A Transgender Marriage in the Genealogy of Jesus!

What if I told you there was a Marriage between a Trans Male and a Trans Woman in Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus?

The key verse is Matthew 1:5.  

First the name rendered in the KJV as Rachab to identify the spouse with whom Salmon begat Boaz, the Strong’s Concordance number for this name is G4477.  Modern commentators almost always default to assuming this is Rahab of the Book of Joshua.  

Problem is Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 unambiguously refer to that Rahab and how it’s transliterated into Greek is completely different, it’s simply Raab (but the KJV adds the H back in the middle even though it usually doesn’t “correct” the Greek spellings like that) it’s Strong’s Number is G4460.

Also Jewish Traditions consistently tell a different story about who Rahab later married, Megilah 14b13 says she married Joshua (Wikipedia as I write this claims the Talmud agrees Rahab married Salmon and cites this but their own link https://www.sefaria.org/Megillah.14b?lang=bi makes no reference to Salmon or Boaz).  Now as a Low Church Protestant I would agree that if The New Testament and Jewish Traditions disagree we should believe The New Testament.  But an apparent disagreement exists only because of a disputable transliteration.  Genealogies like these are supposed to be based on prior records even if only oral ones, if Rahab married Salmon there would exist some Jewish memory of that, but there isn’t. 

The website BlueLetterBible.Org confirms that Raab is how Rahab’s name is rendered in the Greek Manuscripts of The Hebrew Bible we commonly call the Septuagint.  However it does not consider Rachab to be present in the Septuagint at all.  But there is one name in the Septuagint whose similarity to Rachab is striking, certainly far more similar than any form of Rahab.

To break it down, the Greek spelling of Rachab in Matthew 1:5 is Rho-Alpha-Chi-Alpha-Beta.  In the Septuagint version of 1 Chronicles 2:55 the name we read in the KJV as Rechab is spelled Rho-Eta-Chi-Alpha-Beta.  The only difference is the second letter which is a vowel, Hebrew of course has no Vowels and the way the Masoretic Texts indicates Vowel pronunciations was developed well after the time of The New Testament.  This isn’t the only time Matthew disagrees with the Septuagint on what the first Vowel of a name should be, the way we commonly render the name of Solomon is based on how The New Testament Greek Texts render it, but the Septuagint actually prefers Salomon.  There is also precedent for specifically the interchangeability of Alpha and Eta in Hebrew to Greek Transliteration.  In Revelation how Hallelujah is spelled has an Alpha as the vowel after the Yot in Yah, but how Theophoric names that start with Yah are rendered in Greek usually has an Eta instead.  

1 Chronicles 2:55 is in the context of the Genealogy connecting Judah to David, in fact a variant of Salmon’s name and Bethlehem are in the prior verse, but how they are relevant to it isn’t clear.

There is really only one reason scholars usually don’t consider this Rechab to be a candidate for who Matthew’s Rachab is, and that’s how Rechab is technically a Masculine name and so every occurrence of that name in The Hebrew Bible is usually assumed to be to a Male individual. Technically however Rachab is just as Masculine in form. 

The name of Salmon, the generation between Nahshon and Boaz, is rendered three different ways in the Masoretic Text of The Hebrew Bible.  In Ruth 4:20 when he is begotten his name is Salmah (though the KJV renders it Salmon) a name that ends with a Heh making it whether the Strong’s admits it or not Grammatically Feminine. But then verse 21 when he begats Boas his name is rendered Salmon which is grammatically Masculine.  In The Hebrew Ruth 4:21 is the only appearance of the name Salmon, (Psalm 68:14’s Salmon begins with a different letter and should be Zalmon).  1 Chronicles 2 uses the name Salma which feels almost like it’s supposed to be a compromise between the two forms in Ruth.

Matthew and Luke both when listing this generation in their Genealogies for Jesus use Salmon, confirming that for Christians the most proper name for this person is the one used in Ruth 4:21.

So being given a Girl’s name at Birth but going by a Male name later with that male name ultimately being confirmed to be their True Name. What does that sound like to you?  It sounds to me like someone who was Assigned Female at Birth but was truly an Ish rather than Ishshah.

So I’m confident that Salmon was Trans Masculine and that Rechab was the provider of the Seed that convinced Salmon’s children. That Rechab was Trans Feminine I’m less certain of. Matthew referring to them in a way he elsewhere only refers to mothers is compelling.  But he doesn’t use a word for Wife or Mother or Pregnancy, as far as the words used go Rachab is defined only as in some way a partner in the Begetting of Boaz.

Second Kings 17:24-41 was never meant to be about the origin of the Samaritans.

The word Samaritans is used in the KJV of verse 29, but the Hebrew word used there has no T in it, it’s just Samarians.  And it clearly refers to the people who lived here before these Mesopotamians, not them or their future descendants.

I also think it’s important to note that like the entirety of 2 Kings 17 this is really principally just about the City of Samaria, it ends the Northern Kingdom because that was its Capital.  I believe in verse 24 we’ve jumped forward to the time of Sargon II and his one account of what he did here confirms it’s about that one single city.

And Samaria the City was ironically enough never a Samaritan city, it was all through Classical Antiquity the capital of Paganism in Eretz Israel right down to Herod The Great building his major Temples to the Deified Augustus and Kore there.

Ezra and Nehemiah refer more to these Pagan Gentiles living in the land, now definitely in Cities plural, seemingly referring to additional settlement there under Esar-Haddon and Asnappar popularly presumed to be Ashurbanipal.  But those books still never mention Shechem, the city that was the actual core of the Samaritan community.

I’ve recently bought an English Translation of the Samaritan Chronicles and they do not connect their history to Sanballat at all.

But what about Matthew 10?  Doesn't verse 5 in the context of verse 6 confirm that Jesus doesn't view the Samaritans as Israelites?  

What if the Samaritans are excluded form the "Lost Sheep of The House of Israel" classification for the opposite reason Gentiles are excluded?  What if Jesus doesn't consider Lost Per Se?  

What if the Sense of Lostness he's referring to is a product of the cultural influences of the Babylonian Activity and Greek Philosophy that all three Sect of First Century Judaism have been subject to in different ways but not the Samaritans who have neither the Proto Talmudism of the Pharisees the Epicureanism of the Sadducees or the Pythagoreanism of the Essenes/Herodians?

IDK, that's one possible answer, there could be others. 

Judeo-Christian

My use of Judeo-Christian as a term is usually when what I’m saying is applicable only to Judaism and Christianity, when it applies to all Abrahamic Religions I do say Abrahamic.  And a lot of times it's a term uses just to acknowledge the Jewish origins of Christianity.

The Three Major Abrahamic Religions form a Venn Diagram, you can make any one of them seem the most different from the other two based on what you choose to Emphasize or De Emphasize.  And all three have in common not just what it academically means to be Abrahamic but also our expectation of a future Bodily Resurrection of the Dead, that  is why I don't accuse Muslims of being Pagans.

Thing is Christianity’s common ground with either of the others is much more doctrinal, much more tied to the core definition of what being a Christian even is.  While the common ground between Judaism and Islam is much more cultural, a product of being tied to the Near East and Semitic Languages.   And indeed Middle Eastern Semitic Speaking Christians seem a lot less different from Jews and Muslims on such things. 

I’ve talked before about how the core confessional beliefs of New Testament Christianity are that Jesus is both The Christ/Messiah and The Son of God.  Muslims agree that Jesus was The Messiah of Al-Maish.  Jews don’t believe Jesus was the Only Begotten Son of God but they do believe all Israelites are Children of God.

I identify with the label Judeo-Christian not because of what that tends to mean politically to American Conservatives who I loath, or because I want to deny that Islam is Abrahamic (which I don’t), or because of my sympathies with the Hebrew Roots movement, or even the Isaac connection I focused on in the Edom post.  It’s because what we have in common with Islam over Judaism is something nominal, something with minimal impact on how Islam actually functions as a Religion while Judaism does still believe in the concept that they believe Jesus was not.

Islam rejects the concept of calling God Father at all, or any people even faithful Believers God’s Children.  That’s not an accusation thrown at them by Christian Polemicists, it’s something I’ve seen Islamic Apologists explain and defend.  Within Judaism there is dispute on if the Fatherhood of God applies to all of Humanity or only Israel (which has parallels within Christianity), I’ve seen Jewish Websites taking the more exclusivist position quote Rashi as agreeing with them, but today the more Universalist approach has become more popular.

The Fatherhood of God is vital to my Theology, to my Understanding of Universal Salvation.  Jesus' status as The Messiah, as a prophesied Savior figure, only has any meaning in the context of being a means by which The Father intends to Save His Children.

Of course there are Christians who’ve functionally removed the Fatherhood of God from how they view His character.  What’s wrong with Islam is mostly what it has in common with Calvinism.

Sam Aronow is a Jewish History YouTuber who I view as the Modern Josephus in that his presentation of history is better the more recent it is.  He provides an invaluable breakdown of the History of Modern Zionism for example.  But every video on Ancient History is filled with glaring issues that to someone like me who’s into the primary sources for these subjects are very frustrating to listen to.

In his video on the birth of Islam he went on a rant about how he doesn’t like “Judeo-Christian” because he feels Judaism has more in common with Islam than Christianity, he’s barely concealing that what motivates this is annoyance at American Conservatives, he’s looking at it through the lens of two religions that are both marginalized minorities in the West and is looking for common ground because of that.  But the most recent episodes of his own series have shown how quick and easy it was for Arab Christians and Muslims to find solidarity with each other when they felt threatened by Zionism.  And there are now plenty of Fundamentalist Islamic states where it’s Jews and Christians who have a shared status of being oppressed by Islam.  I 100% Blame Western Imperialism for the current state of Islam, but regardless that’s our reality. 

But what’s funny to me is how even though it's motivated by annoyance at political usage of Judeo-Christian in a mostly Protestant Country (Conservative American Jews do go along with it like Ben Shapiro), he’s clearly making his argument based on Catholicism.

Like on the “Central Authority” issue he’s definitely thinking of Catholicism.  Low Church Congregational Polity denominations are definitely way less central in their authority then either Judaism or Islam.

Judaism and Islam have a more Dogmatic Ritual Law system while Christianity was never intended to be an Organized Religion in that way.  But various strands of Christianity do have cultural practices we debate about, like the Foot Washing argument or when to observe the Eucharist.

The idea that in Christianity our Personal Relationship with God is influenced by Worldly Affairs just comes from nowhere, the Relationship with God is via The Spirit.  Christians also don’t believe we have any promise that nothing bad will happen to us.  The only Christians who believe anything close to that today are the Prosperity Theology heretics who are a unique product of 20th Century American Capitalism.

The concept of a Personal Relationship with God is one Christianity has that the other two don’t according to Aronow, but for different reasons.  For Judaism it’s a matter of where we are on the timeline, Hebrew Bible Prophecies that Christians view as more already Fulfilled then Jews do.  For Islam it’s about doubling down on the Platonist heresies of Divine Impassibility and Divine Immutability that they inherited from Christianity. 

I know when you ask Google if Judaism teaches either of those things the first answer you’ll get is yes because websites like Wikipedia can only interpret that question as asking if The Messiah can be God in The Flesh.  But The Hebrew Bible definitely teaches a God who is emotional and changes and Jewish Theologians recognize that.  

Sam Aronow also misunderstands why the Miaphysites (if he’s against calling people things they don’t like being called he should stop saying Monophysites) and Nestorians seemingly have more compatibility with early Islam then the followers of the Imperial Churches. They did not stress the Human Nature of Christ any more than the Chalcedonians did.  

A lot of it was being more culturally Semitic, but for Nestorians it was chiefly sharing the extreme view of Divine Impassibility.  It was actually only within Chalceodniasm there was ever any resistance to Divine Impassibility especially in the 6th Century when the Fifth Ecumenical Council explicitly affirmed The Theopaschite Formula.

There was no Council of Yavne or Jamnia, that’s a conjecture formed from a few vague Talmudic references to some discussion of the Canon happening there.  

Religion for Breakfast has a good video on how there was no one signal moment that Judaism and Christianity split but rather many were to some degree getting along attending Synagogue and observing Jewish Feast Days together even into the Fifth Century, in fact the Council of Orleans is evidence for Gaul into the 6th Century.  The Greco-Roman Emperors and High Church Bishops tended to not like it but for the common people it was a different matter.  

In a way the belief in a very early clean break between Christianity and Judaism is tied to the popular misconception of Christian persecution under Rome.   The Neronian Persecution didn't happen, the persecution under Domitian was part of his persecution of Jews and the same liekly applies to what little Roman in origin Christian Persecution happened under Trajan and Hadrian. Christian Persecution happened in select outbursts, originally mostly local. Only the Diocletian Persecution was as intense as popular fiction will present the entire Pre-Milvian Bridge Era. So no Christians were not by default excluded from the legal protections granted to Jews by Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Septimus Severus and Caracalla. Tertullian talks about Severus being well disposed towards Christians so I get annoyed at him being labeled one of the 10 great Persecutors just because of things that happened during his reign, same goes for Marcus Aurelius.  Also no Caracalla did not massacre his own wedding to start a War with Parthia.

Personally I theorize that in the Revolt Against Constantius Gallus some Nicene Christians allied with the Jewish Rebels seeing the Arian Emperor as a common enemy, after all Athanasius was calling him a forerunner of The Antichrist.  Cyril of Jerusalem claims loyalty to The Emperor publicly in his surviving letters but I’m skeptical of that. Likewise during the reign of Valens I suspect some Near Eastern Jews may have allied with the Nicene Arab Queen Mawiya.  But our later Historians of these events didn’t wanna talk about that. 

Aronow’s discussion of Constantine takes at face value too much of what Eusbeius says, Eusibius liked to make his fictionalized Constantine a mouthpiece for his own views.  The real reason for the desire to stop using the Jewish Calendar for determining the date of Pascha was because of the same issues going on within Judaism, people didn’t like it falling too far from the Spring Equinox.  The Kariates came to a similar conclusion.

And Aelia Eudocia wasn’t a Pagan, she was a Christian who even got involved in an internal Christian dispute siding with the Miaphysites in their 452-3 revolt.  Another revolt that I speculate might have gotten Jewish support that the chroniclers ignored given Eudocia friendly relations with the Jews.

I’m not making this post to tell anyone who they should and shouldn’t feel solidarity with.  I’m simply showing why it’s not nonsense to see Christianity and Judaism as more like each other than either is to Islam. 

Euphrates in The Bible

There is possibly no type of thing that shares its name with others of the same type of thing more commonly than rivers.  People who study the geography of Britain love to make fun of how most of its many rivers have one of only three different names.  This is partly caused by a lot of communities just calling whatever river is important to their way of life simply what their word for river is.

Biblically that’s why the Nile is never mentioned by name, The Israelites spent so much time in Egypt that an Egyptian word from River simply became a loan word in Hebrew that gets translated River because it’s used synonymously with Nahar.

However there is one River name in The Bible people continue to insist can only ever refer to one very specific river, The Euphrates.

In Speculation on where Eden and it’s Garden was, the most respectable theories are considered the ones built on assuming there is only one Euphrates, but assuming that Euphrates is the River that runs through Iraq, Syria and Turkey forces so many other place names in this passage to be somewhere other then what they usually mean in Scripture. Frankly I think after The Flood (and I think this even when entertaining a local Flood view) the naming of all places were essentially rebooted, there is no real point in trying to identify them.

However, the appearances of the name Eurphates in The Bible that really bug me are when it’s used to define the boundaries of The Promised Land, Genesis 15:18, Deuteronomy 1:7, Deuteronomy 11:24 and Joshua 1:4. 

Because the most truly detailed descriptions of the boundary of what is promised to The Twelve Tribes of Israel in Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 47-48 clearly make The Jordan the eastern border.  The three Trans-Jordan Tribes are depicted as departing from God’s intention when they ask to settle in those Trans-Jordan regions, God allows it but it’s still not his ideal. In Deuteronomy 1-2 God even talks about Edom, Moab and Ammon also having their lands because God gave it to them.

If it was just the Promise to Abraham we could argue the other side of Jordan is what's for the other Abrahamic Peoples.  The other three verses are the real concern.

Maybe the Euphrates is somehow a Northern Border rather than Eastern, especially given its pairing with the Al-Arish (River in Egypt) in the South.  Well the Northern border of Israel is more complicated to explain but the mounting evidence is that it too doesn't extend further north then Sidon at the absolute most but probably no further north than the northern extent of modern Israel pre taking the Golan Heights.

The Tribe of Dan in Judges 18 leaves their intended allotment and I suspect the intended allotment of Israel altogether just like the Trans-Jordan tribes did except without even asking permission first.  So even if Laish is much further North then Tel-Dan the use of Dan as an idiom for Israel’s northern extent is still in my view a matter of the Southern Border of Dan being the Northern Border of Israel.

Hamath as the name of a specific City is not even in Lebanon but Syria north of Lebanon.  But I think many Biblical uses of it are of a wider territory and that specifically the “Entering in of Hamath” is that space between the southern Litani River and the northern Jordan. 

Obadiah 1:20 is difficult to Translate it seems, but many versions make Zarephath the northern extent of Israel and that is most likely a reference to Sarepta, a city located south of Sidon.  When defining  Asher’s northern extent Joshua 19:28 identifies it with places approaching Sidon. 

Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 27-28 use names for the Northern Borders not found anywhere else and thus seemingly impossible to identify on their own now.  But I'm compelled by Joseph Schwars’s argument that this northern Mount Hor is the southern tip of the Lebanon Mountain Range. 

The name Lebanon in The Bible refers to a Mountain Range not a nation state, but it is pretty much all in modern Lebanon. And that’s the thing about the Deuteronomy and Joshua Euphrates references, if you read them carefully they are clearly placing their Euphrates in or right next to  the Lebanon Mountains. Which makes the most viable river to match that description the Litani River.

When you google “Is the Litani River mentioned in The Bible” you’ll find that it’s not by that name but people see in the references to Misrephothmain in Joshua 11:8 and 13:6 which clearly associates it with being unto Sidon like the northern border of Asher, but that name I think refers specifically to where it meets the Mediterranean.

I think the Euphrates in early Israelite History was always the Litani and in The Bible doesn’t refer to the river in Mesopotamia till the Babylonian Captivity or maybe at the soonest the references to Necho King of Egypt fighting Assyria there.

So that’s my take, the northern border of Israel is the East-West flowing part of the Litani River. 

David and Solomon and other Kings wound up ruler a larger territory, that's as Tributaries, they never tried to annex anything beyond what the Twelve Tribes were allotted.

As far as the small piece of Lebanon that is Biblical Israel in the argument I just made.   God tolerated Tyre being Sidonian in Antiquity. I'm sure he’s fine with it now too. 

I am skeptical that the Idumeans were ever Edomites

As far as the role Idumea and Idumeans played in my Edom and Christianity post, the belief in that connection is what matters there, it was never about arguing for a literal Genealogical link between Edom and Christian.

You know how Bible Skeptics say that the 1 Kings 17:24-41 narrative for the origins of the Samaritans is just Judean propaganda to deny their Israelite Heritage?  Well whether that’s true or not the same idea is what I think happened to the Idumeans, they were a group of fellow Israelites who became too culturally distinct for some conservatives to tolerate admitting their full kinship.

The first problem is that Ezra-Nehemiah spends some time talking about Gentiles in the region who are posing a problem for the returning Israelites, but the Edomites aren’t among them. Yet the standard understanding of Edomite-Idumean history is that the Edomites settled in the Hebron-Maresha region during the Captivity. 

I’m skeptical of Edom becoming Idum or Idoum in Greek, and for why I will focus on just the first letter.  Maybe there is another precedent for names that begin with an Aleph becoming an Iota in Greek, but it’s uncommon, usually the Iota replaces the Yot while Aleph becomes either Alpha or one of the Es.

Joshua 15:52 lists a place called Dumah in the allotment of Judah.  Lots of Hebrew names that begin with a Yot have variants without the Yot and it seems the non Yot version often came first.  So if a Y’dumah version of this place name existed at some point it could have become Idumea in Greek.  The only appearance of this name in the New Testament is Mark:38 where it’s a name of a region not of a people group.

The Greek Texts commonly called the Septuagint or LXX are, I believe, much later then they are traditionally claimed to be, and that the use of forms of Idumea for Edom and Edomite in it are derived from the false Idumean-Edomites identification not an argument for it. Yet it is still not always used. Genesis 25:30 uses a spelling that begins with Epsilon and has an Omega in it as does 32:3. Genesis 36:16 is the only appearance of an Iota form in the entire LXX Pentateuch.  The Pentateuch is the oldest part of the LXX, both the letter of Aristeas and Josephus refer to it as only being The Pentateuch.  Yet even the LXX Pentateuch as we know it likely had some later tampering since our oldest copies for much of it are 4th Century Christian Bibles.  (And strangely enough Dumah is missing from the LXX of Joshua 15.)

Every place where the KJV Translation of the Apocryphal 1 Esdras says Edomites is Idumeans in the Greek.  1 Maccabees 5 refers to Children of Esau in Idumea but only there it doesn't repeat in other references to people in Idumea nor does the topic of Esau come up in 2 Maccabees.

The main pillar of alleged Archaeological evidence for this connection is that Qos was worshiped at pre-Hasmonean Marshea, but it’s mostly only because of this that Qos is viewed as a distinctly Edomite National Deity.  The only evidence for original Edomites having anything to do with Qos is that two for their Kings known from Assyrian Inscriptions had what look like Qos theophoric names, but Qos is also just a Semitic Root meaning Bow and the only seemingly Qos Theophoric in The Bible is Barkos a Levites in Ezra 2:53 and Nehemiah 7:55 not an Edomite.

Both The Hebrew Bible and Egyptian Records heavily imply the Edomites also worshiped YHWH, just possibly in an Idolatrous fashion like the Northern Kingdom.

Qos the Pagan deity is probably Nabatena in origin, a variant of the Arabian Quzzah.  When Strabo said the Idumeans were of Nabatean origin he was partly right culturally more so than genealogically. Even the mainstream view of the Iudmeans admits Nabatean cultural influence in Maresha.  (And it may or may not be relevant to note that the descendants of Dumah son of Ishmael were associated with Seir in Isaiah 21:11 and were probably counted among the Nabateans in Greco-Roman times.) 

A Marriage Contract considered Idumean found at Maresha dated to 176 BC (before the Maccabees) closely resembles Ketubah Jewish marriage contracts. I think these Idumeans were just highly Hellenized Judeans, possibly to the point of leaving Judaism altogether but at least to the point of tolerating Polytheism/Idolatry and neglecting Circumcision.  Josephus includes Cappethra among Idumean towns but it's own Wikipedia Page says the archelogy shows it's population to have always been Hellenized Jews during the Hellenistic era.

But maybe some degree of cultural divergence begins with the Babylonian Captivity.  Just like the Assyrian it probably wasn't as complete as a casual face value reading of the account makes it seem.  Specifically there is no Biblical or Archeological evidence for Hebron or these other later Idumean cities having their populations deported.  Tekoa/Teqoa is the furthest north of Josephus's Idumean cities and is the only one mentioned in the context of the Babylonian conquest at all in Jeremiah 6:1, or during the return form the Captivity via the Tekoites in Nehemiah 3.

The forced Conversion of the Idumeans isn’t in either book of Maccabees since it happens after their narrative ends.  Josephus refers to the Forced Conversion which he says happened under Hyrcanus I, but Josephus says Hyrcanus tried this on more than just Idumeans but it only seems to have stuck with them. 

There are also historians who question the narrative of a conquest and forced conversion of the Idumeans in the first place, but do so in the context of thinking they converted more willingly over time. I think the “conversion” of the Idumeans was really just rolling back their extreme Hellenization and that they were always Israelites of the Tribe of Judah.  

Their leading families probably descended from Caleb and/or Cadet Branches of the House of David.  Adoraim was built or rebuilt by Rehoboam according to 2 Chronicles 11:9, actually the same chapter says the same for a number of these but for Adoraim this is the first time it shows up. Rehoboam also had a lot of spare sons and daughters.

The Idumeans disappear from history after AD 70.  I think in the captivity the quasi distinction between them and other Judeans simply faded away.  But I suspect some did become Christians and maybe particularly contributed to the Palestinian population both in the Hebron region and the Liturgical Greek Palestinian Christians of Jerusalem & Bethlehem and nearby villages which emerged after the Bar Kokhba Revolt.

How does this recontextualize my argument for Herod not being an Idumean?  It could go either way really. 

What happened to the Edomites?  Well like The Hebrew Bible says I think their history simply ended when they were conquered by Babylon, in Jeremiah’s prophecies of various nations being similarly conquered Edom stands out in being the only one without a promised restoration. Any people of Edomite ancestry who did survive were simply absorbed into other peoples, that was the end of Edom as a distinct identity. 

Even what was still there for Babylon to conquer was already a greatly diminished remnant, they’d previously been nearly wiped out by Amaziah (2 Kings 14:7-10 and 2 Chronicles 25:14-20) and then by Simeonites in the time of Hezekiah (1 Chronicles 4:39-43) and then possibly by Assyria, the last recorded King of Edom was a contemporary of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal.  

Maybe there is a small chance that a small number of Edomites wound up living in Southern Judah and mingling with the most Judahites who lived there and brought a few cultural influences with them.  But some Edomites winding up among the Israelites was happening all the way back in the days of Saul.

Betar is mentioned in the Masoretic Text

[Update Feburary 5th 2025: This theory is defunct since I now know the name of Betharabah points to the Arabah plain in the east.  Also the Archeology for Betar only goes back to the 700s BC so indeed probably isn't in Joshua 15.  Rather it could be one of the cities built in the Mountains of Judah by King Jotham in 2 Chronicles 27:4, or perhaps have it's roots in Uzziah's projects from 26:10.  Based on what The Talmud says it seems Betar was a name given to this city because of The Bar-Kochba Revolt.]

Shiloh and Bethel

Shiloh as a name of a location does not appear in the Pentateuch, the name only appears in a Prophecy in Genesis 49, that can be interpreted as about the later Shiloh but we Christians like to see it is ultimately about Jesus.

If I used the Pentateuch alone to deduce where God intended the final resting place of The Tabernacle to be, I would assume it was Bethel based on Genesis 28. Genesis 12 and 13 use the name Bethel retroactively, it was because of the events of Genesis 28 that Israelites called where Jacob rested Bethel and in time that also applied that name to the nearby town of Luz.

Bethel is one of the more indisputable locations in Biblical Archeology, I do not dispute that modern Beitin is where the city of Luz/Bethel was.  In Joshua 16 and 18 Bethel is laced on the border of the Ephraim and Benjamin as a place that in some sense belongs to both.

Shiloh as a place name is introduced in the Book of Joshua but not during the accounts of the conquest or the allotment of lands to the Tribes, it first appears as the place where Joshua set up The Tabernacle that housed The Ark of The Covenant.   1 Samuel seems to imply The Ark remained consistently in Shiloh all through The Judges period until they lost it to The Philistines. And yet Judges 20:26-27 places The Ark at Bethel in the only reference to The Ark in the Book of Judges.

Really the only Bible passage that gives us any clue where Shiloh is located in Judges 21:19.

It’s first described as “on the Northside of Bethel” but that does not read to me as “North of Bethel” per se, certainly not closer to Shechem then Bethel where it’s traditionally placed. Rather it sounds more like it’s identifying it as Northern Bethel, in the context of how Bethel is allotted in Joshua you could say Ephraim’s side of Bethel.

But the verse also then places Shiloh to the East, towards the rising sun, on the road going up to Shechem.

Back in Genesis 12-13 Abraham’s Bethel Altar wasn’t in the city proper but east of it, between Bethel and Hai/Ai on the road as he traveled to and from Shechem. The place where Jacob rested is assumed to be the same. 

This Biblical Archaeology YouTube channel talks about the ruins of a Church built East of Bethel and West of Hai/Ai that is presumed to have commemorated that very location.

https://youtu.be/8cqBePFD9S4

I used Google Maps to get a better sense of this geography than the very primitive maps provided in the video.  And these ruins are indeed east of modern Beitin, but specifically of Northern Beitin, very far north.

So I believe that was the true location of Shiloh, where the name was principally used of The Tabernacle.  I don’t think it was ever much of its own distinct city but may have been at times synonymous with northern Bethel or Ephraimite Bethel.

The Daughters of Shiloh from Judged 21:21 I think refers to the Women by the Gate of the Tabernacle.

The Prophet Ahaijah was called a Shilonite I think because he liked to live a Hermit like lifestyle nearby the former Tabernacle location rather than as an indication of citizenship to a specific City.

I think the Shilonites of 1 Chronicles 9:5 are really a variation of Shelanites (Numbers 26:20) given how it appears between Pheraz and Zerah discussing the Tribe of Judah.

When you make a Map of the layout of The Holy Land in Ezekiel 40-48 you will notice that the Temple/Tabernacle isn’t in The City YHWHW-Shamah but significantly to the north of if.  If YHWH-Shamah is Jerusalem then perhaps this Mishkan is Shiloh east of Bethel once again, but even that assumption could be wrong.

I think the city most commonly traditionally identified with Shiloh is actually the Taanathshiloh located in northern Ephraim in Joshua 16:6.