Talk:Bdellium

I'm pretty sure bdellium is pearl white in color, not black.

Wikipedia article is deficient[edit]

There is no proof that the Biblical Hebrew 'bedolach' has anything whatsover to do with the product known today as bdellium or any type of spice of any kind. In fact, the references in the Bible place it among the precious stones found in the land of Havilah. Elsewhere, it is described as similar in appearance to Manna, which is described as white in color, fine and scaly, and similar in apperance to hoar-frost: essentially everything that bedellium is not. In the Septuagint, the translations given for "bedolach" are carbuncle stone (Greek, anthrax) and crystal (as it is in modern Hebrew). The rabbinical interpretation was that the 'bedolach' was the pearl. The notion that 'bedolach' corresponded to some aromatic gum or resin was not current until the Roman era. Yet, this Wikipedia article trumpets this interpretation as though it is based on metaphysical certitude, and nothing else is worth mentioning. This article is off the mark.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the article doesn't appear to me to push any one identification of bedolach; it mentions among others your preferred interpretation that it was a precious stone. [Later: -- Ah, no, I see now: the problem is the parenthesis after the lemma. True, that is too assertive. Let's take it out.]

It is surely correct to refer to bedolach on this page because "bdellium" is one possible interpretation of the word. Bdellium is whitish in colour, similar to manna. It is not named in Genesis "among precious stones", though it is named alongside one precious stone: but so what? The chief problem with the identification of bedolach with "bdellium" (I think) is that the Septuagint translators didn't choose it. Why not? Andrew Dalby 14:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bedolach ("bdellium") is mentioned in Genesis 2 alongside gold and lapis lazuli (or onyx, in some translations). Just curious...which of those two stones do you not consider to be precious? Jacob D (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Jacob D[reply]

Check now Potts, D.T., et al. (1996), 'Guḫlu and Guggulu', WZKM, 86, 291-305, where it is suggested that Akkadian guḫlu is Bdellium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.18.35.175 (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Definition of Bdellium[edit]

Please find sources supporting this. I don't have the reference on hand and have school work due. 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the Qumran Scrolls & Quran Faith; and understand what the Genesis Chapter 2:12 verse is talking about.

What is offensive is this article blaming an "Arab" without direct quotes, for Hebrew & English Ignorance of their own faith. http://www.gits4u.com/agri/agri5gugal.htm
Blame the India or the English speaking Brits, before you Blame someone who is descendant of the Aramaic people.
Genesis 2:12 the word "Bdellium" was 'Lava' in Aramaic ~AND~ the "Onyx Stone" was 'Meteorites' as revealed to Mahaammedian in Mecca.
Meshnaic Hebrews ignorance in copying Encrypted Aramaic authors as their own, caused them to think it was a Jewel for a "Kodesh" to wear??? {Wonder if this is where the phrase, Pearls before swine comes from? Pearl of wisdom, please don't wear it out.}

4WhatMakesSense (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Varieties of bdellium[edit]

In an article on bdellium, it seems entirely reasonable to cover the varieties of bdellium as understood and reported by ancient and modern authors, so I am not sure I understand why the coverage by Theophrastus and Isidore of Seville should have been removed. It appears to have been a matter of applying the name to a range of trees in the genus Commiphora. Even if there is a modern understanding that the name now applies to a product of just one of the trees (which it may or may not do), that is not reason to remove coverage of older accounts and usages. It isn't reason, either, to cut down the coverage of writers such as Pliny in his Natural History, removing all his description except for the names used - surely less interesting and less encyclopedic than before. What is the justification for this? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the historical mentions need to be thoroughly covered, and the recent deletions have reduced the encyclopedic quality. There has been, and still is, considerable confusion between the various plant species that yield a similar substance, and between the various substances that have been called bdellium. For the sake of readers, we should bring clarity to that. An essential first step is to sort out which plant species is which, for example, Commiphora roxburghii is a taxonomic synonym of Commiphora wightii. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I can completely agree with that. I will accordingly restore the historical mentions, without prejudice to which modern species the ancients may have been referring. That matter may never be entirely known, but what they said remains of encyclopedic interest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]