Herod the tetrarch (Antipas II)

ANTIPAS II - 'HEROD THE TETRARCH'

(c. 27 BCE - CE 39+) ¹

Most of what we know about Antipas comes from The Antiquites of the Jews by Flavius Josephus. Josephus portrays Antipas and his patron Tiberius in an extremely bad light, but Josephus is not an impartial witness and follows the line taken by his own patrons, so his account has to be used with care. This is particularly true with incidents relating to Agrippa I where Josephus' source may have been Agrippa's son, Agrippa II.

EARLY LIFE

Antipas was born c. 27 BCE, the son of King Herod and his 6th wife, Malthace. Malthace is a Greek name and she may have been a Hellenized-Phoenician which would give her a background similar to that of King Herod.

Antipas was about 19 when King Herod arranged for him to marry a daughter of King Aretas of Nabataea thereby creating a bond between the two adjacent kingdoms.

King Herod died c. 4 BCE which led to a dispute over who should suceed him. Antipas claimed that Herod's will nominated him as the heir, whereas Antipas' elder brother Archelaus claimed a later codicil made him the nominee. ² As Herod was a client king of Rome the matter had to be decided by the emperor Augustus.

Malthace went to Rome where she seems to have initially supported Archelaus' claim but later switched to supporting Antipas. Malthace never returned to Palestine. She remained in Rome where she became a friend of Livia, the wife of Augustus and mother of the future emperor Tiberius.

Probably in order to prevent the rise of another powerful ruler in the eastern provinces, Herod's territory was divided between three of his sons. Antipas became tetrarch of the Galilee and Perea, Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Archelaus ethnarch of Judaea.

TETRARCH OF THE GALILEE AND PEREA

Antipas initially appears to have based himself in Perea (east of Judaea across the Jordan), probably to be near Jerusalem which at that time was the main seat of Herodian power. Here he rebuilt the town of Betharamphtha (Beth Haram), naming it Livias in honor of the wife of Augustus and father of Tiberius. Josephus gives the name as Julias, but this probably reflects a later renaming following the death of Augustus when Livia was adopted into the Julian gens as Julia Augusta.

Archelaus rule in Judaea was not successful, and in CE 6 Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip were summoned to Rome. Archelaus was exiled and Judaea came under direct Roman control, but Antipas and Philip managed to retain their territories.

From then on Antipas seems to have based himself in the Galilee , initially at Sephoris which he rebuilt, and later at the new city of Tiberias on the shore of Lake Gennesaret which he founded c. CE 18. Josephus relates that the Jews would not enter Tiberius as it had been built over a cemetry, but this may be an exaggeration due to Josephus' customary denigration of Antipas. There is no reason to doubt that the accusation has some historic substance, but it does not neccessarily follow that Antipas was insensitive to the religious feelings of his subjects.

Antipas maintained a residence in Jerusalem which he would have used when attending festivals. As the most prominent Herodian prince in the region he would have had considerable influence over the city's affairs.

DEATH OF PHILIP

An opportunity for Antipas to further his ambitions arose with the death of Philip the tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis in CE 33. Philip had left a widow, Herodias I, but her position was uncertain as the appointment of Philip's successor was the prerogative of Rome. Herodias agreed to marry Antipas which suited the interests of both parties. Herodias would retain her status as wife of a tetrarch, and Antipas could aspire to incorporating Philip's territory with his own. ³

Herodias owned private property and she may also have been concerned about her inheritance. In Roman law a widow had to be re-married within a year of her husband's death or she forfeited the majority of her property to the state. Whether this would have applied to Herodias is disputable, but she may have considered it prudent to follow this practice.

Antipas travelled to Rome to obtain Tiberius's agreement to the marriage. This was forthcoming and the marriage went ahead on Antipas' return, probably in CE 34. Tiberius had not yet given an official ruling who should possess Philip's territory, but may have given Antipas provisional authority. Tiberius would not have left a political vacuum in Philip's territory. ⁴

According to Josephus, Antipas' current wife had got wind of Antipas' plans to marry Herodias and as a result fled to rejoin her father, King Aretas. This resulted in Aretas invaded Antipas territory. However Josephus has a habit of covering up the real reasons for events with romantic tales, for instance he gives the reason for the marriage as being due to Antipas falling in love with Herodias, which of course is risible as Antipas was nearly 60 and Herodias nearly 50 at that time.

The potential for conflict between Aretes and Antipas may have been simmering for some time. Josephus mentions a border dispute near Gamala, and although some commentators have taken this as a slip for some other town in Antipas' territory, it makes perfect sense if Antipas was then administrating Philip's old territory in which Gamala was situated. It is also extremely unlikely that the war was caused merely by Aretas' pique over the treatment of his daughter, although it could well have been used as an excuse for the invasion.

The war went badly for Antipas. His army was defeated and the Romans were forced to intervene to restore peace. Josephus portrays this as a loss of face by Antipas. However this is unlikely. Antipas was not a king, but a small provincial ruler. The Romans would have allowed him to maintain sufficient forces to keep order in his own territory but not a standing army able to wage war with a kingdom such as that of Aretas.

That Antipas did not lose status with Tiberius is confirmed by the fact that he is later recorded as the prime mediator between Artabanus the Parthian King and Vitellius the Roman governor of Syria at a conference held at the river Euphrates. Josephus casts another aspersion on Antipas at this time, claiming that Antipas irritated Vitellius by sending a report of the conference to Tiberias ahead of Vitellius' official report. However, as Antipas' authority came directly from Tiberius, he had every reason to write a report, and no doubt Tiberius would have expected him to do so. ⁵

RISE OF AGRIPPA I

The next problem for Antipas was the rise to power of Herodias' brother, Agrippa I. Again Josephus' version must be treated with caution. He muddles the two tetrarchs, Philip and Antipas, creates romantic stories such as Agrippa retiring to a tower and pondering suicide, and is probably being economical with the truth about the real political situation.

The likely scenario is rather a tale of personal ambition. Agrippa had been brought up in Rome where he became friends with Drusus, the son of Tiberius, no doubt with the idea of acquiring patronage. On Drusus death in CE 23 he no longer had access to Tiberius and returned to Palestine. Through the influence of his sister, Herodias, he became a member of Philip's court who gave him the position of commissioner of markets.⁶

Agrippa no doubt capitalized on his position and created a client network of his own in Philip's territory. There may be an indiciation of this in Josephus who relates an incident where Agrippa is accused of accepting a bribe to influence a boundary dispute between Damascus and Sidon. Josephus gives no indication when this happened, but it would fit well with the time Agrippa spent as Philip's court.

On Philip's death Aggripa saw an opportunity for taking over the territory completely - as an Herodian aristocrat and an influential person in the region it might be a solution that would appeal to Rome, as in fact it eventually did. No doubt Herodias would have been aware of her brother's ambitions and this may have contributed to her decision to marry Antipas. All her own authority would have been sidelined.

Following the marriage of Antipas and Herodias, Antipas and Agrippa became rivals. Josephus mentions the two men did not get along, but as usual blames Antipas for this.

Probably soon after the death of Philip, Agrippa began his journey to Rome. Josephus gives a convoluted account of Agrippa raising money to pay off debtors, then raising more money to pay off those debts, etc., in which he mentions various freedmen as the source of the funds. But the underlying picture is of Agrippa seeking backers so that he could fund the lifestyle that would be necessary if he was to entertain the great and the good of Rome and make a favourable impression on the Emperor. At Rome he had no success with Tiberius and instead began to court a friend from his youth, Gaius Caligula, then heir apparent to Tiberius.

THE STRUGGLE FOR PHILIP'S TERRITORY

Tiberius died in CE 37 and Gaius Caligula became emperor. According to Josephus, Agrippa immediately appointed Agrippa ruler of Philip's territory plus the territory of Lysanias (probably Abilene), and gave him the title of King.

However this was a major political decision and normally all claimants were allowed their say in such matters. The decision may have already been taken in private, but in Roman politics it was essential that the law and traditions were seen to be observed.

Josephus makes no mention of Antipas or Herodias being at Rome to promote their own claims, but this cannot be excluded. The news that Tiberius had died would have reached Antipas the same year, and it seems reasonable to assume that Antipas - like all the client princes of Rome - would have hurried to pay his respects to the new emperor and have his rule confirmed. If this is the case Antipas and Herodias would have arrived in Italy in CE 37 at the earliest or CE 38 at the latest. No doubt Antipas would also have pushed his own claim for Philip's territory.

Of course whether Antipas was or was not at Rome when the decision was made is immaterial. With Tiberius' death the political landscape had changed. Gauis was looking to stamp his own authority on the political scene. Tiberius' old clients were vulnerable and those of Gaius in the ascendant. The outcome of the struggle between Antipas and Agrippa over Philip's territory had become a foregone conclusion.

LOSS OF POWER

According to Josephus, Agrippa returned to Palestine where his triumphalist attitude so annoyed Herodias that she persuaded Antipas to go to Rome and request that he too be given the title of King. ⁷ There then follows an account of a sea chase to Italy with Agrippa hot on the heels of Antipas. Antipas arrives first and petitions Gaius, but Gaius has already received letters from Agrippa which gives him reason to doubt Antipas. Agrippa arrives and demonstrates that Antipas is in league with the Parthians, and Gaius makes a decision in Agrippa's favour, granting him Antipas' territory.

This account is full of picaresque detail and has the hallmarks of the writing of a hack rather than of a historian. In writing it no doubt Josephus had one eye over his shoulder on his own patron Agrippa II, the son of Agrippa I. In the account Agrippa I emerges blameless, Herodias is shown to be jealous, and Antipas a traitor.

The key, I believe, is that Josephus states Agrippa's letters have arrived first. In other words Agrippa had already written to Gaius making his accusations concerning Antipas. No doubt Gaius would have summoned both of them to Rome, Antipas as defendant and Agrippa as the accuser.

However, whether we follow Josephus' account or not, the result is the same.

According to Josephus, Agrippa claimed that Antipas had conspired with Sejanus against Tiberius, was in league with the Parthians, and had created an suspiciously-large arsenal in his territory which proved that he was potentially an enemy of Rome. By omission Josephus implies that Antipas was able to answer the main allegations, which no doubt were trumped up, and he only refers to the fact that Antipas could not deny the arms.

A possibility is that after his defeat by Aretas, Antipas was being prudent and had acquired the arms so that if the need arose he could raise and arm a force of conscripts to protect his territory from further attacks. However there is also the other possibility that the claims were justified and Antipas had been playing a double game. From Antipas' point of view his patron Tiberius had died, Caligula clearly favoured Agrippa, and his own future with Rome looked bleak. Also empires contract as well as expand and it would be prudent to stay on friendly relations with those powers to the east who might become more influential in the region. ⁸

The outcome of Gaius' hearing was that Agrippa was given Antipas' territory and Antipas was banished to Lyons.

Josephus gives his version of events a final twist. Herodias has her reputation restored and is now made to appear as a loyal Roman-style wife. Gaius gives her the opportunity of remaining in Rome but with a dignified response Herodias declares her intention of accompanying her husband into exile. However this is only another device on the part of Josephus to whitewash Agrippa. Gaius is portrayed as being angered by Herodias' response and condemns her to exile and also decrees that she should lose all her personal property. Herodias' fate therefore can be blamed partly on herself and partly on Gaius, but not at all on Agrippa.

NOTES

1.	Unless otherwise stated all dates and numerical identifiers (e.g. Herod I, Herod II, etc.) follow those proposed in The Herodian Dynasty N. Kokkinos, 1998, Sheffield Academic Press.

2.

Josephus mentions the codicil, but whether it really existed or not is difficult to say. It seems unlikely that Herod would have deliberately wished to divide his kingdom, and also the codicil is suspiciously similar to the judgement handed down by Augustus. It could be interpreted as a Josephian invention in order to make Augustus' judgement appear to tally with Herod's wishes.

3.	I follow the identification made by Kokkinos that Herodias was Philip's second husband and Antipas her third. (see note 1.) For more about Herodias see the article Herodias I.

4.

The possibility that Antipas had been given provisional authority over Philip's territory is perhaps strengthened by the reference in Josephus to an incident in Antipas' war with Aretas when some of the troops that had been raised in Philip's territory proved to be disloyal and switched sides from Antipas to Aretas thereby contributing to Antipas' defeat.

5.	This may also be an indication that Antipas had been given provisional authority over Philip's territory. The meeting would have occurred on the boundary of Trachionitis which was defined by the Euphrates.

6.

Josephus gives the name of Agrippa's employer as 'Herod the Tetrarch' which is usually taken as meaning Antipas, partly because of the designation and partly because Herodias was assumed to have divorced her previous husband - an otherwise unknown 'Herod' - and had then married Antipas. However the designation could apply equally to Philip; both Antipas and Philip were tetrarchs and both are occasionally called Herod. If the traditional view is taken that it was Antipas who gave employment to Agrippa we run into a major problem. On what basis could Agrippa claim the territory of Philip? He has no connection with it apart from the year or so when he was employed by Antipas. There are also problems with Agrippa's chronology. If he left Rome after the death of Drusus and returned to Palestine, what did he do in those blank years? How did he raise his family? Or if he left Rome after he had raised his family as some would have it, why did he return to Palestine so late in life when he so short of funds? However if Kokkinos' identification of Herodias' second husband as Philip is accepted then all problems can be resolved. Agrippa returned to Palestine after Drusus death and gained employment with Philip, his children were born during his time at Philip's court, and by his knowledge of the politics of the region Agrippa would have been able to present a good case for being Philip's successor.

7.

That Agrippa had a new title cannot be doubted as the old designation 'tetrarch' was now obsolete. Whether it was actually that of 'king' is a matter of conjecture. It is possible that Josephus was unaware of its true nature and applied retrospectively the title that Agrippa bore under the emperor Claudius. But whatever the title, it seems highly unlikely that Antipas or Herodias would be so unwise as press their claim for equality in such a hostile political environment.

8.

This would be in line with the policy which appears to be adopted later by Agrippa. Josephus XIX 338-342 describes Marsus, the Governor of Syria, breaking up a meeting held at Tiberius between Agrippa, Herod of Chalcis, the king of Commagene, the king of Emesa, the king of Armenia Minor, and Polemo of Pontus.