OMRI ŏm’ rī (עָמְרִי׃֙, LXX ̓Αμβρι, meaning unknown); the name has been thought to be Arabian (Noth, Israelitische Personennamen 63, 222 n. 7; J. Gray, 3331), but it is attested in families of the tribes of Benjamin (1 Chron 7:8) and Judah (9:4) and prob. Issachar (27:18). He was the first king of the Omride dynasty in Israel.
1. Chronology. Omri’s reign began with some years of civil war, or at least civil dissension, ended by the death of the rival claimant to the throne, Tibni ben Ginath. Consequently, in 1 Kings 16:23 Omri’s accession is dated (following the note of Tibni’s death) in the thirty-first year of Asa, but his length of reign is given as twelve years. This runs from Zimri’s rebellion in the twenty-seventh of Asa (v. 15) to Ahab’s accession in the thirty-eighth (v. 29); for Tibni, being the loser in the contest, was never reckoned as king.
E. Thiele calculates the years as 885/4 (Zimri), 881/0 (Omri’s sole reign), and 874/3 (Ahab), Asa’s first year being 911/0 (not counting an accession year, as the synchronisms come from an Israelite source). This leads to placing Ahab’s death at Ramoth-gilead in 853/2, soon after the battle of Quarqar. V. Pavlovsky and E. Vogt agree. W. F. Albright argues that Ahab could not have picked a quarrel with Syria immediately after the alliance in 853; and he relies heavily on the MT of 2 Chronicles 16:1, dating Zimri’s rebellion after Asa’s thirty-sixth year (878 on his chronology). Adjusting Jehoram’s reign to seven years, and Ahab’s to twenty, he allows 876-869 b.c. for Omri (civil war included). For the crucial dates, see Asa, Jehu, Rehoboam.
2. Antecedents. Since Omri’s father is not named, and his own name certainly is not Heb., it has been concluded that he was a foreigner; however, his immediate election as king by a citizen army implies that he was popular with them and already a commander of some standing—perhaps commander-in-chief. J. Gray (Kings, p. 330) suggests that he was an absorbed Canaanite, and that this helps to explain the trend toward a Phoen. style of kingship and a pro-Phoen. policy. Gray, and Aharoni (p. 294), noting the rise of Jezreel as a secondary capital, think Omri may have been from Issachar, like Baasha (cf. 1 Chron 27:18).
3. Accession. Omri was made king by the army near Gibbethon, when news reached them that Zimri had assassinated Elah; the account in 1 Kings 16:16 reads: “the troops (ha’am, KJV ‘the people’) who were encamped heard...therefore all Israel made Omri...king.” Since Omri did not in fact command the immediate support even of a large majority in the nation, “all Israel” evidently reflects the authority for corporate action in the name of all the tribes, formerly possessed by the assembly of fighting men (Judg 20:7, 21:1; 1 Sam 11:12ff.); perhaps this was the last occasion on which it was exercised. It contrasts with the enthronement of Zimri, doubtless equally official, dependent on his possession of the capital and access to the apparatus of government.
After retaking Tirzah (see Zimri), Omri found his authority disputed by Tibni ben Ginath with equally strong popular support. It was four years before the opposition was overcome (deduced from the synchronism in 1 Kings 16:23); there must have been prolonged maneuvering and perhaps intrigue, for the nation was not greatly impoverished or weakened in a military sense, to judge by its rapid progress in the next few years.
4. The new capital. Within two years of gaining control over the whole kingdom, Omri purchased from private ownership a site for a new capital. If, as seems probable, Tirzah was the site at Tell Farah now excavated by the École Biblique, the move may well be evoked by a large building which was begun on top of a layer of burnt debris (Zimri’s last act?) but never finished. Omri may have found Tirzah too small for his ambitions; but Samaria also offered him two more significant advantages: (1) it became wholly royal property, as (by conquest) Jerusalem had belonged to David (Gray, p. 331), so that he was fully master of his own capital, and (2) it had an outlook westward to the coastal plain and NW to Phoenicia, while controlling also the main W-E pass to Shechem; and it was a very defensible position. Israel would play a part again internationally. Crowfoot’s expedition considered that virtually no settlement had existed on the hill crest since Bronze times; Wright disagrees (BA 22, BASOR 155). “Shemer” may have been a community rather than an individual; Gray suggests this on the ground of the segholate name. In 1 Kings 16:24, “owner” is formally pl. (’dny), which BDB takes as pl. of rank, as commonly with ’dn; however, the word does not elsewhere mean “landowner” and the Lord Himself is called ’dn kol ha’areṩ (e.g., Josh 3:13). The name Shimron occurs in Issachar, and Shemer/Shomer in Asher (Gen 46:13; 1 Chron 7:1, 32, 34).
Omri’s original work seems to have been a kind of castle on the narrow crest at the W end, but soon a “royal quarter” (Kenyon, 263, 319) was developed and there is evidence of administrative headquarters as well as of a luxurious palace (Crowfoot, Vol. 3). The ivories (Crowfoot, Vol. 2) show Egyp. rather than Assyrian influence, and betray Phoen. technique; finds of unfinished objects and unworked ivory indicate that carvers were resident. It is also likely that Phoen. masons were brought in.
5. Achievement. Omri set Israel on a new path politically, as a monarchical state like its northern neighbors and ready to be involved in their destiny. Later Assyrian records often refer to Israel as Bit Humri, or “land of Omri,” and Shalmaneser calls Jehu “son of Omri.” The effect was perhaps not immediately apparent; the author of Kings specifies only that Omri continued the religious policy of Jeroboam, though he adds that he went further than his predecessors in defying the law of God. Micah perhaps hints at innovation (6:16). Certainly Omri set the trend followed by Ahab: (1) internally, asserting the royal power as dynastic, not charismatic, and no longer to be dependent either on approval by the tribes or on the gift and favor of the Lord; (2) externally, in setting out to increase the power of the state of Israel. To this end, he made peace with Judah, cemented by marriage; subjugated the Moabites and annexed the Medeba district (as declared on the “Moabite Stone”); and promoted cultural relations with Phoen., sealed by the marriage of Ahab to Jezebel, daughter of Ittobaal of Tyre. Trade flowed through Israel rather than E of Hermon, and the wealth of the state rapidly increased. It appears from 1 Kings 20:34 that this provoked an attack by Syria, whereby Omri lost some territory and was forced to grant commercial concessions. The reference may be to territory lost by Baasha; nevertheless it is clear that at the beginning of his reign Ahab had to acknowledge Ben-hadad as at least nominally his overlord (1 Kings 20:4).
Bibliography A. T. Olmstead, History of Palestine and Syria (1931), 369ff.; J. Crowfoot et al., Samaria I (1942), II (1948), III (1957); W. F. Albright, BASOR 100 (1945), 21; J. Montgomery, Kings ICC (1951); A. Alt, VetTest 1 (1951), 2-22; J. Pritchard, ANET2 (1955), 281, 320; G. Wright, Biblical Archaeology (1957), 151-156; W. F. Albright, BASOR 150 (1958), 21-23; G. E. Wright, BASOR 155 (1959), 17-26, BA 22 (1959), 67-78; A. Alt, Kl. Schriften III (1959), 258-302; K. M. Kenyon, Archaeology of the Holy Land (1960), 260-269, 318f.; B. Mazar, BA 25 (1962), 106; J. Gray, Kings (1964); V. Pavlovsky and E. Vogt, Biblica 45 (1964); E. Thiele, Mysterious Numbers2 (1965), 62-64; Y. Aharoni, Land of the Bible (1966), 294f.