cheenc03a.pdf

SEPHARVAIM
"...io~,), 'Zarephathher' wz5 a synonym for 'Jerrhmcdites.'
see OB*DI*H, B 5 end, n. i. T. K. C.
on the stream.' Cp the phrase 'the stream of Sipar.'
SEPmvAIm (D.']l?J ; YR~~OUSIY CETT@A~EIM. a title of the Euphrates (ZA 1 [1887], p. 26,). ,
-IN, -€IN,-OYAIM, -OY&IN, OYM~IN [2 K.1834, B], There is, however, a threefold diRiculty m the above
I, OT -OYN. ce++apoyatn. -oyac~.-OYN.
explanation of *Sephurvaim' in z K. 1724, (I) The
references, ETT!+bPOY&lM. En@-. ETT@APENI, 3, Objections Annds of Aiw-bani-pal do not affirm
GM+&PIN can@apoye~). whence the
thaf the king transplanted people from
tO
gentilic Sephamites (D']?$D?. 2 K. 17s~~.
Kt. in
Babylon, Kutu (Cutha), and Sipar.
u. 3rd DIDD). The references to a pince, or places.
but only that he a commanded that they
called 'Sepharvaim' are in 2 K. (CP 31), 18;+ should remain alive, and caused them to dwell in
(=Is. 3619)~ 19x3 (=Is. 3713). Taking the parrages Babylon." (2) The god specially worshipped at Sipar
as they stand, in contexts relating to the political was neither 'Adramnnelech' nor 'Anammelech' but
intercowre between Assyria and Israel or Judah, we Sam&. On the other hand, it is equally true that
may venture to explain them provisionally as followr, Sargon, who as a fact brought captive populations to
reserving our own judgment to the end.
Samaria (KB2r3 1. 20: cp SAMAKZA), did not and
I. The passage 1 K. 18326-si (Is. 86~8-20). which is
plainly an interpolation (see Marti, and cp fnfr. 2s. 218).
seems to be based on 2 K. 1913 (Is. 371~). which may
refer to the Syriancity called in the Babylonian Chronicle
hbarain, which was destroyed by Shalmanerer IV.
(see Sten~rM).
2. The Sepharvaim of z K. 17x431 (in which passages
captives of war appear to be referred to), however, is
more plausibly identified1 with Sipar, or Sippar, the
city of SamS the sun-god (ZL++~~. Ptol. 5 18;
Z~ssap?v& rr6h~r. Ahyden. ap. Eus. Prep. E~.94~),
famous from its association with the Deluge-story as
given by Berorsus, and regarded as one of the rna@i
rabdfi, or 'great eapitals.'~ This place was one of
the three cities which maintained the great Babylonian
revolt against ACnr-bani-pal the longest. It was on the
a. asspliological left oreastern bank orthe Euphrates :
eVidenCB, the site war identified with the
moundrofAbu vabba,about 16 m.
SE. of Baghdfid, by the explorer H. Rarran~, who
found here a large rto,*r with a reprerentation of the
shrine of Samai and short inscriptions, dating from the
time of king Nabu~abla-iddina (ahut a00 n.c.). The
builder of the temple wan Naram~sin (about 3750 B.c.),
whose original inscription was found by Nnbu-na'id
(about 490 B.c.), one of the royal restorers of the
sanctuary. The temple war held in high honour: one
of the most constant titles of Samai war, 'the great
lord, dwelling in &-bara, which is within Sipar'
(Pinches, TSBA 86 ~648). But there was also a
second divinity, called Anunit, who wan specially
worshipped at Sipar. In the Synchronoui Hirfoy
(~I%-sI), Durkurigalm is said to have conquered Sipar
of SamaS and Sipar of Anunitu (KBl rgg; Sayce,
TSBA 2131) ; the Anunitu referred to xar the consort
of the nm-god. We must not, however, use thin
statement to confirm Schrader'r (very nattual) explanation
of ANAMMELBCH (z K. 17s) as = Anu-malku,
for if Anu (the heaven-god) were designated 'king'
in hsyria, the word used would not be ma&u (' prince ')
but ronu.
Dr. W. H. Ward(Proi .dm. Or.Sor., 1885. pp. zgf)
thought that he had found the rite of a double city of
Sipar (Sepharvaim, dual?) at the mod. el-Anbar, a few
miles from Sufeiia, WNW, of Baghdsd, where, from
the appearance of the ruins, it js esidwt *at a canal
was conducted from the Euphrates into the heart of the
city. Dr. Ward found there a small tablet on which
three or four Sipars were mentioned, and he supposed
'Anbar to represent nf once Sipar ia Anunitum and
Agane (Pererr, Nippur, 1176355 [Dr. Ward's diary]).
If so, Sipar ia Anunitum was a more considerable city
than sipar of Samai (Ab" Habba). But we can hardly
admit that the duality of the city which lies under the
mound of el-Anbar ir made out. Mort probably the
form Sepharvaim is erroneous. Either the editor confounded
' Sipar' with the ' Sepharvaim' of I K. 19 r?,
or, ar Haupt proposes, we should restore the reading
I E.6, by Wi. AN. Pnf. ,or' Rcnzinger, KHC, Kdn. 175
a see wi. 2 0 ~ 2 ~ ~ .
SERAH
n:!, m? (or >9?). Sipar (or. Sippar)-maim1-i.e.. 'Sipar
could not includeanycaptives fromBabylon, Sepharvaim,
etc.. for the excellent rearon that he made none there.'
And (3) the theory in queslion requires us to suppose
thaf Avva and Hnmath have been introduced into 2 K.
17zrfrom183, by RD,4 whichis ucomplicuted procedure.
The question of Sepharvaim is therefore no simple
one. At orerent there is no current theory which
satisfies the conditions of the problem.
There is a strong a pnori objection to
criticism,
distineuishine - - the Seoharvnim of z K.
19.3 and 1834 (with the parallels in Is.) from that of
2 K. li 2+ 31, and there are three considerable difficulties
in this courre, two suggested by Arryiology and one by
literary criticism. Let us, then, approach the sulject.
bearin-g in mind the gradually a&;mulating evidence
for the aooarentlv ..
destructive but in reality conservative
theory that many pasrnger both of the nzxrative and of
the prophetic books have been recast, and provided
with a new historical and geographical setting. It is
by no means an impossible view that the passages in
Kings and Isaiah here referred to have been recast by
an editor to suit his own theory of the cowre of later
l~raelitish history (see SENNA~HER!~, 5 5). This view
implies that the names of the cities nientioned there
have come out of somewhat similar names of places on
the N. Arabian border of Palestine.
Sephz~woim, like Rezeph in 1 K.19rz (IS: 37rz), will then be
a distortion of Ssrsphath, one of the most imporrmt places in
that region (xe Z~nr~w~m), or rsther the final lclrerr E.) (\IT
D:!, wayim)are, together uith vys (MT 7y,i, 'to, or of, the
city'), y>n (MT 922, 'Hem'?), and porribly ,my1 (MT, np!,
'and Irvah'p), reprelentstiver oc 5~0n,* Ucrahmeel). !I i:
noteworthy that the god worrhtpyed by the 'Sephaivaer
receiver ihc doubls name lh?7~ and linjy (2 K.17id. In
the latter form I har displaced ,(cp v3y md py); probably
the best intermediate reading is 7$13,1 the original of which is
rursly $)I~~,' Uerahmcel).6 The rite of zacrificing, children
wah a pnrently distinctive of some famous sanctuary m Jerah-
,.,I & MO~~A.H, ~d CP CT;~ Bid. on Gen. 222 JET. 234.11 IS).
The other pasrages which hnve to be conrld-d m this
conn~cdon are Ezra4~.ro(ree SXUSXLNCHITES) and Is. 109 (*E
Crit. Bib.). sce also REZEPH.
See erpccially Winskler, AM. Unl.xm-lop: and cp Cheyne.
Er$.T, 1898, P. +zsJ T. K. C.
SEPEELA (cs+nAa [AKL'c.bl. c rrehl~n [N*V1.
Vg. Sephda), r Macc.1238, RV 'plan" country. See
SHEPHELAH ; also JVDWA. col. 2617.
SEPTUAGIINT. See TEXT A-srons, $5 46-55.
SEPULCHRE (l>&
Gen. 236 etc. : MNHMEION.
Mk. 1546 etc.). See TOMB, RZsuKnEcTIoN.
SEEAH (ils?, in pause fly;, AV SARAH in Nu.
2646: capa [L]), daughter of AsHsn [q.v., 5 41;
Gen. 46.7 (cap [A], capp& [Dl), Nu- 2646 (~apa
[B u. 30 cap&: BSbAF])=r Ch. 730 (cope[BI. capal
["I, -aa [LI).
1 CP Ra. z K Ir,,. rl+wurac*
f XR2, ~jlhot,: ,p hj. AJ#.v?6
S Ser \\ i A/! ,'n, c..