This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Edom was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
'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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
[3] Makeandtoss ( talk) 08:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Well, i came across multiple academic publications that agrees with this concern, such as:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Edom was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
'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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
[3] Makeandtoss ( talk) 08:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Well, i came across multiple academic publications that agrees with this concern, such as:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)