There is an idea that the word used in these instances,
âelef, is being mistranslated.
From a linguistic standpoint, while the word
âelef could mean âthousandâ, it also has the meaning of (military) âunitâ, âclanâ, âsquadâ, or âfamilyâ. It is used in the sense of âclanâ in Judges 6:15 (âPlease, Lord, how can I save Israel? Behold,
my clan (
âalÉpĂŽ) is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my fatherâs houseâ), and modern translations such as the ESV I used above understand it as such. In the case of Exodus 12:1, however, the translation âsix hundred clansâ is not feasible since the word is applied to
hagÉá¸ÄrĂŽm, traditionally âmenâ but also âwarriorsâ (cf. 2 Samuel 23:8).
The translation âunitâ for
âelef is another option. In 1 Samuel 17:18, Jesse directs David to present ten cheeses âto the commander of their thousand (
lÉĹar-hÄâÄlef)â (cf. KJV, RSV, NRSV, JPS, ESV, NASB). Some recognize it to be a title: âcommanding officerâ (so in the JB, NEB, and NET) or âfield officerâ (NAB), while others understand it to refer to a unit (cf. NIV). Somewhat related to this is the proposal to repoint
âÄlef to read
âalluf âtribal chiefâ or âfully armed man.â (In a few cases, such as in Deuteronomy 7:13; 28:4, 18, 51; Psalm 8:7; Isaiah 30:24,
âelef even seems to mean a flock or âherdâ of cattle - the word after all seemingly being related to
'alef âoxâ, which is also the name of
the very first letter of the Proto-Canaanite alphabet and its descendants.)
With these possibilities, weâll look at how scholars have interpreted the six hundred
âelef of Exodus. Those who take it to literally mean âsix hundred thousandâ are divided into two camps: on the one side are those who believed that several million people were involved, like many of the 19th century explorers of Sinai, as well as some present-day literalists like
Walter Kaiser, Jr. and
Robert Cornuke. On the other side, meanwhile, are those who interpret the number as being an exaggeration, either for theological purposes, or as a reflection of the supposed Priestly source (P)'s belief that such a figure represented historical reality.
Now it is true that the hyperbolic use of numbers, especially in military settings, is well attested in ancient sources, even in the Bible itself: one example being in 2 Chronicles 14:9, where Zerah the Cushiteâs army is said to number one million. Assyrian annals often contain very large numbers in military contexts (cf. Shalmaneserâs army in the battle of Qarqar above), and exaggeration or hyperbole might be the intention. Egyptian military texts also use numbers such as thousands (
ḍ3), tens of thousands (
á¸ba), or hundreds of thousands (
Ḽfn) in a hyperbolic manner. However, these numbers are not usually modified by a numeral like six or seven. Thus, while the use of six hundred
âelef in Exodus 12:37 as an intentionally exaggerated figure is a plausible explanation, the number does not compare favorably with the hyperbolic use of numbers in the available corpus of ANE literature. And since this number is supposed to represent the total of Israelâs fighting force, one might expect the number to be
reduced to make Godâs intervention more impressive (cf. Judges 7). Another way of regarding the issue is to interpret âsix hundred
âelefâ
sexagesimally. However, while the base 6 system was known in ancient Sumer (and later, Babylonia), it did not apparently spread through the Near East.
One of the first to really struggle with the whole issue was the Egyptologist
Flinders Petrie. He proposed understanding the word
âelef, based on his analysis of the itinerary in Numbers 1, as meaning âtent groups,â with the hundreds figure representing the actual number of men in the
âelef. As per his idea, the six hundred figure represents the total number of âunitsâ in the census figures. Adding the hundreds column to this figure led Petrie to propose that there would have been 5,500 fighting men, which accords better with the comparative numbers of armies, and would mean that although a sizeable force, it would not outnumber the Egyptian army.
In 1958,
George Mendenhall built upon Petrieâs conclusions and accepted the meaning of
âelef as âsome subsection of a tribe.â Working within
Martin Nothâs amphictyonic tribal system and considering other sociological factors, Mendenhall argued that the census reveals the contribution of each tribe to the army and regarded the census âas an authentic list from the period of the Federation * which reflects this sort of military organization and mobilization, probably coming from specific occasions when the Federation army had to be mobilized to meet the common peril.â The number of men per tribal unit varied considerably, ranging from five to fourteen. On the basis of these figures Mendenhall declared that the numbers might well be grounded in historical reality, as they are âso random that no pattern can be seen underlying them.â He concluded that that the system of tallying forces used by P were derived from earlier sources that were influenced by the type of military reckoning texts from
Alalakh and
Mari.
In contrast to Petrie, who believed that the censuses originated from the Mosaic period, Mendenhall originally considered the tribal system in Numbers 1 and 26 to reflect what he calls âthe period of the Federation.â Mendenhall noted that by the period of the early monarchy, the earlier tribal organization system was deteriorating. He also thought it possible that later in Israelite history it became difficult for editors and copyists to understand how to interpret
âelef, which eventually led to the (mistaken) idea that hundreds of thousands or millions of Israelites were involved in the exodus from Egypt. Twenty years after his study, however, Mendenhall revised his position: he now believes that the origin of the census should be moved down to the period of the United Monarchy, with the corvĂŠe labor system in which each tribe was responsible to conscript laborers for Solomonâs building projects standing behind the census which P projected back into the Mosaic period in Numbers 1 and 26.
Mendenhallâs view that
âelef is a clan-based military unit has become popular with scholars who also utilize sociological approaches to the Hebrew scriptures, like
Norman K. Gottwald (author of
The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 BCE), who further suggests that
âelef was occasionally used as a synonym with
miĹĄpÄḼâ (âfamily;â the usual term for a clan), or
J. David Schloen (
The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East), who likewise agrees that the typical
âelef consisted of nine to ten men, and that a
miĹĄpÄḼâ comprised of one to two dozen households. While some recent studies have challenged Mendenhallâs revised conclusions, there is still agreement that his analysis is on the right track in his understanding of
âelef. Recently, a Cambridge physicist named
Colin J. Humphreys (
The Miracles of Exodus) through mathematical analysis of the numbers estimated that the number of Israelites included in the exodus was around 20,000.*
The rather odd thing is though, many people seem to get their knowledge of the Exodus from films rather than the biblical account itself.
Just my opinion.
archive.jewishagency.org
