Talk:Herod the Great/Archive 1

Parkfoto edited, I reverted, I partially reinstated

I reverted some recent edits by Parkfoto because they were interspersed with mysterious parkfoto.com text and references to Onischuk. I left a message on Parkfoto's talk page, and then started reinstating the edits that made sense: here, here and here.

At which point I noticed the dates for the lunar eclipses are inconsistent, NASA shows a total eclispe on Mar 23 at 5 BCE, while the article has a partial at 4 BC. At the same time an anon is now editing the article, so I'll leave it for now, although there is again the strange text appearing. I may look at it later.

Meanwhile does anyone have cites for the historian Appianos? And is Onischuk a real person? I find nothing using google. -Wikibob 21:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Not NPOV

This article is highly Christian POV. Its only source seems to be from the Gospels and Josephus. ems 03:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The impression I get is that there aren't any significant sources on Herod other than Josephus. Is this incorrect? FiggyBee 14:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, how does Josephus represent a Christian POV? Ems appears to be an Orthodox Jew, and I'd imagine that his problem with the article is that it relies on Josephus rather than rabbinic traditions about Herod. A section in the article about rabbinic traditions is fine, but every history I've ever seen of the period relies mostly on Josephus, and assumes the (much later) rabbinic materials to be of limited value for determining the actual history of the period. john k 17:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There not having been any discussion on the matter in almost a month, I'm removing the tag. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody pays any attention to those tags anyway. Most Wikipedians never use them. --07:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetman (talk • contribs) 07:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits of May 29 2006

The recent edits (5/29) by user 213.219.161.27 have caused an awful lot of "jumbling" and bad links. I'd fix them where necessary, but I don't want to intrude on the requests for citations, etc. Would someone, preferably 213.219.161.27, please clean up these edits? 192.234.13.40 17:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations Needed, Esp. in the Death Section

Dear Friends: In its current state, this article does not have scholarly citations to support its facts. Since there is considerable debate about the evidence for the life of Herod and what it means, it would be good to add them. For instance, who is advocating the Year 0 hypothesis? (BTW, there was no year 0). To the best of my knowledge. the 4 BC date is still the most accepted theory. After New Year's I'll double check that. In the mean time, where does all this stuff come from? --CTSWyneken 12:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

4 BCE is the most accepted theory. I have seen a very effective argument for 1 BCE, however. Here is the link to the web page (Book?): http://askelm.com/star/star011.htm

It seems pretty clear that the current page makes heavy use of this source. However, in its current form it is painful to read. I would sugguest removing references to Jesus in relation to Herod's death, since the date of Jesus' death is also in question. The connection between Jesus and Herod could have its own section, which would help clean everything up.

As for the date of Herod's death, I think it would be best if there was a section arguing for 4 BCE and a section arguing for 1 BCE. External links should probably also be included to save the reader the trouble of trying to follow the details. As I said before, this web page--http://askelm.com/star/star011.htm--would be a good external link.

Here is another link arguing for 1 AD: http://www.griffithobs.org/IPSPlanPlatt.html

Here is a link for the information about the star (same source): http://askelm.com/star/ In my opinion it should be dropped because it does not relate specifically to Herod. It relates to Jesus.

Is there any chance this page could be cleaned up?

--Paul 1:23, 29 June 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.58.216 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, most of the death section should be, well... completely removed. Especially the star of bethlehem stuff. Theories exist already on that page, and are at least of no use for discovering Herod's death date Thanatosimii 06:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Martin's book self-published?

Ernest L. Martin's book The Star That Astonished the World was published by Associates for Scriptural Knowledge (A.S.K), whose web site appears to be http://www.askelm.com. I note that the last three letters of askelm are the initials of Ernest L. Martin. I also note on [1] that Ernest L. Martin is the founder of A.S.K. Also, every one of the eight books listed under "Book Topics" on the A.S.K. home page is by Martin. To my mind, that makes the books essentially self-published. I don't think Martin's book should be cited in Wikipedia unless reliable scholarly sources can be found that recommend the book. --Gerry Ashton 01:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is not the place for discussion of chronology of Jesus

An anonymous user just added a lot of material primarily about Jesus rather than Herod (it also suffers from POV problems). Since this article is supposed to be about Herod the Great rather than Jesus, I suggest that some of the new material be moved to Chronology of Jesus or simply deleted altogether. Grover cleveland — Preceding undated comment added 03:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Onischuk-Parkfoto Contributions Ignored

Birth of Jesus & Death of Herod Interwined - RE: Josephus & the Biblical references. One set of findings regarding Jesus birthdate does reinforce the date of Herod's death. I agree it could be moved to Jesus Chronology,and referenced as a note-link, but the data should not be deleted. If you check the wikipedia history going back to 20dec2005, you will see that I managed to point out several key facts that were unknown at the time - Apianos, Eclipse 9 Jan. and Christs Birth/Guiding Star data that has since been verified by NASA, which thus confirms via my astonomical deductions and thus the assumptions made by scholars who are given credits as references. If you are going to edit my comments and hide my findings, at least have the PROFESSIONAL COURTESY to cite me as a source & confirming reference. Its not everyday you have somebody figure this stuff out on their own, determining with certainity the dates of Herods death and Christs birth, which were very uncertain in academic circles before my work. cheers, dan onischuk www.parkfoto.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.111.154 (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Biography & Achievements

The refs cited do NOT say that Herod was not a Jew under halakhic law and say NOTHING about the religious status of his mother, Cypros. It is more than conceivable that if Antipater was a Jew and Herod was also considered a Jew then his mother was probably a convert and thus, under halakha, Herod was a Jew. Of course, this kind of speculation doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article but neither does the kind that says he was not a Jew, under halakha. Likewise, there is no place in an encyclopedia for the unsourced, unfounded speculation concerning Herod's motives for building up the Temple in Jerusalem i.e. "in order to ingratiate himself with the many of his subjects." DieWeibeRose 01:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerned the article has many errors

When editing be careful that the names are sourced and CORRECTLY so, and are not actually different people with the same names. There were many with the same names, such as, Simon, Simone, Philip I, and many many more, but who were not related, or maybe they were related, but not the way it's expressed in the article. The naming, plus the fact that they intermarried, and those names are common of that era can be confusing and worse, incorrect. Incest, common in those days, and not considered as such, not then, anyway, presents more problems attributing whom to who, and who to whom. This means that you have to have numerous sources to support the claims. One or two is not enough, (especially the family tree, and dates! They are conflicting, or at least confusing) in the article and need to be fully researched and accurately sourced. I have a headache. - Jeeny ^Talk 21:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Basis for tomb claim??

The article currently is not clear on what basis the claim of finding his tomb is made. Remains? Buried, ritually arrayed artifacts? Or just a similarity to the historical description? --Homunq 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I also read, this location was perhaps already known (in archaeological science). It being at the exact location Josephus described such should not be surprising. The real news item is 'Israeli (perhaps Jewish) scientist are at work at the location of herodus tomb and think they have the indications it indeed is' if anything. However besides announcment of that tomb (a thing josephus already did) i got no archeological information from any mainstream article yet. So : not much is found, not much is new. And the whole of it is probably only part of the everlasting attention in the medias reporting on israel all the time. (the story got actual zionist undertones that christians empathise with). Since that is no surprise to me, i enjoyed waiting a few days and then reading the gossip here;)77.248.56.242 10:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I caught part of the TV special, and it said there were no remains (bones, etc) in the "tomb." They do not have "concrete" evidence ...yet? It's assumed it is Herod's, but am not sure why, (probably the reason given above in the last comment), as I missed that part justifying the assumption. - Jeeny ^Talk 03:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

aesthetic layout

Apart from checking facts, the layout of the article is problematic. I reorganized the paragraphs in a more logical way, and put all the huge tables and family trees at the bottom. They need to be resized - as is, they are hard to read and detract from the look of the article.--Gilabrand 07:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Family tree

The family tree is all screwed up. I have no idea how to fix it. {Slash-|-Talk} 22:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone has fixed the family tree(s). It is/They are now accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.170.126 (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Major change of the article

I plan on making major changes to the article soon. As it current stands the article is structured like this:

   * 1 Biography
   * 2 Achievements
         o 2.1 Discovery of quarry
   * 3 New Testament references
   * 4 Death
   * 5 Tomb discovery
   * 6 Chronology
         o 6.1 30s BC
         o 6.2 20s BC
         o 6.3 10s BC
         o 6.4 0s BC
   * 7 Marriages and children
   * 8 Family trees
         o 8.1 Marriages and descendants
         o 8.2 Ancestors
   * 9 References
   * 10 Further reading
   * 11 External links

I think that section Biography should be renamed early life, chronology should be moved to section two, renamed Reign and changed to prose, section 4 (death) becomes section 3 and 5 becomes 4.1. section 3 "New Testament references" goes last and becomes section 5. section 7 and 8 will be be integrated into the greater biography, or perhaps turned into pictures and placed on the side of the biography. Are they any thoughts, suggestions, or objections? Jon513 (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wailing Wall

>>The Wailing Wall or Western Wall in Jerusalem is currently the only visible section of the four retaining walls built by Herod, creating a flat platform (the Temple Mount) upon which the Temple was then constructed.

It is my understanding that the Moslems do not recognise that this site is the site of the Temple. Can we get a clarification NPOV or a citation here. Thanks. 98.17.87.70 (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Great?

How come, and how did he become, "the Great"? It's something that's always puzzled me, and something that'd make a good addition to the article too, jguk 22:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was at least one other ruler from the Herod dynasty, also called Herod, but he was less significant. "The Great" is a disambiguator. --Philopedia 00:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Herod did a number of things that endeared him in the eyes of his contemporaries even as they dispised him for his cruelty, including his expansion of the Temple complex, the massive structure he ordered built at the Cave of the Patriarchs, etc. Under his reign, he managed to retain the air of sovereignty as well, despite the Roman occupation. Tomer ^TALK July 4, 2005 21:00 (UTC)

• Maybe a little study of the relevant material in Josephus' writings would help to answer this question?! 22:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.135.70 (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

He did things of great consequences: Massacre of the innocents is one of them. He did indeed have a Great effect on the people of Judea but he was not a Great man. Just his actions were great in consequence, severity and in the eyes of the Jewish people there, great in sin and blasphemy.160.227.129.254 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In the time of Herodes Judaea was not under Roman occupation, it was a protectorate. As a protectorate it was an independent state under its own rulers and laws, but they were subject to Roman authority. Judaea became a Roman Province in the early 1st Century A.D. (I believe it was 6 A.D., to be exact, but I could be mistaken on the year). It was only under Roman occupation after it became a province of the empire.

My source is the Loeb Classical Library Transliteration of Books I & II of The Jewish War Against the Romans by FLAVIVS IOSEPHVS, which I am currently reading for the 3rd or 4th time (First time for the LCL transliteration, though).

Your Obedient Servant,

R.H. Ralls

OBSTITVM TYRANNIS OBOEDIENTIA DEO

REGEM NIHIL HABEMVS PRAETER IESVM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.230.146 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Antipathy of observant Jews?

The sentence

This religious self-identification notwithstanding, the Herodians were to a large extent Hellenistic in culture, which would have earned them the antipathy of observant Jews .

implies that rejection of Hellinism was a necessary condition for being an observant jew. Surely not everyone felt hellenism to be incomaptible with judaism then, since Herod himself presumably would have considered himself observant. It would make more sense to specify which segments of the community would have rejected hellenism. 128.255.140.147 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No because like the Romans, the Greeks had conquered the Jews under Alexander and ruled them under the Selucid empire. They were pagans and therefore blasphemous. Hence, it was widely percieved that any Hellenistic or Greco-Roman culture would be wrong or sin. Furthermore, the Jews were in moral and social conflict with the Samaritans who despite their ethnicity were culturally similar to the Jews. If the Jews hated the Samaritans that much, then they would have hated their Greco-Roman conquerors/occupiers more so.Tourskin 00:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But the Greco-Roman domination of the region had by then lasted nearly 400 years. It seems implausible that Hellenistic culture had born no influence on Jewish society while leaving such a deep impression on every other culture in the region, all the way to India. Much of the general population spoke a greek dialect, Koine. Christianity itself arose from syncretism between Jewish theology and Greek philosophy, so clearly some tendency towards syncretism was already in the air. I won't try to hide my ignorance, but I have the feeling that to simply say the Jews hated and rejected Hellenistic culture without specifying which Jews at what time in history, and what elements of of Hellenism is to make a hopeless oversimplification. Perhaps the topic deserves its own article. 128.255.140.147 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Lasting for 400 years made it worse. Remember, part of the Jewish faith at the time was that a Messiah would deliver them from hundreds of years of foreign occupation. On top of that, the Jews had freedom from Roman and Greek rule on a number of ocassions, like during various riots and during the successful rebellion against the Seleucid empire, allowing them to reject Hellenism and uphold Jewish culture so that when the Greco-Roman domination returned, they would once more be at odds with it. You also say that Christianity arose from Greek and Jewish philosophy, true but then again the Jews that did not believe in Jesus as the Son of God despised the Christians for their interactions with the Greeks and Gentiles in their attempts to convert them as can be seen in many instances in the Bible where the Jewish leaders despise Peter (I think it was Peter). Further evidence is very clear with the Roman's Pagan religion which defiled Monotheistic Jewish tradition, the glorification and idolism of the Emperor as a God, the taxes enforced upon them by the Romans to continue their occupation and the numerous rebellions throughout. I am afraid that the evidence is overwhelming. In many history text books regarding the founding of Israel, it is stressed that the Jews kept teh cultue throughtout the Medieval world despite having no homeland. It is therefore highly likely that when they did have a homeland (though an occupied homeland) they would have retained their culture. Perhaps there were some Jews in Alexandria and some throughout who had picked up certain dialects and cultures but these were seen as samaritans sometimes and other times were seen as traitors. Other times they did not absorb much culture to be indifferent from the Israelis of the time.Tourskin 02:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

the above is just private speculation, and not very well informed at that. There was absolutely no contradition between being Hellenistic in culture and Jewish in religion, see Hellenistic Judaism. Claims to the contrary would need to be referenced and attributed. --dab (𒁳) 20:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Herod's Arab origin

Herod was born in southern Palestine; his father, Antipater, was an Edomite (an Arab from the region between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba). Antipater was a man of great influence and wealth, who increased both by marrying the daughter of a noble from Petra (in southwestern Jordan), at that time the capital of the rising Nabataean kingdom. Thus Herod was, although a practicing Jew, of Arab origin on both sides.

I think this interesting information should be there and not removed. Thanks. See the following references for that: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9040191/Herod http://www.maat.it/livello2-i/erode-i.htm http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/e-h/herod01.html

Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 00:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is misleading. First of all, Herod was born in Idumea. It was not called Palestine but "Israel and Yehuda (Judea)" until Hadrian changed the name in 2 CE to Palestine, based on the name of the Greek inhabitants called Plishitim (Philistines) after the Jewish revolt was suppressed. The Arabs date from the 7th century. They were called Arabs because they came from Saudi Arabia. The Idumeans were not Arabs. They didn't have the same religion or the same language, and they do not exist anymore as a people. The Idumeans converted to Judaism 50 years before Herod was born. So Herod had Semitic origins, but not Arab origins.--Gilabrand 05:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a passage from Josephus about the conversion of the Idumeans:

Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews. Antiquities of the Jews - Book XIII chap. 9--Gilabrand 05:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How exactly was he ethnically an "Arab" as the article states? If he was an Edomite, that's what the article should say, speaking Arabic doesn't make you an ethnic Arab. Funkynusayri 04:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there are a lot of misconceptions here... Arabs have been in Palestine since 2500 BC[2]. Many Arabian tribes were present in ancient Syria and Palestine... The fact that Herod is an Arab is well -established just like Ghassanids were Arabs, Nabateans, and even Canaanites [3] are reported to have been an extension of tribes from Arabia... I do not know why you are removing this well known information from the article for no obvious reason. It is even in britannica. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 04:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, if he was an Edomite, that's what it should say, as it's more specific. Funkynusayri 05:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

but Edomites were just like the Nabateans, some pagan Arabic tribe. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 05:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Almaqdisi - the information you are putting in is incorrect. This article is about Herod and not about Arabs. Clearly you are trying to push some agenda that doesn't belong here. Personally, I don't know why you should be so insistent on claiming this raving lunatic as "one of your own"...--Gilabrand 07:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What agenda, and what are you talking about. I am adding correct information. That is it. I did not invent this, it is in all other encyclopedias. This is consistent with the article Antipater_the_Idumaean. There, the Arab ancestry of Antipater, called al-Hareth in Arabic, is also mentioned and has been there since a long time. Removing this information is your problem, it is not mine. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 02:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Another article from Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. Using the word "Arab" is misleading because the people Herod was descended from were not Arabs, as I already pointed out at considerable length above, and they did not speak Arabic. The term is anachronistic. If you are the scholar you claim to be on your user page, you would know that, or accept the facts when they are presented in a clear way, with references. I saw you used a Britannica reference to back up your claim but that source sounds like a simplified watered-down Britannica for kids, very different from the scholarly print edition (which I consulted).--Gilabrand 07:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In any case this isn't really the article to make those claims in. The status of the Edomites is better treated in an article like Edom, instead of having debate about it in every single individual biography. This article should just call him an Edomite and leave the debate over what an Edomite was to that article. --Delirium 18:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Idumeans were descended from Edom son of Isaac. How can they ever be considered Arab???? Again, they practiced Judaism and were descended from Isaac--if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a Jew! 75.92.157.120 (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)WittyMan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.205.99 (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Eclipse confusion

A partial eclipse took place on March 13, 4 BC,{(this is wrong: the dates are mashed its either March 23 4 BC: being a partial eclipse or March 13 3 BC: being a total eclipse)

The above commentary was recently edited in the article. The confusion probably arises because the NASA catalog at the cited http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LE-0099-0000.html uses 0 for 1 BC, -1 for 2 BC and so on. It has these lines for 5 BC and 4 BC.

                     TD of    
Cat     Calendar   Greatest          Luna Saros Ecl.       
Num       Date      Eclipse     ΔT    Num  Num  Type 
                                s                    

04811 -0004 Mar 23  21:17:09  10572 -24784  061   T- 
04812 -0004 Sep 15  23:07:42  10567 -24778  066   T- 
04813 -0003 Mar 13  03:37:06  10562 -24772  071   P  

Note -0004 means 5 BC and -0003 means 4 BC. Ecl. Type T means Total, P means Partial. Therefore the NASA cite supports the claim "A partial eclipse took place on March 13, 4 BC", and the commentary "{(this is wrong: the dates are mashed its either March 23 4 BC: being a partial eclipse or March 13 3 BC: being a total eclipse)" is mistaken. I have removed the commentary. -84user (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Second sentence

The second sentence reads, 'He was described as "a madman who murdered his own family and a great many rabbis."' Following the link, we see that this is part of a blurb on a website, "A Crash Course in Jewish History". This is absurdly inappropriate. Because some unknown person "described" Herod that way, and that it's such a sensational statement, are no reasons to allow this judgment to play such a prominent part in the article. Herod was one of the richest, most powerful people in the Roman Empire. If he were a madman, wouldn't his contemporaries have noticed? It's true that he had some of his sons executed, but not "his family". He was in a position that such executions didn't constitute murder at all, and they were, for the most part, justifiable, both on political grounds and because the sons attempted to have him killed or deposed. They were his rivals, and if given the succession to his kingship, would have ruined his hopes for the kingdom. As for "a great many rabbis", I don't know what sort of people qualified as rabbis in that era, but evidence for the statement is lacking. What he did do was to appoint people of his choosing to the priesthood of the temple in Jerusalem, disrupting the hereditary line of priests. There were good reasons for that, too. Is Wikipedia to pervert history to such an extent that Herod be remembered mainly as a madman? His importance to the rulers of Rome was immense, since it was he to whom many important Roman aristocrats turned for help in financing their incredibly expensive banquets. It was he who controlled the wealth listed in the Copper Scroll, which was astonishing by any standards. It was he, too, who was mainly responsible for accumulating that wealth. I don't know much about Herod, but this emphasis on phony psychiatry is dreadfully misplaced. Unfree (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

converted to Judaism under duress

I'm guessing that Herod converted under duress. Not sure enough to change it myself, but it seems to be a mistake 98.17.87.70 (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What?! Guessing? "Not sure enough to change it"? It "seems to be a mistake"? What nonsense! Unfree (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Syntax problem

I have a problem with the writing in the Biography section of this article. Specifically, the third sentence, second paragraph: "However, since ... Jewish society". The sentence sould be could be interpreted to mean "However, from the moment that H.'s family ... Jewish society"; alternatively, it could be taken to mean "However, because H.'s family converted ... Jewish society." The problem is the ambiguity of the word 'since'. Casual research in printed encyclopedias has not made me certain enough about this subject to edit the sentence, so I am posting my issue here. Perhaps someone can help?

Archphil (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The intended meaning is "because". The sentence should read something like "Because Herod was a convert he was considered a lesser Jew". Poliocretes (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks Archphil (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again: BC -v- BCE

Quite aware of the tenacity with which some of my fellow-Christians like to cling on to BC and AD under any circumstances, and also the heated past discussion of the subject in Wikipedia, I nevertheless consider it a pity that in the article itself "Before Christ" is used. This way of dating is not particularly suited for a piece of predominantly Jewish history in an encyclopedia that aims to be free of any form of bias. Whilst BCE/CE have their own problems, they are a step in the right direction. In view not least of the mistake in calculating the year 1, perhaps one day the international community gets round to introducing BWD/WD = Before World Date/World Date, or some such solution; but right now we have to make do with what we have got and be sensible and sensitive about it. 22:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.135.70 (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I really take pity on any article that uses BCE notation. One of our editors has previously said that in a survey BC is more prevalent by a factor of 50 to 1! BC is the only standard used, understood and preferred by the vast majority of the general public, who are, after all, our target audience. Whatever personal views any of us have, we must be sensitive to the needs of our audience (not of the audience of other publications). Also, we already have a policy, backed up by an ArbCom decision, of "no changes", so let's keep things as they are (ie on BC notation), jguk 05:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The history of the Jews in Herod's day is surely a subject which has historically been of greater interest to Christians than to Jews, isn't it? While Josephus, our main source for the period, was himself a Jew, his works were mostly preserved by Christians, while the Talmudic scholars and their successors were never terribly interested, and what they did say was simply inaccurate. john k 06:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

a) Josephus did not write with hindsight, i.e. he could not have known that he would owe the preservation of his writings to Christian authors because of their interest in the sacred sites he describes – especially once they had been built over, and later when for long periods pilgrimages were not possible because of the political realities –, nor which of the subjects he recorded would interest posterity at any one time in history. Josephus' opus is part of the patrimony of his people; and they have a right to focus on some aspects to the exclusion of others during their own journey through time. In modern times the historian has come to be respected for his accuracy regardless of the individual scholars' religious persuasion; and considerable efforts are being made also to understand the man.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.135.11 (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how this is even vaguely relevant. You called this a piece of "predominantly Jewish history." But while Herod's time is of course a part of the history of the Jews, it is one of the particular parts of the history of the Jews which has always been of much greater interest to Christians than to Jews, and which continues to be of greater interest to Christians than to Jews. As such, I don't see how it can be described as "predominantly Jewish history" - it is clearly an important part of both Jewish and Christian history. john k 05:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Care to borrow my copy of Josephus? There is even an edition excerpting just the Herodian history. Herod is as relevant to the history of the Jewish people as Hitler is to that of the history of the German nation. As a born West German I trust I have a right to say this concerning German history. 22:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.135.11 (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I am not trying to deny that Herod is relevant to the history of the Jewish people. I am merely saying that he is just as relevant, if not more so, to the history of early christianity, and that his reign is thus not a topic of preeminent interest to the Jews. And I simply don't understand your comment about Josephus. Josephus was a Jew, and he discussed Herod a lot, yes. But Josephus's emphases were irrelevant to the Talmudic commentators who codified the modern, post-70 AD, form of Judaism, and to whom Herod was not terribly significant. john k 23:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

For a third party view on the extent of Herod's relevance for Jewish history cf. [4].

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.129.8 (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

As regards the Christian faith, the Herod incident is not crucial to it. Even without it the Christian belief would not be affected in any way. 14:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

b) What is Wikipedia's "target audience"? Just to claim to have a "target audience" suggests that Wikipedia is not free from bias. Does "the general public" consist only of Christians? Is it only "the audience" that matters or also the contributors, in which case is only "the general public" contributing or also learned scholars, and is there not often a great deal of cross-referencing? Why do we Christians have to insist on a "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" dating of subjects that go beyond purely Christian interest? Why do we have to walk all over Jewish people and what is closely and indeed predominantly related to them, such as their own history? For example, the so-called Massacre of the Innocents is just one incident in Herod's hugely eventful life that proportionately is therefore of vastly greater interest to such diverse disciplines as intertestamental studies, archeology and Roman history. Can we Christians not be tolerant of those of a divergent religious belief? After all, the Almighty who created us all, gave us a free will as the noblest expression of our human dignity, and Himself respects it; and this means freedom of choice, though also responsibility for one's choices, including concerning religious belief. I have no idea how the majority of Jewish contemporaries think about BCE/CE; but until a more inclusive dating method can be agreed by all peoples, is "Before Common Era"/"Common Era" not a sign of a budding willingness to treat each other according to the human dignity with which we were created?

c) What does it mean to take pity on articles using BCE dating? Is the use of BC and AD intended to be a tool of evangelization? Hit others over the head with it where they cannot escape it, e.g. when they seek information about their own history? As a Christian, a traditional Roman Catholic, I may lament the erosion of Christian living in our country; but in our modern multi-faith society I must also be mindful of the sensitivities of non-Christians. I do not see how someone who does not believe that the Christ has already come, can reasonably be expected to reckon the dates of their history by relating them to the Christ's past date of birth.

23:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.135.11 (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the issue of BC/AD vs BCE/CE is not dire to the faith of Christians. It is sad that Christians waste precious time arguing and sniveling over this silliness, rather than fulfilling the Great Commission, Great Commandment and the calling Christ gave us in Matthew 25. It is silly on the one hand because I don't think Christ was concerned to have time marked after him, and on the other hand, what does BCE/CE really accomplish. It is true that if you eliminate "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" non-Christians won't have to suffer the horrible, dreadful, cruel injustice of hearing the name of Christ (this is sarcasm of course), or Latin for that matter (maybe scientists will stop with the Latin as well). Yet, they would still have to accept the fact that BCE/CE is still centered around the birth of that pesky Jesus that everyone is so offended by. The only way that this terrible injustice could be resolved is if we were to start from 0, or some other historical event other than Christ's birth. Anyone in support of being sensitive to those of other faiths needs to ask the questions, "Why are we in the common era? What makes the era common? Who or what sparks the big Common Era bang?" Is it important to prove who is right on this issue? Is this what Jesus would want? Of course not! I don't care how time and eras are marked. It is not important, and I just don't understand why Christians get so wrapped up in trivial, mundane, and worldly things. ServantKing2005 01:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon, just as we reflect (but do not decide) on the facts, similarly we should reflect on how our audience is likely to wish to read things. This is true of all publications, we are no different. Clearly different decisions on style will be made by different publications - something would have gone seriously awry if that were not the case. Here our audience is everyone - wherever they may be worldwide, as long as they may be looking on the internet for English language information - and therefore it is that audience (and that audience alone) that we should take note of, jguk 23:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

My two cents are definitely that the "BCE" terminology is even more essential in article that is integral to dating the birth of Jesus-- for both christian and non-christian audiences. "Herod died in 4BC, Jesus was born before Herod died, therefore Jesus was born before 4 BC". Surely, many in the audience would find this a confusing contradiction. I also, like some, find BC/AD to be (very slightly) POV, and would welcome all of wikipedia standardizing BCE/CE usage. I personally find myself wanting to give in to the temptation to become a Era Notation Czar, as I'm sure many of you do. (jguk has done over 1,000 edits changing CE->AD, so he, like I, no doubt has thoughts he too cares deeply about on this subject). But on the other hand, whichever notation is used, everyone knows which year they refer to-- and i suppose i the important point. Most people who use the BC/AD notation on wikipedia probably do so not out of any kind of religious furvor, but merely due to simple convention. Any changes to the notation are still contentious indeed (see Wikipedia:Eras). But the first author on this article used BC, who am I to change it? Alecmconroy 08:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the debate between using BC and BCE. Even if you use BCE (Before Current Era), what is the basis for the starting point of the current era? It is the birth of Jesus. Some hate God so much they would even seek to rewrite the history of Western Civilization. If you wish to be intellectually honest, propose changing the numbering system all together (which the Bible predicts the Little Horn will attempt to do). Go ahead and fill up your hate to the full. The nations rage but. . . . . Unsigned comment by 70.141.151.190

Does this mean I'm the Little Horn? Cool. I'd always figured I was going to have some role in the end times. --Alecmconroy 03:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding to this rather pointless argument (considering that BCE and BC are exactly the same dating) I believe that using BCE insults my Christian religion. I would like to ask if Arab wikipedia has dropped the Islamic date from its articles. Or any langauge of wikipedia. To those of you who do not find BC/AD very appealing - what difference does it make what letter you use, no offence but it doesn't mena anything to whoever does not wish to use it, so why bother, its just a few letters. This is yet another political correctness plague. People, we have other areas that wikipedia need attending to without having Political Correctness choke our articles with pointless and inconsequential changes, bearing no additional value. Tourskin 00:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

BC arose as a historical accident and was never designed to convey any political point. BCE was invented specifically to make a political point and is therefore divisive and irritating. Henry von Blumenthal 26 April 2010

In what way is this article predominantly Jewish? Many Muslims and Christians no doubt find this page quite important to themselves. This article is no more Jewish than the Latin language is Christian. Tourskin 01:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the article is predominantly jewish, however i am under the strong impression that what we know and think about H. is actually indeed all jewish reporting. Not that i mind, they have been the people bothered by him obviously, so that legend has it he hated them specifically is not surprising. I guess it will be mostly considered blaphemy (for the sake of encyclopedism or wever:) but how about thinking on the line that every oppressor has been accused of killing children? That it was just a clichee held against an unwanted ruler? Even in the 21st century the death of children lifts things out of a context where usual deaths are not counted, memorised or even witnessed. (for a simple example of this effect, look at how youths death play a defining role in recent usian processes of military misbehaviour.) I think this is all just mingling and manipulating with the clichees, where the actual problems are not assessed. H. , building mounts and having 18000 people at work on his palaces would indeed have been an impressive slavedriver, and acutely responsible for the death of 100s, not in the least children.77.248.56.242 10:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to get personal, but where are your sources that Herod was filled with clichees? In fact it would be an insane more than an evil ruler who killed children because thats destroying your population which (along with increased crime and food demand) brings power etc. I don't know of any ruler before or after Herod who killed children.Tourskin 05:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Lingua Franca of pilots is English. French has its "areas" too. (This is not a political comment of what France did/does in diplomacy). If someone publicized an alternate reading for the current era's letters, the first word of which translates to AFTER and the second letter were suggestive of an insult, would that violate Wiki norms?

AFTER DEATH would be neutral to some, but AFTER DESTROYER would probably seem offensive, despite the provable number of deaths that would have had no basis prior (i.e. BCE). The D of Dom... is a pledge of allegiance to some. Forcing this into the English World Wide Wiki is trying to make a particular religion be dominant.

That is against the Wiki constitution. In an article on a Christian subject, I would not expect to find Islamic dates. In an article that involves ANYTHING related to Jewish history, I would expect BCE/CE, unless one subscribes to what is written by some that Jesus was a Palestinian, in which case simply use Islamic dates. self ID = Useless comment to those who only want to DOMINATE based on numbers, but perhaps a YEAH BUT to those with at least something resembling one ear unblocked 06:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not making sense. In an article related to Jewish history, I can see that you wouldn't want to use a Christian calendar, but why would you want to use BCE/CE? This could just as easily stand for Before Christ Era and Christ Era as Before Common Era and Common Era, being as they are both based on the approximate birth of Christ. Surely, in an article about Jewish history, you'd want to use the Jewish calendar i.e. Herod the Great died around the year 3756. Surely this discussion about BC/AD vs BCE/CE is just semantics and has no other relevance. If you want to use the Christian calendar, pick BC/BCE AD/CE (whatever suits you). Otherwise (if using a Christian calendar bothers you) pick a calendar that is relevant to the article you are writing. Self ID - Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.195.186.33 (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"B.C.E." is a mere plagiarism of a previosuly established dating system originating from the Church of Rome. I will not acknowedge it myself and will persist in using the politically incorrect B.C. until I pass.

My attitude about this is either:

A. Create a new dating system not based on the life of Yehoshua, or

B. Continue to use the system established by the Church of Rome and in common use in the West.

I reject the idea of modifying the terms for semantical reasons. The dating system is based on the life of Yehoshua and that is its truth. I can understand why secular and non-Christian people would not prefer to use such a system, but that is the system in use in the West. Either create a new one, or use the one that exists as it exists.

Your Obedient Servant,

R. H. Ralls

OBSTITVM TYRANNIS OBOEDIENTIA DEO

REGEM NIHIL HABEMVS PRAETER IESVM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.230.146 (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We could switch to 5771 AM (Anno Mundi) and I would think the "People of the Book" could come to that commonality, and 6010 AL (Anno Lucis) for Freemasonry's sake. Would September or October become the new January? Now do we add 1 year or subtract 1 year?

The problem then becomes a dating system for those who believe in no Creator/Creation. There is simply no reference point for a start date for that calendar. I'm sure they could guess at one.

My point is that BCE/CE is still a Religiously based tool of time. And when you reduce it to the ridiculous (which I'm sure someone here could do a better job of it than I did) the initial argument becomes frail. And if BCE/CE is used by a non-Christian and feels better for it, than I feel sorry for them because its not much different than bleaching a mustache thinking it will hide it. Common Era, really? 75.81.181.220 (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• In this particular article, there's a special reason to use BCE -- the problem is that the years involved in our calendar are not actually dated precisely from the year when Christ is believed to have been born, but (due to error in the original calculations involved) from a few years later. Normally this error is not important, but in this particular article it is extremely important, because Herod is universally agreed to have died BC / BCE. Giving the dates in BC / AD gives the appearance of a contradiction with the Christian belief in the massacre of the innocents, since obviously Herod could not have ordered it if he were already dead when Christ was born; while there may still be a contradiction (depending on when you believe Herod's exact death and Christ's exact birth were) using BCE / CE here makes it clear that the years are not precisely dated from Christ's birth, and therefore avoids the apparent contradiction of the biblical Herod ordering an execution from the grave. --Aquillion (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As i understand it, the BC/AD from the original article should be retained. That is wiki policy. If you check history that is the way it was written originally. I move that we change it back to conform to wiki policy. Overseer19XX (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)26 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that adding BC/BCE and AD/CE will solve 99% of conflicts on this topic.Overseer19XX (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such dating is contrary to WP:ERA, which explicitly proscribes use of multiple dating systems, unless I'm mistaken. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 23:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

King of Israel

A few weeks ago Kuratowski's Ghost added a bunch of references to "King of Israel" in to this article, with the talk message "idea that the region did not bear this name is erroneous, see for example Gospel of Matthew and references". Can anyone provide direct sources for this? Searching the four gospels (here) and Josephus (here), only Matthew and Luke use the word to refer to an area, and this appears to be "metaphorical". There is NO reference to Herod as the "King of Israel" - all other sources suggest he was appointed the "King of the Jews" or "King of the Judeans" or "King of Judea" depending on how you choose to translate the primary texts. I am pretty sure Israel was not a geo-political term at this point - if it was, then it would be logical that there was a Roman text referring to Israel. Can anyone provide further insight on this? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been actioned. In a discussion on User talk:Kuratowski's Ghost, the user stated that he was aware of only a single source which referred to Herod as King of Israel here. This source is clearly using the term euphemistically. Google books has c.2,000 hits for "herod king of judea", c.900 hits for "herod king of judaea", but only 44 (fourty four) hits for "herod king of israel". This WP:FRINGE reference to Herod as King of Israel has been removed Oncenawhile (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

His title was "King of the Jews", according to Josephus:

Jewish War 1.14.4: Mark Antony " …then resolved to get him made king of the Jews… told them that it was for their advantage in the Parthian war that Herod should be king; so they all gave their votes for it. And when the senate was separated, Antony and Caesar went out, with Herod between them; while the consul and the rest of the magistrates went before them, in order to offer sacrifices [to the Roman gods], and to lay the decree in the Capitol. Antony also made a feast for Herod on the first day of his reign;"

75.15.200.190 (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Other translations:

Project Gutenberg : "king of the Jews"

Tufts University Perseus project: "king of the Jews"

ccel.org: "king of the Jews"

75.15.200.190 (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources please. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Either you're completely clueless or you're just wikilawyering. Tufts University isn't a reliable source? Whatever. Good job Orangemarlin at contributing to wikipedia nonsense. Here's a book you can look up at your library or google books, your choice: Josephus The Jewish War, Penguin classics, London, revised edition by Mary Smallwood, 1981, page 64: "king of the Jews". 75.15.197.71 (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe you're an Encylopedia Britannica kind of guy? Encyclopedia Britannica: HEROD (surnamed THE GREAT): "At Athens and elsewhere he was commemorated as a benefactor; and as Jew and king of the Jews he restored the temple at Jerusalem ." 75.15.197.71 (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Or how about this? The Cambridge Journals online review of Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans. by Peter Richardson. Fortress Press, 1999. Pp. xxv + 360.. Of course this really isn't about wikipedia reliable sources, is it Orangemarlin? So, why don't you tell us what it's really about? 75.15.197.71 (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Another ref:

Jewish Encyclopedia: Numismatics: Coins of the Herodians: "His son Herod became, by favor of the Romans, king of the Jews, nominally at the end of 41 B.C., and actually in 37; and he reigned undisturbedly for thirty-three years (till 4 B.C.)."

75.14.209.202 (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

First, personal attacks aren't going to get you far around here. No one is agreeing with your point of view. But if you want to attack me, well trust me, but an anonymous IP editor is not going to make me stop standing up for a neutral point of view. By the way, see WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

reverting to BC/AD

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herod_the_Great&oldid=231864 the original is BC/AD. WP:ERA says it goes back to BC/AD. Is there any confusion as to the original era of the article? Overseer19XX (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to keep BCE/CE

Change was made to BCE 2009-MAR-14. Since that has been quite stable for over 2 years, I propose a consensus now be explicitly establshed to keep BCE. --JimWae (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support because, even though I personally feel the BC/AD designations are traditionally better, in academic works, BCE/CE seems to be preferred. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 21:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Why disrupt the stability of the past two years. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 22:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Mainly because BC/AD represents an xtian POV that's not appropriate in an NPOV article. Also per Bubba. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Because only xtians believe that he existed. Atheists don't, for example. BC means "before christ", so we're setting up a system of dates based on an nonexistent thing. If that's not an Xtian POV, I don't know what is.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, no. Many atheists & other nonXns accept his existence as likely being true. What nonXns have a problem with is using a nomenclature that calls him Lord & Saviour/Messiah/Christ--JimWae (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

So "St." is OK because its not "Saint", and "pbuh" is OK as long as hardly anyone knows what it means?--JimWae (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope I put enough indents here. This is not a discussion about the existence of a mythical being. It is about an Xtian POV bias when using BC/AD. That's it. An admin should really delete everything from this point up to my "Support". OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

* Oppose because the edit JimWae cites shows clearly that the editor who arbitrarily made the change to BCE did so while using the intentionally deceptive edit summary "changing image description". His edit clearly violated WP:ERA, and there is nothing written in that specific guideline saying that an extended period of silence following such an apparently deceptive edit automatically builds consensus. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 13:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• • But: 1> He did change the image description. 2>More importantly, look at the very [5] next edit, 2 minutes later, by the same user, which clearly states what he has done. 3> Consensus can also be established implicitly, when a change is announced clearly (either in an edit summary or on the talk page), stands stable for an extended period of time, with little or no opposition ever being expressed.--JimWae (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my "vote" to Neutral because although I think the change to BCE in this case was sneaky and unwarranted, I'm willing to accept JimWae's above comments and now am indifferent to whether BCE stays at this particular article. It's unfortunate that the unwarranted changed wasn't noticed until 2 years later, but so be it. What irritates me is some of the commentators on here blatantly accusing BC/AD of explicit Christian POV and expecting that to somehow be an argument for why the user who initially changed BC to BCE was justified. He wasn't—just read our policy. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 22:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose As stated above. (kinda new, but i get a vote right?)14:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's not a vote, because we don't vote. It's to determine consensus, and right now there isn't consensus, so the BC/BCE would stand.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

there was never a consensus to change it in the first place, so then it goes back.Overseer19XX (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support per UncleBubba's "in academic works... preferred." BC/AD is explicitly a Christian POV. I don't see anyone arguing that we should use the Hebrew numbering, or any of the Roman numberings, even though those could be said to apply here. Years of editorial silence following a change do imply a degree of consensus, IMO. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Since User:Orangemarlin doesn't want to reply to my question, can I humbly ask you why you think BC/AD are "explicitly a Christian POV"?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 15:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Right on the face of them, they say so: there is the C in BC, and the D in AD. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

BC/AD is no more "Christian" then CE/BCE, as they are both based on a date of a man born on aprox 1BC/BCE. The reason behind BC/AD is recognizability among the general public. CE/BCE is not an alternative dating system, it is simply a newer (400 year old?) abbreviation that never caught on. Attempting to revive it VIA wikipedia is a futile attempt.Overseer19XX (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no need for a "revival": "The ratio of usage of BCE to BC and CE to AD in books has changed dramatically between the years 1800 and 2008, particularly since 1980." --JimWae (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, BC/AD is a bit more "Christian" than BCE/CE, since it incorporates the name or title of the messiah. That's the "explicit" part. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Since atheists and others don't accept that a nonexistent man was the messiah, it is explicitly POV towards xtians. Case closed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yo CIS. I watch 5000 articles. I actually write articles. I revert vandalism on 5000 articles. I also lead a real life. To state that I "don't want to reply to your question" is considered a personal attack and lacking good faith. Don't do that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, I'm confused. In your reply above ("so the BC/BCE would stand"), did you really mean "BC/BCE" or did you mean "CE/BCE"? I was thinking the latter but wanted to make sure I didn't misunderstand. — UncleBubba ^{( T @  C )} 19:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

CE/BCE....though if the consensus was for BC/BCE and AD/CE, I wouldn't fall over with a stroke. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well my apologies, but you had replied to the discussion immediately below, so I'd simply assumed you had read my addition and chose not to reply. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 21:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I try not to ignore everyone. But I'm watching so many conversations, that I do occasionally miss things. OK, so let's get back to the discussion.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

To Overseer19XX: It appears (on WP:CONSENSUS) the passage of some (unspecified) period of time after something is changed may be taken as prima facie evidence of a consensus which kinda does, I reckon, seem logical.

Finally, to "kinda new": WELCOME! We're not "voting" here, per se (see WP:!VOTE; we're discussing the issue and trying to establish consensus. It would help your fellow editors if you signed your posts with four tilde symbols, like this: ~~~~ Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support, as nominator. The change made 2 years ago to BCE was 1> announced, 2>stable for a long time, & 3>not opposed for a long time. (We cannot here determine which notation is less biased, tho we each might have our own ideas.) --JimWae (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. A) BC/AD is the most common dating system in the English language. BCE/CE is just yet another measure of PC. B) This article began with BC/AD. C) If you wish to count the time of use: this article spent more time with BC/AD than with BCE/CE. Flamarande (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  Another thing: Did somebody change the title of this section? I'm reading many 'support' votes with arguments for BCE/CE, but the proposal seems to be in favour of restoring BC/AD. So if you casting 'support' you're technically supporting BC/AD. Flamarande (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  I have put a subheading in and bolded the proposal to clarify what has been proposed (& understood by all so far). BCE/CE is fully supported by the WP:MOS, regardless of anyone's opinion about "PC". The MOS also allows that era notation CAN be changed, and that consensus can be either explicit (discussion) or implicit (notice + acceptance). This has nothing to do with which was in use longest, but rather which has most recently been accepted as established. As a matter of curiosity, have you ever edited this article or talk page before?--JimWae (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact I have (very little I'm afraid). As a matter of curiosity: what has that to do with this proposal at all ? Did you ask this question to other voters? Are you perchance in favour of restricting "voting rights" to a select few? I also wish to point out that the change 2009-MAR-14 was clearly against WP:ERA. Simply put it was a sneaky change, which AFAIK was not announced, requested or debated at all. Flamarande (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

First, there is no vote here. So there are no "voting rights." Where are you getting these ideas? These "polls" are to determine consensus to change. That's it. Since BCE/CE is the current usage, and has been for several years, changing it would require a strong consensus. In fact, the consensus appears to keep BCE/CE. The change was made, no one complained, case closed. Oh, and BCE/CE isn't political correctness. It is academically the choice these days. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

BCE is PC and all of us know it (if we are honest to admit this is another issue). BC/AD is simply the most common form as far as the English language is concerned. It was a sneaky change and contrary to WP:ERA and IF the case is as you say 'closed' then may I ask what is the whole purpose of this request? Flamarande (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As noted in talk above in THIS section, the change was announced in an edit summary 2 minutes later by the same editor--JimWae (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Noted, but nevertheless it was clearly against WP:ERA: Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors. . There was NO substantial reason at all and there was NO consensus at the time. The change wasn't requested and User:Colt .55 didn't announce it in the talkpage, it was NOT debated with other users and there was NO agreement of any sort. Flamarande (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is a solid reason to change (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism/Manual_Of_Style#Gregorian-Calendar_Dates) and there was consensus: no one took issue with the change for 2 years. Guettarda (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Since when does a Wikiproject dictate Policy over articles? I thought there are other instances in these matters. You also seem to be mistaken: issue was taken in those 2 years. See the following edits [6] [7]. There was not CE/BCE between 7 May 2009 until 7 July 2009 when the switch was reverted by User:Paul August [8]. Then it happened yet again (was changed towards BC/AD) until another change towards BCE/CE [9]. there were even more of these changes. Who said that the article was stable wit BCE/CE for 2 years? That's simply not true, and it can be checked in this article's history. The article was changed back and forth several times in those two years. Flamarande (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep BCE/CE: I see a solid case to keep, and none to change. To begin with, it has been stable for 2 years, so that counts as consensus. So is there a "good reason" to switch? Calling it "politically correct" is a non-starter. Wikipedia is a monument to political correctness (NPOV,

multilingualism, ENGVAR, the naming conventions, CIVIL...) and for the last 6 years BCE/CE and BC/AD have stood as equally acceptable alternatives - a compromise that developed after hundreds of editors had input into the debate. The main argument against changing the system from BCE/CE to BC/AD is that we should not impose supercessionist POV on articles about Jewish figures. BC means "Before Christ"; implicit therein is the assertion that Jesus (after whom the system was named) was the promised Messiah. AD goes even further to assert that Jesus was, in fact, God. Guettarda (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In other words (and please correct me if I'm wrong): All articles about "Jewish subjects" (the subject of the articles is important to Jewish history or culture) should use BCE/CE because we don't to hurt other peoples feelings, right? That's political correctness. What you're not seeing is that these days BC/AD have all but lost their religious meaning. Today they are just the most common dating system and not proclamations of Christian propaganda (ceased to be such a long time ago). Flamarande (talk) PS: Make a sneaky change and hope it gets unnoticed for 2 years. That's the new way to reach consensus in Wikipedia. Flamarande (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If, as you claim, BC & AD "have all but lost their religious meaning", why would so many Xn groups be giving religious reasons for opposing CE & BCE? BC means "before the Messiah/Saviour/Christ". AD means "Year of Our/The LORD". Most people, even if they forget what AD means, know it has something to do with honoring Jesus. Arguing that "BCE/CE is PC" or that "AD/BC has lost religious meaning" has no relevance here.--JimWae (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, here are my honest reasons:

1. Ppl who use BCE/CE didn't invent a new calendar (with its own beginning) confusing a lot of readers who never saw CE/BCE before (it honestly confused me first time I saw it). They are simple "twisters" (they want to twist something around their own personal views).
2. IMHO what's BCE/CE? It's simply a pitiful measure of political correctness and nothing more. It's something like this: we are now going to use this religious neutral "BCE/CE", if you like it or not. It is neutral because I say so. This way we and everybody else can still use the western calendar but officially deny its cultural and religious origins in order not to hurt the personal feelings of NON-Christians.
3. No reasonable person is going to fall for that one. Does anyone for a second believe that an atheist, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or any non-Christian is going to be offended in his personal sensibilities by the use of AD/BC when he is using the English language? He will be offended only if he wants/wishes to be offended by it. Most of us will be offended (as I am) by this pitiful PC attempt to deny the impact of Jesus of Nazareth and his teachings upon world history in the name of political correctness or even worse, that "you" think that we are ignorant fools and don't know this and that we will be somehow deceived by the use of BCE/CE.
4. I'm in favour of using BC/AD. I'm an atheist by birth and proud by choice, living in the Western world but that doesn't mean that obliged to be an anti-Christian. Many who are the second (anti-Christians) claim that they are the first (atheists). They give serious and honest atheists a bad reputation.
5. I am not telling anyone that Christianity is good or bad, for that truly depends upon one's personal POV, but its cultural influence (good and bad) upon the world is simply undeniable.
6. BC/AD is simply the most widely used dating system in this world. Its religious origins and meaning are undeniable but utterly irrelevant. Nobody can reasonably argue against these facts. In fact, they are only really used when somebody is writing about ancient history.
7. We live in a increasingly globalized World, which as a whole was and still is culturally influenced by Western civilization if anyone likes it or not. As such the world simply uses the western calendar and that means BC/AD to a overwhelming extent.
8. As far as I can judge this matter BCE/CE is something invented and mostly used by Americans. In Europe is virtually unknown. We shouldn't copy American political correct bullshit - Death to the American dogs! (joke).
9. To subvert the English language for the sake of political correctness is simply disgusting. As a matter of fact BCE/CE isn't being recognized by the automatic text corrector of Firefox. I can only conclude that BCE/CE is not even a common feature of the English language.
10. The compromise in Wikipedia is reasonable and should be respected. AFAIK it wasn't respected in this article.
11. To balkanize the English wiki along cultural/religious lines is foolish. It should be fought with all legal means.
12. I despise political correct ppl who want to rewrite everything around their little pink "neutral" political correct view. Please invent your own neutral dating system instead of subverting the most popular dating system of the world (BC/AD). Much obliged. Flamarande (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

1> BCE/CE is not anti-Xn

2> I am not "offended" when I see AD/BC. I welcome the opportunity to use an alternative - I am bothered when I am "not permitted" to use an alternative.

3a> I think you exaggerate the # of people "confused" by CE/BCE. Lots of people are confused by AD/BC (particularly AD, and no year 0, Jesus being born 4 years Before Christ) too. If we went strictly by what is most familiar to the less-educated, then we might as well write for a children's encyclopedia.

3b> Wikipedia permits usage of BCE/CE. I doubt that will ever change. People of all stripes need to be able to deal with both notations.

3c> If you want to argue that we should use the notation most familiar to the less-educated, you need to argue [elsewhere] that Wikipedia remove all BCE/CE notations

4>You call it PC, others call it having respect for the values of people throughout the global community.

5> one does not have to invent a new postal system to refer to its workers as "postal workers" instead of "mailmen"

6> the Common Era designation originated among Christians in Europe at least as early as 1615 (at first in Latin).[9] --JimWae (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

1> Riiiiight. It's simply PC (and happens to be often used by lots of persons with a axe to grind with Christianity). Flamarande (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

3a> Are you seriously arguing that "lots of [English-speaking] ppl are confused by BC/AD which just happens to be the most common form"? And you're simply wrong: Wikipedia is not and never was intended for any kind of elite. AFAIK the English wiki is intended and written precisely for the "less-educated" common English-speaking ppl whose overwhelming majority (only) knows BC/AD and use it when needed in their every day life. But then i might be mistaken about this. Flamarande (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

3b> This article began with BC/AD and was changed against WP:ERA. It was never stable under BCE/CE (the supposed two years of stability is a "mistake"). Flamarande (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

4> Sensitive as in "we should always censor ourselves in order to suppress the faintest possibility of hurting the feelings of others"? Guess what? I don't like censorship. Flamarande (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You somehow avoided the main argument: BC/AD is simply the most widely used dating system in this world. I don't care about the Christian and European origins of BCE/CE, it simply isn't the most common form in the English language (and the rest is BS) and it is all but unknown in Europe. This article started with BC/AD until it was changed without good reason. Flamarande (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have moved your comments into one grouping. Please do not break up my comments so people cannot tell who wrote what. I mentioned Europe since your comments (e.g.: "As far as I can judge this matter BCE/CE is something invented and mostly used by Americans.")seemed to indicate complete unawareness of the European Xn origin & usage. You have ignored that this is the wrong place to be arguing whether or not to use BCE/CE on wikipedia. If you wish to take this up wiki-wide, I suggest you better inform yourself regarding what is under discussion.--JimWae (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Its origins are largely irrelevant. What truly matter is the most common form in the English language. Flamarande (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• In other words (and please correct me if I'm wrong): All articles about "Jewish subjects" (the subject of the articles is important to Jewish history or culture) should use BCE/CE because we don't to hurt other peoples feelings, right?

  OK, you're wrong. If I had meant to say that, I would have said that.

• That's political correctness.

  And that's a problem why? As I said, Wikipedia is an exercise in political correctness. Not only is there nothing wrong with it, it's a value that suffuses all our policy.

• What you're not seeing is that these days BC/AD have all but lost their religious meaning

  a. It hasn't. b. If it had, then your claim that not using it is "political correctness" is fallacious. You're arguing against yourself here.

• Today they are just the most common dating system and not proclamations of Christian propaganda (ceased to be such a long time ago)

  Again, irrelevant. American English is more common (among first language speakers of English), but we still have ENGVAR. We had a discussion about this 6 years ago. We came to a compromise. If you want to replace that compromise, please engage the community in a discussion and build consensus for that change. Guettarda (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course not, you just wrote that: "we should not impose supercessionist POV on articles about Jewish figures". A true political correct statement. I read it as: We should censor the English wiki in order to suppress the faintest possibility of hurting the feelings of ppl of other culture who may be terribly wounded by the use of the most common dating system in the English language. Flamarande (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC) PS: I might be certainly mistaken: my knowledge about this ambiguous PC language is a bit limited. My knowledge of English in the other hand is reasonable.

Again, if I meant that, I would have said it. You 'read it as' something that it wasn't. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Guettarda (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to admit that you support BCE/CE because it's political correct. Flamarande (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, please stop reading things into my words that aren't there. You call this political correctness. Without agreeing or disagreeing with you, I asked why that would be a problem. Guettarda (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

To impose an uncommon so-called "neutral system" at the expense of the most common form in the name of Political Correctness is simple censorship. I'm not arguing against myself. Flamarande (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If BC/AD has "all but lost their religious meaning" and then claim that it's being excluded because of its religious meaning. You can't argue (A) and (not-A) at the same time. As for "impos[ing] an uncommon so-called 'neutral system'" - in case you missed it, WP:NPOV is a core value of Wikipedia, or as Jimbo put it "non-negotiable". NPOV is deeply PC. And note that BCE/CE is not "an uncommon neutral system", it's an existing, widespread alternative, one which happens to be more compatible with NPOV. Guettarda (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, suddenly the most common dating system has become "irrelevant". IMHO ENGVAR doesn't apply to dating systems; that's the job of WP:ERA. Exactly when did this wiki ceased to be the 'English wiki' and became the 'political correct wiki'? Flamarande (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You are arguing that we should use BC/AD instead of BCE/CE because it is more common. If that was the way we did things around here, then ENGVAR would not exist. The existence of ENGVAR shows that your argument about 'most common' holds no water. As for political correctness - it has been at the core of Wikipedia from the start. NPOV, ENGVAR, multilingualism, the naming conventions, most of our behavioural policies...our core values have always been suffused with political correctness, and I'd say the Danzig/Gdansk naming debate (which was when 2004 or 2005?) probably represents the point of no return. Guettarda (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Let me add some things. Despising "political correct (sic) people" sounds a bit hateful and possibly a personal attack against people who don't despise that group.

I never wrote that I despise people who don't despise "political correct people". I wrote that I despise political correct people. If you happen to like political correct people then that's truly your problem. If you feel that that is a personal attack you may consider a complaint, but make me a favour: don't "twist" my statements into something I didn't write. Flamarande (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Balkanize the English wiki? Seriously. Actually, I think we should standardize on the CE/BCE system, which is used in Europe, academia, archeology, geology (well, recent geology, since mostly geologists work in millions and billions of years ago.

What's the meaning of "we should not impose supercessionist POV on articles about Jewish figures"? It de facto means that "Jewish subjects" should use one dating system and "Christian subjects" should use another. That's balkanization. Tell me: your proposal (of "we should standardize on the CE/BCE system") should be done regardless of the most common dating system, right? Flamarande (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• And once again, CE/BCE is NOT American. It's mostly used outside of the USA. So, you're logical fallacy bites you in the butt again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Look, I just happen to live in Europe. And your impression for "it's mostly used outside of the USA" is as mistaken as the "two years of stability" used at the beginning of this debate. See the following edits [10] [11] [12] [13]. There were even more of these changes. Who said that the article was stable wit BCE/CE for 2 years? That's simply not true, and it can be checked in this article's history. The article was changed back and forth several times during the past two years. Flamarande (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that BC, BCE, AD and CE are all acceptable usage. This isn't the place to discuss that issue. Guettarda (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable usage also means that WP:ERA is to be respected. It clearly wasn't in this article. Remember that this is a honest debate. It might be just a bit hard to avoid that issue. I also wish to point yet again that the "two years of stability" claimed at the beginning of this debate (which may have influenced some "votes") are a "mistake". Flamarande (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

From WP:CON: Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process on articles across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. --JimWae (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

From WP:ERA (emphasize mine): Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors. Notice that WP:ERA is specifically about dating systems and therefore IMHO beats WP:CON which seems to refer about the information contained inside articles in more general terms. This was NOT respected in the switch towards BCE/CE.Flamarande (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

a. Nope, a guideline (the MOS) never "beats" a policy (CON); b. Read the 18th word of your quote "consensus". When a policy or guideline talks about "consensus", it's talking about WP:CON. And, as I pointed out before, there was a "substantial reason" for the change - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism/Manual_Of_Style#Gregorian-Calendar_Dates. A substantial reason, coupled with stability meets the requirements laid out in WP:ERAS. Guettarda (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not a substantial reason, IMO. That tidbit you link to was added back in 2007 by one mere user, and it nonsensically cites WP:NPOV as a reasoning for using BCE/CE. WP:MOS is clear that BCE/CE are no less POV than BC/AD, and I agree fully.. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 07:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonsensically? NPOV was the rationale behind the whole discussion to replace BC/AD with BCE/CE. And it attracted the support of about 40% of the participants. Guettarda (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, nonsensically, because NPOV is not applicable at all regarding the BCE vs. BC debate, only WP:N is. People think it is, but it isn't (see my reply below). If we applied NPOV like this elsewhere, we'd be calling Wednesday "Fourth Day" and January "First Month" because the Quakers were offended by the pagan deity references and neutralized the names deriving from them. Unless you can explain how BC/AD are POV but Wednesday and January are not?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• I appreciate what you're trying to do Flamarande, as I am also an atheist who supports BC/AD instead of the silly & clunky BCE/CE politically correct euphemisms, but your efforts here are hopeless. As per WP:SILENCE it does seem that BCE/CE can be established as the new consensus if there isn't immediate reversion of the changes. And many editors on Wikipedia are of the PC/liberal-minded type, so many of them will vote in favor of keeping BCE/CE in any article where there exists an ongoing edit war or conflict about the notations. The best thing we can do is closely monitor all of the articles that use the BC/AD notation, and immediately revert anyone that is changing them in defiance of WP:ERA. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 07:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• So you're saying that this is a "PC/liberal", and presumably anti-religious campaign? You are familiar with WP:AGF? (FWIW, pre-BCE/CE Christian here, who goes to a church in which the pastor uses BCE/CE in sermons.) Guettarda (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it is necessarily an anti-religious campaign, just a misguided view that BCE/CE are more "neutral" than BC/AD, which is a view that stems from western political correctness. BCE/CE are just as POV as BC/AD, because they arbitrarily assign a Christian/western-centric era as one that should be considered "common" among all people of the world, regardless of the fact that there are numerous other eras to choose from from other cultures and religions, including a viable secular & scientific one (see: Holocene era).

BC/AD may reference the Christian deity specifically, (although that's debatable; "Christ" only means a messiah, it doesn't specify which, and "Domini" only means Lord, it doesn't specify who the lord is) but so do Wednesday and January reference the deities on which they are based, and we don't have NPOV debates about them, do we? No, because WP:NPOV shouldn't even be relevant to this debate. The only relevant policy is WP:N, and it is clear that BC/AD (as well as Wednesday and January) are common usage and notable. That they have a bias is irrelevant, because they are commonalities that are used in the English language, and this is the English Wikipedia. Does that mean I think BCE/CE should be banished? Absolutely not, because those notations are also notable. Not as notable as BC/AD are, but increasingly notable. We should use both, and the only time we should ever drop BC & AD is when it is no longer used by any significant amount of people. The Quakers call Wednesday "Fourth Day", but do we use their more "neutral" invention because Wednesday is based the religious deity Odin? No, because their invention is not notable... POV should not even enter the equation in these debates. The only reason it does is because of western political correctness that seems to always target Christianity, and never any other religion or mythology. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose 1.) The original contributor's selection should not have been changed. 2.)WP:ERA 3.)What amounts to a "substantial reason" appears to be somewhat subjective; to wit: see discussion thusfar.Mannanan51 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

References

Herodian: King Herod's Palace - Fortress in Israel

Should Herod's Palace be more in this article? --HerodianIsrael (talk) 10:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Herod wasn't Jewish

"Herod was a practicing Jew, as the Edomites and many Nabateans had been converted to Judaism by the Hasmoneans."

When John Hyrcanus conquered their land, he allowed them to stay in the land if they were willing to introduce circumcision and live by the other Jewish laws (cultural occupation). Some Edomites were Judanized, but they didn't convert to Judaism (in the modern sense). The Judanzized Edomites weren't considred Jewish by the dominant Pharisaic tradition, so even though Antipater and Herod the Great may have considered themselves of the Jewish faith, they were not considered Jewish by the observant and nationalist Jews of Judea(Source: Josephus, Antiquities, 14.15.2).

Also, while Herod did practice Judaism in the Jerusalem area, he also built the city in the north named Caesarea, which was named after Caesar and had a temple built therein, which was dedicated to the worship of Caesar as a god. Virtualerian (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Notes from the BBC Manchester/Discovery channel production on Herod

(Previous talk was made on 06:49, 2004 Feb 26 . . by 66.42.54.47) (Following is by me, User:Wikibob)

I believe most historians take Jesus' birth to be in fact 4 B.C.E., in any case I intend to substantially improve this page with these notes taken from a recent BBC documentary. There's some uncertaintity so to keep NPOV I'll use "Historians say..." and try to reference the actual historians and archealogists.

At last I've finished the article on Herod, so I'll remove from this Talk the material that is now there. I'll just leave the notes on the documentary. The article still needs cleanup and an improved writing style.-Wikibob 02:30, 2004 Mar 15 (UTC)

Herod's early years

Herod's mother was an Arab princess from Petra, Jordan, and his father Antipater the Idumaean, the family rubbed shoulders with the greats in Rome, Pompey, Cassius, etc.

Herod and his family quickly rose in stature and in 47 BCE his father was appointed governor over Judea, and himself at 25 was appointed governor of Galilee, in the same year he married a woman named Doris.

But after return from a campaign he was offered the betrothal to a teenage Jewish princess named Mariame from a well-regarded Jewish royal family. He then banished Doris and her 3 year old son and married Mariame.

5 years later Romans named Herod King of the Jews.

Tomer ^TALK 20:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Better question is, why is it BCE and CE as opposed to BC and AD? Has political correctness struck again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.176.138 (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

180.251.139.122 (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Perhaps it is better to include Herod's youth combat experiece. It is likely that herod join his father, Antipater, in reliefing Julius Caesar at the siege of Alexandria, and then join the ranks of vexillatione of legio XXXVI during battle of the nile, and battle of zella at 47BC, where herod at 27 years old. Also not supporting or even desert Mark Anthony during the later siege of Alexandria, so that later on, Octavianus consistently sided with Herod.

This will explain why Herod then get the title from the Roman. 180.251.139.122 (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Herod's architectural palaces and fortresses

South of Bethlehem lies an architectural complex designed by Herod, named Herodian, a desert Palace.

According to historian Professor Jodi Magness, the Herodian Palace complex at the top of the mountain included a large swimming pool supplied by aquaduct. Herodian has been researched in the last 30 years, and contained royal appartments, guestrooms, arcades, and could entertain his entire court numbering in the hundreds. 40 miles to the South, on the Dead Sea, lies the palace and fortress of Massada, 1000 feet above the desert floor. The fortress is 3 stories high, and according to researchers completely conceived and designed by Herod. Large store rooms for food, secure water supply, arsenal of weapons. Soldiers were stationed at the fortress whoe even after Herod's death continued to garrison there. Steep sides allowed the use of huge rolling stones (still present) to defend against attackers.

H built 20 fortresses across the kingdom, signalling between them via mirrors. Historians, archeologists suggest H was fearful of a threat to his power.

Ref: Prof Warren Carter, on psalms about David coming to Jerusalem, that Herodas (gr.father of H) was a 3rd gen. jew, but that H. had no J. blood, hence why H. married M.

Prof Jodi: H fear of uprising.

Evidence H worked to garner public approval. Western wall of Jerusalem is remnant of huge building masterminded by H., the Temple of Jersusalem.

Hailed by many at time as most beautiful in world. 18,000 workers employed on temple, more money than any other building in Judea. Prof Warren carter: said that it only rained at night, so as not to hinder work. Important not to defile buliding during the word, so H had priests that knew about masonry etc.

Why many despised Herod

But many still despised H. Why? H appointed by an occupying power the Romans, and H pandered to Romans.

60 miles NW of Jerusalem, the jewel of the Mediterranean. A seaport, with aqueduct supplying fresh water is the best preserved.

Ooops, H named it Caesaria, an insult to the Jews. Filled it with decadant and immoral stuff. Then H built temple to a Roman God, the Emperor, and built the harbour from Jewish taxes. Harbour was sophisticated engineering, scale is being revealed by underwater archeaology. Used a then new bulding technique, floating wooden boxes sunk in a line, and filled with concrete which set in the water.

H at 38 years. appointed his 17 year old brother-in-law as ??, but H worried that the Jews would appoint Aristobulas (sp?) as a full king of jews. Ar was drowned at a party, but not sufficient evidence.

5 years later Octavian defeated Mark Antony, so H switched allegiance to O. O confirmed H as KOTJ. jh

Herod executes his wife Mariame

Josephus writes of passion between H and M. M learns of H plans to murder M. M stops sleeping with H. H put M on trial on trumped up charge of adultery, his sister Salome (not Herodias' daughter Salome) was chief witness. M. mother made appearance and incriminated her own daughter. Historians say M's mother was next on H's hitlist and did this to save her own life. 25 years old and birthed 5 children in 7 years. Writings state that M was calm and serene at her execution.

Historians claim this determined H's fate, others claim H was remorseful after M's death, and grieved and wandered palace believing he saw M alive.

H was ill, behaviour erratic, reports of heavy drinking. H's enemies sensed he'd lost his grip on counrtry, was serious attempt to seize power from him.

Mariame's mother declares herself Queen

M's mother made bid for power, declared herself Queen as H not mentally fit. Josephus wrote: M's mother made strategic mistake and H executed her without trial.

Herod executes his two plotting sons

H at 65 years, H heard his 2 sons were plotting to assasinate him. Historian says H was unhinged. H executed his 2 sons.

4 B.C.E. woman called Mary gave birth to child named Jesus

In the same year at Bethlehem, a woman called Mary gave birth to child named Jesus.

When wise men arrived at H's court it's supposed they knew H had killed M, M's mother, his 2 sons, etc., and were on guard.

Why massacre only in gospel of Matthew? Story is absent from all other sources. Scholars claim there was no massacre in Bethlehem, and the stories got confused from 2 separate accounts.

Matthew's Gospel was written to the Jews while the others were written to The Greeks, The Romans & to the gnostics. It does prove the Bible wrong, but then The blind never could see the light.--75.47.137.201 (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And The Dim Cannot See The Truth. cal05000 (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because the two other sources don't mention Jesus's early life at all. They only had so much room to write. Luke's account doesn't conflict with Matthew's when you put the two together. Why waste space on a story everyone already knew if it wasn't that important to Jesus's message anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.79.182 (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Historian: from H killing 2 sons got transferred to the murder of many children. HistAnother : possibly massacre did occur but historian Josephus intentionally left it out. Greek orthodox claims 14,000 boys, others 64,000, yet others 140,000.

Another Historian looked at original Greek of Mathews gospel, word for massacre is anarelel (this is best-effort phonetic, need original greek here) not a translation of massacre. Greek word can be used for killing of just one.

For the sake of good record, Grk Mt 2:16 has ανειλεν, 3rd pers. sing. aor. ind. act. (no divergent readings in Nestle 26th) of αναιρεω, from ανα & αιρεω, properly: to take up, lift (e.g. from the ground); but also: to take off, to put to death, to kill, to murder. cf. [14] Perhaps the term is intended to be a veiled reference to the cruel act described in some detail in Psalm 137(136):9.[15] Numbers did not matter: murder is murder. 20:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

At time Beth had population between 300 and 1000, and number of babies would be between 7 and 20.

There is a maths/demographic problem with this figure. It claims that only about 2% of the population was under 2 years and male (the age/sex given in the Bible). With birth and death rates of a pre-industrial society the figure should be over 3%. In any case, the biblical account includes the surrounding district. Although widely quoted by apologists the 7-20 number is a significant underestimate. 131.227.79.25 (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems unlikely Josephus would leave out as grave a crime as infanticide as from his writing it is apparent that Josephus did not think highly of Herod; also a massacre of a large scale would inevitably be cited by other sources.Saltyseaweed 21:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's possible Josephus doesn't mention it because he didn't know about it. Herod tried to have that one guy killed in secret by drowning him. He wasn't going to make that same mistake. Blaming it on the wise men (three gentile foreigners who were possibly astrologers) works rather well. It wouldn't have been a hard thing to cover up. Present three bodies and say "Here. We found the wise men that killed those children." Also, as stated above there weren't that many babies in such a small town. I read Josephus's works regarding Herod and the only murders of people that he seems to mention (at least what I remember) are people of high rank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.79.182 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm quoting someone here as much as I can remember them "I live in Russia and my grandparents live in [somewhere]. Every so often, they told me that they used to see bodies floating down the river every so often. Just how many things did Stalin do that we don't know about?"68.54.181.46 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Herod did so many other, spectacularly bloodthirsty, things, I doubt the death of 20 infants in an agricultural town was even a blip on the radar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.102.137 (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the argument that the numbers were small - The order as given in the Bible includes it environs - the surrounding farms and villages in its adminstrative district. Given the context of the census it would be all those called to Bethlehem for that census. As the great majority of people lived in villages not towns - the estimate needs to be increased by x10 or more.

The number was given by various historians, not an amateur and their numbers should stand.68.51.151.159 (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The estimate of the number of children under 2 belonging to Bethlehem residents may be sound - but it is the wrong estimate to use. Given that the instruction to kill included Bethlehem's environs the number child residents under 2 years only acts as a starting figure. This is correctly pointed out in the article.87.114.11.221 (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the argument that the biblical event would have been uninteresting to Josephus - the bible has three magi show up at court and claims that a future 'King of the Jews' has been born. This was a clear threat to his dynasty and he took the threat seriously. 70+ children were killed because of an astrological prediction. This is a gift to a storyteller.

Herod kills another son

5 days before H died, H killed another of his sons, from first wife Doris.

H died at 70 and was buried at Herodian.

Historian: H helped create conditions to enable Christianity to arise. JC's teachings gave hope to oppressed people.

Source: BBC Manchester/Discovery channel production.

- Wikibob 15:23, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC) - edited by me between 17:44, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC) and 02:28, 2004 Mar 15 (UTC).

---

Keep in mind that there is absolutely NO historical evidence of this at all, outside of the "bible", — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.246.146.159 (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup request removed

Removed Jan 2012's

--User:Brenont (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the use of BCE and CE? Who decided this is to be used?

This demonstrates the problem with Wikipeadia. It is dominated with people who have an agenda and too much time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.177.221 (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please review WP:ERA. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Earthquake

The article says "Israel" suffered an Earthquake, no, Judea suffered an Earthquake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.144.83 (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Herod's Evil

I have not found substantial evidence that the disease of which Herod died is called "Herod's Evil" with any degree of frequency. There is an old term "the Herodian Disease", (morbus Herodianus), but that usually refers to the death of Herod Agrippa. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly useful online reference for Herod chronology

http://www.ctsfw.edu/events/symposia/papers/sym2006steinmann.pdf

Proposes:

Late 39 B.C. Herod appointed king by the Romans

Tishri 38 B.C. Beginning of Herod’s first regnal year

10 Tishri 36 B.C. Herod conquers Jerusalem; Antigonus executed

Tishri 35 B.C. Beginning of Herod’s first regnal year in Jerusalem

20 B.C. Herod begins work on the temple in Jerusalem

Late 19 or early 20 B.C. Work on Temple building completed

12 B.C. Work on Temple precincts completed

11 or 10 B.C. Work on Caesarea Sebaste completed

4 B.C. Murder of Herod’s brother Pheroras; Antipater deposed as Herod’s heir; Archelaus named Herod’s heir

2 B.C. Jesus born

First quarter of 1 B.C. Antipater executed; Herod dies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.14.221.214 (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Haldrik 03:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This reference is a total red herring. All it says is that the majority of early (pre 1544) printed translations of Josephus Antiquities get the death of Herod's son Philip wrong by two years. All modern translations since the beginning of modern textual criticism agree on the date, from William Whiston in 1737 onwards. Much more convincing evidence is needed if you want to challenge the modern consensus. Rbreen 03:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Bringing up Andrew Steinmann is actually quite relevant to this discussion. Steinmann received his PhD in Near Eastern Studies, and has written quite extensively on the topic of Herod's death. I recommend his book From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology for a more in depth approach to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joearant (talk • contribs) 20:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Herod the Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081223034537/http://www.haaretz.com:80/hasen/spages/876330.htm to http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/876330.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've noted that while this article contains lush an accurate information on Herod, I find that much of it carries an inherit bias, leaning towards the negatives of his reign. This is set up from the first few sentences, which introduce Herod in a very negative way. Within the next few weeks, I plan on neutralizing a lot of this information, since some could claim that there were many positives to his reign. Thoughts?Aaron1433 (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure some could claim that; but watch out for the potential pitfalls. Wikipedia's policies relating to neutrality and editorial viewpoint seem relevant to your plan here. Haploidavey (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

BC/BCE

I see that no consensus was ever reached. Given that this article began with BC/AD and that people will continue to revert it to its original terminology (while there are very few who favor BCE/CE enough to override common usage), should it not just be reverted as so many want, so those policing this page can do something more useful? 128.151.71.16 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's established now as BCE/CE. It doesn't matter how it started. Doug Weller talk 20:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herod the Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814131042/http://www.isracast.com/Articles/Article.aspx?ID=634 to http://www.isracast.com/Articles/Article.aspx?ID=634

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Threats Herod's Early Rule in Judea Faced

Hello! I want to let everyone working on this article know a couple of things I have in mind for this article.

When Herod came to power in Judea, his rule faced two major threats. The first of these threats was Alexandra's, who was Herod's mother in law, eagerness to regain some power back for her Hasmonean family. The Hasmoneans were the dynasty in Judea who Herod had replaced to establish his own dynasty. The second threat to Herod's early reign in Judea came from the conflict that emerged between the Roman leaders Antony and Octavian. Herod supported Antony in this struggle, but Octavian would emerge the victor which jeopardized Herod's power in Judea. This Wikipedia article is missing information on the first threat Herod's early rule in Judea faced, but the second threat is mentioned in the second paragraph of the section called "Reign in Judea." Despite this mention, the level of information on this second threat is minimal, as the article does not explain why Herod got involved with this Roman conflict, why there was a conflict between Antony and Octavian, and how Herod managed to regain Octavian's trust. From this, I plan to make edits on this article that will clear up the missing information on the first threat and the minimal details on the second threat. I plan to make all of my edits under the section called "Reign in Judea." Specifically, I will be adding content into the second paragraph of this section, right after the second sentence. In order to support my edits I will be using a secondary source of literature called The Life and Times of Herod the Great, a book written by the historian Stewart Perowne that gives a detailed biography of Herod's life. The citation for this work will be included below, and the ISBN is 0 7509 3273 2 (just click on the superscript numbers to be directed to the citations). I plan to begin my edit by stating that just when Herod obtained leadership in Judea in 37 BCE, his reign faced two threats which he managed to overcome. After this, I will explain each threat, beginning with the first threat which was Alexandra's scheming with Cleopatra to make Antony appoint Aristobulus to the High Priesthood. In explaining this first threat, I will mention why Cleopatra could help Alexandra make Aristobolus a High Priest, who Aristobulus was, how this scheme presented a threat to Herod's power, and how Herod dealt with this threat. The information for this explanation will come from chapter 10 of The Life and Times of Herod the Great, which spans from pages 66-73. Next, I will explain the second threat which was Herod's support of Antony in the war between Octavian and Antony that ended with Octavian's victory. For this explanation, I will use information from chapters 10, 11, 12, and 14 of The Life and Times of Herod the Great, which spans from pages 66-81 and 88-94. I plan to explain why war broke out between Antony and Octavian, why Herod had to pick a side to support, and mention where, when, and how Herod convinced Octavian that he would now be loyal to him. The size of this edit will be within the range of 200-300 words. If anyone has any concerns or suggestions about this plan, please feel free to reply on this talk page or on my talk page, and I will be happy to reply. Thank you.--Diego4568 (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

"why Herod had to pick a side to support"

You might need to explain that Herod was a Roman client king, and did not have the option to remain neutral in this conflict. Dimadick (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I will make sure to do so, thanks for the heads up Diego4568 (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Diego4568, it looks like you have a good idea of what you want to add, however I would recommend that you pull from more than one source for the article. The reason for this is that while this work may be seen as a classic, using this alone for the section may not get the widest variety of all possible views on the subject. Perowne's book was written in the 50s and there may have been new insights that have come about in the last 60+ years. Even if it was more recent, it's still a good idea to have more than one source for something. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. In that case, I will use one more source called Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman destruction of the Temple for some information in my edit. Diego4568 (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Addition to "Opinion of his reign"

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I wanted to inform the community that I plan to add information to this article, specifically under the "opinion of his reign" section. While there is evidence that Herod the Great had little respect for Jewish tradition and culture, I have found a historian who has an opinion that is notable for this article. The historian I have found is Eyal Regev and I will be using information from Eyal Regev's article "Herod's Jewish Ideology Facing Romanization: On Intermarriage, Ritual Baths, and Speeches" found in The Jewish Quarterly Review.

As the title of Regev's article states, he focuses on Herodian intermarriage, the presence of ritual baths in Herod's palaces, and speeches by several leaders in order to argue the point that Herod was sensitive towards Jewish regulations and needs. Specifically, I will be adding information regarding Regev's findings on the presence of the different ritual baths in several of Herod's palaces. By looking at the geographical reports of several historians, Regev states the there were around 40 ritual baths or mikvehs found in several of Herod's palaces. I plan to add information of how Regev evaluated the presence of these mikvehs to show that Herod felt some respect for Jewish tradition in his private life.

While arguing that the presence of these baths displays Herod's sensitivity to Jewish needs, Regev also notes that several historians have stated that many of these mikvehs were also combined with Roman frigidarium (cold-water baths). I plan to explain how Regev found these baths to be examples of Herod seeking for there to be some type of a combination of Roman and Jewish cultures just as the two types of bath were combined into one with dual functions.

I plan on placing all of this information between the two paragraphs located in the "opinion of his reign" section because the first paragraph comments on how Herod respected Jewish tradition in his public life while Eyal Regev argues that Herod also did so to some degree in his private life.

If there are any concerns about my edits or comments you would like to make, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my own Talk Page! I would be happy to discuss! Rachelc201718 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you also add such information on the article about the Mikveh? It has photos on mikvehs found in archaeological sites, but does not mention any of the excavations.

Curiously it mentions that the Mikveh was not a Jewish tradition at Herod's time. It was an innovation of the 1st century BC, as part of changes in Jewish culture. Dimadick (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for the suggestion for the mikveh article, I will try to take a look at it. Regarding your comment on the mikvehs not being a Jewish tradition during this time, it is curious that the article states that as the author, Eyal Regev, of my source "Herod's Jewish Ideology Facing Romanization: On Intermarriage, Ritual Baths, and Speeches" is quite firm on the fact that rituals baths were used during this time. Perhaps the word mikveh was not used until later, but Regev comments that ritual baths were distinctive for Jews of this period. I think he would be considered a reliable source as he is a professor at Bar-Ilan University and he cites many of his arguments. Rachelc201718 (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

References

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herod the Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122185817/http://www.imj.org.il/exhibitions/presentation/exhibit.asp?id=850 to http://www.imj.org.il/exhibitions/presentation/exhibit.asp?id=850

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Herod's Arab origin

For some reason, Herod's Arab origin is never mentioned in the Article. Another point is that he was not he King of Israel, but the King of Judea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.212.95.9 (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

a) He wasn't Arab, he was Jewish descended from Edomite and Nabatean converts to Judaism.

b) His kingdom was called Israel. Judaea (a Romanized form of Judah) was the name given to a quarter of his kingdom after his death when it was divided amongst his sons, later the name was expanded to include a larger area Judaea Provincia.

Texts like the Britannica with a political agenda deliberately avoid using the name Israel and wrongly call his kingdom Judaea. There is also confusion when using Josephus as a source - Josephus wrote during the time of Judaea Provincia and uses the name Judaea for Israel throughout his work so that his Roman readers would know what he was talking about, but the name did not come into use until the division of Herods kingdom. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Again what we have here is a Fundamentalist Chistian or Jewish belief that anything "evil" e.g. Herod can't be "Jewish" and MUST be Arab. Both assumptians are flat wrong. Herod was a Jew descended of Isaac following the Hebrew Bible's definiton of what an "Edomite" was or was not. Nowhere does the Hebrew Bible state that Edomites came from Ishmael, but the Fundamentalists find it difficult to reconcile an evil man with a Jewish descent. 75.92.157.120 (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC) WittyMan

The descendants of Esau (Edomites) were not Jews. But you're right in saying they were not Arabs either. 86.170.43.107 (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Image

I removed this image from the infobox; somebody restored it with an edit summary of "image not useless" [16]. Then what, pray, is its use? It's an artistically mediocre vignette from some (probably 16th or 17th century) print, from an artistic tradition that produced galleries of such imaginary portraits that were completely stereotyped and without any sense of individuality or historicity; the exact same image could just as well have served to "illustrate" any other historic ruler. The source isn't even documented; somebody grabbed it from some website without even bothering to find out where it's from. The information value of this image for a reader of Wikipedia is precisely zero. It's just a random picture of a random bearded face.

(See WP:PORTRAIT for background; admittedly not a guideline but a personal essay of mine, but it does provide some useful criteria for when and how to use and not to use imaginary historical depictions of individuals.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

To quote what was said the last time someone went around removing images such as this: "t isn't a "portrait", it is an illustration, of course no one knows what he or these other figures actually looked like, in a number of cases such as this one there is even doubt if there ever was such a person. That doesn't matter, we still illustrate WP articles with images, "fantastic" or not."

If you have a better image, that's one thing, but there's no reason for iconoclasm.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

No, we don't "illustrate" Wikipedia articles merely for the sake of having some illustration. There's no reason for having an image if that image has no information value. If you want to call that "iconoclasm", so be it. There's no reason Wikipedia should mimic the aesthetics and worldview of some second-rate 16th-century book of rulers – even less of a source we don't even know. (Actually, if that image was on Wikipedia rather than on Commons, I could simply speedy-delete it at this point, as it has no source.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

we don't "illustrate" Wikipedia articles merely for the sake of having some illustration- Yes we do.Smeat75 (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

No we don't. See? I can argue just as convincingly as you can. But seriously, are you honestly saying you want this image just for the sole purpose of nhot having a blank spot at the top of the article? Or can you name any other actual purpose it could have in educating the reader? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't accept that you get to write an essay on here and then quote it as a dictum for what "we" do. I am the editor quoted above "it isn't a portrait, it is an illustration" when someone recently used your same argument and removed images of Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Jesus, etc. It doesn't matter that it isn't historically accurate, it is somebody's idea of what Herod might have looked like,there are hundreds of Renaissance paintings etc used on WP to illustrate such figures.Smeat75 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I do get to write an essay about what I think should be done, and then cite it to explain what I want done. Which is all I did. I do believe that it contains some reasonable arguments about when it is in fact useful and appropriate to use imaginary illustrations for such personalities – and when it isn't. The present case falls under that latter group. But I note you still haven't answered my question: What, exactly, do you feel this particular image in this particular article offers the reader? Is such an explanation too much to ask? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

As with images of the earliest popes, it's so useless as a "portrait" I'd happily drop it, but there are several nice Medieval/Renaissance images that could fill some blank stretches, but aren't really suitable for the infobox. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there's a hellenistic portrait bust that is believed to be that of Herod, although the ascription apparently isn't certain [17]. We don't seem to have a free photograph of it as yet, but it's in a museum in Boston, so it shouldn't be impossible to obtain one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

If we can, that would seem a nice consensus replacement.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

BC or BCE?

An IP editor has twice now unilaterally changed the date formats from BCE, which appears to have been the accepted format for some years, to BC. I have reverted per MOS:ERA. Checking the history of the article, I note that the format used was BC when the article was originally created - I'm not sure when the format was changed, but from some spot checking it appears to have been stable at BCE going back at least as far as early 2017, so that would appear to have a long-standing de facto consensus. I have no view as to which is better to use here. I suspect the IP editor may be unfamiliar with talk page usage, so I'm just starting a discussion here where they can state their case, and where anyone else with an interest can respond. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't call "going back at least as far as early 2017" a "long-standing de facto consensus", especially if there were a 10 year+ previous period the other way. We should play by the rules - most people don't bother with such matters & I don't think silence can be taken as consensus. Your reversion "per WP:ERA" in fact wasn't. Either go back to BC, or have a discussion to establish a new consensus. To do otherwise just encourages drive-by changers to keep doing it. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, looking further up this talk page, I notice a thread 2016 where Doug Weller opines that it's established as BCE, and further up a 2011 thread where people are suggesting going back to BC, so I think it's a fairly long-standing consensus. But I'd be happy for there to be a discussion, naturally. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) There's also "Once again: BC -v- BCE" above, which ran from 2005 to 2011, so presumably earlier discussion in some lost archive. But the 2nd 2011 discussion does establish a consensus for BCE (by 4, out of 10+), so I'm ok with that. But it's always worth checking. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I also don't think that Johnbod is in the majority in opposing silence as consensus. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, we don't agree about that. It's a question of degree, for one thing. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Modern scholarly opinion on the child massacre account

The current text uses Maier as the citation for the sentence "Most modern biographers of Herod, and probably a majority of biblical scholars, dismiss Matthew's story as an invention". However, this does not seem to be a balanced reflexion of the source which begins by saying that "critical scholars have disputed the episode for several centuries", that "most recent biographies... deny it entirely" and that "probably a majority of current biblical scholars have joined in this opinion" that the story is invented. So far, so good. But it then goes on to say that except for one author, "such conclusions are not well supported by the authors who drew them." For example, "so elementary an item as documentation seems to have been beyond" one author who cites no sources. Another author offers "a very tenuous argument from analogy" and yet another is "merely an argument from silence." Maier's assessment is that there has been "critical tradition building" with scholars following a popular secular trend and tending to "regard opinion as fact". He then goes on to severely critique most of the arguments used by scholars to write the incident off as legend or fiction. The article relies solely on the first part of Maier's analysis but totally fails to summarise the second part.

I've recently edited the text to try and offer a more balanced account of the source, but it has been reverted by @Ermenrich:, so I'd be grateful for other views, including Ermenrich's. Perhaps my wording wasn't precise enough; if so, I'm happy to draft the amendment afresh. Bermicourt (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

So, basically Maier tells us that he is in the minority. Therefore, his own POV may be cited, but only rendering WP:DUE to the majority view. E.g., I have used a source by Witherington wherein he criticizes most scholars for thinking that the NT gospels are truly anonymous: by his own words it is clear what the majority of scholars think. The difference is that Witherington's book was one of several sources making the WP:RS/AC claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Basically what Tgeorgescu said. I'll note that it's very hard to find anyone (online) even discussing the massacre of the innocents from a non-religious perspective and I haven't found any corroboration of Maier's claim. It doesn't seem that historical Jesus scholarship takes the episode seriously enough to mention it, and I haven't looked through any Herod biographies. As to his disagreeing, I agree, we can cite him for his own opinion, but it can't be in such a way as to effectively take his side in the dispute, which is how I read the edit. It's probably worth noting that Paul L. Maier was vice president of the Missouri Synod, a very conservative protestant group. It's therefore not surprising that he argues that the Massacre of the Innocents really happened, whatever his other credentials might be.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Richardson, pp. 295–98, discusses the incident, summing it up: According to Matthew, Herod angrily killed the boys under the age of two in Bethlehem and in the area around it, a scene that has shaped both artistic and popular views of Herod, yet there is little in the story that carries historical conviction. The differences between Matthew's and Luke's birth accounts, together with the incident's absence from Josephus's account of the excesses of Herod's final years, work against the account's accuracy. Brown speaks of the verisimilitude of these accounts, but correctly distinguishes between that and historicity; plausibility does not guarantee accuracy. Earlier, on p. 288, he writes: It seems likely that Herod's killing of his own children prompted the report of his murder of a larger group of children. Perhaps we should avoid the words "as an invention", which implies that the author of Matthew just made it up. That is certainly something we do not know and which, so far as I can tell, Richardson does not suggest. It is certainly possible for the author of Matthew to be an earnest repeater of urban myth. Srnec (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Maier's own POV is not the issue I am flagging up. It is the way part 1 of his assessment of the literature is cited ("the majority of scholars believe it's an invention"), but part 2 is ignored (where he describes the arguments used by those scholars). If we believe Maier is reliable enough to quote part 1, we should for the sake of balance and integrity cite part 2. Both are essentially factual observations of the literature and not his own POV. His POV on whether the massacre actually took place is a separate conclusion based on his own arguments and is nowhere to be seen in this article. And I'm afraid, the comments about Maier's credentials are simply an ad hominem argument. Bermicourt (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Anything sourced to the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod should probably be removed. The main article on the organization raises warning flags on their reliability: "The Missouri Synod also teaches biblical inerrancy, the teaching that the Bible is inspired by God and is without error. For this reason, they reject much—if not all—of modern liberal scholarship." Dimadick (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"It is certainly possible for the author of Matthew to be an earnest repeater of urban myth." A myth which was somehow ignored by the rest of the New Testament writers, and which was not recorded in other sources? It seems implausible. Most of Matthew's narrative concerning the nativity and early life of Jesus is unique to this Gospel. Dimadick (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Bermicourt, Maier's opinion of other scholars arguments is of course influenced by his POV. That isn't necessarily a problem, but he has a minority position and given that a majority of scholars disagree with him, we shouldn't take him at his word when he judges their work. There's nothing ad hominem about pointing this out. If we cited someone in the article about Vladimir Lenin who downplayed something other scholars accept, wouldn't his being a Leninist be relevant (on the talk page at least)?

Dimadick, he was a VP of the Missouri Synod, but he's also a respected scholar, have a look at his page. His position is just a minority one on this issue (likely because he doesn't believe that Matthew could be wrong, but that's neither here nor there).--Ermenrich (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

To say that "anything sourced to the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod should probably be removed" on the basis of their belief (I am not a member by the way nor suggesting I subscribe to their beliefs, so please don't make the same judgment!) is just as unacceptable as saying "anything sourced to a Democrat/liberal/any other group whose views I disagree with should be removed." We should be prepared to represent all relevant views in a balanced way and my proposal was simply saying that if we quote source X, we should quote it properly and not cherry pick the bit we happen to like or agree with. If we can't live with Maier's summary of the scholarship position (as opposed to his POV), we should remove the citation entirely and cite another reliable source that says the majority believe the Exodus is myth only and not an event as well. But then the article body doesn't seem to support that and I doubt Maier's assessment is that wide of the mark (it's a table with one of the columns labelled "Myth/Event" and then, for each scholar, it just says "Myth", "Event", "Myth + Event" or "Event + Myth". Virtually all entries have both (I'm not sure what the significance of the order is where both are shown). Bermicourt (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

We cite what is found in WP:RS. The Maier article is published by Mercer University Press, which, as far as I know is a reputable academic publisher, so it counts as an RS. What is at issue here is WP:DUE. Maier has a minority opinion which should only be cited in porportion to that opinion's weight among all scholarship. It this case that weight is very low, so there is no reason to give it any space, especially as we already cite Everet Ferguson in support of the massacre having occurred. There is absolutely no reason to give the minority opinion more than one reference like that.

I'm not sure what you're taking with "myth/event" or a table of that. At any rate, we have a biblical inerrantist scholar arguing that something in the Bible occurred in the Bible as it actually occurred, which is well outside the scholarly mainstream.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You keep arguing against something I'm not asking for. I'm not saying the article should state Maier's view on whether this incident happened or not - he would say it's "Event not Myth" I guess. I'm saying if we quote him saying the majority think it's invented, we should also quote him saying what that majority base their (not Maier's) argument on. Or just quote from his summary table on other scholars. Bermicourt (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be asking that Maier's attempts to dismiss the majority argument be included in the article, as Maier only says that the majority view is based on what he sees as faulty premises. And please where is this table? Page number? I see no compelling reason to include Maier's opinions for the basis of the majority opinion.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying don't quote Maier unless you quote him properly. Take it all out. At least that would be more honest than cherry picking from his text. Bermicourt (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Maier is cited for WP:RS/AC. We don't need to take anything else he says into account, as he represents a small minority.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Deleted para from New Testament section

I wish to delete this paragraph from the New Testament References section:

Regarding the Massacre of the Innocents, although Herod was guilty of many brutal acts including the killing of his wife, brother-in-law, three of his sons, 300 military leaders, and many others, as recorded by firsthand sources (Antiquities 16:393–394; LCL 8:365), contemporary sources including Herod's friend and personal historian, Nicolas of Damascus, did not leave behind records of the massacre. One reason that has been put forward by historians, as Paul L. Maier wrote, is that “Josephus [closely associated with Nicolas of Damascus, personal scribe of Herod] wrote for a Greco-Roman audience, which would have little concern for infant deaths. Greeks regularly practiced infanticide as a kind of birth control, particularly in Sparta, while the Roman father had the right not to lift his baby off the floor after birth, letting it die”.

I've deleted the references simply to avoid cluttering the talk page, but Meir seems to be the main source.

If it remained, it would mean three paragraphs on the Massacre of the Innocents, when we already have an article on that subject - an article which covers pretty much the same ground. This particular paragraph argues against the consensus of scholars, which is that the massacre is fictional )Meir is an inerrantist theologian who holds that the Bible is always accurate). So there are two grounds for deletion, the first that it repeats the main article in unnecessary detail, the second that it misrepresents the consensus.

Incidentally, even with this para gone, the section is overweight on the massacre and seriously underweight on other aspects of Herod's presence in the NT - where's the use of his reign to date the birth of Christ, or the story of Salome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.138.122 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I generally agree on the removal - however Salome is Herod Antipas, I believe - the Bible refers to three different people simply as Herod.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Maier's view should surely be represented then under "Criticism" as in other articles. Aside from his minority view on the historicity of the event, he also makes some valid factual points about the weaknesses of the 'consensus' arguments: arguments from silence, arguments from speculation and even no arguments at all, just opinion. But I guess that's all too much for populist Wikipedia to handle. Bermicourt (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

As I stated above, you need to review WP:DUE. It is undue to give Maier's minority view an entire paragraph when half the paragraph on the majority view already includes a minority opinion. Wikipedia is not interested in the WP:TRUTH, so whether Maier's arguments are, in your opinion, good is irrelevant.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

External link to an online copy of the works of Josephus

My attention was drawn to the Herod article by a posting at Wikipedia:Ani#IP spamming own website. The IP which was named at ANI seemed to be promoting links to swartzentrover.com, which hosts the text of Whiston's translations of the works of Josephus. The IP was blocked for spam. Though I was thinking of removing the swartzentrover link from the 'External links' section, I thought I'd ask first if the link is useful. I notice many citations of Josephus in the reference list that only point to the paper text; these might benefit from URLs. Perhaps Josephus is available online in a better (or more scholarly) version than Swartzentrover's. This is only speculation on my part, since I don't have the time to follow up at the moment. Until someone has time to check, I've left the link in place. EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Josephus provides three time stamps regarding the reign of Herod the Great: Antiquities XIV 14:5, Antiquities XVI 5:1, and Antiquities XVII 8:1. THis firmly puts his death at c 4 BCE. On a side note Project Gutenburg has a copy of Antiquities of the Jews.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Year zero

I can laugh a lot when a person pretending to correct historical information also pretends there was a year zero. It is simply hilarious, whatever your own religion might be. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Arab Origin - 2020 Discussion

I added sources on his Arab origin. Nabataeans are Arab according to academic consensus, so his mother was Arab. Idumeans, the people of his father, are Arab as per contemporary sources such as Strabo who lived during the 1st c. BC - 1st. c. AD, and many modern historians consider them Arab as the sources indicate.

Arab presence is attested in the area since centuries before Herod. Gashmu the Arab, mentioned in the Torah, has archaeological evidence supporting his existence in the 5th c. BC. as a Qedarite, who were Arabs that lived in in the fringes of the fertile crescent since the 9th c. BC. Considering Nehemiah doesn't mention Edom in the 5th c. BC, historians argue it was under Geshem, and Arab, control since that time.

Furthermore, ostraca and pottery found in a number of sites near Edom reveal an Arab society since ancient times, confirming Hellenic sources that attest Arab presence in this same area, centuries before Herod. See sources:

Jan Retso, The Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umayyads Yigal Levin, "The Formation of Idumean Identity" J.R. BARTLETT, "Edomites and Idumaeans" J. Naveh, “Published and Unpublished Aramaic Ostraca” Strabo 16.4.2 [767] Diodorus 19.94.10 (Based on Hieronymus of Cardia)

Some of these are separate from the sources already included in the article.

So if someone has an objection, please express it here. If they have a counterpoint, please add it with the proper sourcing. Otherwise don't remove the references without discussing it first. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Image again

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise seems to have some kind of thing about images on this article. We had this discussion last year, it's on this page. It doesn't matter that the image is not historically accurate, it is an imaginative illustration. Articles on Moses, Joshua, Isaac, many others, have illustrations when there is serious doubt that there even were such people. Articles should be illustrated and Fut. Perf. should Wp :drop the stick.Smeat75 (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I seriously don't understand what's his problem. Every single Biblical character has a painting to represent them in Wikipedia, since there were no photographs at the time (spoiler alert).--Zemilofa (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Please put the image back. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There are undoubtedly good reasons to have imaginary depictions in many cases, but this is not one of them. I note people have again stubbornly evaded any answer to my question: what do you actually think is the benefit of having this particular image (or the previous one, for that matter)? What, exactly, do you feel its presence offers the reader to help understand the article better? Do you really not have an answer to this question? Or do you really believe no such answer is necessary? If yes, would you care to explain why? Is your position really that you simply want any image just for the sake of having a colorful spot at the top right corner of the article, even if it's just a worthless random scribble? If that's the case, will you please actually say so? At least that would be a coherent editorial opinion that I could comprehend as such, even if I have to say I find it an absurdly stupid one.

The previous image (the 17th-century vignette print) we discussed last year was at least so bad you could consider it harmless – it was so bland, so artistically mediocre and so obviously unhistorical that few readers would be in danger of drawing false conclusions from it. The same cannot be said about the Tissot one – it is undoubtedly interesting, engaging and technically well done. Which is exactly why it's more dangerous and more harmful than the other one. Because it's obviously a POV statement. This image is a caricature of a prototypical villain. As such, it injects the POV perspective of the Christian biblical tradition into the article. It also comes with obvious racist/anti-semitic undertones – Tissot generally reserves stereotyped "oriental" features to his villain figures, while presenting Jesus as a nordic/European type. Of course, it might be interesting to use such an image in illustrating the article – but only with appropriate, sourced commentary contextualizing it. For an infobox, this is spectacularly inappropriate.

But all of this is just for the record and probably a moot issue now, because on closer inspection it turns out this isn't even an image of the right person. According to the Brooklyn museum [18], this is supposed to be a depiction of Herod Antipas, not Herod the Great. So, obviously, out it goes again. Before anyone goes and reinserts the previous image in its stead again, my questions above still stand and I'd really appreciate an answer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Dang, that detail escaped me. Tissot painted a lot though (I'm not saying it's a good leadimage). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

This article shares the image of the bust with another article, Ptolemy IX Soter. Should something be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.128.86 (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, the bust has been ascribed alternatively to either of the two candidates, so I guess we'll have to live with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Herod in the New Testament

Just did a rewrite of "Herod and The Massacre of Innocents" to try to make it a little more NPOV. I tried to clarify what is "Herod, the historical figure" and what is "Herod, the character in the Gospel of Matthew"-- the two may be the same according to some people, they may be different according to others. I therefore tried to use the present tense when relating the narrative contained in Matthew 2, and added a little disclaimer at the end that there is a debate on the historical accuracy of the whole thing. This way we can both present the narrative in its entirety but not definitively rule on whether the story contained in the gospel is historically True. Hope no one hates me for it :) Alecmconroy 06:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is this section so one-sided? The notion that "probably a majority of biblical scholars, dismiss Matthew's story as a literary device" is absurd. I could give a long list of biblical scholars who would take it as a historical fact just as the text presents it to be. This is not what Wikipedia is for. --Tojasonharris (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RS/AC. We have a scholar on record saying that, so you providing a list is not gonna cut it.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I hear you loud and clear. You have an agenda. But if you actually read Maier, he simply doesn't say that. So is there some other source that says it? --Tojasonharris (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think you hear me and remember to comment on content, not contributors. In fact Meier says exactly that. The fact that he disagrees with the assessment does not change his words. Here's what Meier says:

Questioning the carnage at Bethlehem is nothing new. Critical scholars have disputed the episode for several centuries. Most recent biographies of Herod the Great deny it entirely, with one exception [Meier then gives that exception, a biography of Herod by Stewart Perowne]. This view, however, is not shared by other Herod biographers [stress in the original], who dismiss the episode as "legend" [Meier then names scholars holding this view, including the following: Michael Grant claims that the tale is not history but myth or folklore]. Probably a majority of current biblical scholars have joined in this opinion. [Meier goes on to give examples]. The text is clearly supported as is.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You are correct about this quote. My edition was cut off at the bottom and I've now found the full quotation. My mistake. I think he's wrong in his view, but have not yet found a scholarly source that attempts to assess the current scholarly consensus so that point is moot for now.

My point, overall, remains. The paragraph merely says that "probably" a majority (51%) doubt the historicity of the event. That does not justify the one-sided presentation that follows. The minority view is not given and no serious argument for the minority position is given. This is a weakness in this section. --Tojasonharris (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Edits by Gsueso2

@Gsueso2 Gsueso2 Hi I reverted your edits for different reasons. Here each source references the sentence before it. The article says "some authors say Idumeans are Arab" (come to think of it, this should say "most") with its own sources. Then it says thus Herod had Arab ancestry (which is what the sources for this sentence indicate). You use sources for the second statement to reference the first sentence and vice versa. That's OR. These are two separate statements.

As for the difference between Idumeans and Biblical age Edomites, it's more complicated than that and I'm not sure if the scope of the article should include the details on how in the Babylonian period Edomites left, Nabataeans took over biblical Edom, then both of these groups moved to southern Judaea but with a predominantly Arab-Nabataean disposition. Personally I think using the word "Idumean" is enough to indicate a difference but open to suggestions. If someone doesn't have background info but knows more how wikipedia works here are some references that explain it.

• https://www.academia.edu/26914216/The_Formation_of_Idumean_Identity

As most scholars now recognize, the area south of Beth-zur, rather than being ruled by Edomites, was actually ruled by an Arabic-speaking group known as the Qedarites.

It would seem that by the mid-fifth century BC at the latest, these Qedarite Arabs had established their control over the Negev and Sinai, as well as the old land of Edom.

In the Persian Period, this area was controlled by the Arab tribes known as Qedar (see below), later to be replaced by the Nabataeans. Iron-Age Edom had deceased.

• https://oxfordre.com/classics/classics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-3252

Idumaea, the lowland hill-country of southern *Judaea, was settled by the Edomites between the 8th and 6th cents. bce as a result of the *Nabataean Arab occupation of biblical Edom.

• https://www.persee.fr/doc/topoi_1764-0733_2003_act_4_1_2871

The Idumaean ostraca reflect that Arabs in the region were an integral part of the sedentary population during the first millennium BC.

In fact, the impressions are that "Edomite Arabs" or "Arabized Edomites" were the overwhelming majority of the population.

What now seems clear is that the Arabic-Edomite presence was already in place in the 7th-6th centuries BC. Rather than representing elements of a slow infiltration process, Arabs appear as an established fixture in the demography of the region by the late Achaemenid period and early Hellenistic era.

• https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/myth-of-a-gentile-galilee/C48B48466CD36D453D689500C1A594B3

Whom, then, did Aristobulus compel to be circumcised and to accept the laws of the Jews? Some scholars have recently suggested that Josephus's forceful language masks the benign nature of alliances the Hasmoneans made, not only with the Itureans, but also with the Idumeans, an Arab people conquered by Hyrcanus. 

• https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/book/jews-idumaeans-and-ancient-arabs-9783161452406

In contrast, their old homeland (i.e., biblical Edom), under the new demographic and political circumstances (to be more precise, from the end of the sixth century BCE), had its name changed, so much so that in the Hellenistic period it was already known by the name of "Arabia".

In the 7th and 6th centuries BCE this process became stronger, following on and concurrent with the growing Nabataean invasion of the Land of Edom.

It seems that this very same process, which as indicated continued for a few hundred years, was concurrent with the "Arabization" of the biblical Land of Edom.

At the end of this process a new entity was created in the region, syncretistic but with a prominent and dominantly Arab-Nabataean character, which to a large extent reflected the demographic superiority of the desert nomads. It therefore appears that over a quite extended period similar processes were taking place simultaneously in biblical Edom and in southern Judaea (later to become "Idumaea"). In parallel with increasing intrusion of the Arab-Nabataean tribes into the region of Transjordan, there was growing Edomite migration westwards into southern Judaea and the northern Negev.

• https://brill.com/view/title/277

Our epigraphic evidence indicates that in the mid-4th century B.C., i.e., close to period mentioned in our earliest literary reference to the eparchy of Idumaea, the Edomite-Arab penetration into southern Palestine was complete. Aramaic ostraca from Beer-sheba and Arad contain dozens of names with the Edomite theophorous element Qos, as well as Arabic names like Whbw, Zydw, Zbydw, Ntynw, lf/fw, 'ydw, W'lw, 'mw, Mlkw.

Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aaron1433.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Diego4568, Rachelc201718.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone know how the people he executed actually died? I know crucifixion was common but it doesn't say anything about how their deaths took place. Were they beheaded, strangled, crucified or stoned?

8.48.251.116 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Death by snu-snu. Editor2020 (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Scarola

Vantage Press is WP:SPS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Dates/Dating

The fact that Luke indicates a census in 6 C.E. from 'Cyrenius' who was actually Publius Sulpicius Quirinius and that he says it was the first is in disagreement with Matthew who says that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was alive (he died in 4 B.C.E.). So dating his birth is an adventure indeed if we only use the synoptic gospels to help us. Many dedicated bible interpreters invent another census but this conflicts with Luke who calls it the first and it conflicts with history - there was, as far as we know, only one. So this entire page is quite controversial in its use of 4 B.C.E. for the date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.54.47 (talk) 05:49, 2004 February 26 (UTC)

It seems that many who push for a later eclipse are motivated to prove Luke 2:2 correct, which says (in most translations) 'This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.' Now, scholars debate whether L. Calpurnius Piso (probably) was governor during 3-1 BC or whether (as Sherwin-White suggested) ãQuirinius may have had a previous governorship. The record is unclear, but the governor then was most likely Piso, and most historians agree with this. (Disclosure: I am a christian who believes that Luke 2:2 must be accurate, somehow. Yet, I believe Piso was the governor from 3-1 BC.) In short, many seem to feel that a later eclipse will allow them to take Sherwin-White's suggestion and replace Piso with Quirinius, convieniently. However, F.F. Bruce and H.W. Hoehner both stand with a different solution to the Quirinius controversy, which was first suggested in the 1600's, which says that Luke 2:2 has been mistranslated! That it should say "This happened before Quirinius was governor of Syria." This is plausible, because Luke said Jesus' birth was in the days of Herod, and when he says the word "census" he has a need to distinguish this census (probably of Saturninus, governor of Syria from 9 to 6 BC, whose census Tertullian mentions) from the more famous (at that time) census of Quirinius, which was managed by the procurator Cummanus, in the year that Archelaus was deposed (6 AD). Herobill 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In brief, my point is simply this - if the Piso/Quirinius question (as to which governed Syria from 3 to 1 BC) could be settled more firmly, then I believe there would be less controversy and debate over which lunar eclipse predates the death of Herod. Secular historians tend to go with 4 BC, and christians trying to defend Luke 2:2 sometimes try the later dates; but Bruce and Hoehner's defense of Luke is better, and more plausible.Herobill 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If we go with 5 BCE, on witch month the Passover occurred? This would not be possible only if in 4 BCE we do have a leap year that means we do not have Passover in March but in April, so that February is Adar-I and March is Adar-II and April is Nisan or Aviv in the lunar calendar. The Gregorian Calendar did not existed but in an ideal calendar Passover would fall on 14 Nisan 3756 that is 20 March, and on Julian Calendar is one week earlier 23 March the real calendar date of the eclipse. If the year is leap we have Passover falling on ideal calendar at 19 April and on Julian Calendar on 12 April in 4 BCE that is -3 not -4. If we add 13 March + 29 days = 12 April. --FlorinCB (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This comment is for the image https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0099-0000/LE-0004-03-23T.gif generated for year 4 BCE. Sorry for the typos. FlorinCB (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The image of the eclipse for 4 BCE is showing the eclipse could be seen from Philippines till Africa's East Coast. That's how is explained in the main article is we go with year -4 5 BCE ? FlorinCB (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

If we go with 4 BCE, on witch month the Passover occurred? This would not be possible only if in 4 BCE we do have a leap year that means we do not have Passover in March but in April, to have 29 days from the eclipse, so that February is Adar-I and March is Adar-II and April is Nisan or Aviv in the lunar calendar. The Gregorian Calendar did not existed but in an ideal calendar Passover would fall on 14 Nisan 3757 that is between 11-13 March in 3 BCE, and on 13 March on NASA calendar date of the eclipse on Africa's Vest Coast in -3 4 BCE. FlorinCB --FlorinCB (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This comment is for the image generated https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0099-0000/LE-0003-03-13P.gif for year -3 4 BCE. I'm sorry for the typo. FlorinCB (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

(For further study of Quirinius and Piso, see Levick, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor (1967), Appendix V, about the Homanadensian War. In it, she hilights well how Mommsen and Ramsay made the same attempt as Sherwin-White by using an inscription about an unnamed governor of Syria - that was either Piso or Quirinius; but Piso seems the more likely.) See also F.F. Bruce, New Testament History, 1969 and H.W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, 1973. Herobill 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

---

True, it's been hashed over at great length. The Wikipedia policy that has been established is that neither dating terminology is to be preferred; rather that an article follows the system used by the first editor who wrote the article. Thus, in this article, the correct notation is B.C., because that is the form used by the first author. No need for more contentious debate. 'Nuff said! Pollinator 01:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is grasping at straws to try to prove Luke 2 to be historically accurate. He is likely as errant as Matthew was; neither book is a "history" by contemporary standards of their time, let alone today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.226.12.214 (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Ernest L Martin very ably reconciles Luke and Matthew and argues convincingly for Herod's death being in 1 B.C. in his book "The Star that Astonished the World". Nwpilgrim (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)nwpilgrim

The most concise work I have seen on this topic (aside from Jack Finegan) is that of Andrew Steinmann. Steinmann received his PhD in Near Eastern Studies, and has written quite extensively on the topic of Herod's death. I recommend his book From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology for a more in depth approach to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joearant (talk • contribs) 20:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

First time writing in Wikipedia, so I do not intend to be the one changing the article. I'm just wondering why we still have 4 BC as Herod's death when David Beyer showed back in 1998 that copies of Josephus prior to 1544 unanimously put Herod's death at 1 BC:

″My visits to the British Library in April 1983 uncovered evidence that substantiates Filmer's thesis. Out of the forty-six early editions of Josephus's Antiquities published before 1700 that were examined, twenty-seven demonstrate the uncommon "twenty-second year of Tiberius." Of these twenty-seven texts, all but three were published prior to 1544, some dating back to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Of greatest importance, however, is the fact that, in the British Library, not a single edition published prior to 1544 was uncovered bearing the "twentieth year of Tiberius."...[In the Library of Congress] Five more editions supported the "twenty-second year." Among the others, none prior to 1544 recorded the "twentieth year." 24.22.52.238 (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a matter of academic consensus. Most scholars date Jesus's birth around 4 BCE, because that's when they consider Herod died. If Herod died in another year, they would have to move Jesus's birth also by several years. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I get the academic consensus, but if that consensus is based on a corrupted copy of Josephus and we have a good source that says so, why is that not in the article? The article itself acknowledges other aspects of the 1 BC vs. 4 BC debate, why not the most pertinent one? 24.22.52.238 (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not our task to judge what the academic consensus is based upon, see WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I had assumed responders on the Talk page would be familiar with some of the literature in the article. Clearly there has been a long standing debate between the last two consensus views. From before Filmer (1966), the reliability of the text and the existence of variants of Antiquities Book XVIII Chpt 4, P. 6 has been part of that debate. Having over half of the copies prior to 1700 in the British Library being variants of the key text is obviously relevant to that debate. Schurer (1896) did not consider any variants and Barnes (1968) denied their existence. Both Andrew Steinmann (2009) and Ernest L. Martin cited the variants Beyer found. I’m asking why relevant information "which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources" has been withheld?

The article says c. 72 – 4 or 1 BCE), so I do not see how that's being withheld. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@FlorinCB: We don't go by WP:OR, especially when it means misreading what sources have to say. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@FlorinCB: You got that wrong: year -0004 according to NASA means 5 BCE. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I have taken that in consideration that -0003 would be 4 BCE but I see no note on the NASA site about this. One quote like -0000 is 1 BCE would be enough so I can check it using browser search on the website. Thank You! FlorinCB (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@FlorinCB: Here: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE-0099-0000.html tgeorgescu (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This is the comment to be searched on NASA website is then "astronomical year -1 corresponds to 2 BCE". Then, also on hebcal.com the Apache Server and PHP Extension is using -000001 for 2 BCE, and -000003 is 4 BCE, and how You said -000004 is 5 BCE and this is the year were the eclipse last entire night in Asia and Africa and can emotionally affect and old man as Herodes. The good part is that -000003 if is 4 BCE is a leap year. FlorinCB (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@FlorinCB: We don't settle the matter through original research. Take your original research elsewhere. This is not the place for it. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

And, to answer the charge, 4 BCE was a common year. For the Romans, since Jews did not count years the same way as Romans did. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I did not know that "astronomical year -1 corresponds to 2 BCE", etc., in PHP and programming. This is not original research but was and error that I seen with the images generated by NASA for 3 BCE wile I read the article to document myself about the death of Herod the Great and is still not original research except maybe that from mistake we see on hebcal.com that is a leap year and is original research maybe since I use Hebrew Calendar that Passover did not fallen in March. If for the Romans was a common year they did not keep Passover that can fall in March or April. FlorinCB (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@FlorinCB: According to Hebrew calendar an extra month was inserted by Jews, making it a pregnant year, each two or three years. This was done through actual observation of nature, so there are no mathematical rules for computing it. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

In the main article someone used this mathematical rules to compose this sentence: A partial eclipse best observed from the west coast of Africa, took place on March 13, 4 BCE, about 29 days before Passover. FlorinCB (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@FlorinCB: This is another monkey wrench thrown at your reasoning:

A more refined calculation takes into account that the Jewish calendar was based not on astronomical calculation but on observation, following criticism that it is possible to establish the phase of the moon on a particular day two thousand years ago but not whether it was obscured by clouds or haze.

Quoted from Chronology of Jesus. Meaning: they had to observe a full moon in order to declare Passover. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree about eye observation that we can skip now using an application on a smartphone on witch we can see 02% Crescent or 98% Descendent using a maths formula, and another formula for eclipse to see in witch month fall one of the four eclipses and were is visible. And even then existed astronomers for example at Library of Alexandria that informed the population before a solar or lunar event alike the three magians. Retuning back to our article the month Adar or February is very far from Iyar or May when summer early rain clouds with thundering can prevent that we do eye observation of sky in the regions around Mediterranean Basin and this can happen also in leap years when we decide so that Passover is 29 days (the number of days in Adar-II) more close to Summer as a religious and agricultural convention. FlorinCB (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, the main point is that we don't trust you to perform such research, period. You cannot appeal this, it is website policy. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Original research

Using nasa.gov smacks of original research. We're not here to relitigate the academic consensus. If you don't publish with peer-review in mainstream historical journals, you have no right to challenge the scholarly consensus. And even then the scholarly community decides if your criticism holds water.

Using nasa.gov gives people the wrong idea that they may suggest other years, based upon eclipses data from NASA. But their edits are not allowed by website policy. WP:FORUM. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Antigonus

GOLDIEM J Question, did Antigonus rule the Herodian Kingdom of Judea? Jerium (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jerium: was Herod's kingdom separate? For me the line of succession seems continuous, unless there's something I'm missing. GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

GOLDIEM J Did Abraham Lincoln become the second president of the Confederate States of America?

GOLDIEM J Do I have to perform a revert to get a response from you? Jerium (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)