...Even if it is a fictional account written to explain later events, within the fictional world of the story the author's intention is surely a curse on the singular person Canaan. To interpret this as a plural or collective is to impose an anachronism, because within the world of the story Canaan is singular.
Now to the interpretations: is this a myth that is not true intended to serve
as a metaphore to explain later events (e.g. Israel's invasion and
subjugation of Canaan) as many people believe, or is it a record of actual
historical events involving the individuals named, as I believe? Does it make
a difference as far as analysing the linguistic form of the story itself? I
don't think differing interpretations of the meaning of the story should
affect a grammatical and linguistic analysis of the story itself. What do you
say?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.