Talk:Herod II

Untitled

I just re-wrote the article. Herodias was not the wife of Philip, as this quote from Josephus (vol 18,5,1) will show: "ABOUT this time Aretas (the king of Arabia Petres) and Herod had a quarrel on the account following: Herod the tetrarch had, married the daughter of Aretas, and had lived with her a great while; but when he was once at Rome, he lodged with Herod, who was his brother indeed, but not by the same mother; for this Herod was the son of the high priest Sireoh's daughter. However, he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod's wife, who was the daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the Great".

/Martin Hagstrøm, Denmark

Herod, the son of Mariamne II, was called Herod Philip. So there is no conflict between the Gospel accounts and Josephus.

How does it come that Herod the great (Herod I) named his child by his third wife Mariamne II to Herod Philip II, and then his child by his fifth wife Clepatra of Jerusalem to Herod Philip I?

/Malin Klangeryd, Sweden

I haver just posted the following on the talk page for Herod Philip, the disambiguation page:

I question the whole existence of these three pages (Herod Philip [disambiguation], Herod Philip I and Herod Philip II). Philip the Tetrarch (born in c 26 BCE to Herod the Great and Cleopatra, of Jerusalem), the founder (or re-namer) of Caesarea Philippi, is (was) not known as Herod Philip. I can find no reference outside wikipedia to two Herod Philips. The use of references on these pages is cavalier.

• The first reference given in the page on Herod Philip I () refers to the son of Cleopatra and Herod the Great as Philip (born c. 26 BCE). Kokkinos says (p 223) “The stubborn existence of many theologians in referring to Herod III as ‘Herod Philip’ is without any value” (233), and again on p. 266, “No illusory Herod Philip ever existed”.
• The first external reference given (Philip the Tetrarch entry in historical sourcebook by Mahlon H. Smith) says “Secondary literature, such as Easton's Bible Dictionary, has often referred to him as "Herod Philip" although there is absolutely no evidence in primary sources that he mimicked his half-brother Antipas in claiming his father's name or was addressed as Herod by contemporaries. This is a convenient modern convention to distinguish him from other ancient Hellenized rulers with the same given name”, which casts doubt on the article it is supposed to support.

The pages on Herod Philip might be rephrased to say something like

See Philip the Tetrarch. The name Herod Philip appears to be a modern convenience. There is no evidence for contemporary uses of this nomenclature. It is an example of the great difficulty in establishing the relationships of various holders of the same name in the same area or family - especially in the Herodian dynasty (see

The Cambridge Ancient History Vol.10, says that Philip the Tetrarch, “unlike his brothers, did not use Herod as a dynastic name”, and refers to him throughout as Philip, or Philip the Tetrarch. The predecessor CAH had already stated that Philip’s half-brothers Archelaus and Antipas had adopted the name of Herod, "presumably" for a dynastic claim from Herod the Great.

In a further example of the difficulty of naming individuals at this timer, particularly in the family of Herod the Great, , Kokkinos goes to some length to point out that Philip the Tetrarch married NOT Salome, but her mother Herodias, who may have been known as Herodias-Salome. The Salome often claimed to be the wife of Philip was the daughter of this Herodias-Salome, born about 1 BCE, the fruit of her marriage to Herod III, and therefore step-daughter as well as niece of Philip the Tetrarch. Herodias-Salome had divorced Herod III, the son of Herod the Great by Mariamme II (therefore the half-brother of Philip); after Philip’s death in 33 CE, she married a third half-brother, Antipas, the son of Herod the Great by Malthace. (Herod the Great’s sister was also called Salome, born c. 50 BCE.) The ‘Salome’ who asked for Jon the Baptist’s head is not named in the Bible: Matthew (14, 6) says “the daughter of Herodias danced before them”, but does not name her; and Mark (6. 22) similarly calls her “the daughter of the said Herodias”. It appears possible, at least, that the cause of Herod’s rage against John is that the latter was preaching not against him, but against his wife - who had divorced his half-brother, and therefore was not a permissible wife for him.

I am submitting this to the talk pages rather than editing the pages fully, as this appears to me, an outsider to the field (minefield?) of nomenclature around the time of Christ, to be contentious ground. MacAuslan (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right - it is complicated, but it does seem clear from the sources that Herod II was never known as Herod Philip - I am going to move the page to Herod II. --Rbreen (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moves were already done while us admin sat around and pondered. Fences&Windows 00:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Herod Philip I → Herod II — Needs to override a redirect; the sources in the discussion here clearly indicate that the subject was known as Herod, and in scholarly literature is usually referred to as Herod II.Relisted again. Fences&Windows 22:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Relisted. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC) --Rbreen (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Difficult. The scholarly literature referred to appears to be by those specialising in history rather than theology. The names Herod Philip I and Herod Philip II seem more common overall than any of the names by which these two men were known during their lifetmes, but stem from a relatively recent convention among theologians. Our problem is that far more people are aquainted with these two men through popular theology than through scholarly history, so in terms of common names, the Herod Philip convention should prevail. But I tend towards invoking WP:IAR and going for the scholarly rather than the common names here. Andrewa (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? Our article titles are intended for lay readers, not for specialists; they permit the lay readers to find the article readily and be sure where they are; at that point, explaining the scholarly usage(s) is the task of the article text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting, Pmanderson, that lay people should be fobbed off with error? If there is confusion - and there clearly is - I repeat my suggestion that wikipedia say that there is confusion, and not try to lay claim to authority to say that one of the posssible sources of the confusion is the 'right' answer.

No. What basis is there for calling the present title an "error"? None of these are correct Greek nor Latin; all of them are Anglicizations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess technically the title may be in error in two ways. One is, it may be contrary to WP:NC. The other is, it may be contrary to overwhelming expert opinion. In article titles, Wikipedia is in general interested in correcting the first sort of error but not the second, in fact attempts to correct the second sort of error in article titles are nearly always contrary to WP:SOAP. But I still have a feeling that this might be the exception. See below. Andrewa (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• "See Philip the Tetrarch. The name Herod Philip appears to be a modern convenience. There is no evidence for contemporary uses of this nomenclature. It is an example of the great difficulty in establishing the relationships of various holders of the same name in the same area or family - especially in the Herodian dynasty (see [2]"
  • Philip the Tetrarch would also be acceptable, reasonable and recognixable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The picture of general confusion about the Herodians is strengthened by the difficulty in identifying the various Salomes and Herodiases. I firmly believe that a good encyclopedia (like a good teacher) should admit to ignorance where there is no longer any great chance of clear and certain knowledge. That applies here. MacAuslan (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I still think this is a difficult one. I ask myself, if a layman is looking or information on this particular man, under what title will they be most likely to find the correct article? And it's a difficult call. I'm still tending to the history scholars rather than the popular theologians, but it's an interesting question, and will set an interesting precedent if it's well argued. Andrewa (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely the notion of making Herod Philip lead to Philip the Tetrarch meets your objection, Andrewa? If all possible permutations (maybe including the Hebrew, Greek and Latin versions) had the short para saying that there is confusion, and pointing to the one (Philip the Tetrarch) that cannot be disputed, any layman should be able to find why there is no article on her/his original formulation of the query. That, to me, would be a sensible response. My original idea was NOT to 'move and rename', but to link the various pages, and give an idea of the best way to name the personage concerned. I know it's not necessarily wikipedia's role to 'decide' between experts, but guidance, surely, should be part of any encyclopaedis's role? Here, if we still had an article called Herod Philip, perhaps disambiguatiuong the other two, and H-P and H-P II said 'The position is confused: see Philip the Tetrarch, with all the redirects, I think we'd help most seekers after knowledge to find it. H-P I (to stick to the nomenclature currently accepted by wikipedia) seems to be a red herring: his principal importance seems to be that he refused to take part... MacAuslan (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... see [1] for evidence that there's some sort of confusion regarding the name Philip the Tetrarch too. But perhaps the confusion here is really over the name Herod Philip I. My only real problem with Philip the Tetrarch is that I think most people would expect to see him under some variant of Herod. Philip the Tetrarch does seem to be the least ambiguous title possible, which is strongly in its favour, the strongest argument yet IMO, particularly in view of the enormous confusion surrounding the whole area.

Disagree that Wikipedia should offer guidance. I think that's the start of a very slippery slope towards advocacy, and there's nowhere to draw the line once we start. Andrewa (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm2... and owing to a previous move of this article, the DAB at Herod currently reads in part Herod Philip I, sometimes called Herod Philip I... an unintended identity I'm sure. Andrewa (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I was loose in my use of 'guidance'. I didn't mean advocacy, but the business of a guide - in this case, to point out a path, or paths, through a [rocky] terrain. I DO maintain that finding such guidance is one of the motives for visiting encyclopedias in general, and wikipedia in particular (it's certainly one of my principal motives); and I find it hard to believe that this might be a slippery slope. MacAuslan (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of overstretching the metaphor, an encyclopedia should point out all possible paths without preferring any one. Again I say, if we allow even mild advocacy and even if we call it guidance, it will be very hard to later draw a line. Our policy is not to go there. I think it's a good one. Andrewa (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely no one would include all dead ends, morasses and other messes as 'possible paths'? O.K., an encyc shouldn't limit itself to ONE path; but some are without doubt straighter than others. MacAuslan (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by dead ends, morasses and other messes. They're rather subjective terms, don't you think?

The point is simply, deciding where guidance ends and WP:SOAP begins can be very tricky. I preach caution.

Perhaps we should focus on the issue at hand. Are any of the proposed names dead ends, morasses and other messes, as you understand the terms? If they are, then I'm afraid I'd have to say that at least some of what you would reject in these terms should be included in an encyclopedia. Sorry! Andrewa (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure they're subjective - they're rhetorical: I was arguing a case. I still think that the single arrival point (article to which all others direct) should be the most neutral. I believe that that, when dealing with periods in the past, should be assumed to be the title used in the subject's own time (necessarily adjusted for the English language, in an E Lang encyclopedia) - here, Philip the Tetrarch. The Herod Philips have to be there, because people will search for them. These pages should note that there is disagreement about the use of the name and that there is very little firm evidence surviving from that time, and then send the seeker to the historical name. If someone with more knowledge than my own adds a note to the effect that 'Theologians use ... and historians use ...', that would be a welcome addition. This means that all the terms would be in wikipedia; they would all be findable; and there would be a central page which would contain all relevant information, and I trust everything that any user of an encyclopedia might want. I don't want to MOVE any pages, just tidy up the way of finding them. I don't think this is as strong an advice as you do; more of a signpost (perhaps a better image than 'guide'?)

I was originally astonished, when I began this, by the confusion over HP I & HP II. Evidence for the elder 'Philip' seems minimal. When I am arguing this, I don't think I'm infringing WP:SOAP. My concern isn't to promote a point of view or opinion: I am trying to reflect what I find in terms of authenticated knowledge. If I have strayed into an area of theological controversy, it is innocent! My motivation was a linguistic inquiry into the name Philip, very distant from this. MacAuslan (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the redirects need to be there, and that the articles should document the various conflicting names and the contexts in which each is prevalent. I don't think there's any dispute about either of these points.

But I'm not convinced that there's no problem in the way you are promoting your views here. And the related danger is straying into original research. The goals you put forward here sound laudable, but I think closer inspection will reveal many problems with them. The use of and need for rhetoric is always a danger sign. Any views presented in Wikipedia must be described, rather than argued for, and attributed to some authority in order to be encyclopedic.

Authenticated knowledge describes it well. But who are your authorities? Andrewa (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For my authorities, I refer you back to my first post on these pages:

• The first reference given in the page on Herod Philip I () refers to the son of Cleopatra and Herod the Great as Philip (born c. 26 BCE). Kokkinos says (p 223) “The stubborn existence of many theologians in referring to Herod III as ‘Herod Philip’ is without any value” (233), and again on p. 266, “No illusory Herod Philip ever existed”. [IOn full, the ref is Kokkinos, Nikkos (1998). The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. pp. 236–240. ISBN 1-85075-690-2.

• The first external reference given (Philip the Tetrarch entry in historical sourcebook by Mahlon H. Smith) says “Secondary literature, such as Easton's Bible Dictionary, has often referred to him as "Herod Philip" although there is absolutely no evidence in primary sources that he mimicked his half-brother Antipas in claiming his father's name or was addressed as Herod by contemporaries. This is a convenient modern convention to distinguish him from other ancient Hellenized rulers with the same given name”, which casts doubt on the article it is supposed to support." My sources are those I found in the wikipedia article. When I traced them (not without difficulty) they seemed to have been misunderstood, or mis-quoted. That was what started me off. MacAuslan (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

See also the external reference quoted in Herod Philip I, [[2]]. The external reference cited above is from Herod Philip II. They lead to the same page, although labelled differently, The web page referred to by "Another biographical entry" in HP II is of limited value, being four (?sketchy?) lines from the 'WebBible online' at http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/herodphilip2.html. Now THAT might be a tendentious source! What all the authorities, taken together, support without doubt is my central point: that the name Herod Philip is disputed. The solution I suggest doesn't seem irrational, nor anti-encylopaedic, to me. And the rhetoric I have used has been on the Talk pages. I don't feel that there's space in a modest redirect for rhetoric. MacAuslan (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've relisted again. Can I beg for concise and precise decisions on what titles people support for the pages currently at Herod Philip I and Herod Philip II, and what should be done about Herod Philip? I think that people have settled on:
  • Herod Philip I → Herod II
  • Herod Philip II → Philip the Tetrarch
  • Herod Philip redirects to Philip the Tetrarch, with a hatnote.

Fences&Windows 22:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree - that is more or less what I have been arguing for. Myself, s I said at the start of this, I would add the caveat

The name Herod Philip appears to be a modern convenience. There is no evidence for contemporary uses of this nomenclature. It is an example of the great difficulty in establishing the relationships of various holders of the same name in the same area or family - especially in the Herodian dynasty (see to tyhe various redirect pages.

- or similar. MacAuslan (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

Slavonic Josephus

Says Herodias was married to Philip not Herod Beothus. Other things different in the Slavonic Josephus however are NOT consistent with changes one would make for the purpose of reconciling it with The Gospels. http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/gno/gjb/gjb-3.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.233.157 (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Herod II

Herod II 2400:AC40:70B:7B14:75FA:429C:F3D0:BD84 (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)