Shayla: Why does one translation of 1 Samuel 6:19 say 50,070 and another say 70?

Midrash:

The number 50,070, (ch’amishshiym [50] ‘eleph [thousand] shib’iym [70]) is found in both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. Only a very few medieval manuscripts do not read “50,070”. Josephus quotes the smaller figure of “70”, but Josephus has also gotten some other facts wrong at times. He’s good, but he’s not SO good that he should outweigh the combined testimony of both the MT and the Septuagint!

Many of the Bible translations that have a more theologically conservative bent (i.e. the KJV, NJKV, NASB, NET) reflect the preponderance of textual evidence. More liberally inclined translations like the (NAB, NIV, NRSV and NLT) read simply “70”.

One of the principle reasons that many modern translations are reluctant to use the higher figure is that they find it difficult to believe. They feel that presently available archeological evidence does not lend credence to a population anywhere near 50,000 living in the region of Beth-Shemesh (a town on the south/western corner of the Sea of Galilee) 3,000 years ago.

Some, like the Holman, take some creative license in order to circumvent the problem and include both figures and yet reflect the more liberal view.

· 1 Samuel 6:19 HCSB God struck down the men of Beth-shemesh because they looked inside the ark of the LORD. He struck down 70 men out of 50,000 men. The people wept because the LORD struck them with a great slaughter.

The problem with that solution is three-fold. First, the original text does not SAY “out of” so we are adding to the Scriptures without necessarily increasing clarity of comprehension. Second, it would be difficult to characterize 70 out of 50,000 killed as a “great slaughter.” Third, though it is giving the nod to the lesser figure of total dead, it STILL requires a much larger population so why add “out of” and not solve the problem?

I believe that the larger figure should be used. We cannot let a current archeological understanding, which is ephemeral at best, to overcome the tenet that the original manuscripts are inerrant and the general principle that older manuscripts should usually carry more weight than newer ones. People used the archeological argument against the Bible’s clear teaching on the nation of Amalek for generations and were found to be wrong. They used the same principle to argue against the Bible’s record of Solomon’s temple and the gold from Ophir. In both of those cases and many more I could list, the Bible’s veracity has been found impeccable.

Further, we do not know the full historical context. It is possible that such a tremendous event as the miraculous return of the Ark of the Covenant, brought huge crowds of curious gawkers, many of whom did not actually live in Beth-Shemesh. Did we not see that very kind of crowd following the Master, hoping to see a miracle? Who are we to say that the Scriptures here are a false witness when there is no clear evidence that it is a copyist’s error?

Therefore, it is my ruling that there does not seem to be sufficient external evidence to warrant reading 70 rather than 50,070, and that reading 70 out of 50,000 does not do the text service.

A good reading should in this case follow the Masoretic Text and the other ancient versions.