Talk:Herodias

Contradiction in the Article

The text currently reads "Following Antipater's execution by Herod the Great, she was possibly the first wife of Herod Archelaus, principal heir of Herod the Great and ethnarch of Judea." This is false and contradicts the text later in the article that correctly states she was married to Herod II. Herod II was supposed to inherit the kingdom but out of favor days before his father died. Herod II — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.71.237 (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Another Eusebius Forgery

---

I believe the account of John the Baptist to be just such a thing. As per the forgery, Josephus did not believe John the Baptist to be a seditious influence, and thought Herod to be the paranoid one. --173.21.19.155 (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Philip mentioned by Luke

The article currently states:

"Herod was the first husband of Herodias, and because the Gospel of Mark states that Herodias was married to Philip, some scholars have argued that his name was actually Herod Philip. Many scholars dispute this, however, and believe the Gospel writer was in error, a suggestion supported by the fact that the later Gospel of Luke drops the name Philip.[2][3]"

The statement appears to be sourced, but is in fact wrong. The Gospel of Luke does in fact name Philip as Herodias' former husband: "But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done" The very same verse is even cited in this article: Luke 3:18. I'm curious for what part of the paragraph the references are used, as it seems quite improbable that two reliable sources completely missed an obvious reference in the text they're talking about. Lindert (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

A bit late to answer this, but for the record, the sourced statement is correct - the Gospel of Luke does not say this. The version you have cited is the King James Version, which appears to have been 'corrected' to bring it into line with the Gospel of Mark. Modern translations do not do this. Here's the New International Version, for instance: "But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done," source:[1]. Rbreen (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You are right, modern versions do not include it; however the 'correction' is not an invention of the King James Version, it is used in other older versions as well, because it was included in the Textus Receptus. Anyway, thanks for alerting me to this textual variant, this answers my question. - Lindert (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion this issue has not been fully resolved: the article should mention the textual variations regarding the name Philip. It is not sufficient simply to say that the later Gospel of Luke drops the name Philip. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Archelaus and Herodias

The word "tetra", as in tetrarch, means four. This means there were four (not three) surviving sons of Herod the Great and rule of Israel was divided, accordingly. Some scholars take the position that there are only three because Archelaus was an ethnarch who's rule included the disputed area of Perea which had been claimed by King Aretas of Nabatea (who, according to Josephus, went to war with Herod Antipas over the death of John the Baptist). Herod Philip 1, the eldest of the four, would have been the tetrarch of Judea. But since he and Herodias lived in Rome at the time of Herod the Great's death and Herodias divorced him to take up with Antipas (whom she had met when Antipas visited Rome), Herod Philip 1 never returned to Israel and abdicated his tetrarchy. At which point, Archelaus was given rule over both Judea and Perea by the Romans so that the tetrarchies were merged and that's why he's referred to as an "ethnarch" and not simply a tetrarch. Perea, however, came over to Israel in a settlement with Nabatea through the marriage of Herod Antipas to King Aretas' daughter, Phasaelis, as part of her dowry (he later tried to divorce her). But Antipas, ruler of Galilee, never ruled Perea which was far to the south around the Dead Sea so that when Archelaus proved problematic ruling Judea and Perea (with it's majority Nabatean population), the Romans removed him, entirely. The fact remains, however, that there were four, not three, sons and Archelaus was NEVER married to Herodias.Pvsalsedo (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Marriages

What exactly was a "marriage" in the tradition of these people? Did all the semitic peoples of the time have same or similar marriage traditions? Do Jewish/ Hebrew, Middle-Eastern people still practise similar marriage traditions nowadays? I think it is important to clarify what actually constituted a "marriage" in the customs of these people because for other cultures, such as in South Asia, these actions did not constitute a "marriage", and it would be difficult for South Asians reading the article to equate Herodias' marriages to a marriage in their own culture. The same can now be said for gay marriages. 109.159.127.187 (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Herodias. 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://archive.is/20121210193336/http://blog.pereztonella.com/herodias-a-dramatic-poem-by-j-c-heywood/ to http://blog.pereztonella.com/herodias-a-dramatic-poem-by-j-c-heywood/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121216132155/http://blog.pereztonella.com/gustave-flaubert-herodias/ to http://blog.pereztonella.com/gustave-flaubert-herodias/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)