Hoham: King of Hebron

Hoham is an obscure biblical character who made a short appearance in the Book of Joshua as one of a quartet of kings who reigned over cities in what was to become the Judahite hill country and were called to join Adoni-zedek in his revenge-campaign against the Gibeonites (Josh. 10:3-4). The only other explicit background detail that the Tanakh provides on Hoham is that he, like the other four kings, was an Amorite (Josh. 10:5-6, and presumably also referenced in 5:1). Richard Hess proposed that Hoham’s name derives from the Anatolian ẖuẖ(ẖ)a, meaning ‘grandfather’, with an added Hebrew suffix of (-a)m.¹ In this paper, I would like to propose a different, biblically-rooted etymology for Hoham, which will also provide more information on this figure, in turn providing some context for his decision to join the other four hill country kings in their campaign against the Gibeonites, and by extent, the Israelites.

Hoham’s Name

Genesis 14 describes the famous War of the Nine Kings and is well-known among scholars as containing a wealth of information on pre-Israelite Canaanite history. One of the earlier stages of the four Mesopotamian kings’ campaign included a highly successful offensive against the various tribes of giants that inhabited Transjordan, namely: the Rephaim, the Zuzim, and the Emim: In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim at Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim at Ham, the Emim at Shaveh-kiriathaim (Gen. 14:5).

Most pertinent to this paper are the Zuzim, who were defeated at Ham. Already the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20, col. 21:29) identified the Zuzim with the Zumzimaya di be-Ammon (the Zumzimaya at Ammon), evidently a misspelling or textual variant of Zamzumim,² the Ammonite name for the Rephaite tribe that had previously inhabited their country (Deut. 2:20). Symmachus apparently had a similar variant before him, for he translated Hebrew Zuzim as Ζοιζομμεί. Several later commentators, both medieval and modern, plausibly suggested identifying between the two groups as well.³ Given that the Ammonites, as well as the Moabites (2:11), had their own local names for the Rephaite tribes whose lands they conquered, it seems that the Rephaim hadn’t been entirely wiped out during the battle described in Genesis 14. This is probably the reason that Og is described as being the only one left of the remaining Rephaim, i.e., a small number of Rephaim survived the campaign of the four kings, and were finally wiped out by the Moabites and the Ammonites.⁴ Thus, by the time of the Israelite campaign in the Land of the Amorites, Og was the last of the Bashanite Rephaim.⁵ Indeed, Walter Brueggemann suggested that Og’s bed/crib was located at Rabbath Bnei Ammon (Deut. 3:11) because it had been carted off by the Ammonites as a war trophy.⁶

Not much is known about Ham, though it had likely been the Zuzite/Zamzumite capital. Some have conjectured that as it was an important city in what was to become the Ammonite territory, it should be identified with the future Ammonite capital, Rabbath Ammon (also known as Rabbah or Rabbath Bnei Ammon).⁷ Some ancient basis for this suggestion may be found in the Genesis Apocryphon’s above-mentioned identification of Ham with Ammon.

Other scholars have suggested identifying Ham with Tel el-Ham, about five km southwest of Irbid (and significantly north of Rabbath Ammon); one of the reasons being that Ham may be identified with a site by the same name known from Egyptian texts to be located somewhere in the general area of the Bashan.⁸ Abraham Biran went so far as to suggest that the Tanakh itself states that Ham was in the Gilead, based on a proposed textual emendation. According to Biran, the word used to describe the hamlets or farmsteads conquered by Jair b. Menashe, the ẖavotheihem, typically understood to mean ‘their farms’, should be split into ẖavoth and Ham. Meaning, Jair’s conquered Gileadite farmsteads were those associated with Ham.⁹ However, some scholars have noted the difficulty with identifying Ham with Tel el-Ham: the site is small and does not appear to have been capable of supporting dozens of smaller sites,¹⁰ and the archaeological material found at the site suggests that it was unoccupied during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages,¹¹ the likely time of the Zuzim/Zamzumim.

It should be noted that even if Ham cannot be identified with Gileadite Tel el-Ham, a Zuzite/Zamzumite settlement of part of southern Bashan is not outside the realm of possibility: The list of forbidden towns during the Shemitah, preserved in the famous Reẖov Inscription, as well as in various Talmudic sources, records a toponym in the vicinity of Naveh in the Bashan/Hauran (today Nawā in Syria) by the name of Zizun (likely Zeizūn in Syria).¹² The component Ziz might be a corruption of Zuz, from Zuzim, which would reflect a local tradition regarding the name of the ancient inhabitants of the region.¹³

Whatever the exact location of Ham, given the inclusion of the obscure component h-m in Hoham’s name, along with his identification as being of Amorite origin (a group which, as will be demonstrated below, had similarities and ties to various Rephaite tribes), I propose that Hoham’s name comes from the Zuzite toponym Ham.¹⁴ It’s likely that his name means something along the lines of ‘[man] of/from (the city of) Ham’, though the possibility of the component h-m being an adjective or a noun of sorts cannot be immediately rejected. Some further basis for this suggestion may be found in the names of the other hill country kings with whom Hoham had joined forces: Adoni-zedek of Jerusalem, Japhia of Lachish, Debir of Eglon and Pir’am of Jarmuth, who all share names of various Canaanite toponyms: Japhia is a town in the Galilee (Josh. 19:12), Debir is a town near Hebron (e.g., 15:15), and Pir’am is likely identified with BRM/BLM, a toponym that appears in Shishak’s toponymic list, and was apparently located in the vicinity of Adullam, also in the hill country.¹⁵ Additionally, according to Bereshit Rabbah § 43:6, Tzedek was one of the names of Jerusalem, which means that Adoni-Zedek was also named after his city.¹⁶ This raises the likelihood that Hoham also shared a name with a Canaanite toponym, matching the theme established by his allies’ names. The meaning of the word Ham itself is unclear. Some have proposed that it stems from a lost Rephaite/Zuzite language.¹⁷

The Giant-King of Hebron

With the proposal that Hoham came from the former Zuzite capital of Ham in mind, it seems quite reasonable to further suggest that like Og, the last of the Bashanite Rephaim, Hoham was the last of the pre-Ammonite Zuzim/Zamzumim.

A few other details in Tanakh appear to support the notion that Hoham was of gigantic stature and ethnicity:

First, as previously mentioned, much like Og and Sihon, Hoham was described as an Amorite king (Josh. 10:5-6, and presumably also 5:1). Differentiating between the various Canaanite super-nations and simple-nations mentioned in Tanakh is not a simple task, being as it seems that different appellations were used in different ways during different periods.¹⁸ Most of the time, the meaning of the term ‘Amorite’ is vague, i.e., it is not clear to which sorts of Canaanites the term applies. Some usages of the term ‘Amorite’ almost certainly refer to regular, average-sized people (e.g., II Sam. 21:2; Ezek. 16:3, 45). However, there is still some information to be gleaned from Tanakh and later Jewish sources regarding the simple-nation of the Amorites (henceforth: ethnic Amorites). First, in Rabbinic literature, Sihon was also believed to be a giant (e.g., TB Niddah 61a; Devarim Rabbah § 11:10; Tanẖuma [Buber], Additions to Devarim § 7). But Amos 2:9 indicates that the term ‘Amorites’ was used at times to refer to a larger group of giants (and not just Og and Sihon): Yet I destroyed the Amorite before them [the Israelites], whose stature was like the cedar’s and who was stout as the oak, destroying his boughs above and his trunk below.

The ethnonym ‘Amorite’ in the verse is a collective noun in singular form, which indicates a large group and not just Og and Sihon. This means that there were more giant Amorites felled at the hands of the Israelites by God’s intervention.¹⁹ Such an interpretation of the verse in Amos was already presented in the previously mentioned Tanẖuma (Buber), Additions to Devarim § 7 (per a 9th century Spanish manuscript), which also cited a curious aggadah featuring R. Yoẖanan b. Zakkai showing Hadrian (likely a scribal error of Vespasian) a cave with the bones of giant Amorites.²⁰ Additionally, Abarbanel on Numbers 13:22 cited an anonymous commentary which argued that the Amorites Aner, Eshkol and Mamre, allies of Abraham (Gen. 14:13), were both giants and ancestors of the more famous Hebronian giants, Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai.

Further indication for the gigantic stature of the ethnic Amorites may be found in Deuteronomy 1. After Moses’s retelling of the Sin of the Spies and God’s punishment, the Torah states:

But the LORD said to me, “Warn them: Do not go up and do not fight, since I am not in your midst; else you will be routed by your enemies.” I spoke to you, but you would not listen; you flouted the LORD’s command and wilfully marched into the hill country. Then the Amorites who lived in that mountain came out against you like bees and chased you, and they crushed you from Seir to Hormah (vv. 42-44).²¹

Verse 44 describes Amorites coming down from that mountain to chase off the Israelites. As R. D. Z. Hoffman noted, “that mountain” indicates a specific mountain (or mountain range) already known to the reader of the chapter from verses 7 and 20: the Mountain of the Amorites.²² According to Aharon Mirsky, this term refers to the mountain range in the western part of central Transjordan, between the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee, east of the Jordan River, i.e., right around the region controlled by Sihon, and not far from what had likely been the region of the Zamzumim.²³

Identifying the Mountain of the Amorites in this area agrees with other pieces of information we have on the territory of the ethnic Amorites in Genesis. Primary among these is Genesis 14:7, which states that the four kings struck the Amorites who lived in Hazzon-Tamar, identified with En Gedi (II Chron. 20:2). Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun pointed out that the kings likely attacked Hazzon-Tamar as it was the southernmost Amoritic settlement and lay close to their warpath.²⁴ This suggestion fits well with the area where the Amorites of Deuteronomy ended their attack: from Seir to Hormah. Charging further would have brought them into the crosshairs of ethnic Canaanite, Amalekite and Edomite territory. This conclusion fits the Netziv’s suggestion that the parallel story in Numbers 14:45 stated that the Israelites were (also) attacked by Canaanites and Amalekites because these two groups lived at the edge of the Amorite territory.²⁵ This means that the ethnic Amorites originally lived in a region stretching from the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea, through Hebron, and reaching the mountainous area in central Transjordan. Later, during the time of Sihon and Og, some of the Amorites settled parts of ex-Rephaite territory.²⁶

Returning to the issue of Amoritic gigantic stature, I propose that the reference to the Amoritic battle-style being like “bees” (rather than more traditional ferocious animals such as lions, leopards or snakes) was meant to evoke an association with the Zamzumim, whose ethnonym appears to be an onomatopoeia referring to buzzing or humming,²⁷ the sounds made by bees, of course. This suggestion lends further credence to the idea that the ethnic Amorites were giants, which fits in nicely with the overall theme of the first three chapters of Deuteronomy, which are designed to convince the current Israelites that with faith in God they can overcome giants and huge walled cities. We thus find the following structure within this narrative:

1. The Spies spark fear in the Israelites by describing the giant inhabitants of Canaan and their huge, well-fortified cities with walls reaching the sky. Subsequently, the Israelites lose faith in God and fear being killed by the giants, and are punished by God with a prolonged wilderness trek (Deut. 1:27-28, 34-40).
2. After learning of their punishment from God, some Israelites attempt to cross the Mountain of the Amorites, but are chased by giant Amorites, for once again they displayed a lack of faith in God: They did not believe God would not assist them if they attempted to cross into the land against his orders (1:41-45).
3. Many years later, both the Moabites and the Ammonites have defeated the giant Rephaite tribes in their lands (2:8-11, 18-21; 3:11) and the Israelites defeat the giant Amorite kings, Sihon and Og; all thanks to God’s intervention (2:24-36; 3:1-17, 21-22).
4. The Israelites and their fraternal cousin-nations, the Moabites and Ammonites, have proven that giants aren’t invincible. The Israelites are now confident that with God’s help, they can defeat the giants of Cisjordan (Canaan-proper). Thus, this narrative ends with the words: You have seen with your own eyes all that the LORD your God has done to these two kings; so shall the LORD do to all the kingdoms into which you shall cross over. Do not fear them, for it the LORD your God who will battle for you (3:21-22).²⁸

The various sources suggest that many if not all of the ethnic Amorites were giants, and this detail was known by later Rabbinic circles. Given this, along with Hoham’s connection to both the Zuzite/Zamzumite city of Ham and to the Amoritic-giant center of Hebron, it seems reasonable to suggest that Hoham was a giant himself. Like Og, who had ties to both the ancient Rephaim and the Amorites, Hoham had ties to the ancient Zamzumites as well as the Amorites.²⁹ In light of the information on the gigantic stature of many of the ethnic Amorites, it’s quite possible that the other four Amorite kings in Joshua 10 were also giants, but this is less evident from the information we have.³⁰

Hoham’s Demise

Og, the last scion of the Bashanite Rephaim, remained true to his people’s ancestral home in the Bashan. Meanwhile, Hoham, last scion of the Zuzim/Zamzumim, was evidently run off by the Ammonites in their own local anti-giant campaign, and made his way to the relatively safer central hill country of Canaan: the giant-inhabited city of Hebron, then called Kiriath Arba, after Arba, the great man among the Anakites (giants) (Josh. 14:15).³¹ This proposal provides some context for the latter’s interest in joining the fight against the Gibeonite allies of the Israelites:

Presumably, all five hill country Amorite kings had a vested interest in asserting their dominance in the face of the foreign invaders who had made their intentions quite clear when they demolished Jericho and Ai (10:1). However, as Hoham was probably more familiar with the devastation of the Transjordanian giant tribes, he likely had another impetus for joining in. For him, it was a last-ditched effort to fend off the invading Israelites, who were already renowned giant-slayers in his former home region, as well as perhaps an attempt to avenge the deaths of the other two giant Transjordanian Amorite kings. Of course, this did not end well for him or for the other giants of the hill country, as most of them met their demise at the hands of said infamous giant-slayers (11:21-22). Hoham himself was put to death along with the other four hill country kings (10:26). The defeat of the last Transjordanian Zamzumite giant, along with most of the other Cisjordanian hill country giants, effectively concludes the giant-narrative presented in the first few chapters of Deuteronomy: With God’s help, the Israelites were able to stamp out the giants and clear the way for their conquest of the remainder of Canaan.