James, familiarity with the aetiological tale does not in any way lend
credence to the historicity of that tale. Whether it was local nomads or
distant pygmies who 'preserved' the tradition doesn't really matter all that
much. There is nothing by which to make a statement either for or against the
historicity of the aetiology. It might be an historical reminisce, it might
not be. How do we know? We can't know for certain. Therefore, the option you
are taking about an old and probably reliable tale is motivated by a personal
assumption, not by an objective fact. You might well be right, but my point
is that we simply cannot know, and it could go either way.
GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au