Bible Difficulties (30 page)

A better rainfall ensued from 2000 onward, though increased human activity has obscured the evidence for the real extent of the fluctuation from one century to another (ibid., p. 68). But such variables as these make it quite likely that the frequent description of fifteenth century Canaan as a "land flowing with milk and honey" points to an appreciably higher precipitation level in Moses' time than was true back Abraham's time.

The more fertile and productive the arable land became, the larger a population it could sustain.

4. Other ancient sources attest to the use of very large armies when military projects of special magnitude were under way. The Egyptian records are of little help in this connection, for apart from the Sixth-Dynasty inscription of Uni (Pritchard, ANET, p.

228), which states that King Pepi I sent into Asia an expeditionary force consisting of

"many ten-thousand," the Pharaohs contended themselves with lists of prisoners taken from the enemy. Even Thutmose III in his account of the Battle of Megiddo (ca. 1468

B.C.) neglects to mention the size of the armies involved (ibid., p. 235). The same is true of Ramses II in his self-laudatory report of the stalemate Battle of Kadesh, in which he halted the southward advance of the Hittites; he simply refers to three separate army divisions that are involved in the conflict (ibid., pp. 255-56). As for the Assyrian records, the Assyrian kings never seem to refer to the size of their own armed forces but pretty largely confine themselves to the number of enemy slain or prisoners taken. In his account of the Battle of Karkar, however, which he fought with Benhadad and Ahab in 853, Shalmaneser III states that Adadizri (as he calls Benhadad) had 20,000 infantry, 1,200 calvary, and 1,200 chariots; Ahab had 10,000 foot soldiers and 2,000 chariots; the king of Hamath contributed 10,000 infantry, 700 calvary, and 700 chariots (ibid., pp.

278-79). There were besides various smaller contingents from nine other kings arrayed against the Assyrians at Karkar; Shalmaneser claims to have killed 14,000 of them and to have chased the rest away. In another engagement he states that he slew 20,900 of

"Hadaezer's" warriors (ibid., p. 280). Sennacherib in his 701 campaign against Hezekiah and his Philistine allies claims to have deported 200,150 prisoners taken from forty-six walled cities of Judah and taken them off as prisoners to Assyria (ibid., p. 288). His father, Sargon II, took 27,290 captives from Samaria back in 721 (ibid., p. 285). There are no figures at all given for the Persian troops in the Behistun Rock Inscription of Darius I (ca. 495 B.C.).

129

As for the Greek historians, Herodotus (
Historia
7) states that when Xerxes, king of Persia, reviewed his troops for the invasion of Greece, "the whole land army together was found to amount to 1,700,000 men." This total was arrived at by marshaling 10,000

soldiers at a time, until all the men had been counted. The naval forces included 1,207

triremes, with specified contingents from Egypt, Cyprus, Phoenicia, and many other maritime areas. As for the battle contingents involved in the campaigns of Alexander the Great, the largest conflict in which he was engaged was probably the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 B.C. Arrian estimated the infantry of Darius III at about 1,000,000, plus 40,000 calvary. Alexander defeated him with only 40,000 infantry and 7,000

cavaliers (Charles Anthon,
A Classical Dictionary, Containing an Account of the
Principal Proper Names Mentioned in Ancient Authors
[New York: Harper & Bros., 1871], p. 107).

From these records we learn that even the army of Zerah the Ethiopian was by no means incredible in size for a major invasion force (cf. 2 Chron. 14:9). From the number of prisoners deported by the Assyrians, we gather that there was a rather high population level maintained in Palestine during the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. It is therefore a mistake to draw inferences from archaeological remains--as some scholars have done--

that indicate a comparatively sparse population for the Near East during this period. One very interesting discovery from the recent excavations at Ebla includes a set of cuneiform tablets (published by G. Pettinato and P. Matthiae, in "Aspetti Amministrativi e Topografici di Ebla nel III Millennio Av. Cr.,"
Rivista degli Studi Orientali
50 [1976]: (1-30), one of which lists the superintendents and prefects of the four major divisions of the capital city itself back in 2400 B.C. From these data the estimated population of Ebla was about 260,000 (cf. Heinrich von Siebenthal,
Die Koniglichen Tontafelarchive von Tell
Mardikh-Ebla
n.38, trans. into French by Suzanne Ruckstuhl, and appears as app. 4 in G.

Archer,
Introduction a lÀncien Testament,
Edition Emmaus [Switzerland: St.-Legier, 1978], pp. 570-85; cf. also G. Pettinato, "The Royal Archives of Tell Mardikh-Ebla,"

Biblical Archeologist
39 [2, 1976]: 44-52). This renders quite credible the implied population of Nineveh in Jonah's day: "120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left" (Jonah 4:11)--i.e., infants and toddlers. This would indicate a total of nearly 1,000,000 inhabitants in Greater Nineveh alone.

All these ancient references to high population seem to remove any firm base for the skepticism of modern critics who question the accuracy of the figures given in the Old Testament. At the same time it is noteworthy that the Hebrew historical accounts seem to be almost unique among the extant literature of the ancient Near East in giving the numbers of soldiers involved in the various invasions and battles therein recorded. It goes without saying that it is rather difficult to make a well documented comparison between Israelite and non-Israelite accounts of numbers involved in warfare or in national censuses when there are virtually no comparable accounts that have yet come to light from pagan sources from the same period.

Did the Levites enter their service in the sanctuary at the age of thirty (Num. 4:3),
twenty-five (Num. 8:24), or twenty (Ezra 3:8)?

130

Numbers 4:3 states quite explicitly, "From thirty years and upward, even to fifty years old, [are] all [the Levites] who enter the service to do the work in the tent of meeting"

(NASB). Eligibility for full service in assisting the priests in the transportation and upkeep of the furniture and holy vessels of the tabernacle was restricted to those who were at least thirty years of age.

In Numbers 8:24, however, it is stated in connection with their service at the sanctuary:

"This is what applies to the Levites: from twenty-five years old and upward they shall enter to perform service in the work of the tent of meeting" (NASB). Jamieson (Jamieson-Fausett-Brown,
Commentary
, ad loc.) suggests: "They entered on their work in their twenty-fifth year as pupils and probationers, under the superintendence and direction of their senior brethren; and at thirty they were admitted to the full discharge of their official functions." This inference, drawn from a careful comparison of the two passages, seems to be altogether reasonable. It furnishes an analogy to the training period through which candidates for the gospel ministry are expected to pass before they receive full ordination, with the right to baptize or perform wedding ceremonies and the like.

For five years the younger Levites had an opportunity to observe the procedures and guiding principles followed by those engaged in full Levitical responsibility--the proper method of moving the lampstand, the table of showbread, the two altars, and so on--and the proper disposition of the bowls and jars, the spoons and snuffers, the holy oil and the water of purification, and all the rest. There were also chores related to the upkeep of the tabernacle grounds and the service to the worshipers who came to sacrifice at the alter.

Apparently young Samuel, even as a lad much younger than twenty-five, was involved in such duties, with particular responsibilities as Eli's houseboy (1 Sam. 3:1). In other words, there were many different types and grades of service to be cared for by underage Levites, even before they were old enough to enter their apprenticeship at the age of twenty-five.

As for the Levites referred to in Ezra 3:8, two factors need to be carefully noted. The first is that in both Ezra 2:40 and Nehemiah 7:43 the number of Levites involved in the return from Babylon was only 74. There was a substantially larger number of gatekeepers and temple servants, and the priests who joined in the return to Jerusalem numbered 4,289 (Ezra 2:36-39). Therefore the Levites were in short supply, and it would have been appropriate to involve even the younger men (between twenty and twenty-five years of age) in order to provide an adequate number of Levitical overseers for the builders who were engaged in restoring the temple.

The second factor to note is that these Levites were not really engaged in the ministry of sacrifice and worship; they were only concerned with the building project as advisers or foremen. There was no sanctuary as yet in which they could officiate; so the question of being younger than twenty-five would hardly be raised at all. Thus there is no real discrepancy or contradiction in regard to the three age-limits given in the passage cited above, for each deals with a different level of authority.

131

How could God punish the Israelites for eating the quail He had miraculously
provided as their food (Num. 11:31-34)?

If we read the whole account of Numbers 11 carefully, we can understand why God was so highly displeased with the Hebrew malcontents who were tired of His daily supply of manna and longed for meat and vegetables in their diet (vv. 4-9) Moses himself was so disgusted at their complaining ingratitude that he was ready to resign from his responsibility of leadership. God thereupon encouraged him to delegate leadership to a supporting team of seventy godly elders, and then He told them how He would deal with their rebellious discontent. He would give them what they were asking for, thus bringing them to see how foolish they were to despise the good and sufficient food He had apportioned them in favor of that which they chose for themselves. As Psalm 106:15

recalls the episode: "He gave them their request, but sent a wasting disease among them

[or, `leanness into their souls']" (NASB). In other words, in order to teach them a much-needed lesson, God saw fit to give the discontented rabble exactly what they asked for--

rather than that which would be best for them.

The result was that an enormous flight of quail were blown into the encampment at a height of two cubits (about three feet) above the surface of the ground (v.31). (The preposition
àl
before "the surface of the ground" should be rendered "above," as NIV

correctly renders it, rather than "on.") Flying at that low level, forced down by the strong wind, it was easy for the Israelites to bat them down with sticks and catch as many quail as they wanted--even to the amount of ten homers (about sixty bushels). But, of course, such a huge number of dead birds would speedily begin to rot in that hot desert, despite the people's best efforts to convert them into dried meat that could be preserved indefinitely by parching them under the sun (v.32). There is little wonder that they began to suffer from food poisoning and disease as soon as they began chewing this unaccustomed food. In the end a great many of them died of plague and had to be buried right there in the desolate wilderness, at
Qibrot Hatt'avah
, "The Graves of Greed."

How can Numbers 12:3, with its emphasis on Moses' humility, be an authentic
comment from Moses' own pen?

Apart from Deuteronomy 34 (which must have been an obituary written after Moses'

death), no passage in the Pentateuch has been more frequently cited as an evidence of non-Mosaic authorship than this verse. After the challenge to Moses' unique authority as God's spokesman (recorded in Num. 12:1-2), the humility statement occurs in v.3: "Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth."

Unquestionably the first impression made by this judgment on the great leader's character is that it was contributed as a biographical note made by some admirer who knew him well, rather than by Moses concerning himself. M.G. Kyle ("Moses,"
International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939], p. 2090) tends to favor this explanation; even Jamieson (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, ad loc.) allows for the possibility of its insertion here by some later prophet. But he also cites the parallel of Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11-12, where the apostle is compelled by the insolence and 132

contempt of his detractors to emphasize the distinguishing excellence of his own character.

Likewise Elmer Smick (
Wycliffe Bible Commentary
, p. 129) allows for the possibility that this comment may have been contributed by a "divinely inspired
shoter
([Num.]

11:16)." Yet he points out that this chapter "teaches that the prophet had so intimate a relationship with God that he could speak the truth objectively, as it was revealed to him, even when it regarded his own nature."

Haley (
Alleged Discrepancies
, p. 248) makes this observation:

"Moses, under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, was writing history òbjectively.' Hence he speaks as freely of himself as he would of any other person. It is also to be observed that he records his own faults and sins with the same fidelity and impartiality. It is remarked by Calmet: Às he praises himself here without pride, so he will blame himself elsewhere with humility.' The objectionable words were inserted to explain why it was that Moses took no steps to vindicate himself, and why, consequently, the Lord so promptly intervened."

It certainly must be conceded that in other ancient autobiographies where the author speaks of himself in the third person, self-evaluations occur that seem to be rather surprising; for they stand in contrast to the author's usual references to his own character.

Thus in Julius Caesar's "Civil War" (
The Alexandrian War
75), he speaks of his own discomfiture at the unexpected attack of the troops of Pharnaces in Pontus, saying: