The Historical Jesus and the Historical Herodians

Abstract

When one reviews the much-debated question of the identity of the Herodians, one gets the impression that rarely has so much been made of so little NT data.1 The Greek word `Hpc*tavoi occurs nowhere prior to the first century C.E., and in the first century it occurs only in Mark 3:6 (at the end of the healing of the man with the withered hand); 12:13 (at the beginning of the question about the coin of tribute); and in the Matthean passage dependent on Mark 12:13, Matt 22:16.2 Matthew does not take over from Mark 3:6 in the parallel verse (Matt 12:14). Surprisingly, Luke, for all his interest in the Herodian dynasty and its clients, never mentions a group called the In spite of or perhaps because of this scarcity of data, theories about who the Herodians were have multiplied over the centuries, modern scholars vying with church fathers to see who can be more imaginative or bizarre. The focus of this critical note is the identity of the historical Herodians within the context of the quest for the historical Jesus. If we pass over the silliest explanations (though it is hard to decide which theories deserve that accolade the most), we may list major options for defining the Herodians as follows:3 (1) a religious sect that claimed Herod was the Messiah, though proponents of this theory disagree on whether the monarch so hailed was Herod the Great (reigned 37-4 B.C.E.), Herod Antipas (4 B.C.E.-39 C.E.), Herod Agrippa I (41-44 C.E.), or Herod Agrippa II (48-ca. 93 C.E.); (2) more vaguely, a religious sect founded or favored by Herod the Great; (3) the Essenes; (4) the Sadducees or the Boethusians, the latter understood as a group closely related to the Sadducees or as a subset thereof; (5) a political party that supported a particular Herodian monarch or the Herodian dynasty in general; (6) officials, courtiers, or household servants of Antipas; (7) soldiers of Antipas; (8) Jews who disliked direct Roman rule by the prefects and who therefore wanted the territory of Antipas (or possibly Agrippa I, prior to 41 C.E.) to be extended to the limits of the former kingdom of Herod the Great; (9) followers of the Jewish revolutionary, Judas the Galilean (= Judah the Gaulonite, who led a revolt in 6 C.E.), or, more generally, extreme opponents of Roman rule; (10) a Roman sodality or collegium founded in honor of Herod the Great, similar to the sodalities founded in Rome to honor various emperors after their death; (11) Jews who belonged to the northern tetrarchies of Palestine, which were governed at various times by various members of the Herodian dynasty; (12) publicans or tax collectors; (13) the scribes; (14) a group called bene bathyra (= the sons of the city of Bathyra) in rabbinic sources. Some of these theories have been combined with each other in varying configurations and with different members of the Herodian dynasty being chosen as the referents. Complicating matters still further is that, while some authors think that Mark is historically accurate in placing the Herodians at the time of Jesus, other critics detect an anachronistic reference to supporters of either Agrippa I or Agrippa II.4 What can be said in favor of most of these theories? Not much.5 What we can say is that the NT form 'Hpqftavoi (with its -tavot ending) is not the proper Greek form for Herodians. The proper Greek form is rather 'HpJot, which we find once (but only once) in Josephus.6 The NT form seems based on a presumed or theoretical Latin form Herodiani (-iani being a regular Latin ending). The other two famous cases of such Greek nouns with Latin endings around the turn of the era are Katcaptavoi (= Latin Caesariani, meaning in various contexts Caesar's troops, adherents/partisans of Caesar, or household servants of Caesar)7 and Xptatavoi (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet 4:16, perhaps in imitation of'Hpotavoi or Katuaptavoi, and perhaps with the mocking sense of the household servants or slaves of their master, the crucified Christ). …