The exchange regarding "The Meaning of Hebrew" peaked my interest regarding the
language name of "Hebrew".
Thus, I am wondering whether the language of the Hebrews and later Israelite or
Judahites was referred to by its speakers as "Hebrew" (I believe that in the
book of Ezra there is a reference to "Jewish" as the name of the language. Not
sure about earlier references to the language's very name).
And, if so, and since the language referred-to by its speakers as "Hebrew"
was very close to other dialects in the area, other West Semetic languages,
used by, e.g., other, local Canaanite groups, as well as the Phoenician,
Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites , Medianites etc. -- I wonder whether their
"languages" or dialects were also labeled "Hebrew" or named after the nations
using them?
Any idea? Any references?
Gaddi ZackCanada
> Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 23:06:38 +0300
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The meaning of "Hebrew"
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
