2 Kings 13:1–9 – Is there extrabiblical or archaeological evidence that confirms Jehoahaz’s reign, or does the absence of such data cast doubt on the historicity of this passage?

Historical Background of 2 Kings 13:1–9

2 Kings 13:1–9 describes the reign of Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, over the northern kingdom of Israel. The text begins:

“In the twenty-third year of Joash son of Ahaziah, king of Judah, Jehoahaz son of Jehu became king over Israel in Samaria, and he reigned seventeen years. He did evil in the sight of the LORD and followed the sins that Jeroboam son of Nebat had caused Israel to commit, and he did not turn away from them...”

This passage covers the primary points of Jehoahaz’s kingship, including his years of service, his moral evaluation from the biblical perspective, and the adversities Israel faced under Aramean oppression.

Biblical Chronology and Jehoahaz’s Reign

1. Approximate Timeframe

Most conservative estimates place Jehoahaz’s reign in the early to mid-800s BC. By correlating the biblical data with known extrabiblical sources that date other monarchs (such as the Assyrian records referencing the family of Jehu), scholars often situate Jehoahaz as ruling from approximately 814–798 BC.

2. Connection to Jehu’s Dynasty

Jehoahaz was the son of Jehu (2 Kings 10:35), aligning him with a dynasty that had some presence in extrabiblical documents. Assyrian inscriptions (e.g., the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III) refer to “Jehu son of Omri,” using a dynastic naming convention. Although Jehoahaz is not specifically named, the existence of Jehu’s lineage is historically grounded within those Assyrian references.

3. Alignment with Other Ancient Near Eastern Chronologies

The biblical text records that during Jehoahaz’s reign, Israel came into conflict with the Arameans, specifically under King Hazael and his son Ben-Hadad (2 Kings 13:3). Archaeological findings like the Tel Dan Stele may hint at the activities of Aramean rulers, further situating the biblical narrative in a credible historical setting even if Jehoahaz’s name itself is not directly mentioned.

Extrabiblical Evidence and Its Limitations

1. Direct Mentions of Jehoahaz

To date, no undisputed extrabiblical inscription or artifact has been discovered that explicitly names “Jehoahaz, son of Jehu.” This is not unusual for many minor kings of the region due to limited surviving inscriptions. Documents often commemorated military victories of foreign kings, so specific references to shorter-reigning neighboring monarchs can be rare.

2. Indirect Corroboration

▪ Assyrian Records and Dynastic Context: Assyrian kings such as Shalmaneser III and Adad-nirari III recorded interactions with Israel’s rulers. While they specifically named Jehu in earlier annals and later mention other Israelite kings (like Jehoash/Joash), they did not always chronicle each monarch in the intervening period. Nevertheless, the continuity of Jehu’s line in Scripture matches the broader picture of the time.

▪ Aramean Conflicts: 2 Kings 13 portrays conflicts involving Hazael. Archaeological evidence (like certain Aramaic inscriptions) reinforces the historical reality of Hazael’s reign. Though these inscriptions emphasize Hazael’s conquests or expansions, the tension between Aram-Damascus and Israel is well attested, supporting the context in which Jehoahaz is described.

3. Josephus’s References

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, in his work “Antiquities of the Jews” (Book 9, Chapter 8), retells many of Israel’s royal narratives, including Jehoahaz. While Josephus’s account follows the biblical storyline and may not provide fresh archaeological detail, it does confirm that by the first century AD, Jewish historical tradition viewed Jehoahaz as a genuine figure within his dynasty.

Does the Lack of Direct Evidence Cast Doubt on the Historicity?

1. Absence of Evidence vs. Evidence of Absence

Scholars in ancient Near Eastern history frequently note that archaeological gaps are common. Countless records have been lost to time through war, natural decay, and the limited scope of excavations. The absence of specifically naming Jehoahaz in contemporary inscriptions does not equate to disproving his existence.

2. Comparable Biblical Rulers

Many lesser-known kings from neighboring cultures are attested in only one or two inscriptions—or remain unattested altogether—yet no serious historian assumes they never lived. The interplay of biblical, historical, and archaeological data often involves piecing together partial information.

3. Consistency with Demonstrated Historical Patterns

Where the Bible has been testable (e.g., major events, major kings named in multiple sources), it has frequently proven accurate. Major biblical figures such as Hezekiah, Sennacherib, Jehu, and others have significant corroboration. That Jehoahaz does not appear in existing records is not anomalous; it simply reflects the fragmentary nature of ancient documentation.

The Broader Reliability of the Biblical Narrative

1. Internal Cohesion of Kings

The Books of Kings and Chronicles are marked by geneaological and chronological data linking multiple Israelite and Judean monarchs together. Jehoahaz’s shortfall against Aram is described consistently with the broader narrative of covenant faithfulness versus disobedience. The broader historical settings—like the rise of Aramean power—are affirmed by external sources.

2. Archaeological Confirmations Elsewhere in Kings

Episodes in Kings frequently intersect with verifiable external evidence (e.g., the mention of Shalmaneser III, references to Hazael’s expansions, and the existence of stelae like Tel Dan). Although the name of Jehoahaz himself remains elusive in surviving monuments, the general alignment of events and historical context reinforces the credibility of the biblical account.

3. Manuscript Reliability

Multiple manuscript traditions (Hebrew Masoretic Text, Dead Sea Scrolls portions, Septuagint fragments) show consistent renderings of Jehoahaz’s reign. Textual critics note no significant discrepancy in how the name “Jehoahaz” appears, reflecting a stable, carefully preserved record.

Conclusion

While no surviving extrabiblical inscription explicitly names Jehoahaz, evidence for the surrounding political and historical climate (including references to Jehu, the Aramean kings Hazael and Ben-Hadad, and larger Assyrian campaigns) supports the framework in which 2 Kings 13:1–9 places him. The absence of data referencing Jehoahaz by name is not unusual for additional rulers of this period, nor does it undermine the cohesive witness of Scripture.

The biblical narrative retains strong historical plausibility, given the overall archaeological context and the consistent witness of literary sources. Rather than casting doubt on the text, the current state of extrabiblical records simply illustrates a broader pattern that only certain figures—especially those momentarily significant to foreign empires—appear abundantly in inscriptions. Taken together, there is no compelling reason to question the historicity of Jehoahaz or 2 Kings 13:1–9.