The city of Akhetaten was built roughly halfway between the two intermittent capitals of ancient Egypt, Memphis in the north and Thebes in the south, approximately 180 miles south of modern-day Cairo. Amenhothep IV—also known famously as Akhenaten—built the city both as his capital, and as a cultic city dedicated to his newly fashioned religion, which demanded exclusive worship of the Aten—the sun disk. “At Akhet-taten in this place shall I make the House of Aten for the Aten, my father.”[1] No other gods were tolerated, including the Theban sun-god Amen-Re;[2] their names were excised from monuments during Akhenaten’s reign.
Neither the city, nor his Aten worship, would survive long. Built from the 4th year of his reign, it was abandoned, along with his religion, in his son-in-law Tutankhamen’s[3] time, less than two decades after it was settled. Tutankhamen’s successor, Horemheb, formerly Akhenaten’s general, dismantled Akhenaten’s Theban Aten temples block by block, using its stones as masonry for new royal projects. As Akhenaten had excised the names of other gods, so Horemheb removed any reference to the Aten. Akhenaten’s own name was ultimately excised from the King’s Lists of the Egyptian historians for his heresy.[4] The city would ultimately be razed during the time of Rameses II, as hatred of the “heretic king” grew. Akhenaten and his father’s diplomatic correspondence, or a portion thereof, would survive in Akhetaten, and would leave an indelible mark on our understanding of the history, culture, and religion of the latter days of Egypt’s 18th dynasty, as well as the other ancient near east civilizations (nearly all of whom bowed to, or recognized the supremacy of, Egypt’s 18th Dynasty).
The ancient city of Akhetaten was “discovered” as early as the second decade of the 19th century, its tombs noticed by early explorers of Egyptian antiquities. In the 1840’s, it was more professionally explored by Karl Richard Lepisius, who published some of the art and inscriptions in his “Denkmaler aus Aegypten und Athiopien” and traced the ground plan of the city. At the time, a Bedouin tribe called the Beni Amran populated the area around the site. Hence the name: Tel el-Amarna.
In a case of good-news/bad-news archeology, in 1887 a local woman, hunting for fertilizer by digging for nitrogen-rich soil that is produced when mud bricks decompose, discovered a cache of tablets. The tablets bore cuneiform inscriptions. The tablets were sold to local merchants, who then tried to sell them on the antiquities market. The unsupervised discovery, and the unexpected cuneiform writing, caused scholars to question the provenance of the find. In addition, many tablets crumbled to dust as they made their way in merchants’ bags from the site to the tourist market in Luxor. Ultimately, approximately 340 tablets, from an unknown original number, survived their chance discovery.[5] In Luxor, their importance was recognized, and so turned the key that would unlock the history of the Amarna age. Systematic excavations now began. Approximately 20 more tablets were discovered in 1891; German archaeologists excavated the city in detail from 1907 until WWI; Woolley and others continued their work into the 20’s. Archaeological work was concluded in 1937. Ultimately, some 380 tablets make up the Amarna discovery.
The overwhelming majority of the tablets were identified as correspondence: letters between the Egyptian court and its vassals and allies throughout the Ancient Near East. Many letters are from or to the Pharaoh himself, and some are from or to senior officials or other people of importance in the court. The Pharaohs indicated in the correspondence are Akhenaten, Akhenaten’s father Amenhothep III, and Akhenaten’s successors, Tutankhamen and perhaps Smenkhare. The letters are written over the course of approximately 30 years, depending on the length of the co-regency between Akhenaten and Amenhothep III; therefore, some of the letters were written in his father’s capital of Thebes, and brought to Akhenaten when the court moved there. The relocated tablets probably required a response of some sort, akin to a modern day “in-box.” Thirty-two of the tablets are not letters, but epics and other material of the sort that might be found in a scribal school: syllabaries, god lists, and the like.
The language of the archive is overwhelmingly Akkadian, the lingua franca of international diplomacy, although letters from the different territorial regions show unique glosses and flavors in their syntax. Interestingly, while the foundation language is Middle Babylonian—where it was still a living language—some of the Akkadian includes phrasings and grammar long unused in Babylonia, but clearly still taught in the local scribal schools. Two primary flavors of Akkadian can be identified: Hurro-Akkadian, found in correspondence from northern regions where the Hurrians dominated until the time contemporary to the el-Amarna letters, and a West-Semitized version found in letters from the Levant. Interestingly, Egypt followed the former dialect. Four letters were not written in Akkadian: one in Assyrian, one in Hurrian, and two in Hittite.
The misnomer of the site of ancient Akhetaten is related to the issue of dating. In the strictest sense, the site is not a Tel at all. The only stratum of significance is the 16 years that it housed the royal and religious court of Akhenaten (and a few short years following his demise). Normally a Tel has a series of building layers—strata—where new cities are built on (or integrated into) abandoned or destroyed earlier layers. Then archaeological artifacts, pottery, scriptal forms, and weaponry are matched to artifacts from other sites, and a relative chronology is established between the various layers of contemporary sites. Akhetaten was built on more-or-less virgin soil,[6] and after its abandonment, the city, along with the religion, was placed into “ban” (to use a biblical paradigm found in Deuteronomy 13:13 and at Joshua’s Jericho) and never rebuilt. There is only one stratum. Our dating of the site is therefore based on our knowledge of the chronology of the 18th dynasty. Based on Egyptian chronologies, Akhenaten’s reign began (or ended) near the middle of the 14th century. Based on boundary stele found at the site, Akhenaten moved there in the 6th year of his reign. The Amarna correspondence also allows for establishing relative chronologies. Other kings, such as Burnibash of Babylonia, are mentioned, as is the rise of the Hittite empire under Supiluliumis.
Within the milieu of the 14th century Egyptian-dominated Ancient Near East, we can attempt to assess the biblical narratives set in the same time and location.
Lack of scribal activity among the Canaanites living in Palestine in the first half of the 2nd millennium forced biblical scholars to assess Patriarchal narratives in an information vacuum. The historicity of the tales was doubly impossible to verify. First, there is an absence of extra-biblical contemporaneous written testimony. Also, as the Bible was clearly historiography, whose didactic purpose guides the inclusion and the coloring of historical information, without an historical backdrop it is difficult to fill in the blanks, and often the motives of the characters are indiscernible. The ability to reconstruct the narrative is a prerequisite for assessing historicity, and without knowledge of the social, geopolitical, and even technological milieu, any assessment is in doubt.[7] While the Amarna texts supply little insight into the social and religious backdrop by which the familial and commercial actions of the patriarchs can be gauged,[8] the political arena through which they lived is illuminated, and their geopolitical maneuvering can be placed within a context.
The Levant, and certainly Canaan, had been under tight Egyptian control from early in the 18th Dynasty, as attested by Tuthmose I and Tuthmose III’s campaigns to the Euphrates. The latter king crushed a rebellion at Megiddo led by the king of Kadesh. The el-Amarna documents, which reference back to Tuthmose IV, [9] demonstrate Egypt’s control of the Levant. The obeisance of the local city-state rulers in Canaan is striking. While the rhetoric may have been standardized for correspondence, the humility and servitude displayed are obvious nonetheless. “Message of Milkilu, your servant, the dirt at your feet. I fall at the feet of the king, my lord, my god, my Sun, seven times and seven times.[10]” EA 141[11] is an even more striking example of this obsequiousness.[12] Submission was the norm even in the latter days of Akhenaten, whose grip on the Levant had already begun to slip due to a combination of an emergent Hittite empire and an exclusive focus on domestic (religious) affairs.[13]
While the dates of the Amarna period are fixed to within a half-century or so, dates of the Patriarchal and Exodus narratives are more difficult to pin down. Unfortunately, the motivating factors of the Semitic Patriarchs need to be considered in light of the concurrent Egyptian dynasty with which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob contended. A Hyksos (Semitic) dynasty would have a different bearing on them than would life under the early days of the 18th Egyptian dynasty, who no doubt had little love for the Semites that they had just ousted. Placing the Exodus during the time of Rameses II (13th century), and following the length of the Egyptian exile (approximately 300 years as supplied by the Bible), places Joseph at the beginning of the 18th dynasty, and therefore implies that the Patriarchs lived under the 15th Hyksos dynasty of the 17th-16th century.
The Egyptian domination of Canaan described in the el-Amarna correspondence matches, and perhaps illuminates, a number of items described in Genesis:
· After Jacob’s death, Joseph must connive and cajole the king of Egypt to receive permission to bury his father in Canaan. He seems a virtual captive, even in the face of his high position.[14] Amarna documents also show evidence of diplomats being kept essentially in an honored captivity.[15]
· The Canaanites take great notice of Egypt’s mourning of Jacob in Genesis 50:11. Could this be due to a feared Egyptian preference for Jacob’s clan, against traditional Canaanite interests?
· Note the petty southern Palestine ruler Avimelech’s[16] mimicking of the eminent domain employed by the Pharaoh.[17] Avimelech the vassal is no doubt following the lead of his Egyptian suzerain. An Egyptian presence in the rich mines of the Sinai had been well-attested to for centuries, and their control over the southern city-states is described in EA 318, 319, and 320, among others.[18]
Both the el-Amarna correspondence and Biblical narratives describe the organization of Canaan into city-states controlled by petty local rulers. Some of the names of the city-states are identical, including Jerusalem,[19] Shechem,[20] Hebron,[21] and the southern regions adjacent to Egypt. Some of the city-states described as being significantly powerful in the Bible are described in the Tel el-Amarna correspondence as having clear aims at hegemony, including Shechem until its leader’s death, followed by Gezer. (In fact, Gezer’s machinations were so successful that direct involvement by Akhenaten would be required.[22]) While the Patriarchal narratives precede the el-Amarna age by some two to three centuries, the organization of the city-states, being at least partially due to topological configurations, should have remained reasonably consistent. The coalitions of city-states into larger groups in response to an enemy’s aggression and territorial aspirations, as seen in Joshua, does not really need the supporting testimony of the el-Amarna letters, this being universal political maneuvering in similar situations.
Army sizes as described in the el-Amarna letters match well with those described in Genesis. Abraham’s rout of the Mesopotamian invaders with 318 soldiers, Esau’s frightening force of 400, a short dozen of Jacob’s sons (plus, no doubt, retainers) destroying the (post-operative) city of Shechem, match fairly well with military figures described in the el-Amarna correspondence. Begs Rib-Hadda, “So send me 50 pairs of horses and 200 infantry that I may resist [Abdi-Ashirta] in Shigata until the coming forth of the archers.”[23] Many other letters support the decisiveness of fielding an army in the low hundreds.
A surprising figure takes a spotlight in the el-Amarna Levant stage: Yanhamu, who is featured in 26 letters. [24] He appears to be the high commissioner in the entire Levant, featured in letters from the Phoenician coast down to Jerusalem and southward. He wields the power to ration foods, imprison locals, supply troops, collect taxes, etc. He is much feared and even occasionally decried as dishonest. Most striking, however, is that his name indicates that he was a Semite. While proposals that he may have even been an Israelite may seem speculative, the similarities between Joseph’s and Yanhamu’s increases the historical likelihood of the Jospeh cycle, and may give insights to the scope of Joseph’s role.[25]
The ramifications are significant, and in fact free scholars from the chronological restriction of limiting Joseph and his ascendance to a Hyksos dynasty. As can be seen, Semites could rise to positions of significant power even in the times of the native 18th dynasty, famous for ousting the Hyksos Semites from power in Egypt.[26]
The issue of Akhenaten’s famous religious reform is not directly referenced in the Amarna correspondence. Certainly the common salutations to “my god, my Sun” and “the Sun from the Sky” illuminate Akhenaten (and even his father’s) move towards monotheism (with each of them as sole son of the sole deity). Nonetheless, economics and geopolitics, not religious reformation, is the main concern of the el-Amarna correspondents. It is left to monuments in Akhetaten and Thebes to describe the dedication of the King to the one god, the Aten “whose creation knows no others’ hands.”[27] Since little monumental information was left of Akhetaten after its destruction by anti-Aten forces during the 19th dynasty, it was only with the discovery of the engraved blocks of Akhenaten’s Theban Aten temples that this new religion was revealed.[28] These stones, which were dismantled by Hamorheb and used for mortar in the creation of his own edifices, highlight the Aten sun disk giving life and authority to the king, his wife, children, etc. No other gods are featured, and the Aten assumes no form other than the sun disk. On one of the el-Amarna correspondence tablets is a docket, dating the letter probably to Akhenaten’s reign while still in Thebes, possibly as a co-regent. It reads: “Regnal [year] 2 (?), first month of the Growing season, day 5 (?), when One (=the king) was in the southern city (=Thebes) in the estate of 'Rejoicing in the Horizon.'”[29] Compare this to the description of the Aten as “who is over the two horizons.”[30] The word “horizon” is in fact part of the name of the city Akhetaten: Horizon of Aten.
That Akhetaten was a monotheist is definitely the prevailing view.[31] Certainly the chance of the “discovery” of such an innovative approach to supernatural control occurring in two intermingled societies within a few centuries seems to be far from coincidental. Whether the dynamics of the Akhenaten revolution affected, or were affected by, Mosaic law, [32] depends on chronological synchronism, but also no less on the historian/scholar’s predilection regarding the origins of the Israelite faith, and will no doubt never be solved to everyone’s satisfaction.
It should not surprise that phraseology found in the Amarna corpus can be found in the Jewish Bible as well. Even before the Amarna records were uncovered, it was well known that Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources find their equivalents in Biblical literature. Moreover, the letters’ subject is the geopolitical forum, and thus comparisons are nowhere nearly as rich as in the wisdom literature, and other religion-oriented texts found elsewhere. Nonetheless, a quick review should demonstrate the expected similarities. These include:
· The reference to Mesopotamia as Naharim.[33]
· The negative appellative, “dog,” which will be discussed ‘The Hebrews of Tel el-Amarna ,’ below .
· Rib-Addi asks rhetorically in EA 71,“What is Abdi-Ashirta, the slave, the dog, that he takes the land of the king for himself. What is his auxiliary force that it should be so strong? (Only) through the cApiru is his auxiliary force strong!.” Note the construct “mi-nu X…mi-nu Y of X” which implies the negative, i.e. “He is in fact a nobody.” This is a direct parallel to the biblical “מי...ומי”.[34]
· In EA 280 Suwardata attempts to convince the king that he accurately followed royal instructions and has been unswervingly loyal and honest. Apparently in response to “slander” of Jerusalem’s Abdi-Heda, he swears to his honesty: “…may the king, my lord, conduct an inquiry. If I took a man, or a single ox, or an ass, from him, then he is in the right.” Both the content and the format will be familiar to the Biblical reader. The expression “if...then” [35] is found in Biblical oaths, the “if” being read simply as a denial of the first part of the oath clause.[36] Additionally, the symbol of honest rule as an absence of unjust appropriation has an almost identical parallel in I Samuel 12:3, and Numbers 16:15.
· While there are few solely poetic texts in the Amarna correspondence, a hymn to the sun disc (assumed to have been written by Akhenaten himself) is carved in the tomb of the Akhenaten’s royal secretary and lieutenant general of chariotry, Ay, in the Akhetaten necropolis. It bears similarities to Psalm 104.
One of the most
far-reaching implications of the Amarna letters was the mention of the ‘Apiru,
predominantly described by the Egyptian vassals throughout the Levant as their
enemies, the plunderers and conquerors of the cities under Egyptian protection.[37]
In many cases, cities were throwing in their allegiance with the
‘Apiru, in turn fighting against Egyptian loyalists.
The cries of the cities against the onslaught of the ‘Apiru could be
heard throughout the Levant, from Canaan to the Phoenician coast and into Syria.
A sample[38]:
Rib-Addi, an Egyptian loyalist and ruler of the city Byblos on the
Mediterranean’s east shore, about 20 miles north of Sidon, was under
tremendous pressure from the Amurru Abdi-Ashirta.
At some point he is forced to abandon his city and take refuge in Beruta.
He writes: Very strong is the hostility of the‘Apiru
[39]
army against me. So let the king,
my lord, not be silent toward the city of Sumur,[40]
that it not go over entirely to the ‘Apiru army.[41]
Abdi-Heba, ruler of Jerusalem, despairs: But now the ‘Apiru take the cities
of the king. The king, my lord, has
not a single governor; all has been lost. See!
Turbazu was slain in the gate of Zilu (but) the king keeps silent!
See! Zimrida-the town(sman)
of Lachish have smitten him, slaves who have become ‘Apiru.[42]
Two factors made it seem that these anti-Egyptian combatants of the el-Amarna letters must have been the invading Israeli forces under Joshua, son of Nun. First, there is the unmistakable phonological similarity between these enemies of Egyptian control in the Levant and the Hebrew conquerors of the same.[43] Second, there is the chronological match between the Amarna age and the Israeli exodus from Egypt, based on Solomon’s 480-year synchronism from Exodus to Temple, both placed during the 14th century B.C.E. The historical description described by the Amarna letters also seemed to match that described in the biblical books of Joshua and Judges: these books describe cities that successfully resisted the initial Israeli onslaught—e.g. Jerusalem, Gezer, Megiddo—which are the cities that were still showing limited autonomy in the Amarna letters. The cities that Joshua conquered immediately are, in contrast, silent in the Amarna correspondence.
Unfortunately, the previous description overly generalizes the phonological, epigraphic, and historical evidence. Each needs to be explored before the evidence regarding the ‘Apiru can be properly assessed.
The Amarna letters dealing with the Levant contain three seemingly distinct groups that are predominately recognized as enemies of the Egypt vassals, or forces outside of Egyptian control:[44] ha-BI-ru, SAG.GAZ, and Sutu. The Sutu have been generally defined as a nomadic or Beduin group, not connected with the ha-BI-ru and SAG.GAZ. These last two will be examined individually, and then as together, in an attempt to create a mutual identity.
Of all the extra-Egyptian forces, the ha-BI-ru were the obvious candidate—based on the word’s assonance with “Hebrew”—for connecting the Amarna age with the post-Exodus Hebrew invasion. Their area of influence is limited to the Canaan heartland, mentioned only in the letters of Abdi-Heba, ruler of Jerusalem. In his letters the ha-BI-ru are described as:
· In conflict with the “governors” of Canaan, i.e. loyal vassals to Egypt.[45]
· Plundering royal (vassal) land.[46]
· Allies of or mercenaries to anti-Egyptian cities, specifically Gezer and Shechem,[47] recipients of lands in return for military support.[48]
· Former slaves or city-subjects now taking control of city after city.[49]
A data-base limited to Jerusalem is narrow; too narrow to be certain of an historic match, or even to know whether the group is being described by gentilic or appellative. The only certainty was that ha-BI-ru is phonetically similar to “Hebrew.” To make matters more divisive, there was no consensus that the Biblical phrase “Hebrew” was a gentilic, and the possibility that it, too, was an appellative was raised.
Two theories would broaden the data-base from which to judge these ha-BI-ru: first, the equation of the ha-BI-ru with the more prominent el-Amarna rebels, the SAG.GAZ, and second, the discovery of other epigraphic data—written earlier than the Amarna age’s 14th century and outside its geographical area—referring to both the ha-BI-ru and the SAG.GAZ. This extra-Amarna epigraphic testimony also supplied a third datum that would serve to bridge the first two: the Egyptian identifier ‘Apiru.
Amarna respondents refer to a far more dominant anti-Egyptian force than the ha-BI-ru: the SAG.GAZ. This group was feared throughout the Levant: in Syria, the Phoenician coast, and Canaan. Three factors internal to el-Amarna correspondence contribute to the equating the ha-BI-ru with the SAG.GAZ: similar traits and practices, the suspicious lack of mention of the ha-BI-ru group by the other Canaanite principalities other than Jerusalem, and a scribal gloss.
The SAG.GAZ are the dominant anti-Egyptian force in the el-Amarna Levant-based correspondence. Similar to Abdi-Heba’s ha-BI-ru, they are in conflict with the local authorities,[50] plunder royal land,[51] are allied to or are mercenaries of rebellious vassal city-states,[52] and take control of city after city.[53]
The SAG.GAZ are not limited to the Phoenician and Syrian theaters. Besides their mention by rulers of Megiddo, Shechem, Gezer (Milkilu and Yapahi), Sapuna’s Queen-mother, the individuals Shubandu and Dagantakala, and unknown Canaanite authors in EA 272 and 313, Abi-Milku of Tyre speaks of a North Canaanite king aligning with the SAG.GAZ, indicating a pan-Levant presence.[54]
In light of the presence of both the SAG.GAZ and the ha-BI-ru in similar roles in Canaan, it is surprising that the two are never mentioned together as separate concerns in any of the Canaanite letters. This curiosity is amplified by the fact that Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem accuses Abdi-Milki of Gezer and Labaya of Shechem of associating with (or perhaps being) ha-BI-ru,[55] but the two latter kings refer only to the SAG.GAZ when discussing disloyal entities with the same attributes.[56] Note also Yapahi of Gezer’s corroboration of Jerusalem’s evaluation of Gezer politics, but with SAG.GAZ replacing ha-BI-ru as the antagonists.[57] Rather than assuming that the two must be referring to different entities, since Jerusalem’s enemy (ha-BI-ru) would not be Gezer’s enemy (SA.GAZ), one must realize, as will be detailed below, that the terms are directed at Egyptian sensibilities, and both represent an identity known as “enemies of the king.” A similar meaning of “anti-Egyptian” can be seen in the north, where Abdi-Ashirta and Rib-Haddi refer to the SAG.GAZ as working for the other.
While both arguments—the two groups’ similar attributes and described activity, and the argument-in-selencio of ha-BI-ru being an exclusively Jerusalemite vorlage of well-known crown-rebels—are convincing, textual evidence is required to create a conclusive link between the two.
A textual connection equating the ha-BI-ru with the SAG.GAZ was found, inconclusively, in the Amarna letters themselves, as well as in external sources. These latter sources also shed a great more light on defining the meaning of the term SAG.GAZ/ha-BI-ru, as will be explored in ‘Towards a Working Definition ,’ below .
The phrase SAG.GAZ is glossed twice in the Amarna correspondence; that is, the scribe inserted a local definition of the Akkadian ideogram, much like is being done here to the word ‘gloss,’ although less loquaciously.
The first gloss can be found in EA 207. There the ideogram GAZ (a short form of SAG.GAZ) is glossed with “hu” before being broken off. Greenberg (p. 44) points to Knudzton (EA p.50) who rejects the possibility of a gloss that would support the SAG.GAZ/ha-BI-ru connection. Moran (p. 280) says: “Reading of the gloss uncertain…”
The second gloss is legible, but
inconclusive in its own way. EA 318
reads “Save me from the strong enemies!
From the hand of the lu mesSA.GA.A[Zmes] lu
mesha-ba-ti u lu mesSu-ti-i…”
The opinion that the verse is referring to three different entities, and
therefore indicates splitting SAG.GAZ from ha-BI-ru, has largely been rejected.
Note, for support, the existence of the copulative “u” separating the
lu mesha-ba-ti from lu mesSu-ti-i, but not
between lu mesSA.GA.A[Zmes] and lu mesha-ba-ti.[58]
Unfortunately, even if one accepts that ha-ba-ti is a gloss of SA.GAZ,
one also must accept that ha-ba-ti is not identical with ha-BI-ru.[59]
Greenberg (pp. 88-90) explains that both words represent a harsher, and
more apropos, term for the ha-BI-ru. The
harsher term is “sagassu/murderer” and “habatu/plunderer.” The more
apropos term is “taker,” and possibly “one who is on the take.”
This latter meaning was indicated via the phonetic ha-BI-ru, with the
gloss simultaneously ensuring the correct definition while slyly retaining the
far more pejorative meanings.
An absolute connection between the SAG.GAZ and the ha-BI-ru lies beyond the boundaries of the el-Amarna tablets.
First, it is important to note that the ha-ba-tu gloss of SAG.GAZ is supported by a dictionary text (K 2055),[60] and a star list (K 250).[61] External texts would, however, remove any doubt of the connection. Two Hittite god-lists name DINGER.MES luSA.GAZ and DINGER.MES ha-BI-ri synonymously.[62] Other ANET data supports this direct substitution, using SAG.GAZ and ha-BI-ru interchangeably, though never simultaneously, in much the same way that the terms are used interchangeably in the el-Amarna correspondence. These usages will be examined below , in “Towards a Working Definition .”
Adding to the possible synonyms, in a case of the transitive property (if a = b, and b = c, then a = c), corvée lists from king NQMD of Ugarit list both “Aleppo of the SAG.GAZ” and “Aleppo of the ‘prm.” ‘prm is the Egyptian translation of SAG.GAZ, supporting a phonetic reading that is close to ha-BI-ru. Thus, the texts support the following equation:
SAG.GAZ = ha-BI-ru = ‘prm.
And thus we can rely on ‘Apiru to represent all three terms since they all represent the same entity. However, the question remains: what is the definition of that entity, and is it identical with the biblical “Hebrew?” This requires an analysis of the usages of all three terms.
Regardless of the scope of the data used, any definition of ‘Apiru as an identifier of a unit of people would place it into one of two categories: gentilic or appellative. The notion that ‘Apiru might be a reference to a specific geographical location (like the Ammuru) is impossible even in the face of the limited geographical scope of the el-Amarna records. Therefore, does it describe a pan-geographic (i.e. nomadic) race or tribe of people, or does it describe their functionality or relative social placement? If the term is gentilic, can the specific ethnic group or people be identified independently, or only in their mention by other cultures? (Did they have a voice of their own?) If the term is appellative, what precisely was the function of this social strata, as described by the appellation?
Even the limited scope of the el-Amarna correspondence, the definition of ‘Apiru seems to be appellative. Without simply restating Greenberg’s work, the most obvious cases of appellative use will be shown.
In a number of letters, one king refers to an enemy king as ‘Apiru. Since the enemy king is clearly a Canaanite of a known gentilic—Canaanite, Ammuru—the ruler could not have belonged to a race of ‘Apiru. Moreover, often the same accused king, in his own propagandistic letters to the king of Egypt, refers to the ‘Apiru as a separate entity. One example of this phenomenon is EA 74,[63] a letter from Rib-Addi of Byblos to the King of Egypt. In it he mentions his enemy Abdi-Ashirta, ruler of the Amurru, who at this point ostensibly still owes his allegiance to Egypt (although the rise of the Hittite empire will eventually change that). Abdi-Ashirta has been engaging in psychological warfare against the people of Amiyya (Rib-Addi claims that this is the only loyal city remaining other than his own), calling on the people to “become like us.” This the town did, becoming “like ‘Apiru.” The equation of “us” (Abdi-Ashirta) and “’Apiru” seems to indicate a designation of status or behavior identified with the appellate.[64]
One would expect that if one king accused another of associating with the disloyal and dangerous gentilic ‘Apiru, the latter king would not be able to claim difficulty from the same ‘Apiru. The Egyptian court could easily verify such boldfaced statements. Nonetheless, this is precisely what occurs. The same Abdi-milki of Gezer who, according to Abdi-Heba, has been associating with ‘Apiru, is himself in need of protection from them.[65]
As mentioned above, often townspeople are asked to join an internal rebellion against their leaders and become ‘Apiru. Such is the case in letters EA 288 and EA 271, where the people of Lachish rise up against their rulers. In letter 77 Rib-Hadda begs: “…let a ship [fetch] the men of [of Gubla], your [me]n, (and) the g[ods] (to bring them) all the way to you so I can abandon Gubla. Look], I am afraid the peasantry will strike m[e] down.”[66]
The idioms referring to “dogs” are also pertinent to the issue of the ‘Apiru, and the definition of a slave turned against, or run away, from his master. The term, which is familiar from the Bible, carries the meaning of a servant subordinate to his master, one who is prohibited from independent actions; however, the idiom seems to be at play when loyalty is being questioned.[67] Compare this to the phrase “runaway dog” describing the disloyal ‘Apiru[68], and note Rib-Addi’s complaint “so that [the lands of the king] belong to the sons of Abdi-Ashirta, servants (and) dogs.”[69]
There are certainly cases where the usage can support a definition of a race or tribal unit.[70] Nonetheless, the weight of the data supports the conclusion that ‘Apiru represents a people who have rebelled against known authority, in this case both against their local city-state rulers, and by reason of vassalage, against Egypt, as well.
Even assuming that a gentilic definition of ‘Apiru could be maintained using el-Amarna correspondence alone, in the face of external data from the ANET, such a definition becomes untenable. The documents citing ‘Apiru argue against a gentilic meaning, indicating:
· A geographical spread too great—Nuzi, Mari, Egypt, Sumer, Alishar—to support a single ethnic or tribal unit, unless that unit was exclusively migratory (contradicted by EA Mari texts which indicate ‘Apiru from town X”), or a temporal lapse during which the “tribe” moved location to location (contradicted by the mention of ‘Apiru during the Amarna age of the 14th century from Hittite lands in the north, down to Hurrian, Syrian, Canaanite, and Egyptian lands).
· Proper names of individual ‘Apiru, while showing a Semitic trend, are too diverse to support a single ethnic or tribal unit.
· The consistency of the functional roles the ‘Apiru play, even across centuries and geographical landscapes. As early as the Ur III dynasty they are seen as either
o Looking for patronage after emigrating;
o Hiring out as mercenaries in return for “good land” or a city to dwell in;
o Engaging in acts of disloyalty, or acts slightly outside the legal and societal norms.
With ‘Apiru solidly on the side of an appellation, it would seem that there are but two choices regarding the equating of the ‘Apiru with the Hebrews: define Hebrew as an appellative or abandon the connection. Perhaps a third can be offered: two terms existed in the same lingual arena, one gentilic—referring to the Israelite nation—and one appellative—indicating groups disloyal or independent to a given authority. In this overlapping arena, the Bible may be using both definitions at different times, and occasionally at the same time, much as the scribe of EA 318 did by adding “sagassu/habatu” to ‘Apiru with a “gloss” to the original murderer/plunderer.
The terminology ‘Apiru, enduring at least 700 years, and familiar across broad-ranging cultures and territories, was certainly chiseled into the collective conscious of the 2nd millennium vocabulary. It seems unlikely, in fact, that the Bible’s audience, seeing the word “Hebrew” would not understand the possible double entendre. Weingreen supports this position.[71]
Of the six references to “Hebrew” in Genesis, five are cases of conversation between Egyptians or between a Hebrew and Egyptian.[72] Setting aside issues of authorship and timing, it can be demonstrated that the vorlage of the Bible is appropriate to the setting that it describes, especially in regards to conversational narrative.[73] As the events in Genesis have as their terminus ad quem the Amarna age—given a very conservative 100-year spread between the Egyptian exile and the Exodus—the Egyptian ‘Apiru, indicating Canaanite entities disloyal and even in active combat with the Egyptian vassals, would certainly be the preferred nomenclature. Jacob was at times at war with the indigenous Canaanite population, including Shechem, who was certainly an Egyptian vassal.[74] The Bible is describing a mid-second-millennium scenario. Therefore, it seems likely that the Egyptians would refer to Joseph with the appellative ‘Apiru, one cast out of his natural society attempting integration into a new one, placed perhaps a notch above standard slavery. The one remaining reference, to Abraham the Hebrew,[75] also comes from the perspective of the indigenous person, in this case a battlefield-survivor of either one of the sacked cities of the Refaim[76] or of the 5-king Canaanite coalition.[77]
Of the 14 usages in the book of Exodus, 13 appear in the first ten chapters and involve conversation[78] or identification under an Egyptian perspective.[79] Since the first third of the book takes place in and around Egypt this may be moot; nonetheless, the data points to an Egyptian borrow word. The one exception refers to an Israelite or Israelite-owned slave, and will be discussed separately, below.
The book of Numbers is an interesting example of the possible origin of the gentilic derivation of “Hebrew.” The word is not used here to refer to Israelites themselves, but rather describes a geographical, and most likely a psychological significance, of crossing over into the Promised Land. An example: “Speak to the Israelites and tell them that they are crossing the Jordan River to the land of the Canaanites.”[80] Deuteronomy has similar usage of the word;[81] the only exceptions match the one in Exodus, regarding the laws of indentured servants or slaves.[82] This usage is in keeping with one of the opinions regarding the origin of the gentilic: those who crossed the Jordan, Abraham as well as the freed Israelites.[83] This definition seems preferred to a second position that the name indicates a racial origin, specifically the descendants of Noah’s grandson ‘Aver, since the term should then have been applied to all Semites.[84] The “crossing the river” definition is also supported by the reference to God taking Abraham from across the river, found in Joshua 24:3.[85]
The only other book where the Israelites are referred to as Hebrews is I Samuel. Here too, however, the reference is supplied by a foreign entity, specifically the Philistines. Of the eight pertinent references, five are direct quotes by Philistines.[86] It should be remembered that the Philistines came to Canaan after failing to invade Egypt and being pushed northward by Rameses III. Even prior to the sea-peoples’ invasion, Egyptian records point to social and economic intercourse with the Mediterranean and Aegean sea peoples. It seems likely that the Philistines, dwelling territorially adjacent to the Egyptian “brook” and being familiar with the Levant through Egyptian eyes, should share the Egyptian vocabulary. If the Israelites were a defected slave people, traitors to the crown, i.e. ‘Apiru in the eyes of Egyptians, it seems likely that the Philistines who had slowly gained control over larger Israel at this time[87] should also refer to the rebellious Saul in just such a manner.
The other three references in Samuel are specifically made by Israelites. [88] While they fall within a specific conflict with the Philistines, the use is distinctive and bears testimony on the (intentionally) ambiguous use of the term Hebrew.
In Saul’s first battle for independence from the Philistines, featured in I Samuel 13 and 14, the Hebrews are cited three times:
· 13:3—Following Jonathan’s destruction of a Philistine garrison in Givat Binyamin, Saul calls upon “Hebrews” throughout the land to “hear,” presumable a rallying cry. In the next verse it states that “all Israel heard…” As we will see, the Israelites of verse 4 are erroneously confused with the “Hebrews” of verse 3.
· 13:7—Following Philistine mobilization to counter the Israeli insurgency, the “Hebrews” cross to the East Bank of the Jordan.[89] (Note that Michmash, formerly occupied by Saul, is taken over by the Philistines, with Saul retreating to the Gilgal. Things are not going well for Saul and his army.)
· 14:11—In response to Jonathan and his second’s intentional detection in the Philistine camp, the Philistines acerbically refer to them as the “Hebrews” coming out of the holes. (As we will see, the same confusion that causes the reader to confuse the “Hebrews” and “Israelis” in verses 13:3 and 13:4, confuses the Philistine guardsmen, as well.)
· 14:20-21—The Philistine defeat is described in these difficult verses that indicate the following about the Hebrews:
o they were previously aligned with the Philistines;
o they were “surrounding” the Philistines’ camp; and,
o they were aligned with Saul, with the time of strategic flip-flop unspecified.
Weingreen correctly criticizes the critics who equate the Israelis in 13:4 with the Hebrews in verse 13:3. In this view, Hebrew is exclusively gentilic, and these critics are forced to emend the Massoretic texts. [90] Weingreen, however, by replacing all “Hebrew”s with "‘Apiru"s, must emend the text in different ways. He has the ‘Apiru as foreign mercenary forces crossing from Trans-Jordan to the West Bank of the Jordan River. Both views are incorrect, failing to notice the intentional gloss of the author. Surprisingly, Weingreen identifies ‘Apiru as an appellative, but errs in his own analysis of the word in light of documentary evidence. He feels that the ‘Apiru must be a group distinct from the Israelis. However, if the term ‘Apiru is truly appellative, and as we have shown it is not restricted to any one people or any one geographically-based entity, it can be applied to an Israelite in exactly the same way as it can be applied to a non-Israelite. Moreover, Amarna documentation shows that is often used as a derogatory appellation to a sub-group of people, who have broken off from the main group. Remember how one group of Canaanite city-state rulers refers to the other, their enemy, as ‘Apiru, in an attempt to sway the Egyptian court to its own view.
The double entendre of Hebrew-the-gentilic against ‘Apiru-the-appellative must have been known to authors at the time,[91] and therefore a people could refer to its own traitorous sub-elements as ‘Apiru. In addition, history is littered with defections of sub-elements of society to the colonial power, even to the point of fighting against its own. With this in mind it is best to examine the evidence starting with the verse that best describes the history of Saul’s ‘Apiru.
· The ‘Apiru Hebrews had previously crossed over to the Philistines (14:21a).
· Saul calls on the ‘Apiru Hebrews to abandon their Philistine taskmasters and return to the fold (13:3). Some do. It is important to note that the Israelis in 13:4 are confused with the ‘Apiru Hebrews in verse 13 due to the connection with Saul’s command to “hear” in verse and the “hearing” done in verse 14. However, in verse 14, what is heard is not the shofar blowing, but the victory against the garrison.
· After the strong Philistine response the Israelite loyalists go into hiding (13:6) while the Hebrew ‘Apiru abandon ship, knowing that they cannot go back to their former masters without severe recompense (13:7). The use of puns is clearly shown here by the phrasing “ועברים עברו” and the textual and thematic similarity of the seemingly rebellious Trans-Jordan tribes as described in Joshua 22:17-19 should not be lost on the reader.
· The Philistines camp a massive army[92] in Michmash with the following configuration: core Philistine troops surrounded by a perimeter of Hebrew ‘Apiru troops (14:21b) who had not re-defected in 13:3.[93]
· The Philistine scouts confuse, as Jonathan suspects that they will, the ‘Apiru with the Israelite loyalist forces who have taken to hiding (14:11). They show nervousness around the faux-‘Apiru, and are afraid to confront them directly (14:12a). It is crucial here to notice the intentionally exaggerated use of the word עבר in this section. The root is used in one format or another twice in 14:1, thrice in 14:4, once in 14:6 (where the play on a faux-defection is intended), once on 14:8 (again implying a faux-defection). By using this word seven times in eight verses, the author is supplying the key to understanding the situation: Jonathan is using the distrust of the Philistines against themselves.[94] Compare to the ramifications of fright in Gideon’s war in Judges 7:14.
· With hatred, distrust, and racial and national disunity already at play in the same “walled-in” camp, Jonathan lights the match that sparks the conflagration (14:14-15). One element of the camp attacks the other in confusion (or perhaps intentional revolt).[95]
· The Hebrews (formerly ‘Apiru) return to the fold (14:21c).[96]
This understanding of the Saul episode is based on the theory that both the appellative ‘Apiru and the gentilic Hebrew were concurrent in the vocabulary, and the assonance between the two was not lost to the historiographers of the time. The Weingreen viewpoint, focusing specifically on the meaning of disloyalty, seems to ignore the gentilic “יִ” ending, along with the Biblical references to Abraham.
Another approach is to look at the evolution of an appellative into a gentilic identifier. Limited to the el-Amarna correspondence, this is difficult to envision. It seems unlikely that a tribe would take on a name clearly understood as an anathema. While history does have examples of negative terms being championed, especially as an act against the coiners of the term (“Yankee Doodle Dandy” and “Rebel” from American history, for example) it would be hard to accept that the primary national identifier be evolved from so negative a term, as it seems to be by Abraham. Fortunately, the definition may be derived from outside of the Amarna arena. The following alternate definitions have been offered based on the available ANET documentation, some of which are based on a theorized original meaning of the phonetic ‘ (or h)-p (or b)-r -u.
· Beduin: This has been largely rejected based on evidence that the ‘Apiru belonged to cities.
· People of the sand: This has been largely rejected.
· One “on the take:”
· Immigrant/Wanderer:[97] This definition is based on the star charts (followed by the god lists). The indication here is one who has broken away from his native territory and legal system, and hires himself out to other societies in return for profit. One can see from the Nuzi documents that the ‘Apiru were considered lower than citizens but of higher rank than slaves. Scholars point to the ‘empty people’ who served David, and expected reward from Naval for guarding his sheep and shepherds.[98] So, too, in the case of Jephtah of Gilead. This meaning is similar in meaning to the Egyptian “rebel against authority,” as one person’s rebel is another’s free man. As Na’aman states: “the Habiru…can be described…as people…uprooted from the society in which they were born, living for a while as foreigners in another country, and then...absorbed into their new environment.”[99]
·
Refugee: Of particular note is Bottero’s insistence that
‘Apiru is derived from a noun. Rather
than understanding the term as “wanderer” or “immegrer,”[100]
he interpreted the word to mean “refugee.”[101]
Neither is a specifically negative term, although certainly local
elements might view the new population with fear and caution.
Both meanings fit well with the Biblical description of Patriarchal times
(Abraham as an emigrant, and even a wanderer throughout the land of Canaan).
That the name was given to Abraham pre-Amarna indicates that the
appellative may have evolved into a gentilic of Abrham and his family before it
had assumed overtly and inescapably negative connotations in the Levant.
This fits well, of course, with the rabbinic opinion that the name
derives from Abraham’s crossing of the river, which we can see was accepted as
early as Aquila, as revealed by his interpretation of the LXX in the 3rd
century C.E., followed by Greek Patristic writers of the 4th century
CE.[102]
Inevitably, though, with the increasingly negative connotation given to the term
‘Apiru in the Levant during the Amarna period, and due to the assonance
between Hebrew and ‘Apiru (employed even by the prophetic authors), the
gentilic quickly went out of use, only a residue of which remained in the Bible
itself. It should be noted that
Merenptah’s execration texts, dealing with the unified forced of Israel, refer
not to Hebrews but to Israel. Mesopotamian
references to Israel as Hatti, Omri-land, Judea, do not refer to the Hebrews,
although as has been noted, even the term appellative ‘Apiru disappears from
the vocabulary by the 1st millennium B.C, which is when the Western
empires became aware (based on extant documentation) of an independent Israelite
people.
At the heart of the linguistic analysis, and sometimes driving the linguistic theories to a certain conclusion, is the historical perspective. The burning question of course was: are these the biblical Hebrews, the invading forces of Joshua, corroborating the historicity of Biblical account? The question is based on Solomon’s First Temple synchronism, placing the conquest-era towards the beginning of the Amarna age, at the dawn of the 14th century.[103] In order to keep this historical synchronism, the following views needed to be taken vis-a-vis the ‘Apiru-Hebrew connection:
· Equate ‘Apiru with Hebrew linguistically, and then either:
o deny the gentilic nature of biblical “Hebrew;” or,
o decide that the gentilic nature of biblical “Hebrew” is directly derived from ‘Apiru.
· Claim that the actions of the ‘Apiru described by the el-Amarna correspondence is congruous to the actions of the Israelite tribes.
Greenberg took issues with these as follows:[104]
· Linguistic: Difficult to match ‘Apiru with ‘Ivri, although he admits it is impossible to preclude such a match. Others are more positive with regard to the morphology of the two terms.
· Ethnic: ‘Apiru is clearly an appellative, and Hebrew is gentilic. Here, too, Greenberg admits the lack of certainty regarding the latter, and, as mentioned above, it seems possible to see the term “Hebrew” taking on both connotations in the Bible. The fact that the term was irreconcilably negative in the Levant in the 14th century should not preclude an earlier, less negative meaning, or as seen from the Nuzi and Hittite texts, a reasonably contemporary non-negative usage in a different geographical/cultural setting.
· Biblical Reference: Arguing against an appellative meaning in I Samuel 13 and 14 and asserting that the MT is “obviously corrupt” as Greenberg does, relying solely on the LXX, does not take into account the full scope of the narrative, as explained above. Also explained above, the appellative and the gentilic are purposely juxtaposed, creating a literary tension that can only be seen in light of realpolitik—that turncoat elements in conquered territories exist throughout history—a thorough and literarily alert reading of the narrative, and comparison of the text to other parallel narratives of Gideon and Achish. This is detailed in ‘Saul’s Hebrews ,’ above .
· Comparative Literature: While admitting that the only direct source for Israelite activity in the area is the Bible, Greenberg shows that the behavior of the biblical Hebrews does not match the ‘Apiru described in the el-Amarna correspondence, including:
o Tribal structure vs. military structure;
o Destruction of cities and peoples vs. treaties and co-existence;
o Foot soldiers vs. charioteers.
The problem still remained: how could two concurrent events, occurring in the same theatre, be so silent of any reference to the other? While the Bible, a historiography, could easily exclude information not relevant to its overall didactic purpose, the Amarna letters describe the “facts on the ground.” Developments in the placing of the Israelite conquest, however, loosened this tension. Based on a variety of evidence, including
· Archaeological evidence in Trans-Jordan and Israel proper;[105]
· The Biblical citation that Hebrew slaves built the cities of Rameses and Pithom, clearly named for Pharoahs of the 19th dynasty;[106]
· An understanding of the biblical synchronisms as indicating round-number generations, described as 40 years in duration, but more probably 25 years.[107] By converting the biblical dates from 40 to 25 years’ rule throughout the Judges period (when records were scant[108]) and by converting the 480-year Solomon synchronism to 300[109] years (12 x 25, rather than 12 x 40), scholars have placed the Joshua invasion at 1267, during the reign of Rameses II.[110]
Early supporters of the Hebrew-‘Apiru identity, when faced with the new chronological data, proposed that the ‘Apiru of the Amarna correspondence were an early wave of escaped Hebrew slaves. While this idea has support in biblical and post-biblical literature,[111] it seemed much ado simply to maintain the increasingly tenuous link between Hebrew and ‘Apiru.
It seems best to leave the two words distinct, ‘Apiru being an appellative whose root meaning indicates an émigré (one detached from his original society but not fully absorbed into the new location). This flexible appellative then took on different shades of meaning at different times and in different geopolitical milieu, the most extreme of which is “treasonous” in the vocabulary of Amarna-age Egypt and Egyptian vassal-states. Hebrews, on the other hand, is best left as a gentilic referring specifically to the clan of Abraham, although perhaps it too evolved from the gentler gentilic meaning émigré. The confusion between the two unsurprisingly arose through their assonantal similarity when the two words collided via interchange between Egyptian and Israelite peoples.
[1] The “Earlier Proclamation” of the boundary stelae at El-Amarna, from Murname, W. J., “Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt,” Scholars Press (1995), pp. 77.
[2] The name Amen-Re itself speaks volumes regarding the religious atmosphere prevalent during the height of the 18th dynasty. Amun, god of Thebes, capital of the 18th Dynasty pharaohs, had become so ascendant that it had absorbed the ancient sun-god Re. Even in Akhenaten’s father’s time, one can detect a shift to proto-monotheism, with Amun not merely a supreme god—like Ashur, Enlil, or Marduk of the Mesopotamian cultures—but a single god assuming the power of the other gods. Akhenaten’s abolition of anthropomorphism was certainly revolutionary, but should also be seen as part of the sun-god evolution already in process. The conflict it would ignite with the orthodox cults may have caused Akhenaten to move from Thebes and construct a new, virginal city, untouched by the taint of the false gods, and away from the tension of the orthodox cult. This becomes more probable if one assumes a co-regency of any significant length with his father, who no doubt continued to function in Thebes and support the Amun-re cult. This tension (which may have moved from contention to open conflict) might be indicated in the boundary stele for Akhetaten: “it was worse than those which I heard in regnal year 4,” and repeated for regnal year 3, 2, and 1. Murname, pp. 3-12, 76.
[3] Tutankhamen may have been a direct child from a secondary, foreign wife. In any case, his royal heritage is uncertain.
[4] It is also quite possible that Akhenaten’s removal from history was politically motivated, with Horemheb listing himself as the direct successor to the successful Amenhothep III. There was quite a power struggle following Akhenaten’s demise; among those wrestling for control were Tutankhamen, Tutankhamen’s handlers Horemheb and Ay (who seized the throne during Horemheb’s Asian campaigns), Smenkhare (who may have been the famous Nefertiti, and who may have arranged a “marriage” to her daughter in order to legitimize her short rule), and Akhenaten’s daughter Meritaten, who attempted to stabilize the government by marrying the son of the Hittite King Supiluliumis and placing him on the Egyptian throne. This last plan ended with the death of the Hittite prince, and caused a catastrophe in Hittite-Egyptian relations that would last three decades.
[5] See Giles, Frederick J., “The Amarna Age: Western Asia,” (Aril and Phillips Ltd.) (1997), pp. 18-28, who suggests that the tale of wanton tablet destruction came from A.H. Sayce and W.M.F. Petrie, who worked together four years after the original discovery. In Sayce’s own 1888 account, as well as in the contemporary account of E.W. Budge—both immediately following the find—there is no such tale of tablet loss.
[6] The area near the site had been known for quarry and agriculture, but was never significantly settled.
[7] See, for instance, Halpern, B., “Eglon Narrative,” The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History, 41-75. There he demonstrates that knowledge of palace design in the 12th century B.C.E. is crucial, if not indispensable, to understanding the Biblical story.
[8] Later, familial and commercial archives, such those uncovered at Nuzi, came to light and are invaluable for this task.
[9] “May the king inspect the tablets of his father’s house (for the time) when the ruler of Gubla was not a loyal servant,” EA 74.
[10] EA 270.
[11] The numbering of the el-Amarna archive was established by Knudtzon in 1915 and is the standard for the cataloguing of Amarna tablets.
[12]
“Say to the king, my lord, my son
My divinity, the
breath of my life;
Message of Ammunira,
Man of Beirut, your
servant, the dust (gloss: ‘aparu) of your feet…
I fall at the feet of
the king, my lord, my sun, my divinity,
The breath of my
life, 7 and 7 times.
Furthermore, I have
heard
The words of the
tablet of the king, my lord
My sun, my divinity,
the breath of my life,
And the heart of your
servant,
The dust of the feet
of the king, my lord,
My son and my
divinity, the breath of my life rejoices
Very much, since the
breath of my king, my lord
My sun, my divinity,
went out
Toward his servant,
the dust of his feet…”
The letter continues in this vein. See Izre’el, Shlomo, “The Amarna Letters From Canaan,” CANE, p. 2413.
[13] See EA 252, a post from Labayu, ruler of Shechem, for a less-than-respectful form of correspondence. He avoids phrases such as “the dust on which you tread,” and “falling at the King’s feet seven times.” (Hess, R. S., “Smitten Ant Bites Back: Rhetorical forms in the Amarna Correspondence from Shechem,” Verse in Ancient Near East Prose, Eds. De Moore and Watson, Bitzon and Kevelar, 1993, pp. 95-112) points out that the letter itself is unusually Canaanite in its syntax and grammar, and may indicate an assertion of independence from his suzerain. The letter itself describes the pique of Labayu in having to protect, by command of the king, certain individuals that he deemed hostile to himself. It should also be noted that Labayu’s Shechem was probably the greatest of the city-states, and he was more of a king than a mayor, having managed to form a coalition of other city-states in an ever-expanding territorial grab which had in its sights the powerful Jezreel valley cities, including Megiddo. Only his untimely demise put an end to the possibility of all-out rebellion against Egyptian interests in Canaan, the spirit of which is hinted in EA 252’s famous parable: “when an ant (na-am-lu) is swatted, does it not fight back, and bite the hand of the man who swats it?” One senses that his confirmation of loyalty, “…if you also say ‘fall beneath them so that they might smite you,’” is somewhat disingenuous.
[14] Note the use of אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן, which often denotes a request for mercy based on an expectation of a negative answer. See Numbers 32:5, and compare Esther 5:6-8 to 5:2-4.
[15] See EA 3 and EA 28.
[16] Genesis 20.
[17] Genesis 12.
[18] See Moran, Note 1 on EA 319.
[19] EA 285-291 and Genesis 14:18.
[20] Note the many letters from or about the leaders of Shechem and Genesis 34.
[21] EA 271 has one Shuwardata, who was probably the prince of Hebron. So Ross, James F., “Gezer in the Tell el-Amarna Letters,” BA, vol. 30, 2 (1967), p. 66.
[22] Ross 1967, p. 68 and f. 15. Despite Akhenaten’s military move here, one should not underestimate the “lethargy” of the Akhenaten rule. See Moran, W, “Amarna Letters,” Amarna Studies: Collected Writings, Eds. Huehnergard and Izre’el, Eisenbrauns (2003), 223-225.
[23] EA 71.
[24] EA 83, 85-86, 98, 102, 105-106, 109, 116-118, 127, 131-132, 171, 215, 256, 270-271, 283-286, 289, 296, and 366.
[25] Pfeiffer, C., “Tell Amarna And The Bible,” Baker Book House, 68-71.
[26] Campbell, “The Amarna Letters and the Amarna Period,” (16-9) proposes a fall from favor—and power—based on the lack of a tomb for Yanhamu in Akhetaten, as well as the fact that Rib-Adda seems to be defending Yanhamu in EA 118. The proposal that “the new King who did not know Joseph” was Akhenaten is, of course, pure speculation, most scholars preferring the switch from a Hyksos dynasty to one of the 17th or 18th dynasty. Nonetheless, the quick rise and fall for a Semite in the Egyptian court is a paradigm that bears note.
[27] Got to get this quote and where it’s from!!!!!
[28] See Redford, D. B., “The Monotheism of the Heretic Pharaoh [Akhenaten]; Precursor of Mosaic Monotheism of Egyptian Anomaly?” BAR 13,3 (1987) 16-32.
[29] Murnane, p. 42.
[30] Murnane, p. 58.
[31] E.g. Millard, A. R. “Abraham, Akhenaten, Moses and Monotheism,” He Swore an Oath, (1994) 119-129.
[32] Or Joseph’s predilections, or Abraham’s mission statements.
[33] “matuna-ah-ri-maki,” in EA 288, line 35. See Knudtzon, J. A., Die El-Amarna-Tafeln Vol. 1, Aalen (1964), p.870.
[34] See Judges 9:28, also I Samuel 18:18; 25:10; and II Samuel 7:18. (Interestingly, while the expression remains in later biblical narrative, the idiom indicating negation seems to be lost. So, too, in Biblical poetry.) Note also the expression “Mah…uMah,” which also carries a rhetorical negation of the “what…and what” questions, e.g. Genesis 54:16, I Samuel 26:18.
[35] “ob…Dann,” Knudtzon, p. 849.
[36] Compare to “אם לא” in Joshua 14:9 that implies the action will certainly be carried out. “If” can also be understood positively by relating it to the consequence section of the (failing of the) oath, even though the consequence is often only implied: כה יעשה וכה יוסיף"."
[37] An exception can be found in EA 195, where Biryawaza, a royal deputy, employs them as mercenaries.
[38] Translations in this section, unless otherwise noted, are taken from Greenberg, Moshe, “The Hab/piru,” American Oriental Society (1955), section II: “Sources.”
[39] Greenberg’s text reads “SA.GAZ,” which is a synonym for the Hab/piru. The connection between the two will be discussed below. Note that rendering of ‘Apiru is taken from William M. Moran’s translation The Amarna Letters (Johns Hopkins University Press), pp. 137-138.
[40] Sumur was an Egyptian garrison, and would later be lost to the cApiru, as described in EA 76.
[41] EA 68.
[42] EA 288.
[43] Hebrew, from the biblical יעבר, is apparently a gentilic for the Children of Israel. How this identifier is used in the Bible will be explored below.
[44] It should be noted that many of the city lords refer to other city lords as disloyal to Egypt. Egypt, however, seemed unwilling, or unable, to take sides, preferring to allow the local lords to fight it out between themselves. As long as everyone was paying taxes to the crown in the end, the Egyptians were satisfied. As we will see, it is at times uncertain if complaints about the ‘Apiru are directed at the rival city-state rulers or the mercenary ‘Apiru that they either employ or are aligned with.
[45] EA 286, lines 17-21.
[46] EA 286, lines 55-58.
[47] Milkilu of Gezer paints himself quite differently in EA 271, claiming to need more troops to stave off an internal revolt and have his city remain loyal to the throne. The enemy in this case is the SAG.GAZ, who will be discussed below. See Greenberg, note 20f, p. 46. Labayu of Shechem, also professes loyalty, but his own words in EA 252 belie his sincerity: “when an ant is struck, does it not fight back and bite the hand of the man that struck it?”
[48] EA 287, EA 289.
[49] EA 288, EA 290.
[50] EA 77, EA 88:28-39.
[51] EA 83:15-20, EA 148:41-47.
[52] EA 71, EA 79, EA 82, EA 85, EA 87, EA 130, EA 132, EA 185, EA 189. Regarding EA 189, it seems that the phrase SAG.GAZ is being used propagandistically, with the knowledge that the usage will rile royal wrath. It appears its author, Etakkama the king of Qadeshon-the-Orontes, is in league with Azira, the son of the famously disloyal Abdi-Ashirta, against the royal governor of Ube (biblical Hovah). So Abi-Milki, king of Tyre, in EA 151 lines 55-63. Note that Abi-Milka also seems to decry the SAG.GAZ in EA 146 (Moran, p. 232).
[53] In many of these letters, the respondent may be describing an indigenous ‘Apiru force, or, alternatively, referring to the enemy city-state ruler as an ‘Apiru to indicate that, from their perspective, said ruler is sinning not only against them, but against the crown, as well. EA 68, EA 73, EA 74, EA 81, EA 91, EA 104, EA111, EA 116, EA 117, EA 118, EA 121, EA 144, EA 67, EA 179, EA 207, EA 215. Note that EA 73 and EA 74 use SAG.GAZ appellatively, as those who break away from or overthrow the just authority structure. Notice the Akkadian “ki-ma” preceding lú mešGAZ in line 28, indicating “like.” This idea will be detailed below. Regarding EA 207, see also Glosses, below.
[54] EA 148, lines 41-47.
[55] EA 286, compare line 35-38 with 56-67. EA 287.
[56] EA 271, EA 254.
[57] EA 298. The corroboration would be seamless if Yapahi was the brother of Abi-Milki. Giles (Giles, F.J., The Amarna Age, Aris and Phillips, Ltd., 1997) proposes Yapahi as Abi-Milki’s son, which still corroborates the overall political atmosphere and protagonists if not the exact event cited by Abdi-Heba.
[58] Note also the use of the copulative “u” separating between the enemies and the plea: “save me, great king.”
[59] The need for the gloss in this case can be due to the apparent phonetic representation of SAG.GAZ as SA.GA.AZ, which was apparently “sagassu,” murderer, in Akkadian. From this, the scribe, fearing that the symbol might be mistaken for the phoneticized “sagassu”, rather than the softer “ha-BI-ru” that was intended, inserts the Semitic “habatu” indicating “plunderer.”
[60] Greenberg, p. 54.
[61] Greenberg, p. 55.
[62] Compare Hittite documents Kbo 121-123 with Kbo 124-132. Greenberg pp. 51-2, and 85-6.
[63] See also EA 73, EA 81, EA 118, and others in this series.
[64] Also note EA 91, in which Rib-adda contrasts the solitude of Byblos against the “assembled ‘Apiru,” which would seem to include specifically the cities that have abandoned him. Similarly, see EA 290 and Greenberg’s note 12 on page 49.
[65] Compare EA 287 against EA 271.
[66] Moran, pp 147-148.
[67] See II Samuel 3:8, and Rashi’s attention to the Massorete’s cantillations and punctuation, cited ad. loc. Also, II Kings 8:13.
[68] EA 67.
[69] EA 129. See also EA 84.
[70] EA 68 speaks of an ‘Apiru army, EA 73 speaks of the land of the ‘Apiru, EA 298 refers to an ‘Apiru with the gentilic suffix “ki.” See Greenberg, note 27, page 49.
[71] Weingreen, J., “Saul and the Habiru-Hebre problem,” Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1967), pp. 64.
[72] Gen 39:14, 17, 40:15, 41:12, 43:32.
[73] Point to Bostonai article, and the Reflexive use of Rav Shake, etc.
[74] See Genesis 48:22, and also Genesis 33:18, especially the word “and he encamped,” which is contrasted with the word “and he purchased” in the following verse. Notice also the state of war described in Genesis 35:5, and, of course, the entire Dina incident.
[75] Where?
[76] See Genesis 14:5-6, and note the word “and they returned,” indicating the inception of a second and distinct military objective. Compare the peoples described here with those described in Deuteronomy 2:10-12, and 2:20-22.
[77] Where?
[78] See 1:15, 16, 19, 2:6, 7, 3:18, 5:3, 7:16, 9:1, 13, 10:3.
[79] See 2:11, and 2:13. Certainly Moses at this time had an Egyptian perspective, even if there are no other Egyptians in the scene.
[80] Numbers 33:41, 35:10. See also 27:12, 33:45, 47, and 48. Regarding 21:11, see Deuteronomy 2:13 and contrast with 2:14 on the significance of the Zared river as a final exile point. A “crossing” point, if you will.
[81] Deuteronomy 2:4, 4:14, 21, 22, 26, 6:1, 11:8, 11, 31, 31:13, 32:47, 49. See also Joshua 1:11 and 3:17.
[82] Deuteronomy 15:12, twice.
[83] See Bereishit Rabbah, (Vilna, 1879), chapter 42 section 8, includes 3 opinions: A) Rabbi Judah—monotheism; B) Rabbi Nehemiya—Racial: children of ‘Ever (son of Shem); and, C) Sages—Ethno-lingual (“He came from across the river and he conversed in the Hebrew language”). The same dispute can also be found in Medrash Yalkut Shimoni section 73.
[84] Footnote citing Greenberg please. There are other persons named Ivri in the bible, such as the son of Merari the Livite (I Chronicles 24:27), but as opposed to being too broad a definition, these are too narrow to be referring to the entire Israelite nation.
[85] It is interesting to note that the third opinion regarding the origin of the gentilic, i.e. the stand taken against the rest of the religions regarding monotheism, might find textual support in Deuteronomy 30:11-13. See also Joshua 24:15.
[86] I Samuel 4:6, 9; 13:19; 14:11; 29:3.
[87] See Judges 15:11. The loss of Shilo is only implied in Samuel; see also Isaiah 3:8.
[88] I Samuel 13:3, 7; 14:21.
[89] Relying on the Massoretic
texts, criticism of which will be mentioned briefly in this analysis.
The only word that seems to be missing is אֶל
between הירדן
and ארץ.
[90] See Greenberg ff. 9 and 10.
[91] Na’aman correctly points out that ‘Apiru disappears from ANET documentation are in the 11th century. See Na’aman, N, “Habiru and the Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere,” p. 272. However, Na’aman assumes a very late authorship of the biblical canon, and therefore would not believe that the redactor would understand the connection.
[92] Compare army figures indicated in the Amarna letters (400 archers, 40 chariots, etc. See ‘Battle Strategy and Configuration ,’ above.
[93] This configuration has been used by Israelite enemies before. Note especially Gideon’s fight in Judges 7:11-12, and the phrase “the edge of the armed units.” The parallels between Gideon’s war and Jonathan’s here are obvious, and will be further explored. Also note that is still the practice of armies in the Middle East to position expendable troops on the front line. In Syria, for instance, outdated Russian T55 and T63 line the border with Israel’s Golan Heights, soldiered by conscripts, while the T72 and T80 tanks with better-trained forces are kept near Damascus.
[94] Note that this same paranoia (or perhaps justly-based fear) is evident in the Philistine chieftains’ refusal to accept Achish’s “vassal” David, their nervousness clearly evident in I Samuel 29:4. Note also the play on the root in verse 2 and the explicit use of the word ‘Apiru or Hebrew (or both!) in verse 3.
[95] Compare Judges 7:22 to our 14:20.
[96] Compare to EA 71 where Rib-Addi expects the traitorous subjects to return to the fold, once power turns away from the enemy: “But check Abdi-Ashirta now, and the ardor of the ‘Apiru to join him will abate.” This could also have been Saul’s expectation when first calling by Shofar to the עברי.
[97] M. Birot’s “immegrer” cited by Na’aman, p. 274. The term may have been applied to planets since during the time that the earth passes them in orbit, the planets actually seem to be going in the opposite direction from there standard path, before righting themselves. Sagan, Carl, “Cosmos.”
[98] Although this view may be oversimplified analysis of the realpolitik that was certainly at play in Judah at the time. Naval was a Calebite (as is stressed by the Bible), the usual upper echelon of Judean rulership. David, being of the other of the three Judean families, was clearly playing power politics in his home territory, hence establishment of his capital in the Calebite stronghold of Hebron, rather than his hometown of Bethlehem.
[99] Na’aman p. 273.
[100] Na’aman 273 citing M. Birot, “Lettres de Yaqqim-Addu,” nos. 50, 72, and p. 228.
[101] Na’aman p. 275, citing Bottero, “Le Problem des Habiru,” pp. 191-198, and Liverani, M, “Il fuoruscitismo,” p. 317.
[102] Greenberg, pp. 5-6, f. 24.
[103] As the Amarna documents also represented the monotheistic Akhenaten, a religion that was already in development in his father’s time, a synchronism between Moses and Akhenaten seemed attractive and even imperative. Of course, assuming that monotheism had been practiced by Joseph and the Patriarchs, the need to link Moses to the Aten followers seems overly narrow.
[104] Greenberg, “Conclusions” in Hab/piru, p. 92-96.
[105] See Campbell, E. F., “The Amarna Letters and the Amarna Period,” BA Vol XXIII, 1, (1960), 10-12.
[106] You should say where this is
[107] Note the 80-year rule for Ehud son of Gera in Judges Chapter 3, which, while not impossible, is more likely in the case of child-kings like Rameses II and Yehoash the son of Achaziya (who would no doubt have made it past 40 had he not been assassinated).
[108] Note that S. Bin Nun argues that the dates in Judges follow a typical formula for Northern kings. This does not necessarily mean that there was an extant kings list for the judges of these periods, and synchronisms pre-dynastic division would not be necessary.
[109] Interestingly, this number matches the Jephtah synchronism of 300 years from his time to the 40th year in the desert, a synchronism that matches Solomon’s 480 years. Unfortunately, 300 does not divide into 40 (7.5?), and I would prefer not to assume that the 300-year mark was modified to match Solomon’s!
[110] For an overview, see Hoffmeier, J, “Egyptians” in Hoerth, Peoples of the Old Testament, p. 285-288.
[111] See I Chronicles 7:20-24 for possible sign of Joseph’s free hand in Palestine, which would be in keeping with his high stature in the Egyptian court. See ‘The Glass Ceiling,’ regarding Yanhamu the Semitic supervisor of Canaanite lands during the Amarna age. See also Psikta of Rabbi Kahana:10 for the early departure of Ephramites, and the disastrous consequences to the same.