From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Claim that Elkhana was really a member of the tribe of Ephraim[edit]

Removed the following material on this claim:

From the point of view of most textual scholars, being a member of Ephraim is more likely - Ephraim was the dominant tribe within the Kingdom of Israel, and with Saul being the son of Elkanah, he could be expected to come from the dominant tribe<ref>though elsewhere Saul is described as being from Benjamin, this latter origin is though to be part of what was originally a distinct source text, usually referred to as the republican source, due to its political outlook; Jewish Encyclopedia, Books of Samuel</ref>.

Reason: Not only does the cited source,[1], not mention this claim, the "Elkanah" article in the Jewish Encyclopedia states the exact opposite as "fact":

Elkanah is also represented in I Sam. i. 1 as hailing from the mountains of Ephraim, the word here denoting this (comp. Judges xii. 5; IKings xi. 26)—if indeed is not a corruption for "Ephraimite"—and not, as in Judges i. 2 and I Sam. xvii. 12, an inhabitant of Ephrata (see Lxx.). His genealogy is also found in a pedigree of the Kohathites (I Chron. vi. 3-15) and in that of Heman, his great-grandson (ib. vi. 18-22). According to the genealogical tables, Elkanah was, a Levite, a fact otherwise not mentioned in the books of Samuel. The fact that Elkanah, a Levite, was denominated an Ephraimite is analogous to the designation of a Levite belonging to Judah (Judges xvii. 7). [Emphasis added] [2]

--Shirahadasha 11:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the whole of the Books of Samuel article (at Jewish Encyclopedia), not just the top bit (it does continue beyond the first bibliography list). You will clearly see that the passage in question (in which Saul is pointed to as being a Benjaminite) is attributed to the republican source (be wary that there are lots of abbreviations, and so forth, so the what belongs to which source bit can be difficult to follow if you dont pay attention).

In addition, the article you point out - the Elkanah article - and your quote of it, states that

  • According to the genealogical tables (by which the text means a passage in Chronicles) Elkanah was a Levite
  • According to 1 Samuel 1:1 he is denoted as being from Ephraim, or more likely an Ephraimite.
  • According to Judges 1:2 and 1 Samuel 17:12, the term used in 1 Samuel 1:1 for from Ephraim (probably a corruption Ephraimite) is rendered as from Ephrata by the Septuagint

I fail to see how this contradicts the statements in question. For Ephraim's royal significance/prominence/etc. see Richard Elliott Friedman's Who wrote the Bible. --User talk:FDuffy 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


I prefer to put Bigamy than Polygamy, since it specifically refers to the custom of having two wives, not the custom of having more than one wife. There are several occasions in the Bible of two-wife-ness, but the custom of more-than-one-wife, by which is meant 3 or more, is not found until Solomon and David. A technical solution to any sense of inappropriateness for the term Bigamy due to allegedly criminal connotations would be to put bigyny (literally two-women, and paralleling polygyny for multiple women), though this would just confuse people completely. --User talk:FDuffy 22:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to polygamist, since most dictionaries seem to define bigamy foremost as a crime, which it was not in the Biblical context. The etymology of "bi-gamy" may be dual marriage, but its definition is now "illegally marrying more than one person." Likewise, "polygamy" now means the practice of having more than one spouse. I see no reason not to use the correct term "polygamist" since it's clear from the article's context that he has only two wives. Yawar.fiesta (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 16:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

– Clear primary topic, the only Elkanah with an actual article. PatGallacher (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. No-brainer to me. --BDD (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support making the husband of Hannah primary topic, but propose that the other page be moved to Elkanah (name) in accordance with MOS:DABNAME, as it is in fact an anthroponymy list. Favonian (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as the primary topic. StAnselm (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.