Talk:Zoara

Medaba Map

It's nice that there's a scholarly cite but it's patently wrong. The actual inscription is ΒΑΛΑΚΗΚ[lacuna] ΖΟΟΡΑ (BALAKĒK... ZOORA). Whatever Balakek is, it's a repeated toponym across the map and not the name of the place, which was obviously Zoora in the Palestinian Byzantine Greek of Justinian's era. — LlywelynII 02:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Archaeology

"Several excavation surveys have been conducted in this area in the years 1986-1996. Ruins of a basilical church ... An adjacent cave ..."

1) I cannot imagine what an "excavation survey" could be. Was an "archaeological survey" actually meant? Or pre-excavation surveys? Or a mix of excavations and surveys?

2) Sources/refs: messy.

This section was placed before and in uninterrupted continuity (one single paragraph) with the one about the Jewish-and-Christian cemetery, with only one ref at the end of the entire endless paragraph, the ref itself consisting of a long sausage of 4 articles, 3 of them by Naveh, discussing grave inschriptions. I doubt that Naveh + Nebe & Sima was the source for the Sanctuary of St Lot as well, but when I separated the two (different locations!, different topics), I had no choice but to place the same group-ref behind both, now separated, paragraphs. And the Naveh articles are in Hebrew, and lack an URL. Nebe & Sima are in German and lack any online data whatsoever. Not a good sourcing practice! What now?

Please, use online refs more often, ideally after each sentence! It's Wiki, you know. Arminden (talk) Arminden (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Davidbena: hi David. Sorry, it seems that you've added the material (here), which is very rich and useful, but the ref is very problematic. Can you please check if it covers the cave sanctuary of Lot as well? If not, it must be removed from there and replaced by a "citation needed" tag. Thanks! Arminden (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Arminden:. The source, as you can see, is referenced with an academic journal published here, in Israel. I do not not know why you have stated that it's "very problematic." Please explain, as the source states precisely what the article has written. Why does an article mentioning the graves belonging to Jews from Yemen (Himyar) in the 5th century CE and found in Zoara have to also mention "the cave sanctuary of Lot" as well? Please explain, as this makes no sense to me. Moreover, since the reference is clearly listed in the article, I see no need for another "citation needed" tag. Are you asking for a direct translation from the Hebrew into English? If so, I can provide you with a direct translation once I visit again the National Library of Israel in Jerusalem, where the journal is presently kept. Better, still, there is also a JSTOR link to the article cited by me, which you can access here. The language, however, is in Hebrew. Is there something in it that you would like me to check for you? By the way, the name in Arabic Ghor es-Safi (which is another name for the "Great Rift Valley") represents the region wherein is found the biblical Zoar. Davidbena (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Davidbena:. There are 2 problems:

I found one single, long paragraph going like this:

"Sanctuary of Lot etc., etc., cave, etc., etc., cemetery with inscriptions, etc., etc. [Ref: Naveh (1, in Hebrew), Naveh (2, in Hebrew), Naveh (3, in Hebrew), Nebe & Sima (in German).]"

So one group-reference, or quatruple ref, for ALL OF IT, for Sanctuary of Lot, cave, and funerary inscriptions.

1) FIRST PROBLEM

I thought that, given Naveh's article titles, it's improbable that he would have covered the Lot sites as well, unless he did en passant in a general introduction. But I couldn't check that because:

2) SECOND PROBLEM

The URLs of the 4 articles, if they even are online, aren't indicated in the ref (JSTOR is by far more difficult; plus not all have JSTOR address indicated), so I couldn't check.

You're saying now that Naveh indeed hasn't addressed the Lot site. In my edit I have separated the Lot site from the cemetery, so that now we have two separate sections. Not knowing at that point what you just wrote, I was obliged to leave Naveh+Nebe as the source for both sections, using identical refs at the end of each section. As feared, this was wrong (all along), and the Lot site section must be tagged as UNSOURCED. Correct? Citation needed. That's why I said the initial, combined paragraph (Lot + cemetery together), was referenced carelessly, messy if you want. If one places a ref after each sentence (!), future editors can rearrange the sentences or groups of them, without losing the refs. Much better. Got it, see now what I mean?

So: online addresses, if they exist, are essential for fellow editors who wish to follow up. Not everybody has access to the paper copies. URL offers easier access than JSTOR, which still is much better than library access IDs. Hebrew: if Google Translate can deal with the document, it's fine, so WORD docs are better than PDFs, if there is a choice. Also: you are a much more thorough and reliable editor than others, and even so there are problems, as you can see, therefore going on trust is not a good option, having online access to every source is by far better.

PS: Don't know who wrote the general remarks now under Zoara#Surveys and digs (1986-1996) (was initially part of the single, endless paragraph with the Naveh ref at the very end of it). Now that's tagged as unsourced, as well. Do you know if Naveh covers that bit of info? It also contains that weird phrase, "excavation surveys", which makes no sense to me. Any idea what they meant?

Not part of this topic: Ghor es-Safi is just the small area around Safi/Zoara, whereas Ghor/Ghawr with no further specification is the name for the entire "Jordan Rift Valley" including the Arava/Arabah. What I can't figure out is whether there is an actual town called es-Safi, or just small numbers of people, Bedouin or farmers, spread around in small, separate groups in that area, but counted together for administrative reasons even though they're not forming a single settlement (yet). But that's not so important. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that of two editors writing about two slightly different things, and the end result appearing as though the sources were to be merged, when, in actuality, they were not meant to be merged. As for the source used by me, the JSTOR article (with a link to it) is, indeed, mentioned in the article. By the way, I trust your skills in differentiating between the two edits. As to your question, I will need to revisit the article to see whether or not Naveh mentions any archaeological digs in that region. As for "excavation surveys" I think the intent there was to say "excavations and surveys."Davidbena (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Language, script

Hi David. One more thing please.

"... written in the combined Hebrew, Aramaic and Sabaean scripts..."

• Combined scripts? Meaning what? A) Several scripts on the same grave inscription, like on some modern-era Jewish tombstones? Would be great to study their concordance or lack thereof. Or B) that the cemetery just contains examples of all 3 scripts, but each tombstone with only one script and language?

Yes, the intent here is that each grave marker is written in the typical Hebrew (Ashurit) script, along with an Aramaic and Sabaean script.Davidbena (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Language doesn't equal script. Many languages, if not all, have been written in more than one alphabet. The terms and Wikilinks offered were confusing in this regard. I edited them based on presumptions and on a best guess base (difficult access to source, see above), which isn't ideal. Concretely:

What you're saying here is correct. This is well known.Davidbena (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

- Hebrew script -> link to Hebrew alphabet

- Aramaic script -> link to Aramaic alphabet

- Sabaeans cript -> no such thing, I reformulated & linked to "Ancient South Arabian script... as employed for the Sabaean language". I hope that's what it is.

The script used in Yemen at that time (4th - 5th century CE) was the Ancient South Arabian script. This is the script engraved on the tombstones, along with the Hebrew script, and Aramaic.Davidbena (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Concretely: what LANGUAGE were the inscriptions written in? I guess Hebrew, some version of Aramaic, and Sabaean. Right? If so, the script issue above can be simplified.

Correct. That is my understanding.Davidbena (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Arminden (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Lots of new topics; easy sources

Konstantinos Politis, archaeologist and chairman of the Hellenic Society for Near Eastern Studies and head of an extensive Ghor as-Safi area excavation project covering Zoara and surroundings, has many publications. He and his colleagues have been interviewed by The Jordan Times, the articles easily accessible online - and should be used here, as they contain a lot more than we have already: a better overview, both spatial (related sites) and temporal (habitation periods), with major topics we haven't touched upon (Nabataean presence, sugar production, churches and participation in Church councils, streets, decay and I guess disappearance apparently during Ottoman period, etc.).

A lot more to do. Here some links to articles from 2016-2022: 1, 2, 3, 4. Arminden (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I see a lot is already at Ghor es-Safi. More cross-reference, transfer of material needed. Arminden (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Distinction: biblical city is just a legend, actual Zoara is of much later date

A far more clear distinction must be made between biblical city - which is just legendary, i.a. not confirmed archaeologically, and alleged to be of the Bronze Age -, and real Zoara of much later periods (Hellenistic at the earliest). Pre-classical are just cemeteries in the Zoara area, as far as we know. Arminden (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sinclairian: hi. You're very new around here. Please read my edit summaries, also Wiki editing (and reversal!) rules, etc. Although logic should do by itself.

1) The article is about Zoara, not about biblical Zoar.

2) The Bible is NOT a RS, definitely not between Creation and Kings. What we have is a real archaeological site, and a legendary city from a religious story. Which one do you think is the topic of this archaeology-focused article, even if it weren't titled Zoara, as it is?

3) I've looked up KJV in 2-3 places, it's Zoar everywhere, never Zoara.

I have included all what was new and useful in your edit, like the 2nd HB name, Bela. So thanks for that, but you risk being blocked from editing if you insist on reversing w/o good ground, and actually just because "you think that's how it should be".

Have a nice day, Arminden (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

On your three notes:

1) Did you not read the actual article? The vast majority of the sources used in the article (Josephus, Ptolemy, Eusebius, Jerome, two tractates of the Babylonian Talmud, Mandeville, Naveh, Wilfand, Donner, Le Quien, Klostermann, Wolf, and Le Strange, to name a few) explicitly identify Zoara as Zoar. If you're trying to argue there is no case to be made for the identification, what are they on the page for?

2) I find the way this rationale is invoked incredibly dense. The city has been identified as Zoar since the 1st century AD with Josephus. The city is in the exact same place, has the exact same name, the page extensively details local tradition all invoking the biblical place, etc. If we shove that all out the window "because Bible", what stops someone from hopping to Jerusalem, or Jericho, or Dhiban, or Ascalon, and upending the whole of the articles, because of the notion that there's no proof that these places are the same ones as from the Bible, because the Bible is legendary.

3) Why would the (Middle) English book from the 16th century use a Classical Greek name to translate the Hebrew text? Again, very dense.

Once again, you are the one who instituted these changes, the onus place the task of proving claims on you. I'm supposed to take your opinion at face value without anything to demonstrate there is scholarly consensus to the fact, but me doing so is unencyclopedic? Sinclairian (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Last time I'm here.

Biblical criticism is a 19th c. thing, but sorry to break the news: it's become mainstream and pretty much consensual in academia.

The story of Abraham is placed by maximalists in the 18th c. BCE. All the "scholars" listed by you are between 1.8 and 3.6 MILLENNIA too recent. No other eye witnesses to the fire & brimstone other than Lot & dtrs, Inc., sorry.

The Bible is very relevant as a religious book and cultural template to everybody, even to those who haven't noticed it yet, and to fundamentalists as the Holy Truth. Enough reason as to have Josephus & Plagiarists listed in full. Scholarly relevant in C21? Not.

You were pushing KJV as using Zoara, not me.

We will of course mention Romulus & Remus on the Rome page and vice versa, even w/o a lobby comparable to the Bible crowd supporting it, but not because we believe in wolf-fed babies.

Pls, take a breath and let go. I'm still too revolutionary for many fellow editors even after being here for some twelve years now, so I kinda understand you, but with 500+ edits and a couple of months of activity you're not yet putting me in my place. Btw, I've been in every single one of those "biblical" places you've mentioned, looked at them from every angle and then went on to read up on each of them. Have you? Jerusalem: nobody knows for sure where Jebus has stood, or rather the Urushalim of Abdi-Heba, Finkelstein has a point, nobody has found a western city wall for IAII in the City of David and there's hardly anything there from the entire BA in the archaeological record. Jericho is at Tell es-Sultan alright, but there's no habitation layer from the LBA, the "time of Joshua". Dhiban hadn't been properly excavated yet when I visited, there was nothing protected, let alone marked or signposted of what had been dug out, and most of what I could make out seemed classical antiquity. We're lucky to have the Mesha Stele (I haven't seen it in the Louvre, just copies, in Amman and Jerusalem). Ascalon is Ashqelon in BA and IA terms, don't mix up biblical with Graeco-Roman names, and there's plenty of Canaanite & Philistine material there, but nothing to support any HB narratives re. anything up to the end of the United Monarchy from Kings & Samuel. I think you picked the wrong fight here, or the wrong man. Good night, Arminden (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you're on about trying to relate these to the 18th century BC, the stories would have been composed in the 5th century at the earliest. The random whataboutism both adds nothing and doesn't actually address anything I've inquired of you, and quite frankly overall your response is both needlessly rude and condescending. (Likewise, I'm curious about your exact thought process vis-a-vis visiting a place somehow makes you the undisputed resident scholar)

Your view is at length incompatible with the majority of the page – either furnish the sources which support your view or bump off. Sinclairian (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Read your own posting.

"1) ...The vast majority of the sources used in the article (Josephus, Ptolemy, Eusebius, Jerome, two tractates of the Babylonian Talmud, Mandeville, Naveh, Wilfand, Donner, Le Quien, Klostermann, Wolf, and Le Strange, to name a few) explicitly identify Zoara as Zoar. If you're trying to argue there is no case to be made for the identification, what are they on the page for?"

See my answer to that, and pls try to comprehend, not to be polemical.

"2) ... The city has been identified as Zoar since the 1st century AD with Josephus. The city is in the exact same place, has the exact same name, the page extensively details local tradition all invoking the biblical place, etc. If we shove that all out the window "because Bible", what stops someone from hopping to Jerusalem, or Jericho, or Dhiban, or Ascalon, and upending the whole of the articles, because of the notion that there's no proof that these places are the same ones as from the Bible, because the Bible is legendary."

Same. The Bible is considered more or less hist. reliable from the kings of Israel and Judah onwards, not for the United Monarchy or before. Wiki never takes a different view. So a Zoara from classical antiquity has zero relevance as in proving a Bela/Zoar from Genesis 14 (!) was a real thing. Your lead version implies just that and takes the Hebrew Bible as its point of reference. It's not; the archaeological site is.

Also, pls read about toponym migration. And I don't mean migrants taking hometown names to faraway places: just migration within the area after major events. Abraham as a Genesis, 18th c. BCE character, or even as a 5th c. BCE creation (post-Exile, Copenhagen School ultra-minimalist view) is more than half a millennium before Babatha's deeds from the Cave of Lettes and the Zoar(a) of her time: and I'm not aware of any "hard proof" between Genesis and Babatha. If you know of any, I'd honestly be happy to learn about it. So again, irrelevant. More than that, as far as I know, Politis' digs haven't come across remains of any pre-Roman city where Zoara stood. What we have is a mosaic of CE-dated dig sites and nothing more, certainly as far as the Wiki art. at hand is concerned. So not even close to C18 or even C5 BCE.

Ancient & pre-modern traditions and suppositions are worthless as C21, Wiki-relevant sources. On the other hand, any related story from authors of good standing in their own time must be mentioned, of course, but as interesting in themselves, and not as proof for more than the existence of a quasi-continuous tradition.

I didn't bring up irrelevant examples and had no intention to waste my time with them until you came up with "what stops someone from hopping to Jerusalem, or Jericho, or Dhiban, or Ascalon..." - each of them linked. Well, I did, and I answered you why both the archaeological sites AND Wiki articles should give you pause in this "discussion": Of most of them we know little to nothing about biblically relevant episodes, and for other important biblical sites we have 2, 3, 4, 5 "candidates" - various tells with similar names which don't fit the story, or vice versa. And think of Finkelstein's "mound on the mount" theory.

"3) Why would the (Middle) English book from the 16th century use a Classical Greek name to translate the Hebrew text?"

I didn't bring up any of those "references", KJV and Josephus to C18 CE scholars and C19-21 authors discussing the ancient works: you did. There is not one serious modern scholar writing that Roman/Byzantine Zoar(a) IS Bela/Zoar from Genesis. The topic here is the former, not the latter.

To remember, what was your last input for the first sentence of the lead?

"Zoara (called Zoar and Bela in the Hebrew Bible),<ref>{{bibleref|Genesis|14:8|KJV}}</ref> was an ancient city located in the Dead Sea basin in the Transjordan."

1) Zoara is not called anything in the Hebrew Bible, because the books which became the Masoretc HB were long closed by the time Zoara appears in the sources & archaeol. record.

2) Zoara was indeed where you write it was, but we know nothing about the location of a HB Zoar. See Sodom: a team of literalist archaeologist is pushing hard to prove it's not where everyone else who still believes in it was looking, on the SE coast of the Dead Sea, but at Tell Hamam, on a ridge above the NE tip of the DS. So don't write in Wiki voice what nobody can prove.

3) Just a minor formal matter, but maybe proving a deeper misconception: Bible quotes ar not references. They usually are placed inline, and just as user-friendly links to the mentioned verse, and prove nothing, just give access to a translation, so not a "ref"/source per se. N.B.: The Bible verse, of course, contains Bela and Zoar, never Zoara, so it's perfect proof for the HB name equivalence Bela = Zoar, and nothing more. Not what your version implies.

Being "dense" isn't much of a compliment, "bump off" not Wiki style.

It's all been your own trip & aggressive style, right from step one. Being "Wiki BOLD" is smth completely different. If you insist on not accepting logical counter-arguments, I'll defer it to an arbiter, because we're getting nowhere. Arminden (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Arminden: The consensus among scholars is that biblical Zoar was the same city as the Zoara known from classical sources, the names being virtually identical. In fact, even Konstantinos D. Politis who was the most recent excavator at the site asserts as factual that Zoar/Zoara are one and the same city (see here). And the archaeological record clearly shows that the city was settled during the Bronze and Iron Ages when the Hebrew Bible was written.

I think the article should clearly assert the Zoar/Zoara equation as the consensus view among scholars. Potatín5 (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Potatín5: hi. Please, do go ahead and fill in the gaps if you have the material. As of now, we only have a Byz. period city. If you have access to more, great. As the article is right now, you absolutely cannot associate a well-sourced Byzantine-period settlement with a legendary Bronze Age city, the gap is humongous. Once someone does the work, we can look at it again. And we need a Bronze Age city (settlement), not just minimal pottery presence.

For the identification, to be academically safe, the best would be smth. like an archaeological encyclopedia as a source.

Also: the identification is there in the article, on the level allowed by the existing material. My issue with Sinclairian's edits is that he rewrote the intro around it. That is OK for Zondervan and other Biblical dictionaries, but not for a general-interest encyclopedia.

I'd love to look into the book you linked (even if not right away), but Google Books doesn't offer any preview, not even snippets, at least not for where I am now.

PS: If you can, pls take a look at the next paragraph. Politis does deserve and need an enWiki article, maybe you'd be interested in starting it. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Arminden: Here you can find information about the existence of a Bronze Age city at Ghor es-Safi/Zoara. Basically, the excavator Konstantinos D. Politis has found a lot of remains from both the Early/Middle Bronze and Iron II periods and has extensively publish them. Potatín5 (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks, go ahead and add it. I'm not against anything once it's rational and properly sourced. Arminden (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, won't be me anyway, but I tried to read about it: you've sent me to the same book to which I have zero access (Google Books: "no preview"). It's on you more than ever :) Looking forward, Arminden (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Here (see the abstract copied below) Politis says NO Late Bronze Age at Ghor as-Safi, Early and Middle Bronze apparently seen at survey but not excavated.

"The Early and Middle Bronze Ages are represented in the Ghor as-Safi; the Late Bronze Age is absent from the archaeological record in the entire southern Ghors/south-eastern Dead Sea region. The Early Bronze Age on the south-eastern shores of the Dead Sea was overlooked until the latter half of the 20th century when the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain conducted a series of surveys and archaeological excavations, and the Southern Ghors and Northeast ‘Arabah Survey was conducted during 1985–1986. It had been thought that there were no Middle Bronze (MB) sites in the Ghor as-Safi and results of the Southern Ghors and Northeast ‘Arabah Survey erroneously supported this view. Although not in the Ghor as-Safi, Zahrat adh-Dhra‘-1, about 35 km north in Ghor al-Mazra‘a, is worth mentioning as it is the only MB settlement which has been excavated recently."

So perhaps EB & MB are visible in surveys, but no digs to prove it as of 2020. As per the abstract, sure. Not much to go by. Arminden (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration

Diannaa, Jeff G., hi. Sorry to bother, but you've been very helpful with sorting out controversial editing in the past. I'm not into procedural matters, if there's a better way to address it, pls point me to it, but I trust your arbitration. Zero0000, Onceinawhile, Makeandtoss and Davidbena are also very active in this area.

My controversy is with fellow editors Sinclairian and Potatín5, S&P for brevity. They keep on reverting my lead version in spite of me offering good, rational arguments against it.

1. I see the topic at hand as being an archaeological site positively identified as the Roman- and Byzantine-period city of Zoara, which is also the article's name. The cited sources cover the city's continuation up to the Mamluk period. S&P prefer to focus on the biblical city of Bela/Zoar from the biblical Book of Genesis.

2. I contend that it is Wiki practice to give priority to hard scientific facts over biblical lore. The lead, especially the first paragraph, works as the definition of an entry; what is presented there is what the article must focus on, doing otherwise is cheating the user in his expectations.

3. There is no material in the article re. any other archaeological findings, or contemporary description from historical sources, which goes further back in time than the Roman period.

4. Potatín5 has repeatedly brought up a book by K. Politis, the main excavator, which (at least from my location) has no online access, not even Google Books snippet view. I have twice told him this, asking for quotes from this or other sources he might have access too (hard copy?), so that I and others can form an opinion - with no reaction from him. I did his job and searched for RS, like articles and abstracts by Politis or others, and all I could find points to no findings of Bronze Age city, which if found could be seen as indirect support for biblical city at the same site. Details in exchange here-above. N.B.: isolated pottery finds, in absence of urban finds (dwellings and public buildings, city walls) are not enough to support presence of "city" (permanent urban settlement). The abstract by Politis which I did find online suggests no Bronze Age city remains found as of 2020 (see above).

5) The Genesis narrative of Abraham, Lot, Sodom, Zoar etc. has been placed by those who believe in its historicity (biblical maximalists) in the 18th c. BCE, the Middle Bronze Age. Biblical criticism, today's scholarly consensus or at least mainstream view, contends that it emerged much later: during the Iron Age (or based on Iron Age context and traditions) at best (C12-C6 BCE), or "at worst" after the return from Babylon (C6/C5 BCE) if not even during the Hellenistic period (C4-C1 BCE), according to the biblical minimalists. This c. 1,500 year range makes even more obvious why Genesis-related claims cannot be used as main points of reference in Wiki, other than for the biblical narrative per se. An article on biblical Zoar or Lot and the "cities of the plain" is perfectly legit as such, but writing in Wiki voice that Zoara (real city) is Bela/Zoar (legendary biblical city) is unencyclopedic.

6) It is common scholarly practice to avoid positively identifying archaeological sites with such from the biblical narrative, unless supported by in situ discovery of identifying inscriptions (see Gezer), or contemporary external sources such as Egyptian or Mesopotamian texts in conjunction with archaeological findings. The latter also because of "name migration", settlements relocating within the wider region after major events but retaining the old name. I've pointed out this common occurrence to S&P as well, w/o them reacting.

It makes sense to see either the wider Ghor as-Safi region, or more narrowly Zoara, as the probable site that ancients associated with legendary Bela/Zoar from Genesis, and as a possible site for a permanent urban settlement during the Bronze and/or Iron Ages. The biblical narrative is of major interest for Wiki users. However, the topic of the article at hand, as it is now, by both name and content, is the real classical era city of Zoara. This has been associated with biblical Bela/Zoar, which deserves, and had also in my version, prominent if duly cautious mention in the lead, but not in the first sentence of the first paragraph, which is the definition-bearing part of the article.

Contentious edits by S&P here, here and here. Arminden (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Arminden: I suggest a new draft article Draft:Biblical Zoar where @Sinclairian, @Potatín5, and others can expound on that topic, consistent with WP:42. This article should remain about "real Zoara of much later periods (Hellenistic at the earliest)", as supported by reliable sources. Once that draft becomes a live article, it can be linked from this article. Also, please use internal links like special:diff/1204703794, special:diff/1204772919, and special:diff/1206002521 to avoid subjecting readers to the mobile interface.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Excellent proposal, I fully support it, thanks. Arminden (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, in response:

1. I have cited two WP:RS in the lede which clearly state that the biblical city of Zoar was one and the same city as the Zoara mentioned in classical Greek and Byzantine sources. The names are literally the same ones, with 'Zoara' just being a later spelling of Zoar.
2. I contend that, since the consensus among scholars is that biblical Zoar was the same city as the Zoara known from classical sources, the article should stick to that scholarly consensus.
3. This source mentions the existence of remains at the site dating both to the Middle Bronze and Iron Age II periods. If you want to claim that Zoara was not inhabited before the Roman period, you will have to bring a WP:RS which contradicts what the sources I cited clearly state.
4. The very abstract of the chapter that Arminden mentions clearly states at the beginning that The Early and Middle Bronze Ages are represented in the Ghor as-Safi. And on page 20 of his book, Politis states that the biblical and other ancient references are the earliest known references to Zoara.
5. The fact that scholars agree that Zoar was a real city does not mean that the biblical narratives about it are necessarily historically accurate. For comparison: the fact that ancient Rome existed does not prove that Romulus and Remus were real individuals.
6. There are a lot of ancient sources indicating that Zoar and Zoara were the same city (Josephus, Ptolemy, Eusebius, Jerome, two tractates of the Babylonian Talmud, the Madaba Map).

Potatín5 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Konstantinos D. Politis needs article

Main discussion on Talk:Ghor es-Safi page. Arminden (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Distinction: Zoara vs Ghor es-Safi

The Ghor es-Safi article offers no definition of what it actually is: a plain (wider geographical feature)? The name of a restricted, specific archaeological site? A modern village or town? Maybe 2 or all 3 of those, depending on context?

This being said, I guess the section on the Monastery of St Lot probably belongs there rather than here. Here a 1-sentence mention with wikilink should do, unless the Byz.-period town did indeed cover most of the plain called Ghor es-Safi, and the monastery was part of its lands & identity.

No definition, no article. That simple. Also a reason why I don't agree with giving too much weight to the "invisible" biblical city in the lead (definition) when the classical city has a tangible, physical presence. Arminden (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Ghor es-Safi is a geographical area, which incorporates within it the ancient town of Zoara. The name does NOT refer to an archaeological site, nor to a specific town. As for its precise boundaries, you would have to refer to Jordanian maps of the region.Davidbena (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks David. That is the obvious thing, but on the Jordanian tourism websites and in this article based in part on them they're using it interchangeably for all three. That's what I mean, not what's logical. And if they want to establish a settlement around the museum and call it G.e.S., that becomes a reality that must be mentioned.

The overlaps between the two articles, Ghor es-Safi and Zoara, are also out there and nobody seems to care, so my question serves as a wakeup call. I hope. Not this talk-page is the target, but those 2 poorly put together articles who need reworking. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Not "Post-biblical history"

Hi Sinclairian.

I've taken the time to think over that heading when I wrote it. All that that section contains is an overview of sources offering vignettes, in part just theories about how the biblical story went out. No historical facts or descriptions. I think these don't add up to a "history", but are good for what they are: old sources. We know close to nothing about the site's history, not even when it disappeared, certainly not from these sources. That's why I gave the section the heading

• Ancient sources for actual city.

I disagree with

• Post-biblical history

on two grounds:

1. All the above.
2. Josephus is not post-biblical. Post-OT yes, but post-NT no.

If you don't mind, I'd like to return to that heading. Might look clumsier, but it reflects the content better, and that's its role.

Thanks. Arminden (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

No standing exists for your points. I would recommend refresh yourself on what the word "history" means. As for your grounds:

1. The Byzantines, Muslims, Crusaders, and Mamluks were not ancient, and "actual city" is weasel words and not encyclopedic at all. This is an indelible non-starter.
2. Josephus was born 5 years after the death of Jesus, his works were written decades after the synoptic Gospels (seriously, Antiquities is more than 20 years after Mark.), and Zoar is not mentioned in the New Testament, so the label of "post-biblical" is strictly accurate.

Sinclairian (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok. So I actually see at least 3 points in what you're writing.

1. "The Byzantines, Muslims, Crusaders, and Mamluks were not ancient." That is 1/2 correct and 1/2 wrong: even leaving aside the often loose use of the adjective "ancient" in English (very common when it's not attached to a specific culture/country like Egypt, Japan, Mexico), "late antiquity" as a historical period in the Levant is defined by all to have included the Byzantine period, and by most also the Umayyad period, which is part of the Early Muslim period. True, what comes after (Abbasid to Mamluk periods) is not antiquity, and a rigurous use of the adjective ancient is not allowed.
2. "Actual city" is a weasel word: yes and no. The Zoar of Genesis is a mythological city; in contrast to that, the actual Zoara was real. Can we agree on "historical"?
3. "Post-biblical": The Bible means OT+NT, two books or sets of books. Jesus didn't write any of the NT, so his life years are totally irrelevant. Josephus' heydays were about the time the Gospels only started to be written, and they were not finished, along with the rest of the NT, before 100 CE. But we're getting into hair splitting. Can we agree on "extra-biblical"?

So what about "Historical city in extra-biblical sources"?

Leaving out "historical city" makes the user believe there were historical sources supporting the Genesis narrative. Leaving out "extra-biblical sources" creates the expectation that they can read there about political, social or demographic developments at Zoara (usual "history"), and they won't. We just have some rather tangential sources. Arminden (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"Historical city in extra-biblical sources" sounds good to me. I'll save you the trouble and rename the section head. Sinclairian (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)