Search Results
7/3/2025, 4:07:49 AM
>>17809241
>Quirinius was proconsul twice but every gospel only knows about one
Here is the explanation of Quirinius also by the way. See pic.
>and neither writer plus gawd the inspirator thought it important to mention the other reign, right?
Ahaziah was the biological son of Athaliah. Importantly, Ahaziah was also the son-in-law of Jehoram, and not his biological son – exactly as the Bible tells us in 2 Kings 8:27.
So after the events of 2 Chron. 21:17, Ahaziah (also called Jehoahaz here) could have been the youngest remaining potential "heir" of Jehoram. He was Jehoram's stepson, and also 42 years old, which is slightly older than Jehoram himself. Jehoram of the kingdom of Judah died at forty, when Ahaziah, son of Athaliah, was forty-two.
The fact that Ahaziah is the "youngest" heir after the events of 2 Chron. 21:17, despite being older than his own father-in-law, is noteworthy. That may explain why it is mentioned. It is implied that all of Jehoram's other children were killed or incapacitated, because of the strange events described in 2 Chron. 21:17. Ahaziah would also be the “youngest” in the sense of the line of succession. He was only a stepson through Jehoram's late marriage to Athaliah, and not a biological son. Ahaziah being the "youngest" in terms of the line of succession could be pointing to this – normally, Jehoram's biological children would succeed before Ahaziah. (Note: Athaliah may have also instigated Jehoram's whole family being killed off so her son would succeed, but the Bible doesn't specifically say this).
In the Chronicles account, there is more of a specific focus on the southern kingdom of Judah, while Kings focuses more on the northern kingdom. The first twenty years of his reign, as a claimant over the northern kingdom (not ruling in Jerusalem) is therefore not included. Ahaziah being 42 years old at his second reign in Jerusalem isn't impossible, because he was a stepson (and also a half-brother) of Jehoram, not a biological son.
>Quirinius was proconsul twice but every gospel only knows about one
Here is the explanation of Quirinius also by the way. See pic.
>and neither writer plus gawd the inspirator thought it important to mention the other reign, right?
Ahaziah was the biological son of Athaliah. Importantly, Ahaziah was also the son-in-law of Jehoram, and not his biological son – exactly as the Bible tells us in 2 Kings 8:27.
So after the events of 2 Chron. 21:17, Ahaziah (also called Jehoahaz here) could have been the youngest remaining potential "heir" of Jehoram. He was Jehoram's stepson, and also 42 years old, which is slightly older than Jehoram himself. Jehoram of the kingdom of Judah died at forty, when Ahaziah, son of Athaliah, was forty-two.
The fact that Ahaziah is the "youngest" heir after the events of 2 Chron. 21:17, despite being older than his own father-in-law, is noteworthy. That may explain why it is mentioned. It is implied that all of Jehoram's other children were killed or incapacitated, because of the strange events described in 2 Chron. 21:17. Ahaziah would also be the “youngest” in the sense of the line of succession. He was only a stepson through Jehoram's late marriage to Athaliah, and not a biological son. Ahaziah being the "youngest" in terms of the line of succession could be pointing to this – normally, Jehoram's biological children would succeed before Ahaziah. (Note: Athaliah may have also instigated Jehoram's whole family being killed off so her son would succeed, but the Bible doesn't specifically say this).
In the Chronicles account, there is more of a specific focus on the southern kingdom of Judah, while Kings focuses more on the northern kingdom. The first twenty years of his reign, as a claimant over the northern kingdom (not ruling in Jerusalem) is therefore not included. Ahaziah being 42 years old at his second reign in Jerusalem isn't impossible, because he was a stepson (and also a half-brother) of Jehoram, not a biological son.
Page 1