Talk:Ish-bosheth

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: His names

message: 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)
thread_title: Title again

message: 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)
thread_title: Second king of Israel?

message: :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)
replies: text: Ish-bosheth →  – 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) 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)
replies: text: 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. 99to99 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 September 2021 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yup, the Bible isn't a reliable source, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. tgeorgescu (talk)  01:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: We don't WP:CITE the Bible, we cite mainstream Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk)  04:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: The elephant in the room: David probably didn't, either. tgeorgescu (talk)  13:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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:. I would also add the original lead said Ish-bosheth ruled the "Kingdom of Israel", not United Kingdom of Israel which was added here:. Jerm (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in infobox