num'-ber:
III. NUMBERS IN OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY
(3) Didactic or Literary Use of Seven
LITERATURE
The system of counting followed by the Hebrews and the Semites generally was the decimal system, which seems to have been suggested by the use of the ten fingers. Hebrew had separate words only for the first nine units and for ten and its multiples. Of the sexagesimal system, which seems to have been introduced into Babylonia by the Sumerians and which, through its development there, has influenced the measurement of time and space in the western civilized world even to the present day; there is no direct trace in the Bible, although, as will be shown later, there are some possible echoes. The highest number in the Bible described by a single word is 10,000 (ribbo or ribbo', murias). The Egyptians, on the other hand, had separate words for 100,000, 1,000,000, 10,000,000. The highest numbers referred to in any way in the Bible are: "a thousand thousand" (1 Ch 22:14; 2 Ch 14:9); "thousands of thousands" (Dan 7:10; Rev 5:11); "thousands of ten thousands" (Gen 24:60); "ten thousand times ten thousand" (Dan 7:10; Rev 5:11); and twice that figure (Rev 9:16). The excessively high numbers met with in some oriental systems (compare Lubbock, The Decimal System, 17 ff) have no parallels in Hebrew. Fractions were not unknown. We find 1/3 (2 Sam 18:2, etc.); 1/2 (Ex 25:10,17, etc.); 1/4 (1 Sam 9:8); 1/5 (Gen 47:24); 1/6 (Ezek 46:14); 1/10 (Ex 16:36); 2/10 (Lev 23:13); 3/10 (Lev 14:10), and 1/100 (Neh 5:11). Three other fractions are less definitely expressed: 2/3 by "a double portion," literally, "a double mouthful" by (Dt 21:17; 2 Ki 2:9; Zec 13:8); 4/5 by "four parts" (Gen 47:24), and 9/10 by "nine parts" (Neh 11:1). Only the simplest rules of arithmetic can be illustrated from the Old Testament. There are examples of addition (Gen 5:3-31; Nu 1:20-46); subtraction (Gen 18:28 ff); multiplication (Lev 25:8; Nu 3:46 ff), and division (Nu 31:27 ff). In Lev 25:50 ff is what has been said to imply a kind of rule-of-three sum. The old Babylonians had tables of squares and cubes intended no doubt to facilitate the measurement of land (Sayce, Assyria, Its Princes, Priests, and People, 118; Bezold, Ninive und Babylon, 90, 92); and it can scarcely be doubted that the same need led to similar results among the Israelites, but at present there is no evidence. Old Hebrew arithmetic and mathematics as known to us are of the most elementary kind (Nowack, HA, I, 298).
No special signs for the expression of numbers in writing can be proved to have been in use among the Hebrews before the exile. The Siloam Inscription, which is probably the oldest specimen of Hebrew writing extant (with the exception of the ostraca of Samaria, and perhaps a seal or two and the obscure Gezer tablet), has the numbers written in full. The words used there for 3,200, 1,000 are written as words without any abbreviation. The earlier text of the Moabite Stone which practically illustrates Hebrew usage has the numbers 30, 40, 50, 100, 200, 7,000 written out in the same way.
After the exile some of the Jews at any rate employed signs such as were current among the Egyptians, the Arameans, and the Phoenicians--an upright line for 1, two such lines for 2, three for 3, and so on, and special signs for 10, 20, 100. It had been conjectured that these or similar signs were known to the Jews, but actual proof was not forthcoming until the discovery of Jewish papyri at Assuan and Elephantine in 1904 and 1907. In these texts, ranging from 494 to circa 400 BC, the dates are stated, not in words, but in figures of the kind described. We have therefore clear evidence that numerical signs were used by members of a Jewish colony in Upper Egypt in the 5th century BC. Now, as the existence of this colony can be traced before 525 BC, it is probable that they used this method of notation also in the preceding century. Conjecture indeed may go as far as its beginning, for it is known that there were Jews in Pathros, that is Upper Egypt, in the last days of Jeremiah (Jer 44:1,15). Some of the first Jewish settlers in Elephantine may have known the prophet and some of them may have come from Jerusalem, bringing these signs with them. At present, however, that is pure hypothesis.
In the notation of the chapters and verses of the Hebrew Bible and in the expression of dates in Hebrew books the consonants of the Hebrew alphabet are employed for figures, i.e. the first ten for 1-10, combinations of these for 11-19, the following eight for 20-90, and the remainder for 100, 200, 300, 400. The letters of the Greek alphabet were used in the same way. The antiquity of this kind of numerical notation cannot at present be ascertained. It is found on Jewish coins which have been dated in the reign of the Maccabean Simon (143-135 BC), but some scholars refer them to a much later period. All students of the Talmud are familiar with this way of numbering the pages, or rather the leaves, but its use there is no proof of early date. The numerical use of the Greek letters can be abundantly illustrated. It is met with in many Greek papyri, some of them from the 3rd century BC (Hibeh Papyri, numbers 40-43, etc.); on several coins of Herod the Great, and in some manuscripts of the New Testament, for instance, a papyrus fragment of Mt (Oxyrhynchus Pap., 2) where 14 is three times represented by iota-delta (I-D) with a line above the letters, and some codices of Rev 13:18 where 666 is given by the three letters "chi" "xi" "vau" (or digaroma). It is possible that two of these methods may have been employed side by side in some cases, as in the Punic Sacrificial Tablet of Marseilles, where (l. 6) 150 is expressed first in words, and then by figures.
III. Numbers in Old Testament History.
Students of the historical books of the Old Testament have long been perplexed by the high numbers which are met with in many passages, for example, the number ascribed to the Israelites at the exodus (Ex 12:37; Nu 11:21), and on two occasions during the sojourn in the wilderness (Nu 1; 26)--more than 600,000 adult males, which means a total of two or three millions; the result of David's census 1,300,000 men (2 Sam 24:9) or 1,570,000 (1 Ch 21:5), and the slaughter of half a million in a battle between Judah and Israel (2 Ch 13:17). There are many other illustrations in the Books of Chronicles and elsewhere. That some of these high figures are incorrect is beyond reasonable doubt, and is not in the least surprising, for there is ample evidence that the numbers in ancient documents were exceptionally liable to corruption. One of the best known instances is the variation of 1,466 years between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint (text of Codex Vaticanus) as to the interval from the creation of Adam to the birth of Abram. Other striking cases are 1 Sam 6:19, where 50,070 ought probably to be 70 (Josephus, Ant., VI, i, 4); 2 Sam 15:7, where 40 years ought to be 4 years; the confusion of 76 and 276 in the manuscripts of Acts 27:37, and of 616 and 666 in those of Rev 13:18. Hebrew manuscripts furnish some instructive variations. One of them, number 109 of Kennicott, reads (Nu 1:23) 1,050 for 50,000; 50 for 50,000 (Nu 2:6), and 100 for 100,000 (Nu 2:16). It is easy to see how mistakes may have originated in many cases. The Hebrew numerals for 30, etc., are the plurals of the units, so that the former, as written, differ from the latter only by the addition of the two Hebrew letters yodh ("y") and mem ("m") composing the syllable -im. Now as the mem was often omitted, 3 and 30, 4 and 40, etc., could readily be confused. If signs or letters of the alphabet were made use of, instead of abbreviated words, there would be quite as much room for misunderstanding and error on the part of copyists. The high numbers above referred to as found in Ex and Nu have been ingeniously accounted for by Professor Flinders Petrie (Researches in Sinai) in a wholly different way. By understanding 'eleph not as "thousand," but as "family" or "tent," he reduces the number to 5,550 for the first census, and 5,730 for the second. This figure, however, seems too low, and the method of interpretation, though not impossible, is open to criticism. It is generally admitted that the number as usually read is too high, but the original number has not yet been certainly discovered. When, however, full allowance has been made for the intrusion of numerical errors into the Hebrew text, it is difficult to resist the belief that, in the Books of Chronicles, at any rate, there is a marked tendency to exaggeration in this respect. The huge armies again and again ascribed to the little kingdoms of Judah and Israel cannot be reconciled with some of the facts revealed by recent research; with the following, for instance: The army which met the Assyrians at Karkar in 854 BC and which represented 11 states and tribes inclusive of Israel and the kingdom of Damascus, cannot have numbered at the most more than about 75,000 or 80,000 men (HDB, 1909, 65b), and the Assyrian king who reports the battle reckons the whole levy of his country at only 102,000 (Der alte Orient, XI, i, 14, note). In view of these figures it is not conceivable that the armies of Israel or Judah could number a million, or even half a million. The contingent from the larger kingdom contributed on the occasion mentioned above consisted of only 10,000 men and 2,000 chariots (HDB, ib). The safest conclusion, therefore, seems to be that, while many of the questionable numbers in the present text of the Old Testament are due to copyists, there is a residuum which cannot be so accounted for.
The use of definite numerical expressions in an indefinite sense, that is, as round numbers, which is met with in many languages, seems to have been very prevalent in Western Asia from early times to the present day. Sir W. Ramsay (Thousand and One Churches, 6) remarks that the modern Turks have 4 typical numbers which are often used in proper names with little or no reference to their exact numerical force--3, 7, 40, 1,001. The Lycaonian district which gives the book its name is called Bin Bir Kilisse, "The Thousand and One Churches," although the actual number in the valley is only 28. The modern Persians use 40 in just the same way. "Forty years" with them often means "many years" (Brugsch, cited by Konig, Stilistik, 55). This lax use of numbers, as we think, was probably very frequent among the Israelites and their neighbors. The inscription on the Moabite Stone supplies a very instructive example. The Israelite occupation of Medeba by Omri and his son for half the reign of the latter is there reckoned (II.7 f) at 40 years. As, according to 1 Ki 16:23,29, the period extended to only 23 years at the most, the number 40 must have been used very freely by Mesha's scribe as a round number. It is probably often used in that way in the Bible where it is remarkably frequent, especially in reference to periods of days or years. The 40 days of the Flood (Gen 7:4,17), the arrangement of the life of Moses in three periods of 40 years each (Acts 7:23; Ex 7:7; Dt 34:7), the 40 years' rule or reign of Eli (1 Sam 4:18), of Saul (Acts 13:21; compare Josephus, Ant,VI , xiv, 9), of David (1 Ki 2:11), of Solomon (1 Ki 11:42) and of Jehoash (2 Ki 12:1), the 40 or 80 years of rest (Jdg 3:11,30; 5:31; 8:28), the 40 years of Philistine oppression (Jdg 13:1), the 40 days' challenge of Goliath (1 Sam 17:16), the 40 days' fast of Moses (Ex 34:28), Elijah (1 Ki 19:8), and Jesus (Mt 4:2 and parallel), the 40 days before the destruction of Nineveh (Jon 3:4), and the 40 days before the Ascension (Acts 1:3), all suggest conventional use, or the influence of that use, for it can hardly be supposed that the number in each of these cases, and in others which might be mentioned, was exactly 40. How it came to be so used is not quite certain, but it may have originated, partly at any rate, in the idea that 40 years constituted a generation or the period at the end of which a man attains maturity, an idea common, it would seem, to the Greeks, the Israelites, and the Arabs. The period of 40 years in the wilderness in the course of which the old Israel died out and a new Israel took its place was a generation (Nu 32:13, etc.). The rabbis long afterward regarded 40 years as the age of understanding, the age when a man reaches his intellectual prime (Ab, v, addendum). In the Koran (Sura 46) a man is said to attain his strength when he attains to 40 years, and it was at that age, according to tradition, that Muhammad came forward as a prophet. In this way perhaps 40 came to be used as a round number for an indefinite period with a suggestion of completeness, and then was extended in course of time to things as well as Seasons.
Other round numbers are: (1) some of the higher numbers; (2) several numerical phrases. Under (1) come the following numbers. One hundred, often of course to be understood literally, but evidently a round number in Gen 26:12; Lev 26:8; 2 Sam 24:3; Eccl 8:12; Mt 19:29 and parallel. A thousand (thousands), very often a literal number, but in not a few cases indefinite, e.g. Ex 20:6 parallel Dt 5:10; 7:9; 1 Sam 18:7; Ps 50:10; 90:4; 105:8; Isa 60:22, etc. Ten thousand (Hebrew ribbo, ribboth, rebhabhah; Greek murids, murioi) is also used as a round number as in Lev 26:8; Dt 32:30; Song 5:10; Mic 6:7. The yet higher figures, thousands of thousands, etc., are, in almost all cases, distinctly hyperbolical round numbers, the most remarkable examples occurring in the apocalyptic books (Dan 7:10; Rev 5:11; 9:16; Ethiopic Enoch 40:1). (2) The second group, numerical phrases, consists of a number of expressions in which numbers are used roundly, in some cases to express the idea of fewness. One or two, etc.: "a day or two" (Ex 21:21), "an heap, two heaps" (Jdg 15:16 the Revised Version margin), "one of a city, and two of a family" (Jer 3:14), "not once, nor twice," that is "several times" (2 Ki 6:10). Two or three: "Two or three berries in the (topmost) bough" (Isa 17:6; compare Hos 6:2), "Where two or three are gathered together in my name," etc. (Mt 18:20). Konig refers to Assyrian, Syrian, and Arabic parallels. Three or four: the most noteworthy example is the formula which occurs 8 times in Am 1:3,6,9,11,13; 2:1,4,6, "for three transgressions .... yea for four." That the numbers here are round numbers is evident from the fact that the sins enumerated are in most cases neither 3 nor 4. In Prov 30:15,18,21,29, on the other hand, where we have the same rhetorical device, climax ad majus, 4 is followed by four statements and is therefore to be taken literally. Again, Konig (same place) points to classical and Arabic parallels. Four or five: "Four or five in the outmost branches of a fruitful tree" (Isa 17:6). Five or six: "Thou shouldest have smitten (Syria) five or six times" (2 Ki 13:19), an idiom met with also in Tell el-Amarna Letters (Konig, ib). Six and seven: "He will deliver thee in six troubles; yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee" (Job 5:19). Seven and eight: "Seven shepherds, and eight principal men" (Mic 5:5), that is, "enough and more than enough" (Cheyne); "Give a portion to seven, yea, even unto eight" (Eccl 11:2). In one remarkable phrase which occurs (with slight variations of form) 24 times in the Old Testament, two Hebrew words, meaning respectively "yesterday" and "third," are mostly used so as together to express the idea of vague reference to the past. the Revised Version (British and American) renders in a variety of ways: "beforetime" (Gen 31:2, etc.), "aforetime" (Josh 4:18), "heretofore" (Ex 4:10, etc.), "in time (or "times") past" (Dt 19:4,6; 2 Sam 3:17, etc.).
Numerical symbolism, that is, the use of numbers not merely, if at all, with their literal numerical value, or as round numbers, but with symbolic significance, sacred or otherwise, was widespread in the ancient East, especially in Babylonia and regions more or less influenced by Babylonian culture which, to a certain extent, included Canaan. It must also be remembered that the ancestors of the Israelites are said to have been of Babylonian origin and may therefore have transmitted to their descendants the germs at least of numerical symbolism as developed in Babylonia in the age of Hammurabi. Be that as it may, the presence of this use of numbers in the Bible, and that on a large scale, cannot reasonably be doubted, although some writers have gone too far in their speculations on the subject. The numbers which are unmistakably used with more or less symbolic meaning are 7 and its multiples, and 3, 4, 10 and 12.
By far the most prominent of these is the number 7, which is referred to in one way or another in nearly 600 passages in the Bible, as well as in many passages in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha, and later Jewish literature. Of course the number has its usual numerical force in many of these places, but even there not seldom with a glance at its symbolic significance. For the determination of the latter we are not assigned to conjecture. There is clear evidence in the cuneiform texts, which are our earliest authorities, that the Babylonians regarded 7 as the number of totality, of completeness. The Sumerians, from whom the Semitic Babylonians seem to have borrowed the idea, equated 7 and "all." The 7-storied towers of Babylonia represented the universe. Seven was the expression of the highest power, the greatest conceivable fullness of force, and therefore was early pressed into the service of religion. It is found in reference to ritual in the age of Gudea, that is perhaps about the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. "Seven gods" at the end of an enumeration meant "all the gods" (for these facts and the cuneiform evidence compare Hehn, Siebenzahl und Sabbath bei den Babyloniern und im Altes Testament, 4 ff). How 7 came to be used in this way can only be glanced at here. The view connecting it with the gods of the 7 planets, which used to be in great favor and still has its advocates, seems to lack ancient proof. Hehn (op. cit., 44 ff) has shown that the number acquired its symbolic meaning long before the earliest time for which that reference can be demonstrated. As this sacred or symbolic use of 7 was not peculiar to the Babylonians and their teachers and neighbors, but was more or less known also in India and China, in classical lands, and among the Celts and the Germans, it probably originated in some fact of common observation, perhaps in the four lunar phases each of which comprises 7 days and a fraction. Conspicuous groups of stars may have helped to deepen the impression, and the fact that 7 is made up of two significant numbers, each, as will be shown, also suggestive of completeness--3 and 4--may have been early noticed and taken into account. The Biblical use of 7 may be conveniently considered under 4 heads: (1) ritual use; (2) historical use; (3) didactic or literary use; (4) apocalyptic use.
The number 7 plays a conspicuous part in a multitude of passages giving rules for worship or purification, or recording ritual actions. The 7th day of the week was holy (see SABBATH ). There were 7 days of unleavened bread (Ex 34:18, etc.), and 7 days of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:34). The 7th year was the sabbatical year (Ex 21:2, etc.). The Moabite Balak built Balaam on three occasions 7 altars and provided in each case 7 bullocks and 7 rams (Nu 23:1,14,29). The Mosaic law prescribed 7 he-lambs for several festal offerings (Nu 28:11,19,27, etc.). The 7-fold sprinkling of blood is enjoined in the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:14,19), and elsewhere. Seven-fold sprinkling is also repeatedly mentioned in the rules for the purification of the leper and the leprous house (Lev 14:7,16,27,51). The leprous Naaman was ordered to bathe 7 times in the Jordan (2 Ki 5:10). In cases of real or suspected uncleanness through leprosy, or the presence of a corpse, or for other reasons, 7 days' seclusion was necessary (Lev 12:2, etc.). Circumcision took place after 7 days (Lev 12:3). An animal must be 7 days old before it could be offered in sacrifice (Ex 22:30). Three periods of 7 days each are mentioned in the rules for the consecration of priests (Ex 29:30,35,37). An oath seems to have been in the first instance by 7 holy things (Gen 21:29 ff and the Hebrew word for "swear"). The number 7 also entered into the structure of sacred objects, for instance the candlestick or lamp-stand in the tabernacle and the second temple each of which had 7 lights (Nu 8:2; Zec 4:2). Many other instances of the ritual use of 7 in the Old Testament and many instructive parallels from Babylonian texts could be given.
The number 7 also figures prominently in a large number of passages which occur in historical narrative, in a way which reminds us of its symbolic significance. The following are some of the most remarkable: Jacob's 7 years' service for Rachel (Gen 29:20; compare 29:27 f), and his bowing down 7 times to Esau (Gen 33:3); the 7 years of plenty, and the 7 years of famine (Gen 41:53 f); Samson's 7 days' marriage feast (Jdg 14:12 ff; compare Gen 29:27), 7 locks of hair (Jdg 16:19), and the 7 withes with which he was bound (Jdg 16:7 f); the 7 daughters of Jethro (Ex 2:16), the 7 sons of Jesse (1 Sam 16:10), the 7 sons of Saul (2 Sam 21:6), and the 7 sons of Job (Job 1:2; compare 42:13); the 7 days' march of the 7 priests blowing 7 trumpets round the walls of Jericho, and the 7-fold march on the 7th day (Josh 6:8 ff); the 7 ascents of Elijah's servant to the top of Carmel (1 Ki 18:43 f); the 7 sneezes of the Shunammitish woman's son (2 Ki 4:35); the heating of Nebuchadnezzar's furnace 7 times more than it was wont to be heated (Dan 8:19), and the king's madness for 7 times or years (Dan 4:16,23,25,32); Anna's 7 years of wedded life (Lk 2:36); the 7 loaves of the 4,000 (Mt 15:34-36 parallel) and the 7 baskets full of fragments (Mt 15:37 parallel); the 7 brothers in the conundrum of the Sadducees (Mt 22:25 parallel); the 7 demons cast out of Mary Magdalene (Mk 16:9 parallel Lk 8:2); the 7 ministers in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 6:3 ff), and the 7 sons of Sceva (Acts 19:14, but the Western text represents them as only 2). The number must no doubt be understood literally in many of these passages, but even then its symbolic meaning is probably hinted at by the historian. When a man was said to have had 7 sons or daughters, or an action was reported as done or to be done 7 times, whether by design or accident, the number was noted, and its symbolic force remembered. It cannot indeed be regarded in all these cases as a sacred number, but its association with sacred matters which was kept alive among the Jews by the institution of the Sabbath, was seldom, if ever, entirely overlooked.
(3) Didactic or Literary Use of Seven.
The symbolic use of 7 naturally led to its employment by poets and teachers for the vivid expression of multitude or intensity. This use is sometimes evident, and sometimes latent. (a) Evident examples are the 7-fold curse predicted for the murderer of Cain (Gen 4:15); fleeing 7 ways (Dt 28:7,25); deliverance from 7 troubles (Job 5:19); praise of God 7 times a day (Ps 119:164); 7 abominations (Prov 26:25; compare 6:16); silver purified 7 times, that is, thoroughly purified (Ps 12:6); 7-fold sin; 7-fold repentance, and 7-fold forgiveness (Lk 17:4; compare Mt 18:21); 7 evil spirits (Mt 12:45 parallel Lk 11:26). The last of these, as well as the previous reference to the 7 demons cast out of Mary Magdalene reminds us of the 7 spirits of Beliar (Testament to the Twelve Patriarchs, Reuben chapters 2 and 3) and of the 7 evil spirits so often referred to in Babylonian exorcisms (compare Hehn, op. cit., 26 ff), but it is not safe to connect our Lord's words with either. The Babylonian belief may indeed have influenced popular ideas to some extent, but there is no need to find a trace of it in the Gospels. The 7 demons of the latter are sufficiently accounted for by the common symbolic use of 7. For other passages which come under this head compare Dt 28:7,25; Ruth 4:15; 1 Sam 2:5; Ps 79:12. (b) Examples of latent use of the number 7, of what Zockler (RE3, "Sieben") calls "latent heptads," are not infrequent. The 7-fold use of the expression "the voice of Yahweh" in Ps 29, which has caused it to be named "The Psalm of the Seven Thunders," and the 7 epithets of the Divine Spirit in Isa 11:2, cannot be accidental. In both cases the number is intended to point at full-summed completeness. In the New Testament we have the 7 beatitudes of character (Mt 5:3-9); the 7 petitions of the Paternoster (Mt 6:9 f); the 7 parables of the Kingdom in Mt 13; the 7 woes pronounced on the Pharisees (Mt 28:13,15,16,23,25,27,29), perhaps the 7 sayings of Jesus, beginning with "I am" (ego eimi) in the Fourth Gospel (Jn 6:35; 8:12; 10:7,11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1), and the 7 disciples at the Lake after the Resurrection (Jn 21:2). Several groups of 7 are found in the Epistles and in Revelation: 7 forms of suffering (Rom 8:35); 7 gifts or charismata (Rom 12:6-9); 7 attributes of the wisdom that is from above (Jas 3:17); 7 graces to be added to faith (2 Pet 1:5 ff); two doxologies each containing 7 words of praise (Rev 5:12; 7:12), and 7 classes of men (Rev 6:15). Other supposed instances of 7-fold grouping in the Fourth Gospel are pointed out by E.A. Abbott (Johannine Grammar, 2624 ff), but are of uncertain value.
As might be expected, 7 figures greatly in apocalyptic literature, although it is singularly absent from the apocalyptic portion of Daniel. Later works of this kind, however--the writings bearing the name of Enoch, the Testaments of Reuben and Levi, 2 Esd, etc.--supply many illustrations. The doctrine of the 7 heavens which is developed in the Slavonic Enoch and elsewhere and may have been in the first instance of Babylonian origin is not directly alluded to in the Bible, but probably underlies the apostle's reference to the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2). In the one apocalyptic writing in the New Testament, 7 is employed with amazing frequency. We read of 7 churches (Rev 1:4, etc.); 7 golden candlesticks (Rev 1:12, etc.); 7 stars (Rev 1:16); 7 angels of the churches (Rev 1:20); 7 lamps of fire (Rev 4:5); 7 spirits of God (Rev 1:4; 3:1; 4:5); a book with 7 seals (Rev 5:1); a lamb with 7 horns and 7 eyes (Rev 5:6); 7 angels with 7 trumpets (Rev 8:2); 7 thunders (Rev 10:3); a dragon with 7 heads and 7 diadems (Rev 13:3); a beast with 7 heads (Rev 18:1); 7 angels having the 7 last plagues (Rev 15:1); and 7 golden bowls of the wrath of God (Rev 15:7) and a scarlet-colored beast with 7 heads (Rev 17:3) which are 7 mountains (Rev 17:9) and 7 kings (Rev 17:10). The writer, whoever he was, must have had his imagination saturated with the numerical symbolism which had been cultivated in Western Asia for millenniums. There cannot be a shadow of doubt that 7 for him expressed fullness, completeness. As this inquiry will have shown, the significance of the number is practically the same throughout the Bible. Although a little of it may have been rubbed off in the course of ages, the main idea suggested by 7 was never quite lost sight of in Biblical times, and the number is still used in the life and song of the Holy Land and Arabia with at least an echo of its ancient meaning.
The significance of 7 extends to its multiples. Fourteen, or twice 7, is possibly symbolic in some cases. The stress laid in the Old Testament on the 14th of the month as the day of the Passover (Ex 12:6 and 16 other places), and the regulation that 14 lambs were to be offered on each of the 7 days of the Feast of Tabernacles (Nu 29:13,15) hint at design in the selection of the number, especially in view of the fact that 7 and 7 occur repeatedly in cuneiform literature--in magical and liturgical texts, and in the formula so often used in the Am Tab: "7 and 7 times at the feet of the king my lord .... I prostrate myself." The arrangement of the generations from Abraham to Christ in three groups of 14 each (Mt 1:17) is probably intentional, so far as the number in each group is concerned. It is doubtful whether the number has any symbolic force in Acts 27:27; 2 Cor 12:2; Gal 2:1. Of course it must be remembered that both the Hebrew and Greek words for 14 ('arba'ah asar; dekatessares) suggest that it is made up of 10 and 4, but constant use of 7 in the sense above defined will have influenced the application of its double, at least in some cases.
Forty-nine, or 7 X 7, occurs in two regulations of the Law. The second of the three great festivals took place on the 50th day after one of the days of unleavened bread (Lev 23:15 ff), that is, after an interval of 7 X 7 days; and two years of Jubilee were separated by 7 X 7 years (Lev 25:8 ff). The combination is met with also in one of the so-called Penitential Psalms of Babylonia: "Although my sins are 7 times 7, forgive me my sins."
Seven multiplied by ten, or 70, was a very strong expression of multitude which is met with in a large number of passages in the Old Testament. It occurs of persons: the 70 descendants of Jacob (Ex 15; Dt 10:22); the 70 elders of Israel (Ex 24:1,9; Nu 11:16,24 f); the 70 kings ill treated by Adoni-bezek (Jdg 1:7); the 70 sons of Gideon (Jdg 8:30; 9:2); the 70 descendants of Abdon who rode on 70 asscolts (Jdg 12:14); the 70 sons of Ahab (2 Ki 10:1,6 f); and the 70 idolatrous elders seen by Ezekiel (Ezek 8:11). It is also used of periods: 70 days of Egyptian mourning for Jacob (Gen 50:3); 70 years of trial (Isa 23:15,17; Jer 25:11 f; Dan 9:2; Zec 1:12; 7:5); the 70 weeks of Daniel (Dan 9:24); and the 70 years of human life (Ps 90:10). Other noticeable uses of 70 are the 70 palm trees of Elim (Ex 15:27 parallel Nu 33:9); the offering of 70 bullocks in the time of Hezekiah (2 Ch 29:32), and the offering by the heads of the tribes of 12 silver bowls each of 70 shekels (Nu 7:13 ff). In the New Testament we have the 70 apostles (Lk 10:1,17), but the number is uncertain with Codices Vaticanus and Bezae and some versions reading 72, which is the product, not of 7 and 10, but of 6 and 12. Significant seventies are also met with outside of the Bible. The most noteworthy are the Jewish belief that there were 70 nations outside Israel, with 70 languages, under the care of 70 angels, based perhaps on the list in Gen 10; the Sanhedrin of about 70 members; the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek by Septuagint (more exactly 72), and the 70 members of a family in one of the Aramaic texts of Sendschirli. This abundant use of 70 must have been largely due to the fact that it was regarded as an intensified 7.
Seventy and seven, or 77, a combination found in the words of Lamech (Gen 4:24); the number of the princes and elders of Succoth (Jdg 8:14); and the number of lambs in a memorable sacrifice (Ezr 8:35), would appeal in the same way to the oriental fancy.
The product of seven and seventy (Greek hebdomekontakis hepta) is met with once in the New Testament (Mt 18:22), and in the Septuagint of the above-quoted Gen 4:24. Moulton, however (Grammar of Greek New Testament Prolegomena, 98), renders in both passages 70 plus 7; contra, Allen, "Mt," ICC, 199. The number is clearly a forceful equivalent of "always."
Seven thousand in 1 Ki 19:18 parallel Rom 11:4 may be a round number chosen on account of its embodiment of the number 7. In the Moabite Stone the number of Israelites slain at the capture of the city of Nebo by the Moabites is reckoned at 7,000.
The half of seven seems sometimes to have been regarded as significant. In Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7; Lk 4:25 parallel 5:17; Rev 11:2; 13:5 a period of distress is calculated at 3 1/2 years, that is, half the period of sacred completeness.
The number three seems early to have attracted attention as the number in which beginning, middle and end are most distinctly marked, and to have been therefore regarded as symbolic of a complete and ordered whole. Abundant illustration of its use in this way in Babylonian theology, ritual and magic is given from the cuneiform texts by Hehn (op. cit., 63 ff), and the hundreds of passages in the Bible in which the number occurs include many where this special significance either lies on the surface or not far beneath it. This is owing in some degree perhaps to Babylonian influence, but will have been largely due to independent observation of common phenomena--the arithmetical fact mentioned above and familiar trios, such as heaven, earth, and sea (or "the abyss"); morning, noon and night; right, middle, and left, etc. In other words, 3 readily suggested completeness, and was often used with a glance at that meaning in daily life and daily speech. Only a selection from the great mass of Biblical examples can be given here. (1) Three is often found of persons and things sacred or secular, e.g. Noah's 3 sons (Gen 6:10); Job's 3 daughters (Job 1:2; 42:13) and 3 friends (Job 2:11); Abraham's 3 guests (Gen 18:2); and Sarah's 3 measures of meal (Gen 18:6; compare Mt 13:33 parallel); 3 in military tactics (Jdg 7:16,20; 9:43; 1 Sam 11:11; 13:17; Job 1:17); 3 great feasts (Ex 23:14); the 3 daily prayers (Ps 55:17; Dan 6:10,13); the 3 night watches (Jdg 7:19); God's 3-fold call of Samuel (1 Sam 3:8); the 3 keepers of the temple threshold (Jer 52:24); the 3 presidents appointed by Darius (Dan 6:2); the 3 temptations (Mt 4:3,5 f,8 f parallel); the 3 prayers in Gethsemane (Mt 26:39,42,44 parallel); Peter's 3 denials (Mt 26:34,75 parallel); the Lord's 3-fold question and 3-fold charge (Jn 21:15 ff); and the 3-fold vision of the sheet (Acts 10:16). (2) In a very large number of passages 3 is used of periods of time: 3 days; 3 weeks; 3 months and 3 years. So in Gen 40:12,13,18; Ex 2:2; 10:22 f; 2 Sam 24:13; Isa 20:3; Jon 1:17; Mt 15:32; Lk 2:46; 13:7; Acts 9:9; 2 Cor 12:8. The frequent reference to the resurrection "on the 3rd day" or "after 3 days" (Mt 16:21; 27:63, etc.) may at the same time have glanced at the symbolic use of the number and at the belief common perhaps to the Jews and the Zoroastrians that a corpse was not recognizable after 3 days (for Jewish testimony compare Jn 11:39; Yebamoth xvi.3; Midrash, Genesis, chapter c; Semachoth viii; for Persian ideas compare The Expository Times,XVIII , 536). (3) The number 3 is also used in a literary way, sometimes appearing only in the structure. Note as examples the 3-fold benediction of Israel (Nu 6:24 ff); the Thrice Holy of the seraphim (Isa 6:3); the 3-fold overturn (Ezek 21:27 (Hebrew 32)); the 3-fold refrain of Psalms 42--43 regarded as one psalm (Ps 42:5,11; 43:5); the 3 names of God (the Mighty One, God, Yahweh, Josh 22:22; compare Ps 50:1); the 3 graces of 1 Cor 13; the 3 witnesses (1 Jn 5:8); the frequent use of 3 and 3rd in Revelation; the description of God as "who is and who was and who is to come" (Rev 1:4); and `the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit' (Mt 28:19). In some of these cases 3-fold repetition is a mode of expressing the superlative, and others remind us of the remarkable association of 3 with deity alluded to by Plato and Philo, and illustrated by the triads of Egypt and Babylonia and the Far East. It cannot, however, be proved, or even made probable, that there is any direct connection between any of these triads and the Christian Trinity. All that can be said is, that the same numerical symbolism may have been operative in both cases.
The 4 points of the compass and the 4 phases of the moon will have been early noticed, and the former at any rate will have suggested before Biblical times the use of 4 as a symbol of completeness of range, of comprehensive extent. As early as the middle of the 3rd millennium BC Bah rulers (followed long afterward by the Assyrians) assumed the title "king of the 4 quarters" meaning that their rule reached in all directions, and an early conqueror claimed to have subdued the 4 quarters. There are not a few illustrations of the use of 4 in some such way in the Bible. The 4 winds (referred to also in the cuneiform texts and the Book of the Dead) are mentioned again and again (Jer 49:36; Ezek 37:9), and the 4 quarters or corners (Isa 11:12; Ezek 7:2; Rev 20:8). We read also of the 4 heads of the river of Eden (Gen 2:10 ff), of 4 horns, 4 smiths, 4 chariots, and horses of 4 colors in the visions of Zechariah (1:8, Septuagint; 1:18 ff; 6:1 ff), the chariots being directly connected with the 4 winds; 4 punishments (Jer 15:3; Ezek 14:21, the latter with a remarkable Assyrian parallel), the 4 kingdoms in Nebuchadnezzar's dream as interpreted (Dan 2:37 ff) and Daniel's vision (Dan 7:3 ff); the 4 living creatures in Ezek (1:5 ff; compare 1:10), each with 4 faces and 4 wings, and the 4 modeled after them (Rev 4:6, etc.). In most of these cases 4 is clearly symbolical, as in a number of passages in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Whether the frequent use of it in the structure of the tabernacle, Solomon's temple, and Ezekiel's temple has anything to do with the symbolic meaning is not clear, but the latter can probably be traced in proverbial and prophetic speech (Prov 30:15,18,21,24,29; Am 1:3,6, etc.). The 4 transgressions of the latter represent full-summed iniquity, and the 4-fold grouping in the former suggested the wide sweep of the classification. Perhaps it is not fanciful to find the idea in the 4 sets of hearers of the gospel in the parable of the Sewer (Mt 13:19-23 parallel). The rabbis almost certainly had it in mind in their 4-fold grouping of characters in six successive paragraphs (Ab v.16-21) which, however, is of considerably later date.
As the basis of the decimal system, which probably originated in counting with the fingers, 10 has been a significant number in all historical ages. The 10 antediluvian patriarchs (Gen 5; compare the 10 Babylonian kings of Berosus, and 10 in early Iranian and far-Eastern myths); the 10 righteous men who would have saved Sodom (Gen 18:32); the 10 plagues of Egypt; the 10 commandments (Ex 20:2-17 parallel Dt 5:6-21; the 10 commandments found by some in Ex 34:14-26 are not clearly made out); the 10 servants of Gideon (Jdg 6:27); the 10 elders who accompanied Boaz (Ruth 4:2); the 10 virgins of the parable (Mt 25:1); the 10 pieces of silver (Lk 15:8); the 10 servants entrusted with 10 pounds (Lk 19:13 ff), the most capable of whom was placed over 10 cities (Lk 19:17); the 10 days' tribulation predicted for the church of Smyrna (Rev 2:10); the use of "10 times" in the sense of "many times" (Gen 31:7; Neh 4:12; Dan 1:20, etc., an idiom met with repeatedly in Tell el-Amarna Letters); and the use of 10 in sacred measurements and in the widely diffused custom of tithe, and many other examples show plainly that 10 was a favorite symbolic number suggestive of a rounded total, large or small, according to circumstances. The number played a prominent part in later Jewish life and thought. Ten times was the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) uttered by the high priest on the Day of Atonement; 10 persons must be present at a nuptial benediction; 10 constituted a congregation in the synagogue; 10 was the usual number of a company at the paschal meal, and of a row of comforters of the bereaved. The world was created, said the rabbis, by ten words, and Abraham was visited with 10 temptations (Ab v.1 and 4; several other illustrations are found in the context).
The 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac probably suggested to the old Babylonians the use of 12 as a symbolic or semi-sacred number, but its frequent employment by the Israelites with special meaning cannot at present be proved to have originated in that way, although the idea was favored by both Josephus and Philo. So far as we know, Israelite predilection for 12 was entirely due to the traditional belief that the nation consisted of 12 tribes, a belief, it is true, entertained also by the Arabs or some of them, but with much less intensity and persistence. In Israel the belief was universal and ineradicable. Hence, the 12 pillars set up by Moses (Ex 24:4); the 12 jewels in the high priest's breast-plate (Ex 28:21); the 12 cakes of showbread (Lev 24:5); the 12 rods (Nu 17:2); the 12 spies (Nu 13); the 12 stones placed by Joshua in the bed of Jordan (Josh 4:9); the 12 officers of Solomon (1 Ki 4:7); the 12 stones of Elijah's altar (1 Ki 18:31); the 12 disciples or apostles (26 t), and several details of apocalyptic imagery (Rev 7:5 ff; 12:1; 21:12,14,16,21; 22:2; compare also Mt 14:20 parallel 19:28 parallel 26:53; Acts 26:7). The number pointed in the first instance at unity and completeness which had been sanctioned by Divine election, and it retained this significance when applied to the spiritual Israel. Philo indeed calls it a perfect number. Its double in Rev 4:4, etc., is probably also significant.
Five came readily into the mind as the half of 10. Hence, perhaps its use in the parable of the Virgins (Mt 25:2). It was often employed in literary division, e.g. in the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the part of the Hagiographa known as the Meghilljth, the Ethiopic Enoch and Matthew (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1; compare Sir J. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae(2), 163 ff). It seems to have been occasionally suggestive of relative smallness, as in Lev 26:8, the 5 loaves (Mt 14:17 parallel), 1 Cor 14:19, and perhaps in Tell el-Amarna Letters. It has been remarked (Skinner, "Gen," ICC, 483) that the number occurs repeatedly in reference to matters Egyptian (Gen 41:34; 45:22; 47:2; Isa 19:18), but there seems to be no satisfactory explanation. Sixty: Although, as was before observed, there is no direct trace in the Bible of the numerical system based on 60, there are a few passages where there may be a distant echo. The 60 cities of Argob (Dt 3:4; Josh 13:30; 1 Ki 4:13); the 60 mighty men and the 60 queens of Song 3:7; 6:8, the double use of 60 of Rehoboam's harem and family (2 Ch 11:21), the 3 sacrifices of 60 victims each (Nu 7:88), and the length of Solomon's temple, 60 cubits (1 Ki 6:2 parallel 2 Ch 3:3), may perhaps have a remote connection with the Babylonian use. It must be remembered that the latter was current in Israel and the neighboring regions in the division of the talent into 60 minas. A few passages in the Pseudepigrapha may be similarly interpreted, and the Babylonian Talmud contains, as might be expected, many clear allusions. In the Bible, however, the special use of the number is relatively rare and indirect. One hundred and ten, the age attained by Joseph (Gen 50:22), is significant as the Egyptian ideal of longevity (Smith, DB2, 1804 f; Skinner, "Gen," ICC, 539 f). One hundred and fifty-three: The Greek poet Oppian (circa 171 AD) and others are said to have reckoned the number of fishes in the world at this figure (compare Jerome on Ezek 47), and some scholars find a reference to that belief in Jn 21:11 in which case the number would be symbolic of comprehensiveness. That is not quite impossible, but the suggestion cannot be safely pressed. Throughout this discussion of significant numbers it must be borne in mind that writers and teachers may often have been influenced by the desire to aid the memory of those they addressed, and may to that end have arranged thoughts and facts in groups of 3, or 4, or 7, or 10, and so on (Sir John Hawkins, Horae Synopticae2, 166 f). They will at the same time have remembered the symbolic force of these numbers, and in some cases, at least, will have used them as round numbers. There are many places in which the round and the symbolic uses of a number cannot be sharply distinguished.
(GemaTriya'). A peculiar application of numbers which was in great favor with the later Jews and some of the early Christians and is not absolutely unknown to the Bible, is Gematria, that is the use of the letters of a word so as by means of their combined numerical value to express a name, or a witty association of ideas. The term is usually explained as an adaptation of the Greek word geometria, that is, "geometry," but Dalman (Worterbuch, under the word) connects it in this application of it with grammateia. There is only one clear example in Scripture, the number of the beast which is the number of a man, six hundred sixty and six (Rev 13:18). If, as most scholars are inclined to believe, a name is intended, the numerical value of the letters composing which adds up to 666, and if it is assumed that the writer thought in Hebrew or Aramaic. Nero Caesar written with the consonants nun (n) = 50, resh (r) = 200, waw (w) = 6, nun (n) = 50, qoph (q) = 100, camekh (c) = 60, resh (r) = 200: total = 666, seems to be the best solution. Perhaps the idea suggested by Dr. Milligan that the 3-fold use of 6 which just falls short of 7, the number of sacred completeness, and is therefore a note of imperfection, may have been also in the writer's mind. Some modern scholars find a second instance in Gen 14:14 and 15:2. As the numerical value of the consonants which compose Eliezer in Hebrew add up to 318, it has been maintained that the number is not historical, but has been fancifully constructed by means of gematria out of the name. This strange idea is not new, for it is found in the Midrash on Gen 43 in the name of a rabbi who lived circa 200 AD, but its antiquity is its greatest merit.
LITERATURE.
In addition to other books referred to in the course of the article: Hehn, Siebenzahl und Sabbath bei den Babyloniern und im Altes Testament; Konig, Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik, etc., 51-57, and the same writer's article "Number" in HDB; Sir J. Hawkins,. Horae Synopticae2, 163-67; Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, 155-69; "Number" in HDB (1-vol); EB; Jewish Encyclopedia;Smith, DB; "Numbers" in DCG; "Zahlen" in the Dicts. of Wiener, Riehm2, Guthe; "Zahlen" and "Sieben" in RE3.
William Taylor Smith
See GOLDEN NUMBER .
num'-berz:
1. Alleged Grounds of Distribution
(2) Written Record Not Impossible
(3) No Book Ever Thus Constructed
(4) Inherent Difficulties of Analysis
1. Seeming Chronological Inaccuracies
(1) The Second Passover (Numbers 9:1-5)
(2) The Thirty-seven Years' Chasm
2. So-called Statistical Errors
(1) Number of the Fighting Men
3. Alleged Physical Impossibilities
(2) Assembling of the Congregation
1. Against the Mosaic Authorship
(1) Alternating Use of Divine Names
(1) Certain Passages Have the Appearance of Having Been Written by Moses
(2) Acquaintance on the Part of the Author with Egyptian Manners and Customs
LITERATURE
Styled in the Hebrew Bible bemidhbar, "in the wilderness," from the 5th word in Nu 1:1, probably because of recording the fortunes of Israel in the Sinaitic desert. The 4th book of the Pentateuch (or of the Hexateuch, according to criticism) was designated Arithmoi in the Septuagint, and Numeri in the Vulgate, and from this last received its name "Numbers" in the King James Version, in all 3 evidently because of its reporting the 2 censuses which were taken, the one at Sinai at the beginning and the other on the plains of Moab at the close of the wanderings.
Of the contents the following arrangement will be sufficiently detailed:
(1) Before leaving Sinai, Nu 1:1 through 10:10 (a period of 19 days, from the 1st to the 20th of the 2nd month after the exodus), describing:
(a) The numbering and ordering of the people, Numbers 1 through 4.
(b) The cleansing and blessing of the congregation, Numbers 5; 6.
(c) The princes' offerings and the dedication of the altar, Numbers 7; 8.
(d) The observance of a second Passover, Nu 9:1-14.
(e) The cloud and the trumpets for the march, Nu 9:15 through 10:10.
(2) From Sinai to Kadesh, Nu 10:11 through 14:45 (a period of 10 days, from the 20th to the 30th of the 2nd month), narrating:
(a) The departure from Sinai, Nu 10:11-35.
(b) The events at Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah, Numbers 11.
(c) The rebellion of Miriam and Aaron, Numbers 12.
(d) The mission of the spies, Numbers 13; 14.
(3) The wanderings in the desert, Numbers 15 through 19 (a period of 37 years, from the end of the 2nd to the beginning of the 40th year), recording:
(a) Sundry laws and the punishment of a Sabbath breaker, Numbers 15.
(b) The rebellion of Korah, Numbers 16.
(c) The budding of Aaron's rod, Numbers 17.
(d) The duties and revenues of the priests and Levites, Numbers 18.
(e) The water of separation for the unclean, Numbers 19.
(4) From Kadesh to Moab, Numbers 20; 21 (a period of 10 months, from the beginning of the 40th year), reciting:
(a) The story of Balaam, Nu 22:2 through 24:25.
(b) The zeal of Phinehas, Numbers 25.
(c) The second census, Nu 26:1-51.
(d) Directions for dividing the land, Nu 26:52 through 27:11.
(e) Appointment of Moses' successor, Nu 27:12-23.
(f) Concerning offerings and vows, Numbers 28 through 30.
(g) War with Midian, Numbers 31.
(h) Settlement of Reuben and Gad, Numbers 32.
(i) List of camping stations, Nu 33:1-49.
(j) Canaan to be cleared of its inhabitants and divided, Nu 33:50 through 34:29.
(k) Cities of refuge to be appointed, Numbers 35.
(l) The marriage of heiresses, Numbers 36.
According to modern criticism, the text of Numbers, like that of the other books of the Pentateuch (or Hexateuch), instead of being regarded as substantially the work of one writer (whatever may have been his sources of information and whoever may have been its first or latest editor), should be distributed--not always in solid blocks of composition, but frequently in fragments, in sentences, clauses or words, so mysteriously put together that they cannot now with certainty be separated--among three writers, J, E and P with another D (at least in one part)--these writers, individuals and not schools (Gunkel), belonging, respectively: J to the 9th century BC (circa 830), E to the 8th century BC (circa 750), P to the 5th century BC (circa 444), and D to the 7th century BC (circa 621).
1. Alleged Grounds of Distribution:
The grounds upon which this distribution is made are principally these: (1) the supposed preferential use of the Divine names, of Yahweh (Yahweh, "Lord") by J, and of Elohim ("God") by E and P--a theory, however, which hopelessly breaks down in its application, as Orr (POT, chapter vii), Eerdmans (St, 33 ff) and Wiener (EPC, I) have conclusively shown, and as will afterward appear; (2) distinctions in style of composition, which are not always obvious and which, even if they were, would not necessarily imply diversity of authorship unless every author's writing must be uniform and monotonous, whatever his subject may be; and (3) perhaps chiefly a preconceived theory of religious development in Israel, according to which the people in pre-Mosaic times were animists, totemists and polytheists; in Mosaic times and after, henotheists or worshippers of one God, while recognizing the existence of other gods; and latterly, in exilic and post-exilic times, monotheists or worshippers of the one living and true God--which theory, in order to vindicate its plausibility, required the reconstruction of Israel's religious documents in the way above described, but which is now rejected by archaeologists (Delitzsch and A. Jeremias) and by theologians (Orr, Baentsch (though accepting the analysis on other grounds) and Konig) as not supported by facts.
Without denying that the text-analysis of criticism is on the first blush of it both plausible and attractive and has brought to light valuable information relative to Scripture, or without overlooking the fact that it has behind it the names of eminent scholars and is supported by not a few considerations of weight, one may fairly urge against it the following objections.
At the best, theory is an unproved and largely imaginary hypothesis, or series of hypotheses--"hypothesis built on hypothesis" (Orr); and nothing more strikingly reveals this than (a) the frequency with which in the text-analysis conjecture ("perhaps" and "probably") takes the place of reasoned proof (b) the arbitrary manner in which the supposed documents are constructed by the critics who, without reason given, and often in violation of their own rules and principles, lift out of J (for instance) every word or clause they consider should belong to E or the Priestly Code (P), and vice versa every word or clause out of E or P that might suggest that the passage should be assigned to J, at the same time explaining the presence of the inconvenient word or clause in a document to which it did not belong by the careless or deliberate action of a redactor; and (c) the failure even thus to construct the documents successfully, most critics admitting that J and E cannot with confidence be separated from each other--Kuenen himself saying that "the attempt to make out a Jehovistic and an Elohistic writer or school of writers by means of the Divine names has led criticism on a wrong way"; and some even denying that P ever existed as a separate document at all, Eerdmans (St, 33, 82), in particular, maintaining, as the result of elaborate exegesis, that P could not have been constructed in either exilic or post-exilic times "as an introduction to a legal work."
(2) Written Record Not Impossible.
It is impossible to demonstrate that the story of Israel's "wanderings" was not committed to writing by Moses, who certainly was not unacquainted with the art of writing, who had the ability, if any man had, to prepare such a writing, whose interest it was, as the leader of his people, to see that such writing, whether done by himself or by others under his supervision, was accurate, and who besides had been commanded by God to write the journeyings of Israel (Nu 33:2). To suppose that for 500 years no reliable record of the fortunes of Israel existed, when during these years writing was practiced in Egypt and Babylon; and that what was then fixed in written characters was only the tradition that had floated down for 5 centuries from mouth to mouth, is simply to say that little or no dependence can be placed upon the narrative, that while there may be at the bottom of it some grains of fact, the main body of it is fiction. This conclusion will not be readily admitted.
(3) No Book Ever Thus Constructed.
No reliable evidence exists that any book either ancient or modern was ever constructed as, according to criticism, the Pentateuch, and in particular Numbers, was. Volumes have indeed been composed by two or more authors, acting in concert, but their contributions have never been intermixed as those of J, E, D and P are declared to have been; nor, when joint authorship has been acknowledged on the title-page, has it been possible for readers confidently to assign to each author his own contribution. And yet, modern criticism, dealing with documents more than 2,000 years old and in a language foreign to the critics--which documents, moreover, exist only in manuscripts not older than the 10th century AD (Buhl, Canon and Text of the Old Testament, 28), and the text of which has been fixed not infallibly either as to consonant or vowel--claims that it can tell exactly (or nearly so) what parts, whether paragraphs, sentences, clauses or words, were supplied by J, E, P and D respectively. Credat Judaeus Apella!
(4) Inherent Difficulties of Analysis.
The critical theory, besides making of the text of Numbers, as of the other books of the Pentateuch, such a patchwork as is unthinkable in any document with ordinary pretension to historical veracity, is burdened with inherent difficulties which make it hard to credit, as the following examples taken from Numbers, will show.
Numbers 13 and 14 are thus distributed by Cornill, Driver, Strack and E B:
JE, Nu 13:17b-20,22-24,26b-31,32b,33; 14:3,4,8,9,11-25,39-45.
P, Nu 13:1-17a,21,25,26a (to Paran),32a; 14:1,2 (in the main),5-7,10,26-38 (in the main).
Kautzsch generally agrees; and Hartford-Battersby in HDB professes ability to divide between J and E.
(i) According to this analysis, however, up to the middle of the 5th century BC, either JE began at Nu 13:17b, in which case it wanted both the instruction to search the land and the names of the searchers, both of which were subsequently added from P (assuming it to have been a separate document, which is doubtful); or, if JE contained both the instruction and the names, these were supplanted by 13:1-17a from P. As the former of these alternatives is hardly likely, one naturally asks why the opening verses of JE were removed and those of P substituted? And if they were removed, what has become of them? Does not the occurrence of Yahweh in 13:1-17a, on the critical principles of some, suggest that this section is the missing paragraph of JE?
(ii) If the JE passages furnish a nearly complete narrative (Driver), why should the late compiler or editor have deemed it necessary to insert two whole verses, 13:21 and 25, and two halves, 13:26a and 32a, if not because without these the original JE narrative would have been incomplete? Nu 13:21 states in general terms that the spies searched the whole land, proceeding as far North as Hamath, after which 13:22 mentions that they entered the country from the South and went up to Hebron and Eshcol, without at all stating an incongruity (Gray) or implying (Driver) that they traveled no farther North--the reason for specifying the visit to Eshcol being the interesting fact that there the extraordinary cluster of grapes was obtained. Nu 13:25,26a relate quite naturally that the spies returned to Kadesh after 40 days and reported what they had found to Moses and Aaron as well as to all the congregation. Without these verses the narrative would have stated neither how long the land had been searched nor whether Moses and Aaron had received any report from their messengers, although 13:26b implies that a report was given to some person or persons unnamed. That Moses and Aaron should not have been named in JE is exceedingly improbable. Nu 13:32a is in no way inconsistent with 13:26b-31, which state that the land was flowing with milk and honey. What 13:32a adds is an expression of the exaggerated fears of the spies, whose language could not mean that the land was so barren that they would die of starvation, a statement which would have expressly contradicted 13:27 (JE)--in which case why should it have been inserted?--but that, notwithstanding its fruitfulness, the population was continually being wasted by internecine wars and the incursions of surrounding tribes. The starvation theory, moreover, is not supported by the texts (Lev 26:38; Ezek 36:13) usually quoted in its behalf.
(iii) To argue (Driver) for two documents because Joshua is not always mentioned along with Caleb is not strikingly convincing; while if Joshua is not included among the spies in JE, that is obviously because the passages containing his name have been assigned beforehand to P. But if Joshua's name did not occur in JE, why would it have been inserted in the story by a post-exilic writer, when even in Dt 1:36 Joshua is not expressly named as one of the spies, though again the language in Dt 1:38 tacitly suggests that both Caleb and Joshua were among the searchers of the land, and that any partition of the text which conveys the impression that Joshua was not among the spies is wrong?
(iv) If the text-analysis is as the critics arrange, how comes it that in JE the name Yahweh does not once occur, while all the verses containing it are allocated to P?
Numbers 16 and 17 are supposed to be the work of "two, if not three," contributors (Driver, Kautzsch)--the whole story being assigned to P (enlarged by additions about which the text analysts are not unanimous), with the exception of 16:1b,2a,12-15,25,26,27b-34, which are given to JE, though variations here also are not unknown.
It is admitted that the JE verses, if read continuously, make out a story of Dathan and Abiram as distinguished from Korah and his company; that the motives of Dathan and Abiram probably differed from those of Korah and his company, and that Dathan and Abiram were swallowed up by an earthquake, while the 250 incense-offerers were destroyed by fire. To conclude from this, however, that three or even two narratives have been intermixed is traveling beyond the premises.
(i) If JE contained more about the conspiracy of the Reubenites, Dathan and Abiram, than has been preserved in the verses assigned to it, what has become of the excised verses, if they are not those ascribed to P; and, if they are not, what evidence exists that P's verses are better than the lost verses of JE? And how comes it that in P the Divine name used throughout, with one exception, 16:22, is Yahweh, while in JE it occurs only 6 t? (ii) If JE contained only the parts assigned to it and nothing more happened than the Reubenite emeute, why should the Korahite rebellion have been added to it 4 centuries later, if that rebellion never happened? (iii) If the Korahite conspiracy did happen, why should it have been omitted in JE, and nothing whispered about it till after the exile? (iv) If the two conspiracies, ecclesiastical (among the princes) and civil (among the laymen), arose contemporaneously, and the conspirators made common cause with one another, in that there was nothing unusual or contrary to experience. (v) If Moses addressed himself now to Korah and again to Dathan and Abiram, why should not the same document say so? (vi) If Dathan and Abiram were engulfed by an earthquake, and the 250 princes were consumed by fire from the tabernacle, even that does not necessitate two documents, since both events might have occurred together. (vii) It is not certain that P (16:35-43) represents Korah as having been consumed by fire, while JE (16:31-33) declares he was swallowed up by the earth. At least P (26:10) distinctly states that Korah was swallowed up by the earth, and that only the 250 were consumed by fire.
Wherefore, in the face of these considerations, it is not too much to say that the evidence for more documents than one in this story is not convincing.
Numbers 22 through 24 fare more leniently at the hands of analysis, being all left with JE, except 22:1, which is generously handed over to P. Uncertainty, however, exists as to how to partition chapter 22 between J and E. Whether all should be given to E because of the almost uniform use of Elohim rather than of Yahweh, with the exception of 22:22-35a, which are the property of J because of the use of Yahweh (Driver, Kautzsch); or whether some additional verses should not be assigned to J (Cornill, HDB), critics are not agreed. As to Numbers 23 and 24, authorities hesitate whether to give both to J or to E, or chapter 23 to E and chapter 24 to J, or both to a late redactor who had access to the two sources--surely an unsatisfactory demonstration in this case at least of the documentary hypothesis. Comment on the use of the Divine names in this story is reserved till later.
Yet, while declining to accept this hypothesis as proved, it is not contended that the materials in Nu are always arranged in chronological order, or that the style of composition is throughout the same, or that the book as it stands has never been revised or edited, but is in every jot and tittle the same as when first constructed. In Numbers 7, e.g., the narrative goes back to the 1st day of the 1st month of the 2nd year, and in chapter 9 to the 1st month of the 2nd year, though chapter 1 begins with the 1st day of the 2nd month of the 2nd year. There are also legislative passages interspersed among the historical, and poetical among the prosaic, but diversity of authorship, as already suggested, cannot be inferred from either of these facts unless it is impossible for a writer to be sometimes disorderly in the arrangement of his materials; and for a lawgiver to be also a historian, and for a prose writer occasionally to burst into song. Assertions like these, however, cannot be entertained. Hence, any argument for plurality of documents rounded on them must be set aside. Nor is it a fair conclusion against the literary unity of the book that its contents are varied in substance and form and have been subjected, as is probable, to revision and even to interpolations, provided always these revisions and interpolations have not changed the meaning of the book. Whether, therefore, the Book of Nu has or has not been compiled from preexisting documents, it cannot be justly maintained that the text-analysis suggested by the critics has been established, or that the literary unity of Nu has been disproved.
Were the narrative in this book written down immediately or soon after the events it records, no reason would exist for challenging its authenticity, unless it could be shown either from the narrative itself or from extraneous sources that the events chronicled were internally improbable, incredible or falsified. Even should it be proved that the text consists of two or more preexisting documents interwoven with one another, this would not necessarily invalidate its truthfulness, if these documents were practically contemporaneous with the incidents they report, and were not combined in such a way as to distort and misrepresent the occurrences they related. If, however, these pre-existing documents were prepared 500 (JE) or 1,000 (P) years after the incidents they narrate, and were merely a fixing in written characters of traditions previously handed down (JE), or of legislation newly invented and largely imaginary (P), it will not be easy to establish their historical validity. The credibility of this portion of the Pentateuch has been assailed on the alleged ground that it contains chronological inaccuracies, statistical errors and physical impossibilities.
1. Seeming Chronological Inaccuracies:
(1) The Second Passover (Numbers 9:1-5)
The critical argument is that a contemporary historian would naturally have placed this paragraph before Nu 1:1. The answer is that possibly he would have done so had his object been to observe strict chronological order, which it manifestly was not (see Numbers 7 and 9), and had he when commencing the book deemed it necessary to state that the Israelites had celebrated a second Passover on the legally appointed day, the 14th of the 1st month of the 2nd year. This, however, he possibly at first assumed would be understood, and only afterward, when giving the reason for the supplementary Passover, realized that in after years readers might erroneously conclude that this was all the Passover that had been kept in the 2nd year. So to obviate any such mistaken inference, he prefixed to his account of the Little Passover, as it is sometimes called, a statement to the effect that the statutory ordinance, the Great Passover, had been observed at the usual time, in the usual way, and that, too, in obedience to the express commandment of Yahweh.
(2) The Thirty-seven Years' Chasm.
Whether Nu 20:1 be considered the beginning of the 3rd or of the 40th year, in either case a period of 37 years is passed over--in the one case in almost unbroken silence; in the other with scarcely anything of moment recorded save Korah's rebellion and the publication of a few laws concerning offerings to be made when the people reached the land of their habitation. To pronounce the whole book unhistorical because of this long interval of absolute or comparative silence (Bleek) is unreasonable. Most histories on this principle would be cast into the wastebasket. Besides, a historian might have as good reason for passing over as for recording the incidents of any particular period. And this might have been the case with the author of Numbers. From the moment sentence of death was passed upon the old generation at Kadesh, till the hour when the new generation started out for Canaan, he may have counted that Israel had practically ceased to be the people of Yahweh, or at least that their fortunes formed no part of the history of Yahweh's kingdom; and it is noticeable that scarcely had the tribes reassembled at Kadesh in preparation for their onward march than Miriam and Aaron, probably the last of the doomed generation, died. Accordingly, from this point on, the narrative is occupied with the fortunes of the new generation. Whether correct or not, this solution of the 37 years' silence (Kurtz) is preferable to that which suggests (Ewald) that the late compiler, having found it impossible to locate all the traditions he had collected into the closing years of the wanderings, placed the rest of them in the first 2 years, and left the interval a blank--a solution which has not even the merit of being clever and explains nothing. It does not explain why, if the narrator was not writing history, there should have been an interval at all. A romancer would not have missed so splendid an opportunity for exercising his art, would not have left a gap of 37 years unfilled, but like the writers of the apocryphal Gospels would have crowded it with manufactured tales.
On the better theory, not only is the silence explained, but the items inserted are accounted for as well. Though the unbelieving generation had ceased to be the people of Yahweh, Aaron had not yet been sentenced to exclusion from the promised land, He was still one of the representatives of the kingdom of Yahweh, and Korah's rebellion practically struck a blow at that kingdom. As such it was punished, and the story of its breaking out and suppression was recorded, as a matter that vitally concerned the stability of the kingdom. For a like reason, the legislative sections were included in the narrative. They were Yahweh's acts and not the people's. They were statutes and ordinances for the new generation in the new land.
The events recorded as having taken place between the 1st of the 5th month (the date of Aaron's death) and the 1st of the 11th month (the date of Moses' address) are so numerous and important as to render it impossible, it is said, to maintain the credibility of this portion of the narrative. But (a) it is not certain that all the events in this section were finished before Moses began his oration; neither (b) is it necessary to hold that they all occurred in succession; while (c) until the rapidity with which events followed one another is ascertained, it will not be possible to decide whether or not they could all have been begun and finished within the space of 6 months.
2. So-called Statistical Errors:
(1) Number of the Fighting Men.
This, which may be set down roughly at 600,000, has been challenged on two grounds: (a) that the number is too large, and (b) that the censuses at Sinai and in Moab are too nearly equal. The first of these objections will be considered in the following section when treating of the size of the congregation. The second will not appear formidable if it be remembered (a) that it is neither impossible nor unusual for the population of a country to remain stationary for a long series of years; (b) that there was a special fitness in Israel's ease that the doomed generation should be replaced by one as nearly as possible equal to that which had perished; (c) that had the narrative been invented, it is more than likely that the numbers would have been made either exactly equal or more widely divergent; and (d) that so many variations occurring in the strength of the tribes as numbered at Sinai and again in Moab, while the totals so nearly correspond, constitutes a watermark of truthfulness which should not be overlooked.
Taking the fighting men at 600,000 and the whole community at 4 1/2 times that number, or about 2 1/2 millions, several difficulties emerge which have led to the suggestion (Eerdmans, Conder, Wiener) that the 600,000 should be reduced (to, say, 6,000), and the entire population to less than 30,000. The following alleged impossibilities are believed to justify this reduction: (a) that of 70 families increasing to 2 1/2 millions between the descent into, and the departure from, Egypt; (b) that of 2 1/2 millions being led out of Egypt in one day; (c) that of obtaining support for so large a multitude with their flocks in the Sinaitic desert; (d) that of finding room for them either before the Mount at Sinai, or in the limited territory of Palestine; and (e) that of the long time it took to conquer Palestine if the army was 600,000 strong.
As to the possibility of 70 souls multiplying in the course of 215 years or 7 generations (to take the shorter interval rather than the longer of 430 years) into 2 1/2 millions of persons giving 600,000 fighting men, that need not be regarded as incredible till the rate of increase in each family is exactly known. Allowing to each of Jacob's grandsons who were married (say 51 out of 53), 4 male descendants (Colenso allows 4 1/2), these would in 7 generations--not in 4 (Colenso)--amount to 835,584, and with surviving fathers and grandfathers added might well reach 900,000, of whom 600,000 might be above 20 years of age. But in point of fact, without definite data about the number of generations, the rates of birth and of mortality in each generation, all calculations are at the best problematical. The most that can be done is to consider whether the narrative mentions any circumstances fitted to explain this large number of fighting men and the great size of the congregation, and then whether the customary objections to the Biblical statement can be satisfactorily set aside.
As for corroborative circumstances, the Bible expressly states that during the years of the oppression the Hebrews were extraordinarily fruitful, and that this was the reason why Pharaoh became alarmed and issued his edict for the destruction of the male children. The fruitfulness of the Hebrews, however, has been challenged (Eerdmans, Verger schichte Israels, 78) on the ground that were the births so numerous as this presupposes, two midwives (Ex 1:15) would not have sufficed for the necessary offices. But if the two to whom Pharaoh spake were the superintendents of the midwives throughout Goshen, to whom the king would hardly address himself individually, or if they were the two officiating in Hellopolls, the statement in Ex 1:15 will appear natural enough, and not opposed to the statement in Ex 1:10 that Pharaoh was alarmed at the multiplication of the Hebrews in his land. And, indeed, if the Hebrews were only 30,000 strong, it is not easy to see why the whole might of Egypt could not have kept them in subjection. Then as to the congregation being 2 1/2 millions if the 2 fighting men were 600,000, that corresponds with the proportion which existed among the Helvetii, who had 92,000 men capable of bearing arms out of a population, including children, old men and women, of 368,000 souls (Caesar, BG, i, 20). This seems to answer the objection (Eerdmans, Vorgeschichte Israels, 78) that the unschooled Oriental is commonly addicted to exaggeration where numbers are concerned.
The second difficulty would be serious were it necessary to suppose that the Israelites had never heard about their projected journey till the 14th of the 1st month. But the idea of going forth from Egypt must have been before them since the day Moses went to Pharaoh to demand their liberation; and at least 4 days before the 14th they had begun to prepare for departure. In circumstances such as these, with a people thirsting for liberty and only waiting the signal to move, aware also of the hour at which that signal would be given, namely, at midnight, it does not appear so formidable a task as is imagined to get them all assembled in one day at a fore-appointed rendezvous, more especially as they were not likely to delay or linger in their movements. But how could there have been 2 1/2 millions of fugitives, it is asked (Eerdmans, Wiener), if Pharaoh deemed 600 chariots sufficient for pursuit? The answer is that Pharaoh did not reckon 600 chariots sufficient, but in addition to these, which were "chosen chariots," he took all the chariots of Egypt, his horsemen and his army (Ex 14:7,9), which were surely adequate to overcome a weaponless crowd, however big it might be. And that it was big, a vast horde indeed, Pharaoh's host implies.
The supposed difficulty of obtaining support for 2 1/2 millions of people with the flocks and herds in the Sinaitic desert takes for granted that the desert was then as barren a region as it is now, which cannot be proved, and is as little likely to be correct as it would be to argue that Egypt, which was then the granary of the world, was no more fertile than it was 10 years ago, or that the regions in which Babylon and Assyria were situated were as desolate then as they are now. This supposition disregards the fact that Moses fed the flocks of Jethro for 40 years in that same region of Sinai; that when the Israelites passed through it, it was inhabited by several powerful tribes. It overlooks, too, the fact that the flocks and herds of Israel were not necessarily all cooped up in one spot, but were most likely spread abroad in districts where water and vegetation could be found. And it ignores the statement in the narrative that the Israelites were not supplied exclusively by the produce of the desert, but had manna from heaven from the 1st day of the 2nd month after leaving Egypt till they reached Canaan. Rationalistic expositors may relegate this statement to the limbo of fable, but unless the supernatural is to be eliminated altogether from the story, this statement must be accorded its full weight. So must the two miraculous supplies of water at Horeb (Ex 17) and at Kadesh (Nu 20) be treated. It is sometimes argued that these supplies were quite insufficient for 2 1/2 millions of people with their flocks and herds; and that therefore the congregation could not have been so large. But the narrative in Nu states, and presumably it was the same in Exodus, that the smitten rock poured forth its water so copiously and so continuously that `the people drank abundantly with their flocks.' Wherefore no conclusion can be drawn from this against the reported size of the congregation.
As to the impossibility of finding room for 2 1/2 millions of people either before the Mount at Sinai or within the land of Canaan (Conder), few will regard this as self-evident. If the site of their encampment was the Er-Rahab plain (Robinson, Stanley)--though the plain of Sebayeh, admittedly not so roomy, has been mentioned (Ritter, Kurtz, Knobel)--estimates differ as to the sufficiency of accommodation to be found there. Conder gives the dimensions of the plain as 4 square miles, which he deems insufficient, forgetting, perhaps, that "its extent is farther increased by lateral valleys receding from the plain itself" (Forty Days in the Desert, 73; compare Keil on Ex 19:1,2). Kalisch, though putting the size of the plain at a smaller figure, adds that "it thus furnished ample tenting ground for the hosts of Israel"--a conclusion accepted by Ebers, Riehm and others. In any case it seems driving literal interpretation to extreme lengths to hold that camping before the Mount necessarily meant that every member of the host required to be in full view of Sinai. As to not finding room in Canaan, it is doubtful if, after the conquest, the remnants of both peoples at any time numbered as many persons as dwelt in Palestine during the most flourishing years of the kingdom. It may well be that the whole population of Palestine today amounts to only about 600,000 souls; but Palestine today under Turkish rule is no proper gauge for judging of Palestine under David or even under Joshua.
The long time it took to conquer Palestine (Eerdmans, Vorgeschichte Israels, 78) is no solid argument to prove the unreliable character of the statement about the size of the army, and therefore of the congregation. Every person knows that in actual warfare, victory does not always go with the big battalions; and in this instance the desert-trained warriors allowed themselves to be seduced by the idolatries and immoralities of the Canaanites and forgot to execute the commission with which they had been entrusted, namely, to drive out the Canaanites from the land which had been promised to their fathers. Had they been faithful to Yahweh, they would not have taken so long completely to possess the land (Ps 81:13,14). But if instead of having 600,000 stalwart soldiers they had only possessed 6,000, it is not difficult to see how they could not drive out the Canaanites. The difficulty is to perceive how they could have achieved as much as they did.
That the 22,273 firstborn males from 1 month old and upward (Nu 3:43) is out of all proportion to the 603,550 men of 20 years old and upward, being much too few, has frequently (Bleek, Bohlen, Colenso and others) been felt as a difficulty, since it practically involves the conclusion that for every firstborn there must have been 40 or 45 males in each family. Various solutions of this difficulty have been offered. The prevalence of polygamy has been suggested (Michaelis, Havernick). The exclusion of firstborn sons who were married, the inclusion only of the mother's firstborn, and the great fruitfulness of Hebrew mothers have been called in to surmount the difficulty (Kurtz). But perhaps the best explanation is that only those were counted who were born after the Law was given on the night of the departure from Egypt (Ex 13:2; Nu 3:13; 8:17) (Keil, Delitzsch, Gerlach). It may be urged, of course, that this would require an exceptionally large number of births in the 13 months; but in the exceptionally joyous circumstances of the emancipation this might not have been impossible. In any case, it does not seem reasonable on account of this difficulty, which might vanish were all the facts known, to impeach the historical accuracy of the narrative, even in this particular.
(NOTE.--In Scotland, with a population of nearly double that of the Israelites, namely, 4,877,648, the marriages in 1909 were 30,092, the lowest on record for 55 years. At this rate the births in Israel during the first 12 months after the exodus might have been 15,046, assuming each marriage to have had issue. As this marriage rate, however, is excessively low for Scotland in normal years, the number of marriages and therefore of births in Israel in the first year after the exodus may well have been twice, if not 3 times, 15,046, i.e. 30,092, or 45,138. Reckoning the half of these as males, namely, 15,046 or 22,569, it does not appear as if the number of the firstborn in the text were quite impossible, on the supposition made.)
3. Alleged Physical Impossibilities:
These are supposed to have been so onerous that Aaron and his sons could not possibly have performed them. But (a) the Levitical laws, though published in the desert, were not necessarily intended to receive full and minute observance there, but only in Canaan. (b) In point of fact, as Moses afterward testified (Dt 12:8), the Levitical laws were not scrupulously kept in the wilderness. (c) There is no reason to suppose that the Passover of the 2nd year was celebrated otherwise than it had been in Egypt before the exodus, the slaughtering of the lambs being performed by the heads of families. And (d) as the Levites were set apart to minister to the tabernacle (Nu 1:50), they would be able in many ways to assist the priests.
(2) Assembling of the Congregation.
The assembling of the congregation at the door of the tabernacle (Nu 10:3,4) has been adduced as another physical impossibility; and no doubt it was if every man, woman and child, or even only every man was expected to be there; but not if the congregation was ordinarily represented by its "renowned" or "called" men, princes of the tribes of their fathers, heads of thousands of Israel (Nu 1:16). To suppose that anything else was meant is surely not required. When Moses called all Israel and spake unto them (Dt 5:1; 29:2), no intelligent person understands that he personally addressed every individual, or spoke so as to be heard by every individual, though what he said was intended for all. An additional difficulty in the way of assembling the congregation, and by implication an argument against the size of the congregation, has been discovered in the two silver trumpets which, it is contended, were too few for summoning so vast a host as 2 1/2 millions of people. But it is not stated in the narrative either (a) that it was absolutely necessary that every individual in the camp should hear the sound of the trumpets any more than it was indispensable that Balaam's curse should re-echo to the utmost bounds of Israel (Nu 23:13), or that a public proclamation by a modern state, though prefaced by means of an "Oyez," should be heard by all within the state or even within its capital; or (b) if it was necessary that everyone should hear, that the trumpeters could not move about through the camp but must remain stationary at the tabernacle door; or (c) that in the clear air of the desert the sound of the trumpets would not travel farther than in the noisy and murky atmosphere of modern cities; or (d) that should occasion arise for more trumpets than two, Moses and his successors were forbidden to make them.
The marching of the host in four main divisions of about half a million each (Nu 2; 10:14-20) has also been pronounced a stumbling-block (Colenso, Eerdmans, Doughty), inasmuch as the procession formed (i.e. if no division began to fall into line till its predecessor had completed its evolutions) would require the whole day for its completion, and would make a column of unprecedented length--of 22 miles (Colenzo), of 600 miles (Doughty)--and would even on the most favorable hypothesis travel only a few miles, when the whole line would again need to reconstruct the camp. The simple statement of this shows its absurdity as an explanation of what actually took place on the march, and indirectly suggests that the narrative may be historical after all, as no romancer of a late age would have risked his reputation by laying down such directions for the march, if they were susceptible of no other explanation than the above. How precisely the march was conducted may be difficult or even impossible to describe in such a way as to obviate all objections. But some considerations may be advanced to show that the march through the desert was neither impossible nor incredible. (a) The deploying of the four main divisions into line may have gone on simultaneously, as they were widely apart from each other, on the East (Judah), on the South (Reuben), on the West (Ephraim) and on the North (Dan). (b) There is no ground for thinking that the march would be conducted, at least at first, with the precision of a modern army, or that each division would extend itself to the length of 22 miles. It is more than likely that they would follow their standards as best they could or with such order as could be arranged by their captains. (c) If the camps of Judah and Reuben started their preparations together, say at 6 o'clock in the morning (which might be possible), and occupied 4 hours in completing these, they might begin to advance at 10 o'clock and cover 10 miles in another 4 hours, thus bringing them on to 2 PM, after which 4 hours more would enable them to encamp themselves for the night, if that was necessary. The other two divisions falling into line, say at 2 o'clock, would arrive at 6 PM, and by 10 PM would be settled for the night. (d) It does not seem certain that every night upon the march they would arrange themselves into a regularly constructed camp; rather it is reasonable to conclude that this would be done only when they had reached a spot where a halt was to be made for some time. (e) In any case, in the absence of more details as to how the march was conducted, arithmetical calculations are of little value and are not entitled to discredit the truthfulness of the narrative.
This has been objected to on moral grounds which are not now referred to. It is the supposed impossibility of 12,000 Israelites slaying all the male Midianites, capturing all their women and children, including 32,000 virgins, seizing all their cattle and flocks, with all their goods, and burning all their cities and castles without the loss of a single man (Nu 31:49), which occasions perplexity. Yet Scripture relates several victories of a similar description, as e.g. that of Abraham over the kings of the East (Gen 14:15), in which, so far as the record goes, no loss was incurred by the patriarch's army; that of Gideon's 300 over the Midianites at a later date (Jdg 7:22); that of Samson single-handed over 1,000 Philistines (Jdg 15:15); and that of Jehoshaphat at the battle of Tekoa (2 Ch 20:24), which was won without a blow--all more or less miraculous, no doubt. But in profane history, Tacitus (Ann. xiii.39) relates an instance in which the Romans slaughtered all their foes without losing a single man; and Strabo (xvi.1128) mentions a battle in which 1,000 Arabs were slain by only 2 Romans; while the life of Saladin contains a like statement concerning the issue of a battle (Havernick, Intro, 330). Hence, Israel's victory over Midian does not afford sufficient ground for challenging its historic credibility.
Restricting attention to evidence from Nu itself, it may be remarked in a general way that the question of authorship is practically settled by what has been advanced on its literary structure and historical credibility. For, if the materials of the book were substantially the work of one pen (whoever may have been their first collector or last redactor), and if these materials are upon the whole trustworthy, there will be little room to doubt that the original pen was in the hand of a contemporary and eyewitness of the incidents narrated, and that the contemporary and eyewitness was Moses, who need not, however, have set down everything with his own hand, all that is necessary to justify the ascription of the writing to him being that it should have been composed by his authority and under his supervision. In this sense it is believed that indications are not wanting in the book both against and for the Mosaic authorship; and these may now be considered.
1. Against the Mosaic Authorship:
(1) Alternating Use of Divine Names.
This usage, after forming so characteristic a feature in Gen and largely disappearing in Exodus and Leviticus, reasserts itself in Numbers, and more particularly in the story of Balaam. If Numbers 23 and 24 can be explained only as late documents pieced together, because of the use of "God" in chapter 23 and of "Lord" in chapter 24, then Moses was not their author. But if the varying use of the divine names is susceptible of explanation on the assumption that the two chapters originally formed one document, then most distinctly the claim of Moses to authorship is not debarred. Now whether Balaam was a false or a true prophet, it is clear that he could hope to please Balak only by cursing Israel in the name of Yahweh, the God 'Elohim of Israel; and so it is always Yahweh he consults or pretends to consult before replying to the messengers of Balak. Four times he did so (22:8,19; 23:3,15); and 3 times it was Elohim who met him (22:9,20; 23:14), while every time it was Yahweh who put the word in his mouth. Can any conclusion be fairer than that the historian regarded 'Elohim and Yahweh as the same Divine Being, and represented this as it were by a double emphasis, which showed (a) that the Yahweh whom Balaam consulted was Elohim or the supreme God, and (b) that the God who met Balaam and supplied him with oracles was Israel's Lord? Thus explained, the alternate use of the Divine names does not require the hypothesis of two single documents rolled into one; and indeed the argument from the use of the divine names is now generally abandoned.
(2) Traces of Late Authorship.
Traces of late authorship are believed to exist in several passages: (a) Nu 15:32-36 seems to imply that the writer was no longer in the wilderness, which may well have been the case, if already he was in the land of Moab. (b) 20:5 suggests, it is said, that the people were then in Canaan. But the language rather conveys the impression that they were not yet come to Canaan; and in point of fact the people were at Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin. (c) In 21:14,15,17,18,27-30, certain archaic songs are cited as if the people were familiar with them, and the Arnon is mentioned as the border of Moab long before Israel reached the river. But that poets were among the people at the time of the exodus and probably long before, the song of Moses (Ex 15) shows, and that a Book of the Wars of the Lord was begun to be composed soon after the defeat of Amalek is not an unreasonable hypothesis (Ex 17:14). As for the statement that "Arnon leaneth upon the borders of Moab," that may have been superfluous as a matter of information to the contemporaries of Moses when they were about to cross the stream (Strack, Einl, 25), but it was quite in place in an old prophetic song, as showing that their present position had been long before anticipated and foretold. (d) 24:7, according to criticism, could not have been composed before the rise of the monarchy; and certainly it could not, if prediction of future events is impossible. But if reference to a coming king in Israel was put into Balaam's mouth by the Spirit of God, as the narrator says, then it could easily have been made before the monarchy; and so could (e) 24:17,18 have been written before the reign of David, though the conquest of the Edomites only then began (2 Sam 8:14; 1 Ki 11:1; 1 Ch 18:12,13).
Examples such as these show that many, if not most, of the like objections against the Mosaic authorship of this book are capable of at least possible solution; and that Kuenen's caution should not be forgotten: "He who relies upon the impression made by the whole, without interrogation of the parts one by one, repudiates the first principles of all scientific research, and pays homage to superficiality" (Religion of Israel, I, 11).
(1) Certain Passages Have the Appearance of Having Been Written by Moses.
These are: (a) those which bear evidence of having been intended for a people not settled in cities but dwelling in tents and camps, as e.g. Numbers 1 through 4, describing the arrangements for the census and the formation of the camp; 6:24-26, the high-priestly benediction; 10:35,36, the orders for the marching and the halting of the host; 10:1-9, the directions about the silver trumpets; Numbers 19, the legislation which obviously presupposes the wilderness as the place for its observance (19:3,7,9,14). If criticism allows that these and other passages have descended from the Mosaic age, why should it be necessary to seek another author for them than Moses? And if Moses could have composed these passages, a presumption at least is created that the whole book has proceeded from his pen. (b) The patriotic songs taken from the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21), which some critics (Cornill, Kautzsch and others) hold cannot be later than 750 BC, are by equally competent scholars (Bleek, De Wette, E. Meyer, Konig and others) recognized as parts of Israel's inheritance from the Mosaic age, whenever they were incorporated in Numbers. (c) The list of camping stations (Numbers 33) is expressly assigned to him. Whether "by the commandment of the Lord" should be connected with the "journeys" (Konig) or the "writing" makes no difference as to the authorship of this chapter, at least in the sense that it is based on a Mosaic document (Strack). It is true that even if this chapter as it stands was prepared by Moses, that does not amount to conclusive evidence of the Mosaic authorship of the whole book. Yet it creates a presumption in its favor (Drechsler, Keil, Zahn). For why should Moses have been specially enjoined to write so comparatively uninteresting and unprofitable a document as a list of names, many of which are now incapable of identification, if that was all? But if Moses was already writing up a journal or history of the wanderings, whether by his own hand or by means of amanuenses, and whether by express command or without it (not an unreasonable supposition), there was no particular need to record that this was so. If, however, Moses was not thinking of preserving an itinerary, and God for reasons of His own desired that he should do so, then there was need for a special commandment to be given; and need that it should be recorded to explain why Moses incorporated in his book a list of names that in most people's judgment might have been omitted without imperiling the value of the book. Looked at in this way, the order to prepare this itinerary rather strengthens the idea of the Mosaic authorship of the whole book.
(2) Acquaintance on the Part of the Author with Egyptian Manners and Customs.
This points in the direction of Moses. (a) The trial by jealousy (Nu 5:11-31) may be compared with the tale of Setnau, belonging probably to the 3rd century BC, but relating to the times of Rameses II, in which Ptahnefer-ka, having found the book which the god Thoth wrote with his own hand, copied it on a piece of papyrus, dissolved the copy in water and drank the solution, with the result that he knew all the book contained (RP, IV, 138). (b) The consecration of the Levites (Nu 8:7) resembled the ablutions of the Egyptian priests who shaved their heads and bodies every 3rd day, bathed twice during the day and twice during the night, and performed a grand ceremony of purification, preparatory to their seasons of fasting, which sometimes lasted from 7 to 40 days and even more (WAE, I, 181). (c) Uncleanness from contact with the dead (Nu 19:11) was not unknown to the Egyptians, who required their priests to avoid graves, funerals and funeral feasts (Porphyry, De Abst. ii.50, quoted in Speaker's Comm.). (d) The fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic referred to in Nu 11:5 were articles of diet in Egypt (Herodotus ii.93): (e) The antiquarian statement about Hebron (13:22) fits in well with a writer in Mosaic times. "A later writer could have had no authority for making the statement and no possible reason for inventing it" (Pulpit Commentary on Numbers). On a candid review of all the arguments pro and con, it is not too much to say that the preponderance of evidence lies on the side of the substantial Mosaicity of the Book of Numbers.
LITERATURE.
Comms. on Nu by Bertheau (ET), Knobel, Keil (ET), Dillmann, Strack, Lange (English translation); in Speaker's Comm., Pulpit Comm., ICC (Gray); Biblical Intros of De Wette, Hengstenberg, Havernick, Bleek, Konig, Strack, Cornill, Driver; in encs, etc., RE, HDB, EB, Sch-Herz; critical comms.: Reuss, Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften AT; Kuenen, The Religion of Israel (English translation); Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels and Prolegomena (English translation); Klostermann, Der Pentateuch; Eerdmans, Alttest. Studien; Addis, Documents of Hexateuch; Olford Hexateuch; EPC.
T. Whitelaw
nu-me'-ni-us (Noumenios): The son of Antiochus, and Antipater were the two ambassadors whom Jonathan sent to the Romans, "to the Spartans, and to other places," after his victory in the plain of Hazor (Galilee) over the princes of Demetrius (1 Macc 12:1 ff) about 144 BC. Their mission was to confirm and renew the friendship and treaty which had existed from the days of Judas (1 Macc 8:17 ff). They were well received and successful, both at Rome (1 Macc 12:3 f) and at Sparta (1 Macc 12:19 ff; 14:22 f). After the death of Jonathan, the victories of Simon and the establishment of peace, Simon sent Numenius on a second embassy to Rome (1 Macc 14:24), again to confirm the treaty and present a golden shield weighing 1,000 minae--apparently just before the popular decree by which Simon was created high priest, leader and captain "for ever" (1 Macc 14:27 ff), September, 141 BC. The embassy returned in 139 BC, bearing letters from the senate to the kings of Egypt, Syria and "all the countries," confirming the integrity of Jewish territory, and forbidding these kings to disturb the Jews, and requiring them also to surrender any deserters (1 Macc 14:15 ff). See also LUCIUS ; Schurer, Gesch. des judischen Volkes (3rd and 4th editions), I, 236, 250 f.
S. Angus
noon ("n"): The 14th letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "n". It came also to be used for the number 50.
See ALPHABET , for name, etc.
nun (nun "fish," derivative meaning "fecundity"): Father of Joshua (referred to thus 29 t) (Ex 33:11; Nu 11:28, etc.; 1 Ch 7:27, margin "Non"; Sirach 46:1, margin "Nave").
nurs, nurs'-ing: "Nurse" in the King James Version represents two different Hebrew words: In 8 passages (Gen 24:59; 35:8; Ex 2:7 twice,9; 2 Ki 11:2; 2 Ch 22:11; Isa 49:23) the word--noun or verb--renders some form of the verb yanaq, "to suck." The feminine causative part. of this verb is commonly used to denote nurse or foster-mother. According to Ex 2:7 Moses' mother--"a nurse of the Hebrew women"--became, at Pharaoh's daughter's request, the foster-mother of the foundling. Joash, the son of Ahaziah, was in charge of a nurse until he was 7 years old (2 Ki 11:2; 2 Ch 22:11). But it is obvious that the term was used in a more general way, e.g. of a lady's maid or tire-woman. Rebekah was accompanied by her nurse when she left home to be married (Gen 24:59; 35:8). In 5 passages (Nu 11:12; Ruth 4:16; 2 Sam 4:4; Isa 49:23; 60:4 the King James Version) "nurse" represents the Hebrew word, 'aman, "to support," "be faithful," "nourish." The participle of this verb denoted a person who had charge of young children--a guardian or governess. Naomi took charge of Ruth's child "and became nurse unto it" (Ruth 4:16). In Nu 11:12 Moses asks whether he has to take charge of the Israelites "as a nursing-father carrieth the sucking child." The same word is found in 2 Ki 10:15 (the King James Version "them that brought up," i.e. "guardians of the sons of Ahab) and in Est 2:7 (the King James Version "and he brought up," i.e. he (Mordecai) adopted, his niece). Deutero-Isa uses both terms together (Isa 49:23) to describe the exalted position of Israel in the future when foreign kings and queens will offer their services and wait upon the chosen people.
In the solitary passage in the New Testament where "nurse" occurs, it renders the Greek word trophos. In this case the word does not mean a hired nurse, but a mother who nurses her own children (1 Thess 2:7).
T. Lewis
nur'-tur: The word occurs in the King James Version in Eph 6:4 as the translation of paideia, but the Revised Version (British and American) changes to "chastening," and uses "nurture" (verb) for the King James Version "bring up" (ektrepho) in the first part of the verse. Paideia has the idea of training and correction; in the Revised Version (British and American) 2 Esdras 8:12 for Latin erudio; and compare the King James Version The Wisdom of Solomon 3:11; Sirach 18:13 (paideuo), etc.
nuts:
(1) ('eghoz; karua; Arabic jauz, "the walnut" (Song 6:11)): This is certainly the walnut tree, Juglans regia, a native of Persia and the Himalayas which flourishes under favorable conditions in all parts of Palestine; particularly in the mountains. In such situations it attains the height of from 60 to 90 ft. A grove of such trees affords the most delightful shade.
(2) (boTnim; terebinthoi (Gen 43:11, margin "pistachio nuts")): The Hebrew is perhaps allied to the Arabic buTm, the "terebinth," which is closely allied to the Pistacia vera, Natural Order Anacardiaceae, which produces pistachio nuts. These nuts, known in Arabic as fistuq, are prime favorites with the people of Palestine. They are oblong, 3/4 inches long, with green, oily cotyledons. They are eaten raw and are also made into various sweets and confectionery. They are a product of Palestine, very likely to be sent as a present to Egypt (Gen 43:11).
E. W. G. Masterman