In 2 Samuel 15:7, why do some sources say “forty years” while others say “four years,” and which is correct? Historical and Textual Overview In 2 Samuel 15:7, some manuscript traditions and older English translations record “forty years,” while many modern translations—including the Berean Standard Bible—render the passage as “four years.” The reads: “After four years, Absalom said to the king, ‘Please let me go to Hebron to fulfill a vow I have made to the LORD.’” (2 Samuel 15:7) The difference in numbers can raise questions regarding biblical consistency and the reliability of Scripture. Below is a thorough examination of the textual variation, the chronological context, and the manuscript evidence that informs the most likely original reading. The Textual Variation: “Forty Years” vs. “Four Years” A number of older English translations (e.g., KJV) use “forty years,” reflecting a particular strand of the Hebrew Masoretic Text tradition. By contrast, many modern versions (e.g., Berean Standard Bible, ESV, NASB) use “four years,” following a different set of Hebrew manuscripts and the weight of other supporting textual evidence. The difference between “forty” (אַרְבָּעִים / ’arba‘im in Hebrew) and “four” (אַרְבַּע / ’arba‘ in Hebrew) could be due to a simple scribal error, where a single letter or diacritical mark was misread or repeatedly copied incorrectly. In manuscripts prior to the modern era, such variations are not uncommon, especially in numerical references. Chronological Considerations 1. Context within Absalom’s Timeline: The “four years” reading fits well with Absalom’s timeline after being reconciled to his father, David (2 Samuel 14). If “forty years” had truly elapsed since Absalom’s return from exile, David would have been of advanced age at the time of this rebellion, and other events in 2 Samuel would become extremely compressed or implausible. 2. Consistency with David’s Reign: David’s total reign was forty years (1 Kings 2:11). If Absalom’s actions in 2 Samuel 15:7 took place “after forty years,” it would suggest the rebellion happened toward the very end of David’s reign—creating considerable chronological tension with the subsequent narrative detailing what appears to be a relatively lengthy aftermath. 3. Narrative Flow: The broader story indicates Absalom’s ambition developed steadily once he was back in Jerusalem. A four-year period of growing political ambitions, favor with the people, and secret plotting logically sets the stage for Absalom’s attempted coup. Manuscript and Linguistic Evidence 1. Ancient Translations and Josephus: Certain ancient translations, such as some recensions of the Septuagint (LXX), and historical authors like Josephus (see Antiquities of the Jews, Book 7) seem to support a timeframe closer to “four” years for Absalom’s preparation. Although Josephus does not always align perfectly with the standard biblical text, his account commonly follows earlier Hebrew sources that predate the Masoretic Text tradition. 2. Hebrew Masoretic Text Witnesses: The phrase in some Masoretic manuscripts has been read as “forty,” and this is the origin behind older English translations. However, later manuscript discoveries and comparisons (including parallel readings in Chronicles, Samaritan Pentateuch variants in other passages, or references in Targums) demonstrate that numerical discrepancies of this kind occasionally occur in scribal history. 3. Internal Linguistic Indicators: The Hebrew words for “four” and “forty” are quite similar, and the difference can sometimes hinge on one or two letters. Copyists working by hand for centuries could easily misread or transpose a letter. Harmonizing the Bible’s Reliability Christians who uphold the inerrancy of Scripture maintain that the original autographs are correct and without error. When a small variance like “forty” vs. “four” arises, textual critics evaluate all the available evidence to determine which reading most likely reflects the original manuscript. Throughout Scripture, no major theological doctrine is ever threatened by these types of variations. In fact, more than 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts and thousands of Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts—and numerous early translations—attest to a high level of consistency and reliability across the entire biblical corpus. Minor numerical variations, particularly involving scribal copy issues, in no way undercut the broader historical or theological reliability of the text. Which Is Correct? Based on the cumulative evidence—contextual, chronological, and textual—“four years” is the best-supported reading in 2 Samuel 15:7. It most coherently aligns with the narrative timeline, avoids chronological strain in David’s life, and is reflected in a strong spectrum of later manuscripts and ancient references. For those who see minor variations between manuscripts, it is an opportunity to appreciate the centuries-long careful transmission of the text, along with the vigorous work of textual criticism that allows believers and scholars alike to recover the most probable original wording. This process exemplifies the preservation of Scripture through history and the faithful accuracy with which the biblical text has come down to us. Conclusion The variation in 2 Samuel 15:7 reflects a classic case of numerical discrepancy in manuscript transmission. All available evidence points to “four years” as the original reading, fitting smoothly within the context of Absalom’s plot to undermine King David. Such instances of textual variation remind us, not of inconsistency, but of the resilience and reliability of the biblical text. Through centuries of hand-copying and meticulous study, Scripture stands as a trustworthy, historically anchored record that speaks with authority and consistency in the lives of believers and in the broader tapestry of human history. |
    |