The Discrepant Numbers in the Books of Kings
Chronological Snobbery and Inerrancy
Within the book of Kings, if one is paying attention, there appears to be a number of numerical discrepancies.
For example, 1 Kings 16:23 states that Omri took the throne in the 31st year of Asa and reigned for 12 years. But then 1 Kings 16:29 states that Omri’s son, Ahab, took the throne in the 38th year of Asa. How could Omri rule for 12 years, but only take up 6–7 years of Asa’s reign?
Or, Jehoram, the son of Ahab, ascended to the northern Israelite throne in the “2nd year of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat king in Judah” (2 Kings 1:17). But then 2 Kings 3:1 states that Jehoram’s ascension occurred in the “18th year of Jehoshaphat.”
The first thing we must note is that it would be utter folly to assume that the ancient authors did not notice such apparent discrepancies as if they couldn’t count! In fact, the reality that the ancient author of Kings left these apparent discrepancies in his narrative points more to their authenticity and truthfulness. If there was an actual erroneous and glaring discrepancy we might expect the author to clean it up before producing the final canonical record. In other words, the most logical answer to the appearance of a discrepancy left by the ancient author would indicate that there is no discrepancy at all. Rather, we the modern readers must be lacking information to make sense of the apparent discrepancy, information that the ancient audience readily had at hand so that to them there was no discrepancy at all. Lacking such information makes the text appear to be erroneous but if we shared the context and the knowledge of the ancient audience we would likely not see anything as a discrepancy.
This reality also points to the ancient status of the text, similar to the liturgical headings in the Psalter. These headings in the Psalter, like “according to Lilies” in Psalm 69, are probably an ancient musical directive. But even by the time of the translation of the Septuagint—which is ancient from our perspective—these headings were undecipherable by the translators and they came up instead with interesting translations.[1] So also with Kings. By the time of the Septuagint translation of Kings, the translators tried to reconcile these apparent discrepancies. For example, before 1 Kings 16:29 (mentioned above), the LXX contains a lengthy addition and then reads for 1 Kings 16:29, contrary to the MT (see above), “In the second year of Iosaphat, Achaab son of Ambri began to reign” (1 Kings 16:29 NETS). That the LXX is trying to “clean up” the discrepancy indicates that even by the time of the LXX, the translators lacked sufficient information to understand why these texts were in fact not at odds. Again, to assume that the Hebrews were fools, or could not count, or would not notice such discrepancies, and to rework the text like the LXX translators did, would be to use C.S. Lewis’s quip, the height of “chronological snobbery.”
The second thing to note is that scholars have provided satisfactory solutions to these apparent discrepancies in Kings. We must admit that any solution, without clear ancient evidence from the ancient author, is tentative. Edwin Theile has proposed a solution, and his argument for why his solution is correct is admittedly “because it works.” In other words, Theile’s “solution” solves all the numerical discrepancies in Kings.
Theile’s solution includes the northern and southern kingdoms using different counting systems for the length of a king’s reign (accession and non-accession year counting), using different calendars thus affecting how/when a “year” is counted (one beginning in the spring, the other beginning in the fall), and arguing for co-regencies of various kings resulting in overlapping reigns within each kingdom. [2]
Now, we don’t have to accept Theile’s proposal—in fact Iain Provan finds Theile’s solution to be “quite…tortuous”[3] (a little unfair of the monumental undertaking by Theile in my opinion!) and takes the numbers as more approximate and at times symbolic—but the fact remains that a solution is possible.
And thirdly, regarding our view of Scripture, such apparent discrepancies ought not to affect our view of inerrancy. As Wellum notes in his Systematic Theology,
“Our affirmation of inerrancy does not imply, and has never implied, that we know how to resolve every apparent inconsistency in Scripture. In fact, we are under no obligation to do so in order to believe in inerrancy.”[4]
And,
“we affirm inerrancy not because we can answer all of the difficulties, but because of Scripture’s self-attestation plus the larger worldview argument that, apart from a true and reliable word from God, we have no ultimate epistemological warrant for objective truth and normative theology.”[5]
This sentiment is captured in article XIV of the Chicago’s Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: “We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.” Believing in errancy does not mean we know how to solve discrepancies, rather, we simply believe the discrepancies to be nothing more than apparent and sufficient information, if it were ever to come, would reveal the apparent discrepancy to be just that, apparent.
[1] Mitchell notes the translation of על־ששנים “according to the lilies” in Pss 45, 69, 80 as ὑπερ ἀλλοιωθησομένων “concerning the transformation” as interpreting the transformation of the flora in springtime eschatologically pointing to the new creation. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms, JSOTSup 252 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 19–20.
[2] Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (3rd rev. ed.), 21–22.
[3] Iain Provan, 1 & 2 Kings, 19.
[4] Wellum, Systematic Theology Vol 1., 314.
[5] Wellum, Systematic Theology Vol 1., 315.