ISH-BOSHETH man of shame ; Sept. 'Iepocrfie), a son of king Saul, and the only one who survived him. In Chron. viii. 33, and ix. 39, this name is given as 3,,ZV:)N Eshbaal. Baal was the name of an idol, accounted abomin able by the Hebrews, and which scrupulous per sons avoided pronouncing, using the word bosheth, shame' or vanity,' instead. This explains why the name Eshbaal is substituted for Ish-bosheth, Jerubbaal for Jerubbesheth (comp. Judg. viii. 35 with 2 Sam. xi. 21), and Merib-baal for Mephi bosheth (comp. 2 Sam. iv. 4 with Chron. viii- 34 and ix. 4o). Ish-bosheth was not present in the disastrous battle at Gilboa, in which his father and brothers perished ; and, too feeble of himself to seize the sceptre which had fallen from the hands of Saul, he owed the crown entirely to his uncle Abner, who conducted him to Mahanaim, beyond the Jordan, where he was recognised as king by ten of the twelve tribes. He reigned seven, or, as some will have it, two years—if a power so uncertain as his can be called a reign. Even the semblance of authority which he possessed he owed to the will and influence of Abner, who kept the real substance in his own hands. A sharp quarrel between then led at last to the ruin of Ish-bosheth. Although accustomed to tremble before Abner, even his meek temper was roused to resentment by the discovery that Abner had invaded the liamm of his late father Saul, which was in a peculiar manner sacred under his care as a son and a king. By this act Abner exposed the king to public contempt ; if it did not indeed leave himself open to the suspicion of intending to advance a claim to the crown on his own behalf Abner highly resented the rebuke of Ish-bosheth, and from that time contemplated uniting all the tribes under the sceptic of David. Ish-bosheth, however, reverted to his ordinary timidity of cha racter. At the first demand of David, he restored to him his sister Michal, who had been given in marriage to the son of Jesse by Saul, and had afterwards been talcen from him and bestowed upon another. It is, perhaps, right to attribute this act to his weakness ; although, as David allows that he was a righteous man, it may have been owing to his sense of justice. On the death of Abner Ish-bosheth lost all heart and hope, and perished nliserahly, being murdered in his own palace, while he took his mid-day sleep, by two of his officers, Baanal and Rechab. They sped with
his head to David, expecting a great reward for their deed; but the monarch—as both right feeling and good policy required — testified the utmost horror and concern. He slew the murderers, and placed the head of Ish-bosheth with due respect in the sepulchre of Abner : B. C. 1048 (2 Sam. ii. ; iii. 6-39 ; iv,) There is a serious difficulty in the chronology of this reign. In 2 Sarn. 1 to Ish bosheth is said to have reigned two years ; which some understand as the whole amount of his reign.
And as David reigned seven and a half years ovet Judah before he became king of all Israel upon the death of Ish-bosheth, it is conceived by the Jewish chronologer (Seder Olam Raba, p. 37), as well as by Kimchi and others, that there was a vacancy of five years in the throne of Israel. It is not, however, agreed by those who entertain this opi nion, whether this vacancy took place before or after the reign of Ish-bosheth. Some think it was before, it being then a matter of dispute wbether he or Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, should be made king; but others hold that after his death five years elapsed before David was generally recognised as king of all Israel. If the reign of Ish-bosheth be limited to two years, the latter is doubtless the best way of accounting for the other five, since no ground of delay in the accession of Ish-bosheth is suoested in Scripture itself ; for the claim of Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, which some have produced, being that of a lame boy five years old, whose father never reigned, against a king's son forty years of age, would have been deemed of little weight in Israel. Besides, our notions of Abner do not allow us to suppose that under him the question of the succession could have remained five years in abeyance. But it is the more usual, and perhaps the better course, to settle this question by supposing that the reigns of David over Judah, and of Ish-bosheth over Israel, were nearly contemporaneous, and that the two years are mentioned as those from 1.vhich to date the commencement of the ensuing events—namely, the wars between the house of Saul and that ot David.—J. K.