BC WORLD
Saved by @ThomassRichards

THREAD: Numbers and Multiple Sources in Scripture.

Consider Judges 20’s battle narrative:

400,000 gathered Israelites,

700 Gibeahites defended by 26,000 Benjaminites,

22,000 Israelite casualties,

25,000 Benjaminite casualties, etc., etc.

Why all the numbers, Samuel?

 In what follows, I’ll try to offer some suggestions.

(Image from deseret-dot-com.)
Judges 19’s narrative about a Levite and his concubine culminates in one of the bleakest and most horrific scenes in all of Scripture.

@DrPJWilliams has a thread on it (linked below), which is bigly recommended.

https://t.co/WY7wl60Beh
At the outset of ch. 20, ch. 19’s fallen Levite provides Israel with a highly one-sided version of events—one which says nothing at all about his betrayal/abandonment of his concubine,

and instead lays the blame for her death squarely at the feet of the men of Gibeah.
In response, the Israelites go to war against the Gibeahites, who are defended by their tribesmen, the Benjaminites.

To our surprise, however, the Israelites don’t fare very well.
In the first two days of battle, the Israelites incur heavy losses, while the Benjaminites go unpunished.

Only in the third day’s battle do the Israelites finally gain the upper hand.

Why? Isn’t their war against Benjamin a just one—one they can reasonably expect God to bless?
And, as we’ve already wondered, why is it narrated in such a flurry of numbers?

400,000 gathered Israelites,

700 Gibeahites defended by 26,000 Benjaminites,

22,000 Israelite casualties on the first day’s battle,

a further 18,000 the next day,
and 25,100 Benjaminite casualties on the third day,

broken down into groups of (roughly) 18k, 5k, and 2k (with 600 left over):

What are we to make of all these numbers?
As odd as the idea may seem, the answer to our two questions are connected:

the numbers involved in ch. 20’s battle-scenes (together with a few other details) help us to understand why the Israelites don’t fare very well against the Benjaminites.
Note, for a start, how many Israelites fall in the first two days’ battles.

The Benjaminites slay 40,000 out of the Israelites’ 400,000 men (20.17–26), which is a significant proportion.
The Levites’ presence in Israel is supposed to cost Israel a tenth of their *produce*, not a tenth of their *men*.

Something seems amiss in terms of ch. 19’s Levite and his effect on Israel.
Meanwhile, the Israelites’ battle in ch. 20 brings to mind their ancestors’ battle at Ai (e.g., the defeat, the feigned retreat, the ambush, the column of smoke: cp. Josh. 7–8),
which creates an uncomfortable literary connection between the Levite and the guilty party at Ai (Achan).

Other connections also tie the battles at Gibeah and Ai together.
At Ai, despite their numerical advantage, the Israelites were defeated and returned to the ark of the covenant, distraught.

And, here in Judges 20, the Israelites return to the same place in the same circumstances.
Do they have another Achan in their midst—a man with a secret to hide?

It seems so, as we’ll now see.
At the outset of Israel’s war with the Benjaminites, the Benjaminites’ army is said to consist of 26,000 ‘swordsmen’ (איש שלף חרב),

who I’ll refer to as ‘standard soldiers’,

and 700 ‘select warriors’ (איש בחור) from Gibeah,

who I’ll refer to as ‘elite soldiers’ (20.15).
In the third day’s battle, when the Israelites turn the tables on the Benjaminites, they’re said to slay a total of 25,100 (standard) Benjaminite soldiers (20.26–35),

which leaves 900 standard soldiers unaccounted for.

What’s happened to these 900 men?
We’re not told.

Instead, in 20.36–48, our author provides us with a second account of the same incident (or, more precisely, a zoom-in on the third day of 20.26–35’s narrative).
In this second account, the Benjaminites’ defeat is set out in three separate stages.

When the Benjaminites go forth to battle, the Israelites slay 18,000 of their standard soldiers;

as the Benjaminites flee, the Israelites slay a further 5,000 ‘in the highways’;
and, in a place named ‘Gidom’, the Israelites slay 2,000 more.

These details raise further questions.

Why are 25,100 men slain in the first account but only 25,000 in the second?
And why are only 600 Benjaminites left at the end of the second account rather than the expected 1,700? (26,700 less 25,000 makes 1,700, right?)

What has happened to the other 1,100?

We thus have a number of issues to address, which we’ll tackle in reverse order.
First, the issue of the unaccounted-for Benjaminites.

The 1,100 Benjaminites most likely fell on the first and second days of battle.
Our death tolls of 25,000 and 25,100 only tell us how many people fell on the third day,

and the Benjaminites are unlikely to have incurred zero losses on the first two days.
If so, 900 out of the 1,100 must have been standard soldiers (in order to explain the figure of 25,100 in 20.35),

while the other 200 must have been elite soldiers.

The presence of unaccounted-for Benjaminites in our accounts isn’t, therefore, too hard to explain.
Next, the difference in death tolls.

The easiest way to explain the difference between the figures of 25,100 and 25,000 is to assume they involve different methods of approximation.
Suppose the exact numbers of Benjaminites who fell on the third day of battle were as follows:

18,020 on the battlefield, 5,020 on the highways, and 2,020 at Gidom.
Totalled up and rounded to the nearest hundred, these figures would yield a death toll of 25,100,

while, rounded to the nearest hundred and then totalled up, they would yield 25,000 (given subtotals of 18,000, 5,000 and 2,000).

(Other explanat/s are possible, but more complex.)
We thus come to the question of why our author chose to include these details in his narrative in the first place.

Couldn’t our author have told chs. 19–20’s story without them?

He *could*, yes. But an important point would then have gone unnoticed.
Recall the contents of ch. 20.

We have two different death tolls, which don’t (neatly) cohere with one another because their details are approximations.

We have an account of a battle which leaves 900 individuals unaccounted for.
And we have a second account (of the same battle) which leaves 1,100 individuals unaccounted for.

Do any of these details ring a bell?

They should do, since they find a clear parallel in our text and its wider context.
At the start of ch. 20, we have an (approximately accurate) account of a rape in Gibeah, which doesn’t easily cohere with ch. 19’s record of events.

At the start of the book’s epilogue, we have a story about 1,100 lost shekels, whose disappearance isn’t explained.
And, soon afterwards, we have 900 unaccounted-for shekels of silver,

as shown below:
Note the similarities between the numbers involved in ch. 17 and those involved in chs. 19–20.
Just as 1,100 men disappear without trace in the second of ch. 20’s accounts of Israel’s war against Benjamin, so 1,100 pieces of silver have disappeared without trace some time before ch. 17’s events begin to unfold.

Both narratives are thus inherently incomplete.
Moreover, just as ch. 20’s first account of Israel’s war leaves 900 soldiers unaccounted for, so ch. 17’s narrative leaves 900 pieces of silver unaccounted for.
Micah’s mother promises to give him 1,100 pieces of silver, spends 200 of them, and the 900 pieces of silver left over are never mentioned again.
The Levite’s account of ch. 19’s events is thus situated in the middle of a larger text which highlights: a] the problems caused by approximate/incomplete information, and b] how multiple accounts of the same events can provide us with a more complete picture.
Why? What are we supposed to infer from ch. 20’s relationship to its wider context?

My suggestion is as follows.

Our author wants us to appreciate the hugely problematic nature both of the Levite’s testimony and of the Israelites’ failure to question it.
Note, by way of illustration, three ways in which the Levite’s testimony resonates with—and can be interpreted in light of—its context.
First, just as ch. 20’s death tolls don’t add up, so the Levite’s story doesn’t add up.

If the men of Gibeah genuinely wanted to kill him (per his claim), then why *didn’t* they kill him (20.5)?

Why would they have been satisfied with an act of rape?
Did they simply come to do something unpleasant to someone and not care who or what?

The Levite’s story was fundamentally incoherent and should have been questioned by the Israelites.
Second, since we have multiple accounts of ch. 20’s battle, we’re able to corroborate its details,

which is precisely what the Israelites should have done in the case of the Levite’s testimony (Deut. 19.15).

Where was the old man from Gibeah?
And where was the Levite’s servant, who would have been able to confirm (or disconfirm) the Levite’s version of events?

In other words, where were the ‘two or three witnesses’ necessary to indict the Gibeahites?
(Curiously, Judges is the first book in the Bible in which the word ‘witness’ doesn’t occur.)
Third, just as chs. 17 and 20’s narratives are incomplete at key junctures, so too is the Levite’s testimony.

The Levite failed to mention his horrific act of betrayal, and was deliberately vague about the issue of when his concubine died.
Was she dead when he found her?

Or did she only die later when he failed to attend to her injuries?

For more thoughts on the latter question, see another of @DrPJWilliams’ threads below:

https://t.co/wCQRDRj624
Had the Levite told the Israelites the truth, ch. 19–21’s narrative might have panned out very differently.

For a start, the Israelites wouldn’t have been able to lay the blame for the concubines’ death solely at the men of Gibeah’s feet.
Furthermore, had the Levite been held accountable for his sin, who knows what effects it might have had?

The Benjaminites might not have felt the need to come to the defence of the Gibeahites;
the Levites as a whole might have become convicted of their fallen state (and reformed their ways);

thousands of warriors’ lives might have spared on the battlefield;

and hundreds of women might have been spared from abuse in Shiloh’s vineyards (21.19–23).
Yet, instead, in a cruel travesty of the cross, violence triumphed over justice.

The Israelites had another Achan in their midst (the Levite), which they should have realised,

especially when the battle inexplicably turned against them.
(‘How could one man have chased a thousand, and two have put ten thousand to flight, unless...YHWH had given them up?’: Deut. 32.30.)
These, I believe, are the kinds of issues the Israelites should have considered.

And these are the kinds of issues our author wants *us* to consider.
Ultimately, no-one emerges well from chs. 19–20’s events—neither the Gibeahites, nor the Benjaminites (who sided with them), nor the Levite, nor the Israelites as a whole—,

all of which is carefully brought out by our author’s use of numbers.
Numbers aren’t therefore an esoteric code, where 6 = the beast, 7 = fulness, 8 = new starts, etc.

Rather, numbers are employed in the book of Judges in order to establish connections between particular texts...
...and hence to encourage us to read/interpret those texts in light of one another,

And our interpretation of it will be the poorer if we simply gloss over them.

THE END

More from World

Binyamin Appelbaum
Binyamin Appelbaum
@BCAppelbaum
Chile is the poster child for extreme economic inequality in a developed country. I spent time there last year for my book (which has a chapter on Chile) and what I found hardest to understand is why there wasn't more political unrest. Now there

A few choice facts about Chile and inequality:

In Chile, the social security system is basically designed to redistribute wealth from the masses to the rich, because workers are required to put their savings into private investment funds that charge ridiculous fees.

The commitment to private industry runs deep. If the available water is sufficient either for drinking or growing avocados... well, you get the idea.


The result in Chile is two worlds, side by side.


And what is most remarkable is that, for the longest time, even the ostensibly left-wing parties were on board. Chile's socialists basically don't like socialism.
WORLD
Heshmat Alavi
Heshmat Alavi
@HeshmatAlavi
THREAD

1)
Newsweek — #Iran has sent deadly "Shahed-136 suicide/kamikaze drones" to the Houthis in #Yemen. These advanced UAVs are deployed to the Houthi-controlled northern Yemeni province of Al-Jawf.

More reason why the West should not appease Tehran.
https://t.co/gtNDCGbtQs


2)
#Iran has long provided drones to the Houthis

March 22, 2017
“… seven Houthi Qasef-1 drones and one drone engine recovered by forces from the UAE. Six of the drones were captured in October on a known Iranian smuggling route that runs through

3)
US to designate #Iran-backed Houthis in #Yemen as a foreign terrorist org (FTO)
https://t.co/ILBCg3Pfvs

Iran’s IRGC long funded/armed/trained/provided for the Houthis.

Dec 30—Missile attack on Aden airport. Yemen gov holds Houthis


4)
#Iran provides at least $360 million, ballistic missiles, other ordnance, technology and training to the Houthis in

5)
The Houthis recently claimed responsibility for a missile attack targeting Saudi Arabia’s Aramco oil
WORLD
Advertisement
Nodutdol | \ub178\ub463\ub3cc
Nodutdol | 노둣돌...
@nodutdol
Today is “Korean American Day”.

#OTD in 1903, the first large group of Korean immigrants arrived in US-conquered territory. [Thread]


102 Korean men, women, and children arrived in Honolulu aboard the SS Gaelic to work in Hawaii’s sugar plantations. By 1905, Koreans comprised 11% of Hawaii’s plantation workforce—around 7000 people.


This first wave of Korean immigrants arrived amid sharpening imperialist rivalry in the Pacific. Korea had slowly been losing its independence for decades, and by 1903 was just two years away from becoming a protectorate of Japan.

At the same time, the US was consolidating its position in the Pacific, annexing Hawaii, Guam, and the Philippines in 1898, and partitioning Samoa in 1899.

(Pictured: US troops in the Philippines)


US missionaries colluded with the Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association to secure a new, cheap labor force for Hawaii’s sugar fields. Many of the Koreans who arrived in Hawaii from 1903-1905 were Methodists.
WORLD
Fidato
Fidato
@tequieremos
On this day in 2007, the bomb blasts in Samjhauta Express killed 68 people including 44 Pakistanis. The immediate investigations revealed irrefutable evidence about the masterminds. In this thread, I would share some Indian newspaper clips which covered the investigations.


1. Lt Col Prasad Purohit, a serving Indian army officer, was arrested for terror conspiracy in the Malegaon blast case. He was the co founder of Abhinav Bharat, a right wing Hindu organisation. He admitted that he was the mastermind.

(The Times of India, Pune, 7 November 2008)


2. Lt Col Purohit met Pragya Thakur on 5 Oct 2008 to tell her that "Our People" had carried out the killings in Orissa, burnt down two churches and also carried out the Malegaon blast.

(The Indian Express, Pune, 24 Nov 2008)

Ironically, Pragya is BJP's MP today.


3. During his narco analysis test, Lt Col Purohit told officers that Praveen Togadia was responsible for the “Samjhauta Express Blasts”. He asked me to find out from Dr Dev, how much RDX was remaining after the blast.

(Pune Mirror, 19 Nov 2008)

4. In his narco analysis test, Lt Col Purohit gave sensational information that he supplied explosives for Ajmer and Malegaon blasts at the instance of Mahant Dayanand Pandey.

(Sakal, Pune and Pudhari, Pune, both of 15 Nov 2008)
ALL , WORLD
Zarina Zabrisky
Zarina Zabrisky
@ZarinaZabrisky
#Navalny is facing TWO court hearings today; one is happening now. I'm listening to his speech. He's trying to explain: he was not hiding from the court; he was in a coma. The whole thing is so absurd that it is impossible to comment. In a nutshell: they just want him locked up.


It is clear that the verdict will not be overturned. He will go to serve 2.8 years or more in a penal colony. His allies are locked up under home arrests w/o the Internet. People are silenced. Honest and brave people have lost again.

Navalny's last word #1: "I give the last word so frequently. This trial will end now; there will be the second [today]. And there, too, I will say my last word. If someone decides to publish my last words, it will be a thick book..."

"Probably, this is a sign the power sends me, “Look, we can turn this judicial system any way we want. What are you doing? I'm not the only one who sees this and... people imagine that it can happen to them, too..."

Navalny speaks of his newly found faith and says that he experiences "satisfaction" and doesn't regret returning to Russia." He did the right thing and followed the commandment "blessed are those hungry for righteousness, for they will be satisfied"
WORLD

You May Also Like

Sevak Sathaya
Sevak Sathaya
@Sevakofmata
Sharing one incident... After Modi's Trichy youth conference, the very next morning when police were clearing up their mini-control room, they found 5 strange boys who were roaming there with bags. When police enquired them "Sir, we are from Subramaniapuram in Trichy.

Whatever political meeting or conference is held in this ground, we come here on the same night or morning hours to collect the Liquor bottles to sell in the scrap shop for 50 paisa to 1 rupee per bottle and we used to earn Rs 200 to Rs 400 on each such event.

Even in the last DMK meeting the very next day we collected around 1500 bottles. But for Modi's BJP meeting, we could not find even a single bottle in the whole ground. We are coming around and around and not a single bottle in any corner of the G Corner ground in Trichy,

we are much disappointed, sir!". Police seem were stunned and pleasantly surprised. This is what Modi magic does in this nation. Modi is the one who can lead our nation and make everyone prosper with hardwork in right direction and proper approach.

This funny but interesting anecdote was published by a statewide local daily Dinamalar. I have just translated and posting it here for rest of the nation;
INDIA
ArmaniTalks \U0001f399\U0001f525
ArmaniTalks 🎙🔥...
@ArmaniTalks
Make them irrelevant > Hold a grudge

Holding a grudge is the easy thing to do.

But holding a grudge is not the right thing to do.

A grudge puts poison in your body & rewires your subconscious mind.

You consume the poison & destroy your reality while your attacker sleeps like a baby.
LIFE
Advertisement
k\u0101rthik \u0b95\u0bbe\u0bb0\u0bcd\u0ba4\u0bcd\u0ba4\u0bbf\u0b95\u0bcd \u0915\u093e\u0930\u094d\u0924\u093f\u0915 \U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3\U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3\U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3 | Sanatani
kārthik கார்த்திக் कार...
@almightykarthik
Hello Dear Tweeples!

It’s Siddhars time of the week! Last week I shared story of Guru (Machamuni or Yogi Matsyendranath), this week I bring you information on his Shishya.

#Thread on Gorakanathar Siddhar.

@LostTemple7


His origin story is interesting, though I couldn’t verify it’s authenticity, so not sharing the story here. He’s shishya of Machamuni Siddhar and also learnt from Agasthiya Siddhar.

@HelloNNewman @RajiIndustani @Kishoreciyer1

Unlike other Siddhars, he is depicted as either with a Tiger or seated & wearing Tiger skin. While I couldn’t find any explanation for this. My interpretation is as follows:

Tiger is a predator that lurks around and attacks unexpectedly.


Our 5 indriyas and 5 vikitis also similar to Tiger, they lurk around and attacks our thoughts when we’re least expecting. Gorakkar is said to have mastered these aspects, thus to denote this, he shown with Tiger.

@Itishree001 @VarierSangitha @jananisampath

Gorakanathar or Gorakshnath (as he’s known in the Nath Sampraday) is celebrated Guru in both Northern and Southern part of India. He’s one of the NavNath in Nath Sampraday and also 18 Siddhars of Tamil tradition. During his life, he’s travelled Indian subcontinent extensively +
RELIGION , ALL
Anshul Pandey
Anshul Pandey
@Anshulspiritual
IMPORTANCE, ADVANTAGES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF BHAGWAT PURAN

It was Ved Vyas who edited the eighteen thousand shlokas of Bhagwat. This book destroys all your sins. It has twelve parts which are like kalpvraksh.

In the first skandh, the importance of Vedvyas


and characters of Pandavas are described by the dialogues between Suutji and Shaunakji. Then there is the story of Parikshit.
Next there is a Brahm Narad dialogue describing the avtaar of Bhagwan. Then the characteristics of Puraan are mentioned.

It also discusses the evolution of universe.( https://t.co/2aK1AZSC79 )

Next is the portrayal of Vidur and his dialogue with Maitreyji. Then there is a mention of Creation of universe by Brahma and the preachings of Sankhya by Kapil Muni.


In the next section we find the portrayal of Sati, Dhruv, Pruthu, and the story of ancient King, Bahirshi.
In the next section we find the character of King Priyavrat and his sons, different types of loks in this universe, and description of Narak. ( https://t.co/gmDTkLktKS )


In the sixth part we find the portrayal of Ajaamil ( https://t.co/LdVSSNspa2 ), Daksh and the birth of Marudgans( https://t.co/tecNidVckj )

In the seventh section we find the story of Prahlad and the description of Varnashram dharma. This section is based on karma vaasna.
RELIGION
Brian Armstrong
Brian Armstrong
@brian_armstrong
1/ Productivity tip: when I keep procrastinating on something I often trick myself by saying, "ok just work on it for the next 20 minutes" or some short period of time, "and then you can chill/relax guilt free" and give myself some treat (sugar, netflix, etc)

2/ Usually at the 20 minute mark (sometimes I set a timer) I'm so engrossed in what I'm doing that I don't want want to stop and end up working on it for the next hour or two. But getting started seems to be the hardest part.

3/ Key to this: you have to actually be ok with stopping after 20 minutes and being guilt free if that's how you feel. So it's not a trick, i have the option every time, I just often don't want to use it once i'm in the zone.
PRODUCTIVITY