Skip to: Site Menu | Main content

Not in the Theater: Challenging Josephus’s Location for the Place of Herod Agrippa’s Death

The death of Herod Agrippa I occurred in Caesarea according to both Josephus and the book of Acts. Josephus writes that the king was in the theater when the crowd hailed him as a god and he was struck down. Details in Josephus’s account, however, indicate that the episode occurred in the city amphitheater next door to the temple where the emperor was worshipped.

By Todd Bolen
July 2010

The death of Herod Agrippa I is one of the few events that is reported by both the book of Acts and Josephus. Bible readers recall that Agrippa was struck down by an angel of the Lord while delivering a public address in Caesarea (Acts 12:19-23). The account is brief, but the immediate cause of his illness is clearly given in the text: the crowd hailed Herod as a god and the king passively accepted their praise.

Despite the miraculous elements, most scholars believe that the account in Acts is generally accurate because of a parallel record in Josephus (Ant. 19.8.2 §§343-50). Most scholars believe that the two reports had independent sources, and though they agree in several respects, Josephus’s longer account contains more details, including the incident’s occasion, location, and aftermath.1 Acts records that Herod gave the address in Caesarea, and Josephus places it in the theater of Caesarea. Acts does not say anything about the time of day, but Josephus writes that it occurred early in the morning. Acts connects the episode with the resolution of a quarrel with the people of Tyre and Sidon, but says of the public address itself only that it occurred “on the appointed day.” Josephus relates that Agrippa appeared to the crowd on the second day of a festival intended to honor Caesar. Both sources speak of Herod’s clothing, but whereas Acts says simply that he was “wearing his royal robes,” Josephus describes the garments as made “wholly of silver” and when “illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays . . . was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him.” Josephus indicates that the crowd hailed Agrippa as a god because of his radiant clothing, but Luke’s brief account may imply that they did so in response to the sound of Agrippa’s voice. Both agree that Agrippa accepted the crowd’s enthusiastic praise and consequently died shortly thereafter.

Caesarea palace and theater aerial from the west

Excavations at Caesarea are helpful in reconstructing this event. It is likely that as successor to most of the vast holdings of his grandfather King Herod, Agrippa I took up residence in the promontory palace on the south side of the city.2 About a decade later, Agrippa’s successor, the Roman governor Felix, occupied the same palace (Acts 24:35). Presumably, then, on the morning in which he was struck down, Agrippa left this palace and proceeded to his appointed place in order to address the crowd.

According to Josephus, Agrippa came to the theater (θέατρον) where he so inspired the gathered populace that he was hailed as a god. On this basis, tourists today usually visit the Herodian theater and envision the event occurring in this semi-circular entertainment venue. I believe, however, that Josephus’s designation of the location was inaccurate. Analysis of his account indicates that the amphitheater, rather than the theater, was the setting for Herod’s public address.3

The first clue that Josephus gives is the time of day. He says that it occurred at “the beginning of the day” (ἀρχομένης ἡμέρας). Dressed in a garment made “wholly of silver,” Agrippa dazzled the crowd when his robes were “illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it.” The theater, however, faces west. If the king was positioned on the stage, the sun would not have reached over the multi-storied seating area before mid-morning. And if he was speaking from the seating area, the sun would not have reflected off his clothes until even later. The amphitheater, by contrast, is wide, and the twelve rows of seating would not have blocked the sun. Agrippa could have been addressing the crowd from the western side of the amphitheater where the sun would be able to reflect off his clothes early in the morning.

The second indication that Agrippa was struck down in the amphitheater is the occasion of his death. Acts says only that it occurred “on the appointed day” (τακτῇ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ), but Josephus describes the event occurring on the second day of a festival in honor of Caesar in which a great multitude was assembled. Scholars identify this festival with either the quinquennial celebration of the city’s founding, on March 5, AD 44, or a celebration of Emperor Claudius’s birthday on August 1 of that same year. The former was originally organized by King Herod in 12 BC.4 It was styled after the Olympic Games, but called “Caesar’s Games” (Josephus, War 1.21.8 §415). These games included combats and horse races (Josephus, Ant. 16.5.1 §§136-141), and were conducted in the amphitheater, not in the theater which was designed for dramatic performances. The emperor’s birthday was also celebrated with sports, and thus a setting in the amphitheater is most likely for this event as well.

A third piece of supporting evidence can be adduced from Josephus’s report of an encounter between Pilate and a large crowd about a decade earlier (War 2.9.3 §§172). When the Roman governor sent standards with Caesar’s image into Jerusalem, a large delegation traveled to Caesarea to entreat Pilate to remove these offensive placards. Josephus writes that “on the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal [βήμα] in the great stadium [μεγάλῳ σταδίῳ].”5 The word for stadium more naturally refers to the amphitheater, particularly with the modifier “great.”6 It is reasonable that the bema was located in the same place in Agrippa’s day, and that he addressed the crowd from the customary place.

Caesarea hippodrome aerial from the northwest

Finally, it should be noted that Josephus’s use of terms designating buildings of entertainment is known to be imprecise. In Jerusalem he states at one point that Herod built a theater and an amphitheater (Ant. 15.8.1 §268), and elsewhere he mentions a hippodrome (War 2.3.1 §44; Ant 17.10.2§255). None of these buildings have been located in Jerusalem today, and most scholars conclude that only one, or at most two, existed, and that Josephus referred to a single building by multiple terms. The model at the Israel Museum (formerly located at the Holyland Hotel), for instance, reconstructs only a theater and a hippodrome in the city.7 In other words, if Josephus could refer to an amphitheater as a hippodrome in Jerusalem, he certainly could have identified an amphitheater as a theater in Caesarea. He appears to have made precisely this mistake in describing sporting events and horse races as occurring in the theater of Jerusalem (Ant. 15.8.1-4 §§269-85).8

The lines of evidence thus converge to locate the amphitheater of Caesarea as the place where Agrippa addressed the people and contracted his fatal illness. It was here that the Roman governor’s bema was located, and it was here where the crowds gathered to hear Agrippa’s address in advance of the day’s games. Unlike the theater, the design of the amphitheater best suits illumination of Agrippa’s garments by the rays of the early morning sun.

One other aspect is elucidated by an understanding of the event’s location. Immediately adjacent to the northern end of the amphitheater was the imperial temple, the center of worship of the emperor and the goddess Roma.9 The crowds that hailed Agrippa that day were very familiar with the practice of honoring the emperor as a god. Only a few years earlier, Agrippa’s close friend, Emperor Caligula, demanded that he be revered as a god. One way that Caligula signaled his desire for worship was by the clothing he wore, oftentimes dressing himself in the attire of one of the deities.10 Unfortunately for Agrippa, the God of Israel was less willing to overlook such blasphemy in a king with Jewish heritage ruling in the Promised Land. The king who called himself “the great” recognized that his punishment was just—the intense pain apparently brought moral clarity—for he declared with irony that “I, who was called immortal by you, am now under sentence of death” (Josephus, Ant. 19.8.2 §347).11


1 One who argues that Acts is dependent upon Josephus is Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, ed. Harold W. Attridge, Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 301, 312–13. Among those who see the accounts as independent is Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum neuen Testament, vol. 49 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), 166.

2 Netzer, Burrell, and Gleason identified this as a palace built by King Herod (Ehud Netzer, The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder, Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum, ed. Martin Hengel and Peter Schäfer, vol. 117 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006], 106–12), but excavations by the Israel Antiquities Authority date its construction to the early Roman governors (Yosef Porath, “Caesarea: The Israel Antiquities Authority Excavations,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land: Supplementary Volume, ed. Ephraim Stern, vol. 5 [Jerusalem and Washington DC: Israel Exploration Society and Biblical Archaeology Society, 2008], 1658). Josephus states that Herod adorned the city with a “very costly palace” (Ant. 15.9.6 §331). Richardson observes the architectural similarities between this palace and those attributed to Herod at Jericho, Masada, and Herodium (Peter Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans, Studies on Personalities of the New Testament [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999], 181). Whether built during Herod’s rule or after, the palace would have properly belonged to Agrippa when he was king.

3 What Josephus called an “amphitheater” is considered by scholars today as a circus/hippodrome or a hippo-stadium on the basis of clear evidence of horse-racing activity (Porath, “Caesarea,” 1658; Joseph Patrich, “Caesarea: The Combined Caesarea Expeditions Excavations: Areas CC, KK, and NN,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land: Supplementary Volume, ed. Ephraim Stern, vol. 5 [Jerusalem and Washington DC: Israel Exploration Society and Biblical Archaeology Society, 2008], 1675; Netzer, Architecture 118). As will be shown below, Josephus’s imprecise terminology here supports the conclusion of this study. This structure will be called an “amphitheater” in the present study to accord with Josephus’s vocabulary and to avoid further confusion.

4 Richardson, Herod, 282n85.

5 Whiston incorrectly translates this as “open market place.”

6 Cf. LSJ, s.v. στάδιον II. The theater seated 4,000–5,000 spectators while the amphitheater in Herod’s day held 7,500. See Netzer, Architecture, 113–15 and Porath, “Caesarea,” 1659.

7 In recent years, the hippodrome has been removed from the model. I speculate that the designers removed it because (1) evidence shows that the hippodrome was certainly not located in the position indicated on the model south of the Temple Mount; (2) no possible location within the city’s walls (and thus the model’s boundaries) is known; (3) Josephus’s record may support locating the building to the southwest of the city beyond the Hinnom Valley.

8 This observation is made by Richardson, who notes that the building where the trophies were hung was for animal contests, yet Josephus calls it a theater (Herod, 187n42).

9 This temple was apparently depicted on Agrippa’s coins in the last year of his rule. See Duane W. Roller, The Building Program of Herod the Great (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998), 139. More details about the archaeological results of the excavation of the temple can be found in Netzer, Architecture, 103–6 and Lisa C. Kahn, “King Herod’s Temple of Roma and Augustus at Caesarea Maritima,” in Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millenia, ed. Avner Raban and Kenneth G. Holum, Documenta et monumenta orientis antiqui, vol. 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 130–45.

10 Caligula’s custom of dressing himself as a living deity has led some to believe that Agrippa was intending to provoke the crowd’s acclamations by virtue of his ostentatious costume. In the temple that Caligula built for himself in Rome, he erected a golden statue, and each day its clothes were changed to match the ones the emperor was wearing (Suetonius, Cal. 22.2; cf. Philo, Embassy 29 §188). At various times, he would act or dress as if he were Jupiter, Neptune, Apollo, or another of the gods or goddesses. See Werner Eck, “Caligula,” in Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World, ed. Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 956.

11 Though King Herod is popularly known as “Herod the Great,” this title was never used for him in his lifetime. By contrast, his grandson Agrippa used the title for himself. See Richardson, Herod, 12, 211, 313.

Comments (13)

Having just been at Caesarea on a class with JUC, I like your theory. It best fits the lay of the land and in my mind, the hippodrome would hold a much larger crowd. Thanks for the chance to "noddle" on this a little.
#1 - Mike Folk - 07/28/2010 - 20:12

Tyre was well known for its purple dye which was extracted from the Murex shellfish. The people of Tyre were among those listening to Agrippa and he probably wore the customary royal purple attire that day. The unique acoustics of the amphitheater was probably more of a motivation for them to hail Agrippa as a god than the brightness of his clothing. Josephus may have exaggerated when he described garments made "wholly of silver". A good indication that purple clothing was worn by kings at the time is found in Mark 15:17,18, when the soldiers led Jesus into the Praetorium.
#2 - Arthur Chrysler - 07/28/2010 - 20:15

Thank you for this very interesting study, Todd. I had understood that Herod's palace became the residence of the governors rather than the Herods during this time. Felix lived in "Herod’s Praetorium" (Acts 23:35); would not the governor in AD 44 also have lived there? Not sure if it relates, but Pilate, not Herod Antipas, stayed in the Praetorium (Citadel) in Jerusalem when they were both in town for the AD 33 Passover. Just thinking out loud. Thanks again.
#3 - Wayne Stiles - 07/29/2010 - 10:17

Wayne - Agrippa I was the one "break" in the line of Roman governors. He was appointed by Claudius and given charge over nearly all of the lands his grandfather had once controlled. His reign might have been more illustrious if he hadn't died so soon. Upon his death, Roman procurators again governed the land, including Felix and Festus about a decade later.
#4 - Todd Bolen - 07/29/2010 - 21:42

Nice article, Todd. Makes me more eager to return to Caesarea and examine things more closely.
#5 - Bill Soper - 07/30/2010 - 02:35

Hey Todd,

On my fist visit to Caesarea in '86 I heard a lecture that drew no conclusions, but agreed with your observations. Hearing the Acts 12 passage in the Theater always left me wondering. Thanks for more fodder and encouragement to keep digging.
#6 - Roger Willis - 07/30/2010 - 15:13

Thanks for the interesting article. Your conclusions seem sound. Hope to be back in Caesarea before the summer ends...I'll take your article with me.
#7 - bill soper - 07/31/2010 - 10:58

I was away from books and computer for several days, but perhaps this tidbit on Josephus' use of architectural terms is relevant. The source is the New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, the Volume 5 Supplement (2008), a section of the "Caesarea" article written by Joseph Patrich (p.1675): "The entertainment structure built by Herod on the shore facing the sea ... is referred to by Josephus ... as an amphitheater, which in his days meant an elongated arena surrounded by spectator seats (only later did this term come to denote an oval arena like the Colosseum in Rome). Elsewhere Josephus speaks of the great stadium ... which probably refers to the same Herodian structure ... used for horse-racing as well as athletics." The point is, Josephus' use of these various terms for a single sports facility may well fall within the bounds of the common usage of his day and not really be a mistake at all. In other words, if we let him call a hippodrome an amphitheatre at Caesarea, we are constrained to let him off the hook on the same count with regard to Jerusalem! If Josephus is indeed guilty of the imprecise, cavalier use of architectural terms, I think the evidence must be sought elsewhere. Finally, if Josephus' venue for the Agrippa story is in error, then the discrepancy begs to be explained. In this connection, it simply occurs to me that Josephus was presumably NOT an eyewitness to Agrippa's death and thus, like any historian, had to rely on sources for the story.
#8 - TOM POWERS / Jerusalem - 08/17/2010 - 17:19

Todd, that being so, it seems strange that Agrippa I didn't reclaim the Citadel/Palace in Jerusalem and live there while at Passover. Thanks.
#9 - Wayne Stiles - 08/23/2010 - 09:37

I find the suggestion made in the article quite fascinating (if not ultimately convincing). I must - I keep coming back to it! Here's one more (last?) tidbit, once again from Joseph Patrich, who seems to take Josephus at face value regarding Agrippa in the theater. It is from his article "Herod's Hippodrome-Stadium at Caesarea and the Games Conducted Therein", in the book "What Athens Has To Do with Jerusalem: Essays on Classical, Jewish, and Early Christian Art and Archaeology in Honor of Gideon Foerster", Leonard Rutgers, ed. (Peeters, 2002), pp. 33-36. After quoting Josephus' passages on the games held at Caesarea (Ant. 16:137-41) and Jerusalem (Ant. 15:268-74), Patrich observes that "it follows from these descriptions that the celebrations at both [places] included music ('mousika') ... 'Mousica' could be held in the theater..." Indeed, even without Josephus' specification, it is hard to imagine Caesarea's "other" great entertainment venue sitting comletely idle during the extended and multifaceted games.
#10 - TOM POWERS / Jerusalem - 09/02/2010 - 16:53

One last thought (I think): It is noted that Josephus' account contains several details of the story absent from the version in Acts. One of those details is called into question, while the other details (the time of day, Agrippa's apparel, the occasion of the games) are all readily embraced -- and marshalled as evidence against the theater venue! It seems a bit disingenuous somehow: I think I hear Josephus calling out from The Beyond: "C'mon guys, gimme a break!"
#11 - TOM POWERS / Jerusalem - 09/03/2010 - 04:49

Acts does not identify an Agrippa I in chap. 12. The name given is "Herod," not a name of Agrippa I.
#12 - richard i. pervo - 03/07/2011 - 11:15

Tom - if Josephus does not use building terms precisely, then it seems appropriate to evaluate the details to determine if they are consistent with his claim. I don't think that's disingenuous. Another approach is to just reject Josephus as lacking any historical value. In either case, we should not locate the event in the theater.
#13 - Todd Bolen - 06/09/2011 - 14:08

Use the form below to submit a new comment. Comments are moderated
and logged, and may be edited. You must provide your full name.
Inappropriate material will not be posted. Please do not post inappropriate web sites, they will be deleted.

E-mail (Will not appear online)