Talk:Edom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articles Edom (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

'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.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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]

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).
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)

[edit] Hell

Someone should add that in christianity god supposedly hates all edomites.....


I think it would be important to add that under Christianity, God loves all humans and hates nothing but evil. It corresponds to the saying: "Love the sinner, hate the sin." To say that God hates Edom or Edomites would not correspond to biblical teachings.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [3] WolfgangRieger 06:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/o/Talk%7EEdom_6b91.html"