And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria.  So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city.

Suetonius mentions Quirinius in his discussion of Emperor Tiberius.

Tiberius 49:

In the course of a very short time, he [Tiberius] turned his mind to sheer robbery. It is certain that Cneius Lentulus, the augur, a man of vast estate, was so terrified and worried by his threats and importunities, that he was obliged to make him his heir; and that Lepida, a lady of a very noble family, was condemned by him, in order to gratify Quirinus, a man of consular rank, extremely rich, and childless, who had divorced her twenty years before, and now charged her with an old design to poison him.

In my reading of Tacitus I missed references to Quirinius.  Here they are:

Annals 2.30

As an ancient statute of the Senate forbade such inquiry in a case affecting a master’s life, Tiberius, with his cleverness in devising new law, ordered Libo’s slaves to be sold singly to the State-agent, so that, forsooth, without an infringement of the Senate’s decree, Libo might be tried on their evidence. As a consequence, the defendant asked an adjournment till next day, and having gone home he charged his kinsman, Publius Quirinus, with his last prayer to the emperor.

Annals 3.22-23

At Rome meanwhile Lepida, who beside the glory of being one of the Æmilii was the great-granddaughter of Lucius Sulla and Cneius Pompeius, was accused of pretending to be a mother by Publius Quirinus, a rich and childless man. Then, too, there were charges of adulteries, of poisonings, and of inquiries made through astrologers concerning the imperial house. The accused was defended by her brother Manius Lepidus. Quirinus by his relentless enmity even after his divorce, had procured for her some sympathy, infamous and guilty as she was. One could not easily perceive the emperor’s feelings at her trial; so effectually did he interchange and blend the outward signs of resentment and compassion. He first begged the Senate not to deal with the charges of treason, and subsequently induced Marcus Servilius, an ex-consul, to divulge what he had seemingly wished to suppress. He also handed over to the consuls Lepida’s slaves, who were in military custody, but would not allow them to be examined by torture on matters referring to his own family. Drusus too, the consul-elect, he released from the necessity of having to speak first to the question. Some thought this a gracious act, done to save the rest of the Senators from a compulsory assent, while others ascribed it to malignity, on the ground that he would have yielded only where there was a necessity of condemning.

On the days of the games which interrupted the trial, Lepida went into the theatre with some ladies of rank, and as she appealed with piteous wailings to her ancestors and to that very Pompey, the public buildings and statues of whom stood there before their eyes, she roused such sympathy that people burst into tears and shouted, without ceasing, savage curses on Quirinus, “to whose childless old-age and miserably obscure family, one once destined to be the wife of Lucius Cæsar and the daughter-in-law of the Divine Augustus was being sacrificed.” Then, by the torture of the slaves, her infamies were brought to light, and a motion of Rubellius Blandus was carried which outlawed her. Drusus supported him, though others had proposed a milder sentence. Subsequently, Scaurus, who had had a daughter by her, obtained as a concession that her property should not be confiscated. Then at last Tiberius declared that he had himself too ascertained from the slaves of Publius Quirinus that Lepida had attempted their master’s life by poison.

Annals 3.48

About the same time he requested the Senate to let the death of Sulpicius Quirinus be celebrated with a public funeral. With the old patrician family of the Sulpicii this Quirinus, who was born in the town of Lanuvium, was quite unconnected. An indefatigable soldier, he had by his zealous services won the consulship under the Divine Augustus, and subsequently the honours of a triumph for having stormed some fortresses of the Homonadenses in Cilicia. He was also appointed adviser to Caius Cæsar in the government of Armenia, and had likewise paid court to Tiberius, who was then at Rhodes. The emperor now made all this known to the Senate, and extolled the good offices of Quirinus to himself, while he censured Marcus Lollius, whom he charged with encouraging Caius Cæsar in his perverse and quarrelsome behaviour. But people generally had no pleasure in the memory of Quirinus, because of the perils he had brought, as I have related, on Lepida, and the meanness and dangerous power of his last years.

Next week I will post Josephus’ references to Quirinius as well as Strabo’s.

Acts 11:27-30

And in these days prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch. Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine throughout all the world, which also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar. Then the disciples, each according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren dwelling in Judea. This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

Josephus mentions a famine in Judea during the reign of Claudius which Queen Helena helped to ease.

Antiquities 20.2.5

Now her coming was of very great advantage to the people of Jerusalem; for whereas a famine did oppress them at that time, and many people died for want of what was necessary to procure food withal, queen Helena sent some of her servants to Alexandria with money to buy a great quantity of corn, and others of them to Cyprus, to bring a cargo of dried figs. And as soon as they were come back, and had brought those provisions, which was done very quickly, she distributed food to those that were in want of it, and left a most excellent memorial behind her of this benefaction, which she bestowed on our whole nation. And when her son Izates was informed of this famine, he sent great sums of money to the principal men in Jerusalem. However, what favors this queen and king conferred upon our city Jerusalem shall be further related hereafter.

Josephus goes on to give a more precise date of the famine.

Antiquities 20.5.2

Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; he was the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, which Alexander was a principal person among all his contemporaries, both for his family and wealth: he was also more eminent for his piety than this his son Alexander, for he did not continue in the religion of his country. Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already.

Fadus governed Judæa from 44 to 46 and Tiberius Alexander from 46 to 48, so the famine likely lasted a number of years.

According to Tacitus a famine occurred in the year 51.

The Annals 12.43

Several prodigies occurred in that year. Birds of evil omen perched on the Capitol; houses were thrown down by frequent shocks of earthquake, and as the panic spread, all the weak were trodden down in the hurry and confusion of the crowd. Scanty crops too, and consequent famine were regarded as a token of calamity. Nor were there merely whispered complaints; while Claudius was administering justice, the populace crowded round him with a boisterous clamour and drove him to a corner of the forum, where they violently pressed on him till he broke through the furious mob with a body of soldiers. It was ascertained that Rome had provisions for no more than fifteen days, and it was through the signal bounty of heaven and the mildness of the winter that its desperate plight was relieved. And yet in past days Italy used to send supplies for the legions into distant provinces, and even now it is not a barren soil which causes distress. But we prefer to cultivate Africa and Egypt, and trust the life of the Roman people to ships and all their risks.

Note here are Tacitus claims that the famine was due to a lack of precipitation. He goes on to say that Rome imported most of its grain from Africa and Egypt, which would indicate that those locations had suffered from the lack of precipitation.

Suetonius also mentions a famine that covered several years.

The Twelve Caesars: Claudius 19 (My edition of this work has this passage in 18, but the online edition has it at 19)

During a scarcity of provisions, occasioned by bad crops for several successive years, he was stopped in the middle of the forum by the mob, who so abused him, at the same time pelting him with fragments of bread, that he had some difficulty in escaping into the palace by a back door. He therefore used all possible means to bring provisions to the city, even in winter. He proposed to the merchants a sure profit, by indemnifying them against any loss that might befall them by storms at sea; and granted great privileges to those who built ships for that traffic.

Put all this together it appears that a lack of precipitation (rain and snow) and bad luck with shipping combined to create famine like conditions for at least Italy, Africa, and Judea for several years (perhaps anywhere between three and seven years) during the reign of Claudius. Given that Africa was the Empire’s breadbasket and the fact that grain was persistently in short supply in Rome itself, it seems reasonable to conclude that it would also be in short supply throughout much if not all of the Empire.

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

Tacitus’ mentions Herod in one section of his work:

The Histories 5.9:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Histories 5.9

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

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

The Annals 6.3

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

The Annals 15:73:

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

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

The Annals 12.54:

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

The Histories 5.9

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

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

The Histories 2.81

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

The Histories 2.2

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

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

The Annals 13:7:

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

-Update-

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

The Histories 5.1

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

The Histories 2.81

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

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

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

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

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

More to come later.

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