Amós 1:12

upon Teman According to Eusebius and Jerome (Onomastica, ed. Lagarde, pp. 156, 260), a district of the chiefs (-dukes" [duces) of Edom in Gebal, but also, they add, a village about 15 (Jerome 5) miles from Petra, and the station of a Roman garrison. From Ezequiel 25:13, where it is implied that Teman was in an opposite quarter to Dedan, it may be inferred that, as Dedan was the name of a tribe on the S.

E. of Edom, Teman was in the N. or W. part of Edom. It is mentioned elsewhere in the O.T., as synonymous with Edom, Jeremias 49:7; Obadias 1:9; Habacuque 3:3, or in poetical parallelism with it, Jeremias 49:20: cf.

Gênesis 36:34. Eliphaz, Job's friend, is described as a Temanite (Jó 2:11 &c.) In Gênesis 36:11; Gênesis 36:15 Teman is a grandson of Esau (Edom), the relation of the particular clan to the whole nation being represented genealogically: the name must thus have been that of an Edomite clan, as well as of the region inhabited by it.

Bozrah A town of Edom, mentioned also Gênesis 36:33; Jeremias 49:13; and in poetical parallelism with Edom, Isaías 34:6; Isaías 63:1; Jeremias 49:22.

From the manner in which it is named in most of these passages, it is clear that it must have been an important place. It is in all probability el-Buṣaireh (a diminutive of Boṣrah), about 35 miles N. of Petra, and 20 miles S.E. of the Dead Sea, with (Roman) ruins, first visited by Burckhardt in 1812 (Syria, 1822, p. 407: cf. also Rob. ii. 167; Doughty, Arabia Deserta, i. 31, 38).

Edom is mentioned as paying tribute to Rammân-nirâri III. (K.A.T[132][133] p. 190; K.B[134] i. 191), Tiglath-pileser III. (K.A.T[135][136] p. 258), Sennacherib (ib.p. 291), Esarhaddon, and Asshurbanipal (ib.p. 355). Afterwards, like its neighbours, it fell under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremias 27:3 f.

). During, and after, the Captivity, the Edomites extended their dominions W. of the Arabah, and ultimately transferred themselves thither altogether (the later -Idumaea" being the southern part of Judah); Malachi (Amós 1:3-4) describes Edom as desolate in his day, though how it became so, we do not know; and in b.

c. 312 the Nabataeans, an Arabian tribe, are found located in Edom, where they maintained themselves for many centuries. The cities of Edom finally fell to ruin after the Mohammedan conquest in the seventh century, a.d.

[132] .A.T.… Eb. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A. T., ed. 2, 1883 (translated under the title The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O. T. 1885, 1888). The references are to the pagination of the German, which is given on the margin of the English translation.

[133] … Eb. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A. T., ed. 2, 1883 (translated under the title The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O. T. 1885, 1888). The references are to the pagination of the German, which is given on the margin of the English translation.

[134] .B.… Eb. Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek(1889 ff.).

[135] .A.T.… Eb. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A. T., ed. 2, 1883 (translated under the title The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O. T. 1885, 1888). The references are to the pagination of the German, which is given on the margin of the English translation.

[136] … Eb. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A. T., ed. 2, 1883 (translated under the title The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O. T. 1885, 1888). The references are to the pagination of the German, which is given on the margin of the English translation.

The authenticity of the oracle against Edom is doubted by Wellhausen, and at least suspected by G. A. Smith (p. 129 f.); the former supposes it to be an addition to the original text of Amos, dating from the Chaldaean age. Not only is there in the earlier prophets and historical books no other evidence of such animus against Edom as here displays itself, but Edom, when Amos wrote, had been for two centuries under the yoke of Judah; its first subjection had been accomplished with great cruelty (1 Reis 11:16); Amaziah, also, more recently (801 792 b.

c.), had severely smitten Edom (2 Reis 14:7). Even, therefore, although Edom had shewn itself unfriendly, "was the right to blame them Judah's, who herself had so persistently waged war, with confessed cruelty, against Edom? Could a Judaean prophet be just in blaming Edom and saying nothing of Judah?… To charge Edom, whom Judah had conquered and treated cruelly, with restless hate towards Judah seems to fall below that high impartial tone which prevails in the other oracles of this section.

The charge was much more justifiable at the time of the Exile, when Edom did behave shamefully towards Israel" (G. A. Smith, p. 130). The argument is a forcible one, and the conclusion to which it points maybe the true one: our ignorance, as the same writer proceeds to point out, prohibits our endorsing it absolutely: we do not for instance know the particulars of the revolt under Jehoram or what may have happened to provoke Amaziah's attack upon Edom, or indeed what, generally, may have been Edom's behaviour towards Judah during the century before Amos: there may have been occurrences during this period known to Amos and sufficient to justify the words used by him.