Talk:Herod Agrippa

the Jews placing little precedent toward the Judean kings installed by Rome

What does this even mean in English? Furthermore, where are the supposed 'different views' in the sentence "Christian and Jewish historiography take different views of this king, with the Christians largely opposing Agrippa and the Jews placing little precedent toward the Judean kings installed by Rome"?

Herod Philip I did not rule

The article says Agrippa succeeded Herod Philip I, but this is incorrect. Herod Philip I was one of four sons who survived Herod the Great. The other three were Archaleus, Herod Antipas, and Philip (the younger). It is with the younger Philip that confusion between the two is common. Herod the Great submitted a will to Rome dividing up the kingdom upon his death into four parts, i.e. tetrarchies (tetra meaning four, of course). However, Herod Philip I, a Roman ex-patriot for most of his life, abdicated, either forcibly or voluntarily, and never ruled, at any time, any part of the country. Augustus made the decision to install only three sons. Consequently, Herod Philip I's tetrarchy was consolidated into his brother Archaleus' tetrarchy, whereupon the latter was given the title of "Ethnarch" of the two larger southern tetrarchies that covered Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and across the Jordan River to the south including all the area surrounding the Dead Sea. The other Philip, most often called "Philip the Tetrarch" in order to distinguish him from his brother who was never a tetrarch, was the actual ruler of Gaulinitis, Trachonitis, etc., i.e. the northeastern tetarchy that bordered only the eastern shores of the Sea of Galilee across from the northwest tetrarchy of Herod Antipas that stretched from the western shores of the sea out to the Mediterranean coast. Pvsalsedo 11:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Original name

His original name was Marcus Julius Agrippa, and is mistakenly called Herod in Acts. Is he not M. Julius Herod Agrippa? How is he named on his coins? Wetman 20:52, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Herod is the name used historically by many to mean the king of Judea around the first century. So I think its not wrong to say that Agrippa is King Herod. There are just many King Herods other that him. Eraser78 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He is called Herod only in Acts. He is Agrippa on the coins and elsewhere. Ford MF (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Which Herod?

The article says: the kingdom of Chalcis in Lebanon was at his request given to his brother Herod Which Herod is that? Gdr 21:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems he is known as Herod of Chalcis. Gdr 17:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Angel?

" But God sent an angel, and the angel released Peter from prison." This is historically acurate?

Clearly, "according to Acts 12:7–11" is to be understood here. Gdr 23:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the "angel" mentions and other Bible related mythological titbits could go in a separate section? They’re perfectly valid and extremely interesting, but I really think they should be demonstrably distinct from more prosaic, ordinary, historical information. OzoneO 23:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. More reliable histories (e.g. Josephus) should surely take precedence over religious legends, especially as this is an article about Agrippa, not Peter. The release of the early churchman "by an angel" is not history.

The article does not claim the angel is historical, the article claims that Acts of the Apostles mentions an angel. Which is true and easily verified. Gdr 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Son of Aristobulus?

The article says Agrippa I was the son of Aristobulus and Berenice. But which Aristobulus? The one linked in the article cannot be right. That Aristobulus, according to his Wikipedia article, died in 103 BC. How can he have fathered Agrippa I who was born in 10 BC? Aristobulus II died in 50 BC and Aristobulus III in 35 BC, so they're both out. The other Aristobuli in the Aristobulus (disambiguation) page are not possible candidates either. Britannica says that Herod Agripa was the son of Antipater not Aristobulus. But the only "Antipater" I could find in Wikipedia that is connected to this dynasty is Antipater the Idumaean, father of Herod the Great. Does anyone have any information on the correct genealogy? --AladdinSE 23:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

See Herod the Great#Marriages and Children. Aristobulus was a son of Herod the Great by his wife Mariamne (the first of that name). Our article Berenice (daughter of Salome) confirms this: "She married her cousin Aristobulus, who was assassinated in 6 BC; she was accused of complicity in his murder. By Aristobulus she was the mother of Herod Agrippa I." It's tough sorting out the many people with the same name in the Herodian dynasty. I note that our Herod page doesn't list all the Herods either. Gdr 14:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I note that the Jewish Virtual Library calls him "Aristobulus IV" [1] Gdr 19:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is the Aristobulos IV in the JVL that is the father of Agrippa I. I will alter the article to remove the wiki link to the incorrect Aristobulos. Then I'll add Aristobulos IV to the Aristobulos disambiguation page and start his own article. --AladdinSE 22:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Anno Domini vs. Common Era

Gdr, please explain your reasons for reverting; your edit summary gave no details. Using AD ("in the year of our Lord") and BC "Before Christ" is overtly religious, and specifically Christian. Editors have been changing to "Common Era" designations all over Wikipedia for some time. --AladdinSE 11:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: As you chose to make your point on my Talk page instead of here in the article Talk page, I am quoting the discourse here, for the benefit of other editors.--AladdinSE 17:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to go round changing era names on spurious grounds, at least get it right! Change [[10 BC]] to [[10 BCE]] not [[10]] BCE which mistakenly links to a date twenty years later. And CE goes after the date, not before like AD, so AD [[44]] must be changed to [[44]] CE. But really, it would be better not to edit-war over this. Gdr 11:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

They are not spurious grounds. I began to change "Anno Domini" to "Common Era" etc when I noticed it was being done routinely on all sorts of articles, and I agreed with the reasoning. "In the Year of our Lord" and "Before Christ" are overtly Christian and religious and "Common Era" designations are neutral. Moreover, I find your post here on my Talk page to be straange. Why couldn't you say your peace in the actual article Talk section I started deliberately to discuss this matter? What's more, why did you not explain your reason for reverting in the first place? As for changing 10 BC to 10 BCE not 10 BCE that is a typo you could have fixed yourself, without reverting. Since you did not, I will fix it myself. --AladdinSE 16:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about commenting on your talk page, I hadn't realised you had commented here.

On the substantive grounds, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras says that BC/AD and BCE/CE are both acceptable. It's a point on which people can legitimately disagree, like day/month dating versus month/day dating, or "colour" vs "color". So it's not a good issue to edit war over. Gdr 18:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If they are both acceptable, and I fixed the date-link typo, and moreover I have explained to you why I find Christian references to be less than neutral, especially in a biography of a Jewish king, then why is it OK for you edit war and revert? --AladdinSE 18:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Since both eras are acceptable, why did you change it? And if BC/AD is less than neutral for a Jewish king, how is BCE/CE any more acceptable? Agrippa himself would probably have used Seleucid era dating. Gdr 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I explained why I changed it. It is more neutral. BCE/CE is more acceptable in any instance, in my opinion, and in the context of a Jewish biography doubly so. "In The Year of Our Lord" has obvious objectionable connotations. As for Selucid dates, they are not included in the Manual of Style as an acceptable modern date-reference system.--AladdinSE 10:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing origin of a term with its present utility. Of course BC/AD has its orgin in Christianity (as does BCE/CE). But now they are just names for eras. The same for Seleucid era dating: to Jews the Seleucids were anathema, having profaned the Temple and attempted to destroy the Jewish faith. But that didn't stop Jewish historians from using the system. Gdr 13:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not confusing origin with present utility. The very fact that Common Era naming has been introduced and gained acceptance in international scholarly application (as well as in Wikipedia) despite being much more recent then BC/AD, is testament to the very real modern need for religious-neutrality in naming conventions. No one is obfuscating that year zero is the birth of Jesus, only that Jesus is not "everyone's lord". As for Seleucid naming, it is all moot, as neither of us are advocating the use of this system. Nevertheless, the Romans subjugated countless nations, and most of them adopted Roman calendars and other customs. It has nothing to do with ideology, only expediency. As civilization progresses and we are no longer under the hegemony of a world-wide empire or the rule of the Church, we have leisure to modify our terminology for neutrality. That is all the Common Era is about: neutrality. --AladdinSE 22:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

But surely no-one is so stupid as to think that "AD" indicates any kind of advocacy or acceptance of Christianity? It's just a conventional name for a count of years. Gdr 00:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If no one had any objection to AD, the Common Era would never have been introduced. Different people have different opinions on what "In the Year of our Lord" advocates or does not advocate. If you think people are "stupid" for objecting to a perceived "advocacy or acceptance" then that is your own opinion. --AladdinSE 12:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This is childish and stupid. There are centuries of historical scholarly precedence to the AD/BC convention. Indeed, it even describes the very nature of the dating system it accompanies! –Something that the “common era” convention seems to overlook in a show of typical moronic PC cosmetics. All intelligent people have a duty rise above such aesthetic, anti-intellectual obfuscating nonsense. If you use the Georgian dating system then use the correct associated terminology. There are other existing dating systems from non-Christian cultures which could also be used in accompaniment if that is your wish. The use of CE/BCE does NOT remove the Christian connotations or associations, it merely muddies the waters.OzoneO 23:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Disentanglement

The previous version of this article muddled together accounts from Josephus and Acts 12 regarding the last year of Agrippa's rule, to a rather confusing degree. I've separated them out here into separate sections, as Josephus and the author of Acts have very different points to make about Agrippa's death. Lest a certain someone be inclined to revert the edits, let me point out that the implication of of the previous version -- that a "zealous Jewish king would automatically want to imprison and execute Chrisitan apostles -- is anti-semitic and not supported by primary sources. If that wording returns I will call for a bias tag and moderator intervention. --jberkus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.195.55.98 (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

If you want any such future calls to be taken seriously, you should (your apparently useful contribution not withstanding) probably register & use a WP Log-in.
--Jerzy•t 17:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Does the whole story about Herod wanting to be Messiah in Graves's book have any accuracy? Haven't found any sources but Graves usually had some basis to his stuff. ThanksWolf2191 02:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to the best of my knowledge. Ford MF (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Masonic conspiracy theories

I found a strange conspiracy theory claiming that Herod Agrippa was the true founder of the Freemasons. The document also claims that Agrippa was the one who had Jesus crucified. I'm not at all sure if this theory is credible, but it would be perhaps be a good thing if similar accounts could be gathered in order to verify whether any additional authors have made the same claim. [2] ADM (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Caligula and Claudius

I do not understand the second half of the first sentence in Para. 2 "while he made a show of being in the interest of the Senate". Should it be 'which' instead of 'while' (i.e referring to accepting Claudius as emperor)?StanleyA1 (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Account in Josephus - the owl

According to the (admittedly fictional) account in Robert Graves "Claudius the God", it was the number of times the owl hooted that portended the number of days left of life (five). Could it be that Graves got this from the same account (and therefore this should be updated?) Beowulf (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Agrippa I → Herod Agrippa – The name by which he is commonly known as a result of Robert Graves' novels and the TV adaptation, referred to as "Herod" in the Bible so "Herod Agrippa" is a reasonable compromise, already redirects here. PatGallacher (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support as most common. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per UCN. Red Slash 18:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Definitely the most common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why the anti-religious bigotry?

As an historian, I would like to see if anyone here would like to justify the following absurd comment that is affixed to this article:

"This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view." (January 2015)

Are we seriously being asked to assume that "religious" texts (whatever that means -- see the appendix to Peter Berger's The Sacred Canopy on the difficulty of defining "religion" and therefore the complexities of taking this term as simplistically offered here) are inherently iffy? Presumably unlike some other, presumably secular, sources?

Religious belief, however we define it, is not a measure of reliability. Nor is the lack thereof, if there be such a creature. Indeed, one is hard-pressed to find many ancient historical accounts that lack some sort of religious bias -- or modern accounts, if one defines "religion" in one of Berger's second set of senses.

Luke is a pretty good historian for his times, and dozens of facts he describes have been confirmed. That he was a Christian, is no cause to dismiss his testimony, or to call it into particular question, as opposed to "secular" ancient historians, if such can be found. Of course one wishes for multiple accounts and critical readings of all ancient stories, but not because they are "religious," whatever that is supposed to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.132.111 (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That template is just the religion-specific version of Wikipedia's general primary sourcing policy. Not sure whether it really applies to this article, but you can't usually use a Bible verse as a footnoted reference, for example... AnonMoos (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding the Era CE instead of AD in the lead paragraph

Question: Would fellow editors here agree (per WP:CON) that we add the more common Era known as CE instead of AD for dates? This is becoming almost standard practice on Wikipedia. Your advice please.Davidbena (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

No. It may be common on articles of certain topics that you happen to edit, but it is not becoming "almost standard practice on Wikipedia".

Most people in the English-speaking world do not know what "CE" means, and so "AD" is better. tahc ^chat 16:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? CE is the abbreviation for our Common Era, and it is neutral. Many English readers do not think of our era in terms of the "year of our lord" (anno domini), but only as a reference point in time, starting 2016 years ago. That same reference point in time applies to CE (which begins 2016 years ago), although neutral as far a religious undertones are concerned. This is better for Wikipedia articles which cater to people of different religions. Can we get other opinions here?Davidbena (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, many English readers do not think of our era in terms of the "year of our Lord" or anything religious, and yet they (also) still don't know what "CE" or "Common Era" means. It is better for Wikipedia articles which use terms and abbreviations that people do understand. tahc ^chat 19:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

So far, it is only you and I who dispute this. In many scientific and academic journals, CE / BCE are becoming the standard usage in dating. See WP:Era. Let's just wait and get more feedback on this important issue. Giving a link to CE (as this) will also help our uneducated readers.Davidbena (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I dispute it. CE and BCE are the kind of niceties visited upon us by the Woke. They amount to revisionism, which is often no more than an expression of contrarian opinion.

My own reading of present and pre-existing historical literature, which is not un-extensive given my profession, shows that AD and BC are not only accepted but acceptable. 110.174.255.160 (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

They seem needlessly offensive, and Jesus is not our dominus. Dimadick (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before on Wikipedia, originally leading to an official proposal back in 2005 to standardize Common Era that failed. The current consensus, as you should know from having cited WP:ERA, is to use one era consistently within an article, and not change it without consensus. I see no reason to change it here, and in fact I see no reason to change ANY established era format from one to the other in any article on Wikipedia, since there's no valid argument that holds water for me. They are interchangeable and mean the same thing, so whichever one the first editor uses should be used permanently. There's no "Christian bias" in using BC/AD any more than there's a pagan bias in using Thursday or January instead of any potentially religiously-neutral alternative (which the Quakers did come up with, but these never took off like BCE/CE). Also, BCE/CE are not "becoming standard" on Wikipedia, what makes you think this? We use BC/AD for many high-importance articles like Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt, Julius Caesar, not to mention years and centuries like 1 BC and 1st millennium BC. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I never said that its use was all-invasive, but it is becoming more popular - just as it is used today principally in academic journals. As for your counter arguments, they were not needed, for just as one can cite a few examples of the old usage, so too can one cite many other examples where the trend is to write CE / BCE. Your comparison of this issue with pagan week-days has nothing to do with this, since in English there is hardly any other alternative. If given an alternative that was acceptable, it too would become common-use in academic journals. Davidbena (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

There are alternatives, but none in popular usage. If they enjoyed a widespread usage, they would likely be accepted as an equally-viable option on Wikipedia just like CE is for AD on Wikipedia currently—but not more viable. Just because a term removes religious references doesn't make it more "neutral" here, true neutrality as far as Wikipedia is concerned is to employ that which is in common usage. After all, many English-language terms in common usage have etymologies tied to western religions, and using the Gregorian calendar as the standard above all other cultural calendars in itself would be considered religiously-biased to some, regardless of CE vs. AD. Academia and the general public use both CE and AD, just as they use both "centre" and "center", which we have a similar policy for at WP:ENGVAR. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 02:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. In this we both agree.Davidbena (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Agrippa I and Agrippa II

Since there is some confusion about the reigns of Herod the Great's grandson and great grandson, and whether or not Agrippa II (the great grandson) was actually a king in Judea, I wish herein to allay all doubts, based on the following historical records. In Josephus' Book of Antiquities (book 19, chapter 8, verse 2) we learn about the first Agrippa, Agrippa I (who is also called in Hebrew Agrippas), who was the son of Aristobulus IV, the son of Herod the Great, where he writes: "Now, when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Cesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honor of Caesar." In the next chapter (ibid., chapter 9, vs. 1), we learn of Agrippa I's death: "And thus did king Agrippa depart this life. But he left behind him a son, Agrippa by name (i.e. Agrippa II), a youth in his seventeenth year of his age, and three daughters, one of whom, Bernice, was married to Herod, his father's brother, and was sixteen years old; the other two, Mariamme and Drusilla, were still virgins." Since Josephus informs us that Agrippa I only reigned 7 years, of which the first four years were entirely under Caius Caesar, it is evident that he died in the 3rd year of Claudius Caesar (see: Antiquities 19.8.2 [end]), or what was then roughly the year 40 CE. In verse 2 of the same chapter, we learn that Claudius Caesar was reluctant at first to confer upon a youth (merely aged 17) such a large kingdom, and so postponed the appointment, sending to Judea Cuspius Fadus to be procurator. In Josephus' Antiquities (book 20, chapter 7, verse 1) we read that in Claudius Caesar's twelfth year of reign, when Agrippa II finally became of an age suitable to rule over his father's kingdom, he bestowed upon Agrippa II "as a gift" the tetrarchy of Philip, and Batanea, and added thereto Trachonites with Abila. It wasn't necessary to say "Judea" because this place was already his dominion, but had mentioned these other places as being added to Agrippa's dominion since they had earlier been divided among King Herod the Great's four sons after his death and they became merely minor kingdoms (tetrarchies). By the time that Nero succeeded Claudius Caesar, in the first year of his reign, he augmented Agrippa II's power by bestowing upon him a certain part of Galilee, Tiberias, Taricheæ (believed to be Magdalla) and Julias (a city of Perea), just as we read in Josephus' Antiquities (book 20, chapter 8, verse 4). Meanwhile, Agrippa II continued to exercise the duty of king over Judea, as we read in Josephus (Antiquities 20.8.8) where it says: "About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi." And later on (ibid., verse 11): "King Agrippa built himself a very large dining-room in the royal palace at Jerusalem." While the king may have been a "puppet king," he was still nonetheless the legitimate king of Judea. The same king Agrippa II later removed Ismael as the Jewish high priest and appointed Jesus the son of Damneus to succeed him (Antiquities 20.9.1), who too was supplanted by Jesus the son of Gamliel, by order of Kink Agrippa II (ibid. vs. 4). Although a vassal king, King Agrippa II had the care of the Temple committed to him as early as Claudius Caeasar's reign, just as we learn in Antiquities 20. 9. 7. But for those who assay to think that he was not the legitimate king of Judea, consider that in Josephus' book, The Jewish War (book 2, chapter 14, verse 4) it says: "At this time it happened that the Grecians at Caesarea had been too hard for the Jews, and had obtained of Nero the government of the city[...] in the twelfth year of the reign of Nero, and the seventeenth of the reign of Agrippa." By saying that Agrippa II began to reign five years before Nero's reign, here, no doubt, he is referring to the 9th year of Claudius Caesar's rein (who ruled for a total of 13 years, 7 months and 28 days, according to Epiphanius' chronology of the Caesars and their reigns in his "Treatise on Weights and Measures"), when Agrippa II (the youth) was then made the acting king of Judea, roughly in the year 46 CE, at the age of about 23 (some 6 years after his father had died) - since, as yet, there was no other kingdom committed unto his trust! And by the time when the war with the Romans had begun in earnest, and Agrippa was returning from a short visit to Alexandria in Egypt, it was this same king Agrippa II who tried to dissuade the people from fighting against Rome, as we read in Wars of the Jews (book 2, chapter 16, vss. 2-4), and where it says explicitly about him: "The high priests and men of power among the Jews, as well as the Sanhedrin, came to congratulate the king [upon his safe return]" (Wars 20.16.2). Josephus would have been a contemporary with King Agrippa II. In fact, Josephus says of this king and his father (Wars 5.4.2): "...the father of the present king, and of the same name with him, Agrippa, began that wall we spoke of; but he left off building it when he had only laid the foundation, out of the fear he was in of Claudius Caesar." It is, therefore, conclusive that Agrippa II was, indeed, a king over Judea, and this fact ought to be mentioned in this article. There is no reason to expunge this fact. By the way, the word "ethnarch" (a title borne by Herod Archelaus who reigned before Agrippa I) is used to define a king who rules over one-half of the territorial dominion of the previous king (see: Antiquities 17.11.4).Davidbena (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Herod Agrippa II, the son of Herod Agrippa I

It is plain from Josephus that, while Herod Agrippa II was still a "puppet king" of Rome, he did indeed begin to exercise regal power over his kingdom in Judea about six years after his father's death, which was then the 9th year of the reign of Claudius Caesar. This is evident by Josephus' words in The Jewish War (book 2, chapter 14, verse 4), that "the twelfth year of the reign of Nero" was actually "the seventeenth year of the reign of Agrippa II." Taking the regnal years of the Caesars into account, this takes us back to the 9th year of Claudius Caesar's reign when he reinstated Herod Agrippa II as the king of Judea. It was only 5 or 6 years later, however, during the first year of Nero's reign (after Claudius Caesar had already died) that Herod Agrippa II was also given kingship over "a certain part of Galilee, Tiberias, Taricheæ (believed to be Magdalla) and Julias (a city of Perea)," just as we read in Josephus' Antiquities (book 20, chapter 8, verse 4). This makes Agrippa II the legitimate king over Judea, Galilee and Perea. The king before Herod Agrippa II, his father by the same name (Herod Agrippa I) and the potentate who ruled before him (Herod Archelaus), were all the legitimate kings of Judea - with different levels of power; Herod Archelaus ruling only over one-half of his father's kingdom (called "ethnarch"), just as we read in Antiquities 17.11.4, and Herod Agrippa I ruling over 1/4 of his grandfather's kingdom (tetrach), but holding on to Judea. The titles "ethnarch" and "tetrach" do not diminish from the fact that these are still kings, albeit kings over territories divided among other kings. A tetrach is defined as the governor of one of four divisions of a country or province. For your information: Agrippa is called in our Jewish historical records as "the king" (Heb. אגריפס המלך), just as we find in the Mishnah (Sotah 7:6) and in the Midrash Rabba (Leviticus Rabba 3:5). Josephus, likewise, mentions this Herod Agrippa II as being the king during his own time, as we learn in the Wars of the Jews (book 5, chapter 4, verse 2): "...the father of the present king, and of the same name with him, Agrippa, began that wall we spoke of [in Jerusalem]; but he left off building it when he had only laid the foundation, out of the fear he was in of Claudius Caesar." Herod Agrippa II, in all this time, continued to exercise the duty of king over Judea, as we read in Josephus (Antiquities 20.8.8) where it says: "About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi." And later on (ibid., verse 11): "King Agrippa built himself a very large dining-room in the royal palace at Jerusalem." The same king Herod Agrippa II later removed Ismael as the Jewish high priest and appointed Jesus the son of Damneus to succeed him (Antiquities 20.9.1), who too was supplanted by Jesus the son of Gamliel, by order of King Herod Agrippa II (ibid. vs. 4). It is, therefore, conclusive from these historical records that Herod Agrippa II was the last legitimate king of Judea, albeit a "vassal king," like the kings before him.Davidbena (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Map Colour

While it's lovely to have a map, the colours are absolutely awful. Blue is for water and red is rarely used on maps. Please change to normal map colours. -- 12:13, 23 July 2021 45.74.110.183

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Herod Agrippa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 21:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I am going to have a look at this one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This article seems to be largely based on a translation from the French version (see Criterion 5 below).

Criterion 1: Well-written

This is by far the area of biggest concern, for me. While I appreciate that English is probably not the primary editor's first language, and that there is no prejudice against a national or slightly stilted variety of English, the text is nevertheless awkward, ambiguous and confusing in many places.

General observations

• Tense is a major problem throughout - much of the article is written in the present tense, incorrectly rendering the use of the passé simple in the French version. There are even points where the future tense is used — e.g. He is supported there by his mother's friend, Antonia Minor, sister-in-law of Tiberius - who will become emperor in 14 ('Imperial court') — in a manner wholly inappropriate in English.

• There are some points where translation from French has left artefacts, some easily-fixed, others less so. An example from early in the text: His reign is marked by numerous family intrigues - he had ten wives - and bloody. Thus, in 29 BC. J.-C., the king executes his wife Mariamne by jealousy, grandmother of Agrippa and, the following year, the mother of this one.

• There are a few errors of punctuation throughout, which often read as typos to me. Towards the end of 'Regional ambitions and unexpected death', Agrippa's name is misspelt.

Representative examples of unclear/ambiguous English

• According to Movses Khorenatsi, as well as several sources in Syriac and Armenian, the king of Edessa, Abgar V "provides auxiliaries" to the Nabataean king, Aretas IV, to wage war against Herod (Antipas) ». ·

• The gathering had a messianic connotation whose leader—whom Flavius Josephus avoids naming—sought to appear as the eschatological prophet similar to Moses, one of the three messianic figures found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. A figure that has also been attributed to John the Baptist and Jesus the Nazorean.

• He is thus the first Herodo-Hasmonean to participate in a Temple office since the dismissal of the Hasmonean Antigonus II Mattathias, even if he does not sacrifice himself.

• The legate of Syria interrupts, on the orders of Claudius alerted, the fortification of Jerusalem and tempers the regional diplomatic ambitions of the latter. Indeed, Agrippa invites to Tiberias the kings Herod of Chalcis — his brother —, the king of Emesa Sampsigeramos — father-in-law of his brother Aristobulus — as well as three princes who had been his companions in Rome.''

Criterion 2: Verifiable with no original research

The article is heavily referenced, generally to published, secondary, academic sources. While much of the scholarship is Francophone, the references do a good job of name-checking major English- and French-speaking scholars on the subject, at least as far as my non-specialist research can tell.

There is some inconsistency in the referencing style, with most following the {{harvsp}} and referring down to the bibliography, but others defined in full in the reference (e.g. current refs 27, 29, 75 and 130), often in a slightly different style.

Some primary sources are referenced inline in the text, sometimes in a way that confuses exactly which source is being discussed exactly when (e.g. the end of the 'Judaism in the Empire' section').

Some lengthy factual sections rely heavily or entirely on primary sources, particularly Josephus: this should be avoided per WP:RSPRIMARY, and those sections should at least be re-couched as the perspective of a (partial, limited, partisan) primary source, rather than presented as factual in the article's voice.

The first part of the 'Statue of Caligula' section seems to refer to primary sources, but these are not directly cited - there is a quote about Philo's 'horror' and an unattributed citation to Josephus. This could be interpreted as WP:NOR.

In 'First comer to his kingdom', the statement While the second accusation is probably true, the first is doubtful. is unsourced, but strongly needs citation.

There are some points where · is used to separate multiple references - this is a little confusing, particularly in longer chains of references.

Some of the comments in the references are written in French (see criterion 1 above).

I ran several parts of the article through plagiarism check: they appear to be sound.

Criterion 3: Broad in its coverage

It is certainly large in its coverage: the 'Biography' section is massive, and certainly heavily detailed.

It might be wise to pull out some of the more diachronic/thematic elements (such as Herod's religious policy, the expansion of his kingdom, his relations with Rome...) away from the chronological narrative, perhaps into their own second-order section(s). This would make it easier for a non-expert or casual reader to form an impression of the subject, without having to parse the whole lengthy biographical mini-article to do so.

Criterion 4: Neutral

The article generally does a good job here - both the ancient sources and many modern views of the characters and events here can easily lapse into hagiography or demonisation. I worry that the article is a little too trusting of Josephus, however - it would be good to see some source-criticism here, especially as he is a major source for much of the narrative.

Criterion 5: Stable

The article has been fairly massively re-worked by User:Michel Abada since mid-November, which seems to be the point at which the material from the French version was introduced. Its content has been largely stable since then.

Unfortunately, to fix the issues raised under criteria 1 and 2, I think it would be necessary to substantially destabilise the article, at least for a while.

Criterion 6: Illustrated

The illustrations are generally a strength, particularly the maps, and the use of portraiture to illustrate the key characters. The family tree is a nice touch.

Some sections are particularly heavy on geography and people, and could do with more of that sort of illustration - the 'Return to Judea'/'Back to Rome' section stands out in particular.

Some of the picture captions (see especially the map in 'First comer to his kingdom') need to be rewritten for clarity.

Overall judgement

A lot of work has clearly gone into this article, both on the French Wikipedia and on this one. Unfortunately, its transition between the two has not been smooth. It currently fails substantially under Criterion 1, and less severely on Criterion 2. The most urgent actions for the near term would seem to be:

• The article needs a thorough copy-edit by someone highly proficient in English. In most cases, the areas of linguistic awkwardness and ambiguity could probably be untangled by a non-specialist, but there are sufficiently many of them that they markedly detract from the quality of the article, as it currently stands. Unfortunately, the sheer length of the article makes this a sizeable task.
• Sections currently relying on primary sources need to be re-worked, to ensure that factual claims made in the article's voice are substantiated by reliable, secondary sources, or else that the nature of the sources is made clear in the article. Where sections rely on uncited sources, these sources need to be added in.

In terms of improving the overall quality of the article, the points under Criterion 3 may be useful, and I think the article would benefit from a run-through to put the referencing into a consistent style.

I hope that editors will go back into this article and bring it up to scratch - the 'original' version on the French Wikipedia is Featured, so there are clearly the bones of an excellent article in here.