shallun-shiloh

SHALLUN keepeis' in Ezra 2 42 Neh. 7 45 should probably be ' Asshurites,' another N. Arabian ethnic (Che.).

9. Shallum the Korahite (I Ch. 9 19, U Q A W ~ W V [B], uaAop' [AI), see MESHELEMIAH.

IO . An Ephraimite (2 Ch. 28 IZ urMvp [BA] -ap [Ll). 11. A door-keeper (or Asshnrite? Che.), Ezra 1024 (ydAv,.c

[Bl, yaihh~tp [*I, uohhvp [A], OB. [L])=I Esd. 925 SALLUMUS ~ U Q A A O U ~ X [B*bA] -pa" [Ray C Y ] ) . From the fact that Telem (cp Tnlmon) occurs'alonsside his name, it is probable that he is to he identified with no. 8, above. 12. One of the b. Bani, Ezra1042 (uahwp [BH])=SAMATUS

I Esd. 9 34 ( U ~ ~ Q V O S [BAI). 73. b. HALLOHESH @nibs), one of the repairers of the wall at

Jerusalem (Neh. 3 IZ uah[hlovp [BA], oahoup [#I). 14. The father of Hanameel and uncle ( ~ i q ) of Jeremiah (Jer.

32 [F 391 7, O Q ~ W ~ [BAQ], uahpov [#*I, sdnof. arpvv? [Qmg.]), possibly the same as z (above).

15. Father of Maaseiah (Jer. 35 [@ 421 4 udop [BAQ], arhop

SRALLUR ()!be), b. COL-HOZEH (p...), ruler of the district of Mizpah, who repaired the fountain-gate and part of the pool of Shiloah (Neh. 315 ; @RNA om.,

SHALMAI (AV in Neh. 748 = Ezra 246f ; *e\@

[p(*] OQl

EMMWN [L]).

[=SALMAI in RV] in Neh. with no van. [except uapasi (H) against u&prr (B), u e A p c ~ (A), ucAepa (L)], and in Ezra, Kr. [Ba. ; the usual text being '&, cp u e ~ c l r (AL)] ; *!.@ in Ezra, Kt. [sa. ; the usual text being '??4 = SHAMLAI (RV), U Q ~ Q Q V (B)]), only in the phrase 'the children of Salmai,' a family of the NETHINIM (see E z H A ~ ~ . , 5 ion). The name suggests a foreign origin. In I Esd. 5 30 the corresponding name is SUBAI ( m ~ r [BA], u e A q m [Ll). Cp SHELUMIEL.

SHALMAN (Hos. 1 0 14). See BETH-ARBEL.

S H A L ~ E S E B ( T D ~ & ; cAMENNAcAp3 CAAA-

M A N A C C A ~ P I ; C A A M A N A C A ~ [AI, C A M A N A C C A ~ , in 2 K. 1 8 9 1 ; C A ~ M A N A C C A P [L]; in Tob.

in 4 Esd. 1340 SALMANASAR, Salmanassar), named as king of Assyria in 2 K. 173-6 189.11, is obviously the king who succeeded Tiglath-pileser and preceded Sargon. Hence he must be identified with $ulmgnu- agarid IV., successor and possibly son of Tiglath- pileser 111. H e was king of Assyria, 727-722 B.C. H e seems to have left no monuments, probably because his reign was so short. H e was succeeded by Sargon II., who appears to have founded a new dynasty. Very little is known of him. The Babylonian Chronicle, KB 2276, narrates that ' h e sat on the throne, z j t h of TeMtu [727 B.c.]. The city Samara'in (or Sabara'in) he destroyed (cp SAMARITANS, 9 2). In his fifth year 'SulmBnu-&arid, in TeMtu, met his fate. Five years had Sulmanu-aSarid reigned in Assyria. ' The existing copies of the eponym canons give the names of the eponyms for the five years of his reign, and the additional information that in the first two years there was no military expedition, but that there was one in each of the years 725-722 B.C. Un- fortunately the objective of these expeditions i s not known. Some of the standard lion weights found at Kalah bear this king's name, KB233f: A boundary stone inscription. published by Peiser (KeiliinschrzYtZiche ActenstiicRe, 78), refers to private transactions in the second year of this reign, at ,Db-ili , which town was then under his rule. For another private transaction of this reign, in or near Nineveh (?), see KB 4 108. Sargon, in one of his inscriptions, accuses Shalmaneser of forcibly dispossessing the old capital A I b r of its ancient rights and imhunities (see Wi. A O F 1 4 0 2 8 ) . I t seems certain also that, before he came to the throne, his father (?) Tiglath-pileser had placed him as his lieutenant over the city and district of Simirra, conquered in 738 B.C. (see Wi. AOF 24) . That he actually took Samaria is rendered doubtful by Sargon's claim to have done so, see SAMARITANS, 2. See HOSEA for his relations with that monarch.

The Shalman of Hos. 10 14 has been identified @.E., by Wellhausen, who regards 7,. IO as an interpolation)

4423

[;'" 2 13 IS$, Enemessar, E N E M E C C ~ P O C , -ap [BKA] ;

SHAMGAR with Shalmaneser 1V. ; against this see BETH-ARBEL, and Crit.

SEdMA (YF$; CAMAeA [Bh'l, ChMMA [ALI), b. Hothan the Aroerite, one of David's heroes (I Ch. 11 44). Cp Elishama-i. e . , probably Ishmael (Che. ). His brother is Jeiel-i.e., Jerahmeel [Che.] (see JEIEL, 2).

SEAMARIAH (QO@, 2 Ch. 1119). S e SHE-

SHAMBLES (Old Eng. scamel, from the late Lat. scamelZuum, a small bench), though now generally used in the sense of a slaughter-house, formerly signified a bench or stall on which goods, and particularly meat, were exposed for sale, and then a meat or flesh-market (~peoadhror) . In this sense shambles is used in our later English versions to render p r i ~ e X X o v (I Cor. 1025), the Lat. maceZZum.2 or provision-market, for which earlier translators have ' market ' (Tindale) or ' fleshe market' (Coverdaleand others). 'Shambles' first appears in the Rheims version of 1582. The Roman colonists who founded the Corinth of Paul's day (see CORINTH) in all probability brought the name with them.3 The salesmen were named macellarii and dealt not only in the flesh of domestic animals but also in venison and other game, as well as in the various secondary articles of diet classed by the ancients under the head of 6$ov, o6sonia (references in Marq. Das PrivatZeben d. Romer, 450 [187g]).

Dio Cassius defines ~b p l r A A o v as * v +pdv T&Y b$ov (61 18). In Athens the provision-market (&$~~roh~a) waj divided into sections, termed xtirAor (circles), and namd after the s cia1 wares offered for sale, rir ~b IJlov, dr 7bv ofvov, etc. (PofiKs 47 10 29).

In I Cor. 1025 the Corinthian Christians are advised to purchase whatever is offered for sale in the provision- market of the city, asking no question on the score of conscience, ' for the earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof. '

SEAMED, RV SHEMED (7p@), b. ELPAAL (g .v . ) , in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (p.~., 5 g, ii. S), I Ch. 8 12 ; perhaps same as Ishmerai in v. 18, seeJQR 11103, $ I. Recent editions (Ba., Ginsb. ) read mu, in preference to mu (final d , not final r ) ; the latter, however, is followed by ordinary Hebrew Bibles, Pesh. and 65 (uvpvp [B]. uepp. [A], uapatrli W1).

Jer. 324 11 13. See IDOL, 3.

Bi6.1 C . H. W. J.

MARIAH (2).

A. n. s. K.

SEAME, SHAJKEFUL THING (ne>?), HOS. gI0

SHAJBEB (lQ,@), I Ch. 734, AV SHEMER (2 and 3).

SHAMGAR (la@ ; c a M a r a p [B], CAME- EL, and BA in Judg. 561 ; Jos: . c a . y A p o c , c a M a r a p o c ; on 1. Jadg.331. the addition in some MSS of 65 after

Judg. 1631, see Moore, 'Judges,' SBOT [Heb.]. 59). An early Israelitish hero, Judg. 331 56 ; or, as others think, a foreign oppressor of Israel or of some part of Israel whom the writer of Judg. 3 31, through a misunderstanding of the allusion in Judg. 5 6 . mistook for a patriotic warrior. 'The notice in Judg. 3 31, however, is, according to the most recent commentators, a very late insertion, later not only than the deuteronomistic elements in Judges, but also than the editor to whom the chronological system of Judges in its present form is due. I t stands altogether outside that system, and is evidently unknown to the author of Judg. 41, which connects the oppression of Jabin with the death of Ehud. The author of the notice was poorly provided with suitable details for a fictitious story ; he takes a hint (it may perhaps be held) from Judg. 1514 5 , where a similar exploit is

1 [For other references see Lehmann, ' Menander u. Josephos fib. Salmanassar IV. pt. i.,' Beitruge ZUY AZfm Geschghte,

2 MuceZZuwt was also adopted into the Hebrew of the Talmud and Midrash under the forms p $ p , i3>@D, etc (see the lexi- cons of Levy and astrow).

3 .For the macedzz of Rome see art. maceZZum in Smith's Did. of GR. and Rm. Anfiq.W

4414

2 125-140 ( I F ) . ]

SHAMGAR assigned to Sams0n.l When we consider that the legend ( 2 S. 231lJ) of Shammah ben ,Agee. one of David’s heroes, has also been influenced by the Samson-story, such license would not be surprising. Note also that all these names begin with aw (sh-m). The chief object of the insertion of Judg.331 would be to explain the obscure phrase ‘ in the days of Shamgar ben Anath ’ in Judg. 56.

Certainly Shamgar hen Anatb comes from the song in Judp. 5 (in a corrupt form so far as u.6 is concerned). But the late writer of 331 ventbred on no account of ‘Shamgar’s’ exploits. Unless our experience elsewhere is altogether illusory, the passage (3 31) has suffered both by corruption and by editorial manipulation. On the analogy of similarly corrupt passages, we have to restore it thus :,“‘And after him arose Shamgar ben Anath ; he smote the Pehstim [Ishmaehtes, Jerahmeelites] ; he also delivered Israel.’ The corrector of the MS evidently felt that ‘ Peligtim’ occurred too early ; he wrote in the margin ‘Ishmae!ites,’ ‘ Jerah; meelites,’ as alternative corrections for ‘ PeliHtim. seems to he the right word ; the precedingnarrative in its original form probably closed with the words, ‘and the land had rest from the Ishmaelites,’ just as the narrative of Jabin or Sisera probably closed with the words, ‘and the land had rest from the Arabians.’a

Moore (Judges, 106) and Marquart (Fund. 3) have suggested

that he may have been a Hittite king. 2’ Judg’ 56* Sangara was the name of a (Hittite) king

of Cxchemish in the time of ASur-naSir-pal and Shal- mancser I I. Moore also refers, in illustration of ‘ Sisera,’ to the numerous Hittite names in -sira (e.g., HtAsira, WMM As. u. Eur. 332). whilst Marquart compares the name Pi-siri(s), borne by the last king of Carchemish (cp Del. Pur. 270), and Ball4 refers (for a ben Anath ’ ) to Bur-anati, the name of the king of Yasbuk whom Shalmaneser 11. mentions as an ally of Sangara (KB 1159 ; cp ISHBAK). The song, however, is so often corrupt that the question of the names Shamgar and Sisera needs to be re-examined in connection with a thorough critical revision of the text of Judg. 5. The main historical result of such a revision appears to the present writer to be that the foes by whom the Israelites were oppressed were N. Arabians, variously called Jerah- meelites, Ishmaelites, Cnshites, Asshurites, and Keniz- zites. and that a. 6 should run thus :

In the days of Jerahmeel son of Anak,s In the days of Cusham and Ishmael.

i lap, ‘Shamgar’ (?), is in fact a scribe’s mixture of $N>DV* and $NnnlT, and the scribe himself corrected his error,d while N i p D is a corruption of the ethnic name iii)i~, ‘ Asshur,’ a collateral form of which was probably i+ ‘ Geshur ’ (see GESHUR. z). Now perhaps we can see how ‘ Jabin ’ and ‘ Sisera’ both appear in the story. ‘ Jabin ’ ( B A , twice Jamin) is one of the corruptions of ‘ Jerahmeel.’ so that the king of Kenaz (I]?, not iyJ,), whose capital was Kadeshr-barnea], might equally well be called ‘ Jerahmeel ’ and ‘ Asshur. ‘ That ‘ Sisera ’ represents a N. Arabian ethnic name may also be pre- sumed from its occurrence in the list of the families of

1 Moore oints out (SBOT, l.c.) that in some forms of B the notice of Sgamgar stands after the story of Samson, and conjectures that this was the original place of the brief account.

2 Winckler ( G I 2 124)~ too, expresses dissatisfaction with the current theory; but he has no light to throw either on 337 or on 56. 3 There are quite sufficient parallels for these and the preced-

ingemendations. frequently springs out of $wyow,, and chronological statements have several times (r.g., Nu. 1433 Am. 2 IO 5 2 5 ) arisen out of misread ethnic names. See MOSES, $ 11. The difficulties arising out of l a in (cp Q) and out of the six hundred men, who ‘have always &xed the dredulity of the commentators’ (Moore; cp Wade, Old Test. History, 198, n. I), now disa pear

4 Smitg’s D k 4 , S.D. ‘ Ishhak.’ ‘ Bur’ may have been taken by the scribe to he =l? (‘son’); cp the reading proposed in col. 163, n. I.

This critical theory can only be right in part.2

Ishmaelites

But who was the true ’ Shamgar ‘ (Judg. 5 6 ) ?

5 nand p confounded.

9 in $y -Dq represents $Nan* ; p stands for 8. The rest of n3- was expelled by the following word >$in which resembles s n v . Line z now appears in a much altered form in D. 71. See C d . Bib.

But cp ANATH.

4425

SHAMMOTH the Nethinini ( = Ethanim, ’ men of Ethau ‘-a N. Arabian region).

Cp G. F. Moore, jurlges, 105f:, ~ p f : , and ‘Shamgar-and Sisera,’ in /earn. Am. Or. SOC. l Y 6 1 jg f: ; Wi. G I 3 724 (Sem- gir, -two divine names).

See SISERA, and Grit. Bib.

T. K . C.

SHAMHUTH (nmb), I a. 278 ; in z s. 2325 SHAMMAH ( 5 ) .

I. a city in the highlands of Judah (Josh. 1548 ; C.AMEI~ [131, CA@EIP [ALII. It may possibly be identified with Umm Sdmerah, 2000 ft. above sea level, z m. N. from ‘Anah (cp v. 50) and 5 hrs. SW. from Hebron. So GuCrin, Conder, Buhl. But note ua@p of QW.

2. A place in Mt. Ephraim, the seat of the clan of Tola, in Issachar, see ISSACHAR, 5 7 (Judg. 101 f. ; uapetp [B], uapaptra [AL]).’ A site to the extreme N. of the hill-country seems possible (Moore). But see TOLA, where it is suggested that we should transfer the tradition of Tola to the Kegeb. Observe, too, that Shimron (p.~. ) is both a name of Issachar, and, according to the present writer’s theory of Josh. 111 and

SHAMIB (lV@, Ktb. ”In@), b. Uzziel, a Levite (1 Ch. 2 4 2 4 ; C A M H ~ PA] , CEMMHP [Ll).

SHAMLAI (’??$, Kt. ; V$p, Kr. ; CAMAAN [B], C€~AM[E] I [AL]), Ezra 246=Neh. 5 4 8 , SALMAI.

SHAIKMA (K?@), b. Zophah, in a genealogy of A s H E R ( ~ . v . , ~ ~ , ~ ~ . ) , 1 Ch. 737(C€M[MlA[BL]2 C A M M A

SHAMMAH (a@, § 51 ; abbrev. from SHEMAIAH). I. Son of Reuel h. Esau, and a ‘ duke ’ or ‘clan ’ (7) of Edom ;

Gen. 36 13 17 I Ch. 137 (uopf [BADEL], hut T Ch. 137 uoppe [AI, uappa [L], and Gen. 3017 uopar (01). 2. Son of Jesse (see DAVID, g la, n.); (1S.109, uapa [B],

uappa [AI, uwaa [Ll); but I Ch. 2 13 RV (AV SHIMMA), 207 SHIMEA ( N t p W ) ; z S. 13 3 uapaa [BAL]; 2 S. 21 21, g r . SHIMEAH (ilpq) ; i6. Ktb. and RV SHIMEI, ?&@, u s p e a [BA] uaplra [L]). Hissons were J O N A D A B ~ ~ ~ JONATHAN [q.~.]. See no. 5, below.

3. h. ACEE [q.~.], one of David’s ‘first three’ ( z S. 2311f:; uapaia [B] sappeas [A], uwaras [L]) a HARARITE [ p z ~ ] or perhaps an ~ R C H I T E [q.~. ] , for QBA calk him b &pXaror @L o apxc. Tht exploit attributed to him in 2 S. is, with ;light variations, k e d in I Ch. 11 13f: to Eleazar, another of David’s ‘ first three. In L he appears as ‘ son of Ela,’ which may imply identifying him with Shimei, son of Ela (I K. 4 18 RV ; see ELAH 6). He had a son named Jonathan. See JONATHAN (ben Shagej

SHAMIR (lV?@).

Am. 39 , etc.. the Negeb. T. K. C .

[AI).

See EDOM, 8 4.

and SHAMCAR, 5 I. 4. A Hararite (uapvav [B*b], uapvac [Ba vid. A] ; uayaa [LL;

see also ONATHAN h. Shage), who appears in 2 S. 23 33 as one of Davijs thirty, and as a distinct person both from Shammah h. Agee the Hararite one of the ‘first three ’and from Shammah the Harodite also one of David’s thirty, is ieally to be identified with Shammah h. Agee, and comes into the list in z S. 23 33 merely as father of JORATHAN (‘ben Shage’) [q.~.].

5. The HARODITE [q.~.], another of David’s thirty(2 S. 23 25 ; uawa [Bl, uawwar [AI, uawaras IL1). In I Ch. 11 27 the name . . ~~

is SHAMMOTH (niml; uapwO[BNl, u a y d [AI, uapp08 [LI), the Harorite (‘?ilzm, i, a& [BN], @a& [AI, q p ~ [Ll) ; and in I Ch. 278 SHAMHUTH (ilq?p@; u d a d [Bl, uapad [AL]) the ‘Izrah- ite,’ which, according to Marquart (Fund. ~ g ) , stands for .nl!? ,-$l?? nimw, ‘Shamhuth, the Harodite, belonging to the Zerahites ’ ; see ZERAH (I).

S ~ M (w@, 5 52 ; cp SHEMAIAH). I. A Jerahmeelite . I Ch. 2 28 32 (uapar [B] ; axauapas for

‘brother of Shamma:,’ u. 32 [Bl, axwappa [AI ; uappac [AI ofpeer [Ll).

2. ‘Son’ of REKEM (q.u.) h. Hehron, and ‘father’ of Maon, ‘ father ’ of Beth-zur ; I Ch. 2 44f: (uapar [R only once Ll, uappar

once]). ‘4. Son of MERED rq.u.1 of Judah, hy his ‘Egyptian’ (more probably ‘ Misrite ’) wife ; I Ch. 4 17f: (ucprv [B], urppar [A], OWL [Ll).

See JERAHMEEL, $3 2.

SECAMMOTH ( n W ) , I ch . 1127=ZS. 2325, SHAM-

MAH (5).

1 The fortress SBnGr, wifh which some have identified BETHULIA rq.v.1, has been thought of by Schwarz for Shamir, hut can hardly have come within Issachar. Cp Moore, ad Zoc.

4426

SHAMMUA SHAPHAT SHAMMUA ( V l D ~ , perhaps 'heard,' 5 56, but cp

I. A chief of REUBEN. 0 13 end: Nu.134 (uq~ovvh [Bl,

2. Son of David (I Ch. 144); see SHIMEA (2). In z S. 5 14

SHEMAIAH, which might be an expanded clan name).

cawahqh [A], uappou [F], uaA&vh [L]).

SHAMMUAH (AT'). . , 3. -4 1.evite; Iieh. I 1 17 (uapov[rlr [BN"Al, uappovo [Hc.a?l),

4. A priest, conlemporary with Joiakim, Jeshua's successor ; in 1 Ch. 9 ~6 ulled SIIKMAIAI~ .

Neh. 1 2 18 (om. BH*A, uvapouc [Nc.a mg. "1, uapwe [Ll). SHAMSHERbI (?@@, I C M A C A ~ I A [B], cAMC.

[A], CAMYA~A [L]), b. JEROHAM in a genealogy of BENJAMIN ( g . ~ . , § 9, ii. p ) (I Ch. 8 2 6 f ) . Should the name be SHIMSHAI (g .v . )? Shehariah (cp Shihor. Ashhur) follows. T. K. C.

SHAPHAM (De$; CABAT [B], CA@AM [AI, -N [L]). a Gadite, I Ch. 5 r z t . Perhaps originally a name of the Negeb, (where Gad once dwelt) ; see SHAPHAT, SIPHMOTH (Che.). SHAPHAN (IF@, either an animal name, or the name

of a district, borne originally by a clan and subsequently by individuals [see below] ; CA@AN [BAL], but in 2 K. 22 c ~ @ @ p ~ [BA]), b. Azaliah b. Meshullam, a scribe, temp. Josiah, who was sent to take an account of the expenses for the repair of the temple ( 2 K. 2 2 3 f l ; v. 3 CE@@AN [AI, v. 14 ca@@ae [Bl= 2 Ch. 348.ic: v. 156 ACA@ [A]). It was on this occasion (the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign) that Hilkiah the priest gave him the newly-discovered ' book of the law ' which he read before the king; see JOSIAH, and cp DEUTERONOMY, $ z end. Shaphan was probably aged, since he was soon after displaced in favour of Elishama (Jer. 36 I:). There is no valid reason why he should be kept distinct from Shaphan the father of Ahikam (2 K. 2212, cp Jer. 26 [b 331 24), who, in turn, was the father of the well-known GEDALIAH [ g . ~ . ] (2 K. 2522 Jer. 39 [46] 14 40 [47] 5 [ib. 911 BKAQ om.], 41 [48] z [ua@av (Qmg., BKA om.)], 43 [SO1 6 (BKAQ om. )I), also of a prominent personage called ELASAH, mentioned together with Gemariah b. Hilkiah (Jer. 29 3 ) , and possibly of the JAAZANIAH [q.v.] mentioned in Ezek. 811 (but see Kraetzschmar, ad Zoc.).

Ezek. 8 1 1 8 is such a remarkable passage for the history of Jewish religion, and the name ' Shaphan ' (in ' Jaazaniah son of Shaphan') has been brought into such close relation to the extra- ordinary religious rite described that we shall give a brief con. sideration to it from the point oftiew of onomatology. (r) The precedence among theories is due to the totemistic. W. R. Smith (1. Phil. 9 q7,f, cp Kin. 201) sees in the passage ' an account of Gentile or family idolatry in which the head of each house acted as priest. And the family images which are the object of the cult are those of unclean reptiles and quadrupeds [v. 101. The last point is important. The word yplj is, in the Levitical law, the technical term for a creature that must not be used as food. That such prohibitions are associated with the totem system of animal-worship is well known. . . . Thus in the fact that the animals worshipped were unclean, in the Levitical sense, we gain an additional argument that the worship was of the totem type. And finally, to clinch the whole matter, we find that among the worshippers Ezekiel recognised Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan-that is, of the rock badger, which is one of the unclean quadrupeds (Dt. 14 Lev. 11 5), and must therefore have been figured on the wall as his particular stock-god and animal ancestor. It so happens that the totem character of the s h # h n or as the Arabs call him, the wabr, is certified by a quite indep:ndent piece of testimony. The Arabs of the Sinai peninsula to this day refuse to eat the flesh of the wadr, whom they call "man's brother," and suppose to be a human being transformed. Were a man to break this rule he could never look on h$ father and mother again (Palmer, Dcsut of flu Exodus, r98). To this G. B. Gray (HPN 1 0 3 J ) replies that even if with W. R. Smith we see in the Sha han of Ezek. the name of a still existing totem clan, this on& explains the clan-name Shaphan, and leaves personal names of the same period-Huldah (weasel), Achbor (mouse), and Shaphan itself in 2 K. 223 un- accounted for : 'So far as the evidence of the names goes the occurrence at this time of three names at least which are certainly personal and but one at most of which is tribal, does not favour the viedthat totem clans were then in existence. On the other hnnd, Ezek. 8 II testifies to the worship of unclean animals at about this period. and in this Robertson Smith saw, not without good reason the )survival-perhaps rather the revivalLof superstitious practiies originally derived from totem belief and organisation.' G. B. Gray, therefore, with Davidson (Ezck. 56) and Cheyne (Zntr Is. 366J), gives only a partial assent to W. R. Smith's

4427

theory. He grants that in the late regal period superstitious practices which were originally derived from totemism revived, and that this accounts for the three strange personal names referred to ; this is all. Jos. Jacobs (Studies in BibL Archreol. 8 4 8 ) and Za letal (Der Totemismus und die Relig. Zsmels, 19o1, p. 73) tafe a different view of the name Shaphan, which, especially in Ezek. 8 11, is pronounced to be a contemptuous invention (as if ' Jaazaniah ben shaphan' meant ' Yahwk hears ben rock-badger '), indicating with a bitter irony, the discrepancy between those bad practfces and Israel's true religion. The director of the ceremony is named after Yahwb, and yet he can bring himself to offer worship to the figure of an animal ; the rophet therefore, calls him a 'den taphan,' as one might say

'ben K;mS '-Le. a worshipper of Chemosh. All these scholars presuppose the ordinary text and the usual explanation of names ending in ?I;. Of the inconsistency of supposing that a man whose family cultivated totemistic su erstitions with such ardour as to call some of its members by tfe name of the totem, and others by names which not only contain (as is held) the name of Yah or Yahwk, but even express a true moral conception of the nature of the Deity, they appear to have no satisfactory explanation. (2) A second theory (the present writer's) demands a more searching criticism of the text of therss?ges containing these three names Shaphan Achbor, Hul ah, in connection with a thorough textual revision of other parts of the OT. The result is (a) that not only the history but also the geographical and personal names of the OT are found to be monuments of long- continued N. Arabian influences. From the time (probably) of the Amarna Tablets there was (we may suppose) a large Jeratpeelite element in the population of Palestine, especially in the S., and at the close of the regal eriod (and afterwards) the danger to Judah from the side of 8. Arabia was so great that numbers of Jews fell away to N. Arabian heathenism. (6) What Ezekiel saw on the wall of the chamber in the temple precincts was 'the form of every idol (lit. ahoniination) of the house of Ishmael' (hp?; n-8 y??e-s? nmp n!p!);1 the material on which the current theorles as to the cult of the worshippers are based is simply due to a late editor, who had perforce to make some sense of a corruptly transmitted text, ' Ishmael,' ' Jerahmeel,' and Misrim ', (cp Ezek. 20 7 J, $h;l O'?:D, ' the idols of Misrim,' not DilSp 3, ' the idols of Egypt '). Th; worshippers who thus profaned the temple of Yahwb were religious men ; but their true names were devoid of religious significance. ' Jaazaniah ' is merely an expansion of Azani, which also underlies the Rechabite name ' Jaazaniah' (Jer. 35 3), and the Jerahmeelitr-Levite name ' Azaniah' (N 240). The final 8 is simply formative; the editorial. 'Azan' (p) is probably a place-name (cp p, pp, also Negeh place-names). ' Shaphan ' seems to be a modification of 'Zaphan' (p), which can be shown to be the name of a N. Arabian district, and appears in personal Hebrew names such as [ n l - i ~ y (see ZEPHANIAH, 2.4); cp 919y, Joel 220, etc. Similarly ' Azaliah' and ' Meshullam,' the father and grand- father of Shaphan in 2 K. 22 3, probably come respectively from AFli C.?:!), ' a man of Azal,' and Ishmael (hqJDW') ; El'asah may also come from ' Ishmae1,'and ' Ahikam' from ' Jerahmeel.' Thus the Shaphan connections are accounted for. For completeness' sake, it may be added that from this point of view Huldah' (m5n) is miswritten for sm,2 and that in? (Rachel, sheep ') and > 1 > ~ y (Achbor, 'mouse ') are early popular distor-

tions of 5Nnni.. But the reader will not forget the warning ra 'um 6h B o K L ~ & ' ~ T ~ , r b raAbv xa&,ymo (I Thess. 521). Cp NAMES, $ 68, and last section.

To treat this subject with completeness would require us to consider the right interpretation of Is. 6 5 4 66317. It must suffice, however. to say that all these passages are beyond question deeply corrupt, but that the redactor has proceeded so methodically that it is easy for any one who knows the redactor's methods to restore the true text. I n this text the Jerahmeelites are clearly mentioned as the enemies of the Jews, and no reference is made to unclean animals. Cp SWINE, and see

SHAPHAT (a?@; a corruption of some tribal or place name ; most naturally [cp I] of ngY=Zephath- i.e., n B l u , ZAREPHATH [ p . ~ . ] ) . The names ELISHA- PHAT, JEHOSHAPHAT, and SHEPHATIAH (nv%~w), would seem, therefore, to be modifications of a traditional older name.

I. A Simeonite, b. Hori, one of the 'spies' (Nu. 135t [PI : ua@a7 ucos uoup[e]r [BA], -av vi. 6. [F ] ; ua+aO vi. uov@ [L]). ' Hori' may mean ' Horite,

1 D D ~ probably comes from ~ N ~ D D ? (written too soon), mn>r and perhaps hh (if this is not a gloss on Y F W ) from ham. (a variant to s r y ~ w * ) .

a Cp +n, Zech. 6 IO, &n, zv.14 ; both = hmnv ( C d . Bid.).

Crit. Bib. T. K. C.

4428

SHAPHER SHaREZER but almost more probably comes from Jerahme'eli ; a similar origin for Shaphat then becomes plausible.

2. The father of ELISHA [q .w.] ( I K. 1916 19t, ua@a~9, ua@as [B ws. 19 ; AL]). His residence, Abel-meholah, is usually thought to have been in Issachar. But if the arrangement in MT is correct, it was when Elijah 'departed thence' (i.e., from Horeb) that he 'found Elisha b. Shaphat ' ( I K. 19 19). The reader will probably be aware (see KINGS [BOOK], § 8) that critics have been inclining to the belief that MT's arrangement is not correct, and Kittel, in his commentary (HK154), gives a blank space between v. 18 and w. 19 to indicate that a section of the narrative has been omitted. The matter, however, is not so clear as to require no recon- sideration. We know that Elijah had a close connection with the far S. of Canaan (see PROPHET, § 6). It is plausible, therefore, to suppose that Elisha was originally called, not ' b. Shaphat,' but either 'b . SEfath '-i. e . , a Zephathite, or b. Sefathi '--i.e., the son of a Zephathite. In the former case Elisha, in the latter Elisha's father ( a more probable view), was represented as a man of Zephath or Zarephath who had established himself at Abel-meholah-Le., Abel- jerameel (cp MEHOLATHITE). The site of this Jerah- meelite place (cp I S. 3029) we do not know. The site of Zephath (or probably Zarephath) has probably been identified : see ZAREPHATH.

3. A late descendant of David (I Ch. 322t ; ua a0 [Bl u=+aT [AL]). The name was presumably suggested $y SHE:

4. A dadite, in Bashan (I Ch. 5 xat : ES however [Iavervl b ypapparrv's [B], [rava~l b yp. [A] ; [coavr] 6 yp. ~ d r u 4 a v [L]). Here b ypappa~n's=i~b[nl, a variant to D9V. The common original of both readings is '??l$, ' a Zarephathite.' The list originally referred to the Negeb and was originally ]vi2 (Cushan).l

5. The overseer of David's herds in 'the valleys ' (1 Ch. 2729t : uo+w [Bl uwgar [AI, u@aT [Ll). He is called b. Adlai ; but * h v is bssibly a corruption of &y (Adullam). A Zephathite or Zarephathite (if Shaphat=SephBthi) might easily be a native of Adullam-Le. erahmeel (for David's connection with which cp again T S. 30;9{.

.

PHATIAH I.

T. K. C.

SHAPHER, RV Shepher, Mount ( Y Q p g , 'mount of glitter'? see SAPHIR), a stage in the wandering in the wilderness (Nu. 332jj.t ; c a @ a p [BL], A ~ C A @ A ~ , c a p c a @ a p ["I, a p c a @ a e [FI). If the wanderings were in N. Arabia, and if (as has been rendered probable) P is apt to make up lists by combining various corrupt variants of the same name, the neighbourhood of several (probable) corrupt forms of Jerahmeel suggests that i w (Shepher) comes from nmx ; cp aipn i n ~ D D ( ' t o Zarephath, mount Jerahmeel'?) in Gen. 1031. Cp SEPHAR. See WILDERNESS OF WANDERINGS.

T. K. C. SHAPHIR (Mic. 1 I,), RV, AV SAPHIR.

SHARAI (?@; cap ioy [BJ a p o y CAI capoya [W], - A [L]), b. Bani, a layman, temp. Ezra ; Ezra1040 (I1 I Esd. 934 probably a z w p a CB-41, c a p o y a [L], see EZORA, MACHNADEBAI). Cp SHEARIAH.

SHARAIM (DWV) , Josh. 1536 AV, RV SHAARAIM.

SHARAR (1%). the HARARITE, the father ofAHIAM k4.v. l (2 s. 2 3 3 3 t [CIApal [BI, [CIApAh [A], notice that y ioc precedes, capaxw ~ p a p i ~ a [LI for capax 0 apepi). In I Ch. 1135 his name appears as SACAR ([ClAXAp CBWAI, iccaxap [L]; cp ISSACHAR, 3 6, end). Some of these readings suggest n?$ (see SERAH) as the original ; Marq. (Fzcnd. Z I ) , however, thinks of I++ (see SHOBAB). T. K. C.

1 I Ch. 5 11-17 is a record of the settlement of Gadites in the Negeh for which the Chronicler(v. 17) claims the authority of a list made in the days of Jotham and Jerohoam 11. a. II places their home 'in the land of Cushan as far as Halusah' (? see ZIKLAG) ' 71. 16 'in Gilead [the southern Gilead], in Cushan, and in i;s towks, and in all the suburbso of Sharhon (see SHARON, SHARUHEN), to the point where they end.'

4429

SHARE (nhnn, i l ~ Q ? 2 ) , an implement mentioned z d Z I U (where it is rendered ' mattock ').

ng instrument of some kind appears from the etymology ; E V seems to suggest a ploughshare, but this is represented here by P U (ne), 'coulter,' elsewhere rendered ' ploughshare.' Biprmpov . . . BapL<frv (@A wanting Bcprlr mjprov . . . ~ep+SrLv[~~)seems to suggest some reaping impiement. See AGRICULTURE, 0 3f;

so Ba. Gi., cp Del. CumpZut. Va?: 16; I . . . protect the king' ; cp NERGAL-SHAREZER).

I. An Assyrian, perhaps a son of Sennacherib, who, with Adrammelech (perhaps his brother), slew that king ( z K. 1937 Is. 3738 ; uapauap [BAO], uapaua [LKAQ]). It is urged elsewhere (SENNACHERIR, § 5 ) , that in the admittedly composite narrative of the peril from ' Sen- nacherib ' two different invasions have been mixed up, and that parts of the existing narrative relate to the one and parts to the other. The one invasion was, it is held, the well-known Assyrian invasion of Sennacherib. the other an invasion of a N. Arabian people sometimes called Asshur, hut perhaps more correctly Ashhur (im@F). Whether we can say that each of the accounts which have been welded together relates solely and entirely to one of the two invasions, is doubtful ; but it is at any rate very possible that the passage 2 K. 1936 f. =Is. 3737f. refers to the death of the king of the N. Arabian Asshur, who was said (we may reasonably hold) to have perished in the house of his god Nimrod, by the sword of ' Jerahmeel, a prince of Asshur ' (read i ~ k f 5tgm* for iznp! q h 7 ~ ) ; observe that in z K. iqgl ' his son'? is omitted. Upon this theory the form Sarezer is due to the editor, who supposed only one invasion, viz., the Assyrian, to be meant, and sought to adjust the geographical and personal name? accordingly. Still, apart from this, the existing name Sar-ezer inevitably suggests comparison with the Ass. fur-usur, ' protect the king.' Commonly, but not always, we find this form preceded by some divine name such as Bel, Nergal, etc. (see Schr. Die Ass.-Bad. KeiZinischr., 156). It has been noticed already (see ADRAMMELECH) that Abydenus in Eus. Armn. Chrun. (Schoene, 135) mentions a Nergilus as the successor of Sennacherib. By some ingenious combinations, Hitzig (Begrzfder Kritik, 1 9 4 8 [1831]) identified Sarezer with this Nergilus (supposing the full name to have been Nergal-Sarezer [-Sar-uy~r]. This view, however, though supported by A. v. Gutschmid and Schrader (KAT(Z) 330), is inadmissible, not because it conflicts with the theory mentioned above, but because (see Wi. Z A , 1887, pp. 3 9 2 8 ) the words of Abydenus, ' Deinceps autem post eum (Sinecheribum) Nergilus regnavit,' are misplaced, and refer properly to Nergal-uSizib, who was a Babylonian king, set up by an Elamite invader in 694-3 B.C.

We might, of course, suppose that the Hebrew writer had a confused recollection of the murderer and successor of Evil- merodach who was called Nergal-Sarezer, or, with W. M. Muller (ZA TW17333), that the name Sarezer is a mere guess, due to an early editor who was struck by the un-Assyrian character of the name Adrammelech and determined as well as he could to essyrianise it. Winckler, however (AOF2 ss), thinks that Sarezer may be a distorted form of the historical name $ari!ir- ASSur. This name was borne by a person who seems to have claimed royal rank ; Winckler supposes him to have been the brother whom ESARHADDON [q.".] drove from Babylon into the NW. of the Assyrian kingdom. Cp Ex$. T 9 429 [1898].

A contemporary of Zech'ariah, Zech. 72 (uapauap [BKAQr]). The name, if correctly read, seems to be incomplete. Siegfr. -Stade would read Bel-Barezer, whilst Marti (in Kau. H S ) prefers El- Sarezer : that is to say, Siegfr.-Stade think that '10 $ x - ~ * I is an arbitrary expansion of ' i w 52, and Marti renders the text ' the house ( i .e . , family) of El-iarezer ( ' ~ w S K ) sent.' If, however, we are right in explaining REGEM-MELECH (=Raamiah) as a corruption of Jerahmeel, the question arises whether 5Nn*x may not be a corruption of 5 2 3 ~ (the N. Arabian Tubal). In this case we can hardly read

4430

SHAREZER, or, more correctly, SAREZER ( Y V ~ ~ Y ,

2. AV SHEREZER.

SHARON SHASHAK T I N ~ W 52. 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 at the end of the clause should perhaps be ad?, ' and Jeshua' (a corruption of Shua or Sheba). Render, therefore, 'Tubal, and . . ., and Jerahmeel, and Jeshua (Sheba) sent saying,' etc. But what is the name underlying Sarazer? We see from Zechariah's answer (Zech. 7 5 ) that he was in some way a leader and representative of the people. Wellhausen (KZ. Pr. ) suspects that he may have been Zerubbabel. This cannot be correct ; elsewhere Zechariah calls the governor by his usual name. I t has therefore been suggested (col. 574) that [Bel-lsarezer may be the same as Belsar (an impossible name till we add -ezer=Bab. usur), one of the twelve (?) 'heads' of the Jews of Judzea (see GOVERN- MENT, § 26), according to a well-attested reading (on Ezra 22 Neh. 7 7 see BILSHAN). Plausible as this view is (cp MELZAK), the conjecture reached elsewhere that the principal captivity was really a N. Arabian and not a Babylonian one, makes it prudent to revise it. Just as %ERA [p.v.] comes most probably from Asshur, so Sarezer may be a corruption of Asshur or Asshuri. A later editor. imperfectly informed, may well have Assyrianised it, as W. M. Muller supposes an editor to have Assyrianised ' Adrammelech.' On the objects of the deputation to Zechariah, see Nowack, and cp Jew. ReL Lif., IO, 17. See also REGEM-MELECK.

T. K. C. SHARON (pT&;? with art. ; Is.339 o C A ~ W N

[BNc.bAQal, auapov [N*I , o Zaapov [Q"], Saron; Is. 352 ~€3 om. Saron : Is. 65 IO Zv ri) GpvpS [BNAQ], campestria; I Ch. 21 29 6v T+ AuecSov [Bl, m&~;poy [AI, auapov [Ll; Cant. 2 I mi, ac8rou [BNAC], campi: Acts935, rbv uapova; gentilic '$l$:, Q uapov[r l i~s [BAI, 6 auap. [Ll, the Sharonite).

A plain of Palestine, extending from the Nahr ez- ZerkB, 44 m. southward to the mouth of the Nahr Riibin, by which and by the Ramleh Hills (Abii Shiisheh, 756 ft. in height) it is divided from the Philistian Plain. It was famous for its pastures (I Ch. 27 29 Is. 65 IO) and for its luxuriant vegetation (Is. 35 2 ,

Cant.21). In describing the desolation of Judah a prophet of woe exclaims, ' Sharon is like a desert ' (Is. 339). The name Sharon signifies 'level country,' but this only implies the absence of conspicuous heights (cp NAMES, 99 [6]). Undulating hills occur over a large part of Sharon. Some are well wooded, and there is a long extent of park-like scenery in the neighbourhood of Mukhhlid in the very N. , ' where groups of sindian, the ordinary oak of Palestine (Quercus in- fectoria; see TEREBINTH) are dotted over the rolling plateau of red semi-consolidated sand ' (Conder, PEFQ, 1875, p. 92). These groups of oaks are the representatives of large oak groves. There is Egyptological evidence a for a forest in Sharon, and only an extensive woodland would justify the phrase in Is. 352, ' the magnificence (im) of Carmel and Sharon.' The other- wise strange expression of d in Is. 6510 ( b Fpup6s= (ii"), which agrees with the phraseology of Greek writers, including J o s e p h ~ ~ s , ~ is thus to be accounted for. Nor must we overlook the statement of the Itinerary of King Richard (414) respecting the forest of Assur, S. of the Salt River, through which the Crusaders passed in 1191 A.D. to meet Saladin in battle.4

The ' Plain of Sharon ' is divided into three distinct river basins-those of the Nahr ZerkH (with its wild moorland and marshland), the Nahr el-Mufjir, and the Nahr Iskanderiineh (the Crusaders' Salt River). The southernmost portion, which receives the WSLdys Budrus and SalmHn, is the most cultivated and attractive ; the

1 See Ezra22 and note 2 See paper dy Map. ,&"des . . . dddifes d M. k Dr. C.

Leemans (1885). 3 See Straho, 16, apvpbs rdyas 71:; and especially Jos. Ant!.

xiv. 13 3, Apupoi 6; rb xoplov rdecrar; BJL 132, 7i)v rdd- pavov Apvpbv . . . rb p p i o u . Josephus (Ant. xvi. 5 2) also speaks of a fine grove (8Auos) near Anti atris

4 Cp Archer, 7% Cnrsadc ofKing l i c h i l n , 146.

echariah's answer 'to the priests.'

4431

view of it which the traveller obtains in springtime from the Tower of Ramleh is highly enjoyable. Spring, indeed, works a miracle in the aspect of this region. The richest grass and the brightest flowers adorn the landscape. Even in the marshlands the tall and graceful papyrus (with which Friedr. Delitzsch too boldly identifies the Rose of Sharon) is, in its autumnal flowering time, pleasant to behold. There can be no doubt that but for the encroaching sand the Plain of Sharbn would give a rich reward to the agriculturist, and the words of Is. 65 IO would be verified, ' Sharon shall be a fold for flocks. '

Eusebius and Jerome describe our Sharon as extending from Caesarea on the sea-coast to Joppa; they give it.the name of ua w a s . They also mention a Sharon between Tabor and Tigerias, which they imagine to be referred to in Is. 33 9 (OS 2966, 154b). Later writers have supposed references to this NE. Sharon in Josh. 12 18 (see LASHARON) and Cant. 2 I (see z).

2. A district between Mt. Tabor and Tiberias, as Delitzsch and Oettli think (Cant. 2 I, 'rose of Sharon'), hut erroneously, though the name Sarana, attached to a village in the region called Ard el-Hamma (see Rob. BR 3 237) confirms the statement of Onom. (see .) that a second Shkon really existed. Delitzsch's view is connected with the theory that the bride in Cant. was a Galilgan maiden (see CANTICLES, 0 6). Well- hausen decides against it because the 'rose' (see ROSE, I) is mentioned in Is. 35 if: as blooming in the better-known Sharon (see Che. Projh. Is., ad lor.). 'Rose of Sharon ' was apparently a proverbial phrase.

(B I ? , beain.), I Ch. 5 16t. 3. A region('f) on the E. of Jordan occupied by the b'ne GAD

y fwaw, whence B A L ua&. but . . . Gttel (?Bok ' Chron.') deduces klk= f131y, Sirion. Stanley, G. A. Smith, and Buhl, however, suppose that the li8.F or table- land of Gilead generally (Josh. 13 9 17 21) is meant. A place called i i w is mentioned in Mesha's inscription ( L 13). But that, as Nddeke points out 1 was probably farther to the S. The truth, however, probahy is that I Ch. 5 11-17 comes from a document relating to the Negeh, so that ]iiv may very well represent pniw (niiswritten SHARUHEN). T. K. C.

SHARUEEN.(l?n@; 01 arpoi AYTWN [BAL]), a Simeonite city in Judah (Josh. 196), generally thought to be the SHILHIM (P'n!d; CAAH [Bl, C E A E E I M [AL]), and SHAARAIM (at'@; Sam. [i. 17 521 T U N

AWN [BAL]: Ch. CEWPEIM PA] , C A A P I M [L]) of the corresponding lists in Josh. 1532 (not 36) and I Ch. 431. I t is plausible to suppose that Sharuhen, not Hebron,l is the place opposite which, on a hill-top, Samson, according to legend, deposited the doors and posts of one of the gates of Gaza (Judg. 16 3). Certainly a spot in the SW. of Palestine is more likely than Hebron, and Sharuhen has this recommendation : it had for a second name (if I Ch. Xc. is correct) Shaaraim-<.e., ' the place of a gate.' The legend was perhaps to account for the name. We cannot point out the locality intended ; but it is tempting to identify Sharuhen (fin?@. Sharhan 7) with SarGan, a name which, in the Egyptian inscriptions, designates a fortress of some importance on the road from Egypt to Gaza. For a time Sarahao was occupied by the Hyksos, and that brave warrior Aahmes, whose tomb has furnished an account of the war of liberation, took part in the siege of it (RP('h68, Renouf ; Brugsch, GA- 232, cp 255). The place is also mentioned in the Annals of Thotmes III., at the opening of the campaign, which was distinguished by the great battle of Megiddo (WMM, As. u. Eur. 1 5 8 j ; in RP 238 the names are wrongly read).

See also WMM, MVG, 1898 ('Studien zur vorderas. Gesch.3, Cp SHARON, 3.

P. 23. T. K. C.

b. Bani a layman temp. Ezra (EzralO40). In I Esd. 934, SESE (&[u]etr [Bk], u w e c c [L]). Parallels suggest tracing thiz name to '$IS, Cushite.

SHASEAI (**, $58 ; CECEI [BHA], C E N C E I ~ [LI),

SHASHdK (pvg, § 5 s ; C W C H K [AI, cicax [L] : C W K H ~ [B, v. 141, C W I H K [B, v.251). A Benjamite clan-name, I Ch. 814 25 (see BENJAMIN, 9, ii. b; JQR

1 Die Znschnyt des Kdk. Mesa, 1870, p. 29. * The letters of Iniw were misarranged, and an illwritten p7 Cp Ezek. 22 25 "33 for confounded with or altered into 3.

" W l .

4431

SHAUL 11 103 $ I ) .

suits the related names. Perhaps a distortion of n$?, Cusham, which

Cp Hushim (Cushani), son of

S U U L (h$; caoyh), the same name as SAUL

I . Name of a clan of SIMEON (s g), Shaulites (nmtp hwi ’ h N $ i l , uaouA[c]r [BAFL]), Nu. 26 13, where the equivalence of ‘son’ and ‘clan’ is evident. In Gen.4610 Ex.6 15 I C ~ . 424 Shaul is Simeon’s son ; the two former passages add, by a womd of Canaan (uapwqh u h 6 s Xavavirrsoc [AD], uaovh vi. T . x . [DLI, Gen. 46 IO ; b i~ 71js Oorviuqs [BAF], uaod oi LN 7. Q. [I ,] , Ex. 6 rj) . or rather perhaps of Kenaz (Up for lp? , as in

Aher (Jerahmeel) in I Ch. 7 12. T. K. C .

(q.v. 1.

SHEBA cahael~h). b. Jeconiah ’ the captive’ (see ASSIR), or perhaps Asshur (AD’K ; see Crit. Bib.), according to I Ch. 3 17 j? the uncle, but elsewhere the father, of ZERUR- BABEL [q.v.] (Ezra32 [b’ om.] 8 5 2 Hag. 11, etc.).

In accordance with @3 the name is spelt SALATHIEL by EV in I Esd. 5 j 48 56 G z , and by AV in I Ch. 3 17 lilt. 112 and Lk. 827. In Lk. he is called ‘the son of Xeri,’ on which see GENEALOGIES ii., 5 3. I n z Esd. 516 SALATHIEL K V PHALTIEL, the ‘captain of the people,’ is an uncertain reiding ; Pesh. reads ‘ Psaltiel.’ See, further, Ball, Vur. Ajoc. (ad loc.).

T. K. C. SHEABIAH (7:w ; C A ~ A I A [BA], capia [BKA],

uapra, uupra [LD, b. &el in a genealogy of RLNJAMIN ( p a . 5 9, ii. p ) ; I Ch. 8 38=944.

SHEABING HOUSE (lp-n’3), 2 K. 10 IZ 14 ; Heb. BETH-EKED (q . ”~ . ) .

SHEARJASHUB (>$E$ 7@, ‘ a remnant shall return,’ $ 23). One of Isaiah’s sons (Is.73). See ISAIAH, PKOPHET, § 4.

SHEBA (91@ ; CAMA~, P I 9 CABEE 1.41, caBs [L]),

On the name cp SHAAKAIM.

a Simeonitish town, Josh. 192 (SIMEON, It is omitted in a very few MSS, and in the parallel passage,

I Ch. 4 28. Its inclusion makes the reckoning in Josh. 19 6 inaccurate, unless for p i w we there read i;’lp with 0 (see SHAKUHEK). For a possible way out of the difficulty see JESHUA.

SHEBA (Ya9, perhaps from Elisheha [§ SO] ; other- wise explained as a clan - name = Shema [SOLOMON, $ 21; or a name of the moon-god [Wi. G I 22211: cp Y2WTl2, BATH-SHEBA, and perhaps Nab. p 2 W , CZS 2 115 ; but cp SOLOMON, 5 2 ; CAB€€).

I. Called b. Bikri (Bichri)-ie., a member (like Saul probably) of the Benjamite clan BECHER (cp BEHJAMIN, $ 9 , ii. p).

For the story of his revolt see 2 S. 20 (spec [A, m. I, 71; L uapcs v;bc @&a81 &p a p a p [Architell)).

David was on his return to Jerusalem after Absalom’s death, and a fierce quarrel had arisen between the men of Judah and the men of Israel. Sheba who ‘ happened ’ to be near, saw his opportunity, and called upon the latter to secede from David and claim their inde- pendence. The spark burst into a flame. All Israel took the side of Sheba ; ‘but the men of Judah from Jordan as far as Jerusalem clave to their king. ’ There is reason, however, to think that the description is influenced by that of the great secession under Jeroboam ( I K. 12 16). Sheba’s revolt was, no doubt, the result of some of the disintegrating influences which afterwards had such disastrous effect, but David who had just made his peace with Israel and Judah would surely have been able to prevent a revolt on such a large scale as 2 S. 202 indicates (see 1941-43 [42-44]).’ Unless we adopt a conjecture made elsewhere (SAUL, I ) , the statement of YV. 14-22 (where BERITES [ q . ~ . ] should certainly be emended into ‘ Bikrites ’) shows that the original opening of the narrative has been lost. What we know for certain is that Sheba, a kinsman of Saul, supported by his clan, made a bold attempt to revive the lsraelitish kingdom. He sought in vain to stir up the northern tribes, and was besieged in the ancient city of ABEL- BETH-MAACAH (9.”. ) by Joab. The walls were on the point of giving way to the attacks of the besiegers when a ‘ wise woman ’ (cp Eccles. 9 1 4 5 ) made an arrangement with Joab, and saved the city. Sheba’s head was

1 [Most probably $n*, like the proper names mN and 1nN in I Ch., and y3n (cp QA in r S. 9 I), comes from $Nom?.-

a From the context, the S. border of Judah Lust be intended. I t is probable that we should take ;m* here to be the nuha2 Misrim (see EGYPT KIVER OF, and cp Wi. GI 1 174 : A O F 134, and Marq. Fund. 7;).

The Bikrites joined Sheba, just as in a similar revolt the Benjamites joined Abner (cp 2 25). The passage (20 14) however is in some disorder. Perhaps we should read (transbosing a and b), ‘ and all the Bikrites assembled and came after him, and they passed through ’ (Vl!R), etc.

4434

IO).

T. K. C.]

Judg. 4 z, cp SHAXGAK, $ 2, and often). The name is S. Cainanitish’and N. Arabian (cp SAUL SHALISHA). SHI,MEI and Saul are both Benjarnite names, Hnd another ‘son of Sirneon is J A M I N (one of the best established modifications of ‘ Jerahmeel ’ [Che.]).

2. A Kohathite, and ancestor of Samuel, I Ch. 6 24 [g]. In I Ch. 6 36 [zo] the name is JOEL.

3. (Gen. 36 37f: I Ch. 148$). See SAWL, 2.

SHAVEH, VALE OF (31.q PQU; THN KOIAAAA THN CAYHN [AI . . . C ~ Y H [DLI), the place where the king of Sodom met Abraham after the latter’s victory over CHEDORLAOMER (q.v.), Gen. 1417. An appended notice explains it as ‘ the king’s vale‘ (see XIELCHIZEDEK, 3). Shaveh can hardly mean ’ the level’ or ‘plain’ (on “J. 5, where bAEL again gives uauq, see SHAVEH-KIRIATHAIM). Hommel (ART 151, n. I ) would amend R ~ U into niu. The Vale of Shaveh then becomes the Vale of the King (Ass.-Bab. h r r i ) . l More probably we should read nz@ n-tp, ‘ the highland of Maacath,’ and the following gloss, a that is, Maacath- jerahmeel.’ Cp SODOM. T. K. C .

SEAVEH-KIRIATHAIM (n\n:lp ;I@ : E N cayn TH nohal [AEI,]), generally explained (cg., E V w ) ’ plain of Kiriathaim’ (see KIRJATHAIM). Gen. 145. It was the residence of the EMIM (q.v. ). n?, however, occurs again only in Gen. 14 17, where it is conupt (see SHAVEH, VALLEY OF). C. J. Ball (Gcn. 118) suggests here alp. Read probably >n\2h, nit, ‘the highland

SHAVSHA (K@$. 5 58 ; I Ch. 1816; IHCOYC [BI, uous [HI, uauua [ALI) also called, less correctly, SHISHA (I K. 4 3, Ng’W ; saga [Bl, uewa [AI, QL, however, ua+ar), and SHEVA (2 S. 2025, I@ Kt. N$, Kr.; quous [Bl, L U O U ~

[AI, uouua [L]), and SERAIAH (??, 1 being inserted in the form a*w, 2 S. 8 17, aua [R]).

His name is either =Bab. sazJsu=summ, ‘sun,’ so that Babylonian scribes were still in request (Marq. Fund. 22) or (cp SHESHAI) is a corruption of p i 3 (final x as in x y y , ZIBA), Driver, Wellhausen, and others agree in reject- ing Seraiah. The question is of some historical importance ; which country influenced David most-Babylonia

SHAWL, RV for nny3, AV wimple,’ Is. 321.

S H E U (5@; c + h o y i ~ [BKI, caah[ALI), b. Bani, a layman temp. Ezra. Ezra10q=1 Esd. 930 (aua+oo [BA], aouaqh [i]), EV J A S ~ E L , RV JASAELUS.

SHEALTIEL (h&&d [but in Hag.11~14 22

h&@], as if ‘ I have asked God,’ ’# 34, 56, 79, but this is doubtful, since 5 K in names formed on this model may be formative: we expect, according to this theory, a gentilic, and ‘ Eshtauli ‘ [see EsHTAoL] suggests itself as the genuine name instead of Shealtiel ;

1 Wellhausen (TBS 202) suggests n i q Asherah as the origin ; he connects this view with a very difficult exilanation of 2 S. 18 18, where he makes Ahsalom take ‘the pillar (of the Asherah) in the King’s Vale,’ and set it up in his own behalf.

2 Cp in an old Aram. bilingual mlpy (CZS 26g)=Asa. ki- samas.

of the Rehobothite.’ See SODOM. T. K. C.

Shavsha was David’s scribe or secretary.

or N. Arabia? T. K. C.

See MANTLE, 2 [3 ] , VEIL.

4433

SHEBA cut off and thrown out to J0ab.l Thus the revolt was crushed.

Cheyne, however, maintains (SAUL, 5 I) that 'Abel-beth- maacah' is an editorial attempt to make sense of a corrupt passage, and that the true text of z S. 2O14f: only states that Sheba passed on to Beth-jerahme'el,' and was there besieged

by Joab.2 Beth-jerahme'el (=Beth-gilgal) is, on his the0 the centre of Saul's clan, where Sheba, like Mephibosheg: naturally sought refuge in distress.

The story of the revolt is contained in 2 S. 201J 6f: 14-22. Verse 3 seems to be a parenthesis, introduced to connect the story more closely with the episode of Absalom. I t is just possible, however, that this connection is a mistake, and that Sheba's revolt and that of Absalom happened in different parts of the reign of David (similarly Wi. G I 1173 2 192). Verses 4f: 8-13 contain a confused account of AMASA [p.v. , I]. interspersed with notices of the pursuit of Sheba (cp 106, 136 with 76). The precise relation between the stories of Amasa and Sheba is not clearly indicated ,3 and it is not at all certain that the account of Amasa's death formed part of the

SHEBNA

earliest narrative. 2. A Gadite, I Ch. 5 13 (uepce [Bl, u0,9dc [AI).

S. A. C.

SHEBA (Q?, usually [BHA, etc., LJ once or twice uaj3av [BAQEL], u a p a u [El, u a h [AI, u4a i [Bl ; in Job 6 19 u a p o v [BH*C], auepwv [Avid], P U P ~ W Y [Hc.~]; in Ps. 72 15 mis -ipapiac [BHRT] ; on Job 115, see below : Syr. shdl i : Ar. sad&, in Sabzean inscriptions N ~ B , Assyr. sud'u; name of people D'N??, Joel 3 8 [4 61-un~ess with Merx we follow 05, a i x p a h w u i a v [BNA] in reading '?e, ' captivity ').4

One of the sons of Joktan. Gen. 1028 [Ja], I Ch. 122. He is the eponym of the well-known Sabaeans (in SW. Arabia) who are mentioned also, with different genealogical connections, in Gen. 1 0 7 [PI and 2 5 3 [JE?]= I Ch. 19 32. Whether Jokshan be the same a.s Joktan or not (see JOKSHAN), we need not suppose two Shebas, a N. and S. Arabian, connected or distinct, still less three (so Knobel). as the three ethnographical classifica- tions (Gen.107 1028 253) are probably drawn from three, certainly from two sources. It is doubtless these Sabzeans from whom Tiglath-pileser 111. reports that he received tribute, and to some of whose settlements Sargon refers as being tributary (KAZa) 145f.). Their queen came to visit Solomon, with camels, gold, and precious stones ( I K. 10 I 4 TO 13 = 2 Ch. 9 I 3 g 12) ; cp 'kings of Sheba and Seba.' Ps. 7210 (65 dpdpwv, but cp Che.N ad Zoc.); in Is. 606 ' they from Sheba' bring gold and incense, cp Jer. 6 20 ; in Job 6 19 they appear in caravans, and in Ezek. 2722 (so v. 23, but Co. with d omits) they are traders in spices, jewels, and gold, cp Ezek. 38 13 Ps. 72 IO Is. 60 6 (bilrdened with a gloss, see SBOT). In Joel38 [48] they (plur. n.Naq) are ' a people far off,' to which the sons and daughters of Tyre and Sidon are to be sold by Judah, in judgment. Job 1 15 represents them as plunderers ; t i but elsewhere they are unknown in this character. It is to this people that the Sabaean inscriptions are due; the name is 820 in Sabaean (cp CUSH, 2).

On the recent discoveries of Glaser, and his historical infer- ences see his own account S k i m 2 3 5 7 8 ; Sayce, Crit. Mon. sgfi;' Sprenger, ZDMG,'1894 i o 1 8 On the story of the

1 This story has scarcely a mythological basis in spite of Winckler (GI2 240) and Stucken (AstraLmyUen, 67) ; cp Winckler's theory (above) of the meaning of ' Sheba.

2 Winckler also (GI2240) thinks it strange that Sheba should flee as far as Abel-beth-miacah.

ha&) might suggest that Amasa, when ordered to collect the wakiors of Judah twk a number of men, and threw in his lot with Sheba. Otherkise we might assume that his death was simply the result of a private feud between him and Joab. The wording of WE. IO 12 reminds us of that of z S. 2 23 (murder of Asahel). For a criticism of the whole narrative see AJSL 16 166-19 (IF).

4 O n the name cp WMM, 'Die Sabier in hieroglyph. Texten,'

5 8 And Pesh., however, find no proper name here ( a i x p a .

Awredowe.c [BA], aiXpahwrc6uavTe.c [N], %) ; cp above on Joel 38.

4435

3 QF in v. 7 (xa; mqmjyye'Aw 6rriuo a h i ) A.

MVGE 1898, pp. 35fl

Queen of Sheba cp Stade, GVI 1309, n. 2 ; Ki. Hist. 2 189 ; Wi. GI2z66J; Keane, ThGoZdof Ophir, 112J

SHEBAH, RV SHIBAH (?I!?*, I seven ' ; perhaps taken as equivalent to il???, ' oa th ' ) , the original name of Beer-sheba according to J (Gen. 26 33 ; OPKOC [ADEL]). See BEERSHEBA.

SHEBAM (02?), Nu. 323, RV ' Sebam ' ; in v. 38 SIBMAH.

SHEBANIAH (il:J%Fand l?I92E' either for Vi:?>@, ' Yahwk has brought me back ' : see NAMES, 5 39 ; or an early error, found also on seals [cp PEFQ, 1902. pp. 263f.I for SHECANIAH).

I. A Levite(Neh. 9 4 s ; BAom., uexevrac [L]-;.e., Shecaniah. in v. 5 the uaj3avra.c of L (but u e x e v ~ a s occurs as well) seems to' represent rather HASHABNIAH [P.o.]).

2. Priestly signatory to the covenant (see EZRA i., 7); Neh. 104[51 [ u l f ~ a v s r [Bl, [u lapavcr [N* WaI, uepavi [AI, 6avara.c [Ll), cp 1214, ue shrov [Hc'a"'g.inf' om. BN*Al, u e x e m a [L], and see s H E C A N I A H ~ I )

j, 4. Two names occurring among the signatory Levites (Neh. 10 IO u a p a v r a [R], u e p a v i a [HA], uexevras [L], v. 12

uef lavra [BHA] uapavras [L]). 5. A priest of the time of David (I Ch. 1524, W!9?, u o p v i a

[B], uopvera [HI, u o p c v i a [AI, u a p a v i a [Ll). SHEBARIM (Dr??$i;!; Srrdarim). The point to

which (y) the Israelites were chased from the gate of p' (Josh. 75). Apparently it was not far from Ai, for it IS added that they were 'smitten on the slope (descent). ' RVmg. gives ' the quarries ' ; ' the fragments (of rock) ' might be better (Di. ). But surely there must be an error in the text. 65's uuvlrpc+av a h o h (similarly Pesh. Tg. ) presupposes izw ; cp Bennett in SBOT. Gratz suggests n * i ~ z m - n ~ i ywn dm 1 ~ i i . i . 'and they chased those who were left from before the

SHEBAT (D;?), Zech. 1 7 , AV SEBAT ; see MONTH.

SHEBER (7>d ; c a B ~ p P I , CE. [AI, CABAP [Ll).

F. B.

gate.' But cp SHEBER. T. K. C.

one of the sons of CALEB (q.v.) b. Hezron by his concubine Maacah (I Ch. 2 48). Cp SHEREBIAH, which may be an expansion of Shirbi=Shibri, and may be a Negeb name (see AJSL 5 435).

SHEBNA (N??$, 5 51 [but il??g, 2 K. 1818 26, where R v has SHEBNAH], possibly Aramaic [Di., Ki., etc.], or rather for ~*J Iv=;~*>~v [Del.] ; COMNAC, but COBNAC [B] in Is. 363]), a chief secretary or chancellor under Hezekiah (2 K. 1818 192 Is. 363 22 372). Tradi- tion identified him with the sckkin, or ' high officer ' (AV treasurer,' RV steward '-both renderings are guesses), whose arrogance is so severely denounced by Isaiah in the only passage of personal invective which has come down to us (Is. 2215-19 cp Am. 7 1617). The fact that the last five words of Is. 22 15 have demonstrably been inserted by a later hand renders this identification doubtful. So at least Duhm puts the matter. But the strong probability is that ~ 3 2 ~ (so read) or a->>v and 120 both come from *?$a, ' Cushanite.' Shebnawas certainly a foreigner, and most likely a N. Arabian. Hezekiah seems to have sent an embassy to Pir'u. king of the N. Arabian Mu~ri, to whom aanunu, king of Gaza, had fled for refuge. I t may be conjectured that a~ ';,"p?. ' this Cushanite,' as Isaiah disparagingly calls him, came to Jerusalem in connection with these negotiations. Isaiah predicts his punishment. H e was bound to fall a t last ; but, according to the traditional theory, he only fell to a lower post in the king's service-that of chief secretary. This is certainly not inconceivable. Though the man had no family connections a t Jerusalem, he may have been too useful to his party to be neglected, and the Arabian party may have been still powerful enough to dictate the choice of a chancellor. (See, however,

1 In this case one would expect the Hiphil 2 A Phmnician inscription (CIS1 5, p. 25) speaks of a sak& of

the new city-i.e., Tyre.

4436

SHEBUEL SHECHEM ,4/SL 5443. ) The next point to mention is one on which, until quite lately, critics have been agreed. If Is. 2220-25 is the work of Isaiah, it follows that the prophet hoped great things from a change in the grand viziership. The day when a king would reign righteously and princes would rule justly (Is. 32 I)’ seemed, if we accept this view, about to dawn. ‘Hence the strong language, almost Messianic in its tone, with which Isaiah hails in spirit the elevation of his disciple Eliakim.’

Further criticism has convinced the present writer that Is. 2220-25 is a late addition, or rather, vv. 20-23 form an additional passage, and w. 24 25 another. The second of these insertions is in the highest decree prosaic, and even the first is both in tone and in style un-Isaianic. The writer of vv. 20-23 probably knew no more than we know ; he built upon the very scanty material contained in Is. 363 and the related passages. That Isaiah pre- sumed to nominate a grand vizier is improbable ; that he would have expected great things from a change in the viziership is, to those who have followed recent criticism of other parts of Is. 1-33, still more improbable. Lastly, that Eliakim’s career was cut short in the way described in the second insertion, is, though possible enough (cp Che. Proph. Is . , on Is.2225), neither afirmed nor contradicted by any evidence such as a historian can receive. Cp Nowack, Heb. Arch. 1308 n. 3, and on the Shebna question, Kamphausen, ‘ Isaiah’s Prophecy against the Major Domo,’ AYSL, Jan. 1901 ;

SHEBUEL ($&!I>?, 8 31 ; COYBAHA), a Gershonite (I Ch. 23 16, uw&A [Ll: 2624, ioqA [Bl, m@iqA [L]); also a son of Heman (1 Ch. 25 4). @ reads uou,%qA--i.r., $D(?qLsi, SHUBAEL @.=.).

SHECANIAH (so RV ; and AV in I Ch. 2411 z Ch. 311s. nlJJq, and twice Vl:;>V, perhaps [see 5 351 ‘Yahw& dwells [among his worshippers],‘ or, if n [whence incorrectly 131 is formative, a gentilic, by transposition from W J ~ [Cushanite], so Che. [see SHEBNA]; c q -

I. A priestly clan in post-exilic times (Neh. 123 ewLa [**I, ~ E V . [NC.~]), whose name appears incorrectly as SHEBANIAH, z). 14 (om. BK*A,ucxeArw [N- mg. a.1 cp 104), with Joseph at its head. The Chronicler transfers him to the times of David, when he holds the tenth priestly course (I Ch. 24 II r q a v r a [B] u f x m a IAN : he amears aeain in the times of Heheklah (2 Ch:

Cheyne. ibid., July 1901. T. K. C .

€N tdcl generally):

3115: >>*>,$ uSy&as [Bgl). It is noticeable that the’three names Shecaniah Mijamin and Jeshua are common to the three listsin I Ch.247-;82Ch.31;5,andNeh.121-7. Hisnameshould probably be read in Neh. 10 I , in place of ZEDEKIAH (q.n 5). 2. A descendant of Zeruhbabel (I Ch.321 f: cp Ezra83

[ u a v a x i a B, craxavra A] I Esd. 829 [B om.], SECHENIAS) ; see HATTUSH.

2. b. TAHAZIEL ( 4 ) . of the sons of ZATTU IEzra8c om. R. c r e ~ o w a ~ [A], ue &rw [L]=I Esd. 832 SECHGNIAS). “’

-’ 4. b. Jehiel, or the b’ne Elam, who’encouraged E m in his

marriage reforms (Ezra 102) ; in I Esd. 892 [891, hi5 name is given as JECHONIAS (rsxovras [BA], uexemas [L]). The differ-

’

ence in the readings rests on a suhstituiion of * for u, which is conceivable in an older alphabet.

5. The father of SHEMAIAH [v.v.] (Neh.329, e x f v i a [B]). 6. b. Arah ( z ) , father-in-law of TOBIAH (Neh. 618).

SHECHEM (m?@ ; CYXEM [esp. in Bl C I K I M ~ Cesp. in AL] ; Sichem), now X&6Zus, a city of Palestine. 1. Ident5cation Eleven hours from Jerusalem on the

great north road the traveller finds himself in the broad upland plain of

Mahna (1600 feet above the sea), with Mount Gerizim

and site.

on his lef t ; skirting the base of the mountain he reaches the traditional well of Jacob (see SYCHAR). Here the road divides : the caravan route to Damascus continues northward by the village of ‘Askar (Sychar), and so to BeisHn (Beth-shan) and Tiberias ; but the way to Samaria turns westward into a fertile and well- watered side-valley between Gerizim (2849 ft. ) on the S. and Ebal (3077 ft.) on the N: This is the Vale of Shechem or NBblus ; it is in fact an easy pass between

1 On the authorshi of this prophecy, see ISAIAH [BOOK], 5 IO. 2 Che. Proflh. Is.($ 1138 ; cp GASm. Isaiah, 1318. 3 [A study of the names with which Shecaniah is connected in

the lists will confirm this.]

142 4437

the Mediterranean and Jordan basins, and at the watershed (1870 ft. ), where the city stands, I& m. from Jacob’s Well, is not more than IOO yds. wide. Thus Shechem commands both branches of the great north road, and several routes from the coast also converge here and connect with the ancient road from Shecheni eastward to KerHwB (Archelais) and es-Salt, the capital of the BeIkB. Cp EPHXAIM, 4. The name of Shechem (shoulder, hack) accords with the position of the town on the watershed, and the native name in Josephus’s time. (,Mahortha [Naber] or Mabartha [Niese] B/iv. 81 ; [Pliny, HN 561, has Mamorthaj means simply ‘ the pass.’) The situation of Shechem at the crossing of so many great roads must have given it importance at a very early date, and it is still a busy town of some zo,ooo inhabitants, with soap manufactures and considerable trade. On the other hand, the position is equally favourable under weak governments for brigandage. It was about their practice ofbrigandage that the Shechem- ites fell out with ABIMELECH (Judg. Qq), who, however, with his own mercenaries proved too strong for his adversaries (cp GAAL). Canaanite Shechem was utterly destroyed ; its place was taken by a Hebrew city, and the Canaanite sanctuary of El-berith was transformed into a holy place of the God of Israel. The great stone under the famous sacred tree at the sanctuary (see MOREH, MEONENIM) was said to have been set up by Joshua (Josh. 2426 ; in Josh. 2425 dBA has ZqXw), and Joseph’s grave was shown there.2 All this indicates that Shechem was once the chief sanctuary of Joseph, and so we understand why Rehoboam went to Shechem to be crowned king of Northern Israel and why [if the traditional text is correct-see § 21 Jeroboam at first made it his royal residence ( I K. 1225, d TT~V arrccpa). Politically Shechem was supplanted by Samaria ; but it appears to have been still a sanctuary in the time of Hosea (69). It survived the fall of Ephraini (Jer. 415) and ultimately became the religious centre of the SAMARITANS (q.”.) ; cp Ecclus. 5026, which runs, according to the Hebrew text, ‘ T h e inhabitants of Seir and Philistia, and the foolish nation that dwelleth in Shechem. ’

The Greek name Neapolis known to Josephus indicates the building of a new town, which, according to kusehius and Jerqme, was a little way from the old Shechem, or at least did not include the traditional holy sites. The coins give the form Flavia Neapolis. Neapolis was the birth-place of Justin Martyr, and became the seat of a bishopric. Five Christian churches destroyed by the Samaritans in the time of Anastasius were rebuilt by Justinian (Procop. De Ad. v. 7). Remains of one of these seem to survive in the crusaders’ church of the Passion and Resurrection (1167)~ now the $reat mosque. Nea- polis had much to suffer in the crusades; it was finally lost to the Christians soon after Saladin’s great victory at Hatfin.

Shechem (NStblus) is highly favoured by nature. Nest- ling between the two sacred mountains, EBAL and GERIZIM~ and embowered in luxuriant vegetation, it cannot fail to charm the traveller approaching it from the S. The atmosphere too is more pleasant; all forms of life rejoice in the best natural ‘ gift of God’ in the East-running water. Truly it was not in search of fountains that any woman of Shechem would come to Jacobs well, for ‘ fountains seem to break out in all directions, and water from some of them runs through the streets of the city’ (Robinson, Later Researches. 131). A map of the Shechem valley, with topographical details, etc., will be found in PEFW, vol. ii.

There has been much resultless discussion of that singular narrative in Gen. 34, which usually serves as

a. an authority for the early history of 34, Shechem. The whole story (even if

distributed between two writers) is so improbable that to extract a historical element from it is just as difficult as TO suppose it to be a pure fiction. The problems raised by critics(see DINAH) are, however,

1 Eus. gives the tree (terebinthus) of Gen. 35 4 (uqxiporc [E]) a place in Onom. ; and from it probably the bishop Terehinthius in Procop. De ,Ed. 5 7 had his name.

2 In Josh.2432 Kue. and Di. read njn? for the difficult 1 , ~ q .

4438

SHECHEM not insoluble; they settle themselves as soon as we apply a methodical criticism to the dxt . The whole ,story of the circumcision has arisen, as in the case of the Gibeath h8-‘&r%lGth1 (Josh. 53), from an early corrnption of the text. That a city was attacked and glundered by the Simeon and Levi clans, may be admitted; but the name of the city was probably not Shechem but Cusham-Jerahmeel, Le.-it was one of the chief cities of the Jerahmeelite portion of the N. -4rabian territory called CIJSH or CUSHAN ( = CUSHAM) -not improbably Halfisah (see ZIKLAG), if it is right to identify this city with the Laish ’ of Judg. 18 27, which afterwards (for a time) went by the name of Dan.2

assages in Genesis, viz., (a) Fen. 48 zz , where Jacob says, ‘ f have given to thee one

ortion ( q n ~ 03v; 65 dlrrya ;(aiparov c Jn. 4 j) above thy grethren, which I took out of the hand df tfe Amorite with my sword and with my bow.’ Thi’s should almost certainly be, ‘ I give thee Cusham-jerahmeel, which thou shalt take from the hand of the Jerahmeelhe. romise of succcss (to Simeon and Levi)in thewar against the JerJmeelites, for which no place could be found in the transformed story now found in Gen. 84.3 (6) 493, where 0*ny probably means ‘hyaenas, and the second line should NII, ‘They have rent (i$>w, cp Ass. ukriZw) Cushan-jerahmeel. Cp SWORD.

It is true, there was another form of the legend of the acquisition of Cusham-jerahmeel. It is preserved

3. Other in Gen. 33 18-20, where it is possible supposed that v. 18 originally ran, ‘ and Jacob came

to H a l ~ a h corrupted into no*\, and then int i ,,S=n\,), a city of Cusham, which

is in the land of the Kenizzite, [when he came from Harran,] and encamped before the city,,and bought the piece of ground, etc., of Cusham-jerahmeel for a mina of Carchemish ; and he erected a mqsebah there, and called it Bethel of the Jerahmeelites.’ Cp KESITAH. Luz, ZIKLAG. For a slightly different form of the emendation see Crii. Bi6.

There are yet two other cases in which Shechem has increased its reputation at the expense of the almost forgotten city of Halfisah in ’ Cusham.’ The first is in the history of Rehoboam’s accession (see REHOBOAM). The second, in that of Jeroboam. who, as M T suggests (see 5 I), made Shechem his royal residence. There is evidence, however (see JEROBOAM, 5 I), that his usual residence was at ’Tirzah‘ (see TIRZAH), and it does not seem likely that he moved for a time to Shechem. In fact, I K. 1225 does not fit in at all well with vv. 26-33.

Probably (see Crit. Bib. ) the original reading was as follows, - And Jerohoam built Cusham in the highlands of Jerhmeel, and offered sacrifices and the children of Israel presented themselves (there). And he made two golden calves, and said, Enough of your going up to Jerusalem : behold thy deity, 0 Israel, which brought thee u out of the land of Mierim. And he set them in Bethel of the Perahmeelites [in Dan of the Jerah- meelitesl. And this thing became a sin, for the people went to commit adultery Cp Am. 8 14, ‘ Those that swear by the sin of Shimron (fi@ ripen?), and say, As thy god, 0 Dan, liveth ; and, As thy m m e n (either q l h or qqil?), 0 Beersheba, liveth,’ etc., and see further Cm‘f. B d .

I t -.as not with Shechem, therefore, but with Cusham that Jeroboam’s name is linked in true history, and

1 The true name was douhtless Gibeath-j&ahme‘Clim. The second part of this compound name became ‘ZrZZm, owing to the effacement of part of the original word. Parallels are the erroneous reading ‘uncircumcised (%dim) Philistines ’ (for ‘ Terahmeelites Philistines.’ where one of the two words is a

We can now explain two obscure

Here we have a divine

even to Dan.’

SHEEP

gloss bn the other), and the strange stories in Ex. 424-26 and I S. 1825-27 (see MOSES 8 7 with n. 2).

a The theory is tha; H h z a h was first attacked by the Danites, who, however, sank into the condition of a protected clan (Gen.3431 ‘as a harlot ’ : cp Josh. 216 Rahah the harlot), and ultimately’ became extinct. The diBappearance of the Danites is thus expressed in the most probable form of the text of Gen. 358 ‘ And Dinah, Jacoh’s eldest daughter, died, and was buried delow Bethel’ ; the southern Bethel is meant, another name for which was Dan (this supplies the key to T K. 1229, see ZIKLAG). ‘ Dinah ’ is a collateral fem. form to Dan.

8 ‘ I took ’ (.nnpj) is clearly wrong, for how could Jacob say that be had conquered the city in the persons of his sons Simeon :nd Levi? Holzinger (Getd. 25j) acutely remarks that v. za refers to a lost version of the legend, of which E gives a trans-

formation in Gen. 34.

4439

Cusham may mean Hal&sah (or Dan) and Bethel, Bethel with its sanctuary and citadel being of course adjacent to the city of HalfiSah. ’The Negeb, therefore, or at any rate the greater part of it, cannot either in Jeroboam’s time or in that of Amos have been in the possession of the kingdom of Judah.

Nor can we even venture to assert that Shechem was the place where the great national assembly was held which determined the fate of the people of Israel for all time. I t was only afterwards through the Samaritans that it advanced a claim to be the religious centre of the land. We may regret these results ; but at least the reader will admit that if the fame of Shechem has here been curtailed, an almost forgotten place in the true Holy Land of the Israelites (see PROPHET, 6) has been restored to its ancient dignity.

See Vogelstein, ‘Shechem and Bethel,’JQR 4, 1892, 1938 W. R. S.-T. K. C., 9 I ; T. K. C., $ 2f.

SHECHEM, TOWER OF (&I@ h ; g , Migdal- shechem). As the story of Abimelech now stands, Migdal-shechem was an unwalled town in the neighbourhood of Shechem, which owed its name perhaps to a tower (migdul) that stood there, and would appear t@ havehad a templededicated to El-berith (Judg.946f: 49). But the original story, in which Abimelech’s city was probably not Shechem but Cusham, may, it seems, very possibly have had, not n?v h n 9byz but [o?+l p+Fpv?;-i.e., 8 ~erahmeelites [gloss, ~ushites].’ Observe that in the M T of vu. 6 and 20 the ‘men of Shechem ’ and the ‘ house of Millo’ (see MILLO) are co-ordinated.

T. K. C. SHEDEUR (l!iW?V ; ceh ioyp [BFLI, ebioyp

[A]), father of the Reubenite ‘ prince ’ Elizur : Nu. 15. 210 730 ( eh icoyp [B*l, c eh icoyp [Babl. ~ A i c o y p [A]), 35 ( ceh ioyp [A and in 10181); all P. See PEDAHZUR.

Apparently compounded of the divine name *i, (Shaddain and y q ~ , ‘fire (5 43. Nald. ZDMG 15 [18601 my. n. I ; Nestlet Eigcnn. 46) * Frd. ’Delitzsch (ProL 96) explains ‘daybreak from Ass. uri, but improbably. Rather perhaps miswritteh for \g’?qai, ‘Suriel,’ a variant to ir?~, LSuriel’ (see ZUR, NAMES WITH). T. K. C.

The large part played by this animal in the life of the people of Palestine is evinced by the very

many references to it contained in their The sheep was domesticated

later than the ox. Mariette found no trace of sheep amongst the Egyptians during the fifth dynasty, when oxen were common. The avenue of rams at Karnak is attributed to the eighteenth dynasty, about 1700 B.c., by which time they were probably domesticated.’ The origin of the domestic variety of sheep, usually known as Owis uries, whether ‘from any one of the existing wild species, or from the crossing of several, or from some now extinct species, is quite a matter of conjecture.’ The sheep of Palestine at the present day are, according to Tristram, usually pie-bald or skew-bald.% They fall into two different breeds, of which by far the commonest and in many places the only one, is the broad-tailed sheep (var. Zuticuudutu). This remarkable animal is distinguished by an enormous deposit of fat in the tail (T$, Ex. 2922 Lev. 39 etc. ; for I S. 924 see Dr.), which sometimes accumulates to such an extent

1 The question of the introduction of shee into Egypt has been recently advanced through the researcies of Thilenius (Maspero, Rec. de Trariuux, 22 199-212), and, more especially, of Diirst and Gaillard (o#. a?. 2444-76)

2 White as snow, e.g. Ps.14716; brown Gen. SO33 (cp COLOURS, t 8); flecked and speckled, v. 32 (ib.’j 12).

SHEEP.

species* literature.

4440

SHEEP that the appendage has to be provided with a small sledge on which it is borne. Such tails have been known to exceed 50 Ibs. in weight, and are esteemed a delicacy by the .4rabs.’ In N. Palestine a horned variety similar to the Merino is now found ; but it is not certain whether it was there in the time of the Israelites. On the sheep of Arabia see Palgrave, EB(g) 2242b, Doughty, A?. Des. 1426.

From a consideration of the various names for sheep (cp below $ z), Hommel (Saugefhiere 6. d. Sem. VOZk 250 ,f) conclude; that among the earliest Semites the sheep did not occupy so important a poSition a? the goat, that it does not belong to their oldest domesticated animals, and that it came to them from Central Asia by way of Mesopotamia. In this connection it is interesting to observe that among the Indo-Germanic races, on the other hand, the sheep appears to have been the first animal to be domesticated, and that its position is more important than that held by other cattle (0. Schrader, Zadogerm. AZfertrcmsk. S.Y. Schaf ’).

The Hebrew words which have to be recorded are : I. sdn (p) coll. for small cattle, sheep, and

2. seh (n~ ) , Dt. 144 etc., any single member of the above. The Egyptian derivative appears to be used of the fat-tailed sheep, ZDMG 41629.

3. dyjZ($N), ‘ram,’ as opposed to ayyd HART (4.v.) ; on the two words see esp. OLZ, 1900, col. zo8J 4. yahiZ (in?), Gen. 31 38 32 15 Is. 53 7, Cant. 6 at, ‘ewe,’ the

Ar. &hi[, rzk7d (mod. rdkhal, Doughty, AY. DES. 1429) is used of the lamb.

5. kar 13, Dt. 32 14, Is. 161 etc. (6 dpwdr, <pi+os), ‘young lamb,’ per6aps from idea of skipping or dancing. Also ‘batter- ing-lam,’ see SIEGE?

6. k&b (>gl “W?, also w?? 3&l? l?), a lamb of one or two years, esp. used with reference to sacrifices. On the Heb. words see Hommel, o j . cif . 235 n. 2 433.

7. &k/t(n$a), Is.4011 6525 (I5 dpvds), an older lamb (mod. tuZ&, a yearling, see Doughty, 1429 2 269) ; see TALITHA.

For the sake of completeness we should add-

2. Terms. goat;: I T O ~ ; Y L O W , cp below no. 16.

8. ,>,, whence na&d, a sheep-raiser or dealer, z K. 3 4 Am. 1 I (ado 7 14 with We., Now., Dr.). 9 Ar. na&f, ‘a kind of small sheep with very abundant wool &DB), and see MESHA, col. 3042, n. 7. 9. ~ D N , ‘lamb,’ known in B. Aram. (Em.7 I?), Ar.,, Ass., and

Phcen. (CIS 1165, cg-the Marseilles sacnficial tariffbnot in Heb. Phcen. also i s

IO. l-,y (CIS &), the Canaanite equivalent of the common Aram. ‘crhd ‘ sheep, lamb.

11. ‘lambs of the flock,’ Ecclus. 47 3 i z n q3, lit. ‘sons of

SHEKEL sumed (see MILK). The horns of the Syrian ram are as a rule large and curved backward; they were used as musical instruments (Josh. 64) and as receptacles for oil, etc. ( I S. 161) ; cp HORN. The skins were also used as coverings for tents, etc. (see TENT) and probably for clothing (Heb. 1137).’ The sheep were con- stantly moved about in search for new pasture, and it is customary in the East for the shepherd to lead his flock (Jn. lO3Jf)aud to know, and often name, every member of i t 2 At night the sheep are gathered into natural or roughly-made folds (see CATTLE, J 5 /, GOAT. 3) . Sheep-dogs are used less for herding than as a protection against wild animals (DOG, J I).

For further general remarks on small cattle, see CATTLE, GOAT.

For Sheep-fold, see CATTLE, B 5, and for Sheep-gate (Jn. 5 z AV ‘sheep-market ’), see JERUSALEM, $1 24 (col. 2424 end), 30.

For Shepherd, see CATTLE, $ 6; on the figurative use of the word (‘pastor’=bishop), see MINISTRY, %) 394 476; and for the non-canonical ‘Shepherd of Hermas,’ see CANON, $S 65, 72, PROPHETIC LIT., 5 31, and SHEPHERD OF HERMAS.

A. E. S.-S. A. C.

SHEERAH (ilW@), I Ch. 724 RV, AV SHERAH

SHEET. I. )’?p, sidin, Judg. 1412. See MANTLE, 4. 2. nnmb mi+U&th Ruth 3 15 AVmg. 3. %&q, Acts 10 11 lis.

S H E H A R M (n;l!lF; chphih [BLJ caapia[AI), b. Jeroham i n a genealogyof BENJAMIN (q.v.. 5 9. ii. p). I Ch. 826.

The name may mean either ‘Yahwh is the dawn’ (91 35, 44) or ‘the Shahrite.’ Parallel is ZERAHIAH [ q . ~ . ] . occurs as a place-name in Josh. 13 3 etc. (see SHIHOR) and with N re fixed, as a clan-name in’s Ch. 2 24 45. d f th; latter 2; (Aswur) AHIS~AHAR may be a late and artificial expansion, just as Shehariah is a late and artificial expansion of Shahri. Cg also HODESH (=Shahar, Ashbur) in I Ch. 89, and the non- hi lical Hebrew name Sheharhor (see ZEPHANIAH, 2-4). All these names are southern.

(G.. ).

See MANTLE, 3. See LINEN, I and 9.

T. K. C. SHEKEL3 ($@, cp iiiku2, ‘to weigh’; CIKAOC,

cirhoc) signifies either a weight or a coin. As the 1. Uncoined invention of coinage dates from the

seventh century B. c., and no coins were issued in districts from which they

would be likely to penetrate to Palestine before the time of Darius Hystaspis (522-485 B.c.), all biblical references to shekels or any kind of money before the return from the exile must be understood of uncoined metal, for which the scales were used (cp Gen.23f6). The metal was usually cast in ingots (cp the meaning of Kikkiir, a round, cake-like disc) or bars, of a fixed weight (cp I S.98), or may have taken the form of ornaments of which the weight was known (e.g., Rebekah’s ornaments, Gen. 2422). Any such piece of metal, if stamped with the recognised mark of the government, guaranteeing its quality and weight, so that the scales could be dispensed with, would rightly be called a coin ; but the custom of stamping the smaller pieces of precious metal in this way and for purposes of exchange was not, so far as we know, systematised before the date mentioned.

Of the manyweight-systemsemployed in antiquity, only three can seriously claim to have been in use in Pales-

metal. - , - - -- Bashan’ (dpvaor rrpoi3&rov [BUA]); cp Dt.3214, and see BASHAN, 5 2 end. 12. kZSitah, Gen. 33 19 (AVmg. ‘ lamb ’) ; see KESITAH. Thk Greek words are familiar : 13. bpv6s, Jn. 129, etc. ; used in I5 esp. for nos. 4, 6. 14. &p$v*, Lk. 103, etc. 15. bpviow, Rev. 56 etc. ; used in I for no. 6. 16. Irpd@arov, Mt. 9 36, etc. ; in I esp. for nos. I and 2. The wealth of a pastoral and nomadic people consists

largely of their flocks, and the very large number of 3. Details. sheep which the ancient Hebrews possessed

IS shown by the numbers, perhaps exagger- ated. whicli the Hagrites (I Ch. 521) and Midianites (Nu. 3 1 3 ~ ) are reported to have lost in their contests with Israel, and by the prodigious numbers which were sacrificed at the dedication of the Temple and on other occasions ( I K. 863, etc.). See SACRIFICE, JJ 33, etc. Except on such occasions the sheep were seldom slaughtered to provide food, though a lamb or kid was the usual dish offered for the entertainment of a stranger (cp FOOD, §J 8, 14J, CATTLE, 8). The best pastures were in S. Palestine (the Negeb, Carmel [I S. 251, Gerar [Gen. 10141, Timnath [ib. 38131, and the plain to the E. of Jordan; see CATTLE, J 3 , and cp GOLAN, col. 1748)~ The sheep were valued chiefly for the wool, the shearing of which was the occasion of an annual festival (see WOOL).^ The ewe’s milk was also con- 1 Cp Doughty, Ar. Des. 1502, Herod. 3 113, with Rawlinson’s

notes and above col. 1514 n. 2. According to Thilenius (08. cit. zb;), it =’as iAtroduced into Upper Egypt from Asia by the twelfth dynasty,

a Other references are to Shechem (Gen. 3428), the ‘sons of the East’ (is. 29 z s ) , Uz(Job 13, 42 IZ), and Egypt (Gen. 12 16 Ex. 9 3). 3 Sheep-shearing it may be noted, does not go hack to primi-

tive times ; the earlier custom is to pluck the wool with the hands (0. Schrader, S.V. ‘Schaf,’ Hehn, KuZtnrjflaanzen una’ Haus. fhiere,(Y 515).

4441

2. pdwv.an tine in early times (see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, J 4). These are known as the gold-shekel standard (Ridge- way’s ox-standard), the Babylonian, G:F&

and the Phcenician respectively, the’ Phcenician -being a 1 Gr. pqAwrrj, which in OT renden n lw , see DRESS, 5 8. 2 On the shepherd’s life cp also Doughty, 1428 ; ‘ there is none

will take up the herdsman’s life, but it he of bare necessity. The statement in Gen. 46 34 is not directly supported by fhe evidence of the monuments ‘but the keepers of oxen and swine were considered in Egyp; to follow a degrading occupation. They are depicted as dirty, unshaven, poorly clad, and even as dwarfs and deformed (Driver, Authn’ty and Archeology,

’ O t . k list of the passages where the word occurs is given by Madden (see below, $ 71, 15.

444=

SHEKEL

ROYAL NORM. 1 COMMON NORM.

Heavy. 1 Light. ~ Heavy. ~.- gn. troy. 1 grs. troy. 1 grs. troy. grs. troy. 1 ______________

SHEKEL

Talent . . 777.780: /388,890b 757,3800 Mina . . 12,963 6,481.5f 1 12,623W Shekel . : 1 259.31 I 1zg.63k Value of the

gold shekel 113,457.3 I 1,728.4 1 3,366.6

252.5g

in silver I

derivative of the Babylonian. The chief denominations were the talent (rdhavrov, i;?, KiyXap, Jos. Ant. iii. 6 7), the mina (pv& q ~ , MANEH [p.~.], cp Ezek. 4512; translated ' pound' in I K. 10 77 Ezra 269 Neh. 7 71 f: ; the word ' pound ' is also used for Airpa, the Roman libra of 5053.3 grs. troy, in Jn. 1 2 3 1939), and the shekel.' For ordinary purposes the talent was divided into 60 minas, and the mina into 60 shekels ; but for weighing gold a mina of only 50 shekels and a talent of 3000 instead of 3600 shekels were used. The shekel was the same in both. Further, payments to the royal treasury in Babylonia were calculated on a slightly higher scale (the ' royal norm ' ) than ordinary payments (for which the 'common norm' was used). (This difference is probably alluded to in 2 S. 14 26 : Absalom's hair weighed a two hundred shekels after the king's weight.' Schrader [KA n2) 1421 supposes that the trade-shekel weighed more than the money-shekel, and that the heavier is here referred to ; but there seems to be no reason for identifying the trade-norm with the royal-norm.) Next, since it was desirable to be able to exchange a round number of shekels (niinas, talents) of silver against a shekel (mina, talent) of gold, and since the ratio of value between gold and silver was inconveniently 139 : I , a new shekel (mina, talent) had to be established for the weighing of the less precious metal. Finally, there were two systems, the heavy and the light, in the former of which the denominations weighed twice as much as in the latter.

The evidence of extant Babylonian weights, checked by the weights of coins struck in later times on derived standards, enables us to obtain the following series of weights used for the precious metals :-

378,6god 6,311.5h

1,684.3

126.23"

By adopting silver units of the weights given in the last two rows, a round number of units of silver (IO or I 5) could always be exchanged against a single unit of gold, provided the two belonged to the same norm and system. The standard according to which ten pieces of silver corresponded to one of gold is known as the Babylonian or Persic, because silver coins which agree with this standard were stiuck by the Persian kings (who adopted it from its Babylonian source) and by their immediate subordinates ; the standard reached the Greeks overland through districts, such as Lydia, which were under Persian influence. On the other hand, the standard equating fifteen pieces of silver to one of gold was adopted by the great Phcenician trading cities, and reached the Greeks directly by sea ; hence it is known as the Phcenician standard.

What evidence, then, have we for the use of either or both oi these systems in Palestine? A certain 3. Evidence number of extant weights (see

seem to suggest that a low form of the forpalestine. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, $ 4)

Babylonian shekel was in-ise in Palestine. On the other hand, the literary and numismatic evidence points to the Phcenician standard having been used, at least in post-exilic times, side by side with the other system.

1 [See also, KESITAX.]

4443

In the first place, we know (by calculation) from Ex. 3825 f. [PI that the Hebrew talent contained 3000 shekels. Again, Josephus (Ant.xiv. 7 I) equates the mina used for weighing gold to 2h Roman pounds- i . e . , 12,633.3 grs. troy-which is very near to the heavy gold mina of the common norm (5). The same writer (09. cit. iii. 6 7 ) speaks of a sum of IOO minas, which the Hebrews call Kfyxap, which being translated into Greek means rdhavrov.' If we take the mina here mentioned to be the gold mina (5) of 12,623 grs. (heavy) or 6,311.5 grs. light (h) , we obtain a talent of 1,262,300 grs. (heavy) or 631,150 grs. (light). The

part, or shekel, of this talent would be 420.73 grs. (heavy) or 210.36 grs. (light). These weights are some- what lighter than the normal weights of the heavy double shekel and shekel ( t ) of the Phcenician standard (common norm) ; but it is noticeable that the earliest coins (double staters and staters) of Sidon and Tyre (issued in the 5th cent. B.C.) seldom rise to the normal weight of 448.8 grs. and 224.4 grs., the effective weight being usually much nearer the amounts jnst arrived at, and rarely rising above 426 grs. (213 grs.). Again, various metrological authorities of ancient though late date (see Hultsch, Metrolog. Script. Rel., Index, under TdAavrov, 17) equate the Hebrew talent to 125 Roman 1bs.-i.e., 631,665.3 grs. The shekel of this talent would be 210.55 grs. Finally, Josephus (Ant. iii. 82) equates the Hebrew coin called U ~ K A O S - L C . , the silver shekel- to four 'Attic drachms.' 'Attic drachm' in his day was equivalent to the Roman denarius, which was fixed by Nero at & lb.-i.e., 52.62 grs.; the Hebrew &AOS was therefore 210.48 grs. in weight.

W e thus see that the Hebrew shekel weighed from 210 to 210.55 grs., or, on the heavy system, 420 to 421 grs. I t can be nothing else than the shekel of 224.4 grs. ( t ) , or its double, in a slightly degraded form. It is clear, therefore, that the shekel of the Phcenician standard was in use in Palestine at a com- paratively early period. The weight of the heavy gold shekel of the common norm ( I ) being taken at 252.5 grs. troy, its value (at the present rate of L3 : 17 : IO& per 02. of 480 grs. paid by the Mint for gold) would be very nearly L z : I : 0. and the light shekel would be worth about LI : o : 6. The Hebrew-Phcenician silver shekel and the Babylonic-Persic silver shekel, being reckoned as & and of the gold shekel respectively, work out as follows :

Heavy. Light. Phcenician . . . f;o:z :g f;0:1:4& Babylonian . . . 6 0 : 4 : 1 Ao:z:*

The values of the talent and mina of gold and silver in all these systems are :

I HEAVY. LIGHT.

j Talent. 1 Mina. I Talent. 1 Mina. I It is curious that, although the mina was known as

a weight, it does not occur in any pre-exilic writings, and large sums are expressed in talents and shekels (Kennedy, 420). A parallel is afforded by the Attic method of reckoning in talents and drachms.

Earlyin the (conventional) post-exilk period the Persian coinage of gold and silver was introduced by Darius

4. Early Hystaspis. His gold shekel, struck on the royal norm ( K ) , was known to the Greeks as daric (6aper~6s ) . The deriva- period* tion of this word from the king's name

has been disputed, on the ground that it could not be formed from the Persian Dzrayavaurh; but there is no reason why it should not be formed in Greek fashion from A.apdos. Of other derivations, the only plausible one is from the Assyrian darih , a word found in

4444

SHEKEL SHEKEL contract-tablets of the time of Nabonidus and Nebu- chadrezzar. But the evidence that this word is the name of a weight or measure is not satisfactory ; Tall- quist (Die Spr. de7 Contr. Nabd-nb’ids, 6 6 ) with more probability regards it as an agricultural product. The word dnrkem5n (see DRAM) has until recently been connected by many writers with the word d a r i ~ ; but there can be little doubt that the darkemin is a weight, and possibly the same word is found in the Greek Gpaxu?j (see DRAM, and with the spelling nqzyy of the Pirzeeus inscription cp the Cretan dialectical form 6 U p K V d ) .

The Greek derivation of 8paxpi from 8piuuopar is probably a popular etymology. What, however, are these ‘drams of gold mentioned in Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah ? Remembering that in the Greek system the drachma was as a rule the part of the talent, we should suppose that half-shekels were meant by darkernhim. Now the weight of the hn’c (k) is as a matter of fact the half-shekel of the heavy system (i), and since the Hehrews, in weighing both gold and silver, used the heavy system (see the quotations from Josephns discussed above # 3), they would naturally regard the gold daric as a half-sheh of the heavy system. I t follows that although the words daykernan and dam2 have in all probability no etymological connection, the actual pieces of gold meant by darkem8nim were as a matter of fact darics, or pieces of the same weight as the daric.

The silver coin of Darius was known to the Greeks as the ufyXos ( U I K X O S ) M T & K ~ s , and weighed 86.4 grs., being really a half-shekel of the light Babylonian system (royal norm). The gold daric was worth twenty of these silver coins. The value of the daric in modern money works out at about one guinea, and that of the siglos, accordingly, at a little over one shilling.

The Persian governors who preceded Nehemiah in his office exacted from the people 40 shekels of silver (Neh. 515). It is hardly possible to decide whether

these were ufyXor Mq- 6rmf (which- as we have seen were really half-shekels) or whole shekels of 172.8 grs. ; but the probability is in favour of the former, as being the official coins of the Persian Empire at the time.

Both daric (Fig. u ) and siglos (Fig. 6) are alike in On the obverse is a figure of the Great King,

FIG. a.

types. wearing the Persian head-d;ess (Kidnris) and robe (kandy.r), and holding in his right hand a spear, in the left a bow ; the half-kneeling posture is meant. according - to the convention of FIG. 6. early art, to represent running. by the irregular punch used in striking the coin.

The reverse bears only the impression made

The phrase ‘shekel of the sanctuary,’ or rather sacred shekel ’ (UIKXOS 6 &ym, usaOprbs 6 dyyros) is used ~. phaenician in P in connection with gold, silver,

copper(?), and spices. (For this sub- iect. besides Kennedv 422. see Zucker- , , . ~

mann, Talmud. km’ichfe, 43 IS.) In spite of the fact that the sacred shekel was used for gold, as well as silver, there are serious difficulties in the way of accepting Ridgeway’s theory (On’p’n of MetaLZic Currency, 273J) that it was the shekel of 130-135 grs. W e know from the Mishna that sums of silver money mentioned in the Pentateuch are to be regarded as reckoned in a Tyrian money ’-Le., in money of the Phcenician standard. W e know further that the temple tax was half a shekel, and the tax for t w o persons could be paid by a tetradrachm or stater (q.”.) of the Phcenician standard (Mt. 17 2 4 J , where the collectors of the tax are called oi 7dC Gf6pawa hup~dror7cs). It follows that

4445

the sacred shekel was a shekel of the heavy Phceniciaq standard (common norm) of 224.4 grs. (t). This conclusion is confirmed by the statement (Ex. 3013, etc.) that the shekel was twenty gerahs, which @ translates ‘ 20 obols.’ The obol meant by @ was presumably the Attic obol of the time ( f of the drachm of 67.28 grs.- i . e . , 11.21 grs.) ; and twenty of these make a weight of 224.2 grs. Any shekel of this weight, whether struck by a foreign king, or struck by a city like Tyre, could

FIG. c.

therefore be used for the payment of the tax for two persons ; or the corresponding half-shekel (Phcenician didrachm of 112.2 grs.) for a single person. The half-shekel here illustrated (Fig. c) was struck at Tyre in the year 102 B.C. On the obverse is the head of Melkarth, the Tyrian Heracles, crowned with laurel ; on the reverse an eagle standing with one foot on the prow of a galley, and a palm-branch over its shoulder ; in the field are a club (the symbol of Melkarth), the numerals AK (the year 24 of the local era), and the monogram of the official of the mint responsible for the coin; around is the inscription TYPOY IEPAC KAI A C Y A O Y - ~ . ~ . , ‘(coin) of Tyre, the sacred (city) and inviolable.’ The weight of this specimen (106.9 grs.) is a little under the normal (u). The name ‘sacred’ applied to the shekel of this standard is due presumably to its being used for the temple tax, for which shekels of any other standard were not accepted. Hence the presence of money-changers in the outer court of the temple. The third part of the shekel of Neh. 1032 is probably the third of the Phcenician shekel ; the third is indeed a more usual denomination, both in the Phcenician and in the Babylonian standards, than the half.

The Jews were, as a rule, content or obliged to use silver coins of foreign brigin, and the two series of 6. Silver coins. silver coins issued by them belong to

periods of revolt against their riders. A famous series of shekels and half-shekels issued during a period of five years has been most usually ascribed to the time of Simon the Hasmonaean ; the tendency of recent criticism, however, is to give them to the time of the first revolt against Rome (66-70 A. D.).

FIG. d

The best summary of recent arguments about this question, which does not properly concern us here, is given by Kennedy, 429 ; still more recently, however. Th. Reinach has stated his inclination to revert to the older view (Rev. des &des grccpues, 13213). A specimen of the shekel of the fourth year is given in fig. d. On the obverse is a chalice, above which is the date i w (for i n w , ‘year 4’) ; around is the inscription $ ~ i v * (‘Shekel of Israel‘). On the reverse is a flowering lily and the inscription nvrlpn &,i- (‘ Jeru-

4446

SHELUMIEL SHELAH Salem the Holy ’). The weight of this specimen is 220 grs.

The second series of silver coins of the Jews belongs to the second revolt’; they are shekels and quarter- shekels issued by Simon Barcochba and ‘ Eleazar the High Priest‘ from 132-135 A.D. These coins are really Roman denarii, or tetradrachms or drachms of the mints of Caesarea (in Cappadocia) and Antioch (in Syria), which have been used as blanks on which to impress Jewish types (Kennedy, 430J ).

Both these series are, as we have said, exceptional, and the ordinary coinage of the Jews, from the time of John Hyrcanus, if not from that of Simon the Hasmonzean, onwards, consists merely of bronze.

F. W. Madden, Coins oythe Jews, 1881 ; F. Holtsch, Gr. u. RJm. Metrologiie,P) 1882 ; W. Ridgeway,

7. Literature. Oegin of Metallic Currency, r8ga; Th. Rernach, Les monnaies luives, 1887 ; A. R.

I. h@, a nanie closely resembling SHILOH (CHAWM [BADEF], CIA. [L]), the youngest of Judahs sons by the daughter of the Canaanite Shua (cp Stade G V Z l q 8 , and see JUDAH i., 5 2; Gen. 3 8 5 11 14 26 [J], 4612 [PI ; Nu. 2620 CHAWN [BAL, but -WM L. v. r9], I Ch. 2 3 CHAWN [BL]). The clan is associated with Chezib in the Shephelah of Judah (cp Cozeba below, and see ACHZIB [i.]), and, apart from Gen. 38, occurs only in post-exilic writings. The further divisions of this clan are given in I Ch. 421-23 (CHAWN [L]). The passage is extremely obscure and appears to represent the attempt of a scribe to get some meaning out of an already corrupt genealogy.

Lecah in I% zra may be a corruption for Lachish, hut the latter halfoftheverse is unintelligible. Areference to Bethlehem in v. m a is not improbable see JASHUBI-LEHEM. The reading, ‘men of Cozeha . . . had hominion in Moah,’ is doubtful ; that of @BA, OS iaT&quav . . . who dwelt. . . ’), is much more reasonable. Netaim (o.~,) and Gederah, ZI. 23, seem to have arisen from Etam (CITY) and Gedor ; and the recurrence of both names in v. 3 3-a list which in its present condition is fragmentary-makes it probable that in v. 3a we,should read ‘Shelah, the fatherof Etam‘(correcting thedifficult See ETAM 2. A pre-exilic reference may safely {e rejected ; the ‘ancien;’ matters spoken of need not, from the Chronicler’s point of view, be pre-exilic. The patronymic is Shelanite (‘!>@!, Nu. 2620, b ~ A O Y [ F ] L [BAFL]), which in a list of Judahite inhabitants of Jerusalem is twice written ShilOnite (Neh. 11 5, GqAwve [Bl, 6-sr [N], ~ h - i [AI, u-BL [Ll; AV SHILONI, I Ch.95; *;+[vl@a; TGY qhoulrlt, see EZRA ii., 8 5 [61, I 15 la). The former pointing with ri seems better (cp Be. Ke.). Maayeiah or Asaiah, to whom the patronymic IS here applied appears as the representative of Shelah b. Judah, just as A t h k h (Neh. 11 4) represents the Perezite division. [Cp Crit. Bi6. I

SALAH AV in Gen. and SALA AV Lk. 335, the son of Arpachshad and father of Eber in the old genealogy of the Hebrews (Gen. 1024 [R?], I l l s f . [PI, I Ch. 118 [B om.] 24, uaXa, uaXas [L in Gen. 101). The key to ‘ Shelah’ is of course Arpachshad. If the latter name contains Chaldaea, Knobel may be excused for seeking ‘ Shelah’ in NE. Mesopotamia. If, however, Arpachshad comes from ‘ArHb-Kadesh or -Cnsh [see UR OF THE CHALDEES], we must suppose ‘Shelah’ to represent some clan in the Negeb. In accordance with JUDAH, 5 z, we may assume the existence of a Jerahmeelite clan called Shelah (see SHELAH, I), of Kenizzite (not Canaanite) affinities, and related to Sha‘ul, of which Shelah is a modification. The name Methuselah is similarly related to Methushael ; both these names are probably modifications of Mishael = Ishmael. I t now becomes not impossible that Eber ( m y ) in Gen. 1024 may be miswritten for‘Ar8b (>;g),

To derive Shelah from ‘to send ’ and suppose it to refer to the dq3artw-e of a portion of the tribe of Arpachshad previous to their ‘passing over’ (see EBER) the Tigris, is absurd. @ (in Gen.), on which Lk. 335 is based, inserts Cainan before Shelah to make Abram the tenth after Shem (see Di. Gem. 208).

S. Kennedy, in Hastings’ DB 2 4 1 7 8 G. F. H.

SHELAH.

*>K

S. A. C.

2. (a$$).

. ..

T. K. C. 1 O’?$’! (v. 23) may spring from Beth-zur or perhaps rather

n*?iv?q (ZIOR lay to the SE. of Gedor).

4447

SHELAH, P ~ O L OF (n+q;? n n y , Neh. 315 RV, AV ‘ pool of SILOAH.’ See SILOAM.

SHELANITES ($@), Nu. 2620 ; see SHELAH (I).

SHELEMIAH (?I:&@, 9??)@, either compounded with il’=3?3’, or an expanded form of a clan name borne by an individual [Che.], see SHALLUM, SHELA- MIEL, and note the N. Arabian character of the names with which Shelemiah is associated. To illustrate the later (?) view of the name, cp Palm. ilhk’V [if for nhD?W a compound of the goddess al-LLt] ; csAs- ~ 1 0 ~ ) . See SELEMIA.

I. b. Cushi, an ancestor of JEHUDI (T.u.) Jer. 36 [@ 431 14, ?Z;&$, uahaptou [AI.

2. h. Abdeel, one of the men sent by Jehoiakim to take Baruch and Jeremiah after Baruch had read the roll in the king’s presence (Jer. 36 [@ 431 26, ?a& om. BWAQ).

3. The father of JEHUCAL or JUCAL (T.v.), temp. Zedekiah (Jer. 37 [4413 U E ~ C K C O U [nl, 38 [451 I, j ~ ~ & u ) .

4. h. Hananiah, the father of IRIJAH [T.u.] (Jer. 44[37] 13). 5. I Ch. 26 14 ; see MESHELEMIAH. 6. One of the h. Bani, Ezra 10 39 (uehfpa [Bl, -et [Ll, -cas [AI,

-eta [ ~ 1 ) = I Esd. 9 34, SELEMIAS (ufhrptas [BAI). 7. Another of the b. Bani (Ezra1041, wD!w., uehfpia [Bl,

-cas [A], - a a [N], uaparas [Ll), omitted in the parallel passage in I Esd. 9 34. It is interesting that the sequence of names here, Sbarai (‘@, Azarel, and Shelemiah is almost identical with the names in Jer. 36 26 Seraiah (“e), Azriel, Shelegiah.

8. The father of HANANIAH (T.v.), Neh.330 (Tchepta [B], -as [NI u y u r [AI).

9. A’ priest, a keeper of the storehouses (Neh. 13 13, urhrpra [B*A], d. [Bb], ifhcpia [Wl).

SHELEPH (&, in pause, c a h $ [AEL]), a son of Joktan (Gen. 1026, om. B I Ch. 1 .of’), has not yet been identified ; but similar names are not uncommon in S. Arabia. Instances are Sduf or SuZzy, a tribe in Yemen : Osiander, ZDMG 11 153 8 ; Siv, Hal. MPZ. 86 ; .Sug[many] : Glaser, 425 ; cp also a district Su@ : Niebuhr, Arubien, 247 ; and see other reff. in Di. Gen. [Cp SEPHAR, and on ‘ Joktan,’ see Cn’t. Bi6.1

SHELESH (I&; ZBMH [B], CEAAHC [AI, C B ~ M [L]), a name in a genealogy of ASHER (q.v., 4 ii.), I Ch. 7351.

SHELOMI (&$), father of Ahihud, a ’ prince ’ of Asher (Nu. 3427 ; C E A ~ M ( E ) I [BAFL]). See SHELU- MIEL, and cp ASHER, I.

SHELOMITH ( n9?$qj, interchangeable with n\D$@ [see below 51 ; cp the fluctuations between Meshillemith and Meshillemoth. The vocalisation is doubtful [cp SOLOMON, I], and the name being evidently southern, a connection with either Ishmael or Salmah may be assumed [Che.]).

I. hath DIBRI[T.V.], who had married anEgyptian(or, perhaps, rather Misrite i.e. N. Arabian woman) and whose son was stoned for‘blai herhy (Lev. 24 11 : uahoph [BAF], udapere [Bab], uahpr0 [El).

2. Daughter of Zerubhahel (I Ch. 3 19 ; u&pe0er [Bl, - 0b [AI,

3. A son of Rehohoam ( z Ch. 11 M ; wpw0 [Bl, uahqpd [AI, uaAwpc0 [Ll).

4. b. Josiphiah one of the b’ne BANI [T.W., 21: read in Eua 8 IO ‘And of the sons of Bani ; Shelomith, son of Josiphiah’ (d&v uahetpovO [B] vi. Baavr uehrqwou0 [AI, T&Y v i . uahrpwe [L]), cp I Esd. 8 36: which gives ASSAI-IMOTH, RV SAI.IMOTH (au- uaArpw0 [A, the as belongs to the preceding pavrl, [u;iUul uak- p-0 [Ll, [+vias1 u+pd [el).

Azlong the Levites we find (5) a Shelomith h. Shimei, a Gershonite Levite (I Ch. 239, Kt. id?$, RV Shelomoth, a h d s r p [B) uahoper0 [A] -pie [LI); (6) a chief of the b‘ne Izhar, a Kdlmthite Levite ‘(I Ch. 23 18, uahopw0 [Bl, -LO [Ll, uahovpoe [A]), whose son was JAHATH (T.v.) (I Ch. 2122, nia%, EV SHELOMOTH, maJqme [BA], -re [Ll); and (7)a Levite descended from Eliezer b. Moses (I Ch.26z$fl, RV SHELOMOTH, uahwpoo [BA], -10 and uaAIyrr0 [L] W. 25, Kt. nr&v, and MT in Y. 26).

SHELUMIEL ($g$n)fl; caAaMiHh [BAFLI), b. ZURISHADDAI, a ‘prince‘ of SIMEON (S 9 ii. n. : XU. 1 6 2 12 7 36 ( u a p X q h [F]) 41 10 19 t [all PI. In Judith

4448

F. B.

-pro [LI).

SHEM BHEMAIAH 81 his name appears as SAMAEL. RV SALAMIEL (uahapqh [BA], uapapqX [HI).

Apparently the name means ‘El is my health’ (3s 37, 5 0 ) ; really, however, it may come from ,Pt&d ; ir& Shalamu is the name of a N. Arabian tribe allied to the Nabataeans (see

SHEM (ad; C H M ; sem). the eldest of the three sons of Noah, and therefore always mentioned first (Gen. 532 610 713 918 101 I Ch. 14) ; the rendering of Gen. 1021 in AV and RVmg. is certainly wrong (cp JAPHETH).

If an appellative, Shem will mean ‘name’-Le., renown. In this case, if in Gen. 9 it is really equivalent

SALMAH, SHALMAI). ’r. K. c.

1. Name. to Israel, it may conceivably denote the ruling or noble class (cp Gen. 64 Nu. 162 I Ch.

524) in antithesis to the aborigines, who are called in Job308, ‘sons of the impious, yea, sons of the name- less, beaten out of the land’ (so We. CH(4 13, Bu. Urgesch. 328Jf). There is a strong presumption, however, that the name of this important patriarch has a longer history and a more recondite meaning. In short, the legends in the early part of Genesis being, according to the most plausible view, Jerahmeelite (see PARADISE, 55 6, 9). and ‘ Ishmael’ being used as a synonym for Jcrahmeel. it is very probable that ‘ Shem ’ is a modified fragment of the ethnic name Ishmael.

To derive (with Goldziher) from and ‘ to be high ’ and explain ‘the high one ’ or even the ‘ Heaven-god,’ has no ’indication in its favour. More probably, Shem is a shortened form of a name like SHEMUEL (q.v.), or rather, if we suppose that on (Ham) is a fragment of SMnni- (Jerahmeel), (Shem) has arisen out of a fragment of SNynu? (Ishmael).

That the redactor, who here as elsewhere emended ]~p(Kenaz) into i y ~ ~ (Canaan) supposed 007 to mean ‘Israel is possible enoiigh. But critically, such a view is highly improbable. See Gunk+ (+.PI 4j : [1go21), whose attempt, however, to bring what is said on &man in Noah’s oracles into connection with the historical situation in the second millennium B.C. seems on the whole premature, in the absence of a thorough textual criticism.

The special blessing by which Shem was rewarded ‘Bless,

0 YahwA, the tents of Shem (’* 371 D~ *h) ; let Canaan be his servant ‘ (Gen. 926 J,).

It is more plausible, however, to think that v. 26a should run, hynw ’* qn?. The Jerahnieelites were, in fact, (see MOSES, 5 14) the early tutors of the Israelites in religion. Here and in v. 27 the underlying original text apparently spoke of Noah‘s eldest son as ‘ Ishmael.’ The subjugation of Kenaz (not ‘Canaan,’ as the traditional text) refers to matters beyond our ken (cp KENAZ). Another writer thinks to explain ‘ Shem ‘ to his readers by identifying ‘ Shem ’ with ‘ Eber ’ (Gen. 1021). Here it is necessary to transpose d and r, and read‘ArHb : in fact, Ishmael (Shem) and ‘Arab are nearly synonymous. On all these subjects, as well as on the use of ‘ Shem’ in P (Gen. 1022 1110, cp I Ch. 11724)- see Crit. Bi6. The reference in Ecclus. 49 19 is no doubt to Shem‘s important genealogical position. A late Jewish tradition (adopted by Selden and Lightfoot) identified Shem with MELCHIZEDEK (4.v.). C p

Two Hebrew names have been brought under this head-&mu’el (Samuel) and &mid2 (Shemida). The former of these is compared by Winckler (GI1 130. n. 3) with Sumu-abi and &mu- la-ilu, the names of two Babylonian kings of the third millennium R. c., whom this scholar considers to belong to a dynasty of western Semitic or rather Canaanitish conquerors. According lo Hommel, &mu-ahi means ‘Sumu is my father,’ and Sumu is a contraction of Sumhu (Sumuhu)-Le., ‘ his name,’ a periphrasis for ‘ God ’ (AHT85f : 88f:). He considers, that Semu’el and Semida‘ may safely be explained as containing this element S’umhu. I t seems very improbable, however, that the periphrasis ‘ name ’ for ‘ God ’ should have been Of such remote antiquity among the Israelites, when we

1 So Schorr, Gratz, and recently Ball, Holzinger, Gunkel.

4449

a. Tradibions. is now often read thus:’

SETHITES. T. K. C.

SHEM, NAMES WITH.

recall that (see NAME, 5 7) it is specially characteristic of the latest biblical Hebrew writing, and we may venture to follow Jastrow (JBL 19 IO^), who is of opinion that Sumu in the names quoted by Winckler and Hommel is an entirely different word from the Hebrew ?em.

Perhaps a sober criticism of these ancient names, the Baby- lonian as well as the Hebrew, may lead to the conclusion that etymologies which have the maqt superficial plausibility arc generally fallacious. See, further, SHEMUEL, SHmiIDA.

T. K. C. SHEMA ( Y Q ~ ; c&M[A]A [BAL]), one of the cities in

the extreme S. of Judah towards Edom (Josh. 1526 : CAAMAA [B]). Cp the clan-name SHEMA, I. It is not included in the list of Simeonite towns either in Josh. 191-6 or in M T of I Ch. 428-31 (but see v. 28 a), but in the former of these passages (Josh. 192) we find SHEBA, plainly a mere variant ( u a i a a [E] ; but uap[e]e [AL]), and in 65 I Ch. 428 we find uapa [BL], -aa [A]. The connection of Shema with Simeon seems obvious. The Sheba in Josh. 192 was probably introduced as a supplement from 1526 after the calculation ‘ thirteen cities ’ (v . 6) had been made ; RV’s ‘ or Sheba ’ is too bold.

I. A Calebite clan which, like Korah, Tappuah, and Rekem, traced itself to Hebron, and is represented as the ‘father’ of Raham, the ‘father’ of Jorkeam, I Ch. 2 4 3 5 (ue iaa [BA, the latter omits in v. 431, uapa [I,]). Note the accumulation of

Jerahmeelite ’ names, and the place-name SHEMA. 2. A clan of REUBEN (5 13) ; I Ch. 5 8 ( u ~ a [BA], uepm [L]).

of BENJAMIN [q.v., 0 g ii. 81 ; h . s 13 (uav [RAJ, uapaa&), obviously the sameas Shimei

in v. 21. SeeJQR XI. 103 I. See SHIMEI (8). 4. In list of Ezra’s supporters (see EZRA ii., 5 13 V I ) ; Neh.

8 4 ( s a p a s [BMAL]).

SHEMAAEI (7IQv0, whence AVmg. HASMAAH). a Gibeathite. father of AHIEZER (I Ch. 1 2 3 ; &MA [BK], CAM&& [A], ACMA [L]). see DAVID, 0 IIC. The Pesh. presupposes here the name of a separate hero, *npylln W ~ D Q ‘ Shemaiah the Gibeathite.’

SHEMAIM (a:qp@, also qn>q@, see below, either a religious name = ‘ Yahwk hears,’ or a late (?) expansion of the old clan-name ‘qv , SHIMEI [Che.] ; note the frequency of the name among priests, Levites, and prophets, whose historical connection with the southern border-land is certain ; c&M&lA[c]). I t is inipossihIe always to differentiate accurately or (as the case may be) to identify the various bearers of this name.

I. A prophet temp. Rehoboam, who deprecated war with Israel (I K.1222-2 C h . 1 1 ~ [ib. wyaw]), and prophesied at the invasion of Judah by Shishak ( z Ch. 125 7 , uappaias [B]). H e is mentioned as the writer of the history of Rehoboam (ib. v. 1 5 ) , cp also in bB I K. 12 (240, ed. Sw.).

2. A false prophet who for endeavouring to hinder his work was sternly rebuked hy Jeremiah (Jer. 29 [b 361 24-32 [oapeas K vv. 24, 3 1 f . I ; cp JEREMIAH [BOOK], cj 17 ; in v. 24 W~DD).

H e is styled the Nehelamite (&h~, aAaper7qv [B], eXuptnp [ K A Q ] ) . which reminds us of TOY evhaper applied to SHEMAIAH ( I ) in b ’ s [B, in L cAup~rr)v]

Probably both athapsr7qv and evXaper point v. to 2401; -n = hm,i. ‘ Jerahmeelite’ addition to I K. 12 (

[Che.] (cp o$n=~t+cm*. z S. 1016 [Che.]; see also SIBRAIM). The prophet Ahijah the Shilonite in I K. 1129, it has elsewhere (see SHILOH, 2) been suggested by Che-yne. is most probably a man from the Negeb. So, to, in the intention of the writer, is this Shemaiah.

3 . Father of Urijah of Kirjath-jearim, a prophet (Jer. 26 [ES 331 20, w y n a parenu [ND.

4. Father of Delaiah, a prince temp. Jehoiakim Uer. 36 [e 431 12, uhepmu [BAQ], odsrrnu [*I).

5. b. Shechaniah, a descendant of Zerubbabel (I Ch. 3 z z U ~ F M [E* once], uepea [Ll). This is also the name of one of those who repaired the temple (Neh. 3 29, uepeia [#I).

4450

See further JESHUA, SIMEON, 5 IO.

SHE- (UQd. 5 so).

b H u s h n in a genealo

SHEMARIAH 6 b. Joel, of REUBEN@ 13)(rCh. 54 ufprar [BLI ufpw[Al). 7 h. Hasshuh, a Merarite Levite (I Ch. 9 14 cp‘ Neh. 11 15,

uc,uceras [Ll). See 13. 8. Father of Obadiah, a Levite belonging to Jeduthun

(I Ch. 9 16, uapaa [Bl u a p r o u [AI, cp Neh. 11 176). 9. Chief of the b‘ne Elizaphan, temp. David (I Ch.158

u a p i a s [MI, u e p a r a [AI, v. 11 u a F a r [N]. ucparav [AI). IO. h. Nathaneel, a Levite scribe (I Ch. 246, u a p p a c a s [A]). 11. h. Obed-edom (I Ch.264, uapcras [AI, w. 6 J , u a p a r

IBxz: A’ Levite, temp. Jehoshaphat (2 Ch.178, uapouas [Bl, crapouras [A]).

13. A son of Jeduthun (z Ch. 29 14, uaperas [A]). Cp 7,8, 11, and see GENEALOGIES i., S 7 (ii. d). 14 A Levitehouse temp. Hezekiah(2 Ch. 31 15, uepea[BAL]),

probably the same as the name in Neh. 108 126 (BN*A om., ucpebag, Nc.amg.sup.L), ib. r8(BN*Aom., u r p a a , NC.amg.infL) where Jehonathan is the head, 12 35 (where one Jonathan

See 13.

w 71 uapcLa, u c p c i a [AI). See 13.

SHEMUEL relative (according to the ordinary view) to the musical performance of certain psalms (Pss. 6 12 : cp I Ch. 1521). ’ Ewald, Olshausen, Winckler, explain ‘ in the eighth mode, or key’ ; Gesenius and Delitzsch, for the bass’ : Gratz agrees with the Targum. I t is admitted, however, that these explanations are pure guesses, and the most plausible view of other psalm titles favours the assumption that the text is corrupt. Most probably nw~un-5y is a corruption of C.ICW>, ‘ of the Ethanites.’ or better of phynw-$ ‘ of the Ishmaelites.“ W e thus obtain an adequate explanation of Shemiiiith in the titles of Pss. 6 and 12, and probably too of Gittith, Neginath, and Shoshannim (see PSALMS, BOOK OF, 126, but cp MUSIC, 5 9 ) . We also find n*mw?-iy in I Ch. 1521 where it seems to correspond to nia$rjy at the end of v. 20. Here, however, it is in alp probability a corruption of the name SHEMIRAMOTH (q...), just as ‘Azaziah,’ which Benzinger (KHC ad Zoc.) rightly pronounces suspicious, is virtually a misplaced repetition of the name ’Aziel.’ These two’proper names occur close by, in v. 20.

It may also he noticed, since the commentaries give no very defensible explanations, that nu!) (@ roc [Iv]ruxXJuac ; RV ‘to lead’), which follows n*!p+y in I Ch. 1521 should be pointed n:>i; it is a synonym of l’p, ‘continually,’ which occurs in a similar context ; see PSALMS, BOOK OF, 8 26, col. 3945, n. 4. The other mysterious phrase ni&y-5y (RV ‘ set to Alamnth ’)in 15 20

comes from p?aN$, a mutilated and corrupt form of p * i ~ j ‘psalteries.’ Cp Ps.2646, where p*&iq is a corruption of P’!?!, impious.’ T. K. C.

SHEMIRAMOTH (niD?+p@), a Levite name, I Ch. 151820 165 2Ch. 1 7 8 (here Kt. n \ D 9 y @ : variously CEMEIpAMWe, CAMAp[€IIM., CAMslpAM., CEMIP., C I M I P . ) . According to Schrader (KA T(2) 366) equivalent to the Ass. name Sammuramat, which occurs as a woman’s name on the monuments, especially on the statues of Nebo from Nimrtid. G. Hoffm., however (Syrische Acten, 137), thinks that Shemiramoth was originally a place-name meaning ’ images of Shemiram ’ ( = N a m e of Ram or ‘ the Exalted One’), just as Anathoth may mean ‘ images of Anath.’

‘ Shem-ba‘al ’ (name of Baal) was a name or form of Astarte (see Inscr. of Eshmun‘azar, 1. 48) and the story of the conquests of Semiramis in Upper Asia is ‘a translation into the language of political history of the diffusion and victories of her worship in that region.’ The main centre of this diffusion was Bamhyce or Hierapolis (WRS, ‘Ctesias and the Semiramis legend,’ Eag. Hist. RN., April 1887, p. 317).

But what probability is there in either of the above explanations? None at all, if the analogy of other Levitical names in Ch. is to bc trusted. In z Ch. 178 it is specially plain that the names among which this strange form occurs are ethnics (cp GENEALOGIES i., 5 75). I t so happens too that the form which appears in that passage suggests the true explanation. It is not ninivm (Shemiramoth ?), but nin.?qp, where nitAnn) is presumably a corrnption of a dittographed ,in, and may safely be disregarded. SHIMRI (p.v.) is a good Levitical name, according to the Chronicler ; in 2 Ch. 2913 it occurs just before Jkuel or Je‘iel, which name ( L e . , Je‘iel) is apparently a mutilated form of Ja‘aziel (see I Ch. 1518 165). ninvnw, too is, in 2 Ch. 31 13. worn down into ‘ Jerimoth ’ ( = Jerahmeel). On ‘ Shemiramoth ’ in I Ch. 1520J see further SHEMINITH.

I. I Ch. 633 [18] T. K. C .

SHEMUEL (!JK.lDv, C A M O Y H ~ ) . RV SAMUEL, the prophet (see SAMUEL).

note), Nu. 3420 ; (uaXafiiqX).

[B, a dittographed (1).

2. b. Ammihud, a chief of SIMEON (§ 8 iii., last

3. b. Tola, of ISSACHAR (§ 7) ( I Ch. 7 2 ; ruafiou+

The name is difficult. For discussions see NAMES 5 39 where bearing the name of God’ is suggested ; Drive;, T X d 1 3 8 (on I S. 120, where Gesenius’s explanation, ‘name of God’ is pronounced ‘as obvious as it is natural’); Hommel,

b. Shemaiah is named). 15. A Levite of the time of Josiah (2 Ch. 359, cp perhaps

SHIMEI, 31 12 : in both cases Cononiah Drecedes as the name of a brother). 16. One of the b’ne Adonikam, a post-exilic famil who came

up to Jerusalem with Ezra, Ezra8 13 ( u a p a e r a [AI1 in I Esd.

17. A teacher Ezra 8 16 ( u r p a a [A] u r p ~ d [L]) in I Esd. 8 4 MASMAN, RV MAASMAS ( p a a u p a u [kA], s e p i a iL]), repeated in v. 44 MAMAIAS, RV SAMAIAS (om. L).

18. One of the b’ne Harim, the priestly family of Ezra 10 21, in I Esd. 9 21 SAMEIUS RV SAMEUS (@a arns [Bl uapaux [A]).

19. One of the scm of HARIM ‘otIsrael’ (Ezra1031 u c p r a [nl, uaperas [Ll), in I Esd. 932 SABBEUS (uaj3paias [BA], u a p e r a s [Ll).

20. b. Delaiah b. Mehetabeel, a prophet temp. Neh., bribed by Sanballat to hinder the Jews from building the wall (Neh. 6 IO u f p m [BNI, mpec [AI).

21, 22, two men present at Ezra’s dedication of the wall(Neh. 1234, u a p a i a [BN], uaapacas [AI 36). 23. RV but AV SAMAIAS, ‘the great,’ kinsman of Tohit (Toh.

5 123 , uepeov [B], ueprhrov [N], ueprrov [AI, the Heb. Vs. ed. Neuhauer has n&u).

SHEMARIAH (n:?pV and [I Ch. 1251 ?il:?P@; usually [§ 301 explained ‘whom Yahwb giwds.’ but probably rather a modification of the ethnic SHIMRI

[q...] ; C+MAplA[c]). 2 Ch. 1119 A v [by printer’s m o r ?] gives SHAMARIAH). All the occurrences suggest N. Arabian origin.

I. One of David’s heroes See DAVID % II (u)(iii.) col. 1d30J

2. A’son df KehohAam, by Mahalath (= Jerahmeelith [Che.]), 2 Ch. 11 19. 3, 4. Contemporarier of Ezra, who had taken foreign wives,

Ezra 10 32 ( - c i a [Bl, - L a [NA]); w. 41 (-era [BNI, -eras [AI). SHEMEBER (PKP@), Gen. 142.

SHEMED (Tpg), I Ch. 812 RV, AV SHAMED.

SHEMER. I. (lgv; CBMHP, CAMHP[B], CE. [AI, C ~ M M H P [L]). According to I K. 1624 Shemer was the owner of the hill which Omri bought, whence the place received the name of Samaria (ppv). See SAMARIA.

2 and 3. AV SHAMER (y,$), properly a clan-name (see Stade, Z A T W 5166), but applied to real or supposed persons : a Levite, I Ch. 646 [31] (uqqqp) ; and ben Heber in a genealogy of ASHER [F.V., 5 4 ii.], I Ch. 734 (ueppqp [B], u w p ~ p [AL]); in v. 32 he is called SHOMER [q.~.].

SHEMIDA (y?+pe), a Gileadite clan belonging to MANASSEH (I 9) (Nu. 2632, CYMAEP: Josh. 172, CyMAp€lM[BIS C€MlpA€[A]. CAMlAA€[L]; I Ch. 719 AV Shemidah: C ~ M ~ I ~ A [BAI, C A M E I A A [LI), after whom the Shemidaites were called (Nu. Lc. ’p?’?+V;? ;

May we venture to hold that 00 here is a divine appellation? The alternative is to

SHEMINITH, UPON, RV ‘ set to the Sheminith’ (n*?+pyj;r-h; WNARU in PSS. y n s p THC o r h o H c

In i Esd. 19 SAMArAs ( u a p i ‘ a s ) : ,

839 SAMAIAS.

T. K. C. I Ch. 12 5 ( u a p a p a r a [B]).

See SHINAB.

CyMA€p[€]l [BAFL]).

See NAMES, 5 43, SHEM [NAMES WITH]. suppose a corruption $Hynw*.

in I Ch., A M A c € N E l e : Jer. SU$%YOCfavU [PS. 611, PrO WhvU [PS. 1211 ; En1 T H C o r h o w [Aq., PS. 611, n f p l THC OrAoHc [BL in I Ch., SYm.1: Tg. ‘on the lyre with eight strings’), a technical phrase

4451

1 ipy is several times (e.g.Ps.92 IT) miswritten for jxynw..

4452

SHEN SHEPHAM AFT, 100 (‘his name is God’); Jastrow,JBL 19 do goo] 8 2 3

cname [=son] of God ’). But is the final -el really= h, ‘God’? See SAUL, $ I , SHERUEL, where the possibility of a connection between h ’ i i l and &nii’Sl, and between &mOel and SEbn’Sl is referred to, and two other names are indicated, belongiyg perhaps to the same group, Ishmael and SHOBAL ( q . ~ . ) . @ s form, however in z (also=MTs SHELUMIEL $7.73.1) !uggests a comparison k t h SALMAH [q.~.]. Note that Ammihud’ (see z), or rather Ammihur, very possibly, like the shorter form Hur, comes from Jerahmeel. Father and son both seem to have ethnic names. T. K. C.

SHEN (]&I). a locality, between which and Mizpeh But

the rock ’ and one expects to f ind

rraAatiis) and Pesh. point to the reading (cp 2 Ch. 1319), which is accepted by Wellhausen, Driver, H. P. Smith, and others.

SHENBZZAR [RV], or [AV] SHENAZAR (7$52@), a son of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), and uncle of Zerubbabel (I Ch. 3 18 ; uavcuap [BA], uavauap [L], sennaser, senneser [Vg.]). His name is variously explained as a mutilation of in&qviv (so Marq., see SHESHBAZZAR) and as = Sin-usur, ‘ Sin (the moon-god), protect ! ’ cp on an Ass. seal ixiow, Sin-Sar-uSur, ‘Sin, protect the king ! ’ CIS 288, where the same incorrect Assyrian pronunciation [a for D, see SANBALLAT] is p re~pposed . H e was plausibly identified by Howorth (Acad., 1893, p. 175). and then by Kosters (Herstel, 47). Ed. Meyer (Ent . des /ud. 77), Marqsart (Fund. 55), with Sheshbazzar. Neither of the Assyriological combinations, however, is quite satisfactory, and the other names of sons of Jeconiah are explained elsewhere as representing gentilics of the Negeb. This suggests that i s ~ 3 ~ may be a corruption of iwia (see SHIN-~R), which is itself possibly a corruption of iqd+.e., the S. Geshur. See SHESH-

Samuel set up the stone Eben-ezer (I S. 712). means merely

some Known and specific place mentioned. eBAL (.?is

See JESHANAH.

BAZZAR. T. K. C.

SHENIR (SJ@), Dt. 39 AV, RV SENIR. SHEOL (%He). The origin of the Hebrew term

for the world of the dead is not a mere question of archaeology ; we cannot but expect it to throw light on the early religion, or superstition, of the Hebrews. Possibly, if not probably, it has an Assyrian origin. According to Frd. Delitzsch formerly ( P a r . 121 ; PruL 47 145 ; Heb. Lung. 20) the Assyrian word corresponding to SCBl is Su’&lu ; he was followed by A. Jeremias (Bab. -ass. VorsteZZ. 62) and Gunkel (Schiipf. 154). Jensen, however (Kosmol. Z Z Z ~ ) , denies the existence of such a word as Su’Plu, and Zimmern (in Gunk. Schoipf. 154, n. 5) says that certainty has not yet been attained. Delitzsch himself omits 5u’?A1 in his Ass. H W E , and Schwally (Das Lebeen nach dem To&. 89, n. 2)

assents to the decision of Jensen. A critical re-examination of the four relevant passages in Assyrian vocabularies was urgently called for. This has been given by Jastrow (AYSL 14 1 6 5 8 ) , whocomestotheconclusionthat Jensen’s position is untenable, and interprets the Ass. Su’rEb as ’ the place of inquiry ’--Le., the place whence oracles can be obtained.a Provisionally we may be content with this at any rate possible explanation, remembering that one of the Babylonian terms for ‘ priest ’ is Mi& (lit. inquirer), and that the Hebrew E’aZ is frequently used of consulting an oracle (e.g., Judg. 1 I Hos. 4 12 Ezek. 21 21 [26], etc.). W e may venture therefore to hold that when the primitive Hebrews used the name Shed they may have thought of the power of the dead in the under- world to aid the living by answering their inquiries. In course of time the priestly representatives of the established religion would naturally succeed in checking this practice. Of primitive Hebrew religion, however,

Cp also the parallel formation 1s ’ID (=ASur-Bar-nsur, i6. 2 50), ‘Assur,

1 [The provenience of this seal is unknown.

protect the king ! ’-s. A. c.]

and 58’6 2 For? views on the stem s’a’aZ(whence both Mi&

see his article in3BL 19 [1gm], pp. 8 2 3

4453

we have in fact very little direct evidence ; survivals of it may be found in later superstitious usages, and this is nearly all that we know. Nor must we suppose that all the dead had power to furnish oracles to the living. This power was an element of divinity, and it was probably only heroes like Ea-bani, who appears to GilgameS (Jensen, Mythen und Epen, 263 ; Jastrow, R B A 511 ; Maspero, Dawn of Civ. 589), and like Samuel ( I S. 2 8 7 8 ) , who were consulted for oracles.

T o the later Hebrews She61 appeared like a monster which ’ enlarged its greed, and opened its mouth without measure’ (IS. 5 1 4 ; cp Hab. 25 Prov. 2720 3Oqf.). Its leading characteristic is darkness (Job 10z i f . ) ; it is the land of dust-my ( ’ dust ’), can indeed be used as a synonym for $?N@ (ShEd), see Job 17 16 20 IT 21 26

Ps. 30 IO[^]. Like the Babylonian AralCi it was far below in the earth (Job 1 1 8 265, etc.). Hence $it+, ShCBl and i ia (pit) sometimes receive the epithets n2nnfi or ni*Fne, ‘nether ’ (Dt. 3222 Ps. 8613 887[6]) ; and heaven and She61 are the farthest opposites (Is. 711 Am. 92 Ps. 1398). Silence as a rule reigns supreme (see, however, Is. 1410). I t is a land whence there is no return (Job 7 IO) ; so too the Babylonians called it +:it hi tin’,

the land without return ’ (for other names see Jensen, KosmoZ. z15-zz5). Still it was a land of order ; it was figured as a city with gates (Is. 38 10 Ps. 9 13 [rq] 107 18 Job 3817), and both in the gospels (Mt. 1618, cp HADES) and in the Talmud the same conception IS found. On the state of the dwellers in Sheol, see DEAD, ESCHATOLOGY (references on col. 1 3 9 0 ~ : ), and on the whole question see Jastrow, Religion of Ba6. a n d d s s . , 560, 6 0 6 8 ; Charles, Eschatology; Schwally, Das Lebm nach dem Tode, 59-66 ; A. Jeremias, Bab.- ass. CbrsteZlungen vum Leben nach dem Tode. 106-126.

The following is the description of the Babylonian Hades at the opening of the ‘Descent of IStar’ (KB 6 I , p. 81) :-

To the land without return, the earth . . . [‘Set ’1 Istar, the daughter of Sin, her ear. The daughter of Sin ‘ set ’ her ear To the dark house, the dwelling of Irkalla, To the house, from which he who enters never emerges, To the way, going on which has no turning back, To the house, into which he who enters is without light, When dust is their nourishment, clay their food, They see not light, they sit in darkness, Dust (rusts) on door and bolt.

SHEPHAM (ne@, a bare height ’ ?-§§ 75, 99), as the text of Nu. 341of. stands, is the name of a point on the ideal eastern border of Canaan, mentioned with HAZAR-ENAN [p.v.] and RIBLAH [g.v.] ; like Riblah, it is unmentioned in the 11 passage, Ezek. 47 15-18. Van Kasteren’s identification of it with U f c n i , on the upper course of the N a h r er-Rukkdd, SE. of the lake called Birket Rim (Baed.W 266), is not one of his best (Rev. Bibl., 1895, pp. 23-36), and his argument to prove that the ‘Aphumqa of Sam. and Targ. Jerus. is derived from Shepham is more ingenious than convincing. This and similar names are, according to the present writer’s theory, distinctively ‘ Jerahmeelite ’ or S. Ca- naanitish names (Shephupham [I Ch. 8 5 Shephuphan] and Shuphamite, Nu. 2639 ; Siphmoth, I S. 3028 ; Shuppim, one of the sons of Aher=Ahiram= Jerahmeel, I Ch. 712; Shiphmite, I Ch. 2727). This confirms the view that the geography of Nu. 341-15 and of Ezek. 4713-21 has been edited, with the view of expanding the limits of the region referred to. This editing, for which many parallels can be given (e .&, Gen. 10 Nu. 1321-25 Dt.341-3 Josh. 11 zS . 241-g), would not have been possible if some of the names in the original document were not found in more than one part of the country. A Riblah and a Hamath for instance doubtless existed in the far N., but it is not a t all likely that a Shepham was to be found there. The real Shepham was apparently on the E. border of the land of Kenaz (the original documelit must have spoken of ‘ the land of Kenaz’ [np]. not ‘ the land of Canaan ’ [jyn]), between Hazar-enan (Hazar-elam =

4454

SHEPHATIAH H.-jerahmeel?) and Riblah or perhaps rather Harbel {=the city of Jerahmeel).

In I% II ap belongs LO the following word &ha [read ap,E+z] ; v. IO has been adjusted to v. 11.)

See RIBLAH. SHIPHMITE. (@BAL in Nu. 84rof: gives ucmpapap [@F in v. IO, -gal.

T. K. C.

SHEPHATIAH (;Ifpve, and .I?:t?V@ in .?os. 4, 5, 6, apparently a Yahwb judges ' [I 361, cp n ~ ~ n ~ ; CA- @AT[G]I& [BXXL]). [It may be safer to hold the name to be corrupt. In I the names of David's wives and children being in several cases, as it seems, corruptions of tribal names (e .&, Abigail, Absalom, Haggith, Abital, Ithream, Eglah). and a name compounded with -iah being quite isolated in this list, we are bound to explain Shephatiah if possible as a tribal name. According to analogy it may well be an expansion of '~zw=*n??f, -Le., ' belonging to ZEPHATH ' (see SHAPHAT). This theory explains all the occurrences of the name. In z the companions of Shephatiah are of ' Jerabmeelite ' origin (see PASHHUR) ; for 4, cp the Calebite HAREIJH, and see HAKIPH ; and in the case of 3, 5, 6 and g the names Reuel, Michael, Maachah and Mahalaleel are all corruptions of Jerahmeel. With regard to 7, it must be clear that, like the b'nE Arah and the b'nE Elam, the b'ne Shephatiah were of Jerahmeelite origin ; cp Neh. 114, and see PEREZ. Read ' b n e Sefgthi.' T. K. c.]

I. b. David and Ahital (2 S. 3 4 ua,9araa [B], oa+a&a [A in Sam.], ua4anas [A in dh.':;:?]). See DAVID, $$ 11, n.

2. b. Mattan, who with others sought to put Jeremiah in prison (Jer. 38 [451 I, un+avcas [BHA], ua+ [Q"], -ias [Qmg.]).

3. AV SHEPHATHIAH, b. Reuel, father of Meshullam, of BENJAMIN (I g [iii:]) ; I Cb. 98.

4. A HARUPHITE [q .~ . ] , one of David's warriors (I Ch. 125, in'uaw, uqbanas [Ll).

5. b. JEHOSHAPHAT, king of Judab (2 Cb. 21 2, I ; I ~ P ] D ~ . &a- -rebas [El, -Lac [BbALl). The name follows Michael (seeabove).

6. b. Maachah, a Simeonite ruler (I Ch. 27 16, ~ ~ ' D S U , ua+a- mas).

7. The b'n.5 Sbephatiah were a post-exilic family numbered at 372 (Ezra 24, auaq [B], Neh. 79); the record, however, in Ezra 8 8, wherein the h n t Shephatiah with Zebadiah at their head amonnt to 80 in number, is far more plausible (see EZRA-NEHE- MIAH). The name appears as SAPHAT in I Esd.59 (om. B au.9 [Ba.b mg.1, ua+aT [AI) and as SAPHATIAS in I Esd. 8 3; (uo+orrov [B], A om., ua+as;ou [Ll). See introduction, above.

8. A groi.2 ,of 'Solomon's servants' (see NETHINIM) in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA ii., $ 9); Ezra 2 57=Neh. 7 59= I Esd. 5 33 SAPHETH RV SAPHUTHI (ua+ueL [Bl -ut% [AI).

9. One i f the b'nt $erez, a son of Mahalaleel, lnd ancestor of Athaiab (Neh. 11 4, ua+arrou [Ll).

SHEPHELAH, THE, or LOWLAND [OF JUDAH] { ;I$@? ; see PLAIN, 7 ; d has cf@~Aa in z Ch. 261o[AV 'lowcountry,' RV'lowland'], Ob. r g [ c a @ ~ A ? Q'"g., AV 'plain,' RV 'lowland?], Jer. 3244 [AV 'valley, RV ' lowland'], 33 13 [om. A, AV ' vale,' RV * lowland '1, also in I Macc. 1238 [K*V cs@. ~ ~ A I N H , AV Shephela, RV ' plain country 'I), a part of the territory of Judah, between the hill country (see JUDAH, HILL-COUNTRY OF), and the Mediterranean. On the geographical use of the term see G. A. Smith (HG zozf.), who concludes that ' though the name may originally have been used to include the Maritime Plain, and this wider use may have been occasionally revived, the ShSphElah proper was the region of low hills between that plain and the high Central Range.' The cities of the ShtphElah are enumerated in Josh. 1533-44; w. 45-47, which mention Philistine towns as in the ShEphElah, are probably a later insertion (cp OzJ Hex. 23463. Eusehius. however ( O S 29610), describes this district a s the plain (m610v) lying round Eleutheropolis, to the N. and the W., and Clermont-Ganneau and Conder ( Tentwork, 277) state that they have discovered the name in its Arabic form Sifla about Beit-Jibrin (Eleutheropolis). d also gives m6iov (see Dt. 1 7 Josh. 11 2 1 2 8 ) and + arbv$ (see Josh. 9 1 1040 Judg. 19, etc.) for nko, and a larger use is favoured by Dt. 1 7 Josh. 9 I I K. 10 27 z Ch. 26 IO, so that, even if the low hills behind the maritime plain were the most important part of the ShephElah on account of the towns situated there, we can hardly deny that theo-

4455

See DAVID, 8 11, n. c.

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS retically the maritime plain was included in the reference of this geographical term (see Buhl, PuZ. 104, 11. 164).

The RV has taken great pains ty carry out a systematic rendering of shZjM~'uh by 'lowland. Compare the following passages : Ut. 1 7 Josh. Y I 1040 11 z 16 @is, CAW, d ramwa, @AL r i n&v& the second time), 12 8 15 33 Judg. 1 g I K. 10 2 I Ch. 27 28 zCh. 1 15 0 27 26 IO 28 18 Jer. 17 25 (@a 6 s ndrv$c$ 32 44 53 13 Ob. 19 Zech. 7 7. Perhaps if RV bad given the plural form ' lowlands,' it might have been more illuminative to the reader, for, as G. A. Smith (203) remarks, the Scottish lowlands, like the ShZphClah, are not entirely plain, but have their groups and ranges of hills

SHEPHER io^), NU. 3323J, AV SHAPHER.

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. Under the name of IIoqmjv (Pastor, ' Shepherd '), with which from an early 1. NJame. date the name of Hermas came to be transmierrion connected, a book of some size, originally

written in Greek, has come down to us - = ~ - - ~ from Christian antiquity. At one time VI L G A L

greatly read, and even for a while regarded as canonical, it afterwards fell very much into the background without, however, being wholly lost sight of.

The Greek text, though still without the concluding portion Sim. ix. 303-x. was first brought to light comparativelyrecently (1856). A Lath version, the Vulgate was published as early as 1513 by Faber Stapulensis ; an Ethiipic by Anton dAhbadie in 1860. Ever since Cotelier's time (1672) the work bas been wont to be included in editions of the so-called Apostolic Fathers. We now know the Greek text of Vis. i.-Mund. iv. 8 M from the Codex Sinaiticus edited by Tischendorf in 1862 ; the contents of the rest of the work (apnrt from the concludin portion already s oken of and certain lacunrr) kom the so-calle% Athos MS of wxich th:ee leaves are now in the University Library at Leipsic (since 1856) and six still remain in the Monastery of Gregory on Mt. Atbos ; that of Sim. 2 7-10 4 2-5 from an old pa rus now in Berlin, formerly at Fayyiim, described by U. &=ken in 1891 ; that of other fragments, we haye known for a longer period from the citations of ancient Writers.

Valuable help can also he obtained throughout from two Old Latin versions the Vu1 ate and (since Dressel 1857) the Pala- tine as also fiom the jthiopic. For the estahsbment of the ori "nal text since the edition of Anger and Dindorf, 1856, who at g s t wereied astray b Simonides afterwards proved to be a forger) but were ,ultimate& put upon &e right track by Tischen- dorf as he in his turn was corrected by Lipsius, specially medtorious services have been rendered by A. Hilgenfeld, 1866(2), 1881(3), 1887; 0. de Gebhardt, ~ 8 7 7 ; J. Armitage Robinson A Collation o the Athos Codex of fhe Shejherd of Hermas, '1888 ; F. X. d n k , Patres Apost., (2) 1 9 1 .

The Shepherd, in view of its contents, is usually divided into three parts, entitled respectively (I) Visions, (2)

The printed editions, in fact, all follow each

other in giving five Visions, twelve Commandments, and ten Similitudes. This division, however, is hardly accurate, and it would be better to say that the book in the form in which it has come down to us consists of Visions ('Opdmis) or Revelations ('AmKahL;$cis) of which the first (Vis. 1 I ) can be regarded as an introduction to those immediately following ( Vi5. 12-4) and the last (Vis. 5 ) as an introduction to the immediately following series of Commandments and Similitudes (ai 8vrohal Kal ?rapa@ohui : Mund. 1-12, Sim. 1-8) to which is added an appendix called 'The rest ' (rb Prcpu ; Sim. 9) and a conclusion (Sim. 10).

So far as the form of the book is concerned. Hermas.

a. Division. Commandments, (3) Similitudes.

a former slave of a certain Rhoda in Rome to whom

3. his father had sold him, and who had afterwards come into the service of the Christian church, now comes forward as contents.

a writer, relating certain things that have happened to him and what he has seen and heard-or, in a word, what has been revealed to him.

As he was walking outside the city ' to the villages,'-& K J ~ ~ s , as the Greek text has it, for which the printed editions, afte: a conjecture of Dindorf, wrongly read r k Bodpas, 'to Cumz -he falls asleep and there appears to him the woman whose slave he formerly had been and whom he had not been able to seek in marriage (Vis. 1 I). Afterwards the church appears to him at longer or shorter intervals (a year, or less) ; first in the form of an old woman (Vis. 1 2-4 ; cp 3 IO-II), next with a more youthful aspect (Vis. 2 ; cp 3 12) ; again as quite young (Vis. 3 r-IO ; cp 13) ' finally, as a maiden in wgdding attire (Vis. 4).

She reveals io him the future and expounds with regard to it the will of God. She gives instructions and shows visions which

4456

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS have reference to the necessity for repentance while yet the building of the tower, symbolising the church, is still unfinished or rather suspended for a while-in other words while yet God affords the opportunity to repent, an opportunity which ere long will cease with the coming of the last great persecution. After these revelations (Vis. 1-4) Hermas relates how the angel of repentance appears to him in the form of a shepherd as previously (Vis. 2 4 3 TO) in that ofa young man, and bids h& write down commandments and similitude^ '(Vis. 5). The twelvecomniand-

ments which follow relate to faith in God ; a life void of offence full of compassion, love of truth ; chastity; long sufferinq'; ou; attendant angels, good and bad ; the fear of the Lord ; abstinence from all that is evil ; prayer without ceasing and with unwaver- ing confidence ; two kinds of sadness ; two kinds of spirit ; two kinds of desire (Mund.1-12). The eight similitudes which follow teach us how here we have no continuing city ; how the rich can he helped by the prayer of the poor ; how the righteousand the wicked cannot at first he discriminated, but will ultimately be separated (Sim. 1-4) I how useful fasting is ; how good it is to keep far aloof from luxury and temptation; how indispensahle is chastening ; how many are the varieties of saint and sinner (Sim. 5-8). Nex t , by way of appendix, is set forth in new images that which the Holy Spirit that spoke with Hermas in the form of the church had showed him. They are revelations vouchsafed t o him by the Shepherd, the angel of repentance, with reference to those who are saved (Sim. 9). To round off the whole, yet a further earnest admonition is Given by the angel who had sent the shepherd ; a last exhortation to repentance in accordance with the precepts of the now completed work (Sinr. 10).

The form in which the whole is clothed, far from being simple or natural, is artificial in the highest - . 4. The degree. It sets out, apparently, with

the intention of relating what has passed between two known persons, Rhoda and arti6cial.

Hermas. The names are reminiscent of a Christian woman Rhoda, mentioned in Acts 1213, and of a Christian slave at Rome, Hermas, mentioned in Rom. 1614. Here they become representatives, the one (Rhoda) of the church in various successive forms, the .other as one devoted to her service, and one of her followers and members. ' Hermas' soon goes on to speak with poetic freedom like a Paul, a James, a John, a Barnabas, a Clement, an Ignatius, a Polycarp, in the epistles handed down to us under their names, as if he were the recognised elder and faithful witness addressing himself with words of warning and admonition to his ' house,' his ' children.

The original unity of the work in its present form, although frequently called in question since Hase (1834), ~. unitgr and cannot be denied. Even less, however, composition. can the existence of inconsistencies and

contradictions and other marks of interpolation, adaptation, and redaction be disputed. These point to it having been a composite work made up from earlier documents. Not in the sense (so Hilgen- feld, 1881 : Hausleiter, 1884 ; Baumgartner, 1889 ; Harnack, 1897) of its being a combination, effected in one way or another, of two separate works, entitled respectively ' Visions ' and ' Commandments ' and ' Simili- tudes ' by one author, or by more than one ; nor yet (so Johnson, 1887; Spitta, 1896 ; vun Soden, 1897 ; Volter, 1900; van Bakel, 1900) in the sense of its being the outcome of repeated redactions of an originally Jewish writing. Rather in the sense of being a second edition of the original Shepherd, a bundle of ' Command- ments and Similitudes ' from the pen of but one writer who laboured on the whole independently, yet at the same time frequently borrowed from the books which he had before him. I t is not possible to distinguish throughout between what he borrowed from others and what we ought to regard as his own.

The writer, who comes forward as if he were an older Hermas, the contemporary of Clement ( l'is.24 3), must

6. Buthor. not be identified with him of Rom. 1614 nor yet with a younger one, brother of

Pius I . , bishop of Rome 140-1155, who is referred to in the Muratorian fragment. The real name of the author remained unknown. From his work it can be inferred that he was an important member, perhaps even a ruler, of the Christian church, probably in Rome. A practi- cal man. No Paulinist, nor yet a Judaiser in the Tiibingen sense, but rather a professsor, little interested

4457

SHEPHUPHAM in the dogma of the Christianity that was already in process of becoming Catholic, in the days when it was grappling with the ideas and movements that had originated with Montanus. One who attached much value to revelations and yet was very particularly in earnest about the need for quickening, for the spiritual renewing of the Church, for which reason he laid peculiar stress upon the possibility of a second conversion. This possibility would ere long come to an end a t the close of the present period ; even now many were denying it as regarded those who once had received baptism, though others hoped to be able continually afresh to obtain the forgiveness of their sins. There is nothing that indicates the merchant supposed hy Harnack-Hilgenfeld.

In date the author is earlier than Eusebius, Athan- a s k , Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,

7. Date. Iren;eus, but later than the apostles and their first followers, the martyrs and leaders

of the church, such individuals as a Hermas' and 'Clement' (Vis. 2 4 3). Later than the first great and flourishing time of the church (the history of which can already be divided into different periods, and the spiritual renovation of which, in conjunction with the revived expectation of Christ's second coining is regarded as imperatively needful) ; in the days when the spiritual life of Christians was being stirred by Montanistic movements. Therefore, certainly earlier than 180 A.D. ; yet not mnch earlier, nor yet much later, than about the middle of the second century. Perhaps some chronological truth may underlie the tradition that ' Hermas' was a 'brother' of Pius I. (140-155 A.D.) .

The work was from the first intended for reading aloud a t the assemblies of the church whether in larger

8. or in smaller circles (Vis . 2 4 3). Its and value. value, at first placed very high from the

point of view of the interests of edifica- tion, but afterwards almost wholly lost sight of in Christian circles, has in recent years in spite of the diffuseness of its contents come anew to be recognised. Not to be despised as a praiseworthy production in the field of edifying literature it is still more to be prized as a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the Christi- anity that was widely spread and held as orthodox about the middle of the second century.

A. Editionc.-F. X. Funk, Patres Apostolici,V) with prolego- mena and notes,P) rgor ; also (in shorter form) Apost. Vater,

1901' 0. de Gebhardt and A. Harnack 9. Literature. Hey& Pastor (=Pafr. Apost. Opera iii.):

1877, with invoduction and notes; ais0 in smaller edition,W 1901. Cp above ; also CANON, 5s 63, 72 ;

B. Translations.-English : Roberts Donaldson and Cromhie, in Apostolic Fathers in Ante-N'icene Library: 1867 ; Lightfoot, Ajostolic Fatkeys, 1891. German : J. C. Mayer, 1869. Dutch : Duker and van Manen, Oud-Cknitel. Lett.: p-eschnzten der ap. Vaders, with introduction and notes, i. 1871. . C. Discussiom.--In addition to those already referred to, see G. Kriiger, Gesch. d. altchr. Lit. 1895, 5 12, and ' Nachtrage,' 1897, p. 12 ; Th. Zahn, DerHirt Hemzas, 1868 ; also E M . i. d. NT l,P) 1900, pp. 298 ,43042 104, 154 ; J. 1\1. S. Raljon, Gesch. 71. d. 86. de NVs. 1901, p. 451 ; G. Uhlhorn, S.V. 'Hermas' in PKEP) I (1899) 714-718 ; C. Taylor, Tke Witnessof Herinas fa tke Four GospeLr, 1892 (cp van Manen, Th. T. 1893, pp. 180-194) ; A. Hilgenfeld, ' Herm;e Pastor' Nozwm Testamentum extr. Can. rec.,P) 1881, (31 1887 ; P. Raumgartner, Die Einkzit des Hernias-Bucks 1889 (cp van Illanen, Ih.T, 1889, pp. 552-550); E. Spitta, Zu; Gesck. u. Lift. d. Urchnitentums, 2, 1896, pp. 241.437; A. Harnack, Chronol. 1897, 1257-267. 437-s(cp H. von Soden, TLZ, 1897, pp. 584-7) ; D. J. E. Viilter, Die Visionen <es Herrnas die Siihylle u. Clersens zmn Ronr x p o ' H. A. van Bakel, De C&5ositie van den Pastor He,nz&, 19';

W. C. Y. M.

PROPHETIC LITERATUKE, 5 31 ; HERMAS.

SHEPHO (by), b. Shobal, b. SEIR: Gen. 3 6 2 3 :CW@ [AI, .CW@&N [DL]. c u p [El)= I Ch. 140 Ghephi ('Tp; CUB [B], cw@ap [A], carr@e~ [L]). buL's reading in Gen. suggests comparison with

SHEPHUPHAM, AV Shnpham (DQ4bi : see SHE- >HUPHAN), a son of BENJAMIN ($ 9 [i.]) in Nu.26391.. Kith patronymic SHUPHAMITE (4 .v. ) ('pplr ; cw@au,

4458

SHEPHUPHAM (-AN). cp also SHUPPIM, SHAPHAN.

SHEPHUPECAN AHMOC o CW@ANGI P I . . . CW@&NI [AFI, c o + a ~

SHEPWPHAN (IpDp, J 75 ; Gray, HPN95, but the suggestion 'serpent' may be as fallacious as that of ' rock-badger' for SHAPHAN ; another form is SHEPHUPHAM), b. Bela, b. BENJAMIN ($ 12), I Ch. 85 (CW@AP@AK [BJ, CC&AN KM axipd CAI, CEIT-

PIM, SHAPHAN. SEERAH, or rather, as RV, SHEERAH (31$@,

caapa [A], capaa [ L ] ; bB [EN EKElNOlC TOlC K a T A A o l n o l c ] and Pesh. connect with YHV, Niphal ' to be left '), a a daughter ' of EPHRAIM ( 5 12) (I Ch. 724u) who 'built ' the two Beth-horons and UZZEN- SHERAH (I Ch. 7246, n???'-)TF, RV UZZEN-SHEERAH).

In D. 24b Q5L gives qpuanSpa (for qpuaapa?). @EA makes

Conder suggests, as the site, Bet Sirs, a village 2 m. SW. of the Lower Beth-horon (Mem. 316). But can we implicitly trust the name? [The name Ephraim fixed itself not only in central but also in southern Palestine, where it is perhaps more original, and some of the names in the genealogy have an unmistakable N. Arabian affinity. Sheerah may, therefore, be a corruption of in@ 'Ashbur,' which turns out to be a N. Arabian &be-name (cp Geshur). Heres in ' Ir-heres ' (see HERES, MOUNT) seems to have the same origin (Crit. Bi6 . ). -T. K. c.] For 1" (Uzzen) we should probably (cp 6 L ) substitute 1-y 'city,' and refer to Judg. 135. Cp EPHRAIM, $ 12. Beth-shemesh or Ir- shemesh is a curiously parallel name, if ' shemesh ' comes from ' ciishim ' (see SHAALBIM). See, however, NAMES, $ 99, where 'ear (=earlike projection) of Sheerah' is suggested as the possible meaning of Uzzen-sheerah ; cp

SHEREBIAH (V21@, $39, but form seems doubtful,

. . CO@ANl [L]).

@AM [L]). Cp AHIRAM, SHEPHO, SHUPHAM, SHUP-

Shera ( u q p a ) and Rephab (v. 24) sons of 4 a v (Uzzen).

AZNOTH-TABOR.

uapapra[s] ) , a post-eGjic priest and family (EzraS 18 &px+ [BA] i v Lpxi uapovra [L], I% 24 u a p a r a [BA], Neh.87 9 4 apa&a [B, where u a p a p m represents SHEBANIAH, uapapaia [AI, 9 5 om. @RNA, 10 12 1131 <apapia [B], CaBapra I ~ ~ v i d . 1 , 158). In I Esd. 847 the name appears as ASEBEBIA, RV ASEBEBIAS (ampqj3tav [BA], ;v b p ~ i uapovra [L]), cp HASHARIAH, 7 ; in v. 54, ESEBRIAS RV ESEREBIAS (euepp.&av [BA]) and I Esd. 948, SARABIAS, uapapras [A*vid.j. Many of the codpanion-names on the lists are obviously ethnics (Che.).

[L]), a Machirite name in a genealogy of MANASSEH ($ 9 [ii.]) ; I Ch. 716.f

SHEREZER(S$KiP), Zech.72.4V, RV SHAREZER,~. SHERIFFS (H?.$pJl, 6 703s err' EEowrGv KaTb Xdpav,

oi Pw' &m~. [also Theod.]), EV's rendering of a Bibl. - Arani. official title (such at least is the prevailing opinion) in Dan. 32f: I t has been generally connected with the Ar. a f t i ' to advise ' (whence the participial ' mufti '), and accordingly translated ' counsellor ' (cp RVmg., ' lawyers '). A still more far-fetched suggestion is to read Pr'nen=brrarol 'consuls' ; for the n instead of D Gratz (MG WJ 19 347) compares iyumg= $aXT.ilptov. Another scholar says, ' possibly a mutilated form of a Pers. title in pat "chief" ' (Bevan, Dan. 8 0 ) , and Andreas (Marti, Gram. Bi6Z.-Arum., Glossary) suggests wnmi denpk"@Z, ' chiefs of religion.' Nor does this exhaust the list of theories.

Only by those who recognise that many narratives in the OT have been remodelled, SO far as the geographical and historical backgroiind is concerned. It will become probable to any who adopt the present writer's theory that the supposed official tittles in Dan. 3 2 are really N. Arabian ethnics. One of these ethnics (v-,>n~~, Ashhurite, miswritten ' i i w n ~ ) passed, under the editor's hands, into [N .hDl lwn~ (see SATRAPS). Another (.nlni. Rehobothite) appears three or four times in corrupt variants. The last of these variants Nvngn has probably come from wnmi through the intermediate form, which occurs earlier in MT's list, Nning. 'All the rulers of the province' is, of course, an editorial insertion, the incorrectness of which is shown by v. 4: where the herald addresses ' peoples, nations, and languages. Cp SATRAPS. T. K. C.

4459

See SHEBER. SHERESH (@Y ; coypoc [Bl. copoc [AI, aopoc

See PERESH.

Can no step in advance he taken?

SHESHAN SHESHACH (a@, as if 'humiliation,' cp 13W ' to

crouch') is generally explained as a cypher-form of ' BBbel' (Babylon), which indeed is given instead of c Sheshach' by Tg. (Jer. 2526 5141). In Jer. 2526 the whole clause, and in 5141 ' Sheshach.' is omitted in 6 (amp. adds in 2526, K U ~ ,8aurhs3s Z ~ u a x d e r a i euxaros u ~ ~ T G v , and in 5141 inserts d E I U U K ) ; Cornill follows 6, and so too Giesebrecht in 51 41, whereas in 25 26 this scholar retains 'Sheshach,' but regards vv. 25f: as an interpolation. But would a late glossator acquainted with the Athbash cypher (in which N = n, 2 =I, etc. ) have used it in interpolating a prophecy ascribed to Jeremiah ? and what reason was there for using a cryptogram? ' Explication dksesp6rCe assurement ' (Renan, Rapport annuel de Za SOC. ariutique, 1871, p 26). As to 5141, there can be no doubt that ' Sheshach' should be oniitted ; it mars the beauty of the elegiac metre (see LAMENTATION). T o prove this let us put 5023 and 5141, both elegiac passages, side by side :-

hammer ! (a) How is cut asunder and broken I the whole earth's

How is become a desolation I Babylon among the . . nations !

earth's praise I (6) How is [Shesbach] taken and surprised I the whole

How is become a desolation I Babylon among the nations !

As to Jer. 2526, we must view the passage in connection with the whole list of peoples in vu. 18-26, and carefully criticise the text. The list begins with Judah. Next comes Miyim (so read; cp MIZRAIM), Arabia, Zarephathim, . . . Edom, Moab, Ammon, MisSur (a repetition. hid under ' Tyre and Zidon '), Dedan, Tema. Buz. Zarephathim, Arabia (thrice), Cushanim, Zimri ( =Zimran), Jerahmeel (Elam and Madai), Zaphon, Jerahmeelim, Cush-jerahmeel (repetitions) ; then at the close something which by editorial manipulation became ' and the king of Sheshach (?) shall drink after them.'

The view of Lauth that 'Sheshach' is a Hebraisation of SiSka, a Babylonian district which gave its name (P) to an ancient Babylonian dynasty, according to Pinches's reading (hut see Pinches himself TSBA 1881 48) is untenable. Winckler (GBA 67 f: 328); ~ 0 ~ i z 7 5 h7,' a?ci Sayce (RPP) 113) read Uru-azagga. The Athhash theory IS equally wrong On this and on similar cyphers see Hal. MiZ. 245 (his theory is peculiar) ; and Cp LEB-KAMAI. T. K. C.

SHESHAI ($d@, § 58, cp SHASHAI; CEC[C]~I [BFL]), one of the b'ne Anak, perhaps an old Hebronite clan-name (Nu. 1322 CEMEI [A], Josh. 1514 coycfl [BL], -AI [A], Judg. 1 IO+ r&el [A]) ; see ANAKIM. Sayce (Ckt. Mon.(', 204) combines the name with .hu JIDV (the Egyptian name for the Syrian Bedouins). But @.BL in Josh. 15 14, and the fact that 010 is frequently miswritten w n , may suggest ' Cushi ' (@P) ; ' An& ' itself may come from a Amalek ' = ' Jerahmeel ' (Che. ). See, however, SHESHAN, JERAHMEEL, § 28.

SHESHAN (I@@, $ 58 ; some MSS. 1W'V [Kenn.] ; CWCAM, CWCAN [B], CWCAN [A], CICAN [L]), whose daughter married his servant JARHA (9.v.) and became the head of an interesting genealogical list ( I Ch. 234-41). See JERAHMEEL, $ zf. The names may contain authentic tradition (Gray, HPN 234f.) ; at all events, it is quite independent of the (possibly tribal) genealogy in vv. 25-33 (cp v. 336), where Sheshan appears as the sou of Ishi and father of A@ai (v. 31). The natural presumption that AHLAI was his daughter has no evidence to snpport it. Indeed, since it is probable that Jarha was not so much an ' Egyptian ' as a MuSrite, and since the name Sheshan is reminiscent of the old Hebronite SHESHAI [q...], it may be conjectured that we have here an allusion to the introduction of Hebronite and Musrite blood into the Jerahmeelites (see H E B R O N ) . ~ Whether,

1 That is to say, the fact that the Jerahmeelites married into the older inhabitants of Hehron is expressed in genealogica! fashion by saying that Jarha marked a 'daughter of Sheshan (cp DAUGHTER, GENEALOGIES i., 8 I). It is possible that Sheshan (in spite of the philological difficulty) may have been connected with Smu ( d n ~ $ ) , the Egyptian designation for Bedouins (cp EDOM, 5 2).

4460

SHESHBMZAR SHEWBREAD The name might come from the Suti, the Syrian Bedouins mentioned in the Amarna Tablets. But in the parallel passage, Jer. 4845, we find PN$ for n*, and this suggests p+, 'Cushan' (cp Crzt. Bib. on Am. 22). For i~:c, ' Moab,' read probably TX?, ' Mi5sur' (cp MOAB, § 14). The Misrites or Cushites were among Israel's chief foes. Most, however, with Dillmann, interpret nf (nNd?) in the sense of ' tumnlt ' (so RV).

2. I Ch . l l , RV SETH (g.~.). T. K. C.

SHETHAR (Ygd), in Esth. 114, MT. one of the 'seven princes' at the court of Ahasuerus. 6 ' s

capcaealoc [BKLp19 CAp€Ce€OC [A] seems to represent both SHETHAR and TARSHISH. According to Marquart (Fund. 69), Shethar comes from nmo, with which, however, compare the 0. Pers. siydtis 'joy.' This presupposes the accepted view that the scene of the Esther-story was always laid in Persia, and that consequently the names may be expected to have a Persian appearance. For another explanation see PURIM, § 3, and cp TARSHISH.

'@I, CaeapBOyzaNa9 -AN [BI, - N h l ~ -N€ [AI, €lap- BoyZa~afoc [L]). The name of a Persian (?) official, mentioned with Tattenai, Ezra 536 6 6 1 3 I Esd. 6 3

SHETHAR-BOZNAI, RV SHETHAR-BOZENAI (in+

(uaBpapou{avgs [BA]. -,BO{. [L]) 7 (-poupT. [B], - p 0 4 [A], -BO{ [L]) 627 7 1 ( - ~ O U { . [BA], -PO{. [L]). AV SATHRABUZANES. Four explanations may be mentioned ; the fourth assumes that underlying the present narrative there is an earlier story of the relations between the Jews and the N. Aradian governors.

(I) Shethar-boznai may be a conuption of *1ii3inc= M&popouthv~s,Old Pers. 'Mithr0bauzana'-Le., ' having redemption through the Mithra.'' (2 ) Marquart takes a different view (Fund. 53 J ) . He equates md with Old Pers. rthra ('seed,' ' brilliance') and quotes names com- p o u n k i with this word.a (3). Winckler (Kohut Semitic Studies, 34$), however, considers that ~ 1 1 1 inv may be the title of an official (.g., chief clerk of the chancery), and compares the inscription on a weight from Abydos, where XDDJ ~ i m is attested as such a title. In this case, for mgi we must read inw. But the second part of the title seems incorrectly transmitted. Winckler's reason is that '3 'o is not followed, as we should have expected, by a description of the office of the person so called. (4) Upon the theory mentioned above, it is at any rate possible that mu comes from o'wm (TARSHISH [p.~.]) , the original of which may be *?w;E(, and 317111 from ?+.

'Asshurite' and 'Cushanite' are two N. Arabian ethnics, used perhaps as personal names. See C'rit.

I. b. Caleb b. Hezron, the ' father' Bib. T. K. C.

of MACHBENA (;h. 249; uaou [Bl, -A [AI, UWB [LI). SHEVA (KId).

2. z S. 2025 (Kth. X;$); see SERAIAH (I).

SHEWBREAD (imp? ai+). lkeern hap-pininirn, lit. ' bread of the face ' or ' presence-bread ' (RVmg.). See SACRIFICE, 14, 34a; RITUAL, 5 2 ; TEMPLE, 5 16, and ALTAR, § IO (8).

Q'6 BPTOL TOG apou&rov (I S. 217[6]), a. [r+] r p o 8 . I ~ ~ ~ (Ex. 40 23 [where on5 occurs alone], 2 Ch. 4 ~g), a. 7. a p o u g o p G (r K. 748), a. 2vwrious (Ex. 25 io); Vg. panes propositionis. With the exception of I K. (!I 2 Ch. 4 rg), and I S. only in P.

Other expressions are (a) &Gem hf-trimid, i'onn on$, EV 'the continual bread'(Nu. 4 7 [PI, oi BPTOL 0; 8rh a a v r 6 s ) ; (d) 1. Rarn-mdZmikeb? T Ch. 9 32 (AVmP. ' bread of ordering '), mn'Zrdkefh Z. 2 Ch: 13 IT (a . 7. rpoB.Iuews Vg. as above); (c) 1. RjdCS I S. 21 5 (' hallowed [RV " holy "I bread ' ; a. :poi).

Zimdern (Beitrice our Kenntniss der Bn6. Rel., Rifuals-

indeed, ' Jarha ' was supposed to be etymologically akin to Jerahmeel (as a hypocoristicon) is a matter for conjecture. s. A. C.

SHESHBAZZAR (7?@, 83 ; cacaBaccapoc [A, in Ezra 5 16 -ap' ] , uaSauapqs [Ll ; but B in Ezra18 u a p a v - a u a p , 5 14 p a y a u a p id. 16 uappayap. In I Esd. 2 12 15 SANA. BASSAR, u a v a p a u u r i p y , uapavauucipou [Bl, uava@&uapos, uapa. [A] u a u a @ a h a u u a p o r [L], 3 . 6 18 20; SANABASSARUS, u a p a v a u - u a i o s [B in a. 181, f l a u u d p y , u a p a S a u u a p o v , B v. 20, A, L, u a u a p d d u u a p o s , - i s ) , the first governor of Judah under the Persians, Ezra 1 8 II 5 14 16t.

Van Hoonacker (Acad. , Jan. 30, 1892, NouveZZes Ettudt~, 94 J ) acutely explained the name as=Bab. 1. Name. SamaS-bil(or -hal?)-usur-i.e., ' 0 Sun-god

protect the son' ; cp ZaouGov~Gos (see ADRAMMELECH). So Che. Acad., Feb. 6, 1892, Well- haiisen (1894), and doubtfully Guthe (1899). But the Greek forms point to the name of the Moon-god Sin as the first element in the name. The only difficulty in this view is the w for Ass. s ; but this is hardly insuper- able. Accepting 6 ' s form Sanahassar for Sheshbazzar we are enabled to accept the very plausible identification of Sau(a)bassar with Shenazzar (I Ch. 3 IS), first proposed by Imhert (1888-89), and accepted by Sir H. Howorth, Renan. and Ed. Meyer (Ent. desJud. 773). Upon this hypothesis San(a)bassar was not identical with Zernb- babel (so van Hoonacker, Wcllhausen). but his uncle and predecessor. That SANBALLAT (p...) and the first governor of the Jews should have had names compounded with Sin would be a striking coincidence. But though this may have been the learned redactor's meaning, it is doubtful whether the original narrator intended it. The chief captivity may have been in N. Arabia. In this case the first part of the name Sheshbazzar would represent vi3 (Cush in N. Arabia); the second part might possibly come from mlx (Zarephath). Cp SHENAZZAR, ZERUBBABEL.

In Ezra 1 8 Sheshbazzar is called loosely ' prince of Judah' (n?w$ N'+); in 514 he is called 'governor'

2. Notices. (mm), the same title which is given to H e

is said to have received from Cyrus's official the sacred vessels which Nebuchadrezzar had taken away with a charge to deposit them in the temple at Jerusalem when it had been rebuilt. In 5 16 TATTENAI (4.v. ) mentions that the foundations of the temple had been laid by Sheshbazzar. Kosters (Herstel, 33) admits that he is probably a historical personage, and that he bears a Babylonian name, but thinks that he was a Persian, and that the Chronicler introduces a Shenazzar into the genealogy of Zerubbabel from interested motives. That Sheshbazzar brought hack the sacred vessels, and laid the foundations of the temple, Kosters denies. On the two latter points see Zntr. Is. pp. xxxv, 281 J , but bearing in mind the possibility that different views of the land of the captivity and of the circumstances attend- ing the gradual lightening of the burdens of the Jews may have been taken by the narrator and the redactor respectively. But cp Meyer, Ent. des Jud., pp. 7 5 s ; Guthe, CVZ 245 ; Winckler. KAT(3) 285, with references (Sheshbazzar a son of Jehoiachin) ; and see EZRA AND NEHEMIAH [BOOKS], § 7.

The identification of Sheshbazzar and Shenazzar (Shen'assar) is questioned by Lohr (TheuZ. Rundschutr 1 IBIS), hut j&fied by Ed. ,Meyer ( Z A TKlS 343 A), who Yefers to the different pronunciation of the sibilants in Assyrian and Babylonian, and explains the differences in the reproduction of these names by differences of pronunciation.

I. Nu. 2417+, regarded by AV, RVmg., 6, Vg.. Pesh., as a proper name, on the assumption that Seth the son of Adam is intended ; this is in fact the old Jewish tradition-the ' sons of Sheth ' are the 'sons of men' (Onk.), the 'armies of Gog' (ps.-Jon.). The assumption is untenable: but at any rate Sheth must be a proper name. The sceptre of Israel, we are told, 'shall smite the temples of Moab, and the crown of the head of all the sons of Sheth.'

Zerubbabel in Haggai (1 I 14 22 21).

T. K. C.

SHETH (nd, CHe).

4461

1 So Andreas, in Marti, Bi&?.-aram. Gram. 87; E. Meyer, Ent. d. /US 32. M d 3 p o p o v < r i ~ s occurs in Arrian, i. 16 3, Diod. 31 22.

2 In the address of the letter of Tattenai the governor beyond the river and Shethar-bomai'(Ezra!ia), the verb in MT is in the sine.. and the suffix in anin is also sinc. Marauart

-TT: _ . -

suggests that Shethar-bomai may have come in from the subscription.

4462

SHIBAH tafd?n, 94) includes among the constituent parts of a Babylonian sacrifice ‘the laying of loaves’ (akuZz~) before the deity. It was usuel to present either 12 or (3 x 12) 36. The loaves were of some fine mea4, pexhaps wheat. They were called akal mfffki, ‘ sweet loaves ‘-z.e., !”leavened.

SHIBAH (W:p), Gen. 2633 RV, AV SHEBAH (q .n ). SHIBBOLETH (ll$’3@), the word which the fugitive

Israelites mispronounced, so falling into the trap set for them by the Gileadites (Judg. 126).

Being unable to reproduce the sh in shibbdletk, the translator chose m ~ L , p s where UT was found rather difficult to pronounce. (‘And he’said, Sibboleth,’ remains nntranslated.)

So the French betrayed themselves by their pronunciation of ceci and ciceri in the Sicilian vespers, 13th March, 1282 (Bertheau). An analogous story is related by Doughty (Av. Des. 1 1 5 5 ) . When the Druses came on to slay Ibrahim Pasha’s troops, a grace was accorded to the Syrians in the force. ‘ 0 man, say Guqzel. ’ Every Syrian answered /erne.? (J as in French, whilst in parts of Egypt J is pronounced as G). So the Damascene soldiers were saved.

On the phonetic point involved in the narrative see Marquart ZA TU‘ 8 (1888) 1515, and cp G. A. Cooke in Hastings’ DB, S.V.

SHIBMAH (ill?$$), NU. 3238 AV, RV SIBM.4H

SHICRON, RV SHIKKERON ()\-I$; (€IC) COKXWe

@B renders &bv Si WT+K.

(P.”.).

P I . (€IC) AKKAPWNA [AI, (€IC) C A X A ~ ~ N A CLI; Sechronu [Vg.]), at the western end of the N. boundary of Judah, Josh. 1511,t apparently between Ekron (AK- K A ~ ~ N ) and Jabneel.

SHIELD. The most ancient defensive piece of armour was the shield, buckler, roundel, or target. The weapon varied greatly in make, form, and size, therefore bore a variety of names.

I. sinndh, X! (Jp, preserve,’ ‘ protect ’) ; most commonly rendered @upcis Bupaioc but also some five times ~ A O V in the

sdnse in dhich tha; word is used by the’ Greek 1. Terms. historical writers; cp brrAirqs; Vg. sciifurn, hut

also less properly, c&jeus. This was a large shield which is ;ommonly found in connection with spear, and was the shelter of heavily-armed infantry (I S. 17 7 41 etc.) ; it is also used figuratively of Yahd’s favour and faithfulness. We hear of this shield being borne in front of the warrior by a Shield-bearer (-I!?? N ~ J ; I S. 177 RV).

( J ~ I I , ‘cover,’ ‘defend’); most commonly rendered Bvpds , but also occasionally &rrk and d A r q , scutum. This was a buckler, or smaller shield, which, from a similar juxtaposition with sword, bow, andarrows, appears to have been the defence of the light-armed infantry and of chiefs; it is used figuratively also ofthe scalesor scutes ofleviathan ; asametaphor for a king or ruler (Ps. 89 18 1191 Hos. 4 k8 Ps. 41 g [IO]), etc.

A doubtful word. A second word for ‘shield’ in the same line of the stanza is improbable. Q5 reads KmAi)ua-i.c., ?;’D;, which Whitehouse and Che. Ps.P) adopt.

.+ ?‘de<, &$. The derivation and meaning of this word are both obscure. In a S. 8 7 ~ A i b u (reading aim?) and in I1 I Ch. 187 KAO& (also reading niyr?); in zK. 1110 T ~ L U W ~ F [BA] Gdpv [Ll, hut in I/ 2 Ch. 23 h X a (L U p u , I ~ L s , and SmAa); Cant. 44 BoAiGes; Jer. 51(28711 +ap&pas.

z. mri@n,

3. s$z&Zh, ?I?$, Ps. 91 4t.

5. kidan, pi’?. 6. Bupdr, Epb. 6 16 (metaphorically, of faith).l Among the Hebrews, as among other peoples at an

etc. early stage of development (cp Evans, Anc. Bronxe Zrn$lements of Gt. Bn’t.

343), shields were no doubt at first made of wickcr- 1 [To these according to some(Baethgen, Kirkpatrick), should

he added ”$12, ‘Z&Eh. In Ps. 46 g [IO], where MT has n ihq , properly ‘waggons’ [EV ‘chariots’], Q5 has Bupmk, and Tg. 1’9, ‘shields.’ But in Nu. 31 50 ,Ezek. 16 IZ s3?F, means a ring ’ and it is not probable that the Psalter should contain two wbrds for ‘ shield ’ (see 3) found nowhere else in the OT. On the assumption that in Ps. 46 and elsewhere (see PSALMS, 28) the Jerahmeelites or Edomites are the foes chiefly referred to, Cheyne (Ps.P)) would read sxnni* ]in; corrupt forms of ‘ni3 often present 2 instead of n. Cp Ps. 76 3 [41, as restored in Ps.W,

See JAVELIN, 5.

2.

He has broken the quiver of Cusham, The shield and the sword of Jerahmeel. T. K. c.]

4463

SHIELD work, wood, or hide. The leather coverings would vary in thickness ; a single hide, if suitably prepared, sometimes serving as well as a double. At a later date the wooden framework was bordered with metal. The partial employment of metal would soon suggest the discarding of wood almost (or quite) entirely.

In Egypt the shield ‘was most commonly covered with bull’s hide, having the hair outwards, like the lusZion of the Greeks, sometimes strengthened by one or more rims of metal, and studded with nails or metal pins, the inner part being probably wickerwork or a wooden frame, like many of those used by the Greeks and Romans, which were also covered with hide ’ (Wilk. Anc. Egypt. 1198f.).

W e may infer that the early Israelites-or a t any rate the Canaanites-borrowed the forms in use in Egypt.’ Their common shields would therefore be a kind of parallelogram, broadest and arched at the top and cut square beneath. They were of wood covered with leather ; a late prophet (Ezek. 399) speaks of them as easily burned.

The :innah was most likely what in the feudal ages would have been called a pavise, for such occurs on the Egyptian monuments. Sometimes such a weapon was above 5 ft. high.2 An example of an Egyptian weapon of the kind is to be seen in Erman’s picture (Lz+ in Anc. Egypt, 524; see also Wilk. Anc. Egypt. 1202) of a soldier of the Middle Empire. The body is not protected by other armour-a fact which suggests that in ancient times the shield was large in proportion as other defensive armour was lacking. This shield resembles a Gothic window in shape. dimensions must have heen made of light material. During a march they were, at any rate in the time of Rameses II., hung over the soldiers’ backs (see Erman, 546). At a later date the Assyrian pikemen carried an ‘ enormous shield, sometimes round and convex, sometimes arched at the top and square at the bottom ’ (Masp. StmaZe of the Nations, 627 f: ). But the Assyrians had shields of all sizes. Layard (Nineveh and BubyZon, p. 1g3f: ) found bronze shields at Nimroud. They were e circular, the rim bending inwards, and forming a deep groove round the edge.’ They had iron handles, ‘ fastened by six bosses or nails, the heads of which form an ornament on the outer face of the shield. The diameter of the largest and most perfect is 2 feet 6 inches.’

The lighter shields mayperhaps have been soaked in oil ( 2 S. 121, but see col. 2334, and cp Lohr, ad loc. ,, Is. 21 5, yet see Dnhm, who keeps the text, though declining the usual interpretation, and Cn’l. Bib., where the text is criticised), ‘ in order that the weapons of the enemy might the more readily glide off them ’ (Dr. TBS 183). As to the source whence shields were procured, one must have recourse to conjecture. I t , has been suggested (Kitto, Cycl. ) that ‘ hippopotamus, rhinoceros, and elephant skin shields may have been brought from Ethiopia, and purchased by the Israelites in the Phcenician markets ; such small whale-skin bucklers as are still used by Arabian swordsmen would come from the Erythrzan Sea.’ In Nah. 24 shields ‘ made red’ (with copper, according to Nowack) are spoken o f ; but the text is too doubtful to be trusted. Among the ‘Hittites‘ one of the three occupants of a chariot bore a small shield with which he protected himself and the others (see CHARIOT, col. 729); on the other hand, the single chariot-soldier of Egypt had to

1 In a picture of a ‘ Philistine ’ ship of war given by Maspero (Th S h & e of fhc Nations, 701) the combatants carry small round shields. In the picture of the storming of Dapuru, the fortress of the Kheta wen in Errnan (Anc. E,svPt, 5331, shields of various shapes and %es are well Illustrated.

2 Cp Hewitt, Ancient Armour in Xuumje: ‘besides the ordinary Northern shields, we sometimes find t p m represe?ted of so large a size as to cover the whole person. Hewltt polnts out that the same kind of shield is to be seen in Egyptian Ass ian and Indian monuments (77), and that ‘the Chines; stil$185;) u ~ e a large round shield of cane-wicker’ (i6. note m).

Shields of such ’

4464

SHIGGAION protect himself as well as manage his chariot (Erman, A m . Egypt. 550). During the Assyrian and Persian supremacy the Hebrews may have used the square, oblong, and round shields of those nations, and may have subsequently copied those of Greece and Romc. High personages might have shields of precious metals (IS. 176 I K.1427 [brass], zS.87 xK.1016f: 1426; cp I Macc. 14 24 1518 [gold] ; the exaggeration in I Macc. 639 cannot be added ; shields partly of brass or gold seem to be intended).

To facilitate their management the shields had a wooden or leathern handle, and they were often slung

SHIHOR OF EGYPT or 'SHIHOR(RV THE SHIHOR), which is before [i.e., eastward of] Egypt'(EV, Josh.133, P;!? 'Jysp lW5 iin*g?, &ab e r & O C ~ ~ T O U []iD'@;?] i s K a d ap6uwnov aiy . [BAL]), Is. 23 3, Shihor gn@; p ~ ~ j % A ~ = i n b [BNAQI), Jer. 2 18 (irn?, y p v

The position of the Shihor question was until lately as follows. In Is. 233 Jer. 218 either the Nile, or more strictly (Frd. Del. Par. 311) the Pelusiac arm of the Nile, seemed evidently to be intended, which appeared to make it probable that in I Ch. 135 Josh. 133 also the reference was to the Nile. This required the assumption that both the Chronicler and RD gave an idealistic extension to the SW. frontier of Canaan. I t was urged, on the other hand, that in Nu. 345 Josh. 154 I K . 8 6 ~ z K.247 Is. 27 12 the S. or SW. frontier specified is the n : ? ~ 502 (MT), which is supposed to be the WHdy el-'AriS (see EGYPT, RIVER OF), and according to Franz Delitzsch and Kautzsch-Socin this wady is also referred to in Gen. 1518 as the p ~ y p i?? (MT). Were there, then, two Shihors ? Steuernagel removes the difficulty in part by reading i > i ~ n , ' the desert' instead of i :n'wn, ' the Shihor' (see a), in Josh. 133, and Benzinger does the same for I Ch. 135 by supposing that a thoughtless scribe substituted 1n.w for O ~ Y D 5n1 (cp I K. 865)-i.e., the WHdy el-'AriS. In Is. 233 Jer. 218 the reference to the Nile has been pretty generally admitted. All that remained was to get a probable explanation for Shihor. The existence of the name SHIHOR-LIBNATH in the territory of Asher seemed to favour a Hebrew meaning; and it was thought that ' Shihor ' might mean ' the dark-coloured turbid stream,' in allusion to the black mud of the Nile (cp the native name of Egypt, Ximet, ' the black land,' EGYPT, 5 I). Hommel. however, in 1897 ( A H T z 4 4 ) , changed the position of the Shihor question, by showing that in all probability there was, to the SW. of Canaan, a land of Asshur or Shur, extending from the WHdy el-'AriS to the region of Beersheba and Hebron, and pointed out the striking parallelism between ' thc Shihor which is before o v n ' in Josh. 133 and ' Shur which is before n'wn ' in Gen. 25 18. He even went so far as to explain nvi (Geshur) as ' simply a contraction of GC-Ashfir or G6ShClr.' The present writer's investigations are in the main independent of those of Winckler and Hommel, though stimulated by the earlier writings of these scholars. H e is of opinion that the true name of this region is neither Geshur nor Asshnr but Ashhur (out of which the other forms arose), and that Shihor is a cognate of this, also that Ashhnr, Asshur, or Geshur acquired a wider reference than Hommel has indicated.

The theory of the present writer is that this term occurs in many passages of the OT as practically synonymous with Jerahmeel and we can well believe that the o,lpn 5n3 (if this phrase ma; he taken to mean ' the widy of Misrim '- <.e., of the Arabian Mugi), was also at an early period called the wZdy of Ashhur, and at a later time the wZIy Shihor (a modification of Ashhur cp SHEHARIAH); between I Ch. 13 5 and I K. 8 65 there will,'thkrefore, if these views are correct be no inconsistency.

A fair estimate of this theory is on1 ' possible in connection with a thorough methodical study of tze OT, or at least of the greater part of it, from the point of view indicated at the end of the article NAME. There 1s little reason to suppose (see Cvii. 5i6.) that the result will be adverse to the theory.

I t should also he emphasised that the critical investiga- tion here referred to supports the view that Winckler's explanation of the name 0 3 % ~ as the N. Arabian Musri in the phrase o.imh1, and in a large number of passages besides those which contain this phrase, is correct. Hommel's more recent theory that i i ~ n ( L e . , according to him, Mosar or Masor) means Midian-Le., the NW. Arabian coast from Leukekome to 'Akabah, is closely akin to that of Winckler; who regards Musri as the name of a N. Arabian kingdom, in vassalage to the more powerfnl Minzan kingdom, and peopled by the race called Midian (cp KAT(") 143).

W e have still to ascertain whether Is. 233 and Jer. 218, critically regarded, are, or are not, consistent with the theory respecting Ashhur, Asshnr, or Geshur, stated

W A Q I , ~ ~ ~ P , LQmg.1).

44%

3. Management. over the neck b i a thong. Witg the larger kinds a testudo could be

formed by pressing the ra& close together ; and while the outside men kept their shields before and on the flanks, those within raised theirs above the head, and thus produced a kind of surface, sometimes as close and fitted together as a pantile roof, and capable of resisting the pressure even of a body of men marching upon it. We learn from Erman (529J) that when the soldiers of the first army of Amon [Amen] pitched their camp, they arranged their shields to form a great four-cornered enclosure. .

To break the force of a blow, 'bosses' or 6p+Xol were attached ; cp dasiisr dp&cLhb~uua( (Hom. ZZ, 448). But whether such ' bosses ' are really referred to in Job 1526, where M T (and consequently EV) makes the wicked man ' run upon ' God ' with the thick bosses of his bucklers,' i w p q p is, to say the least, doubtful. The whole verse has a suspicious aspect.

Shields were hung upon the battlements of walls (Ezek.2711, if the text is correct [but cp Crit. Bib.], Cant. 4 4 [?I, cp I Macc. 457). and, as still occurs, chiefly above gates of cities by the watch and ward. In time of peace they were covered to preserve them from the sun, and in war uncovered; this sign was poetically used to denote coming hostilities, as in Is. 226 etc.

Eesides the works mentioned above, use has been made in a few instances of the article 'Arms' in Kitto's Bib. Cycloj.

M. A. C .

SHIGGAION (]\+$@), Ps. 7 I (title). The traditional Jewish view (cp Aq. dyv6vpa, Sym., Theod. h d p aiy- voias) connects it with >id. fig&, ' t o wander,' supposing an ' error' of David (see IGNORANCE, SINS OF) to be referred to,1 whilst Rodiger, Ewald, Delitzsch, and others explain it as 'dithyramb' on the same etymological theory < b n N A R simply $aXp6s). More plausible would be a prophetic rhythm ' ( m w = y ~ w ; cp Ar. suj'a, the rhyming prose of the Arabian kahins or diviners).2 Ps.7, however, is not in the Hebrew or in the Arabian prophetic style, nor is its tone more prophetic than that of other psalms. Zimmern (Busspsalmetr, I ; cp Hal. Rev. Sdm., 1894, p. I) connects Shiggaion with Sgd, the name of a class of Babylonian hymns ; but fi'd is properly ' vehement lamentation' (Del. Ass. HM'B), a description which does not apply to Ps. 7.

I n Hab. 3 I the plur. Shigionoth (n\91$, Aq. Sym. [;dl &yvoq- P&WY ; Vg. [jro] i&~rnntiis ; A V w . 'variable songs or tunes ') is plainly an error for n , 3 ~ ~ , 3 (see SHEMINITH, UPON). The clever suggestions of Gratz (ny3, i9w)and Wellhausen (nijqj)(cp BBNAQ, p e d 6 S i s ; also, in Ps. Sol. 17, title) fail to do justice to the facts. krititz neglects 5~ ; Wellhausen changes into 3, and gives n y ] ] a plur. form and a meaning to which it has no right (see NEGINAH, but cp HABAKKUK [BOOK], $ 3).

T. K. C.

SHIHON (fiW@), Josh. 1 9 x 9 AV, RV SKION (q...) . SHIHOR OF EGYPT, RV Shihor [The Brook] of

Egypt ( I C ~ . 135, o:?~? i \n3@ [&&I &&v aiyjamv [BNALI),

1 See the Midrash and cp Field Hex ad Zoc. 2 See WelIh. AT. 'h'eid.P) 130 : 'Hnff;. ZA TW3 9 and cp

PROPHET B 13. Hitzig on Ps. 7 I makes the above co&arison, but combines with it an arbitrary theory. 3 9 1 (like >I) may proceed from an original D.

4165

SHIHOR-LIBNATH above. by RV :-

‘ And on great waters the seed of Shihor, the harvest of the Nile (iiw), was her revenue; and she was the mart (?) of nations.’

With the exception of Duhm all commentators have admitted that Shihor here means the Nile, though Dill- niann noticed the awkwardness of the style here and elsewhere in the poem, which, together with the occurrence of ‘ Kasdim ’ (ChaldEans) in v. 13, suggested his theory that the original work (vv. 1-13) was recast by a later hand (cp Intr. Zs. 139-143). Duhm, however, thinks that the writer means the Shihor on the S. border of Asher (see SHIHOK-LIBNATH), ‘ which, according to Gen. 4920 (Ezek. 2718), supplied Zidon with corn and the like.‘

Duhm speaks of ‘ Zidon ’ rather than ‘ Tyre,’ because i k in vz. 5 (?) 8 is, in his opinion, miswritten for jh*r. Marti assents to this, hut thinks that the gloss (11x9) is correct, and that ‘ Shihor ’ after all, does mean the Nile. If, however, it is highly probaLhe (see PROPHET, 0 3 5 3 ) that the geographical names have been transformed by an editor in very many of the prophecies, it becomes a t once probable that here, as elsewhere, lk should he lp, and iiy either pt? or perhaps iUp In this case we can hardly doubt that ih@ (Shihor), which is not understood by @ to be the name of a river, or even a proper name at all, should be either P inD, ‘merchants’ (so @), or rather imw5, ‘Ashlpw.’ w w i n in w. I 6 IO has the same origin (see TARSHISH), whilst i i ~ * presumably comes from yy1., At any rate, the presence of i n n and i n D close together points to the existence of much uncertainty as to the right reading of the word which unablies both words.

(6) In Jer.218 the prophet reproaches the Jews for being continually on the road to oqxn. ‘ t o drink the water of Shihor,’ and to Asshur. ‘ to drink the water of the river.’ Most think that 031s~ means ‘ Mizraim ’- Le. , Egypt-and that ‘ Asshur ’ is the great kingdom whose capital was Nineveh. But in the context (v. 16) we only read of the ‘sons of Noph and Tahapanes.’ Either then ‘Asshur’ is superfluous, or it denotes the same country as own. In the latter case pirn must mean the N. Arabian MuSri, and 014nni qj ( ‘ Noph and Tahapanes ’ ??) must be corri1pt.l Clearly this is pre- ferable; the quatrain in v. 18 must not be mutilated. ‘ Shihor ’ and ‘ Asshur ’ are ultimately the same name, but ‘ Shihor ’ has already become differentiated from ’ Asshur,’ and means the p isn 171 (Gen. 1 5 1 8 ) . ~ That d in v. 18 reads m w v (Gihon) instead of ‘Shihor’ is hardly of importance for textual criticism.

It does, however, prove that the Greek translator did not understand Shihor and therefore substituted for it a name which, owing to a &interpretation of Gen. 2 13 (where ‘Cush’ becomes ‘ Ethiopia’), he supposed to be a Hebrew name for the Nile. It is no objection to our exegesis that in v. 36 1iu.y is represented as distinct from D- i l n , for in v. 18 the right reading probably is, not >?WE( (Asshur), but i inwN (Ashhur).

The above is written independently of Hommel’s later investigations (AufsEtze, 3 I [1901]) as well as of Winckler’s more recent writings. Hommel holds that in Josh. 13 3 and in I Ch; 135 ‘the Shihor’ is inaccurately pyt for the ‘nalpl Mogar. He derives ‘Shihor’ from ‘Shihon which he identifies with Seihln. the Arabk name of one of tbe rivers of Paradise. The

( u ) Is. 233 , as it now stands, is fairly rendered

He regards i i~? (no tin @) as an incorrect gloss.

SHILOH of a river, the moderns prefer to take Shihor-libnath as a compound phrase meaning ‘ the Shihor of Libnath.’ There may have been a place near called Libnath, and Honimel ( A H T 243) ingeniously conjectures that the Asherites, who originally dwelt between Egypt and Judah (cp ASHER, 5 I), called the stream which marked the S. boundary of their territory by the name of Shihor in memory of the Nile. ‘ SHIHOR ’ [g. 3.1. however. does not mean the Nile. It is more probable that just as 5 ~ 1 1 (Carmel) comes (according to the present writer’s theory) from h n n i - (Jerahmeel), so i inw (Shihor) in Josh., as well as elsewhere, comes from i rnwx (Ashhiir), and that both names indicate that the sites called ’Carmel’ and ‘ Shihor’ had been originally occupied by Jerahmeelites and Ashhurites ( a dis- tinction without a difference ?) respectively. There were probably other places called Ashhur (Heres, for instance [see HERES, MOUNT]) ; one of them was near Libnath, or belonged to a Laban or Libnah clan. See SHIHOR.

From the earlier point of view, Dillmann’s identification of ‘the [river] Shihor of Libnath’ with the Nahr ez-Zerk8 (Le., ‘the dark blue river,’ a little to the N. of Czesarea, a peared plausible (hut cp Bnhl, PaL 105). J. D. Michaelis and Zesenius Thes. 1393) thought of the river Belus (now Nahr Na‘mSn, S.

of‘Akka), from the fine sand of which, according to Pliny, glass (aj>$, ‘transparence ’ ??) was made.

SHIKKERON ()h?d), Josh. 1511 RV, AV SHICRON

SHILHI (a?@, 52). apparently the name of the father-in-law of king Jehoshaphat, I K. 2242 ( C B M E ~ I [B], CAAAAA [AI, cshssi [L in 16301, ZCh. 2031 ( C A A ~ I [BA], cehssi [L]), but really, as the CBMEBI of dB in I K. 2242 (from C ~ A ~ ~ ~ M = S H I L H I M Cq.v.1) shows, the name of the birthplace of Azubah, the king’s mother. The majority, if not all, of the names of Jehoshaphat’s brothers, together with his own, suggest a family connection with the Negeb. Cp HALLOHESH.

SHILHIM (&e). A city of Judah ‘ towards the border of Edom,’ Josh.1532 (CAAH [Bl, C E A E ~ I M [AL]). Perhaps the same as SHARUHEN (P.v.); cp also Shaaraim (Buhl, Pal. 185). Azubah, bath SHILHI (q.v.), was probably a native of Shilhim (see SHILHI).

T. K. C.

(6.. 1.

T. K. C.

T. K. C.

SHILLEM (&e), Gen. 46 24, SHILLEMITES

SHILOAE, WATERS OF (n$f&l ’p), Is. 86. See

SHILOH (h@, Judg. 2121 Jer. 7 12, he, Judg. 21 19

(Vh@?), Nu.2649; in I Ch.713 SHALLUM, 7.

SILOAM.

I S. 1 2 4 3 21 Jer. 7 12 14 26 g 415, but here @BNQ mdqp, @A uahwp, cp SALEM ; Ps. 78 6a ; i h W thirteen times ; q A w , -wp, -wv ; Jos. U L A O ~ S and urho).

A town of Ephraim, where the sanctuary of the ark was, under the priesthood of the house of ELI (4.v.) .

‘Gihon’ is the ‘river’ (731) of Aszhnr (or as he Ashur-i.e., Edam); this he identifies with the WPfy Sirha; (reckoned with the Enphratean stream region), the Hiddekel

oints it

(as he thinks) of Gen. 2 14. Hommel’s statements are criticised unsympathetically by Konig, Fzi’flf neue arabische Lafldschafts- nainea i m A T 6eleuchtet (1902). T. K. C.

SHIHOR-LIBNATH (nn) iln$@; CEIWN [B], C[c]lwp [AL], KAl AABANAe; Sihor ct Labanath), apparently near Carmel on the S. boundary of Asher (Josh. 1926t) . The ancients, including Eusebius and Jerome (OS 27523 1362), distinguished two places called respectively Shihor and Labanath. Since, however, SHIHOK [Y.V.] occurs elsewhere only as the name

1 Read 5Narn. nin41; see NAPHTUHIM. 2 Even if the Wady of Ashhur and the W%dy of Mqri were,

strictly speaking, distinct, some laxity in a Hebrew writing is intelligible.

I- I

Ephraimite According to I S. 3 3 15, this sanctuary was not a tabernacle, but a temple with doors. Tosh.181 IP1, however, has it town.

that the tabernacle was set up there b i Joshua after the conquest. In Judg. 21 ~gf. the yearly feast at Shiloh appears as of merely local character. Shiloh seems to have been destroyed by the Philistines after the disastrous battle of Ehenezer (cp Jer. 7 12 74 2 6 6 g ; see ISRAEL, § 11). The position described in Judg. 2119 (cp OS 1521) gives certainty to the identification with the modem SeiZzin lying some 2 m. ESE. of Lnbban (Lebonah), on the road from Bethel to Shechem. Here there is a ruined village, with a flat, double-topped hill bchind it, offering a strong position, which suggests that the place was a stronghold as well as a sanctuary. A smiling and fertile landscane surrounds the hill. -

Cp PRIEST P, 2 . OT’C(2) 268.271‘ L. W. Batten, ‘The Sanctuary at’ Shildh,’ JBL I9 [~goo] Z $ - T ~ ; Graf, De temgZo Siloflensi: and Aug. KBhler, BibZ. Gesch. 11.11zf: w. R. s.

4467 4468

SHILOH SHILOH That there was a Shiloh in the territory of Ephraim,

2. Probable is undeniable. It is probable, however, Benjamite that there was another place with at least

a similar name, in Benjamin, which was confounded by later writers (Jer., Ps.)

ih, 1507, and &, are all regarded by the present writer as connected with h ie (Shad) and (Shalishah), names of Edomite, or rather Jerahmeelite, origin, which were not confined to one part of the country. He sees reason to think that the names, both of Eli and of his two sons connect Eli's family with the Jerahmeeiites and there is evid;nce in the genealogy of Samuel onnectini his family with the same N. Arabian stock; indeed the name of Samuel (see SAUL, i3 I) may appear identical with the Jerahmeelite name of Saul.

It is very possible that the sanctuary of the ark was in the Benjamite not in the Ephrainiite Shiloh (or rather Shalishah?); also that in the original narrative from which Josh. 181 (cp 1951 212 2z9 12) is derived, the place intended was Shalishah in Benjamin. W e can now probably understand aright the statement in Judg. 1831 that the shrine containing Micah's graven image remained ' all the time that the house of God was in &. ' Laish or Dan was not improbably the famous city of Hahisah in the Negeb (see MICAH, z ) , and of course shared the fortunes of the sanctnary in Benjamin which contained the ark. The question also arises whether the enigmatical statement about the ' daughters of Shiloh' in Judg. 21 1 9 8 does not really refer to a southern city. In SHILOH ii. it has been argued that in all probability a$v (EV Shiloh) in Gen. 49 IO has been corrupted out of atj;5 (Laishah), which in turn is a popular distortion of HaltiFah. I t is possible that the place near which, according to the narrative, the capture of wives was effected by the Benjamites was really Laishah-Le., HalQah. The transformation of names in Judg. 21 19. which this theory presupposes, is not stranger than similar transformations which we have assumed elsewhere. Bethel is the southern Bethel- containing the sanctuary of Halfisah. Shechem should bz Cusham (see SHECHEM), and Lebonah is a southern Libnah (cp Nu. 3 3 n o f : ) .

Not only the names Eli, Hophni Phinehas, but also Ahitub, strongly favour the view that t h e f a h y of Eli was Jerahmeelite and to some extent make it natural to place the sanctuary the ark in one of the territories known as Jerahmeelite. For xu'*i(in accordance with types of corruption which we have often conjectured)is prohahlyfrom ni>hl, 'Rehoboth,'or *@Xi? ' Rehobothite,'a view which is somewhatconfirmed by the famous rending of LW in 1S.421, ouar@apXa@w8, if we may take it (nearly as We., col. 2144) as n h h ? '1NI 'Alas, Rehoboth!' It is, in fact, not improbable (as I S:14 3 [see below] shows) that 11x3 *N (Ichnbod) and >iu'nN (Ahitub) are ultimately the same name. The corruption of n i y , i into liu,nN is not worse than many assumed corruptions while the other corruption 1123 vu would be suggested by &,us sentiment. Both Corruptions, it will be noticed, imply the dropping out of 1 from what we may assume as the original name-ie., ni2nl 9~ 'Oi- reboboth.' May we then assume that there was a Reioboth close to the Shalishah in Benjamin where the sanctuary of the ark may be best supposed to have been? It is better to hold that ' Kehoboth' and ' Jerabmeel ' were used as synonyms. A clan of N. Arabian origin might indifferently be called ' Reho- hothite' and ' Jerahmeelite' (see REHOBOTH). Thus an Ephraimite site for the sanctuary of the ark, though believed in by later writers, becomes more and more improbable.

There are many parallels for the view tnat 1113 -N is a variant to - J Y ~ N ; would be inserted as a link when the variant made its way into the text.

town. with the northern Shiloh.

Cp also MELCHIZEDEK.

I s. 14 3 runs 4y- i i ~ n m - p i 1 x - w 'nN m.nu-i2 m u .

Note the warning Pasek. T. K. C.

SHILOR (n .~$ ; on versions see below), a proper name in EV of Gen. 49 IO.

In the ' Blessing of Jacob' (Gen. 491-27 ; cp GENESIS, § 4, end) it is said-between the comparison of Judah 1. Text and to a lion, and the poetic description of

the flourishing vine-culture in his territory -that a the sceptre shall not depart from versions.

Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come ; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be,' into which rendering of AV, however,

143 4469

RV introduces the alterations ' the ruler's staff' for ' a lawgiver ' (transferred to RVmg.), ' obedience ' for ' gathering,' and ' peoples ' for the archaism ' people.' RVmE. also gives, ' Till he come to Shiloh, having the obedience of the peoples,' and records the ambiguous reading i$$. The Hebrew of M T is :-

?l217'? pl?W 11D: $5 l-g? i'2P PI?$' aJ?y $>y? 1y : o y n y ii!

Ginshurg gives as &e i$q, which is a'rare spelling of the place-name Shiloh, if it is not rather meant to signify 'his son,' see note.

A critical conspectus of the diverse interpretations of this passage would require many pages (for this we may refer to the special monographs).' W e can only give such references to ancient or modern hypotheses as may save the student from committing himself to untenable or precarious views, and justify the offering of a new interpretation based upon a critical examination of the text, and confirmed by the study of some important historical passages elsewhere. It is not enough to rest in interpretations, however widely prevalent, which have an insecure textual basis ; we are bound to attempt to lift the exegesis of this much disputed passage to a higher level, and to free it from the uncertainties of theological or semi-theological controversy.

The ancient renderings that chiefly concern us are :- I. @ (and Theod.) : 0;c ;Khc&L apxwv, 66 'Ioli8a K $ $ Y O ~ -

pcvw ;K r i )v p+iv a h i , &os Bv A T& LIaOKf~peYa a v r i , .a2 a h b s T~OUSOKLZ &Gv. Several M g have Q L a h s i r a r , a few 6 AadKaraL d r d or 6 &n&rTai. The rendering ZK r i )v pqpjv a8roG is one of {he signs that the interpretation of the passage was influenced by Dt. 28 57. ~ ~ U S O K L Z suggests the reading n p

2. Aq. OGK dvaumjcTrTar UKr)nTpOW &ab 'I. K a i iKpL@<6pFVW &a& pma@ aoS& a h & Ews Bv ZA8p . . . K a i ah@ &mpa A&". Sym. 08 m p r a r p s 6 u e r a r &uura Lab 'I. . . .

On r& &OK. a&$, see below.

3. Pesh. (a).

* ,.a& L o 'The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the interpreter

from between his feet, until ,he cometh to whom it belongs, and for him do the peoples wait.

(6) Aphraates (ed. Wright, 3.0) instead of last three words.

.\OW -10 J L A s '[to whom belongs] the kingdom, and for him do the peoples hope.

4. Tg. Onk.

'The wielder of power shall not pass away from the house of Jud,ah nor the scribe from his sons' sons for ever until that the anom&d one come to whom belongs the kingdom and to him shall the peoples submit themselves.'

We have first to ask, Can Shiloh be a proper name, as the Reformation Versions mostly suppose?* As

Driver has well observed, ' n o ancient not ~ propel version, and indeed no known authority

for several centuries after the Christian era, implies the Massoretic reading, or

sees in the passage a proper name. It is true that it was generally interpreted in antiquity of the Messianic

1 Chr. Werliin, De Zaua'ihs 3ude (Havniae, 1838); S. R. Driver, ' Gen. 49 io ; an exegetical study,' /ourn. PkiZ. 14.(1885) 1.28. The former takes Shiloh to mean 'peace- bringer '-i.e. Solomon ; the conclusion of the latter scholar is given in the iext in his own words. These monographs may be supplemented by the notes of Delitzsch Dillmann Gunkel and Ball in their works on Genesis. Cp also G. &a&, Gesck: der Alttkst. Weissagung (r861), 227-2 o 2 Driver traces this rendering to &b. Mfinster (1534), wpo

gives 'quousque veniet Si!o.' Pagninus (1528) gave ' Messias : Luther (1534), 'der Held.

shiloh

name*

4470

SHILOH or ideal future of Israel ; but this sense was reached in virtue of the general context of the passage, and not through a proper name Shiloh.’ Indeed, a proper name meaning Peace-bringer (which is the sense postulated for the proper name Shiloh) can certainly not be derived from J&, ‘ t o be quiet, careless, secure ’ ; the phrase we should have required is oi$$ iy, ‘ prince of peace’ (cp Is. 95 [ 6 ] ) , or, if the text of Mic. 54[5] is correct, niip, ‘ peace’-Le., [Konig, Styl. 211 ‘ auctor pacis. ’ 1

Thosewho (IikeDelitzsch, Dillmann) defend the rendering, ‘until he come to Shiloh,’ see a reference to the

SHILOH

3. No reference assembly of the tribes of Israel held, ac- place cording to P, at Shiloh(Josh. SI), when

‘ ~ ~ : , - ~ , ‘the land had been subdued before to them.’ They take D?@ to mean, not

the royal sceptre, but the staff of the chieftain or leader, exactly like p $ q (if this word really means ‘staff of authority’) : so’that the passage will mean, ‘ Judah shall continue to be the valiant leader of the tribes of Israel, till, the peoples of Canaan having been subdued, they can celebrate the victory by a solemn religious assembly at Shiloh.’ This, however, puts too much into the simple phrase I until he comes to Shiloh,’ and v. 10d conveys the impression that the victory over the ‘peoples’ is the victory, not of all the tribes, hut of Judah. Moreover, a$@ is not one of the recognised ways of spelling the place-name ‘ Shiloh,’ and it is even doubtful whether the Masoretes intended to favour this interpretation.2

Hence some good critics adopt the old reading n$@ or i$d (see 6). According to Driver, the rendering

PIIUUII.

., . - - ‘ till he whose [it is] shall come ’ wouId

** @” reading afford an excellent sense, but is not nnaceeptable’ reconcilabIe with the absence of the

subject in the relative clause. ‘ Perhaps,’ he adds, we should fall back upon the original LXX construction, and render ‘‘‘IN that which (or, he that) is his shall come,” and regard the cIause as an indeterminate expression of the Messianic hope. which was afterwards defined more distinctly.’ The reading is$ is also adopted by Wellhausen (Gexh. 1375, n. I , but cp CH 321). Stade (GVZ 1159, n. s), Ball (doubtfully), Briggs, v. Orelli, Holzinger, Gunkel.. I t is thought to be pre- supposed, not only by 6. but also by the language of Ezek. 21 32 [q], q v e ? i h f t j h-ip ‘until he come whose right it is.’

If, however, &&OK. ai+& a genuine rendering, $becannot he the whole of the text which the translator had before him. The present writer, therefore (Thew‘. Rev. cited at end), suggested 15 ngl’ or (as RGnsch before him) $5 O@V. Most probably, how. ever, B simply made the best of the obscure readingi%, areading unworthy of acceptance,s and clearly a fragment of some longer word. $$g would, in fact, be intolerable. As to Ezek. 21 32, it is by no means clear that the prophet was thinking of Gen. 49 IO. Very possibly the reading h$ was suggstcd 6y a misleading reminiscence of EsekieZ.4

But if the passage is, at any rate in the larger sense, Messianic-and this is generally assumed, because of the reference in d to a universal empire,-what are we

* KGnig, however (Le.), qualifies his statement by an ‘at least’ in the next sentence. There can hardly be a doubt that the text needs emendation (see .MICAH [BOOK],

2 A favourite Jewish interpretation of ..r$.r, (found in Ibn Jandh and &,hi) was ‘his son’ (cp Talm. $st, Ar. saZiZ, ‘extractus, filius ’) ; e.g., Tg. ps.-Jon. paraphrases ,i>zi*gi, ‘his youngest son,’ an interpretation which according to Driver, is ‘perhaps embodied in the Massoretic pbinting.’

3 It is usual to find in i% a deliberate affectation of mystery. But it is more than mystery ; it is grammatical obscurity. In a solemn benediction like this, nothing but Ezek.’~ BEW~? ~!J-@F would be tolerable, if a veiled reference to the legit:Aate king of Judah were intended.

4 See Volz, Die vmexil. /ahwe)ro#kfie und &r Mcssias, Sa, n. I .

5, e).

4471

to read in place of n b or n5w or i $ w ? Matthew Hiller (OS, 1706, p. 9 y ) , Lagarde (OSP)295, OSP) 368), the present writer (09. cit. 1, as an alternative, and Bickell (Curmirza VT ntetnke, 1882, p. 188), took n$o to be a contracted form of a$*!@, ‘he whom Judah prays for’ ; cp perhaps Dt. 337, where, according to Gunkel,’ ‘bring him to his people,’ means ’ bring the Messianic king to his people.‘ This is at any rate more plausible than the idea that n5.w should be c)f or & (Vg., ‘qui mittendus est ’), with which compare the view of Grotius (col. 1803) that Jn.97 identifies ’ Siloarn ’ with ’ Shiloh.’ But is the passage hefore us really Messianic? Critics who in our day hold this view, generally regard Gen. 4910 as a later insertion. This is. of course, a permissible hypothesis ; but, on different grounds from those of Gunkel. we are compelled to reject it.

The truth is, we believe, that the text of the passage in its context requires a much more thorough examination

before we cau proceed to exegesis. There 5. The re- are serious difficulties both in n. IO and

D ~ S ?$ln mean ‘ s ta f f of :::&. authority’? and. if not, how can aaw be parallel to it? Is i h ~ p p , however

it be explained, at all natural? And is nn?: a sound reading? Then, in v. 11, is nniD correct, and are such expressions as these possible-’ he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes with the blood of grapes ’ ? In v. 1 2 is %n correct?2 and is not the whole verse superfluous ?

By a careful criticism the present writer has elsewhere reached the following text :- ”??p D?id Y?D;b!$ A champion shall not depart from Judah,

storedtext in v. 1 1 ~

1Ti: p p j?S@? Nor a marshal from between his bands, ??e;> ET’? ”$ Until he tramples upon Laishah, P * > K p : [?pf:] I? And the Jerahmeelites are obedient

unto hirn.3 Verse 11 may here be passed over with the remark

that it probably continues the description of the conquest of the Negeb by Judah, and that i“$ i;-g os? should probably be hp-0: ’g wm:, ‘he shall subdue the b’ne Ishmael,’ the proof of which is that in v. 12, which should certainly be read 5ygm; hey@: y true text contained a correction of the miswritten words in v. IO. See Cn’t. R J . Laishah, considered already, may be, as we have seen (SHILOH, I ) , Haliisah, one of the most important cities of the Negeb. Who the Jerahrneelites are, we also know ; they are the same as the Zarephathites or ‘ Pelethites’ (the Philis- tines of MT) who were the chief enemies of Israel in the days of Saul and the early period of David. If this theory bt adopted there is no reason for the hypothesis of interpolation. Contrary to the prevalent opinion, the whole of the blessing of Judah is continuous. Beginning with a description of the fierce and fearless courage of the tribe of Judah, it goes on to prophesy that judges or champions of Judahs rights (the rights of the strongest) will never be wanting till its troublesome neighburs, the Jerahmeelites or Zarephahthites, have been conquered,-a conquest which in the original song was described in some detail.

The theorysuggested with regard to n$a throws a fresh light on I K. 11 29, where (see JEROBOAM i., end)

The singular theory connected with 1 Genesis, 436, (2) 424.

a Contrast Prov. 2329. 3 For the confusion of ”79 and Bpid, cp a S. 7 7 I Ch. 17 6

(parallels in We. TBS170); and for the sense ‘ru!er,”marshal,’ see @ and Onk. For the correction >qii>, cp ENSIG~, B T 1 (on 511 ; Sam. here l h ) . For D?;, cp SBOT on Is. 41 2s. In d ?av-fekl out through the vicinity of words (p,~3y=&ry) containing virtually all t h w letters.

4172

this interpretation cannot be here discussed.

Cp also J.ERAHMEEL, 5 4.

shallun-shiloh

Documents

Transcript of shallun-shiloh