How old was Ahaziah when he became King?

How old was Ahaziah when he became King?

 How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem? 

 

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.

Here we have a discrepancy between the age of Ahaziah when he began to rule. Obviously at face value these verses do indeed give two completely different ages for Ahaziah when he began to reign as king.  Clearly Ahaziah cannot be both 22 years old  and 42 years old when he began to reign.  So was Ahaziah 22 or 42 years old when he became king? This one is actually a tricky one to answer and so I can’t blame Shabir for not understanding this one or not being able to figure out how to reconcile it.  This took me a while to figure out myself.  I wouldn’t expect Shabir to invest the time and effort into answering this as I have put into it.  However, just because Shabir hasn’t been able to reconcile it does not mean that this is a true contradiction. There is an explanation and there is no contradiction in the recording of the two different ages. 

The first thing we need to know, and it is very important to be able to understand these 2 ages, is that Ahaziah was the son of Jehoram who was himself king of Judah. Ahaziah took over the kingdom from his father:

2 Kings 8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign

The BIBLE tells us that Jehoram was 32 years old when he became king.  Jehoram reigned for 8 years before he died, which would make Jehoram 40 years old at his death:

2 Kings 8:16 And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign. 17 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.

Clearly Ahaziah was not nor could he have been literally 42 years old at the time his father died at 40.  This would make him 2 years older than his father, when his father died,  which is, of course, impossible. 

Ahaziah was physically 22 years old when he became king just as 2 Kings records.

So why does 2 Chronicles say that he was 42 years old when he began to reign and what does 42 mean? 

The most common answer given here, even amongst Christian apologists, is that it is an error on the part of the copyist.

Noting that Ahaziah could not have been 42, many modern versions of the Bible have even changed the age in 2 Chronicles 22:2 from 42 to 22 and have included footnotes that there was a scribal error and the correct number should have been 22. 

Notes to the NET Bible:
tc Heb “forty-two,” but some mss of the LXX and the Syriac along with the parallel passage in 2 Kgs 8:26 read “twenty-two.”

Interestingly the reading 22 is not based on the reading of the LXX (Septuagint) (although some mss do read 22) as this disagrees with both the reading of the KJV and the many modern versions that have the age 22. The reading of the LXX is actually 20:

Ochozias began to reign when he was twenty years old, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Gotholia, the daughter of Ambri.

ὢν ἐτῶν εἴκοσιν ᾿Οχοζίας ἐβασίλευσε καὶ ἐνιαυτὸν ἕνα ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν ῾Ιερουσαλήμ, καὶ ὄνομα τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ Γοθολία θυγάτηρ ᾿Αμβρί. (Greek)

 

They have simply collapsed at the apparent discrepancy and succumbed to the accusation of an error and changed the age so that the age can be reconciled and the “contradiction” can simply disappear.  Even though this then would demonstrate that the Bible did contain an error.

Let’s have a look at the verse in the NIV:

2 Chronicles 22:2 Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri. NIV

Now, while I disagree with this answer, and I shall explain why in just a moment, what is interesting is that Shabir has again cherry picked a version of the Bible that he feels creates the contradiction.  Had Shabir quoted the NIV, for instance, then he would not have asserted this as a contradiction as both verses in the NIV record the age as being 22. This shows that Shabir is clearly only interested in asserting the apparent contradiction and not interested in trying to reconcile it. 

This age of 22 is also found in the NLT, ESV, BSB, NASB, ISV and NET Bible to name a few. So had Shabir chosen to use any of these versions, this supposed contradiction wouldn’t have actually been spotted as it would appear that the age 22 was correct in both verses. Picking different versions of the Bible that seemingly supports the claim that is being made is a tactic that is often employed by those that wish to discredit the biblical scriptures.  I do find this to be a little disingenuous to say the least. 

 

Why I believe 42 is Correct 

I shall now explain why the age 42 is in fact correct and does not create a contradiction at all.  While changing the age from 42 to 22 may resolve the issue on the surface, it doesn’t in reality fix the problem. 

The bible actually explains exactly why the age is 42 is correct and changing it from 42 to 22 is not only incorrect but it takes away the true meaning of the age of Ahaziah as recorded in 2 Chronicles. 

Remember, all scripture is given by the inspiration of God and the Bible does not record details in the way that we are used to today, it is a unique book and the information is recorded in a unique way for specific purposes.  This is something that needs to be understood before we can have a true understanding of what the Bible says. 

I have to say that it does surprise me, although I have to say I am getting used to it,  that very well studied “scholars” simply stop at the error “solution” and do not, in fact, go any further to try and resolve the issue themselves.  To me, it seems like lazy scholarship and while it “resolves” one issue, the issue of the error, it actually just opens the door for the next attack against the Bible, that of the Bible being inerrant.  This is a subject that I plan to  write more on in the not so distant future.  But back to the issue of the age of Ahaziah.

A popular Christian apologetics website, Apologeticspress.org puts this down to a scribal error claiming that this does not prove the Bible isn’t from God, only that the error is the fault of a non inspired copyist who wrote twenty two instead of forty two: 

 

“Even though it is possible to know the ages of Ahaziah and Jehoiachin when they began their respective reigns in Judah, the ages of these two kings in Chronicles are incorrect. Are these legitimate mistakes? Are we to conclude, based upon these two verses in 2 Chronicles, that the Bible is not from God? What shall we say to such questions?

The simple answer to these queries is that a copyist, not an inspired writer, made these mistakes. In the case of Ahaziah, a copyist simply wrote twenty instead of forty,”
https://apologeticspress.org/how-old-were-ahaziah-and-jehoiachin-when-they-began-their-respective-reigns-744/

 This really is a big assumption.  Firstly, all Hebrew manuscripts read forty two not twenty two.  The Targum to 2 Chronicles also reads 42.
Secondly there would be no reason that the copyist would mistakenly write forty two instead of twenty two.  When writing the numbers forty two or twenty two the scribes would literally write out the words.  This is’t like writing 22 or 42, the words are spelt out. The Hebrew word for 40 is אַרְבָּעִ֨ים  and the Hebrew for twenty is עֶשְׂרִ֨ים apart from the final two letters of each word, the yod and the samech, (remember Hebrew is written right to left) the two words are totally different.  This cannot be put down to a scribe accidently writing the wrong word.  Either the scribe would have been copying from an exemplar that read in the same way as he copied or the scribe would have had to have deliberately changed the twenty into forty.  We have no evidence for either because we have no manuscript evidence. 

 

A copyist error is also the assertion of Matt Slick of Carm.org: 

He states that the error was due to a copyist and then gives an explanation as to how the error could have occurred.  Mr Slick appeals to the originals being inspired and it was the originals that were without error but the copies do contain some errors:

The discrepancy 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 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.

https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/how-old-was-ahaziah-when-he-began-to-rule-over-jerusalem/

42 is the age found in the Hebrew of 2 Chronicles 22:2.  All English Bibles prior to the KJV also read 42 in this verse,

Ocozie was of two and fourti yeer, whanne he bigan to regne, and he regnede o yeer in Jerusalem; the name of his modir was Athalia, the douyter of Amry.
Wycliffe Bible

 

Two and fortye yeare olde was Ochosias whan he was made kynge, and reigned one yeare at Ierusalem. His mothers name was Athalia the doughter of Amri.
Coverdale Bible

Two & fourtie yeare olde was he when he beganne to raygne, & raygned one year in Ierusalem. His mothers name was Athaliah the doughter of Amri.
Matthew’s Bible

 

Two and fourtye yere olde was he, whan he began to raygne, and he raygned one yere in Ierusalem. Hys mothers name was Athaliahu þe daughter of Amri.
Great Bible 

Two and fourtie yeere olde was Ahaziah when he began to reigne, and he reigned one yeere in Ierusalem; his mothers name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

Geneva Bible

Two & fourtie yeres old was he when he began to raigne, and he raigned one yere in Hierusalem: His mothers name was Athaliahu, the daughter of Amri.
Bishops Bible

 

It is also the reading of the Latin Vulgate.

filius quadraginta duo annorum erat Ochozias cum regnare coepisset et uno anno regnavit in Hierusalem nomen matris eius Otholia filia Amri

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.

We should note that the Syriac and Aramaic versions read 22.

 

So again let’s see what the Bible has to say regarding the age 42.

In order to correctly understand what the Bible means we have to go back into the Bible and do a little research.  I know, studying the Bible in order to understand what the Bible says…crazy right? Who would have thought of doing such a thing? 

In both verses where we are told the age of Ahaziah, we also get the added, and rather important information in understanding this “error”,  that Ahaziah was of the line of Omri through his mother Athaliah who was the daughter of Omri.  Why is this specific added information given?  We should ask what is the writer adding this information, what is the purpose?
We must note here that daughter is in reference to the physical lineage of Omri as Athaliah was actually his granddaughter and not his literal daughter. Some versions read granddaughter here:

2 Chronicles 22:2 Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri. NIV
The ESV, NKJV, NLT, NASB, ISV and Net Bible all read granddaughter. 

 But again this lineage is important to understand the meaning of Ahaziah’s recorded age in 2 Chronicles.

Omri

Omri was the king of the Northern tribes of Israel.

As we know, Israel was split into two kingdoms, the Northern tribes of Israel, referred to as the house of Israel and the southern tribes, referred to as the house of Judah.

It is at the point of the reign of Jeroham the father of Ahaziah when the two kingdoms integrated through marriage.  

Ahaziah’s father, Jeroham, was king of Judah as was his father Jehoshaphat:

2 Chronicles 21:1 Now Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. And Jehoram his son reigned in his stead.

However, Jeroham, king of the house of Judah, the southern tribes,  married the granddaughter of Omri the king of Israel, the Northern tribes.

Ahaziah was a product of that integrated marriage between the two kingdoms. 

Ahaziah, therefore, had lineage to the Southern kingdom of Judah through his father but he also had lineage to the Northern kingdom of Israel through his mother.

Jehoshaphat was a good king doing what was right in the eyes of the Lord:

2 Chronicles 20:31 And Jehoshaphat reigned over Judah: he was thirty and five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi. 32 And he walked in the way of Asa his father, and departed not from it, doing that which was right in the sight of the LORD.

Jeroham, however, unlike his father, walked after the kings of Israel, doing evil in the eyes of the Lord:

2 Chronicles 21:4 Now when Jehoram was risen up to the kingdom of his father, he strengthened himself, and slew all his brethren with the sword, and divers also of the princes of Israel. 5 Jehoram was thirty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.6 And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, like as did the house of Ahab: for he had the daughter of Ahab to wife: and he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD.

Jehoram walking after the kings of Israel is another important piece of information that helps us in understanding the two recorded ages. 

We are told that Ahaziah also walked in the way of the house of Ahab and did evil in the eyes of the Lord:

2 Kings 8: 27 And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did evil in the sight of the LORD, as did the house of Ahab: for he was the son in law of the house of Ahab.

So we see that it was at the point of the integrated marriage that evil also integrated itself into the house of Judah.  We are very clearly told that these kings of Judah followed the kings of Israel.  Again this is important information.  There is no redundant information in the Bible.

When we look at the Hebrew of 2 Chronicles it does not simply say that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he became King, it says that he was a son of 42 years when he began to reign.

בֶּן־אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁתַּיִם שָׁנָה אֲחַזְיָהוּ בְמָלְכוֹ

The word ben starts the verse. A son of 42 years.

The 42 years as stated in 2 Chronicles is actually an important reference to the 42 years back to the reign of Omri whose line as we know infiltrated the kingdom of Judah. He was a son of Omri (not a literal son but a son of lineage). He was a son of Omri the lineage of Omri had started 42 years prior to Ahaziah becoming King. It is in relation to Omri’s reign that we are given the number 42

The Hebrew does not simply state that Ahaziah was forty-two years old; it literally reads, “A son of forty-two years was Ahaziah when he became king.” While this is the normal Hebrew idiom for expressing age, the number itself cannot refer to Ahaziah’s biological age, since his father died at forty. Consequently, the question is not whether the expression denotes an age—it clearly does—but rather whose age or what period the forty-two years are intended to measure. The immediate context repeatedly directs the reader to Ahaziah’s maternal connection with the house of Omri, suggesting that the forty-two years may intentionally refer to the duration of the Omride dynasty rather than to Ahaziah’s literal age.

So, it is now important for further understanding that we go back and look at the story of Omri.

Omri was made king by the Northern tribes of Israel:

1 Kings 16:16 And the people that were encamped heard say, Zimri hath conspired, and hath also slain the king: wherefore all Israel made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp. 17 And Omri went up from Gibbethon, and all Israel with him, and they besieged Tirzah.

Omri had ended the 7 day reign of King Zimri:

1 Kings 16:15 In the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah did Zimri reign seven days in Tirzah.

Zimri had killed the king of Israel Elah who had reigned as king for 2 years:

1 kings 16:8 In the twenty and sixth year of Asa king of Judah began Elah the son of Baasha to reign over Israel in Tirzah, two years. 9 And his servant Zimri, captain of half his chariots, conspired against him, as he was in Tirzah, drinking himself drunk in the house of Arza steward of his house in Tirzah. 10And Zimri went in and smote him, and killed him, in the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah, and reigned in his stead. 11 And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.

The people encamped around Zimri and all Israel went up against him in Tirzah:

1 Kings 16:15 And the people were encamped against Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines. 16 And the people that were encamped heard say, Zimri hath conspired, and hath also slain the king: wherefore all Israel made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp. 17 And Omri went up from Gibbethon, and all Israel with him, and they besieged Tirzah

Zimri, seeing that the city was taken, killed himself, going into the king’s house and setting fire to it:  

1 Kings 16:18 And it came to pass, when Zimri saw that the city was taken, that he went into the palace of the king’s house, and burnt the king’s house over him with fire, and died,

However, we are told that some of the people followed Tibni and made him king.  The Northern kingdom itself was now divided into two and had 2 kings, Omri and Tibni.

Omri did not rule in Tirzah where Tibni was king:

1 Kings 16:21 When were the people of Israel divided into two parts: half of the people followed Tibni the son of Ginath, to make him king; and half followed Omri.

But Omri would eventually prevail over Tibni and become the sole king of the house of Israel.  It was Omri, not Tibni, that would reunify the Northern Kingdom.  Omri was king for a total of 12 years, but he was only sole king over the house of Israel for 6 years:

1 Kings 16:22 But the people that followed Omri prevailed against the people that followed Tibni the son of Ginath: so Tibni died, and Omri reigned. 23 In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years: six years reigned he in Tirzah

Omri did evil in the eyes of the Lord, doing worse than all that were before him:

1 Kings 16:25 But Omri wrought evil in the eyes of the LORD, and did worse than all that were before him.

So we see that Omri reigned for 12 years of which 6 years were as the king over all of the house of Israel:

1 Kings 16- 23 In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years: six years reigned he in Tirzah.

And so began the lineage of Omri over Israel.  And this is our reference point.

Ahab, the son of Omri reigned over the house of Israel for 22 years:

1 Kings 2:29 And in the thirty and eighth year of Asa king of Judah began Ahab the son of Omri to reign over Israel: and Ahab the son of Omri reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty and two years.

Ahaziah the son of Ahab (not the Ahaziah whose age is in question)  reigned for a total of 2 years:

1 kings 22:51 Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years over Israel

Jehoram had reigned for 12 years when Ahaziah, the offspring of the integrated kingdoms,  became king of Judah:

2 kings 8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign

When we add up these years of reign:

Omri 6 years (as king over all the house of Israel)

Ahab 22 years

Ahaziah (son of Ahab) 2 years

Jehoram 12 years

The total we get is…….yes its no real surprise ….42.

6+22+2+12 = 42

2 Chronicles does not give us the physical age of Ahaziah but his age in the lineage of the reign of Omri.

The reason that the age of the line of Omri’s reign over Israel is specifically noted with Ahaziah is because Ahaziah was the last king of this lineage in Israel.

Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat would end this reign by killing Ahaziah:

2 Chronicles 22:8 And it came to pass, that, when Jehu was executing judgment upon the house of Ahab, and found the princes of Judah, and the sons of the brethren of Ahaziah, that ministered to Ahaziah, he slew them. 9 And he sought Ahaziah: and they caught him, (for he was hid in Samaria,) and brought him to Jehu: and when they had slain him, they buried him: Because, said they, he is the son of Jehoshaphat, who sought the LORD with all his heart. So the house of Ahaziah had no power to keep still the kingdom.

As already stated, no information in the Bible is redundant.  It is there for a reason even if we do not know what the reason is or we have not needed to use that information before.  When we understand that the Bible gives us the information relevant to answer questions and the information within this story is relevant to correctly understanding these recorded ages, and that the Bible does not contradict itself, the answers, while they may take some searching through careful studying and understanding to find, are always there.  There is no contradiction, no mistake, no copyist error.  The copyist knew exactly what was meant to be there.  After all the Hebrew 22 which is  עשרים ושתים would not be mistaken for the Hebrew 42 ארבעים ושתים

The age given in 2 Chronicles of 42 is actually of importance to understanding the age of the lineage of Omri’s reign over the kingdom of Israel and the end of that lineage’s reign over the house of Israel. 

This way of recording an “age” is utilised many times in the Biblical texts as we will see in later “contradictions”.

 

Here, I shall cite Rabbi Rashi who offered an answer to these 2 different ages. 

forty two years old But in II Kings (8:26), Scripture says: “twenty-two years old.” How is this possible? Moreover, according to this, the son was two years his father’s senior, [because Joram ascended the throne at thirty-two and died eight years later, making him forty years old upon his death,] but two years before Joram his father was born, this decree was issued upon the house of David that it would end with the house of Ahab, and so Scripture states (below verse 7): “And from God was Ahaziah’s downfall, etc.” and on the day that Asa took Omri’s daughter for Jehoshaphat his son, this decree was issued. So it was taught in Seder Olam (ch. 17) and in the Tosefta of Sotah (12:3)Rabbi Rashi on 2 Chronicles. 

Yet again the Bible proves itself correct.

 

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Join our Patreon membershiphere