Talk:Boaz and Jachin

Inconsistent, lack of citations, poorly written

Significant parts of this article are not supported by the biblical authority cited. I am well aware of other traditional and eigteenth-century sources, but I feel that they should not be used in Wikipaedia uncited, or misleadingly cited Jezza 11:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

While I can understand that such objections exist, I do believe that if the information is reliably sourced, it should be included, if perhaps in a different section. John Carter 17:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Pillars are stated to be "27 feet tall" and "40 cubits tall" two sentences later. This article is a joke.R0m23 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes... Since a cubit is aprox 1.5 feet (18 inches) a 40 cubit pillar would stand at around 60 Feet, while a 27 foot pillar would equate to 18 cubits. This error is probably due to editors reading different sources (none of which is cited), and not attributing the measurements. I will tag the material for proper citation. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I have figured it out... the 40 cubit measurement comes from Masonic tradition, while the 18 cubit measurement comes from the Bible.

The section on Masonic use of the pillars was really poor... full of OR and speculation. I have removed it. Yes, the Masons do have representations of Boaz and Jachin in their lodge rooms. However, I don't think this is really all that important or worth mentioning. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, you are transparent. Methink the lady doth protest too much.

Nuttyskin (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

More like glow-in-the-dark. LOL --2001:4898:80E8:B:D8C3:38D3:3D76:C45A (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Casting the Pillars

I have long had a problem with the pillars, the historical/biblical ones specifically. Nothing, absolutely nothing I have read about that era leads me to believe that the Israelites had the technology necessary to make a bronze or copper casting that size. I think we would find it rather challenging even today. Any thoughts on the matter? ping (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

They might have been cast in circular or even semicircular sections, and then riveted together.

Nuttyskin (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Why?!

Who the hell, put out the image of Boaz and Jachin?!? The justification is : " The image is in the categories Alchemy and Occult of Wikimedia Commons. It is not relevant here." Who cares if Wikimedia Commons have this category?!? I uploaded this image for the porpuse of this article... Lightwarrior2 (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it, gentleman. If you want to do a stub just about the interpretation Freemasonry or the like have on the Columns, you have Wikipedia at your disposal. This article does not pass from a stub and your (low-resolution, illegible) image was giving much attention to a very secondary context. You could have improved the correspondent occultist section with a developed verbal content not attached to the image. Where is in the article something explaining the "Mystical alchemical" interpretation of Boaz and Jachin? --Algorithme (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I propose this article be merged with the Solomon's Temple article. I see no point in having articles for every part of the building. Cush (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Left/Right vs. North/South

The article currently states: "According to Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews, Boaz stood on the left when entering Solomon's Temple". This contradicts what the Bible actually states. The NIV has this to say...

2 Chronicles 3:17 "He erected the pillars in the front of the temple, one to the south and one to the north. The one to the south he named Jakin and the one to the north Boaz"

Jachin is on the South and Boaz is on the North which means that Jachin stood on the Left when entering the Temple, not the Right as Josephus states.

Here is the KJV version...

2 Chronicles 3:17 "And he reared up the pillars before the temple, one on the right hand, and the other on the left; and called the name of that on the right hand Jachin, and the name of that on the left Boaz"

Note that the South side of the Temple was considered the Right as can be seen in the verse describing the location of the Molten Sea...

2 Chronicles 4:10 "And he set the sea on the right side of the east end, over against the south"

The Right side is the South. One always enters the Temple from East to West.

The article should be rewritten to reflect what the Bible says and not what an outside work of opinion/fiction says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.218.92 (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

None of the above takes the original Hebrew into account.

I deleted the note regarding the placement of the Pillars to the North & South. The original Hebrew for both citations [1 Kings 7:21; 2 Chronicles 3:17] state only, and explicitly, that Jachin was on the Right, and Boaz on the Left. Neither Hebrew source mentions "North" or "South"; such designations are mostly conjecture, some with merit, but not at all stated in the verses: 1 Kings 7:21; 2 Chronicles 3:17

It must be remembered that the orientation of the Temple was such that the Holy of Holies, containing the Ark of Covenant, was the Westernmost part of the Sanctuary, with the entrance to the East. Thus,we read:

"....And behold, at the entrance to the temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men with their backs to the temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east; and they were prostrating themselves eastward toward the sun." Ezekiel 8:16

This means that when one was entering the Sanctuary, one was facing West. If Boaz is to the left, it would be to the South, with Jachin in the North on the right. Flegetanis (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Flegetanis:, do you read Hebrew? Because I noticed you said, "None of this takes the original Hebrew into account," and then went on to say things that sound like you don't read much biblical Hebrew. Alephb (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Alephb:, Yes, I read Hebrew. I'm not sure what you're reading into what I wrote, but the Hebrew text for both 1 Kings 7:21 & 2 Chronicles 3:17 all use the same terms for "Right" & "Left", and nothing about North or South. I do not know the original provenance of the English quoted for 2 Chronicles 3:17, that says "one to the south and one to the north". I see it in a number of translations, but it is clearly interpretive. The Hebrew in that verse, as well as in 1 Kings 7:21, speaks only of Right & Left. If one entered the Sanctuary, one would face West. This places South to the Left and North to the Right. The modern orientation of synagogues may also add to the confusion, as most you would find in the Western world face East, which is towards the Temple Mount. However, I can cite a couple of examples of synagogues (those on Mt. Zion) that face North, as Mt. Zion is South of the Temple Mount. Flegetanis (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you know your way around Hebrew. I'll just use simple vocabulary here in case you're new to this. Which yad did ab yisraelim shalakh al rosh menashe? Answer: hasmol. Where is chova in relation to darmesek? Answer: chova mismol ledarmesek. So the obvious question, then, is ha "smol" shel boaz v'yakin -- kmo yad leyad or kmo ir le-ir? Surely you see the problem here.

Anyhow, beyond the slightly hilarious fact that you can't figure out how to find Hebrew words for north and south in the phrase ehad miyamin ve ehad mehasmol after lecturing us all about "the original Hebrew", you're making a weird assumption even if the correct reading is "right" and "left". The weird assumption is that the hypothetical person to whom the pillars are "right" and "left" is outside the temple looking in. If anything is "clearly interpretive" it's that assumption. Your "original Hebrew", even if you read it using that weird little BibleHub interlinear, certainly doesn't say anything about any person standing outside the temple looking toward Boaz and Jachin. Alephb (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, this degenerated quickly. I'm not looking for a pissing contest. Any translation of "yamin v'smol" as representing specific cardinal directions is interpretive. The words simply mean "right & left". If you want to add a note saying that the terms have been interpreted by certain authorities as referring to specific directions of the compass, and why, then simply say so, & explain it, citing examples. But to say that "yamin v'smol" have any other "pshat" meaning than "right & left" is just not factual.Flegetanis (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No matter how many times you just keep baldly repeating it, there's nothing strange or unusual about reading yemin as south and smol as north. You know there's dictionaries of biblical Hebrew, right? We don't have to take your word for it on this. HALOT, DCH, BDB, Gesenius ... they're all entirely on the same page about this. A fun exercise would be to try and find a Hebrew dictionary (biblical Hebrew, not modern Hebrew) that doesn't offer north and south as possible meanings of smol and yamin. It would also be a fun exercise to try and find a scholarly source (actual regular scholarship, not WP:FRINGE stuff in journals of Freemasonry) that says anything like "yemin and smol explicitly pshatly mean right and left, and this north-south stuff is just interpretive speculation."

This stuff's not just in Hebrew. There the Arabic shimal for north, Minean uses a sh'ml for northern, Qatabanian uses ymnn and sh-mn for south and north. This is like, a real thing that people know about. It's not like a whole bunch of Bible translators just randomly picked north and south just to mess around here.

If you turn right, are right about something, or possess human rights, we wouldn't just repeat over and over that one of these meanings is "pshat" and the others are "interpretive". That's just silly.

Thank goodness that Wikipedia relies on reliable sources like well-recognized Hebrew dictionaries rather than the particular opinions of individual editors. Especially on Hebrew. My, the things people say about Hebrew! Alephb (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"[T]here's nothing strange or unusual about reading yemin as south and smol as north". I never said there was. They are still not the fundamental meanings of the words. You are arguing backwards from a specific application to a general concept. That is in defiance of one of the first rules of rabbinical logic. Quite simply, just because "right" & "left" can, in a number of places, be understood to mean "South" & "North" in the Bible, it doesn't prove that every use of "right" or "left" means those directions. While interpreting them as such may have its merits, it remains interpretation, and is subject to dispute. As for "scholarly sources", rabbinical school is hardly at the "FRINGE" of Biblical exegesis. The fact you attempt to use my having been published in Masonic journals as some "point" against me is interesting. You seem to be adept at building uninformed as well as informed fallacies. Your condescension is far more indicative of your true credibility. As I assume your next reply will be another attempt at "scathing ridicule" rather than reasonable discussion, I am done. The only general rule concerning "yamin v'smol" is that they mean "Right & Left"; secondary translations are just that, and are subject to debate and cannot be stated as a final actuality. Flegetanis (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned Freemasonry because this article has had a long history of disputes over Freemasonry, and because searching online for "Boaz Jachin left right" yields tons and tons of old discussions about Freemasonry. If you've personally published in Masonic journals, that's absolutely fine. What you do on your own time is your own business and I wouldn't hold it against you. I've known some Masons and there's nothing wrong with them, as far as I can tell. I was just trying to preemptively steer things toward more of the kinds of sources that Wikipedia relies on. If you're interested in the kinds of things that Wikipedia considers reliable sources, you can see WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Those Masonic journals, for the most part, aren't going to be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia in terms of what actually was going on with Boaz and Jachin. On the other hand, there is a section that addresses Masonic interpretation, and I'd have no objection to Masonic stuff showing up there.

When it comes to rabbinical exegesis, rabbinical exegesis is generally not considered WP:RELIABLE as a source on how biblical matters were historically, but rabbinical exegesis is certainly interesting as a topic in its own right. Personally, I find, for example, Rashi a lot more interesting than most mainstream biblical scholars. But while Rashi is an important character, he's not a WP:RELIABLE source on the Bible. If you want to have some stuff about how traditional rabbinical exegesis has treated the topic of Boaz and Jachin, no objection here, as long as that stuff is clearly labelled in some fashion like "Here's how traditional rabbinical exegesis has treated things." Of course, we'd still need cited sources even for that.

But north and south are actual, regular dictionary definitions of smol and yamin, as can be found in regular mainstream dictionaries, regardless of what rabbinical exegetes might have done. Wikipedia doesn't work off the opinions of individual editors. If you want the Wikipedia article to reflect the idea that The only general rule concerning "yamin v'smol" is that they mean "Right & Left"; secondary translations are just that, and are subject to debate and cannot be stated as a final actuality., then what we'd need is some actual WP:RELIABLE source that says that. We can't just privately decide for ourselves which translations are "secondary". Alephb (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boaz and Jachin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080521190811/http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/hr638.htm to http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/hr638.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Possibly usable sources

[1] and [2]. I wonder if this article should be deleted or merged. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The first one looks like a pretty clearly usable source. I'm having a lot less success understanding where exactly the second is coming from, because I'm not familiar with the publisher and a quick search isn't giving me much to go on as to whether it's a crackpot book or a serious one. Alephb (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Random House, so at least not selfpublished (I think). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the author is somewhat noted as an author of books about books by Dan Brown: Even a book exploiting interest in The Da Vinci Code, called Cracking The Da Vinci Code, by Simon Cox, made it into the non-fiction top 10, selling 33,850 copies. Perhaps with attribution. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Another source, for those with access: The Pillars Jachin and Boaz. Subject may actually deserve an article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay. When I clicked through your link, it said "Mainstream Publishing", which sounds ... suspicious. Alephb (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add redirects

(... automatic links) for "Yachin and Boaz", "Yachin" etc., as these variants also show up (see for instance Israel Lipschitz). Thanks, Arminden (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yachin and Boaz as well as Yachin are redirected now. JohnThorne (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Rosicrucian image

@Skyerise, I could argue that it illustrates the idea that the pillars should change place ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, you could, if you had sources to that effect. But the problem is, the pillars don't change place, except in error. But it depends on whether the portrayal is intended to be looking into or out of the temple, which is not always explicit or easily determined (which is why we need sources). In any case, this is a big mess of cultural appropriation: why should the Masons or the Rosicrucians have any say in the matter? Skyerise (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, they do if WP:RS bothered to notice their opinions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

What's really needed is an overview source that covers the swapping and details which orientation each successive appropriator used. I don't believe such a source exists... But if you can find one, by all means ... Skyerise (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)