Commentaires bibliques

Numbers 1:1 to Numbers 10:10 form the first main division of the book. It is entirely derived from P , and contains a series of injunctions bearing upon ritual and Levitical matters, which are represented as forming part of the legislation at Sinai. A comparison of Numbers 1:1 with Numbers 10:11 shews that the chapters are regarded as occupying the last nineteen days before the departure from the sacred mountain. A month had elapsed since the Tabernacle had been completed and set up (cf. Exodus 40:1; Exodus 40:17), and the compiler of the Hexateuch assigns to that period the communication of the laws in Leviticus, and also the offerings of the princes for the Tabernacle (Numbers 7) and the law of the supplementary Passover (Numbers 9:1-14).

The contents of this section are as follows:

Num 1:1–4. The census of the tribes, their arrangement in camp and on the march, and the duties of the sacred tribe of Levi.

Num 1:5, 6. A series of unconnected regulations dealing with (a) the exclusion of unclean persons from the camp (Numbers 5:1-4), (b) payments in compensation for wrongs (Numbers 1:5-10), (c) the Ordeal of Jealousy (Numbers 1:11-31), (d) Nazirites (Numbers 6:1-21), (e) the triple formula of priestly blessing (Numbers 1:22-27).

7. The offerings of the princes.

Numbers 8:1-4. The golden Lampstand.

Numbers 8:5-26. The Levites: their purification and dedication (Numbers 1:5-22), the age of service (Numbers 1:23-26).

Numbers 9:1-14. The supplementary Passover.

Numbers 9:15-23. The fiery cloud upon the Tabernacle.

Numbers 10:1-10. The two silver clarions.

The great variety of these contents makes it probable that they were selected by the compiler from a larger mass of traditions which had been developed in the priestly circle of which he was a member.

Additional Note on the numbers of the Israelites

An attempt has been made by Prof. Flinders Petrie (Researches in Sinai, pp. 207–17) to remove the difficulty by understanding the thousands in the figures of the census to mean’ inmates of a household or tent,’ the hundreds only being the numbers of individuals. Reuben for example (Numbers 1:21) consists of 46 thousands or ‘families,’ containing in all 500 individuals. But (1) this disregards the statement that the numbers are those of fighting men only; (2) ’eleph ‘thousand,’ if it is not a numeral, must at least have the same meaning as in Numbers 1:16, where, though its exact force is doubtful, it clearly denotes a larger body than the inmates of a tent; (3) the suggestion multiplies enormously the difficulty of the large number of first-born.

The explanation given by Dr Orr (The Problem of the Old Testament, pp. 367–9) is even less successful. From the number of fighting men (603,550) he calculates the total number of males as 900,000. This is probably too small; but even with that figure none of the difficulties above mentioned disappear. He takes notice, however, of only one of these difficulties. If the males numbered 900,000, and the first-born sons 22,273 (Numbers 3:43); every mother had over 40 sons. Against this calculation he employs two main arguments. (1) He disregards the fact that the first-born under consideration were males. (First-born females were never offered to God, and the passage, Numbers 3:40-43, is concerned with those who should be offered if Levites were not substituted for them; in Numbers 1:40; Numbers 1:43 they are explicitly described as ‘first-born males.’) He maintains, in spite of the text, that about half of them must have been daughters! (2) He suggests that the ‘first-born’ did not include married men with families—fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers. And he adds that some of the first-born may have died previously. Let us, for the sake of argument, admit both these possibilities, and allow for them liberally by reckoning to every single family a first-born son ‘of the rising generation,’ a father, a grandfather and a great-grandfather. This multiplies the first-born (in Numbers 1:43) by four. But the net result is still an average of more than 10 male children, and therefore more than 20 children in all, to every mother, which is a highly improbable average. As a matter of fact the admission is far too liberal. If three living first-born are reckoned to each family (and even that is a high reckoning), each contains more than 13 males, and therefore more than 26 children in all. Dr Orr further remarks that ‘account still has to be taken … of polygamous marriages, or concubinage, where possibly only the first-born of the house was reckoned.’ But this is in defiance of Numbers 3:12, Exodus 13:2, where the ‘first-born’ is clearly defined as that which ‘openeth the womb.’ He refers to the law of inheritance in Deuteronomy 21:15-17, but disregards the law of dedication to God, with which, as has been said above, Numbers 3:40-43 is concerned. There is not a trace in the Old Testament of any distinction between mother and mother with respect to the dedication of her first-born son.

Dr Orr’s treatment of the passage is an example of the straits to which writers are reduced who try to explain away at all costs the difficulties to be found in the Old Testament. It is a much wiser course frankly to acknowledge them, and to realise that it is not in the accuracy of such details as figures that the value of the Hebrew Bible lies (see Introd. chs. 4, 5).

1. the tent of meeting] Heb. ’ôhel mô‘çd. A.V. ‘tabernacle of the congregation’ confuses mô‘çd with ‘çdah. LXX. σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου (‘tent of witness’) confuses mô‘çd with ‘çdûth. The name ‘tent of meeting’ is a term very frequently employed in P for the Tabernacle (cf. Numbers 3:7 f., Numbers 4:2 f., Exodus 27:21, Leviticus 1:1; Leviticus 1:3). Exodus 29:42 (P ) shews the meaning which attached to it—‘where I will meet with you to speak there unto thee’; it was understood to mean ‘the tent where Jehovah met His people by appointment,’ the ‘tent of tryst.’ But the name was also used in earlier times for the sacred tent, which in Exodus 33:7-11 (E ) is pictured as an ordinary nomad tent which Moses could himself carry and pitch outside the camp. And it seems probable that in the primitive days of which E preserves a record a somewhat different meaning attached to the name. See note on Numbers 12:4.

1–16. Moses is directed to number the fighting men of Israel with the help of twelve princes.

2. their families] Rather their clans, i.e. groups of families related by blood.

fathers’ houses] here denotes families, smaller groups consisting of close relations; see Numbers 1:4, Exodus 12:3. The term is, however, elastic. It may denote even an entire tribe, as being descended from a single ancestor (Numbers 17:2), or the main subdivision of a tribe, i.e. a ‘clan’ (Numbers 3:24, Exodus 6:14).

their polls] lit. skulls, a metaphor for ‘individual persons.’ Cf. our word ‘poll-tax,’ and the ‘poll’ at an election. This expression and ‘fathers’ houses’ are not found earlier than P.

5. The twenty-four names in the following verses recur in chs. 2, 7. and Numbers 10:14-27. Some of them are of types which were frequent in early times, Amminadab (Numbers 1:7), Ammhud (Numbers 1:10), Elishama (id. [Note: d. idem, ‘the same,’ referring to the book last mentioned.] ), Abidan (Numbers 1:11), Ahiezer (Numbers 1:12), Ahira (Numbers 1:15), but others are unknown to pre-exilic O.T. writings, Nethanel (Numbers 1:8), Gamaliel (Numbers 1:10), and the names compounded with Zur and Shaddai (including Shedeur, Numbers 1:5). No certain traces of names compounded with Shaddai have been found apart from this list. It is probable that the compiler made an artificial selection of ancient and modern names. See Gray, Numbers, pp. 6 f., and Heb. Proper Names, pp. 191–211.

7. Nahshon the son of Amminaaab] See Ruth 4:20, Matthew 1:4.

8. Nethanel] ‘God hath given.’ The name is frequent in Chron., Ezr. and Neh., and is the same as Nathaniel, John 1:45.

10. Gamaliel ‘God is a [my] reward.’ See Acts 5:34. It was the name of several Rabbis in the 1st and following centuries a.d.

14. Deuel] The more probable form Reuel is given in Numbers 2:14. Cf. Numbers 10:29. The letters R [Note: Redactor.] and D are easily confused in Hebrew.