Talk:Kadesh (biblical)

Readability

Why was the readability of this article destroyed in favor of one gigantic reference?

The article began with an uncited conjecture that Kadesh means holy. Kodesh the word for Holy shares the same root kdsh or Qdsh but so does sacred prostitute (Quedesha). Following that there were a short list of Bible verses, not necessarily the best selection, apparently attempting to locate Kadesh. There are places named kdsh at either end of Israel so its important to differentiate them with the addition of barneaa.

The location of Kadesh Barnea isn't a mystery its eleven days journey from Mount Horeb at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba in the Arabah between Edom and Midian in the direction of Mount Seir. That runs up the border of Edom with the Sinai towards the brook of Egypt.

If there is more you want to add in the form of a narrative I would be delighted to see this article expanded along with the rest of the stations list.Rktect (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The root "קדש" means "holy" or "apart" (cf. TDOT 12:521-524) and this is the case in קדשה ("sacred prostitute") also.Nathanael j warren (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Map

The map included in this article has been made by Rktect. It features the place name Horeb close to the bottom of the map (right above Elath). This place name has been inserted by Rktect himself to advance his POV of the Crossing of the Red Sea and the story of Moses on Mt Horeb taking place at the Gulf of Aqaba. The original is Map of Aram on WP Cush (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Biblical vs. real history

This article seems to have copious references to the biblical accounts of the place, without adequately explaining that these are not historically accurate. Yes, most readers should easily be able to tell the difference, but including fictional references alongside real ones has a negative impact on the readability of the article. 124.169.118.82 (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Besides the basic fact that place names and peoples from the Bible have been shown time and time again by mainstream (i.e. non-Christian) archeologists to be faithful to "real history", what specifically on the page do you have a problem with. Ckruschke (talk)Ckruschke

Usage of the Bible as a source is unavoidable. Kadesh's primary importance and documentation is Biblical. It has little significance outside of this context. There is no reason to suspect the Bible of inserting "fictional references" to Kadesh here.Nathanael j warren (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ain Kades

I have made a redirect from Ain Kades (Ain Qedeis, Ein El Qedeis, Ain Kadis) to here; but on second thoughts, possibly I should have made it a separate article.

Ain Kades was the present-day place most commonly identified with Kadesh Barnea between about 1880 and 1916. But it's not the same place as Ain el-Qudeirat, which is where the article's co-ordinates point to, and which is where Kadesh Barnea is now most often identified with. (Which is why perhaps I should not have made it redirect to here.)

If anyone wants to write up a separate article for Ain Kades, this webpage [1] has quite a lot of material on how it came into scholarly popularity and then fell out of it again. That page is part of a quite useful whole mini-website [2] on Kadesh Barnea and the different things that have been written about it over time; although the website does very much wear its heart on its sleeve, the author writing from a committed Biblical inerrantist point of view, and a conviction that site near Petra is where Kadesh Barnea should properly be located. Jheald (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Rename "Kadesh (Israel)"!!!

"Kadesh (Israel)" is utterly misleading! Today it's in Egypt, there are other Kadesh sites in Israel (see Qadesh disambig. page), and in the Bible it's "Kadesh Barnea"! So nothing really fits.Arminden (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Propose deletion :-) / RENAMING

@Nishidani, Zero0000, Debresser, and Editor2020: If nobody cares to address even the most incredible mistakes in this article, starting with the completely misleading title and ending with the imposition of the biblical narrative and terminology over the archaeological one, I propose its deletion. It is not helping the WP user, quite the opposite, and that's not acceptable. ArmindenArminden (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the best approach is to rename and try to fix it. As a name, how about "Qadesh (biblical location)"? Then we can start by removing all the original research (about half the text). Zero^talk 00:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps merge it with Kadesh? Debresser (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

So it worked ;-) Less hysterical and nobody cares.

See above: Kadesh Barnea is the biblical name. The article deals with the biblical site. The archaeological site identified as KB is ʿAyn al-Qudayrāt and the name has been preserved in nearby ʿAyn Qudays (see for instance Negev & Gibson, p. 276 or Jewish Virtual Library). The Swedes already have articles:
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%98Ayn_al_Khad%C4%ABr%C4%81t
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%98Ayn_Qudays
Definitely not "Israel": that would apply, even in OT terms, only to the United Monarchy, of which archaeology couldn't even find a proof it existed; if at all in the Israelite realm, then Judah rather then Israel. And "Israel" w/o comment usually means modern Israel, and that's totally wrong. Apart from the times when Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula, the most widely accepted site belongs to Egypt.

Dealing with the separation between biblical narrative and the issue of historicity in general (Exodus!), and identification in particular, is the other MAJOR issue here. ArmindenArminden (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think merging with Kadesh is good as that place is very far way. How about just changing the name to Kadesh Barnea (which is already a redirect to here)? Zero^talk 00:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Read a bit, thought it over: maybe not so straight-forward after all - see the comment in Italics, "The problem with these references and with most analysis of Kadesh is that there are two distinct cities called Kadesh" etc. Not all Hebrew Bible reference to a Kadesh in the south seem to meano the same site, but rather to two different ones, one to the east and one to the west. If this distinction is addressed in the lead, or the lack of certainty is made more clear (also in the lead), Kadesh Barnea can be used as a title; or else, maybe use Kadesh (biblical site), Kadesh (biblical) or Kadesh (Bible) and add some hatnote for further clarification. Even if other Kadesh sites get some mention in the Bible, this/these southern site(s) lead by some distance (see the JVL, actually copying from the 2008 Encycl. Judaica [3]). ArmindenArminden (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It is the "less hysterical" part that worked.

"Kadesh Barnea" is the logical rename. In general, I feel brackets are to be avoided in article titles wherever possible. Debresser (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Bit caught up on numerous pages, Arminden, to give this the attention it merits (in good hands anyway). Clearly any of the above terms, shorn of the modern geographical fixing, would be fine, but just out of preference I think Debresser's Qadesh-Barneaʿ perhaps the best rename.Nishidani (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That was actually Zero, who proposed that. And he spelled it "Kadesh Barnea", which is also what I would use. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, w/o "hysteria", my Nov. 2015 note didn't lead anywhere ;-) Qadesh is more academic, the Semitic letter used for the first sound seems to be better transliterated as Q, but Kadesh is more common. My problem is though that we go with what's "popular" and don't pay attention to the sources. Most biblical passages don't use "Barnea", and there is a strong theory that we're dealing with two separate "Qadesh" locations. If a city is called "Holy", there is a good chance there will be many of the same name :-) That's why I would prefer a "bracket name", it doesn't "take sides" and narrow down the possible interpretations/site identifications, but allows for further elaboration, without the need of renaming the page in the (near?) future.Arminden (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

We cannot let it be as is! I see from Stations of the Exodus that it used to be called "Kadesh (south of Israel)" - not great, but slightly more accurate. I guess we should SEPARATE the different Kadesh locations, by context. There clearly are strong theories based on geography and text analysis discerning more than one location with this name in the South. Not all listed mentions are Exodus-related, lumping them all together based on a banal "QDSh" ("Holy") name seems wrong to me. If the topic is not clear, neither can be the title - cart set in front of the horses... Once the topic is clear, we can think about best title - new suggestion: Kadesh (southern). Zero, avoiding the brackets might be more elegant, but being accurate still is more important. Arminden (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC) PS: just checked Biblehub (http://biblehub.com/topical/k.htm) and guess what, that's exactly what they've done! 6 different Qadesh articles (of course, not counting Kadesh in Galilee/K. Naftali and Kadesh on the Orontes). One of the 6 is called "Kadesh or Kadesh-Barnea". Voila, logical and with a good precedent.Arminden (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Did the move. If somebody doesn't agree, please discuss & ping me. Thank you.Arminden (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I sometimes get so tired of Arminden. This whole discussion mentioned "Kadesh Barnea" or "Qadesh" and what does he move it to? Kadesh (southern). Nobody here agreed with that idea of his. You don't just make a move because you think it is a good idea, when there is a discussion and nobody agrees with you. I undid the move, of course. If Arminden thinks that "We cannot let it be as is!" then he apparently feels too invested in this issue, and he should take a break. I call on Arminden to internalize the principles of community editing. Debresser (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

All agree the name needed changing. 3 were okay with Qadesh-barnea, before. Given the ambiguity in that, I think now that Arminden's generic Kadesh (southern) is the best way to cover the article's two-possible-sites theme. Debresser, reverting back to a title no one accepts is not sensible. As I think Arminden implied above, since no one is happy with the former title, we can change it, and if that change is unsausagefactory, move it to some other term consensually agreed to. Arminden is undertaking to shoulder the workload here, and that earns credit in my book, esp. since the change is innocuous.Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, I cannot tell you how grateful I am for you bringing back some sense (and academic level) into this discussion. I have been trying very hard not to respond to Debresser in as personal a manner as he did. I'll include him on the list of "not worth answering to" instead and basta. It is hard to go here beyond basic linear thinking patterns, and regurgitating of introductory course level "known facts". Not to mention that I have started this renaming discussion in November, and after me giving it a new kick at the end of August, it's been now totally dormant for two weeks. The only safe common denominator of the possibly multiple sites called "Holyville" (QDSh) is that they are south of/in the southern part of, Canaan & the Kingdom of Judah (I'm not aware of any archaeological or contemporary written source for a presumed United Monarchy that would stretch the toponym "Israel" so far south). Kadesh in Naphtali, not to mention the one on the Orontes, are much farther north. Working with a map of the southern Levant that includes Moab, Edom and Midian, the King's Highway, and (with all needed caution) Jabal Haroun and other possibly related sites (historical, mythological, or otherwise), makes it quite clear that one single Qadesh is pretty much an impossibility. But that's to be dealt with in the text, the title is the more urgent issue now. Also, those who enjoy months- and year-long discussions with long pauses in between don't help WP, but hinder it. Discussions serve a purpose if they have a minimum of academic level, pace, and common willingness to reach a result. Especially when the topic is NOT terribly loaded, things should work out w/o conflicts and ego outbursts. PS: When I renamed the page, I did adapt all redirect pages from "Kadesh (Israel)" to "Kadesh (southern)". The editor who reverted my renaming overlooked that. Should we keep "Kadesh (southern)", the work is already done; if not, pls. take care of this aspect, too.Arminden (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I can well understand your predicament. I was all geared up some months ago to rewrite from top to bottom a deeply contested article Korean influence on Japanese culture, once the two disturbing POV pushers were permabanned. The way was open. What happened? A huge squabble about how then to retitle it. No one could agree, while all agreed a change was required. Unless one defines clearly the topic, a serious editor cannot understand the parameters within which he is to work. So, well, stiff cheddar. I won't touch it. I'm short on time at the moment, but if the title is fixed up, I'll try to pitch in, if you need a spare hand. I think this is a simpler issue. I'm fine with your suggested title, though I would prefer Q to K, i.e."Qadesh (southern)". I'd ask Dovid to reconsider. We should not get into absurd battles whenever the name 'Israel' is mentioned, or suspect that those removing it are dead set on erasing it from the past, which, to adapt the opening line of L. P. Hartley 's distinguished novel, is 'another country: they thought differently then.'Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverting is the best option till such time as there is a consensus on the talkpage what the new title should be. I agree that the present name is not good, but Arminden should be aware that he can not change an article title without consensus. Which is what he did. Consensus that a change is needed, does not mean that any change is acceptable. I would like to hear some explanation, why "southern" would be the optimal way to disambiguate "Kadesh", please. Debresser (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, a last attempt. It's all here already. Read. That's precisely why I'm using capitals, bold, whatever: people can seldom read & remember the content.

- see Biblehub for the long list of Qadesh places [4] - and just those from the Bible. You can also go to disamb. Qadesh (less complete).

- Kadesh in Galilee and Kadesh On the Orontes are in the North.

- Kadesh or Kadesh-Barnea, Kadesh: A City on the Southern Boundary of Palestine, etc. are all in the South.

Result: our topic is the Kadesh in the South (one, two, or many). Barnea is just the name attached to one of the several southern occurrences, and since there is no consensus anywhere that they are all one (and no logical way that they could all be one), that name isn't acceptable for this page. Read Nishidani's comment: it's tribal mythology, names wandering along. Don't hold your breath while waiting for a dig to come up with an inscription saying "I'm Moses, this is Qadesh, I stroke the rock here, Miriam is buried behind this cliff and Aaron in the cave to the left." Let alone a post scriptum by the kings of Judah marking their border at the site. Let go.Arminden (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A "last attempt"? Are you threatening?

Okay, so only the southern Kadesh is called Kadesh Barnea. So let's stick to that! That is what was mentioned before in this discussion, and basically agreed upon, till you came up with another idea, to use "southern", and without any further agreement made that move. I am against "southern", because it is too vague. Perhaps it means "southern hemisphere", or "southern Virginia". And we can't say "southern Israel", because that again includes Israel, which we all ere against. So why take us there? Just use "Kadesh Barnea" as was already agreed upon. Debresser (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Arminden is not threatening. On the other hand, if Debresser understood the issue, he'd probably say that the idea of two southern Qadeshs smacks of 19th century polemics, and that scholars think there was one northern Sinai Qadesh, and that the ref to one near Edom can be reconciled by a Western penetration of that kingdom across the Sinai. Properly approached, Arminden, the way to approach this is to write a short history of the interpretation of the biblical cruces, from a two to a one city(?) hypothesis. The earlier scholarship tended to suggest a 2 city hypothesis because it was still prey to fundamentalist literalism, and the biblical sources definitely give the impression of a large territorial divide. Modern scholars, aware of the conflating of traditions when the biblical tales were stitched into a form of 'history' tend to think we just have perhaps one name, which has been allocated distinct geographical locations from the confusion of people using only memory,a few conflicting documents and, as often as not, writing in distant Babylonia.Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, that's a brilliant explanation, I don't know where to get acceptable sources to quote from for the article, but I'll certainly use it for myself. I should have studied more about myth creation and evolution; I admit I didn't even read Mircea Eliade, other than his fiction works... Good night and thanks, Arminden (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You have to love Nishidani for his scholarly approach. In the mean time, can we rename this to Kadesh Barnea? Debresser (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll be off for a real-world job and deal with it when I'm back, if nobody else has. It will be about following Nishidani's advice - a basic historical outline: presumed migration of the name, period of biblical literalism, leading to two-site theory, and ending with what's apparently the latest interpretation: one memory morphing through time. But it will be putting together a very short & concise paragraph, and adding a "citation needed" tag after each sentence, because I don't have any clue where to find the right sources, other than our Most Hon. Nishi-san and whoever added those comments in the article about the two locations. What this all means regarding the most proper title, I don't know. The Barnea/"desert wandering" name fits the Exodus episode, but not so much the later border-defining mention; "southern" as opposed to all the other northern places of the same name still feels more safe, but whatever.Arminden (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

If you have the time, give the nod to Debresser to rename it "Qadesh barnea" (simply that), with the proviso that it is a temporary fix, subject to amendment. In the mean time no harm is done that way. Enjoy your new job. Good work here comes from salutary breaks, which allow one also to slowly gather up stuff that will stick because it's rock-solid and not done in the heat of edit conflicts and endless page discussion. I was intoxicated for a year or so by Eliade's technical works on Shamanism and Yoga, then read his diaries in mid-1970s and realized his fictional work was closer to the real world than a lot of his deductions about ancient religion. He was an anti-Semitic fascist cunt, never recanted, and if you read his theories within the context of the esoteric fascist thinking of the time, like that of Julius Evola, the 'hidden' racist doctrine emerges quite clearly. Still, his books have retained immense value for the scholarship they paraphrase. I'll try to make some notes to see if I can help out when you get back to work this article. Enjoy the break. Best regards. Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

DIFFERENT places called K. in the South (?)

Time to deal with the basics: ARE WE DEALING HERE WITH SEVERAL PLACES BY THE NAME KADESH?

This question has two aspects:

- Are there two different Kadesh locations in the Exodus narrative, one at the border of Sinai and Negev, one in NW Arabia?

- Is the Kadesh of later episodes (Kingdom of Judea) the same as the Kadesh (Barnea) of Exodus?

If there is no 100% consensus among researchers, we should make that clear a) in the lead, b) separate the possibly different places on the list of biblical quotations, and c) discuss them separately, at least to a point.

More sources needed for this! The comments indicating multiplicity are so far lacking any references at all. We can start with http://biblehub.com/topical/k.htmArminden (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be rephrased. We are basically dealing with toponomastics in a primarily mythistorical source. Since the source weaves into one story, the lore, legends and narratives, some grounded in oral remembrances of real events,stemming from several tribal traditions at least. To approach the issue as one of figuring out a presumed historical reality for each name or overlapping toponym is to assume later writers did not harmonize traditions which, in their time, were not accurately understood. You get this in all ancient documents, from archaic Greece to archaic Japan (Yamatai/Yamato). The confusion is caused by nomads or wandering tribes renaming the new areas after place names taken from their old habitations. All one can do is (a) list all occurrences in the Bible (and Egyptian documents etc.) for place names in the south like Qadesh (b)annotate them with what the most recent scholarly commentary on each argues. In any case, there is no probable resolution of the germinal crux, precisely because the confusions are originative.Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to Change Name of Article

Since there are three separate WP articles dealing with three separate places known as "Kadesh," and since this specific article treats on the Kadesh that is in Transjordan (and which is not to be confused with Kadesh-barnea), it is only right that the title be changed to read: Kadesh (Transjordan).Davidbena (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You propose and move at the same time. I reverted your move for lack of consensus. Please start establishing consensus before you make such serious changes as moving an article. By the way, did you at all check the talkpage discussion about moving before you did what you did? Debresser (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The general rule is that when there is no reply, one may go ahead with making the change. Besides, the current title (as you made it) is inaccurate. Kadesh is in Transjordan, and it leaves room for error.Davidbena (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

But not when only 3 hours went by! Debresser (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please answer my question. Did you or did you not see and carefully check that section above? Debresser (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I concede that I should have given more time for a response, but the change was so obvious and direly needed, similar to the change that you made in the title of the article Kibbutz Ein HaNetziv, before asking for a consensus. Some things are just so obvious. If I offended anyone, I'm sorry. Do you see any real reason to keep the old title instead of the new one?Davidbena (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

My friend, Rebbe Dovid, can I kindly implore your assistance in helping to improve this article and to make it easier for our readers to understand about these places? Let's work together on this. I'm open to your suggestions.Davidbena (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You can't seriously be comparing te change of one letter, based on a spelling mistake, to what you did over here.

I'd suggest to revive that section above, perhaps ping all participating editors. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but my judgment at the time was that the change should be made with no further ado, owing to its obvious nature (in some respects, like your own "page move"). I welcome advice from our fellow editors.Davidbena (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't the discussion above prove that there is nothing obvious above the move. Not that it would have been obvious without that discussion, but certainly not after it. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I meant that it's obvious to those who know well the subject matter. The current title, if not changed, will cause some misunderstanding.Davidbena (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That last comment made all other editors here look stupid. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

G-d forbid that I implied such a thing. Some editors, obviously, are better knowledgeable in their own specific fields of interest (e.g. science, archaeology, botany, etc.), and the editors who worked on this article are no exception. I would expect them to comment here.Davidbena (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really up-to-date with Kadesh-related matters, but it does seem that there is disagreement about which biblical Kadeshes were the same and where they were. Also, if the Kadesh intended by this article was not in Israel by common opinion, the title must not say it is. I think the best solution to all of these problems would be be to combine all of the Kadesh articles into one (which can then be called just "Kadesh") and the body of the article can address all the issues of identification. Zero^talk 23:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Zero0000, there was a conflict of edits, and your edit was inadvertently deleted when I saved mine. Sorry about that. As for User:debresser, since I do respect your input, can you please tell me why you think the title "Kadesh (Israel)" is better than, let's say, "Kadesh (Transjordan)"?Davidbena (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Zero0000, since the scope of these three articles is so vast and different from one another, it is best to keep them separate (in my humble opinion).Davidbena (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Here I agree with Davidbena that merging them would go contrary to the whole idea of disambiguation on Wikipedia. Here I agree with Zero, that we should keep them in one article, like now, even if only because not all agree they are not the same, and explaining that over two separate articles will be awkward. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I didn't say hat I prefer Israel to Transjordan. I just said that there is no consensus for that move. In the discussion above I preferred a move to Kadesh Barnea. Debresser (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with moving the page to "Kadesh Barnea" is that most scholars today acknowledge that Kadesh-barnea was in the very south of Israel's Negev, whereas Kadesh was a different place altogether, and which, by the way, this article mostly treats on, with only minor references to Kadesh-barnea. Perhaps, though, we can start a new article entitled "Kadesh-barnea."Davidbena (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I am by now also convinced that it is not a good idea, since according to many opinions, and I see you agree with them, the name Kadesh Barnea refers to only one of two localities. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we merge this article into Kadesh? Debresser (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with "Kadesh" is that it too was an ancient town, now in Syria. The sites are actually two individual places, with distinct histories in each place. You may, however, wish to change the name on that article to "Kadesh (Syria)," whereas this one can be changed to "Kadesh" without any epithet. In this way, we'd all be happy.Davidbena (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that there is one Kadesh in Syria and another one or possibly two south of Israel? Debresser (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

And which is Kedesh Naftali? Debresser (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. That is what I mean to say. As for the Kadesh in Naphtali, it poses no serious problem, since its Hebrew vocalization is different and is written Kedesh = קֶדֶשׁ (II Kings 15:29), whereas the other place where the people of Israel spent many years in transition, the Kadesh in Transjordan, has different vocalizations (namely: קָדֵשׁ), as we see in Deuteronomy 1:46.Davidbena (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Then "Kadesh" should be a disambiguation page and redirect to "Qadesh", or, to be more precise, the other way around per WP:COMMONNAME.

"Kadesh" could be renamed "Kadesh (Syria)" and this one "Kadesh (Biblical)". I'd prefer to avoid disambiguating this one to anything geographical, since it is either in Jordan or in Egypt. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Rebbe Dovid, do what you feel is necessary to make navigating between these pages easier. If you ask me, the current "Kadesh" article should be amended to read "Kadesh (Syria)." This "Kadesh (Israel)" article should also be amended to read "Kadesh" without the addition of "(Israel)." Or, as you say, "Kadesh (Biblical)." Good suggestion! Davidbena (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Real life has caught up with me big time, so I didn't follow all these discussions, but Debresser has just drawn my attention to this one (thank you D!). I try to think about the common user's interest first. There is a hierarchy in interest in the different Kadesh sites. Kadesh-barnea is huge in the Bible, Kadesh on the Orontes is huge in history (major battle, first peace treaty, both sides left written accounts). They are radically different, so keeping them apart seems a must. Kedesh in northern Galilee is far less important, but well documented - and spelled differently. So a good disambiguation page and hatnotes on all related pages connecting to the disambiguation page seems the best solution.

Regarding Kadesh-barnea, Nishidani opened my eyes to what more profound research has come up with - an early memory, processed later on, which made one site migrate to more than one location. So mechanically interpreting ancient text and drawing rational conclusions as if it were a modern guide book doesn't do justice to our claim of working at an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, applying this to the concrete article, with good sources!, would require much more time than I currently have.

So my vote goes for separate pages, very visibly cross-referenced, named smth. like Kadesh Barnea, Kadesh on the Orontes, Kedesh.

Under no circumstances:

• Kadesh (Israel) - What Israel? Modern, United Monarchy, northern kingdom? Two are utterly wrong, one is historically unproven. And Kadesh Barnea is anyway closest related to the Exodus, so pre-conquest - "children of Israel" if anything. Bad, to quote Herr Drumpf.
• Kadesh (Transjordan) - not! It's far more likely in what we now call Sinai (a Byzantine-era identification), on the border to today's Negev (OT Negev referred only to the Arad-Beersheva Plain). See Nishidani's comment regarding a second contemporary Kadesh. So - see Drumpf.

Since most of my suggestions have already been implemented, we only need to rename "Kadesh (Israel)". Kadesh Barnea or Kadesh (Biblical) seem to me the best alternatives.

Writing this all from memory on my phone... Cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Kadesh (biblical) seems to be the sensible solution for this article, for the reasons given by Arminden above. 'Israel' won't work because the subject referred to is toponomastically fuzzy. (And thanks, Dovid, for the notification).Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like we have the consensus for changing the title of this article to "Kadesh (biblical)." It was Rebbe Dovid's suggestion, and a very good one! Yishar koach!Davidbena (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kadesh (Syria) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Debresser (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

wilderness wanderings

User:Debresser, you've recently reinserted the claim that Barnea means "wilderness wanderings" and added back in a source I removed. Have you read that source? Do you really think that it substantiates the claim that "Barnea" means "wilderness wanderings"? Alephb (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that at one time that book had previews that indeed substantiated the claim. In any case, I replaced it with another link, which was not hard to find. Which is what you should have done. And you should have been more careful, because my edit that you reverted did more than just restore one reference. If only the reference is what you found offending, you should have left the rest of my edits alone. Debresser (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

As for, "you should have left the rest of my edits alone," that argument could of course go both ways, so I have no desire to be lectured about that. You reverted multiple edits without explaining yourself or bothering to look at what you were restoring, even after the edit summary that removed it contained a perfectly clear explanation of why it was taken out. So why don't we skip over the stern lectures about reversions and concentrate on the issue at hand.

There's a good reason that I didn't go find another source for the Barnea="wilderness wandering" claim. That's because the source you're using to support that claim is a nineteenth-century text that doesn't keep up with more recent literature on the question. And the source you cite doesn't even give "wilderness wandering" as the meaning of Barnea; it gives "desert of wandering," which is a bit different. More recent scholarship denies that there is any known etymology for Barnea. See, for example, John L. McKenzie (1965) ([5]) or Yigal Levin (2006) ([6], page 63). Just because I've removed some content that doesn't have a proper citation doesn't mean that I didn't bother to look. Do you know of any scholarly sources in living memory that would state with any certain that Barnea means "wilderness wandering"? If so, we should be using those, and not Easton.

As for restoring the alternate name "Qadhesh," does anybody actually call it that when referring to the place in English, say in the last fifty years or so? That's another reversion you made without explanation, even though I explained the reason for removing it in an edit summary.Alephb (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with a compromise solution like "some claim it means 'desert of wandering',[source 1] while other sources claim there is no known etymology.[sources 2 and 3]". Deciding that any one opinion is deserving of mention and others are not, as you did and claim you did rightfully so, is in fact contrary to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.

"Qadesh" is mentioned in some publications, recent as well as less recent, which is precisely what the alternative spellings are used for on Wikipedia.

You are a new editor on Wikipedia, and you apparently are not yet really familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would really advise you to tune down the rhetoric, and try to learn from encounters with other editors, and stop making edits based on what you think is "the right thing to do" till after you talk it over on the talkpage. You may of course ignore this advice of mine, but you will have more conflicts and piss off quite a few editors in the process, and draw the short straw anyways, so better just take my advice. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I would have no problem with a compromise solution either, if we could find anyone in living memory who wrote the "wilderness wandering" theory. As it is, we have two modern scholars who say the etymology is unknown (Charles Trumbull, who wrote an important work on Kadesh in 1884 that is still cited said it was unknown too) versus Matthew Easton writing in 1893. Am I correct in thinking that you don't know of any living scholars who say that is the etymology? Why would we set Easton's Bible Dictionary on an an equal basis with Yigal Levin, John McKenzie, and Trumbull?

Since you've brought up the issue, let's talk about Wikipedia's policies. In particular, let's talk about WP:RS. Is there any reason to think Easton's a reliable source? Do scholars ever actually cite him anymore? Did they ever? As far as I know, Easton isn't cited in modern scholarship. You say I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's policies, but I've read WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:SOURCE, and WP:ONUS, all of which seem relevant here. Your proposed compromise solution is "some claim it means 'desert of wandering',[source 1] while other sources claim there is no known etymology.[sources 2 and 3]". I would be satisfied with that if there were actually any recent people who claim that it does mean desert of wandering. Do you actually have some reason to believe there are sources, sources that would actually be written or even read by any scholars alive lately, that believe it means desert of wandering?

When it comes to "Qadhesh" you haven't answered the question yet. Does anybody call it Qadhesh in English? Anyone writing any kind of scholarly and/or widely produced work in the last fifty years? Anyone? You decided to restore "Qadhesh" despite the fact that I clearly explained why I deleted it, so I would assume you have sources to support your edit. Rather than talking about whether I am a new editor, or talking about my tone, why not just stick to the topic and give us a source for "Qadhesh"? Alephb (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Why do we need "living scholars"? That is something new on Wikipedia.

I have no problem with writing it the other way around either, meaning that we could say "modern academic sources claim there is no known etymology,[sources 2 and 3], although some claim it means 'desert of wandering',[source 1]", if you think that would better represent the available sources.

"wilderness wandering" and "desert of wandering" would be identical in Hebrew, so here too I am fine with whatever works best for you.

The "Qadhesh" issue I resolved in this edit, I think. Debresser (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not so much that we need living scholars. Age is just one of the things that matter in assessing a source (you can find this at WP:AGEMATTERS). In the case of Easton, he's writing in 1893, well before major shifts in the scholarship regarding Kadesh. He was also well behind the scholarship of his own time, and constantly overconfident. He didn't just "know," for example, that there was a global flood which covered the whole earth (which is now WP:FRINGE material). He "knew" that it happened in "2516 BC." I don't think he was ever treated as a genuine scholarly source outside of the conservative Protestants that his Dictionary was written for. And when it comes to etymologies, Easton is bad news all around. If there is an argument for Easton being a reliable source in the WP:RS sense, I would be very interested to hear it. Can we go to the flood article and add Easton's opinion that it occurred in 2516 CE? Should we go to the article on hell and cite Easton to prove that only those who believe in Jesus Christ will escape its flames? So it's not just that Easton misses everything that goes on in scholarship in the last 126 years -- he misses stuff from his own time period too. The fact that living scholars never cite him, and the fact that he was writing before anyone alive today had been born are strong hints that he might not be a good source.

While Charles Trumbull (1884) doesn't necessarily endorse the "wanderings" interpretation, at least he mentions it. And because Trumbull is a source who is actually relevant to the scholarly world, I propose that we scrap the reference to Easton and cite Trumbull. I propose we write, "Various etymologies for Barnea have been proposed, including 'desert of wanderings'."[cite Trumbull] [cite Yigal Levin]. That should just about cover it. Does that sound good to you? Alephb (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Didn't you say there are those who say they have no explanation? Because if so, we should probably say so. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Other than Easton, all three sources I've found say there's no definite explanation. Trumbull gives a bucket load of possibilities, Levin simply says it's unknown and cites Trumbull for "innovative proposals" and McKenzie says it is unclear. Maybe, "Various explanations for Barnea have been proposed, including 'desert of wanderings,' but none have produced widespread agreement"? Alephb (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Debresser (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization in the lead and location section

I would like to make some fairly serious changes to this article, but because the article has a history of disagreements, as well as some unfinished business above, I thought it might be a good idea to run a few possibilities by User:Debresser and User:Davidbena, because both of you seem significantly involved in article so far. Obviously, there is no obligation to comment, but I think if either of you are willing I might get some good feedback before moving forward.

The lead, as it is presently written, seems to me to lean slightly in the direction of a two-site interpretation, or, at the very least, places the one-site and two-site interpretations on an equal footing. But all the recent scholarship I've read seems to indicate that the scholarly world leans heavily in favor of a one-site identification for Kadesh and Kadesh-Barnea at 'Ein el Qudeirat. In particular, consider these two quotes.

Here is the Dutch scholar C. H. J. de Geus (1977):

"Anyone who is familiar with the Exodus-literature will know that Kadesh Barnea is practically always identified with 'Ain el Qudeirat and not with 'Ain Qdeis, notwithstanding the fact that the ancient border descriptions always mention Kadesh Barnea first." [7]

On page 76 de Geus raises the possibility that Kadesh might be a somewhat broader term for the area and Kadesh Barnea a narrower term for Ein el Qudeirat, but he definitely doesn't think in terms of a split with two separate locations.

Or take the Israeli scholar Yigal Levin (2006), who equates Kadesh with Kadesh Barnea and says that almost all scholars hold to a single site (http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Doc9/Levin30.pdf):

"A very few modern scholars have claimed that there were, indeed, two sites by the name of Kadesh. In the early years of research several sites were suggested, influenced mostly by Josephus, Eusebius, and by the biblical references to the border of Edom. However since the late nineteenth century most scholars of biblical historical geography have identified the site of Kadesh-barnea with the oasis of 'En el-Qudeirat and the nearby 'En el-Qudeis, first visited in 1842 by John Rowland."

So it looks like, if I'm reading correctly, great majority of scholars see only a single Kadesh, possibly describing a large enough area to include En el-Qudeis.

Accordingly, my thought is that, in light of WP:UNDUE, we might have some notice in the lead that the majority opinion is for one Kadesh, and then have a very short bit in the lead noting the minority two-site opinion. Then the "location" section could handle the two-site theory in more depth.

Right now, there's no mention of En el Qudeirat in the lead, but there is a mention of the opinion of Josephus. This seems a tad unbalanced to me, especially given that Josephus never mentions the name Kadesh, and so deriving a location from Josephus requires a bit of interpretive work. I don't think, in the lead, that we should have Josephus' opinion, cited just to Josephus, without any link to later historical commentary on him. So I propose we remove Josephus from the lead, and replace his opinion with a mention of En el Quderiat.

In the location section itself, I'd like to do a little reorganizing along the same lines. I don't really want to remove anything, but I'd like it to open with the one-site view, and then have the other material below. In particular, I'd like to reorganize it a bit to make some of the chronology more clear (earlier scholarship having more locations, less recently).

Any thoughts? Alephb (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb:, thanks for your comment. My understanding is that the place-name Kadesh (Qadesh), without the additional epithet, and the place-name Kadesh-barnea, are indeed disputed; some holding them as two separate places (especially the ancient writers of antiquity), and others (more notably some recent scholars) holding them to be the same place as Kadesh-Barnea. Those who hold them to be Kadesh-Barnea are quick to point out that it is the place now identified as En el-Qudeirat. Personally, I don't think that it's our place to decide who is right and who is wrong, but to mention both views. Bear in mind what a certain C.U. Wolf wrote about the identification of old biblical place names, who said that, today, historical geographers have a daunting task, primarily because of "the perplexing conflict of opinions, and the bewildering number of indeterminable and even lost sites in Palestine" (Eusebius of Caesarea and the Onomasticon, p. 90).---Davidbena (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

All right. Let me begin with this question, then, and see how much common ground we have and where we might differ. When Yigal Levin says, "A very few modern scholars," in describing the two-site hypothesis, do you think that sentence is accurate, or do you think he is overstating the amount of agreement among modern scholars? In other words, what I'm trying to figure out here is whether you are personally registering skepticism about modern scholarly place identifications in general, or whether you think that the modern scholars don't actually agree all that much. Alephb (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb I agree with your first proposals here, as in that the two places theory should be less stressed. When mentioning it, I think we should specify that it is adhered to both by some rabbinical scholars as well as some modern academics. I am also fine with adding Ein el-Qudeirat to the lead, but would keep Josephus, because he is an important and well known source. Regarding a rewrite of the Location section, let's see it. But please, do these edits separately, to make it easier to follow you. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

There are further changes I'd likely make to the lead depending on how things go, but for now here's a fairly gentle revision. I propose we replace the current text with the following, which I think we all might be able to agree on for the moment. Let me know if there's any objections. I've stripped out a bunch of formatting and links when copy-pasting, but I'll leave them in when (or if) I make the actual edit. This version fixes the problem that Josephus' reference is given without any hint of the modern scholarly identification(s), and I think leaves things more or less balanced enough for Davidbena, pending his response to the question above.

<<Kadesh or Qadesh (in classical Hebrew [קָדֵשׁ‎‎], from the root קדש "holy" [1]) is a place-name that occurs several times in the Hebrew Bible. Many modern academics identify it with 'Ain el-Qudeirat, although some academics and rabbinical authorities hold that there were two locations named Kadesh. A related term, either synonymous with Kadesh or referring to one of the two sites, is Kadesh (or Qadesh) Barnea. There have been several proposed meanings for the term Barnea, including "desert of wandering."[2][3]

The Bible mentions Kadesh and/or Kadesh Barnea in a number of episodes, making it an important site (or sites) in narratives concerning Israelite origins. [insert here all the various stories currently in the lead]

According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Kadesh (which he called Rekem) is identified with Petra, in Jordan.[4]

Kadesh Barnea is a key feature in the common biblical formula delineating the southern border of the Land of Israel (cf. Numbers 34:4, Joshua 15:3, Ezekiel 47:19, etc.)[5] and thus its identification is key to understanding both the ideal and geopolitically realised borders of ancient Israel.>>

How's that? Alephb (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That looks fine with me. Perhaps User:Debresser has something to add.Davidbena (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Why did you omit "located south of, or at the southern border of, Canaan and the Kingdom of Judah"? It makes sense to keep some information in the lead about where this place(s) was actually located. I have a problem with the non-sequitur in "Many modern academics identify it with 'Ain el-Qudeirat, although some academics and rabbinical authorities hold that there were two locations named Kadesh." The first half talks about identification, the second half about the number of places. This can probably easily be mended, but I am a bit preoccupied otherwise at the moment. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I omitted the southern bit. Maybe I was thinking I could just link out to Ain el-Qudeirat. But on second thought, it doesn't look like Ain el-Qudeirat as a Wikipedia article, so you're right, leaving the words in seems better. How about this? "Kadesh or Qadesh (in classical Hebrew [קָדֵשׁ‎‎], from the root קדש "holy" [1]) is a place-name that occurs several times in the Hebrew Bible, describing a site or sites located south of, or at the southern border of, Canaan and the Kingdom of Judah. Many modern academics hold that it was a single site, located at the modern 'Ain el-Qudeirat, while some academics and rabbinical authorities hold that there were two locations named Kadesh." Alephb (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization / rewrite of location section

I've reorganized a bit, slightly rewritten some things, and so on for the location section. Here's what I'm proposed. User:Davidbena and User:Debresser, does this look decent? It moves the prevailing modern identification to the top of the section instead of burying it four paragraphs in, but I think it does a fair job characterizing the minority view. If anything, it might just slightly undersell the prevailing view (if it weren't for Davidbena's concerns, I would probably place Yigal Levin's "very few modern scholars" language in with reference to the two-site view, but I'll go easy in favor of WP:CONSENSUS here).

The most common identification of Kadesh or Kadesh Barnea is modern scholarship is with Ain el Qudeirat, with most contemporary scholars seeing the biblical references to Kadesh as referring to a single site. [cite Yigal Levin] [cite de Geus]

The Bible locates Kadesh, or Kadesh Barnea, as an oasis south of Canaan, west of the Arabah and east of the Brook of Egypt.[6] It is 11 days march by way of Mt. Seir from Horeb (Deuteronomy 1:2).

By the late nineteenth century, as many as eighteen sites had been proposed for biblical Kadesh.[7] One source of confusion has been the fact that Kadesh is sometimes mentioned in connection with the Desert of Paran (Numbers 13:26) and at other times with the Zin Desert (Number 20:1).[8] This discrepancy has been noted by commentators as early as the middle ages. Some (e.g. Hezekiah ben Manoah) sought a reconciliatory model, while others (Abraham ibn Ezra and Nahmanides) proposed two separate cites named Kadesh.

A minority of recent scholars have continued to maintain a two-site theory,[9][10][11][12] with a western Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin, and an eastern Kadesh in the wilderness of Paran, the latter often associated with Petra, Jordan. The two-site theory also appears to have been held by Josephus and Eusebius[13] of Ceasarea.[14] Josephus identifies Miriam's burial site (which the Bible identifies as Kadesh) with Petra.

After a period in which researchers identified Kadesh with the similarly-named Ein Qedeis, since 1905 modern Ain-el-Qudeirat in Wadi el-Ain of northern Sinai has been widely accepted as the location of Kadesh Barnea.[15] Several iron age fortresses have been excavated there. The oldest, a small elliptical structure, dates to the tenth century BCE, and was abandoned for some time after its first destruction. A second fort, constructed during the eighth century BCE (probably during the reign of Uzziah) was destroyed during the seventh century BCE, most likely during Manasseh's reign. Two ostraca engraved in Hebrew, dated to the 8th or 7th century BCE, have been recovered there, suggesting Israelite occupation.[16][17]

Regarding Davidbena's concerns, I think this does a fair job of leaving in the existence of the two-site theory and the rationale for it. On the other hand, I think it addresses my and Debresser's idea that the one-site theory should at least feature prominently. Hopefully the balance is good enough that we can get some consensus. Alephb (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Just had time to notice that he two rabbis who held that there are two places are not mentioned any more. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That's why I posted it here, so that there wouldn't be objections afterward. What are the names of the rabbis I left out? I'll make sure they get mentioned. Alephb (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The article mentions Abraham ibn Ezra and Nahmanides. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Then you may want to reread paragraph three of my proposal. They're in there. Alephb (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. I missed them 4-5 times. :) Debresser (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I probably should have left the bright blue links in. Oh well. Otherwise, does it more or less look all right? Alephb (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I got slightly ahead of myself and put it in. If you have any problems with the new wording, I'll revert till we figure something out. Alephb (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Source

In the last century, researchers looked for Mt Sinia of Kadesh in what is named today as Sinia Peninsula of Egypt. Israel could not remain in Egypt, because of Egyptian military bases. They crossed the Red Sea into what is known today as Saudia Arabia and there Mt Sinia is known to be. Galatians 4:25 - "For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children." An interesting study of Barnea-Kadesh and Mt Sinai is found at http://www.bible.ca/archeology/ Israel lived 38 years wandering in Kadesh-Barnea, before crossing gthe Jordan River to Jericho.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerralkay (talk • contribs)

Contradictory re. date of oldest Bronze Age findings, connection to Exodus

Two articles are cited, from Tel Aviv 2010 and BAR 2015. BAR dates oldest pottery to the Late Bronze Age, 12th-11th c. BCE. This article I did read and check. Then, allegedly based on Tel Aviv 2010 art., the date shifts back in time to the Middle Bronze Age. This article I didn't read. Was a reevaluation made between 2010 and 2015? The Wiki text does mention a reevaluation, but the ref is to Tel Aviv 2010! Nonsensical, doesn't add up, tou can't have an older date (MBA) given as firm fact, not just as a refuted theory, based on older, 2010 art., and a reevaluation to a later date (LBA) based on the same 2010 art. BAR 2015 has nothing about any reevaluation. The fishy thing is, biblical literalists would prefer the MBA date, which makes me be skeptical and afraid of a POV introduced under the cover of RS articles. No time for more, pls help. Article as of now is only confusing and anything but user-friendly. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)