Apikorus

This discussion is split out from an existing thread.

Praxeus goes on to cite (as "good") an article by a Floyd Jones, who engages in typical Christian apologetic gyrations in order to explain the contradiction:

However Jacob's "kindred" that Joseph "sent" for to come "to him" (Acts 7:14) are the 66 already cited plus the wives4 of his sons that came down to Egypt with their father. Moreover, it is back in Genesis 46:26 where we are given the clue that these wives are the key to differentiating between the "70" and the "75". There we read that 66 souls came with Jacob down to Egypt: "besides Jacob's sons' wives". These daughters-in-law were not included as having to do with the "house of Jacob" (Gen.46:26) which numbered only those "who came out of his loins", but they are part of Jacob's "kindred" that Joseph sent for.

Now Jacob had 12 sons (Gen.35:22). To determine how many of their wives went down to Egypt, we simply take the 75 "kindred", subtract the 66 who came from Jacob's loins (as they are included in the "kindred") and obtain only nine rather than twelve. That is, 9 of the 75 "kindred" that came to Egypt with Jacob did not come from his loins, and Gen.46:26 has alerted us to the fact that they are the son's wives. Therefore, 3 of the 12 son's wives (12 – 9 = 3) were not numbered in the "kindred". Of course, we must immediately exclude Joseph's wife for she was already in Egypt and thus was not "sent" for (Acts 7:14). This accounts for one of the three. A second is found in Genesis 38:12 where we learn that Judah's wife had died previously. Thus, one of the other son's must also have become a widower. We may deduce that it was almost certainly Simeon as special attention is called to the fact that Shaul, his youngest son, was by a Canaanitess (Gen.46:10).

This "explanation" has numerous problems, and transparently engages in the kind of reverse "answer analysis" typical of apologetic arguments.

In the first place, for all praxeus' complaining about the Greek, we have a Hebrew scroll earlier than any MT, 4QExod^a, which lists the number of Jacob's descendants as 75 in Exod 1:5. So the earliest Hebrew mss are not in agreement; some say 70 and others 75. The Hebrew Vorlage behind the LXX Exodus was a text similar to 4QExod^a.

The Masoretic Text is itself confused in Gen 46. The enumeration of Jacob's descendants "that came into Egypt" is 66 (Gen 46:26) plus three more -- Joseph and his two sons (Gen 46:27). The text then says that the total (kol hanefesh = all the souls) from the House of Jacob which came into Egypt was 70.

How does one get 70 from 66+3? There are two main apologetic traditions. Christian apologists say that Jacob himself was number 70. This makes good sense in the context of Gen 46 -- Gen 46:8 even says yaaqov ubanav = Jacob and his sons. But in Exod 1:5 we read,

vayehi kol-nefesh yotzei yerekh-yaaqov shivim nafesh veyoseif haya bemitzrayim

which means

And it was all the souls that issued from the loins of Jacob seventy souls and Joseph was in Egypt.

(I've translated this fairly literally, without punctuation; the verb "were" before "seventy" is implied.)

Not surprisingly, Mr. Floyd Jones doesn't grapple with Exod 1:5, which invalidates his assertion that Jacob was number 70, since Jacob could not have "issued from his own thigh". So unless we accept that Gen 46:27 and Exod 1:5 are in contradiction, the last soul can't be Jacob himself. Jewish exegetes have been more sensitive and clever, identifying Yocheved, the mother of Moses, a daughter of Levi, as the 70th soul. Midrash tells us she was born on the way into Egypt. Of course there are numerous problems with this expanation as well, starting with the fact that there is zero textual support for such a solution.

One might also ask why Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, are included among the group which "came into Egypt" since they were born in Egypt to an Egyptian mother and there is no text which tells us they ever were anywhere but Egypt. But let's save this for another day. Another curious tidbit is Gen 46:23, which reads uvnei dan chushim = And Dan's sons: Chushim. The plural "sons" precedes a one-element list. Are there missing sons of Dan? Or is the Hebrew uvnei in error? Midrash Rabbah tells us that in the Torah of Rabbi Meir, this verse read uven dan chushim, with the singular "son". This involves a difference of three letters from our MT.

Now to list the imbecilities of Mr. Floyd Jones:

• Jones invents a distinction between the "kindred" (suggeneian) in the Greek and the "house of Jacob" (beit-yaaqov) in the Hebrew. The distinction is, of course, an apologetic invention. The fact that the LXX agrees with 4QExod^a proves that there was a separate Hebrew text tradition in which the number of beit-yaaqov was 75.
• Jones invents an explanation in which the wives of Jacob's daughters are included among his "kindred" but excluded from the "house of Jacob". Subtracting 66 from 75 (the number he wants to explain), he arrives at

  9 of the 75 "kindred" that came to Egypt with Jacob did not come from his loins, and Gen.46:26 has alerted us to the fact that they are the son's wives.

  Of course, Gen 46:26 says no such thing. It tells us that Jacob's daughters-in-law were not enumerated among the 70, but it does not tell us how many there were, nor if there were others who came with Jacob.
• Jones then excludes Joseph's wife, because

  we must immediately exclude Joseph's wife for she was already in Egypt and thus was not "sent" for (Acts 7:14)

  But Mr. Jones, the exact same could be said of Ephraim and Manasseh, who are enumerated among Jacob's kin. Oopsie!
• Jones then goes on to engage in sheer speculation:

  Thus, one of the other son's must also have become a widower. We may deduce that it was almost certainly Simeon as special attention is called to the fact that Shaul, his youngest son, was by a Canaanitess (Gen.46:10).

  It is clear that Mr. Jones is simply inventing details which are not in the biblical text.

Such laughable apologetics get us nowhere if our goal is to understand the text at its earliest stages.

Bonus contradiction: In Gen 15:13 YHWH tells Abram that his descendants

...shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs. And they will serve them and they shall afflict them four hundred years.

Now Moses was 80 years old at the time of the Exodus (Exod 7:7). His father Amram lived to 137 and Amram's father Kohath lived to 133 (Exod 6:18-20). Kohath, a son of Levi, is numbered among the House of Jacob which descended into Egypt (Gen 46:11). Thus, even if we assume Kohath was a newborn when he entered Egypt, and even if we assume that he conceived Amram the day he died, and even if we assume Amram conceived Moses on the day he died, at most 350 years could have elapsed since Jacob's descent into Egypt and the Exodus. So how can the Israelites have been afflicted for 400 years?

(Apologists resort to various ludicrous explanations here. They might insist that Joseph's time in Egypt before Jacob came counts as part of the 400 years of enslavement. But Joseph was Pharaoh's Grand Vizier, and not a slave (even though he spent a brief period in prison) -- according to the story in Genesis he was the second most powerful man in Egypt.)

Steven Avery

Acts 6:8
And Stephen, full of faith and power,
did great wonders and miracles among the people.

Acts 7:55
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost,
looked up stedfastly into heaven,
and saw the glory of God,
and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

Which I already acknowledged, and which is one reason why you chose this example of DSS numbers instead of dozens of chronology numbers that do not match up between the Greek OT and the DSS. Plus probably you were recently studying the Jewish exegesis on this, which is fine and kewl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus ....How does one get 70 from 66+3?...why Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, are included among the group which "came into Egypt"

This is all rather fascinating in its own right, opening up a separate aspect. I'll enjoy looking into it more after addressing the majors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Another curious tidbit is Gen 46:23, which reads uvnei dan chushim = And Dan's sons: Chushim. The plural "sons" precedes a one-element list. Are there missing sons of Dan? Or is the Hebrew uvnei in error?...

Genesis 46:23 (KJB)
And the sons of Dan; Hushim.

(note: NIV, Holman, Green and some others mess this up
JPS-1985 too, but does have footnote)

It looks to me like simply a style of speech, one that we might do in English as well. (Not changing from plural to singular in the exception in a multi-list.) Even more so if one considers each son as a line with descendents. And as well the plural nature of the name itself can be a consideration.

Clearly Rabbi Meir probably just had one of those improper lectio difficilior attempts. Back to the woodshed with his scribe.

John Gill:
And the sons of Dan, Hushim. He had but one son, wherefore the plural is put for the singular, see Genesis 46:7; Aben Ezra thinks he had two sons, and that one of them was dead, and therefore not mentioned; but the other way best accounts for the expression; though, as Schmidt observes, the plural may be indefinitely put, and the sense be this, as for the sons of Dan, there was only one, whose name was Hushim. Dan was a son of Jacob by Bilhah, Rachel's maid, as the following was another.

Smith's Bible Dictionary,
.. The name is plural, as if of a tribe rather than an individual ..

The plural was clearly deliberate, it is amazing that someone would conjecture otherwise. As we see here ..

Numbers 26:42
These are the sons of Dan after their families:
of Shuham, the family of the Shuhamites.
These are the families of Dan after their families.

John Gill
These are the sons of Dan, after their families,.... Though he had but one son, the plural being put for the singular; or by sons are meant his posterity; his son's name was Shuham, and by transposition Hushim, in Genesis 46:23 from him was the family of the Shulamite; and yet, though but one, consisted of 64,400 men; there was an increase of 1700 in this tribe.

Interestingly similar is done in Chronicles with another Hushim -

1 Chronicles 7:12
Shuppim also, and Huppim, the children of Ir,
and Hushim, the sons of Aher.

Those could work both for and against the grammatical explanation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Now to list the imbecilities

Anybody who reads through the rest will see that you use the introductory invective to mask that you were caught off guard and your case is weak. I've noticed that type of reaction from anti-mish and others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus of Mr. Floyd Jones:[list][*]Jones invents a distinction between the "kindred" (suggeneian) in the Greek and the "house of Jacob" (beit-yaaqov) in the Hebrew. The distinction is, of course, an apologetic invention.

No, the distinction is an apologetic understanding of the precise language used. The limited nature of the Genesis 46 grouping is given a double emphasis IN the text. I know this is hard for you to handle, Api, since your teachers forgot to tell you about the precise language and you just learned today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus The fact that the LXX agrees with 4QExoda proves that there was a separate Hebrew text tradition in which the number of beit-yaaqov was 75.

Or it proves that you read the text at a superficial level. The biological aspect of House of Jacob is written into the text in Genesis 46:26 "which came out of his loins". Apparently you had missed that .. hmmmm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus [*]Jones invents

Nahh.. let's not overly credit Floyd Jones. This easy and clear harmony has been understood for a long time by many. Even Halley, surprisingly, gets it right.

John Gill says
"Moses and Stephen are speaking of different things; Moses speaks of the seed of Jacob, which came out of his loins, who came into Egypt, and so excludes his sons' wives; Stephen speaks of Jacob and all his kindred, among whom his sons' wives must be reckoned..."

In fact Stephen would have been wrong if he said 70. The Greek OT adding five names was nonsense. And Gill even points out the extra error of the Greek OT, looking at the five names and the unchanged:

Deuteronomy 10:22
Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons;
and now the LORD thy God hath made thee as the stars of heaven for multitude.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus an explanation in which the wives of Jacob's daughters are included among his "kindred" but excluded from the "house of Jacob".

Well clearly you have to agree that they are not in the "house of Jacob" as defined in Genesis 46. We have Hebrew words akin to Stephen's usage of kindred, especially mishpochah (without the "loins" qualifier). Please don't get overly wrought that that is not used in Genesis 46, God is fully sovereign in giving us His word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Subtracting 66 from 75 (the number he wants to explain), he arrives at 9 of the 75 "kindred" that came to Egypt with Jacob did not come from his loins, and Gen.46:26 has alerted us to the fact that they are the son's wives. Of course, Gen 46:26 says no such thing. It tells us that Jacob's daughters-in-law were not enumerated among the 70, but it does not tell us how many there were, nor if there were others who came with Jacob.

For the unwary, Genesis 46:26 does allude to the difference, quite specifically ... "besides Jacob's sons' wives". So if you think replacing 'alert' with 'allude' would be more accurate, I could try to pass that on to Floyd Jones. A bit on the quibble side, however.

The rest of your attempt simply shows that the exact number could conceivably be something like 74 or 76, as well as 75, based on the Genesis information, and that Floyd Jones is claiming extra precision. A reasonable but very minor objection.

The "bonus contradiction" doesn't really interest me at the moment. Perhaps a bit later.

I was surprised how weak was your kvetch against Floyd Jones, which you tried to balance with extra bravado and insult (clearly you were new to this and caught off guard). Time to stop at this point.

And I am still a bit in shock that your teachers would try to tell you that Genesis 46:23 might be some sort of Masoretic Text error. Amazing.

It is an excellent example of the faithfulness of the scribes.
Even Jerome, translating in Israel at 400 AD, keeps it right.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Apikorus

...which logically must exclude Jacob himself, since, biologically, he was not his own grandpa. Therefore Floyd Jones has made an obvious blunder when he wrote,

As the "66" are said to have been those who came with Jacob, he has not yet been included. Now we so do and obtain the 70 souls included in the term, "the house of Jacob" (vs. 27).

Could you just explain this one point, praxeus? Is Jacob included among the 70 or not? A simple "yes" or "no" will do just fine.

I am predicting that you will refuse to give a direct answer to this question.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Having disposed of his big objection against Stephen in Acts let's now review Api's main accusation against the Hebrew Bible. In fact this one is similar to his implying that "sons of Dan" was some sort of error. Except that one was conjectural, a consideration .. here Api makes a head-on assault on the Masoretic Text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus The Masoretic Text is itself confused in Gen 46.

Api thinks the incredible Hebrew Bible scribes and tradition simply could not count 66+3. His whole approach is astounding. Is this today's "Modern Orthodox" teaching ?

I am just guessing, you are welcome to share who encourages you strain so hard to try to find or fabrication error in the Hebrew Bible.
"Don't trust the Hebrew Bible, it is only the inept counts of goat herders"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus The enumeration of Jacob's descendants "that came into Egypt" is 66 (Gen 46:26) plus three more -- Joseph and his two sons (Gen 46:27). The text then says that the total (kol hanefesh = all the souls) from the House of Jacob which came into Egypt was 70. How does one get 70 from 66+3?

One simple possibility is Rashi's -

"It is common for the Torah to round off a number when just one unit is lacking."

Is that pilpul-satisfactory ?
Hmmm.. you don't even mention this note from Rashi
(given by Shoshannah Walker on b-hebrew).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus There are two main apologetic traditions. Christian apologists say that Jacob himself was number 70.

Some do, like Floyd Jones.
Others do not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus This makes good sense in the context of Gen 46 -- Gen 46:8 even says yaaqov ubanav = Jacob and his sons. But in Exod 1:5 we read, vayehi kol-nefesh yotzei yerekh-yaaqov shivim nafesh veyoseif haya bemitzrayim which means And it was all the souls that issued from the loins of Jacob seventy souls and Joseph was in Egypt. (I've translated this fairly literally, without punctuation; the verb "were" before "seventy" is implied.) ... Not surprisingly, Mr. Floyd Jones doesn't grapple with Exod 1:5,

No, but others, including Holding, do. His view is that the "Hebrew idiom is flexible" especially in light of the Genesis and Deuteronomy verses.

Now you may reject that, understandably, so we will anticipate and work with your potential objection. Please simply note that even if the Exodus count is inflexible in who it includes (a reasonable objection) it remains flexible by one unit per the quite sensible Rashi view above.

In Review:
Your view, apparently, is that the Masoretic Text is in error (and that no rounding is possible) almost no matter what. And that this error has nothing to do with Stephen and Acts. Your attempt is to straitjacket the text e.g. technically speaking if Deut and Genesis have 70 including Jacob (as implied prima facie) then Exodus must have 69. And thus the Masoretic Text is errant. A bit of a facile attempt.

We see that Rashi disagrees that a number like 70 in Exodus 1:5 must be to that level of precision. And Rashi's view makes a lot of sense.

Readers here can read the verses.

Exodus 1:1
Now these are the names of the children of Israel,
which came into Egypt;
every man and his household came with Jacob.

Exodus 1:5
And all the souls that came out of the loins
of Jacob were seventy souls:
for Joseph was in Egypt already.

Genesis 46:26-27
All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt,
which came out of his loins,
besides Jacob's sons' wives,
all the souls were threescore and six;
And the sons of Joseph,
which were born him in Egypt,
were two souls:
all the souls of the house of Jacob,
which came into Egypt,
were threescore and ten.

Deuteronomy 10:22
Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons;
and now the LORD thy God hath made thee as the stars of heaven for multitude.

Notice that while a rounding objection might have some pizazz in
Genesis, due to the exact counts, it has no such oomphh in Exodus
(or Deut, but that would be disjointed with Genesis).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus which invalidates his assertion that Jacob was number 70, since Jacob could not have "issued from his own thigh".

Not at all.
You would have to first invalidate the Rashi view of Torah numbers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus So unless we accept that Gen 46:27 and Exod 1:5 are in contradiction, the last soul can't be Jacob himself.

See above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Jewish exegetes have been more sensitive and clever, identifying Yocheved, the mother of Moses, a daughter of Levi, as the 70th soul.

Not so clever, as it leaves the problem of her birth in Egypt given in Numbers. Now perhaps she was in the womb, so it cannot be totally eliminated as a possibility, but it is difficult.

And while we are on that note, you might want to look at the Keil & Delitzsch and JFB view that the count can include sons and grandsons "in lumbis patrum”. That has some similarity to the Yocheved view. However while I find all these interesting, none are compelling. So we can leave them out of the rest of the discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Midrash tells us she was born on the way into Egypt. Of course there are numerous problems with this expanation as well, starting with the fact that there is zero textual support for such a solution.

Actually it is more difficult than that. As I explained above. One would have to tussle with Numbers 26:59.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus ...which logically must exclude Jacob himself, since, biologically, he was not his own grandpa. Therefore Floyd Jones has made an obvious blunder when he wrote, As the "66" are said to have been those who came with Jacob, he has not yet been included. Now we so do and obtain the 70 souls included in the term, "the house of Jacob" (vs. 27).

Clearly, per above, the only blunder is your hasty accusation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Could you just explain this one point, praxeus? Is Jacob included among the 70 or not? A simple "yes" or "no" will do just fine.

That is not a pilpul methodology, Api. I am quite sympathetic to the idea that Jacob is included in the 70 and I believe that your attempt to show the Masoretic Text as flawed and errant in its numbers has failed rather miserably. Simply from the Rashi insight and perspective, to start.

However other possibilities such as Simeon not being included in the 66 (since he did not originally go down to Egypt with Jacob and had already lived there for a good season when he returned) can also be considered. If one really thought there was a problem where we stood. Or if one just loves the Bible text and wants to have the clearest and most perfect understanding.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus I am predicting that you will refuse to give a direct answer to this question.

Readers can decide whether I properly addressed your attempt to find error in the Hebrew Bible. It looks like every issue and question and concern you raised here was addressed, and then some. In spades, so to speak.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Jack the Bodiless

So, to summarize: Praxeus, you're admitting that the MT is in error?

...Because that's what you're saying here:
Rounding would be an error, praxeus.

Apikorus

Note that praxeus has indeed not answered my question (as predicted).

I already know Rashi's opinions. I want yours.

Once again, is Jacob to be included among the 70? We'll stick to this question until praxeus gives a yes or no answer.

Note also that Rashi's explanation and that of Floyd Jones are mutually inconsistent. Jones' explanation is internally inconsistent, since it requires Jacob to have issued from his own loins.

Steven Avery

Hi Jack,

Why ?
Where did I ever say that there is no rounding in the Bible ?
If that is your view, fine, but it is a bit on the arbitrary side.

Oh, did you notice that I would be concerned about a Deuteronomy rounding, since exact numbers were being given to reach the count.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Note that praxeus has indeed not answered my question (as predicted).

Right, rather than give a glib yes or no, I gave an more indepth study against your attempt to attack the Hebrew Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus I already know Rashi's opinions.

Yet in all your earlier long post you somehow 'forgot' to share his very sensible view to the forum, instead offering less substantive ideas... hmmmmm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus I want yours.

See above. I am comfortable with Exodus being a rounded 69 without Jacob. I am also willing to consider objections to that view. And I am also willing to consider alternatives, such as the Simeon idea. Now you are upset that I am open-minded in consideration ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Once again, is Jacob to be included among the 70? We'll stick to this question until praxeus gives a yes or no answer.

Api, your acting like a little child.
Is that the result of your attempts to fight the Hebrew Bible ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus Note also that Rashi's explanation and that of Floyd Jones are mutually inconsistent. Jones' explanation is internally inconsistent, since it requires Jacob to have issued from his own loins.

It definitely would have an exegetical difficulty, as I discussed above.

I find the JPH view uncomfortable, although I do not claim to have the background or insight to declare it flat wrong. It would be a good question to take to b-hebrew. Where folks work with the Hebrew much more sans agenda.

The Bible is perfect, not Floyd Nolen Jones. I have seen a few difficulties over the years in his generally excellent article. And if his Acts-Genesis-Exodus article could use a tweak it would not surprise me. In fact I would try to get new information to him for response and consideration.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Jack the Bodiless

...Even though you've just admitted that the Bible is not perfect (it contains a rounding error)?

You're not making a lot of sense here, even on this rather minor issue. And, of course, you're addressing people who know that the Bible is riddled with far more grievous errors than this: so why make such an unsupportable claim at all?

Apikorus

These strike me as an explanation only an apologist could stomach.

The idea about Simeon not being among the 66 is dead on arrival, since Gen 46:8 says explicitly,

And these are the names of the children of Israel, who came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons

and then proceeds to list 66 names, Simeon among them. Moreover, there is a subcount given for the descendants of Leah (33), and Simeon is among these 33 names.

The notion that 70 is a "rounded off" version of 69 is similarly weak. The enumeration of the names in Gen 46 is quite precise. We have detailed subtotals adding up to 70, and not 69: Leah's clan (33), Zilpah's (16), Rachel's (14), and Bilhah's (7). Immediately after the list comes the explanation in vs. 26:

All the souls belonging to Jacob that came into Egypt, that came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls: sixty six.

This verse excludes four from the total of 70: Joseph, Manasseh, and Ephraim from the Rachel group, since they were already in Egypt, and Jacob himself, who did not come from his own loins. In vs. 27 we read

And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were two souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob, that came into Egypt: seventy.

Here the author puts back the four exceptional cases: the sons of Joseph, Joseph himself, and Jacob, to once again get 70 and not 69.

This is clearly inconsistent with Exod 1:5,

And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls; and Joseph was in Egypt already.

since Jacob did not come from his own loins. Incidentally, this is why the identification of Yocheved as the 70th descendant is clever, if completely unwarranted by the text. She is accounted as a descendant of Jacob (the daughter of Levi). And while I've no inclination to seriously defend this proposal, clearly praxeus' argument that she was born in Egypt (see Num 26:59) has no strength if Yocheved was in utero when the clan crossed into Egypt.

The author of Exod 1:5 was simply a bit sloppy in reusing the idioms from Gen 46 (kol nefesh yotsei yerekh yaaqov) and failed to make the necessary exception for Jacob himself when he quoted the number 70. I suppose one could try to argue that 70 in Gen 46 is accurate (recall that Gen 46:8 explicitly includes Jacob in the group "which came to Egypt"), while 70 "having issued from Jacob's thigh" in Exod 1 is an approximation, but this makes a hash out of everything.

Shuham? Whatever happened to Hushim? Is this a case of X$YM --> $WXM? Is that what Mr. Gill means by "transposition"? I.e. scribal error? Or maybe it was "just a way of speaking at the time" to jumble up the letters in peoples' names, eh?

At any rate, using the plural (bnei = sons) makes sense when enumerating tribes, since a (singular) group name describes a (plural) number of people. But Gen 46:23 is different, because the enumeration there is of individuals, not groups. So uvnei dan chushim is still problematic, and very possibly the result of scribal error.

Steven Avery

To be fair to Floyd, he made no error. He did not address the particular issue about the related verse in Exodus, that's all. Which is more an internal Masoretic Text issue, not the NT-MT-LXX issue. Nothing Floyd said was shown to be wrong, in fact his analysis stood up very well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless ...Even though you've just admitted that the Bible is not perfect (it contains a rounding error)?

Actually I said that rounding is not an error when there is not a precise count of the component numbers involved (as there is in Deuteronomy). If there is an apparent error in a precise count, such as 66+3, the word of God supplies the answer.

Jack, did I ever said that if the Bible refers to 1000 men that it might not actually been 999 or (apparently even beyond Rashi) 1002 .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless You're not making a lot of sense here, even on this rather minor issue. And, of course, you're addressing people who know that the Bible is riddled with far more grievous errors than this: so why make such an unsupportable claim at all?

You are being a little strange here. Do you really think that seeing no problem in 70 in Exodus for the 69 with Jacob 'on the side' is 'unsupportable' ?

The 'unsupportable' part was the various attempts by Apikorous to find error in the NT and then, failing in that, to try to attack the Hebrew Bible.

Why do I bother ? When many here are skeptics ?
Simply because the word of God is pure and beautiful.

Whether it matters to Jack or Clem Cadiddlehopper is their concern,
I simply love to look at the word of God.

Psalm 18:30
As for God, his way is perfect:
the word of the LORD is tried:
he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.

Shalom,
Steven Avery