King Jehoram was the ninth king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and the final king of the Omride Dynasty, who ruled in the 9th century B.C. He reigned for 12 years, according to the Bible (2 Kings 3:1). Jehoram’s name – consisting of the verb rum and the theophoric element yah (an abbreviation of the divine name YHWH/Jehovah) – probably means something along the lines of “whom Jehovah/Yahweh has exalted” (Smith 1901), or “Jehovah/Yahweh is Exalted” (NBD, p. 556). He is not to be confused with King Jehoram of Judah, who reigned contemporary to King Jehoram of Israel.

The son of King Ahab and the notorious Queen Jezebel, Jehoram became king after the premature death of his brother, Ahaziah (2 Kings 1:17-18). He was also a contemporary of the Israelite prophet Elisha. On the whole, Jehoram reigned at a tumultuous time in Israel’s history, with his final military campaign and death marking the end of the Omride Dynasty and paving the way for Israel’s oppression under King Hazael (2 Kings 10:32-33).

Chronology

King Jehoram reigned around the area of 860-840 B.C., but – as is the case with all Israelite and Judahite kings – it’s difficult to get exact regnal years for his kingship. Jehoram’s father, Ahab, is recorded on the Kurkh Monolith – an Assyrian monumental inscription – as having participated in the Battle of Qarqar in the sixth regnal year of Assyrian king Shalmaneser III – or circa. 853 B.C. (RIMA 3, A.0. 102.2, lines 89b-102), and his successor, King Jehu, is recorded as having paid tribute to Shalmaneser III in his eighteenth year – circa. 841 B.C. (RIMA 3, A.0. 102.88). It thus follows that Jehoram had to have reigned between circa. 853/852 B.C. and 841 B.C.; that’s our chronological window.

This window creates somewhat of a problem. According to 2 Kings 3:1, Jehoram reigned for 12 years in Samaria and that he became king in Year 18 of King Jehoshaphat of Judah (2 Kings 1:17, however, claims that Jehoram became king in Year 2 of King Joram of Judah). There is, thus, a difficulty of squeezing a reign of 12 years into the space of 853/852 B.C. and 841 B.C. Some scholars have opted for shortening Jehoram’s reign to 7/8 years (Albright 1945, p. 21; Laato 1986, p. 220-221), while others argue that – when the general chronological rules of the biblical writers are taken into consideration – Jehoram could still have reigned for 12 years given our extrabiblical data.

The following are some of the regnal dates that have been assigned to King Jehoram,

-917-905 B.C.E. (IOTS-1, Ibid).

-852-841 B.C.E. (Thiele 1983, p. 99).

-851-845 B.C.E. (Laato 1986, p. 221).

-849-842 B.C.E. (Albright 1945, Ibid).

Military Campaigns

Assyria

In the 9th century B.C., the expansionist policies of Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (c. 859-824 B.C.E.) threatened the sovereignty of the various kingdoms in the Levant of the time, including Aram-Damascus, Hamath, and Israel. Assyrian records record that an anti-Assyrian coalition was formed by Aramean king Hadadezer (probably the same as the “Ben-Hadad” of 2 Kings 8:7-15) and Hamathite king Irhuleni that comprised of various states throughout the Levant, including King Ahab of Israel, Jehoram’s father. This coalition fought against the Assyrians at the notorious Battle of Qarqar in 853 B.C.E. The Kurkh Monolith, a monumental inscription of Shalmaneser III, records the following regarding the alliance

An alliance had been formed of (lit. “he/it had taken as his allies”) these twelve kings: 1,200 chariots, 1,200 cavalry, (and) 20,000 troops of Hadad-ezer of Damascus; 700 chariots, 700 cavalry, (and) 10,000 troops of Irḫulena of the land Hamath; 2,000 chariots (and) 10,000 troops of Ahab the Israelite; 500 troops of Byblos; 1,000 troops of Egypt; 10 chariots (and) 10,000 troops of the land Arqâ (Irqanatu); 200 troops of Mattan-Baʾal of the city Arwad; 200 troops of the land Usnû (Usanātu); 30 chariots (and) [N],000 troops of Adūnī-Baʾal of the land Siʾannu; 1,000 camels of Gindibuʾ of the land of the Arabs; (and) [N] hundred troops (ii 95) of Baʾsa of (Bīt-)Ruḫubi (lit. “son of Ruḫubu”), of the land (Bīt-)Ammon. They attacked to [wage] war and battle against me.

RIMA 3, A.0. 102.2, lines 89b-102

The anti-Assyrian coalition survived this conflict, and Assyrian records indicate that Shalmaneser III fought further battles with this coalition in 849 B.C.E. (RIMA 3, A.0. 102.2, lines ii.55-67), 848 B.C.E. (RIMA 3, A.0. 102.2, lines ii.68-iii.19), and 845 B.C.E. (RIMA 3, A.0. 102.2, lines iii.24-33). This would have co-incided with the reign of Jehoram in Israel.

The records of the later conflicts do not mention Jehoram or Israel as being a part of the conflicts, but there is no good reason to doubt that Israel under Jehoram continued to participate in the anti-Assyrian coalition. The Assyrian records may not mention Israel, but they do mention the “twelve kings on the shore of the sea” who fought alongside Hadadezer and Irhuleni (the only kings mentioned). Additionally, not even Ahab is mentioned as having participated in the coalition in some other Assyrian records (eg. RIMA 3, A.0. 102.6, lines ii.19-33), even though the Kurkh Monolith confirms that he was a part of the coalition.

It is thus most likely, then, that Jehoram waged war against the king of Assyria in various battles as a part of an anti-Assyrian coalition spearheaded by Hadadezer and Irhuleni, continuing the anti-Assyrian policy of his father. Shalmaneser III, in his inscriptions, claims decisive victory over the coalition in the Battle of Qarqar and the following conflicts; however, given (1) the fact that the kings who participated in the coalition remained in power, even after the conflicts that they allegedly were defeated in, (2) the fact that Shalmaneser III had to re-confront the coalition various times after he allegedly defeated them, and (3) the propagandistic literary nature of Assyrian monumental inscriptions, which consistently exaggerated military victories and marginalized or omitted defeats, most scholars seem to believe that, though the Assyrians achieved some limited successes, they were not decisively victorious over the coalition, and the conflicts at Qarqar and after were most likely closer to stalemates (Younger 2007, p. 253-256).

Moab

To Israel’s southeast, across the Jordan River was the Kingdom of Moab, a kingdom which had very interesting and quite bloody relations with the Israelites in the 9th century B.C.E. – and this included a military conflict that King Jehoram engaged in.

Much of our knowledge of the history of Moab and of Moabite-Israelite relations comes from a famous inscription known as the Mesha Stele (also known as the Moabite Stone). The Mesha Stele is a monumental Moabite victory inscription commissioned by King Mesha of Moab, a contemporary of King Jehoram who reigned in the mid-late 9th century B.C. (2 Kings 3:4). The inscription was discovered in 1868, and is written in Canaanite script, consisting of 34 lines of text. The inscription is written in first-person from Mesha’s point of view, and commemorates the military victories and building projects of this king, giving ultimate praise and credit to Chemosh, the national god of the Moabites.

According to lines 4-9 of the Mesha Stele, in the early 9th century B.C., Israelite king Omri – Jehoram’s grandfather – waged a military campaign against the Moabites (whose king at the time was Kemoshyat, Mesha’s father), , and subjugated them to Israelite rule.

Omri was king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab for many days, for Chemosh was angry with his country. His son succeeded him, and he too
said: “I will oppress Moab.” In my days he said th[is]. But I prevailed over him and over his house, and Israel perished utterly for ever. Now Omri had taken possession of a[ll the la]nd of Medeba, and dwelt there during his days and half of his son’s days, forty years; but Chemosh returned it in my days.

Na’aman 2007.

The biblical sources do not mention this specific military campaign, but they do make clear that Moab was under Israelite vassalage throughout the reign of Omri’s son, Ahab (2 Kings 1:1; 3:4). When Omri subjugated Moab, he annexed the territory of Medeba (also known as the Mishor) – north of Dibon – into Israel, leaving the rest of Moab’s territory to the south under a vassal Moabite monarchy. The Israelites demanded heavy tribute to the Moabites (2 Kings 3:4), and also – likely over time – constructed military forts in the annexed Moabite territory (Mesha Stele, lines 10, 18; Finkelstein and Lipschits 2010; Edwards 2019). The nation of Moab was, thus, in a period of dire national oppression, for many decades. According to the Mesha Stele, this happened because Chemosh was angry with the Moabite people for an unspecified reason.

After the death of King Ahab in circa. 853 B.C.E., Moabite king Mesha – perhaps also seeing how Israelite forces were tied down many miles to the north fighting against the Assyrians at Qarqar – saw the opportunity to revolt, and throw off the shackles of his Israelite oppressors. He, thus, stopped paying tribute to the Israelites, and formally revolted against their rule. Some scholars believe that the military campaigns – and even some of the building projects – that King Mesha records on the Mesha Stele occurred following his revolt (eg. Sprinkle 1999; Rendsburg 1981). For several reasons – including some that will be listed below – this is highly unlikely, for a variety of reasons:

(1): The stele itself had to have been written much later, given its knowledge of Israel’s downfall (line 7), and the various building projects it describes, which would be impossible to undertake in a short period of time (Na’aman 2007b; Lemaire 2007; Bolen 2013). The inscription’s knowledge of these events shows that it was probably erected later in the 9th century B.C. – the time of Jehu and Jehoahaz.

(2): Mesha does not describe major military conflicts with the Israelites in his inscription; rather, he simply describes the capturing of cities, without much mention of significant military conflict. Jehoram – along with his father and grandfather – was a powerful king militarily, as the Tel Dan Stele especially testifies to (see below), and the idea of Moabite forces capturing sites without major military engagement does not fit the reality of Jehoram’s reign. It does, however, fit the realities of the reigns of Jehu and Jehoahaz in the 9th century B.C., since this was a time of general Israelite military weakening and the loss of territory east of the Jordan (2 Kings 10:32, 33), and especially since the Bible mentions Moabite marauders raiding Israelite territory east of the Jordan during Jehoahaz’s reign (2 Kings 13:20-21).

(3): The Bible, at 2 Kings 10:32, 33, explicitly places the time of Israel’s loss of the territory that Mesha claims to have conquered the territory during the reign of Jehu, not Jehoram. Thus, evidently, Jehoram still held this territory during his reign, and it was only lost to the Moabites during the reign of Jehu (Bolen 2013, p. 46).

Thus, it is most likely that Mesha’s military campaigns and building projects he describes in the stele occurred not during Jehoram’s reign, but later in Israelite history.

The Bible, at 2 Kings 3:4-27, records a narrative – a prophetic story, based on Elisha – of a military campaign waged by King Jehoram against the Moabites after Mesha’s revolt. Jehoram formed an anti-Moabite coalition with Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, and an unnamed king of Edom (2 Kings 3:9). The coalition attacked from the south, confronting the Moabites and destroying their cities (2 Kings 3:21-24; cf. 2 Kings 3:14-19). The only Moabite city still standing after these attacks was Kir-Hareseth, which the coalition surrounded and attacked (2 Kings 3:25). After a failed attempt to relieve the situation, and now in dire national distress, King Mesha publicly sacrificed his son and regnal heir as a burnt offering on the wall of the city. After this, “the fury against Israel was great”, and the coalition withdrew from the land of Moab, with Mesha having ultimately gained the victory (2 Kings 3:25-27).

There are many possible interesting questions and historical inquiries one can make regarding the narrative in 2 Kings 3:4-27. The mention of the king of Edom as participating in this conflict raises some questions, since the Bible states that Edom was subjugated to Judah at this time and that there was no independent Edomite kingdom until slightly later in time (1 Kings 22:47; 2 Kings 8:20-22; see Sprinkle 1999 for a possible solution). There are also many questions regarding the chronology of this event relative to the chronology of the kings of Judah (

However, it is probable that Jehoram did wage war against the Moabites after their revolt; it is unlikely that Jehoram would have taken no military action against a revolting state. The participation of the king of Judah in this event is also quite plausible, given that both biblical and extra-biblical evidence show that Israel and Judah were close political and military allies at this time (eg. 1 Kings 22:44; 2 Kings 8:18, 28-29; Tel Dan Stele, lines 7-8). Thus, it is probable that, following Mesha’s revolt, a coalition comprising of Israel and Judah (and perhaps Edom aswell, depending on one’s interpretation) was formed, and that this coalition campaigned against Moab. Though gaining some successes, their campaign ultimately failed to squash King Mesha, and the coalition was forced to withdraw. Mesha and the Moabites gained the victory.

Aram-Damascus

The Bible’s record of Jehoram’s reign gives the implication that his reign was marked by significant armed conflicts between Israel and Aram-Damascus, a kingdom to the north of Israel. It contains three prophetic stories regarding Israelite-Aramean relations:

-2 Kings 5:1-27, which records how Na’aman, the chief of the Aramean military, was healed of his leprosy by bathing in the Jordan River in Israel.

-2 Kings 6:8-23, which records military ventures of “the king of Aram” in Israel, including the miraculous account of Elisha in Dothan.

-2 Kings 6:23-7:20, which records the siege of Samaria by King Ben-Hadad of Aram-Damascus, and the departure of the Aremeans from this city after fear of foreign threats.

Though these narratives are placed in Jehoram’s timeframe in the biblical composition, several scholars have doubted whether they actually refer to events during his reign. They have argued that the events these narratives describe actually happened in later periods, during the reigns of Jehoahaz and/or Jehoash (eg. Na’aman 2007a; Pitard 1987). Support for these views comes from a variety of angles.

Firstly, Jehoram is not named in any of these accounts; the Israelite monarch is simply called “the king of Israel” instead of being named (eg. 2 Kings 5:7, 8; 6:9, 26). Some scholars have expressed the view that the author may have done this for theological reasons (Long 1987, p. 387; Bolen 2013, p. 32), but it nonetheless opens the possibility that the king in these texts was not Jehoram. In addition, the Aramean king is called “Ben-Hadad”, and though this same name was used in 2 Kings 8:7-15 to definitely refer to Hadadezer of Aram-Damascus, it is also possible – perhaps probable when combined with other evidence – that this refers to Ben-Hadad, son of Hazael, who ruled and warred with Israel at the turn of the 8th century B.C.; during the reigns of Jehoahaz and Jehoash.

Secondly, Elisha is portrayed as compliant to the king of Israel (2 Kings 6:9-10), while it is known that Elisha – as a prophet of YHWH – was opposed to Jehoram (2 Kings 3:13-14; 9:1-10).

Thirdly, and most importantly, the geopolitical conditions in these narratives better fit the reigns of Jehoahaz or Jehoash. These accounts record a stronger Aram-Damascus at war with and oppressing a weaker Israel (eg. 2 Kings 5:2, 6:8, 17, 19-20, 24; 7:12), which is exactly what things were like during the reigns of Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Jehoash (see 2 Kings 10:32, 33; 13:1-7). On the other hand, our available historical evidence shows that (1) Israel was allied with Aram-Damascus in Jehoram’s days, in opposition to the Assyrians (see above discussion on Assyria), and (2) Israel and Aram-Damascus were both powerful independent states in the time of Ahab and Jehoram (see both the Kurkh Monolith and the Tel Dan Stele), and it is unlikely that either state significantly weakened or oppressed one another.

Probabilistically speaking, the cumulative evidence thus seems to weigh in favor of these narratives not referring to events in the reign of Jehoram, but rather, referring to events at the time of later Israelite kings Jehoahaz and/or Jehoash.

When these narratives are removed from Jehoram’s timeframe, it becomes clear that Israel and Aram-Damascus were allied states during Jehoram’s reign, and that there were no significant military conflicts between the two. That is, before a certain important historical event changed the entire scene, which we will cover below…

Religious Policy

Given the biblical data and memory, it seems that Jehoram’s father, Ahab – probably under the influence of his notorious Phoenician wife Jezebel, and the “Canaanite” segments of Israel’s population living in the lowlands – pursued a religious policy that allowed for Canaanite worship – which included the worship of the Canaanite storm deity Baal – to be tolerated alongside worship of YHWH. This included the construction of a sanctuary for Baal in Samaria (1 Kings 16:31-32). However, Ahab himself was probably a worshipper of YHWH, given the fact that his known children – Ahaziah and Jehoram – bear YHWH-theophoric names (see also how Ahab, in some cases, responded to the demands of Elijah, a prophet of YHWH; 1 Kings 21).

Jehoram was – like all Israelite and Judahite kings – probably also a worshipper of YHWH (cf. 2 Kings 3:3). His condemnation in the Bible comes from him – like all other kings of the Northern Kingdom – not worshipping YHWH in the right way according to the biblical authors, and out of a general political spite towards the apostate Northern Kingdom. There is, however, a very interesting biblical note regarding Jehoram’s religious policies.

2 Kings 3:2 interestingly reports the following about Jehoram,

He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, but not as his father and mother had done. He got rid of the sacred stone of Baal that his father had made.

The text states that Jehoram removed a “sacred stone of Baal” that King Ahab had purportedly made; clearly an act of reform against Canaanite religion. Because of this, Jehoram is stated to have not been as apostate of a king as his father was. Jehoram’s reform that is recorded in this text is very probably historical; it is almost unconceivable that the authors of the Bible would just invent a narrative that is clearly positive towards a northern Omride king, given how negative the biblical portrayal of the Omrides is. Jehoram could have possibly done this in order to form a compromise with worshippers of YHWH in his inner circle (Thiel 1992, p. 951). Andre Lemaire also suggests that the object may have been located outside of Baal’s temple in Samaria, which may have been disturbing to Jehoram and the Israelites (Lemaire 2008, p. 49).

What exactly was the object that Jehoram removed? It could have been either (1) a rough stone, meant to be combined with an altar and a sacred tree, serving the function of a sacred pillar, (2), a relief depicting Baal, or (3) a votive stele with an inscription honoring Baal, similar to the ones at Ugarit (Lemaire 2008, p. 45).

On the whole, though, Jehoram probably continued his father’s policy of compromise between the worship of YHWH and the worship of Baal, especially given the Baal temple’s continued existence in Samaria (cf. 2 Kings 10:18-28), and the Baal worshipper Jezebel’s continued high status in Israel throughout Jehoram’s reign (cf. 2 Kings 10:13; Thiel 1992, Ibid).

The Campaign at Ramoth-gilead and Jehoram’s Death

In approximately 844 B.C.E., an event occurred that changed the entire political scene of the Levant. As both the Bible and Assyrian records report, King Hadadezer of Aram-Damascus died at this time, and importantly, a usurper named Hazael took the throne of Aram-Damascus (2 Kings 8:7-15; 2 Kings 8:7-15; RIMA 3, A.0. 102.40, lines i.25-ii.6).

It seems that Hazael’s coming to the throne resulted in the dissolution of the anti-Assyrian coalition. The other monarchs in the coalition probably did not support Hazael as ruler, viewing him as illegitimate, and thus decided to break away from the coalition. We can infer this from the fact that Assyrian records indicate that during his campaigns a couple years after Hazael’s ascension, it was Aram-Damascus fighting alone against the Assyrians (RIMA 3, A.0.102.10, lines iii.45b-iv.15a).

Consequently, with the coalition dissolved, King Jehoram of Israel, along with King Ahaziah of Judah, took the opportunity to wage war against the Arameans, probably in light of Shalmaneser III’s attacks on Aram-Damascus (Sergi 2017, p. 91). Specifically, Jehoram and Ahaziah had the goal of capturing the strategic site of Ramoth-gilead, located in Transjordan at the border between Israel and Aram-Damascus. This account is recorded in two different biblical texts (2 Kings 8:28, 29; 9:14b-16). However, it is also recorded in a monumental Aramean inscription known as the Tel Dan Stele.

The Tel Dan Stele is a monumental victory stele written in Aramaic, discovered at the site of Tel Dan in northern Israel in 1993-1994 (Brian and Naveh 1993; 1995). Though the inscription is fragmentary and broken and hard to reconstruct, it was, in fact, most likely written by King Hazael of Aram-Damascus, given that (1) it is a stele in the Aramaic language, and (2) it records a conflict with the contemporary kings Jehoram and Ahaziah. The stele is very well known for providing the earliest reference to David (or, more accurately, the “House of David” or “Beth-David”) anywhere outside the Bible.

What does the Tel Dan Stele say? The translation of the inscription by epigrapher Andre Lemaire says the following,

[….]..[………….] and cut […………..]

[……..] my father went up [………………f]ighting at/against Ab[…………………….]

And my father lay down; he went to his [fathers]. And the king of I[s-]

rael penetrated into my father’s land[. And] Hadad made me – myself – king.

And Hadad went in front of me[, and] I departed from…………..

[………………]

of my kings. And I killed two [power]ful kin[gs], who harnessed two thou[sand cha-]

riots and two thousand horsemen. [I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab]

king of Israel, and I killed [Ahaz]iah son of [Jehoram king]

of the House of David. And I set […………………………………………………]

their land …[……………………………………………..]

other ….[…………………………………………… and Jehu ru-]

led over Is[rael……………………………………………………………….]

siege upon […………………………………………..

Lemaire 1998.

Considerable debate exists over the translation and interpretation of lines 3-4 of the inscription. Though the word qdm was originally rendered “previously” by the excavators (“And the king of Israel entered previously in my father’s land”; Biran and Naveh 1995, p. 13), this translation is now considered widely problematic; scholars now favor interpretations that render the word as a verb (Na’aman 2000; Sergi 2007; Lemaire 1998) or even as a toponym (Knapp 2014). In either of the latter cases, the inscription, along with the biblical note in 2 Kings 8:28, confirm that it was Jehoram and Ahaziah who were aggressors in the conflict, rather than Hazael (cf. 2 Kings 9:14-16).

Two main sites have been proposed for the identification of Ramoth-gilead, the site that Jehoram and Ahaziah attacked in their campaign; Tell er-Rumeith, located 15 km. east of Irbid, and Ramtha, located 7 km. north of Tell er-Rumeith. Given the fact Tell er-Rumeith’s size, and how it only functioned as a small fort for a short period of time, it is likely not biblical Ramoth-gilead (Finkelstein 2013, p. 22; the site was probably still important in the context of Israelite-Aramean military conflicts, though). Ramtha yielded pottery from the Iron Age I and II, and seems to be large enough to house the site of Ramoth-gilead (Finkelstein 2013, p. 22-23). Thus, Ramtha is quite plausibly the location of biblical Ramoth-gilead.

Jehoram and Ahaziah are reported on the Tel Dan inscription to have been “powerful kings” who “harnessed two thousand chariots and two thousand horsemen” at the Battle of Ramoth-gilead (lines 6-7). Though these numbers and the general rhetoric cannot be taken at face value (the Tel Dan Stele is a propagandistic inscription dedicated at legitimizing Hazael’s kingship, after all), they testify to the military power that the Israelites and Judahites wielded in this conflict against Aram-Damascus. Ultimately, despite pressure from the Assyrians to the north, and from the Israelites and Judahites from the south, Hazael and the Arameans held out successfully. Fascinatingly, they managed to defeat Jehoram and Ahaziah, winning the Battle of Ramoth-gilead and largely securing their southern flank (Tel Dan Stele, lines 5-9; 2 Kings 8:28-29; see also 2 Kings 10:32, 33).

What was more, it was after this that things got bad for both of the kingdoms that had attacked the Arameans. Around this time, Jehu, a military chief of the Israelites who fought at Ramoth-gilead, gained the support of the Israelite military, and launched a coup d’etat against King Jehoram. Jehu killed everyone in both Jezreel and Samaria who supported the Omride Dynasty and/or even remotely had a claim to the throne of Israel – including Queen Jezebel. Now, along with the war with Aram-Damascus, Israel was now in full political strife, with a sudden change in their leader; Jehu was now king (2 Kings 9-10; Hosea 1:4).

In this madness, what happened to Jehoram and Ahaziah themselves? It’s here that the available historical sources get confusing, and seemingly contradictory. We know for certain that both monarchs died at about the time of Jehu’s coup; both the biblical sources and the Tel Dan inscription report this. However, what is uncertain is the identity of the killers of these kings. The biblical narratives in the Second Book of Kings recount that Jehoram and Ahaziah were both killed by Jehu in his coup; Jehoram was shot with a bow and arrow in a field in Jezreel (2 Kings 9:24), while Ahaziah was fatally wounded while fleeing from Jehu and his supporters, finally dying after reaching the city of Megiddo (2 Kings 9:27, 28). However, on the Tel Dan Stele, Hazael seems to claim that he killed these two kings during the conflict at Ramoth-gilead – “I killed Jehoram son of Ahab king of Israel, and I killed Ahaziah son of Jehoram king of the House of David” (lines 7-9).

Different scholars have different approaches to looking at these accounts. Several scholars have argued that the Tel Dan Stele’s report is more reliable, given its close date to the time period it describes, and have argued that Jehoram and Ahaziah were killed by Hazael and that Jehu’s coup occurred in the aftermath of this, after the two kings were killed (Na’aman 1999; 2000; 2006), whereas some have argued that Jehu was acting under Hazael’s jurisdiction, and that Hazael thus took credit for the killings (Stith 2004; Schniedewind 1996), or that the verb rendered “to kill” on the Tel Dan inscription has been mistranslated, and that Hazael merely claimed to have wounded the two kings (Yamada 1995). On the whole, the identity of the murderer(s) of Jehoram and Ahaziah looks ambiguous. But, on the whole, the historical portrait is clear; the two kings lost the battle, were killed around that time, and Jehu usurped the throne, becoming the new king of Israel.

Conclusion

Jehoram was a particularly fascinating and significant king in the history of the Northern Kingdom. A powerful monarch militarily and geopolitically, much of his reign was occupied by conflicts with the Assyrians far to the north in Hamath as a part of an anti-Assyrian resistance coalition. Moab revolted during his reign, and he failed to re-subjugate this kingdom to his rule.

Soon enough, geopolitical conditions gave him the opportunity to wage war against Hazael, the king of Aram-Damascus. But, he failed, and around this time, he also died, along with his relative Ahaziah, the king of Judah.

After Jehoram’s death, things became very distressful for the Israelites. Jehu – a usurper who had eliminated the Omride Dynasty by blood – was now king, and his geopolitical strategy was to be somewhat different to Jehoram’s. In time, King Hazael of Aram-Damascus defeated the Israelites in numerous military engagements and campaigned in the land of Israel, destroying cities and reducing the Israelite kingdom to a shadow of what it had been before (2 Kings 10:32, 33; cf. 2 Kings 8:12). With the death of Jehoram and the end of the Omride Dynasty, an era ended, and a new era of great suffering and oppression began for the Israelites.

Bibliography

NBD = New Bible Dictionary. Douglas, J.D., ed. 1982 (second edition). Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, IL, USA

RIMA 3 = Grayson, Albert Kirk. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC. United Kingdom, University of Toronto Press, 199

Albright, William Foxwell. “The chronology of the divided monarchy of Israel.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 100.1 (1945): 16-22.

Biran, Avraham, and Joseph Naveh. “An aramaic stele fragment from Tel Dan.” Israel Exploration Journal (1993): 81-98.

Biran, Avraham, and Joseph Naveh. “The Tel Dan inscription: a new fragment.” Israel Exploration Journal (1995): 1-18.

Bolen, Todd. The Aramean Oppression of Israel in the Reign of Jehu. Diss. Dallas Theological Seminary, 2013.

Edwards, Steven. “Omride architecture at the town of Nebo.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953-) (2019): 143-157.

Finkelstein, Israel, and Oded Lipschits. “Omride Architecture in Moab: Jahaz and Ataroth.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (2010): 29-42.

Finkelstein, Israel, Oded Lipschits, and Omer Sergi. “Tell er-Rumeith in Northern Jordan: some archaeological and historical observations.” Semitica 55 (2013): 7-23.

Laato, Antti. “New Viewpoints on the Chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel.” (1986): 210-221.

Lemaire, André. “The Tel Dan stela as a piece of royal historiography.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament23.81 (1998): 3-14.

Lemaire, André. “The Mesha stele and the Omri dynasty.” LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES 421 (2007): 135.

Lemaire, André. “A Forgotten Cultic Reform? 2 Kings 3: 2b.” Sacred History, Sacred Literature: Essays on Ancient Isarel, the Bible and Religion in Honor of R. E. Friedman on His Sixtieth Birthday. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns (2008): 43-50.

Long, Burke O. “Framing Repetitions in Biblical Historiography.” Journal of biblical Literature 106.3 (1987): 385-399.

Na’aman, Nadav. “The Contribution of Royal Inscriptions for a Re-evaluation of the Book of Kings as a Historical Source.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 24.82 (1999): 3-17.

Naʾaman, Nadav. “Three notes on the aramaic inscription from Tel Dan.” Israel Exploration Journal (2000): 92-104.

Naʾaman, Nadav. “The Story of Jehu’s Rebellion: Hazael’s Inscription and the Biblical Narrative.” Israel exploration journal (2006): 160-166.

Na’aman, Nadav. “The Northern Kingdom in the Late Tenth-Ninth Centuries BCE.” PROCEEDINGS-BRITISH ACADEMY. Vol. 143. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS INC., 2007a.

Na aman, Nadav. “Royal inscription versus prophetic story: Mesha’s rebellion according to biblical and moabite historiography.” LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES 421 (2007b): 145.

Pitard, Wayne Thomas. Ancient Damascus: A Historical Study of the Syrian City-state from Earliest Times Until Its Fall to the Assyrians in 732 B.C.E.. United States, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1987.

Schniedewind, William M. “Tel Dan stela: New light on Aramaic and Jehu’s revolt.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 302.1 (1996): 75-90.

Sergi, Omer. “The Battle of Ramoth-gilead and the Rise of the Aramean Hegemony in the Southern Levant during the Second Half of the 9th Century BCE.” Wandering Arameans (2017): 81-100.

Sprinkle, Joe M. “2 Kings 3: History or Historical Fiction?.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 9.1 (1999): 247-270.

Stith, D. Matthew. The Coups of Hazael and Jehu: Building an Historical Narrative. Princeton Theological Seminary, 2004.

Thiel, Winfried. “Joram.” Pages 949-953 in vol. 3 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D.N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday (1992).

Thiele, Edwin Richard. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. United States, Academic Books, 1983.

Younger, K. Lawson. “Neo-Assyrian and Israelite History in the Ninth Century: The Role of Shalmaneser III.” PROCEEDINGS-BRITISH ACADEMY. Vol. 1. No. 143. Oxford University Press, 2007.