Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Esau

Help

Need help disambiguating Judah (q.v.) in this entry.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by CatherineMunro (talk • contribs) 23:23, 6 April 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Why the {} sign/s?

Why were one or more of these sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} signs placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning? (And why create a redundant category Category:Bible stories that is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories?) IZAK 07:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No no no, Esau deserves an entry, albeit a much better one by someone who can keep the Christian bias from blazing through.24.20.12.73 14:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs rewrite

This article is extremely POV and seems to contain a great deal of original research and the author's personal speculation. The author needs to attribute his/her contentions--they're either his/her ideas, or perhaps the current Bible study discussion topics.

Particularly objectionable are the insistence that Jacob did not trick or deceive Esau (not that it's wrong, just that it's POV), and the statement that the Edomites are "godless"--intuitively this rings false. I seriously doubt it; probably they had many gods. I'm prepared to be proven wrong, but that's exactly it--back your claims!! 24.20.12.73 14:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you said just makes me think that humanity is lost, it is humanly impossible for someone to be so devoid of knowledge, you didn't even try, man, you tried to justify your argue and automatically contradicted yourself, this is unnecessarily ridiculous. This article just You quoted a part of the Bible, and then, what are you going to counter-argue? 177.105.94.196 (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the last two paragraphs should be axed. 24.20.12.73 14:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

seriously. a great deal of this article is millenarian rubbish.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.13.109 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with the first lines with capital letters? If I was more fond of hebrew mythology I would consider rewriting the article, how could any rational people stand it? Ridiculously POV. Fallenman369 (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Esau" needs change.

This article is polemic, defending Jacob at all costs, rather than setting out information that anyone can use about Esau. It needs considerable rewriting. DJKrause 19:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heck you talking about it? It's as if for that reason alone, the article should be "excluded from society", so to speak, moderate your words, friend. 177.105.94.196 (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romans or Muslims?

Too much opinion, proselytization is not what we need here. Also, I read somewhere Muslims consider Esau their ancestor. Here it says Romans. Needs input from another POV. 

"I read somewhere Muslims consider Esau their ancestor" ;

You got it a little mixed up. Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. The Hebrews are said to be descendants of Isaac and the Arabs are said to be descendants of Ishmael. Furthermore, all Arabs are not Muslims nor are all Muslims Arabs. --SahirShah 06:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esau married Ishmael's daughter, so, yes, Esau could be considered a Muslim (Arab) ancestor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.80.54 (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you probably did read that - the people who make up the interpretations of 'prophesy' often use it to justify racial hatred. I've seen the israeli-palestinian conflict compared to israeli Philistine conflict, and that as a justification to consider all Palestinians godless and evil. as soon as I saw the edomites called godless I expected someone to then link them with a modern people group as an excuse to hate them, and that's exactly what whatever you read was most likely doing. None of these individuals are likely to have existed - instead they're probably just metaphors applied to people groups that the authors of the stories about the patriarchs wanted to charactorise. post-exilic hebrews were in need of cultural identity, so alot of stuff was added to their religious practice (most of the pentatuch is considered to have been written during or after the babylonian exile, according to the Oxford Annotated Bible and most other reliable sources I've encountered), part of what they added were excuses to explain ethno-cultural tensions in their area, like 'oh, we're sons of jacob and they're sons of esau, we're just allways going to be fighting'. *shrug* familiy trees get narrower in the present time, individuals do not branch out and produce whole ethnic groups, it's vice versa.

The majority of the Edomites converted to Judaism in Hashmonean and Roman times, so their decedents are obviously Jews. TFighterPilot (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amalekites

There is no mention in the article of the Amalekites being the descendants of Esau (and how they attacked the Hebrews when they were in the wilderness...and were eventually defeated) in Exodus 17. J. Vernon McGee refers to this in his books in Exodus Volume I. Are there other sources for this? Arx Fortis 06:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about midrashim requested

Hi,

I requested sources for statements about midrashim. I am not saying that they are completely wrong, but it would be proper to cite the exact place - name of the Midrash and chapter.

Particular sentences that i marked "citation needed":

  1. "According to all midrashim, Esau is a very significant character in world history. Inasmuch as Jacob is considered to be the progenitor of the Children of Israel, it is Esau who is regarded as the forefather of Rome and the Roman Empire" - "according to all midrashim" is nice, but the midrashim are very vast and at least one or two examples from two different midrashim would be very good.
  1. "The argument is proposed that Esau was born with red coloring in his hair and body, and the ancient rabbis have connected this with the red banner and standard favored by Rome's legions" - "The argument is proposed" is a weasel word, source would be better.
  1. "Some see this as another sign of Rome, famous for her unique sword made of steel - the gladius - that smashed its way to world hegemony and on the way massacred the descendants of Jacob/Israel" - "Some see this" is a weasel word.
  1. The Talmudic saying "It is well-known that Esau hates Jacob" (Hebrew: הלכה בידוע שעשיו שונא ליעקב) is often quoted, up to the present, by nationalist and isolationist Jewish groups assering that Jew-hatred is an endemic and incurable phenomenon of some non-Jewish societies - source please, for the Talmudic saying and also an example of an "isolationist Jewish group" using it as a quote. Please don't tell me to Google it - i did and it wasn't so trivial to find.

Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 11:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rough as Esau's hand

Hello, I am actually confused, I am writing an essay on a poem which includes reference to Esau. "And from a heart as rough as Esau's hand" (line 28, Tennyson) I was wondering really why his hand would be rough, and perhaps if there is some real significance to that answer it should be included in the article. Thanks I would really appreciate an answer.

T.L.M December 29, 2006

It might be a reference to Genesis chapter 27. Read it, it's simple and educational. --Amir E. Aharoni 12:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hello ,my friend amir before advising others he should read and understand not interprete genesis chapter 27(strictly read it not interpret)
Perhaps it's punning on Gen. 32:11 - "Deliver me, I pray You, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau; for I fear him, lest he come and smite [us all], the mothers with the children." Asat 08:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to me it's referring to Esau's hirsuteness. 90.129.128.98 (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture Esau

There is a reference to Esau in, of all places, The Blair Witch Project, in which Heather Donohue vaguely recalls being told a story "about Esau...[and] a pile of rocks", which sounds like Gen. 31:48-52, although those verses are about Jacob and Laban. Esau, known for his hairyness, was probably a better name to use in the film (about a legendary witch who is also reputed to be hirsute) since Jacob's many other attributes tend to overshadow the fact that he, too, was quite hairy. Asat 08:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"god hates fags" and other quotes

is there any reference in the bible to Esau being gay, only a lot of the signs ive seen have references to quotes like romans 9;13 or malachi 1;3 that when i look them up are along the lines of "God loved Jacob, but hated Esau" etc. Joevsimp 21:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Yahweh loves Jacob/Israel, hates Esau/Edom" is a theme in many prophetic books in the bible, but has nothing to do with Esau's sex life - it's more to do with the history between the kingdoms of Judah and Edom. 586 BC is the crucial date, when the Babylonians conquered Jersalem and took the aristocracy, including those who could write, into captivity - and the kingdom of Edom seems to have helped the Babylonians, hence the hatred for wicked Edom. Genesis was written by these exiled Judahite aristocrats (who included the priests and scribes from the Temple), and the "Jacob-and-Esau-were-brothers" story, and also the "Esau-was-the-father-of-Edom" story, date from that time. The only earlier reference is Amos 1:11, written in the 8th century BC, which speaks about Yahweh's hatred for Edom "because he pursued his brother with the sword), of words to that effect - note that Amos mentions Edom, the kingdom of that name, not Esau, and that the reference to Edom's brother is not literal but means the Judahites. But it does say "brother", which implies that the "brotherhood" of the Judahites and Edomites was recognised in the 8th century, so the basic Jacob/Esau story might be older than Genesis. Just when Amos saw the Edomites chase the Israelites, Yahweh only knows - but from the point of view of your question it doesn't really matter, the point is simply that Yahweh hated the descendents of Esau (not Esau himself) because they'd been hostile to the Israelites, not because of their sex lives.PiCo 07:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering then why the reference to this passage in regards to sexuality especially by this church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church phocks (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Linguistically I'm thinking perhaps an explanation would be that these people mean "god hates, fags" directing the comment to those they consider "fags" or beneath them somehow and asserting the fact that god is capable of "hatred". Or maybe I'm thinking too much into this. I don't think they thought about it too much probably, and just wanted to pick some bible passage to make their sign look more important. Whatever it is, it's not a very humane thing. phocks (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? No, he's not gay, it doesn't make sense Italic 177.105.90.67 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you took this information, but it makes no sense, absolutely no sense, he's not gay, bro. 177.105.90.67 (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esau hates Jacob

There ought to be better sourcing on the quote Esau hates Jacob, which is a favorite among talmudists and kabbalists. (cf [1]) It has been used to refer to various groups from the Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church, Nazi Germany and modern Iran. ADM (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion between Esau and Jacob

Article currently reads: "... Esau ... was the fraternal twin brother of Jacob (whom God renamed Israel) — the patriarch and founder of the Israelites."

This is confusing: it leads to the mis-reading that Esau is "the patriarch and founder of the Israelites."

I would drop the clause "(whom God renamed Israel) — the patriarch and founder of the Israelites."

Besides the potential confusion of mis-reading, the clause seems to aggrandize Jacob. This is Esau's article, not Jacob's: let's keep it Esau-centric, and give Jacob his due in the Jacob article.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birthright

The section 'Views of the Birthright' has been moved over to Jacob and Esau. For one, there are no references for that article and this subject has lots of great commentaries and views that could be referenced. It has the potential of being a good article in of itself. Neither Esau nor Jacob should hog up that article on their pages. Jasonasosa (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

"Esau the progenitor of the Edomites..." -sentence needs a verb. As it lists several cites, I hesitate to choose one.--Mannanan51 (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)mannanan51[reply]

Done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wives' names

I have removed the text which attempts to explain the difference in the names of Esau's wives between Genesis 26 & 28 and Genesis 36 because it appears to be speculation presented as fact. Ideally I would have written a small paragraph regarding the disparity, but I am lacking in knowledge on the subject, and do not have access to decent sources. I have tentatively reverted to an older edit which suggested that the three wives mentioned in Genesis 26 & 28 are equivalent to those named in Genesis 36, however this seems to be original research. If someone with more knowledge on the subject could perhaps address this issue? Neodymium60 (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it appears what you removed was in fact referenced to a source. We are allowed to use speculation published by scholars, although ideally it will be properly attributed as such. Please do not blank out the referenced material. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the whole section. After some research, It appears that there is no scholarly consensus as to the identities of those wives mentioned in Genesis 26-36. I have revised the article to what I hope reflects this. Neodymium60 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ESAU´S DEATH

His death to be mentioned according to Jewish tradition (see JewishEncyclopedia.com)Some even say that ESAU´S head is buried in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron Healkids (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest camels dated to 930 BCE

The recent excavations in the Timna Valley dating copper mining to the 10th century BCE also discovered what may be the earliest camel bones found in Israel or even outside the Arabian peninsula, dating to around 930 BCE. This is seen as evidence that the stories of Abraham, Joseph, Jacob and Esau were written after this time.<ref name=camels>{{cite news|last=Hasson|first=Nir|title=Hump stump solved: Camels arrived in region much later than biblical reference|url=http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/.premium-1.569091|accessdate=30 January 2014|newspaper=Haaretz|date=Jan. 17, 2014}}</ref> Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They found a camel they dated to 930 BC so now that "proves" it was the first ever and they had never heard of camels before that? I find that about as convincing as most of their desperate "proof" when it comes to trying to convince people they "know" when Genesis was written.... (By the way they had the letter Gimel shaped like a camel's neck in proto-Semitic long before that!) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't blame me for what the source says or if you don't like Haaretz. And the explanation for Gimel is just speculation which can never be proved, and not everyone agrees. See what Barry B. Powell has to say on this.[2] Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants Section -- Can I Get a Third Opinion

I'd like to see if we can get a third opinion on the "Descendants" section that's been recently added. At present it contains a number of non-reliable medieval and no reliably-sourced discussions of the main line of tradition on Esau -- that he was the ancestor of the Edomites. Would it be more appropriate to retitle the section something like "Medieval Traditions" or the like, or even to delete it altogether? Alephb (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:CanCanqr1989, this isn't about hiding information. This is about following the WP:RS policy and making some sort of effort to distinguish between reliable sources and non-reliable sources. It's also a shame that you keep reverting typos back into the section. At the very least you could have let my basic copy-editing here stand. Alephb (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the "Family" section? The lead seems to cite "Metzger & Coogan (1993). Oxford Companion to the Bible, pp. 191–92" as a RS for the view-- but I did not look that up myself.
That the Edomites trace descent to Esau is stated (twice) in Genesis 36, and to claim it is comes from Medieval traditions woulds serve no purpose. While (in theory) a more up to date RS could interpret Gen 36 to say/mean something else, in practice it is fairly common for the the plain interpretation of a passage to be so clear that no modern work bothers to confirm (or deny) plain interpretation of the passage. tahc chat 16:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about a section I wound up yanking out: [3]. I should have updated here. It was trying to tie Esau to various red-headed Europeans, and I was getting some resistance to cleaning it up or putting it in a medieval-focused section that would parallel the "Rabbinical" section. For the moment it looks like no one is trying to revive it, although if you think it should be revived in some form let me know. Alephb (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm absolutely fine with the family section, and with Esau being tied to the Edomites. I'm not aware of anyone who would deny that the Edomites are tied to Esau by the Bible. Alephb (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you understand any confusion when you say ..."tradition on Esau -- that he was the ancestor of the Edomites" but you instead wanted to take issue with the idea of that Esau was an ancestor of Europeans. tahc chat 19:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was a very badly-written sentence on my part. What I meant to say was that it made no sense to have a "descendants" section that only discussed the Franks and Romans and Europeans, without even mentioning the main association Esau has: the Edomites. To be clear, I absolutely think that any discussion of Esau's descendants should have the Edomites front and center, and then that any later developments should be clearly marked as such. Alephb (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I rather suspect that the one who kept reverting Alephb is a certain banned user notorious for his interest in ultra-obscure matters like this. Hi Til :).PiCo (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the same day there was similar behavior -- a "new" editor insisting on reverting to keep weird content sourced to outdated sources, over at Abaddon. I still haven't finally cleaned that one up. Figured I might wait a couple days till the editor wanders off. No idea if it's connected. I didn't even se that the last sock was a sock till I'd argued with it for six weeks first, so I don't exactly have an instinct for understanding these shenanigans. Alephb (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't swear it's Til, it's just Til-ish. Obscure OT characters, a knowledge of ancient sources (a good knowledge, too), and an underlying belief that it's all true history. Til doesn't wander off. PiCo (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hang out a lot on obscure Bible character articles, and I see a lot of uncritical use of medieval Christian sources. In real life, I've met a lot of people who know a lot of Bible. I've met a few people who know a lot of Talmud, and I've met a few people who know a lot about the Church Fathers. I've met people who know a lot about the Reformation, or about Vatican II, or even in some cases medieval philosophy. But I have never met people who seem to know what a bunch of medieval monks thought about obscure biblical characters. And yet they must exist, because Wikipedia is filled with this stuff. We are breathing some very rarified air in these parts. Wikipedia has to be hands down the nerdiest place I have ever found. Alephb (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, CanCanqr1989 is Til all right - see this diff where he's adding stuff about Ethiopia, a favourite subject of his (he's a Rasta). Note to any admin who comes wandering by: I do NOT want Til banned, he's an honest and committed editor who just happens to have some loopy ideas. He also has a history of losing his temper - but he did get provoked. If Til asks nicely to be allowed back, I'd support him.PiCo (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought the problem was puppetry which, it seems, is still going on. My instinct on hearing something like this would be to drop a line at SPI, but if you think we should leave it alone, I'll leave it alone. Alephb (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is puppetry, but I'm prepared to turn a blind eye to Til. Unless, of course, he turns into a serious pest. PiCo (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:PiCo, the tone of things escalated a bit, and we had a 5RR issue at Canaan (son of Ham), along with an unwillingness to engage on talk pages or respond to a 3RR warning, so I went ahead and ran this one up the flagpole at WP:SPI. If it is who you think it is, I don't imagine it will be too hard for him to regroup and start editing again anyhow, given the history of things. If it's not, then I suppose the admins can sort that out, too. But, given your general feeling toward Til, if I run across a future sock that looks similar but isn't being disruptive, I imagine I'll have better things to do than mess around with sock whack-a-mole.Alephb (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of a recent edit by Til.[4] Here's one from a year ago[5] where he writes "Obviously since any editor not towing the preferred anti-Bible p.o.v. gets banned on sight, fvck you p.o.s. Doug Weller, it's a new day and your P.O.V. pushing control of wikipedia will be exposed & attached to your name anywhere on the internet)" and here's a lot of his edits, accusations about Fascist Admins, etc. He uses various IP ranges. He threatened me with Wikimedia here[6] not knowing that I attend monthly voice conferences with them. And here he is editing Rastafari.[7] He's been editing his own talk page today using his Til account. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charming. Well, that adds some context. Alephb (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"better things to do than mess around with sock whack-a-mole". Precisely. PiCo (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely irelevant, but CanCanqr1989 seems to translate as Can Conquer 1989. I have no idea what 1989 refers to.PiCo (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fall of the Berlin wall? That's all that comes to mind when I think of '89. Alephb (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Historicity Section and Mentions of Archaeology

There ought to be a Historicity section (there is mention of Esau's tomb on Biblical Mount Seir - but no mention of archaeological finds, etc...). This information may not be available - but the article on Amalek has a historicity section indicates that there never were any such people within it's Historicity section.

ASavantDude (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in the family tree?

The family tree says that there is a Korah as a grandson of Esau which leads to the Wikipedia page of Korah who is the great-grandson of Levi. So there must be an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:D96:1E40:FD8A:D12C:A407:6ADE (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Esau