Editing Book of Numbers (section)

=== Census numbers ===

The book of Numbers records in some detail the population of the fighting men in Israel, providing a figure of approximately 600,000 soldiers. This would translate to a total population of 1.5 to 2.5 million Israelites. However, scholars have proposed multiple alternatives, as such a large number of Israelites does not conform to modern historical knowledge of the period or archaeological evidence. Some scholars see the book of Numbers as unhistorical, and the figures given as either greatly exaggerated or simply fabricated, opting instead to focus on Numbers as a theological book and not a historical one.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Vaux |first=Roland de |title=The Early History of Israel |date=1978 |publisher=Westminster Press |isbn=0-664-20762-6 |location=Philadelphia |oclc=3669566}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Bellinger |first=W. H. Jr. |title=Leviticus, Numbers |date=2012 |publisher=Baker Books |isbn=978-0-8010-4560-8 |location=Grand Rapids, Mich. |oclc=793844579}}</ref>

On the other hand, some Biblical scholars speculate that the literature is not referring to the actual number, and that the word for "thousand" is actually referring to a noun signifying a group or clan. However, this interpretation poses a problem, as it undermines the validity of the text, "assumes a misunderstanding and mistransmission of the text in all the census lists of Exodus and Numbers (not to mention other texts)"{{sfn|Ashley|1993|pp=65–66}} and produces several inconsistencies in the book of Numbers that cannot be resolved. Most scholars who hold this view posit a much lower number for the fighting  men of Israel, closer to 20,000.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wenham |first=J. W. |date=1967-05-01 |title=Large Numbers in the Old Testament |url=https://tyndalebulletin.org/article/30680-large-numbers-in-the-old-testament |journal=Tyndale Bulletin |language=en |volume=18 |issue=1 |pages=19–53 |doi=10.53751/001c.30680|doi-access=free }}</ref> Another theory is that of an error in transmission, with J.W. Wenham arguing that "biblical texts are often corrupted by the simple addition of zeroes to the numbers",{{sfn|Ashley|1993|pp=65–66}} although the flaw in this suggestion "is that the mistake in zeroes would easily occur only where numbers were represented by figures rather than by words",{{sfn|Ashley|1993|pp=65–66}} and there is "little or no evidence that figures were used in the biblical texts during the biblical period."{{sfn|Ashley|1993|pp=65–66}} Based on the nature of the book and the many accounts of tax payment and records of animals and persons, it is most likely that Numbers is referring to an actual account of a numerical tally of the Israelite people. A more likely explanation for the large number stated in the book is that the actual numerical metrics cannot really be established today. This requires us to take the values given as they are, as any other alternatives raises more problems than solutions.<ref name="Rooker" />{{rp|246}} In his commentary on the book of Numbers, [[John Calvin]] acknowledged that even among his contemporaries, "certain sceptics"<ref name="Calvin">{{cite book |last=Calvin |first=John |author-link=John Calvin |date=1996 |title=Calvin's Commentaries Volume 2 |location=Ada, MI |publisher=Baker Book House |page=22}}</ref> had questioned the veracity of the figures quoted, but defended the [[Biblical inerrancy|inerrancy]] of the text by invoking the miraculous "interference of God".<ref name="Calvin"/>

According to Timothy R. Ashley's analysis:

<blockquote>"No one system answers all the questions or solves all the problems. [...] In short, we lack the materials in the text to solve this problem. When all is said and done, one must admit that the answer is elusive. Perhaps it is best to take these numbers as R.K. Harrison has done — as based on a system familiar to the ancients but unknown to moderns. According to Harrison the figures are to be taken as "symbols of relative power, triumph, importance, and the like and are not meant to be understood either strictly literally or as extant in a corrupt textual form."{{sfn|Ashley|1993|pp=65–66}}</blockquote>