B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

מַשָּׂ֤א דְבַר־יְהוָה֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ חַדְרָ֔ךְ וְדַמֶּ֖שֶׂק מְנֻחָת֑וֹ כִּ֤י לַֽיהוָה֙ עֵ֣ין אָדָ֔ם וְכֹ֖ל שִׁבְטֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל

The land of Hadrach: I have read all the theorising from a multitude of commentators and all their doubts, and the fact that not a single commentator has thought of this makes me think that my suggestion is utterly stupid, but here goes - a simple question which I do not think is improbable. Is there any possibility that what is actually being conveyed here is not the name of some lost and forgotten town but : "In the land of your enclosure, and upon damascus will this burden permanently rest"? When I view the meaning of this word, take the final Caf as a suffix, (falling into Karl's trap and ignoring the vowel pointing) then consider the last 1500 years of the history of Damascus, taking into account that every single time it has tried to rise to its former dignity and strength God restrains it. I am not aware of any other prominent ancient city in the Middle East that has been downtrodden so many times as a result of trying to assert itself. Not one.

Chris watts

Hi Chris,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhuti

"Luhuti had many cities. Shuksi was the maritime center, But the most important center and capital was the city of Hazrik (modern Tell Afis, Known as Hatarikka to the Assyrians), located 45 kilometer south of Aleppo."

Hallo Ducky,

I will not deny this as a possibility. But I am not convinced that this is חַדְרָ֔ךְ .

1. I am not aware of any of the many commentators I read suggesting this as a viable name (all but one from the 19th century);

2. This city seems a rather insignificant choice to mount such a 'Burden of the Word of the Lord' and then point to it resting on Damascus. There does not appear to be any tangible link between Luhuti, shuksi and Damascus;

3. One has to remember that this is called the "Land of..." Now I am aware that the Land of 'A King' is evident in scripture, but never referring to a city as 'the land of...".

Kind Regards
Chris Watts

Hi Chris,

There is ארץ כנען, ארץ מצרים, ארץ אדום, ארץ הגלעד and so on.
This Chapter counts places in Aram: Hadrakh, Damascus, Hamat (verse 2), Tsor, and Tsidon.

So I don't see why not to see Hadrakh as a place.

ducky wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 11:49 am Hi Chris,

There is ארץ כנען, ארץ מצרים, ארץ אדום, ארץ הגלעד and so on.
This Chapter counts places in Aram: Hadrakh, Damascus, Hamat (verse 2), Tsor, and Tsidon.

So I don't see why not to see Hadrakh as a place.

Hallo Ducky, despite what you have said, I am seeking your opinion on what follows.

Amongst the commentators I decided to take the two most opposite views (obviously I can not know everyone). Pusey provides evidence that it was a city, town. Lange does the opposite and provides most of the credible views, but then appears to agree on it more than likely being a symbolic representation.

This is Pusey's view, published 1907:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"""It is now certain that there was a city called Hadrach in
the neighbourhood of Damascus and Hamath, although its
exact site is not known. “It was first found upon the
geographical tablets’ among the Assyrian inscriptions.

In the Assyrian Canon, Hadrach is the
object of three Assyrian expeditions, 9183 (818 B.c.), 9190
(811) and 9200 (801) - Oppert in the Révue Archéologique, 1868, T. 2, p. 323."""
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pusey then goes on for another two pages to justify this with the most weakest of arguments comparing the 'Land of...' expression with the fact that scripture says; Land of Benjamin, Land of Judah, land of chittim, land of Sinim Land of Sihon... etc but these WERE lands, with clearly defined boundaries, so his argument falls flat on its face. I respect and admire Pusey's works in general, but here he falters awfully.

I get the feeling from Pusey, unfortunately, that he is trying to alleviate himself of the very fact that scripture refers to Hadrach as a Land, in order to find its significance in the name of some long lost forgotten town.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Johann Lange's view, published 1887

"""The land of Hadrach is a very obscure, Pressel recounts no less than seventeen different explanations of it. They may be thus classified :

(1.) It is the name of an ancient city or land (Theodoret Mops., Michaelis, Rosenmuller, Pressel), but this has arisen from a confusion of the word with Edrei.

(2.) An appellative noun denoting the South (Targum), or the surrounding region (Jun. and Tremellius), or the interior (Hitzig), or the depressed region = CceleSyria (Maurer).

(3.) A corruption of the text is assumed,(Ortenberg, Olshausen).

(4.) The name of a Syrian king (Gesenius, Bleek, Vaihinger, Fiirst).

(5.) The name of a Syrian god (Movers, Van Alphen).

(6.) It is a symbolical name, like Ariel ( Rahab (Ps. Ixxxvii. 4). This, the oldest interpretation (Jerome, Raschi, Kimchi), is sustained by the fact that the others are all purely conjectural. No such name as Hadrach is now or ever has been known. The translators of the LXX. and Vulgate were ignorant of it. All the other proper names in the passage are well understood ; this one, the first, has resisted the efforts of the acutest (Most Astute) scholars to give it any historical identification. We must, therefore, either say that it denotes a region now unknown, near Damascus, which is surely most unlikely in a country so long and thoroughly known as northern Syria ; or else give it a figurative meaning""".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My conclusion is that I prefer Lange's number 6 above. Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary?

The prophets have used symbolical names, this goes without question, I see no reason to consider the strong possibility that Hadrach is also such, the absence of evidence does not mean that I am correct, but when considering also the unique phrasing of verse one, this idea becomes very suggestive.

Chris Watts

Hi Chris,

A note first: The old interpretation of Raschi and Kimchi also says this is a name of a place, and added another suggestion of a name with a meaning.

I don't think that today there is a doubt that Hadrakh is a place.
The name appears in Assyrian scripts.
Such as the Stele of Zakkur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stele_of_Zakkur
Over there he talks about how he protected Hadrakh.
(It is written there: Hazrakh).

https://ibb.co/NK9C8NX

Hi Ducky, I offer my apologies first because I will appear to be argumentative, but be assured I am not devoting all this time in order to resist what many have said. Yes I did see that Wikipedia article before posting, and thank you for those links, I find it very interesting, I also have a detailed PDF here that goes into quite some detail about the archeological findings of 1903.

Anyway...a Detective places the following on his white board, takes nothing for granted, questions everything in order to arrive at solid conclusion...

Damascus was never known as being in the land of Hadrach but in Aram, and Assyria. A Detective looking into a cold case would not be convinced by the flimsiness of the evidence presented to him on a stele. It is an option that he would certainly pin to his white board, because there are too many questions that need addressing.

1. Nowhere across the landscape of scripture is a Burden or Oracle raised on another town, city or Land when the target is different than what is mentioned and is a known and important centre of civilisation. If Hadrach had any pre-eminence up to 700 BC it was long gone by 500 BC, Assyria was no more, Damascus had no political or military status, Aram was conquered. What on earth did Hadrach have that it should be remembered 200 years later by a prophet raised in Babylon??

2. Hazrach with a zayin? Is it common to exchange the zayin for a Dalet in hebrew when converting from Aramaic? Yet when the prophets wrote Aramaic they did not transcribe, so why not keep the zayin? why not mention hatarikka? Why HaDrach??

3. Hadrach remains in obscurity, and as far as biblical history and their records are concerned, is totally unimportant, why would God speak of this when the burden is to remain on Damascus?? Hadrach was Never a land!!, just a little town that a greedy King wanted all for himself and then decided to write a quick newspaper article for everyone to read. That's it!

4. Verse one has never taken place, if a person does not believe in prophecy then this observation is absolutely inconsequential. However "the eyes of the known world and the tribes of Israel, which did not exist at that time, have never looked to God. If you accept biblical records as God's word then Hadrach is indeed a future concept. I personally remain open still. It is a note on my white board still yet to be rejected or taken seriously.

5. A detective would never identify the identity of Mr.Hadrach as being the same person as Mr.Hazrak or Mr.Hatarikka based purely and solely on similarity of words, a bit like taking Mr. Paul Tanley as the guilty person because it is similar to Mr. Saul Hanley, and then convict the said person based on the flimsy accounts of an obscure piece of rock with a few words that bare a questionable resemblance to the name Hadrach. Who would seriously accept this as the ultimate burden of proof in a court? No one, except those who are desperate for a quick conviction, and we know what that has sometimes resulted in.

6. Hadrach has no known importance in scripture or any known historical record anywhere that it should be assigned the prestigious title of "The Land of...". Counter-argument?

7. If Isaiah or an earlier prophet had mentioned Hadrach then this would cement the proof that it was known amongst the Israelites, that it was at the very least on the same map as say: Hamath - Beroea - Ebla - Qatna - Aleppo - Tyre - Tsidon - and many other prominent towns.


8. Zechariah some 200 years later - a long time for someone suddenly to resurrect a town that practically every Jew would have had no reason to even be aware of - writes its name in a very obscure prophetic utterance which by the way, in itself, and contrary to many commentators, is not exactly a destructive judgement at all, and has no hint of a destructive punishment upon Damascus whatsoever, unlike Isaiah 17, becomes an oracle taken up upon the ""LAND (not a town) of Hadrach"" which will be permanently placed upon a city known for its glory and beauty and past political and military power but which exists as such no more (Damascus). And this burden will appear to be visible when the eyes of the world and All Israel (all the tribes) look to the Lord. As to its unfolding and meaning I have no idea.

9. Let's face it: Damascus had already been judged, so this burden is not the usual oracle of annihilation or fire, conquest or doom.

In detective work the absence of information can sometimes be a good lead. And in this scripture there is an absence of clarity and directness which is so apparent in many other scriptures when God places decisive burdens or punishments upon towns and Lands. When scripture wants to make a point it does so with clear purpose, but Zech 9:1 sits all by itself, linked to what follows yet somehow also remaining separated from what follows. Scripture also does this in other prophetic announcements where it does not read like a history book or a newspaper, where a verse within a chapter is a logical part of the sequence of the discourse yet somehow remains distinct, hiding within its own little cubicle for a future unveiling.

And finally, here ultimately comes the absolute crunch in this saga: One is relying on a non-biblical source to provide context as to the relevance of the Land of Hadrach to the burden on Damascus. In order for at 'the least' a little relevance to this, a biblical source is required, otherwise an important aspect to this verse one is completely missing.

How on earth can this : ""the city Khatarikka as far as Mt. Sau, I3.... the cities Byblos,
Tsimirra, Arqa, Zimarra I4.... the cities Usnu, [siannu], Ri'raba, Ri'sitsu
I5.... cities on the shore of the upper sea, I mastered"" ever be justified to be the same as the Land of Hadrach??



All this remains on my whiteboard, for those who identify Haazar or Hatrikka with Hadar, fine. But there remains far too many un-answered questions to draw such an eagerly sought after resolution.

Chris Watts

Hi Chris,

Hazrak vs. Hadrak is old Aramaic vs. official Aramaic (and later).
The Stele of Zakkur uses Z since it is an Old Aramaic text,
while the book of Zachariah writes it according to the way it was in its time, with a D.

Hazrak is Hadrak, only with another accent that was developed.

I really don't see how the troubles that you have can't eliminated by the simple reading.
It comes as one of the places that are counted.
From north to south.
(One can say that it was meant to describe the way from exile back to Israel).
Just one name together with the other ones.

You wrote (before) about "the oldest interpretations" (Lange's words)...
In the oldest interpretation Rabbi Yose Ben Dormaskit (notice the name Dormaskit: base on the word דרמשק which is the late form of דמשק) said that that he is from Damaskus, and confirmed that there's a place called Hadrak.