NUMBER
total
amounts;
but
it
is
clear
that
the
narrative
as
it
stands
intends
'thousand'
to
be
a
numeral,
and
does
not
use
the
word
for
a
'
clan.'
6.
Accuracy
of
numbers.
—
Without
attempting
an
exhaustive
consideration
of
the
accuracy
of
numbers
as
given
by
the
original
authors,
we
may
point
out
that
we
should
not
expect
a
large
measure
of
mathematical
accuracy
even
in
original
numbers.
Often,
as
we
have
seen,
they
are
apparently
given
as
round
numbers.
Moreover,
in
the
case
of
large
numbers
they
would
seldom
be
ascertained
by
careful
enumeration.
The
numbers
of
armies
—
especially
hostile
armies
—
of
slain,
and
so
forth,
would
usually
be
given
on
a
rough
estimate;
and
such
estimates
are
seldom
accurate,
but
for
the
most
part
exaggerated.
Moreover,
primitive
historical
criticism
revelled
in
constructing
hypothetical
statistics
on
the
sUghtest
data,
or,
to
put
the
matter
less
pro-saically,
the
Oriental
imagination
loved
to
play
with
figures,
the
larger
the
better.
But
apart
from
any
question
as
to
the
accuracy
of
the
original
figures,
the
transmission
of
the
text
by
repeated
copying
for
hundreds
and
thousands
of
years
introduces
a
large
element
of
uncertainty.
If
we
assume
that
numbers
were
denoted
by
figures
in
early
times,
figures
are
far
more
easily
altered,
omitted,
or.
added
than
words;
but,
as
we
have
seen,
we
have
at
present
no
strong
ground
for
such
an
assumption.
But
even
when
words
are
used,
the
words
denoting
numbers
in
Hebrew
are
easily
confused
with
each
other,
as
in
EngUsh.
Just
as
'
eight
'
and
'
eighty
'
differ
only
by
a
single
letter;
so
in
Hebrew,
especially
in
the
older
style
of
writing,
the
addition
of
a
single
letter
would
make
'three'
into
'thirty,
etc.
etc.
And,
again,
in
copying
numerals
the
scribe
is
not
kept
right
by
the
context
as
he
is
with
other
words.
It
was
quite
possible,
too,
for
a
scribe
to
have
views
of
his
own
as
to
what
was
probable
in
the
way
of
numbers,
and
to
correct
what
he
considered
erroneous.
A
comparison
of
the
various
manuscripts,
versions,
etc.,
in
which
our
books
have
been
preserved,
shows
that
numbers
are
specially
subject
to
alteration,
and
that
in
very
many
cases
we
are
quite
uncertain
as
to
what
numbers
were
given
in
the
original
text,
notably
where
the
numbers
are
large.
Even
where
the
number
of
a
body
of
men,
the
length
of
a
period,
etc.,
are
given
twice
over
or
oftener
in
different
passages
of
the
Bible
itself,
the
numbers
are
often
different
;
those
in
Chronicles,
for
instance,
sometimes
differ
from
those
in
Samuel
and
Kings,
as
in
the
case
of
David's
census
mentioned
above.
Then,
as
regards
manuscripts,
etc.,
we
may
take
one
or
two
striking
instances.
The
chief
authorities
for
the
text
of
the
Pentateuch
are
the
Heb.
text
in
Jewish
MSB,
the
Hebrew
text
in
Samaritan
MSS,
and
the
Greek
translation,
the
Septuagint.
Now
the
numbers
connected
with
the
ages
of
the
patriarchs
are
largely
different
in
these
three
authorities;
e.g.
In
the
Jewish
text
Methuselah
lives
to
the
age
of
969,
and
is
the
longest
lived
of
the
patriarchs;
in
the
Samaritan
he
lives
only
to
be
720,
and
is
surpassed
by
many
of
the
other
patri-archs;
and
the
interval
from
the
Creation
to
the
Flood
is
2262
years
in
the
Septuagint,
1656
in
the
Jewish
text,
1307
jn
the
Samaritan
text.
Again,
the
number
of
persons
on
board
the
ship
on
which
St.
Paul
was
shipwrecked
is
given
in
some
MSS
as
276,
and
in
others
as
76
(Ac
27");
and
similarly
the
number
of
the
Beast
is
variously
given
as
666
and
as
616
(Rev
13").
The
probability
that
many
mistakes
in
numbeis
have
been
introduced
into
the
Bible
by
copyists
in
the
course
of
the
transmission
of
the
text
haa
long
been
admitted.
For
instance,
in
the
fifth
edition
ot
Home's
Introduction
to
the
Critical
Study
and
Knowledge
of
the
Holy
Scriptures,
published
in
1825,
a
thoroughly
old-fashioned
apologetic
work,
we
are
told
that
'
Chronological
differences,'
i.e.
discrepancies,
'
do
undoubtedly
exist
in
the
Scriptures.
.
.
.
Differences
in
chronology
do
not
imply
that
the
sacred
historians
were
mistaken,
but
they
arise
from
the
mistakes
of
transcribers
or
expositors';
and
again,
'It
is
reasonable
to
make
abate-
NUMBER
ments,
and
not
always
to
insist
rigorously
on
precise
numbers,
in
adjusting
the
accounts
of
scriptural
onronology
'
(i.
550
f
.).
7
.
Favourite
numbers
and
their
symbolism.—
Naturally
the
units,
and
after
them
some
of
the
even
tens,
hundreds,
and
thousands,
were
most
frequently
in
use,
and
came
to
have
special
associations
and
significance,
and
a
fraction
would
in
some
measure
share
the
importance
of
its
corresponding
unit,
e.g.
where
'four'
occurred
often
we
should
also
expect
to
meet
with
a
'fourth.'
One,
suggesting
the
idea
of
uniqueness,
self-sufficiency,
and
indivisiblUty,
is
specially
emphasized
in
relation
to
the
Divine
Unity:
'Jahweh
our
God,
Jahweh
is
one'
(Dt
6');
and
similarly
Eph
4"-
'one
Lord,
one
faith,
one
baptism,
one
God
and
Father';
and
other
like
passages.
Two.
—
There
were
two
great
lights;
men
frequently
had
two
wives
(Lamech,
Jacob,
Elkanah);
two
sons
(Abraham,
Isaac,
Joseph);
two
daughters
(Lot,
Laban,
Saul).
Or
again,
where
a
man
had
one
wife,
there
was
a
natural
couple;
and
so
with
animals;
in
one
account
of
the
Flood
they
go
in
'two
by
two.'
Two
men
often
went
together,
e.g.
Joshua's
spies
(Jos
2');
and
the
Twelve
and
the
Seventy
went
out
by
twos.
The
fact
that
men
have
two
eyes,
hands,
etc.,
also
gave
a
special
currency
to
the
number.
Two
objects
or
animals
are
often
required
tor
ritual
purposes
(.e.g.
Lv
1422)_
There
were
two
tables
of
stone.
Similarly,
a
half
would
be
a
familiar
fraction;
it
is
most
common
in
'
the
half
tribe
of
Manasseh.'
As
sets
of
two
were
common
in
nature
and
in
human
society,
so
in
a
somewhat
less
degree
were
sets
of
three,
and
in
a
continuously
lessening
degree
sets
of
tour,
five,
etc.
etc.
In
each
case
we
shall
refer
only
to
striking
examples.
Three.
—
Three
is
common
in
periods;
e.g.
David
is
offered
a
choice
between
three
days'
pestilence,
three
months'
defeat,
and
three
years'
famine
(1
Ch
21'^;
2
S
24"
has
seven
years);
Christ
is
'three
days
and
three
nights'
in
the
tomb
(Mt
12",
cf.
Jn
2").
Deities
often
occur
in
groups
of
three,
sometimes
father,
mother,
and
child;
e.g.
the
Egyptian
Osiris,
Isis,
and
Horus.
There
are
also
the
Babylonian
triads,
e.g.
Bel,
Anu,
and
Ea.
Division
into
three
is
common;
an
attacking
army
is
often
divided
into
three
parts,
e.g.
Gideon's
(Jg
7«;
cf.
also
Rev
S'"-
12).
Four.
—
The
square,
as
the
simplest
plane
figure,
suggests
four,
and
is
a
common
shape
for
altars,
rooms,
etc.;
hence
four
corners,
pillars,
the
four
winds,
the
four
quarters
of
the
earth,
N.,
S.,
E.,
W.
Irenseus
argues
that
there
must
be
four
canonical
Gospels
because
there
are
four
cherubim,
four
winds,
and
four
quarters
of
the
earth.
Five,
Ten,
and
multiples
obtain
their
currency
through
the
habit
of
reckoning
in
tens,
which
again
is
probably
derived
from
counting
on
the
ten
fingers.
The
fraction
tenth
is
conspicuous
as
the
tithe;
and
fifth
and
tenth
parts
of
measures
occur
in
the
ritual.
Six,
Twelve,
and
multiples
are
specially
frequent
in
reference
to
time:
12
months,
and
its
half,
six
months,
12
hours,
sixth
hour,
etc.,
partly
in
connexion
with
the
12
signs
of
the
Zodiac,
and
the
approximate
division
of
the
solar
year
into
12
lunar
months.
It
is
suggested
that
the
number
12
for
the
tribes
of
Israel
was
fixed
by
the
Zodiac;
in
the
lists
the
number
12
is
obtained
only
by
omitting
Levi
or
Dan,
or
by
substituting
Joseph
for
Ephraim
and
Manasseh.
When
the
number
12
was
established
for
the
tribes,
its
currency
and
that
of
its
multiples
were
thus
further
extended;
e.g.
the
12
Apostles,
the
144,000
of
the
Apocalypse,
etc.
Seven
and
multiples.
—
A
specially
sacred
character
is
popularly
ascribed
to
the
number
seven;
and
although
the
Bible
does
not
expressly
endorse
this
idea,
yet
it
is
supported
by
the
frequent
occurrence
of
the
number
in
the
ritual,
the
sacred
seventh
day,
the
Sabbath;
the
sacred
seventh
year,
the
Sabbatical
year;
the
Jubilee
year,
the
year
following
seven
times
seven
years;
