The Historical Jesus and the Historical Herodians

Author(s): John P. Meier

Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 119, No. 4 (Winter, 2000), pp. 740-746
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3268526 .
Accessed: 19/06/2014 18:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:50:42 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
AND THE HISTORICAL HERODIANS

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.' The
Greek word 'Hpp&itavotoccurs nowhere prior to the first century C.E.,and in the first
century it occurs only in Mark3:6 (at the end of the healing of the man with the with-
ered hand); 12:13 (at the beginning of the question about the coin of tribute);and in the
Matthean passage dependent on Mark12:13, Matt 22:16.2 Matthew does not take over

1For initial orientationand furtherbibliography,see B. W. Bacon, "Phariseesand Herodians

in Mark,"JBL39 (1920): 102-12; Elias J. Bikerman [sic], "Les H6rodiens,"RB 47 (1938): 184-97;
H. H. Rowley, "The Herodians in the Gospels,"JTS 41 (1940): 14-27; Constantin Daniel, "Les
'H6rodiens' du Nouveau Testament sont-ils des Ess6niens?" RevQ 6 (1967): 31-53; idem, "Les
Esseniens et 'Ceux qui sont dans les maisons des rois' (Matthieu 11, 7-8 et Luc 7, 24-25)," RevQ 6
(1967): 261-77; idem, "Nouveaux arguments en faveur de l'identification des H rodiens et des
Esseniens," RevQ 7 (1970): 397-402; AbrahamSchalit, KdnigHerodes: Der Mann und Sein Werk
(SJ 4; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969), 479-80; Harold W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas (SNTSMS 17; Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972) 331-42; W. J. Bennett, Jr., "The Herodians of Mark's
Gospel," NovT 17 (1975): 9-14; Bruce Chilton, "Jesusben David: Reflections on the Davidssohn-
frage," JSNT 14 (1982): 88-112, esp. 104-5; Dieter Ltihrmann, "Die Pharisaer und die Schrift-
gelehrten im Markusevangelium," ZNW 78 (1987): 169-85, esp. 170-71; Klaus Wengst, Pax
Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1987), 195-96 n. 14; Sean Freyne,
Galilee, Jesus, and the Gospels (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1988), 37-38, 92, 126, 140-41, 248; idem,
"Urban-RuralRelations in First-CenturyGalilee: Some Suggestions from the LiterarySources,"in
The Galilee in Late Antiquity (ed. Lee I. Levine; New York/Jerusalem:Jewish Theological Semi-
nary of America, 1992), 75-91; Willi Braun, "Werethe New Testament Herodians Essenes? A Cri-
tique of an Hypothesis," RevQ 14 (1989): 75-88; Lester L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to
Hadrian, vol. 2, The RomanPeriod (Minneapolis:Fortress, 1992), 501-2; Peter Richardson,Herod:
King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Minneapolis:Fortress, 1996), 259-60; Hartmut Stege-
mann, The Library of Qumran (Grand Rapids/Cambridge,UK: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1998),
267-68. See also the standardcommentaries on Mark,e.g., Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium
(2 vols.; HTKNT 2; Freiburg/Basel/Vienna:Herder, 1976, 1977), 1:187-97; Robert A. Guelich,
Mark 1-8:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas: Word, 1989), 130-41; Robert H. Gundry, Mark (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1993), 154-55.
2 Despite its presence in papyrus45 (third century), the reading "of the Herodians"in Mark
8:15 in some Greek manuscripts is almost certainly secondary; the vast majorityof manuscripts,
early and late, favor "of Herod." Hence the UBSGNT (4th rev. ed., 1994) rightly gives "of Herod"
an A ("certain")rating in this verse. As Bruce M. Metzger observes "of the Herodians"is a scribal
alterationinfluenced by Mark3:6 and 12:13 (A TextualCommentaryon the GreekNew Testament
[2d ed.; New York:United Bible Societies, 1994], 83).
740

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:50:42 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Critical Notes 741

"Herodians"from Mark3:6 in the parallelverse (Matt 12:14). Surprisingly,Luke, for all

his interest in the Herodian dynasty and its clients, never mentions a group called the
Herodians. In spite of or perhaps because of this scarcityof data, theories about who the
Herodians were have multiplied over the centuries, modem scholarsvying with church
fathers to see who can be more imaginativeor bizarre.The focus of this critical note is
the identity of the historicalHerodians 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 majoroptions 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.-39C.E.),Herod AgrippaI (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 polit-
ical party that supported a particular Herodian monarch or the Herodian dynasty in
general; (6) officials, courtiers, or household servantsof Antipas;(7) soldiers of Antipas;
(8) Jews who disliked direct Roman rule by the prefects and who therefore wanted the
territoryof Antipas (or possibly AgrippaI, 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 gener-
ally, extreme opponents of Roman rule; (10) a Roman sodalityor 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 northerntetrarchiesof Pales-
tine, 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 bin-
bathyra (= the sons of the city of Bathyra)in rabbinic sources. Some of these theories
have been combined with each other in varyingconfigurationsand with different mem-
bers of the Herodian dynasty being chosen as the referents. Complicating matters still
further is that, while some authorsthink that Markis historicallyaccuratein placing the
Herodians at the time of Jesus, other critics detect an anachronisticreference to sup-
porters of either AgrippaI or AgrippaII.4
What can be said in favorof most of these theories? Not much.5What we can say is

SAclassicenumerationof possibletheorieswas offeredby Rowley,"Herodians," 14-22.

Danielthen addedlengthyargumentsin supportof identifyingthe Herodiansas Essenes,argu-
ments largely refuted by Braun, "Werethe New Testament Herodians Essenes?" 75-88. Daniel is
also opposed by Hoehner (Herod Antipas, 339-42), who favorsthe shadowy group known in rab-
binic sources as the Boethusians. In Stegemann'sview (Libraryof Qumran, 267), the Essenes are
not only "the center of Judaismin the time of Jesus"but also both "the scribes"and "the Herodi-
ans." Chilton has put forth the unusual explanation based on the rabbinic phrase bin- bathyra
("Jesusben David," 104-5).
4 See, e.g., Bacon, "Pharisees,"109-12. For arguments against this view, see Richardson,
Herod, 260.
5 While this summaryjudgment may seem too abruptand dismissiveat this point, I think that
the reader will find the judgment substantiatedby what follows. In brief: once one concludes (as
this critical notes does) that the references to the Herodiansin Mark3:16 and 12:13 supply no spe-

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:50:42 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 742 Journalof BiblicalLiterature
that the NT form 'Hpq6tavot (with its -tavot ending) is not the proper Greek form for
"Herodians."The proper Greek form is rather'Hpoweot, which we find once (but only
once) in Josephus.6The 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 Katuaptavoi (= Latin
Caesariani, meaning in various contexts Caesar'stroops, adherents/partisansof Caesar,
or household servants of Caesar)7and Xptartavoti (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet 4:16, per-
haps in imitation of 'Hpqwtavotor Katcaptavoi, and perhapswith the mockingsense of
the household servantsor slaves of their master, the crucified Christ). Another, though
less well known example is Hognetavoi, the followers or supporters of Pompey the
Great.8 In light of these (admittedly few) parallels from the beginning of the Christian
era,9 the most likely meanings of HpcWtavoiwould include the household servants or
slaves of Herod, his officials or courtiers (high officials sometimes being ex-slaves), and
more generally all the supportersof Herod's regime, whether or not they belonged to an
organized group or party.'0 Since "Herod,"in imitation of "Caesar,"had become the
name of a dynasty,which Herod is meant cannot be determined from the word itself.

cific historical information about incidents involving the historical Jesus and the Herodians but
rather reflect the redactionalactivityof Mark(or possibly the tradition he inherited), the ground is
cut out from under the feet of most if not all of the above-mentioned theories.
6This word is found inJ. 1.16.6 ?319, but nowhere else in
W. Josephus;see AbrahamSchalit,
Namenwarterbuchzu FlaviusJosephus (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 51 (col. 3).
7 The Greek form Katoaptavot is found, e.g., in the second century C.E.in the philosopher
Epictetus, Discourses 1.19.19; 3.24.117 (actuallywritten by Arrian) and in the historian Appian,
Bellum civile 3.91 (in reference to Octavian); the meaning is "domestic servants of Caesar" or
"members of Caesar's household"-though it should be remembered that at times such people
might hold important positions. The Latin adjective from which the Greek form is derived, Cae-
sarianus, is found alreadyin the first century B.C.E.and functions as the equivalent of the genitive
Caesaris; see, e.g., the biographerCornelius Nepos (first century B.C.E.),Atticus 7.1. For Caesari-
ani in the sense of Caesar's troops, see, e.g., Bellum alexandrinum 59.1; Bellum africanum 13.1
(both works have been attributed, not without contradiction, to Aulus Hirtius); Annaeus Florus,
Epitome 2.13.66. Caesarianus has the meaning of a servant or member of Caesar's household in
Martial, Epigrams 9.79. On the -tavot Greek forms, see Bikerman, "Les H6rodiens," 193-96;
Rowley, "The Herodians,"24-26.
8 Again, the Latin form is found
alreadyin the first century B.C.E.; see, e.g., Julius Caesar,
Bellum civile 3.46, and the Greek formationon the basis of the Latin form is found in the second
century C.E.in Appian, Bellum civile 3.82. This example is not discussed by Bikermanor Hoehner.
9 I readilyadmit that these parallelsare woefully few and that therefore any conclusion must
remain hesitant. Yet I would maintainthat the conclusion I propose is the most likely one in light of
the slight data we do possess.
10 Liihrmann emphasizes that the comparable terms in Josephus seem to refer not to an
organized Herodian party but more generally to those people who sided with Herod the Great
("Die Pharisaer,"170). He thinks that the same general sense holds true for Mark's"Herodians"
and that therefore an equation of them with fixed parties like the Pharisees or the Sadducees is a
mistake. Schalit suggests more specifically that the Herodians were people from various strata of
society who were drawn to support Herod (the Great) because of the financialadvantageinvolved
(Klnig Herodes, 479-81). Schalitgoes on to conjecture that, as part of their propagandaamong the
common people who were not well disposed toward Herod, the Herodians tried to spread the idea
that Herod was the embodiment of the Messiah.This is highly speculative.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:50:42 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Critical Notes 743

Can the two Marcandispute stories (the first is also a miracle story) in which the
Herodians appear shed any further light on this shadowygroup and its possible interac-
tion with the historical Jesus? The two incidents recounted by Mark ostensibly take
place during Jesus' public ministry (28-30 C.E.):the healing of the man with the with-
ered hand in 3:1-6 is situated in Galilee early on in the public ministry,while the ques-
tion about the coin of tribute in 12:13-17 is situated in Jerusalem during Jesus' final
days. In both cases, the Herodians appearsuddenly alongside the familiarPhariseesand
just as suddenly disappear from the ongoing narrative.In both cases, the Pharisees are
mentioned first:"the Pharisees took counsel with the Herodians"in 3:6; "andthey [pre-
sumably the chief priests, scribes, and elders of 11:27] send to him [Jesus] some of the
Pharisees and of the Herodians"in 12:13. And in both cases, the two groups are pre-
sented as working together with deadly enmity towardJesus.
Both stories likewise have a political dimension, covert or overt. (1) In 3:6, the
political reference is implicit. Insofaras the Phariseeswished to "destroy"[anokFmro~_ctv]
Jesus by capital punishment-let us remember that we are dealing here with Mark's
story, not necessarilywith historicalevents-they would have needed the cooperation of
the tetrarch Herod Antipas, who held the power to inflict capital punishment in his
tetrarchy,made up of Galilee and Perea." Grantedtheir deadly intent, their conspiring
with "the Herodians"in particularmakes perfect sense within the story world of Mark
3:6. (2) The political thrust of the question about the coin of tribute is obvious. Loyalty
to Rome would naturallybe a concern of supportersor servantsof Antipas,who held his
power by Rome's favorand who ultimatelylost it by Rome's disfavor.
Granted the political tone of the two stories, if we should agree for the moment-
purely for the sake of argument-to take these two stories along with their references to
the Herodians as historical, the Herodians would be best understood as the servants,
courtiers, or officials of Herod Antipas. That they should have fixed their attention on
Jesus is hardlysurprising.It was, after all, Herod Antipaswho imprisoned and executed
John the Baptist merely on the suspicion that John might become the focus of some
future revolt.12Antipas had eliminated the danger with a preemptive strike. Nothing
would be more natural than for "that fox" (cf. Luke 13:32)13to be on the lookout for
other prophets who, like John, might pose a potential danger because of their ability to
attract large and enthusiastic crowds. Jesus would have been all the more worrisome in
that, unlike the Baptist, he moved widely around Galileantowns and villages instead of
restricting himself to the environs of the Jordan.That he spoke regularlyabout some
sort of coming kingdom made things only more disturbing.If the belief that Jesus was a

" The verb "destroy"(dti6nAupt) in Mark3:6 is usuallyinterpretedby commentatorsas

referringto puttingJesusto death.Thisis in linewithMark'slateruse of the verbin the contextof
the finalclashin Jerusalem.In 11:18the chiefpriestandscribesseekto "destroy" Jesus,whichin
turnbecomestheirplotto "kill"himin 14:1,whichin turninvolvestheirhandinghimoverto the
politicalauthorityof Pilatein 15:1.In referenceto persons,Markalwaysuses in the
strong sense of to kill or to destroy life. drt6XX•tt
12
On this point, see my treatment in A MarginalJew: Rethinkingthe HistoricalJesus (2 vols.;
ABRL; New York:Doubleday, 1991, 1994), 2:56-62, 171-76; cf. Liihrmann,"Die Pharisaer,"171.
Bennett goes so far as to suggest that Markhas created the 'Hpoptavoi as a literaryand theological
meansof linkingthe enemiesof Johnthe Baptistwiththe enemiesof Jesus("Herodians,"
13-14).
13Forthe rangeof meaningsof the metaphor"fox," see Hoehner,HerodAntipas,343-47.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:50:42 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 744 Journalof BiblicalLiterature
descendant of King David actually circulated among the common people during the
public ministry,that belief would have made his activitypositively alarmingto support-
ers of Antipas,who himself harboredhopes of assumingthe official title of king. Hence,
while the Pharisees' interest in or opposition to Jesus would have been basically reli-
gious, the Herodians' concern would have been basically political-though in first-
century PalestinianJudaismthe two interests usually overlapped. Hence, the presence
of the Herodians in these two stories enjoys a certain coherence with the historicalsitu-
ation in Palestine.
By the same token, though, the neat combinationof religious and political interests
in these two stories should set off an alarm bell in the critic's mind. Is Mark's highly
unusual yoking of Pharisees and Herodians as joint plotters againstJesus (3:6) or joint
questioners of him (12:13) not long before his execution simply the evangelist's special
way of dramatizingwhat he considers the united opposition of Jewish-Palestinianreli-
gious and political groups againstthis unconventionalprophet and preacher?At the very
least, the symmetricalpositioning of these two dispute stories in Mark'sGospel must be
judged more theological art than sober history.The combinationof Phariseesand Hero-
dians occurs first at the climax of the Galilean cycle of dispute stories, questions, and
clashes (Mark2:1-3:6) early on in the public ministryand then for a second time in the
Jerusalem cycle of dispute stories, questions, and clashes (Mark11:27-12:44) at the end
of the public ministry. In a broad sense, then, the union of Pharisees and Herodians
brackets the public ministry,foreshadowingearly on in Galilee the deadly opposition of
religious and political forces that would finallybear fruit in Jerusalem.(That this is Mar-
can theological polemic and not historical record is intimated even by Mark'sown pas-
sion narrative; the primitive passion tradition, to which Mark is largely tied, knows
nothing of Pharisees or Herodians being involved in Jesus' trial and death.)
The historical reliabilityof the first mention of the Pharisees conspiring with the
Herodians to do away with Jesus (3:6) is weakened further by our uncertainty about
whether the Pharisees enjoyed a significantpresence in Galilee in the early first century
C.E.14 A more fatal weakness, however, is that the dispute story in 3:1-6 is, in its present
form (especially because of the presence of v. 6!), hardlycredible as a historical event.
One of the remarkableaspects of the story of Jesus healing the man with the withered
hand on the Sabbathis that, quite literally,Jesus does nothing.1'5That is to say, he per-
forms no action whatever. He does not touch the man, lay hands upon him, seize him by
the hand, or raise him up, as is the case in some other Gospel accounts of Jesus' mira-
cles. Jesus simply issues two verbal orders:the man is to stand up in the sight of the con-
gregation and to stretch forth his hand (vv. 3 + 5). On doing that, the man finds his hand
healed. Since Jesus has engaged in no physical activitywhatever, it is unbelievable that
the Pharisees, who differed both among themselves and with other Jewish groups on

14
On this disputedquestion,see AnthonyJ. Saldarini,
Pharisees,Scribesand Sadduceesin
Palestinian Society (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988), 291-93; Freyne, Galilee, Jesus, and the
Gospels, 256-57; Gtinter Stemberger, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees,
Essenes (Minneapolis:Fortress, 1995), 120; RichardA. Horsely, Archaeology,History, and Society
in Galilee (Valley Forge, PA:TrinityPress International,1996), 151-52.
15See the treatment in A MarginalJew, 2:681-84.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:50:42 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Critical Notes 745

precise points of Sabbath observance,16would think that they could have Jesus put to
death merely for speaking healing words on a Sabbath.And once one excludes the his-
toricity of the supposed conspiracy mentioned in 3:6 (namely, to execute Jesus on
grounds of breaking the Sabbathby speakingwords), the historicalparticipationof the
Herodians in such a conspiracyis concomitantlyexcluded. One of the two appearances
of the Herodians in Markthus disappearsas a historicaldatum.
Other secondary considerations also make one suspicious about the historicity of
these two events. For example, in both incidents, Mark'scombination of the Pharisees
and the Herodians occurs only in an introductory(12:13) or a concluding (3:6) verse-a
primarylocation for redactionalintervention;it plays no part in the body of either story.
Indeed, within the larger compass of the two cycles of dispute stories, this combination
comes out of nowhere and then immediatelydisappears.Whether we assign these fram-
ing verses to the hand of Markor to the hand of some pre-Marcancollector of dispute
stories (3:6 concludes the entire cycle of disputes in 2:1-3:6), they are usually consid-
ered editorial constructs.7 It is thus difficult to argue that the combinationof Pharisees
and Herodians, present only in two framing verses that are probably composed by a
redactor, reaches back to the original forms of these stories circulatingas isolated units
in the oral tradition-to say nothing of possible historicalevents behind the oral tradi-
tion. As we have already seen, such is clearly not the case in 3:6. While certainty is
impossible, 12:13 is more easily understood as a similar case of redactionalcreation by
Markfor the sake of symmetryas he positions his two cycles of disputes stories in Galilee
and Jerusalem.'s As noted above, the combined forces of the Pharisees and Herodians,
while not lackinghistoricalverisimilitudein Jerusalemduring the last days of Jesus' life,
have no discernible impact or even echo in the Marcanaccount of the passion.
To be sure, I do not intend to deny the existence of a group of servants, officials,
and other supporters around Herod Antipas, a group that both we and Markcan legiti-
mately label "Herodians."The use of the similarlabel in
'Hp•o&iotby Josephus (though
J.W. 1.16.6 ?319 he is speakingof Herod the Great) may supply an argument from anal-
ogy for the likelihood of such a group with such a designation at the time of Herod
Antipas.19Moreover, as noted above, it is quite probable that Herod Antipaswould have

16
On this point, see E. P. Sanders,Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishna (London: SCM;
TrinityPressInternational,
Philadelphia: 1990),6-23.
17For a list of scholarsholdingto redactionalcreation,see Guelich,Mark1-8:6, 132-33
(thoughGuelichhimselfarguesagainstthisposition);cf.A Marginal Jew,2:730n. 15.The question
of Marcanversus pre-Marcanactivityin collecting and editing the dispute stories has been touched
upon a number of times in A MarginalJew; see, e.g., 2:494 n. 183; 2:728 n. 6.
18On the whole
question of Mark'sredaction,see Braun,"Werethe New Testament Herodi-
ansEssenes?"83-84.
19We should note, though, that Josephus also uses phrases like "some of Herod's picked
men" (t&v'Hp '8oo ive ;IrtLEicXt&v)in J.W. 1.18.2 ?351 and "those who favored the side [or
party] of Herod" (roi;qt 'HpM6ou4povoivra;) in Ant. 14.15.10 ?450. Hence, whether 'Hpao.elot,
which occurs only once in Josephus, can be considered a fixed term for Herod's "party"is unclear.
A fortiori,the strikingabsence of'Hpo8tavoi in first-centuryliteratureapartfrom the two passages
in Markand the single passage of Matthewdependent on Markcould argue for Mark'sinvention of
this precise label-though not, I think, of the group of Herodian supportersor servantsdesignated

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:50:42 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
746 Journal of Biblical Literature

been concerned about Jesus and would have tried to learn more about him or even take
action against him. Despite their redactionaltendencies, both Markand Luke may well
echo historical reality when they refer to Antipas's unhealthy interest in Jesus (Mark
6:14-16; Luke 9:7-9; 13:31-32; 23:6-12; cf. 8:3; Acts 13:1). Antipas might even have
attempted to use his servants and allies to spy on, oppose, and discredit Jesus in public;
spy systems were quite common in the first-centuryRoman Empire. At the very least,
verisimilitude favors the idea of Antipas's vigilance and interference; indeed, such
verisimilitude may have influenced Mark as he formulated his dramatic presentation.
Thus, I see no need to deny in principle that, at times during the public ministry,"Hero-
dians"in the sense of supporters,officials, or servants of Antipas may have argued with
or set verbal traps for Jesus.
The precise question before us, though, is whether Mark3:6 and 12:13 supply any
specific historical information about particularincidents involving the historical Jesus
and the Herodians. On balance, the presence of Herodians as sidekicksof the Pharisees
precisely in the concluding verse of the healing on the Sabbath (unhistoricalon the face
of it) and in the introductoryverse of the coin of tribute-and nowhere else-arouses
too much critical suspicion to serve as the firm basis of an argument in favor of historic-
ity. In my view, the curious combination is best attributedto the redactionalactivityof
either Markor a pre-Marcancollector of dispute stories. Hence Mark3:6 and 12:13, as
they stand in Mark'stext, tell us nothing reliable about particularincidents in the life of
the historicalJesus. Once we have made this judgment, disputes about whether Markis
referringto Herod Antipasor anachronisticallyto Herod AgrippaI or Herod AgrippaII,
while interesting from a redactionalpoint of view, are irrelevantto the quest for the his-
torical Jesus. While the upshot of this short investigation is disappointinglynegative, it
underlines an importantaspect of historicalJesus research:whether we affirmor deny a
particulardatum, it is vital to know why we affirmor deny it.

John P. Meier
[email protected]
Universityof Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556

by the label.ThatMark,withhis penchantfor Latinisms,mayhaveactuallyinventedthe Greek

term'Hptotavoiis notas strangea claimas mayfirstappear.Greekpropernounsbasedon a per-
son's nameand endingin -tavot are rarein the firstcenturyC.E.;indeed, 'Hp98tavoimaybe
amongthe veryearliestliteraryexamplesof the form.The clearestparallelin first-century
Greek
literatureis Xputrtavoi,which,fromtheviewpointof literaryattestation(onlyActsand1 Peter),is
laterthanMark's'HpcStavoi.Theconstruction of similarnounsendingin -tavotmultipliesin later
Greek.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:50:42 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions