Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Jim,

Sorry about the double mailing.
>  
> You wrote:  “Genesis 14:14 uses the name ‘Dan’ anachronistically.”
>  
> Not true.  
>  
> Virtually the oldest name attested in the secular history of northernmost 
> Canaan is “Dan”, or some slight variation thereon, such as “Danel”.  At least 
> in a mid-14th century BCE historical context for the Patriarchal Age, which is 
> my view of the case, “Dan”, or some slight variation thereon, is exactly what 
> one would expect to see for a locale far north in Canaan.
>   

HH: It is possible, but the Genesis text is talking about the 20th
century B.C., and there is no great reason to reject the idea that a
later name is given to the place. This was a practice that ancient
people engaged in, even with the biblical text. Here are a couple of
examples:
http://tektonics.org/af/anachronisms.html

    * *Josephus /Antiquities/ Book 1, Chapter 9.* This chapter alone
      reveals two geographic anachronisms. Relating events of the time
      of Abraham, Josephus refers to it as a day "when the Assyrians had
      the dominion over Asia." The geographic term "Asia" was derived
      from the Greeks who called the east /asu/ and was not used at the
      time of the Assyrians.

      In the same book, Josephus refers to the five kings battled by
      Abraham, who are said to have "laid waste all Syria." The name
      "Syria" was also a Greek import, first used by Herodotus in the
      5th century BC, long after the time of Abraham. Would a skeptic
      complain to Josephus that the kings couldn't lay waste to a land
      that didn't yet exist? (For a treatise on the origin of the name
      "Syria," see this very interesting article
      <http://www.aina.org/frye.htm> which is a rebuttal to claim made
      by our old Mormon adversary John Tvedtnes, albeit not with
      reference to Mormon truth claims.)

    * *The Samaritan Pentateuch.* From this page
      <http://philologos.org/__eb-jl/inq02.htm> we find a commentary by
      Lightfoot, who states:

          /Sometimes there are names of a later date used, and such as
          were most familiarly known in those days. Such are Banias for
          Dan, Genesis 14:14, that is, Panias, the spring of Jordan:
          Gennesar for Chinnereth, Numbers 34:11; Deuteronomy 3:17: not
          to mention Bathnan and Apamia for Bashan and Shepham, which
          are so near akin with the Syriac pronunciation: and Gebalah,
          or Gablah, for Seir, according to the Arabic idiom./

      HH: The author adds:

As "error" is defined as something that is incorrect or false. However,
intentional anachronisms such as these are not incorrect or false,
because when they are done, they are implicitly accompanied by the
/understanding/ of the author/scribe, transferred to the reader, that
the change is being made for a reason -- and the "explanation" for the
change comes inextricably attached to the anachronism. A modern writer
who refers to the Romans crossing the "English Channel" (which the
Romans called the Litus Saxonicum) into "Great Britain" (Brittania)
writes to their reader with the implicit knowledge that both
geographical terms are anachronisms /from the perspective of/ his
writing subjects. A modern writer who says that Alexander the Great
"weighed 165 pounds" or notes that Roman wine jars held "7 gallons"
isn't considered in error because he uses modern units of measurement.
There is a "semantic contract" between reader and writer to the effect
that the anachronisms are purposeful -- and no one, other than skeptics
looking for ground, could possibly regard such instances as "errors".

HH: Here are some biblical examples that he gives:

# ** *The anachronism is intentional.* These fall under the rubric of the
"semantic contract" between reader and original writer.

    * *1 Chronicles 9:27* -- the daric. The Chronicler describes King
      David as collecting ten thousand darics for the construction of
      the temple in Jerusalem (1 Chron. 29:7). Critics note that the
      daric was named after king Darius of Persia, who lived over five
      hundred years after David. This is obviously no more an error than
      it would be for Herodotus. The daric, of course, would have been
      known to the writer of Chronicles in his time.

**
# *The anachronism is a later scribal gloss.* These involve a semantic
contract between the reader and the transcriptionist or preserver of the
text.

    * The king list of Gen. 36. Genesis has already started listing the
      kings of Edom; why should not later generations have finished the
      listing in this place as well

HH: The king list of kings who ruled in Edom includes eight names. Each
replaced the other after his rule and subsequent death. But this goes
well beyond the historical scope of Genesis, since it extends only as
far the sons of Jacob, brother of Esau.


>  
> 1.  “One of the most famous of the lesser deities at Ugarit was a chap named 
> Dan’il. “ 
>   

HH: But the use in Genesis seems to be the biblical Dan, not some other,
unknown Dan. It seems to be a far northern limit to the land, just as
the later town of Dan was used: "from Dan to Beersheba." The information
below gives proof for the name Danel and similar names known in the 15th
century B.C., but not a particular place by the name Dan. And the
biblical narrative is much earlier, the 20th century. And the occurrence
of a pair of letters elsewhere does not constitute a solid argument for
a place named Dan in the 20th century B.C.

> "The explanation for these Semitic elements [of influence on Mycenean Greece] 
> rests upon the Danuna, investigated in the first section of the book.  They 
> represent a West Semitic tribe whose name is to be analyzed as dan-u/ana.  The 
> name is to be found in the Biblical tribe of Dan, in the name of the Ugaritic 
> sage Danel [in western Syria in the 14th and 13th centuries BCE], in the 
> El-Amarna da-nu-na [in mid-14th century BCE Egypt], the danym of Phoenician 
> inscriptions, the so-called 'Denyen' of the Egyptian descriptions of Rameses III, and 
> the Homeric Danoi.  This West Semitic tribe also probably composed the Hyksos 
> invaders of Egypt, and their migration from Egypt to the Argolid in Greece, 
> which took place sometime between 1550 and 1450, forms the historical background
>  for the Greek legend involving the fifty sons of Aigyptos and the fifty 
> daughters of Danaos."
>   
> I do not necessarily agree that the Danuna were connected to the Hyksos.  But 
> it is clear that the name "Dan" was well known in the context of Lebanon and 
> Syria in the mid-2nd millennium BCE.
>   

HH: Not necessarily. The tribe Danuna and person named Danel are not a
place named Dan. I am not familiar with the "danym" of Phoenician
inscriptions, nor do I see anything on it on the Internet.
>  
> 3.  "Dan" is referred to at Genesis 14: 14.  Genesis 14: 15 then refers to 
> Damascus.  So the geographical area of Syria and Lebanon fits perfectly, 
> historically, for "Dan".
>  
> 4.  In the very same sentence, Genesis 14: 14, the author of the Patriarchal 
> narratives uses a word never used elsewhere in the Bible, and which is not 
> attested in secular history after the 15th century BCE:  "chânîykîm".  So the 
> historical time period is exactly right as well:  the 15th and 14th centuries BCE.
>   

HH: Fine, but it was actually quite a bit earlier in the 20th century,
by biblical reckoning.
>  
> 5.  Everything about Genesis 14: 14 fits the secular historical context 
> perfectly, including the reference to "Dan" (and the word "chânîykîm", and the 
> opposition to the mid-14th century BCE Hittite threat, where “Tidal” is an 
> authentic Hittite kingly name from the 14th century BCE).  Pinpoint historical 
> accuracy is the hallmark of the Patriarchal narratives.
>   

HH: This argument based on "chaniykim" seems invalid. The form is just a
Qal passive participle of the well-known verb XNK, which means "train
up, dedicate." These were the trained or dedicated men in Abraham's house.

>  
> Although Karl W. Randolph's view of Genesis is very different than mine in 
>   

> most respects, I do agree with his previously expressed view that at Genesis 14: 
> 14, "Dan" probably has little or nothing to do with either (i) any 
> great-grandson of Abraham, or (ii) the later Hebrew tribe of Dan.
>  
> There is no historical anachronism here.
>   

HH: That's an interesting idea, but you have not proven your claim, and
many biblical scholars disagree with you. I don't agree with
Mariottini's conclusion that the writing is not Mosaic, but he is not
satisfied that "Dan" is anything but an anachronism, and he cites
numerous ideas, including one like yours.

http://www.claudemariottini.com/blog/2006/11/understanding-genesis-1414-as-far-as.html

See also:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0cn238LfhTcC&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=anachronism+Bible+Gen+14:14&source=web&ots=xQmhWqPQBX&sig=M86AY3UHNxT3tlM5kXXPeIuSCu8&hl=en&ei=1b-MSdOBJ4jKNIbnmLcL&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result

Yours,
Harold Holmyard
>