6 But having heard (this), Pilate questioned whether this man was a Galilean: 7 and having ascertained that he was from Herod's (sphere of) power, he sent him off to Herod who was himself in Jerusalem in these days. 8 Now Herod, having seen Jesus, rejoiced greatly since for much time he has been wishing to see him because of what he had heard about him; indeed he was hoping to see some sign done by him. 9 Accordingly with much talking he tried to question him; but Jesus answered nothing to him, 10 even though the chief priests and the scribes had been standing there insistently accusing him. 11 But having treated him with contempt and made a mockery, Herod with his troops, having clothed him with a splendid garment, sent him back to Pilate. 12 But both Herod and Pilate on this same day became friends with each other, for previously they were at enmity toward the other.

We've already recognized that the whole of Luke's chap. 23 forms a unit. In this context, the account of the sending to Herod is an isolated episode. But unlike the account of Judas' suicide in Matthew, which clearly interrupts the sequence, this scene around Herod fits harmoniously with the Lucan sequence. As for the style and vocabulary, it is completely Lucan, in line with what we find in the Acts of the Apostles. Even someone who sees here a source that he would have used, he must admit that this source has the same style as Luke.

1. Sending Jesus to Herod (23: 6-7)
   1. There are some stylistic traits of Luke, such as "ascertained" (epiginōskein), 21 times in Luke-Actes, "himself" (kai autos) to designate Herod, an imitation of the Septuagint frequent in Luke, "in these days" found almost only in Luke-Actes (17 times), "Jerusalem" mentioned twice by Luke out of the three references in the passion narratives.

   2. "whether this man was a Galilean". With the expression "having begun in Galilee" in the mouths of the chief priests, Luke reminds us that it is the whole ministry of Jesus that is being judged. It is only in the meeting with Herod, therefore, that this link is clearly established. But why does Pilate question himself (eperōtan, a legal term for an interrogation) if he is a Galilean? Let us first note that for Luke Jesus' homeland is Nazareth, and that his birth in Bethlehem in his infancy narrative plays no role. But above all, his Gospel revolves around Jesus' journey from Galilee to its conclusion in Jerusalem. Even the women who accompany him are twice identified as those who were with him from Galilee to Jerusalem.

   3. "Herod". Luke calls Herod the "tetrarch" of Galilee (3:1; 9:7). This is Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great by his Samaritan wife Malthace. When his father died in 4 BC, the kingdom was divided between his elder brother, Archelaus, who inherited Judea, his half brother, Philip, who inherited Transjordan (Batanea, Gaulanitis, Trachonitis, and Auranitis), and him, who inherited Galilee and Perea. He did better than his brother Archelaus, who was deposed in 6 AD by the Romans, for he remained in power until 39 AD, when he was deposed by Emperor Caligula, who preferred his favourite, Herod Agrippa, and exiled him to Lyon, in Gaul. During his reign, there was no revolt against the Romans. Luke shows a certain interest in him and his relationship with Jesus, so that he appears 13 times in his Gospel and 2 times in Acts (absent in John, he is present 4 times in Matthew, and 8 times in Mark, but concentrated in the episode of the beheading of John the Baptist).

   4. "Having ascertained that he was from Herod's (sphere of) power (exousia), he sent him off (anapempein) to Herod". Is it necessary to translate exousia by jurisdiction? Apparently not. In Roman law, there was forum domicilii or originis: the accused was subject to the jurisdiction of his place of origin; and there was forum delicti or apprehensionis: the accused was subject to the jurisdiction of the place where the crime was committed. But forum delicti would have existed only at the beginning of the empire, replaced by forum domicilii. Furthermore, if we rely on Acts 23: 34 in Paul's trial where the place of origin plays no role, Luke does not intend to refer to the forum domicilii. In fact, a magistrate had authority only on his territory, and despite his importance, Herod was only a private person without jurisdiction during his stay in Jerusalem. Therefore, even though Luke speaks of "sending off" (anapempein), he does not intend to refer to a change of jurisdiction; at most he wants to give a legal atmosphere to the scene. And "power" (exousia) often refers to Satan in Luke, absent since the temptations in the desert, reappeared with Judas, and now associated with Herod, because "it is your hour and the power of darkness" (Lk 22:53).

   5. "who was himself in Jerusalem in these days". In the first place, the presence of a political authority in Jerusalem on the occasion of important events, such as a religious feast, is not surprising; people came there not only for religious purposes, but also to keep order. Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, 18.5.3: #122) testifies to the presence of the governor Vitellius and the four sons of Herod the Great in Jerusalem in 37 AD at the Passover. But during this stay, where did he live? There was in Jerusalem, according to Josephus, a palace strategically built by the Hasmoneans on the west side of the city, above the Xystus, overlooking the city and with a view of the temple (see map). It is thought that this is where Herod stayed, as it was here that Agrippa II later stayed in the 60s.

   6. "He sent him off to Herod ". If Herod has no jurisdiction over Jesus, why this gesture? According to Luke, Pilate's interrogation only showed Jesus' innocence. The presence of Herod, who has a legal relationship with Jesus, because Jesus comes from a region over which he has authority, gives him the opportunity to obtain an independent assessment through a kind of preliminary investigation (anakrisis, according to Roman law); it is a fortuitous occasion. That Luke presents this scene from the perspective of an anakrisis (understood as a delegation of investigation, rather than a transfer of jurisdiction) is confirmed by the parallel scene in Acts 25:23-27 where the procurator Festus asks King Agrippa II, who happens to be in Caesarea as well, to proceed with Paul to an anakrisis, so that he can complete his report for Rome, where Paul wants to be judged. This delegation of a preliminary investigation does not change the final result. But it shows a very clever political gesture on Pilate's part. According to Luke 23:12, there was enmity between Pilate and Herod. The bloody massacre of Galileans around 28-29 in Jerusalem by Pilate may have contributed to this. Jesus, that other Galilean, could be seen in the same frame. In any case, the decision to invite Antipas to proceed with an anakrisis might have been a very clever diplomatic gesture to neutralize the Tetrarch and prevent further problems. And as a matter of fact, Luke (23:12) informs us that this decision was very well received and contributed to the reconciliation of former enemies.

2. Herod Interrogates Jesus (23: 8-10)
   1. We still find the Lucan style: charein (to rejoice, 19 times in Luke-Acts), hikanos (usually: sufficient, but here with the meaning of: many, considerable, much), coupled with chronos (time) and logos (word), which appears 27 times in Luke-Acts (only 6 times in the other Gospels). The periphrase "he has been" (verb to be) + "wishing" (present participle) is typical of Luke (33 times), as is "because of what he had heard" (literally: because of the hear(ing), i.e. the preposition dia (because) + article to the accusative (the) + verb to the infinitive (to hear), 16 times in Luke-Acts). And there is an excessive use of the particle de (then, but), 7 times in 7 verses, 548 times in Luke, 558 in Acts.

   2. "Herod rejoiced greatly... he has been wishing to see him... he was hoping to see some sign... with much talking he tried to question him". The image of Herod that Luke gives us is that of an enthusiastic and exuberant man, almost frantic, impatient to see Jesus. But what else does he tell us? In 3:19-20 he writes: "For all his wrongdoings he committed, he added this one to all the others: he put John in prison". In 9:7-9, in the context of the sending of the Twelve to preach in the villages of Galilee, Luke presents us with a perplexed Herod who asks himself the question of the identity of Jesus, unsatisfied with such propositions as John the Baptist risen from the dead, Elijah reappeared, or an ancient prophet risen from the dead. Finally, in 13:31-33, in the context where the Pharisees warn him that Herod wants to kill him, Jesus uses the image of the fox to describe the king. In classical and Hellenistic Greek, and rabbinic literature, the fox is known to be crafty. But there are also references to its destructive behavior (Cant 2:15; Ezek 13:4-5). It is probably the latter case that Luke refers to by its image: here (with the connivance of the Parisees?) Herod may be trying to threats and, if that fails, planning violence, as he did in front of all those who made him uncomfortable. Therefore, the reader should be wary of Herod's joy in effortlessly obtaining the one he was so much looking for.

   3. "with much talking he tried to question him; but Jesus answered nothing to him". As Luke made us understand earlier (11:16), the request for a sign is the manifestation of an evil generation and constitutes an evil trial (4:9-12) and a lack of faith (4:23-24). Unsurprisingly, Jesus will make no sign before Herod. This accentuates Herod's frustration expressed with a verb to the imperfect (he tried to question him) and the multiplication of words, marking his unceasing but vain effort. One may ask why Luke presents us with a silent Jesus, and why only here in front of Herod. For did he not make the accused Stephen and Paul speak, giving them the opportunity to express their faith? No doubt he knew of Jesus' silence in Mark both before the high priest (14:61) and before Pilate (15:5), and he could not ignore it. But why present this silence only before Herod? Perhaps he considered that Jesus had already answered Herod through the Pharisees in that scene where he calls him: the fox (13: 32). But what about Luke's reader? How will he interpret this silence? It cannot be interpreted in the light of the suffering servant (Isa 53:7) or the general case of death with great dignity despite suffering, to which Luke makes no reference. We are left with the stark contrast between Pilate's calm, to which Jesus deigns to respond, and Herod's very emotional attitude, to which Jesus refuses to respond, having already expressed himself in 13:32-33, determined to continue on his way to Jerusalem and to know there the end of the prophets' life; the end having come, all words had become useless.

   4. "even though the chief priests and the scribes had been standing there insistently accusing him". The atmosphere of frustration is accentuated by the chorus of high priests and scribes who want to force Herod's hand with their continuous accusations. The adverb eutonōs (with insistence or vehemence or violence) and the verb eis + stanai (to stand there) give a hostile tone to the scene. The chief priests, together with the elders of the people, had been mentioned in 22:66 when they took Jesus to the Sanhedrin. They are probably part of the multitude that led Jesus to Pilate and accused him under three charges. So we can think that the accusation here is of the same nature. But their mere presence shows that the accusation is not merely political, but primarily religious.

3. Sending Jesus Back to Pilate (23: 11-12)
   1. Let's start with the Lucan style. The sentence begins with three participles in the aorist tense: having treated him with contempt (exouthenein, 3 times in Luke-Acts, only once elsewhere in Mark), having mocked (empaizen, three times in the passion story in Luke, first the night of his arrest, then here with Herod, and at the cross by the soldiers), having clothed (peribalōn, which has no real object here, but the reference to Jesus is implied). The subject of the action of the first two participles (having treated with contempt and having mocked) is Herod with (syn) his troops; syn appears 75 times in Luke-Acts, compared to 6 times in Mark, 4 times in Matthew, and 3 times in John. The place of "having clothed" in the sentence is unclear, i.e. does the verb relate to "having mocked", which would mean that Jesus is mocked after clothing him, or does it relate to "sent him back to Pilate" to signify the state in which he is sent back to the prefect; grammatically speaking, the latter case is to be chosen. And the subject of this sending is Herod alone. Then, let us note other Lucan words, such as "garment" (esthēs, 4 times in Luke-Acts, absent from the other Gospels), "splendid" (lampros, 2 times in Luke-Acts, absent from the other Gospels). There is also in v. 12 the expression "both...and" (te, 154 times in Luke-Acts, 3 times in Mt., 0 times in Mk., 3 times in Jn.), "on this same day" (in autē tē hēmera, 11 times in Luke-Acts, never in the other Gospels), "friends" (philos, 18 times in Luke-Acts, but only 6 times in Jn, 1 time in Mt, absent from Mk) and "to go about before all this" (prohyparchein) followed by a participle, a construction that is found nowhere else in the New Testament except in Acts 8:9.

   2. How is Herod's attitude towards Jesus to be interpreted? There seems to be a mixture of mockery and declaration of innocence. On the one hand, Luke uses exouthenein (to treat with contempt), a term he used in 18:9 in reference to contempt for others when he introduced the parable of the prayer of the Pharisee and the tax collector; Herod pushes his contempt for Jesus to the point of demeaning himself by joining his troops in their mockery. On the other hand, the very fact of dressing Jesus in a splendid habit is a proclamation of innocence. This is what is to be inferred from what follows (23:14-15), as Jesus is handed over to Pilate. As Jesus did not utter any words, the only message is the garment he is wearing: this garment completely envelops him (peribalōn), it is a garment(esthēs), therefore something of great quality (see the epistle of James 2:2-3), and it is splendid, shining (lampra). We must avoid projecting here the purple garment of Mk 15:17 and Jn 19:2, or the scarlet chlamydia of Mt 27:28, which are clearly gestures of mockery. On the contrary, in Luke the garment of Jesus was probably white (the Latin translation of the Vulgate speaks of an vesta alba), a symbol of nobility, joy and purity (the Essenes wore white garments), while the accused, according to Josephus, wore black garments (Jewhish Antiquities, 14.9.4: #172). Thus, after his preliminary investigation (anakrisis) Herod would have found nothing that would lead him to consider Jesus a prisoner. And by this he pleases Pilate, who also found nothing reprehensible. This is Luke's great thesis.

   3. "But both Herod and Pilate on this same day became friends with each other". Is there any historical basis for what Luke writes? It is known that the Herodian princes maintained good relations with the Julio-Claudian imperial family in Rome, and so the Roman governors had an interest in taking this into account. Josephus tells us that in the time of Herod the Great Roman governors in Syria were forbidden to take action without his approval, and later Emperor Vespasian sent Jewish slaves to Agrippa II as a gift. But all this having been said, we must remember that Luke's ultimate goal is not to inform us historically, but to bring us into his theology. And a major point of his theology concerns forgiveness and healing. Let us recall Luke's account in Gethsemane when the servant of the high priest had his right ear cut off during the arrest, and Jesus healed immediately (22:50), or the prayer of Jesus on the cross (23:44: "Father, forgive them..."), or that of the good thief on the cross to whom Jesus offers forgiveness (23:43). Now Jesus heals the relationship of enmity between these two leaders, even though one of them sought to kill him and mocked him.

The absence of this appearance before Herod in the other Gospels raises two questions: Where did Luke get this? What is its historical value?

1. Formation of the story

   Three scenarios are possible:

   • Luke drew the story from an ancient source
   • Luke has created this story from scratch.
   • Luke composed this scene based on an ancient tradition about Herod's involvement in the death of Jesus, and combined it with material from Mark
   1. An ancient source scenario

      The main argument against this scenario is the very Lucan style of the story, as we saw earlier. If Luke has drawn from an ancient source, he has reworked it so much that it now resembles one of his compositions. To this can be added the strong resemblance to the scene where Paul appears before Agrippa II in Acts.

   2. The scenario of a creation from scratch

      According to this scenario, Herod's scene is an adaptation of Psalm 2:1-2, the Septuagint version, found in Acts 4:24-28 :

      Why did the Gentiles (ethnē = nations) act arrogantly,
      and the peoples think of empty things?
      The kings of the earth came to take their stand,
      and the rulers (pl. of archōn) gathered together in the same place
      against (kata) the Lord and against His Messiah (Christos)

      This citation is followed by an application:

      For in truth in this city there were gathered together against (epi) Your holy servant Jesus, whom You did anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your will (or plan: boulē) had predestined to take place

      A first problem with this scenario is that it requires a lot of stretching of the psalm to make it fit the facts of passion. How can "the peoples of Israel" in Acts correspond to the "peoples", synonymous with nations, in the Psalm? When Luke speaks of Herod it is as a tetrarch, never as a king; he never refers to Pilate as archōn. Thus, if there was not already a tradition of Herod's involvement in the death of Jesus, how could Psalm 2 have been interpreted in this way?

      A second problem comes from the difference in the figure of Herod between Lk 23:6-15 and Acts 4:24-28. In Acts 4, Herod and Pilate were gathered together against Jesus, just like the peoples of Israel. In Lk 23:14-15 both Herod and Pilate find Jesus not guilty, and in Lk 23:27.35 the "people" are not particularly hostile. So why would Luke create a relationship to the psalm in Acts that is the opposite of what he presents of Herod in his Gospel? And if the psalm was Luke's source for the figure of Herod, why is this not transparent throughout his Gospel, but only in Acts?

      Another problem arises in later writings. Ignatius of Antioch (Smyrnaeans 1:2) seems to refer to an independent tradition when he writes that Jesus was nailed to a tree in his flesh for us "under Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch"; the vocabulary is not an adaptation of Psalm 2 and is not that of the Gospel or Acts. Similarly, the apocryphal Gospel of Peter (2nd c.) paints a rather peculiar picture of Herod as the principal authority in Jesus' trial and the one who delivers him up to the people to be mocked as "King of Israel" and wrapped in purple; there is no indication that this apocryphal writing is an adaptation of Psalm 2 (where Herod and Pilate appear on the same level), or that it served as a source for Luke. Mention may also be made of the Acts of Thomas (32) where Herod becomes the diabolical tool of the serpent with Caiaphas, or the Syriac translation of the Didascalia Apostolorum where it is Herod who orders that Jesus be crucified. As can be seen, there was a tradition about Herod that has continued to develop.

   3. The scenario of a composition based on an ancient tradition

      It is therefore likely that an ancient tradition of Herod's lethal opposition to Jesus existed. This tradition did not arise from a reading of Psalm 2, but led to a rereading of the Psalm in the manner described in Acts 4. Thus, Lk 23:6-12 is said to be a Lucan variation of an ancient tradition on Antipas, to which he made certain additions from:

      • Material from Mark concerning the interrogation of Jesus before Pilate and his silence, as well as the scene of the mockery.
      • A schema of a Roman governor who invites a Herodian prince to investigate a Jewish prisoner accused by the leaders of his people (used in Acts 25, 13 - 26, 32)
      • Sayings pertinent Herod, preserved especially in Lk 13:31-33.

      Luke reflected Herod's hostility from this ancient tradition with the mention of the contempt and mockery of Herod and his troops. But why did he change this tradition to also make Herod a promoter of Jesus' innocence?

      • It is not impossible that the Roman trial of Mark, where Pilate found no grounds for conviction, contributed to this decision.
      • It is possible that Paul's trial, in which Agrippa II and the Roman procurator collaborated to clear him, may have had some influence.
      • By proclaiming the innocence of Jesus through the mouths of Herod and Pilate, perhaps he wanted to prepare the last words about Jesus: "Surely this man was a just man" (23:47).

2. Historicity of the Herod Tradition

   To what extent is the tradition of Herod's deadly hostility to Jesus of historical value? We have opted for the scenario where there was an ancient tradition about Herod, but this does not mean that this tradition is of historical value, especially when we see its absence in Mark, Matthew and John. The only other echo could be in Mark in the mention of the Herodians alongside the Pharisees who want to put him to death.

   But there is an element, often forgotten, that must be considered in this investigation: when we speak of Herod (Hērōdēs), we must remember that it could be about three persons, i.e. Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, or Herod Agrippa. And all three are called "king". Also, we must ask ourselves: what did the early Christians understand when they heard "King Herod"? Matthew 2 tells us that King Herod, advised by the chief priests and scribes, sought to kill the infant Jesus. The combination of Lk 13:31; 23:10; Acts 4:26-27 shows King Herod seeking to kill Jesus. Acts 12 shows King Herod killing James, John's brother, to please the Jews. How could the readers of the Gospels know that they were three different men?

   When we consider all these echoes of Herod in the New Testament, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Gospel of Peter, we can conclude with a certain degree of probability that in the tradition about Herod there is a historical core. Of course, the accounts that emerge from this are highly imaginative, so that it becomes almost impossible to determine which of the three Herods was hostile to Jesus. One might think that Herod Antipas, who had John the Baptist killed, must have been annoyed by Jesus, who was a great admirer of the prophet and attracted some of his followers; after having liquidated a religious figure, Antipas may have shown a certain restraint towards Jesus, content to see him out of Galilee. What is clear is that Lk 23:6-12 is neither a simple recorder of historical fact nor totally a creative, imaginative novelist; it is a narrative which undoubtedly began with a historical core, but which has evolved into something other than a historical writing. By adding various elements to his story, Luke not only proclaims the innocence of Jesus and the therapeutic power of his passion, but he has contributed to the evolution in the perception of Herod's role.