outlook: aramaeans outside of syria 363
- in the books of the former prophets aramaean tribes, places (e.g.,
the city of damascus), rivers (abana and parpar [2 kgs 5: 12]),
individuals (king david’s scribe shay-si, with the name “gift of the
moongod” [2 sam 20: 25; 1 kgs 4: 3]; Na’aman [2 kgs 5: 1ff ]; david’s
wife maacah, mother of absalom and daugther of king talmay of
Geshur [2 sam 3: 3]) and kings (Ben-hadad, son of tab-rimmon,
son of hezyon [1 kgs 15: 18]; Ben-hadad, son of hazael [2 kgs 13:
24]; hazael [1 kgs 19: 15; 2 kgs 8–13]; and rezin/razyan [2 kgs 15:
37; 16: 5–9]) are mentioned. in the Books of the kings the main
focus is on aram-damascus.117 this aramaean kingdom is often
referred to as an ally or enemy of the israelite kingdom. in the latter
prophets aram-damascus is mentioned as a political partner and/or
adversary in much the same way (see is 7: 1). in propheticies aram-
damascus can also be depicted as a tool in the hands of yhWh (e.g.,
is 9: 11f ), who wants to punish his people israel. But on the other
hand is 7: 8f; 8: 4; 10: 9 and 17: 3 draw clear parallels between aram-
damascus and israel. Both states are treated by yhWh in analogy
and have to face deportation and defeat: yhWh is the god who pun-
ishes aram-damascus by himself and orders its deportation to Qir
(am 1: 5). yhWh is also the one who leads aram out of Qir (am 9:
7). according to is 17: 3 there was a “rest of aram” as well as a “rest
of israel.” the prophetical perspective stresses that yhWh did with
aram-damascus what he did with israel and later with Judah. this
perspective does not argue with kinship relationships, but israel and
aram-damascus share the same fate.
the construct of the aramaean descent lines is also mentioned in its short-
est form in dtn 26: 5. this text combines the genealogy of the patriarchs
with the exodus tradition and (from v. 9f on) with the gift of the land. this
young text118 therefore presupposes and summarizes the narrative line
from Gen 10/11 to the book of Joshua. Within the book of deuteronomy
this is the only attestation of an aramaean—aram or damascus are not
mentioned at all. from the historical perspective dtn 26: 5 is wrong, since
the tribes of palestine emerged from earlier local palestinian population
groups and not from outside. Only in north palestine (Cis- and transjordan
117 the relevant texts are collected and very briefly discussed in hafÞórsson 2006:
137–184.
118 see e.g., Gertz 2000: 285. Compare the summary of the German debate of the text’s
history in Otto 1999: 321 n. 507.