Talk:Herod Agrippa

message: 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)
thread_title:  Herod Philip I did not rule 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: It seems he is known as Herod of Chalcis. Gdr 17:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Herod? 

message: " 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Angel? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I note that the Jewish Virtual Library calls him "Aristobulus IV"  Gdr 19:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Son of Aristobulus? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Masonic conspiracy theories

message: 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)
thread_title:  Caligula and Claudius 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Account in Josephus - the owl 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why the anti-religious bigotry?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Agrippa I and Agrippa II 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Herod Agrippa II, the son of Herod Agrippa I