Talk:ʿApiru

Untitled
What does this mean? The names Habiru and Apiru are used in Akkadian cuneiform texts. The corresponding name in the consonant-only Egyptian script appears to be `PR.W`, conventionally pronounced Apiru (W being the Egyptian plural suffix).

The Egyptian Aleph is presumably a glottal stop, i.e. a consonant, and seemingly missing from pr.w (should that be 3pr.w?). I think that the authors of this page are speakers of Indo-European languages, and as such are generally unaware of the consonant that they pronounce when they think they are pronouncing a 'word-initial vowel' (an impossibility) - Look up Aleph in Hebrew (or Hamza in Arabic) - in these languages (and several Amerindian languages) the glottal stop can also occur in the coda of a syllable, e.g Bere?shit Bara? ?elohim ?et hashemoyim we?et ha?aretz (Genesis 1:1). 216.197.172.243 (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is looking excellent these days. Well done everyone for building upon my stub. Zestauferov 02:38, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Recent discussion
Should Habiru/Sources be linked from this page somewhere? +sj+ 10:28, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC) Awesome, thanks! +sj+ 13:59, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)

Eber
From Mendenhall, George E. The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973:

"...When one sees that the Hebrew word 'eber means a "party" in the legal sense in I Samuel 14:40, and, on the other, that the personal name 'Eber is assigned two sons, one of whom is Peleg meaning "division" (Gen. 10:25) - the other, Yoqtān, alone is assigned descendants who are largely identifiable with South Arabic tribes - it seems evident that here is a case of popular etymology. This is further borne out by two facts - first, that a derivative of PLG had already occured in the Song of Deborah (Judges 5:15, 16) as a subdivision of the tribe of Reuben, and, second, that Peleg does not have any association with the types of onomastic traditions of the second millenium B.C. as far as we know, but in the genealogy of Genesis 11:16-30 every name occurs in our sources, either as a place or personal name, beginning with Reu, the son of Peleg. To reconstruct the process we might proceed as follows. In the tenth to ninth centuries, to which the tradition as we have it may be assigned, the following facts were known:


 * 1. The term 'pr was a designation applied to various groups in the old traditions, the shift from p/ to b/ having already taken place in the dialect of the writer.
 * 2. Those 'pr groups were in part closely associated with the origins of the Israelites; part were not but became the nations of Edom, Moab and Ammon.
 * 3. Genealogies and tribal relations from remote periods were still current in Israelite tradition.
 * 4. The tradition regarded both the 'br groups and the tribal groups as closely related.

The process of reasoning may have been as follows: since the tribes are related to the 'br, but the tradtition does not trace them farther back than Yoqtān, the 'Ibrî must be the origin, and the name 'Eber the ancestor. A variant tradition regarded the same groups as descendants of Shem, duly recorded in Genesis 10:21. The line which led to Israel, Moab, Ammon and Edom is a section, division ( = Peleg), which corresponds to the fact that Abraham separated from the others in Aram Naharaim. Later, the P source inserted other surviving traditions connecting Peleg with Abraham. The curious omission of Israel itself in the table of nations can perhaps be explained on the ground that everyone would have recognized in 'Eber the Israelite ancestor. Therefore, may we not conclude that the explanation of 'Ibrî as followed by a subsection, Peleg, corresponding to the Hebrew peluggâ? The similarity in religious, legal and political status (or lack of it) over centuries between the Israelites and proto-Israelites on the one hand, and the 'Apiru as we have here described the term, would certainly place the burden of proof on those who wish to separate them."

Hence my recent edits. Fire Star 20:04, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Older discussion
The Tigunani prism so confidently mentioned in this entry, as if we all knew about it ("Ah yes! the Tigunami prism indeed!") gets just one hit from google. If "Tigunani" is an archaeological site, it gets no other mention at google aside from this: https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ ane/2002-February/000553.html       I highly recommend a hit at http://www.world-destiny.org/ for a full dose of the flavor of this Habiru entry! Wetman 19:13, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * At last! Thank you for Tikunani Prism! So it's real! Wetman 14:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes its real as I told you all along. Why do you love to niggle so much every time you have never heard of something. Do you think this is what education by peer-pressure means? Taunting style like schoolboys in the schoolyard? Could you please try a different tone with me. Notice I am asking politely. Zestauferov 15:44, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Turco-Slavonic peoples? '' "Terms possibly derived from peoples with a related ethnicon amongst later Turko-Slavonic peoples indicates these groups associated them with vulturey & the supernatural (see Upyr)." '' Does any reader recognize that Zestauferov has discovered that Turks and Slavs both have vampire myths? I think that's the hint from Upyr. Upyr? What, you need "Upyr" explained? Let Zestauferov tell you about the Turco-Slavonic peoples, too! both the "later" onmes and the earlier ones! Wetman 20:17, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've put this on VfD. -- The Anome 20:23, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why does everyone immediatly vote for deletion instead of attempting to edit articles? Honestly the insecurity behind such actions just screams out. Go on have a little courage, but if you really don't have enough knowledge to correct it then how can you dare to say you know enough to declare it deletable? For those who do not know already the first thing Wetman does in the morning is check to see what contributions I have made in order to go discredit them and encourage others (lacking conviction himself) to delete them. A very sad state of affairs.Zestauferov 02:25, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Would Wetman please discuss why he thinks his link is relevant?Zestauferov 08:04, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * ies(I inadvertently deleted the Votes for Deletion notice. Sorry folks. I hope readers will look at the only source for "Hetto-Iberians" on the Web, at http://www.world-destiny.org/ and judge for themselves why Zestauferov is so anxious to suppress this link. Wetman 19:22, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC) )

The page you are refering to is http://www.world-destiny.org/a35ibr.htm and it is not my fault they have mixed scientific hypothesis with fiction. The Canaanite dialect called Hebrew or any other Afroasiatic language was not adopted by any significant portion of Protoiberians until much later for a start. Documented Habiru names ARE Hurrian (thus may be termed Hetto-Iberian), but the indications are that "drop-outs" from various city-states and unrelated tribes joined in with them to form what can either be termed a social caste or a non-exclusive cultural group of the levant. But with Wetman, if he has no idea about a topic ignorance rules. Acadenics beware no-one can know of something he has never heard of.Zestauferov 06:38, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sources for a sane Hapiru article:

From The Oxford History of the Biblical World, page 72. 

The amarna texts...

"mention a troublesome group of people found in ancient Syria-Palestine called the 'Apiru/'Abiru or Hapiru/Habiru. Scholars eagerly equated these Apiru with bibliclal 'ibri , or "Hebrew", and at first thought that they had found confirming, independent evidence of the invading Hebrews under Joshua.  As more texts were uncovered througout the Near East, however, it became clear that these Apiru were found throughout most of the Fertile Crecent .... during the second millennium.  They had no common ethnic or national affiliations; they spoke no common language; and they normally led a marginal and sometimes lawless existence on the fringes of settled society.  The Apiru constituted, in effect, a loosely defined, inferior social class composed of shifting and shifty population elements without secure ties to settled communities.  Apiru are frequently encountered in texts as outlaws, mercenaries, and slaves. Scholarly opinion remains divided as to whether there is an etymological relationship between Apiru and 'ibri, though many scholars thing that the Apiru were a component of proto-Israel"


 * I'm not comvinced of the etymological link between apiru ('piru) habiru (ha biru), ibrw and Hebrew, but the ibr (add w for plural) turn out to be identified in writing as the light horse cavalry armed with bows and used as mess engers (or angels) at the battle of Kadesh. If you are into checking etymology try that oneRktect 00:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See ISBN 0195139372

--Ben

From Robert Drews's excellent The Coming of the Greeks is some mention of SA.GAZ, as well as the notion of "hapiru" as a term for mercenaries serving the hittites: See page 60, ISBN 0691029512 

--Ben

Ben you have caused me to be the brunt of no-end of prejudice thanks to your initial references to Hetto-Iberians as nonsense. Anyway thankyou for the references which basically back up the currebt form of the article which although not being that bad now looks like it will not survive the deletio process.Zestauferov 06:54, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, Zestauferov. I'm arguing to keep this article now, and may try to do a rewrite myself.  --Ben  (Incidentally, how do you get the full date readout to show up after your sig?  Is there a single variable that'll print that?)


 * Well its gone now and it really wasn't bad in its final form. But someone incapable of editing and opposed to the "community of editors" philosophy of wiki has gotten their way so that they can massage their own egos by re-writing it and putting it on their self-indulgent list of "Articles I have written" which seriously taunts the policy of wiki not being a place for self-publication.Zestauferov 01:21, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the Oxford History citation, Ben. That's a good basis, even if you are personally attacked for it! I've added your Reference and described the Oxford scholars' conclusions to the entry, without intruding my own opinions. All complaints should be addressed to Oxford University. Wetman 22:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Who attacked you for that Ben?Zestauferov 07:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Undeleted after VfD
I think I may have deleted this page after VfD in error, since one user emailed me requesting a re-listing for deletion. The page has changed considerably since the first vote was cast, so I am unable to determine consensus and I am undeleting it so that they can relist if they wish. silsor 01:44, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Readers can catch up on the cntroversey here Talk:Habiru/Delete. I was surprised to see following his last posting on the subject that Llywrch was the one to remove the VdF notice. Guess its his way of saying sorry.Zestauferov 01:18, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh I see Llywrch has done his best to "re-write" the entry (which despite a lot of chopping about reads virtually the same) perhaps that is his way of correcting my last assumption.Zestauferov 07:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm starting work on the rewrite. I'm collecting quotations from mainstream sources at User:Benwbrum/Hapiru. Benwbrum 14:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Another re-write? Can't you just edit-in new info? Wiki is supposed to be a community of editors not re-writers. By adding info there is even less chance of simply re-phrasing what the experts have already said better and more chance of originality. Anyway the list of quotes will look very good I hope but beware of anti-semetic views Hebrews were nomads so were Habiru so we can see Roux's bias immediately.Zestauferov 15:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'm just collecting quotes for now -- who knows what the article will look like once I'm done with that? Benwbrum 15:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're interpreting Roux quite correctly, but lemme get the quotes up and then I'll try to look into what you're saying. Benwbrum 15:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I just noticed that Llywrch edited out an important observation. Religionists oppose the identification with Habiru because since the translation of the Tikunani Prism in 1996 the latter have been proven to have originally been an Hurrian group before they became a mixed social cast (which came first the chicken or the egg in this case the term Habiru used to describe the gypsies of the day or an original tribal group afterwhich all gypsy types became named?) while such people believe that hebrew is "the sacred language of eden" and thus the idea that the proto Hebrews did not always speak this canaanite dialect is too much for their belief systems. It should be mentioned that research from the camp which led to the insistance that Habiru was just a term applied to social drop-outs was originally to counter the argument against a connection with Hebrews based upon the Hurrian names. The evolution of the studies surrounding them is like watching a tennis match between the two (they are vs they aren't) camps which has resulted in the at times contradictory current view amongst scholars. At least that is what I have gathered since I have not read absolutely everything. I simply opted for the middle camp (which some say is a "cop-out") fusing the two that they were Hebrews but the proto-Hebrews did not have the same language as the latter ones and that they were originally an ethnic group but soon became very mixed, just as travellers have evolved out of romanies in the UK. Zestauferov 15:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I removed the following:
 * Georgian historians classify them as ProtoIberian and believe those "the sons of noble Iberes" Dionysius Periestis mentioned in the Garden of the Hesperides "whence tin comes" were descendants of the Habiru who remained in the vicinity of the Caucasus.

In this mishmash mixing east and west (the Gardens of the Hesperides are in the farthest West: so are Iberians: but Iberians are also Caucasus-Iberians: throw in a little tin: invent a fake classical author Dionysius Periestis misspelled, with a quote I can trace through google to http://www.lauralee.com/news/truehistory.htm Laura Lee has lots to tell you about the crypto-history of the worlds, extraterrestrial interventions Atlantis and "Dionysus Periestis" Very entertaining but not Wikipediable. Wetman 14:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How do you know if it is misspelled if the name is a fake one? Maybe you know more than you are letting on here? All I was trying to do was clear up the last dodgy part left in the article. All I know is I knew a Georgian historian who said that Iberes was the ancestral partiarch created by the greeks for the Iberians (maybe he got it from Lauralee's site -who knows!) we were talking about Josephus and Thobelites at the time. I found that quote by accident earlier today (it seems familiar though) and thought it might be the one. Geez you'd think that considering everytime I come up with a source you might get off my case a little. Give me time and I will find out if it is bogus or not. Zestauferov 15:35, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * How? Because it's not Greek, is it, Because it doesn't bring up hits on google. I never know more than I say. I usually know less! I didn't look to see whose text it was. Why would that be relevent?. But Greeks created patriarchs? Did they charge for the service? There is nothing about "Iberes" at the Perseus Digital Library site http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/  However, I will say that I'm glad the Tikunani Prism has a little background now. Why was it so difficult to correct the spelling (which kept us from finding out what was being talked about)?
 * I just don't get the point of making up authoritative-sounding doubletalk at Wikipedia? Wetman 16:19, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What are you getting at with that last comment? Not another snark I hope? The reason for the spelling mistrake is because I was not working from romanised letters in my mind. It took a while before I could contact someone in the UK to check my library for me. With regards to Iberes, from the first time I came to wiki I have enjoyed putting info into articles which I know about only through hearsay. Seven out of ten times to my delight someone can come along and correct the info to the original reference. The only problem sometimes is deciding which article to put info which crosses over several areas. There is nothing fantastic about the idea that Greeks believed the Caucasian Iberians were descended from a certain "Noble Iberes" and it is the term "Noble Iberes" which has stuck in my mind and which I first placed under the Heberite entry back in September in the hopes that someone would flesh it out a little. However there comes a time even for me to decide whether something I have heard may be totally erroneous or so corrupt in its transmission that it has become virtually impossible to decipher its origins. If Iberes is a corruption of Erebus and if Erebus is sometimes called "Noble" then that could be the source in which case that time would have come with this reference. P.S. far too many people here allow the scope of knowledge to be ruled by what google turns up, you shouldn't live by the google test really it limits your mind's potential so much.
 * Lets remember:


 * not all scientific literature on every subject is publised online.
 * not all online material is registered with google.
 * not all scientific literature is written in English.
 * not all scientific literature uses the singular English forms of certain terms.
 * a hit on google does not identify the origin of an idea.

Zestauferov 17:06, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to Levzur for finally clearing up that problem despite his contribution. Zestauferov 01:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I tried to add a factual description of the sources on which this entire subject stands, with dates to help the younger readers who still don't have the Hittite king lists committed to memory ;-). The data is still very incomplete and surely there are errors, since the data was gathered mostly from the Net. Please help as you can... Jorge Stolfi 17:32, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of the Net, what should we make of this: https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2003-February/006390.html Jorge Stolfi

So there is a root word in Semitic & Egyptian (but not necessarily Afroasiatic in origin) word with the basic meaning of Supply (Egyptian: Provide, Canaanite: serve, Akkadian: feed, Ugaritic: Rations) which would fit as an etymology for Lipinski's Ubru as an Ugaritic designation for forigners. As for the question of whether there is a connection here with the Habiru, the term could come from the enslavement of Habiru as servants, but the connections seem to be straining, a little too much and may just be coincidental. It is interesting that in the near Asian agglutinative languages the `BR root etymology (much more satisfactory for the habiru's gypsy-like status) suggests wanderer/vagabond/vagrant/migrant/outlaw/freeman. Zestauferov 04:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ya as a Hurrian deity?
Is there any evidence for this, as the article claims? I was under the impression that the Hebrew Yahweh (also called Yah and Yahu in proper names) was actually cognate to Yaw, the Canaanite sea god, Yaho, the Chaldean moon god, (also called Sin (mythology)), and Iah, the Egyptian moon god. These gods were all Afro-Asiatic in origin, not Hurrian. The origin of the name, like so many is shrouded in mystery. However, the original Sumerian name is Enki. It's even more difficult since the pantheons of the Middle East at that time period did an extensive amount of cross-fertilization. 67.4.53.16 (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Three recent edits
Three recent edits need to be made relevant to Habiru (Wetman 23:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)).
 * 1) (One of the( ~1350 BC) el Amarna letters, EA 299, uses the term, " Men, SA GAZ ", actually "LÚ.SA.GAZ" ) (The same letters have "Mayor-Governors" calling themselves: X, the "Man" (of) City-Y, so this became a de-facto title?... "the Man (Town)", the "LÚ (Town)". Is this how the "Hebrews", the "Canaanites", the "pre-Hebrews"( = the "post-Ugarits"(hebrew speakers?)), became established in Canaan, at the end of Akhenaten's reign? )
 * 2) (In the el Amarna letters, it appears they were taking over the entire Canaan region(?), to the North and East especially?)
 * 3) (The word  to appear  in 196 BC(Rosetta Stone,etc.), the Greek "epiphanous", i.e. "Epiphany", has the block of hieroglyphs of PR - R - 'walking feet' /// Kings put the Grk.word "epiphanous"(Eþiphiņee) on their coins, they had "appeared" for the People.)

some more recent edits (20 April 2006)
So, I made a number of additions, mainly relying on Greenberg's collection of texts and translations; I corrected some figures and names that had been garbled or maliciously altered, using the same sources; and I rewrote or deleted some parts, which I suppose I should explain.

From the section on the Amarna letters, I deleted "The most significant ancient sources. . ." because that is a questionable assessment and not very informative in any case. One could say that they're the source that kicked off interest in the Habiru, that they're the most numerous surviving references from a single time and place, etc. .. . One could, but I didn't. I also deleted "found in the royal archives known as" because it was needless.

I replaced "tribes" with "groups" because as far as I'm aware, there was no indication in the letters that they were, in fact, tribes. This struck me as a very subtle slant, perhaps even an unconscious one, towards the Habiru=Hebrew thesis (the 12 Tribes, hint hint). I deleted ". . .that appear to have been nomads or semi-nomads. . ." because this is a subjective judgement (and also subtly slanted&mdash;hey, look who wandered in the desert before arriving in the region!) that at least ought to be cited to a source.

I rewrote the "shifting allegiances" bit to be a bit more specific about what they did, which was essentially fight as mercenaries for whoever paid them best.

From the section on Egyptian records, I deleted "(His son Ramesses II is traditionally equated with "the pharaoh" of Exodus, Moses's adversary.)" because it too was a slant towards the Habiru=Hebrew thesis, only not subtle this time.

I deleted "The Habiru name list on the Tikunani Prism (from Mesopotamia, about 1550 BC) indicates they were originally nothing more than a wandering tribe of Hurrians, but some argue for the disappearance of this ethnic distinction at a very early stage making them a non-exclusive ethnic group."

because perhaps this is one interpretation (though I've never encountered it), but it should be cited to whatever source is crazy enough to make the argument that they were originally a wandering tribe of Hurrians&mdash;earlier documents are full of Akkadian names. I'm not sure about attaching Greenberg to the remainder of the argument: he argues specifically against considering them any kind of ethnos, saying they should be considered more of a social class. (as in the last of the three interpretations.)

From the section on the Habiru=Hebrew thesis, I deleted "nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes"&mdash;a description that perhaps fits the Bible stories, but not the Hapiru of the Amarna letters. I added "loosely" because the descriptions don't match except in vague outline: about all they have in common is similar names, (roughly) similar locations, and the fact that both were violent. On comparison of the backgrounds and details, they fall apart.

I deleted "except that the Habiru core was originally Hurrian not Hebrew." from the same section because this is at best a flimsy interpretation, not a fact.

This was already quite a good article, but it seemed to suffer from a slight case of incoherence due to working over by at least two people with beliefs strong enough to blind them to neutrality&mdash;one holding the old Habiru=Hebrew thesis, the other some odd ideas about Hurrians and ethnicity in general. Anyway, I think I've improved things a bit, though more could of course be done.

--anonymous

Habiru disappear, Hebrews appear ?
Am I the only one to note that the probable disapearence of the Habiru/Hapiru falls at the same time of the rise of the proto Kingdom of Israel ? (ca -1200) And, I think the article, however well written, does not insist on the fact that the israelites/hebrews would have been seen as Habiru/Hapiru (because they were landless semitic tribes, often nomadic and sometimes brigands) from the main civilizations around.

[English is not my native language, sorry if I am unclear ! please correct me]

--Point well taken. However, we must realize that the absence of Apiru mentioned seems to coincide with the overall decline of the bronze age empires of Egypt, and Hattusa who would have kept records about the Apiru. The last Apiru effectively mentioned are some time around 1150 BC under Ramesses IV. Overall, it seems that even under the closest of scrutiny and new discoveries, the correlation between the Apiru and Hebrew becomes more and more evident.--71.222.48.14 02:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly doubt the Habiru/Apiru were the Hebrews. They are now mentioned in Mesopotamia, the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan) and Egypt which is much too disparate for them to be the Hebrews. The point about Ramesses IV is not very valid because Ramesses IV had plans for ambitious and large scale monuments--after his father Ramesses III throughout Egypt--hence the need to recruit the Hapiru for his monumental work. After him, came a series of weak New Kingdom Pharaohs who had no such grandiose ambitions. Most were simply content to hang onto the remains of Egypt's Asiatic Empire which was slowly being lost and dealing with increasing internal unrest which led to much tomb robberies. Also, the Habiru are referred to as outlaws in texts as early as the 15th Century BC under the Egyptian king Tuthmose III. This date seems much too early for the Hebrews who toiled in the city of Raamses according to Exodus--presumably a reference to Ramesses II almost 200 years later. I think the Habiru is simply a social term for a group of undesirables or outlaws/bandits rather than a tribal or ethnic term due to the broad appearance of these unwanted people throughout the Fertile Crescent of Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Levant. Let's face it, the Jews can't be in three different places at once. But, this is just my personal opinion. Regards, Leoboudv 09:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

-- Please stop with the old argument of "they (israelites) cant be everywhere the apiru/habiru are mentioned". My point was that Hebrews were probably called Habiru by the surrounding empires. Not that all Habiru were hebrews. Also, I dont take the construction of Piramesses as a marker for the exodus. We all know that the Hebrew Bible was later edited during the Divided Kingdom and that Piramesses was built on the ruins of old Hyksos capitale. From the 15th century onward we have : the presence of Semites in Egypt and their expulsion, the destructions throughout Canaan, then the mentions of Habiru in Canaan, the Shasu in the desert and in 1210 BCE the written mention of Israelites living in Canaan. It is a valid theory that is gaining credibility since the "old consensus" (13th century exodus) is dying off. -- Squallgreg 06:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the confusion about people, places, and things in Canaan who, what, where, when in the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt is intentionally being skewed to a POV that it was all about the Israelites, or whether that's just my imagination; but the evidence is mounting that the places listed in the Exodus were real places, some of which were Mycenean Greek, Libyan, Phoenician and some of which were Canaanite in a time frame that has Thebes as the capital of Egypt and the Red Sea regularly crossed in commerce between Elim and Elat. The best linguistic clue to identify the people are the prefix, infix and suffix added to the triliteral root of their names


 * There is one description in Genesis and then another in the rest of the Pentateuch. The first begins c 1850 BC with the people and places of Canaan mostly nomadic and pastoral and Syria the most powerful neighbor. Later its Hazor with Lebanon and the ammur[ru]. As people begin to settle down there are fewer shashu and less of the im, but now the nomad has become the vagrant SA GAZ. The ib[rw] appear to be horsemen coming south as Hittites or Ha[tt]i and their Mi[tt]ani or [Na]hra[im] vassals, or nobles in the north, with the Hivites who lived on Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal-hermon as far as Lebo-hamath, with the Philistines along the coasts


 * We have Midi[an]ites, Ed[om]ites, Mo[ab]ites in the south Amm[on]ites and Ama[lek]ites in the east D[an]ites in the west, Cana[an]ites, Sid[on]ians, Hi[tt]ites, Am[or]ites, Peri[zz]ites, H[iv]ites, and Jeb[us]ites.


 * Linguistically the Penteteuch and especially the story of Exodus is told in Egyptian then retranslated into Greek and Hebrew at a later date. My suspicion is that applies to Akkadian SA GAZ, Egyptian ibrw, and ['a]piru, Canaanite [Ha]biru, and [He]brew Eber.


 * All the inhabitants of Canaan at the time are described as giants, the [Neph]l[im] of [Naph]tali, the [Reph]a[im] of Syria and Aram, the Anak[im] of the Negev, the Em[im]s, and Zamzum[im]s from around the Dead Sea, Edom, Moab and Ammon, all the aboriginal im's are described in Egyptian. The Sh[ash]u, W[esh][esh], M[esh][esh], Pel[ese]t, Tj[eck]er, L[uk]ka, of the time of Mr[ne]ptah are not mentioned. The Mrneptah inscription actually mentions Syria rather than Israel


 * An interesting textual artifact is the list of stations of the Exodus. According to the book of Exodus there were about 40 encampments on the journey. Stations 1-6 are in and around Thebes en route to Thebes Red Sea port of Elim. Station 7 is the Red Sea. Stations 9-13 are in and around Elat at the head of the Gulf of Arabah, the rest trace out the borders of Edom heading first north along the brook of Egypt thence east to the border of Moab thence south to Petra, back to Kadesh Barnea in Edom and then back to Moab. In the wadi between Thebes and Elim there are inscriptions of the 'apiru. At Timna near Elat there are Egyptian artifacts dating from c 1350 BC. In the Amarna letters we have reference to habiru bandits putting the country under the ban and distributing the lands among their tribes. Rktect 07:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What absolute bunk! You mention tiliteral roots, but I don't imagine from what you write that would be able to recognise one. What are you doing with all these [br]a[ket]s? It might look clever, but it bears no relationship at all to how scholars transcribe these names. The Pentateuch is a Hebrew original text. there is no sign of it having been a translation. Now, parts of it may have existed in different forms and have been collected and redacted together (that's mainstream scholarship), but this 'told in Egyptian then retranslated into Greek and Hebrew at a later date' is the phrasing of a poorly worded amateur. I don't believe Rktect actually understands any of these languages, seeing as I had to correct the bungled transcriptions on the article page. — Gareth Hughes 16:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Its amazing how little content there is in your rant. Triliteral roots are a basic part of understanding semitic languages. You should understand that just because a root is semitic, that doesn't necessarily make it Hebrew. Even with a word written in English but an etymology from a semitic root, you can find the semitic root by removing the vowels, grammatic markers, prefixes, infixes and suffixes. In the word Hebrew, Ha is the declaritive article. Take what's left without the vowels and you have brw. You should recognize w as indicating a plural. The root is 'br or ibr with b substituted for p in much the same way Pepsi becomes Bebsi or Bebzi in Arabic. Square brackets are used linquistically to indicate [phonological] elements. Here are some pictures of ibrw from the Brested Expedition photographed at Abu Simbel. They are the archers riding horses bareback without chariots. Their identification as [[Image:ibrw.jpg|thumb|400px|]] ibrw is right there for you to read in the text.


 * The Pentateuch is not a Hebrew original text. About half of it is borrowed from older literature such as the Epic of Gilgamesh which provides the story of the flood in Genesis The link shows you the story as written in Egyptian.


 * Another third incorporates the law codes of Hamurabbi, Egyptian Hotep and Sharia Law. In particular we have the recital of all the Egyptian codes for certification as a professional, as a doctor, lawyer, priest, architect, skilled craftsman, diplomat, midwife, or general. The Egyptians carved the images of their gods in stone, housed them in an ark and placed the ark in a sanctuary. You may remember where these occur in the Pentateuch.


 * Another sixth of the Pentateuch is involved with various covenants with gods and neighbors granting ownership of land and tracing back ancestors to do what amounts to a title search. In Genesis we have covenants with el Shadai, (Shamsi Adad of Mari) lord of the land, Yahwah, the power of the air, Moloch the god of fire, and el roi the water sprite of the well. After that what's left includes much later Hebrew religious gloss to be sure we include something about tithes to the [priests and such. Those gods can be found on ancient cylinder seals such as those Kenneth Kitchen explains were used to bind contracts with blessings and curses. You will note the written references to air, earth fire and water in the upper left corner.


 * There is a description of pictographic cuneiform and it development in CAM see references below.Rktect 13:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Archaeological References

 * 1. Renfrew, Colin and Bahn, Paul Page 515 discusses conflicts between archaeology and Judaism

Near Eastern References

 * 2. Nelson GlueckDiscusses The evidence for the Exodus in the Negev pp,15,41,63,95,102,106,118,119,122,123,138,143,150-151,162,167,170,171,172,186,187,194,243,246,250,258,276
 * 3. William H McNeil and Jean W Sedlar, Discusses the evidence for Habiru and hapitu in Canaan
 * 4. Andrew George, Includes toponyms for Canaan
 * 5. James B. Pritchard, Jerusalim, siege and fall
 * 6. Shaika Haya Ali Al Khalifa and Michael Rice,
 * 7. Dr. Muhammed Abdul Nayeem,
 * 8. Michael Roaf
 * 9. Nicholas Awde and Putros Samano
 * 10. Gerard HermJerusalim pp 33,84-106 passim, 123,125,126,145,149,150,154

Marine Archaeology Rederences

 * 11. Lionel Casson
 * 12. George Bass

Egyptological References

 * 13. Gardiner
 * 14. Antonio Loprieno
 * 15. Michael Rice
 * 16. Gillings
 * 17. Somers Clarke and R. Englebach

Linguistic References

 * 18. Marie-Loise Thomsen,
 * 19. Silvia Luraghi
 * 20. J. P. Mallory
 * 21. Anne H. Groton
 * 22. Hines

Classical References

 * 23. Vitruvius
 * 24. Claudias Ptolemy
 * 25. Herodotus War with Judah, Sennacherib, siege of 701 BC

Historical References

 * 26. Michael Grant

Mathematical References

 * 27. Lucas N. H. Bunt, Phillip S.Jones, Jack D. Bedient Includes references to a Days Journey and a Days Sail

Mensurational References

 * 28. H Arthur KleinIncludes references to a Days Journey and a Days Sail


 * 29 Francis H. Moffitt

Architectural References

 * 30. R. A. Cordingley

Medieval References

 * 31. H Johnathan Riley Smith
 * 32. H.W. Koch


 * Work out the difference between references and a bibliography. A bookshelf impresses no one. — Gareth Hughes 23:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A real editor
This article still shows the bruises and scars of its history, in disjunct thoughts, sentence fragments, stray characters, unintended paragraph breaks, etc. It needs a patient editor (that would let me out) willing to retrace its history too, to pick up again unwarranted deletions and genuinely edit this piece. --Wetman 06:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Not nearly enough references
In some ways I think this is a dreadful article. It needs a *lot* of references. I love the bit about the Bedouin "On two stelae at Memphis and Karnak" - sheer nonsense. I need to find a reliable source for this.--Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One collection of sources compiled during an article controversy a couple of years ago may be found here. -Ben (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read all the Amarna letters Doug?

From the letter of Abi Milku ...ha-ap-si; who gives forth his cry in the sky like Baal, and all the land is frightened at his cry... Ha is the semitic definitive article so what he is referring to are are the ap-si (apiru) Letters by Rib-Addi of Byblos EA 75, EA 79, EA 122, EA 137 and others The power of Egypt in Retenu was decreasing, the Hittites conquered Mitanni and extended their power southwards. The Amorite king Aziru conquered a number of Phoenician cities such as Niy, Tunip and Sumur which were either allied to or governed by the Egyptians. Rib-Addi, a faithful vassal of Egypt, was old and ill. Rib-addi spoke to his lord, the King of Lands: May the Mistress of Gubla [5] grant power to my lord. At the feet of my lord, my sun, I fall down seven times and seven times. Let the king, my lord, know that Gubla, your handmaid from ancient times [1], is well. However, the war of the 'Apiru [6] against me is severe. Letter from Yapahu of Gezer EA 298 Let the king, my lord, be aware that my younger brother, has rebelled against me and has entered Muhhazu, and he has given over his two hands [4] to the leader of the 'Apiru [5]. And since [..]anna [6] is at war with me, take care of your land. May my lord write to his rabisu [7] about this matter. Rktect (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So? As I keep saying to you, the article should be about what reliable sources have to say, not what you or I or anyone else can put together/conclude/imply/whatever from primary sources. dougweller (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Amarna letters are secondary sources Doug, they aren't the original tablets they are translations.


 * The point is that if you are familiar with the Ancient Near East as you read them you realize that you have read the same thing somewhere else. If you get your sources together and compare them you will very quickly realise they are talking about the same people at the same time and place doing the same things but from different perspectives. You might go get a map and connect the dots, or you might go look for another source that confirms the others. Eventually you end up with an Egyptian version, a Hittite version, and textual artifacts that either agree with the Canaanite version or don't. Then you get a Biblical version that agrees with some parts and an archaeological version that agrees with others. Finaly you get some authors commentrary and a lot of speculations. If you put them all together is that WP:OR or WP:SYN? No its due diligence. Rktect (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "If you put them all together" as you describe that is original research, no question. You must use published secondary sources those make the comparisons. Editors at wikipedia cannot.  Professor marginalia (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you shouldn't use published secondary sources, just that you should include enough of them to be sure your sources touch on the Egyptian version, the Hittite version, the Canaanite version, the Biblical version, the textual artifacts, the archaeological version, authors commentaries and where those are speculative or controversial or don't include enough other sources to establish the basis or lack of it for their ideas you provide them. Thats due dilligence for the editor of an encyclopedia; the information has to be encyclopedic. Rktect (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just noticed the above. Rktect was blocked indefinitely after constant warnings and counseling about his addition of original research to articles. Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hapiru = SA.GAZ really?
I think the article makes a really weak case for the words "Hapiru" "SA.GAZ" being different words for the same kind of people. All the article produces is sum. "SA.GAZ" (or "GUB.IRU") = akk. "habbatu". For the rest the article alleges that "hapiru"/"habiru"/"habiri" is an alternate denotion for "SA.GAZ", while I get the impression that "hapiru" and "SA.GAZ" might as well be interpreted as different groups, f.ex. in section Canaanite sources, 2nd para, but especially in section Early Mesopotamian sources last para, where "hapiru" are commanded by "SA.GAZ" leaders! ! ! ! ! !    This contradiction makes me believe that the article in fact doesn't know. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 18:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Earliest known mention
Can we have a source for this, Til? You say you read it but which is it? I'm not saying this is wrong, but I'd like a source. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's in the source that someone's already linked in that section (Sumerian records) - i.e., Mendenhall et al. p. 199-200. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's the source I added, which on p.199 mentions the earliest use in Western Asia, but I can't find anything about 'earliest use' overall. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The First Biblical Reference
It was unclear what the first reference to the Patriarchs was about, as it was not refering to the Habiru. As a result I have reworded it and placed it chronologicallly last. Abdi Khepa too is not mentioned in the Bible but should appear in either Egyptian or Canaanite sources, which is where I put him. John D. Croft (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Biblical Hebrews
As the person who deleted the section, and because the deletion seems to be turning into a contentious issue with reversion and counter-reversion, I think I owe an explanation.

First, I have no objection to putting a section on this subject in tot article, and in fact I support it. A lot of people are going to come here because they want to know what the connection is between the Hebrews of the bible and the Apiru of the archaeological record, or to put that another way, between a name which crops up in Late Bronze records such as the Amara Letters and the well-known and very similar name applied to Israelites in the bible.

There's a lot to be said, and there's plenty of academic sources available to support these things. For example, in what circumstances does the bible use the word "Hebrew"? (Answer: it's used by or in the presence of non-Israelites, never by Israelites to each other). In what books is it used. (Torah? History? Prophets? Writings?). Anyway, it's a valid and even important topic, but it needs proper sources. PiCo (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I had a hand in writing that section that was blanked, and I am placing it here as a courtesy to assist editors trying to find sources that show this isn't OR.


 * "In addition, the Hebrew patriarchs of the Bible, have some of the characteristics of Habiru. They are recorded as having conducted military activities in Canaan some centuries before the Exodus. Genesis 13 depicts Abraham and Lot as each having many herdsmen in their retinue. By the time of the Battle of the Vale of Siddim, Abraham was able to muster 318 trained men from his camp (14:14), who defeated the foreign kings. Likewise, in Chapter 26, Abraham's son Isaac is portrayed as having such a huge force that Abimelech, king of the Philistines, felt his presence to be threatening (26:13-16). Jacob for his part acquired a large number of retainers in Paddan Aram (30:43), and brought them with him to Canaan (32:5). The account in Jubilees (34:7) states that Jacob defeated 7 Amorite kings with a force of 6,000 swordsmen; and elsewhere (37:9-15), that his brother Esau raised a force of 4,000 mercenaries to oppose him, who were recruited from the Aramaean, Moabite, Ammonite, Philistine, and Horite populations. Jacob is said to have had 70 direct personal descendants, by the time he led the Hebrews to Egypt in the time of Joseph. Even King David, in hiring himself out as a mercenary to Achish, the Philistine King of Gath, over a mixed band drawn from many areas seems to have the characteristics of a typical Habiru chieftain.


 * Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Til, that's really no m ore than a summary of biblical uses of the word Hebrew. What needs to be established is the connection between the biblical Hebrews and the non-biblical ones. I found a quote that says there's none, but surely there are others who say otherwise - personally I think there must be. PiCo (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I will look for representative sources, but this is a touchy subject, because so many POVs throughout history, such as 1st century Romans, 20th century Nazis, and lots of others both before and since, have desperately sought to write Ancient Israel completely out of history as fully as possible, almost as if they were a non-people who never existed. The means they have used to this end over the centuries, involve bald-facedly denying evidence that should be plain as day, scoffing at and marginalizing anyone who dares discuss such evidence, or even using force to attempt to prevent any such evidence from being discussed openly, in ways that insult one's intelligence.  This emotional agenda of animosity did not end in 1945, it continues today, and is still quite evident in the world. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My collection


 * But on the other hand, there are those who push for a literal view of the Bible, etc with an emotional intensity that is just as strong. Good historians do neither, and there are enough of those around so that sources shouldn't be a problem. Please don't blame any lack of sources or sources you don't like on anti-Semitism. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This (below) is both useful and frustrating - useful because it seems more balanced and cautious than the source I put into the article, and frustrating because I can't get access to page 72, where the quote apparently comes from:

From The Oxford History of the Biblical World'', page 72. ''

The amarna texts...

''"mention a troublesome group of people found in ancient Syria-Palestine called the 'Apiru/'Abiru or Hapiru/Habiru. Scholars eagerly equated these Apiru with biblical 'ibri, or "Hebrew", and at first thought that they had found confirming, independent evidence of the invading Hebrews under Joshua.  As more texts were uncovered througout the Near East, however, it became clear that these Apiru were found throughout most of the Fertile Crecent .... during the second millennium.  They had no common ethnic or national affiliations; they spoke no common language; and they normally led a marginal and sometimes lawless existence on the fringes of settled society.  The Apiru constituted, in effect, a loosely defined, inferior social class composed of shifting and shifty population elements without secure ties to settled communities.  Apiru are frequently encountered in texts as outlaws, mercenaries, and slaves. Scholarly opinion remains divided as to whether there is an etymological relationship between Apiru and 'ibri, though many scholars thing that the Apiru were a component of proto-Israel"''

I've put it in italics because I didn't find this by my own efforts - it comes from one of the earlier threads on this page. PiCo (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You might want to search for "Hebrew" in collection of sources at User:Benwbrum/Hapiru. It looks like there are entire books written on the subject. -Ben (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

SA.GAZ and the lay Wiki readers
How might we explain within the article to the average lay person that "SA.GAZ" is not meant to be pronounced "sa-gaz" but rather each half on either side of the period-mark is only a "name" of a logogram? Currently in two places it does say "of unknown pronunciation," however I am finding that people are thinking something like, we don't know if it is "say-gaze" or "sah-gahz", etc (which is a completely incorrect interpretation of the statement). For all we know, just SA part could be pronounced "barakko" and the GAZ could be "bama" (getting into a little bit of jesting hyperbole, here). Any suggestions how we can clearly explain this in one (two, at most) sentences? — al-Shimoni  ( talk ) 03:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I really, really would like to see this done. We get people trying to develop absurd meanings or etymologies by ignoring this, but I don't know enough about the subject. I guess we could ask around for someone who knows the literature unless you can find something. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it should be easy enough to add a sentence or two about cuneiform transcription and the role of logograms in 14th century Akkadian texts. Do you think that would do it, or should we quote something that addresses SA.GAZ specifically?  -Ben (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a section just under the Sumerian and Mesopotamian sections (both of which mention SA.GAZ). Hopefully it clarifies this point, but it is not as short, nor as "clean" as I would have hoped. It could probably be rewritten somehow. What is the opinion of others here? Is there a wikipedia language code for Sumerian or Akkadian cuneiform scripts? I'm sure the Wiki powers-that-be would appreciate that mark-up added. It also needs some citations, which I'll try to drag up a little later if someone hasn't already added any. — al-Shimoni  ( talk ) 23:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(Partial Explanation:)–SA.GAZ is a Sumerogram, and one way of 'spelling', (writing) the word "habiru", in the Amarna letters, ( 'Apiru), the work by William L. Moran, 1992, a translation of the corpus, EA1-EA382, (382 letters, minus the number that are not just letters), has as part of the Index, or Glossary, the Index of Words Discussed, (starting pg 371, thru 378, paperback edition), listing of "Akkadian-(4 pgs), Sumerian-(the Sumerogram)-(1.5 pages, and (part of 1 pg), West Semitic, Egyptian, Hittite, and Hurrian. The word  'Apiru, (instead) is listed about 15 pages later under: Group names, (following, people, georaphical names). Only "Akhlamean", 'Apiru, (Hapiru), Kaskean, Kashu, (Kaššu, Kašši), Sutean, Shardanu (Širdanu) are listed.

The 'Apiru list, tells where the word is used, not the actual letter use of SA.GAZ. The complete letter use list is: EA67:17 (67, line 17), 68:18, 71:21, 29; 73:29, 33; 74:29, 36; 75:10, 27; 76:18; 77:24, 29; 79:10, 20; 81:13; 82:9, 83:17; 85:41, 73, 78; 87:21; 88:34; 90:25; 91:5, 24; 104:54; 111:21; 112:46; 116:38; 117:58, 94; 118:38, 121:21; 130:58; 132:21; 144:26, 30; 148:43, 45;; 179:22; 185, passim, 186 passim, 189 rev 11, 17-18; 195:27; 197:4, 11, 30; 207:21; 215:15; 243:20; 246 rev 7, 254:34; 271:16; 272:17; 273:14, 19; 274:13; 286:19, 56; 287:31; 288:38; 289:24; 290:13, 24; 298:27; 299:18, 24, 26; 305:22; 313:6; 318:11

Letters are grouped by "Region", so paired or triplet letters have the first mention of hapiru in a similar location in the letter: The first paragraph-(typical/common Letter Introduction) is/are often 5-12 lines (+ or -) long. (some letters are missing beginning lines), but most of the letters don't see the first use of hapiru till the 2nd paragraph-(Start of Letter Topic)

For letter 299: A plea for help, by Yapahu of GAZRU, (Gezer, I think)-(see the entire letter at Yapahu), the name GAZRU uses the GAZ of SA.GAZ; subsequently the cuneiform character is used later in the letter for SA.GAZ.

So for the above discussion of SA.GAZ,  'Apiru is used in 53 letters, and is used a total (for correct addition?) of 73 times, in the 53. (I do not know the specific use sites of SA.GAZ, beyond the letter EA299. (From the HotSonoranDesert, ArizonaUSA)-- ....--Mmcannis (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sumerian language note. Earlier sections of this article referred to "SA.KAS (or SA.GAZ) of uncertain pronunciation." First of all, in the Sumerian writing system the signs KAS and GAZ are quite different in shape and mean "beer" and "to smash, smite" respectively; they are not interchangeable. As for the pronunciation of the compound SA-GAZ, we rely on lexical works produced in the Babylonian schools for instructing Akkadian speaking scribes in the speaking and writing of Sumerian. So, for example, the important Old Babylonian sign list called Proto-Ea (in M. Civil et al., Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon vol. 14 (Rome, 1979) gave in separate columns cuneiform signs and their pronunciations spelled out syllabically. Proto-Ea line 233 gives the sign SA the pronunciation sa-a (or sá, one value of the DI sign).  Proto-Ea 608 gives the sign GAZ the pronuncation ga-az.  We can be reasonably sure, therefore, that the signs SA and GAZ were pronounced approximately as [sa] and [gaz].  The Sumerian nominal compound was a Sumerian word, literally pronounced /sagaz/ by native Sumerians.  After Sumerian died, the nominal compound could be utilized as a logogram by Akkadian scribes to represent in writing an Akkadian word.  (Note that modern Akkadian specialists will write the compound logogram as SA.GAZ, using a period rather than the Sumerologist's hyphen to separate the two signs.)  Compare the Japanese use of Chinese characters (kanji) to represent Japanese words in its similar logosyllabic writing system. Dubsarmah (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure who switched it to "SA.KAS," which is definitely wrong, as you have pointed out, it is "SA.GAZ". However, the pronunciation is very much debated, and most sources that I have seen still explicitly state that the pronunciation is in doubt or unknown. If you can provide a source where everyone has come to an agreement, that would be appreciated. Otherwise, I think we have to stick with the current sources that we have where they assert that it is still in question (otherwise it may be seen as original research). — al-Shimoni  (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here and in footnote 7 of the article I've provided verifiable, standard, professional Sumerian and Akkadian dictionary references concerning the pronunciation and meaning of SA-GAZ. You state that "most sources" say that the pronunciation is in doubt or unknown.  What "current sources" have actually said this? Can you provide explicit references?  As I recall none were actually stated in earlier versions of this article, merely that the pronunciation "was in doubt."  (In fact, this article features relatively few citations backing up statements.)  Akkadian logograms are normally original Sumerian words, and the two halves of the nominal compound SA-GAZ are not content-less codes but actual words in themselves whose basic pronunciations and meanings would be known to any educated scribe. The SA sign has no other pronunciation and means "sinew, string, cord," and a few other extended meanings such as "net (made of cords)"; the GAZ sign, meaning "to crush, smite, slaughter" has only one other reading NAGA3 meaning "mortar."  These pronunciations and meanings, along with that of the compound SA-GAZ, can be easily verified using the free, online Electronic Pennyslvania Sumerian Dictionary.  If the ordinary Sumerian pronunciation of our term is in doubt, why and how?  If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that "most sources" doubt the equation of the logogram with the term habiru in the various Eastern Mediterranean area textual corpora, then that is a different and quite serious allegation which definitely requires a detailed separate discussion, not just an offhand remark, in view of the number of times and contexts SA-GAZ is invoked in the article. Dubsarmah (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

serious POV problem arises from mentioning Hebrew theory in the first paragraph without diluting it by mentioning other such (clearer) Israelite references.
The claim that Habiru means Hebrews or Israelites is one of several candidate mentions of similar names in Egyptian sources. The others include:
 * Shasu, detailed in that article
 * ibrw (meaning 'bowman'?), mention across several articles
 * mention that "Israel" has been wiped out to its last seed in 1209BCE, though what it means by Israel who knows, it cannot mean the organized state that hadn't arisen yet.

To put the claim that Habiru=Hebrew in the very first paragraph with two supportive sources is to demote these other claims, and elevate the one that habiru must be them. One reason this POV may be common is because habiru is associated with Jericho who they are said to invade, and to be a threat to the whole land, in Amarna letters. The alternate name apiru may be preferable for not suggesting that this is necessarily pronounced like "Hebrew" (we don't know much about ancient Egyptian pronunciation nor change in this over the LBA collapse). However, if the article is going to have the more Hebrew-like name, that increases the need to mention other candidate mentions of Hebrews up front to not make it look like an endorsement of this (thin) theory that these must be the conquerors of Jericho that write their history in the Torah.

People that love this theory ought to realize that the Amarna period is too late for those who believe strictly in Bible chronology and too early for those who think that the Bible is accurate that Hebrews were beyond Egyptian territory at the time they "exodus". It does match other facts like the monolatrism of Akhenaten being reverted and thus those homeless people going searching/conquering perhaps northeast, but, Tutankhamun, History of ancient Israel and Judah, etc., don't even contain that theory and its being actively censored. So you should go read the talk pages of those articles and stand up for your "habiru=Hebrew" POV over there, first, before trying to just insert it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not how that works. Wikipedia just relays what sources say. It doesn't need to carefully weigh content against the content of other pages, since articles are meant to be able to stand on their own. The current claim that it not being an ethnic grouping somehow compeletely falsifies the theory is odd, since sources don't make any such claims. Take Encyclopedia Britannica:
 * Originally the term Hebrew had nothing to do with race or ethnic origin. It derived from Habiru, a variant spelling of Ḫapiru (Apiru), a designation of a class of people who made their living by hiring themselves out for various services.
 * Is there some sort of strong version of this theory in which they were the exact same ethnic group that's being debunked here? Because as it appears now, there can be no connection whatsoever. That has not been proved. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

What’s the difference of Hapiru, Habiru and Apriu then?
1) The author failed to differentiate them while the whole article lacks of reliable source.

2) If Habiru is not an ethic group then how could someone be the “King of Habiru”? DSBuster (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Americans aren't an ethnic group either, but it's possible for someone to be their president. Or to put that another way, ethnicity is invented and re-invented continuously. Achar Sva (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 November 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to ʿApiru. It's been a few weeks and there are no real objections. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC) –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Habiru → ʿApiru – or Apiru, if the "ʿ" is problematic; This is the original term, without the disruption of the Akkadian transliteration (due to the lack of the consonant ʿ and the ambiguity of the bi-pi letters), it is more accurate and it becomes more and more common in the academic literature. פעמי-עליון (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * A week has past, and there are no objections – I understand I can rename. פעמי-עליון (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The name we are supposed to use is the most common name in English. I have no opinion on what that is; I just want to point out that arguing on the basis of original form doesn't provide a basis for a rename. Zerotalk 14:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you look at all of the academic literature since the late 19th century, the name Ḫabiru is the most common; but if you check literature from the past few years, the accurate form ʿApiru becomes more common. It also depends on the context: a translation of an Akkadian text will probably use the term Ḫabiru, but the discussion about this text might use ʿApiru. I hope I succeeded explaining the complexity.
 * I want to note that both German and French, major languages with a wide research in this field, have the rule of using the common name and use the spelling "Apiru". פעמי-עליון (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I collated some published primary and secondary sources in English on the subject here for a different discussion. In that page, I see 'Apiru, Hapiru, and Habiru mentioned almost evenly between them. I'd also note that while the French, German, and Hebrew Wikipedia articles are titled without an initial H, the Dutch, Italian, Russian, and Spanish articles retain the H. (I personally have no preference.)Ben (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks!
 * "ʿApiru" has an initial Ayin, which doesn't exist in Indo-European languages but does exist in most Semitic languages (but not Akkadian), that's why there is no H in French and German (there is an Ayin in Hebrew); it is really important to pay attention that the "H" in Habiru is not an actual H (He) but Ḫ (sounds like Ugaritic 𐎃 or Arabic Ḫāʾ, but etymologicly different; it's also similar to Russian Х, which they use in Хабиру (Khabiru), though they note that in Akkadian it was pronounced with p and not b). I think that if 'Apiru, Hapiru, and Habiru are mentioned almost evenly, it's best to go with the accurate pronounciation; the redirction pages will help whoever searches "Hapiru", "Habiru" etc. פעמי-עליון (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe that in current literature (later than 2006), the distribution of "ʿApiru" is even higher comparing to Hapiru and Habiru. פעמי-עליון (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The additions of IronMike6
I have reviewing your additions but have a low opinion of them. It seems you are attempting to construct an argument, and are citing sources in support of your argument. This is not how it is supposed to be done. You are also using sources without any regard to their quality. Some details: Zerotalk 07:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * These sources are unreliable by Wikipedia standard: Stuart A West (who is a lawyer, not a scholar), Yoel Bin-Nun (a rabbi, not a scholar), everything at www.thetorah.com. And probably others but I don't have time to look at them all.
 * Even when you cite reliable sources, you pick bits of them for your own argument rather than reporting their conclusions. The clearest example is Meredite Klein, who you cite multiple times but never mention Klein's conclusions that (1) the 'Apiru were not even Semites let alone kin of the Hebrews, (2) the equation of the names is at most a "bare possibity", and (3) the 'Apiru were actually the foes rather than the kin of the Hebrews.


 * Meredith Kline done, integrated in the article with all the arguments above and references.
 * www.thetorah.com was here before me, it predates my account, I have alibi. The same is true for some other amateur scholars, like Yonatan Ratosh (a poet and journalist) and Homer W. Smith (physiologist).
 * When I first saw the article a month ago, I noted that the contributors picked bits of sources, reliable and irreliable, attempting to construct an argument rather than reporting general conclusions. It looked as if written by Al-Quds University. The clearest example is Moshe Greenberg who was cited to deny all relations, in etymology and meaning. He allows both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronMike6 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC) --IronMike6 (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)