Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Pearce’s Potshots #55: “3” in the Bible & Literature

Pearce’s Potshots #55: “3” in the Bible & Literature

Last updated on: June 5, 2026 at 11:59 pm by Dave Armstrong

Pearce’s Potshots #55: “3” in the Bible & Literature 2026-06-05T23:59:43-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog, A Tippling Philosopher. His “About” page states: “Pearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.”

This is a reply to his post, Matthew & John’s Threes: Fact or Literary Device? (11-30-21). His words will be in blue; Michael Alter’s in green.

*****

The Gospels are littered with literary devices and mechanisms that serve narrative purposes but leave the reader doubting the veracity of the claims. . . . Numerology is certainly important, whether it be the number 12, the gematria of groups of 14 and 7 in the genealogies, the Pythagorean 153 fish caught, and 3. 3 is a big one that Matthew and John love.

Michael J. Alter, in his magisterial work The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, documents Matthew and John’s usage of the number three in the various groupings that they contain: [many examples given]

Yes, I’m very familiar with Mr. Alter. I have critiqued this book of his 29 times.

Just another example of why we should doubt the claims made in the Gospels, since they seem to be fulfilling other functions and agendas than truth-telling.

First of all, three important considerations must be stressed:

Use of literary / rhetorical techniques is not intrinsically opposed to the reporting of facts; the two things are not mutually exclusive.

Use of such techniques, including numerology and the stress on the number three in particular, is by no means confined to the Bible. They were used very widely use in the ancient world, especially among the “rational” Greeks, renowned for their reason and logic.

Several individual items on the list that Mr. Alter draws up are at least arguably often arbitrary and/or of no particular or great significance.

Numerology is unquestionably a prominent phenomenon in the Bible, which has been examined in great depth and endorsed by Bible believers (see an example devoted to “three” in the Bible). What we object to in the above presentation is the insulting and illogical accusation that use of these techniques somehow cast into doubt the veracity of biblical claims. They do not inherently do that at all (and I would contend that this is self-evident), per #1 above. Yet Pearce blithely assumes that this is fundamentally or essentially contrary to “truth-telling” and he ludicrously pits facts and numerology against each other in a false dichotomy (“Fact or Literary Device”).

I shall tackle the issue described in #3 above, first (the following all being examples from Alter’s book):

Mt 1:1-17—The names of Abraham’s descendants were manipulated into three sets of fourteen individual male descendants.

I think it was simply making a sensible division of the three lists into 1) patriarchal period, 2) Israel’s monarchy, and 3) post-exilic period in Babylon. If there is any numerology here, it would seem to be regarding “14” and not “3.”

Mt 1:20-24—Three “people” were identified prior to Mary’s conception: (1) Joseph, (2) Mary, (3) and the angel.

It’s actually five, because Jesus is also mentioned (1:21), as is [Isaiah] “the prophet” (1:22). Moreover, why stop at 1:24? By what criterion do we know where these alleged or actual triads occur?; within which limits? The original New Testament had no chapters of verse divisions. The chapters we use now were introduced in the early 13th century, and the present verse numbers were used no earlier than 1551. So Matthew 2:1 mentions four more people: Herod and the magi.

Mt 4:4, 6 and 7—The statement “for it was written” was repeated three times.

The devil challenged Jesus three times and He answered with Scripture. It was customary to introduce it by “it is written.” But (amusingly) Alter cites only three of what is actually four repetitions. Verse 6 is the devil using the phrase. Jesus uses it for the third time in verse 10.

Mt 27:62-66; 28:4, and 11-15 —There were three appearances of the guard.

This is rather desperate. They “appear” (in the narrative) at 27:65-66. 28:4 simply notes that they “trembled and became like dead men” when an angel appeared to roll back the stone. Then they go to the city to tell their report (28:11-15). There are plenty of real triads without manufacturing one this silly.

Mt 27:64- 66—Three times the word “secure” is employed.

So what! It was three different people saying it, referring to the same thing: the Pharisees, Pilate, and the narrator.

Jn 2:1—A wedding at Cana was held on the third day.

That’s not a triad; it’s simply noting what day of the week it was (Tuesday).

Jn 21:15, 16, and 17—Three times Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me?”

Jn 21:15, 16 and 17—Three times Peter affirmed that he loved Jesus.

Jn 21:15, 16, and 17—Three times Jesus recommissioned Peter by stating, “Feed my lambs” or “Take care of my sheep.”

Yes, because Jesus was specifically “undoing” Peter’s three denials by having Him affirm his love for Him three times.

Atheist “Lex Lata” (underneath the article I critique) made a dead-on observation about Alter’s weak methodology along largely the same lines:

Hmm, I dunno. Yes, numbers can convey symbolic or sacred meaning (especially in the ancient Hebrew tradition), and three has rhetorical utility even today (thesis, antithesis, synthesis; the Rule of Three in comedy and other literary endeavors; etc.). But some of the examples listed here are a bit strained, by my reckoning, and are as likely to be products of Alter’s apophenia as they are to be instances of intentional narrative numerology.

Moreover, things sometimes come in threes by sheer coincidence. This morning, my wife, our younger son, and I woke up in our three-story house, and fed our three pets. Three threes right there, in a perfectly true statement.

On my list of reasons to question the historical accuracy of the Gospels and other books of the Bible, this wouldn’t crack the top three.

Numerology was widely believed in the ancient world. I will briefly make note of the Greeks, because they were the “rational” and “philosophical” ones, and atheists feel a kinship with them, since they fancy themselves much more rational than us dumb, blind faith, troglodyte Christian types.

Pythagoreanism

The earliest known systematic cult based on the rule of numbers was that of the Pythagoreans. Pythagoras [560-480 BC] was a Greek who thrived in the 6th century BCE. . . .

The Pythagoreans invested specific numbers with mystical properties. The number 1 symbolized unity and the origin of all things, since all other numbers can be created from 1 by adding enough copies of it. For example, 7 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1. The number 2 was symbolic of the female principle, 3 of the male; they come together in 2 + 3 = 5 as marriage. All even numbers were female, all odd numbers male. The number 4 represented justice. The most perfect number was 10, because 10 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4. (Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Number Symbolism”)

The New World Encyclopedia (“3 [Number]”) noted how often three has been a big feature of historical philosophical analysis.

“Omne Trium Perfectum. The Rule of 3 for Writers”: an article by Linda Caroll (7-9-20) observed:

The power of three is a rhetorical technique that can be traced back to ancient Greece. Aristotle wrote about it in his book, Rhetoric, in 4th century BC.

Omne Trium Perfectum.
Three is perfection.

Ancient Greeks didn’t know why, but they recognized the principle.

Today, we know the human brain is a pattern seeking machine. And the smallest number the human brain identifies as a pattern?

Three.

3 charms, but 4 alarms

We also know the ideal number of claims to win a persuasive argument is 3.
Which is why smart marketers use 3 bullet points. Not 2. Not 4.
Three.

In the research paper ‘When Three Charms but Four Alarms’, Dr Kurt Carlson (Georgetown U.)and Dr. Suzanne Shu (U. of California) found that when making a persuasive argument, two claims are not convincing, but adding a fourth has a detrimental effect. A fourth point increases skepticism.

The ideal number of persuasive claims? Three.

Winston Churchill didn’t say blood, sweat and tears…
In his famous speech, what he said was blood, toil, sweat and tears.
Human preference remembered blood, sweat and tears.

Omne Trium Perfectum.

The Bible is no doubt consciously utilizing the same approach. Neither Mr. Pearce nor Mr. Alter have demonstrated that techniques of this sort are antithetical to truth-telling, factuality, concern for accuracy of detail, etc. They merely assert it, and that is no argument. Alter provided examples: several of them questionable, as I contended above; others valid. He asserts a [false] dichotomy (“Fact or a Literary Device”) but he by no means proves his accusation. And so I (as a good socratic in methodology) go right to the false and unsupported premises involved in this rather flimsy criticism of the Bible.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Pythagoras [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

***

Summary: Atheist anti-theist Jonathan MS Pearce examines biblical numerology (particularly, “3” in the Bible) and draws several unwarranted and illogical conclusions.

Atheism & Agnosticism

Jews & Judaism & Old Testament

"3" in the Bible

A Tippling Philosopher

alleged Bible contradictions

anti-theism

Atheism

atheist biblical exegesis

atheists & the Bible

atheists & theology

Bible "contradictions"

Previous Post

December 1, 2021

Secularist, Atheist Nations = More "Happy" People?

Next Post

December 2, 2021 Elizabeth's Veneration of God-Blessed Mary

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz