quote:
You didnt miss anything Hydarnes, I haven't had time to reply yet. If I don't reply to a post Hydarnes it is just because I am extremely busy, but I will reply to everything you post.
No problem. I experience the same circumstantial impediments.
quote:
The problem began with the discovery of the ‘ha-bi-ru’ in the letters of king IR-Heba of Jerusalem in the Amarna archives. But discoveries of the 30’s and 40's have made the equation invalid. With the discovery and publication of the clay tablets from the Hittite capital Hattusa the proof was produced, in the 1920’s, for Winckler's supposition that the Sumeriogram sa.gaz which, according to the lexicographical lists, has the reading habbatu (m) 'robbers' (and 'itinerant workers'), is to be read in the Akkadian (and Hittite) texts of the Hittite and Syro-Palestinian state offices usually, even if not exclusively, hab/piru (Wieppert, The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine: A Critical Survey of Recent Scholarly Debate 1971, SCM Press, London, page 64)
The etymology of certain terms, without question, translates into variation depending on the culture or context in which it was being used. I am familiar with the widespread usage of the term.
quote:
The general characteristic of the 'Apiru turns out to be sociopolitical rather than ethnic or economic. They cannot be characterised as ethnically homogeneous in any one location, nor are they tied to any single economic activity throughout the Near East. In short, an ‘Apiru could have been a Hittite, Hurrian, Phoenician, or almost any other nationality of the ancient near east, they were not identified by their ethnicity. They were a social stratum, best defined as outsiders, people on the fringes of society, or people with no political affiliations.
Again, there is no question that the term was widespread and used to refer to peoples who weren’t associated with any particular urban location, but rather wanderers, nevertheless, certain texts in the Amarna correspondence seem to convey more of an organized threat being referred to in certain respects which include the word Apiru, rather than that of disorganized/fractioned skirmishes that might also be attributed to Apiru in a differing circumstance or situation (I will be supporting this a bit later in the balance of my critique).
The former fact alone (a prevalent large-scale usage of the term), however, is not adequate basis enough to negate the proposed origin for the word as a prototypein which Hebrew is quite likely a derivative (contrary to your assumption that the term is being equated). This proposition introduces its merit based on the etymological provenance of many biblical terms that only satisfactorily correspond with a Hurrian linguistic conception.
This is confirmed by the Wikipedia Encyclopedia:
If the Habiru were the proto-Hebrews, a Hurrian origin would offer strong support for this since many Hurrian cultural themes appear in the bible. Many Biblical proper names (individual, group and place names, as well as the popular -ya name-ending) that have no satisfactory Semitic etymology, can be demonstrated to perhaps descend from Anatolian or North Syrian (Hurrian) onomastics testifing that these names may have entered Hebrew directly from Hurrian. For example, David is explained from Dudya (beloved of Ya where Ya is the Hurrian divinity) a Hurrian Habiru name later used as Solomon's coronation epithet and many of David's wandering Hebrews also possess Hurrian Habiru names (e.g. Nihiri).--
Habiru - Wikipedia
This is an especially valuable attestment coming from a source that seems to be itself very critical of making such a nexus.
Considering this Hurrian heritage to many Hebrew terms, and other very suggestive data, it is not unlikely at all that Apiru was an earlier forrunner of the term that was later christened Hebrew. And the presence of this historical data is assuredly one of the factors behind Frank Cross’ more definitive identification.
The fact remains that the Israelites WOULD have undoubtedly been referred to as such (either Apiru or Asiatics) in a post-Exodus scenario, as they were without metropolitan ties. And if a circa date for the events referred to in the Bible remain can remain consistent with the historical record, there is simply no unbiased reason why it to be dismissed as a possibility.
To corroborate my former statements with respect to other Amarna letters bearing testament to a seemingly more organized threat from the Apiru, and not strictly disorganized skirmishes between petty kings, let us look at what Rib-Addi, king of Gubla (Byblos) has to say about the situation:
"Moreover, look, he strives to seize Gubla ! And...may the king, my lord, give heed to the words of his servant, and may he hasten with all speed chariots and troops that they may guard the city of the king, my lord...But if the king, my lord, does not give heed to the words of his servant, [b]then Gubla will be joined to him, and all the lands of the king, as far as Egypt, will be [i]joined to the `Apiru[/b] [/i] (P.160. EA 88. "Blockaded." William L. Moran. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. 1987)
Does this record seem to reflect the same accounts given in Scripture for a number of Canaanite states allying/joining with the Israelites under Joshua? It could very well be, and if the Apiru here being referred are exclusively mercenaries, sociopolitical parties and robbers why would it pose any serious threat to all the lands of the king (particularly Canaan)?
Also:
"...Sumur has now been seized; troops from Gubla have been killed...We are servants of the king, and
it is distressing for us to see we are going to be taken. I myself am afraid I will be killed...
He must not neglect his city. If he does not send them [troops] to Gubla, they [`Apiru] will take it...The lands of Canaan will not belong to the king." (pp.212-213. "EA 131 A Commissioner Killed." Moran. 1987)
This is suggestively a warning from Rib-Addi telling the king of Egypt that if he does NOT send troops into Canaan to stabilize the situation, that the Apiru will CONQUER the land of Canaan, not that it will be destroyed because of petty strife. Could it be slightly exaggerated? Perhaps, but it can be equally argued that the results from the controversy in the region (and the fulfillment of his admonition that the lands will not belong to the king) testify to Rib-Addi’s warnings. The context also seems to indicate that there is a coming threatfurther elucidated by the cry it is distressing for us to see we are
going to be taken, once again harmonizing with the possibility that there was actually an invasion occurring.
And further striking:
"...
the `Apiru forces waged war against me and captured the cities of the king, my lord, my god, my Sun.
The `Apiru captured Mahzibtu, a city of the king, my lord, and plundered it and sent it up in flames..."-- (p.265. EA 185. "An Egyptian Traitor." Moran. 1987)
Again, we see that the Apiru forces were waging war and capturing a city, and the particular context seems to strongly reject your categorical conclusion that these letters were exclusively alluding to minor, disorganized, uncoordinated squabbles and inherent political strife, although there was a great deal of this. We also find that certain conduct manifested on the conquered cities in Joshua resembles what the king of Byblos is relaying, additionally detracting from your claim that the conquest CANNOT coincide with events as stated in the Amarna letters.
Interestingly enough, there is an individual named Yishua mentioned in EA#256 written by Mut-Balhu (meaning Man of Baal) who was the son of Labayu the king of Shechem. Could it be that Yishua relates to Joshua in some way?
If the Amarna letters ARE containing any information relevant to the Israelite invasion as mentioned in scripture, they are most likely referring to the beginning of their emergence in the region, and most likely not during. Personally, I still lean towards the conclusion that that the main part of Joshua’s conquest occurred at the end of the 18th dynasty and after the reign of Akhenaten, yet Akhenaten’s empire collapsing is in perfect harmony with Scripture and a post-Exodus scenario, as Egypt would have suffered a major military, as well as economic decline, rendering any assistance to her vassal states a virtual impossibility.
In conclusion then, when considering the Biblical narrative, it is important to remember that a c.1445.b.c date for the Exodus must include at least a 40 year gap between the Israelites leaving Egypt and entering Sinai, and the time that the conquest of Canaan begins under Joshua. Additionally, at least 20 years must be factored as the tentative duration of the conquest itself. The Bible does not specify the length of time for the entirety of Joshua’s invasion, but Josephus concurs with a 20 year period. Thus, any time between 1400 and the mid 14th century is an acceptable time margin for the conquest to have occurred. Either way, the circumstances inherent in the Amarna letters simply do not favor your assumption that the two events are incompatible (mutually exclusive), and if anything, would actually serve to precipitate such an event.
This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-15-2004 10:57 PM
This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-15-2004 11:10 PM
™ Version 4.2
