Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

A while ago, while another thread was running on B-Hebrew, it was argued,
based on an article published in the 1950s by R. Borger, that any linguistic
relationship between hab/piru and Hebrews must be excluded in advance
because pf the presence of a long second vowel (I believe that it was the
second), that would never disappear in a transmission from Akkadian to
Hebrew (it is accepted by some but, e.g. rejected by Bottéro in RLA IV).
This is serious matters and would, seems it, put and end to a discussion
that has lasted  for more than a hundred years and wasted much ink and
paper.

The Akkadian reading of Hapi/biru is somewhat part of the discussion, some
scholars maintaining that it is habiru, other that it is hapiru. In RLA IV,
14 ff. Jean Bottéro is of the opinion that based on Middle Assyrian
evidence, the only possible way to transcripe the word is habiru. Be that
what it is, and the matter has never been totally settled, we can return to
hab/piru and ask: Which vowel is long? Some scholars transcribe it with a
long first vowel, some with a long second, and some with a long third vowel,
amongh whom we may cound Oswald Loretz in his major monograph devoted to the
question (Habiru--Hebräer; BZAW, 160; Berlin 1984). The Akkadian seems never
to write the second syllable with more than a simple BI or PÌ, sometimes BIR
or PÌR, never e.g. pi-i-ir, or bi-i-ir. It is all a bit confusing so I would
like to send out the signal, and will crosspost it also to ANE in order to
invite comments. 

As Loretz is not really interested in an easy identification between the
Hab/piru and the biblical Hebrews, I ask people to forget the historical
issues and only address the linguistic ones.

NPL