One of the key themes of the OT prophets is the brotherhood between Edom and Israel. This concept of brotherhood stems from earlier tradition that traces these two nations back to the two sons of Isaac: Esau and Jacob. The consensus of modern critical scholarship is that this tradition should not be regarded as being literally true. R. J. Coggins writes “it is impossible to treat as strict history the idea that Jacob and Esau were literally the foundations of the two nations all of whose people were descended from them”, (though he provides little evidence as to why this should be the case).[1]
This scepticism is a consequence of a wider critical approach that interprets much of Genesis as the mythologizing of the Israelite nation. If it is assumed that these stories in Genesis have no historical basis then this hermeneutic becomes appealing. For instance, one might expect Ammon and Moab, as enemies of Israel, to be presented as the progeny of drunken incest. Accordingly, attempts have been made to identify a political situation in which Israelites may have felt empowered by the notion of the supremacy of the younger brother.[2] Nevertheless this position is based upon the assumption – and assumption it is – that Edom and Israel did not share an ancestral heritage.
The Political Relationship
The consensus amongst OT scholars is that the concept of the brotherhood between Israel and Edom dates from the Monarchic period, following J. R. Bartlett’s influential paper: “The Brotherhood of Edom”.[3]
It is in fact unlikely that the connection antedates the time of David, for it was not until David’s conquest of Edom (or possibly Saul’s, if 1 Sam 14:47 is to be trusted) that the existence of Edom as a political entity became at all important to Judah and Israel, and it was not until Edom became a subject nation that its identification with Esau, traditionally subject to Jacob, became conceivable or likely.[4]
Implicit in this assessment are two propositions: i) that the accounts of earlier dealings with Edom are fictional (cf. Num 20:14f; Josh 15:1, 21; Judg 5:4); and ii) that Edom did not become a political entity till the beginning of the Iron Age (tenth century B.C.E.). The only significant evidence for the former proposition is the latter. The latter proposition is an interpretation of the archeological data which shows sedentary occupation around 2200-1800 B.C.E. and 1300-700 B.C.E. with an intervening period without archaeological trace.[5] It proposed that during this non-sedentary period that Edom was occupied by nomadic tribes and hence there was no state of Edom till the thirteenth century, (some even suggest the seventh century!). Yet this interpretation is based upon outdated anthropological theories of state-formation. The idea that there was no state when there were no settlements is rejected by K. A. Kitchen, who identifies several Egyptian texts that refer to Edom during this period.[6] The explanation of the lack of archeological sites from this period is probably that the Edomites were tent-dwellers. This does not preclude that Edom was a political entity during this period, which is witnessed by Egypt’s relations with Edom. Kitchen concludes:
Like the dynasty of tented kings of Old Babylonian Manana, the Edomite “kings” were pastoralists, and warriors at need. So an Edomite continuity must be taken seriously all the way from the Execration Texts to Esarhaddon, regardless of whether the physical archaeology of Edom can (as yet) witnesses to it or not[7]
As a close neighbour, the Edomites would have been politically important to Israel as soon as their populations expanded enough to meet. The potential military threat of these pastoralists should not be ignored; the Edomites were a significant enough military power for Ramses III to make war upon them (c.1170). The idea that Edom did not register in Israel’s political consciousness prior to David’s conquests seem very improbable. Rather the campaigns of Saul and David against the Edomites probably indicate some prior tensions between these two nations, and thus a long-standing intercourse.
The majority of Bartlett’s article, “The Brotherhood of Edom”, is spent considering the various OT texts that allude to the brotherhood between Edom and Israel. However, since he dates the Pentateuchal texts late (Deut 2:1-8; 23:7; Num 20:14-21), the earliest text he has available is Amos 1:11-12, which post-dates the reign of David by several centuries. Consequently Bartlett presents no textual evidence from the supposed time of the formation of this discourse. Conversely, because of the way Bartlett dates the Pentateuchal texts, he can see no textual evidence at all from the period prior to the formation of the brotherhood-discourse, i.e. he can produce no evidence that this discourse did not predate the time of David.
Ultimately, Bartlett’s paper distills down to an argument from silence – there is nothing in the texts he considers to link the brotherhood-discourse to the time of David or to an earlier period.
Genesis 25:25
There are several passages in the Genesis narratives that seek to explain the origins of the kingdom of the Edomites, and particularly of the topological terms ‘Edom’ and ‘Seir’. These passages are keenly dissected by critical scholars, who regard these explanations as secondary to some alternative origin for the terms.[8]
And the first came out red. He was like a hairy garment all over; so they called his name Esau. Gen 25:25 [NKJV]
This passage, which describes Esau’s birth, does not use the terms ‘Edom’ or ‘Seir’. However, the terms for his attributes of being ‘red’ and ‘hairy’ have been identified as appropriate puns in a paronomasia. The consonants of ‘Edom’ ~da (’dm) and ‘Seir’ ry[f (s‛yr) are shared in ‘red’ ynwmda and ‘hairy’ r[f. It is argued that since the name ‘Esau’ (wf[) does not derive etymologically from ry[f, the explanation given in Gen 25:25 is rather an attempt to write an etymology for ‘Seir’ and ‘Edom’.
This reading requires discussion. The word ‘red’ in this verse is not ~da but the related word ynwmda (‘ruddy’; cf. 1 Sam 16:12; 17:42). A paronomastic link with the term ‘Edom’ is therefore not certain and it seems more probable that the description ynwmda is simply used to make the distinction between Jacob and Esau. The word ‘hairy’ here is ry[f but the proposition that this cannot be the basis of Esau’s name overstates any case. While ‘Esau’ wf[ (‛sw) is not consonantly linked to ry[f (s‛yr),[9] the words do share meaning in that both words convey a sense of “rough-hairy”. Accordingly, the verse can be read as making the connection: ‘he was born covered with hair so they called him “Rough”’.
Genesis 25:30
It is in this second passage that the text explicitly attempts to explain the origins of the name ‘Edom’.
And Esau said to Jacob, ‘Please feed me with that same red stew, for I am weary’. Therefore his name was called Edom. Gen 25:30 [NKJV]
One might see some signs of discontinuity here and an interpolator. The explanation, ‘therefore his name was called Edom’, seems largely incidental to the rest of the account, which is primarily the story of how Esau surrendered his birthright. To diverge into the explanation of nomenclature in this way does seem odd, since one might expect it to come at the end of the narrative. On the other hand, since ‘Edom’ means ‘red’, it would perhaps be confusing to divide this explanation from Esau’s request for the red stew.
Such literary considerations mask the real question as to whether the nation of Edom was named because of the colour of the stew for which its forebear sold his birthright. The fact that critical sensibilities recoil at such an idea is not evidence in the case. Is it not at least conceivable that Esau should have been teased mercilessly by his peers for his rash trade? Since he had lost the right to his father’s title to inherit his name from the stew would seem a fitting jibe. This, of course, is simply speculation, but we must remember that many names have developed in this manner (the name ‘Christian’ was originally derogatory).
The alternative explanation that critical scholars provide is that the name ‘Edom’ stems from the “red tinge” of the mountains of Edom when viewed from Israel,[10] and/or “the reddish color of the Nubian sandstone”.[11] This explanation is not as dubious as the idea that Seir is so called because it is a hairy, or bushy, land[12] yet still derives from the same fallacy that toponyms must derive from physical characteristics regardless of tradition or discourse. Contrary to critical aspersions, Genesis does not attempt to link the name ‘Seir’ to Esau but links the land of Seir to a Horite patriarch (Gen 36:20-1).
The consistent picture in Genesis is that Esau was given his name because of his rough appearance at birth and later acquired the name ‘Edom’ because traded his birthright for red stew. He gave this latter name to his descendents, who became the Edomites and occupied the land of Seir, previously occupied by the Horites (Gen 14:6; 36:30; cf. Deut 2:12f).
Critical scholars may prefer to interpret these ‘ancestor stories’ as political allegory, as “encapsulations of tribal experiences”,[13] but this is a literary, rather than a historical, approach— it has no foundation in data. Even on a literary basis, it is acknowledged that there must be some core tradition to these stories that predates the political circumstances they allegedly portray.[14] On a historical level, the meager information we have supports the general picture of the Genesis account, i.e. of the Edomites occupying the land of the Horites.
Nevertheless, whatever historical and archeological evidence we bring to bear upon the question of the origins of the Edomites, we shall never be able to be able to penetrate to the patriarch of that nation with any source outside the Bible. In this sense, at least, the veracity of the brotherhood tradition cannot be tested.
Sociological Clues
Before abandoning the question of the article, it is worth pursuing some sociology. If the nations of Israel and Edom truly spring from the same root, it is to be expected that they share some measure of tradition, culture and, more importantly, religion. The difficulty is that we have scant information on which to base any reconstruction of Edomite culture or religion. Two introductory points can be proposed:
1) The god (at least, the chief god) of the Edomites was named Qaus. This name is witnessed in the theophoric element of the names of two Edomite kings: Qaus-Malak (‘Qaus is king’) and Qaus-gabie (‘Qaus is might’). This is probably the same deity as Koze mentioned by Josephus (Antiquities 15.7.9). More recently Bartlett has noted that this name has been found stamped upon a jar handle at Tell el-Kheleifah.[15] Though almost nothing is known about Qaus, a number of scholars have posited a link between Qaus and YHWH.[16]
There is no reference to Qaus in the OT unless it is in the name Kushaiah (pos. ‘Qaus is YHWH’; 1 Ch 15:17), though this seems unlikely. Yet the absence of any reference to Qaus is in itself telling. Almost every other god of the surrounding nations is condemned at some point in the OT. Why is Qaus seemingly exempt if there is not some common background?
2) There are several indications of religious syncretism between Israel and Edom, which Bartlett draws out. The mention of Doeg the Edomite being ‘detained before the Lord’, i.e. because of a vow (1 Sam 21:7), implies that Edomites were allowed into the congregation of YHWH. This is explicitly stated in Deuteronomy, for though the Ammonite and Moabite were forbidden to enter the congregation, the Edomites are exempted from this prohibition (Deut 23:7). Bartlett comments on the possibility that several OT texts, including Job, and the writings of Agur and Lemuel were of Edomite origin.[17]
The question is how did such religious syncretism arise between the religions of Israel and Edom? The true religion of the Israelites was fiercely monotheistic, but the people were often idolatrous. Each case would require a different explanation but it seems conceivable that favourable treatment of Edom in the Law indicates that the two religions came from a single root and then diverged. This proposition is theoretical and difficult to substantiate but if valid would provide strong collaboration of the primacy of the brotherhood of Israel and Edom.
Conclusion
The difficulty with assessing the veracity of the Genesis narratives, particularly those relating to the Patriarchs, is the lack of contemporary evidence. While we may be able to find parallels of the general situation, we are unlikely to find witnesses to individuals like Abraham or Esau in any text outside the Bible – they simply did not have a significant enough impact during their lifetime. From this perspective, it would seem the critical scholar has the upper-hand; if the critical scholar claims that these narratives are fictional the conservative scholar cannot prove the opposite. However we can question the basis of these critical claims, which, given the absence of evidence, are usually literary, rather than historical, in nature.
In the case of Esau/Edom, critical scholars have attempted to dissect the Genesis narratives to somehow reveal their ‘true’ purpose: political allegory, rather than reliable history. As we have seen, attempts to identify the political situation behind the Esau-narratives are flawed, as are other explanations for the origins of the name ‘Edom’. Also, when viewed apart from critical aspersions, the Genesis narratives read quite naturally as an explanation for the name ‘Edom’, and are, at least, conceivable. Once the critical opposition is removed, we can return to our scales of history and judge, on balance, which case has the greater evidence.
Though the evidence is meager, the general historical picture is consistent with the biblical account. We know that the land of Edom was formerly occupied by the Horites and that the Edomites migrated into the region. If they migrated from the west – and there is no reason to suppose otherwise – then this only adds weight to the Genesis-narrative. The possibility of some religious kinship between Israel and Edom is the only indicator of the ethnic kinship proposed in Genesis. Yet when juxtaposed against the complete absence of indicators to the contrary, these sociological clues must carry some weight.
In sum, we have few enough clues on which to judge the Genesis-narrative of the origins of Edom. Nevertheless, since the story is internally and externally consistent then there seems no reason to raise objections.
[1] R. J. Coggins, Israel among the Nations: A Commentary on Nahum and Obadiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 70-1.
[2] J. R. Bartlett, “The Brotherhood of Edom” JSOT 4 (1977): 2-27.
[3] J. J. McDermott, Reading the Pentateuch: A Historical Introduction (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2002) 56-8; G. W. Ramsey, “Israel’s Ancestors: the patriarchs and matriarchs” in The Biblical World (ed. J. Barton; 2 vols; London: Routledge, 2002), 2:178.
[4] Bartlett, “Brotherhood”, 2.
[5] N. Glueck, “The Boundaries of Edom”, Hebrew Union College Annual 11.1, (1936): 141-157 (141f).;
[6] K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 473-4.
[7] Kitchen, Reliability, 474.
[8] S. E. Grosby, “The Successor Territory” in S. E. Grosby and A. S. Leoussi, Nationalism and Ethnosymbolism: History, Culture and Ethnicity in the Formation of Nations (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), 108f; T. Hiebert, The Yahwist’s Landscape: Nature and Religion in Early Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 102f.
[9] [Ed. AP] Two consonants are shared but the order reversed; this could still be a paronomasia.
[10] Grosby, “Successor Territory”, 109.
[11] Hiebert, Yahwist’s Landscape, 102.
[12] Hiebert, Yahwist’s Landscape, 102.
[13] Ramsey, “Israel’s Ancestors”, 176.
[14] For instance, Ramsey argues that the Genesis narratives “exhibit a consciousness of a distinction between the religion of the patriarchs and the religion of Israel in later times”, “Israel’s Ancestors”, 178.
[15] J. R. Bartlett, “The Moabites and Edomites” in People of Old Testament Times (ed. D. J. Wiseman, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 245.
[16] Bartlett, “Moabites and Edomites”, 246f.
[17] Bartlett, ‘Edomites’ , 246
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One