1

2 Chronicles 22:2;

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.

2 Chronicles 21:20;

20 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.

See also, 2 Kings 8:26;

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.

If we considered the Hebrew text Not corrupted, infallible, then could we assume that there are Two Ahaziahs?

For me, I consider all the Bible as Infallible. Not corrupted in even One phrase. But it needs a higher Logic to understand.

1
  • Bible indeed is infallible in every word of the Lord, but indeed there are many places that the script seem to have contradiction. So I think if it is the infallible faith more important, or the infallible script? Isa 6:9 God said the Israelite "Be ever hearing but never understanding; be ever seeing but never perceiving. Jesus used the same in Matt 13:14. Bible is open to everyone to see, let the critics criticize, and let our faith guide us. You should see Bible is still infallible in every word of God. Jul 27, 2022 at 13:39

1 Answer 1

1

Yes, there were two Ahaziahs.

Ahaziah #1 was a son of Ahab and Jezebel, and was a king of Israel (Northern Kingdom) for two years (1 Kin 22:51-53).

Ahaziah #2 was a son of Jehoram and Athaliah, and was king of Judah (Southern Kingdom) for one year (2 Kin 8:25-27; 2 Chr 22:2-4).

Moreover, if we draw a chronological diagram based on the MT texts we may see that their kingdom periods do not overlap each other, being Ahaziah #1 before Ahaziah #2.

Regarding the Ahaziah #2 difference between '22' (2 Kin 8:26) and '42' (2 Chr 22:2) a commentary states (bold is mine): "The number 42 is an orthographical error for 22 (ב having been changed into מ) 2 Ki 8:26. As Joram was thirty-two years of age at his accession, and reigned eight years (2Ch 21:20 and 2Ch 21:5), at his death his youngest son could not be older than twenty-one or twenty-two years of age, and even then Joram must have begotten him in his eighteenth or nineteenth year. It is quite consistent with this that Joram had yet older sons; for in the East marriages are entered upon at a very early age, and the royal princes were wont to have several wives, or, besides their proper wives, concubines also. Certainly, had Ahaziah had forty-two older brothers, as Berth. and other critics conclude from 2Ki_10:13., then he could not possibly have been begotten, or been born, in his father's eighteenth year. But that idea rests merely upon an erroneous interpretation of the passage quoted." (Keil & Delitzsch's Commentary)

I avoid here to deepen the argument about this chronological discrepance (because your question doesn't ask directly at it), but we have honestly to admit that - at a term/phrase tier - we may encounter discrepances in the Hebrew MT texts. The majority of these discrepancies cannot be blamed to a specious logic, as you say, but to a scribes misprint (of a lot of kinds).

I also believe firmly that the Bible if the Word of God, and is infallible, but at a concept tier.

With the help of three 'pillars', namely, Context, Textual Criticism, and Logic - along with a prayerful attitude - we will be able to solve the vast majority of these 'discrepancies'.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.