# Does 2 Kings 26:8 & 2 Chronicles 22:2 contradict each other?



## CDM

Many here have heard the same old atheist claims of bible contradictions. The one I've been hearing lately is that King Ahaziah in 2 Kings 8:26 is said to have been 22 years old and in 2 Chronicles 22:2 its said he was 42 years old (hence a contradiction).

Furthermore, the claim is the modern translations replace the number 42 with the number 22 in 2 Chronicles (this is true with the ESV). 

I have heard that it is only some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac Hebrew that have 42 (in 2 Chronicles). 

How do you respond?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Here is what Matthew Poole says:



> 2 Chron 22:2. Forty and two years old was Ahaziah. Objection. He was then only twenty-two years old, as is affirmed, 2 Kings 8:26. Besides, Joram his father died in his fortieth year, as is twice noted, 2 Chron 21:5,20: how then can this be true? Answer 1. In the Hebrew it is, a son of forty-two years, etc., which is an ambiguous phrase; and though it doth for the most part, yet it doth not always, signify the age of the person, as is manifest from 1 Sam 13:1, where see the notes. And therefore it is not necessary that this should note his age (as it is generally presumed to do, and that is the only ground of the difficulty); but it may note either, 1. The age of his mother Athaliah; who being so great, and infamous, and mischievous a person to the kingdom and royal family of Judah, it is not strange if her age be here described, especially seeing she herself did for a season sway this sceptre. Or rather, 2. Of the reign of that royal race and family from which by his mother he was descended, to wit, of the house of Omri, who reigned six years, 1 Kings 16:23; Ahab his son reigned twenty-two years, 1 Kings 16:29; Ahaziah his son two years, 1 Kings 22:51; Joram his son twelve years, 2 Kings 3:1; all which, put together, make up exactly these forty-two years; for Ahaziah began his reign in Joram's twelfth year, 2 Kings 8:25. And such a kind of computation of the years, not of the king's person, but of his reign or kingdom, we had before, 2 Chron 16:1, where see the notes. And so we have an account of the person's age in 2 Kings 8:26, and here of the kingdom to which he belonged. Answer 2. Some acknowledge an error in the transcribers of the present Hebrew copies, in which language the numeral letters for twenty-two and forty-two are so like, that they might easily be mistaken. For that it was read twenty-two here, as it is in the Book of Kings, in other Hebrew copies, they gather from hence, that it is at this day so read in divers ancient Greek copies, as also in those two ancient translations, the Syriac and the Arabic, and particularly in that famous and most ancient copy of the Syriac, which was used by the church of Antioch in the primitive times, and to this day is kept in the church of Antioch, from which that most reverend, learned, pious, and public-spirited archbishop Usher did at his own great charge get another copy transcribed, in which he hath published to all the world that he found it here written twenty and two years old, etc. Nor doth this overthrow the authority of the sacred text, as infidels would have it, partly because it is only an historical passage, of no importance to the substantial doctrines of faith and a good life; and partly because the question here is not whether this text be true, but which is the true reading of the text, whether that of the generality of present copies, or that which was used in the ancient copies, which the ancient and venerable translators above mentioned did follow; for it seems unreasonable and uncharitable to think that all of them would have conspired to have changed the text, and put in twenty and two for forty and two, if they had so read it in their Hebrew copies. Nor can this open any great door to those innumerable changes which some have boldly and rashly made in the Hebrew text without any such pretence of authority, as there is for this, which as they are affirmed without reason, or authority, or necessity, so they may as easily be rejected. If all this will not satisfy our present infidels, I desire them only to consider what hath been hinted before upon such occasions, that many difficulties which did seem unanswerable, being now fully cleared by later writers, it is but reasonable to think that this may be so in after-times, either by finding of some Hebrew copies in which it may be twenty and two years, etc., or by some other way.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Matthew Henry:



> We have here an account of the reign of Ahaziah, a short reign (of one year only), yet long enough, unless it had been better. He was called Jehoahaz (2 Chron 21:17); here he is called Ahaziah, which is the same name and of the same signification, only the words of which it is compounded are transposed. He is here said to be forty-two years old when he began to reign (2 Chron 22:2), which could not be, for his father, his immediate predecessor, was but forty when he died, and it is said (2 Kings 8:26) that he was twenty-two years old when he began to reign. Some make this forty-two to be the age of his mother Athaliah, for in the original it is, he was the son of forty-two years, that is, the son of a mother that was of that age; and justly is her age put for his, in reproach to him, because she managed him, and did what she would"”she, in effect, reigned, and he had little more than the title of king. Many good expositors are ready to allow that this, with some few more such difficulties, arise from the mistake of some transcriber, who put forty-two for twenty-two, and the copies by which the error should have been corrected might be lost. Many ancient translations read it here twenty-two. Few books are now printed without some errata, yet the authors do not therefore disown them, nor are the errors of the press imputed to the author, but the candid reader amends them by the sense, or by comparing them with some other part of the work, as we may easily do this.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

This is CARM's answer:



> How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
> 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2
> 
> Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26) - "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 king of Israel," (NASB).
> 
> Forty-two (2 Chron. 22:1) - "Ahaziah was forty-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). Note: the NASB corrects the copyist error and inserts 22 years. It has, however, a note saying the Hebrew states 42 years. For clarity purposes, I quoted the NASB and kept the original Hebrew number of 42.
> 
> The correct age of Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem is 22. 2 Kings 8:17 tells us that Ahaziah's father Joram ben Ahab was thirty-two when he became king and he died eight years later, at the age of forty. Therefore, Ahaziah could not have been forty-two at the time of his father's death at age forty." (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, page. 206-207.)
> 
> The discrepency in ages is due to a copyist error. We can see that the difference in ages is 20 years. The system of number notation used by the Jews at the time of Ezra consisted of horizontal hooks that represented decades. would equal the number 14 where would be 24. If one or both of the hooks were smudged or flaked off of a papyri, then the dates would be off by ten years or a factor of ten.
> 
> The fact that this is a copyist error does not invalidate the inspiration or authority of Scripture. Remember, God inspired the originals. They were without error. The copies have problems, though very very few. The copies are copies of inspired documents and, unfortunately, some copyist errors did creep into the manuscripts. However, they do not affect any doctrinal areas and are very rare.



[Edited on 5-31-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## CDM

Thanks! The Great Huguenot comes through again!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> Thanks! The Great Huguenot comes through again!



Humbly at your service, mon frere!


----------

