Talk:Herod Antipas

Lyon and Léon

This can't be right. In Roman times Lyon, France was Lugdunum, while Léon, Spain was Legion, after the Roman legion stationed there. Neither name has anything to do with lions.

Additional notes (July, the 6th, 2019):
This may mean either the city of Lugdunum now known as Lyon,[55]
The claimed reference doesn't check out. It's not about that topic.

The place of his exile is given by Josephus' Antiquities as in Gaul (Gallia Lugdunensis).[54]
The Wikipedia entry claims he was banished to Gaul. The referenced source claims Antipas was banished to Spain.

Thanks for noting this blatant error. Elsewhere, Josephus states explicitly that Herod Antipas was exiled to Vienna, a city of Gaul. The error has since been corrected.Davidbena (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I had obviously erred in thinking that this article was referring to Herod Archelaus who was exiled to Vienna. As for this Herod, Herod Antipas, I have no further information, other than that he was exiled to Spain.Davidbena (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have corrected the article to read "Spain," just as its source reports.Davidbena (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Herodeans?

A family tree of the herodeans would helps sort out this article. John D. Croft (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV: Josephus on John the Baptist

Someone speculated that the passage on John the Baptist in Josephus is a Christian interpolation. Josephus' account differs from the New Testament account and is mentioned by Origen. I can find no credible scholars which view this passage as a Christian interpolation. Keep your speculation to yourself. 24.7.87.135 21:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Most scholars also believe that Josephus' remarks about Jesus are not an interpolation either, although it has been doctored a bit by Christians. Tom129.93.17.213 04:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think those passages are appropriate here at all. That's really POV. They belong to the theology section in the articles about John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth, respectively. 83.253.3.37 (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Death date?

Any sense of the year of his death in the ancient sources or modern scholarship? john k 05:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears a great deal of the information on this page is copied and pasted too many times, there are several areas where I see repeating text.198.240.130.75 19:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)C

Article cleanup

I've cleaned up this article a bit. Among the changes, I've added brackets for birth/death, created a seperate section for materials pseudepigraphical in nature, created a section for Antipas' role in popular culture, and I've also cleaned up the section related to Jesus' trial.

A factual mention that of the gospels, only Luke records the trial is fine, however it was irrelevant to the article to have a long apologetic of why only Luke would record the trial, explaining point by point the purpose of each gospel. I have removed this section. If it restored, it really should go to the footnotes, as it breaks the narrative of the article.

Brando130 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The date naming convention is inconsistent. Dates should be BCE or CE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:497F:8E64:6CBB:DE7:4386:B5A9 (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

Only marking it B because I can't mark it higher; consider Wikipedia:Good article nomination. The article has tripled in length and vastly improved in quality over the last month. Good work. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both reviewers. I'm happy with the article's coverage of its subject's biography, but I'm hesitant to nominate it for good article status while the Legacy section doesn't mention anything between the Gospel of Peter and Jesus Christ Superstar. I suspect there's more to be said about portrayals of or attitudes towards Herod, but I don't know where to look for information about that. EALacey 14:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It amazes me that an article on Herod Antipas would have one reference to Harold Hoehners contribution to a festchrift, but nothing whatsoever from Cambridge Press' book, "Herod Antipas," written by Hoehner, or the updated version, Herod Antipas, Contemporary of Jesus. Hoehner's scholarship is impeccable and his documentation is incredible. Written more than 30 years ago, his first work is still the ultimate source on Herod Antipas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Scoggins (talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't easily see a copy of Hoehner's book when I was expanding the article. I now have access to a larger library, and I'm planning to revise the article after Christmas to make use of the major studies by Hoehner and Jensen. EALacey (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Much of this page is sourced through the Bible. Is there some way that we could get a more objective historical analysis of this person. Some quotes are from the Psalms which pre-date the subject's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.4.197 (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the current biblical references. The article explains what the New Testament authors say about Herod Antipas (surely a significant aspect of the topic), without representing their perspectives as historical fact. Psalm 2 is mentioned only in the context of Robin Lane Fox's suggestion that this inspired Luke's trial narrative; I've rewritten the reference to make this clearer. Of course there are additional academic sources that should be used, as John Scoggins points out above – I will get to this eventually, if nobody else does it first. EALacey (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

John the Baptist and Jesus

I think this subsection should be be turned into a section a part form the section "reign" since it reflects the view of the christianity and all its non-trivial sources are the gospels. Lechatjaune (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Antipater vs Antipas

There is a confusing circular reference in this article that manifests in two places: (1) the opening which asserts that the true name of the article's subject is "Herod Antipater" but is "known by the nickname 'Antipas,'" and (2) the third sentence of the second paragraph of the "Early Life" section which states "It was only after they were executed (c. 7 BCE), and Herod's oldest son Antipater was convicted of trying to poison his father (5 BCE), that the now elderly Herod fell back on his youngest son Antipas, revising his will to make him heir." This sentence makes it sound like Antipater and Antipas are in fact different individuals. What up wit dat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.227.119 (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(1) is an unsourced claim. I deleted it.Viking Rollo (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Denied the title of king

The body of the article makes this clear - he was persuaded to ask Caligula for the title of king but instead he was sent into exile. This is in the body of the text already. Another source is John L. McKenzie's Dictionary of the Bible."Herodias, envious of the honors paid to her brother while her husband did not have the royal dignity, persuaded her husband to go to Rome and ask the title of king. Agrippa sent a representative to present charges against Herod. The charges were credited and Herod was exiled to Lyons in Gaul; Herodias accompanied him of her own choice. No further record of them appears."[1] Doug Weller talk 11:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Family tree

The family tree looks messed up.

First of all, I don't know what the mini-tree linking Aretas IV (King of Arabia) and Phasaelis (a city??) represents. Maybe a hierarchy rather than a true family tree??
Whatever it is should be stated clearly. If it's not a family tree, put it in a different section (or delete it). If it relates to (say) paternal or maternal side, then make a new sub-heading.

Secondly, currently the family tree seems to show inter alia that Herod II was the descendant of two women (presumably married?), namely Mariamne II and Mariamne I!! Besides being a physical impossibility (in those times, if not also now), it is contradicted in the article which clearly states Herod II was the son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II. So maybe this tree is trying to indicate that Herod the Great had five wives/concubines/sexual partners.
But how can the reader know (at a glance!!) that "A┈B┈C┈D┈E┈F" means F partnered with A, B, C, D & E, rather than A partnered with B, C, D, E & F? Or, more literally, A partnered with B, B partnered A & C, C partnered B & D, D partnered C & E, E partnered D & F, and F partnered E?
It is totally ambiguous. It is not enough to say that the reader can decode it by reading the article(s), and/or deducing the gender of the various individuals. The purpose of the family tree is to show relationships plainly. If you have to read the article to understand it, then it is not very helpful.
—DIV (120.17.166.241 (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC))

Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea from 26 AD to 36 AD

Pilate was assigned to Judea for the years 26-27 and 36-37. Not for the whole period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.124.206 (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Not according to Pontius Pilate page, which says he was there for ten years. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

conflation of history with gospels

This article seems very sloppy in the way it freely mixes the fictionalized biblical account of history with actual history.--2603:8000:8901:F00:F925:8954:6262:1707 (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

HAROD ANTIPAS/TETRARCH

Herod the King who was reigning when Jesus was born Matthew 2 died while Jesus was still a child. It states Matthew Ch 2 verse 19 "But when Harod was dead, behold an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20 saying Arise and take the child and his mother, go into the land of Israel for they be dead which sought the young child life" 3 after Herods death, then came John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness. 14 at that time HEROD TETRARCH heard of the fame of Jesus and said to his servants ," This is John Baptist ; he is risen from dead and therefore mighty works do show forth of themselves in him" 3. Foe Harod had laid hold on John, bound him and put him in prison for Herodias sake his brothers wife. 174.247.224.92 (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Date nomenclature

Shouldn’t dates be listed as BCE/CE instead of BC/AD? Impendio12 (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Impendio12 see WP:ERA. Doug Weller talk 08:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Herod mentioned as "king" in Bible

I don't know if the entry here where it says "He bore the title of tetrarch ("ruler of a quarter") and is referred to as both "Herod the Tetrarch" and "King Herod" in the New Testament, although he never held the title of king" needs to be deleted or re-structured in some way, but the writers in the Gospels didn't actually call him a "king," they call him βασιλεύς which is just a general catch-all for "monarch." He's even called a Tetrarch explicitly in Luke. Just food for thought... Saltbuttre (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

See the article on basileus for the meaning. Dimadick (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I already acknowledged basileus. That is what ασιλεύς

is in koine. Saltbuttre (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Reason: the Massacre of the Innocents does not count as a historical fact, therefore "alleged". tgeorgescu (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)