Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Jim. Just a couple of points:

 

1. Speiser was a great scholar, but in this case is wrong. 

2. I agree that there is really no reason to assume that Gen. 14 was written 
by anyone but the (presumably Israelite) author of the rest of Genesis. Who 
this author was, when he lived and what sources he used are questions to 
which we really have no definite answers. 

3. I don't know Hurrian, so I really can't tell if your proposed Hurrian 
etymology of Ibri makes any sense. But since we have two, sort of related, 
perfectly reasonable Semitic etymologies, I see no reason to look for an 
explanation in an unrelated language.

 

Yigal Levin

 

From: JimStinehart AT aol.com [mailto:JimStinehart AT aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 4:46 PM
To: Yigal.Levin AT biu.ac.il; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The meaning of "Hebrew"

 

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