Talk:Beheading of John the Baptist

1
what about adding its depiction and references in movies and pop cultures

NY Times
There was a statement that said:

"*In 1881 The New York Times claimed that the inmates of two rival French monasteries used to exhibit, the one the skull of John the Baptist 'when he was a boy', the other his cranium 'after he had become a man'."

The article does indeed say this. In lieu of other supporting facts, it appears to be "urban myth." The country was pretty well anti-Catholic at the time. The article which contains a lot of unsupported WP:OR and pov statements doesn't really deserve space. We know a different NY Times today, which is quite reliable. That evidently wasn't the case then.

If anyone can find supporting evidence, please replace it with cites about monastery that exhibited his head "as a boy." Student7 (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"In the Roman Catholic Church"
Where does this come from? "In the Roman Catholic Church, the story is often retold with the moral lesson of code of honor versus arrogance precipitated by the tyrannical abuse of power. In addition, various speculations regarding the motive of Salome are cited, namely her lewd dancing as a means of revenge and harlotry." --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Beheading of St. John the Baptist. 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/20140718093729/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20120829_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20120829_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718093729/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20120829_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20120829_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315083945/http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=109555 to http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=109555
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111009022156/http://www.cetinje.me/eng/relics.html to http://www.cetinje.me/eng/relics.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beheading of St John the Baptist. 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/20070419200853/http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/ant-18.htm to http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/ant-18.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 17:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Beheading of St John the Baptist → Beheading of John the Baptist – Titles and honorific prefixes tend to be excluded in most article names. This would also be so per WP:CONSISTENCY in accordance with this very application in the "main article" John the Baptist (as well as reflected in most interwikilinks). Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support; shouldn't ever have been at the current title. Red   Slash  13:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removal of the honorific prefix. 144.85.248.148 (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC).
 * Support – Per nom as well as WP:COMMONNAME. Mojoworker (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and when are we going to bring Saint Peter into line with WP:RS? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the lead is currently phrased as-if the article were about the Catholic holy day rather than the event itself, and should be updated (hopefully by someone with some knowledge of the topic). power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Failed verification
The statement that the head was found a second time (under relics) is marked with "Failed verification", yet the catechesis of Benedict XVI, cited just a few words later, explicitly makes that statement. So there is a third-party source for the factoid.

Unreadable introduction
I'd rewrite this a bit for clarity, but I can't even figure out what it means:

"According to the New Testament, Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee under the Roman Empire ( Before it was the Holy Roman Empire under Constantine), from Some time, then, between December, 780, and April, 781 had imprisoned him because he had ..."

I can fix the "( B" easily. I can't move Constantine to after 780, and I cannot figure out what "from Some time" means. Does the "before" mean that it was no longer the HRE?

And this is the second sentence in the introductory paragraph. The opening to the next paragraph is better, but only by comparison. I don't know enough about this to fix them. Huw Powell (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a recent idiot/incompetent. Sorted. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Herod's status as pyseudo king
I'm not sure I totally understand it but I feel like Herod is a guy that is kind of he's he's flamboyant and he's he's not actually a person with power but he's more like a spokesman representing people of the area that actually the Romans had not conquered and didn't want a problem with like maybe the Arabs I'm not sure what you would turn there that time period but certainly they would have always been in the area and they were the people that were in the desert deep desert in places you don't want to go but I won't go there to fight somebody and then there's other people in the mountains there's always people in the mountains and they probably would have been them got along too good but considering the situation in the area hair was probably like a slave king almost like a term it so he probably got joy giving Romans a hard time cuz what else was there for him and it's a pretty clear indicator that anyone who would be in a in a palace in the open desert with Romans around it's just pretty much explains to you what I'm trying to say that that he wasn't a real king and certain mountain people and help people in the area and so a combination of people probably would have regularly went and threatened Herod with whatever was bothering them and it was herod's job to present it to the Romans maybe the Samaritan's other Israel tribes would have spoken through him but he was kind of like a clown but the same time the Romans would have had to respect him a little bit because they didn't want to fight the people he represented I'm pretty sure that's how I don't quote me it's hard to say because you get the Judea version which is usually their version and then they will give you another version of the confuse you of your own version so now you have three versions of two of them are theirs and then you have other versions as well as their sides the story like Samaritans and other Semitic people. 209.171.85.193 (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "I'm trying to say that that he wasn't a real king" Vassal kings are still kings, they are simply subordinate to overlords of their own. Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)