Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Nov 12, 2007 1:38 PM, K Randolph wrote:

> I no where said that it is a common place name, rather that it is not
> a unique name. A unique name means that it occurs once and once only.
> If it is found only twice, it is still a rare name, but no longer
> unique.

Karl, you wrote:
> First of all, "Dan" was not an unusual name in the ANE

It was Jim Stinehart who then understood this to mean:
>  I agree with the general  nature of Karl W. Randolph's comments that
> "Dan" is a common name in the ancient  near east, and cannot be relied 
> upon, in
> isolation, for much of anything.

So we have a sort of extremes between "not a unique name" (what you now claim
to have said a few days ago), to "not an unusual name" (what you
really said a few
days ago), and "a common name" (what Jim and perhaps others understood you to
have said).  I think Jim's (and Yigal's, whether it was based on Jim's
statement, or
yours), understanding is closer to what you originally said than what
you attempt to
represent it now.  But if you want to be picky, yes, Yigal didn't
quote you exactly.
Neither did you.

> The specific references were not to the Dananoi, but to Dan which the
> early Greeks called Danae (or something similar to that). This was a
> bronze age reference.

You are probably making a reference to the Sea Peoples group, who have
been suggested as being related to the Danite "tribe" by some scholars.

There is also a later Iron Age kingdom mentioned in inscriptions from Turkey
that you seem to have confused with the first group.

The first was not a kingdom, and we have no knowledge that either was
overthrown.

Yitzhak Sapir