HABAKKUK, BOOK OF —— 1982, Eschatological Symbol and Existence in Habakkuk BQ 44; 394414 Jeremias, J. 1955. Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer altestamentichen Gattung. WMANT 10. Neukirchen-VIuyn. 1970. Kuliprophetie und Gerichisverkindigung in der spten Konigswit Israels. WMANT 35. Neukirchen. Jocken, P. 1977. War Habakuk ein Kultprophet? Pp. 319-32 in Bawseine Biblscher Theologie, ed. H.-J. Fabry. BBB 50. Bonn. Johnson, M. D. 1985, The Paralysis of Torah in Habakkuk I 4. VP 85: 257-66. Keller, C, A. 1973, Die Eigenart der Prophetic Habakuks, ZAW 85) 156-67. Lachmann, J. 1982. Das Buch Habbakuk: Eine Textbitische Studie. Aussig. Margulis, B. 1970. The Psalm of Habakkuk. ZAI 82; 409-42, Mowiinckel, M, 1921-24. Pralmenstudien. 6 vols, Kristiana Nielien, E. 1958. The Righteous and the Wicked in Habaqquq. ST wo, E1977. Die Stellung der Wehe-Worteinder Verkindigung, des Propheten Habakuk. ZAW 89: 73-107, 1985. Die Theologie des Buches Habakuk. VP 35: 274-95, eckham, B. 1986, The Vision of Habakkuk, CBQ 48: 617-26. Feshitta Institute. 1980. The OT in Syriac According to the Peshita Vason. Vol. 84, Leen Sanders, A. 1959. Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the OT: JR 39: 932-48 ——. 1079. "Text and Canon: Concepts and Method. JBL 98: 5 20, Schreiner, S. 1974. Erwagungen zum ‘Text von Hab 2.4-5. ZAW 86: 538-42 Scot, J. M. 1985. A New Approach to Habakkuk 11 4-54. VI'35: 330-40. Seux, MJ. 1981. Siggoyon = sig? Pp. 419-38 in Mélange bibliques omens en Uhonneur de M. Henn Cazes, ed. A. Caquot and M_ Deleor. AOAT 212. Kevelaer and Neukircher-Vluyn Sperber, A. 1962. The Latter Propets according to Targum Jonathan Vol. 3 of The Bile in Aramaic. Leiden. Stade, B. 1884. Habakuk. ZAW 4: 154-59 Strobel, A. 1964. Untersuchungen 2um exchatologschen Verigerunas- problem auf Grund der spajdichsrchritichen Geschichte won He- dakut 2.27. NovTSup 2. Leiden Sweeney, M.A. fe. Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk. VI 41. “Torrey, C. C. 1985. The Prophecy of Habakkuk. Pp. 865-82 in Jewish Studies in Memory of George A. Kol, 0.8. Baron and A. ‘Mare. New York Trever, J. 1972. Srl from Qumran Cave 1 Jerusalem Usfenheimer, B. 1987. Habakkuk from Shutter to Step: Observa- tions on Habakkuk 1-2. Pp. 69-92 in Studies in ible Dedicated to the Memory of U. Casuts, ed. 8. Locwenstamm. Jerusalem (in Hebrew). Wal, A. van der. 1988. Nahum, Hobatkuk: A Classified Bibliography ‘Amsterdam Weber, R 1975. Biblia sacra insta Vulgatam versionem. Rev. ed. ‘Stuttgart Weis, RD. 1986. A Definition of the Genre Massa? in the Hebrew Bible Ph.D. diss, Claremont, CA. Wellhausen, J. 1892. Die Keinen Proplaten. Berlin, Repr. 1963 Woude, A.S. van der. 1966. Der Gerechte Wird Durch Seine Treve Leben; Erwagungen zi Habakuk 2:4-5, Pp. 367-75 in Studia Biblia et Semtica Theodora Chrisiano Vrieen. Wageningen. 6+ 1970, Habakuk 2,4. ZAW 82: 281-82. Ziegler, J. 1943. Duadecom prophetae. Gottingen. Marvin A. SWEENEY HABAZZINIAH (PERSON) [Heb hdbassinyah], The grandfather of the Rechabites who were tested by Jeremiah, (Jer 35:3). Habazziniah’s grandson Jaazaniah and his household are taken by Jeremiah to the Jerusalem temple. They are offered wine but citing the command of their ancestor Jonadab (2 Kgs 10:10—15) refuse to drink it er 35:6-7). While the narrative in Jeremiah 35 concerns Habazziniah's grandson's generation, Habazziniah is likely included to underscore the continuity of the Rechabite adition and family. In Jeremiah 35 the faithfulness of the Rechabites to Yahweh for many generations is con- trasted with King Jehoiakim’s failure to heed Yahweh's word in Jeremiah 36. Thus the Rechabites are promised descendants (Jer 35:18) while Jehoiakim is warned “he shall have none to sit upon the throne of David” (Jer 36:30). The Rechabites were noted for their zealous devo- tion to Yahweh, and this is perhaps reflected in the yah endings of the three names in Jer 35:3—Jaazaniah, Jere- miah, and Habazriniah (Orelli 1889: 264). variety of connections have been suggested between Habazziniah and the Akk Aabigu (‘the Lord has made me abundant’), though how this bears upon the text is not clear. Alterna. tively, it may mean “Yahweh has made me joyful” (TPNAH, 96, 178), Bibliography Orelli, C. von. 1889, The Prophecies of Jeremiah. Trans. J. E. Banks Edinburgh, Jou M. Brace. HABIRU, HAPIRU. Often considered to be the Ak- Kadian equivalent of Heb “bri. See HEBREW. A, The Identity of the habirwhapiru Eyer since this Akkadian expression was first recognized in a. 1888, viz,, in the Amarna Letters written by Abdi- Hepa of Jerusalem around 1375 s.¢. (EA 286-90; Green- berg 1955: 4749) scholars have discussed the significance of the habirwhapiru for the origin of the Israelites. In this discussion the etymology of the word has played a signi ‘cant part since it was soon recognized that a W Semitic word must lie behind the Akkadian expression, In Akka- dian cuneiform writing the consonant represents at least three different W Semitic gutturals (notably A, &, and 9, and it was therefore proposed that the habirw mentioned in Abdi-Hepa’s letters were Israelite tribesmen who were then forcing their way into Palestine in the course of the Israelite conquest. The fact that these habirw/hapira (or “ahirw!apiru) were only mentioned by the king of Jerusalem ‘was, however, considered a serious obstacle to this identifi- cation, because—according to the OT—Jerusalem was not attacked by the Israelites until the early days of King David, ca. 1000 8. Only when the German orientalist Hugo Winekler suc- ceeded in A.0. 1895 in identifying the habirulhapiru of Abdi-hepa’s letters with the s4.Gaz people, who figure farm+7 more frequently in the Amarna Letters, did scholars in general incline to accept the identification of the habiru with the Hebrews (Loretz 1984: 60). This seemingly obvi- ous identification was soon challenged by other discoveries which showed that the hatirwhapéru were present in sources from all over the ANE in the 2¢ millennium a.c. Especially when they appeared in the Hittite archives from ‘Boghazkoy (Hattuias) it became doubtful whether they could in fact be identical with the early Israelites, Evidently the expression covered an ethnic entity which could not be ‘equated with the forefathers of the Israelites in a simple way. The confirmation that it was necessary to disassociate the problem of the habira from the early history of the Israelites first became apparent in Egyptian sources and later in. Ugaritic documents, which made it clear that the second consonant should most properly be read f instead of b; the same also proved that the first consonant actually was an © (in Eg Spr, in Ug ‘pr). Doubt also arose as to the ethnic content of the expression, especially because of the German Egyptologist Wilhelm Spiegelberg (1907: 618— 20), who believed that the term designated a social group Of some sort. According to Spiegelberg the term was most properly applied to nomads who lived on the fringe of the Syrian desert (including the Proto-Israelites). ‘Today the mainly social content of the expression is only occasionally disputed (eg., by de Vaux 1968), but the interpretation of its social content has changed, most no- tably thanks to Benno Landsberger, who showed that the expression hahirwhapire should actually be translated “fu- gitives” or even “refugees” (in Bottéro 1954: 160-61). ‘That such an understanding lies near at hand is confirmed by the Sumerian equivalent of habiru/bapiru, sA.Gaz.(vari- ant spellings sac.Gaz, or simply Gaz), as this Sumerogram is in fact merely a transcription of the Akk Jaggaem, “murderer.” Moreover, saG.Gaz is occasionally, in the Ak- kadian lexicographical lists translated as habbatum “brig- and.” Today most orientalists consider that the expression abirulhapira encompassed fugitives who had left their own states either to live as refugees in other parts of the Near East or outlaws who subsisted as brigands out of reach of the authorities of the states (Bottéro 1980), B. The Etymology of habirwhapiru The etymology of the expression has never been fully explained; nor has the discussion abgut the correct spell- ing of the word ever ceased. The Semitic root on which the expression is based may be either ‘br or Spr depending. on the correct reading of the second consonant. If the term should actually be read habiru then the most obvious etymological explanation must be that it is a derivation from the verbal root ‘br meaning “to pass by,” “trespass” (eg.,a border, a river, or the like), a meaning which would suit the notion of the habiru as fugitivesrefugees excel- lently. If the correct rendering of the Akkadian cuneiform is hapiru, a derivation from the noun ‘pr meaning “dust” or “clay” would be likely; and ‘apiru might then have been a popular way of designating people of low social standing. Both Egyptian and Ugaritic evidence seems to favor a rendering of the cuneiform syllabic writing (Ba-bilpi-ru) by “apiru, However, as several scholars have maintained, none of these sources is conclusive. The Egyptian writers in particular were inconsistent as to the rendering of the HABIRU, HAPIRU Semitic labials b and p, and also the Ugaritic writers seem to have been uncertain how to render the same labials (Weippert 1971: 76-79). The evidence in favor of the rendering habiru proposed by Jean Bottéro (RLA 4/1:22) is perhaps more rewarding. Some of it dates from the Mid- dle Babylonian period and includes a series of occurrences where the word is spelled ha-bir-a-a (habirdyu, cf. Green- berg 1955: 78; cf, however, also Borger 1958: 126). An- other part comes’ from the Hittite archives where the cuneiform sign bi always seems to represent a bi and never a pi (according to Bottéro RLA 4/1:22). Whether Bottéro's conclusions are fully justifiable is, however, still under debate. Therefore, although the rendering of the cunei- form writing as kabiru seems most likely at the moment, wwe cannot exclude the reading hap. G. The Sources for the habirulbapiru ‘The total number of occurrences of the word habiru hapiru in the ANE documents is today just above 250 (total listing until ca. a.0. 1970 in RLA 4/1:15-21, supplemented and corrected by Bottéro 1980: 211 (no. 2}; English trans- Tation of most passages in Greenberg 1955). Practically all examples belong to the 2d millennium n.c. although there are certain indications that the expression was not totally unknown before that date, The latest occurrences. are from Egyptian sources (from the reign of Rameses IV, ca. 1165-1160 #.¢.) although a few literary texts from the Ist nillennium mention the habiru/hapiru (Bottéro 1954: 136— 43; Greenberg 1955; 5455). As a social and political force the habiru seem to have disappeared just before the end of the 2d millennium 8.c, The geographic distribution of the habirwhapiru covers most of the Near East, from Anatolia in the N, Egypt in the S, and W Iran (Susa) to the E. The habirwhapiru were found all along the Fertile Crescent, from Palestine to Sumer. The oldest sources which for practical reasons tell us, anything about the status of the habiru/hapiru come from Kani, the Assyrian trading station in Anatolia (19th cen- tury 8.c) and from the Sumerian area during the Neo- Sumerian epoch. Whereas doubt may be cast over the last mentioned examples (the Sumerogram 5a.G4z. is always used, although the spelling may differ), the evidence from Anatolia at the beginning of the 2d millennium n.c. is more promising. The information we gain from this is, however, not totally in accordance with later sources, be- cause the persons named habirulbapiru here may at the same time be called awilu, that is “Sir,” “Mr.” The deroga- tory content of the expression is conspicuous because the persons called habinuhapiru are at that time in jail, al- though in possession of sufficient funds to pay for their ‘own release. Finally, these persons were members of the staff of the palace. More important is, on the other hand, that so far it has not been possible to decide whether they were foreigners in this Old Assyrian society or belonged to the local population. During the following era, the Old Babylonian period, the habirwlapiru are mentioned more often. There is some indication of these people being employed as mercenaries in the pay of the state administration, whereas in the archival reports from the royal palace of Mari we are confronted with the first known examples of habirwhapine as outlaws or brigands. One document mentions that theyHABIRU, HAPIRU had even conquered a city belonging to the kingdom of Mari_and caused serious trouble there (Greenberg 1955: 18). The documents from Mari and elsewhere also show that the habirwhapira were considered a highly mobile population element. ‘The evidence of the presence of the habirw/bapiru be- comes far more extensive in the LB Age, during the second half of the 2d millennium 3.c. The centers of gravity of this documentation are Nuzi, in NE Mesopota- mia (15th century 8.<,); Alalakh (15th century s.c.) and Ugarit, two coxstal states in N Syria; Hattusas (Boghazkoy) in Anatolia; and Palestine and Lebanon as documented by the Amarna Letters (beginning of the 14th century 8.c:) Most evidence originates in official state archives; only at Nuzi are private references to the habirulhapira frequent. At Nuzi the Aabirwhapiru are most often mentioned in private contracts according to which persons called habirul ‘hapiru bind themselves to the service of Nuzi citizens. The documents in question show that the habiruhapiru were not themselves citizens of Nuzi but foreigners without any juridical rights at Nuzi. By binding themselves through these service contracts they obtained a sort of social secur- ity so long as they remained in the service of a citizen of Nuri. The analogy between these contracts and the OT law of the Hebrew slave (Exod 21:2-11) seems obvious (see HEBREW). In Alalakh the habirulhapiru are normally mentioned in administrative documents listing persons of foreign origin. ‘These foreigners seem to have been kept apart from the ordinary population of this state, maybe as servants of the royal palace administration (Greenberg 1955: 19-22). One inscription from Alalakh, however, shows that the habiru/ ‘apis also operated as bands of brigands or outlaws out- side the control of the state. In the autobiography of King Idrimi we are told how the young Idrimi during his exile lived for seven years among habirulbapiru out of reach of the authorities from whom he had escaped (ANET, 557— 58). The same distinction between kabiru/hapire as foreign- ces in the service of the state and habirulhapiru as outlaws is apparent in the sources from Ugarit and Hattusas. Most important is, however, a passage in a treaty between the king of Ugarit and his overlord, the Hittite king, according to which the two monarchs promise to extradite citizens who have deserted their own state to seek refuge in terri- tories known as habirwhapira land. Such entries in the political treaties become quite frequent in this period; the phenomenon testifies to a growing concern because of the increasing number of persons who chose to live as habirw! hhapira (Liverani 1965; cf. also, for the connection between abirwhapiru and the fugitives in Akk munnabtu, Buccellati 1977), Most important, however, are the testimonies as to the activities of the habirwhapira in the Amarna Letters, al- though the evaluation of the content of the expression habiru/bapiru is subject to discussion. Generally two differ- ent hypotheses as to the content of the expression in the Amarna Letters prevail. The first (and more popular) ‘maintains that their situation was not much different from their situation elsewhere in the ANE. The second argues that the mentioning of the habirulhapiru in the Amarna Letters does not normally indicate a sociological phenom- enon, but that it is just as often used in an exclusively 8-1 pejorative sense to denote opponents of the official com- munity, that is, the Egyptian suzerainty (thus Mendenhall 1978: 192-35; Liverani 1979). In favor of the first option is the fact that the occurrence of the term habirulbapira is unevenly distributed over the Palestinian/Lebanese area. It is seemingly concentrated in areas irt or close to the moun- tains, the most obvious fabirulhapiru territory (cf. below), whereas the number of sources mentioning the habirul hapiru becomes more restricted in other places. This distri- bution indicates that the expression was not just a deroga- tory term in the Amarna age but reflected a real social problem of the Palestinian and Lebanese societies. In favor Of the second option is the fact that persons styled habiru! hapiru in the Amarna Letters are in general neither for- eigners nor fugitives, but heads of states or citizens of states, When a king of one of the Palestinian petty states calls his neighbor king a habiru/hapiru, it is certainly not because this other king: has left his country to become a habiru/hopiru but because he is considered by his fellow king to be a public enemy. When we hear that the citizens of a certain city have joined the habirw/hapiru and given their city over to them, this does not necessarily mean that they themselves have become habirw or that they have in a physical sense left their city at the mercy of the habiru! hhapira. It simply means that the rulers or the citizens of the neighboring city-states look upon them as enemies. ‘That we cannot exclude the second possibility is proven by an Amarna Letter in which even the Egyptian governor residing at Hazor is accused of making alliances with the habirwhapiru. On the other hand, although this second hypothesis about the content of ‘the expression in the Amarna Letters certainly limits the amount of actual refer- ences to the activities of the habirwhapiru people properly speaking, the derogatory use may be considered indirect evidence of the importance of the babiru/hapiru phenome- non as such. If there had not been a considerable element of these people, the derogatory use of the expression itself ‘would have been meaningless. Perhaps the Amarna Letters cannot be taken to prove that gangs of habiru/bapiru as well as habiruhapiru fugitives roamed Palestine proper. Their presence is, however, proved by an Egyptian inscription from the end of the 14th century n.c., which mentions an Egyptian campaign against some habirwhapiru living in the mountainous area around Beth-shan in Palestine (translation ANET, 255; cf. Albright 1952). In the Egyptian sources the hapiruhapiru from Syria/Palestine are, however, mentioned as early as during the reign of Amenophis II (ca. 1440 n.c.), when they appear alongside the burri people (ie., the settled population of Asia) and the Jasw nomads in a list counting, the prisoners of a Palestinian campaign led by this pharaoh (ANET, 247). According to Egyptian documents mention- ing the presence of habirulhapiru in Egypt proper, they seem to have been employed by the Egyptians as an. un- skilled labor force, used among other things for work on public building projects. D, Factors Behind the habirw/hapiru Movement Although it is impossible to present a detailed history of the habirullapira, it should, nevertheless, be possible to delineate some of the conditions which contributed to the development of the phenomenon during the 2d millen-m-+9 ‘nium and to indicate some general reasons both for the seemingly increasing importance of the phenomenon ¢s- pecially in the LB Age and for its disappearance at the beginning of the Iron Age ‘The etymology of the word is W Semitic and points toward an origin among the W Semitic- or Amorite-speak- ing population of the ANE, although the phenomenon as such was in no way confined to the areas inhabited by this population. Nor would it be correct to think that the habirw! hapiru were generally of W Semitic origin. To the contrary, the available evidence shows that a variety of ethnic groups could be listed under this heading in any society of that time, as was the case at Alalakh, where the habirw/hapiru groups encompassed foreigners bearing W Semitic as well as Hurrian names. Accordingly, the expression must al- ready at an early date have been separated from any specific ethnic background and become a purely social designation, Since the habirwhhapiru whose names are pre- served in the source material are always considered for- ceigners in the societies where they lived and where they were excluded from normal civil rights, they were obvi- ‘ously intruders who had arrived from some other parts of the region, Though their presence was noted, their status in the society was invariably low; they were almost slaves, as at Nuzi, or else they were employed by the state as unskilled laborers or ordinary mercenaries. Finally, their affinity to groups of outlaws outside the control of the political centers of that period is evident from the fact that they shared their name or designation with the brigands. ‘Therefore both the babirwhapiru li state societies and habirwhapiru living on their own as outlaws must be seen as representatives of one and the same general social phenomenon, that is, they were refugees or fugitives who had left their own country to find a way of survival in other parts of the Near East. The reasons for this wave of fugitives, which, according to the available sources, seems to have increased in force during the MB and especially the LB, may have varied, and it may be futile to attempt any easy explanation. However, such a factor as debt—resulting in regular debt slavery—may have induced many impoverished peasants of the ancient states to find a living out of reach of the authorities who were going to enslave them as debtors. The actual extent of such conditions which led to the enslavement of presumably a considerable part of (espe- cally) the rural populace may only be surmised. On the other hand, the practice, common in the Old Babylonian period, of issuing at regular intervals royal grants which annulled debt as well as debt slavery and which released mortgages on landed property (sce esp. Kraus 1958; Fin- Kelstein 1961), demonstrates that the problem was very real. Such measures, however, may not have continued beyond the period of the Amorite dynasty in Babylonia proper; and edicts of that kind may not have been issued in other places, at least not to the same extent as in Mesopotamia proper (Lemche 1979), The burden of debt may have increased because of the growing centralization of the state administration, especially in the LB, when the so-called “palatinate” type of states developed into a des- potic system with ever-diminishing rights of the ordinary population (on this system Liverani 1974 and 1975). It ‘may be an indication of the juridical organization of this HABIRU, HAPIRU type of state that no law codices have survived from those regions of W Asia where, seemingly, the habirwhapira movement grew to unprecedented dimensions in the LB. ‘Age, because all juridical power was vested in the centrale ized state authorities symbolized by the person of the king residing in his palace. ‘Two additional factors contributed to the development of the habirwhapiru movement. First of all, the region was subdivided into numerous petty states which evidently facilitated the possibility of escaping the authorities in ‘one’s own state. Second, and more important for the refugees who decided to live as outlaws, was the extent of territories especially suitable for the life of such brigands, that is, territories which could in no way be controlled by the tiny forces of the petty states of the area. Such territo- ries were normally to be found in the mountains or in the steppes between the desert and the cultivated areas (on this see Rowton 1965: 375-87 and 1967; ef. also Rowton 1976). The extent of the movement and the problems which it caused transpire from a series of international treaties trying to regulate the traffic of the refugees by impeding their freedom in states other than their own. ‘The reciprocity of the extradition of the habiruhapira between states testifies to a deeply felt concern because of the movement of the refugees. The acme of these endeav- ‘ours on the part of the communities is the paragraphs included in the great international treaty between Egypt and Hatti at the beginning of the 13th century 8.¢. (ANET, 199-208; cf. Liverani 1968) Irrespective of whether this sketch of the development of the habirwhapiru movement is true or not, the move- ‘ment lost its impetus after the breakdown of the palatinate system at the end of the LB; and although the problem of refugees and fugitives has always been endemic to the Near East, the habiruliapiru disappeared. One may only sguess at the specific reasons, but the possibility exists that the ideological foundation of the new states which arose during the Iron Age, not least in W Asia, promoted a better understanding of social responsibility among the leading class, since many of the states were founded on the basis of former tribal societies. It may be that the ‘egalitarian ideology of these tribal societies lived on, al- though it cannot be assumed that debt slavery disappeared in the Iron Age. To the contrary, debt slavery was very much in evidence; but it was perhaps softened by an. ideology which proclaimed brotherhood among all mem- bers of the new states (on the egalitarianism of the Iron ‘Age using Israel as an example see Gottwald 1979; cf., however, also Lemche 1985: 202-44, including criticisms of Gottwald for not distinguishing between ideology and real life). In conclusion it must be maintained that after 1000 3,c. no reference to the activities of the habirwhapirw is known. References to habirw in later sources are literary reflections of the past. Bibliography Albright, W. F 1952, The Smaller Beth-Shan Stela of Sethos 1 (1309-1200 ne). BASOR 125: 24-32 Borger, R. 1958. Das Problem der ‘apiru ("Habiru"). ZDPV 74: 121-32HABIRU, HAPIRU Bottéro, J. 1954. Le probléme des Habiru a la 4 rencontre assrologique internationale, Cahiers de la Société asiatique 12. Pars 1980. Entre nomades et sédentaires: Les Habiru. Dialogues histoire ancienne 6: 201-13, Buccellas, G. 1977, Sapird and Mumabtatu—the Stateless of the First Cosmopolitan Age. JNES 86: 145~47. Finkelstein, J. J. 1961. Ammisaduga’s Edict and the Babylonian “Law Codes”. JCS 15: 91-104. Gotwwald, N. K. 1979. The Tribes of Yahweh, Maryknoll, NY. Greenberg. M. 1995. The Hablpiru, AOS 39. New Haven. Kraus, FR. 1958. Bin Edikt des Konigs Ammi-Saduga von Babylon. Studia et Documenta ad Jura Orientis Antiqui Pertinentia 5. Leiden, Lemehe, N. P1979, Andurtmum and Mitarem: Comments on the Problems of Social Edicts and their Application in the ANE. INES 38: 11-22. 985. Kary Isral: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israclite Society Before the Monarchy. SVT 87. Leiden. Liverani, M. 1965. 1! fuoruscitismo in Siria nella Tarda Era del Bronzo, Rivsta Storica Haluana 55: 815-86, ——. 1974. La royauté syrienne de Tage du bronze récent. Pp. 320-56 in Le palais e la royauté. 19* Rencontre assyriologique internationale, ed. P. Garell. Paris. 1975. Communautés de villages et palais royal dans la Syrie du 11 millénaire. JESHO 18: 146-64 1979, Farsi Habiru. Vicine Oniente 2: 65~77. Loretz, O. 1984, Haire Heber. Eine soo dinguistichs Shudie ber ie Herkanft des Gentilzinns bri vom Appellativum habina, BZAW. 160. Berlin. Mendenhall, G. E. 1973, The Tenth Generation. Baltimore. Rowton, M. B, 1965. The Topological Factor in the hapirn Problem. AS 16: 375-87, 1967. The Woodlands of Ancient Western Asia. JNES 26 261-77. —— 1376. Dimorphic Structure and the Problem of the “apira- ‘brim, JNES 35; 13-20. Spiegelberg, W. 1907. Der Name der Hebrier. OLZ 10: 618-20, Vaux, R. de, 1968, Le probleme des Hapiru apres quinze années, JNES 27: 291-98, Weippert, M. 1971. The Setlement of the Israelite Tribes. SBT 24 ser. 21, London. ‘Nugis Pever LeMcHE HABOR (PLACE) [Heb habir]. 4 river along which the Assyrians resettled some of the N Israelites after they had captured Samaria in 721 n.c. (2 Kgs 17:6; 18:11; cf. 1 Chr 5:26), The Habor was a tributary of the Euphrates river, aitested in Assyrian sources as habii; today it still retains the name al-Khabarr. The biblical designation of the Habor as “the river of Gozan” was apparently unique to the Israelites. Assyrian documents recovered at Gozan (Akk Guzana, modern Tell Halaf on the Khabar at the Tarkish- Syrian border) contain some Israelite personal names which undoubtedly belonged to some of the exiles de- ported there from Samaria (see Cogan and Tadmor 2 Kings AB, 197). ‘The “upper Habor” originates E of the Euphrates in the mountainous region of SE Turkey and flows SE into Syria This “upper Habor” region (above Al-Hasakah [36°29'N; 40°54'E)) is within the 10-inch rainfall line; the agricul- tural fertility of this region (as well as its cultural vitality) is 10+ UT attested’ by the plethora of still unexcavated mounds. Be- low Al-Hasakah the Habor flows due § where it joins the Euphrates at Busayrah (35°09'N; 40°26°E), about 60 miles upriver from Mari. This “lower Habor” region is within the 4-inch rainfall line, meaning that it was better suited for sustaining pastoral rather than agricultural activities. In the Old Babylonian period (esp. ca. 1900-1700 8.c.) numerous tribal groups considered the steppe-land bounded by the Habor, Balikh, and Euphrates rivers to be their territory. The Bené Sim'al tribes apparently pastured their flocks more along the upper Habor; the Yaminite tribes, which were actually quite wide-ranging, apparently centered their pastoral activities more to the § (along the Balikh and Euphrates rivers); the tribes of Khana (cen- tered around ‘Terga) seem t0 have pastured their flocks more along the lower Habor as far SE as Mari (CAH? 2/1: 24-27). Gary A. Herton HACALIAH (PERSON) (Heb hikalah}. The father of Nehemiah (Neh 1:1), Hacaliah is mentioned only here and in Neh 10:2—Eng 10:1. Itis often suggested that the name means “Wait for Yahweh,” but the use of an imperative form runs counter to the way in which Hebrew proper ames are usually formed (Brockington Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther NCBG, 124; Cohen IDB 2: 507; TPNAH, 125-26), and the root Ak! has no attested verbal form in biblical Hebrew (TPNAH, 125). Apart from a brief reference to family sepulchers (Neh 2:3. 5), which may suggest a certain measure of wealth or social standing, nothing else is known about Nehemiah's father or his family (Brockington, 124), Freperick W. SCHMIDT HACHILAH (PLACE) (Heb Adhilé). A hill in the Jue dean hill country where David found refuge from Saul (1 Sam 23:19; 26:1) and on which Saul encamped in his pursuit of David (1. Sam 26:3). Located on the hill of Hachilah (1 Sam 23:19) was HORESH, a site in the Wilder- ness of Ziph (1 Sam 23:15), and its strongholds, While the hill of Hachilah remains unidentified, the association of Horesh with Khirbet Khoreisa (/DB 2: 644) perhaps pro- Vides a clue. Accounts in the OT locate it “south of Jeshi- mon” (1 Sam 23:19), “east of Jeshimon” (1 Sam 26:1), and “beside the road on the east of Jeshimon” (1 Sam 26:3), LaMoINe E. DeVnirs HACHMONI (PERSON) [Heb /akminé). HACHMON- ITE, Since this name ends with é, which frequently occurs asa formal element indicating a gentilic name, itis possible in both passages in which the name occurs to read personal name, “Hachmoni,” or a gentilic name, monite.” 1, The father or ancestor of Jashobeam, one of Davids champions (1 Chr 11:10—47, v 11; = 2 Sam 28:8-39, see y 8, where the variant Tahchemonite occurs). Here the name has generally been read as a gentilic designation with reference to some unidentified place or people: “son of a Hachmonite” or simply, “a Hachmonite” (Noth IPN, 232), If “Tahchemonite” is a corruption for “the Hach