I saw lately on the French/German TV channel: the French language version:
Hérode le grand. Nouveau Salomon or tyran sangunaire (I have it on my harddisc from the TV distributor. I suppose one can only see the documeantary when one resides in France or Germany)
https://www.cesoirtv.com/programme/202538191/herode-le-grand.php
As ever the first line research via wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

After this it was again the feared no mode specified and loss of the rest of my message...it's like an imaginative moderator, who remove the text if I lament that we Belgians with an Arte Belgique can't watch, while i found via the name Herod the Great and the Israëli film from Alan Rosenthal that the English could watch the entire film in Arte German with English subtitles 
https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/062224-001-A/herod-the-great/
I made also comments that although it was made by an Israeli author, as I saw it now, it was very historical saying that the main historical source was Flavius Josephus...
I had a lot of questions for Tim of Aclea and also some comments about the history, but too late now after midnight to make an elaborated survey...

Kind regards from Paul.

Hi Paul

I prefer the reference to him as 'Herod the Monstrous'.  The main source for information on him is Josephus.

Even though I am a wiki editor and wiki does have its uses, I would never use wiki as a source that I would quote from, it is too unreliable.  I am currently taking a part time history degree, it will be my third degree (my others are in science and technology).  It is the first since the web became available and we have been told in no uncertain terms that whatever we quote from, never quote Wikipedia.  

regards

Tim

Tim,

yes I know about wiki and had via intermediaries a clash with someone, who had a monthly or a threemonthly, about if you read it well: an independent Wallonia and questions among others: Were the Walloon regiments more combative in the 18 days campaign 1940 than the Flemish ones?. When I did a study about it on two French fora, suddenly the wiki related to it, didn't exist anymore. Among others about the battle at Deinze that you mentioned in the 1648 thread.
That said I use wiki always as a start, because if you are honest it gives mostly a first survey about the questions and a general entourage, and then start more in depth search on the internet and despite from what I hear from nordmann and the algorithms, if you are patient as I  , at the end you find something. Mostly on Academia edu or Jstor. Jstor is difficult for access as I have to go via the former university of the grandson. And Academia, which is accessible via a simple password, give me via the algorithms of my research all kind of pointed information even Turkish one. They have to know I thought that via their algorithms that articles in Turkish from Turkish universities aren't the most researched ones, from those who only know English, French, Spanish and perhaps some German too (as I)...
And I forgot even the academic ones have their quarrels...the "Historikerstreit" and "Aristote au Mont Saint Michel" for example...

But back to the Herod The Great from Alan Rosenthal.

As I read it in wiki: : Herod edomite anchestors converted to Judaism. Herod was rised as a Jew.
And in the documentary of Rosenthal: Herod married Mariamne as to make a link with the Hasmoneans, who although conquered, considered themselves as the "true" Jews. And later during his reign he and his sister Salomé with her intrigues against Mariamne (from true Jewish stock, I guess by links of "blood") were always treated as converted ones. BTW: Not the tabloid Salomé from the later Herod...


Tim, was that later also the case during the first Christianism, that converted ones to Judaism were not considered as real Jews? Saint Paulus for instance, was he a converted Jew and if so, was he then not a true Jew?

As you mentioned Flavius Josephus, he seems to have written a history worth a novel as from a Shakespearian drama...there was also second to the documeantary about Herod a second documentary about about Josephus on ARTE...

Kind regards from Paul.

Hi Paul

the term Herod the Monstrous comes from Jewish sources.  Concerning his building of the third temple.

In 19BC Herod decided that Jerusalem needed a truly magnificent temple, which would give him prestige and also reflect the glory of God whom he claimed to worship.  The chief priests were worried that Herod would just pull down the old Temple without building the new one, but he managed to persuade them that he was in earnest.  

1,000 priests were trained as builders, Lebanese cedar forests were felled, in quarries around Jerusalem massive stones were cut, one was 45 feet long, 11 feet wide and weighed 600 tons.  As much building work as possible was carried out off site.  The finished pieces were slotted together on the Temple site.  To ensure that the new temple would last, Herod dug right down into the bedrock so destroying any remains of Solomon’s temple.  The Temple was built of on top of a three acre platform, which Herod had constructed, twice the size of the Forum in Rome.  In just two years the Holy of Holies was built, but it took until 64AD, 83 years after work started, before the Temple was complete.  The Temple was constructed in a series of courts, each one getting smaller and leading to Holy of Holies.  

The outer most court was the Court of Gentiles and it was in this Court that Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers and those selling doves to be used for sacrifices.  All Jews had to pay a temple tax of a half shekel and could only pay it in certain currencies.  If you have ever complained about what you get charged by banks or credit cards for changing money, that is nothing compared to what a pilgrim was charged.  However, that again was nothing compared to the exploitation that went on concerning the selling of doves for carrying out a sacrifice.  Doves sold within the Temple could cost fifteen or twenty times as much as outside, but any bought outside would undoubtedly be rejected by the priests as unsuitable due to having some blemish or other.  The whole thing was a racket from which the chief priests benefited.  In addition the Court of Gentiles was the only part of the Temple that ‘god-fearing’ non Jews could enter and worship God.  However, all around them was the racket of this buying and selling going on, well might Jesus get angry.  

Inside the Court of Gentiles was the wall that encircled the Court of Women and then fifty steps lead to the Court of Israelites, open to all Jewish males.  Inside that was the Court of Priests and finally the Holy of Holies where Abraham was said to have nearly sacrificed his son Isaac and King David to have built an altar.  The Temple was agreed by all to be a wonder of the world.  It was covered with gold plates such that visitors were dazzled by the reflected sun.  

When Jesus entered Jerusalem, and his disciples gazed in awe on the magnificent building, it had been being built for around 45 years.  When the Jews rioted because they thought Paul had brought some gentiles into the Court of Israelites it was only five years from completion.  When after 83 years building the Temple was finally completed, the Chief Priests wondered how they would keep the 20,000 workmen employed in the future.  And yet six years later, the Temple had been burnt to the ground when the Romans stormed Jerusalem following the Jewish revolt against Rome.

Herod also built a fortress/palace at Masada.

This would be the site of the last stand of the Jewish revolt as well as a remarkable piece of Roman military engineering;



remains of the Roman siege ramp, built to attack the fort;

Went there in 2010, the Roman camp is clearly visible from the fortress.  It must be said though that the Jewish group who defended the fortress get more credit than they deserve.

Tim of Aclea wrote:

Went there in 2010, the Roman camp is clearly visible from the fortress.  It must be said though that the Jewish group who defended the fortress get more credit than they deserve.

Tim, I was there too with mother and sister.

As I recall that we flew from the departure hall of Brussels airport with an El Al flight, just a fortnight before an attack happened seemingly to capture the plane and the passengers, seemingly by a Palestinian terrorist group. Had we booked on that flight later, we could have been there...
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/04/17/archives/palestinians-foiled-in-attempt-to-take-an-israeli-airliner-12-hurt.html

As it was on 16 April 1979. Our visit has to have been in that period. In those days it was a bit strange to be on an El Al flight I remember. As it were mostly no Jewish Belgian passengers on that flight and we had not the slightest idea about such customs... Suddenly a passenger stood up, I already thought at a hijacking (as it were then also those times), but no, it was a kind of a ritual, the man did something with "bands?" around his clothes and in the direction of the exit door, if I recall it well, I think it was for the Jewish passengers of the flight...

Kind regards from Paul.