Zuzim

VIEW:19 DATA:01-04-2020

ZUZIM.—One of the nations defeated by Chedorlaomer and his allies when they went against the cities of the plain (Gen_14:5). It is described as being in Ham. This name is read by some as Cham (i.e. with initial heth, not he as in MT [Note: Massoretic Text.] ) and regarded as possibly Identical with ‘Amman (interchange between the aspirates heth and ‘ayin), the Ammonites being descended from Ben-ammi, son of Lot’s second daughter (Gen_19:35). This Identification of Ammon with Ham has led to the suggestion that Zuzim and Zamzummim (Deu_2:20-23) were the same, by the contraction of am and um to û, which may be supported by Babylonian analogies. Robinson points out that Zuzim reminds one of Ziza (Ptol. v. xvii. 6), between Bosra and Lejûn.
T. G. Pinches.
ADDITIONAL NOTE TO ARTICLE ‘ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA.’
Since the article Assyria and Babylonia was put into type, the appearance of Mr. L. W. King’s Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings, and Professor H. V. Hilprecht’s Chronological Tablets from the Temple Library at Nippur have made public a considerable amount of additional information as to early Babylonian and Assyrian history. A new set of synchronisms is established and new rulers are restored, while the chronology is considerably affected. A mere sketch of the new facts is all that can be attempted here. Three new rulers, Ilu-eliati, Enmennunna, and Apil-kishshu, must be placed centuries before the first dynasty of Babylonia, almost doubling the historic period. The period of Sargon and Naram-Sin is more fully made known, the latter’s conquest of Magan being especially important. Sargon aggrandized Agade at the expense of Babylon, already the seat of Marduk worship. The dynasty of Ur, founded by Ur-Engur (or Ur-Gur), can now be set out completely as follows:—
Ur-Engur
reigned
18
years
Dungi, his son
reigned
58
years
Bur-Sin, his son
reigned
9
years
Gimll-Sin, his son
reigned
7
years
Ibi-Sin, his son
reigned
25
years
For the reign of Dungi we have the additional information that ‘be cared greatly for Eridu, which was on the shore of the sea,’ and that he sacked Babylon. Gudea was his contemporary at Shirpula. On the fall of this dynasty the power passed to Isin, where the following dynasty reigned. The place of Gungunu is not certain.
Ishbi-Urra
reigned
32
years
Gimil-ilishu, his son
reigned
10
years
Idin-Dagan, his son
reigned
21
years
Ishme-Dagan, his son
reigned
20
years
Libit-Ishtar, his son
reigned
11
years
Ur-Ninib
reigned
28
years
Bur-Sin, his son
reigned
21
years
Iter-Kasha, his son
reigned
5
years
?, his brother
reigned
7
years
Sin …
reigned
6
years
Bçl-bâni
reigned
24
years
Zame …
reigned
3
years
?
reigned
5
years
Ea …
reigned
4
years
Sin-magir
reigned
11
years
Damki-ilishu, his son
reigned
23
years
This last king has been thought to he a contemporary of Ammiditana, who, in the last year of his reign, destroyed the wall of Isin ‘which the men of Damkiilishu had erected.’ But the reference may be to the third king of the second dynasty; and in any case is not very clear.
Two new names, Urra-imitti and Bçl-ibni, are now to be placed high in the list of Assyrian kings. The latter was a gardener whom Urra-imitti raised to be his successor. They appear to have preceded Ilu-shuma, whom we now know to have been king of Assyria and contemporary with Sumu-abi, founder of the first dynasty of Babylon. Sulili may be another form of the name of Sumu-la-ilu, the second king of this dynasty, who thus reigned over Assyria as well.
We further learn that Hammurabi’s conquest of Rim-Sin was not final, for Samsu-iluna had to fight with him again. Samsu-iluna also fought with Ilu-ma-ilu, who was king of the Sea-land, and Abçshu later waged indecisive war with him. In the time of Samsu-satana the Hittites invaded the land of Akkad. Ea-gamll, the last king of the second dynasty apparently, and king of the Sea-land, attacked Elam, but was defeated and deposed by the brother of Bitiliashu the Kassite. Agum, son of Bitiliashu, then conquered the Sea-land. These synchronisms, if the proposed Identifications of the rulers named are correct, show that the second dynasty was contemporary partly with the first, partly with the third, and consequently that the dates of the first dynasty must be lowered. Whether the Kassite dynasty directly followed Samsu-satana is still uncertain.
Later, we learn that Adad-apliddina was an Aramæan usurper, and that in his reign the Sutu nomads ravaged Sumer and Akkad. The name of the Elamite who formed the seventh dynasty was Ae-aplusur. A new Tiglath-pileser has to be added to the kings of Assyria. He was the father of Ashur-dan ii. and son of Ashur-resh-ishi ii., grandson of Ashur-rabl ii. Hence the Tiglath-pileser of b.c. 731 becomes iv. Merodach-baladan, ‘the son of Baladan,’ Marduk apliddina iii., was the son of Nabu-shum … We get fresh information as to the troubled times in Babylonia after Sennacherib destroyed Babylon; and the name of Erba-Marduk (who dispossessed the Aramæans from the estates which they had seized in Babylon and Borsippa, and restored E-sagila and E-zida, the temples of Marduk and Nabu) is, with others, rescued to history.
The changes which these new facts involve are likely to give rise to much discussion, and will probably not be settled till we have still further Information.
C. H. W. Johns.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

See ZAMZUMMIM.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

zū?zim (זוּזים, zuuzı̄m; (ἔθνη ἰσχυρά, éthnē ischurá, ?strong nations.? So Jerome in Quaest. Hebr.: genres fortes): A people conquered by Chedorlaomer (Gen_14:5). They dwelt in Ham, a region not otherwise known but, from the connection, inferred to be East of the Jordan. It may also be inferred that they were a race of giants. They were perhaps to be identified with the Zamzummim.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.


(Heb. Only in the plur and with the art. haz-Zuzim', הִזּוּזַים, the Zuzites; Sept. translates ἔθνη ἰσχυρά, like Jerome in Quaest. Heb. “gentes fortes;” but the Vulg. has Zuzim; A.V. “the Zuzims”), the name of an ancient people, who, lying in the path of Chedorlaomer and his allies, were attacked and overthrown by them (Gen_14:5 only). Of the etymology or signification of the name nothing is known. The Sept., Targum of Onkelos, and Samar version (perhaps reading or mistaking for
עֲזוּזים) render it “strong people.” ‘The Arabic' version of Saadiah (in Walton's Polyglot) gives ed-Dahakin, by which it is uncertain whether a proper name or an appellative is intended. Others understand by it “the wanderers” (Le Clerc, from זוּז) or “dwarfs” (Michaelis, Suppl. No. 606). Hardly more ascertainable is the situation which the Zuzim occupied. The progress of the invaders was from north to south. They first encountered the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim (near the Leja, in the north of the Hauran); next the Zuzim in Ham; and next the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim. The last-named place has not been identified, but was probably not far north of the Arnon. There is therefore some plausibility in the suggestion of Ewald (Gesch. 1, 308, note), provided it is etymologically correct, that Ham, הם is עם Am, i.e. Ammon; and thus that the Zuzim inhabited the country of the Ammonites, and were identical with the Zamzummwim (q.v.), who are known to have been exterminated and succeeded in. their land by the Ammonites. See Journal of Sacred Literature, Jan. 1852, p. 363. SEE CANAANITE.



CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores