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 any fourth century Christians.

You know how Bible Skeptics say that the 2 Kings 17:24-41 narrative is just Judean propaganda to deny the Israelite Heritage of the Samaritans?  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 etymologically becoming Idum or Idoum in Greek, and for why I will focus on just the first letter.  Maybe there is other 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 it 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 of their Kings known from Assyrian inscriptions had what look like Qos theophoric names, but Qos is also just a Semitic Root meaning Bow (as in Bow and Arrow) and the only seemingly Qos Theophoric name in The Bible is Barkos a Levite 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 Nabataean 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 Idumeans admits Nabatean cultural influence in Maresha.  

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 Caphethra 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 Captivity it probably wasn't as complete as a casual face value reading of the accounts make 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 alleged Idumean cities (the only one in the Bethlehem Governorate rather then the Hebron Governorate) and is the only one mentioned in the context of the Babylonian conquest at all in Jeremiah 6:1, or during the return from the Captivity via the Tekoites in Nehemiah 3.  And Tekoa's own Wikipedia page doesn't even mention it's Idumean connection.  It's only because the Wikipedia page for Edom listed Tekoa as an Idumean city I consider it relevant to bring up here, but I think it was listed as one only as a misunderstanding of what Josephus said.  The way Josephus brings up Tekoa when discoing the Idumeans in Wars of The Jews Book IV Chapter 9 Section 5 (or verse 518 in how some cite it) but I don't think he intended to identify it as an Idumean city.  It is also mentioned near the end of his Autobiography where no connection to the Idumeans is implied.

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

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 cities but for Adoraim this is the first time it is mentioned at all. Rehoboam also had a lot of spare sons and daughters, the new cities he founded he may have put a spare son in charge of while for the older ones he married daughters into the local leading families.

The Idumeans disappear from history after AD 70.  I think in the diaspora 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.

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 or culture. 

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 the Simeonites finished off Amalek in the time of Hezekiah (1 Chronicles 4:39-43), and then possibly more were killed/deported 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 mingled with the mostly 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 (Does the Edomite in 1 Samuel 21-22), Deuteronomy 23:7 instructed Israel to welcome Edomites and Egyptians.  

Over all though, what Simeon does in 1 Chronicles 4 sounds like it fulfilled Obadiah 1:19.  Meaning Biblically Israelites being called Edomites based on where the reside is more to be expected then the reverse. And 2 Chronicles 28:17 records a time during the reign of Ahaz when the Edomites have taken some Judeans as Captives.

Update September 5th 2025: Micah 1:13-16 seemingly lists Maresha among those Judean populations carried away into Captivity by Assyria at the same time as Lachish.  Making it possible Assyria did also settle settle some Edomites there.  There would still make only part of what was considered Idumea later authentically Edomite in origin.

Herod The Great probably was not of Idumean ancestry

The common claim that Herod was Idumean is built entirely on one passage in Josephus that itself acknowledges that isn't the only view of Herod’s ancestry.  Yet everyone on this issue is inclined to trust Josephus over Nicolaus of Damascus in spite of the fact that Josephus himself had an agenda in writing this History the way he did.

First I’m going to Copy/Paste here exactly the relevant passage from Josephus.

Antiquities of The Jews Book 14 Chapter 1 Section 3.

https://gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link142HCH0001

“ But there was a certain friend of Hyrcanus, an Idumean, called Antipater, who was very rich, and in his nature an active and a seditious man; who was at enmity with Aristobulus, and had differences with him on account of his good-will to Hyrcanus. It is true that Nicolaus of Damascus says, that Antipater was of the stock of the principal Jews who came out of Babylon into Judea; but that assertion of his was to gratify Herod, who was his son, and who, by certain revolutions of fortune, came afterward to be king of the Jews, whose history we shall give you in its proper place hereafter. However, this Antipater was at first called Antipas, and that was his father's name also; of whom they relate this: That king Alexander and his wife made him general of all Idumea, and that he made a league of friendship with those Arabians, and Gazites, and Ascalonites, that were of his own party, and had, by many and large presents, made them his fast friends.”

Here are my issues with what Josephus says about this.

First: It makes no sense to me that Alexander Janneus would appoint someone who was an Idumean to govern a people they’d recently conquered and forcibly converted and intend to fully assimilate in a region he intend to fully annex.  In that situation like when Rome appointed governors of full provinces you appoint someone fully of the ruling nation not the local population.  What was called Idumea during this period was Biblically the heart of Judah's tribal allotment, so I see a lot of logic in letting a descendent of David govern it.

Second: When Rome appointed Client Kings they were always someone with legitimate verifiable Royal Ancestry of the people they are being appointed to rule.  Even Tigranes V of Armenia did descend from Tigranes The Great through his mother.  I know a lot of modern fictionalizations of Ancient Rome want to make it seem like anyone with enough money could just bride the Senate into making them a King, but the Romans understood that in order for a puppet King to be accepted in a culture used to hereditary Monarchy he needed something of a valid ancestry. Herod would have needed to be of Davidic Ancestry especially if he indeed wasn’t a Hasmonean.  Because Rome didn’t crown him King of the Idumeans but King of The Jews.

Third: Look into the history of Costobarus the man who actually led the Idumeans during Herod’s reign, Herod oppressed the Idumeans in a way distinct from the way he can be said to have oppressed the Jews, he clearly viewed them as a Subjugated people not his own people.  Josephus talks about this in Antiquities of The Jews Book 15 Chapter 7 sections 9 and 10. 

https://gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link152HCH0007

Now you may object that “Josephus wasn’t even hostile to all the Herodians, he seems to have liked both Agrippas?".  Those Herods had Hasmonean heritage either way through Mariamne.  Josephus claimed a Hasmonean connection for himself at the start of his autobiography so that kinship may have meant more to him than descent from David anyway.  So Josephus' genealogy makes the Herodians he doesn't like foreigners who shouldn't have ruled Israel and the ones he does like part of a unified dynasty with equal right to rule both Israel and Idumea.

It frustrates me how many Christians take this so for granted they try to read it sub-textually into Herod’s New Testament significance, saying that when The Magi said “Born King of The Jews” it’s partially a dig at Herod’s Idumean heritage.  

The New Testament doesn’t address Herod’s ancestry one way or the other.  But by showing that Jesus’ descent from David could still be documented it does testify against the plausibility of Nicolas of Damascus being able to get away with simply making a Davidic ancestry up. When Josephus wrote Antiquities however much of those records had been destroyed with The Temple in the War, so he could lie about Herod’s ancestry (or uncritically repeat lies others told) without being fact checked.

If the Magi were commenting on an issue with Herod's legal right to rule at all, it could just be him not being the Senior Heir even to his father, he was not Anipater's First-Born.

But mostly I think they are only referring to how Jesus Kingship is more valid because it's ordained by God.  A normal Hereditary Monarch doesn't become King at birth but when their father dies.

I often allude to this view of mine when discussing other things, so I felt it was about time I devoted a specific to defending it. 

Update February 4th 2025: I've now argued that the Idumeans weren't Edomites but only in time accused of being Edomites.  So that could go either way in terms of it's impact on this. 

Update February 12th 2025: I've even become skeptical of the presumable Greek Etymology of the name Herod wondering if it could relate to the designation Harodite from 2 Samuel 23:25.

Edom and Christianity

In Talmudic and Rabbinic Literature both Rome and Christianity are often identified with Edom.  The popular assumption is Rome was identified with Edom first then it was applied to Christianity after it became the dominant religion of Rome.  However both these identifications seem to start in the Fourth Century with Rhetoric from the Jewish Revolt against Constantius Gallus, so the identification going the other way is just as plausible.

There is a poetry to associating Christianity with Edom from a Jewish POV that I think many overlook.  Christianity is an Abrahamic Religion but one that unlike Islam identifies itself with Isaac over Ishmael in Romans 9:7-9 and Galatian 4:28.  

The relationship between Edom and Israel in The Hebrew Bible is complicated, they are often enemies yet their shared kinship is never forgotten.  In Deuteronomy 23:7 God tells Israel to always welcome Edomites even though the then contemporary King of Edom refused to let the Israelites pass through their territory back in Numbers 20:14-21.  Esau himself was not ultimately a bad person and in fact plenty of Rabbis will acknowledge that he was partly in the right in his conflicts with Jacob.  And sometimes the worst aspects of Edom’s legacy is entirely placed on Amalek.  

One of the very few direct references to Esau in the New Testament is in Romans 9:10-13 where Paul quotes Malachi’s opening verses.  What Calvinists ignore is the role this plays in the greater context of this part of Romans going into chapter 10 and 11 where now those God “hated” before are being blessed and Israel is under temporary spiritual blindness.  So Paul himself is arguably poetically identifying Gentile Christianity with Edom, and doing so to specifically a Roman audience.  There’s also the interesting case of how James in Acts 15:15-17 quotes Amos 9:11-12.

I’m a Leftist, but one common opinion among Breadtubers I don’t like is the notion that "Judeo-Christian" is a problematic term that shouldn’t be used.  They say it from two angles, one of “how dare you suggest Jews and Christians ever have common ground”, but the other angle is that it’s offensive to exclude Muslims.  However this fact that Jews see Christianity as Edom itself proves that they do see the common Isaac based heritage and thus see Christianity as closer to them then Islam is in some senses at least.  However the name of Isaac does not phonetically lend itself to making a derivative term like “Abrahamic”.  I’m not one of those Christians who wants to deny Islam is Abrahamic, for better and for worse they are the true heirs of Ishmael, but there are contexts where it’s necessary to be more specific.

But now let’s also look specifically at the Fourth Century Context of Jews in The Roman Empire.  

The Empire was claiming to now worship the same God yet was still enforcing Hadrian’s ban on them entering their Holy City of Jerusalem.  Hadrian didn’t just forbid Jews entering Jerusalem but even living anywhere Jerusalem was visible from, Jerusalem is visible from as far away as Bethlehem.  Hadrian didn’t resettle the area primarily with expats from Italy, Rome didn't quite do Colonialism like that, no most of it was moving around nearby Gentiles.  

The Idumeans seemingly disappeared from history after AD 70.  I imagine some Christians want to interpret Bible Prophecy so this is when they were wiped out, fulfilling many Hebrew Bible prophecies about Edom, but if The Jews survived this then the Idumeans who were even less centered around Jerusalem certainly did.  Maybe in time a good number became Christians.

The city of Eleutheropolis is an interesting case, also known as Bayt Jibrin and Baitogabra.  In Josephus it seems like the Idumeans of this town were completely wiped out or expelled in AD 68, but its references in the Midrash Rabba (Genesis Rabba, section 67) show Jews still saw it as Edomite well past that point.  The Roman Emperor Septimius Severus gave it the status of ius italicum meaning its citizens were all legally considered Roman Citizens.

Whether or not this city actually had a Pre Fourth Century Christian Community is hard to determine, tradition says Joseph Barsabas Justus of Acts 1:23 was its first Bishop but there are no historically confirmed Bishops till Macrinus who was at The Council of Nicaea, that could be just because they didn’t practice Episcopal Polity till Nicaea.  Acts 8:1 says after the martyrdom of Stephen the believers scattered all over Samaria and Judaea, this Idumea is part of what's Judah in Joshua 15 so that could be included here, and Mark 3:8 does refer to Idumaeans as among those having come to listen to Jesus.  In the Fourth Century Eleutheropolis is said to have the largest territory of any Bishopric in Palestina which is shocking considering that Province includes the very important Early Christian Bishoprics of Caesarea and Jerusalem.  I've seen some sources claim Eusebius of Caesarea lived in Eleutheropolis but I'm unsure I trust that claim.

Christian Rome also refused to let Jews live in Hebron, a city important in The Pentateuch but that had also become Idumean after the Babylonian Exile.

The Bishop of the Christian Community in Rome when the Edict of Milan was issued was named Militades, a Greek name that comes from a Greek word for Red that more specifically means “Red Earth”.  Edom is a Hebrew word for the color Red deliberately spelled the same as Adam which means Earth/Ground/Dirt.  

So the logic behind seeing Christianity as the symbolic heirs of Edom in the Fourth Century both locally in Palestine and in the heart of the Empire is sound.