A question about Ahaziah and his age

Turtullian · Jan 31, 2007

I have both a NAB and a Douay-Rheims version. The NAB correctly has 22 rather than 42 as the age of Ahazia. Yet the Douay Rheims in Send Paralipomenon has the age at 42 yet in the fotnote it reads quote:

2 “Forty-two”… Divers Greek Bibles read thirty-two, agreeably to 4 Kings 8. 17.

Thirty-two?? This is leaving me a bit befuddled but not only that but the Clemintine Vulgate includes 42 as well But I can not find a Clemintine vulgate with commentary? Is this just a challoner foul-up on the foot note or what?

Gottle_of_Geer · Jan 31, 2007

Turtullian said:
I have both a NAB and a Douay-Rheims version. The NAB correctly has 22 rather than 42 as the age of Ahazia. Yet the Douay Rheims in Send Paralipomenon has the age at 42 yet in the fotnote it reads quote:

2 “Forty-two”… Divers Greek Bibles read thirty-two, agreeably to 4 Kings 8. 17.

Thirty-two?? This is leaving me a bit befuddled but not only that but the Clemintine Vulgate includes 42 as well But I can not find a Clemintine vulgate with commentary? Is this just a challoner foul-up on the foot note or what?

There are several examples of this sort of discrepancy. It is possible that some of them are to be taken as indicating co-regencies, rather independent reigns. This may explain why the total numbers of years for the rulers listed in Kings & Chronicles do not agree.

Turtullian · Jan 31, 2007

If that’s the case, then what is with the bizzarre footnote in the drv, and why does the Nab have twenty two and neo-vulgata also use 22?

Mintaka · Feb 1, 2007

It probably depends on which Hebrew manuscripts the scholars involved think are most reliable.

Gottle_of_Geer · Feb 1, 2007

Turtullian said:
If that’s the case, then what is with the bizzarre footnote in the drv, and why does the Nab have twenty two and neo-vulgata also use 22?

The textual tradition of the Hebrew Bible is not automatically the same as that of the Vulgate - each has its own history, and its own variant readings. So the readings in one version won’t necessarily be evidence of those in another.

If you could give all the references in Kings & Chronicles to the age of Ahaziah (AKA Ochozias), it might be possible to pursue the matter

##

Turtullian · Feb 2, 2007

Gottle_of_Geer said:
The textual tradition of the Hebrew Bible is not automatically the same as that of the Vulgate - each has its own history, and its own variant readings. So the readings in one version won’t necessarily be evidence of those in another.
If you could give all the references in Kings & Chronicles to the age of Ahaziah (AKA Ochozias), it might be possible to pursue the matter ##

The two I am familiar with is 2nd Kings 8:26 and of 2nd Chronicles 22:2. Ahaziah is told to be 42 is used in the Clemintine Vulgate and the DRV readings of 2nd Chron. while the Neo-vulgata and the Nab use 22. Now I understand where we get a 42 is from a copyist error in the MT in the 7th-9th century. It appears that the early version of the Douay-Rheims and the Cleminitine Vulgate sported a footnote that sais that this was a copyist error and that the LXX uses 22 correctly as the vulgate uses the masoretic text. But i’m not that sure of that observation.

My question is why didn’t the Church just simply use the crrected version like the LXX.

A question about Ahaziah and his age

Turtullian

Guest

Gottle_of_Geer

Guest

There are several examples of this sort of discrepancy. It is possible that some of them are to be taken as indicating co-regencies, rather independent reigns. This may explain why the total numbers of years for the rulers listed in Kings & Chronicles do not agree.

Turtullian

Guest

Mintaka

Guest

Gottle_of_Geer

Guest

The textual tradition of the Hebrew Bible is not automatically the same as that of the Vulgate - each has its own history, and its own variant readings. So the readings in one version won’t necessarily be evidence of those in another.

Turtullian

Guest

The textual tradition of the Hebrew Bible is not automatically the same as that of the Vulgate - each has its own history, and its own variant readings. So the readings in one version won’t necessarily be evidence of those in another.

A question about Ahaziah and his age

Turtullian

Guest

Gottle_of_Geer

Guest

There are several examples of this sort of discrepancy. It is possible that some of them are to be taken as indicating co-regencies, rather independent reigns. This may explain why the total numbers of years for the rulers listed in Kings & Chronicles do not agree.​

Turtullian

Guest

Mintaka

Guest

Gottle_of_Geer

Guest

The textual tradition of the Hebrew Bible is not automatically the same as that of the Vulgate - each has its own history, and its own variant readings. So the readings in one version won’t necessarily be evidence of those in another.​

Turtullian

Guest

The textual tradition of the Hebrew Bible is not automatically the same as that of the Vulgate - each has its own history, and its own variant readings. So the readings in one version won’t necessarily be evidence of those in another.​

There are several examples of this sort of discrepancy. It is possible that some of them are to be taken as indicating co-regencies, rather independent reigns. This may explain why the total numbers of years for the rulers listed in Kings & Chronicles do not agree.

The textual tradition of the Hebrew Bible is not automatically the same as that of the Vulgate - each has its own history, and its own variant readings. So the readings in one version won’t necessarily be evidence of those in another.

The textual tradition of the Hebrew Bible is not automatically the same as that of the Vulgate - each has its own history, and its own variant readings. So the readings in one version won’t necessarily be evidence of those in another.