Forty - Love
The Bible contains certain numbers that have obvious symbolic significance. For example, twelve invokes the tribes of Israel in the Old Testament and the Apostles in the New Testament. The number of Apostles symbolizes the twelve tribes. Three in the New Testament invokes the Trinity.
But what about forty? Is it a symbol, an approximation, or an accurate count? Forty occurs frequently in the bible, more than most other numbers. The following is a sample of the usages of forty
.- For forty days and forty nights heavy rain poured down on the earth.
- Isaac was forty years old when married Rebekah.
- Esau was forty years old when he married Judith.
- The physicians embalmed Israel for forty days.
- The children of Israel ate manna forty years.
- Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.
- They returned from searching of the land after forty days.
- He made them wander in the wilderness forty years.
- Forty thousand, prepared for war, passed over to the plains of Jericho.
- I was forty years old when Moses sent me to spy out the land.
- Forty stripes may be given him, and no more.
- The land had rest forty years until Othniel died.
- The country was peaceful forty years in the days of Gideon.
- God delivered them into the hand of the Philistines for forty years.
- Eli judged Israel forty years.
- David reigned forty years.
- David slew forty thousand Syrians horsemen.
- Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses.
- Solomon reigned forty years.
- No one shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited for forty years.
- Jesus was in the wilderness forty days.
- They were more than forty which had made this conspiracy (to kill Paul).
Josephus uses forty about as frequently in the Jewish War.
The Bible Study Center claims that forty is symbolic for testing and punishment. The majority of the uses of forty (13 of 22 in the list above) do not imply testing or punishment; nor can they be construed so. Other instances imply punishment even less. In Surpassing Wonder, Donald Akenson calls forty a "magic number" but does not define why. There does not appear to be any common symbolic theme or any indication that any one could serve as a prototype for the others.
I observe one possible characteristic of the above instances. In each case, forty is a large number for the instance. Forty days of rain, forty years in the desert, forty year reign, forty years of peace: All very long times. Forty thousand horsemen, forty thousand stalls, forty men in a conspiracy: Very large numbers. Thus, I think that forty simply means very large in most cases. Could it be used as an accurate number? Possibly sometimes, but not frequently, I think.
In the Desert
The tribes of Israel wandered in the desert for (a nominal) forty years. During that time, two censuses were reported. These results were:
| Tribe | First | Second |
| Reuben | 46,500 | 43,730 |
| Simeon | 59,300 | 22,200 |
| Gad | 45,650 | 40,500 |
| Judah | 74,600 | 76,500 |
| Issachar | 54,400 | 64,300 |
| Zebulon | 57,400 | 60,500 |
| Ephraim | 40,500 | 32,500 |
| Manasseh | 32,200 | 52,700 |
| Benjamin | 35,400 | 45,600 |
| Dan | 62,700 | 64,400 |
| Asher | 41,500 | 53,400 |
| Naphtali | 53,400 | 45,400 |
| Total | 603,550 | 601,730 |
| Levi* | 8,530 | 23,000 |
There are two major questions to be answered about these numbers: Why the wide changes in individual tribes while the total remains constant? How could this many Hebrews exist?
Change in tribe sizes. The tribes of Simeon, Gad, Zebulon, Ephraim, and Naphtali decreased substantially, while Issachar, Manasseh, Benjamin, and Asher increased. Ruben, Judah and Dan were essentially unchanged. There are many speculations about the changes, particularly the losses: Plague, God's punishment for rebellion, and battle losses against other nations. I think that a much simpler explanation is realistic: Tribal membership depended more on location than on ancestry. People living in a tribal area during the census were counted as part of that tribe regardless of ancestry.
Too many people. The censuses of the twelve tribes,
excluding Levi, included only those males of twenty years
or more who were fit for military service. Males twenty and over but not fit
for military service, males under twenty, and females were not included. To
arrive at the total population, I have estimated the omitted groups. The
unfit males could be between 10% and 100% of the fit males. Based loosely on
modern Bedouin tribes, I assume 33%. The medium age of modern tribes is 18 years
or less. Based on this, the number of males under twenty is about 20%
greater than those twenty and over. The number of females is probably
equal to the number of males. With these assumptions the total number
for the twelve tribes is about 3,530,000.
The two censuses used different bases for Levi. The first counted males between
thirty and fifty while the second counted all males over one month. Doubling
the second number to include females gives a total Hebrew population of about
3,580,000. This does not include any slaves or captives. Others have calculated the
population at 16 million! I cannot find any justification for this number.
No estimates were made of the numbers of animals that the tribes possessed.
Total population for Sinai was about 50,000 in 1960, growing to 219,000 in 2000. The 50,000 value is probably the higher than any population prior to 1960. The Sinai population circa 1400 BCE was likely much less than 10,000.
The US Census Bureau publishes historical estimates of world population. At the time of the Exodus, the estimated world population was about 35 million. Allowing for different estimation methods and errors the maximum would have been much less than 70 million. Thus, the tribes of Israel would have been 5 to 10 percent of the world population: Probably greater than any Mediterranean or Middle East nation at that time.
Even sustained by magical sources of water and manna, this many people could not have lived in the Sinai for forty years. In Egypt, they would have been more than one half the total population. The numbers are obviously inflated: But by how much? One tenth of this number would still be extremely large. One percent (around 40,000) might be possible, but difficult to sustain. Even 10,000 people would make the Hebrew tribes much greater than any group in the desert.
But then these censuses could be from a later date and transferred backward to the mythical time of the Sinai. The numbers would be more appropriate to the period of 1000-800 BCE. Possibly exaggerated, but not greatly.
Archeological research have not been able to find traces of a major migration into the areas that would become Israel. The same people appear to have occupied the same areas continuously from before 2000 BCE. Around 1200 these hill tribes started conquering the lower lands. No invasion of Canaan: No migration: No Sinai: No stay in Egypt? Not necessarily. One popular speculation is that only the tribe of Levi migrated from Egypt, bringing the new religion of Yahwe. The tribe of Levi could have been very small during their migration - possibly less than a thousand. The ideas of the new religion united the hill tribes that would become the nation of Israel. The other tribes had their initial home lands and continued to capture more. Levi was given independent cities (with surrounding farming areas) distributed throughout the lands of the other tribes.
The Terror of Goliath
The King James version of the bible describes Goliath as: There went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. In the common usage of cubit, this would have been about nine feet four inches. (A cubit is the distance from the elbow to the finger tip: For a six foot male, about 18 inches. My personal cubit is 20.5 inches which would make Goliath ten feet ten inches! About 12 feet if my brother's cubit [22+ inches] were used! Much taller if the cubit was based on professional basketball players.)
Simply stated, the Philistines were engaging in psychological warfare: Goliath was a terror weapon, his size was much more important than his fighting ability. The Philistines would have done everything possible to increase his apparent height, such as high platform boots and an enormous crested helmet. The Israelites also would use the maximum height to enhance the feat of David. David was probably less than five feet tall at this time; a cubit based on him would be less than 15 inches resulting in a height for Goliath of possibly seven feet eight inches - with boots and helmet. In the New American Bible, the translation is: A champion named Goliath of Gath came out from the Philistine camp; he was six and a half feet tall. The editors do not indicate how this height was determined. My personal estimate is that Goliath (nude) could have been any height between six feet four inches and six feet ten inches. Even this would have been an astonishing height in the Near East before 1000 BCE.
What was Goliath's native land? Gath only indicated the army he was fighting for, not necessarily his natal land. Only two regions commonly produced people with a height over six feet at that time; Nubia and Scandinavia. Quite possibly, Goliath was from one of these. Nubians were well known in the Middle East at that time, if Goliath was Nubian he would probably have been identified as such. A Scandinavian would have been a very exotic novelty. Picture Goliath as a blond Scandinavian with long braids, long drooping moustache, a tall horned helmet, weighting over 300 pounds, and appearing to be over eight feet tall - Truly a daunting sight to the Israelites. I suspect this is a realistic portrayal of Goliath.
Did David actually kill Goliath? In the New American Bible and the Torah, in Samuel, "Elhanan, son of Jair, killed Goliath of Gath"; while in Chronicles, "Elhanan killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath". Chronicles was written (250-300 BCE) well after the return from Babylon as a replacement for Joshua through Kings. The King James version, and most Protestant versions, insert "brother of Goliath" into Samuel.
Could the editor/author of Samuel (or the author of his source material) have assigned the killing of Goliath to enhance the glory of David? Then the author of Chronicles "corrected" the account to avoid an inconsistency? The King James version obviously "corrected" Samuel to agree with Chronicles. Or could there have been two Goliaths? Speculations are unlimited. Personally I think that the story of David killing Goliath is pure fiction derived from Elhanan killing Goliath.
Ten Lost Tribes
One the articles of faith is that ten Hebrew tribes were lost after the Assyrian conquest of Israel. Without any substantiation in the Bible, Archeology, or history the lost tribes supposedly migrated as a unit to find a new home. The choices for their final home are legend: Mongolia, Tibet, India, North Africa, North America. Take your choice, it is entirely fantasy.
The actual destiny of the captured Israelites is much more prosaic. Assyria deported the leaders of the country: The Royal family, the top levels of the priesthood, the military leaders, the tribal elders, the wealthy land owners and merchants, any anyone else capable of organizing resistance. Altogether, about 1-2% of the population, certainly much less than 5%. The vast majority of the "common people" went about their life with little change. There were new rulers and a new wealthy class but little change for the laborers and farmers. Even most of their temples remained intact. They could interact with people in Judea about as easily as they could under the Kingdom of Israel.
So what was lost? National and tribal identity! Important for the upper classes but of little if any interest to the menial laborers. They had to work as hard as they did under their previous rulers.
And how many tribes were "lost?" The tribes of Judah and Benjamin are considered to be the Kingdom of Judea (known as the House of David in contemporary documents). But what of the tribe of Simon? The land of Simon was located south of Judea and never was part of Israel. Apparently, at some time, the tribe of Simon was absorbed into Judah before the Assyrian conquest. Thus Simon should not be included in the "lost" tribes. When Manasseh lost its land east of the Jordan river, a part of the tribe settled in the territory of Judea. Gad, Ruben, Ephraim and Dan were on the border of Judea. It is conceivable that, during and after the Assyrian invasion, people from these tribes found refuge in Judea. Actually, it is inconceivable that some did not.
The final tally appears to be that the Kingdom of Judea, after the Assyrian conquest of Israel, contained 3 complete tribes and remnants of at least 5 other tribes. None of these tribes can be considered "lost" in the genetic sense. They are included in the Jewish gene pool.
Even the 4 other tribes should not be considered as lost. Their descendants would later become the Samarians.
© Copyright 2005-2012 D E Pauley
Sitemap