ʿApiru



ʿApiru (, 𓂝𓊪𓂋𓅱𓀀𓏥), also known in the Akkadian version Ḫabiru (sometimes written Habiru, Ḫapiru or Hapiru; Akkadian: 𒄩𒁉𒊒, ḫa-bi-ru or *ʿaperu) is a term used in 2nd-millennium BCE texts throughout the Fertile Crescent for a social status of people who were variously described as rebels, outlaws, raiders, mercenaries, bowmen, servants, slaves, and laborers.

Etymology
The term was first discovered in its Akkadian version "ḫa-bi-ru" or "ḫa-pi-ru". Due to later findings in Ugaritic and Egyptian which used the consonants ʿ, p and r, and in light of the well-established sound change from Northwest Semitic ʿ to Akkadian ḫ, the root of this term is proven to be ʿ-p-r. This root means "dust, dirt", and links to the characterization of the ʿApiru as nomads, mercenaries, people who are not part of the cultural society. The morphological pattern of the word is qatilu, which point to a status, condition.

The Sumerogram SA.GAZ
The Akkadian term Ḫabiru occasionally alternates with the sumerograms SA.GAZ. Akkadian dictionaries for sumerograms added to SA.GAZ the gloss "ḫabatu" (raider), which raised the suggestion to read the sumerograms as this word. However, the Amarna letters attested the spelling SA.GA.AZ, and letters from Ugarit attested the spelling SAG.GAZ, which points that these sumerograms were read as written, and did not function as ideograms. The only Akkadian word which fits such spelling is "šagašu" (barbarian), but an Akkadian gloss to an Akkadian word seems odd, and the meaning of "šagašu" doesn't fit the essence of the Ḫabiru. Therefore, the meaning of SA.GAZ should probably be found in West Semitic word such Aramaic ŠGŠ which means muddy, restless, while the word "ḫabatu" should be interpreted as "nomad", and that fits the meaning of the word Ḫabiru/ʿApiru.

Hapiru, Habiru, and Apiru
In the time of Rim-Sin I (1822 BCE to 1763 BCE), the Sumerians knew a group of Aramaean nomads living in southern Mesopotamia as SA.GAZ, which meant "trespassers". The later Akkadians inherited the term, which was rendered as the calque Habiru, properly ʿApiru. The term occurs in hundreds of 2nd millennium BCE documents covering a 600-year period from the 18th to the 12th centuries BCE and found at sites ranging from Egypt, Canaan and Syria, to Nuzi (near Kirkuk in northern Iraq) and Anatolia (Turkey).

Not all Habiru were brigands: in the 18th century BCE a north Syrian king named Irkabtum (c. 1740 BCE) "made peace with [the warlord] Shemuba and his Habiru," while the ʿApiru, Idrimi of Alalakh, was the son of a deposed king, and formed a band of ʿApiru to make himself king of Alalakh. What Idrimi shared with the other ʿApiru was membership of an inferior social class of outlaws, mercenaries, and slaves leading a marginal and sometimes lawless existence on the fringes of settled society. ʿApiru had no common ethnic affiliations and no common language, their personal names being most frequently West Semitic, but also East Semitic, Hurrian or Indo-European.

In the Amarna letters from the 14th century BCE, the petty kings of Canaan describe them sometimes as outlaws, sometimes as mercenaries, sometimes as day-labourers and servants. Usually they are socially marginal, but Rib-Hadda of Byblos calls Abdi-Ashirta of Amurru (modern Lebanon) and his son ʿApiru, with the implication that they have rebelled against their common overlord, the Pharaoh. In "The Conquest of Joppa" (modern Jaffa), an Egyptian work of historical fiction from around 1440 BCE, they appear as brigands, and General Djehuty asks at one point that his horses be taken inside the city lest they be stolen by a passing ʿApir.

Habiru and the biblical Hebrews
Since the discovery of the 2nd millennium BCE inscriptions mentioning the Habiru, there have been many theories linking these to the Hebrews of the Bible. Most of these theories were based on the supposed etymological link and were widely denied basing on the Egyptian sources and later following the Ugaritic and Hittite discoveries. There are two main barriers, linguistic and group identity.

Most scholars, Anson Rainey and R. Steven Notley among them, deny any linguistic relationship between Abiru and Hebrew, or at most admit only "a bare possibility." But this view remains short of academic consensus. Philologically, argued Moshe Greenberg, Apiru and Hebrew though not transparently related are not irreconcilable. Nadav Na’aman had no doubt that the term “Hebrew” was derived from “Habiru.” The Christian priestly scholars, such as Manfred Weippert, Henry Cazelles and Oswald Loretz, are the least ready to give up the relation between Apiru and Hebrew. For them the linguistic equation between Apiru and Hebrew is easy and comfortable. Loretz, however, admits the etymological possibility despite denying all equations between Apiru and Hebrew.

Regarding the identity, the academic consensus is well established that Apiru and Hebrews represent two different groups. The Biblical Hebrews are an ethnic group while Apiru were a much wider multi-ethnic group distinguished by social status. The morphological pattern of the word ʿApiru is, as mentioned above, qatilu, which point a status, as opposed to the morphological pattern of the ethnonym עִבְרִי (Hebrew) which is based on nisba (like מִצְרִי – Egyptian). Moreover, Meredith Kline finds that Apiru were not even Semitic peoples.

The matter was complicated when, in the light of the research on Apiru, scholars examined the context of Hebrews in the Bible. The new analysis indicated a group broader than the Israelites and more associating with Apiru, best seen in 1 Samuel 13, 14. Na’aman and Yoel Bin-Nun point out that “Hebrew” is typically used to describe “Israelites in exceptional circumstances,” in particular, wandering, oppressed or enslaved Israelites struggling for liberation. Naaman finds that all biblical references to the "Hebrews" reflect some traits borrowed from the image of the second millennium Apiru. Greenberg confirms that Hebrew is an archaic term predating Israelites. Professor Albert D. Friedberg concurs, arguing that Apiru refers to a social class found in every ancient Near Eastern society but in the texts that describe the early periods of the Patriarchs and the Exodus the term Hebrew refers to a broad group of people in the Levant (like the Apiru), among whom the Israelites were a part.

Joseph Blenkinsopp makes one exception: Except for its first appearance (Gen. 14:13), the biblical word "Hebrew", can be interpreted as a social category. For some scholars, however, the passage is confirmation rather than exception. Here Abram appears as a leader of host in a military alliance. He pursues and smites his enemy. The passage presents a warrior Abram, with a rather different character from that of Genesis other episodes, in which Abram is never a warrior. This associates with Apiru too. In the earliest Mesopotamian texts mentioning Apiru they appear as military contingents, auxileries, or bands of raiders. Babylonian and Mari tablets mention them particularly as military auxiliaries. Elsewhere in the Fertile Crescent they are also often depicted as auxiliary warriors. In the Amarna letters, Apiru are most prominent in military activity. Some hypotheses on Genesis 14 suggested a foreign, perhaps Babylonian, document at the core, or a memory of time when Abram belonged to Apiru before the term Hebrew obtained an ethnic meaning. Elsewhere in the Bible, the Israelites are called Hebrews when enslaved or oppressed and struggling for liberation. The military context associates with one of the interpretations suggested for Apiru. In Sumerogram SA.GAZ, SA could mean "muscle" and GAZ "to strike" or "kill." The meaning "murderer" or "killer" was suggested for the combination SA.GAZ, or literally "muscle killer." SA.GAZ was supposed to be a transliteration of the Accadian pseudo-ideogram šaggāšum or murderer. The Epic of Gilgamesh (1:4:7) uses saggasum for Enkidu describing him as a military leader and nomad native of the wild steppe-lands. In the Old Babylonian tradition, Šaggāšu is a ghost-murderer of the steppe. As stated above, the research defined "dust" or "dirt" as the most probable meaning of Apiru. The wandering Apiru, Rainey suggested, had to "hit the road," thus they were covered with dust and were called dusty. But this is a hypothetical suggestion not found in primary sources. The sources attested another meaning. In Sumerian there was a verb "to dust," meaning "to fight" or "to struggle." Gilgamesh and Aga twice (70-81, 92-99) says " myriad dusted," meaning " myriad fought." Andrew R. George translated this literally as "myriad rolled in the dust," and the Sumerian Corpus, less successfully, as "multitudes were smeared with the dust." Whether borrowed from Sumer or not, a similar combination is present in Hebrew, with "abak" (אבק) for "dust" and "maabak" (מאבק) for "struggle." Another link between Apiru and struggle is found in the cuneiform SA of SA.GAZ. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, it is a logogram for Akkadian "šer'ānu", translated as "muscle." The root is present in Hebrew with "srir" (שריר) for "muscle" and a verb was derived from it meaning "to struggle." "Isra" (in Israel) means "struggling" (with God). In this light, Abram the Hebrew in Genesis 14 means Abram the warrior rather than Abram the dust, the earliest and one of prominent functions of Apiru.

The consensus remains that Apiru and Hebrews were not identical groups, but scholars became divided whether the two groups were related. Some scholars remained unmoved and deny any relation. Those relating Apiru and Hebrews were mistaken, states Rainey. All attempts to relate the two are wishful thinking. He notes that while ʿApiru covered the regions from Nuzi to Anatolia as well as Northern Syria, Canaan and Egypt, they were distinguished from Shutu (Sutu) or Shasu (Shosu), Syrian pastoral nomads named in the Amarna letters and likely more closely associated with the Hebrews. Kline suggests that Apiru, besides being non-Semitic, were foes of Israel and their first oppressors in Canaan.

Other scholars, by contrast, allowed the possibility of relation. As pointed out by Moore and Kelle, while the ʿApiru/Ḫabiru appear to be composed of many different peoples, including nomadic Shasu and Shutu, the biblical Midianites, Kenites, and Amalekites, as well as displaced peasants and pastoralists, they also may be related to the biblical Hebrews. A hypothesis emerged that Hebrews were one offshoot of Apiru, a larger whole from which the Hebrews originated. It has become a commonplace assumption that all Israelites were Hebrews but not all Hebrews were Israelites.

The ethnic connotation of the term Hebrew synonymous with the people of Israel were attributed to the later Jewish tradition. "It could well be", writes Stuart A. West, "that the word Hebrew was originally only a sociological designation, indicating status or class - in which case the words Hebrew and Habiru are synonymous. The fact that in the later Books of the Bible and in its usage in post-biblical times, the word Hebrew has been used as an ethnic designation simply means that the original meaning of the word has been changed." Loretz assigns all mentions of Hebrew in the Bible to post-exilic period centuries after Apiru disappeared from the sources.

Greenberg concluded his research: The ʿApiru were ethnically diverse but this term can be related to the term "Hebrew" both in etymology and meaning. The ethnic and social spheres may have met in Abraham the Hebrew, who may at once have been an Apiru as well as the ancestor of the Israelites. "Hebrew" will then be a peculiarly Biblical adaptation of the social term. A considerable possibility remains that the beginnings of the Israelite history are bound with the wandering Apiru. The Bible might have preserved a vague memory that the Patriarchs had once been Apiru.