This comparative study shows the results of changes, possibly madeinnocently, when Scriptural texts have been incorrectly copied many centuries ago.In this case, no one knows who made the change or how it came about to be. Sometranslators and scholars have recognized that there is a corruption of text in thisverse, 1 Samuel 6: 19. As you read these renditions of the verse in twenty versionsand from two historians, note the following, in particular:

1. Why were the people killed?
2. Who were killed?
   
3. How many were killed?
   
4. What happened with the number 50?

Numerous other versions of the Bible which I checked showed the same variations asthese twenty do. After presenting the various renditions, I present a short commentaryon the passage.

But now it was that the wrath of God overtook them, and struck seventypersons of the village of Bethshemesh dead, who, not being priests, and not so worthy totouch the ark, had approached to it. Those of that village wept for these that had thussuffered, and made such a lamentation as was naturally to be expected on so great amisfortune that was sent from God; and every one mourned for his own relations.
Footnote: These seventy men, being not so much as Levites, touched the ark in arash or profane manner, and were slain by the hand of God for their rashness andprofaneness.

What the peculiar desecration or sin of the Beth-shemites may have been,either on that day of almost unbounded excitement, or afterwards, we cannot tell. Sufficeit that it was something which the people themselves felt to be incompatible with the"holiness" of Jehovah God (verse 20), and that it was punished by the death of not lessthan seventy persons.
Footnote: The Authorised Version translates in verse 19, "they looked in the ark,"following in this the Rabbis. But this view is scarcely tenable. Nor is the rendering ofother interpreters satisfactory: "They looked (in the sense of curious gazing) at the ark,"although this assuredly comes with the range of warning, Numbers 4: 20. But the whole texthere seems corrupted. Thus in the statement that "He smote three score and ten men," theaddition "of the people, 50,000," has -- judging it both on linguistic and rational grounds-- unquestionably crept into the text by the mistake of a copyist. But Thenius points outother linguistic anomalies, which lead to the inference that there may be here some farthercorruption of the text.

1. Complete Works of Josephus. Kregel, 1960. Antiquities, vi, i, 4.
2. Bible History: Old Testament. Hendrickson, 1887, 1995. Pages 423, 424.

There are eight reasons given for the killing, as follows:

1. One family was displeased because other local residents saw the ark.
2. The sons of Jechoniah did not rejoice with the other residents when they saw the ark.
3. Some men looked at the ark.
4. Some had gazed upon the ark.
5. Some men looked into the ark.
6. Some men worshipped the ark.
7. Some men who were not priests, thus not worthy to touch the ark, had approached it.
8. Some men touched the ark in a rash or profane manner.

There are four accounts of who were killed, as follows:

1. They were men of the village, who were not of the family of Jechonias.
2. They were of the family of Jechonias.
3. They were men of the village, but whether or not they were of the family of Jechoniasit is not stated.
4. They were men of the village, as well as oxen or bullocks owned by the villagers.

There is a variation for the number killed, as follows:

1. There were seventy men.
2. There were seventy people.
3. There were five thousand and seventy men of the people.
4. There were [fifty thousand men] seventy men.
5. There were fifty thousand and three score and ten men of the people.
6. There were seventy men of fifty thousand men.
7. There were seventy men of the people and fifty thousand of the common folk.
8. There were seventy men -- fifty chief men.
9. There were seventy of the people, fifty to the thousand.
10. There were seventy men -- fifty thousand men.
11. There were seventy persons and fifty bullocks.

The number fifty appears as follows:

1. fifty;
2. five thousand;
3. fifty thousand;
4. fifty to the thousand.

Two comments appear to be valid. Edersheim says: "What the peculiardesecration or sin of the Beth-shemites may have been, either on that day of almostunbounded excitement, or afterwards, we cannot tell." Fenton says: "This difficultpassage has puzzled translators for over 2,000 years." These two statements were madelate in the nineteenth century. Even the latest translations, in which the best tools forthe work have been available, the mystery of this verse has not been cleared. Each of us cancome up with what we think may be right, but are we?

The range of reasons for the killing is wide. Any one can be right, or allcan be wrong. Even the experts in Bible scholarship do not agree. The number fifty createsa problem. Were there fifty thousand seventy people killed? Can you image the logistics of asold-out Toronto Skydome crowd (about the same number) approaching a cart outside the stadium?Also, can you imagine a village (not well-known) and environs in Israel having that large apopulation in that day? Seventy does appear to be a more reasonable number.

Which version is right? Although the writer may have been inspired to write,something drastic has happened to his words over time. A person who relies on one versiononly will consider that version to be right, even though there may be errors of translation,and also be unaware that there are other possibilities. A person who uses several versionswill be aware of the inconsistencies. The latter person can weigh the possibilities and seekdivine guidance if he is searching the truth. If such confusion can occur in one place in theBible, is it possible to occur elsewhere? The same procedure is necessary throughout the Biblein order to glean the truth which it contains and eliminate the errors of copyists andtranslators.