TEXT [Commentary]

8. Omri rules in Israel (16:21-28)

21 But now the people of Israel were split into two factions. Half the people tried to make Tibni son of Ginath their king, while the other half supported Omri. 22 But Omri’s supporters defeated the supporters of Tibni. So Tibni was killed, and Omri became the next king.

23 Omri began to rule over Israel in the thirty-first year of King Asa’s reign in Judah. He reigned twelve years in all, six of them in Tirzah. 24 Then Omri bought the hill now known as Samaria from its owner, Shemer, for 150 pounds of silver.[*] He built a city on it and called the city Samaria in honor of Shemer.

25 But Omri did what was evil in the LORD’s sight, even more than any of the kings before him. 26 He followed the example of Jeroboam son of Nebat in all the sins he had committed and led Israel to commit. The people provoked the anger of the LORD, the God of Israel, with their worthless idols.

27 The rest of the events in Omri’s reign, the extent of his power, and everything he did are recorded in The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel. 28 When Omri died, he was buried in Samaria. Then his son Ahab became the next king.

NOTES

16:21 split into two factions. Lit., “were divided into half”; some see here a division between the native Israelites versus the military (or mercenary elements therein), led by the “foreigner” Omri (Cogan 2001:415).

Tibni son of Ginath. He is otherwise unknown. In 16:22 the LXX includes the detail that when Tibni died, Joram his brother also died, a note that is likely to be original and perhaps signifies recognition that at the time, Tibni was considered king (cf. also the LXX addition of the phrase “after Tibni” following the accession notice “Omri became the next king” at the end of 16:22). Independent, early tradition such as this gives one pause when confronting the variant synchronism in 16:23.

16:23 Omri. With no patronymic given (cf. Zimri), Omri (‘omri [TH6018, ZH6687]) probably came from a humble background; nonetheless, he is positively described as “commander of the army” in 16:16. The name Omri, while eventually becoming rather well-known in the wider ancient Near Eastern world (see the commentary below), is of uncertain etymology, with some taking it as Canaanite, and others as being of altogether non-Israelite origin (thus Omri was perhaps a foreign mercenary; cf. Cogan 2001:416). If derived from an Arabic root, the name may mean “(the) life which Yah(weh) has given” (ABD 5.17).

thirty-first year. As already noted (see second note on 16:21; also DeVries 1985:198-202), this is a seemingly aberrant synchronism in light of the information in 16:15. Many suggest that this is the first year of Omri’s sole reign, the previous civil war lasting four years, from the fall of Zimri to the defeat of Tibni (e.g., Sweeney 2007:204). Thus, the regnal total of “twelve years” for Omri found in this verse would include only eight or so of uncontested rule (that this, however, hardly appears to be the plain meaning of the present text almost goes without saying).

16:24 Samaria. Heb., shomeron [TH8111, ZH9076], modern Sebastiyeh. The precise etymology of the place-name “Shomron” is disputed; Cogan (2001:417) suggests that the name was already an established name for the high hill (1400 ft [430 m] in elevation, well-situated some 7 miles [11 km] northwest of Shechem on the road network connecting the hill country to the coastal plain) when the site was purchased by Omri (cf. the other “mountain names” akin to “Shomron”: Tsion [Zion], Hermon, Lebanon, all ending in “-on” [DeVries 1985:202 adds “Sirion” to this list as well]). This would make the reference to “Shemer,” the owner in the present verse, a secondary (yet still valid) etymology. In any case, this lovely site would be the capital city of the northern kingdom until its fall more than 150 years later; the familiar NT term “Samaritans” is also derived from this famous place-name.

150 pounds of silver. Lit., “two talents of silver”; see the second note on 9:14 for the probable weight of the Hebrew talent.

16:26 example of Jeroboam son of Nebat. This is the common refrain cited for nearly all of the northern kings (see commentary on 12:25-33).

16:27 The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel. See “Literary Style” in the Introduction.

16:28 next king. At this point the LXX (identified from 1 Kgs 2:12–21:29 in Codex Vaticanus as the Old Greek; see the Introduction, “Canonicity and Textual History”) inserts the Judahite accession notice and regnal discussion for Jehoshaphat son of Asa (enumerated as 16:28a-h in Rahlfs [1935]; see note on 15:24 and endnote 17 in the Introduction). Some years ago, Shenkel, following the text-critical proposals of his (and my) mentor, Frank Cross, suggested that the Old Greek reflects a significantly different, and more accurate, chronology for the Omride kings (as well as some of their predecessors). His proposal has not met with wide acceptance, but I think there is much merit to his approach, at least for the Omrides. That the Old Greek reflects a different chronology is quite evident to all (e.g., here, in the Old Greek, Jehoshaphat’s accession is synchronized with Omri’s eleventh year [16:28a], whereas in the MT, it is synchronized with Ahab’s fourth year [22:41]); but most scholars have denied that the Old Greek chronology was more accurate than that of the MT. I retained remnants of this Old Greek chronology in my tentative chronology for the northern kings (see Barnes 1991:153-155, and especially note “e” on pp. 154-155), but I will be the first to admit that certitude on this issue still eludes us. Uncertainty notwithstanding, I still think that the LXX contains traces of earlier, and probably more accurate, traditions (chronological and otherwise) for both the Omride kings and their immediate precursors (see, e.g., the notes on 16:15, 21, 23; also note Cogan’s citation [2001:422] of Mazor’s work on the primacy of the LXX both in Joshua and here in 1 Kings in reference to the curse on Jericho).

COMMENTARY [Text]

Omri’s status in the ancient Near East was far more significant than these eight brief and largely formulaic verses in the Bible might indicate. For example, the Mesha Stele (commonly known as the Moabite Stone; see Cogan and Tadmor 1988:333-334 for a recent translation) forthrightly states that “Omri, king of Israel, oppressed Moab many years” (lines 4-5); and even the later Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III (cf. Cogan and Tadmor 1988:335) refers to the tribute of Jehu, “son [descendant] of Omri” (cf. 2 Kgs 9:2, below). Cogan (2001:418-419) sees a “distinctly new turn in Israelite history” under Omri’s reign with a probable alliance between Israel and Tyre (see also Barnes 2009:694); this led to profitable new markets for Israelite produce and Tyrian products (whether from the skilled artisans of Tyre and Sidon themselves, or imported wares from their trading partners throughout the entire eastern Mediterranean). The establishment of a new capital at Samaria, oriented to the western sea rather than the eastern wilderness (the situation at Tirzah, which may have been heavily damaged both by the suicidal actions of Zimri and the civil strife with Tibni), also proved propitious, as Sweeney (2007:204) points out:

Omri’s purchase of the hill of Samaria from Shemer, who is otherwise unknown, ­indicates an interest in establishing a capital for the Omride dynasty on much the same basis as Jerusalem—that is, Omri acquired Samaria as a personal possession, much as David acquired Jerusalem [a suggestion first made by Albrecht Alt]. Although Samaria was located in the territory of Manasseh, Omri would not be dependent on the northern tribes, giving him greater flexibility and power in ruling over the northern coalition.

Cogan (2001:419) notes further the nature of Omri’s (and his son Ahab’s) building project at Samaria: “The archaeological remains uncovered at Samaria attest to the impressive city constructed on the site; the design of the palace and its workmanship are evidence that Phoenician masons were employed in this project, just as they had been in Jerusalem in the days of Solomon. And considering that a good part of Omri’s ‘official’ reign was spent in overcoming internal opposition, much of the work probably fell to Ahab.”

Was Omri therefore a new David (cf. Leithart 2005:22-33), and Ahab a new Solomon? At least in one respect that would be the case: A foreign wife (Queen Jezebel from the Sidonian region [i.e., Tyre; cf. Wiseman 1993:162-163]) will again largely be the undoing of an Israelite or Judahite monarch. And note the corollaries to this observation: Both Solomon and Ahab would be denounced by Israelite prophets, yet with some concessions given in each case (cf. 11:34-39 and 21:27-29, respectively). Both Solomon’s and Ahab’s sons would be overthrown by usurpers who had been underlings, and who would, in turn, become significant kings in their own right (Jeroboam I and Jehu son of Nimshi [2 Kgs 9–10], respectively).