Talk:Ish-bosheth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] His names

Why is Ishbaal entered at this denigrating version of his name, which was plain Ishbaal, using the vowels of bosheth ("shameful")? That's not NPOV. Some dab would be illuminating Wetman 23:35, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Spent some time digging into this issue and have provided extensive information from the primary sources themselves. IZAK 07:57, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What would have happened if someone referred to him as "Ishbosheth" right in his own court? Instant death! Ishbaal or Ashbaal was his name, recorded in the degrading form "Ishbosheth" by the editors of Samuel, for he was an apostate, from their POV. Like referring to "Queen Fucktoria." Compare Moloch ("king") with the "bosheth" vowels, making Molech. Often a good first place to dig is the Jewish Encyclopedia. None of this should be mysterious. Wetman 08:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia, under "Bosheth":

Used concretely by the Prophets as "the shameful thing" to designate the Baalim and their images. (See Hosea ix. 10 and Jer. iii. 24, xi. 13, where the word is parallel with "the Baal" [compare Jer. iii. 24]). Later usage adopted the epithet to such an extent that "Bosheth" became a sort of euphemism for "Baal," as is learned from the proper names "Ish-bosheth" (with which Jastrow [see Bibliography] compares a Babylonian name, "Mati-bashti") and "Mephibosheth," the former being written "Esh-baal" in I Chron. viii. 33, ix. 39, and the latter occurring as "Meri-baal" in I Chron. viii. 34 and ix. 40. The manuscript of the Septuagint, known as 93 Holmes, has εἰσβααλ, and the old Latin version has "Isbalem" for "Ish-bosheth." So also in II Sam. xi. 21, "Jerubbe[o]sheth" is given for "Jerubbaal.""

In a phrase like "an ancient pagan idol Baal despised by God in the Bible" almost every word is obtuse or childish or misleading or just wrong. This is "Sunday School." Wetman 08:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I do not know what you mean by "Sunday School"! Are you implying that only if one absolutely distorts the Bible as you illustrate on this talk page and write articles that are incomprehensible and completely unconventional and hostile to religion, then it's "not" "Sunday School" (by the way, I'm Jewish so I never went to Sunday schools) because that's just the way YOU like things to be and in fact merely reflect YOUR own POV masquerading as "npov" on Wikipedia. How can YOU speculate (and that is being kind) about what Samuel or Ish-bosheth may have or may not have said, merely by serving up a pot-pourie of contradictory citations? Just because YOU hate the Bible is no reason to make up your own "fairy tales" about it. YOU are not making any sense. Also, YOUR usage of foul-language (i.e "Like referring to "Queen Fucktoria".") is not appreciated. Thank you. IZAK 09:05, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Too long?

5299 bytes is an awful lot of space to spend on such a minor character, most of which is doing nothing more than expounding one POV about the proper version of his name. And in my copy of the New Oxford Annotated Bible, in the passages quoted from 2 Samuel his name appears as "Ishbaal" (with a brief explanation why) -- a fact merits at least a mention that there is at least one other learned POV on this topic.

Does it really matter that much whether his name is "Ish-bosheth", "Ishbaal", "Eshbaal" or "Fred"? If not, can we trim this article back a little? -- llywrch 05:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Original names in Hebrew Bible

Hi Llywrch:

  • What you say is the darndest thing I've heard on Wikipedia for a while. Honestly now, would you call Britney Spears "Fred" :-} ?! as she is a Pop "Queen". For that matter, would you call Larry King "Fred"  :-] ?! How about King Kong you think he could be "Fred" @:-# ?! You see..you don't make sense... :%| "Fred" ?!
  • Usually the complaints are that the {{stub}} articles need to be filled with more information and here you are bewailing and denigrating an article that is based on its primary sources, the Hebrew Bible itself and you claim it's all "POV". This beats me! Now, how can you claim the article is too long. That is YOUR POV you know, as the the article is meant for the reader who may want to read and know more about this Israelite monarch. If it's not your cup of tea then just go to articles that interest you. I am not familiar with the "New Oxford Annotated Bible".
  • Since I can read and understand Hebrew, I study the Hebrew Bible in its original Hebrew, and in the original sources in Samuel, Ish-bosheth is called is Ish-bosheth (actually it's "ish-boshet" - with the "h" at the end) and I have not changed anything.

Online, I used the combined "Hebrew - English Bible According to the Masoretic Text and the Jewish Publication Society 1917 Edition" [1], on their search page at [2]

    • I searched for "Ish-boshet" and came up with three references to three chapters in the Book of Samuel that mention his name a few times [3] translated from the Hebrew into the English at:
  1. 2 Samuel 2 [4] (Ish-bosheth mentioned four times by this name).
  2. 2 Samuel 3 [5] (Ish-bosheth mentioned three times).
  3. 2 Samuel 4 [6] (Ish-bosheth mentioned twice).
    • As for finding the name Eshbaal via my source at [7]

It is found in two chapters in the Book of Chronicles:

  1. 1 Chronicles 8:33 [8] (Only once).
  2. 1 Chronicles 9:39 [9] (Only once).
  • Now if you just do the arithmetic, you will see that the name Ish-bosheth is mentioned NINE times in the Book of Samuel. Whereas the name Eshbaal is mentioned only TWICE in the Book of Chronicles.

So honestly, I really don't know what those folks at the "New Oxford Annotated Bible" are up to and I must just assume that they are just a bunch of POV scholars and ignorant of Hebrew to boot. (Or maybe the Christian version of the Book of Samuel reads differently, which then makes it also unrelaible, because the original version is the Hebrew one.)

  • Finally, in Hebrew, as in every language, and especially in the Hebrew of the Bible, analyzing its language, meaning , symbolism etc of words, and utilizing the classic commentaries of sages from bygone eras (such as Maimonides and Rashi) is the greatest key to understanding and learning what the text is trying tell the reader. If some readers cannot do this, and instead prefer to go off into flights of their own fantasy, they should attribute it to their deficiencies as Bible scholars and as people seeking to arrive at the truth without injecting their own ignorant nonsensical conejcture and calling it "npov". IZAK 09:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, please review the article POV, because it is very germane to what we are talking about here.

What you have set forth above is one Point of View. Other people, such as myself, can have other Points of View about this subject. To state above that one Point of View is correct & all others "ignorant" or wrong goes against the spirit of Wikipedia -- which is to report various widely-known Point of Views on the subjects described. I quoted an example from the "New Oxford Annotated Bible" simply to show that what you have written is not the only established POV on this subject, & to provide it with a suitable exposition would possibly double or triple the size of this article -- who appears (by your count) 11 times in the Bible.

I won't argue with you concerning your erudition with the Hebrew text of the Bible, but I would like to point out that there is a considerable scholarly consensus that the text of the Septuagint is of acknowledged importance in recovering the meaning of the original text, & that version is written in Greek. So it is possible that the editors of the "New Oxford Annotated Bible" are basing theri translation on the text of the Septuagint.

The reason I felt this article was "too long" is that it presents in very learned, but in excessive detail for the reason this personage should be known as "Ish-bosheth." I feel that reducing all of this detail to the fact that two rabbinical commentators -- Meir Loeb ben Jehiel Michael, & Rabbi David ben Joseph Kimhi -- persuasively argued that "Ish-bosheth" was the proper name of this person makes the point that you expend much energy & 2 extensive quotations pounding away at. And despite all of this effort, I still do not understand why one form of this personages name should be preferred over another; an extensive argument like the ones you have been supplying (both in the article & above) suggest that this is an important point.

Lastly, in response to your first question, no one has ever seriously argued that Brittany Spears, Larry King, or King Kong should be better known by another name; in this case, there appear to be several candidates for this personage. -- llywrch 20:41, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I cannot really add much to what I have already stated. The Greek Septuagint was written over a thousand years (at least) after the original Book of Samuel, so I do not see what makes it "reliable" at all. The names Ish-bosheth and Eshbaal are derived directly from the original Hebrew texts themselves and NOT from any rabbis' commentaries. All that the two rabbis quoted above do is explain the relationship and connection between the names of Ish-bosheth and Eshbaal affirming that Ish-bosheth and Eshbaal are one and the same. In classical Jewish scholarship the name Ish-bosheth is basically used exclusively in reference to this king. IZAK 02:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Do I then understand you to say that you accept no other opinion on this matter than Jewish scholarship? I hope that is not the case, for that would only allow a very narrow range of opinions on this matter. -- llywrch 21:58, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

llywrch: All scholarship is good if it makes sense. Referring to the original Hebrew texts of the Book of Samuel and the Book of Chronicles as they were written is not a matter of "Jewish scholarship" but rather the correct reading of the original historical primary source. The Septuagint is perhaps a secondary source. I have tried to cite the relevant primary sources as objectively and correctly as possible, as well as the opinions of some other later rabbinical commentary. If you can cite commentary from the Septuagint or that which is based on it or other reputable sources by all means do so. If not, please advise as to which point is not clear or is not factual and we can work on it for the sake of clarity and arriving at the truth. If there are other opinions, of course they may be entered as such. What is it specifically that you are still having trouble with, (besides wanting to interrogate me about my personal beliefs, which is not relevant as we all have personal beliefs including you and especially User:Wetman)? IZAK 22:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The only reason I can see to ignore the importance of the text of the Septuagint (which was the product of Jewish scholarship in the 2nd or 1st centuries BCE, by the way) is that it was not written in Hebrew. However, a number of readings it supplies that diverge from the Massoretic text have been confirmed by the materials included in the Dead Sea Scrolls, so an objective viewpoint would be to at least acknowledge that the Septuagint text may contain correct readings lost before the Massorites began their work.
To insist that only the Massoretic text, & the opinions of later rabbis upon it, are the only views worth considering on this part of the Bible is a POV; what they believe & concluded is not fact, it is a POV. This assertion presumes that almost two millenia of Christian scholarship is not worth even mentioning, & again proves to be a POV. (The Greek Orthodox Church, for example, holds the Septuagint as holy text & of higher quality than the Hebrew text; while I do not agree with this POV, should you treat it with contempt will only resumlt with your POV being treated equally with contempt -- to the loss of both parties.) Again, I sincerely hope this narrowness of valid opinions is not your POV, because that would put you in conflict with the goals of Wikipedia, & because you have contributed some valuable information to this project.
I am unaware that I have raised the point of your personal beliefs, beyond asking that you acknowledge that other people may have POVs different from you. And I have attempted to be respectful to you (for example, I acknowledged your erudition in Talmudic studies, which is clearly superior to mine) -- & which I admit Wetman unfortunately failed to do in this instance. From what you have written that I have read, I cannot avoid but assume that you are of a Jewish heritage; if you cannot acknowledge that there exist people who have an equally strong claim to the Bible as you, who are not Jewish, then you will not help but find that they will work to minimize your contributions. This as a threat, but simply simply an observation: your lack of understanding & empathy for others will engender a lack of understanding & empathy for you from them. -- llywrch 03:49, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

llywrch:I really do appreciate your detailed response. Please feel free to insert whatever you feel should be added as additional comments from additional sources out there as is done in many Wikipedia articles. Many of these type of articles have Jewish view, Christian view, Islamic view or whatever else may need to be be said. The original context and comment that I was responding to was the usage of the name Ish-bosheth. I provided the comperehensive materials to show that it was the primary name used in the Hebrew Bible itelf. Speculation about what supposed "authors" or "supporters" of what the prophet Samuel may or may have not have done is pure fantasy which I try to stay away from. I have been atttempting to stick to the primary original Hebrew text. Whatever additional commentary by rabbis was added was "icing on the cake" and not POV as it is something they said and I certainly did not concoct it. Again I say, anyone on Wikipedia is free to add things that stand up to reason coming from whatever source, be it Jewish or Christian or otherwise, so go ahead and do your share here. Thanks again. IZAK 19:09, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Title again

The guy's name was Eshbaal (or Ishbaal, or whatever). He is referred to as that in Chronicles, and as Ish-bosheth, a euphemism, in Samuel. I don't see why we shouldn't use his actual name as the title for the article, especially since the other name is offensive. john k 04:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the request is frivolous. Article is after his most common name. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second king of Israel?

Whatever the gentleman's name was, can anyone clarify for me whether he was really the second king of all Israel, or was this David? Samuel (the book, not the man), says he was made king "over Gilead and the Ashurites and Jezreel and Ephraim and Benjamin and all Israel"; but David had already been made king over Judah; so what exactly was this "all Israel" that Ishbosheth was king over, if it excluded Judah? I want to know this so we can update the intro to the Davidarticle.PiCo 08:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/s/h/Talk%7EIsh-bosheth_15ee.html"