2Sa 2:9-10 | KD | STEP | Promotion of Ishbosheth to be king over Israel. - The account of this is attached to the foregoing in the form of an antithesis: “But Abner, the chief captain of Saul (see at ), had taken Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and led him over to Mahanaim.” Ishbosheth had probably been in the battle at Gilboa, and fled with Abner across the Jordan after the battle had been lost. Ishbosheth (i.e., man of shame) was the fourth son of Saul (according to ; ): his proper name was Esh-baal (i.e., fire of Baal, probably equivalent to destroyer of Baal). This name was afterwards changed into Ishbosheth, just as the name of the god Baal was also translated into Bosheth (“shame,” Hos 9:10; , etc.), and Jerubbaal changed into Jerubbosheth (see at Jdg 8:35). Ewald 's supposition, that bosheth was originally employed in a good sense as well, like αἰδως and פּחד ( ), cannot be sustained. Mahanaim was on the eastern side of the Jordan, not far from the ford of Jabbok, and was an important place for the execution of Abner’s plans, partly from its historical associations ( ), and partly also from its situation. There he made Ishbosheth king “for Gilead,” i.e., the whole of the land to the east of the Jordan (as in Num 32:29; , etc.). “For the Ashurites:” this reading is decidedly faulty, since we can no more suppose it to refer to Assyria (Asshur) than to the Arabian tribe of the Assurim ( ); but the true name cannot be discovered. “And for Jezreel,” i.e., not merely the city of that name, but the plain that was named after it (as in ). “And for Ephraim, and Benjamin, and all (the rest of) Israel,” of course not including Judah, where David had already been acknowledged as king.

‏ 2 Samuel 2:9-10

2Sa 2:8-9 Promotion of Ishbosheth to be king over Israel. - The account of this is attached to the foregoing in the form of an antithesis: “But Abner, the chief captain of Saul (see at 1Sa 14:50),had taken Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and led him over to Mahanaim.” Ishbosheth had probably been in the battle at Gilboa, and fled with Abner across the Jordan after the battle had been lost. Ishbosheth (i.e., man of shame) was the fourth son of Saul (according to 1Ch 8:33; 1Ch 9:39): his proper name was Esh-baal (i.e., fire of Baal, probably equivalent to destroyer of Baal). This name was afterwards changed into Ishbosheth, just as the name of the god Baal was also translated into Bosheth (“shame,” Hos 9:10; Jer 3:24, etc.), and Jerubbaal changed into Jerubbosheth (see at Jdg 8:35). Ewald's supposition, that bosheth was originally employed in a good sense as well, like αἰδως and פּחד (Gen 31:53), cannot be sustained. Mahanaim was on the eastern side of the Jordan, not far from the ford of Jabbok, and was an important place for the execution of Abner’s plans, partly from its historical associations (Gen 32:2-3), and partly also from its situation. There he made Ishbosheth king “for Gilead,” i.e., the whole of the land to the east of the Jordan (as in Num 32:29; Jos 22:9, etc.). “For the Ashurites:” this reading is decidedly faulty, since we can no more suppose it to refer to Assyria (Asshur) than to the Arabian tribe of the Assurim (Gen 25:3); but the true name cannot be discovered. ^{▼▼In the Septuagint we find Θασιρὶ or Θασούρ, an equally mistaken form. The Chaldee has “over the tribe of Asher,” which is also unsuitable, unless we include the whole of the northern portion of Canaan, including the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali. But there is no proof that the name Asher was ever extended to the territory of the three northern tribes. We should be rather disposed to agree with Bachienne, who supposes it to refer to the city of Asher (Jos 17:7) and its territory, as this city was in the south-east of Jezreel, and Abner may possibly have conquered this district for Ishbosheth with Gilead as a base, before he ventured to dispute the government of Israel with the Philistines, if only we could discover any reason why the inhabitants (“the Ashurites”) should be mentioned instead of the city Asher, or if it were at all likely that one city should be introduced in the midst of a number of large districts. The Syriac and Vulgate have Geshuri, and therefore seem to have read or conjectured הגּשׁוּרי; and Thenius decides in favour of this, understanding the name Geshur to refer to the most northerly portion of the land on both sides of the Jordan, from Mount Hermon to the Lake of Gennesareth (as in Deu 3:14; Jos 12:5; Jos 13:13; 1Ch 2:23). But no such usage of speech can be deduced from any of these passages, as Geshuri is used there to denote the land of the Geshurites, on the north-east of Bashan, which had a king of its own in the time of David (see at 2Sa 3:3), and which Abner would certainly never have thought of conquering.}“And for Jezreel,” i.e., not merely the city of that name, but the plain that was named after it (as in 1Sa 29:1). “And for Ephraim, and Benjamin, and all (the rest of)Israel,” of course not including Judah, where David had already been acknowledged as king. 2Sa 2:10-11 Length of the reigns of Ishbosheth over Israel, and David at Hebron. The age of Ishbosheth is given, as is generally the case at the commencement of a reign. He was forty years old when he began to reign, and reigned two years; whereas David was king at Hebron over the house of Judah seven years and a half. We are struck with this difference in the length of the two reigns; and it cannot be explained, as Seb. Schmidt, Clericus, and others suppose, on the simple assumption that David reigned two years at Hebron over Judah, namely up to the time of the murder of Ishbosheth, and then five years and a half over Israel, namely up to the time of the conquest of Jerusalem: for this is at variance with the plain statement in the text, that “David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah seven years and a half.” The opinion that the two years of Ishbosheth’s reign are to be reckoned up to the time of the war with David, because Abner played the principal part during the other five years and a half that David continued to reign at Hebron, is equally untenable. We may see very clearly from 2 Samuel 3-5 not only that Ishbosheth was king to the time of his death, which took place after that of Abner, but also that after both these events David was anointed king over Israel in Hebron by all the tribes, and that he then went directly to attack Jerusalem, and after conquering the citadel of Zion, chose that city as his own capital. The short duration of Ishbosheth’s reign can only be explained, therefore, on the supposition that he was not made king, as David was, immediately after the death of Saul, but after the recovery by Abner of the land which the Philistines had taken on this side the Jordan, which may have occupied five years. ^{▼▼From the fact that in 2Sa 2:10, 2Sa 2:11, Ishbosheth’s ascending the throne is mentioned before that of David, and is also accompanied with a statement of his age, whereas the age of David is not given till 2Sa 5:4-5, when he became king over all Israel, Ewald draws the erroneous conclusion that the earlier (?) historian regarded Ishbosheth as the true king, and David as a pretender. But the very opposite of this is stated as distinctly as possible in 2Sa 2:4. (compared with 2Sa 2:8). The fact that Ishbosheth is mentioned before David in 2Sa 2:10 may be explained simply enough from the custom so constantly observed in the book of Genesis, of mentioning subordinate lines or subordinate persons first, and stating whatever seemed worth recording with regard to them, in order that the ground might be perfectly clear for relating the history of the principal characters without any interruption.}