Editing Eurovision Wiki:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (section)

== [[Herod the Great]] ==

This is about {{diff2|1341273819}}. Please chime in. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]])  00:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks, I think we should have a discussion about this. I think it's genuinely unclear how we should handle this issue- I'm inclined to say we should put 1 BC first, but I understand why that might seem like an NPOV violation.
:As far as I can tell, the latest research on Herodian chronology (basically since Steinmann's 2009 article) overwhelmingly favors the 1 BC date for Herod's death. I haven't seen anyone from the 4 BC side respond to the new arguments, such as the testimony of Appian and Dio Cassius favoring a 36 BC date for Herod's siege (and hence a 1 BC death), or the coin evidence showing that Philip reckoned his reign from some time between Tishrei 6 and Elul 5 BC (not 4 BC), or the evidence from the Caligula statue crisis showing that the 4 BC date implies an incorrect Sabbatical year cycle. Nevertheless, Steinmann (2009) has been cited over 40 times, so it's not like he's being ignored. The other side just hasn't responded.
:That said, most scholars outside the very narrow field of Herodian chronology still seem to be citing the 4 BC date without questioning it. I think the question here is: what is the relevant set of experts? Herod specialists, or historians from adjacent fields? [[User:Montgolfière|Montgolfière]] ([[User talk:Montgolfière|talk]]) 01:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
::{{cite report | last=Marshak | first=Adam Kolman | title=Herod the Great | date=9 May 2023 | orig-date=11 January 2018 | doi=10.1093/obo/9780195393361-0251 | url=https://oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0251.xml | access-date=5 March 2026 | page=}} Clearly sides with 4 BCE.
::Pope Benedictus sides with 4 BCE, although one might suspect that for a Pope 1 BCE would be more convenient.
::https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aehrmanblog.org+herod+steinmann has only two results. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]])  09:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
::I looked at some of these 40 citations and the reliable ones i saw seemed to follow a general trend: the consensus or majority view is 4 but point out the opposing view of Steinmann. Not familiar with all the issues here but seems a natural and not too difficult bit of content for the article. Creating "sides" and a "Herod specialists" group of authors or sources doesn't really seem to follow policy in [[WP:BESTSOURCES|basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources]]. If there is some division in the scholarship form "Herod specialists" then it should probably be discussed in the article text and you would need a reliable source which points that out&mdash;[[WP:NOR|you can't make that call]]. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 19:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
:::That's not original research, it would be following the [[WP:BESTSOURCES]]. I haven't checked the sources to evaluate whether or not that the supposed division is accurate. [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 21:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Yeah, my thought was that the best sources are the scholars who have actually examined the primary pieces of evidence. It seems like the "consensus" of 4 BC is maintained primarily by scholars citing each other, or citing the 130 year old work of Schürer, without evaluating the evidence and arguments themselves. And yet, the evidence is frankly not that hard to evaluate, and once you see it, it's hard to take the 4 BC date very seriously. And [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]], I don't have access to the full text of the article you linked, but I see no indication from the bibliography or intro that it is engaging the question of chronology at all; it simply assumes that Schürer is correct. I have yet to see an actual response to the strongest 1 BC arguments, like the statue crisis and the coins. [[User:Montgolfière|Montgolfière]] ([[User talk:Montgolfière|talk]]) 01:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Look, here's [https://www.liesbethbisterbosch.org/pags/docs/408_Steinmann-Young-Elap_7234.pdf Steinmann himself] calling 4 the "consensus view" in 2020. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 02:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::I never denied that there is a "consensus" of ill-informed scholars who cite each other and a 130 year old book, rather than the actual primary sources. In my humble opinion, I don't think those scholars are the "best sources" for this issue. But if I'm outvoted on this, we can change the order back to "4 or 1 BCE." As long as we keep providing evidence and arguments in the Death/Dating section. [[User:Montgolfière|Montgolfière]] ([[User talk:Montgolfière|talk]]) 09:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Prior to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herod_the_Great&diff=1341791307&oldid=1333690241 your edits] the article had ({{Circa|72|4&nbsp;BCE}}) and i suspect you've created a false balance within the "Dating" section. You don't get to declare "sides" say those which do not support your content position "ill-informed" and claim that is some application of [[WP:BESTSOURCES]]. A best sources approach would be, for instance, starting with the ''[[Oxford Bibliographies]]'' article from Marshak author of ''The Many Faces of Herod the Great'' linked by {{u|tgeorgescu}}. Examine what those authors say on the matter, how they characterize any disagreement in dating and who the cite on the issue. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 13:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::If you think I've created a false balance, I encourage you to actually look at the arguments for Schürer's chronology yourself. Feel free to add them to the Death/Dating section.
::::::::I don't have access to the Marshak article. If you do, please go ahead and put his arguments for Schürer in Death/Dating. I suspect, however, that he will simply assume Schürer's chronology and will provide little or no justification for it. That's how this "consensus" gets perpetuated. [[User:Montgolfière|Montgolfière]] ([[User talk:Montgolfière|talk]]) 00:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I have to agree with @[[User:Fiveby|Fiveby]] now. For better or worse, Wikipedia puts greater weight on the balance of views within the academic community rather than our own interpretation of which perspectives have stronger arguments than each other. Given that Steinmann himself states that the majority view is the 4BCE date, that should receive greater weight. Hopefully the scholarship will change to reflect the weight of the arguments as you have assessed them. 
:::::::::Here is an article from the opposing (1BCE) side [https://biblearchaeology.org/research/the-daniel-9-24-27-project/4364-john-2-12-21-and-herodian-chronology] that replies to some of Steinmann's arguments, for what it's worth. This author has several more about this question as well ([https://biblearchaeology.org/abr-projects/the-daniel-9-24-27-project-2/4366-when-did-herod-the-great-die-part-1] [https://biblearchaeology.org/research/the-daniel-9-24-27-project/4367-when-did-herod-the-great-die-part-2] [https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/life-and-ministry-of-jesus-and-apostles/4932-the-parthian-war-paradigm-and-the-reign-of-herod-the-great]). 
:::::::::If there was a clear delineation of sources that are Herod experts vs those that comment on the chronology only in passing, that would be grounds for a distinction per [[WP:BESTSOURCES]] and [[WP:RSCONTEXT]], but I didn't see such a delineation and indeed both 'sides' of this debate agree that the consensus view is the 4BCE date. [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 01:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::The first article you cited misreads Antiquities 1.3.3 in support of Nisan reckoning; the word translated "ordinary affairs" is διοίκησις, which means "administration," which certainly would include the reigns of kings. Steinmann has pointed this out and if they had read him, they would know that they need to at least respond to this argument. Josephus clearly implies that kings use Tishrei reckoning, and he is an earlier source than the Mishnah. Josephus also demonstrably uses accession year reckoning, since in several places his math is inconsistent with inclusive counting, but not with accession years, as Steinmann and Young have also shown. Herod himself used accession year reckoning when he minted a "year 3" coin after taking Jerusalem, since if he used inclusive counting, it would be year 4.
::::::::::Links 13 and 14 seem to mostly respond to the weakest arguments for 1 BC. Link 15 is interesting, and I hadn't seen it before, but even if it's entirely correct it wouldn't rebut the decisive arguments from the Caligula statue crisis and coin evidence. Nevertheless, it might be worth mentioning in the article. [[User:Montgolfière|Montgolfière]] ([[User talk:Montgolfière|talk]]) 07:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Again, the issue isn't whether we can evaluate these arguments in the sources and decide that one source is better than the other. I could 100% agree with Steinmann and think that these rebuttals are all bogus (in reality I haven't read enough to comment), but we still have to reflect what the balance of reliable sources say, not our interpretation of those sources. [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 09:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I think the false balance comes not necessarily from present the 1 sources and discussing them, but presenting them as newer and unchallenged, your argument here. I was going to say that you should have access to Marshak through [[WP:Library]], try logging on and viewing the link again. If that doesn't work ''Oxford Bibliographies'' is in the [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ sources list]. Unfortunately there seems to be a service issue with the Oxford collections right now. Encourage you to try later tho, lot's of very valuable and underutilized resources available.
:::::::::The specific article tho is [[annotated bibliography]], a tertiary source and not really appropriate as a source for citation. It's useful maybe sometimes as a model for what WP content should look like, but mostly as a means for identifying best sources. I checked Marshak's ''The Many Faces of Herod the Great'': he simply states 4 without qualification, discussion, or citations. Not really useful for article content here, but one indication of what the consensus view is and how far disputed. Haven't checked anything else yet. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 17:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::So far the sources i am seeing supporting your view is along [https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/39180296/Herods_age-libre.pdf?1444833253=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DHerod_s_Age_when_Appointed_Strategos_of.pdf these lines] {{tq|...acording to most scholars, occurred in 4 BCE}} with footnote {{tq|For the dissenting view arguing he died in 2/1 BCE see...FILMER...STEINMANN}}. (what about 5?) Ideally we do i think want to find a quality independent source which directly addresses the issue and presents arguments and counter-arguments. If such has not been written yet or we are unable to find it then i think the content should default to 4 with footnote and some limited content in the body. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 18:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::{{tq|As far as I can tell, the latest research on Herodian chronology (basically since Steinmann's 2009 article) overwhelmingly favors the 1 BC date for Herod's death.}}  I don't think that that's true at all. Your argument seems to boil down to dismissing absolutely anyone post 2009 who uses the 4 BCE date as just {{tq|citing the 4 BC date without questioning it}}, but that's your personal assessment; it seems to me that our default assessment ought to be that Steinmann has proposed a novel theory which has not yet attracted much support. Based on that, we should use 4 in the lead and template (solely, not ''first'', but as the only number), and mention Steinmann solely in a sentence in the body somewhere. His paper qualifies as something akin to what we'd call a single study with an exceptional conclusion in other contexts  I don't agree with the argument that "Herod specialists" support Steinmann, and that feels like a [[No true scotsman]] argument where you're excluding anyone who rejects his argument from being a specialist because you think they're wrong. Your edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herod_the_Great&diff=1339601086&oldid=1333690241 here] were inappropriately lending undue weight to Steinmann's largely marginal views, and ought to be entirely reverted. Steinmann should get one or two sentences, maybe a paragraph at most, which make it clear that his views are marginal; he shouldn't be referenced anywhere else and all other dates should treat 4 BC as the accepted date, as it is. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:::While I agree that the 4BC date is the predominant/consensus one and should receive much greater [[WP:WEIGHT]], it is factually inaccurate to claim that {{tq|Steinmann has proposed a novel theory}} or that he is the only proponent. The original proponent of this alternative chronology is actually Filmer in 1966. Steinmann cites a number of others who agree with Filmer's chronology; 
:::{{tbq|Those who accept Filmer’s 1 BC for the death of Herod include '''Ormond Edwards''', “Herodian Chronology,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 114 (1982): 29–42; '''Paul Keresztes''', Imperial Rome and the Christians: From Herod the Great to About 200 A.D. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989): 1–43; '''Ernest L. Martin''', The Birth of Christ Recalculated, 2nd ed. (Pasadena, CA: Foundation for Biblical Research, 1980); idem “The Nativity and Herod’s Death,” in Chronos, Kairos, Christos, 85–92; '''Jack Finegan''', Handbook of Biblical Chronology, (rev. ed.; Peabody, MA; Hendrickson, 1998): 284-291, §486–500 and table 139; Andrew E. Steinmann, “When Did Herod the Great Reign?” Novum Testamentum 51 (2009): 1–2}}
:::I bolded the distinct names for emphasis. Again, this does not mean that these scholars constitute the majority view, but it definitely means that Steinmann hasn't proposed any "novel theory". I also disagree that this would constitute such a marginal view to be confined to only a few sentences in the body. Indeed, as this articles notes [https://www.jgrchj.net/volume11/JGRChJ11-1_%20Jachowski.pdf], technically the 1 BCE dating precedes Filmer and was perhaps first proposed in 1629.
:::We should report what 'both' "sides" say in the text, but be careful not to give undue WEIGHT to the minority 1BCE date. An alternative might be to create an article on [[Chronology of Herod the Great]] given the volume of published literature on the topic and then summarize it [[WP:SUMMARYSTYLE]] in the parent article. 
:::An even more minority view would be that of this paper [https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9252/1/3/16], which argues that Herod died in 3AD. There are a few other dates out there too, such as John Pratt's 1AD [https://johnpratt.com/items/docs/herod/herod.html]. Vladimir Blaha was another proponent of the 1AD dating for Herod's death, based on his chronology giving Jesus's births in 1BC. A few people have even entertained a 5BC date of death for Herod [https://www.ldsscriptureteachings.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Chadwick-dating-the-birth-of-Christ.pdf] [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 01:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::::A less reliable source here [https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2012/PSCF12-12Nollet.pdf], since I am unfamiliar with this publication, but it also argues for a 1BC/1AD date of death for Herod. 
::::This book by [[:simple:Gerard Gertoux]] "Herod the Great and Jesus: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence" presents a contrast between "mainstream historians" and "scientific scholars" on the date of death of Herod, and he supports a date of 1BC as supported by "scientific scholars". 
::::I wonder if there is more scholarship in other languages. [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 01:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)