The exceedingly high numbers of the able-bodied men over the
age of twenty conscripted into the armies of Israel, as recorded in Num 1; 26,
continue to trouble modern scholars. The numbers of soldiers in each listing
total in excess of 600,000 (603,550 in Num 1:46; 601,730 in Num 26:51). These
numbers of men mustered for warfare demand a total population in excess of 2
million. Indeed, perhaps a population of 3 or 4 or even 5 million might be
required to supply a conscripted army of 600,000 able-bodied men over twenty
years old. Such numbers are exceedingly large for the times, for the locale, for
the desert wanderings, and in comparison to the numbers of the inhabitants of
the land of Canaan whom the Israelites set out to conquer.
Many faithful readers of the Bible have taken these numbers at
face value… Some commentators go to considerable length to work out the
mathematical possibilities of these numbers in terms of birth-rate statistics,
the logistics of crossing the Red Sea in one night, dwelling in the desert,
marching in the order of the tribes, massing on the eastern shore of the Jordan,
and conquering the Promised Land (see, for example, Keil and Delitzsch,
Pentateuch 2:46-47; 3:4-15). Yet the more the modern reader studies these
attempts to make these large numbers manageable in the constraints of the
social-geographical context of the Late Bronze Age, the more difficult these
issues become. Frankly, we begin to wonder whether we are not engaging in
special pleading.
Corruption in transmission
Various solutions have been suggested to solve the problem of
the large numbers. Some have argued that these numbers may have been corrupted
in transmission. The general faithfulness of the textual transmission of the
Hebrew Bible (and the Greek NT) is truly marvelous. At the same time, in neither
testament is this process perfect. We have certain examples of corruption of
numbers in parallel passages in the historical literature: ie, compare 2Sa 10:18
with 1Ch 19:18; Num 25:9 with 1Co 10:8; see 1Sa 13:1. So it is possible for one
to argue that the numbers of the census listings in Num 1-4 and 26 have suffered
transmission problems. This is possible, but we may observe that the present
text does not betray notices of textual difficulties in these numbers. Moreover,
if textual transmission error is the explanation for these large numbers, it
would not be the isolated addition of a digit here or the dropping of a digit
there. For textual transmission difficulties to be of any “help” in coming to
terms with these census lists, they would have to be massive in scope. The
entire list has to be in error. Again, the textual record does not betray any
discussion of such problems. It almost takes more faith to believe in
transmission problems in these lists than it does to work out the logistics of
the numbers as they stand.
Different meanings
Others have felt that the word for “thousand” might have a
different meaning here than the usual numerical idea. The word “elep” is a
graphic term derived from pastoral language that was used to number herds. As
one looks out over many sheep, one may speak of an “elep” (“a thousand”) sheep.
Thus the word “thousands” may be a simple statement of approximation: There were
“thousands” of persons in each tribe.
In some Bible passages the Heb word for “thousand” (“elep”) is
a technical term for a company of men that may or may not equal 1,000 (eg, Num
31:5; Josh 22:14 [“a family division”]; 1Sa 23:23 [“clans”]). Thus one might
argue that the term “elep” has lost all sense of a specific numerical value and
means simply a “troop.” Thus each tribe might be composed of 30 to 70 troops,
and the total of the fighting men for these troops would number in the hundreds.
This would mean that for Reuben there were 46 troops with 500 fighting men; for
Simeon 59 troops with 300 fighting men, etc. This would yield a total of 589
troops and some 5,550 fighting men; with each troop having about 9 or 10 men.
This is the preferred conclusion of Noth (Numbers 22,23). The problem with this,
however, is that the numbers are totaled in such a way as to regard the term
“elep” as one more than 999. To regard the word “elep” as a rough approximation
only works where approximation is the intent. (See, for example, 1Sa 4:10, where
Israel had 30,000 foot soldiers defeated by the Philistines. Doubtless the
number in this passage gives merely an approximation of the number of soldiers
who were defeated.)
Others have observed that the term “elep” (“thousand”) is very
close in spelling to the word “allup”, a term meaning “chieftain” or “commander”
elsewhere in the Bible. In Gen 36:15-43, this word is used for the chieftains of
Edom. Petrie argued in 1923 that the term “elep” may mean a family unit, living
in one tent, perhaps a “clan.” One solution for the large numbers in these lists
may be found in this confusion of the word for “thousand” and that for
“chieftain” or “clan.” In this way the figure 53,400 (of Asher in Num 26:47)
might mean “53 units (chiefs, clans) and 400 men.” The figure 32,200 (of
Manasseh in Num 1:35) would mean “32 units (chiefs, clans) and 200 men.” Such a
procedure would give a greatly reduced total for the whole population. But this
procedure would also be at variance with the fact that the Bible text adds the
“thousands” in the same way that it adds the “hundreds” for the large total. The
numbers joined to “elep” and to the hundreds are linked in Hebrew by the simple
“and” (“waw”), which normally suggests that they should be added together. This
approach would presuppose that the early meaning of the word “elep” (or “allup”)
as “chief” or “clan” was not understood by later editors, who mistakenly added
these words as numbers to the hundreds. Such an approach leads to a greatly
reduced number for the fighting men and the total population of Israel than is
usually assumed. The totals for the Twelve Tribes in this approach would be
5,550 men and 598 “chiefs.” With the additional numbers required for women and
children, the population of the community would be more nearly 15,000 to 18,000,
rather than the 2 million or more required by the traditional understanding of
these numbers.
This sort of speculation, however, has its own difficulties,
which may be as hard to solve as the problem of the larger numbers. First, the
proportion of “chiefs” to fighting men seems quite top-heavy (46 “chiefs” for
500 men in Reuben; 59 “chiefs” for 300 men in Simeon, etc) This is a very high
percentage of officers to fighting men in any army. Second, the totals in Num
1:46; 2:32 do not bear this distinction in the meaning of the term “elep”. The
ancients were able to add figures in the same manner we do, and they seem to
have added the numbers for the Twelve Tribes without any distinction for the
hundreds and the thousands as different types of groupings. They carried the
figures for the hundreds into the column for the thousands, as any school child
might.
A variation on the above approach is given by Noordtzij, who
states that we cannot translate the term “elep” as “thousand” but only by an X
as we no longer know how large it was. He concludes that the total complement of
the army of Israel in Numbers 1:46 should not be read 603,550, but 603 X + 550
men.
Dual meanings
Wenham has a more complex solution to the problem of these
large numbers. He believes that the term “elep” is used in two distinct ways in
these lists, one to indicate “armed men” and the other to indicate “thousands.”
Along the way scribes confused the two meanings and simply added both terms as
though they were “thousands.” Wenham says the numbers for the tribe of Simeon,
given as 59,300 (Num 1:22), were originally intended to mean something like 57
armed men and 23 hundreds of units.
But this came to be written: 57 “lp” and 2 “lp” 3 hundreds. He
summarizes: “Not realizing that ‘lp’ in one case meant ‘armed man’ and in the
other ‘thousand,’ this was tidied up to read 59,300. When these figures are
carefully decoded, a remarkably clear picture of the whole military organization
emerges. The total fighting force is some 18,000 which would probably mean a
figure of about 72,000 for the whole migration.”
Many would regard this total as a more satisfactory number for
the Hebrew population in terms of its former slave status in Egypt, the gravely
difficult conditions for provision of a very large population in the desert, and
the fright occasioned by the smallness of their numbers against the fortified
cities of Canaan. There are some texts in the OT that suggest the population of
the Hebrew nation was quite small. For example, Deu 7:7 states that the Lord’s
affection was set on Israel, not because they were more numerous than other
peoples, “for you were the fewest of all peoples” (however, see
below).
Yet in this case, as in the former, the totals of Num 1:46;
2:32 would have to be regarded as errors of understanding by later scribes of an
unusual, complex, and otherwise non-attested use of the word “elep”. Those who
believe strongly in the reliability of the text of Scripture, have difficulty in
approaches such as these, for they suggest the possibility of an error in the
text of Scripture, even if the error of a scribe at a later time than the
writing of the text and made as a later insertion. There are later insertions in
the text of Scripture that most scholars regard as mistakes. The “three
witnesses” text of 1Jo 5:7,8 is a classic example. Yet the textual critics are
unanimous in asserting that no Greek texts from before the sixteenth century
have this reading. There is, however, no known textual suspicion for the
integrity of Num 1:46. If this is an error in calculation by a later scribe who
was unaware of Moses’ sophisticated employment of the word “elep” in the census
in the desert, we have no record of this.
We do not mean to imply that the above type of approach
necessarily springs from an unbelief in miracles as such, as is sometimes
assumed; for numerous reverent or conservative scholars have been attracted to
this or similar positions. The work of God with His people is miraculous
throughout the desert experience, no matter how many or how few they might have
been. This type of approach is based on an attempt to find what is believed to
be a more realistic number for the peoples of Israel at this time.
The Large Numbers — Toward a Solution
a. The problem
Still we cannot escape the problem of the large numbers in the
Book of Numbers… The principal problem is one of believability. To put it
bluntly, the numbers of the tribes of Israel stated and implied in this book
just seem to be far too large to be historically credible. If the numbers of the
men who are mustered for war from the age of twenty and up actually add up to
over 600,000, then the total population would have had to be at least 2 million
people — perhaps considerably more. This does not seem to be an excessively
large number for the people of a nation in our own crowded days, but it seems to
be nearly an impossibly large sum for the totals of the nation of Israel in
ancient times at the very beginning of its existence, a fugitive people fleeing
Egypt, crossing the sea in one night, gathering at a mountain in the Sinai, then
living a generation in the desert before finally entering Canaan.
But if the numbers of the Bible are correct, we have to
imagine a population twice the size of a major metropolitan area, and then to
view that vast number of people living their lives in the Desert of Sinai for a
period of 40 years. Scholars have attempted to explain exactly how such numbers
can be accounted for. Keil, for example, even worked out the mathematics for the
crossing of the Red Sea by a population this size. Yet is it reasonable to have
to account for these large numbers in this literal a manner?
Here is another comparison. The mid-1988 estimate for the
population of the present state of Israel is 4,400,000. The present population
of the modern country of Israel is only roughly twice the size of the number of
Hebrews who approached from the desert with great fear to conquer the land. The
population of Israel is mixed between scattered rural settlements, small towns,
and three large cities. As we look at the modern cities with their sprawling
size and multistoried buildings, we wonder how the ancient farmlands, towns, and
cities might have accommodated such numbers. Since the testimony of the wicked
Hebrew spies was an exaggerated report of the size of the cities, their towering
walls, and hulking men — all the stuff of fear — the implication at the least
is that the Canaanite population was significantly larger and more powerful than
the approaching Hebrew populace (see, for example, the refrain of proportion:
“to drive out before you nations greater and stronger than you”: Deu 4:38; 7:1).
The more we think of them, these numbers boggle our minds.
Then we may ask what we know of the population of Canaan in
the Biblical period. Numerous attempts have been made to estimate populations at
various periods. More recent scientific estimations of the population of Canaan
during the Iron Age reduce greatly earlier estimates of several million. Israeli
archaeologist Yigal Shiloh suggests the combined population of Judah and Israel
in the eighth century BC to be about 900,000. Since we may presume that the
population of Canaan was as least as dense in the eighth century under Hebrew
settlement as 700 years earlier, during Canaanite times, it is just not possible
to imagine an invading force of Hebrews that might number several millions
having any reason to trust in the Lord God for the conquest of the land. By
sheer numbers they would simply overwhelm the native population.
A well-worn problem in the large numbers of the families of
Israel in the Book of Numbers has to do with the growth from seventy persons to
more than two million in just four centuries. Again, there have been
commentators who have worked out the mathematics of this increase and have
stated that such an increase, while grandly dramatic, is not beyond the
possibility of human reproduction — particularly when that reproduction
capacity is enhanced and blessed by the Lord in fulfillment of his promise to
make his people many, though they began with so very few.
We do know that Scripture assures us that the growth of the
population of the Hebrew peoples was a dramatic outworking of God’s grace, a
fulfillment of his promise. The narrative of growth in Exo 1:7 is emphatic.
Three verbs along with complementary adverbs and rhetorical flourish exult in
the work of God in their dramatic growth: “But the Israelites were fruitful and
multiplied greatly and became exceedingly numerous, so that the land was filled
with them.” This unprecedented growth of the nation was in fulfillment of
numerous promises of God to the fathers (see Gen 17:2,6; 22:17; 26:4; 28:14;
35:11; 48:4). Moses is able to use the patriarchal phrase of abundance as he
recounts his experience as their leader: “The LORD your God has increased your
numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky” (Deu 1:10; cf Exo
32:13).
Yet there are counter-indications to this immense size of the
population also well known: ie, the sheer logistics of 2 million people or more
crossing the Red Sea (or Sea of Reeds) in one night and their organization and
provision in the desert for a generation. Now all this is possible within the
wonder of the work of the Lord, certainly. We have no doubt of the ability of
God to provide for 2 million or 2 billion persons, if that is His pleasure. But
we still wonder at these large numbers in terms of the lands and cities of the
ancient world. Were the cities of ancient Canaan in the Late Bronze Age
sufficiently large to be a formidable threat to the millions of Hebrews who were
about to descend on them from the desert? Would the ten spies have been so
fearful of the residents of the land if they (the spies) represented a people so
very large in numbers? And could the very land of Canaan have absorbed such a
huge company in Bible times, right at the beginning of Israel’s experience? We
do not doubt that the population of Israel under her great kings David and
Solomon might have numbered one million. But we pause at the thought of more
than twice that many persons right at the beginning of her history.
So there we have it: The numbers of the Book of Numbers are
just too large!
b. A suggestion
It is suggested, then, that the large numbers in the census
lists in the Book of Numbers are deliberately and purposefully exaggerated as a
rhetorical device to bring glory to God, derision to enemies, and point forward
to the fulfillment of God’s promise to the fathers that their descendants will
be innumerable, as the stars.
The figure given in the two census lists for the army of
Israel may possibly be a magnification by a factor of ten. An army of about
60,000 men would fit what we know of the criteria of the region and the times.
Wenham’s reduction to 18,000 (see above) seems to be too small a figure and is
based on too complex a solution to be convincing. Similarly, others’ reduction
by even greater factors leave much too small a figure. We desire a solution that
is both simple in concept and yet provides a sufficiently large population to be
the fulfillment of promise but not so large as to be seemingly
impossible.
The suggestion of a rhetorical exaggeration by a factor of ten
has much to commend it. It is a simple answer that does not demand convolutions
in numbers that other suggestions require. It results in an army in excess of
60,000 men, with a total population of about 250,000 to 300,000. This sum seems
to fit the requirements of the social, geographical, and political realities
without diminishing at all the sense of the miraculous and providential care of
God. An army of 60,000 is not an insignificant force, but it was likely
considerably smaller than the combined armies of the city-states of Canaan at
the time. In this way the peoples of Israel must have seemed to be a “swarm” as
they lived in Egypt, but they were still “the smallest of nations” when ranked
with great world powers. This smaller number accords with the large (but not
supernatural!) force the Egyptian Pharaoh sent in pursuit of them to the Sea of
Reeds. Six hundred chariots (Exo 14:7) is a considerable force and would surely
be a death threat against the unorganized people of Israel. This approach also
allows for the drama of the conquest of the Book of Judges, where battles were
won by the armies of Israel in league with Yahweh their Great Warrior. This
smaller number fits as well for the failures to occupy the full land as that
book also details. It also accords well with the well-known Mernepthah stele
that records Israel as among the peoples of Canaan during his raid, which we may
place during the period of the judges. A population of several million would
have more of an impression on this pharaoh!
Again, this smaller number does not diminish the miraculous.
It enhances it; for we confront now a cluster of miracles that we may embrace
readily rather than shun from some sense of embarrassment, as some do! The
supernatural increase of the people in Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea in one
night, the gathering of the people at Mount Sinai, their daily provision in the
desert, their entry into the Promised Land — all was miraculous! Only the Lord
could so provide for this vast number of people in this manner; and mark it
well, a population of over one-quarter million is indeed vast. But now we can
envision a series of miracles that fits the geography, the topography, and the
times.
Furthermore, now we can also deal with the large numbers, not
as problem words, but as power words. The deliberate exaggeration was not for
misrepresentation. This rhetorical use of numbers was a mark of faith in the
Lord who had provided great increase to a family of seventy persons and who one
day would make his people as the stars in number. One day they would truly be
innumerable — except to Him, who counts them all and knows their names! These
“embarrassing numbers” are not embarrassing at all. These numbers celebrate
Yahweh. They are numbers of worship! I envision this text being read in worship
celebrations. The studied units, with their formulaic structure and power
numbers, would evoke pride of patriotism, sense of belonging, and — most
importantly — the celebration of the Lord.
It appears to me that the numbers of the census are real
figures. They are treated like real integers; there is no confusion of hundreds
and thousands. Here are numbers that are internally consistent and coherent. Yet
I propose that they may have been deliberately magnified by a factor of ten for
rhetorical reasons. The promise was that the people would number as the stars.
Six-hundred thousand must have seemed like an “astronomical” number in these
early Bible times. Certainly the “real” number of 60,000 men was very large,
particularly for the desert sojourn. But the 60,000 would still not be an
overwhelming force for the task ahead of conquering the peoples of the land, who
are seven in number and far more numerous than Israel. To have any success in
their task, this army would need to have the help of the Lord along every step
of their path. From the abortive battle in the first generation with the
Amalekites (Num 14:44,45) to their decisive victories a generation later with
Arad (Num 21:1-3) and the small kingdoms of Sihon and Og (21:21-31), these
numbers fit the situation. Here now is a seasoned army of approximately 60,000
men, ready to march across the dry bed of the Jordan River and to take the
ancient city of Jericho as the firstfruits of conquest in the land — an
offering to the Lord.
This number of about 60,000 fits the requirements of both a
great (miraculous) growth and a manageable size for the time and place of their
habitation. The use of deliberate exaggeration by a factor of ten may be
regarded as a celebration of the work of the Lord. We have not taken seriously
enough the formulaic nature of the chapters that give the numbers of the tribes.
Not only does this make “neat” record keeping, there is within these sections a
sense of the sublime, of the orderly presentation of an offering of joy to God.
These census lists that some moderns find to be frightfully dull may well have
been conceived by their author as a joyful offering of praise to God. And may we
not think that God takes pleasure in these words still?
This rhetorical use of numbers is also a prophetic symbol (a
type!) of the numbers yet to come! One day the people of God will be like the
stars of heaven; they will be innumerable, uncountable to all but him who knows
the number and name of every star (Psa 147:4)!
The obvious objection one may bring, that people do not use
numbers this way today, is not overwhelming. We know that in ancient times
numbers were used with deliberate exaggeration for rhetorical effect. One needs
only to think of the ancient Sumerian king list to find an example that long
predates the time of Moses. In this list the reigns of kings from remote
antiquity were vastly exaggerated. We believe this was for the rhetorical
function of indicating their tremendous importance. We may also find rhetorical
uses of numbers in the genealogies of Genesis.
An even more common use of rhetorical language is in battle
boasting and the songs about heroes: “Saul has slain his thousands, and David
his tens of thousands” (1Sa 18:7). [This hyperbolic exaggeration of ’10 times
over’ is suggested in other passages, like Ecc 7:19; Zec 8:23; Mat 25:28/Luk
19:24: GB.]
I am aware that some may regard the concept of “rhetorical use
of numbers” as a departure from “literal interpretation.” In fact, it is not. A
departure from literal interpretation would be to spiritualize the numbers, to
find some mystical significance in them that was never really intended, or to
pretend to some bizarre meaning imported from another environment.
Literal interpretation of numbers includes understandings that
extend from mathematical exactitude, through general approximation, to literary
license. The only demand of literal interpretation (better, “normal”
interpretation) is that the reader seek to find the use he believes the text
itself presents and demands. It is an abuse of literal interpretation to insist
that the way we use numbers in our digital and pocket-calculator age is the way
that Bible persons ought to have used numbers in their day.
(Sources: Ron Allen, “Introduction to Numbers”, EBC; DM Fouts,
“A Defense Of The Hyperbolic Interpretation Of Large Numbers In The Old
Testament”, JETS 40:3:378)
“For the purpose of local government the people were provided
with ‘rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties and rulers of
tens’. Obviously, in this context, ‘ten’, ‘fifty’, ‘hundred’ and ‘thousand’ were
the names of administrative units, not exact numbers.
“The ordinary Hebrew word for ‘thousand’ is sometimes used to
mean ‘family’, and is actually translated that way in Jdg 6:15.
“The Hebrew word for ‘captain’ is spelt the same as the word
for ‘thousand’, although the pronunciation is different. Since a regiment in the
Jewish army was also called a thousand, it is easy to see how this association
of words would arise. Thus it is possible that some of the ‘thousands’ who
fought, or were slain in battle, were really captains. If so, then the size of
the army of Israel, and of its casualty lists, may possibly have been smaller
than they appear in our English Bible” (GT ch 18).
“It would appear that the Heb word for ‘thousand’ had also a
definite idiomatic usage in the sense of ‘family’ or ‘squad’ or ‘group’. Some
instances seem to require one of these secondary meanings. ‘Present yourselves
before the Lord by your tribe, and by your thousands’ commanded Samuel, and they
‘came near by their families’ (1Sa 10:19-21). Saul had a small permanent army of
three thousand men, but soon afterwards these are numbered at six hundred (1Sa
13:2,15). This might indicate a ‘thousand’ to be a squad of 200 men, but the
conclusion cannot be insisted on. However a similar result comes out of a
consideration of the capture of Ai. Joshua sent ‘thirty thousand’ might men of
valour against the city (Jos 8:3). If these are the same as the five (literal)
thousand mentioned in v 12 — this is Prof Garstang’s suggestion — then again
one ‘thousand’ works out at approximately 200. If also the twelve ‘thousand’
inhabitants of Ai (v 25) are computed similarly, this would give a figure of
2,400 for the population of the place — a figure which accords remarkably well
with the size of the site explored by the archeologists.
“The slaughter of 42,000 Ephraimites by Jephthah’s men at the
fords of Jordan is not easy to harmonize with Ephraim’s total of 32,500 at the
conquest of the Land. Should the figure be read as 2,040, or were ‘thousands’ so
many squads of fighting men? (Jdg 12:6; Num 26:37).
“In the civil war against Benjamin there is a strange
disparity between the large and small numbers cited in Jdg 20:31,21,25. This
would cease to be a problem if the suggestion just made applied here also. The
remarkable contrast between Saul’s 600, in 1Sa 13:15, and his 210,000 in 1Sa
15:4, seems to call for a similar solution. When one comes to the problem posed
by the figures in 1Ki 20:29,30, this solution (or something even more drastic)
seems to be required. The figures in 2Ch 17:14-19 give Jehoshaphat a standing
army ‘ready prepared for war’ of 1,160,000 besides the garrisons of his many
‘fenced cities’. Some find difficulty in taking these figures as real. To others
they are a headache. The idiomatic use of the word ‘thousand’ may help towards a
solution here” (WEnj 83,84).