76. 5. Numeration
It is a great question whether we have the correct method of translating numbers. Each nation has its own method of reckoning, and its own idioms of numeration.
We have only to go to the French and to one illustration to see this. Take as an example our simple ninety-seven (97). How is this to be translated into French? Idiomatically, of course, and not literally. The French would be quatre-vingt-dix-sept, or four-twenty-ten-seven: i.e., | four twenties | . | . | . | = 80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ten | . | . | . | = 10 |
| seven | . | . | . | = 7 |
| | | | | 97 |
Now, may it not be well to ask whether the Hebrew mode of reckoning was the same as the English; or, indeed, whether it was the same in Old Testament days as it is to-day?
In any case, is it not wiser to ask this question instead of first assuming an answer which may be incorrect, then charging the error on the inspired writers, and then explaining it by talking of "exaggeration," or of "round numbers"? That is an easy, not to say the usual, way out of difficulties which we ourselves perhaps have created.
1 Sam. vi. 19.—Infidels and Critics have brought charges of error, for example, against 1 Sam. vi. 19:
"And he smote the men of Beth-shemfesh, because they had looked into the Ark of Jehovah, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and three-score and ten men" (i.e., 50,070 men).
This is what the A.V. says.
But, Is this what the Word of God says?
The Hebrew of the latter clause reads: "Jehovah smote seventy men, [two] fifties and one thousand."
The word "fifties" is in the Dual number, which means two fifties.
So that we have, according to this—
| seventy men | . | . | . | 70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| two fifties | . | . | . | 100 |
| one thousand | . | . | . | 1,000 |
| or | . | . | . | 1,170 men. |
There is a slight difference it will be observed. And, as Beth-shemesh was quite a small place, this smaller number would appear to be more correct.
Judg. xii. 6.—Another example might be found in Judg. xii. 6, where we read of the tribe of Ephraim:
"And there fell at that time forty, and two thousand."
| This would be | . | . | 40 |
| and | . | . | 2,000 |
| or, as we should say | . | . | 2,040 |
This would be more in harmony with Num. xxvi. 37, which gives the total of the second census of Ephraim as 32,500, while the first was not more than 40,500 (Num. i. 33). Not only is the above more in harmony, for the other reckoning is out of all harmony; as those slain of the tribe would be more than the number of the whole tribe, within about three hundred years. The Census of Num. i. and xxvi. This leads to another suggestion which is made by Professor W. M. Flinders Petrie in his Researches in Sinai. His suggestion is that in the two Census Lists of Num. i. and xxvi. the word Eleph, thousand, should be taken in the sense of family or tent. He would then reckon, Reuben (Num. i. 21) as "46 eleph 500 people": i.e., eleven to a tent. But the objection to this is (1) that it is not "people," but the "men over twenty years of age"; (2) that the first list works out at 598 eleph 5,550 men over twenty years old (not people), whereas it is several times given as 603 eleph 3,550 men; which shows that the 598 and 5,550 must be reckoned as thousands, in order to arrive at the totals as given in Exod. xxxviii. 26. Num. i. 46; ii. 32, viz., 598,000 + 3,550 = 603,550 (compare Exod. xii. 37. Num. xi. 21). We must therefore conclude that Moses knew more about what he was writing than explorers and critics can imagine.
Our suggestion as given above does not lie under these serious objections, but relates merely to the principle underlying the method of numeration, and the idioms used in stating it.
6. Names of Persons and Places.
Accuracy is also required in the study of the names of persons and places. Apart from Scripture evidence we know that, in all countries, many places and persons have the same name; while on the other hand some are known by, and have, several names. We should expect, therefore, to find these phenomena in the Bible.
¹ London: John Murray, 1906; pp. 194-223.
So far from being a discrepancy which amounts to an objection, it is only a difficulty calling for greater accuracy and care in our study of the Word.
Moreover, it is an argument for the veracity of God's Word, in that, what are difficulties to us, are left unexplained because the truth as to the facts was perfectly well known.
(a) As to Persons.
1. The same name was borne by different persons then, as now.
This is particularly noticeable in the case of James.
JAMES.—We have to distinguish:
(1) James the son of Zebedee, and brother of John (Matt. iv. 21; xvii. 1, etc.).
(2) James the son of Alphans, one of the Twelve (Mark iii. 18. Matt. x. 3, etc.).
(3) James the Lord's brother (Gal. i. 19. Matt. xiii. 55. Mark vi. 3).
JOHN.—We have to distinguish—
(1) John the Baptist (Matt. iii. 4).
(2) John the Apostle (Mark i. 20).
(3) John Mark (Acts xii. 12, 25; xiii. 5, 13; xv. 37).
(4) John of Acts iv. 6.
SIMON was a name borne by at least ten persons in the New Testament. There were—
(1) SIMON (Luke ii. 25).
(2) SIMON PETER the Apostle.
(3) SIMON ZELOTES, one of the Twelve (Luke vi. 15. Acts i. 13). This is the same as SIMON THE CANANITE (Matt. x. 4. Mark iii. 18), being the Aramaic for Zelotes, both meaning Zeal or Zealot; the name of a Jewish sect. (4) SIMON son of Joseph and Mary (Matt. xiii. 55. Mark vi. 3).
(5) SIMON the father of Judas Iscariot (John vi. 71; xii. 4; xiii. 2, 20).
(6) SIMON the Pharisee (Luke vii. 40, 43, 44).
(7) SIMON THE LEPER (Matt. xxvi. 6. Mark xiv. 3).
(8) SIMON THE CYRENIAN (Matt. xxvii. 32. Mark xv. 21).
(9) SIMON THE TANNER (Acts ix. 43; x. 6, 32).
(10) SIMON MAGUS (Acts viii. 9, 18).
HEROD was a name borne by seven different persons:
(1) HEROD THE GREAT of whom we read in Matt. ii. and Luke i. He died in the year of the true Nativity (B.C. 4). During his last illness he ordered the slaughter of the children at Bethlehem (Matt. ii. 16-18). (2) HEROD ANTIPAS, son of Herod I., Tetrarch of Galilee (Luke iii. 1), the central portion of kingdom of Herod I. He was the half-brother of Herod Philip I. and abducted his wife Herodias and married her (Matt. xiv. 3. Luke iii. 19. Mark. vi. 17). He heard John gladly, but afterwards beheaded him (Mark vi. 20). This was the Herod to whom the Lord was sent for trial (Luke xxiii. 8-12). (3) HEROD ARCHELAUS, son of Herod I. Ethnarch of portion of kingdom of Herod I., on account of whom Joseph turned aside into Galilee (Matt. ii. 22).
(4) HEROD PHILIP I., son of Herod I., without territory. Husband of Herodias, who was abducted and married by Herod Antipas (Matt. xiv. 3. Mark vi. 17. Luke iii. 19).
(5) HEROD PHILIP II., son of Herod I., Tetrarch of the N.E. portion of kingdom of Herod I. (Luke iii. 1). Built Casarea Philippi (Matt. xvi. 13. Mark viii. 27).
(6) HEROD AGRIPPA I., grandson of Herod I., succeeded Philip II. Put James to death, and Peter in prison (Acts xii.).
(7) HEROD AGRIPPA II., son of Agrippa I., whom he succeeded in part. The Herod before whom Paul stood (Acts xxv. 13).
The same name in some cases arises from the fact that it is a title associated with royalty; just as the words "Czar," "Kaiser," etc.
ARIMELECH was the common name for the kings of the Philistines.
AGAG, for the kings of the Amalekites.
CÆSAR, for the emperors of Rome.