Jesus' appearance before King Herod in early tradition

by Leolaia 13 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Leolaia

  Luke is unique of the four gospels in depicting a trial scene between Jesus and King Herod. The same account is also missing in the Acts of Pilate and other apocryphal gospels and is thus probably a Lukan composition. As Crossan, Koester, Helms, and others have shown, the Passion narratives are almost entirely constructed of material stitched together through OT exegesis. Sometimes the source texts are made explicit through quotation, and other times they lie behind the surface -- detectable through allusion, paraphrase, and wording. The Lukan narrative of Jesus' hearing before Herod was inspired by OT statements but nowhere are the source texts directly mentioned:
  

  "When he learned that Jesus was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time. When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform some miracle. He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him no answer. The chief priests and the teachers of the law were standing there, vehemently accusing him. Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate. That day Herod and Pilate became friends -- before this they had been enemies." (Luke 23:7-12)

  Luke's narrative is largely borrowed from the earlier scenes between Jesus and Pilate (cf. 23:1-6) and the high priests (22:66-71), but no scriptural reason is given for the meeting between Herod and Jesus. It is clear that an older exegetical tradition lay behind this story but Luke gives no hint of it. There were other second century writers, however, who still had access to the exegetical tradition and alluded to it in their descriptions of Jesus' hearing before Herod. Justin Martyr (c. 150 A.D.) wrote: "And when Herod succeeded Archelaus, having received the authority which had been allotted to him, Pilate sent to him by way of compliment Jesus bound; and God foreknowing that this would happen, had thus spoken: 'And they brought him to the Assyrians, a present to the king' " (Dial. Trypho, 103). The scripture that Justin uses to build his mini-story is Hosea 10:6. The exegetical tradition that lay behind Justin's story was thus one that construed Jesus as a present to the king (technically, Herod was not king but tetrarch). Justin historicizes this gesture of gift-giving with Herod's accession to the seat of Archelaus. This is clearly an independent tradition to that in Luke, which does not depict Jesus as a "gift" and which characterizes Pilate's sending of Jesus to Herod as a matter of jurisdictional protocal (instead of being a congratuatory compliment). Moreover, Pilate is presented as entirely congenial to Herod, while Luke designates the two of them at the time as "enemies". Justin's story is unhistorical because Herod Antipas ascended the throne as tetrarch at the same time as his brother Archelaus and thus never succeeded him; in reality, Archelaus was followed by the procurators Gratus and Pontius Pilate. Justin may have thus been thinking of Herod Agrippa, who took power in A.D. 37 and the first since Archelaus to successfully bear the title "king". There is one final detail in Justin's account that is independent to Luke: the description of Jesus as "bound". Although Justin omits this word from the quotation, Hosea 10:6 (LXX) does describe the prisoner as "bound" (e.g. "And having bound it for the Assyrians, they carried it away as presents to king Jarim").

  Irenaeus (c. A.D. 180) gives a lengthier and more explicit account:
  

  "And again David says thus concerning the sufferings of Christ: 'Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? Kings rose up on the earth, and princes were gathered together against the Lord and his Anointed.' For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned him to be crucified. For Herod feared, as though he were to be an earthly king, lest he should be expelled by him from his kingdom. But Pilate was constrained by Herod and the Jews that were with him against his will to deliver him to death, for they threatened him if he should not rather do this than act contrary to Caesar, by letting go a man who was called a king.... Again he says in the Twelve Prophets, 'And they bound him and brought him as a present to the king.' For Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea, and he had at that time resentful enmity against Herod the king of the Jews. But then, when Christ was brought to him bound, Pilate sent him to Herod, giving command to enquire of him, that he might know of a certainty what he should desire concerning him; making Christ a convenient occasion for reconciliation with the king." (Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 74, 77)

  The two scriptures forming the basis of this account are Psalm 2:2 and Hosea 10:6. Irenaeus' account resembles that of Justin Martyr to some extent; it cites Hosea and refers to Jesus being bound. But it rejects (or has no knowledge of) the historical setting Justin mentions, namely the accession of Herod as the successor of his brother Archelaus. It also shares one important theme with Luke: that Pilate and Herod had been on ill terms and the incident with Jesus help reconcile their differences. It also depicts the inquisition of Jesus by Herod. But the Irenaeus version lacks several distinctive themes from Luke: Herod's interest in seeing Jesus perform a miracle, Herod's mocking of Jesus, the elegant robe. Luke also presents Herod as delighted with Jesus, while Irenaeus describes him as feeling threatened by his Messianic claims. So while Irenaeus combines themes found in both Luke and Justin, it seems quite possible that his account was an independent formulation from the exegetical tradition. This seems to be confirmed by Irenaeus' emphasis on Herod's fear of Jesus' kingship, which parallels that of Herod the Great in the navitity story of Matthew; Luke has no such story about Herod. Thus, we have here an interesting example of storytelling about Jesus that drew heavily on both oral tradition and the interpretation of OT passages which are mined for motifs to add to the growing tradition about Jesus' life and Passion.
• 

  MikeNightHaShev

  One major problem is that King Herod died in 4 BC which is why they drove back the characters birthdate to 6 Bc to try and fit him in the story yet still failed to since the census is in 7 BC and your accounting an older Jesus in the time of a dead man.

  Perhaps this proves my theory that the character is converging many figures into one Image. The one during Herods time period with accounts of Lysanius during his era dying in thirty something Bc would have been the figure Yehuda of Galilee who died in 6 BC for his tax revolt by Rome on a cross. Yehuda fits the stories of King Herod and Lysanius and the comments about Roman taxes.

  The other figure the sorcerer who fled towards Egypt was Yeshu son of Mary lived in 100 BC was stoned then hanged around Passover as per the NT accounts a slew and hanging on a tree during around Passover. Also fits the Widows mite story whereby the coin is a Jannaeus Alexander coin of 100 Bc, his wife being Salome friend and follower of Jesus in both historical accounts of the 100 BC era and NT accounts of Salome friend and follower of Jesus.

  It seems pretty obvious when they create a new name and new birthdate it's because when a character is formed from many historical figures the mythical icon then needs a new name and dating since it doesn't relate back to any singular individual and also can't because if you figure out the true story and nature of the character then the whitewashed image is not impressive enough to be used as an Icon or idol figure for the authroity to mask their power and control behind.

  In other words, Rome created an IMAGE OF A MAN for people to bow to (masking their authority) or be slain.

  They seemed to use many Christ figures, Biblical characters and Mythical deities to form his image that deceived the world.

  If people disagree with this comment of mine then they disagree with Paul and his 1/2-3/4 his Books must be tossed out of your Bibles because he said In Corinthians that the apostles were teaching another Christ then he was, then came Constantine inventing the image to compile even more figures from many cultures.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Two excellent comments! Thanks Leolaia for ellaborating on the Herod trial scene in Luke. I'd read that there were multiple trial tradtions that Luke had stitched together. The "Herod" tradition may indeed simply have spawned from the nativity story "Herod" as you seem to imply.
  
  
  Mike...I don't think we've talked befor, great post. I'm in your camp. Afetr reading a few books on the subject, I've concluded that the simplest solution is just what you've proposed. Authors appropriately focus on one element at a time. One author delves into the Mystery cult elements, another the Cynic, another Budhist and Hindu, another intertestamental Judaism, another Greek and Roman mythology,another the Zealot rebellion, another Pharisaic reforms, another Caesar worship, another OT midrash. Each is right in observing parallels and dependence. It seems that there is yet to be an author that effectively considers all these converging elements.
• 

  Narkissos

  Some background to Irenaeus can be found in Acts 4:25ff:

  it is you who said by the Holy Spirit through our ancestor David, your servant: 'Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things? The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers have gathered together against the Lord and against his Messiah.' For in this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

  So the reference to Psalm 2 is not original to Irenaeus, and the mention in Acts is consistent with Luke's mention of the tradition he shares with Justin (perhaps mixing up Herod the Great and Herod Antipas under the theme of jealousy).
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Leolaia,

  I was just woundering, you guys know more about the Bible than me. So I'd like to ask questions for you to think about, which I do not know the answer to, but perhaps some of you guys and gals may be closer to the true about the Bible than I.

  I read somewhere, Justin Martyr may not even heard of the four Gospels, and got most of his information from the apostle Paul writings, and what about that mysterious Q-document, May Justin martyr and have gotten his information from that document as well as others besides the four Gospels.

  And that the four Gospels were just starting to get into circulation but had not reached him yet. Clearly I think we could say the apostle Paul's writings predate the four Gospels we currently have as Canon.
• 

  galaxy7

  I recently heard that the gospel of Mark is the oldest of the gospels written maybe 40 years after

  the death of christ.All the other gospels copied Mark and added.Also Luke and Acts were written by the same person.
• 

  Leolaia

  Mike.....You are probably aware of the great indeterminacy of the historical setting in early Christian tradition, before they settled on Jesus as being about 30 years old and being crucified by Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, around A.D. 29-30. This was likely due to both competing traditions and confusion over the secular chronology. John 2:20 precisely dates the first year of Jesus' ministry to A.D. 28 (consistent with the later dominant view), but 8:57 suggests Jesus was in his forties, suggesting a birthdate as early as 20-15 B.C. Papias (C. A.D. 135) and Irenaeus (c. 185) similarly held that Jesus was approaching fifty when he died, but the latter places his death in the reign of Claudius Caeser (who became emperor in A.D. 41), though he was not a contemporary with Pontius Pilate. Victorinus, on the basis of Papias, has Jesus born in A.D. 9, baptised in A.D. 46, and crucified in A.D. 58 (the reign of Nero). Luke 3:3:1-2, 28 has Jesus at around 30 years of age during the first year of his ministry which he precisely dates to A.D. 28-29, indicating a birthdate around 1 BC. But the mention of the census of Quirinus in 2:1-2 places Jesus' birth near A.D. 6, which would then place the crucifixion at age 30 to around A.D. 36. The tradition about John the Baptist dying before Jesus would also, if Josephus was right, point to a date of the crucifixion after A.D. 36. Matthew, on the other hand, requires Jesus' birth to be before 4 B.C. Justin Martyr places Jesus' birth 150 years before A.D. 147 (1 Apology 1:46), or around 4 B.C. (in a rounded figure) but through his dating of the crucifixion to near a time "Herod" replaces Archelaus, places the crucifixion either around 4 B.C. or A.D. 37, depending on how to treat his contradictory statement. The only consistency in this overall late tradition is: (1) regardless of the particulars, Pontius Pilate oversaw the crucifixion (whenever he was thought to have ruled), and (2) Jesus lived sometime at least in the early first century.

  I see two motivations for this tradition. The movement obviously wanted to link itself with John the Baptist (whether or not it had its origin with him), who was rather securely dated by Josephus as having prospered in the 30s. It was well-known that John was a contemporary of both Pilate and Herod Antipas in Jewish and Christian tradition, and so the Christian tradition of John as a contemporary of Jesus would require the same secular officials. The other factor relates to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It is generally recognized that the later redaction of Q from the heady days of the Jewish War (A.D. 66-70), and Mark from the years shortly afterward, posited Jesus as a prophet of the coming war and/or desolation and designated "this generation" (the generation that saw Jesus) as the same that would witness and suffer the consequences of rejecting their Messiah. This linked Jesus more directly with the Eastern Jewish-Christian anti-Pharisee polemic, viewing the events of A.D. 70 as bringing an end to the Pharisee system. Since the Q community stressed the controversy between Jesus and the religious authorities (which forms a thread throughout the upper strata of the Q material), it may have been through their influence (or influence of similar Jewish-Christian groups) that originated the idea of Jesus being tried and rejected by the religious authories in Jerusalem. This was then picked up by the author of Mark (or the writer of the underlying Passion narrative) who, writing to a largely Gentile audience, wanted to portray the Roman authorities in a sympathetic light and inserted his tale about Pontius Pilate. I think the tradition about Jesus being executed by the secular authorities was much older, antedating the recent Jewish-Christian tradition about the religious authorities, mainly because the author is constrained against leaving the Roman authorities out of the story altogether and the pre-existence of a "crucifixion" (that is, secular execution) tradition in Paul (cf. Romans 6:6; 1 Corinthians 1:13, 23; 2:2; 2:8; 2 Corinthians 13:4; Galatians 2:20; 3:1; 5:24; 6:14). Paul's independance of the gospel tradition is also shown in how he shifts the blame from the secular authorities, not to the Jewish religious authorities but to the invisible Archons of this aeon. Mark however is dependent on the Q-related developments by making the particular Roman authority responsible for the execution someone who was a contemporary of John the Baptist (cf. Q 3:7-9, 3:16b-17; 7:18-19, 22-23, 24-28), and someone who was in the same generation of those who witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Q 11:16, 29-32; 11:39a, 42, 39b, 41, 43-44; 11:49-51), and so Mark logically selects Pilate as the authority responsible. But if we look at the earlier strata of Q, there is no apocalyptic focus on the Pharisees and the religious authorities (evidently because it preceded the events leading to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the subsequent controversies between the dislocated Pharisees and the Q community), and thus no ideological motive for casting them as the real figures responsible for Jesus' death.

  This brings me back to Price's interesting idea of the "historical Jesus" actually being a Christianization of John the Baptist. Here we have someone who, according to Josephus, was executed by Herod (i.e. the secular authorities) in the rough timeframe that the gospelists place Jesus' death. And though the actual "story" of Jesus' arrest and trial before Herod was motivated and constructed through OT exegesis and elements from storytelling, I cannot help but note how it resembles the story of John the Baptist being brought before Herod in Mark. Mark relates how Herod "sent to have John arrested" (that is, he had subordinate authorities such as Pontius Pilate arrest John), who was then brought to him and "chained up in prison" (Mark 6:17). But John was not locked away in the dungeon because Mark says that Herod "heard him speak and was greatly perplexed, and yet he liked to listen to him" (6:20). Moreover, Herod was allegedly "afraid of John, knowing him to be a good and holy man, and gave him his protection" (v. 20). Now Luke is only gospel writer who gives a scene between Jesus and John, and he was followed by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, and note how all three transparently transfer elements from Mark's story about John the Baptist to Jesus. This is all the more remarkable because Luke omits the whole scene between John and Herod (being only content to say that Herod beheaded John; cf. 9:7-9), saving the material for use in the later scene after Jesus' arrest. We thus have a story of the arrest (22:47-53), and Pilate's handing him over to Herod (22:7). The tradition about Jesus being "bound" given in Justin and Irenaeus, inspired by Hosea, connects also with John being "chained up." Herod was "delighted to see Jesus" and greatly wanted to speak to him, but he was perplexed by Jesus' lack of reply. Moreover, according to Irenaeus, Herod was "afraid of Jesus" and the threat he posed to him. So I really do wonder if the connection is more than a coincidence, and whether the story about Jesus being executed in the reign of Pilate is a memory of the events of John the Baptist. And regarding the manner of John's execution, the story regarding Herod's daughter wanting John's head on a platter has the earmarks of legend, and Josephus does not in fact relate how John was executed, so Mark's beheading story could possibly serve to distinguish the two executions if the earlier tradition was that John was crucified as well.
• 

  Leolaia

  Narkissos....Ah ha! Thank you! So that confirms it. Luke hides his dependence on Psalm 2:2 in the actual story, but reveals it afterward. And I was already suspicious that Luke was influenced more by Psalms than Hosea because he specifically omits mention of the "binding" motif and the "gift" motif that Irenaeus draws heavily on. So it is quite interesting then that Luke cites Psalms in Acts, and not Hosea.
• 

  Leolaia

  According to Koester, Justin Martyr did not use the four gospels per se but a "gospel harmony" of his own that combined Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and thus his gospel quotations often had features of both (that is, specific features of the Matthean or Lukan redaction). A similar gospel harmony can be detected in 2 Clement (from roughly the same period). It is thought that Justin's harmony was a primary source for Tatian's Diatessaron. Justin Martyr thus provides good evidence that a version of Luke (that is, a version of Mark with specific Lukan redactions) was already in existence by A.D. 147.
  

  Q only provided logia attributed to Jesus and thus was not a source of information about the Passion. I agree that Paul preceded the publication of the gospels, but there was probably quite a bit of time lag between their composition and their wide distribution -- especially in the Western churches which in the early second century frowned down upon "Jewish fables" and "geneologies" (as denounced by the Pastorals) that were being distributed in the East via the gospels. Note also how poorly Papias was regarded in the West for his compilation and publication of oral traditions about Jesus. Justin Martyr however came from Samaria and drew on Eastern traditions and thus was more inclined to accept them than the catholicizing churches of the West.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Leolaia,

  How do you do it? You seem to be a very driven personality, that has a hungry mind.

  Can I ask you why you do it? Are you looking for God?