No offense to anyone, but this is a typical example of running around in circles and not understanding anything, because of not going to the source, ie;Torah and Oral Torah, for knowledge.
If anyone has problems with the notion that Dan was not
originally a tribe of Israel, they might like to explain
1) why Dan's original homeland is placed firmly in
sea people territory, including Ekron and Timna
(Jos 19:40ff) between the Philistines and the Tjekker;
2) why a group that had never had any connection with
the sea according to the biblical tradition, could
suddenly be already dwelling in ships in Jdg 5:17;
3) why Dan is considered "like" a tribe of Israel;
4) as the Denyen were one of the sea peoples who ended
up on the Levantine coast post 1170 BCE, why the
name Dan is linguistically extremely similar to
dnnym as the Denyen are called elsewhere (see the
etymology supplied by Gen 30:6 with dnny)
5) why 2 Sam 24:6 mentions the unexplainable dnh y`n,
usually transliterated as Dan-jaan, which is
linguistically similar to Denyen;
6) why Dan was apportioned Philistine heartland (Jos
19:40ff) but ends up somewhere totally different,
while considering that the sea peoples took
possession of the whole coast (explaining why Dan
could have a tradition locating it in Philistine
lands but ending up north); and
7) why Dan, according to Jdg 18:1, had no lands among
the tribes of Israel allotted to them, at such a
late date.
We could also look at the favourite son of the tribe
of Dan, Samson, with his sun-god name and his
Philistine wives. There is a wealth of evidence for
the lateness of Dan's inclusion among the tribes of Israel.
If the twelve tribes are so sacrosanct to people, they
might also like to explain why the Bani-Yamini were a
problem for the people of Mari, why Amenemope seems to
connect Asher and Zebulun with the sea peoples along
with Gaza, Ashkelon and Ashdod, why Simeon doesn't even
rate a mention in Moses' farewell speech which talks of only eleven tribes, etc.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.