Who are the various Herods mentioned in the Bible?
Herod Antipater known by the nickname Antipas, was a 1st-century ruler of Galilee and Perea, Pilate initially handed him over to Antipas, in whose territory Jesus had been most .. In any case, Antipas featured prominently in the New Testament in connection with the deaths of John the Baptist and Jesus (see above). King Herod the Great stopped at nothing to keep his throne. wicked king who saw the baby Jesus as a threat and wanted to murder him. Christ calls us to loving relationships rather than building monuments to ourselves. Read letters published in the Q&C section of BAR debating the dates of Herod's death, Jesus' birth and to which lunar eclipse Josephus was.
So Jesus was bound and led through Jerusalem from the house of Caiaphaswhere he had spent the last part of the night, to the strongly fortified palace of the Herods. It was not a long walk. Houses of wealthy Jewish citizens like Caiaphas lay close to the Roman administrative centre. The praetorium in the coastal city of Caesarea; the building in Jerusalem was similar. Note the two courtyards at the centre of the buildings.
The praetorium in Jerusalem covered part of the original palace of King Herod the Great, so Jesus only walked a short distance for his meeting the Herod Antipas, son of King Herod On this particular morning there was a difficulty: So Pilate came out of the praetorium itself and held the session outside. There was no jury, as in a modern trial.
On that particular morning its members moved together to the court of Pilate. They were led by the current High Priest Caiaphas. He had a good relationship with Pilate who had appointed him to the high priesthood, a position he held for ten years - an unusually long period. Why was Jesus taken to Pilate? A fragment of stone excavated at the Roman theatre in Caesarea.
The second line of the inscription clearly shows the name of Pontius Pilate Archaeologists date the stone at AD.
Jesus at Herod's court
The Jewish authorities saw Jesus as extremely dangerous, someone who had to be got rid of as soon as possible. Why exactly they believed this we do not know. It is possible that they saw the event called the Cleansing of the Temple as an incitement to revolt.
In any case they decided that Jesus should be put to death, the most obvious charge being blasphemy. But only the Roman governor could order that a sentence of death be carried out. In matters of this kind, the death penalty was meted out by the Roman magistrate as sole representative of the imperial authority - the imperium. Moreover, Pilate may not have been interested in a charge of blasphemy, seeing it as a Jewish matter and not something he cared to be involved in.
JESUS, PILATE and HEROD
So Jesus was charged with a different offence: This was something Pilate could not overlook. See green text at bottom of page, for gospel text Accusations and questions What followed was an interrogation rather than a trial, but it reflected the three-part Roman trial investigative procedure: In this case there were two broad accusations: Pilate responded by asking 'What is truth?
He remained silent, and the dignity of his silence impressed even Pilate, who was confounded at this man's apparent reticence. Normally the accused would try to defend himself.
Convinced that Jesus was no threat, Pilate refused to find him guilty. Initially, Antipas was pleased to see Jesus, hoping to see him perform a miraclebut when Jesus remained silent in the face of questioning Antipas mocked him and sent him back to Pilate. Luke says that these events improved relations between Pilate and Herod despite their earlier enmity.
Who Were the Herods?
Theodor Mommsen argued that the normal legal procedure of the early Roman empire was for defendants to be tried by the authorities of their home provinces. Sherwin-White re-examined the relevant legal texts and concluded that trials were generally based on the location of the alleged crimes, but that there was a possibility of referral to a province of origin in special cases. Antipas' army suffered a devastating defeat after fugitives from the former tetrarchy of Philip sided with the Nabateans, and Antipas was forced to appeal to Tiberius for help.
The emperor ordered Lucius Vitelliusgovernor of Syria, to march against Aretas and ensure that he was captured or killed. While staying there he learned of the death of Tiberius 16 March 37 ADconcluded he lacked the authority to go to war, and recalled his troops.Finding Jesus, The Tomb OF Herod
According to his account, Antipas provided hospitality at a conference on the Euphrates between Vitellius and King Artabanus III of Parthiaand after Vitellius' diplomatic success anticipated the governor in sending a report to Tiberius. When Agrippa fell into debt during the reign of Tiberius despite his connections with the imperial family, Herodias persuaded Antipas to provide for him, but the two men quarrelled and Agrippa departed.
After Agrippa was heard expressing to his friend Caligula his eagerness for Tiberius to die and leave room for Caligula to succeed him, he was imprisoned. When Caligula finally became emperor in 37 AD, he not only released his friend but granted him rule of Philip's former tetrarchy slightly extendedwith the title of king.
However, Agrippa simultaneously presented the emperor with a list of charges against the tetrarch: As evidence, Agrippa noted that Antipas had a stockpile of weaponry sufficient for 70, men. Hearing Antipas' admission to this last charge, Caligula decided to credit the allegations of conspiracy. In the summer of 39 AD, Antipas' money and territory were turned over to Agrippa, while he himself was exiled.
However, she chose instead to join her husband in exile. It has been conjectured that these were sources for early Christian knowledge of Antipas and his court.
The pseudepigraphical Gospel of Peter went further, stating that it was Antipas rather than Pilate who ordered the crucifixion of Jesus. In line with the work's anti-Judaic theme, it pointedly remarked that Herod and "the Jews", unlike Pilate, refused to "wash their hands" of responsibility for the death.