MHJ2012-6-Herodes-An..

World’s Most Widely Read Biblical Archaeology Magazine
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012 Y VOL 38 NO 5 Y $5.95
WWW.BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGY.ORG
Machaerus—
Where
Salome
Danced
Antipas—The Herod
Jesus Knew
Has King David’s Palace
Been Found?
Josephus and Jeremiah:
History vs. Prophecy
SEF/ART
RESOURCE, NY
Antıpas
The Herod Jesus Knew
Morten Hørning Jensen
HEROD THE GREAT GETS ALL THE PRESS. HIS SON HEROD
Antipas is known mostly, as the preceding article explains, as
the Herod for whom Salome danced and who ordered John
the Baptist to be beheaded.
Many people mistakenly think it was Herod the Great for
whom Salome danced. This is understandable because the
Gospels refer to Herod Antipas simply as “Herod,” or occasionally as “Herod the tetrarch” or even as “King Herod”
(Mark 6:14), but never by his common name Antipas (see
How Many? on p. 11).
Herod Antipas ruled Galilee for most of Jesus’ life. His
father, Herod the Great, reigned from 37 to 4 B.C. Jesus was
apparently born in about 6 B.C. If so, from the time Jesus was
2 years old until his crucifixion in about 30 A.D., Herod Antipas governed Galilee (and Perea, where John the Baptist came
from). Antipas served as tetrarch (appointed by the emperor
Augustus to rule over one quarter of his father’s kingdom)
from 4 B.C. until 39 A.D., almost exactly the time of Jesus.
42
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012
According to the three synoptic Gospels, Herod
Antipas’s relationship to Jesus is somewhat vague
and indecisive.
In Matthew and Mark, Herod Antipas is ambivalent with regard to Jesus. Both gospels quote
Herod Antipas as saying, after he has had John the
Baptist executed, that Jesus is actually John resurrected (Matthew 14:1–2; Mark 6:14–16). Both gospels state that Antipas was actually saddened by
Salome’s request to have John beheaded (Matthew
14:9; Mark 6:26), and they seem to blame Salome
and her mother, Herodias, for John’s execution.
Bound by his own oath, Antipas is nevertheless
forced to fulfill his promise to Salome.
At the same time, however, we get the feeling
in Matthew and Mark that Antipas is a shadow of
death over Jesus. When Jesus hears that John has
been killed, “he withdrew from there in a boat to
a lonely place,” apparently fearful of Antipas (Matthew 14:13). In Mark 3:6, the Herodians counsel
about how to kill Jesus, just as Jesus in Mark 8:15
warns against “the leaven of Herod.”
Luke’s account differs from Matthew’s and
Mark’s by concentrating mostly on the trial of
Jesus, for which Luke skillfully prepares his reader
by references to Antipas along the way that build
up an intense question in the reader’s mind: Is
Antipas interested in Jesus or is he trying to kill
him? (See Luke 3:19–20, 9:7–10, 13:31–33.)
When Antipas finally gets to meet Jesus in Luke
23:7–12, an almost-absurd scene ensues. At first
Antipas is “exceedingly glad” to see him; he had
wanted that for a long time and had hoped to see
Jesus perform a sign. Then, under the impression
that Jesus has remained silent, he treats him with
contempt and mocks him. Finally, he sends Jesus in
a bright shining robe to Pilate. Pilate understands
this as an acquittal of Jesus.
It may come as no surprise that scholars have
disagreed on how to understand Antipas’s relation
COMPARED TO HIS FATHER, Herod the Great, Antipas
was not much of a builder. Although he founded cities
and may have built theaters at Sepphoris and Tiberias,
they were relatively small compared to the later Romanperiod structures that can be seen there today. Excavations of the Tiberias theater (below) by the Israel Antiquities Authority began in 2009 under the direction of Walid
Atrash and Avner Hilman.
HERSHEL SHANKS
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW
43
SHAI LEVI, HECHT MUSEUM, UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA
H E R O D A N T I PA S
to Jesus. Some suggest Antipas was really one of
Jesus’ enemies; others that Antipas was simply perplexed. My own view is that the latter is the better argument: Herod Antipas was a perplexed and
indecisive ruler.
He simply could not match his father either as
a tyrant or as a builder. On the other hand, it is
significant that we get no reports in the Gospels
or otherwise of any riots caused by bad government or religious oppression during Antipas’s rule
in Galilee.
It is also significant that, archaeologically speaking, we have no evidence of Roman temples,
gymnasia or hippodromes built during Antipas’s
reign. This changed dramatically after the Roman
destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., but the situation was quite different in the earlier period.
Although theaters have been discovered at Sepphoris and Tiberias that may have been built by Antipas, they were built on a smaller scale compared
44
to what can be seen today.1 Similarly, it is possible
that the stadium in Tiberias mentioned by Josephus and discovered in a recent Israel Antiquities
Authority salvage excavation directed by Moshe
Hartal goes back to Antipas, but the main part of
what can be seen today postdates Antipas. This is
not to say that Sepphoris and Tiberias were not
important cities in Antipas’s time or that Antipas
did not sponsor a certain amount of building activity, but compared to their later phases, these cities were in their “urban infancy” during Antipas’s
time.
What about rural Galilee?
Recent excavations of rural villages and towns
such as Yodfat, Cana, Capernaum and Gamla reveal
a first-century period with an increase in the settled area right up until the outbreak of the Jewish Revolt in 66 A.D. Yodfat is especially interesting; its destruction by the Romans during the
war effectively sealed off its first-century layers.
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012
H E R O D A N T I PA S
LIVING WELL IN GALILEE. Recent surveys and excavations
of rural Galilee reveal that villages and towns continued
to expand in the first century A.D., as indicated by a rise
in the area and number of settlements. Although poverty was a fact of life for some in this period, the region
in general was thriving economically. This can be seen
especially at Yodfat, where the Roman destruction sealed
off the first-century layers. The growing town included
an upper-class area with an elite house that featured
high-quality frescoes (left) much like those at Herod the
Great’s palace at Masada.
A cave at the site contained remains of olive-oil production (right), which was one of several prosperous
industries at Yodfat. As illustrated in the drawing of an
olive press below it, the flat, fallen stone (A) in the center
of the photo was one of two upright stones that supported baskets of olives being crushed. A wooden beam
anchored in a socket (in the wall at back center) pressed
the oil out of the olives into a collecting vat (also in back)
with the help of two weight stones (B, in the foreground
of the photo) hung from the free end of the beam.
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW
A
B
MORTEN HØRNING JENSEN
Excavator Mordechai Aviam dug, so to speak, right
into the first century and found evidence of olive-oil
production, pottery manufacturing and textile production, while the town expanded on the southern
slope throughout the first century. Most interesting
is the discovery of an upper-class area with an elite
house featuring frescoed walls quite similar to those
found at Herod the Great’s magnificent northern
palace at Masada.2
Moreover, a number of surface surveys all testify
to a rise in the number of settlements in Galilee
in the first century. Most important is the recent
survey by Israeli archaeologist Uzi Leibner, who
describes how rural settlements increased dramatically in this period, even at places that were difficult to protect and of “no strategic value.”3
Taken together, the picture we get is of a
thriving economic situation in the rural areas of
Galilee that does not match earlier proposals of
a devastating urban elite’s exploitation of a uniformly poor peasant population.
This is not to deny that poverty was a persistent
fact of life in this period—to a degree more than
enough for a social prophet like Jesus to arise. But
Herod Antipas did not add to this in any noteworthy way.
Herod Antipas’s coinage is telling for the impact
(or lack of it) that he had on Galilee. In his 43 years
as a ruler, he issued only five series of coins. And the
first was not issued until his 24th regnal year. Moreover, all of them were small in number. In a recent
beam
B
socket
in wall
A
support stone
collecting vat
support stone
stone weights
baskets containing crushed olives
45
SI
PLANTS NOT PORTRAITS. Herod Antipas’s coinage is
telling in what it lacks. Of only five series of coins that
Antipas issued—the first of which was in the 24th year
of his reign—none of them has any figural images, showing his respectful observance of the Jewish ban against
graven images. As shown in the upper bronze coin at
left, Antipas limited his coin designs to floral motifs. The
obverse bears the Greek inscription “Tiberias” (where it
was minted) surrounded by a wreath; the reverse reads
“of Herod the Tetrarch, year 33” (i.e., 29/30 A.D.) around
a palm branch, a common Jewish symbol that often represents the lulav waved during the holiday of Sukkoth.
Antipas’s brother Herod Philip, however, frequently issued
coins bearing his own portrait or that of the emperor, as
well as other pagan symbols. The lower example at left
has a portrait of the emperor Tiberius on the obverse
with a laurel branch and an inscription (in Greek),
“Tiberius Augustus Caesar.” On the reverse Philip’s regnal
year “37” (33/34 A.D.) is written among the columns of
the Augusteum of Paneas, which is surrounded by the
inscription “In the time of Philip the Tetrarch.”
ON
M
AG
ES
A
©D
VID
HEND
IN, REPRINTE
D W
ITH
PE
RM
IS
H E R O D A N T I PA S
CO
IN
I
study of 186 sites and collections of coins found in
Galilee and the Golan, less than 3 percent were from
issues of Herod Antipas.4 Here, too, we must judge
Herod Antipas as a relatively passive leader.
Although they were few in number, Herod Antipas’s coins are significant from another aspect:
They reflect his respect for his subjects’ religious
sensitivities. He strictly observed the ban against
images, limiting himself to floral motifs. This is in
marked contrast to his brother Philip, another tetrarch and son of Herod the Great. Philip’s coins
featured his own portrait, as well as those of
emperors Augustus and Tiberius.
In his personal life, Herod Antipas was different. His palace in Tiberias (which he had founded
as his capital city) was graced with figures of living creatures5; and at Delos he was honored for
his benefactions to a temple of Apollo.6 Antipas’s
adherence to the ban against images was grounded
not in personal preferences but in concern for his
Jewish subjects.
All in all, Herod Antipas’s impact on socioeconomic conditions in Galilee was both minor and
moderate. He was not a remaker of Galilee but
rather a modest developer. His reign was one of
46
the longest in this entire period; yet there is little
about his reign in the written sources. Josephus is
a good example; the references to Herod Antipas
are relatively few—perhaps because there is not
much to say.
But one thing came to be remembered about
Herod Antipas—his birthday party with dance,
music and wine, and Salome’s request for the head
of John the Baptist brought to her on a platter. a
1
See also the discussion in Morten Hørning Jensen, Herod
Antipas in Galilee (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), pp.
154–156. To learn more about Herod Antipas, visit herodantipas.com.
2 See Mordechai Aviam, “Socio-Economical Hierarchy and
Its Economical Foundations in First Century Galilee,” in Jack
Pastor, Menahem Mor and Prina Stern, eds., Flavius Josephus:
Interpretation and History (Leiden: Brill, 2011), pp. 29–38;
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 Ideolog
(London: Routledge, 2002), pp. 121–133 and others.
3 Uzi Leibner, “Settlement and Demography in Late Roman
and Byzantine Eastern Galilee,” in Ariel S. Lewin and
Pietrina Pellegrini, eds., Settlements and Demography in
the Near East in Late Antiquity (Rome: Istituti Editoriali
e Poligrafici Internazionali, 2006), p. 115. Cf. Uzi Leibner,
Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine
Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee, Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity 127 (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2009), p. 333.
4 See David Adan-Bayewitz and Mordechai Aviam, “Iotapata,
Josephus, and the Siege of 67: Preliminary Report of the
1992–94 Seasons,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 10 (1997),
pp. 157–161.
5 Josephus, The Life of Flavius Josephus, 65.
6 See David Noy, Alexander Panayotov and Hanswulf Bloedhorn, Eastern Europe, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism
101 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), pp. 234–235.
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012