Upon the evidence before us this explanation appears to some the most satisfactory. t [See, how- ever, Margoliouth's criticism of Hommel in Erpn.'s. Times, Aug. 1897, p. 5006. Even Sayce (EHH p. 8), after mentioning Hommel's theory, .says, ' The origin and first u.se of the name (Hebrew) are still a matter of doubt ']. But we should like further evidence of the use of such a word as 'Ibri in the inscriptions. Have we this ?
III. Evidence of the Monuments and In- scriptions.— Have we any mention in these of the Hebrews by name t Two identifications ha\ e been proposed.
i. 'Apri or 'Epri of the Egyptian monuments has been said to be merely an Egj-ptian trari.sliterittion of 'Ibri. This identification lias been almost given up, but Hommel (loc. cit. p. 259) is disixised to regard it not unfavourably, comp.aring for the change of labial the Egj-ptian hurp taken from the Canaanite hereb, 'sword,' and pointing out that, although 800 'Epriu (Egj'pt. pair, of 'Epri) drawn from the foreign residents of 'An in the east of Goshen were employed under Kaiuses IV. long after the Exodus, yet it is possible that some of the Israelites remained behind and mingled with other foreigners. But the identUication is, to sa,v the least, very precarious.
ii. The Khabiri, or Abiri (for Assyriologists transliterate the word in both ways) of the Tel el-.Vmarna tablets. They are described in the letters of the king of Jerusalem to his suzerain, the Pharaoh, c. 1400 B.C. (Hommel), as attacking districts and towns in what we now know as the Negeb, the Maritime Plain, and Judali,.'iiid, perhaps, as even laj-ing siege to Jerusalem itself. The king urgently applies ifor reinforcements, sajing, 'If troops can be sent before the end of the year, then the territory of my lord the king may yet be retained ; but if no troops arrive it will assuredly be lost.' The dill'erence in the form of the word (Khabiri or Abiri and Tbri) matters little, for ' the
• So also the Asshur of this veree may represent the Mintean A'shdr, which seems to be a district to the S.E. of Gaza, it would then appear to be an earlier form of Shur (Gn 201). it should also be noticed that this wide use of 'Eber explains how aniorif,' the b^iie 'Eber are found both a western branch in S. Arabia of Joktan and other tribes (On lO^s-aO) (J), as well as an eastern branch round the lower Euphrates m Felfu'. the direct ancestor of Nahor and Abraham, with .suMivisions arising in Isaac and Ishmoet. ' Hebrews* is not, apparently, so used. We may suppose that, even if present in the orijpnal docuinents, the Hebrew editors and copyist* preferred some less ambiguous term.
t Akin to this explanation is that which derives 'Hebrews' from the Arabic 'eber in the sense of a ' tract along the banks of a river (as the place for passing over), and xk-t' tli>x*>*, that of the Euphrates, the whole tract of land stretching from the east bank of the Euphrates to the Tigris, and from the icfet bmik to the A rabian Desert (berrljet el-'arai}), from which, according to the Turkish K4mQs and Lex. Geographicutn, ii. lW.i, 233, is derived 'Ibri or ' Ibrdni, the name of the Jewish people, bm having come from the land stretching from the bank of the Euphrates to the Tigris' (Delitzsch on Is "•'")• W. K. Smith (Eiic. Bril.^ s.v. 'Hebrews') mentions this conjecture, which makes Hebrews to be ' dwellers in a land of rivers,' adding, 'this goes well with Peleg (watercourse), as in Arabia we have the district Kalag, so namea because it is furrowed by waters (Sprenger, Geoijr. Arab. p. 234). In Doughty (Arabia Denerta, ii. 3S) f'alaj is rendered ' the splitting of the mountain ' ; but the two derivations are not contradictor>' if, as 't seemx, F41aJ is a mountainous district with many torrents.
HEBIIEW LANGUAGE
HEBKEWS, EPISTLE TO
327
Caiiaauite 'Ayiii, witli wliieli giUlunil the word 'Ibri cciraiiRMices, is elsewhere hi the texts represented by the cuneiform Kh, and tliere are analogous instances of the abbreviation of an earlier form like 'Abiri into a later form such as 'Ibri.'* But the identification is at present quite uncertain: (rt) the king appears to be describing an attack from the west side of Jordan, whereas the Hebrews came from the east side ; (h) the names of persons do not agree with those mentioned in Joshua ; (c) the date is uuich earlier than that which is now usually given to the Exodus, 1322 (Lepsius), or even 12(H) (Petrie). But («) the first dilKcidty may be fairly met by saying that the lettere do not necessitate an attack from the west only, that the OT account is very brief, the conquest of even southern Palestine possibly extending over many years, and that much of the south-west country may have been taken before the king of Jerusalem felt In iiuicli danger. t (J>) The second difficulty is not conclusive, as persons appear to have been known under different names. (c) The third depends wholly on the accuracy of the date given to the Exodus. If this is accepted, the Kliahiri can be identical with the Hebrews only by some of the Hebrews having returned to Palestine before the Exodus; but though this may be consistent with raids having been made, or small detachments having separated themselves, the letters imply the approach of a large body. Hence, either lihabiri has a jiurely accidental resemblance to •Ibri,} or the date of the Exodus must be placed much earlier.!! We cannot as yet say which is right.