108 
he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten 
men."” This extraordinary statement is distinctly made in the 
Hebrew text, as we have it, in the L XX ., and in the Vulgate. 
Fifty thousand, however, can hardly be accepted as a correct 
number. It is nearly one-tenth of the whole number given a3 
the fighting force of the Israelites at the Exodus, and two- 
thirds of that given as the force of Judah. It is just one-tenth 
of that given as the male population of Judah in the time of 
David. It is seven times the male population of Gibeah, an 
important town, in the time of the Judges. It is more than 
the whole population of many a considerable town in our own 
country. Fifty thousand grown men imply a population of 
175,000 in all. Fifty thousand corpses would make a heap of 
very nearly twenty yards in length, breadth, and height. . But 
it is a number which long ago attracted notice. Dr. Kennicott 
thought the reading incorrect. Tindal, in his Christianity 
as Old as the Creation , sneers at the whole transaction, with- 
out, however, insisting so strongly as one would expect on the 
enormous number of 50,000. Waterland answers him by giving 
another rendering of the passage, “ seventy out of fifty thou- 
sand.^ This involves the insertion of the preposition “ out 
of,** and the improbable number of 50,000 for the male popu- 
lation of the inconsiderable town of Beth-shemesh. Bochart, 
in his Hierozoicon , observes that (as the Hebrew runs, literally 
translated, “ seventy men fifty thousand men **) the meaning 
probably is “ seventy men, viz., fifty out of a thousand/* as if the 
seventy smitten were one -twentieth of the whole population of 
the town. In short, it is clear .that there is an error as regards 
number in the statement, whatever mode may be adopted of 
rectifying that error. 
8. It is not the primary object of my paper to suggest 
probable emendations. What I wish to prove and to impress 
upon others is, that there is reason for thinking the numbers, 
as read in our text of the Old Testament, to be corrupt ; and 
if so, that we shall, by acknowledging it, remove a great 
stumbling-block from the way of those who are tempted to 
doubt. It is not my intention, nor is it the object of this 
Institute, to enter upon textual criticism or hypothetical 
emendations. Still I think I shall be pardoned if I suggest 
that in the old Hebrew character, the symbols of “ out of a 
thousand** and “ fifty thousand ** might be most easily mis- 
taken for one another, and that the seventy itself is but a 
mistake for the indefinite number seven. Those who understand 
Hebrew are aware that the tens are expressed by the plurals 
of the units : “ seventy ** is in Hebrew expressed by “ sevens.** 
Here is an easy opportunity for error; to which we may add 
