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 [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
