Almost 1,000 years before Jesus set foot on the Earth, the first temple dedicated to Jehovah was
built out of Lebanon cedar (the finest there was), costly stones, and pure gold. The Bible
indicates that over 183,000 men were involved in the construction of this glorious house of
worship during the reign of King Solomon (1 Kings 5:13-16). The vessels that were housed within
the temple, and those that remained in the inner court, were equally as elaborate. One of these
vessels that stood on the right side of the sanctuary between the altar and the porch of the
temple was an immense bronze basin known as “the Sea” (1 Kings 7:23). It was five cubits
(7½ feet) high, ten cubits (15 feet) in diameter at the brim, thirty cubits (45 feet) in
circumference and rested on 12 bronze oxen (1 Kings 7:23-26, 39; 2 Chronicles 4:2-5,10). Unlike
the ten lesser basins that were used to bathe portions of the burnt offerings, the Sea served as a
washing pool for the priests (2 Chronicles 4:6). For many years the capacity of the inner
court’s large basin known as “the Sea” has been at the center of controversy. The
reason: 1 Kings 7:26 indicates that it held 2,000 baths. (A bath was the largest of the liquid
measures in Hebrew culture; estimates are that it corresponds to anywhere from 4½-9 U.S. gallons).
However, 2 Chronicles 4:5 says that the Sea held 3,000 baths. Thus, critics of the Bible’s
inerrancy have charged that a blatant contradiction exists and that such lack of agreement
discredits divine authorship.
There are at least three possible solutions to this alleged contradiction. First, the answer
could be that a copyist, while attempting to ensure a “carbon copy” of the manuscript
from which he was working, made an error. [For a general background on copyists’ errors,
please see our foundational essay on that subject.] Keil and Delitzsch, in their commentary on 2
Chronicles, indicated their support of this theory. They tend to believe that the number 3,000
given in 2 Chronicles 4:5 has arisen from the confusion of the letter gimel (Hebrew
transliterated letter-number for “3”) with beth (Hebrew transliterated letter-
number for “2”). By a comparison of the two Hebrew letters, it easily is seen that their
shape is quite similar. Even a tiny smudge from excessive wear on a scroll-column or a slightly
damaged manuscript could have resulted in making the gimel look like a beth. With
such an adjustment, the statements in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles are harmonized easily. However, it
very well may be that this is not a copyist’s error at all.
A second possible explanation to this alleged contradiction revolves around a Hebrew word used
in 2 Chronicles 4:5 that does not appear in 1 Kings 7:26. Whereas in 1 Kings it says that the
molten Sea “held” (ASV) 2,000 baths, 2 Chronicles says that it
“received (Hebrew machaziyq) and held three thousand baths” (ASV, emp. added). The difference in phraseology may indicate that the Sea
ordinarily contained 2,000 baths, but when filled to its utmost capacity it received and held
3,000 baths (Haley, 1951, p. 382). Thus, the chronicler informs the reader that 3,000 baths of
water were required to completely fill the Sea, which usually held 2,000 baths (Barnes). Anyone
who has ever been around large pools of water (like a swimming pool) knows that the pool actually
can hold a few thousand gallons of water more than generally is kept in it. It very well may be
that the wording in 2 Chronicles indicates such a difference about the water level in the Sea.
A third possible solution to this “problem passage” is that the “bath” unit
mentioned in 1 Kings was larger than the “bath” unit used in 2 Chronicles. Since the
latter account was written after the Babylonian exile, it is quite possible that reference is made
to the Babylonian bath, which might have been less than the Jewish bath used at the time of
Solomon. As Adam Clarke observed: “The cubit of Moses, or of the ancient Hebrews, was longer
than the Babylonian by one palm…. 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.” In considering a modern-day example, a 20% difference exists between the U.S.
gallon and the Imperial gallon, even though the same term is used for both quantities. Thus, this
alleged discrepancy may be simply a misunderstanding on the part of 21st-century readers.
The fact of the matter is that critics of the Bible cannot prove that this is a legitimate
contradiction. Second Chronicles could represent a copyist’s error. On the other hand, I
believe that one of the last two explanations represents a more plausible solution to the problem:
either (1) the addition of the Hebrew word machaziyq (“received”) in 2 Chronicles
4:5 means that the Sea could actually hold 3,000 baths (though it normally held 2,000 baths); or
(2) the “bath” unit used during the time of Solomon was larger than the one used after
the Jews were released from Babylonian captivity. Until one can prove that these three solutions
are not possibilities, he should refrain from criticizing the Bible’s claim of divine
Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Haley, John W. (1951 reprint), Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Gospel
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
(Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition.
Copyright © 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
Phone (334) 272-8558