cheenc03a.pdf

SHAPHER
SHAREZER
but aimorr more probably mmer from Jerahme'eli ; a sam~,nrCnn. -~g?n?, XN, ~.OI~I..N.C~,I mrnrio!.cd
similar origin fur Sh~phathen hecomcl plausible.
in I > jJ%a; jn s: :cu:,a Q < l . ~ i? r ~ i: r.,rde.r.c1 ',~m.ctach').
2. The father of ELlsH.4 [g.~.](I K. 19x6 ~ gt, oa$oO, TIr, I, x.. .. .,.,!1111 .,..,r.,,,rn
.I.eri)m.l AS, t!'s,c#.,t. i;;;r..lr pl uyr;l.rrc, L.: ~hr.i.
#a$., [U us. 19 ; AL]). His residence. Ahel-meholah,
represented here by 2th (n!), 'coulter,' elrewhere rendcred
is usually thought to have been in Issachar. But if the
arrangement in MT is correct, it war when Elijah
'pioughrhnre: @a ndp~~~po~. .. erp;lrlv (e* wanting, BIPL,,-
nip~ov.. ~~piv,
ably he aware (see KINGS [BOOK]. 5 8) that critics
have been inclining to the belief that MTs arrangement
so Ba. Gi., cp Del. CompIuf. Var. 16; '. . . protect
is nut correct, and Kittel. in his commentary(HK1~4),
the king' ; cp NERGAL-SHAREZEX).
I.
giver a blank space between v. r8 and v. ig to indicate
An Assyrian, perhaps n son of Sennacherib, who,
with Adrammelech (perhaps his brother), slew that king
that a section of the narrative has been omitted. The
(z
matter, however, is not so clear as to require no recon-
K. 1937 Is. 3738 ; capocap [BAO], oapooo [LKAQ]).
sideration. We know that Elijah had a
It is urged elsewhere (SENNACHERIB. 9 i), that in the
close conadmittedly
composite narrative
nection with the far S, of Canaan irce PROPHET, 8
of the peril from 'Sen-
"
6). , nacherib' two different invasions have been mined up,
If is plausible. therefore, to suppose that Elirha war
and that parts of the existing narrative relate to the one
originally called, not 'b. Shuphat.' but either ,b.
and parts to the other. The
$Zfath'-ic., a Zephathite, or
one invasion was, it is
' b. Se6thi'-i.e, the
held, the well-known Assyrian invarion of Sennacherib.
son of a Zephathite. In the farmer case Elisha, in the
the other
latter Elisha's father (a
an invasion of a N. Arabian people sometimes
more probable view), was recalled
Arihur, but perhaps more correctly Ashhur (,,n*5).
resented as a man of Zeohath or Zareohath who
iad rstablirhed hinlself at Ahel-meholah-'i.6.. Abel- Whether we can ray that each of the accounts which
jerahmeel (cp MEHOLATHITE). The site of this Jerah- have ken welded together relates solely and entirely to
meelite place (cp r S. 30q) we do not know. The rite one of the two invasions, is doubtful : bur it is at any
of Zeohath (or probably 7~rephath) has probably been rate very possible that the passage 2 K. 1936 f. = Is.
identined : ;ee ZAREPI~AT~.
373,f. refers to the death of the king of the N. Arabian
3. A late dcrcendant of David 1% Ch.S~zt: r [BI Asshur, who was said (xe may reasonably hold) to have
, IALI). . ~. ~h~ orc~umablv . rueKe3ted%v -- SHE: perished in the house of his god Nimrod, by the sword
PY*TI*", I.
,. A Gadite, in Bvhan (I Ch.5x.t: B however [ravcrvl 6
of ' Jerahmeel, u prince of Asrhur' (read ,a?!
yp +.a's i s iB1 [r.va,l & yp. CAI; [,'".".I ! yp.
is an arbitrary . expansion . of ib ij, and Mmti renders the
text the house (i.6.. family) of ElLiarezer (ib SX) rent.'
If however, we are right in explaining REGEM-MELECH
(=Raamiah) as a corruption of Jerahmeel, the question
arises whether im.2 may not be a corruption of
(the N. Arabian Tubai). In this care we can hardly read
4430