My friend
Stephen Smoot has an interesting article on the battle numbers as found in the
Book of Mormon and how such (at times) extravagant numbers are actually an evidence
for historicity, as such is to be found in many other ancient texts:
Why
the Book of Mormon’s Battle Numbers Don’t Add Up (And Why That’s Evidence for
its Authenticity) (cf. A
Postscript on Book of Mormon Battle Numbers).
One was
reminded of Stephen’s articles while reading a brief commentary and overview of
the book of Numbers by Eryl W. Davies. In a chapter entitled “Problematic
Passages,” Davies writes the following about the census numbers as discussed in
chs. 1 and 26:
The book of Numbers opens with Moses and
Aaron being instructed by God to take a census of all the men, aged 20 or over,
who were ‘able to go to war’ (1.3). The number of Israelites is then given,
tribe by tribe, and the grand total of all the warriors amount to 603,550
(1.46). A second census of the people, taken nearly 40 years later in the
plains of Moab, is recorded in chap. 26, and a similar total is calculated in
this census (601,730; cf. 26.51). Since these totals did not include the women
or children (or, indeed, the Levites, who were numbered separately; c. 1.49;
3.14-39; 4.21-49), it is estimated that the total population of Israelites
wandering through the wilderness would have been over two million. Clearly,
such numbers cannot be regarded as an accurate representation of the size of
Israel’s population during the time of Israel’s sojourn through the wilderness
of Sinai, for it is difficult to comprehend how such a vast multitude could have
found sustenance in the desert for such a long period of time, nor is it easy
to imagine how they could have encamped around the tabernacle in the neat formation
implied in chap. 2.
Moreover, quite apart from the sheer
logistical problem, the numbers given in the two census counts are difficult to
reconcile with statements found elsewhere in the OT. For example, Exod.
23.29-30 and Deut. 7.7, 22 imply that the Israelites who fled from Egypt were
too few in number to occupy the land of Canaan, and it is by no means clearly
how one small clan of 70 people (c. Gen. 46.27; Exod. 1.5) could have increased
so exponentially in the course of a few hundred years. Furthermore, Josh.
4.12-13 records that the tribes of Reuben, Gad and half Manasseh totalled about
40,000, whereas these three tribes totalled 124,350 according to the first
census, and 110,580 according to the second census. A further anomaly emerges
from the fact that, according to the census lists in chaps. 1 and 26, the tribe
of Dan was one of the largest, yet in Judg. 18.11 we are informed that the
tribe could muster only 600 armed men. The reference to 22,273 first-born males
among the Israelites who were a month old and upward (3.40-42) poses a further
difficulty, for this suggests that the ratio of adult males to first-born males
was approximately 27:1; this would mean that the average family would have
consisted of 27 sons, and—assuming a similar number of daughters—the average mother
would have given birth to over 50 children! (Eryl W. Davies, Numbers: The Road to Freedom [T&T
Clark Study Guides to the Old Testament; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark,
2015], 49-50)
The author
then discusses some of the pros and cons of various suggested solutions on pp.
51-53, including the numbers being an example of gematria, that the population numbers are real, but were
projections of the population numbers during the time of king David’s reign
back into the text of Numbers, and the hypothesis that “thousand” in the text
is not to be taken literally, but instead, signifies a military term denoting a
fighting unit or contingent of troops under a leader (cf. “centurion” in Roman
times). He then writes the following, and how the editor(s) of the book of
Numbers were presenting an “idealized construction” informed by theological and
cultural beliefs, perhaps something that is happening in some warfare-related
texts in the Book of Mormon:
It is clear that none of the above attempts
to explain the high numbers in the census returns in chaps. 1 and 26 can be
regarded as entirely satisfactory. It seems far more probable that the numbers
given for the individual tribes, and the grand totals in 1.46 and 26.51 were an
idealized construction by the Priestly writer designed to show that God’s promise
to the patriarchs of numerous progeny (Gen. 12.1-3) was already being realized
even during the wilderness wandering. They also served to demonstrate the miraculous
power of Yahweh who was able to sustain such a large throng during the trials
and tribulations of the desert sojourn. (Ibid., 52)
