quote:
Originally posted by WILLOWTREE
"Archaeologist Dr. Cyrus Gordon states that they later sailed from Greece to other European coastlands, including Ireland and Denmark. In his book, Before Columbus, Gordon relates, A group of Sea People bore the name of ‘Dan.?The Bible tells how a segment of the seafaring (Judges 5:17) Danites [were part of] the tribal system of ancient Israel. . . . The Danites were widespread. Cyprus was called Ia-Dnan ‘The Island of Dan(an).?The same people were called Danuna, and under this name they appear as rulers of the Plain of Adana in Cilicia. Greek tradition has their eponymous ancestor, Danaos (Dan), migrating from the Nile delta to Greece . . .?(p. 108). Note that the Israelites did in fact emigrate from Egypt. Cyrus Gordon added, Virgil also designated the Greeks as ‘Danai.?Bold scholars see the influence of the Danites in Irish folk lore . . . and in the name of Danmark (‘Denmark?: the land of Dan . . .?(p. 111).
There appear to be only two short excerpts from C. Gordon in the above paragraph. Page 111 of what? Dr. Scott's book?
Let's see what Prof. Gordon is really saying here:
quote:
. . . the bible presents the history of Israel in an idealized fashion. Nations simply do not descend from the offspring of one man (in this case Jacob/Israel). Instead, nations typically develop from the coming together of a variety of peoples over time . . .
. . .concerning the tribe of Dan. Among the Sea Peoples was a group called the Danuna, associated by many scholars with the people called the Danaoi by Homer. This group, like the Philistines, settled on the coast of Canaan, but in time joined the Israelites as the tribe of Dan. Their tribal allotment is on the seacoast immediately adjacent to Philistine territory. Judges 5:17 refers to their dwelling in ships; Genesis 49:16 suggests that Dan is joining the Israelite tribal league at a rather late date; and Judges 18:1 notes that Dan did not have an allotment of land like the other tribes. All of these factors combine to support the theory that the tribe of Dan originated as one of the Sea Peoples.
(The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Cyrus H. Gordon and Gary R. Rendsburg, Pgs. 175 & 176, W.W. Norton & Co. pub., N.Y./London, 4th ed., 1997)
quote:
WT:
I quoted Gordon's Hebrew expulsion "c.1800 BC" thats what he said.
But he doesn't. You are confusing the terms Hebrew and Semite. To use your previous dialectic: All Hebrews are semites, but not all semites are Hebrews. Since Prof. Gordon dates Jacob at c. 1325 B.C., it is quite obvious that he does not think that some descendants of Dan (or Zerah) sailed away from Egypt c. 1800.
Therein, it is also obvious that he does not think that these Danuna/Danaoi took their name from a son of Judah.
Thus, rather than saying that the Hebrew tribe of Dan became the Sea Peoples and/or Minoans, he is, conversely, saying that some of these Sea Peoples settled the west coast of Canaan and
later integrated into the group calling themselves Israelites and thus
became the tribe of Dan.
My objection, then, was the result of these; your specific statements of "fact":
quote:
WT: I quoted Gordon's Hebrew expulsion "c.1800 BC" thats what he said.
He does not.
quote:
WT: Professor Gordon aligns his research with a mid 14th century Exodus to an early 15th.
He does not.
quote:
WT: Professor Gordon decimates any doubt as to Israel's presence in Egypt and their c.1800 BC flight when a Pharoah rose up "who knew not Joseph"
Prof. Gordon does not say that the
Israelites fled Egypt when "Pharaoh rose up" nor at any other time before the exodus of 1175 B.C.
quote:
WT: He has emigration from Egypt by Hebrews c.1800 BC. Are you paying attention ?
No he does not say Hebrews. Are you paying attention? Look at the dates he gives: 1295 B.C.E. for Joseph. Thus, according to Prof. Gordon, a group of
semitic peoples sailed out of the Egyptian delta c. 500 years
before Joseph ever entered it.
Now, look at
your words quoted above. While the small excerpts (interspersed into Dr. Scott's narrative) from Prof. Gordon may be correct as far as they go, you then misrepresent what he is saying and proceed to put words in his mouth that he did not say and further give the impression that he supports Dr. Scott's views; which he does not.
If you want to integrate some of Prof. Gordon's research into your (or Dr. Scott's) theories, that is fine. But you are going far beyond this. You should either represent his views accurately and in context or not at all.
Amlodhi
This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-17-2004 12:24 AM
™ Version 4.2
