Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>]

        From Jim West

> At 06:53 PM 2/9/00 +0100, you wrote:
> 
> >My question, after all the blather from Dr. Barré, remains the same. Is
> there any 
> >indication from Amarna, the Bible, Egyptian records, Assyrian/Babylonian
> literature, 
> >etc. which prevents the Habiru invasion of the Amarna letters from being
> a
> 14th 
> >century conquest of the area by Joshua consumated in the following
> generation?
> 
> Im not sure how such could be verified or falsified Jonathan.  How would
> you
> know the answer to this question even if there was neutral evidence?
> (which
> there isnt).  How could the "Joshua" conquest (!!!!!!) be coordinated with
> the Habiru invasion????  Im just a bit confused as to how the Habiru and
> Joshua could possibly be tied together.
> 
> >Could it be that Amarna does not mention Israelites because the Amarna 
> >Akkadian/Canaanite word for "Israelite" is "Hebrew"/"Habiru"? Could it be
> that 
> >Philistines are not mentioned in Amarna because that is just not what
> they
> called 
> >themselves? If these two "can it be"s are answerable in the affirmative,
> then do the 
> >records of the conquests and peoples from Amarna line up with the
> accounts in 
> >Joshua and Judges?
> 
> Could it be that the Habiru have absolutely nothing at all to do with
> Joshua?  Could it be that what you are comparing here are totally
> unrelated?
> I dont see the connection and I dont think there is one.  But I cant
> falsify
> your supposition because there is no way to falsify a negative.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Jim
> 
        And therefore the thesis is illegitimate because it cannot be
verified not made false. It stands alone in the blue sky. And should people
like to know more about the habiru (our American speaking fellows),
Greenberg's old volume, The Hab/piru, has most of the texts. The best
compendium is still Jean Bottéro (ed), Le problème des Habiru from 1954.

        NPL