Textual Error?

But, if they were using different Hebrew texts than we have available today, how would we know?

This is similar to the "born again" (not the "born from above" in John 3:3) in John 3:5 in the Vulgate, which comes from Western Text Form Greek manuscripts via other Latin manuscripts, and there are no notes or variant readings on it.

So, without the actual manuscripts, we can only assume that without textual comments offering various readings, that "born again" was common in the Western mss, although it's only present in 2 Greek manuscripts that we have on hand today.

By the same token, if the LXX seems to have something that contradicts the Masoretic, it seems that it would be safe to assume that either it was something that was in Hebrew manuscripts that we no longer have, or it was added because of scholarship or tradition.

 

I was thinking specifically where the LXX has "created" and the Masoretic has "made". Although the Greek does not seem to be as specific in this area.

 

<b>Things Hard to be Understood</b>
2Ki. 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.” – 2Ki 8:26

2Ch 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.”

The following study is by Robert Sargent:

Q. Is there a discrepancy between 2Ki 8:26 and 2Ch 22:2?

A. To the casual reader, there indeed appears to be a contradiction between two parallel accounts of the accession of King Ahaziah over Judah.

Was Ahaziah 22 or 42 when he ascended the Judaean throne?

There is an easy solution to the problem--—IF you are a Bible corrector! Obviously this just has to be an error! The scholarly statement of this ‘explanation’ is: “The number “forty and two” in 2Ch 22:2 is evidently the mistake of a copyist (Hebrew mem 40 for Hebrew kaph 20).” (Alfred Edersheim, D.D. Ph.D. Bible History Old Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1969: Vol. II, p. 193.)

In other words, since Ahaziah’s father Jehoram died at age 40 (2Ch 21:20), it would have been impossible for Ahaziah to succeed him at an age of 42! Therefore, somewhere in the history of the transmission of the Hebrew text, a careless scribe committed a transcriptional error.

The problem with this easy solution is: if there is one error in the Bible (albeit an innocent slip of the pen), who’s to say there aren’t other errors in the Bible? How could we be absolutely certain that the precious verses God used to speak to our heart and save our soul are not among those containing errors?

Can we really trust our Bible?

“Now, don’t concern yourself over such small matters. Your Authorized, King James Version is a reliable translation, and what few errors it has can be corrected by godly scholars.”

Shades of sacerdotalism! In other words, if you want to really, really be sure of what God says, read your English Bible, then let the scholars interpret it for you from the original Hebrew and Greek!

No thanks!!

For a number of compelling reasons, we believe the Bible (the Authorized, King James Version) is the PERFECT WORD (Ps 119:140a) of a PERFECT GOD (Tit 1:2c) given to man in a PERFECT MANNER (2Pe 1:21; 2Ti 3:16) and preserved in a PERFECT FORM (Ps 12:6-7). While it is not the purpose of this article to elaborate on these reasons, let it be plainly said--—our Bible is not only infallible in all its teachings but inerrant in all its content. That’s why we can say with full assurance: “I KNOW whom I have believed...”; that’s why we can say with absolute confidence: “...there hath NOT FAILED one word of all his good promise...”

How, then, can we understand this apparent contradiction concerning the age of King Ahaziah when he began to reign?

Before we come to untie what one writer calls “the Gordian Knot of the Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah” several statements of fact need to be made.

ONE: Some parts of God’s Word are likened to milk (1Pe 2:2), while other parts are called strong meat (Heb 5:12-14). This conundrum most definitely falls into the strong meat category.

TWO: Every Christian is commanded to study the Bible (2Ti 2:15). This particular question is one which requires much careful and diligent study.

THREE: Whenever we encounter a difficult-to-understand Bible passage, it does not mean the Bible is somehow in error. We have to consider two realities - (A) that we may not be of sufficient spiritual maturity to grasp the deep treasure God has put there in His Word (1Co 3:1-2; Lu 24:25), and must therefore keep growing and keep studying; or, (B) that God never intended for us to know everything there is to know (Joh 21:25), and must therefore be content with the knowledge that He has given us all we need to know until we enter into His glorious presence in Heaven (1Co 13:12).

FOUR: The two passages in question are accurate English translations of the Masoretic Hebrew text--—all the extant Hebrew manuscripts and printed Bibles say the same thing! This is not some supposed “poor translation” by the translators of the Authorized, King James Version. Why, those men would run rings around 20th century scholarship - and don’t you think they’d have had enough sense to “patch up” such a glaring inconsistency if they really believed it was an error? (This perplexing question is actually a wonderful demonstration of the honesty of the translators of the Authorized, King James Version.)

FIVE: When interpreting the Bible chronologically (which is part of the solution to these problem texts), it is absolutely necessary to keep in mind some important facts:

--Scripture deals only with whole years when it comes to the reigns of the kings. A part of a year is counted as a whole year, and when applied to the kings of Israel that part of one year may actually be counted twice--—once for the outgoing king, once for the incoming king. As a matter of fact, at time of the events mentioned in our problem text, the Northern kingdom of Israel had three kings reigning in the same year--—Ahab (absent in battle, then killed), his son Ahaziah (co-Rex, then dies of a fall), and his grandson Jehoram.

--Sometimes the reign of a king is dated from the beginning of a dynasty instead of the beginning of his own succession to the throne. The classic example of this is found in 2Ch 16:1) where the reign of Asa at the time of Baasha’s invasion has been counted from the division of the united monarchy under Rehoboam. (This explains the apparent contradiction with 1Ki 16:8.) Chronicles records the length of the kingdom; Kings records the length of the term of office. We may find this a strange way of reckoning, but that’s the way it is sometimes counted in the Biblical record.

--Sometimes the beginning of the reign of a king may be given from his anointing or from his accession - or both! <br>... more to follow<br>

 

The Lord Jesus Christ was born King of the Jews (Mt 2:2), but His reign will not begin until He sits upon David’s throne in the Millennium. Following the deportation of his father, Jehoiachin legally became king over Judah when he was 8 years old (2Ch 36:9), but his mother ruled for him as queen (Jer 13:18) until he was 18 (2Ki 24:8). Three months later both king and queen mother were deported (2Ki 24:12). --It was not uncommon for there to be more than one king reigning at a given time in either Israel or Judah. Some ruled as pro-Rex (in place of the king), others as co-Rex (together with the king). SIX: The term “son,” as it is used in the Bible, does not always mean the contiguous male offspring of a father. A father may actually be a grandfather (Da 5:2 — Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson), a step-father (1Sa 24:16 - David was Saul’s step son), or a distant forbear (Mt 1:1). SEVEN: This particular question is somewhat complicated by the similarity of names of the kings of Israel and Judah during this period of time. There were in fact two Ahaziahs, one in the Northern kingdom of Israel and one in the Southern kingdom of Judah. One way to keep them straight in your mind is to remember the following formula: ISRAEL = A-A-J (Ahab-Ahaziah-Jehoram); JUDAH = J-J-A (Jehoshaphat-Jehoram-Ahaziah). LASTLY: Ahaziah has three names in the records: Ahaziah (2Ch 22:1); Jehoahaz (2Ch 21:17); and Azariah (2Ch 22:6). SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE The “key” which unlocks the door to our understanding this matter is found in the New Testament. The royal genealogy of the Lord Jesus Christ is recorded in the Gospel according to Matthew. Mt 1:8 lists the kings in the Davidic line at the time of our particular concern--—and there are some notable omissions!c The following chart compares the kings of Judah as given in the Old Testament record to the same kings listed in Mt 1:8: OLD TESTAMENT RECORD [Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah] CHRIST’S GENEALOGY [Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, -, -, -, Uzziah] Three kings of Judah are not counted in the lineage of Jesus Christ! Why? The answer to that is found in Ex 20:5b; Nu 14:18 and Ps 109:13-15 and is seen in the character of his reign (2Ch 22:3-4). The fact is, Ahaziah is not counted as a seed of David--—his ancestry is traced to the house of Omri. The Bible accentuates both the bloodline and the influence of his mother (Athaliah), who is the daughter of Omri--—either literally, or in the sense that she is the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel (2Ki 8:18), i.e., she is Omri’s granddaughter. This being the case, there are now two plausible possibilities: SOLUTION #1 Ahaziah is literally 22 years old (2Ki 8:26) when he ascended to the throne of Judah. He was the actual son of Jehoram and Athaliah. Ahaziah was co-Rex with his ailing father Jehoram (2Ch 21:18) for 1 year (2Ki 9:29--the 11th year of Jehoram of Israel) and sole king for 1 year (the 12th year of Jehoram of Israel—2Ki 8:25). Ahaziah ascended to the throne 894 B.C. If we count backwards 42 years (to 936 B.C.) we come to the first year of Omri. In other words, Ahaziah was indeed 22 years old (as stated in Kings), but his reign is counted (in Chronicles) from the beginning of the evil dynasty of Omri. This is the Holy Spirit’s way of highlighting the wicked aberration in the royal Davidic line. The phrase “Forty and two years” may then be taken as a Hebrew idiom for “A son of forty two years” - meaning that it was 42 years from the beginning of the dynasty founded by Omri. Another similar explanation is that the 42 years was the age of his mother Athaliah. Since she was obviously the power behind the throne (2Ch 22:3), this expression is the Holy Spirit’s way of showing Ahaziah to be a puppet king. SOLUTION #2 Ahaziah is literally 42 years old (2Ch 22:2) when he ascended to the throne of Judah. He therefore is not the literal son of Jehoram (who died at age 40), but a son in the sense of being a step-son. His mother was his father’s wife. If we count back 20 years (to when Ahaziah was 22 years old—2Ki 8:26) we come to the year 914 B.C. which is the 8th year of Jehoshaphat. This was about the time that Jehoshaphat “joined affinity with Ahab”—2Ch 18:1, since we know that in the 3rd year of Jehoshaphat’s reign he instituted a revival in Judah (2Ch 17:7-9), following which his kingdom prospered (verse 12). We are told in 2 Chronicles 18 that several years after this alliance was forged, Ahab and Jehoshaphat engaged in a joint military venture against Syria (verse 2). Both kings went into battle (verse 28) and Ahab was killed (verses 33,34). Prior to the battle the faithful prophet Micaiah is deported in chains to Amon where [the one-year-old] Joash is residing (1Ki 22:26). It is here, in this passage, we have a most revealing statement: Joash (the biological son of Ahaziah, 2Ch 22:11) is called the “king’s son”--—indicating that Ahaziah was already a king! How could this possibly be??? If, as part of the affinity Jehoshaphat made with Ahab, Ahaziah was anointed king at this time, the pieces of the puzzle begin to fit together. In other words, Ahaziah was anointed king at age 22--—he finally sat on the throne of Judah 20 years later at age 42. The Word of God does not give all the details of the affinity between the two monarchs. Evidently, it was far-reaching because in 2Ch 21:2 Jehoshaphat is given the title “king of Israel!” Furthermore, when Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram finally gained sole rule over Judah, he not only murdered his brothers, but “divers also of the princes of Israel” 2Ch 21:4). Why would he do that if they were not a threat to the Judaean throne? Not only that, but Ahaziah obviously felt “right at home” in the Israeli court- 2Ch 22:6c. Perhaps both kings were interested in reuniting the monarchy which had been divided for about 70 years--—undoubtedly with different motives. Ahab (or Jezebel!) conspired to install one of his own on the Judaean throne following the death of Jehoshaphat--—a move which would be accomplished by earmarking Ahaziah (whose mother was Ahab’s own daughter) ahead of time. When Ahab’s scheme to have Jehoshaphat killed in battle backfired (2Ch 18:29,31-33), Ahaziah had to wait 20 years to be enthroned In this way, Ahaziah was both 22 and 42 when he began to reign--—22 when he was anointed, 42 when he was seated. The only question which remains is: Who was his biological father? The affinity struck between Ahab and Jehoshaphat appears to be somewhat sordid--—a tangled web in fact! Consider that Ahaziah is said to be: 1. The son of Jehoram – 2Ch 22:1 Since Ahaziah was two years older than his ‘father’ Jehoram, he must have been his step-son - brought into that relationship with his mother Athaliah when she married Jehoram. 2. The son-in-law of the house of Ahab – 2Ki 8:27 This relationship would have been established by his marriage to Zibiah (2Ch 24:1), who must have been either a daughter or grand-daughter of Ahab. 3. The son of Jehoshaphat – 2Ch 22:9 It seems Ahaziah was given a decent burial only out of respect for the fact that he was a son of Jehoshaphat (2Ch 22:9). Could it be that in earlier times, Jehoshaphat followed the custom of cementing royal ties (1Ki 3:1) by going in unto Athaliah, Ahab’s daughter?? Perhaps it is at this point that the Biblical record ceases to give sufficient details for anyone to know for certain. Almighty God is never pleased with unholy alliances – 2Co 6:14-17. The Lord never recognized the reigns of Jehoram and Azariah, who both sought to introduce Baal worship into Judaea -- along with Joash, they are omitted from the genealogy of the Saviour. When Ahaziah died, God Himself cut off the house of Ahab, 2Ch 22:7-9 from the royal line (Pastor Robert J. Sargent, Bible Baptist Church, Oak Harbor, Washington).

 

I read that when people told Erasmus that there were absolutely no errors in the biblical texts, he replied "What do you do with all the scribal errors?" They do creep in over time and when found, they should be corrected.

 

If you include the various Qumran manuscripts (Dead Sea Scrolls), the number is much larger but still limited.

Qumran manuscripts [generally Hebrew/Aramaic], the Septuagint(s) (LXX) [Greek], Josephus' History [Greek], early translations of in a variety of languages [Greek, Latin, + others], these all provide clues concerning a non-Masoretic text type.

Rob