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.
SHARON.— 1. (ih^n [with art.], prob. for fii;»-n 'till' h'vel,' 'the plain,' from le' to be level; LX^ in 1 Ch 27»», Ca 2' rb ntSiov, but in Is 33" 35' 65'» 6 dpvfids [see below]) the name applied in Scripture to that part of the Maritime Plain which stretches from .Juppa to Mt. Carmel (55 miles). It is of an undulating cliaracter, none of its hills exceeding 250-3U0 feet in height. The following streams cross it in their course to the Mediterranean : Aahr
• Marti limply detaches '« from W(A and Joins It to Sharezer : ' the family of El-Sharezir ' (.s'A", 1S92, p. 732). O. A. Smith adopts Kl.Nharezer, but supposes 'J" 'to b« wanting afUr btlh : ' to the temple ol i" ' (Tmtve Propluti).
es-ZerhA (the Crocodile River), Nahr Mcfjlr (the Dead River of the Crusaders), Nahr Iskanderfineh (their Salt River), Nahr el-Fillik (their Rochetaille). The plain proper, between the Crocodile River and Joppa, varies in breadth from 8 to 12 miles.
The LXX, as above noted, reproduces j'nj'n in three passages by 6 Jpu/iis, a term which is applied to Sharon also by Josephus {BJ I. xiii. 2 ; in Ant. XIV. xiii. 3, plur. ol 5pvfiol) and Strabo (xvi. : Spvfi.6s ^^aj Tis). This designation is very appropriate to a district which has still a large oak wood at its northern extremity, and which, even so late as Crusading times, would have appeared from the top of Mt. Ebal as a vast forest of oaks from coast to mountain {IIGffL^ 122). * The Crusaders called it the Forest of Assur (Vinsauf, Itin. Ricardi, iv. 16) ; it is the enchanted forest of Tasso (Gerus. Liberata, ii and xiii) ; it was called by Napoleon the Forest of Miksi (from the modern village of Miksieh). The southern half of the plain is, and must always have been, far more cultivated than its northern portion. Throughout its whole extent it is gay with myriads of brightly coloured Uowers.
The "beauty and the fertility of Sharon ^ive point to Is 35', where the 'glory of Lebanon is coupled with the ' excellency (iin ' splendour ' [see Driver, Daniel, p. 33]) of Carmel and Sharon,' the special allusion perhaps being to the magnificence of its oak forests. We have the opposite picture in Is 33", where ' Lebanon is ashamed and withereth away, Sharon is like the (waste) Arahah, and Bashan and Carmel shake off their leaves.' Again, in Is 65'" the description of the re.stonition of Lsrael contains this feature : ' Sharon shall be a pasturage for flocks.' In 1 Ch 27^ we read of Shitrai the Sharonite (')nyn, 4 2a/)wy(e)lT?)s), who was over king David's Hocks that fed in Sharon. The excellence of the pasturage, the superiority of the cattle and the wine of Sharon, are celebrated by Jerome (Comm. on Is 33 and 65) and the Talmud (Bab. Mcnahuth 87a, Shahbath 70(i). Its pottery and the bricks used for building are repeatedly referred to in the Mishna as of very inferior quality, the instability of the houses in Sharon being proverbial (see references in Neubauer, Geog. da Talm. 48 f. ).