Talk:Hasmonean dynasty

temple Gerizim

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)

Dating

BC

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

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)

Accuracy

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)

Title

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

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. --82.215.24.131 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.--82.215.24.131 17:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Other sources

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

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

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

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

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 76.84.113.70 (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Chronological problem

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

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)

Interpreting the modern nation state literally as a successor state to the Hasmonean kingdom is a ridiculous anachronism. I am not saying a political entity called Israel never existed in the region, however cannot be rationally interpreted as forming the basis for the modern nation states claim to the area. The modern nation states claim comes from the British mandate of Palestine and various United Nations resolutions. Anxiety around the unique circumstances of Israel founding has caused an almost desperate scramble to create various historiographies which erase from the region the many nations that have inhabited it over the past 3000 years, vastly exaggerating the exclusivity of the Jewish people's claim to the land. Also entirely modern notions of nationalist ideology to be anachronistically transmuted onto iron age political entities that bore little in the way of resemblance to the modern nation state. For instance, the way this page talks about the Hasmonean dynasty as moving from "revolt to independence", using modern terms as if this were a 19th-20th century war of national liberation, completely unlike the way the historiography of comparable political entities that emerged in nearby in the time period are described. As if it not merely a buffer state ruled by a theocratic warlord that briefly emerged largely as a result of proxy conflicts between various surrounding powers. Most of the people who lived in the Hasmonean dynasty weren't even Jewish, the Jewish warlord ruled the territory as an empire, dominating the surrounding people's, and there wasn't a Judean majority outside of the tiny area of Judea itself. The border people's were subject to repression and forced conversion, which caused numerous rebellions, resulting in the empire fragmenting as quickly as it grew. But among all this we have strands inserted of this bizarre historiography mentioned previously, imposing onto the iron age a fairy tale of modern national war of liberation. By denying this historiography I am not denying Israel's right to exist, I consider that a settled matter which is easily interpretable in international law without relying on a falsified and ridiculous historiography concerning the iron age and various religious texts. I am merely insisting on realism.

The effects of this false historiography are not that it somehow gives Israel a right to exist - it is again entirely irrelevant to the real basis of Israel's actual right to exist. What this historiography does do however, is give great credence to reactionary forces in Israel that erase totally the Palestinians from the legitimate existence in the land. As well it has caused the opinion in Israel to become predominant, which seemingly regards anything less than the borders of the mythical Kingdom of David as a slap in the face, people have become delusional and consider it the greatest offense that the West Bank be ceded to an independent state. Because even secularists somehow are entranced by this deranged historiography, which locates in a biblical myth of an iron age Kingdom vastly largely than basically any territory ever held by the Jewish people, of which there is essentially zero archaeological evidence, the basis for an anachronistic 19th century nationalism. And that asking that anything less than the borders be accepted is somehow a slap in the face of the Jewish people's eternal rights to the land's supposedly conquered by King David (delusional, religious and metaphysical language is frequently used here even by "secular" politicians, as if the territory exists in the heavenly realm and is not a place on earth). The fact that the majority in this territory would be Arabic is irrelevant, because they are after all just irrelevant aliens that magically appeared one day and have no real rights! This has turned the situation into a goddamn powder keg. Any Israeli who has the view that the West Bank is an integral (must less "eternal", or any other metaphysical language) part of Israel's future territory, holds a deranged and unsustainable viewpoint that threatens peace in one of the most critical regions in the world. They are also apparently indigent at the United States for failing to relent and just give them the West Bank, which apparently in their view the United States has the ability to do but doesn't bc it's too scared. It should be made absolutely clear that the United States *does not* hold any power to cede the West Bank to Israel in a way that would be valid or universally recognized under international law.

The United States can *suspend enforcement* of international law on occupied territories, as it has been doing since 1967. But this will always be a tenuous thing. They act as if they are just being discriminated against bc other nations don't recognize this, as if any other nation in the entire world that's not a permanent security council member could occupy a territory containing 6 million people and not be subject to sanctions or other actions from the security council. The situation has apparently caused them to laugh at the notion of international law, as if it is a perfectly natural situation that it should be inoperable on them, and not something basically being granted to them specially by the United States. It would take is one anti-zionist president getting elected who merely started *abstaining* from these security council votes, and the entire fury of the security council to be turned towards Israel. This will *always* be the case as long as Israel continues occupying territory from the 1967 war, without obtaining a bilateral agreement from the entity that holds the legal claim to the territory (almost universally recognized to be the PLO) abrogating claims to any part of it. This apparently is not considered to be a security concern at all in their minds, it's just a natural part of the fabric of the universe that Israel will always have a UN veto holding buddy around backing it up. The possibility of treaties with Palestine are somehow treated as extraordinary acts of grace bestowed by Israel in incredible generosity, and not as the US and Israel working together to extort from Palestine literally the only way in which Israel will ever have a universally recognized claim to any part of the territory. Again, this behavior all flows from the harmful use of biblically based historiography in the founding myth of Israel. And we see that in this article.

But no one is supposed to protest, because apparently that's "just politics". No matter that it is also used to abrogate any Arabic historical claims to the area. Like the Bedouin Arabs have clearly inhabited the Negev from 900 BC or so, and no Jewish political entity has *ever* ruled over this territory *until* modern times. But the Bedouin Arabs who lived in the same traditional homeland they have since the iron age are treated like squatters who just showed up one day specifically to spite the Jewish people and their eternal claims to David's Kingdom. They speak Arabic, so clearly they come from the deepest darkest part of the Arabic penuinsala. Nevermind that the urheimat of the proto-Arabic language was the Negev, and the general borderlands between Hejaz and the levant - literally from the beginning the Arabs have practically been neighbors of the northern semitic peoples, and dwelt for long periods of time in the surrounding desert regions. But no, this is irrelevant, King David my friend, why don't those Bedouin just move to Saudi Arabia where they came from. They probably moved there in the 19th century out of spite or something. This is how an indigenous people in their homeland are treated. But oh no, for doubting biblical and iron age historiography anachronistically paired with modern nationalism I'm literally doing violence to the Jewish people's right to exist. Here's what I actually want, I'm tired of all the grandiose claims, I want people to shut the fuck up and sit down and make peace, I'm looking at the area and it's a fucking powder keg that nobody is backing down from. But we still have morons making the same old claims based on delusional historiography that underlies the furthest right government in Israeli history. Molotov cocktail throwing lunatics, screaming about King David, making a complete mess in regards to literally maybe the most geopolitically significant conflict area in the entire world, a threat to international peace with potential consequences for billions of people. But no, I am the bad guy because I refuse to accept the same approach of endless coddling and appeasement of these delusions that has lead precisely to this situation.2601:140:9500:7F00:5DB1:85BF:4CBC:398B (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2023 (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)

Are you literally going to claim that the Romans apparently invented the concept of Judea as a political entity? Just going to ignore the province of Yehud Medinata in the Persian empire. As well as the actual Yəhūdā (Kingdom of Judah) that far outlasted the mythical Kingdom of David and has actual archaeological evidence for existing. The Hasmonean kingdom originated from Judah and imposed itself on regions outside of Judah that were often populated by different Hebrew peoples like the Samaritans and the Idumeneans. It was very much a Judean project. From the biblical myth at times it may have appropriated the term "Israel" from the Samaritans to the north who it conquered and oppressed and refused to recognize as legitimate, but to give Judea exclusive right to such a title and deny the Samaritan claims that they are actually direct descendants of the Kingdom of Israel, is sectarian. There's no objective reason to prefer the Jewish myth over the Samaritan one. You are apparently flustered because "Judea" is used as a geographic terms, but yes at many times in history this geographic term has extended to political entities that did no coincide with its geographic meaning. The *biggest* instance of this was the Hasmonean kingdom, which expanded far outside the Judean homeland trying to conquer mythical territories never actually inhabited by the Jewish peoples themselves (at most their relatives, who in the typical primitive fashion of narcissism of small differences, were treated by the Judeans as unbelievable heretics bearing no relation, just evil squatters sitting on the land of their mythical David, even though they were culturally and linguistically barely distinguishable). Since Rome inherited the territory from the Hasmoneans, it named the territory after the dominant peoples in the preceding political entity, even though yes this territory was actually far larger than the Jewish homeland in the actual, much smaller geographical area of Judea. On the difference between Judaea, Judah, Yehuda, etc... I literally could not give less of a fuck about a pedantic issue of etymology at best.2601:140:9500:7F00:5DB1:85BF:4CBC:398B (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2023 (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:

• Solomon Zeitlin's The Rise and Fall of the Judean State: A Political, Social and Religious History of the Second Commonwealth, which according to it's wiki is "still considered the standard history of the Second Jewish Commonwealth"
• The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties By Shaye J. D. Cohen: "The Hasmonean state extended Judaean citizenship to the Idmaeans and Ituraeans, two neighbouring peoples, this incorporating them in a Judaean League"
• Heresy and identity in late antiquity By Holger M. Zellentin See comparison of expansion of the Romanness of the Roman empire, and reference to "extension of the Judean franchise"
• Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2007, Volume 9 consistently refers to the Hasmonean state at Judea

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

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

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

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050629084248/http://www.adath-shalom.ca/greek_influence.htm to http://www.adath-shalom.ca/greek_influence.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

Too long

The introduction is too long. Kapeter77 (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Books of the Maccabees

@Watchlonly: The Books of the Maccabees are internally inconsistent, contradictory, and describes events of divine intervention. They are not reliable historical sources. Historians of course cite the Maccabees for nuggets of truth in the material which is mostly written for propaganda purposes. Fortunately, there are hundreds of books that describe the Hasmonean dynasty that can be cited in this article, so citing the Maccabees is not only against Wikipedia policies, it is also not needed. ImTheIP (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think about the source. It's attributed and relevant to the topic.--Watchlonly (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You are right, it doesn't matter what I think, but it matters what Wikipedia policies say, particularly WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. The policy is very clear cut; scripture and apocrypha must not be passed off as historically reliable sources. One of the reasons for this is that creative interpretation of scripture is frequently used by religious cranks to create fictitious narratives. For example, historians don't believe that Judah actually captured Jerusalem in 164, even though that is stated in the Maccabees in one of the errant sources you keep reinserting. I hope that you now understand and that you from now on stop your disruptive and policy-violating edit warring. ImTheIP (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware of those historians you talk about, but I'd love to have a text describing their opinion. In the meantime, leave the traditional version of the Book of Maccabees which, for the millionth time, it is attributed.--Watchlonly (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

From The Hasmoneans and their State: A Study in History, Ideology, and the Institutions edited by Edward Dąbrowa:

Without a doubt, the author of 1 Macc intended to show the exceptional contributions of the first generation of the Hasmoneans in fighting against the kings of Syria. Such feats were meant to bolster the political position of Hasmonean successors as legitimate leaders of an independent Judea. To ensure that his account caused proper resonance, the same author resorted to passing over certain events or presenting them in a way that served the Hasmonean cause. Some scholars go so far as to suggest that the author may have deliberately falsified certain developments early in the uprising in order to better highlight the role of his protagonists.

ImTheIP (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting speculation. Even if true, it doesn't change anything. Again, if a text is attributed to a biblical narrative, it's perfectly fine to cite those sources. See for example the articles on Abraham or Jacob which have entire sections based on biblical verses. That's because that narrative is attributed to the Bible, just like in this article part of the narrative is based on the Book of the Maccabees. It's not so difficult to understand. If you want to add a modern source interpreting or contradicting the biblical narrative, be my guest.--Watchlonly (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Those pages shouldn't cite bible verses either but they make it clear that they are describing a biblical narrative. You are trying to pass off Maccabees and Josephus as reliable sources for history when they are not. Stop doing that. It is 100% against Wikipedia policy. ImTheIP (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong. Actually Josephus is widely cited among historians of the classic era dealing with the Roman world in general and Judea in particular (roughly from the 2nd century BCE to the great Jewish revolt in first century CE). As for the Books of the Maccabees, there is some controversy, particulary the second book. But whatever the case, I've provided a clear attribution for the paragraph using Maccabees I as a source, so your objection is no longer valid.--Watchlonly (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Read the policy, you are in violation of it: Scriptural texts, like the Bible and the Quran, are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate. ImTheIP (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

How is saying that the Books of Maccabees describe the origins of the Hasmoneans a violation of this policy?--Watchlonly (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not violating policy. Sourcing content that "interprets or summarizes" scriptural passages to scripture, which you are doing, is violating policy. ImTheIP (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Read the source.--Watchlonly (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

As a belated comment months afterward... well one of these users was since blocked and the other hasn't edited in ages, but scripture shouldn't be cited unless it's for an explicit quote (i.e. it's fine to cite it if the line is so important as to be part of the article). That said, the claim that the Maccabees didn't take Jerusalem in 164 is... pretty fringe and not one that should be attributed to "historians" as a group. I think that "revisionist" historians might argue that what happened was something more like the Seleucids let the Maccabees in under some truce / agreement to cleanse the temple, and the Maccabees later broke that truce when they besieged the Acra, since the Maccabees clearly didn't 100% control Jerusalem (especially after many devout Jews were exiled from it, leaving mostly pro-Seleucid Jews). But we have records of the first proto-Hanukkah being celebrated a mere year later, so they were celebrating something about the temple. A historian arguing that nothing in particular happened in 164 would essentially be arguing that the books of Maccabees & Josephus are totally unreliable, in which case there's almost nothing to say, not even that any event didn't happen. SnowFire (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Restoration of unsourced material

@Watchlonly: In this diff [1] you deleted a citation needed tag and inserted text which has no source. You need to stop edit warring and you need to find a source for the text you added. ImTheIP (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Done.--Watchlonly (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you self-revert because you are again violating core content policies. WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. ImTheIP (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't need your approval to provide sources for perfectly reasonable content. You are the only one objecting this under a stupid pretext. Also stop WP:Wikihounding.--Watchlonly (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Article title

Not filing a formal WP:RM yet, but as a general question for talk page watchers... would there be any support for moving the article to something like Hasmonean kingdom, Hasmonean state, or even something like Hasmonean Judea? "Dynasty" usually refers mostly to the ruling line, yet this is clearly an article on the state/polity as a whole, not the family. And yes, I know there are plenty of cases where dynasty is used this way (Qin dynasty), but that doesn't mean it's a good idea - it's like having the article on England at "Windsor dynasty" or Saudi Arabia at "House of Saud". Both of the 21st century books in the "Further reading" section use "Hasmonean state" in their titles. Any thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Though the article does largely discuss the Hasmonean polity itself, participants on both sides of the discussion have noted that significant portions of the article (in its current form) discuss the dynasty before it came to power. With the article itself having a divided focus, this discussion has been similarly divided between support and opposition for the move. Some editors have mentioned wanting to expand the historical information in this article; if this expansion occurs, and changes the balance of content throughout the article, it may be fruitful to start a new RM. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Hasmonean dynasty → Hasmonean kingdom – Or to Hasmonean state (2nd choice). This is an article about a state/polity, not a family; compare the peer Seleucid Empire / Seleucid dynasty or Ptolemaic Kingdom / Ptolemaic dynasty. It's like having the article on England at "Windsor dynasty" or Saudi Arabia at "House of Saud". The sources agree: Google scholar for "Hasmonean Kingdom" (772 hits, all clearly discussing the state), Google scholar for "Hasmonean state" (1010 hits, all clearly discussing the state). "Hasmonean dynasty" is frequently used too, of course, but generally to refer to the era / government / monarchs, not the state-as-a-whole. This article has a broader topic. SnowFire (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Addendum on "kingdom" vs. "state": Note that both of the 21st century books in the "Further reading" section use "Hasmonean state" in their titles. This is probably because it is a little more precise when discussing the full era. Most of the Hasmonean rulers were both High Priest and King ("Basileus"), and thus uncontroversially a "kingdom". But, the first two, Simon Thassi and John Hyrcanus, were "only" High Priest and took the title ethnarch, governor, and Nasi, prince. As such, you can argue it was technically not a "kingdom" during this period. However, I think this is mostly nitpicking; the Hasmoneans were obviously in charge even then, and using "kingdom" to refer to the whole period is basically fine and done in multiple sources. So my preferences are "kingdom" > "state" > "dynasty" - I know that there are some exceptions where e.g. Qin dynasty is used to refer to the entire polity, but this isn't very common in literature of the Hellenistic period, which clearly separates kingdoms (Macedonia (ancient kingdom)) & dynasties (Antigonid dynasty). SnowFire (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The article does not particularly focus on the dynasty's members or their genealogy. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This article may have been intended to focus on the dynasty, but it doesn't. There probably should be such an article, but perhaps it could be split off from this one, at least in a bare-bones form that could be expanded at a later time, without removing anything critical from the existing one. Or it might wait if there just isn't the time or patience to do that; this article should be fine under the first proposed title for the reasons given by the nominator. P Aculeius (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The kingdom is of Judea, is it not? There is also not an article on the "Windsor kingdom". Hasmonean dynasty is often spoken of in relation to Herodian dynasty, although there is admittedly separate articles on Herodian dynasty and Herodian Kingdom of Judea. More to the point, the "kingdom" phase is only part of the article. Indeed, half the article talks about the "king" meaning the Seleucid king, not the Hasmonean. So oppose the move to "Hasmonean kingdom" as proposed. Also, for now, oppose move to "Hasmonean state" as an unhappy phrase, less informative or reflective of the content than "Hasmonean dynasty". Admittedly not ideal, but I don't find either proposal an improvement, given the current scope of the article. Walrasiad (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Not exactly? "Hasmonean Judea" is a phrase that comes up in the sources, but it's not a precise name for the topic of the Wikipedia article, except maybe at the very start under Judas / Jonathan / Simon Thassi, but not afterward. The problem is that Judea was a region that did not exactly match the territory controlled by the Hasmoneans. It was the "core" region they started with, sure, and held the capital Jerusalem, but the "Hasmonean kingdom" included more than just Judea as they expanded. See the map at File:Hasmoneese rijk.PNG - the Hasmoneans conquered Idumea, Samaria, Perea, Galilee, and Iturea as well. It's a bit like how you can casually refer to Ptolemaic Egypt as it was their most important territory, but the article is at Ptolemaic Kingdom because the state also controlled Cyprus, and sometimes they controlled lower Syria & Rhodes territory in southern Asia Minor (aka Turkey). That and sources call it the Ptolemaic Kingdom, of course, just as many sources call this polity the Hasmonean kingdom. SnowFire (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • As for "half the article", I will agree that the current article doesn't spend enough time on the history after the Maccabees and before the Romans. I think that's just a temporary deficit though and plan on fixing that up if possible with editing, so this concern won't last, I hope. SnowFire (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per the nom and per the additions above by SnowFire. I believe the title "Hasmonean Kingdom" would be overall much better than "Hasmonean Dynasty." Surely, the historical deficits in the article about the complete history of the "Hasmonean Kingdom" will have to filled in, but, I believe, once the new title expands and defines the overall subject more precisely than the current one, these current deficiencies can more easily be improved. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Jewish history has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Ancient Near East has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Former countries has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: The Hasmoneans weren't kings between 167-104 BC, which is nearly half of their history (The article's decision to make 140 the start date seems arbitrary to me and not in line with general works on the Hasmoneans, which almost all include the Maccabean revolt). Even if 140 is counted as the start period, the entity being described was still not a kingdom for over a third of its history. Furius (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• The claim that "literature of the Hellenistic period... clearly separates kingdoms & dynasties" is not true at all. In secondary literature, "Ptolemies", "Seleukids," and "Antigonids" are regularly used to refer to the respective kingdoms and dynasties interchangeably - and with good reason, because kingdom and dynasty were not independent entities in the Hellenistic, but tightly intertwined. Furius (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Re status as a kingdom: Per my comment above, yes, the first two Hasmonean rulers didn't technically call themselves "king" (nor did the last, as a sop to Rome). However, from 167–141 or so, they weren't a state yet, either - they were either countryside rebels or from 152–142, Seleucid-approved high priest / general. I agree that the Maccabean Revolt is valuable and relevant background to bring up, but that has its own article. Anyway, would you support Hasmonean state then instead? As noted above, lots of reliable sources use that phrasing too, especially for the early period under Simon & John Hyrcanus. (I still think "kingdom" is fine, but "state" is still better than "dynasty".)
• Re terminology: Of course there's tons of references to Hasmoneans / Hasmonean, that's not in dispute. That might be an argument to move this article back to "Hasmoneans", but if spelled out specifically as "Hasmonean dynasty", it means the government / ruler. If it's talking about the polity, use something else (example use of "state" from the Armies of Hasmonean And Herod). I think the split between Herodian dynasty and Herodian kingdom is quite clear - putting the article on the kingdom in the article on the dynasty would be confusing. SnowFire (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support but the article will need to be rewritten as it obviously focuses a bit more on the dynasty itself than a page about the kingdom would, in its current stage. Zhomron (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

So, it's been 17 days, no new activity here. The vote is 4:2 support v. oppose, so support (technically) wins. However, I feel like 6 votes is hardly enough to actually claim consensus. As for now, I'm leaving it. Zhomron (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per the Oppose votes above. According to classical Judaism, the Hasmoneans started out as a family of High Priests of Israel starting from Mattathias as their original leader and then succeeded by his sons. They took control of Judea by conquest and their eventual assumption of role of Jewish kings and queens went contra to the established authorized monarchs of the Davidic line. May as well call them the Hasmonean illegitimate kingdom, that in any case was subsumed at the end by the Herodian dynasty The Herodian dynasty/Herodian Kingdom of Judea/Herodian Tetrarchy/Herodians is just one subject that could easily fit in the over-arching Herodian dynasty title, same for the Hasmoneans. IZAK (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hasmonean dynasty.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Verification needed

Between citation needed tags, unreliable source usage and simply wholly unsourced paragraphs and sections (let alone additional considerations about source quality), this page still has a long way to go to meet basic verification requirements. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Conquered by Armenia (73-71)?

According to the article on Tigranes the Great, in 73-71 BCE the kingdom was conquered by the Armenians. There is no mention of any presence of Tigranes' forces in Judea in this article. One of the two must be wrong. Once this is sorted out, at least 2 or 3 articles must be amended: this one, Tigranes the Great, and Salome Alexandra (ruled c. 76–67 BCE). Arminden (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

How did they call their kingdom?

? Arminden (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)