Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Uri writes:

>   Ian's point does reflect of course the views of some, Rainey for
>example. 

The problem is, Uri, that people take the ahistorical step of 
using undatable texts, whose historical significance has not 
been ascertained (was `bry actually in use by Hebrews in the 
Egypt of the Joseph story or was it only in use much later?), 
as evidence, yet the texts themselves, unaware of any 
connection between `ibri and habiru/`apiru, supplies its own 
traditional etymology.

It's interesting that Rainey doesn't accept the Habiru story, but 
it does after all seem to be extremely poor methodology.

>Others have different views. For a diametrically opposite view
>you may wish to look into Th. Meek's Hebrew Origins where he clearly and
>quite elaborately states that Hebrew and Apiru are linguistically
>identical.

How does Meeks explain the long medial vowel in Akkadian and 
Western Peripheral Akkadian, but not in the Hebrew? If the 
word is actually Akkadian how does one explain the initial /x/ 
and an ayn in Hebrew (given that numerous cognates between the 
two languages starting with chet exist)? If it isn't, how can 
one hope to explain any connection??

>    I don't wish to enter here the question whether one can or cannot also
>make a social connection (here again many, including Rainey hold that
>there is none, and the connection should be made with the Shasu). I would
>only mention the statement made long ago: "Not all Apiru were Israelites,
>but all Israelites stemmed from the Apiru." For obvious reasons, I cannot
>accept it fully.

I can understand -- it has as much testability as visitors from 
outer space. And why necessarily should "all Israelites"  stem 
from the Habiru? There is of course no necessity -- people like 
neat explanations of where things came from. We know, however, 
that during the reign of Merneptah there was a tribal entity 
called Israel which seems geographically already around the 
area later to become the realm of Israel, ie the north, which 
suggests that this Israel is not even derived from those habiru 
mentioned in the Amarna letters, the most famous of whom had 
hold of Gezer (also mentioned by Merneptah). So, not all Habiru 
were Israelites, and not all habiru in southern Palestine were 
Israelites. Well, just which habiru were actually "all 
Israelites"?

>     Finally, of course there has been tremendous progress in recent
>decades, archaelogically and linguistically, etc., but it would be foolish
>to disregard views that can be held as valid only because they are not
>fresh from the press.

The connection has been known in the western world since it was 
proposed in 1862. It has been the food for innumerable articles 
since then and the progress on the subject is less than zero. 
Etymological speculation seems to be generally -- though not 
always -- a waste of time.


Ian