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

Pegasus of Dharma
Pegasus of Dharma
@HarduttSuhas
THE EVOLUTION OF OUR NATIONAL FLAG (1857-1947)

The INDIAN NATIONAL FLAG is not just a flag! It's a testimony of patriotism and seamless sacrifice. A symbol representing one of the oldest civilizations on this planet.

Let's hope what happened yesterday never repeats!

(Thread)


After the revolt of 1857, the first Indian flag was designed. The design was based on western heraldic standards with "Union Jack" in the upper-left quadrant and a "Star of India" enclosed in the royal crown in the middle of the right half.(1)


The flag was a symbol of the direct imperial rule in India.(2)

In 1904 the first Indian flag which stood for India's independence from the British was devised. The design was provided by sister Nivedita, an Irish disciple of Swami Vivekananda.(3)


The flag was red and yellow with an image 'Vajra' (weapon of god Indra). The phrase 'Vande Mataram' was written in Bengali on it. The red colour and the yellow colour signified freedom and victory while the symbol of vajra stood for strength.(4)
WORLD
Heshmat Alavi
Heshmat Alavi
@HeshmatAlavi
THREAD

1)
#Iran's echo chamber at work

@JZarif describes Qassem Soleimani as a "national hero" who defeated ISIS

Iran apologists/lobbyists begin
WORLD
Advertisement
Andrew Lawton
Andrew Lawton
@AndrewLawton
Chinese president Xi Jinping is the lead speaker at this week's Davos Agenda, the World Economic Forum's online summit.


Xi lays out four priorities for world:

1) Step up "macroeconomic policy coordination" and promote "strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth of the world economy";

2) Abandon ideological prejudice and "jointly follow a path of peaceful coexistence." Says no country is superior to another. "There would be no human civilization without diversity," he adds, taking aim at "arrogance, prejudice and hatred";

3) Close the divide between developed and developing countries. "With the growth of developing countries, global prosperity and security will be put on a more (solid) footing"; and,

4) "Come together against global challenges and jointly create a better future for humanity." "No global problem can be solved by any one country alone. There must be global action, global response, and global cooperation."
WORLD
Nicholas Drummond
Nicholas Drummond
@nicholadrummond
BRITSH ARMY HEADCOUNT REDUCTION (Thread)
Looking back at personnel cuts made in 2010, a reduced Army of 82,000 didn’t help Britain regain its financial strength, it simply signified a hollowing-out of our ability to defend ourselves.
(1 of 25)


It destroyed the credibility of David Cameron’s Coalition Government then and even more so in hindsight. It was military illiteracy on a grand scale. The problem wasn’t so much the reduction itself, but the fact that there was no real strategy behind it, no future plan.
(2 of 25)

Back in 2010, the UK's involvement Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t really serve our national interests (See Ben Barry’s book). If these conflicts were sub-optimal uses of the Army, they raised the important question of what the Army’s underlying raison d’être should be.
(3 of 25)


We hope the Integrated Review will provide a concrete response to this. In the meantime, the Integrated Operating Concept has been much talked about, but we have been left in the dark about what it signifies in terms of strategic priorities and a reconfigured force.
(4 of 25)


The resulting strategy will obviously be threat-driven with Russia, China, North Korea and Iran representing near-peer threats and Islamic terror groups in Africa and the Middle East posing an asymmetric threat. This suggests a mix of high-end and light forces.
(5 of 25)
WORLD
taporth\u012bya
taporthīya
@taporthIya
These moρlahs, guided by the bigot Alι Mµsαlιαr did not fight against any oppression, Britishers or landlords. The moρlah rebellion is a vιolent vehιcle of jιhαδ. Its sole purpose: to mαssαcre Hindu-s, convert them to ιslαm and establish M sovereignty.
⋮


Tyrant Tιρµ was largely responsible for the forced conversions in Kerala. He surrounded homes of the H and forced them to convert to ιslαm, consume bεεf and be circµmcised.


Fleeing persecution from the rogue, many H fled to Tiruvanantapuram. There too, common M would now and then be enraged and wage jιhαδ on the helpless Hindu-s. The forcible conversions and desecration of our temples were the norm of the day.
⋮


T L Strange, a special commisioner of the Malabar region was appointed to enquire into the reasons for the outrages. He filed a report "Malabar Manual" in 1852 where he firmly says that the reason for the 'uprising' was M rεligιous fαnatιcism —
⋮


Moplah outrages on H was a regular occurrence in Kerala as we will show below. The most gruesome one in 1921 is what is famously referred to as such nowadays. In the aftermath of 1921, a special tribunal of 3 judges convened in Calicut.
⋮
WORLD

You May Also Like

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
KrishnaLeela
KrishnaLeela
@Talesofkrishna
🌿𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒓 : 𝑫𝒉𝒓𝒖𝒗𝒂 & 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒏𝒖

Once upon a time there was a Raja named Uttānapāda born of Svayambhuva Manu,1st man on earth.He had 2 beautiful wives - Suniti & Suruchi & two sons were born of them Dhruva & Uttama respectively.
#talesofkrishna https://t.co/E85MTPkF9W


Now Suniti was the daughter of a tribal chief while Suruchi was the daughter of a rich king. Hence Suruchi was always favored the most by Raja while Suniti was ignored. But while Suniti was gentle & kind hearted by nature Suruchi was venomous inside.
#KrishnaLeela


The story is of a time when ideally the eldest son of the king becomes the heir to the throne. Hence the sinhasan of the Raja belonged to Dhruva.This is why Suruchi who was the 2nd wife nourished poison in her heart for Dhruva as she knew her son will never get the throne.


One day when Dhruva was just 5 years old he went on to sit on his father's lap. Suruchi, the jealous queen, got enraged and shoved him away from Raja as she never wanted Raja to shower Dhruva with his fatherly affection.


Dhruva protested questioning his step mother "why can't i sit on my own father's lap?" A furious Suruchi berated him saying "only God can allow him that privilege. Go ask him"
RELIGION
Advertisement
Professor
Professor
@DillikiBiili
So friends here is the thread on the recommended pathway for new entrants in the stock market.

Here I will share what I believe are essentials for anybody who is interested in stock markets and the resources to learn them, its from my experience and by no means exhaustive..

First the very basic : The Dow theory, Everybody must have basic understanding of it and must learn to observe High Highs, Higher Lows, Lower Highs and Lowers lows on charts and their

Even those who are more inclined towards fundamental side can also benefit from Dow theory, as it can hint start & end of Bull/Bear runs thereby indication entry and exits.


Next basic is Wyckoff's Theory. It tells how accumulation and distribution happens with regularity and how the market actually

Dow theory is old but
SCREENERS , ALL , MARKETESSENTIALS
Joey Tawadrous \U0001f1ee\U0001f1ea
Joey Tawadrous 🇮🇪...
@joeytawadrous
1) Core attributes of a promising founder worth following:
- Progress/trajectory over time
- How well they lead a team &
- Make the vision happen
- Most impressed when someone is way ahead of where you thought they would be when you check up/see them a few months later.

2) Indie Makers have such a benefit of being small, fast, nimble workers in comparison to big companies.

We can easily pivot and vastly change a project of ours. We can change as we learn more about our users.

Big companies can take months/years for even the smallest of pivots.

3) Before you find a product market you can pivot your project as many times as necessary until you find something that works.

Then you only have one thing to do: scale, scale, scale.

4) Be obsessed with the little details.
- listen to every single person who uses your product
- reply to every single person who emails you about your product
- ask them what they like and do not like
- iterate your product, make changes, pivot if necessary

5) Paul Graham's (@paulg) name came up with a feeling of great admiration! Naturally! It was Paul who said:

In the early stages of a company just;
- write code
- talk/sell to customers to stress test your idea

Nothing else.
STARTUPS
Ankur Patel
Ankur Patel
@AnkurPatel59
FEW USEFUL CHARTINK SCANNERS :

This Scanner will be More than Enough for any Swing / Positional Trader to find Good Stocks.

Few Important Chart ink Scanners which can help you to find Setups and boost up your Trading Account : 🧵

Do Retweet If you If it Useful

1. Momentum Stocks

This Scanner can be helpful for Short term Swing Trades . you can easily find Stocks which are in Momentum.

Stocks which are up by 20 % in 5 Days
Stocks which are up by 30 % in 30 Days
Stocks which are up by 30 % in 30 Days

2. Volume Spike

We always Look for Price and Volume Confirmation for Breakout Trading. This scanner will help you to find the Stocks Which has given a move with Good Volume . You can keep this Stock in Radar and catch the Next move in them :

3 . Reversal Scan

Stocks which are Down by 20 % + in 5 days

When Market Corrects for sometime , You can find Stocks where selling is Exhausted and they can make a Good Reversal move .

4. Reversal Scan - Stock Down continues 5 days .

If you Know the Concept of 3-5 Days move . you might catch few stocks from this scanner. Always try and Pick stocks which are in strong momentum , you have more Chances of Getting Right in Reversal Trade.
TRADING SCREENERS , TRADING SCREENER , ALL