Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>]

Ian, the evidence to the contrary is from the same book, Genesis, which you
quoted as the evidence in favour of your hypothesis. You propose that 49:16,
part of a poetic passage which makes no claim to be a record of events, is a
genuine historical memory even down to the exact Hebrew letter used, and
that your interpretation of that letter is the only valid one. But you
reject the three other verses I quote, which are from narrative and
genealogical material which claims to present a record of events. Do you
have any justification for accepting the one reference but rejecting the
three?

Of course I will not expect you to quote from any authorities or widely
accepted theories, but to give all of the detailed evidence yourself. No
JEDP etc unless you can prove it from first principles!

Surely you won't try to argue that the list of tribes in Revelation (without
Dan) is original and all of the others result from later interpolation of
the name?

Peter Kirk


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 AT mclink.it]
Sent: 12 March 2001 22:35
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: was Michael -- Re: deuteronomy (Peter)


>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