The ascension of Israelite military chief Omri to the throne in the early 9th century B.C.E. saw the formation of the Omride Dynasty, a royal family who ruled the Northern Kingdom for over 40 years. During the time of the Omride Dynasty, as attested in several historical sources, including various biblical references and the Tel Dan Stele, Israel and Judah became political and military allies. This alliance was significant in the histories of both kingdoms, but it especially influenced historical events and historical memory within the Kingdom of Judah for decades to come. Here, we’ll reconstruct the history of the alliance between the Omride Dynasty and the Davidic Dynasty, and also discuss how it was remembered in Judah. 

The Omride-Davidic Alliance

The kingdoms of Israel and Judah both emerged as political entities in the second half of the 10th century B.C.E. in the highlands of Canaan. Throughout the last decades of the 10th and most of the first half of the 9th century B.C.E., we do not have much reliable information regarding Israelite-Judahite relations. Biblical references overwhelmingly indicate that relations between the two kingdoms were hostile, even often resulting in armed conflict (1 Kings 14:30; 15:6, 16-22). This historical view may receive support from archaeological excavations at Tell en-Nasbeh, but the date and interpretation of this data is under dispute (Finkelstein 2012; Sergi 2017, p. 10).

Domestic unrest within the Northern Kingdom in the early 9th century B.C.E. saw the rise of Omri, an Israelite military official, to the throne (1 Kings 16). Omri established his royal family – the Omride Dynasty – as the ruling family in Israel, and their rule would last about 40 years throughout the mid-9th century B.C.E. Archaeological evidence (Franklin 2004; Sergi and Gadot 2017; Finkelstein 2000), contemporary Assyrian and Levantine inscriptions (the Tel Dan Stele, the Mesha Stele, and the Kurkh Monolith), and even some biblical clues (1 Kings 16:24; 22:39; 2 Kings 3:4-5) all indicate that, under the Omride Dynasty, Israel prospered as a significant regional, military, and economic power in the Levant. 

Meanwhile, the Kingdom of Judah to the south of Israel was still in its early, formative stages. Territorially and demographically, this kingdom was much smaller than Israel, as Judah in this period was mostly limited to the southern hill country of Canaan (Sergi 2013; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004; for a slightly earlier date for Judah’s territorial expansion, see Na’aman 2013). Judah was under the rule of the House of David, who had established political hegemony in Jerusalem probably as early as some time in the 10th century B.C.E. More relevant for our discussion, during the mid-9th century B.C.E., Judah was ruled by King Jehoshaphat.

The Formation and Nature of the Alliance

It is the above mentioned historical context that the alliance between the ruling families of Israel and Judah should be understood. 

In the mid-9th century B.C.E., Israel – under King Ahab – and Judah – under King Jehoshaphat – entered into a political alliance. This alliance seems to have been sealed by the marriage of Athaliah – probably Ahab’s sister and a member of the Omride family – to Jehoram, the son of King Jehoshaphat, who would later rule Judah (2 Kings 8:18, 26). As this marriage was a political marriage between royal families, it was probably arranged prior to Jehoram’s kingship, by Ahab and Jehoshaphat, as means of strengthening the political bond between the two kingdoms. 

The nature of this political alliance is also worth discussing. Some scholars have argued that the alliance represents Judah’s vassalage to the Northern Kingdom; that is, that with the alliance, Judah became a vassal to the Northern Kingdom. The marriage between Athaliah and Jehoram is seen by these scholars as an attempt by the Omrides to take over Judah from within (Liverani 2005, p. 130; Frevel 2019, p. 352, who denies that Judah was even an autonomous political entity in this period). 

While it is true that Judah was subordinate to the Northern Kingdom with regards to their geopolitical and military status, and that the existence of Athaliah, an Omride (and her son Ahaziah, the later king of Judah, who would also be of the House of Omri maternally) in the Judahite court would be beneficial for Omride interests, there is no evidence that Judah was a vassal kingdom to the Omrides, or that the Jehoram-Athaliah marriage was an attempt at taking over Judah from the interior. In the ancient Near East, vassal kingdoms paid tribute to the kingdoms they were subordinate to, but there is no evidence that Judah paid tribute to the Northern Kingdom in this period (Sergi 2016, p. 507) In addition to this, political marriages in the ancient Near East were not attempts at taking over kingdoms politically; they were attempts at strengthening the political bond between the royal families taking part in the marriages. Thus, there is no historical grounds for accepting the alleged vassalage of Judah to the Northern Kingdom during the Omride Dynasty, and all known evidence suggests that Judah remained an independent kingdom which was free to pursue its own autonomous policies as long as they did not conflict with the interests of the Omrides. 

As Omer Sergi convincingly argues, an alliance with the Omrides was of great benefit to the political interests of the Judahite kings. The House of David now had the direct support of what was probably the most militarily powerful kingdom in the Levant, ruled by a strong dynasty. In addition, it is possible that the presence of Athaliah, an Omride, in the Davidic court was beneficial for Judah’s own autonomous pursuits and state formation processes (Sergi 2016, p. 509).

But what historical events came as a direct result of the Omride-Davidic alliance? Below, we’ll discuss 3 military campaigns reported in historical sources that can reflect on the Omride-Davidic alliance in history and memory.

An Early Ramoth-gilead Campaign? (1 Kings 22)

1 Kings 22:1-37 records a military conflict initiated by “the king of Israel” that led to his death; this “king of Israel” is only identified as Ahab in v. 20. The king of Israel summoned King Jehoshaphat of Judah to Samaria and requested assistance in a military campaign against Aram-Damascus, with the goal of capturing Ramoth-gilead from the Arameans. Jehoshaphat agreed to assist the king of Israel in the campaign.

After agreeing to take part in the campaign, however, Jehoshaphat requests prophetic approval from prophets of YHWH for the campaign. The king of Israel then summons 400 prophets of YHWH in Samaria, who all claim that the campaign has YHWH’s backing. Micaiah the son of Imlah – another prophet of YHWH – is then summoned after the 400, despite the king of Israel’s dislike of this prophet. Micaiah predicts that the joint Israelite-Judahite forces will be defeated, and also claims that YHWH has deceived the other prophets into prophesying an Israelite-Judahite victory. 

Micaiah is placed in prison, and both Jehoshaphat and the Israelite king ultimately campaign against Aram-Damascus. During the conflict, Jehoshaphat disguises himself as the king of Israel at the latter’s request and is attacked by Aramean forces, until they realize he is not the king of Israel. The king of Israel is then shot by an Aramean archer firing at random, and dies in the evening. The Israelite-Judahite forces then return home, having evidently lost the conflict.

It is most likely that this narrative was composed prior to the late 6th century B.C.E., but only inserted 

What, though, is the historical reality behind this campaign? There are a wide variety of views on this in the literature.

• The attempt to identify the king of Israel as Ahab and view the narrative as retaining historical memories of a battle that resulted in Ahab’s death in 853 B.C.E. seems somewhat problematic, given that Israel and Aram-Damascus had just fought side-by-side in 853 B.C.E. in the Battle of Qarqar, and later fought against the Assyrians in the same anti-Assyrian coalition in 849 B.C.E., 848 B.C.E., and 845 B.C.E. These conflicts are recorded in various Assyrian records (see my post on King Jehoram for a discussion of some of them). It seems unlikely that, in the short period of time between 853 B.C.E. and 849 B.C.E., the Israelites and Arameans warred in a fairly large scale military conflict against one another, only to ally once again to check Assyrian expansionist attempts. Scholars have also pointed out that Ahab’s death formula found in 1 Kings 22:40 states that he “rested with his ancestors” – a term only used for kings who died peacefully; they have concluded that, therefore, Ahab’s death was a peaceful one rather than one in battle (Miller 1966; Sergi 2016; Na’aman 2005).
• J. Maxwell Miller has argued that the account in 1 Kings 22 actually refers to events during the time of King Jehoahaz – the son of the usurper Jehu – who ruled in the late 9th century B.C.E. Miller believes that Jehoahaz was the Israelite king actually responsible for Israel’s military victories and regaining of territories from Aram-Damascus in the late 9th-early 8th centuries B.C.E., and that this included a campaign against Ramoth-gilead where Jehoahaz lost his life (Miller 1966). This view faces several problems. First and foremost, there is no evidence for military cooperation between Israel and Judah in the late 9th-early 8th centuries B.C.E.; this conflicts with the geopolitical conditions presupposed by 1 Kings 22, according to which Israel and Judah were allied. Secondly, there is no evidence that any of the kings of the House of Jehu – including Jehoahaz – were killed in military conflict. Thirdly, given what biblical and archaeological data say about the reign of Jehoahaz, it is highly unlikely that this king’s military or even territorial conditions would permit him to wage a large-scale campaign at a site in the Gilead region. Miller’s hypothesis must thus be rejected.
• Some have proposed that 1 Kings 22 recounts, in a narrative form, the later Battle of Ramoth-gilead waged in 842/841 B.C.E. by Israelite king Jehoram and Judahite king Ahaziah (see below), given that the latter campaign also involved an offensive war initiated by the king of Israel against the king of Aram-Damascus at Ramoth-gilead that involved the former’s death (that Jehoram may have been killed by Aramean forces at Ramoth-gilead is reported by the Tel Dan Stele, lines 7-9; for articulations of this view see Finkelstein 2013, p. 123; Sergi 2016, p. 515-516). However, while the evidence may possibly indicate that Jehoram was the “king of Israel” mentioned in the text, the role of Jehoshaphat in the 1 Kings 22 narrative causes problems for this interpretation. King Jehoshaphat was not alive by the time of the Battle of Ramoth-gilead, and it was his grandson, Ahaziah, who fought alongside Jehoram in the conflict. Moreover, in the 1 Kings 22 narrative, Jehoshaphat survives, yet the Bible and the Tel Dan Stele both indicate that Ahaziah did not live long after the battle and may have even died in the battle itself. 
• Nadav Na’aman has argued that the original historical setting of 1 Kings 22 was actually the Battle of Qarqar in 853 B.C.E., which King Ahab took part in. He argues that the presentation of Ahab’s death in battle in 1 Kings 22 is “heroic”, and questions why anyone would invent a story about this if he died historically. In response to the problem that 1 Kings 22:40 supports the idea that Ahab died peacefully, Na’aman argues that this was merely a designation used by the author of Kings when he did not have information on the circumstances of a king’s death (Na’aman 2005). Omer Sergi, however, questions this assumption, arguing that, “The portrayal of Ahab’s death in vv. 32–38 hardly reflects heroic memory of the king: after Ahab was wounded, he bade the driver of his chariot: “Turnabout, and carry me out of the battle, for I am wounded” (v. 34). It is later written that “the king was propped up (Heb: moʽāmad) in his chariot” (v. 35). The verb ʽmd used in the passive hophal form indicates that the king of Israel, against his own will, was propped up in his chariot as if he were still leading the battle. In my view, this phrasing reflects criticism rather than a positive memory” (Sergi 2016, p. 515). 
• Omer Sergi has proposed that, rather than being a historical account, 1 Kings 22 is a literary lesson based on historical events with the purpose of illustrating a political message of the negative consequences of Jehoshaphat’s choice to align himself with the Omrides. It depicts Jehoshaphat as a passive figure who chooses to submit himself to the king of Israel, only to nearly die in a failed military expedition. The author chose Ramoth-gilead as the setting of the story, since this was a site where a young Judahite king was defeated and possibly even died in battle due to the House of David’s policy of cooperation with the Omrides (Sergi 2016).  

The Campaign against Moab

Around 850 B.C.E., not long after Jehoram’s ascension to the Israelite throne, the Kingdom of Moab, ruled by King Mesha, revolted against Israelite rule and began withholding tribute (2 Kings 3:4-5; Mesha Stele, lines 4-7). The events surrounding this revolt and its immediate consequences are recorded in the biblical account of Mesha’s revolt, as well as in the Mesha Stele, a royal commemorative inscription commissioned by King Mesha of Moab.

2 Kings 3:4-27 records a joint military operation conducted by a coalition consisting of Jehoram, king of Israel, Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, and an unnamed king of Edom, with the goal of resubjugating Moab to Israelite vassalage. The narrative records that the coalition attacked from the south, defeating the Moabite military and destroying Moabite cities until they reached and surrounded Kir-Hareseth. Seeing the dire situation, King Mesha publicly sacrificed his son and royal heir in order to gain the approval of Chemosh, Moab’s patron deity. Following this, the account records, “The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land” (2 Kings 3:27). The narrative of 2 Kings 3:4-27 was probably composed in Judah in later periods, and the section where Elisha gives prophetic approval to the campaign (v. 11-19) may be a later editorial addition (Sergi 2016, p. 518-519; but see Na’aman 2007).

Though the general background of this account is confirmed by the Mesha Stele, the Mesha Stele itself does not clearly record an initial offensive campaign waged by Jehoram against Moab. In spite of this, although some details (such as the participation of the king of Edom, or the nature of the campaign) may be questionable, it is most likely that the account of 2 Kings 3:4-27 is based on authentic historical memory of an unsuccessful joint campaign that consisted of at least Jehoram, the king of Israel, and Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. It is inconceivable that Jehoram – a powerful Israelite king militarily and geopolitically – would take no military action against a vassal state which was now withholding tribute and openly revolting against Israelite rule. Additionally, the Mesha Stele probably contains a vague reference to an earlier Israelite campaign; lines 18-21 record the capture of Jahaz, and the inscription states that “…the king of Israel had built Jahaz, and he dwelt therein while he was fighting against me” (following the translation provided in Na’aman 2007). This seems to be a reference to earlier events; it can hardly describe the situation contemporary with the events described in the stele, since Mesha hardly records any military action on the part of the Israelites at all in the descriptions of his campaigns.

Given that – as we will discuss later – the Tel Dan Stele mentions the participation of a Judahite king along with an Omride king in a military conflict not long after the campaign against Mesha, the biblical memory of the participation of the House of David in the conflict against Mesha is probably accurate. This may be supported by the Mesha Stele, where Mesha states that Chemosh “saved me from all the kings” (or assaults), and that “he let me prevail over all my enemies” (line 4). Again, this seems to be a reference to earlier campaigns, and the fact that Mesha mentions a plurality of kings who he prevailed against could support the participation of foreign kings, such as the king of Judah, in wars against him. 

We may thus conclude that, in accordance with the Omride-Davidic alliance, the king of Judah participated in Jehoram’s war to re-subjugate Moab. The campaign, however, was unsuccessful, and Moab broke free from Israelite vassalage.

The Battle of Ramoth-gilead and the End of the Alliance

Following Hazael’s usurpation of the throne in Aram-Damascus in c. 844 B.C.E., the once-favorable diplomatic relations between the Northern Kingdom and Aram-Damascus broke down. In c. 842/841 B.C.E., Jehoram decided to wage an offensive war against Aram-Damascus, aiming to capture the strategic and disputed site of Ramoth-gilead in Transjordanian territory. In the ensuing battle, Jehoram’s forces were defeated in military conflict with Hazael (for more information on this conflict, see my article on Jehoram).

The events surrounding this conflict, as well as its immediate outcome and consequences, are recorded in both the Bible (2 Kings 8:28-29; 9:14-16) and the Tel Dan Stele. Both sources indicate that Ahaziah, the 22-year old king of Judah at the time, participated in the Battle of Ramoth-gilead alongside Jehoram. The Tel Dan Stele, almost certainly commissioned by King Hazael in the second half of the 9th century B.C.E., mentions a campaign waged against him by Jehoram and Ahaziah where he killed both, providing another independent historical testimony to the Omride-Davidic alliance.

“…I killed [Jeho]ram son of [Ahab] king of Israel, and I killed [Ahaz]iah son of [Jehoram kin]g of the House of David…” (lines 7-9).

Just like what happened years earlier with the Moabite campaign, the Battle of Ramoth-gilead in 842/841 B.C.E. once again saw the participation of a Davidic king in an unsuccessful war initiated by the Omride Dynasty. 

This conflict and its immediate consequences brought about the end of the alliance between the House of David and the House of Omri. Jehoram’s and Ahaziah’s joint forces were defeated by the Arameans, and shortly after this, Jehu, an Israelite military official who led Israelite forces at Ramoth-gilead, usurped the throne of Israel, killing all members of the Omride family in Jezreel and Samaria and bringing an end to the Omride Dynasty. Jehoram and Ahaziah were both killed, either by Aramean forces at Ramoth-gilead (Tel Dan Stele, lines 7-9) or by Jehu at Jezreel (2 Kings 9:21-29). 

Aftermath and Legacy of the Alliance

Following the events at Ramoth-gilead and the collapse of the Omride Dynasty, the Omride-Davidic alliance was brought to an end. In the Northern Kingdom, the usurper Jehu was now king, and the events of his 29-year reign brought about significant geopolitical and foreign policy changes within the Northern Kingdom. In Judah, following the death of Ahaziah, Athaliah came to the throne as queen of Judah, since none of Ahaziah’s children were old enough to rule (several members of the Judahite court also may have been killed during Jehu’s coup; see 2 Kings 10:12-14). 

The Omride-Davidic alliance had lasted for several decades, and was – as we discussed before – probably highly beneficial to the interests of both parties. However, memory of the alliance within Judahite texts in the Hebrew Bible is overwhelmingly negative. Two Judahite literary narratives that discuss the alliance – 2 Kings 3:4-27 and 1 Kings 22:1-40 – both clearly emphasize the negative consequences of King Jehoshaphat’s choice to pursue military cooperation with the Omrides, including military loss and death. These narratives were probably composed in Judah in pre-Deuteronomistic times (Sergi 2016). These later historical interpretations were probably based on the historical realities of (1) the military loss in Moab, and (2) the death of King Ahaziah of Judah; both of these came as a direct consequence of the Davidic Dynasty’s policy of military cooperation with the Omrides during the 9th century B.C.E. The negative imagery of the Omrides in Judahite historical memory probably paved the way for the extremely negative depictions of the Omride Dynasty invoked in the late 6th-early 5th century B.C.E. Deuteronomistic literature (eg. 1 Kings 16:25-33; 21:20-29), and in the Elijah-Elisha Cycle embedded within the Books of Kings.

Conclusion

The House of David and the House of Omri established a political alliance as early as the days of Jehoshaphat and Ahab respectively that involved the marriage of Athaliah, Ahab’s sister, to Jehoram, Jehoshaphat’s son and the future king of Judah. Textual evidence from both the Bible and the Tel Dan Stele indicate that the kings of Judah were willing to risk their lives on offensive military expeditions initiated by the kings of Israel when they were needed. Ultimately, though, the Omride-Davidic defeat in the Battle of Ramoth-gilead in 842/841 B.C.E., and the destruction of the Omride Dynasty in Jehu’s coup shortly thereafter, led to the dissolution of the Omride-Davidic alliance. The fact that the Omrides dragging Judah into failed military campaigns (in Moab and at Ramoth-gilead), including one that would lead to the death of a Judahite king (Ahaziah), contributed to the deeply negative perception of the alliance and of the Omride Dynasty in general that is preserved in the texts of the Hebrew Bible. 

Bibliography

Finkelstein, Israel. “Omride architecture.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953-) H. 2 (2000): 114-138.

Finkelstein, Israel. “The great wall of Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah), the first fortifications in Judah, and 1 Kings 15: 16-22.” Vetus Testamentum 62.1 (2012): 14-28.

Finkelstein, Israel. The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel. Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.

Franklin, Norma. “Samaria: from the Bedrock to the Omride Palace.” Levant 36.1 (2004): 189-202.

Frevel, Christian. “State Formation in the Southern Levant: The Case of the Arameans and the Role of Hazael’s Expansion.” (2019).

Herzog, Ze’ev, and Lily Singer-Avitz. “Redefining the centre: the emergence of state in Judah.” Tel Aviv 31.2 (2004): 209-244.

Liverani, Mario. Israel’s History and the History of Israel. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2014.

Miller, J. Maxwell. “The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars.” Journal of Biblical literature 85.4 (1966): 441-454.

Naʾaman, Nadav. “Was Ahab killed by an Assyrian arrow in the battle of Qarqar?.” Ugarit-Forschungen 37 (2005): 461-474.

Na aman, Nadav. “Royal inscription versus prophetic story: Mesha’s rebellion according to biblical and moabite historiography.” LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES 421 (2007): 145.

Na’aman, Nadav. “The Kingdom of Judah in the 9th century bce: Text Analysis versus Archaeological Research.” Tel Aviv 40.2 (2013): 247-276.

Na aman, Nadav. “Royal inscription versus prophetic story: Mesha’s rebellion according to biblical and moabite historiography.” LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES 421 (2007): 145.

Sergi, Omer. “Judah’s Expansion in Historical Context.” Tel Aviv 40.2 (2013): 226-246.

Sergi, Omer. “The Omride Dynasty and the Reshaping of the Judahite Historical Memory.” Biblica (2016): 503-526.

Sergi, Omer. “The emergence of Judah as a political entity between Jerusalem and Benjamin.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953-) H. 1 (2017): 1-23.

Sergi, Omer, and Yuval Gadot. “Omride palatial architecture as symbol in action: Between state formation, obliteration, and heritage.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 76.1 (2017): 103-111.