When Bernice left this husband, as Josephus reports it, she was still widely suspected of “impure intentions.” (33) She and her unmarried brother, with whom she was still suspected of incest, visited Rome together after Vespasian was named emperor.
Regardless of their scandalous behavior, these late Herodian royals were not entirely false Jews. After all, as the children of Herod Agrippa I, they could all claim descent from his grandmother, who descended from the authentically Jewish Hasmonean dynasty of kings and high priests. Before the violent rebellion that erupted in Judea during the reign of Nero, however, these Herodian princesses seem to have abandoned the strictures of Jewish tradition, at least with respect to circumcision and marrying men outside of their faith. Indeed, the private conduct of the Herodian royals no doubt provoked the rebels in Judea and helped foment the outbreak of war in 66 CE. In the eyes of Jewish purists, the Herods may as well have been foreigners, polluted by consorting with the Roman elites and authorities who occupied Jewish land.
Some “collaborating” Jews dropped even the pretense of Jewish practice. Tiberius Alexander, Titus’s second-in-command at the Jerusalem siege, for example, “did not continue in the religion of his country” according to Josephus. (34) And, as Dead Sea Scrolls translator Robert Eisenman observes, Josephus’s description of Tiberius is “the equivalent of the pot calling the kettle black.” (35)
Flavius Josephus himself resembles Paul in his opposition to forced circumcision. Though it was the practice of the Jewish rebels to require circumcision of any new allies and converts, Josephus boasts in his autobiography that he would not permit the forced circumcision of new rebel allies under his jurisdiction, arguing that “[e]veryone ought to worship God according to his own inclinations, and not to be constrained by force…” (36) This mirrors the language in Galatians where Paul considers and rejects the requirement that converts should be “compelled to be circumcised.” (37)
Circumcision would have been a considerable obstacle for Jews seeking assimilation with the Empire, as well as any Gentiles who considered anything more than dabbling in Judaism. From the stories told about these Herodians, we can see that it was a problem, and that Paul’s position on the subject would have been extremely appreciated.
In addition to dispensing with circumcision, we can be reasonably sure that these “Jews” around Titus also ignored orthodox reservations about “eat[ing] with Gentiles” and sharing their non-Kosher food. Paul scornfully ascribed such stodgy rules to the James community (38), whose reservations seem identical to those of the so-called “Qumran sectarians” of the Dead Sea Scrolls and to those causing conflict with Rome. Indeed, Josephus informs us that the Essene sect, usually identified today as being the Qumran sectarians who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, were so fanatical that they could not even be tortured into eating forbidden foods. (39)
Obviously, then, the privileged and powerful Jews cooperating with the Romans had to reject the xenophobic politics of purist Zealots as well as the nationalist terrorists who called themselves the “Sicarii.” As agents of Rome they were compelled to do so, since they were all, ipso facto, representatives of the Pax Romana.
We know from the reports of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus that Vespasian and Titus proclaimed themselves to be the Jewish messiahs of prophecy. We must assume that, like Josephus, the other “Jews” in Titus’s circle also publicly acknowledged this imperial claim.
Judea Capta
The agreement of the Flavians’ Jewish friends on this point of propaganda would have been especially important. There is no doubt that, as Jews, certain “public relations” demands would have applied specifically to them in the aftermath of the Jewish War. These Jewish associates of the Flavians, simply as Jews who professed loyalty to Rome, would have had to agree that Vespasian and Titus, both father and son, fulfilled the messianic prophecy of their faith. This imperial obligation alone, therefore, qualifies them as “messianic Jews,” and more: they were pro-Roman and pro-peace messianic Jews.
In all of these ways, the Jews who populated the Flavian court were more closely akin to “Christians” of Paul’s school than to the “Jews” they are all assumed to have been. Just as the rebellious messianic Jews of the 1st Century were conflated with “Christians,” so, too, have these likely Flavian Christians been conflated with “Jews.”
From all of this, we can surmise that the well-connected “Jews” surrounding Titus would have been most receptive to Paul’s message. Paul preached that it was possible to be both a good believer in the Jewish God, even a messianic one, and yet be “free” from the culturally-alienating constraints of Mosaic practice, such as circumcision, Kosher diet, and avoiding close association with Gentiles. Since among them were tax collectors and women of notorious repute, the fact that Jesus is shown approving of such company would also have been appreciated.
As tax collectors and personal associates of Caesar, it goes without saying that they would have agreed with the “render unto Caesar” rhetoric, as well. Many of the key issues that concerned Paul, like circumcision, were the same concerns of these followers of the Jewish messiah Titus at his imperial court.
All of this seems highly likely from inference alone. Taken at face value, however, the New Testament confirms it—as we shall now see.
A number of these friends and associates of the Emperor Titus actually appear in the New Testament—and in a surprisingly favorable light.
Wherever they appear they are shown offering friendly assistance to St. Paul himself. They even express sympathy for Paul and interest in his radical Jewish gospel.
For the best detailed account of the activities of Paul, at least as described in the New Testament, the reader is once more directed to the work of Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon, Operation Messiah. (40) However, any reader of the New Testament can readily see official Roman assistance being provided to Paul’s mission.
Acts of the Apostles, or as it is sometimes called, the Book of Acts, purports to be the second part of the Gospel of Luke. It is the only part of the New Testament to describe the activities of the Apostles after the Resurrection.
In Acts we are told that after the Jewish Sanhedrin accused Paul of crimes against Jewish Law and what is described as an attempted “desecration” of the Temple, Paul was taken to the Roman governor Felix—the husband of Drusilla and brother-in-law to Titus’s future fiancée Bernice. (41)
The attorney for the Sanhedrin and Paul both present their cases to Felix, who we are informed was well acquainted with “the Way” (as Christianity is often called in Acts). Although Paul was allegedly under arrest, Felix orders the centurion in charge “to give him some freedom and permit his friends to take care of his needs.” (42) So, Paul’s arrest seems to be an “arrest” only in name.
According to Acts:
Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus. As Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, “That’s enough for now. You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you.” At the same time he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe, so he sent for him frequently and talked with him.
When two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, but because Felix wanted to grant a favor to the Jews, he left Paul in prison. (Emphasis added.) (43)