ANTIPAS (Antipas: contracted form of Antipater, Ἀντίπατρος), Julius Herod. - Tetrarch, son of Herod the Great and of 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 Manaen (Acts 13:1), then educated in Rome. Designated by his father in the second will as successor to the throne in place of Archelaus (v.) and Philip, who had been slandered by their brother Antipater, and backed by almost all his relatives, he contested the validity of the codicil added in favor of Archelaus. But Augustus made Archelaus ethnarch and confirmed to A. the tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea, of which he took possession in the summer of 4 B.C. (750 of Rome), assuming the dynastic name of Herod. Mt. (14:9) and Mk. (6:14, 22) call him "king," probably according to popular usage. His revenues amounted to 200 talents (2 million drachmas).
Involved in the accusation of the year 6 A.D., he was barely 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 in the south-east the rebuilt Betharamphta (Beth-Haram of Josephus, 13, 27, today Tell er-Rámeh), to which he gave the name of the empress, Livias. Flavius Josephus calls it Iulias from the second name of the empress. In honor of Tiberius he founded around 17 A.D. the new capital Tiberias. Since the place was strewn with tombs, and therefore impure, he populated it with people of every race and condition, enticed with privileges or brought there by force. There he built the stadium, his palace adorned with zoomorphic figures (destroyed in 66 A.D.) and a great 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 the agreement of Vitellius with Artabanus king of the Parthians. Regarding the banquet given at that time on the Euphrates, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Dio Cassius differ. For having wished to precede the official report of the meeting he ingratiated himself with the emperor, but he made an enemy of Vitellius, who would later take revenge 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, wife of his half-brother Herod Philip (v.). Having become infatuated with her during a journey to Rome, he proposed marriage to her. Herodias accepted, on the promise of divorce from his wife, and agreed that she would follow him on 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 war was a boundary dispute around the region of Gamala. Gravely defeated, A. turned to his protector Tiberius, who ordered Vitellius to march to war against Aretas and to hand him over in chains, or, if dead, to 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 the news of the death of Tiberius and the election of Caligula (March 16, 37), he suspended the expedition and sent the army back to winter quarters. He had had his revenge!
According to Flavius Josephus, in the defeat the Jews saw the just punishment for the killing of the Baptist. Having been reproached by John the Baptist for the incestuous and adulterous union with Herodias, A. feared that the religious feeling of the people, strengthened by the authority of the man of God, would explode to condemn him. He wished to forestall it by imprisoning the Baptist, then removed him from Galilee by relegating him to Machaerus. On the other hand, he revered him and listened to him willingly, although his discourses embarrassed him (Mk. 6:19 ff.). For fear of the people he did not dare to kill him and defended him from the snares of Herodias. But at the banquet given to the notables and leaders of Galilee for his birthday, in the fumes of wine, and considering himself bound by the oath made to Salome, he ordered that he be beheaded and the head brought into the banquet hall (Mt. 14:1-12; Mk. 6:14-20).
Because of differences in detail with respect to Flavius Josephus (name of the husband of Herodias, Herod-Philip [Mk. 6:17], age of Salome, motive for the killing) and because of the similarity of 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.), call into doubt 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.
Attempts have been made to determine the date of A.'s journey to Rome, relating it to the conspiracy of Sejanus (30-31 A.D.). But W. Otto proposes the year 15, Lagrange the year 26. The connection between the intervention of Vitellius and the death of Tiberius on the one hand, and the repudiation of the daughter of Aretas on the other, is very uncertain. Therefore even the date of the beheading of the Baptist is based on mere hypotheses.
The Synoptic Gospels describe A. as corrupt and superstitious. At first he wished to see Jesus, believing him to be the Baptist come back to life (Lk. 9:7-9); then, glimpsing in him a new danger, he had him threatened with death by some Pharisees if he did not leave Galilee (Lk. 13:31-33). Pilate sent him to him as a subject during the trial, while A. was in Jerusalem for Passover. Disappointed in the hope of seeing him perform some prodigy — Jesus did not answer the many questions put to him — he showed him his contempt and in mockery sent him back to Pilate wrapped in a splendid robe (λαμπράν, but the Vulgate "alba"; Lk. 23:6-12). This exchange of courtesies at the expense of the Redeemer reconciled Herod and Pilate, who were enemies (whether because of Pilate's abuse of authority toward the tetrarch [as in Lk. 13:1] or because of A.'s denunciations to Tiberius regarding Pilate, is an uncertain question).
Herodias, envious of the fortune of Agrippa I (v.), raised from misery to the royal crown, worked to induce A. to ask for as much. He, after resisting for a long time, finally yielded and, having made great preparations, set out for Rome together with Herodias. Agrippa, perhaps to take revenge on one who had once reproached him for his misery (Antiq. Iud., XVIII, 6, 2 [150]), caused his ruin: he (according to Bell. Iud., II, 9, 6 [183]) or his freedman Fortunatus (Antiq. Iud., XVIII, 7, 2 [274 ff.]) would have arrived at Pozzuoli at the same time, and, while A. was presenting his requests to the emperor at Baiae, would have accused him of having conspired with Sejanus against Tiberius and with Artabanus against Caligula himself. An armament sufficient for 70,000 men in A.'s warehouses was the proof. Caligula believed 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, today perhaps Saint-Bernard de Comminges). The tetrarchy, with all the private possessions, was given by Caligula to Agrippa. Herodias wished to follow the man whom she had loved and ruined. The date of A.'s death, after his rule of 42-43 years, is unknown.
Jesus called him "a fox" (Lk. 13:32). In fact, through cunning he won over Antipater, his father Herod, almost the entire household, and even Tiberius; he overcame the danger that proved fatal to Archelaus. Three cornerstones upheld his policy: vassalage toward the Roman overlords, friendship with Aretas, deference for the religious beliefs of his subjects, although he was a pagan at heart. Two inscriptions found at Cos and Delos also bear witness to his Hellenism. His resistance to Herodias's plan demonstrates that he was not of a weak character. The expression in Antiq. Iud., XVIII, 7, 2 (245), "lover of a quiet life," is exaggerated. But he was dominated by his passions: wine cost him the friendship of Agrippa (Antiq. Iud., XVIII, 6, 2 [150]), and an incestuous love blinded him and ruined him.
Bibliography39 works
2) Studi. — Braun, De Herodis, qui dicitur magni, filia pa-
…trem in imperio secutis, I, Breslau 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, Leipzig 1901, pp. 3, 418 ff., 431 ff.; G. Felten, Storia dei tempi del N. T., Italian trans., I, Turin 1913, pp. 223-37; W. Otto, in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl. der klass. Altertumswiss., Suppl., II, (1913), pp. 168-91; G. Ricciotti, Storia d'Israele, II, Turin 1934, pp. 422-29; U. Holmmeister, Historia aetatis N. T., 2nd ed., Rome 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