b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

[b-hebrew] Genesis 12: 5: Are "Souls" Slaves?

From: Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [b-hebrew] Genesis 12: 5: Are "Souls" Slaves?
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:22:12 -0800 (PST)

Yigal wrote, inter alia:

..."3. There is no evidence of "Hebrews" in Late Bronze Age Canaan.
It has been shown that the so-called "Habiru" or "Apiru" of the
Amarna texts are NOT "Hebrews" in the biblical sense of an ethnicity.
Some scholars even deny an etymological connection between the
terms, although that is still debated. "

Scholares such as Rainey deny such a connection, but Th. Meek
considers them identical. And I found the latter's arguments in
Hebrew Origins more convincing.

As for the Habiru (to use the Jerusalem spelling from the EA tablets),
yes,
Greenberg and others have demonstrated that this term occurs throughout
the ANE in the second millenum and is is not an ethnicon, referring rather
to landless elements.

Now it is intresting that Ivrim, (Ibrim, in the HB is a term used often
by
others, Philistines, Pharaoh's daughter etc to describe the Hebrews.

Further interesting is thre fact that only about four generations separate
the Amarna period from the Mrerenphah Stella time. And the time limits
of the Amarna period are arbitrarily limited by the parts of the archive
which
were unearthed. The Habiru activity described in them could well
have started earlier and lasted a few generations longer, and then one
has a temporal connection between some of them and Israel.

The above is speculation, but it is not so far fetched if one takes into
consideration the following: no existing self description of Habiru is
available;
they must have acted in groups in some cases and such had soical
organization and a name of their own. As menioned, some of them may well
have been early Israelites.

---------------------------------
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage.
>From uhurwitz AT yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 10:32:34 2007
Return-Path: <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from web51601.mail.re2.yahoo.com (web51601.mail.re2.yahoo.com
[206.190.38.206])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B74F24C01B
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:32:34 -0500
(EST)
Received: (qmail 64421 invoked by uid 60001); 19 Nov 2007 15:32:34 -0000
X-YMail-OSG:
kF8Jvn4VM1lBXJ1xHIXINpKUOwEncB9WwFJYYHKwiEAE39losBRWf4EzJlwVKo9wRHtuFDm5EzrdjZcNWSccdVye1aa4ZPkrZG9JB3d.JfUS5DxxUso8VsXJ_fdiCLmGUIorsjTGpflR80OtJHmo2Q--
Received: from [162.83.240.187] by web51601.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:32:34 PST
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:32:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <455115.64256.qm AT web51601.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: [b-hebrew] Genesis 12: 5: Are "Souls" Slaves?
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <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: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:32:34 -0000

Yigal wrote, inter alia:

..."3. There is no evidence of "Hebrews" in Late Bronze Age Canaan.
It has been shown that the so-called "Habiru" or "Apiru" of the
Amarna texts are NOT "Hebrews" in the biblical sense of an ethnicity.
Some scholars even deny an etymological connection between the
terms, although that is still debated. "

Scholares such as Rainey deny such a connection, but Th. Meek
considers them identical. And I found the latter's arguments in
Hebrew Origins more convincing.

As for the Habiru (to use the Jerusalem spelling from the EA tablets),
yes,
Greenberg and others have demonstrated that this term occurs throughout
the ANE in the second millenum and is is not an ethnicon, referring rather
to landless elements.

Now it is intresting that Ivrim, (Ibrim, in the HB is a term used often
by
others, Philistines, Pharaoh's daughter etc to describe the Hebrews.

Further interesting is thre fact that only about four generations separate
the Amarna period from the Mrerenphah Stella time. And the time limits
of the Amarna period are arbitrarily limited by the parts of the archive
which
were unearthed. The Habiru activity described in them could well
have started earlier and lasted a few generations longer, and then one
has a temporal connection between some of them and Israel.

The above is speculation, but it is not so far fetched if one takes into
consideration the following: no existing self description of Habiru is
available;
they must have acted in groups in some cases and such had soical
organization and a name of their own. As menioned, some of them may well
have been early Israelites.

Uri Hurwitz

---------------------------------
Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
>From JimStinehart AT aol.com Mon Nov 19 11:40:44 2007
Return-Path: <JimStinehart AT aol.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from imo-d23.mx.aol.com (imo-d23.mx.aol.com [205.188.139.137])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 358C04C01B
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:40:44 -0500
(EST)
Received: from JimStinehart AT aol.com
by imo-d23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.3.) id 3.cbe.182a0436 (14467)
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:40:18 -0500
(EST)
From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
Message-ID: <cbe.182a0436.34731672 AT aol.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:40:18 EST
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5378
X-Spam-Flag: NO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: [b-hebrew] Genesis 31: 47: What Foreign Language is That?
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <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: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:40:44 -0000

=20
Yitzhak Sapir:=20
I asked: =E2=80=9CWhat language is "yegar sahaduta" at Genesis 31: 47?
Is=20=
it=20
Hurrian? Is it Aramaic? Are these Hurrian words written in Aramaic? Or=
is this=20
classic Aramaic, with no Hurrian influence?=E2=80=9D=20
In response, you wrote: =E2=80=9CIt is Aramaic. I doubt that there is 'Hu=
rrian=20
influence.'=E2=80=9D=20
This is a very important issue to me, but I do not know how to research it.=
=20
Do you know of any Internet sites, articles, or books that discuss this=20
specific question in some detail? I have seen one-sentence comments that t=
his is=20
Aramaic, but nothing more in-depth than that.=20
1. Are these classic Aramaic words, which appear to show no Hurrian or=
=20
other ancient influence?
1. Is there a major split of opinion among secular scholars on this=20
issue, or is it an open and shut case?
I have seen secular scholars make seemingly every possible argument that th=
e=20
Patriarchal narratives were composed in the 1st millennium BCE, not the 2nd=
=20
millennium BCE. But I have never seen a secular scholar cite Genesis 31: 4=
7=20
in that connection. If these words are classic Aramaic words, that did not=20
exist until 1100 BCE at the very earliest, why then wouldn=E2=80=99t they b=
e Exhibit A=20
in the secular scholarly argument that the Patriarchal narratives are a 1st=
=20
millennium BCE composition?=20
That is one reason why I suspect that it is not a clear-cut case that these=
=20
are classic Aramaic words, showing no Hurrian or other ancient influence.=20
But if I=E2=80=99m wrong in my hunch, I=E2=80=99ll give up this argument.
=20=
Can you cite any=20
detailed discussions of this particular issue?=20
If these are classic Aramaic words, showing no Hurrian or other ancient=20
influence, then my theory of the case has a significant problem here. So a=
ny=20
scholarly cites (not just one-sentence conclusions) you may have as to this=
=20
issue would be greatly appreciated. Have scholars examined whether
these=20=
may be=20
Hurrian words and concluded that they are not Hurrian words?=20
Jim Stinehart=20
Evanston, Illinois

************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 12: 5: Are "Souls" Slaves?, Yitzhak Sapir, 11/18/2007
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- [b-hebrew] Genesis 12: 5: Are "Souls" Slaves?, Uri Hurwitz, 11/19/2007