3 Kings 2:11
And the days that David reigned in Israel, were forty years: in Hebron he reigned seven years, in Jerusalem thirty-three.
Open 3 Kings 2:11 in the Motif Searcher, word by word across all five texts →Show on the spiral →The verse in its languages
- Vulgate (Clementine)
- Dies autem quibus regnavit David super Israël, quadraginta anni sunt : in Hebron regnavit septem annis ; in Jerusalem, triginta tribus.
- Septuagint (Swete)
- καὶ αἱ ἡμέραι ἃς ἐβασίλευσεν Δαυεὶδ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τεσσεράκοντα ἔτη· ἐν Χεβρὼν ἐβασίλευσεν ἔτη ἑπτά, καὶ ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ τριάκοντα τρία ἔτη.
- Hebrew (WLC)
- וְהַיָּמִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר מָלַ֤ךְ דָּוִד֙ עַל יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אַרְבָּעִ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה בְּחֶבְר֤וֹן מָלַךְ֙ שֶׁ֣בַע שָׁנִ֔ים וּבִירוּשָׁלִַ֣ם מָלַ֔ךְ שְׁלֹשִׁ֥ים וְשָׁלֹ֖שׁ שָׁנִֽים
Haydock's commentary
Seven years. The odd six months are not mentioned, 2 Kings ii. 11. (Haydock)
From Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859, in the transcription made by Todd Easton and kept online by John Paul Wohlschied at johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock.
The Fathers on this verse
Origen Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapter XXII
The Jews therefore said, “Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days?” How the Jews said that the temple had been forty-six years building, we cannot tell, if we adhere to the history. For it is written in the third Book of Kings, that they prepared the stones and the wood three years, and in the fourth year, in the second month, when Solomon was king over Israel, the king commanded, and they brought great precious stones for the foundation of the house, and unhewn stones. And the sons of Solomon and the sons of Hiram hewed the stones and laid them in the fourth year, and they founded the house of the Lord in the month Nisan and the second month: in the tenth year in the month Baal, which was the eighth month, the house was finished according to the whole count and the whole plan of it. …
St John Chrysostom The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Matthew I. 1
6. But wherefore did he not say, “the Son of Abraham,” and then “the Son of David?” It is not, as some suppose, that he means to proceed upward from the lower point, since then he would have done the same as Luke, but now he doth the contrary. Why then hath he made mention of David? The man was in the mouths of all, both from his distinction, and from the time, for he had not been so very long since dead, like Abraham. And though God made promises to both, yet the one, as old, was passed over in silence, while the other, as fresh and recent, was repeated of all. Themselves, for instance, say, “Doth not Christ come of the seed of David, and out of Bethlehem, the town where David was?” And no man called Him Son of Abraham, but all Son of David; and that because this last was more in the recollection of all, both on account of the time, as I have already said, and because of his royalty. …
The Fathers are given as they wrote. Where a passage lays the Passion on the Jewish people, the Church teaches that it cannot be charged against all the Jews then living, nor against the Jews of today, and that all sinners were its authors (CCC 597, 598).