Hello Karl,
Since your argument here is entirely historical/chronological, I for one do not intend to engage it. We've already established our different opinions on the issues involved. Yigal Levin From: K Randolph [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:45 PM To: Yigal Levin Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The meaning of "Hebrew" Yigal: On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Yigal Levin <[email protected]> wrote: 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. I am not one given to much speculation. 1) I already have too much on my plate just understanding Tanakh and its language and 2) I have learned from painful experience that speculation too often ends in inappropriate and useless ends. 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. In this chapter, the term is used in two different ways: 1) as a synonym for Israelite (vs. 3, 19) and 2) to refer to those crossing the Jordan heading eastwards (vs. 7) 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. Unfortunately for your discussion, this is a historical argument that is not without controversy. There is archaeological evidence of a sudden, large exodus of “Asiatic” (Hebrew?) slaves during the 13th dynasty, followed shortly afterwards of an invasion of a new, Egyptianized population into Canaan that replaced the previous people. That certainly fits Exodus through Joshua. But it does not fit the present dating. Could the sudden expansion of settlements be a result of the peace afforded by the Davidic and Solomaic reigns, when the people were finally free from the fear of invasion and plundering of foreign elements, such as the Philistines and others? 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. There are a few sources I have read over the years, including an article in BAR, that indicate that the Amarna period better fits the ninth century and later, according to archaeological findings. As such, it better fits your point #2 below. 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. I hope all of that was helpful. Yigal Levin Karl W. Randolph. _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
