Philosophy of Chronology
Introduction
We had hoped that
the chronology of the Hebrew kings would be a simple matter of opening a
standard book, showing comparisons, and drawing conclusions. That was two months ago, and we are still not
close to developing a cohesive, consistent, and
reliable chronology of the Hebrew kings.
We especially found the methods and
presuppositions of Edwin R. Thiele to be unsatisfactory. We may not change or improve Dr. Thiele’s
dates very much, but at least we will make a point or two.
Along the way we will explore two issues from practical
mathematics: namely, counting numbers and zero.
We will also broaden the field of evidence. We regret that we are not able to broaden
this field further, but at least we will have made a start. We will focus on the Septuagint (LXX), the
Vulgate, and the Masoretic Text as the main witnesses to the Hebrew
prototype. Why these three, you
ask? Aren’t there other witnesses? Yes, there are several other witnesses, all
beyond our reach for research. These
three witnesses are particularly important because the Orthodox Church largely
follows the Septuagint; the Roman Catholic Church largely follows the Vulgate;
and a good many Protestants follow the Masoretic Text. This set embraces well over 90% of all
Christianity. We hope to get Christians
to take a look at the way other Christians see the Bible and give everybody a
fair hearing.
When I began this process around 1968, I was doggedly
attached to the Masoretic Text; as well as being a firm supporter of the
“Majority Text” viewpoint. Today, I’ve
come to believe that the Septuagint is historically and canonically superior to
all others. The point of this study is
not to beat that point to death; rather to put as many pieces of evidence as
possible, face-up on the table, and let you draw your own conclusions. All evidence deserves a fair and impartial
hearing. If I have drawn unwarranted
conclusions, you will find the data to prove me wrong in front of you. Wherein, I have made mistakes, you will have
the material you need to point them out, and correct them.
If all of us work
hard at this, we can hope to come more closely united as brothers and sisters
in Christ. If real qualified scholars
take up this kind of study, we can bring a great deal more evidence to the
table.
A good philosophy of
chronology must provide for a foundation in mathematics, the maximization of
all available evidence, and a solid consideration of text criticism: for no
sensible chronology can be built from an unsound text, minimum evidence, and
shaky math. It must open the door to
linkages from multiple cultures, and give considerable effort to understanding
a variety of viewpoints. Here is a
start.
Numbers
Chronologers
commonly involve themselves in intricate discussions over the differences
between accession or postdating and its opposite, nonaccession or
antedating. Not only is the terminology
confusing, but it is highly improbable: we can’t even prove that the two
systems exist in antiquity. Chronology,
like all of mathematics, obviously depends on the historical development of
mathematics. As we all know, our first
concepts of mathematics amount to learning to count on our fingers and
toes. There is no zero, or concept of
zero, in this elementary counting number system.
All elementary
chronologies are simple counting number systems and nothing more: terming these
elementary chronologies nonaccession or antedating is not helpful or
useful. None of these elementary
chronologies has a zero concept. Length
is a concept of a bone or stick devoid of any idea that one end is zero and the
other end is some positive value.
Accession or postdating systems are simply not in existence: they are
simply too sophisticated for the earliest chronologists.
So when did zero
concepts begin to develop among men? The
answer to that question, at least in part, appears to be, not until the seventh
century AD. Yes, zero was used as a
place holder before that, but there was little or no concept of zero as a
decimal digit, the average of – 1 and + 1.
The use of zero as a
placeholder can be traced to the Fertile Crescent between 400 and 300 BC. Any concept of zero as a decimal digit might
have begun to take shape as early as the fifth century AD; even so it does not
achieve full orbed development until the seventh century AD. This makes the development of any accession
or postdating system prior to the seventh century AD very unlikely. For accession or postdating systems to be a
reality would imply that early Israelite chronologers actually discovered or
invented zero as a decimal digit concept: this centuries before zero by any
name was used even as a place holder elsewhere in the world. Israelite mathematics was simply not that
highly developed between 1000 and 516 BC.
Neither was anybody else’s dating or mathematics. All dating systems were nonaccession or
antedating systems: simple counting methods.
For verification
that this is true we need only look as far as the crucifixion and resultant
death of Christ which lasted over Friday, Saturday, and Sunday: exactly three
days. If a zero concept is introduced,
we are forced to acknowledge that death did not take place at the exact start
of Friday, or even close to it.
Resurrection took place very early on Sunday morning, long before the
close of a twenty-four-hour day. In all,
Jesus may have been dead for a little more than thirty-six hours, less than two
full days by any assessment. For this
cause some have gone so far as to suppose a Thursday crucifixion, or even a Wednesday
crucifixion. The death of Christ clearly
supposes a simple counting method.
If we dig farther,
we discover that the authors of our present day calendars had no zero concept:
for the numbers run in sequence 3 – 2 – 1 – 1 – 2 – 3, without any zero. This may be an aggravation to modern
mathematicians, but it shows that no zero or accession dating concept was
extant at that time.
Since accession or
postdating is so very improbable we must attempt to resolve The
Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings[1] employing only simple
counting methods.
Text
Criticism
Sadly, Dr. Thiele[2] exhibits a very jaundiced
attitude toward the Septuagint, or anything else that is not Masoretic Text (MT
or M) or Textus Receptus (TR) or King James Version (KJV). This cannot be a scientifically neutral point
of view since it sweeps aside mountains of evidence with one lonely
presupposition: specifically, anything not MT, TR, or KJV must be corrupt.
What’s at stake here?
The Septuagint (LXX) is a Greek translation of the Hebrew
Old Testament completed no later than 50 BC,[3] exclusively by Jews for
Jewish worship, in large part because: a. Greek was now the legally official
language of Israel; and b. Greek was the everyday language that most Israelites
spoke. It is a myth to claim that
Aramaic remained as the first language of the Israelites. The existence of the Septuagint in widespread
use, points to Greek. The New Testament
points to Greek. As such, the Septuagint
is the witness to the oldest Hebrew prototype.
The Septuagint is evidently the document from which Christ and the
Apostles preached: hence the Septuagint authority and witness cannot simply be
replaced by newly found ancient documents.[4]
The Vulgate is a Latin translation of the Hebrew Old
Testament completed in the late fourth century by Saint Jerome. As such, the Vulgate is the witness to the
second oldest Hebrew prototype. We could
argue that Symmachus influenced Jerome; indeed we are simplifying a complex
field to make an important point; there may well be other witnesses that we
have bypassed. Nevertheless, Jerome is a
dominant witness, and his work is based on a very old Hebrew prototype.[5]
The Masoretic
Text is a collection and evaluation of late Hebrew manuscripts in attempt to
standardize the Hebrew Scripture to some extent.[6] However, the Masoretic Text is based on a
relatively modern prototype. Not only is
it the latest player in the game, but is also exhibits a deliberate removal of
several books from the Old Testament on the grounds that they are not
canonical: this effort may have begun as early as 70 AD, but that is far from
certain. It is fair to ask what
canonical authority the Masoretes have; since they have no temple, Ark, Ephod,
Urim, or Thummim?
The point is that,
of all the Hebrew prototypes we might find on this earth, the Septuagint is by
far the oldest, and as such, deserves at least an equal hearing. Moreover, because it is by centuries the
oldest witness, it stands an excellent statistical chance of being the best
witness.
Thiele references a
mere twelve verses in his final evaluation of the Septuagint. Even these are not his own: he is dependent
on the prior study of Burney for his information.[7]
Consequently, we
conducted our own study hoping that it might form the basis for a more thorough
and complete analysis. We make no
pretense to being text scholars, nor do we have access to the library resources
for such work.
In our study we are
deeply indebted to the following sources for information.
http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/default.asp for the liturgical text of the Greek
Orthodox Church, for Brenton, and for a feel for the “Larger Cambridge
Septuagint” text studies, which we hope lie behind Brenton.
http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/1-kings/14.html for clarification and confirmation of
Brenton whenever necessary.
https://www.biblegateway.com/ for the King James Version (KJV) and other English
studies which depend on the MT, for Biblia Sacra Vulgata (VULGATE), and for The
Westminster Leningrad Codex (WLC).
Rahlfs, Septuaginta (WBS, Stuttgart, 1935: Vol I,
1184 pages; Vol II, 941 pages) for a feel for the “Larger Göttingen Septuagint” text studies which we
hope lie behind Stuttgart.
Taylor, Bernard A., Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint:
Expanded Edition (Hendrickson, Peabody, MA, 2009: 591 pages) for Greek lexical
support.
Davidson, Benjamin, The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon
(Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1970: 784 pages) for Hebrew lexical support.
Our Method
We began by
collecting relevant verses. We started
with the list provided in James F. Scott’s “Scripture Index.”[8] To this copious list we added verses from
these same Bible books listed by Scott, verses which contained the word, year,
in association with a number from the King James Version (KJV). We used the KJV because it avoids any
copyright issues; it is easily subjected to a computer search for the word,
year; you can also read it easily to get the broader picture; and it seems to
be Thiele’s starting point. Finally, we added any verses that seemed to
have chronological importance or other interest, which verses were discovered
by any other means. The result was a
table of 852 verses or sets of verses, two of which are from Luke: 850
potential specimens from the Old Testament and thirteen different books in our
total collection.
Since we do not have
access to good critical editions[9] such as the “Larger
Cambridge Septuagint” or “Larger Göttingen Septuagint” we fashioned a crude
substitute. Data was entered into our
850 row table; the columns contain: A. the list of verses; B. the KJV[10] numerical evidence, later
replaced by MT; C. the Elpenor[11] study of LXX; D. a German[12] study of LXX; E. Brenton’s[13] study of LXX; and F.
Vulgate[14].[15] When a verse contained more than one number,
each number was placed in its own row (for example: 1 S 13:1 a, 1 S 13:1
b). By this simple tactic we hope to at
least get a practical feel, a grasp of the scope of the problem; what might be
involved in a real scientific study; and possibly even generate enough interest
among young people who will become capable of doing the work properly.
Compiling this table
proved to be a greater task than at first imagined. Especially in Jeremiah, whole chapters have
been moved from their original positions.
So, we developed a matrix, with the help of Elpenor[16], which would cross link
every Septuagint, Vulgate, and Masoretic text to the same KJV base. Other books exhibited the same problem, but
not to the extent of Jeremiah.
Sometimes, it seemed as if the ancient scribes had carelessly dumped
puzzle pieces on the floor and swept them up in any random order: one puzzle
eventually being assembled in one order, and another assembled according to a
completely different plan. We may not
have been the first to unscramble this tangled mess; still God blessed us with
a large measure of success. One might
expect that this confusion might result in a very uncertain and unreliable outcome,
yet such is not the case.
Our next step is to remove all those verses which have no
numerical evidence whatsoever. Thiele
has a tendency to chase evidence which is not relevant to the topic of
chronology.
Our Findings
Of the total of 850 Old Testament specimens examined, 486
specimens remain after removing all specimens that contain no numerical data,
or that simply do not exist[17] in Scripture. Still, not all numerical data was referenced:
we simply did not see the need to track all seemingly trivial numbers (for
example: how many Levites were over 20 years of age). Even so, quite a few of these seemingly
trivial numbers were examined, especially where they exposed an alleged defect. The numbers which have no chronological
importance form a sort of statistical control group: they give us a feel for
how various scribes handle numbers.
Of the 486 numerical specimens, all were examined with two
computer routines. The first routine ran
an if-test comparing maximum row values to minimum row values and reported any
numerical divergence of any kind. The
second routine ran an if-test counting missing data. Both of these test results were counted using
a numerical count routine. Finally,
these numbers were used to calculate a percent of divergence from the 486
numerical total. We discovered that 7%,
32 of the specimens examined contained some numerical divergence, while another
14%, 68 had missing data. So, in all we
have a 79% assurance that the numerical data in the thirteen books examined is
absolutely rock solid: there is absolutely no divergence involved; whether you
chose a Greek, Latin, or Masoretic source to represent a prototypical Hebrew
document, the same result occurs. We
believe that this, in and of itself, seems rather amazing, considering the age,
and time span covered by the supporting documents. Of course, this is merely our opinion, since
we have no control groups with which to draw comparison (for example:
chronological divergence in Assyrian annals, or in Shakespeare).
Now we will conduct a visual inspection of all 486 specimens
looking for other divergences manually.
At the same time we will manually examine each of the 100 computer
discovered divergences. We will also
trace and replace the KJV evidence for divergent verses back to the MT: the M
column for detailed studies is now MT, rather than KJV. In each case we will attempt to provide a
report, and propose an explanation.
Our Details
1 Samuel 4:15 KJV, “Now Eli was
ninety and eight years old; and his eyes were dim, that he could not see.”[18]
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
V
|
|
|
1 S 4:15 a
|
98
|
90
|
90
|
90
|
98
|
The point of the narrative appears to be
that Eli is very old, in his nineties.
Thus the difference between 90 and 98 seems unimportant, and to detract
from the narrative. It appears as if a
later scribe was unnecessarily perfectionistic, and moved with unwarranted
compulsion, added the unnecessary detail to the verse. Such addition always runs the risk of being
wrong. Ninety carries the point
adequately all by itself. Numbers of
this type are almost always reported in the format of 90 years and 8 years, or
8 years and 90 years: so it is easy to drop a number or equally to add a
number. The case cannot be proved
absolutely; yet, we don’t believe it matters.
It has no evident bearing on chronology.
Still, addition appears to be much more probable than deletion. Few scribes would be willing to delete extant
evidence; on the other hand, a marginal note may be easily incorporated.
1 Samuel 4:18 KJV, “And it came
to pass, when he made mention of the ark of God, that he fell from off the seat
backward by the side of the gate, and his neck brake, and he died: for he was
an old man, and heavy. And he had judged
Israel forty years.
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 S 4:18 a
|
40
|
20
|
20
|
20
|
40
|
Again, the correct number is difficult to
detect: 40 seems unlikely considering the quality of Eli’s service (he is
replaced by Samuel); 20 seems unlikely considering Eli’s great age. Chronologically, neither number appears to
make any difference. Eli dies in
disgrace, and his numbers are detached from other chronological data. Had Eli lived and died with honor, his
numbers would most likely be connected to the chronological sequence. This is a period of great turmoil in Israel
so nothing much is stable other than the fact that the Ark has gone on
vacation.
|
Passage[22]
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 S 13:1 a
|
a
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
1
|
|
1 S 13:1 b
|
2
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
2
|
The evidence is so patently fabricated that
it provides strong evidence that scribes were all too willing to add to
Scripture. It seems that this verse
never existed as part of Scripture. The
scribe, attempting to provide “missing” information, botched the job. Credible numbers for Saul must be taken from
the New Testament. Even so, Saul is also
discredited and disgraced, so his numbers do not connect with any chronological
sequence. Both 1 Samuel
13:1 a and b exhibit the common pattern with no match found.
1 Samuel 27:7 KJV, “And the time
that David dwelt in the country of the Philistines was a full year and four
months.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 S 27:7 a
|
1???
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
|
1 S 27:7 b
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
M has the idiom, days and four months,
without any mention of years, which would commonly be construed as meaning four
full months.[23] Here M is not even supported by V. Moreover, the expected idiom for a full year
would be a year of days, which is missing.
Again, a scribe has been caught tampering with the evidence. There is very little evidence that David
spent more than 4 months among the Philistines.
There is no real divergence here, except that of English translations.
2 Samuel 15:7 KJV, “And it came
to pass after forty years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me
go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the Lord, in
Hebron.”[24]
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
2 S 15:7 a
|
40
|
40
|
40
|
40
|
4
|
The question is, what does 40 mean? It cannot mean David’s 40th year in office:
for he only served 40 years in office, and that leaves no time for Absalom’s
rebellion to take place. It cannot mean
Absalom’s age: for that would also place the date close to David’s death.[25] It could be David’s age, which would be ten
years into David’s reign: yet, this makes Absalom too young to father a child
or avenge a rape; besides, the text does not say this. So, it is very easy to sympathize with V’s
desire to correct the error. On the
other hand the difference between arba’ah (4) and arba’im (40) is extremely
slight: V may very well preserve the correct reading. We are presented with an unsolvable riddle.
2 Samuel 24:13 KJV, “So Gad came to
David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto
thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while
they pursue thee? or that there be three days’ pestilence in thy land? now
advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
2 S 24:13 a
|
7
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
7
|
|
2 S 24:13 b
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
|
2 S 24:13 c
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
However, 1 Chronicles 21:11-12 addresses the same situation without any divergence.
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 C 21:12 a
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
|
1 C 21:12 b
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
|
1 C 21:12 c
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
We are left with the conclusion that the 7
in M is defective and the Hebrew prototype does have 3 & 3 & 3 without
any divergence.
1 Kings 2:39 KJV, “And it came to pass at the
end of three years, that two of the servants of Shimei ran away unto Achish son
of Maachah king of Gath. And they told Shimei, saying, Behold, thy servants be
in Gath.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 2:39 a
|
3
|
---
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
|
1 K 2:39 b
|
2
|
---
|
2
|
2
|
---
|
It seems likely that the text for E was
lost; that 3 & 2 are good numbers; yet, the actual number of slaves is in
slight doubt, because of V.
1 Kings 5:11 KJV (1 Kings 5:25 in Greek and M), “And Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand measures of wheat for food to
his household, and twenty measures of pure oil: thus gave Solomon to Hiram year
by year.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 5:11 a
|
20,000
|
20,000
|
20,000
|
20,000
|
20,000
|
|
1 K 5:11 b
|
20
|
20,000
|
20,000
|
20,000
|
20
|
These numbers may well be identical: M has
20 kors, E and G have 20,000 baths, and V has 20 choros: 1 kor may be 1,000
baths in liquid measurement, we are not certain. The text deserves the benefit of the
doubt. We have no idea where the KJV 1 Kings 5:11 verse numbering came from, perhaps V.
1 Kings 6:1 KJV, “And it came to pass in the
four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of
the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the
month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 6:1 a
|
480
|
440
|
440
|
440
|
480
|
|
1 K 6:1 b
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
|
1 K 6:1 c
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
|
1 K 6:1 d
|
1 K 6:37
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
1 K 6:37
|
|
1 K 6:1 e
|
1 K 6:37
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
1 K 6:37
|
|
1 K 6:1 f
|
1 K 6:38
|
11
|
11
|
11
|
1 K 6:38
|
|
1 K 6:1 g
|
1 K 6:38
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
1 K 6:38
|
1 Kings 6:1 Brenton, “And it came to pass in the four hundred and
fortieth year after the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt, in
the fourth year and second month of the reign of king Solomon over Israel, that
the king commanded that they should take great [and] costly stones for the
foundation of the house, and hewn stones. And the men of Solomon, and the men
of Chiram hewed [the stones], and laid them [for a foundation]. In the fourth
year he laid the foundation of the house of the Lord, in the month Ziu, even in
the second month. In the eleventh year, in the month Baal, this [is] the eighth
month, the house was completed according to all its plan, and according to all
its arrangement.”
There is only one significant divergence
here: is the correct number 480 or 440?
Since this is an extremely important chronological number, we have given
it full and careful consideration elsewhere.
Our final conclusion is that 440 is correct because it makes a near
perfect match with Egyptian chronology possible. The first 4 & 2 do not diverge at
all. The remaining four numbers only
appear to diverge because M has relocated them at 1 Kings 6:37 and 38. Thus four apparent divergences do not exist
here; four other divergences at 1 Kings 6:37 and 38 do not exist either. Neither E nor G can possibly be the source of
these verse dislocations.
1 Kings 6:37 KJV, “In the fourth
year was the foundation of the house of the Lord laid, in
the month Zif (2nd).”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 6:37 a
|
4
|
1 K 6:1
|
1 K 6:1
|
1 K 6:1
|
4
|
|
1 K 6:37 b
|
Zif
|
1 K 6:1
|
1 K 6:1
|
1 K 6:1
|
Zio
|
This is the same problem we solved at 1 Kings 6:1: there is no divergence.
1 Kings 6:38 KJV, “And in the
eleventh year, in the month Bul, which is the eighth month, was the house finished
throughout all the parts thereof, and according to all the fashion of it. So
was he seven years in building it.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 6:38 a
|
11
|
1 K 6:1 f
|
1 K 6:1 f
|
1 K 6:1 f
|
11
|
|
1 K 6:38 b
|
8
|
1 K 6:1 g
|
1 K 6:1 g
|
1 K 6:1 g
|
8
|
|
1 K 6:38 c
|
7
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
7
|
This is the same problem we solved at 1 Kings 6:1: there is no divergence until we reach
row 1 Kings 6:38 c.
Verse 6:38 does not exist in Greek and no corresponding match was found. This pattern will be repeated several times;
we will suggest that it has a common cause.
1 Kings 6:38 c shows the common pattern with no match found.
1 Kings 7:1 KJV, “But Solomon was building
his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 7:1 a
|
13
|
1 K 7:38
|
1 K 7:38
|
1 K 7:38
|
13
|
1 Kings 7:38 Brenton, “And
Solomon built a house for himself in thirteen years.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 7:38 a
|
1 K 7:1
|
13
|
13
|
13
|
1 K 7:1
|
Two more cases where there is no
divergence, only relocated verses, when 7:1 and 7:38 are seen as the same verse.
1 Kings 8:1 KJV, “Then Solomon assembled the
elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of
the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring
up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the
city of David, which is Zion.” No data
was found in KJV. However,
1 Kings 8:1 Brenton, “And it came to pass when Solomon had finished building the house
of the Lord and his own house after twenty years, then king Solomon assembled
all the elders of Israel in Sion, to bring the ark of the covenant of the Lord
out of the city of David, this is Sion.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 8:1 a
|
---
|
20
|
20
|
20
|
---
|
No corresponding match was found for the
missing information.
1 Kings 8:2 KJV, “And all the men of Israel
assembled themselves unto king Solomon at the feast in the month Ethanim, which
is the seventh month.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 8:2 a
|
7
|
Athanin
|
Athanin
|
Athanin
|
7
|
While the numeral 7 is not repeated, the
word Athanin is present. Since Athanin
is the 7th month, repetition of the numeral is redundant. This is a case of apparent defect where no
real defect is found.
1 Kings 9:25 KJV, “And three times in a year
did Solomon offer burnt offerings and peace offerings upon the altar which he
built unto the Lord, and he burnt incense upon the altar that was before the Lord. So he finished the house.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 9:25 a
|
3
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
3
|
Verses 9:15-25 do not exist in the
Septuagint. This is another instance
where a scribe appears to have added irrelevant notes to Scripture. This seems to be a weak attempt to defend
Solomon against the charge of idolatry.
This is the same pattern we called attention to previously.
1 Kings 10:14 KJV, “Now the weight
of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and six
talents of gold,”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 10:14 a
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
|
1 K 10:14 b
|
666
|
666
|
666
|
666
|
666
|
This is just an interesting sidetrack verse
in that it shows 666 as a focus on gold and wealth, rather than on worship and
wisdom. We threw it in as an item of
interest for prophecy buffs. It has no
divergence.
1 Kings 14:20 KJV, “And the days which Jeroboam
reigned were two and twenty years: and he slept with his fathers, and Nadab his
son reigned in his stead.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K14:20 a
|
22
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
22
|
The common pattern with no match found
except in notes.
1 Kings 15:2 KJV, “Three years reigned he in
Jerusalem. and his mother's name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 15:2 a
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
3
|
3
|
Both numbers may be correct. G may include a 3-year coregency. We will need more evidence from the chronological
sequence. If coregency is not possible,
then the Septuagint witness is uncertain and 3 is more likely correct.
1 Kings 15:9 KJV, “And in the twentieth year
of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa over Judah.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 15:9 a
|
20
|
24
|
24
|
24
|
20
|
Again, we will need more evidence from the
chronological sequence. If 6 is correct
in 1 Kings 15:2; then 24 is most likely correct here.
Since 1 Kings 15:2 and 1 Kings
15:9 appear to be integrally linked; the consistent witness to 24 in
Septuagint, seems to favor 6 at 1 Kings 15:2.
This would mean that E contains the potential error.
1 Kings 16:8 KJV, “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.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 16:8 a
|
26
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
26
|
|
1 K 16:8 b
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
1 Kings 16:8 a sows the common pattern with no match found.
1 Kings 16:10 KJV, “And 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.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 16:10 a
|
27
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
27
|
The common pattern with no match found.
1 Kings 16:15 KJV, “In the twenty and seventh
year of Asa king of Judah did Zimri reign seven days in Tirzah. And the people
were encamped against Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 16:15 a
|
27
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
27
|
|
1 K 16:15 b
|
7
|
7
|
7
|
7
|
7
|
1 Kings 16:15 a
shows the common pattern with no match found.
1 Kings 16:21 KJV, “Then 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.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 16:21 a
|
halves
|
divides
|
divides
|
divides
|
2
|
|
1 K 16:21 b
|
1/2
|
1/2
|
1/2
|
1/2
|
1/2
|
|
1 K 16:21 c
|
1/2
|
1/2
|
1/2
|
1/2
|
1/2
|
M has divided into halves. Greek has the word, divides, alone, instead
of divided in 2 parts (V). We believe
that 2 parts was an unnecessary redundancy in the time of the Hebrew prototype.
1 Kings 16:29 KJV, “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.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 16:29 a
|
38
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
38
|
|
1 K 16:29 b
|
22
|
22
|
22
|
22
|
22
|
Here is another number that will require
evaluation of the chronological sequence for final determination. 1
Kings 16:29 Brenton, “In the second year of Josaphat king of Juda, Achaab son
of Ambri reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty-two years.” It is entirely possible that the 38th year of
Asa is the same as the 2nd year of Josaphat.
1 Kings 22:51 KJV, “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.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 22:51 a
|
1 K 22:52
|
1 K 22:52
|
1 K 22:52
|
17
|
1 K 22:52
|
|
1 K 22:51 b
|
1 K 22:52
|
1 K 22:52
|
1 K 22:52
|
2
|
1 K 22:52
|
1 Kings 22:52 E translated,
“And Ochozias son of Achaab reigned over Israel in Samaria: in the seventeenth
year of Josaphat king of Juda, Ochozias son of Achaab reigned over Israel in
Samaria two years.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
1 K 22:52 a
|
17
|
17
|
17
|
1 K 22:51
|
17
|
|
1 K 22:52 b
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
1 K 22:51
|
2
|
Here again 1 Kings 22:51 and 52 reconcile each other without
divergence. The verses are simply
numbered differently by one verse.
2 Kings 1:17 KJV, “So he died according to
the word of the Lord which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead in the
second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no
son.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
2 K 1:17 a
|
2
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
2
|
The common pattern with no match found.
2 Kings 1:18 Brenton, “… Joram
son of Achaab reigns over Israel in Samaria twelve years [beginning] in the
eighteenth year of Josaphat king of Juda….”[26]
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
2 K 1:18 a
|
2 K 3:1
|
12
|
12
|
12
|
2 K 3:1
|
|
2 K 1:18 b
|
2 K 3:1
|
18
|
18
|
18
|
2 K 3:1
|
2 Kings 3:1 KJV, “Now Jehoram the son of
Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat
king of Judah, and reigned twelve years.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
2 K 3:1 a
|
18
|
18
|
18
|
18
|
18
|
|
2 K 3:1 b
|
12
|
12
|
12
|
12
|
12
|
While 2 Kings 1:18 Greek and
2 Kings 3:1 do reconcile each other, there is an unexplained duplication. The numerical order is also reversed; which
creates a chiasm between the two verses.
2 Kings 8:2 KJV, “And the woman arose, and
did after the saying of the man of God: and she went with her household, and
sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven years.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
2 K 8:2 a
|
7
|
7
|
7
|
7
|
---
|
The 7 is found in
both the preceding and succeeding verses.
The Latin economy and efficiency of words, most likely could not
tolerate the triple repetition. The
meaning is not changed, so little real divergence exists.
2 Kings 14:17 KJV, “And Amaziah the son of
Joash king of Judah lived after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz king of
Israel fifteen years.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
2 K 14:17 a
|
15
|
15
|
15
|
15
|
25
|
The problem is a
simple error in V. Perhaps a scribe had
confused “viginti quinque annis” with “viginti de
quinque annis” or “quinquede-viginti annis.”
2 Kings 15:13 KJV, “Shallum the son of Jabesh
began to reign in the nine and thirtieth year of Uzziah king of Judah; and he
reigned a full month in Samaria.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
2 K 15:13 a
|
39
|
39
|
39
|
39
|
39
|
|
2 K 15:13 b
|
a
|
---
|
---
|
a
|
1
|
Only V has the
actual numeral. KJV and B suffice with
the indefinite article substitution for the numeral which is common enough in
English. Greek has no indefinite
article, so the absence of any other specification may substitute for one. M, E, and G all use the expression month of
days: so it is difficult to understand this expression as meaning anything
other than a 29.5 day synodic month.
Thus the expressions are equivalent and no divergence exists.
2 Kings 15:25 KJV, “But Pekah the son of
Remaliah, a captain of his, conspired against him, and smote him in Samaria, in
the palace of the king's house, with Argob and Arieh, and with him fifty men of
the Gileadites: and he killed him, and reigned in his room.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
2 K 15:25 a
|
50
|
50
|
50
|
50
|
50
|
|
2 K 15:25 b
|
Gileadites
|
400
|
400
|
400
|
Gileadites
|
It appears that the
Greeks may have taken the term, Gileadites, to signify a military unit of 400
men, a battalion. This may be
correct. Gileadites may possibly
indicate people from Gilead or a battalion.
Alternately, Gileadites may indicate the name of a specific battalion,
The Gileadites, the 101st. The
justification for such a change from the Hebrew prototype would be that
Gileadites had lost any common meaning among the populace. Septuagint simply chose the most sensible
substitute. This could be a divergence,
but it is not necessarily a divergence.
400 is also older than Gileadites, and may be correct.
2 Kings 22:3 Brenton, “And it came to pass in the eighteenth year of king Josias, in the
eighth month, the king sent Sapphan the son of Ezelias the son of Mesollam, the
scribe of the house of the Lord, saying,”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
2 K 22:3 a
|
18
|
18
|
18
|
18
|
18
|
|
2 K 22:3 b
|
---
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
---
|
The 8th month
appears to be a true divergence; yet, it does not seem to have any
chronological impact.
2 Kings 25:1 KJV, “And it came to pass in the
ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month,
that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against
Jerusalem, and pitched against it; and they built forts against it round
about.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
2 K 25:1 a
|
9
|
9
|
9
|
9
|
9
|
|
2 K 25:1 b
|
10
|
10
|
10
|
10
|
10
|
|
2 K 25:1 c
|
10
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
10
|
2 Kings 25:1 c
shows the common pattern with no match found.
2 Kings 25:2 Brenton, “And
the city was besieged until the eleventh year of king Sedekias on the ninth day
of the month.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
2 K 25:2 a
|
11
|
11
|
11
|
11
|
11
|
|
2 K 25:2 b
|
2 K 25:3
|
9
|
2 K 25:3
|
9
|
2 K 25:3
|
2 Kings 25:3 KJV, “And on the ninth day of
the fourth month the famine prevailed in the city, and there was no bread for
the people of the land.”
|
Passage
|
M
|
E
|
G
|
B
|
V
|
|
2 K 25:3 a
|
9
|
2 K 25:2
|
9
|
2 K 25:2
|
9
|
|
2 K 25:3 b
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
Even though 2 Kings 25:2 and 3 reconcile each other, a new
problem is introduced. Ordinarily, we
would expect the expression “on the ninth day of the month” to mean
specifically the first month. M does not
have 4, so this is a KJV invention of unknown source: if a blunder, it is a
widely copied one.
[1]
Thiele, Edwin R., (Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1983: 253 pages)
[2]
ibid
[3] I
simply proposed a date that was so late in time it would be impossible to
attack. This is a bit like saying that
WWII was over by 1975: yes, and a good while earlier too. A serious Septuagint expert would defend much
earlier dates for Septuagint completion, and with far greater detail: for
example, Beckwith, Roger T., The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament
Church (Wipf & Stock, Eugene, OR, 1985: 528 pages)
[7]
Thiele, page 209. Burney, C. F., Notes
on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903)
pages xli ff
[8]
Thiele, page 249 ff.
[15]
Why are three columns devoted to the Septuagint while only one each is devoted
to MT and V? Both MT and V are easily
found in widely accepted authoritative versions; for example:
No such authoritative version of Septuagint exists. When I began such studies around 1975 two
major centers of Septuagint studies were in existence, one in England and the
other in Germany. These two divided the
work between them, several books coming from each source: a complete critical
edition of the Greek Old Testament was completely out of reach for even the
wealthiest student; besides, which of us could read it, we had other
priorities. Since that time the computer
age and internet have exploded upon us.
Yes, I know, it is hard to imagine, in 1975 we still read books printed
on paper, there were no personal computers, no internet commonly available,
these things were just springing to life in rudimentary form. I bought my first personal computer, a TI99
4A, around 1985, there was still no internet available to me. Now Elpenor appears to be the next big thing
in Septuagint studies with the promise of an Orthodox Church lexical copy. One cannot simply go to the internet and
start Septuagint studies; one must patch together as best one may. We hope that Brenton’s work expresses some
insight into the English Septuagint studies; that Rahlfs is
faithful to the German work; and that Elpenor will give us fresh
insight into older Greek practices. Both
Brenton and liturgical information come from Elpenor:
Thus our humble three columns devoted to the Septuagint are a
grasp to get one good idea of what the Septuagint really says; which is not so
easily accomplished, having required the best minds of two major study centers
as well as the best minds of the Orthodox Church.
[17]
Verses falsely referenced in the Scott “Scripture Index” that could not be
found.
[18] Interestingly, the Greek and Hebrew idiom appear to be the same:
both use the formula that X was a son of N years.
[19] We hasten to point out that we have no way of tracking the source
for Brenton’s study, so Brenton is only useful as a control on the English
study (E). Even here, Brenton’s work,
though truly monumental in his day, contains enough translation errors to need
correction. In no way can Brenton be
considered to have the weight of a source.
The only sources of which we are aware are Septuagint: the Cambridge
studies, the Göttingen studies,
and the liturgical text used by the Greek Orthodox Church for millennia;
Vulgate: Roman Catholic Church source documents; Masoretic Text: surviving
manuscripts. We are merely using
contrived devices to get a feel for the scope and impact of these sources,
which are not directly available to us.
Note that the Dead Sea
Scrolls cannot be considered as a witness to M: rather they are a witness to
that Hebrew prototype from their own age.
Since there is no evidence that they were active in temple use or by
Christ or the Apostles, they bear minimal weight other than artefactual curiosities. They bear direct evidence of use in their
specific communities only. Proof that
such use extended outside that specific community is harder to come by. We ought not get too excited over recent
finds: for we already have an excellent grasp of the Scripture in use in places
of authority. Christ and the Apostles,
as well as a majority of the common people used the Septuagint. Highly educated people such as the Jerusalem
scribes of the Pharisees and Sadducees had some knowledge of Aramaic and a late
form of Hebrew. Galilean peasants
retained a bare salting, a sprinkling of the old words. Nobody in 4 BC had any grasp of Hebrew as
Moses knew it: they were a full millennia removed from the reality of
Moses. By 516 Hebrew was already a dead
language, replaced by Aramaic: scribes, scholars had to translate the Hebrew
into Aramaic for the popular understanding.
After Alexander, Greek would begin to replace Aramaic. Since the Roman nobility preferred Greek to
Latin, Latin would not come into play until Church outreach extended to the
Roman peasantry well into the late first and early second century.
[20]
Table data presentations are always in the order: KJV/MT (M),
Elpenor study (E), German study (G), Brenton’s study (B), Vulgate (V). Since the order of reporting statistics is
always the same, we will henceforth abbreviate our table headings (M, E, G, B,
and V) to make reading less tedious.
[21] MT, literally reads, “Saul was a son of 1 year (1 year old) and he
reigned for 2 years over Israel.”
[22]
This verse does not exist in Greek.
[23]
See 1 Kings 14:20 for a similar construction.
[24] Literally, “after 40 years had ended.”
[25]
David lived from age 30 to 70. Prior to
30 he had little time for family life, because Saul made him a hunted man. If Absalom was born between David’s 20th and
30th years, David would be between 60 and 70 when Absalom’s rebellion
began. This does not appear to be enough
time to complete the remaining events of David’s life.
[26] 2 Kings 1:18 is considerably longer in Greek. This is the part of 2 Kings 1:18 labeled 18α.
[27] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations,
please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish. No rights are reserved. They are designed and intended for your free
participation. They were freely
received, and are freely given. No other
permission is required for their use.
No comments:
Post a Comment