2 Chronicles 22:2 (UASV)
“2 Ahaziah was twenty‑two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri.”

This verse presents a notable numerical discrepancy between the Masoretic Text (MT), the Septuagint (LXX), and the Syriac (Syr.) and Arabic traditions concerning the age of Ahaziah when he began his reign. The Masoretic Text of 2 Chronicles 22:2 records that Ahaziah was “forty-two” years old, whereas 2 Kings 8:26, which serves as a parallel account, reports “twenty-two” in both the Masoretic and Septuagint texts. Most manuscripts of the Septuagint in Chronicles read “twenty,” though at least one manuscript preserves the reading “twenty-two.” The Syriac and Arabic versions also reflect “twenty-two.” This supports the conclusion that “twenty-two” was likely the original reading in Chronicles as well. The Masoretic Text of 2 Chronicles 21:20 notes that Ahaziah’s father, King Jehoram, died at the age of forty. For Ahaziah to have been forty-two when he began his reign would not only be chronologically impossible but would also undermine the coherence of the historical record. Therefore, “twenty-two” harmonizes most naturally with the broader biblical chronology and familial lineage.

This textual observation is significant because it underscores the general fidelity of the manuscript transmission process, while also illustrating how ancient versions—though secondary to the authoritative Hebrew tradition—can retain readings that more accurately reflect the original wording when internal coherence and external corroboration are taken into account. In this case, the consistent witness of the Septuagint (despite slight variation between “twenty” and “twenty-two”), alongside the Syriac and Arabic versions and the firm data from 2 Kings 8:26, collectively supports the correction of a likely scribal error in the Masoretic tradition. While the Masoretic Text is rightly privileged for its accuracy and preservation, when it departs from historical and contextual viability, ancient translations may assist in restoring the original consonantal reading.

Ancient Versions and Their Role

The Masoretic Text and Its Authority

The Masoretic Text is the primary textual tradition for the Hebrew Scriptures, transmitted by the Masoretes between the sixth and tenth centuries C.E., whose care ensured accurate preservation through vowel notation, marginal notes, and cross‑checking procedures. Any divergence from its readings requires proportionate and compelling evidence.

The Septuagint and Syriac as Supporting Witnesses

The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the Syriac Peshitta represent independent textual traditions. In this case, both agree on “twenty‑two” (LXX and Syr.) rather than the MT’s “forty‑two,” and these versions align with 2 Kings 8:26. Their agreement supports the notion that earlier Hebrew Vorlage (archetypal text) used “twenty‑two,” which scribes of Chronicles may have mistakenly rendered as “forty‑two” in the Masoretic manuscript.

Harmonization with 2 Kings 8:26

2 Kings 8:26 reads consistently, in both MT and LXX, “twenty‑two,” reinforcing a chronological consistency. Ahaziah could not plausibly be forty‑two given his father’s age at death (forty, 2 Chronicles 21:20). The alignment of age across Kings and Chronicles underscores the unity and coherence within the textual tradition, and the presence of variant readings invites careful comparison across witnesses to affirm or restore the most plausible original.

Objective Analysis of Variants

A careful and earnest text‑critical reading recognizes that the Masoretic reading “forty‑two” in Chronicles may stem from scribal error, possibly influenced by the numeral “forty” in 2 Chronicles 21:20. Ancient scribes often copied numbers with relative ease of mis‑reading or mis‑writing. The agreement of LXX and Syriac, coupled with the chronological improbability of Ahaziah being forty‑two, provide strong objective grounds for preferring “twenty‑two” as the authentic age.

That preference is made without resorting to subjective theory or skepticism; rather, it stands upon the weight of the manuscript evidence, parallel accounts, and coherent chronology. The Masoretic tradition remains foundational, but textual certainty arises through careful engagement with all available trustworthy witnesses.

Paleographic and Transmission Considerations

Though this specific variant is numerical, scribal practices in the transmission of Hebrew manuscripts included both consonantal letters and marginal notes to ensure accuracy. Miscopying of numbers, especially when using Hebrew letters as numerals, was not uncommon. Such an error can be corrected through comparison with other ancient versions. The convergence of LXX, Syriac, and Kings suggests a restoration of the original consonantal reading from which Chrysographers (scribe‑like figures) or later Masoretes preserved notes.

Relationship of Chronicles to Kings in Textual History

The books of Chronicles frequently restate and expand upon narratives from Samuel and Kings. In the process, the Chronicler appears to have drawn upon a Hebrew Vorlage that, in this case, exhibited a numerical deviation. While the Masoretic Text of Chronicles preserves “forty-two,” the consistent “twenty-two” in 2 Kings 8:26 across both the Masoretic and Greek traditions provides a firm chronological anchor. It is plausible that the translators of the Septuagint and Syriac were either working from Hebrew manuscripts that preserved the original “twenty-two” or intentionally harmonized their translations with the more accurate reading in Kings. Their alignment with coherent chronology and textual integrity demonstrates the reliability of these ancient versions as secondary witnesses and affirms the strength of the broader manuscript tradition in preserving the original wording.

Why No Sigla Are Given

Scholarly publications that note these variants often derive from textual commentaries or broader surveys, not detailed collation of specific manuscripts. Unless a critical apparatus or specialized study identifies which Greek or Syriac witness carries the variant, we remain at the general level.

If you need that kind of precision, you would likely need to consult:

• Critical editions of the LXX (e.g., Rahlfs–Hanhart or Alfred Rahlfs’s Septuaginta, which may mention variant readings or manuscript notes in the apparatus).

• Specialized journals or textual-critical studies focusing on 2 Chronicles or Kings–Chronicles textual traditions.

• Access to the full textual apparatus of the Syriac Peshitta editions, which might list variant readings by manuscript.

You May Also Enjoy

Dead Sea Scrolls–Septuagint Alignments Supporting the Masoretic Text in Old Testament Transmission

See more

About the Author