Sharar (Hastings' Dictionary)

See Sacab. SHAREZER (lixii' [see Baer, ad loc."]; lapiaap, B.A. in 2K 19" and Zee 7^ B in Is 37»« ; i:a/)dcro, Luc. in 2 Kings, SAQ in Isaiah. In its original Assyrian form the name is probably = tor-u.?ur, ' protect the prince ' ; in meaning, a prayer addressed to some god whose name is omitted. Bel-sharusur, Marduksharusur , and similar Assyrian names are then unabbreviated parallels.

1 1 has been suggested that the full name of the Sharezer of 2 K 19 i; = ls 37] was Kergal-sharttsur, a Babylonian name whick occurs in Jer 39' [Nekgal-shaf.ezer]. The origin of the conjecture is an untenable identification of Sharezer with the Nernilus of the historian Aby- denus [see below]. In Zee 7" the complete name ia very pioliably Bel-sharezer). 1. In conjunction with a brother, Adeammelech, named as the assassin of the Assyrian king Senna- cherib (2 K 19"= Is 3'^).

The murderers are described as Sen. 'a sous, and the scene of the assassination is given as the temple of NiSKOCH. According to the Babylonian Chronicle, Sen. was killed during an insurrection, and the date was towards the close of the year 681 (20th Tebeth). The other records of the assassination are an in- scription of Nabuna'id, an extract from Polyhistoi (Berosus) in Eusebius, and another from Abydenus. These agree with the Chronicle in stating that Sen. was killed by one of his sons.

They contain no reference to the complicity of two sons. Even Abydenus is explicit in saying that one son was the murderer.* Of the two names given by the Hebrew narrative, that of Sharezer is most affected by this preponderance of negative testimony. Adrammelech has the support of the names Adramelus and Ardumuzanus (Ardumus.anus), which are given by Abydenus and I'olyhistor respectively. One of Sen.'

s sons, also, has a name [ASSiir-S^nn-uiubsi) which is said to be cap- able of readings approximately the same as these variants (Scheil in ZA xi. 425-27). There is nothing of a definite character to be said on the other side in favour of Sharezer.f Yet the nega- tive argument is so much e silentio that an explana- tion of the appearance of the name in the Hebrew text is pressingly required before an error can be granted. W. M. Miiller imagines too improbable a history.

He supposes that Adrammelecli was ' Assyrianized ' into Sharezer by some archieologist. Adrammelech was regarded as a translation, Shar- ezer was a retranslation put alongside of it in the text (ZATW xvii. 332). It can only be said, mean- time, that Sharezer's name, his part in the assassi- nation of Sen., and his relationship to the king, all rest on the authority of the Hebrew narrative. The revolt, in which Sen.'

s murder was an inci- dent, was obviously designed to secure the throne for the rebel(s), and to prevent the accession of the desiunated heir Esarhaddon. In this it failed. Esarhaddon triumphed within six weeks, by the second of Adar, although for an unknown reason he did not formally assume tlie crown until three and a half months later (18th Sivan). The murderers lied to Armenia, according to the OT narrative. There was likely to be a welcome for such exiles there.

TThe fragment of Abydenus says that Esar- haddon put Adramelus to death. • ' Qui a jUio Adrameio eft iTtteranptut.' By a transposition of this sentence and the preceding, an attempt has been made to bring a certain Nerfjttu^ there mentioned into some con- nexion with the assassination of Sennacherib. But even then he is neither Sen.'8 son nor his assassin. It ia inadmissible to read the statement regarding him in the light of the weaiier rather than of the stronger testimony.

The supposition that Kergilus ia Sharezer is a conjecture from an emended text (supporters of the h,VTJ0the8is are named in Schrader. COT ii. 16). Equally possible, and even more probable, ^ is the suggestion that the sentence ' dein/>'ps autein post eum Sergilui rtgjMvU ' is a reference to the Babvlonian king Nergal-ushezib. This identification is mode by Wiucliler (ZA li. 3»2 ff.X But it is easier to suppose that the context is imperfect than to adopt his combination with another context.

t Sar.t(iT-Aiiur is a son ol Sen. whose name might be idenU- fled with Sharezer (Winckler, Altor. Forech., 2nd Series [1888), i. 69). It can also be urged that Polyhistor and Aliydenol mav have got their names of the assassin from the Heb. Adrammelech. Moses ot Chorene gives more positive tesO- monv, but is not eulBoiently reUable. Ue names two assass sa. In tile Whistons' Latin version (Txindon, 1736) the forms are AdraniL-lus or Ariiamozanus and Sanasarus ^i. 22).

Th;« settlement in Armenia is the occasion of their heme mention »L Boscawen's r«cent identification (Bab. and Or. Recorx , viii. 259 ff.) seem* to depend too much on a resemblance to tha conjectural fonu Nenroi-sharezer. SHARON- SHARON 477 2. One who consulted the spiritual heads of the Jcwibh community on the question wliether the fast observed on the anniversary of the burning of the pre-exilio temple was appropriate after its restoration (Zee T"). The gr&mmatical construction of v.

\ and consequently the purport of the verse, is very uncertain. liV nmkca Bethel subject and Sharezer and t)ie others mes^eiif^ers from Bethel. Such a person! lication seems without parallel in pro.se. AV follows Vulif. in making * Bethel ' accvisative of direction and tr. ' to the house of God.' Hut the temple is never called Uth-'H.

The ditflculty is removed by finding in these letters the Divine name which, according to analogy, is required to complete the compound tiar-uixtLT, The text may origin- ally have read Bel-Sharczer (Siegfried-Stade, UWB). The n may be accounted for as a dittography of K in the early Hebrew character.* .\fter this correction has been made, v. 8 suggesta that the author of the inquiry is one individual, namely (Bel-) Sharezer.

Kcgem-melech and the others are then messengers whom he seuu Sliarezer's question is explained by the new situation which the restoration of the temple ireated. Since Zechariah addresses his reply to the 'people of the land,' it may be argued that Sharezer \v;is spokesman on their behalf. Uut v.' more naturally expresses individual perplexity. V.' implies tliat the inquiry came from outside the commimity in Jeru.salem.

The question itself comes naturally from one who is not in touch with movements in tlie cai)ital ; it is artificial and un- likely when regardea as an attempt to brin" local discussions to an issue (Nowack's view). Zechariah ad<lresse8 the priests and the whole Jewish com- munity (' people of the land,' as Hag 2^). The priests are doubtless named because 'instruc- tion ' (turuh) had been asked of them, and formally they have yet to reply (in v.'

the words 'and to tlie jiropliets ' may be an insertion, anticipating the tact that actually Zechariah comes forward to reply). The people also are addressed, to secure fur the prophet's words a wider currency. Babylon is more likelv to have been .Sharezer's home than any part of Judah. Hi.s Babylonian name, liel-eharwfur, is one argument ; the foniiulity of iiis deputation another. The h>T>o. tbt-»is accounts most simply for the purpose and motive of the inquiry.

It does justice also to all tne points of the narrative. The primary object of Sharezer's deputation (v.!*) was to olfer saorilices at the restored sanctuary (' to entreat the favour of the l^rd'). The question to the priesta was incidental to this main purj)03e, although prompted by the same good news. Thusearly the spiritual authority of Jerusalem was acknowle<Igcd by the diojtjifira. The incident is dated in the year 51S (v.

J^ The temple was completed in 616 (Czr 6'^) ; its restoration had conunenced in 520 (Hag U^). Either the news which reachcil ltal)ylon anticipate! the complete restoration midway (aasinn- inu' the dates to be correct) ; or the rebuilding waa so far advanced aa to Justify Sharezer in taking action. It is noteworthy that Zechariah's prophecy (vv.-') has no special application to the circum- stances of the time. It depreciates or disavows the practice of fasting as such.

Zee 8"' " seems more appropriate as a reply to Sharezer's envoys. LiTKRATUR*.— On 2 K 1937; Schrader, COT ii. 1»-17 : Winck- ler, XA ii. (18S7) 3»2-lt8 ; Johns, Expot. Tiiiut, vii. (April l8»tJ). For Polyhislor and Abvdenus see Euscbius, ed. Schoene, i. 27 and i. 35 ; the IJab. Ch'ron. tr. by Wincklcr in TrxWueh t. AT, ltt92 ; and Nabuna'id, by Mcsserschmidt, Stele Sahun- aid$, Berlin, 1898. W. B. STEVENSON.