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

Gilles Demaneuf
Gilles Demaneuf
@gdemaneuf
@Ayjchan @K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia @Ayjchan @K_G_Andersen please note that there were 11 infections in the Beijing 2004 leaks, not 8.

The 8 you are mentioning are for the main chain of infection with 3 levels from one primary case in April.
But there were 3 more primary cases for a total of 11 cases.

@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia All were linked to the heavily contaminated CDC P3 lab (the top P3 in China at the time).

The cases are typically separated between:

- The February ones (Cui and Ren) which seem to have been covered up by the CDC Institute of Virology. Also we only have pseudonyms for these 2.

@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia - The April ones-9 infections (1+8, officially the 'Beijing-Anhui Apr-2004 breakout'.

The official Chinese report only focussed on the April infections - keeping very quiet about the February ones. Here is the main April chain of infection.

Here is are the 9 from Apr 2004:


@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia And here are the 9 people infected in Apr 2004:
(4-22 in the title -> April chain with alarm raised on the 22nd):


@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia The WHO eventually correctly mentioned 11 cases:
https://t.co/a1HvuT0C8z
WORLD
Pat Gelsinger
Pat Gelsinger
@PGelsinger
In keeping with year-end tradition, I wanted to share the best books I read in 2020 – a year unlike any other - with a list of reads heavily influenced by global events including…

…Race and social justice. While not a planned reading theme as I started the year, social injustices that have plagued our nation for centuries rose up in a jolting manner. May we pass on to our children and grandchildren a more socially just world than we received.

Frederick Douglass, David Blight

Douglass was a self-educated slave who freed himself to become a tireless speaker, political leader & passionate reformer. Even reading his speeches today, you feel drawn to the power, drama & personal suffering of this great man.

Bonhoeffer, Eric Metaxas & Timothy Keller

Theologian, Pastor, Church Leader & spy/traitor. Quite a resume for an influential young German aristocrat. Details the rise of Hitler & pure evil unleashed in the face of the pure good of Christ as seen through Bonhoeffer’s eyes.

So You Want To Talk About Race, Ijeoma Oluo

Jarring. We have so far to go as we confront the realities of systemic racism. Since reading I've sought out reverse mentors to try and learn more. Get comfortable with being uncomfortable. (Much profanity for those sensitive to such)
CULTURE , WORLD
Advertisement
Ben See
Ben See
@ClimateBen
The Great Northern Forests of Canada, Russia and Scandinavia are doomed to destruction due to the most severe expected temperature increases from global warming anywhere on Earth which will turn them to savannah within decades with severe consequences for all life on Earth.

*An extensive review of studies published in the journal Science found that the boreal forest can't migrate north fast enough to outpace the impacts of a changing climate.*

"This forest will convert to a type of savannah."

'consequences..will be

'feedback loops created by permafrost melt and wildfire destruction represent just a few of the worrisome effects of climate change in the boreal. Boreal forest ecosystems are particularly at risk to the rising temperatures of climate change'.

'Worrisome'!https://t.co/zZNKrRnqoZ


'Boreal forests aren’t just important for the climate. They are also home to over 20,000 species and of these more than 300 species listed in the IUCN Red List.. from woodland caribou in North America, and Blakiston’s fish owl in Russia, to Siberian

'When you add up both the absorption and emission, Canada's forests haven't been a net carbon sink since 2001. Due largely to forest fires and insect infestations, the trees have actually added to..greenhouse gas emissions for each of the past 15
WORLD
Tom Elliott
Tom Elliott
@tomselliott
Hilarious Rush Limbaugh moment from his 2009 CPAC address -->
WORLD
Presidency Nigeria
Presidency Nigeria
@NGRPresident
Today Vice President @ProfOsinbajo presided over a meeting of the National Economic Council (NEC), to critically review the security situation in the country. Council recommitted to the following principles:

#NECBrief
#AsoVillaToday
#Thread


The Council recommitted to the following principles:

1. The protection of all residents of all States, including non-indigenous communities and religious and ethnic minorities within State jurisdictions;

2. The arrest and prosecution of all perpetrators of crime;

3. In collaboration with federal authorities, the reconstruction of destroyed homes and payment of compensation where appropriate by State authorities for damage to property and livelihoods sustained during targeted attacks on communities within their jurisdictions;

4. Ensuring that deceased victims of such violence are duly accorded dignified burial rites;

5. The immediate public and unequivocal condemnation of all manifestations of hatred, targeted violence, and other hate crimes against ethnic, religious, and minority groups;

6. Ensuring that local security initiatives—whether State Govt law enforcement agencies/local vigilante groups/ @PoliceNG Community Policing programme—are inclusive & composed with due consideration given to adequate representation of non-indigenous/minority resident communities;
WORLD

You May Also Like

Vibhu Vashisth
Vibhu Vashisth
@VIBHU_Tweet
शमशान में जब महर्षि दधीचि के मांसपिंड का दाह संस्कार हो रहा था तो उनकी पत्नी अपने पति का वियोग सहन नहीं कर पायी और पास में ही स्थित विशाल पीपल वृक्ष के कोटर में अपने तीन वर्ष के बालक को रख के स्वयं चिता पे बैठ कर सती हो गयी ।इस प्रकार ऋषी दधीचि और उनकी पत्नी की मुक्ति हो गयी।


परन्तु पीपल के कोटर में रखा बालक भूख प्यास से तड़पने लगा। जब कुछ नहीं मिला तो वो कोटर में पड़े पीपल के गोदों (फल) को खाकर बड़ा होने लगा। कालान्तर में पीपल के फलों और पत्तों को खाकर बालक का जीवन किसी प्रकार सुरक्षित रहा।

एक दिन देवर्षि नारद वहां से गुजर रहे थे ।नारद ने पीपल के कोटर में बालक को देख कर उसका परिचय मांगा -
नारद बोले - बालक तुम कौन हो?
बालक - यही तो मैं भी जानना चहता हूँ ।
नारद - तुम्हारे जनक कौन हैं?
बालक - यही तो मैं भी जानना चाहता हूँ ।

तब नारद ने आँखें बन्द कर ध्यान लगाया ।


तत्पश्चात आश्चर्यचकित हो कर बालक को बताया कि 'हे बालक! तुम महान दानी महर्षि दधीचि के पुत्र हो । तुम्हारे पिता की अस्थियों का वज्रास्त्र बनाकर ही देवताओं ने असुरों पर विजय पायी थी।तुम्हारे पिता की मृत्यु मात्र 31 वर्ष की वय में ही हो गयी थी'।

बालक - मेरे पिता की अकाल मृत्यु का क्या कारण था?
नारद - तुम्हारे पिता पर शनिदेव की महादशा थी।
बालक - मेरे उपर आयी विपत्ति का कारण क्या था?
नारद - शनिदेव की महादशा।
इतना बताकर देवर्षि नारद ने पीपल के पत्तों और गोदों को खाकर बड़े हुए उस बालक का नाम पिप्पलाद रखा और उसे दीक्षित किया।
ALL
Marina Amaral
Marina Amaral
@marinamaral2
Rio de Janeiro, 1920. 🇧🇷


São Paulo, 1910. 🇧🇷


“Arpoador”, Rio de Janeiro, 1900. 🇧🇷


“Avenida Paulista”, São Paulo, 1902. 🇧🇷


Recife, 1885. 🇧🇷
HISTORY
Advertisement
Em\U0001f383jipedia \U0001f4d9
Em🎃jipedia 📙...
@Emojipedia
✨📱 iOS 12.1 📱✨
🗓 Release date: October 30, 2018
📝 New Emojis: 158
https://t.co/bx8XjhiCiB


New in iOS 12.1: 🥰 Smiling Face With 3 Hearts https://t.co/6eajdvueip


New in iOS 12.1: 🥵 Hot Face https://t.co/jhTv1elltB


New in iOS 12.1: 🥶 Cold Face https://t.co/EIjyl6yZrF


New in iOS 12.1: 🥳 Partying Face https://t.co/p8FDNEQ3LJ
SOCIAL MEDIA
Billy Bostickson \U0001f3f4\U0001f441&\U0001f441 \U0001f193
Billy Bostickson 🏴👁&👁 ...
@BillyBostickson
@EricTopol @NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad B.1.1.7 reveals clearly that SARS-CoV-2 is reverting to its original pre-outbreak condition, i.e. adapted to transgenic hACE2 mice (either Baric's BALB/c ones or others used at WIV labs during chimeric bat coronavirus experiments aimed at developing a pan betacoronavirus vaccine)

@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad 1. From Day 1, SARS-COV-2 was very well adapted to humans .....and transgenic hACE2 Mice


@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad 2. High Probability of serial passaging in Transgenic Mice expressing hACE2 in genesis of SARS-COV-2


@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad B.1.1.7 has an unusually large number of genetic changes, ... found to date in mouse-adapted SARS-CoV2 and is also seen in ferret infections.
https://t.co/9Z4oJmkcKj


@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad We adapted a clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2 by serial passaging in the ... Thus, this mouse-adapted strain and associated challenge model should be ... (B) SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA loads in mouse lung homogenates at P0 to P6.
https://t.co/I90OOCJg7o
ALL
Suhas S. Hardutt
Suhas S. Hardutt
@HarduttSuhas
WHEN GH0RI TOOK TO HIS HEELS WHILST FIGHTING A HINDU QUEEN

THE BATTLE OF KASAHRADA (Kayadara)
1178 AD

Strategy! Bravado! Glory!

(Thread)


The narrative set by left historians about one of their favorite poster boys "Gh0ri" is that he went unchallenged upon entering the Indian subcontinent with one king falling after another.(1)

They conveniently deleted this event. Why? An agenda aimed at making us feel weak and inferior against the invaders in an attempt to glorify them. Simple strategy: To destroy a civilization tamper their history.(2)

Gh0ri defeated Prithviraj Chauhan at the 2nd Battle of Tarain in 1192 and laid the foundation of Delhi Sultanate. What is not well known is the fact that 14 years before he won this battle, he was defeated by the queen of Gujarat "Naiki Devi"!(3)

In 1173 Md Gh0ri had conquered the Ghaznavids in Afghanistan. A ruthless, persistent and deceptive Gh0ri was successful in conducting massive raids deep inside Indian territory.(4)
INDIA