Talk:Philip the Tetrarch

Untitled

How does it come that Herod the great (Herod I) namnes his child by his third wife Mariamne II to Herod Philip II, and then his child by his fifth wife Clepatra of Jerusalem to Herod Philip I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.122.235 (talk • contribs)

Good question. It is because it is incorrect. Phillip II is not his son. See this link http://virtualreligion.net/iho/herod2.html. I don't know what to do. It seems like this is going to be a ripple effect of wrong information. I don't know enough about the subject nor do I have the time to do the research, nor the desire to all the work this may involve. I may put up tags, if I get the time, though. Hopefully others will come along. (You didn't sign your comment, who are you? :( )- Jeeny ^Talk 20:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My findings suggest the two have just got put the wrong way round at creation stage, and that Herod Philip I may be 1 and the same with Herod II anyway. I am amending accordingly. Neddyseagoon - talk 23:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Questions Above:

The numbers after the names of Herod Philip and Philip get confused because the names get confused in the mistaken belief that all the surviving sons of Herod the Great were all named "Herod". Herod Philip is the only child of Herod the Great that is actually named Herod. He had three (possibly four) brothers before him who were not Herods (i.e. Antipater, Alexander, Aristobulus, and maybe Boethus). The confusion stems from the idea of using "Herod" as an appellation, like "Ceasar", in the aftermath of Herod the Great's death. It's more likely the case that, as ethnarch and tetrarch, Archelaus and Antipas used "Herod" as an appellation. Readers of the bible often fail to make the distinction between Herod Philip and his younger brother Philip because they are both mentioned in the gospels. But Josephus is clear that they are two separate people. One was the father while the other was the husband of Salome, she of John the Baptist fame (her mother Herodias, was the daughter of their brother Aristobulus). Suffice it to say it's like a man named Billy having an older son named Billy Jack and then a younger son just named Jack. The use of numbers just confuses the issue and, in the final analysis, is not relevant. Herod Philip was never a tetrarch. In the accurate accounts which make the distinction, he abdicates before ever ruling and what was supposed to be his tetrarchy was integrated into Archelaus' tetrarchy (thus making him an ethnarch) which, upon Archelaus' removal by the Romans, became a Roman "state" ruled directly by a Roman procurator or governor, e.g. Pontius Pilate.Pvsalsedo (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Further

The whole question of naming seems inextricably confused. One problem is the habit of some modern authors of identifying different individuals with the same namke by the use of Roman numerals. (This can clash with the more generally accepted usd of the same numberinbg to indicate the order of various rulers witrh the same name.) Not all authors use numbering consistent wqith other authors. This observation seems to reinforce my argument for a rephrasing which I just posted on Herod Philip I and Herod Philip [disambiguation]. Here is a copy:

I question the whole existence of these three pages (Herod Philip [disambiguation], Herod Philip I and Herod Philip II). Philip the Tetrarch (born in c 26 BCE to Herod the Great and Cleopatra, of Jerusalem), the founder (or re-namer) of Caesarea Philippi, is (was) not known as Herod Philip. I can find no reference outside wikipedia to two Herod Philips. The use of references on these pages is cavalier.

• The first reference given in the page on Herod Philip I () refers to the son of Cleopatra and Herod the Great as Philip (born c. 26 BCE). Kokkinos says (p 223) “The stubborn existence of many theologians in referring to Herod III as ‘Herod Philip’ is without any value” (233), and again on p. 266, “No illusory Herod Philip ever existed”.
• The first external reference given (Philip the Tetrarch entry in historical sourcebook by Mahlon H. Smith) says “Secondary literature, such as Easton's Bible Dictionary, has often referred to him as "Herod Philip" although there is absolutely no evidence in primary sources that he mimicked his half-brother Antipas in claiming his father's name or was addressed as Herod by contemporaries. This is a convenient modern convention to distinguish him from other ancient Hellenized rulers with the same given name”, which casts doubt on the article it is supposed to support.

The pages on Herod Philip might be rephrased to say something like

See Philip the Tetrarch. The name Herod Philip appears to be a modern convenience. There is no evidence for contemporary uses of this nomenclature. It is an example of the great difficulty in establishing the relationships of various holders of the same name in the same area or family - especially in the Herodian dynasty (see

The Cambridge Ancient History Vol.10, says that Philip the Tetrarch, “unlike his brothers, did not use Herod as a dynastic name”, and refers to him throughout as Philip, or Philip the Tetrarch. The predecessor CAH had already stated that Philip’s half-brothers Archelaus and Antipas had adopted the name of Herod, "presumably" for a dynastic claim from Herod the Great.

In a further example of the difficulty of naming individuals at this timer, particularly in the family of Herod the Great, , Kokkinos goes to some length to point out that Philip the Tetrarch married NOT Salome, but her mother Herodias, who may have been known as Herodias-Salome. The Salome often claimed to be the wife of Philip was the daughter of this Herodias-Salome, born about 1 BCE, the fruit of her marriage to Herod III, and therefore step-daughter as well as niece of Philip the Tetrarch. Herodias-Salome had divorced Herod III, the son of Herod the Great by Mariamme II (therefore the half-brother of Philip); after Philip’s death in 33 CE, she married a third half-brother, Antipas, the son of Herod the Great by Malthace. (Herod the Great’s sister was also called Salome, born c. 50 BCE.) The ‘Salome’ who asked for Jon the Baptist’s head is not named in the Bible: Matthew (14, 6) says “the daughter of Herodias danced before them”, but does not name her; and Mark (6. 22) similarly calls her “the daughter of the said Herodias”. It appears possible, at least, that the cause of Herod’s rage against John is that the latter was preaching not against him, but against his wife - who had divorced his half-brother, and therefore was not a permissible wife for him.

I am submitting this to the talk pages rather than editing the pages fully, as this appears to me, an outsider to the field (minefield?) of nomenclature around the time of Christ, to be contentious ground. MacAuslan (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC) MacAuslan (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"The stubborn existence of many theologians in referring to Herod III as 'Herod Philip' is without any value...." I wonder if this is a misprint. It would seem that the theologians are stubborn in their "insistence" not in merely their "existence" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.220.119 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Reign of Philip the Tetrarch

How is it that there can be an article about a king or kinglet which does not show the dates of his reign? When did he start to reign in Traconitis, and when did it end? This should surely be a part of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.89.8 (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Extent of Philip's kingdom; the two maps: Iturea and Auranitis in or out?

@MacAuslan, JohnThorne, Cjcollom, Rh0809, Chewings72, and ArisMethymna: hi. An over 13 years old Wiki map showing the realm of Philip was ghosting around on the wrong page (Kingdom of Chalcis, the neighbour to the north). I brought it over. Now we have 2 maps. They differ in at least two major areas: one includes Iturea and Auranitis, the other one doesn't. Did Philip at any point lose Iturea? Auranitis paid tribute to Philip; was it nevertheless not a constituent part of his kingdom? Quite significant! Arminden (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The map now closer to the top of the page (red & brown) was created by Rh0809 last year "based on prior reading". With all due respect, I would like to ask: reading what exactly? This article, Josephus, a bunch of books, a history course at Oxford... It's an honest question, not at all rhetorical. It would help us assess how accurate the map is. For now, it is hard to see which one is right, the article text or the map, because both cannot be right simultaneously. Or maybe the other map, the yellow one, is the best info on the extent of Philip's realm? Or none of the three, because things worked differently back then and such maps only reflect our modern understanding of kingdoms and borders? It's always better to have a map than none, and I am truly grateful to Rh0809 for creating one. Then, in a second phase, we can see if it needs any amendments. We have now reached this 2nd phase. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Insufficient source details (OR? Faulty?) re. name

"Philip's half-brothers, Archelaus and Antipas, had adopted the name of Herod, "presumably" for a dynastic claim from Herod the Great."

Referenced to Bury & al. ("latest reprint 1965"): no page number, not even a chapter. Over 1100 pages! No regular search helpful (I tried numerous search word combinations), possibly a case of "failed verification", also clearly "original research (OR)" (see also previous note, classical OR: "Refers to him throughout as Philip, or Philip the Tetrarch"), and quite possibly a conclusion not sustained by the text (search leading to no results for: Philip, Philip +"Herod Archelaus", "presumably", etc.).

The data was introduced here, on 10 July 2010, by MacAuslan (stopped editing 2 yrs ago), and I could find nothing additional in that initial version, other than him explicitly writing that "The predecessor CAH [Cambridge Ancient History] had already stated" etc., see above. Arminden (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Dates uncited and contradictory

Philip's birth year was changed from 19 to 26 BCE by an anon editor without citation or explanation. [1]

The two Salomes are both given the same birth year, even though one is said to have a more realistic age gap.

@Cjcollom: can you help with this, please, as you added the second Salome? – Fayenatic London 09:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)