Talk:Herodian dynasty

I feel this article needs some work on its style, particularly to make the tense consistent. If no-one objects, I'll go ahead and do it.Swanny18 13:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• OK, done. Swanny18 14:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

First sentence

That first sentence is terrible, but the content seems to be a touchy subject, so I don’t want to be too bold.
What is the issue? Can anyone say?
Josephus seemed to think their Idumean descent was important, but some contributors feel the page should stress their Jewishness. Doesn’t this hinge on whether being a Jew is a matter of religion and culture, or of ethnicity? Whether Jews can be made, or are born? That issue isn’t going to be resolved here, I’m thinking.
As a compromise, how about ‘…a Jewish dynasty of Idumean descent, who ruled …’.
What does anyone think? Swanny18 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK, done this too. Swanny18 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A response to the above questions:

Being a Jew in the time of Herod was determined by three factors: blood, the law, and conversion. An authentic Jew was a person who was born of a Jewish mother (irrespective of the father), i.e. a blood Jew by matrilineal descent. Children by Jewish fathers (patrilineal) but not Jewish mothers were not recognized as authentic blood Jews and were prohibited from worshiping in the temples or becoming priests. But they were recognized as Jews, under the law, since Moses also had a non-Jewish wife. Herod the Great was a patrilineal Jew of this type. His ethnicity as an Idumean (Edomite) Jew was largely irrelevant to his status as a Jew except in times prior to Herodian rule when patrilineal Jews were simply not recognized as being blood Jews and no better than converts. The recognition of patrilineal Jews as blood Jews (but still not recognized as authentic) precluded them from the clergy, but did not preclude them from ruling the state as a blood aristocracy. This idea of patrilineal blood right may have originated as an Edomite phenomenon which became the rule once the Herodians came to power. In addition, during the previous Hasmonean reign, non-Jewish, ethnic Greeks were forced into conversion. All of these non-authentic Jews (patrilineal or converts) were ministered to in the synagogues by rabbis (presumed to be authentic) and not temple priests. The institution of the synagogue rose in response to the need to provide a place of worship for those non-authentic Jews excluded from the temples. The result of this authentic/non-authentic dichotomy was the creation of a Jewish caste system that did not go away until the aftermath of the destruction of the second Jewish temple around 70AD. Pvsalsedo (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is innacurate and inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles

The article on Herod the Great gives a more complete genealogy with respect to his descendents and avoids the historical confusion of this article. In particular, are the four sons who survived Herod the Great: Herod Philip I, Archelaus, Herod Antipas, and Herod Philip II (aka Philip I or Philip the Tetrarch). Individual articles on each of these four sons tells a different history than the one expressed in this article. That's because this article makes the common error of confusing the two Herod Philips (acutally, there is only one Herod Philip and one Philip). The confusion stems from the fact that Herod Philip I abdicated his claim and did not serve as a tetrarch in accordance with the second will of Herod the Great. Consequently, his tetrarchy was consolidated by the Romans into the tetrarchy of his brother, Archelaus, and the latter became the "ethnarch" of the combined territories while the other two brothers, Herod Antipas and Philip remained as tetrarchs.

Pvsalsedo (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Basic information missing

If this article is to exist as a separate article, some basic information needs to be added: map and geography, quantitative demographic information, historical documentation, archeological findings. Wcmead3 (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)