Comments on: Herod Antipas in the Bible and Beyond

By: Patrick Tilton

Patrick Tilton — Wed, 02 Mar 2022 22:19:10 +0000

The gospels are not eyewitness accounts. There isn’t a shred of evidence that the gospels were in existence until the reigns of the Flavian emperors — at the earliest. The 4 gospels were attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but those attributions were made many decades later — perhaps a century after they were written.
By the way, I was not suggesting that Josephus “wrote with perfect understanding” — he was a propagandist writing on behalf of the Flavians. Christian apologists are quick to glom onto anything that might conceivably bolster the historicity of the Bible, but when extra-biblical material contradicts anything in the Bible, we’re supposed to side with the theological tract over a work of history, even a biased work of propaganda, such as ANTIQUITIES?
In my opinion, the New Testament was also a work of pseudo-scripture composed by scholars on behalf of the Flavians — read Joseph Atwill’s CAESAR’S MESSIAH for more on this notion. A theist apologist is predisposed to believing in the sanctity of his/her ‘scriptures’, but that doesn’t make their belief ‘true’. Believe what you prefer to believe, but there’s a reason ‘Faith’ is accounted a virtue in religious circles: ‘Faith’ that something is true — no matter what the evidence can prove — is preferred by over evidentiary conclusions.

By: Bruce Stewart

Bruce Stewart — Tue, 22 Feb 2022 01:28:24 +0000

In reply to Patrick Tilton. So Josephus wrote with perfect understanding of all the events no matter how far removed he was. And yet the eye witness accounts in the Gospels are myths? The atheist archeologists are continually proven wrong as more discoveries are made.

By: Bruce Stewart

Bruce Stewart — Tue, 22 Feb 2022 01:24:21 +0000

In reply to John. "a deeper understanding of human beings, than most around Him, at that time." No, deeper than anyone around him, period.

By: Patrick Tilton

Patrick Tilton — Mon, 21 Feb 2022 16:46:20 +0000

The sole passage in Josephus about John the Baptist — ANTIQUITIES 18:5:2 — says that Herod Antipas sought to have John killed. The Gospels, though, would have us believe that it was only after Salome’s erotic dance had so bedeviled him that Antipas rashly vowed to give her anything she wished for . . . whereupon she replied, “The head of John the Baptist on a platter.” Antipas, then, reluctantly acceded to her wish, because he had sworn an oath to give her whatever she wanted.
This fictional Gospel version is an intentional echo of the passage in JUDGES 11:31, where Jephthah rashly vows “Then whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me on my safe return from the Ammonites shall be the Lord’s and shall be offered by me as a burnt offering.” When it is his own daughter who emerges from the house, Jephthah is compelled by the power of his oath to sacrifice her.
Notice that both stories involve a man who swears an oath he later regrets having made. Both involve a daughter. Sure, the roles are switched around — in the passage from Judges, the daughter is the person who has to die to fulfill the oath, whereas in the Gospels the daughter is the one who inspires the rash oath requiring the killing of John the Baptist.
But there are enough parallels to make one suspicious that the gospel story is a literary construct, especially since the passage in ANTIQUITIES contradicts it.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Mon, 07 Dec 2020 15:22:35 +0000

In reply to John. I totally agree. I have always interpreted Mt 14:13 as a sign of Jesus' great sense of the loss of his cousin, John. He naturally wanted to go off by Himself to be alone and grieve through the reality of John's death. He knew that people would be looking for him to see what his reaction would be and he needed to be alone. To infer fear from this is to ignore the rest of Jesus' reactions to the Herods (see Lk 13:32-35)

By: John

John — Sun, 12 Aug 2018 18:27:58 +0000

Jesus was not afraid of Herod or any other MAN; He wasn’t the typical, “afraid to die”, human being. Its obvious he had feelings, empathy, sadness, grief, anger and, most importantly, a deeper understanding of human beings, than most around Him, at that time.
This writing’s author apparently is, was from someone not a believer of just who Jesus Christ was.
Sadly, today’s society, writers and historians trust they know more about everything, even what is God inspired vs what’s simply speculative.
Mankind is now wretching in the misery of man ruling man, directly related to man’s most haughty self-promoted (un)godliness.

By: bidur

bidur — Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:52:20 +0000

god always chose the people who are in sin and he will always forgivness for his/her sin

By: Rick Carpenter

Rick Carpenter — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:29:35 +0000

I’m convinced that the historical record involving Antipas’ relationship with the Nabateans is crucial to an accurate Biblical timeline.

By: Teah

Teah — Sat, 31 May 2014 02:35:43 +0000

Was Talpiot part of Herod Antipas’ tetrarch?

By: dwightstewart62

dwightstewart62 — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 08:14:49 +0000

One would be wise to consult the Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus, for he wrote extensively concerning the Herod family and the impact they would have on the Christians.