Encyclopaedia Biblica/Scythopolis-Sergius Paulus

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search



(cKyecoN TTOAIN), 2 Macc. 12:29 ; in Josh. etc. BETH-SHEAN [q.v.] ; cp HAMONAH.




(ni ; n?rt D; ; THN THN XAAKHN 2 K. 25:13, Jer. 52:17 [om. A] 1 Ch. 18:8), THE MOLTEN SEA (PV D ? : THN 6AA&CC&N [B], T. 0. AYTHN [A], T. 9. XYTHN [L], 1 K. 7:23 ; T- 6. XYTHN [HAL], 2 Ch. 4:2 ), or simply THE SEA (1 K. 7:44, 2 K. 16:17, 2 Ch. 4:15), the large bronze reservoir which stood in the SE. angle of the court of Solomon s temple.

1. Size and form.[edit]

The designation 'sea' is explained by Josephus from the size (Ant, 8:3:5; dK\rj9r) . . . 8d\a<r&a 5ia TO fdyeOos). According to the description in 1 K. 7:23-26 the sea was round, measuring 10 cubits (17.22 ft. 1 ) in width and 5 (8.61 ft) in depth ; 'and a line of 30 cubits (LXX{BAL} 33 cubits) compassed it round about'. These numbers are of course only approximate - not given with mathematical precision, otherwise to a diameter of 10 cubits would have corresponded a circumference of 31.4159 . . . cubits ; failure to observe this has caused commentators needless trouble.

The capacity of the 'sea' (1 K. 7:26 ; LXX{BL} om. ) was 2000 baths = 16,010 gallons (see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, 3). 2 Ch. gives 3000 baths ( = 24,015 gallons), certainly an impossible figure, even that of 1 K. being too large for the data ; a hemisphere of the dimensions given contains only 6376 gallons and a cylinder 10,798 gallons. 2 Even if, in view of what is said about the 12 oxen, we come to the conclusion that the 'sea' must have been more or less cylindrical in shape, not, as Josephus (Ant. 8:3:5, TO i)/ju<r<j>aipiov) will have it, hemispherical, we can hardly suppose it to have held much more than (say) 7000 gallons. There is, however, no recorded ancient parallel even for such a casting. It is one of very considerable magnitude (great bell of Moscow 198 tons ; great bell of St. Paul's - largest in England - 174 tons). The ancients no doubt usually did their large castings in pieces ; but where possible they preferred hammered work. Solomon's 'sea' may, therefore, it has been suggested, have been a wooden vessel plated with bronze. On the notice in 1 K. 7:46 see ADAM, i ; and for a different view, SUCCOTH, 2.

As to the form of the sea the only further data we have are that the brass was an handbreadth thick, that the brim was wrought like the brim of a cup, like the flower of lily, and that below the brim ran two rows of gourd-like ornaments C yps 3 (see GOURD, end). These ornaments, as distinguished from those of the brazen pillars, were cast when the sea itself was cast ; in other words we have to think of them as in relief, not as undercut. The sea rested upon 1 2 brazen oxen arranged in four groups facing the four quarters of the heavens.

On every other point worth knowing - the height of the oxen, the shape of the basin, and so forth - the writer is silent. Nor are we told in what manner the water was supplied or drawn ; one naturally thinks of the temple spring or a conduit from it.

Klostermann satisfies our curiosity as to the mode of filling by conjectural emendation of 1 K. 7:23 where he reads 'There were 30 cocks around the sea ; 20 were under the brim and supplied it, and at the bottom of the sea were 10 which drained it ; the cocks were in two rows and their flow was according to their measure'. The Vss., however, supply no sort of hint towards any such emendation.

1 [On the assumption that by ammoh is meant the long cubit ; see WEIGHTS and MEASURES, i.]

2 [Prof. Unwin, FRS, in a private communication, says: 'I make out that a hemispherical cup, 15ft, external diameter and 4ins. thick would require 113.5 cubic ft of brass, and would weigh 26.5 tons. It would contain 770 cubic ft. or 4805 gallons of water, and this would weigh 21.5 tons. A cylindrical vessel would weigh more and contain more but the spherical shape is the most favourable for possibility'. ]

3 nSX3 ~\C 1J in 1 K. 7:24 is usually rendered 'ten in a cubit' (so RVmg. and AV), and accordingly the total number of gourds in each row reckoned to be 300. The words as they stand, however, can only mean 'in a length of 10 cubits': but this gives no sense. The clause is (with Stade) to be deleted as a gloss (cp. Benzinger, ad. loc.)

2. Significance.[edit]

According to the Chronicler (2 Ch. 4:6) the sea was for the priests to wash in (cp Ex. 30:19) ; as to this, all one can say is that the arrangement would be in the highest degree inconvenient for any such purpose. Almost inevitably therefore one comes back to the conjecture that the sea itself had a symbolical meaning, as well as the oxen on which it rested. The oxen are to be explained not by the consideration that the ox was the principal sacrificial animal (so Riehm, HWB, s.v. 'Meer, ehernes' ) but rather by the symbolic character of the ox as representing deity, in Canaanitish-Israelitish religion. Kosters (cp Th. T, 1879, pp. 455+) explains the sea itself as a symbol of the subterranean ocean, the tehom. He recalls the many traces to be found in the OT of acquaint ance with the Babylonian creation-myth and the struggle of the gods with Tiamat (cp Gunkel, Schopfung, 153, and see DRAGON, LEVIATHAN, RAHAB, SERPENT). It is this Tiamat - who was held to represent the waters of chaos, and to have been vanquished by the gods - that according to Kosters was represented by the 'sea' upon the oxen (these last symbolising Marduk). In view of the admitted fact that the Babylonian creation-myth determined the form of the Israelitish cosmogony, one cannot deny that such a view may be correct, even though the OT itself does not directly support it. Cp CREATION, 13, 19, 22 ; NEHUSHTAN, 2.

[Gunkel refers to the apsu, or primaeval sea, made by king Ursina of Lagash and the tamtu, or sea, of Agum (1500 B.C.) ; cp KB 3:1:13, 3:1:143; Del. Ass. HWB 114; Muss-Am. Dict. 80; Jensen, Kosmol. 233+, 511, and pl. 3. See also Sayce (Hibb. Lect., 1887, p. 63, and RP(2) 1:65), who points out the connection between the sea and the large basins called apsi in Babylonian temples. What this acute scholar did not remark was the connection of these basins with the Babylonian creation-myth, in which apsu (the anaa-uiv [apasoon] of Damascius ; see CREATION, 15, end) designates the ocean which 'in the beginning' was, or filled, all things.]

At all events no other satisfactory explanation has been proposed. How the worshippers of Yahwe interpreted or (if it came from Babylon) adapted this symbol, we have also no information from the OT. But that the original meaning of the sea did not quite accord with later Yahwistic ideas, may be inferred with great probability from the fact that the later period either explained it in an impossible manner (so the Chronicler ; see 2, begin. ) or eliminated it altogether. In Ex. 30:18, 40:7, 40:30, instead of the molten 'sea' P has merely a brazen laver or basin (iva) for the priests to wash their hands and feet. So also the post-exilic temple has only a basin of the same sort, not to be compared in point of size with Solomon's 'sea'. In Ezekiel it would seem as if the temple fountain were to take the place of the molten sea, which does not otherwise seem to be represented in the temple ; in its place we find a fountain to the E. of the temple (note the agreement, partly verbatim, between the expressions of 1 K. 7:39 and of Ezek. 47:1). As regards this fountain too we can see that it is not primarily intended to provide an arrangement for the priests to wash their hands, but has a symbolical meaning (see the comm. ad loc. ).

Of Solomon's brazen sea we are further told that King Asa took it down from off the oxen, and put it upon a pavement of stones (see PAVEMENT). Like other brazen appurtenances of the temple, the oxen were made available for paying the tribute exacted by the king of Assyria (2 K. 16:17). The sea itself fell into the hands of the conquering Babylonians, who broke it in pieces and carried off the fragments (2 K. 25:13, 25:16, Jer. 52:17, 52:20 - where the twelve oxen also are erroneously reckoned among the spoils of the Babylonians).

See the Archaeologies and Dictionaries, also the commentaries on Kings by Thenius, Keil, Klostermann, Benzinger, and Kittel. See also Perrot and Chipiez, Sard., Jud. etc. 1:258-264 ; Phoen. and Cypr. 1289-292; Renan, Hist. Peup. Isr. 1i$t>f. Consult fig. in Masp. Struggle, no. I. B.


(fan), Lam. 4:3 AV mg, RV JACKAL (i).


(Dnin), 1 K. 21:8. See RING, 1.


Ex. 25:5 etc. RV, AV BADGERS SKINS.


(f]np ; ), Lev. 11:16, Dt. 14,15, AV CUCKOW.


(ffi*), Lam. 4:3 AV, AVmg. 'sea calves', RV JACKAL (q.v., i) ; cp WHALE.




(Nip ; C AB<* [BKAL, etc.], - T [B once] ; in Is. 43:3 COHNHN [BNAQ], cyHNHN [F] ; in Is. 45:14, pi. D Nap, EV SABAEANS (q.v.} c^EAeiM [B], CA- Bd,eiN [K*], ceBcoeiM [A], ceBcoeiN [N c - ac - b Q*], CABweiN : 01 r CABA6IM [Q m e-] ; La*), first in order of the sons of Cush, Gen. 10:7 [P], 1 Ch. 1:9 . Mentioned also in other late passages - e.g. , Is. 43:3 (with Mizraim and Cush), 45:14 (in pl., with same companions) ; Ps. 72:10 (with Sheba), where, however, Bickell, Cheyne, Ps.(2), regard it as a later insertion. This last passage may simply indicate a locality in the far S. ; the other passages favour Africa, and the neighbourhood of Ethiopia (but cp CUSH, 2). Dillmann (on Gen. 10:7) thinks it safest to regard Seba as a branch of the Cushites or Ethiopians settled eastward from Napata, on the Red Sea or Arabian Gulf, a view which Baethgen (on Ps. 72:10) and Duhm (on Is. 43:3) accept.

The name is not found in Egyptian ; but Dillmann cites TO <raamKOi/ crrd/ia, Ai/ur/v 2a(3a, 2a/3at TroAts evjueye07)s, from Strabo, xvi. 48 10 and SajSaorpiicbi/ crrdjua, iraftar 770X15 (v T<3 ASov^i/cu /coAn-a) from Ptol. iv. ~ if. ; Josephus, and many following him, identify with Meroe ; but this does not seem to be elsewhere distinguished from Cush. See also CUSH, 2 ; MIZRAIM.

F. B.


(D3L M ), Nu. 32:3 RV, in v. 38, RV SIBMAH.


RV SHEBAT (LD2L", Zech. 1:7 ). See MONTH.


(HMD; <M X IOZA [B], AIOX . [B a ], COXOX& [A], CX&X& M), a city in the wilderness of Judah (Josh. 15:61 f), mentioned between Middin and Nibshan. Assuming the ordinary view of the sites mentioned in Josh. 15:61-62 (see BETH-ARABAH), we might suppose Secacah to be the name of a fort erected (with cisterns) on the plateau above the W. coast of the Dead Sea to keep the nomad tribes in check (cp 2 Ch. 26:10).

The caution, however, given elsewhere (MIDDIN, ad fin. ,) may be here repeated. P may have led subsequent ages into a great misunderstanding by putting 'En-gedi' for 'En-kadesh'. Secacah was probably a place in the far south (Negeb) ; possibly Khalasah is meant. See NIBSHAN.

T. K. C.


(cexeMAC [AL]).

i. 1 Esd. 8:29 = Ezra 8:3, SHECANIAH, 2.

2. 1 Esd. 8:32 = Ezra 8:5, SHECAMAH, 3.


RV Secu ( J OE? > ), a corrupt reading in 1 S. 19:22 (in the same late narrative referred to under NAIOTH). In the place so called in EV we are told that there was 'a great well' (AV) or 'the (well-known) great well' (RV). Unfortunately bor hag-gadol cannot properly be rendered either way. LXX{BL} not only suggests the right reading, bor haggoren (pjn for run), 'the cistern of the threshing-floor', but also completes the correction by the very appropriate SV2, 'on the (bare) height'. A treeless height where there would be cool breezes was the natural place for a threshing floor ; cp Jer. 4:11 and see AGRICULTURE, 8. (LXX, ws TOV c/ipearos TOV a\w TOV tv Tip cre< [B], e, <pp. TT/S <5L Trjs iv <re<t>i [L], (ftp. TOV /J.eyd\ov TOV ev CTOK^W [A], Socho [Vg.]. )

S. A. C.


(ISID), 2 S. 8:17 EVmg etc., EV SCRIBE.


(Aipecic), Acts 24:14 RV, AV HERESY.


(ceKOYNAoc [Ti. WH]), a Thessalonian, who accompanied Paul for (at least) a part of the way from Europe on his last recorded journey to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4).


RV Sedekias (ceAeKiAc).

1 b. Maasias, an ancestor of BARUCH [q.v.] (Bar. 1:1) ; cp Zedekiah b. Maaseiah Jer. 29:21-22

2. In Bar. 1:8 ; elsewhere called ZEDEKIAH, i.


RV 'Impostors' (r-OHTec). 2 Tim. 3:13. See MAGIC, 4.


(nX"l, 1 S. 9:9; nth, 2 S. 24:11); see PROPHET, 5


(34JP, ceroyB)

1. b. Hezron ; father of JAIR [q.v.] (1 Ch. 2:21-22, cepoyx L B ])- See CALEB-EPHRATAH,. REUBEN, 11.

2. The youngest son of HIEL [q.v.] (1 K. 16:34 ; K.r. yjy , fcyovfi [B ; om. L]). Cp REUBEN, 11. In LXX of Josh. 6:26 it may be his name that is rendered 8ia<rij}0<;VTi [diasoothenti]; the translator apparently misread yitff (Aram. 'to save' ).

On the name, see NAMES, 57, and for S. Ar. analogies, Hommel, Sudarab. Alter-tumer (1899), 21. But the theory that it is an ethnic like Jair, Hezron, and Machir is attractive. (T^ in 1 Ch. 2:21-22 implies Hi:?, and this comes probably by transposition from "W3 (cp SEKUG). Abiram, the brother of 2, also probably bears an ethnic name. 'Ram', if not also the fuller form Abiram, comes (like 'Jericho' ) from QnV = ^KDn"V (Che.). See Crit. Kib.


("IT J ), the reputed ancestor of the Horites (Gen. 36:20-21, 1 Ch. 1:38-39). See SEIR, MOUNT.


(TIN?, either lit. 'hairy' [Lag. Ubers. 92], or trop. 'overgrown' [No. ZDMG 40:165, n. 2] ; always (rrjeip [seeir], except Josh. 11:17 orjapo. [seeiroo] [A] ; 12:7 creeipa [seeiro] [AF], ao-creeipa [asseeira] [L] ; 1 Ch. 1:38 OT)0tp [sethir] [A]; Ezek. 258 [om. BQ] ; Dt. passim, Ch. [except 1 Ch. 1:38] crieip [sieir] [L]).

The name of a mountain district occupied by Esau and the Edomites, Josh. 24:4 (E), Gen. 36:8-9 (P), Dt. 2:5 etc. , but by the Horites in Gen. 14:6 (on text see especially Buhl, Edomiter, 28). The name 'land of Seir' ("l V|i f {"IN) also appears in Gen. 32:4 (J) 36:30 (P ; where, however, LXX has e&o;u [edoom] [ADEL, B lacking]), and (often) simply 'Seir', Judg. 5:4, Gen. 33:14, 33:16 (J), Nu. 24:18 (JE ; where, however, LXX has Tjerav [esau] [BAFL]), Dt. 144 etc.

The mountain region of Seir (mod. es-fardA) extends 15 or 20 mi. E. from the Arabah (S. from the Dead Sea), which it skirts nearly to the Gulf of Akaba (the terms 'land of Seir' and 'Seir', are sometimes applied to the plateau W. of the Arabah) ; Zimmern (ZA 6257 n. 13) doubtfully suggests a connection with the district of Sheri mentioned (with Gindkirmil) in an Amarna letter from Jerusalem (Wi. KB 5:182 [B 105] 26). On early traces of the name Seir, and on its meaning, see EDOM, 2, 3.

F. B.

'Edom' and 'Seir' are terms which are often used interchangeably as the designation of a region occupied by Esau and his descendants (Gen. 32:3, 36:1, 36:8-9, 36:19, 36:21, 36:43, Nu. 24:18, Dt. 2:5, 2:8, 2:29, Josh. 244). Mt. Seir, the range of mountains running S. from the Dead Sea, on the E. of the Arabah, was a main feature of 'Edom' (Gen. 14:6, 36:8-9. Dt. 2:8, Josh. 244 ); but 'Seir' (Gen. 33:14 Dt. 1:44) and 'the land of Seir' (an ancient variant to 'the country [or field] of Edom', Gen. 32:3), are terms which are clearly not limited to, nor, indeed, are commonly, if ever, identical with, 'Mt. Seir' in the OT text. Sometimes vyty 'Seir' appears to be miswritten for nisDi 'Missur' [Che.]. The practical question therefore is, What portion of the country westward of the Arabah was included in 'Seir' and in 'the country of Edom', in the days of the Israelites wanderings ? l Cp EDOM, 5. Trumbull answers, 'The extensive plain es-Sir, bounded on the S. by Wady el-Fikreh, a wady which ascends south-westerly from the 'Arabah, from a point not far S. of the Dead Sea, and separates Palestine proper from the 'Azazimeh mountain-tract, or Jebel Makrah group. The northern wall of this wady is a bare and bald rampart of rock, forming a natural boundary as it 'goeth up to Seir' ; a landmark both impressive and unique, which corresponds with all the OT mentions of the Mt. Halak , Kadesh-barnea, 99-100. 2 Cp HALAK, MOUNT.

1 Trumbull, Kadesh-barnea. 84-85.

2 See, further, Palmer, Desert of Exodus, 404 (es-Sirr), and note that Rowlands (Williams, Holy City, 1:465) had already connected 'Seir' with es-Serr (sic).


(T1K? in ; O poc ACCAR [B], o. Acc&pec [B ab ], o. cHeip [A], o. cieip [L]), one of the landmarks on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin (Josh. 15:10), between Kirjath-jearim and CHESALON [q.v.] and therefore in the neighbourhood of the rocky point of Saris, 2 mi. W. by S. from Karyet-el-'enab (so Robinson). With Saris may be identified the Sores of LXX, Josh. 15:60 (tupijs [eoobes] [B], ffwp-rjs [soores] [A], -etj [-eis] [L]) ; see Buhl, Pal. 91, 167, and BENJAMIN, JUDAH.


but AV Seirath (nrPWH), the place to which Ehud fled, where he 'blew the trumpet in the hill country of Ephraim' (Judg. 3:26, ceT6ipco6& [B], 1 ceeipCOBA [A], CH RCO0A [L]). The name has greatly puzzled critics. 2 Winckler (Alttest. Unt. 55+) even supposed some unknown place on the E. of Jordan to be meant ; in GI 2:100 he prefers the 'Mt. Seir' of Josh. 15:10. If, however, we use the key supplied by a number of the narratives, in which, as the evidence tends to show, the scene has been transferred from the Negeb to the tribal territory of Ephraim, we shall see a way out of this perplexity. Eglon was king of Missur, and the city he took was a place called Jerahmeel - i.e. , either Jericho (see JERICHO, 2) or more probably the capital of the Jerahmeelite Negeb (possibly Kadesh). After his exploit Ehud escaped to Zarephath (.injns), and mustered the Israelites who dwelt in the southern Ephraim - i.e., the Jerahmeelite highlands. Ehud himself was probably a Benjamite of the Negeb.

T. K. C.


or (AV 2 K. ) Selah, or once [see 2] PETRA (v?D, nerpA in Is.; J??E>n, H rrerpA in Judg. 2 K.), Judg. 1:36 (RVmg) 2 K. 14:7 (EV) Is. 16:1 (AVmg Petra) 42:11 (Hitz. , Del., Duhm). Commonly supposed to be the Hebrew name of the later city of Petra (see 2). The name of Sela indeed is parallel to the Arabic name Sal', which Yakut gives to a fortress in the Wady Musa, where Petra stood (cp Nold. ZDMG 25:259 ). 3 Wetzstein (in Del. Jes.(3) 696+) thinks that Sela is another name for BOZRAH [q.v. ] ; the full name of the Edomite capital being Bozrath has-sela , a view which has not much to recommend it. Nor is the simpler view that a city on the site of Petra was known to the Hebrews as Sela or has-sela ( 'the rock' ) exegetically tenable ; there is in fact no city called Sela mentioned in the OT. See, however, EDOM, 7.

1. No city called Sela in OT.[edit]

'From Sela', (JPEnip), in Judg. 1:36 should rather be 'from the rock' (1^0?); the reference may be to some striking cliff near the S. end of the Dead Sea, fitted to be a landmark, such as that now called es-Safieh (so Buhl, Moore). In 2 K. 14:7, it may be 'some castle on a rock unknown to us' (Kittel) that is referred to. In Is. 16:1 JPDC, 'from the rocks' (collectively ; cp Jer. 48:28), is generally taken to describe the route taken by the Moabite ambassadors, which would run through the rocky country of Edom. Is. 42:11 should be rendered 'Let the inhabitants of the rocks' (ySo collectively) sing ; cp Ob. 3. It should be added, however, that though as against 'Sela' the above summary of current interpretations will stand, the views of the geography of the texts which are proposed seem open to question. The redactors themselves were sometimes the authors of confusion (see Crit. Bib.).

Of all these passages the only one which can with any plausibility be thought to refer to Petra is 2 K. 14:7. But in the || passage, 2 Ch. 25:12, we only read of a 'rock', nor does Joktheel occur anywhere as the name of an Edomite city ; JOKTHEEL [q. v. ] is very probably connected with 'Maacath' or 'Jerahmeel'. The misinterpretation (for such, as Kittel has shown, it is) arose partly from the supposed mention of the Edomites, partly from the comparatively early confusion between Petra and Kadesh. Eus. and Jer. (OS 286:71, 145:9) distinctly assert that Petra, a city of Arabia in the land of Edom, surnamed Joktheel, is called Rekem by the Assyrians (so Eus. , but Jer. 'Syrians' ). Still, as elsewhere they appeal to Jos. , they may not be speaking here on their own authority. Jos. (Ant. 4:4:7, 4:7:1) says that Petra, the capital of Arabia, was called apKt] [arke] or pfKffj.r) [rekeme] from its founder Rekem, a Midianite king. But Targ. Onk. and Targ. Jon. apply opT [RQM] to Kadesh-barnea, Gen. 16:14, 20:1. Dpn is supposed to be connected with ^/DJI, 'to stone' ; it is probably, however, as applied to Kadesh, a corrupt fragment of 'Jerahmeel', whilst, as applied to Petra, it may perhaps, as Wetzstein suggests, be derived from the Greek prjy/jia [regma], 'a cleft in the rocks'.

Wellhausen {De Gentibits [1870], 39, n. 2) doubts whether Kekein as the name of Petra is derived from the variegated colours of the rocks about Wildy Miisa or from a tribe dwelling in the Edomite region called Rekem, and virtually mentioned in 1 Ch. 244. The present writer is convinced, however, that the REKEM of Chronicles, which is the name of a tribe of S. Palestine, is really a mutilation of Jerahmeel.

See Wetzstein in Del. Isaiah,(3) 696-707 ; Buhl, Gesch. der Edomiter, 34-37 ; Kittel, HK, on 2 K. 14:7 ; Lury, Gesch. der Edomiter, 28-29, Robinson, BR 2:653+ (n. 36).

T. K. C.

1 LXX{B}'s <reTfipw8a [seteirootha] may, perhaps, be a corruption of rrtyfip<a6a [segeirootha] (T [tau] and T [gamma] confounded).

2 See Budde, Moore, and cp van Kasteren, MDPV, 1895, pp. 26-30.

3 WRS, Ency. Brit., art. Petra.

2. Petra.[edit]

Petra (17 Tlfrpa ; cu Ile rpcu), however, which gave its name to the province Arabia Petraea (17 /card llerpav p , Apa/3ta [e kata petran arabia], Agathemerus), became famous under the NABATAEANS (q.v. ); but, to judge from the advantages of its situation, it was doubtless a city or fortress before that time. Its ruins are in the deep valley called Wady Musa (from its connection in in Mohammedan legend with Moses), which is in the mountains forming the eastern wall of the great valley between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Akaba. Wady Musa lies just N. of the watershed between the two seas, in 30[degrees] 19' N. lat. and 35[degrees] 31' E. long. 1 Travellers coming up the Arabah usually approach the ruins from the SW. by a rough path, partly of artificial construction ; - but the natural entrance is from the E. down a narrow defile more than a mile long called the Sik ( 'shaft' ). The Sik is a contraction in the valley of a stream which comes down from the E. , rising in the so-called Fountain of Moses ( 'Ain Musa), 3 and passing between the villages of Elji and 'Aireh (Palmer). Both these places are ancient ; the latter is the fortress Wo-'aira of Yakut, 4 whilst Elji, mentioned by Edrisi, is the 'Gaia urbs juxta civitatem Petram' of the Onomasticon. 5 Below these and above the ravine the characteristic rock-cut tombs and dwellings of the Nabataeans begin to appear.

Not only was Petra a place of refuge and a safe storehouse, it was also the great centre of the Nabataean caravan trade. It was the place where the Gaza road branched off from that to Bostra, Palmyra, and N. Syria, and it commanded the route from Egypt to Damascus. From Petra, too, there went a great route direct through the desert to the head of the Persian Gulf. Thus Petra became a centre for all the main lines of overland trade between the E. and the W. , and it was not till the fall of the Nabataean kingdom that Palmyra superseded it as the chief emporium of N. Arabia.

See Leon de Laborde and Linant, Voyage dans l'Arabie Pctree (1830) ; Due de Luynes, Voyage d'exploration a la mer morte (s.a.) ; Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, 440^; Visconti, Viaggio in Arabia Petrea (1872); Libbey, PEFQ, 1902, p- 412./C T. K. C. , I ; W. R. S. , 2.

1 The latitude and longitude are taken from De Luynes's map. Ptolemy, who, according to Olympiodorus, spent some time in Petra, and doubtless owes to this fact his excellent information about the caravan-routes in Arabia, gives the latitude, with surprising accuracy, as 30[degrees] 20'.

2 Cp Diod. 19:97.

3 This seems to be the fountain mentioned by Nowairi (in Quatremere's Melanges, 84), which flowed with blood and was changed to water by Moses. The name Od-dema, which gave rise to this legend, may possibly be a relic of the old name of Edom.

4 Perhaps also the 'Iram of Gen. 36:43 [see IRAM].

5 See Tuch, Gen.(2) 271 n.


(nip H MeplcOeiCA [BAL] ; cp Driver s note), the name of a mountain where Saul and David 'played hide and seek' (1 S. 23:28-29). Saul hurries along on one side of the mountain, thinking to overtake the unseen David, and David on the other flies (as he thinks) before the unseen Saul. There is danger of their coming into collision, which is averted by the news of an inroad of the Philistines ; Saul turns aside from the chase. The narrator must have explained Sela-hammahlekoth so as to suggest this hide and seek game. But neither 'rock of divisions' (EVmg), nor 'rock of escaping' (an unjustifiable rendering) can be right. Though the name is confirmed on the whole by the certainly corrupt form n^ an (see HACHILAH), we are almost driven to suppose that the original form was rriShen ySp, 'the rock of the meholoth' (circling dances). Meholah, like Hachilah, may come from Jerahmeel. T. K. c.


(i"PD) occurs seventy-one times in forty psalms, and three times in Habakkuk (3:3, 3:9, 3:13).

1. Data of MT and versions.[edit]

Mostly it occurs in the middle of a psalm ; but in our psalms (3, 9, 24, 46) also at the end. Usually it occurs only once in a psalm ; but there are several cases of two Selahs, and in some psalms we find three (3, 32, 46, 66, 68, 77, 140) ; Ps. 89 actually presents four. In 55:20 [55:19], 57:4 [57:3], Hab. 3:39 Selah occurs in the middle of a verse. The accents connect it closely with the preceding word ; Aq., Jer. , Tg. also imply that it forms part of the text. These three versions take it to mean 'always' (det [aei], semper and jugiter, j-a^yV, but also NTin)- So Ps. 9:17, Theod. and &\\os [allos] give det [aei] ; Quinta et s TOI)S ct^wfas [eis tous aiooas]; Sexta dunravros. LXX, however, gives Sid\f/a\fj.a [diapsalma], a word of somewhat uncertain signification (Theodoret, /ne Xouj fj.Taj3o\7) [melous metabole]) ; it occurs more frequently than the Hebrew Selah.

2. Use and meaning.[edit]

Various conjectures as to the etymology of Selah have been offered (see Ges. Thes. 955 ; and the commentaries of Delitzsch and Baethgen) ; even a Greek origin (/dxXe [psalle]) has been suggested (Paulus Cassel, see Siegfried-Stade, Lex.}. Parisot (Rev. bibl., Oct. 1899) approves the theory that Selah represents a musical interlude. Briggs suggests that when a section of a psalm or a prayer was used apart from its context in liturgical service it was followed by a doxology, and that 'Selah' divides a psalm into sections for liturgical use. 1 By an inductive process Miss E. Briggs arrives at results of much interest (AJSL 16:1-29). These partly depend on the correctness of the MT ; but Grimme has shown that in some cases (and the present writer, Che. Ps. (2), has added considerably to the number) the i7ho [SLH] of MT is due to corruption of the text.

1 'An inductive study of Selah' (JBL 18:132+). Briggs thinks it probable that nVo [SLH] is an imperative cohortative, 'lift up a benediction or doxology'.

3. Conjectured origin.[edit]

Attractive as the view that i7ho [SLH] is properly a musical indication may be, it will have to be reconsidered if the other so-called musical notes in the headings owe their existence to textual corruption. In that case it becomes plausible to hold that n^D is a corruption of shallem (n^r), 'supplement', or leshallem (c^V), 'for supplementing'. The note may either be a direction to supplement the MS at a defective place from another MS, or an intimation that an editor at this point has made an insertion in the psalms. Possibly the old traditional interpretation 'always' points to a reading chy [ALH] or ahyh [LALH], which was itself a corruption of c?i? [ShLM] or D^V [LShLM]- For another view see B. Jacob, ZATW 16:159+.

As to the meaning of LXX's 6idi//aAjua [diapsalma] : for the opinions of the Fathers see Suicer, 1:890 ; Lag., Nova Psalterii Graci Editionas Specimen, 10 ; B. Jacob, ZATW 16(1896) 173-181. The result is that all the various explanations are pure guesses. What, then, is to be offered in place of them? We cannot suppose that the Alexandrian translators coined 5iai//aA^.a [diapsalma]; but it is very possible indeed that Sidifi [diaps] only exists through textual corruption. S<.xa.\l/a\fia. [dichapsalma] and di/d^/oA^a [anapsalma] have been suggested (ap. Schultens, Lex. in LXX [1820] 1 146), but neither word exists. It remained to suggest that fiidi// [diaps] may be a Graecised Hebrew word ; cVc *? [LShLM] ( see above) might become first 6a<raA^.a [dasalma] and then, for euphony, iiai|/aAfia [diapsalma].

T. K. C.


(1^9 ; A Ac. CAAaA, [B], c . [A], -eA [L]), b. Nadab b. Shammai, a Jerahmeelite ; 1 Ch. 2:30.


(i.e., Shelemiah).

1. (ceAe/VM&C [BA]) 1 Esd. 9:34 = Ezra 10:39 SHELEMIAH, 6.

2. (Selemiam) a scribe ; 4 Esd. 14:24, RV Selemia.


(ceAeyKi*. Acts l3:4 , Ti.WH ; 1 Macc. 11:8). One of the four chief cities of northern Syria (the others being Antioch on the Orontes, Apameia, and Laodiceia) which together were spoken of as the tetrapolis of Seleucis (Strabo, 749). They were the foundation of Seleucus Nicator (died 280 B.C.). Seleucia lay on the southern skirts of Mt. Coryphreus (the Fieria of Strabo, 751) - a spur of Mt. Amanus 1 - separated from it by a ravine (see description in Pol. 659). The town extended to the sea, and was surrounded by cliffs, except towards the W. , where the site was more open ; here lay the mercantile buildings (e/MTTopela [emporeia]). The upper town could be reached only, from the seaward side, by an artificial ascent cut in the rock like a stair (/cXt/xctKurrTji [klimakooten]). Seleucia was the port of Antioch, which was distant 16 mi. by land ; the distance by the Orontes, which fell into the sea about 5 mi. to the southward of Seleucia, was still greater (Strabo, 751). Being strongly fortified (Strabo, 751, epi /ua <ii6Xo"yoi nai Kpeirrov (lias) Seleucia was the key of Syria (cp Pol. 5:58). In 1 Macc. 11:8 there is a reference to the capture of 'Seleucia which is by the sea' by Ptolemy Philometor VI. (146 B.C.). Its remains are still great. In consequence of the resistance it made to Tigranes, the Roman Pompeius declared it a free city, and this was its condition in Paul's time (Pliny, HN 5:18)

Paul, with Barnabas, sailed from Seleucia on his first missionary enterprise (Acts l3:4), and to Seleucia in all probability he returned (Acts. 14:26 ; for the expression 'sailed to Antioch' need not imply a voyage up the river : cp the expression 'sailed away from Philippi' in Acts 20:6). Probably also Paul's passage through Seleucia is implied in such places as Acts 15:39, and 15:30 (with which contrast the land journey summarised in 15:3). In this connection it is interesting to note that two piers of the old harbour bear the names of Paul and Barnabas, with whose work they are probably co-eval. W. J. W.

1 Hence the town was called 2fAevia Tliepi a [seleukia pieria], or 2eAeuKeia fi tv [Icepio [seleukia e en pieria], to distinguish it from other towns of the same name (Strabo, 749)



  • Alexander II. (17).
  • Antiochus I. (3).
  • Antiochus II. (4).
  • Antiochus III. (7).
  • Antiochus IV. (9).
  • Antiochus V. (10).
  • Antiochus VI. (13).
  • Antiochus VII.(15).
  • Antiochus VIII.(18).
  • Antiochus IX. (19).
  • Antiochus X. (21).
  • Antiochus XIII. (23).
  • Demetrius I. (11).
  • Demetrius II. (12, 14, 16).
  • Demetrius III. (22).
  • Philippus I. (22).
  • Seleucus I. (2).
  • Seleucus II. (5).
  • Seleucus III. (6).
  • Seleucus IV. (8).
  • Seleucus V. (17).
  • Seleucus VI. (20).
  • Tryphon (13).
  • Bibliography (24).

1. Origin.[edit]

'Seleucidae' is the general name applied to the kings of Syria, who were so called from Seleucus I., the founder of the monarchy. This empire is alluded to as 'the kingdom of the Greeks' in 1 Macc. 1:10, 8:18, and in the phrase 'the diadem of Asia' in 1 Macc. 11:13. The Syrian kings claimed to rule over the Asiatic portion of Alexander's empire, and to interfere in the affairs of every country from the Hellespont to India ; but the territorial limits were gradually reduced, the border-lands of India being first lost, and then Asia Minor and Egypt effecting their withdrawal from Seleucid sway. Egypt under the Ptolemaic dynasty became in fact a standing rival, disputing with the Seleucidae the possession of Palestine. The hold of the Seleueidas upon Asia Minor was precarious, owing to the peculiar characteristics of the Greek cities there, and the rise of new powers (e.g. , Pergamos and the Attalid dynasty). Here nothing can be attempted more than a few general remarks upon salient features of the monarchy. Syria was its intellectual centre ; for Seleucus abandoned his capital at Babylon (which was in truth suitable only for the undivided world-wide empire dreamed of by Alexander), and transferred his permanent abode to Antioch on the Orontes (see ANTIOCH, 2). This transference also calls attention to the constant striving, as constantly thwarted, of the Syrian empire, to become, not so much a military, as a naval power. Its wealth, indeed, came from commerce, which partly depended upon command of the sea, and partly also upon keeping open the old trade routes leading into inner Asia. The latter condition was found to be more easily realised than the former, for the rise of Egypt and of Rhodes, with other powers, prevented the realisation of the designs of the Syrian dynasty. As regards its internal characteristics, the Seleucid empire is well described by Holm (Gk. Hist. ET 4:112) as an artificial creation - in its essence an attempt to found in the E. a state based on Greek views. 'That Seleucus tried to promote the Hellenising of Asia in the spirit of Alexander appears from the many cities (about 75) which he founded' ; and the progress of Greek life is seen from the fact that eventually Syria proper breaks up into a number of city communities almost entirely. It is precisely through their continuation of Alexander's work on this line, of controlling Asia by a policy based upon a preference given to the Graeco-Macedonian civilisation, that the Seleucidae come into violent contact with the peculiar institutions of the Jews. It was especially in Seleucia on the Tigris that the Greek life of Mesopotamia and Babylonia centred, to such an extent that this city completely overshadows the other Greek communities in these regions.

2. Seleucus I. 312-280 B.C.[edit]

Seleucus I., Nicator (312-280 B.C.), one of the best of Alexander's generals, was made chiliarch by Perdiccas upon Alexander's death. Perdiccas invaded Egypt, and being checked upon the Nile by Ptolemy was murdered by his own officers, among them being Seleucus. Subsequently Babylon was assigned to Seleucus ; but he was soon compelled to flee for his life from his satrapy, to avoid Antigonus, and took refuge with Ptolemy (316 B.C., cp App. Syr. 53). In the war with Antigonus that followed, Seleucus bore a distinguished part, at first as commander of Ptolemy s fleet, and afterwards in the operations in Syria which culminated in the battle of Gaza (312 B.C.), in which Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, was completely defeated. Seleucus in consequence with a small force recovered his satrapy, and the era of the Seleucids dated from the capture of Babylon (1st Oct. 312 B.C.).

The career of Seleucus is very obscure during the ten years which followed ; his name is not even mentioned in the peace concluded in 311 B.C. between Ptolemy Cassander and Lysimachus on the one side, and Antigonus on the other ; but the record of that peace may be incomplete. It seems clear, at any rate, that Seleucus was left to extend his conquests in the E. undisturbed, and that in a series of successful campaigns he recovered all the eastern provinces of Alexander s empire between the Euphrates, the Oxus, and the Indus. He was obliged, however, to acquiesce in the cession of the territories beyond the Indus to king Tchandragupta (Sandracottus, Strabo, 724) in return for five hundred war-elephants.

In 306 B.C. Seleucus followed the example of Antigonus and Demetrius in adopting the title of 'king' ; and from that date his coins are so inscribed, whilst Alexander s types are gradually abandoned in favour of new devices, such as his own head with bull's horn - an emblem of divine strength, probably also bearing allusion to the story told by Appian (Syr. 57) ; as an adjunct symbol in the field occurs an anchor, the badge of the family (cp Justin, 154).

When Ptolemy Cassander and Lysimachus again combined against Antigonus, Seleucus also joined the coalition, and was largely instrumental in winning the decisive victory at Ipsus in which Antigonus fell (301 B.C. ). Seleucus consequently received a great extension of territory - all Syria, and Asia Minor as far as Phrygia (with the exception also of Cilicia). Hence the Seleucidae are spoken of as kings of Asia (e.g. , 1 Macc. 8:6 ; though in other passages, such as 1 Macc. 11:13, it is doubtful whether the term Asia should be restricted to Asia Minor).

Seleucus reigned over the largest kingdom that had been carved out of Alexander s empire. The direct government of the provinces beyond the Euphrates was in the hands of his son Antiochus. In 281 B.C., by the defeat of king Lysimachus at Korupedion in Phrygia, Seleucus became heir by gage of battle to the crowns of Thrace and Macedonia, and appears to have intended to hand over his Asiatic possessions to his son, and spend the remainder of his life (he was now about seventy-two years old) as ruler of his native country, Macedonia, from which he had been so long absent. He set out for Europe, but was murdered at Lysimachia by Ptolemy Ceraunus, the exiled elder son of Ptolemy I. Ceraunus took possession of Thrace and Macedonia ; Antiochus succeeded to his father's Asiatic sovereignty.

Seleucus was undoubtedly an able administrator of what his generalship secured for him. He was a patron of art, fostered trade, and by his foundation of many cities encouraged the spread of Hellenic civilisation through his dominions ; he was, in fact, perhaps the only one of Alexander s successors that showed an appreciation of Alexander s true policy ( 'I should be inclined to call him a true disciple of Alexander', Holm, Gk. Hist., ET, 4:131).

3. Antiochus I. (281-261 B.C.).[edit]

Not much is known of the reign of his successor, Antiochus I., Soter (281-261 B.C.). It was occupied partly with attempts to assert himself in Asia Minor - as a prelude to making good his claims to the Macedonian crown, and partly in endeavours to render effective the Syrian rule over Ccelesyria, as against the claims of Egypt to those territories (the so-called First Syrian War). 1 In Asia Minor he was defeated by the Bithynians, at the beginning of his reign ; and by Eumenes, king of Pergamum, towards the end of it. 2 The intermediate years show him engaged in warfare with the Gauls who poured into Asia Minor (277 B.C.) and founded the state of Galatia (see GALATIA, 1 ). He won a victory over them (App. Syr. 65), and in consequence assumed, or was given, the honourable title of Soter ('Saviour') and a festival was founded in his honour. 3

In 261 B.C. Antiochus was killed in battle by a Gaul (Celt); but whether he was actually then fighting the Celtic invaders is doubtful. He seems to have been a brave and energetic prince ; history knows nothing to his discredit, and he deserves praise for his attempts to carry on his father's Graecising policy by means of city foundations.

1 Alluded to only in Paus. 1:7:3.

2 See Strabo, 624. It occurred near Sardis.

3 See decree of thanksgiving from Novum Ilium, CIG 3595 = Hicks, Manual, no. 165, with notes thereto added.

4. Antiochus II. (261-246 B.C. ).[edit]

Antiochus II., Theos (261-246 B.C.), son of the preceding and Stratonice, married Laodice, daughter of Antiochus I. by another wife (Polyaen. 8:50).

Practically our knowledge of him is confined to the statements that 'he was a debauchee and addicted to drink, that he left affairs in the hands of unworthy favourites, that he waged war in Thrace, that he earned his surname by liberating the Milesians from their tyrant Timarchus, and that he was generally popular in the cities of Ionia' (Holm, op. cit. 4:188).

Of the second Syrian war which he waged with Ptolemy Philadelphus, we know little. This led indirectly to his death ; for to put an end to the strife Ptolemy gave his daughter Berenice in marriage to Antiochus, who put away Laodice. After a time, however, Antiochus changed his mind and recalled Laodice, who immediately poisoned him and murdered Berenice and her infant son, and her own son ascended the vacant throne. It has, however, been suggested that this dark history was an invention of the Egyptian partizans of Berenice, and that Antiochus really died a natural death. According to the traditional interpretation, Dan. 116 refers to this king (Jerome, in loc.) ; but the text is corrupt (see DANIEL, 6-7).

5. Seleucus II. (246-226 B.C.)[edit]

Seleucus II., Callinicus 1 (246-226 B.C.), was the eldest son of the preceding by his first wife, Laodice. From the moment of his accession Seleucus II. was engaged in warfare with Ptolemy III. Euergetes, who invaded Syria to avenge the death of his sister Berenice (the third Syrian War). This war is as mysterious in its course and results as the two previous conflicts between Egypt and Syria. Ptolemy, we learn, drove Seleucus beyond the Taurus, captured Antioch, made himself master of Syria and Phoenicia, and penetrated even beyond the Euphrates ; the Egyptian successes are sketched in even more extravagant terms, which make them tantamount to the recovery of all Alexander s empire. 2 Seleucus summoned to his aid his younger brother Antiochus Hierax, promising him the regency of Asia Minor. Ptolemy was indeed obliged to consent to a peace ; but Seleucus soon found himself at war with his own brother (Justin, 27:2). Antiochus was at first victorious, with the help of the Galatai (Celts) ; but they deserted him, and when their co-operation was again bought, both they and Antiochus suffered repeated defeats at the hands of Attalus of Pergamum, who seized the opportunity of the strife between the two brothers to strengthen his own position in Asia Minor. Antiochus Hierax was at last driven from the country into Egypt ; but Ptolemy imprisoned him, and when he escaped he was slain by brigands (227 B.C., Justin, 27:3).

Seleucus apparently owed his title Callinicus to an eastern expedition in which he vanquished Arsaces of Parthia (Strabo, 513 ; Justin, 41:4). Afterwards, however, Arsaces defeated Seleucus in a great battle which the Parthians long celebrated as the foundation of their independence. 'The title to the surname of Callinicus was therefore as well made out as is necessary for an Oriental monarch, and the subsequent foundation of a city called Callinicum in his hereditary territory on the Euphrates by the hero who had been fortunate enough to escape from the Parthians, no doubt made a great impression on the surrounding inhabitants' (Holm, op. cit. 4:215).

In 226 B.C. Seleucus lost his life by a fall from his horse.

6. Seleucus III. (226-223 B.C.).[edit]

Seleucus III., Ceraunus, or Soter (226-223 B.C.) was the elder son and successor of Seleucus II. He invaded Asia Minor in order to put down Attalus. He was assisted by his skilful and ener getic relative Achaeus. Soon, however, he was murdered by one Nicanor and a Gaul named Apaturius (Polyb. 4:48).

Seleucus III. seems to have left a son Antiochus, mentioned only in an inscription, to whom are attributed coins bearing on one side the image of an infant Antiochus (see Head, op. cit. 640, and cp CIG 4458, and Droysen, Gesch. d. Hell. 3:2:121).

1 He was also called Pogon, the Bearded, fiom his habit of wearing a beard, which, like Demetrius II., the only other bearded king of Syria, he probably adopted during his sojourn in Parthia (cp Head, Hist. Numm. 639).

2 See the Adule inscription preserved by Cosmas Indicopleustes in his Topographia Christiana = CIG 5127 (and cp Jer. on Dan. 11:5 ; also Polyaen. 8:50, who says that he pushed his conquests n<i\p<. rrj?

7. Antiochus III. (222-187 B.C.).[edit]

Antiochus III. , the Great (222-187 B.C. ), the younger son of Seleucus Callinicus and Laodice (Pol. 5:40), was only twenty years old when he came to the throne, and for some time he was entirely under the influence of his minister Hermeas. The condition of Egypt, then governed by Ptolemy IV. Philopator, a weak and vicious monarch, invited attack. A rebellion in Persis and Media weakened the blow ; but when that had been put down, and the king had freed himself from the evil influence of Hermeas by executing him (Pol. 556) the war with Egypt was resumed. At first Antiochus carried all before him, and made himself master of Phoenicia and the territory on both sides of the Jordan (Pol. 5:68-69), and wintered in Ptolemais. In the following year, however, he was utterly defeated at Kaphia, the most southerly Syrian city (217 B.C.), and compelled to cede to Egypt all Ccelesyria and Phoenicia. In the meantime Achaeus had raised the standard of revolt in Asia Minor, and it cost a two years warfare round Sardis to overcome him (Pol. 7:15-16).

Then followed an expedition to the east, in which Parthia and Bactria were invaded ; these successes gained the king his surname (209 B.C. ). When Ptolemy Philopator died and Ptolemy V. Epiphanes ascended the throne (204 B.C.), Antiochus III. combined with Philip V. king of Macedonia, for the partition of the Egyptian kingdom (Livy, 31:14 ; Pol. 15:20). In pursuance of the scheme Antiochus invaded Coelesyria and Phoenicia, and overran Palestine (Jos. Ant. 12:3:3) ; and though a diversion caused by Attalus of Pergamum enabled the Egyptians to reoccupy Palestine, they were defeated (198 B.C.) by Antiochus himself near the sources of the Jordan, and driven out of the country. Jerusalem itself fell into the hands of Antiochus (Pol. 16:39). A peace was concluded in which it was agreed that Epiphanes should marry Antiochus' daughter, Cleopatra, who should receive Coelesyria, Phoenicia, and Palestine as her dowry (on this peace, see Holm, op. cit. 4:339, and note on p. 368). Antiochus then commenced operations in Asia Minor, with a view of recovering the Greek cities there as a whole, and more especially those of the S. and W. coasts, which had long been reckoned to belong to Egypt, but had recently been occupied by Philip under the terms of the secret alliance with Syria above-mentioned. 1 The defeat of Philip by the Romans at Cynoscephalae brought Antiochus also face to face with the power of Rome (197 B.C. ).

Antiochus claimed not only sovereignty over the cities of Asia, but the throne of Thrace also, in virtue of the victory of Seleucus over Lysimachus a century before him. The tension between him and Rome was increased when Hannibal, a fugitive from Carthage, sought asylum at the Syrian court (App. Syr. 4). After long negotiations war was declared between the two powers in 191 B.C. The decisive battle took place in the autumn of 190 B. C. at Magnesia on the Hermus, and the motley host of Antiochus was utterly defeated ; the Roman legions were never actually called upon, and the victory which gave them a third continent cost but 24 horsemen and 300 light infantry (Momms. Hist, of Rome, ET, 1881, 2:270-271). 2 Allusion is made to these events in Dan. 11:10, and 1 Mace. 1:10, 8:6-7 (see ANTIOCHUS, 1). Antiochus was compelled to renounce all his conquests N. of the Taurus range, which had in fact always been the boundary of effective Syrian power in this direction (Pol. 21:17 ; Diod. Sic. 29:10 ; Livy, 37:45). In consequence of this defeat and loss of prestige Armenia fell away from the Syrian empire (Strabo, 528). In 187 B.C. Antiochus himself, marching into Elymais, at the head of the Persian Gulf, in order to plunder a temple of Bel to replenish his treasury exhausted by the enormous war indemnity, was slain by the natives of the district (Strabo, 744).

1 It was probably at this period, or perhaps earlier, that Antiochus sent 2000 Jewish families from Mesopotamia into the cities of Lydia and Phrygia, securing their loyalty by grants of land and immunity from taxation. See Jos. Ant. 12:3:4.

2 'With the day of Magnesia Asia was erased from the list of great states ; and never perhaps did a great power fall so rapidly, so thoroughly, and so ignominiously as the kingdom of the Seleucidae under this Antiochus the Great' (Mommsen, l.c.).

8. Seleucus IV. (187-175 B.C.).[edit]

Seleucus IV., Philopator (187-175 B.C.), son and successor of Antiochus the Great, came to the throne in difficult times, when Armenia had revolted and the prestige of his country was dimmed. The power of Rome also overshadowed the East, and freedom of policy was almost impossible. Thus he was compelled to forego the opportunity of interfering beyond Mt. Taurus, in assisting Pharnaces of Pontus against Eumenes of Pergamum (179 B.C., see Diod. Sic. 29:24). Yet he concluded a treaty of alliance with Perseus of Macedonia. With Egypt he lived outwardly at peace, though his minister HELIODORUS (q. v. ) interfered in the affairs of Palestine. One APOLLONIUS (2), son of Thraseas, being governor (ffTpartfyo^ [strategos) of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, induced the king to send Heliodorus his chancellor ('treasurer', AV) to plunder the temple of Jerusalem.

This attempt, and the supernatural (?) means by which it was baffled, are related in 2 Macc. 3:1-2 (cp 4 Macc. 4:1-2, where the attempt is ascribed to Apollonius himself). In 175 B.C. this Heliodorus murdered Seleucus, and tried to seize the Syrian throne, but was driven out by Eumenes and Attalus of Pergamum (Appian, Syr. 45 ; Livy, 41:24).

Seleucus IV. left two children, Demetrius, who subsequently ascended the throne (see 11), and Laodice.

9. Antiochus IV. (175-164 B.C.).[edit]

Antiochus IV., Epiphanes {1} (175-164 B.C.), was the son of Antiochus III. and Laodice (daughter of the Pontic king Mithridates II.) After the battle of Magnesia he had been sent to Rome as hostage (Appian, Syr. 39). At Rome he remained nearly fourteen years, and then Seleucus IV. who was on the Syrian throne secured his exchange for the heir apparent, Demetrius (Appian, Svr. 45 ; cp Justin, 34:3).

On his way home Antiochus visited Athens, and displayed his phil-Hellenic sympathies by accepting the post of first strategus (o-Tpanjybs ini TO. owAa, see coins ; cp Reinach, Rev. et. Gr., 1888, p. 163-164). He also contributed to the completion of the Olympieum (Pol. 26:1), and placed a golden aegis over the theatre (Paus. 5:12:4). He presented gifts to the temple of Zeus at Olympia, and to those of Apollo at Delphi and Delos, as well as to many Greek cities - Rhodes, Cyzicus. Tegea (theatre), and Megalopolis (contribution to walls). His favourite cult was that of Olympian Zeus (cp MAUZZIM), to whom he erected a temple at Daphne near Antioch on the Orontes (see ANTIOCH, 2), with a statue which was a replica of that made by Phidias for Olympia. 2 It was his thorough-going programme of Hellenisation which gained him his notoriety in Jewish annals (Tac. Hist. 5:8 : 'rex Antiochus demere superstitionem et mores Graecorum dare adnisus' ).

While he lingered in Athens Antiochus received news of the murder of Seleucus IV. by Heliodorus and, being supported by the king of Pergamum, he expelled the usurper, and gained the crown in defiance of the rights of his nephew Demetrius (Appian, Syr. 45 ; cp Frankel, Inscr. of Pergamon, 1:160 ; 1 Macc. 1:10). He showed himself soon even more enterprising than his father. For the death of his sister Cleopatra, the widow of Ptolemy V. Epiphanes (173 B.C.), opened the whole question of the ownership of Coelesyria, which the Egyptians claimed as the dowry of the dead queen (Pol. 27:9), whereas she had only enjoyed a portion of the revenue derived from that country (Pol. 28:20). Antiochus forestalled the Egyptian attack (2 Macc. 4:21). At the end of 171 B.C. the contending powers came into decisive conflict on the Egyptian frontier between Mt. Casius and Pelusium (1 Macc. 1:17). The Egyptians were utterly defeated. Antiochus even secured the person of the young king Ptolemy Philometor, and was himself crowned king of Egypt at Memphis. There was a Seleucid party among the Egyptians themselves (Diod. 30:14); but upon the withdrawal of Antiochus (1 Macc. 1:20-21) the national party in Alexandria rose and placed the young Ptolemy Physcon upon the throne of Egypt. Antiochus therefore invaded Egypt a second time (2 Macc. 5:1 ; Pol. 28:19), nominally at first in the interests of Philometor. 3 He demanded the cession of Pelusium and of the island of Cyprus which was now practically his through the treachery of Ptolemy Macron (2 Macc. 10:13). Antiochus victorious career in Egypt came to an abrupt ending. For at this moment the Roman victory at Pydna (168 B.C.) changed the whole face of affairs in the East.

1 EfRc/ian;; ['epiphanes], 'illustrious', called also "Eirifian/s ['epimanes], 'mad', from his actions, Pol. 26:1, Athen. 10:52. On coins his titles are E7ru|>anjs ['epiphanes], NiCT)<^6(joi [nikephoros], and eos [theos]. Cp Jos. Ant. 12:6:5. See ANTIOCHUS, 2.

2 The figure of Zeus Nicephorus enthroned appears on some of his coins in place of that of Apollo. He seems to have considered himself a manifestation of Zeus ; and perhaps his name Epiphanes really means that. On some of his coins his own portrait occurs, in the character of Zeus. See Head, Hist. Numm. 641. The nimbus on the diadem of the Seleucidae originates with him. See the remarks of Holm, Grk. Hist. 4:399.

3 The wars of Antiochus IV. with Egypt are complicated, and it is doubtful whether he made three or more invasions (so Wilcken, s.v. 'Antiochus' in Pauly's Realencyc.,e.A. Wissowa), or only two (so 2 Macc. 5:1 ; see Mahaffy, Emp. of the Ptolemies, 33:6-7). His usurpation of Egypt was marked by the Seleucid anchor on the copper coins, and also by a new issue of copper coins with his own name.

Popilius Laenas, the Roman envoy, a harsh, rude man, demanded in the name of the senate that Antiochus should restore his conquests and evacuate Egypt within a set term. Antiochus asked time for consideration ; but the envoy drew with his staff a circle round the king and bade him answer before he stepped beyond it (Pol. 21:27, Livy 45:12). Antiochus yielded. 'Like Macedonia in the war just waged by Perseus, the Seleucidae had made in the war regarding Coelesyria a final effort to recover their earlier power ; but it is a significant indication of the difference between the two kingdoms, that in the former case the legions, in the latter the abrupt language of a diplomatist, decided the controversy' (Momms. Hist, of Rome, 2:309).

It was upon his return to Syria after finding the prize of Egypt, so nearly within his grasp, thus forever snatched from him, that Antiochus committed those outrages in Palestine which earned him the undying hatred of the Jews, and for which he is pilloried in the books of Daniel and Maccabees as the very personification of impiety. Already upon his first return, in 170 B.C., he had captured Jerusalem, slain and enslaved thousands of Jews, entered the Holy of Holies, and despoiled the temple (1 Macc. 1:20-21, 2 Macc. 5:11; see ANTIOCHUS 2, JASON, MENELAUS). Now the king determined to carry through the Hellenisation of Palestine. A royal edict made the practice of Jewish rites punishable by death ; the temple was dedicated to Zeus Olympics (168 B.C. See 1 Macc. 1:41-42, 2 Macc. 6:1-2). 1 These persecutions led to the revolt of the Maccabees. The outbreak of Mattathias at Modin (167 B.C.) seems to have attracted little attention at the capital. It was not until the death of Mattathias and the assumption of leadership of the movement by his son Judas (166 B.C. ), who defeated several detachments (that of Apollonius, 1 Macc. 3:10 ; that of Seron, 1 Macc. 3:13), that 'his name came near even unto the king', and energetic measures were taken to suppress the insurrection (1 Macc. 3:27). The general conduct of the operations was entrusted to LYSIAS (q.v.), 'an honourable man, and one of the seed royal' (1 Macc. 3:32); but the victories of Judas at Emmaus and Beth-zur secured the practical evacuation of the country, and gave opportunity for the purification and rededication of the Temple (1 Macc. 4:36-37, 2 Macc. 10:1-2). Antiochus was unable apparently to direct upon Judea the whole force of the empire, before which the Jewish national party must undoubtedly have succumbed. He was engaged beyond the Euphrates (1 Macc. 3:37), not, as the Jewish narrative puts it, 'to take the tributes of the countries, and to gather much money' (1 Macc. 3:31), but more probably in safe-guarding his frontiers against the growing power of the Parthians (cp Tac. Hist. 58: 'rex Antiochus demere superstitionem et mores Graecorum dare adnisus, quominus taeterrimam gentem in melius mutaret, Parthorum bello prohibitus est' ).

The sequence and extent of his operations in this quarter are unknown. After making an attempt to plunder a temple of Artemis in ELYMAIS (q.v., see also NANEA), Antiochus died of disease at Tabae in Persia ; some said that he died mad (Pol. 31:11, Appian. Syr. 66); the professedly circumstantial narratives of 1 Macc. 6:1-2 and 2 Macc. 9:1-2 are mutually contradictory and of no historical value (cp in general MACCABEES, FIRST, 10, SECOND, 2-3). When, in fact, we compare the last episode of this king's life with that of his father, we may well doubt whether the tradition is not a confusion partly suggested by and founded upon the nickname Epimanes applied to Antiochus IV.

1 Perhaps the savage outbreak at Jerusalem upon the second occasion was due to some more personal grievance than mere resistance to innovations. The nationalists of Palestine may have been in part responsible for the delay and failure of his Egyptian expedition, as Mahaffy suggests, op. cit. 341.

10. Antiochus V. (164-162 B.C.).[edit]

Antiochus V., Eupator (164-162 B.C.), son of the preceding, was either nine or eleven years old at his father's death (Appian, Syr. 46; Eus. Chr. 1:253). In 166 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanes, on the eve of his departure to the east, appointed Lysias 'to be over the affairs of the king from the river Euphrates unto the borders of Egypt, and to bring up his son Antiochus, until he came again' (1 Macc. 3:32-33); see LYSIAS. On the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, Lysias declared Antiochus his son king, with the title Eupator, 'on account of the virtues of his father' (1 Macc. 6:17; cp Appian, Syr. 46). The young king and his guardian then led an expedition to the relief of Jerusalem, where the citadel was hard pressed by Judas Maccabaeus. The armies met at Beth-zacharias, near Beth-zur, and Judas was defeated and his brother Eleazar slain (1 Macc. 6:28-29, Jos. Ant. 12:9:4; but 2 Macc. 13:16-17, representing the Jews as victorious, is clearly unhistorical). The victory of Antiochus enabled him to invest Jerusalem (1 Macc. 6:48-49), and famine was already doing its work when the king's troops were recalled by the news that Philip, the foster-brother of Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Macc. 9:29), was approaching Antioch with an army (1 Macc. 6:55-56). Philip had, in fact, been appointed by the dying Epiphanes as guardian of the young Antiochus (1 Macc. 6:55). Peace was made with the Jews on the terms that 'they shall walk after their own laws, as aforetime' (1 Macc. 6:59; 2 Macc. 13:23); but Antiochus in spite of this destroyed the fortifications of the city and imprisoned the high priest (1 Macc. 6:62, Jos. Ant. 12:8:7). Returning to Syria, he found no difficulty in expelling Philip from Antioch (1 Macc. 6:63). In 162 B.C. Antiochus himself was betrayed, along with Lysias, into the hands of Demetrius, the son of Seleucus, and rightful heir to the Syrian throne, and was by him put to death (1 Macc. 7:2-3, 2 Macc. 14:1-2, Polyb. 31:19-20, Jos. Ant. 12:10:1-2). See ANTIOCHUS, 3.

11. Demetrius I. (162-150 B.C.).[edit]

Demetrius I., Soter (162-150 B.C.), son of Seleucus IV. Philopator.

As a boy he had been sent in 175 B.C. to take his uncle's place as a hostage in Rome (Polyb. 31:12, 1 Macc. 1:10). When his cousin inherited the crown which his father Epiphanes had usurped, Demetrius, who had then lived nearly twelve years practically a state prisoner in Italy, begged the Roman Senate to recognise his claim to the Syrian throne, but in vain. It suited the Senate better that a mere boy should rule, rather than one who had reached his twenty-third year. At last he made his escape in a Carthaginian vessel and landed in Syria (Jos. Ant. 12:10:1, 2 Macc. 14:1). There seems no ground for the opinion that the Senate really connived at his escape (so Holm, Grk. Hist. 4:416 ET).

After putting to death Antiochus V. and Lysias (see above), the first object of Demetrius was to gain the recognition of the senate (Polyb. 32:4-5, Diod. 31:29). It was only after a long time that he gained the grudging and half-hearted recognition he sought. Timarchus, who under Antiochus Epiphanes had been satrap of Babylon (Appian, Syr. 47), revolted, and declared himself king, and ruled Babylon with an iron hand. Him Demetrius put down, being given for this service his title Soter ('Saviour') by the grateful Babylonians. The relations of Demetrius with the Jews are sufficiently set forth elsewhere (DEMETRIUS, i, and in the references there given).

The foreign policy of Demetrius was not skilful ; indeed it is difficult to see the object at which he aimed. First, he attempted to get his sister Laodice, the widow of Perseus, married to Ariarathes V. of Cappadocia, possibly in order to form an anti-Roman league in the east. Failing in this, he married her himself, and in revenge encouraged a claimant to the Cappadocian throne in the person of Orophernes, brother of Ariarathes (Polyb. 32:24). The only result was to raise against Demetrius the enmity of both Rome and Attalus of Pergamum (Polyb. 35). Attalus II. in return supported the claims of a pretender, Alexander Bala, or Balas, to the Syrian throne ; ALEXANDER (q.v., 2) made himself out to be a son of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Alexander Bala appeared at an opportune moment, as Demetrius had completely alienated his subjects by his tyranny and excesses (153 B.C.), whilst at the same time he had given way to love of drink, the hereditary vice of his house (Polyb. 33:19). In addition to this, an attempt to secure the island of Cyprus by treachery- had indeed failed, but had earned the Syrian monarchy the hostility of Ptolemy Philometor (Polyb. 33:5). The result was that, though a party at Rome (perhaps that of the Scipios) was favourably inclined to Demetrius, the Roman Senate, upon grounds of policy, and also upon more sordid grounds, was induced to recognise the impostor Alexander (Polyb. 33:18), who was also supported by Attalus Ariarathes and Ptolemy Philometor. Consequently, in 153 B.C., Alexander appeared with an army in Syria.

Both Demetrius and Alexander made bids for the favour of the Jews, who were now under Jonathan (1 Macc. 10:1-2). The king recalled his garrisons from all the towns except Jerusalem and Beth-zur, and gave Jonathan power to raise an army and to liberate the hostages. The various taxes and royal claims upon the Jews were also remitted (see the instructive list given in Jos. Ant. 13:2:2). l The impostor, however, was more successful in appealing to Jonathan's personal ambition, nominating him high-priest, and sending him the insignia of royalty, with the title of 'king's friend' (cp FRIEND). The decisive battle was fought in 150 B.C., and Demetrius fighting heroically was slain (Justin, 35:1, Polyb. 35, Jos. Ant. 13:2:4). In spite of the fragmentary and obscure character of the record, we may well doubt whether this Demetrius was not one of the most gifted of the Seleucid dynasty (v. Gutschmid, Iran, 43).

===12. Demetrius II. (first reign : 145-139 B.C.)

Demetrius II., Nicator (145-139 and 129-125 B.C.), the elder of the two sons of Demetrius I. , had been sent by his father for protection to Cnidus when Alexander invaded Syria (Justin, 35:2), and remained there for some years in exile until he became aware that the usurper had forfeited the goodwill of his subjects by his negligence of state affairs and his self-indulgence ( Livy, Epit. 50). In 147 B.C. he landed on the Cilician coast with a force of Cretan mercenaries (1 Macc. 10:67). Ptolemy VI. Philometor had given his daughter Cleopatra Thea ( 'one of the most impudent women produced by the Ptolemy line, which had no lack of such characters,' Holm, Grk. Hist. 4:417) in marriage to Alexander, and at first came to his assistance, but afterwards transferred his favour to Demetrius II. , to whom also he transferred his daughter. Ptolemy's volte-face was accounted for by a story that Alexander had attempted his life (1 Macc. 11:10) ; but the true motive was probably the desire to take advantage of the intestine strife to annex at least Palestine and Coelesyria (1 Macc. 11:1). According to Josephus (Ant. 13:4:5-6), Ptolemy actually at Antioch assumed the 'diadem of Asia' (so also 1 Macc. 11:8-9, where, however, the motive assigned for Ptolemy's conduct differs). On this episode, see Mahaffy, Emp. of the Ptolemies, 364-365.

The opportune death of the Egyptian king on the third day after he had gazed upon the severed head of Alexander Balas, removed a formidable rival from the path of Demetrius (1 Macc. 11:18; was he murdered? Strabo, 751, says that he died from a wound received in the battle on the Oenoparas, near Antioch, fighting against Alexander). Having thus won back his father's kingdom by arms he received the title Nicator ( 'Conqueror' ; Appian, Syr. 67, wj v66ov TOV yfrovs &i>dpa viKr)ffas).* The entire country, in fact, had rallied to him, with the exception of Judaea, where the ambitious Jonathan had inflicted defeat upon his adherent Apollonius, governor of Coelesyria (1 Macc. 10:69-70). Demetrius was, indeed, fain to purchase the acquiescence of Jonathan by confirming him in the high-priesthood, and by the abolition of taxes (1 Macc. 11:20-21), and the surrender to Judaea of three Samarian districts.

When peace was assured Demetrius disbanded the native troops and retained only his Cretan mercenaries. This led to risings in Antioch, which were put down by the mercenaries with the aid of 3000 Jewish troops sent by Jonathan. Confiscations and executions alienated the goodwill of the people (1 Macc. 11:38-39). This emboldened one Diodotus, a native of Kasiana, brought up at Apamea on the Orontes (Strabo, 752 ; cp id. 668), to declare a young son of Alexander Bala king as Antiochus VI. Dionysus. 1 This was in 145 B.C. The Jews profited by this revolt, for Demetrius had not redeemed his promises to withdraw his garrisons from Judaea. The disbanded troops also rallied to the standard of his rival, and Demetrius was compelled to evacuate Antioch and to retire to Seleucia ( Livy, Epit. 52) or to Cilicia (so Jos. Ant. 13:5:4). Jonathan and his brother Simon mastered all southern Syria (for the details of the operations, see 1 Macc. 11:60-61).

1 See the remarks of Mahaffy, Emp. of the Ptolemies, 182-183.

2 On his coins he also calls himself Theos and Philadelphos.

13. Antiochus VI. (145-142 B.C.) and Tryphon (142-138 B.C.).[edit]

Seleucia, near Antioch, remained true to Demetrius, along with Cilicia and the eastern provinces generally, 2 so that the young Antiochus never ruled over more than a small part of Syria. His reign soon came to an end, as he was murdered by Diodotus, who usurped the throne under the name of Tryphon.

The date is disputed ; probably it was in 143-142 B.C. ; so the coins (see Babelon, Rois de Syrie, 131-132 and cp 1 Macc. 13:31). On the other hand, according to Josephus (Ant. 13:5:11 ~ i) the murder of Antiochus occurred after the capture of Demetrius by the Parthians. (On this much disputed point see the authorities referred to in Schur. Hist, of the Jews, ET, 1:1:177, and Cambridge Bible, First Book of M. in l.c.).

The usurper made himself detested for his cruelties. Chiefly he alienated the sympathies of the Jews, and earned their active hatred, by the capture and execution of Jonathan when he had all but established the independence of his country (1 Macc. 12:39-40).

The three or four years of the reign of Tryphon are almost destitute of incident, save for a few isolated notices. His headquarters seem to have been at Coracesium in Cilicia Aspera, a robbers' eyrie on a precipitous crag by the sea. Strabo (668) attributes to him the rise of the piratical power in Cilicia, which afterwards attained such extraordinary dimensions. The generals of Demetrius, in Mesopotamia and Coelesyria at least, retained their ground before those of Tryphon, whilst Simon, who had succeeded to the leadership of the Jews (1 Macc. 13:8), entered into negotiations with Demetrius, who granted all his demands, including even exemption from tribute (1 Macc. 13:36-37). Though the Jews thus did not gain absolute independence, but had still to recognise the suzerainty of the Syrian kings, they adopted a new era, and Simon ruled as ethnarch, or vassal prince (1 Macc. 13:41-42; cp Justin, 361:3).

14. Demetrius in Parthia (139-129 B.C.).[edit]

At this moment the attention of Demetrius was diverted to Babylonia, where he had to face a new peril. Mithridates I. of Parthia, 3 after displaying his power in the E., had conquered Media (147 B.C.), and even Seleucia on the Tigris two years later. The Babylonians appealed for assistance. Demetrius was joined by the Persians, Elymaeans, and Bactrians ; but in 139 B.C. he was defeated and taken prisoner by the Parthians, and carried about through their territories as a show 4 (1 Macc. 14:1, Jos. Ant. 13:7:1, Appian, Syr. 67. The actual capture was due to treachery). For ten years Demetrius remained a prisoner ; but very soon after his capture his treatment improved, and he was even given the king's daughter Rhodogune to wife. Probably the promise of reinstallation in his kingdom would have been realised had not Mithridates himself died, and been succeeded by Phraates II. as Arsaces Philopator Epiphanes Philhellen (reigned 136-127 B.C.). It seemed better to this monarch to retain Demetrius in order to be able to use him in case of threatening circumstances.

1 The coins of this seven-year-old king also bear the title Epiphanes. His mother was the Egyptian princess Cleopatra Thea. In Appian, Syr. 68, he is wrongly called Alexander. See ANTIOCHUS, 4.

2 Cp inscr. from Babylon in Zeitschr. f. Assyr. 8:110, and inscr. from Paphos in Journ. of Hellenic Studies, 9 (1880) 230.

3 Mithridates I. reigned 174-136 B.C. He calls himself on his coins King of Kings, the Great, Arsaces, Epiphanes, Euergetes, Philhellen. He was the most considerable of the Parthian monarchs.

4 From this circumstance he was called mockingly Seripides (Eus. Chron. 1:256).

15. Antiochus VII Sidetes (138-129 B.C.).[edit]

Whilst Demetrius was a captive in the hands of the Parthians (see above, 14) his younger brother Antiochus Sidetes, who owed his surname to the fact that he had been brought up at Side in Pamphylia ( see SIDE), 1 asserted his claims to the kingdom of Syria (1 Macc. 15:1-2). He was now sixteen years old. His attempt succeeded, perhaps chiefly because he was joined by queen Cleopatra Thea, who, enraged at the union of Demetrius with the daughter of the Parthian king, went over to the side of Antiochus, and surrendered to him the strong tower of Seleucia, near Antioch, which during all these years she had held for Demetrius.

Tryphon was defeated and driven into the Phoenician town of Dora, where he was besieged. Thence he escaped to Apamea, but was again besieged, and compelled to end his life by his own hand (1 Macc. 15:10, 15:37 ; Strabo, 668 : Jos. Ant. 13:7:2 ; Appian Syr. 63).{2}

Antiochus married Thea ( 'the objectionable but evidently inevitable adjunct of the Syrian throne', Holm, Grk. Hist. 4:419), and acted very vigorously to unite again the severed fragments of the Syrian kingdom (Justin, 36:1). First and foremost came the necessity of dealing with Palestine, which in the turmoil of the past few years had absorbed large tracts of Syrian territory, and attained an almost completely independent position, even entering into diplomatic relations with distant and, in part, hostile powers (1 Macc. 10:59+, 12:1-2, 14:16-17, 14:24). In 135 B.C. Antiochus invaded Judaea in person. Already, three years previously, the Syrian king had come into collision with the Jews, who, under Judas and John Hyrcanus, inflicted a defeat upon his general CENDEBAEUS. After the assassination of Simon and two of his sons by his son-in-law Ptolemy, the son of Abubus (1 Macc. 16:11-12), John Hyrcanus had become high priest and prince of Judaea. Upon the invasion by Antiochus he was shut up in the citadel of Jerusalem for at least a year, and then forced to capitulate. The walls were destroyed, hostages demanded, with five hundred talents indemnity, and tribute for the cities which had been occupied by the Maccabees (Diod. 341, Justin, 36:1, Jos. Ant. 13:8:2). 3 Syrian suzerainty over Judaea was fully asserted.

Next occurred the final attempt of the Seleucidae to overthrow the formidable Parthian power which had wrested from them so much of their eastern possessions.

In 130 B.C. Antiochus undertook an expedition against the Parthians. His brother Demetrius was still in their hands, having twice been recaptured when he attempted escape. Three victories gave the Syrian king the possession of Babylonia, and brought to his standard all the peoples who had been reduced under the Parthian yoke.4 Phraates opened negotiations with Antiochus to amuse him, while he prepared once more to try his fortune in the field (Diod. 35:15) ; more effective still was the stroke by which Demetrius was at last released from captivity in order to cause the withdrawal of the Syrian forces. In the next collision with the Parthian troops Antiochus fell, bravely fighting (Appian, Syr. 68 ; Justin, 38:10). His entire army was cut to pieces.

1 In Sida urbe educatus, quapropter Sidetes utique vocabatur (Eus. Chron. 1:255). On his coins Antiochus VII. calls himself Euergetes, which was, therefore, his true official title. Jos. Ant. 13:7:1 calls him SWTTJP [soter]. See ANTIOCHUS, 5.

2 On his coins Tryphon calls himself Bao-iAevs avTOfcpdrajp [basileus autokratoor], which no other Syrian ruler does.

3 This Antiochus was not hostile to the Jewish faith, and for his tolerance was called Eusebes ('pious'), Jos. Ant. 13:8:2.

4 For these victories Antiochus received the title Great (Dittenb. Sylloge,(1) 244 and 245, Bao-iAe ios /ueydAov Ai/Ttox"", cp Justin, 38:10 : 'Magnus haberi coepit' ).

16. Demetrius II Nicator (second reign, 129-125 B.C.).[edit]

The Parthian king, having thus won the victory by arms, keenly regretted having set Demetrius at liberty (see 14) and tried to recapture him, but failed. He tried next to undo his work by sending into Syria a second pretender, a son of Antiochus, the late king, Seleucus by name, who had fallen into his hands. This also proved of no avail. Demetrius, however, did not long enjoy his change of fortune.

He was induced to enter into war with Egypt on behalf of Cleopatra II., sister-wife of Ptolemy Physcon, 1 and his own mother-in-law, who had taken refuge in Syria. The war with which he was thus threatened Physcon evaded by setting up Alexander Zabinas, a pretended son of Alexander I. Bala, to claim the Syrian throne. 2

Supported by a strong Egyptian army the pretender invaded Syria, where several cities fell away from Demetrius. The decisive battle was fought in 125 B.C. near Damascus, and Demetrius was defeated. He fled to Ptolemais to his wife Cleopatra, who refused to receive him, and, when he tried to enter Tyre, had him murdered (Justin, 39:1, Appian, Syr. 68, Jos. Ant. 13:9:3).

17. Alexander II. and Seleucus V.[edit]

Little is known of the rule of Alexander II. ; but one authority at least passes a favourable verdict. 3 He entered into friendly relations with Hyrcanus, influenced largely, no doubt, by the desire to find support against Egypt, from which power he soon became estranged (Jos. Ant. 13:9:3). He was, in fact, not left to enjoy his usurped dignity long without rivals. Immediately upon the death of Demetrius II., Seleucus, the son of the murdered king, laid claim to the throne, only to be murdered after a few months by the infamous Cleopatra Thea, his mother, who was indignant that he should have taken such a step without her, and without sharing the power with herself.

18. Antiochus VIII., Grypus (125-96 B.C.).[edit]

{4} Cleopatra then put forward the second son of Demetrius II. as heir to the throne ; his claim was also supported by Egypt. Alexander II. wvas defeated and fled to Antioch, and then to Seleucia (Diod. Sic. 35:28, Justin, 39:2). Finally he was captured and brought to Antiochus, who had him put to death. Thus from 125 B.C. Antiochus reigned, in association with his mother, after the fashion common in Egypt. Their joint reign lasted four years. 5

The queen-mother was thrown more and more into the shade, especially after the marriage of her son with Cleopatra Tryphaena, given to him by her father Ptolemy Euergetes II. as a pledge of Egyptian support, and also after 123 B.C. by the victory gained over Alexander II. (cp Justin, 39:2 : 'Cleopatra cum huius [sc. Antiochi] quoque victoria inferiorem dignitatem suam factam doleret' ). In 121 B.C. she tried to poison him, but was compelled instead to drink the draught herself (Appian, Syr. 69).

1 Ptolemy Euergetes II., or Physcon, reigned 146-117 B.C.

2 Or, according to another and more probable version (Justin, 39:1), he claimed to be an adoptive son of the dead Antiochus VII. Sidetes. He was really an Egyptian, son of a merchant called Protarchus, though Jos. Ant. 13:9:3 calls him a genuine Seleucid. He also gives the title as Zebinas. It is translated 'slave' (ayopa<7Tos [agorastos]) in Eus. Chron. 1:257.

3 Diod. Sic. 35:22 (34:45), T\V yap Trpaos Kal <Tvyyi iafj.oviKOS, ert ie ec rais o/ouAuus (cai (v rats eyrevfteri jrpo<7T)njs. uiv X&piv Si.a.<t>fp6vTios vn-b riav TroAAwi/ r)ya.na.TO.

4 His titles are Epiphanes Philometor (!) Callinicus. The name Grypus = 'hook-nose' a feature conspicuous on his coins. Grypus is, of course, not an official, but a vulgar title.

5 Coins bear her portrait, with cornucopiae. Her titles are Thea and Eueteria ( 'abundance' ).

19. Antiochus IX., Cyzicenus (116-96 B.C.).[edit]

For some years Antiochus Grypus reigned quietly, and then there arose a claimant to the throne in the person of his half-brother and cousin Antiochus (IX.) son of Antiochus VII. Sidetes and Cleopatra Thea (see above, 15). Antiochus owed his surname to his having been brought up at Cyzicus (his title on his coins is Philopator), whither his mother had sent him in 129 B.C. upon the return of Demetrius II., her second husband, from his Parthian captivity (Jos. Ant. 13:10:1). The poisoned cup with which his mother had made him familiar was employed in vain by Grypus to remove this rival. The attempt only precipitated the inevitable struggle (116 B.C.). In the first important battle of the war Grypus was victorious, and took Antioch, where he found his own sister-in-law Cleopatra IV. , sister and divorced wife of Ptolemy Soter II. (Lathyrus); having been expelled from Egypt by her mother (i.e., Cleopatra III., Physcon's niece and former wife, who herself married Ptolemy Soter) Cleopatra had married Antiochus Cyzicenus. By command of her sister, Tryphaena, the wife of Grypus, the unfortunate Cleopatra was put to death (Justin, 39:2). Soon the scale was turned, and Grypus was defeated, and compelled to retire to Aspendus (Eus. Chron. 1:257) ; Tryphaena was put to death in her turn by the victor. In 111 B.C. Grypus returned and won back northern Syria. The result of the struggle was that the Syrian empire, now sadly shrunken in size, was partitioned between the contestants, Grypus retaining northern Syria with Cilicia, and Cyzicenus taking Phoenicia and Coelesyria with its capital Damascus. Apparently a state of peace did not long continue ; but the details of the never-ceasing warfare are hard to trace.

It is clear that the brothers war in Syria was intimately connected with a similar strife in Egypt, where also Ptolemy Alexander and Ptolemy Soter II. were at enmity, due to the intrigues of their mother the reigning queen Cleopatra III. (cp Journ. of Hell. Stud. (9:230 ; Justin, 39:4 ; Jos. Ant. 13:10:2 ; and see Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, 409-410). Grypus held with the party of Alexander, and by way of attaching him more closely thereto Cleopatra sent him as his wife her youngest daughter, Selene, beforetime the wife of the exiled Ptolemy Soter II.

The confusion in Syria was an opportunity for surrounding powers. In 103 B.C. even Rome, by the victory of the Praetor M. Antonius over the pirates, gained a footing in Cilicia (cp Justin, 39:5). By the union of Laodice (Thea Philadelphus), daughter of Grypus, with Mithridates I. Callinicus, the dynasty of Commagene was founded, and the way prepared for the severance of that kingdom from Syria (cp Mommsen in Athen. Mitt. 1:27-28). The Jews also, under John Hyrcanus, who had practically thrown off their allegiance since the death of Antiochus VII. (129 B.C. ), made great strides forward, investing and destroying Samaria (about 108 B.C.) in spite of all that Antiochus Cyzicenus, even with the help of 6000 troops sent by Ptolemy Soter II., could do to save it (Jos. Ant. 13:10:2-3). Such successes as the Syrian king won were entirely neutralised and torn from his grasp by the senatus consultum secured by Hyrcanus bidding 'Antiochus the son of Antiochus' (Jos. Ant. 14:10:22 ; cp id. 13:9:2) restore all his Palestinian conquests.

In 96 B.C. Antiochus Grypus died, or was murdered by Heracleon (Jos. Ant. 13:13:4 ; cp Eus. Chron. 1:259). He was forty-five years old at the time of his death, and left behind him five sons.

20. Seleucus VI. Epiphanes (96-95 B.C.).[edit]

Seleucus VI., Epiphanes, the eldest son of Antiochus Grypus, on his father's death laid claim to the undivided empire, and proceeded to assert his claims by arms. Antiochus Cyzicenus marched into northern Syria against him, but being defeated killed himself in the battle (Appian, Syr. 69 ; Jos. Ant. 13:13:4 seems not quite accurate). A sketch of the character of Antiochus Cyzicenus is given in Diod. 35:34. We are told that he had to wife Selene, the Egyptian princess, who had been married to his rival Grypus ; but whether her marriage to Cyzicenus occurred before or after the death of Grypus is unknown. For a few months Seleucus VI. was master of the whole extent of the Syrian empire, as it then existed, but soon he was expelled by a rival, Antiochus X. Eusebes, Philopator, the son of Antiochus Cyzicenus. He was compelled to retire into Cilicia, where he took refuge in the town of Mopsuestia (mod. Missis).

By his violent and tyrannical behaviour, and his extortions, Seleucus raised the inhabitants against him ; they fired the gymnasium in which he had taken shelter, and he either perished in the flames, or slew himself to avoid a worse fate (Jos. Ant. 13:13:4; Appian, Syr. 69). This was probably in 94 B.C. Mopsuestia was thereafter razed to the ground by Philippus and Antiochus XI., brothers of Seleucus.

21. Antiochus X. (94-83 B.C.).[edit]

Syria now presented the spectacle of, firstly, a contest between two branches of the Seleucids, the descendants of the brothers Demetrius II. and Antiochus VII., but both having the same ancestress [Cleopatra Thea], and, secondly, of squabbles between the members of the first branch, the five sons of Grypus (Holm, Grk. Hist. 4:542). The confusion prevailing is well illustrated by the fact that Antiochus X. married Selene who had first been the wife of Grypus and had then married Antiochus Cyzicenus, his own father.

First, Antiochus X. had to meet the opposition of Antiochus XI. and Philippus I., the third and the second sons of Grypus. After a battle on the Orontes, in which Antiochus X. was victorious, Antiochus XI. lost his life in the river in his flight (Jos. l.c., Eus. Chron. 1:261). Philippus then assumed the royal title, and held part of Syria (from 94 B.C.). In the meantime, Ptolemy Lathyrus {1} had sent for Demetrius, fourth son of Grypus, from Cnidus, and had established him as king in Damascus.2 After hard fighting Antiochus X. was expelled from Syria (or, according to Josephus, lost his life in battle with the Parthians).

According to Appian (Mithr. 105) this Antiochus was alive and ruling in 83 B.C. when Tigranes (see below, 22, end) made himself master of Syria. If this is true, his death in war with the Parthians fell later (it had already occurred in 75 B.C.). Appian (Syr. 69) also tells us that he married Selene, his father's widow. His son was Antiochus XIII. ( 23 ; cp Kuhn, Beitr. z. Gesch. der Seleukiden, 33-34).

22. Phillipus I. and Demetrius III.[edit]

In what way Philippus and Demetrius divided the kingdom is not known ; but Demetrius probably ruled Coelesyria and Antioch. Soon hostilities broke out between them. Demetrius was also engaged with the Jews, who in 88 B.C. called him in to aid them against their tyrant prince Alexander Jannaeus. Demetrius defeated Jannaeus (Jos. Ant. 13:14:1-2); but in the moment of victory Jewish national feeling awoke, and 6000 Jews went over to Alexander from the army of Demetrius. The Syrian king must have shown signs of desiring to reduce Judaea once more to a dependency of Syria. Demetrius then turned his arms against his brother Philippus, whom he besieged in Beroea. 3 Straton, the ruler of Beroea, who supported Philippus, appealed for assistance to the Arab sheik Azizus and the Parthian Mithridates. By them Demetrius was himself beleaguered in his camp, and compelled to capitulate. He died in honourable confinement at the court of the Parthian king Mithridates II. (Jos. Ant. 13:14:3).

After the capture of Demetrius by the Parthians, Philippus made himself master of Antioch, and for a short time was sole ruler of what was left of the Syrian empire (88 B.C.). The intestine strife was soon renewed, for Antiochus XII. Dionysos, 4 the youngest of the sons of Grypus, claimed the throne, and established himself in Damascus (87/6 B.C.). Philippus, indeed, shortly afterwards took the town by the treachery of the governor Milesius, while Antiochus was engaged with the Nabataeans ; but he was compelled to evacuate it again. When Antiochus resumed operations against the Arabians, the Jewish despot, Alexander Jannaeus, attempted to bar the road through Judaea by constructing a great wall and trench from Joppa to Capharsaba, but in vain (Jos. Ant. 13:15:1). Ten thousand Arab riders surprised the forces of the Syrian king, who, true to the traditions of his house, fell fighting bravely (probably about 84 B.C. ).

The end of Philippus is doubtful. In 83 B.C. the Armenian king Tigranes was invited to put an end to the long strife by making himself master of the Syrian kingdom. Neither Philippus nor Antiochus X. (if they were still alive ; see above, 21) could offer any real opposition, and Tigranes made himself master of the entire Syrian kingdom from the sea to the Euphrates, including also Cilicia (Justin, 40:1, Appian, Syr. 48). He so ruled for fourteen years, Syria being governed by a viceroy. In 69 B.C. the connection of Tigranes with his father-in-law Mithridates of Pontus led to his own defeat by Lucullus.

1 Ptolemy Lathyrus = Ptolemy Soter II. (see PTOLEMY).

2 Demetrius III., Eucaerus (95-88 B.C.). Euxaipos [bukairos], so Jos. Ant. 13:13:4, where, however, Niese reads "Aicaipos ['akairos]. The coins of Antiochus X. bear the triple title Theos Philopator Soter, or else Philometor Euergetes Callinicus.

3 A town E. of Antioch.

4 Dionysos coins bear also the titles Epiphanes Philopator Callinicus, the title Dionysos being also sometimes omitted.

23. Antiochus XIII. Asiaticus (69-65 B.C.)[edit]

{1} After the defeat of Tigranes, Syria did not all at once come into the possession of the Romans. The royal house of Syria was not yet extinct, for Antiochus X. Eusebes and Cleopatra Selene had left a son Antiochus.

The youth of Asiaticus had been passed in Asia Minor (Justin, 40:2, 'in angulo Ciliciae'), from which circumstance he received his surname (Appian, Syr. 70). This Antiochus, along with a brother, appeared in Rome to urge their claim to the kingdom of Egypt, then under the sway of the illegitimate Ptolemy Auletes. This claim was disregarded, and the disappointed princes returned home by way of Sicily, where Antiochus was robbed by Verres of a rich present intended for the Senate (Cic. Verr. 2:4:27). This was about 72 B.C. Three years later Tigranes had lost his Syrian possessions, and Antiochus was received with open arms as the heir to his kingdom (Appian, Syr. 49). Lucullus recognised his claim.

In 65 B.C. disturbances broke out in Antioch (Diod. frg. 34), and Philippus son of Philippus I. was encouraged to lay claim to the crown. Thus the old strife between the two rival lines was renewed in the third generation. The Arabian chief Azizus (cp 22) supported Philippus, whilst Sampsiceramus, prince of Emesa (Strabo, 753), supported Antiochus. Into the details of the strife we need not enter. Pompeius, who had taken the place of Lucullus in 66 B.C. , took in hand the reduction of this chaos to order. Antiochus, on requesting to be acknowledged as the rightful heir to the throne, 'received the answer that Pompeius would not give back the sovereignty to a king who knew neither how to maintain nor how to govern his kingdom, even at the request of his subjects, much less against their distinctly expressed wishes. With this letter of the Roman proconsul the house of Seleucus was ejected from the throne which it had occupied for two hundred and fifty years. Antiochus soon after lost his life through the artifice of the emir Sampsiceramus, as whose client he played the ruler in Antioch' (Mommsen, Hist, of Koine, 4:135). Syria now became a Roman province (63 B.C. ).

24. Literature.[edit]

Besides the special articles devoted to Antiochus, Demetrius, etc., and collateral articles, in the present work, Schurer's Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ, ET, should be consulted for a sketch of Syrian history, and for the authorities there cited. The literature of the subject is extensive. Most important are P. Gardner, Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum : The Seleucid kings of Syria ; and Babelon, Rois de Syrie. Extremely valuable are the articles under the various headings Antiochus, Demetrius, etc., in Pauly s Real Encyclopadie, now available in part in the revised edition by Wissowa ; in it will be found the fullest collection of recent authorities, to which general reference must here suffice.

W. J. W

1 As no coins of Asiaticus are extant, we do not know his official title. The name Asiaticus, of course, belongs to the some class as Grypus, Hierax, etc., which are vulgar in origin, not official. Possibly the official title of this last of the Seleucidae was Eusebes, which would account for his being confused with his father by our authorities.


(CHM [Ti. WH]), Lk. 3:36, RV SHEM.


(-liTpCD, 29), one of the sons of Shemaiah b. Obed-edom (1 Ch. 26:7, c&Bxei& [B], CAM&XIA [ L l -I AC [A]). Cp ISMACHIAH, where a religious meaning is suggested. This meaning, however, seems to be due to a redactor. The neighbouring names are surely clan-names of the Negeb (cp OBED-EDOM). Cp SIBBECAI. T. K. C.



i. 1 Esd. 9:33 = Ezra 10:33, SHIMEI (15).

2. Esth. 11:2, RV SEMHIAS ; elsewhere SHIMEI (10).

3. Lk. 3:26 (o-ejueeiv [Ti. WH]), RV SEMEIN, a name in the genealogy of Jesus, see GENEALOGIES, 3.


(ce/weic [A]), 1 Esd. 9:23 RV, AV Semis = Ezra 10:23, SHIMEI, 14.


(ce/v\eAAloc [A]), 1 Esd. 2:16 = Ezra 4:8 SHIMSHAI.


(HX3D), Ezra 2:35; HASSENAAH.


(Hip), in Neh. 8:3, 1 S. 14:4 . See BOZEZ, MICHMASH, 2.


n^y ; CAN[e]ip; Sitnir; Dt. 3:9, 1 Ch. 5:23, Cant. 4:8 [cANieip, N], Ezek. 27:5 [ceNeip, B]), or sometimes, incorrectly, in AV, SHENIR (Dt., Cant.). Senir (the Amorite name of Mt. Hermon, Dt. l.c. } is described in an inscription of Shalmaneser as 'Saniru, the mountain summit at the entrance to Lebanon' (Del. Par. 104) ; Ezekiel says that the Tyrians (but cp TYRE, i) sent thither for planks of fir-trees. In 1 Ch. 5:23 Senir is coupled with Mount Hermon. It might be a designation of that part of the Hermon-range which is between Ba'albek and Homs, and was known by the same name to the Arabic geographers (e.g., Abulfeda).

Cp KAT (3) 159; Halevy, REJ 20 [1890] 246; Wetzstein, ZATW 3:278. See HERMON, SIRION, and, on the question whether there is once or twice a confusion between a mountain-range in the far N. and one in the far S., bearing a similar name, see Crit. Bil>.


1 (TnrttP or [2 K. 19:20] 3"imp ; ceNNAXHp[e]i/v\ [BNAQrj -eiB [Qmg Is. 37:21], -xeip- ^ ceNA XHp- [2 K. 18:13 A, 2 Macc. 8:19 V "] "X eip [2 Macc. 8:19, 15:22 ! V; 3 Macc. 6:5, V], C6NHpHB [Is. 36:1, Aq.]; Ass. Sin-ahe-erba, 'Sin has increased the brothers' ), son and successor of Sargon, came to the throne on the 12th of Abu, 705 B.C.

1. Sources for history[edit]

Sennacherib's own dated inscriptions, the Taylor Cylinder being the latest, give the events of the first fifteen years of his reign, in a chronological order, but arranged according to campaigns, not, like Sargon s Annals, according to years. The Canon Lists, of the second class, which fix some definite event for each eponymy, are defective after his first year. The Babylonian Chronicle, which was exceptionally full for this reign, deals chiefly with what concerned Babylon. The Kings List, a Babylonian document, records the succession of kings who ruled in Babylon during this reign. Some statements preserved in classical authors are to be regarded with suspicion until they are brought to the test of further inscriptions, still unpublished, of this king's. The many contracts of this reign and a large number of letters, now being published, give many incidental references. Hence the last word on the history of Sennacherib from the Assyrian side cannot yet be said. All that can now be done is to summarise the present state of knowledge.

1 For a portrait of Sennacherib see col. 729.

2. Struggle for the kingdom.[edit]

Sennacherib does not seem to have been in a position to proceed to Babylon directly after his accession to the throne of Assyria and there 'take the hands of Bel', or become legitimate king of Babylon. Polyhistor relates indeed that Sennacherib's brother reigned there at first, and, on his death, a man named Hagises reigned for one month, till he was killed by Merodach-baladan, who reigned for six months. The Babylonian Kings List assigns one month to Marduk-zakir-sum, who may be Hagises, and then gives nine months to Merodach-baladan. Whatever means Sennacherib took to govern Babylon in his first two years whether he ruled by a shaknu or governor, or whether he really sent a brother to act as sub-king his rule was thrown off by an upstart, 'son of a slave'. Merodach-baladan, who had been expelled by Sargon in 721 B.C., although a Chaldaean, was evidently more welcome than Sennacherib, whom the Babylonian Kings List calls a member of the dynasty of Habigal. According to Jensen, this means simply 'Great Rascal'.

Sennacherib's own inscriptions ascribe to the commencement of his reign the active hostility of Merodach-baladan, king of Karduniash, the old name for Babylonia, whom Sennacherib defeated in his first expedition. Merodach-baladan was supported by an army from Elam. These allies were defeated at Kisu (now Hymer), about 10 mi. E. from Babylon. Merodach-baladan fled alone to Guzumani. Sennacherib immediately entered Babylon and took possession of Merodach-baladan's palace, acquiring great spoil. He then sent after Merodach-baladan an army which searched the swamps where he had taken refuge ; but the wily Chaldaean escaped. Sennacherib then proceeded to conquer the country, city by city. He seems to have had to fight with a number of tribes, Urbi, Aramu, and Chaldaeans, who had occupied Erech, Nippur, Kisu, Harshagkalama, and Cutha, and boasts of having captured 89 strong cities as well as 820 smaller cities in Chaldaea. On his return to Babylon he had to pacify the country, and rescue it from the hordes of Aramaean and Chaldaean peoples, who would not acknowledge him as king.

Sennacherib enumerates the Tu'muna, Rihihu, Iadaku, Ubudu, Kipre, Malihu, Gurumu, Ubulu, Damunu, Gambulu, Hindaru, 'u a, Ptikudu, Hamranu, Hagaranu, Nabatu, Li'tau, Aramu. The number of his captives he puts at 208,000. The nature of these tribes is indicated by the spoil taken from them : 7200 horses, 11,073 asses, 5230 camels, 80,100 oxen, 800,500 sheep. The country was clearly over-run by nomads.

It is evident that Assyria had completely lost control of the country. Sennacherib had to reconquer it. The Babylonian Chronicle and a fragment of the Canon List place a conquest of Larak and Sarabanu in 704 B.C. This doubtless marked the commencement of the reconquest. But the campaign clearly lasted beyond 702 B.C., when Sennacherib set Bel-ibni on the throne of Babylon. This prince had been brought up at the Assyrian court, but was of the old Babylonian seed royal, for all the sources acknowledge him as legitimate monarch, and the Babylonian Kings List ascribes him to the dynasty of Babylon, and gives him a reign of three years. He was, of course, a vassal king.

Sennacherib assigns to this period the submission of Nabu-bel-shumate, kepu of Hararati, and the destruction of Hirimmu. Some of Sennacherib's inscriptions follow the plan of presenting together the events connected with one district. Thus we learn that after Bel-ibni had proved faithless or inefficient, Sennacherib once more marched to Babylon and deposed him, setting Asuhr-nadin-shum, his own son, on the throne. The Babylonian Chronicle places the pillage of Hararate and Hirimmu in 702 B.C., and associates the accession of Ashur-nadin-shum with Sennacherib's pillage of Akkad, or Northern Babylonia. Bel-ibni was called away to Assyria. It was probably during Sennacherib's absence in the West that Bel-ibni became disgraced. Ashur-nadin-shum was acknowledged king in Babylon according to all sources ; but the Kings List assigns him to the dynasty of Habigal. He reigned six years, 699-693 B.C.

Sennacherib owed Elam a grudge for supporting Merodach-baladan against him. In his second campaign, as he calls it, before September 702 B.C., when the Bellino Cylinder is dated, he marched an army towards Elam. The Kassi, who had once furnished the ruling dynasty of Babylonia, about 1725-1155 B.C., and a neighbouring tribe, the Iasubigalli, on the borders of Babylonia and Elam, who had never been subjected to Assyrian rule, were now ravaged. The neighbouring kingdom of Ellipi, once subject to Sargon, was also pillaged. As in Sargon s case, some distant tribes of the Medes sent presents. Sennacherib boasts that his predecessors had not even heard the names of these peoples. But although Elam was threatened, it does not seem that Sennacherib made any direct attack this time. His hands were soon full in another quarter.

How long the West had been in rebellion does not appear ; but Sennacherib calls the campaign in which he proceeded to bring the West to submission his third. This is ascribed by general consent to 701 B.C. Bel-ibni was settled in Babylon, and Sennacherib was free to attend to the West at that time ; but we have no explicit statement of date from cuneiform sources. The first move was against Tyre. Eululaeus, whom Sennacherib calls Luli king of Sidon, according to Menander, as quoted by Josephus, had gone to Citium in Cyprus to establish his authority. He was thus committing a technical act of war against Sennacherib. The latter does not state the grounds of his quarrel. But doubtless all the West had become very backward in payment of tribute. Sennacherib says that Luli fled from Tyre to Cyprus and that all his country fell into Assyrian hands. Great Sidon and Little Sidon, Beth-zait, Sarepta, Mahalliba, Ushu, Achzib, and Accho are named as fortresses captured from Luli. Sennacherib set up Ethobal as vassal king over a new kingdom of Sidon. Tyre he could not reduce.

The vassal kings and semi-independent rulers of Syria and Palestine now hastened to secure exemption from pillage by tribute and submission. Menahem of Samsimuruna, Abdi-li'ti of Arvad, Urumilki of Gebal, Mitinti of Ashdod, Pudu-ihi of Ammon, Kamush-nadab of Moab, Airammu of Edom, all called kings of the Martu-land, submitted. Tsidka of Ashkelon stood out, was captured and with all his belongings carried to Assyria. He had apparently come to the throne by a revolution which had expelled Sharru-ludari, son of Rukipti, whom Tiglath-pileser III. had set over Ashkelon, about 734 B.C. Hence he probably expected no mercy if he submitted. Sharru-ludari was reinstated. Sennacherib then reduced Beth-dagan, Joppa, Benebarka, and Azor which had been under Tsidka's rule.

The nobles and people of Ekron had rebelled against their king Padi, a faithful vassal of Assyria, put him in chains, and sent him to Hezekiah, king of Judah, to keep in prison. When Sennacherib advanced against Ekron, he was faced by a great army of the kings of Musur, with troops, archers, chariots, and horsemen from Meluhha. This army he defeated at Eltekeh, capturing the sons of the kings of Musur and the generals sent from Meluhha. He then stormed Eltekeh and Timnath. Ekron soon submitted. After wiping out the conspirators and enslaving their supporters Sennacherib reinstated Padi, whom he says he brought forth out of Jerusalem.

Sennacherib then proceeded to ravage Judah, capturing forty-six great fortresses and smaller cities 'without number', counting as spoil 200,150 people. He does not claim to have captured Jerusalem. He says of Hezekiah, 'him, like a caged bird, within Jerusalem, his capital, I shut in, forts against him I raised, and I repulsed whoever came out of his city gate and tore it up' ; but there is no mention of capture. The captured cities were annexed to the dominions of Metinti of Ashdod, Padi of Ekron, and Silli-bel of Gaza. What caused Sennacherib to leave Judah we are not told ; but it is nearly certain that troubles in Babylon were again pressing. The army left behind under the Tartan and Rabshakeh would be well able to carry on a siege ; but Hezekiah would not push matters to the point of standing a long siege. He did submit, as is evident from the tribute which, Sennacherib says, was sent after him to Nineveh. It amounted to 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, and an enormous amount of precious stones and palace furniture, besides Hezekiah's daughters, his eunuchs, musicians, etc. Sennacherib's account of the submission seems to imply that it was the Urbi, Arabs whom Hezekiah had received into the city to strengthen it, who really gave in, and so forced the king to submit. They may have been a garrison from Meluhha. These events are recorded on Cylinder B, which is dated in the Eponymy of Mitunu, 700 B.C. That the account is complete no one can pretend. It makes no mention of Lachish, although the celebrated scene of Sennacherib receiving the submission of that city shows the great importance attached by him to its capture. Whether Lachish was one of the forty-six great fortresses, or not, it seems probable, as it was only 10 mi. or so from Eltekeh, that it was captured in this expedition.

What was the exact nature of Bel-ibnl's fault we do not know ; but Merodach-baladan's activity in the Sea-land and the unrest of Marduk-ushezib in Chaldaea caused Sennacherib to attack the southern portion of Babylonia. His principal enemies fled. Merodach-baladan, with his gods, escaped by ship to Nagitu on the Elamite coast of the Persian Gulf ; but his brothers and the rest of his people, whom he had left in Bit Yakin, were taken captives. Sennacherib added 15,000 bowmen and 15,000 pikemen from these countries to his army. This was in 700 B.C. Sennacherib calls it his 'fourth campaign'.

3. Other capaigns.[edit]

Sennacherib now seems to have considered his empire thoroughly subdued, for he embarked on a fancy expedition, what he himself calls his fifth campaign. It can have brought little profit but he dwells upon it with evident pride and delight. Some of the mountain districts of Cilicia, peopled by the Tamurru, Sharmu, Ezama, Kipshu, Halbuda, Kua, Kana, dwelling in cities perched like birds nests on Mount Nipur, 'were not submissive to my yoke'. So, pitching his camp at the foot of Mount Nipur, with his bodyguards and picked warriors he scaled the mountain peaks, leading the attack in person, 'like a mighty bull'. He goes on to describe the hardships of this raid in a way that shows his own love of fighting. Then he turned to Mania, king of Ukki, at the Mount Anara and Uppa ; then against parts of Cilicia, Tulgarimmu, and the borders of Tabal. Everywhere he succeeded, pillaged, burnt, and destroyed. This seems to have been in 699 B.C. Although there seems to have been small value in this move, Berossus seems to have known of Sennacherib's war in Cilicia and ascribes to him the foundation of Tarsus.

In his sixth campaign Sennacherib struck out a completely new plan. Merodach-baladan's elusive tactics had repeatedly foiled his enemy. He had taken to the ships, for which the Chaldaeans were famous, and escaped to Nagitu, whither Sennacherib could not follow. Now Sennacherib determined to strike him even there. So he set his captives from the Phoenician coasts, skilled shipbuilders, to build ships at Nineveh. These he took down the Tigris to Opis, dragged them overland to the Arahtu canal, and floated them on the Euphrates at Bit Dakkuri. He then embarked his bodyguards and picked warriors, stocked the ships with provisions for the men and fodder for the horses, and sent them down the river, while he marched beside them on land, as far as Bab Salimiti. The fleet stretched on the shore of the river to the shore of the Gulf, 'two kaspu'. At the mouth of the river Sennacherib seems to have stayed behind. He sent on his fleet, however, and after five days and nights they reached a point where he caused sacrifices to be offered to Ea, god of the ocean, and threw a gold ship, a gold fish, and an alluttu of gold into the sea. The landing at Nagitu was opposed and the shore was difficult ; but at the mouth of the Ulai, where the shore was practicable, a landing was effected and Sennacherib's army swarmed out of the ships 'like locusts'. The Chaldaeans were utterly routed, Nagitu, Nagitu Dihibina, Hilmu, Pillatu, Hupapanu, Elamite cities, were captured. The gods of Bit Yakin that had been carried there, the people, with a number of Elamites, and immense booty, were brought back to Sennacherib at Bab Salimiti. Sennacherib added to his army 30,500 bowmen, 30,500 pikemen. The rest of the spoil he distributed among his warriors.

In this campaign Sennacherib had violated the territory of Elam. Ishtar-hundu of Elam had never crossed swords with Sennacherib since the defeat of his army sent to support Merodach-baladan. Probably he was regarded by the more warlike spirits in Elam as pusillanimous. At any rate in 699 B.C. his brother Hallushu imprisoned him and took the rule in Elam. How long Sennacherib was occupied over his preparations for the extirpation of Merodach-baladan is not clear; but it was in 693 B.C. that he pillaged Nagitu, Hilmu, Pillatu, and Hupapanu. This invasion was at once revenged by Hallushu. While Sennacherib was triumphing in the S. , the king of Elam made a raid into Babylonia, captured Sippara, slew its people, defeated Ashur-nadin-sum and carried him captive to Elam, whence he seems never to have returned. The king of Elam then set Nergal-ushezib on the throne of Babylon. Nergal-ushezib at once set to work, evidently assisted by Elamite troops, to occupy the country in Sennacherib's rear. In Tammuz he occupied Nippur. He attacked Erech and pillaged its gods and people. His Elamite allies carried off the gods and people. This was on the first of Teshritu ; but on the seventh he met the victorious army of Sennacherib returning from the S. and was defeated, captured, and carried off to Assyria, after a reign of a year and six months. This was in 693 B.C. At the end of this year Hallushu of Elam was killed in a revolution and was succeeded by Kudur-nahundi. Sennacherib is silent as to the troubles in Babylonia and the fate of Ashur-nadin-sum. But he appends to the account of the sixth expedition the statement that on his return he defeated and captured Shuzub, son of Gahul, who had seated himself on the throne of Babylon. He ascribes this revolution to the Babylonians, who had fled with Merodach-baladan to Elam, and had returned thence to Babylon. Sennacherib then sent an army against the Elamite auxiliaries while he apparently pursued his way to Assyria. His army defeated that of Elam and slew the king of Elam's son.

It was clear that Sennacherib could not pass over such conduct as Elam had shown. In his 'seventh campaign', Sennacherib raided the land. He claims to have captured thirty-four fortified cities and an endless number of smaller towns, 'the smoke of their burning lay over the land like a cloud'. But Kudur-nahhundi would not meet the invader, who seems only to have ravaged the lowlands. Sennacherib states that the king of Elam returned to Madaktu, a mountain fortress. Thither Sennacherib determined to follow and root him out. Kudur-nahhundi abandoned Madaktu and fled to Hidalu, a remote mountain fastness. Sennacherib attacked Madaktu; but in the hills winter came on so fast and the storms were so severe that he could not press the assault, and returned to Nineveh. Kudur-nahhundi did not survive more than three months, and was succeeded by a brother Umman-minanu, whom Sennacherib regarded as a man without sense or prudence.

Sennacherib with his plunder-laden army had passed Babylon by on his return from the S. , and though he had captured its king Nergal-ushezib at Nippur and driven the Elamites out of Babylonia, and subsequently raided Elam, he had not yet entered the capital. Doubtless his first efforts had been directed to an attempt to recover his son from Elam, and the place was hateful to him. Now, when he would enter Babylon, he found that the inhabitants had made themselves a new king, Mushezib-Marduk, another Chaldaean. He is credited with reigning four years - 692-688 B.C. Sennacherib calls him a felon who had fled from the prefect of Lahiri and had collected a band of murderers and robbers, and taken refuge in the marshes. When surrounded by Sennacherib before, he managed to escape to Elam ; but when he found there only danger and trouble, he had come back to Babylon and there found means to secure the throne. He broke open the treasure-house of Marduk's temple and sent a bribe to Umman-minanu. The latter giving no heed to the fate which Sennacherib had brought upon Elam in his last campaign, received the bribe and assembled an immense army, drawn not only from Elam, but also from many lands which had once acknowledged Assyrian power. It is interesting to note Parsua, Anzan (afterwards the land of Cyrus), Ellipi, Lahiru, Pukudu, Gambulu ; also Samuna, son of Merodach-baladan. The forces reached Babylon and effected a junction with Mushezib-Marduk. It was the greatest coalition that had yet faced Sennacherib. In his eighth campaign he met them at Halul on the Tigris, and the chronicler waxes eloquent over the immense array that faced the Assyrian army. They were 'like a great swarm' of locusts. 'The dust of their feet was like a heavy storm cloud which spreads over the wide heaven about to break in downpour'. The account of the battle given by Sennacherib is a masterpiece of description, but too long to quote. He claims to have defeated his enemies with tremendous slaughter and terrible butchery. The Babylonian Chronicle, however, claims the victory for Elam. At any rate Sennacherib returned to Nineveh for a time. It is not clear in which year the battle occurred ; perhaps it was in 691 B.C. In 689 B.C. (Nisan the 15th), Umman-minanu had a stroke of paralysis and lost his speech. Sennacherib seized the opportunity to attack Babylon, which was without Elamite assistance. On the first of Kislimu the city was taken, Mushezib-Marduk was carried away captive to Assyria, Marduk himself was taken to Ashur. Babylon was sacked, its walls razed to the ground, the greater portion of the houses burnt, its inhabitants driven out, or deported, and the waters of the Euphrates turned over the site. For eight years the Babylonian Chronicle and Ptolemy's Canon write the city down as kingless.

Some time after this Sennacherib made an expedition to Arabia. This we learn from a notice by Esarhaddon. Aduma was captured and the gods carried off to Assyria. Winckler sees in this an excuse for postulating a second expedition of Sennacherib to the W. , at any rate to Arabia and Egypt. Several fragmentary inscriptions have been published which are consistent with the supposition that there is a cylinder at least partly preserved, which narrated events occurring after 688 B.C. There is no means, however, of dating the events until the remaining historical inscriptions are published. The reference to Azekah, noted by Hommel, may belong to the reign of Sargon. No convincing evidence from cuneiform sources is available to support a second expedition of Sennacherib to the W. All sources are silent as to the last eight years of his reign.

4. Other details.[edit]

Sennacherib was the maker of NINEVEH (q.v.}. His inscriptions are very full on the subject of his great buildings there. Some think that it was with a view to make Nineveh supreme that he humbled Babylon so completely ; but the trouble it had given him and the memory of his son amply account for his policy.

Besides Ashur-nadin-shum, king of Babylon, 699-693 B.C., doubtless Sennacherib's eldest son, we know of a son Ardi-Belit, crown prince in Nineveh, in 694 B.C.; Ashur-shun-ushabshi, a son for whom Sennacherib built a palace at Scherif Khan ; Nergal-shum-(usur?), named in 693 B.C. ; Shar-etir-Ashur, whom Winckler would make the Sharezer of 2 K. 19:37; and ESARHADDON (q.v. ), who succeeded him. The mother of Esarhaddon seems to have borne the names Zakutu and Nakia. For an account of a jewel belonging to this queen, see Scheil, Rec. dcs Trav., and see the article ESARHADDON for her role as regent in Assyria. Her sister was called Abirami. Sennacherib also left a daughter called Matte.

Sennacherib was murdered by his son, according to the Babylonian Chronicle, and the Canon Lists, on the 20th of Tebetu, 682 B.C. On the biblical account of the murder, see ADRAMMELECH, SHAREZER, and NISROCH.

C. H. W. J.

5. Relations with Judah.[edit]

With regard to the history of the relations between Sennacherib and the kingdom of Judah, there is much difference of opinion. The chief points in dispute are

  • (1) whether the Hebrew narratives, except where they coincide with the cuneiform record, can be used at all for historical purposes, and
  • (2) whether these narratives, if based upon facts, relate to one period, or to two, in the reign of Sennacherib.

That the first of the three portions, into which Stade and his successors have analysed the Hebrew record, agrees in the main with the cuneiform record, is obvious. That portion consists of barely four verses (2 K. 18:13b [from n^yj-16), and probably comes from the royal annals of Judah. It states (so too Is. 36:1b) that Sennacherib took all the fortified cities of Judah (Sennacherib himself says forty-six), and exacted a heavy tribute from Hezekiah as the price of forgiveness ; two points of difference in the respective accounts,

  • (1) as to the amount of the tribute, {1} and
  • (2) as to the place to which the tribute was sent (Lachish? Nineveh?), need not be dwelt upon.

The second and the third portion (i.e. , 18:17-19:9a and 19:36-37, 19:9b-35), however, contain several statements which are unconfirmed by Sennacherib. 2 Thus

  • (1) in 2 K. 19:9 (Is. 37:9) - i.e., in the second narrative - we are told that Tirhakah took the field against Sennacherib, and it is implied that this stood in close relation to the withdrawal of Sennacherib from Palestine.
  • (2) 2 K. 19:35 (Is. 37:36) tells us that 185,000 men in the Assyrian army were destroyed in one night by pestilence - the explanation which the third narrative gives of the failure of Sennacherib's invasion of Judah.
  • (3) 2 K. 19:8 (Is. 37:8) speaks of Sennacherib as engaged in the siege of Libnah when the news respecting Tirhakah reached him - i.e., the third narrative gives the prominence to Libnah which the first and the second (see 2 K. 18:14, 18:17 Is. 36:2) give to Lachish.

The first and the second of these statements are commonly supposed to be confirmed by the legend in Herod. 2141, that when Zaj>axapt/3os [sanacharibos], king of the Arabians and Assyrians, invaded Egypt and besieged Pelusium in the days of the pious king Sethos, field-mice gnawed the quivers and shield-handles of the invaders, who precipitately fled. Even Winckler and Prasek accept this view, and they find in the passage of Herodotus a support for their theory (which is accepted by Guthe [Gesch. 205] and Benzinger) that Sennacherib made a second expedition to S. Palestine and NW. Arabia (in the course of which he actually besieged Jerusalem) some time between 690 and 68 1, which is referred to in the third narrative, whilst the second narrative relates to the expedition of 701, in the course of which Jerusalem was only blockaded, not besieged.

We shall do well in considering this theory to put aside altogether the material in the second and the third Hebrew narrative, for a close examination of them clearly shows that they are parallel. The two narratives are no doubt inconsistent in some respects ; but upon the whole they interlace and are mutually complementary. All depends, therefore, on the justice of the inference drawn from Herod. 2:141. Prashek 3 conceives himself to have shown that the Sethos of Herodotus is no other than Tirhakah. That Egypt was a member of the coalition against Sennacherib is shown by the presence of 'kings of Egypt' at the battle of Altaku (Schr. KAT (2) 302-303), and the designation of ZavoXapt/3os [sanacharibos] as king of the Arabians and Assyrians is thought to be a record of the fact (?) that after his successes against the NW. Arabian tribes Sennacherib assumed the title of 'king of Arabia' ; lastly, the mouse is said to be the symbol of pestilence. The objection is threefold,

  • (1) As Winckler has shown, it was the kings of Musri (D"ISD). not of Egypt (onsc), who fought at Altaku;
  • (2) We have no occasion to assume that Sethos is written in error for Tirhakah ; and
  • (3) there is no trustworthy evidence that a mouse is the symbol of pestilence (see HEZEKIAH, 2).

The second of these criticisms may need some explanation. The reason why scholars equate 'Sethos' with 'Tirhakah' is simply that Herodotus gives his Arabian and Assyrian king the name of Zacaxa/"/8oy [sanacharibos]. But how if Herodotus or his informant has made a confusion? And how if the king of Egypt really intended was Seti (the natural equivalent of Sethos) ? As Brugsch relates : l

'The wars of Seti towards the E. began in the first year of his reign. The scene of them was the districts and the fortresses on the territory of the Shasu, or Bedouin, "from the fortress Khetam, in the land of Zalu, to the place Kan'ana." . . . The fortress Kan'ana was stormed by Seti and his warriors, and so Pharaoh became the lord of the entire Edomite Negeb'.

The name of the Shasu chief is not given us. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the popular tradition caught up by Herodotus spoke of the 'chieftain of the Arabian Shasu', and that this became to Herodotus ears, '[Sennacherib] the king of the Arabians and Assyrians.

The result, so far attained, is that the only historical accounts of the campaign of Sennacherib against Judah and its capital are to be found in the cuneiform inscriptions of Sennacherib and in the short extract from the Annals of Judah (2 K. 18:13b-16). But how is the rest of the Hebrew narrative to be accounted for ? We are not bound to answer the question here at length ; but some suggestions must be given. According to Marti (Jes. 259), the subject of the deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib attracted imaginative and didactic writers. This, indeed, is about all that we could venture to say, as the text of the Hebrew narrative now stands. But it is not all that we can say, if we give due weight to critical considerations. We must not exaggerate the imaginativeness of later Hebrew writers, but rather dig deep down for the fragments of genuine tradition in their works. This is by no means a hopeless task because we know that the two powers constantly present to the minds of the peoples of Israel and of Judah were N. Arabia and Assyria ; the works of the prophets of the 'Assyrian age' prove this conclusively. We have, therefore, something to direct and restrain us in our application of text-critical methods. Now in the account of the national extinction of Judah two invasions appear to be combined, an Assyrian and a N. Arabian. This leads us to suppose that such may have been the case in 2 K. 18:13-19:37. The king who invaded Judah may have been a king of Meluhha - the same who sent troops to fight against Sennacherib at Altaku, - and the Cush, whose king interfered with the invader's progress, may have been the N. Arabian Cush (friendly to Judah?). The names Sennacherib and Tirhakah may be explained on the analogy of the erroneous ^avaxdpLfios [sanacharibos] of Herodotus.

The pestilence, if at all historical, may have attacked the N. Arabian army. 'Nineveh', as in some other passages, may have come from 'Jerahmeel, 'Nisroch' from 'Nimrod', 'Adrammelech' from 'Jerahmeel', and 'Ararat (as in Gen. 8:4) from 'Aram' - i.e., 'Jerahmeel'. The object of the Asshurite or N. Arabian invasion would be to form one strong united empire in opposition to Assyria. It may be added that the much-disputed and badly transmitted prophecy in Is. 22:1-14 refers most probably, not to an Assyrian, but to an Asshurite siege of the Judahite capital (see VISION, VALLEY OF, and Crit. Bib.).

It may be urged in objection to these conclusions that fresh inscriptions of Sennacherib are not past hoping for. That is true ; but these inscriptions will not supersede the Hebrew traditions. To attempt to write the history of the Israelites simply on the basis of the uncriticised Hebrew texts and the uncriticised Assyrian inscriptions would be a very grave mistake.

1 See Winckler, in KAT (3) 342.

2 Cp Intr. Is. 229-230.

3 Forschungen zur Gesch. des Alt. 2:11-21.

6. Literature.[edit]

G. Smith's History of Sennacherib gives the chief events with the original texts. For additional small items of information see the Histories of Assyria, especially Winckler's GBA, R. W. Rogers' History of Babylonia and Assyria, Winckler's AOF, passim, and Assyrian Deeds and Documents, passim.

C. H. W. J., 1-4, 6 ;

T. K. C., 5.

1 Gesch. Aegyptetis, 458-460 ; cp EGYPT, 57.


(riN-IJp), Neh. 11:9 ; in 3:3. HASSENAAH.


(D ny ), the name borne by one of the (post-exilic) priestly courses: 1 Ch. 2:48 (ceoopeiM [BL], -PIN [A]).


On the water of separation (*O rn3), RVmg 'water of impurity', Nu. 19:9+, see CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, 17.

On the separation of the Nazirite see NAZIRITE.


pEp; CCO^HRA [AEL]) is mentioned in Gen. 10:30 as one of the boundaries of the territory of the sons of Joktan. It has not been identified with certainty. The usual identification - a very appropriate one - is with the aaw<papa [sapphara], aatfiap [saphar] of Ptolemy, Pliny, and the Periplus (i.e., the ancient Himyarite capital Zafar) ; this again is held by Karl Ritter, Gesenius, etc., to be the same with the seaport of Hadramaut, near Mirbat, the name being now pronounced Isfar or Isfar. The possibility of this may be granted ; but it is still uncertain (see Di. Gen.(6) 201; Del. Gen. [1887], 228). 'The mountain of the East' is too general an expression to give precision to the undefined geographical terms of this verse. [On the textual criticism and the meaning of Gen. 10:30 see further GOLD, i (c), PAKVAIM.]

[See also Ritter, Erkunde, 14:372; Tuch, Gen. (2) 212; Sprenger, Alte Geogr. ran Arabien, 185 ; Glaser, Skizze, 2437; Bent, Southern Arabia (1900); A. H. Keane, The Gold of Ophir, 70. From Prof. Keane we quote the following lines ; his work only appeared as the article OPHIR was passing through the press. 'Dhufar [-Zafar], as Bent tells us, forms a sort of oasis, an extremely rich alluvial plain, extending some sixty miles along the coast a little to the W. of the Kuria Muria islands, and cut off by the Gara range from the sandy wastes of Hadramout. Here still flourish both the myrrh and the frankincense shrub, which have constituted the chief industry of the inhabitants for thousands of years. . . . The harbour of Moscha, now nearly blocked by a sandbank, is still deep, and extends inland about a mile and a half, and there are many ruins about it. Here we have the Portus Nobilis of the Periplus' (70-71) Here Prof. Keane would place 'the elusive Ophir'. Moscha 'was in fact the port of Ophir, which itself stood a little inland, round about the head of the inlet, which Bent tells us is surrounded by many ruins and was reached " from Mesha as thou goest into Sephar " ' (82).] f. B. T. K. C.


(TIED, in pause for T)Sp [BUB]? fepAeA [BXA], CepAeA [Q*nisi fort 1], cAeApAA [Cj a ] ; Vg. [in] Bosphoro, as if the prefixed i were radical). If the text is right, a place or country in which Jewish captives from Jerusalem resided when Obad. 15-21 was written (Obad. 20). That Sepharad (or Sephared?) is not Spain 1 (Tg. Jon. Pesh. ), nor Shipar, or some other Babylonian city (Schr. KATW 285 ; cp von der Hardt, De Sipphara Babylonia [1708]) need not now be shown. Schrader in KAT^ 445/. identifies it with Saparda, a region in SW Media towards Babylonia mentioned by Sargon (cp KGF 116-119). This view is also accepted as most probable by Fried. Delitzsch (Par. 249) and G. A. Smith (Twelve Prophets, 2:176) ; it harmonises with the theory that vv. 10(15)-21 are to be referred to the time of the 'Babylonian exile'. 2 But it is also possible to identify Sepharad with Cparda [c has cedilla], a province of the Persian empire mentioned in two inscriptions of Darius between Cappadocia and Ionia, and in a third (Behistun) at the head of the list of provinces, immediately before Ionia. 3 In the Seleucidan chronicles from Babylonia this name is applied to Asia Minor as a whole. According to Winckler, the origin of the Jewish captivitv of Asia Minor is to be referred to 168 B.C. (Antiochus Epiphanes) ; if, however, the tradition of a captivity under Artaxerxes Ochus is historical, this period will naturally deserve the preference. W. R. Smith remarks, 4 'Lydia was a great slave-market, and Asia Minor was a chief seat of the Diaspora at an early date (cp Gutschmid, Neue Beitr. 77)'.

The text of Obad. 20, however, is very far from trustworthy, and the context does not favour the view that any distant place of captivity or indeed (see OISADIAH, 5) any place of captivity at all is referred to. We expect some part of the Negeb to be mentioned. It is not too bold to take -n3D as a dittographed rt2"l!i- 5 This is confirmed by LXX's reading t>p*da [ephratha]. (so the Ar. version). 'Zarephathites' was a synonym for 'Jerahmeelites'. See OBADIAH, 5 end, n. i.

T. K. C.

1 From Sepharad thus explained comes Sephardim, the name of the Jews of Spanish origin.

2 Knudtzon (Ass. Gebete. nos. 8, 11, 30) has also found a Saparda, NE. from Nineveh, spoken of in Esarhaddon's time.

3 So Silv. de Sacy, Pusey, W. R. Smith (see col. 3454). Sayce (Crit. Man. 483), Cheyne (Founders, 312-313), Wi. AOF 2:430. Lassen even connected the name Sardis with Cparda [c has cedilla].

4 EBW, art. 'Obadiah'.

5 Cp Crit. Bib. on Ezek. 27:14 (nnis). That D [YM ?] in Obad. is corrupt is recognised by Wellhausen and Nowack.


lD\1"lBD ; variously ceTTd><\peiM. -IN, -eiN. -OYAIM. -OY&IN, OYM&IN [2 K. 18:34, B], OyN- ce4>({>ApOY<MM, -OY&IN, -OYN. TTI( l>ApOY<M/v\, endx , eTT<}>&peNi. 6/V\4>ApiN cerrd>ApOYeM). whence the gentilic Sepharvites (D*pDpn, 2 K. 17:31a, Kt. in v. 31b D^ISD).

1. OT references.[edit]

The references to a place, or places, called Sepharvaim are in 2 K. 17:24 (cp 31), 18:34 ( = Is. 36:19), 19:13 ( = Is. 37:13). Taking the passages as they stand, in contexts relating to the political intercourse between Assyria and Israel or Judah, we may venture to explain them provisionally as follows, reserving our own judgment to the end.

1. The passage 2 K. 18:32b-35 (Is. 36:18-20), which is plainly an interpolation (see Marti, and cp Intr. Is. 218), seems to be based on 2 K. 19:13 (Is. 37:13), which may refer to the Syrian city called in the Babylonian Chronicle Sabarain, which was destroyed by Shalmaneser IV. (see SIBRAIM).

2. The Sepharvaim of 2 K. 17:24, 17:31 (in which passages captives of war appear to be referred to), however, is more plausibly identified l with Sipar, or Sippar, the city of Shamash the sun-god (StTr^apa [sipphara], Ptol. 5:18 ; nnrapr)i >i TroXts [sipparenoon polis], Abyden. ap. Eus. Praep. Ev. 9:41), famous from its association with the Deluge-story as given by Berossus, and regarded as one of the mahazi rabuti, or 'great capitals'. 2

2. Assyriological evidence.[edit]

This place was one of the three cities which maintained the great Babylonian revolt against Ashur-bani-pal the longest. It was on the left or eastern bank of the Euphrates ; the site was identified with the mounds of Abu Habba, about 16 mi. SE. of Baghdad, by the explorer H. Rassam, who found here a large stone with a representation of the shrine of Samas and short inscriptions, dating from the time of king Nabu-abla-iddina (about 800 B.C.). The builder of the temple was Naram-sin (about 3750 B.C.), whose original inscription was found by Nabu-na'id (about 490 B.C.), one of the royal restorers of the sanctuary. The temple was held in high honour ; one of the most constant titles of Shamash was, 'the great lord, dwelling in E-bara, which is within Sipar' (Pinches, TSRA 8b 164+). But there was also a second divinity, called Anunit, who was specially worshipped at Sipar. In the Synchronous History (2:19-21), Durkurigalzu is said to have conquered Sipar of Shamash and Sipar of Anunitu (KB 1:199; Sayce, TSBA 2131); the Anunitu referred to was the consort of the sun-god. We must not, however, use this statement to confirm Schrader's (very natural) explanation of ANAMMELECH (2 K. l7:31) as = Anu-malku, for if Anu (the heaven-god) were designated king in Assyria, the word used would not be malku ( 'prince' ) but sharru.

Dr. W. H. Ward (Proc. Am. Or. Soc., 1885, pp. 29-30) thought that he had found the site of a double city of Sipar (Sepharvaim, dual?) at the mod. el-Anbar, a few miles from Sufeira, WNW. of Baghdad, where, from the appearance of the ruins, it is evident that 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 at once Sipar sa Anunitum and Agane (Peters, Nippur, 1:176, 1:355 [Dr. Ward's diary]). If so, Sipar sa Anunitum was a more considerable city than Sipar of Shamash (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. 19:13, or, as Haupt proposes, we should restore the reading D D ISO (or nsp), Sipar (or, Sippar) -maim {1} - i.e. , 'Sipar on the stream'. Cp the phrase 'the stream of Sipar', a title of the Euphrates (ZA 1 [1887], p. 267).

1 E.g., by Wi. Alt. Unt, 101 ; Benzinger, KHC, Kon. 175.

2 See Wi. AOF 2:520.

3. Objections to current theories.[edit]

There is, however, a threefold difficulty in the above explanation of 'Sepharvaim' in 2 K. 17:24.

  • (1) The Annals of Ashur-bani-pal do not affirm that the king transplanted people from Babylon, Kutu (Cuthah), and Sipar, but only that he 'commanded that they should remain alive, and caused them to dwell in Babylon'. 2
  • (2) The god specially worshipped at Sipar was neither 'Adrammelech' nor 'Anammelech' but Shamash. On the other hand, it is equally true that Sargon, who as a fact brought captive populations to Samaria (KB 2:43 l. 20; cp SAMARIA), did not and could not include any captives from Babylon, Sepharvaim, etc., for the excellent reason that he made none there.3
  • And (3) the theory in question requires us to suppose that Avva and Hamath have been introduced into 2 K. 17:24 from 18:34 by RD, 4 which is a complicated procedure.

4. Textual criticism.[edit]

The question of Sepharvaim is therefore no simple one. At present there is no current theory which satisfies the conditions of the problem. There is a strong a priori objection to distinguishing the Sepharvaim of 2 K. 19:13 and 18:34 (with the parallels in Is.) from that of 2 K. 17:24, 17:31, and there are three considerable difficulties in this course, two suggested by Assyriology and one by literary criticism. Let us, then, approach the subject, bearing in mind the gradually accumulating evidence for the apparently destructive but in reality conservative theory that many passages both of the narrative and of the prophetic books have been recast, ancl 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 course of later Israelitish history (see SENNACHERIB, 5). This view implies that the names of the cities mentioned there have come out of somewhat similar names of places on the N. Arabian border of Palestine.

Sepharvaim, like Rezeph in 2 K. 19:12 (Is. 37:12), will then be a distortion of Sarephath, one of the most important places in that region (see ZAREPHATH), or rather the final letters c"| (MT C l, vayini) are, together with TJP (MT TJ S, 'to, or of, the city' ), J?;n (MT inn, 'Hena' ?), and possibly nij?l (MT, ,-njn, 'and Ivvah' ?), representatives of SxDnT (Jerahmeel). It is noteworthy that the god worshipped by the 'Sepharvites' receives the double name ~*?2T1N and iVcjJ, (2 K. 17:31). In the latter form ] has displaced i (cp TQJ; and py) ; probably the best intermediate reading is "^EIK, the original of which is surely Sxsm (Jerahmeel)- 5 The rite of sacrificing children was apparently distinctive of some famous sanctuary in Jerahmeel (see MORIAH, and cp Crit. Bib. on Gen. 2:22, Jer. 2:34, 11:15).

The other passages which have to be considered in this connection are Ezra 4:8-10 (see SHUSHANCHITES) and Is. 10:9 (see Crit. Bib.). See also REZEPH.

See especially Winckler, Alt. Unt. 100-103 and cp Cheyne, Exp.T, 1898, p. 428 -429 T. K. C.

1 Cp LXX{B} 2 K. 18:34, tTew^>a.poviia.>.v [seppharoumain].

2 KB 2:193 (foot) ; cp Ki. Kon. 276.

3 See Wi. Alt. Unt. 99.

4 Ibid. 101-102.

5 The most plausible alternative original is fns 'Marduk' or 'Merodach' (cp NISROCH). This is favoured by Nergal in the same list. But it must perhaps be owned that 'Nergal' is only a little less doubtful than ADRAMMELECH [g.v.].


(ce<J>HAA [AN" <=>], c- neAiNH [K*V], Vg. Sephela), 1 Macc. 12:38, RV 'plain country'. See SHEPHELAH ; also JUDAEA.




("Op, Gen. 23:6 etc.; MNHMCION, Mk. 16:46 etc. ). See TOMB, RESURRECTION.


(rny, in pause fTC , AV SARAH in Nu. 26:46; c&pA [L]). daughter of ASHER [q.v., 4]; Gen. 46:17 (cAAp [A], C&PPA [/>]), Nu. 26:46 [ttv. 30 CAP&; B ab AF]) = 1 Ch. 7:30 (cope [B], [A], - AA [L]).

'Heber' and 'Malchiel' ( = 'Jerahmeel') both point to the south (cp ASHER, 4) ; of Asher's original settlement in the Negeb we may perhaps still possess a record in an early poem (see Crit. Bib. on Judg. 5:17). 'Serah' too will be a southern ethnic name ; cp rni, Zerah, and "UrtC N. Ashhur. We have also Sab. proper names SKmii V 7tt2frHE?i mt^Ki with which we might compare g7rn'ns (root, 'to open'? ) the origin of which need not be discussed here.


(!Tni M , once [Jer. 8626] -inn p , 35, 80, as if 'God strives'; c&pAl(\[c] [ BAN LI." Gray \_HPN 236] argues from the apparent formation with a perf. followed by ,T that Seraiah can hardly be an early name. The formation has indeed been questioned, though perhaps without sufficient reason. It is suggested that the name has been adapted from an old ethnic ; cp nb 1 . Note that in 1 Ch. 4:14 Joab, b. Seraiah, is called the father of Ge-harashim, which is probably a distortion of the ethnic Geshurim, or of Ge-ashhurim [Che.]).

1. David s scribe (2 S. 8:17 : acra [R]), probably miswritten for SHAVSHA [q.v.].

2. b. Azriel, one of those whom Jehoiakim commanded to take Jeremiah and Baruch (Jer. 36:26 : o-apea [BN]).

3. b. Tanhumeth, a captain, temp. Gedaliah (2 K. 25:23, Jer. 40:8).

4. b. Neriah and brother of Baruch, mentioned in a passage (Jer. 51:59-61, ffaipaia [A* fort once v. 59], ffapeas [X once v. 59]) which follows a prophecy (50, 51:1-58) wrongly ascribed to Jeremiah. He is said to have gone up to Babylon with (or, see below, from) ZEDEKIAH [q.v.], carrying a prophecy of Jeremiah on the fate of Babylon, which he was commanded to bind to a stone and cast into the Euphrates, as a sign that Babylon would sink and not rise again. Seraiah bears a title which AV renders 'a quiet prince' and RV 'chief chamberlain' (so AVmg-, Rashi, etc. ,-jrmp IB-)- 'Prince of Menucha' (AVmg) is evidently a resource of despair; Menucha = Manahath (!) 1 Ch. 8:6. Another interpretation is 'officer of resting-place' = quartermaster (so Hi., Gr. , Giesebr. ) ; this strangely poetical title is assumed to have belonged to the officer who arranged the halting-places of the royal train. 1 More probably, however, Seraiah s office was that of commissary of the tribute (nnrsrrnc-, LXX, Tg. , Gra. , Che.). This view implies a further correction of 'with' into 'from Zedekiah'. Note that Jeremiah's interest is entirely absorbed in Seraiah (v. 61, when thou comest, and seest, etc.).

But is this story historical ? It has the appearance of being Haggadic, i.e. , an edifying romance. See JEREMIAH (BOOK), 17, and cp Giesebrecht's com mentary.

5. b. Kenaz, brother of Othniel and father of JOAB 2 (1 Ch. 4:13-14, a-apta [A 7 . 14]). See ad init.

6. b. Asiel of SIMEON ( 9 iii.), 1 Ch. 4:35 (aa.pa.av [B]).

7. A chief priest in the time of Zedekiah, who was put to death by Nebuchadrezzar (2 K. 25:18+, Jer. 52:24+ [BNAr om.l). The Chronicler traces his origin to Eleazar b. Aaron (1 Ch. 6:4=, [ 5:30+] he is the son of Azariah b. Hilkiah (n. 13), and father of JEHOZADAK [g.v.]. In Ezra 7:1+ Ezra, who was perhaps not even a priest at all, is made a son of Seraiah, which betrays the desire of the priestly redactor to bring him into the high-priestly family (cp EZRA, GENEALOGIES i., 7 [iv.]). The same fragment of genealogy springs up again in Neh. 11:11, where Seraiah b. Hilkiah is called CVPNrt JT3 TJ3 (cp 2 Ch. 31:13), cp also 1 Ch. 9:11, where, however, the name is replaced by Azariah. In 1 Esd. 5:5, 2 Esd. 1:1 SARAIAS, EV ; but RV AZARAIAS, 1 Esd. 8:1

8. One of those who came up from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:2 apaias [BA*?]), in Neh. 7:7 called AZARIAH (17). His name appears in 1 Esd. 5:8 as ZACHARIAS, RV ZARAIAS (fapcuov [B], apeov [A]).

9. Priestly signatory to the covenant (see EZRA i., 7) ; Neh. 10:2 [3]; cp 12:1. In Neh. 12:12 the house of Seraiah is first on the list, whence we infer that in the mind of the Chronicler his family was considered to be of great importance, and perhaps therefore connected by him with Seraiah (7). See SAREA.

S. A. C.

1 Several Palmyrene inscriptions state that they have been set up 'in honour of the leader of the caravan (nn lB D 3"l) by the senate and people'.


(D^b, ce P AcJ>[e]iM, -N [BNAQF], CAR. [N* once]), supernatural guardians of the throne of Yahwe, mentioned and partly described in the account of Isaiah's inaugural vision (Is. 6:2- 4, 6:6-7).

1. References[edit]

'Above him stood the seraphim' - i.e., they seemed to tower above Yahwe, who was enthroned in the most sacred part of the temple (the 7v:n). Each had six wings ; a pair covered the face, another the loins, and the third served for flight, when Yahwe sent his servant on some errand. Responsively they proclaimed the antiphon, 'Holy, holy, holy is Yahwe Sebaoth ; the whole earth is full of his glory', and so powerful were their voices that the posts (read rvo-k) of the doorway trembled. Then one of the seraphini flew to Isaiah with a 'hot stone' (see COAL, 1) from the altar in his hand, and touched Isaiah's mouth with it, as a symbol of the purification of his lips. The seraphim are not mentioned again by name in the OT or the NT, though in Rev. 4:6-8 the four cherub-like beings (fcDa) sing the anthem of Isaiah's seraphim. But in Enoch 20:7 'the serpents' (dpdKovres [drakontes], Giz. Gk.) - i.e., no doubt the seraphim - are mentioned together with Paradise and the cherubim as under the rule of Gabriel, and in 61:10, 71:7 with the cherubim and the ophanim ; the latter classification also occurs in the Talmud (cp CHERUB, 1). And in the Slavonic 'Secrets of Enoch' (first edited by Charles) we find not only cherubim and seraphim mentioned together as orders of angels (20:1, 21:1), but also seven six-winged creatures overshadowing the throne of God and singing with one voice (19:6, 21:1), who are obviously the same as the seraphim and certain flying creatures that sing called Chalkadri ( = 'crocodiles' ? cp COCKATRICE), with the feet and tails of lions and the heads of crocodiles, mentioned with the fabulous Phoenix-bird (12:1, 15:1). These creatures have twelve wings, and attend the chariot of the sun ; evidently they are a modification of the seraphim.

2. Explanations.[edit]

Passing over the view that the seraphim are merely a class of 'high' or 'noble' angels (Ar. sarufa, to be high), we note three possible views as to the original meaning of the name.

1. Fried. Delitzsch and Hommel see a connection between saraphim and Sharrapu (the burner), which is given as one of the names of the Babylonian solar fire-god Nergal 'in the land of the west' - i.e., in Canaan (5 R. 46, 22, c.d. ; Jensen, Kosmol. 62).

This suggests that Resheph, the old Palestinian solar fire-god (CIS 1 38), also admitted (as Reshpu) into the Egyptian Pantheon, may possibly in early times have been called Sharaph. If Rekub (one of the gods of Sam'al in N. Syria) were really, as Halevy thought, the same as Kerub, 'Cherub', this would supply a parallel. The Saraphim (not Seraphim) would in this case be a mythic rendering of the supernatural flames in which this god revealed himself (cp Cant. 8:6, Job 5:7 ?); the form which they took would naturally be that of the lion (cp NERGAL). And Isaiah's Saraphim (?) may have been suggested by mythic forms which perhaps existed in the temple, similar to the nergalti or colossal winged lions with human heads which, like the colossal winged bulls, guarded the portals of Bab. -Ass. temples and palaces. We find lions, oxen, and cherubim mentioned together in 1 K. 7:29.

2. Another possibility is that the Seraphim (not Saraphim ) were originally, in accordance with Nu. 21:8, Is. 14:29, serpents; Arabian and Hebrew folk-lore placed flying serpents, with burning venomous bite, in the desert, and Hebrew mythographers may have represented winged serpents as the guardians of the dwelling of the Deity. The place of honour given to living serpents in the Egyptian temples, is remarked upon elsewhere (see SERPENT, 3 [-4]), and though to Isaiah the seraphic guards of Yahwe have assumed a higher form of being (see SBOT, 'Isaiah', 139), yet no one who remembers the frequency with which in folk-lore serpents are transformed into human beings, can pronounce such a development impossible. It is true, there is no mention of the seraphim in the Hebrew story of Paradise as it has come down to us. But it is quite possible (see PARADISE, 11) that the serpent (nahash) who held discourse with the first woman was originally represented as the guardian of the wonderful tree in the midst of God's garden. There may have been originally only one seraph just as there may have been only one cherub (cp Ezek. 281416, Ps. 18:10 [18:11]).

3. It is also possible to regard the seraph as a nobler development of a bird of prey. H. G. Tomkins long ago suggested a comparison with the Egyptian seref, which appears as the guardian of graves and as the bearer of the Egyptian kings to heaven on their decease.

The seref, met with as early as the pyramid texts ; in a late papyrus he is said to 'seize [his prey] in his claws in an instant and take them above the top of the clouds of heaven'. 1 It is a composite animal, and bears a close resemblance to the Hebrew cherub and to the ypvty [gryph] or griffin (part lion, part eagle).

The arguments in favour of the second of these views preponderate. It is against the first that we find no trace of rpj as a divine name, and against the third that it leaves no real distinction between the seraph and the cherub. And it is against both that c ST.v [ShRPYM] is so much more naturally rendered 'serpents' than either 'burning ones' or 'serefs'. It may seem strange that the symbolism of the temple decoration made no use of the seraphim. But the temple did contain one sacred object closely analogous to the original seraphim - the so-called 'brazen serpent' (see NEHUSHTAN). Hezekiah broke it in pieces. The Jewish and Christian imagination did something better with the seraphim inherited from folk-lore ; it transformed and ennobled them. See CHERUBIM, 1.

T. K. C.

1 Revillout, Revue egyptienne, 1881, p. 86; see Proph. Is.(2) 284, (3) 296.


(cep<\p [BA]), 1 Esd. 6:32 RV, AV ASERER = Ezra 2:53, SISERA, 2,


(ecepeBi^c [BA]), 1 Esd. 8:54, AVmg = Ezra 8:18, SHEREBIAH.


("TlD; cApeA [BAFL]), a clan of ZEBULUN (q.v.), Gen. 46:14 (ce- [A], ecp- [>l C6ACK [L], Nu. 26:26), whence the patronymic, AV SARDITE, RV Seredite (Nu. 26:26 ; ^nSH ; o CApeA[e]i [BAFL]).


(ceppco n^yAu) [Ti.WH]). Acts 13:7. See PAULUS.