Another Contradiction?

There are two versions of what happened when a Syrian/Israeli alliance attacks Jerusalem, "in the days of Ahaz king of Judah."Version 1:

• King Ahaz is attacked by the kings of Syria and Israel but they cannot overcome him. 2 Kings 16:5;
  ​
• King Ahaz requests help from the king of Assyria. The king of Assyria comes, takes Damascus and kills its king. 2 Kings 16:7,9

Version 2:

• King Ahaz is attacked by the kings of Syria and Israel; and they devastate him. 2 Chronicles 28: 5-8
  ​
• King Ahaz requests help from Assyria. Assyria refuses to help. 2 Chronicles 28:16,21

Question:Are these narratives different because one was written by Judeans and the other by Israelis? The conflict in question was, after all, a "Civil" War.

Hello Willow, Pretty much what I think, except I see it the other way 'round. I think the account in Chronicles was written by the north. It makes the Israeli conquerors sound rather merciful, even after they "smote him [Ahaz] with a great slaughter." The account in 2 Kings claims that Ahaz was NOT conquered, which sounds to me like how the Judeans would want to remember it. I do not really know which is correct but I lean to the southern account, partly because it is corroborated by Isaiah and partly because I can't believe that little speech made by the prophet Obed would persuade the 'evil alliance' to let go their hard earned victory along with all that delicious booty. But I am asking you, dear Willow. Besides, I have searched the internet and found only two comments. There is this one short line in John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible. Gill is discussing 2 Chronicles 28:5 and says of 2 Kings 16:5, "... that is an after expedition to this ..." The Jamieson, Faussett and Brown Bible Commentary also suggests that this was not the battle for Jerusalem, noting that Ahaz was neither killed nor captured. The other commentators on this site avoid the issue or are unaware of it. gospelcom.netI disagree with that view for a number of reasons but I would like to hear what you think. Do you have an opinion on the subject?db

Hi Big Guy,I was wondering what happened to you. Actually it's not, my good man. The Israeli's (IMO), AKA Ephraim, wrote the 2 Chronicles version of the story.To me, this is evidence that the compilers/editors were not much concerned about internal coherence and inerrancy.db

You've got me there! I am not familiar enough with them to have an opinion on the subject. Aside from the inevitable tragedies of war, the account in 2 Chronicles 28 makes Israel sound like the good guys. They feed and clothe the captives and send them back home.Yes, Isaiah is a southern prophet, and Judah is the southern kingdom. Israel is the northern kingdom. The Chronicles account says that Ahaz (of Judah) sent for Assyria to no avail, but the account in Kings says that Assyria responed with a vengeance: killed the king of Syria (Rezin), and imprisoned the king of Israel (Hoshea). This ended the Syro-Israeli alliance and fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah chapter seven.db

Of couse not. However, there was a rather narrow window of time during which the named players were all present at the same time.Check out the chart on this page and note the problems mentioned at the bottom of the page, regarding the difficulties of figuring out what happened based on the scripture alone. Prophecy of Isaiahdb