Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <Yigal.Levin AT biu.ac.il>]

Hi Chavoux,

Good questions, all, and I very much doubt that you (or anyone else) will 
ever really be able to find a complete set of answers. The term "(Ibri" 
appears in different contexts. One of our problems, however, is that all of 
the relevant data is biblical - we have no extra-biblical references to work 
with (except the "Apiru" - more on that bellow). Yes, it makes sense that 
Ibri is someone from "across the river" and that THE River is the Euphrates, 
but as seen from which direction? One could claim that the perspective is 
Mesopotamian, as in the Mesopotamian term Ever Hanahar (eber-nari), which 
refers to the lands west of the Euphrates. But of course Abraham and co. were 
originally from east of the River. They may have only become Ibrim after 
crossing from east to west. But that would make Ibrim those who came from the 
east and are now in the west.

The relationship of the Ibrim to Eber is also a good question. Should we see 
Eber as a historical figure, or is he an artificial, literary, "eponymous 
ancestor" of the Ibrim? 

Yes, it would seem that the term Ibrim originally referred to more than just 
the Israelites. I assume that the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites etc. would 
also be Ibrim, at least in the Bible's mind, since the Bible considers them 
to be descended from the same family that "crossed over". But in most of the 
biblical references to Ibrim, the term seems to refer to just Israelites. 

In most references, Ibrim seems to be an ethnic designation. On the other 
hand it is sometimes used as a social class. Take a look at 1 Sam. 13 and 
note the interplay between "man of Israel" and Ibrim there. I like your 
reference to the Gypsies/Romani, but I'm not sure if in the case of the Ibrim 
it didn't work the other way.

Which brings us back to the Apiru. When the Amarna texts were first 
published, this term was read as "Habiru", which reminded people of "Hebrew" 
(and the equivalent term in most European languages). And since at the time 
it was thought that the Israelite conquest of Canaan should be dated to the 
14th century, and in the Amarna texts the "kings" of such cities as Megiddo, 
Shechem, Gezer and Jerusalem complain that they are being attacked by the 
"Habiru", scholars thought that they had come upon the Canaanite version of 
the book of Joshua! 

However, as more evidence came to light, scholars realized several things:

1. All of the evidence that we have for the actual "conquest and settlement" 
is from about 1200 and later. Indeed, after the Amarna period the Egyptians 
remained in control of Canaan for almost two centuries. However the book of 
Joshua makes no mention of any Egyptian presence in Canaan when the 
Israelites arrive. So obviously the "Habiru" can't be THOSE Israelites.

2. After more careful reading of the texts, it seems that "Apiru" is not an 
ethnic term but a social one. Apiru are not "tribes" and not "nomads" and not 
"Bedouin" but rather "outlaws", who work as mercenaries and as bandits, very 
much like Jephtah, David and Robin Hood. So while some Ibrim might be Apiru, 
the terms are not interchangeable.

3. Unless, of course, you accept the Mendenhall-Gottwald hypothesis that the 
Israelites originated as Canaanite revolutionaries or refugees. For them, 
seeing the 12th century Ibrim as the direct outcome of the 14th century 
social phenomenon of Apiru makes sense. The late Prof. Rainey, whom you cite, 
very much opposed this view.

4. It's not "Habiru" (from XBR) but "(Apiru" (from (PR). For some scholars 
this is not a problem, as (PR and (BR could be variants of the same root. In 
Rainey's opinion, the original meaning of Apiru came from (PR - aphar - 
"dust" - the Apiru were "those who lived in the dust" (outside of towns). So 
he claimed that there could be no etymological connection between Apiru and 
Ibri.

5. The BAR article that you cite discusses (if I recall correctly) Frank 
Yurco's suggestion that some of the Shasu shown on Merneptah's relief at 
Karnak may be the same as the "Yisrair/l" ("Israel") mentioned in his victory 
stele. Rainey's point is that the Bible's description of the pre-conquest 
Israelites as nomadic tribes fits what the Egyptians called Shasu much more 
than what they called Apiru.

I hope all of that was helpful.


Yigal Levin 


-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org 
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Chavoux Luyt
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 3:25 AM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [b-hebrew] The meaning of "Hebrew"

Shalom

I have a question that is also kind of related to Archaeology and other ANE 
languages. As I understand the Bible, Ivrim (עברים) (e.g. Gen.40:15) comes 
from B'nei Ever ( בני עבר ) (Gen.10:21) and is normally used by the 
patriarchs to refer to themselves when talking to others. It also appears to 
be a wider group than just the children of Israel (B'nei Yisrael/Yisraelim). 
In addition to talking about the descendents of Ever, one of the descendants 
of Shem and and ancestor of Abram, it might also refer to group of people who 
trekked across (avar) the River (Euphrates) and lived in a 
nomadic/semi-nomadic lifestyle. I always assumed something similar to the 
original "Romanies" (Gypsies/Romani people) who started out as a specific 
ethnic group, but later refers to a certain lifestyle in addition to (or in 
instead of) an ethnic group. Does it not follow logically from the fact that 
the patriarchs are referred to as Ivrim (and referred as such to themselves) 
even before the people of Israel (B'nei
Yisrael) existed, that the term (at least originally) was used to designate a 
group of people wider than just the Israelites? Is there any reasons 
(linguistic or otherwise) why this understanding of the term 
"Hebrew/Hewbrews" does not make sense? If the origin of the term is indeed 
from a Mesopotamian point of view (as those who crossed over the Euphrates), 
does it follow that it is Semitic in origin?

According to e.g. Anson Rainy (Rainey, Anson F. “Scholars Disagree: Can You 
Name the Panel with the Israelites?: The ‘Apiru Problem.” Biblical 
Archaeology Review, Nov/Dec 1991, 59.
http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=17&Issue=6&ArticleID=9(accessed
4/6/2012) & BAR 34:06, Nov/Dec 2008  Shasu or Habiru Who Were the Early 
Israelites?) there are linguistic reasons why Habiru (Egyptian Apiru) cannot 
be the equivalent of "Hebrew" (Ivri) in the Bible. In the above-mentioned 
articles he does not explain in further detail why he considers this 
equivalence (Habiru=Ivri) as impossible (same with K.A.
Kitchen). Is there anybody on the list who know enough of the relevant 
languages to tell me why? (I do not find the difference between the Bible's 
description of the Hebrews and the typical disparaging viewpoint of other 
sources when describing the "Apiru" as convincing, since it is likely that 
the deeds of both Joshua and the Israelite settlement process in the times of 
the judges might be considered as rebellious, lawless or criminal by both the 
Canaanites and the Egyptians. It would also appear from the Biblical usage of 
the term, especially towards "outsiders", who would probably not (yet) know 
the term "Israel", as if it was a relatively well-known term to 
non-Israelites).

My second question is this: If "Apiru" is not the equivalent of "Ivri", is 
there any _linguistic_ reason why "Shasu" should be a better option? Even if 
the patriarchal narratives are considered as not historical, the fact remains 
that the writer(s) of the Torah used a term that he/they assumed to be well 
known outside Israel. What other possibilities can there be?

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