How Many?

How Many?

Thomas Allen

2 Samuel 24:9: And Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

1 Chronicles 21:5 And Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.

According to Samuel, Judah had 500,000 men capable of bearing arms and Israel had 800,000. Yet, according to Chronicles, Judah had 470,000 men capable of bearing arms and Israel had 1,100,000 men. Which is correct: Samuel’s census of 500,000 plus 800,000 for a total of 1,300,000 or Chronicles’ census of 470,000 plus 1,100,000 for a total of 1,570,000?

Samuele Bacchiocchi, who believes that the Bible is infallible but not inerrant, claims that the writers used two different sources. Nevertheless, whichever number is correct, if either, should not have any effect on a person’s faith or practices.

In Peake’s Commentary, W.H. Bennett notes the difference between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. However, he does not explain the difference, but he believes that they are exaggerated. W.O.E Oesterley states that the writer of Chronicles may have used a different source than did the writer of Samuel, but this is uncertain.

In The Wycliffe Commentary, Barton Payne remarks that the writer of Samuel rounded the 470,000 in Chronicles to 500,000 and lowers the number of men available for combat. Otherwise, he does not explain the discrepancy.

In A New Commentary on Holy Scriptures, A. Guillaume notes the discrepancy between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles, but he does not explain the difference.

In The Interpreters Commentary, John Weavers believes that the Samuel text is the original. Nevertheless, both numbers in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles are exaggerated. Also, David’s census may be based on the census in Numbers 1:46, which gives 603,550 and was taken several centuries before David’s reign.

Adam Clarke states that the numbers in Samuel and Chronicles are not exaggerated. However, both cannot be correct. Moreover, it is now difficult to say which is correct. Most likely, Samuel is correct. Further, he notes that “more corruptions have taken place in the numbers of the historical books of the Old Testament than in any other part of the sacred records.” (Clarke, p. 335) He believes that trying to reconcile these differences is a waste of labor. Nevertheless, mistakes in copying may account for the difference between the two censuses.

In The Twentieth Century Commentary, D.R. Ap-Thomas states that because of corruption occurring in transmission, the numbers in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles are highly unreliable. Likely, the figures have been round to the nearest 100,000, which was accurate enough for practical purposes.

Elizabeth Reed, who is a proponent of the inerrancy of the Bible, offers this solution:

It is written in 2 Sam. 24: 9, that “there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and men of Judah five hundred thousand,” but in Chron. we find “the number of Israel were eleven hundred thousand; and Judah four hundred three score and ten thousand,” making, to all appearance, a difference of three hundred thousand Israelites, and thirty thousand Benjaminites. But it appears from Chronicles that there were twelve divisions of generals, who commanded monthly, and whose duty it was to keep guard near the king’s person, each having a body of troops consisting of twenty-four thousand men, which jointly formed a grand army of two hundred and eighty-eight thousand; and as a separate body of twelve thousand men attended on the twelve princes of the twelve tribes, mentioned in the same chapter, the whole makes three hundred thousand, which is just the difference between the two accounts of eight hundred thousand, and of one million one hundred thousand. And here we have found the natural solution of the difficulty. (Reed, pp. 89-90)

Thus, the 300,000-man difference between Samuel’s number of potential warriors and the Chronicles’ is accounted for by the palace guards and the guards for the princes. Samuel did not count the 300,000 serving as guards because they were in the king’s standing army and, therefore, there was no need to count them. However, they were included in the Chronicles’ census because all men available for war including the guards were counted. She places great stress on Chronicles using “all” and Samuel omitting “all.”

She accounts for the differed count in Judah (500,000 in Samuel and 470,000 in Chronicles) by including the 300,000 troops along the border with Philistine (2 Samuel 6:1) in Samuel’s census but not in Chronicles’ census. These troops were excluded from Chronicles because they were not all of the tribe of Judah.

She is unclear about where Chronicles put the 300,000 troops on the border in its census. They are excluded from Judah but appear not to be included in Israel where she accounts for the 300,000 difference with the guards of the palace and princes. Anyway, she is the only commentator that I consulted that attempts to reconcile the difference.

Although Reed offers a plausible reconciliation of the two censuses, most commentators accept the numbers as given. Their explanations for the discrepancy are using different sources or copying errors. Regardless of whether Reed is correct or the others are correct, should one’s faith be determined by a census, which is now irrelevant to all but ancient historians?

References

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. “Biblical Errancy And Inerrancy.” Endtime Issues No. 102 – Part 2. August 19, 2003.

Clarke, Adam. Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible. Abridged by Ralph Earle. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967.

Davies, G. Henton, Alan Richardson, and Charles L. Wallis, editors.  The Twentieth Century Bible Commentary. Revised Edition. New York, New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1955.

Gore, Charles, Henry L. Gouge, and Alfred Guillaume, editors. A New Commentary on Holy Scripture. New York: The Macmillian Co., 1928.

Laymon, Charles M., editor. The Interpreter’s One-volume Commentary on the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971.

Peake, Arthur S., editor. A Commentary on the Bible. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.

Pfeiffer, Charles F., editor. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Reed, Mrs. H.V (Elizabeth). Bible Triumphant: Being a Reply to a Work Entitled 144 Self-contradictions of the Bible, Published by Andrew Jackson Davis. Harvard, Illinois: H.V. Reed, 1866.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.