Jim. Just a couple of points:
1. Speiser was a great scholar, but in this case is wrong. 2. I agree that there is really no reason to assume that Gen. 14 was written by anyone but the (presumably Israelite) author of the rest of Genesis. Who this author was, when he lived and what sources he used are questions to which we really have no definite answers. 3. I don't know Hurrian, so I really can't tell if your proposed Hurrian etymology of Ibri makes any sense. But since we have two, sort of related, perfectly reasonable Semitic etymologies, I see no reason to look for an explanation in an unrelated language. Yigal Levin From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 4:46 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The meaning of "Hebrew" 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
