Copyright © 1958 by Westminster
Theological Seminary, cited with permission.
THE HA-BI-RU--KIN OR FOE
OF
THIRD
ARTICLE
MEREDITH G. KLINE
II. Ha-BI-ru--HEBREW
RELATIONS
A fascination with the possibilities
of illuminating Hebrew
origins has characterized studies of the ha-BI-ru. As
observed
at the outset, popular theory has it that the
Hebrews were
one offshoot of the ha-BI-ru. This theory may start with
the supposition that the ha-BI-ru were a social class or an
ethnic group. Although some form of either approach
can be
developed without the assumption that the terms ha-BI-ru
and 'Ibri can be equated phonetically or at least
semantically
they are greatly strengthened if such equation can
be estab-
lished. It is necessary in
this connection to survey the usage
of 'Ibrim in the Old Testament and to face the question of
the phonetic relation of ha-BI-ru and 'Ibri.
A.
The Usage of 'Ibrim
in the Old Testament.
Support for the view that the term ha-BI-ru
denotes a
larger whole from which the biblical Hebrews
originated has
been claimed in the usage of the term 'Ibrim in the
Old
Testament. There is no doubt that the gentilic 'Ibri is
ordinarily used in the Old Testament as an ethnicon for
Abraham
and his descendants of the Isaac-Jacob line.178 In
a
178 The word is found
almost exclusively in a few clusters which suggests
that particular circumstances account for its
employment. One such
group appears in the narrative of the Egyptian
sojourn and bondage; a
second in the record of Israelite-Philistine
relationships during the days of
Samuel
and Saul; and a third in a series of texts dealing with the manumis-
sion of Hebrew servants.
There are besides only the isolated appearances
in Genesis 14:13 and Jonah 1:9. The great majority
of these are instances
of non-Israelites speaking to or about Israelites,
or of Israelites speaking to
foreigners, or of declarations of God destined for
foreigners. Where it is
46
HA-BI-RU
47
few passages, however, some have judged that 'Ibrim is used
in a non-Israelite or even appellative sense and
that in such
texts an original, wider (i.
e., ha-BI-ru)
connotation emerges.
These
passages must be examined.
1.
The 'Ebed 'Ibri Legislation.
In the legislation of Exod.
21:2 and Deut. 15:12 and in
the references to these laws in Jer.
34:9, 14 the term ‘Ibri
has
been thought to denote not the ethnic character of
the servant
but a particular variety of servanthood.
J. Lewy develops
this theory on the basis of his interpretation of
the term
ha-Bl-ru in the Nuzu contracts as an appellative meaning
"foreign-servant",
and his judgment that the parallels between
the status of the ha-BI-ru servants and the 'ebed ‘Ibri of
Exod. 21:2 (and the associated passages) are so
close and
numerous as to indicate identical institutions
and identity
of meaning for ha-BI-ru and 'Ibri.179
the Israelite author who employs the term he is
often adapting his ter-
minology to the usage in the
context. In several passages a contrast is
drawn between Israelites and other ethnic groups.
It has been suggested that ‘Ibri uniformly possesses a
peculiar connota-
tion. For example, DeVaux (RB 55,
1948, pp. 344 ff.) maintains that it
has a derogatory nuance and finds the common
element in the fact that
the 'Ibrim are strangers in the milieu, while Kraeling (AJSL
58, 1941
pp. 237 ff.) suggests
that 'Ibri
is an alternate for "Israelite" in situations
where the designee is not a free citizen in a free
community or on free soil.
The
latter formulation seems to be successful in unravelling
a strand
common to all the 'Ibri contexts but it remains uncertain whether such a
nuance necessarily attached to the employment of the
word. Cf. Green-
berg, op. cit.,
p. 92.
179 HUCA XIV, 1939, pp. 587 ff.; XV, 1940, pp. 47 ff. Cf. his note in
Bottero, op. cit., pp. 163-4, where he
translates ha-BI-ru
as "resident
alien". Lewy supports
his thesis with the considerations that the ha-BI-ru
are present in the Mitannian
orbit in the period during which the 'Ibrim
became a nation and that the whole area in question
had been unified
under the Hyksos with the
result that the same technical terms and
analogous institutions are found throughout. He
holds that this social-
legal appellative usage of Ibri
represents the earliest stage (noting its
appearance in the first paragraph of
that later the term was used in an ethnic sense for
the descendants of the
"Hebrews par excellence".
Cf. supra WTJ XIX, pp. 183, 184.
48
But
is the situation on the Nuzu side clearly as Lewy has
reconstructed it? There are texts180
in which the person(s)
concerned is not designated as an ha-BI-ru and
yet the
tial clauses of the contract
are those characteristic of the
contracts where the persons are labeled as ha-BI-ru. It
is,
therefore, difficult to insist that we are dealing
with a specif-
ically ha-BI-ru type of servanthood.181
While, therefore,
ha-BI-ru are found in the great majority of these
contracts,
they are not necessarily involved in all of them,182
and one
may not assume then the existence in the Nuzu area of a
specifically ha-BI-ru brand of slavery.
Moreover, even if Lewy's
view of the Nuzu evidence were
to be adopted, the biblical evidence would
contradict the
translation of ‘Ibri as
"foreign-servant" in the ‘ebed ‘Ibri
legislation. For the biblical law is patently not
dealing with
foreign servants but with those who were their
masters'
brethren. The Deut. 15:12 expansion of the
original state-
ment reads, "If thy
brother183 a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew
woman, be sold unto thee"; while Jeremiah,
further expanding
it urges "that every man should let go free
his man-servant
and every man his maid-servant, that is a Hebrew or
He-
brewess ; that none should make
bondmen of them, namely,
of a Jew, his brother" (34:9, cf. vs. 14).
While one may then
recognize the instructive parallels in the
conditions of servant-
hood at Nuzu and in the
biblical legislation, it is impossible
to hold that ‘Ibri is in this legislation a
technical term for a
180 JEN VI, 610, 611, 613 (cf. JEN
V, 456:9-23); JEN V, 446, 449,
457 and 462.
181 An alternate interpretation
has been advocated in the present study.
See
supra WTJ XIX, pp. 179, 180, 183,
184.
182 Especially relevant is the
figure of Attilammu the Assyrian in the
servant contract JEN VI, 613:2. Even when this text in abbreviated form
is included in the Sammelurkunde JEN V, 456 between two contracts in
which the persons are specifically designated as ha-BI-ru (i. e., in a situation
where there would be a tendency to uniformity), Attilammu is not
described as an ha-BI-ru. It is further to be observed in
connection with
the use of as-su-ra-a-a-u for Attilammu in JEN VI, 613 that when ha-BI-ru
from Ashur are so
described it is as sa-mat as-su-ur.
183 Note the clear distinction drawn in
verse 3 between "the foreigner"
and "thy brother" in the law of the
seventh year release with respect
to debt.
HA-BI-RU
49
specific type of servanthood184 and
least of all for the
idea of "foreign-servant". Its usage is
rather ethnic, as
always.
2.
The ‘Ibrim
in I Samuel 13 and 14.
It has been affirmed that the 'Ibrim here (cf. 13:3, 7, 19;
14:11,
21) are quite clearly non-Israelites.185 The proper
interpretation of these verses is,
indeed, difficult; nevertheless,
to distinguish between the ‘Ibrim and the Israelites would
be at odds with the decisive evidence in this
context of their
identity. Thus, in 13:3, 4, Myrib;fihA
and lxerAW;yi-lkA are
obvious
equivalents (cf. Ufm;wA
lxerAW;yi-lkAv; :Myrib;fihA
Ufm;w;yi).186 More-
over, it is apparently in reference to the hiding of
those de-
scribed in 13:6 as the "men of
"Behold,
the ‘Ibrim
are coming out of the holes where they had
hid themselves" (14:11b). Again, the
equivalence of Myrib;fihA
with the inhabitants lxerAW;yi
Cr,x, lkoB; and with lxerAW;yi-lkA
in 13:19, 20 is evident.
To find, then, in the ‘Ibrim of 13:7 a group ethnically
distinct from the "men of
the term ‘Ibrim a change from its contextual significance too
abrupt to be plausible. Verses 6 and 7 are concerned
with
two groups of Israelites. Verse 6 refers to those
excused by
Saul
from military service (cf. vs. 2).187 These
hide in the
hills and caves west of
the selected troops who were with Saul at Gilgal near the
Gad
and
184 The 'ebed in the phrase ‘ebed ‘Ibri (Exod. 21:2) would then be tau-
tological, and Alt feels obliged
to exscind it from the text.
185 Cf. e. g., A. Guillaume, PEQ,
1946, p. 68.
186 The LXX rendering of the end
of verse 3, h]qeth<kasin oi[ dou?loi
(as though the Hebrew were Myrbfh
vfwp) seems to be a conjectural emenda-
tion occasioned by the fact
that Myrib;fihA comes somewhat
unexpectedly
on the lips of Saul.
187 13:4b does not describe a regathering of those sent home but simply
indicates the new location of Saul and his chosen
army at Gilgal.
188 There were originally 3000
chosen by Saul (13:2), but after the
approach of the Philistines in force and Samuel's
delay there were only
600
left (13:11, 15; 14:2).
50
In 14:21 it is not necessary to follow the
English versions in
regarding the ‘Ibrim as men who had been serving
in the
Philistine army. Even if such a
translation were adopted, it
would still be gratuitous to identify these ‘Ibrim as non-
Israelites
for they might be Israelite turn-coats.
But verse 21 may be translated
: "Now the Hebrews were
towards the Philistines as formerly when189
they went up
with them in the camp round about;190
both they were with
the Israelites who were with Saul and Jonathan
and...".
The
antecedent of Mm.Afi, "with them",
appears to be "Saul
and all the people (or army)" of verse 20.
Another possibility
is to regard "the Philistines" as the
antecedent of "them"
but to translate the preposition
"against".191 In either case
this passage would contain no mention of ‘Ibrim as having
served in Philistine forces. Verses 21 and 22 rather
distinguish
as two elements swelling the unexpectedly
triumphant rem-
nants of Saul's army those
who had deserted after being
selected by Saul to encamp against the
Philistines (vs. 21)
and those who, after being dismissed by Saul,192
were fright-
ened into hiding by the
alarming course of the conflict (vs. 22).
This distinction in 14:21, 22 is the same as
that found in
13:6, 7a. Indeed, the terminology in the two
passages is
deliberately made to correspond. ‘Ibrim is used in
both
13:7a
and 14:21 for the deserters; and "men of
13:6
and 14:22 for the people who hid in the hill-country of
Ephraim. The ‘Ibrim of 14:21 will then be the
deserting
soldiers of Saul who had crossed over193
the
resume their former position in the Israelite ranks
against
the Philistines.
189 Cf. Brown, Driver and
Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the
Old
Testament (
190 Is this an allusion to the
circumstance that the original three Israelite
positions at
garrison at Geba? If
the Massoretic text and accentuation (bybisA) stand,
the next clause will be a pseudo-verbal
construction (as translated above).
The
LXX and Syraic would read MGa
Ubb;sA, "they also
turned", which would
provide a parallel to Mga
UqB;d;y.ava (vs. 22).
191 Cf. Brown,
Driver and Briggs, op. cit., under Mfi lc.
192 For a similar military
development see Judg. 7:3-7, 23, 24.
193 The use of
Urb;fA. in
13:7a suggests the possibility of Myrib;fohAv;, "those
who passed over", as the original in 14:21
(cf. the participle, MyxiB;Hat;mi.ha,
HA-BI-RU
51
3.
Abraham the ‘Ibri
(Gen. 14:13).
Is ‘Ibri in this its earliest biblical appearance used eth-
nically? This question may be
dealt with in connection with
an inquiry into the origin of the term ‘Ibri. Broad
contextual
considerations indicate that in his
use of ‘Ibri
in Gen. 14:13,
the author had in mind ‘Eber of the line of Shem (cf.
Gen.
10:21,
24, 25; 11:14-i 7).194 The direct descent
of Abraham
from ‘Eber had already been traced in the genealogy of
Gen. 11:10-26. Moreover, the departure
from the stereotyped
presentation of the genealogical
data in Gen. 10 to describe
Shem
as "the father of all the children of ‘Eber" (vs. 21)195
is most readily accounted for as an anticipation
of the author's
imminent concentration (cf. Gen. 11:27 ff.) upon
the Semitic
Eberites par excellence, i.
e., the "Hebrews" whom Yahweh
chose to be the channel of revelation and redemption.
In
Gen.
14:13 then, ‘Ibri
is a patronymic, applied in this isolated
way to Abraham perhaps to contrast him with the
many other
ethnic elements which play a role in this context.
On the other hand, many regard this usage of ‘Ibri as
appellative and then find their interpretations of
the term
ha-BI-ru reflected in it.196 The appellative view is ancient,
for the LXX renders yrib;fihA as o[
pera<thj;197
perai~thj; Jerome, as transeuphratensis;
and the prevailing
view of the rabbis a generation after
in the corresponding member of 14:21). Such a
change in the Massoretic
pointing would support a corresponding change to Myrib;fov; in 13:7a. If
the Massoretic Myrib;fiv;. is
original, the author perhaps employed this
designation of the Israelites to produce a word play
with Urb;fA.
194 yrib;fi (‘ibri)
is the gentilic formation of rbAfa (‘eber).
195 Cf. also the additional
remark in Gen. 10:25.
196 For example, W. F. Albright,
JAOS 48, 1928, pp. 183 ff., once found
in both the idea of "mercenary"; and DeVaux, op. cit.,
pp. 337 ff., that of
"stranger". Kraeling, op.
cit., held that ‘Ibri
is used to underscore Abra-
ham's role as a sojourner who pays tribute to
Melchizedek.
197 Parzen,
AJSL 49, pp. 254 ff., is mistaken in
his opinion that the
LXX
actually found rbfh in the Hebrew text. Noth, "Erwagungen zur
Hebraerfrage", in Festschrift Otto Procksch
(
probably correct in stating that the LXX
translator simply regarded it as
desirable at this first appearance of ‘Ibri to indicate
what was, in his
opinion, its significance.
52
designated Abraham as "from the other side of
the river".198
All
of these derived 'Ibri
from the substantive meaning "the
other side" rather than from the verb ‘br.199 In line with this
view of the etymology is the emphasis in Joshua
24:2, 3 on
Abraham's origin "beyond the River". But these facts are
far from possessing the weight of the more
immediate con-
textual considerations cited above. Here too
then ‘Ibri
is
not appellative but ethnic.
4. Conclusion.
It has appeared from this study that, the term 'Ibrim in
the Old Testament has uniformly an ethnic meaning
and
denotes descendants of Eber
in the line of Abraham-Isaac-
Jacob exclusively. Deriving from the
eponymous ancestor
'Eber the term is probably
early;200 in particular, its applica-
tion to Abraham need not be proleptic. To judge from
its characteristic association with foreigners in
the biblical
contexts and the general avoidance of it by the
Israelites,
it possibly originated outside the line of
Abraham. Orig-
inally it may have been of
wider application than is the
usage in the Old Testament, denoting other
descendants of
Eber than
the Abrahamites. This is perhaps suggested by
the use of 'Eber in Gen. 10:21 and Num. 24:24.201 In
that
199 Greenberg, op. cit., p. 5, n. 24, directs attention
to the evidence for
this in Beresit Rabba 42, 8. A minority opinion of the rabbis was that
Abraham
was called the 'Ibri
because he was a descendant of 'Eber.
199 This appears to be so even
in the LXX, although later Patristic
writings in treating the LXX rendering derived it
from a verbal base.
(cf.
Greenberg, ibid.).
200 Kraeling,
op. cit., offers the strange
hypothesis that "Hebrews"
is a secondarily personalized form of a
geographical name, i. e., "Overites"
from rhAnA.ha rbAfa
adopted by the Israelites as late as the early monarchy in
an attempt to orientate themselves to the world in
which they had just
become prominent. The usage would thus be that of the
first millennium
even when applied to the Patriarchs. H. H. Rowley
counters: (a) in the
early monarchy, consciousness of being from over the
apparent among the Hebrews; (b) the term
disappeared almost completely
from the Old Testament with the establishment of the
monarchy; (c) The
Israelites
would hardly adopt as a symbol of self-esteem a term "generally
employed in a pejorative sense". PEQ, 1942, pp. 41-53; From Joseph to
Joshua, 1952, pp. 54-5; cf.
further O'Callaghan's criticism in
Naharaim p.
216, n. 4.
201 The validity of conclusions
based on the tradition of descent from
HA-BI-RU
53
case the appearance of such gentilic
but non-Abrahamic
‘Ibrim in some
non-biblical text of the patriarchal age need
not come altogether unexpectedly.
Do the ha-BI-ru qualify?
According to the conclusions
already reached in this study concerning the
probable ge-
ographical and ethnic origins of
the ha-BI-ru
they do not
qualify as Semitic let alone Eberite
kin of the Hebrews.202
On
the other hand, a final judgment on this larger issue is
Eber is challenged by DeVaux's
contention (op. cit.) that there are diver-
gent views within the Old Testament. He grants that
the composer(s)
of the biblical genealogies derives ‘Ibri from the
ancestor ‘Eber,
but finds
in the reference to Jacob as a "wandering Aramean" (Deut. 26:5) a
conflicting tradition of Aramaic origin (cf. Gen.
10:22-24). DeVaux
believes the latter to be further supported by
the description of Laban,
grandson of Abraham's brother Nahor,
as an "Aramean" (Gen. 31:20).
According
to the record, however, the term "Aramean"
could have been
applied to both Jacob and Laban
in virtue of their long residence in
Paddan-aram and so construed would say nothing about
their lineage.
DeVaux also insists, but unnecessarily, on identifying
the Aram of Gen.
10:22
and the Aram of Gen. 22:21, which would then bring
the two passages
into hopeless confusion. Finally, DeVaux appeals to the prophetic denun-
ciation of
the land of the Canaanite; the Amorite was your
father and the Hittite
your mother". Actually, as is apparent from the
context (cf. especially
vss. 45 ff.), Ezekiel is using a scathing figure to
say that from the first
relationship with Yahweh as were her
despised heathen neighbors--the
point being that
of divine grace. But even if Ezekiel were speaking
of literal racial inter-
mixture, the reference would be not to Abraham's
family origins but to the
subsequent mingling of the racial strain of his
descendants with those of
the inhabitants of
BI-ru were
of common Aramaean descent. Starting with the notion
that
the ha-BI-ru were desert
nomads, DeVaux seeks to relate the ha-BI-ru
to the Aramaeans by a
partial identification of them with proto-Aramaean
nomadic Ahlamu.
202 Greenberg, op. cit, pp. 93
ff., provides an example of how the biblical
usage of ‘Ibrim can be regarded as consistently ethnic, and ha-BI-ru be
deemed an appellative for a social class, and yet the
terms be equated
and the Hebrews derived from the ha-BI-ru. He
suggests that Abraham
was an ha-BI-ru, but this epithet as applied to Abraham's
descendants
became an ethnicon. Later
biblical genealogists, unaware of this, invented
the ancestor 'Eber, man of many descendants, in order to explain at
one
stroke the known kinship of the Hebrews to other
Semitic tribes and the
origin of their name!
54
bound to be seriously affected by one's opinion on
the phonetic
question of whether the term ha-BI-ru can be equated with
the term 'Ibri (and so be derived from 'Eber).203
B. Phonetic
Relation of Ha-BI-ru to 'Ibri.
1. Consonants.
The common cuneiform spelling of the name
is ha-BI-ru the final u
being, according to the usual assump-
tion, the nominative case
ending, which yields as the grammat-
ical relations require to
other case or gentilic endings.204 In this
cuneiform rendering the identity of the first two
radicals is
ambiguous. The initial consonant is ambiguous
because
Accadian h
may represent other letters than Hebrew H;205
among them, Hebrew f.206 The
second is ambiguous because
203 In addition to the supposed
phonetic equivalence of ha-BI-ru and
'Ibri, support has been
sought for the derivation of the Hebrews from the
ha-BI-ru by appeal to certain parallels in the careers
of the two. But the
similarities are for the most part
superficial or based on misinterpretations
of the data on one side or the other. For a recent
popular example see
H.
Orlinsky, Ancient
H.
H. Rowley From Joseph to Joshua, 1952, p. 53, n. 1.
Items like the
following have been or might be mentioned: (a) In
each case there is a
westward movement about the
demonstrated for the ha-BI-ru and,
in the case of the Hebrews, it applies
not to the group as such but only to Abraham.) (b)
The chronological
span of the use of the terms ha-BI-ru and 'Ibri is roughly the same. (c)
Both
groups move in the Hurrian cultural orbit and exhibit
the influence
of this fact. (d) The military activity of Abraham
the Hebrew in Genesis
14
and the attack of Simeon and Levi on Shechem are
comparable to
ha-BI-ru razzias. (But this
involves a superficial estimate of both biblical
instances.) (e) The ha-BI-ru mercenary activity is paralleled
by the
Hebrews in the Philistine army. (But this is a
misinterpretation of the
biblical data.) (f) Both groups are in
(g)
The ha-BI-ru
are frequently strangers in the milieu and such are the
Hebrew patriarchs in
holdings in
204 Cf. supra, WTJ XIX, pp. 9-11.
205 Indeed, as A. Ungnad observes, "Bisweilen wird h fur 3 gebraucht"
(Grammatik
des Akkadischen, 1949, p. 9).
206 In the Canaanite glosses in
the Tell el Amarna tablets are found, for
example: hu-ul-lu (EA 296:38) = lfo (cf. XXX) ; and hi-na-ia (EA 144:17) =
ynayfa (cf. XXXX). Cf. E. A. Speiser, Ethnic
Movements in the
the Second Millennium B.C., 1933, p. 39.
HA-BI-RU
55
BI represents among other
values that of pi as well as that
of bi in
all periods of the cuneiform literature.
Further evidence is available, however, for in
some cases
other signs of the cuneiform syllabary
are used to write this
name and, moreover, the name has appeared in other
systems
of writing, syllabic and alphabetic. From Ras Shamra207
comes the form 'prm written in the alphabetic cuneiform
common in texts from that site, in which the 'Ayin is distinct
from other gutturals and the b is distinct from p. This form
is, therefore, unambiguous. But the question has
been raised
whether this form, in particular the second
consonant, is
original or secondary. If the phonetic
equivalence of 'prm
and 'Ibrim were to be maintained, the primacy of the p would
still he favored by the fact that Ugaritic
often preserves a
more primitive Semitic form than does the Hebrew.208
On
the other hand there is evidence of an original b becoming p
in Ugaritic.209
In Egyptian hieroglyphics appears the form 'pr.w which
is also without ambiguity. But here again the
question arises
as to whether the p is primary or secondary. It can be shown
that Egyptian p
may represent foreign, including Semitic, b,
especially when the b is immediately preceded or followed by l
207 Virolleaud,
Syria 21, 1940, p. 132, pl. 8 and p.
134, pl. 10.
208 So Kraeling,
AJSL 58, 1941, pp. 237 ff. Cf. W. F.
Albright, BASOR
77, 1940, pp. 32-3; DeVaux,
RB 55, 1948, p. 342, n. 3. In an effort to
show that it is "quite possible that the
isolated Ugaritic as well as the
Egyptian
'pr are secondary forms due to Hurrian influence" J. Lewy
observes that "the population of
that the Hurrians,
wherever they appear, are responsible for a confusion in
the rendering of Semitic b and p because their scribes
did not distinguish
between voiced and voiceless stops" (HUCA 15, 1940, p. 48, n. 7). C. H.
Gordon,
however, informs me that the Ugaritic scribes who
wrote the
tablets bearing 'prm carefully distinguish p and b. J. W. Jack (PEQ, 1940,
p.
101) attributes the Ugaritic spelling to Egyptian
influence at
309
There are, e. g., the variants lbs/lps and nbk/npk. Cf. Greenberg,
op. cit., p. 90, n. 24. For evidence of confusion in Ugaritic between b
and p,
and that in the very name ha-BI-ru, attention has been called to
the Ugaritic text 124:14,
15 (Gordon, Ugaritic Manual, 1955). Cf. Virol-
leaud,
and H. H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua, 1950, p. 50. Actually, the
text has nothing to do with the ha-BI-ru or with the Hebrews (as
suggested
by Virolleaud).
56
or r.210
Such, however, is not the rule211,
and, as Kraeling
observes,212 in the case of the 'pr.w, a people
present in
itself, it is difficult to assume an error of hearing
on the
part of the scribe.
The spelling
ha-BIR-a-a is found twice in Babylonian
documents of the 12th and 11th centuries B.C.213
Commenting
on this form, B. Landsberger
observes that "b nicht p als
mittlerer Radikal
steht durch die Schreibung ha-bir-a-a (IV
R
34 Nr. 2, 5) fest".214 In
signs, however, of the variety
consonant-vowel-consonant there is not only
vocalic var-
iability but flexibility of both
consonants within the limits of
their type.215
210 For the evidence see B. Gunn
apud Speiser, op. cit., p. 38, n. Cf. J. A.
Wilson,
AJSL 49, 4, pp. 275 ff. W. F.
Albright (JAOS 48, 1928, pp.
183 ff.) argues that the
equation of Egyptian 'pr with 'eber is
difficult
since Egyptian of the New Empire regularly
transcribes Semitic b by
Egyptian b. As for Egyptian hrp for
it only shows there was the same tendency for a
final vowelless sonant
stop following a consonant to become voiceless that
there is in the modern
Arabic
dialect of
pronounced as a voiceless p. It should be noticed, however, that in some
instances of the use of Egyptian p for foreign b, the b is medial: thus,
isbr varies with ispr
("whip") and Kpn
(O. K. Kbn)
=
211
Gunn op. cit., p. 38, n.: "There are many cases (36 counted) in which
a foreign b
with r or l either before or after it is represented by b and not
by p in the Egyptian writings".
the most straightforward equation is 'pr =rpf.
212 Op. cit., pp. 237 ff.
213 Rawlinson,
Cuneiform Inscriptions of
Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions, I, 2, pl.
66, no. 149, 22.
214 ZA, N. F.
1, 1923, p. 214, n. 1.
215 See the remarks of C.
H. Gordon, Orientalia
19, 1950, pp. 91 ff. There
is specific evidence that BIR was used (though not commonly) for pir
in
the neo-Assyrian period and possibly (the evidence
is doubtful) in the
middle-Assyrian period. Cf. Von Soden, Das Akkadische Syllabar, 1948,
p. 73, no. 237. Bottero,
op. cit., p. 132 urges against
reading pir
here the
absence of specific Babylonian evidence for this
value to date, plus the
availability of the sign UD (pir).
However, he acknowledges (p. 156)
that this form is not decisive for a root 'br. It may be
additionally noted
that J. Lewy in defense of
reading the second radical as b appeals to the
occurrence of the god "dHa-bi-ru in an Assyrian text (Keilschrifttexte aus
Assur verschiedenen Inhalts, no. 42), i. e., in a text in which ha-bi-ru can
hardly stand for *ha-pi-ru" (HUCA
15, 1940, p. 48, n. 7). Bottero (op. cit.,
p.
135) agrees on the grounds that in the neo-Assyrian era one normally
HA-BI-RU
57
By way of conclusion, there can be no doubt that
the
Ugaritic and Egyptian forms of the name
definitely require
that the consonant represented in the cuneiform
syllable ha
be read as 'Ayin.216
They also strongly support an original p.
While
there is a possibility that 'br is primary, it is highly
probable that 'pr
is the original form. In fact, unless it can
be shown that ha-BI-ru is to be equated with the biblical
'Ibri there is no
unquestionable evidence for 'br as even a
secondary form.217
2. Vowels. That the first vowel is A-type and
the second
is I-type is obvious from the cuneiform, ha-BI-ru;211 but it is
more difficult to determine the length of these
vowels. This
question requires examination before one attempts
to draw
conclusions concerning the possibilities of phonetic
equation
with 'Ibri.
used PI to
signify pi. For evidence that BI = pi
in all periods see Von
Soden, ibid., p. 53 no. 140. Also J. W. Jack states, "In the
Hittite doc-
uments, for instance, habiru clearly
has bi" (PEQ, 1940, p. 102). E.
Laroche (in Bottero, op. cit., p. 71, n. 2) argues, "D'apres le systeme en
usage a Boghazkoy, ha-bi-ri note une pronunciation habiri (sonore inter-
vocalique non geminee)
". But ha-ab-bi-ri
appears twice. Moreover, P.
Sturtevant
maintains that in cuneiform Hittite "the Akkadian
distinction
between ... p
and b did not exist", adding,
"To all intents, therefore,
Hittite
has dispensed with the means of writing b"
(Comparative Grammar
of the Hittite Language, 1933, p. 66). Similarly, J. Friedrich, Hethitisches
Elementarbuch I, 1940,.p. 6(21). Accordingly, even the form ha-ab-bi-ri
(KBo V, 9, IV, 12)
is quite ambiguous, as it would also be in Akkadian
cuneiform where AB stands in all periods for both ap and ab. Greenberg
(op. cit., p. 90, n. 20) suggests the
possibility that a Hittite scribe utilized
a native convention, doubling the labial to
indicate a sound heard by
him asp. Also ambiguous is the sign BAD (bi or pi) used in the Alishar text.
2,6 Cf. Bottero, op. cit., p. 154.
217 Speiser
(op. cit., p. 40), writing at a time when he did not have the
benefit of the Ugaritic
evidence, begged the question of the phonetic
equation with 'Ibri in concluding, "The second consonant is
ambiguous
both in cuneiform and in Egyptian, but not so in
Hebrew: since the latter
has b, the labial must be read as voiced in
cuneiform, while the voiceless
correspondent in the Egyptian form of
the name is to be ascribed to local
developments".
218 As far as it goes the
Egyptian data is compatible. Gunn (op. cit.,
p. 38, n.) concludes from
a survey of the evidence that "we seem to have
the alternatives 'apar, 'apir, 'apur, with a possible indication in" the
Beth-shan stele of Seti I "in favor of 'apir".
58
a. The A-Vowel: According to Gustavs,219
the form ha-
AB-BI-ri220 shows that the a is short. He explains the doubling
of the middle radical on the ground that
consonants in
Akkadian are often doubled after an accented
short vowel .221
This
possibility, however, rests on the doubtful opinion that
the following I-vowel is short, for otherwise the
penult would
receive the accent.222 Another
possible explanation of the
doubling of the middle radical, although the
phenomenon is
rare and late, is that it indicates that the
preceding vowel is
long.223
Other unusual forms have appeared which suggest
that the
A-vowel
is long. One is ha-a-BI-ri-ia-as.224
Another is ha-
a-BI-i-ri-a[n?] (cf. ha-a-BI-i-ri-ia-an).225
Finally, from Alalah
comes the form ha-a'-BI-ru.226
b. The I-Vowel: Inasmuch
as short unaccented vowels
between single consonants often drop out227
and the name
219 ZAW, N. F. 3, 1926, pp. 28 f.
220 KBo V, 9, IV, 12.
Cf. also ha-AB-BI-ri-ia-an
(KUB XXXV, 43,
III, 31).
221 Cf. Ungnad,
op. cit., p. 18 (6p); W. Von Soden, Grundriss der Ak-
kadischen Grammatik, 1952, p. 21
(20g).
222 Cf. Von Soden, op. cit.,
p. 37 (38 f).
223 Cf. Ungnad, op. cit.,
p. 7 (3d).
224 HT 6, 18.
This text is a variant of KUB IX, 34, IV. Greenberg
(op. cit., p. 90, n. 20) comments,
"Were this writing not unique and not
in a word foreign to the Hittites it might have
deserved consideration as
indicative of a participial form".
225 KUB XXXI,
14 (XXXIV, 62), 10; and KUB XXXV, 49, I, 6 ff.
(cf.
IV, 15).
226 AT 58:29. E. A. Speiser (JAOS 74, 1954, p. 24) observes that the
main purpose of this unique form may be to indicate
a form like *Habiru.
He
suggests that even if the sign be given its value ah4 instead of a' the h
might be a graphic device signifying a long vowel or
stressed syllable.
Cf.
Greenberg (op. cit., p. 20):
"Assuming that the scribe was West Semitic
he may have noted that his alephs became long
vowels in Akkadian:
hence, by a sort of back analogy he may have
converted what he took to
be a long vowel into an aleph". Wiseman (in Bottero, op. cit.,
p. 37)
"The
word is unusually written ha-'a-bi-ru. This may be either a case of
HAR=AB4 or, as I am inclined to
think, a case of the scribe erasing by
the three small horizontal strokes of the
stylus".
227 Cf. Ungnad, op. cit.,
pp. 12, 13 (5c). The possibility that the i is
short but accented is obviated by the fact that were
it short, the antepenult
with its long a
(as maintained above) would receive the accent.
HA-BI-RU
59
ha-BI-ru is never found without the i, it would seem that
this i is long.228
Further support for this is found in the
spelling ha-BI-i-ra229
used for the Nuzu personal
name (assuming this name may be
identified with our ha-BI-ru). There are also the forms
noted
above: ha-a-BI-i-ri-a[n?] and ha-a-BI-i-ri-ia-an.
c. Conclusion: The vocalization is largely a
question of
how much weight to attach to the exceptional
spellings.
Quite
possibly they require two long vowels, producing the
(apparently non-Semitic) form, 'apir. Perhaps only one vowel
is long. It would be precarious, however, to
assume that
every indication of a long vowel is misleading and to
adopt
the form 'apir --or still less likely--'abir.
3. The Hebrew Equivalent. The difference in
middle radicals
between ha-BI-ru (read as ha-pi-ru) and 'Ibri would not be
an insuperable obstacle for the phonetic equation
of the two.
There
are a few examples of a shift in Hebrew from
p to b.230
Nevertheless,
this shift is not the rule23l and the difference in
labials must be regarded as a serious difficulty
in the case for
equation.
If we allow the consonantal equation
and examine the
vowels it will be found that the difficulties increase
and the
equation can be regarded as at best a bare
possibility. The
following are the possible vowel combinations of ha-BI-ru
(reading bi for the
moment and listing the more probable
combinations first) along with their
normal Hebrew gentilic
equivalents: 'abir, yriybiOf; 'abir, yriybifE; 'abir, yrib;Of; 'abir,
yribefE; and 'abr, yrib;fa.
Attempts have been made, however, to derive 'Ibri from
one or other of these vowel combinations. The most
plausible
efforts are those which assume two short vowels,
'abir .232
228 So C. H. Gordon (Orientalia 21,
1952, p. 382, n. 2) : "That the i is
long follows from the fact that it is not dropt to
become *hapru".
229 JEN 228:29.
230 dpr-dbr, "drive"; parzillu, 511 ; dispu,
wbd. Cf. W. F. Albright,
BASOR 77, 1940, p. 33; H. H.
Rowley, PEQ, 1940, p. 92; DeVaux, RB
55,
p. 342.
231 Cf., e. g., rpAfa, rpefo, rpAKo, rpAse, rpAxa.
232 J. Lewy
(op. cit.), assuming the form Habiru,
suggests that it "is
60
Speiser suggests that "the form qitl may go back
to an older
qatil" with the
restriction that such forms derive from stative,
not transitive, verbs.233 In line with
this, attention has been
called to the derivation of late Canaanite milk, "king", from
older malik, "prince”.234 "Whatever validity
there may be in
the theory of a qatil to qitl shift,235 it must
be remembered that
such is not the dominant tendency. Moreover, the
degree of
plausibility in applying such a
principle in the present case
is greatly diminished by the following
considerations: a) The
combination of two short vowels ('abir) is one
of the less
likely possibilities; b) The supposed shift from 'abir to 'ibr
did not occur according to our evidence in
extra-biblical
documents either earlier than, or contemporary
with, the
appearances of 'Ibri in the Bible. It is necessary to assume
that the shift took place first and only with the
Hebrew
authors. And if we may not assume that the
Hebrew form is
based on a previous shift to ‘ibr elsewhere, then proof is
required within the Hebrew language itself, and
not merely,
for example, from inner-Canaanite developments, of
a shift
from qatil to qitl.236
to rbAfe and yrib;fi as the Akkadian proper
name Zakiru(m) [for references
see, e. g., A. T. Clay, Personal Names from Cuneiform Inscriptions of the
Cassite Period (New Haven, 1912) p.- 145] is to rkAze and yrik;zi (Ex. 6:21,
etc.) ". There is, however, no evidence that
the Hebrew form rkAze represents
the Akkadian Zakiru.
233 Op. cit., p. 40, n. 96. Cf. T. J.
Meek, Hebrew Origins, 1936, p. 7.
Similarly
Bauer-Leander (Grammatik, 459), on
the basis of a possible
relation of adjectival qatil and abstract qitl: e. g.., sapil-sipl,
"base-
baseness".
234
So, e. g., Albright, Archaeology of
1935),
p. 206, and Bohl, Kanaander and Hebraer 1911, p. 85. In an earlier
article (JBL
43, 1924, pp. 389 ff.), Albright stated that Hebrew 'Eber for 'Ibr
stands by epenthesis for *'Apir, adding that the philological
process is
familiar in all the Semitic languages; e. g.,
Arab. bi'sa
from ba'isa.
Cf. the
alternation of ma-si-ri and mi-is-ri in syllabic texts from
235 DeVaux
(op. cit.) goes to the extreme of
describing the passing of
‘apir
into 'ipr
as "normal".
236 The qatil type of noun does appear at
times in Hebrew like a segholate;
cf.
Gesenius, Hebrew
Grammar, 1910, 93 hh, ii. Most of these are of
the
getel-type which is usually the
A-type but is sometimes the I-type (e. g.,
bcAq,, rtAy,, fmaD,); but lz,Ge (Eccles. 5:7; Ezek. 18:18) is also found and that is
clearly I-type. This phenomenon is, however,
confined to the construct
HA-BI-RU
61
Conclusion: The complete phonetic
equation of ha-BI-ru
and ‘Ibri is at most a bare possibility. If a difference in
morphology were to be allowed while identity of
denotation
was assumed the difference in the vowels could be
explained237
and only the labial problem would remain as a
phonetic
obstacle for the theory of common derivation.
Even that
assumption, however, is implausible in dealing as
we are
not with appellatives but proper names. The
phonetic situa-
tion, therefore, is such as
would weaken an otherwise strong
case for tracing Hebrew origins to the ha-BI-ru, not
such as
to strengthen a theory already feeble.
C. Amarna Age
Encounter.
In spite of the negative conclusions reached
thus far the
investigation of ha-BI-ru--Hebrew relationships is not
much
ado about nothing. For history apparently did
witness an
ha-BI-ru--Hebrew encounter.
How is the ha-BI-ru activity
in
the Amarna letters to be
integrated with the Israelite con-
quest of their promised land as described in the
books of
Joshua and Judges? That is the question.
1. Conquest.
The Amarna activity of the ha-BI-ru has
been identified by some with the Hebrew Conquest,
more
specifically, with its first phase
led by Joshua. But quite
apart from all the aforementioned obstacles to any identifica-
tion of the two groups, the
Conquest under Joshua differed
from the Amarna military
operations of the ha-BI-ru even in
broadest outline and fundamental character.
(a) The Hebrew conquerors were a people which
had long
been in
Ugaritic and Alalah
evidence reveals that the ha-BI-ru were
state. This restriction would not, of course, be
significant so far as the
gentilic form yrib;fi is concerned. It becomes significant though
when
account is taken of the derivation of yrib;fi from the patronymic rbAfa which
is found in the absolute state.
237 Albright compares a
development of gentilic ‘Ibri from an appellative
ha-BI-ru to Lewi, "Levite", probably derived from *lawiyu,
"person
pledged for a debt or vow"; Qeni, "kenite", from qain, "smith"; or hopshi,
"free-man", from hupshu.
62
in
view of its date). Moreover, since in
long enjoyed permanent settlements of their own in
well-
regulated, peace-time integration with the local
population
and authorities, while the Amarna
letters show the ha-BI-ru
in
without absolute loyalty to any one party, it
seems clear
that the Amarna ha-BI-ru were
in
militarists to exploit the anarchy there for their
northern
lords.
(b) Also in conflict
with this picture of the ha-BI-ru
operating in relatively small, detached companies
and fighting
as mercenaries with no apparent national
aspirations of their
own as ha-BI-ru is the biblical picture of the Hebrew Conquest
as an invasion by a united multitude, advancing in
their own
name in a concerted effort to achieve a common
national goal.
(c)
The natives of
to be exterminated; the acceptance of them as
allies would
directly contravene
had no special antipathy for the Canaanites as
such. Quite
the contrary, the Canaanites were their employers,
and for
the most part the ha-BI-ru are found abetting the attempts
of those Canaanites who strove to gain
independence from
Egyptian domination. Complaints are
frequently heard from
the loyalists that Canaanite rebels are going over
to the
cause of the SA-GAZ.
(d) The goal of
was to gain possession, and agreeably their general
policy in
dealing with cities was to exterminate the
population and
seize the spoil but to refrain from destroying the
cities by fire.
The
ha-BI-ru,
however, after conquering and plundering,
frequently set the city on fire,239
apparently having no designs
to acquire territory or to build an empire.
The difference between the two movements can
also be
traced in matters of detail.
238 Cf. Josh. 11:19. Nothing
underscores this more than the anomalous
character of the Gibeonite
alliance. It should not be overlooked, however,
that after the days of Joshua's leadership the
original determination gave
way frequently to a fraternizing attitude (e. g., Judg. 3:5-6).
239 So repeatedly in EA 185.
HA-BI-RU
63
(a) Names: None of the names of the Israelite
leaders
is found in the Amarna
letters.240 Moreover, where the names
of the rulers of specific Canaanite cities can be
checked (as at
disagreement between the Bible and
the Amarna texts.
(b) Numbers: In the pleas of the loyalists for
military
assistance it appears that Egyptian support in the
form of
fifty or so men will be adequate to turn the tide of
battle. It
seems unlikely then that these Canaanite kings were
con-
fronted with an assault on the scale of Joshua's
army.241
(c) Places: The ha-BI-ru operated successfully in
and
tribal efforts penetrated that far.242
(d) Military Technology: The Israelites made no
use of
chariotry,243 whereas chariots were a
standard division of the
ha-BI-ru corps at Alalah and
in Palestine.244
2. Pre-Conquest.
An alternative must be found then to
identifying the biblical Conquest under Joshua with
the
Amarna
disclosures.
The procedure of the majority of scholars
is to place Joshua after the Amarna
events. Thus Meek,
240 Proposals to equate Joshua
with Yashuia and Benjamin with Benenima
(or Ben-elima) are phonetically
impossible. Furthermore the Amarna
men were pro-Egyptian.
241 Cf. Exod.
12:37; 38:26; Num. 1:46; 2:32; 26:51. At the same time it
should not be overlooked that even fifty professional
soldiers might
provide adequate leadership to defend a walled
garrison. Moreover, there
are larger requests like that of Rib-Addi (EA
71:23-24) for fifty pair of
horses and 200 infantry as a merely defensive measure.
242 The way in which this
argument is developed by Rowley (op. cit.,
pp. 42 ff.) is an
illuminating exhibition of rewriting history to one's taste.
He
argues that the exploits of Joshua were mainly if not entirely confined
to the central districts while the ha-BI-ru
trouble was in the south and
north and only at Shechem
in the center. It will be recognized that this
is the precise opposite of the prima facie biblical account, according
to
which Joshua's campaigns were notably in the south
(Josh. 10) and in
the north (Josh. 11:1-14). Rowley rejects Joshua 10
in favor of the
supposedly conflicting account in Judges 1; and
Joshua 11, in favor of
the supposed variant in Judges 4. According to the
record itself, Judges 1
records events after the death of Joshua and the
events of Judges 4 fall
well over a century after those of Joshua 11.
243 Cf., e. g., Josh. 11:9.
244 Cf. EA 87:21; 197:2-11.
64
though he believes the Amarna
ha-BI-ru
and Joshua's cam-
paign belong to one movement,
specifies that "the Amarna
account marks the beginning of the movement,
while the
Old
Testament account has to do largely with its final ac-
complishment".245 An
odd quirk of Meek's view is that the
Exodus
from
than a century.
Albright, though he posits an earlier, pre-Amarna exodus
from
tribes and finds their presence in central
major Hebrew arrival reflected in the ha-BI-ru of
the Amarna
letters, dates the (second) exodus (i. e., Moses leading out
the Leah tribes) and the campaigning of Joshua in
the 13th
century, long after the Amarna
correspondence.246
To cite one further variety of this approach,
there is
Rowley's intricate reconstruction. He also espouses a
theory
of a two-fold entry into the land, according to
which certain
Hebrew
groups, notably Judah, press northward from Kadesh
c.
1400 B.C. (these Rowley would identify with the ha-BI-ru
of the Amarna letters) while
kindred tribes, including Asher,
Zebulon,
and Dan, exert pressure in the north (these, Rowley
conjectures, are the SA-GAZ of the Amarna letters). But
the exodus from
into central
It will be observed that all these efforts to
locate Joshua
after the Amarna episode
involve drastic recasting of the
biblical data--the rejection not merely of points
of detail
but of the biblical history in its basic structure.
It requires
some ingenuity, indeed, to produce one of these
elaborate
creations by weaving together a host of
miscellaneous data
sublimated from their original contexts, but the
result is
fiction not history. Under the mask of a claim
of controlling
the biblical sources by means of archaeological and
extra-
biblical sources an almost totally undisciplined
biblical ex-
egesis has been introduced.
But why the penchant for the
hasty rejection of the Old Testament source in favor
of
245 Op. cit.
246 BASOR 58,
1935, pp. 10 ff.
247 See Rowley, op. cit., esp. pp. 140 ff. for a survey
of the various views.
HA-BI-RU
65
interpretations of archaeological
evidence which are them-
selves so uncertain and disputed at countless points?
3. Post-Conquest.
There is another alternative for the
integration of the Amarna
and the biblical histories. It is
the reverse of those just surveyed in that it
locates the Con-
quest under Joshua before rather than after the Amarna
letters, at least before those of Abdi-Hepa.248
This is in
248 The historian is at this
juncture always embroiled in the complex
question of the date of the Exodus. Aware of the
difficulties of the early
date (i. e., locating
Joshua in or before the Armarna Age) and not aware of
the proper solution of them all, the writer
nevertheless finds insuperable
the difficulties of a later date. Relevant as the
problem is, limitations of
space allow only brief comment on a few salient
points: a) The case
presented by H. H. Rowley (in From Joseph to Joshua) against a Hebrew
entry into
that majority of scholars which is certainly correct
in dating the patriarchal
period early in the second millennium B.C. rather than
(with Rowley)
in the middle of it must date the beginning of the
sojourn before the Hyksos
period, not (with Rowley) after it. And that, in turn,
virtually necessitates
the early date of the Exodus. b)
Advocates of a 19th dynasty Exodus
constantly appeal to the archaeological evidences
of royal building opera-
tions at the sites of Pithom and Raamses. G. E. Wright,
for a recent
example, states, "We now know that if there
is any historical value at all
to the store-city tradition in Exodus (and there
is no reason to doubt its
reliability), then
Israelites must have been in
part of the reign of Rameses II" (Biblical Archaeology (
ment. Is it not rather the
case that, if one has no reason to doubt the
reliability of the record in Exodus 1:11 that
Pharaoh forced the Israelites
to build Pithom and Raamses as store-cities, he cannot possibly identify
that pharaoh with Ramses
II? For it is inconceivable that anyone should
have described the magnificent operations of Ramses II at these sites,
transforming one of them into the
capital of
terms of Exodus 1:11. The Hebrew building and the
Hebrew Exodus
must then precede Ramses
II. c) Albright has dated the destruction of
Canaanite
Bethel,
century B.C., and would identify this
destruction with Joshua's campaigns
as evidence of a late Exodus. Such a deduction does
not do justice to the
biblical facts that Canaanite reoccupation
frequently followed Joshua's
conquest of Canaanite cities and that destruction
by fire was exceptional
in Joshua's campaigns. (Apparently only
southern cities were burned and only Hazor was burned in the Galilean
campaign. Josh. 11 .13.)
The evidence of these Palestinian excavations,
therefore, actually requires a date for Joshua
considerably earlier than the
66
precise agreement with the chronological data in
Judges 11:26
and I Kings 6:1 and assumes a fairly brief period
for Joshua's
campaigns which also agrees with the biblical
record.249
Even more compatible with this view than with
the iden-
tification of Joshua's campaigns
and the Amarna activity are
certain facts which have long constituted a
popular argument
in favor of the latter view.251 Giving
it a somewhat different
turn than the advocates of identification, the
argument is as
follows: Precisely those cities which appear in
the Amarna
letters as under Canaanite control, whether
pro-Egyptian or
rebel (and, therefore, likely allied to the SA-GAZ), are those
which were not permanently dispossessed either by
Joshua251
or the early tribal efforts after the death of
Joshua.252
13th
century fall of these cities. A propos of Josh. 11:13, Yadin's recent
report of the second season of excavations at Hazor is of interest (cf.
Biblical Archaeologist, XX, 1957, pp. 34 ff.). In addition to the
latest
Canaanite
city which was destroyed in the 13th century (perhaps then,
according to an early Exodus, in the days of
Deborah, cf. Judges 4 and 5),
remains were found of a 14th century city
"approximately in the el-Amarna
period" (p. 44) and of an earlier city of the
Middle Bronze Age which
"was effectively destroyed by fire, most probably by one of
the Egyptian
pharaohs of the
mose III" (p. 44). The
supposition that a pharaoh of the
captured Hazor is
questionable; for in spite of their many campaigns into
capture of a fortified city a rarity. But
according to the early date of the
Exodus,
Joshua was a contemporary of Amenophis II and as for Hazor,
"that did Joshua burn".
249 Josh. 14:7 and 10 indicate
that the initial phase was completed
within five years of the entry into
250
Cf., e. g., Olmstead, History of
pp.
196-197; Meek, op. cit., p. 20.
251 Joshua 10
and 11.
252 The situation at Shechem is problematic. Nothing is said about an
Israelite
conquest of central
implies Israelite control of Shechem,
they subsequently lost their foothold,
for Labaya ruled Shechem some thirty years after the Israelite entry
(cf.
EA 289:22 ff.). Similarly, if Albright (BASOR
87, 1942, p. 38) is
correct that Debir
became the seat of a local chieftain after the Amarna
period, not only Joshua's raid but even Othniel's capture of that city
(Josh.
15:15-17; cf. Judg. 1:11 ff.) failed
to be permanently effective.
Again,
though Joshua's raid had depopulated
cities fell again into Canaanite hands according to EA 287:14-15, whether
these lines mean that these cities had been assisting
Pharaoh's enemies or
HA-BI-RU
67
Albright has concluded that in southern
Amarna period the main city-states were
there are in this area five additional city-states: Jarmuth,
Makkedah, Libnah, Debir, and Eglon, with still
others like
that from c. 1375-1250 there had been a gradual
reduction in
the power of the city-states combined with an
increase in
their number, which he attributes to a settled
Egyptian policy
of divide et
impera. This decrease in the power of the
anite city-states is then
judged to have aided
Conquest. Indeed, this is seized upon as
compelling evidence
that the Hebrew Conquest was late.
It will be recognized that this reconstruction
of the 14th
century situation in southern
silences in the Amarna
letters. Such a procedure is precarious,
however, for the silences might readily be
accounted for by
the fact that the authors of the Amarna letters simply had no
occasion to mention the towns in question. To the
extent,
however, that there may actually have been fewer
city-states
in the Amarna period
than in Joshua's day, a more plausible
explanation would be that between Joshua and the Amarna
situation the Israelites had been encroaching on
the territory
of the old Canaanite city-states, reducing their
number by
conquest.
Furthermore, the spontaneous confederation of
Canaanite
kings described in Joshua 10 is difficult to explain
if it be
supposed that Joshua's campaigns were
contemporary with
or subsequent to the ha-BI-ru activity of the Amarna letters.
For
these letters graphically exhibit the mutual distrust and
growing antagonism among the Canaanite kings
during this
period. Is it not apparent that neither in the midst
of, nor
soon after, such intrigues and civil strife could a
king of
were to provide for Pharaoh's archers. Such
developments indicate that
process only initiated by Joshua's campaigns.
253 Besides these, Jarmuth was a minor independency and an Egyptian
garrison and official were stationed at Eglon. BASOR 87,
1942, pp. 37-38.
Cf. Wright, op. cit., pp. 75, 76.
68
a joint military venture against a common foe? Abdi-Hepa's
futile efforts during the struggle with the ha-Bi-ru is a
witness
that a king of
Again
a more plausible reconstruction is that the collapse of
the five-city alliance against Joshua terminated
the southern
confederation and prepared for the
Canaanite disunity ev-
idenced in the Amarna letters.
If Joshua is to be placed before the Amarna period, the
problem still remains of synchronizing the later
Israelite tribal
efforts to take actual possession of their
allotted inheritances
(i. e., the Book of judges) with the Amarna
ha-BI-ru
move-
ments. The arguments already
presented against the pos-
sibility of identifying the ha-BI-ru with
the Israelites of
Joshua's
day for the most part hold against any such iden-
tification at this point as well.
However, in view of the known
tendency of the authors of the Amarna letters to stigmatize
the cause of all enemies (or at least all accused
of disloyalty
to
dogmatic in denying the possibility that some
Hebrew
activity might be hidden in the Amarna letters under that
label.
More significant is the fact that on the
chronology followed
here the first oppression of
second and in the third decade of the 14th century
B.C. This
corresponds with part of the era of the ha-BI-ru in
Canaan.255
Naharaim".256
The area designated by "Aram
Naharaim"
would include within its southwestern limits the
region about
Alalah (and probably still farther south) which was a
strong
ha-BI-ru center in the 14th century B. C.257
Though styled
254 Judg.
3:9-10.
255 part of this era corresponds
to the career of Labaya which can be
dated in the second and third decades of the 14th
century on either
Albright's
or Knudtzon's reading of the date on the hieratic
docket on
Labaya's
letter, EA 254.
256 Judg.
3:8. It is possible that the additional MyitafAw;ri, "double wicked-
ness", was appended by Cushan's
victims, perhaps as a pun on Myirahana
Mraxa.
Cf.
Burney, The Book of Judges, 1920, pp. 65-66.
257 Cf.
O'Callaghan,
HA-BI-RU
69
melek, Cushan-rishathaim
need not have been more than one
strong chieftain among several in Aram
Naharaim.251
Moreover, the name Cushan
is attested in this area both as
the name of a geographical district and as a
personal name.
That
there was a district in northern
12th
centuries B.C. called Qusana-ruma, is known from the
list of Ramses III.259
Still more pertinent is the 15th century
tablet from Alalah260 which contains the
personal name
ku-sa-an.261 This tablet is a fragment of
a census list of
unspecified purpose, on which 43 personal names
remain
along with the phrase found on the left edge,
"owner of a
chariot". The list then might well be one
of the numerous
military lists and probably includes the names of
several
maryannu.
Within the framework of synchronization proposed
here
for Hebrew and ha-BI-ru careers, it is difficult to dissociate the
oppression of
menace of the Amarna
letters. The facts rather suggest that
elements of the ha-BI-ru corps from
in time to raid the settlements of the more
recently arrived
Israelites. The Israelites were becoming, like the
Egyptians,
too dominating a power in
the ha-BI-ru were engaged to further. It appears then that it
was from plundering ha-BI-ru mercenaries that Othniel
delivered oppressed Israel.262
If so, the ha-BI-ru, certainly not the kin of
actually
And
then, far from offering a Canaanite version of the Hebrew
258 Such is the usage elsewhere
in judges. Thus Jabin of Hazor
is called
"king of
several Canaanite kings (cf. Judg. 5:19). So
also, O'Callaghan, op. cit.,
p. 123.
259 Cf. W. Edgerton, J. Wilson, Historical Records of Ramesses
III,
pl.
101, p. 110.
260 Wiseman, AT
154.
261 Ibid., p. 140. 36 names end in -an (ibid.,
p. 10).
262 Since Othniel
is associated with the south, this first oppression
probably centered there.
70
march of conquest, the Amarna
letters dealing with the
ha-BI-ru are a Canaanite portrait of the first scourge
employed
by Yahweh to chastise the Israelites for their
failure to
prosecute the mandate of conquest.
It is not difficult to surmise what verdict the
biblical
historians would have given if they had left to us
their inter-
pretation of the data of the ha-BI-ru oppression
of the
theocratic people in the early 14th century and the
almost
total disappearance of the ha-BI-ru as a social-political entity
by about the close of that century. Surely they
would have
judged that the brief Amarna
Age encounter with
for the ha-BI-ru a crucial hour of more than ordinary political
decision. It was an encounter that sealed their
destined fall.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
2960
www.wts.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: