Professional Documents
Culture Documents
'
keepeis' in Ezra 2 42 Neh. 7 45 should probably be Asshurites,' with Shalmaneser 1V. ; against this see B ETH - ARBEL , and Crit.
another N. Arabian ethnic (Che.). Bi6.1 C . H. W. J.
9. Shallum the Korahite ( I Ch. 9 19, U Q A W ~ W[B],V uaAop' [AI),
see M ESHELEMIAH . SEdMA (YF$; CAMAeA [Bh'l, C h M M A [ALI), b.
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
Hothan the Aroerite, one of David's heroes (I Ch. 11 44).
[Bl, yaihh~tp[*I, uohhvp [A], OB. [L])=I Esd. 925 SALLUMUS Cp Elishama-i. e . , probably Ishmael (Che. ). His
~ U Q A A O U ~ X[B*bA] -pa" [Ray C Y ] ) . From the fact that Telem brother is Jeiel-i.e., Jerahmeel [Che.] (see J EIEL , 2).
(cp Tnlmon) occurs'alonsside his name, it is probable that he is
to he identified with no. 8, above. SEAMARIAH (QO@, 2 Ch. 1119). S e SHE-
12. One of the b. Bani, Ezra1042 (uahwp [BH])=SAMATUS MARIAH (2).
I Esd. 9 34 ( U ~ ~ Q V O [BAI).
S
SHAMBLES (Old Eng. scamel, from the late Lat.
73. b. HALLOHESH @nibs), one of the repairers of the wall at scamelZuum, a small bench), though now generally used
Jerusalem (Neh. 3 IZ uah[hlovp [BA], oahoup [#I). in the sense of a slaughter-house, formerly signified a
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.]),
bench or stall on which goods, and particularly meat,
possibly the same as z (above). were exposed for sale, and then a meat or flesh-market
15. Father of Maaseiah (Jer. 35 [@ 421 4 u d o p [BAQ], arhop ( ~ p e o a d h r o r ) . I n this sense shambles is used in
[p(*]OQl our later English versions to render p r i ~ e X X o v ( I Cor.
SRALLUR ()!be),
b. COL-HOZEH (p...), ruler of the 1025), the Lat. maceZZum.2 or provision-market, for
which earlier translators have ' market ' (Tindale) or
district of Mizpah, who repaired the fountain-gate and
' fleshe market' (Coverdaleand others). 'Shambles' first
part of the pool of Shiloah (Neh. 315 ; @RNA om., appears in the Rheims version of 1582. T h e Roman
EMMWN [L]). colonists who founded the Corinth of Paul's day (see
SHALMAI (AV in Neh. 748 = Ezra 246f ; *e\@ C ORINTH ) in all probability brought the name with
them.3 The salesmen were named macellarii and dealt
[=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. not only in the flesh of domestic animals but also in
[Ba. ; the usual text being '&, cp u e ~ c l (AL)] r ;@. ! * in venison and other game, as well as in the various
Ezra, Kt. [sa. ; the usual text being '??4 = S HAMLAI (RV), secondary articles of diet classed by the ancients under
U Q ~ Q Q V (B)]), only in the phrase 'the children of Salmai,' a the head of 6$ov, o6sonia (references in Marq. Das
family of the NETHINIM (see E z H A ~ ~5. ion).
, The name PrivatZeben d. Romer, 450 [187g]).
suggests a foreign origin. In I Esd. 5 30 the corresponding Dio Cassius defines ~b p l r A A o v as * v +pdv T&Y b$ov
name is SUBAI ( m ~ [BA],r u e A q m [Ll). Cp SHELUMIEL. (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
SHALMAN (Hos. 1 0 14). See BETH-ARBEL. wares offered for sale, rir ~b IJlov, d r 7bv ofvov, etc. (PofiKs 47
10 29).
S H A L ~ E S E B ( T D ~ & ; c A M E N N A c A p 3CAAA- In I Cor. 1025 the Corinthian Christians are advised
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. market of the city, asking no question on the score of
[;'"
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
conscience, ' for the earth is the Lords and the fulness
ALMANASAR thereof. ' A. n. s. K.
as king of Assyria in 2 K. 173-6 189.11, is obviously
the king who succeeded Tiglath-pileser and preceded SEAMED, RV SHEMED (7p@),b. ELPAAL (g.v.),
in a genealogy of B ENJAMIN (p.~.,5 g,ii. S), I Ch. 8 12 ;
Sargon. Hence he must be identified with $ulmgnu-
perhaps same as Ishmerai in v. 18, seeJQR 11103, $ I .
agarid IV., successor and possibly son of Tiglath-
Recent editions (Ba., Ginsb. ) read mu, in preference to
pileser 111. H e was king of Assyria, 727-722B.C. H e
seems to have left no monuments, probably because
mu (final d , not final r ) ; the latter, however, is followed
by ordinary Hebrew Bibles, Pesh. and 65 (uvpvp [B].
his reign was so short. H e was succeeded by Sargon II.,
who appears to have founded a new dynasty. Very uepp. [A], uapatrli W1).
little is known of him. The Babylonian Chronicle,
KB 2276, narrates that ' h e sat on the throne, z j t h
SEAME, SHAJKEFUL THING (ne>?),HOS. gI0
Jer. 324 1113. See I DOL , 3.
of TeMtu [727 B.c.]. T h e city Samara'in (or
Sabara'in) he destroyed (cp S AMARITANS, 9 2). SHAJBEB (lQ,@),I Ch. 734, A V S HEMER (2 and 3).
In his fifth year 'SulmBnu-&arid, in TeMtu, met his
fate. Five years had Sulmanu-aSarid reigned in Assyria. ' SHAMGAR (la@ ; c a M a r a p [B], CAME- EL, and
T h e existing copies of the eponym canons give the BA in Judg. 5 6 1 ; Jos: . c a . y A p o c , c a M a r a p o c ; on
names of the eponyms for the five years of his reign, 1. Jadg.331. the addition in some MSS of 65 after
and the additional information that in the first two Judg. 1631, see Moore, 'Judges,' SBOT
years there was no military expedition, but that there [Heb.]. 59). An early Israelitish hero, Judg. 331 56 ;
was one in each of the years 725-722 B.C. Un- or, as others think, a foreign oppressor of Israel or of
fortunately the objective of these expeditions i s not some part of Israel whom the writer of Judg. 3 31, through
known. Some of the standard lion weights found at a misunderstanding of the allusion in Judg. 5 6 . mistook
Kalah bear this king's name, K B 2 3 3 f : A boundary for a patriotic warrior. 'The notice in Judg. 3 31, how-
stone inscription. published by Peiser (KeiliinschrzYtZiche ever, is, according to the most recent commentators, a
ActenstiicRe, 78),refers to private transactions in the very late insertion, later not only than the deuteronomistic
second year of this reign, at ,Db-ili, which town was elements in Judges, but also than the editor to whom the
then under his rule. For another private transaction of chronological system of Judges in its present form is due.
this reign, in or near Nineveh (?), see KB 4 108. Sargon, I t stands altogether outside that system, and is evidently
in one of his inscriptions, accuses Shalmaneser of forcibly unknown to the author of Judg. 41,which connects the
dispossessing the old capital A I b r of its ancient rights oppression of Jabin with the death of Ehud. The author
and imhunities (see Wi. A O F 1 4 0 2 8 ) . I t seems of the notice was poorly provided with suitable details
certain also that, before he came to the throne, his for a fictitious story ; he takes a hint (it may perhaps be
father (?) Tiglath-pileser had placed him as his lieutenant held) from Judg. 1 5 1 4 5 , where a similar exploit is
over the city and district of Simirra, conquered in 738 '
1 [For other references see Lehmann, Menander u. Josephos
B.C. (see Wi. AOF 2 4 ) . That he actually took fib. Salmanassar IV. pt. i.,' Beitruge ZUY AZfm Geschghte,
2 125-140 ( I F ) . ]
Samaria is rendered doubtful by Sargon's claim to have 2 MuceZZuwt was also adopted into the Hebrew of the Talmud
done so, see S AMARITANS , 2. See H OSEA for his and Midrash under the forms p $ p , i3>@D, etc (see the lexi-
relations with that monarch. cons of Levy and astrow).
The Shalman of Hos. 10 14 has been identified @.E., 3 .For the macedzz of Rome see art. maceZZum in Smith's Did.
by Wellhausen, who regards 7,. IO as an interpolation) of GR. and R m . Anfiq.W
4423 4414
SHAMGAR SHAMMOTH
assigned to Sams0n.l When we consider that the legend the Nethinini ( = Ethanim, ’ men of Ethau ‘-a N.
( 2 S. 231lJ) of Shammah ben ,Agee. one of David’s Arabian region). See S ISERA , and Grit. Bib.
heroes, has also been influenced by the Samson-story, Cp G. F. Moore, jurlges, 105f:, ~ p f : and , ‘Shamgar-and
such license would not be surprising. Note also that 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.
all these names begin with aw (sh-m). T h e chief object
of the insertion of Judg.331 would be to explain the SHAMHUTH (nmb), I a.278 ; in z s. 2325
obscure phrase ‘ in the days of Shamgar ben Anath ’ in S HAMMAH ( 5 ) .
Judg. 56.
This critical theory can only be right in part.2 Certainly SHAMIR (lV?@). I. a city in the highlands of
Shamgar hen Anatb comes from the song in Judp. 5 (in a corrupt Judah (Josh. 1548 ; C . A M E I ~ [131, CA@EIP [ALII. It
form so far as u.6 is concerned). But the late writer of 331 may possibly be identified with Umm Sdmerah, 2000 ft.
ventbred on no account of ‘Shamgar’s’ exploits. Unless our above sea level, z m. N. from ‘Anah (cp v. 50) and 5 hrs.
experience elsewhere is altogether illusory, the passage (3 31)
has suffered both by corruption and by editorial manipulation. SW. from Hebron. So GuCrin, Conder, Buhl. But
On the analogy of similarly corrupt passages, we have to restore note ua@p of QW.
it thus :,“‘And after him arose Shamgar ben Anath ; he smote 2. A place in Mt. Ephraim, the seat of the clan of
the Pehstim [Ishmaehtes, Jerahmeelites] ; he also delivered
Israel.’ The corrector of the MS evidently felt that ‘ Peligtim’ Tola, in Issachar, see ISSACHAR, 5 7 (Judg. 101f. ;
occurred too early ; he wrote in the margin ‘Ishmae!ites,’ ‘Jerah; uapetp [B], uapaptra [AL]).’ A site to the extreme
meelites,’ as alternative corrections for ‘ PeliHtim. Ishmaelites N. of the hill-country seems possible (Moore). But see
seems to he the right word ; the precedingnarrative in its original
form probably closed with the words, ‘and the land had rest TOLA,where it is suggested that we should transfer the
from the Ishmaelites,’ just as the narrative of Jabin or Sisera tradition of Tola to the Kegeb. Observe, too, that
probably closed with the words, ‘and the land had rest from the Shimron ( p . ~).is both a name of Issachar, and, accord-
Arabians.’a ing to the present writer’s theory of Josh. 111 and
But who was the true ’ Shamgar ‘ (Judg. 5 6 ) ? Moore
Am. 3 9 , etc.. the Negeb. T. K . C .
(Judges, 106) and Marquart (Fund.3 ) have suggested
that he may have been a Hittite king. SHAMIB (lV@, Ktb. ”In@),b. Uzziel, a Levite
2’ Judg’56* Sangara was the name of a (Hittite) king (1 Ch. 2 4 2 4 ; C A M H ~P A ] , CEMMHP [Ll).
of Cxchemish in the time of ASur-naSir-pal and Shal- SHAMLAI (’??$, Kt. ; V$p, Kr. ; CAMAAN [B],
mancser I I. Moore also refers, in illustration of ‘ Sisera,’
to the numerous Hittite names in -sira (e.g.,HtAsira, C € ~ A M [ E ] I [AL]), Ezra 246=Neh. 5 4 8 , S ALMAI .
WMM As. u. Eur. 332). whilst Marquart compares the SHAIKMA (K?@), b. Zophah, in a genealogy of
name Pi-siri(s), borne by the last king of Carchemish A s H E R ( ~ . v . , ~ ~1 ,Ch. ~ ~ 737(C€M[MlA[BL]2
.), CAMMA
(cp Del. Pur. 270),and Ball 4 refers (for a ben Anath ’ )
to Bur-anati, the name of the king of Yasbuk whom [AI).
Shalmaneser 11. mentions as an ally of Sangara ( K B SHAMMAH (a@, § 51 ; abbrev. from SHEMAIAH).
1159 ; cp I SHBAK ). The song, however, is so often I. Son of Reuel h. Esau, and a ‘ duke ’ or ‘clan ’ (7) of Edom ;
corrupt that the question of the names Shamgar and 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.
Sisera needs to be re-examined in connection with a 2. Son of Jesse (see DAVID, g la, n.); (1S.109,uapa [B],
thorough critical revision of the text of Judg. 5. The uappa [AI, uwaa [Ll); but I Ch. 2 13 RV (AV SHIMMA), 207
main historical result of such a revision appears to the SHIMEA ( N t p W ) ; z S. 13 3 uapaa [BAL]; 2 S. 21 21, g r . SHIMEAH
present writer to be that the foes by whom the Israelites (ilpq) ; i6. Ktb. and RV SHIMEI, ?&@, u s p e a [BA] uaplra
were oppressed were N. Arabians, variously called Jerah- [L]). Hissons were J O N A D A B ~JONATHAN ~ ~ [q.~.]. See no. 5,
meelites, Ishmaelites, Cnshites, Asshurites, and Keniz- below.
zites. and that a. 6 should run thus : 3. h. ACEE [q.~.],one of David’s ‘first three’ ( z S. 2311f:;
uapaia [B] sappeas [A], uwaras [L]) a HARARITE [ p z ~or ]
In the days of Jerahmeel son of Anak,s perhaps an ~ R C H I T E[ q . ~ . ] ,for QBA calk him b & p X a r o r @L
In the days of Cusham and Ishmael. o apxc. T h t exploit attributed to him in 2 S. is, with ;light
ilap, ‘Shamgar’ (?), is in fact a scribe’s mixture of variations, k e d in I Ch. 1113f: to Eleazar, another of David’s
$N>DV* and $NnnlT, and the scribe himself corrected his
‘ 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
error,d while N i p D is a corruption of the ethnic name 6). He had a son named Jonathan. See JONATHAN (ben Shagej
iii)i~,‘ Asshur,’ a collateral form of which was probably and SHAMCAR, 5 I.
4. A Hararite (uapvav [B*b], uapvac [Ba vid. A] ; uayaa [LL;
i+ ‘ Geshur ’ (see GESHUR.z). Now perhaps we can see also ONATHAN h. Shage), who appears in 2 S. 23 33 as one
see how ‘ Jabin ’ and ‘ Sisera’ both appear in the story. of Davijs thirty, and as a distinct person both from Shammah
‘ Jabin ’ ( B A ,twice Jamin) is one of the corruptions of 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
‘ Jerahmeel.’ so that the king of Kenaz (I]?, not iyJ,), with Shammah h. Agee, and comes into the list in z S. 23 33
whose capital was Kadeshr-barnea], might equally well merely as father of JORATHAN (‘ben Shage’) [q.~.].
be called ‘ Jerahmeel ’ and ‘ Asshur. ‘ That ‘ Sisera ’ 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
represents a N. Arabian ethnic name may also be pre- ~~
4431 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
~
Heavy. 1 Light. ~ Heavy.
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 -
1
gn. troy. grs. troy. 1 grs. troy. grs. troy.
______________
Phcenician standard
1
paratively early period. T h e weight of the heavy gold
at a com-
4445 4446
SHELAH SHELUMIEL
Salem the Holy ’). T h e weight of this specimen is 220 SHELAH, P ~ O LOF (n+q;?n n y , Neh. 3 1 5 RV,
grs. AV ‘ pool of SILOAH.’See SILOAM.
T h e second series of silver coins of the Jews belongs
to the second revolt’; they are shekels and quarter- SHELANITES ($@), Nu. 2620 ; see S HELAH (I).
shekels issued by Simon Barcochba and ‘ Eleazar the SHELEMIAH (?I:&@,9??)@, either compounded
High Priest‘ from 132-135 A.D. These coins are with il’=3?3’, or an expanded form of a clan name
really Roman denarii, or tetradrachms or drachms of borne by an individual [Che.], see SHALLUM, SHELA-
the mints of Caesarea (in Cappadocia) and Antioch (in MIEL, and note the N. Arabian character of the names
Syria), which have been used as blanks on which to with which Shelemiah is associated. To illustrate the
impress Jewish types (Kennedy, 430J ).
Both these series are, as we have said, exceptional, later (?) view of the name, cp Palm. ilhk’V [if for
and the ordinary coinage of the Jews, from the time n h D ? W a compound of the goddess al-LLt] ; csAs-
of John Hyrcanus, if not from that of Simon the ~ 1 0 ~ See
) . SELEMIA.
Hasmonzean, onwards, consists merely of bronze. I. b. Cushi, an ancestor of JEHUDI (T.u.) Jer. 36 [@ 431 14,
F. W. Madden, Coins oythe Jews, 1881 ; F. Holtsch, Gr. u. ?Z;&$, uahaptou [AI.
RJm. Metrologiie,P) 1882 ; W. Ridgeway, 2. h. Abdeel, one of the men sent by Jehoiakim to take Baruch
7. Literature. Oegin of Metallic Currency, r8ga; Th. and Jeremiah after Baruch had read the roll in the king’s presence
Rernach, Les monnaies luives, 1887 ; A. R.
S. Kennedy, in Hastings’ DB 2 4 1 7 8 G. F. H.
(Jer. 36 [@ 431 26, ?a& om. BWAQ).
SHELAH. I. h@, a nanie closely resembling
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 ) .
SHILOH (CHAWM [BADEF], CIA. [L]), the youngest 4. h. Hananiah, the father of IRIJAH[T.u.] (Jer. 44[37] 13).
of J u d a h s sons by the daughter of the Canaanite Shua 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,
(cp Stade G V Z l q 8 , and see J UDAH i., 5 2 ; Gen. -eta [ ~ 1 ) =
I Esd. 9 34, SELEMIAS (ufhrptas[BAI).
3 8 5 1 1 14 26 [J], 4612 [PI ; Nu. 2620 CHAWN [BAL, but 7. Another of the b. Bani (Ezra1041, wD!w., uehfpia [Bl,
- W M L. v. r9], I Ch. 2 3 CHAWN [BL]). T h e clan is -cas [A], - a a [N], uaparas [Ll), omitted in the parallel passage
associated with Chezib in the Shephelah of Judah (cp in I Esd. 9 34. It is interesting that the sequence of names
Cozeba below, and see A CHZIB [i.]), and, apart from here, Sbarai (‘@, Azarel, and Shelemiah is almost identical
Gen. 3 8 , occurs only in post-exilic writings. The with the names in Jer. 36 26 Seraiah (“e), Azriel, Shelegiah.
8. The father of H ANANIAH (T.v.), Neh.330 (Tchepta [B],
further divisions of this clan are given in I Ch. 421-23
(CHAWN [L]). The passage is extremely obscure -as [NI u y u r [AI).
and appears to represent the attempt of a scribe to 9. A’ priest, a keeper of the storehouses (Neh. 1313, urhrpra
get some meaning out of an already corrupt genealogy. [B*A], d.[Bb], ifhcpia [Wl).
Lecah in I% zra may be a corruption for Lachish, hut the SHELEPH (&, in pause, c a h $ [AEL]), a son of
latter halfoftheverse is unintelligible. Areference to Bethlehem
in v. m a is not improbable see JASHUBI-LEHEM. The reading, Joktan (Gen. 1026, om. B I Ch. 1.of’), has not yet been
‘men of Cozeha ... . .
of @BA, OS iaT&quav .
had hominion in Moah,’ is doubtful ; that
..
who dwelt. ’), is much more
identified ; but similar names are not uncommon in S.
Arabia. Instances are S d u f or SuZzy, a tribe in
reasonable. Netaim (o.~,) and Gederah, ZI.23, seem to have Yemen : Osiander, ZDMG 11 153 8 ; Siv, Hal. MPZ.
arisen from Etam (CITY) and Gedor ; and the recurrence of both 86 ; .Sug[many] : Glaser, 425 ; cp also a district Su@ :
names in v. 3 3-a list which in its present condition is Niebuhr, Arubien, 247 ; and see other reff. in Di. Gen.
fragmentary-makes it probable that in v. 3a we,should read
‘Shelah, the fatherof Etam‘(correcting thedifficult *>K [Cp S EPHAR , and on ‘ Joktan,’ see Cn’t. Bi6.1
See ETAM 2. A pre-exilic reference may safely {e rejected ; F. B.
the ‘ancien;’ matters spoken of need not, from the Chronicler’s SHELESH (I&;ZBMH [B], CEAAHC [AI, C B ~ M
point of view, be pre-exilic. The patronymic is Shelanite
>!@
‘(,! Nu. 2620, b ~ A O Y [ F ] L [BAFL]), which in a list of
[L]), a name in a genealogy of ASHER (q.v., 4 ii.),
I Ch. 7351.
Judahite inhabitants of Jerusalem is twice written ShilOnite
(Neh. 11 5, GqAwve [Bl, 6-sr [N], ~ h - [AI,
i u-BL[Ll; AV SHILONI, SHELOMI (&$), father of Ahihud, a ’ prince ’ of
I Ch.95; *;+[vl@a;TGY qhoulrlt, see E ZRA ii., 8 5 [61, I 15 Asher (Nu. 3427 ; C E A ~ M ( E ) I [BAFL]). See SHELU-
la). The former pointing with ri seems better (cp Be. MIEL,and cp ASHER, I.
Ke.). Maayeiah or Asaiah, to whom the patronymic IS here
applied appears as the representative of Shelah b. Judah, just
as A t h k h (Neh. 114) represents the Perezite division. [Cp
SHELOMITH ( n9?$qj, interchangeable with n\D$@
Crit. Bi6. I S. A. C.
[see below 51 ; cp the fluctuations between Meshillemith
SALAH AV in Gen. and S ALA AV Lk. and Meshillemoth. The vocalisation is doubtful [cp
2. (a$$). SOLOMON, I], and the name being evidently southern,
335, the son of Arpachshad and father of Eber in the a connection with either Ishmael or Salmah may be
old genealogy of the Hebrews (Gen. 1 0 2 4 [R?], I l l s f . assumed [Che.]).
[PI, I Ch. 118 [B om.] 24, uaXa, uaXas [L in Gen. 101). I. hath DIBRI[T.V.], who had married anEgyptian(or, perhaps,
The key to ‘ Shelah’ is of course Arpachshad. If the rather Misrite i.e. N. Arabian woman) and whose son was
latter name contains Chaldaea, Knobel may be excused stoned for‘blai herhy (Lev. 24 11 : u a h o p h [BAF], udapere
[Bab], uahpr0 [El).
for seeking ‘ Shelah’ in NE. Mesopotamia. If, how- 2. Daughter of Zerubhahel (I Ch. 3 19 ; u&pe0er [Bl, - 0 b [AI,
ever, Arpachshad comes from ‘ArHb-Kadesh or -Cnsh -pro [LI).
[see U R OF THE CHALDEES], we must suppose ‘Shelah’ 3. A son of Rehohoam ( z Ch. 11M ; wpw0 [Bl, uahqpd [AI,
to represent some clan in the Negeb. I n accordance uaAwpc0 [Ll).
4. b. Josiphiah one of the b’ne BANI [T.W., 21: read in Eua 8 I O
with JUDAH,5 z, we may assume the existence of a ‘And of the sons of Bani ; Shelomith, son of Josiphiah’ (d&v
Jerahmeelite clan called Shelah (see S HELAH , I), of uahetpovO [B] vi. Baavr uehrqwou0 [AI, T&Y v i . uahrpwe [L]),
Kenizzite (not Canaanite) affinities, and related to Sha‘ul, 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-
of which Shelah is a modification. The name Methuselah p-0 [Ll, [+vias1 u+pd [el).
is similarly related to Methushael ; both these names Azlong the Levites we find (5) a Shelomith h. Shimei, a
are probably modifications of Mishael = Ishmael. It Gershonite Levite ( I Ch. 239, Kt. i d? $,
RV Shelomoth,
now becomes not impossible that Eber ( m.y.. ) in Gen. a h d s r p [B) uahoper0 [A] -pie [LI); (6) a chief of the b‘ne
1 0 2 4 may be miswritten for‘Ar8b (>;g), Izhar, a Kdlmthite Levite ‘(I Ch. 23 18, uahopw0 [Bl, -LO [Ll,
uahovpoe [A]), whose son was J AHATH (T.v.) ( I Ch. 2122,
To derive Shelah from ‘to send ’ and suppose it to refer to nia%, EV SHELOMOTH, maJqme [BA], -re [Ll); and (7)a
the dq3artw-e of a portion of the tribe of Arpachshad previous to
their ‘passing over’ (see EBER) the Tigris, is absurd. @ (in Levite descended from Eliezer b. Moses (I Ch.26z$fl, RV
Gen.), on which Lk. 335 is based, inserts Cainan before Shelah SHELOMOTH, uahwpoo [BA], -10 and uaAIyrr0 [L] W. 25, Kt.
to make Abram the tenth after Shem (see Di. Gem. 208). nr&v, and MT in Y. 26).
T. K. C.
SHELUMIEL ($g$n)fl; caAaMiHh [BAFLI), b.
1 O’?$’! (v. 23) may spring from Beth-zur or perhaps rather
ZURISHADDAI, a ‘prince‘ of SIMEON(S 9 ii. n. : XU.
n*?iv?q (ZIORlay to the SE. of Gedor). 1 6 2 12 7 36 ( u a p X q h [F]) 41 1019t [all PI. I n Judith
4447 4448
SHEM BHEMAIAH
8 1 his name appears as S AMAEL. RV SALAMIELrecall that (see N AME , 5 7)it is specially characteristic
( 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 that Sumu in the names quoted by Winckler and
the name of a N. Arabian tribe allied to the Nabataeans (see
SALMAH, SHALMAI). ’r. K. c. Hommel is an entirely different word from the Hebrew
?em.
SHEM (ad; C H M ; sem). the eldest of the three Perhaps a sober criticism of these ancient names, the Baby-
sons of Noah, and therefore always mentioned first lonian as well as the Hebrew, may lead t o the conclusion that
etymologies which have the maqt superficial plausibility arc
(Gen. 5 3 2 610 713 918 101 I Ch. 14) ; the rendering of generally fallacious. See, further, SHEMUEL, SHmiIDA.
Gen. 1021 in AV and RVmg. is certainly wrong (cp T. K. C.
J APHETH ). SHEMA ( Y Q ;~ c&M[A]A [BAL]), one of the cities in
If an appellative, Shem will mean ‘name’-Le., the extreme S. of Judah towards Edom (Josh. 1526 :
renown. In this case, if in Gen. 9 it is really equivalent CAAMAA [B]). C p the clan-name SHEMA, I. It is
1. Name. to Israel, it may conceivably denote the ruling not included in the list of Simeonite towns either in
or noble class (cp Gen. 64 Nu. 162 I Ch.
524) in antithesis to the aborigines, who are called 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
Job308, ‘sons of the impious, yea, sons of the name- S HEBA, plainly a mere variant ( u a i a a [E] ; but uap[e]e
less, beaten out of the land’ (so We. CH(4 13, Bu. [AL]), and in 65 I Ch. 428 we find uapa [BL], -aa [A].
Urgesch. 328Jf). There is a strong presumption, how- The connection of Shema with Simeon seems obvious.
ever, that the name of this important patriarch has a The Sheba in Josh. 192 was probably introduced as a
longer history and a more recondite meaning. In short, supplement from 1526 after the calculation ‘ thirteen
the legends in the early part of Genesis being, according cities ’ ( v . 6) had been made ; RV’s ‘ or Sheba ’ is too
to the most plausible view, Jerahmeelite (see P ARADISE , bold. See further J ESHUA , S IMEON , 5 IO.
55 6, 9).and ‘ Ishmael’ being used as a synonym for
Jcrahmeel. it is very probable that ‘ Shem ’ is a modified SHE- (UQd.5 so). I. A Calebite clan which, like
fragment of the ethnic name Ishmael. Korah, Tappuah, and Rekem, traced itself to Hebron,
To derive (with Goldziher) from and ‘ to be high ’ and explain and is represented as the ‘father’ of Raham, the ‘father’
‘the high one ’ or even the ‘ Heaven-god,’ has no ’indication in of Jorkeam, I Ch. 2 4 3 5 ( u e i a a [BA, the latter omits
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
in v. 431, uapa [I,]). Note the accumulation of
fragment of SMnni- (Jerahmeel), (Shem) has arisen out of Jerahmeelite ’ names, and the place-name SHEMA.
a fragment of SNynu?(Ishmael). 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 ;
That the redactor, who here as elsewhere emended ]~p(Kenaz)
into i y (Canaan)
~ ~ supposed 007 to mean ‘Israel is possible s
h . 13 ( u a v [RAJ, uapaa&), obviously the sameas Shimei
in v. 21. SeeJQR XI. 103 I . See SHIMEI (8).
enoiigh. But critically, such a view is highly improbable. See 4. In list of Ezra’s supporters (see E ZRA ii., 5 13 V I ) ; Neh.
Gunk+ (+.PI 4 j : [1go21), whose attempt, however, to bring
what is said on &man in Noah’s oracles into connection with 8 4 ( s a p a s [BMAL]).
the historical situation in the second millennium B.C. seems on the
whole premature, in the absence of a thorough textual criticism. SHEMAAEI (7IQv0, whence AVmg. H ASMAAH ). a
The special blessing by which Shem was rewarded Gibeathite. father of A HIEZER (I Ch. 1 2 3 ; &MA [BK],
a. Tradibions. is now often read thus:’ ‘Bless, CAM&& [A], ACMA [L]). see D AVID , 0 IIC. The
0 YahwA, the tents of Shem (’* 371 Pesh. presupposes here the name of a separate hero,
D~ *h) ; let Canaan be his servant ‘ (Gen. 926 J,).
*npylln W ~ D Q‘ Shemaiah the Gibeathite.’
It is more plausible, however, to think that v. 26a SHEMAIM (a:qp@, also qn>q@, see below,
should run, h y n w ’* qn?. T h e Jerahnieelites were, in either a religious name = ‘ Yahwk hears,’ or a late (?)
fact, (see MOSES, 5 14) the early tutors of the Israelites expansion of the old clan-name ‘qv, S HIMEI [Che.] ;
in religion. Here and in v. 27 the underlying original note the frequency of the name among priests, Levites,
text apparently spoke of Noah‘s eldest son as ‘ Ishmael.’ and prophets, whose historical connection with the
T h e subjugation of Kenaz (not ‘Canaan,’ as the southern border-land is certain ; c&M&lA[c]). I t is
traditional text) refers to matters beyond our ken (cp inipossihIe always to differentiate accurately or (as the
KENAZ). Another writer thinks to explain ‘ Shem ‘ t o case may be) to identify the various bearers of this
his readers by identifying ‘ Shem ’ with ‘ Eber ’ (Gen. name.
1021). Here it is necessary to transpose d and r , and I. A prophet temp. Rehoboam, who deprecated war
read‘ArHb : in fact, Ishmael (Shem) and ‘Arab are nearly with Israel (I K.1222-2 C h . 1 1 ~[ib. wyaw]), and
synonymous. On all these subjects, as well as on the prophesied at the invasion of Judah by Shishak ( z Ch.
use of ‘ Shem’ in P (Gen. 1022 1110,cp I Ch. 11724)- 125 7 , uappaias [B]). H e is mentioned as the writer
see Crit. Bi6. The reference in Ecclus. 49 19 is no doubt of the history of Rehoboam (ib. v. 1 5 ) , cp also in bB
to Shem‘s important genealogical position. A late I K. 12 (240, ed. Sw.).
Jewish tradition (adopted by Selden and Lightfoot) 2. A false prophet who for endeavouring to hinder
identified Shem with M ELCHIZEDEK (4.v.). Cp his work was sternly rebuked hy Jeremiah (Jer. 29
SETHITES. T. K. C. [b 361 24-32 [oapeas K vv. 24, 3 1 f . I ; cp J EREMIAH
SHEM, NAMES WITH. Two Hebrew names have [BOOK], cj 17 ; in v. 24 W ~ D D ) .
been brought under this head-&mu’el (Samuel) and H e is styled the Nehelamite ( & h ~ aAaper7qv
, [B],
&mid2 (Shemida). T h e former of these is compared eXuptnp [ K A Q ] ) . which reminds us of TOY evhaper
by Winckler (GI1 130. n. 3) with Sumu-abi and &mu- applied to S HEMAIAH ( I ) in b ’ s [B, in L cAup~rr)v]
addition to I K. 12 ( Probably both athapsr7qv
la-ilu, the names of two Babylonian kings of the third
millennium R. c., whom this scholar considers to belong and evXaper point v. 2401;
to -n = hm,i. ‘ Jerahmeelite’
[Che.] (cp o$n=~t+cm*. z S. 1016 [Che.]; see also
to a dynasty of western Semitic or rather Canaanitish
conquerors. According lo Hommel, &mu-ahi means S IBRAIM ). The prophet Ahijah the Shilonite in I K.
‘Sumu is my father,’ and Sumu is a contraction of 1129, it has elsewhere (see SHILOH, 2 ) been suggested
Sumhu (Sumuhu)-Le., ‘ his name,’ a periphrasis for by Che-yne. is most probably a man from the Negeb.
‘ God ’ ( A H T 8 5 f : 88f:). He considers, that Semu’el S o , to, in the intention of the writer, is this Shemaiah.
3 . Father of Urijah of Kirjath-jearim, a prophet (Jer. 26 [ES
and Semida‘ may safely be explained as containing this 331 20, w y n a parenu [ND.
element S’umhu. I t seems very improbable, however, 4. Father of Delaiah, a prince temp. Jehoiakim Uer. 36 [e
that the periphrasis ‘ name ’ for ‘ God ’ should have been 431 12, uhepmu [BAQ], odsrrnu [*I).
Of such remote antiquity among the Israelites, when we 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
1 So Schorr, Gratz, and recently Ball, Holzinger, Gunkel. who repaired the temple (Neh. 3 29, uepeia [#I).
4449 4450
SHEMARIAH SHEMUEL
6 b. Joel, of REUBEN@
13)(rCh. 5 4 ufprar [BLI ufpw[Al). relative (according to the ordinary view) to the musical
7 h. Hasshuh, a Merarite Levite (I Ch. 9 14 cp‘ Neh. 11 15,
uc,uceras [Ll). See 13. performance of certain psalms (Pss. 6 12 : cp I Ch.
8. Father of Obadiah, a Levite belonging to Jeduthun 1521). ’ Ewald, Olshausen, Winckler, explain ‘ in the
(I Ch. 9 16, uapaa [Bl u a p r o u [AI, cp Neh. 11176). See 13. eighth mode, or key’ ; Gesenius and Delitzsch, for
9. Chief of the b‘ne Elizaphan, temp. David (I Ch.158 the bass’ : Gratz agrees with the Targum. I t is
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]).
admitted, however, that these explanations are pure
11. h. Obed-edom (I Ch.264, u a p c r a s [AI, w.6 J , u a p a r guesses, and the most plausible view of other psalm titles
w 71 uapcLa, u c p c i a [AI). See 13. favours the assumption that the text is corrupt. Most
IBxz: A’ Levite, temp. Jehoshaphat (2 Ch.178, uapouas [Bl, probably nw~un-5yis a corruption of C.ICW>, ‘ of the
crapouras [A]).
13. A son of Jeduthun (z Ch. 29 14, u a p e r a s [A]). Cp 7,8, 11, Ethanites.’ or better of phynw-$ ‘ of the Ishmaelites.“
and see GENEALOGIES i., S 7 (ii. d). W e thus obtain an adequate explanation of Shemiiiith
14A Levitehouse temp. Hezekiah(2 Ch. 31 15, uepea[BAL]), in the titles of Pss. 6 and 12, and probably too of Gittith,
probably the same as the name in Neh. 108 126 (BN*A om., Neginath, and Shoshannim (see P SALMS , BOOKO F , 126,
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 but cp M USIC , 5 9 ) . W e also find n*mw?-iy in I Ch.
b. Shemaiah is named). 1521 where it seems to correspond to nia$rjy at the end
15. A Levite of the time of Josiah (2 Ch. 359, cp perhaps of v. 20. Here, however, it is in alp probability a
S H I M E I , 31 12 : in both cases Cononiah Drecedes as the name of a corruption of the name S HEMIRAMOTH (q...), just as
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 ‘Azaziah,’ which Benzinger ( K H C ad Zoc.) rightly
up to Jerusalem with Ezra, Ezra8 13 ( u a p a e r a [AI1 in I Esd. pronounces suspicious, is virtually a misplaced repetition
839 SAMAIAS. of the name ’Aziel.’ These two’proper names occur
17. A teacher Ezra 8 16 ( u r p a a [A] u r p ~ d[L]) in I Esd. 8 4 close by, in v. 20.
MASMAN,RV MAASMAS( p a a u p a u [kA], s e p i a iL]), repeated
in v. 44 MAMAIAS,
RV SAMAIAS (om. L). It may also he noticed, since the commentaries give no very
18. One of the b’ne Harim, the priestly family of Ezra 1021, in defensible explanations, that nu!) (@ r o c [Iv]ruxXJuac ; RV ‘to
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 lead’), which follows n*!p+y in I Ch. 1521should be pointed
[nl, u a p e r a s [Ll), in I Esd. 932 SABBEUS(uaj3paias [BA], n:>i; it is a synonym of l ’ p , ‘continually,’ which occurs in a
u a p e r a s [Ll). similar context ; see PSALMS, BOOK OF, 8 26, col. 3945, n. 4. The
20. b. Delaiah b. Mehetabeel, a prophet temp. Neh., bribed other mysterious phrase ni&y-5y (RV ‘ set to Alamnth ’)in 15 20
by Sanballat to hinder the Jews from building the wall (Neh. comes from p?aN$, a mutilated and corrupt form of p * i ~ j
6 IO u f p m [BNI, mpec [AI). ‘psalteries.’ Cp Ps.2646, where p*&iq is a corruption of
21, 22, two men present at Ezra’s dedication of the wall(Neh.
He derives ‘Shihor’ from ‘Shihon which he identifies with Ephraimite According to I S. 3 3 15, this sanctuary
Seihln. the Arabk name of one of tbe rivers of Paradise. The was not a tabernacle, but a temple with
‘Gihon’ is the ‘river’ (731) of Aszhnr (or as he oints it town. doors. Tosh.181 IP1, however, has it
Ashur-i.e., Edam); this he identifies with the WPfy Sirha; that the tabernacle was set up there b i Joshua after the
(reckoned with the Enphratean stream region), the Hiddekel
(as he thinks) of Gen. 2 14. Hommel’s statements are criticised conquest. In Judg. 21 ~ g f . the yearly feast at Shiloh
unsympathetically by Konig, Fzi’flfneue arabische Lafldschafts- appears as of merely local character. Shiloh seems to
nainea i m A T 6eleuchtet (1902). T. K . C. have been destroyed by the Philistines after the disastrous
SHIHOR-LIBNATH (nn) iln$@;C E I W N [B], battle of Ehenezer (cp Jer. 7 12 74 2 6 6 g ; see I SRAEL ,
C[c]lwp [AL], K A l A A B A N A e ; Sihor ct Labanath), § 11). The position described in Judg. 2119 (cp O S
apparently near Carmel on the S. boundary of Asher 1 5 2 1 ) gives certainty to the identification with the
(Josh. 1 9 2 6 t ) . T h e ancients, including Eusebius and modem SeiZzin lying some 2 m. ESE. of Lnbban
Jerome ( O S 27523 1362), distinguished two places (Lebonah), on the road from Bethel to Shechem.
called respectively Shihor and Labanath. Since, how- Here there is a ruined village, with a flat, double-topped
ever, S HIHOK [Y.V.] occurs elsewhere only as the name hill bchind it, offering a strong position, which suggests
that the place was a stronghold as well as a sanctuary.
1
2
Read 5Narn. nin41; see NAPHTUHIM.
Even if the Wady of Ashhur and the W%dyof Mqri were,
-
A smiling and fertile landscane surrounds the hill.
Cp PRIEST P, 2 . OT’C(2) 268.271‘ L. W. Batten, ‘The
strictly speaking, distinct, some laxity in a Hebrew writing is Sanctuary at’ Shildh,’ J B L I9 [~goo] Z $ - T ~; Graf, De temgZo
intelligible. Siloflensi: and Aug. KBhler, BibZ. Gesch. 11.11zf: w. R. s.
4467 4468
SHILOH SHILOH
That there was a Shiloh in the territory of Ephraim, RV introduces the alterations ' the ruler's staff' for
2. Probable is undeniable. It is probable, however, ' a lawgiver ' (transferred to RVmg.), ' obedience ' for
Benjamite that there was another place with at least ' gathering,' and ' peoples ' for the archaism ' people.'
a similar name, in Benjamin, which was RVmE. also gives, ' Till he come to Shiloh, having the
town. confounded by later writers (Jer., Ps.) obedience of the peoples,' and records the ambiguous
with the northern Shiloh. reading i$$. T h e Hebrew of M T is :-
ih,1507, and &, are all regarded by the present writer as $5
connected with hie (Shad) and (Shalishah), names of
?l217'? pl?W 11D:
Edomite, or rather Jerahmeelite, origin, which were not confined l-g? i'2P PI?$'
to one part of the country. He sees reason to think that the aJ?y $>y? 1y
names, both of Eli and of his two sons connect Eli's family with
the Jerahmeeiites and there is evid;nce in the genealogy of : o y n y ii!
Samuel onnectini his family with the same N. Arabian stock; Ginshurg gives as &e i$q, which is a'rare spelling of the
indeed the name of Samuel (see S AUL, i3 I ) may appear identical
with the Jerahmeelite name of Saul. place-name Shiloh, if it is not rather meant to signify 'his son,'
see note.
It is very possible that the sanctuary of the ark was
in the Benjamite not in the Ephrainiite Shiloh (or rather A critical conspectus of the diverse interpretations of
Shalishah?); also that in the original narrative from this passage would require many pages (for this we may
which Josh. 181 (cp 1951 212 2z9 12) is derived, the refer to the special monographs).' W e can only give
place intended was Shalishah in Benjamin. W e can such references to ancient or modern hypotheses as may
now probably understand aright the statement in Judg. save the student from committing himself to untenable
1831 that the shrine containing Micah's graven image re- or precarious views, and justify the offering of a new
mained ' all the time that the house of God was in &. ' interpretation based upon a critical examination of the
Laish or Dan was not improbably the famous city of text, and confirmed by the study of some important
Hahisah in the Negeb (see M ICAH , z ) , and of course historical passages elsewhere. It is not enough to rest
shared the fortunes of the sanctnary in Benjamin which in interpretations, however widely prevalent, which have
contained the ark. T h e question also arises whether an insecure textual basis ; we are bound to attempt to
the enigmatical statement about the ' daughters of lift the exegesis of this much disputed passage to a higher
Shiloh' in Judg. 21 1 9 8 does not really refer to a level, and to free it from the uncertainties of theological
southern city. I n SHILOH ii. it has been argued that in or semi-theological controversy.
all probability a$v ( E V Shiloh) in Gen. 49 IO has been The ancient renderings that chiefly concern us are :-
I. @ (and Theod.) : 0;c ;Khc&L apxwv, 66 'Ioli8a K $ $ Y O ~ -
corrupted out of atj;5 (Laishah), which in turn is a a h i , &os Bv A .a2
popular distortion of HaltiFah. I t is possible that the
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
place near which, according to the narrative, the a8roG is one of {he signs that the interpretation of the passage
capture of wives was effected by the Benjamites was was influenced by Dt. 28 57. ~ ~ U S O K Lsuggests
Z the reading
really Laishah-Le., HalQah. T h e transformation of n p On r&& O K . a&$, see below.
names in Judg. 21 19. which this theory presupposes, is 2 . Aq. OGK dvaumjcTrTar UKr)nTpOW &ab 'I. K a i iKpL@<6pFVW
not stranger than similar transformations which we have &a& pma@ aoS& a h & Ews Bv ZA8p ...
K a i a h @ &mpa
assumed elsewhere. Bethel is the southern Bethel- A&". Sym. 0 8 m p r a r p s 6 u e r a r &uura Lab 'I. ...
3. Pesh. (a).
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
*
'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
often conjectured)is prohahlyfrom ni>hl, 'Rehoboth,'or *@Xi? for him do the peoples wait.
' Rehobothite,'a view which is somewhatconfirmed by the famous (6) Aphraates (ed. Wright, 3.0) instead of last three words.
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 .\OW -10J L A s
is, in fact, not improbable (as I S:14 3 [see below] shows) that '[to whom belongs] the kingdom, and for him do the peoples
11x3 *N (Ichnbod) and >iu'nN (Ahitub) are ultimately the same hope.
name. The corruption of n i y , i into liu,nN is not worse than 4. Tg. Onk.
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-
'The wielder of power shall not pass away from the house of
reboboth.' May we then assume that there was a Reioboth Jud,ah nor the scribe from his sons' sons for ever until that the
close to the Shalishah in Benjamin where the sanctuary of the anom&d one come to whom belongs the kingdom and to him
ark may be best supposed to have been? It is better to hold shall the peoples submit themselves.'
that ' Kehoboth' and ' Jerabmeel ' were used as synonyms. A
clan of N. Arabian origin might indifferently be called ' Reho- W e have first to ask, Can Shiloh be a proper name,
hothite' and ' Jerahmeelite' (see REHOBOTH). Thus an as the Reformation Versions mostly suppose?* As
Ephraimite site for the sanctuary of the ark, though believed in
by later writers, becomes more and more improbable. Driver has well observed, ' n o ancient
I s. 14 3 runs 4 y - i i ~ n m - pi 1 x - w 'nN m.nu-i2 m u . not shiloh
~ propel version, and indeed no known authority
There are many parallels for the view tnat 1113 -N is a variant for several centuries after the Christian
to - J Y ~ N ; would be inserted as a link when the variant name* era, implies the Massoretic reading, or
made its way into the text. Note the warning Pasek. sees in the passage a proper name. It is true that it
T. K. C.
was generally interpreted in antiquity of the Messianic
SHILOR ( n . ~ $; on versions see below), a proper
name in EV of Gen. 49 IO. 1 Chr. Werliin, De Zaua'ihs 3ude (Havniae, 1838); S. R.
In the ' Blessing of Jacob' (Gen. 491-27 ; cp G ENESIS , Driver, ' Gen. 49 io ; an exegetical study,' /ourn. PkiZ.
§ 4, end) it is said-between the comparison of Judah 14.(1885) 1.28. The former takes Shiloh to mean 'peace-
1. Text and to a lion, and the poetic description of bringer '-i.e. Solomon ; the conclusion of the latter scholar is
given in the iext in his own words. These monographs may
the flourishing vine-culture in his territory be supplemented by the notes of Delitzsch Dillmann Gunkel
versions. -that a the sceptre shall not depart from and Ball in their works on Genesis. Cp also G. &a&, Gesck:
Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until der Alttkst. Weissagung (r861), 227-2 o
2 Driver traces this rendering to &b. Mfinster (1534), wpo
Shiloh come ; and unto him shall the gathering of the gives 'quousque veniet Si!o.' Pagninus (1528) gave ' Messias :
people be,' into which rendering of AV, however, Luther (1534), 'der Held.
143 4469 4470
SHILOH SHILOH
or ideal future of Israel ; but this sense was reached in to read in place of n b or n5w or i $ w ? Matthew
virtue of the general context of the passage, and not Hiller (OS, 1706, p. 9 y ) , Lagarde (OSP)295, OSP)
through a proper name Shiloh.’ Indeed, a proper 368), the present writer (09.cit. 1, as an alternative, and
name meaning Peace-bringer (which is the sense Bickell (Curmirza VT ntetnke, 1882, p. 188), took
postulated for the proper name Shiloh) can certainly n$o to be a contracted form of a$*!@, ‘ h e whom
not be derived from J&, ‘ t o be quiet, careless, Judah prays for’ ; cp perhaps Dt. 337, where, accord-
secure ’ ; the phrase we should have required is oi$$ iy, ing to Gunkel,’ ‘bring him to his people,’ means
‘ prince of peace’ (cp Is. 9 5 [ 6 ] ) , or, if the text of Mic. ’ bring the Messianic king to his people.‘ This is at
54[5] is correct, niip, ‘ peace’-Le., [Konig, Styl. 211 any rate more plausible than the idea that n5.w should
‘ auctor pacis. ’ 1 be c)f or & (Vg., ‘qui mittendus est ’), with which
Thosewho (IikeDelitzsch, Dillmann) defend the render- compare the view of Grotius (col. 1803) that Jn.97
ing, ‘until he come to Shiloh,’ see a reference to the identifies ’ Siloarn ’ with ’ Shiloh.’ But is the passage
3. No reference assembly of the tribes of Israel held, ac- hefore us really Messianic? Critics who in our day
place cording to P, at Shiloh(Josh. SI), when hold this view, generally regard Gen. 4910 as a later
to‘ PIIUUII.
~ ~ : ,‘the -~ , had been subdued before
land insertion. This is. of course, a permissible hypothesis ;
them.’ They take D?@ to mean, not but, on different grounds from those of Gunkel. we are
the royal sceptre, but the staff of the chieftain or leader, compelled to reject it.
exactly like p $ q (if this word really means ‘staff of T h e truth is, we believe, that the text of the passage
in its context requires a much more thorough examination
authority’) : so’that the passage will mean, ‘ Judah
before we cau proceed to exegesis. There
shall continue to be the valiant leader of the tribes of
5. The re- are serious difficulties both in n. IO and
Israel, till, the peoples of Canaan having been subdued, storedtext in v. 1 1 ~D ~ ?$ln S
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
&
::. mean ‘ s t a f f of
authority’? and. if not, how can aaw
be parallel to it? Is i h p~p , however
v. 10d conveys the impression that the victory over the it be explained, at all natural? And is nn?: a sound
‘peoples’ is the victory, not of all the tribes, hut of
reading? Then, in v. 11, is nniD correct, and are such
Judah. Moreover, a$@ is not one of the recognised
expressions as these possible-’ he washed his garments
ways of spelling the place-name ‘ Shiloh,’ and it is even in wine, and his clothes with the blood of grapes ’ ? I n
doubtful whether the Masoretes intended to favour v. 1 2 is %n correct?2 and is not the whole verse
this interpretation.2 superfluous ?
Hence some good critics adopt the old reading n$@ By a careful criticism the present writer has elsewhere
or i$d ,. (see
. 6). According- to Driver, the rendering- reached the following text :-
‘ till he whose [it is] shall come ’ wouId ”??pD?id Y?D;b!$ A champion shall not depart from Judah,
** @” reading afford an excellent sense, but is not
1Ti: p p j?S@? Nor a marshal from between his bands,
nnaceeptable’ reconcilabIe with the absence of the
subject in the relative clause. ‘ Perhaps,’ he adds, we
??e;> ”$
ET’? Until he tramples upon Laishah,
should fall back upon the original LXX construction, P*>Kp: [?pf:] I? And the Jerahmeelites are obedient
and render ‘‘‘INthat which (or, he that) is his shall unto hirn.3
come,” and regard the cIause as an indeterminate ex- Verse 1 1 may here be passed over with the remark
pression of the Messianic hope. which was afterwards that it probably continues the description of the conquest
defined more distinctly.’ T h e reading is$is also of the Negeb by Judah, and that i“$i;-g os? should
adopted by Wellhausen (Gexh. 1 3 7 5 , n. I , but cp CH probably be hp-0:’g wm:,‘ h e shall subdue the b’ne
321). Stade (GVZ 1159,n. s), Ball (doubtfully), Briggs, Ishmael,’ the proof of which is that in v . 12, which
v. Orelli, Holzinger, Gunkel.. I t is thought to be pre- should certainly be read 5ygm; hey@: y
supposed, not only by 6.but also by the language of
true text contained a correction of the miswritten words
Ezek. 21 32 [q], q v e ? i h f t j h-ip ‘until he come
in v. IO. See Cn’t. R J . Laishah, considered already,
whose right it is.’ may be, as we have seen (SHILOH, I ) , Haliisah, one
If, however, &&OK. ai+& a genuine rendering,$becannot he of the most important cities of the Negeb. Who the
the whole of the text which the translator had before him. The Jerahrneelites are, we also know ; they are the same
present writer, therefore (Thew‘. Rev. cited at end), suggested as the Zarephathites or ‘ Pelethites’ (the Philis-
15 ngl’ or (asRGnsch before him) $5 O@V. Most probably, how. tines of MT) who were the chief enemies of Israel
ever, B simply made the best of the obscure readingi%, areading in the days of Saul and the early period of David.
unworthy of acceptance,s and clearly a fragment of some longer
If this theory bt adopted there is no reason for the
word. $$gwould, in fact, be intolerable. As to Ezek. hypothesis of interpolation. Contrary to the prevalent
s by no means clear that the prophet was thinking of
21 32, it i opinion, the whole of the blessing of Judah is continuous.
Gen. 49 IO. Very possibly the reading h$was suggstcd 6y a
Beginning with a description of the fierce and fearless
misleading reminiscence of EsekieZ.4 courage of the tribe of Judah, it goes on to prophesy
But if the passage is, at any rate in the larger sense, that judges or champions of J u d a h s rights (the rights of
Messianic-and this is generally assumed, because of the strongest) will never be wanting till its troublesome
the reference in d to a universal empire,- what are we neighburs, the Jerahmeelites or Zarephahthites, have
* KGnig, however (Le.), qualifies his statement by an ‘at been conquered,- a conquest which in the original
least’ in the next sentence. There can hardly be a doubt that song was described in some detail.
the text needs emendation (see .MICAH[BOOK], 5, e). The theorysuggested with regard to n$a throws a
2 A favourite Jewish interpretation of ..r$.r, (found in Ibn
fresh light on I K. 1129, where (see JEROBOAM i., end)
Jandh and &,hi) was ‘his son’ (cp Talm. $st, Ar. saZiZ,
‘extractus, filius ’) ; e.g., Tg. ps.-Jon. paraphrases ,i>zi*gi,‘his
1 Genesis, 436, (2) 424. The singular theory connected with
youngest son,’ an interpretation which according to Driver, is this interpretation cannot be here discussed.
‘perhaps embodied in the Massoretic pbinting.’ a Contrast Prov. 2329.
3 It is usual to find in i% a deliberate affectation of mystery.
3 For the confusion of ”79 and Bpid, cp a S. 7 7 I Ch. 17 6
But it is more than mystery ; it is grammatical obscurity. In a (parallels in We. TBS170); and for the sense ‘ru!er,”marshal,’
solemn benediction like this, nothing but Ezek.’~B E W ~ ~!J-@F? see @ and Onk. For the correction >qii>,cp E N S I GB~T, 1 (on
would be tolerable, if a veiled reference to the legit:Aate king of 511 ; Sam. here l h ) . For D?;, cp SBOT on Is. 41 2s. In d
Judah were intended.
4 See Volz, Die vmexil. /ahwe)ro#kfie und &r Mcssias, ? a v - f e k l out through the vicinity of words (p,~3y=&ry) con-
Sa, n. I . taining virtually all t h w letters. Cp also J.ERAHMEEL, 5 4.
4471 4172