Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Chavoux Luyt <chavoux AT gmail.com>]

Shalom Yigal

On 7 April 2012 21:55, Yigal Levin <Yigal.Levin AT biu.ac.il> wrote:

> 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.
>
That makes sense to me and is how I would probably interpret it. This would
then perhaps also mean that there were a (smaller) movement of people from
Naharayim/Shinar to Ever Hanahar after the Amurru. It might even be an
Aramaic term instead of Akkadian (if we assume that Northern Mesopotamia
(Aram-Naharaim/Haran) already spoke an early form of Aramaic at this time),
 <snip>

>
> 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.
>
But would this not be in contrast to either the "native" Canaanites or the
Egyptians? (I.e. is there any place where it is used for the Israelites in
contrast to either Moabites, Arameans or other people who could be
considered as having "crossed over"?)


>
> 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.
>
You mean that a term refereing to a lifestyle came to designate a people
group?


>
> 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!
>
I just want to confirm: The Amarna texts are written in Akkadian? I know it
is written in cuniform.


>
> 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.
>
But is it not also true that the Egyptian control (based on chariots ever
since the Hyksos period) were mostly confined to the lowlands? E.g. is
there any evidence (before Merenptah who does mention Israel by name) that
they actually bothered to react to the Amarna letters from the inland
city-states? Would it not be a simlar situation to the New Testament period
when Herod was king of Judea, but the land was actually under Roman rule.
I.e. the local city-states would have local kings (who fought against the
Hebrews) even though they were under Egyptian rule. If Joshua is placed
closer to the time of the expulsion of the Hyksos, before Tutmoses III
brought Canaan under Egyptian rule, there is no reason that the book of
Joshua would mention any Egyptians. And in the book of Judges there is no
mention of the Philistines entering the land even if it is clear that they
were not a factor in the beginning of the book, but they were a factor
towards the end of the period of the judges. The book of judges is
incomplete enough that an Egyptian presence (which did not really impact
the hilly inland parts of the land) might easily not be mentioned. I am not
saying that this is so, I am just asking if it might be possible in which
case the "Habiru" of the Amarna letters might actually be the Israelites
and allied tribes?


>
> 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.
>
Getting back to my original point that the Israelites might have been
described in exactly those terms (especially if their history as escaped
slaves from Egypt were taken into account). Although it seems as if the
term "Hebrew" also changed in meaning.

>
> 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.
>
Since I tend to give the Biblical text the benefit of the doubt, I will
probably also oppose this view. However, is there any good reason why the
14th century Apiru could not include the Israelites during the time of the
Judges?

>
> 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.
>
Thanks, this answers part of my question. But isn't (Apiru just the
Egyptian variant/pronunciation of the Semitic Habiru? Is there really a
good reason to suppose (PR as the root? Or could it be a similar situation
to the later situation where the biblical writers would talk of Ish-boshet
when referring to Ish-ba'al (The enemies of the Hebrews deliberately
twisting the name to indicate their contempt)?

>
> 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.
>
That is the article, yes. My question is if there is any linguistic link
between "Shasu" and "Hebrew" such as there might be between "(Apiru" and
"(Ivri". I read in some archaeological books where they talk about
"Asiatics" being mentioned in Egyptian texts. Do you have any idea to which
word it refers? E.g. is it possible that Shasu might just be a sub-section
of the general Apiru (or the other way round: Apiru being a sub-section of
Shasu) instead of it being mutually exclusive terms? In that case it might
still be possible that the patriarchs (and their later descendents) might
have chosen the term "Apiru" to refer to themselves, especially in the
pre-Amarna period.

>
> I hope all of that was helpful.
>

Thanks, definitely helpful.
Chavoux Luyt

P.S. do you know of any online translation of all the Amarna tablets?