Talk:Transjordan in the Bible

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rename[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved) Mike Cline (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Transjordan (Bible) → Transjordan (region)

While the term Transjordan indeed originated in the Bible, it had a prolonged geographic use throughout history, both in antiquity and Middle Ages, while in the modern times it became to be associated with the Emirate of Transjordan (later renamed to Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). I herewith propose to make it a clear geographic term, and not vague religious or literature definition.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this article is about Transjordan in the Bible, as opposed to, say, Oultrejordain. StAnselm (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oultrejordain was a province of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.Greyshark09 (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you're saying. And I don't know what you mean by "vague religious or literature definition". StAnselm (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be defined by the Bible, because Bible is a religious term, not a common history period. Bible for Christians lasted until 1st century of common era, while for the Jews it ends up in 5th century BCE.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this only covers the biblical period. If you want to write a new article on the entire history of the region, go ahead -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bible is not an acceptable history period. We don't use religious definitions for articles. If so, it can be "Transjordan (ancient antiquity)" or something of that sense.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing this article covers is the Biblical accounts, not other accounts, not the archaeological record, nothing else. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the vague and confused rationale - of course we use religious definitions for articles. StAnselm (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current name matches the current article scope. Given that Transjordan and Oultrejordain already exist, no change in scope is needed. -- 202.124.73.98 (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ever HaYarden is not the East Bank[edit]

  • West Bank = Ever HaYarden
  • East Bank = hay·yar·dên miz·raḥ = πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου (Joshua 1:15 & Numbers 34:15) = trans Iordanen
"Joshua 1:15". The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, with an English translation; and with various readings and critical notes. Gr. & Eng. S. Bagster & Sons. 1870. p. 281. Image of p. 281 at Google Books {{cite book}}: External link in |quote= (help).
Example of using the wrong bank: Merrill, Selah (1881). East of the Jordan: A Record of Travel and Observation in the Countries of Moab, Gilead and Bashan. C. Scribner's sons. p. 444. Image of p. 444 at Google Books {{cite book}}: External link in |quote= (help). 96.29.176.92 (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC) & +example 06:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 November 2016[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 20:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transjordan (Bible) → Transjordan in the Bible – The article is not about a Bible named Transjordan. Its about a region named Transjordan. And the Transjordan in question is the only one there is. The current format of the title is therefore weird. Srnec (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's an unorthodox means of disambiguation that may be the best for certain things. I am not proposing to move any other article. One difference is that Azal, Jabal, Jemima, Magog, Seder and Shur are all non-English words (originally). Folks can expect that they are words found in the Bible. When, however, we are dealing with a recognizable or common English words or names the format I propose makes more sense and is widely used, because it cues the reader that the topic is just the thing in the title as it is portrayed in the Bible and not some uniquely biblical thing. See Pharaohs in the Bible, Figs in the Bible, Alcohol in the Bible, Women in the Bible, Serpents in the Bible, Salt in the Bible and Cyrus the Great in the Bible. —Srnec (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: the only thing to do with this article is to merge with Transjordan (region), any renaming just shifts our attention to triviality. WP:NOPAGE Makeandtoss (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "in the Bible" is not generally used for disambiguation, but for describing a more narrow topic. StAnselm (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no ambiguity in the term "Transjordan"; we are just narrowing the topic. Srnec (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per User:StAnselm [sic]. This is not an ambiguity issue but a subset of the single topic of Transjordan. —  AjaxSmack  02:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If this is a separate article, the proposed descriptive name is far clearer and more recognizable than the present title.--Cúchullain t/c 14:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the descriptive name will clarify the fact that it's a subset, not a different topic. -- Tavix (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: per WP:NDESC. Ebonelm (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clarify higher "sanctity" of some parts over others[edit]

The article reads: "The half tribe of Manasseh are not mentioned until verse 33. David Jobling suggests that this is because Manasseh settled in land which previously belonged to Og, north of the Jabbok, while Reuben and Gad settled Sihon's land, which lay south of the Jabbok. Since Og's territory was not on the route to Canaan, it was "more naturally part of the Promised Land", and so the Manassites' status is less problematic than that of the Reubenites or Gadites." I've set in bold letters the part in question.

It makes no immediate sense whatsoever; just look at the map. How was the position vs. Jabbok relevant in this regard? Both areas are right across the Jordan from the Promised Land. Both have fords over the Jordan; one traditional point of crossing, Bethabara, is in Gad's territory, so not in Manasseh's, but also not in Reben's. I tried GoogleBooks, but couldn't get to the relevant explanation. So what is the argument? If it's not indicated here, the whole paragraph becomes a useless irritant and should best be removed. Arminden (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What was the TERRITORY? Plus good MAP needed[edit]

Another article missing the basic info, in the lead as much as in the entire article: what exactly does it cover?

We need a clear explanation of what exactly "Transjordan in the Bible" means: the territory of the 2.5 tribes, or that of Ammon and Moab, or both, or all that plus more? And then a map that shows the extent of Transjordan and the approximate boundaries. If we are talking of 1/2 Manasseh + Gad + Reuben + whatever is left of Ammon and Moab, then that's what we need (use cross-hatching in 2 different colours where the two overlap). Then an explanation should also be added why "Trans-Jordan" doesn't only include what's east of the Jordan River, but also what's east (trans) of the Dead Sea. And what about the Golan Heights, which were part of Aram-Damascus, not inhabited by Israelites, but very much trans the upper course of the Jordan? Arminden (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will help: Transjordan (region). Editor2020 (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transjordan_in_the_Bible&oldid=1195719873"