54 replies to this topic

[docyabut2]

qoute-There were no Hebrews, as such, in the 14th century BC .

But yet there were the Habirus nomadic tribes around for a long time And did`t Abraham a hebrew or perhaps pronounce Habirus came from the Mesoptamia area to settle in Canaan.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habiru



Abram is referred to as a Hebrew (Ivri), possibly because he was descended from Eber or possibly because he came from the "other side" (eber) of the Euphrates River.


http://www.jewishvir...hy/abraham.html

Edited by docyabut2, 10 November 2012 - 10:18 PM.

[docyabut2]

The Habiru had a Deity whose Name was unknown to the other peoples, and also to themselves, as the Name was not revealed to anybody before Mosheh Rabainu. The fact that their Divinity's name was unknown is a further proof that identifies them with the "Children of Ever". The enigmatic MalkiTzedek, kohen of El-Elyon (Bereshyit 14:18), whoever he was corresponds to the characteristics of a Habiru authority, holder of the original spirituality which Avraham himself followed.


http://www.imninalu.net/Habiru.htm

[cormac mac airt]

docyabut2, on 10 November 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

qoute-There were no Hebrews, as such, in the 14th century BC .

But yet there were the Habirus nomadic tribes around for a long time And did`t Abraham a hebrew or perhaps pronounce Habirus came from the Mesoptamia area to settle in Canaan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habiru

Abram is referred to as a Hebrew (Ivri), possibly because he was descended from Eber or possibly because he came from the "other side" (eber) of the Euphrates River.

http://www.jewishvir...hy/abraham.html

Go back and read your link a bit more closely. Getting past the fact that Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source for your information, as shown in your link the designation "tribe" is a bit of a misnomer as the Habiru far less than a tribe, as seen here from your link:

Quote

Carol Redmount who wrote 'Bitter Lives: Israel in and out of Egypt' in The Oxford History of the Biblical World concluded that the term "Habiru" had no common ethnic affiliations, that they spoke no common language, and that they normally led a marginal and sometimes lawless existence on the fringes of settled society. She defines the various Apiru/Habiru as "a loosely defined, inferior social class composed of shifting and shifty population elements without secure ties to settled communities" who are referred to "as outlaws, mercenaries, and slaves" in ancient texts. In that vein, some modern scholars consider the Habiru to be more of a social designation than an ethnic or a tribal one.

This is NOT the way the Hebrews are described in the Bible. And while the earliest accounts of the Habiru are form sites such as Aleppo, Syria and Alalakh, Turkey (meaning the northern Levant) Abraham is said to have come from Ur of the Chaldees which is located in southern Mesopotamia (southeastern Iraq).

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

docyabut2, on 09 November 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

Akhenaten was the son of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiy, a descendent of a Hebrew tribe. The largest statue in the Cairo Museum shows Amenhotep III and his family. He and Queen Tiy (pronounced 'Tee') had four daughters and two sons. Akhenaten's brother, Tutmoses was later named high priest of Memphis. The other son, Amenhotep IV (Later to take the name Akhenaten) seemed to be ignored by the rest of the family. He never appeared in any portraits and was never taken to public events. He received no honors. It was as if the God Amun had excluded him. He was rejected by the world for some unknown reason. He was never shown with his family nor mentioned on monuments. Yet his mother favored him.

I'm going to have to echo cormac a couple of times here, but it can't be helped. What I can do is elaborate, however. Long ago scholars suspected Tiye's parents, Yuya and Tjuya, may have been from Canaan. Not as Hebrews, mind you, because that's a critical distinction to bear in mind. And the main reasons for this idea? Yuya's and Tjuya's names are spelled quite a few different ways in hieroglyphs, and Yuya's mummy reveals he was a fairly tall man to have been an Egyptian.

These aren't exactly credible criteria for claiming Tiye's parentage as Canaanite. And for this reason, the theory was discarded long ago. We can trace Yuya and Tjuya to the city of Akhmim, where they were evidently a family of nobility and high standing. There's nothing really to suggest they weren't Egyptian.

It's true that Akhenaten is poorly attested prior to his ascension to the throne. However, "never shown" is incorrect. Akhenaten is attested at Malqata, the palace of Amunhotep III in western Thebes. I suspect the only reason his mother is so closely aligned with Akhenaten is that he was her last son in line for the throne. Tiye probably showed similar devotion to Tuhtmose when he was crown prince.

In any case there is no evidence the Hebrews yet existed at this early point.

docyabut2, on 10 November 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

qoute-There were no Hebrews, as such, in the 14th century BC .

But yet there were the Habirus nomadic tribes around for a long time And did`t Abraham a hebrew or perhaps pronounce Habirus came from the Mesoptamia area to settle in Canaan.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habiru
...

Again echoing cormac, I caution in the strongest terms not to confuse the Habiru and Hebrews. There is no connection between them. Not only were the Habiru a loose collection of various tribes and ethnicities of largely disenfranchised peoples, they appeared on the scene well before the emergence of the Hebrews and ranged a territory much larger than the Hebrews ever did. The word "Habiru" itself is simply a modern Western rendering for the word, which seems to have been pronounced in different ways by different kingdoms.

I also second comrac's admonition:  do not use Wiki as primary source material. There is a huge body of professional literature on the development of the Hebrews as an identifiable culture, and there is even a sizable collection of papers and articles on the Habiru. Use professional literature, not Wikipedia.

[docyabut2]

Frist of all I like to study and make up my own mind on all the opinions.

  As Osman points out, Yuya is the only Egyptian mummy to have his hands placed under his chin rather than across his chest, he has what appears to be Semtic features, and a beard style similar to that of the ancient Hebrews, whereas Egyptian officials were known to shave their facial hair.


  And this article( not from  wikpedia:) convinces me that  the habiru were perhaps the hebrews.



http://www.imninalu.net/Habiru.htm

[kmt_sesh]

docyabut2, on 12 November 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

Frist of all I like to study and make up my own mind on all the opinions.

  As Osman points out, Yuya is the only Egyptian mummy to have his hands placed under his chin rather than across his chest, he has what appears to be Semtic features, and a beard style similar to that of the ancient Hebrews, whereas Egyptian officials were known to shave their facial hair.


  And this article( not from  wikpedia:) convinces me that  the habiru were perhaps the hebrews.



http://www.imninalu.net/Habiru.htm

There's nothing wrong with using your mind when considering historical issues, but opinions are something else. Opinions do not reflect facts—they reflect one's personal beliefs outside the sphere of what is known, so in most cases opinions aren't exactly reliable.

Equally important to consider is the sources to which you turn when considering historical issues. Ahmed Osman, for example, should be one of the last sources on your list. I know of what I speak because I've read Osman's work and have one or two of his books in the fringe section of my own library. Osman is a pretty decent writer but exists well outside the boundaries of rational and reliable historical inquiry. He is a fringe writer, not a real historian or researcher. Osman is out to sell books, not to contribute to our overall body of knowledge.

There's a reason Osman is not taken seriously. Why would you want to?

For example, take the information you're drawing from Osman. Hand placement of male mummies—and in numerous cases, female mummies—tended to follow a variety of traditions. There was no "fixed" rule, in so far as the archaeological evidence can tell us. Male mummies tended to have their hands placed over or above the chest in some fashion or, alternatively, over the genitals. Most importantly for our debate, however, is that hand placement in no way, shape, or form reflects the ethnicity or race to which the individual belonged.

Consider the mummy of Tutankhamun, for instance. His hand placement seems a bit odd, especially for a royal mummy. There are any number of plausible explanations for this, but hypothesizing that Tut must have been a foreigner because of it is certainly not one of them.

As for Semitic features, Osman is missing the very obvious fact that many Egyptians were of Semitic origin. The society in general is referred to as Afro-Asiatic, as is the ancient language. An Egyptian possessing Semitic features doesn't mean much of anything interesting when the culture was heavily influenced by Semitic roots to begin with.

Also, don't confuse the word Semitic with Hebrew. Yes, the Hebrews were (and are) Semitic, but so were (and are) a great many other peoples, the Canaanites included. Other examples from the times of the ancient Near East include the Akkadians, Ugarites, Phoenicians, Arameans, and Chaldeans. There were (and are) also many Ethiopians of Semitic stock.

Lastly on the list is Yuya's beard:



What beard? It's more stubble than anything. Osman is freely exaggerating a fact of ancient history and skewing it for his fringe agenda, and that fact is the Egyptians carefully rendered the appearances of foreigners in their artwork, to the extent that one can to this day distinguish the land of origin of the foreigner simply by the way he's depicted. This is true of Asiatics (people from the ancient Levant, where the Hebrews would later emerge), and the Egyptians often depicted Asiatics with their tell-tale hair, head ornaments, and long, pointed beards:



Does this look like Yuya? Really?

[docyabut2]

I guess you right smt, beards were important to the egyptians..

http://www.bing.com/...eards&FORM=IGRE


However what of the Habiru article of who`s god was unknown,  didn`t the hebrew have a same deity, where as they were never allow to mention his name.

http://www.imninalu.net/Habiru.htm




http://www.imninalu.net/Habiru.htm

[cormac mac airt]

docyabut2, on 13 November 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

I guess you right smt, beards were important to the egyptians..

http://www.bing.com/...eards&FORM=IGRE


However what of the Habiru article of who`s god was unknown,  didn`t the hebrew have a same deity, where as they were never allow to mention his name.

http://www.imninalu.net/Habiru.htm

No the Hebrews didn't have the same deity as their god YHWH, usually shown as Yahweh, was not unknown. It was for the most part not written or pronounced, but usually substituted with words like Adonai or El Shaddai to name a few.

cormac

[Peter Cox]

I have to agree, the timing issue and the lack of written facts do not support the OP's statment.

Egypt would have kept records of an event like this, im sure of it.

[questionmark]

docyabut2, on 13 November 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

However what of the Habiru article of who`s god was unknown,  didn`t the hebrew have a same deity, where as they were never allow to mention his name.

The Hebrews could mention the name of the god given certain circumstances, but do the precept that the name of the lord should not be used in vain were very careful to mention it.

And yes, we know Yahweh from before the Hebrews, as weather god of some nomadic herder in the uplands of the Sinai.