Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

Uri,

I fail to find anything here on which we disagree (even with Rainey!). The 
words MIGHT be etymologically related, both second millennium ANE Apiru and 
first millennium biblical Ibrim are hard to define. I would add, that the 
Biblical use tends towards the ethnic. Now whether the Bible has any 
recollection of anything from the second millennium is up for debate.

Probably end of discussion.

Yigal
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Uri Hurwitz 
  To: Yigal Levin ; b-hebrew 
  Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 4:59 PM
  Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Habiru/Apiru/Ibrim (was: Date of the Jericho Battle)


     First, the linguistic association.  Clearly  the consonants are 
identical in Akkadian and Heb. The Akkadian cuneiform sign for the first 
consonant can be either Kha  as in Arabic, ( fused with H (.) chet in Heb.), 
or -- Ayin. That the latter was the pronounciation in this case is  evident 
in the first letter of the same social term in such disparate linguistic 
cultures as Ugaritic and Egyptian, Ayin in both. The second consonantis B or 
P , these are quite interchangeble as is known.The third  is R in both.
    As for historical , anthropological  correspondence between )abiru and 
Ibrim.: The first are known throughout the ANE mostly in the second 
millennium,  not as an ethnicum, rather as landless outsiders, marauders but 
sometimes as mercenaries. In short an ill defined appellation. Ibrim in  the 
HB is a term used mostly by others such as the Philistines to describe the 
Herews or Israelites, not by the latter to describe themselves. Again an ill 
defined appellation.

    The )Apiru of the El-Amarna tablets may refer to the groups we read about 
in Genesis in the Patriarchial narratives that are involved in skirmishes and 
even battles (see the enigmatic chapt. 14). It is  certainly a period that 
preceeds the settlement/conquest,  but only five or six generations seprate 
Amarna from Merenpath. Perhaps some Hebrews  remained in Canaan, not all went 
down to Egypt, but this is ouside the scope of this list. 

    Uri

  Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
    OK, let's do it.

    My impression has always been that the initial connection was made simply 
because, to the European scholars who first translated the el-Amarna letters, 
"Habiru" sounded lot like "Hebrew". However, even assuming an etymological 
connection between (PR and (BR,
    a. A careful analysis of the EA texts finds no mention of the Apiru as 
"tribes", "invaders", "conquerors" or anything else that is similar to the 
biblical account of the conquest. Many of the cities mentioned in the 
conquest story, such as Jericho, Ai, Gibeon, Hebron, Debir, Shimron, Achshaph 
are not mention in the EA texts (and indeed many were not even settled at the 
time). 
    b. The term "Ibri" and its uses in the Bible are also unclear. DOES it 
refer to an "ethnicity"? Is it a social status?
    c. IF the EA letters were to be taken as evidence of a "Hebrew" invasion 
of Canaan during the 14th century, such an invasion had no real effect: the 
"wave" of destructions, the appearance of "Israelite" settlements in the hill 
country and the end of Egyptian rule of the country all began in the 12th 
century. 

    Yigal
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Uri Hurwitz 
    To: Yigal Levin ; b-hebrew 
    Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 10:48 PM
    Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] True Date of the Jericho Battle


    Yigal wrote: "However, even if that date is off by about a century either 
way it would not
    make a difference, as there is NO archaeological OR textual evidence of 
any
    appearance of anything that anyone could identify as "Israelites" until 
the
    very end of the 13th century.

    Yigal"
    I believe you refer here to the the "Israel Stele" by Merenptah; indeed 
late 13th cent., and there the matter could rest.

    But some timid souls would still support Th. Meek's thesis, and he was 
not the first or the only one, that the infamous Habiru of the Amar! na 
tablets in the 14th century were the Hebrews. He made this connection on 
clear linguistic grounds, which makes this worth discussion on this list. And 
it would push back the external references to biblical Hebrews by over a 
century. But please don't tell Rainey (among those who violently deny any 
connection with the Habiru) what I wrote here.

    Uri 
    ,





    _______________________________________________
    b-hebrew mailing list
    b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
    http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
    http://mail.yahoo.com 

    _______________________________________________
    b-hebrew mailing list
    b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
    http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Do you Yahoo!?
  Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year