Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Habiru/Apiru/Ibrim (was: Date of the Jericho Battle)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Habiru/Apiru/Ibrim (was: Date of the Jericho Battle)
  • Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 23:18:34 +0200

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page