Moab, which had been subjugated by David, began to throw off its allegiance to Israel in the troubled years which followed the disruption. But the energetic military rule of Omri put an end to this independence. These facts we learn from the Stone of Dib4n, erected by Mesha’, son of Chemosh- Melech. We quote (on next page) from the original, which may be found in Smend and Socin’s copy, with notes (Inschrift des Kénigs Mesa), in Driver’s Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, Appendix to Introduction, p. lxxxviff., and in the art. MOAB, above, p. 404.
From this passage we can infer the importance of Omri’s military operations in Moab. He acquired the district around Mehedeba; and so thoroughly was Moab subdued that it was com- pelled to pay an enormous tribute of wool (2K 34, See Driver, l.c. p. Ixxxix).
* Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. xx. p. 27, Skizzen u. Vorarb. i. P. 81. The view adopted above and also in the art. AHAB is alse
eee ia by McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and the Monuments is. . der Hebriier, ii. Ὁ. 223 (Eng. tr. ii. 261).
ot
ΟΝ ΟΝ 621
any 4 ἼΝΞ - ΦῺΘ FIND JT Oras AR Sy qon-s ὃ DON OD D- 2ΝῸ AN ΣΝ NT Oe oa ebay [πὸ 6
aN Oo σι >
MW - JYIIN - 723-1
[ass] ΓΝ - yay wan ody - ἼΩΝ"
san Ssqw onan: aes 7 UM Fy ΤΣ - ΖΦ | ΜΊΓΤΟ “Ὁ
‘Omri was king of Israel and oppressed Moab a long time [lit. many days], for Chemosh was wroth with his land. And his son succeeded him [#.e. Omri], and
he too said [=thought janb3 ἼΩΝ] “I will oppress Moab.” In my time [1.6. of Mesha] he said thu{s]. But I saw [my desire] on him and his house, and Israel
perished with an everlasting destruction.*
So Omri obtained possession of the land
of Mehédeba, and (one) dwelt therein during his days and half the days of his
son, forty years’...
The inscription also sheds a valuable light on the chronology of Omri’s reign, since it shows that the period of his occupation of Moabite territory and of the pecupetion by his son Ahab covered the remainder of his own reign and half of his son Ahab’s reign, making 40 years in all. It is of course not nece' to take ‘sn in a strict | mathematical sense. On the other hand it is quite clear that the biblical chronology is at fault, since | it ascribes to Omri a reign of only 12 years, and to Ahab’s entire reign 22 years, making the total length of both reigns only 34 years. From these data of the Moabite Stone it is evident that we. must extend considerably the reign of Omri. In the scheme set forth in Schrader’s COT? ii. p. 322 ff, Omri’s reign is reckoned to be 25 years (B.C. 900-875), ten years being deducted from the rome of Baasha. These dates harmonize better with (a) the results of Assyriology, (δ) with the deep impression which Omri had produced in Western Asia by his spelen prowess, This impression was no fleeting one, but extended over a very long
riod. We have clear indication of this in the act that Palestine was called (mat) Bit Humri, or ‘land of the house of Omri,’ from the time of Shalmaneser II. (860) to that of Sargon (722-705). The usurper Jehu is called on Shalmaneser’s black obelisk Ja’ua abal Humri, ‘ Jehuson of Omri.’ And no less deep was the impression produced in Israel and Judah. The reference to the ‘statutes of Omri’ in Mic 6" is an indication of this, his name being coupled with that of his son Ahab. What is meant by this expression, and what forms of practice | it isintended to cover, we donot know. Combining | it with the phrase that ‘he did evil more than a that were before him’ (1 K 16%), we are led to infer | not only that he is judged in an unfavourable light, like Jeroboam and his successors, in accordance with later and stricter canons of Deuteronomic legalism, but also that in all probability the beginnings of Phoenician influence in religion, for which Ahab’s reign became notorious, were already infecting the cultus of Israel in Samaria. To this the passage in Micah seems to point.
OWEN C. WHITEHOUSE. ON (βκ; B Atv, A Αὐνάν; Luc. ᾿Αμνάν).---Α Reubenite associated with Dathan and Abiram in a rebellion against Moses, Nu 16! (JE).+ There is
* This implies that Ahab, son of Omri, was compelled to re- linxaish his hold of Moab. This probably took place during his | wars with Syria. Nevertheless he did not lose all. To identify | the ‘son’ Given 6 and 8) with Jehoram, thus ignoring the two intervening reigns of Ahab and Ahaziah (cf. CuronoLoey, vol. i. p. 402), is highly improbable. The campaign of 2 K 8 against Moab was an attempt to retain the slight remnant of power | which Mesha now threw off. Comp. McOurdy, vol. 1. p, 282.
+ B. W. Bacon, who seeks here, as in many other instances, to break up JE into its corstituents, suggests that, according to
reason to believe that the mention of On is due to textual corruption, for no such personage appears in the subsequent narrative, and the name is found nowhere else in the Old Testament. For the prob- able restoration of the text see KORAH, p. 12.