Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

    This is how T. Meek establishes the association between the  biblical and 
Akkadian terms:                     
 "The word  `ibri is
strictly gentilic in  Hebrew , but without the
gentilic ending it is found as the name of the
eponymous ancestor of the Hebrew nation, Eber
(references from Gen. and I Chron.- UH), which
manifestly goes back to an earlier form `abir(u), just
as melek goes back to an earlier  form milk, and that
to malik. Now the exact equivalent of `abir(u) , and
hence  of `eber and `ibri, in cuneiform is -habiru
(nom.sing.), habiru_ (nom. pl.), habiri_ (gen.-acc.
pl.), and it so happens that this word appears in
cuneiform literature from one end of the Near East to
the other, from the the twentieth century down to the
eleventh."
                  (Italics and footnote with
refernces, omitted -UH)

 citation from                      Hebrew Origins, Third edition, p. 7 ff

  Meek is not bothered by the absence of the long a_ shift, nor by the 
absence of a long vowel.  Completely apart from that,  it is hard to know 
from the MT how  the term was actually pronnouced in Hebrew  when used, or 
even written down.

Uri

 



"Jonathan D. Safren" <yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il> wrote:
There's also the problem of the vowels.
(abiru after the Canaanite vowel shift would become spmething like {obir =
MT Hebrew {over, but never {ivri.
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
44905 Beit Berl Post Office
Israel

---- 

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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 
                
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year
>From david.kimbrough AT charter.net  Sun May 23 16:31:17 2004
Return-Path: <david.kimbrough AT charter.net>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mxsf14.cluster1.charter.net (mxsf14.cluster1.charter.net
        [209.225.28.214])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AFE22008C
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 23 May 2004 16:31:17 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from mxip01.cluster1.charter.net (dc-mx02.cluster1.charter.net
        [209.225.8.12])
        by mxsf14.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
        i4NKMhT3071906
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 23 May 2004 16:22:43 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from fep05.charter.net (HELO 209.225.8.224) (209.225.8.85)
        by mxip01.cluster1.charter.net with SMTP; 23 May 2004 16:22:44 -0400
Message-Id: <344nff$bnti8 AT mxip01.cluster1.charter.net>
X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.12 (webedge20-101-197-20030912)
From: <david.kimbrough AT charter.net>
To: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>,
        "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 20:22:43 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 
Subject: [b-hebrew] Hebrew & Habiru
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 20:31:17 -0000

I think it is interesting to note that  in the OT 
Israelites almost never refer to themselves as ?Hebrews? 
among themselves.  In almost ever entry for ?Hebrew? or 
?Hebrews? it is either an Egyptian or Philistine who refers 
to the Israelites as ?Hebrews?.  When Israelites do use the 
term ?Hebrew? to describe themselves, they are speaking to 
an Egyptian or Philistine.  The main exception involves 
purchased ?Hebrew? slaves who must be freed in their 
seventh year (Exd 21:2 , Deu 15:12, Jer 34:9 Jer 34:14).  
Since it seems likely that the Philistines were at some 
point employed by the Egyptians as regional surrogates, it 
would not be surprising that they would use an Egyptian 
term to describe the Israelites.  Thus it seems that the 
term ?Hebrew ? was not one the Israelites used for 
themselves but was ?given? to them by others, the Egyptians 
it would seem.
> 
> From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
> Date: 2004/05/22 Sat PM 10:14:35 GMT
> To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Habiru/Apiru/Ibrim (was: Date of the 
Jericho Battle)
> 
> 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 Amarna 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
> 

David Kimbrough
San Gabriel