Why does Ahaziah's age differ in the Bible?
Why does 2 Chronicles 22:2 say Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign, while 2 Kings 8:26 says he was 22?

The Passages in Question

2 Kings 8:26 reads: “Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri king of Israel.” By contrast, some manuscript traditions of 2 Chronicles 22:2 (from which the KJV is translated) record: “Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king…” (though many modern translations, including the Berean Standard Bible, have “twenty-two years old” here as well).

Why the Difference Appears

The most immediate question is how these two verses can be reconciled when one presents Ahaziah’s age as twenty-two and another preserves a reading of forty-two. From a chronological standpoint, this issue stands out because Scripture also states that Ahaziah’s father, Jehoram (also called Joram), was thirty-two when he began to reign and reigned only eight years (2 Chronicles 21:5; 2 Kings 8:17). That makes it impossible for Ahaziah to have been literally forty-two at the start of his reign if his father died around the age of forty.

Examination of Manuscript Evidence

1. Masoretic Text (MT) Tradition: The traditional Hebrew text that underlies the King James Version in 2 Chronicles 22:2 reads “forty-two years old” in most surviving copies of the MT. However, careful study of Hebrew spelling and numerical notations suggests that transcriptional slips sometimes occurred in certain scribal lines.

2. Septuagint (LXX): The ancient Greek translation called the Septuagint ordinarily reads “twenty” or “twenty-two” in parallel references to Ahaziah’s age. Thus, in places where the LXX offers numbers for Ahaziah’s reign, it aligns with 2 Kings 8:26 and not with the “forty-two” in the MT tradition. This indicates that the earlier textual tradition recognized his age as twenty-two.

3. Other Early Witnesses: Some Syriac manuscripts and early Latin translations also preserve the younger age, corroborating the reading of twenty-two as the intended and coherent number.

Proposed Resolutions

1. Likely Scribal or Translational Slip: A straightforward explanation is that the original reading was “twenty-two,” and at some point, a numerical slip (likely involving the Hebrew letters that represent numbers) resulted in “forty-two” in certain manuscript lines of the Hebrew text. Because 2 Kings 8:26, the LXX, Syriac, and contextual chronology all support the age “twenty-two,” many modern Bible translations (including the Berean Standard Bible) adopt that figure in 2 Chronicles 22:2 to avoid what would be a clear chronological impossibility.

2. Reference to a Royal Dynasty (Less Common View): Some older interpreters proposed that “forty-two” might refer not to Ahaziah’s personal age but to the length of time since Omri’s dynasty began, or to a tally of years in a broader lineage or national context. While this is more complex, it remains less likely because the verse specifically speaks of “Ahaziah’s” age, and the parallel passages, along with the textual witnesses, favor an actual age of twenty-two.

3. Harmonization with Father’s Age: Since Jehoram died at about age forty, the only consistent way for Ahaziah to be his son is if Ahaziah was indeed twenty-two at his ascension. The biblical timeline of Jehoram’s reign (eight years, beginning at age thirty-two) cannot support a literal age of forty-two for his son.

4. Scripture’s Internal Consistency: All references to genealogies and ages within the narratives of Kings and Chronicles interlock when regarded with the reading of twenty-two. The seemingly conflicting number “forty-two” appears only in some Hebrew manuscripts of 2 Chronicles 22:2, and a multitude of manuscript, historical, and contextual lines of evidence bring us to see “twenty-two” as the accurate representation that best upholds the harmony of Scripture.

Confirming No Contradiction in Scripture

From a textual-criticism standpoint, ancient copies of the Old and New Testaments were meticulously preserved, but occasional copying errors—especially in numeric figures—could slip in. These are recognizable by comparing parallel passages (2 Kings vs. 2 Chronicles in this instance), referencing early translations (like the LXX and Syriac), and evaluating the overall historical context (Ahaziah’s father’s age). These lines of analysis demonstrate that an inadvertent scribal slip, rather than any factual or spiritual contradiction, accounts for the “forty-two” in single lines of transmission.

Practical Application and Takeaway

Reliability of the Text: Even though copiers were careful, minor copyist variations in numerals occasionally happened. The overwhelming textual support, however, shows that Scripture remains remarkably consistent and reliable.

Confidence in Biblical History: The chronology of the Judean kings, when studied in conjunction with manuscript evidence, affirms that the consistent age for Ahaziah is twenty-two.

Scripture’s Harmony: By examining parallel passages and earlier manuscript sources, students of the Bible can confidently uphold that no true contradiction exists.

Conclusion

When comparing 2 Chronicles 22:2 with 2 Kings 8:26, the most coherent and historically consistent reading is that Ahaziah was indeed twenty-two years old at his accession. The reading of “forty-two” in certain manuscripts of 2 Chronicles 22:2 is best explained as a scribal slip that later entered the text tradition. Substantial manuscript evidence, the context of Ahaziah’s parentage, and the parallel account in 2 Kings concur that the correct age is twenty-two. This example serves to strengthen, rather than weaken, confidence in the reliability and harmony of Scripture once the textual history is properly understood.

Why is 2 Chronicles 21 poorly documented?
Top of Page
Top of Page