Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>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,

Pretence is the wrong spirit, Peter. When, for example, one talks of taking 
another
in and treating them like (k-) a son, there's no pretence involved. Why 
should there
be any pretence involved in treating Dan as any tribe of Israel?

>that Dan was not really a tribe but only a pseudo-tribe?

Pseudo-tribe? Adopted tribe, perhaps.

>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.

This is what makes the statement about being like a son more remarkable.

(But Raymond's comment should also be noted:

>>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.

)

>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.

What evidence to the contrary? Evidence to the contrary relating to the 
presence of
the Denyen amongst the group that came down the Levantine coast and attacked 
Egypt,
but were repulsed and fell back into Palestine? Evidence to the contrary that 
this
Denyen were a sea-faring people and had a strong connection with ships?

I suppose you are referring to the traditions in Genesis which are totally 
bound to
the literary context in which they are found, unlike the meagre evidence for 
the
tribe which is like a tribe of Israel?

What evidence to the contrary?


Ian