J. A. Selbie. SHESHAI (■;■?). — A clan, possibly of Aramaic origin, resident in Hebron at the time of the Hebrew coni|uest and driven thence by Caleb (Nu l,^-'^ n iifo-ffff, A Zefid ; Jos 15" B ±o,'<reL, A Soitrai; Jg l'" B :ie<rael, A reSei). See, further, AiiiM.vs, No. 1.
SHESHAN {]t^).—A Jerahmeelite, who, having no sons, gave liis daughter in marriage to his Egyptian slave Jarlia, 1 Cli 2^'-»*-*> (A has 2u(rdf, Luc. ^iffdi-, throughout; B has Suud/i in v.*"^, elsewliere Zuady).
SHESHBAZZAR (•!>•;;■?').— 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.