RBL 09/2006 Hafthórsson, Sigurthur A Passing Power: An Examination of the Sources for the History of Aram-Damascus in the Second Half of the Ninth Century B.C. Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series 54 Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2006. Pp. viii + 304. Paper. $89.50. ISBN 9122021434. Paul Sanders St. Stanislas College Delft Rijswijk, The Netherlands How much do we know about the history of Aram-Damascus in the second half of the ninth century B.C.E.? What can we say about the extent of this kingdom and its power over the Aramean and non-aramean neighbor kingdoms? In this book, written as his thesis, Hafthórsson carefully scrutinizes not only all the available textual evidence in Aramaic and Akkadian and in the Hebrew Bible but also the archaeological data, a source that is often ignored. In the introductory chapter 1, Hafthórsson makes it abundantly clear that he is dissatisfied with the uncritical approach of the sources in previous scholarly research. In the preface he even says: it is possible to see the present work as a protest against all the quasi-truths I have experienced in my education. The need to reevaluate the evidence is clear, but Hafthórsson fails to explain why he selected this specific period and decided to disregard the following period until the kingdom s fall in the year 732. As there were more Aramean kingdoms in the period under discussion, Hafthórsson rightly remarks that epigraphical references to Aram do not necessarily relate to the kingdom centered in Damascus. In the Akkadian texts, however, the enigmatic expression KUR (ša) imērīšu ( land of the donkey driver?) always refers to the Damascene kingdom.
Chapter 2 gives an extensive overview of previous scholarly literature about the history of Aram-Damascus in the second half of the ninth century. In Hafthórsson s view, scholars such as Benjamin Mazar trusted too blindly in the biblical evidence. Also, most of the theories concerning an alliance of Syrian states under the supremacy of Aram-Damascus lack a solid basis. However, in his recent book The Arameans (Leuven, 2000), E. Lipiński is more critical. He expresses well-founded ideas and takes the archaeological material into account. Because of the danger of harmonizing the sources too readily, Hafthórsson decides to study each source separately to find out what it can contribute to the whole. In chapter 3 he discusses the relevant texts written in Aramaic. He argues that the text on the Melqart Stela, found close to Aleppo, cannot be used as proof that king Bar-hadad of Aram- Damascus, the son of Hazael, had contacts in the Aleppo region. The text might refer to another Aramean king called Bar-hadad. Hafthórsson does not mention a date for the fragments of the ivory plaque from Arslan Taš. However, as the Damascene king Hazael, the father of Bar-hadad, was probably the only important Hazael in that period (40), the expression our lord Hazael in the inscription would seem to relate to him. The slight uncertainty with regard to the identification pertains also to the expression our lord Hazael in the inscriptions found in Eretria and on Samos. The latter inscriptions suggest that in the time of Hazael there were contacts between Aram-Damascus and Umqi in northern Syria. Hafthórsson refutes the idea that the expression mr n our lord implies that Hazael was the overlord of vassals. When discussing the much-debated fragments of the monumental stela found at Tel Dan, Hafthórsson notes that their date will become less controversial only when the final reports about the excavations are published. For the moment, however, he assumes that they date from the second half of the ninth century. Hafthórsson expresses some doubt about the position to the left of fragment A, where Biran and Naveh placed fragments B1 and B2, even though most scholars have accepted their arrangement. However, he endorses the view that the fragments belonged to the same stela. Hafthórsson wants to find out what historical reconstruction can be made when reading A separately from B1/B2, but also when following the arrangement as proposed by Biran and Naveh. He accepts their interpretation of bytdwd as house of David (= kingdom of Judah) without any discussion and considers their reconstruction of the royal names [yhw]rm [Jeho]ram (king of Israel) and [ hẓ]yhw [Ahaz]yahu (king of Judah) as probable. However, he is certainly right when pointing to the uncertainties surrounding Biran and Naveh s reconstruction. If their attribution of the stela to King Hazael of Aram-
Damascus is correct, it seems strange that Hazael, who both in the Old Testament and in the Assyrian texts is described as a usurper, can call his predecessor my father. However, Hafthórsson notes that the expression my father does not necessarily refer to one s biological father. Another problem concerns the death of Jehoram and Ahazyahu. According to Biran and Naveh s reconstruction, Hazael claims to have killed these kings, but the Old Testament says that Jehu killed them (2 Kgs 9:14 27). Hafthórsson regards Wesselius s attribution of the stela to Jehu and Athas s ascription to Bar-hadad as not impossible, but he stresses that if we stick to the authorship of Hazael, the reconstruction of Biran and Naveh could still be correct. The biblical account may not be reliable, as it is set in a highly ideologised drama of Elisha anointing Jehu as king (63). Remarkably, however, the beginnings of both Hazael s and Jehu s kingship are seen as interrelated in the Bible (1 Kgs 19:15 18). Of course, the presence of the stela at Tel Dan suggests that the Arameans controlled the site for some time. The Zakkur Stela, which mentions Bar-hadad the son of Hazael (brhdd br hẓ l; Hafthórsson omits the translation of the following words mlk rm king of Aram [65]), demonstrates the existence of an alliance of several north Syrian and south Anatolian kings under the supremacy of Bar-hadad. The allied forces tried to conquer the north Syrian city of Hazrak, but King Zakkur of Hamath and Lu aš defeated them. Though Damascus is not mentioned, Aram must stand for the kingdom centered in Damascus. It is remarkable that also in the other Aramaic texts Damascus is never mentioned. Chapter 4 presents and discusses the Assyrian texts that refer to the kingdom of Damascus. They date from the time of Shalmaneser III (858 824) and Adad-nirari III (810 783). However, no references are found from roughly 835 to 805, because then the Assyrians were absent from the west. Hafthórsson fully recognizes that the royal inscriptions were written to magnify the Assyrian king and to present him in a very positive and powerful light. However, when discussing the individual inscriptions, he generally takes the reliability of the information about Aram-Damascus for granted. He assumes that the royal annals must have been written down after the last year recorded there. The Eponym Chronicle is seen as even more honest than the annals, because it reports negative events. Among the things that we can learn from the Assyrian texts is that in the year 853 the Assyrian army destroyed the city of Qarqar and subsequently defeated an alliance of kingdoms from the west. The fact that the army of king Adad-idri of Aram-Damascus is listed first and the remarkable size of his army clearly both indicate that this kingdom played the leading role in the alliance. It is remarkable that the texts do not refer to a further advance of the Assyrian army to the south. None of the allied kingdoms is said to have surrendered or to have been forced to pay tribute. This means that the Assyrian
victory was only small and indecisive. Also, in 845 the Assyrians needed an exceptionally large force to defeat the alliance, which apparently still existed. After Adad-idri s death, sometime between 845 and 841, King Hazael took the throne of Aram-Damascus. In 841, when he had to defend his country against Assyrian attacks, his army was defeated, but it seems that Damascus was not captured. After the Assyrian campaign, kingdoms in Palestine and Phoenicia had to pay tribute to Assyria. The texts of Adad-nirari III mention an Aramean king Mari ( m ma-ri-i ) from Damascus, who, just like King Joash of Israel and other kings in the region, had to pay tribute after a successful Assyrian campaign, possibly in 806 B.C.E. For this later period, the Assyrian texts do not mention any great resistance from the kingdoms of the west. Hafthórsson believes that Mari might be a title of King Bar-hadad, Hazael s son, whose Aramaic name never occurs in the Assyrian texts. Mari could be the Assyrian rendering of Aramaic mr y my lord. In chapter 5 Hafthórsson discusses the passages from the Old Testament that may be relevant for the reconstruction of Aram-Damascus s history in this period. Most of them are found in the books of Kings and Chronicles, but some reliable information may also turn up in passages in the prophetic books. Hafthórsson stresses that it is important to determine the genre of the biblical texts referring to Aram before one establishes the reliability of the information. In the biblical passages we find more legendary descriptions of miracles than in the Assyrian texts discussed in chapter 4, but even texts describing miracles may contain relevant historical information. Also, not only the texts from the Bible but also many Assyrian texts and the text of the Tel Dan stela claim that it was a deity who gave the victories, so the religious element is certainly not confined to the Bible. Hafthórsson assumes that the redactors of the books of Kings probably disposed of older sources with correct information, but he stresses that large parts of the books of Kings were written down several centuries after the events they describe. Under the legendary passages that lack reliable historical details, Hafthórsson classifies the miraculous story of Samaria s siege and relief in the time of Elisha (2 Kgs 6:24 7:20). However, other texts would seem to provide more reliable information. The assertion that the sinful King Jeroboam II was able to roll back the Arameans to the previous borders seems to have surprised the redactors for theological reasons, which clearly indicates that they regarded this information as correct (2 Kgs 14:23 29). In view of an Assyrian text claiming that Hazael was a usurper ( a son of nobody ), the story about Hazael s coup (2 Kgs 8:7 15) would also seem to go back to a reliable tradition. However, according to the Bible, the name of his predecessor was Ben-hadad, just like his own son and successor, whereas the Assyrian text calls his predecessor Adad-idri. In the case of the
early Aramean invasion into Israel during the reign of King Baasha (1 Kgs 14:16 22; 2 Chr 16:1 6), Hafthórsson suggests that the story may be unreliable, as the areas attacked are about the same as in 2 Kgs 15:29, where we find a description of an Aramean attack that took place much later. Although I admit that the information about the battle during Baasha s reign might be incorrect, I do not find the argument against the reliability of the information very convincing. In his discussion of 1 Kgs 20 and 22, Hafthórsson shows that these sections do not primarily aim at recording battles between Aram and Israel but intend to describe how Yahweh works in history and how he makes his will known through the prophets. Like many other scholars, Hafthórsson doubts whether these texts really describe events that took place during the reign of King Ahab. He devotes a separate discussion to the identity of the Israelite king in these texts, which only rarely mention the name Ahab. All the arguments against the identification with Ahab are listed and weighed carefully. Among the reasons to stick to the identification with Ahab is the fact that 1 Kgs 22 frequently mentions Ahab s contemporary King Jehoshaphat of Judah. It is mainly on the basis of historical details that do not agree with facts known from other biblical or Assyrian texts that Hafthórsson prefers to attribute 1 Kgs 20 and 22 to a later period, the time of the Israelite kings Jehoahaz and Joash (see 2 Kgs 13). This means that the Aramean king Ben-hadad mentioned in these passages must be Hazael s son, not his predecessor. Another argument adduced for a later attribution of 1 Kgs 22 is the similarity with the battle reports of 2 Kgs 3:4 27 and 8:28 29. Contrary to Hafthórsson, however, I do not believe that this argument of similarity really reinforces the other arguments. Intertextual links may occur also when comparable events that really took place are described in a similar way. When trying to establish the historical background of 1 Kgs 20 and 22, Hafthórsson seems to be somewhat unfaithful to his convincing claim that these texts do not intend to describe historical facts. He seems to disregard the possibility that the composers of these texts did not dispose of their own sources but may have created stories intentionally related to the wicked King Ahab, in order to express their theological ideas about Yahweh s intervention and the character of prophecy. Is it not better to assume that these texts are not based on any additional information, neither about the time of Ahab nor about the time of Jehoahaz and Joash? Could it not be that the composers of 1 Kgs 22 decided to mention Ramoth-gilead because they knew it was a disputed city in other periods? In my view, the frequent occurrence of the name Jehoshaphat suggests that the composers consciously attributed the ideological story to the time of Ahab. The reason the text mentions Ahab s name less frequently than Jehoshaphat s name must be due to the Judean background of the text.
Hafthórsson shows that, if we accept all the biblical information as reliable, there must have been at least three kings called Ben-hadad in Aram-Damascus. However, it is possible that the Aramean King Adad-idri, who is mentioned in the Assyrian texts, is erroneously called Ben-hadad in the Bible. The Bible clearly states that Ben-hadad s successor, King Hazael, ruthlessly oppressed the Israelites. He conquered the Transjordanian parts of the kingdom of Israel and even subdued Judah. The oppression continued under his son Ben-hadad, but under Jeroboam II Israel managed to defeat the Arameans and to roll them back. Several passages in the Bible, however, suggest that there were not only wars but also commercial contacts between Aram-Damascus and Israel. Not being an archaeologist himself, Hafthórsson s discussion of the archaeological evidence in chapter 6 is largely based on descriptions and interpretations by others. However, Hafthórsson is able to judge these interpretations carefully. Unfortunately, it is dubious whether there was an Aramean material culture distinct from neo-hittite, Israelite, and other material cultures. Another complicating factor is that many sites in the territory of Aram-Damascus have not been excavated. Hafthórsson clearly points out what needs to be done before we can draw more conclusions with regard to the Aramean material culture. At the site of At-Tall, just north of the Sea of Galilee, a Bull stela was found dating from Iron IIB. Stelae with very similar depictions have been found both east of the Sea of Galilee and in southeast Turkey, which is a clear indication of religious contacts with Syria (218). However, Hafthórsson cautiously warns that this does not necessarily demonstrate Aramean rule over the site. According to excavator Avraham Biran, the evidence unearthed at Tel Dan suggests influence from both the south and the northeast. A bronze plaque displays a scene that is reminiscent of scenes of Hittite, Assyrian, and north Syrian origin. However, the finds at the high place are more similar to those in Samaria and Megiddo. Two short inscriptions found at Tel Dan would seem to be in Hebrew and are assumed to be a bit younger than the Tel Dan stela and another Aramaic inscription found there. A fragmentary Aramaic inscription has been unearthed also at Hazor. The Hebrew inscriptions found there are probably later. According to Israel Finkelstein, the end of stratum IX was due to the destruction by Hazael of Aram-Damascus, not by Ben-hadad, the son of Tab-Rimmon, as Yigal Yadin suggested (see 1 Kgs 15:20). Yadin, however, attributes the destruction at the end of stratum VII to Hazael. Hafthórsson rightly points out that destruction layers may also be due to accidental fires and natural catastrophes. He finds it safest to follow the traditional high chronology but stresses that Finkelstein s low chronology may not be dismissed out of hand.
Despite the scarcity of inscriptions found in the area disputed by Aram-Damascus and Israel, and despite the doubt concerning their dating, it seems that Aramaic was dominant in the ninth century and Hebrew was used in later centuries. If this conclusion is justified, it would agree perfectly with other indications of a decline of Aram-Damascus at the end of the ninth century. These other indications are: (1) the claim on the Zakkur Stela that Bar-Hadad s siege of Hazrak was unsuccessful; (2) the description of the reign of Jeroboam II in the Old Testament, who is said who have rolled the Arameans back; (3) the references in the texts of the Assyrian king Adad-nirari III to the siege of Damascus and to a huge tribute paid by King Mari of Damascus. According to Hafthórsson, it is absolutely clear that Aram-Damascus bloomed after the twenty-first year of the reign of Shalmaneser III (838 B.C.E.), when his campaigns in the west stopped so he could attend to other matters. However, he is not willing to designate Hazael s kingdom an empire, as others scholars have done. The golden age of Aram-Damascus was over when Adadnirari III took up new efforts to conquer the west. This new book offers a wonderful overview of textual and archaeological data relevant for the reconstruction of the history of Aram-Damascus in this specific period. Hafthórsson analyzes the data carefully, which leads to new conclusions and rejections of false truths. It is helpful that the most important Assyrian texts can be found in an appendix. Both the transliteration and the translation have been taken from volume 3 of A. Kirk Grayson, Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia (Toronto, 1996). Maps, an extensive bibliography, and an index of geographical names conclude the book. Unfortunately, indices of authors, of the kings mentioned in the ancient sources, and of the scriptural references are missing. For the Assyrian, Israelite, and Judean kings mentioned in this book, a complete survey of their supposed years of reign would have been very useful (Hafthórsson follows Donner, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1995; see p. 4). Illustration 5 (51) could have indicated more clearly where the fragments of the Tel Dan stela were found, and an illustration clarifying the architecture of the so-called bīt h ilāni palace building would have been helpful (188). However, these minor shortcomings do not affect my final judgment. I warmly recommend Hafthórsson s book to all those who want to find out what we really know about the history of Aram-Damascus.