Comments on: Old Testament Numbers

By: Ernest G. McClain

Ernest G. McClain — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:45:54 +0000

I find your effort interesting from my own perspective in studying Bible numerology as “mathematical harmonic mythology,” or something similar, however we eventually name it. I’ve touched on some of these numbers in various books and articals since 1974, but of course many of them baffle me. You might look at “Abraham’s Children” on my website to start, intended as a 2nd appendix to my Quran book (which should be posted soon). Ernest

By: Codex: Biblical Studies Blogspot » Blog Archive » Biblical Studies Carnival - Best of 2006

Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:41:22 +0000

[...] Other noteworthy posts include James Snapp’s post on large numbers in the Bible at Evangelical Textual Criticism (Responses by P.J. Williams then James Snapp followed by Williams and finally Kevin Edgecomb), and Jeremy Pierce’s query, “What Happened to Eleazar’s Line?” Finally, prompted by a post by Mark Goodacre, Michael Bird’s post on Christianities and Judaisms at Euangelion is also a must read about “complexity and accordance” in early Christianity. [...]

By: Kevin P. Edgecomb

Kevin P. Edgecomb — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:33:53 +0000

Thanks for writing, Adam. The way I think this might have happened was a combination of either misunderstanding or deliberate exagerration. First, someone down the road, after Chronicles was written, some scribe in Jerusalem with central control over the documents had one or the other of these impressions:
a.) (the more charitable solution:) These numbers are ridiculously small! They must be a mistake! I’ll raise them up to what they should be. *OR*
b.) (the solution involving deliberate alteration:) These numbers are ridiculously small! I’m going to raise them so that they’re as impressive as the numbers of Persian and Macedonian numbers.

Now, I also think that this is likely the point at which numbers were altered from the old numerical annotation that we know was used, and that the numbers were re-written fully as words (e.g. “60″ to “sixty”). So, in this dual process, reflected also in the Vorlage to the LXX and OG versions, the combination of inflation/multiplication of numbers and also rewriting as words would also have been a process easy to screw up in, and there are very likely a number of mistakes in there. But overall, it seems a deliberate, systematic and also almost entirely complete (I think only one number was accidentally not multiplied in both the MT and OG verss, perhaps two in the OG) alteration is what’s taken place here. I don’t see a way to avoid that.

In the near future, I’ll be getting around to writing about how this multiplication theory of mine applies to models for the exodus and conquest. Essentially, the gist is that when the group is a relatively small and believably-sized one of about 6000 total, a mass escape and wandering in the Sinai and southern Negev is possible. Also the infiltering into Canaan, with only a very few cities attacked and destroyed, but most taken over, the people more mingling with the Canaanites than exterminating them (which mingling is the major theme of Joshua and Judges, where they are explicitly described as NOT having taken their allotted territories by force as instructed), is more in accord with the archaeological evidence. Later down the line, once the population was more settled and outnumbered the Canaanites, large-scale forest-clearing and settlement construction led to that Iron I explosion of settlements in the hill country. I’ll go into more detail later. Thanks for writing!

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:21:04 +0000

Hi Kevin

Interesting points you make. John Wenham’s old solution seemed to involve a bit of acknowledging both sources of exaggeration and error. One thought I’d like to see emphasised is the apparent absurdity of 22,273 women (mothers of those firstborn males) producing 603,550 adult men, plus who knows how many females and male children. That might give the issue a bit more cogence – that anyone wanting to believe the historical value of the Torah has to understand its limitations too. The Bible has history as much as it records it too.

By: DailyHebrew.com » Biblical Studies Carnival VII

DailyHebrew.com » Biblical Studies Carnival VII — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 17:57:04 +0000

[...] Evangelical Textual Criticism asks what happens if biblical numbers are too large (Responses by P.J. Williams then James Snapp followed by Williams and finally Kevin Edgecomb). [...]

By: Kevin P. Edgecomb

Kevin P. Edgecomb — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 02:55:52 +0000

Yes, Phil, I agree, of course. I’ve seen that in Liddell-Scott for μυριας and somewhere else, I’m sure. With the number of them unspecified, the same is used in English: myriads, thousands, etc.

By: Phil S.

Phil S. — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:26:01 +0000

Just as a quick aside, I wanted to mention that one of the things that I realized early in my career as a classicist is that numbers in Greek and Roman authors were almost always inflated (with some notable exceptions). One reason for that is our misreading at times. Sometimes the Greek word for ten thousand really means something like ‘a really big bunch’, but we read it as ten thousand. Sometimes, the author is reacting what you are noticing in Hebrew and Near Eastern texts. This is particularly true, I think, of Herodotus. So, this supports your point, I think.

Peace,
Phil