Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yigal:

On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:06 PM, 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.


I am not one given to much speculation. 1) I already have too much on my
plate just understanding Tanakh and its language and 2) I have learned from
painful experience that speculation too often ends in inappropriate and
useless ends.

>
> 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.
>

In this chapter, the term is used in two different ways: 1) as a synonym
for Israelite (vs. 3, 19) and 2) to refer to those crossing the Jordan
heading eastwards (vs. 7)

>
> 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.


Unfortunately for your discussion, this is a historical argument that is
not without controversy. There is archaeological evidence of a sudden,
large exodus of “Asiatic” (Hebrew?) slaves during the 13th dynasty,
followed shortly afterwards of an invasion of a new, Egyptianized
population into Canaan that replaced the previous people. That certainly
fits Exodus through Joshua. But it does not fit the present dating.

Could the sudden expansion of settlements be a result of the peace afforded
by the Davidic and Solomaic reigns, when the people were finally free from
the fear of invasion and plundering of foreign elements, such as the
Philistines and others?


> 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.
>

There are a few sources I have read over the years, including an article in
BAR, that indicate that the Amarna period better fits the ninth century and
later, according to archaeological findings. As such, it better fits your
point #2 below.

>
> 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.
>
> I hope all of that was helpful.
>
>
> Yigal Levin
>
> Karl W. Randolph.