SHUPPIM is mentioned (1) in Chron. 12 (maci; Zan-Olv ; Alex. Ecupet/A ; Sepham) as one of the two children of Ir.' If, as is likely, this Ir be the same as the Iri' of ver. 7, the son of Bela, Shuppim was the great-grandson of the patriarch Benjamin. There is no good reason for identifying the subject of this article with the Muppim of Gen. xlvi. 21, or Shephuphan (less correctly Shuphan) of Num. xxvi. 39, and Shephuphan of Chron. viii. 5, as we have shown elsewhere [MuPP1m] ; so that the difficulty of assigming to Benjamin a de scendant of the third generation at the time of his removal with Jacob into Egypt is avoided in this instance. (2.) SHUPPIM (n4kCi; ZairOw ; Alex.
ZeOsbefiz ; Saphan) is mentionea again in Chron. vii. /5. According to A. V. he is the same man as occurs in ver. 12. The Vulgate, however, not only varies the name, but makes the bearer of it one of the sons of Machir, of the tribe of Manasseh Machir autem accepit uxores filiis ejus Happhim et Saphanl. This verse from its obscurity has given rise to much discussion among commentators and variety among the chief versions. The Sept. follows the original more closely, and so partakes of its obscurity, which the A. V. and the Vulgate only escape by a paraphrase instead of a version [comp. LXX. Maxelp Acipev yvvaika s-c3 'Aq50EZ/h Kal MesbOcli.z, with the Masor. text n.0.; -rmo insnvh) coar61. The Peschito seems to have treated the proper names of the clause as tives. Manifold also are the expedients of critics to smooth the difficulties of the verse. Some (Houbigant, Clericus) suppose an omission of some words in the text ; others (among them Bertheau) a redundancy from the margin, and they would remove the words n+tv17) n+Dr6 out of the text. Most, however accept the text as substantially correct, but differ in its interpretation. Some, and they are the majority, take the sense adopted in our A. V., regarding the prefixed to the names as a sign of the periphrastic genitive (see Gesen. Gram. sec. x x5), before which they would supply an understood rorim [sister] from the succeeding clause. They thus produce the version : Machir took to wife [the sister] of Huppim and Shuppim.' (The high authority of D. Kimchi favours this con struction ; see also J. H. Michaelis, Comnzent. in Hagiograph. in loc.) This view makes our Shup pim and his brother Benjamites, as mentioned in ver. 12, whose sister Maachah became the wife of Machir of the tribe of Manasseh. As, however, the 5 may well be the sign of an acquisitive dative , dependent on the verb rqb, the simplest transla ' tion would be that of the Vulgate [and probably of the Sept. also] : Machir took a wife for Huppim and Shuppim' (comp. x Sam. xxv. 45)—supposing these to be his sons, and therefore Manassites. The support of these ancient versions to this view goes far to obviate the objection which arises from the improbability of two brothers being found in a family of Manasseh bearing the same nan-ies as the two Benjamite brothers mentioned only three verses before. This sense is supported by Movers (Chronik.
89 ; see Bertheau in loc.) (3.) In Chron. xxvi. 16 mention is ma'de of another SHUPPIM (ossv, Sept. Alex. /e0telg ; Stphim), a Levite, one of the doorkeepers appointed (together with the Merarite Hosah) to superintend the watch on the western side of the temple, including the gate Shallecheth.' Bertheau (in loc.) supposes this in sertion of Shuppim's name to be a copyist's error, arising from a repetition of the preceding word weagri [Kennicott among his MSS. discovered vsb with samech (instead of 0,Dt.', with shin), which is nothing but a repetition, as Bertheau sup posed, of the last letters of the 124n MO], and he sees a confirmation of his view in the absence as he says, of the name from the Septuagint. This statement is not absolutely correct. The Codex Alex. reads LeOtelg, and the Vulgate also treats the word as a proper name : so that ancient texts must have had the same reading as the Masoretic, which our A. V. follows. It must not, however, be denied that there is force in Bertheau's suppo sition. From ver. 14, 15, it appears that the lots eastward,' northward, and southward,' fell in each case to individuals ; it is not easy therefore to see why two persons should be mentioned for the westward' lot. In the Vatican text of the Sept., ver. 16 begins with the words els Sdrcoov vpbs SocrAdis, making the last lot fall but to one man, like the preceding three. The phrase els Seirrepov seems to indicate that the text which it translates had the word Dm; (tivo instead of Cs=j. Now it is observable that the /7th verse actually terminates with the words nv, tomyt6 [the best MSS. not having the 1:),)C, repeated], Asuppim, two.' If we suppose the Isth verse to terminate with the same words, which are equally suitable there, then our r6th verse will begin with and to Hosah westward '—a reading which will square evenly with the two foregoing verses. If this conjecture be true, our third Shuppim the Levite is of course to be cancelled.—P. H.
SHUR (-rit, ; Sept. MoUp), a city on the con fines of Egypt and Palestine (Gen. xvi. 7 ; xx. ; xxv. 18 ; I Sam. xv. 7 ; xxvii. 8). Josephus malies it the same as Pelusium (Antic. vi. 7. 3 ; comp. Sam. xv. 7) ; but this city bore among the He brews the name of Sin. More probably Shur was somewhere in the vicinity of the modem Suez. The desert extending from the borders of Palestine to Shur is called in Exod. xv. 22 the desert of Shur ' but in Num. xxxiii. the deseit of Etham.' —J. k.