sefi;g:v. - A Kabbalist walks into a bar, and the

SEPHARVAIM
‘ Zarephathites’ was a synonym for ‘ Jerahmeelites.’
versiou).
See OBADIAH, g- 5 end, n. I.
1 Eg., by Wi. Alt. Unl. 101 : Bcnzinger, KHC, Kdn. 175.
a See Wi. AOF2520.
SERAH
D:)I 150 (or ma), Sipar (or, Sippar) -maiml--i.e., ‘Sipar
T. K. C.
on the stream.’ Cp the phrase ‘ the stream of Sipar,’
SEPHARVAIM (QD? ; variously C~IT@A~SIM, a title of the Euphrates (W 1 [1887], p. 267).
-IN, -€IN, -OY&IM, -oyai~, OYMAIN [2 K. 1834, B], There is, however, a threefold difficulty in the above
OT -OYN, CE@@A~OY&IM~ -0yt.i~~ -OYN, explanation of ‘ Sepharvaim ’ in z K. 1724. (I) The
references. €ITl@&pOyAlMn, SIT@. I SI?@&p€Nl~ 3. Objectione Annals of ASur-bani-pal do not affirm
€M@APIN C€IT@ApOy€M)9 whence the
that the king transplanted people from
to current
gentilic Sepharvitee (P’!lgPi?, 2 K. 1731a, Kt. in
Babylon, Kutu (Cuth&), and Sipar.
theories.
D. 31b P’mb). The references to a place, or places,
but only that he commanded that they
called ‘Sepharvaim’ are in 2 K.1724 (cp 31), 1834 should remain alive, and caused them to dwell in
( =Is. 36 ~ g), 19 13 ( =Is. 3713). Taking the passages Babylon. ’ (2) The god specially worshipped at Sipar
as they stand, in contexts relating to the political was neither ‘ Adraninielech ‘ nor ‘ Anammelech ’ but
intercourse between Assyria and israel or Judah, we Sam&. On the other hand, it is equally true that
may venture to explain them provisionally as follows, Sargon, who as a fact brought captive populations to
reserving our own judgment to the end.
Samaria (KB243 2. 20; cp SAMARIA), did not and
I. The passage z K. 18326-35 (Is. %18-20), which is could not includeany captives fromBabylon, Sepharvaim,
plainly an interpolation (see Marti, and cp Znfr. Is. z18), etc., for the excellent reason that he made none there.3
seems to be based on z K. 1913 (Is. 3713), which may And (3) the theory in question requires us to suppose
refer to the Syrian city called in the Babylonian Chronicle that Avva and Hamath have been introduced into 2 K.
gabarain, which was destroyed by Shalmaneser IV. 17 qfrom18 34 by RD,~ which is a complicated procedure.
(see SIBRAIM).
The question of Sepharvaim is therefore no simple
2. The Sepharvaim of 2 K. 172431 (in which passages one. At present there is’ no current theory which
captives of war appear to be referred to), however, is e Textual satisfies the conditions of the problem.
more plausibly identified’ with Sipar, or Sippar, the
There is a strong a priori objection to
criticism.
city of SamaS the sun-god (Ztr+apa, Ptol. 5 18;
distinguishing the Sepharvaim of z K.
Zirrrapvv&v rbhis, Abyden. up. Eus. Prep. Ev.941), 1913 and 1834 (with the parallels in Is.) from that of
famous from its association with the Deluge-story as 2 K. 1 j 24 31, and there are three considerable difficulties
given by Berossus, and regarded as one of the mabazi in this course, two suggested by Assyriology and one by
rabdti, or ‘great capitals.’a This place was one of literary criticism. Let us, then, approach the subject,
the three cities which maintained the great Babylonian bearing in mind the gradually accumulating evidence
revolt aRainst - Ah-bani-pal the loneest. It was on the for the apparently destructive but in reality conservative
I
a. Assyriologicd left or eastern bank of the Euphrates ; theory that many passages both of the narrative and of
the site was identified with the the prophetic books have been recast, and provided
evidence’
mounds of Abu Habba. about 16 m. with a new historical and geographical setting. It is
SE. of BaghdZd, by the explore; H. kassam, who by no means an impossible view that the passages in
found here a large stone with a representation of the Kings and Isaiah here referred to have been recast by
shrine of SamaS and short inscriptions, dating from the an editor to suit his own theory of the course of later
time of king Nabu-abla-iddina (about 800 R.c.). The Israelitish history (see SENNACHERIB, § 5). This view
builder of the temple was Naram-sin (about 3750 B.c.), implies that the names of the cities mentioned there
whose original inscription was found by Nabu-na’id have come out of somewhat similar names of places on
(about 490 B.c.), one of the royal restorers of the the N. Arabian border of Palestine.
Sepharvaim, like Rezeph in 2
sanctuary. The temple was held in high honour ; one
K. 19 12 (Is. 5712). will then be
a distortion of Sarephath, one of the most important places in
of the most constant titles of SamaS was, ‘the great that region (see ZAREPHATH), or rather the final letters 0.1 (MT
lord, dwelling in fi-bara, which is within Sipar’ D;!, uapk) are, together with (MT l$, ‘to, or of, the
(Pinches, TSBA 86 164fi). But there was also a
second divinity, called Anunit, who was specially
worshipped at Sipar. In the Synchronous History
(2 18-21), Durkurigalzu is said to have conquered Sipar
city’), p>n (MT Y!?, ‘Hena’?), and possibly 7191 (MT, 7JW,
‘and Ivvah’?), representatives of $xom* Uerahmeel). !t is
noteworthy that the god worshipped by the ’Sepharv~tes
receives the double name ail^ and ?$my (2 K. 1751). In
of SamaS and Sipar of Anunitu (KBl~gg; Sayce, the latter form 3 has displaced 1 (cp yi>p and 13~); probably
TSBA 2131) ; the Anunitu referred to was the consort the best intermediate reading is ~ $~i~,
the original of which is
of the sun-god. We must not, however, use this
statement to confirm Schrader’s (very natural) explanation
of ANAMMELECH (z K. 1731) as =Anu-malku,
for if Anu (the heaven-god) were designated ‘king’
in Assyria, the word used would not be malku (‘ prince ’)
but farm.
Dr. W. H. Ward (PYOC. Am. Or. Soc., 1885, pp. 29J)
thought that he had found the site of a double city of
Spar (Sepharvaim, dual?) at the mod. el-Anbar, a few
miles from Sufeira, WNW. of BaghdM, where, from
the appearance of the ruins, it is evident that a canal
was conducted from the Euphrates into the heart of the
surely $pmni* Uer?l)mFel).S The rite of sacrificing children
was apparently drstlnctrve of some famous sanctuary in Jerahmeel
(see MORIAH, and cp Cd. Bib. on Gen. 222 Jer. 2 34 11 15).
The other passages which have to be considered in this
connection are Ezra48-ro(see SHUSHANCHITES) and Is. 109 (see
Crit. 172.). See also REZEPH.
See especially Winckler, Alf. Unl. roo-103; and cp Cheyne,
Ex#. T, 1898, P. 428f: T. K. C.
BEPEELA (ce+~ha [AKC.aC.bl, c. ITEAINH kN*Vl,
Vg. Sephela), I Macc. 12 38, RV ‘ plain country. See
SHEPHELAH ; also JIJDEA, col. 2617.
SEPTUAGINT. See TEXT A~ERSIONS, $5 46-55.
SEPULCHRE (PP, Gen. 236 etc. ; MNHMBION,
ciry. Dr. Ward found there a small tablet on which
three or four Sipars were mentioned, and he supposed
’Anbar to represent at once Spar Sa Anuniturn and
Agan6 (Peters, i\iipPur, 1 176 355 [Dr. Ward‘s diary]).
If so, Sipar Sa Anunitum was a more considerable city
than Sipar of SamaS (Abu Habba). But we can hardly
admit that the duality of the city which lies under the
mound of el-Anbar is made out. Most probably the
form Sepharvaim is erroneous. Either the editor confounded
‘ Sipar ’ with the ’ Sepharvaim ’ of 2 K. 19 ‘3,
or, as Haupt proposes, we should restore the reading
Mk. 1546 etc.). See TOMB, RESURRECTION.
SERAH (nfp, in pause nfD, AV SARAH in NU.
2646 ; cap& [L]), daughter of ASHER [q.~., § 41 ;
Gen. 4617 (caap [A], cappa [Ol), Nu. 2646 (KAPA
[B v. 30 capa ; BabAF])=l Ch. 730 (cope [B], CAPN
CAI, -Ah PI).
1 Cp @E 2 K. 18 34 crrmprrpovpcrv.
2 KB 2 1;3 (foot) : .‘p Ki. Kdn. 276.
3 See Wi. Alt. KJnz‘. 99.
4 Ibid. xorf:
5 The most plausible alternative original is Marduk ’
or ‘ Merodach’ (cp NISROCH). This is favouredxy Nergal’ in
4371
-.
the =me list. But it mmst perhaps be owned that ‘Nergqh‘ is
only il little less doubtful than ADRAMMELECH ty.ri.1.
4372