Thursday, February 19, 2026

Hadrian, Aelia Capitolina, and which Jewish Revolt?

 



 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

“In 1967 a hoard of coins that was said to have been illegally excavated

in the northern part of the Judean desert surfaced on the antiquities market.

The hoard included Bar-Kokhba coins and an Aelia Capitolina coin.

This seemed to indicate that Aelia was founded before the revolt, since the refugees who supposedly hid the coins during the revolt also had an Aelia coin”.

 

Hanan Eshel

 

  

The very suggestion that there could have been a massive Jewish revolt against Rome (c. 132-135 AD) a mere 60 years or so after the complete and utter destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple by Titus and his legionaries, in 70 AD, I find quite ridiculous.

 

According to typical accounts, some half a million Jews may have died in this second revolt. From whence did they all come? Judah, Jerusalem, the Temple, and Judaïsm, were all finished in 70 AD. ‘Not a stone was left upon a stone!’ (Luke 21:6).

 

This is the sad tale of it as foretold by the Lord of History (vv. 20-33):

 

When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

‘There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near’.

 

He told them this parable: ‘Look at the fig tree and all the trees. When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.

Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away’.

 

As I wrote in my article:

 

Simon Bar Kochba in Temple Period - Correcting my former views

 

(6) Simon Bar Kochba in Temple Period - Correcting my former views

 

…. But the most compelling argument in favour of a necessary (as I had thought) synchronisation of the activities of Simon Bar Giora and Simon Bar Kochba was that the destruction in Israel was so complete in the first case, at the hands of Vespasian and Titus, with the entire land devastated, the great City (Jerusalem) and its Temple completely burned to the ground, and the people slaughtered wholesale, or sent into slavery, that I did not consider it reasonable to suggest that, some 60-70 years later - {and again readers might cite the recovery of nations much sooner after the First World War going in to the Second – but these nations, e.g. Germany, had not been obliterated internally} - Simon Bar Kochba was able to command armies of 400,000 men in Israel against a Hadrian-led Rome and to have several of the most famous of all the Roman legions on the verge of annihilation - only afterwards to see some 580,000 Jewish men die, almost 1000 fortified villages in Israel completely devastated, once again, and the people, once again, slaughtered or taken into captivity en masse. ….

 

These are numbers both massive and completely unbelievable!

 

Quite different from realism, however, is the account that we find in our text books.

 

Hadrian and the Bar Kochba revolt, are considered to have followed the cataclysmic 70 AD event, as a Second Jewish Revolt - whereas they actually preceded it, Hadrian in the Maccabean era.

 

You see, Hadrian was not a Roman emperor at all, but was the Seleucid Greek tyrant, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, who definitely did not live as late as c. 130 AD:

 

Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian

 

(3) Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian

Note in the following article the admission that: “The Bar Kochba Revolt lacks the eyewitness accounts, like Josephus, who chronicled the First Jewish Revolt against Rome (A.D. 66-73)”.

 

Typically, we read worrisome articles such as the following one by Mark Turnage:

Weekly Q&A: What was the Bar Kochba Revolt? - CBN Israel

 

Weekly Q&A: What was the Bar Kochba Revolt?

Posted on June 23, 2023 By CBN Israel In Blog

 

Hope stirred within Judaism sixty years after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of its Temple. Perhaps this was the time when the Jews in the land of Israel would finally remove Rome’s presence. The revolt broke out in A.D. 132. The Bar Kochba Revolt lacks the eyewitness accounts, like Josephus, who chronicled the First Jewish Revolt against Rome (A.D. 66-73).

 

The causes of the revolt are not entirely clear. Several factors seem to have contributed to a second Jewish revolt in the land of Israel within a sixty-year period. The Roman Emperor Hadrian banned circumcision in the year’s leading up to the revolt.

 

His ban against circumcision grew out of a general ban against male castration.

 

Romans viewed the Jewish practice of circumcision as mutilation. Of course, circumcision was the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham’s descendants (Genesis 17).

 

The ancient sources disagree whether Hadrian refounded Jerusalem as a Roman colony, named Aelia Capitonlina, with a Temple to Jupiter, before or after the Bar Kochba Revolt. If it happened prior to the revolt, it may have served as a cause of the revolt.

 

The Jews seem to have assumed this period would see the Temple of Jerusalem rebuilt. After the destruction of the First Temple, the Temple of Solomon, the Second Temple was built by Zerubbabel in Jerusalem. The Jews looked at this earlier precedent as a pattern for God bringing about the rebuilding of the Temple in their day. Some of the coins minted by the Jewish rebels depict the façade of the Temple. Others bear the inscription “for the redemption of Jerusalem.” The Jewish rebels anticipated their revolt would return Jerusalem to the Jews, remove the Romans, and see the Temple rebuilt.

 

The revolt receives its name from its leader, a charismatic, messianic figure named, Shimon ben Kosiba. Rabbinic tradition relates how a great Sage of this period, Rabbi Akiva, hailed Shimon as the Messiah, calling him bar Kochba (“son of the star;” Numbers 24:17). After the failure of the revolt, the rabbis referred to him as bar Koziba (“son of the lie”). Shimon took the title Nasi Israel (Prince of Israel). This language comes from Ezekiel where the future, hoped for ruler will be known as Nasi.

 

The revolt had a devastating impact upon the Jewish community in the land of Israel. Roman, Jewish, and Christian sources place the Jewish casualties between 400,000-500,000.

 

Even if these figures are inflated, they speak to the widespread loss of Jewish life.

 

The Jewish rebels also inflicted heavy causalities upon the Roman forces as well. Many Jews were sold as slaves because of the revolt. Others emigrated outside of the land. Jews from Babylon immigrated into the land of Israel at this time.

 

The Romans changed the name of the province from Judaea to Palestina. Jerusalem became a Roman colony and Jews were expelled from the city. The Galilee, which had been a center of Jewish life, had idolatrous non-Jews settling in the region. It also impacted the relationships between Jews and Christians.

[End of quote]

 

In the next article, Hanan Eshel, also following a conventional route, will try to determine when Hadrian set up his Aelia Capitolina:

Hanan Eshel. “Aelia Capitolina- Jerusalem No More.” Biblical Archaeology Review 23, 6 (1997). | Center for Online Judaic Studies

‘Eshel. “Aelia Capitolina- Jerusalem No More.” Biblical Archaeology Review 23, 6 (1997).

 

Unlike the First Jewish Revolt against Rome (66–70 C.E.), which was chronicled in detail by the first-century historian Josephus, the Second Jewish Revolt, the so-called Bar-Kokhba Revolt (132–135 C.E.), is known only from scraps of ancient literature. …. Archaeology alone can fill in the gaps. And it has been doing so in an amazing way in recent decades.

….

 

One of the mysteries surrounding the revolt involves the founding of the city Aelia Capitolina, the name the Romans gave to Jerusalem. Did the Romans establish Aelia Capitolina before the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, thereby inciting the Jews to revolt? Or did they establish it after the revolt and exclude the Jews from the city as punishment?

 

Scholars, as might be expected, have taken two views. Recent numismatic evidence—coins from the Judean desert—may provide the answer. The first view, that the founding of Aelia Capitolina preceded the revolt, is supported by the Roman historian Dio Cassius. In 130 C.E. Emperor Hadrian (117–138 C.E.) made a tour of his eastern lands, traveling through Judea, Arabia and Egypt before returning to Rome. According to Dio, Hadrian founded Aelia Capitolina during this journey. ….

 

The church historian Eusebius, however, describes the transformation of Jerusalem into Aelia Capitolina as occurring after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt was crushed, in 136 C.E. …. The Mishnah, the earliest rabbinic classic, redacted in about 200 C.E., seems to support Eusebius.

 

In Ta’anit 4.6, the Mishnah lists five disasters that occurred on the ninth of the Hebrew month of Av, including the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple and the Roman destruction of the Second Temple. The fourth item in the list is the fall of Betar, the last stronghold of Bar-Kokhba’s warriors, which ended the Second Jewish Revolt.

 

The final item in the Mishnah’s list is the plowing of “the city”—that is, Jerusalem. When the Romans founded a city, they fixed its boundaries in a ceremonial ritual in which an ox and a cow, tethered together, plowed a line that marked the new city’s limits. That the Mishnah lists the fall of Betar before the founding of Roman Jerusalem seems to confirm Eusebius’s statement that Aelia Capitolina was founded after the Bar-Kokhba revolt was suppressed.

 

Who was right—Dio Cassius or Eusebius?

 

Like the rebels of the First Jewish Revolt, the Jews of the Second Jewish Revolt issued their own coins. These may help us answer the question. The Second Revolt coins are all overstrikes; that is, the rebels took coins then in circulation and imprinted them with their own impressions. Rome issued coins commemorating Aelia Capitolina. If an Aelia Capitolina coin had been found overstruck with a Bar-Kokhba impression, this would provide clear evidence that Aelia had been founded before the revolt. However, since no such coin has been found, some scholars have assumed that Aelia was established after the revolt, as punishment.

 

In 1967 a hoard of coins that was said to have been illegally excavated in the northern part of the Judean desert surfaced on the antiquities market. The hoard included Bar-Kokhba coins and an Aelia Capitolina coin. This seemed to indicate that Aelia was founded before the revolt, since the refugees who supposedly hid the coins during the revolt also had an Aelia coin. Later, in 1970, hoards said to have come from the same area appeared on the market. These too contained a mixture of Bar-Kokhba and Aelia coins. As Yaakov Meshorer, the dean of Israeli numismatists, noted, these discoveries seemed to support Dio’s testimony that Aelia was founded in 130 C.E., during Hadrian’s eastern tour.

 

There was a problem, however.

 

These hoards were found not in professional digs but in illegal excavations. Local Bedouin regularly engage in such digs and then sell their finds to antiquities dealers. Some skeptical scholars have suggested that antiquities dealers may have added the Aelia coins to the hoards to increase their value. I can now report the controlled and legal excavation of a hoard of coins that may remove any doubts. This excavation is really part of a larger story involving the search for and excavation of caves in the Judean desert. Many of these caves were used by Jewish refugees fleeing from the Roman forces during the Second Revolt.

….

Since 1951, 27 Second Revolt refugee caves have been identified. Eight of these caves have been found by the Israel Cave Research Center (ICRC), established in 1979 by the Israel Society for the Protection of Nature. All of these caves can be dated to the Bar-Kokhba period by the finds—pottery, glass, keys, wooden combs and bronze vessels as well as coins. In most of the caves, unfortunately, archaeologists detected evidence of prior illegal excavation.

 

Nevertheless, important finds awaited discovery.

 

In one cave that was clearly a Jewish refuge during the revolt (the Araq el-Na’asaneh Cave), ICRC volunteers found 16 silver denarii struck by the emperors Trajan (98–117 C.E.) and Hadrian, as well as one tridrachma from the Roman province of Cappadocia.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: Trajan and Hadrian I believe to have been just one and the same emperor:

 

Hadrianus Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian

 

(4) Hadrianus Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian

 

Hanan Eshel continues:

 

This demonstrates that the Jewish rebels did not overstrike all the coins they got hold of but continued to use Roman coins bearing their original impressions. In 1986, I excavated a cave (known as the Abi’or Cave) to which 38 people had fled. We found their skeletons in the cave. They probably suffocated as a fire kindled by the Romans at the entrance withdrew oxygen from the cave. Five documents written on papyrus (three in Greek and two in Aramaic) indicate that the people fled to the cave in 135 C.E. Some of these documents were found on a terrace located at the entrance to the cave. However, the stratigraphy was reversed. Usually, as archaeologists dig deeper, they reveal earlier and earlier strata, or layers of occupation. But near the mouth of the Abi’or Cave, we found a fourth-century B.C.E. document above three documents from the Roman period. This indicates that some later occupants dumped the cave’s contents onto the terrace, thereby turning the strata upside down.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: Or, has the archaeology here simply been misconstrued?

The interpretation of some of what follows I think may well be questionable.

 

Hanan Eshel continues:

 

It is not difficult to determine who did this: monks who lived in this cave during the 14th century. In 1987 I excavated another refugee cave, which yielded one bronze coin that had been overstruck by the rebels and a silver dinar of Hadrian, further proof that the rebels continued to use some regular Roman coins.

 

In 1991 David Amit, an archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority, and I excavated a cave that yielded a tetradrachma of Bar-Kokhba with the facade of the destroyed [sic] Jerusalem Temple on the obverse. About 2,000 of these coins are known, but this tetradrachma is the first to be discovered during a legal excavation. We named the findspot the Cave of the Tetradrachma.

 

Finally, I come to the el-Jai Cave, on the south side of Wadi Suweinet, northeast of Jerusalem. I visited the cave several times, looking for artifacts from the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, but found only some Early Bronze Age potsherds (c. 2000 B.C.E.). When I led a group of students here in 1997, we found evidence of intensive illegal excavations. Near one of the cave’s two entrances we noticed potsherds from the second century C.E. Crawling into the inner part of the cave, we came upon broken glass vessels, often found in destruction layers from the Bar-Kokhba period. We also found two coins near the entrance to the cave’s huge hall and three more inside. The oldest [sic] was a bronze coin of the Roman emperor Domitian (81–96 C.E.), minted in Sebaste, with two countermarks (stamps) of the Tenth Roman Legion. (This legion led the forces that suppressed the First Jewish Revolt against Rome in the first century C.E.) The other four coins all dated to the time of Hadrian. Three of these coins are critical to our discussion: a city coin from Gaza, found in the huge hall, and two Aelia Capitolina coins, from a tunnel leading into the hall.

 

The Gaza coin is important because it can be dated precisely.

 

When Hadrian made his eastern tour, he visited Gaza, an honor the city wanted to preserve in memory forever. To do this, the Gazans recorded two dates on their coins: the Gaza era (the number of years from the Roman liberation of the city in 61 B.C.E.) and the number of years after Hadrian’s visit. The inscription on the Gaza coin from the el-Jai Cave tells us it was struck in year 5 after the visit of Hadrian and year 194 of the Gaza era. This double date (the difference between the two dates is seven or eight months) allows the coin to be dated to the end of 133 C.E. or the beginning of 134 C.E. [sic]

 

One of the Aelia Capitolina coins portrays, on its reverse, the ceremony of the founding of the city as a Roman colony. The emperor appears plowing the boundary of the city with an ox and a cow. The Latin inscription reads “COL[ONIA] AEL[IA] KAPIT[OLINA], COND[IT],” or “Colony of Aelia Capitolina, founded.” In the background is the legionary standard. The other Aelia coin depicts, on its reverse, the head of Sabina, Hadrian’s wife, with the inscription “Sabina Augusta.”

 

Both coins strengthen the association of the founding of Aelia with Hadrian’s tour, especially his visit to Jerusalem. If, as I believe, the Gaza coin was deposited in the cave at the same time as the Aelia coins, Aelia must have been founded by 133/4 C.E.

 

The Bar-Kokhba Revolt lasted another year or so. Therefore Aelia must have been established before, not after, the revolt. Dio Cassius was right. The establishment of Jerusalem as a Roman colony named Aelia Capitolina was apparently one of the causes of the Second [sic] Jewish Revolt against Rome.

 

One final insight provided by the coins from this cave: Some scholars have argued that the rebels had no commercial connections with people outside Judea during the revolt. Their argument is based largely on the fact that coin hoards from the Bar-Kokhba Revolt usually contain no Roman coins dating later than 132 C.E. The coins from the el-Jai Cave disprove this contention. The Jews who fled to this cave no earlier than 134 C.E. carried with them coins minted in 133/4 C.E.—during the revolt.

 

 

Saturday, February 14, 2026

Augustus-like Diocletian likewise had a trustworthy right-hand, second self

 

 


by

Damien F. Mackey

  

Augustus’s right-hand man de-luxe, his virtual ‘second self’, was Marcus Agrippa. Perplexed historians wonder why [Agrippa] did not seize the kingdom for himself.

  

Introduction

 

Several tyrannical rulers, who I have argued to have been just the one mighty emperor, have in common a most trusted right-hand man, in some cases even given the signet, whose power and influence seemed to be almost on a par with those of the emperor – yet without any apparent intention of rebellion or usurpation.

 

Such amounted to a most formidable, iron-clad partnership.

 

In my article:

 

Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man

 

(5) Herod, the emperor's signet right-hand man

 

I considered Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’; Augustus Caesar; and Hadrian; names that I had merged into just the one powerful emperor – {a Seleucid Greek at the time of the Infancy of Jesus Christ} – most notably in my article:

 

Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

(5) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

 

The right-hand man (Part One)

 

-         In the case of Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, the highly trusted official was undoubtedly Philip, a barbaric Phrygian.

-         In the case of Augustus, the highly trusted official was Marcus Agrippa.

-         In the case of Hadrian, it was (less impressively, as we know less about him) Herodes Atticus.

 

Philip

 

We read that the dying king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, who had formerly appointed Philip as ruler over Jerusalem (2 Maccabees 5:22), now bestowed upon him the following outstanding further promotion (1 Maccabees 6:14-16):

 

Then [king Antiochus] called for Philip, one of his Friends, and made him ruler over all his kingdom. He gave him the crown and his robe and the signet, so that he might guide his son Antiochus and bring him up to be king. Thus King Antiochus died there in the one hundred forty-ninth year.

 

Philip was now virtually a second emperor.

 

            Marcus Agrippa

 

Augustus’s right-hand man de-luxe, his virtual ‘second self’, was Marcus Agrippa. Perplexed historians wonder why this powerful man did not seize the kingdom for himself. For example:

https://www.amazon.com.au/Marcus-Agrippa-Right-hand-Caesar-Augustus-ebook/dp/B00TOXQLDY

 

When Gaius Octavius became the first emperor of Rome, Marcus Agrippa was by his side. As the emperor’s loyal deputy, he waged wars, pacified provinces, beautified Rome, and played a crucial role in establishing the Pax Romana—but he always served knowing that he would never rule in his own name. Why he did so, and never grasped power for himself, has perplexed historians for centuries. ….

 

Well, actually the king’s second-in-command did seize power – if but for a brief period of time, in his guise as Philip (I Maccabees 6:55-56, 63):

 

Then Lysias heard that Philip, whom King Antiochus while still living had appointed to bring up his son Antiochus to be king, had returned from Persia and Media with the forces that had gone with the king, and that he was trying to seize control of the government. ….

 

Then [Antiochus Eupator] set off in haste and returned to Antioch. He found Philip in control of the city, but he fought against him, and took the city by force.

 

In the next piece: https://prabook.com/web/marcus.agrippa/3739878 we learn two intriguing things: the Census (cf. Luke 2:1-2) was the dual work of the emperor Augustus and Marcus Agrippa; and, the latter was given the signet ring when the emperor was ill, “to be designated the emperor’s successor” (I do not accept the dates):

 

Agrippa and Octavian jointly conducted a census and carried out a purge of the Senate; in 28 and 27 Agrippa held the consulate again, both times with Octavian (from 27, Augustus) as his colleague. In 23, a year of constitutional crisis, Augustus fell ill and presented his signet ring to Agrippa, who seemed thus to be designated the emperor’s successor. ….

 

Philip likewise, as we read, had been given the signet ring when the emperor was ill (and dying). But, whereas in the true, Maccabean version, the emperor will actually die and his second-in-command will continue on, in the pseudo-historical version, the emperor will rally, and will live to bury his second-in-command, Marcus Agrippa.

 

            Herodes Atticus

 

Now we turn to the emperor Hadrian, whom I have identified as a further extension, alter ego, of Antiochus-Augustus.

 

Hadrian, too, then, ought to have had an influential Philip-Agrippa type friend.

 

Hadrian, who left a massive impression upon antiquity, is, strangely, poorly sourced. Anthony Everitt writes of this in his book, Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome (Random House, 2009): “The most serious problem has been the ancient literary sources of which a mere handful survive, mangled and mutilated”.

 

With a garbled Hadrian we would likely get, as well, a garbled and semi-fictitious partner. Indeed, Hadrian did have such a close friend serving him in Asia: Herodes Atticus (ignore the dates below):

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Herodes-Atticus

 

…. Herodes was born into an immensely wealthy Athenian family that had received Roman citizenship during the reign of the emperor Claudius (41–54). He was befriended by Hadrian (emperor 117–138), who employed him as a commissioner in charge of eliminating corruption in the free cities of the province of Asia. Herodes became consul in 143 and later contributed to the education of Hadrian’s destined successors, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.

 

We recall that Philip was entrusted by Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ with the instruction of the king’s son.

 

Under his direction numerous buildings were constructed throughout Greece, including an odeum (called the Odeum of Herodes Atticus) at Athens.

 

Marcus Agrippa likewise built an Odeum: https://www.britannica.com/place/Athens/Hellenistic-and-Roman-times

 

Of his voluminous output of speeches and other writings, nothing nquestionably authentic survives ….

 

Haven’t we read that sort of thing before!’

 

Tying all of this together is another name, who, too, surprisingly, may be regarded as having been a right-hand man of the emperor Augustus.

 

He is Herod ‘the Great’.

 

King Herod

 

The name, Herod, immediately ties in with that of Hadrian’s Herodes (or Herod) Atticus.

Now this gains extra meaning when we learn that Marcus Agrippa, our Herod and right-hand man for the emperor Augustus (see above), had married an “Atticus”.

Thus we read of “… the marriage of [Marcus] Agrippa to the daughter of Titus Atticus”: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Marcus-Vipsanius-Agrippa

 

Herod Atticus much resembles our composite Herod ‘the Great’ (= Philip/Marcus Agrippa) in his Greek-ness; he was filthy rich; had Greco-Roman connections; his friendship with the emperor; his activities in Asia; his buildings on a massive scale.

 

But, above all, Herodes Atticus (like Philip, like Herod) had “served as a governor of Judaea”:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/367689?seq=1

 

Undoubtedly, King Herod is in need of a major alter ego, or more, given that one bearing his impressive epithet, ‘the Great’, appears to have left no significant depiction of himself, qua Herod, prompting my surprised article:

 

What, no statuary of Herod ‘the Great’?

 

(10) What, no statuary of Herod ‘the Great’? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

 

With the Maccabean era now collapsed into New Testament times, as e.g. in my article:

 

King Herod ‘the Great’

 

(5) King Herod ‘the Great’

 

and with the Phrygian ‘Philip’ of Maccabees 1-2 now identified there as King Herod himself, it needs to be shown that Herod had been exalted above all the others - just like this Philip had been in the case of king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ - by the emperor Caesar Augustus.

 

It may, indeed, be possible to show that Herod ‘the Great’ was thus (as Philip) exalted.

 

Richard Carrier has written an article, entitled “Herod the Procurator: Was Herod the Great a Roman Governor of Syria?”

https://www.academia.edu/1203990/Herod_the_Procurator_Was_Herod_the_Great_a_Roman_Governor_of_Syria

At the beginning of the article we learn this intriguing detail (I do not accept the dates):

 

In 20 B.C. Augustus toured the East, settling various affairs, finally landing in Syria, where he acquitted Herod of charges against him brought by the Gadarenes, and attached the territories of the recently-deceased tetrarch Zenodorus to Herod’s own growing kingdom. Then Josephus reports something quite astonishing: Augustus “mixed him in with those who were procurating Syria, ordering them to do everything in accordance with his judgement,” or indeed, “he appointed him procurator of all Syria, so the procurators could manage nothing against his advice.”

 

“… the procurators could manage nothing against [Herod’s] advice”.

 

Wow!

 

And, just as king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ had highly appointed Philip at the end of the king’s campaign presumably (though not actually) to the East, so here we read that Augustus himself had just “toured the East” when he gave Herod ‘the Great’ such over-arching power.

 

Now Philip, now Herod, thus made leading man in the kingdom, the king’s right-hand man.

 

The right-hand man (Part Two)

 

If the emperor Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletian is to be added to the terminally terrible and tyrannical ‘triumvirate’ of Antiochus-Augustus-Hadrian, as at least hinted at in my latest article (14th February, 2026):

 

Diocletian repeating Augustus?

 

(6) Diocletian repeating Augustus?

 

then he, too, would presumably need to ‘pay his dues’ in this connection by yielding his right-hand man, his loyal and trusted servant.

 

Well, we do not need to go far to find him in the faithful Maximian (ignore the dates):

Maximian | Military leader, Tetrarchy, Co-Augustus | Britannica

 

Maximian (born c. ad 250 … was a Roman emperor with Diocletian from ad 286 to 305.

…. 

Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maximianus [Comment: A Marcus, like Agrippa].

…. 

Born of humble parents, Maximian rose in the army, on the basis of his military skill [Comment: Like Marcus Agrippa], to become a trusted officer and friend of the emperor Diocletian, who made him caesar July 21, 285, and augustus April 1, 286.

Maximian thus became in theory the colleague of Diocletian, but his role was always subordinate. [Comment: Like Philip, like Marcus Agrippa, like Herod].

 

Assigned the government of the West, Maximian defeated native revolts and a German invasion in Gaul, but he failed to suppress the revolt of Carausius in Gaul and Britain; after the institution of the tetrarch system (i.e., two augusti, each with one caesar under him), Constantius Chlorus, appointed caesar under Maximian in 293, took charge of these areas while Maximian continued to govern Italy, Spain, and Africa.

 

Although long viewed by Christians as a persecutor of their religion [Comment: Persecutor of Jews and Christians, like Philip, like Herod], Maximian seems to have done no more than obediently execute in his part of the empire the first edict of Diocletian [Comment: Edict, like Antiochus, like Augustus], which ordered the burning of the Scriptures and the closing of the churches. On May 1, 305, the same day that Diocletian abdicated at Nicomedia, Maximian abdicated, evidently reluctantly, at Mediolanum (modern Milan). As the new tetrarchy that succeeded them began to break down, Maximian reclaimed the throne to support his son Maxentius (307).

 

Persuaded to abdicate once more by Diocletian in 308, he lived at the court of Constantine [sic], who had recently married his daughter Fausta. Maximian committed suicide shortly after the suppression of a revolt raised by him against Constantine. ….