Hi Arach,
there's some disputed references to a group of people called "habiru" or "ibiru" or "apiru." might even be the origin of the name "hebrew" but i'm not sure.
The Hebrew/apiru/abiru connection was broken almost 70 years ago. In 1939 it was shown that the consonantal element of the word ‘ha-bi-ru’, had to be recognised as '-p-r, which meant that all etymologies dependent on the root HBR were excluded, and corresponding attempts with ‘BR and the ‘ibrim became uncertain.
The word ‘Apiru itself is not of Hebrew origin, and, of course, the Hebrew word for ‘Hebrew’ is ibrim. The origin of the word itself is not known for certain as there is no certainty as to the language (NW Semitic, Hurrian, etc.) or the verbal root from which the sociopolitical technical term (‘Apiru) was originally drawn (Gottwald, N. K. (1979) The tribes of Yahweh : a sociology of the religion of liberated Israel, 1250-1050 B.C.E, SCM Press, London, page 41).
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, in other words the term ‘Apiru denotes a social stratum.
Since the term ‘Apiru has been shown to refer to a social stratum, the equation of the term with the Hebrews is untenable as the Hebrews are said to be an ethnic group. More problematic for the equation is the fact that the Bible suggests that the whole of ‘Israel’ came out of Egypt, however, the ‘Apiru are now attested to in a large variety of sources from different times and places. For example,
1. In Mesopotamia, they are in evidence through the periods of Ur III, 1 Babylon, and after; in the Nuzi texts (fifteenth century) they play an especially prominent role.
2. Documents from Mari (eighteenth century) and Alalakh (seventeenth and fifteenth centuries) attest their presence in Upper Mesopotamia throughout the patriarchal age.
3. In Anatolia, the Cappadocian texts (nineteenth century) knew them, as did those of Boghazkoy (fourteenth century).
4. They are also mentioned in the Ras Shamra texts (fourteenth century).
5. Egyptian documents of the Empire period (fifteenth to twelfth century) refer to them, both as foes and rebels in Asia and as bondsmen in Egypt.
6. The Amarna letters (fourteenth century), where they appear in Palestine and adjoining areas as disturbers of the peace, are the best witness to them of all. (Bright, S. J. (1972) A history of Israel, SCM Press, London. page 92)
John Bright goes on to conclude that obviously, a people found all over western Asia from the end of the third millennium to about the eleventh century cannot lightly be identified with the ancestors of Israel! (Ibid: 92).
The 'apiru simply wasn't an ethnic identifier, it could not have been equated with Hebrew.
there's some stuff down at the bottom of this page
Thanks for the link. It is interesting how selective scholars can be when they are hoping to sell books. I found the Rohl quote particularly enlightening. Thanks again.
Brian.
{Added some blank lines. - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-04-2005 01:17 PM
™ Version 4.2
