was Michael -- Re: deuteronomy (Peter)

Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Sat Mar 17 16:57:11 EST 2001


> Peter,
> 
> At 12-03-2001 12:23 Peter Kirk <Peter_Kirk at sil.org> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> The problem is here, whether you want to read the accounts in Genesis to be
> historical reports, or as accounts which explain later historical
> developments and/or situations.

And of course, the key word in the above statement is "want."  All 
too often, that's what it comes down to.  The accounts at least 
implicitly claim to be historical reports, and "want" is the chief 
reason that I've seen that some read them otherwise.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"No study of probabilities inside a given frame can ever
tell us how probable it is that the frame itself can be
violated."  C. S. Lewis



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list