was Michael -- Re: deuteronomy (Peter)

Peter Kirk Peter_Kirk at sil.org
Mon Mar 12 06:23:58 EST 2001


I have no objection to linking Dan-jaan with your Denyen.

But let's look at Genesis 49:16. Since when does k- imply pretence, that Dan
was not really a tribe but only a pseudo-tribe? Against this there are other
of parts of Genesis which make it clear that Dan was a son of Jacob and the
ancestor of an Israelite tribe. See 30:6, 35:25, 46:23, and many other
places in the HB.

As for your seafaring tradition, you are arguing from silence, but Judges
5:17 doesn't necessarily mean "in ships", rather "by ships" i.e. near to the
coast and to the port of Jaffa.

I accept that you have some meagre evidence, but not sufficient to warrant
your conclusion against the evidence to the contrary.

Peter Kirk


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 at mclink.it]
Sent: 11 March 2001 01:36
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: was Michael -- Re: deuteronomy (Peter)


Peter wrote:

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

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
them.

>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
preconceptions.

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.


Ian



---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [Peter_Kirk at sil.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list