ANTIPA (ANTIPAS: contracted form of Antipater, Ἀντίπατρος), JULIUS HERODES. — Tetrarch, son of Herod the Great and the Samaritan Malthake, in the New Testament always called Herod (as on his coins). Born in 20–22 B.C., he was brought up together with Manahen (Act. 13, 1), and subsequently educated at Rome. Designated by his father in the second testament as successor to Archelaus (v.) and Philip, who had been slandered by their brother Antipater, and supported by almost all his relatives, he challenged the validity of the codicil added in Archelaus’ favor. But Augustus made Archelaus ethnarch and confirmed to A. the tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea, which he took possession of in the summer of 4 B.C. (750 from the foundation of Rome), assuming the dynastic name Herod. Mt. (14, 9) and Mc. (6, 14, 22) call him “king,” probably following popular usage. His revenues amounted to 200 talents (2 million drachmas).
Involved in the accusation of the year 6 A.D., he was with difficulty acquitted by the emperor together with Philip, while Archelaus was exiled. To defend the frontier, he fortified Sepphoris in the north, making it the capital of Galilee under the name Αὐγουρδῶς (Caesarea or Diocaesarea), and, to the southeast, the rebuilt Betharamphta (Beth-Haram of Ios., 13, 27, present-day Tell er-Rámeh), to which he gave the name of the empress, Livias. Flavius Josephus calls it Iulias, from the empress’s second name. In honor of Tiberius, he founded the new capital, Tiberias, around 17 A.D. Since the site was covered with tombs and therefore impure, he populated it with people of every race and condition, enticed by privileges or brought there by force. He built there the stadium, his palace decorated with zoomorphic figures (destroyed in 66 A.D.), and a large synagogue. According to Flavius Josephus, Bell. Iud., II, 9, 5 (178), he was accused by Agrippa I before Tiberius, but without consequences, shortly after Pilate had introduced the standards into Jerusalem. He facilitated Vitellius’ agreement with Artabanus, king of the Parthians. Regarding the banquet given at that time on the Euphrates, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Cassius Dio differ. By wishing to precede the official report of the meeting, he won the emperor’s favor but incurred Vitellius’ enmity, which the latter would later avenge under Caligula.
He had married the daughter of Aretas IV, king of the Nabataeans, to secure the frontiers toward Arabia. The friendly relations between the two monarchs were disturbed by the intervention of Herodias, Herod Philip (v.). Having fallen in love with her during a journey to Rome, he proposed marriage to her. Herodias accepted, on the condition that he promise to divorce his wife, and it was agreed that she would follow him upon his return from Rome. The daughter of Aretas, having discovered the plan, went to Machaerus, from where, in agreement with the Nabataean “strategoi,” she reached her father, who decided to avenge her. The pretext for the war was a dispute over the borders around the region of Gamala. Gravely defeated, A. appealed to his protector Tiberius, who ordered Vitellius to make war on Aretas and deliver him to him in chains, or, if he were dead, send him his head. With two legions and many auxiliary troops, Vitellius moved slowly (spring of 37). While he was staying with A. in Jerusalem on the occasion of Passover, having received on the fourth day news of Tiberius’ death and Caligula’s accession (16 March 37), he suspended the expedition and sent the army back to its winter quarters. He had taken his revenge!
According to Flavius Josephus, in the defeat the Jews saw the just punishment for the killing of the Baptist. Having been rebuked by John the Baptist for his incestuous and adulterous union with Herodias, A. feared that the people’s religious sentiment, strengthened by the authority of the man of God, might erupt in condemnation of him. He sought to forestall this by imprisoning the Baptist, then removed him from Galilee and confined him at Machaerus. On the other hand, he revered him and willingly listened to him, although his words embarrassed him (Mc. 6, 19 ff.). Out of fear of the people, he did not dare kill him and protected him from Herodias’ plots. But at the banquet given for the nobles and leaders of Galilee on his birthday, in the fumes of wine, and considering himself bound by the oath he had made to Salome, he ordered him to be beheaded and his head brought into the banqueting hall (Mt. 14, 1-12; Mc. 6, 14-20).
Because of divergences in detail from Flavius Josephus (the name of Herodias’ husband, Herod-Philip [*Mc. 6, 17], Salome’s age, and the reason for the killing), and because of the similarity to the account in Esth. 5, 6, M. Dibelius (Die urchristliche Überlieferung von Johannes dem Täufer, in Forschungen zur Rel. u. Lit. des A. u. N. Test., 15 [1911], pp. 123-29), and A. Loisy (Les évangiles synoptiques, I, Paris 1893, p. 917 ff.), question the historicity of the Synoptic account. They are refuted by: D. Buzy, St. Jean-Baptiste, Paris 1922, pp. 344-57, and M.-J. Lagrange, Ev. selon st. Marc, 3rd ed., Paris 1927, p. 163; id., L'Evangelo di Gesù Cristo*, Italian trans., Brescia 1930, pp. 197-99.
An attempt has been made to determine the date of A.’s journey to Rome by relating it to Sejanus’ conspiracy (30–31 A.D.). But W. Otto proposes the year 15, Lagrange 26. The connection between Vitellius’ intervention and Tiberius’ death on the one hand, and the repudiation of Aretas’ daughter on the other, is highly uncertain. Consequently, the date of the Baptist’s beheading is likewise based on mere hypotheses.
The Synoptic Gospels portray A. as corrupt and superstitious. At first he wished to see Jesus, believing him to be the Baptist risen from the dead (Lc. 9, 7-9); later, perceiving in him a new danger, he had him threatened with death by some Pharisees unless he left Galilee (Lc. 13, 31-33). Pilate sent him Jesus as his subject during the trial, while A. was in Jerusalem for Passover. Disappointed in his hope of seeing him perform some miracle — Jesus did not answer the many questions put to him — he displayed his contempt and, by way of mockery, sent him back to Pilate wrapped in a splendid robe (λαμπράν, but in the vernacular “alba”; Lc. 23, 6-12). This exchange of courtesies at the Redeemer’s expense reconciled Herod and Pilate, who had been enemies (whether because of Pilate’s abuse of authority in relation to the tetrarch [as in Lc. 13, 1], or because of A.’s denunciations of Pilate to Tiberius, is uncertain).
Herodias, envious ERODE AGRIPPA I (v.), who had risen from poverty to the royal crown, sought to induce A. to ask for the same. After resisting for a long time, he finally yielded and, having made extensive preparations, set out for Rome together with Herodias. Agrippa, perhaps to avenge himself on the man who had once reproached him for his poverty (Antiq. Iud., XVIII, 6, 2 [150]), caused his downfall: he (according to Bell. Iud., II, 9, 6 [183]) or his freedman Fortunatus (Antiq. Iud., XVIII, 7, 2 [274 ff.]) is said to have arrived at Puteoli at the same time and, while A. was presenting his requests to the emperor at Baiae, accused him of having conspired with Sejanus against Tiberius and with Artabanus against Caligula himself. A sufficient armament for 70,000 men in A.’s storehouses was the proof. Caligula considered the accusation true and condemned A. to perpetual exile in 30–40, according to Antiq. Iud. (XVIII, 7, 2 [252]) at Lugdunum (Gaul), according to Bell. Iud. (II, 9, 6 [183]) in Spain (Lugdunum Convenarum, perhaps present-day Saint-Bernard de Comminges). The tetrarchy, together with all private possessions, was given by Caligula to Agrippa. Herodias wished to follow the man she had loved and ruined. The date of A.’s death, after his government of 42–43 years, is unknown.
Gesù lo definì «una volpe» (Lc. 13, 32). Con l'astuzia infatti guadagnò Antipatro, il padre Erode, quasi tutto il casato e perfino Tiberio; superò il pericolo che fu fatale ad Archelao. Tre capisaldi ne reggevano la politica: vassallaggio verso i Romani dominatori, amicizia con Areta, deferenza per le credenze religiose dei sudditi, sebbene egli fosse pagano nell'animo. Del suo ellenismo testimoniano anche due iscrizioni trovate a Coo e a Delo. La resistenza al piano di Erodiade dimostra che non fu di carattere debole. L'espressione di Antiq. Iud., XVIII, 7, 2 (245) «amante del quieto vivere» è esagerata. Ma fu dominato dalle passioni: il vino gli fece perdere l'amicizia di Agrippa (Antiq. Iud., XVIII, 6, 2 [150]), l'amore incestuoso l'accecò e lo perdette.
2) Studi. — Braun, De Herodis, qui dicitur magni, filia pa-
trem in imperio secutis, I, Breslavia 1873; D. Brown, Herod the Tetrarch, in Expositor, IV, 6 (1892, 1), pp. 305-12; E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter J. Christi, I, Lipsia 1901, pp. 3, 418 sgg., 431 sgg.; G. Felten, Storia dei tempi del N. T., trad. ital., I, Torino 1913, pp. 223-37; W. Otto, in Pauly-Wissowz, Realencycl. der klass. Altertumwiss., Suppl., II, (1913), pp. 168-91; G. Ricciotti, Storia d'Israele, II, Torino 1934, pp. 422-29; U. Holmmeister, Historia aetatis N. T., 2ª ed., Roma 1938, pp. 69-76; J. Gutmann, in Encyclopaedia judaica, II (1928), 947-51; A. H. M. Jones, The Herod of Iudaea, Oxford 1938, Bonaventura Mariani