Sheshbazzar (Hastings' Dictionary)

There is some uncer- tainty as to tlie correct form of this name, and still more as to the identity of the man who bears it in the MT. Ezr 1^ B ^xSattaLiriip, A S«fiE8a^riz^(, LuC IS^UTttSasrip^t which id read by Luc. throughout Kzra. „ 111 B nn»., A 'S.^rot&ajrira.p, 1 Ed 213(11) B '^^o.u.ifffBtfM, A 1tt>tx^ettrffet.f>« , which is read by A throughout 1 Esdras, Luc. Xit.ira.^ir\MTretpr,t. ,, 21^ f^^' B £«iiat^«<rra^«<, Luc. ^ZcLrxiixkiffrctpct, „ 6'S|17| B ^&t>airffa/n<, Luc. 2x^a^aXa<r(ra^,£.

,, 6-^(1^1 B ^^taf2»rffxpct , Luc. 2Affx3x>.etffirupijs. JosephuA exhibits a similar variety : ' A^itrfxpof^ Im^irnfiett The above variations (apart from 'Rayaaip and 2op;3o7dp) may be reduced Ui two types : (1) Shesh- ba?^r or Sasab(al)az?ar, (2) Sanaba??ar. If we adopt the first of these, the name may stand for Bab. Snmai-bil [or ■bal'\ -uzur, ' O sun-god protect the lord [or the son] ' ; so van Hoonacker {Zoroba- bel, 43; Noumlles Hudc-<:, 30; cf. Acadeim/, 30th Jan.

1892), followed by Wellhausen [IJG^ 153 n.), Cheyne {Academy, 6th Feb. 1892), Ryle (Ezra and Xchemioh in Cainb. Bible, 32), Sayce [BCM 539), et al. Tlie Sanaba??ar type, again, may represent an original Sin-bal-uzur, ' O moon-god protect the son ' ; so esp. Ed. Meyer (Etitstehung des Juden- thum.1, 77), cf. also Sayce (I.e.) Slieshba??.ir is mentioned in Ezr !

••" (the work of the Chronicler, who has just quoted what pur- purls to be an edict of Cyrus authorizing the return of the Jews and tne rebuilding of the temple) as entrusted by Cyrus with the vessels of the liouse of the Lord whicli had been carried away by Nebuchadnezzar, and which were now to be re- stored. These vesselsare said to havr lieen brought up by Sheshl)a??ar 'when they of the captivity were brought up from Babylon unto Jerusalem ' (<f. 1 Es 2'', ").

The same particulars regarding him are repeated in 5>'- '» (where the Chronicler uses an Aramaic source, which professes to contain a tr.anscript of the letter of Tattenai and others to Darius), in whicli he bears the familiar Bab.-Assyr. titlt! pe/mh (' governor'), and is said, further, to have laid the foumlations of the temple (cf. 1 Es 6"- ). It is probably Shesliha??ar also that is called in Ezr 2« ( = Neh 7'"), Neh V by the Persian title tirshdthd.

It is a very difficult question whether Sheshbazzar is to be identified with Zcruhbabel. Their identity was commonly accepted till lately, and has still the support of weighty names,t but the tendency of modern scholars % is to deny it. In fa\our of the identification (which appears to be made by Jos. A nt. XI. i. 3) the two strongest arguments are (a) the occurrence elsewhere (e.f/.

2 K 23" 24", Dn 1') of double names, and (b) tlie fact that the laying of the foundation of the temple which in Ezr 3" is ascribed to Zerubbabel is in 5'* ascribed to Shesliba?<;ar. But in answer to (a) it may be urged that the case of Daniel and his companions is not strictly parallel, for there we have native names (Daniel, Hananiah, etc.) and foreign names (Beltesha?zar, Shadracli, etc.), whereas Zerubbabel (which see) and Sheshbazzar are in all probability both foreign (sc.

Babylonian) names. The names in 2 K 23** 24" really furnish an argument against identifying Slieslib. with Zerubbabel. It is true that in Eliakim, Jehoiakim and Mattaniah-Zedekiali we have two couples of Hebrew names, but the author of these passages at least takes care to let us know that Eliakim is identical with Jehoiakim, and Mattaniah with Zedekiah, just as in Jg 7' we read 'Jerubbaal which is Gideon,' and in Dn 2-" 4" 'Daniel whose name was Beltesha??ar.'

In view of the usage elsewhere, it is surely strange (and van Hoonacker's argument, with all its skill and ingenuity, does not, to our mind, remove the strangeness) that in Ezr 3" there is not a hint by the Chronicler that Zerubbabel, who then comes upon the scene for the first time, is identical with Sheshba??ar, who had been mentioned in 1'.

More- over, it is hard to believe (and here again van Hoonacker's argument appears to us unconvincing) that Zerubbabel could be spoken of in 5- and Shesli- ba??ar in 5>-'-i6 in the way they are, if the two names stood for one and the same person. § As to (6), reason will be shown in art. Zekub- BABEL for suspecting that Ezr 3*an<l 5'" both ante- date the laying of the foundation of the temple, transferring it from the second year of Darius Hystaspis (B.C.

520) to the second j'ear of Cyrus (537). But whatever view be held as to that, the identity of Sheshb. with Zerub. does not aiipear to us to follow from a comparison of 3' with 5''. All that we need to assume is that the two returned from Babj'lon at the same time, and that .Sheshb. was the oilicial head (pehah) of the coiumunity, while Zerub. was the moving spirit in the rebuild- ing of the temple, whatever may have been tlie date when this work was undertaken. If Ezr .

3' (the Chronicler's own account) and 5'" (a professedly official account) be historical, they contain the names, respectively, of the actual (Zerubbabel) and the official (Sheshba;f?ar) founders of the temple. Assuming, now, that the two names designate two different men, was Sheshbazzar a foreigner or * Uulcsa one holds with Kosters that the list of names in this pa.Hsage really belongs to Nehemiob's time, and that the tirshttthd is Nehemiah himself.

t Notably van Hoonacker {Zorobabel et le tfcond temple, 29 ff.; cf. his NoitvfUes itttde^ gur la rentauration Juxve, 80, also 'Notes sur I'hist. de la restauration Juivc' in liB, Jan. 1001, p. 7 IT.) and Rvie {h'zra and y^hemiah, \xx\. 12 f.) Kuenen (0)id«r2o<il: » 11887), 437. 408, 60:i) was also at one time disposed to favour the identification, although latterly he abandoned it. See next note. t Stode (GT/ ii. OSff.), Kucncn (OMOm. AhhatuU. 2IS U.), Renan {llist.

du pruple d'Israi-l, iii, f>19 f.), .Sinend {Listen etc, 19), Kosters (//.-( heratel van Itrait, 8211.), Wellh. (Ui} 158), Sayce iUCil 630), and many others. g We refrain from citing, as an argument against the Identifl. cation, the occurrence of the trco nameg togetJier in 1 Eb Ol!!?) ( Zop«^i>c/?iA Mai 'SMimSaaretp!), because it is probable that the llrst of these names la Interpolated (not« the following sing, pronoun »irf). 494 SHETH SHEW a Jew?

It has been contended (by de Saulcy, Stude, ct al.) that he waa a Persian. But his Babylonian name does not Increase the probability of this view, and the appointment of a Jew to head the return and to act as pehah of Judah would be quite in harmony ^^•ith the policy of Cyrus towards the conquered races of the ein|iire he had over- thrown. Hence the view has lately been gaining ground that he was a Jew (Ed. Meyer, Wellh., Clieyne, et al.)

It is a tempting suggestion, although of course it has not been made out, that Sheshbazzar is the Shenazzak of 1 Ch 3'", one of Juhoiachin's sons and uncle of Zerubbabel (Imbert, Ronan, Kosters, Ed. Meyer, et al.) If this were so, it would justify the epithet 'prince of Judah' (.TiiiT^ tc\i-,r\) applied to him in Ezt 1, a title which those who take him to be a foreigner have to ex- plain asdue to a mistake (Kuenen) or an intentional transformation on the part of the Chronicler.

The nephew rather than the uncle appears from the first to have played the leading role, and his ser- vices, especially in connexion with the rebuilding of the temple, gave him such a place in the memo- ries of his countrymen that in Ezr 2^ ( = Neh 7') Zerubbabel stands at the head of the list, while Shesliba?zar [may the heathenish character of his name have also given offence to the puritan zealots ■who compiled the list ?] is not mentioned at all. How long Sheshba?

zar held office is uncertain, but at all events in the second year of Darius Hystaspis (n.c. 520) he had given place to Zerub- babel, who is known from contemporary evidence (Hag 1'- " 2^) to have been then 2>ehah of Judah. See, further, Zerubbabel, and the Literature cited at end of that article. J. A. Selbie.