Exodus Part Two: Population of the Exodus Group.

Since this issue has appeared in another thread that I want to keep focussed on direct evidence. I think that we need a new thread for this subject as it has already stimulated some off topic discussion.There are actually two subjects to be discussed in relation to the numbers of people involved in the Exodus group.1. Is it possible that a group of 70 plus can multiply to a group of 2-3 million in a period spanning 430 years, keeping in mind the time and place we are talking about?2. Does the Bible itself actually support these figures?My own answer to both questions is a resounding no. It is completely impossible for this population growth rate, and the Bible contains internal data to falsify the numbers involved.First, can this growth rate be possible? The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: Volume 25, Macropaedia, 1993.Entry PopulationPage 1041 Before considering modern population trends separately for developing and industrialized countries, it is useful to present an overview of older trends. It is generally agreed that only 5,000,000-10,000,000 humans (i.e., one onethousandth of the present world population) were supportable before the agricultural revolution of about 10,000 years ago.

​

By the beginning of the Christian era, 8,000 years later, the' human population approximated 300,000,000, and there was apparently little increase in the ensuing millennium up to the year AD 1000. Subsequent population growth was slow and fitful, especially given the plague epidemics and other catastrophes of the Middle Ages.

​

By 1750, conventionally the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, world population may have been as high as 800,000,000. This. means that in the 750 years from 1000 to 1750, the annual population growth rate averaged only about one-tenth of 1 percent. The reasons for such slow growth are well known. In the absence of what is now considered basic knowledge of sanitation and health (the role of bacteria in disease, for example, was unknown until the 19th century), mortality rates were very high, especially for infants and children. Only about half of newborn babies survived to the age of five years. Fertility was also very high, as it had to be to sustain the existence of any population under such conditions of mortality.

​

Modest population growth might occur for a time in these circumstances, but recurring famines, epidemics, and wars kept long-term growth close to zero. From 1750 onward population growth accelerated. In some measure this was a consequence of rising standards of living, coupled with improved transport and communication, which mitigated the effects of localized crop failures that previously would have resulted in catastrophic mortality. Occasional famines did occur, however, and it was not until the 19th century that a sustained decline in mortality took place, stimulated by the improving economic conditions of the Industrial Revolution and the growing understanding of the need for sanitation and public health measures. The World Book Encyclopedia, World Book Inc, Chicago, 1999.Page 673.Causes: For thousands of years, birth rates were high. However, the population increased slowly and sometimes declined because death rates also were high. Then, during the 1700’s and 1800’s, advances in agriculture, communication, and transportation improved living conditions in parts of the world and reduced the occurrence of many diseases. As a result, the death rate began to drop, and the population grew rapidly. page 674In the industrial countries of Europe and North America, many people flocked to the cities and took jobs in factories. In cities and in many rural areas, it was difficult to support a large family. People began to see reasons for having smaller families. As a result, birth rates in these countries began to fall. In the agricultural countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, declines in death rates plunged quickly without corresponding declines in birth rates. As a result, the population of low-income nations and the world increased rapidly.Population growth rates are obviously worked out by deducting the number of deaths from the number of surviving births, and then the rate is calculated.The population growth rate for early 20th century Egypt (1907-37) was about 1.169% (A. Lucas ‘The Number of Israelites at the Exodus’ PEQ 1944-45, pp164-68). is a frequently referenced source in this debate). When this is applied to the Exodus group, we have a figure of just over 10,000. A figure that I think is still far too high given the background to the event.Regarding the second issue, does the Bible even claim that there was this many, I believe that the Bible itself undermines this number.In the Book of Numbers 3:42-43 we are told: 42 So Moses counted all the firstborn of the Israelites, as the LORD commanded him. 43 The total number of firstborn males a month old or more, listed by name, was 22,273. How does this figure fit in with the overall picture?Well, George Buchnan Gray (A critical and exegetical commentary on Numbers, Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 1903) writes: The unreality of the numbers is independently proved by comparing them with one another. Thus: the number of male firstborn is 22 273, allowing the number of female firstborn to be equal, the total number of firstborn is 44 546, and, therefore, the total number of Israelites being between 2,000,000 and 2,500,00, the average number of children to a family is about 50! Again, if, as is probable, the firstborn of the mother is intended (cp3:12), then, since the number of firstborn and of mothers must have been identical, there were 44,456 mothers: but the number of women being approximately the same as of men, the women over 20 numbered something over 600,000, and therefore only about 1 in 14 or 15 women over twenty were mothers! (page:13)I think it is quite clear that the numbers involved in the Exodus account simply cannot be the 2-3 million presented by a very small minority of Bible believers, we need to reinterpret the information given.So, two issues.1. Is the 2-3 million a realistic number?
2. Does the Bible really claim this enormous population growth?Brian.

This is a reply to Faith from the other Exodus thread. The qualifier is the most important part of the issue. The time and place are extremely important to the popualtion growth. Even look at modern day growth rates. They are not uniform. LOL, how do you know they are wrong when you have no idea what they are? You claim that they are wrong and you have then you have the nerve to go an and say that you don’t even know what they are? Sorry, but you assume that I (or anyone else) know nothing about the period in question. Just because you have no idea about the time period and how population growth is determined, don’t assume that no one does! Obviously I am, for no other reason than you say so. If you ever find out why I am wrong then don’t forget to post it. The Bible contradicts itself! As you no doubt will have seen by now, the Bible may not even be claiming this population growth. Stories written many years after the events it portrays are only evidence of stories written long after the event.You have already been told a great many times that you cannot use a book as evidence ot support that book! It is circular reasoning. Sorry, but the Bible is not a primary source, and it certainly isn’t from the time of the Exodus. Unless you have some evidence to support yet another empty claim, then your point is redundant. You have no idea what I am basing my conclusions on. Again, don’t assume that everyone is as ignorant about the subject as you are. I am not working at a remove of 3000 years, I am working with primary, contemporary sources. Of course you didn’t. But you seem unaware that it isn’t a case of doing a simple mathematical calculation, it is far more complex than picking a number out of the air that fits in with what you want to be real. For example, you just happened to pick ‘5’ out of the air because it fits the conclusion, you have no idea if a family of 5 is feasible or not do you? That much was obvious. I am perfectly happy to admit that I am extremely prejudiced towards the evidence, it is the only way to be. Can’t fault your maths there Faith! Indeed you did, which is not what I call high quality research. In comparison to what? What was the average house size in ancient Egypt? What as the average settlement size? What was the average lifespan? You looked at none of these and expect anyone to accept your figures? Why would you assume this? Based on what? The numbers are enormous and artificial. Sorry, but nothing you have is 3000 years old, which is too late for the exodus anyway.Also, to call it the ONLY KNOWN RECORD is just silly.If you have anything of substance then please post it.Cheers.Brian.

Yep, and I stick by that because the Bible is quite clear about it.
The information can be found in Genesis chapter 46.
These are the names of the sons of Israel (Jacob and his descendants) who went to Egypt:1. Reuben the firstborn of Jacob.
2. Hanoch,
3. Pallu,
4. Hezron and
5. Carmi.
6. Simeon:
7. Jemuel,
8. Jamin,
9. Ohad,
10. Jakin,
11. Zohar
12. Shaul.
13. Levi:
14. Gershon,
15. Kohath
16. Merari.
17. Judah:
18. Er,
19. Onan,
20. Shelah,
21. Perez
22. Zerah
23. Hezron
24. Hamul.
25. Issachar:
26. Tola,
27. Puah,
28. Jashub
29. Shimron.
30. Zebulun:
31. Sered
32. Elon
33. Jahleel.These were the sons Leah bore to Jacob in Paddan Aram, besides his daughter Dinah. These sons and daughters of his were thirty-three in all.34. Gad
35. Zephon
36. Haggi
37. Shuni,
38. Ezbon
39. Eri
40. Arodi
41. Areli.
42. Asher
43. Imnah,
44. Ishvah,
45. Ishvi
46. Beriah
47. Heber
48. Malkiel.18 These were the children born to Jacob by Zilpah, whom Laban had given to his daughter Leahsixteen in all.49. Benjamin
50. Bela
51. Beker
52. Ashbel
53. Gera
54. Naaman
55. Ehi
56. Rosh
57. Muppim
58. Huppim
59. Ard22 These were the sons of Rachel who were born to Jacobfourteen in all.60. Dan
61. Hushim
62. Naphtali
63. Jahziel
64. Guni
65. Jezer
66. Shillem25 These were the sons born to Jacob by Bilhah, whom Laban had given to his daughter Rachelseven in all.26 All those who went to Egypt with Jacobthose who were his direct descendants, not counting his sons' wivesnumbered sixty-six persons.27 With the two sons who had been born to Joseph in Egypt, the members of Jacob's family, which went to Egypt, were seventy in all.67. Joseph
68. Manasseh
69. Ephraim
70. JacobDo you find any room for females in the 70? Yep, descendants who are all male. You can read the texts for yourself and tell me where there is room for daughters, because Genesis 46 only lists ‘the sons of’.Moses claims that they were all males as well:Deuteronomy 10:22Your forefathers who went down into Egypt were seventy in all, and now the LORD your God has made you as numerous as the stars in the sky.Could it be that because females didnt pass on any titles or goods, that they weren't counted? Yes, we are all familiar with the Exodus myths. So, if the land was filled with them then why is no one posting any direct evidence of them in the other thread?You do know that everything you have posted this morning is nothing more than circular reasoning? You have shown absolutely nothing at all to support the biblical narratives other than the biblical narratives! This approach wouldn’t pass a first year high school assessment. Which is not the approach being taken. Why do you assume that there is no sources for the period under discussion?Why assume primacy of a book written as much as a thousand years after the event? You have never actually studied history or archaeology have you Faith?How do historians come to their conclusions about the past, do you think that they just make it up?What do historians use to argue against the hypotheses of other historians?Do you know what archaeology is?You do not actually think that nothing remains from 3500 years ago do you? LOL, I think that this is exactly what you are doing.If I wanted to study Egyptian populations I would look at surveys of the actual sites, contemporary texts, and comparative anthropology, I wouldn’t look at the modern day world.The Bible wasn’t written in a vacuum, it belongs in the real world, and archaeology has helped to illuminate that world. Unfortunately for the bible inerrantist, archaeology has shown that the early books of the Bible are quite unreliableBrian

I left the daughters mentioned out because by just listing the males we can get the 66 mentioned in Genesis 46.But, even if we include Dinah (though it does say excluding Dinah 46:15) and Serah (texts just says she was their sister 46:17) isn't this an unusually high ratio of male children to female children?I calculated that 70 growing to 2.5 million, was roughly 2.47% over 430 years.In excel, 70*1.0247^430Brian.

In the interests of valid historical research we should apply this 2.47% to other groups as well, which doesn't leave anough room on the planet to fit everyone in.Can you imagine if we applied that 2.47% to the whole of the near eastern population, over a period of 430 years!Of course, the bible brigade will invoke more magic to explain this one.

Actually, I didn’t spell them out at all, and they are not based on modern statistics. Ancient populations are based mainly on size and frequency of settlements, and for this there is an abundance of contemporary data.The modern day statistic was to illustrate how ludicrous the Bible figures are. It is an established fact that modern day population growth is far higher than ancient ones, therefore, this modern day figure must be much higher than the growth 3500 years ago, and it thus demonstrates that the Hebrew growth would be much smaller than the 10, 000 plus of the 20th century. These modern day figures also show that the Sinai area struggles to cope with a population of less than 30 000, showing once again that the 2-3 million in that area for 40 years is also absurd. Again, you are completely and utterly incorrect.What do you think researchers base their figures on? Do you think that demographers simply pick numbers out of the air or are they basing them on some extant data?The population of ancient Egypt is based on the size and frequency of settlements, topography, and contemporary texts are also considered.I hope you aren't claiming that there are no extant Egyptian texts for the time period either. Let me know if you are I didn’t outlay my methods!How can you talk about scientific when you never offer any evidence except what is written in the Bible. A source that is fraught with contradictory and unhistorical information. A source that is not contemporary to the exodus tale. Indeed, they were given as a *COMPARISON*. The author of the article offered these figures because the population growth during the 20th century is far higher than that of 3500 years ago. WE know it is far higher because of the evidence that exists from ancient times/ it is not that difficult to estimate the population of certain areas. Lucas presented the figures because it shows that the Bible figures need to be reinterpreted. If his present day figures cannot arrive at 2-3 million, and only arrive at just over 10 000, then common sense dictates that the Hebrew group wouldn’t even have reached the 10 000 because the population growth was much smaller than it is today.Ancient population growth is not based on current conditions, it is based on conditions that can be ascertained from extant contemporary sources.Egypt 3500 years ago was an area heavily involved in wars. Disease killed many before they were old enough to reproduce. People died of relatively simple illnesses and what we would call minor infections. No, you do not seem to realise that you do not present anything other than that which is in the Bible. You ignore great reams of problems and dismiss others as if they don’t exist. You post absolutely nothing from external sources to support anything that you say! So, you thinking that you have said something worthwhile and you actually saying something worthwhile are two completely different things. Okay, let’s try a little examination of your knowledge of near eastern history, and see if you can escape this world of circular reasoning that you seem to be stuck in.You say that the Bible claims that they multiplied enormously even under affliction.Let’s examine this.You pick whichever date you want for the Exodus and then supply external evidence to support a single group of this magnitude living in Egypt.Also, provide evidence from whichever Pharaoh you wish to assign as the pharaoh of the Exodus and provide external data to support that claim that the Pharaoh was worried about a group multiplying enormously, and undertook this ‘oppression’ that the Bible claims.Then, provide external data to support the sudden overnight disappearance of almost half the population of Egypt.Now, if you cannot provide a single shred of evidence from outside the Bible to support any of these claims then your claims then what are you going to do? Are you going to keep offering the Bible as evidence? You do know that if the Bible is all the evidence that you are going to supply then that is circular reasoning? Fine, lets try another examination.Please provide evidence from any ‘healthy’ population that supports this? Which population can you show has had a population growth of 2.47% over a sustained period of 430 years? You can use any time period you wish as well. But these population figures are not suppositions! They are based on contemporary evidence. They are based on the size and frequency of settlements, we even know what the weather conditions were! Okay, I’ll give you my definition and an example, and then you tell me why it is incorrect.Circular reasoning is based essentially on the assumption that a proposition is true, and to support that proposition being true, you use that same proposition.In this discussion you have assumed that the Bible is a perfectly accurate document, thus, the population growth under discussion is true for no other reason than it is included in this perfect document.If the population figures can be shown to be incorrect, then the Bible cannot be perfectly accurate, something that is beyond
comprehension to you.Your mind set negates you from being able to participate in a rational and objective examination of the available evidence because you are not interested in anything other than that which is contained in the Bible. Show me where I have ever made a circular argument! They were given by the author to demonstrate how silly the bible figures actually are. And yes, they are evidence. They are evidence because they provide an example with which to compare data from 3500 years ago with!Look at the archaeological evidence from many ancient near eastern sites. Take Jericho as an example, how do archaeologists know that Jericho had a far higher population in the 16th century BCE than it did during the 12th century BCE? Attributing it to someone may be fine and dandy, but can you provide any worthwhile evidence to support this attribution? Can you even provide a single shred of evidence to support there being a Moses, Geez, we don’t even have his full name! Well, if there is lots, what about posting some of it. I still have no direct evidence of Hebrews/Israelites in Egypt. If there is ‘lots’ of evidence why are you keeping it to yourself?Fact remains, the BIBLE REPORTS ON THE EXODUS. You have nothing remotely close to it for evidence, just wild imagination. The climate and conditions are known though these are easily determined. Researchers don’t just make things up you know. They are easily posted if you wish to see them. I like to use my time here productively, and this means posting details to members who are actually interested in learning something and interested in DISCUSSING the evidence. You have displayed neither of these conditions on any other thread you have been on. I have more important things to do than post detailed accounts of every single thing I post to someone who basically isn’t thatinterested.
This is why I am happy to post detailed references to Ray, and a few others, because they are genuinely interested in the subject. I know for a fact that I could post a great amount of referenced materials to support this argument, but you would simply turn round and say that the Bible says different and that’s that!Why do you think I let you away with ignoring half of the problems that are put to you? I just isn't worth it. I learned the hard way not to spend too much time on fundies who are incapable of understanding even the basics of archaeology and history. Maybe you should think things through a bit more then before posting. LOL, but it isn’t even as simple as that for goodness sake.When do you subtract the deaths? How many deaths do you subtract? How many died before they were old enough to have children, how many were infertile, how many were killed before they had children?It isn’t even klutzy. It is childish.You don’t even seem to realise what it is you are doing. You have a starting figure and you have a total, all you do is use numbers to arrive at a calculation that fits that growth rate. You haven’t even considered a single external factor. All this does is inform others that you have not really thought about what you are claiming. It is a bad guess!!Which particular genealogies are we talking about? Then I will show you how bad a guess it is. Yes, evidence. I am not living inside a fairytale book. Are you saying that five is not a huge number of males or not a huge number of children? You are hilarious.You claim to know what circular reasoning is and yet you live inside it everyday of your life.Exodus 1 proves that the Israelites were healthy, and I ask how you know they were healthy and you say Exodus 1!Don’t you actually understand how pointless 99% of your arguments are? Here we go again, more ignorance.You don’t even know what my sources are!How can you say that nothing I have is even a couple of hundred years old when I have consistently over the last couple of years here posted countless references to contemporary 2nd millennium BCE evidence.Do you honestly think that there are no settlement remains left in Egypt from the time we are talking about. Do you think that there are no texts in existence that were written at the time that the Israelites were supposed to be in Egypt? Are there no inscriptions at Karnak and Thebes, are there no tombs with accounts written on walls, are there no extant contemporary texts from societies that had dealings with Egypt? Will you please try to start thinking about things a bit more?There are literally tens of thousands of near eastern texts available to historians to help reconstruct the past. The Bible is a mere baby in terms of age when compared to these texts.Brian.

Think the Flood was said to be about 2400 BCE, which doesn't really matter anyway as the Flood has been utterly falsfied.The rest of your post is circular.You are simply stating that the biblical claim that the Israelites grew from 70 to 2-3 million is true because the Bible says it is!You cannot continually keep using the Bible to support the Bible, there has to come a time when you apply the text to the same scrutiny and objectivity that is applied to other texts.Brian.

Hi Mangy, Yes the logistics wil certainly be discussed. They ahve been discussed before here and the same quality of rebuttal has been produced.2-3 million Israelites would form a column that stretched over 350 miles, all the way over Sinai and back again. Also, nomads only travel a maximum of 6 miles a day, it would have taken them weeks to move between any two points.But, we'll discuss them when we arrive at this topic. We havent even got any of the direct evidence for Israelites in Egypt yet! People have been knighted for less!!Brian.

Are we?If we are fine with agriculture in Goshen 3500 years ago why has the ultra consrvative christian scholar Nahum Sarna said that: More serious is the objection that the "land of Goshen", identified by most scholars with Wadi Tumilat, west of Ismalia, where the Israelites were concentrated, could not possibly have supported a population of the size implied. ABout thirty-eight miles (sixty Kilometers) long and less than three mile (four kilometers) wide, it was not suited for agriculture on a large scale in ancient times. Surely he must be mistaken?Of course, you can post evidence that the Wadi could support this large group?If you wish to discuss the condition of the Wadi Tumilat from the second intermediate period onwards, then let me know. Why don't they know?They aren't just guessing you know.Graves are a great indication of population rates and also of the specifics of the make up of populations. They can also tell us the average life expectancy of people at the time.Tel el-Da'ba (Avaris) was excavated by Beitin and he discovered that the average age of a person who died at tel' el 'Da'ba was only 18. Scholars have a huge amount of data to work with, it isnt guesswork. But does this claim fit with what is know about the world 4400 years ago? No, it isn't. There was no flood, humans and animals were not wiped out 4400 years ago (apart for the ark inhabitants). The Egyptians must have blinked and missed the flood because they have a civilisation going back 7000+ years!There is nothing wrong with believeing the Bible, but you do have to be realistic about it. Are you on some sort of medication?No one "applied" them to 15th century BCE. What happened was they were *compared* with what we know from the 15th century BCE, try and keep up. Not at all.The whole world knows that a large percentage of Americans are extremely thick and lazy. You may ahve a few in America, but outside of the USA there are very few who take it literally. Not at all. It could be that we have mistranslated it. As you know there are no extant original biblical texts, the oldest are only 2200 years old, we do not know for certain what any of the originals said.Also, exaggeration was the order of the day for centuries in ancient times, so it is no real suprise that Bible exaggerates on many occassions. Well, we are just reading what is on the page and as it doesn't make any sense then you have to try and reinterpet it it to fit a possible reality. But we don't know if it is a case of simple arithmetic, they were not intent on recording accurate history. Oh that old tired chestnut. You would have thought Gray would be aware of that wouldnt you?Factis he was, and so is everyone else.What I will do is what Gray did and ask the proposer to support what they claim from the biblical texts, because " the text does not say so". Where does the Bible support this? Under age? Under what age? Again, biblical support for this claim?I look forward to you supporting this hypothesis with evidence from the Bible, good luck because no one has been able to thus far.Brian.

So, we have a third of all the ballots that supported Bush (that in itself says a lot about their mental health).Well, I got a billion Roman Catholics on my side (to begin with), so that makes your figure quite insignificant.Brian.

Based on what? How do you know the group included Shosu? Source? Didn't pharaoh's armies drown in the Sea of Reeds?Why does the Bible not mention any Egyptians after the sea episode? WHat do you mean by 'other Hebrews and isrealites'? Aren't all Israelites Hebrews?What other Hebrews were there apart from the Exodus group?If the Exodus was 1250-ish, why are there no signs of any settlement at Kadesh-Barnea (where the Exodus group camped for 38 years) before the 10th century BCE? Any evidence to support this? Don't you think it is more likely to be post-exilic?Brian.Edited by Brian, : Added Kadesh-Barnea reference.

The Habiru/'apiru were a social class, whereas Hebrew is a ethnic group.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: History of Israel, SCM Press, London 1972, p92) What's your evidence for this? This isn't undisputed though, we do not know for certain if this is the same Israel that is mentioned in the Bible.Brian.Edited by AdminJar, : fix unbalanced code

They were called Israelites because they are the descendants of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel after a wrestling match with God (or angel) at the river Jabbok.All of Jacobs descendants went into Egypt and grew into what became the main body of the Exodus group.Brian.

And your evidence that there is a time that it wasn;t an ethnic 'tongue', is?I wasn't talking about a 'tongue' I was talking about a people. Your evidence for this is?It is okay having a 'feeling' but what is this 'feeling' based on?You know there is no linguistic similiartiy between the names? Are you serious?Can you try and support this unbelievable assertion? Really?Any chance of some supporting evidence? What are these 'records' of Apiru labourers at Pi-Rameses and Pithom, as well as other cities? So what time period would you place Abram in and what evidence do have to support this? Well, they actually don't. If you bother to read the Amrana letters you will see that they do not support an external invasion at all. (Bimson. J, Redating the Exodus and Conquest, Almond Press [b]Sheffield[/i] 1973, page 244) Why can they be attributed to the peoiple called Israel? What archaeological evidence is there for this assertion?BTW, I could have a good guess at where you get this information from, so probably it is best to provide your source, and keep within the forum guidelines. Why?You do not that there other references to an 'Israel' in ANE texts that are not attributed to our Israel? So from now on you are going to resist the absolute reference to the Israel in the MS as being the biblical people?Are you also aware that the Merneptah Stele obliterates the Bible chronology of the Exodus if the Israel in it is one and the same?There is a great deal of unsupported claims in your post, can I point out forum rule number 4:Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. There isn't a single claim in your post that satisfies this ruel.Brian.Edited by Brian, : No reason given.

They haven't changed it at all since 1939 Is there really justification for the 'H' sound anymore?AFAIK 'Sa.Gaz' is translated in to Akkadian and Hittite as 'habbatu' (Wieppert, M The settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine: a critical survey of the recent scholarly debate,SCM Press, London 1971,p.64) But since 1939 the consonantal element of the word 'ha-bi-ru' is now recognised as '-p-r, which meant all etymologies dependant on the root HBR were redundant. ( Gottwald, N Tribes of Yahweh: a sociology of the religion of liberated israel, 1250-1050 BCESCM Press, London 1979, page 401) Well this isn't a possibility as far as I am aware, have a link or something to support? You need to support the possibility of the 'b; in 'ibrit. How is anyone supposed to know that?Brian.