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.
The relationship of the Ibrim to Eber is also a good question. Should we see
Eber as a historical figure, or is he an artificial, literary, "eponymous
ancestor" of the Ibrim?
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I hope all of that was helpful.
Yigal Levin
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chavoux Luyt
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 3:25 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [b-hebrew] The meaning of "Hebrew"
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
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
