ASE 28/2(2011) 93-106

Gabriella Gelardini

The Contest for a Royal Title:

Herod versus Jesus in the
Gospel According to Mark
(6,14-29; 15,6-15)*

I. INTRODUCTION

Personal titles, e.g., titles of honor, nobility, and office, or academic ti-
tles, are the subject of psycho- and socio-onomatology. Its theory teaches
us that titles confer prestige upon individuals and thus allocate them to
social positions. Furthermore, titles entitle persons to take possession of
something and endow them with the authority to defend their possession
by force.1
It is therefore evident that titles potentially bear a great deal of po-
litical as well as social conflict, as the trend researcher and futurologist
Karl-Heinz W. Smola has suggested: «The name (title included) is not ev-
erything, but without a good name everything is nothing».2
The Gospel according to Mark narrates inter alia the story of a
conflict-laden contest for a title, namely, a royal title. The tragic adver-
saries in this narrative – who may not seem obvious at first glance but
all the more during a close reading – are Herod Antipas and Jesus. The
rivalry between these two opponents dramatically exemplifies the truth
of Smola’s dictum.
In what follows, I first consider linguistic renditions of title and
name, of political achievements and failures, and of Herod’s demise. Sec-
––––––––––––
* I am grateful to Dr. Mark Kyburz for proofreading this essay and to Brinthanan Puva-

neswaran for his support in gathering the needed literature.

1 Dieter Stellmacher, “Namen und soziale Identität: Namentraditionen in Familien und

Sippen”, in: Ernst Eichler et al. (eds.), Namenforschung: Ein internationales Handbuch zur
Onomastik, 3 vols. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 11), Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1995-1996, II, 1726-31; Iwar Werlen, “Namenprestige, Nameneinschätzung”, in:
Eichler et al., Namenforschung..., II, 1738-43.
2 N.N., “Name”, n.p. [cited 27 March 2011]. Online: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name.

93

09. Gelardini.pdf 1 23/02/12 12.44

 ondly, I juxtapose these issues in regard to Jesus and thereby demon-
strate – particularly based on Mark 6,14-29 – that the narrative con-
strues Herod unpredictably as the kingmaker of the Messiah.

II. HEROD ANTIPAS

1. Herod’s Titles and Names According to Mark

The key Greek word denoting the royal title in Mark is basileus.
The term appears for the first time in Mark 6,14, that is, the opening
verse of the account of John the Baptist’s death. As a title, the term re-
fers to Herod Antipas.
Overall, the title basileus occurs twelve times in Mark (6,14.22.25.
26.27; 13,9; 15,2.9.12.18.26.32). Out of these twelve instances, it re-
fers on five occasions, and exclusively in this pericope Mark 6,14-29,
to Herod (Mark 6,14.22.25.26.27), and on six and exclusively in the fif-
teenth chapter to Jesus (Mark 15,2.9.12.18.26.32). Only once does it re-
fer to unspecific rulers in the plural (Mark 13,9).
Semantically, basileus in the singular may mean – apart from «king
and emperor» – «prince, lord, and also ruler». The term hence points gen-
erally to a most potent holder of a particular political – and along with
this military – power over a limited geographical area.3
The key Greek word denoting the king’s kingdom is basileia. Over-
all, the term recurs twenty times in Mark (1,15; 3,242; 4,11.26.30; 6,23;
9,1.47; 10,14.15.23.24.25; 11,10; 12,34; 13,82; 14,25; 15,43). Out of
these twenty instances, it refers only once to Herod’s kingdom (Mark
6,23), but on fifteen occasions to the kingdom of God (David) (Mark 1,
15; 4,11.26.30; 9,1.47; 10,14.15.23.24.25; 11,10; 12,34; 14,25; 15,43),
and on four to other kingdoms (twice in Mark 3,24; twice in 13,8). While
Herod uses this word only once, the author places it in Jesus’ mouth on
seventeen occasions.
Semantically, basileia may mean in a functional sense «kingly of-
fice, kingdom, hereditary monarchy, kingly reign» or in a geographical
sense «kingly dominion».4
––––––––––––
3 “Basileus”, in: H.G. Liddell – R. Scott (eds.), A Greek-English Lexicon: With a Revised

Supplement. With the assistance of Roderick McKenzie, rev. and enl. by Henry Stuart Jones,
Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1996 (Reprint of the 9th ed. 1940), 309-10; Menge-Güthling,
“basileus”, in: Langenscheidts Großwörterbuch Altgriechisch-Deutsch, Berlin, Langen-
scheidt, 199428, 133; Walter Bauer, “basileus”, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den
Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. In the Institut für Neu-
testamentliche Textforschung, Münster, with the assistance of Viktor Reichmann, ed. by Kurt
Aland and Barbara Aland, Berlin, de Gruyter, 19886, 272-73.
4 Liddell–Scott, “basileia”, in: A Greek-English Lexicon..., 309; Menge-Güthling, “basi-

leia”, in: Langenscheidts Großwörterbuch..., 132; W. Bauer, “basileia”, in: Griechisch-deut-

94

09. Gelardini.pdf 2 23/02/12 12.44

 In summary, the royal title in Mark is only used for Herod and Je-
sus. While Herod speaks only once of «his kingdom», Jesus – and only
he – speaks exclusively of the «kingdom of God».
The one and only Greek name that Herod is granted in Mark is Hē-
rōdēs. Overall, this name is used on eight occasions and almost exclu-
sively in the pericope of concern (Mark 6,14.16.17.18.20.21.22; 8,15).
Out of these eight instances, the name is used on seven occasions by
the author himself, and once by Jesus (Mark 8,15). Apart from Herod,
the feminine version of this name, Hērōdias, is given to his wife on
three occasions, again in the pericope of concern (Mark 6,17.19.22),
and beyond it twice to a collective, Hērōdianoi, which is obviously not
only associated with the Herodian court but also equipped with power
(Mark 3,6; 12,13).
Semantically, the word stem Hērōd- derives from the Greek noun
hērōs, which stands for the English word «hero, demigod», and assigns
to this theophoric name the meaning «heroic [s]cion».5
In summary, Herod Antipas is addressed only as «Herod», that is,
by the only Greek name that semantically implies a heroic, or even
semi-divine descent.
Based on this brief linguistic rendition of titles and names in Mark,
I conclude firstly that the author intentionally addresses Herod as «king»,
particularly because he has him speak of “his kingdom”, and secondly
that the author seems to purposefully construct a narrative competition
between Herod and Jesus, who are both royal and heroic individuals of
divine descent.

2. Herod’s Titles and Names According to Other Sources

Comparing the above statistical evidence on Herod’s title and name

in Mark with other sources, particularly Josephus, but also different New
Testament texts, along with epigraphical and numismatic evidence, re-
veals a discrepancy in regard to Herod’s title but not in regard to his
name.
Within the New Testament, the only other passage in which Herod
is addressed as «king» is Matt 14,9.6 Apart from that, Herod – and only

––––––––––––
sches Wörterbuch..., 270-71; Ulrich Lutz, “basileia”, in: Horst Balz – Gerhard Schneider (eds.),
Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 3 vols., Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 19922, I,
481-91.
5 Hellmut Haug, “Herodes”, in: Hellmut Haug (ed.), Namen und Orte der Bibel (Bibel-

wissen), Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2002, 148-49.

6 The only other minor literary source besides the New Testament that addresses Herod

Antipas twice as “king” is Justin (Dial. 103.4).

95

09. Gelardini.pdf 3 23/02/12 12.44

 he – is addressed on four occasions as tetraarchēs (Matt 14,1; Luke 3,
19; 9,7; Acts 13,1).
More differentiated is the account of Josephus. He tells us that Herod’s
father, King Herod the Great, had altered his penultimate will by ar-
ranging for Herod to succeed him on the throne, while placing the lat-
ter’s older brother Archelaus and his younger half-brother Philip under
his authority (B.J. 1.562,646; A.J. 17.146). Endless court litigations prompt-
ed their father to alter his will once more on his deathbed, yet this time
in favor of Archelaus, who was supposed to become king, while placing
Herod and Philip as «tetrarchs» under the elder’s authority (B.J. 1.664;
2.182; A.J. 17.188; 18.36,102, 109,122,148,240).
In his final will, Herod the Great also decreed that this should be af-
firmed by the emperor, that is, Augustus. After Herod’s death, Arche-
laus thus prepared to depart for Rome. Shortly before his departure,
however, at Pessach in the year 4 B.C.E., he faced a revolt in Jerusa-
lem, sparked by the mourning for those men that Herod had executed
shortly before dying (B.J. 1.648-655), because they had cut down the
golden eagle hanging above the gate of the temple. In an uprise inten-
tionally perpetrated to test his power, Archelaus’s attempts to appease
the people failed. In order to contain what could end in conflagration,
he summoned his entire army and ordered it to confront the rioters in
the temple precincts. To widespread dismay, his move resulted in the
death of 3,000 citizens – and, as one may suspect, this was taken as a
bad omen (B.J. 2.1-13; A.J. 17.206-218).
Possibly encouraged by these troubles, Herod Antipas also boarded
a ship bound for Rome, in order to strive for the kingdom and to chal-
lenge his brother’s claim to the throne in the emperor’s presence, based
on his father’s penultimate will. He received counsel to proceed thus
not only from the orator Ireneus and from Ptolemy, the brother of the
influential court historian Nicolaus of Damascus, but also from his
mother and his aunt Salome, along with the majority of his relatives.
The latter favored self-government under Roman supremacy; should
such an arrangement fail, they considered Herod preferable to Arche-
laus (B.J. 2.20-22; A.J. 17.224-227).
Both Sabinus and Salome accused Archelaus before Caesar, partic-
ularly for the crime committed in the temple immediately before his
departure for Rome. In ordering the death of the offenders, he prema-
turely decreed capital punishment, a power not yet granted to him by
Caesar. When Augustus had carefully considered both parties’ claims, he
assembled the principal persons among the Romans and gave the peti-
tioners leave to speak (B.J. 2.23-25; A.J. 17.228-229, 231).
The accusations against Archelaus were eloquently brought forth by
Salome’s son Antipater. His main argument was that Herod the Great
had made his last will during his fatal illness, that is, when his father’s

96

09. Gelardini.pdf 4 23/02/12 12.44

 mind was more infirm than his body and thus unable to reason soundly
(B.J. 2.26-33; A.J. 17.230-239). This argument was invalidated by Nico-
laus’s plea on behalf of Archelaus, who reasoned that the latter will
should be deemed valid, because Herod the Great had therein appoint-
ed Caesar as the person who should confirm the proposed succession,
and «for he who showed such prudence as to recede from his power, and
yield it up to the lord of the world, cannot be supposed mistaken in his
judgment about [...] his heir» (B.J. 2.36).7 After Caesar had declared that
Archelaus was basically «worthy» of succeeding his father and after he
had dismissed the assembly, the mother of the two competing brothers,
as another bad omen, died (B.J. 2.34-39; A.J. 17.240-250).
Only a few days after a second assembly, in which fifty Jewish am-
bassadors – along with the 8,000 Jews of Rome – reiterated not only
Antipater’s accusation against Archelaus but also the plea for self-gov-
ernment (B.J. 2.80-92; A.J. 17.299-316), Augustus apportioned one
half of Herod the Great’s kingdom to Archelaus, who would bear the
name Ethnarch. Augustus promised to make Archelaus king if he ren-
dered himself worthy of that dignity. Augustus divided the other half
of the kingdom into two “tetrarchies”, and assigned these equally to
Herod and Philip (B.J. 2.93-95,167-168,183; A.J. 17.317-320; 18.27,
136,252). Thus, the brethren followed in the footsteps of their father
Herod and their uncle Phasaelus, who had each been granted a tetrar-
chy by Antonius (B.J. 1.244; A.J. 14.326).
As is well known, Archelaus did not prove worthy of the royal dig-
nity, and was deposed after ten years of regency in 6 C.E. Herod, by
contrast, was reconfirmed as tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and once
again in 14 C.E. when Tiberius took office (B.J. 2.167-168).
The tetrarchy allotted to Herod is also mentioned once in Strabo
(Geogr. 16.2.46). Besides, the title “tetrarch” occurs in the fragments of
Nicolaus of Damascus on the one hand (FGrH 90, frag. 136 § 11), and
in the two known inscriptions relating to Herod on the Greek islands of
Cos and Delos on the other. Finally, it also appears on every coin per-
taining to a total of six mintings discovered so far (while the first bears
no date, the following were minted in the 24th, 33rd, 34th, 37th, and
43rd year of his reign).8
In summary, considering all available sources in regard to Herod’s
title makes clear that the observed literary discrepancy is rooted in a
longstanding conflict between him and his brother Archelaus about who
––––––––––––
7 Flavius Josephus, The Works of Flavius Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Version

1.3). Accordance 9: Bible Software. OakTree Software Version 9.2.1, 2011, print transl. by
William Whiston, Rev. ed., Peabody, Hendrickson, 1987, n.p.
8 Morten Hørning Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological

Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and its Socio-Economic Impact on Galilee (WUNT,
2/215), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 20102, 204-14.

97

09. Gelardini.pdf 5 23/02/12 12.44

 was to succeed their father on the throne. Neither Archelaus nor Herod
asserted themselves before Augustus in Rome. Thus, they remained in
their father’s shadow, who had been granted kingship in this very city
by the Senate and later by the same Caesar (B.J. 1.182-185,386-400; A.J.
14.381-389). But Archelaus’s loss was greater compared to Herod’s, as
the latter’s journey to Rome at least met with the success to avert his
brother’s kingship.
Comparing the statistical evidence on Herod’s name with other
sources, particularly Josephus, but also different New Testament texts,
along with epigraphy and numismatics, reveals no discrepancy in re-
gard to his name. Neither the New Testament and Josephus, nor the sur-
viving inscriptions and coins, bear the name «Herod Antipas».
In general, and just as in Mark, the tetrarch is addressed solely as
«Herod».9 Apart from Mark, this name occurs on nineteen occasions in
the New Testament (Matt 14,1.3.6; Luke 3,1.192; 8,3; 9,7.9; 13,31; 23,72.
8.11.12.15; Acts 4,27; 13,1), on thirty-nine occasions in Josephus (B.J.
2.167,168,181,183; A.J. 18.27,27,36,102,104,105,106,1092,111,1122,1142,
115,116,117,118,1192,122,136,148,1502,240,243,247,2482,250,2512,2552),
once in Cassius Dio (55.27.6), twice in Justin (Dial. 103.4), twice in
the inscriptions, and also on every coin.
Apart from Nicolaus of Damascus (FGrH 90, frag. 136 § 11), only
Josephus uses Herod’s first name «Antipas», on seventeen occasions in
total, and mostly in the older text The Jewish-Roman War (B.J. 1.562,
646,664,668; 2.20,22,23,94,167; A.J. 17.202,188,224,2272,229,318).
As the son of his father’s fourth Samaritan wife, by the name of Mal-
thake (B.J. 1.562), Herod was given the praenomen Antipas at his birth
in the year 20 B.C.E.10 This seems to be the short form of both his
great-grandfather’s and his grandfather’s Greek name Antipatros, which
means «the father’s representative» (B.J. 1.181; A.J. 14.10).11 Obvious-
ly, Herod opted in public to strip himself of his praenomen – did he do
so on account of its meaning? – and named himself only by the patro-
nymic nomen gentile.12 Did he hope to be perceived “in place of his
father” instead, so as to compensate for the refused title by alluding to
his father as a nominal king of divine descent?13

––––––––––––
9 David C. Braund, “Herod Antipas”, in: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary on CD-ROM

(Version 3.0). 1992. Accordance 9: Bible Software. OakTree Software Version 9.2.1, 2011,
n.p. [print ed. by David Noel Freedman, 6 vols., New York, Doubleday, 1992].
10 Abraham Schalit, “Antipas, Herod”, in: Encyclopaedia Judaica2, II, 204.
11 According to Josephus, this great-grandfather was first called Antipas (A.J. 14.10).
12 Helmut Rix, “Römische Personennamen”, in: Eichler et al., Namenforschung..., I, 724-32.
13 Harold W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas (SNTS.MS, 17), Cambridge, Cambridge University

Press, 1972, 105-09: Hoehner reads B.J. 2.167 as implicitly indicating that with the dismissal
of Archelaus in 6 C.E. the name “Herod” was granted to Antipas as a «dynastic title».

98

09. Gelardini.pdf 6 23/02/12 12.44

 In summary, the onomastic conventions in regard to Herod’s use only
of his nomen gentile correspond more or less in all available sources. Col-
lating the data in Mark and other sources reveals that Herod is tetrarch
not king. That Mark nevertheless addresses him as «king» can safely be
perceived as an instance of literary irony14 based on a historic quarrel
regarding royal succession. Given this fraternal contest the narratively
constructed competition between Herod and Jesus is by all means plau-
sible.

3. Herod’s Political Life and End According to Mark

An encounter between Herod and Jesus is not reported in the Gos-

pel. However, the author reports in Mark 6,14-16 that Herod had «heard»
of him, «for his name – Jesus’ name – had become known». The nar-
rator continues with three unidentified collectives, which each express
their opinion regarding who Jesus could be. Interestingly, the author
suppresses the context in which these – shall we say – witnesses speak to
Herod. Did this perhaps take place during an interrogation?
After the testimonies, Herod concludes that Jesus is the risen Bap-
tist, whom he had beheaded, and hence neither Elijah nor a prophet.
Herod’s conclusion is alarming, as Jesus could possibly meet with the
same fate as did the Baptist. Why so? Because the ensuing account of
John’s decapitation in Mark 6,17-29 – it is the one and only, albeit also
illuminating account of Herod in Mark – shows that in the context of
certain constellations Herod comes across as a weak and tragic regent,
who is not able to guarantee his subjects legal security.
In what follows, it is not my purpose to analyze John the Baptist’s
life in great detail, as various scholars – and none less than Edmondo
Lupieri – have done this rigorously and impressively.15 Instead, I offer a
few general observations that allow for a systematic comparison of this
account with Jesus’ trial in Mark 15,6-15.
Mark 6,17-29 suppresses both Jesus’ name and also any spatial ref-
erence. Where Herod interrogates his witnesses, where the symposium
takes place, where the Baptist is beheaded, and in which tomb his
corpse is placed, remains concealed.16
––––––––––––
14 Jerry Camery-Hoggatt, Irony in Mark’s Gospel: Text and Subtext (SNTS.MS, 72),

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992, 144-46. On the trope of irony (eirōneia) cf.
book 8.6.54 of Marcus Fabius. Quintilianus, Institutionis oratoriae Libri XII.
15 Edmondo Lupieri, “Johannes der Täufer”, in: Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart4,

IV, 514-17. The bibliography includes further publications of his on this topic.
16 Jürgen Zangenberg, “Jesus – Galiläa – Archäologie: Neue Forschungen zu einer Region

im Wandel”, in: Carsten Claußen – Jörg Frey (eds.), Jesus und die Archäologie Galiläas,
Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2008, 7-38, esp. 11.

99

09. Gelardini.pdf 7 23/02/12 12.44

 This silence about names17 bestows a sense of conspirative oppres-
sion upon the incident.18 Herod imprisoned John, as is reported, because
of his sister-in-law and niece Herodias (Mark 6,17), who wished to kill
the Baptist because he had criticized their unlawful marriage (cf. Lev
18,16). Herod could have avoided this situation had he learned from
the mistakes of his brother Archelaus, who had also transgressed the
laws of the fathers by marrying his brother’s wife Glaphyra (A.J.
17.341,350-352). But Herod, who esteemed John as a righteous and
holy man, protected him instead (Mark 6,18-20).
Herodias’s opportunity came on Herod’s birthday. While surrounded
by court officials, military, and Galilean nobility at a solemn banquet, Hero-
dias – as it seems – sends her daughter, against the customs for educated
baronial offsprings – to dance for the assembled dignitaries. Her dance
pleases Herod and his guests to that extent – an erotic-incestuous conno-
tation seems implied – that he swears to give her whatever she pleases,
indeed up to half of his kingdom (Mark 6,21-23).19 Ignorant of a wish
she asks her mother, and thereupon calls for John’s head. Against his bet-
ter judgment, Herod grants Herodias her wish because of the pledge he
uttered in the presence of the gathered guests (Mark 6,24-28).
In summary, Mark’s Herod identifies Jesus – possibly in the con-
text of an interrogation – as John the Baptist, whom he beheaded. The in-
terpretation of this information remains difficult. Should we read it as
an admission of guilt that he beheaded a divine favorite, or possibly as
implicit acknowledgment that this powerful Baptist redivivus, i.e. Je-
sus, could once again be endangered in his life? For his power would
stand in stark contrast to the weakness Herod exhibits in this account.
By no means is Herod the “kingly hero” that he wishes to be. Much
rather, he is the pitiable sport of fate, who is neither able to contain and
see through his wife’s fury, nor in command of his erotic inclination
towards the gal, nor indeed of his fear for his reputation in the presence
––––––––––––
17 Ingrid Kühn, “Decknamen – ein neues Untersuchungsgebiet”, in: Ernst Eichler et al.,

Namenforschung..., I, 515-20.
18 Elsa Tamez, “The Conflict in Mark: A Reading from the Armed Conflict in Colombia”,

in: Nicole Wilkinson Duran – Teresa Okure – Daniel Patte (eds.), Mark, Minneapolis, For-
tress Press, 2011, 101-25: Tamez convincingly points to the fact that silencing is an integral
part of suppression and armed conflicts.
19 Joanna Dewey, “The Gospel of Mark”, in: Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (ed.), Search-

ing the Scriptures: A Feminist Commentary, 2 vols., London, SCM, 1995, II, 470-509, esp.
482-83; Monika Fander, “Das Evangelium nach Markus: Frauen als wahre Nachfolgerinnen
Jesu”, in: Schottroff Luise – Marie-Theres Wacker (eds.), Kompendium Feministische Bibel-
auslegung, Gütersloh, Kaiser, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 19992, 499-512, esp. 503-04; Adela
Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, ed. by Harold W. Attridge, Minneapolis, Fortress, 2007,
309. Whereas Herod appears only weak, both Herodias and her daughter are portrayed as dis-
reputable women who are mainly responsible for the death of a just man. To discredit influ-
ential women as inadequate is a classic motif, which Josephus in view of Herodias has in
common with Mark (see 2.4).

100

09. Gelardini.pdf 8 23/02/12 12.44

 of the dignitaries. Due to this weakness, he becomes accountable for an
execution devoid of a fair trial. Moreover, this crime bears all the hall-
marks of tragedy so aptly described by Aristotle: it is unrighteous, ar-
bitrary, and dreadful (Poetics).

4. Herod’s Political Life and Demise According to Other Sources

That it was Herod’s weakness – and not his strength – that drove him
to eliminate John is explicitly stated in Matt 14,5 and also in Josephus’s
account. In the latter’s narrative, Herod fears John’s great influence
over the people and guards himself against the Baptist’s possible incli-
nation to raise a rebellion by putting him to death as a measure of pre-
caution. Only secondarily is his marriage with Herodias linked to John
in that the people thought of his disastrous defeat against Aretas IV,
Nabatean king and father of Herod’s first and now repudiated wife, as
divine punishment for what he had done to John, and as a sign of God’s
displeasure with him (A.J. 18.116-119).
While neither Mark nor Josephus mention an encounter between
Herod and Jesus, such an event occurs in the Gospel according to Luke.
There the Pharisees come to Jesus in order to warn him about Herod’s
desire to kill him (Luke 13,31-33), notwithstanding that later in the nar-
rative he cannot find deeds that would justify Jesus’ death (Luke 23,6-
12.15-16).
One last account of Herod in Josephus deserves mention. This story
not only marks Herod’s demise, but it also shows that his claim for the
royal title stands as an inclusion, i.e. it stands at the beginning and end
of his reign that lasted for as long as forty-three years. Herodias’s broth-
er, Agrippa I, an extravagant and thus highly indebted bon viveur, pur-
posely sought Caligula’s company while residing in Rome, possibly
because Herod had become and remained friends with Tiberius all his
life (A.J. 18.36). This proved beneficial, because as soon as Caligula
took office, he released Agrippa from prison, where Tiberius had detain-
ed him, and gave him Philip’s tetrarchy, which had been under Syrian
control since his death in 33/34 C.E. Along with this, Caligula be-
stowed the royal title upon him, a move that greatly humiliated Herod,
as one may imagine.
Herod, encouraged by Herodias, once more embarked for Rome in
order to plea for the royal title. Agrippa heard about his intention, and
decided to send his freedman Fortunatus to Caligula with a complaint
against Herod. Agrippa bore a grudge against Herod for insulting him
while being entrusted to his care in Tiberias, a circumstance that had
forced Agrippa to flee. An earlier complaint related to this instance had

101

09. Gelardini.pdf 9 23/02/12 12.44

 apparently not met with Tiberius’ favor (B.J. 2.178), but instead was deem-
ed an apt opportunity for revenge finally within his grasp. Fortunatus en-
joyed such a swift passage to Rome that he was able to hand over Agrip-
pa’s complaint to Caligula only very shortly after Herod’s arrival. Ag-
rippa’s letters accused Herod of being in league with the Parthian king
Artabanus in opposition to Caligula’s government. To substantiate this
allegation, he observed that Herod had armor sufficient for seventy thou-
sand men. Since Herod could not falsify this information about his weap-
onry, Caligula considered this proof of the accusation that Herod was
considering an insurgency. Rather than the royal title, Caligula impos-
ed eternal banishment upon Herod, and attached his domain to Agrip-
pa’s kingdom (A.J. 18.143-239). Herodias, while offered the opportunity
to be spared her husband’s calamity, decided to follow Herod to Lyons
(Lugdunum). Josephus concludes: «And thus did God punish [...] Herod
[...] for giving ear to the vain discourses of a woman» (B.J. 2.181-183;
A.J. 18.240-255).20
In summary, Mark’s portrayal of Herod as a humbled and thus weak –
yet nevertheless hazardous regent – is confirmed in Josephus’ accounts.21
It seems that Herod left nothing undone to aggrandize his power, and to
rid himself of everything that could jeopardize his ambitions. But what
goes around comes around, as modern parlance puts it.
Some claim that Caligula killed Herod, others believe that he died
in exile. Irrespective of his death, Herod, the «kingly hero of divine de-
scent», was cheated out of his royal title just as he had cheated his broth-
er Archelaus out of his, namely, by accusations brought forth through a
close relative. Secondly, Herod’s demise occurred for the same reason
as he had put John to death, namely, an imputed revolt. Herod’s dual as-
piration for the royal title induced him to violate earthly laws and re-
sulted in his dual rejection by the rulers of the world – i.e., Caesar as
well as God – and ultimately left him with nothing. Smola’s dictum –
one may conclude – assumed proverbial significance: «The name (title
included) is not everything, but without a good name everything is
nothing».

––––––––––––
Josephus, The Works of Flavius Josephus..., n.p.
20

Whether Herod was hazardous from historical perspective has been variously assessed.
21

For instance, whereas Jensen (Herod Antipas in Galilee..., 254) quite convincingly judges
him as a «minor, moderate, adjusted, and unremarkable ruler», Abraham Smith [“Tyranny Ex-
posed: Mark's Typological Characterization of Herod Antipas (Mark 6:14–29)”, Biblical In-
terpretation, 14/3 (2006) 259-93] and Peter-Ben Smit [“Eine neutestamentliche Geburtstags-
feier und die Charakterisierung des ‘Königs’ Herodes Antipas (Mk 6,21-29)”, Biblische Zeit-
schrift, 53/1 (2009) 29-46] regard him as a dangerous tyrant.

102

09. Gelardini.pdf 10 23/02/12 12.44

 III. JESUS CHRIST
1. Jesus’ Titles and Names According to Mark

Just as with Herod, the royal (Mark 15,2.9.12.18.26.32) – in this

case messianic (Mark 1,1; 8,29; 9,41; 14,61; 15,32) – title stands both
at the beginning and at the end of Jesus’ life according to Mark. Unlike
Herod, Jesus’ heavenly father considers him worthy of this title by ap-
proving him as his one and only son, and thus as his heir (Mark 1,11;
9,7; 12,1-12). Unlike Herod, moreover, Jesus claims no authority over
“his” kingdom, but only over that pertaining to his father.
Unlike Herod, Jesus does not strive to replace his father, but instead
he is content with representing him. Consequently, an attempt to rid
himself of his praenomen “Iēsous”, which stands for Hebrew “Joshua”
and means «God helps, God is salvation»,22 is not apparent since the
name is used eighty-one times.23 Because of the meaning of his name,
for which the high priests ridiculed him in the light of his crucifixion
(Mark 15,31), Jesus does not act on the basis of his own power but on
his father’s power, i.e., God’s dynamis.
And finally, unlike Herod in the narrator’s surely ideal portrayal,
Jesus does not serve his own purposes, but instead those of the people,
which in turn are God’s.

2. Jesus’ Political Life and Demise According to Mark

Just as Herod, Jesus claims authority over the entire territory: un-
ambiguously in Judaea, more explicitly in Philip’s tetrarchy, and cau-
tiously in Galilee.
In each of these three dominions, Jesus heads directly towards its
power centers, Jerusalem on the one hand (Mark 11,11), Caesarea Phil-
ippi on the other (Mark 8,27), and finally the insinuated Sepphoris and
Tiberias. In each of these capitals, the quest for his identity is virulent
(Mark 6,14-16; 8,27-30; e.g. 11,7-10).
Herod’s capitals, as noted, are not mentioned explicitly,24 but im-
plicitly, for instance, when the narrator reports that Jesus goes to Naz-

––––––––––––
22 Gerhard Schneider, “Iēsous”, in: Balz–Schneider, Exegetisches Wörterbuch..., II, 440-

52, esp. 442-43; Hellmut Haug, “Jesus”, in: Haug, Namen und Orte der Bibel..., 190-93; Ru-
dolf Hoppe, “Jesus von Nazaret”, in: Josef Hainz – Martin Schmidl – Josef Sunckel (eds.),
Personenlexikon zum Neuen Testament, Düsseldorf, Patmos, 2004, 124-33.
23 Mark 1,1.9.14.17.24.25; 2,5.8.15.17.19; 3,7; 5,6.7.15.20.21.27.30.36; 6,4.30; 8,27; 9,2.

4.5.8.23.25.27.39; 10,5.14.18.21.23.24.27.29.32.38.39.42.472.49.50.51.52; 11,6.7.22.29.332; 2,

17.24.29.34.35; 13,2.5; 14,6.18.27.30.48.53.55.60.62.67.72; 15,1; 15,5.15.34.37.43; 16,6.8.
24 Zangenberg, “Jesus – Galiläa...”, 11.

103

09. Gelardini.pdf 11 23/02/12 12.44

 areth, which is located only six kilometers – that is, 3,7 miles – south-
east of Sepphoris, to whose catchment area Nazareth belongs.
Jesus experiences rejection in Nazareth (Mark 6,1-6). Similar to
Herod’s kingly title, this narrative information might mirror historical
facts, since Sepphoris, on account of its rebels – e.g., Judas, son of
Hezekiah (B.J. 2.56; A.J. 17.271-272) – and its rebellion against Rome,
was captured, burnt down, and its habitants sold into slavery in the
year 4 B.C.E. by the Syrian legate Varus. Notably, these events oc-
curred while Herod and Archelaus were quarreling over the royal title
before the emperor. Upon his return as tetrarch, Herod rebuilt Seppho-
ris, fortified the town, and dedicated it as his capital to Augustus (B.J.
2.68; A.J. 17.289). Later he built the new capital Tiberias thirty kilo-
meters east of Sepphoris – that is, 18,6 miles – in honor of the succes-
sor on the throne. Sepphoris had learned from its traumatic experience
and remained loyal to Rome, even during the Jewish-Roman war, as it
welcomed both Cestius Gallus (B.J. 2.511) and Vespasian (B.J. 3.29-
34; Vita 38).
It is noticeable that Jesus seems to avoid a direct encounter with
Herod, and instead sends forth his disciples in the scene that frames the
pericope under investigation (Mark 6,7-13.30-32). This approach is nar-
ratively plausible, since firstly Jesus knows of John’s imprisonment
since his arrival in Galilee (Mark 1,14), and secondly he seems to iden-
tify himself in relation to Herod with the elected King David, who was
fleeing from the rejected King Saul in Mark 2,25-26. This is thirdly
confirmed when the narrator reports that the Pharisees seek to kill him
together with the Herodians (Mark 3,6), so that fourthly Jesus deems it
necessary to explicitly warn his disciples about Herod (Mark 8,15),
whereas fifthly Jesus does not want anyone to know when he and his
disciples pass through Galilee for the last time (Mark 9,30-32).
Luke 23,6 draws an even more precise picture in stating that Jesus
belongs to the territory of Herod, where the latter was legally granted
the ius gladii, the power over death and life. Given Jesus’ specific mes-
sianic claim, dying in Galilee would have meant to die prematurely and
prior to achieving his mission in Jerusalem, as Luke 13,33 explicitly
states.
Just as the narrative Herod does in Mark 6,14-16, the narrator es-
tablishes a strong link between John and Jesus, particularly in regard to
their demises; thus, there are numerous parallels between Mark 6,17-
29 and Mark 15,6-15:
- The wrongdoer in Jerusalem is Pilate, who, according to Luke’s ac-
count, became – although originally his foe – friends with Herod
through Jesus (Luke 23,12). Just as Herod is only tetrarch, Pi-
late is only proconsul.

104

09. Gelardini.pdf 12 23/02/12 12.44

 - While John’s verdict over his claim to represent the law was
deemed lèse-majesty, Jesus’ royal claim was deemed a political
offence.
- While John was killed on the ruler’s birthday without a trial,
Jesus is killed on Pessach following a mock trial.
- Like Herod, Pilate is benevolent towards his prominent pris-
oner.
- Like Herod lent the gal his ear, so does Pilate lend his to the
people.
- Just as the gal listens to her mother, so do the people listen to
the high priests.
- Just as the gal opted for John’s death, so do the people opt for
Jesus’ death.
- Just as Herod felt bound by his oaths, so does Pilate bound by
his amnesty.
- And just as Herod was portrayed as a victim of his own weak-
ness, so, too, is Pilate.
- Further, just as Herod’s claim for the royal title was criminal-
ized and punished by the world’s ruler, so is Jesus punished by
his representative Pilate, who in turn will be banished like his
friend Herod (A.J. 18.89).
- And just as the narrator ridicules Herod’s claim, so do the tem-
ple elites ridicule Jesus’.

IV. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is comprehensible that the aspiring “king” Herod

is unable to recognize the one that the narrator perceives as the legiti-
mate king. But it is exactly this failure that spares Jesus’ life in Galilee.
It is precisely this circumstance that paves the way for Jesus to intro-
duce and prove himself in a first attempt to the entire kingdom as God’s
chosen and future king for the difficult times to come.
In no less than four instances Jesus announces his second return in
power – an event situated beyond narrative time (Mark 8,38; 9,1; 13,26;
14,61) and that possibly refers to the looming Jewish-Roman war.25

––––––––––––
25 Most scholars relate the Gospel in one way or the other to the Jewish-Roman war,

which lasted from 66 to 74 C.E. A dating prior to the temple’s destruction is claimed by Peter

105

09. Gelardini.pdf 13 23/02/12 12.44

 According to the narrator, the Messiah’s return will not occur in order
to reclaim authority – as in the case of Herod – but in order to execute
it. The starting point for this victorious campaign will once again be
Galilee, from where Herod – for once the kingmaker – will have long
been swept away (Mark 14,28; 16,7).26 For this reason, the author may
have entitled his narrative with the beginning of the euangelion, the
news about the victory of this Messiah (Mark 1,1), one whose messiah-
ship he possibly redefines over against the numerous messianic pretend-
ers in the forefront of and during a disastrous war.27
I return in closing to Smola’s dictum, albeit with a variation: «The
name (title included) is not everything, but with a good name nothing be-
comes everything».

Gabriella Gelardini
Faculty of Theology
University of Basel
Nadelberg 10
CH-4051 Basel
Switzerland
gabriella.gelardini@unibas.ch

––––––––––––
Dschulnigg, Das Markusevangelium (ThKNT, 2), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2007, 56: between
64 and 66 C.E.; William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with In-
troduction, Exposition, and Notes (NICNT), Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1974, 21: between 60
and 70 C.E.; Collins, Mark..., 14: before 70 C.E. And a dating after the temple’s destruction
is argued for by Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2 vols. (EKK, 2), Zurich,
Benziger and Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener, 1978-1979), I, 34: between 70 and 73 C.E.
26 Narratively speaking, the starting point is thus not that Jesus came because of Herod

Antipas, which Morten Hørning Jensen (“Herodes Antipas in Galiläa”, in: Claußen–Frey,
Jesus und die Archäologie..., 39-73) dismisses on the basis of historical evidence, but rather
vice versa, namely, that Herod came and failed because of Jesus.
27 Cf. Collins, Mark..., 102; Martin Ebner – Stefan Schreiber (eds.), Einleitung in das

Neue Testament (Studienbücher Theologie, 6), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2008, 175-80.

106

09. Gelardini.pdf 14 23/02/12 12.44