Talk:Edom

Older

'Edom' is also said to be an alternative name for Esau. How he gained this name is explained in the Book of Genesis 25:29-34 where Esau trades his birthright to his younger twin brother Jacob in exchange for a meal of red stew. No. The land 'Edom' is red because of its red stone and red sand, as any tourist can tell you. The inhabitants of Edom are Edomites, quite naturally. They are not red. They are associated with the descendents of Esau. Esau is not red himself. Nor is the stew --fer gosh sakes! Can we delete this?Wetman 09:13, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The article is poor. Look at the german version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.177.17.22 (talk) 00:44, 2005 January 2 (UTC)

Wetman. No we can't because it happens to be factual that the book of Genesis gives that explanation, whether you like it or not. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Map

I've made a "map" depicting the whereabouts of the anciant Edom. I'd appreciate if someone who knows more about the issue could have a look at it. You see, I'm what is below an amateur in history: commons:Image:Edom.png --EnSamulili 14:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Misstranslation of Edom "Idumaea"

Just a warning: I was reading through my Aramaic (Classical Syriac) version of the Old Testament at 1Kings 22: 31 and other verses, and later in comparing them with the english translations (mostly all, including king james, niv, etc.) misstranslated the Edomite people calling them Syrian. As the Map proposed shows, these people, and this reigon was clearly not Syria. Syrians were known at the time as Arameans, and were located farther North. Nevertheless the two names (Edom and Aram) can look similar, in the ancient scriptures (Hebrew: אדום and ארם / or Syriac script: ܐܕܘܡ and ܐܪܡ). By the way, if anyone is reading this article, upon analyzing chapter 22 of 1kings, I suggest you use the (origional) King James version, or the Lamsa Bible to avoid other misstranslations in the chapter, such as verse 38 (where the prostitutes bathed), but in actually said where the kings weapons were cleansed (along with the king's chariot). [05:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)מלכא אשור] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.242.108 (talk) 05:23, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Conjecture?

"Later in Jewish history, it was the Roman Empire that came to be identified with Esau and "Edom" because of their frequent use of the color red in their banners and standards, and also due to their ruthless and often "bloody" reign in Judea."

Is there a historical source indicating a link between the factual information bolded above and the factual information italicized above? Is such a suggested connection merely archaeological conjecture? If so, the text should be updated to reflect that. HKT ^talk 04:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It is more of a theological conjecture. Esau is epitomized with gentiles, Ishmael with the Arabs, and Jacob/Israel with the Jews. Guy Montag 04:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

My question was whether some archaeologists speculated that the Jews associated Edom with Rome as a result of "their frequent use... Judea," or whether there's clear evidence that the Jews believed Rome=Edom due to "their frequent use... Judea." No one questions that the Jews associated Rome with Edom. The question is: Why did they do so? In other words, I'm asking whether the existence of such "theological conjecture" described in the article is nothing but archaeological conjecture. Sources please... HKT ^talk 16:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I should have used commentary instead of conjecture. My evidence is nothing less than Maimonides. It is a pretty widespread theological understanding of the lineages of different people.

Out of my head, [1] [2]Guy Montag 16:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not really aware of the archeological reasons Jews identify Rome with Edom. I am not sure it has anything to do with their standards. Guy Montag 16:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The info on the standards et al comes from the original Edom article, from before my overhaul, and I did not remove it. I have never heard that explanation before. I know Jews in late antiquity and the middle ages assigned Biblical names to various places (i.e., Iberia becomes Sepharad, Germany becomes Ashkenaz, the Pontic steppes becomes Kedar, etc.) and the Edom-as-Rome phenomenon seems to fit in this vein. --Briangotts (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Trimming minimalism/fundamentalism dispute

I took most of the references to religious matters away, as I find it hard to believe that a reasonably full discription of the issue of biblical minimalism vs. fundamentalism could be presented on this page. Furthermore, I don't think it's reasonable at this point to say what effect the findings will have on using Bible as a source for archeology. -EnSamulili 19:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The section relays what is written in articles found in reputable sources. It is unreasonable to remove it. The debate on minimalism vs. fundamentalism is presented here solely with regards to the discoveries in Edom. Also no conclusion is made in the article as to what effect the findings will have on using Bible as a source in the future; only the implications are discussed, and they are done so objectively. The statements by Dever are plain on their face. --Briangotts (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is not just about the truth, it's about the whole truth in a balanced way. Now, if you believe that NPOV about such a heated issue science vs. fundamentalism can be reached in this article, we can surely try. I changed "evidence" to "one piece of evidence". -EnSamulili 14:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no "heated issue".

Fact: It was previously believed that Edom existed only from 800 BCE on.

Fact: Biblical minimalists touted this as a very prominent piece of evidence supporting the Bible's falsity. See the works of Donald Redford, Israel Finkelstein, etc. Even William Dever used to tout the falsity of the Bible's account of Edom.

Fact: Recent excavations have unearthed evidence that Edom is centuries older than previously thought.

Fact: Fundamentalists see this as a triumph for their worldview.

Fact: More cautious, non-fundamentalist voices like William Dever have called for a reappraisal of the way Minimalists reject categorically the Biblical account.

I can't tell from your opposition what side of the debate you fall on. I am certainly no fundamentalist; neither am I a minimalist. But you have not demonstrated how anything I've written has been POV. On the contrary, you arbitrarily decided that "one piece of evidence" is NPOV while "evidence" is POV. That makes no sense. To say that X is evidence of Y does not mean that X proves Y or that X represents the entirety of the evidence showing Y. It means exactly what it says, namely, that X is some evidence that tends to show Y. To say that it is "one piece" is not only inaccurate (what is a "piece" of evidence?) but it is POV (because the language used tends to minimize and downplay the importance of the particular evidence).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Briangotts (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2005 September 16 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that you have written in an NPOV way. I have claimed that you have written about an issue which in general is heated (see, for example, the edit history of The Bible and history). I also admit that I have had doubts that what you wrote was close to not being written for the enemy, although not in any blatant way.

I know that Israel Finkelstein has written about Edom and uses it as an example about the differences between the Bible and the reality. I also know that his opposition to the Bible as a fully/very trustworthy source of knowledge of history does not rely on the case of Edom alone. If Finkelstein is a minimalist, it is very correct to say that for minimalists Edom was one piece of evidence (among many, they say), not something that the minimalists' idea depended on. So yes, compared to your version I did downplay the importance of Edom. However, in doing so I think I followed the thoughts of the minimalists more closely.

Furthermore, I admit that I'm proud that you haven't been able to tell which side I'm on :) I feel like I may have achieved a certain level of npovness. I can tell you that I'm not a fundamentalist - and that is all I care about any biblical disputes.

PS. English is not my native language, but the way I understand it, a "piece of evidence" doesn't refer to concrete piece. The phrase is used because evidence is an uncountable noun and can't take an indefinite article. -EnSamulili 21:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that Israel Finkelstein's arguments about Biblical historiocity depended entirely on Edom. Please do not mischaracterize what I am saying in this way. What I said was that the apparent nonexistence of early Edom was evidence that was used to buttress Finkelstein's beliefs. Now that evidence appears to be challenged. I have said nothing about other evidence for the Bible's historiocity or lack thereof because this is an article about Edom, and about Edom only.

I still don't understand why you insist on using the phrase "piece of evidence", which I do not, strictly speaking, believe is a proper English usage in this context. "X Evidence of Y" still does not mean that X represents all of the evidence for Y. It only means that X represents some part of the evidence that tends to show Y. The proper usage in this context is "evidence", not "piece of evidence". If, as you say, English is not your native language, perhaps you would like to consult with a nonbiased party? I will not change the current wording in the meanwhile.--Briangotts (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

GA Nom Comments

Does anyone know if much of this article is still verbatim from the Jewish Encyclopedia? If so, it would be good to paraphrase those sections and cite them before we promote the article. Also, while not necessary, it would be nice to see the abbreviations in the notes expanded and full citations provided. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

the article contains verbatim material but so much has been added and modified that I don't believe it is the same article anymore.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That was what I was thinking, but didn't know for sure. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the article has promise, so I'll not fail the nom. The refrencing is pretty good, although I'd like to see a few more modern sources. That would not stop me from promoting it, but I think would help. I would like to see some work on the organization of the article, which feels a little out of order and pasted together. Also, attention to the lead, based on WP:LEAD --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a new lead (which I think takes me out of the running for reviewing the GA nomination). I'm still not sure about the order, especially the bit about the Shasu and Shutu. And of course, someone might revert this change. But I'm hoping to do other things for a while. —JerryFriedman 20:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

More comments

An interesting and informative article. However, these are some details that in my opinion need to be addressed before this can be a Good Article:

What does "[red] has been alternate name in describing him" (para. 2) mean? That Esau is also named "Red" in the Bible?

If a translation is cited, you can't change it, so I quoted the "red stuff" passage verbatim. The alternative would be saying that the translation with "reddish red" is based on the ORT translation. It might not hurt to pick one Biblical translation for the article, incidentally.

Are the "chieftains" mentioned in Deuteronomy the alufim?

I'm not sure how to handle it, but the Jewish Encyclopedia seems to have jumped to a conclusion in saying that the Biblical account implies that the Edomite kingship was elective. There are other explanations: it rotated among clans, each king chose his successor, there was a power struggle, and probably more.

Both Redford and Müller need full references, at least including a first name. —JerryFriedman 01:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The way to address it, I think, is try a few encyclopedias, print variety even, or monographs. I'd direct a student to the Anchor Bible Dictionary for such a thing. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the way to address the problem of "elective kingship"? Sounds good to me.

I think it's truer now, but it still needs a print source. —JerryFriedman 15:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

On another topic, I do not see any mention of Edomite chieftains in Deuteronomy. jewishencyclopedia.com is currently down, but if I can't find some sort of hint there, I'll take out the Deuteronomy chieftains—unless someone has a better idea. —JerryFriedman 18:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Passed

Congratulations! I've passed this article. To improve the article, I'd suggest that work be done on the referencing, particularly to put in up-to-date print sources. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Reference 18 to I Kings 9:15-16 is irrelevant.

Edom Linkspam

Since there have been multiple attempts to place linkspam for www.edom.co.uk on this page (in fact in all Wikipedias with an "Edom" page), a spam report has been sent to Google WolfgangRieger 06:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. The following is a list of the issues that will need to be addressed:

1. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must cover all the points/headings made in the main body of the article (it doesn't even come close in this case) and must not introduce any facts that are not present in the main body of the article (in this case, it is the only place that really introduces the subject. In this case, it acts more like an introduction (which it is not supposed to be) than a lead (which is supposed to be a summary of the aritcle.
2. There is citation work that needs to be done:

   most of the first paragraph of "In the Bible"

   "(Since 1948 it has been used for senior ranks in the Israeli Defense Force)" (In the Bible)

   the citation needed tags under "Economy"

   "At the same time they were driven by the Nabatæans from their ancestral lands to the south and east" (Post-Biblical times)

   the third paragraph of "Post-Biblical times"

   "Edomite religion" (which contains material that looks like original research without proper citations)

   "Identification with Rome" (which should also use proper "Main article" formating rather than "See extended discussion...")

   the second paragraph of "Controversy" and the citation needed tag in the same section

3. All one-two sentence paragraphs that are not leads into smaller subsections need to be either expanded or merged, as they cannot stand alone and they break up the prose, making it choppy.
4. If all these are addressed before the hold expires, I will also have to check the references and make sure that they are all still working.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Cheers, CP 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the concerns were not addressed. Therefore, I will be delisting the article. Cheers, CP 05:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Cheers"- who exactly do you think you are, moron? "Cheers"? Is this the only way you can get your ego-kicks, by dropping condescending messages on random Wikipedia articles? Next time, make sure you are a bit more careful with your tone or you might find yourself expelled from this community. Thanks sweety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.3.65 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

ERA?

First WP:ERA used in this article was BCE in this edit.

Note: A recent edit changed B.C.E. to BCE - reverted back to B.C.E., which was part of a quote - we don't change quoted text.
Thanks. —Telpardec  TALK  22:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

On a similar note, I noticed "C.E." used in note #39. There are no quotation marks around the text of this note, but it reads somewhat like it is quoted (but I can't quite point at what makes me feel like that... something about the phrasing, or someone is going off as assuming to be authoritative?). I am not sure, but I am leaning towards this note not being a quote. However, there is also an asterisk prepended to the name "Herod" of which I have no idea why. The following note also has two names prepended with asterisks ("Targums" and "Casarea"). I am not sure what to make of these. — al-Shimoni (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

COPYVIO? Apparently notes 39 and 40 are verbatim quotes from the "Edom as Rome" reference in note 37. The asterisk words appear to be names of other articles in Encyclopaedia Judaica (copyright 2008) that was used as a source for that article. So, we have a problem – two whole paragraphs lifted verbatim (without attribution in notes 39 & 40) from a copyrighted work. Is that fair use? Anyone want to tackle a rewrite with proper attribution?
—Telpardec  TALK  15:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

radiocarbon dating

PNAS article available free. Includes material on iron working. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/43/16460.short 71.163.117.143 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

New Testament

The article states: The Tanakh and the New Testament both describe the Edomites as descendants of Esau. Can anyone identify the New Testament passage(s) where this occurs, as I can't find a relevant passage? BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the claim that the NT describes the Edomites as the descendants of Esau - BobKilcoyne (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edom. 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/20070921164021/http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com:80/view_page.jsp?artid=45&letter=E&pid=1 to http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view_page.jsp?artid=45&letter=E&pid=1

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Link

[3]Makeandtoss (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Article improvement

This article contains a lot of good information, but is unfortunately a bit of a mess and very hard to read. I think this is mostly because it is very disjointed. It switches between descriptions of Edom from the Bible, to descriptions by Roman/Greek scholars, to archaeological evidence, to statements without a source which may be just editors opinions. To start I think we need to get the lede cleaned up. The major problem I see is it focuses to much on the words Edom and Idumea, rather than the topic (see WP:NOTDIC). Leading to text like this, which I have read multiple times but still do not know what it is trying to say:

 Edom and Idumea are two related but distinct terms relating to a historically contiguous population, but two separate, if adjacent, territories occupied at different periods of their history by the Edomites/Idumeans.

Also, this sentence:

 Edom is a term used in written sources relating to the late Bronze Age and to the entire Iron Age in the Levant, such as the Hebrew Bible and Egyptian and Mesopotamian records

Does it mean that 'Edom' is used in written sources from the late Bronze Age, etc, or that it is used in sources that talk about the late Bronze Age, etc?

Finally, the lede jumps back and forth between the early and late history which makes it very confusing. If I understand correctly Idumea is just the Greek name and Edom is the Semitic name and Edom went into decline around the period that the Greeks started writing about it. Is that not correct?

Ashmoo (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2018

That Tiberian transliteration. d'h??? What the hell is that? Could someone fix it? 47.20.180.99 (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC) 47.20.180.99 (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. feminist (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Feminist: I assume this is meant to refer to the d'h in the transliteration, which according to MOS:HE should be just shown as ḏ 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:74 (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. feminist (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Edomites origins

Hello, some sources identified them as Arabs/Nabataeans. May i know why there are no mention of this in the article? MWahaiibii (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Which sources specifically? Most sources place see them as part of the people of Canaan - sharing the same gods and speaking a regional dialect of Canaanite languages (unlike the Nabataeans - which spoke Arab and used Aramaic for inscriptions - neither of which are Canaanite and which are generally not mutually intelligible to Canaanite speakers). Icewhiz (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, i came across multiple academic publications that agrees with this concern, such as:

• Encyclopedia Britannica
• The Arabs in Antiquity by Jan Retso Published by Routledge
• All the People in the Bible by Richard R. Losch
• Strabo, Geography
• The Myth of a Gentile Galilee by Mark A. Chancey, Cambridge University Press
• Rome and the Arabs: A Prolegomenon to the Study of Byzantium and the Arabs published by Dumbarton Oaks

it would be more benefiting for the readers to include scholarly views beside the Bible. Don't you think its important to be included in the article? MWahaiibii (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Herod's entry in Britannica does not support this (it does state Herod, Judean king - an Edomite ethnically, had various relationships with the rising Arab Nabataean kingdom). The Arabs in Antiquity points out that the Romans were confused during Strabo's time (and one must note that the Edomites, by this period, were subsumed into the Judeans (circa 125 BCE)). All the People in the Bible published by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company would not seem to be a RS for history/ethnicity. The Myth of a Gentile Galilee is better - but is still a New Testament study. Rome and the Arabs: A Prolegomenon to the Study of Byzantium and the Arabs - does not support this assertion - it treats Idumaeans distinctly from Nabataeans (and documents conflict between then in the 4th century BCE as well as subsequent Judean assimilation) - It does mention the confusion during Strabo's times, and in a footnote it mentions a suggestions by M. Ghul that some of the Idumaeans that survived in the desert became the Judam tribe of late Byzantine times. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Herod's entry it says "was an Edomite (a Semitic people, identified by some scholars as Arab, who converted to Judaism in the 2nd century BCE)" and then conclude that "Thus, Herod was of Arab origin" We are not discussing Herod here, so the first quotation in brackets is what we are looking for. The Arabs in Antiquity goes to point out the confusion at first yes, but in conclusion "The Edomites are thus identified as Arabs" and "The Edomites had been identified with Nabataeans at an early stage, which contributed to their becoming Arabs". Rome and the Arabs: A Prolegomenon to the Study of Byzantium and the Arabs and The Myth of a Gentile Galilee both state that Idumaeans are another Arab tribe, only Strabo mentioned that the Idumeans are Nabataean in origin, the rest of the sources distinguish between Idumeans and Nabataeans, However they are both Arab tribes. So whats your point exactly i didn't get it? MWahaiibii (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

That following the Edomite kingdom destruction in 587, there was a gradual change/migration of Nabataeans to the region - see for instance [4][5]. The Roman period Idumaean is not quite the same. Icewhiz (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

According to the academic published sources i provided, Edomites are referred to as a different Arab people, only Strabo made the claim that Edomites are Nabataeans. While we don't know if his claim is true or not it should be mentioned separately in the article from the other sources i provided. Also why is All the People in the Bible published by the popular William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company not a reliable source? MWahaiibii (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Bible

Is the bible a reliable source to depend in ?! Many sources state that people of Edom were Arabs , I don't know why that is not mentioned?! Also, there is misunderstanding of the people of Edom , and the Idumaea ! --الرشيد (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Territory: historical evolution; map deeply flawed

As far as I know, Edomite territory shifted from strictly east of the Dead Sea Transform, or Rift Valley, to both sides of it during the weakening of the Kingdom of Judah under the Assyrians and eventually the Babylonians, culminating in the Moabites completely moving west, probably under pressure from the Nabataeans, which lead to "Idumaea", the Greek name of the "country of the Edomites", being entirely in the northern Negev and in the Shephelah by the time of the Roman conquest. The map does not reflect this, and the text doesn't really deal with it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm right, this means that the map must be removed, redone & re-captioned, and the article thoroughly rewritten. The map combines names and facts from completely disparate periods, many centuries apart, such as Edom being mainly west of the Rift Valley and Petra being a capital at a time, 830 BCE, when Moab was elsewhere and Petra didn't yet exist (the Edomite village at Umm al-Biyara was only a tiny hamlet). The map was meant to show the "kingdoms around Israel [and Judah]", which explains why Philistia, the Phoenician States, Aram Damascus and Ammon-Moab-Edom are highlighted, while the two Israelite kingdoms get the same "colourless" treatment as some rather arbitrarily located tribes (Arabu = ?; Nabatu - east of Moab in the 9th c.?!) and the more remote Assyrian Empire. This Israel & Judah-centered colour scheme needs to be changed in articles about kingdoms other than I+J. Arminden (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:History of Palestine#Map_of_the_Levant_830_BCE. The provenance of the map is unknown and there is no explanation for why it is drawn the way it is. So yes, it should be removed. ImTheIP (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Here I have removed it. Elsewhere it's still in use. The borders of Moab and Ammon seem OK, but the map as a whole is a disaster and has also been criticised elsewhere - and for many years now; we should centralise the issue, and here would be as good a place as any. An overview of the discussions:

• File talk:Kingdoms of Israel and Judah map 830.svg
• Talk:Moab#MAP is so bad
• Talk:History of Palestine#Map of the Levant 830 BCE
• Talk:Aram-Damascus#Umomium?
  Arminden (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Naming the Torah

In section “Hebrew Bible,” there is this sentence: “The Hebrew word translated as leader of a clan is aluf, used solely to describe the Dukes of Edom and Moab, in the first five books of Moses.” The last phrase is not very precise and makes the implicit assumption that there are more books attributed to Moses, which is false, unless one considers the magical tradition. It should be changed to something more precise, as “the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures” or “the Five Books of Moses”. It would be even better to use a more neutral term as “Pentateuch” or simply “Torah.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moscoh (talk • contribs) 12:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Edomite pronunciation

I cannot find any source for the Edomite language pronunciation ʾEdām of 𐤀𐤃𐤌. If there is no source for this pronunciation, it needs to be removed from the page. Antiquistik (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Need more reliable, older source

Does anyone have more sources for this statement?

During the 2nd century BC, the Edomites were forcibly converted to Judaism by the Hasmoneans, and were incorporated into the Jewish nation.[12] The current source is very new. Starting this topic to find older and more credible sources for thus quote. 2601:601:51D:3E07:3D92:BD9F:DB6E:37A8 (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Well it does show up in Josephus 1st century CE. Antiquities XIII 257 Admittedly you probably do want a modern historian who has properly evaluated all the sources. However that the Edomites (aka Idumaeans) were forcibly converted and incorporated is generally accepted (Herod the Great's father was Idumaean). Erp (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Strabo

Relying on Strabo (I have not seen any other reasoning in the sources because they dont expains their statement) is problematic because his writings about what happened in Judea include errors. He calls Hyrcanus II by the name "Herodes" and thinks that King Herod was his descendant and was also a high priest (Geographica, book 16, chapter 2, section 46). He thinks that Jews (Geography, same chapter) avoid eating meat and calls Shabbat (and not Yom Kippur) the "fasting day" (Geography, same chapter).

because of that i thought we have to remove. after that i add more explations.

Attach sources to justify the removal: https://publication.doa.gov.jo/uploads/publications/19/SHAJ_4-261-262.pdf the writer is Philip C. Hammond. He was an archaeologist and led excavations at a number of sites in the West Bank, Jordan and Egypt, notably Nag Hammadi, Tel Rumeida, and Petra. He expains why Starbo was confused.

https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/uploads/tx_sgpublisher/produkte/leseproben/9783161587238.pdf (Papes: 23,22). https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine/The-Iron-Age#ref478822 these sources seperates between arabs and edomites. states in some of the sources in the entry itself that the writers are not originally historians.

0Dr. Mark A. Chancey is a Professor of Religious Studies

Mark A. Chancey focus on the galilee and Yturs, not Edomites.

Jan Retso wrote about all people **called** Arabs in ancient sources. he relied on starbo.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by שמי (2023) (talk • contribs) 00:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC) 

First let's get your sources into a better format

• Kasher, Aryeh (1988). Jews, Idumaeans, and ancient Arabs: relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the nations of the frontier and the desert during the Hellenistic and Roman era (332 BCE - 70 CE). Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum. Tübingen: Mohr. ISBN 978-3-16-145240-6.
• Hammond, Philip C. (1992). "Nabataean settlement patterns inside Petra". Studies in the history and archaeology of Jordan, Volume 4. Amman, Jordan: Department of Antiquities. pp. 261–262.
• Levin, Yigal (2012-07-24). "The Formation of Idumean Identity". The Idumeans and the Nabataeans. Aram Thirty Fourth International Conference. The Oriental Institute, University of Oxford.
• Fraser, Peter Marshall; Khalidi, Walid Ahmed; Jones, Arnold Hugh Martin; Faris, Nabih Amin; Khalidi, Rashid Ismail; Albright, William Foxwell; Kenyon, Kathleen Mary; Brice, William Charles; Bickerton, Ian J.; Bugh, Glenn Richa. "Palestine: The Iron Age". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 12 January 2024.

And the statement:

"Strabo, writing around the time of Jesus, held that the Idumaeans, whom he identified as of Nabataean origin, constituted the majority of the population of Western Judea, where they commingled with the Judaeans and adopted their customs. A view shared by modern scholarly works which consider these Idumaeans as of Arab, possibly Nabataean, stock."

and sources you want dropped

• Strabo Geography Bk.16.2.34
• "Herod | Biography & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2018-10-13.
• Retsö, Jan (2003). The Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umayyads. London: Routledge. ISBN 9780700716791. Retrieved 2024-01-13. (updated info)
• Chancey, Mark A. (2002-05-23). The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511487927. ISBN 9781139434652. (updated)
• Shahid, Irfan; Shahîd, Irfan (1984). Rome and the Arabs: A Prolegomenon to the Study of Byzantium and the Arabs. Dumbarton Oaks. ISBN 9780884021155.

Note Strabo is being used as an ancient paraphrase for one item which is then also supported by more modern scholarship. The statement is not relying on Strabo alone. We can now discuss whether modern reliable scholarship disagrees. Erp (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking more closely we seem to have the following claims

• Idumaeans were of Nabataean origin (Strabo)
• Idumaeans constituted the majority of the population of Western Judea, (Strabo)
• Idumaeans commingled with the Judaeans and adopted their customs (Strabo)
• Idumaeans as of Arab, possibly Nabataean, stock. (modern)

Then the statement you want to add

• "Modern scientific works that have looked into this in depth have ruled it out."

So what is the "it" you are saying is ruled out? Erp (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Erp, i meant to the sentance that i deleted. --שמי (2023) (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@שמי (2023) Please be explicit, note third parties reading this discussion may not be aware of which sentence you deleted. Your last change didn't delete anything. Your previous change deleted all four of these claims. So 'it' refers to all four them? Erp (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Erp, I meant to those who defined the Idumaeans as Nabateans or Arabs שמי (2023) (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not refer to their relationship to the Jews or to the question of whether the Idumaeans were the majority or not. שמי (2023) (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. I checked what Strabo wrote "As for Judaea, its western extremities towards Casius are occupied by the Idumaeans and by the lake. The Idumaeans are Nabataeans, but owing to a sedition they were banished from there, joined the Judaeans, and shared in the same customs with them." (Loeb, trans. Horace Leonard Jones, 1930). Next is to check what reliable modern scholars say so time to do some reading. Including checking whether the current sources cited support the statement: "Idumaeans as of Arab, possibly Nabataean, stock". This may take some time. Erp (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Chancey (2002: 64 [ch. 3]) has "In the same passage, he inaccurately claims that Idumaeans are Nabateans who have been banished from their homeland (the two are actually separate Arab peoples)" though as this is more of an aside I wouldn't put too much weight in it. Erp (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Chancey foucs on Galilee (Iturea) Galilee = north. edom = south . The sources that i added define the groups as separate ethnos. I will add to that Philip C. Hammond wrote about starbo's confusion who confused between these groups. Aryeh kasher wrote "It also stands out in the continuance of customary Edomite (or Idumaean) ritual under Nabataean rule". they were not Nabataean or arabs, they have relationship and later have synthesis or co-existense.

Vanderhooft connect them them to Canaanite שמי (2023) (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Erp שמי (2023) (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually Kasher's statement (1988, p. 2) especially in context implies a great deal of continuity between earlier Edomite and later Nabataean culture as it changed through "Arabization" (Kasher has quotes around the latter word and uses it once). He starts (p. 1) by stating "In this short introduction on the Idumaeans we do not intend to solve the question of their precise ethnic origin, a very complex problem involving a special study into the biblical period. ...the fact accepted by most scholars that theirs was one of the Semitic-speaking nations (or tribes) who in the 14th century BCE had apparently invaded the region of Transjordan and driven out or absorbed the previous inhabitants." According to Kasher culturally the Idumaeans and Nabataeans were close with the Nabataean rulers absorbing much of the previous culture and also absorbing some of the people. This seems to be a complex debate. Looking at some survey articles like

• Killebrew, Ann E.; Steiner, Margreet; Bienkowski, Piotr (2013). "Edom During the Iron Age II Period". In Ann E. Killebrew; Margreet Steiner (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199212972.013.052. ISBN 978-0-19-921297-2.
• Doak, Brian R.; Doak, Brian R. (2020-09-03). "The Edomites". Ancient Israel's Neighbors. Oxford University Press. pp. 122–145. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190690595.003.0006. ISBN 978-0-19-069059-5. (which has "The social roots of the people who lived in Edom remain obscure, though most scholars trace the origins of the groups that developed in the Transjordan region to some kind of “tribal” arrangement." which is different from the "invasion" mentioned by Kasher)

Especially their references might be useful. Erp (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Erp, Due to this state of knowledge, suggest removing the statement or adding the line you reverted. שמי (2023) (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I've made it more ambiguous though need to rephrase to properly reflect the modern view. Erp (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That is, the statement presented in the article is wrong because it is a complex issue. Therefore, I wanted to remove it or at least add the sentence you restored. I do not deny that a cultural connection developed between the groups. I argued that these are two separate groups between which a synthesis developed (or connections developed) after the Nebats arrived in the area of the ancient kingdom of Edom + the northern Negev. It's a bit off topic, but as I understand it, in the end the Edomites were assimilated into the Nabatean kingdom (which in turn, was annexed to the Roman Empire and its inhabitants Greekized and became Christians later). Those who lived in Idomia assimilated into the Jewish people.--שמי (2023) (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Maccabaean revolt

I have two issues with the presentation in "Maccabean Revolt" and "Conversion to Judaism":

(1) Josephus does not report that Judas Maccabeus "conquered" Hebron and Maresha, but rather that he plundered them. That's why Maresha had to be "conquered" again 50 years later. Changing this is, I believe, uncontroversial.

(2) The passage in "Conversion to Judaism" interacts little with current research. I have drafted an alternative version. Since this is a more significant change, I'd like to discuss it here first:

Current Version:
=== Maccabean revolt ===
... Some scholars maintain that the reference to Idumaea in that passage is an error altogether. Judas Maccabeus conquered their territory for a time around 163 BC.

=== Conversion to Judaims ===
Around 110 BCE, Hasmonean leader John Hyrcanus I conquered Idumaea. According to several ancient sources, including Josephus and Ptolemy, he forcibly converted them to Judaism, and incorporated them into the Jewish nation:
[QUOTE]
Some scholars dispute the claim of forced conversions and believe that the Idumeans voluntarily assimilated into Judean society. Forced conversions were rare in Near Eastern and Hellenistic societies, with some Idumeans retaining their native identity. Others contributed to religious innovations that were adopted in Pharisaical Judaism. In addition, it explains why Idumean territory was absorbed in Judea over one generation, compared to other non-Judean territories (e.g. Samaritan territories), which remained detached. Reasons for the rapid assimilation include their cultural affinity with Judaism, opposition to Hellenism and aniconic tendencies.

New Proposal:
=== Maccabean revolt ===
... Some scholars maintain that the reference to Idumaea in that passage is an error altogether. According to Josephus, the Judeans under Judas Maccabeus first defeated the Idumaeans in the two Idumaean border towns of Hebron and Marisa, as well as in the town of Akrabatta further southeast near Ein Hatzeva, and plundered them around 163 BC.
=== Conversion to Judaism ===
Some 50 years later, Judeans under John Hyrcanus I again attacked Marisa and the nearby Adoraim. According to Josephus and Ammonius Grammaticus, they forcibly converted them to Judaism and incorporated them into the Jewish nation:
[QUOTE]
Historically, at least one of the campaigns against Marisa seems to have actually taken place; excavations show that the city was destroyed around the time of the Maccabees. However, the rest of Josephus' account is disputed:
* Forced conversions were rare in Near Eastern and Hellenistic societies. A parallel account by Josephus of the forced conversion and circumcision of the Itureans is undoubtedly fictional; archaeology shows that the Ituraeans did not convert at all. Instead, their territory became famous for the density of pagan sanctuaries. Moreover, the Idumaeans were already practicing circumcision, along with other religious customs that would later be identified as "Jewish" practices, leading Thomas L. Thompson to suggest that Josephus's entire account is more etiological than historical, intended to explain why the Idumaeans and Judeans had similar customs.
* Archaeologically, evidence does not support the claim that the Idumaeans decided to remain in their "loved homeland". Instead, archaeology shows that most of Idumaea was depopulated during the time of the Maccabees, mostly without any signs of conflict, only to be repopulated under the Romans by a people who continued to practice the Idumaean religion.

DaWalda (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Akkadian 'Údumi, Údumu'

I can't check the cited source and my knowledge and recollection of Akkadian grammar is limited, but the form in -i looks like an Akkadian genitive to me, whereas names are supposed to be given in their dictionary form, i.e. in the nominative (which the form in -u really is). If it is a genitive, it wouldn't be the first case I've encountered on Wikipedia where an editor has just extracted a non-nominative case form from some context as if it were a main dictionary form or a random variant of a name, apparently without understanding that it is a non-nominative case form or that non-nominative case forms are not supposed to be cited as 'names of something in a certain language'. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)