Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

To Prof. Yigal Levin’s two fine, non-controversial posts on the word “
Hebrew”, let me inject some controversy.  Several of the leading Genesis 
scholars in the world have asserted that no Hebrew author was capable of 
coming up 
with the felicitous phrase “Abram the Hebrew” at Genesis 14: 13:
 
(1)  Speiser.  “[T]he present instance [of ‘Hebrew’ being used at Genesis 
14: 13 to describe Abram] accords more closely than any other with 
cun[eiform] data on the Western Xabiru;  note especially the date formula in 
Alalakh 
Tablets 58 (eighteenth/seventheenth centuries), 28 ff., which mentions a 
treaty with Xabiru warriors;  and the Statue of Idrimi (fifteenth century 
Alalakh), line 27, which tells how the royal fugitive found asylum among 
Xabiru 
warriors.  Of more immediate significance, however, is the fact that the 
designation ‘Hebrew’ is not applied elsewhere in the Bible to Israelites, 
except by outsiders (e.g. xxxix 14), or for self-identification to foreigners 
xl 
15;  Jon i 9).  Hence the fact that the author himself refers here to 
Abraham as a Hebrew is strong presumptive evidence that the document did not 
originate with Israelites.”  E.A. Speiser, “The Anchor Bible Genesis” (1962), 
p. 
103.
 
(2)  Wenham.  “‘the Hebrew.’  It is quite striking that Abram should be 
termed ‘the Hebrew’ here [at Genesis 14: 13].  This is not a term used by 
Israelites of themselves, but only by non-Israelites of Israelites (39: 14;  
41: 12).  The Xabiru/Apiru were well known in the ancient Near East, being 
referred to in a wide variety of texts from the late third millennium on.  It 
seems to be more of a social categorization than an ethnic term.  The Apiru 
are usually on the periphery of society -- foreign slaves, mercenaries, or 
even marauders.  Here Abram fits this description well:  he is an outsider 
vis 
a vis Canaanite society, and he is about to set out on a military campaign 
on behalf of the king of Sodom as well as Lot.  He is ‘a typical hapiru of 
the Amarna type’ (H. Cazelles, POTT, 22).  The phrase ‘enhances the flavor 
of antiquity of which this chapter is redolent’ (Vawter, 196) and could 
indeed support the view that an originally non-Israelite source lies behind 
this 
account, since Israelites did not describe themselves as Hebrews (see 
further POTT, 1-28;  O. Loretz, Habiru-Hebraer, BZAW 160 {Berlin: De Gruyter, 
1984}).”  Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis 1-15” (1987), p. 313.
 
*       *       *
 
[Needless to say, no university scholar has ever  a-s-k-e-d  if (BR-Y may 
be a Hurrian-based nickname, E-bi-ri-ya, meaning “God Is Lord”, that the 
early Hebrews living in Hurrian-dominated Canaan in the Amarna Age adopted 
for 
themselves in Year 15.]  
 
Prof. Yigal Levin, do you yourself agree or disagree with the mainstream 
scholarly proposition [which I myself 100% oppose] that allegedly (i) chapter 
14 of Genesis is not a Hebrew composition in general, and (ii) in particular 
that it was not a Hebrew author who calls Abram a “Hebrew” at Genesis 14: 
13?   
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois