Bryant G. Wood
After the Israelites completed the conquest of southern Canaan, they headed north to bring that region of the country under their dominion. The most powerful city in the North was Hazor (Jos 11:10), whose king was named Jabin (Jos 11:1). Jabin united the other city states of the area to form a united front against the approaching Israelite army (Jos 11:1).
They came out with all their troops and a large number of horses and chariots — a huge army, as numerous as the sand on the seashore. All these kings joined forces and made camp together at the Waters of Merom, to fight against Israel (Jos 11:4–5).
With God’s help, Joshua and the Israelites defeated the northern coalition there at the Waters of Merom (Jos 11:7–9). Following their victory, they advanced against the control center of the North, Hazor. They killed the inhabitants, including king Jabin, and set the city ablaze (Jos 11:10–11). According to Biblical chronology, this took place in about 1400 BC.
Some 170 years later, the Israelites were involved in another struggle against Hazor. During the period of Judges, the prophetess Deborah and her lieutenant Barak led six of the tribes to victory over this important city (Jgs 4–5). What was the name of the king of Hazor in the days of Deborah and Barak? None other than Jabin! Of course this was not the same Jabin defeated by Joshua. Besides the
BSP 8:3 (Summer 1995) p. 84
fact that 170 years separated the two events, we are told specifically that the Jabin of Joshua was killed by the Israelites (Jos 11:10). It appears that the Jabin of Deborah and Barak was also put to the sword: “the hand of the Israelites grew stronger and stronger against Jabin, the Canaanite king, until they destroyed him” (Jgs 4:24).
Why two kings with the name Jabin? Did the Bible writers get the two events mixed up and somehow use the name of the king from one story in the other? Could it be that we have here two different versions of the same event, as some Bible scholars maintain? No, on both counts. Even though Bible critics have had a field day with the two Jabins over the years, archaeology has shown us that the Bible has it right. There were in fact several other Jabins at Hazor, since it was a dynastic name.
It was common practice in the ancient Near East for kings to carry on the name of their forbears. There are many known examples of this. For example, in 12th Dynasty Egypt there were four kings with the name Amenem-het. In the 18th Dynasty, there were four Thutmoses and four Amenhoteps. The record, no doubt, is the use of the name Ramesses. It was used by royalty 11 times in the 19th and 20th Dynasties! In Assyria, we have four kings named Shal-maneser, etc. This multiple use of royal names by nations of the ancient near east has never bothered scholars. They merely give them numbers: I, II, III, etc. (The ancients, themselves, however, did not use such numbers.) When the Bible lists two kings with the same name, such as Abimelech (Gn 20–21; 26), or Jabin, suddenly we have a major textual problem on our hands! In reality, the Bible is accurately reflecting what was politically correct in those days.
Although we do not have any references outside the Bible to the two Biblical Jabins, we do have several references to other kings of Hazor that bore that name. The first such reference comes from Mari. There, tablets dating to the 18th century BC record shipments of tin from Mari to “Ibni-Addad, king of Hazor” (Horowitz and Shaffer 1992:166). The form of the name in the texts is Accadian; the West Semitic form would be “Yabni-Haddad.” Biblical Jabin (Yabin) is simply a shortened form of this same name.
A clay tablet found at Hazor in 1992 also mentions a king named Jabin (Horowitz and Shaffer 1992; cf. Bible and Spade Autumn 1992, p. 122). Dating to the 18th-17th centuries BC, it is addressed to “Ibni […].” Again, the name “Ibni” corresponds to Jabin/Yabin in the Bible. It is possible that this is the same Ibni referred to in the Mari tablets. This cannot be confirmed or denied, however, since the Hazor tablet is not precisely dated and, in addition, the last part of the name is missing. The letter was written by an appointee of the king and concerns a disagreement over the transfer of a young woman, possibly a slave. Exhibiting a high-quality style of writing, the tablet unquestionably was a royal document executed by a skilled scribe.
The Amarna Letters from the mid-14th century BC twice refer to an unnamed “king” of Hazor (EA 148, EA 227). This is unusual since the other rulers of the city states of Canaan are referred to as “mayor.” This, plus the size of the site, confirms the importance of the city in the Late Bronze Age
BSP 8:3 (Summer 1995) p. 85
and verifies the Biblical reference to Hazor as “head of all these kingdoms” (Jos 11:10). Another of the Amarna Letters does give the name of the king of Hazor at this time: Abdi-Tirshi (EA 228). So not all the kings of Hazor were named Jabin!
Finally, there is an Egyptian text from the time of Ramesses II (early 13th century BC), which mentions “Qishon of Jabin” (Krahmalkov 1994:61–62). Qishon is located in the Jezreel Valley, near where Deborah and Barak fought the forces of Jabin later in the 13th century. Evidently in Ramesses’ time Qishon was under the control of the king of Hazor, who again was named Jabin (Govier 1994:2).
So now, besides the two Jabins named in the Bible, we have at least two additional Jabins. Do scholars have a problem with these extra-Biblical Jabins? Of course not. They are accepted as authentic names of historic kings of the great city state of Hazor. The same recognition should be accorded the Jabins named in the Old Testament.
Fragment of a royal letter found at Hazor in 1992.
It is addressed to Jabin and dates to the 18th-17th centuries BC.
Bibliography
Govier, G.
1994 King Jabin of Bible Mentioned. Institute for Biblical Archaeology Newsletter Oct-Dec 1994:1–2.
Horowitz, W., and Shaffer, A.
1992 A Fragment of a Letter from Hazor. Israel Exploration Journal 42:165–66.
Krahmalkov, C.R.
1994 Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence. Biblical Archaeology Review 20/5:54–62, 79.