Anybody knows the explanation for this?

[LaSalle]

2 Kings 8:26. Two and twenty years old [was] Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name [was] Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2. Forty and two years old [was] Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also [was] Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

 

[John_Taylor]

2 Kings 8:26. Two and twenty years old [was] Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name [was] Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2. Forty and two years old [was] Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also [was] Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

Looks like a typo…possibly a copyist error…looking up the passages on-line from the New American Bible the passages read:

He was twenty-two years old when he began his reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah; she was daughter of Omri, king of Israel. (2Kings 8:26)

He was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother was named Athaliah, daughter of Omri. (2Chronicles 22:2)

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[John_Taylor]

From Bible Query from 2 Chronicles

muslimhope.com/BibleAnswers/2chr.htm#2chr%2022

Q: In 2 Chr 22:2 (KJV), how was Ahaziah 22 years old when he began to reign?
A: The King James version faithfully translated the Massoretic text, which is wrong here, as it differs from both 2 Kings 8:26 and the Greek Septuagint for 2 Chronicles 22:2. If Ahaziah was 42 years old here, and Jehoram died when he was 40 years old in 2 Chronicles 21:20, then Ahaziah would be two years older than his father! 2 Kings 8:26 in the Septuagint says he was 20 years old.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary volume 4 p.508, Bible Difficulties & Seeming Contradictions p.163-164, and the New International Bible Commentary p.474 for more info.

 

[LaSalle]

You’re right to point to a source that purports to defend against Muslim queries; this doozy did indeed come from a Muslim website!

But I gotta tell you, it may provide a suitable answer for us, but it cuts no ice with people who cannot understand how typos can be allowed in a book that is supposed to be divinely inspired and without error.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Lasalle,

Actually the Hebrew in 2 Chronicles says 42. Some translators correct to 22 (some have 20) on the basis of Kings, which is the source for Chronicles. It may have been a copyist’s error. No problem to believers. The Bible is not a book of history or science but a guide to salvation.

Verbum

 

[Della]

You’re right to point to a source that purports to defend against Muslim queries; this doozy did indeed come from a Muslim website!

But I gotta tell you, it may provide a suitable answer for us, but it cuts no ice with people who cannot understand how typos can be allowed in a book that is supposed to be divinely inspired and without error.

Without error does not mean without any typos or minor mistakes in the text. It means it tells us the truth: about God’s relationship with man and nature, the history of Israel, as witness to the Jesus and the Church, and is our reliable guide in matters of faith and morals.

 

[John_Taylor]

You’re right to point to a source that purports to defend against Muslim queries; this doozy did indeed come from a Muslim website!

But I gotta tell you, it may provide a suitable answer for us, but it cuts no ice with people who cannot understand how typos can be allowed in a book that is supposed to be divinely inspired and without error.

I just ordered a copy of a book - New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Perhaps it will deal with this question. I’ll let you know if i find anything more. I did find the following answer on the internet but I haven’t gone through the various points it makes to verify them:

QuestionDid Ahaziah start his reign at 22 years of age or 42 years of age? 2 Kings 8:26, 2 Chronicles 22:2.

Answer: In the Septuagint, both verses read 22. However, there is a possible alternative.

This is a classic supposed “contradiction” in the King James Scripture. There are some interesting things to consider if you compare scripture with scripture. In 2 Chronicles 22:9 Ahaziah is said to be “the son of Jehoshaphat” and Jehoshaphat is said to be “the king of Israel” (2 Chronicles 21:2). But Jehoshaphat was king of Judah, was he not (1 Kings 22)? Now, hold that thought for a moment. In addition to this, Ahaziah was also “son in law” to the house of Ahab (2 Kings 8:27). Question: How does Ahaziah become a “son in law” to the house of Ahab when he married Zibiah of Beersheba (2 Chronicles 24:1)? He didn’t marry any of Ahab’s daughters or Omri’s daughters. But now look over at 1 Kings 22:26 and notice that there’s a man named “Joash” who is waiting in Israel to take over the dual kingdom if Ahab or Jehoshaphat gets killed (1 Kings 22:26,28,29, 34, 37). But he’s only one year old and won’t ascend the throne until he’s eight years old (2 Chronicles 24:1). Ahaziah had a son named Joash before Ahaziah ever sat on the throne of Judah. When Ahab was killed, a different Ahaziah took over the throne of Israel (2 Kings 1), not the Ahaziah whose mother was the daughter of Omri and who was said to be the son of Jehoshaphat–not the son of Ahab (2 Chronicles 22:9). Even his other name appears in the list of Jehoshaphat’s sons (2 Chronicles 21:2).

The Azariah in our problem, then, was not Jehoram’s literal son, and obviously he was intended for the southern throne (Judah) many years before he actually took the throne. His mother was Athaliah, who was Omri’s daughter; that is, she was Ahab’s sister (1 Kings 16:29). If Ahaziah was her son and Jehoshaphat was his father, then when Jehoshaphat “joined affinity with Ahab” (2 Chronicles 18:1), this was more than just a military move. Jehoshaphat’s title was “king of Israel” (2 Chronicles 21:2), and this signifies the ominous alliance, for Jehoram killed “divers of the princes of Israel.” So if Ahab got killed, one of Jehoshaphat’s kin could take over Israel; on the other hand, if Jehoshaphat died in battle, then one of Ahab’s kin could take over Judah when Jehoram was finished. And that’s what happened. Ahaziah, after the death of Jehoshaphat, is Ahab’s nephew and a son in law to his household. He had to have married one of Ahab’s daughters or granddaughters. Ahaziah is the step son or son in law to Jehoram. He was a favorite to Omri because his mother was Omri’s daughter. He was anointed, like David, years before he actually began to reign, even though he was the king by anointing. He was undoubtedly anointed at age 22 and upon the death of his predecessor, assumed the throne and actual rulership at age 42.

ecclesia.org/truth/contradictions.html

I once had an athiest use the supposed difficulty of Luke’s account of a census being taken at the time of our Lord’s birth and at first I was stumped. But then I found the answer from an article written by the later Fr William Most: (see “Answers to objections against the infancy Gospels” at

http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/CHRI602.htm

the more I look into these difficulties the greater my respect for the veracity - on all points - of God’s Word as declared canonical and inspired by the Spirit of Truth on the Authority of Our Lord’s Church. I quess I’m evolving into Catholic “fundamentalist”

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[LaSalle]

Thanks John … that was … complicated.

Truth be told, I couldn’t really follow it … however, I believe what the article says is that the discrepancy is caused because ‘anointing’ and ‘ascending’ is not differentiated.

That may very well be so … but what was all that lineage for and how would that support the notion that the ‘discrepancy’ in scripture is due to not specifying ‘anointing’ and ‘ascending’?

 

[lak611]

All of the translations seem to say he was 22 in 2 Kings 8:26. The discrepancies seem to be in 2 Chronicles 22:2.

2Ch 22:2

(ASV) Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

(DRB) Ochozias was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem, and the name of his mother was Athalia the daughter of Amri.

(ESV) Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri.

(GNT-WH+)

(HOT+) בן1121 ארבעים705 ושׁתים8147 שׁנה8141 אחזיהו274 במלכו4427 ושׁנה8141 אחת259 מלך4427 בירושׁלם3389 ושׁם8034 אמו517 עתליהו6271 בת1323 עמרי׃6018

(KJV+) Forty705 and two8147 years8141 old1121 was Ahaziah274 when he began to reign,4427 and he reigned4427 one259 year8141 in Jerusalem.3389 His mother’s517 name8034 also was Athaliah6271 the daughter1323 of Omri.6018

(KJV-1611) Fourtie and two yeeres old was Ahaziah, when he began to reigne, and he reigned one yeere in Ierusalem: his mothers name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

(KJVA) Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

(MKJV) Ahaziah’s age was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

(MSG) Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, but reigned only one year in Jerusalem. His mother was Athaliah, granddaughter of Omri.

(NAS77) Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri.

(NASB) Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri.

(NASB+) Ahaziah274 was twenty-two705, 8147 years8141 old1121 when he became4427a king4427a, and he reigned4427a one259 year8141 in Jerusalem3389. And his mother’s517 name8034 was Athaliah6271, the granddaughter1323 of Omri6018.

(RV) Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

It seems like the translations that say Ahaziah was 42 are those that use the Textus Receptus or the Vulgate. The more modern translations that use the more recently discovered, but older, Hebrew manuscript say he was 22, which agrees with the rendition in 2 Kings 8:26. The explanation appears to be an inaccurate Hebrew manuscript was employed in the translation of the KJV (and all of its revisions, such as RV, ASV, MKJV) and the Douay-Rheims Version.

 

[awalt]

I once had an athiest use the supposed difficulty of Luke’s account of a census being taken at the time of our Lord’s birth and at first I was stumped. But then I found the answer from an article written by the later Fr William Most: (see “Answers to objections against the infancy Gospels” at

http://www.ewtn.com/l…GY/CHRI602.htm

Link doesn’t work for me, I even tried ewtn.com/l…GY/CHRI602.htm%between%

 

[anaz]

When I clicked the link I couldn’t see the page either. I noticed in the address bar up top that it displayed:

http://%3cbr%20/%3Ehttp://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/CHRI602.htm

I deleted the first part, highlighted in blue, and it worked just fine.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi LaSalle, the simple answer is hebrew letters are assigned numeric values, at times the values of some letters changed. In Hebrew manuscripts markings and vowels were left out. So, copyists would supply the markings and vowels that they thought made the most sense. So, in one text a copyist supplied one set of values, and in another text, maybe based on tradition another copyist supplied a different set of vowels and markings thus coming up with two sets of values. And, we may not know which set is correct. If a word was mispelled than that would change the value too. Tradition in this case may have him at 8 years old. Where the copyist of the other text thought that 18 made sense.

In the modern Hebrew Bible all numbers are written out in full, but **for a long time the text was written without vowels which made it possible to confuse two words **which are crucial to this problem: 'eleph and 'alluph. Without vowel points these words look identical: 'lp. ‘Eleph’ is the ordinary word for ‘thousand’, but it can also be used in a variety of other senses: e.g. ‘family’ (Judges 6:15, Revised Version.) or ‘clan’ (Zechariah 9:7; 12:5,6, RSV) or perhaps a military unit. ‘Alluph’ is used for the ‘chieftains’ of Edom (Genesis 36:15-43); probably for a commander of a military ‘thousand’; and almost certainly for the professional, fully-armed soldier.

specialtyinterests.net/hebrew_numbers.html

jewfaq.org/alephbet.htm

hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_Eight/unit_eight.html

google.com/search?hl=en&q=hebrew+numbers

 

[LaSalle]

Hi Daniel

Thanks for that explanation.

Well, going by all the posts so far, the reason for the discrepany seems to be human error in the copying process.

This makes it hard to keep asserting that the bible is inerrant; when we explain away ‘errors’ that are present by qualifying our definition of ‘inerrancy’ to mean only with regards to spiritual matters. Afterall, if it is shown to be inaccurate in something as simple as this, why would it not be possible for it to contain errors in the spiritual matters as well?

 

[John_Taylor]

(LaSalle) …I believe what the article says is that the discrepancy is caused because ‘anointing’ and ‘ascending’ is not differentiated.

(jmt) That’s what I understand the article to propose…Ahaziah was ‘anointed’ King at the age of 22 but didn’t ‘ascend’ the throne until age 42…but, like you, I find it hard to follow…

(LaSalle) That may very well be so … but what was all that lineage for and how would that support the notion that the ‘discrepancy’ in scripture is due to not specifying ‘anointing’ and ‘ascending’?

(jmt) …searching the internet (with Google) for - Christian Apologetics how old Ahaziah - several articles come up with the explaination of a “copyist error” - which, like your Muslim friends, I find unsatisfactory. Looking for explainations which can account for both ages being correct I found the following:

geocities.com/brandplucked/22or42.html

and, again, after a very convoluted “comparing Scripture with Scripture” (which, again, I will have to spend much devoted time in the Word to research for understanding) I gather the following:

"Ahaziah was 42 years old as the final member of the house of Ahab, but only 22 years old physically as a son of Jehoram’

thus 2 Kings 8:26 is reckoning Ahaziah’s age in reference to his place in lineage as the final member of the house of Ahab (Ahab and his sons) to rule as kings:

The house of Ahab begins with Ahab who reigns 22 years over Israel, the Northern Kingdom.

Ahab’s son, Jehoram reigns after his father for 12 years over Israel, the Northern Kingdom.

the additional 8 years (to make 42) comes from Jehoram’s reign over Judah, the Southern Kingdom.

Thus, if I understand the article correctly, and I may not, so we’d have to double check this:

Ahab rules as king over the Southern Kingdon for 22 years.
His son, Jehoram, reigns as king over the Southern Kingdom for 12 years and over the Northern Kingdom for 8 years.

Ahaziah, at the physical age of 22 becomes king over the Southern Kingdom (in Jerusalem) during the 42 year of “the house of Ahab’s” rule.

Does this make sense?

It’ll be a while before I could go through the argument verse by verse but I think I understand the gist of it.

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[BrianH]

2 Kings 8:26. Two and twenty years old [was] Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name [was] Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2. Forty and two years old [was] Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also [was] Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

It is called a contradiction. Caused by a copyist mistake? I have no idea. I never have thought a bunch of supermen wrote the Bible. From my first time reading it, it seemed like the authors contradict each other, differing accounts of the same events, I cannot imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to believe it does not have errors and differing theological viewpoints(my apologies to my good friend who reads this and disagrees strongly )
But you see, thats just it. The writers of the Bible are not trying to deceive anyone. They are presenting warts and all what happened or what they HEARD happened.
There is a more sinister, thats a bad word thought isnt it, cynical approach to this, I chose not to take that viewpoint.

 

[NotWorthy]

Brian’s point is really emphasized when you look at Paul when he writes of baptizing in 1 Corinthians chapter 1:

I give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say you were baptized in my name. (I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

 

[NotWorthy]

Also, I don’t know how much it matters, but I understand the author of 1st and 2nd Kings wrote from a northern tribes point of view, while Chronicles was written more from a southern tribes point of view.

I don’t recall any proof of this statement, other than Fr. Mitch Pacwa of EWTN is the one who made the claim.

 

[lak611]

From Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, “2Ch 22:2 -
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah - See the note on 2Ki_8:26. Ahaziah might have been twenty-two years old, according to 2Ki_8:26 (note), but he could not have been forty-two, as stated here, without being two years older than his own father! See the note there. The Syriac and Arabic have twenty-two, and the Septuagint, in some copies, twenty. And it is very probable that the Hebrew text read so originally; for when numbers were expressed by single letters, it was easy to mistake מ mem, Forty, for כ caph, Twenty. And if this book was written by a scribe who used the ancient Hebrew letters, now called the Samaritan, the mistake was still more easy and probable, as the difference between caph and mem is very small, and can in many instances be discerned only by an accustomed eye.
The reading in 2Ki_8:26 is right, and any attempt to reconcile this in Chronicles with that is equally futile and absurd. Both readings cannot be true; is that therefore likely to be genuine that makes the son two years older than the father who begat him? Apage hae nugae!”

 

[Zooey]

This has all ready been mentioned somewhat, but it is what I have been told, too: Bible Hebrew had no vowels. Words were much easier therefore, to confuse with one another than we can fully realize…
Just to give you an idea: the title of this thread, minus the vowels (& auxiliary vowel sounds would be something like this:

“R:nbd ns th xplntn fr ths?”

OK, without looking at said title, try to reconstruct it from that…
Now, the scholars of old tried to remember to put a variety of accent marks (points) on the words to distinguish them. But they weren’t strictly speaking, part of the text. And not every point got made exactly the same every time by every person…
Maybe the \fact is, that it is truly of God that the Biblical texts were preserved at all for us. And that we must be thankful that such is true!!
God bless all here.

 

[Turtullian]

Hi Daniel

Thanks for that explanation.

Well, going by all the posts so far, the reason for the discrepany seems to be human error in the copying process.

This makes it hard to keep asserting that the bible is inerrant; when we explain away ‘errors’ that are present by qualifying our definition of ‘inerrancy’ to mean only with regards to spiritual matters. Afterall, if it is shown to be inaccurate in something as simple as this, why would it not be possible for it to contain errors in the spiritual matters as well?

Not quite, Remember, the Footnotes themselves explain scripture and when a copyest error is found the Footnote does generally fix them. The Church in her wisdom and through the deposit of the faith does correct and point out where copyist errors are. Infact, the Church does emplore that translators use the Septuagint in translating to avoid recopying the errors of 4th century texts. It should be noted that in the Vulgate and the Douay-rheims there is a footnote that acknowledge that this was a copyist error and corrects the error thus keeping the Bible without error.