Category Archives: Biblical Studies

Fishers of Men

At that time, as Jesus walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Immediately they left their nets and followed him. And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. Immediately they left their boat and their father, and followed him. And he went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every infirmity among the people.

Matthew 4.18-23, today’s reading in the Greek Orthodox lectionary.

Once I got home today, I happened to see a nice travel show about the Cinque Terra region of Italy, five little towns hugging the coast in the northwest of the country, their multistoried pastel buildings seeming to tumble eagerly down the slopes to the sea. One interesting thing that they showed, which took on new importance to me having heard today’s Gospel reading, was the anchovy fishing of Vernazza, one of the five towns.

First, you should know that the inhabitants of these towns number in the hundreds, not thousands, and their families date back centuries, and some families or groups have developed specialties through the centuries. So, I don’t know if it’s one family that does the anchovy fishing or several, but it’s an organized cooperative effort of a small group of men in Vernazza.

Anchovy fishing is done at night, when everyone else is asleep. There are several small boats used, each with a light at the bow. The small boats, with their lights, row hither and thither, seemingly aimlessly, attracting schools of anchovies with their lights. Then, slowly but surely, the small boats head together toward one spot, leading all the schools of anchovies together, and attracting even more when their several bow lights brought together into one spot become one bright light. While the small boats are attracting the anchovies, a larger boat has spread a net, and once all the small boats have gathered all the anchovies into one area, the large boat starts to close the net, and then everyone scoops up anchovies with other nets into the boats.

Amazing, isn’t it? And there’s precisely a lesson in there related to the Gospel for today, wherein Jesus told Peter and Andrew, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” See, we do manage to collect a few souls as individuals by our light. But the real success comes when our lights are combined, working together as we should, is a shining beacon which draws those looking for light to it while the rest of the world is asleep, enjoying the darkness.

So, just remember that the next time you think, “Anchovies? Ech!”

And get fishing!

❧

It’s all canonical fun!

John Hobbins of Ancient Hebrew Poetry has made an initial post in a long series on the Biblical Canon, an initial full text version of which he’s sent to various bloggers. In it he brings up something that I always try to bring forward whenever we start to talk about “the Biblical canon”: there’s not just one Christian canon now, there has never been just one Christian one, and there didn’t used to be just one Jewish one. And while I think the de facto result of the history of the canon has led to the evidently universal recognition of the 27 books of the New Testament being agreed, the differences between the Hebrew Bible and Christian Old Testaments (yes, plural) defies reduction. It’s a great subject, and I think John has taken it in a good direction, one which it seldom goes, recognizing canonical multiplicity as a fact, and not necessarily a bad one, while also recognizing a core of texts that are implicitly recognized by all the traditions as perhaps the canonical core, based upon preserved ancient quotation, allusion, and homilies. It’s fascinating stuff.

❧

The Shihor of Egypt

One of the interesting things that has been clarified by James Hoffmeier’s (et alia) North Sinai excavations around Tel Hebua is the nature of the Shihor, the “Waters of Horus” described in various Egyptian texts alternately as a channel or a basin of water connected to the Mediterranean. It turns out to be both: the easternmost branch of the Nile in the Eastern Delta which emptied into a lagoon or estuary which in turn opened onto the Mediterranean up until the late second millennium or early first millennium BC. See Hoffmeier’s Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticiy of the Wilderness Tradition, particularly chapter 4, “The Geography of the Exodus: Ramesses to the Sea,” and Figures 3-6, 10, and 19 for topographical and geological maps of the area in question in the Eastern Nile Delta. This branch of the Nile began a bit south and west of Avaris/Pi-Ramesses and continued in a northeasterly direction until debouching into the aformentioned lagoon adjacent to Tjaru/Silu/Sile, the great border fortress of Egypt, located at Tel Hebua I and II (the fortress comprised two large buildings, one on either side of the channel, connected by a bridge). It is generally recognized that this Shihor actually defined the border of Egypt. On the western bank was Egypt, on the eastern bank, “the East.” For its entire length, the Shihor channel is paralleled by the “Way of Horus” the road leading from Avaris/Pi-Ramesses to Canaan.

The references within the Bible to this particular body of water are Jos 13.3; 1Chr 13.5; Isa 23.3; Jer 2.18. (There is also mention of a Shihor-Libnath, near Mount Carmel, in Jos 19.26, but this appears to be a Canaanite town or regional name interestingly based on a combination of the Semitic roots for “black” שחר and “white” לבן whatever the meaning may have been.) Nadav Naʾaman in two articles, “The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt” and “The Shihor of Egypt and Shur That is Before Egypt” (reprinted in Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction. Collected Essays volume 1. pages 238-264 and 265-278 respectively) conveniently provides summaries of the scholarship on the subject of the Shihor, describing the various agreements and disagreements over the referents of the Shihor in these Biblical passages. The former article has become the classic statement on the subject, it seems. To summarize reactions to the Biblical use of Shihor, the Isaiah and Jeremiah references are unanimously recognized as referring to the Nile, but the Joshua and Chronicles passages are not. Some (like Naʾaman himself) would equate Shihor in the Joshua and Chronicles references to the Wadi Besor (so Naʾaman argues) as the “Brook of Egypt” rather than the Nile itself, though this “Brook of Egypt” is typically placed further south, at the Wadi el-Arish. Generally, the Joshua and Chronicles Shihor usage is denied as referring to the Nile because the Shihor is elsewhere not described as the border of Canaan or the Promised Land, while the “Brook of Egypt” is. One is forced to ask, however, “Is it necessarily objective to change the referent of a geographical name depending upon equivocal contexts?” Is that actually treating the text fairly, or is it rather attempting to force the text to fit our own theoretical understanding? In this case, it is clearly the latter.

Firstly, there is not necessarily any “Brook of Egypt” which is separate from the “River of Egypt” which is the Nile, particularly in these cases—the easternmost branch in the Delta which was called the Shihor in the second millennium BC, and, much later, the Pelusiac. There is no particular difference in the Hebrew נהר and נחל such that the former means “river” and the latter means “brook” which would justify the tendentious translation “Brook of Egypt.” They are synonyms for a lengthy, flowing body of water of whatever size, large or small. The fascinating information that Naʾaman provides from the Assyrian texts (in “The Brook of Egypt…” article noted above) is still equivocal, and the article has the overall feel of a tour de force rather than an objective, rational investigation. It’s interesting, but forced in its fitting of the evidence to a hypothetical border placed close to Gaza.

Secondly, the Joshua 13.3 and 1 Chronicles 13.5 usages are not so anomalous as we would be led to believe. The former relates a boundary of the territory of the land still to be taken by the Israelites near the end of Joshua’s life, obviously from the actual border of Egypt up to Ekron, not from some unimportant wadi. Interestingly, the “Wadi of Egypt” (as the NRSV puts it) is also mentioned to be the southern border of the promised land in both Numbers 34.5 and Joshua 15.4. Importantly, in Isaiah 27.12, the “Wadi of Egypt” is put in apposition with the Euphrates, just as in Isaiah 23.3, the Shihor is. This seems rather to suggest that no matter the period involved, the Shihor and the “Wadi of Egypt” were understood by the Biblical writers as identical, and as the theoretical or ideal, if not actual, border between Egypt and Israel. That the Egyptians considered the Shihor their border is well known and unanimously acknowledged. That the Israelites, producing the only other body of material to elaborate on this border, indeed to even mention the Egyptian name of this border feature, claimed to share this border with the Egyptians either ideally or actually should not surprise us. Theirs was a vibrant culture immediately to the north of Egypt, with a cultural territory of larger extent than any of the Canaanite or Philistine city-states, and with a literary tradition of astonishing richness which is still appreciated to this day, aside from anyone’s conception of the workings of God in their history. Such things do not indicate the Israelites to have been an inconsiderable cultural force in the region. Control by such a cultural force, to a greater or lesser degree, over the unclaimed lands to the east of Egypt should actually be expected. The incidental usage of Nile/Shihor/River of Egypt in parallel with the Euphrates as indicating the maximal extent of Israelite influence, and Canaanite before that, through several centuries of writing by the Israelites, whether it was ideal or actualized (as it seems to have been at times), should not be denied because it doesn’t fit hypothetical models of Israelite borders based on other, more equivocal and less objectively determinative factors. To do so is clearly an injustice to all the evidence, and this theory of a “Wadi of Egypt” at Wadi Besor or Wadi el-Arish should be abandoned by scholarship.

Of course, we needn’t expect anything to really change on that front, for, as they say, “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.”

❧

Ascension, then and now

On the whole Mount of Olivet there seems to be no spot higher than that from which the Lord is said to have ascended into the heavens, where there stands a great round church, having in its circuit three vaulted porticoes covered over above. The interior of the church, without roof or vault, lies open to heaven under the open air, having in its eastern side an altar protected under a narrow covering. So that in this way the interior has no vault, in order that from the place where the Divine footprints are last seen, when the Lord was carried up into heaven in a cloud, the way may be always open and free to the eyes of those who pray towards heaven.

For when this basilica, of which I have now made slight mention, was building, that place of the footprints of the Lord, as we find written elsewhere, could not be enclosed under the covering with the rest of the buildings. Whatever was applied, the unaccustomed earth, refusing to receive anything human, cast back into the face of those who brought it. And, moreover, the mark of the dust that was trodden by the Lord is so lasting that the impression of the footsteps may be perceived; and although the faith;of such as gather daily at the spot snatches away some of what was trodden by the Lord, yet the area perceives no loss, and the ground still retains that same appearance of being marked by the impress of footsteps.

Further, as the sainted Arculf, who carefully visited this spot, relates, a brass hollow cylinder of large circumference, flattened on the top, has been placed here, its height being shown by measurement to reach one’s neck. In the centre of it is an opening of some size, through which the uncovered marks of the feet of the Lord are plainly and clearly seen from above, impressed in the dust. In that cylinder there is, in the western side, as it were, a door so that any entering by it can easily approach the place of the sacred dust, and through the open hole in the wheel may take up in their outstretched hands some particles of the sacred dust.

Thus the narrative of our Arculf as to the footprints of the Lord quite accords with the writings of others–to the effect that they could not be covered in any way, whether by the roof of the house or by any special lower and closer covering, so that they can always be seen by all that enter, and the marks of the feet of the Lord can be clearly seen depicted in the dust of that place. For these footprints of the Lord are lighted by the brightness of an immense lamp hanging on pulleys above that cylinder in the church, and burning day and night. Further in the western side of the round church we have mentioned above, twice four windows have been formed high up with glazed shutters, and in these windows there burn as many lamps placed opposite them, within and close to them. These lamps hang in chains, and are so placed that each lamp may hang neither higher nor lower, but may be seen, as it were, fixed to its own window, opposite and close to which it is specially seen. The brightness of these lamps is so great that, as their light is copiously poured through the glass from the summit of the Mountain of Olivet, not only is the part of the mountain nearest the round basilica to the west illuminated, but also the lofty path which rises by steps up to the city of Jerusalem from the Valley of Josaphat, is clearly illuminated in a wonderful manner, even on dark nights, while the greater part of the city that lies nearest at hand on the opposite side is similarly illuminated by the same brightness. The effect of this brilliant and admirable coruscation of the eight great lamps shining by night from the holy mountain and from the site of the Lord’s ascension, as Arculf related, is to pour into the hearts of the believing onlookers a greater eagerness of the Divine love, and to strike the mind with a certain fear along with vast inward compunction.

This also Arculf related to me about the same round church: That on the anniversary of the Lord’s Ascension, at mid-day, after the solemnities of the Mass have been celebrated in that basilica, a most violent tempest of wind comes on regularly every year, so that no one can stand or sit in that church or in the neighbouring places, but all lie prostrate in prayer with their faces in the ground until that terrible tempest has passed.

The result of this terrific blast is that that part of the house cannot be vaulted over; so that above the spot where the footsteps of the Lord are impressed and are clearly shown, within the opening in the centre of the above-named cylinder, the way always appears open to heaven. For the blast of the above-mentioned wind destroyed, in accordance with the Divine will, whatever materials had been gathered for preparing a vault above it, if any human art made the attempt.

This account of this dreadful storm was given to us by the sainted Arculf, who was himself present in that Church of Mount Olivet at the very hour of the day of the Lord’s Ascension when that fierce storm arose. A drawing of this round church is shown below, however unworthily it may have been drawn; while the form of the brass cylinder is also shown placed in the middle of the church.

This also we learned from the narrative of the sainted Arculf: That in that round church, besides the usual light of the eight lamps mentioned above as shining within the church by night, there are usually added on the night of the Lord’s Ascension almost innumerable other lamps, which by their terrible and admirable brightness, poured abundantly through the glass of the windows, not only illuminate the Mount of Olivet, but make it seem to be wholly on fire; while the whole city and the places in the neighbourhood are also lit up.

Excerpts from St Adomnán of Iona De Locis Sanctis (“On the Holy Places”) on the description of the Imbomon Church at the peak of the Mount of Olives, the traditional site of the Christ’s Ascension, related by a certain Frankish Bishop Arculf, who visited Jerusalem circa 670 AD. Arculf was shipwrecked at Iona when returning from his lengthy travels in the East. He related to Adomnán an account of the various holy sites he visited and, most importantly, drew diagrams of their layouts, all of which Adomnán compiled in De Locis Sanctis. This makes De Locis Sanctis an extremely valuable historical account of the appearance of these sites in the third quarter of seventh century, within fifty years of the Arabs taking control of the city. An old, but workable, English translation of Adomnán’s De Locis Sanctis is available here. The reconstruction plan (the second image, above) is from Jerome Murphy O’Connor, The Holy Land: And Oxford Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700 (Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 124. I’ve rotated both images, so that north is to the top. The dashed octogon in the reconstruction drawing indicates the outline of the currently standing dome illustrated below.

The ancient Imbomon Church in its prime must have been quite beautiful. The original church was built circa 380. The church Arculf saw circa 670 was one that was rebuilt after the Persian destruction in 614 of all churches in the Holy Land (except for that of the Nativity in Bethlehem, because its facade’s mosaic depicted the Magi as Persians). Centuries later, the victory of Saladin over the Crusaders led to the church being transferred to the ownership of some of Saladin’s retainers, who massively altered the site, though much of this alteration likely occurred under the Crusader regime. Only the central, formerly unroofed, section was retained, the outer parts of the building being razed to their foundations. The remaining structure was covered with a dome and a mihrab was added to the south wall (visible in the interior photo), making it a mosque, which it is to this day. A rough wall making mostly a round courtyard (it’s more of a semicircle now) around the central structure indicates (in the round part) roughly the original size of the church, which was massive. The following pictures date to between 1900 and 1920, and are from the online Library of Congress collection of the Matson Photo Archives.

❧

❧

Codex Hierosolymitanus Canon List

I recently picked up a copy of Huub van de Sandt’s and David Flusser’s The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (volume 5 of Section III, Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature, in the series Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, published by Royal Van Gorcum and Fortress Press, 2002). Part of the Introduction (pp 16-21) provides details on the manuscript in which the only known (nearly) complete copy of the Greek Didache appears, Codex Hierosolymitanus. This codex also contains the sole complete Greek copy of 2 Clement. The codex, completed 11 June 1056 by “Leon, the scribe and sinner” contains the following works:
a.) Pseudo-Chrysostom’s Synopsis Veteris et Novi Testamenti: fol. 1r—38v
b.) Epistle of Barnabas: fol. 39r—51v
c.) First Epistle of Clement: fol. 51v—70r
d.) Second Epistle of Clement: fol. 70r—76r
e.) A list of the “names of (biblical) books used by the Hebrews,” with the titles transliterated from the Hebrew and the Greek titles both written in red ink: fol 76r
f.) Didache: fol. 76r—80v
g.) The letter by Maria Cassoboloi to Ignatius of Antioch: fol. 81r—82r
h.) The Twelve Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (the longer edition): fol. 82r—120r
i.) The colophon is followed by a short treatise on the genealogy of Jesus: fol. 120r—120v

Flusser and van de Sandt reasonably suggest that the central works (b through f, above), as they follow immediately upon one another, were copied from an earlier manuscript containing the same works, an early edition of what we now call The Apostolic Fathers collection, perhaps related to widespread antiquarian interest at this point in Byzantine history. Thus the space at the end of the Didache does not have anything to do with the scribe Leon leaving an assumed space for the completion of the book. Rather, his copy ended there, so he ended there, continuing with copying the next manuscript on the following full page. This is entirely plausible. It also makes item “e,” the list of Biblical books in use among the Hebrews, potentially more important than has formerly been realized, as it thereby certainly dates to an earlier period than the date of H. Indeed, in comparison with other such lists presented by Melito, Origen (pace Eusebius), and Epiphanius, they suggest that this list and the Epiphanian list are dependent upon a common source dated to the first half of the second century AD.

Here is the list, as presented p. 19, n. 31, with the transliteration of the Hebrew on the left, and the Greek title on the right, separated by a dot:
1. βρισιθ • γενεσις
2. ελσιμοθ • εξοδος
3. οδοικρα • λευιτικον
4. διιησου • ιησου υιου ναυη
5. ελεδεββαρι • δευτερονομιον
6. ουιδαβιρ • αριθμοι
7. δαρουθ • της ρουθ
8. διωβ • του ιωβ
9. δασοφτιμ • των κριτων
10. σφερτελιμ • ψαλτηριον
11. διεμμουηλ • βασιλειων α
12. διαδδουδεμουηλ • βασιλεων β
13. δαμαλαχημ • βασιλεων γ
14. αμαλαχημ • βασιλεων δ
15. δεβριιαμιν • παραλειπομενων α
16. δεριιαμιν • παραλειπομενων β
17. δαμαλεωθ • παροιμιων
18. δακοελεθ • εκκλησιαστης
19. σιρα σιριμ • ασμα ασματων
20. διερεμ • ιερεμιας
21. δααθαρσιαρ • δωδεκαπροφητον
22. δησαιου • ησαιου
23. διεεζεκιηλ • ιεζεκιηλ
24. δαδανιηλ • δανιηλ
25. δεσδρα • εσδρα α
26. δαδεσδρα • εσδρα β
27. δεσθης • εσθηρ

The somewhat garbled, but still recognizable Hebrew (the list is not Aramaic, contra alia, except for the name for the Twelve Prophets, תרי עשרא, as it is still traditionally so in Jewish circles) is prefixed with the Aramaic genitive particle d- , “of”, throughout nearly all the titles but for those of the five Pentateuchal books. One curious aspect of the list, unnoted by van de Sandt and Flusser, is the apparent elision of sibilants in the transliterations of numbers 11, 12, and 17, the two books of Samuel and Proverbs, respectively. For the latter (p. 19, n. 35) they suggest an original מתלות and the loss of a theta during transmission, whereas I would suggest an original משלות and the loss of a sigma, as is clearly the case in numbers 11 and 12, in regard to the name Samuel. I’m not sure what to make of the second of a pair of books bearing a second -d-; perhaps it represents שני or תני even though the placement there is odd. The order of the books is also extremely irregular, with several transpositions in comparison with the Epiphanian list: Numbers and Joshua are transposed, Ruth is moved from after Judges to before Job, Chronicles is moved from before Samuel to after Kings, and Jeremiah is moved from after the Twelve to before.

For comparison with the Codex H list, here is the transliterated Hebrew and Aramaic list from Epiphanius, De mensuris et ponderibus, lines 680—691, from the TLG text:
βιρσηθ
ελησιμωθ
ουαιεκρα
ουαιδαβηρ
ελλεδεβαρειμ
διησου
διωβ
δεσωφτειμ
δερουθ
σφερτελειμ
δεβριιαμειν
δεβριιαμειν
δεσαμουηλ
δαδουδεσαμουηλ
δμαλαχειμ
δμαλαχειμ
δμεθαλωθ
δεκωελεθ
σιραθσιρειν
δαθαριασαρα
δησαιου
διερεμιου
διεζεκιηλ
δεδανιηλ
δεσδρα
δεσδρα
δεσθηρ

The H list and the list from Epiphanius are so similar that it is hard to deny relation either through dependence upon a common source, as suggested by van de Sandt and Flusser, or through chronological proximity in origin. If following van de Sandt and Flusser with the former option, a date for the original source in the first half of the second century AD is possible. If, however, the lists are similar because they date to approximately the same time, then a date in the second half of the fourth century is likely, as Epiphanius’ De mensuris et ponderibus is dated to 392. I think the latter is more likely than the former, primarily because the two lists are very similar, including the Aramaic d- prefixes, but are very different from the lists of Origen and Melito as preserved in Eusebius, and which we know to be late second century lists. A further indication, which I haven’t seen noted elsewhere, involved the vocalization involved in the transliterated Hebrew, which appears to postdate the beginning of segholization in Palestinian Hebrew and the shortening of vowels represented in the Masoretic Text, though this is by no means certain with the transliteration being so sloppy.

Still, it’s an interesting list, and one that should be added to discussions of the Biblical canon, whether one dates it to the second or fourth centuries.

❧

Psalms post/superscripts

The superscripts or titles of the Psalms in the Old Testament have always been quite a puzzling thing. The differences in text between the Masoretic and Septuagintal traditions notwithstanding, the meanings of individual words and phrases continue to elude us, and suggestions for their meanings appear to still be as numerous as the commentators thereon. Aside from these issues of meaning, however, there is the simple issue of the arrangement of these “blurbs,” which some have proposed should actually be split into titles or superscripts, and postscripts or colophons.

Continue reading “Psalms post/superscripts”

❧

The Sons of Hadad

In two previous posts, I presented the most useful Biblical information regarding the kings of ancient Damascus (Rulers of Aram-Damascus), and then the relevant Assyrian evidence for these kings (Assyria and Aram-Damascus). In this installment, I’ll touch briefly on the current Old Aramaic evidence, present several other writers’ syntheses, and finally present my own suggestion for a king list and chronology of the kings of Aram-Damascus, which I find makes the best sense of all the evidence.

Old Aramaic Evidence
No excavations have occurred within the ancient walled city of Damascus, one of the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world. A hill within the line of the old city walls (which follow almost exactly the line of the Roman period walls) roughly 200 meters south-southeast of the Umayyad Mosque and rising 5-6 meters above the level of the streets is likely the tel of the old palace (Pitard 1987, 4-5). Currently there is very little direct evidence in Old Aramaic concerning the kings of ancient Damascus, only five inscriptions: The Zakkur Inscription (COS 2.35), the Tel Dan Stele (COS 2.39), and several inscriptions on ivory inlays and bronze horse blinders (COS 2.40). The Zakkur Inscription is important in that it relates that the king Zakkur of Hamath and Lu`ash was besieged in the city of Hazrach (the Hadrach of Zechariah 9.1; Hatarikka of Tiglath-Pileser III; and the modern Afiz) by “Bar-Hadad son of Hazael” and seventeen other kings, but the siege was “miraculously” broken off (perhaps by the arrival of the Assyrian army, to be dated to 772 B.C., in the first year of Aššur-Dan III, as is known otherwise only from the eponym canon (cf. Pitard 1987, 170-174, who disagrees on the date). From this, however, we learn that (as in the Bible), the ruler known to the Assyrians as Hadiānu was also known by the dynastic patronym “Son of Hadad.” If the siege of Hazrach is to be dated to 772 B.C., as is quite likely, then this mention of the “Son of Hadad” being able to lead an army of seventeen other kings the year after Shalmaneser V of Assyrian subjected him indicates the extraordinary resilience of the rulers of Aram-Damascus. The Tel Dan Stele fragments do not preserve the name of the king of Aram-Damascus to have erected the stele, so it is of no use to us on this particular subject. We can only hope that in the future further fragments of this fascinating stele are discovered, as it appears to present, according to current understanding, an alternate account of the coup of Jehu of Israel and the deaths of the kings Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah described in 2 Kings 9–10. The Hazael Booty Inscriptions (so-named in COS) are a set of well-traveled inscribed items that were discovered in various locations: the Aegean island of Samos, mainland Greece at Eretria in Euboea, at Arslan Tash which is the ancient Hadatu, and in the ruins of Nimrud which is the ancient Assyrian city Kalhu (the Calah of Genesis 10.11-12). The name of the collection refers to the likely correct suggestion that the items were acquired as loot by Hazael and then dedicated to one or more temples, and/or incorporated into his possessions in the palace in Damascus. The lengthiest of these inscriptions is found on a pair of bronze horse blinders (found separately in Samos and Eretria; see COS 2.40 A): “That which Hadad gave to our lord Hazael from `Amq in the year when our lord crossed the river.” The other two inscriptions are on ivory pieces, and fragmentary, though both preserve complete the name of Hazael. In summary, none of our current Old Aramaic evidence alone is useful toward the purpose of reconstruction a chronology of the kings of Aram-Damascus except in a very general manner.

One interesting aspect that deserves investigation is the use of the dynastic patronymic titular “Son of Hadad” for ruling kings of Aram-Damascus. If the usage follows that representative of other Aramaic kingdoms as reflected in the Assyrian sources, then only the current ruling dynast would bear the dynastic patronymic. The interesting case of Ahunu of Bīt-Adini is illustrative, as described in this post. Ahunu lost his dynastic patronymic, not just in reality but even in the Assyrian narrative of the event, once he abandoned his city and throne. We should understand by this usage that the Biblical texts referring to Ben-Hadad indicate sources were used that reflect precisely this practice, that the dynastic patronymic is only appropriate to the living, ruling, dynast. That is, the sources for some or all of these mentions of Ben-Hadad in 1-2 Kings (and only secondarily 1-2 Chronicles, as Chronicles is so obviously based upon Kings as to hardly reflect an independent witness) dated to within the lifetimes of the kings so named. (This is appropriate to a periodic supplementary editing of what I prefer to call The Prophetic History, but is typically called the Deuteronomistic History; but more on that some other time.)

Syntheses
Following are several schema presenting a king list and chronology of the kings of Aram-Damascus, with some short commentary.

Sader, 288:
Rezon fils de Elyadaʿ contemporain de Salomon ca. 965-926
Ḥezion ca. 900
Ṭabrimmon ca. 890
Bar-Hadad I ca. 880-865
Adad-idri ca. 865-842
Hazaël ca. 842-805
Mariʾ fils de Hazaël ca. 805-800
Bar-Hadad II fils de Hazaël ca. 800-775
Ḫadianu ca. 775-750
Raḫianu ca. 750-732
This is close to the king list that I would suggest, except for the inclusion of “Mariʾ fils de Hazaël” and separating “Bar-Hadad II fils de Hazaël” from “Ḫadianu.” She discusses various solutions proposed in the past, the most popular of which was apparently to identify “Mariʾ” with the “Bar-Hadad son of Hazael” of the Zakkur Inscription (Sader 258-260). She further takes both Mariʾ” and “Bar-Hadad” to be personal names, rather than, in the case of the former, an Assyrian misunderstanding of listing an Aramaic title, “Marēʾ,” “Lord” as particularly seen in the Hazael Booty Inscriptions noted above (see Cogan and Tadmor, 143). Relatedly, the Assyrian data in combination with the Biblical data indicate that Hazael was still on the throne of Damascus at the time mention is made of this “Mariʾ” in year five of Adad-narari III, 806/5 B.C. “Mariʾ” is thus Hazael. With the elimination of “Mariʾ” as a separate king, and adjusting the dates of her “Bar-Hadad II” to c. 805-775, I think we’re very much in the ballpark with this chronology, and close as well with this list of kings. I would otherwise depart from her list by identifiying “Bar-Hadad II” with “Ḫadianu.”

Pitard (1987: 144, 189):
Rezon mid-tenth century
Ḥazyān (Hezion) late-tenth century
Ṭab-Rammān late-tenth/early-ninth century
Bir-Hadad I early-ninth
Hadad-ʿiḏr mid-ninth century–ca. 844
(Bir-Hadad II)? ca. 844/842
Hazael ca. 844/842–ca. 800
Bir-Hadad III early eighth century
Ḥadiānu second quarter of eighth century
Raḏyān mid-eighth century–732
Pitard’s “(Bir-Hadad II)?” is based solely upon 2 Kings 8.7-15, which describes the assassination of Ben-Hadad by Hazael, and the latter’s usurpation of the throne. Assyrian records do not indicate any king reigning between Adad-idri (the Ben-Hadad of 2 Kings 8.7-15, etc) and Haza’ilu (Hazael). It is unnecessary to posit one, but is apparently done because of the lingering preference to understand “Bir-Hadad” as a personal name of the king rather than typical Aramaean dynastic titulary. Relatedly, he inserts a “Bir-Hadad III” between Hazael and Ḥadiānu, thinking that the Zakkur Inscription requires it because he takes “Bir-Hadad” as a personal name. Curious, too, is his avoidance of showing in this list that the name of the successor of Rezon, Ḥazyān (Hezion), is also that of the penultimate king, though he is aware of it in the text (pp. 104-107). Also, I find Pitard’s dates to be unnecessarily vague for all the kings after the first few, the ones for whom such hedging is certainly warranted. So, Sader’s list and Pitard’s both include two extra kings.

Cambridge Ancient History
Volume 3, Part 1, covering the Near East during the tenth to eighth centuries B.C. presents the following dates in chronological table 2. The Neo-Hittite States of Syria and Anatolia (p. 896):
Rezon c. 950
Hezion
Tabrimmon
Ben Hadad I
Ben Hadad II (Adad-idri) *853-845
Hazael *841-838
Ben Hadad III (Mari) *798?
Khadianu *773
Rezin (Rakhianu) *738-732
The asterisked dates indicate solely dates of attestation in the Assyrian records for these kings, similar to the summary I gave in my post on the Assyrian evidence, where I gave the attestation of these kings and contemporary Hebrew kings in calendar years. The CAH identifies “Mari” with “Ben Hadad III.” It is unclear why redating the “Mari of Damascus” campaign from Adad-Narari’s fifth to ninth year is warranted, unless this is a mistaken reference to eponym list entry for 796 “to Mansuate,” which is presumed to be the campaign in which Damascus was reduced; others hold this to have occurred in the fifth year of Adad-narari, as is explicitly stated in the Tell ar-Rimah stele (RIMA3 A.0.104.6), despite its peculiarities. So again, in any case, there are two too many kings in the list from CAH.

Cogan and Tadmor (Cogan 2001; Cogan and Tadmor 1988)
Although they don’t provide a list and discrete chronology for the various kings of Aram-Damascus, cogent discussion of the issues is presented in both Cogan’s 1 Kings commentary and Cogan and Tadmor’s 2 Kings commentary, both in the Anchor Bible series. In particular, Cogan objects to the redating of 1 Kings 20 and 22 to the reign of another, later king of Israel than Ahab (Cogan 2001, 471-4). Relatedly, however, Cogan and Tadmor equate the Ben-hadad of 2 Kings 6.24 with Ben-hadad III, successor to Hazael (p. 78-79), because it is only in the later period that the Damascene king’s force is considered sufficiently superior to that of Israel to enforce such a protracted siege. This doesn’t quite follow, as Ben-hadad II is explicitly identified with Adad-idri in the paragraph preceding their suggestion for redating the siege of 2 Kings 6-7, the same Adad-idri who was able to fend off the great Shalmaneser III for nearly a decade. Such a king would have no problem besieging Samaria. There is no reason, other than a fascination with such tinkering and the invention of a problem to justify it, to require that the siege narrative is displaced. Otherwise, Tadmor and Cogan manage to provide excellent summaries of the discussions regarding these kings, and present very likely scenarios based upon the intersection of Assyrian and Biblical evidence for relations between Assyria, Aram-Damascus, Israel and Judah during the time in question.

Summary and Conclusions
Based upon the information in the previous two posts and all of the above, I would suggest the following king list and rough chronology for the kings of Aram-Damascus:
Rezon, son of Eliada c. 970-930
Hezion I c. 930-910
Tabrimmon c. 910-890
Ben Hadad I, son of Tabrimmon c. 890-870
Ben Hadad II (=Hadadezer) c. 870-842
Hazael c. 842-805
Ben Hadad III (Hezion II) c. 805-770
Rezin c. 770-732
It is only through the intersection of the Biblical and Assyrian texts that the above is able to be constructed. The first four kings are known only from the Biblical texts. The latter four are known to both, though with differing names for two: the Adad-idri of the Assyrian texts, equivalent to the name Hadadezer, is referred to in the Bible only as Ben Hadad. Similarly, the Ḫadianu of the Assyrian texts, equivalent to the name Hezion, is only referred to in the Bible as Ben Hadad, and is also attested in our very slender Old Aramaic evidence as Bir Hadad son of Hazael in the Zakkur Inscription. As described in the earlier post on the Biblical information, the dates suggested above provide appropriate ranges based upon relations of these various Damascene kings with those of Israel and Judah. Relatedly, the dates of attestation for these kings in the Assyrian evidence is satisfied. And while some of these reigns may seem to be rather long, roughly forty years, it should be noted that such a powerful state as Aram-Damascus may have found in the stability of a lengthy rule the foundation that enabled it to be so strong and so resilient, particularly in the face of the Assyrian menace. Notice the weakness of the states of Israel and Judah with their constantly changing kings and dynasties. Their periods of greatest wealth and power always occur in the reigns of the longer-lasting kings, not so surprisingly.

This king list and dates will need to remain flexible until more data is discovered, preferably some primary data from Iron Age Damascus itself, but the above suggestion is, I think, the one that makes best use of all the data.

Sources
Boardman, John, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. L. Hammond and E. Sollberger, editors.
1982 The Prehistory of the Balkans; and the Middle East and the Aegean World, tenth to eighth centuries B.C. Volume 3, Part 1 of The Cambridge Ancient History. Cambridge University Press.
Cogan, Mordechai.
2001 I Kings. Anchor Bible 10. New York: Doubleday.
Cogan, Mordechai and Hayim Tadmor.
1988 II Kings. Anchor Bible 11. New York: Doubleday.
Hallo, William W, editor.
2000 Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Volume 2 of The Context of Scripture. Leiden: Brill.
Pitard, Wayne T.
1987 Ancient Damascus: A Historical Study of the Syrian City-State from Earliest Times until its Fall to the Assyrians in 732 B.C.E. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
1992a “Aram (PLACE),” I:338-341 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. Doubleday.
1992b “Ben-Hadad,” 1:663-665 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. Doubleday.
1992c “Damascus: Pre-Hellenistic History,” 2:5-7 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. Doubleday.
1992d “Hazael,” 3:83-84 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. Doubleday.
1992e “Rezin,” 5:708-709 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. Doubleday.
Sader, Hélène
1987 Les États Araméens de Syrie: depuis leur Fondation jusqu’à leur Transformation en Provinces Assyriennes. Beiruter Texte und Studien 36. Beirut: Beiruter Texte und Studien.

❧

Assyria and Aram-Damascus

In the first installment dealing with the rulers of Aram-Damascus, I summarized the Biblical information. This one will present a summary of the mention of these rulers in Assyrian texts. It should be noted that information from the Assyrian texts was already secondarily involved in that is has played a major part in the dating of the rulers of Israel and Judah. This emphasizes the importance of comparitive studies in trying to reconstruct events of the distant past, particularly when the evidence is scattershot between different cultures. When such a thing as a simple list of kings of Damascus is so difficult to reconstruct between the surviving data from three separate, though closely interacting, cultures, we have to recognize that we need to use all of the sources which are available, evaluate them properly, and do the best possible with them in synthesis as we can at present. More information may show up in the future to clarify the issue, and so we should always be willing to adjust conclusions based upon the available data. But the fragmentary nature of the remnants of the past should never obviate an attempt to gain meaning from them simply because they are deemed insufficient in isolation.

So, here is a summary of the mention of the kings of Aram-Damascus in the Assyrian texts:
853/2 BC: Shalmaneser III, year six: Battle of Qarqar: Adad-idri of Aram-Damascus (used for Ša-Imērišu throughout the below), Irhulenu of Hamath, Ahab the Israelite (Sir’alaya), and troops from Byblos, Egypt, Irqanatu, Arvad, Usanatu, Šianu, Arabia, and Ammon were defeated.
849/8 BC: Shalmaneser III, year ten: Adad-idri of Aram-Damascus, Irhulenu of Hamath, and twelve allies from the seashoare were defeated in battle.
848/7 BC: Shalmaneser III, year eleven: Adad-idri of Aram-Damascus, Irhulenu of Hamath, and twelve allies from the seashoare were defeated in battle.
845/4 BC: Shalmaneser III, year fourteen: Adad-idri of Aram-Damascus, Irhulenu of Hamath, and twelve allies from the seashoare were defeated in battle.
841/0 BC: Shalmaneser III, year eighteen: Haza’ilu of Aram-Damascus mustered an extensive army and fortified Mount Senir (Hermon). He was defeated, escaping to Damascus, where Shalmaneser cut down the gardens (or orchards) and destroyed numerous surrounding cities in the area. He then went to Mount Ba’alira’asi (the cape of Mount Carmel?) and received tribute from the people of Tyre and Sidon and from Jehu of Israel (Bīt-Humrî “the House of Omri”). Apparently not too long before the above engagement between Shalmaneser and Haza’ilu, “Adad-idri passed away and Haza’ilu, son of a nobody, took the throne” (RIMA3. A.0.102.40: i 25).
838/7 BC: Shalmaneser III, year twenty-one: Offensive campaign by Shalmaneser, conquering numerous cities of Haza’ilu.
806/5 BC: Adad-narari III, year five: Marched to Damascus and besieged Mari’ in it, who capitulates, paying much and allowing the choice of fineries from his palace. Received tribute from Mari’ of Aram-Damascus, and Joash the Samarian, and the people of Tyre and Sidon.
773/2 BC: Shalmaneser V, year ten: Field marshal (tartanu) Šamšī-ilu marched to Damascus, receiving from Hadiānu of Aram-Damascus much tribute, including his daughter and her dowry, and much property from the palace. Though this campaign is not dated in the inscription itself, the limmu lists include this for 773/2: “In the eponym year of Mannuki-Adad of the city Šallat: to the city of Damascus” (RIA II, p. 430, pace Sader, p. 240).
738/7 BC: Tiglath-Pileser III, year eight: Received tribute from numerous kings, including Rahianu of Aram-Damascus and Menahem of Samaria.
733/2 BC: Tiglath-Pileser III, year thirteen: Conquers Rahianu of Aram-Damascus, who apparently panicked in battle, destroying 591 cities in the 16 districts of “the wide land of the House of Hazael (Bīt-Haza’ili),” his kingdom, which extended to Gilead and Abel-[…] on the border of Israel (Bīt-Humrî “House of Omri”). These obviously refer to some of the transjordanian former territories of Israel, indicating that by this time, they were under the rule of Aram-Damascus. In Israel (Bīt-Humrî “House of Omri”) TIglath-Pileser exiles “all of its people,” to Assyria, apparently annexing all of the territory of Israel except the district immediately around the city Samaria (for the present!). He or they killed (conjectured either [a]-du-[uk-ma] or [i]-du-[ku-ma] for […]-du-[x1]-[x2], see Tadmor, p. 141, note to line 17′) Peqah. Installs Hoshea as king in Samaria. (The above is from Tadmor, Summary Inscription 4, lines 6′-7′ and 15′-17′ and Summary Inscription 9, lines 3-4 and 9-11; both are fragmentary, but similar enough that each can be used to help reconstruct the majority of the other.)

Something very interesting to note is that the Assyrians, in their predilection for the term “māt Ša-Imērišu,” “Land of His Donkeys” for the kingdom of Aram-Damascus, never referred to it before Haza’ilu/Hazael in one of the “House of…” forms, as Israel is often referred to as Bīt-Humrî, “House of Omri,” particularly “House of Hadad.” Relatedly, the kings of Aram-Damascus are never referred to in the Assyrian documents, as in the Bible they are repeatedly, as “Son of Hadad.” I suspect that the reason for this is the Assyrians finding it sacrilegious or taboo to some extent for the dynasts of Aram-Damascus to claim to be the sons of the storm god, or perhaps they found it simply audacious. However, this was perhaps a misconstrual on the Assyrians’ part, for the “Hadad” element in the Aramaic Bir-Hadad and Hebrew Ben-Hadad is more likely a hypocoristic form of the original dynastic founder’s name, Hadad-Razon, as I mentioned in the last installment, and thus only secondarily connoting the divinity. In any case, Aram-Damascus is eventually referred to as “Bīt-Haza’ili” by Tiglath-Pileser (Tadmor, Summary Inscription 4, line 7′, and Summary Inscription 9, line 3). This is understandable, as Haza’ilu/Hazael was known to have founded a new dynasty in the days of Shalmaneser III (see above under 841/0 BC).

So we have the following kings attested in the following years in Assyrian texts:
Adad-idri 853-844, Ahab of Israel 853-2, death of Adad-idri prior to 841
Haza’ilu 841-837 (or to 805), Jehu of Israel 841-0
Mari’ (if not Haza’ilu) 806-5, Joash of Israel 806-5
Hadianu 773-2
Rahianu 738-732, dies 733-2; Menahem of Israel 738-7, Pekah of Israel dead in 733-2, Hoshea of Israel begins rule in 733-2

I’ve included the various mentions of the Israelite kings in the Assyrian records alongside the Damascene kings in order to show that the synchronisms between Hebrew kings and Damascene kings indicated by the 1-2 Kings texts in the Bible are also in accord with the Assyrian information. For example, Rezin (Rahianu in the Assyrian texts) is not wrongly placed in the time of Ahab by the Biblical writers. The two sets of information together permit a reconstruction of the chronology of these Damascene kings, with the Assyrian data providing necessary chronological exactitude, and the Hebrew texts playing a secondary role in that, as dating the kings of Israel in this period is also, to a large extent, dependent upon Assyrian synchronisms. It’s a system of chronological checks and balances, which should prevent both wild excesses and require attention to details in reconstruction.

The next installment will present a synthesis of the Biblical and Assyrian information, to reconstruct a plausible chronology for the kings of Aram-Damascus, give a brief nod to the Aramaic information available on these kings, and I’ll be showing a couple of other Damascene king-lists as well, for comparison’s sake, and explain why I think they’re right or wrong.

Sources:
RIMA3: A. Kirk Grayson. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858-745 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Assyrian Periods Volume 3. University of Toronto Press, 1996.
Tadmor: Hayim Tadmor. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994.
Sader: Hélène Sader. Les États Araméens de Syrie: depuis leur Fondation jusqu’à leur Transformation en Provinces Assyriennes. Beiruter Texte und Studien 36. Beirut, 1987.

❧

Rulers of Aram-Damascus

I recently read Wayne Pitard’s fascinating book Ancient Damascus: A Historical Study of the Syrian City-State from Earliest Times until its Fall to the Assyrians in 732 B.C.E. (Eisenbrauns, 1987). It’s great to have such a handy guide to the history of this city. Of course, most of the history is that which is gleaned from texts (minimalists may need to reach for smelling salts at this point), including the Bible! In fact, quite shockingly, no excavations of ancient Damascus have ever taken place. Our information about the history of the city and its rulers and their role in history has all come from elsewhere, specifically precisely these three sources: 1.) the Bible, 2.) Assyrian texts, 3.) two Aramaic inscriptions. That’s it. And of the three, the Bible provides the most information on the rulers of Aram-Damascus, with the Assyrian texts mentioning only the last three, or perhaps four. One Aramaic inscription (the Zakkur Stele) is helpful for input on only a single incident, while the other is the Tel Dan Stele, which is so fragmentary, and whose reading is currently so controverted, that it is not precisely very helpful. The Tel Dan Stele had not been excavated when Pitard wrote, though he does cover the Zakkur Stele. It’s primarily through the intersection of the Hebrew and Assyrian materials that an outline can be established of the history of the rulers of Aram-Damascus, the kingdom known to the Assyrians as māt Ša-Imērišu, The Land of His Donkeys. (That name always gives me a smile. And no, no one knows exactly why it’s called that by the Assyrians, who weren’t exactly known for their sense of humor.)

In any case, I decided that it would be useful to work through some of the data myself, since I found some of Pitard’s solutions somewhat unconvincing. I’ve examined all the Biblical references and the Assyrian royal inscriptions dealing with the rulers of Aram-Damascus. These two bodies of material together can yield different numbers of rulers, depending upon one’s approach, unfortunately. For instance, 1-2 Kings in the Bible often refers to “Ben-Hadad” as King of Aram-Damascus. This dynastic titulary, familiar in other Aramaic kingdoms in the Neo-Assyrian period. For example the ruler of Bīt-Adini, or Beth-Eden as in Amos 1.5, would be known as mār Adini, Bar Eden, or Son of Adin. For more information on this phenomenon, see this earlier post and the posts linked in it. It appears that Ben-Hadad is also a dynastic name, though it is certainly an unusual one, as it is comprised of solely a divine name, implying that the ruler is the son of the storm-god Hadad. This however, I would suggest is a singular instance of hypocoristic dynastic titulary. That is, the name of the dynastic founder would have included the name Hadad as the divine element of his theophoric name. This is likely to be the case, as we’ll see below. The usage in the Books of Kings of this title Ben-Hadad has led to some confusion in various studies, as it is uncertain in a few places where one Ben-Hadad leaves off and another begins, so to speak. So, let’s examine the Hebrew information first.

Rezon, son of Eliada is described as the founder of the Aramaean kingship at Damascus in 1 Kings 11.23-25. He is said to have deserted his former king Hadadezer of Aram-Zobah, sometime in the reign of David, and to have taken over Damascus. He is said to be an enemy of Solomon throughout the reign of the latter, though no incidents are otherwise reported in 1 Kings. Rezon is very likely a hypocoristic form of the theophoric name Hadad-Razon, meaning “Hadad is Ruler.” This would explain why his successors were called “Son of Hadad,” connoting “Son of Hadad-Razon.” Otherwise, there is no instance among the Aramaean kingdoms of taking a divine name as patronymic in this kind of dynastic titulary.

Hezion I, son (?) of Rezon is only known from the patronymic given in 1 Kings 15.18. The name, however, appears again with the successor to Hazael in the eighth century, as Hadiānu in the Assyrian texts, which we’ll get to.

Tabrimmon, son of Hezion is also only known from the 1 Kings 15.18 patronymic. The name is a good Aramaic name, Hebraized, meaning “Ramman is Good,” Ramman, Thunderer, being an epithet of Hadad.

Ben-Hadad, son of Tabrimmon is the king of Aram-Damascus introduced at 1 Kings 15.18, during the reign of Asa of Judah (912-871) and Baasha of Israel (911-888), probably toward the later end of that joint period. This Ben-Hadad is bribed by Asa to break a treaty with Baasha and attack him so that Asa can stop a building project of Baasha and steal his building materials. It works. This Ben-Hadad, if he is a separate king from the following one, as seems most likely, is the one king of Aram-Damascus for whom we do not know his personal name. If he is the same as the following, then this is not the case. I tend to think this king is likely a separate one than the following due to the interesting statement in 1 Kings 20.34 in the mouth of Ben-Hadad, an offer to restore towns that his father took from Ahab’s father (Omri or a more distant “father”?), and trading rights in Damascus itself. Ben-Hadad/Hadadezer below is clearly not the Ben-Hadad son of Tabrimmon, as he himself would obviously have been ruling before Omri. If, however, the “father” of Ahab is to be understood as a more distant predecessor, like Baasha of Israel who Ben-Hadad son of Tabrimmon attacks, then the very incident referred to by Ben-Hadad/Hadadezer could very well be this Asa and Baasha incident, as no interactions with Aram-Damascus are mentioned in the admittedly scarce reports on the reign of Omri. The scholarly consensus has moved over the past century from having a single Ben-Hadad throughout, to there being two, though it is apparently still discussed.

Ben-Hadad (Hadadezer) is a long-lived and very militarily active king of Aram-Damascus who has many run-ins both with Israel and Assyria over his long career. He is the Ben-Hadad who battles and finally kills Ahab of Israel in 1 Kings 20 and 22. Some, like Pitard, have taken both chapters to be misplaced from the reign of a later king of the dynasty of Jehu, when Israel was in a much weaker position relative to Aram-Damascus, but a close reading of particularly 1 Kings 20 shows a strong king of Israel bravely opposing outrageous claims. A weak ruler would certainly not win, either, which occurs in this chapter. And while it is set just two or three years before the Battle of Qarqar with Shalmaneser III, and three years before Ahab’s death on the field again against Ben-Hadad, this is not unbelievable, particularly in seeing the back and forth between Israel and Aram-Damascus that continues throughout the history of both kingdoms. This same Ben-Hadad, apparently during the reign of Jehoram of Israel (852-841) besieges Samaria, as described in one of the Elisha tales in 2 Kings 6.24-7.20. This same Ben-Hadad, when ill, sends one of his officers named Hazael to inquire of the prophet Elisha whether he’ll recover (2 Kings 8.7-15). By this time, in the late 840s BC, he’d be quite old, so the illness is of more concern. Elisha tells Hazael that he’ll be the next king of Aram-Damascus. Not wasting time, Hazael apparently smothers Ben-Hadad. This Ben-Hadad is clearly the king of Aram-Damascus known to the Assyrians as Adad-idri, Hebraized as Hadadezer. More details below.

Hazael manages to battle Jehoram of Israel (852-841) and Ahaziah of Judah (842-841) at Ramoth-gilead soon after taking the throne sometime between 844 and 841, based on the Assyrian information (below). Jehoram is wounded in the battle, so he and Ahaziah go to Jezreel, conveniently for the coup of Jehu (2 Kings 9-10). Hazael is also said to have taken all of the Israelite territories east of the Jordan (2 Kings 10.32). Early (?) in the reign of Jehoash of Judah (835-796), Hazael threatens to attack Jerusalem, but is bought off by emptying the treasuries (2 Kings 12.17-18). Hazael and his son and successor Ben-Hadad (whose personal name was Hezion/Hadiānu according to the Assyrian texts, see below) are said to have repeatedly triumphed over Israel (2 Kings 13.3), which isn’t surprising, given the apparent strength of Aram-Damascus at this time when it was even able to take on the Assyrian army and survive despite numerous losses. Hazael is said to have continued to win against Israel through the reign of Jehoahaz of Israel (822-806)(2 Kings 13.22). 2 Kings 13.24-25 seems to indicate that Hazael died early in the reign of Jehoash of Israel (805-791), with Ben-Hadad/Hezion succeeding him, and Jehoash taking back, in three separate battles, all or some of the various towns that Hazael had taken from Israel.

Ben-Hadad (Hezion II) son of Hazael began to reign probably in the very late ninth century or very early eighth, as indicated by 2 Kings 13.24-25. This Ben-Hadad is mentioned in Assyrian texts as Hadiānu, and ruling in Damascus in 773/2 BC. Jeroboam II of Israel (791-750) is said (2 Kings 14.25, 28) to have restored roughly the Davidic/Solomonic borders of Israel, including Damascus (!) in the north and Hamath, and Elath in the south (perhaps ceding it to Judah? 2 Kings 14.22). So, Aram-Damascus was, for at least a time during the reign of this Ben-Hadad, not so strong, despite the statement of 2 Kings 13.3. The Assyrian texts have this king in Damascus in 773/2 BC.

Rezin is the last king of Aram-Damascus. He is attested as ruling in 738 BC in the Assyrian texts, until 732. His accession date was likely quite a bit earlier than that, as otherwise Ben-Hadad/Hezion would’ve had a strikingly, if not impossibly, long reign. He begins to attack Judah during the reign of Jotham of Judah (750-730) and Pekah of Israel (736-731) (2 Kings 15.37), which are likely the same attacks described in 2 Kings 16.5, during the reign of Ahaz of Judah counting his coregency with Jotham (from 735, because his sole rule began in 731, when both Pekah and Rezin were already dead). Precisely because Rezin was threatening Judah, Ahaz of Judah sent to Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria (745-727) for help, and this led to the elimination of both Rezin and Aram-Damascus in 732 BC. Rezin had, admittedly, been quite a pest to the Assyrians, as well.

That is the Biblical data on Aram-Damascus, not exhaustive, but close to it. As my interest is in establishing the rulers themselves and their chronology, the above in combination with the information from the Assyrian texts, some of which I’ve already mentioned and incorporated above, is very informative. The two sources are both complementary and necessary for establishing the framework on which to hang the rest of the history of Aram-Damascus.

I’ll continue in the next installment with the information on the kings of Aram-Damascus from the Assyrian texts.

❧