Talk:List of minor Hebrew Bible figures, A–K

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Adbeel)

AfD results[edit]

An article regarding a minor Biblical figure from which this was moved was nominated for deletion. The result was no consensus, but a significant number of voters approved of preserving this information as part of a list. For details, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uel.  BD2412 talk 00:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note also, this article contains content originally from Adina (Biblical name), contributed by User:FurciferRNB , (which was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adina (Biblical name). bd2412 T 22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why this article should be kept[edit]

I just de-prodded this article, which had been listed with the note, "list short, incomplete, and will never be complete or useful. all four entrants are profoundly nn". I'm going to state my case right now as to why this assessment is incorrect. First, the names on this page were directed here largely through other deletion processes, where they were deemed insufficient to stand on their own as articles (with which I agree). However, it is incorrect to say that the entrants are completely lacking in notability, for the sole reason that they are named in the Bible. Furthermore, for exactly this reason it is incorrect to say that the list will never be complete - there are a finite number of persons named in the Bible for whom individual articles would be inappropriate. Some are more notable than the four listed at this point. But there is a distinct and definitive endpoint to this article. Furthermore, when it is completed, it will be useful to persons interested in knowing what the Bible has to say about persons named therein who do not get there own article. What else to do with them? bd2412 T 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent bit of Reasoning. I intend to help now that I have come across this list and noticed how much work it needs. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a good idea. I'll be helping too (though I can't guarantee how much time I can devote).Mitchell Powell (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - all the help we can get is appreciated, and there is definitely an end in sight to this labor. bd2412 T 20:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastons[edit]

If people want to fill out this list, they can go check out Wikipedia:Easton's Dictionary topics. Most of the characters left that have not been moved into wikipedia are non-notable and shouldn't get articles, but can be put on this list. They are usually 1-3 sentences in length and contain 1-4 biblical references. I merged in all of the people left in the "M" section, and you can see how big it is now. This should give a rough idea of how large this page might be once the merging from Easton's is complete. I will be updating the Easton's page and recommending that name with 1-3 sentences be moved here as a general rule, and redirects created. Danski14 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that eventually we'll have to split this into 3-4 pages each covering a different chunk of the alphabet. bd2412 T 04:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separate page for peoples[edit]

Given the length of this page, I'd like to propose keeping this article limited to individual persons, and having a separate article on minor Biblical peoples (that is, groups of people such as the Apharsachites and Apharsites and Girgashites). Does anyone disagree? bd2412 T 18:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hearing no objection, I have split out List of minor Biblical tribes. Perhaps not the best name for the page, but I think it should do (but if anyone wants to change it, have at it!). bd2412 T 03:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little caution here. I haven't checked but I would still like to state that there isn't much redundancy in tribe and person, as most tribes take the name of a person. Please be sure to keep those on both lists. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least the high priest should have an article of their own. I removed Jehoiarib. Mismeret (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed figures[edit]

Thoughts on creating a heading for unnamed figures (Noah's wife, Pharaoah's butler and baker for example). Would it be considered non-notable and unnecessary? Donnie Love (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that's a very good idea. I have made the argument before (and continue to hew to it) that any person who appears in the Bible is inherently notable because they appear in the Bible, one of the foundational books of western civilization. Noah's wife is a classic example of a figure who is actually notable (would possibly even qualify for an independant article on notability grounds) but goes unnamed. A section here would be fine, but I'd even be inclined to say there should be an article on unnamed figures in the Bible, with some discourse on efforts by historians to put a name to some of them based on who they were and other historical evidence. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There exists the List of names for the Biblical nameless which uses extra-biblical and non-canonical sources, but of course it doesn't list every unnamed person (such as the baker and butler) and conversely lists people not in the Bible (such as Nimrod's wife). Donnie Love (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical or Hebrew Bible/Tanakh/Tanakh only?[edit]

Biblical or Hebrew Bible/Tanakh/Old Testament only?

If this is a list of minor figures only from Hebrew Bible (only) it should be reflected in the article name somehow. Even if it is all Hebrew Bible people now it should be more clear to readers and editors. --Carlaude (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be best to keep this only for the Hebrew Bible (with an appropriate page move). The Hebrew Bible content is usually kept separate in any case, and this page will probably eventually be split even with this smaller scope. A new article for the New Testament article (and Apocrypha?) could be useful. --Eliyak T·C 21:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bump! @Marcocapelle: moved this article and its companion to the current name. Was it settled that we would only include OT figures here? Because I found quite a few NT figures listed. Is there a companion list of minor NT figures, or are they out in the cold now? Elizium23 (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall, but my edit summary says "per actual content". Apparently there were only OT figures in the list. I do not have any objections against splitting or broadening the scope of this list. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boom, created List of minor New Testament figures so they have a place to live. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I love this Beracah Mudawapi (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deliaiah or Deliah[edit]

Under the heading Deliaiah, the spelling changes to Deliah. Wakablogger (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are both nice names Beracah Mudawapi (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

time to make articles[edit]

Every one of these people probably would merit an article. All names mentioned in the Bible, even the most trivial, have been discussed somewhere in the subsequent commentaries over the approximately 20 to 25 centuries since the text was written. I think the 2005 deletion mentioned a the reason for starting this would not be sustained today. Only question is where to start. Possible with the ancestors of Jesus? DGG (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"All names mentioned in the Bible, even the most trivial, have been discussed somewhere in the subsequent commentaries over the approximately 20 to 25 centuries since the text was written." Show me somewhere where Helev ben Baanah is discussed (Samuel 2 23:29). There are many who aren't significant at all, and many more who could never progress beyond 1 paragraph.68.197.235.178 (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable table?[edit]

A useful list. Can I suggest that it be presented as a sortable table, or series of tables? This would make it quicker to use.PiCo (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split the list[edit]

As this list is growing unwieldy in length, I'd like to propose splitting it into:

Objections? bd2412 T 22:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be wiser on several counts to split into Torah, Neviim, Kethuvim, and New Testament, if I understand correctly? If they are listed in more than one of the above then they're not minor, I would think (with some exception for 1 Chronicles 1-9, I suppose, much of which can be counted with Torah). Can we hold off on merging for at least a couple weeks? I just found this article and would like to look further. JJB 02:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It may very well make more sense to split by work, but some people may be looking for a name without knowing which work it is from. Also, in some instances the same name has been used for different characters, some in the older books and some in the newer. bd2412 T 02:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, I strongly believe we slit the list between Old and New testaments. LutherVinci (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a great many OT characters mentioned in the NT; if the OT and NT are split, would the entries be duplicated? A Georgian (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was my concern also; however, I don't think it is a problem unless there are different biblical figures having the same name across the OT and the NT. If someone appears in the OT and is mentioned in the NT, they didn't really "appear" in the NT, and the OT listing should suffice. bd2412 T 23:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But if I go to the lists, not knowing if the figure appears first in the NT or the OT, then I might have to check two separate lists. Some of the OT figures do appear in the NT stories, e.g. Moses and Elijah at the ascension A Georgian (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would note, however, that this list is for biblical figures too minor to merit an article of their own. I suspect that most figures significant enough to be mentioned in both the OT and the NT are independently notable enough to have an article, and would therefore not appear here at all. bd2412 T 03:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counterproposals[edit]

Hmm, this is a good resource now, but it would be nice to get to Featured List, yes? The first ideas to come to mind are:

  • Delete every time it appears the line that "X is the name of N individuals in the Bible:". That's really a Strong's holdover and has no need here.
  • Make every name a bullet point, even if only one person holds it.
  • Formalize certain details like relatives, such as cutting each minor person back to one key relative and leaving the rest of the family to that link. Exception would be sourced discussion on why more than one relationship is significant. Also formalize linking of verses, and perhaps Strong's number?
  • Delete all names that have their own article, even if pseudo-disambigs. Make a names-only list of all "major" Biblical figures (if it doesn't exist), meaning, all that have articles; append it to this article in lieu of in-list references. Also use a category as a backup for the list of majors.
  • Use one authority as the standard. Seems to me that the KJV, having been the first exhaustively text-searched, would rise above, and thus that the enumeration of this list would be regarded as complete when it is identical with a list of every capitalized personal name in Strong's. When KJV has two spellings as often, bold them both. Why not Strong's?
  • There is the issue that whether names are identical is really determined better by Hebrew than by English; that may be resolved by making Hebrew the silent criterion, which would be nice; or it may require explicitly stating when the two are different, or it might just go English-only.
  • Other variant spellings, such as Douay, because these are minor characters, would be best IMHO as redirects to the (primary) KJV spelling, or hatnotes if already taken. It is possible that these can also be exhaustively handled via a category that can combine both redirects and disambigs that allows them to be exhaustively compared regularly against this article, and lists of other spellings.

IMHO these steps really need consideration prior to splitting the article due to a length consideration. (PS I just looked at the length, and it's only 72K! There's really no reason to sweat article length at any stage, and certainly not before 100K. See WP:SIZE passim, particularly "Technical issues" and "No need for haste".) JJB 06:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me address these proposals point by point.
  • I really have no problem with the "X is the name of N individuals in the Bible" lines.
  • No objection to bullet points for names.
  • No objection to trimming back to one or two key relatives, so long as there's some sense of context (i.e., Joe was the eighth of eleven sons of Jim, rather than just Joe was a son of Jim). Totally agree with formalizing links to verses, and including Strong's number.
  • Agree completely with deleting names that have their own article; I also think any name with ten or more people attached to it should be moved out to its own "pseudo-disambig" page.
  • Agree completely with using KJV only as the standard.
  • Better to explicitly state where Hebrew and English differ.
  • No objection to other spellings redirecting to the most common (KJV is fine for that), so long as this is noted in the line for the most common definition.
  • The article is growing, and will keep growing. Splitting now (especially the proposed three-way split) would be proactive, in my opinion.
Cheers! bd2412 T 22:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary on Heber[edit]

User:Ymsperfect posted the following on the page:

(Correction) Heber and Noahs' decendant Eber are, the same person. From one race to another people talked differently. Today we say that person talks with and accent, it is how we can tell that person is from another place other than our own. So therefore, people will spell the name the way it sounds when they sat it-Hebew-Eber-English-Heber-They are one of the same.

I'd like to see some source to back this claim up. It is certainly not clear from the text itself. bd2412 T 05:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move[edit]

List of minor Biblical figures → List of minor biblical figures — Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents: "The adjective biblical should not be capitalized." (These pages have redirects that prevented a standard move.) Jeffro77 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the word Biblical should also be changed to biblical in any other article title or body text where it does not occur at the beginning of a sentence or as part of a quotation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-minor characters[edit]

I hate to sound picky, but I was scrolling through the list when I saw some characters listed under minor biblical figures which I do not feel belong.

Gideon is a long way from being a minor character, seeing as how 3 entire chapters are dedicated to his exploits and he has his own Wikipedia page.

Merib-baal is just an alternate name for Mephibosheth. While many would not consider him a major character, he has his own Wikipedia page and much more is known about him than just genealogy and name.

Mishael is also an alternate spelling, this time of Meshach. These three youths also have their own Wikipedia page and chapter in the biblical text.

It seems like these names need to be removed from this list since they are found elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.223.180 (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the following entries, also including the New Testament people such as Joseph, Joshua, Narcissus, Simon Iscariot, Azor, and others Jehoiakimin (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agee[edit]

I got redirected here when I typed in "Agee". I had forgotten the first name of the writer I was looking for, so I was hoping to get to a last name list with James Agee, Joel Agee (the one I was looking for), and any other Agees. Instead I got redirected here, but the name Agee isn't even to be found on this page. It makes no sense to be redirected to some bible list, when the name doesn't even appear on it as biblical figure.--87.174.218.124 (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the situation, both by adding the biblical Agee to this page, and by moving the short surname listing to the existing redirect. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hobab[edit]

From the article:

Hobab was Moses' brother-in-law (Numbers 10:29) or father-in-law (Judges 4:11). The relevant part of Numbers 10:29 reads: "And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses' father-in-law". That of Judges 4:11 reads: "Now Heber the Kenite had severed himself from the Kenites, even from the children of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses".

Is it commonly acknowledged that the quotation from Judges leads to the conclusion hat Hobab is the father-in-law of Moses? In my humble opinion, the qualification 'Moses' father-in-law' could well refer to Hobab. Nijdam (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of some of the Hebrew names[edit]

IDangerMouse deleted a bout 20 entries which included Hebrew spelling, but did not explain why. I am leaving it as is pending his explanation. A Georgian (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compact ToC boxes[edit]

When the original page was split, the remaining ToC boxes were not edited to suit. DFH (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hitchcock is not a reliable source[edit]

Here and there on Wikipedia, people cite Roswell Dwight Hitchcock on the etymologies of biblical names. Hitchcock is completely unreliable. Most of the etymologies he offered aren't found in reference works from his time, nor do they exist later. Outside of the internet, you won't find a serious biblical scholar anywhere in the world who would cite Hitchcock on etymology. He shouldn't be used as a source on Wikipedia.Alephb (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FactGrid Identifiers[edit]

FactGrid query of all people that appear in the biblical books

This project (of minor biblical characters) has been extremely helpful over the last two weeks in an attempt to identify biblical personnel in the FactGrid:The Bible & Quran Project.

I was wondering whether the FactGrid project could not be of help in return as it might be the ideal solution to create identifiers for all the people mentioned in the biblical books. Identifies would make it easy to refer to people with various mentionings in the Bible; they can be matched with identifiers of other databases and so on.

FactGrid is a sister project of Wikidata using the Wikidata software as a research tool. I would give accounts to anyone of those who are working on these lists - accounts you could use to set precise and searchable triple statements on the characters you are trying to keep separate. FactGRid data are CCO, that is, you could import the list to Wikidata, whenever you feel it is perfect (we are more of a research incubator for data that allow experiments with properties and statements). --Olaf Simons (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Old Testament" is not neutral[edit]

This page (and the equivalent one for the second half of the alphabet) should be renamed. "Old Testament" is a theological Christian statement about a sacred text used by other religions. This is why it has fallen into disuse in academic Bible studies. (See the SBL Handbook of Style.) The previous term ("Bible" or "biblical") was neutral. To differentiate between minor figures in different parts of Christian scriptures, the list for the New Testament (which is solely a Christian text) could read, e.g., "List of minor figures of the New Testament." Tamar Marvin (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I use Hebrew Bible instead. A Georgian (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. The terms are hugely popular, billions of people use and recognise them, and Wiki goes by recognisability - as long as they are not blatantly wrong or completely outdated. Arminden (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To preempt any misunderstanding: I am fully aware of replacement theology, and am on the same page with those trying to combat it, but I'm not at all in agreement with "political correctness" where it overshoots the target and tries to change language and destroy its fiber, its character as an organically evolved tool of communication. A cigar is sometimes just a cigar, and old & new can just mean: A came before B. In religion, btw, being older usually carries more weight. So the arguments can go both ways. As a matter of fact, I only hesitated when I changed the title from OT to HB because of the lesser recognisability of the term, but there I'm firmly convinced that popularisation of a basic fact (OT is a variant of the older HB), known by every half-educated person, but of which millions are still kept unaware by either cultural illiteracy or Church fundamentalism, deserves breaking a lance for. 09:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Arminden (talk)

Hebrew Bible, rather than Old Testament[edit]

The HB came looong before the OT; the OT is nothing but one translation of the HB. Fact. Read up if you don't accept: Hebrew Bible, Old Testament, Septuagint, Biblical canon, etc. With a redirect from the title contatining "OT", all bases are covered, nobody needs to get wound up or upset, and I see little need of rediscussing it. Arminden (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping this at "Hebrew Bible" rather than "Old Testament", for the simple reason that the term "Old Testament" is not NPOV, but rather privileges particular supersessionist Christian claims about Judaism. However, in the interests of strict accuracy, this needs to be understood: the term "Old Testament" is not one translation, but in fact an entire family of translations, with two different sets of source texts - both ultimately rooted in the Tanakh, but one of which goes first into Koine Greek, with the addition of several additional elements not found in the Hebrew. And I know that you, Arminden, know that, because the links you provide lead to important pieces of context. But I feel it's worth being accurate and explicit here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Genevieve. Sure, but for the sake of brevity I pointed out to the fact that it's based on the LXX. I'm usually accused of lack of conciseness, of going into detail; here I tried the other way, but you can never please everyone :) Arminden (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My work here is done[edit]

My work on this page is enough. I shall wait for another individual to continue and complete this list. Jehoiakimin (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jobab was Job[edit]

Job 42:17 Job predated Moses 2601:194:381:7C0:4C5D:D7EF:A193:5F3C (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"List of minor Nameless Biblical figures[edit]

Any such thing in preparation, or removed in the past? If removed: why?

I removed it from the "other uses" tag at the top, no use for a red link (and a misspelled one) up there. Arminden (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You got the name wrong. That list is called List of names for the biblical nameless. Dimadick (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if pride[edit]

If I check this wiki Zalahedrin (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_minor_Hebrew_Bible_figures,_A–K&oldid=1209552035"