was Michael -- Re: deuteronomy, liz, response

Peter Kirk Peter_Kirk at sil.org
Sun Mar 11 18:39:07 EST 2001


"Naaa. The conclusion simply doesn't come from the meagre evidence provided
here."

Peter Kirk


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 at mclink.it]
Sent: 11 March 2001 20:54
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: was Michael -- Re: deuteronomy, liz, response

<snip>

>4. The same makes true of the southern Dan, by Jaffa, reference being made
only
>of the northern Dan "leaping forth from Bashan". (Same makes true for
Simeon)

This southern Dan is a memory of the Denyen (Danuna) who came down the coast
with the Philistines. (Note incidentally 2 Sam 24:6, a place called dnhy`n,
followed by the coastal cites Sidon and Tyre.) This provides *at least* a
terminus a quo of circa 1180 BCE and the Sea Peoples' arrival. Remember that
"Dan shall judge his people as (sic!) one of the tribes of Israel", ie Dan
was not really a tribe of Israel according to the text. And what the hell is
this story of Dan remaining (sic) in his ships!?

<snip>




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list