That's true of most places in which people were counted in the Bible.

For instance, after the exodus from Egypt, the population was counted. But that was actually only the number of men in the appropriate age range for fighting battle, given as 600,000, leading some scholars to suggest that 2-3 million Israelites left Egypt. Which in turn leads other scholars to suggest that the exodus couldn't possibly have happened, as that number of people would have been an impossible logistic arrangement.


But going back to the feeding of the 5000; it somewhat depends on the words used in the original text. Hebrew doesn't have a gender neutral term for 'people', and generally uses the male term for mixed gender groupings. Having said that, there are some terms that are only ever used for groups of men and some terms that can be used for either groups of men or for mixed groups. And without the original Hebrew text, it's impossible to know exactly what was meant.

See it's quite interesting to me. I think that the initial point Steven Fry was trying to make (albeit somewhat jokily) was that for a religious text, the Bible - or more specifically in this instance, the Old Testament - is remarkably patriarchal or gender biased. I can't think of the proper word. But then that's really a given because those were the societal norms really. In hindsight it's a bit of an obvious statement. What I really took from it was merely that I never knew more than 5000 people were fed (supposing the story is true).

It's particularly sapid, what you say about the exodus (nearly spelt that exoddus), even 600,000 is a pretty big number of people to orchestrate down such a long journey. Shifting two million people would be insane. I don't profess to know the length or distance of the journey but if I'm correct in saying that they left Egypt entirely, they must have left a lot of people behind! :P

Using an incredibly rough figure, if 2,000,000 people were to walk single-file only a third of the exodees would have left as the first were arriving.

I acknowledge how much is wrong with that figure, but I had Wolfram Alpha open in a tab and I couldn't help myself.

sapid (comparative more sapid, superlative most sapid)

1. tasty, flavoursome or savoury

Huh?

Yes, but it's still not a very good point. Because (a) it's just to do with the nature of the language and (b) it's not surprising given the culture at the time. Also, (c), it's theoretically possible that only men attended the sermon.

And I suppose there's also (d); the number 5000 was probably made up by Matthew to make it sound more impressive than the few people who actually showed up.

Woah, woah.

You're uh

You're not suggesting the bible lied, are you?

Because that would be terrible.

Okay, I've been doing some Wikipedia-ing this evening.

For one thing, it turns out I always thought the miracle of the loaves and fishes happened at the sermon on the mount. Nope. For the record, that's why I explicitly mentioned Matthew in my last post; as he's the only one that mentions the sermon.


Also, it turns out that the gospels explicitly state that the number (5000 at the first occassion and 4000 on a second occasion mentioned by Mark and Matthew) is only the men and that the women and children were in addition to that number.

So you can ignore my previous posts for the specifics, but they still stand as a general guide for the difficulty of interpretting the gospel truth.

:p

And considering the oral history of the scriptures, "original text" is an oxymoron.

True, if you're regarding them from a scientific/historical point of view. Which I acknowledge you should.

But even from a religious perspective in which the words as written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the literal gospel truth, you need to take in to account the fact that you're not actually reading their words but a translation. And all translations are effectively also commentaries/interpretations of what the translator thought of the text.

EDIT: Sorry, my computer glitched.

STOP SAYING CUNT JBOT

I know a Psychiatrist that could help you.

As Dara O'Briain says, "stop taking it literally! It's only the Bible, it's not gospel"

Or the Torah. We have to be racially sensitive to dirty jews for Jbot's sake.

Mazel fuckin' tov.

Şrwyp ʼyr ʼaskʼáwl

C'thulhu F'taghn to you too.

Cześć, co tam?

Je m'appelle, maricon.

Sore wa hen desu.

真剣に、あなたは本当にこれを変換するその自由な時間がありますか？上に来る...

No.

Okay.

Well played.

Bonjour, mon petite richard est tres bon, comme un biblioteque. Comon sa va aujourdhui? C'est un Chien Mange Chien Terre, < < HON! HON! MON CHIEN VONT MANGE DES 'AUTRE CHIEN EN LE TEMPS! > > HA! HA! HA!

Have I ever mentioned I speak French? I can do that. I'm getting better.

Don't let Sekto catch you speaking dirty Asian.

@Super Mac Boy: Doesn't count, you're a Canuckadian. You're supposed to speak Frog.

私はちっとも気にしない.

Your Sigpic is my reaction to that post.

Why are you even giving that the satisfaction of indignation?

I mean, really.