Talk:Ish-bosheth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IZAK (talk | contribs) at 02:31, 16 August 2004 (→‎Use of Original names in Hebrew Bible). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)

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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ish-bosheth&oldid=5271251"