According to the First Book of Kings Ben-Hadad I, who first emerges late in the reign of the long-reigning king Asa of Judah (c. 911-870 BC, conventional dates), was "son of Tab-rimmon son of Hezion of Aram" (1.Kings 15:18). What I am going to suggest is that the obscure Tab-rimmon, father of Ben-Hadad I, was actually the same person as Omri, and that therefore Ben-Hadad I and Ahab, son of Omri, were brothers. And I shall be basing myself on this text (1.Kings 20:32-33):
… [Ben-Hadad's] servants tied sackcloth round their waists, put ropes on their heads, went to the king of Israel, and said, 'Your servant Ben-Hadad says, 'Please let me live'.' And [Ahab] said, 'Is he still alive? He is my brother'. Now the men were watching for an omen; they quickly took it up from him and said, 'Yes, Ben-Hadad is your brother.'
1.Kings 20:32,33.
The context for this exchange was after Ben-Hadad I had suffered successive defeats at the hands of Ahab of Israel (1.Kings 20:21, 29-30), and the former's servants, recognizing that "the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings" (v. 31), had approached Ahab as suppliants, hoping that the king of Israel would spare Ben-Hadad's life. This Ahab did, apparently on the grounds that Ben-Hadad was his brother (Hebrew ah). Admittedly, the term 'brother' could in those days be used broadly to include 'brother-in-law'. Terms like this, also the use of 'my father', 'my son', were idiomatic forms of speech at the time, common both to EA and to the mid-C9th BC, as Velikovsky had pointed out. [20]
In a later work I shall also consider whether Ben-Hadad I and Ahab were in fact brothers in the sense of their having been bound by a marital alliance as well.
However, it would make the greater sense in the above context if Ben-Hadad I and Ahab were actual siblings, sons of the same father, and that it was a recollection of that fact that had prompted Ahab to spare the life of Ben-Hadad.
Let us then consider the possibility that Ben-Hadad and Ahab were brothers in the deeper sense of the word, and that they thus shared the same father: that Ben-Hadad's father, Tab-rimmon, was the same person as Ahab's father, Omri. This is a proposal that, as we shall now see, will seemingly be blatantly contradicted by a statement from Ben-Hadad, implying that the two kings had different fathers, opponents one to the other (vv. 33-34):
Then [Ahab] said, 'Go and bring him'. So Ben-Hadad came out to him; and he had him come up into the chariot. Ben-Hadad said to him, 'I will restore the towns that my father took from your father; and you may establish bazaars for yourself in Damascus, as my father did in Samaria'. The king of Israel responded, 'I will let you go on those terms'. So he made a treaty with him and let him go.
If these two kings were 'brothers' in the sense of 'brothers-in-law', then this occasion of their having made a treaty would have been the most likely opportunity for, say, an exchange of daughters too. That was a customary thing for kings to do at the time.
But that would of course have post-dated Ahab's calling Ben-Hadad 'my brother'.[50]
The real issue here is that Ben-Hadad I would clearly seem to be indicating in his statement above to Ahab that he and Ahab had arisen from different fathers - kings of different cities (Damascus and Samaria), who moreover were opposed to each other. And that view would certainly be the traditional view of long-standing, according to which Ben-Hadad I was a Syrian, from the line of Tab-rimmon and Hezion; whilst Ahab was an Israelite, from the line of Omri.
There are also extra-biblical references to the line of Ben-Hadad I and to the House of Omri. A stele of Ben-Hadad I's found near Aleppo, dedicated to Baal Melquart, confirms the biblical data by naming his father as Tab-rimmon, and his grandfather as Hezion (var. Hadyan). Though, confusing the issue somewhat, I have been told that it has recently been suggested that Tab-rimmon ought to be read instead as Attar-hamek. Omri is mentioned retrospectively in the neo-Assyrian records, when Shalmaneser III calls Jehu of Israel, from whom he took tribute, Ya-u-a apal Khu-um-ri-i, generally thought to indicate 'Jehu the son of Omri'.
Thus it would seem, on the face of things, that Tab-rimmon and Omri were clearly two distinct kings, differing in origins and in their belonging to distinct kingly 'Houses', and in their having two different geographies of rule. Such is a view that would be accepted by conventional and revisionist scholars alike.
However that long-standing view is not without difficulties of its own. These, as we are going to see, have been pointed out by commentators, who have not however challenged the basic premise: namely, that Ben-Hadad I and Ahab were of different fathers. I think though that my brief account of the situation below can explain some of the difficulties with which commentators have had to grapple in connection with the terms of the treaty of Ben-Hadad I and Ahab. And I even think that Ben-Hadad's bald statement regarding 'my father', and 'your father', can be explained in terms of this new identification.
What are the main difficulties I find with a literal interpretation of the treaty?
One is that Omri, a most powerful king - upon whom the kings of Assyria looked "as the father of the Israelite royal house" - would have to be regarded in the conventional scheme of things as having been subjugated by the Syrians, with even his capital city occupied.
The second main point is that, despite Ben-Hadad I's reference to Samaria as having been occupied by his father, that is, Tab-rimmon, the Old Testament nowhere records any invasion by the armies of Syria of this vital part of Israel. The only previously mentioned incursion into Israel by the troops of Syria was during the reign of Baasha of Israel, when Ben-Hadad I had ravaged northern Galilee; this being a long way from Samaria.
Surely a Syrian capture of Samaria itself would have been mentioned by the biblical scribes hostile to the House of Omri!
Bright, obviously aware of the problem, has written with reference to Mazar: "If these concessions were wrung from Omri himself (so Mazar …), this must have been before he established himself firmly in power." Bright then adds: "But the language is formulaic in character: `father' can mean merely `predecessor'." On the strength of this view, then, Ben-Hadad I's terms could have this, somewhat complex, meaning: namely, he was promising to return to Ahab, king of Israel, those northern cities of Israel that his father (their father), as ruler of Syria, had taken (by the hand of his son, Ben-Hadad) from king Baasha, Ahab's predecessor (hence 'father') in Israel.
Thus Ben-Hadad and Ahab could still have been physical brothers.
Moreover, according to this interpretation, need there be any 
question of the mighty dynast, Omri, ever having been subservient to the rulers of Syria, even in an early phase of his career? Omri was in fact the aggressor, the ruler of Syria who had, with the assistance of his militant son, Ben-Hadad, conquered northern Galilee and had eventually extended his power even further southwards, until he was elected the king of Israel - probably by force of arms.[70]
"… we know of no action of Omri against the Arameans [Syrians]", writes Bright.
Thus the 'establishing of bazaars in Samaria' by the king of Syria, as referred to by the latter's son, Ben-Hadad, was not something that was done to the discomfort of Omri "before he established himself firmly in power", but was what this merchant-king Omri himself had in fact done upon his having been established as king of Israel, when he made the great tactical move of buying the strategic hill of Samaria - just as king David had bought the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite at Jerusalem - thereby making it his own. That it was Omri who firstly made Samaria strong, and famous - and that it was not already an important place covetted by Syria before Omri was established in power - seems to be well borne out by the stratigraphical evidence for the site, when re-ordered in a revised context.[80]
Had Omri, for whatever duration of time, forfeited, to an enemy power, control of his newly-bought city, Samaria, then the recorder of his history would doubtlessly have experienced the greatest satisfaction in having been able to recount that Omri, "who did more evil than all who were before him" (1.Kings 16:27), was thus punished for his sins by the occupation of his capital city by a foe. Instead, the writer of Omri's history tells only of "the power that [Omri] showed".
Notes & References
[20] However, they were also common at least to the era of David and Solomon.
[50] In a later work I shall explore the possibility that Ben-Hadad I did in fact give his daughter to Ahab at the time of this treaty, the two thereby becoming brothers-in-law as well.
[70] How did the lineage of the presumed multinamed Omri, alias Hezion, Tab-rimmon connect to the previous kings of the ten tribes? It seems a bit awkward to suggest that the Biblical record of the line: Jeroboam > Nadab > Baasha > Elah > Omri, should be ignored for they were part of the ten tribes, Israelites, and can hardly be delegated to some Syrian line. Therefore, we may have to re-consider the order of kings in Israel between Jeroboam and Omri which is admittedly a bit confusing. The lineage from Jeroboam to Elah seems stated as usual, however, of Elah it is said, "Now the rest of the acts of Elah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?" 1.Ki. 16:14. After Elah comes Zimri for 7 days and then Tibni with no length of reign stated. But then comes Omri and he is not being connected by birth to any of the previous Israelites. It says, "And the people that were encamped heard say, Zimri hath conspired, and hath also slain the king (Elah): wherefore all Israel made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp." 1.Ki. 16:16. We learn here that Omri was the captain of the host, whose host? the Israelites or by chance the Syrians? So it stands that Omri is not of the previous lineage of kings. That makes Damien's proposal that Omri is Hezion/Tab-rimmon worth to consider.
Edwin Thiele explains it as follows: "Although no data are recorded for the synchronism or length of reign of Tibni, these details may be deduced from the context. When Zimri killed Elah and ruled seven days in the 27th year of Asa, the people made Omri king. (1.Ki. 16:15,16),
But Omri ruled only half the nation, for the other "half supported Tibni son of Ginath for king, and the other half supported Omri" (1.Ki.16:21). Since the account of Tibni's reign in 1.Ki. 16:21-22 follows that of Zimri in 1.Ki. 16:15-20, and since the records of the rulers in Kings are given in accord with the sequence of their accessions, it would appear that it was in the 27th year of Asa that Tibni was well as Omri followed Zimri. And the fact the Omri ruled six years (885-880 BC and a fraction) in Tirzah after which his accession is synchronized with the 31st year of Asa (1.Ki. 16:23), in accord with dual-dating procedure, would indicate that Tibni ruled six official years (five actual years) as a rival of Omri. At the close of this time Omri began his sole reign." [Edwin Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings', 1978, p. 88.]
But the main point is that Omri's origin has thus far not been made clear until Damien wrote his paper on `the Omrides' which you have opened. Apparently Omri was seen as a military man, which could be fitting Hezion/Tab-rimmon as another alter-ego name. That means that Ben Hadad/Ashurnasirpal and Ahab were actually brothers as the Bible states (1.Kings 20:32,33), for they had the same father (Omri/Hezion) but a different mother. It means that Omri, as the Bibel indicates, must not have been of the bloodline of Israelite kings.
Thus this presentation together with that of `Rulers Tested,' resolves a situation which has long been a thorn in Biblical history.
[80] See P. James, `Centuries of Darkness, "The Samaria Conundrum"', p. 183f.
