- Jan 25, 2009
- 19,765
- 1,428
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Concerning why I was writing this, there was another discussion elsewhere on how literal one was meant to take the Exodus account when they left Egypt in Exodus 13-14 - and the following was shared:
[/QUOTE]
I felt what was shared had good considerations on the issue..
Some scholars, interestingly enough, have advocated the dynamic that the Hebrews may have been smaller in number - and yet known to be warriors/mercenaries and that being the reason the Egyptians were afraid of them in time when they began to grow....
Again, the argument some scholars believe is that they are also in this area fighting as mercenary soldiers in the Egyptian army. Their job would be to serve as a first line of defense against invaders from the north. These habiru were mercenaries, they were soldiers of fortune and would fight for who ever it was in their best interest at that time to fight for. And to others, it seems like they had a good thing going in Egypt for a few hundred years. But eventually,when a new pharaoh rises to power, some scholars believe he is Seti I, and he does not seem to care much for the Israelites.
I really do find it intruiging to consider that they were Mercenaries out of Egypt...
I do think that it makes A LOT of sense when seeing the history of Abraham himself (like rescuing Lot in Exodus 14/routing multiple armies with a force of 318 TRAINED men) or Jacob's sons destroying an entire city (as with the case of Dinah in Genesis 34 when they put the entire city to the sword) or even Jacob's brother Esau in his ability for fight/the warriors with him in Genesis 33 - the ability to fight and the fight well was not something that suddenly developed AFTER the Exodus from Egypt.
And as Moses was a prince of Egypt who was able to fight off others raiding Midianite herds (due to his background/training), it's hard not to see a military perspective present in the text.
For some excellent reads on the issue I've been thankful for:
Outside of that, the mercernary mindset makes a lot of sense and I do think others should consider it more..
Whether slaves or not, the demotion from soldier to common physical worker probably signaled to the Israelites that it was time to leave Egypt....
And this goes with the number dynamic in Exodus when considering how a para-military force such as the Hebrews in Egypt didn't need to be in big numbers in general. The Bible says that 600,000 men left Egypt.
Recently, Jim Hoffmeier discussed a mistranslation of the word elith. ...specifically, archaeologist Jim Hoffmeier of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School says the number is probably far fewer, due to a mistranslation dating thousands of years. For the original Hebrew says there were 600 elith.
Hoffmeier notes The word elith can be translated 3 different ways: it can be translated thousand. Elith can also be translated to the clan. The third option is that its a military unit, which I think is a more plausible scenario. According to Hoffmeiers interpretation, instead of 600,000 men and their families, there were as few as 5000.
For more, one can go here:
With the History Network's presentation on the issue, although I don't agree with all aspects of the program the presentation came on (from the History Network entitled "Bible Battles") - specifically when it comes to doubting the crossing of the Red Sea - I must admit that the argument for the Hebrews being warriors was noteworthy....especially when seeing how getting out of Egypt and facing the Amalekites in Exodus 19 happened and they were prepared to fight/do battle effectively.
Dr. Richard Gabriel's take on the Exodus account is something that seems noteworthy when it comes to military history. The theory of Israel being military trained seems to make sense (as it concerns them being small yet efficient) because it was the Israelites who actually enslaved themselves in a manner of speaking. They was told to go back to Canaan but were living happy in the Land of Goshen after Joseph's day when they were told to stay for awhile during the famine.. So, when they wanted to leave, the Pharoah did not want them to, whether they were slaves, workers or soldiers.
Does anyone here feel that there is merit in the Exodus account being reconsidered as a military text - and that the numbers may be smaller than others wish to acknowledge? What do you feel the Exodus account represents when it comes to the themes present within it?
Instead of 186,400 fighting men in one camp, you have 185 chiefs and 1400 men. The total would be 598 chiefs and 5550 men. The author seems to have made the mistake that this was all the people instead of just the fighting men, so the total would be probably closer to 20-30 thousand with women and children plus the mixed multitude.
Another site translates eleph as families, which would lower the total to 598 family groups with a total of 5550 fighting men.
The Population of the Israelite Exodus
Why I find the larger numbers hard to believe: not because I don't think YHWH could care for that many. We may see for ourselves in the next exodus, which is prophesied to be much larger than the first. He didn't save Israel by their might, but by his. See Deut 7:1,7 and Deut 11:23 about their small size as a nation. The tiny nations holding only small parts of the promised land were larger than the whole tribe of Israel.
What kind of miracle would it be if an army of over six hundred thousand took over the promised land where most towns held no more than a few thousand people and a few hundred soldiers? When you have only about 5550-7000 total fighters, that is another matter.
I felt what was shared had good considerations on the issue..
Some scholars, interestingly enough, have advocated the dynamic that the Hebrews may have been smaller in number - and yet known to be warriors/mercenaries and that being the reason the Egyptians were afraid of them in time when they began to grow....
Richard A Gabriel, PhD and author of Military History of Ancient Israel said the following:Exodus 1:9-10, And he said to his people, Look the Israelite people are much too numerous for us. Let us deal shrewdly with them, so that they may not increase. Otherwise in the event of war they may join our enemies in fighting against us and rise from the ground. 11 Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh supply cities, Pithom and Raamses. 12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were in dread of the children of Israel. 13 So the Egyptians made the children of Israel serve with rigor. 14 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondagein mortar, in brick, and in all manner of service in the field. All their service in which they made them serve was with rigor.
The sheer location of where the habiru are in the land of Goshen, sitting astride the key route of invasion or defense of Egypt, probably convinced Seti himself, a professional warrior that something had to be done either to remove them, or weaken their influence, or at least remove them from their geographical area. Thus it is that Seti becomes, most historians think, the pharaoh in the Bible who first sets the Israelites to physical labor.....There was no slavery in Egypt right from the beginning until the end of the empire. Well, if in fact they were not slaves set to labor, what were they? The answer is corvee labor. That is the term used to describe, essentially conscripted civilian workers to work on public works projects. These people were not slaves, they were paid and they were well treated, and we know that from the military medical texts which stations military doctors with the workmen in order to make sure they are well-treated and well fed.
I really do find it intruiging to consider that they were Mercenaries out of Egypt...
I do think that it makes A LOT of sense when seeing the history of Abraham himself (like rescuing Lot in Exodus 14/routing multiple armies with a force of 318 TRAINED men) or Jacob's sons destroying an entire city (as with the case of Dinah in Genesis 34 when they put the entire city to the sword) or even Jacob's brother Esau in his ability for fight/the warriors with him in Genesis 33 - the ability to fight and the fight well was not something that suddenly developed AFTER the Exodus from Egypt.
And as Moses was a prince of Egypt who was able to fight off others raiding Midianite herds (due to his background/training), it's hard not to see a military perspective present in the text.
For some excellent reads on the issue I've been thankful for:
- The Military History of Ancient Israel - - by Richard A. Gabriel (specifically on Page 97 and on 40 I believe )
- The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian by Joseph Meleze Modrzejewski, Robert Cornman and Shaye J.D. Cohen
- Entering Into the Promise: Joshua through 1 & 2 Samuel: Inheriting God's Promises and Finding the One True King by Henrietta C. Mears -
Outside of that, the mercernary mindset makes a lot of sense and I do think others should consider it more..
Whether slaves or not, the demotion from soldier to common physical worker probably signaled to the Israelites that it was time to leave Egypt....
And this goes with the number dynamic in Exodus when considering how a para-military force such as the Hebrews in Egypt didn't need to be in big numbers in general. The Bible says that 600,000 men left Egypt.
Recently, Jim Hoffmeier discussed a mistranslation of the word elith. ...specifically, archaeologist Jim Hoffmeier of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School says the number is probably far fewer, due to a mistranslation dating thousands of years. For the original Hebrew says there were 600 elith.
Hoffmeier notes The word elith can be translated 3 different ways: it can be translated thousand. Elith can also be translated to the clan. The third option is that its a military unit, which I think is a more plausible scenario. According to Hoffmeiers interpretation, instead of 600,000 men and their families, there were as few as 5000.
For more, one can go here:
With the History Network's presentation on the issue, although I don't agree with all aspects of the program the presentation came on (from the History Network entitled "Bible Battles") - specifically when it comes to doubting the crossing of the Red Sea - I must admit that the argument for the Hebrews being warriors was noteworthy....especially when seeing how getting out of Egypt and facing the Amalekites in Exodus 19 happened and they were prepared to fight/do battle effectively.
Dr. Richard Gabriel's take on the Exodus account is something that seems noteworthy when it comes to military history. The theory of Israel being military trained seems to make sense (as it concerns them being small yet efficient) because it was the Israelites who actually enslaved themselves in a manner of speaking. They was told to go back to Canaan but were living happy in the Land of Goshen after Joseph's day when they were told to stay for awhile during the famine.. So, when they wanted to leave, the Pharoah did not want them to, whether they were slaves, workers or soldiers.
Does anyone here feel that there is merit in the Exodus account being reconsidered as a military text - and that the numbers may be smaller than others wish to acknowledge? What do you feel the Exodus account represents when it comes to the themes present within it?
Last edited: