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