600 000 Israelites at the time of Exodus

[Neithan]

Exodus 12:37:

And the children of Israel set forward from Ramesse to Socoth, being about six hundred thousand men on foot, beside children.

600 000 men would likely mean a capable army of at least 100-200 000. This number seems nearly impossible. Among the numerous difficulties, one of which is that an army of that size would be capable of conquering Egypt: why would they flee Pharoah instead of fight his pursuing army? Are there any good answers to defend this number of Israelites in the Exodus?

 

[Todd_Easton]

If there were 600,000 men, then there was probably a total population of 2 or 3 million persons, when you add in the women and children. It seems that the number is best explained as either a rhetorical device or as a textual corruption. Some have proposed that a later scribe may have multiplied the original number by a hundredfold.

 

[Neithan]

If there were 600,000 men, then there was probably a total population of 2 or 3 million persons, when you add in the women and children. It seems that the number is best explained as either a rhetorical device or as a textual corruption. Some have proposed that a later scribe may have multiplied the original number by a hundredfold.

What does that mean for Biblical Inerrancy? Is it only inerrant at the time of its original writing? Didn’t the Church declare Scripture inerrant in the 4th century, and wouldn’t there have existed such ‘scribal errors’ at that time already?

 

[Todd_Easton]

What does that mean for Biblical Inerrancy? Is it only inerrant at the time of its original writing? Didn’t the Church declare Scripture inerrant in the 4th century, and wouldn’t there have existed such ‘scribal errors’ at that time already?

Yes. When the books of the Bible were composed they were inspired and inerrant. Copies made later are inerrant only where they accurately represent the content of the inspired originals. The Church may declare a copy of the Bible free from error in matters of faith and morals but it is unlikely that it will ever declare a copy of the Bible free from all scribal errors. If I remember correctly, the last pope to try to do that (Sixtus V), died before he could make the formal declaration.

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

I remember questioning this a few years back.The proof I came up with is: Given it was 400 years from the time the 70 went into Egypt until the time of Moses. If a generation is about 20 years that will give you 20 generations and each pair had about 2.06 children that will get you to the 2,000,000 people mark pretty easily. The reverse proof is 2,000,000^(1/20)=2.06 people per generation.

Further I would speculate that any question of the 2.06 children or whether it was 20 generations shold be considered low estimates. If a woman started having children at 14 or so the generations would be closer to 28. And the children that each generation had probably was closer to 4 or 5. But not having infant mortality tables available, I think this model works.

So before you start discounting the inerrancy of the Bible for this particuliar story consider the above.

 

[love4mary]

Plus, God said to FLEE Egypt, not turn and fight.

 

[Lev23]

Exodus 12:37:

600 000 men would likely mean a capable army of at least 100-200 000. This number seems nearly impossible. Among the numerous difficulties, one of which is that an army of that size would be capable of conquering Egypt: why would they flee Pharoah instead of fight his pursuing army? Are there any good answers to defend this number of Israelites in the Exodus?

Why do you think this is so impossible? So many Christians today scoff at Jews for their unbelief. But yet it seems these same Christians have the same problem as some Jews that dont believe what the scriptures said.

When Jesus walked throughout Israel, he never taught to anyone Exodus was text corrupted or filled with rhetorical devices. Great care was taken in Israel whenever scripture was to be copied to a new scroll. If one error was made in the process, the whole scroll parchment would be destroyed and the process would start again.

 

[thistle]

What does that mean for Biblical Inerrancy? Is it only inerrant at the time of its original writing? Didn’t the Church declare Scripture inerrant in the 4th century, and wouldn’t there have existed such ‘scribal errors’ at that time already?

The inerrancy of the Bible refers to religious truths and not to the number of men in an army.

 

[mercygate]

Plus, God said to FLEE Egypt, not turn and fight.

Exactly, and when they started out, Pharaoh was giving them free passage. It was later that he repented and sent the chariots.

 

[mercygate]

Why do you think this is so impossible? So many Christians today scoff at Jews for their unbelief. But yet it seems these same Christians have the same problem as some Jews that dont believe what the scriptures said.

When Jesus walked throughout Israel, he never taught to anyone Exodus was text corrupted or filled with rhetorical devices. Great care was taken in Israel whenever scripture was to be copied to a new scroll. If one error was made in the process, the whole scroll parchment would be destroyed and the process would start again.

And they took Jericho without so much as firing a shot (to use an anachronistic turn of phrase).

 

[Todd_Easton]

I remember questioning this a few years back.The proof I came up with is: Given it was 400 years from the time the 70 went into Egypt until the time of Moses. If a generation is about 20 years that will give you 20 generations and each pair had about 2.06 children that will get you to the 2,000,000 people mark pretty easily. The reverse proof is 2,000,000^(1/20)=2.06 people per generation.

Further I would speculate that any question of the 2.06 children or whether it was 20 generations shold be considered low estimates. If a woman started having children at 14 or so the generations would be closer to 28. And the children that each generation had probably was closer to 4 or 5. But not having infant mortality tables available, I think this model works.

So before you start discounting the inerrancy of the Bible for this particuliar story consider the above.

Your calculations do not take into account the deaths of the original 70 and of the succeeding generations. You would need a birthrate of 2.06 children per couple plus a replacement birthrate that accounts for those who die without reproducing, or at least 4.06 children per couple, for the population to grow from 70 to 2,000,000 in 20 generations. This 4.06 birthrate is a low limit and does not take into account those who die before reproducing.

 

[quasimodo]

What does that mean for Biblical Inerrancy? Is it only inerrant at the time of its original writing? Didn’t the Church declare Scripture inerrant in the 4th century, and wouldn’t there have existed such ‘scribal errors’ at that time already?

“inerrancy” does not mean that the bible does not employ poetic license, hyperbole, metaphor, myth or any other literary device. 600,000 may have been the number of Israelites existent at the time that book was composed - hence the truth being conveyed (without error) is “this applies to all of us.”

In the 18th or 19th century, German historians came up with the idea of scientific history. History was to be written like science. The idea was and is, of course, preposterous. It cannot be done - if you ask 5 witnesses to an event what happened, you’ll get 7 versions of the story. Which is inerrant? The effort to write history scientifically died a quick death, BUT it still lingers in our minds as the way history should be written and the way it has always been written.

The ancient writers would have looked on any attempt at scientific history as crude and worthless. They were interested in the meaning of things not in scientific history. They thought nothing of combining aspects of a story into one event or rearranging the time line or using any other literary device to convey their meaning. E.g. Compare the Synoptic Gospels to John .

We must be careful how we understand biblical inerrancy or we will have to believe there is a beaten metal bowl turned over the earth which holds back the waters of the sky - God makes rain by opening windows in the bowl. Inerrancy refers to the truth the original author was inspired to tell - not to how we expect history to be written.

 

[Valke2]

Exodus 12:37:

600 000 men would likely mean a capable army of at least 100-200 000. This number seems nearly impossible. Among the numerous difficulties, one of which is that an army of that size would be capable of conquering Egypt: why would they flee Pharoah instead of fight his pursuing army? Are there any good answers to defend this number of Israelites in the Exodus?

For openers, they were slaves. They were not trained soldiers. This is emphasized by the fact that God tells Moses to take them them in a roundabout route in order to avoid running into armies, because the Israeli’s are not ready to fight.

 

[Valke2]

I remember questioning this a few years back.The proof I came up with is: Given it was 400 years from the time the 70 went into Egypt until the time of Moses. If a generation is about 20 years that will give you 20 generations and each pair had about 2.06 children that will get you to the 2,000,000 people mark pretty easily. The reverse proof is 2,000,000^(1/20)=2.06 people per generation.

Further I would speculate that any question of the 2.06 children or whether it was 20 generations shold be considered low estimates. If a woman started having children at 14 or so the generations would be closer to 28. And the children that each generation had probably was closer to 4 or 5. But not having infant mortality tables available, I think this model works.

So before you start discounting the inerrancy of the Bible for this particuliar story consider the above.

You have to take into account the fact that 4/5ths of Israel did not accompany Moses.

 

[Spirithound]

600 000 men would likely mean a capable army of at least 100-200 000. This number seems nearly impossible. Among the numerous difficulties, one of which is that an army of that size would be capable of conquering Egypt: why would they flee Pharoah instead of fight his pursuing army? Are there any good answers to defend this number of Israelites in the Exodus?

Could an army of that size conquer Egypt? Where the Israelites actually an army? Armed? And how big was Egypt’s army?

 

[mercygate]

For openers, they were slaves. They were not trained soldiers. This is emphasized by the fact that God tells Moses to take them them in a roundabout route in order to avoid running into armies, because the Israeli’s are not ready to fight.

Nothing like actually reading the book to get the story straight!

 

[NotWorthy]

You have to take into account the fact that 4/5ths of Israel did not accompany Moses.

I didn’t know that. Where is this said?

 

[Valke2]

I didn’t know that. Where is this said?

IT is set forth in Chapter 14, Shemos Rabbah (Commentary on Exodus). Rashi explains that the biblical suppor for this is found in Ex. 13:18: “And the Children of Israel went up armed (chamushim) out of the land of Egypt.” Notes Rashi on the word “chamushim”: “Another interpretation is that one out of five (chamishah) went forth, and four-fifths died during the three days of darkness (Mechilta).”

Essentially, it is Jewish tradition as set forth in various commentaries, and not to be expressly found in the Torah.

Also, it is in one of Matsiyahu’s songs

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Ah, they were narmed men, who had their families to guide and care for in their immediate situation. I think leading their families to safety was their primary concern.

Exodus 13:18 (New International Version)

So God led the people around by the desert road toward the Red Sea. [a] The Israelites went up out of Egypt armed for battle.

 

[NotWorthy]

Ah, they were **unarmed **men, who had their families to guide and care for in their immediate situation.

They would also have had to face off against one of the best trained armies in the world.

But all that is irrelevant when you consider that the Lord, our God, wanted them to flee Egypt, not fight. And lucky for them that they did, for the Israelites learned later on near the banks of the Jordan what happens when they go off to do battle without the Lord’s blessing.