Talk:ʿApiru

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Eber]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ya as a Hurrian deity? 

message: Three recent edits need to be made relevant to Habiru (Wetman 23:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Three recent edits

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Medieval References 

message: 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)
thread_title: A real editor

message: 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. (mbork3!) 18:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hapiru = SA.GAZ really?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Earliest known mention 

message: 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)
thread_title: The First Biblical Reference

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  SA.GAZ and the lay Wiki readers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What’s the difference of Hapiru, Habiru and Apriu then? 

message: 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:
* 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.
Zerotalk 07:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The additions of IronMike6