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[B],V uaAop' [AI),
see M ESHELEMIAH .
I O . An Ephraimite (2 Ch. 28 IZ urMvp [BA] - a p [Ll).
1 1 . 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 [BAI).
S
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 u d o p [BAQ], arhop
[p(*]OQl
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.,
EMMWN [L]).
SHALMAI (AV in Neh. 748 = Ezra 246f ; *e\@
[=SALMAIin 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 (AL)] r ;@. ! * in
Ezra, Kt. [sa. ; the usual text being '??4 = S HAMLAI (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 ~ [BA],r 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 ~ & ; c A M E N N A c A p 3CAAA-
MANACCA~ P I ; C A A M A N A C A ~ [AI, C A M A N A C C A ~ to purchase whatever is offered for sale in the provision-
, in K. 1 8 9 1 ; C A ~ M A N A C C A P[L]; in Tob.
[;'"
2 1 3 IS$,
in 4 Esd. 1340 S
2
Enemessar, E N E M E C C ~ P O C ,-ap [BKA] ;
, Salmanassar), named
ALMANASAR
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, 727-722B.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.]. T h e city Samara'in (or
Sabara'in) he destroyed (cp S AMARITANS, 9 2).
In his fifth year 'SulmBnu-&arid, in TeMtu, met his
fate. Five years had Sulmanu-aSarid reigned in Assyria. '
T h e 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, K B 2 3 3 f : 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 2 4 ) . That he actually took
Samaria is rendered doubtful by Sargon's claim to have
done so, see S AMARITANS , 2. See H OSEA 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
SHAMGAR
with Shalmaneser 1V. ; against this see B ETH - ARBEL , and Crit.
Bi6.1 C . H. W. J.
SEdMA (YF$; CAMAeA [Bh'l, C h M M A [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 J EIEL , 2).
SEAMARIAH (QO@, 2 Ch. 1119). S e SHE-
MARIAH (2).
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
( ~ p e o a d h r o r ) . I n 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. T h e Roman
colonists who founded the Corinth of Paul's day (see
C ORINTH ) 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 ( & $ ~ ~ r o h waj
~ adivided
)
into sections, termed xtirAor (circles), and n a m d after the s cia1
wares offered for sale, rir ~b IJlov, d r 7bv ofvov, etc. (PofiKs 47
10 29).
In I Cor. 1025 the Corinthian Christians are advised
market of the city, asking no question on the score of
conscience, ' for the earth is the Lords and the fulness
thereof. ' A. n. s. K.
SEAMED, RV SHEMED (7p@),b. ELPAAL (g.v.),
in a genealogy of B ENJAMIN (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).
SEAME, SHAJKEFUL THING (ne>?),HOS. gI0
Jer. 324 1113. See I DOL , 3.
SHAJBEB (lQ,@),I Ch. 734, A V S HEMER (2 and 3).
SHAMGAR (la@ ; c a M a r a p [B], CAME- EL, and
BA in Judg. 5 6 1 ; 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, how-
ever, 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. 1 5 1 4 5 , where a similar exploit is
'
1 [For other references see Lehmann, Menander u. Josephos
fib. Salmanassar IV. pt. i.,' Beitruge ZUY AZfm Geschghte,
2 125-140 ( I F ) . ]
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 R m . Anfiq.W
4414
 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). T h e 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.
This critical theory can only be right in part.2 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. Ishmaelites
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
But who was the true ’ Shamgar ‘ (Judg. 5 6 ) ? 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 Ball 4 refers (for a ben Anath ’ )
to Bur-anati, the name of the king of Yasbuk whom
Shalmaneser 11. mentions as an ally of Sangara ( K B
1159 ; cp I SHBAK ). 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.
ilap, ‘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 con-
jectures 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 i n (cp Q) and out of the six
hundred men, who ‘have always &xed the dredulity of the com-
mentators’ (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 .
5 nand p confounded. But cp ANATH.
9 in $y -Dqrepresents $Nan*; p stands for 8. The rest
of n3- was expelled by the following word >$inwhich resembles
s n v . Line z now appears in a much altered form in D. 71. See
C d . Bib.
4425
SHAMMOTH
the Nethinini ( = Ethanim, ’ men of Ethau ‘-a N.
Arabian region). See S ISERA , and Grit. Bib.
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 7 2 4 (Sem-
gir, -two divine names). T.K . C.
SHAMHUTH (nmb), I a.278 ; in z s. 2325
S HAMMAH ( 5 ) .
SHAMIR (lV?@). I. a city in the highlands of
Judah (Josh. 1548 ; C . A M E I ~ [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. 101f. ;
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, accord-
ing to the present writer’s theory of Josh. 111 and
Am. 3 9 , etc.. the Negeb. T. K . C .
SHAMIB (lV@, Ktb. ”In@),b. Uzziel, a Levite
(1 Ch. 2 4 2 4 ; C A M H ~P A ] , CEMMHP [Ll).
SHAMLAI (’??$, Kt. ; V$p, Kr. ; CAMAAN [B],
C € ~ A M [ E ] I [AL]), Ezra 246=Neh. 5 4 8 , S ALMAI .
SHAIKMA (K?@), b. Zophah, in a genealogy of
A s H E R ( ~ . v . , ~ ~1 ,Ch. ~ ~ 737(C€M[MlA[BL]2
.), CAMMA
[AI).
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). See EDOM,8 4.
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 & p X a r o r @L
o apxc. T h t exploit attributed to him in 2 S. is, with ;light
variations, k e d in I Ch. 1113f: 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
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 ;
u a w a [Bl, uawwar [AI,. uawaras . IL1). In I Ch. 1127 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, u a p a d [AL]) the ‘Izrah-
ite,’ which, according to Marquart (Fund. ~ g ) ,stands for
.nl!? ,-$ nimw,l? ‘Shamhuth,
? the Harodite, belonging to the
Zerahites ’ ; see ZERAH (I).
S ~ (w@, M 5 5 2 ; cp SHEMAIAH).
I . A Jerahmeelite . I Ch. 2 2 8 32 (uapar [B] ; axauapas for
‘brother of Shamma:,’ u. 32 [Bl, axwappa [AI ; uappac [AI
ofpeer [Ll). See J ERAHMEEL , $3 2 .
2. ‘Son’ of REKEM (q.u.) h. Hehron, and ‘father’ of Maon,
‘ father ’ of Beth-zur ; I Ch. 2 44f: (uapar [R only once Ll, uappar
‘4. once]).
Son of MEREDrq.u.1 of Judah, hy his ‘Egyptian’ (more
probably ‘ Misrite ’) wife ; I Ch. 4 17f: (ucprv [B], urppar [A],
OWL [Ll).
SECAMMOTH( n W ) ,I c h . 1127=ZS. 2325,SHAM-
MAH (5).
1 The fortress SBnGr, wifh which some have identified
BETHULIA rq.v.1, has been thought of by Schwarz for Shamir,
hut can hardly have come within Issachar. Cp Moore, ad Zoc.
4426
 SHAMMUA
SHAMMUA ( V l D ~perhaps , 'heard,' 5 56, but c p
SHEMAIAH, which might be an expanded clan name).
I. A chief of REUBEN. 0 13 end: Nu.134 ( u q ~ o v v h[Bl,
cawahqh [A], uappou [F], uaA&vh [L]).
2 . Son of David ( I Ch. 144); see S H I M E A (2). In z S. 5 14 19o1, p. 73) tafe a different view of the name Shaphan, which,
. H,
S H A M M U (AT').
A especially in Ezek. 8 11, is pronounced to be a contemptuous in-
3. -4 1.evite; Iieh. I 1 17 (uapov[rlr [BN"Al, uappovo [Hc.a?l),
in 1 Ch. 9 ~6 ulled S I I K M A I A I ~ .
4. A priest, conlemporary with Joiakim, Jeshua's successor ;
Neh. 1 2 18 (om. BH*A, uvapouc [Nc.a mg. "1, uapwe [Ll).
SHAMSHERbI (?@@, I C M A C A ~ I A [B], cAMC.
[A], C A M Y A ~ A [L]), b. JEROHAM in a genealogy of
BENJAMIN ( g . ~ . §, 9, ii. p ) ( I Ch. 8 2 6 f ) . Should the
name be SHIMSHAI ( g . v . ) ? Shehariah (cp Shihor.
Ashhur) follows. T. K. C.
SHAPHAM (De$; 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 is (a)thattextual
of a district, borne originally by a clan a n d subsequently
by individuals [see below] ; CA@AN [BAL], but in 2 K.
22 c ~ @ @[BA]), p ~ b. Azaliah b. Meshullam, a scribe, Jeratpeelite
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, a n d 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 [b331 24), who, in turn,
was the father of the well-known G EDALIAH [ g . ~ . ]( 2 K.
2522 Jer. 39 [46] 14 40 [47] 5 [ib. 9 1 1 BKAQ om.],
41 [48] z [ua@av (Qmg., BKA om.)], 43 [SO1 6 (BKAQ 240).
om. )I), also of a prominent personage called ELASAH,
mentioned together with Gemariah b. Hilkiah (Jer.29 3 ) ,
a n d 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 pleteness' sake, it may be added that from this point of view
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. 115), 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-perhapsrather 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
SHAPHAT
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 re-
ferred to ; this is all. Jos. Jacobs (Studies in BibL Archreol.
8 4 8 ) and Za letal (Der Totemismus und die Relig. Zsmels,
vention (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 s u 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 explana-
tion. (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 revision of other parts of the OT. The result
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
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.
that numbers of Jews fell away to N. Arabian heathenism.
Arabia was so great
(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
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 Z EPHANIAH , 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 com-
Huldah' (m5n) is miswritten for sm,2 and that i n ? (Rachel,
sheep ') and > 1 > ~ y(Achbor, 'mouse ') are early popular distor-
tions of 5Nnni.. But the reader will not forget the warning
r a ' u m 6h B o K L ~ & ' ~ T ~ r, b raAbv xa&,ymo ( I Thess. 521). Cp
N AMES , $ 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 re-
dactor 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 n o reference
is made to unclean animals. Cp SWINE, and see
Crit. Bib. T. K. C.
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 (written
D? 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.).
4428
 SHAPHER
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. 1 9 1 6 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 M T 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 prob-
ably be aware (see K INGS [BOOK], § 8) that critics
have been inclining to the belief that MT's arrangement
is not correct, and Kittel, in his commentary ( H K 1 5 4 ) ,
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. W e know that Elijah had a close con-
nection with the far S. of Canaan (see P ROPHET , § 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. I n the former case Elisha, in the
latter Elisha's father ( a more probable view), was re-
presented as a man of Zephath or Zarephath who
had established himself at Abel-meholah-Le., Abel-
j e r a m e e l (cp M EHOLATHITE ). 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 Z AREPHATH .
3. A late descendant of David ( I Ch. 322t ; ua a0 [Bl
u=+aT [AL]). The name was presumably suggested $y SHE:
PHATIAH I.
4. A dadite, in Bashan ( I Ch. 5 xat : ES however [Iavervl b
ypapparrv's [B], [rava~lb yp. [A] ; [coavr] 6 yp. ~ d ur 4 a v [L]).
Here b ypappa~n's=i~b[nl, a variant to D9V. The common
original of both readings is '??l$, ' a Zarephathite.' The list
originally referred to the Negeb and was originally ]vi2 Assyrian, to be meant, and sought to adjust the geo-
(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.
with which cp again T S. 30;9{.
.
erahmeel (for David's connection by some divine name such as Bel, Nergal, etc. (see
T. K. C.
SHAPHER, RV Shepher, Mount ( Y Q p g , 'mount
of glitter'? see S APHIR ), a stage in the wandering in
the wilderness (Nu. 332jj.t ; c a @ a p [BL], A ~ C A @ A ~ , combinations, Hitzig (Begrzfder Kritik, 1 9 4 8 [1831])
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 but because (see Wi. Z A , 1887,pp. 3 9 2 8 ) the words
( ' t o Zarephath, mount Jerahmeel'?) in Gen. 1031. C p
S EPHAR. See W ILDERNESS OF W ANDERINGS .
T. K. C.
SHAPHIR (Mic. 1I,), RV, AV SAPHIR.
SHARAI (?@; c a p i o y [BJ a p o y CAI c a p o y a
[W], - A [L]), b. Bani, a layman, temp. Ezra ; Ezra1040 confused
(I1 I Esd. 934 probably a z w p a CB-41, c a p o y a [L],see ( Z A TW17333), that the name Sarezer is a mere guess, due to
EZORA, M ACHNADEBAI ). Cp SHEARIAH.
SHARAIM ( D W V ) , Josh. 1536 AV, RV S HAARAIM .
SHARAR (1%). the H ARARITE , the father ofAHIAM
k 4 . v . l ( 2 s. 2 3 3 3 t [CIApal [BI, [CIApAh [A], notice
that y i o c precedes, capaxw ~ p a p i [LI ~ a for c a p a x NW. of the Assyrian kingdom. Cp Ex$. T 9 429 [1898].
0 apepi). In I Ch. 1135 his name appears as SACAR
([ClAXAp CBWAI, i c c a x a p [L]; cp I SSACHAR , 3 6,end).
Some of these readings suggest n?$ (see S ERAH ) 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
SHaREZER
SHARE (nhnn,i l ~ Q ? 2an) ,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.'
..
mjprov . ~ep+SrLv[~~)seems
.
Biprmpov . . BapL<frv (@Awanting Bcprlr
to suggest some reaping impiement.
See A GRICULTURE, 0 3f;
SHAREZER, or, more correctly, S AREZER ( Y V ~ ~ Y ,
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 (S ENNACHERIR , § 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 ~ f k 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
graphical 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
Schr. Die Ass.-Bad. KeiZinischr., 156). It has been
noticed already (see A DRAMMELECH ) that Abydenus in
Eus. A r m n . Chrun. (Schoene, 135) mentions a Nergilus
as the successor of Sennacherib. By some ingenious
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 ( K A T ( Z )330), is inadmissible, not
because it conflicts with the theory mentioned above,
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
recollection of the murderer and successor of Evil-
merodach who was called Nergal-Sarezer, or, with W. M. Muller
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
2. AV SHEREZER. 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 ( ' ~ wS 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
 SHARON
T I N ~ W52. 1 ~ 1 at~ the
1 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? W e see from Zechariah's
answer (Zech. 7 5 ) that he was in some way a leader
and representative of the people. Wellhausen (KZ. Pr. ) fies the Rose of Sharon) is, in its autumnal flowering
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-
M E N T , § 26),according to a well-attested reading (on
Ezra 22 Neh. 7 7 see B ILSHAN ). 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 (B I ? , beain.), I Ch. 5 16t. B A L ua&. but
[BNc.bAQal,auapov [N*I, o Zaapov [Q"],Saron; Is. 352 ~€3om.
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
u a p o v [ r l i ~[BAI,
s 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
N AMES , 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 neighbour-
hood of Mukhhlid in the very N . , ' where groups of
sindian, the ordinary oak of Palestine (Quercus in-
fectoria; see T EREBINTH ) are dotted over the rolling
plateau of red semi-consolidated sand ' (Conder, P E F Q ,
1875, p. 92). These groups of oaks are the representa-
tives 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, ' t h e
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 ~ ~is s , ~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). T h e
southernmost portion, which receives the WSLdys Budrus
and SalmHn, is the most cultivated and attractive ; the
See Ezra22 and note echariah's answer 'to the priests.'
1
2 See paper dy Map. ,&"des
Leemans (1885).
. ..
dddifes d M. k Dr. C.
3 See Straho, 16,apvpbs rdyas 71;: and especially Jos. Ant!.
xiv. 133, Apupoi 6; rb xoplov rdecrar; B J L 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.
4431
SHASHAK
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.
T h e richest grass and the brightest flowers adorn the
landscape. Even in the marshlands the tall and graceful
papyrus (with which Friedr. Delitzsch too boldly identi-
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 I O 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 state-
ment 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 appar-
ently a proverbial phrase.
3. A region('f) on the E. of Jordan occupied by the b'ne G AD
y. f .w a w., whence
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. 139 17 21) is meant. A place
called i i w is mentioned in Mesha's inscription ( L 13). But that,
Q $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 S HAARAIM (at'@; Sam. [i. 17 521 T U N
AWN [BAL]: Ch. C E W P E I M P A ] , 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.' T h e legend was perhaps t o
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 ( W M M , As. u. Eur. 1 5 8 j ; in RP
238 the names are wrongly read). C p S HARON , 3.
See also WMM, MVG, 1898 ('Studien zur vorderas. Gesch.3,
P. 23. T. K. C.
SHASEAI (**, $ 5 8 ; C E C E I [BHA], C E N C E I [LI), ~
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.
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
confounded with or altered into 3. Cp Ezek. 22 25 "33 for
"Wl.
4431
 SHAUL SHEBA
11 103 $ I ) . Perhaps a distortion of n$?, Cusham, which cahael~h).b. Jeconiah ’ t h e captive’ (see ASSIR),
suits the related names. Cp Hushim (Cushani), son of or perhaps Asshur (AD’K ; see Crit. Bib.), according to
Aher (Jerahmeel) in I Ch. 7 12. T. K. C . I Ch. 3 17j? the uncle, but elsewhere the father, of ZERUR-
BABEL [q.v.] (Ezra32 [b’ om.] 8 5 2 Hag. 11,etc.).
SUUL (h$;
caoyh), the same name as S AUL In accordance with @3the name is spelt SALATHIEL by EV
in I Esd. 5 j 48 56 G z , and by AV in I Ch. 3 17 lilt. 1 1 2 and
(q.v. 1. Lk. 827. In Lk. he is called ‘the son of Xeri,’ on which
I. Name of a clan of SIMEON (s g), Shaulites (nmtp hwi see G E N E A L O G I E S ii., 5 3. I n z Esd. 516 SALATHIEL KV
’ h N $ i l , uaouA[c]r [BAFL]), Nu. 26 13, where the equivalence of P HALTIEL, the ‘captain of the people,’ is an uncertain reiding ;
‘son’ and ‘clan’ is evident. In Gen.4610 Ex.6 15 I C ~424 . Pesh. reads ‘ Psaltiel.’ See, further, Ball, Vur. Ajoc. (ad loc.).
Shaul is Simeon’s son ; the two former passages add, by a womd T. K. C.
of Canaan (uapwqh u h 6 s Xavavirrsoc [AD], uaovh vi. T . x . SHEABIAH (7:w ; C A ~ A I A[BA], capia [BKA],
[DLI, Gen. 46 IO ; b i~ 71js O o r v i u q s [BAF], uaod oi LN 7.Q. uapra, u u p r a [LD, b. &el in a genealogy of RLNJAMIN( p a . 5 9,
[I,], Ex. 6 rj). or rather perhaps of Kenaz (Up for lp?, as in ii. p ) ; I Ch. 8 38=944. On the name cp SHAAKAIM.
Judg. 4 z, cp SHAXGAK, $ 2, and often). The name is S.
Cainanitish’and N. Arabian (cp S AUL SHALISHA). SHI,MEI SHEABING HOUSE (lp-n’3),2 K. 10 IZ 14 ; Heb.
and Saul are both Benjarnite names, Hnd another ‘son of B ETH - EKED ( q . ” ~ . ) .
Sirneon is J A M I N (one of the best established modifications of
‘ Jerahmeel ’ [Che.]). SHEARJASHUB (>$E$ 7@, ‘ a remnant shall
2. A Kohathite, and ancestor of Samuel, I Ch. 6 24 [g]. In
I Ch. 6 36 [zo]the name is J OEL . return,’ $ 23). One of Isaiah’s sons (Is.73). See
3. (Gen. 36 37f: I Ch. 148$). See SAWL, 2. I SAIAH , PKOPHET,§ 4.
SHAVEH, VALE OF (31.q PQU; THN KOIAAAA SHEBA (91@ ; C A M A ~ , P I 9 CABEE 1.41, caBs [L]),
THN CAYHN [AI ...
C ~ Y H[DLI), the place where a Simeonitish town, Josh. 192 (S IMEON , IO).
the king of Sodom met Abraham after the latter’s It is omitted in a very few MSS, and in the parallel passage,
victory over CHEDORLAOMER (q.v.), Gen. 1417. An I Ch. 4 28. Its inclusion makes the reckoning in Josh. 19 6
appended notice explains it as ‘ t h e king’s vale‘ (see inaccurate, unless for p i w we there read i;’lp with 0 (see
XIELCHIZEDEK, 3). Shaveh can hardly mean ’ t h e SHAKUHEK). For a possible way out of the difficulty see
level’ or ‘plain’ (on “J. 5, where bAEL again gives JESHUA.
uauq, see SHAVEH-KIRIATHAIM). Hommel ( A R T 151, SHEBA (Ya9,
perhaps from Elisheha [§ SO] ; other-
n. I ) would amend R ~ Uinto niu. T h e Vale of Shaveh wise explained as a clan - name = Shema [SOLOMON,
then becomes the Vale of the King (Ass.-Bab. h r r i ) . l $ 21; or a name of the moon-god [Wi. G I 22211: cp
More probably we should read nz@ n-tp, ‘ the highland Y2WTl2, B ATH - SHEBA , and perhaps Nab. p 2 W , CZS
of Maacath,’ and the following gloss, a that is, Maacath- 2 115 ; but cp SOLOMON, 5 2 ; CAB€€).
jerahmeel.’ Cp SODOM. T. K. C . I. Called b. Bikri (Bichri)-ie., a member (like Saul

SEAVEH-KIRIATHAIM (n\n:lp @ I; : E N cayn probably)

$ 9 , ii. p).
of the Benjamite clan B ECHER (cp BEHJAMIN,
TH nohal [AEI,]), generally explained (cg.,E V w ) For the story of his revolt see 2 S. 20 (spec [A, m. I , 71;
’ plain of Kiriathaim’ (see K IR J ATHAIM ). Gen. 145. L uapcs v;bc @&a81 &p a p a p [Architell)).
It was the residence of the EMIM (q.v. ). n?, however, David was on his return to Jerusalem after Absalom’s
occurs again only in Gen. 14 17, where it is conupt (see death, and a fierce quarrel had arisen between the men
S HAVEH , V ALLEY O F ). C. J. Ball (Gcn. 1 1 8 ) suggests of Judah and the men of Israel. Sheba who ‘ happened ’
here alp. Read probably >n\2h, nit, ‘the highland to be near, saw his opportunity, and called upon the
of the Rehobothite.’ See SODOM. T. K. C. latter to secede from David and claim their inde-
pendence. The spark burst into a flame. All Israel
SHAVSHA (K@$. 5 58 ; I Ch. 1816; IHCOYC took the side of Sheba ; ‘but the men of Judah from
[BI, uous [HI, uauua [ALI) also called, less correctly, SHISHA Jordan as far as Jerusalem clave to their king. ’ There
( I K. 4 3, Ng’W ; saga [Bl, uewa [AI, QL, however, ua+ar), is reason, however, to think that the description is
and SHEVA (2 S. 2025, I@ Kt. N$, Kr.; quous [Bl, L U O U ~ influenced by that of the great secession under Jeroboam
[AI, uouua [L]), and SERAIAH (??, 1 being inserted in the ( I K. 12 16). Sheba’s revolt was, no doubt, the result
form a*w, 2 S. 8 17, aua [R]). of some of the disintegrating influences which afterwards
Shavsha was David’s scribe or secretary. His name is had such disastrous effect, but David who had just made
either =Bab. sazJsu=summ, ‘sun,’ so that Babylonian his peace with Israel and Judah would surely have been
scribes were still in request (Marq. Fund. 2 2 ) or (cp able to prevent a revolt on such a large scale as 2 S.
S HESHAI ) is a corruption of p i 3 (final x as in x y y , 202 indicates (see 1941-43 [42-44]).’ Unless we adopt a
Z IBA ), Driver, Wellhausen, and others agree in reject- conjecture made elsewhere (S AU L , I ) , the statement
ing Seraiah. The question is of some historical import- of YV. 14-22 (where BERITES[ q . ~ . ]should certainly be
ance ; which country influenced David most-Babylonia emended into ‘ Bikrites ’) shows that the original opening
or N. Arabia? T. K. C . of the narrative has been lost. What we know for
certain is that Sheba, a kinsman of Saul, supported by
SHAWL, RV for nny3, AV wimple,’ Is. 321. his clan, made a bold attempt to revive the lsraelitish
See M ANTLE , 2 [ 3 ] , VEIL. kingdom. He sought in vain to stir up the northern
SHEU (5@; c+hoyi~ [BKI, caah[ALI), b. Bani, tribes, and was besieged in the ancient city of ABEL-
BETH-MAACAH (9.”. ) by Joab. The walls were on the
a layman temp. Ezra. Ezra10q=1 Esd. 930 (aua+oo [BA],
aouaqh [i]), EV J A S ~ E RV L , JASAELUS. point of giving way to the attacks of the besiegers when
a ‘ wise woman ’ (cp Eccles. 9 1 4 5 ) made an arrange-
SHEALTIEL (h&&d [but in H a g . 1 1 ~ 1 4 22 ment with Joab, and saved the city. Sheba’s head was
,@
&
]h as if ‘ I have asked God,’ ’# 34, 56, 79, but
this is doubtful, since 5 K in names formed on this 1 [Most probably $n*, like the proper names mN and 1nN
model may be formative: we expect, according to in I Ch., and y3n (cp QA in r S. 9 I), comes from $Nom?.-
T. K. C.]
this theory, a gentilic, and ‘ Eshtauli ‘ [see EsHTAoL] a From the context, the S. border of Judah Lust be intended.
suggests itself as the genuine name instead of Shealtiel ; I t is probable that we should take ;m* here to be the nuha2
Misrim (see EGYPT KIVEROF, and cp Wi. GI 1 174 : A O F 134,
1 Wellhausen (TBS 202) suggests n i q Asherah as the and Marq. Fund. 7).;
origin ; he connects this view with a very difficult exilanation The Bikrites joined Sheba, just as in a similar revolt the
of 2 S. 18 18, where he makes Ahsalom take ‘the pillar (of the Benjamites joined Abner (cp 2 25). The passage (20 14) how-
Asherah) in the King’s Vale,’ and set it up in his own behalf. ever is in some disorder. Perhaps we should read (transbosing
a and b), ‘ and all the Bikrites assembled and came after him, and
2 Cp in an old Aram. bilingual mlpy (CZS 26g)=Asa. ki-
samas. they passed through ’ (Vl!R), etc.
4433 4434
 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 connec-
tion 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 1 1 7 3 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
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, u 4 a 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. s h d l 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,
'?e,
a i x p a h w u i a v [BNA] in reading ' 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 genea-
logical connections, in Gen. 1 0 7 [PI and 2 5 3 [JE?]=
I Ch. 1 9 32. Whether Jokshan be the same as . 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 ( K A Z a145f.). ) 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 c p
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 t h e 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 O n the story of the
1 This story has scarcely a mythological basis in spite of
Winckler ( G I 2 240) 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.
3 QF in v. 7 ( x a ; mqmjyye'Aw 6rriuo a h i ) A. 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.I O 12
reminds us of that of z S. 2 23 (murder of Asahel). For a criticism
of the whole narrative see AJSL 16 166-(IF). 19
4 O n the name cp WMM, 'Die Sabier in hieroglyph. Texten,'
MVGE 1898, pp. 3 5 f l
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
SHEBNA
Queen of Sheba cp Stade, GVI 1309, n. 2 ; Ki. Hist. 2 189 ;
Wi. G I 2 z 6 6 J ; Keane, T h G o Z d o f Ophir, 112J F. B.
SHEBAH, RV S HIBAH (?I!?*, I seven ' ; perhaps
taken as equivalent to il???, ' o a t h ' ) , the original
name of Beer-sheba according to J (Gen. 26 33 ; O P K O C
[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 N AMES , 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 soccurs as well) seems to'
represent rather HASHABNIAH [P.o.]).
2. Priestly signatory to the covenant (see E ZRA i., 7); Neh.
104[51 [ u l f ~ a v s [Bl,
r [ u l a p a v c r [N* WaI, u e p a v i [AI, 6avara.c [Ll),
cp 1214, ue shrov [Hc'a"'g.inf' om. BN*Al, u e x e m a [L], and see
sHECANIAH~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
u e f l a v r a [BHA] u a p a v r a s [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). T h e 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 frag-
ments (of rock) ' might be better (Di. ). But surely there
must be a n 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 - ni y~w n d m 1 ~ i i . i .
'and they chased those who were left from before the
gate.' But cp SHEBER. T. K. C.
SHEBAT (D;?), Zech. 1 7 , AV SEBAT ; see MONTH.
SHEBER (7>d ; c a B ~ pP I , CE. [AI, CABAP [Ll).
one of the sons of CALEB(q.v.) b. Hezron by his concubine
Maacah ( I Ch. 2 48). Cp SHEREBIAH, which may be an ex-
pansion of Shirbi=Shibri, and may be a Negeb name (see AJSL
5 435).
SHEBNA (N??$, 5 51 [but il??g,
2 K . 1818 26,
where R v has SHEBNAH], possibly Aramaic [Di., Ki.,
etc.], or rather for ~ * J I v = ; ~ * > [Del.]
~v ; C O M N A C , but
COBNAC [B] in Is. 363]), a chief secretary or chancellor
under Hezekiah ( 2 K. 1818 192 Is. 363 22 372). Tradi-
tion identified him with the sckkin, or ' high officer '
(AV treasurer,' RV steward '-both renderings are
guesses), whose arrogance is so severely denounced by
Isaiah in the only passage of personal invective which
has come down to us (Is. 2215-19 c p Am. 7 1617). T h e
fact that the last five words of Is. 22 15 have demonstrably
been inserted by a later hand renders this identification
doubtful. So a t least Duhm puts the matter. But the
strong probability is that ~ 3 (so ~ or a->>vand 120
2 read)
both come from *?$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 a a n u n u , 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
,4/SL 5443. ) T h e 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. 3 6 3 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. I s . , 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;
Cheyne. ibid., July 1901. T. K. C .
SHEBUEL ($&!I>?, 8 31 ; COYBAHA), a Gershonite and
( 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., $D(?qLsi, SHUBAEL to be crowned king of Northern Israel and why [if the
@.=.).
SHECANIAH (so RV ; and AV in I Ch. 2411 z Ch.
311s. nlJJq, and twice Vl:;>V, perhaps [see 5 351
‘Yahw&dwells [among his worshippers],‘ or, if n [whence
incorrectly 131 is formative, a gentilic, by transposition
from W J ~[Cushanite], so Che. [see SHEBNA]; c q -
€ N tdcl generally):
I. A priestly clan in post-exilic times (Neh. 123 e w L a [**I,
~ E V [NC.~]),
. whose name appears incorrectly as S HEBANIAH ,
z). 14 (om. BK*A,ucxeArw [N- mg. a.1cp 104), with Joseph at
its head. The Chronicler transfers him to the times of David,
when he holds the tenth priestly course (I Ch. 24 II r q a v r a [B]
u f x m a IAN : he amears aeain in the times of Heheklah (2 Ch:
3115: >>*>,$ 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)
HATTUSH.
2. b. TAHAZIEL ( 4 ) . of the sons of Z ATTU I E z r a 8 c om. R.
c r e ~ o w a[A],
~ ue &rw [L]=IEsd. 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], u e x e m a s [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
and site. himself in the broad upland plain of
Mahna (1600feet above the sea), with Mount Gerizim
on his l e f t ; skirting the base of the mountain he
reaches the traditional well of Jacob (see S YCHAR ).
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 I SAIAH [B OOK], 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
SHECHEM
the Mediterranean and Jordan basins, and at the water-
shed (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 E PHXAIM , 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, H N 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. Q q )who,
, however,
with his own mercenaries proved too strong for his
adversaries (cp G AAL ). 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,M EONENIM ) 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,
so we understand why Rehoboam went to Shechem
traditional text is correct-see § 21 Jeroboam at first
made it his royal residence ( I K. 1225, d T T ~ Varrccpa).
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
S AMARITANS (q.”.) ; cp Ecclus. 5026, which runs, ac-
cording 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 A d . v. 7). Remains of
; see 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
G E R I Z I Mand
~ embowered in luxuriant vegetation, it
cannot fail to charm the traveller approaching it from
the S. T h e 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
an authority for the early history of
a. 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 D INAH ) 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 d x t . T h e whole
,story of the circumcision has arisen, as in the case of
the Gibeath h8-‘&r%lGth1(Josh. 53), from an early cor-
rnption of the text. That a city was attacked and
glundered by the Simeon and Levi clans, may be ad-
mitted; 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( = C USHAM )
-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
We can now explain two obscure assages in Genesis, viz.,
f
(a)Fen. 48 z z , where Jacob says, ‘ have given to thee one
5 dlrrya ;(aiparov c Jn. 4 j) above thy
03v; 6
ortion ( q n ~
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. Here we have a divine 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*nyprobably 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
in Gen. 33 18-20, where it is possible
3. Other that v. 18 originally ran, ‘ and Jacob came
supposed
to H a l ~ a hcorrupted into no*\, and then
i n t 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 K ESITAH .
L u z , 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.’ T h e first is
in the history of Rehoboam’s accession (see R EHOBOAM ).
T h e second, in that of Jeroboam. who, as M T suggests
(see 5 I), made Shechem his royal residence. There is
evidence, however (see J EROBOAM , 5 I), that his usual
residence was at ’Tirzah‘ (see T IRZAH ), and it does
not seem likely that he moved for a time to Shechem.
I n 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 them-
selves (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 even to Dan.’ 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
gloss bn the other), and the strange stories in Ex. 424-26 and
I S. 1825-27 (see M OSE S 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. 2 1 6 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. z a
refers to a lost version of the legend, of which E gives a trans-
formation in Gen. 34.
4439
SHEEP
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. W e 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, 1 9 3 8
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 neighbour-
hood 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 ; c e h i o y p [BFLI, ebioyp
[A]), father of the Reubenite ‘ prince ’ Elizur : Nu. 15.
210 730 ( e h i c o y p [B*l, c e h i c o y p [Babl. ~ A i c o y p
[A]), 35 ( c e h i o y p [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 i r ?LSuriel’
~ , (see ZUR,
NAMES WITH). T. K. C.
SHEEP. T h e 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
species* literature. 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. T h e avenue of rams at Karnak is
attributed to the eighteenth dynasty, about 1700 B.c.,
by which time they were probably domesticated.’ T h e
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 con-
jecture.’ T h e 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).
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 ’).
T h e Hebrew words which have to be recorded are :
I. sdn (p) coll. for small cattle, sheep, and
2. Terms. goat;: I T O ~ ; Y L O W , cp below no. 16.
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($N), ‘ram,’ as opposed to ayyd HART (4.v.) ; on the
two words see esp. O L Z , 1900,col. zo8J
4. yahiZ (in?), Gen. 3138 32 15 Is. 53 7, Cant. 6 at, ‘ewe,’ the
Ar. &hi[, rzk7d (mod. rdkhal, Doughty, AY. DES.1429) is
used of the lamb.
5. kar 13, Dt. 32 14, Is. 161 etc. (6dpwdr, <pi+os), ‘young
lamb,’ per6aps from idea of skipping or dancing. Also ‘batter-
ing-lam,’ see SIEGE?
6. k&b (>gl “W?, also w?? 3&l? l?), a lamb of one or
two years, esp. used with reference to sacrifices. On the Heb.
words see Hommel, o j . cif. 235 n. 2 433.
7. &k/t(n$a), Is.40116 5 2 5 (I5 dpvds), an older lamb (mod.
tuZ&, a yearling, see Doughty, 1429 2 269) ; see TALITHA.
For the sake of completeness we should add-
8. >,, whence na&d, a sheep-raiser or dealer, z K. 3 4 Am.
1 I (ado 7 14with We., Now., Dr.). 9 Ar. na&f, ‘akind 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. (CIS1165, 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
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, C ATTLE , 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 C ATTLE , J 3 , and cp GOLAN,
col. 1748)~ T h e sheep were valued chiefly for the wool,
the shearing of which was the occasion of an annual
festival (see WOOL).^ T h e 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,(Y515).
4441
SHEKEL
sumed (see M ILK ). 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 H ORN . The skins were also
used as coverings for tents, etc. (see T ENT ) and prob-
ably 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. l O 3 J f ) a u d 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 / , G OAT . 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, $124 (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, $S 65, 72,
PROPHETIC LIT., 5 31, and S H E P H E R D O F HERMAS.
A. E. S.-S. A. C.
SHEERAH (ilW@), I Ch. 724 RV, A V S HERAH
(G.. ).
SHEET. I. )’?p, sidin, Judg.1412. See MANTLE, 4.
2. nnmb mi+U&th Ruth 3 15 AVmg. See MANTLE, 3.
3. %&q,Acts 10 11 lis. See LINEN, I and 9.
SHEHARM (n;l!lF;
chphih [BLJ caapia[AI),
b. Jeroham i n a genealogyof B ENJAMIN (q.v.. 5 9. ii. p).
I Ch. 826.
The name may mean either ‘Yahwh is the dawn’ (91 35, 44)
or ‘the Shahrite.’ Parallel is ZERAHIAH [ q . ~ . ] . occurs as
a place-name in Josh. 13 3 etc. (see SHIHOR)and with N re
fixed, as a clan-name in’s Ch. 2 24 45. d f th; latter 2;
(Aswur) AHIS~AHAR m a y be a late and artificial expansion,
just as Shehariah is a late and artificial expansion of Shahri.
Cg also HODESH(=Shahar, Ashbur) in I Ch. 89, and the non-
hi lical Hebrew name Sheharhor (see ZEPHANIAH, 2-4). All
these names are southern. T. K. C.
SHEKEL3 ($@, cp iiiku2, ‘ t o weigh’; CIKAOC,
cirhoc) signifies either a weight or a coin. As the
1. Uncoined invention of coinage dates from the
metal. 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-
2. pdwv.an tine in early times (see WEIGHTS AND
M EASURES , J 4). These are known
G:F& as the gold-shekel standard (Ridge-
way’s ox-standard), the Babylonian,
and the Phcenician respectively, the’ Phcenician -being a
1 Gr. pqAwrrj, which in OT renden n l w , 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
derivative of the Babylonian. The chief denominations
were the talent (rdhavrov, i;? KiyXap,
, Jos. Ant. iii. 6 7),3825 f. [PI that the Hebrew talent contained 3000
the mina (pv& q ~M, ANEH [p.~.],cp Ezek. 4 5 1 2 ; trans- shekels.
lated ' 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 :-
ROYAL N ORM. 1 COMMON NORM.
~
Heavy. 1 Light. ~ Heavy.
1
gn. troy. grs. troy. 1 grs. troy. grs. troy.
______________
. .. . 777.780: /388,890b 757,3800 378,6god
1
Talent
Mina
Shekel .: 12,963
259.31 I 6,481.5f 1 12,623W
1zg.63k 252.5g
6,311.5h
126.23"
Value of the
gold shekel 113,457.3
in silver I
I 1,728.4 1 3,366.6 1,684.3
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 s e a ; 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
forpalestine. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, $ 4)
seem to suggest that a low form of the
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
SHEKEL
I n the first place, we know (by calculation) from Ex.
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 trans-
lated into Greek means rdhavrov.' If we take the
mina here mentioned to be the gold mina (5) of 12,623
grs. (heavy) or 6,311.5grs. light ( h ) ,we obtain a talent
of 1,262,300grs. (heavy) or 631,150grs. (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. (213grs.). 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.,
631,665.3grs. The shekel of this talent would be
210.55 grs. Finally, Josephus (Ant.iii. 82) equates
the Hebrew coin called U~KAOS-LC. , 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
. was in use in Palestine -
Phcenician standard
1
paratively early period. T h e weight of the heavy gold
at a com-
shekel of the common norm ( I ) being taken at 252.5
grs. troy, its value (at the present rate of L 3 : 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
Babylonian .. .. .. f;o:z :g
60:4:1
f;0:1:4&
Ao:z:*
T h e values of the talent and mina of gold and silver in
all these systems are :
I
j
H EAVY .
Talent. 1Mina. I Talent.
LIGHT.
1 I
Mina.
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 ( 6 a p e r ~ 6 s ) . 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 d a r i h , a word found in
4444
 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 ( D i e Spr. de7 Contr. Nabd-nb’ids, 6 6 ) with more
probability regards it as an agricultural product. T h e
word dnrkem5n (see D RAM ) 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 D RAM , and with the spelling nqzyy of
the Pirzeeus inscription cp the Cretan dialectical form
6UpKVd).
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 ~ sand
, weighed 86.4 grs.,
being really a half-shekel of the light Babylonian system
(royal norm). T h e 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.
T h e 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 for-
mer, as being the
official coins of the
FIG. a. Persian Empire at
the time.
Both daric (Fig. u ) and siglos (Fig. 6 ) are alike in
types. On the obverse is a figure of the Great King,
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. T h e reverse bears only the impression made
by the irregular punch used in striking the coin.
The phrase ‘shekel of the sanctuary,’ or rather
sacred shekel ’ (UIKXOS 6 & y m , usaOprbs 6 dyyros) is used
~. phaenician in P in connection with gold, silver,
copper(?), and spices. (For this sub-
iect. besides Kennedv , 4,2 2.. see Zucker-
~
mann, Talmud. km’ichfe, 4 3 IS.) I n 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’nof 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 Gf6pawahup~dror7cs). It follows that
4445
SHEKEL
the sacred shekel was a shekel of the heavy Phceniciaq
standard (common norm) of 224.4grs. (t). This con-
clusion 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 . , 11.21grs.) ; 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. T h e
half-shekel here illustrated (Fig. c) was struck at Tyre
in the year 102 B . C . O n 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 A K (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 (106.9grs.)
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 (66-70A. D.).
FIG. d
T h e 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 in w , ‘year 4’); around is the inscription
$ ~ i v * (‘Shekel of Israel‘). On the reverse is a
flowering lily and the inscription nvrlpn &, (‘iJeru-
-
4446
 SHELAH
Salem the Holy ’). T h e weight of this specimen is 220
grs.
T h e 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.
S. Kennedy, in Hastings’ DB 2 4 1 7 8 G. F. H.
SHELAH. I. h@, a nanie closely resembling
SHILOH (CHAWM [BADEF], CIA. [L]), the youngest
of J u d a h s sons by the daughter of the Canaanite Shua
(cp Stade G V Z l q 8 , and see J UDAH i., 5 2 ; Gen.
3 8 5 1 1 14 26 [J], 4612 [PI ; Nu. 2620 CHAWN [BAL, but
- W M L. v. r9], I Ch. 2 3 CHAWN [BL]). T h e clan is
associated with Chezib in the Shephelah of Judah (cp
Cozeba below, and see A CHZIB [i.]), and, apart from
Gen. 3 8 , 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 ... . .
of @BA, OS iaT&quav .
had hominion in Moah,’ is doubtful ; that
..
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 *>K
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 - [AI,
i u-BL[Ll; AV SHILONI,
I Ch.95; *;+[vl@a;TGY qhoulrlt, see E ZRA 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. 114) represents the Perezite division. [Cp
Crit. Bi6. I S. A. C.
SALAH AV in Gen. and S ALA AV Lk.
2. (a$$).
335, the son of Arpachshad and father of Eber in the
old genealogy of the Hebrews (Gen. 1 0 2 4 [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, how-
ever, Arpachshad comes from ‘ArHb-Kadesh or -Cnsh
[see U R OF THE CHALDEES], we must suppose ‘Shelah’
to represent some clan in the Negeb. I n accordance
with JUDAH,5 z, we may assume the existence of a
Jerahmeelite clan called Shelah (see S HELAH , 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. It
now becomes not impossible that Eber ( m.y.. ) in Gen.
1 0 2 4 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).
T. K. C.
1 O’?$’! (v. 23) may spring from Beth-zur or perhaps rather
n*?iv?q (ZIORlay to the SE. of Gedor).
4447
SHELUMIEL
SHELAH, P ~ O LOF (n+q;?n n y , Neh. 3 1 5 RV,
AV ‘ pool of SILOAH.’See SILOAM.
SHELANITES ($@), Nu. 2620 ; see S HELAH (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
n h D ? 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 J UCAL (T.v.), temp. Zedekiah
(Jer. 37 [4413 U E ~ C K C O U[nl, 38 [451I, 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 ( u e h f p a [Bl, - e t [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 H ANANIAH (T.v.), Neh.330 (Tchepta [B],
-as [NI u y u r [AI).
9. A’ priest, a keeper of the storehouses (Neh. 1313, 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 S d u f 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 S EPHAR , and on ‘ Joktan,’ see Cn’t. Bi6.1
F. B.
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 : u a h o p h [BAF], udapere
[Bab], uahpr0 [El).
2. Daughter of Zerubhahel (I Ch. 3 19 ; u&pe0er [Bl, - 0 b [AI,
-pro [LI).
3. A son of Rehohoam ( z Ch. 11M ; wpw0 [Bl, uahqpd [AI,
uaAwpc0 [Ll).
4. b. Josiphiah one of the b’ne BANI [T.W., 21: read in Eua 8 I O
‘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. i d? $,
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 J AHATH (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 1019t [all PI. I n Judith
4448
 SHEM
8 1 his name appears as S AMAEL. RV SALAMIELrecall that
( u a h a p q h [BA], uapapqX [HI). of the latest biblical Hebrew writing, and we may
Apparently the name means ‘El is my health’ (3s 37, 5 0 ) ; venture to follow Jastrow (JBL 19 IO^), who is of opinion
really, however, it may come from ,Pt&d ; ir& Shalamu is
the name of a N. Arabian tribe allied to the Nabataeans (see
SALMAH, SHALMAI). ’r. K. c.
SHEM (ad; C H M ; sem). the eldest of the three
sons of Noah, and therefore always mentioned first
(Gen. 5 3 2 610 713 918 101 I Ch. 14) ; the rendering of
Gen. 1021 in AV and RVmg. is certainly wrong (cp
J APHETH ).
If an appellative, Shem will mean ‘name’-Le.,
renown. In this case, if in Gen. 9 it is really equivalent
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, how-
ever, 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 P ARADISE ,
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 4 j : [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
a. Tradibions. is now often read thus:’ ‘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, h y n w ’* qn?. T h e 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.’
T h e subjugation of Kenaz (not ‘Canaan,’ as the
traditional text) refers to matters beyond our ken (cp
KENAZ). Another writer thinks to explain ‘ Shem ‘ t o
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 M ELCHIZEDEK (4.v.). Cp
SETHITES. T. K. C.
SHEM, NAMES WITH. Two Hebrew names have
been brought under this head-&mu’el (Samuel) and
&mid2 (Shemida). T h e 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 ’ ( A H T 8 5 f : 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
BHEMAIAH
(see N AME , 5 7)it is specially characteristic
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 t o 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]). C p 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
S HEBA, 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. See further J ESHUA , S IMEON , 5 IO.
SHE- (UQd.5 so). 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 ( u e i a a [BA, the latter omits
in v. 431, uapa [I,]). Note the accumulation of
Jerahmeelite ’ names, and the place-name SHEMA.
2. A clan of R EUBEN (5 13) ; I Ch. 5 8 ( u ~ [BA],
a u e p m [L]).
b H u s h n in a genealo of B EN J AMIN [q.v., 0 g ii. 81 ;
s
h . 13 ( u a v [RAJ, uapaa&), obviously the sameas Shimei
in v. 21. SeeJQR XI. 103 I . See SHIMEI (8).
4. In list of Ezra’s supporters (see E ZRA ii., 5 13 V I ) ; Neh.
8 4 ( s a p a s [BMAL]).
SHEMAAEI (7IQv0, whence AVmg. H ASMAAH ). a
Gibeathite. father of A HIEZER (I Ch. 1 2 3 ; &MA [BK],
CAM&& [A], ACMA [L]). see D AVID , 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, S HIMEI [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 J EREMIAH
[BOOK], cj 17 ; in v. 24 W ~ D D ) .
H e is styled the Nehelamite ( & h ~ aAaper7qv
, [B],
eXuptnp [ K A Q ] ) . which reminds us of TOY evhaper
applied to S HEMAIAH ( I ) in b ’ s [B, in L cAup~rr)v]
addition to I K. 12 ( Probably both athapsr7qv
and evXaper point v. 2401;
to -n = hm,i. ‘ Jerahmeelite’
[Che.] (cp o$n=~t+cm*. z S. 1016 [Che.]; see also
S IBRAIM ). 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.
S o , 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
 SHEMARIAH
6 b. Joel, of REUBEN@
13)(rCh. 5 4 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. 11176). See 13.
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, u a p c r a s [AI, w.6 J , u a p a r
w 71 uapcLa, u c p c i a [AI). See 13.
IBxz: A’ Levite, temp. Jehoshaphat (2 Ch.178, uapouas [Bl,
crapouras [A]).
13. A son of Jeduthun (z Ch. 29 14, u a p e r a s [A]). Cp 7,8, 11,
and see GENEALOGIES i., S 7 (ii. d).
14A 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, 1 2 35 (where one Jonathan
b. Shemaiah is named).
15. A Levite of the time of Josiah (2 Ch. 359, cp perhaps
S H I M E I , 31 12 : in both cases Cononiah Drecedes as the name of a
brother). In i Esd. 1 9 SAMArAs ( u a p i ‘ a s ) : ,
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.
839 SAMAIAS.
17. A teacher Ezra 8 16 ( u r p a a [A] u r p ~ d[L]) in I
MASMAN,RV MAASMAS( p a a u p a u [kA], s e p i a iL]),
in v. 44 MAMAIAS,
RV SAMAIAS (om. L).
18. One of the b’ne Harim, the priestly family of Ezra 1021, 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, u a p e r a s [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 1 2 3 , 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 S HIMRI
[q...] ; C+MAplA[c]). 2 Ch. 1 1 1 9 A v [by printer’s
m o r ?] gives S HAMARIAH ). All the occurrences
suggest N. Arabian origin. T. K. C.
I. One of David’s heroes I Ch. 12 5 ( u a p a p a r a [B]). 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 1032 ( - c i a [Bl, - L a [NA]); w. 41 (-era [BNI, -eras [AI).
SHEMEBER (PKP@),Gen. 142. See S HINAB .
SHEMED (Tpg),I Ch. 812 RV, AV S HAMED .
SHEMER. (lgv; C B M H P , CAMHP[B],CE. [AI,
I.
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 S HAMER (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 S HOMER [q.~.].
SHEMIDA (y?+pe),a Gileadite clan belonging to
MANASSEH(I 9) (Nu. 2632, C Y M A E P : Josh. 172,
CyMAp€lM[BIS C€MlpA€[A]. CAMlAA€[L]; I Ch. 7 1 9
AV Shemidah: C ~ M ~ [BAI, I ~ AC A M E I A A [LI), after
whom the Shemidaites were called (Nu. Lc. ’p?’?+V;? ;
CyMA€p[€]l [BAFL]).
May we venture to hold that 00 here is a divine appellation?
See NAMES, 5 43, SHEM [NAMES WITH]. The alternative is to
suppose a corruption $Hynw*.
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 Ch., A M A c € N E l e : Jer. SU$%YOCfavU [PS.611,
PrO W h v U [PS.1211 ; E n 1 T H C o r h o w [Aq., PS. 611,
n f p l T H C OrAoHc [BL in I Ch., SYm.1: Tg.
‘on the lyre with eight strings’), a technical phrase
4451
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-5yis 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 P SALMS , BOOKO F , 126,
but cp M USIC , 5 9 ) . W e 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 S HEMIRAMOTH (q...), just as
‘Azaziah,’ which Benzinger ( K H C ad Zoc.) rightly
pronounces suspicious, is virtually a misplaced repetition
of the name ’Aziel.’ These two’proper names occur
Esd. 8 4 close by, in v. 20.
repeated
It may also he noticed, since the commentaries give no very
defensible explanations, that nu!) (@ r o c [Iv]ruxXJuac ; RV ‘to
lead’), which follows n*!p+y in I Ch. 1521should 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.
1 5 1 8 2 0 165 2Ch. 1 7 8 (here Kt. n \ D 9 y @ : variously
CEMEIpAMWe, CAMAp[€IIM., CAMslpAM., CEMIP.,
C I M I P . ) . According to Schrader ( K AT(2) 366) equiva-
lent 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 G ENEALOGIES 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. S HIMRI (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 S HEMINITH .
T. K. C .
SHEMUEL (!JK.lDv, C A M O Y H ~ ) . I. I Ch. 633 [18]
RV S AMUEL , the prophet (see S AMUEL ).
2. b. Ammihud, a chief of SIMEON(§ 8 iii., last
note), Nu. 3420 ; (uaXafiiqX).
3. b. Tola, of ISSACHAR(§ 7) ( I Ch. 7 2 ; ruafiou+
[B, a dittographed (1).
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,
1 ipy is several times (e.g.Ps.92 IT) miswritten for jxynw..
4452
 SHEN
A F T , 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 , S HERUEL , 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 per-
haps to the same group, Ishmael and SHOBAL ( q . ~ . ) .@ s form,
however in z (also=MTs SHELUMIEL $7.73.1) !uggests a com-
parison k t h S ALMAH [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
Samuel set up the stone Eben-ezer ( I S. 712). But
means merely the rock ’ and one expects to find
some Known and specific place mentioned. eBAL (.?is is the land of dust-my ( ’ dust ’), can indeed be used
rraAatiis) and Pesh. point to the reading (cp 2 Ch.
1319), which is accepted by Wellhausen, Driver, H.
P. Smith, and others. See JESHANAH.
SHENBZZAR [RV], or [AV] S HENAZAR (7$52@), and i i a (pit) sometimes receive the epithets n2nnfi or
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 S HESHBAZZAR)
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 pronuncia-
tion [afor D, see SANBALLAT] is p r e ~ p p o s e d . H e was
plausibly identified by Howorth (Acad., 1893, p. 175). Job 3817), and both in the gospels (Mt. 1618, cp
and then by Kosters (Herstel, 47). Ed. Meyer ( E n t . 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 ~ may 3 ~ be a cor-
R ) , is itself possibly a
ruption of iwia (see S H I N - ~ which
corruption of iqd+.e., the S. Geshur. See SHESH-
BAZZAR. T. K. C.
SHENIR (SJ@), Dt. 39 AV, R V SENIR.
SHEOL (%He). T h e 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 correspond-
ing 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 ( D a s Lebeen nach dem To&. 89, n. 2 )
assents to the decision of Jensen. A critical re-examina-
tion of the four relevant passages in Assyrian vocabularies
was urgently called for. This has been given by Jastrow
(AYSL14 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. 1I Hos. 4 12 Ezek.
21 21 [26], etc.). W e may venture therefore to hold that
when the primitive Hebrews used the name S h e d 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,
1 [The provenience of this seal is unknown. Cp also the
parallel formation 1s ’ID (=ASur-Bar-nsur, i6. 2 50), ‘Assur,
protect the king !’-s. A. c.]
2 For? views on the stem s’a’aZ(whenceboth Mi&
and 58’6 see his article in3BL 19 [1gm], pp. 8 2 3
4453
SHEPHAM
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 prob-
ably only heroes like Ea-bani, who appears to GilgameS
(Jensen, Mythen und Epen, 263 ; Jastrow, R B A 511 ;
Maspero, D a w n 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 with-
out measure’ (IS. 5 1 4 ; cp Hab. 25 Prov. 2720 3Oqf.).
Its leading characteristic is darkness (Job 1 0 z i f . ) ; it
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
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 I O ) ; 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
H ADES ) and in the Talmud the same conception IS
found. On the state of the dwellers in Sheol, see
D EAD, 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 R IBLAH [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 z S . 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
{ = t h e city of Jerahmeel). See RIBLAH. SHIPHMITE.
(@BAL in Nu. 84rof: gives ucmpapap [@F in v. IO, -gal. In
I% I I ap belongs LO the following word &ha [read ap,E+z] ; v. I O
has been adjusted to v. 11.) T. K. C .
SHEPHATIAH (;Ifpve, and .I?:t?V@in .?os. 4, 5,
6, apparently a Yahwb judges ' [I 361, cp 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. I n
z the companions of Shephatiah are of ' Jerabmeelite '
origin (see P ASHHUR ) ; for 4, cp the Calebite HAREIJH, it afterwards fell very much into the background with-
and see H A K I P H; 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 .)?]:;:d'h. See D AVID, contents of the rest of the work (apnrt from the concludin
$$ 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
B ENJ AMIN (I g [iii:]) ; I Cb. 98.
4. A HARUPHITE [ q . ~ . ] ,one of David's warriors (I Ch. 125,
in'uaw, uqbanas [Ll). See DAVID, 8 11, n. c.
5. b. J EHOSHAPHAT , king of Judab (2 Cb. 21 2, I ; I ~ P ] D ~&a- . Writers.
-rebas [El, -Lac [BbALl). The name follows Michael (seeabove).
6. b. Maachah, a Simeonite ruler ( I Ch. 27 16, ~ ~ ' D S ua+a- U,
mas).
7. The b'n.5 Sbephatiah were a post-exilic family numbered at
372 (Ezra 24, auaq [B], Neh. 7 9 ) ; 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 E ZRA -N EHE -
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; 1866(2), 1881(3), 1887; 0. de Gebhardt, ~ 8 7 7 ;J. Armitage
(uo+orrov [B], A om., ua+as;ou [Ll). See introduction, above.
8. A groi.2 ,of 'Solomon's servants' (see N ETHINIM ) in the
great post-exilic list (see E ZRA ii., $ 9); Ezra 2 57=Neh. 7 59=
I Esd. 5 33 S APHETH RV SAPHUTHI (ua+ueL [Bl -ut% [AI).
9. One i f the b'nt $erez, a son of Mahalaleel, lnd ancestor of
Athaiab (Neh. 11 4, ua+arrou [Ll).
SHEPHELAH, THE, or LOWLAND [OF JUDAH] other in giving five Visions, twelve Commandments, and
{ ;I$@ ?P LAIN, 7 ; d has c f @ ~ A a
; see 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 HAV , Shephela,
RV ' plain country 'I), a part of the territory of Judah,
between the hill country (see J UDAH , H ILL - 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 ( m 6 1 0 v )
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 a r b v $ (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. 1027 z Ch. 26 I O, 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
SHEPHERD O F HERMAS
retically the maritime plain was included in the reference
of this geographical term (see Buhl, PuZ. 104, 11. 164).
The R V has taken great pains ty carry out a systematic
rendering of shZjM~'uhby '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 I O 28 18 Jer. 17 25 (@a 6 s n d r v $ c $
32 44 53 13 Ob. 19 Zech. 7 7. Perhaps if RV bad given the
n form
plural ~ ' lowlands,' it might have been more illuminative to
the reader, for, as G. A. Smith (203) remarks, the Scottish low-
lands, like the ShZphClah, are not entirely plain, but have their
groups and ranges of hills
SHEPHER io^), N U. 3323J, AV SHAPHER.
SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. Under the name of
IIoqmjv (Pastor, ' Shepherd '), with which from an early
transmierrion
1. NJame. date the name of Hermas came to be
connected, a book of some size, originally
- = ~ - - ~ written in Greek, has come down to us
VI L G A L
from Christian antiquity. At one time
greatly read, and even for a while regarded as canonical,
out, 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
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, de-
scribed by U. &=ken in 1891; that of other fragments, we
haye known for a longer period from the citations of ancient
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,
Robinson A Collation o the Athos Codex of fhe Shejherd of
Hermas, '1888 ; F. X. d n k , Patres Apost., (2) 1 9 1 .
T h e Shepherd, in view of its contents, is usually divided
into three parts, entitled respectively ( I ) Visions, ( 2 )
a. Division. Commandments, ( 3 ) Similitudes. The
printed editions, in fact, all follow each
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. 1I ) can be regarded as an intro-
duction 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 ' T h e rest ' (rb Prcpu ;
Sim.9 ) and a conclusion (Sim.10).
So far as the form of the book is concerned. Hermas.
a former slave of a certain Rhoda in Rome to whom
his father had sold him, and who had
3. afterwards come into the service of the
contents.
Christian church, now comes forward as
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 ~ as ~ sthe, 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.12-4 ; 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 O F 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 re-
pentance appears t o him in the form of a shepherd as previously
(Vis. 2 4 3 TO) in that o f a y o u n g man, and bids h& write down
commandments and similitude^ '(Vis.5). The twelvecomniand-
ments which follow relate t o 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) Ihow 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). N e x 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 t h e 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).
T h e 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
arti6cial. between two known persons, Rhoda and
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 inter-
polation, 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 re-
spectively ' 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. 1 6 1 4
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,
Iren;eus, but later than the apostles and
7. Date.
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 180A . D . ;
yet not mnch earlier, nor yet much later, than about the
middle of the second century. Perhaps some chrono-
logical truth may underlie the tradition that ' Hermas'
was a 'brother' of Pius I. (140-155A . 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 ( V i s . 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 C ANON, 5s 63, 72 ;
PROPHETIC LITERATUKE, 5 3 1 ; HERMAS.
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. N T
l,P) 1900, pp. 2 9 8 , 4 3 0 4 2 104, 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 fatke 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, I h . 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, T L Z , 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.
SHEPHO (by),b.
Shobal, b. S EIR : Gen. 3 6 2 3
:CW@ [AI, .CW@&N [DL]. c u p [El)= I Ch. 1 4 0
Ghephi ('Tp; CUB [B], cw@ap [A], carr@e~[L]).
buL's reading in Gen. suggests comparison with
SHEPHUPHAM (-AN). c p also SHUPPIM, SHAPHAN.
SHEPHUPHAM,AV Shnpham (DQ4bi: see SHE-
>HUPHAN), a son of BENJAMIN ($ 9 [i.]) in Nu.26391..
Kith patronymic S HUPHAMITE ( 4 . v . ) ('pplr ; cw@au,
4458
 SHEPHUPECAN
AHMOC o CW@ANGI P I . . . CW@&NI [AFI, c o + a ~
. . C O @ A N l [L]).
SHEPWPHAN (IpDp,J 75 ; Gray, H P N 9 5 , but
the suggestion 'serpent' may be as fallacious as that
of ' rock-badger' for S HAPHAN ; another form is
S HEPHUPHAM ), b. Bela, b. B ENJAMIN ($ 12), I Ch. 85
( C W @ A P @ A K [BJ, CC&AN KM axipd CAI, CEIT-
Cp AHIRAM, SHEPHO, S H U P H A M ,
@AM [L]).
PIM , S HAPHAN .
SEERAH, or rather, as RV, SHEERAH(31$@, with the Athbash cypher (in which N =n, 2 =I, etc. ) have
caapa [A], capaa [ L ] ; bB [EN EKElNOlC T O l C
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. ' Explication dksesp6rCe assurement ' (Renan, Rapport
7 2 4 u ) who 'built' the two Beth-horons and UZZEN- annuel de Za SOC. ariutique, 1871, p 26). As to 5141,
SHERAH (I Ch. 7246, n???'-)TF,RV UZZEN-SHEERAH). there can be no doubt that ' Sheshach' should be
In D. 24b Q5L gives qpuanSpa (for qpuaapa?). @EA makes
Shera ( u q p a ) and Rephab (v. 24) sons of 4 a v (Uzzen).
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 corrup-
tion of in@'Ashbur,' which turns out to be a N.
Arabian &be-name (cp Geshur). Heres in ' Ir-heres '
(see H ERES , M OUNT ) seems to have the same origin
(Crit. B i 6 . ). -T. K. c.] For 1" (Uzzen) we should
probably (cp 6 L ) substitute 1-y 'city,' and refer to
Judg. 135. C p E PHRAIM , $ 12. Beth-shemesh or Ir-
shemesh is a curiously parallel name, if ' shemesh ' comes
from ' ciishim ' (see SHAALBIM).See, however, N AMES ,
$ 99, where ' e a r (=earlike projection) of Sheerah' is
suggested as the possible meaning of Uzzen-sheerah ; cp
AZNOTH-TABOR.
SHEREBIAH (V21@,$39, but form seems doubtful,
u a p a p r a [ s ] ) , a post-eGjic priest and family (EzraS 18 &px+
[BA] i v Lpxi u a p o v r a [L], I% 24 u a p a r a [BA],
a p a & a [B, where u a p a p m represents SHEBANIAH, uapapaia [AI,
9 5 om. @RNA,10 12 1131< a p a p i a [B], CaBapra I ~ ~ v i d . 1158).
I Esd. 847 the name appears as ASEBEBIA,RV ASEBEBIAS
( a m p q j 3 t a v [BA], ;v b p ~ ui a p o v r a [L]), cp HASHARIAH,
54, ESEBRIAS RV ESEREBIAS (euepp.&av [BA]) and I Esd. 948,
SARABIAS, uapapras [A*vid.j. Many of the codpanion-names on
the lists are obviously ethnics (Che.). See SHEBER.
SHERESH (@Y ; coypoc [Bl. copoc [AI, aopoc
[L]), a Machirite name in a genealogy of MANASSEH [BL], -AI [A], Judg. 1I O + r&el [A]) ; see A NAKIM .
($ 9 [ii.]) ; I Ch. 716.f See PERESH.
SHEREZER(S$KiP), Zech.72.4V, RV S H A R E Z E R ,JIDV
SHERIFFS (H?.$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. 3 2 f : 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 ( M G 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.
Can no step in advance he taken? 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, mis-
written ' i i w n ~ ) passed, under the editor's hands, into
[ N . h D l l w n ~ (see SATRAPS). Another (.nlni. Rehobothite)
appears three or four times in corrupt variants. The last
of these variants Nvngn has probably come from w n m i 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.
4459
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). I n Jer. 2526 the
whole clause, and in 5141 ' Sheshach.' is omitted in 6
(amp. adds in 2526, K U ~,8aurhs3s Z ~ u a xd e r a i euxaros
v , in 5141 inserts d E I U U K ) ; Cornill follows 6,
u ~ ~ T G and
SHUP- 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
used it in interpolating a prophecy ascribed to Jeremiah ?
and what reason was there for using a cryptogram?
oniitted ; it mars the beauty of the elegiac metre (see
LAMENTATION). T o prove this let us put 5 0 2 3 and
5141, both elegiac passages, side by side :-
(a)How is cut asunder and broken I the whole earth's
hammer !
How is become a desolation I. Babylon. among the
nations !
(6) How is [Shesbach] taken and surprised I the whole
earth's praise I
How is become a desolation I Babylon among the
nations !
As to Jer. 2526, we must view the passage in connec-
tion with the whole list of peoples in vu. 18-26, and
carefully criticise the text. T h e list begins with Judah.
Next comes Miyim (so r e a d ; cp M IZRAIM ), 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
Neh.87 9 4 Babylonian dynasty, according to Pinches's reading (hut see
Pinches himself TSBA 1881 48) is untenable. Winckler
, In (GBA h7,'
6 7 f: 328); ~ 0 ~ i z 7 5 a?ci Sayce ( R P P )113) read
Uru-azagga. The Athhash theory IS equally wrong On this
and on similar cyphers see Hal. MiZ. 245 (his theory is peculiar) ;
7 ; in v. and Cp LEB-KAMAI. T. K. C.
($d@,
SHESHAI § 58, cp SHASHAI; C E C [ C ] ~ I
[BFL]), one of the b'ne Anak, perhaps an old Hebronite
clan-name (Nu. 1322 CEMEI [A], Josh. 1 5 1 4 coycfl
Sayce ( C k t . Mon.(', 204) combines the name with . h u
~. (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, S HESHAN , J ERAHMEEL , § 28.
(I@@,
SHESHAN $ 58 ; some MSS. 1W'V [Kenn.] ;
CWCAM, C W C A N [B], C W C A N [A], C I C A N [L]), whose
daughter married his servant J A R H A(9.v.) and became
the head of an interesting genealogical list ( I Ch. 234-41).
See J ERAHMEEL , $ 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
A HLAI 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 S HESHAI
[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
T. K. C. Bedouins (cp EDOM, 5 2).
4460
 SHESHBMZAR
indeed, ' Jarha ' was supposed to be etymologically akin
to Jerahmeel (as a hypocoristicon) is a matter for con-
jecture. s. A. C.
SHESHBAZZAR (7?@, 83 ; cacaBaccapoc
[A, in Ezra 5 16 - a p ' ] , u a S a u a p q s [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 u a p p a y a p . 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 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 I I 5 14 16t.
Van Hoonacker ( A c a d . , 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)bassarwith 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 S ANBALLAT (p...) and the first
governor of the Jews should have had names com-
pounded with Sin would be a striking coincidence. But
though this may have been the learned redactor's mean-
ing, it is doubtful whether the original narrator intended
it. T h e 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).
S HENAZZAR , Z ERUBBABEL .
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 t o
Zerubbabel in Haggai (1I 14 22 21). 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 T ATTENAI (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 refer-
ences (Sheshbazzar a son of Jehoiachin) ; and see E ZRA
A N D N EHEMIAH [BOOKS], § 7.
The identificationof 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.
T. K. C.
SHETH (nd,CHe). 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.'
4461
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.
uapavau- Most, however, with Dillmann, interpret nf ( n N d ? ) in
the sense of ' tumnlt ' (so RV).
2. I C h . l l , RV S ETH (g.~.). T. K. C.
SHETHAR (Ygd),in Esth. 114, MT. one of the
'seven princes' at the court of Ahasuerus. 6's
capcaealoc [BKLp19 C A p € C e € O C [A] seems to re-
present 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.
SHETHAR-BOZNAI, RV SHETHAR-BOZENAI (in+
'@I CaeapBOyzaNa9
, - A N [BI, - N h l ~- N€ [AI, €lap-
BoyZa~afoc [L]). T h e name of a Persian (?) official,
mentioned with Tattenai, Ezra 5 3 6 6 6 1 3 I Esd. 6 3
(uaBpapou{avgs [BA]. -,BO{. [L]) 7 (-poupT. [B], - p 0 4
[A], -BO{ [L]) 627 7 1 ( - ~ O U { . [BA], -PO{. [L]). AV
S ATHRABUZANES . Four explanations may be men-
tioned ; 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,OldPers. 'Mithr0bauzana'-Le., ' having
Cp 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$), however, considers that ~ 1 1 1inv may be
the title of an official (.g., chief clerk of the chancery),
and compares the inscription on a weight from Abydos,
where XDDJ ~ i is mattested as such a title. I n this case,
for mgi we must read inw. But the second part of the
title seems incorrectly transmitted. Winckler's reason
is that '3 'o is not followed, as we should have expected,
by a description of the office of the person so called.
(4) Upon the theory mentioned above, it is at any rate
possible that mu comes from o'wm (T ARSHISH [ p . ~ . ] ) ,
the original of which may be *?w;E(, and 317111 from ?+.
'Asshurite' and 'Cushanite' are two N. Arabian
ethnics, used perhaps as personal names. See C'rit.
Bib. T. K. C.
SHEVA (KId). I. b. Caleb b. Hezron, the ' father'
of M ACHBENA (;h. 249; u a o u [Bl, -A [AI, U W B [LI).
2. z S. 2025 (Kth. X;$); see SERAIAH (I).
SHEWBREAD (imp? ai+). lkeern hap-pininirn, lit.
' bread of the face ' or ' presence-bread ' (RVmg.). See
S ACRIFICE, 14, 34a; R ITUAL , 5 2 ; TEMPLE, 5
16,and A LTAR , § I O (8).
Q6' BPTOL TOG a p o u & r o v ( I S. 217[6]), a. [r+] r p o 8 . I ~(Ex.
~ ~
40 2 3 [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$, EV
'the continual bread'(Nu. 4 7 [PI, oi BPTOL 0 ; 8rh a a v r 6 s ) ; (d)
1. Rarn-mdZmikeb? T Ch. 9 32 (AVmP. ' bread of ordering '),
mn'Zrdkefh Z. 2 Ch: 13 I T ( a . 7. rpoB.Iuews Vg. as above); (c)
1. RjdCS I S.21 5 (' hallowed [RV " holy "I bread ' ; a. :poi).
Zimdern (Beitrice our Kenntniss der Bn6. Rel., Rifuals-
1 So Andreas, in Marti, Bi&?.-aram.Gram. 87; E. Meyer,
Ent. d. /US 32. M d 3 p o p o v < r i ~ soccurs in Arrian, i. 16 3, Diod.
31 22.
2 In the address of the letter of Tattenai the governor beyond
the river and Shethar-bomai'(Ezra!ia), the verb in MT is in
_ . and the suffix in anin
the sine.. -TT: -
is also sinc. Marauart
suggests that Shethar-bomai may have come in from the
subscription.
4462
 SHIBAH
tafd?n, 94) includes among the constituent parts of a Babylonian
sacrifice ‘the laying of loaves’ (akuZz~)before the deity. It was
usuel to present either 12 or (3 x 12) 36. The loaves were of
some fine mea4, pexhaps wheat. They were called akal mfffki,
‘ sweet loaves ‘-z.e., !”leavened.
SHIBAH (W:p), Gen. 2633 RV, AV S HEB A H ( q . n ).
SHIBBOLETH (ll$’3@),the word which the fugitive
Israelites mispronounced, so falling into the trap set for
them by the Gileadites (Judg. 126).
@ B renders &bv Si WT+K. 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 pro-
nunciation 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
(P.”.).
SHICRON, RV SHIKKERON
()\-I$; (€IC) COKXWe
PI. (€IC) AKKAPWNA [AI, ( € I C ) C A X A ~ ~ NCLI;A
Sechronu [Vg.]), at the western end of the N. boundary
of Judah, Josh. 1511,tapparently between Ekron (AK-
K A ~ ~ and N ) Jabneel.
SHIELD. T h e most ancient defensive piece of armour
was the shield, buckler, roundel, or target. T h e 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 Vin 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).
z. mri@n, ( J ~ I I , ‘cover,’ ‘defend’); most commonly
rendered B v p d s , 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
figurativelyalso ofthe scalesor scutes ofleviathan ;asametaphor
for a king or ruler (Ps. 89 18 1191 Hos. 4 k 8 Ps. 41 g [IO]), etc.
3. s$z&Zh, ?I?$, Ps. 91 4t. 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
+ must have recourse to conjecture. I t , has been sug-
both obscure. In a S. 8 7 ~ A i b (reading u aim?)and in 1I I Ch.
187 KAO& (also reading niyr?); in zK.1110 T ~ L U W ~[BA] F
Gdpv [Ll, hut in I/ 2 Ch. 23 h X a (L U p u , I ~ Land s ,SmAa);
Cant. 44 BoAiGes; Jer. 51(28711 +ap&pas.
5. kidan, pi’?. See J AVELIN, 5.
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,
2. 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
nihq, properly ‘waggons’ [EV ‘chariots’], Q5 has B u p m k , 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,
He has broken the quiver of Cusham,
The shield and the sword of Jerahmeel. T. K. c.]
4463
SHIELD
work, wood, or hide. T h e leather coverings would vary
in thickness ; a single hide, if suitably prepared, some-
times 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+ i n
Anc. Egypt, 524; see also Wilk. Anc. Egypt. 1202) of
a soldier of the Middle Empire. T h e body is not
protected by other armour- a fact which suggests that
in ancient times the shield was large in proportion
a s other defensive armour was lacking. This shield
resembles a Gothic window in shape. Shields of such ’
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.
T h e 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
gested (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 him-
self and the others (see C HARIOT , 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
(ThS 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 ~ ae large round shield of cane-wicker’ (i6. note m).
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
( I S.176 I K.1427 [brass], z S . 8 7 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
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.
W e 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. . and Benzinger does the same for I Ch. 135 by supposing
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.
T h e 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). T h e traditional
Jewish view (cp Aq. dyv6vpa, Sym., Theod. h d p aiy-
voias) connects it with >id. fig&, ' t o wander,' sup-
posing an ' error' of David (see I GN ORAN CE , SINSO F )
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 ~ ~ (see, 3 S HEMINITH , UPON). The
clever suggestions of Gratz (ny3, i9w)and Wellhausen (nijqj)(cp
B B N A Qp, 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 H A B A K K U K [BOOK], $ 3).
T. K. C.
SHIHON (fiW@), Josh. 1 9 x 9 AV, RV SKION (q...) . according to him, Mosar or Masor) means Midian-Le.,
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 O F EGYPT
or 'SHIHOR(RV T HE SHIHOR), which is before [i.e., eastward
of] Egypt'(EV, Josh.133, P
;!? 'Jysp
lW5 iin*g?, &ab e r
[]iD'@;?]
&OC~~TOU i s K a d ap6uwnov aiy. [BAL]), Is. 23 3,
Shihor gn@; p ~ ~ j % A ~ = i [BNAQI),
n b Jer. 2 18 (irn?, y p v
WAQI, ~ ~ LQmg.1).
~ P ,
T h e 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 R D gave an
idealistic extension to the SW. frontier of Canaan. I t
was urged, on the other hand, that in Nu. 3 4 5 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 E GYPT , R IVER O F ), and accord-
ing to Franz Delitzsch and Kautzsch-Socin this wady is
also referred to in Gen. 1518 as the p ~ y pi?? (MT).
Were there, then, two Shihors ? Steuernagel removes
the difficulty in part by reading i > i ~ n ,' the desert'
instead of i:n'wn, ' t h e Shihor' (see a),
in Josh. 133,
that a thoughtless scribe substituted 1n.w for O ~ Y D5n1
(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. T h e 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 N AME . 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 (Le.,
the N W . 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
44%
 SHIHOR-LIBNATH
above. ( u ) Is. 2 3 3 , as it now stands, is fairly rendered
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 occur-
rence 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 S HIHOK - LIBNATH ), ‘ which, according to
Gen. 4920 (Ezek. 2718), supplied Zidon with corn and
the like.‘
He regards i i ~ (no?tin @) as an incorrect gloss. 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 trans-
formed 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 i n D , ‘merchants’ (so @), or rather imw5, ‘Ashlpw.’
w w i n in w . I 6 IO has the same origin (see TARSHISH),
i i ~ presumably
* comes from yy1., At any rate, the presence of
whilst
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 ’-
L e . , 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 i s n 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 iinwN (Ashhur).
The above is written independently of Hommel’s later in-
vestigations (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
‘Gihon’ is the ‘river’ (731) of Aszhnr (or as he oints it
Ashur-i.e., Edam); this he identifies with the WPfy Sirha;
(reckoned with the Enphratean stream region), the Hiddekel
(as he thinks) of Gen. 2 14. Hommel’s statements are criticised
unsympathetically by Konig, Fzi’flfneue arabische Lafldschafts-
nainea i m A T 6eleuchtet (1902). T. K . C.
SHIHOR-LIBNATH (nn) iln$@;C E I W N [B],
C[c]lwp [AL], K A l A A B A N A e ; Sihor ct Labanath),
apparently near Carmel on the S. boundary of Asher
(Josh. 1 9 2 6 t ) . T h e ancients, including Eusebius and
Jerome ( O S 27523 1362), distinguished two places
called respectively Shihor and Labanath. Since, how-
ever, S HIHOK [Y.V.] occurs elsewhere only as the name
1
2
Read 5Narn. nin41; see NAPHTUHIM.
Even if the Wady of Ashhur and the W%dyof Mqri were,
strictly speaking, distinct, some laxity in a Hebrew writing is
intelligible.
4467
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. ‘ S HIHOR ’ [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 i n w
(Shihor) in Josh., as well as elsewhere, comes from
irnwx (Ashhiir), and that both names indicate that the
sites called ’Carmel’ and ‘ Shihor’ had been origin-
ally occupied by Jerahmeelites and Ashhurites ( a dis-
tinction without a difference ?) respectively. There were
probably other places called Ashhur (Heres, for instance
[see H ERES , MOUNT]) ; one of them was near Libnath,
or belonged to a Laban or Libnah clan. See S HIHOR .
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. T. K . C.
SHIKKERON ()h?d),
Josh. 1511 RV, AV SHICRON
(6.. 1.
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 Cq.v.1)
LHIM
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.
T. K. C.
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 S HARUHEN (P.v.); cp
also Shaaraim (Buhl, Pal. 185). Azubah, bath S HILHI
(q.v.), was probably a native of Shilhim (see SHILHI).
T. K. C.
SHILLEM (&e),
Gen. 46 24, SHILLEMITES
(Vh@?), Nu.2649; in I Ch.713 S HALLUM , 7.
SHILOAE, WATERS OF (n$f&l ’p), Is. 8 6 . See
SILOAM.
SHILOH (h@, Judg. 2121 Jer. 7 12, he, Judg. 21 19
I S. 1 2 4 3 21 Jer. 7 1214 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 ~and
S urho).
A town of Ephraim, where the sanctuary of the ark
was, under the priesthood of the house of ELI ( 4 . v . ) .
I- I
Ephraimite According to I S. 3 3 15, this sanctuary
was not a tabernacle, but a temple with
town. doors. Tosh.181 IP1, however, has it
that the tabernacle was set up there b i Joshua after the
conquest. In Judg. 21 ~ g f . 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 I SRAEL ,
§ 11). The position described in Judg. 2119 (cp O S
1 5 2 1 ) 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,’ J B L I9 [~goo] Z $ - T ~; Graf, De temgZo
Siloflensi: and Aug. KBhler, BibZ. Gesch. 11.11zf: w. R. s.
4468
 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
town. confounded by later writers (Jer., Ps.)
with the northern Shiloh.
ih,1507, and &, are all regarded by the present writer as
connected with hie (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 S AUL, 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 re-
mained ' 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 M ICAH , z ) , and of course
shared the fortunes of the sanctnary in Benjamin which
contained the ark. T h e 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. I n SHILOH ii. it has been argued that in
all probability a$v ( E V 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. T h e 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 S HECHEM ), and Lebonah is a southern
Libnah (cp Nu. 3 3 n o f : ) . C p also M ELCHIZEDEK .
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 LWin 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.
I s. 14 3 runs 4 y - i i ~ n m - pi 1 x - w 'nN m.nu-i2 m u .
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. 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 G ENESIS ,
§ 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
versions. -that a the sceptre shall not depart from
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
SHILOH
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$$. T h e Hebrew of M T is :-
$5
?l217'? pl?W 11D:
l-g? i'2P PI?$'
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 ~ -
a h i , &os Bv A .a2
pcvw ;K r i ) v p+iv
a h b s T~OUSOKLZ&Gv. Several
6 A a d K a r a L d r d or 6 &n&rTai.
Mg T& LIaOKf~peYaa v r i ,
have Q L a h s i r a r , a few
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 Lsuggests
Z the reading
n p On r&& O K . a&$, see below.
2 . Aq. OGK dvaumjcTrTar UKr)nTpOW &ab 'I. K a i iKpL@<6pFVW
&a& pma@ aoS& a h & Ews Bv ZA8p ...
K a i a h @ &mpa
A&". Sym. 0 8 m p r a r p s 6 u e r a r &uura Lab 'I. ...
3. Pesh. (a).
*
'The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the interpreter
&
a
.
, L o
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 -10J 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.'
W e 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 shiloh
~ propel version, and indeed no known authority
for several centuries after the Christian
name* 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.
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. 9 5 [ 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 render-
ing, ‘until he come to Shiloh,’ see a reference to the
3. No reference assembly of the tribes of Israel held, ac-
place cording to P, at Shiloh(Josh. SI), when
to‘ PIIUUII.
~ ~ : ,‘the -~ , had been subdued before
land
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-
‘ 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 ‘‘‘INthat which (or, he that) is his shall
come,” and regard the cIause as an indeterminate ex-
pression of the Messianic hope. which was afterwards
defined more distinctly.’ T h e reading is$is also
adopted by Wellhausen (Gexh. 1 3 7 5 , 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 (asRGnsch 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. $$gwould, in fact, be intolerable. As to Ezek.
s by no means clear that the prophet was thinking of
21 32, it i
Gen. 49 IO. Very possibly the reading h$was suggstcd 6y a
misleading reminiscence of EsekieZ.4
But if the passage is, at any rate in the larger sense,
Messianic-and this is generally assumed, because of
the reference in d to a universal empire,- what are we
* KGnig, however (Le.), qualifies his statement by an ‘at
least’ in the next sentence. There can hardly be a doubt that
the text needs emendation (see .MICAH[BOOK], 5, e).
2 A favourite Jewish interpretation of ..r$.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.’~B E W ~ ~!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 .
4471
SHILOH
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$o to be a contracted form of a$*!@, ‘ h e whom
Judah prays for’ ; cp perhaps Dt. 337, where, accord-
ing 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.
T h e 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
storedtext in v. 1 1 ~D ~ ?$ln S
&
::. mean ‘ s t a f f of
authority’? and. if not, how can aaw
be parallel to it? Is i h p~p , however
it be explained, at all natural? And is nn?: a sound
reading? Then, in v. 11, is nniD correct, and are such
expressions as these possible-’ he washed his garments
in wine, and his clothes with the blood of grapes ’ ? I n
v. 1 2 is %n correct?2 and is not the whole verse
superfluous ?
By a careful criticism the present writer has elsewhere
reached the following text :-
”??pD?id Y?D;b!$ A champion shall not depart from Judah,
1Ti: p p j?S@? Nor a marshal from between his bands,
??e;> ”$
ET’? Until he tramples upon Laishah,
P*>Kp: [?pf:] I? And the Jerahmeelites are obedient
unto hirn.3
Verse 1 1 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“$i;-g os? should
probably be hp-0:’g wm:,‘ h e shall subdue the b’ne
Ishmael,’ the proof of which is that in v . 12, which
should certainly be read 5ygm; hey@: y
true text contained a correction of the miswritten words
in v. IO. See Cn’t. R J . Laishah, considered already,
may be, as we have seen (SHILOH, I ) , Haliisah, one
of the most important cities of the Negeb. Who the
Jerahrneelites are, we also know ; they are the same
as the Zarephathites or ‘ Pelethites’ (the Philis-
tines of MT) who were the chief enemies of Israel
in the days of Saul and the early period of David.
If this theory bt adopted there is no reason for the
hypothesis of interpolation. Contrary to the prevalent
opinion, the whole of the blessing of Judah is continuous.
Beginning with a description of the fierce and fearless
courage of the tribe of Judah, it goes on to prophesy
that judges or champions of J u d a h s rights (the rights of
the strongest) will never be wanting till its troublesome
neighburs, the Jerahmeelites or Zarephahthites, have
been conquered,- a conquest which in the original
song was described in some detail.
The theorysuggested with regard to n$a throws a
fresh light on I K. 1129, where (see JEROBOAM i., end)
1 Genesis, 436, (2) 424. The singular theory connected with
this interpretation cannot be here discussed.
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 E N S I GB~T, 1 (on
511 ; Sam. here l h ) . For D?;, cp SBOT on Is. 41 2s. In d
? a v - f e k l out through the vicinity of words (p,~3y=&ry) con-
taining virtually all t h w letters. Cp also J.ERAHMEEL, 5 4.
4172