Talk:Showbread

origin
I object to the phrase "and the bread being an offering of food, ready for consumption whenever the deity chose to make an appearance" which compares the Hebrew traditon to other traditions in surrounding religious rites. There is zero evidence that the Hebrew tradition was ever intended for the "deity" to consume the bread. In fact the, opposite is clearly true, which is the Preists were the only ones permitted to consume (except as noted in regards to David). The comparison between the Babylonian and Assyrian rite is plainly incorrect. The "Bread of the Presence" which is the much better translation, is similar in several ways perhaps, but the statement of the "diety consuming the bread" is unwarranted by any Hebrew tradition. Source: Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Brant Pitre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Econofire (talk • contribs) 21:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

shewbread
Can someone explain to me why this article is named shewbread, not showbread. (I understand that there is a redirrect, but it should be the other way around - I have never heard of shewbread, but I do know of showbread). also throughout the article showbread, not shewbread, is used Jon513 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename This article should be renamed. (And, BTW, I didn't get here via wikistalking. It had to do with research as to work done in the mishkan parlaying into being assur on Shabbat.) Reuvenk 00:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

OBJECTION There is no point renaming this article, as the Shewbread goes by many names. "Shewbread" is well established in English, being the King James translation, after the German "Schaubrot". "Showbread" is simply a modernisation. But it is also known as "Bread of the Presence (literally Faces: Hebrew panim)" or "Loaves of the Proposition (Greek prothesis, Latin propositionem)", so it is pointless to change the name here.


 * Thank you for you insight. However I have already changed the name of the article some time ago, and the time to debate this point has passed.  As shewbread redirects to showbread (just like University of Durham redirect to Durham University), and the article mentions both, there is little practical difference.  One of my reasons for changing it was that showbread has more google hits than shewbread.  You can also see Naming_conventions and Naming conventions (use English) for more information.  Jon513 22:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would also be appropriate to change every reference to 'shewbread' (apart from the word in bold in the opening paragraph) to 'showbread' - what do others think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobKilcoyne (talk • contribs) 05:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Stub?
I note that this article has the stub tag at the bottom, although it seems pretty well established to me. If nobody objects, I'm going to remove the tag. jf 16:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, stubs often last longer than the should. Each person just adds one or two sentences (and how can one sentence change it from being a stub...) and before you know it, it is no longer a stub.  Jon513 13:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have now removed the tag. jf 16:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed a stub. It's stub because it's mostly still simply a copy of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article without additional content. The Jewish Encyclopedia has a particular editorial POV as well as (of course) being outdated, and regularly violates a number of Wikipedia policies, such as vouching for sources etc. Needs work. --Shirahadasha 08:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

pure?
I have removed the sentence
 * The table is also described in the text as being ritually pure.

I believe that the sentence is in error. The Hebrew does use the word tahor but in the context mean pure gold (as in 100% gold)- not ritually pure. Jon513 20:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The table indeed had to be kept ritually pure. Tractate Yoma goes into detail about this and explains that it was composed of parts each small enough that in the event of a ritual purity accident the table could be dissassembled and all the parted immersed in the small mikvah kept on the premises for such an occassion and reassembled. Moreover, there's an allusion in the Bible itself. In the incident in which David ate from the loaves, he was first asked if he had been with a woman recently. The question was designed to elicit whether he had recently ejaculated and hence whether or not he was in a ritually pure state. He wouldn't have been allowed to touch anything if he wasn't. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From a traditional Jewish point of view, attempting to address questions about the construction and use of Temple ritual objects by parsing the Torah alone without referring to the Talmud and later commentary doesn't get very far, and indeed I generally don't recommend attempting to base what Wikipedia says on an editor's own personal interpretation of the Bible given that this type of question (what does "pure" mean in this context?) is exactly the sort of thing Biblical commentators disagree about. Also, one of the tasks on my plate is to attempt to wrest the traditional Jewish sources out of the hodgepodge and present a traditional Jewish point of view for what constitutes the halakhic requirements for kosher showbread and a kosher shulchan (where known) and how Jewish tradition, as distinct from academic historians, describes the way it was and/or should be constructed and used. Best --Shirahadasha 22:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)