Talk:Ish-bosheth

---

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) The name was certainly not Fred, which is Germanic, but it may have been Mutbaal. And yes, the question of what his real name was is an important one. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:18, 13 October 2008 (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 I had to delete the link because wiki considered it a SPAM link so I couldn't post on this TALK page.רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 05:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC) translated from the Hebrew into the English at:

1. 2 Samuel 2 [3] (Ish-bosheth mentioned four times by this name).
2. 2 Samuel 3 [4] (Ish-bosheth mentioned three times).
3. 2 Samuel 4 [5] (Ish-bosheth mentioned twice).

• • As for finding the name Eshbaal via my source at I had to delete the link because wiki considered it a SPAM link so I couldn't post on this TALK page.רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 05:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

1. 1 Chronicles 8:33 [6] (Only once).
2. 1 Chronicles 9:39 [7] (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)

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)

In modern historical sources, I'm almost certain "Eshbaal" (or variants) is actually more used). That this article is still here, and appears to largely consist of a Talmudic discursus without any reference to modern scholarship, is deeply annoying. john k 13:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the primary heading should be Ishbaal, as in Chronicles, as the most likely name. The absurd name Ishbosheth looks like a taboo-alteration by a later scribe, replacing the now unfashionable -ba'al element with the word 'shame'. You can see the same process in the name Meribaal, which was similarly changed in later sources to Mephibosheth. At Mephibosheth the process of alteration is correctly explained, though the article is incorrectly titled. Of course, Ishbosheth and Mephibosheth should be offered as cross-references. Finn Froding (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

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 David article.PiCo 08:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 12 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Ish-bosheth → Ishbaal – Although there are two sections above in which editors have suggested changing the name of the article, it does not appear that either has actually proposed a move. The NRSV gives his name as Ishbaal with a footnote (at 2 Sam 2:8)[8]

Gk Compare 1 Chr 8.33; 9.39: Heb Ish-bosheth, "man of shame"

. The references to Chronicles give his name as Eshbaal. The New Interpreter's Study Bible has a footnote

The name Ishbaal comes from the Greek text. In the Hebrew text the name is Ishbosheth ("Man of Shame"), no doubt a play on words. "Baal" is both a common noun meaning "lord" and a proper name for the Canaanite god. In the latter meaning, it became a name of shame for an Israelite. Bosheth was often substituted for Baal in names (cf. Mephibosheth/Mephibaal in 4:4).

The NJPS gives his name as Ish-bosheth with a footnote

Meaning "Man of Shame," deliberately alterered from Ish-baal, "man of Baal"

The Jewish Study Bible (2nd edition) has a margin note

[Ish-bosheth] is a tendentious and secondary form of the name Ish-baal (NJPS Eshbaal), Baal-exists, which has been transformed into "there is shame." The original form of the name is preserved in some Gk versions and in 1 Chron. 8.33 and 9.39.

The position therefore seems tolerably clear that his name was Ishbaal/Eshbaal and has been deliberately altered, although it is unclear whether the original name meant Man of Baal or Baal-exists or if baal was being used as a common noun for lord. Either way, Ish-bosheth was not his real name. Havelock Jones (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Since Saul and his children were really wiped out and removed in some way or another, clearing the way for the winner King David, it is not surprising that one of his children would have problematic names such as these ones left on the record. One way or the other, I would support the move per the argument above. After seeing all the arguments against below, I now actually Oppose the suggested move. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article title should be the name the subject as it is given, "in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources," per WP:TITLE. See this ngram. Encyclopaedia Judaica (1996), KJV, ESV, NIV, and Robert Alter's translation all went with Ish-bosheth. We should not be uncovering the subject's "real" name like detectives. NRSV is far from being the most commonly read English translation. 99to99 (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Those are reasonable points. I acknowledge there are many reliable Bible translations which use Ish-bosheth, following the Masoretic Text. Nevertheless, there are also reliable Bible translations which use Ishbaal, following the Greek text and the academic consensus that this is the correct name, as reflected in the Encyclopaedia Judaica entry linked by you, which states "The name Ish-Bosheth is a dysphemism .. for his true name Eshbaal (Heb. אֶשְׁבַּעַל, i Chron. 8:33; 9:39)". In many cases (such as the NJPS), translators who keep Ish-bosheth include a footnote such as I have quoted above. Your ngram shows that Ishbaal was more popular until 2005, with a significant rise in the use of Ish-bosheth from 2013 onwards. I am unable to explain this and I would welcome input from anyone who can. Either way, both names have significant usage. Per WP:COMMONNAME "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources... When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Havelock Jones (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support The change makes it clearer that this was a theophoric name. Dimadick (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• ALT move to Ishbosheth which trumps both the hyphenated form and Ishbaal in this Ngram, for all dates except the 1940s. – Fayenatic London 16:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If we add "Ishboseth" to "Ish-boseth", the traditional spelling has always dominated compared to "Ishbaal" plus "Eshbaal," even in the 1940s. The margin has only grown wider in recent years.[9] 99to99 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - what is going on? "Theophoric" or "real" are not the words in question here. Honestly, who cares what his "real" name was? WP:COMMONNAME is policy, WP:DONTUSETHEOPHORICNAMES (or WP:USETHEOPHROCINAMES) is not. The dude died a long long time ago. He's commonly referred to as "Ish-bosheth". That's it. Common. Names. Red Slash 19:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Ishbaal" is pretty much a fringe translation according to this list: it's really only the NRSV. The translations are split between "Ish-bosheth", "Ishbosheth", and "Ish-Bosheth". StAnselm (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Error in infobox

Both the Saul and the David infoboxes are wrong as they list Ish-Bosheth as having been King of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah, when all sources agree that Ish-Bosheth was never king of the United Monarchy, which only had three kings: Saul, David, and Solomon. Both pages therefore need fixing. Munter He (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I was the one who added Ish-Bosheth's name in the inbox, but I made sure to provided reliable sources to support that addition. I understand that would be perceived as inaccurate because David is such a popular figure that no one would notice Ish-Bosheth's biblical narrative, especially since his overall presence in the Bible is so little. Jerm (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, the Bible isn't a reliable source, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The article currently opens with the following incorrect statement: "Ish-bosheth was, according to the Hebrew Bible, the second monarch of the United Kingdom of Israel who succeeded his father, Saul". This statement is simply false as "according to the Hebrew Bible" (and all other sources that mention his existence) he was never king "of the United Kingdom of Israel". I therefore removing the clearly incorrect information. Yet, my edit was undone and the false affirmation that "according to the Hebrew Bible" Ish-Bosheth was "monarch of the United Kingdom" is back in the first sentence of the article. Munter He (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

We don't WP:CITE the Bible, we cite mainstream Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

We certainly can (and frequently do) cite the Bible as a source for what the Bible says. What the Bible says in this instance is "Abner ... had taken Ishbaal son of Saul, and brought him to Mahanaim. He made him king over Gilead, the Ashurites, Jezreel, Ephraim, Benjamin, and over all Israel... But the house of Judah followed David." 2 Sam 2:8-10. There is however a question of interpretation, on which we must follow the RSs: what is meant by "over all Israel"? New Interpreter's Study Bible, p443, has a note "The phrase refers to the northern section of the country; Judah is the south." We should perhaps also note that this reign is omitted from the Chronicler's account: 1 Chr 11:1 has David acclaimed king immediately following Saul's death. I don't have Garfinkel et al here, but I would be surprised if it claimed Ish-bosheth reigned over the entire United Monarchy. Havelock Jones (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The elephant in the room: David probably didn't, either. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Still, the first sentence is this article continues to state a lie - that, "according to the Bible, Ish-Bosheth was king of the United Kingdom of Israel", with "United Kingdom of Israel" linking to the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah. It is however an error that is simple to fix: we just need to remove the word "United" and correct the link, and correct Saul and David's infoboxes (Ish-Bosheth succeeded David as King of Israel, not of the United Monarchy), which I can do in a few seconds to make the first sentence factually true, unless someone has a source stating otherwise. Munter He (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean, you're not wrong. We probably should mention the that the historical existence of the United Monarchy is dubious. Nevertheless, it is true that "according the Hebrew Bible" Saul, David and Solomon each ruled the United Kingdom, from Dan to Beersheba. The Hebrew Bible makes no such claim for Ish-Bosheth, so we should not say it does. This does not seem like it should be controversial. Havelock Jones (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Precisely. That is all I'm arguing for: "The Hebrew Bible makes no such claim for Ish-Bosheth [that he ever ruled the United Kingdom], so we should not say it does. This does not seem like it should be controversial". Thank you. Munter He (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bible does not use the term "United Kingdom", just Kingdom of Israel which Ish-bosheth ruled after Saul's death. And this matter is already being discussed at Talk:David. There are already reliable sources in the article supporting Ish-bosheth as Saul's successor and second King of Israel. David ruled Israel after representatives of every tribe declared him king after Ish-bosheth died:[10]. I would also add the original lead said Ish-bosheth ruled the "Kingdom of Israel", not United Kingdom of Israel which was added here:[11]. Jerm (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead too short Sept 2022

@Dimadick: Hi there! I noticed you added the "Lead too short" tag to the article last year; no reasoning was left in the edit summary. Do you have suggestions for what is missing that we can include? If not, the tag will be removed to prevent overtagging as part of the WP:WIKI backlog cleanout. Thanks! -- Missionedit (talk • contribs) -- Missionedit (talk • contribs) 04:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The lead does not even cover the religious implications of his various names, or the archaeological findings which seem to confirm his historicity. Dimadick (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dimadick Thanks for that input! Apologies for the delay in my reply, I'm only semi-active these days. Is this information that you feel is already covered in the article which simply needs to be summarized in the lead section? Or are these items which are not included in the article at all, and they require an editor to do research / find verifiable sources to expand the article? Any details are appreciated.

-- Missionedit (talk • contribs) 03:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

These aspects are covered in entire sections of the main text. Dimadick (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)