Although little is preserved of Omri's history, the fact that the northern kingdom long continued to be called by the Assyrians after his name is a significant indication of his reputation. Assyria was now making itself strongly felt in the west. Assur-nasir-pal II. had exacted tribute from north Syria (c. 876 B.c.), and his successor, Shalmaneser III., in the course of a series of expedi tions, succeeded in gaining the greater part of that land. Ir huleni of Hamath and Adad-idri (the biblical Ben-hadad) of Damascus, formed a coalition with the kings of Cilicia, Phoenicia, Ammon, the Arabs of the Syrian desert and "Ahabbu Sirlai." In the last we recognize the Israelite Ahab whose contribution of 0,000 men and 2,000 chariots perhaps included levies from Judah and Moab (cf. for the number I Ki. x. 26). In 853 the allies at least maintained themselves at the battle of Karkar. Other indecisive battles were fought later, but the precise con stitution of the coalition is not recorded. In 842-841 Shalmaneser records a campaign against Hazael, the new king of Damascus; no coalition is mentioned, although a battle was fought at Sanir (Hermon, Deut. iii. 9), and the cities of Hauran to the south of Damascus were spoiled. Tribute was received from Tyre and Sidon; and Jehu, the new king of Israel, sent gifts of gold, silver, etc. The "Black Obelisk" (now in the British Museum), which records the submission of the petty kings, gives an interesting representation of the humble Israelite emissaries, with their long, fringed robes and strongly marked physiognomy (see DRESS). Yet another expedition in 837 would seem to show that Damascus was neither crushed nor helpless, but thenceforth, for a number of years, Assyria was fully occupied elsewhere and the west was left to itself.
Biblical tradition associates the changes in the thrones of Israel and Damascus with the work of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, but without a reference to Assyria. Ahab, it seems, had aroused popular resentment by encroaching upon the rights of the people to their landed possessions ; had it not been for Jezebel, the tragedy of Naboth would not have occurred. The worship of the Tyrian Baal roused a small circle of zealots, and again the Phoenician marriage was the cause of the evil. Elijah of Gilead inspired the revolt which culminated in the accession of Jehu, the son of one Jehoshaphat (or, otherwise, of Nimshi). The work which Elijah began was completed by Elisha, who supported Jehu and the new dynasty. The royal families of Israel and Judah perished in a massacre. While the extirpation of the cult of Baal was furthered in Israel by Jonadab the Rechabite, it was the "people of the land" who undertook a similar reform in Judah. Jehu (q.v.) became king, as the cham pion of the purer worship of Yahweh. The descendants of the detested Phoenician marriage were rooted out, and unless the close intercourse between Israel and Judah had been suddenly broken, it would be supposed that the new king at least laid claim to the south. Here, however, Athaliah, daughter of Jez ebel, destroyed the Judaean court. Only the babe, Jehoash, was preserved, and six years later, the priests slew the queen, over threw the cult of Baal, and crowned the young child.
wars between Damascus and Israel. Hazael indeed advanced upon Gath, and Jerusalem was only saved by a timely bribe. There were internal troubles, and Jehoash perished in a con spiracy. His son, Amaziah, had some difficulty in gaining the king dom, and showed conspicuous leniency in sparing the children of his father's murderers. Israel, on the other hand, was almost annihilated by the Syrians. These seized Gilead, crossed over into Palestine, and occupied the land. Jehu's son, Jehoahaz, saw his army made "like the dust in threshing," and the desperate condition of the country recalls the straits in the time of Saul (I Sam. xiii. 6, 7, 19-22), and the days before the great over throw of the northern enemy as described in the Song of Deborah (Judges v. 6-8). The atrocities committed by Damascus and its Ammonite allies upon Gilead were not forgotten (Amos i. 3, 13), and they illustrate a remarkable interview between Elisha and Hazael (2 Ki. viii. 12). Several of the situations can be more vividly realized from the stories of Syrian wars ascribed to the time of Omri's dynasty, but more probably relating to the dynasty of Jehu. Under Joash, son of Jehoahaz, the tide turned. Elisha was apparently the champion, and posterity told of his exploits when Samaria was visited with the sword. Thrice Joash smote the Syrians—in accordance with the last words of the dying prophet—and Aphek in the Sharon plain, famous in history for Israel's disasters, now witnessed three victories. The enemy under Hazael's son, Ben-hadad, was driven out and Joash re gained the territory which his father had lost (2 Ki. xiii. 25) ; it may reasonably be supposed that a treaty was concluded (cf. the anonymous I Ki. xx. 34). But the peace does not seem to have been popular. The story of the last scene in Elisha's life ascribes to Joash an easily contented disposition which hindered him from completing his successes. Syria had not been crushed, and the failure to utilize the opportunity was an act of impolitic leniency for which Israel was bound to suffer (2 Ki. xiii. 19). Elisha's indignation can be illustrated by the denunciation passed upon an anonymous king by the prophetic party on a similar occasion (I Ki. xx. At this stage it is necessary to notice the fresh invasion of Syria by Hadad (Adad)-nirari, who besieged Mari, king of Damascus, and exacted a heavy tribute (c. 8o2 B.c.). A diversion of this kind would explain the Israelite victories; the subsequent withdrawal of Assyria would afford the occasion for Damascus to retaliate. Men in Israel who remembered the wars between Assyria and Damascus, and the recuperative power of the Ara maeans, would perceive the danger of the lenient policy of Joash. Hadad-nirari claims tribute from Tyre, Sidon and Beth-Omri (Israel), also from Edom and Palagtu (Philistia). There are no signs of an extensive coalition as in the days of Shalmaneser; Ammon is probably included under Damascus; the position of Moab—which had freed itself from Jehoram of Israel—can hardly be calculated. But the absence of Judah is surprising. Both Jehoash (of Judah) and his son, Amaziah, left a great name; and the latter was comparable only to David (2 Ki. xiv. 3). He defeated Edom in the Valley of Salt, and it is con ceivable that Amaziah's kingdom extended over both Edom and Philistia. A vaunting challenge to Joash (of Israel) gave rise to one of the two fables that are preserved in the Old Testament (for the other see Judges ix. 8 seq.). It was followed by a battle at Beth-shemesh; the scene would suggest that Philistia also was involved. The result was the rout of Judah, the capture of Amaziah, the destruction of the northern wall of Jerusalem, the sacking of the temple and palace and the removal of hostages to Samaria (2 Ki. xiv. 12 sqq.). Only a few words are preserved— taken apparently from an Israelite source—but the details, when carefully weighed, are extremely significant. This disaster was scarcely the outcome of a challenge to a trial of strength; it was rather the sequel to a period of smouldering jealousy and hostility, and, according to one chronological scheme, 27 years passed before Judah had another king (Uzziah).