By Frank Dicken
Assistant Professor of New Testament
Lincoln Christian University
June 2015
<snip>
Raymond Brown captures this potential confusion best when he writes, “Three men in the NT are called Hērōdes: Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, and Herod Agrippa I…. How many hearers or readers would have known that these were three different men?” (Brown 1994: 784).
I propose that with regard to the narrative of Luke-Acts, the historical distinctions between the “Herods” are blurred. In the story-world of Luke-Acts, the name “Herod” amalgamates the three historical individuals into a single, or composite, character.
<snip>
Conclusion
Luke-Acts has gone beyond the hard-partying, over-promising King Herod of Mark 6:14-29 (par. Matthew 14:1-12) and the infant-slaughtering King Herod of Matthew 2:1-12 by conflating three Herodian rulers into a gospel-rejecting, prophet-executing, Messiah-mocking, apostle-decapitating composite “Herod.” Positing a composite character, not only in Luke-Acts but also other ancient texts, gives us a new way of understanding various historical anomalies with regard to events and characters. The various examples listed above may provide evidence of ignorance or confusion on the part of the authors. Or they may demonstrate that greater ideological (or theological) concerns have led to the presence of a composite character. In light of the care with which Luke-Acts appears to have been composed, I believe in the case of composite “Herod” the latter is operative.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8023.shtml
Raymond Brown captures this potential confusion best when he writes, “Three men in the NT are called Hērōdes: Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, and Herod Agrippa I…. How many hearers or readers would have known that these were three different men?” (Brown 1994: 784).
I propose that with regard to the narrative of Luke-Acts, the historical distinctions between the “Herods” are blurred. In the story-world of Luke-Acts, the name “Herod” amalgamates the three historical individuals into a single, or composite, character.
<snip>
Conclusion
Luke-Acts has gone beyond the hard-partying, over-promising King Herod of Mark 6:14-29 (par. Matthew 14:1-12) and the infant-slaughtering King Herod of Matthew 2:1-12 by conflating three Herodian rulers into a gospel-rejecting, prophet-executing, Messiah-mocking, apostle-decapitating composite “Herod.” Positing a composite character, not only in Luke-Acts but also other ancient texts, gives us a new way of understanding various historical anomalies with regard to events and characters. The various examples listed above may provide evidence of ignorance or confusion on the part of the authors. Or they may demonstrate that greater ideological (or theological) concerns have led to the presence of a composite character. In light of the care with which Luke-Acts appears to have been composed, I believe in the case of composite “Herod” the latter is operative.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8023.shtml
Well now, if Luke/Acts can create a composite Herod figure - are we not dealing with a Jesus story-line that goes way back to Herod I and his sending Antigonus to Marc Anthony to be executed/hung on a cross - Herod giving a great deal of money to Marc Antony to become the paid assassin....
Is gLuke simply dealing with the 15th year of Tiberius or is this writer, by referencing Herod King of Judea, dealing with a historical time frame that goes right back to Herod I ? gLuke 3.1 by it's use of Lysanias of Abilene, going right back to 40 b.c. when Herod was made King while in Rome. A composite figure of Herod allows the Lukan writer to condense history into a narrow gospel time frame. Thus, if it's early christian origins that we are seeking we have to widen our field of research - viewing the figure of Herod as a composite figure allows that wider focus to be taken.
If the Herod of the NT is a composite figure - why not the figure of Jesus? Is such a composite Jesus really too far fetched in view of a composite Herod figure? If historical figures have been deemed to be relevant for the gospel writers in their creation of a composite gospel Jesus figure - should not these historical figures be relevant for any research into early christian origins?
Can one really set aside the role Herod I played in the execution/hung on a cross of the last King and High Priests of the Jews, Antigonus in 37 b.c. ? Can one really set aside the siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c. when Herod's soldiers ran amuk: ''No pity was shown for youth or respect for age, but children and old men and laity and priests were all alike killed,''. Was 37 b.c. as much as, if not more so, a historical watershed than 70 c.e.? Certainty it was for the Hasmoneans and their followers...
Herod I paid Marc Antony a great deal of money.(Josephus)
Certain (Herodian)Jews paid Pilate 30 talents (Slavonic Josephus)
Certain (Herodian) Jews gave Judas 30 pieces of silver. (gospel of Matthew)
