CONTRADICTION: II KINGS 23:22 AND II CHRONICLES 30:26

Two kings really stand out during the Divided Monarchy: Hezekiah and Josiah. Both were responsible for carrying out extensive religious reforms during their respective reigns. And one of these common reforms was to revive the celebration of the Feast of Passover.  However, some scholars such as J.B. Segal see a clear contradiction between the two verses above. Here is how they read in the RSV:

    Hezekiah's Passover – “So there was great joy in Jerusalem for since the time of Solomon the son of David king of Israel there had been nothing like this in Jerusalem.” (II Chronicles 30:26)

    Josiah's Passover – “For no such passover had been kept since the days of the judges who judged Israel, or during all the days of the kings of Israel or of the kings of Judah.” (II Kings 23:22)

The problem is that the author of Kings makes no mention of an earlier Passover under King Hezekiah and in II Kings 23:22 seems to be totally unaware of it ever happening. But one thing should be noted up front – the Chronicler in II Chronicles 35:18 repeats II Kings 23:22 almost verbatim:

    Josiah's Passover – “No passover like it had been kept in Israel since the days of Samuel the prophet; none of the kings of Israel had kept such a passover as was kept by Josiah, etc.” (II Chronicles 35:18)
    
Therefore, if there is a conflict between Chronicles and Kings, that same contradiction also applies within the book of II Chronicles itself. It is highly unlikely that the Chronicler would have left such a glaring mistake in his book if indeed there is a mistake. Here are a few ways in which the seeming contradiction between the two accounts can be resolved:

    Rudolph feels that the solution lies in the fact that the emphasis in II Chronicles 30:26 is on the “joy” of the people on that earlier occasion, not on the Passover observance itself. Fitting in with that explanation is the observation that the verse does not even mention the “Passover.”  Thus, Myers points out that it is not even referred to as any special feast.

    Cogan and Tadmor feel that the special nature of Josiah's Passover is that it “was the first centralized celebration of Passover, since the days of Israel's entry into the land; the last reported passover is in Josh 5:10-11.” Many scholars, however, would disagree with that statement unless Cogan and Tadmor do not count the earlier Passover during Hezekiah's reign because it did not meet all the requirements of a bona fide Passover as outlined in the Pentateuch. See below for other scholars who zero in on that distinction.

    House summarizes some of the main points: The distinction the Chronicler makes, then, may lie in the fact that the number of offerings and celebrants at Josiah's Passover exceeded that of Hezekiah. Unlike in Hezekiah's era, people from all the tribes appear for Passover, and Josiah's festival follows Moses' prescriptions more closely than Hezekiah's. Given the Chronicler's date it seems that 2 Kgs 23:22 speaks more of this Passover's thoroughness and attention to covenant standards than of the absolute uniqueness of an Passover event whatsoever.”

Williamson mentions some of these irregularities in the earlier Passover including (1) celebration in the second month instead of the first and (2) “lack of preparation even on the part of many who participated.” Regarding the first point, Numbers 9:9-12 did allow individuals who had not been able to celebrate Passover on time to do so on the second month. However, “Exceptionally, this was here [II Chronicles 30] applied to the whole community.” R.A. Stewart states that Hezekiah was able to take advantage of this exception “because the people are not gathered in Jerusalem, and the priests are not in a state of levitical purity, at the earlier date.”

Another major difference between the two Passover observances is pointed out by Williamson, who feels that the phrase in II Chronicles 25:18 (“no passover like it”) specifically refers to the prominent role played by the Levites in it. However, the same phrase in II Kings referred to the fact that the Passover was “a centralized celebration in Jerusalem.” Myers similarly says that “all in all, there can be no doubt about the writer's feeling for the Levites – they were present everywhere and played a significant role in every phase of the celebration...Another noticeable feature is the combination of the passover with the burnt offering.”

A completely different way of resolving the differences is to consider the roles the literary structures of two books play.    

                                                        Structure of II Chronicles 10-36

A. Kingdom of Judah before the Fall of Israel (II Chron. 10-27)
    1. Rehoboam to Jehoshaphat (chs.10-20) (4 mixed and 1 positive)
        2. Revolt Led by Jehoiada (chs. 21-23) (3 negative)
    1'. Joash to Jotham (chs. 24-27) (4 mixed and 1 positive)

            B. Spiritual Reform under King Hezekiah (II Chron. 28:1-33:20)
                1. Ahaz (ch. 28) (negative)
                    2. Hezekiah's Reforms (chs. 29-32) (positive)
                1'. Manasseh (33:1-9) (negative)
                    2'. Manasseh (33:10-21) (positive)

A'. Kingdom of Judah after the Fall of Israel (II Chron. 33:21-36:21)
    1. Amon (33:21-25) (negative)
        2. Josiah's Reforms (chs. 34-35) (positive)
    1'. Last Kings (36:1-21) (negative)

The center units, labeled “2,” of each major subsection share quite similar themes as well as some specific details:
    a. The word “covenant” only appears within this section in the “2” units:
three times in A2 (23:1,3,16), once in B2 (29:10), and four times in A'2 (34:30-32)
    b. Each of the three “2” units has events which take place in the Temple.
    c. Major Passover observances occur in B2 and A'2.
    d. Josiah's reforms in A'2 are a “recapitulation of Hezekiah's work” in B2. (Williamson)
    e. De Vries notes that “cautious criticism of the priests in relation to the Levites” appears in B2 and A'2.  Both these sections also contain the phrase “chief of the house of God” and the key word “remnant.”  The pair Merari/Kohath appears in both places as well as Aseph (twice in each).

Thus, the similarities in wording between II Chronicles 30:26 and 35:18 are quite purposeful and intended to draw a verbal parallel between these two reforming kings, not to create any sort of contradiction.

                                                     Structure of II Kings 21:1-23:30

1.  Manasseh’s evil deeds (21:1-26)
rebuilds high places and altars, burns his son, soothsayers
            and mediums, judgment on Judah foretold, Manasseh dies
                2.  Josiah reads the book and repents (22:1-13) (“the king sent”)
                    3.  Prophecy against Judah (22:14-20)
                2'.  People hear the book read and repent (23:1-3) (“the king sent”)
1'. Manasseh’s deeds undone (23:4-30)
temple cleansed and high places torn down, future burning
            of sons prevented, mediums removed, judgment on Judah
            foretold, Josiah dies

Moving next to the book of II Kings, in this case the author is drawing a purposeful contrast between the wicked King Manasseh and King Josiah. To do that, he has shown how Josiah systematically reversed all the evil deeds of his predecessor one by one. But since one of Manasseh's many sins was not a refusal to observe the Passover, the author felt no need to point out Josiah's effort in that direction. So the absence of its mention is not necessarily an indication that the author knew nothing at all about it, just that it didn’t fit into the story he was telling.