Frederick J., “The Amarna Age: Western Asia,” (Aril and Phillips Ltd.)
Gottwald, N. K., The tribes of Yahweh, (SCM Press, 1980)
Moshe, The Hab/piru, American Oriental Society, 1955 (13 Meg.
Page 74 missing)
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
J. A., Die El-Amarna-Tafeln Vol. 1, Aalen (1964)
William L. ed., The Amarna Letters, The John Hopkins University Press, 1992.
William L., Amarna Studies: Collected Writings, Eisenbrauns, 2003.
Nadav, “The contribution of the Amarna Letters to the debate on
Jerusalem's political position in the tenth century B.C.E..”, BASOR 304
vv. 3, 4 too connected!!
Also moves לאמר
to the P’s, making 3b+4 one
verse. “A jew would never say
ivri.” See n. on v. 3 . REALLY?! They would indeed!
Simcha Shalom, The "Habiru/`Apiru" and "`ibrim" and the
connection with I Samuel, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 19-20
Comes up bwith a whole theory of how population explosion caused more and more destitute who were forced to join ranks with the Phillistines. (from the Hebrews-gentilic!). Talk about going the long way around to justify “shtinkers”! (I think that its clear from the Marana letters that Apiru can be applied to a sutuation, without requiring actual Habpiruness, especially in the eyes of Egyptians. You can be a ONE-TIME ‘apiru!)
Bibliography on n. 1
“Habiru” disappear from the ANE milliue at the end of the 2nd millennium (p. 272) (Eric: So it’s hard to say the the word would be in use by Yonah’s time.
Rejects the theory: Since the Israilite invasion was actually an “invasion” from within, the Habiru withdrawing from cities in the 13th cent could have comprised the core of the new Israeli nation. P. 277
Etymological connection between the two terms can be reasonable established. P. 278. n. 31 on Weippert, The settlement of the Israelite tribes in Palestine; a critical survey of recent scholarly debate. (Naperville, Ill., A. R. Allenson [c1971]: DS121.55 .W413) , pp. 74-82.
Ivri is a gentilic in use in OT (p. 278).
Greenberg (n.32): All Ivri in OT is always referring to Israeli. See Ibn Ezra cited by R. Y. Bin-Nun.
Samuel’s author’s lived at the same time as the events. (p. 279) (While this seems like an extremely un-traditional view, it’s actually quitre important. Biblical usage was relating stories for an audience that was post-exodus. Therefore, it is specifically the Egyptian usage of the word which would be the most meaningful to the Israelites of that time, and any of there was a doub;e entendre, it would be especially significant to said audience.
(p. 279) I Sam 13:3 is corrupt. See Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel pp. 99f. (Really, let’s take a closer look! Eric)
See f. 34 regarding I Sam 14:21-22
Shallow view of the David-Naval conflict (p. 280)
is always appellative in the OT. (See
Lewy, HUCA, 1957).
up with the “third participant theory”
(Like Oswald and Kennedy!) p. 63
LXX must be wrong since they disagree with Weingreen that the missing
directional propotions in “to”. Check
similar cases where the preposition is missing and see if the is a common usage
of “to” or “from”!!!!! To
make this all work—to have the ivrim as a foreign element , he places v. 3
after v. 7 , i.e. The Habiru show up and then Saul makes call to them to join
follow Yoinatan;s successful attack against the philistine garrison. (And then he justifies it with “Everyone else is doing
cites Kimhi which is very valuable on the Loyal Israilites vs. the shtinkers.
citation of the LXX change from יִשְׁמְעוּ
הָעִבְרִים to פשעו works great (ἠθετήκασιν
οἱ δοῦλοι) since the indication is that Saul is telling
his own people that the shtinkers have unshtunk.
Othewise, it is difficult to say what he asked them to hear.
Although certainly, that he asked them to understand that the defeat of
the P garrison was an indication of things to come, and it ius about time they
returned to the fold. The use of
the LXX by scholars who want to use those words but put them in the mouth of the
P’s (see his f. 10 and Herzberg) seems unfair: how can you use the LXX
version, and conlude it is definitive, while at the same time ignoring that the
LXX clearly has those words ccoming from Saul: καὶ Σαουλ
πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν
the return of the traitors was seen as a great sign and well woth blowing
trumpets. No doubt that the number
was significant, much more so than the Is Yisrael.”
As can be seen be the wholesale submission of Judean forces in turning
Samson over to the P’s. The
LXX ἠθετήκασιν certainly
avoids the double שָׁמְעוּ
from the next verse, which, while not insurmountable is a bit difficult on the
tounge. It’s much more poignant
to say that the pun being used by the authors is that the Israelites (or a
portain thereof) had become traitors to the ruling body, but the Ruling body was
the Israiltes, not the P’s
There is a desire to make David into a Hebrew
(See LXX on Goliat’s challenge to David.)
Na’aman goes a long way here. But,
again, one need not, in the 11th century establish a known strata in
the Diamorphic socip-political millue. It
states became stronger,and people
identified with nationalities, the Egyptian version of the word, which can shift
from party to party, need merely be used based on the eye of the beholder,
rather than requiring one to said up bonafide Habiru credentials.
While one can understand Habpiru in the purely social appellative as migrant, indentured whatever, it is the vorlage of the Egyptians of the 13th century, when the name had already gone out of use, but still remained active in Egyptian controlled areas??? (Check??) Thus it is their usage that seems most apt for the intention of the appellation.
True, Like Anchor says (p. 140, n. 21) “It has become increasingly difficult, however, to defend any connection…” See end note. He has something there, but doesn’t realize it.!!
I think that there
may be something to be said about the idea of a missing link. could Jona
supply this link?
Lewy, J, Origin and Signification of the Biblical Term 'Hebrew', HUCA
Notes that there is no designation for a Hebrew language. Note: וַיֹּאמֶר אֶלְיָקִים בֶּן-חִלְקִיָּהוּ וְשֶׁבְנָה וְיוֹאָח אֶל-רַבְשָׁקֵה, דַּבֶּר-נָא אֶל-עֲבָדֶיךָ אֲרָמִית--כִּי שֹׁמְעִים, אֲנָחְנוּ; וְאַל-תְּדַבֵּר עִמָּנוּ, יְהוּדִית, בְּאָזְנֵי הָעָם, אֲשֶׁר עַל-הַחֹמָה
Check Abegg for the use of the term "Hebrew". Don't forget however about all the epithets. Also, check Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
His interpreatation of the Greek in n. 1, as the extra "Uion Israel" may be to clarify Ehaiv, and not Hebrew. Still if they were one and the same, why bother duplication.
Question: When an enemy speaks outside the hearing of the prophet/narrarator, of of the source he used in creating his prophetc book, are these the actual words, or a contruct placed i the mouth of the enmy to make a point. Keep in mind that even if we assume that the point is to be made, the narrator or his sourve may not be making up the dialogue, but selecting the dialoge from a larger set, so that the point can best be made. So when the phillisting recalls the plagues of Egypt, it could be that the narrator is creating that link artificially in order to bind the two stories together, or that a real lexicographical and cultural boond exists between the Egyptians and the P's (Which the author may also be trying to emphasise), and that the language, culture, and history of one is well integreation into the latter. In other words, is the link merely a literary device, or a represetation of actual/facts on the ground linkage.
BYE THE WAY: 'PLISHTI' IS A GOOD AXAMPLE OF AN APPELLATIVE BECOMING AN ETHNICON. OR MAYBE IT WAS AN ETHNICON FIRST, BUT THE WORD FIT WELL iNTO THE DICTIONARY OF THE NATION WHO IS NAMING IT, DID THE JEWS CREATE AN APPELLITIVE FROM THE ETHNICON. NOTE ALSO THE DIFFERNECE BETWEEN SAUL AND DAVID's PLISHTIM, AND ABRAHAMS.
CHECK THE YIRMIYAHU SOURCE, Based on Lewys interpreatation thta Eved Ibri can be a Jew.s
Compare Lewy's note on Abraham the Ivri in the LXX (p. 7-8) to Greenberg's note on the issue.