SARID
Sargon's
advent
to
the
throne
marked
a
change
of
dynasty,
and
he
had
to
subdue
insurrection
right
and
left.
Merodach-baladan,
once
king
of
the
ChaldsBan
State
of
Bit-Yakln,
seized
Babylon,
and
was
supported
by
the
Elaraites.
Sargon
defeated
the
latter,
but
was
obliged
to
leave
Merodach-baladan
undisturbed
for
twelve
years,
while
he
subdued
the
northern
rivals
of
Assyria,
Armenia
and
its
neighbours.
In
B.C.
720
he
faced
a
combination
of
the
W.
States
under
Ilu-bihdi,
who
drew
Hamath,
Arpad,
Damascus,
and
Palestine
into
revolt.
This
was
soon
put
down,
Hamath
was
colonized
by
Assyrians,
and
the
Philistines
and
Egyptians
were
defeated
at
Raphia.
Then
Carchemish
was
captured
and
absorbed
into
the
empire
(b.c.
717).
But
Sargon's
greatest
difficulty
was
with
Armenia,
and
the
rebellions
it
perpetually
stirred
up.
He
was,
however,
successful
in
the
end,
and
subdued
all
the
region
S.
of
the
Caucasus
and
parts
of
Cilicia,
as
well
as
parts
of
Media.
In
B.C.
711
an
Assyrian
army
was
sent
against
Pales-
tine,
where
Merodach-baladan
had
been
intriguing
and
had
drawn
Hezekiah
into
the
conspiracy.
Ashdod
was
captured,
and
Judah,
Moab,
and
Edom
submitted.
Merodach-baladan
was
expelled
from
Babylon
(b.c.
709),
and
then
chased
from
Bit-Yakin,
whither
he
had
retreated.
Sargon
was
welcomed
as
the
deli,verer
of
the
native
Babylonians,
and
became
king
of
Babylon.
He
sent
his
statue
to
be
erected
at
Idalion,
in
Cyprus.
In
B.C.
708
Commagene
was
annexed.
Sargon
was
killed
B.C.
705,
—
how
or
where
is
not
yet
clear.
He
founded
a
magnificent
city
at
Dur-Sargon,
the
modern
Khorsabad.
C.
H.
W.
Johns.
SABID.—
A
border
town
of
Zebulun
(Jos
19'»-
i^)-Probably
Sarid
is
a
copyist's
error
for
Sadid,
which
may
be
identified
with
Tell
Shadud,
to
the
N.
of
the
plain
of
Esdraelon.
SABOTHIE.—
A
family
of
'Solomon's
servants'
(1
Es
5«).
8ARSECHIM
seems
to
be
the
name
of
a
Bab.
official
(Jer
39'),
but
the
versions
—
Nabousachar,
Nabousarach,
Sarsackeim
—
suggest
that
the
text
was
early
corrupt.
There
is
no
known
Bab.
name
which
exactly
corresponds
to
any
of
these
variants,
and
it
is
impossible
to
identify
the
person
intended.
C.
H.
W.
Johns.
SATAN.—
1.
In
the
OT.—
The
term
Satan
is
Hebrew
and
means
'adversary.'
In
the
earlier
usage
of
the
language
it
is
employed
in
the
general
sense
of
'adversary,'
personal
or
national:
(cf.
e.g.
Nu
22^2,
2
S
1922,
1
K
5«
112S
etc.).
In
such
passages
no
trace
of
a
distinct
being
designated
'Satan'
is
to
be
seen.
Such
a
being
meets
us
for
the
first
time
in
the
OT
in
the
prologue
(chs.
1
and
2)
of
the
Bk.
of
Job,
in
the
person
of
one
of
'the
sons
of
God'
who
bears
the
title
of
'the
Satan.'
Here
Satan
appears
as
a
member
of
the
celestial
council
of
angelic
beings
who
have
access
to
the
presence
of
God.
His
special
function
is
to
watch
over
human
affairs
and
beings
with
the
object
of
search-ing
out
men's
sins
and
accusing
them
in
the
celestial
court.
He
is
thus
invested
with
a
certain
malevolent
and
malignant
character^
but
it
is
to
be
observed
that
he
has
no
power
to
act
without
the
Divine
permission
being
first
obtained,
and
cannot,
therefore,
be
regarded
as
the
embodiment
of
the
power
that
opposes
the
Deity.
In
Zee
32
essentially
the
same
view
of
'the
Satan'
is
presented.
But
in
1
Oh
21'
('And
Satan
stood
up
against
Israel,
and
moved
David
to
number
Israel')
the
personality
of
this
being
is
more
distinct:
he
appears
now
as
'Satan'
(a
proper
name
without
the
article),
the
tempter
who
is
able
to
provoke
David
to
number
Israel.
This
is
the
Chronicler's
(4th
or
3rd
cent.
B.C.)
reading
of
the
incident
which
in
the
earlier
narrative
(2
S
24')
is
ascribed
to
the
direct
action
of
God
Himself.
Here
(in
Chron.)
the
work
of
Satan
is
apparently
con-ceived
of
as
more
or
less
independent
of,
and
opposed
to,
the
Divine
action.
2.
In
the
extra-canonical
literature
of
the
OT.
—
In
SATAN
the
later
(apocryphal)
literature
of
pre-Christian
Judaism
the
dualistic
tendency
becomes
more
pro-nounced
—
a
tendency
powerfully
affected
by
Persian
influence,
it
would
seem,
which
is
also
apparent
in
the
development
of
an
elaborate
Jewish
angelology
and
deraonology.
This
is
most
clearly
visible
in
the
apoc-alyptic
literature.
In
the
oldest
part
of
the
Bk.
of
Enoch
(chs.
1-36),
dating,
perhaps,
from
about
B.C.
180,
the
origin
of
the
demons
is
traced
to
the
fall
of
the
angelic
watchers,
the
'sons
of
God'
who
corrupted
themselves
with
the
'daughters
of
men'
(Gn
6").
It
was
from
the
offspring
of
these
sinful
unions
—
the
'giants'
or
nephUlm
—
that
the
demons
were
sprung.
Of
these
demons
the
Asmodeeus
of
the
Bk.
of
Tobit
(3>-
")
seems
to
have
been
regarded
as
the
king
(Bab.
Pes.
llOo).
The
name
Asmodceus
(or
in
Heb.
Ashmedai)
has
plausibly
been
connected
with
the
ancient
Persian
Aeshma
daeva,
i.e.
'the
covetous
or
lustful
demon';
in
its
Hebrew
form
it
suggests
the
meaning
'
destroyer
'
or
'bringer
of
destruction,'
and
this
demon
may
be
intended
by
'the
destroyer'
of
Wisdom
18«
and
by
the
Apollyon
(='
Destroyer')
of
Rev
9".
In
the
latest
part
of
the
Bk.
of
Enoch,
however,
the
so-called
'Similitudes'
(chs.
xxxvii-lxxi),
which
perhaps
dates
from
about
B.C.
64,
'the
fallen
watchers'
(and
their
descendants)
are
carefully
distinguished
from
the
Satans,
who
apparently
belong
to
'
a
counter
kingdom
of
evil'
which
existed
before
the
fall
of
the
watchers
recorded
in
Gn
6',
the
latter,
in
consequence
of
their
fall,
becoming
subject
to
the
former.
Apparently
these
'Satans'
are
ruled
by
a
single
chief,
who
is
styled
'Satan'
in
one
passage
(Enoch
546).
'Their
functions
were
threefold:
they
tempted
to
evil
(69'-
«);
they
accused
the
dwellers
upon
earth
(40');
they
punished
the
condemned.
In
this
last
character
they
are
technically
called
"angels
of
punishment"
(53=
66'
62"
63')'
(Charles).
In
the
Bk.
of
Wisdom
(2^;
'
by
the
envy
of
the
devil
death
entered
into
the
world')
we
already
meet
with
the
identification
of
the
Serpent
of
Gn
3
with
Satan,
which
afterwards
became
a
fixed
element
in
belief,
and
an
allusion
to
the
same
idea
may
be
detected
in
the
Psalms
of
Solomon
4",
where
the
prosperous
wicked
man
is
said
to
be
'like
a
serpent,
to
pervert
wisdom,
speaking
with
the
words
of
transgressors.'
The
same
identification
also
meets
us
in
the
Book
of
the
Secrets
of
Enoch
(7
1st
cent,
a.d.),
where,
moreover,
satanology
shows
a
rich
development
(the
pride,
revolt,
and
fall
of
Satan
are
dwelt
upon).
Cf.
art.
Fall.
The
secondary
Jewish
(Rabbinical)
Literature
which
is
connected
with
the
text
of
the
OT
(esp.
the
Targums
and
the
Midrashim)
naturally
reflects
beliefs
that
were
current
at
a
later
time.
But
they
are
obviously
con-nected
closely
with
those
that
have
already
been
mentioned.
The
Serpent
of
Gn
3
becomes
'the
old
serpent'
who
seduced
Adam
and
Eve.
The
chief
of
the
Satans
is
Sammael,
who
is
often
referred
to
as
'the
angel
of
death':
and
in
the
Secrets
of
Enoch
he
is
prince
of
the
demons
and
a
magician.
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
in
the
later
Midrash
one
of
the
works
of
Messiah
ben-Joseph
is
the
slaying
of
Sammael,
who
is
'the
Satan,
the
prime
mover
of
all
evil.'
In
the
earlier
literature
his
great
opponent
is
the
archangel
Michael.
The
Rabbinic
doctrine
of
the
'evil
impulse'
(.yetser
ra'),
which
works
within
man
like
a
leaven
(Berak.
17a),
looks
like
a
theological
refinement,
which
has
sometimes
been
combined
with
the
popular
view
of
Satan
(Satan
works
his
evil
purpose
by
the
instrumentality
of
the
'evil
impulse').
3.
In
the
NT.
—
In
the
NT,
Satan
and
his
kingdom
are
frequently
referred
to.
Sometimes
the
Hebrew
name
'Satan'
is
used
(e.g.
Mk
3"
4"
etc.),
sometimes
its
Greek
equivalent
(diabolos:
cf.
our
word
'diabolical'),
which
is
translated
'devif,'
and
which
means
'accuser'
or
'calumniator.'
In
Mt
122»-
"
(cf.
10^=)
Satan
is
apparently
identified
with
Beelzebub
(or
Beelzebul),
