was Michael -- Re: deuteronomy (Peter)

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Sat Mar 10 20:35:52 EST 2001

Peter wrote:

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

I appreciate the imitation, but it would be nice for you to actually say something.
otherwise it is just a hollow imitiation.

Deal with facts. You know, the things that people make arguments upon. Don't avoid

>This southern Dan is a memory of

Fact #1:

>the Denyen (Danuna) who came down the coast with the Philistines.

(According to the contemporary ancient sources.)

Fact #2:

>(Note incidentally 2 Sam 24:6, a place called dnhy`n,
>followed by the coastal cites Sidon and Tyre.)

Just a word of explanation: no-one can sufficiently explain this term, Dan-Jaan, for
obvious reasons. It's obviously not the Denyen, as they don't suit one's

Fact #3:

>This provides *at least* a
>terminus a quo of circa 1180 BCE and the Sea Peoples' arrival.

(You know, when the Denyen, Tjekker and the Philistines arrived.)

Fact #4:

>Remember that "Dan shall judge his people as (sic!) one of the
>tribes of Israel",

And this is what Gen 49:16 says. Perhaps you might like to argue against the common
understanding of the verse: dn ydyn `mw k'xd $b+y y$r'l.

Inference from fact #4:

>ie Dan was not really a tribe of Israel according to the text.

Can you explain the text otherwise, without too much labour?

(Implied) fact #5

>And what the hell is this story of Dan remaining (sic) in his ships!?

The text is Jdg 5:17.

While the Denyen obviously had ships -- well, you know, they *were* people from the
sea -- what do our ex-goat herders and the like (hey, well, they've not long come in
from a long desert vacation) have anything to do with ships -- in which they
remain?? There is no Hebrew tradition of ship use, so how come this "southern Dan"
suddenly find themselves *remaining* on ships?

So we have a shipfaring people with a name of Denyen/Danuna/Danai, who just so
happened to find themselves on basically the same coast around the same time, as the
only biblically attested "southern Dan", who have no background according to the
only sources to justify their connection with ships or the coast

(Incidentally, when do the Rohlies have the arrival of the Philistines et al.?)

Again, there's not much new here. Much of it is to be found in the literature. It's
just that a few people don't like the line of thought. They don't have any argument
against it, as seen for example by your response, Peter.


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list