ANTIPAS (Antipas: contracted form of Antipater, Ἀντιπάτρος), 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 BC, he was raised together with Manahen (Acts 13:1), then educated in Rome. Designated by his father in the second testament as successor to the throne in place of Archelaus (q.v.) and Philip, slandered by his brother Antipater and supported by almost all his relatives, he contested the validity of the codicil added in favor of Archelaus. But Augustus confirmed Archelaus as heir and granted Antipas the tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea, which he took possession of in the summer of 4 BC (750 AUC), assuming the dynastic name of Herod. Mt (14:9) and Mk (6:14, 22) call him “king,” probably in popular parlance. His revenues amounted to 200 talents (2 million drachmae).
Involved in the accusation of the year 6 AD, he was barely acquitted by the emperor along with Philip, while Archelaus was exiled. To defend the frontier, he fortified Sepphoris to the north, making it the capital of Galilee under the name Αὐτοκράτης (Caesarea or Diocesarea), and to the southeast the rebuilt Betharamphta (Beth-haram of Israel, 13:27, now Tell er-Rameh), which he named after the empress, Livia. Flavius Josephus calls it Elías from the empress’s second name. In honor of Tiberius, he founded the new capital Tiberias around 17 AD. Since the site was covered with tombs and therefore impure, he populated it with people of every race and condition, lured by privileges or brought there by force. He built a stadium, his palace adorned with zoomorphic figures (destroyed in 66 AD), and a large synagogue. According to Flavius Josephus, *Bell. Jud.* II, 9, 5 (178), he was accused by Agrippa I before Tiberius, but without consequences, shortly after Pilate had introduced the insignia in Jerusalem. He facilitated the agreement between Vitellius and Artabanus, king of the Parthians. Regarding the banquet given then on the Euphrates, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Cassius Dio differ. By wishing to precede the official report of the meeting, he ingratiated himself with the emperor but incurred the enmity of Vitellius, who would later take revenge under Caligula.
He had married the daughter of Aretas IV, king of the Nabateans, to secure the borders toward Arabia. Friendly relations between the two monarchs were disturbed by the presence of Herodias, wife of his half-brother Herod Philip (q.v.). Having fallen in love with her during a trip to Rome, he proposed marriage to her. Herodias accepted on the condition of a divorce from her husband and agreed to follow him upon his return from Rome. The daughter of Aretas, discovering the plan, went to Machaerus, from where, in agreement with the Nabatean “strategoi,” she reached her father, who decided to avenge her. The pretext for war was a border dispute around the region of Gamala. Severely defeated, Antipas turned to his protector Tiberius, who ordered Vitellius to wage war on Aretas and deliver him in chains, or, if dead, to send his head. With two legions and many auxiliary troops, Vitellius slowly advanced (spring of 37 AD). While he was staying with Antipas in Jerusalem during Passover, on the fourth day he received news of Tiberius’s death and the election of Caligula (March 16, 37 AD), suspended the expedition, and sent the army back to 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 reproached by John the Baptist for his incestuous and adulterous union with Herodias, Antipas feared that the religious sentiment of the people, strengthened by the authority of the man of God, would rise up to condemn him. He sought to prevent this by imprisoning the Baptist, then banishing him from Galilee to Machaerus. On the other hand, he revered and listened willingly to him, though his words put him in an awkward position (Mk 6:19–20). Fearful of the people, he did not dare to kill him and defended him from Herodias’s schemes. But at the banquet given for the notables and leaders of Galilee on his birthday, in the heat of wine and feeling bound by the oath made to Salome, he ordered that the Baptist be beheaded and his head brought into the banquet hall (Mt 14:1–12; Mk 6:14–20).
Due to discrepancies in detail with Flavius Josephus (the name of Herodias’s husband, Herod Philip [Mk 6:17], the age of Salome, the reason for the killing) and the similarity of the account to Esth 5:6, M. Dibelius (*Die wichtigste 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, pp. 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.
Attempts have been made to determine the date of Antipas’s journey to Rome by linking it to the conspiracy of Sejanus (AD 30–31). But W. Otto proposes the year 15, while Lagrange suggests 26. The connection between Vitellius’s intervention and the death of Tiberius on the one hand, and the repudiation of Aretas’s daughter on the other, is highly uncertain. Therefore, even the date of the Baptist’s beheading rests on mere hypotheses.
The Synoptic Gospels depict Antipas as corrupt and superstitious. At first he desired to see Jesus, believing him to be the redivivus Baptist (Lk 9:7–9); then, seeing 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 as a subject during the trial, while Antipas was in Jerusalem for Passover. Disappointed in his hope of seeing him perform some miracle—Jesus did not respond to the many questions put to him—he expressed his contempt and, in mockery, sent him back to Pilate wrapped in a splendid robe (ἀμφιέννυμι, but vulg. “alla”; Lk 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 toward the tetrarch [as in Lk 13:1] or because of Antipas’s denunciations to Tiberius regarding Pilate is uncertain).
Herodias, envious of the fortune of Agrippa I (q.v.), elevated from poverty to royal crown, endeavored to induce Antipas to make a similar request. After long resistance, he finally yielded and, making great preparations, set out for Rome with Herodias. Agrippa, perhaps to avenge an earlier insult about his poverty (*Antiq. Jud.* XVIII, 6, 2 [150]), brought about his ruin: he (according to *Bell. Jud.* II, 9, 6 [183]) or his freedman Fortunatus (*Antiq. Jud.* XVIII, 7, 2 [274 ff.]) is said to have arrived at Puteoli at the same time, and while Antipas presented his requests to the emperor at Baiae, he accused him of having conspired with Sejanus against Tiberius and with Artabanus against Caligula himself. The possession of sufficient armaments for 70,000 men in Antipas’s warehouses was cited as proof. Caligula accepted the accusation as true and condemned Antipas to perpetual exile in 39–40 AD, according to *Antiq. Jud.* (XVIII, 7, 2 [252]) in Lugdunum (Gaul), according to *Bell. Jud.* (II, 9, 6 [183]) in Spain (Lugdunum Convenarum, now perhaps Saint-Bernard de Comminges). The tetrarchy, along with all his private possessions, was given by Caligula to Agrippa. Herodias chose to follow the man who had ruined her. The date of Antipas’s death is unknown, after a rule of 42–43 years.
Jesus called him “a fox” (Lk 13:32). By cunning indeed Antipater, the father of Herod, gained almost the entire dynasty and even Tiberius; he overcame the peril that proved fatal to Archelaus. Three pillars supported his policy: vassalage toward the dominant Romans, friendship with Arcta, deference to the religious beliefs of his subjects, though he was a pagan at heart. Two inscriptions found at Cos and Delos also attest to his Hellenism. His resistance to Herodias’s scheme shows that he was not of weak character. The expression in *Antiquitates Iudaicae*, XVIII, 7, 2 (245) “lover of quiet living” is exaggerated. Yet he was dominated by passions: wine cost him Agrippa’s friendship (*Antiquitates Iudaicae*, XVIII, 6, 2 [150]), incestuous love inflamed and ruined him.
2) Studies. – Braun, *De Herodis, qui dicitur magni, filiis patrem in imperio secutis*, I, Breslau 1873; D. Brown, *Herod the Tetrarch*, in *Expositor*, IV, 6 (1892, 11), pp. 305-12; E. Schürer, *Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi*, I, Leipzig 1901, pp. 3, 418 sgg., 431 sgg.; G. Felten, *Storia dei tempi del N. T.*, trad. ital., I, Turin 1913, pp. 223-37; W. Otto, in *Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft*, Suppl. XI (1913), pp. 168-91; G. Ricciotti, *Storia d’Israele*, II, Turin 1934, pp. 422-29; U. Holzmeister, *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 Herods of Judaea*, Oxford 1938.