|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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)
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)
" But God sent an angel, and the angel released Peter from prison." This is historically acurate?
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"  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 [] BCE which mistakenly links to a date twenty years later. And CE goes after the date, not before like AD, so AD [] must be changed to [] 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)
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 220.127.116.11 (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)
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.  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)