cheenc03a.pdf

SHOBAB
SHOBAB il)>d, cw&a~, as if , hnckiliding: but see
SHOES
11, n.] (z S. 5x4: owfldav [A], rroorpav [L] : I Ch. 3 j!
cwpnu [B]; 144: ioopoap [B]. owpnp [L]). SHAXAK jenrim, thus ornltting the sons of Salmn [u. s+] and the
in sS, 23~6 .. should ~eihaps . . be Shobab; c~ Hnnnn- notice of the Kenitei [r,. iiQ] The latter notice is enig-
ITE, 3.
matical. We are meant to trace a connection
2. A descendant of Caleb and Azubah (I Ch.2~8: between the Kenites and 'Salma' (see SAI.DIAH, z). If
may be added that Hamninth (so RV. follo,\ing MT)
is very possibly miswrirten for n??~, Maachath (but cp
HEYATEX). T. K. C.
SHOBEK (i)>j~; cwBb4~ [BKA], cwBslp [LI),
signatory to the covenant (see EZRA i., 5 7) ; Neh.
lo=+ [~j]. Cp SHUBACH.
SHOBACH (Y>~w), captain of the army of Hadadern
who was defeated and slain by David at Helam
SHOBI (*>w, sce OD SHOBAI), son of Noharh, of
(2 S. 1016-18 : cw B ~ [BA], K [cap Au. 181. CABEE [Ll). Rabbath~ammon. who brought supplies to Ikiriri at
His name nooearr .. in I Ch. 19r6~rs as SHOPHACH l?niw Mahnnaim (2 S. lis? : O~ECBE! [BA], CE~BEI 11.1 ;
, ,= - ,
Pesh, reads '.4birhai' [which is a corruption of
cw@ap, oa$aR [B], row+op [K*], -ox [KL.aq, ow@ox,
' Irhmael '1, cp Z~:rtu~a~). The combination of this
rwflax [A], ooWx [Ll).
If Hndnd~erer was r~rlly king of Mu\ur, and not afzoba
enigmatical member of the Ammonite royal family
(see
zon~), 'Helam'(oi,n, DK~.~) will beacomptionof Jerahme'el with n Machir. whore rest exlrtence is cwtainlv not
i~a-~), and s~hobach. (pw) mconnsted with ngw:, rsiln~n. proved by the reference in 2 S. '3, f, and a,; old
Cp SXOBEK. T. K. C. Gileadite rho bears the dlmculf name Hanillai, and
whose ran benrr the eoualiv
SHOBAI ($2~; aBaoy, caBa [Bl. cwBa~. caBal
. , doubtful name Chi~~iham.
and both of ,rho,,, are ilrtroduced again in a narrative
[A and K in Neh.], CUB&! [L]). A family of NETHINJM of stroaglyromnntic appearance, suggestrciitical caution.
[q.v.] in the great post~exilic list (see ErxA ii., 5 g), It is too slight a remedy to omit 'son of Sahash' ar an
Ezra2+= Neh. 745 = 1Erd.6~8; AV SaMr, RV Snsr incorrect gloss (We. TBS *or n.). The verse is largely
(rape' [A], aupot [L]. B om., unless rwp~~r represents made up of corrupt variant5 and glosses, und thegenuine
this nanlc). If the Nethinim are Ethanite families (see kernel probably is. 'And it came to pars . . . that
SOI.OMOn's SERVANTS), .~u will come from .qw (as eiahmrel, son of Jonathan, the Gilgaiite,' where
often from ixnw). It war an Ishmaelife-i.r. Jerah- ! Jerahme'd ' corresponds to , Shohi ' [Irhmael : see
meelite-family. Cp. SHUBI. T. K. C. below], Machir to '[son of] Ammiel,' ']-than' to
SHOBAL (?)i~, probably related to Ishmael, cp ' N.lhash.' and 'Gilgalite' to ' Gileadite.' I.he rords
Arhbel, Ishbaal : hardly 'young lion,' ar WRS lourn.
Rabbath of the b'ne Ammo"' are a corruption of
'Rehoboth~erahmeel.' See, further, MEPHIBUSHLTH,
Phil. 9~ [see Gray, HPN 1091, cwBaA [BADEL]), b.
Seir, a Horite (Gen. 362093 zp El I Ch. 138
NAHASH. ROGELIM. Hut CP AMMON, 5 4 (end),
ro;
and HPSm., ad ioc., for attempts to explain hfT.
coreah [L in Ch.]). Another genealogical scheme
S. A. Cook (AJSL 16 le+j [igao] proposer to read x:.) for
(cp GENEALOGIES i., g 5) represents him nr son of .,m. and ro omit 12 as a liter inscrrion consequent on the corrupt
Hur (which, ar it happens, may be shortened torn ,dins ('and Nrhash, etc., brought'). It is better fro", our
Arhhur[ite] or from Jerahmeel[ile]), and of Caiebite prernt pint of view to read 5x2. xm: RT easily fell our
origin (I Ch.250, owpa[p] [BL]), and since the name kcare ix;~, which form, being intermediate between -2o and
'Calcb' may also plausibly be traced to 'Jernhm~l,' $rw.,...y once have taken the pkce of 32".
and Judah was represented by legend (see Juna~. 5 3)
7.
~
K.
~~~
c.
~
as partly Jrrahmeelite, it is natural to find Shohal SHOCHO (RV Saeo), 2 Ch. 28x8 ; SHOCHOH (KV
appearing also as a ran of Judah (I Ch.41, coupah Socoh) r S. 171, and SHOCO (RV Soco) 2 Ch. 117.
[BA]). The name Shobal is also perhaps to tx See bzo~.
identified with SHLIBI\EL [g.u.]. T~irning to I Ch. 250 SHOES. Under this heading it will be convenient
(owpm[L1), we find that whilst one of Shobal'r sons to take note of all coverinns for the feet whether sandals.
(Haroeh) appears at first sight to bear a personal name, Introduction shoes. or boots, so far as they were
all the rest bear gentilic names. The presumption is
known amone the earlv Hebrews.
that Haroeh also is gentilic, and whe,, we see the name
under the form Reaiah (41) we cannot doubt that it
is a shortened form of 'Jerahmeel.' This Haroeh, or
(better) Reainh, is said to be the 'father' of Kirjathuldrorhe
word is roughly used by S &denote th~=d.~l(\y!, see
jr.irim, and rhcre is now plausible hirtoricai evidence
B 3. the ordinar" Hebrew term. The Ck. 6ri8nu.flit.. 'that
for the view that Kirjath-jrurim is a cor1uption of
Kirjnth-jerah",eel (fhif is to ray, the place was originally
a Jei~hmeelite settlement). To this place four
familie, are arignrd (2~~). Their namer, however,
have come down to us in a corrupt form. They appear
Coverings for the feet hare not always formed a
to be partly parallel to the three 'families' of Kirjsfhregular
part of the clothing of the Oriental. Primarily.
scpher (i.r., Kirjath-?ireph&thim), given, according
of courre, everything depended upon the climate and
to the most prohlhle reading, in 255. 'Ithritrr' may
the nature of the countr;. up on^ the ~rsyrian monucorrespond
to 'Tirnthites' (where an old Uibal name
menfs the warriors are not vnfrrouentlv barefooted, and
Jether [cp ITHRITEI] may be suspected) ; 'Shumathmany
of the ro)-a1 statues are 'totall; devoid of any
covering for the foot. In Egypt sandals were not in
ites to .Shimeathites' !CD , . Sirneon,: ,.
'Puthites' mav
use before the fifth dvnastv,
come from ' Perathiter' !Pervth or Ephrath war an im- , ,. their introduction was
gradual, and their a work of time ; 'they
portant name m the Negeb) ; 'Mirhraiter' (like ' Zorathwere,
wl~m off the feet. sometimes carried by an
iter'?l reminds us of the 'Misrites.' a race akin to the
attendant, showing that they were not al\ra)-r worn'
jer*Aeeiites (see crir ~ia.).i ~h~ MANAHFTHITLS
(Wilk. Anc. EE. 2136 n.).
[q.v.] and Zoritee or Zorarhiter (seezona~) are reckoned
(if the text is correct) partly to Shobal and panly to
1 So panly Winckler (Gr2 n. 3). That 'Puthiter'=m
clrn called ' Pcleth' is improbable. Sea Pererxi~es.