Introduction

chapter 1 Introduction

The study of Herod Antipas is relevant from both histor- region. This volume is meant to help expand the current ical and theological perspectives. Research of his life and understanding of Herod Antipas, his reign and his territo- reign is important for the understanding, inter alia, of first- ries and its inhabitants by examining and discussing his century Galilee and the historical Jesus. coinage in detail. Antipas ruled Galilee, a region in the northern part of Palestine, along with Peraea, which lay in Transjordan. Naturally, “Antipas has emerged as the decisive factor of 1.1 Documentary Sources for Antipas explanation of the socio-economic realities of early first- century Galilee” (Jensen 2010:46). Numismatic studies, in As with many important individuals and events that took particular, are fundamental components of any study of place in Early Roman Palestine (63bce–70ce), most of the the Galilean economy. The dispersion and reasons for primary information we have regarding Herod Antipas is minting of coins of Antipas provide reflections of how from the works of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c. 37– trade was carried out. c. 100ce). His works are an invaluable and often unique Research on Antipas has become a vital component of source for near-eastern history. They provide insight into understanding the so-called “urban-rural” relationship in the society and culture of the late Second Temple period. Galilee: did Antipas act as a “buffer against direct Roman Josephus was a military leader in Galilee at the beginning rule and exploitation, thereby providing a good basis for of the First Revolt, thereby obtaining first-hand knowledge trade and mutual enrichment of both urban and rural of the region, albeit after Antipas’ rule (bj 2:568; Vita 28– areas” or was he a “typical tyrant extracting heavy taxes 29). from his region for the financing of his building pro- Josephus’ works are known to contain numerous inac- gram, which resulted in economic upheaval with increas- curacies and discrepancies, caused plausibly by careless- ing indebtedness and tenancy” (Jensen 2010:9)? ness or ignorance by Josephus or a later scribe. More- The study of Antipas also has a theological motivation. over, Josephus, a Jew writing under Flavian patronage, had Antipas is a prominent character in the nt. It was Antipas good reasons to be tendentious—he had to flatter both his who ordered the imprisonment and beheading of John the Roman overlords and appease his Jewish comrades. Cohen Baptist. It was Antipas who, like Pilate, was involved in gives the following examples (2002:240–242): In bj, Jose- the trial of Jesus. It was also in Antipas’ territories, Galilee phus primarily wanted to demonstrate to the Romans that and Peraea, that most of Jesus’ and John the Baptist’s min- only a few revolutionary Jews were to blame for the war. istries took place. “A full understanding of the message of He did everything he could to be an ideal leader and was Jesus will require a careful linking of the events described well-liked by the masses. Josephus was motivated to write in the Gospels with a reconstruction of the historical con- aj to demonstrate that the Pharisees were powerful, that text of the life and times of those who surrounded him” the Jews revolted out of necessity and that Agrippa i (con- (Hoehner 1972:1).While Pontius Pilate has received consid- tra Agrippa ii) was a loyal Jew. Vita was written to accuse erable attention from modern scholars and has been the Justus (and his hometown of Tiberias) of being revolution- subject of numerous studies (e.g. Bond 2004; Carter 2003; ary and to demonstrate that Josephus was a popular and for numismatic studies, see Fontanille and Gosline 2001; honourable leader. Bond 1996), the corpus of Antipas research is more exigu- Fortunately, a few critical studies partially resolve some ous. of the difficulties involving interpreting Josephus’ works The ancient literary sources on Antipas are few and of (e.g. Bilde 1988; McLaren 1998; Rappaport 1994). Josephus varying historical value. It is therefore natural to seek other “remains loyal towards his sources as far as their sub- sources to aid with the study of Antipas. For this purpose, stance, main contents and their most essential data are primary sources and those provided by archaeology and concerned” (Bilde 1988:196) despite his characteristic ten- numismatics play important roles. Numismatics, in partic- dentiousness. ular, is an often overlooked tool that aids in historical anal- Other relevant literary sources that briefly discuss or ysis and archaeological research (cf. ajc 2:5). Coins from mention episodes relating to Antipas (Jensen 2010:101– Antipas’ Galilee provide important information about the 125) are works of:

figure 1.1 Busts of Philip at about 26 and about 56 years old from his coinage

– Philosopher and historian Nicolaus of Damascus (born Antipas was born to King Herod and Malthace some- c. 64bce) time around the early twenties bce.1 Very little is recorded – Roman geographer, philosopher and historian Strabo about Antipas’ youth. According to Hoehner, young Anti- (c. 64bce–c. 24ce) pas was probably educated at home, where his learning – The nt (Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts, written during would be focused on Jewish law (halakhah) and the scrip- the first or early second century ce) tures (tanakh), as was common for the time (1972:14; see – Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (c. 20bce– aj 4:209–211; ca 2:178; ca 1:60; Leg. 210). When Antipas c. 50ce) grew older, he probably sailed to Rome to advance his – Roman historian Tacitus (c. 55–c. 117ce) education about Hellenism and Roman culture2 (Braund – Christian philosopher Justin Martyr (c. 100–165ce) 1984:10–11; for other sons of Herod, see bj 1:435, 602). Dur- – Roman historian Dio Cassius (c. 135–235ce) ing this time, he may have stayed in the house of Pollio3 as his older brothers, Alexander and Aristobulus, previ- Each of these sources has its own bias. Nonetheless, they ously did (Hoehner 1972:14; cf. aj 15:343). Antipas returned usually agree (or at least, do not contradict) with Josephus’ to his father’s kingdom in 7/6bce (Kokkinos 1998:229) or accounts of Antipas. 5/4bce (Hoehner 1972:17). Other later historians mention Antipas (e.g. Pseudo- Around 5/4bce (Richardson 1996:294), King Herod dis- Hegesippus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Josippon and extra- covered plots against his life by his son and heir Antipater. canonical literature), but they have less historical value The King imprisoned Antipater and named his youngest (Jensen 2010:101 n. 64; cf. Hoehner 1972:105–106, 245–249). son Antipas as his sole benefactor and heir (aj 17:142–146; Unsurprisingly, the extant ancient literature has no refer- ences to Antipas’ coins (cf. Duncan-Jones 1994:97). 1 Richardson believes the year was 21bce (1996:xix), Hoehner suggests 22bce (1972:11) and Kokkinos favours 25bce (1998:225). 1.2 Herod Antipas’ Biography 2 Hoehner suggests Antipas sailed around 8/7bce with Nicolaus of Damascus on his trip to Rome to reconcile on behalf of Herod after In this section we present a brief vita of Antipas based Syllaeus’ accusations that he attacked Nabataea (Hoehner 1972:14). 3 Pollio is generally assumed to have been the orator and historian on the ancient textual sources mentioned above, with G. Asinius Pollio (Hoehner 1972:15; Richardson 1996:231 n. 49; Stern complementary analysis provided by modern studies.This 1976:213; Feldman 1953 and others). Syme, in a brief addendum, biography provides the historical background for Antipas’ suggests that Pollio is “perhaps Vedius Pollio” (1961:30). Willrich coins, an essential factor for understanding the context in (1929:117) and Braund (1983:240–241) believe that Pollio was a Jew which they were struck and circulated. who resided in Rome and whose identity is now obscure.