Biblical Translation Case Study: Ahaziah's Age

This year is the 400th Anniversary of the publishing of the Authorized Version, more commonly known today as the King James Version, of the Bible.

I wanted to take this opportunity to make a small case study on the subject of Bible Translation by looking at one of the more “difficult” sections for translators.

Ahaziah's Age

Compare II Kings 8:26 and II Chron 22:2 in any version you want.

In every single Hebrew manuscript, without exception, II Kings 8:26 states that Ahaziah was “22.” In every single Hebrew manuscript, without exception, II Chronicles 22:2 states that Ahaziah's age was "42."

So, when you look at II Chronicles 22:2 in your Bible, what does it say? Does it say “42” as in all manuscripts or does it say “22?”

If you're looking at the ESV, NLT, NIV, NASV, and many others, you will see "22" in this passage.

Why?

One of the primary stated reasons for all of the plethora of new versions is because they claim that they are trying to be "closer to the originals." Why then do most of them flatly contradict every single manuscript there is?

Why are the translators, that have claimed that those newer translations have been made to be more faithful to the manuscripts, not following the things they claim to love?

Many reasons are listed for this “error,” even some so absurd as a fly getting into the ink and blurring the line from the Hebrew symbol of 22 to that of 42, including diagrams of how it could have happened.

Some would say that these are not the same men in these two passages, but that doesn't match the exacting nature of the information that is given in both passages.

All of the argumentation and reasoning that they use misses the essential point: God's word is infallible! Every real Christian agrees on this. If the Bible is not infallible (free of error and lies), then there is no reason to follow any of it. If there is a single flaw, then who's to say that there aren't more?

God promised to preserve His word, that it would endure to all generations, and that His people would have it.

Is it truly a preserved word of God if there is error within every single sample of it?

There is a simple solution! These two verses containing two contradictory ages are not errors! There is a point being conveyed here that the modern translators have missed, and so they have tried to “fix” God's word for Him. That's more than a little presumptuous on their parts.

Why have they edited instead of faithfully translating the manuscripts?

It falls back on the entire modern approach to Bible translation. The modern way of approaching it, called Textual Criticism, is an entirely natural and scientific approach to looking at manuscripts. That approach, which works well with trying to find what ancient Greek philosophers or other ancient writings of men, is not appropriate or correct for the spiritual writings of God. It assumes the introduction of mistakes and errors in something God promised to protect and preserve. So, since they are used to assuming mistakes and “fixing” them, it should be no surprise that they assume these passages have an error (despite the fact that every manuscript agrees), and that they go ahead and “fix” this too.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, at this point I find it interesting to take a side trail and point out another issue with these same translators. They refuse to translate correctly what every manuscript says in II Chronicles 22:2, but when you go to Mark 1:2, they choose to take the text from a few manuscripts and use that, despite the fact that there is a contradiction there.

There is no verse in Isaiah that has those words (as they claim). They are found in Malachi. So, they will translate that correctly from their manuscripts, when it's obviously wrong (just use any concordance or online search and you will see), but they refuse to do the same in II Chronicles (which isn't really an error).

The difference in these two cases is that most manuscripts say in Mark 1:2 that those words are recorded in “the prophets,” and not in any particular one. The reason that these translators have chosen to use the incorrect manuscripts is because they, based on their approach of Textual Criticism, have claimed that those particular manuscripts are the “best” and “closest to the originals.”

This is by no means a singular example of how those same translators have made a mistake, based on their “best” manuscripts. There are dozens of others. But that thought is for another time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a simple solution that makes both 22 and 42 work, and it resolves an "issue" that appears elsewhere in the Bible.

It is easy enough to see that 22 is Ahaziah's physical age when he became king, since his father was 40 at the time when he began to reign, eliminating 42 as a possible physical age. So, what then is the 42 there for?

Ahaziah was the son of Jehoram, king of Judah, and Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. Ahab is the best known member of the family of Omri, king of Israel. Ahaziah followed in the footsteps of the wicked side of his family, Omri and Ahab. Jehu killed Ahaziah while he was killing off the house of Omri and Ahab, at God's command, because of their wickedness.

You can see by the judgment on Ahaziah (and his son and grandson), especially in conjunction with the judgment on Ahab's house, that God didn't consider Ahaziah or his descendants to be worthy of the line of David or the kingdom of Judah.

Then you do a little math. You find that if you take the times of the reigns from the house of Omri, they come to 42 years at the beginning of the reign of Ahaziah.

God just demonstrated, in multiple ways, that Ahaziah did not belong in the line of the good kings of Judah, so instead he placed him in the line of the evil kings of Israel, and showed such by giving his age as 42.

Now I know someone is going to think all of that's a stretch. That's where the second part comes in.

No one seems to be able to explain the missing portions of the lineage of Christ from Abraham. For those of you that have never noticed it, Jehoram did not beget Uzziah (Mt. 1:8), there are three generations missing in that space. Every single manuscript agrees in that statement as well, and every version agrees. So, why are those names missing?

The three generations missing are those of Ahaziah, his son, and his grandson.

God again demonstrated a point. Those three men were wicked in a way that lined themselves up with the house of Omri and Ahab, so they were not worthy to be listed in the line of Christ.

Further, this can be seen as a direct example of a Scriptural principle:

God promised to repay sins of parents on their children to the third and fourth generation (Exo 20:5, 34:7, Num 14:18) and to remove the remembrance of them from his people (Psalm 69:28, 109:13-15, Eze 13:9).

So, there we have two "errors" that explain one another by just a little looking. They fit together to show a spiritual lesson of how much God hates sin.

There is no need whatsoever for anyone to try and fix these passages. They are perfect. They demonstrate spiritual lessons that are valuable. It just takes spiritual eyes and a little bit of looking to see the point.

Here's the significance of all of this.

Can you really trust "translators" that will refuse to acknowledge what every single manuscript says, and choose to edit it instead, because they think God needs help? Will you trust men that can't explain these issues, so instead they try to make them go away?

I trust the KJV because its translators translated these texts faithfully and allowed the Bible to fix its own seeming "errors" rather than trying to fix things for the Bible and instead leaving errors with no answer.


____________________________________________

I will not claim credit for this article.
I merely took another persons work and put it into my own words.
You can find the original article here: http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/scripture/ahaziah-contradiction.pdf