Talk:Hasmonean dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

temple Gerizim[edit]

Some mention should also be added to this article that John Hyrcanus destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim in 108 B.C. This made even worse the general hostility between Samaritans and the Judeans.

I moved some paragraphs from the Maccabee page to here, and added some closing words. --Sponsianus 00:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)



This page originally had BC/AD dates when created and it is against wikipedia policy to change them to BCE/CE. You must stick with the dating system laid out at its creation. Chooserr

Can't the original creator change them? 2600:1000:B11B:A76A:C4A:7D4A:4BB8:C19A (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm late to this party, but what Choos is talking about is WP:ERA. The page was started with BC/AD and (given no one's established a consensus here to the contrary) I've restored it. That said, people can try to create a consensus here to switch it.
I had a poster go to my talk page about "sensitivities" and WP:NPOV. Frankly, going against WP:ERA is the actual POV pushing and what they really meant to say is that their style preference is to implement affirmative dating to counteract WP:BIAS... but it's just a style preference. If Jewish readers were truly offended by dating using the Dionysian era they'd mandate AM and skip (B)CE altogether.
Fwiw, my style preference is to simply call the date what it is and maintain BC/AD but if this historical page has a primarily Jewish audience and they feel otherwise, you guys can aim to build that consensus. — LlywelynII 21:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
edit:Just saw discussion below. They vastly overstate the point, but are at least two votes to switch. — LlywelynII 21:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Date notation[edit]

Let's bring some consistency to this article: it uses both BCE/CE and BC/AD (actually, I didn't see any "AD" yet). Since this article has nothing to do with Christianity and concerns Jewish history & religion, I hope there will be no objections to use religion-neutral BCE/CE notation. See WP:MOSDATE for more. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this view unreservedly and would like to amplify. I just cleaned up a few messes on this page and am getting tired of it. A user stated above "you must stick with the dating system laid out at its creation." That statement is false and does not reflect the guideline laid out at WP:SEASON. To the contrary, there are two acceptable reasons for changing a date style:
  1. Changes made for a "substantive reason." This includes, but is not limited to, reverting the work of date warriors (editors who scour Wikipedia making tendentious edits to era style without regard to consensus or substance, usually leaving deceptive edit summaries marked "minor" or other editors who make similar edits, albeit only occasionally).
  2. Changes to make the article internally consistent. This does not mean changing 15 instances of BCE to match one of BC in a Jewish or South or East Asian history related article. That change should be made the other way round.
Since there is a clear, long-term consensus favoring BCE/CE in articles related to Jewish history, there is no question in my mind that there is a substantive reason to use that style here, and that edits to the contrary may be summarily reverted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I oppose this view with reservations. Given that there's WP:ERA and at least 3 votes for AD/BC; only 2 posters preferring (B)CE and (prior to my edits) consistently uneven formatting because (B)CE is so uncommon (sorry, it just is); and the article is about a historical kingdom and not religious Judaism per se, there's certainly no NPOV issues or justification for "summary reversal". But if enough readers and editors come through and feel strongly about it, we can build that consensus.  — LlywelynII 21:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me add a rather late vote, as I think that BCE/CE is far, far more appropriate here because the entire article is about a Jewish kingdom in Classical times. If this were about, let's say, Seleucid Syria, or Ptolemaic Egypt, I'd not express an opinion because either form would be just as right (or just as wrong) as the other. In this case, however, using BC/AD jars, and almost looks like it's forcing a Christian viewpoint into a decidedly non-Christian subject. (Yes, I know that's not the intent, but it does look like that if you're searching for reasons to be offended, which I'm not.) JDZeff (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Another late vote, I think BCE/CE is preferable. Enosh (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


I removed the part about pig meat being offered in the defiled Temple. This anecdote should surely be treated with the caution best applied to all ancient sources. If anyone wishes to add an account of Epiphanes' assumed crime feel free to do so, but IMHO they should be presented as "The book of Maccabees" says, because the background of the king's intervention in Jerusalem is extremely complicated. These accounts might be possibly better suited for the Hanukkah article.

Also, I changed G-d to divine. While not at all wishing to offend anyone by forcing them to read the full word such as it is spelt in other Wikipedia articles (though people must be prepared to see it on the Internet), I think this diplomatic rewriting keeps consistency and neutrality. There is indeed an article called G-d, but the full word is spelt out there. --Sponsianus 21:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


Shouldnt this be Hasmoneans or Hasmonea or Hasmonen Kingdom? -Ste|vertigo 06:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. It should be Hasmoneans or Hasmonean Dynasty. --Gilabrand 06:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Objection to the use of this image[edit]

I object to the use of the image containing the map of the Hasmonean Kingdom set against the background of the so-called present-day borders of Israel. The image is also being used in the articles on Hanukkah, on Maccabees, on Judas Maccabeus, on Jewish history and on the Golan Heights. But these are not the internationally recognised borders of Israel. The image suggests that the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem are integral parts of the state of Israel, whereas this is subject to international disputes. To present these borders as undisputed facts, is to lessen the quality of information provided by Wikipedia. I therefore decided to remove this image. In a (very swift) reaction by a Wikipedia administrator, he accused me of "blatant vandalism". That is absurd. I'm in the habit of using Wikipedia as a source of factual, unbiased information. Ocasionally, I make a small contribution to try to enhance the factual accuracy of an article. To enhance an article is not vandalism. It is what I thought Wikipedia was all about. There are undoubtedly many images available that could be used in these articles that depict the borders of Israel, while clearly marking the disputed Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights as disputed entities. Why would an unbiased encyclopedia, out of of all the available options, choose an image that is provided by the Israeli Foreign Ministry? If it is Wikipedia's standard policy to discourage user participation in this agressive way, then in my view, it fails in its stated purpose. -- 13:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

please do not double post. you have left this comment at talk:Golan Heights, Talk:Hasmonean, Talk:Judas Maccabeus, Talk:Maccabees, Talk:Hanukkah, and Talk:Jewish history. I have moved it to Image talk:Hasmonean-map.jpg. Jon513 14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for opening that Image talk page and for your comment. But I would also have to disagree with you on multiple postings. There is a good reason to place multiple postings. Many users only view one of the involved pages. If they wish to see whether there are differences of opinion on the article they are reading, they have a right to a complete overview. Now if they would happen to forget to click on the image itself (and subsequently on its Image talk page), but instead would only view this discussion page, they would be denied that complete overview, if there were no multiple postings.-- 17:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Other sources[edit]

I will try to put some work into this in the next few weeks, but right now I really do not have a lot of time to dedicate to sustained writing for Wikipedia. My initial thoughts looking at this is that it contains what some might call a lot of original research, and could be in violation of WP:ATT. Put another way, the article ignores considerable work by established historians. For starts, ther has been debate over how to interpret the sources to understand the Hasmonean rebellion. The classic positions are laid out by Elias Bickerman (From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees) and Victor Tcherikover (Hellensitic Civilization and the Jews) - the article should provide an account of the debate between the two as to the causes and nature of the rebellion. It should also draw on work by more recent historians: Shaye J.D. Cohen, M. Stern (in the massive volume edited by Ben-Sasson) and Lee Levine. This may be too much for one person to do but if there are a few really committed editors here maybe you can divide up the work. it has been a long time since I read this stuff so I cannot say specifically how it would change the article. My point is that there are some very good works of scholarship out there, verificable and reliable sources, and the first thing to do to improve this article is to take account of that scholarship. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of portion under Jewish religious scholarship[edit]

I just removed the quote by the scholar Nahmanides, for from what I can see he is referring to the dynasty of Herod the Great, not the Hasmoneans. Please clarify if this is wrong.Sponsianus 21:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal of Adding the folowing information that is valid for readers[edit]

For over a thousand and five hundred years one of the most fascinating subjects has been kept secret by two distinct Jewish families. Descendants of the most prestigious aristocratic Jewish priestly family managed to survive the killing of Herod – the Great, by marrying Edomite concubines converted to Judaism to maintain alive the main seed of their ancestor for generations to come. The`Ben Machabi` and `Cohen Perea` families have decided to announce one of the most exciting discoveries of all times. The claim of being the only descendants of the Machabee kings, the last Jewish heroes who restored the Temple of Jerusalem, eyewitnessed the Hanukah miracle, and were named eternal kings of the Jews and High Priests of the Jewish nation by the Sanedrim (1 Mac 14). The Machabees were the Jewish family who fought for and won independence from Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Hellenistic Seleucid dynasty. They founded the Hasmonean Royal Dynasty and established Jewish independence in the Land of Israel for about one hundred years, from 164 BCE to 63 BCE. The surname Cohen `Perea` comes from a geographical location called Perea, a well known wilderness place in ancient Judea, where the Machabees (who were Cohens or from priestly family) have dwelt, built their fortress and hid their personal valuable treasures. The surname Machabi is the Latin version translation of the word Machabee. Despite the Diaspora, and geographical remoteness, these two families: Ben Machabi who is originally from Portugal and Spain, and Cohen Perea from Amsterdam and later in Spain, did heard about each other. After the first phone contact they find out that both families shared and carried the exactly same tradition, history and facts. In January 1969, both families decided to marry their sons in order to fuse the family into one to assure the continuation of their tradition and their unique claim. Joseph Cohen Perea, son of Yonatan Cohen Perea and Telma Machabi daughter of Godfrey Machabi, had their marriage arranged to occur in New York, United States in the most prestigious Jewish community located outside Israel, in Boro Park, Brooklyn. From this marriage, was born in Brooklyn, New York 1973, Moshe Cohen Perea, 35 years old today. He lives in New York City. Along with the oral tradition and few records, like old family ketubahs with Aramaic inscriptions containing Machabee symbols, which were passed along the hands of the male descendants of the Cohen Perea family, there is this one very old specific coin that was confirmed in 2007 as legitimate by IAA (Israel Antiques Authority), very rare, original coin that was issued from Alexander Jannaneus, son of John Hyrcanus, the first king of the Machabee Hasmonean Dynasty to produce coinage. The evidences continue. One of the most impressive moves made by this family just happened six months ago in July of 2008. Moshed Cohen decided to run a DNA test in both sides of his family. He collected a DNA sample from his dad Joseph Cohen Perea, and from his maternal grandfather Godfrey Ben Machabi, in order to run a genetic compatible test. The results indicated that both individuals tested share the Cohanim J2 signature and incredibly the exact same 12 mark values (Cohen Perea = 12 23 15 10 13 18 11 15 12 13 11 29 and Machabi = 12 23 15 10 13 18 11 15 12 13 11 29) in their Y chromosome, meaning that both individuals tested have 100% chance of sharing the very same ancestor who lived in a time frame period no longer than one thousand and five hundred years ago. This incredible match has a low probability of 0.0001% do occur in two dissimilar individuals who have two different surnames and live in two different poles and countries apart. The DNA results left no more doubts. Science and tradition have perfectly worked together to demonstrate that the Ben Machabi and the Cohen Perea are actually two identical genetic individuals and thus from the very same family. The family believes that the moment has come to disclose this tradition, its history, the facts, the irrefutable proofs, and all the evidences included." From the article- The Machabees are back by Alex Aharon.

Hi Chris. We have discussed this already. Can you provide a citation? If not, please stop adding this to the article. Thanks, Kaisershatner (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

I suggest this article is merged with Maccabean revolt as they cover almost identical events. Marshall46 (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is more detailed and better sourced than the other. I have moved some material from Maccabean to here that is not in this article. An alternative to a merge might be to bring all the material on the Hellenistic background, the Hasmonean dynasty and modern scholarship into this article, and to to leave in Maccabean the course of the revolt, the sources for the name and the mention in Deuterocanon and to delete everything that is duplicated here. Marshall46 (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Merging is a bad idea, as the two subjects are not identical and both deserve their own articles. I will admit they are currently muddled though. The revolt article should indeed deal with events directly related to the revolt itself, say up to 141 BCE when Simon was declared king. Detailed Hasmonean history, including later years, should be here. Poliocretes (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I accept that. I will wait for more opinions and if they are in agreement will move the tags and work on Maccabees. Marshall46 (talk)
No-one supports merging and I can see the arguments against it, so I am removing the tags. However, the overlaps should be reduced. Marshall46 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Family Tree Image Correction[edit]

I think that the image showing the family tree of the Hasmonean Kings should be fixed because the tree connects Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II as the children of Aristobulus I, but actually, they were the children of Alexander Jannaeus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Chronological problem[edit]

The introductory section contains a statement that can't be right and is not supported by the body text later:

Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, Simon's great-grandsons, became pawns in a proxy war between Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great that ended with the kingdom under the supervision of the Roman governor of Syria (64 BCE).

The civil war between Caesar and Pompey took place 49–45 BC; this is 20 years earlier. There was no civil war in the 60s. In the late 60s, Caesar was a governor in Spain, and was not yet much of anybody. Caesar and Pompey were political allies when Caesar left for the Gallic Wars in 58 BC; Pompey was even married at the time to Caesar's daughter, whose death around 55, I think it was, was one of the factors in the two men drifting apart. So Caesar had nothing to do with Pompey's actions in the East in the 60s, and that is not what the rest of the article says. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Israel[edit]

Can anyone provide a source to show that the Hasmonean Kingdom was called the Kingdom of Israel? This information was added by Kuratowski's Ghost here and on a number of other sources, but I am not aware of any independent sources referring to the Hasmonean areas as anything other than Judea. Can anyone shed any light on this? Oncenawhile (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm unaware of the use of "Kingdom of Israel". Hasmonean coins refer instead to just "Israel" (e.g., "Shekel of Israel"), and the coinage of Alexander Janneus/Jehohanan and Antigonus/Mattityah refer to them as "king". Since various references seem to indicate that there was internal resistence to the title of "king" during the period, I agree that there needs to be a source that explicitly indicates that "Kingdom of Israel" was used. There is documentation for the use of "Israel" during the period, however. I've changed the title on the infobox, which seems to be the usage most pushing "Kingdom of Israel" as a title for the state ("Hasmonean Kingdom of Israel" also does not correspond to the Hebrew title ממלכת החשמונאים that is used in the infobox). • Astynax talk 16:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "Kingdom of Israel" with "Kingdom" as part of the name is and was not an official name for the state and nowhere did I claim that it was. The primary sources Macabbees calls both the land and nation "Israel" and the Talmud included the Hasmoneans under the designation "Kings of Israel". The Gospels and Acts and coins all show that the land and nation were called "Israel" throughout the Hasmonean and Herodian periods and was still used for the Zealot and Bar Kokhba states. As the Hasmoneans ruled as kings "kingdom of Israel" with lower case "kingdom" is an accurate description of their state, the word "kingdom" is a designation of the type of government not part of a name. The fact that "kingdom" was not part of the official name does not justify Oncenawhile's attempts to suppress mention of the attested name "Israel".
Please be aware of vandals who try remove the name "Israel" from articles because of modern politics as well as well meaning but ill-informed editors who have been deceived by modern day propaganda that "Israel" was a modern invention. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see full discussion here User talk:Kuratowski's Ghost. This is WP:SYNTH at its most blatant. There are simply no WP:RS which justify the conclusion that KG is trying to make. KG's entire argument is based on reading the few geographical references to Israel here in 1M and here in 2M, whilst choosing to ignore the more common references to Judea and Juda, as well as ignoring the entire works of Josephus whose texts represent the only other primary history of the Hasmoneans and use the term Judea exclusively.
The website article is using the term anachronistically (besides websites don't count as RS). In older sources one finds "Judaea/Judea" used in 3 ways. 1) a name for the entities actually called "Judaea" by the Romans - this is obviously acceptable, 2) a designation for the region known as "Yehuda" in Hebrew before the Roman period, this is anachronistic usage and also confusing as the borders of the entities referred to as "Judaea" by the Romans diverge over time from how "Yehuda" was (and still is) used in Hebrew, most modern sources prefer to translate Yehuda as "Judah" in English or even as a direct transliteration "Yehuda", 3) as a translation of "Yisrael" for periods before the Roman province of Judaea, this is the sense that it is being used in the website but this usage is both antiquated and anachronistic, the preferred modern translation of "Yisrael" is Israel, no one translates it "Judaea" or "Judea" anymore. Nevertheless the paragraph I added to the article explains that the name "Judaea" is also used while pointed out that this is an anachronistic usage, the article does not deny or suppress the fact that "Judaea" is sometimes used for the Hasmonean kingdom. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Having said that, KG and I could debate the "right answer" here via primary sources forever I suspect, but perhaps we can find a middle ground based on secondary sources as per WP:PSTS. Please could neutral editors have a look on googlebooks using either (i) Israel/Yisrael or (ii) Judea/Judaea/Yehuda/Judah/Juda/Iudaea (or similar) and let us know which appear to be more common with respect to this subject? Oncenawhile (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
What you are saying makes no sense at all. Consider the facts.
  • 1 Maccabees, a primary source uses "Israel" as the name for the land.
  • 1 Maccabees uses "Israel" as a name for the nation.
  • The Talmud, also a primary source on Hasmoneans although skimpy in this area, includes the Hasmonean kings under the designation "kings of Israel"
  • A modern day secondary source and standard textbook "A survey of Israel's history", by Leon James Wood & David O'Brien refers the Hasmoneans ruling over an "independent Israel"
  • Josephus makes no statement that the Hasmoneans called their state "Judaea".
"Judaea" is a Latin form and the Romans weren't around yet. When they do arrive they initially use "Judaea" as the name of one district in the land.
Please explain in what sense it is OR or SYNTH to include a discussion of the usage in Maccabees and the Talmud or to refer to the Hasmonean state as "Israel" given the above. Also in what sense am I ignoring Josephus given the fact he does not tell us what the Hasmoneans called their state. I would appreciate comments from others besides Oncenawhile who from the dicussion I had on my user page shows himself to be new to the subject whereas I have 15 years of formal courses on Jewish history including the Hasmonean period under my belt. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Additionally let me point out that both the books of Maccabees and works of Josephus are all written in Greek and do not contain the Latin name "Judaea". In English translations of Maccabees one may find "Judaea" as a translation of Greek "Ioudaia" representing the region called "Yehuda" in Hebrew, but this is never used as the name for the whole country or the nation. In Whiston's translation of Josephus one also find Judaea (or Judea in modern typeset versions where the 19th cemtuty ae sign has been converted to simply e). This again represents Josephus' actual Greek "Ioudaia" which as in Maccabees is used by him during his dicussion of the Hasmoneansd for the district of Yehuda where the Hasmoneans initially gained independence. Later he uses it for the entire Roman province of Judaea which roughly corresponds to the full area called Israel in Maccabees and the New Testament but in the section on the Hasmoneans it clearly only the name one district - it does not include Samaria, Galilee etc, yet when teh Hasmomeans began calling themselves "kings" they ruled the whole land not just this one district of Judaea and neither Maccabee nor Josephus nor the Talmud claims that they expanded the usage of the name to include all the whole country. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Onceinawhile. Please apply Wikipedia policies properly. There is no use of neither OR nor SYNTH in KG arguments -he carried well the burden of evidence and your ignoring the sources he provided by just accusing him of SYNTH put you actually in the position of the interruptive editor. Please, just assume good faith and address articles with neutral point of view as much as you can. There is no question that during the time of the Hasmoneans those who lived in the country refer to it as either Israel or The kingdom of Israel. In-fact, though "The Kingdom of Israel" might not been the formal term by which the country was referred to -it's still undoubtedly an historical term of an encyclopedic value that is legitimately addressing the country at around the same time.--Gilisa (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gilisa, thanks for your contribution. Suggesting that an argument is SYNTH is not "interruptive" and does not assume anything other than "good faith" - we are having a thoughtful debate here where we all simply want to get to the right answer. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Another point worth adding that people new to the subject might not be aware of, 1 Maccabees was actually written during the period of the Hasmonean kingdom so the fact that it used "Israel" as the designation of the nation and land as a whole shows that this is indeed how the people of the time referred to it. If it had been written centuries later then there would be a problem of not knowing if its terminology is anachronistic or not, but the fact of the matter is that it is written smack bang in the middle of the Hasmonean era. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Another observation, the ending of the Book of Sirach which was written during the time of the Hasmonean kingdom also uses "Israel" as the name of the nation, there can indeed be no doubt that this as the name used at the time.
An old Encyclopedia Judaica article points out that Judea (that is to say Yehuda or Yehud in Aramaic) was the name of the autonomous Jewish state under the Persians. It goes on to claim that this became the name of the Hasmonean and Herodian kingdoms - it justifies this by mentioning coins with this name on it - BUT this in an interpretation of the coin inscription that has been overturned long ago!!! - the "Yehud(a)" on the coins is now undisputedly understood to be referring to the king Judah Aristibolus under whose reign the coins were minted, subsequently found coins all have kings names of of the other Hasmonean kings: Yehochanan (John Hyracanus), Yehonatan (Alexander Jannaeus), Yonatan (Jonathan Hyrcanus), Matityahu (Antigonus Mattathias), so the ones with "Yehud(a)" are clearly those of Judah Aristobolus. Indeed the article subsequently contradicts itself stating that Judea was the name of one of the divisions of the Hasmonean kingdom, the others being Samaria, Galilee, Idumea (Edom) and Perea - this latter statement in the article is the understanding one has from reading Josephus. From Maccabees and Josephus we see that Judah/Judea was the area that initially achieved independence from the Greeks but this initial Hasmonean state is only the precursor to the kingdom, the rulers were not called kings yet, the kingdom is only established after the Hasmoneans annexed the other 4 regions and the name used in Maccabees for the entire area and nation is "Israel". Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kuratowski's Ghost, thanks for taking the time to research this further. I think we are close here, as we both now agree that Judah/Judea was the area that initially achieved independence from the Greeks. Let's see if we can get to the bottom of the point where we still disagree - can you please provide sources for your final sentence above starting "From Maccabees and Josephus..."? Since the Hasmoneans' major expansion out of Judea did not begin until John Hyrcanus' campaigns in c.110BC, can you provide a source referring geographically to "Israel" for this later period (i.e. between 110-63BC)? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
1 Maccabees written after John Hyrcanus used the term "Israel" geographically in for example 2:46 and 9:23, besides using this name for the nation in many other verses, Josephus speaks of the expansions but fails to mention a name for the land as a whole. The Talmud refers to Yannai (which is literally Alexander Jannaeus but more generally a euphmenism for all the Hasmonean kings according to the Soncino commentary) when discussing kings of "Israel" which shows again that "Israel" was the name used for the Hasmonean kingdom. The Talmud uses "Land of Israel" when referring to the land geographically and uses "Yehuda" again only for a region which is distinct from say Galilee showing that the Roman term "Judaea" which although derived from "Yehuda" has diverged in meaning from the original Hebrew term which remained a name for a region smaller than the Roman Province of Judaea. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, my thoughts on each of your three sentences: (1) Your 1Mac reference is not relevant to this specific discussion as the story of 1Mac finishes in 134BC, before the expansion outside Judah/Judea; (2) Please could you provide the references in the Talmud and Soncino you were referring to?; and (3) Please could you clarify which time periods you are talking about here and provide specific references? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
For (1) althought the history covered finishes in 134 BCE, the author is writing after John Hyrcanus during the time of the kingdom and so it is most relevant , providing primary evidence of what terminology was used during the period for the land and nation. (2) Sanhedrin 19a, (3) if the reference is literally to Alexander Jannaeus then his reign was 103 BC to 76 BCE, although the term might be a euphemism for the entire Hasmonean dynasty. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Another observation 1 Maccabees 14:26 actually uses "Israel" in the sense of a state its not a geographic usage nor simply a reference to the people, it is here referring to the initial independent state that existed in the region of Judah/Yehuda and shows that even this initial state although limited to this one region was also called "Israel". Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This all seems rather in the direction of OR. I don't see why we are looking at primary sources like the Books of Maccabees and coin inscriptions. What we call the Hasmonean state ought to be based on what reliable modern secondary sources say, and I have yet to see anybody cite a single one of those. Surely this would not be very hard to do? john k (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree - see my post above starting "Having said that, KG and I could debate the "right answer" here via primary sources forever I suspect" Oncenawhile (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course 2 Maccabees also uses "Israel" as the name for the nation, although it doesn't have a purely geographical usage, but usage as a national name is what is of relevance here. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This all seems rather in the direction of OR. I don't see why we are looking at primary sources like the Books of Maccabees and coin inscriptions. What we call the Hasmonean state ought to be based on what reliable modern secondary sources say, and I have yet to see anybody cite a single one of those. Surely this would not be very hard to do? john k (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how how describing the content of accessible and verifiable primary sources can be considered OR, a secondary source has been given "A survey of Israel's history", by Leon James Wood & David O'Brien which refers the Hasmoneans ruling over an "independent Israel". Another secondary source is "Studies on the Hasmonean Period", by Joshua Efron which uses "Eretz Israel" as the name of the land over which the Hasmoneans ruled and "Israel" as a designation for the nation throughout. Thus the term "Israel" is used in both in the primary sources and by modern scholars in secondary sources as a designation of the land and nation during the Hasmonean period. Bear in mind that I am not denying that "Judaea" is also used by secondary sources, I am merely stressing that this Latin name was not the name used by the people of the period themselves. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't see the specific sources you mentioned in the discussion above. So we know that "Israel," is sometimes used. But the question is what the standard form used by reliable secondary sources in English is. We should follow the usage of modern scholars; that's a fundamental premise of wikipedia, and exactly what our OR policy is supposed to direct us to do. The name used by the people of the period themselves is completely irrelevant - none of the inhabitants of Constantinople in 1000 called the state they lived in the Byzantine Empire, but that's still what wikipedia calls it, because that's the name used overwhelmingly (although not universally) by modern scholars. And there are other similar cases, too. That is the model we should follow here - use the term that is used by most modern scholars. I don't know that this has been established yet. If it is Israel, then so be it. If it is Judaea, we should use that. But the ancient sources are no more relevant than the fact that Anna Comnena, et al, use "Romania". john k (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear admin JK. There is no other term acceptable among scholars to describe this region, Israel, at the time of the Hasmoneans. The example of the Byzantine empire just don't hold water simply because this name was given by scholars to describe certain territories, or certain areas, that were under certain rule and in certain time. This was not the situation with Israel at the time of the Hasmoneans, it was liberated and there is not other term which was supposed for Israel under the Hasmoneans rule. Nobody called the region that included Syria, Israel and etc "the Levant" at the time of the Hasmoneans, nobody actually suggested name to this region then, yet scholars now refer to it as the Levant-this, without ignoring the fact that this region included many countries and people then and without forgetting referring them in their known names. I hope this make my point clear why the comparison you made is invalid. I think you mean that the term "Palestine" is somewhat more proper for the region then-correct me if I'm wrong- but you should consider that this name was given to the region by the Romans hundreds of years later, when they occupied Israel and after Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman oppression. So, serious scholars whose works are not significantly influenced by political agendas , and those are still the majority of scholars I believe, refer to the region at the time of the Hasmoneans as Israel -and that's what the sources already prove.--Gilisa (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
A couple of statements here are unquestionably incorrect. For example "there is no other term which was supposed for Israel under the Hasmoneans rule" and "this name [Palestine] was given to the region by the Romans hundreds of years later". From Timeline of the name Palestine you can see that contemporary sources used the word Palestine to refer to the region (e.g. Polemon, Pausanias), and from Josephus, Maccabbees and others like Strabo it is clear that Judea/Judaea/Yehuda/Judah/Juda/Iudaea was much more commonly used than Israel. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
My point is that it's completely irrelevant what people called it at the time. We should try to follow the terminology used by modern scholars. I am very dubious that the majority of such scholars refer to the Hasmonean state as "Israel" - I can certainly never remember reading any book that does so. Nor have "the sources" proved anything as yet. KG has provided a couple of sources that use "Israel," but admits that others use "Judaea." Nothing has yet been demonstrated about what the mainstream usage in modern sources is, and continuing to talk about what people at the time used is irrelevant. john k (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Both primary and secondary sources show that the work Judea and its derivatives is by far the most commonly used term to refer to the state of the hasmoneans. We are all agreed this is the case for the first half period up to 110BC. From 110-63BC, to take KG's point about the expansion of the state in second half of the period, can I suggest KG looks at the modern examples of Thailand and Ethiopia for states which have expanded out of their original subregion whilst retaining the original name. This is why Josephus called the Hasmoneans "Judeans". Oncenawhile (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This was certainly my impression, as well. Referring to it as "Israel" feels like a political agenda to me. (Certainly KG's dismissal of Josephus because he used the Greek, rather than the Latin, version of Judaea seems highly questionable). But can you provide any standard secondary sources that use "Judaea" or "Judea"? john k (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes - there are thousands. Here are a selection:
Oncenawhile (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
That's certainly a good start. Is there a real argument to be made that the Hasmonean state is more commonly referred to as "Israel" than as "Judea"? john k (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have tried to solve this debate by breaking the intro up in to the three main periods, and have added a sentence beginning "some modern scholars" to try to take in to account the desires of KG and Gilesa. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions on WP for the Maccabees[edit]

Please see Talk:Eleazar Avaran#Naming conventions on WP for the Maccabees. Discussion: How should the original Maccabees, the father Mattathias and his five sons, John (Johanan), Simon, Judah (Judas), Eleazar (Elazar), Jonathan be known on Wikipedia? Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


Nabateans seem to be largely ignored in the article? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hasmonean dynasty. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 22:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)