Why did the Romans and not the Jewish leaders kill Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishcolleen45
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Steve53,

I saw some of your thoughts in another post and I think I have a clearer understanding of your position.

Again I hold that Jesus was killed by Roman authorities while Stephen’s death was ordered by the High Priest with the Council of 70, without Roman conscent because there were two different political situations separating both events.

First, Jesus died in 33 AD while Pilate was the Prefect of Judea (NB: I’m correcting myself and will now use the title “Prefect” instead of Procurator"). During this time Pilate exercised the sole authority of the Ius Gladii, that is he alone could order captial punishment. The jewish people acknowledege this reality when after Pilate told them they should judge Jesus according to their own laws the jewish people responded, “We do not have the right to execute anyone” (Jn 18: 31). Caiaphas, as High Priest, had to bring Jesus before Pilate to be tried and executed under Roman law - he just did not have the authority to have Jesus stoned.

However, several years later there was a change in Roman authority that, for a time, left a vacuum of power and authority. This vacuum was caused in 36 AD at Passover, when Vitellius, the Roman Legate of Syria and the Transjordan, entered Jerusalem. There he removed Pilate from authority replacing him with one of his officers but this office (Marcellus) no imperial authority to act. At this time Vitellius also removed Caiaphas as High Priest, replacing him with Jonathan and finally he returned the full control of the High-priestly vestments to the high priest himself (Jonathan). Vitellius then left Jerusalem to resume his campaigns against the Parthians.

Leaving Marcellus behind without any imperial authority left a vacuum in authority that Jonathan, as High Priest and the most powerful man in office in Palestine, quickly filled. It was during this time that Stephan was brought before the High Priest and Council of 70, found quilty of blasphemy and stoned. The jewish authorities were able to do this because the was no Roman controling authority to stop them. Jonathan was a very ambitious man and he pushed his new found authority to the limits allowing Saul/Paul to conduct persecutions of the Church outside of Jerusalem as far north as Damascus. This came to an end at Passover of 37 AD when Vitellius removed Jonathan as the High Priest, replacing him with Jonathan’s younger brother: Theophilius.

Steve53, I know you hold Jesus died in 36 AD, rendering my theory wrong. But I have to disagree with your time table for the following reasons.

Part of your bases rest on the writing of Josephus in regards to Herod Antipas’ divorce of the daughter of King Aretas IV king of the Nabateans which lead to the arrest and execution of John the Baptist and the attack on Antipas by Aretas IV. First, Josephus does not make the connection between Antipas’ divorce and John’s arrest. He does state that some held Antipas’ defeat by Aretas IV was punishment by God for John’s death but Josephus does not connect the divorce and John’s arrest. All Josephus says is Antipas feared that John’s preaching would lead to a revolt so he had John arrested and executed. (Ant., 18:117 -119). The only place where there is a definite connection between divorce and John’s death is in the Gospel of Mark.

Also, in 36 AD, Vitellius was not in Jerusalem prior to his campaign against Aretas IV. Vitellius had just finish his fist campaign against the Parthians and was in Jerusalm at the Passover of 36 AD as part of his preparation for his second campaign against the them. Aretas IV waited until the Romans were fully engaged in their struggles with the Parthians before attacking Antipas. In 37 AD, after his campaigns with the Parthians were completed and a peace settlement made, Vitellius turned his attention to Aretas IV. During passover of 37 AD, Vitellius left his two legions, who were marching from Ptolemais to Petra, with Antipas and several others and entered Jerusalem. It was then (Passover of 37 AD) that Vitellius replaced Jonathan as High Priest with Theophilius. Once this was done he proceeded to defeat Aretas IV.

One final note, I just remember reading someplace that Jesus had to died either in 30 AD or 33 AD because those were the only two years Nisan 14 fell on a Friday. But I am doing a terrible thing and trusting my memory. Maybe someone can help me with this.
 
irishcolleen45 said:
The Jewish leaders could stone an adultress and also St Stephen to death. Why couldn’t they kill Jesus?
Click to expand...
Irishcolleen;

To answer your question before it goes further, there were four types of capital punishment, in decreasing severity, were: (The act - of how it was done)
Sekila - stoning
Click to expand...
This was performed by pushing a person off a height of at least 2 stories. If the person didn’t die, then the executioners (the witnesses) brought a rock that was so large that it took both of them to lift it; this was placed on the condemned person to crush them.
Click to expand...
This method was not done with the adulteress nor was this done to St Stephen. The first story on the adulteress, and on stoning, is read:

Commentary: Jesus Forgives a Woman Taken in Adultery, more precisely the law speaks of the death of both the man and the woman involved (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-24). These opponents have a commendable zeal for righteousness, but theirs is a shallow righteousness that shows no concern for the soul of this woman. They are also being rather deceitful. There is no evidence that this law was carried out with any regularity, so they are raising a question in the name of loyalty to Moses, using a part of Moses’ teaching that they themselves most likely have not kept. Furthermore, since the law says both the man and the woman who commit adultery are to be killed, we are left wondering why the man was not brought in as well.

as the passage reads: John 8:2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and** leave your life of sin**.” (NIV version) in the NASB - “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”

Refraining from committing the same sin if the opportunity presents itself again - that’s Repentance in Judaism known as teshuva; teaching others not to sin. The act of stoning did not occur - however, the law states that both the man and the woman would be stoned, also, so that you know - from the conservative point of view, all too often we learn of people who were convicted of crimes and only later are new facts uncovered by which their innocence is established. The doors of the jail can be opened, in such cases we can partially undo the injustice. But the dead cannot be brought back to life again. We regard all forms of capital punishment as barbaric and obsolete. Orthodox, In theory, capital punishment is kosher; it’s morally right, in the Torah’s eyes. But we have seen that there was great concern—expressed both in the legislation of the Torah, and in the sentiments of some of our great Sages — regarding its practical implementation. It was carried out in ancient Israel, but only with great difficulty. Once in seven years; not 135 in five and a half.

St Stephen, had witness to the Hellenistic Jews, a branch of Judaism called the Sadducean (see Duro-Europus Synagogue) A person who is an example of this sect, was Joseph, son of Caiaphas,the High Priest.

A commentary: In John 11, the high priests call a gathering of the Sanhedrin in reaction to the raising of Lazarus.[6] Later Caiaphas and the chief priests extend this decision to also include Lazarus himself 12:10. The parallel with the reaction of the “five brothers” to any raising of Lazarus in the account 16:28-30 has given rise to the suggestion, by the Abbé Drioux and others, that the “rich man” is itself an attack on Caiaphas, his father-in-law, and his five brothers-in-law.[7]

Caiaphas considers, with “the Chief Priests and Pharisees”, what to do about Jesus, whose influence was spreading. They worry that if they “let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.” Caiaphas makes a political calculation, suggesting that it would be better for “one man” (Jesus) to die than for “the whole nation” to be destroyed.

In John 18, Jesus is brought before Annas and Caiaphas and questioned, with intermittent beatings. Afterward, the other priests (Caiaphas does not accompany them) take Jesus to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, and insist upon Jesus’ execution. Pilate tells the priests to judge Jesus themselves, to which they respond they lack authority to do so. Pilate questions Jesus, after which he states, “I find no basis for a charge against him.” Pilate then offers the gathered crowd the choice of one prisoner to release — said to be a Passover tradition — and they choose a criminal named Barabbas instead of Jesus. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caiaphas
 
additions and corrections:

St Stephen, had witness to the Hellenistic Jews, not listing either to the Sadducee or to the Pharisee branch of Judaism - but nevertheless, the Hellenistic Jews were called the Sadducean (see Duro-Europus Synagogue) A person who is an example of this sect, was Joseph, son of Caiaphas,the High Priest. St Stephen being the first martyrdom for the Christian faith - actually (and I believe) was the beginning of the Apostle Paul conviction to the faith. Also, as we know the Apostle Paul claims to have been a Pharisee, which is antithetical to the Hellenistic spirit. Hellenistic Jews, Jews of Cyrene - as the scripture states, Stephen’s witness in the Hellenistic Jewish synagogues drew a lot of opposition, but doesn’t say from which sect of Judaism, and yes, this area of the city would have their own council…

In theological debate, which I thought - when reading, you knew that the Spirit of God was with Stephen as he recalled the events of the Jewish people - the Sanhedrin trial was on blasphemy for the acknowledgement that Jesus is the Messiah. Stephan who saw (for himself) “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” and at that point was stoned to death. The difference between St Stephan and Jesus trial? The fact that one claims to be God’s son and the other acknowledges the fact - a conviction, knowing that this is the truth. With the trial of Jesus, there were many accusations - also, I had pointed to the fact with capital punishment could be stoning, stoning, burning, beheading, and strangling but there are corporal punishments, as well. Under Stephan’s, it was listed for capital, although it rarely been carried out.

Within this context Judges 11:35 provides a precedent for the tearing of clothes on condemnation of the innocent (Keriah (tearing the garments) It conveys the duality of mourning - tearing one’s garment for Jerusalem - and as the verse said “Jesus wept”(Luke 19, 41-42). ) But the Matt & Mark account has the tearing occurring on the pronouncement of blasphemy - given Annas’ history this is another reason to think it was he who tore his clothes,.

A commentary: In John 11, the high priests call a gathering of the Sanhedrin in reaction to the raising of Lazarus.[6] Later Caiaphas and the chief priests extend this decision to also include Lazarus himself 12:10. The parallel with the reaction of the “five brothers” to any raising of Lazarus in the account 16:28-30 has given rise to the suggestion, by the Abbé Drioux and others, that the “rich man” is itself an attack on Caiaphas, his father-in-law, and his five brothers-in-law.[7]

Caiaphas considers, with “the Chief Priests and Pharisees”, what to do about Jesus, whose influence was spreading. They worry that if they “let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.” Caiaphas makes a political calculation, suggesting that it would be better for “one man” (Jesus) to die than for “the whole nation” to be destroyed.

In John 18, Jesus is brought before Annas and Caiaphas and questioned, with intermittent beatings. Afterward, the other priests (Caiaphas does not accompany them) take Jesus to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, and insist upon Jesus’ execution. Pilate tells the priests to judge Jesus themselves, to which they respond they lack authority to do so. Pilate questions Jesus, after which he states, “I find no basis for a charge against him.” Pilate then offers the gathered crowd the choice of one prisoner to release — said to be a Passover tradition — and they choose a criminal named Barabbas instead of Jesus. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caiaphas
 
One small note about most of the post that I’ve written - John 15:13 “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” This is the reason for the posts and how much Christ’s “Great love is, for all of us!”

I thoroughly loved Sister Angelica message, our sins are but a drop in the ocean, comparing this to God’s mercy that will take the form of his justice which equals the love for his people. When Jesus prayed the night before his death, he had asked God’s mercy for every Jew and for every Gentile, even on the cross, "Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing!” Christ gave up his life for the ones who will (eventually) believe (Those “like” the Apostle Paul, for “those” who would come to know him). Like Sister said, "“Every day, every minute of the day, throw your drop in the ocean of his His mercy. Then, don’t worry, just try harder.” Without the crucifix, there would be no forgiveness - redemption/salvation/deliverance, all of us in our lifetime (present) had something to do with his cross - in they way we had lived our life. To every disbeliever is a believer, for every sinner there is always the way to the cross, to receive his mercy for he draws everyman to himself. All the great prophets had witness, in their life time, the bounty of God’s mercy. The minute that Adam sinned, the redemption for man to be reconciled back to God was planned.

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

25 “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”
 
“However, several years later there was a change in Roman authority that, for a time, left a vacuum of power and authority. This vacuum was caused in 36 AD at Passover, when Vitellius, the Roman Legate of Syria and the Transjordan, entered Jerusalem. There he removed Pilate from authority replacing him with one of his officers but this office (Marcellus) no imperial authority to act. At this time Vitellius also removed Caiaphas as High Priest, replacing him with Jonathan and finally he returned the full control of the High-priestly vestments to the high priest himself (Jonathan). Vitellius then left Jerusalem to resume his campaigns against the Parthians.”

Tome, you are simply wrong.
Josephus is clear that Vitellius made two trips to Rome. In the second, in A.D. 37, he removed Pilate, he removed Jonathan, and, learning that Tiberius had died and receiving no word from Caius, he abandoned his planned invasion of Nabotea.

Read Josephus’ Antiquities Book 18.

BTW, what is your source that says Stephen was stoned in A.D. 36, and how to they derive that date? Hagan derives the same date, but largely because the he concludes that the crucifixion occurred a few months earlier in the Spring of that year.
With a crucifixion year of A.D. 33, how is A.D. 36 reached ?
 
As I wrote before, my main source has been old notes of mine that make a reference to a E. Schurer. However, having googled several sites I found Schurer is often used as a source in the footnotes on those sites. Also, I trust his reliability and, in an indirect way, the reliability is verified, in my opinion, by the fact that the last group to tranlate Schurer’s work was headed by Geza Vermes. I doubt Vermes would have been involved in such an effort if he did not find Schurer’s work to be creditable. So I am basing my opinion that Stephen was executed in 36 AD on Schurer’s work.

I apologize for some shoddy presentations - I always say I need a good editor. Earlier I wrote that the story of why John the Baptist was killed by Antipas was only found in Mark. I misspoke. I wrote that the story of Antipas, Herodius, John and Herodius’ daughter was narrated in only in Mark, I should have said the “Gospels” because we all know it was related in Matthew as well. Also, I made a mistake by saying Vitellius, after he had replaced Joanathan, as high priest, with Theophilius he went on to defeat Aretas. I should have wrote he went on with his preparations to defeat Aretas (later I will address this a later).
 
As I wrote several times the political situation in Jerusalem at the time of Stephen’s death in 36 AD was quite different from the conditions in 33 AD under which Jesus was put to death. Using William Whiston’s translation of Josephus’ Antiquities, Book 18,I want to present a short time line to support my position. This time line runs from 36 AD through 37 AD.

In 36 AD
88. Samaritans send embassy to Vitellius accusing Pilate of murder because of the
incident at Tirathaba.
  1. Vitellius sends Marcellus to Judea; orders Pilate to Rome.
  2. Vitellius in Judea for Passover. Relieves the Jews from the taxes on fruits bought and
    sold and returns the High-priest vestments to the control of the high priest.
  3. “…deprived Joseph, who was called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood and appointed
    Jonathan, the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him”
  4. Tiberius orders Vitellius to make a “league of friendship” with Aratabanus, the Parthian
    king.
  5. Vitellius meets Aratabanus at a bridge over the Euphrates River and they come to
    peace terms.
  6. Vitellius went to Antioch, Aratabanus went to Babylon, but Antipas sends letters to
    “Caesar” informing him of the peace terms before Vitellius can inform Tiberius of
    what took place - angering Vitellius.
109-112. Aretas IV begins his quarrel with Antipas over Antipas’ divorce of Aretas’ daughter
in order to marry Herodius.
  1. Aretas IV begins a border dispute with Antipas.
114-115. Aretas IV’s forces defeat Antipas’. Antipas appeals to Tiberius for help and
Tiberius responds by ordering Vitellius to attack Aretas IV.

116-119. John the Baptist (No mention here about Antipas’ divorce being a cause of the
Baptist’s death.)
 
Antiquities time line continued.

In 37 AD
  1. Vitellius begins his preparation for war against Aretas IV moving two legions, light armed footman and horseman, into Ptolemais. (This may have taken place from the end of 36 AD into the winter of 37 AD.)
  2. Vitellius is requested by “principal men” not to march through Judea.
  3. Vitellius complies to this request ordering his troops to march “along the Great Plain”. Vitellius, Antipas and some friends go up to Jerusalem, “…to offer sacrifice to God, an ancient festival (Passover?) being then just approaching…”.
  4. Vitellius stays for three day during, “… which time he deprived Jonathan of the high priesthood, and gave it to his brother Theophilius…”
  5. On the fourth day of his stay Vitellius receives news of Tiberius’ death. (Tiberius died
    either on March 16 or 17 AD). Vitellius recalled his army and sent them into winter quarters and cancelled his campaign against Aretas IV.
I think this time line provides some backing for my points that a vacuum of Roman authority existed in Jerusalem in 36 AD through 37 AD, a vacuum that was filled by the high priest Jonathan until Jonathan was relieved of the high priesthood by Vitellius in 37 AD by showing that:
  1. Pilate was relieved by Marcellus and sent to Rome by Vitellius in 36 AD.
  2. Vitellius replaced Caiaphas as high priest with Jonathan at Passover in 36 AD.
  3. Vitellius’ major concern was with the Parthian question and gave little attention to
    Judea.
  4. Vitellius replaced Jonathan with Theophilius in 37 AD ( during a festival that could have
    been Passover).
 
Book 18 in Josephus is useful, but he is not always accurate on the chronology of placement.

If you read more, it says that Pilate was sent by Vitellius to Rome (or Capri) to answer charges before Caesar, but that Tiberius had died before Pilate arrived, or, more specifically, had died while Pilate was en route, i.e. already at sea, and presumably under guard.

With Tiberius dying in March 17, A.D. 37, to say that Pilate was removed twelve months earlier in early A.D. 36 is difficult to justify.

In this case, we HAVE to go with the accepted date for Tiberius’ death by Roman sources, and Josephus has to be adjusted. Josephus also reports on an expulsion of the the Jews in Rome that by placement in book 18 should have been in the early A.D. 30’s, but Tacitus places the same incident more than ten years earlier.

Judea had always been a contentious and violent place. A canny politician like Vitellius would have handled the replacement of Pilate to assure that there was no power vacuum.

As for the invasion of Nabotea, he was going to use the Jewish auxiliaries of Herod Antipas, so it would make sense to plan the operation to occur close after the High Holy Days of the Passover in A.D. 37.
 
“So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, . . . but before he could get to Rome, Tiberius was dead.” (Ant. XVIII 4:2)

Note that Pilate “made haste” to return to Rome. An early A.D. 36 removal date is simply untenable.

Tacitus spends much time on the Vitellian campaign against Artabanus. He contradicts Josephus on the meeting Vitellius had with the Pathian King, and on the general tenor of the confict. There was little real resolution to the conflict when Tiberius ordered Vitellius to avenge Herod Antipas’ defeat probably in late A.D. 35, or early A.D. 36.
Ordered by Tiberius, Vitellius had little choice, and so visited Jerusalem for the Passover of A.D. 36 to scout things out (and talk with Pilate, whom he had not met but had heard bad things about). Pilate would have been his right-hand man in any invasion of Nabotea.
Preparing for the actual invasion in early A.D. 37, when he received reports from the Samaritans over Pilate’s actions, it would have been with great relief that Vitellius had a reason remove him from office, and not involve him in the military operations. Likely he was in Jerusalem at the time, waiting for his men to arrive at their positions, and enjoying the Passover and planning strategy.
When he received word shortly afterward of Tiberius’ death, and no orders from Caius to invade Arabia, it was probably with great relief that Vitellius returned to Syria with his two legions, where Artabanus was still a question.

But he is the problem with all of ancient history, and trying to make sense of it. Here we both use passages of Josephus to validate a position, but then use other sources to invalidate other points that Josephus might say or suggest.

So it is important to use the best outside, secular, Roman sources, or the NT, to evaluate Josephus, if any useful conclusions can be made.
 
Tome-not going to let me get the last word, are you?🙂

This is a great thread.
 
steve53,

I don’t think Tactius contradicts Josephus’ account of Vitellius meeting Artabanus on a bridge over the Euphrates River. I read Tacitus’ Annals, book 6 and from what I read Tactius relates events that Josephus records as happening during Vitellius’ first campaign against the Parthians (35 AD - 36 AD). As I wrote before, it was after this first campaing that Vitellius sent Marcellus to relieve Pilate and at Passover Vitellius traveled to Jerusalem to garner support from the leaders of Jerusalem for his upcoming second campaign. He achieved geeting the support he was seeking by removing the recently installed fruit taxes, replaced Caiaphas as High Priest with Jonathan (the son of Ananus I) and returned the control of the High-priestly vestments to the control of the High Priest (Jonathan). It was during this time that Tiberius orders Vitellius to make a “league of friendship” with Artabanus.

It was during this second campaign (my words), which took place after Passover of 36 AD and before January 37 AD that Vitellius met with and formed a league of friendship with Artabanus. It was during these negotiation between Vitellius and Artabanus, over the Euphrates, of which Antipas was a partcipant, that Aretas IV’s forces attacked and defeated Antipas’.

I know that you are basing your opinion on the works of John Hagan so my question is how do you, or he, develop a time line that has Pilate being relieved in 37 AD? I remember from an earlier thread you said that you could not believe that there was a 12 month gap between the time supposely Pilate was relieved from command in 36 AD and showing up in Rome in 37 AD after Tiberius’ death, but what do you based your opinion on that Pilate remaind in power until 37 AD beside this gap in records of Pilates’ where abouts from March (?) 36 AD and post March 37 AD?
 
Here again you have to be selective, and interpret what is written based on other contemporaneous accounts.

As to the meeting with Artabanus, it likely did not occur until after Tiberius’ death in A.D. 37 or A.D. 38. Even though Josephus suggests otherwise, the first meeting in A.D. 36 was likely with western Nobles, who certainly wanted peace with Rome, and who had accepted Tiridates, the young hostage from Rome, as king.
So there were two meetings at the Euphrates. Only at the last one, after Tiberius’ death, did Artabanus personally attend. It should be remembered that Artabanus had a personal relationship with Germanicus, who had made peace between Rome and Parthia in around A.D. 17. When Gemanicus died, a lot of people, including Artabanus, thought that Tiberius had murdered him, and so hated Tiberius with a passion. Not likely that Artabanus would swear allegiance to Tiberius. But Caius was Germanicus’ son, and Artabanus would be much more inclined to accept him in power.

Pilate? I do not see any other way to interpret Josephus other than Pilate was removed in A.D. 37, probably in early March, and was sent in “haste” to be tried in front of Tiberius. If Vitellius wasn’t already in Jerusalem at the time, he was certainly close and on the march with his invasion force. That Pilate was put on “ice” for twelve months in Jerusalem before being sent to Rome makes little sense. There was simply no reason to do it, and it would be potentially dangerous to keep him around. So the implied chronology in Josephus in Antiq 18 has to be adjusted.

Your assertion that Aretas attacked Antipas after the Passover of A.D. 36 is contentious. Hagan argues that with the Parthian Empire a huge threat, there was little reason for Vitellius to visit a backwater province like Judea- and not once, but twice! It is clear that Tiberius ordered Vitellius to avenge the defeat of Herod Antipas- which would explain the two visits to Jerusalem entirely. With a late A.D. 35 defeat of Antipas, Vitellius, who had his hands full in Armenia, would have received the missive from Tiberius in late A.D. 35 or early A.D. 36, and gone to Jerusalem to scout out the city and make plans, intending to return later to invade Nabotea, which he was ordered to do.

So the defeated Antipas accompanied Vitellius to the first meeting with the Parthians after the passover of A.D. 36 (where he met Vitellius and also had time to interrogate Jesus!), hoping to speed things along and hasten Vitellius back to Perea where Nabotea would be invaded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top