Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <Yigal-Levin AT utc.edu>]

At 07:54 AM 8/9/2002 -0700, waldo slusher wrote:
>Yigal
>
>
>< and most Muslims are
>> not of Arab decsent and as such are not ever
>> theoretically decsended from
>> Abraham.....
>
>> ...So even if all Muslims were Arabs, this would not
>> make them Hebrews.
>
>
>I agree that no Muslim is a Hebrew, nor would any
>Muslim lay claim to such, without risk of death.
>
>But you might need to restate or repeat yourself here.
>Surely Muslims/Arabs are tied into Ishmael, who
>is a direct descendant of Abraham. 
>
>But your post starts off with a strong
>clarification/negation, and ends with almost the
>opposite, almost affirming what you first set out to
>deny
>
>Did I miss you point?
>
>
The points I have been making throughout this thread are:

1. The idea that the `Ibrim are descended from the Shemite Eber is implied
in Gen. 10 and 11. However biblical genealogies, like all other types of
biblical literature, are used by their authors in different ways and are
not necessarily to be taken literally. No where are the Israelites called
"sons of Eber" (unlike, say, the Moabites, the Amonites, the Edomites and
so on, and unlike the Israelites' being called "sons of Israel/Jacob). 

2. The term `Ibri might also be related to the verb `BR, meaning "cross
over". In my opinion, this is related more to the geographical term "`Eber
Hannahar" ("across the river [Euphrates]) than anything else.

3. While `Ibrim is certainly used by the Israelites vis a vis their
neighbors as an "ethnic" term (Jonah, Joseph, Moses etc.), it also seems to
have a certain sociological meaning, which we do not have enough evidence
to really understand.

4. While this meaning might be etymologically related to the `Apiru
(Habiru), this does not mean that there is any direct connection between
the two groups: "`Apiru" was a name given to a social "class" in the
14-13th centuries. Similar people (including among the Israelites) were
called by different names in different periods (cf. "Frank", which has
meant, in different contexts, "Barbarian", "German", "French", "Western
European" in general, and even "North African/Moroccan"; or "Yankee", which
means either someone from New England, or from the northern US, of from the
US in general, "Gringo").
The Iron Age Israelites (as far as the Bible tells us, and that's all we
have), on the other hand, saw themselves as a distinct ethnicity.

5. The language (or group of dialects) that we call Hebrew (remember, the
Bible never calls it that) is closely related to Canaanite, Moabite,
Amonite and a little less closely to Aramaic. Some of these relationships
are reflected it the Bible, but language was not the only criterion that
the authors used. And so the Canaanites, who were close linguistically,
were "sons" of Ham, but the Arabs (or "Ishmaelites" - actually the Bible
also doesn't consider the "Ishmaelites" and the "`Arabim" related either,
even though they shared the same space), whose language was not as close,
were first cousins.


Yigal




Dr. Yigal Levin
Dept. of Philosophy and Religion
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga TN 37403-2598
U.S.A.