conflicts in the Bible – La Vista Church of Christ

When did Saul reign in Israel?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:10:39 +0000

Question:

When did Saul rule Israel? How long was his reign?

Answer:

While the information given in the Bible has been repeatedly proven accurate, dates have been a particular challenge because earlier cultures did not use fixed calendars as we do. Instead, time was measured based as elapsed from certain major events or significant person. Since major events rarely took place at the start of a year, we can be off by up to a year, depending on how we round the date given.

For example, the reigns of Israel's kings are generally measured from the time a particular rule ascended to the throne. It is not bad when you are off by a year for a single king, but when you have ten kings in a row, you can be off by up to ten years before or after depending on when the change in kingships occurred.

Every once in a while, a significant event is measured, not by the immediate event, but by a more distant event. These points in time help us to reduce the margin of error that creeps into our estimates of the dates. For example, we are told that Solomon's temple was started 480 years after the Israelite's exodus from Egypt (I Kings 6:1). This point in time corresponds to the fourth year of Solomon's reign. Solomon's father, David, reigned 40 years over Israel (I Kings 2:11). The king prior to David, Saul, reigned 40 years (Acts 13:21). The biggest difficulty is that David named Solomon as his successor prior to his death (I Chronicles 23:1). We don't know how many years that Solomon reigned while his father David lived, nor do we know if the years given for David and Solomon's reigns include or exclude this overlap. We do know that David died before the temple was started in the fourth year of Solomon's reign, so the overlap was probably between 1 and 3 years.

An additional difficulty comes in that Paul states that Saul reigned 40 years in Acts 13:21. "And afterward they asked for a king; so God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years." Yet, I Samuel 13:1 in the NASB says, "Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty two years over Israel." The NIV renders it, "Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-two years." And the NKJV says, "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel." The NKJV is the most literal of translations. The literal translation is "A son of a year, Saul, in his reigning and two years he reigned over Israel." It assumes that the events prior to I Samuel 13:1 took place during the first year of Saul's reign and the following events took place during the second and third year of his reign. The NASB and NIV assume that a digit was dropped in the description of Saul's reign due to copying errors. Based on some Septuagint translations, the NIV assume the first number was meant to be 30 and based on Paul's assertion that Saul reigned forty years, they assume the second number is 42 (with Paul rounding the date in Acts). Personally, I find these assumptions to be too much. There is no reason to assume I Samuel 13:1 is the standard summary of a king's reign, since it is given in the middle of Saul's reign and not at the beginning or end. Interestingly, while not inspired, Josephus, an ancient Jewish historian, also states that Saul reigned 40 years. Hence, any apparent conflict between I Samuel 13:1 and Acts 13:21 is due to mistranslations and not due to the actual text.

The start of Solomon's reign is generally measured to about 971 B.C. This means that David's reigned started around 1011 B.C. and Saul's reign would have started around 1051 B.C.

Using another point in time, "It happened in the fifth year of King Rehoboam that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem" (I Kings 14:25). Rehoboam is Solomon's son and successor. Scholars are fairly certain that Shishak's campaign took place in 924 B.C. Using this as a base date and knowing that Solomon reigned 40 years (II Chronicles 9:30), we come to 969 B.C. as the start of Solomon's reign; 1009 B.C. as the start of David's reign; and 1049 B.C. as the start of Saul's reign.

When did Ahaziah begin his reign?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 01:19:44 +0000

Question:

When comparing II Kings 8:26 and II Chronicles 22:2, which is the true age of Ahaziah when he began to reign?

Answer:

"Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel" (II Kings 8:26).

"Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri" (II Chronicles 22:2).

This is a case where it appears a scribe made a mistake in copying II Chronicles 22:2. Scholars are confident of this because II Chronicles 21:20 and II Kings 8:17 tells us that Ahaziah's father died at the age of 40. If Ahaziah was 42 at the time of his father's death, he would have been two years older than his father -- an impossibility. In older Hebrew, numbers were represented by single letters. The letter for forty was mem and the letter for twenty was kaph. It is possible that these two similar letters in ancient Hebrew were confused in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts. When the letters were expanded to words, the error was carried over. This is further supported in that some Septuagint translations of the Hebrew Bible, the Arabic manuscript, and the Syriac manuscript have twenty-two in II Chronicles 22:2 instead of forty-two as found in the Masoretic family of manuscripts.

Some try to make both texts "right" by asserting that Ahaziah did not immediately start his reign, but was under the thumb of his regent mother. This doesn't work as we look at the reign of Jehoram, Ahaziah's uncle. In II Kings 3:1 we learn that Jehoram ruled twelve years, starting at the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat's reign in Israel. During Jehoram of Israel's fifth year of reign, Jehoram of Judah began to reign (II Kings 8:16). Azahiah began his reign during Jehoram of Israel's final year and died with him at the hand of Jehu. There is no room to slip in an extra 20 years.

How many horsemen did David kill?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 03 Aug 2004 22:13:41 +0000

Question:

II Samuel 8:4 -- 1,700 horsemen
I Chronicles 18:4 -- 7,000 horsemen

Are these two passages related to each other? Why the discrepancy?

Answer:

The two passages do deal with the same event, but they are worded differently. The following is taken from the New King James Version:

"David took from him one thousand chariots, seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers. Also David hamstrung all the chariot horses, except that he spared enough of them for one hundred chariots" (II Samuel 8:4).

"David took from him one thousand chariots, seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers. And David also hamstrung all the chariot horses, except that he spared enough of them for one hundred chariots" (I Chronicles 18:4).

The three words marked boldly in red were added by the translators. They do not appear in the original text. When you compare the two verses, it becomes apparent that the translators noticed the difference in the readings and added a few words in an attempt to bring them closer to saying the same thing.

The translators of the New American Standard Version took a different interpretation:

"David captured from him 1,700 horsemen and 20,000 foot soldiers; and David hamstrung the chariot horses, but reserved enough of them for 100 chariots" (II Samuel 8:4).

"David took from him 1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen and 20,000 foot soldiers, and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but reserved enough of them for 100 chariots" (I Chronicles 18:4).

Instead of inserting an assumed "chariots" between the thousand and the seven hundred in II Samuel 8:4, they read the text as saying thousand plus seven hundred horsemen.

The English Standard Version notes that the Septuagint translation, done before the time of Jesus, has seven thousand in II Samuel 8:4 instead of seventeen-hundred. The 1,700 comes from the Masoretic Text.

Scribal Error

The most common explanation is that the two passages once read the same, but some scribe made a mistake in a copy causing the two readings to diverge. I have a hard time accepting this explanation as the difference between the two texts involves several words. The difference cannot be explained as an accidental stroke difference or the adding, subtracting, or changing of a letter. The argument almost entirely resides on the Septuagint translation.

Different Battle

One suggests there were two different battles. In II Samuel 8:3 it says, "David also defeated Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his territory at the River Euphrates." But in I Chronicles 18:3 it says, "And David defeated Hadadezer king of Zobah as far as Hamath, as he went to establish his power by the River Euphrates." Personally, I think this argument is very weak because the list of what was destroyed and captured are too similar.

A Difference in What Was Counted

Since the two verses are worded differently, another explanation is that I Chronicles 18:4 is counting the number of men involved while II Samuel 8:4 was counting the number of chariot companies, where it is assumed that there were ten men per company. This explanation was promoted by Matthew Henry and John Wesley.

A similar, but an even better explanation is proposed by Peter Ruckman based on II Samuel 10:18 and I Chronicles 19:18.

"Then the Syrians fled before Israel; and David killed seven hundred charioteers and forty thousand horsemen of the Syrians, and struck Shobach the commander of their army, who died there" (II Samuel 10:18).

"Then the Syrians fled before Israel; and David killed seven thousand charioteers and forty thousand foot soldiers of the Syrians, and killed Shophach the commander of the army" (I Chronicles 19:18).

By the way, this is an account of another battle between David and Hadadezer, king of Syria. The obvious explanation is that Syria had multiple men riding in each chariot (ten to be exact). This allowed one to concentrate on driving while others fought on each side of the chariot, plus a commander and backup in case a man was killed. One source lists the following in a typical Syrian chariot crew: a commander, drivers, shieldmen, and bowmen. Therefore, one account is saying that David killed the men in 700 chariots while the other is saying David kill 7000 men who rode in the chariots. This then also explains how II Samuel 8:4 can mention 1000 chariots, but only 700 horsemen. If the 700 horsemen were units, then we have men to ride in 700 chariots plus 300 spare chariots in case some were damaged in battle.

I believe this last explanation is the most natural fit.