Among the many discrepancies in the Bible is one pertaining to where Moses' brother Aaron died. Numbers 33:38 says that he "went up Mount Hor at the command of Yahweh and died there," but Deuteronomy 10:6 says that he died at Moserah and was buried there. Inerrantists, of course, have a facile explanation for this discrepancy. They say that Moserah was a region and Mount Hor a specific place within that region. Hence, there was no discrepancy in the reports of Aaron's death any more than there would be a discrepancy in two accounts in which the one said that John Kennedy had died in Dallas, whereas the other said that he had died in Texas. If, however, we start at the beginning of the wilderness encampments listed for the Israelites in Numbers 33 and analyze them up to the reference to Aaron's death in verse 38, we will see serious problems in this "explanation" of the discrepancy concerning the place where Aaron died.

"And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses and encamped in Succoth" (v:5). Rameses and Succoth were both specific locations. Succoth was located about 30 miles south-southeast of Rameses, so this indicates that the Israelites traveled 30 miles on the first leg of their trip. This would make the 20-mile estimate of a day's journey--which I use in calculations below--very conservative.

"And they journeyed from Succoth and encamped in Etham, which is in the edge of the wilderness" (v:6). The exact location of Etham is not known, but if it was located in "the edge of the wilderness," it would have been a specific place within a region that was called "the wilderness"? This will be an important point to remember as I later analyze inerrantist quibbles that specific locations in the listings of the encampments were actually geographical regions like states or provinces.

"And they journeyed from Etham and turned back to Pihahiroth, which is before Baalzephon, and they encamped before Migdol" (v:7). Pihahiroth and Baalzephon are also unknowns, but the way the text reads implies that they are specific locations and not geographical regions, because it is unlikely that the writer meant to say that the Israelites turned toward a geographical region named Pihahiroth, which is before a geographical region named Baalzephon and encamped before Migdol. This would be as imprecise as saying, "I journeyed from Oklahoma, which is before Arizona, and camped before New Mexico." Baalzephon was a Syrian deity, who is mentioned in the annals of king Sargon (Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, 1987, pp. 115-116), so many assume that Baalzephon was a temple built in honor of this deity. At any rate, the Israelites camped before Migdol on this leg of their journey, and this was known to be an Egyptian fortress city near Pelusium in the Northeastern part of the Nile Delta. Hence of the three encampments mentioned so far, two were known to be specific locations.

"And they journeyed from before Hahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and they went three days' journey in the wilderness of Etham and encamped in Marah" (v:8). Marah was a specific location, identified in Exodus 15:23 as a spring where the Israelites obtained water. It isn't likely that Marah would have been a sea or even a lake large enough to be called a region.

"And they journeyed from Marah, and came to Elim, and in Elim were twelve springs of water, and 70 palm trees, and they encamped there" (v:9). This is an obvious description of an oasis, which agrees with an identical description that was given in Exodus 15:27. Hence, it too was a specific location and not a geographical region.

"And they journeyed from Elim and encamped by the Red Sea" (v:10). This, of course, is too general to be identified as a specific location. However, by now we have seen enough to understand that the Israelites should have fired Yahweh who guided them by day in a cloud and by night in a pillar of fire (Ex. 13:1-22), because he first led them south-southeast from Rameses to Succoth and into the edge of the wilderness, then north to the Nile Delta, then across the sea and three days' into the wilderness, and now back to the Red Sea. It's no wonder it took them 40 years to reach the promised land.

"And they journeyed from the Red Sea and encamped in the wilderness of Sin" (v:11). This is another place that must be considered a geographical region. Please notice, however, that the place name itself, like the expressions "edge of the wilderness" and "by the Red Sea," clearly identifies this as a geographical region.

"And they journeyed from the wilderness of Sin and encamped in Dophkah" (v:12). There is some scholarly disagreement on the location of Dophkah, but most identify it as an Egyptian mining community located at the Wady Feiran on the western branch of the Red Sea. If so, it would have been a specific location, and that opinion is supported by the absence of any prefixed description like "the edge of" or "the wilderness of" to identify it as a region.

"And they journeyed from Dophkah and encamped in Alush" (v:13). The location of Alush has not been identified with certainty, but the absence of any prefixed description like "the edge of" or "the wilderness of" again identfies it as a specific location rather than a general region.

"And they journeyed from Alush and encamped in Rephidim, where there was no water for the people to drink" (v:14). Since Exodus 17:1-6 identifies this as a place close to Mount Sinai or Horeb (as does the next verse in the list of encampments), it has to be considered a specific location, since Sinai was the region, as the next verse in Numbers 33 shows in referring to it as "the wilderness of Sinai."

"And they journeyed from Rephadim and encamped in the wilderness of Sinai" (v:15). Notice again that when an encampment was a geographical region, the language of the text made that obvious. We can reasonably conclude, then, that when the writer did not use descriptions like "the wilderness of" or "the edge of," he was referring to a specific place and not a broader region.

"And they journeyed from the wilderness of Sinai and encamped in Kibroth-hattaavah" (v:16). This had to be a specific location, since the Israelites gave it this name, which means "graves of lust," because it was here that the Israelites lusted for meat and Yahweh "smote the people with a great plague" (Num. 11:33-34). The people had complained about not having meat to eat, and so Yahweh sent the throng of quails that covered the ground for a day's journey around the camp but then killed the grumblers before they would eat the quails. The Israelites called this place Kibroth-hattaavah, "because there they buried the people who had the craving" (v:34). It has been associated with modern Rueis-el-Eberij, but whether this tradition is true or not, it would still have been a specific place, because Numbers 11:34 makes it clear that the name was given to the Israelite encampment where the people were struck with the plague.

"And they journeyed from Kibroth-hattaavah and encamped in Hazeroth" (v:17). This was the place where Miriam and Aaron challenged the leadership of Moses (Num. 11:35 through 12:1-15). It has been identified as modern Ain Hadra, where springs are located.

"And they journeyed from Hazeroth and encamped in Rithmah" (v:18). This would be a specific location, because Numbers 12:16 states that the Israelites journeyed from Hazeroth and encamped in the Wilderness of Paran. Rithmah is not mentioned in the earlier listing, so here is a case where an inerrantist would seemed compelled to resolve the discrepancy in these two passages by arguing that Rithmah was a specific location within the geographical region named the Wilderness of Paran.

The listings continue through 20 more verses, but this analysis is sufficient to show that when a geographical region was intended, the text made it evident by using expressions like "wilderness of..." or "by the Red Sea" to show by context that a specific location wasn't intended. Furthermore, many of the locations not so designated have been identified as specific sites and not geographical regions; thus, we have every reason to be suspicious of the inerrantist quibble that Moserah was a geographical region in which the specific location of Mount Hor was located. Even though we may not know exactly where Moserah and Mount Hor were located, the evidence supports the view that they were both specific locations. Hence, if one passage says that Aaron died in Moserah and another one says that Aaron died at Mount Hor, we have reason to suspect that a discrepancy exists, probably because two different traditions concerning the place where Aaron had died found their way into the Biblical text. This view is also supported by the fact that the writer of Numbers 33:31 and Deuteronomy 10:6 disagreed on whether the Israelites in their journeys went first to Moserah and then to Bene-jaakan or went first to Bene-jaakan and then to Moserah. The author of Numbers said that the Israelites went from Moseroth [Moserah] to Bene-jaakan.

Numbers 33:30 They set out from Hashmonah and camped at Moseroth. ³¹ They set out from Moseroth and camped at Bene-jaakan. ³² They set out from Bene-jaakan and camped at Hor-haggidgad.

The author of Deuteronomy, however, said that they went to Bene-jaakan first and then to Moseroth [Moserah].

Deuteronomy 10:6 The Israelites journeyed from Beeroth-bene-jaakan to Moserah. There Aaron died, and there he was buried; his son Eleazar succeeded him as priest.

When difficulties like these are found in passages recording the same events, it is hard to believe in biblical inerrancy. It is more likely that at least one of the two writers recording the same events erred in his account.

The additional fact that the Israelites camped in seven different locations in their journeys from Moseroth to Mount Hor, where Aaron died, makes it even more difficult to believe the fundamentalist claim that Moseroth [Moserah] was a geographical region and Mount Hor a specific location within that region.

Numbers 31:30 They set out from Hashmonah and camped at Moseroth. ³¹ They set out from Moseroth and camped at Bene-jaakan. ³² They set out from Bene-jaakan and camped at Hor-haggidgad. ³³ They set out from Hor-haggidgad and camped at Jotbathah. ³⁴ They set out from Jotbathah and camped at Abronah. ³⁵ They set out from Abronah and camped at Ezion-geber. ³⁶ They set out from Ezion-geber and camped in the wilderness of Zin (that is, Kadesh). ³⁷ They set out from Kadesh and camped at Mount Hor, on the edge of the land of Edom. ³⁸ Aaron the priest went up Mount Hor at the command of Yahweh and died there in the fortieth year after the Israelites had come out of the land of Egypt, on the first day of the fifth month.

By counting the italicized place names, readers can see that there were seven encampments between Moseroth, which inerrantists claim was a geographical region, and Mt. Hor, a specific location within that region, so inerrantists say, where Aaron died. To see the unlikeliness of this fundamentalist "solution" to the discrepancy, try to visualize a horde of people that numbered 3 million traveling, say, 200 abreast, taking with them their tents, herds, and other possessions. If they traveled this way, there would have been 15,000 rows of people, and if they had only 3 feet between the rows, they would have been strung out over a distance of almost 10 miles. However, it is unreasonable to think that people traveling with their tents and large herds of livestock (Ex. 12:38; Num. 32:1; Deut. 3:19) could have been compacted together with only 3 feet between the rows. So even if they had formed a column of people and animals 20 miles long and had traveled only 20 miles per day, (long enough for the people in the back to be out of the abandoned camp site before the front of the column stopped to make camp again), the seven encampments listed in the text quoted above would have removed them a distance of 140 miles from Moserah. This would have been a distance 40 miles farther than the whole width of the Sinai Penninsula.

How could the Israelites have broken camp and traveled on seven times and still have been in a geographical region known as Moserah, which was located on a penninsula that was only about 100 miles wide at its widest part? It's ridiculous to think that 2.5 to 3 million people could wander in a region like this for 40 years without accidentally finding their way out. It is equally ridiculous to think that they could have broken camp and traveled on seven times and still have been in a geographical region known as Moserah. I would be intellectually embarrassed to try to defend an absurd story like this, but I have found that nothing can be too absurd to embarrass biblical fundamentalists.

I have already noted that if we assume the accuracy of the census figures in Numbers, then we have to conclude that there were about 3 million people in the exodus group. In "The Size of the Hebrew Camps," I also noted that if each person in the Israelite horde had had only a 6-foot by 3-foot plot to sleep on at night, this would have been 18 square feet. (A standard twin bed provides 19.5 square feet of sleeping space.) Children could have used less space, of course, but there were undoubtedly many adults whose size would have required more than 6' x 3', so 18 square feet per person would not be an unreasonable average. Three million people sleeping at night would have occupied 54 million square feet or 6 million square yards, even if there were no passage ways left open for those who heard nature calling in the night. An acre consists of 4,840 square yards, so even if the Israelites had slept at night like sardines, they would have occupied 1,240 acres. This would have been almost 2 square miles.

A sardinelike encampment, however, was hardly likely, because the Israelites slept in tents (Ex. 16:16; Num. 1:52; Deut. 1:27,33; 5:30; etc.). Tents must be set up where there is enough space for guy ropes to stabilize them, and certainly paths would have been necessary for the people to walk on as they went about their routines and duties while they were encamped. If we suppose that there was an average of 10 persons per tent, there would have been 250,000 to 300,000 tents in the encampments. If we allot the 18 square-foot sleeping space for each person, the tents would have had to average 180 square feet in size. A 12- by 15-foot tent would have provided the necessary 180 square feet for its 10 occupants. If we imagine that the guy ropes were pegged into the ground only four feet from the borders of the tent, the space needed to pitch one tent would have been 12 x 15 with 8 feet for guy ropes added to each dimension (4 additional feet on each side). The tent would have then occupied a plot of ground 20 feet by 23 feet or an area of 460 square feet. With only a two-foot path on all sides of the tent to allow for passageways to walk on, the plot of ground for just one tent would have measured about 22 feet by 25 feet or 550 square feet. (Since a pathway would have been shared by the tents adjacent to it, only half of the two-foot pathways have been added to the plot dimensions of a single tent. In other words, one foot at the front and one foot at the back would have provided a two-foot pathway if the adjacent tent plots also contributed a linear foot for each pathway.) With 250,000 tents in the camp, the tents alone would have required an area of 137,500,000 square feet or 15,277,777 square yards. There are 5,840 square yards in an acre, so the tents would have occupied an area of 2,616 acres. There are 640 acres in a square mile, so with the people packed together like sardines, the size of the encampments would have been just over 4 square miles.

Besides the people, the Israelites, as noted above, had their flocks and herds with them. The passages cited above speak about "much cattle" in "great multitudes," but even without these references, we would have to conclude that the flocks and herds were enorous because of the requirements of daily sacrifices that the book of Leviticus describes in detail. The link just given shows that the animals in these herds would have been far more numerous than the people, so the Israelite flocks and herds would have occupied even more territory than the people. Consequently, it is hard to imagine that their encampments could have been smaller than 8 or 10 square miles.

If we settle for a size of 9 square miles, the distance from one side of the camp to the other would have been 3 miles, if it were laid out in a square, so when the Israelites broke camp each time, they would have had to travel at least 3 miles in order for the people on the back side of the camp to reach what had been the front side of the camp. We can hardly imagine people taking down their tents and packing their belongings just to move no farther along than a plot of ground that had been immediately adjacent to the previous camp, so if we assume that the Israelites put only three miles between each encampment in their wanderings, they would have covered a distance of 246 miles in setting up their 41 different camps. This would have been a distance about twice as far as the width of the Sinai Penninsula from Migdol, their last encampment before leaving Egypt, to Ezion-geber at the north end of the Gulf of Aqabah, where the Israelites camped just before Aaron died. So how were the Israelites able to wander for 40 years in the Sinai wilderness without finding their way out by sheer accident? And how were they able to break camp seven times and still be in a region named Moseroth?

Inerrantists will argue that the Israelites sometimes backtracked and traveled in circles, because Yahweh was purposefully punishing them by forcing them to stay in the wilderness, but such a scenario as this only adds to the difficulties of believing that 3 million people with flocks and herds of "very much cattle" could have found in the wilderness the resources necessary to sustain them and their herds for 40 years. Those huge herds of grazing livestock would have surely stripped away all vegetation on their first pass through, so if the Israelites had backtracked and traveled in circles, there would have been no grazing areas for their livestock on their second trips through a region. Inerrantists, of course, will resort to the God-did-it solution and argue that if God provided manna for the Israelites, he could have miraculously provided grass for their herds. This is always a convenient "explanation" for any logistically improbable scenario in the Bible, but it is far more rational to believe that the exodus story is just another biblical myth filled with exaggerations typical of those found throughout the Bible and other literature of that period. In the case of the two accounts of Aaron's death, the authors working independently of each other disagreed on the place where Aaron had died. The one thought he had died in a place called Moseroth; the other thought he had died on Mount Hor. Each reported what he thought was true.

This is the simplest explanation for the discrepancy, and those who understand the principle known as Occam's razor will recognize that the simplest explanation is more likely to be the right one.