# How Do You Make Text Critical Remarks in a Sermon w/o Sounding Like a Liberal?



## Marrow Man (Feb 19, 2009)

This Lord's Day I'm preaching on 1 Samuel 6:19-7:1. The first half of verse 19 poses some interesting text critical problems. Here is the verse from several different translations.



> NASB -- "He struck down some of the men of Beth-shemesh because they had looked into the ark of the Lord. He struck down of all the people, 50,070 men, and the people mourned because the Lord had struck the people with a great slaughter."
> 
> NIV -- "But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they had looked into the ark of the LORD. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the LORD had dealt them" [the NIV adds a footnote: {[19] A few Hebrew manuscripts; most Hebrew manuscripts and Septuagint 50,070}"
> 
> ...



The main problem is this: how many men were killed at Beth-Shemesh for looking into (or gazing at -- the Hebrew could also be translated this way) the ark? It seems unlikely that there would be 50,000 in a small village, and the Hebrew grammar is odd here, which lends some to conclude that the 50,000 is a scribal error or insertion and it was 70 men who were killed.

There are also one other oddity. The Septuagint has the following phrase in the verse: "And the sons of Jeconiah did not rejoice with the men of Beth-Shemesh when they saw the ark of the Lord..." I'm not sure if that shows up in any translation.

Here is my question. I am unconcerned about the sons of Jeconiah reference, but the 50,070 is somewhat troubling. If the number is really 70, how do I convey this to my people (a few of whom will be reading NIVs, and others will be reading KJVs and NASBs, plus an ESV or two)? How do I preach this without sounding like a liberal or casting doubt upon the word of God?

Please note: I am *NOT* posting this thread to engage in arguments over validity of one translation or the other. I am asking a question about the delivery of sermons. I am interested in responses from pastors who have wrestled with issues like this.


----------



## PresbyDane (Feb 19, 2009)




----------



## Casey (Feb 19, 2009)

Suppose you are convinced 70 is the right number and suppose you are preaching from a translation that has 50,070. When you get to that point in the sermon, just say, "I think the ESV [which has 70; or insert any other translation that has 70] has it right here, as some texts have different numbers."

I wouldn't say more than that, and I might even say less. And if you don't want to land on any particular position, just read the translation the congregation uses and make no mention of the variants.  (Just relating what one of my professors suggested.)


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 19, 2009)

Tim is a liberal . . . Tim is a liberal . . . boil him in oil . . . boil him in oil.



I have generally used the line "in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, the verse reads x." But, on this question, I have never preached (or studied) that text.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 19, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Tim is a liberal . . . Tim is a liberal . . . boil him in oil . . . boil him in oil.



First Poimen calls me an idiot, now Dennis calls me a liberal! What a day!

OK, I guess I deserved that for the "wheel" comment on the car thread...


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 19, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Tim is a liberal . . . Tim is a liberal . . . boil him in oil . . . boil him in oil.
> 
> 
> 
> I have generally used the line "in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, the verse reads x." But, on this question, I have never preached (or studied) that text.



That's a loaded answer!  

Why not just honestly say there is some confusion on this matter, but the real point is that God killed a bunch of people?

Sort of like the John Calvin approach. I can hear him saying something like "Many small minded people, missing the point of the passage, cavil about numbers and scribal errors. Let us remove ourselves from such foolishness and realize that there may or may not be a clerical error here, and look at what the text tells us." Of course, you'd put that in the vernacular.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 19, 2009)

CaseyBessette said:


> Suppose you are convinced 70 is the right number and suppose you are preaching from a translation that has 50,070. When you get to that point in the sermon, just say, "I think the ESV [which has 70; or insert any other translation that has 70] has it right here, as some texts have different numbers."
> 
> I wouldn't say more than that, and I might even say less. And if you don't want to land on any particular position, just read the translation the congregation uses and make no mention of the variants.  (Just relating what one of my professors suggested.)



Exactly. I would not waste much time of textual issues such as that.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 19, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> CaseyBessette said:
> 
> 
> > Suppose you are convinced 70 is the right number and suppose you are preaching from a translation that has 50,070. When you get to that point in the sermon, just say, "I think the ESV [which has 70; or insert any other translation that has 70] has it right here, as some texts have different numbers."
> ...



I'm apparently out of "thank you"'s for the day, but thank you!


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Feb 19, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Tim is a liberal . . . Tim is a liberal . . . boil him in oil . . . boil him in oil.
> 
> 
> 
> I have generally used the line "in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, the verse reads x." But, on this question, I have never preached (or studied) that text.




No man! Burn 'im at the stake.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Feb 20, 2009)

The main problem is this: how many men were killed at Beth-Shemesh for looking into (or gazing at -- the Hebrew could also be translated this way) the ark? It seems unlikely that there would be 50,000 in a small village, and the Hebrew grammar is odd here, which lends some to conclude that the 50,000 is a scribal error or insertion and it was 70 men who were killed.




> KJV -- "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."



I would stick with the Ben Chayim text as represented in the Authorized Version and preach it. If anyone had any questions because of the gnat straining of critics germinating from their critical Bibles I would defend the text against the critics. Critics have a habit of judging the Scripture by their opinions and not giving creedance to other Scripture's that supports the text as it stands.

The first verse states the Ark was in the land of the Philistines for seventh months, and we can read from the text that this created great excitement among the people. It seems this would create a great following of people. What would happen in the Shroud of Turin would go on tour and come to your town? People would come from all over to see it.

The people of Bethshemesh were certainly excited to see the ark come before them, and they were in the valley harvesting (1 Sam 6:13) and Bethshemesh had suburbs (Joshua 21:16) (e.g., additional population). So, they weren't in the actual city - but outside of the city, going along the coastal road, and within a days walk other cities of Gibeah, Zoreah, Timnah, Libaah, Ekron, Zanoah & c existed with great numbers of inhabitants. (e.g., the five lords of the Philistines returned to Ekron the same day v 16 so it's not far)

Finally, Judges 1:33 tells us there were many people living in Bethshemesh and around it that were Cannanites tributaries that the tribe of Naphtali didn't drive from the land. I think these Cannanite tributaries cohabitants are important and if you eliminate the large number then you certainly diminish the meaning of the Judgment of a "great slaughter," consistent with the challenge of v 9.

The verse says that the men of Bethshemesh were killed as well as the people, 50, 070. There is no reason to doubt that, there about 1500 people in my town and within a 10 mile radius a good 100,000. If the Ark of Covenant were to come through here it would be perfectly believable for 50,000 people to come to see it, especially if they didn't have television, the internet, movies, video games and all of the other distractions of modern life like these folks. Heck, when our local high school wins a basketball game they bring out the firetrucks and police cars and drive a parade around and people come out of the woodwork for that, I can imagine something like the Ark being a tremendous draw of excitement for people to follow its procession.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 20, 2009)

I may have misstated the case somewhat. The opinion about a scribal error/insertion is a guess at best. This is not a text critical case in the same sense of the dispute over NT manuscripts (unless you drag the LXX in as an alternative text, which I am not advocating). The main problem is that the Hebrew grammar is just odd in the verse; the 50,000 _follows_ the 70 in the text. And it is what is making me scratch my head.

I do appreciate your thoughts on the gatherings from the "suburbs." That does seem plausible. The way the different towns, villages, etc. are counted/numbered is different from what we normally think, I think, judging from the way the Philistine habitations are mentioned just a couple verses earlier.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 20, 2009)

Here is the commentary on v. 19 from _The Pulpit Commentary_. I think this is helpful.



> Ver. 19. — He emote the men of Beth-shemesh, etc. In this verse also the text is undoubtedly corrupt. The Septuagint ascribes the sin not to all the people, but to “the sons of Jeconiah, who were not glad when they saw the ark, and he smote them.” But as this reading is not supported by the other versions we may pass it by. The numbers, however, are evidently wrong. Fifty thousand men would imply a population of 250,000 people, whereas Jerusalem itself in its palmiest days never had a population of even 70,000. There were no large cities among the Israelites, but a scattered population living upon their fields, and with a few small walled towns here and there to protect them and their cattle in any sudden emergency. Kennicott, however, has satisfactorily explained the mistake. In the old way of denoting numbers by the letters of the alphabet an ‘ain = 70 had been mistaken for a nun with two dots = 50,000. The Syriac has 5000, that is, a nun with one dot. We must add that the Hebrew is not fifty thousand
> and threescore and ten men, but “seventy men, fifty thousand men,” without any article between, and with the smaller number first, contrary to Hebrew rule. The occasion of the calamity was probably as follows: — As the news of the return of the ark spread from mouth to mouth, the people flocked together to take part in the sacrifice. which would of course be followed by a feast. Heated thereat by wine, perhaps, and merriment, they lost all sense of reverence, and encouraged one another to look into the ark and examine its contents, though the words need not absolutely mean more than that “they looked at the ark.” Even so the men of Beth-shemesh, as a city of priests, must have known that death was the penalty of unhallowed gazing at holy things (Numbers 4:20), and it is more than probable that those who were smitten were priests, because in them it would be a heinous sin; for it was a repetition of that contempt for religion and its symbols which had been condemned so sternly in Eli’s sons. The mere seeing of the ark was no sin, and had given the people only joy (ver. 13), but as soon as they had received it the priests ought to have covered it with
> a vail (Numbers 4:5). To leave it without a vail was neglectful, to pry into it was sacrilege. Because Jehovah had smitten many of the people, etc. This clause should be translated, “because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great smiting.” The sudden death even of seventy men in an agricultural district, especially if they were the heads of the priestly families there, would be a great and terrible calamity, enough to fill the whole place with grief.


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 20, 2009)

The advice you've been given about making a nod to the differences in the texts and then stressing the import of the passage is excellent. Anything else will do nothing except make the point difficult to grasp because of the needless questioning that arise. The pulpit is not the platform for discussion / debate over textual criticism.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 20, 2009)

> Sort of like the John Calvin approach. I can hear him saying something like "Many small minded people, missing the point of the passage, cavil about numbers and scribal errors. Let us remove ourselves from such foolishness and realize that there may or may not be a clerical error here, and look at what the text tells us." *Of course, you'd put that in the vernacular*.



Why? It sounds so cool just as it is...


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 20, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> The advice you've been given about making a nod to the differences in the texts and then stressing the import of the passage is excellent. Anything else will do nothing except make the point difficult to grasp because of the needless questioning that arise. The pulpit is not the platform for discussion / debate over textual criticism.



Not mention that your people need five minutes of _application _or _illustration_ of the text rather than a textual critical issue. Trying to raise the issue in a confined format is likely to do much more harm than good.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 20, 2009)

Fred,

I agree with you almost entirely. My caveat, however, has to do with the unfortunate happenstance when preachers ignore controversy like this one entirely and their young people go off to college and conclude that either the preacher was a liar or a fool. I always found it possible to give a nod to the problem, assure the congregation that it is not a real problem for us, and move on with my exposition and application. Anything more than this is a distraction from the sermon and more appropriate for a study group rather than congregational worship.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 21, 2009)

Dennis,

I understand. If I thought it necessary to say more than one sentence (as you have above) I would deal with in a pastor Q&A time I have during the evening service, or write a blog post, or put it in an email. I think often that in our concern to defend this aspect of inspiration, we rather place doubts in our hearers minds, and take valuable time from other more important matters.

I am facing this almost every week in 2 Kings. I could spend 3-10 minutes each week defending and explaining the proper resolution of chronological issues (co-regencies, dual dating, etc.) but that would severely restrict my exposition and application of the text. Do I show how the dating in 2 Kings 17:1 "works" because of a co-regency of Ahaz with his father? Or do I give an additional application of the dangers of syncretism from 17:29?


----------



## KMK (Feb 21, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Fred,
> 
> I agree with you almost entirely. My caveat, however, has to do with the unfortunate happenstance when preachers ignore controversy like this one entirely and their young people go off to college and conclude that either the preacher was a liar or a fool. I always found it possible to give a nod to the problem, assure the congregation that it is not a real problem for us, and move on with my exposition and application. Anything more than this is a distraction from the sermon and more appropriate for a study group rather than congregational worship.



This is something I struggle with. Not so much with text critical issues but with other controversies. Almost every sermon I preach could have a section that begins, "What I have just said flies in the face of __________________..." I often ignore controversies because, if my sheep are not aware that there is a controversy, I don't want to even bring it up for it might just cause confusion. 

How do you decide which controversies to deal with and which to leave alone?


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 21, 2009)

Preaching is not about settling controversies. It is about explaining and applying the Word of God. If the controversy is not central to my sermon, I usually let it go by. If it is, I weave it in.

Two quick examples:

1. 1 Peter 1:13 is translates ἀναζωσάμενοι "be ready" or "preparing your minds" (NIV, NASB, ESV). It is translated "gird up the loins of your mind" by the NKJV and KJV. I pointed this out (we use the ESV) because I wanted to make the visual illustrative link to Christ girding up His loins (in humility) to wash Peter's feet. I firmly believe that Peter had that incident in his mind when he wrote that. I wanted to make the point, so I entered into that controversy.

2. 1 Kings 19:3 translates [FONT=&quot]וַיַּרְא[/FONT] "was afraid" (ESV, NASB, NIV and others) which is a possible translation for the word and its pointing. The KJV and NKJ translate it "saw." That is probably the stronger MT reading. Most versions have a footnote with the alternate reading (in whichever case). I wanted to show that Elijah was on the run not because he suddenly turned "scaredy-cat" but because he saw that Israel had not truly re-covenanted with the Lord and he fled to the place of covenant making (Horeb/Sinai).

Not to get into all the details, but you get the idea.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 21, 2009)

I found this article helpful in exegeting the verse.


----------

