Zobah (Hastings' Dictionary)

One of the numerous kingdoms into which the Aramitans on the north and north- east of Palestine were divided. Apart from tlie short notice of the wars of Saul (1 S 14"), which is probably the work of a later editor (see Samukl, I. AND II.), the first mention of Zoliah or Aram-zobah occurs in the reign of David in connexion with his war against Hanun, king of the Ammonites (2 S 8"- lu").

In the fuller and more accurate account of this campaign, given in 2 S 10"-, it is stated that the Ammonites hired the Syrians (or Aramaeans) of BETii-ni:iion and of Zobah^ together with Ish-tob, king of Maacah,* to assist them in repelling the expected Lnva-sion of the Israelites. Despite this important reinforcement, the ATiiiiion- ites failed to withstand the Israelites under Joab and Abishai, and both they and their allies were forced to take refuge in flight. The Aramoeans, hoH-eviT.

seem to liave rf-alized that a wider issue than that of the temporary support of Amnifpn was involved in their struggle with the newly de- veloped kinj;dom of Israel ; for, owing to the en- forced inactivity of the two great empires of Egj'pt and Assyria, it was obvious that the supremacy (for the time being) over northern Palestine would rest with the stronger of the two riv.-il dynasties of Aram and Israel.

Hence we lind Iladadezcr, king of Zobah, making further and more strenuous eft'orts to overwhelm the Israelite kingdom. To this end he assembled all the forces at his command, and with the aid of the powerful kingdom of Damascus (followinfj' 2S 8° rather than 10'": see below) again took the held. The opposing armies met at Hclam ; but the Israelites, this time under the command of David himself, once more proved victorious, and coniTiellud the Syrians to accept terms of peace.

It would appear from I K 11^'- that this battle had an imiMMiant bearing on the history of Syria ; for, according to the notice there preserved, a certain Itezon, son of Eliada, took advantage of the defeat of lladadezer to desert. Accompanied by a troop of men he lied to Damascus, where he set up a king- dom, and became 'an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon.'

It cannot be denied that, at first sight, the im- pression of Zobah conveyed by the biblic:il narra- tive is that of a large and powerful kingdom in the north of Palestine, exercising sovereign sway over all the Aram.'ean tribes. Hence the majority of scholars, until recently, have placed it vagiiclj' between Damascus and Ilamath, the nearest ajiproach to a delinite site being that of Niildeke, who assiOTis it to the neighbourhood of Emesa.

As regards its site, this im[)ression is conlirmed by the Assyrian monuments (Schrader, KGF p. 122, KAT' y. 182f., art. 'Zobah' in Uiehm's NWJI; Fr. Del. Par. p. 279 f.); but the idea of its im- portance seems to be derived very largely from the * 2 3 10<. Read u Wellhausen and Eloatennun— l|^;-nti] te;i 3ia c^'K-nx ijyp 'and tlie king of Moocuh, Uh-tob, and with him (13,000 men),' omittinK the awkward ' with a thuuwmd men.' In the parallel pass-ige (1 Ch IV^-), the Chronicler (fives the «yini.

total ai 32,000 men <'•»■ 20,000-l-l'.!,000) : he ohviouBly, tlu-rt-toru, did oot luulude th« extrft tbouaand (lea Klonterm. ■dtoc.) fact that (according to the present text of 2 S 10'", cf. 8^) lladadezer, king of Zobah, exercised control over the distant Aram;ean tribes living 'beyond the River.' But a comparison of the two accounts of David's wars with the Ammonites and the Ara- m.

xans (2 S 8 an<l 10) shows clearly that the account given in 2S 8^" is mainly the work of a later editor, who probably also substituted the phrase ' that were beyond the liiver' (10") for the original 'of Damas- cus' (on the relation of 10"- to ch. 8 .see Samuel, I. AND II., p. 300).

On the ground of its import- ance, therefore, and of the extent of influence, there is no need to place Zobah so far north as the kingdom (or city) of that name mimtioned in the Assyrian tribute — or geograpliical lists (see above). Moreover, a closer examination of the history of the two campaigns makes it more probable that Zobah lay considerably further south. The order in which the Aramaean tribes are mentioned in 2 .S lO"'- (Beth-rehob, Zobah, M.

-uicah) is decidedly against the northern theory, for both Beth-rehob and Maacah lay to the S. or S.W. of Damascus, and ajiparently their territories bordered on that of Ammon : we should expect, therefore, to lind the kingdom of Zobah in the same neighbourhood. Hence Winckler (GcvcA. Isr. p. 137 f.) is no doubt right in identifying Zobah, or Aram-zoliah, not with the Assyrian Subiti (or Subutu) lying to the N. of Damascus, but with the place of the same name, S.

of Damascus and in the neighbourhood of the Haurfm, mentioned by Assurbanipal in the account of his campaign against the Arabian king Jauta (Rassara-Cvlinder, vol. vii. 11. 110-112 ; see KIB ii. p. 217). Winckler (p. 141 f.) is inclined to go even further and to identifj' Zobah with Beth- rehob, but the evidence which he adduces is scarcely convincing.

It is possible that the editor who is responsible for 2 S 8^'* confused the two Zobahs, for the two cities of Zobah which he mentions, Berothai ( = Berothah, Ezk 47'") and Betah (1 Ch 18" Tiii- HATH, probably the modern Tchnk), were situated N. of Damascus. In addition to the authorities cited, see also Tompkins in PEFSt, April 1885, pp. 108 f., 113. J. F. Stenning. Z06EBAH (.133!;).— A Judahite, 1 Ch 4" (B 2a,3a0a, A ^u^TjOa, Luc. ^apri^d).