Talk:Moab

comment

source: the public domain Smith's Bible Dictionary, found at http://www.studylight.org/dic/sbd/view.cgi?word=moab&action=Lookup Note the copyright notice: "these files are public domain"

Edited to remove some anachronisms, framing text added.

---

This is a classic example of why I believe a 19th century encyclopedia with a religious agenda is a poor source of information. The Moabites were a historical people. Their existence is attested to by numerous archeological findings, most notably the Mesha Stele, which describes the Moabite victory over Omri king of Israel. Israelites and Moabites had a complex relationship, as I hinted to with the Ruth reference. They were both Semitic peoples, who spoke virtually identical languages. They fought, but they also mingled. The biblical narrative has a clear agenda, when it describes the Moabites (generally as rivals). That should be described, of course. After all, that is the main reason the Moabites are known today--and they are known: a town in Utah is named after them. However, the ancient people known as Moabites obviously had a very different perspective on that relationship. We are not here to give the biblical perspective, but a historical/archaeological perspective (no matter how limited), with references to the Bible as one ancient source (and useful) source in understanding who the Moabites were. Danny I agree ! And the page still needs cleanup today ! I added quote to the phrase "promised land" which was used in a way that suggests the land actually *was* promised. The text suggests the biblical origin of the Moabites, as incestuous descendants of a nephew of Abraham, is real. Nobel prize 4 peace 00:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"Unto the 10th generation" should be read as "EVEN unto the 10th generation" as in "Not even 10 generations from the time of this writing shall you let them in" as a way of saying "No generations at all". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.106.7 (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Stray Comment

Moabite Religion. The Moabite Stone also called the Mesha Stele is believed to be the earliest reference to the name YHWH Yahweh the God of Israel as used in the Tetragrammaton.
Above unsigned comment by IP 99.188.109.122 on 24 April 2012‎

Please be respectful and not vandalize nor experiment on Talk or Article pages. — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong on Reuben

See Kings II 10:32ff, it was Aram under Hazael not David. 4.249.198.165 (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong on Omri

The Moabites did not defeat Omri- the Mesha Stele clearly states that Omri defeated them. Mesha is talking about a victory over Omri's unnamed son. -RomeW

---

Should this be a disambiguation page for the various Moab entries?

done, but kept this page as primary meaning, so Moab (disambiguation). Rd232 17:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Archaeological evidence

Anybody working on this page interested in the archaeological evidence for Iron Age Moab? Bporter615 22:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)bporter615

Deleted external links

External link or links have recently been deleted by User:Calton as "horrible Tripod pages which add little information, are full of ads, and fail WP:EL standards." No better external links were substituted. Readers may like to judge these deleted links for themselves, by opening Page history. --Wetman 14:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

capital conflict:Is it Dibon or Kerak?

different sections of the article give different answers.130.86.14.25 (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Need REAL sources

What is to be known about the Moabites' history outside of the Bible, what is just a bunch of fairytales? Any real datas could be presented, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.27.75 (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC) ==

While I shudder at refs with "comp. also" notes in them, the article does include links to artifacts that are fairly clearly Moabite. Hcobb (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Mistake in quote from Joshua

The quote from Joshua involves the tribe of Reuven and Gad who settled on the eastern side of the Jordan. They built what appeared to be an altar, even though sacrifices were restricted to the Tabernacle. That is what caused the other tribes to almost start a civil war until the facts were explained. It does not belong in this posting. Sabba Hillel (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Poor cronology

Neither in the introduction nor in the history section are there any time references, not even centuries. Surely this would be possible to supply. __meco (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.186.64 (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Exact location of Kerioth?

I could have sworn Wikipedia used to have a Map that showed me exactly where the Moabite Kerioth was. The Kerioth of Judah gets more attention it seems because everyone assumes that's where Judas was from. But there was some overlap between Moabite territory and Reuben, and I've read one tradition that Judas was a Reubenite, it's by no means old enough to anything definitive on, but if Kerioth was north of the Ammon River and in land that was part of Perea in NT times then I think it's an interesting correlation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.176.92 (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The exact location of Kerioth is unknown. If there was a map with a dot representing Kerioth, it was to a guess. This also goes for many other locations on biblically-oriented maps. Alephb (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

MAP is so bad

My students keep using the main map posted here. It isn't terrible for Moab, but everything else is skewed awful. I don't know how to change it. Please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.131.67.2 (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is more advanced at Talk:Edom#Territory: historical evolution; map deeply flawed. The map is SO bad and misleading that it absolutely needs to be removed. The WP user is better off without. Arminden (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It has already been removed from Edom and the History of Palestine. Elsewhere it's still in use. It has also been criticised elsewhere - and for many years now; we should centralise the issue, and the Edom talk-page would be as good a place as any. An overview of the discussions, with Edom first:

• Talk:Edom#:Territory: historical evolution; map deeply flawed
• File talk:Kingdoms of Israel and Judah map 830.svg
• Talk:History of Palestine#Map of the Levant 830 BCE
• Talk:Aram-Damascus#Umomium?
  Arminden (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Moab (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

New Article

There needs to be a new article distinguishing the character Moab from the land of Moab. Editor2020 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Where does Moab end and Ammon begin? Map not helpful.

Who were the neighbours to the north in different periods? Arameans? Ammon? The map is not helpful and is contradicted by the Ammon article (see discussion started there). In connection to this, I always had a problem with the term "Plains of Moab". They are located immediately NE of the N tip of the Dead Sea/the mouth of the Jordan, so why aren't they called "Plains of Ammon"? Were the hills to the east of this Plain ever part of Moab? Nelson Glueck describes those hills as descending from the Moabite plateau. He writes that "south of the Wadi el-'Azeimeh, the eastern foothills crowd in towards the NE end of the Dead Sea, effectively closing off the Plains of Moab", and adds on the next page that the even more northerly situated Tell Nimrin "is situated on a western outspur of the hills, which rise to the Moabite plateau." So the Moabite plateau stretches at least as far north as Wadi Nimrin. What, then, is left there to be called Ammon? And when did Moab stretch all the way to Tell Nimrin, if not further north?

Ammon is a mystery on Wiki altogether, as between the historical memory of this (Bronze Age?) Moab going so far north and preserved in the biblical place-name "Plains of Moab", and the 830 BCE situation shown on the map we're using on several pages, where the Plains of Moab plus all of the eastern plateau of Ammon are part of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria), there's hardly any time left for Ammon to cover that area, as it is stated in the definition of Ammon on its own page. The standard statement that the entities of Transjordan before the Israelites were, N to S, Ammon, Moab, and Edom, is probably a massive simplification, but what is the truth as far as one can know, century by century, or at least period by period? Very basic question, and it's impossible to figure out an answer from enWiki, and that's very poor indeed. Arminden (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

References

The answer to the question "what were the boundaries of Moab?" is "yes". What is needed is a source describing the various options. A map will only show one person's perception that is bound to disagree with others'. Zero^talk 04:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You meant 'the answer is "mu"', right? Loew Galitz (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Mu. Zero^talk 05:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

In the recent, A History of Ancient Moab from the Ninth to First Centuries BCE, Burton MacDonald states that the territory of Moab is "from just south of Hisban in the north to Wadi al-Hasa in the south... Its maximum north-south extent, a distance of circa 95 km, corresponded approximately to what was the length of the Dead Sea for at least most of the first half of the first millennium BCE. According to archaeology, the Mesha Inscription, and the Hebrew Bible, its northern border seems to have changed from time to time, due to political and military conditions. The escarpment of the Transjordanian Plateau and the desert determined Moab’s western and eastern boundaries respectively. most of the first half of the first millennium BCE. According to archaeology, the Mesha Inscription, and the Hebrew Bible, its northern border seems to have changed from time to time, due to political and military conditions. The escarpment of the Transjordanian Plateau and the desert determined Moab’s western and eastern boundaries respectively... While Moabite territory to the north of Wadi al-Mujib is, for the most part, open to outside influence, its southern segment, that is, the area south of Wadi al-Mujib, is relatively isolated. Here, it is delineated by Wadi al-Mujib on the north, Wadi al-Hasa on the south, the Dead Sea Rift Valley to the west, and the desert to the east".

MacDonald, Burton. A History of Ancient Moab from the Ninth to First Centuries BCE, Society of Biblical Literature, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/tau/detail.action?docID=6147555.

Now clearly this map is not supposed to be absolutely accurate, and it is clearly based on biblical text (which generally fits the archaeological record from the late 9th century) and probably the Mesha inscription. Since this article deals with "Moab" and not with "Moab in 830 BCE", it would be best to have a map of the region, without marking any borders but rather the rivers and sites. The book has a similar map to what I am suggesting which is clearly copyrighted.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

To sum up, the limited border of Moab, is Wadi al-Mujib and the maximum border of Moab is south of Hisban. By the way, the map in the article is quite odd, stating "Phoenician States" and places Sidon, Beirut and Byblos south of where Tyre actually is. I'll try to remind myself to create a better map when I'll have time.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Moab is sometimes a geographical, not ethnic term

By the time Ruth was born Israel had completely destroyed the Moabites according to the Hebrew Bible. Ruth was an Israelite, not an ethnic Moabite. The term Moabite going forward was thus only a geographical term, not ethnic and referred to Israelites and or other nations living in the Moab region of Israel. Evidence: “‭And they slew of ‭Moab‭ at that time about ten thousand men, all lusty, and all men of valour; and there escaped not a man.‭” (Judges 3:29, KJV) ‭Woe to thee, ‭Moab‭! thou art undone, O people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that escaped, and his daughters, into captivity, unto Sihon king of the Amorites.‭ “‭Woe to thee, ‭Moab‭! thou art undone, O people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that escaped, and his daughters, into captivity unto Sihon king of the Amorites.‭” (Numbers 21:29, KJV) 30 ‭We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even unto Dibon, and we have laid them waste even unto Nophah, which ‭reacheth‭ unto Medeba.‭ ‭Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites.‭ ‭And Moses sent to spy out Jaazer, and they took the villages thereof, and drove out the Amorites that ‭were‭ there.‭ ‭And they turned and went up by the way of Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he, and all his people, to the battle at Edrei.‭ ‭And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon.‭ ‭So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land. 41.147.0.81 (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I challenge you to find a single reliable source that makes this conclusion. Besides, the book of Ruth was written as a polemic against xenophobia, so Ruth being a non-Israelite is the whole point of the story. She was a Moabite, get over it —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Firstly. Let it be on record that you removed my edit on the Moab article. I did not use a detailed citation yet because it was obviously true. But let me ask:

Secondly, does the Hebrew Bible in the form of the King James Bible, with book, chapter, verse count as a "reliable source" if I use it as a citation in the article?

Such as: (Judges 3:29). (Numbers 21:29–37).

I challenge you to find a single reliable source that concludes that Ruth was "written as a polemic against xenophobia". I am re-instating my edit, pending your reply to this comment here. 41.147.0.112 (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

clearly you haven't read WP:BURDEN —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 20:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

here's a source btw —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 20:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it already - and I have now also added the correct citations to a reliable source now. That source of yours is one of many differing sources as admitted by the source itself - and it is a minority view as well. So my sources are just as valid. If not more valid.

It states:

"This article addresses two issues in the Book of Ruth THAT HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED MUCH SCHOLARLY ATTENTION on: why is the narrative plotted in the time of the judges, whilst the time of narration dates to the postexilic period, and why is one of the protagonists Ruth, the Moabitess, whilst the law in Deuteronomy 23:3-4 (HB 4-5) clearly forbids the presence of Moabitess and Ammonites in the community of YHWH". It has not received much attention because it does not DESERVE much attention. The rest of your source goes on to use circular reasoning. i.e. implying Ruth is a Moabite, therefore the Bible DOES allow Moabites to become part of Israel. With no proof Ruth is a genetic and not only geographical Moabite. Israelites are often referred to even today as Canaanites because they lived in Canaan. Wikipedia and other sources do this regularly. But we all know they were never ethnic Canaanites.

"This article addresses two issues in the Book of Ruth THAT HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED MUCH SCHOLARLY ATTENTION on: why is the narrative plotted in the time of the judges, whilst the time of narration dates to the postexilic period, and why is one of the protagonists Ruth, the Moabitess, whilst the law in Deuteronomy 23:3-4 (HB 4-5) clearly forbids the presence of Moabitess and Ammonites in the community of YHWH" 41.147.0.112 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it already - and I have now also added the correct citations to a reliable source now. 41.147.0.112 (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Let it be on record that you have again reversed my edit on Ruth concerning the issue about

"Moab is sometimes a geographical, not ethnic term".

This time you have stated that the King James Bible is not a reliable source. Please explain which Wikipedia policy alludes to this and quote the policy on that section explicitly. The article is already full of other existing Hebrew Bible citations already.41.147.0.102 (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bible is a reference to itself. I cannot be used as a historical text. But you are not even doing that. You are taking things from different books of the Bible and proposing what you think is the conclusion. This is your own original research and as such is not valid. Qoan (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bible is already used multiple times throughout the entire article already and it is being used as a reference for the Wikipedia article which is both secular and non secular history. Not for itself. Why are you targeting my edits and not other edits that use the Bible as a reference which are still there now such as NIV Bible citations in this very same article? What Wikipedia policy allows you to do that? Please quote the policy. It is NOT original research. Read the Bible KJV verses I quoted. They clearly show that Israel, along with other nations, completed destroyed the Moabites. It is not my interpretation. It is the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. I gave exact verse numbers. Have you read the verses? You are targeting me unfairly and are not doing the same to other editors. It is also a know fact that Mosaic law explicitly commanded Israelites to destroy entire nations completely. Such as Moabites and Canaanites. The verses show they did exactly that with Moab although not always with other nations where they disobeyed Moses law. “‭And they slew of ‭Moab‭ at that time about ten thousand men, all lusty, and all men of valour; and THERE ESCAPED NOT A MAN.‭” (Judges 3:29, KJV) Not a single man escaped. Did you read that? HOW IS THAT NOT CLEAR TO YOU? It also says:

"And they slew of ‭Moab" "..and there escaped not a man" not a man. Not one of the soldiers. "...he hath given his sons that escaped, and his daughters, into captivity, unto Sihon king of the Amorites." The rest were deported to the Amorites. " given unto Sihon king of the Amorites" Do you know what that means??‭ It means not living in Moab anymore. Then Israel did the same to then Amorites too. More slewing and deporting of them too. ‭"And Moses sent to spy out Jaazer, and they took the villages thereof, and drove out the Amorites that ‭were‭ there". You are trying to say I am incapable of understanding a verse from the Hebrew Bible and because the verse doesn't use the exact same wording that I have used to summarise the verse, then I have therefore misrepresented the verse which is absurd. I have explained above why the verse says what I say it says in the true meaning of the verse. There is no policy that says I have to use direct quotes, or the lack of such means a misunderstanding. If anyone reverses my edit again without good reason discussed here first, I will be reporting you. [Special:Contributions/41.147.0.28|41.147.0.28]] (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

feel free to report me at WP:ANI if you want —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 22:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bible is a primary source. It can be used for a source about itself; that is, it can be a source for what the Bible says. It cannot be used as a source for history. CodeTalker (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This is rarely enforced anywhere on Wikipedia. Which Wikipedia policy states this? 41.147.1.109 (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It's called WP:RS. The Bible is a primary religious text, not RS. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources are discouraged, but still allowed according to Wikipedia policy. Policy says nothing about religious texts that are not also historical texts. 41.147.1.109 (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

They can't establish facts, and they can't establish weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS states:

"Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred."

That's what I did. I took only specific facts, such as: The original Moabites were extinct and/or deported long before Ruth was born in Moab. The verses I references stated that specifically. 41.147.1.83 (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

This is similar to selective prosecution. Certain rules for Christians, but everyone else can break the same rule without an edit war ensuing. The admins then favour the editors who do this. 41.147.1.83 (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

No, those are imagined facts or original research. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Not at all. I have quoted the verses far above and it is clear from reading them that by the time of Ruth, Moab was already a provinve of Israel. At this point it is hist your word against mine. You and other hostile editers are removing minority view points, albeit primary source versions (which are allowed). This violates Wikipedia:NPOV. The verses state the Moabite men were ALL killed and those remaining alive were conquered and absorbed into captivity by Sihon, king of the Amorites. 41.147.1.109 (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, whatever makes you happy. Yes, we will continue to remove original research based on the random opinions of people in the internet about religious texts from thousands of years ago, because Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The conclusion that Ruth is an ethnic Moabite is original research. So you are a hypocrite. Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible, or any secondary source does it say that. It says she is a Moabite, just like European Americans are considered "Americans" (but not native Americans in the ethnic sense). You are just a random person on the internet yourself. Now you know why Wikipedia articles are not even allowed to be used as evidence in court. Other online encyclopaedia are taking over because Wikipedia is a joke and will not even exist in the near future anymore. 41.147.1.83 (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't write that, so I'm not anything. But there is a secondary source attached to that statement. I haven't verified it, but if you are able to find a copy online or in a library, perhaps you can check what it says. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

No matter. Here it is, plain as day in an academically published book. Now, if you can find a source of equal reliability providing some contrasting information, then we can have a serious conversation. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

And then Israel totally destroyed the Amorites too. 41.147.1.83 (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)