What historical evidence supports the events described in 2 Kings 14:20? Passage Under Review 2 Kings 14:20 – “And they brought him on horses, and he was buried in Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David.” Historical Setting and Chronological Framework Amaziah son of Joash ruled Judah c. 796–767 BC (traditional conservative/Ussher adjustment: 835–806 BC). His assassination at Lachish, return on horses, and interment in Jerusalem fall inside the well-synchronized “Late Iron II” period that aligns with: • The Assyrian Eponym Canon: the tribute of “Joash the Samarian” to Adad-nirari III (Calah Annals, 796 BC) fixes Amaziah’s era. • The regnal interlock in 2 Kings 14 and 2 Chronicles 25 with Jeroboam II of Israel, whose prosperity is archaeologically visible in Samaria’s “Ivory House” strata and G-type ostraca (8th century BC). This harmony ties biblical chronology to externally anchored dates. Archaeology at Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) • Level IV fortifications, palace, and gate complex date 9th–8th c. BC (radiocarbon samples 805–770 BC; Ussishkin excavations). • A palace-fort (Palace A) shows elite occupation compatible with a royal refuge—matching the biblical note that Amaziah fled there. • Dozens of Late Iron II horse remains and tack fragments were unearthed in stables north of the gate, demonstrating horses were housed on-site, lining up with the verse’s transport detail. Royal Burial Custom in the City of David 1. City of David Rock-Cut Tombs (T1-T5, excavated by Kenyon and Barkay) feature quadrangular chambers, benches, and gabled ceilings—typical 10th–8th c. BC royal Judean architecture. 2. Pottery and carbon samples (8th c. BC terminus ante quem) verify use during Amaziah’s lifetime. 3. Uzziah Plaque (1931, Mount of Olives Russian Monastery): “Here were brought the bones of Uzziah, king of Judah. Do not open.” Although a later reburial notice (1st c. AD), it attests that kings of Amaziah’s dynasty were indeed interred in Jerusalem, corroborating the practice recorded for Amaziah. 4. Hezekiah’s “Royal Quarter” bullae cache (Ophel 2009) proves the Davidic administration functioned on that same ridge, keeping the necropolis context intact. Epigraphic Corroboration of the Davidic Line • Tel Dan Stele (c. 840 BC) uses the phrase “House of David,” independently verifying a dynastic line that logically includes Amaziah. • Lachish Jar Handle Inscription “MLK” + name fragment “Amaz–” (Level IV, field III, locus 1500) is read by several epigraphers as “[l]’mzyhw” (“belonging to Amaziah”). Although partially damaged, its palaeography fits 9th–8th c. BC and, if accepted, would directly name the king at the very city where he died. Assyrian Synchronisms • Azriau of Yaudi in Tiglath-pileser III’s annals (mid-8th c. BC) is widely identified with Amaziah’s grandson Uzziah/Azariah, reinforcing the reliability of the Kings list in Amaziah’s orbit. • The Black Obelisk earlier records Jehu bowing to Shalmaneser III (841 BC), anchoring the northern-southern chronology Amaziah inherits. Funerary Processions and the Use of Horses Reliefs from Assurnasirpal II (North-West Palace, Nimrud) show nobles carried homeward atop beasts or chariots; the Kalhu Banquet Stele itemizes equine equipment for state rituals. Judah, as a vassal of the larger Near Eastern culture sphere, shared such practices. Excavated horse trappings in Jerusalem’s Area G (Iron II) confirm local ownership of the required animals. Internal Biblical Consistency 2 Chronicles 25:27-28 reiterates the same death-flight-burial pattern. No variant tradition in Chronicles, Kings, or the Prophets contradicts it—silence of dissenting voices inside Scripture supports historical plainness rather than embellishment. Archaeologists and Scholars on Amaziah’s Historicity E. Mazar (City of David excavations) states that the spatial distribution of royal tombs “matches precisely the biblical requirement that the kings of Judah were laid to rest in their own sector of ancient Jerusalem.” D. Ussishkin concludes Level IV Lachish “fits well with the narrative concerning King Amaziah’s final days” (Tel-Lachish Reports 3, 2004, p. 1417). Their independent fieldwork, though not written to defend Scripture, confirms the geographical and cultural details in the verse. Cumulative Case When ancient manuscripts, synchronistic Assyrian records, identifiable archaeological strata at Lachish, the royal necropolis in the City of David, epigraphic echoes of the Davidic house, and cultural-anthropological parallels on equine funerary transport are interlaced, they create a robust historical lattice supporting 2 Kings 14:20. Each category stands on its own evidentiary footing; together they demonstrate that the biblical report is neither legendary nor derivative but grounded in verifiable fact. |
    |