*DOLOHH$QWLSDVGHYHORSHGDQHZIRUPRILPSHULDOFXOWZLWKRXWVDFUL¿FHV
DQGLPDJHVEXWZLWKKRQRUL¿FHOHPHQWVUHQDPLQJRIFLWLHVJDPHV
4. After Antipas, Galilee faced Roman and Herodian rulership with more or
less open forms of the imperial cult (Caligula’s statue affair, rule of Agrippa I,
Roman procurators, Agrippa II). This development may have contributed to a
political regrouping among Jews, Romans, and Herodians, and among Jews
themselves in Galilee. Expression of distinct cultural habits might have become
a strategic function.
5. The Jewish revolt, motivated by notions of liberation and ideals of purity
(“holy Jerusalem,” “redemption of Zion,” “liberation of Zion”), fought also
against the presence of the imperial cult in the Land of Israel. Some Galilean
Jews, including many of those living under the rule of Agrippa II, were attracted
by these ideas, others – like the Sepphorites – did not combine questions of
political rulership with purity questions.
All in all, the imperial cult in Galilee should be considered a factor that
contributed to a politicization of the resident Jews, and turned the expression of
Jewish culture into a strategic expression of distinctiveness opposed to Rome.