Talk:Bathsheba/Archive 1

Archive 1

David in Rabbinical Literature

Removed text:

For further details see David in Rabbinical Literature.

This has been there since at least February, and looks like it should be a wikilink, but there's still no David in Rabbinical Literature article (nor can I see any evidence one has been merged and/or deleted). Andrewa 16:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

i don't get it

WELL THERE were several things for David to be afraid of Uriah was his best friend and of course sin AGAINST THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY.. Yes David did get her pregnant this account does not clearly tell the story as it is in the bible .. When he was unable to get Uriah to sleep with his wife the bible records that he was sent to the front line ,which even today makes you a prime target. So he was sure to be killed. The man is correct when they were involved with war a man was not able to make love to his wife..I think WHAT is most important that was left out about this account is The baby died.. This was directly from the lord to show David that he was not above correction..

"Hearing that her husband was with the army, David temporarily abducted her; but fearing the consequence of his act, he summoned Uriah from the camp as the bearer of a message. He hoped to hide the consequence of his own complicity in Bath-sheba's condition, and dismissed Uriah to his wife with a portion from the royal table. But Uriah, being probably unwilling to violate the ancient Israelitish rule applying to warriors in active service (see Robertson Smith, "Religion of the Semites," pp. 455, 488), preferred to remain with the palace troops."

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I don't get what David fears the "consequence of his act" is, or whether he forcibly raped Bath-sheba, or what Bath-sheba's "condition" is (did she get pregnant, or what?), or what the "ancient Israelitish rule applying to warriors in active service" is. Can someone who knows something about this explain it better? 216.195.164.111 19:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Happened, that Bathseba got pregnant and David gave Uriah some days off that he would visit his wife and sleep with her to give (later) some explanation for the pregnancy. But Uriah followed the custom, that during war time men do not sleep with their wives (or as long as his fellow soldiers were putting their lives on the line). --Aethralis 13:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO this article presupposes both a particular POV and a high level of knowledge. The text is quite obscure, as illustrated above, without this assumed knowledge.

The POV is more difficult to deal with. Should the tense be present, as it is, which makes it read like a movie script? Or should it be past, like the current Aaron article, which would make it read like history? Either way, we are expressing a POV. Andrewa 16:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Bath-Sheba's name the origin of the word "Bath"?

If so, that should really be in the article.

This is definitely not the case. "Bath" in english coms from old-english bæð "immersing in water". "Bath" in Bathsheba comes from hebrew בת - daughter. --Aethralis 11:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentance

I removed the sentance that says that Bat-shua and Batsheba were the same. Bat-shua in 1 Chronicles is Judah's wife.mikey 20:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Change picture

It seemed to me that we had Bathseba bathing well covered. I thought I would add a depiction of another phase of her life, tending to an aging David. No offense intended to those that preferred the other painting.--Nowa 02:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The name Bathsheba is neither 'uncertain', nor 'Hittite'

It is well-documented, and is Hebrew and means "daughter of the oath". Compare the name "Elisheba", meaning "my God is an oath" or "my God is sustenance".

Furthermore, Uriah "the Hittite" had a Hebrew name, lived in Israelite society, spoke Hebrew, practiced the Israelite religion, and served in Israelite army - his tribal origin notwithstanding. Wikipedia should stick with facts, rather than conjecture and red herrings.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

paintings

As long as you're showing various artistic renderings of Bathsheba, why not use Rembrandt's? CharlesTheBold 02:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems that this painting "David and Bathseba" is not labelled correctly. The artist Jan Matsys (or Massys) has a very different style and painted a different picture that year. As shown here: http://www.louvre.fr/llv/activite/detail_parcours.jsp?CURRENT_LLV_PARCOURS%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226917&CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226756&CURRENT_LLV_CHEMINEMENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226756&bmLocale=en This is a another very beautiful picture, and I'd love to know the author and to see the entire picture. Kelley Reid (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Old Testament?

Why is there only a reference to "the Jewish bible"? The story is in the second book of Samuel in the Christian Old Testament, as well as in the Torah frame. Why no mention? Please add it in. Spanglej (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you not know what the Jewish Bible is? The Torah is the Jewish Bible. It's the same thing.. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Was she willing or a victim?

Are there any traditional views as to whether Bathsheba was (a)a victim of David's lust or (b) a gold-digger who deliberately attracted his attention? Actually, there must be some tradition to one effect or the other! Should not that be mentioned? Tom129.93.17.220 (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In the bible it states that King David had her husband put on the front line of battle, where he was killed. David then courted Bathsheba and wed her. So, technically, it could be seen as willing. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, in the Bible it says that Bathsheba sent a letter to David to notify him that she was pregnant... preceding the husband's move to front lines. To me, that sounds like she was keeping it a secret from her husband and furthering her culpability.Kelley Reid (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for external link to comparison of Bathsheba and Susannah

I'm seeking consensus from this community to include a link to this page: http://beckydaroff.com/stories/bathsheba_susannah.html. This page compares the themes of Bathsheba and Susannah in Baroque paintings. Both are stories of biblical women who bathed while being spied upon, and paintings of both themes take advantage of the opportunity to represent a nude woman. Images from this page are linked to entries in 'Stories in Art,' my searchable database of paintings that tell stories. I do not benefit in any way from additional visits to this site, other than the gratification that a stranger might appreciate how different artists handle similar themes because of my project. Please ask any questions you may have, and thank you for your consideration. Bdaroff (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is it in arabic and not greek?

There is no reason why her name should be written in Arabic and not Greek or Latin. We should include all languages of the books where she features, or just feature the Hebrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.176.140.34 (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Descedant of Jesus?

As above - how is she meant to be? Just a basic Bible knowledge - but surely Jesus had no issue?86.152.169.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC).

Leonard Cohen's hallelujah

The song also talks about Bathsheba. "There was a secret chord that David played and it pleased the Lord" - "you saw her bathing on the roof". Please include the ref. Spanglej (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the article, nor does it benefit the article in any way. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

agreed. The song, which is not all that significant, is about David, not Bathsheba. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, snob, it has everything to do with the article, which is about the Biblical figure Bathsheba. Bathsheba and the David/Bathsheba story are referenced in a culturally significant song, a classic song, by Leonard Cohen. It certainly would have a place in such an article and would benefit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.77.90 (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't call people snobs -- Such things are not done in wikipedia. --75* 18:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bathsheba's ethnicity

It has been confirmed that Bathsheba was a descendant of Noah's son Ham (who uhm.. did not produce people of lily-white complexion). When I view Bathsheba's article, the picture shows a lily-white female?? I think it best to remove the picture. It's beyond misleading. Panda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.159.230.175 ([[User talk:4.1 59.230.175|talk]]) 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

No, "Sheba" was a descendant of Ham in the Genesis "Table of Nations". "Bathsheba" is an unrelated Biblical character, an Israelite, and the wife of King David and mother of Solomon. Besides, the two are spelled differently in Hebrew. "Sheba" the kingdom is spelled with a final letter Aleph, whereas "Bath sheba" is spelled with a final letter 'Ayin.

Art, and especially religious art, is way above skin color criteria. Disdero 16:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Disdero, you may want to consider what a narrow-minded 12 year-old will assume when they look at that picture..

Dear Anonymous, I assume few "narrow-minded 12 year-olds" analyse Bathsheba skin on Wikipedia, or elsewhere. Please propose any other picture of your choice, on the Talk page, before destroying regular wikipedians contributions. I would prefer we do not enter in a cycle of rv & undos. Cheers Disdero 22:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume few "narrow-minded 12 year-olds" analyse Bathsheba skin on Wikipedia, or elsewhere ..precisely, they'd just erroneously assume she was white. I will try to find a more fitting picture that is free to display on the article. And were all the pictures chosen by these 'regular' contributors discussed 'on the talk page' before they were embedded into the article?

Why would anyone assume Bathsheba was anything other than white? She has a Hebrew name, her father has a Hebrew name, and nowhere is it suggested that she is remotely foreign (as opposed to, say, her husband who is always "Uriah, the Hittite"). Yes, she was probably more tan than generally pictured, but racially, she was white. Like the other Jews of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmund Blackadder (talk • contribs) 00:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What an incredibly ignorant statement. Those people were not "white". -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay now let's be fair, lily-white sounds a tad mean. If one said Ham produced "mud-colored" people someone might be upset. We don't know what colors the descendants of Sem, Ham, or Japhet actually were. And let's not forget, the view that these people were the ancestors of anyone is not accepted by modern science. It's basically creationism. I myself believe in creation. But if you are going to make race-based ideological statements, I will have to say science and anthropology do not support the following: Blacks are Hamitic, Middle-Easterners are Semitic, Indo-Europeans are Japhetic. Those are creationist views that have their roots in Judeo-Christian folklore and mythology. And I'd like to point out fair-skinned people (not necessarily Indo-Europeans) have lived in hotter and sunnier regions, so she could've easily been white anyway. I think our original poster is holding to the Afro-centric view of things: If it was a sunny place, they must have been Black. Tarim basin mummies my friend, tarim basin mummies my friend. Us "whites" were everywhere, and still are. Best to all. George 47.20.9.43 (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Historical figure?

From the article, I cannot tell if this person is a historical figure thought to have actually existed, purely a device from a fictional history, or if there is controversy between the two. Any help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:B80:6CB:6982:F361:1B41:22CB (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I like this question. Well it seems modern scholarship is moving in the direction that biblical figures actually existed, but they are treated skeptically. I do not mean this in a derogatory way, but may I ask, are you a skeptic who believes the Bible is pure fiction? It appears this question can be asked about any of the numerous biblical figures Wikipedia, and other encyclopedias, have articles on. Some years ago National Geographic did a great article about Abraham, and numerous studies have been done on the "historical Jesus". I think modern historians do treat these biblical figures, as historical figures, but apply historical analysis to them. 47.20.9.43 (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no extra-biblical evidence about her, so no one knows. We can't say yes or no. So all this article can do is discuss the role of this character in the biblical narrative, what kind of theological notions are related to the character, and ways the character has been reflected/refracted in culture . Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Willem Drost - Batsheba met de brief van koning David.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Willem Drost - Batsheba met de brief van koning David.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 18, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-01-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Bathsheba is a figure from the Hebrew Bible. She is most known for the story in which she was summoned by King David, who had seen her bathing, seduced her, and impregnated her. As Bathsheba was already married to a soldier named Uriah, David attempted to recall Uriah so he would re-consummate his marriage. When this attempt failed, David arranged for Uriah to be killed in battle so that he could marry Bathsheba. Though the child of this union died in infancy, Bathsheba later bore David's heir, Solomon.

This 1654 painting by Willem Drost, titled Bathsheba Holding King David's Letter, is one of numerous paintings depicting the story of Bathsheba. It is contemporaneous with Rembrandt's Bathsheba at Her Bath, which likewise depicts the nude subject holding a letter from David.Painting: Willem Drost

David is a rapist

References

David is apparently a rapist. There is no reason I can think of to exclude the facts. QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

As pointed out at Talk:David, the third reference here makes it very clear that scholars are divided on the issue, and many reject the term "rape" here. StAnselm (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Blanket reverting pertinent content does not improve the page. Scholars question it but in the end they say she was essentially raped or she did not commit adultery. QuackGuru (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

No, we can't say she was "essentially raped". As many scholars point out, there are indications of consent - e.g. "she came to him". (And of course there is also a much smaller group which argues that she seduced David.) StAnselm (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not add she was "essentially raped". You have not shown scholars indicated that she consented. The part "she came to him" does not indicate content. A man who has been accused of rape could say that she came to my place. If a women meets a man at his place it does not indicate consent. Therefore, you should revert your edit.

There was no indication that Bathsheba gave David consent for sex. or

Bathsheba did not give consent for sex with David.

References

Different sources verify similar wording. I searched again. I can't find sources that say she "consented". QuackGuru (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

From a different essay in the Kirk-Duggan book (p. 102): "Bathsheba is a willing, cognizant and self-determined person in the pursuit of her own desire to seduce him..." StAnselm (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You left out the first part that says "...may suggest..." They did not indicate it was consensual. Do you agree you misquoted the source by leaving out the part "may suggest"? Saying "I am pregnant" does not indicate "consent". QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Not really, because the whole page is an argument for Bathsheba's complicity. StAnselm (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Blenkinsopp calls Bathsheba's words, "a cry of triumph". StAnselm (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Because she came to him or said she was pregnant does not mean consent. It is not consent if a man said she gave me consent because she came to me. It is not consent if a woman said "I am pregnant". A rapist would say or think because she came to me it was consensual. The part "may suggest" does not mean consent. No source says it was consent. QuackGuru (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The idea that it wasn't consent is by no means the majority view - others say that "the text remains silent on whether or not Bathsheba consented". StAnselm (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"There was no indication that Bathsheba gave David consent for sex" means basically the same thing. That's the point. QuackGuru (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No - there are three different viewpoints here: (1) Bathsheba consented; (2) Bathsheba did not consent; (3) the text is ambiguous as to whether she consented or not. StAnselm (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You did not provide any source that shows Bathsheba consented. Wikipedia often contains content that is offensive to readers. You acknowledged that "the text remains silent on whether or not Bathsheba consented". QuackGuru (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I "acknowledged" that - I haven't given my opinion. I pointed out that some scholars say that. Other scholars say things like "there is no evidence that she is ever less than a willing participant in their adultery..." (Nicol, p. 50). StAnselm (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You pointed out that "the text remains silent on whether or not Bathsheba consented". That can be added. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The part about "she came to him" does not mean consent because the Bible "remains silent on whether or not Bathsheba consented". The part about the Bible being silent can be in the lede and body. Other scholars did not point out because she came to him that means consent. There are other viewpoints such as Bathsheba might have consented or she did not consent, but sources stated that the Bible is ambiguous as to whether she consented or not. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy to mention the textual silence in WP voice, cited to Koenig. StAnselm (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I rewrote the claim in similar words to avoid a copyright violation. I added three sources. It can be expanded in the lede and body. For the WP:LEDE I added "The text in the Bible did not explicitly state as to whether Bathsheba consented or not for sex." QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

thank you that is much better. I again want to note that the story of Tamar that occurs later in the narrative is very clearly described as a rape - she says "no". The ambiguity in this passage is remarkable and your edit neutrally described that. well done! The only thing that was lame, was that you added it only to the lead, which is what i expect rank newbies to do, not somebody as experienced as you. I fixed that. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC) (strike Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC))

I did add it to the body. The same text is repeated twice in the body. QuackGuru (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You are completely correct. My apologies. 02:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

See "The text in the Bible did not explicitly state as to whether Bathsheba consented or not for sex.[2][3][5]" All three sources are in the body. QuackGuru (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

yep. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Question to the editors

Would it possible to replace Bathsheba's picture with a more modest one? Modesty is very important to Jewish people and I wouldn't want a religious person to see this. thank you. --Violet24 (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I am a Christian and feel similarly, but sadly, she is also considered a cultural figure, and this article is written from a secular standpoint. 47.20.9.43 (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Why are you afraid of the nudity - were not male and female made in the image of God? This picture is not pornographic and this level of nudity is still common in certain societies today. True, it might give rise to some puerile fascination on the part of small boys, but then so do the more erotic passages in the Song of Solomon. Douglasson (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Bath-Sheba or Bath-Shua?

Is there a connection between the story of 'the daughter of Sheba' who becomes David's wife, and the 'Queen of Sheba' who visits their son Solomon after David had died and Solomon had taken the throne? Sheba was a territory in southern Arabia or Ethiopia/Eritrea (suggesting that both Bath-Sheba and the 'The Queen of Sheba' were black). It seems too much of a coincidence.86.3.135.243 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Bathsheba was not the Queen of Sheba (a woman who ruled in her own right), she was the Queen of Israel and Judea, since she was the queen mother of Solomon. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Bat-Sheva: Bat means daughter. Sheva is number 7. Writing Sheva with a B is a mistake, its actually V. So the translation could be "daughter of seven". The English translation is a mistake; its not a bath and its not sheba. --Jane955 (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

We do by sources. Please look at the source cited. Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It is worthwhile to learn a bit of Hebrew, in order to understand the names, the pronunciation and meanings. בת means daughter, שבע is number seven. Her name is בת שבע. The letter ב can be either B or V in Hebrew, depending on the punctuation. You can look at the chart here. http://www.jewfaq.org/alephbet.htm--Jane955 (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are all the pictures of her nude?

The following discussion 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.

---

Was she the first pornstar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finest1 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Because that is how artists imagined her.--76.176.130.141 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is in the manner of classical art Spanglej (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Bathsheba is depicted in art as being nude, because presumably this is the condition in which David found her, when she was having her bath. c.f. 2 Samuel 11:

"2 And it came to pass at eventide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house; and from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon."

As one Bible commentator I have read (in 1970s, forgot his name and title of the book) has explained, nursing mothers also used to suckle their babies at evening on roofs of their homes, and the veiling and curtaining off of women's quarters was an invention of the later Muslims. A darkening day was convenient for modesty - assuming no one was out looking.Cloptonson (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

As and Early childhood teacher I am wondering if this picture is appropriate. What if a child writes a school project on the subject and looks at this page? There are plenty of modest pictures of Batsheva. According to Historical research that I have read, this story is fictional and the real Batsheva was the wife of a local ruler. My sources are in Hebrew, so I won't add them here, but the real Batsheva would not be dressed like this.--Jane955 (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

"What if a child writes a school project on the subject and looks at this page?"

What kind of a teacher would allow a child to write a school project on the Books of Samuel? The topics covered include deaths in battle, assassinations, decapitations, mutilations of corpses, suicide, necromancy, a brother raping his sister, fratricide, war between father and son, and lots of sex.

For example, in the story of Absalom, he claims the kingship by having public sex with his father's concubines: "And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father's concubines, that he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel will hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then will the hands of all that are with thee be strong. So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel." See: http://biblehub.com/2_samuel/16-22.htm and https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1427/how-should-the-story-of-davids-concubines-be-read

When I was 12-years-old, a local bookseller and scholar gave me the best advice about how to view the Bible: "It is pure pornography, with frequent scenes of violence". After actually reading it, I came to the same conclusion. Never let kids near it. Dimadick (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That is true, nevertheless many religious schools do teach the bible at a young age, minus the pornography. In any case, I don't like this picture, especially since it is very far from the character of the real Batsheva.--Jane955 (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me agree that I don't like the "gallery of tits" approach to the page myself. Not because there can never be semi-nude or nude pictures on Wikipedia, but because in this particular article some of it seems like overkill. Of course, what constitutes "overkill" is a tricky and somewhat subjective thing, but if there's going to be a discussion about it, let me throw in my opinion that two or three of these paintings would be closer to the mark than the six currently there. That's just my two cents.

As for whether we should include more "modest" pictures of Bathsheba, I suppose that would depend on whether there's any modest pictures that have turned out to be as artistically significant as the various less-modest ones here now. I'd imagine that, if we're going to display historical art about Bathsheba, it would be best to hit approximately the ratio of risque to modest that the actual artistic record has. Again, I'm not sure if there's any easy objective way to go about that. Alephb (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed the pictures below. Defiantly an overkill. I have seen nice, respectable pictures of Batsheva, but I don't know about the copyrights.

Even if this biblical story is true, Batsheva was a lot more than a bored and seductive housewife who betrayed her husband. She was the mother of King Solomon. But the truth is that she was the wife of the ruler of Moriah or city of Yevus. (part of Jerusalem). In Jesuite/Yevusit language Uriah means ruler/leader. David ruled over Zion citadel or city of David. When Uriah was killed in battle (in Rabat Amon) the Yevusim made a deal with David; he can marry their queen, unite Jerusalem, the Temple will be on their land but the next King will have to be Batsheva's son. I assume that the biblical writers (who wanted King David to be portrayed as a strong King) decided to make up this seductive story, in order to explain why Batsheva's son was chosen to be King, even-though he was not the oldest son. So, this portray of Batsheva is not who she was. By the way, I read this in Moshe Yahalom's historical books, unfortunately they are written in Hebrew.--Jane955 (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

No offense, but is English your primary language? "city of Yevus. (part of Jerusalem). In Jesuite/Yevusit language"

Jesuit refers to the Society of Jesus. The people of Jerusalem that you mention are the Jebusites, who supposedly held the city before David conquered them. There are brief mentions of this tribe in the Book of Genesis, Book of Joshua, the Books of Samuel, the Books of Kings, and the Books of Chronicles, but their historicity and if they can be identified with groups mentioned in extra-biblical sources is unclear.

There is a so-called "Jebusite hypothesis" concerning their role as an ethnic group and political faction in the Kingdom of Israel, but little solid evidence for it. :

• Some scholars have speculated that as Zadok (also Zadoq) does not appear in the text of Samuel until after the conquest of Jerusalem, he was actually a Jebusite priest co-opted into the Israelite state religion. Frank Moore Cross, professor at the Harvard Divinity School, refers to this theory as the "Jebusite Hypothesis," criticizes it extensively, but terms it the dominant view among contemporary scholars"
• "Elsewhere in the Bible, the Jebusites are described in a manner that suggests that they worshipped the same God (El Elyon—Ēl ‘Elyōn) as the Israelites (see, e.g., Melchizedek). Further support for this theory comes from the fact that other Jebusites resident in pre-Israelite Jerusalem bore names invoking the principle or god Zedek (Tzedek) (see, e.g., Melchizedek and Adonizedek). Under this theory the Aaronic lineage ascribed to Zadok is a later, anachronistic interpolation. Julius Wellhausen first espoused the theory that Ēl ‘Elyōn was an ancient god of Salem (i.e., Jerusalem), who after David's annexation of Jerusalem circa 1000 was equated to Yahweh, and that the Zadokite priests of Jerusalem were or claimed to be descended from Melchizedek."
• "According to the "Jebusite Hypothesis," however, the Jebusites persisted as inhabitants of Jerusalem and comprised an important faction in the Kingdom of Judah, including such notables as Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Bathsheba, the queen and mother of the next monarch, Solomon. According to this hypothesis, after the disgrace of a rival Elide faction of priests in the struggle for succession to David, the family of Zadok became the sole authorized Jerusalem clergy, so that a Jebusite family monopolized the Jerusalem clergy for many centuries before becoming sufficiently attenuated to be indistinguishable from other Judeans or Judahites."

The Books of Samuel do not mention Bathsheba as a Jebusite, and their narrative of the siege and conquest of Jerusalem contains little information about them.:

• "Then came all the tribes of Israel to David to Hebron, and spoke, saying, "Behold, we are your bone and your flesh. In times past, when Saul was king over us, it was you who led out and brought in Israel. Yahweh said to you, 'You shall be shepherd of my people Israel, and you shall be prince over Israel.'" So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a covenant with them in Hebron before Yahweh; and they anointed David king over Israel. David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years. In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months; and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty-three years over all Israel and Judah. The king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who spoke to David, saying, "Unless you take away the blind and the lame, you shall not come in here;" thinking, "David can't come in here." Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion; the same is the city of David. David said on that day, "Whoever strikes the Jebusites, let him get up to the watercourse, and strike the lame and the blind, who are hated by David's soul." Therefore they say, "The blind and the lame can't come into the house." David lived in the stronghold, and called it the city of David. David built around from Millo and inward. David grew greater and greater; for Yahweh, the God of Armies, was with him." See: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(World_English)/2_Samuel#Chapter_5 Dimadick (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Jesuit refers to the Society of Jesus. The people of Jerusalem that you mention are the Jebusites, who supposedly held the city before David conquered them. There are brief mentions of this tribe in the Book of Genesis, Book of Joshua, the Books of Samuel, the Books of Kings, and the Books of Chronicles, but their historicity and if they can be identified with groups mentioned in extra-biblical sources is unclear.

That is why I like to use Hebrew names, to avoid confusion. Anyway, we are talking about the Jebusites/Yevusi. According to Moshe Yahalom there was no battle in the bible, where David conquered their land. That's right David had his stronghold in the City of David. They were basiclly two small tribes that ended up uniting. (according to Yahalom) The tribes had similar religious beliefs. The Temple was on Yevusi land. David and Batsheva had an arranged marriage. Jerusalem would unite (that is how Yeru-Shalem became plural: Yeru-Shalim) under David's command and Batsheva's son would be the next King. By the way, the Israelite Ministers did not like Solomon. Anyway, its too bad this book is in Hebrew and can not be used as a source. If anyone find similar historical research in English, please include it here.--Jane955 (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

"that is how Yeru-Shalem became plural: Yeru-Shalim" The Amarna letters (14th century BC) already mention the city as "Urušalim", and a settlement called "Rušalim" in Egyptian texts from the 19th century BC is probably the same city at an earlier phase. The name is thought to be in reference to the god Shalim/Shalem/Salem/Salim, who was probably the city's patron deity. He was apparently a deity associated with dusk, with sunset, and with peace. An etymological connection of the name with the Hebrew term "shalom" has been suggested. Cognates turn up in several Semitic languages and the root term was Š-L-M.

• • A suggestion is that the name of Jerusalem translated to "The City of Peace" in various Semitic languages. Dimadick (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Dimadick, I don't really know Semitic languages other than Hebrew and a little Aramaic -- so take this with a grain of salt. But where in modern Hebrew Y'rushalayim (Jerusalem) and Ir Shalom (City of Peace) might sound similar, in older Hebrew it's y'rushalayim vs ʕir shalom. That ʕ is a very distinct throaty sound. I'm not saying the "City of Peace" line is impossible, but I wouldn't believe it just working from Hebrew. I think (but I'm not positive) that this is more an "urban legend" sort of thing than a serious etymology. Naturally, some good reliable sources would change my mind here.Alephb (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• • There is no peace in Jerusalem :) Yeru means city in the Akkadian language. Shalem is a name of a Canaanite God. "Egypt" is plural in Hebrew because there was North & South Egypt. Why is today's Yeru-Shalim plural?--Jane955 (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

No, Yeru isn't Akkadian for city. Yeru or Ayaru is Akkadian for "young man." Perhaps you're thinking of the Sumerogram URU (read alu in Akkadian). I'm beginning to wonder where you're pulling these word-definitions from. You just told us further up in the same conversation that Uriah is the Yevusit word for "leader" or "ruler", which is definitely not a reliable fact either. Alephb (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

באכדית הקידומת ״ירֻ״ שלם היא מגדיר ל״עיר״. ירו-שלים היא עיר שלם

I gave you my source on my page and answered all your questions. I wrote the names in Hebrew above. Actually Yeru is the April-May and Azuru means city. But we don't know how the words are pronounced and Yahalom wrote in Hebrew. I am just translating. He also explains that in ancient languages places were named by their definition. For example Mount Sinai and not just Sinai, Beit-Mikdash (House- Temple), Biet Shemesh (House Sun/Shemesh), So it makes sense that they called this a city and then added the name of the city. But if you have another explanation of what Yeru means, go ahead and share it. We are here to learn and share information so that the Wikipedia pages can be as historically correct as possible. Please add your sources when you write and Uriah, when spelled in Hebrew is leader/ruler.--Jane955 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2018 (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.

Bathsheba's other children

The following discussion 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.

---

I came to this article whilst trying to find out references to Bathsheba's other children as recorded in 1 Chronicles v4: "David reigned in Jerusalem thirty-three years, and these were the children born to him there: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon. These four were by Bathsheba daughter of Ammiel. " Interesting that Solomon is placed in fourth position. Douglasson (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2018 (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.

Queen of Israel?

We have this title above the leadimage. Is it motivated? Sure, she is technically a Queen Mother, but is she generally described as Queen of Israel in sources? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, this is a new thread and should not be part of the July (non-admin closure), but I can't figure out how to correct this. Help, please. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)