2007 - Morten Hørning Jensen - Herod Antipas in Galilee. Friend or Foe of The Historical Jesus

http://jhj.sagepub.
com
the Historical Jesus
Journal for the Study of
DOI: 10.1177/1476869006074934
2007; 5; 7 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
Morten Hrning Jensen
Herod Antipas in Galilee: Friend or Foe of the Historical Jesus?
http://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/1/7
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Additional services and information for
http://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jhj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at Statsbiblioteket on March 22, 2007 http://jhj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
HEROD ANTIPAS IN GALILEE:
FRIEND OR FOE OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS?
*
Morten Hrning Jensen
*
University of Aarhus
Aarhus, Denmark
mhj@teo.au.dk
ABSTRACT
The quest for the secrets of rst-century Galilee has recently attracted much intense
interest, fuelling not least the occasionally heated debate about the cultural and
socio-economic setting of the historical Jesus. Interest centres in particular on
Herod Antipas impact on the regions socio-economic stability. Was he good or
bad news for the ordinary rural peasant population, and did his urbanization pro-
gramme critically impact on Jesus and his movement? No consensus has been
reached regarding this and similar questions, and Antipas is presently promoted as
the key gure in conicting views of rst-century Galilee as either enjoying good
and stable conditions, or subject to heavy economic pressure aggravating indebt-
edness and tenancy. Surprisingly, the reign of Antipas has only been treated cur-
sorily, with Harold Hoehners dissertation from 1972 being the one exception,
since when intense archaeological activity has produced much new insight on
ancient Galilee. Building on a larger study, this article therefore explores the
sources, both literary and archaeological, of Antipas reign with a view to deter-
mining its socio-economic consequences. It will be argued that Antipas impact
on early rst-century Galilee was probably more moderate than often assumed by
scholars of the historical Jesus.
Key words: Cana, Capernaum, coin circulation, rst-century Galilee, Gamla, Herod
Antipas, historical Jesus, Josephus, Second Temple Jewish coinage, Sepphoris,
socio-economic conditions of Galilee, Tiberias, Yodefat
Introduction
During the last three decades, Roman Galilee has become an issue of intense
interest, and the quest for its historical, cultural, political and religious secrets
* This article is based on my dissertation, Herod Antipas in Galilee, University of
Aarhus, 2005, now published as Morten Hrning Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee (WUNT,
2.215; Tbingen: MohrSiebeck, 2006). For more information, see the accompanying website,
www.herodantipas.com.
Journal for the Study of the
Historical Jesus
Vol. 5.1 pp. 7-32
DOI: 10.1177/1476869006074934
2007 SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi
http://JSHJ.sagepub.com
8 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
has had a magnetic attraction, uniting various strands of scholarly enterprise
such as research on the historical Jesus, Josephus and rabbinic Judaism, as well
as archaeological eld work. Broad roads of interest lead to Galilee from each
of these areas of study.
By tracing the way in which the discussion has evolved, it is reasonable to
conclude that thirty years of research actually have claried some issues, shaped
not least by the ever-growing amount of archaeological material. In particular, it
seems that previous descriptions claiming that Galilee was as urbanized as any
other region in the Roman world do not stand up to close scrutiny.
1
Instead, the
main focus has shifted to a more localized discussion of the urbanrural rela-
tions of early rst-century Galilee in the wake of Antipas programme of
urbanization. What did it mean to Galilee to experience its rst local ruler for
many years, and what was the relationship between Antipas reign and the
socio-economic realities of both urban and rural Galilee? The most important
issue of discussion at the moment thus seems to concern the socio-economic
conditions of early rst-century Galilee, and in this connection Herod Antipas is
presented as the key factor.
Nevertheless, while Antipas central role is widely accepted, no consensus
has been reached regarding his impact, and he is being used as the cornerstone
in totally opposite descriptions of Galilee in what could be termed a picture of
conict or a picture of harmony, respectively.
2
At one end of the spectrum,
Antipas is described as a buffer for Galilee from the excesses of Roman
provincial rule,
3
and it is stated that for the ordinary people the advantages of a
peaceful reign outweighed the disadvantages of having to support a hellenistic-
style monarch.
4
It is asserted that Antipas 39-year reign was peaceful and
probably contributed much to the expansion and strengthening of both structures
1. Cf. especially Mark A. Chancey, Myth of Gentile Galilee: The Population of Galilee
and New Testament Studies (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, 118;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Mark A. Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture and
the Galilee of Jesus (Society of New Testament Monograph Series, 134; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2005); Jonathan L. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Exami-
nation of the Evidence (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000); Karl-Heinrich
Ostmeyer, Armenhaus und Ruberhhle? Galila zur Zeit Jesu, ZNW 96 (2005), pp. 147-70.
2. Cf. H. Moxnes, The Construction of Galilee as a Place for the Historical JesusPart
2, BTB 31.2 (2001), pp. 64-77.
3. Sean Freyne, Galilean Questions to Crossans Mediterranean Jesus, in William E.
Arnal, and Michel Desjardins (eds.), Whose Historical Jesus? (Canada: Canadian Corporation
for Studies in Religion, 1997), p. 68.
4. Sean Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E.: A
Study of Second Temple Judaism (University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism
and Christianity in Antiquity, 5; Wilmington, DE: Glazier/Notre Dame University Press, 1980),
p. 192.
Jensen Herod Antipas in Galilee 9
and society in general.
5
Thus, Galilee developed into a small, prosperous
Jewish kingdom under Herod Antipas. Those were almost 40 years of growing
and ourishing, probably with almost no domestic turmoil.
6
In this way the
reign of Antipas was good news for the rural villages: They operated fully
within a vibrant economic environment under Herod Antipas that witnessed an
expansion in population, agricultural activity and a variety of structures ranging
from public buildings, to frescoed private dwellings to olive presses and
specialty goods like ceramics, stone vessels or dove production.
7
Thus Antipas
was a good tetrarch who undertook large building projects that helped reduce
unemployment.
8
At the other end of the spectrum, Antipas is described as the immediate
historical context
9
for the Jesus movement, during whose reign the slide from
peasant owner to day-labourer, to brigand was rapid, and all the evidence points
to the fact that this was increasingly the case in rst-century Galilee.
10
In short,
Antipas intensied the structural political-economic conict in Galilee,
11
and
therefore the impact of Antipass direct rule in Galilee, both political-economic
and cultural, must have been intense, particularly during the generation of Jesus
and his followers.
12
It is asserted that it cannot be coincidentalthat the prophet
John the Baptist condemned Antipas (Ant. 18.116-19) and that Jesus and his
movement emerged in Galilee under Antipas.
13
Antipas was the provocative
factor behind the emergence of the prophet Jesus: if anyone was seeking the
Kingdom of God, Antipas was eager to show that the era of its fullment had
5. Mordechai Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee (Land of Galilee, 1;
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2004), p. 315.
6. Mordechai Aviam, First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective, in
Douglas R. Edwards (ed.), Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New
Approaches (New York and London: Routledge, 2004), p. 21.
7. Douglas R. Edwards, Identity and Social Location in Roman Galilean Villages, in
Harold W. Attridge, Dale B. Martin and Jrgen Zangenberg (eds.), Religion, Ethnicity and
Identity in Ancient Galilee (Tbingen: MohrSiebeck, forthcoming).
8. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin Books, 1993), p. 21;
cf. E.P. Sanders, Jesus in Historical Context, Theology Today 50 (1993), pp. 429-48 (440).
9. Sean Freyne, Herodian Economics in Galilee: Searching for a Suitable Model, in
Galilee and Gospel: Collected Essays (Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000), p. 113. Freyne thus
changes his position on this issue from his earlier to his later works.
10. Sean Freyne, A Galilean Messiah?, ST 55.2 (2001), pp. 198-218 (204).
11. Richard A. Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context
of Jesus and the Rabbis (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), p. 36.
12. Richard A. Horsley and Jonathan A. Draper, Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets,
Performance, and Tradition in Q (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999), p. 58; cf.
Richard A. Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Marks Gospel (Louis-
ville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), p. 36.
13. Horsley and Draper, Whoever Hears, p. 59.
arrived.
14
However, in contrast to Antipas, Jesus did not believe that the King-
dom of God would arrive with re and brimstone. And he was convinced that he
would not need aqueducts, palaces, coins, marble columns, or soldiers to utterly
remake Galilee.
15
Jesus reacted like a new Amos: If we think of covenant
rather than commerce, would an Amos have said anything very different to
Antipas at Tiberias in the rst century than he said to Jeroboam II at Samaria in
the eighth century long before?
16
The research conducted on Antipas outside Galilean studies does not present
a more uniform picture. Often the focus is on Antipas personal character, and
various psychological proles are presented. According to M. Brann, Antipas
was schlaff, trge und uerst phlegmatisch,
17
blindfolded by his love of
Herodias, and his nal downfall was a result of his lust and greediness. E. Schrer
describes Antipas more positively as a miniature of his father: intelligent, ambi-
tious and a lover of splendour, nur weniger thatkrftig than Herod the Great.
18
The same is expressed by W. Otto in his entry on Antipas in Pauly-Wissowa.
Though Antipas was a true Hellenist, he was also a lover of quietness (Ant.
18.245), who lacked his fathers cruelty. Only his relationship to Herodias was a
sign of the prevalent immorality in the Herodian house.
19
The most negative
judgment of Antipas is found in the work of V.E. Harlow, who describes Antipas
as a weak character due to his mixed ancestry.
20
F.F. Bruce mainly depicts
Antipas as a good ruler who was able to remain in ofce for a long time, and
who avoided serious upheavals.
21
In the most thorough study on Antipas to date,
H. Hoehner also designates Antipas as a good ruler conducting a wise admini-
stration
22
while being much milder than Herod the Great.
23
However, Hoehner
14. Richard A. Horsley and Neil Asher Silberman, The Message and the Kingdom: How
Jesus and Paul Ignited a Revolution and Transformed the Ancient World (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1997), pp. 35-36.
15. Ibid., p. 42.
16. John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones,
Behind the Texts (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), pp. 114-15.
17. M. Brann, Die Shne des Herodes. Eine biographische Skizze. 2. Antipas, MGWJ
22.7 (1873), pp. 305-44 (306).
18. Emil Schrer, Geschichte des jdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu ChristiErster
Band (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichssche Buchhandlung, 3rd edn, 1901), p. 432.
19. Cf. Walter Otto, Herodes Antipas, Paulus Real-Encyclopdie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft, Supplementband II (1913), pp. 167-91 (189-90).
20. Cf. Victor E. Harlow, The Destroyer of Jesus: The Story of Herod Antipas Tetrarch of
Galilee (Oklahoma City: Modern Publishers, 1954), p. 142.
21. Cf. F.F. Bruce, Herod Antipas, Tetrach of Galilee and Peraea, The Annual of Leeds
University Oriental Society 5 (1963), pp. 6-23 (8).
22. Harold W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph
Series, 17; London: Cambridge University Press, 1972), p. 57.
23. Ibid., p. 264.
further emphasizes the reluctant and ambivalent side of Antipas as a persistent
characteristic throughout his reign, calling him basically a coward.
24
Two questions thus remain unanswered concerning Antipas. On an outer
level, what can be said on his impact on Galilee? On an inner level, what can be
said about his character? To complicate the situation further, something of a
lacuna exists in the research, since Antipas is most often treated in a cursory
manner only to be used as a foil for a certain picture of Galilee or Jesus.
This complex situation, here described in all brevity, necessitates a thorough
examination of all the sources concerning Antipas reign, before attempting to
answer the main questions at hand. The explicit assumption is that the proper
way to engage ancient sources is to read them within their own context, before
they are removed and reused to understand a modern set of questions. Such a
source-oriented-contextual approach is a laborious task even though the
sources are rather few, and what follows will therefore at times be rather brief
and condensed.
25
Nevertheless, at the present state of research it is necessary to
complement, and perhaps contradict, the often short and unsatisfactory investi-
gations of Herod Antipas in Galilee. In what follows, I will therefore survey the
sources on the reign of Antipas, divided into four groups (Josephus, other writ-
ten sources, archaeology and coins), before nally assessing what can be said
about the impact of his reign on rst-century Galilee as the background of the
historical Jesus.
Herod Antipas and Josephus
Modern research on Josephus has focused to a large extent on his reliability as a
writer of history. Although this discussion is far from settled,
26
there are good
reasons for understanding Josephus as a highly creative writer and not as a mere
compiler of sources. For this reason, it is more promising to read Josephus with
a method of Tendenzkritik than with a method of contradiction looking for
raw data in his composition. Although he obviously used sources excessively,
he did so in an intelligent manner. This necessitates literary analyses of the
entire narrative observing Josephus own ideas and intentions, as done in the
work of P. Bilde, S. Mason, K. Krieger and others.
27
24. Ibid., p. 201.
25. For a full investigation, I refer to Jensen, Herod Antipas.
26. Of the many books and articles on Josephus and history, see (most recently) Zuleika
Rodgers (ed.), Making History: Josephus and Historical Method (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2006).
This anthology is based on contributions presented at the International Josephus Colloquium.
For other contributions, see the website: http://pace.cns.yorku.ca/York/york/josephus-ext.htm.
27. Per Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works, and
their Importance (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series, 2; Shefeld:
Three important observations ought to be mentioned in this connection.
28
(a) There is a general tendency to move from a more open and straightforward
description of the events in War to a more settled and critical account in Antiqui-
ties, with outspoken I statements in what could be termed editorial remarks.
29
(b) The most crucial questions Josephus intends to answer concern how the
temple could fall together with the entire fate of the Jewish nation, and how
some of that former glory can be regained. In this connection it is especially
interesting to note the extent to which the two opposite political parties, the
Herodians and the rebellious fourth philosophy, are guilty in the mind of Josephus
of the same transgressions that eventually caused the fall of the temple. This
development is commented on by Josephus in the highly important summarizing
editorial statement in paragraph 15.267 (cf. also 15.281): because of the execu-
tions (eta eu e
30
), Herod forsook even more the customs of the fathers (a e|
. ,. at|.| a | :at a| . a |); with foreign practices he changed the ancient way
of living that had been inviolable (,.|t-et, .:te.uact| u:eet.|.t.| |
:aat -aacact| a:a., ,.t e| euca|); and therefore, Josephus states, by
these means no little evil wrongdoing happened at a later time (., a| eu t-a
-at :e, e| aut, ,e|e| et-.|), because what had earlier brought about
piety in the people was neglected (a..|a| eca :e.e| .:t | .uc..ta|
,.| eu, e,eu,). In a profound way, Josephus thus directly connects the reign
of Herod to the fall of the temple. This should be compared to Josephus highly
critical evaluation of the fourth philosophy in Ant. 18.6-10, which also functions
as one of the important hermeneutic keys to Josephus entire narrative. Judas
and his party caused every kind of misery: There was no evilness that did not
come forward from these men, more than speakable, and it lled up the people
(-a-e | . eu - . ct| eu |u. |e, . - a |e. a | a |ea | -at :.at. a eu .t :.t |
a|.:c e .|e,, Ant. 18.6). These evils are further dened by four instrumen-
tal datives in 18.7-8, and described as the causing factor of the nal catastrophe,
when the temple of God was burnt down through the revolt. Thus, both the

JSOT Press, 1988); Steve Mason, Contradiction or Counterpoint? Josephus and Historical
Method, Review of Rabbinic Judaism 6.2-3 (2003), pp. 145-88; Klaus-Stefan Krieger,
Geschichtsschreibung als Apologetik bei Flavius Josephus (Texte und Arbeiten zum
neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 9; Tbingen: A. Francke Verlag, 1994).
28. For a more thorough investigation, see Morten Hrning Jensen, Josephus and
Antipas: A Case Study of Josephus Narratives on Herod Antipas, in Zuleika Rodgers (ed.),
Making History: Josephus and Historical Method (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2006).
29. Cf. Ant. 14.274; 15.266-67, 328; 16.150-59; 17.180-81, 191-92; 18.6-10, 127-29 and
elsewhere. Cf. also Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus in Flavian Rome: Reading On and
Between the Lines, in A.J. Boyle and W.J. Dominik (eds.), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image,
Text (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2003), p. 588.
30. These biblical Greek and Hebrew fonts are used with permission and are from Bible-
Works, software for biblical exegesis and research. Copyright 19942002 BibleWorks,
LLC. All rights reserved.
Herodian house and the fourth philosophy represented the introduction of
practices and ideas unknown to Judaism at an earlier stage, which is one of the
things that Josephus clearly disregards,
31
and in the end both attitudes led away
from the good and stable relationship to Rome and had a direct connection to
the ultimate disaster: the destruction of the temple. (c) In contrast to Herod the
Greatand others from the Herodian house, the fourth philosophy, and also
Pilate for that matterJosephus emphasizes that Agrippa I was no innovator or
violator of Jewish practices and beliefs. In several editorial remarks, Josephus
presents him as a sign of hope for the Jews. If, like him, they act according to
the old laws and tradition, then the Deity will punish the hubris of the trans-
gressors and reverse the fortune of the pious and righteous (cf. Ant. 18.197 and
19.15-16, 293-96, 331).
The question is, where does Josephus place Antipas within this wider picture?
He has included, by and large, three stories and sections on him: the rst one of
these deals with the founding and settlement of Tiberias (Ant. 18.36-38; cf. War
2.168; Life 6469) and the modications of Sepphoris and Betharamphtha (Ant.
18.27). The second concerns Antipas in connection to Vitellius, Parthia, Aretas,
Herodias, John the Baptist and the Jews of Jerusalem (the central block in Ant.
18.101-25). And the third is about the downfall of Antipas (War 2.181-83; Ant.
18.240-55).
32
A close reading of these three main sections reveals that Josephus
explicitly judges Antipas acts as unjust and unlawful.
When Josephus describes Antipas foundation of Tiberias, he points to two
problems. The rst problem is that Antipas had to inhabit his new city with a
highly questionable mob of people, a promiscuous rabble as L.H. Feldman
translates cu,-ue., in the Loeb edition. Though some are said to be magistrates
or men in ofce (.| ..t, 18.37), it appears from the description that most were
former slaves who had only just been set free (e. ca|a , . .u. eu,, 18.38), or
poor people in need (a|ea, a:eeu,, 18.37) who were brought in from all over
(:a|a,e.|, 18.37). Some were dragged there forcibly (:e , t a|, 18.37). The
second problem is that Antipas knew the foundation of the city to be against the
law and contrary to the Jewish ancestral tradition because it was placed on graves
(tea, :aa|ee| e| et-tce| e|a -at a:e eu `Ieueatet, :ateu eta e .:t
| act|, 18.38), which were uprooted in great numbers when Tiberias was
founded. With an implied reference to Numbers (19.11, 16), Josephus says that
the settlers are unclean for seven days, as the law proclaims for us (taeu, e.
.:t .:a .a, .t|at eu, et-ea, a,e.u.t t| e |ete|, Ant. 18.38).
33
31. Cf. ibid., pp. 577ff.
32. To this can be added the trial in Rome over the will of Herod, in which Antipas plays
a certain role (War 1.646; 2.20-95; Ant. 17.188, 224-318).
33. In an interesting essay, L. Levine has collected the later rabbinic tradition about the
impure condition of Tiberias in the rabbinic sources; cf. Lee I. Levine, R. Simeon B. Yohai
and the Purication of Tiberias: History and Tradition, HUCA 49 (1974), pp. 134-85.
In particular, the only sequence of events concerning Antipas, Ant. 18.101-
125, is narrated as a chain of six incidents, which, taken together, clearly build
up an argument: (a) Antipas is a political fool, who loses the good relationship
to his nearest Roman protector, Vitellius, when informing Tiberius about the
peace treaty with Parthia (101-105); (b) in contrast, his brother Philip is a just,
moderate and easy-going ruler (106-108); (c) but Antipas gave in to his feelings
and divorced the daughter of the neighbouring king, Aretas, which involved him
in the fatal war in which he lost his army (109-115); (d) this is presented as just
revenge from God because Antipas had killed a good (a ,ae ,) man who was
lled with a., et-atecu| and .uc..ta (116-19); (e) Antipas was nally
caught up in the events. When Tiberius died, Vitellius refused to carry out the
war against Aretas (120-25); (f) on top of this, when the narratives about Antipas
come to an end, his counterpart, Agrippa the Great, is magnicently introduced
and directly contrasted with Herod the Great and the rest of his lineage (125-29).
The most explicit verdict on Antipas is given in connection with his downfall
and banishment. In both War and Antiquities, Josephus narrates that Antipas was
persuaded by his new wife, Herodias, to sail to Rome to ask Gaius for kingship,
just as he had promoted Agrippa I, Herodias indebted brother, to be king of
Philips old tetrarchy. However, through an embassy, Agrippa brought accusa-
tions against Antipas for treason and conspiracy, and Antipas was banned to Lyon
and his property given to Agrippa. While Josephus does not comment further on
these political events in War, he presents, in Antiquities, a Divine interpreta-
tion stating that God inicted this punishment on Herodias for the envy against
her brother and Herod for listening to womens light talk ('Haeta et . | e
|e |eu eu :e , e | a e.|e | -at 'Ha e ,u|at-.t a| a -eaca. |a -eu|ee,ta |
et-| au| .:.tc.| e .e,, 18.255).
At the same time, it is most interesting to observe that Josephus, especially
in Antiquities, at the same time as he expresses a negative judgment of Antipas,
unveils enough details to soften the negative picture of him by explaining his
acts as sound. This is illustrated by the following ve examples: (a) Josephus
story on the foundation of Tiberias seems ambivalent. The people dragged to
live there are described as former slaves or tenants subjected to Antipas, who as
an act of benefaction, actually gave them plots of land and fully furnished
houses in Tiberias as compensation (18.38). Likewise, the problem with the
graves did not prevent Josephus from entering the city during the war as
described several times in Life. (b) Further, the text on John the Baptist is not
entirely coherent when it comes to the role of Antipas. Although Antipas is cen-
sured for his act against John, Josephus intentionally or not lets his readers
know that the mob was about to rebel, being willing to follow whatever John
advised. As a Roman client ruler, Antipas just had to intervene (18.118). (c)
Josephus also lets us know that in one instance, at least, Antipas took part in the
celebrations in the temple in Jerusalem (18.122). (d) Most importantly, however,
it seems that although Antipas is presented as another bad ruler from the
Herodian house, Josephus is not able to provide any absolute indisputable
examples of tyranny and cruelty as he is in the cases of Herod the Great and
Archelaos. (e) Similarly, Josephus does not report about any riots caused by bad
government, or new ideas introduced during Antipas reign, as in the case of
Pilate (cf. War 2.169-77; Ant. 18.55-62, 85-89), apart from the later turmoil
during the war of 6670 CE caused by the images of living animals in Antipas
palace in Tiberias (Life 6469).
In this respect, Josephus is more subdued in his description of Antipas than
of other members of the Herodian house, about whom he frequently expresses
his personal opinion in editorial remarks. On the other hand, if Josephus own
disclosed intentions and editorial aims are included, it becomes evident that
Antipas is presented as another bad example of a Herodian ruler who is not able
to safeguard the ancient and stable Jewish way of life. Antipas eventually serves
as a warning of how the deity will punish those who do not live in accordance
with the law, as is also stated directly in connection with Antipas banishment.
Nevertheless, Josephus is unable to produce really convincing material for his
picture of Antipas, such as overt cruel acts or overt religiously provocative acts.
Herod Antipas in Other Written Sources
While Josephus is the most informative literary source on the life and reign
of Antipas, other sources contribute by adding information about events that
are already known from Josephus and describing episodes that are otherwise
unknown. In particular, several sources indicate that Antipas managed to estab-
lish a positive relationship to the leading Jews of Jerusalem: (a) In the remains
preserved of Nicolaos writings,
34
fragment 136 8-11 concerns the trial in
Rome of Herods wills. It includes an important detail missing in Josephus
much longer versions (War 2.1-100; Ant. 17.200-323) describing how the Jewish
delegation was willing to accept Antipas as king if they could not be ruled directly
from Rome (9). Their enmity was thus aimed primarily at Archelaos, indicating
that the Jewish opposition to the house of Herod was not as uncompromising as
one would assume from Josephus.
35
(b) Philos Legatio ad Gaium also contains
34. Nicolaos of Damascus was a writer of history, a philosopher and a rhetorician who
was employed for some time at the court of Herod the Great, serving as his primary ambassador
to Rome besides being his biographer. Upon Herods death he favoured Archelaos, serving as his
advocate during the trial in Rome; cf. Ben Zion Wacholder, Nicolaus of Damascus (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1962), pp. 22-36 and M. Stern, From Herodotus to Plutarch. I.
Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities, 1974), pp. 227-33.
35. Wacholder, Nicolaus, p. 63.
an important story concerning Antipas. In 299-305 we hear that the Jews
dispatched an embassy to persuade Pilate to remove the golden shields he had
erected in his palace in Jerusalem. Although the shields did not display any
images ( e| | . ,eu ca,), they were set up to aggravate the people (.|.-a
eu u: cat e : e,). The embassy primarily consisted of three parties, includ-
ing rst of all the four sons of the king, who did not stand back in dignity and
good fortune to a king (eu , . act. a, ut .t , . aa, eu - a :ee. e|a, e .
a ,t aa -at a , u ,a, act. a|); second, other descendants (eu, aeu, a:e-
,e |eu,); and third, those in ofce among themselves (a | :a` au et , eu , . |
. .t). According to the chronology, Antipas must have been among the princes,
36
just as it is reasonable to follow M. Smallwoods suggestion that the . | . .t is
a reference to the Sanhedrin.
37
This text thus indicates a positive connection
between Antipas and the Sanhedrin.
38
(c) Two sources also record that Antipas
visited Jerusalem on the occasion of a religious feast. According to Josephus, he
took part in the sacrices in the temple (Ant. 18.122-23), and, according to
Luke, he became part of the trial against Jesus, where he met the chief priests
and the scribes (23.10). (d) Finally, there is a spurious statement in Justins
Dialogue with Trypho stating that Antipas took over the . ,euct a of Archelaos in
Jerusalem upon Archelaos banishment. This could be read as if Justin indicates
that Antipas, as the leading Jewish ruler, administered certain powers or
privileges in connection with Jerusalem. However, it is clear from Josephus that
he did not take over the right to appoint high priests, a right that was
administered by the Roman prefects until it was transferred to Agrippa I (cf.
Ant. 18.26, 34-36, 93-95, 123; 19.292-98). To summarize, a number of written
sources indicate that Antipas was mild and modest in his approach to the Jews,
and that he thus succeeded where his father and his brother Archelaos failed
namely in obtaining a constructive relationship with the Jewish leaders in
Jerusalem, and avoiding popular uprisings and violent confrontations.
In the New Testament, Antipas is mentioned in the Gospels of Mark, Mat-
thew and Luke as well as in Acts. His role is very sporadic in Mark and Matthew,
but more elaborate in Luke.
39
The New Testament writers were clearly not
36. Cf. Nikos Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse
(Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series, 30; Shefeld: Shefeld Aca-
demic Press, 1998), p. 195, n. 80.
37. Cf. E. Mary Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini, Legatio Ad Gaium: Edited With an
Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961), p. 274.
38. For further discussion, see e.g. Helen K. Bond, Pontius Pilate in History and Inter-
pretation (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, 100; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998), pp. 24-48 and Niels Willert, Pilatusbilledet i den antikke jdedom og
kristendom (Bibel og historie, 11; rhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 1989), pp. 21-60.
39. The Gospels include two main events involving Antipas, namely (a) Antipas execution
of John the Baptist (Mk 6.14-29; Mt. 14.1-12; Lk. 3.18-20; 9.7-9) and (b) Antipas interrogation
interested in him for biographical or historical purposes, but focus narrowly on
his relationship to John and Jesus. Consequently, several interpretations of
Antipas and his relationship to Jesus have been advanced. Some argue that
Antipas was a sworn enemy of Jesus with a decisive inuence on his trial.
Emphasis is placed on the withdrawals of Jesus as well as on the direct warnings
against Antipas expressed by Jesus and the Pharisees (Mk 8.15; Lk. 13.31-33;
cf. also 3.19).
40
Others downplay the role of Antipas in connection with the trial,
emphasizing the way Antipas dresses Jesus in a white dress and returns him to
Pilatean act that Pilate himself, according to Lk. 23.15, understands as one of
acquittal. Antipas was not an active enemy of Jesus, but rather perplexed by what
he heard and saw.
41
Another problem concerns the historical value of the Lucan
account of Jesus before Herod (23.8-12). M. Dibelius argued that the trial was a
Lucan invention meant to reinforce Acts 4.25-28s interpretation of Psalms 2.1-
2s vision of the gathering against the anointed.
42
Recent discussions, including
those of J. Nolland, J. Fitzmyer and R.E. Brown,
43
nd this position problematic
for various reasons, and argue for a historical nucleus reused by Luke. Without
going into detail with regard to these and other important questions,
44
it can
briey be stated that many of the texts in the New Testament concerning Antipas
preserve a tradition that he was perplexed when confronted with John and Jesus.
Mark and Matthew have Antipas stating that Jesus is John resurrected. Matthew
further describes Antipas as saddened (u:. a, 14.9) when asked for the head of
John, while Mark says he was very saddened (:.tu:e,, 6.26) as well as

of Jesus in Jerusalem (Lk. 23.6-12, 15; cf. also Acts 4.27), to which Antipas general interest in
Jesus and vice versa is connected (Lk. 9.7-9; 13.31-33; Mk 6.14-16; 8.15; Mt. 14.1-2).
40. Cf. Pierson Parker, Herod Antipas and the Death of Jesus, in E.P. Sanders (ed.), Jesus,
the Gospels, and the Church: Essays in Honor of William R. Farmer (Macon, GA: Mercer Uni-
versity Press, 1987), pp. 197-208; Joseph B. Tyson, Jesus and Herod Antipas, JBL 79 (1960),
pp. 239-46; Harlow, Destroyer of Jesus, pp. 236-37 and elsewhere.
41. Cf. Hoehner, Herod Antipas, pp. 168, 239-49; John A. Darr, Herod the Fox: Audience
Criticism and Lukan Characterization (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement
Series, 163; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press, 1998), pp. 210-11; Josef Blinzler, Herodes
Antipas und Jesus Christus. Die Stellung des Heilandes zu seinem Landesherrn (Bibelwissen-
schaftliche Reihe, 2; Stuttgart: Verlag Kath. Bibel-Werk, 1947) and elsewhere.
42. Martin Dibelius, Herodes und Pilatus, ZNW 16 (1915), pp. 113-26. Cf. also Karl-
heinz Mller, Jesus vor Herodes. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, in Gerhard
Dautzenberg, Helmut Merklein, and Mller Karlheinz (eds.), Zur Geschichte des Urchristen-
tums (Freiburg: Herder, 1979), pp. 111-14.
43. John Nolland, Luke 18.3524.53 (Word Biblical Commentary, 35c; Dallas, TX: Word
Books, 1993); Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave.
I. A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (New York: Doubleday,
1994); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke XXXIV (The Anchor Bible, 28a;
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985).
44. For a more thorough and nuanced treatment, see Jensen, Herod Antipas, pp. 109-125.
perplexed by the speeches of John (a:e.a, 6.20). Luke also depicts Antipas as
perplexed when confronted with the news of Jesus (eta:e.a, 9.7), and though
it is Antipas stated intention to kill him (a:e-.t|a, 13.31), he acts almost
absurdly when he gets the chance in Jerusalem. First, he is exceedingly glad
(.,a ta|, 23.8) to see him. Then he treats him with contempt (. ,eu.|. a) and
ridicules him (.:at,a, 23.11), before nally sending him back to Pilate.
Herod Antipas and the Archaeology of Galilee
Apart from Josephus, our main source of information about Herod Antipas
derives from the archaeological material that, strictly speaking, is limited to data
from Sepphoris and Tiberias, Antipas two known building projects. In order to
obtain a broad contextual perspective, it is nevertheless necessary to consider
three additional investigations that could be termed blind spots, since they are
not often included. First, a clear chronological distinction will be made between
early rst-century material and later material. As emphasized especially by
Mark Chancey,
45
the picture of Sepphoris, for instance, is often based on mate-
rial from later periods. Next, a regional perspective will be provided by
looking at the three villages or towns of Lower Galilee: Yodefat, Cana and
Capernaum, besides Gamla in the Golan. These are important reference points
for what went on in the rural parts of Galilee while Antipas urbanization pro-
gramme unfolded in the two cities within his area. Finally, an inter-regional
perspective will be added through a short survey of the three neighbouring
cities of the Decapolis: Hippos, Gadara and Scythopolis, to which the city of
Caesarea Maritima will also be appended. This survey will provide a useful
background for evaluating the scale and type of the cities of Antipas.
Antipas grand building project, Tiberias, was probably founded in 19/20 CE
and remained a ourishing city for one millennium after its foundation. This
calls for a strict chronological approach, since the archaeological material
concerns many centuries. Actually, rst-century material is rarely found, since
the city peaked in the period following Hadrian with large construction projects
uprooting earlier buildings. A number of excavation projects have been con-
ducted since 1954,
46
and a list of what has been found from the rst century
includes the following items: (a) In 197374, G. Foerster uncovered a free-
standing monumental gate to the south of the city with impressive round towers
45. Cf. (most recently) Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture.
46. Cf. Yizhar Hirschfeld. Tiberias, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excava-
tions in the Holy Land (ed. E. Stern; 4 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta,
1993), IV, pp. 1464-70 (1465-66).
of 7 metres in diameter. From pottery, Foerster dated it to the early rst century.
47
Unfortunately, Foerster has not published a nal report on this excavation yet,
and his dating has recently been questioned. Monika Bernett refers to Josephus,
who states that Vespasian was unable to enter the city from the south with his
heavy military equipment and had to tear down parts of the wall erected by
Josephus (War 3.460). This would not have been necessary with a gate which
had 45 metres of clearance.
48
T. Weber, the excavator of the Tiberias gate in
Gadara, also questions Foersters dating, suggesting that it should be dated to
the Flavian period as a counterpart to the gate in Gadara, which he also dates to
the late rst century.
49
According to David Stacey, who has recently published
the early Islamic material from Foersters dig,
50
only two probes were made
under the pavement, and the ceramic material uncovered is too slim to date any
closer than rst century (personal communication). (b) In connection with the
towers, parts of a 12-metres-wide cardo, which was anked by colonnades and
shops, were discovered. The rst-century stratum of the cardo has not yet been
found anywhere else. (c) During the present excavation campaign, led by Yizhar
Hirschfeld, a spectacular rst-century nd was made in the spring of 2005: a
magnicent marble oor laid in the fashionable opus sectile style. The room in
which it was found (Figure 1) was probably part of an elaborate structure with a
roof supported by tetrastyle pillars with an outer pavement of large limestone
slabs and an open scenic view towards the lake front. The marble itself (Figure 2)
was imported material, which was actually rarely used in this period. It is a
feasible suggestion that this oor was part of a Herodian structure, since oors of
this kind, from this period, have only been found elsewhere in palaces of Herod
the Great.
51
This impression was further strengthened in the succeeding seasons,
47. Cf. Gideon Foerster, Tiberias: Excavations in the South of the City, The New
Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, IV, p. 1471.
48. Cf. Monika Bernett, Der Kaiserkult als Teil der politischen Geschichte Iudeas under
den Herodianern und Roemern (30 V.-66 N. Chr.) (Munich: Habilitationsschrift, 2002) and
Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture, p. 87.
49. Cf. Thomas Maria Weber, Gadara and the Galilee, in Jrgen Zangenberg, Harold
Attridge and Dale B. Martin (eds.), Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee
(Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, forthcoming); Thomas Maria Weber, Gadara-Umm Qes: Gadara
Decapolitana: Untersuchungen zur Topographie, Geschichte, Architektur und der Bildenden
Kunst einer Polis Hellenis im Ostjordanland (Abhandlungen des deutschen Palstina-Vereins,
30; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2002), p. 107; Thomas Maria Weber, Gadara in der
Dekapolis: Ausgrabungen in Umm Qais/Nordwestjordanien in den Jahren 1986 bis 1999,
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archologen-Verbandes 22.1 (1991), pp. 16-22 (21-22).
50. Cf. David Stacey, Excavations at Tiberias, 19731974: The Early Islamic Periods
(IAA Reports, 21; Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2004).
51. Cf. Rachel Hachlili, Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel
(Handbuch Der Orientalistik, 7; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988), p. 67.
Figure 1. Locus 525 (at the rear) and 526 (at the front). Photo: Morten Hrning Jensen.
during which a wall structure was found that can be connected to the same rst-
century building. It was constructed in white limestone with the well-known,
tightly tting Herodian bossed masonry. (d) In addition, the nd of a lead
weight conrms the status of Tiberias as a polis in this period, since it has an
inscription mentioning the existence of an agonoramos during the time of Anti-
pas.
52
Similarly, all the coins bear the inscription Tiberias (cf. below). (e) Parts
of the ancient harbour have been discovered. It is difcult to date underwater
constructions, but it is assumed that Tiberias had a harbour from the time of
Antipas and onwards. (f) Finally, in two salvage excavations in 2002 and 2005,
Moshe Hartal has discovered some structures that he believes to be part of a
stadium dating to the rst century. However, a precise dating to either early or
late rst century could not be established.
53
Added together, these ndings paint
a picture of a rather modest starting point of Tiberias compared with the ndings
of later periods, as we shall see below.
For many years, the excavations at Sepphoris have fuelled an intense debate
about the cultural nature of the backyard of Jesus. As Jonathan Reed phrases it:
Sepphoris has become a kind of test case for scholarly characterizations of the
historical Jesus and the Gospel traditions.
54
The buildings dating back to
Antipas, however, are few compared with the number found from later periods:
52. Cf. Shraga Qedar, Two Lead Weights of Herod Antipas and Agrippa II and the Early
History of Tiberias, Israel Numismatic Journal 9 (198687), pp. 29-35.
53. Private communication with M. Hartal.
54. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, p. 102.
Figure 2. Marble pieces collected in locus 525 from the magnicent opus sectile oor.
Photo: Morten Hrning Jensen.
(a) According to the investigation of the water supply system conducted by
Z. Tsuk, Sepphoris was supplied with water from only one aqueduct in the early
rst century, but later another one was added, bringing in nine times the amount.
55
(b) Most of the remains from Antipas time have been found on the western sum-
mit. How much, however, is a matter of dispute. According to E. Meyers, it was
only in the period following the war of 6670 CE that extensive construction
work began in this area: It is during the interwar period, from 68135 CE, or at
the end of the ER period, that the character of Sepphoris as a great oriental city
became a reality. In this third or last stage of ER (ER C) the city expanded in all
directions: to the east, to the south, and to the north; and possibly to the west.
56
According to Jonathan Reed, on the other hand, the western summit was already
being reorganized and expanded during the period of Antipas, albeit only
55. Cf. Tsvika Tsuk, The Aqueducts to Sepphoris, in Eric M. Meyers (ed.), Galilee
Through the Centuries: Conuence of Cultures (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), pp.
161-76.
56. Cf. Eric M. Meyers, The Early Roman Period at Sepphoris: Chronological, Archaeo-
logical, Literary, and Social Considerations, in Jodi Magness and Seymour Gitin (eds.), Hesed
Ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998), p. 349.
through use of local material ranking Antipas building activities in the second
tier of urban parlance.
57
(c) The founding date of the theatre has turned into
something of a conundrum. It was rst excavated in 1931 by L. Watermans
team and dated to the time of Antipas.
58
This date was opposed by William F.
Albright, who preferred a second-century dating.
59
All four teams that have dug
in Sepphoris in modern times have excavated portions of the theatre, in order to
establish a precise dating. So far, no agreement has been reached, and to pro-
gress further in this matter the nal reports from each team providing detailed
analysis are needed.
60
(d) Finally, the appearance of the eastern lower plateau at
the time of Antipas is also subject to discussion at present. One team, led by
James F. Strange, argues that early rst-century material has been found in two
instances. For one thing, probes revealed evidence of an earlier hard-packed soil
and lime cobblestone road beneath the cardo visible at present, which could be
dated to the rst century.
61
For another, Strange briey notes in his latest pub-
lished discussion that the basilical building found in eld V dates back to the
time of Antipas in its earliest phase.
62
Another team, led by Ehud Netzer and
Zeev Weiss, came to the conclusion that while some buildings may have been in
place already in the rst century, it was not until the rst half of the second
century that the lower plateau witnessed a dramatic change in the urban lay-
out.
63
To sum up, Sepphoris was denitely a city of importance both prior to
57. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, p. 118; cf. also pp. 77-80.
58. Cf. S. Yeivin, Historical and Archaeological Notes, and N.E. Manasseh,
Architecture and Topography, in Leroy Waterman (ed.), Preliminary Report of the University
of Michigan Excavations at Sepphoris, Palestine, in 1931 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 1937), pp. 17-34 (29), pp. 6-12, respectively.
59. Cf. William F. Albright, Review of Watermans Preliminary Report on the 1931
Excavations, Classical Weekly 21 (1938), p. 148.
60. Presently, Tom McCollough is preparing the nal report of the University of South
Florida teams excavation in this area, in which he adopts the suggestion by Richard L. Batey
that the enigma is based on confusion of two distinct phases of the theatre. In the period of
Antipas, a small theatre was constructed seating roughly 3,000 spectators. Later, a third storey
was erected adding the outer wall, a building technique which Albright correctly dated to the
second century. See now Richard L. Batey, Did Antipas Build the Sepphoris Theater?, in
James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Jesus and Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), pp.
111-19.
61. Cf. Douglas R. Edwards and C. Thomas McCollough, Transformation of Space: The
Roman Road at Sepphoris, in Douglas R. Edwards and C. Thomas McCollough (eds.),
Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods
(Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997), pp. 135-42.
62. Cf. James F. Strange, The Eastern Basilical Building, in Rebecca Martin Nagy (ed.),
Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture (Raleigh: North Carolina Museum of Art,
1996), p. 117.
63. Ehud Netzer and Zeev Weiss, Architectural Development of Sepphoris During the
the time of Antipas and at the time of Antipas. It was built as a stronghold on a
summit overlooking and controlling surrounding fertile valleys and inland trade
routes. However, even though it is historically plausible and archaeologically
possible that Antipas sponsored a certain amount of building activity, it is impor-
tant to recognize that at his time, Sepphoris was in its urban infancy, only just
deserving the designation as a polis in comparison with the surrounding urban
areas (cf. below).
The evaluation of these ndings must be undertaken from three perspectives.
First, from a chronological perspective, it seems consistent to conclude that the
major changes that can be observed in the material culture occurred before and
after Antipas. Before his time, Galilee experienced a radical political tidal shift
with the Hasmonean conquest and takeover, just as it did in the period following
the war of 6670 CE, which led to a heavier Roman military presence in Galilee,
64
only to be followed by an intensied Jewish presence in Galilee after the war of
13235 CE. In the heyday of the High Empire under the Severan dynasty, Galilee
experienced a heavy Roman presence and building activity just like many other
places in the Roman east. In detail, the tidal shifts before and after Antipas have
been demonstrated in the following three instances: (a) At Sepphoris, the western
summit was settled before Antipas and, as discussed, though some building acti-
vity took place in his period, it was only after the war of 6670 CE that the city
spread in all directions from the summit. On the eastern lower plateau, a brand-
new quarter equipped with cardo and decumanus was established, including
several magnicent private dwellings and public buildings such as a large basi-
lica probably serving as a marketplace. Similarly, a new aqueduct was built,
increasing the water supply by a factor of nine. Finally, after the devastating
earthquake of 363, Sepphoris experienced its last era of intense building activity
in the Byzantine period.
65
(b) At Tiberias, most of the large buildings found date
to succeeding periods. This is true of a 4,000-square-metre basilical building, a
nine-foot-wide wall that could be part of a temple mentioned in later sources, a
theatre found on the slope, a bath house, a large marketplace just north of the
bath house, and the buildings on top of Mt Berenice.
66
(c) Detailed studies of the

Roman and Byzantine Periods, in Edwards and McCollough (eds.), Archaeology and the
Galilee, p. 118.
64. Cf. Zeev Safrai, The Roman Army in the Galilee, in Lee I. Levine (ed.), The
Galilee in Late Antiquity (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992),
pp. 103-14.
65. Cf. Zeev Weiss and Ehud Netzer, Hellenistic and Roman Sepphoris: The Archaeo-
logical Evidence and Sepphoris During the Byzantine Period, in Rebecca Martin Nagy (ed.),
Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture (Raleigh: North Carolina Museum of Art,
1996), pp. 29-37, pp. 81-89, respectively, and Netzer and Weiss, Architectural Development.
66. Cf. Yizhar Hirschfeld, Tiberias NEAEHL and Tiberias, The Oxford Encyclopedia
of Archaeology in the Near East, V (5 vols.; Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press,
coin circulation in Galilee also reveal that the major changes took place before
and after Antipas, which will be discussed below.
Second, through a regional perspective, highly important information can be
gained with regard to the impact of Antipas urbanization programme on the
rural areas of Galilee. According to the advocates of a picture of conict, the
impact of Antipas reign was felt most intensely there, affecting its peasant popu-
lation. The advocates of a picture of harmony, however, argue that Antipas
activities were benecial to the rural community, providing new opportunities
for trade and interaction. An examination of the excavations of Yodefat, Cana,
Capernaum and Gamla produces a general picture of the rural areas without
signs of decline in the early rst century. On the contrary, supported by small-
scale local industries, expansion took place, as seen in the following four points:
(a) In Yodefat, evidence of olive oil production, pottery fabrication and textile
production has been attested. At the same time, the city expanded on the south-
ern slope throughout the rst century up until the war in 66. Most interesting is
the discovery of an upper-class area with an elite house featuring walls decorated
with the geometric rst Pompeian style and oors designed in the opus sectile
style. No intact public building was found, though the discovery of several large
building blocks could indicate that such a building existed.
67
(b) The excava-
tions at Cana have also produced material evidence of a village community that
was progressing steadily and expanding. On the crest of the hill, a rectangular
building was found with a large room measuring about 12 8 m equipped with
plastered walls and a plastered oor. The excavators interpret it as either an elite
house or a public building. Evidence of a second public building was found
close by, which is cautiously interpreted as a synagogue based on the discovery
of roof tiles, plastered benches, columns and an Ionic capital. Evidence of small-
scale industrial activity was also uncovered, including oil production, textile
production, glass-blowing and pigeon raising.
68
(c) The excavations at

1997), pp. 203-206, for instance. The lack of such a strict chronological approach has led
Crossan and Reed to present rst-century Tiberias in a full-colour drawing mingling together
every known building from a period of at least half a millennium; cf. Crossan and Reed,
Excavating Jesus, inserted plates after p. 170.
67. Cf. David Adan-Bayewitz and Mordechai Aviam, Iotapata, Josephus, and the Siege
of 67: Preliminary Report of the 199294 Seasons, Journal of Roman Archaeology 10 (1997),
pp. 131-65; Mordechai Aviam, Yodefat/Jotapata: The Archaeology of the First Battle, in
Andrea M. Berlin and J. Andrew Overman (eds.), The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology,
History, and Ideology (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), pp. 121-33 and others.
68. Cf. Douglas R. Edwards, Khirbet Qana: From Jewish Village to Christian Pilgrim
Site (The Roman and Byzantine Near East, 3; ed. J.H. Humphrey; Portsmouth: JRA, 2002), pp.
101-32; Peter Richardson, Building Jewish in the Roman East (Waco, TX: Baylor University
Press, 2004), pp. 55-71; Douglas R. Edwards, Cana (Khirbet), in Archaeological Encyclo-
paedia of the Holy Land (ed. A. Negev and S. Gibson; New York and London: Continuum,
2001), I, pp. 109-10 and others.
Capernaum have produced a picture of a town in the Early Roman period
consisting of mainly large living units. With the possible exception of the ear-
liest phase of the synagogue, no public buildings were attested, just as no evi-
dence of white plastered walls, paved roads or other distinguished architectural
elements was found. The location of Capernaum at the north end of the lake
gave it a double competitive advantage compared with other villages of the area:
a regional road connecting the tetrarchies of Antipas and Philip ran through it,
and in addition to farming, income could be generated by shing on the lake. A
network of harbours has been testied, and a boat suitable for intensive shing
was found in 1986.
69
(d) The excavations at Gamla have also produced some
highly interesting results. In the western quarter an upper-class area was dis-
covered, comprising skilfully constructed houses with plastered walls. To the
east of this quarter was found a commercial area, including a large olive-oil
extraction plant, a our mill, and a street of shops with a large open plaza proba-
bly serving as a marketplace. Recent excavations produced evidence of another
area with a large mansion, as well as unearthing a basilical building that the exca-
vators believe was a public building housing administrative functions. Another
public building was found not far from the eastern city wall, and is generally
accepted to be a rst-century synagogue. Although Gamla was outside the peri-
meter of Antipas reign, more of his coins than those of Philip were found, and
there is a good reason to believe that there was interaction between the two
areas.
70
The regional perspective thus provides a unique view on the impact of
Sepphoris and Tiberias, and it seems consistent to conclude that the rural area
was able to sustain its livelihood and even expand it in this period. No general
economic decline is attestable.
Third and nally, an inter-regional perspective provides important insights
on the scale and types of Antipas cities through a comparison with the nearby
cities of Hippos, Gadara and Scythopolis in the Decapolis and the hallmark of
the building projects of Herod the Great, Caesarea Maritima: (a) In the Deca-
polis, Hippos, Gadara and Scythopolis existed before the founding of Tiberias
and had the status of poleis. As in the case of Tiberias and Sepphoris, these three
69. On rst-century Capernaum, see Stanislao Loffreda, Capernaum, The New Encyclo-
pedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, I, pp. 291-95; Stanislao Loffreda,
Capernaum, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, I, pp. 416-19;
Virgilio C. Corbo, Capernaum, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, I, pp. 866-69; Reed, Archae-
ology and the Galilean Jesus, pp. 139-69; Shelley Wachsmann, Galilee Boat, The Oxford
Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, II, pp. 377-79 and others.
70. On Gamla, see Shmaryahu Gutman, Gamla, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Excavations in the Holy Land II, pp. 459-63; Danny Syon, Gamla: Portrait of a Rebellion,
BARev 18.1 (1992), pp. 20-37; Danny Syon and Z. Yavor, Gamla 19972000, Hadashot
ArkheologiyotExcavations and Surveys in Israel 114 (2002), pp. 2*-5*; Danny Syon and
Z. Yavor, Gamla 1997-2000, Atiqot 50 (2005), pp. 1-35 and others.
cities also peaked in the Middle and Late Roman periods, in which they wit-
nessed intense building activity. In the rst century, all three cities could boast
of Greco-Roman temples, and Scythopolis also had a theatre and an amphi-
theatre.
71
(b) Caesarea Maritima is in a category of its own, being built almost
completely from scratch by Herod the Great and masterfully equipped with a
harbour, a Roman temple dedicated to Augustus, a theatre, an amphitheatre, an
elaborate city plan including defences, and an aqueduct.
72
Consequently, when
Sepphoris and Tiberias are placed in the context of the cities in their immediate
vicinity, it becomes evident that they did not introduce a degree of urbanism that
was unknown in the neighbouring areas. They were small-scale cities in com-
parison with Caesarea Maritima, at least, and possibly also Scythopolis.
The Coins of Herod Antipas
The coins of Antipas are important, providing information in a dual way through
their iconography and circulation pattern. In general, the iconography on ancient
coins was used as a tool of propaganda. In a Jewish context, and especially in
the late Second Temple period, this issue was connected with concerns for the
second commandment against images.
73
Both the Hasmoneans and the Herodians
71. On Hippos, Gadara and Scythopolis, see Claire Epstein, Hippos (Sussita), The New
Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, II, pp. 634-36; Arthur Segal, et
al., Hippos: Third Season of Excavations JuneJuly 2003, http://hippos.haifa.ac.il/report.htm
(accessed April 2004); Thomas Maria Weber, Umm Qais: Gadara of the Decapolis: A Brief
Guide to the Antiquities (Amman: Al Kutba Publishers, 1990); Thomas Maria Weber, Gadara
Umm Qes, Gadara Decapolitana: Untersuchungen zur Topographie, Geschichte, Architektur
und der Bildenden Kunst einer Polis Hellenis im Ostjordanland (Abhandlungen Des Deutschen
Palstina-Vereins, 30; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2002); Yoram Tsafrir, The Fate of
Pagan Cult Places in Palestine: The Archaeological Evidence with Emphasis on Bet Shean, in
Hayim Lapin (ed.), Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine, V (Maryland:
University Press of Maryland, 1998), pp. 197-218 and others.
72. Cf. Avner Raban and Kenneth G. Holum (eds.), Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective
After Two Millennia (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996); Avraham Negev, Antonio Frova and M. Avi-
Yonah, Caesarea: Excavations in the 1950s and 1960s, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeo-
logical Excavations in the Holy Land, I, pp. 272-80; Ehud Netzer and Lee I. Levine, Caesarea:
Excavations in the 1970s, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy
Land, I, pp. 280-82; Kenneth G. Holum and Avner Raban, Caesarea: The Joint Expeditions
Excavations, Excavations in the 1980s and 1990s, and Summary, The New Encyclopedia of
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, I, pp. 282-86; Kenneth G. Holum, Caesarea,
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, I, pp. 399-404 and others.
73. Cf. Hachlili, Ancient Jewish Art, pp. 81-83; Lee I. Levine, Archaeology and the
Religious Ethos of Pre-70 Palestine, in James H. Charlesworth and Loren L. Johns (eds.),
Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1997), pp. 117-18; Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years
used their coins as vehicles of propaganda, and it has specically been argued
that the coins of Antipas were meant to reinforce his political ambitions with
images of a messianic character.
74
Similarly, it is possible to gain an impression
of the level of monetization of an ancient society through information on the
number of coins in circulation. In this connection, it has been argued that
Antipas minting policy was meant to monetize the economy of Galilee in order
to facilitate tax-collection.
75
In order to understand the iconography on the coins of Antipas, we must
take a look at some of the coins in circulation at his time.
76
Apart from the still
valuable Hasmonean coinage, the coins in circulation included those of Herod
the Great, some of which had a dubious pagan character; the coins of Archelaos
featuring many maritime symbols meant to communicate his superiority; the
coins of Philip introducing legends and symbols not seen on Jewish coins before,
including his portrait as well as those of the emperors Augustus and Tiberius,
and the faade of the temple in Paneas; and also the coins of Pilate that intro-
duced symbols not seen before in this area, namely the simpulum, a ladle used in
the temples by the Roman priests, and the lituus, an augural staff functioning as
an emblem of the Roman priests. In addition, in the same year as Antipas issued
his last series, Agrippa issued his rst, on which he proudly presented his patron
in Rome, Gaius, on the obverse, and the portrait of Gaius three sisters on the
reverse. Thus, as illustrated in Table 1, the ban against images was apparently
violated by several emissions in circulation in this period.
How did Antipas compete in terms of such propaganda? Two things are of
immediate importance. For one thing, Antipas did not issue more than ve series
in his 43 years as ruler, the rst of which was not issued until his 24th regnal

(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000), pp. 206-13; Manuel Vogel, Vita 64-69,
Das Bilderverbot und die Galilapolitik des Josephus, JSJ 30.1 (1999), pp. 65-79 and others.
74. Cf. Horsley and Silberman, The Message and the Kingdom, p. 22.
75. Cf. William E. Arnal, Jesus and the Village Scribes: Galilean Conicts and the
Setting of Q (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), p. 138.
76. For a general introduction to Second Temple Jewish coinage, see Yaakov Meshorer,
A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi
Press, 2001); Yaakov Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage. I: Persian Period Through Has-
monaeans (New York: Amphora Books, 1982); Yaakov Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage.
II: Herod the Great Through Bar Kochba (New York: Amphora Books, 1982); David Hendin,
Guide to Biblical Coins (New York: Amphora, 4th edn, 2001); Uriel Rappaport, Numis-
matics, in W.D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism:
Introduction. I. The Persian Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 25-
59. An overview can also be found in Morten Hrning Jensen, Message and Minting: The
Coins of Herod Antipas in their Second Temple Context as a Source for Understanding the
Religio-Political and Socio-Economic Dynamics of Early First-century Galilee, in Jrgen
Zangenberg, Harold Attridge and Dale B. Martin (eds.), Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in
Ancient Galilee (Tbingen: MohrSiebeck, forthcoming).
year (19/20 CE), and in total he only issued a small number of coins. For another,
when he nally introduced his own coin, he did so in a highly cautious manner,
strictly observing the ban against prohibited images. This concern of Antipas is
highlighted by the fact that his coins were intended to send a message; but while
Philip and Agrippa blatantly overstepped the aniconic ban in their endeavour to
do the same, Antipas for some reason did not do so, as illustrated by the following
three points: (a) His rst series was issued to commemorate the founding of
Tiberias, and following the analyses of Y. Meshorer and G. Theien,
77
it was a
brilliant move to display the reed on the obverse of these coins. As a novelty in
Jewish coinage, the reed could send a strong message of water, fertility and dura-
bility, while at the same time observing the ban against images (cf. Figure 3) at
Figure 3. Antipas rst series dated to his 24th regnal year. The largest denomination to the
left, and the smallest to the right. Obverse: Date, LK, 19/20 CE; floral plant (the reed); leg-
end, HPWOY TETPAPXO (of Herod the Tetrarch, the smallest denomination abbreviated).
Reverse: The legend, TIBE/PIAC within a wreath. David Hendin.
the same time. (b) Antipas next three series are identical, except for the date. It
is interesting to note that they were issued in the same period as that in which
Pilate and Philip minted series. It seems likely that Antipas was also trying to
reinforce his authority in the struggle for power and favour. However, unlike
Pilate and Philip, Antipas still did not display forbidden images but conned
himself to replacing the reed with a palm branch, which was a well-known
symbol on both Hasmonean and Herodian coinage at the time. (c) Antipas
anxiety to observe the ban against images is best illustrated by his last series,
which was minted in his nal year in ofce, 39 CE. The emission of this series
was probably one of the preparations made by Antipas to gain favour with Gaius
before asking for kingship (Ant. 18.246). For this reason, Antipas changed the
legends. His own name on the obverse was changed from the genitive to the
nominative case, while for the rst time the reverse features the name of the
emperor in the dative, tantamount to the translation: Herod the Tetrarch to
Gaius Caesar Germanicus (cf. Figure 4). However, this honoric legend paled
in comparison with Agrippa Is coin from the same year, featuring the image of
Gaius himself. Antipas worries about the ban against images on his coins are
77. Cf. Gerd Theissen, Das schwankende Rohr in Mt. 11,7 und die Grndungsmnzen
von Tiberias, ZDPV 101 (1985), pp. 43-55; Meshorer, A Treasury, p. 82.
put into perspective by the fact that he broke the ban on at least two other occa-
sions. His palace in Tiberias was graced with gures of living creatures (Life
65), and at Delos he was honoured for his benefactions bestowed on the temple
of Apollo.
78
Thus, Antipas adherence to the ban against images was grounded
not in personal preferences but in concerns for his Jewish subjects. It follows
that it is out of context and a gross exaggeration to interpret the coins of Antipas
as messianic propaganda. On the contrary, the iconography selected displays
concern for Jewish religious feelings.
Figure 4. The largest denomination of Antipas fth series, dated to his 43rd regnal year.
Obverse: Date, ETOC M, 38/39 CE; floral plant (palm tree with seven branches and clusters
of grapes); legend HRHC TETPAPXHC (Herod Antipas). Reverse: The legend GAI
KAICAPI EPMA/NIK within a wreath. David Hendin.
Hasmoneans Herod I Archelaos Philip Agrippa I Pilate Antipas
Hebrew/Aramaic
legends
x
Greek legends x x x x x x x
Emperors name x x x x
Animals x x
Human images x x
Temple facades x x
Temple scenes x
Cultic emblems (x) x x x
Table 1. The images and legends of the coins of Antipas in context
Regarding the coin circulation, detailed studies of the numismatic prole of
Galilee reveal that major changes took place before and after Antipas. A recent
study by Danny Syon has collected data from 186 places in Galilee and Golan in
order to establish a rm view of the coin circulation in the various periods.
79
78. Cf. David Noy, Alexander Panayotov and Hanswulf Bloedhorn, Inscriptiones Judaicae
Orientis. I: Eastern Europe (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 101; Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2004), pp. 234-35; Wilhelmus Dittenberger (ed.), Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selec-
tae: Supplementum Syllogoges Inscriptionum Graecarum (Lipsiae: S. Hirzel, 1903), no. 417;
Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty, p. 137.
79. Danny Syon, Tyre and Gamla: A Study in the Monetary Inuence of Southern
Syons study demonstrates that the amount of Hasmonean coinage in circulation
is overwhelming. At Gamla, destroyed and sealed in 68 CE, 62.8 per cent of the
coinage found was Hasmonean.
80
Similarly, Hasmonean coinage replaced earlier
Phoenician coinage in Yodefat.
81
In both places the Herodian coinage constitutes
a fairly low percentage of the coins excavated, less than ve percent. Altogether,
Syon was only able to locate 128 provenanced coins of Antipas, which should
be compared with the 5,632 located Hasmonean coins. At the same time, Syon
demonstrates that in the period after the war of 6670 CE, the total number of
coins in circulation increased dramaticallyas did the proportion of Phoenician
mints. Antipas thus issued a very limited number of coins which hardly increased
the coin circulation to any notable extent.
Discussion and Conclusion
What was the relationship between the reign of Herod Antipas and the socio-
economic conditions of early rst-century Galilee? The present investigation
was prompted by the fact that there are many different answers to this question,
as well as by the crucial importance attributed to it in recent Galilean research as
being perhaps the most decisive explanatory factor regarding the various pictures
of Galilee. This outer perspective on the impact of the reign of Antipas is
balanced by an inner perspective provided by the regular research on Antipas,
which has tended to focus on his personal character, resulting in some detailed
psychological descriptions.
In my view, as far as the last question is concerned, there is an obvious
ambiguity in the sources regarding Antipas personality and qualications. This
is actually not surprising, since the sources are written from different as well as
extremely selective perspectives, and nowhere do they even intend to provide an
elaborate description of Antipas. Table 2 illustrates this by suggesting that the
different reports can be depicted in terms of the tension between four poles. On
the one hand, Antipas is a good and able ruler, whereas, in other sources, a picture
of an unremarkable if not an incompetent ruler is rendered. On the other hand, he
is decisive, whereas in other situations he is indecisive and reluctant. It is thus a
perilous affair to describe Antipas personality and inner qualications. The
source material is too slim and biased to allow any clear description to gain
plausibility.

Phoenicia on Galilee and the Golan in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (unpublished PhD
dissertation, University of Jerusalem, 2004).
80. Cf. ibid., p. 27 g. 1.
81. Cf. Adan-Bayewitz and Aviam, Iotapata, pp. 157-61.
Good/Able/Adjusted Minor/Unremarkable/Incompetent
43 years in ofce.
No major upheavals reported.
Benefactor and builder.
Took care of messianic threats.
Took part in celebrations in Jerusalem.
No provocative imagery on coins.
Second marriage to Herodias a political failure.
Lost war against Aretas.
Mediocre builder.
Infuriated Vitellius.
Never promoted by the Romans.
Decisive Indecisive
Fought for the entire kingdom of Herod
the Great.
Part of a delegation against Pilate.
Informed Tiberius about the negations
with Parthia.
According to Matthew and Mark, perplexed by
John.
According to Luke, perplexed by Jesus.
Doubts over going to Rome to ask for kingship.
Table 2. Contradictory descriptions of Herod Antipas
Instead, a better position is gained by asking solely for the outer parameters of
Antipas reign detached from individual events. The main conclusion from this
survey is that, quite surprisingly, the sources paint a rather consistent picture
concerning the impact of Antipas reign in a socio-economic perspective. Based
on the arguments below, it is concluded that Herod Antipas is best described with
adjectives such as: minor, moderate, adjusted and unremarkable. Consequently,
in all probability the impact of his reign on the socio-economic conditions of
early-rst-century Galilee was moderate and adjusted too. Thus, Herod Antipas
was a minor ruler with a moderate impact. He was not a remaker of Galilee, but
rather a modest developer. The following seven considerations warrant this con-
clusion: (a) When evaluating the excavations at Sepphoris and Tiberias, it is
important to observe a strict chronological approach since both places were
radically transformed in the post-war era. This highlights the fact that at the time
of Antipas the two urban centres were modest starting points in view of their des-
tiny in later Roman periods. (b) Surveys of the coin circulation also indicate that
early rst-century Galilee was not nearly as monetized as it was to become later.
In particular, Antipas only began to mint series of coins very late in his reign and
continued to do so only in an infrequent manner and always in small numbers.
(c) Specically, the iconography utilized on the coins expresses Antipas will to
adhere and adjust to Jewish traditions even in the stressed political situation
when ghting for the favour of Gaius against Agrippa I. (d) Important perspec-
tives for the urbanization programme of Antipas are found in the welfare of the
regional villages and inter-regional neighbouring cities. Galilean towns and cities
apparently thrived and expanded right up until the war of 6670 CE. No decline
could be attested in the villages and towns of Galilee. Similarly, in comparison
with other cities, Antipas building activity turns out to be rather moderate.
(e) When considering the archaeological material, it is also worth noticing that
no evidence has been found of a network of fortresses, which highlights the
silence in the sources regarding upheavals in his period.
82
(f) When considering
the textual sources, the analysis of Josephus narrative on Antipas within its con-
textual framework makes it clear that Josephus uses Antipas as yet another exam-
ple of bad Herodian rule. However, Josephus is unable to present real evidence
of cruelty, whereas he provides ample evidence of the cruelty of Herod the Great,
Archelaos and also the fourth philosophy. Thus, read in conjunction with Jose-
phus own disclosed intentions, the picture he presents to his readers of Antipas
is one of an unremarkable ruler in deeds as well as misdeeds, credits as well
as discredits. (g) Finally, Antipas is hardly mentioned in other written sources
besides the Gospels, which for their part paint a picture of an ambiguous and
perplexed ruler.
It is thus concluded that the picture of conict cannot be substantiated to
any notable degree by referring to the reign of Antipas. It is unwarranted to
place Antipas in the middle of a deterioration process which must have
83
taken
place under him. There are no indications of such a process in the archaeo-
logical record, nor in the literary sources.
Returning nally to the question of Antipas and the historical Jesuswas he
a friend or foe? On the basis of the proceeding investigation it must be con-
cluded that a depiction of Jesus as provoked by and opposed to the reign of
Antipas cannot be substantiated by a contextual component. This does not,
however, exclude the possibility that certain individuals may have reacted to
Antipas. It is even beyond doubt that poverty was a persistent fact of life in this
period, and that, Antipas or not, the presence of a social prophet would not be
surprising in view of the discontent that prevailed. The reign of Antipas is just
not the right place to base such a view of the historical Jesus. The feeling is that
due to the contemporaneity between Jesus and Antipas, bold and unwarranted
hypotheses about Antipas reign have been launched serving as factors of expla-
nation of the historical Jesus. In this way, too much has been concluded on the
basis of too little evidence.
82. Cf. Aviam, Jews, Pagans, pp. 103ff.; Peter Richardson and Douglas R. Edwards,
Jesus and Palestinian Social Protest: Archaeological and Literary Perspectives, in Anthony J.
Blasi, Jean Duhaime and Paul-Andr Turcotte (eds.), Handbook of Early Christianity: Social
Science Approaches (Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 2002), p. 254; Milton Moreland,
The Galilean Response to Earliest Christianity: A Cross-Cultural Study of the Subsistence
Ethic, in Douglas R. Edwards (ed.), Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions,
New Approaches (New York and London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 42-43.
83. Cf. Horsley, Whoever Hears, p. 58; Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, p. 36 and also
Sean Freyne, Jesus, A Jewish Galilean: A New Reading of the Jesus-Story (London and New
York: T&T Clark International, 2004), pp. 134-39 and others.

2007 - Morten Hørning Jensen - Herod Antipas in Galilee. Friend or Foe of The Historical Jesus

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2007 - Morten Hørning Jensen - Herod Antipas in Galilee. Friend or Foe of The Historical Jesus

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

http://jhj.sagepub.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi