Bible Error: Where Did King Josiah Die?

by JosephAlward 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JosephAlward

  Josiah, King of Judah (640-609 B.C.), was installed as king at the age of eight. Josiah attempted to restore the kingdom of David and was opposed by Pharaoh Necho of Egypt in a battle at Megiddo. The Kings author reports that Josiah was killed there, at Megiddo, then carried dead to Jerusalem, where he was buried. On the other hand, the Chronicles author believed that Josiah was wounded but not killed at Megiddo, and was carried alive to Jerusalem, where he died.

  Clearly, both of these authors cannot be right: Josiah cannot have been killed in Megiddo, then carried alive to Jerusalem, where he died again.

  Given below are the conflicting Kings and Chronicles accounts of King Josiah's death. Both accounts cannot be true, so at least one of the accounts was not inspired by God and the Bible is errant.

  Josiah Was Killed at Megiddo:

  29 While Josiah was king, Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but Neco faced him and killed him at Megiddo. 30 Josiah's servants brought his body in a chariot from Megiddo to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb. (2 Kings 23:29-30)

  Josiah died in Jerusalem:

  23 Archers shot King Josiah, and he told his officers, "Take me away; I am badly wounded." 24 So they took him out of his chariot, put him in the other chariot he had and brought him to Jerusalem, where he died." 2 Chronicles 35:23-24

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  Larsguy

  Hi Joseph,
  For a moment there, I thought you had something and I was going to congratulate you on an apparently contradiction I couldn't explain. That is, until I checked the original Hebrew and several other translations. Out of several of them, only one translates 2 Chronicles as "WHERE he died." All the others I saw simply say, "and he died" or that he died. Here are the various versions.

  Funny to me you picked the version that when translated would seem to make an apparent contradiction, but the fact is the Bible doesn't say specifically that he died in Jerusalem. So apparently he died after he got into the other chariot and died before he got to Jerusalem, so there is no conflict.

  Here are those other verses.

  But you can consider it a contradiction if you want to.

  By the way, here's another one for you that's even better.

  In one place the Bible says there are "many gods and many lords" and in another place it says there is just "one god". That seems like a contradiction to me, so why not use that one? It's just as good as any of the others.

  =============

  His servants therefore took him out of that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had; and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was buried in [one of] the sepulchres of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah.
  Available Translations and Versions for 2Ch 35:24
  
  His servants therefore took him out of that chariot and put him in the second chariot that he had, and they brought him to Jerusalem. So he died, and was buried in one of the tombs of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. NKJV Copyright 1982 Thomas Nelson
  
  So his servants took him out of the chariot and carried him in the second chariot which he had, and brought him to Jerusalem where he died and was buried in the tombs of his fathers. All Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. NASB copyright 1995 Lockman Foundation
  
  So his servants took him out of the chariot and carried him in his second chariot and brought him to Jerusalem. And he died, and was buried in the tombs of his fathers. All Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josi'ah. RSV copyright info
  
  His servants therefore took him out of that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had; and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was buried in [one of] the sepulchers of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah.
  
  And his servants remove him from the chariot, and cause him to ride on the second chariot that he hath, and cause him to go to Jerusalem, and he dieth, and is buried in the graves of his fathers, and all Judah and Jerusalem are mourning for Josiah,
  
  And his servants took him out from the chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had, and brought him to Jerusalem. And he died, and was buried in the sepulchres of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah.
  
  So his servants took him out of the chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had, and brought him to Jerusalem; and he died, and was buried in the sepulchres of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah.
  
  So his servants took him out of the chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had, and brought him to Yerushalayim; and he died, and was buried in the tombs of his fathers. All Yehudah and Yerushalayim mourned for Yoshiyahu.
  
  qui transtulerunt eum de curru in alterum currum qui sequebatur eum more regio et asportaverunt in Hierusalem mortuusque est et sepultus in mausoleo patrum suorum et universus Iuda et Hierusalem luxerunt eum

  THANKS, JOSEPH for an ALMOST interpretation...
• 

  JosephAlward

  Lars writes,

  “...he died after he got into the other chariot and died before he got to Jerusalem”

  Alward responds:

  Lars thinks that Josiah actually died on the road somewhere BETWEEN Megiddo and Jerusalem, but that’s nonsense; the order of events in Kings is unambiguous: The slaying came first, putting him in the chariot at Megiddo came second, and the trip from Megiddo to Jerusalem came third. Readers can confirm this for themselves; here is the relevant passage:

  “...and he slew him AT Megiddo…And his servants carried him in a chariot dead FROM Megiddo, and brought him to Jerusalem” (2 Kings 23:29-30)

  The verse above speaks for itself, and loudly against Lars. If it were true, as Lars hopes, that the Kings author wanted his readers to believe that Josiah died somewhere BETWEEN Megiddo and Jerusalem, he would have said that Josiah died on the road between Megiddo and Jerusalem; but that's not what the Kings author said at all.

  The kings author said that that Josiah was carried dead FROM Megiddo. To be carried dead FROM a place, one would already have to be dead AT that place. That is EXACTLY what the author said happened: Josiah was carried dead FROM Megiddo because he was killed AT Megiddo.

  Thus, it is impossible for one to believe that the Kings author wanted us to believe that Josiah died on the road between Megiddo and Jerusalem, as Lars contends, and once again we see that Lars is wrong.

  Lar’s embarrassing attempt to twist the Kings author's words away from their plain meaning illustrates the shamelessness with which the die-hard inerrantist will debate questions of inerrancy. Fortunately, virtually everyone on this forum can see this clearly.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  Moxy

  actually, i got the impression lars was only taking issue with the chronology in chronicles, that the wording allowed josiah to have died at megiddo. either way, this one doesnt bother me a great deal, errancy-wise. its not like there was a doctor there to pronounce him dead. the exact time of death was probably something of a subjective matter under the circumstances and medical science of the time. i dont think anyone doubts that josiah died somehow in a confrontation with necho. both josephus and esdras corroborate the basic events.

  it was a dark day for judah to lose their reformist and arguably most successful king in a battle he brought onto himself for reasons undisclosed. he shouldve picked his fights better. one gets the impression from the curt account in the earlier kings that the affair was so embarrasing that the less said the better. perhaps the fatal injury was quite accidental. kings doesnt even mention a battle per se and chronicles includes a very unusual detail that josiah was in disguise for no apparent reason.

  mox
• 

  JosephAlward

  Moxy writes, "its not like there was a doctor there to pronounce him dead."

  Alward responds:

  For those who believe that the words in the Bible are God-breathed, they have to believe that God directed the writing of the account of Josiah's death, and that God certainly knew exactly how, when, and where Josiah died, even if there was no doctor there. The fact that there are two conflicting accounts of the place of Josiah's death shows that a god could not have "breathed" the words written by these authors, but this is in contradiction to 2 Timothy 3:16, which says that "all scripture is God-breathed."

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Two possibilities there Big Joe,

  1) The king was mortally wounded at Megido, thus it would be proper to say he died at the battle of Megido even though his actual DEATH occured in Jerusalem. Much like all the folks who died at Bastogne didn't necessarily DIE at Bastogne, but recieved there the wound that killed them.

  2) The history is unclear and he died either AT Megido, or in Jerusalem from wounds recieved at Megido.

  Conclusion, either is acceptable as it's spiritual impact is null.

  YERUSALYIM
  "Vanity! It's my favorite sin!"
  [Al Pacino as Satan, in "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE"]
• 

  Moxy

  thats a good point joseph, and i suppose a matter of ones degree of inerrantist thinking. one might take an extreme inerrantist view that every word, choices of vocabulary and grammar, were made by god. such a view is obviously untenable and im not aware of any such extreme inerrantists. (it wouldnt shock me to find some tho.) i think a more common inerrantist view is that authors recorded details as they personally saw them and that god made sure the message was accurate overall and in its important details. i would take it that lars falls into this category. by definition, i believe a view like this is also unfalsifiable.

  mox
• 

  JosephAlward

  Yeru suggests that "died at Megiddo" might mean "suffered mortal wound at Megiddo, but died somewhere else." Well, according to the Chronicles author, Josiah died at Jerusalem. Thus, Yeru is suggesting that the Kings author may have known that Josiah was only wounded at Megiddo, but actually died at Jerusalem. This doesn't make sense. What value could come from the Kings author leaving the impression that Josiah died at Megiddo? Isn't the most probable reason for the "apparent" discrepancy that the two authors had different understandings about the place of Josiah's death? Answering for myself, I say, Of course.

  The other possibility suggested by Yeru is unlikely. If either of the Kings or Chronicles authors knew that they didn't know exactly where Josiah died, they should have said so. The fact that they didn't do that shows that perhaps other authors in other places in the Bible wrote things they weren't sure were true, but didn't tell us so. This explanation would be totally unacceptable to those who believe that the Bible is the word of a god who knows all there is to know. It's even unacceptable to those who believe that the Bible is the word of mere men, and that they made mistakes; in such a case, however, one may still fault the writers for not letting us know that they didn't know for sure where Josiah died. Alternatively, if they innocently were in possession of wrong information, then we are still faced with the problem of not knowing which others stories in the Bible are similarly flawed. Either way, the Bible is in error.

  Now, Moxy has a healthy attitude toward the Bible, it seems: Not every--if any--word in the Bible was dictated by God, and that the 2 Timothy author was exaggerating when he said that "all scripture is God-breathed." One, or the other, of the Kings and Chronicles authors were wrong, perhaps both were, but this discrepancy is of zero importance in the larger scheme of things, which is the spiritual message of the Bible. Thus, Moxy implies, the Bible is in error in regards to the place of Josiah's death, but nobody should care.

  I agree that people shouldn't care, but, unfortunately, there are those who regard questions of Bible error to be of life-or-death importance. If they are unable to believe that every word of the Bible is the perfect message of God, then they won't be able to believe with certainty that the Biblical instructions for eternal salvation are correct. Thus, if one cannot believe that, say, the Kings author really meant that Josiah received his wounds at Megiddo, but actually died at Jerusalem, their salvation is in jeopardy.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  YERU2

  Joe,

  Why is it unlikely, if my first premise is correct, it's a gloss as the actual location of death was unimportant and the author wanted to tie the death to the battle itself.

  Basically, what you said about the second premise I presented is exactly what I'm saying. The history is unclear, two different authors with two different stories.

  Lastly, why does it matter, (unless you're an EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible is True, kinda person).

  I was conducting a bible study once (yep Catholics actually study the bible. It was an ecumenical study. I presented the contradiction of Jesus in Mark about who the High Priest was, Abiathar (according to Jesus, or Ahimelech) according to 1 Samuel. The Baptist minister's face was priceless when I brought up the contradiction. You also haven't brought up the WHO KILLED GOLIATH controversy yet.
• 

  JosephAlward

  Yeru, if the author knew that Josiah did not die at Megiddo, he never would have used words which any reader would interpret as meaning that Josiah did, indeed, die AT Megiddo, thereby forcing his readers to wait until they read the Chronicles story to learn that Josiah died somewhere else--at Jerusalem. Thus, we may conclude that the Kings author believed that Josiah died where he said he died, at Megiddo.

  As for your second scenario, which is the one I accept: It doesn't matter at all that the stories are contradictory, unless you're a die-rather-than-admit-a-single Bible contradiction type of guy.

  What "Goliath" contradiction do you have in mind?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html