herod antipas in galilee: friend or foe of the historical jesus

http://jhj.sagepub.comthe Historical Jesus

Journal for the Study of

DOI: 10.1177/1476869006074934 2007; 5; 7 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

Morten Hørning 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.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at Statsbiblioteket on March 22, 2007 http://jhj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jhj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jhj.sagepub.com

HEROD ANTIPAS IN GALILEE:FRIEND OR FOE OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS?*

Morten Hørning Jensen*

University of Aarhus Aarhus, Denmark [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The quest for the secrets of first-century Galilee has recently attracted much intenseinterest, 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 region’s 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 figure in conflicting views of first-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 Hoehner’s 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 first-century Galilee was probably more moderate than often assumed by scholars of the historical Jesus.

Key words: Cana, Capernaum, coin circulation, first-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 Hørning Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee (WUNT, 2.215; Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 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 field 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 clarified 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 urban–rural rela-tions of early first-century Galilee in the wake of Antipas’ programme of urbanization. What did it mean to Galilee to experience its first 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 first-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 conflict’ 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: CambridgeUniversity 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 Räuberhöhle? Galiläa zur Zeit Jesu’, ZNW 96 (2005), pp. 147-70.

2. Cf. H. Moxnes, ‘The Construction of Galilee as a Place for the Historical Jesus—Part 2’, BTB 31.2 (2001), pp. 64-77.

3. Sean Freyne, ‘Galilean Questions to Crossan’s 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 flourishing, 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 first-century Galilee’.10 In short, ‘Antipas intensified the structural political-economic conflict in Galilee’,11 and therefore ‘the impact of Antipas’s direct rule in Galilee, both political-economic and cultural, must have been intense, particularly during the generation of Jesusand his followers’.12 It is asserted that ‘it cannot be coincidental…that the prophet John the Baptist condemned Antipas (Ant. 18.116-19) and that Jesus and hismovement 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 fulfilment 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 Jürgen Zangenberg (eds.), Religion, Ethnicity and

Identity in Ancient Galilee (Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 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 (Tübingen: 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 Mark’s 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 fire 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 first 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 profiles are presented. According to M. Brann, Antipas was ‘schlaff, träge und äußerst phlegmatisch’,17 blindfolded by his love ofHerodias, and his final downfall was a result of his lust and greediness. E. Schürer describes Antipas more positively as a miniature of his father: intelligent, ambi-tious and a lover of splendour, ‘nur weniger thatkräftig’ 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 father’s cruelty. Only his relationship to Herodias was a sign of the prevalent immorality in the Herodian house.19 The most negativejudgment 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 office 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 Söhne des Herodes. Eine biographische Skizze. 2. Antipas’, MGWJ

22.7 (1873), pp. 305-44 (306).18. Emil Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi—Erster

Band (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 3rd edn, 1901), p. 432. 19. Cf. Walter Otto, ‘Herodes Antipas’, Paulus Real-Encyclopädie 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 finally assessing what can be said about the impact of his reign on first-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; Sheffield:




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, theHerodians and the rebellious fourth philosophy, are guilty in the mind of Josephusof the same transgressions that eventually caused the fall of the temple. Thisdevelopment 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 ( 30), Herod forsook even more the customs of the fathers (

); with foreign practices he changed the ancient way of living that had been inviolable (

); and therefore, Josephus states, by these means no little evil wrongdoing happened at a later time (

), because what had earlier brought about piety in the people was neglected (

). 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 filled up the people’ (

, Ant. 18.6). These evils are further defined by four instrumen-tal datives in 18.7-8, and described as the causing factor of the final 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; Tübingen: A. Francke Verlag, 1994).

28. For a more thorough investigation, see Morten Hørning 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 © 1994–2002 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 Great—and others from the Herodian house, the fourth philosophy, and also Pilate for that matter—Josephus 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 first one of these deals with the founding and settlement of Tiberias (Ant. 18.36-38; cf. War

2.168; Life 64–69) and the modifications 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 first 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 in the Loeb edition. Though some are said to be magistrates or men in office ( , 18.37), it appears from the description that most were former slaves who had only just been set free ( , 18.38), or poor people in need ( , 18.37) who were brought in from all over ( , 18.37). Some were dragged there forcibly ( , 18.37). The second problem is that Antipas ‘knew the foundation of the city to be against thelaw and contrary to the Jewish ancestral tradition because it was placed on graves’(

, 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’ (

, 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 Purification 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 ( ) man who was filled with , and (116-19); (e) Antipas was finallycaught 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 magnificently 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 Philip’s 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 onthese political events in War, he presents, in Antiquities, a ‘Divine interpreta-tion’ stating that ‘God inflicted this punishment on Herodias for the envy against her brother and Herod for listening to women’s light talk’ (

, 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 five 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 66–70 CE caused by the images of living animals in Antipas’ palace in Tiberias (Life 64–69).

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 Herod’s wills. It includes an important detail missing in Josephus’ much longer versions (War 2.1-100; Ant. 17.200-323) describing how the Jewishdelegation was willing to accept Antipas as king if they could not be ruled directlyfrom 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) Philo’s 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 Herod’s 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 ( ), they were set up to aggravate the people (

). The embassy primarily consisted of three parties, includ-ing first of all ‘the four sons of the king, who did not stand back in dignity and good fortune to a king’ (

); second, other descendants ( -); and third, those in office among themselves (

). According to the chronology, Antipas must have been among the princes,36

just as it is reasonable to follow M. Smallwood’s suggestion that the ‘ ’ isa 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 sacrifices 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 Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho stating that Antipas took over the 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; Sheffield: Sheffield 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 jødedom og

kristendom (Bibel og historie, 11; Århus: 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 influence 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 Pilate—an 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 4.25-28’s interpretation of Psalms 2.1-2’s vision of the gathering against the anointed.42 Recent discussions, including those of J. Nolland, J. Fitzmyer and R.E. Brown,43 find 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 briefly be stated that many of the texts in the New Testament concerning Antipaspreserve 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 ( , 14.9) when asked for the head of John, while Mark says he was very saddened ( , 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 SupplementSeries, 163; Sheffield: Sheffield 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 Müller, ‘Jesus vor Herodes. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung’, in Gerhard Dautzenberg, Helmut Merklein, and Müller Karlheinz (eds.), Zur Geschichte des Urchristen-

tums (Freiburg: Herder, 1979), pp. 111-14. 43. John Nolland, Luke 18.35–24.53 (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 X–XXIV (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 ( , 6.20). Luke also depicts Antipas as perplexed when confronted with the news of Jesus ( , 9.7), and though it is Antipas’ stated intention to kill him ( , 13.31), he acts almost absurdly when he gets the chance in Jerusalem. First, he is exceedingly glad ( , 23.8) to see him. Then he treats him with contempt ( ) and ridicules him ( , 23.11), before finally 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 first-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 flourishing city for one millennium after its foundation. This calls for a strict chronological approach, since the archaeological material concerns many centuries. Actually, first-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 first century includes the following items: (a) In 1973–74, 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 first century.47

Unfortunately, Foerster has not published a final 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 4–5 metres of clearance.48 T. Weber, the excavator of the ‘Tiberias gate’ in Gadara, also questions Foerster’s 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 first century.49 According to David Stacey, who has recently published the early Islamic material from Foerster’s dig,50 only two probes were made under the pavement, and the ceramic material uncovered is too slim to date any closer than ‘first century’ (personal communication). (b) In connection with the towers, parts of a 12-metres-wide cardo, which was flanked by colonnades and shops, were discovered. The first-century stratum of the cardo has not yet been found anywhere else. (c) During the present excavation campaign, led by Yizhar Hirschfeld, a spectacular first-century find was made in the spring of 2005: a magnificent marble floor 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 floor was part of a Herodian structure, since floors ofthis 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 Jürgen Zangenberg, Harold Attridge and Dale B. Martin (eds.), Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee

(Tübingen: 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 Palästina-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 Archäologen-Verbandes 22.1 (1991), pp. 16-22 (21-22).

50. Cf. David Stacey, Excavations at Tiberias, 1973–1974: 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 Hørning Jensen.

during which a wall structure was found that can be connected to the same first-century building. It was constructed in white limestone with the well-known, tightly fitting Herodian bossed masonry. (d) In addition, the find of a lead weight confirms 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 difficult 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 first century. However, a precise dating to either early or late first century could not be established.53 Added together, these findings paint a picture of a rather modest starting point of Tiberias compared with the findingsof 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 (1986–87), 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 magnificent opus sectile floor.

Photo: Morten Hørning 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 earlyfirst 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 66–70 CE that extensive construction work began in this area: ‘It is during the interwar period, from 68–135 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: Confluence 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 first excavated in 1931 by L. Waterman’s 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 final 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 first-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 first century.61 For another, Strange briefly notes in his latest pub-lished discussion that the basilical building found in field 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 first century, it was not until the first half of the second century that the lower plateau ‘witnessed a dramatic change in the urban lay-out’.63 To sum up, Sepphoris was definitely 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 Waterman’s Preliminary Report on the 1931 Excavations’, Classical Weekly 21 (1938), p. 148.

60. Presently, Tom McCollough is preparing the final report of the University of South Florida team’s 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 findings 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 followingthe war of 66–70 CE, which led to a heavier Roman military presence in Galilee,64

only to be followed by an intensified Jewish presence in Galilee after the war of132–35 CE. In the heyday of the High Empire under the Severan dynasty, Galileeexperienced 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 66–70 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 magnificent 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. Ze’ev 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 conflict, 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 beneficial 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 first 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 first 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 first Pompeian style and floors 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 floor. 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 first-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 1992–94 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 fishing on the lake. A network of harbours has been testified, and a boat suitable for intensive fishing 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 flour mill, and a street of shops with a large open plaza proba-bly serving as a marketplace. Recent excavations produced evidence of anotherarea with a large mansion, as well as unearthing a basilical building that the exca-vators believe was a public building housing administrative functions. Anotherpublic building was found not far from the eastern city wall, and is generally accepted to be a first-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 finally, 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 first-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 1997–2000’, Hadashot

Arkheologiyot—Excavations 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 first 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 June–July 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 DeutschenPalästina-Vereins, 30; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2002); Yoram Tsafrir, ‘The Fate ofPagan 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 Expedition’s 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 specifically 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; thecoins 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 façade 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 first, 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 five series in his 43 years as ruler, the first 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 Galiläapolitik 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 Conflicts and the

Setting of Q (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), p. 138. 76. For a general introduction to Second Temple Jewish coinage, see Ya’akov Meshorer,

A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2001); Ya’akov Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage. I: Persian Period Through Has-

monaeans (New York: Amphora Books, 1982); Ya’akov 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 Hørning 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 Jürgen Zangenberg, Harold Attridge and Dale B. Martin (eds.), Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in

Ancient Galilee (Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, forthcoming).




year (19/20 CE), and in total he only issued a small number of coins. For another,when he finally 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 todo the same, Antipas for some reason did not do so, as illustrated by the following three points: (a) His first series was issued to commemorate the founding ofTiberias, and following the analyses of Y. Meshorer and G. Theißen,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’ first 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, HPW OY 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 confinedhimself 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 final year in office, 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 first 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 honorific legend paled in comparison with Agrippa I’s 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 Gründungsmünzen 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 figures 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’ fifth 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 HR HC TETPAPXHC (Herod Antipas). Reverse: The legend GAIKAICAPI 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 Emperor’s 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 profile 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 firm 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; Tübingen: 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 Influence of Southern




Syon’s 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 five 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 66–70 CE, the total number of coins in circulation increased dramatically—as did the proportion of Phoenician mints. Antipas thus issued a very limited number of coins which hardly increasedthe 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 first-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 picturesof 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 qualifications. 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. Onthe 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, heis decisive, whereas in other situations he is indecisive and reluctant. It is thus a perilous affair to describe Antipas’ personality and inner qualifications. 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 fig. 1. 81. Cf. Adan-Bayewitz and Aviam, ‘Iotapata’, pp. 157-61.




Good/Able/Adjusted Minor/Unremarkable/Incompetent

43 years in office.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-first-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 wereradically 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 first-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) Specifically, the iconography utilized on the coins expresses Antipas’ will to adhere and adjust to Jewish traditions even in the stressed political situation when fighting 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 66–70 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 conflict’ 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 finally to the question of Antipas and the historical Jesus—was 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-André 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.



herod antipas in galilee: friend or foe of the historical jesus

Documents