ded up to 35 and not 36 cubits?), but the author certainly wouldnt have made a mistake to add up 18 and 18 and so very possibly had a source that told him the total added up to about 35 and thus the individual pillars were a little under 18 cubits long.. 2 Chronicles 3:16 • Were there one hundred or two hundred1 Kings 7:26 • 2000 or 3000 baths? See 2 Chronicles 4:5. 1 Kings 7:29, 36 • Is this against the command not to make graven images? See 2 Chronicles 3:7. 1 Kings 8 1 Chronicles 3:20 • Five or Eight children? The count of five in verse 20 here probably does not refer to all the children in vv.19-20 but only to the children of Zerubbabel aside from the first three mentioned as the NIV has it, seeing the list of the first three ends with a sister and resumes with the names of the rest of the children of Pedaiah. 1 Chronicles 3:22 • Five or six sons? This verse lists five names but says the number of sons six in all. The reason for this is probably that either the original of 1 Chronicles 3:22 had another name (most likely), or a copy of 1 Chronicles accidentally put 6 instead of 5 in all. Obviously the author knew how to count if he knew how to write and would have known there were 5 names and he clearly would have noticed that after Shemaiah and his sons: there was a list of five names. There is another possibility. If 1 Chronicles 3:22 is counting Shemaiah along with his five sons as the descendants of Shekaniah, this would explain why the number is six in all. 1 Chronicles 6:66,69 • Were these towns in Ephraim or Dan? By the time of 1 Chronicles the territory of Ephraim and Dan had very likely shifted where the towns listed in 1 Chronicles 6:69 were no longer in Dan, but in Ephraim. This part of Dan was right next to Ephraim and this is very likely what happened and similar to many other times this shift in the boundary of a tribe happened. As a result, for the author and readers of 1 Chronicles, these towns were in Ephraims territory, not Dans. 1 Chronicles 10 • How did Saul die? First, in 1 Chr. 10:13-14, God killed Saul for all of the sins in verses 13-14, not just for consulting a medium. Also, 1 Samuel 28:6 says that Saul inquired of the Lord whereas 1 Chr. 10:14 says he didnt. The meaning that the author of 1 Chronicles assigns to Saul not asking God in 1 Chr. 10:14 is that he didnt adhere to God or His Word, and went and ran off to a medium for consultation, even making an oath to God not to punish her since prior to that he had banished mediums from the land. Its not that Saul didnt physically ask God, but that after asking Him, he consulted a medium instead of (further) consulting God. God knew he would do this, and this is all that 1 Chr. 10:14 wants to say; Saul had already shown himself disobedient on a couple of occasions (1 Sam. 13, 15) and inquired of God in the sense of only using it as a weather forecast, not because of worship and after God tested him, his going to the medium was the greatest error on Sauls part of them all. And so Sauls death was not just for not inquiring of God - it was for being unfaithful and transgressing, including not killing all of the Amalekites, and this was simply the lid that closed the jar. Just like in 1 Samuel 31, here Saul kills himself. However, in 2 Samuel 1:1-10 an Amalekite tells David that he killed Saul. Its obvious here that the Amalekite was lying to get a reward, thinking that David was in such great enmity with Saul that he would have been glad at the news of the kings death at the hands of this Amalekite. Instead David was greatly grieved and killed the Amalekite because he saw him just for what he was - an enemy of Israel (see 2 Samuel 4:10; the situation is exactly like that of the two commanders who assassinated Sauls son, Ishbosheth, thinking theyd be rewarded but were instead executed for treason: 2 Samuel 4:5-12). Now, we have another place in Scripture that relates to Sauls death. In 2 Samuel 21:12 it says, he [David] went and took the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan from the citizens of Jabesh Gilead. (They had stolen their bodies from the public square at Beth Shan, where the Philistines had hung them after they struck Saul down on Gilboa.) (NIV). Does 2 Samuel 21:12 say it was the Philistines who killed Saul after all? The answer is No, because the sense of struck/had slain Saul down means that they had defeated him and they were pretty much the reason Saul died, even though technically he killed himself: without their defeating him in battle he would have still been alive. Also, in 1 Samuel 31:8-13 we see that the Philistines did further humiliation and assault on Saul which would be configured into the phrase where they had slain Saul. Overall, 2 Samuel 21:12 uses an expression to say the Philistines slew Saul to denote his defeat and cause of (suicidal) death. 1 Chronicles 10:6 • Did all of Sauls house die? Jehu, when fulfilling the prophecy that all of the house of Ahab would die exterminated so many people that he even killed relatives of the king of Judah just because the king of Judahs wife was of the house of Ahab. But we know Sauls son Ishbosheth survived and so did his concubines and wives. The fact is, Jehu may have taken the prophecy a little far, perhaps for personal safety, and the house of Saul certainly died when his sons and men died, and Ishbosheth was never really truly a king despite a two year reign amidst a civil war. In this sense, the house of Saul was ended, and it does not need to mean every person physically related to Saul to have died, but merely that his house no longer retained any power due to those who could (in essence) wield that power were dead - and Ishbosheth didnt ever really wield power fully nor have the allegiance of all of Israel nor was anointed as king. 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 • Did Saul inquire of God or not? And was he killed because he consulted a medium or because he didnt kill all the Amalekites? See 1 Chronicles 10. 1 Chronicles 11 1 Chronicles 11:11,13-14,18,20,22, 12:14-15 • Are these legends and incredibly exaggerated/invented stories and accomplishments? Often times extraordinary things happen that baffle the imagination, and especially so in battle where life and death hang. For example, Alexander the Greats forces at the Battle of Gaugamela were 30,000 and he faced the Persian emperor, Darius, who had 250,000. Alexander the Greats casualties were a few hundred! In 1560 a battle took place in Japan where the ruler of Owari, Oda Nobunaga, faced an army of 25,000 which he defeated with a force of 1800! Surely then each of his soldiers killed at least 10-15 other soldiers, and considering some were stronger and more experienced than others in his 1800 man army, they could have killed up to 20-30 if not more enemy soldiers. We then can see how Abishai raised his spear against three hundred men; he didnt kill them all with one blow by himself: he was part of a battle and killed them in the course of the battle alongside the Israelite army. Certainly 300 is an high number of casualties for one man to bring, but it is nothing impossible in that context. Now, in 1 Chr. 11:13-14 we dont really think David and the mighty warrior Eleazer stood alone against a Philistine army, especially in an open field were they would have been immediately surrounded. Even in a bottleneck area like the mountain pass of the Battle of Thermopylae it wouldnt really be possible to hold off an army. We can be sure that the main Israelite army fled but the men under David and Eleazers more personal command stayed and with their leadership (and fighting of course) defeated the Philistines. That the text only mentions David and Eleazer staying does not mean they didnt have some troops with them, much like when ancient texts that say X person built something, they dont mean he built it by himself (e.g. Nehemiah 3 or Xerxes palace inscriptions; also 1 Chr. 12:14-15). As far as 1 Chr. 11:18 it is not impossible for three brave and skilled warriors to break through enemy lines: this isnt the age of machine guns and grenades but spears, swords, and arrows. Plus they would have known the terrain, and would have been able to go through areas that werent as densely populated by enemy soldiers than, for example, an enemy camp. Certainly nothing impossible, considering they drew water from a well near the gate of the town (11:17), which means they certainly didnt have Philistine soldiers in hot pursuit right behind them, but went through places they could fight off soldiers and not be detected big time. The killing of two mighty warriors in 11:22 and the Egyptian (11:23, whose height is nothing impossible either - 7.5 feet) is nothing impossible and the lion killed was certainly killed with a weapon, probably a spear. The legend regarding Darius Is accession to the throne was that when he was a boy, his father put him in a cage with a lion and gave him a spear, reasoning that if the boy killed the lion he was fit to rule, and if not, he wasnt. Certainly this may have been a legend, but if the ancients thought a boy (about 15-20 years old) had a chance against a grown lion with a spear, then a mighty warrior certainly had one. Also, Samson killed a young lion with his bare hands when he had the miraculous strength of the Nazirite vow, so we can be sure 1 Chr. 11:22 does not presuppose that Benaiah killed the lion with his bare hands. Finally, 1 Chr. 12:14-15 does not presuppose that each of Davids commanders could single-handedly kill 100-1000 people, but that their skill with the skill of the men under their command could. • Did Jashobeam/Josheb-Basshebeth kill 300 or 800 men? This is most likely a copyist error which originally had either 300 or 800 in the originals of 2 Samuel 23:8 and 1 Chronicles 11:11. 1 Chronicles 12 1 Chronicles 12:14-15 • Are these numbers exaggerated? See 1 Chr. 11:13-14,18,20,22, 12:14-15. 1 Chronicles 13 1 Chronicles 13:9 • Was Uzzah struck at Nachon or Kidon? The two names are without a doubt variations of the same name (Nachon) which occur with names. Alternatively, it may be that by the time of the writing of 1-2 Chronicles, that the name of the place was Nachon, and no longer Kidon. 1 Chronicles 18 1 Chronicles 18:4 • 700 or 7000 horsemen/charioteers? Here we have a copyist error and textual corruption of the original of 2 Samuel 8:4 which undoubtedly had 7000 instead of 700 as the LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls confirm. What happened was, since the word for chariots is missing in 2 Sam. 8:4, a copyist error accidentally dropped chariots (rekeb) from 2 Samuel 8:4 and afterwards a scribe didnt make sense of the numbers 1000 and 7000 horsemen/charioteers and so corrected the text to say 1000 and 700 horsemen/charioteers. This is where the Masoretic Text gets the number 1700, and this is where the KJV and related translations get the 700. 1 Chronicles 20 1 Chronicles 20:5 • Who killed Goliath? This verse says, In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod. (NIV). 2 Samuel 21:19 says, And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weavers beam. (KJV). Who is right? We can immediately note that there is textual corruption in 2 Samuel 21:19: Jaareoregim is certainly a corruption of the original Jair, oregim being weavers, which is undoubtedly a dittographical error from the like a weavers rod at the end of the verses. With respect to Lahmi or Bethlehemite, since in Hebrew, Bethlehemite is Beyth hal-lachmiy, so in my mind there isnt a lot of doubt that the original reading was ...Elhanan the son of Jair, a Bethlehemite... There is a possibility that the original reading was indeed ...killed Lahmi... and that the resemblance to Bethlehemite along with 1 Chr. 11:26 gave rise to a copyist error in 2 Samuel and not 1 Chronicles. However, I think it is much easier to suppose that the copyist error on this is in 1 Chronicles and that the Elhanan of 1 Chr. 11:26 is the same as this one. As far as Elhanans father in 1 Chr. 11:26 being Dodo (the origin of the name David) is that Jair could have been a more distant relative, or a nickname for Elhanans father (Dodo is a better case for the actual name since it was an actual Phoenician name), much like Jethro is a transliterated name for excellency in the case of Moses father-in-law. This however, I dont know how likely it is, since Jair means more or less forest/woods, though thats not impossible as a nickname for Elhanans father either. It might be a textual corruption for a nickname of Elhanans, but I dont find that very likely. Overall, son of Jair (1 Chr. 20:5//2 Sam. 21:19) vs son of Dodo (1 Chr. 11:26) doesnt necessitate a contradiction but has multiple possible explanations such as multiple names for Elhanans father or the reference son of Jair (or son of Dodo) being to a more distant, more famouse relative. Back to the main issue, Lahmi cannot be the original reading and it has to be Bethlehemite. This leaves us with two questions: why then doesnt 2 Samuel 21:19 (the reading with Bethlehemite) say Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath? And if there was a textual corruption, why isnt this brother of Goliath named, if it is true that there was a textual corruption that omitted the phrase brother of? We can answer these two questions by starting with two very important observations. First, one has to understand that 1-2 Chronicles narrates history largely found in 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings. The author is not seeking the resolution of contradictions by inserting the reading ...brother of Goliath, since he doesnt really seek to harmonize elsewhere (for example he notes Elhanan son of Dodo in 1 Chr. 11:26 but he writes from 2 Samuel, Elhanan son of Jair in 20:5). Therefore, here we have more or less an ancient copy of 2 Samuel 21:19, which tells us that the original reading was ...son of Jair, and most likely ...killed the brother of Goliath. Second, there is no way, even noting the JEDP hypothesis, that the author of 2 Samuel 21:19 would write that Elhanan son of Jair killed Goliath after having narrated how David himself killed Goliath (1 Samuel 17 - 1-2 Samuel very likely have the same author/authors). There is no way that anyone would have written that Elhanan killed him, which is definitely not what 2 Samuel 21:19 originally had anyway. And finally we will answer the last question: if it was Goliaths brother that was killed, why isnt he named? We can note that those who hold that Lahmi was the original reading dont have that problem, but neither do those who consider the Bethlehemite original. The very next verses, 1 Chr. 20:6-7, doesnt name the defeated Philistine either, nor does 1 Chr. 11:22-23. Goliath and his death would have been famous enough by the time 2 Samuel was written for the knowledge that his brother was also killed, by Elhanan, though that name of Goliaths brothers not remembered. 1 Chronicles 21 1 Chronicles 21:5 • How many men in the census in Israel and Judah? See 2 Samuel 24:9. 1 Chronicles 21:11 • Three or seven (2 Samuel 24:13) of famine? Since the other two punishments offer are three months of war and three days of plague, the original number is most likely three years of famine, and 2 Samuel 24:13 has a copyist error where the original of the verse had three years of famine but as it was copied down the centuries (long after 1 Chronicles since it has the correct number), a copying error put 7 instead of 3, very possibly due to the years of plenty and famine relating to Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41). 1 Chronicles 21:25 • 50 shekels (2 Samuel 24:24) of silver or 600 shekels of gold? The author of 1 Chronicles transliterated the amount in terms of his readers day. 1 Chronicles 22 1 Chronicles 22:14 • How could Solomon have this much money? Fictitious wealth? Excessive need for such wealth? The account here states that this massive amount of wealth was what Solomon inherited from his father, David. It can be certain that David (and Israel) was fairly wealthy during his reign: he had conquered and made vassals of numerous nations including the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Arameans, and Philistines, and his kingdom was located along the trade routes between the Middle East and Egypt, which certainly would have added even more to his prosperity. This would have definitely brought a lot of wealth to Israel and David. Before we start, we should note that we can approximate the amount of silver David and Solomon would have had as being around 10 times more than gold easily: the ancients valued gold much more than silver as much as we do today. Today a troy ounce of gold is worth about 50 times more than a troy ounce of silver, being 1700-1750 USD for 1 troy ounce of gold as opposed to 30-35 USD for silver. Similarly, 2 Kings 18:14 tells us that King Hezekiah paid 30 talents of gold to the Assyrian king Sennacherib and 300 talents of silver (the Sennacherib prism tell us it was 800 talents of silver - perhaps a copyist error in 2 Kings). In 2 Chr. 36:3 the pharaoh of Egypt imposes a yearly tax of 1 talent of gold and 100 talents of silver. Similarly, in 1 Chr. 29:4,7 king David has twice as much silver as gold and the people contribute 5000 talents of gold, 10,000 talents of silver, 18,000 of bronze and 100,000 talents of iron. We can therefore easily assume that whatever amount Solomon (and David) had with respect to gold can be multiplied by 10 or more for silver and other materials. Also, a lot of this would have been spent on the large number of workers on Solomons palace as well as the Temple. The question, however, remains: are 100,000 talents of gold and 1 million talents of silver (and other amounts of other material) an exaggerated amount? We can examine the issue in two stages. First: does the biblical evidence allow it? Second: does the ancient, near-contemporaneous, extrabiblical evidence permit it? The first question can be easily answered as a Yes. 2 Chr. 9:13 states that Solomon made 666 talents a year, not including the revenues brought in by merchants and traders. Also all the kings of Arabia and the governors of the territories brought gold and silver to Solomon. The total amount of gold talents per year could easily have been 1000 to perhaps 1500 talents a year. We can be sure that this large amount of wealth was the result of Solomons father, David, who subdued many nations and would have certainly increased the economy and trade of the kingdom. Now, Solomon started the building in his 4th year (1 Kings 6:1). Therefore, if we give him about 5000 talents of gold (and 50,000 talents of silver) for the first three years of his reign, the majority of the resources would have had to have come from David. Davids reign was 40 years and 6 months (2 Samuel 5:5). Davids victories over the surrounding nations were fairly early in his reign (2 Samuel 8, 10), so the 1000 or so talents of gold would have started to come yearly around the first 5-10 years of his reign. It wasnt just economic prosperity that brought wealth to David but also tribute and occasional offerings for peace (2 Sam. 12:30, etc - though this example has David taking the gold crown of the king, but the point is the same). We can therefore perhaps extend the 1000 or so talents of gold to perhaps 1500-2000 talents of gold as a yearly average for Davids reign. A forty year reign gives this as around 60,000-80,000 talents of gold. Now, lets not forget the money and wealth that Israel would have acquired through Saul some of which would have certainly been left for David to acquire. Sauls 42 year reign certainly could have made about 15,000-30,000 talents of gold (which would be about 400-900 talents a year total). Although he had a loss or two (1 Samuel 31, 2 Samuel 1), Saul was generally successful in war (1 Samuel 13, 15) and as a result Israel would have certainly been equally prosperous. Now, although the biblical evidence can certainly be said to allow 100,000 talents of gold (and 1 million talents of silver and other amounts for other resources), can this be reasonably squared with extrabiblical records for the time and place? The evidence again here favors and permits the amounts listed in the Bible. In ancient Rome, Spain alone produced around 1400 tons of gold (37,000 talents - one third the total amount listed in 1 Chr. 22:14!). The Turin papyrus map lists 1300 gold mines in ancient Egypt. However, ancient Egypt produced about 1 ton of gold a year, which is about 30 talents because for the Egyptians the metal had no economic importance and it was used mostly for things such as royal jewelry, artifacts, funerary masks (Tutankhamuns mask for example), small statues of gods, and such. Certainly had the Egyptians wanted the precious metal and if it had the meaning for them it did to their neighbors to the East, with 1300 mines and seeing Roman Spain alone brought forth 1400 tons of gold a year, they could easily have made 3000 instead of 30 talents of gold a year. In conclusion, we may never know much more about Solomons work on the Temple, though archaeological discoveries related to the Bible are made virtually every day (see for example, Bib-Arch.org). However, from what we know about the ancient world and the Bible, I dont think that it was impossible for king Solomon to inherit the amounts depicted in 1 Chr. 22:14. 1 Chronicles 25 1 Chronicles 25:3 • Five or six sons? The reason only five names are given but its stated that there were six sons is most likely a copyist error, where the original manuscript had the number five but was later accidentally copied as six (or a name dropped out). We can be sure that if the author of 1 Chronicles knew how to write, he knew how to count so he certainly wouldnt have said there were six sons of Jeduthun when he had just finished listing only five. Another possibility, though I dont think very likely due to practice in 1 Chronicles with genealogies elsewhere, is that Jeduthun is counted in the total number of six. 1 Chronicles 29 1 Chronicles 29:7 • Is this an error/anachronism? The writer of 1 Chronicles most likely wanted to explain the sum of money in terms the readers of his day could understand. In other words, he refigured the amount of money in the amount it was worth in his day much like if we would say, for example, that the ancient person in the Roman Empire in the 4th century AD made something like X dollars a day/year. 2 Chronicles 2 Chronicles 2 2 Chronicles 2:2 • Were there 3600 or 3300 foremen? This is undoubtedly a copyist error which most likely crept into the text of 1 Kings 5:16 as it was copied throughout the centuries. 2 Chronicles 2:2 (and 2:18) is based on 1 Kings 5:16 which afterwards apparently had a copyist error which easily happens with numbers (i.e. see Ezra 2). 2 Chronicles 2:2,18 clearly used 1 Kings 5:16 to write its history and unless the author were blind, there is no way he would have written down 3600 for 3300. The same goes for 2 Chronicles 2:18 which was either based on the original number of 3600 in 1 Kings 5:16 or was smoothed over to resolve the difference if 1 Kings 5:16 is the original number. 2 Chronicles 2:12 • How likely is it that the king of Tyre would address Solomons God in such a way when he had his own religion? The ancient near eastern kings certainly addressed other kings like this, especially if they were their subjects/vassals or the other simply was much stronger. For example, from the Amarna letters, which were correspondences between Egypt and various Palestinian kings in the 14th century BC, we see some very similar examples: Rib-Addu sends to his lord, the king of the world, the great king, the king of the universe (?) (whom) the divine lady of Gebal has known alone; to the king my lord, at the feet of my lord, my Sun-god seven times seven I prostrate myself. This year (certain) men into the presence of the king, who (is) like the god Assur and the Sun-god in heaven, have come; they have reported to him: The sons of Ebed-Asherah according to their desires have taken 2 horses of the king and chariots, and the men whom he sent have given (them); and the Yîvâna is on a mission to the country of Tyre, for eight days doing this deed in it. They speak words of accusation before the king, the Sun-god. I am thy faithful servant, and the news which (the king) knows and hears have I sent to the king my lord. [But (?)] they (are) dogs, and they have [gone] into the presence of the household troops of the king, the Sun-god. I sent [messages] to thy father, and he [listened] to his servant, and [the father] des[patched] the household troops. The country was not taken by Ebed-Asherah for [himself]: it was the property of the governors, since I fought before them against him, and they (were) always strong, and the Misians brought the [straw (?)] of barley always: they did not [despise (?)] the officer, since I collected horses and (was) strong before them, since we know that both strength and existence (belong) to a strong king. As yet they have not marched up (the country) since I have despatched two men, messengers, to the city of Zemar, and also the leader of all the men, this one (here present), to bring back word to the king of each one thing as much as they have heard. The two men by night have carried (it), and by night they have brought (it) back, even the messengers of the king, from the presence of the dogs. If the heart of the king, the Sun-god, at this time they have engaged, [this] year I shall dwell [in] my [city]...in thy heart and the [horses (?)]...and the men... The Beduin are marching away from the city of Zemar [and] I defend the city, and I have not given it up; and the king will hear the words of his servant, and will send ten men of the country of Melukhkha and ten men of the country of Egypt to defend the city for the king, the Sun-god, the lord of thy faithful servant. - Records of the Past, Series 2, Vol.5 (1891). In another letter, the following paragraph occurs where the king of Gubla (Hathor) addresses the Egyptian king for help relating this help to that of one of Egypts gods: They have occupied the country of the Amorites; in quietude they have marched through it. This have I done of myself along with Yapa-Addu and along with Kha[tip]. And the king will send...all the property which they have taken from these men for the king. Another man has not taken it for another. We have been successful for the king. Accordingly the king will send a horse to his servant, and I will defend the city of the king. I have nothing at all whatsoever; everything has been given away to save my life; and as for this messenger, the king shall send him in all haste, and shall furnish guards to defend his faithful servant and the city, and (shall furnish) men of Melukhkha along with them like the god Zi of thy fathers. Rib-Addu was a king whose country was a vassal to Egypt. There are many more such examples from the Amarna letters (EA 75, 244, 280, 298). In EA 23, Tushratta, the king of Mittani, sends a statue of Ishtar to Amenhotep III. In the conclusion of the letter he says, May Shauskha, Lady of the Heavens, protect us, my brother and myself, one hundred thousand years, and may our Queen grant us both great joy and may we treat each other as friends. Is it because Shauskha is my only Mistress? Maybe She is also the Mistress of my brother?. True, Hiram was not a vassal to king Solomon, but at the time the Israelite kingdom was fairly powerful and seeing from the above parallels it was certainly not impossible for Hiram to write something like this to king Solomon. 2 Chronicles 2:13-14 • What tribe was Hyrums widowed mother from? While here it says that Hyrums mother was from Dan, whereas 1 Kings 7:13-14 says she was from the tribe of Naphtali. We can note that in 2 Chronicles we have a record of the kings letter, so perhaps the king got the tribe wrong. But how likely is it that this expert bronze-maker would have had his (mothers) origin confused? If the king already knew enough of Israel to know of a tribe of Dan, how can he confuse the origin of his mother then? Perhaps he was misinformed, even though he knew the culture and geography of Israel, but overall this is unlikely. I think that this is simply a copyist error since in these sections the account of 2 Chronicles is clearly narrating the history of 1 Kings and so no author would have changed the tribe from Naphtali to Dan for no reason, and we can be fairly certain there wasnt any theological reason in assigning the pagan tribe of Dan in the place of Naphtali - for one Huram is praised and theres nowhere a hint of negativity due to his (presumed) paganism. So a copyist error where Naphtali was substituted for Dan is in my opinion the most probably answer, even from a secular point of view. Its also possibly, though in my opinion less likely, that Hurams mothers ancestry was from Dan as well as Naphtali just like Huram himself was both Israelite and Phoenician. 2 Chronicles 3 2 Chronicles 3:7, 10-14 • Is this against the command to make graven images? The second commandment, not to make graven images of make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them (Ex. 20:4-5), says nothing about not making graven images but only not to make them for worship. Since the ancients made statues to which they ascribed divine power (e.g. Laban chasing after his idols, Gen. 31:32-35; also a letter from the king of Mittani, Tushratta, to the pharaoh of Egypt, Akhenaten, in the 14th century BC, where Tushratta loans a statue saying, Thus speaks Shauskha of Nineveh, Lady of all the lands: I wish to go to Egypt, a land I love and then return from there. Now I am sending you this letter and She is on the way...Then, in the times of my father She was in that country, and just as on other occasions She stayed there and was honoured. May my brother honour Her now ten times more than the other time. May my brother honour Her. May you let Her leave when She pleases, so She may return. - EA 23 The prohibition was never against making graven images of anything in heaven or on earth or under the water for purposes that werent worship/idolatry. 2 Chronicles 3:15 • How long were the two pillars in front of the Temple? 1 Kings 7:15 says that the two pillars were 18 cubits each but 2 Chronicles 3:15 says together they were 35 cubits long. The reason for this is likely that the measurements were rounded to the nearest cubit. For one, there was no fourth of a cubit, or third, only a whole cubit and half a cubit. Only when we have smaller objects (under 5 cubits in dimension) do we see the half-cubit unit used by 1 Kings (1 Kings 7:31-32) the history of which 2 Chronicles narrates. Thus if the pillars were around 17.6 or so cubits long, they would add up to about 35 cubits. True, 2 Chronicles also has other sources (or else how would he know that the two pillars ad pomegranates? Although he doesnt specify like earlier when he adds up measurement (3:10-13, 15), the writer of 2 Chronicles most likely divided the counting of the pomegranates between the two pillars (2 Chr. 3:15-17), whereas in 1 Kings 7 the total counting of the pomegranates between the two pillars is given. Similarly to this, in 1 Kings 6:23-25 the wingspan of the cherubim is given as two wingspans of 10 cubits each totalling 20 cubits, but in 2 Chronicles 3:10-13 the author gives the measurement of each individual wing, and also in 2 Chr. 3:15 gives the total height of the two pillars versus the individual count in 1 Kings 7. Similarly to that, he most likely divided the count of the pomegranates for each pillar. 2 Chronicles 4 2 Chronicles 4:2 • Is the Bible wrong about the value of pi? See 1 Kings 7:23. 2 Chronicles 4:5 • 2000 or 3000 baths? In 1 Kings 7:26 we are told that the Sea of bronze held 2000 baths (about 12,000 gallons or 44,000 liters). But here in 2 Chr. 4:5 we are told it was 3000. While it is not impossible that originally both 2 Chronicles and 1 Kings had either 2000 or 3000 baths as the measurement and throughout the centuries one of the two books (or both) had a copyist error where the values we have through our manuscripts now are different, the 18th century commentary of Adam Clarke proposes two other possible solutions: In 1 Kings vii. 26, it is said to hold only two thousand baths. As this book [2 Chronicles] was written after the Babylonish captivity, it is very possible that reference is here made to the Babylonish bath which might have been less than the Jewish. We have already seen that the cubit of Moses, or of the ancient Hebrews, was longer than the Babylonish by one palm; see on chap. iii. 3. It might be the same with the measures of capacity; so that two thousand of the ancient Jewish baths might have been equal to three thousand of those used after the captivity. The Targum cuts the knot by saying, It received three thousand baths of dry measure, and held two thousand of liquid measure. 2 Chronicles 7 2 Chronicles 7:5 • Is this an exaggeration? It is certainly not impossible for King Solomon to have sacrificed 142,000 animals in a short amount of time seeing the large workforce he had at his disposal (1 Kings 5:13,15). The population of Israel at the time certainly had that many animals for King Solomon to find and purchase (Numbers 31:32-46, 2 Kings 3:4), not to mention he could buy some from other countries, and Solomon certainly had the wealth to buy them. Also, for that large amount of animals, similarly the Bulg
Posted on: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 12:43:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015