Jump to content


Photo

OT Manuscript Help


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Jon

Jon

    Iota

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 879 posts
  • LocationWatford, UK

Posted 09 November 2011 - 06:51 AM

Hi all,

I'm currently examining some of the chronological difficulties/variances in Kings and Chronicles - specifically:

- Asa's 35th year - which can't be his 35th year (2 Chron 15)
- Ahaziah's age at accession (2 Kings 8:26 [22] and 2 Chron 22:2 [42])
- Jehoiachin's age at accession (2 Kings 24:8 [18] and 2 Chron 36:9 [8])

Particularly on the last two I am trying to analyse whether a geniune variance occurs. After looking at the variance within the plethora of English translations I decided I needed to go further back. As a result, I am trying to get hold of old OT manuscripts to highlight whether there is a transmission issue or whether the record has been written different on purpose.

Here's where I'm a tad unstuck and am hoping for help? I've looked at the following manuscripts and wondered if there was any major ones I had missed:

- Codex Leningrad (from BHS)
- Aleppo Codex
- LXX (both Brentons and NETS)
- Latin Vulgate
- Syriac Peshitta

I can't seem to find Chronicles in the DSS so far - does anyone know the best route to go down?

My initial conclusion is that a geniune discrepancy seems to be there which has then been edited in later manuscipts (i.e. other than the Hebrew) to conform to Kings. I have some tentative conclusions about what's going on - which I found pretty exciting - but just wanted to ensure I'd done my research! Some of this may ultimately appear in eJBI if I decide it's good enough.

I appreciate to some this may look quite academic, but I need to know whether a variance exists or not!

Jon

Edited by Jon, 09 November 2011 - 06:53 AM.


#2 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 09 November 2011 - 08:06 AM

Have you looked at Thiele's work? It's generally considered the starting point for this research.

#3 Jon

Jon

    Iota

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 879 posts
  • LocationWatford, UK

Posted 09 November 2011 - 01:34 PM

Have you looked at Thiele's work? It's generally considered the starting point for this research.


Yup - I agree with his conclusions on Asa but he doesn't cover the other two.

#4 daysha

daysha

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,261 posts
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 21 April 2013 - 07:44 PM

Are there any online sources by Christadelphians that set out to explain these chronological differences?

The ESV and the Septuagint both have Ahaziah's age at accession as being 22 in both 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chron 22:2.
But there is still the ten year discrepancy between 2 Kings 24:8 [aged 18] and 2 Chron 36:9 [aged only 8].

Would it have been normal practice for those people at that time to set up as king an eight year old?

Or would someone else take charge until the boy comes of age?
Do all to the glory of God. Read His word prayerfully, think about it, meditate upon it and do.

#5 Hudders

Hudders

    Mooooderator

  • Moderators
  • 722 posts
  • LocationNSW, Australia

Posted 22 April 2013 - 12:51 AM

Are there any online sources by Christadelphians that set out to explain these chronological differences?

The ESV and the Septuagint both have Ahaziah's age at accession as being 22 in both 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chron 22:2.
But there is still the ten year discrepancy between 2 Kings 24:8 [aged 18] and 2 Chron 36:9 [aged only 8].

Would it have been normal practice for those people at that time to set up as king an eight year old?

Or would someone else take charge until the boy comes of age?

From the NET footnote to 2 Chron 36:9 -

12tc The Hebrew text reads “eight,” but some ancient textual witnesses, as well as the parallel text in 2 Kgs 24:8, have “eighteen.”


It seems likely that this was a copying error made when the scriptures were first copied / mass produced over 2000 years ago. The difference between the words for '18' and '8' in Hebrew is apparently tiny, like one letter difference or something.

This is an example of a transcription error that the BASF mentions in the foundation clause:

THE FOUNDATION -- That the book currently known as the Bible, consisting of the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, is the only source of knowledge concerning God and His purposes at present extant or available in the earth, and that the same were wholly given by inspiration of God in the writers, and are consequently without error in all parts of them, except such as may be due to errors of transcription or translation.


Edited by Hudders, 22 April 2013 - 12:53 AM.


#6 Hudders

Hudders

    Mooooderator

  • Moderators
  • 722 posts
  • LocationNSW, Australia

Posted 22 April 2013 - 01:13 AM

FWIW, occasionally throughout history there have been kings who have been as young as eight. Usually what happens in these situations is that there is a regent who rules on their behalf, as obviously no one in their right mind would entrust the future of the country's economy and military to an eight year old.

For example, Edward VI of England was the successor to Henry VIII. However, he took office when he was 9 years old, so his uncle Edward Seymour (Jane Seymour's brother) was appointed as Prince Regent, before being replaced by John Dudley (Earl of Warwick) midway through his reign. Had he not died at the age of 15, Edward would have continued with a regent ruling the country until he was 18 (I think) at which point he would have been granted sole rule of the country.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users