How can we trust the historicity of this sudden coup described in 2 Chronicles 23 when there is limited archaeological evidence?

Historical and Scriptural Context

Second Chronicles 23 recounts a dramatic moment when a high priest named Jehoiada led an uprising to depose Athaliah, who had usurped the throne in Judah. The passage describes how Jehoiada carefully organized the Levites and guards, instated the rightful king Joash, and executed Athaliah’s supporters. This account is also paralleled in 2 Kings 11, reinforcing its importance in the biblical narrative. Though physical archaeological artifacts that directly reference this sudden coup are scarce, the broader historical and cultural context supports the reliability of the text.

The text reads:

“Then in the seventh year, Jehoiada strengthened himself and made a covenant with the commanders of hundreds…” (2 Chronicles 23:1).

This provides the timing (seventh year of Athaliah’s reign), leadership (Jehoiada the priest), and involvement of specific military commanders. Additionally, we learn that:

“All the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was quiet after Athaliah had been put to the sword.” (2 Chronicles 23:21).

Such statements reflect the significance of a successful coronation that restored rightful rule, aligning with the wider narrative of preserving the line of David.

Consistency with Parallel Accounts and Genealogies

A key factor in trusting the historicity of this passage is its alignment with other parts of Scripture. Second Kings 11:4–20 describes the same event in close detail, demonstrating internal consistency within the Hebrew Scriptures. The broader genealogies and references to the Davidic line across the Old Testament also affirm the rightful place of Joash on the throne.

The genealogical records in 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles interlock with the kings’ genealogies listed in 1 Kings and 2 Kings. These lists were highly valued by ancient Israel, as lineage determined priestly roles, tribal inheritances, and royal legitimacy. Such coherence—across multiple books—reinforces the plausibility of the coup narrative around Joash.

Textual Evidence and Manuscript Transmission

Surviving manuscripts, such as those that led to the Masoretic Text tradition, have shown extraordinary care in transmission. Even though 2 Chronicles 23 is part of a larger historical writing, scribal practices sought to preserve the original wording meticulously. For instance, the Chronicler’s narrative has been confirmed time and again in broad strokes through cross-checking with the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and various Hebrew scrolls, including some fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The textual consistency is significant. As places and events described in 1 and 2 Kings or 1 and 2 Chronicles have been corroborated by external sources (e.g., references to the “House of David” on the Tel Dan Stele), it adds confidence in the Chronicler’s historical reliability. While the specific events of the coup in 2 Chronicles 23 may not appear on known inscriptions, the Chronicler’s track record in accurately preserving historical details lends credibility to his account.

Archaeological Evidence and Limitations

Archaeology from this particular time period in Judah does not provide a wealth of written inscriptions focusing on specific, short-lived courtroom intrigues. Ancient records often documented major building projects or military conquests, not necessarily a coup within palace confines. Absence of direct physical evidence does not equate to disproof. Many known historical events from the ancient Near East are validated partly by textual testimony and only later confirmed by archaeological finds.

However, incidental support does exist:

• Excavations in the City of David region have revealed the administrative complexity of Judah, indicating a structured monarchy capable of palace intrigue.

• Stratigraphic layers and fortification remains near Jerusalem are consistent with an active and distinct royal seat of power during the approximate decades in question.

• Seal impressions (bullae) bearing the names of royal officials and priests show the high organizational level in Judah’s leadership—matching the idea that Jehoiada could coordinate guards and Levites for a coup.

Cultural and Historical Corroboration

Ancient Near Eastern documents often describe coups, assassinations, and power shifts as typical facets of dynastic politics. While 2 Chronicles 23 does not appear in external records such as Assyrian or Babylonian annals, it is consistent with the pattern of regional power struggles during that era. In other words, a sudden overthrow by a high-ranking priest to support the rightful heir was not out of place culturally or historically.

Additionally, Josephus’ “Antiquities of the Jews” (written in the first century AD) discusses many of the kings of Judah and Israel. Though Josephus may not provide exhaustive commentary on every aspect of Jehoiada’s actions, he consistently affirms the Davidic line’s significance and generally follows the biblical descriptions of the monarchy. This partial external reference to the dynastic continuity supports the biblical narrative’s broader setting.

Reliability of the Chronicler’s Historical Approach

The Chronicler was motivated both by a theological perspective (showing God’s ongoing covenant with David’s line) and by a desire to preserve accurate historical records for post-exilic Israel. This means historical events were not invented but selected and recorded to communicate the faithfulness of God across generations.

Moreover, there is no indication that 2 Chronicles 23 was embellished to flatter any contemporary ruling class. The text presents the period realistically: the monarchy was embattled, religious reforms were necessary, and leadership was not guaranteed. Such honesty in Scripture’s portrayal of both triumphs and failures strengthens its credibility.

Philosophical and Faith Considerations

Trusting historical narratives from ancient documents requires examining textual integrity, archaeological insights, cultural consistency, and the document’s overall track record of reliability. The Hebrew Scriptures have repeatedly demonstrated verifiable details (e.g., references to historical kings, places, and events) that align with known history.

Additionally, many rely on the internal coherence and self-authenticating quality of Scripture:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Though archaeological data can be limited, the textual convergence, cultural plausibility, and proven accuracy in other events point toward the trustworthiness of 2 Chronicles 23.

Conclusion

Even with limited direct archaeological artifacts referencing 2 Chronicles 23, there is considerable reason to trust its historicity. The coup narrative matches the cultural and political realities of that era, aligns with other scriptural accounts (especially 2 Kings 11), fits a consistent textual tradition, and is preserved in manuscripts that have proven reliable. While archaeology sometimes uncovers dramatic evidence for biblical events, the absence of specific inscriptions about singular palace coups does not undercut the broader, well-established credibility of the biblical record.

The text itself, set within the overarching narrative of a faithful God preserving the Davidic line, stands as a dependable historical report. Subsequent discoveries in and around ancient Jerusalem only lend further support to the notion that biblical accounts faithfully reflect the events of Judah’s monarchy, reinforcing confidence in the historicity of 2 Chronicles 23.