Encylodaedia Biblica; a critical dictionary of the literary, political and ...

ZERUBBABEL ZETHAM
killgdoln under the Davidic prince Zerubbabel. It is
also held by some that there is evidence of this in the
OT itself. Zechariah (610) mentions the arrival at
Jerusalem of four Jews from Babylon, who brought gifts
of silver and gold. Wellhausen thinks that in Zech.
611 the text has been deliberately tampered with. The
crown referred to must surely have been for Zerubbabel.
This must either hare been expressly stated or implied.
Wellhausen himself is content with omitting the words
relative to the high priest, Joshua, as ihserted at a time
when the high priest was virtually a crowned king ; but
it may also be held that the name Joshua has displaced
the name Zerubbabel.1 However this may be, the
sudden disappearance of Zerubbabel from the theatre of
political history is remarkable.2 It has been suggested
that he may have been recalled or even put to death by
the Persians, and that the attempt of Tattenai (see
'I'xrxu) the satrap of Syria to stop the building of the
temple may have some connection with this, or may at
any rate imply a suspicion of the disloyalty of the Jews.
Later, we find Sanbnllat professing that there is a report
that Nehemiah aiiiis at the crow-n (Neh. 67). This
report was doubtless erroneous ; but it may plausibly be
supposed to be based on the fact that a Jewish pretender
had really come forward in the past.3
For the further development of similar ideas see Sellin,
SerubdabeI (1898), where it is supposed that Zerubbabel
is the martyr referred to (many think) in Is. 53, and the
same writer's Studien ZUY Entstehung.sgesci5. der Yiid.
(Ameinde nnch denz 6n6. ExiZ, 2 (I~oI), where some
retractations are ma.de, and the theory is placed on what
appears to the writer a more secure basis. Sellin still
holds that Zerubbabel came to a violent end, but no
longer rests this on Is. 53 or on any other passage of
the OT. Winckler, however, is bolder. He thinks
that both Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel were set aside
by acts of the Persian authorities, and that, whilst Sheshbazzar
was treated gently, Zerubbabel suffered the
punishment of impalement ; the eulogium of Zerubbabel
is to be found in Is. 53.*
Stade(GP712 127 [18?8l)speaksmorevaguely. ' Ifthe supreme
Persian power heard of the hopes attaching to the Persian
governor Zeruhbabel, we cannot wonder that it did not accommodate
itself to the role of a tree undergoing the embrace of ivy.'
It is possible. however, that these theories need to
\e revised in the light of a more thorough criticism
3. a new of the text of the OT narratives. The story
suggested underlying Ezra, Nehemiah, and the early
theo~. part of Daniel refers, it may be held, to a
N. Arabian captivity of the Jews and to a
subsequent change in their relations to their captors.
It is unsafe to place any reliance on the proper names
in their present form. 'niii (for the common explanations
of which little can be said5) may, like SZ~*N and
h i , be a corruption (manipulated by the redactor) of
hyny (Ishmael). This has the advantage of according
with the theory, which appears to be well snpported,
that the names given in I Ch. 3 19 to the sons of ' Zerubbabel,'
beginning with Meshullam (=Ishmael), are all
1 Solew. Rei. Life, 15, n. Hitzig supposes a mere ordinary
accident. He would insert the words* 'of Zeruhhabel and of,'
thus accounting for the plural ' crowns. So also Marti (in Kau.
HS).
2 For another view see Guthe, GVI 248 (Darins's division of
the empire into twenty satrapies, making the post at Jerusalem
su erfluoos).
8 So few. Kei. Lif;., 13-16, which was written independently
of Sellin's Seru66abel (published in the same year 1898).
See SERVANT OF THE LORD. Winckler's theories, as given
in A OFand KA T(3J, have passed through several phases. There
is a convenient summary of his present conclusions in the latter
work. pp. 291.fi
5 ' Sown in Bxhylon'surelycannotmean 'begotten in Babylon.'
Rothstein (Genraiop'e, 65) thinks that the name was given to his
son by Pedaiah (=Sheshhazzar) tocommemorate the happy turn
in the fortiines of Israel and that the return of Jewish exiles was
already as good as certjin when the child called Zeruhhabel was
horn. Marquart (Fund. 55) however supports the view that
Zeruhbahel (Zarubabili?) is a)Bahyloni& name. But the name,
as explained above by Johns does not seem at all a likely one
to have been selected'for a JLwish governor.
54'3
corruptions of gentilics or ethnics belonging to the
Negeb. That ' Zerubbabel ' was really a descendant of
David is possible, but by no means certain,' and the
same may of conrse be said of Sheshbazzar.2 Even that
they were returned exiles is d~ubtful.~ This is not the
place to rewrite the history of this period-or rather to
collect the fragments of its history-from the new point
of view. But we may at any rate suggest that critics of
Zechariah may have erred in supposing that the donors
of the silver and gold mentioned in Zech.698 were
' Babylonian Jews.' These persons appear rather to
have been foreigners such as are referred to in Is. 60 13,
and their gifts are such ninja (' offerings ') as Haggai
most probably refers to in the famous prophecy in Hag.
27. It may still, however, be held that the name of
'Joshua ben Jehozadak' has been substituted for that
of ' Zerubbabel' (Ishmael?), and the view that a movement
arose among the Jews in favour of ' Zerubbabel '
as Messianic king still appears to have a considerable
degree of probability.
Rothstein (Die Genedogie des K8zigs /ojachin IC. seiptetnachkotizmen
in geschichtl. Geleuchtung, rgoz) assumes the
present form of the names in I Ch. 3 17-24 to be fairly correct.
Such an emendation as that of 'Ohel' into ' Jehaiel'(85) isat any
rate exceptional, and even here the author assumes a view of the
formation of the name ' Jehaiel' such as the latest editor of
Chronicles might not have disowned. The theory that 'Zerubbabel'
was the son of Pedaiah is supported by some new
histprical hypotheses, the hasis of which, however, needs careful
testing. T. K. C.
ZERUIAH (Yl:lly ; Yl:??, 'one who is perfumed
with storax'? 5 71 ; c&poyl& [BAL]), sister of David
(I Ch. 216), and mother of JOAB, ABISHAI, and
ASAHEL.
So at least the Chronicler represents ; z S. 17 25 will he considered
presently. It would be strange, however, that in the
list of David's high officers in 2 S. 8 16-18 Joab should be the
only one whose mother's name was substituted for his father's.
We have met with many cases in which the ethnic origin of a
name has been disguised hy the addition of ;i to the gentilic
ending 7. It is therefore not improbable that Zeruiah is an
expansion of an ethnic namel and if so we cannot for a moment
doubt what that name is-it is '?Sp. 11Y and 1s are several
times given by an error for 1W-i.e., Mugri in N. Arabia (see
MIZRAIM, 8 2 6), and Jeroboam's mother is, by a similar error,
called ZERUAH (q.u.), instead of Migriyah. In 2 S. 2 32 the
sepulchre of Asahel's father is said to have been in Bethlehem.
Bethlehem probably comes from Beth-jerahmeel, and there was
doubtless a Beth-jerahmeel in the Jerahmeelite Negeb ; cp
MICAH, I. It was from this Beth-jerahmeel that Joah prob-
ably came and if so we can easily believe that his father might
be called '(especially by those who dwelt outside the Negeb)
Misri, or Miyite,' ' Jerahmeelite' and ' Misrite' being almost,
though not quite, synonymous. In I Ch. 2 54 (RV) we meet
with a place Atroth(ephrath)-heth-joah whose people were 'sons
of Salma' (i.e. connrcted with the Salmzeans-see SALMAH).
This indirect1y)confirmi the view here taken. It would he a
serious ohjection to this if the text of 2 S. 1725 were correct.
The obscurity of the passage however (see NAHASH) suggests
doubt. Elsewhere (see Ckt. Gib.) it is proposed to read
Now Amasa was the son of Ithra an Ishmaelife, who went ii
unto Abigail, the daughter of Achish, a Misrite.
We can now understand better the exclamation ascribed to
David in 2 S. 3 39 'these men the sons of Miari-i.e. fierce
Migrites by extdtion (MT Zeruiahtare harsher &an I.'
The alternative is to connect >'%with 'R MASTIC (q...), comparing
;i?)!, Zilpah, 'dropping'; see NAMES, g 71. It is true,
Zilpah too admits of another explanation (cp ZILPAH). What
can have led Josephus to say (Ant. vii. 13) that Joah's father
was named uaupr Suri it is difficult to say, unless it be that in
I Ch. 4 14 Joah, "the 'father of Ceharashim' (a corruption of
Geshurim), is called Seraiah (see SERAIAH, beg.). T. K. c.
ZETHAM (El!, explain as ZETHAN, Z&OM [R],
ZAIB.. zoo. [A], Z H ~ N [L]), a Gershonite Levite;
I Ch. 238 2622.
1 Cp Kosters Hersfez, 473
2 According io the theory here advocated, 'Sheshbazzar' is
an alteration of a name with N. Arabian affinities. The first
part may, in accordance with sound method, be identified with
ui3. Again and again in the MT we find wiw and DiD written
in error for wi~. The second part may perhaps he a corruption
of wn.
3 Cp EZRA-NEHEMIAH, P, 8 ; ISRAEL, B 51 ; and cp Zntr. Is.
Prologue, p. xxxviii; Jew. Rel. Life, 6; Kent, Hisf. of Ur
Jnuisk PeapZc (Babylonian Period, etc.), 1323
5414