Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

I think you are being unfair to gypsies here. Gypsies (or Romanies) 
are a specific ethnic group, not a general term for nomads or 
vagrants. Also, they are not a threat to society; they may be accused 
of a little petty theft but they do not capture cities etc. I think 
that you should apologise for this racist slur.

It is worth noting that the Biblical text itself sometimes seems to 
distinguish "Hebrew" and "Israelite". For example, 1 Samuel 13:6-7, 
14:21-22; Joyce Baldwin (quoted by David Rohl) argues that here the 
Hebrews are not Israelites but "the uncommitted recruits whom Saul has 
attracted to himself", and Rohl identifies them with Lab'aya's Habiru 
mercenaries.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: "Hebrew"/"Habiru"
Author:  <gathas AT mail.usyd.edu.au> at Internet
Date:    10/02/2000 17:23


> [...]
> Logistically, the Habiru in the Amarna letters are found not only in
> central Palestine, but also in areas such as Damascus, the Beqa'a, Byblos
> and even the Orontes valley. Anyone wishing to forego any validation of the 
> OT/HB as historical data for our period of interest will need to explain
> what these "Hebrew"/"Habiru" were doing well outside the indications 
> supplied by their proposed witness's testimony.

Yes. You would have to posit the theory that the Israelites were just one of 
a n
umber of
peoples invading. The problem, however, doesn't seem to be that the Habiru 
were 
invading,
but rather just being a general menace with the odd escalation here and 
there. T
he best
way to translate the term is, I think, as "gypsies". What do others think?

Best regards,
George Athas
 Dept of Semitic Studies,
 University of Sydney
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 
Tel Dan Inscription Website
http://members.xoom.com/gathas/teldan.htm 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 
< gathas@ mail.usyd.edu.au >