Ibn Khaldun, a Neglected Source of Antichristianity or Attacks on the Bible

Ibn Khaldun, a Neglected Source of Antichristianity or Attacks on the Bible · Responding to Tim Zeak on Exodus, part I · More on Exodus, not on Tim Zeak, for now · Some Have Claimed Ezra Wrote Moses · Israelites at the Exodus

Let's quote a passage which to this day could be a standard of Anti-Biblical Criticism, his Introduction to the Muqaddimah.

This is especially the case with figures, either of sums of money or of soldiers, whenever they occur in stories. They offer a good opportunity for false information and constitute a vehicle for nonsensical statements. They must be controlled and checked with the help of known fundamental facts. For example, al-Mas'udi and many other historians report that Moses counted the army of the Israelites in the desert.33 He had all those able to carry arms, especially those twenty years and older, pass muster. There turned out to be 600,000 or more. In this connection, (al-Mas'udi) forgets to take into consideration whether Egypt and Syria could possibly have held such a number of soldiers. Every realm may have as large a militia as it can hold and support, but no more. This fact is attested by well-known customs and familiar conditions. Moreover, an army of this size cannot march or fight as a unit. The whole available territory would be too small for it. If it were in battle formation, it would extend two, three, or more times beyond the field of vision. How, then, could two such parties fight with each other, or one battle formation gain the upper hand when one flank does not know what the other flank is doing! The situation at the present day testifies to the correctness of this statement. The past resembles the future more than one (drop of) water another. Furthermore, the realm of the Persians was much greater than that of the Israelites. This fact is attested by Nebuchadnezzar's victory over them. He swallowed up their country and gained complete control over it. He also destroyed Jerusalem, their religious and political capital. And he was merely one of the officials of the province of Fars.34 It is said that he was the governor of the western border region. The Persian provinces of the two 'Iraqs,35 Khurasan, Transoxania, and the region of Derbend on the Caspian Sea36 were much larger than the realm of the Israelites. Yet, the Persian army did not attain such a number or even approach it. The greatest concentration of Persian troops, at al­Qadisiyah, amounted to 120,000 men, all of whom had their retainers. This is according to Sayf 37 who said that with their retainers they amounted to over 200,000 persons. According to 'A'ishah and az-Zuhri,38 the troop concentration with which Rustum advanced against Sa'd at al-Qadisiyah amounted to only 60,000 men, all of whom had their retainers. Then, if the Israelites had really amounted to such a number, the extent of the area under their rule would have been larger, for the size of administrative units and provinces under a particular dynasty is in direct proportion to the size of its militia and the groups that support the (dynasty), as will be explained in the section on provinces in the first book.39 Now, it is well known that the territory of the (Israelites) did not comprise an area larger than the Jordan province and Palestine in Syria and the region of Medina and Khaybar in the Hijaz.40 Also, there were only three generations41 between Moses and Israel, according to the best-informed scholars. Moses was the son of Amram, the son of Kohath (Qahat or Qahit), the son of Levi (Lewi or Lawi),42 the son of Jacob who is Israel-Allah. This is Moses' genealogy in the Torah.43 The length of time between Israel and Moses was indicated by al-Mas'udi when he said: "Israel entered Egypt with his children, the tribes, and their children, when they came to Joseph numbering seventy souls. The length of their stay in Egypt until they left with Moses for the desert was two hundred and twenty years. During those years, the kings of the Copts, the Pharaohs, passed them on (as their subjects) one to the other."44 It is improbable that the descendants of one man could branch out into such a number within four generations.45 It has been assumed that this number of soldiers applied to the time of Solomon and his successors. Again, this is improbable. Between Solomon and Israel, there were only eleven generations, that is: Solomon, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed ('Ubidh, or ' Ufidh), the son of Boaz (Ba'az, or Bu'iz), the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab ('Amminddhab, or Ham­minddhab), the son of Ram, the son of Hezron (Had/srun, or Hasran), the son of Perez ( Baras, or Bayras), the son of Judah, the son of Jacob. The descendants of one man in eleven generations would not branch out into such a number, as has been assumed. They might, indeed, reach hundreds or thousands. This often happens. But an increase beyond that to higher figures46 is improbable. Comparison with observable present-day and well-known nearby facts proves the assumption and report to be untrue. According to the definite statement of the Israelite Stories,47 Solomon's army amounted to 12,000 men, and his horses48 numbered 1,400 horses, which were stabled at his palace. This is the correct information. No attention should be paid to nonsensical statements by the common run of informants. In the days of Solomon, the Israelite state saw its greatest flourishing and their realm its widest extension.

From THE MUQADDIMAH
Abd Ar Rahman bin Muhammed ibn Khaldun
Translated by Franz Rosenthal
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/

Specifically:

INTRODUCTION
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/IntroMaterial/Introduction.htm

Now, let us analyse his errors.

I First, it seems he had not read the accounts of the Torah.

For example, al-Mas'udi and many other historians report that Moses counted the army of the Israelites in the desert. He had all those able to carry arms, especially those twenty years and older, pass muster. There turned out to be 600,000 or more.

For some reason, he doesn't go to Numbers, the original source, but to "al-Mas'udi and many other historians" presumably all of them Muslims.

This is reflected in:

It has been assumed that this number of soldiers applied to the time of Solomon and his successors. Again, this is improbable.

On this item, however, he seems to have checked, finally, with the Bible or a source closer to it than the historian who considered the 600 000 as being under King Solomon.

According to the definite statement of the Israelite Stories,47 Solomon's army amounted to 12,000 men, and his horses48 numbered 1,400 horses, which were stabled at his palace. This is the correct information.

Indeed. This is a correct reference to what can be read in Kings or Paralipomenon. I don't feel any need to actually check, it rings true.

II Now, we have a second error:

In this connection, (al-Mas'udi) forgets to take into consideration whether Egypt and Syria could possibly have held such a number of soldiers. Every realm may have as large a militia as it can hold and support, but no more. This fact is attested by well-known customs and familiar conditions.

Let us again confer the correct info on King Solomon's army:

Solomon's army amounted to 12,000 men, and his horses48 numbered 1,400 horses, which were stabled at his palace.

What has changed between Moses and King Solomon?

King Solomon had a professional army, to which the observation applies that so many professional soldiers need so many more civilians economically supporting them. Moses did not have any civilians (except wives and children, very old or invalids, and of course the Levite tribe) supporting his "soldiers", since all men who were able to fight were mustered, and since the economic upkeep was on God's providence, through the gathering of mannah.

Moreover, an army of this size cannot march or fight as a unit. The whole available territory would be too small for it. If it were in battle formation, it would extend two, three, or more times beyond the field of vision.

Very possible it cannot fight as a unit. Do we know for a fact that it ever did fight as a unit? It seems more probable, the twelve units called tribes knew each other by sight as to captains, and the captains knew their men by sight and these them, so that any one not known at all by sight would be presumed an enemy.

Fighting was, before the turn around carbon dated 1200 BC (like fall of Troy and of Hattusha) more of a matter of individual exploits adding up to an overall pressure one way or the other. The opponents would have been in a similar position.

Also, the marching was arranged by the pillar of fire, a miracle by God.

How, then, could two such parties fight with each other, or one battle formation gain the upper hand when one flank does not know what the other flank is doing!

Yeah, chariot fighters like battle of Kadesh must be a myth, right ... everything was always done by infantry plus cavalry, at tactic formations moving in strict coordination, and why, because ....

III Third error:

The situation at the present day testifies to the correctness of this statement. The past resembles the future more than one (drop of) water another.

No, it doesn't. King Solomon may have said no thing is new under the sun, but the arrangements between things do change in some detail, and he was also not taking miracles into account.

Ibn Khaldun simply voiced the irrational prejudice of "uniformitarianism". A degree of uniformitarianism in which modern ideology does not agree. No Agricultural Revolution in Neolithic, no Industrial Revolution in Modern Times, all that is mythological ...

Hence of course his idea that soldiers need to be professional soldiers depending on an administration exploiting a larger number of civilian subjects to nourish and arm the soldiers.

IV Fourth error in connexion with this.

Furthermore, the realm of the Persians was much greater than that of the Israelites. This fact is attested by Nebuchadnezzar's victory over them. He swallowed up their country and gained complete control over it. He also destroyed Jerusalem, their religious and political capital. And he was merely one of the officials of the province of Fars.

Yeah, right, Persians controlling Iraq up to Muslim Conquest is also one of the constants, that Nebuchadnezzar could have been an independent ruler, a sovereign under God or under his gods, doesn't strike him as even possible. Ill informed Ibn Khaldun depending on .... note 34 says: Al-Mas' di, Muruj adh-dhahah, I,117, describes him as governor of the 'Iraq and the Arabs for the Persian King (King of Fars). Cf. also at-Tabari, Annales, I, 646.

Exit Cyrus from history, then .... So Ibn Khaldun was preferring the secondary literature of the school he belonged to over the primary sources of the time, like the Bible, which is a very common mistake among historical critics of the Bible to this day.

The point he was making was of course in relation to the improbability of Moses disposing 600 000 professional soldiers. But the illustration he gave involved a phrase betraying this bias, which can be considered as a Fourth Error. It is related to the third, since, if the third is true, a modern historian and a situation known within their time of observation (during which indeed Iraq provinces depended on Fars prior to Islamic conquest) would be as adequate a key to a much older situation as sources from then, plus better understandable.

V Now, in relation to Moses' mustering 600 000 fighters, here is a Fifth error:

Also, there were only three generations41 between Moses and Israel, according to the best-informed scholars. Moses was the son of Amram, the son of Kohath (Qahat or Qahit), the son of Levi (Lewi or Lawi),42 the son of Jacob who is Israel-Allah. This is Moses' genealogy in the Torah.43 The length of time between Israel and Moses was indicated by al-Mas'udi when he said: "Israel entered Egypt with his children, the tribes, and their children, when they came to Joseph numbering seventy souls. The length of their stay in Egypt until they left with Moses for the desert was two hundred and twenty years. During those years, the kings of the Copts, the Pharaohs, passed them on (as their subjects) one to the other."44 It is improbable that the descendants of one man could branch out into such a number within four generations.45 ... Again, this is improbable. Between Solomon and Israel, there were only eleven generations, that is: Solomon, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed ('Ubidh, or ' Ufidh), the son of Boaz (Ba'az, or Bu'iz), the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab ('Amminddhab, or Ham­minddhab), the son of Ram, the son of Hezron (Had/srun, or Hasran), the son of Perez ( Baras, or Bayras), the son of Judah, the son of Jacob. The descendants of one man in eleven generations would not branch out into such a number, as has been assumed. They might, indeed, reach hundreds or thousands. This often happens. But an increase beyond that to higher figures46 is improbable. Comparison with observable present-day and well-known nearby facts proves the assumption and report to be untrue.

I think he is making demography purely empirical and its empirical material purely from examples close at hand. The demographic expansions of humanity after Flood and of Israelites in Egypt are not beyond the possibility of human childbearing.

The one man had 12 sons (and one daughter). Their wives were usually from families of uncles or aunts. Let's say each man from then on has 7 sons, and ignore the women, and let's do some maths. (In fact, I presume women are equal in number of men, which is true on so rough a level of maths as the one I am here using):

12*7 = 84 (first generation after)
84*7 = 588 (second generation after)
588*7 = 4 116 (third generation after)
4 116*7 = 28 812 (fourth generation after)
28 812*7 = 201 684 (fifth generation after)
201 684*7 = 1 411 788 (sixth generation after)

So, in sixth generation after Jacob, on this model, Jacob's descendants would be many more than 600 000. This means, Ibn Khaldun need only be wrong about the number of generations over the population as a whole which passes between Jacob's going to Egypt and the Exodus, during the 220 years (if he took that as four generations, he is counting 55 years per generation, which is a tad bit long - unless applied to males having trouble financing a marriage, but while my grandfather was born when his father was 50, he was far from the oldest child, he was rather the very youngest).

All that is needed for this to have happened is, Goshen being, like post-Flood world, a place where people could easily find new land to exploit in whatever ways applicable (hunting, fishing, gathering for immediate post-Flood, mostly, and farming and herding for Israelites in Goshen), which would be the case if Joseph when asking for Goshen was planning on a great demographic growth - a bit as if one had given all Yellowstone as reservation to a Sioux tribe, after a few generations they would be really numerous.

These conditions of Goshen were then prolonged by walk through the wilderness and by expulsion of Canaanites.

Also, Moses and David probably had fewer generations back to origin than the medium or median (whichever you prefer) of their contemporaries. Like Ham's wife had fewer generations to Adam than Ham, on the patrilinear lineage from her father back, and the Neanderthal and Denisovan heritage whatever daughter in law it came with arguably had more generations back to Adam than even Noah.

VI A more general sixth error, Ibn Khaldun is presuming rational criticism is superior to acceptance of tradition back to the sources.

This bring us presumably (though not cited here) back to a theological ....

VII ... error number seven, he believes a rational preference for "God's revelation" in Surah 5 trumps acceptance of Christian tradition the Gospels were written within decades of events and obviously record Our Lord better than a spurious (though widely witnessed) revelation to one single man providing no miracles to back it up centuries later.

How are we to be more correct than he on these issues?

i) Read what you assess as first hand as is available. If you can find Bellum Gallicum, don't rely on modern summaries, if you rely on summaries, prefer the scraps and bits they give from Bellum Gallicum, if you are assessing Alesia; dito with Moses over Arabic historians.

ij) Take into account that conditions can change, even drastically. As with change from citizens armed to professional soldiers.

iij) Don't be Uniformitarian! Don't believe Ibn Khaldun on this!

iu) Don't be administrational Uniformitarian (other good example, don't presume just because Roman right was very good in Justinian's time that the time of Persecutions - Nero to Diocletian - was better than Verres in relation to creative tortures). Check up if conditions have changed or at least conceivably could have.

u) Don't be a demographic uniformitarian. A population growth impossible in modern Naples would not have been impossible starting from Mount Chudi in Turkish Armenia or in Goshen, dito for one impossible in Baghdad or Cairo.

uj) Prefer oldest possible tradition over reconstructions considering it as error, whenever it is at all possible on your world view, and prefer one which leaves as few items as possible impossible, so you can learn more from unedited historic sources.

uij) Be a Christian, not a Muslim, prefer Gospels over Sura 5. It is also a good thing for your soul, if you care about that.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy
St. Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist
21.IX.2019