In the mid-1990s a very important bulla showed up on the antiquities market. A bulla is a flattened lump of hardened clay bearing the impression of a seal. They were used to seal papyrus documents. The papyrus would be folded and tied with a string. A soft lump of clay would then be placed on the string and impressed with a signet ring or pendant bearing the seal of the sender. The clay would harden, thus securing the contents of the document.
Bullae are usually small. This one measures a mere 2/5” wide. The back of the bulla still bears the imprint of the papyrus it once sealed, as well as the double string which held it together. It even contains a fingerprint on the left edge. Like many bullae, it was preserved due to fire. When a city was burned by an invading army, it would cause the destruction of most artifacts, but would cause the bullae to be preserved. Just as in a kiln, these bullae were baked to perfection.
Many bullae have been discovered. What makes this bulla remarkable is its inscription. It reads: “Belonging to Ahaz (son of) Yehotam, King of Judah.” Given the process that created and preserves bullae, they are virtually impossible to forge, so most scholars believe this bulla to be authentic. It bears the seal[1] of King Ahaz of Judah, who ruled from 732-716 BC.
Significance:
- This is another extra-biblical confirmation of the existence of King Ahaz.
- This find puts us in much closer touch to the Biblical king than a mere mention of his name in extra-biblical documents/artifacts. This was the seal he himself used to certify official court documents!
- It is possible that the fingerprint is that of Ahaz himself. If so, it would be the only fingerprint evidence of a Biblical king.
[1]Around the edge of the bulla is a 1mm thick groove, indicating that the seal which made the impression was encased in a ring or pendant.
Thinking to Believe 
December 10, 2014 at 4:23 am
Is it true that King Ahaz of Judah, at 7 years old, reigned as vice-reg from 744BCE, to the 17th year (735BCE), of King Pekah in Israel, And then reigned, at 16 years old, as co-king with his father Jotham from 735BCE, to 731BCE. And, it true that Ahaz, at 20 years old in 731BCE, then, began his 16 year “sole” reign, 731BCE, to 715BCE, when he died at only 36 year old?
LikeLike
January 14, 2015 at 12:47 pm
No answer?
LikeLike
February 4, 2019 at 2:48 pm
Date vary based on how they are interpreted in the text. 2Kings 16:2 — states Ahaz was20 years old when he became king. Was this when he ascended to the throne as sole king (732/731 BCE) or when he first became king as a co-regent in 735 (the 17th year of Pekah, king of Israel)? Add to this, 2Kings 15:30, stated it was in the 20th year of Jotham that Hoshea became king of Israel (732 BCE). Yet 2Kings 17:33 says Jotham reigned 16 years. So I take that to mean reign alone, and Ahaz and he are co-regents 735 to 732 BCE. One more complicating factor, 2Kings 17:1 states Hoshea ascend to this throne in the 12th year of Ahaz. Given Hoshea ascension in 732/31 is tied to the well document date 9 years later of 722 for the deportation of Israel to Assyria, 12 years earlier as Ahaz’s 1st year would be 744/743 — implying he was vice-regent with his grandfather (Azariah/Uzziah (792-740 BCE) — when Azariah had leprosy. So which of these three ascensions to some sort of reign, 744/43 as vice-regent, 735 as co-regent with his father Jotham, or 732/31 when ruling alone was Ahaz age 20. I think the context of that remark – means when he was co-regent, but it could be 4 years later when he became the sole king. Add to this 2Kings 18:1-2 — when Hezekiah, a second or later son of Ahaz (recall Ahaz sacrificed a first born son in 2Kings 16:3) became king in the third year of Hoshea (i.e., 730/729) at age 25. I take this verse to mean Hezekiah became co-regent with Ahaz in 729, and was age 25 when he became sole king a Ahaz’s death in 715. If so this implies Hezekiah’s birth year was ~740 BCE. So Ahaz had to be old enough to have had a second child by that time. For me — he was age 20 when he became vice-regent or co-regent. If it were 732 when he became sole king, then he would have been 8 when he fathered a second son.
LikeLike